Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Everywhere

    Tougher Second Rounds in NCAA

    Looking at all the projected bracketts from the NCAA (knowing that they don't mean much) it has made me really start to think there is something to the notion of the new level of parity in the NCAA.
    There just don't seem to be any easy second round match-ups for 1 or 2 seeds anymore. It seems like just a few years ago that being a 1,2,3, or 4 seed meant that you had a pretty easy path to the sweet sixteen. It surely doesn't seem that way anymore.
    Maybe I'm not really looking far back enough, but I do think that your 7,8, and 9 seeded teams tend to be stronger these days than they were perhaps 5 so years ago.
    Am I just imagining it? Does the tourney committee intentionally put teams from major conferences in the 7-9 seeds?
    As a 1 or 2 seed, I'd much rather see an upstart Mid-Major (e.g. Oral Roberts) than a mid-range from a large conference (e.g. Vanderbilt) in the second round.
    (Then again, I guess it was an upstart from a Mid-Major that ended our season last year...)
    Bottomline: The days of a cakewalk to the sweet sixteen are over, (if they ever really existed)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Calipari Hell
    If the second round has gotten tougher for No. 1 seeds (I don't think I've seen any hard numbers to support the theory, although it does sometimes seem to be the case), my sense is that it's due only to the continued compression of the field in terms of talent and coaching. The 8-9 game has at least for the last 20 years or so been the landing spot for middle-of-the-pack power conference teams and particularly high-achieving mid-majors. I think that class of team has gotten better somewhat, while the higher seeds have, in a general sense, slipped a bit in quality.

    Years ago, men's college basketball used to be what women's college hoops is today – a handful of clearly strong teams and bunch of mediocre others, with a few random upstarts here and there. There's still an obvious difference in the "good" men's teams today, but the separation seems much less extreme. There could be any number of reasons, and it's probably a combination of all of them – early exits, less stability in coaching, talented kids choosing to attend schools other than the traditional powers, etc.

    Of course, it could all be in the mind, too. And as Duke fans, I think our team's frustrating showings in the NCAAT over the past few years might make us think that the early rounds have gotten considerably tougher, when in fact our team, since 2005, simply hasn't performed as well as we've grown accustomed to.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by KyDevilinIL View Post
    Years ago, men's college basketball used to be what women's college hoops is today – a handful of clearly strong teams and bunch of mediocre others, with a few random upstarts here and there. There's still an obvious difference in the "good" men's teams today, but the separation seems much less extreme. There could be any number of reasons, and it's probably a combination of all of them – early exits, less stability in coaching, talented kids choosing to attend schools other than the traditional powers, etc.
    Couldn't agree more and have been saying same since around '99. The disparity between the big boys and the little boys has closed. AAU circuits have evened the playing field as has the exodus of NBA-quality (and, sadly, not ready for NBA-quality) players from the traditional power houses in college basketball. It is for those reasons I find Coach K's assault on 800 wins a greater accomplishment than Stringer reaching it last night. Don't get me wrong - a great accomplishment for her and any coach in any sport but one cannot be compared to the other. And from ESPN last night to Sports articles today - they're being compared (thought the timing invites it) It's like comparing apples to apples - but one is a Fuji and one is a Red Delicious. Just different games within the same sport.

    The team I'd like to play in the tournament this year - VCU. Could happen - they've won the Colonial for the top seed in their tournament. Would just like to correct that hiccup last year...
    Last edited by -jk; 02-28-2008 at 02:44 PM. Reason: fix quote tag. Use the PREVIEW feature!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by DukeWarhead View Post
    Looking at all the projected bracketts from the NCAA (knowing that they don't mean much) it has made me really start to think there is something to the notion of the new level of parity in the NCAA.
    There just don't seem to be any easy second round match-ups for 1 or 2 seeds anymore. It seems like just a few years ago that being a 1,2,3, or 4 seed meant that you had a pretty easy path to the sweet sixteen. It surely doesn't seem that way anymore.
    Maybe I'm not really looking far back enough, but I do think that your 7,8, and 9 seeded teams tend to be stronger these days than they were perhaps 5 so years ago.
    Am I just imagining it? Does the tourney committee intentionally put teams from major conferences in the 7-9 seeds?
    As a 1 or 2 seed, I'd much rather see an upstart Mid-Major (e.g. Oral Roberts) than a mid-range from a large conference (e.g. Vanderbilt) in the second round.
    (Then again, I guess it was an upstart from a Mid-Major that ended our season last year...)
    Bottomline: The days of a cakewalk to the sweet sixteen are over, (if they ever really existed)
    I don't know that #7-9 seeds were ever really "upstart mid-majors" like Oral Roberts. They've usually been second tier teams from major conferences or really strong teams from mid-majors. This year, the list includes Wash St, Arizona, BYU, Pitt, Miss St, Oklahoma, USC, St Mary's, USA, Tex A&M, Baylor, Arkansas, UNLV, Miami, St Joe's, and West Virginia. That seems about right for the #7-10 seeds.

    Oral Roberts isn't a team that we'd be likely to see in the first weekend. They're currently listed as a #13 seed by Lunardi. Vandy is not a likely second round opponent either. They're a #5 seed according to Lunardi. And that was before the second win over Tennessee. So while I agree that I'd rather face Oral Roberts than Vandy, it's not a realistic comparison with regard to second round opponents.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Compression theory

    I had the feeling this year that the talent level between the teams is more compressed than in past years. I suppose one could test this theory by looking at some of the "dork polls", especially Sagarin and Pomeroy, to see if the statistics bear this out. One complication is that Pomeroy has tweaked his system somewhat over the years, so it may not be comparable year-over-year.

    I think a lot of this compression may be due to players leaving early to go to the NBA draft and also players just choosing a school for one year before they go to the NBA. Maybe I am wrong, but I suspect that we will see more early round upsets in the NCAA tournament than is typical.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-05-2008, 12:10 PM
  2. NCAA Study
    By Lavabe in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-12-2008, 11:31 PM
  3. ncaa video's
    By hcoley in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-27-2007, 09:27 PM
  4. Sportscenter's top 10 plays of the first 2 rounds
    By feldspar in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-20-2007, 11:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •