Big East Faceplant [Archive]

Saratoga2

03-19-2011, 07:32 AM

Here is a conference that put 11 teams into the big dance. Of those, 4 didn't make it through the first round. Louisville lost in a 4 vs 13 match; Georgetown lost in a 6 vs 11 match; St John lost in a 6 vs 11 match and Villanova lost as a 9 in a 8 vs 9 match.

I realize that the big east still has 7 teams that moved on and many of those have a reasonable chance to advance to the sweet 16 and beyond. My question is whether the Big East is over hyped and is getting too many teams into the big dance at the expense of other conferences?

It you look at other conference winning percentages, such as the Pac 10, ACC, Colonial or others, they look better than the Big East. We'll see how this plays out, but this may be another year where the conference record is not up to the hype.

dukelifer

03-19-2011, 07:54 AM

HK Dukie

03-19-2011, 08:17 AM

I believe the Big East has many great teams, but the average team is no better than the average team from the ACC. Call that over-hyped if you will.

The Big East had 4 terrible teams which artificially inflated the records of the other teams in the league and snuck some mediocre teams into the tourney. I would highly suspect they would continue to underperform their seed expectations.

4decadedukie

03-19-2011, 08:35 AM

TwiceDuke

03-19-2011, 09:09 AM

They should have only gotten 6 in. Villanova and Georgetown were horrible down the stretch- UConn should have gotten in because the won their tourney- but you could have picked the top five and stopped there. That is a good sampling the best teams in that conference. Louisville's loss was surprising- the others were not. Note that St Johns deserved to get in- but losing one of their best players hurt them in the big dance.

Who deserves the spots that were taken by the five/six Big East teams that should not have made the tournament? Colorado? Virginia Tech? I don't necessarily buy it.

By the time you get out of the top two or three seeds, particularly in this tournament field, no team has set itself apart - save Texas, which never should have been a four seed.

Did the Big East benefit from perceptions that its best teams were better than they really are? I believe so. Should Notre Dame be a two seed? Never. But that's the reality of this year's field - Notre Dame is a borderline two seed this year. Cincinnati - one of the teams that was arguably a bad inclusion in this field - validated itself and beat a middling Missouri team.

I'm as sick as everyone else is when I hear about Big East dominance and the strength and depth of the Big East. But in this year, not many other teams stepped up to take one of the 11 seeds that the Big East garnered. The ACC had a down year; the Big Ten was not nearly as good as advertised (and yet still got a large percentage of its teams into the field); the Pac-10 was god-awful; and the Big 12 and SEC were exactly what they always are: football conferences dominated by a small handful of basketball teams.

Really, that's what the basketball analysts should be saying. "Sure the Big East deserved its tournament berths, but only by default. They aren't a particularly good or deep league; they just weathered the talent-drought better than any other league."

WakeDevil

03-19-2011, 09:24 AM

What a team does in the first round does not have a connection to whether it should have been selected.

Maryland, Baylor and Washington State could have won a game or two, but none of them deserved to be selected.

rthomas

03-19-2011, 09:37 AM

This article says that Vegas has the over-under for the Big East at 15 1/2 wins. So far they have 7 and are guaranteed 2 more since two BE teams play each other to get to the Sweet 16.

In my bracket I have them getting those two plus 6 more, for a total of 15. Take the under.

http://philly.sbnation.com/villanova-wildcats/2011/3/19/2059820/2011-ncaa-tournament-was-the-big-east-overrated

uh_no

03-19-2011, 01:30 PM

the average team is no better than the average team from the ACC.

http://espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=310760277

whatever you say chief.....

wilson

03-19-2011, 01:38 PM

http://espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=310760277

whatever you say chief.....:confused:
Clemson was saddled with a Tuesday night play-in game in Dayton, OH (which ended up being even later than expected due to the previous game going into OT, and ended at basically midnight). They then had to fly to Tampa, arriving at 5 a.m. Wednesday. They had a required 1 p.m. press conference later on Wednesday. They then played in the tournament's first game on Thursday, less than 24 hours later.
They hung with West Virginia for the whole game, had a chance to even it up in the final minute, and succumbed by eight points, by no means a resounding margin.
Doesn't exactly set the Big East demonstrably apart in my eyes, nor do I believe it does so in many others' estimation. One could easily make the argument that the final margin was due more to unfavorable seeding disparity than anything else.

theAlaskanBear

03-19-2011, 02:04 PM

:confused:
Clemson was saddled with a Tuesday night play-in game in Dayton, OH (which ended up being even later than expected due to the previous game going into OT, and ended at basically midnight). They then had to fly to Tampa, arriving at 5 a.m. Wednesday. They had a required 1 p.m. press conference later on Wednesday. They then played in the tournament's first game on Thursday, less than 24 hours later.
They hung with West Virginia for the whole game, had a chance to even it up in the final minute, and succumbed by eight points, by no means a resounding margin.
Doesn't exactly set the Big East demonstrably apart in my eyes, nor do I believe it does so in many others' estimation. One could easily make the argument that the final margin was due more to unfavorable seeding disparity than anything else.

Right.

Additionally you have to consider that to some extent, perceptions of Big East dominance will become reified into reality. If the selection committee THINKS the Big East is the best conference by far, and they give them all high seeding, then they will win anyway a bunch of games anyway due to seeding and further reinforce the perception that they are heads and shoulders above everyone.

brevity

03-19-2011, 02:13 PM

I did a conference tally after each round last year (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?20258). This thread seems as good a place as any to do one this year.

Prior to the Round of 32 (First Four at-large teams in parentheses):

7-4 Big East: Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Connecticut, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Marquette
5-2 Big Ten: Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois
4-1 ACC: Duke, UNC, Florida State (Clemson 1-1)
3-1 Pac-10: Arizona, Washington, UCLA (USC 0-1)
3-1 Colonial: George Mason, VCU (VCU 2-0)
3-2 Big 12: Kansas, Texas, Kansas State
2-1 Atlantic 10: Temple, Richmond
2-1 Mountain West: San Diego State, BYU
2-3 SEC: Florida, Kentucky
1-0 Horizon: Butler
1-0 Ohio Valley: Morehead State
1-0 West Coast: Gonzaga

1-1 Big South: UNC-Asheville
1-1 Southland: UT-San Antonio

0-1 America East, Atlantic Sun, Big Sky, Big West, Ivy, MAAC, MAC, MEAC, Missouri Valley, Northeast, Patriot, Southern, Summit, Sun Belt, SWAC, WAC
0-2 Conference USA (UAB 0-1)

sporthenry

03-19-2011, 02:25 PM

I don't think record in the tournament is necessarily a fair indication of conference success. What happens if Duke was the only ACC team in there and went 6-0, does that make the ACC the best?

Gtown lost their starting PG and when he came back, they had to play a real team. St. Johns lost Kennedy, Louisville lost their best player during the game, and Nova was still in a position to win against GMU.

The difference is that in any other conference, teams can take a day off and get away with it. The BE has less of those days as more teams in that conference can beat you on any given day.

Compare the ACC vs. the BE, both conferences get 4-5 'easy' games agains the likes of G. Tech, Wake Forest, Depaul, USF, etc. And both conferences had their fair share of top teams and perhaps the ACC has better talent at the top. And then you have a handful of games vs tournament teams like FSU/Clemson or St. Johns/Louisville. The difference is, would you rather play UVA and Maryland or Nova and Marquette b/c I would prefer UVA over Marquette.

Georgetown played 15 of 19 games vs tournament teams. Do you really fault Nova for losing to Syracuse, ND, and Pitt down the stretch? Do losses to them mean they couldn't beat teams like Georgia State, who VCU was busy beating up on?

sporthenry

03-19-2011, 02:33 PM

MulletMan

03-19-2011, 02:38 PM

Do you really fault Nova for losing to Syracuse, ND, and Pitt down the stretch? Do losses to them mean they couldn't beat teams like Georgia State, who VCU was busy beating up on?

Yes, I do. Nova was the one that I really found fault with being included in the tournament this year. They lost 10 of their last 15 games and their last 5 straight. I'm sorry, but that's not the profile of a team that deserves to be in the NCAA tournament. And considering the fact that VCU went out a WAXED Georgetown last night, I don't think that your example holds a lot of water.

brevity

03-19-2011, 02:42 PM

I don't think record in the tournament is necessarily a fair indication of conference success. What happens if Duke was the only ACC team in there and went 6-0, does that make the ACC the best?

Well, that almost happened last year with the Horizon League.

There was a bit of discussion back then about what constituted conference success in any particular season. Others may want to revive and relive it.

What I got out of it was this: a conference's record in the NCAA Tournament may not feel satisfactory to you, but I feel fairly certain in saying that every other measure feels even less satisfactory.

Chris Randolph

03-19-2011, 02:44 PM

I don't think the Big East is a great conference. I'm not sure I'd call it really good (comparing it to the other conferences this season, yes it is really good). To be a great conference, I believe you need great teams. UCONN, Pitt and ND are not great. Wouldn't be surprised if 2 of those 3 lose this weekend.

2008-09 Big East is much better than this year's Big East. UCONN, Pitt, Villanova and Louisville were very good (Lville overall #1 seed, UCONN/Nova to the Final 4, Pitt lost a heartbreaker to Nova in Elite 8)

sporthenry

03-19-2011, 02:48 PM

Yes, I do. Nova was the one that I really found fault with being included in the tournament this year. They lost 10 of their last 15 games and their last 5 straight. I'm sorry, but that's not the profile of a team that deserves to be in the NCAA tournament. And considering the fact that VCU went out a WAXED Georgetown last night, I don't think that your example holds a lot of water.

Last night's result does not matter. Jay Bilas always argues this point and he even picked VCU to win after saying how terrible it was that they made the tournament. Again, Georgetown never looked the same after Chris Wright went down. But how is the committee supposed to know when players will come back and play well (Irving) and players will come back and struggle (Wright).

The point is, when you are looking at their resumes prior to the tournament, you really think a team should be punished for losing to Pittsburgh, meanwhile, the other team is beating a winless Towson team? Did Nova not have more quality wins than VCU? Whether you want to use RPI or just compare results, Nova had a better resume. (And the committee no longers uses the last 10-12 as one of the criteria. So losing the last 5 means little.) Nova beat better teams and most of their losses came to better teams. Heck, both Nova and VCU lost to South Florida. That was Nova's worst loss and wasn't even VCU's worst loss.

Saratoga2

03-19-2011, 02:51 PM

West Virginia went out against Kentucky and one each of Marquette/Syracuse, and Cincinnati/UConn will go out with Pitt and Notre Dame still facing decent opponents. The sweet 16 will have a maximum of 4 BE teams left. Not bad but cerrtainly not dominant. Having one conference with 11 teams in at the exclusion of teams like Colorado seems an overstep on the committees part, largely fueled by the perception that the BE is somehow a dominant conference.

How many years will this occur before the committee looks at what actually has happened? It is great to see teams like VCU and George Mason to get a shot and look what they have done with their chance.

sporthenry

03-19-2011, 02:55 PM

Well, that almost happened last year with the Horizon League.

There was a bit of discussion back then about what constituted conference success in any particular season. Others may want to revive and relive it.

What I got out of it was this: a conference's record in the NCAA Tournament may not feel satisfactory to you, but I feel fairly certain in saying that every other measure feels even less satisfactory.

Well I think conference RPI seems fairly accurate this year. Heck, the Big East is assured 2 losses this weekend b/c they have to play each other b/c they had so many teams. That hardly seems fair. Like you mention, was Horizon the best conference b/c they had the highest winning% last year. Would the ACC surpass the BE b/c the BE will probably end up with 11 L's? I would say no b/c compare the top 2/3 of each conference 1-12 of the BE is stronger than 1-8 of ACC.

freshmanjs

03-19-2011, 03:00 PM

so far, the big east is doing somewhat poorly vs. seeding but not horribly.

outperformed seed: marquette
went out when expected: villanova, wva
went out early: louisville, georgetown, st. johns

MulletMan

03-19-2011, 03:29 PM

Last night's result does not matter. Jay Bilas always argues this point and he even picked VCU to win after saying how terrible it was that they made the tournament. Again, Georgetown never looked the same after Chris Wright went down. But how is the committee supposed to know when players will come back and play well (Irving) and players will come back and struggle (Wright).

The point is, when you are looking at their resumes prior to the tournament, you really think a team should be punished for losing to Pittsburgh, meanwhile, the other team is beating a winless Towson team? Did Nova not have more quality wins than VCU? Whether you want to use RPI or just compare results, Nova had a better resume. (And the committee no longers uses the last 10-12 as one of the criteria. So losing the last 5 means little.) Nova beat better teams and most of their losses came to better teams. Heck, both Nova and VCU lost to South Florida. That was Nova's worst loss and wasn't even VCU's worst loss.

I see, so certain data points that support your argument matter, but data points that are contrary to the argument that you are making don't matter. Got it.

In any case, I never said anything about comparing Nova to VCU. You were comparing G'town and VCU... and seeing that the best comparison is on the actual court, I don't think the argument that VCU wasn't better than G'town holds water after a 20 point head to head beatdown.

Now, as to Nova. Yes, I do think they should have been penalized for going 5-10 to finish their season. You know who else went 5-10 in the Big East over that span? Rutgers. I suppose they should have made the tournament? Meanwhile, a team like Colorado was beating up on NCAA tournament teams playing in a pretty good conference.

But you're right, we should award Nova for losing to good teams and not Colorado for beating good teams. Seems sensible.

InSpades

03-19-2011, 03:30 PM

sporthenry

03-19-2011, 04:00 PM

I see, so certain data points that support your argument matter, but data points that are contrary to the argument that you are making don't matter. Got it.

Now, as to Nova. Yes, I do think they should have been penalized for going 5-10 to finish their season. You know who else went 5-10 in the Big East over that span? Rutgers. I suppose they should have made the tournament? Meanwhile, a team like Colorado was beating up on NCAA tournament teams playing in a pretty good conference.

But you're right, we should award Nova for losing to good teams and not Colorado for beating good teams. Seems sensible.

So one game means that FSU is better than Duke, or Va. Tech is better than Duke, etc. One game is hardly indicative of anything. Which is what Bilas argues. Teams are selected based on their season success. The committee doesn't select the hot team or else UCONN would have a #1 seed.

I guess you can argue with the selection committee about that but they are in a tough position b/c most non-conference games occur in Nov/Dec so if you want to put an added emphsis on Nova losing 5 straight in March, than a mid majors big win in November should mean less b/c recent play is more important but how do you compare mid majors playing the colonial schedule?

And Hofstra finished above VCU in the Colonial so they should be in. There is always examples like this that go both ways.

And really, who did CU beat? Their resume is very similar to Nova and just like you don't punish CU for losing to KU or Texas A&M, why should you punish Nova for losing to Syracuse or Pittsburgh?

sporthenry

03-19-2011, 04:10 PM

I don't necessarily disagree with 11 Big East teams (afterall... you'd have to replace them with better teams and I'm not sure if you could do that). However I do think that a lot of them end up over-seeded. Does the Big East really have 9 of the best 25 teams in the country? I really doubt that... I think playing against other "tournament" teams consistently gives you lots of opportunities for "good" wins and very few opportunities for "bad" losses.

I don't disagree with this at all. They did seem to get overseeded like ND got a 2 mainly b/c the Big East is so strong and they finished second in the league. But as mentioned, the Big East doesn't really have a dominant team.

But as you mention, they have lots of opportunites for good wins and few opportunites for bad losses, so what should we do about that? That is what the argument boils down to and it really isn't an easy answer for the selection committee. And I think it really boils down to comparing these BE teams with mid majors. (Every other major conference has similar chances to get signature wins and has to avoid bad losses. Va. Tech beat Duke but then they went out and had a bad loss at home vs BC and lost to a bubble team @ Clemson.)

But how do you compare Harvard or even VCU with Nova? Do you credit Nova for having a lot better wins but having a lot of losses to good teams or do you credit Harvard for beating a bunch of bad teams and very few good wins. (A good win for Harvard is considered BC yet that would be a bad loss for Duke?).

I personally look at good wins and bad losses. Good wins show you can compete with good teams, although you are inconsistent, meanwhile bad losses to teams like Georgia State have to raise red flags as you shouldn't lose to teams that bad.

-jk

03-19-2011, 05:13 PM

So one game means that FSU is better than Duke, or Va. Tech is better than Duke, etc. One game is hardly indicative of anything. Which is what Bilas argues. Teams are selected based on their season success. The committee doesn't select the hot team or else UCONN would have a #1 seed.

I guess you can argue with the selection committee about that but they are in a tough position b/c most non-conference games occur in Nov/Dec so if you want to put an added emphsis on Nova losing 5 straight in March, than a mid majors big win in November should mean less b/c recent play is more important but how do you compare mid majors playing the colonial schedule?

And Hofstra finished above VCU in the Colonial so they should be in. There is always examples like this that go both ways.

And really, who did CU beat? Their resume is very similar to Nova and just like you don't punish CU for losing to KU or Texas A&M, why should you punish Nova for losing to Syracuse or Pittsburgh?

I think you hit one issue with the Nov/Dec point. The ACC is relatively young this year, so they would presumably develop more over the course of the season.

Also, anyone who didn't take a look at Barry Jacob's analysis (www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=39187) of seasons with strong first place teams should.

So we need to win our fall games and follow the Big East script: the top ACC teams need to lose a few extra conference games.

-jk

Dukeface88

03-19-2011, 05:30 PM

The difference is that in any other conference, teams can take a day off and get away with it. The BE has less of those days as more teams in that conference can beat you on any given day.

I'm surprised no one else has brought this up yet, because you have it completely backwards. The bottom teams in the BE are, as a rule, absolutely terrible. That isn't typically true in the ACC (this year notwithstanding). Last year, for example, every ACC team except Virginia would have been in the top half of the BE according to Kenpom.

