Sweet Sixteen by Conference

[triaddukefan]

Lawd hammercy

 

[Plebe]

There is a common misconception that just because a team is upset by a lower-seeded team, that means they were overseeded, or that the lower-seeded team was underseeded.

When the 16th-seeded UMBC men beat #1 seed Virginia last year, it didn't mean that Virginia was seeded too high or UMBC too low. Upsets happen. Unpredictability is inherent to sport. That's why they play the games.

 

[SECbbfan24]

The SEC is not very good this year relative to previous years.

Georgia is a mess despite having good recruiting classes, Holly is letting the inmates (team of 5 star players) run the asylum with zero guidance.

Kentucky is not a bad team but they are very good offensively and it showed substantially to end the season.

Missouri is so Jekyll and Hyde tbh...

 

[LoTrader]

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.

Really? Go back and watch the game again, and tell me there were no other questionable calls/non-calls from the officiating crew. What about the rest of the tournament games? What is your officiating analysis on the rest of the tournament games?

 

[IrishTiger]

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.

Your logic is very flawed. What if the ACC gets all 3 to the Elite 8 and the other two conferences only get 1 or 2 teams to the Elite 8?

 

[LoTrader]

Your logic is very flawed. What if the ACC gets all 3 to the Elite 8 and the other two conferences only get 1 or 2 teams to the Elite 8?

I might say that in the case of the ACC & PAC12, ACC had more opportunities with 8 teams in the field, and, only 6 teams for the PAC12. But, I'm not sure it matters. Let's just watch how this plays out, and enjoy the tournament.

 

[Orangutan]

Really? Go back and watch the game again, and tell me there were no other questionable calls/non-calls from the officiating crew. What about the rest of the tournament games? What is your officiating analysis on the rest of the tournament games?

I didn't realize I had to present a comprehensive refereeing evaluation in order to opine on one specific call.

It's very interesting to me that multiple OSU fans have given me pushback, but none have actually disputed my points, which are:

a) It was a close call between whether the play was a clean tie-up or a foul on Pivec
b) Had it been called as a foul on Pivec, Boise State mostly likely wins the game.

 

[LoTrader]

I didn't realize I had to present a comprehensive refereeing evaluation in order to opine on one specific call.

It's very interesting to me that multiple OSU fans have given me pushback, but none have actually disputed my points, which are:

a) It was a close call between whether the play was a clean tie-up or a foul on Pivec
b) Had it been called as a foul on Pivec, Boise State mostly likely wins the game.

I was at the game. There were multiple suspect calls/non-calls. You are cherry picking the call at the end of the game. As someone pointed out, but you choose not to acknowledge, OSU may have won by a healthier margin had more calls earlier in the game gone OSU's way. But what's the point, referees have good and bad games just like the players. The call was made at the end of the game by the so called experts (the referees). For whatever reason, you want to make sure everyone knows this call was purportedly "questionable". OK by me. What I see is that OSU played well enough in both tight games, and in the end executed well enough to move on to Albany.

 

[nwhoopfan]

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

There are some on this board. Not a majority, but there are persistent posts about the lack of strength of the conference.

 

[nwhoopfan]

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.

This is rich coming from a Notre Dame fan. The Irish should have one less banner hanging in their gym if the ref properly calls the obvious foul on Mabrey in the closing seconds of last year's Championship game. See what I did there?

 

[triaddukefan]

Its a free for all in this thread... perhaps more like a Battle Royale has broken out

 

[Orangutan]

This is rich coming from a Notre Dame fan. The Irish should have one less banner hanging in their gym if the ref properly calls the obvious foul on Mabrey in the closing seconds of last year's Championship game. See what I did there?

Let's go to the tape for my reaction to that as it happened:

 

[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.

Actually, a little fact-checking: You neglected to account for the fact that Clemson was a 9 seed and therefore overachieved its seeding by advancing to the 2nd round.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Let's go to the tape for my reaction to that as it happened:
View attachment 41429

Pivec's tie up might have been a foul, but I didn't think it was egregious. I certainly don't think OSU is playing very well, I've got numerous posts the last several days indicating that. They won their two games and advanced, that's about all I can say.

Oregon and Stanford did what they were supposed to. I was impressed w/ both UCLA and Arizona St. They played well enough to beat what I thought were quality opponents on their home floors. Certainly both of those games could've gone either way, but the visiting team came out on top.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

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.

