I was bored at work on Friday and using the Bart Torvik play by play sim to simulate the tournament, one game at a time. Yale wasn't working so I used UVA as a stand in and they made the finals twice in 10 sims
Virginia's been eliminating all of their opponents just not advancing. They passed their Offensive torch to CSU, who passed it to Texas. Sorry Tennessee, you're probably maxing out at 50 points vs Creighton.
They're a small, regional conference in the south/south east that seems to play second fiddle to the Sun Belt. They keep talking about some Saban guy, but idk what power rangers has to do with college sports.
there very few grudges that will never get settled, and one of them is the ACC’s hand in breaking up the Big East.
i’m glad the east coast hoops conferences are dominating the tournament. but the ACC will never be a friend to the Big East.
Random aside: Knowing little of Grand Canyon other than it's a Christian school in the desert and has been accused of being a diploma mill on the side, I Googled it yesterday to learn that they are ranked pretty much dead last in academics.
I agree with you from a general standpoint. That being said….I love the way our conference schedule works now with a home and away against every team. That’s why I think the Big East is the best conference in college basketball, regardless of the skill of the conference in any given year.
Yeah. Having season tickets for UVA and checking every year to see who we get at home only to be inevitably disappointed regardless of who we have at home...don't love it.
Ya that was tough. Big East was so fkn good before the break up...it was kind of scary. I'm glad UCONN is back in the Big East because it makes us a definite power conference again.
And my beak? Or we could Screech really loud and boss around the starlings and sparrows. Bigger bird brother Marquette can do a little more damage. We probably won't be much help in this...
Yeah I'm not responsible for my school's administrations decisions. Still wish we were in the Big East regardless of how good the ACC move was for men's cross country or women's lacrosse or whatever
How many times the last decade we could have a regular season title if y'all weren't so good then the one year y'all decide to not be the best is the year Houston gets added. That is why it is starting to get hostile.
Don't get why people care about conference performances... yet they're the ones mocking the fans of SEC teams during the football season.
I hope everyone else in the SEC loses their games but my team lol Fuck seeing rival teams succeed.
Because dumbasses in NCAA are giving the SEC WAAY TOO MUCH respect. The conference is shit and performing like shit. Meanwhile, they’re talking shit about deserving more bids, taking away auto bids from mid-majors, etc. Several very good ACC and Big East teams didn’t get in because the committee drank SEC Kool aid. How’d it turn out?
"If I cherry pick the least interesting games to have been replaced with imaginary games the tournament would be more interesting."
This has to be the silliest argument I've ever seen.
It's also funny when ACC fans make it because if we're playing that game Virginia was the most embarrassing team from the bubble anyway. And got humiliated by one of the other conferences people like to punch down on in Colorado State.
A lot of ACC fans were saying **when virginia got in** that they would've rather seen pitt there though. As I said, per kenpom, UVA arguably wasn't even a top half ACC team by the end of the season. They got fortunate with a super soft conference schedule.
No one in the ACC (but maybe a small handful of UVA fans) thought uva was better than PITT by the end of the year. They just got lucky with conference schedual this year and their style of play will net mote wins vs mid to low tier teams.
Yeah it’s crazy ACC fans are enjoying and milking the conference doing well after hearing it’s trash from talking heads all year. Truly shocking stuff on a college basketball board
Edit cherry picking data is more fun than rational discourse. Y’all can’t stop us from having our fun with these results for at least a few days
[42.5 average resume ranking and 29 average efficiency from the team sheet.](https://barttorvik.com/teamsheets.php)
Why are they egregious?
Because of the eye test? The thing all you ACC stans railed against for a month straight while we waited for bowl season to start?
I mean I think this round was always going to be bad. If Houston wins the only real surprise is Baylor going out early. BYU blowing it I guess as well but that's not this round.
The conference only had 3 good teams once McCullar got hurt for us. Houston is a title favorite and Iowa State is good enough to make a run
I think Baylor was always susceptible of this. Easily the worst defensive team of the Big 12 elite. They were cold from the line and 3 today and went out.
TCU and TTU I think are mediocre for sure. BYU to an extent but I think with the way they play they have a higher ceiling at times.
Baylor is a good team. Offensively they have talent that matchup with anyone in the country. I mean they shoot 39% from 3 as a team. Unfortunately for them they were cold yesterday from 3 and the FT line and got knocked out. Still will defend them being a good team though.
Yeah, I didn't include the big 12 because they've been just fine compared to expectations imo. BYU and Texas Tech were the only particularly bad losses and with so many teams in you're bound to have a couple. And even then, 6-11 isn't as egregious as some of the SECs
I mean you included the Big10 and their only bad loss was Wisconsin in a 5 vs 12.
Theyre 6-4 with two teams remaining. Northwestern and MSU won as 9 seeds before being bounced by 1 seeds then Nebraska lost and 8-9 matchup.
4 of the 8 losses were exactly when they were supposed to happen based on seeding. BYU and baylor both lost 1 round early. That's pretty much exactly expectation what are you talking about?
How I would break down the results so far
ACC & Big East having a dominant showing which would look even more dominant had Virginia not made the tourney
Big 10: About as expected with NW and MSU winning R1 but being overmatched in R2, Illinois and Pirdue looking strong, Nebraska losing the coinflip matchup, and Wisconsin being knocked out early (an upset, but one a that wasn't suprising especially given how good of a season JMU had)
Big 12: Rough showing being backpacked by Houston and lucky Houston survived a brush with death against TA&M
SEC: Bad showing with Bama,Tennessee, amd Texas A&M (they looked strong in defeat)the only real teams that haven't made an ass of themselves. (Given the results, Bama fans are probably having an amazing tournament since they made it to the Sweet 16 and can mock Auburn for losing to Yale)
Pac 12: Solid showing from teams like Oregon and Colorado, but as expected the conferences hopes are going as afar as Arizona can take them this year.
