They lost to whom?!?!? You have got to be kidding!!

[JasonEvans]

So, I really thought I knew every team in Division 1. I mean, I have heard of Prairie View A&M, UMKC, IUPUI, Morgan St., and some others that are pretty darn obscure.

Well, I learned a new one tonight as a school from the Southland Conference called...

...wait for it...

...Incarnate Word...

...defeated Nebraska (http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=400595404).

Yup, Incarnate Word beat Nebraska.

Now, I know Nebraska ain't exactly a big time hoops powerhouse, but they are a legit member of the Big Ten who actually won at Florida State in the Challenge last week.

And they just lost to Incarnate Word...

-Jason "In fairness, Incarnate Word appears to have been a pretty good D-II team before moving up to D-1... but still" Evans

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/E1AS0QHMqACWXjib_osE1Q--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTcyOTtweW9mZj0wO3E9Nz U7dz05NjA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/Sports/ap/201412102005723312059

P.S. - It is worth noting that Ken Pom says IW is the #170ish team in the land, which is right around where Va Tech is rated.

[Kedsy]

So, I really thought I knew every team in Division 1. I mean, I have heard of Prairie View A&M, UMKC, IUPUI, Morgan St., and some others that are pretty darn obscure.

Well, I learned a new one tonight as a school from the Southland Conference called...

...wait for it...

...Incarnate Word...

...defeated Nebraska (http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=400595404).

Yup, Incarnate Word beat Nebraska.

Now, I know Nebraska ain't exactly a big time hoops powerhouse, but they are a legit member of the Big Ten who actually won at Florida State in the Challenge last week.

And they just lost to Incarnate Word...

-Jason "In fairness, Incarnate Word appears to have been a pretty good D-II team before moving up to D-1... but still" Evans

P.S. - It is worth noting that Ken Pom says IW is the #170ish team in the land, which is right around where Va Tech is rated.

You obviously haven't read the "unbeatens" thread. We've been talking about Incarnate Word for days.

[AncientPsychicT]

So, I really thought I knew every team in Division 1. I mean, I have heard of Prairie View A&M, UMKC, IUPUI, Morgan St., and some others that are pretty darn obscure.

Well, I learned a new one tonight as a school from the Southland Conference called...

...wait for it...

...Incarnate Word...

...defeated Nebraska (http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=400595404).

Yup, Incarnate Word beat Nebraska.

Now, I know Nebraska ain't exactly a big time hoops powerhouse, but they are a legit member of the Big Ten who actually won at Florida State in the Challenge last week.

And they just lost to Incarnate Word...

-Jason "In fairness, Incarnate Word appears to have been a pretty good D-II team before moving up to D-1... but still" Evans

P.S. - It is worth noting that Ken Pom says IW is the #170ish team in the land, which is right around where Va Tech is rated.

Up until a game at UTEP the other day, Incarnate Word had actually been undefeated this year. I think they were the 12th-last undefeated team.

[BD80]

You obviously haven't read the "unbeatens" thread. We've been talking about Incarnate Word for days.

Word ...

[hurleyfor3]

Word ...

The word of the day is whom. You'd think someone who has been published in the Wall Street Journal would know when to use it.

[YmoBeThere]

I work with several UIW alums who hardly even know their University has a D-I b-ball program. Incarnate Word is a small private Catholic school here in San Antonio. There are a several other small private schools in the area most notably Trinity University, but also St. Mary's, Our Lady of the Lake and Texas Lutheran. We do have UTSA(University of Texas San Antonio) who has had some moderate success on the football field and are coached by former Miami head coach Larry Coker. Suffice to say though, there isn't a whole lot of high level college athletics in town and little to no history. The alums I know from UIW attended because they opened up satellite campuses in town and started catering to the part-time/evening/after work students.

The Texas college sports scene is even more fragmented but is dominated by the obvious University of Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor and TCU. TCU and Baylor are both smaller private institutions with religious affiliations so don't command nearly the mind share that the public schools do. Throw in UH(Houston), Texas Tech, UTEP and you have a very muddled landscape. If you were to ask me, I would say that Texas is more of a high school and pro football driven market. Locals would likely disagree with me and throw in the colleges but with Texas struggling a bit and TAMU doing their more typical good but not great, it has been a bit quiet.