So because two ACC teams lost at home (one on a steal and layup in the last ten seconds), that means the teams were overseeded, based on their respective bodies of work for the entire season leading up to the NCAAT? I must respectfully disagree.

Not living up to the seed? Yes (as Miami and Syracuse were upset).
Overseeded, based on a loss? Not seeing any logical or linear connection.

 

[SimpleDawg]

Is this a contest to see how many logical fallacies someone can pack into a 3-paragraph essay? If so, you've lodged an admirable entry.

Ohhhhh you totally got me there. 3 paragraphs..... OMG. What an essay. 100 whole words. You really slayed the dragon there.


...

 

[Orangutan]

Ohhhhh you totally got me there. 3 paragraphs..... OMG. What an essay. 100 whole words. You really slayed the dragon there.


...

I really thought the criticism there was that everything was wrong about your post not that it was too long.

 

[SimpleDawg]

I really thought the criticism there was that everything was wrong about your post not that it was too long.

Like what?

 

[triaddukefan]

Like what?

That Syracuse and Miami were overranked/overranked. But what do I know... Im just an ACC elitist

 

[Orangutan]

Like what?

Hey, I don't know. I was just interperting (read - butting in).

For what it's worth, I had the SEC a step behind the ACC and PAC-12 this year, but certainly no worse than the Big 10 or Big 12. And I definitely agree that the SEC looks better than those two now that Maryland and Iowa State are upset victims.

 

[Plebe]

Ohhhhh you totally got me there. 3 paragraphs..... OMG. What an essay. 100 whole words. You really slayed the dragon there.


...

Actually, it was 218 words. One hundred would be a nice goal to strive for in the future.

 

[SimpleDawg]

That Syracuse and Miami were overranked/overranked. But what do I know... Im just an ACC elitist

Syracuse is not a #3 seed to me. They never were. They showed who they were when they got whipped by Notre Dame and Louisville. I don't think it's because of the upset to SDSU. It's because they had 2 good wins the whole year (to #4 seed A&M and #4 seed Miami). And I like Miami. I've been praising Emese Hof all year, but they haven't been the same since they upset Louisville and watching Hof vs ASU, maybe it's better she save herself the embarrassment of being killed by McCowan

Actually, it was 218 words. One hundred would be a nice goal to strive for in the future.

Alright, Plebe man. I get carried away sometimes. I see how I come off though.

...

 

[Plebe]

Yes, some people thought A&M and SC could've been a #3 seed. They got a #4 seed mostly because it was assumed that the whole conference was weak, so it pushed all the teams back one seed. If that was the way they did it, I'm surprised Mississippi State got a #1 seed, since we'd probably get pushed back a seed too just like the rest of the SEC. Or the committee just seems to really like us

Though, I kinda see how the committee does things now. If the whole conference is weak, your best wins are slightly less valued, and puts every team in the conference in danger of dropping down a line.

Good lord almighty. A completely inaccurate representation of the way the committee works.

 

[SimpleDawg]

Good lord almighty.

Another exaggeration from you. Thanks for needlessly inserting a prayer in there. Where did that even come from, lol?

A completely inaccurate representation of the way the committee works.

Do you care to enlighten me this time? I seem to also remember you believing that Mississippi State would be a #2 seed because they were the Baylor of last year. (no elite wins, mostly unchallenged by a weak conference). You were thinking: "Committee did it last year, they'll do the same this year." How did your prediction go, by the way?

...

 

[Plebe]

Do you care to enlighten me this time? I seem to also remember you believing that Mississippi State would be a #2 seed because they were the Baylor of last year. (no elite wins, mostly unchallenged by a weak conference). You were thinking: "Committee did it last year, they'll do the same this year." How did your prediction go, by the way?

Well, they were a #2 seed as of March 4, and somehow Mississippi State's rousing wins over a bubble team, a #7 seed, and a team that didn't even make the tournament were enough to nudge it from a 2 to a 1. So no, clearly nobody was docked because of any "assumption" as to the SEC's weakness. If that were the case, then Tennessee and Auburn wouldn't have gotten into the tournament at all. Sometimes the committee is simply inconsistent from one year to the next and even from one reveal to the next. You'll notice I did correctly predict that Louisville would be not only still a #1 seed, but the #3 overall.