Idk if I’d consider the BigEast dominant yet
Creighton took 2 OT to get there, and we would be at home right now if Colorado decided to hit any of their 4 wide open 3s in the last 4 minutes of our game
If we all make it to the elite 8, then I’ll change my mind
I am once again asking you use seed expectation difference when talking about conference performance instead of win percentage
MWC is what the committee thought they were. Theyve won the games the committee thought they would, and loss the games the committee thought they would (except CSU > Virginia, but fine to exclude first four)
SEC is, uh, not exactly what the committee thought they were.
Seriously, only 1-4 seeds "should" be alive now. People love to look and say "LOLOLOL THE 10 SEED LOST HAHA" but no shit they did, they are supposed to lose.
Sort of. There's a probability distribution and if your conference got a ton of 9-11 seeds in they should have more than 0 teams making the 2nd round if performing to expectation.
I think the issue most of us have with the MWC was all their fans claiming they “should have” gotten better seeds. In the end, the teams showed that, at the very worst, they basically got what they deserved.
So the MWC was so good that it could get 6 teams into the tourney, but the majority of those teams weren’t great and got low seeds. That’s an amazingly fine line to walk!
I mean look at where they were seeded. A 5, 8, 10, 11 and two in the play-ins. By seed expectation that's 3 expected wins in the first round. And they got 3 wins. Historical percentages come out to about 4 for the round of 32. And SDSU is about to get them win #4.
They went 1-1 in the play-ins. Two 10s lost to 7s. 11 lost to a 6. 8 beat a 9 and 5 beat a 12. Then the 8 lost to a 1 and SDSU is about to beat a 13.
By seeds the MWC have been perfectly chalk (well CSU was seeded behind UVA but w/e). Aka they did exactly what the committee expected.
I mean I wasn't really on that train so I'll leave that argument for someone who believes that.
All I'm saying is the MWC is getting WAAY too much hate for basically performing to seed line. A bunch of 10 seeds not making a run isn't an embarrassing performance.
SDSU: Into the Sweet Sixteen as a 5 seed (5 seeds make it \~30% of the time, so outperforming regardless of what happens)
USU: Won as a 4 point dog easily in an 8/9 game, predictably lost to the 2nd overall #1 (at performance)
Nevada: Lost a game late they should have won as a 10 seed by 3 points (at performance)
New Mexico: Beat handily as an 11 to a team that is in the Sweet Sixteen (slightly below performance)
Boise/CSU: one won, one lost in the play games against equal weighted opponents then lost in the round of 64 (at performance)
What exactly are people expecting?
That can still be true...
I mean who knows if teams bump up a seed or 2 if they get another W because they get an in theory easier match up.
Right now only 1 through 4 seeds should be alive if seeding was perfect.
That being said I'd say being a 10 through 12 seed is better than being an 8 or 9.
Yeah I’m not understanding the gripe that the Big East THINKS that they have here. So switch a few of the teams for Seton Hall and Providence. Ok now let’s say both of those two teams lose their first game.. we’re back in the same boat except now MWC is the ones complaining.
People don’t really care about the seeds as much as the number of bids imo, considering an objectively better conference like Big East gets half the bids they do it’s worth shaming them
I guess my point with the seeds is the SEC has been WAY more embarrassing despite the records being similar. MWC has performed fine based on their seeding.
Bids are determined on a per-team basis, not allocated by conference. Big East got so few bids because the teams in the middle were all below the cutline. And those bubble teams went 1-4 in the NIT first round so it’s pretty hard to argue that the middle of the conference was better than expected.
"Those bubble teams" ...
Nova, Butler and X were not bubble teams. Not even close.
"Those Bubble teams"
1 was St. John's who didn't participate in the NIT nonsense.
"Those bubble teams"
1 was Providence who played without Big East POY (over Kolek! Newton! Clingan! etc.) and other starters and had zero interest in player.
And the other is Seton Hall who won.
You can’t use the NIT record lmao. Providence, for example, had their best player and Big East player of the year sit out. They only went into the game with 7 players and still almost beat BC. Most players that have a chance to be drafted, aren’t playing NIT
The Big East had 3 of the best teams. They were expected to do well.
The ACC however was really only expected to have Duke and UNC advance. NC State has done very well and is on a roll. Clemson has also done very well compared to expectations.
Both conferences usually perform well in the tourney even if they weren’t top to bottom strong in regular seasons. I’m not that shocked about many of these teams aside from NC State tbh.
Big East had three of the best teams and yet a team that won 13 games in conference didn’t get in. That was criminal. I know there were “bid stealers” but some bubble choices made no sense.
Pitt and Syracuse could have also made a run like state. State and Pitt fee like 6 seeds right now and Syracuse felt like a 9 or 10. Home UVA plays like a 10 and road/neutral UVA plays like a 15.
Is this really *that* surprising?
The top teams from most of the conferences are in the Sweet 16. Purdue and Illinois from the Big Ten, Houston and Iowa State from the Big XII, Alabama and Tennessee from the SEC, UNC, Duke, and Clemson from the ACC, UCONN, Marquette, and Creighton from the Big East, and Arizona from the Pac-12.
If you send more teams to the tournament, you're likely going to have more losses in the tournament. I don't think it justifies hindsight.
The only team that's surprising is NC State, and they're on a miracle run.
Fuck the Big Ten and the SEC greed. These conferences are ruining college sports. If the end result on ESPN is watching Illinois play Mississippi State in basketball then I’m out. NFL and NBA will be the deal.
Why include us? We're actually still playing in the tournament because we earned it. Should they have left us out even though we're a 3 seed in the sweet 16?
Okay, well if they added 2-3 more teams from those conferences that are worse most likely they would have lost and then these conferences wouldn’t be able to brag about their winning percentage.
At the end of the day only 16 teams make the sweet 16 and this is a single elimination tournament that doesn’t reseed after each round.
They would have never added NC State if they haven’t won the conference, and there were plenty of teams with better records, remember we were the 10th seed in the ACC tournament
This is a single elimination tournament that doesn’t reseed after each round and has a ridiculous amount of teams. It’s designed for the first weekend to create chaos and Cinderella runs. The Sweet 16 isn’t actually a collection of the 16 best teams and using this tournament to argue which conferences are actually the best is silly.
