Re: College Basketball 2008-2009

[bukie]

That bracket is strange.

Yeah, it's a lot more based on the efficiency of teams, instead of what they've accomplished (W-L), which is a lot more like how the committee actually seeds teams (although, it's amazing how often Pomeroy's ratings actually gets teams right, and calls "upsets" appropriately).

 

I might do one later on Sagarin's ELO ratings, which are much more representative of what a team has accomplished to this point, and not at all representative of how well a team is actually playing, to see which looks more reasonable.

[Derwood]

this is probably old, but it's pretty damn funny:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYOgC2Qbqh4&e

 

NSFW language

[snoodmonger]

Uh-oh, UI/KU matchup in the second round. The Illini fans will be out for blood.

 

Am I just down unnecessarily on the Big XII, or does 7 teams from the conference seem a bit much?

[illiniguy]

7 big 12 teams this year? The big 12 is awful this year.

[illiniguy]

Uh-oh, UI/KU matchup in the second round. The Illini fans will be out for blood.

 

Am I just down unnecessarily on the Big XII, or does 7 teams from the conference seem a bit much?

Hell yes I would love to play you this year too, since you actually aren't stacked for a change.

[bukie]

Still bored...here's one on Sagarin ratings:

 

SOUTH
1.  Duke (ACC)
16a.  Morgan State (MEAC)
16b.  Alabama State (SWAC)

8.  Baylor               
9.  Villanova            

4.  Gonzaga (WCC)
13.  Miami-Ohio (MAC)

5.  Arizona State        
12.  Illinois State (MVC)

2.  Georgetown           
15.  VMI (BS)

7.  Davidson (SC)
10.  Florida State        

3.  Michigan State (B10)
14.  Belmont (ASun)

6.  Missouri             
11.  Notre Dame           

----------------------------
EAST
1.  Pittsburgh (BE)
16.  Mount St. Mary's (NEC)

8.  Kentucky (SEC)
9.  Wisconsin            

4.  Butler (Horz)
13.  Siena (MAAC)

5.  UCLA                 
12.  Temple               

2.  Clemson              
15.  Cornell (Ivy)       

7.  Texas                
10.  Utah State (WAC)

3.  Illinois             
14.  Portland State (BSky)

6.  Louisville           
11.  Utah                 

----------------------------
MIDWEST
1.  Connecticut 
16.  Murray State (OVC)

8.  Oklahoma State       
9.  Michigan             

4.  California (P10)
13.  George Mason (CAA)

5.  Memphis (CUSA)
12.  Maryland             

2.  North Carolina       
15.  Long Beach State (BW)

7.  Ohio State           
10.  Kansas               

3.  Xavier-Ohio (A10)
14.  Western Kentucky (SB)

6.  Marquette            
11.  Tennessee            

----------------------------
WEST
1.  Wake Forest
16.  Vermont (AE)

8.  Minnesota            
9.  Florida              

4.  BYU (MWC)
13.  Stephen F. Austin (Slnd)

5.  Syracuse             
12.  Stanford             

2.  Oklahoma (B12)
15.  American University (Pat)

7.  Miami-Florida        
10.  Washington           

3.  West Virginia        
14.  North Dakota State (Sum)

6.  Purdue               
11.  Saint Mary's-Cal.    

 

Last 4 in:

St. Mary's

Maryland

Stanford

Temple

 

10 that were next:

San Diego State

Dayton

Kansas State

Arizona

South Carolina

USC

Texas A&M

Rhode Island

Houston

Tulsa

 

Conference representation:

9 - Big East

7 - ACC

7 - Big Ten

6 - Big 12

5 - Pac 10

3 - SEC

2 - A-10

2 - Mountain West

2 - WCC

[CubbieBum]

That bracket is strange.

Yeah, it's a lot more based on the efficiency of teams, instead of what they've accomplished (W-L), which is a lot more like how the committee actually seeds teams (although, it's amazing how often Pomeroy's ratings actually gets teams right, and calls "upsets" appropriately).

 

I might do one later on Sagarin's ELO ratings, which are much more representative of what a team has accomplished to this point, and not at all representative of how well a team is actually playing, to see which looks more reasonable.

 

I'll take Davidson in the first round considering what happened the first go around.

[rchap24]

That bracket is strange.

Yeah, it's a lot more based on the efficiency of teams, instead of what they've accomplished (W-L), which is a lot more like how the committee actually seeds teams (although, it's amazing how often Pomeroy's ratings actually gets teams right, and calls "upsets" appropriately).

 

I might do one later on Sagarin's ELO ratings, which are much more representative of what a team has accomplished to this point, and not at all representative of how well a team is actually playing, to see which looks more reasonable.

 

I'll take Davidson in the first round considering what happened the first go around.

 

Oh I please give us Davidson

[Guest]

Still bored...here's one on Sagarin ratings:

 

2.  North Carolina       
15.  Long Beach State (BW)

 

This would be a pretty entertaining and very high scoring game. North Carolina is obviously going to score and Long Beach likes to play an up tempo style as well. Long Beach got in two years ago, got a 12 seed and lost to Tennessee 121-86 in the first round.

