First 2009 March Madness thread
 

If you listen to the radio or TV.. there is a discussion about HOW many teams can win it all . Lets throw this Jump Ball up to the DT people and see what their thoughts are. Feel free to list how many have a chance or Who you think WILL win it all....

A) Less then 6 teams

B) Less then 8 teams

c) Less then 12 teams

D) Its a real toss up..any team has a chance in a weak field.

I say that UNC is my pick to win it and only UNC, Pitt, or Oklahoma has a legit chance to win the title.

I want UNC to win it. (Lawson fan)

I'm going to side with Kansas though. Plays well on the road and this is the year that it's WIDE open. Its a toss up.

Less than 8.

Is anyone an ESPN Insider? If so, and you could PM the text of this article I'd very much appreciate it as just about the biggest Siena fan on the planet:

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog...e%3dncbexperts

D. It's going to be a free-for-all. I'd be surprised if more than one 1-seed got to the Final Four.

No matter who gets in the Final 4 it will be great

















NO MORE BILLY PACKER!!!!:tro:

Really?...........SWEET!

I say less than 6 have a legitimate shot....but that's why we watch 'em

Statistical proof of what I've said for years... quality mid-majors are a vastly better at-large selection than their middle-of-the-road major counterparts on the bubble. Over the past 5 years high majors with a double digit seed have advanced to the sweet 16 just 2 out of 19 times, whereas 7 out of 42 "quality mids" seeded 10 or higher (i.e., did or would have received an at-large) have turned the trick. The trend continues going back all 10 years of his study.

Posted by Joe Lunardi

Thank you for recognizing the quality of the Siena men's basketball team. They are an outstanding team, and I don't see how Niagara defeated them in your mock MAAC tournament. Also, the Saints should get the at-large bid over Notre Dame.

The only reason [the Fighting Irish] can still get a tourney bid is because they were ranked well in the preseason. If Siena started on level ground with Notre Dame, I don't think there would be any question of who would be in the tournament.

Siena is 21-6 and 15-1 in conference play, and that includes the fifth-toughest nonconference schedule in the nation. This was a schedule that included road games against Kansas (which it lost to by just seven and outscored by six in the second half), then-No. 3 Pittsburgh, and games in the Old Spice Classic against Tennessee and Oklahoma State. They also recently defeated Northern Iowa in a nationally televised game on BracketBusters Saturday.

So, if this mid-major can't make the big dance, who can?

Bradley Rost

Two points of clarification before we get to the heart of Bradley's question:

• The conference tournament results presented during our mock bracket exercise last weekend were random. Niagara defeating Siena had nothing to do with the relative quality of the teams. But the result forced Siena into the at-large pool.

• That demonstration led to some very heated discussion about Notre Dame (the last at-large team selected in our exercise) and Siena (the first team out of the NCAA field in our vote). As stated earlier, I was in the minority in voting for the Saints.

The real issue isn't what the ESPN mock committee did, of course, but what the actual NCAA men's basketball committee would do when presented with this classic question: a quality mid-major versus what I like to call a "middling" major. There are folks who claim that Notre Dame is better than Siena, that the Irish have superior talent and would dominate a league like the MAAC, that the Saints would be completely undone by the meat grinder of the Big East.

I would politely suggest that these are opinions -- well informed -- but still ultimately human judgments. It is more honest to assert that while the Irish might in fact dominate the MAAC, so has Siena. It is equally honest to state that while the Saints might indeed be overwhelmed in the Big East, so was Notre Dame for the better part of the season.

I prefer to deal in facts, and, thankfully, so does the real committee (at least the large majority of the time). So let us consider:

• At the time of our vote, Siena and Notre Dame had identical ASM (Adjusted Scoring Margin) figures of +8.28 ppg. This is not insignificant, as teams in that range are frequent 10-12 seeds in the NCAA tournament.

• The Irish have two more superior wins than Siena has posted (Texas and Louisville). The Irish also have at least one loss (St. John's) to a team the Saints figure to have beaten. We have to consider both ends of this spectrum.