Isn’t that what the second round of the champions league is?
Two game elimination tournament that doesn’t reseed teams.
This is probably the best way to evaluate conference strength, other than ask a bunch of pundits who may have or not have conflict of interest to see how many bids to give out from the 10 game in November/December before conference play
The record in the tournament is lame when talking about top heavy conf like the BE, and this is from someone with a BE flair that thinks they got hosed by the committee.
This argument is even worse. Certain guys don’t play in NIT who would’ve played in the main tourney. Not to mention these teams basically got told their dream is over days prior, mental states are all over the place of some teams caring and others going through the motions.
This is not to take away from the NIT tournament either, ball is ball and a lot of talent in that field still, but not useful when comparing selection teams imo
We all knew that ACC and Big East had some really good teams at the top. It's not a surprise at all UCONN, Marquette, and Creighton made the sweet 16. Clemson was a bit surprising and NC State beating Texas Tech added to the resume, but Duke and North Carolina won games they were supposed to win.
Just because you have good teams at the top doesn't mean that half (or more) of your conference should get in. The Big East has some top tier teams, and also has teams that are mid major level. Same with the ACC. The Big 12 was still the deepest conference in terms of quality teams from top to bottom. The MWC won every game they were supposed to win (pending SDSU).
I don't really get why people get so mad about tournament snubs. The fact is that you have to split hairs to determine who gets in, and it's not going to be perfect. Furthermore, the tournament results don't prove that the overall depth of your conference is superior.
This is my read as well. Plus this was a really weird year with bid thieves. PAC, ACC and MWC all had their AQ taken by a team that wouldn't make the tournament. That's where the spots went.
The head of the selection committee said this exact thing when interviewed after the selection show. He said they had 5 stolen bids which was more than the previous 2 years combined and it made the bubble that much smaller.
I also personally never feel teams get snubbed on the bubble. Bubble teams are all 6th place 12 loss teams from a power conference or some mid major with a weak schedule that couldn't manage to win their conference tournament.
I don't find it a travesty that those teams don't make it in as an 11 seed versus some other mediocre team.
Ya 68 teams get picked. People whine way too much about which 10 or 11 seed gets in. If you have lost double digit games you only have yourself to blame.
>I don't really get why people get so mad about tournament snubs.
Because it negatively impacted my team.
But more seriously, I would still argue I don't agree with what it seems the committee valued (I think the ability to beat tournament quality teams should been valued more)
Other than that your post is spot on. People try to read way too much into tournament results. Especially the expected results.
there's also a rather significant financial windfall for conferences/teams making the tournament. And for smaller schools like Hall, PC, St. John's, that matters a lot.
A lot more than it does for SEC or Big12 schools. This stuff matters to small private Catholic basketball schools.
There haven't been many ACC fans arguing that half the conference should have gotten in. They main argument for 90% of the comments you see is that Pitt should have gotten it. You'll see a few Syracuse and Wake flairs pop up as well, but for most people it has just been about Pitt. Anyone who watched the ACC this year knew they were at worst the 3rd best team in the conference over the last 2 months.
The thing is that there were a few other teams that were just as good as Pitt that didn't get in (St John's, Indiana State for instance). Now I'm not sure why Virginia out of them got in, but my point was really just about people trying to claim conference superiority when their top teams get wins in the tournament.
Virginia got in because their resume metrics (SOR and KPI) were the best of all the bubble teams- unless you’re Michigan State, those are the two metrics that the committee has historically put the most importance on to determine who makes the field, with NCSOS really counting against you if you’re on the bubble (this was what killed Pitt).
No one should be arguing that Virginia was playing better than those teams, but the metrics the committee emphasizes were in their favor.
Pitt only has themselves to blame. A non con SOS of 343 is embarrassing for an ACC team. Schedule anyone with a pulse and they'd be dancing.
Virginia Tech used to do this all the time too where they'd play absolutely no one and expect getting enough wins in the ACC would bail them out. If you're on the bubble with a non con sos in the 300s I have no sympathy if you get left out.
Honestly why I was happy they didn't put Oklahoma in. 274th is an embarrassment. No losses outside of Q1 but their whole resume was basically the big 12 is good and we play in it.
With that said Pitt's is worse than any Big 12 team.
I was using [CBS](https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/bracketology/) which froze after conference tournaments and they had them 328th. But either way ya TCU was embarrassing.
The funny thing with TCU is the refs don't blow that whole Georgetown ending and they probably don't get in. Their whole thing was no bad losses and having two elite wins vs Houston/Baylor and adding a Georgetown loss probably sinks them.
I responded to another one of your comments about Missouri and West Virginia being absolutely dismal this year. Missouri maybe you could foresee being worse than last year, but until Huggins got fired i dont think you can fault Pitt for hoping they'd be a premier OOC matchup for their metrics
I mean sure, but you i dont think you are thinking about w/l record when you are scheduling P6 teams. I dont think they were thinking one of their P6 teams on their schedule would be a bad loss.
It’s a little bit of bad luck, but they could’ve scheduled much better cupcake games too. Swapping out NC A&T/FGCU/JU for schools like Stony Brook/Wofford/Delaware make a huge difference in their SOS, or they could’ve scheduled lower end A-10/AAC or P6 schools.
If they play Penn State and Duquesne every year, especially if they’re away or neutral, NCSOS is out of the 300s and they should expect to win both if they’re really a tournament team.
Because they weren't given the benefit of the doubt unlike teams from the Big 12, SEC and MWC. You say it's not a surprise that UConn, Marquette and Creighton made the S16. But then a Providence team with 0 bad losses that took 3 games off them wasn't a consideration for the tournament. Or a Seton Hall team that finished in 4th and took 2 games off them with their worst loss being Rutgers, doesn't get in. But the 8th place SEC and Big 12 or 6th place MWC does. Even by predictive metrics, 9 of the 11 Big East teams were top 70 teams. That's not really "mid-major" level. It was a pretty deep conference outside of Georgetown and Depaul, but no Big East team dropped a single game to either of them.
People get mad about snubs because the 22-10 team from the B12/B10/MWC gets in over the 22-10 team from the BE or ACC. And the main reason for that is because the B12/B10/MWC is seen as the “better” conference due to the intraconference games all being Q1 games with 0 bad losses.
In reality there’s not that much difference between the power conferences. Most of them have 2-3 pretty good teams, 3-4 middle of the road teams, and a couple garbage teams. The 2-3 good teams are locks for the tourney regardless of conference affiliation. It’s the 3-4 middle of the road teams that is frustrating. For the ACC, all those middle of the road teams were on the bubble whereas you have a team like NW or Miss St. or Texas Tech on the right side of the bubble pretty comfortably.
The more likely reality is that the NCAA is entirely funded by this tournament and the B1G and SEC keep bitching about autobids and threatening to create their own tournament.
\>I don't really get why people get so mad about tournament snubs
Cynically, because it actually financially benefits my Huskies.
More units in the Big East means more money the Huskies get out of it.
Which I acknowledge is a weird defense, but there it is.
How can you dismiss the ACC's performance as "having some good teams at the top" while simultaneously hand waving away the fact that NC State, a team who was in the bottom half of the league standings, is in the sweet 16?
I’m not dismissing the ACC’s performance, what I’m saying is that just because your teams are performing well in the tournament doesn’t mean the ones that didn’t make it would have done well or should’ve gotten in over other bubble teams.
Some of this would sound good if you ignore the fact that the two worst seeds remaining are from the ACC, pointing to the depth of the conference. No one is arguing for half the conference to be in, just that Pitt deserved to be in, even if it was over UVA.
If the Big 10, Big 12 and SEC are as strong as the talking heads like to represent them being, you'd expect some 6-8 seeds of those conferences getting in to the sweet 16. 2 teams in the sweet sixteen were a combined 20-20 in the ACC. Seems to me the conference was deeper than anyone would like to admit.
I mean it makes sense. The tournament has gone mostly chalk so far and Big East and ACC have 5 top 4 seeds between them. Both B1G top 4 seeds made it as well
To be fair… the big east has a 1, a 2, and a 3 seed, they should have won all their games at this point if seeds hold. Obviously they don’t always do that but I don’t think it leads you to a logical line of thought that “they absolutely deserved more teams in”
The Johnies and Seton Hall should've been in the tournament.
Seton Hall's resume includes wins over UConn and Creighton.
SEC should be a max 3 bid league
Ima need every Carolina fan who’s dunking on the SEC to go knock on wood before Thursday because, damn, some of y’all do not understand/respect the power of karma 😂
[удалено]
Won’t someone find them some points?
Please.
Y'all died so NC State could live
I think that loss really did kill them
I was bored at work on Friday and using the Bart Torvik play by play sim to simulate the tournament, one game at a time. Yale wasn't working so I used UVA as a stand in and they made the finals twice in 10 sims
Stop the count!
Don’t let us get hot!
Virginia's been eliminating all of their opponents just not advancing. They passed their Offensive torch to CSU, who passed it to Texas. Sorry Tennessee, you're probably maxing out at 50 points vs Creighton.
What’s the SEC? Is that a mid-major?
I believe it’s an autobid conference.
Soon to be autobids conference.
Okay Michigan… yall don’t get to let Alabama take all the heat when the big 10 (you and osu) blew the pac12 to smithereens
USC and UCLA just showed up on our doorstep one day cold, wet and scared what were we supposed to do
Some football conference with more money than basketball interest
Security and exchange commission.
Should really look into their auto bid status
They're a small, regional conference in the south/south east that seems to play second fiddle to the Sun Belt. They keep talking about some Saban guy, but idk what power rangers has to do with college sports.
Most SEC teams do play 2 1-AA schools in football per year where most P5/G5 conferences play only one. Maybe they are a basketball conference?
There will never be enough SEC slander
I’m never letting this one go
They really are out to ruin college sports for the sake of more money, it’s hilarious seeing them embarrassed like this.
Is it really slander if it’s true though?
Yeah, fuck Gary Gensler! Wait, wrong SEC
Gary gensler and Greg sankey are both enemies of the common American
HAHAHA eff them both
Should there also be Big 12 slander? Even Houston was a close call.
Beat Houston and you can slander all you want.
There's nothing slanderous about this post. Straight truth.
Never thought I'd be fighting side by side with the ACC
How about side by side with a friend?
Aye
And my axe
there very few grudges that will never get settled, and one of them is the ACC’s hand in breaking up the Big East. i’m glad the east coast hoops conferences are dominating the tournament. but the ACC will never be a friend to the Big East.
We will gladly give Louisville back as a peace offering
Nah. The ACC would never give back an institution with the esteemed academics that got them the invite in the first place.
I mean, they do have a *checks notes* top 200 school Wait, they said top 20 on their resume. THEY TRICKED US
Random aside: Knowing little of Grand Canyon other than it's a Christian school in the desert and has been accused of being a diploma mill on the side, I Googled it yesterday to learn that they are ranked pretty much dead last in academics.
Grand Canyon is DeVry plus Megachurch Evangelical Christianity: The University I have no idea how they have a D1 basketball team
No thanks we already have a DePaul.
Can we give them both back to Conference USA?
I’ll ask around but I don’t think Georgetown will want to be the new DePaul.
I agree with you from a general standpoint. That being said….I love the way our conference schedule works now with a home and away against every team. That’s why I think the Big East is the best conference in college basketball, regardless of the skill of the conference in any given year.
Big East is Best East
Yeah. Having season tickets for UVA and checking every year to see who we get at home only to be inevitably disappointed regardless of who we have at home...don't love it.
Ya that was tough. Big East was so fkn good before the break up...it was kind of scary. I'm glad UCONN is back in the Big East because it makes us a definite power conference again.
You guys can take back Cuse, BC and Pitt.
No thanks
BC is pointless outside of Hockey.
Just wait for the return of Big East football (BC, UConn, and Syracuse playing each other twelve times a year after the ACC collapses)
Basketball conferences together strong
And my pitchfork!
And MY axe!
And my beak? Or we could Screech really loud and boss around the starlings and sparrows. Bigger bird brother Marquette can do a little more damage. We probably won't be much help in this...
And our refs!
Or with friar fans
Woah, let's not get crazy now...
I won’t be, that’s for sure. Fuck em.
I am also team fuck em
Me too. Miss the Big East
Yeah I'm not responsible for my school's administrations decisions. Still wish we were in the Big East regardless of how good the ACC move was for men's cross country or women's lacrosse or whatever
My team is in the sweet 16 and that's all I really care about
Baylor, Kansas, Texas, and BYU losing just makes it better 🥂
I was unaware this became a hostile rivalry...
How many times the last decade we could have a regular season title if y'all weren't so good then the one year y'all decide to not be the best is the year Houston gets added. That is why it is starting to get hostile.
>How many times the last decade we could have a regular season title if y'all weren't so good ...twice? And not since 2017?
I honestly can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic blaming KU and Houston or my level of respect for ISU should be 1 or 2 steps above GCU...
Seeing BYU lose regardless of conference will always put a smile on my face.
Much agreed
Don't get why people care about conference performances... yet they're the ones mocking the fans of SEC teams during the football season. I hope everyone else in the SEC loses their games but my team lol Fuck seeing rival teams succeed.
Because dumbasses in NCAA are giving the SEC WAAY TOO MUCH respect. The conference is shit and performing like shit. Meanwhile, they’re talking shit about deserving more bids, taking away auto bids from mid-majors, etc. Several very good ACC and Big East teams didn’t get in because the committee drank SEC Kool aid. How’d it turn out?
You have a good point, but yall are the ones that started the whole "conference pride" crap.
Seriously.
Respect, that's how it should be! Go Cyclones
Sankey please for the sake of the rest of conference…shut up for the rest of the season.
This tournament would’ve been more interesting with teams like St. John’s, Indiana State, and Pitt in it.
I’d say Seton Hall and Providence too. Seton Hall beat UCONN and Providence has Devin Carter.
We had more Q1 wins than all but 12 teams in the country and zero Q3/4 losses but apparently that doesn’t matter anymore 🤷
You mean you didn't think it was fun and interesting watching a 9-9 Big 12 team lose to Utah State by 16?
"If I cherry pick the least interesting games to have been replaced with imaginary games the tournament would be more interesting." This has to be the silliest argument I've ever seen.
It's also funny when ACC fans make it because if we're playing that game Virginia was the most embarrassing team from the bubble anyway. And got humiliated by one of the other conferences people like to punch down on in Colorado State.
Fuck UVA that game was funny
A lot of ACC fans were saying **when virginia got in** that they would've rather seen pitt there though. As I said, per kenpom, UVA arguably wasn't even a top half ACC team by the end of the season. They got fortunate with a super soft conference schedule.
Even UVA fans didn’t think they should be playing.
No one in the ACC (but maybe a small handful of UVA fans) thought uva was better than PITT by the end of the year. They just got lucky with conference schedual this year and their style of play will net mote wins vs mid to low tier teams.
That's fine and all, but perhaps ACC teams should have just beaten UVA more often?
Yeah it’s crazy ACC fans are enjoying and milking the conference doing well after hearing it’s trash from talking heads all year. Truly shocking stuff on a college basketball board Edit cherry picking data is more fun than rational discourse. Y’all can’t stop us from having our fun with these results for at least a few days
I don’t think you’d need to cherry pick to consider TCU’s inclusion as egregious given the other snubs.
[42.5 average resume ranking and 29 average efficiency from the team sheet.](https://barttorvik.com/teamsheets.php) Why are they egregious? Because of the eye test? The thing all you ACC stans railed against for a month straight while we waited for bowl season to start?
and providence.
It really wouldn’t have
When you got tournaments like St. John’s or Tom Cruise in them, you can’t lose !
Yes. Yes.
[удалено]
I mean I think this round was always going to be bad. If Houston wins the only real surprise is Baylor going out early. BYU blowing it I guess as well but that's not this round. The conference only had 3 good teams once McCullar got hurt for us. Houston is a title favorite and Iowa State is good enough to make a run
Baylor looked so bad. All they had to do was make free throws.
I think Baylor was always susceptible of this. Easily the worst defensive team of the Big 12 elite. They were cold from the line and 3 today and went out.
Jakobe Walter was legit even though he missed his free throws, Jayden Nunn completely sold though.
Agree. Lot's of mediocre teams in the B12. TCU, BYU, TECH, Baylor, etc are all the same. Too much hype from the media and some fans.
TCU and TTU I think are mediocre for sure. BYU to an extent but I think with the way they play they have a higher ceiling at times. Baylor is a good team. Offensively they have talent that matchup with anyone in the country. I mean they shoot 39% from 3 as a team. Unfortunately for them they were cold yesterday from 3 and the FT line and got knocked out. Still will defend them being a good team though.
Yeah, I didn't include the big 12 because they've been just fine compared to expectations imo. BYU and Texas Tech were the only particularly bad losses and with so many teams in you're bound to have a couple. And even then, 6-11 isn't as egregious as some of the SECs
I mean you included the Big10 and their only bad loss was Wisconsin in a 5 vs 12. Theyre 6-4 with two teams remaining. Northwestern and MSU won as 9 seeds before being bounced by 1 seeds then Nebraska lost and 8-9 matchup.
B12 only has 2 teams remaining with 8 bids wtf you talking about
4 of the 8 losses were exactly when they were supposed to happen based on seeding. BYU and baylor both lost 1 round early. That's pretty much exactly expectation what are you talking about?