Now, this year is obviously a bit of a different story - the bottom tier of the ACC is much worse than it usually is (although the rest of the conference is not nearly as bad as people think).

uh_no

03-19-2011, 08:12 PM

How many years will this occur before the committee looks at what actually has happened? It is great to see teams like VCU and George Mason to get a shot and look what they have done with their chance.

If I'm not mistaken, the big east teams won something like 7 preseason tournaments and were runners up in a couple of others....its hard to say much when 3 of the teams that lost had significant injury issues....not to mention, remember what happened when duke tried to play st johns this year? I recall it not being pretty. We also only squeaked by marquette by 5...who was the big east's last tournament selection.

Bluedevil114

03-19-2011, 09:25 PM

Big East is overrated. At most only three out of eleven will make the Sweet 16.

killerleft

03-19-2011, 09:36 PM

Big East is overrated. At most only three out of eleven will make the Sweet 16.

Pitt won't be among them. But Butler is one tough team come tourney time.

sporthenry

03-19-2011, 10:20 PM

I don't really think Pitt losing is an indictment on the rest of the BE though. It just means there are a lot of BE teams who rank in the top 25-30 teams. As everyone agrees, the BE didn't really have a dominant team but does that mean the BE isn't the best conference? I know everyone here loves the ACC won 5 of the last 10 championships or whatever statistic exists, but one team doesn't make a conference.

I do agree that on most years, the ACC is normally competitive from 1-12 but this year was different. Every conference had a few terrible teams. So the BE was far and away the best or deepest conference this year. And this year the depth was not just from having 16 teams but percentage wise, they deserved at least 10 and probably all 11 and that puts 70% of their conference in. When they got 7 or 8/16 it wasn't that impressive but this year was impressive.

And I agree that the ACC was young and teams were developing in their early games which probably was a reason they had poor records vs certain conferences. But I think the non conference is when a lot of mid majors rack up their signature wins but they come against major teams trying to get used to playing each other when these mid majors play together for 3-4 years. VCU's big non conference win was against UCLA but that was before Joshua Smith was a big factor. Or you see a relatively young Florida team lost to Jacksonville and UCF. Or you see Zona lose by 22 to BYU. Now if those games were to be played again, I think the outcomes would be very different but those wins become great wins b/c Florida became a top 15 team, Zona became a top 20 team and UCLA became a solid tournament team.

MulletMan

03-19-2011, 10:24 PM

I don't really think Pitt losing is an indictment on the rest of the BE though.

Really? The regular season champ of the Best Conference ever just lost in the 2nd round of the NCAA tourney, and that's not an indictment of the conference? What exactly would be evidence in your eyes that the Big East was overrated?

The rest of your post isn't worth addressing as it makes no sense, but carry on, please.

InSpades

03-19-2011, 10:28 PM

It is an indictment of the Big East. The Big East can be the best conference *and* be overrated at the same time. They've already underperformed their seed by 7 games and we're halfway through the 2nd round (Pitt - 3, Louisville - 2, G'town - 1, SJU - 1). Only 1 team has outperformed their seed so far (Marquette).

The 2 biggest upsets of the tournament so far have been Big East teams losing. I'd say that's a reasonably big deal.

davekay1971

03-19-2011, 10:30 PM

So far the Big East has had Pitt, Louisville, Georgetown, and St. Johns fall to significantly lower seeded teams. WVU and Villanova lost to basically evenly seeded teams. So far Marquette is the only Big East team to outperform their seed. Obviously it's still early in the tournament and the Big East is likely to place 3 teams in the Sweet 16 (not so good when your conference had 5 teams seeded to make it but still respectable). If Notre Dame, 'Cuse, and UConn all make the final four, the world will be talking about how dominant the Big East is. But for the first 3 days of the tournament, the conference has underperformed badly.

And InSpades totally beat me to my point.

sporthenry

03-19-2011, 10:32 PM

Really? The regular season champ of the Best Conference ever just lost in the 2nd round of the NCAA tourney, and that's not an indictment of the conference? What exactly would be evidence in your eyes that the Big East was overrated?

The rest of your post isn't worth addressing as it makes no sense, but carry on, please.

What about the rest of my post doesn't make sense? Again, if you think having the best team in your conference somehow makes you the best conference b/c you have to play them 2, maybe 3 times a year, then so be it. But the BE was the best conference this year b/c they have 10-11 of the top 30 teams in the country. Plain and simple. Who would you rather play, WVU/Nova/Marquette or UVA/BC/Maryland? Everyone agreed before that game that the BE didn't really have a dominant team nor a national title contender, but what does that have to do with the rest of the conference? Georgetown had to play 15 of their 19 games against NCAA tournament competition and even if you want to take out Nova than it is still 14 of their 19 games. BC had to play 6 of their 18 games against Tournament Competition and if you want to add Va. Tech it is still only 8 of 18 games. That is a 6 game disparity where you get to play Wake Forest and Miami instead of WVU and Cincinatti.

sporthenry

03-19-2011, 10:41 PM

So then let me pose this question, who is the best conference? The Mountain West b/c they are undefeated in tournament play? What makes a conference great? Having one great team. So the Horizon conference was the second best conference last year? Outperforming your seed? So the Horizon, A-10, and Colonial are better than the Big 12?

As a Duke fan, I never understood the outperforming your seed. How does a 1 seed outperform his seed? Getting to the final 4 is hard, all 4 #1 seeds have only gotten the to FF once together, so I would hardly say not getting to the final 4 as a 1 seed is a terrible disappointment. Duke has the most losses as a #1 seed but isn't getting the #1 seed more of an acheievement than losing is an underacheivement in a one and done tournament?

SCMatt33

03-19-2011, 10:42 PM

For those that enjoy these sorts of things, here's how the Big East is doing based on Pete Tiernan's Bracket Science metrics, PASE and SOAR. A quick explanation for those who don't know, PASE is performance against seed expectations. For example, 5-seeds have averaged 1.18 wins per team since 1985, so a team, like West Virgina, who wins one game, has underperformed by .18 wins. SOAR is seed over achievement rate, which is basically what percentage of teams beat their seed expectations. So far (in the middle of the UConn-Cincy game for those who read this after the fact), here is how the Big East has performed:

Of the 11 teams, 6 have been knocked out (Nova, Louisville, St. Johns, Gtown, WVA, and Pitt). All of them fell short of expectations. Only one team, Marquette, has already exceeded expectations. Since 3 and 6 seeds are both expected to win between 1 and 2 games, the winner of UConn/Cincy will exceed expectations and the loser will fall short. At best, if Syracuse beats Marquette and ND gets to at least the Elite 8, 4 of 11 Big East teams will overachieve for just a 36.4% SOAR. At worst, ND loses to FSU or in the Sweet 16 and Marquette beats Syracuse, just 2 of 11 teams will overachieve, for a 18.2% SOAR.

As far as PASE goes, the combined expectations of the Big East is 16.91 games. So far, they have won just 7 and are guaranteed two more. Between the two survivors of Big East match-ups and ND, the Big East will need 8 more wins to overachieve. To put that in perspective, with the two survivors already in the sweet 16 with the nine wins counted, and ND in the second round, there are only 10 possible wins remaining if all three make the Final Four and the title game is all Big East (3 for ND and 2 each from the others to make the final four and all 3 games at the Final Four). Needing 8 of those 10 to have a positive PASE for the conference leaves pretty long odds for a successful tourney for the Big East.

With all of that said, a bad tourney is not in and of itself an indicator that the conference was overrated. Even though Chris Wright played, his injury was still a big factor, and Kennedy's injury was a big factor for St. John's. Everybody has injuries (as Duke can attest two) but timing can have a big effect on perception. Duke and FSU both had guys out for a long time that came back just in time to be effective in the tourney after public perception had been somewhat formed based on those guys being out, while the Big East had those guys playing for most of the year and then got hurt at an inopportune time. Even if those injuries didn't happen, luck plays such a big role in a one-and-done tourney that it can't be an accurate representation of a conference's strength. The Big East probably isn't far and away the best as some have said before the tourney, but there probably not as bad as this tourney performance either.

Newton_14

03-19-2011, 10:42 PM

What about the rest of my post doesn't make sense? Again, if you think having the best team in your conference somehow makes you the best conference b/c you have to play them 2, maybe 3 times a year, then so be it. But the BE was the best conference this year b/c they have 10-11 of the top 30 teams in the country. Plain and simple. Who would you rather play, WVU/Nova/Marquette or UVA/BC/Maryland? Everyone agreed before that game that the BE didn't really have a dominant team nor a national title contender, but what does that have to do with the rest of the conference? Georgetown had to play 15 of their 19 games against NCAA tournament competition and even if you want to take out Nova than it is still 14 of their 19 games. BC had to play 6 of their 18 games against Tournament Competition and if you want to add Va. Tech it is still only 8 of 18 games. That is a 6 game disparity where you get to play Wake Forest and Miami instead of WVU and Cincinatti.

I think the simple point the guys are trying to make here, is that the 11 Big East teams are just not as good as you believe them to be. I agree with them. There is no way that the 9th, 10th, 11th best teams in the Big East are better than the 5th, best team in the ACC, and the ACC is down this year. If all these Big East teams were as good as advertised they would not be dropping like flies in this tourney to mid-major teams.

You can explain away 1 or 2 "upsets", but at some point you have to recognize a trend. 11 teams getting in was just wrong.

uh_no

03-19-2011, 10:52 PM

I think the simple point the guys are trying to make here, is that the 11 Big East teams are just not as good as you believe them to be. I agree with them. There is no way that the 9th, 10th, 11th best teams in the Big East are better than the 5th, best team in the ACC, and the ACC is down this year. If all these Big East teams were as good as advertised they would not be dropping like flies in this tourney to mid-major teams.

You can explain away 1 or 2 "upsets", but at some point you have to recognize a trend. 11 teams getting in was just wrong.

Well, CT was the 9th best team in the big east this season...are you arguing that clemson would beat CT? marquette played duke within 5 points but apparently wouldn't have a chance against clemson. St johns destroyed duke. seton hall, the 12th best team in the big east, took clemson to overtime. Rutgers destroyed miami.

I think the big east might have 2 losses total to the ACC this year....I just don't see any possible argument that the bottom of the big east isn't as good as the middling ACC teams

SCMatt33

03-19-2011, 11:06 PM

Well, CT was the 9th best team in the big east this season

I don't think that this is necessarily true. CT finished in 9th in the Big East regular season. Would you say that Duke was only the second best in the ACC because they finished in second in the regular season? Conference standings ignore conference tourneys plus the non-conference season, which account for about half of a teams schedule. UConn may have finished 9th, but the rest of their season (Maui and Big East Tourney) were so good that they got the third/fourth (depending on where they were compared to cuse) best seed out of the conference. The 9th, 10th, and 11th teams were probably Cincy, Nova, and Marquette.

The problem with the way things are is that conference hierarchy is determined entirely in the first half of a season. Slow starters that come on late (like Clemson) are seen as bad teams that are taking advantage of weakness in their conference, while fast starters that fade (Villanova) are seen as good teams that were eaten alive by a good conference.

uh_no

03-19-2011, 11:09 PM

The problem with the way things are is that conference hierarchy is determined entirely in the first half of a season. Slow starters that come on late (like Clemson) are seen as bad teams that are taking advantage of weakness in their conference, while fast starters that fade (Villanova) are seen as good teams that were eaten alive by a good conference.

While I agree, the counter point is that clemson is a bad team that got eaten alive by a team from a good conference....in the tournament :P

sporthenry

03-19-2011, 11:14 PM

Well, CT was the 9th best team in the big east this season...are you arguing that clemson would beat CT? marquette played duke within 5 points but apparently wouldn't have a chance against clemson. St johns destroyed duke. seton hall, the 12th best team in the big east, took clemson to overtime. Rutgers destroyed miami.

I think the big east might have 2 losses total to the ACC this year....I just don't see any possible argument that the bottom of the big east isn't as good as the middling ACC teams

I agree completely. Who wants to play Nova instead of BC? Sure some of it is about the matchup with Nova but I would still say Nova is a better team than BC. Most years, I agree that the Big East is overrated b/c of their 16 teams, but this year is very different. I was very impressed with Marquette when we played them and they finished 11th in the BE.

And I think a lot of you are getting caught up in expectations. Instead of Marquette or Cincinatti, lets put in UVA or BC and you really think there isn't a huge fall off. The BE was overseeded, mainly b/c of their conference strenth, the committee and analysts then feel compelled to put the top teams with good seeds. Why can't we take the BE at face value instead of comparing them with their seed in a one and done tournament?

DallasDevil

03-19-2011, 11:21 PM

I think the simple point the guys are trying to make here, is that the 11 Big East teams are just not as good as you believe them to be. I agree with them. There is no way that the 9th, 10th, 11th best teams in the Big East are better than the 5th, best team in the ACC, and the ACC is down this year. If all these Big East teams were as good as advertised they would not be dropping like flies in this tourney to mid-major teams.

You can explain away 1 or 2 "upsets", but at some point you have to recognize a trend. 11 teams getting in was just wrong.

I'm no Big East lover, but there's no denying that all 11 of their tourney teams deserved to get into the field. Going into the tournament, St. John's had the lowest Ken Pom ranking at 36 and Marquette had the lowest Sagarin ranking at 29. St. John's waxed us by 15 and Marquette gave us one of our toughest games of the year. In my mind, the problem is not that all 11 got in, but is in how the committee seeded them. In any event, I must admit taking some pleasure every time one of them loses.

SCMatt33

03-19-2011, 11:21 PM

While I agree, the counter point is that clemson is a bad team that got eaten alive by a team from a good conference....in the tournament :P

I don't know if that result would have held if Clemson wasn't forced into that terrible travel schedule that had them playing in Dayton then Tampa in a 36 hour stretch with mandatory media obligations in between. Clemson looked pretty darn good for the first 18 minutes before running out of gas.

wacobluedevil

03-19-2011, 11:23 PM

And really, who did CU beat?

Kansas State three times, Texas, Missouri

uh_no

03-19-2011, 11:24 PM

I don't know if that result would have held if Clemson wasn't forced into that terrible travel schedule that had them playing in Dayton then Tampa in a 36 hour stretch with mandatory media obligations in between. Clemson looked pretty darn good for the first 18 minutes before running out of gas.

what was the excuse when seton hall and clemson tied (in regulation)

sporthenry

03-19-2011, 11:28 PM

Kansas State three times, Texas, Missouri

And Nova beat UCLA, Temple, Cincinatti twice, Louisville, Syracuse, Marquette, and WVU. The only way you really can say Nova didn't deserve to be in is if you put a lot of weight on the last 10-12 of which the committee puts no weight. And Nova had 2 bad losses all year @Rutgers and vs. SFla, meanwhile CU had losses to Iowa State,OU, New Mexico and even San Francisco (granted it was in the beginning of the year).

So Nova seems to have more quality wins and less bad losses.

Newton_14

03-19-2011, 11:32 PM

While I agree, the counter point is that clemson is a bad team that got eaten alive by a team from a good conference....in the tournament :P

But see therein lies the problem. Perception rules. Clemson is certainly not a bad team and they did not get "eaten alive" by any team in the ACC or the NCAA tourney. They are a darn good basketball team. Switch the seeds between WVU and Clemson, and I would bet good money we would have watched Clemson and Kentucky today rather than WVU and Kentucky.

There is just not a lot of difference between many of these teams, which is why I feel it was crazy and unfair to put 11 Big East teams in the tourney and leave good teams from the other conferences at home.

uh_no

03-19-2011, 11:34 PM

There is just not a lot of difference between many of these teams, which is why I feel it was crazy and unfair to put 11 Big East teams in the tourney and leave good teams from the other conferences at home.

But its okay to put the proportionally equivalent 7 of the 11 big 10 teams in? The big east should also not be 'punished' for having a large conference.....

sporthenry

03-19-2011, 11:39 PM

But see therein lies the problem. Perception rules. Clemson is certainly not a bad team and they did not get "eaten alive" by any team in the ACC or the NCAA tourney. They are a darn good basketball team. Switch the seeds between WVU and Clemson, and I would bet good money we would have watched Clemson and Kentucky today rather than WVU and Kentucky.

There is just not a lot of difference between many of these teams, which is why I feel it was crazy and unfair to put 11 Big East teams in the tourney and leave good teams from the other conferences at home.

Well who else deserved to be there instead of the 11 Big East teams? Are you going to knock out Marquette who already outplayed their seed? Cincinatti is having a good showing. Does Pitt somehow not deserve to make it since they lost? The only team you can logically take out is Nova, so that still puts 10 teams in. And Va. Tech or CU have a decent argument and like you say, the teams are very close. But the difference lies in the fact that there are 11 of those quality teams out of 16 meanwhile the ACC has what 5 out of 11 who are of that quality? (The one qualifier is that in today's game of unbalanced scheduling it doesn't hold true for all teams in each conference but for the most part) In previous years, the Big East has had 8-9 tournament teams and I have argued the ACC was stronger since they had 7 of 11 tournament teams, but this year, it is clear the BE is better.

Newton_14

03-19-2011, 11:42 PM

But its okay to put the proportionally equivalent 7 of the 11 big 10 teams in? The big east should also not be 'punished' for having a large conference.....

No. Mich St should not have gotten in either. I think the committee blew it this year.

sporthenry

03-19-2011, 11:47 PM

No. Mich St should not have gotten in either. I think the committee blew it this year.

While I think Va. Tech and CU probably should have gotten in, at some point the committee has to just put teams in. UAB nor VCU deserved to be in either. But at some point, the committee just has to select teams. The tournament should never have went past 65.

uh_no

03-19-2011, 11:49 PM

While I think Va. Tech and CU probably should have gotten in, at some point the committee has to just put teams in. UAB nor VCU deserved to be in either. But at some point, the committee just has to select teams. The tournament should never have went past 65.

I think the pundits are right here, though, that the committee just did a terrible job overall, from th teams that got in, to the seedings, to the pairings and bracket strength....