• While the history of individual teams is not a factor in NCAA selection and seeding, an analysis of past tournaments can inform the selection process. In other words, how do these types of teams tend to perform once they make the field?

Going back 10 years, I have examined every double-digit seed from a BCS conference ("Middling Majors") and all other double-digit seeds who received/would have received at-large consideration ("Quality Mids"). The results, even to me, were a bit surprising:

Mid-Majors vs. Middling Majors
BCS Sweet 16s Non-BCS Sweet 16s
So how do mid-majors stack up with the BCS schools when both are double-digit seeds?
The table below shows the cumulative records of those teams seeded in double digits and
which ones reached the Sweet 16 or beyond.
2008 3-6 Villanova 7-9 Davidson (Elite Eight)
Western Kentucky
2007 0-5 none 2-6 none
2006 2-3 none 8-8 George Mason (Final Four)
Bradley
Wichita State
2005 2-3 NC State 4-10 Wisconsin-Milwaukee
2004 0-2 none 4-9 Nevada
2003 2-4 Auburn 4-8 Butler
2002 3-3 Missouri (Elite Eight) 9-10 Kent State (Elite Eight)
Southern Illinois
2001 2-3 Georgetown 10-11 Temple (Elite Eight)
Gonzaga
2000 2-3 Seton Hall 3-8 Gonzaga
1999 3-2 Oklahoma 9-11 Gonzaga (Elite Eight)
Miami (Ohio)
SW Missouri State
Totals 19-34 (.358) 60-90 (.400)


What do you know? Despite being unfavorably seeded by an almost three-to-one margin, the Quality Mids are winning NCAA tournament games at a far greater percentage than the Middling Majors. Let's repeat that: So-called "quality mids" are given double-digit seeds almost three times more often than comparable BCS schools, yet they win more games -- and advance further more often -- than their "middling major" counterparts.

Does this answer the question of whether Siena is better than Notre Dame this year? Of course not. It does suggest rather strongly, however, that teams that challenge themselves out of conference, or that go on the road against long odds, or that continually win games against good (even if not great) competition are more likely to compete and advance in the NCAA tournament.

As I've always said, this should be about performance, not potential. Just because a Notre Dame should be better than a Siena doesn't mean they are. And to call it insane to think otherwise is simply not supported by the evidence.

I think part of the problem is the following:

The teams you call the middling majors get in
based on wins that occurred earlier in the season.
Like Notre Dame. Now they might pull out another
major win just because they have a chance to.
The conf. schedule is full of them.
But... they are actually playing very bad basketball
by the time they get into the tourney.

The so called quality mids get in (and this is also
a generalization) because they win their tourney,
or because they have played very well and have
a very good record, but lost in their tourney turning
them into a quality mid. Bottom line is that they are still
playing good basketball. I think it is Butler that has won
a heck of a lot of games on the road against solid teams.
But that does not look nearly as good as winning home
games against very good teams (like UConn or NC). But
winning as many road games as Butler has against very
solid teams is more difficult imo.

Texas is 18-8 and ranked in the top 25. They had some
good wins early but are NOW playing absolutely horrible basketball.
They beat OU by beating up possibly the best college basketball
player in the country recently. So they vault right back up
because they have the chance to play a top team at home
without their best player.

There is no way Butler gets in at 18-8. If the NCAA tourney started
today Texas would be in. But they are first round losers unless
some magic occurs.

And it makes sense that mid majors can be very strong.
You dont necessarily need to have the depth of quality players like you
do in football. And some of these mid major teams have a bunch
of smart players that have played more than 1 year. Almost all of the traditional top programs have lost a quality experiened underclassman to the NBA this year.
And they will every year. Some of these players that stay together
really play very well as a team with less talent. Or with one very
good player with experienced players surrounding him.
A major conf. team can play much more erratically and get in so much easier.

Anyways...
It makes the tourney one of the best team sporting events
in our country. Maybe THE best.

