Bracket Challenge

Peacone36

Peacone36

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,499
Location
Maine
When I found out Warren Washington was back for TTU i went all in on the Red Raiders. I never thought NCST would be able to sustain that level of play after 5 in 5 and the emotional high of taking down UNC.

......I was wrong.
 

57jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,479
I saw an interview with Calipare sp? before their game. He blatantly used the time to give an ad for recruits. He said 70% of his players go to the NBA and 70% of those get renewed contracts. How great he develops them... I and the announcer were shocked. And they have not won a first round game i like 4 years. What a jerk
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,580
kg01 said:
IIUC, Izzo said something similar about eliminating auto-bids for mid majors. Agree that's stupid. Tryna shut out the little guys. They already have all the advantages to make the tournament.
Click to expand...


Here are the point differentials for the top 3 seed so far.

+16
+28
+25
+20
+34
+16
-4

The reality is the really low major conference winners are very often not competitive and a middle of the road team like Wake would have a better chance of making a run. But individual games like Oakland over Kentucky are more memorable.

It really comes down to what you want. If you are interested in great individual upset moments then this is fine. If you really want the best 64(8) teams then a lot of the low major conference winners shouldn't be there. People remember umbc as the first 16 over a 1. If the 16 seeds were the 61 through 64 in the net then ncsu would be a 16 and they beat a 1 seed already. You can be very certain that we would have more upsets if it was the actual top 64 teams, even if it wouldn't feel as good if some middle of the road p5 team was the 16 seed.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,041
lv20gt said:
Here are the point differentials for the top 3 seed so far.

+16
+28
+25
+20
+34
+16
-4

The reality is the really low major conference winners are very often not competitive and a middle of the road team like Wake would have a better chance of making a run. But individual games like Oakland over Kentucky are more memorable.

It really comes down to what you want. If you are interested in great individual upset moments then this is fine. If you really want the best 64(8) teams then a lot of the low major conference winners shouldn't be there. People remember umbc as the first 16 over a 1. If the 16 seeds were the 61 through 64 in the net then ncsu would be a 16 and they beat a 1 seed already. You can be very certain that we would have more upsets if it was the actual top 64 teams, even if it wouldn't feel as good if some middle of the road p5 team was the 16 seed.
Click to expand...
The highest seed to ever win was an #8 seed Villanova in 1985. Five #11 seeds have made the Final Four. So basically no low seed is likely to win and very few ever get to the Final Four. The Oakland over Kentucky is better than Wake losing to Kentucky by a long way! Most mid pack P6 teams don't get any farther than the Mid Major teams.

So much depends on a team's health and the matchup they draw. Style of play matters a lot.
 
TampaBuzz

TampaBuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,168
lv20gt said:
Here are the point differentials for the top 3 seed so far.

+16
+28
+25
+20
+34
+16
-4

The reality is the really low major conference winners are very often not competitive and a middle of the road team like Wake would have a better chance of making a run. But individual games like Oakland over Kentucky are more memorable.

It really comes down to what you want. If you are interested in great individual upset moments then this is fine. If you really want the best 64(8) teams then a lot of the low major conference winners shouldn't be there. People remember umbc as the first 16 over a 1. If the 16 seeds were the 61 through 64 in the net then ncsu would be a 16 and they beat a 1 seed already. You can be very certain that we would have more upsets if it was the actual top 64 teams, even if it wouldn't feel as good if some middle of the road p5 team was the 16 seed.
Click to expand...
I am a firm believer in the idea that if you win your conference you should be in automatically. I am not interested in another beauty pageant (your proposal) where a team that finished 7th or 8th in their conference with an 18-13 record gets put in over a conference champion with a 25-1 record simply because they play in the SEC or the ACC. The beauty of this tournament is that everyone, no matter the size of their school, has a chance to compete.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,580
Root4GT said:
The highest seed to ever win was an #8 seed Villanova in 1985. Five #11 seeds have made the Final Four. So basically no low seed is likely to win and very few ever get to the Final Four. The Oakland over Kentucky is better than Wake losing to Kentucky by a long way! Most mid pack P6 teams don't get any farther than the Mid Major teams.

So much depends on a team's health and the matchup they draw. Style of play matters a lot.
Click to expand...

Yeah, real low seeds (12 and up) historically have no chance of making the final four. But that group is almost exclusively auto bids from low and mid major conferences. The lack of success of that group isn't really a justification for the stance of mid pack p6 teams not going further than mid major teams.