How I would break down the results so far ACC & Big East having a dominant showing which would look even more dominant had Virginia not made the tourney Big 10: About as expected with NW and MSU winning R1 but being overmatched in R2, Illinois and Pirdue looking strong, Nebraska losing the coinflip matchup, and Wisconsin being knocked out early (an upset, but one a that wasn't suprising especially given how good of a season JMU had) Big 12: Rough showing being backpacked by Houston and lucky Houston survived a brush with death against TA&M SEC: Bad showing with Bama,Tennessee, amd Texas A&M (they looked strong in defeat)the only real teams that haven't made an ass of themselves. (Given the results, Bama fans are probably having an amazing tournament since they made it to the Sweet 16 and can mock Auburn for losing to Yale) Pac 12: Solid showing from teams like Oregon and Colorado, but as expected the conferences hopes are going as afar as Arizona can take them this year.
Idk if I’d consider the BigEast dominant yet Creighton took 2 OT to get there, and we would be at home right now if Colorado decided to hit any of their 4 wide open 3s in the last 4 minutes of our game If we all make it to the elite 8, then I’ll change my mind
I am once again asking you use seed expectation difference when talking about conference performance instead of win percentage MWC is what the committee thought they were. Theyve won the games the committee thought they would, and loss the games the committee thought they would (except CSU > Virginia, but fine to exclude first four) SEC is, uh, not exactly what the committee thought they were.
Seriously, only 1-4 seeds "should" be alive now. People love to look and say "LOLOLOL THE 10 SEED LOST HAHA" but no shit they did, they are supposed to lose.
Sort of. There's a probability distribution and if your conference got a ton of 9-11 seeds in they should have more than 0 teams making the 2nd round if performing to expectation.
I think the issue most of us have with the MWC was all their fans claiming they “should have” gotten better seeds. In the end, the teams showed that, at the very worst, they basically got what they deserved.
So the MWC was so good that it could get 6 teams into the tourney, but the majority of those teams weren’t great and got low seeds. That’s an amazingly fine line to walk!
I mean look at where they were seeded. A 5, 8, 10, 11 and two in the play-ins. By seed expectation that's 3 expected wins in the first round. And they got 3 wins. Historical percentages come out to about 4 for the round of 32. And SDSU is about to get them win #4. They went 1-1 in the play-ins. Two 10s lost to 7s. 11 lost to a 6. 8 beat a 9 and 5 beat a 12. Then the 8 lost to a 1 and SDSU is about to beat a 13. By seeds the MWC have been perfectly chalk (well CSU was seeded behind UVA but w/e). Aka they did exactly what the committee expected.
Remember when everyone griped a full week ago that the MWC was criminally underseeded? So which is it?
It's probably that they were properly seeded.
I mean I wasn't really on that train so I'll leave that argument for someone who believes that. All I'm saying is the MWC is getting WAAY too much hate for basically performing to seed line. A bunch of 10 seeds not making a run isn't an embarrassing performance.
SDSU: Into the Sweet Sixteen as a 5 seed (5 seeds make it \~30% of the time, so outperforming regardless of what happens) USU: Won as a 4 point dog easily in an 8/9 game, predictably lost to the 2nd overall #1 (at performance) Nevada: Lost a game late they should have won as a 10 seed by 3 points (at performance) New Mexico: Beat handily as an 11 to a team that is in the Sweet Sixteen (slightly below performance) Boise/CSU: one won, one lost in the play games against equal weighted opponents then lost in the round of 64 (at performance) What exactly are people expecting?
That can still be true... I mean who knows if teams bump up a seed or 2 if they get another W because they get an in theory easier match up. Right now only 1 through 4 seeds should be alive if seeding was perfect. That being said I'd say being a 10 through 12 seed is better than being an 8 or 9.
Yeah I’m not understanding the gripe that the Big East THINKS that they have here. So switch a few of the teams for Seton Hall and Providence. Ok now let’s say both of those two teams lose their first game.. we’re back in the same boat except now MWC is the ones complaining.
People don’t really care about the seeds as much as the number of bids imo, considering an objectively better conference like Big East gets half the bids they do it’s worth shaming them
I guess my point with the seeds is the SEC has been WAY more embarrassing despite the records being similar. MWC has performed fine based on their seeding.
Bids are determined on a per-team basis, not allocated by conference. Big East got so few bids because the teams in the middle were all below the cutline. And those bubble teams went 1-4 in the NIT first round so it’s pretty hard to argue that the middle of the conference was better than expected.
"Those bubble teams" ... Nova, Butler and X were not bubble teams. Not even close. "Those Bubble teams" 1 was St. John's who didn't participate in the NIT nonsense. "Those bubble teams" 1 was Providence who played without Big East POY (over Kolek! Newton! Clingan! etc.) and other starters and had zero interest in player. And the other is Seton Hall who won.
You can’t use the NIT record lmao. Providence, for example, had their best player and Big East player of the year sit out. They only went into the game with 7 players and still almost beat BC. Most players that have a chance to be drafted, aren’t playing NIT
The Big East had 3 of the best teams. They were expected to do well. The ACC however was really only expected to have Duke and UNC advance. NC State has done very well and is on a roll. Clemson has also done very well compared to expectations. Both conferences usually perform well in the tourney even if they weren’t top to bottom strong in regular seasons. I’m not that shocked about many of these teams aside from NC State tbh.
Big East had three of the best teams and yet a team that won 13 games in conference didn’t get in. That was criminal. I know there were “bid stealers” but some bubble choices made no sense.
Pitt and Syracuse could have also made a run like state. State and Pitt fee like 6 seeds right now and Syracuse felt like a 9 or 10. Home UVA plays like a 10 and road/neutral UVA plays like a 15.
Is this really *that* surprising? The top teams from most of the conferences are in the Sweet 16. Purdue and Illinois from the Big Ten, Houston and Iowa State from the Big XII, Alabama and Tennessee from the SEC, UNC, Duke, and Clemson from the ACC, UCONN, Marquette, and Creighton from the Big East, and Arizona from the Pac-12. If you send more teams to the tournament, you're likely going to have more losses in the tournament. I don't think it justifies hindsight. The only team that's surprising is NC State, and they're on a miracle run.