Another pgardn ramble. No fancy bullets like phil.

Answer B.

A very good ramble, especially the bottom paragraph. Your Texas example is spot on. They had some good wins, and clearly have a lot of talent, should be in the tournament, but have not played well as of late (up until the OU game)... and are highly likely to get beat in the first round as a 10 or 11 seed.

Thanks Phil! Personally I feel like Notre Dame shouldn't even be in the discussion unless they can win at home against Villanova and get to 9-9 in league play. At 8-10 with an RPI of 70 they shouldn't even be strongly considered. I hope Siena gets in, they are playing really good basketball now, took a 40-19 halftime lead on Northern Iowa who leads the MVC. Niagara also blew out the 3rd place MVC team Illinois St so the top of the conference stacks up very well against the MVC. Siena played absolutely terrible in the Old Spice when Kenny Hasbrouck let talks of NBA scouts get in his head but the past few games they have looked better than they have ever looked (including wins over Stanford and Vandy last year). At Kansas they played really poorly and still cut a 30-10 deficit down to 4 with 7 minutes to play before losing by 7. Not many teams can do that at Kansas in a pay to play game where they use Big 12 officials and let Aldrich do whatever he wants underneath.

Even if Notre Dame beats 'Nova, they should still have to beat UConn to get in. They were life and death to beat Rutgers last night for God's sake.

Maybe we should wait till ND man...makes HIS post.. :D

Yeah, I agree. I was just saying they should have to beat Nova to even get consideration. If they got in at 8-10 in league with an RPI in the 70s it would be a joke.

What do you college b-ball fanatics think of Kansas' chances in March/April?

I know Scott doesn't like Kansas, but I do. Aldritch is really starting to play well, and if the twins can become more consistent, Kansas isn't impossible for the Final Four. My main problems with them are their lack of experience and how much they rely on Collins. I'm not sure how they'd react if Collins had a 4-for-15 game in the Sweet 16. They also turn the ball over a hell of a lot, so a team with good defensive guards could pose them problems.

One thing's for sure. The play of Collins this year shows just how awesome last season's team was. Sherron was like the fourth or fifth option on last year's team, and now he's got Kansas on the verge of a 2 or 3-seed as the go-to guy.

I think that post is your career longest! Tired,huh?

Big 12 is weak.
Kansas gets beat.
I personally cannot fathom a final four for them.

I can ramble on saying practically nothing
on any particular subject.

I'm not high on Kansas but there is so much parity this year that anything could happen. I've only seen them three times (Syracuse, Siena, and Missouri) and came away unimpressed in all three. But I'm sure with a better sampling of games I might have come away with a different opinion. Now that they lucked out with Griffin's injury and appear headed to a 2 seed they'll have no problem in the first round. As a 3 seed I thought there was bigtime upset potential from a hot shooting 14 seed that has a little size to contain Aldrich, someone like North Dakota State.

I don't think Kansas is very good. Sweet 16 at best.

So Oklahoma is a Top 5 team but Kansas is garbage? :zz:

I'm with you on the UNC train. I usually hate the team, but I love Lawson. I'm a lifelong Michigan fan and cried when Webber called that timeout. (I won $20 at a bar last month when my buddy's old college roomate didnt think I could name the Fab FIve....Easiest 5 seconds/20 bucks in my lifetime.)

NOW, onto Kansas. Theres a few reasons why Im going with them, and neither one is a good one. One is that I like how they play away from Lawrence. The other reason is that nobody else will have them. (worked when I picked Syracuse with Mello :o )...I'm eager to see if they can turn the tables on Mizzo next game...

:zz: :zz: :zz:

Was it crapping away the game at Missouri that impressed you? Or being thoroughly outplayed by Syracuse on a neutral court? Maybe it was that outstanding loss on a neutral court to UMass? The 17 point drubbing when they went to Arizona? The 13 points loss at Michigan St? Which one was it?

