So, How Deep Will We Go?

[SubbaBub]

Oy vey. Vermont? They're 3-0 against the top 25 and 5-0 against the top 50. Most importantly, they've beaten everyone put in front of them, and for the most part fairly easily. They are markedly better than anyone we've played so far this year, and I'm including Florida. Just saying "we're better than Vermont" is silly.

It was intended to be silly, they're called jokes. Are they a top 5 team, yes. Are they Wooden's UCLA, no. Does Cuse have a history of underperforming in the NCAA, yes. Has UCONN beaten them with lesser teams, regularly.

It would be a great game that I think we'd have a chance to win. Why is that such a difficult concept?

 

[bmayuc]

Daniels flopped vs L'Ville but the game prior @ Memphis 23/11, 14/7 vs Fla, 48% from 3 on yr, rebounds on the upswing...yeah, I think Daniels is coming along. I expect 15/8 a game the rest of the way...if not we have problems.

you will probably get 15/8. the issue with daniels throughout his career is he'll go 23/12 vs memphis and then 3/4 against louisville. That actually averages 13/8 so looks like you got what you wanted!

I'm just saying you can't count on a guy like that. You have to hope he starts hot or else he may dissappear.

 

[Inyatkin]

The years where we had high seeds with multiple losses had a common thread, which was the closing stretch. In 02, 05 and obviously 11 we were playing our best at the end of the year and it reflected in the seeding. The NCAA says they discarded the "Last 10" metric on the selection committee, but it's hard to believe it doesn't factor. If we won 10 straight including tournament wins over Louisville and Memphis to close the year you'd have to believe that'd be huge.

 

[SixRings]

Oy vey. Vermont? They're 3-0 against the top 25 and 5-0 against the top 50. Most importantly, they've beaten everyone put in front of them, and for the most part fairly easily. They are markedly better than anyone we've played so far this year, and I'm including Florida. Just saying "we're better than Vermont" is silly.

Oy vey. Syracuse. Throw out all of the match up data, heights, rebound stats and shooting percentages. The reason we are fearless of an 18 -0 Syracuse is because we are a tournament team and they are not. They did well in the past BE tourneys but rarely win when they are supposed to win in the NCAA's. Last year was an exception. It's their beloved nose-picker that that doesn't have it in his DNA. Unless we are talking about Helms - then I concede. They were clutch without the shot clock.

 

[UconnDon]

Until we get to 23 wins I'm not taking anything for granted. Bazz is the only player I trust to show up big every game....Daniels is getting there though. In the tourney Bazz can maybe get us through the first weekend after that he will need big time help.

"Daniels is getting there"?? Certainly not based on the Louisville game. I'm not so sure he has put 2 games back-to-back of effort and results. How is he getting there?

 

[Husky25]

Oy vey. Syracuse. Throw out all of the match up data, heights, rebound stats and shooting percentages. The reason we are fearless of an 18 -0 Syracuse is because we are a tournament team and they are not. They did well in the past BE tourneys but rarely win when they are supposed to win in the NCAA's. Last year was an exception. It's their beloved nose-picker that that doesn't have it in his DNA. Unless we are talking about Helms - then I concede. They were clutch without the shot clock.

That's the #1 problem with running the 2-3 as their primary...nay...only defense. Theoretically it is easy to beat the 2-3. The difficulty lies in the execution. It takes a combination of 1. Transition offense, 2. Flash to the foul line for a 15 footer, and 3. Shoot 3 pointers over the D. Mid major schools litter the lower seeds and by and large they have experience and good guard play who have the ability to drain it from a distance. Syracuse relies that their opponents will not be able to effectively achieve these three objectives consistently throughout the game.

 

[Kitaman]

Match-ups, Health (e.g. injuries), effort, intensity, and of course LUCK! (Getting and staying hot helps a lot but that is never guaranteed.)

If all of that remains positive and in our favor we can have an enjoyable deep run. This team needs all 5 elements every night in the Tourney, unlike many other deep run teams of ours in the past. Those teams could advance without one or two of them. This team can't.

The bottom line is that unfortunately this squad is unpredictable.

 

[Husky25]

Match-ups, Health (e.g. injuries), effort, intensity, and of course LUCK! (Getting and staying hot helps a lot but that is never guaranteed.)