[MCFinARL]

The word of the day is whom. You'd think someone who has been published in the Wall Street Journal would know when to use it.

Has the thread title been edited? It looks correctly used to me.

To your point, though, it's no longer safe to assume anyone knows when to use "whom," which appears to be dying a slow death.

[nocilla]

Has the thread title been edited? It looks correctly used to me.

To your point, though, it's no longer safe to assume anyone knows when to use "whom," which appears to be dying a slow death.

Literally?

[UrinalCake]

After also seeing Michigan lose to a community college, I have to wonder if we're approaching the day when a #1 seed could finally lose to a #16? I realize that Michigan and Nebraska are not at the level of 1 seeds, but still, there's definitely a lot of parity and these smaller schools have guys who can play.

[mgtr]

So, is whom going the way of one? Is English no longer taught? Has "Me and my friends" replaced "My friends and I?" Sad.

[OldPhiKap]

So, is whom going the way of one? Is English no longer taught? Has "Me and my friends" replaced "My friends and I?" Sad.

U a h8r? Know Y tho. Sentences are not throught thru. LOL.

[Duvall]

So, is whom going the way of one? Is English no longer taught? Has "Me and my friends" replaced "My friends and I?" Sad.

English is taught. It is also spoken, and evolving.

[cspan37421]

After also seeing Michigan lose to a community college, I have to wonder if we're approaching the day when a #1 seed could finally lose to a #16? I realize that Michigan and Nebraska are not at the level of 1 seeds, but still, there's definitely a lot of parity and these smaller schools have guys who can play.

I hope we're not the first. Some of our recent history in the tourney suggests when it happens, it may well be us (or Arizona!).

But in the spirit of Coach K's interview on Dan Patrick, that doesn't mean I prefer a #2 seed to a #1 seed, should we be have the good skill and fortune to really develop as a dominant team.

It's like when - IIRC - Coach Wooden was asked if he preferred to be the favorite or the underdog. "The favorite, of course," he replied. "Why?" "Because most of the time that means you're the better team. Who wouldn't want to be the better team?"

[wilson]

After also seeing Michigan lose to a community college, I have to wonder if we're approaching the day when a #1 seed could finally lose to a #16? I realize that Michigan and Nebraska are not at the level of 1 seeds, but still, there's definitely a lot of parity and these smaller schools have guys who can play.I was just thinking about the 1-16 upset yesterday. I think it is coming soon. Much has been made of the increased parity in college basketball in recent years, and I think NCAA Tournament results really bear that out.
We know that no #16 has ever won a game (at least not in the men's tournament...#16 Harvard beat #1 Stanford in the women's tourney in 1998 (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?id=3300407)), and only 17 times have the little guys kept things within single digits since the current seeding format began in 1985. However, 5 of those close games have come in the last six years...so almost once per season since 2009, we've seen a #1 seed sweating out their first-round game. There have also been a few other near-misses in the mix, including an 11-point victory by Virginia and a 12-point win by Florida just last year. In fact, the average margin of victory for #1s in last year's tournament was just 14.75 points. In contrast, the average margin of victory in all 1 vs. 16 matchups since 1985 is 25 points...so the gap would seem to be closing.
I think it's attributable to two main factors...one, the pool of recruits is spread thinner because with the proliferation of media exposure, players no longer need to go to big-name programs in order to be on television. And two, the highest elite prospects don't stay in school as long anymore, so it's harder to establish consistent, year-in and year-out excellence. If pressed to bet on it, I think the big one will happen within the next five years.

[cspan37421]

I wonder if there's a line in Vegas about when it might happen. Pretty long-term bet; not sure if they take them with that long to resolve.

[WillJ]

I'm trying to compare this to us losing to Wagner in 1983 at Cameron. Not sure which is worse.

[MCFinARL]

Literally?

Hahahahaha! As "literally" is currently used, sadly, yes. :)


English is taught. It is also spoken, and evolving.

Yes, it is, to the distress of those of us (myself most definitely included) who muse in our rockers about the good old days. Hey you kids, get off my lawn!

[AncientPsychicT]

Sentences are not throught thru.

Apparently not. Clearly, it's "Sentences R not throught thru."

None of this 'are' business. Do u even txt, brah?