SCMatt33

03-19-2011, 11:51 PM

what was the excuse when seton hall and clemson tied (in regulation)

That was my whole point, they were a bad team initially that was getting used to a new coach that improved throughout the year. Because of how the conference and non-conference season is split up, it only looks like they got better because of a bad ACC, but looking at what they did to UAB and being competitive with the fifth best Big East team (based on seed) shows that by the end of the year, they were probably better than the 9th, 10th, and 11th Big East teams. Body of work includes the start of the year so they deserved to be seeded where they were, but conference strength should be fluid throughout the whole year, but can't be, because other than the tourney, late season non-conference games are few and far between.

Newton_14

03-19-2011, 11:54 PM

I think the pundits are right here, though, that the committee just did a terrible job overall, from th teams that got in, to the seedings, to the pairings and bracket strength....

That we agree on. In the West the top 4 seeds are all ranked in the AP Top 10. Florida gets a 2 seed. Texas gets a 4 seed. It just makes no sense.

InSpades

03-19-2011, 11:55 PM

The Big East can be the best conference *and* be overrated at the same time.

Either the Big East isn't as good as people thought they were or they are choke'ing horribly in the NCAA tournament. Either way I'm okay with that :).

If Florida St. ends up beating Notre Dame tomorrow then this NCAA tournament was a disaster for the Big East. I may end up eating my words at some point but I don't think UConn is gonna carry the flag for the Big East. Which would leave Syracuse? It would be awfully hard for me to root for UNC but... if UNC knocks out Syracuse and Fla St. knocks out Notre Dame... that would be ridiculous.

I also find it somewhat humorous that everyone cried about Duke's easy path last year... and then this year Pitt gets the easy path and can't make it out of the 1st weekend. To top it off they lost to the same "weak" team that Duke got to play in the final (minus one 9th pick in last year's NBA draft). Bottom line... it doesn't matter who you play in the NCAA tournament, advancing ain't easy.

uh_no

03-20-2011, 12:01 AM

Bottom line... it doesn't matter who you play in the NCAA tournament, advancing ain't easy.

Isn't that the truth? over rated, underrated, should have gotten in, left out, too good a seed, easy path, unfair bracket...WHATEVER

you have to beat the good teams eventually, and the winners win....duke proved that last year....no other team won all their games in the tournament....when its boiled down, thats all you have to do...

THe tournament is the great equalizer. If the big east is overrated and got too many teams in, who cares? they lose and the good teams boil to the top....if the ACC was undervalued (well lets be honest, even the teams that 'deserved to be in' weren't going to win the thing) who cares...the best teams in the ACC will still go far regardless over whether BC or maryland or VT get in.

Yeah it sucks for teams who get left out, but every team has their opportunities to get in...as pat forde puts it, at the start of conference tournaments, every team is in....once you lose, sometimes you get a second chance, sometimes you don't....

just win baby

sporthenry

03-20-2011, 12:05 AM

That was my whole point, they were a bad team initially that was getting used to a new coach that improved throughout the year. Because of how the conference and non-conference season is split up, it only looks like they got better because of a bad ACC, but looking at what they did to UAB and being competitive with the fifth best Big East team (based on seed) shows that by the end of the year, they were probably better than the 9th, 10th, and 11th Big East teams. Body of work includes the start of the year so they deserved to be seeded where they were, but conference strength should be fluid throughout the whole year, but can't be, because other than the tourney, late season non-conference games are few and far between.

I don't say that necessarily makes Clemson better than the 9-11th team b/c they kept it close with WVU. I'd say it puts Clemson in the middle of the pack team which is to say that the parity in the BE is ridiculous in that the 5-11 teams are all about even. The difference in the BE seems to be matchups, who plays who, when, and where, and who learns to win. The difference in skill is pretty minimal.

loldevilz

03-20-2011, 01:44 AM

But see therein lies the problem. Perception rules. Clemson is certainly not a bad team and they did not get "eaten alive" by any team in the ACC or the NCAA tourney. They are a darn good basketball team. Switch the seeds between WVU and Clemson, and I would bet good money we would have watched Clemson and Kentucky today rather than WVU and Kentucky.

There is just not a lot of difference between many of these teams, which is why I feel it was crazy and unfair to put 11 Big East teams in the tourney and leave good teams from the other conferences at home.

I totally agree. The big east is set up in a way that every team has a bunch of chances to get signature wins, and there are only a few bad losses and a number of easy wins. I don't see how teams that go .500 in any conference should get in. How does Alabama which dominates its conference not get in when Marquette does?

It pisses me off that Villanova got in when they fell apart and a bunch of teams go overseeded or shouldn't have been in. Georgetown got injured and was terrible after that. St. John's also got injured. Marquette was a borderline team at best (even though they won their game). None of them have the remotest chance of winning anything in the tournament.

I honestly think that the committee gets so caught up in difficulty of schedule they let in teams that don't win the most games. Midmajors that have won a bunch of games should always be let in before battered and bruised big east teams.

uh_no

03-20-2011, 01:56 AM

I don't see how teams that go .500 in any conference should get in.

Uconn has absolutely no business in the tournament.

sporthenry

03-20-2011, 02:04 AM

It pisses me off that Villanova got in when they fell apart and a bunch of teams go overseeded or shouldn't have been in. Georgetown got injured and was terrible after that. St. John's also got injured. Marquette was a borderline team at best (even though they won their game). None of them have the remotest chance of winning anything in the tournament.

I honestly think that the committee gets so caught up in difficulty of schedule they let in teams that don't win the most games. Midmajors that have won a bunch of games should always be let in before battered and bruised big east teams.

So dominating the SEC West with the likes of LSU and Auburn should get Alabama a bid. Again, 'Bama's resume doesn't compare to 'Nova and I can't believe some people are penalizing the BE for having such good teams. That is the benefit of playing in a good conference, you get chances to get good wins. So we shouldn't penalize Alabama for a bad loss to Mississppi or Seton Hall b/c 'Nova doesn't have as many chances for a bad loss on their schedule? (Do we give Greenberg the benefit of the doubt for having such a terrible SOS? Conferences are obviously more rigid than non conference SOS but that is the benefit of being in a power conference but you also have to play those harder teams)

Marquette seemed to beat Mizzou pretty easily and only lost to Duke by 5 and personally, I thought they were one of if not the best team Duke played before January. And how was the committee supposed to know how Gtown would rebound with Wright? They gave Gtown the same treatment they gave FSU and it worked for FSU, not so much for Gtown. And St. Johns put everyone in an awkward position b/c they had no games to play without Kennedy.

But none of the teams we are talking about have the remotest chance of winning the tournament. But 'Nova took the best Colonial has to offer to the limit, so how do you say a worse team than GMU deserves to be in when Nova seemed to be at worst on par with GMU?

I guess you like the little guys, but personally, I'd rather see a team who can win a game vs a good opponent like Tennessee who beat Pitt or 'Nova who beat Syracuse as opposed to Coastal Carolina who would have been embarrassed in the tournament.

Lulu

03-20-2011, 02:59 AM

... Heck, the Big East is assured 2 losses this weekend b/c they have to play each other b/c they had so many teams. That hardly seems fair. ...

Well, are they assured two losses or two wins??? I'm not sure which of us is the optimist here, but after their performance thus far...

brevity

03-20-2011, 04:21 AM

Heck, the Big East is assured 2 losses this weekend b/c they have to play each other b/c they had so many teams. That hardly seems fair.

You're right, it isn't fair. But note: they (Connecticut/Cincinnati, Syracuse/Marquette) had/have to play each other in the Round of 32 not because the Big East had so many teams, but because the NCAA Selection Committee was being lazy and incompetent. There were 16 pods available, and yet the Committee saw fit to cram the 11 Big East teams into 9 of them.

Look at it this way. On Selection Sunday, the Committee has two main problems to solve:

1. Who makes the tournament?
2. Where are they seeded?

It bothers me that everyone focuses on the Committee's handling of the first problem and not the second. (Are we seriously still talking about Virginia Tech and Colorado? Let it go, people.)

The seeding issue is more relevant because it's affecting the tournament right now. Cincinnati and Marquette got screwed by the Committee when they could have easily been moved a seed line and out of the way of better Big East teams. (As I stated in a different thread, swap Marquette and Georgia in the East, and Cincinnati and Temple in the West. Problem solved.) If the Committee does its job right, there's no way an all-Big East matchup happens prior to the Round of 16.

2008-09 Big East is much better than this year's Big East. UCONN, Pitt, Villanova and Louisville were very good (Lville overall #1 seed, UCONN/Nova to the Final 4, Pitt lost a heartbreaker to Nova in Elite 8)

I almost agree. The top tier of the Big East in 2008-2009 was stronger than the top tier this season. And that's why fewer Big East teams made the tournament that year. There's less separation among the top 11 teams this year -- I don't think you can even divide the second tier and third tier -- which is one of the reasons they all got in.

Regenman

03-20-2011, 05:55 AM

Uconn has absolutely no business in the tournament.

Don't be intentionally obtuse. UConn won the Big East tourney.

It should be .500 or better in conference and tourney finals. And why shouldn't the Big East be penalized for having a large conference? It's not like people forced them to band that way.

Saratoga2

03-20-2011, 08:04 AM

sporthenry

03-20-2011, 11:30 AM

The facts are that for the last couple of years now, the BE has been underperforming in the tournament. The pundits wouldn't have allowed VCU in and look what entertainment we would have missed. Next year again, can we expect the same hype to carry 10 or 11 BE teams into the tournament? It is supposed to be about the best 68 (now) teams making the tournament. But what if it is hard to distinguish the last bunch from one another. What not drop the ones from the historically non-performing conference and instead put a few of the equivalent teams from other conferences?

The argument against the smaller conferences is that teams may compile a good record but they haven't played anybody, while in a power conference like the BE, by definition, all the teams have multiple chances to play and beat a ranked team. That leaves many conferences with only the conference champion.

So far this year, we have GMU, SDU, Richmond, VCU, Butler, and BYU all still alive and none from a so-called power conference. Will any of them get to the final four? Maybe, as Butler was there last year.

Everyone seems to get caught up in the cinderella story. So one mid-major makes the final 4 and all of a sudden, we should give them more bids. Not counting Memphis, how many mid majors actually made the Final 4? Only one I can think of is GMU. And BYU and SDSU aren't great examples b/c they were ranked in the top 10 all year. Their conference was obviously good enough to give them credit on the national stage. And in addition, most people dont' consider the A-10 a midmajor anymore as you could see with Temple as well as Richmond.

And again, you think Coastal Carolina should have been in b/c they beat VMI but they lost by 19 to Georgetown? Their big wins were over Charlotte in OT, a team that failed to make the A-10 tournament and LSU, a the worst team in the SEC. They would have been embarrassed in the tournament as they were blown out by Alabama by 20 in the NIT. (You could argue that some teams lay eggs in the NIT b/c they don't want to be there so how about a 13 point loss to UNC Asheville in their conference tournament? But yeah, put them in ahead of 'Nova b/c they beat up on Winthrop.

And going with your conference idea, if a team is constantly underperforming their seed, should we drop them in seeds in subsequent years? Say a team has the most losses as a 1 seed? Say a team has underperformed as a seed for 5 straight years (about the same time the BE has been futile in the tournament), should they get the same treatment?

throatybeard

03-20-2011, 11:36 AM

I don't think record in the tournament is necessarily a fair indication of conference success. What happens if Duke was the only ACC team in there and went 6-0, does that make the ACC the best?

That's kinda sorta what happened last year. We went 6-0 and Maryland, Wake Forest (hard to believe they were in the tourney just last year) and Clemson went 2-3. Voila, 8-3, the ACC is awesome.

Can we count Carolina's four wins in the NIT? Man, they were so much better last year than the year they lost to Hampton. At home.

davekay1971

03-20-2011, 11:45 AM

Not counting Memphis, how many mid majors actually made the Final 4? Only one I can think of is GMU.

I seem to remember a mid major making the Final 4 last year. I can't quite remember the name of the team. Did Duke play them? Hmmm...give me a minute...it'll come to me...

Oh, I know, let me check the 1st page of DBR's EK posts. Maybe there's a thread about last year's tournament with the mid major team's name in the title!

throatybeard

03-20-2011, 11:59 AM

Not counting Memphis, how many mid majors actually made the Final 4?

What's a mid-major? Does it mean everyone who isn't in the big six conferences? Like, does Louisville prior to their entry to the big east count? In addition to Butler and Geirge Mason:

Utah 1998
UMass 1996 (Calivacacated)
UNLV 1987, 1990, 1991
Memphis State 1985
Louisville 1975, 1980, 1986
Houston 1982, 1983, 1984
DePaul 1979
Penn 1979
Marquette 1977
UNC-Charlotte 1977
Florida State 1972

Also some teams that are now in the Big East like Rutgers and Providence, before the Big East was formed.

To some degree what has happened here is that good mid-majors have been absorbed gradually into the big six conferences.

SuperTurkey

03-20-2011, 12:01 PM

What's a mid-major? Does it mean everyone who isn't in the big six conferences? Like, does Louisville prior to their entry to the big east count? In addition to Butler and Geirge Mason:

Utah 1998
UMass 1996 (Calivacacated)
UNLV 1987, 1990, 1991
Memphis State 1985
Louisville 1975, 1980, 1986
Houston 1982, 1983, 1984
DePaul 1979
Penn 1979
Marquette 1977
UNC-Charlotte 1977
Florida State 1972

Also some teams that are now in the Big East like Rutgers and Providence, before the Big East was formed.

To some degree what has happened here is that good mid-majors have been absorbed gradually into the big six conferences.

Larry Bird's 1979 Indiana State team should be included as well.

sporthenry

03-20-2011, 12:02 PM

I seem to remember a mid major making the Final 4 last year. I can't quite remember the name of the team. Did Duke play them? Hmmm...give me a minute...it'll come to me...

Oh, I know, let me check the 1st page of DBR's EK posts. Maybe there's a thread about last year's tournament with the mid major team's name in the title!

I was assuming Butler as well. I referenced them earlier in the post and I guess I didn't do a good enough job citing that.

So in 10 years, 40 teams, 2 mid majors made the FF. I guess you could add Marquette in there as well if you want. So at most 7.5% of the FF teams have been mid majors but we should then put in more of them b/c it might happen. Heck, Alabama was a lower seed than Butler when they made the FF, so it seems that for the most part, the analysts are usually pretty good at picking these mid majors as the only one who really burst onto the scene was GMU.

MulletMan

03-20-2011, 12:12 PM

But none of the teams we are talking about have the remotest chance of winning the tournament. But 'Nova took the best Colonial has to offer to the limit, so how do you say a worse team than GMU deserves to be in when Nova seemed to be at worst on par with GMU?

I guess you like the little guys, but personally, I'd rather see a team who can win a game vs a good opponent like Tennessee who beat Pitt or 'Nova who beat Syracuse as opposed to Coastal Carolina who would have been embarrassed in the tournament.

Or a team like VCU who beat Georgetown

Or a team like Butler who beat Pitt

Or a team like George Mason who beat Villanova

Yeah... those little teams could never hang with the big boys.

sporthenry

03-20-2011, 12:27 PM

Or a team like VCU who beat Georgetown

Or a team like Butler who beat Pitt

Or a team like George Mason who beat Villanova

Yeah... those little teams could never hang with the big boys.

And they made the tournament. I'm not arguing against any of those teams making the tournament, well maybe not VCU (and I am very interested to see hwo they play against Purdue). I'm saying, people are arguing that 'Nova shouldn't have been in there b/c someone else deserves a shot, well who? And see, you even use Nova as a good win for GMU.

The committees job is to put the best at-large teams in the field. I don't think either Pitt or 'Nova didn't deserve to be there based off their showing. But one team that did play terrible and almost looked as if they didn't belong was UNLV. But you never hear about mid majors laying the bed but if it was the other way, everyone here would be crying for more bids.

And again, what other mid majors deserved to be in? Most people are only arguing for the inclusion of CU or Va. Tech who aren't mid majors and had plenty of opportunity to win marquee games.

Wander

03-20-2011, 12:35 PM

Mal

03-20-2011, 12:51 PM

Two somewhat contradictory thoughts:

1. It's tough to put much into a conference's performance in the tournament, given the sample size and how crazy stuff consistently happens there.

but

2. This is now two consecutive seasons where the Big East has lost a lot of teams early and had some horrendous results. Let's not forget the hype the conference got last year, before it turned in Georgetown losing to Ohio, 1 seed Syracuse not making it past the Sweet 16, 3 seed Pitt not surviving the first weekend (why do I feel like Pitt's the new Kansas?), Villanova barely beating 15 seed Robert Morris by virtue of a horrible piece of officiating, then getting dumped by St. Mary's, Louisville losing an 8-9 to Cal, and Marquette losing as a 6 seed in the first round. West Virginia was the only team to save the conference from a complete meltdown, before we thoroughly whupped them. And now they've turned in another Pitt stinker, Georgetown getting housed by a team that by wide consensus shouldn't have made the tournament, Louisville dropped by a 13 seed, and St. John's getting run off the court by a Gonzaga team that couldn't even compete with the Fighting Jimmers. That's enough for me to call it a trend. If Notre Dame can't take out FSU today, it'll be two consecutive years of drastic underperformance, by a total of almost 20 teams, which is a large sample size when talking about this sort of thing. At some point, this has to effect the preseason perception of the conference, which as we all know is pretty hard to shake as the season progresses.

loldevilz

03-20-2011, 12:51 PM

A lot of this conversation is silly. Exactly zero of the 11 Big East teams in the tournament were controversial selections. The conference is underachieving, and I loved it when VCU/George Mason/Morehead State/Butler won, but you really can't use these results to retroactively criticize the selections or seedings.

One of my rules in picking my bracket is to just keep this in mind: ESPN overhypes everything. Whatever conference ESPN says is best (sometimes BE, sometimes ACC) is always overrated. Always. Similarly, the worst of the BCS conferences is always underrated.