If all of that remains positive and in our favor we can have an enjoyable deep run. This team needs all 5 elements every night in the Tourney, unlike many other deep run teams of ours in the past. Those teams could advance without one or two of them. This team can't.

The bottom line is that unfortunately this squad is unpredictable.

That's what makes it fun interesting to watch. I'm glad there are only two games in a week. It gives my agita a chance to subside.

 

[Inyatkin]

"Daniels is getting there"?? Certainly not based on the Louisville game. I'm not so sure he has put 2 games back-to-back of effort and results. How is he getting there?

Must be really fun to be a fan in your world. A guy puts up 31 and 12 and the response is, "yeah, so?" He killed Memphis. He had a bad game against Louisville. So what? Louisville is good. Is there any way to enjoy good things without thinking "we'll see"? Just enjoy it for five minutes.

 

[freescooter]

How deep we go is very much a function of seeding. I recently read a paper that projected how deep a team goes based on its seed. Bottom line is if you're not a 3 or higher, it is very difficult to get to the Final Four. The 2011 team was really an outlier, as were all the Final Four teams that year. But something like 87% of the Final Four team since the tournament went to 64 teams have been seeded 3 or above.

Unfortunately, I do think this is the new normal in the AAC. It is a 3-4 bid league with the odd man out among UConn, Memphis, Cincinatti, Temple and SMU, with the latter two mostly battling for the final slot.

 

[Husky25]

How deep we go is very much a function of seeding. I recently read a paper that projected how deep a team goes based on its seed. Bottom line is if you're not a 3 or higher, it is very difficult to get to the Final Four. The 2011 team was really an outlier, as were all the Final Four teams that year. But something like 87% of the Final Four team since the tournament went to 64 teams have been seeded 3 or above.

Unfortunately, I do think this is the new normal in the AAC. It is a 3-4 bid league with the odd man out among UConn, Memphis, Cincinatti, Temple and SMU, with the latter two mostly battling for the final slot.

Admittedly, it's a pretty thick limb, but Temple is not making the tournament this year.

 

[CTBasketball]

3-4 teams in from the AAC. Louisville, Cincy, Memphis, UConn, and SMU have a shot. We just need to perform down the stretch. If we get anywhere lower than a 6 seed I think the Elite 8 is possible. Hard, but possible. If we get seeded higher than a 7, there is a good chance we won't make it out of the 1st weekend.

 

[Inyatkin]

There is no such thing as a 3-4 bid league.
They really don't give out bids based on conference. That's like saying the ACC is a 3-bid league, or that it's a 7-bid league, or the old Big East was an 11-bid league. Those all happened, and they all meant nothing the following year. You get in based on what you do, that's it. Conference matters only because of who you get the opportunity to play.
We might have a 4-bid league this year and get 6 next year, or just the conference champion. But there is no such thing as a conference quota.

 

[Tenspro2002]

It's true that the committee doesn't allot a certain number of bids to a conference based on its perceived strength.

However, I think it's also true that the committee does take conference strength into account when determining seeding. I think in years past, we've gotten the benefit of the doubt in terms of seeding because we played in a very strong conference (a #4 seed in 2008 and a #2 seed in 2005 jump out at me as having been particularly generous). St. John's getting a #3 seed in 2011 is another example.

Lunardi's latest bracket has a fairly impressive 5 AAC teams out of 10 in the Tournament. However, nobody -- not even impressive Cincinnati or resurgent Louisville -- is higher than a 5 seed. That's the new reality for us. We're going to have to be solidly a top 10 team to have a chance at a top-4 seed and, consequently, a legitimate shot at a deep run.

Remember one year where George Washington finished the year ranked 6th, but was given only a #5 seed? We should expect treatment closer to that than the treatment we got when we were in the Big East.

 

[GlastonTim]

The Ivy League is a 1-2 bid league....... this year.

 

[freescooter]

Admittedly, it's a pretty thick limb, but Temple is not making the tournament this year.