[77devil]

English is taught. It is also spoken, and evolving.

Or devolving depending on the point of view.

[brevity]

We know that no #16 has ever won a game (at least not in the men's tournament...#16 Harvard beat #1 Stanford in the women's tourney in 1998 (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?id=3300407))...

That's an unusual game for two reasons. Two Stanford players were out with recently torn ACLs, and the referees in that game were provided not by the NCAA, but by U.S. News & World Report.


I wonder if there's a line in Vegas about when it might happen. Pretty long-term bet; not sure if they take them with that long to resolve.

Such a bet, if possible, would have to restrict the number of teams in the tournament. If/when the field expands to 96 teams, the presumed weakest teams would be 24-seeds, and each 1 seed would play the winner of a 16/17 game, which could theoretically be a pair of third-tier power conference teams.

Let's look at last season as an example. If you took the best 28 NIT teams (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/ncaa-tournament/brackets/viewable_nit) and inserted them into the NCAA Tournament 1-68 list (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24487953/official-ncaa-1-68-seeding-order), you would insert them somewhere after #47 NC State, the last at-large team. The 16-seed line would be the #61-64 teams. Now comes the guesswork.

If you were being cruel to previously #48 North Dakota State and put all 28 NIT transfers ahead of them, then you'd be looking at a 16-seed line of the 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th best NIT teams. Power conference teams at that level include Georgetown, West Virginia, LSU, and Utah.

If you were being more charitable to #48 North Dakota State and other automatic qualifiers, you might intersperse about 8-10 of them. (FYI: #56 is Mercer.) Maybe 4-5 of them stay above the 16-seed line, so now you have a 16-seed line of the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th best NIT teams. Power conference teams at that level include Clemson and Arkansas. Clemson went 20-12 (10-8 ACC). Arkansas was 21-10 (10-8 SEC). Strictly in terms of conference finish, those are actually second-tier teams.

In a 96-team tournament, the 16 seed still looks beatable, but now it's a team with some history of NCAA Tournament success on its side, and a lot more regular season experience playing the best teams in and out of conference. I'm sure a handful of not-crazy people would have picked Clemson over Wichita State or Arkansas over Virginia.

[Kedsy]

...only 17 times have the little guys kept things within single digits since the current seeding format began in 1985. However, 5 of those close games have come in the last six years...so almost once per season since 2009, we've seen a #1 seed sweating out their first-round game.

Well, except 8 of those close games happened in the first six years that we had #16 seeds (1985 to 1990). And that statistical anomaly didn't presage a 16-seed team victory.

By the way, those eight close games in the 1985 to 1990 years included two 1 point games and an overtime game (as well as Duke's 7 point win over Mississippi Valley State in 1986). A few years later, one of these games was a 2 point game. So, in my opinion, if you're talking about whether a #16 seed will beat a #1 seed once ever, the fact that none of the four one possession games ended in favor of the underdog is largely (though not entirely) a matter of luck. The possibility has always been there, right from the beginning. I'm not sure it's any more likely now than it was 25 years ago.

[wilson]

Well, except 8 of those close games happened in the first six years that we had #16 seeds (1985 to 1990). And that statistical anomaly didn't presage a 16-seed team victory.

By the way, those eight close games in the 1985 to 1990 years included two 1 point games and an overtime game (as well as Duke's 7 point win over Mississippi Valley State in 1986). A few years later, one of these games was a 2 point game. So, in my opinion, if you're talking about whether a #16 seed will beat a #1 seed once ever, the fact that none of the four one possession games ended in favor of the underdog is largely (though not entirely) a matter of luck. The possibility has always been there, right from the beginning. I'm not sure it's any more likely now than it was 25 years ago.I can't spork you, but this is a good counter-argument.

[MCFinARL]

I can't spork you, but this is a good counter-argument.

Oh, well, if we all sporked Kedsy every time he made a a good counter-argument, he would have so many pitchforks it would break the internets.

[Duvall]

Well, except 8 of those close games happened in the first six years that we had #16 seeds (1985 to 1990). And that statistical anomaly didn't presage a 16-seed team victory.

