Sweet Sixteen by Conference

[bennyskid]

Pac12: 5 UO, Stanford, OSU, ASU, UCLA. Two were road teams.
ACC: 3 NCSt, LVille, ND. All hosted.
SEC: 3 SC, MsSt, TA&M. All hosted.
Big12: 1 Baylor. Hosted.
Big10: 1 Iowa. Hosted
AAC: 1 UConn. Hosted
MVC: 1 MoSt. Road team.
Summit: 1 SoDaSt. Road team.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Pac12: 5 UO, Stanford, OSU, ASU, UCLA. Two were road teams.

They might not get anybody in the Final 4, but you have to figure some of those teams will be in the Elite 8. The conference delivered in the post season again. Yet next year we will hear some with the same old refrain about the Pac being overrated and weak.

 

[SimpleDawg]

Not trying to say "OMG SEC SO AWESOME" as I know people are waiting to discredit me on this, but in the end it ended up being the 3 we all thought.... SEC, ACC, and Pac-12 as the conferences that had the ability to offer up some competition. The rest all had only 1 team at most that made the Sweet Sixteen.... they obviously let the top team in the conference steamroll through easily.

 

[NWHoopFan2]

They might not get anybody in the Final 4, but you have to figure some of those teams will be in the Elite 8. The conference delivered in the post season again. Yet next year we will hear some with the same old refrain about the Pac being overrated and weak.

I agree with everything you say...except I will be surprised if there isn’t one PAC-12 team in the final four 4. So far this tournament has shown how strong a conference the PAC-12 is. The conference season is a real grind and any team that advances from that to the NCAA’s is ready for it.

 

[Magy Cannon]

Congratulations PAC -12. Congratulations SD State and MO State. Did those 2 get in as a result of winning their conferences? Or were they in on won loss records for their seasons?

 

[Plebe]

Not trying to say "OMG SEC SO AWESOME" as I know people are waiting to discredit me on this, but in the end it ended up being the 3 we all thought.... SEC, ACC, and Pac-12 as the conferences that had the ability to offer up some competition. The rest all had only 1 team at most that made the Sweet Sixteen.... they obviously let the top team in the conference steamroll through easily.

The SEC is definitely the runt of that litter. Two of the teams are 4 seeds that **barely** survived, one of them thanks to some home cooking.

So no, in fact the SEC doesn't belong in the same category as the other 3.

 

[bennyskid]

No, the ACC is the runt. Of the four host teams who lost, two ('cuse, Miami) were ACC. One was Big10 (Maryland) and one was Big12 (ISU). The ACC was overseeded (again) at 3/5. The SEC was properly seeded, 3/3. The Pac was underseeded (again) at 5/3.

 

[Orangutan]

They might not get anybody in the Final 4, but you have to figure some of those teams will be in the Elite 8. The conference delivered in the post season again. Yet next year we will hear some with the same old refrain about the Pac being overrated and weak.

I'm with LaChina...I don't know who these PAC-12 doubters are:

 

[Orangutan]

Congratulations PAC -12. Congratulations SD State and MO State. Did those 2 get in as a result of winning their conferences? Or were they in on won loss records for their seasons?

Both won their conference tournaments. I imagine South Dakota State was a tournament team regardless. The runner-up in their conference, South Dakota, also made the tournament.

 

[Plebe]

No, the ACC is the runt. Of the four host teams who lost, two ('cuse, Miami) were ACC. One was Big10 (Maryland) and one was Big12 (ISU). The ACC was overseeded (again) at 3/5. The SEC was properly seeded, 3/3. The Pac was underseeded (again) at 5/3.

The ACC is still way better than the SEC. Two #1 seeds and the top #3 seed. Two of the 3 SEC teams are #4 seeds and the 3rd is a team that somehow became a #1 seed without ever beating anyone better than a #4 seed.

 

[DanishBulldog]

So no, in fact the SEC doesn't belong in the same category as the other 3.