I think you can. The Georgetown and St. John's games weren't even close. I guess all one can do is enjoy the mediocrity of the Big East in the tournament and wait till next year when once again the talk of the Big East eating the NCAA tournament alive will resurface.

bluepenguin

03-20-2011, 01:04 PM

Charles Barkley has just been abusing the Big East during halftime and post game shows. He has used several nicknames for them, including Big Least and said they were the most over-rated conference this year. And as we all know, Barkley doesn't sugar coat his opinions nor does he care who hears them. He was abusing the Big East while Coach Pitino was sitting there with him.

NashvilleDevil

03-20-2011, 01:28 PM

So Marquette who played Duke closer than K-state or Butler didn't deserve to be in?

Are you talking about score only? Because after Marquette tied the game at 57 with about 10 and a half minutes to go Duke built the lead back up to as high as 13 and with under a minute to go Duke was up 82-72.

With 30 seconds left Marquette hit a 3 and then they scored a meaningless lay-up with 2 seconds left to make it 82-77. So yes, by score they were closer than K-State and Michigan St. but Duke had the game well in hand before the final buzzer.

uh_no

03-20-2011, 01:35 PM

Are you talking about score only? Because after Marquette tied the game at 57 with about 10 and a half minutes to go Duke built the lead back up to as high as 13 and with under a minute to go Duke was up 82-72.

With 30 seconds left Marquette hit a 3 and then they scored a meaningless lay-up with 2 seconds left to make it 82-77. So yes, by score they were closer than K-State and Michigan St. but Duke had the game well in hand before the final buzzer.

Well, duke was up huge early and marquette came back, so i'm not sure you can discount the fact that they came back at the end....

NashvilleDevil

03-20-2011, 01:37 PM

Well, duke was up huge early and marquette came back, so i'm not sure you can discount the fact that they came back at the end....

All true but to me the 5 points in the last minute are akin to a team scoring a last second TD making the score 28-21 instead of 28-14.

uh_no

03-20-2011, 01:41 PM

All true but to me the 5 points in the last minute are akin to a team scoring a last second TD making the 28-21 instead of 28-14

fair enough.

sporthenry

03-20-2011, 01:50 PM

All true but to me the 5 points in the last minute are akin to a team scoring a last second TD making the score 28-21 instead of 28-14.

Well I agree, I forgot it was that much of a lead but still Marquette played us as tough as Butler which was a 8-10 point game for most of the last 5-10 minutes which could be said of the Marquette and MSU game. And the K-state game didn't seem close for most of the 2nd half.

But regardless, Marquette still played us tough and I was impressed with them all year so I would have kept them in the tournament.

NashvilleDevil

03-20-2011, 01:54 PM

But regardless, Marquette still played us tough and I was impressed with them all year so I would have kept them in the tournament.

I still think Marquette should have been in and I do not think the Big East is overrated. The tourney is just a different animal. I really think that some BE teams do not adjust to how the game is being called. They think they can play a BE style when the refs are calling it different.

sporthenry

03-20-2011, 02:08 PM

I still think Marquette should have been in and I do not think the Big East is overrated. The tourney is just a different animal. I really think that some BE teams do not adjust to how the game is being called. They think they can play a BE style when the refs are calling it different.

I agree but this year, not too many BE teams seem to have gotten into foul trouble too early. I think injuries were their problem this year. While everyone loved Siva on Louisville, Knowles hit all their big shots and not having him really hurt them. Everyone knows about Wright and Gtown. Heck, Gibbs never seemed right with Pitt and 'Nova's Fisher and Stokes battled injuries all year.

And I know injuries aren't an excuse, just look at Duke without KI, but you can't just discount injuries either. But perhaps that is another consequence of the BE is that it is so physical, injuries are bound to happen.

AAA1980

03-20-2011, 07:23 PM

MarkD83

03-20-2011, 10:27 PM

The Big East had allot of good teams but no great teams this year but its still a real good conference..look at all the major conferences this year and tell me a great or even really good one top to bottom?

In a one and done tourney its a lot about a lucky bounce of the ball matchups etc i hate conference whoring and trying to prove a conference is overrated after every loss or a bad round..

But you also have to hate a conference boasting how good it is during the regular season and then performing poorly in the NCAAs.

Perhaps the Big East has found the secret to getting teams in the tournament, but they may not have found the secret to winning the torunament. That is what the ACC has figured out.

If I had to correct something about this tournament regrading the Big East it may be that G'town and Nova should have been excluded. Both of these teams won games early perhaps before other teams had found their best games. Down the stretch Nova was 5-10 and G'town has not won since mid Feb. and that was a close game against USF.

loldevilz

03-20-2011, 10:30 PM

For all the people talking about how great the Big East is, please watch the Florida State vs Notre Dame. Florida State is killing Notre Dame. If they pull it out, 3 ACC teams will be in the sweet sixteen and 2 Big East teams will be there.

Those 2 Big East teams by the way played another Big East team in the regional meaning that one had to advance.

uh_no

03-20-2011, 10:45 PM

Perhaps the Big East has found the secret to getting teams in the tournament, but they may not have found the secret to winning the torunament. That is what the ACC has figured out.

Let me fix that for you:

Duke and UNC have found the secret to winning the tournament.

over the past 25 years, 19 of the ACC's 23 final fours have been from duke or north carolina (with 2 each from GT and MD)

for comparison, 9 different teams from the big east have gone
georgetown
st johns
villanova
louisville
connecticut
west virginia
providence
seton hall
west virginia
(marquette's final 4 was before joining the big east)

SuperTurkey

03-20-2011, 10:58 PM

Barkley giving it to the Big East has been consistently amusing to me throughout the opening weekend. I don't think Rick Pitino has been this flustered since his mistress was being deposed.

WiJoe

03-20-2011, 11:00 PM

I don't care what is said about the big east. NO TEAM should get in if it can't finish ABOVE .500 in its league. This tournament should have been contested WITHOUT villanova, con and marquette.

sporthenry

03-20-2011, 11:02 PM

If I had to correct something about this tournament regrading the Big East it may be that G'town and Nova should have been excluded. Both of these teams won games early perhaps before other teams had found their best games. Down the stretch Nova was 5-10 and G'town has not won since mid Feb. and that was a close game against USF.

Well Gtown was getting an injured player back so by that logic, FSU doesn't get in and they miss this chance to beat ND. It is impossible to tell how a player will reintegrate themselves back into the team.
There is an argument for Nova, but again, it isn't like Nova embarrassed themselves like UNLV did and their resume was as good as anyone on the bubble.

pfrduke

03-20-2011, 11:02 PM

I don't care what is said about the big east. NO TEAM should get in if it can't finish ABOVE .500 in its league. This tournament should have been contested WITHOUT villanova, con and marquette.

Connecticut won its conference. It was in even if it was just 1 bid per league. Bag on their performance during the season all you wish, but their inclusion in the tournament is completely inarguable.

rthomas

03-20-2011, 11:03 PM

Barkley giving it to the Big East has been consistently amusing to me throughout the opening weekend. I don't think Rick Pitino has been this flustered since his mistress was being deposed.

One of those guys had the best line: Right now the city of Richmond has the same number of teams in the sweet 16 as the Big East.

MarkD83

03-20-2011, 11:04 PM

Boy 25 years is a long time frame to pick for this comparison.

And Louisville never went as a Big East Member. In 2005 they were in Conference USA.

Seton Hall went in 1989
Providence went in 1987
St Johns in 1985

That is a long time ago.

The point to be made is that perhaps with 16 teams and 18 conference games the NCAA should limit leagues to a maximum of 1/2 their members. If you can't finish in the top half of your conference should you go or not?

UConn won the Big East Tournament so they get to go but that should be at the expense of G;town or Marquette not Colorado. ( I will leave VT out of this arguement.)

The NCAA tournament does not take the best 68 teams and until they do having to do well in your conference should mean something.

MarkD83

03-20-2011, 11:05 PM

Well Gtown was getting an injured player back so by that logic, FSU doesn't get in and they miss this chance to beat ND. It is impossible to tell how a player will reintegrate themselves back into the team.
There is an argument for Nova, but again, it isn't like Nova embarrassed themselves like UNLV did and their resume was as good as anyone on the bubble.

FSU finished 3rd in the ACC at 11-5 so that is why they get in.

WiJoe

03-20-2011, 11:05 PM

Connecticut won its conference. It was in even if it was just 1 bid per league. Bag on their performance during the season all you wish, but their inclusion in the tournament is completely inarguable.

I stand corrected. My bad. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. But no marquette, no villanova.

ikiru36

03-20-2011, 11:06 PM

Poor Rick Pitino! You'll likely never hear me say that again, and I'm not a fan of Pitino at all, but what a terrible position to be sitting in the studio as a Big East coach while Charles Barkley takes the conference to the woodshed with comment after comment.

Unfortunately, Pitino started it all himself by using the Marquette victory over Syracuse as an opportunity to proclaim how good and deep the Big East is. Charles had the immediate and obvious response that, "no" it doesn't prove that at all as they beat a highly seeded team from the Big East therefore proving nothing about the Big East's quality except their solid mediocrity. Over the next few studio breaks, with Pitino meekly looking on, Barkley continued to bash the conference including roundly questioning the amount of top talent in the conference, across the board (while praising the quality of coaching in the conference).

Two other priceless moments were:
1) Pitino promising a Notre Dame victory, with Barkley re-iterating his earlier pick of FSU, followed by their flashing to an early game score with FSU already up 9. (As I write this, the game still remains in doubt, though FSU leads.)
2) Lead anchor Ernie Johnson stating that, as of now, the City of Richmond (VCU and Richmond) has as many teams remaining in the Sweet 16 as the entire Big East conference. Nothing against the quality of hoops in the City of Richmond but "Ouch"!

Go Duke!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Blue Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sporthenry

03-20-2011, 11:06 PM

And I stand by my original belief that the BE is just full of parity. I guess you could say that teams 1-11 are just about even and the difference is matchups and who is hot.
The strength of the BE is not that they have a dominant team so I guess that would make the ACC/Big 10/Big 12 more difficult but you only play 1-4 games against these top teams. The BE strength lies in the rest of the conference.

Yes, FSU can beat ND. If you compare the first 40-50% of the teams in any conference, the teams are probably relatively equal, but the BE 50-75% is where they beat out any conference. Marquette or UCONN are much better teams than NC State or Miami.

wilko

03-20-2011, 11:07 PM

Go FSU!!!
Nothing against Mike Brey or ND in particular... Just for the league to recapture its mystique, we gotta stop having early exits and meltdowns.

FSU needs to make some noise and help shape perception for NEXT yrs teams..

3 ACC teams in the FF?!?!!? Kiss it!
Thats what I'm rooting for...

My personal hope is that we get to meet the Heels in the FF for a title shot. In the storybook ending that I envision... Kyrie should get the chance to play UNC once....

What a draw THAT would be for ratings...

Oh to win that one!! in the slings and arrows of rivalry... thats a crate of Uzi's

loldevilz

03-20-2011, 11:09 PM

If FSU keeps this 19 point lead and knocks off the Irish, then every ACC team will be favored next weekend.

FSU vs VCU, UNC vs Marquette, Duke vs Arizona.

In the "down year" the ACC could have 3 teams in the elite eight. And if Clemson didn't get screwed by their terrible seeding and bad scheduling they could have done some damage as well.

SuperTurkey

03-20-2011, 11:10 PM

Oh to win that one!! in the slings and arrows of rivalry... thats a crate of Uzi's

Oh to lose that one! Two edges to that sword.

I don't want any of that matchup. Yeah, beating UCon and UNC back to back to reach the title game sounds great, but losing either of those games would murder me.

sporthenry

03-20-2011, 11:10 PM

FSU finished 3rd in the ACC at 11-5 so that is why they get in.

But they got in and the seed they got b/c Singleton was coming back. If Singleton is out for the year, there is no guarantee that FSU gets in the tournament. And if you are going to knock out Gtown b/c of their injury, similar treatment must be made to FSU.

Orange&BlackSheep

03-20-2011, 11:16 PM

dukelifer

03-20-2011, 11:18 PM

wilko

03-20-2011, 11:21 PM

Oh to lose that one! Two edges to that sword.

I don't want any of that matchup. Yeah, beating UCon and UNC back to back to reach the title game sounds great, but losing either of those games would murder me.

Lotta games to play thats for sure and no guarantees either way..
I like our chances holding that sword.
Biggest possible stage... our Seniors who have been there vs: 2 frosh and a Soph.. The last outing still fresh.. There will never be another moment like it... if they are open take the shot, don't be afraid of the moment. Seize it don't shy away..

And yeah , I'd be losing my mind win lose or draw..

WiJoe

03-20-2011, 11:21 PM

FSU is crushing Notre Dame.

GOOD!

AlaskanAssassin

03-20-2011, 11:28 PM

Would love to have another ACC in the Sweet16! Seeing how we are the weaker conference this year.

dukelifer

03-20-2011, 11:31 PM

GOOD!

well they are letting them back in. FSU could blow this

ikiru36

03-20-2011, 11:34 PM

But they got in and the seed they got b/c Singleton was coming back. If Singleton is out for the year, there is no guarantee that FSU gets in the tournament. And if you are going to knock out Gtown b/c of their injury, similar treatment must be made to FSU.

Even without taking the injury into account, Florida State should have been in as the #39 team in Ken Pom (http://kenpom.com/) (granted there are other metrics but his is pretty all inclusive). Actually, every team ahead of them there made the tournament except for Maryland! That is incredible disrespect for the ACC that Maryland then wasn't even offered an NIT bid. wth!

Who happened to be rated just lower than FSU? St. John's at 40 and Georgetown at 41, yet they both received 6 seeds while FSU received a 10 seed. If that was the committee taking Singleton's return onto account, that displays even more undue bias.

The Big East had a lot of good teams this year and it's actually hard to argue that they didn't deserve 10 or 11 teams in given the RPI numbers and the other metrics the committee supposedly uses. Certainly can't argue that the ACC was superior (even if we should end up with more Sweet 16 teams) in this down year for the league.

Anyways, just wanted to factually disagree about FSU getting in and seeded based upon their returning injury. While that may even be the case, FSU was still underseeded based upon their play without Singleton.

Go Duke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Blue Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

InSpades

03-20-2011, 11:42 PM

Acc 3
be 2
b10 2
mwc 2
sec 2
b12 1
p10 1
a10 1
hor 1
caa 1

Mal

03-20-2011, 11:50 PM

Pretty remarkable, really. 11 teams, not a single one makes the Sweet Sixteen by beating two teams from outside their conference. Granted, only 7 had that opportunity, but, still.

Echoing everyone else's ballyhoos for the 'Noles. It's about freaking time someone not named Duke or UNC made some noise in this thing again for the ACC.

juise

03-20-2011, 11:53 PM

I hate to see Mike Brey go down. If there was one Big East team that made the Sweet 16, I wish it was Notre Dame. Having said that, I love that only two of the eleven are going to advance... and Duke beat one of them.

Big East elitists drive me nuts like SEC football elitists. At least the latter can back up the talk with postseason results!

LSanders

03-21-2011, 12:19 AM

ACC ... 75% of teams make it to the Sweet 16

Big East ... 18% make it.

VA Tech doesn't get in at all. Clemson gets screwed on scheduling.

Ridiculous.

rthomas

03-21-2011, 12:21 AM

Acc 3
be 2
b10 2
mwc 2
sec 2
b12 1
p10 1
a10 1
hor 1
caa 1

The city of Richmond, The state of NC, The state of Florida, all have one thing in common with the mighty mighty Big East. Two teams in the Sweet 16.

loldevilz

03-21-2011, 12:28 AM

ACC ... 75% of teams make it to the Sweet 16

Big East ... 18% make it.

VA Tech doesn't get in at all. Clemson gets screwed on scheduling.

Ridiculous.

Considering how this tournament has unfolded its an absolute disgrace that Virgina Tech didn't get in. Seriously, when is the last time that a team with 2 wins over sweet sixteen teams can't make the tournament field.

-bdbd

03-21-2011, 01:16 AM

Considering how this tournament has unfolded its an absolute disgrace that Virgina Tech didn't get in. Seriously, when is the last time that a team with 2 wins over sweet sixteen teams can't make the tournament field.

ANSWER: Whenever was the last time the Selection Committee was Chaired by the AD at a/the marquee BIG-10/11 school (OSU)?? To me, that is even sweeter than seeing the Big East meltdown -- seeing the Big-10 one, after that selection Committee took 4-of-4 Big-10 bubble teams (versus 1 of 4 for the ACC) and seeded them all equal/better than the 3rd best ACC squad. And still better, at least two and maybe all three ACC teams will be favored in the Sweet 16!

ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC!

:D:eek::p

El_Diablo

03-21-2011, 01:19 AM

Considering how this tournament has unfolded its an absolute disgrace that Virgina Tech didn't get in.

Virginia Tech begs to differ:

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=310790259

uh_no

03-21-2011, 01:21 AM

ANSWER: Whenever was the last time the Selection Committee was Chaired by the AD at a/the marquee BIG-10/11 school (OSU)?? To me, that is even sweeter than seeing the Big East meltdown -- seeing the Big-10 one, after that selection Committee took 4-of-4 Big-10 bubble teams (versus 1 of 4 for the ACC) and seeded them all equal/better than the 3rd best ACC squad. And still better, at least two and maybe all three ACC teams will be favored in the Sweet 16!

ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC! ACC!

:D:eek::p

no doubt they did a terrible job overall....especially with the big 10 bubble teams

sporthenry

03-21-2011, 02:10 AM

Virginia Tech begs to differ:

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=310790259

That game tipped off at 11 on a Sunday at their campus. They had half their arena full and teams that get shafted making the NCAA tourney often have a history of losing b/c they don't really care. Just like you shouldn't really take a team's performance in the NCAA as justification, neither should you take Va. Techs performance in the NIT as proof.

