NCAA Tourney Talk

[Kid Cid]

The ACC hasn't gotten much respect this year. The conference just had two teams win back to back NCAA championships. Guess that doesn't count for much.

It's not what you did last year, but what is happening this year. The ACC has two really good teams, a couple of mediocre teams and the rest is trash. Who knew that raiding the Big East for football teams would water down the basketball conference?

[Kid Cid]

I think that's what alot of people are thinking. If I know Fisher he'll use that to motivate his team. Also, the game's in Anaheim. If the student body travels the short distance to the game and turns it into a home game atmosphere, SDSU has a chance.

Having the home court advantage can certainly help SDSU but it should also be noted that going to the west region has always been a help to UCONN. In the two National Championships that they won, they were shipped out west. It gets them away from the media circus that always surrounds them in CT and gives them a chance to focus on basketball.

[electricrelish]

It's not what you did last year, but what is happening this year. The ACC has two really good teams, a couple of mediocre teams and the rest is trash. Who knew that raiding the Big East for football teams would water down the basketball conference?

 

The ACC had three teams out of four advance to the Sweet 16. Florida State proved that finishing third in the ACC does mean something. The conference is looking good so far.

Edited March 23, 2011 by electricrelish

[Kid Cid]

The ACC had three teams out of four advance to the Sweet 16. Florida State proved that finishing third in the ACC does mean something. The conference is looking good so far.

Success in the tournament doesn't necessarily mean that the conference is all that good. It just means that on any given day a team was able to move on in a tournament. Look at it this way, in the beginning of the season the Big East won six preseason tournaments and reached the finals in two others. Using the metric of success in tournaments equals success for a conference, you would have to conclude that the Big East was head and shoulders better than all the other conferences. Clearly that wasn't the case then and it isn't the case now.

[Boilerduff]

false . .

 

The Wisconsin Badgers beat OSU, and they are still in the tourney . . . .

 

 

My bad.. Go Wisconsin!

[electricrelish]

Success in the tournament doesn't necessarily mean that the conference is all that good. It just means that on any given day a team was able to move on in a tournament. Look at it this way, in the beginning of the season the Big East won six preseason tournaments and reached the finals in two others. Using the metric of success in tournaments equals success for a conference, you would have to conclude that the Big East was head and shoulders better than all the other conferences. Clearly that wasn't the case then and it isn't the case now.

 

The measurement of success is relative. If you had a winning season, one may deem that as success. Fair or unfair, the media seems to measure success based on NCAA Tournament success. It is most often what is remembered.

Edited March 23, 2011 by electricrelish

[detlef]

Listen, I'm an ACC honk and they've gotten at least as much respect as they've deserved. The ACC got plenty of love in the pre-season poll and then spent most of the season proving they didn't deserve it. I forget the numbers right now, but the total number of good wins they had was laughable. Sure, it looked like Duke's win over MSU was impressive, until MSU turned out to be crap. Meanwhile, UNC lost to Texas, Vandy, and Illinois. So, until this tourney, the ACC's one impressive win was UNC over Kentucky. That's it.

 

And when UNC won it all in '09, it was them, an OK Duke team, and nobody else. When Duke won it last year, UNC wasn't even OK. That those two teams have won it all the last years has done nothing more than disguise the relative lack of good teams in the conference.

 

Right now, only FSU is over-delivering on their pre-season promise. That's not a feather in the ACC's cap, that's a feather in their own. Duke was #1 and UNC was #6 in the pre-season (predictions that ended up being rather accurate despite UNC's roller coaster ride). So, Anything short of a final four run by Duke and an elite 8 by UNC is technically not living up to the expectations we gave them.

[Scooby's Hubby]

Call me crazy, but, Florida State looks good. Every player is big and they ,well, plus their offense is picking up.

 

Scooby picked AZ to win her bracket and might be crazy enough to work; AZ has had a week to prepare for Duke and can give them their best shot.

 

As unstoppable as Ohio State looks, I am sensing arrogance and I always bet against arrogance (went money line on Butler over Pitt) - too bad they get to play Kentucky, who has yet to impress.

 

I like Florida State to beat VCU and to upset Kansas (Richmond has little chance against KU).

[electricrelish]

I like all three ACC teams advancing to the Elite Eight.

[billay]

I like all three ACC teams advancing to the Elite Eight.

Shhhhhhh, you'll jinx it.

[Kid Cid]

I like all three ACC teams advancing to the Elite Eight.

No, really?

