NCAA Tournament Day 3 Thread

[tzznandrew]

Disagree again. Providence was a 6 seed against an 11 seed (which played another 11 seed 24 hours earlier (granted it was a virtual road game). Georgetown wasn't an "underdog", they were a 4 against a 5 (although very few thought they were a 4).

Providence vs. Dayton, in Dayton. Dayton was roughly equal to PC in all metrics. It was a toss-up despite the seeds.

And Georgetown was quite literally an underdog. By 4-5 points. The betting public knew Utah was good enough to be a 3 seed or so. They had a higher RPI and much better advanced metrics than the Hoyas. Georgetown should have been a 5 or 6 seed.

The fact that the committee was stupid in their seeds doesn't mean that Georgetown should have won. Everyone knew Utah was by far the strongest 5 seed. I would have picked Stephen F Austin against any other 5 seed but Utah.

I take most of your points, but again, you can't just look at seeds. Dayton and Utah were under-seeded. PC and Georgetown were overseeded.

Villanova should have won that game. I know some are taking glee from their loss, but they were a legit 1 seed in resume, and probably really a Top 5-6 team. They just don't seem to play well in the tourney, for whatever reason.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

While I didn't have a ton of faith in SMU and Cincy, it's hard to talk about the AAC's performance since Cincy was never getting past Kentucky and SMU got jobbed. SMU should be S16 right now, and the AAC should have as many S16 teams as the NBE.

I saw a map somewhere on whether the Call in the SMU game was correct
It was Something like 58% to 42% against the call
On a state by state basis it was
every state but Calif and Oregon seeing it as a bad call
That's pretty overwhelming especially with the media trying hard to make a case for the call.
Even, PAC states , like ARIZ, Utah, Wash, Colo went against UCLA
The call didn't pass the smell test.
I hope that ref is enjoying his vacation in Cabo.

 

[champs99and04]

I have to disagree. The NBE had 6 highly seeded teams yet 2 teams didn't win a game, 3 teams didn't make it past the round of 32 and the only team to do so beat an 11th seed (that played an intense game 24 hours earlier) and a 14th seed. Half the NBE teams lost to a lower seed and none has beaten a higher seed.



Disagree again. Providence was a 6 seed against an 11 seed (which played another 11 seed 24 hours earlier (granted it was a virtual road game). Georgetown wasn't an "underdog", they were a 4 against a 5 (although very few thought they were a 4).



Disagree again. As stated above. Xavier beat an 11th seed (that played an intense game 24 hours earlier) and a 14th seed (which was in it until late in the second half).



We agree here. Villanova was a legit Elite Eight team and really needed to win. Butler was solid too. Can Xavier beat Arizona? It's unlikely.

The NBE flameout along with the Big 12's less than stellar performance could suggest that RPI ratings built on, at least partially, not having low RPI teams in your conference doesn't make your teams any better. Few can argue that the NBE didn't enjoy pretty nice seeding.

1. Honest question: are you surprised Providence lost to Dayton? Are you surprised Georgetown lost to Utah? I'm not. As stated, other than Villanova going down to N.C. State, the conference more or less confirmed what we already knew (a bunch of top 25ish teams mixed in with one really good team).

2. Dayton played 48 hours earlier, not 24. I doubt fatigue was much of a factor.

3. See above. Also, 14-seed or not, that Georgia State team was legit. Xavier shouldn't apologize for their sweet sixteen berth.

4. Yup, Villanova really screwed the league. There's no way around it.

5. The RPI is never going to be a great predictor of future performance. I think it does a decent job of rating a league's depth and overall strength. The reason the ACC was third was because they had a bunch of bad teams while the Big 12 and Big East didn't - I think everybody knew the ACC had the best upper half.

 

[itgoeslike]

Providence vs. Dayton, in Dayton. Dayton was roughly equal to PC in all metrics. It was a toss-up despite the seeds.

And Georgetown was quite literally an underdog. By 4-5 points. The betting public knew Utah was good enough to be a 3 seed or so. They had a higher RPI and much better advanced metrics than the Hoyas. Georgetown should have been a 5 or 6 seed.

The fact that the committee was stupid in their seeds doesn't mean that Georgetown should have won. Everyone knew Utah was by far the strongest 5 seed. I would have picked Stephen F Austin against any other 5 seed but Utah.

I take most of your points, but again, you can't just look at seeds. Dayton and Utah were under-seeded. PC and Georgetown were overseeded.

Villanova should have won that game. I know some are taking glee from their loss, but they were a legit 1 seed in resume, and probably really a Top 5-6 team. They just don't seem to play well in the tourney, for whatever reason.

I'm not sure where we disagree. My point was that the NBE teams were over-seeded and underperformed even with better seeding. I also said Dayton was under-seeded and called the matchup an 8/9 game in an earlier post. Providence got an unlucky draw by playing Dayton in Dayton. However, would Providence prefer to have been an 11 seed playing Boise State in a play-in game, followed by a 6th seed matchup, say against SMU? Probably not, most teams would take the 6th seed. Also, if Georgetown got a 5th seed they may have had to play S F Austin (like Utah did). I wouldn't want that matchup. Lastly, I don't see how anyone could characterize this performance as a success for the NBE, especially by using Xavier who beat an 11 seed and 14 seed as proof of their legitimacy.