[SouthSideRyan]

Dan Monson(of Gonzaga & some awful Minnesota teams fame) is Long Beach's coach as well.

 

Do not take Davidson deep in the tourney this year. It's not gonna happen. 1 round tops.

[Derwood]

we might have talked about this last year, but I think it's ridiculous that two conference tournament winners have to play the play-in game each year. I don't care if they're from the worst two RPI conferences, they earned their way to the weekend games. Make the play-in game be between two bubble teams

[SouthSideRyan]

we might have talked about this last year, but I think it's ridiculous that two conference tournament winners have to play the play-in game each year. I don't care if they're from the worst two RPI conferences, they earned their way to the weekend games. Make the play-in game be between two bubble teams

 

This is fine with me, but a better idea is to cut the # of at-large bids to 33.

[Derwood]

we might have talked about this last year, but I think it's ridiculous that two conference tournament winners have to play the play-in game each year. I don't care if they're from the worst two RPI conferences, they earned their way to the weekend games. Make the play-in game be between two bubble teams

 

This is fine with me, but a better idea is to cut the # of at-large bids to 33.

 

I also have no problem with that. I could go either way....cut the play-in game and reduce the # of at-larges, or play a bunch of play-in games on Tuesday between bubble teams with the winners getting 12 seeds

[hawkeyecub]

we might have talked about this last year, but I think it's ridiculous that two conference tournament winners have to play the play-in game each year. I don't care if they're from the worst two RPI conferences, they earned their way to the weekend games. Make the play-in game be between two bubble teams

 

This is fine with me, but a better idea is to cut the # of at-large bids to 33.

 

I would much rather see a team like Villanova (last year) get in than some sacrificial 16th seed that's going to lose by 30 in the first round. They were possibly the last team in last year and got to the Sweet 16.

 

Changing it so the play-in game is between bubble teams just means a team that was a 16 seed will now be a 15 seed.

 

Plus it would be more difficult to determine the seed and how they would fit in the bracket with the rules they have in place.

[Andy]

I'll miss at least part of the ND/Syracuse game tomorrow due to covering a morning basketball game that should've been tonight, but I'm pretty sure we're going to lose. It's a sobering thought that I already know ND won't go anywhere of consequence this season because Mike Brey essentially plays a 6-man rotation.

[Derwood]

we might have talked about this last year, but I think it's ridiculous that two conference tournament winners have to play the play-in game each year. I don't care if they're from the worst two RPI conferences, they earned their way to the weekend games. Make the play-in game be between two bubble teams

 

This is fine with me, but a better idea is to cut the # of at-large bids to 33.

 

I would much rather see a team like Villanova (last year) get in than some sacrificial 16th seed that's going to lose by 30 in the first round. They were possibly the last team in last year and got to the Sweet 16.

 

Changing it so the play-in game is between bubble teams just means a team that was a 16 seed will now be a 15 seed.

 

Plus it would be more difficult to determine the seed and how they would fit in the bracket with the rules they have in place.

 

as I said, make two bubble teams play-in for a #12 or #11 seed. It's pretty crappy to tell two schools who earned their way into the tourney "sorry, we know you won, but really, you suck, so go play in Dayton"

[Andy]

we might have talked about this last year, but I think it's ridiculous that two conference tournament winners have to play the play-in game each year. I don't care if they're from the worst two RPI conferences, they earned their way to the weekend games. Make the play-in game be between two bubble teams

 

This is fine with me, but a better idea is to cut the # of at-large bids to 33.

 

I would much rather see a team like Villanova (last year) get in than some sacrificial 16th seed that's going to lose by 30 in the first round. They were possibly the last team in last year and got to the Sweet 16.

 

Changing it so the play-in game is between bubble teams just means a team that was a 16 seed will now be a 15 seed.

 

Plus it would be more difficult to determine the seed and how they would fit in the bracket with the rules they have in place.

 

as I said, make two bubble teams play-in for a #12 or #11 seed. It's pretty crappy to tell two schools who earned their way into the tourney "sorry, we know you won, but really, you suck, so go play in Dayton"

Too often, the bubble teams earned their way into the tourney far more than the play-in winners, normally middle of the road (at best) teams in their always-crappy conference that got hot for three days.

[Derwood]

we might have talked about this last year, but I think it's ridiculous that two conference tournament winners have to play the play-in game each year. I don't care if they're from the worst two RPI conferences, they earned their way to the weekend games. Make the play-in game be between two bubble teams

 

This is fine with me, but a better idea is to cut the # of at-large bids to 33.

 

I would much rather see a team like Villanova (last year) get in than some sacrificial 16th seed that's going to lose by 30 in the first round. They were possibly the last team in last year and got to the Sweet 16.

 

Changing it so the play-in game is between bubble teams just means a team that was a 16 seed will now be a 15 seed.

 

Plus it would be more difficult to determine the seed and how they would fit in the bracket with the rules they have in place.