By the way, those eight close games in the 1985 to 1990 years included two 1 point games and an overtime game (as well as Duke's 7 point win over Mississippi Valley State in 1986). A few years later, one of these games was a 2 point game. So, in my opinion, if you're talking about whether a #16 seed will beat a #1 seed once ever, the fact that none of the four one possession games ended in favor of the underdog is largely (though not entirely) a matter of luck. The possibility has always been there, right from the beginning. I'm not sure it's any more likely now than it was 25 years ago.

Well, it's probably *somewhat* more likely because the play-in games ensure that two of the 16-seeds are teams that would have been 15-seeds in a 64-team field. So that's a slight bump in quality.

[YmoBeThere]

I had the privilege of spending the day at:

4572

Home of the Cornhusker vanquishers

[Kedsy]

Well, it's probably *somewhat* more likely because the play-in games ensure that two of the 16-seeds are teams that would have been 15-seeds in a 64-team field. So that's a slight bump in quality.

Yes, I agree with this, at least to an extent. Obviously the higher the quality of the #16 seeds, the more likely it is that a #16 seed would win a game. Certainly, if we start with the possibly flawed premise that a #15 seed could beat a #1 but a #16 seed couldn't, then the play-in games would have to raise the odds of a #16 winning, for the reason you suggest.

But I don't think that's the whole story, if the question is whether a 16-seed could beat a #1 (which is how it was posed), because the answer has always been, yes they could, they just haven't done it yet. Exhibit A is that four #16 vs. #1 games have come down to the final possession of the game.

Exhibit B would be to use computer ratings to predict the outcomes. Using Pomeroy's version of the Pythagorean theorem, over the last six years the odds of a #16 beating a #1 were approximately 3.8%. Let's assume, as you suggest, that the odds were a little bit worse for the previous 24 years, let's say 3% exactly. There have been 120 #16 vs. #1 matchups over the past 30 years. The odds suggest #16 should have beaten #1 three or four times in that span (perhaps coincidentally there have been those four one-possession games between #16 and #1). In a way, the fact that it hasn't happened at all yet is more surprising than the idea that it may happen someday in the future.

For comparison's sake, Pomeroy's power formula suggests 8% of #15 seeds would win over the past six years and 18% of #14 seeds would win. Presumably those odds would be slightly worse in the 24 years before that as well, due to the play-in games. Either way, the actual count over the past 30 years has been 6% wins by 15-seeds and 15% wins by 14-seeds. A little worse than predicted, but not too far off.

In that context, it really doesn't make sense that 16-seed success is zero when the predicted was 3.8% (or even a little worse). It should have happened already. And someday it will, but not necessarily because of increased parity (which I'm not sure is even true, if you look at the tournament performance of low- and mid-majors now vs. 20 or 30 years ago) or anything else other than eventually the odds have to catch up with #1.

[BD80]

Yes, I agree with this, at least to an extent. Obviously the higher the quality of the #16 seeds, the more likely it is that a #16 seed would win a game. Certainly, if we start with the possibly flawed premise that a #15 seed could beat a #1 but a #16 seed couldn't, then the play-in games would have to raise the odds of a #16 winning, for the reason you suggest.

But I don't think that's the whole story, if the question is whether a 16-seed could beat a #1 (which is how it was posed), because the answer has always been, yes they could, they just haven't done it yet. Exhibit A is that four #16 vs. #1 games have come down to the final possession of the game.

Exhibit B would be to use computer ratings to predict the outcomes. Using Pomeroy's version of the Pythagorean theorem, over the last six years the odds of a #16 beating a #1 were approximately 3.8%. Let's assume, as you suggest, that the odds were a little bit worse for the previous 24 years, let's say 3% exactly. There have been 120 #16 vs. #1 matchups over the past 30 years. The odds suggest #16 should have beaten #1 three or four times in that span (perhaps coincidentally there have been those four one-possession games between #16 and #1). In a way, the fact that it hasn't happened at all yet is more surprising than the idea that it may happen someday in the future.

For comparison's sake, Pomeroy's power formula suggests 8% of #15 seeds would win over the past six years and 18% of #14 seeds would win. Presumably those odds would be slightly worse in the 24 years before that as well, due to the play-in games. Either way, the actual count over the past 30 years has been 6% wins by 15-seeds and 15% wins by 14-seeds. A little worse than predicted, but not too far off.

