Random Bracket Thoughts

[King Glorious]

The only thing that really bothers me is how they seemingly give some teams an injury pass and don't give the same to others. UConn's great body of work came with their injured guard. Since he's been out, they've just gone 4-3. I think it's good to want to reward them for having a really good season but you've also got to realistically seed them on what their current chances are. The loss of James hurt Marquette really bad. I think if he doesn't get hurt, Marquette would have been strong #2 consideration. St. Mary's is in the tournament if Mills doesn't get hurt. If others are seeded, or in St. Mary's case not even selected, how come the same didn't happen to UConn? I thought that with him, they were a strong second choice to win the whole thing but they can't without him.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

The only thing that really bothers me is how they seemingly give some teams an injury pass and don't give the same to others. UConn's great body of work came with their injured guard. Since he's been out, they've just gone 4-3. I think it's good to want to reward them for having a really good season but you've also got to realistically seed them on what their current chances are. The loss of James hurt Marquette really bad. I think if he doesn't get hurt, Marquette would have been strong #2 consideration. St. Mary's is in the tournament if Mills doesn't get hurt. If others are seeded, or in St. Mary's case not even selected, how come the same didn't happen to UConn? I thought that with him, they were a strong second choice to win the whole thing but they can't without him.

While I agree with you on the injury considerations (and more of the committee's bullsh1t like "we valued road records highly this year"- yeah, OK) I have less of a problem with St. Mary's not getting in as most. Their body of work wasn't all that strong, in the end. They only went 3-4 against the top 100 and three of their wins were non-D1. They certainly passed the "eye test" when Mills was healthy but I present this argument:

RPI TEAM RPI SCORE RECORD SOS NON CONF RPI NON CONF SOS CONF RPI CONF SOS TOP 25 TOP 50 TOP 100 LAST 12 ROAD ONLY RPI ASM
47 Illinois State .5813 24-9 98 .533 37 161 73 92 9 0-0 2-2 5-4 7-5 38 5.3 3.0 8.3
48 Saint Mary's .5808 23-6 152 .503 29 93 114 194 15 0-0 2-3 1-1 7-5 24 4.6 3.1 7.7

One could argue Illinois State had a better profile and they weren't even being considered.

I do have a problem with Creighton not getting in over Arizona.

42 Creighton .5908 26-7 110 .528 47 136 48 106 9 1-0 1-2 7-3 11-1 25 8.1 0.5 8.6
59 Arizona .5716 19-13 31 .583 38 75 67 54 5 2-1 3-8 3-3 7-5 126 6.2 1.2 7.4

[ateamstupid]

Here's what I wrote last night. By the way, saying UConn shouldn't have gotten a 1-seed because it went 4-3 without Dyson, failing to note that the three losses came to Pittsburgh and Syracuse in six overtimes, is misleading.
Also I disagree that the committee is telling the mid-majors they don't want them. The mids simply weren't very good this year, and although I like seeing diverse fields, I'd rather see the 65 most deserving teams. And road wins are important (Arizona would've been a lock had it won a few more games on the road), but they can't substitute for quality wins. When the best team you beat is an 11-seed in the Tournament, as is the case with both Creighton and St. Mary's, I don't care how many road wins you have, you shouldn't get in over a team that beat several high seeds in the Tournament, like Arizona did.

The one I missed was Wisconsin getting in over San Diego State. The Badgers apparently got credit for playing one of the toughest schedules in the country, even though they didn't, you know, beat any of those good teams they faced.

Arizona did beat a few good teams, and the Wildcats played a remarkable 16 games against the RPI 1-50 (winning six), which allowed the committee to overlook their utter dearth of a quality road/neutral win. With the gauntlet Arizona ran, it's tough to deny the 'Cats a bid in favor of teams like Creighton and St. Mary's, who played around one quarter of Arizona's games apiece against the RPI 1-50.

I was also right (aren't I great) about Dayton not being that far from exclusion, as the Flyers were given only an 11-seed.

