Winning is hard, damn hard

[Uconn77Duke74]

If El Amin is on this team, even if you take out any player to make room, doesn't even matter who, this team gets a 1 seed and wins it all. Same with Napier.

I'd say something similar for Kemba too. Replace anyone, dear I say even any two players and put Kemba in both players places, this team goes the distance any way.

if I recall El Amin came back the year after we won in 1999 (1999-000 season) and Uconn was a 5 seed that lost to a 4 in second round of NCAA. Very similar to this years team. They were 25-10 that season , 4th place Big East. El Amin, Freeman, Albert Mouring and Voskuhl on the team.

 

[willie99]

if I recall El Amin came back the year after we won in 1999 (1999-000 season) and Uconn was a 5 seed that lost to a 4 in second round of NCAA. Very similar to this years team. They were 25-10 that season , 4th place Big East. El Amin, Freeman, Albert Mouring and Voskuhl on the team.

El Amin was injured in the first round and missed the elimination game

That's when we learned our other guards weren't ready. This year's team is much deeper

We're actually part of the national discussion

 

[REB1094]

It was a super entertaining first day. I LOVE March Madness so much

Hurley needs to be showing the team that it's very easy and very possible for the high seeds to lose embarrassingly. They need to come out ready to kill like they did in Oregon, and they need to forget that they're one of the best teams in the country. Everybody is 0-0 at this point, and all you need is to go 0-1 for your season to end

 

[Inyatkin]

The lesson here is that all the fancy Dan number crunching is bs. Princeton had 1 quad 1 win. 1. Arizona had 9. But Princeton had some talented players and played hard. Same with Furman. The number crunchers ignore that both teams only played a few Quad 1 s. Because of the leagues they are in! But ask Arizona or Virginia if those NET rankings are a good measure of basketball. And there will be more to come. Limit the number of power and high major teams and bring on more solid mid-majors. Scrap the pseudo science formulas. Base selections on record and eye test .

This is probably not worth responding to, but the reason the "eye test" doesn't work is that no one can watch every game. You can't follow every Princeton possession all year to know how good they are, as well as Arizona, Duke and 350 other D1 teams. That's why statistics are needed.
Basic statistics are fine, but limited. That's why we have advanced statistics -- they theoretically give a more complete sense of who is better, more likely to win, etc.
But in a one-and-done tournament, it doesn't matter. Arizona would likely win the next four straight against Princeton in a seven-game series, but they don't get that luxury. You're cold for one game and the season is over.
Again, probably a waste of time, but so is life on a college basketball message board.

 

[ctchamps]

The lesson here is that all the fancy Dan number crunching is bs. Princeton had 1 quad 1 win. 1. Arizona had 9. But Princeton had some talented players and played hard. Same with Furman. The number crunchers ignore that both teams only played a few Quad 1 s. Because of the leagues they are in! But ask Arizona or Virginia if those NET rankings are a good measure of basketball. And there will be more to come. Limit the number of power and high major teams and bring on more solid mid-majors. Scrap the pseudo science formulas. Base selections on record and eye test .

There is still unfairness in the computational system with the primary one being some conference teams do not get equitable access to playing arbitrarily chosen preseason stronger teams. And once conference play begins these teams are unfairly defined with poor statistical values.

This is the @shizzle787 rant about scheduling only these teams have even greater likelihood of forced OOC bad scheduling.

A second flaw is that early season accomplishments which start values for the system as a whole don’t factor in things such as a newly constructed teams or early season injuries.

Which is why a panel reviews teams they are considering for seeds and considers recency winning and so on.

Your point about low and mid majors being unfairly treated still holds. But it not the fault of statistical analysis. It is the best way of minimizing subjective opinions in rankings.

I have spoken!

 

[Palatine]

The problem is the lower seeds ALWAYS get to play looser cause they play with house money. Our rankings are top 25. 26-68 have 0 to prove. The rest, especially the top 12-15 have everything to prove.

While that is true, however the lower seeds tend to have less talent, in some cases much less talent. That is why higher seeded teams win more games. That is a probelm for the lower seeds.

 

[CL82]

Still this inane narrative.

The rest of the team was 7/10 from 3. Everybody had the game of their life. What the ____ are you supposed to do about that?

Extend the defense and let Sanogo clean up anyone who leaks through?

 

[phillionaire]

This is probably not worth responding to, but the reason the "eye test" doesn't work is that no one can watch every game.

That's why I only use the sniff test

 

[HeGotGame]

For the Mountain West it is basically impossible

 

[BarkingDog]

Winning is supposed to be hard. It’s the hard that makes it great. If it wasn’t hard everyone do it.

 

[CL82]

That's why I only use the sniff test

At least before teams started getting restraining orders?

 

[inWV]

He’s no longer inexperienced stop hovering helicopter fan

Karaban is a diligent worker on his game and he improved in all or nearly all games in the back half of he conference. His investment plus Hurley’s trust in him will pay dividends next year when we will have to rely heavily on him.

 

[freescooter]

This is probably not worth responding to, but the reason the "eye test" doesn't work is that no one can watch every game. You can't follow every Princeton possession all year to know how good they are, as well as Arizona, Duke and 350 other D1 teams. That's why statistics are needed.
Basic statistics are fine, but limited. That's why we have advanced statistics -- they theoretically give a more complete sense of who is better, more likely to win, etc.
But in a one-and-done tournament, it doesn't matter. Arizona would likely win the next four straight against Princeton in a seven-game series, but they don't get that luxury. You're cold for one game and the season is over.
Again, probably a waste of time, but so is life on a college basketball message board.

Nah. It is basically a system designed to be sure the power conferences get lots of bids and mid-majors don’t. This isn’t the 1990s anymore. Too many good players. Plus with the portal, guys can play at lower schools and as they develop move up. Or talented kids who don’t play at power schools can move and maybe blossom at a mid major. Sure, in a 1-done a better team can lose, but there have been enough upsets to suggest that just playing a “harder” schedule doesnt mean you are a better team.

 

[B1GEast]

Winning is hard, but our guys so far have made it look easy, and that's a tribute to Hurley and the hard work of all the student athletes.

Still some work left to do for these fine young men.

Go Uconn

 

[nomar]

I’m hard

 

[HuskyBaggins]

He’s no longer inexperienced stop hovering helicopter fan

Tell that to Brandon Miller. Or Mark Macon. The NCAA tournament is a lot to hang on a freshman