No, they are not. I'm talking more generally. I think this will be a 4ish bid league with 5 teams generally vying for those 5 spots. In "off years" it gets 2-3. In great years maybe 5 but Temple isn't getting a bid this year. In some respects, this is the A-10 2.0. A bunch of pretty good teams at the top and a bunch of pretty terrible ones bringing up the rear.

 

[freescooter]

There is no such thing as a 3-4 bid league.
They really don't give out bids based on conference. That's like saying the ACC is a 3-bid league, or that it's a 7-bid league, or the old Big East was an 11-bid league. Those all happened, and they all meant nothing the following year. You get in based on what you do, that's it. Conference matters only because of who you get the opportunity to play.
We might have a 4-bid league this year and get 6 next year, or just the conference champion. But there is no such thing as a conference quota.

Its true that there aren't X-bid leagues. What we're talking about is more a case of averages or typicals which in any given year can be modified. It is really a measure of league strength/depth. Occasionally some lesser conference snags 2 bids, but it is normally a 1-bid league. Sometimes a power conference gets 3 rather than its usual 6-7, but those are outliers.

 

[tzznandrew]

Lunardi's latest bracket has a fairly impressive 5 AAC teams out of 10 in the Tournament. However, nobody -- not even impressive Cincinnati or resurgent Louisville -- is higher than a 5 seed. That's the new reality for us. We're going to have to be solidly a top 10 team to have a chance at a top-4 seed and, consequently, a legitimate shot at a deep run.

It's who do you play, who did you beat, and who did you avoid losing to.

Take away the Stanford and Houston losses, and we're a 3 seed or so.

Cincy and Louisville are as low as they are because of weak OOC performances. Louisville does not have a signature win; Cincy has Pitt.

While we need to get out of the conference for a number of reasons, if we schedule well OOC, and win the games we're supposed to, our seeding should be pretty decent going forward. There's a lot of season left. If we beat the cupcakes on our schedule, win the remaining home games (Memphis-SMU-Cincy), and get one of Cincy-Louisville road games, the team ends up 26-5 or so. With a 6-3 record against RPI Top 50 (based on today). That would get us a good seed. It's about winning, though...

 

[caw]

Honestly, so many factors in seeding. Other teams could plummet like OSU, Oregon, Baylor have done the past two weeks. 7 losses so far this week in the top 25 with 20 games and 22 teams to play this weekend.

 

[Inyatkin]

Its true that there aren't X-bid leagues. What we're talking about is more a case of averages or typicals which in any given year can be modified. It is really a measure of league strength/depth. Occasionally some lesser conference snags 2 bids, but it is normally a 1-bid league. Sometimes a power conference gets 3 rather than its usual 6-7, but those are outliers.

That's not the direction of this discussion. It's been, this is a 3-4 bid league going forward, so we better be sure we're one of those three or four. And that's just not at all how it works.

 

[champs99and04]

A two or three seed is still attainable if UConn goes 11-1 or 10-2 over the final twelve games and then wins the conference tournament. It's a long shot, but conceivable.

 

[James]

@ cincy is huge. Not to overlook the next two games, but cincy is an elite defensive team. I'll wait to judge the ceiling until then

 

[freescooter]

That's not the direction of this discussion. It's been, this is a 3-4 bid league going forward, so we better be sure we're one of those three or four. And that's just not at all how it works.

Of course there is not a quota. The AAc gets 4, the MAAC gets 1, the Big East gets 3. But leagues establish themselves over time as falling within a range. In any given year the Big 10 might get 3 and the AAC 6, but over the long haul, you can more or less predict with some accuracy how many bids a given league will get. And in part because of how RPI works and how Strength of Schedule is over weighted in the formula (there have been several analytic pieces on this subject recently, though they tend to be in statistical journals rather than sporting ones so they get little play) conference strength tends to be a self-fulfilling prophesy and that contributes to the number of bids.

 

[freescooter]

Here's one from a couple of years ago that discusses the problem in layman's terms. One of the few discussions of the issue in the "mainstream" media.
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2011/03/ratings_madness.html

 

[Hi-Low]

Take away the Stanford and Houston losses, and we're a 3 seed or so.

Cincy and Louisville are as low as they are because of weak OOC performances. Louisville does not have a signature win; Cincy has Pitt.

@Uconn is the best win they will get unless win @Cincy/Memphis