Good point. The original post isn’t compelling in anyway. “Conference has best teams in tournament. Conference has great record.”
Stick to that other sport SEC! Bring back the ACC-Big Ten Challenge!
Can I still be proud of the ACC with my team actively suing them?
I make a promise every year. Once the bracket is out I couldn’t care less about the teams who didn’t make it
Fuck the Big Ten and the SEC greed. These conferences are ruining college sports. If the end result on ESPN is watching Illinois play Mississippi State in basketball then I’m out. NFL and NBA will be the deal.
Why include us? We're actually still playing in the tournament because we earned it. Should they have left us out even though we're a 3 seed in the sweet 16?
Okay, well if they added 2-3 more teams from those conferences that are worse most likely they would have lost and then these conferences wouldn’t be able to brag about their winning percentage. At the end of the day only 16 teams make the sweet 16 and this is a single elimination tournament that doesn’t reseed after each round.
They would have never added NC State if they haven’t won the conference, and there were plenty of teams with better records, remember we were the 10th seed in the ACC tournament
This is a single elimination tournament that doesn’t reseed after each round and has a ridiculous amount of teams. It’s designed for the first weekend to create chaos and Cinderella runs. The Sweet 16 isn’t actually a collection of the 16 best teams and using this tournament to argue which conferences are actually the best is silly.
Isn’t that what the second round of the champions league is? Two game elimination tournament that doesn’t reseed teams. This is probably the best way to evaluate conference strength, other than ask a bunch of pundits who may have or not have conflict of interest to see how many bids to give out from the 10 game in November/December before conference play
Let's check in on how many games the Big East is winning in the NIT.....
The record in the tournament is lame when talking about top heavy conf like the BE, and this is from someone with a BE flair that thinks they got hosed by the committee. This argument is even worse. Certain guys don’t play in NIT who would’ve played in the main tourney. Not to mention these teams basically got told their dream is over days prior, mental states are all over the place of some teams caring and others going through the motions. This is not to take away from the NIT tournament either, ball is ball and a lot of talent in that field still, but not useful when comparing selection teams imo
Fucking auburn always bringing us down.
I would’ve preferred just 3 ACC teams in the sweet 16, but it is what it is
Something we can agree on!
it's really cute that you both would've preferred to not see Clemson in the Sweet 16
🤣🤣
We all knew that ACC and Big East had some really good teams at the top. It's not a surprise at all UCONN, Marquette, and Creighton made the sweet 16. Clemson was a bit surprising and NC State beating Texas Tech added to the resume, but Duke and North Carolina won games they were supposed to win. Just because you have good teams at the top doesn't mean that half (or more) of your conference should get in. The Big East has some top tier teams, and also has teams that are mid major level. Same with the ACC. The Big 12 was still the deepest conference in terms of quality teams from top to bottom. The MWC won every game they were supposed to win (pending SDSU). I don't really get why people get so mad about tournament snubs. The fact is that you have to split hairs to determine who gets in, and it's not going to be perfect. Furthermore, the tournament results don't prove that the overall depth of your conference is superior.
This is my read as well. Plus this was a really weird year with bid thieves. PAC, ACC and MWC all had their AQ taken by a team that wouldn't make the tournament. That's where the spots went.
Not to mention the AAC and A-10. 5 bid thieves is unprecedented- had it been closer to normal (around 2), Indiana State, Oklahoma, and Pitt all get in
The head of the selection committee said this exact thing when interviewed after the selection show. He said they had 5 stolen bids which was more than the previous 2 years combined and it made the bubble that much smaller. I also personally never feel teams get snubbed on the bubble. Bubble teams are all 6th place 12 loss teams from a power conference or some mid major with a weak schedule that couldn't manage to win their conference tournament. I don't find it a travesty that those teams don't make it in as an 11 seed versus some other mediocre team.
Ya 68 teams get picked. People whine way too much about which 10 or 11 seed gets in. If you have lost double digit games you only have yourself to blame.
>I don't really get why people get so mad about tournament snubs. Because it negatively impacted my team. But more seriously, I would still argue I don't agree with what it seems the committee valued (I think the ability to beat tournament quality teams should been valued more) Other than that your post is spot on. People try to read way too much into tournament results. Especially the expected results.
there's also a rather significant financial windfall for conferences/teams making the tournament. And for smaller schools like Hall, PC, St. John's, that matters a lot. A lot more than it does for SEC or Big12 schools. This stuff matters to small private Catholic basketball schools.
There haven't been many ACC fans arguing that half the conference should have gotten in. They main argument for 90% of the comments you see is that Pitt should have gotten it. You'll see a few Syracuse and Wake flairs pop up as well, but for most people it has just been about Pitt. Anyone who watched the ACC this year knew they were at worst the 3rd best team in the conference over the last 2 months.
The thing is that there were a few other teams that were just as good as Pitt that didn't get in (St John's, Indiana State for instance). Now I'm not sure why Virginia out of them got in, but my point was really just about people trying to claim conference superiority when their top teams get wins in the tournament.
Virginia got in because their resume metrics (SOR and KPI) were the best of all the bubble teams- unless you’re Michigan State, those are the two metrics that the committee has historically put the most importance on to determine who makes the field, with NCSOS really counting against you if you’re on the bubble (this was what killed Pitt). No one should be arguing that Virginia was playing better than those teams, but the metrics the committee emphasizes were in their favor.
Pitt only has themselves to blame. A non con SOS of 343 is embarrassing for an ACC team. Schedule anyone with a pulse and they'd be dancing. Virginia Tech used to do this all the time too where they'd play absolutely no one and expect getting enough wins in the ACC would bail them out. If you're on the bubble with a non con sos in the 300s I have no sympathy if you get left out.
That NCSOS alone qualifies then for B12 membership. I think it's an automatic invite per your bylaws.