Just like last year when Illinois and Va. Tech both lost relatively early. Most times, the teams who do well in the NIT are teams who are young, had a good second half of their season, and looking to build off a successful tournament like UNC last year or Penn State the year before. Or you see in '08 teams like OSU or Florida play well b/c they had young guys like Lighty/Diebler/Lauderdale and Macklin/Tyus/Parsons who were looking to build something. This Va. Tech team falls under the senior laden team who fell short of their ultimate goal and didn't have much care as to how long their NIT run went.

brevity

03-21-2011, 04:00 AM

I did not say it out loud, but I had a sneaking feeling that the Big East would not have the most Sweet 16 teams. During the season I thought it might be the Big 12 (back when Kansas State, Baylor, and Texas A&M were ranked in the top 20). When the field was set I thought it might be the Big Ten. Never seriously considered the ACC.

Prior to the Round of 16:

9-9 Big East: Connecticut, Marquette
7-1 ACC: Duke, UNC, Florida State
7-5 Big Ten: Ohio State, Wisconsin
4-1 Mountain West: San Diego State, BYU
4-2 Colonial: VCU
4-3 SEC: Florida, Kentucky
4-3 Pac-10: Arizona
4-4 Big 12: Kansas
3-2 Atlantic 10: Richmond
2-0 Horizon: Butler

1-1 Big South, Ohio Valley, Southland, West Coast
0-1 America East, Atlantic Sun, Big Sky, Big West, Ivy, MAAC, MAC, MEAC, Missouri Valley, Northeast, Patriot, Southern, Summit, Sun Belt, SWAC, WAC
0-2 Conference USA

camion

03-21-2011, 06:05 AM

Here's how the brackets look now with Kenpom rank and NCAA seeding. Wish I'd saved Kenpom from before the tournament.

The East, Southeast and West still look okay.
The Southwest has completely blown up.

Team Bracket Kenpom Seed
Ohio State E1 1 1
Kentucky E1 8 4
UNC E2 12 2
Marquette E2 26 11

Wisconsin SE1 4 4
Butler SE1 48 8
BYU SE2 10 3
Florida SE2 16 2

Kansas SW1 3 1
Richmond SW1 37 12
FSU SW2 27 10
VCU SW2 60 11

DUKE W1 2 1
Arizona W1 31 5
SDSU W2 7 2
UConn W2 13 3

Lord Ash

03-21-2011, 07:14 AM

Wow... cake-walk for Kansas.

MarkD83

03-21-2011, 07:22 AM

But they got in and the seed they got b/c Singleton was coming back. If Singleton is out for the year, there is no guarantee that FSU gets in the tournament. And if you are going to knock out Gtown b/c of their injury, similar treatment must be made to FSU.

So under your logic all 16 Big East teams should get in and only 2 ACC teams???????

FSU finished 3rd in the ACC and won games without Singleton down the stretch to finish 3rd.

G;town finished 8th and did not win games down the stretch.

MarkD83

03-21-2011, 07:35 AM

It seems appropriate now to move on and look forward. Regardless of how many teams made it into the tournament from each conference, the 16 remaining teams all deserve to be where they are because they won at least 2 games in the tournament.

Richmond is actually very excited because both VCU and Richmond are in the Sweet 16 with an outside shot of one of them getting to the Final 4.

sporthenry

03-21-2011, 07:41 AM

So under your logic all 16 Big East teams should get in and only 2 ACC teams???????

FSU finished 3rd in the ACC and won games without Singleton down the stretch to finish 3rd.

G;town finished 8th and did not win games down the stretch.

No, I think the ACC probably should have gotten 5 teams but I'm just responding to the absurdity that Georgetown shouldn't have made the tournament. Of course, playing Monday morning QB is easy but all of Georgetown losses came to teams that won a tournament game. FSU beat Wake, Miami, and NC State, hardly a murderer's row. They also lost to 2 (actually 1 if you don't count Va. Tech.) non tournament team.

The committee must be fair in how they deal with injuries. They seemed to give both teams the benefit of the doubt, I guess you could say FSU was a bit underseeded but the 7-10 seeds were pretty interchangeable and getting a 10 was prob better than an 8-9.

The committee chair was very specific saying FSU assured them Singleton would play (granted Hamilton said that was false) and he did play. Wright did play too. But nobody can sit here and tell me how Wright or Singleton would reintegrate back into the line up. Heck, had Duke had a different seed, KI probably doesn't get as much time in his first game and he still look a bit rusty in the second game yet hit the most important basket of the game.

El_Diablo

03-21-2011, 07:52 AM

That game tipped off at 11 on a Sunday at their campus. They had half their arena full and teams that get shafted making the NCAA tourney often have a history of losing b/c they don't really care. Just like you shouldn't really take a team's performance in the NCAA as justification, neither should you take Va. Techs performance in the NIT as proof.

Just like last year when Illinois and Va. Tech both lost relatively early. Most times, the teams who do well in the NIT are teams who are young, had a good second half of their season, and looking to build off a successful tournament like UNC last year or Penn State the year before. Or you see in '08 teams like OSU or Florida play well b/c they had young guys like Lighty/Diebler/Lauderdale and Macklin/Tyus/Parsons who were looking to build something. This Va. Tech team falls under the senior laden team who fell short of their ultimate goal and didn't have much care as to how long their NIT run went.

That's the weakest series of justifications I have heard so far for losing a game. It was a late home game? They "don't really care"? They have seniors?

Regardless, if you consider the post to which I was responding, you will find that my underlying point is not incompatible with the one you are ostensibly attempting to make: that if you want to use tournament outcomes as evidence to support who should have and should not have been included in the field, then Virginia Tech is not a good way to make that argument. They folded like a cheap suit against a team they should have beaten. Sound familiar?

I think Virginia Tech had a good case for inclusion and was in no worse a position than Penn State, Marquette, or Villanova. But when you lose to teams like Georgia Tech and get swept by BC and UVA, you put yourself in a potential position to be disappointed on selection Sunday. And when you're kicking Lee Melchionni in the face or slamming a ball into Andre Dawkins' face, I have no pity for your inability to secure the spot of "68th best team in the country." Sorry, VT.

killerleft

03-21-2011, 11:25 AM

There's 3 things going on right now for sure:

1) The Big East bigwigs are saying, "Did anybody get the name of those buses?".
2) The Big Ten bigwigs are saying, "Let's go get drunk with the Big East guys".
3) The ACC bigwigs are not saying much. It's hard to talk when you're laughing your patootie off.

Here's what it looks like: "Ha ha ha ha ho ho ho ho he he he he tra la la la yip yip yip!"

That is the bottom line. Argue it back and forth and upside down and sideways, the ACC has 3 of 4 representatives in the Sweet Sixteen, the Big East has 2 reps with over 2 times as many chances.

DallasDevil

03-21-2011, 11:39 AM

As a result of the fall of the Big East and strength of ACC tourney play, UNC and Duke are tied for the most wins over fellow Sweet 16 teams, with 4 each. Ohio St and BYU are tied for third with 3 wins each.

killerleft

03-21-2011, 12:21 PM

If ESPN didn't already know they can say whatever they want every year and people will fall for it, perhaps they wouldn't blow the Big East up like a giant balloon ripe for popping.

Pop! Ssssssssssst. A Rite of Spring.

bluepenguin

03-21-2011, 12:35 PM

tbyers11

03-21-2011, 01:23 PM

Here's how the brackets look now with Kenpom rank and NCAA seeding. Wish I'd saved Kenpom from before the tournament.

The East, Southeast and West still look okay.
The Southwest has completely blown up.

I did save the KenPom ratings from the end of the Reg Season. Here is your table with an extra column added.

Team Bracket KenPom KenPom Seed
(3/21) (3/14)
Ohio St E1 1 1 1
UK E1 8 7 4
UNC E2 12 14 2
Marq E2 26 33 11

Wisky SE1 4 9 4
Butler SE1 48 54 8
BYU SE2 10 13 3
Florida SE2 16 19 2

Kansas SW1 3 3 1
Rich SW1 37 46 12
FSU SW2 27 42 10
VCU SW2 60 84 11

Duke W1 2 2 1
Arizona W1 31 25 5
SDSU W2 7 6 2
Uconn W2 13 17 3

Not a whole lot of movement in KenPom ratings after 2 games. The biggest risers were FSU and VCU. FSU jumped up b/c not only did they beat a much higher rated team in ND but they crushed them. Same for VCU, who I believe was the lowest rated at-large team by KenPom, in their blowouts of Georgetown and Purdue. So by looking at the pre-tourney KenPom the SW blew up even more than you thought as FSU ans especially VCU made big jumps over the last two games.

Duke's road got easier because KenPom had Texas ranked much higher than Arizona. Arizona actually dropped 6 spots despite their 2 wins. This has a little to do with not beating Memphis as handily as they were projected to but more with other teams leapfrogging them (FSU, Marquette and even Kansas St, Gonzaga and Michigan).

Kfanarmy

03-21-2011, 01:59 PM

Kfanarmy

03-21-2011, 02:06 PM

Cincinnati and Marquette got screwed by the Committee when they could have easily been moved a seed line and out of the way of better Big East teams. your theory is that the conference that got 2/3 of its teams in the dance, should also get a bye against playing each other until everyone else is out. Frankly, the committee should have made the bottom 8 from the BE play the "round of four" or whatever its being called today, that would have only left 7 (almost 50%) to play on Thursday and Friday. Not a fan of, "they have 16 teams so they all must be really good" impression of the Bog East. They got four or five too many slots in the tourney, why seed them to give them a best chance of moving on?

dukebluelemur

03-21-2011, 02:31 PM

your theory is that the conference that got 2/3 of its teams in the dance, should also get a bye against playing each other until everyone else is out. Frankly, the committee should have made the bottom 8 from the BE play the "round of four" or whatever its being called today, that would have only left 7 (almost 50%) to play on Thursday and Friday. Not a fan of, "they have 16 teams so they all must be really good" impression of the Bog East. They got four or five too many slots in the tourney, why seed them to give them a best chance of moving on?

Given the results, you could argue that giving them lots of match-ups against fellow BE teams WAS giving them the best chance of having BE teams move on...

rsvman

03-21-2011, 02:57 PM

The whole system is fundamentally flawed. Ideas about the strength/weakness of any particular conference are garnered in the pre-season, and then discussed as though they're factual for the entire rest of the season. Since once the conference season starts, you play mostly conference foes, there is not much opportunity for adjustment of those preconceived notions.

In other words, once it is decided that your conference is "strong," your losses are forgiven because you lost to "strong" teams, and the converse is also true. The ACC was "down" this year, and therefore any loss in the conference is played up as a disaster, and wins are blown off as expected. But why was the ACC deemed to be "down"? And when was that decided? Some whisperings were out there even before the season began, but when the ACC lost the ACC/Big Ten challenge, it was a done deal. The ACC was weak. But if you go back to the ACC/Big Ten challenge and take a closer look, the entire thing pretty much came down to one missed last-second shot by Virginia Tech. If that shot had gone in, would the ACC not have been weak?

It's ridiculous. Yes, our huge loss to St. John's cemented all the preconceived notions. But it was an aberration. Bad games happen. Because we lost to St. John's, do I think Duke would have finished 7th or 8th in the Big East? Heck no.

It gets worse. The committee uses RPI pretty heavily, but RPI is also biased. Further, they make decisions, including seeding decisions, with the team names attached. I wonder how different the seedings would have been if each team resume were presented anonymously, and only unmasked AFTER seeding decisions were made? To me, it seems the whole process would be more likely to be disinterested if it were done in this way.

NovaScotian

03-21-2011, 03:07 PM

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/big-easts-performance-is-upsetting-but-its-no-failure/?hp

nate silver brings it with the dope statistical analysis

sporthenry

03-21-2011, 03:11 PM

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/big-easts-performance-is-upsetting-but-its-no-failure/?hp

nate silver brings it with the dope statistical analysis

I think that about sums it up. The BE got the moniker as a strong conference b/c they had winning records against every other conference. In addition, he hits on another point where most BE teams are good but not great and that would lead to some overseeding.

A-Tex Devil

03-21-2011, 03:22 PM

I am a Big East hater, but the Big East was clearly better than the ACC this year. There isn't really an argument. I agree that the Big East choked big time in the tourney, but it didn't help that they had to cannibalize each other in 2 games. The committee is supposed to avoid conference match-ups in the first 2 rounds, and could easily have switched a couple of games to avoid second round match-ups. I read at least 3 different scenarios where this could have occurred without affecting anyone's seed by more than 1 - always the lower seed. So I won't defend the committee here, and it absolutely hurt the Big East's chances of more sweet 16 seeds. That's inarguable no matter how you feel about whether it was right. 2 Big East teams were going down before the Sweet 16 NO MATTER WHAT.

The ACC was as down this year as any time in my lifetime. That's just a fact. That said, I am happy that Florida St. was able to play even better than they did against Duke and upset Notre Dame. I have a bracket with Florida St. in the elite 8, so I knew they had it in them. But upsets happen in the tourney. I watched Notre Dame and Florida St. play this year, and Notre Dame was better. They just weren't last night.

Despite the outcome of this tourney, no one in their right mind can look at 2007 through 2011 and say that the ACC is even remotely comparable to the Big East. Florida St. is the first ACC team to make the Sweet 16 other than Duke or Carolina since Boston College in 2006. In that time frame, Villanova, Georgetown, West Virginia, Louisville, and Connecticut have all made the final four. Pitt and Syracuse have been to the Sweet 16. Marquette is going this year.

So schadenfreude it up all you want, and I get that UNC and Duke have won 4 of the last 10 titles, and each have a chance to do it again this year. But no one considered the Big 8 the best conference in football when Sooners and the Huskers went at it in the '70s and the '80s. And I don't want to play in a basketball version of 1970s and 1980s Big 8 football. That's what the ACC is becoming.

uh_no

03-21-2011, 03:23 PM

I think that about sums it up. The BE got the moniker as a strong conference b/c they had winning records against every other conference. In addition, he hits on another point where most BE teams are good but not great and that would lead to some overseeding.

the winning record against OOC top 25 opponents, the overall record against other conferences, and the horde of preseason championships and runners up they collected is very telling also

nate nails it on the head....generally very objective in his analysis

A-Tex Devil

03-21-2011, 03:28 PM

... and I agree with the Nate Silver article and DeCourcy's earlier one that the Big East doesn't have a ton of uber-talented teams, NBA-wise, and that was a reason to not pick those teams to light up the trouney. But the fact is the Big East beat who they played out of conference (see St. John's, Villanova, UConn, Syracuse for examples). Once you are into conference play, those games still are on the record. I didn't have a problem with any of the Big East teams' seeds in this tourney other than maybe Villanova.

uh_no

03-21-2011, 03:32 PM

I didn't have a problem with any of the Big East teams' seeds in this tourney other than maybe Villanova.

Obviously I'm a big east fan, but I thought the seeds were high in some cases.

NC as a 2 and villanova as a 6 particularly...I thought marquette should have been in a play in. I also thought uconn was an overseed as an enormous amount of weight was placed on the tournament (they were down as a 6-7 seed coming in....) they really hadn't beaten any of the top teams in the league, they lost to syracuse, louisville, ND twice, and pittsburgh (until the tournament)....given marquette and uconn are the two teams left....

so I think the issue with the big east, and possibly why they had so many 'upsets' is because they were in fact overseeded all around....Given I did think pitt was a 1 seed, and thought they were the best team in the country.....they proved me wrong...

killerleft

03-21-2011, 03:51 PM

Tarheels choking was a rite of spring.

I'm not excluding that one, of course!:)

killerleft

03-21-2011, 04:17 PM

All of the posts suggesting that the Big East isn't overrated should be coming from people who think the BCS system in football is an ideal way to pick the best teams:D

I thought the games are played to put an end to the arguments about winners and losers. Ya win and move on. Ya lose and go home. Lots of Big East bullies are home. They had their bluff called and were found insufficient. They were assimilated by the Borg. They are deceased. Bury the parrots after unnailing them from their perch in the ESPN studios (apologies to John Cleese). They are dead to me.

Um... sorry! Got carried away there. Just wanted to make it clear that whatever else can be said about the Big East, nine out of eleven BE teams are not playing and are not relevant to the NCAA tournament any longer.

Is this a good way to describe the Big East if one is tired of hearing about how good they are? Well, I like it!

uh_no

03-21-2011, 04:48 PM

All of the posts suggesting that the Big East isn't overrated should be coming from people who think the BCS system in football is an ideal way to pick the best teams:D

I think you couldn't be more wrong. I talked about earlier how as much as we like to debate who's overrated and underrated, it's all irrelevant. At the start of conference tournaments, every team is eligible. After that you just have to win....big east teams didn't do that, so they're going home. Whether they are that bad or not is an orthogonal issue.

loldevilz

03-21-2011, 04:52 PM

I don't know how people cannot see how badly the national media missed on this big east this year. Most of the year there were 8 or 9 Big East teams in the top 25.

uh_no

03-21-2011, 04:59 PM

I don't know how people cannot see how badly the national media missed on this big east this year. Most of the year there were 8 or 9 Big East teams in the top 25.

read the post earlier from nate silver on 538's blog....its pretty clear that they didn't miss, and that the league underperformed in the tournament

A-Tex Devil

03-21-2011, 05:23 PM

I don't know how people cannot see how badly the national media missed on this big east this year. Most of the year there were 8 or 9 Big East teams in the top 25.

Well considering they were the best performing conference heading into conference play, I think it's pretty reasonable. Everyone is reassessing whole season based on what amounts to 4 games -- Louisville/Morehead (heh), ND/FSU, Pitt/Butler and VCU/Georgetown. I couldn't be happier that the Big East choked, but they were still the best conference this year. And the ACC still has a expletive-ton of work to do to catch up.

KU lost in the second round last year. It doesn't mean the "national media" was wrong. But if they replayed that whole thing again and I was aware of the N.Iowa upset, gun to my head, they and I still would pick them to win the tourney last year. Thankfully, that's impossible.