The theme for this field, and I think it's a positive one for college basketball, was: GO FREAKING PLAY SOMEONE IN THE NON-CONFERENCE. Penn State, despite its good wins in the Big Eleven, has no real leg to stand on when it comes to crying snub. Ed DeChellis understandably didn't think his team was going to be that great, so he assembled a bunch of cupcake opponents in the non-conference. The Nittany Lions still had a great year, but they have nobody to blame but themselves for being excluded.

This emphasis on non-conference work really helps combat the erroneous belief that nothing in college basketball matters until the calendar turns. Hell, maybe Maryland doesn't get in if it wasn't for the Terps' neutral court blowout of Michigan State in November. The emphasis also gives us college hoops nerds an extra justification for watching and chatting about games in late fall.

Overall, I think the committee did a very good job. I have a few quibbles, like how the hell does Utah get a 5-seed while Arizona State is a 6, and if Utah's that great, why does San Diego State (RPI: 35) not get in after taking the Utes to the final seconds on a neutral court in the MWC championship Saturday?

Still, I have no major issues with the bracket, and as always, it looks like a lot of fun. Tuesday is St. Patty's day and I'm not sure I'll be around Wednesday, so I'll try to deconstruct much of the matchups tomorrow.

And don't pay attention to anything anybody on ESPN says unless it's Jay Bilas or Doug Gottlieb. Other than those two, man does that network have a deep stable of dumbshit analysts. Especially Digger Phelps. God what a freaking useless, uninformative waste of space. I literally have never learned anything from anything he's said. Every explanation for why he likes a team is the same:

1. I like Team A.
2. Why. (Note, this is not a question, he says it like a statement.)
3. Player A, Player B, Player C.

The ****ing guy makes Dick Vitale look like Dr. Jack Ramsay.

Rant over. Go crazy hoops fans! It's the most funnest time of the year!

This is why I hate college basketball...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_8fLLMA1Tc

[philcski]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Here's what I wrote last night. By the way, saying UConn shouldn't have gotten a 1-seed because it went 4-3 without Dyson, failing to note that the three losses came to Pittsburgh and Syracuse in six overtimes, is misleading.
Also I disagree that the committee is telling the mid-majors they don't want them. The mids simply weren't very good this year, and although I like seeing diverse fields, I'd rather see the 65 most deserving teams. And road wins are important (Arizona would've been a lock had it won a few more games on the road), but they can't substitute for quality wins. When the best team you beat is an 11-seed in the Tournament, as is the case with both Creighton and St. Mary's, I don't care how many road wins you have, you shouldn't get in over a team that beat several high seeds in the Tournament, like Arizona did.

This is true, which is why I have less of a beef than I might normally.

But you can't say one thing ("We valued road wins highly this year") then do something else (take a team with TWO road wins, both over teams that were utterly horrible this year). Look at what Arizona did against postseason level teams on the road.
At Texas A&M, lost by 1
At UNLV, lost by 15
At UCLA, lost by 23
At Cal, lost by 14
At USC, lost by 1
At Arizona St, lost by 2
At Washington St, lost by 16
At Washington, lost by 5

I applaud Arizona for playing a brutal schedule every year, which is why they make the tournament every year. But the committee does not follow what they claim to do.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by philcski

This is true, which is why I have less of a beef than I might normally.

But you can't say one thing ("We valued road wins highly this year") then do something else (take a team with TWO road wins, both over teams that were utterly horrible this year). Look at what Arizona did against postseason level teams on the road.
At Texas A&M, lost by 1
At UNLV, lost by 15
At UCLA, lost by 23
At Cal, lost by 14
At USC, lost by 1
At Arizona St, lost by 2
At Washington St, lost by 16
At Washington, lost by 5

I applaud Arizona for playing a brutal schedule every year, which is why they make the tournament every year. But the committee does not follow what they claim to do.

Like I said, I think they penalized Arizona for the lack of road/neutral wins. Arizona had the resume of a 9/10-seed if it won two or three of those games on the road and lost a few more home games. I just don't think it was enough to keep them out in favor of Creighton or St. Mary's when they beat Kansas, Gonzaga, UCLA and Washington. Just because Arizona didn't get excluded for its lack of road wins doesn't mean it didn't get punished for it.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by philcski

This is true, which is why I have less of a beef than I might normally.