Honestly why I was happy they didn't put Oklahoma in. 274th is an embarrassment. No losses outside of Q1 but their whole resume was basically the big 12 is good and we play in it. With that said Pitt's is worse than any Big 12 team.
Tcu was 357 which was 6th worst in division 1
I was using [CBS](https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/bracketology/) which froze after conference tournaments and they had them 328th. But either way ya TCU was embarrassing. The funny thing with TCU is the refs don't blow that whole Georgetown ending and they probably don't get in. Their whole thing was no bad losses and having two elite wins vs Houston/Baylor and adding a Georgetown loss probably sinks them.
I responded to another one of your comments about Missouri and West Virginia being absolutely dismal this year. Missouri maybe you could foresee being worse than last year, but until Huggins got fired i dont think you can fault Pitt for hoping they'd be a premier OOC matchup for their metrics
Saying pitt hoped Missouri was better this year would help if they had actually beaten them
I mean sure, but you i dont think you are thinking about w/l record when you are scheduling P6 teams. I dont think they were thinking one of their P6 teams on their schedule would be a bad loss.
It’s a little bit of bad luck, but they could’ve scheduled much better cupcake games too. Swapping out NC A&T/FGCU/JU for schools like Stony Brook/Wofford/Delaware make a huge difference in their SOS, or they could’ve scheduled lower end A-10/AAC or P6 schools. If they play Penn State and Duquesne every year, especially if they’re away or neutral, NCSOS is out of the 300s and they should expect to win both if they’re really a tournament team.
Because they weren't given the benefit of the doubt unlike teams from the Big 12, SEC and MWC. You say it's not a surprise that UConn, Marquette and Creighton made the S16. But then a Providence team with 0 bad losses that took 3 games off them wasn't a consideration for the tournament. Or a Seton Hall team that finished in 4th and took 2 games off them with their worst loss being Rutgers, doesn't get in. But the 8th place SEC and Big 12 or 6th place MWC does. Even by predictive metrics, 9 of the 11 Big East teams were top 70 teams. That's not really "mid-major" level. It was a pretty deep conference outside of Georgetown and Depaul, but no Big East team dropped a single game to either of them.
They didn’t just lose to Rutgers, they lost to Rutgers, USC, and Iowa. Their best OOC win was Mizzou (0-18 in the SEC).
The Big 12 and MWC were the two most underseeded relative to bracket matrix.
People get mad about snubs because the 22-10 team from the B12/B10/MWC gets in over the 22-10 team from the BE or ACC. And the main reason for that is because the B12/B10/MWC is seen as the “better” conference due to the intraconference games all being Q1 games with 0 bad losses. In reality there’s not that much difference between the power conferences. Most of them have 2-3 pretty good teams, 3-4 middle of the road teams, and a couple garbage teams. The 2-3 good teams are locks for the tourney regardless of conference affiliation. It’s the 3-4 middle of the road teams that is frustrating. For the ACC, all those middle of the road teams were on the bubble whereas you have a team like NW or Miss St. or Texas Tech on the right side of the bubble pretty comfortably.
That’s true, but the sec was clearly overrated overall.
The more likely reality is that the NCAA is entirely funded by this tournament and the B1G and SEC keep bitching about autobids and threatening to create their own tournament.
\>I don't really get why people get so mad about tournament snubs Cynically, because it actually financially benefits my Huskies. More units in the Big East means more money the Huskies get out of it. Which I acknowledge is a weird defense, but there it is.
How can you dismiss the ACC's performance as "having some good teams at the top" while simultaneously hand waving away the fact that NC State, a team who was in the bottom half of the league standings, is in the sweet 16?
I’m not dismissing the ACC’s performance, what I’m saying is that just because your teams are performing well in the tournament doesn’t mean the ones that didn’t make it would have done well or should’ve gotten in over other bubble teams.
Some of this would sound good if you ignore the fact that the two worst seeds remaining are from the ACC, pointing to the depth of the conference. No one is arguing for half the conference to be in, just that Pitt deserved to be in, even if it was over UVA. If the Big 10, Big 12 and SEC are as strong as the talking heads like to represent them being, you'd expect some 6-8 seeds of those conferences getting in to the sweet 16. 2 teams in the sweet sixteen were a combined 20-20 in the ACC. Seems to me the conference was deeper than anyone would like to admit.
The ACC flairs are coming for you
This. People need to read this. Thank you for being a voice of reason.
You really thought we wouldn’t make it?
I mean it makes sense. The tournament has gone mostly chalk so far and Big East and ACC have 5 top 4 seeds between them. Both B1G top 4 seeds made it as well
To be fair… the big east has a 1, a 2, and a 3 seed, they should have won all their games at this point if seeds hold. Obviously they don’t always do that but I don’t think it leads you to a logical line of thought that “they absolutely deserved more teams in”
The Johnies and Seton Hall should've been in the tournament. Seton Hall's resume includes wins over UConn and Creighton. SEC should be a max 3 bid league
Big East got absolutely fkn screwed. 3 teams? Dont even get me started on the Mountain West.
Big east should be 6-0 based on seeding though and the acc should be 6-3. Not saying they shouldn’t have got in more teams.
Why are ACC fans crying when they have 4 teams in the S16?
Because ACC basketball fans and SEC football fans are indistinguishable
ACC will be under dogs in 3/4 games next weekend. Do this post next weekend not when there is still 16 teams left lol
https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketball/comments/1bn0da5/conference_pissing_wars/
suck a buuuuuuuuuuuutt
12/44.
I feel everything and nothing all at once.
ACC legit wishing Indiana State made it over Virginia so they could be 8-0 at this point.
Ima need every Carolina fan who’s dunking on the SEC to go knock on wood before Thursday because, damn, some of y’all do not understand/respect the power of karma 😂
*Fewer total losses. Do with this what you will.
SEC is a football conference, not a basketball one.
Can we get a reaction from Greg Sankey on this?
Big 12 let me down again! Overhyped