SCMatt33

03-21-2011, 05:32 PM

read the post earlier from nate silver on 538's blog....its pretty clear that they didn't miss, and that the league underperformed in the tournament

I totally agree. The Big East is a very good conference that had a bunch of teams who either choked (see Nova hitting the side of the backboard on a game tying shot), or were the victim of nightmare match ups (ND would have likely beaten most 7-10 seeds, but FSU was the only one who had a defense better than ND's offense).

J.Blink

03-21-2011, 05:35 PM

read the post earlier from nate silver on 538's blog....its pretty clear that they didn't miss, and that the league underperformed in the tournament

That's the blog/model that didn't predict a SINGLE upset in the entire tournament, right?

Silver may be a statistical whiz, but I'm not sure what he's bringing to the table here.

pfrduke

03-21-2011, 05:50 PM

That's the blog/model that didn't predict a SINGLE upset in the entire tournament, right?

Silver may be a statistical whiz, but I'm not sure what he's bringing to the table here.

Predicting an upset statistically is a bit of an oxymoron (depending on what you mean by upset). Statistical models, generally speaking, are designed to identify the best teams; in head-to-head matchups, they show which team is better. Thus, every prediction based on a statistical model is "better team wins." To have a statistical model predict an upset - i.e., predict a result wherein "better team loses" - is inherently contradictory.

Now, if you're talking seed-line upsets (e.g., an 11 over a 6), then yes, Silver's model did identify matchups where the lower seed was the better team. At the very least, it had Gonzaga over St. John's. But again, the model was predicting not that a weaker Gonzaga team would beat a better St. John's team, but that, despite seeds, Gonzaga was the better team.

Mal

03-21-2011, 05:57 PM

I am a Big East hater, but the Big East was clearly better than the ACC this year... I don't want to play in a basketball version of 1970s and 1980s Big 8 football. That's what the ACC is becoming.

I agree with everything A-Tex said, with one minor quibble. While it was true that the Big East was guaranteed no more than 9 possible spots in the Sweet 16, it's still worth noting that the only two teams they did get there were the ones who beat a conference rival this weekend. All they had to do was have those teams win their first game and they were then guaranteed at least two spots further on. And, based on how badly a number of teams underperformed (and how easily Syracuse gave in to the 11th best team in the conference last night), it's entirely possible that had they not been set up the way they were, they mightn't have gotten ANY teams through the first weekend.

I found your Oklahoma/Nebraska football analogy incredibly apt, and scary. We've got a long ways to go to get back to ACC dominance in basketball.

One final thought and then I'm through with this thread (although I'll enjoy the second straight year of Big East schadenfreude ice cream for a while more): I'd like to see the Big East split into divisions. It's just so impossible to compare schedules amongst the teams in the conference when no two are alike. It probably helps them get more bids, based on that perception of a bunch of good teams beating up on one another, and likewise probably gets them higher seeds than they deserve. So I don't they'd do it unless and until the Committee started punishing them for the lack of clarity the lumped conference setup engenders, but I think that clarity might help. I don't know how you schedule with two 8 team divisions, though. Round robin in your division plus play every team on the other side every other year?

uh_no

03-21-2011, 06:08 PM

One final thought and then I'm through with this thread (although I'll enjoy the second straight year of Big East schadenfreude ice cream for a while more): I'd like to see the Big East split into divisions. It's just so impossible to compare schedules amongst the teams in the conference when no two are alike. It probably helps them get more bids, based on that perception of a bunch of good teams beating up on one another, and likewise probably gets them higher seeds than they deserve. So I don't they'd do it unless and until the Committee started punishing them for the lack of clarity the lumped conference setup engenders, but I think that clarity might help. I don't know how you schedule with two 8 team divisions, though. Round robin in your division plus play every team on the other side every other year?

Couple issues here: first with 16 and soon to be 17 teams, what would divisions accomplish? you can't have a double round robin within the conference and still play everyone.

Second, the committee doesn't care because they don't evaluate teams on a conference basis, they evaluate them on an individual basis: they say team x beat a b and c and lost to d and e. They don't say oh the big east west division is weaker therefore a 10-8 record isn't worth as much. They also don't slot 11 big east teams based on the strength of the conference: they slot teams individually and it happened that they thought 11 big east teams were among the best 68 in the country.

A-Tex Devil

03-21-2011, 06:35 PM

I agree with everything A-Tex said, with one minor quibble. While it was true that the Big East was guaranteed no more than 9 possible spots in the Sweet 16, it's still worth noting that the only two teams they did get there were the ones who beat a conference rival this weekend. All they had to do was have those teams win their first game and they were then guaranteed at least two spots further on. And, based on how badly a number of teams underperformed (and how easily Syracuse gave in to the 11th best team in the conference last night), it's entirely possible that had they not been set up the way they were, they mightn't have gotten ANY teams through the first weekend.

I found your Oklahoma/Nebraska football analogy incredibly apt, and scary. We've got a long ways to go to get back to ACC dominance in basketball.

Great point on the flip side of the Big East teams playing each other in second round. I was ignoring that.

The ACC needs better coaches. Period. I hope that the new class of Bennett, Donahue and Brownell can continue their improvements as well as whoever ends up at NC State, Georgia Tech, and next year, hopefully, Miami. The ACC was once a coaches' conference, and good coaches attract the players needed to make great teams. The string of fired coaches in the ACC have either failed to recruit well enough (Skinner, Haith, Leitao, Shyatt) or were unable to turn big time recruits with potential NBA talent into success (Hewitt, Lowe, Gaudio, Steve Robinson to an extent)

cptnflash

03-21-2011, 07:42 PM

Three words: Small. Sample. Size.

What happens in the tournament says almost nothing about the overall quality of any conference.

That being said, I'm as proud as anyone that the ACC could easily wind up with three teams in the Elite Eight. Of course, I'd prefer it was only two (I'm looking at you, UNC).

Wander

03-21-2011, 08:05 PM

uh_no

03-21-2011, 08:43 PM

Charles Barkley got it exactly right. The Big East had great coaches but (relatively) mediocre talent. Only one guy - one, out of sixteen teams! - is projected to go in the 1st round of the draft this year. Compare that to Irving, Singler, Nolan, Barnes, Henson, Singleton from the ACC. Or multiple guys from Kansas and Texas each, plus Baylor's Jones and Colorado's Burks from the Big 12. This is the reason for the underachievement - not luck or sample size.

(Alternatively, we can take the optimistic spin that they overachieved during the regular season rather than underachieving during the post-season).

who cares what the guys do in the NBA? would you say last years duke team was devoid of talent because it did not put any guys in the first round of the draft? if its you cant damn the duke team as talentless on this criterion, how can you damn a whole conference?

Wander

03-21-2011, 08:59 PM

who cares what the guys do in the NBA? would you say last years duke team was devoid of talent because it did not put any guys in the first round of the draft? if its you cant damn the duke team as talentless on this criterion, how can you damn a whole conference?

Duke did have a guy who was projected as a 1st round pick at the end of last season. Duke 2010 had more NBA talent than every single 2011 Big East team except maybe UConn. Maybe.

Not trying to take anything away from guys like Ben Hansbrough, but it really is remarkable how (again, relatively) little NBA talent there is in the conference.

I should add that I agree with you on the number of teams. Not sure how anyone could argue for any of the 11 teams being left out of the tournament.

uh_no

03-21-2011, 09:11 PM

Duke did have a guy who was projected as a 1st round pick at the end of last season. Duke 2010 had more NBA talent than every single 2011 Big East team except maybe UConn. Maybe.

Not trying to take anything away from guys like Ben Hansbrough, but it really is remarkable how (again, relatively) little NBA talent there is in the conference.

kemba walker, marshon brooks, rick jackson, justin brownlee, austin freeman, brad wannamaker, and ben hansbrough are all projected to go in this year's draft....

overall projections
Big East:7
ACC: 5
Big 10: 8
SEC: 8
Big 12:8

It would appear to me that the talent is pretty well spread across all conferences....

rsvman

03-21-2011, 09:27 PM

Three words: Small. Sample. Size.

What happens in the tournament says almost nothing about the overall quality of any conference.

......

Or, you could make a cogent counter-argument that winning tournament games and championships is what great teams do; that greatness is not measured simply by a regular season record. Using this argument, you could argue that Pitt, while certainly one of the top regular-season teams of the past 2-3 years, has never really defined itself as a "great" team, because it was never able to come through when it mattered most.

cspan37421

03-21-2011, 09:37 PM

Three words: Small. Sample. Size.

What happens in the tournament says almost nothing about the overall quality of any conference.

+1. And beyond that - what happens in the tournament does not negate what happened in the regular season. And by both statistical rating services I've seen (Kenpom, Sagarin), the Big East was the best in the regular season. Yes, we're all proud of the ACC's performance in the NCAA tournament - but that is unrelated to how our conference did during the season, where by Kenpom and Sagarin, I think we were the 4th or 5th best conference overall, depending on when I looked at it.

And let's not forget, our performance in the NCAAs is largely Duke and Carolina (4-0 combined), with FSU and Clemson combining for 3-1. We only got in 4. Had we gotten in more, they might have (even probably would have) put up a bunch of 0-1 and 1-1 records like the Big Televen or Big East.

mgtr

03-21-2011, 09:51 PM

I heard that they were thinking of changing the name to Little East. Just sayin'. :D

El_Diablo

03-21-2011, 09:53 PM

+1. And beyond that - what happens in the tournament does not negate what happened in the regular season. And by both statistical rating services I've seen (Kenpom, Sagarin), the Big East was the best in the regular season. Yes, we're all proud of the ACC's performance in the NCAA tournament - but that is unrelated to how our conference did during the season, where by Kenpom and Sagarin, I think we were the 4th or 5th best conference overall, depending on when I looked at it.

And let's not forget, our performance in the NCAAs is largely Duke and Carolina (4-0 combined), with FSU and Clemson combining for 3-1. We only got in 4. Had we gotten in more, they might have (even probably would have) put up a bunch of 0-1 and 1-1 records like the Big Televen or Big East.

Kenpom actually had the Big Ten as the top conference, by a relatively wide margin.

EDIT: I'm not sure which conference Sagarin ranked higher pre-tourney, but as of now, he has the Big Ten as the top conference now too (and I doubt there was much movement since the season ended, due to the small sample size everyone keeps citing).

tbyers11

03-21-2011, 10:06 PM

kemba walker, marshon brooks, rick jackson, justin brownlee, austin freeman, brad wannamaker, and ben hansbrough are all projected to go in this year's draft....

overall projections
Big East:7
ACC: 5
Big 10: 8
SEC: 8
Big 12:8

It would appear to me that the talent is pretty well spread across all conferences....

It is not borderline NBA talent that usually wins NCAA tourneys, it is the elite (first-round) talent. Using Draft Express 2011 mock draft, they have 5 ACC players in the first round (Irving, Barnes, Henson, Nolan, Singleton) to 1 Big East (Kemba). They also have Shumpert (#3 2nd round, #33 overall) and Singler (#6 2nd round, #36 overall) before the 2nd Big East player. The Big East does have 7 players ranked #41-56.

So you are correct about the total numbers of 7 for ACC and 8 for Big East but quantity does not always mean quality. The Big East was a better conference this year and IMO deserved all 11 bids but its lack of elite talent is a big reason why only 2 of 11 teams made it to the second weekend and neither of them is favored to make the Final Four.

J.Blink

03-21-2011, 10:13 PM

(depending on what you mean by upset).

I was using the commonly understood meaning of upset -- a lower seeded team defeating
a higher seeded team.

Now, if you're talking seed-line upsets (e.g., an 11 over a 6), then yes, Silver's model did identify matchups where the lower seed was the better team. At the very least, it had Gonzaga over St. John's. But again, the model was predicting not that a weaker Gonzaga team would beat a better St. John's team, but that, despite seeds, Gonzaga was the better team.

Really? I must have missed that... I thought that Silver's original bracket (which I can't seem to find now--he updates his predictions as the tournament progresses) did not have a single lower seeded team beating a higher seed.

throatybeard

03-21-2011, 10:20 PM

Had we gotten in more, they might have (even probably would have) put up a bunch of 0-1 and 1-1 records like the Big Televen or Big East.

Finally some logic here. Bravo, sir.

cspan37421

03-21-2011, 10:21 PM

I heard that they were thinking of changing the name to Little East. Just sayin'. :D

you mean Lil'East, which will be further shortened to L'east.

cspan37421

03-21-2011, 10:28 PM

Kenpom actually had the Big Ten as the top conference, by a relatively wide margin.

EDIT: I'm not sure which conference Sagarin ranked higher pre-tourney, but as of now, he has the Big Ten as the top conference now too (and I doubt there was much movement since the season ended, due to the small sample size everyone keeps citing).

On the dates that I looked up the conference rankings, which were far fewer times than the when I looked up Duke and their next opponent individually, it was (IIRC) Big East, then Big Ten, then I forget, maybe Pac 10, then ACC. I think I once looked and saw us as 5th, but it wasn't the SEC that was in there at 4th. I just can't remember which conference it was. Maybe Big 12 or something.

But yes, those sites keep updating, so what I saw then is certainly out of date now, and I would suspect, that's the reason for the Big East no longer appearing as the top conference. Even now, through 3/20, the big Televen is scarcely higher than the Big East. 0.08 pts, for Sagarin. Kenpom has the gap quite a bit wider, but still that order.

-jk

03-21-2011, 10:35 PM

Given how the ACC teams not on 15-501 have fared the last several years, we aren't arguing from a particularly strong position here...

-jk

NovaScotian

03-21-2011, 11:09 PM

Given how the ACC teams not on 15-501 have fared the last several years, we aren't arguing from a particularly strong position here...

-jk

yea, let's not get ahead of ourselves based on one weekend of performance. don't forget the entire body of work this season which put over half of the big east in as compared to just a third of the acc.

sporthenry

03-22-2011, 03:56 AM

It is not borderline NBA talent that usually wins NCAA tourneys, it is the elite (first-round) talent. Using Draft Express 2011 mock draft, they have 5 ACC players in the first round (Irving, Barnes, Henson, Nolan, Singleton) to 1 Big East (Kemba). They also have Shumpert (#3 2nd round, #33 overall) and Singler (#6 2nd round, #36 overall) before the 2nd Big East player. The Big East does have 7 players ranked #41-56.

So you are correct about the total numbers of 7 for ACC and 8 for Big East but quantity does not always mean quality. The Big East was a better conference this year and IMO deserved all 11 bids but its lack of elite talent is a big reason why only 2 of 11 teams made it to the second weekend and neither of them is favored to make the Final Four.

Well the logical counter would be last year's Duke team who had 1 first rounder and Kyle was projected a late one. Nolan was not a first rounder last year althoug he probably developed enough to be there now. But if you even look at the final 4 last year, MSU didn't have a 1st rounder and Draymond Green might get to the NBA. WVU had 2 second rounders. Butler had Hayward and Mack but Mack is currently projected to go in the second round (although he should go up from there).

And the year before that, UNC did have Ellington, Lawson, Hansbrough, and Davis among others. UNC was probably the last great complete basketball team. But the other 3 final 4 teams had little NBA talent with Nova led by Scottie Reynolds who can't crack the league although Dante Cunningham has a decent career but nothing special. MSU was led by Raymar Morgan who is across the pond and UCONN was led by Stanley Robinson, AJ Price, Thabeet, and Jeff Adrien.

I know Barkeley brought up he looks at the team with the most NBA talent and he looks like a genius now b/c of the Big East, but since people are leaving early, an experienced team not led by top NBA picks has had more success than those full of NBA talent although I guess UK was a 3 away from disproving that theory last year but 5 first rounders got them nothing last year. But this year will probably be no different as their is no dominant team. OSU has Sullinger, but after that they have Lighty and Buford who are middle of the pack pro prospects but again nothing special. KU has the Morris' twins and Robinson but Taylor/Selby haven't really developed into NBA talents at this point. And Duke has KI with Kyle and Nolan as late first rounders.

So I'm not buying the team with elite talent will win b/c teams seem to only have 1-2 elite NBA talent players in the eyes of scouts. Give me Jon, Brian and Lance who are borderline NBA talents over Cousins, Wall, and Orton any day.

Spret42

03-22-2011, 08:44 AM

Well the logical counter would be last year's Duke team who had 1 first rounder and Kyle was projected a late one. Nolan was not a first rounder last year althoug he probably developed enough to be there now. But if you even look at the final 4 last year, MSU didn't have a 1st rounder and Draymond Green might get to the NBA. WVU had 2 second rounders. Butler had Hayward and Mack but Mack is currently projected to go in the second round (although he should go up from there).

And the year before that, UNC did have Ellington, Lawson, Hansbrough, and Davis among others. UNC was probably the last great complete basketball team. But the other 3 final 4 teams had little NBA talent with Nova led by Scottie Reynolds who can't crack the league although Dante Cunningham has a decent career but nothing special. MSU was led by Raymar Morgan who is across the pond and UCONN was led by Stanley Robinson, AJ Price, Thabeet, and Jeff Adrien.

I know Barkeley brought up he looks at the team with the most NBA talent and he looks like a genius now b/c of the Big East, but since people are leaving early, an experienced team not led by top NBA picks has had more success than those full of NBA talent although I guess UK was a 3 away from disproving that theory last year but 5 first rounders got them nothing last year. But this year will probably be no different as their is no dominant team. OSU has Sullinger, but after that they have Lighty and Buford who are middle of the pack pro prospects but again nothing special. KU has the Morris' twins and Robinson but Taylor/Selby haven't really developed into NBA talents at this point. And Duke has KI with Kyle and Nolan as late first rounders.

So I'm not buying the team with elite talent will win b/c teams seem to only have 1-2 elite NBA talent players in the eyes of scouts. Give me Jon, Brian and Lance who are borderline NBA talents over Cousins, Wall, and Orton any day.