[Gopher]

This is pretty accurate, at least to a certain degree:

 

It's not what you did last year, but what is happening this year. The ACC has two really good teams, a couple of mediocre teams and the rest is trash. Who knew that raiding the Big East for football teams would water down the basketball conference?

In other words, I totally agree (with the bold part), but there is also something to be said for teams who always seem to fall short of expectations, as well as teams who typically do well, even though the teams are composed of mostly different players from year to year. Some coaches know how to get it done, and others struggle in the tournament setting. And, all of that said, you still see examples where teams buck the trend... Michigan State this year is one example. Coach Izzo has routinely exceeded expectations... This year, they couldn't even begin to figure out how to put it all together. Does that mean he's lost his knack for doing well in March? I doubt it. College basketball is simply unpredictable, on many levels.

 

Of course, if the above bolded statement is mostly true, then this (bolded below) means fairly little, actually:

Having the home court advantage can certainly help SDSU but it should also be noted that going to the west region has always been a help to UCONN. In the two National Championships that they won, they were shipped out west. It gets them away from the media circus that always surrounds them in CT and gives them a chance to focus on basketball.

It's not like going to Anaheim is going to make the media circus that much different/less than if they were headed to Kansas City (just as a random halfway-point example), or anywhere else in the country. They're still going to have a very good fan following (like most big schools), and if anything, the media circus is going to be crazier, given the "Kemba factor." That said, I like UConn to beat SDSU... The fact that they're travelling across the country to play them makes me like the Huskies a little less, but I still like UConn to win. I just think the way their bigs are playing, over the past three weeks or so, they're a much different team than the one that struggled mid-season. As long as they continue to get that type of contribution from their role players (and not have to rely on just Kemba to carry them), they'll likely be the favorite against anybody in the country... short of OSU, and probably Kansas or Duke (although I don't think Duke would be favored by much, if they played today).

 

As for the ACC, it's obviously possible that Duke and/or UNC reach the Final Four. As for Florida State, why not? They've certainly proven that they can beat good teams, and I think they're definitely capable of beating anybody left in the field. But, it's somewhat unlikely that all three advance to the next round. If nothing else, look at it this way... Duke and UNC are just as capable of losing their next game, as FSU is capable of winning theirs. So, it becomes sort of a parlay situation of sorts... Any of the three bets could look very good, on their own, but put all three together, and the odds of winning become significantly less. If I had to pick which was more likely, between all three winning and all three losing, I'm not sure which I would like more, to be honest. Frankly, the same could be said for any other conference, in practically any round of this tournament. Going into the opening round, I thought the Big 10 would win 3 games (maybe 4)... I felt OSU would win, one of either Purdue and Wisconsin (I liked Belmont) would lose, and just one of the remaining four (Illinois, Michigan, PSU, MSU) would manage a W. But, if you have asked me, going into the tournament, whether they would go 5-2 or 2-5 in that round, I would have had a heck of a time picking one or the other.

 

Same thing in the Big East... Prior to the field being determined (and the fact that the Big East was likely to have multiple second-round matchups, within the conference), it wouldn't have surprised me any more/less if you had told me that they would get 9 teams into the Sweet 16, than if you had told me that they would get just two teams. Not because I think they're that good, or that bad... Just because things are very unpredictable, and there's always at least one conference that looks terrible, and one that looks better than they really are. People start saying things like "overrated" and "underrated", when in actuality, it's got more to do with matchups, and who happens to be playing well at this particular point in time.

 

One more note on FSU... Nothing against them, but the Notre Dame game also just happened to be a very good matchup for them. Not saying that means they'll lose this next game, but take the Notre Dame game for what it was (one game). There have been plenty of teams, even in this tournament (think Gonzaga) who looked very good one night, and not so good the next. Matchups make a huge difference, and at this point, you can pretty much throw out the seeds, as anybody is very capable of winning or losing. The only team that I would be surprised to see lose, in this next round, is Ohio State... I could be wrong, but I just don't see Kentucky sticking with them for 40 minutes (unless Ohio State just has a very bad shooting game, which we haven't seen yet).

[Gopher]

Back to something I touched on earlier... Two things I would have liked to have seen the committee do, in setting up the brackets:

 

- Don't understand why they had to have Big East teams facing each other last weekend. They could have set it up where none of those teams would have met until this coming Thurs/Friday, which I think would have made more sense. Not a big deal, but anyway....