Other 2? Pac-12 is the pick of the litter. They have done a great job in the tourney. The ACC is definitely strong at the top. I can see the 3 remaining teams making the E8.

 

[biobioprof]

The SEC is definitely the runt of that litter. Two of the teams are 4 seeds that **barely** survived, one of them thanks to some home cooking.

So no, in fact the SEC doesn't belong in the same category as the other 3.

Other 3? Pac, ACC, and ...?

B12(base 8) is looking AAC-like to me.

 

[Plebe]

Other 2? Pac-12 is the pick of the litter. They have done a great job in the tourney. The ACC is definitely strong at the top. I can see the 3 remaining teams making the E8.

Yes, meant other 2. Fat finger syndrome

 

[Orangutan]

The PAC-12 is really good, but we knew this. But I'm not going overboard drawing conclusions off of a tournament that has featured many close games.

If Hof's shot at the buzzer drops instead of rolling of the rim, the tally could be ACC 4, PAC-12 4.

And Oregon State were pretty fortunate to get to the Sweet 16. They probably lose to Boise if Pivec is called for a foul instead of getting the jump ball that enabled the Beavers to tie the game on the ensuing play. And they nearly managed to lose to a 5-seed that many believed was over-seeded due to their key injuries.

In conclusion, screw Syracuse and Miami for losing and making the conference look bad

 

[biobioprof]

Yes, meant other 2. Fat finger syndrome

I’ve got no problem putting the SEC behind the Pac and ACC. I’ve thought it would be a down year for the SEC since last March, before I joined the BY. But didn’t the discussion before Selection Monday point at the SEC as not deserving so many slots based on having the weakest conference RPI of the P5?

Note that the conference S16 results don’t falsify that idea. Just arguing that the runt of the litter discusssion should be based on 5 puppies, not 3.

 

[LoTrader]

The PAC-12 is really good, but we knew this. But I'm not going overboard drawing conclusions off of a tournament that has featured many close games.

If Hof's shot at the buzzer drops instead of rolling of the rim, the tally could be ACC 4, PAC-12 4.

And Oregon State were pretty fortunate to get to the Sweet 16. They probably lose to Boise if Pivec is called for a foul instead of getting the jump ball that enabled the Beavers to tie the game on the ensuing play. And they nearly managed to lose to a 5-seed that many believed was over-seeded due to their key injuries.

In conclusion, screw Syracuse and Miami for losing and making the conference look bad

I was at the both OSU games this weekend. You cannot call out one play and say OSU would have lost "if....". There were many bad calls and non calls in that game. I could just have easily said the Beavers would have won by a healthy margin "if....". Bottom line, Oregon State won both games and were clutch when they needed to be in both games. That is the thing that often gets overlooked about teams who have experience playing in close games in the remaining few minutes of the 4th quarter. The PAC12 teams that remain have all played in close/tough games throughout the season both in conference and OOC. I think it is pretty telling when 2 of the 3 PAC12 teams that traveled to another home court, came away as the team moving on.

 

[jonson]

The PAC-12 is really good, but we knew this. But I'm not going overboard drawing conclusions off of a tournament that has featured many close games.

If Hof's shot at the buzzer drops instead of rolling of the rim, the tally could be ACC 4, PAC-12 4.

And Oregon State were pretty fortunate to get to the Sweet 16. They probably lose to Boise if Pivec is called for a foul instead of getting the jump ball that enabled the Beavers to tie the game on the ensuing play. And they nearly managed to lose to a 5-seed that many believed was over-seeded due to their key injuries.

In conclusion, screw Syracuse and Miami for losing and making the conference look bad

I think that rating the Pac 12 is something of a conundrum because it's a conference with a group of very good teams (and others that are "good") with fine coaches and a variety of playing styles, but not--at this point, anyway--a team or teams that one could call truly "elite." And I think that's been the case for some time now. So--in the tournament--they do very well up to the Elite 8 and sometimes the Final 4, but none of the teams involved ever seems a probable candidate to win it all. This year, I thought (hoped) that Oregon could be that team if they remained injury free after losing the younger Sabally before the season started, but Hebard's knee injury, which will remain a problem as long as they play this year, as well as the loss of Taylor Chavez, have made that even less likely than it was initially.