Moderately experienced elite talent wins tournament games historically. Picking on the Kentucky team from last year is unfair. They were all freshman and the tournament was missing a ton of players. A list of players who could have been competing in last year's tournament as juniors or less: Micheal Beasley, Kevin Love, Jrue Holiday, Blake Griffin, Johnny Flynn, Tyreke Evans, Derek Rose, James Harden, Austin Daye, DeJuan Blair, Jeff Teague and James Johnson.

Do you think Syracuse and K-State lose tight games to Butler if Johnny Flynn and Michael Beasley are on those teams. K-State is probably a one seed with Beasley. How good is Memphis with a back court of Rose and Evans. How good is UCLA with Love and Holiday? Does Pitt go farther with DeJuan Blair. Do they lose a tight game to Xavier with Blair dominating the glass? How much better is Wake last year with Teague and Johnson, I don't think they lose to that Kentucky team by 30 in the second round.

If Cousins, Wall and Orton were juniors (which obviously would never happen) you wouldn't make that deal except maybe out of a desire to have "nicer kids" on your team. Cousins, Wall and Orton as juniors against last years field?

Respectfully, I have to think Barkley was right.

Like someone said, check NBAdraft.net right now and look at the projected top 15 picks. 11 of them are still playing.

Saratoga2

03-22-2011, 08:44 AM

uh_no

03-22-2011, 08:50 AM

I still think the tournment committee ought to look at recent historical trends and limit the number of teams from conferences who have poor tournament records while giving the benefit of the doubt to teams from other conferences.

Instead of analyzing teams based on their merits? yeah that makes sense

cspan37421

03-22-2011, 09:41 AM

With more tournament to go, it is unwise to crow too loudly. UConn and Marquette can still win games and all the ACC can still go out in the next round.

What is still clear though, is that the Big East was overrated both last year and this. I still think the tournment committee ought to look at recent historical trends and limit the number of teams from conferences who have poor tournament records while giving the benefit of the doubt to teams from other conferences.

Look at the teams in the sweet 16 this year. Butler, BYU, SDSU, Richmond and VCU have made it and three of those were lower seeds. The pundits all were complaining about VCU even getting a bid. Perhaps Colorado, Virginia Tech and others could have reduced the number from the Big East to 9 or even 8 as a more reasonable approach.

I also beg to differ sharply. This sort of reasoning strikes me as fallacious. I'm not sure if it's quite a post hoc ergo propter hoc situation but I would say this: just because VCU won a couple of games in the NCAAT at time (t + 1) does not necessarily mean they were deserving (over others) of an at-large bid at time (t).

I also disagree about looking at conference tournament records in years past as a basis for allocating current year bids. Such a practice would create a unfair bias. If a chronic underperformance in the NCAAT is an issue, then maybe conference statistical ranking systems need to be looked at, but if the methodology is right going in, what are you supposed to do?

skopi

03-22-2011, 10:03 AM

Record vs BCS teams in non-league play

Big East 29-16 (.644)
Big 12: 25-20 (.555)
ACC: 24-27 (.470)
Big 10: 17-20 (.459)
Pac 10: 12-19 (.387)
SEC: 19-24 (.441)

Obviously, though, the Big East has not performed as well in a one and done tournament.

How do set the NCAA tourney field? Based on what you think they can do in the tournament or what they did during the regular season?

uh_no

03-22-2011, 10:16 AM

How do set the NCAA tourney field? Based on what you think they can do in the tournament or what they did during the regular season?

Generally speaking what you've done in the regular season correlates to what you can do in the tournament, though obviously not always....thats why most champs and final 4 teams have had terrific 30ish win years before the tournament starts, and teams on the bubble generally don't make it out of the first or second round....obvsiouly there are counterexamples...if I had time and motivation I'd do a regression between record against top 25/50 teams and number of games won in the tournament, but I don't have the time....but no doubt you would see some correlation

toooskies

03-22-2011, 10:19 AM

The level of performance for each team has varied over the course of the year, and entrance in the tournament theoretically doesn't depend on who's playing best right now. Entrance into the tournament is based on the entire body of work.

In other words: entrance into the tournament is a year-long achievement measure based on year-long performance. Wins in the tournament are right-now achievements based on right-now performance.

The Big East seems to collapse annually in the tournament, but I think it's more due to the fact that all of those good teams are still used to losing games. Every game of the conference season was a "big game". There's plenty of tape for their next opponent to look at with successful strategies of beating them. Except for Syracuse, most teams in the Big East play conventional offense and defense, making the game plans easier to come up with.

Point being, the BE hurt itself in the tournament by having so many good teams.

Duvall

03-22-2011, 10:21 AM

Record vs BCS teams in non-league play

Big East 29-16 (.644)
Big 12: 25-20 (.555)
ACC: 24-27 (.470)
Big 10: 17-20 (.459)
Pac 10: 12-19 (.387)
SEC: 19-24 (.441)

So a sample size of 30-45 games is adequate, but a sample size of 20-25 games is too small to draw anything from?

sporthenry

03-22-2011, 10:23 AM

Moderately experienced elite talent wins tournament games historically. Picking on the Kentucky team from last year is unfair. They were all freshman and the tournament was missing a ton of players. A list of players who could have been competing in last year's tournament as juniors or less: Micheal Beasley, Kevin Love, Jrue Holiday, Blake Griffin, Johnny Flynn, Tyreke Evans, Derek Rose, James Harden, Austin Daye, DeJuan Blair, Jeff Teague and James Johnson.

Do you think Syracuse and K-State lose tight games to Butler if Johnny Flynn and Michael Beasley are on those teams. K-State is probably a one seed with Beasley. How good is Memphis with a back court of Rose and Evans. How good is UCLA with Love and Holiday? Does Pitt go farther with DeJuan Blair. Do they lose a tight game to Xavier with Blair dominating the glass? How much better is Wake last year with Teague and Johnson, I don't think they lose to that Kentucky team by 30 in the second round.

If Cousins, Wall and Orton were juniors (which obviously would never happen) you wouldn't make that deal except maybe out of a desire to have "nicer kids" on your team. Cousins, Wall and Orton as juniors against last years field?

Respectfully, I have to think Barkley was right.

Like someone said, check NBAdraft.net right now and look at the projected top 15 picks. 11 of them are still playing.

Yes, but those moderately experienced elite talent teams are few and far between. The last complete team in basketball was probably UNC and before that Florida.

You are missing the major point that with the kids leaving, this experience for top talent just isn't there. Wait till the final 4 before we see how many NBA lottery picks are left. How many of them are upper classmen? You can't just cite who could be in today's tournament. My point is that I would rather have experience players like Z, Scheyer, and Thomas than lottery picks. You don't get to make stuff up and put Wall, Cousins, and Bledsoe on your team as juniors all of a sudden.

It will probably take a rule change or luck to see another complete team in NCAA like Florida with legit lottery talent at multiple positions with experience. But if you have to take experience or lottery talent, experience probably has a better chance than talent to make a FF.

tbyers11

03-22-2011, 10:25 AM

Well the logical counter would be last year's Duke team who had 1 first rounder and Kyle was projected a late one. Nolan was not a first rounder last year althoug he probably developed enough to be there now. But if you even look at the final 4 last year, MSU didn't have a 1st rounder and Draymond Green might get to the NBA. WVU had 2 second rounders. Butler had Hayward and Mack but Mack is currently projected to go in the second round (although he should go up from there).

And the year before that, UNC did have Ellington, Lawson, Hansbrough, and Davis among others. UNC was probably the last great complete basketball team. But the other 3 final 4 teams had little NBA talent with Nova led by Scottie Reynolds who can't crack the league although Dante Cunningham has a decent career but nothing special. MSU was led by Raymar Morgan who is across the pond and UCONN was led by Stanley Robinson, AJ Price, Thabeet, and Jeff Adrien.

I know Barkeley brought up he looks at the team with the most NBA talent and he looks like a genius now b/c of the Big East, but since people are leaving early, an experienced team not led by top NBA picks has had more success than those full of NBA talent although I guess UK was a 3 away from disproving that theory last year but 5 first rounders got them nothing last year. But this year will probably be no different as their is no dominant team. OSU has Sullinger, but after that they have Lighty and Buford who are middle of the pack pro prospects but again nothing special. KU has the Morris' twins and Robinson but Taylor/Selby haven't really developed into NBA talents at this point. And Duke has KI with Kyle and Nolan as late first rounders.

So I'm not buying the team with elite talent will win b/c teams seem to only have 1-2 elite NBA talent players in the eyes of scouts. Give me Jon, Brian and Lance who are borderline NBA talents over Cousins, Wall, and Orton any day.

Buried at the bottom of this article (http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/03/ncaa_tournament_bracket_dos_an.html) is the stat that I was vaguely referencing when I mentioned that elite NBA talent on your team usually wins NCAA championships. 19 of the last 22 NCAA champs have had at least 2 NBA first round draft picks on their roster. This doesn't count Duke 2010 which will also fit the bill if Kyle is a late 1st round pick or if Mason evolves into one to go along with Nolan.

I wasn't referring to teams that got to the Final Four but the teams that won it all. Your example from 2009 with UNC pretty much sums up my argument.

Elite talent, especially in this era when it elite talent tends to be very young, does not guarantee a championship. However, since 22 years is a fairly large sample size, it does seem that a championship requires elite talent.

uh_no

03-22-2011, 10:27 AM

So a sample size of 30-45 games is adequate, but a sample size of 20-25 games is too small to draw anything from?

45 games vs 14? yeah I'd say thats a pretty big difference in sample size

Spret42

03-22-2011, 01:28 PM

Yes, but those moderately experienced elite talent teams are few and far between. The last complete team in basketball was probably UNC and before that Florida.

You are missing the major point that with the kids leaving, this experience for top talent just isn't there. Wait till the final 4 before we see how many NBA lottery picks are left. How many of them are upper classmen? You can't just cite who could be in today's tournament. My point is that I would rather have experience players like Z, Scheyer, and Thomas than lottery picks. You don't get to make stuff up and put Wall, Cousins, and Bledsoe on your team as juniors all of a sudden.

It will probably take a rule change or luck to see another complete team in NCAA like Florida with legit lottery talent at multiple positions with experience. But if you have to take experience or lottery talent, experience probably has a better chance than talent to make a FF.

I suppose my point is you take the talent first because the experienced moderate stuff figures itself out. The Sheyers, Hendersons and Zoubecks are great, but you never take them first over the elite talent because they are easier to find. Most teams have at least a little bit of experienced moderate talent. Kentucky, due to its ridiculous running off of coaches, left itself in a situation where all it had was baby elite talent.
And remember, Kentucky was one horrible shooting night away from a final four.

That is also the reason that the amount of elite talent missing from last years tournament matters. It allowed the best team of moderate talents to win. You don't start swearing off the more rare commodity because of one year where that commodity was nowhere to be found.

This is all Barkley was trying to illustrate when he said the Big East just isn't that good and it is a lack of talent that is the problem. Ripping the Big East for under performing when there isn't any elite or even draft worthy players across the league is sort of silly. No one wins without elite or draft worthy talent unless there isn't any across the board. UNC isn't in the sweet 16 without the one elite player right now and don't kid yourself. He matters.

For a Duke fan to say he would rather take the Sheyer, Henderson and Zoubeck over elite, draft worthy talent after years of watching elite draft worthy talent push Duke to ridiculous heights is...well..again, kinda silly. Trust me, coach K is still searching for that rare elite talent. Irving and Rivers got scholarship offers before their classes version of John Sheyer did.

The thing about the KY guys as juniors was a throw away line and I should have deleted it cause it skewed my argument.

Duvall

03-22-2011, 01:31 PM

45 games vs 14? yeah I'd say thats a pretty big difference in sample size

The Big East will play at least 20 games in the NCAA Tournament.

uh_no

03-22-2011, 01:35 PM

The Big East will play at least 20 games in the NCAA Tournament.

You must first discount the games they play against each other, which puts them at 7-7 currently. After that, the MAXIMUM they could play would be 20, with either uconn or marquette reaching the title game and the other winning their first game this week. The most they are guaranteed is 16.

burns15

03-22-2011, 02:01 PM

Yes, but those moderately experienced elite talent teams are few and far between. The last complete team in basketball was probably UNC and before that Florida.

You are missing the major point that with the kids leaving, this experience for top talent just isn't there. Wait till the final 4 before we see how many NBA lottery picks are left. How many of them are upper classmen? You can't just cite who could be in today's tournament. My point is that I would rather have experience players like Z, Scheyer, and Thomas than lottery picks. You don't get to make stuff up and put Wall, Cousins, and Bledsoe on your team as juniors all of a sudden.

It will probably take a rule change or luck to see another complete team in NCAA like Florida with legit lottery talent at multiple positions with experience. But if you have to take experience or lottery talent, experience probably has a better chance than talent to make a FF.

What about this Duke team? I would say that they are both moderately experienced and have elite talent. 6 of the eight in the main rotation played on a national championship team last year and 1 other was with the team the whole season and just didnt play. Furthermore Kyle and Nolan are about as experienced as you can get, no matter how you define experience (i.e. years, games played, championships won, pressure situations played in).

As far as the elite talent goes, there is a good chance that all 8 players in Duke's rotation will get a shot in the NBA. Barrring injury, Kyrie, Kyle, Nolan, and Mason are all but guarantees. I would wager a good amount of money that Seth (because of the family name and how many people were burned by passing on Steph, assuming he continues to improve), Andre (athletic, tall, long, good shooter, and seen him projected on a couple mock drafts for 2013), and Ryan (6'11 big guy who can put the ball on the floor and shoot, rapidly improving inside, deceptively long and good shot blocker, and decently athletic) all get a shot at the NBA too. Finally, Miles has the physical abilities (strength, height, vertical,) and is developing into a solid rebounder and shot blocker, which could very well at least earn him an invite into someone's summer camp.

Now this is a moot point, but had Kyrie and the rest of the team stayed healthy all year, I have every confidence that this team would be mentioned as on par with or slightly better than the 2009 UNC team.

2009 UNC 2011 Duke

G Ty Lawson < G Kyrie Irving
G Wayne Ellington < G Nolan Smith
F Marcus Ginyard < F Kyle Singler
F Deon Thompson > F Miles Plumlee
F Tyler Hansbrough > F Mason Plumlee
Bench
G Bobby Frasor < G Seth Curry
G Larry Drew < G Tyler Thornton
G/F Will Graves < G Andre Dawkins
F Danny Green > F Josh Hairston
F Ed Davis = F Ryan Kelly
F Tyler Zeller (Injured most of the season)

IMO, this is a very interesting matchup with Duke seemingly having every advantage in the backcourt (although I would love to have seen Kyrie and Lawson go head-to-head), and UNC having a thourough advantage in the frontcourt. I think the most interesting matchup would be Davs vs Kelly. After comparing Kelly's sophomore year to Davis freshman year, its interesting to see that they have verry similar stats all across the board and played similar minutes (kelly - 20, Davs -18) as well. I think that Davis would have an advantage in the paint, and Kelly could cause a mtachup problem if he could pull Davis out to the perimeter.

Phew, sorry. Bored sitting in class right now, just thought this would be an interesting comparison

sammy3469

03-22-2011, 02:04 PM

45 games vs 14? yeah I'd say thats a pretty big difference in sample size

Well back out the road games against BCS conference teams (ie just home/neutral/and semi away games included) and the records for the Big East is 28-13 while the ACC is 22-16. That's right the Big East played a grand total of 4 actual road games against fellow BCS schools while the ACC played 13. Both conferences were equally abysmal in those games (Big East was 1-3, ACC was 2-11).

If anything the Big East looks like they've figured out how to schedule to maximize NCAA tourney teams (and their RPI rankings). You also can't tell me that there isn't something going on since they are only playing 2.8 BCS games per team while the ACC plays 4.25, yet the ACC ends up with a worse out conference SOS in the RPI.

That calculation was from kenpom's list of games, so I'm sure there's some errors.

Spret42

03-22-2011, 02:15 PM

Phew, sorry. Bored sitting in class right now, just thought this would be an interesting comparison

It is interesting. It is a great point.

To say you would take the experience over the elite talent on a board with a "vigil" for the toe of the one elite, lottery talent player who changes the entire complexion of every game he plays in strikes me as rather strange.

ice-9

03-22-2011, 02:24 PM

45 games vs 14? yeah I'd say thats a pretty big difference in sample size

You need to take out the bottom dwellers in that 45 game count. Exclude all the non-NCAA tournament teams and the number should be substantially closer. Further, the reason it's 14 and not, say, 22 is because Big East teams lost early this year. So fewer data points, yes, but because the Big East couldn't win more. Finally, if you had to choose between two seemingly conflicting sets of data, which would you rather go with? Results from November, or results from March? Whatever the Big East was before relative to other conferences, they aren't today.

Look...I don't belong to the camp that thinks the Big East's 11 teams were undeserved. Based on what was known at that time, there was wide consensus that the 11 belonged in the tournament. However, and the reason why so many people keep responding to you and sporthenry, it's the Big East's REPUTATION that is undoubtedly undeserved. All year long people kept talking about the Big East as some kind of juggernaut, how every game in that conference was a struggle of life and death.

Well, what we know today is that while there are some good teams in the Big East, there are no elite ones. It wasn't just Pitt who went down, or just Notre Dame, or just Syracuse/Louisville/WVU/St Johns/Georgetown/Villanova, it was ALL of them. Pitt's and Notre Dame's losses are particularly damning as they were clearly the top two Big East teams over the regular season.

Don't say everyone knew already that they weren't great -- that's pure fiction. Many had Pitt and Notre Dame in their Final Four (including me) and most argued both Big East teams should be 1 seeds. C'mon, it's a fact that people thought the Big East was very strong top to bottom (or at least top to third quartile).

The NCAA tournament is evidence that perception is clearly not true. The top of the Big East wasn't quite that strong, and the middle didn't make an impact. Overall, the Big East was likely overseeded in this tournament.