Please tell me this statement is based on their last meeting when Griffin didn't play. And I didn't say they were garbage. Sweet 16 is not really garbage in the grand scheme of things.

All of them. :D ...Like I said, poor reasoning. I was on the fence about riding them and kept talking myself in and out of it. I finally told myself to just overlook those games when they got demolished. Just let me be the one to rip up my bracket in the round of 32, Im sure I wiill be.

No, it's based on them being a better team and playing more defense. That game was a blowout until Cade Davis hit a few threes to keep it interesting. Yeah, no Griffin made things tough for the Sooners, but Aldrich and the twins wouldn't have allowed Griffin to have the kind of game he's been having against Texas Tech, Colorado, Iowa State, etc. anyway. Kansas is way better on the interior than anybody he's faced this season.

I keep hearing people talk about how wide open it is this year....but I don't really see it that way. Anything can happen in the tournament, but at this point I think UNC will be a strong and deserving favorite.

Isn't that what everyone says every year? And come tournament time, more often than not, they are bounced before the Final Four.

Doesn't mean it's not true though. Often, they are the deserving favorite but everyone knows that the favorite doesn't always win. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be favored this year if they are the best team.

Deserving favorite and strong favorite are very different though. They are the deserving favorite cause of Lawson. They aren't a strong favorite though cause their second best player, Hansborough, isn't that great.

How great he is is certainly up for debate. I've never been convinced of how good he is either and don't expect him to make a great pro. But that doesn't take away from what he's been able to do in college. To put up the numbers he does night and night out for four year in the toughest conference in the country....he's earned my respect. He might not be great but as long as he's productive enough to get you 15-20 and 10+ boards a night, I'll take it.

I don't think they should be odds-on or anything but I think that they have a much better chance than anyone else.

That's the thing though. He only was throwing up 10+ boards a night his junior year. The other three seasons he's been under 8. I'll take Blair inside with Fields and his absurd 4 to 1 assist to turnover ratio at the point over anybody. And that doesn't even include their leading scorer.

Pitt is definitely going to be a tough team to beat. I think with UConn losing their point guard, it makes Pitt the second best team in the country. Blair is more than a handful inside. I don't think they have the depth and overall athleticism to stay with UNC for 40 minutes though. And it's kind of trouble how well they've handled prosperity this year, losing immediately after becoming number one both times. Neither were necessarily bad losses but it makes me a little concerned.

Jerome Dyson wasn't UConn's point guard.

Coulda fooled me. It looked to me like he and AJ Price both played point guard.

Price and Kemba Walker are UConn's point guards. Dyson played a little point last year, but not this season.

Are you saying that North Carolina is the favorite every year and then they get bounced before they make the Final Four? If so, I have no idea what you are basing that on.
The last five years:
2004: They were a #6 seed....so I somehow doubt they were the favorite.
2005: They WERE the favorites this year....and they won it all.
2006: They were a #3 seed....so again, hardly the favorites.
2007: They were a #1 seed this year, but with defending champion and eventual winner Florida also in the field as a #1 seed, the Heels were certainly not the favorites.
2008: They were a #1 seed last year and DID make it to the final four.

So....in none of the last five years did UNC fail to make the Final Four when entering as a Tourney favorite.
But even if they had....what would it have to do with this year?

North Carolina is the most talented team
imo. Their D is really bad at critical points in games, a big concern.
Its hard to tell if they lose focus because they
are so intent on opening it up offensively or what...
It seems like they just want to outscore other
teams, and when the other teams create pace
problems for them its trouble. They also seem
to let the opposition's guards penetrate way too much.

This is a very interesting year.

He will probably make a solid junkman.
You cannot run an offense through him obviously,
but he does clean up a lot of misses and there
are not many guys I would rather have going
to the floor gathering loose balls.

Thabeet is a guy I find very interesting.
Could make a Mutombo type player.
He was such a dork last year. Huge improvement.
Griffin is a very good athlete that has
very good hands and good post moves.
I dont see how he does not go number one
unless their is some foreign player that pops up.