But you can't say one thing ("We valued road wins highly this year") then do something else (take a team with TWO road wins, both over teams that were utterly horrible this year). Look at what Arizona did against postseason level teams on the road.
At Texas A&M, lost by 1
At UNLV, lost by 15
At UCLA, lost by 23
At Cal, lost by 14
At USC, lost by 1
At Arizona St, lost by 2
At Washington St, lost by 16
At Washington, lost by 5

I applaud Arizona for playing a brutal schedule every year, which is why they make the tournament every year. But the committee does not follow what they claim to do.

And got in over San Diego State who won TWICE at UNLV.

[horseofcourse]

I don't study it as closely as many of you, but Davidson is what upset me. I realize they aren't as good as last year...but after what Stephen Curry put together in the tourney last year, and nearly reaching the final 4, going 26-7, and winning the regular season conference, I don't know how you could not want that guy in the tourney. I dont' care what they're RPI is, they should be in it. Didn't the committee watch Curry last year?? They did play at Oklahoma losing by 4...lost at Purdue, won at West Virginia, beat NC State at home, lost at Duke. It's not like they completely tanked the out of conference beating a BIg EAst tourney team and an ACC team. I guess the home lost to BUtler in the bracket busters kept them out...Curry was coming off an injury in a game he didn't play that they lost to Citadel. So one of their losses was directly related to his injury.

I think their ommission is a disgrace. (yes I know they aren't as good as Creighton, ILl state, ST mary's on the numbers)...there is simply one guy I'd like to see in the tourney...the one I saw last year.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

I don't study it as closely as many of you, but Davidson is what upset me. I realize they aren't as good as last year...but after what Stephen Curry put together in the tourney last year, and nearly reaching the final 4, going 26-7, and winning the regular season conference, I don't know how you could not want that guy in the tourney. I dont' care what they're RPI is, they should be in it. Didn't the committee watch Curry last year?? They did play at Oklahoma losing by 4...lost at Purdue, won at West Virginia, beat NC State at home, lost at Duke. It's not like they completely tanked the out of conference beating a BIg EAst tourney team and an ACC team. I guess the home lost to BUtler in the bracket busters kept them out...Curry was coming off an injury in a game he didn't play that they lost to Citadel. So one of their losses was directly related to his injury.

I think their ommission is a disgrace. (yes I know they aren't as good as Creighton, ILl state, ST mary's on the numbers)...there is simply one guy I'd like to see in the tourney...the one I saw last year.

You can't give a team a bid based on what it did the season before. That becomes a really slippery slope that ends up excluding more teams like Davidson than it includes. Two losses to College of Charleston and 1-4 vs. the RPI 1-50 isn't going to get it done. They got embarrassed by a 9-seed at home. Davidson had a chance to get in, and it couldn't even get to the SoCon title. I don't want to see a team like that in the Tournament just because it has a guy who takes 30 shots a game.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

You can't give a team a bid based on what it did the season before. That becomes a really slippery slope that ends up excluding more teams like Davidson than it includes. Two losses to College of Charleston and 1-4 vs. the RPI 1-50 isn't going to get it done. They got embarrassed by a 9-seed at home. Davidson had a chance to get in, and it couldn't even get to the SoCon title. I don't want to see a team like that in the Tournament just because it has a guy who takes 30 shots a game.

Right, but he sure is fun to watch!! (good points on Utah...they are a very strange team. Their RPI is extremely high I guess based on wins over Gonzaga and LSU at home plus splitting with several of the decent teams in their conference. This is a team that lost at home to Southwest Baptist...lost to a middle of the pack Big Sky team that went 13-19 (Idaho State...I went to that game and thought they looked absolutely horrible...Idaho State dominated them despite the fairly close score....Idaho State played the other regional powers at home too (Utah State and BYU and I thought Utah was by far the worst of the 3...by far...but you can't really judge anything by one game I realize. But it is mine and probably eneryone else's opinion that they are an incredibly weak 5 seed in this tourney...you win the regular season and conference tourney in the MWC you're not bad...they're very strange though.)