 

[tzznandrew]

I'm not sure where we disagree. My point was that the NBE teams were over-seeded and underperformed even with better seeding. I also said Dayton was under-seeded and called the matchup an 8/9 game in an earlier post. Providence got an unlucky draw by playing Dayton in Dayton. However, would Providence prefer to have been an 11 seed playing Boise State in a play-in game, followed by a 6th seed matchup, say against SMU? Probably not, most teams would take the 6th seed. Also, if Georgetown got a 5th seed they may have had to play S F Austin (like Utah did). I wouldn't want that matchup. Lastly, I don't see how anyone could characterize this performance as a success for the NBE, especially by using Xavier who beat an 11 seed and 14 seed as proof of their legitimacy.

I don't disagree with any of this. I disagreed with your point that both PC and Georgetown underperformed and weren't "underdogs."

My suggestion was that both teams played about what you would expect, given the circumstances. There was little chance of Georgetown beating Utah, and PC/Dayton was a toss-up, regardless of the seeds.

The rest of your points are fair. The BE didn't come out of this tournament looking particularly good. Neither did the BXII, though.

 

[itgoeslike]

1. Honest question: are you surprised Providence lost to Dayton? Are you surprised Georgetown lost to Utah? I'm not. As stated, other than Villanova going down to N.C. State, the conference more or less confirmed what we already knew (a bunch of top 25ish teams mixed in with one really good team).

No and No. In fact, I picked both "upsets". I would put them as a bunch of top 40ish teams mixed in with one really good team. The "RPI affect" boosted their acumen in many minds, but not everyones.

EDIT: Butler is likely better than top 40ish.

2. Dayton played 48 hours earlier, not 24. I doubt fatigue was much of a factor.

Yes, 48 hours earlier. It was less about the fatigue and more about the fact you have to play an 11 seed just to get a date to play a six seed. Any game against an at-large team is not a walk in the park for most teams.

3. See above. Also, 14-seed or not, that Georgia State team was legit. Xavier shouldn't apologize for their sweet sixteen berth.

4. Yup, Villanova really screwed the league. There's no way around it.

5. The RPI is never going to be a great predictor of future performance. I think it does a decent job of rating a league's depth and overall strength. The reason the ACC was third was because they had a bunch of bad teams while the Big 12 and Big East didn't - I think everybody knew the ACC had the best upper half.

I never meant to take anything away from Georgia State, but you characterized Xavier's wins over an 11 seed and 14 seed by saying "Hell, Xavier finished sixth in the league and is now in the sweet sixteen - that alone should put to rest the notion that this is a mid-major league." I would expect them to beat Georgia State during a non-conference game. If they go on to beat Arizona and make it to the final four, then it's a different story.

We agree on 4 and 5. Teams are what they are. Having bad teams at the bottom of your conference doesn't make a top team inherently worse and visa versa.

 

[itgoeslike]

I don't disagree with any of this. I disagreed with your point that both PC and Georgetown underperformed and weren't "underdogs."

My suggestion was that both teams played about what you would expect, given the circumstances. There was little chance of Georgetown beating Utah, and PC/Dayton was a toss-up, regardless of the seeds.

The rest of your points are fair. The BE didn't come out of this tournament looking particularly good. Neither did the BXII, though.

My point is they underperformed vis a vis their seedings and "expectations". They performed exactly how I expected.

 

[tzznandrew]

My point is they underperformed vis a vis their seedings and "expectations". They performed exactly how I expected.

They performed about as well as any rational, avid college basketball watching team would perform.

Which tells you something about the selection committee...

 

[itgoeslike]

They performed about as well as any rational, avid college basketball watching team would perform.

Which tells you something about the selection committee...

Are you saying the NBE were set up to fail? Maybe. I think the committee uses flawed metrics when convenient and ignores them when convenient.

Anyhow, got to jump off. . .

 

[tzznandrew]

Are you saying the NBE were set up to fail? Maybe. I think the committee uses flawed metrics when convenient and ignores them when convenient.

Anyhow, got to jump off. . .

Nope. I just think they relied too heavily on Conference RPI this year in their seeding. I don't think the BXII had 4 of the best 12 teams (2, 3, 3, 3 seeds), nor do I think the BE had 5 of the best 24 teams (1, 4, 6, 6, 6).

The only reason they got there was because the committee must have looked at conference RPI and used that as part of a guide.

 

[gtcam]

If Gonzaga and Wichita go down tomorrow, there will be 1 non-P5 team in the Sweet 16. 2-3 more years of that, and the P5 will take the tournament with them, and we will be gutting UConn's athletic budget.

Wow - this is drastic to say the least
The P5, proportionately will have more teams in
Gonzaga, Wichita State, Gtown, Dayton, No Iowa, Xavier, Butler, San Diego St, UAB, Cincinnati, Ga State made up 1/3 of the round of 32
Others - Harvard, Buffalo, Valparaiso, Northeastern, Wofford, VCU, SMU, UC Irvine- all came within a bounce of beating P5s and being in the Round of 32. If all these teams were victorious it would be 20 non P5 vs 12 P5s.

It doesn't mean that things are rosy but I don't think the sky will fall as quickly as you present
Some stalwarts such as UConn and Memphis(quickly come to mind and I am sure there are many more) had down years and will rebound