 

as I said, make two bubble teams play-in for a #12 or #11 seed. It's pretty crappy to tell two schools who earned their way into the tourney "sorry, we know you won, but really, you suck, so go play in Dayton"

Too often, the bubble teams earned their way into the tourney far more than the play-in winners, normally middle of the road (at best) teams in their always-crappy conference that got hot for three days.

 

tough. if winning your conference tournament is an automatic berth to the tourney, they shouldn't have to win an extra game to get to the weekend. it's crap. In most cases, the bubble teams are on the bubble because they lost some games they shouldn't have. It doesn't really make a difference to me whether the Big East gets 8 teams in instead of 9.

[Keener98]

Illinois vs Mich State less than 24 hours away and Im already pumped. Not expecting an Illinois win, but I wouldnt be shocked either . Lets go Illini!

[hawkeyecub]

we might have talked about this last year, but I think it's ridiculous that two conference tournament winners have to play the play-in game each year. I don't care if they're from the worst two RPI conferences, they earned their way to the weekend games. Make the play-in game be between two bubble teams

 

This is fine with me, but a better idea is to cut the # of at-large bids to 33.

 

I would much rather see a team like Villanova (last year) get in than some sacrificial 16th seed that's going to lose by 30 in the first round. They were possibly the last team in last year and got to the Sweet 16.

 

Changing it so the play-in game is between bubble teams just means a team that was a 16 seed will now be a 15 seed.

 

Plus it would be more difficult to determine the seed and how they would fit in the bracket with the rules they have in place.

 

as I said, make two bubble teams play-in for a #12 or #11 seed. It's pretty crappy to tell two schools who earned their way into the tourney "sorry, we know you won, but really, you suck, so go play in Dayton"

Too often, the bubble teams earned their way into the tourney far more than the play-in winners, normally middle of the road (at best) teams in their always-crappy conference that got hot for three days.

 

tough. if winning your conference tournament is an automatic berth to the tourney, they shouldn't have to win an extra game to get to the weekend. it's crap. In most cases, the bubble teams are on the bubble because they lost some games they shouldn't have. It doesn't really make a difference to me whether the Big East gets 8 teams in instead of 9.

 

And often the teams playing in the play-in game are below or slightly above AND coming from an awful conference.

 

I have no idea why you would rather see a team that's going to lose by 30 points get in the tournament rather than a team that could legitimately get to the Sweet 16 or further. How does that make the tournament better? So we can all be happy that they won their conference tourney, play up the David vs. Goliath angle and talk about what a thrill it is for them to be there before they get absolutely drubbed?

[Derwood]

because it's not about making the tournament "better", it's about applying the same rules to everyone. The NCAA decided they couldn't live without the 9th place Big East team in the tournament so they told two conferences "hey, sorry, you suck, so have fun in Dayton". it's just about being fair with the rules.

[Andy]

because it's not about making the tournament "better", it's about applying the same rules to everyone. The NCAA decided they couldn't live without the 9th place Big East team in the tournament so they told two conferences "hey, sorry, you suck, so have fun in Dayton". it's just about being fair with the rules.

The Big East has yet to get more than 8 teams in the tournament, and the only year they've gotten that many, the eighth made the Sweet 16.

 

Meanwhile, 24 was the smallest margin of victory for a 1 over a 16 in round 1.

[Sosa21MVP]

because it's not about making the tournament "better", it's about applying the same rules to everyone. The NCAA decided they couldn't live without the 9th place Big East team in the tournament so they told two conferences "hey, sorry, you suck, so have fun in Dayton". it's just about being fair with the rules.

The Big East has yet to get more than 8 teams in the tournament, and the only year they've gotten that many, the eighth made the Sweet 16.

 

Meanwhile, 24 was the smallest margin of victory for a 1 over a 16 in round 1.

 

Yeah but Derwood doesn't seem to be arguing the competitiveness angle all that much. I do agree with him that the conference tournament champions should all retain their normal automatic bid rather than having to participate in a play in game.

 

Besides having the last two at large candidates battle each other in the play in game would be infinitely more exciting than the current set up.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Uh-oh, UI/KU matchup in the second round. The Illini fans will be out for blood.

 

Am I just down unnecessarily on the Big XII, or does 7 teams from the conference seem a bit much?

 

There's no way seven Big 12 teams make the tournament, and Mizzou definitely won't make it.

[Derwood]

because it's not about making the tournament "better", it's about applying the same rules to everyone. The NCAA decided they couldn't live without the 9th place Big East team in the tournament so they told two conferences "hey, sorry, you suck, so have fun in Dayton". it's just about being fair with the rules.

The Big East has yet to get more than 8 teams in the tournament, and the only year they've gotten that many, the eighth made the Sweet 16.

 

Meanwhile, 24 was the smallest margin of victory for a 1 over a 16 in round 1.

 

Yeah but Derwood doesn't seem to be arguing the competitiveness angle all that much. I do agree with him that the conference tournament champions should all retain their normal automatic bid rather than having to participate in a play in game.

 

Besides having the last two at large candidates battle each other in the play in game would be infinitely more exciting than the current set up.

 

that's another good point. Would you rather see Mt. St. Mary's vs. SE Louisiana Tech in the play-in game, or, say, Villanova vs. Clemson?