(For the record, if Marquette beats UNC tomorrow and U-Conn beats SDSU and Duke, I wouldn't change my position -- just that the ACC isn't that great this year either. And that U-Conn is an awesome tournament team.)

burns15

03-22-2011, 02:35 PM

I suppose my point is you take the talent first because the experienced moderate stuff figures itself out. The Sheyers, Hendersons and Zoubecks are great, but you never take them first over the elite talent because they are easier to find. Most teams have at least a little bit of experienced moderate talent. Kentucky, due to its ridiculous running off of coaches, left itself in a situation where all it had was baby elite talent.
And remember, Kentucky was one horrible shooting night away from a final four.

That is also the reason that the amount of elite talent missing from last years tournament matters. It allowed the best team of moderate talents to win. You don't start swearing off the more rare commodity because of one year where that commodity was nowhere to be found.

This is all Barkley was trying to illustrate when he said the Big East just isn't that good and it is a lack of talent that is the problem. Ripping the Big East for under performing when there isn't any elite or even draft worthy players across the league is sort of silly. No one wins without elite or draft worthy talent unless there isn't any across the board. UNC isn't in the sweet 16 without the one elite player right now and don't kid yourself. He matters.

For a Duke fan to say he would rather take the Sheyer, Henderson and Zoubeck over elite, draft worthy talent after years of watching elite draft worthy talent push Duke to ridiculous heights is...well..again, kinda silly. Trust me, coach K is still searching for that rare elite talent. Irving and Rivers got scholarship offers before their classes version of John Sheyer did.

The thing about the KY guys as juniors was a throw away line and I should have deleted it cause it skewed my argument.

I'm not quite sure why you consider Henderson, Scheyer, and Zoubs not elite talent. Coming out of high school:

Henderson -- average: 12 nationally
Rivals...... # 11 nationally, # 2 SG, 5 star
Scout.... #15 nationally, # 5 SF, 5 Star
RSCI...... # 10 nationally
Scheyer -- average: 39.67 nationally
Rivals...... # 71 nationally, # 15 SG, 4 Star
Scout.... # 20 nationally, # 3 SG, 5 Star
RSCI..... # 28 nationally
Zoubek -- avaerage: 29 nationally
Rivals...... # 24 nationally, # 3 C, 5 star
Scout.... # 38 nationally, # 7 C, 4 Star
RSCI..... # 25 nationally
Thomas -- average: 26.67 nationally
Rivals...... # 42 nationally, # 13 PF, 4 star
Scout.... # 18 nationally, # 4 PF, 5 Star
RSCI..... # 20 nationally

Bledsoe -- average: 55.5 nationally
Rivals...... # 23 nationally, # 3 PG, 5 star
Scout.... # 37 nationally, # 6 PG, 4 Star
ESPN.... outside top 100--roughly # 110, # 12 PG, 4 Star
RSCI..... # 52 nationally
Orton -- average: 17.75 nationally
Rivals...... # 22 nationally, # 4 C, 5 star
Scout.... # 17 nationally, # 4 C, 5 Star
ESPN.... # 13 nationally, # 4 C, 5 Star
RSCI..... # 19 nationally
Patterson -- average: 12.67 nationally
Rivals...... # 17 nationally, # 3 PF, 5 star
Scout.... # 12 nationally, # 3 PF, 5 star
RSCI.... # 9 nationally

Obviously Cousins and Wall are in a league of their own, but we put feelers out with Wall anyways. But if you look at the other three first round picks for Kentucky last year against the four kids from our recruting class that graduated last year, I don't know how you can say Scheyer, Henderson, and Zoubs are not elite talent, unless you define pure athleticism as talent

Spret42

03-22-2011, 03:03 PM

I'm not quite sure why you consider Henderson, Scheyer, and Zoubs not elite talent. Coming out of high school:

........(deleted for space consideration only)

Obviously Cousins and Wall are in a league of their own, but we put feelers out with Wall anyways. But if you look at the other three first round picks for Kentucky last year against the four kids from our recruting class that graduated last year, I don't know how you can say Scheyer, Henderson, and Zoubs are not elite talent, unless you define pure athleticism as talent

I would have considered Henderson elite talent without a doubt. It is embarrassing, but I had Thomas in my brain when I typed Henderson. Too many years, too many players. You said you would take "John, Brian and Lance" over the elites like Cousins and Wall. I just can't see that.

And all things else being equal, Coach K is taking the likes of Brand, Henderson, Wall and Irving over Scheyer and Thomas and Zoubek. The latter three are talented, but yes, the pure athleticism of he former do make theme elite. I do consider "elite" to be the top 15 overall players every year.

Obviously players improve etc, and a recruit from 20-50 can make themselves great. But at the age of 18, most of these guys are being ranked on sheer athleticism.

uh_no

03-22-2011, 03:03 PM

You also can't tell me that there isn't something going on since they are only playing 2.8 BCS games per team while the ACC plays 4.25, yet the ACC ends up with a worse out conference SOS in the RPI.

The big east also plays 18 conference games, effectively taking away 2 games which very well could be played against OOC BCS schools.

WiJoe

03-22-2011, 04:46 PM

The big east also plays 18 conference games, effectively taking away 2 games which very well could be played against OOC BCS schools.

But MORE LIKELY against NON-bcs schools.

sporthenry

03-22-2011, 04:54 PM

I suppose my point is you take the talent first because the experienced moderate stuff figures itself out. The Sheyers, Hendersons and Zoubecks are great, but you never take them first over the elite talent because they are easier to find. Most teams have at least a little bit of experienced moderate talent. Kentucky, due to its ridiculous running off of coaches, left itself in a situation where all it had was baby elite talent.
And remember, Kentucky was one horrible shooting night away from a final four.

That is also the reason that the amount of elite talent missing from last years tournament matters. It allowed the best team of moderate talents to win. You don't start swearing off the more rare commodity because of one year where that commodity was nowhere to be found.

This is all Barkley was trying to illustrate when he said the Big East just isn't that good and it is a lack of talent that is the problem. Ripping the Big East for under performing when there isn't any elite or even draft worthy players across the league is sort of silly. No one wins without elite or draft worthy talent unless there isn't any across the board. UNC isn't in the sweet 16 without the one elite player right now and don't kid yourself. He matters.

For a Duke fan to say he would rather take the Sheyer, Henderson and Zoubeck over elite, draft worthy talent after years of watching elite draft worthy talent push Duke to ridiculous heights is...well..again, kinda silly. Trust me, coach K is still searching for that rare elite talent. Irving and Rivers got scholarship offers before their classes version of John Sheyer did.

The thing about the KY guys as juniors was a throw away line and I should have deleted it cause it skewed my argument.

But the point is, last year was rare but could very easily become the norm. Someone cited 22 years, well that was before kids left early and before the NBA rule. There have only been a handful of years since this rule has changed so its hard to really say what impact it will have on the game. And UK actually had Patterson who could very well be the best upper classmen Cal will ever have. He will have certain players who don't develop into NBA players stay but you play for Cal in an attempt to make the NBA.

But yes, K will recruit Irving, Wall, or Rivers but the class is supplanted with players like Thornton or Cook or Hairston who will be there for 4 years. Yes, you need talent, but you also need experience. And the inexpereince in college basketball is probably at an all time high (look at the mistakes last weekend, Freshman guards cost both Pitt and Texas) so I would go with the experience. Again, Scheyer, Zoubek, and Thomas as seniors were more adept to adversity than Wall and Cousins as freshman. Scheyer had one of his worst slumps during his championship run but he could adapt, while Wall just continued to chuck 3's.

And the point is that talent no longer sticks around. The thing which has made Duke so good and will continue to ensure Duke's success is the 4 year players. K seems to be developing a nice combo of players leaving early and sticking around but where is this team without its senior leadership. Where is UNC without Zeller and Henson's experience?

We'll see in the next few years with Cal among others, but this years favorites in KU, OSU, and Duke all have 1-2 lottery type players but a bunch of experience.

uh_no

03-22-2011, 05:22 PM

But MORE LIKELY against NON-bcs schools.

based on what evidence? they play two more BCS schools in conference than ACC teams do....it makes sense that they play two fewer out of conference....

sagegrouse

03-22-2011, 06:03 PM

Here is a complete table on results by conference for the muli-bid conferences plus the Horizon League (Butler).

2011 NCAA Tournament
Results by Conference
Conference No. Left Wins Losses Ave.

Big East 11 2 9 9 0.500
Big Ten 7 2 7 5 0.583
Big 12 5 1 4 4 0.500
ACC 4 3 7 1 0.875
Pac 10 4 1 4 3 0.571
SEC 5 2 4 3 0.571
Atlantic 10 3 1 3 2 0.600
Colonial 3 1 4 2 0.667
Mountain West 3 2 4 1 0.800
Conference USA 2 0 0 2 -
Horizon 1 1 2 0 1.000

A 0.500 average is not very impressive for a power conference, given the 20 losses from the one-bid conferences (only Butler survives). Only four conferences (ACC, Colonial, Mt. West and Horizon) are above 0.600. Collectively, the five power conferences aside from the ACC are only 28-24, for an average of 0.538.

Lessons to be learned by the Tournament Selection Committee? I hesitate to believe that the Committee will learn anything. Here's what I would learn in its position:

The TSC has two sets of results to consider:

Inter-conference schedules, mostly in November and December, when teams are still in the development process, which help to calibrate conferences; and

Intra-conference schedules, which -- unbalanced schedules aside -- provide a robust way to rank schools within conferences.

The four conferences with only one-third (ACC) to 40% of its members selected had the same proportion of members survive to the Sweet Sixteen as the two conferences that had 69% and 64% of its member selected for the NCAAs. The Big East/ Big Ten have four teams in the regionals out of a combined membership of 27 (15%). The other conferences have seven teams in the regionals out of a combined membership of 46 (also 15%).

There is no reason to think that the power conferences are that much different from each other. Ergo, the wide disparity in teams by conference should be muted in future selections. Basically, one-half of the teams in the power conferences were put into the tournament (36 of 73). Maybe that should be the metric with only variation based on provably strong grounds (such as a big gulf within any conference between the top 3-4 teams and the remainder).

In sum, if I were on the TSC, I would argue for a rule-based approach (heavily based on conference standings) vs. a totally discretionary approach as of today. The main reason is there is not much inter-conference data that can be reliably used. [BTW finance-types and economists will recognize the argument between "rules" and "discretion" as an age-old debate within the Federal Reserve Board on managing the money supply.]

As an anecdote, IIRC (and there is always a first time) the Missouri Valley Conference got four bids one year. I did an exhausting look at all the games between MVC teams and the power conferences, and a high ranking of the MVC was supported only by a one-point OT win by (I believe) Creighton over LSU in Baton Rouge in December of that year. In other words, there was no credible basis for giving that league four bids, when it typically got one or two.

sagegrouse
'Wonkier than usual today, but once an academic, always a pain in the butt'

uh_no

03-22-2011, 06:09 PM

In sum, if I were on the TSC, I would argue for a rule-based approach (heavily based on conference standings) vs. a totally discretionary approach as of today. The main reason is there is not much inter-conference data that can be reliably used. [BTW finance-types and economists will recognize the argument between "rules" and "discretion" as an age-old debate within the Federal Reserve Board on managing the money supply.]

'

And under that rule, (barring ct's amazing run in the tournament) neither of the big east teams in the sweet 16 would have made the tournament

For now, I'll stick to measuring teams by their merits alone....not their perceived conference strength.

davekay1971

03-22-2011, 06:28 PM

And under that rule, (barring ct's amazing run in the tournament) neither of the big east teams in the sweet 16 would have made the tournament

For now, I'll stick to measuring teams by their merits alone....not their perceived conference strength.

Perceived conference strength is a large part of the selection process. Thus the ACC receiving 4 conference bids (and very low seeds for the ACC's 3rd and 4th best teams) versus the Big East receiving 11 (with 9 of those teams receiving 6 seeds or higher). The members of the selection committee were apparently given to the same perception shared by the national media and the majority of fans (and I am not necessarily arguing that the perception was wrong) that the Big East was the nation's strongest conference during the regular season, and the ACC was comparatively quite weak.

sagegrouse

03-22-2011, 06:58 PM

And under that rule, (barring ct's amazing run in the tournament) neither of the big east teams in the sweet 16 would have made the tournament

For now, I'll stick to measuring teams by their merits alone....not their perceived conference strength.

Uh Oh, my man. I apparently did a lousy job of explaining what I think. The point of my post was that there is very little basis for assessing the strength of teams BETWEEN conferences and a very good basis for assessing the strengths of teams WITHIN . If you attempt to rank teams between conferences, you are inevitably basing your conclusions on a few games in November and December, when teams have hardly jelled and are still experimetning. GIVE IT UP, TSC! THERE IS NOT ENOUGH DATA TO DO A REASONABLE JOB.

Now there is an alternative approach to just picking the top half of the power conferences: Let the conference schedules begin in early December and then take 2-3 weeks at mid-season late January and early February and schedule beaucoup inter-conference games on a planned and carefully thought-out basis. Duke, for example, would play 4-5 games outside the conference and others would as well. These could be scheduled nationally under one system or another or could be arranged bilaterally between conferences much as the Challenges are today. This would provide a much better basis for establishing which are the best teams on a national basis. And your phrase "measuring the teams by their merits alone" is pretty meaningless if the data are basically non-existent for performances outside the conference. Therefore, as it stands today, the Tournament Selection Committee is trying to tease results from a very bad and haphazard experiment -- a few games and tournaments games and tournaments early in the season.

sagegrouse

AAA1980

03-22-2011, 09:18 PM

All conferecnes were down this year..The Big East had the most good teams but no elite reams.and like most teams in the country can beat or lose to anyone..

So many games in the tourney are about mathcups luck and the bounce of the ball people overreact way too much in trying to say a conference is overrated or some sort of conference supremacy..

wilson

03-22-2011, 09:27 PM

...So many games in the tourney are about mathcups...Like this one?
http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/math_mug.jpg

theAlaskanBear

03-22-2011, 09:52 PM

Like this one?
http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/math_mug.jpg

I know very little about mathcups, but a matchup between me and that mug on hand and a pot of coffee on the other would end up in a Duke-over-Carolina-ACC-tourney-throttling of the coffee pot.

DukieInBrasil

03-23-2011, 06:55 AM

Indoor66

03-23-2011, 09:21 AM

davekay1971

03-23-2011, 09:30 AM

Bluedog

03-23-2011, 10:53 AM

The NCAA tournament remains the best sporting event in the world largely because the selection process is pretty good. It can be improved, but I think modest tweaks are more appropriate than wholesale changes.

I would offer the following:

1) Automatic bids to each conference's tournament AND regular season champion. This would honor both accomplishments. It would probably lead to more teams from smaller conferences, as a whole, but, with expansion apparently inevitable, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I don't think you realize how much that would affect the field. That would add the following teams to this years NCAA tournament:

1. MEAC Bethune-Cookman
2. Big South Coastal Carolina
3. Southern College of Charleston
4. MAAC Fairfield
5. Sun Belt Florida Atlantic
6. Big West Long Beach State
7. MAC Kent State
8. Southland McNeese State
9. Missouri Valley Missouri State
10. Horizon Wisconsin-Milwaukee
11. Ohio Valley Murray State
12. West Coast Saint Mary's
13. SWAC Texas Southern
14. America East Vermont

Thus, instead of 37 at large bids, there would be 23 this year. Say goodbye to essentially all the #9 through #12 seeds in that case. No FSU, Mich St, Gonzaga, VCU, IL, Marquette, Clemson, etc. You'd rather Texas Southern make it than FSU?

uh_no

03-23-2011, 11:26 AM

Thus, instead of 37 at large bids, there would be 23 this year. Say goodbye to essentially all the #9 through #12 seeds in that case. No FSU, Mich St, Gonzaga, VCU, IL, Marquette, Clemson, etc. You'd rather Texas Southern make it than FSU?

And seth greenberg would never have any bubble trouble!

killerleft

03-23-2011, 11:34 AM

I think the present selection system works quite well. Some years the committee gets it more correct and some years less correct. Never do they get it completely correct.

Every proposal I have read about in this tread also has the same set of flaws.

IMO, the upgrade to the system will best come about by the selection to the committee process. We need a more complete mix of basketball people and other administrators on the committee. This year the mix seems heavily skewed away from basketball people and this hurts the process.

That said, they did select VCU and that seems to be working out....

Well, said I-66. I, too, think the committee does a great job of identifying the (now) 68 teams. This, however, is a thread about the poor showing of the Big East in the tournament that will determine how most teams are remembered in the future. The Big East has a big advantage in ESPN and that network's tooting of the Big East horn.

Therefore, how can a true ACC fan not be delighted by the showing made in the tourney thus far by the Big ESPN? I guess we're lucky they haven't expanded to 24 teams yet. Being able to count on having the largest sports network in the country in your pocket every year is a big drawing card.

The corresponding rise of ESPN and the Big East is no accident. And the resulting slide by the ACC teams not named Duke or UNC are perhaps accidental, but certainly related. I would like to see one of our resident pro writers explore this topic.

Bluedog

03-23-2011, 11:41 AM

I don't think you realize how much that would affect the field. That would add the following teams to this years NCAA tournament:

1. MEAC Bethune-Cookman
2. Big South Coastal Carolina
3. Southern College of Charleston
4. MAAC Fairfield
5. Sun Belt Florida Atlantic
6. Big West Long Beach State
7. MAC Kent State
8. Southland McNeese State
9. Missouri Valley Missouri State
10. Horizon Wisconsin-Milwaukee
11. Ohio Valley Murray State
12. West Coast Saint Mary's
13. SWAC Texas Southern
14. America East Vermont

Thus, instead of 37 at large bids, there would be 23 this year. Say goodbye to essentially all the #9 through #12 seeds in that case. No FSU, Mich St, Gonzaga, VCU, IL, Marquette, Clemson, etc. You'd rather Texas Southern make it than FSU?

Sorry, made one mistake. Gonzaga would have made it because they won their conference tournament. Everything else holds true.