 

[LoTrader]

I think that rating the Pac 12 is something of a conundrum because it's a conference with a group of very good teams (and others that are "good") with fine coaches and a variety of playing styles, but not--at this point, anyway--a team or teams that one could call truly "elite." And I think that's been the case for some time now. So--in the tournament--they do very well up to the Elite 8 and sometimes the Final 4, but none of the teams involved ever seems a probable candidate to win it all. This year, I thought (hoped) that Oregon could be that team if they remained injury free after losing the younger Sabally before the season started, but Hebard's knee injury, which will remain a problem as long as they play this year, as well as the loss of Taylor Chavez, have made that even less likely than it was initially.

Have to disagree with you jonson, I think Oregon has a great shot at making it all the way this year. They are playing well, Herberd looks just fine, and Taylor Chavez may be back this weekend. Also, Oregon is playing at "home" in Portland. You may be just playing it cool, but UO looks like a championship caliber team right now.

 

[bennyskid]

If Hof's shot at the buzzer drops instead of rolling of the rim, the tally could be ACC 4, PAC-12 4.

Or, if the committee had seeded ASU at #4 and Miami #5, the game is in Tempe and ASU wins by 8.

In conclusion, screw Syracuse and Miami for losing and making the conference look bad

Or screw the committee for overseeding those teams. If they had been 5 seeds, you'd be happy that the ACC performed "to chalk".

 

[Orangutan]

Or screw the committee for overseeding those teams. If they had been 5 seeds, you'd be happy that the ACC performed "to chalk".

Nah, it's more fun to blame Hillsman than the committee.

You seem to be the one worried about who performed according to their seed with your twisted logic about how somehow the SEC is better than the ACC because 3 > 3.

 

[meyers7]

So far

PAC12 11-1 (.917)
ACC 10-5 (.667)
SEC 8-4 (.667)
AAC 2-1 (.667)
B1G 6-5 (.545)
Big12 3-3 (.500)
WCC 2-2 (.500) and done
BE 1-2 (.333) and done

 

[newfrontier]

Dissing Oregon State's 2 tournament victories is a bit out of order. Rather than a team that was "pretty fortunate (to win)" one game while "nearly managing to lose" the other (as per Orangutan), what I saw instead was a gritty, hard nosed team that gut out a pair of hard fought victories over two very good 28-4 conference champions.

 

[Orangutan]

Dissing Oregon State's 2 tournament victories is a bit out of order. Rather than a team that was "pretty fortunate (to win)" one game while "nearly managing to lose" the other (as per Orangutan), what I saw instead was a gritty, hard nosed team that gut out a pair of hard fought victories over two very good 28-4 conference champions.

If the refs call a foul on Pivec instead of giving her the tie up and Boise likely goes on to win the game, all that gritty, hard-nosed play is for nothing.

Sorry, if it's out of order to point out that your favorite team got a good break that it needed to complete a comeback over a 13-seed at home.

 

[newfrontier]

If the refs call a foul on Pivec instead of giving her the tie up and Boise likely goes on to win the game, all that gritty, hard-nosed play is for nothing.

Sorry, if it's out of order to point out that your favorite team got a good break that it needed to complete a comeback over a 13-seed at home.

I saw bad calls and bad non-calls throughout the game, any of which could have made the difference for either team in the end. You can live with your view of the game(s) and outcome(s) and I will live with mine.

 

[bennyskid]

You seem to be the one worried about who performed according to their seed with your twisted logic about how somehow the SEC is better than the ACC because 3 > 3.

No, the SEC is better than the ACC because 2 > 0. If the SEC teams got the same sort of preferential seeding that the ACC got, they might have put more teams in the Sweet 16. They clearly could not have done any worse. The ACC got to drive from the women's tees and still finished in a tie with the SEC, two strokes back from the Pac.