This year the highest at large was 10th seed. Last year it was 11. 2022 it was 12. 2021 it was 11. In 2019 it was 11th. 2018 it was 11. In 2017 it was 11th. So yeah, most sub 11 teams are auto bids. That's kind of the point people are making. The auto bids teams that are the lowest of the seeds have basically no real chance at the main goal of the tournament.

In terms of low seeded P5 teams because they happen on occasion.

2022 was 12th seed indiana as an at large. They won the play in game and lost the first round. There was also 12th seed Gtown back in 2021 on an auto bid out of the big east that lost the first round. 2021 also saw 12th seed Oregon State out of the pac 12 auto bid that lost in the elite 8. 2019 saw a 12th seed Oregon make the sweet 16. 2014 saw NCSU and Xavier as both 12 seeds in the play in. NCSU won and then lost in the first round in OT. 2013 was wild with 3 12th seeds from P5 conferences. Cal made it as an at large, and won one game. Ole miss was an auto and won one game. Oregon was an auto and made the sweet 16. 2012 saw Cal from the Pac 12 and USF from the Big east play each other as play in teams at the 12 spot. USF won the match up and also won their first round game.
2011 Clemson was a 12th seed at large, won the play in game, and lost in the first round. in 2009 Wisconsin and Arizona were 12 seeds. Wisconsin won one game. Arizona made the sweet 16. Miss state was a 13th seed auto that lost in the first round. In 2008 12th seed Villinova made the sweet 16. Georgia was a 13th seed automatic qualifier that lost in the first round. I stopped there because low seed P5 teams made me remember that stupid situation.

So not counting the play in games with two such teams, in that span, there were 15 cases and here are the rounds they got to.

1st round - 6
2nd round - 4
sweet 16 - 4
elite 8 - 1

Now I don't have the numbers for the non P6 11/12 seeds from that time to compare, but I have to think that is a very significant over performance relative to the rest. And the reality is the low major teams who get auto bids aren't just taking spots from middle of the road power conference teams. Teams like Indiana State, Princton, SMU are also hurt by it as well.

Lastly, according to this article the winning percentage in first round games take a huge jump going from 5 seed to 4 seed going from 65 to 79% against 12 vs 13 seed respectively which is right on that cusp of the better auto bids who would still probably get in anyways vs the auto bids that are in only because they get an auto bid (For example of the 12 seeds this year 3 are in the 50-56 range of the NET) where the highest 13 seed is 74 in the NET. The jump on either side of that is 3% and 6.5%.

Personally, I'm fine, because it acts as a pseudo bye reward for teams who had really great years, while also giving us the occasional opportunity to feel good about a real underdog story for a night, and a chance to laugh at some other team's misfortune. But there is also a very real argument to be made that the NCAAT would overall be better and more competitive without autobids from conference that don't really have a team of that level. Although I would say if you argue against autobids you should argue against them entirely.
 
GTJackets

GTJackets

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
808
Location
Moncks Corner, South Carolina
lv20gt said:
Here are the point differentials for the top 3 seed so far.

+16
+28
+25
+20
+34
+16
-4

The reality is the really low major conference winners are very often not competitive and a middle of the road team like Wake would have a better chance of making a run. But individual games like Oakland over Kentucky are more memorable.

It really comes down to what you want. If you are interested in great individual upset moments then this is fine. If you really want the best 64(8) teams then a lot of the low major conference winners shouldn't be there. People remember umbc as the first 16 over a 1. If the 16 seeds were the 61 through 64 in the net then ncsu would be a 16 and they beat a 1 seed already. You can be very certain that we would have more upsets if it was the actual top 64 teams, even if it wouldn't feel as good if some middle of the road p5 team was the 16 seed.
Click to expand...

I remember the argument for football going on ad nauseum once FSU got left out. And I know that football and basketball are very different. But that to me is the beauty of the 64-team basketball tourney. Identifying the "64 best teams" becomes less important because it sorts itself out over the course of the tournament. But along the journey we occasionally get to see some of those lower tier teams show the big boys how it should be done for a game or two. In a tournament that large, I see no reason to leave them out for the mediocre teams from major conferences. I don't lose sleep over the #5 or #6 team in a major conference staying home in favor of a second or third team from a lower conference.

Now if we want to talk about who deserved it more between Pitt/Wake Forest or SCe/FLA/Tx A&M/Ms St/etc., okay.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,580
GTJackets said:
I remember the argument for football going on ad nauseum once FSU got left out. And I know that football and basketball are very different. But that to me is the beauty of the 64-team basketball tourney. Identifying the "64 best teams" becomes less important because it sorts itself out over the course of the tournament. But along the journey we occasionally get to see some of those lower tier teams show the big boys how it should be done for a game or two. In a tournament that large, I see no reason to leave them out for the mediocre teams from major conferences. I don't lose sleep over the #5 or #6 team in a major conference staying home in favor of a second or third team from a lower conference.