In that context, it really doesn't make sense that 16-seed success is zero when the predicted was 3.8% (or even a little worse). It should have happened already. And someday it will, but not necessarily because of increased parity (which I'm not sure is even true, if you look at the tournament performance of low- and mid-majors now vs. 20 or 30 years ago) or anything else other than eventually the odds have to catch up with #1.

#1 seeds (at least some) tend to be more than just incrementally better than #2 seeds - this year is ostensibly an example, Duke and Ky with 9 McD AAs each would appear to have much more talent than #2 seeds. Similarly, #16 seeds are often far worse than #15 seeds, as several weak conferences get automatic bids and send outliers. So the Pomeroy formula for the 16v1 is probably not as representative as the other pairings.

[Kedsy]

#1 seeds (at least some) tend to be more than just incrementally better than #2 seeds - this year is ostensibly an example, Duke and Ky with 9 McD AAs each would appear to have much more talent than #2 seeds. Similarly, #16 seeds are often far worse than #15 seeds, as several weak conferences get automatic bids and send outliers. So the Pomeroy formula for the 16v1 is probably not as representative as the other pairings.

The Pomeroy formula should be taking all that into account. It doesn't consider the seeding in determining the percentage of expected wins; it measures one team's rating against the other and takes an average across each seed. So, your explanation, while true as far as it goes, shouldn't explain why underdogs who should have won 3% or 4% of the time have won 0% of the time. I think it's really just a statistical aberration.

[Newton_14]

After also seeing Michigan lose to a community college, I have to wonder if we're approaching the day when a #1 seed could finally lose to a #16? I realize that Michigan and Nebraska are not at the level of 1 seeds, but still, there's definitely a lot of parity and these smaller schools have guys who can play.

Yes! Just who is this "NJIT" squad anyway?? I had never even heard of them either. Was that as big an upset as App State winning in the Big House a few years back? UM was ranked Number 5 going into that game, though in fairness they were grossly overranked. But hey, App State can always state they have a road wind against a Top 5 school which will be hard to top to be honest.

But NJIT? Reaally Michigan???

[Wander]

Yes! Just who is this "NJIT" squad anyway?? I had never even heard of them either. Was that as big an upset as App State winning in the Big House a few years back? UM was ranked Number 5 going into that game, though in fairness they were grossly overranked. But hey, App State can always state they have a road wind against a Top 5 school which will be hard to top to be honest.

That Michigan football team actually did end the season ranked and beat Florida the year in between their two BCS championships, so they weren't quite as overrated as I've found a lot of people remember them. Which makes App State's victory all the more impressive.

On the other hand, App State was a 1-AA powerhouse, and NJIT has been at the bottom of the barrel of all of D1. So hard to say which was a bigger upset.

[UrinalCake]

I think the big upsets are much harder in football. In basketball you can have one really good player lead a team. Or you could have a hot shooting night. In football it's a lot harder since there are so many more players, and the physical size advantage of the bigger schools is tough to overcome. Plus there's the experience factor in basketball - as we saw ourselves last year (ugh), a less-talented team of seniors can spring an upset on a highly ranked team that depends on freshmen. In football you don't get that.

[killerleft]

Well, except 8 of those close games happened in the first six years that we had #16 seeds (1985 to 1990). And that statistical anomaly didn't presage a 16-seed team victory.

By the way, those eight close games in the 1985 to 1990 years included two 1 point games and an overtime game (as well as Duke's 7 point win over Mississippi Valley State in 1986). A few years later, one of these games was a 2 point game. So, in my opinion, if you're talking about whether a #16 seed will beat a #1 seed once ever, the fact that none of the four one possession games ended in favor of the underdog is largely (though not entirely) a matter of luck. The possibility has always been there, right from the beginning. I'm not sure it's any more likely now than it was 25 years ago.

That 1986 Duke-Mississippi Valley State game was as nerve-wracking as any Duke game I've had the privilege to watch in person (Greensboro Coliseum). The MVS coach, Lafayette Stribling, was resplendent in white, and outcoached Coach K, who hadn't been in the position of "hunted" at the NCAAs before. Duke almost doubled the rebounding output of MVS. And yet, if Johnny Dawkins hadn't scored 16 points in the last 12 minutes of the game, and had not four of the Delta Devils fouled out...