Printable View
Well, first round is almost over and it doesn't look like any 5 seeds will go down in the first round this year. But two 6's - Notre Dame and another team that shall remain nameless - were ousted.
Aside from VT-IL, not many exciting games today. The Wisconsin and Texas games were mildly interesting for a while, but both prevailed. I want me some upsets dangit!
You're right.
I don't know if this is still the case, but the 12s actually had a better record post-1985 than the 11s did, even though you'd expect the latter.
And the 9s were slightly above .500.
I concur. Even all the 7 seeds won.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisP
I don't think this is a long-term trend. Among the good teams this year it seemed like there was a huge "middle" -- in NCAA seeding terms, everyone between a three seed and about a six or seven seemed to have about the same ability. Then below the eight/nine seeds or so, talent dropped way off. There were no Harold Arcenauxs out there, that is, really good players on small-time teams.
The ACC was a microcosm of this. There were half a dozen or so "pretty good but not great" teams rather than the battle among two or three teams for the top we usually see. Going into the final weekend it was possible for Carolina to be the five seed in the ACC Tournament. There was a really small "middle" of the ACC, then the bottom sucked.
Now if this hypothesis is true, we should see a lot of "technical upsets", ie, higher-numbered seeds winning, this round and the next.
I'm in the minority here, but I personally am glad there haven't been as many upsets. That means the Second Round and Regionals will be loaded with great matchups and great games. Kentucky/Kansas! UCLA/Indiana! Bring them on. Too often, we get a team who wins the first round in a crazy upset, then gets their clock cleaned by a far superior team in the second round in a ragged game.
There are exceptions. I really don't see any this year. I still don't think VCU is all that good-maybe they'll prove me wrong. Winthrop, ah, maybe. Don't like their chances, either.
That doesn't mean I won't be rooting for a signifciant upset tonight in Wilmington, however. GTHC, GTH.
dukemsu
As long as strong teams remain in Carolina's bracket.
If we start with the idea that an 'Upset' in NCAA Tourney play is a 10+ seed winning over a 7- seed, then I was wondering...
Only 2 low seeds, both #11's, won in the first round. (#9's don't count) Is that the fewest number of upsets in the first round since the field expanded in '85? I agree on the big 'middle', seeds 3-9, or so, being pretty equal to each other this year, but historically, haven't there been more true upsets in the first round?
Check 1995 and 2002. I can't remember specifics but I recall those as the years in which pretty much all the favorites won in the first round. Also I think all 1989 had was Sienna beating Stanford in a 14/3 game.Quote:
Originally Posted by BuschDevil
Thanks. I guess this year, with so few upsets, is not that unusual after all.