Now if we want to talk about who deserved it more between Pitt/Wake Forest or SCe/FLA/Tx A&M/Ms St/etc., okay.
Click to expand...

It's not like all of the auto bid teams are having some great seasons and do anything particularly noteworthy to deserve a spot

For instance, Stetson was 19-13 overall and played 25 Q4 games, and lost 8 of them. They are in the tournament because they beat Queens (NET 268), Jacksonville (NET 275) and Austin Peay (NET 221)

Longwood was 18-13 this year. They were 6 -10 in their conference. They won by beating Winthrop (NET 181), Highpoint (NET 110), UNC Ashville (NET 163).

Wagner had a losing record this year overall and in conference. They won by beating Sacred Heart (NET 286), Central Connecticut (249), and Merrimack (NET 213)

Grambling was 18-14. They were 0-8 in quadrants 1 through 3. They were 18-6 in Q4 games. They won by beating 314, 308, and 278.

The 15 seeds aren't a whole lot better either.

And they aren't just keeping our power conference teams. Teams like Indiana State are hurt by that as well.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,041
lv20gt said:
Yeah, real low seeds (12 and up) historically have no chance of making the final four. But that group is almost exclusively auto bids from low and mid major conferences. The lack of success of that group isn't really a justification for the stance of mid pack p6 teams not going further than mid major teams.

This year the highest at large was 10th seed. Last year it was 11. 2022 it was 12. 2021 it was 11. In 2019 it was 11th. 2018 it was 11. In 2017 it was 11th. So yeah, most sub 11 teams are auto bids. That's kind of the point people are making. The auto bids teams that are the lowest of the seeds have basically no real chance at the main goal of the tournament.

In terms of low seeded P5 teams because they happen on occasion.

2022 was 12th seed indiana as an at large. They won the play in game and lost the first round. There was also 12th seed Gtown back in 2021 on an auto bid out of the big east that lost the first round. 2021 also saw 12th seed Oregon State out of the pac 12 auto bid that lost in the elite 8. 2019 saw a 12th seed Oregon make the sweet 16. 2014 saw NCSU and Xavier as both 12 seeds in the play in. NCSU won and then lost in the first round in OT. 2013 was wild with 3 12th seeds from P5 conferences. Cal made it as an at large, and won one game. Ole miss was an auto and won one game. Oregon was an auto and made the sweet 16. 2012 saw Cal from the Pac 12 and USF from the Big east play each other as play in teams at the 12 spot. USF won the match up and also won their first round game.
2011 Clemson was a 12th seed at large, won the play in game, and lost in the first round. in 2009 Wisconsin and Arizona were 12 seeds. Wisconsin won one game. Arizona made the sweet 16. Miss state was a 13th seed auto that lost in the first round. In 2008 12th seed Villinova made the sweet 16. Georgia was a 13th seed automatic qualifier that lost in the first round. I stopped there because low seed P5 teams made me remember that stupid situation.

So not counting the play in games with two such teams, in that span, there were 15 cases and here are the rounds they got to.

1st round - 6
2nd round - 4
sweet 16 - 4
elite 8 - 1

Now I don't have the numbers for the non P6 11/12 seeds from that time to compare, but I have to think that is a very significant over performance relative to the rest. And the reality is the low major teams who get auto bids aren't just taking spots from middle of the road power conference teams. Teams like Indiana State, Princton, SMU are also hurt by it as well.

Lastly, according to this article the winning percentage in first round games take a huge jump going from 5 seed to 4 seed going from 65 to 79% against 12 vs 13 seed respectively which is right on that cusp of the better auto bids who would still probably get in anyways vs the auto bids that are in only because they get an auto bid (For example of the 12 seeds this year 3 are in the 50-56 range of the NET) where the highest 13 seed is 74 in the NET. The jump on either side of that is 3% and 6.5%.

Personally, I'm fine, because it acts as a pseudo bye reward for teams who had really great years, while also giving us the occasional opportunity to feel good about a real underdog story for a night, and a chance to laugh at some other team's misfortune. But there is also a very real argument to be made that the NCAAT would overall be better and more competitive without autobids from conference that don't really have a team of that level. Although I would say if you argue against autobids you should argue against them entirely.
Click to expand...
The low majors could always send their regular season champion vice having a Conference tournament. The low majors now face what the ACC teams faced back when only one team per conference were allowed in. Makes for interesting Conference Tournaments. Doesn’t necessarily get the best team in. Still the NCAAT works very well with 64 (68) teams
 
Top