 

- Secondly, if it were up to me, I would do everything within my own power to make sure there were as many games between a power conference team, and a mid-major team, as possible. Example: Not a big fan of facing teams like Old Dominion and Butler, against each other, in the first round. I'd rather see ODU play Tennessee, for example, and Michigan-Butler. To me, putting the top mid-majors against each other is like having Boise State and TCU play each other in a BCS bowl game... Doesn't really prove anything, and essentially could potentially screw at least one of those teams out of a chance of proving whether or not they can beat a power conference tournament team (or in the case of the BCS, since they don't advance like they do in basketball, it potentially screws BOTH teams out of a chance to prove themselves). Again, not a huge deal, but if it were my choice, I would avoid those scenarios.

 

I just think it makes for a more exciting tournament atmosphere when you have teams facing unfamiliar opponents, as well as teams facing opponents in a David vs. Goliath scenario, whether David is really undermanned or not.

[Kid Cid]

This is pretty accurate, at least to a certain degree:

 

 

In other words, I totally agree (with the bold part), but there is also something to be said for teams who always seem to fall short of expectations, as well as teams who typically do well, even though the teams are composed of mostly different players from year to year. Some coaches know how to get it done, and others struggle in the tournament setting. And, all of that said, you still see examples where teams buck the trend... Michigan State this year is one example. Coach Izzo has routinely exceeded expectations... This year, they couldn't even begin to figure out how to put it all together. Does that mean he's lost his knack for doing well in March? I doubt it. College basketball is simply unpredictable, on many levels.

 

Of course, if the above bolded statement is mostly true, then this (bolded below) means fairly little, actually:

 

It's not like going to Anaheim is going to make the media circus that much different/less than if they were headed to Kansas City (just as a random halfway-point example), or anywhere else in the country. They're still going to have a very good fan following (like most big schools), and if anything, the media circus is going to be crazier, given the "Kemba factor." That said, I like UConn to beat SDSU... The fact that they're travelling across the country to play them makes me like the Huskies a little less, but I still like UConn to win. I just think the way their bigs are playing, over the past three weeks or so, they're a much different team than the one that struggled mid-season. As long as they continue to get that type of contribution from their role players (and not have to rely on just Kemba to carry them), they'll likely be the favorite against anybody in the country... short of OSU, and probably Kansas or Duke (although I don't think Duke would be favored by much, if they played today).

 

As for the ACC, it's obviously possible that Duke and/or UNC reach the Final Four. As for Florida State, why not? They've certainly proven that they can beat good teams, and I think they're definitely capable of beating anybody left in the field. But, it's somewhat unlikely that all three advance to the next round. If nothing else, look at it this way... Duke and UNC are just as capable of losing their next game, as FSU is capable of winning theirs. So, it becomes sort of a parlay situation of sorts... Any of the three bets could look very good, on their own, but put all three together, and the odds of winning become significantly less. If I had to pick which was more likely, between all three winning and all three losing, I'm not sure which I would like more, to be honest. Frankly, the same could be said for any other conference, in practically any round of this tournament. Going into the opening round, I thought the Big 10 would win 3 games (maybe 4)... I felt OSU would win, one of either Purdue and Wisconsin (I liked Belmont) would lose, and just one of the remaining four (Illinois, Michigan, PSU, MSU) would manage a W. But, if you have asked me, going into the tournament, whether they would go 5-2 or 2-5 in that round, I would have had a heck of a time picking one or the other.

 

Same thing in the Big East... Prior to the field being determined (and the fact that the Big East was likely to have multiple second-round matchups, within the conference), it wouldn't have surprised me any more/less if you had told me that they would get 9 teams into the Sweet 16, than if you had told me that they would get just two teams. Not because I think they're that good, or that bad... Just because things are very unpredictable, and there's always at least one conference that looks terrible, and one that looks better than they really are. People start saying things like "overrated" and "underrated", when in actuality, it's got more to do with matchups, and who happens to be playing well at this particular point in time.

 

One more note on FSU... Nothing against them, but the Notre Dame game also just happened to be a very good matchup for them. Not saying that means they'll lose this next game, but take the Notre Dame game for what it was (one game). There have been plenty of teams, even in this tournament (think Gonzaga) who looked very good one night, and not so good the next. Matchups make a huge difference, and at this point, you can pretty much throw out the seeds, as anybody is very capable of winning or losing. The only team that I would be surprised to see lose, in this next round, is Ohio State... I could be wrong, but I just don't see Kentucky sticking with them for 40 minutes (unless Ohio State just has a very bad shooting game, which we haven't seen yet).

Great input as usual but I continue to disagree with you about the impact of UCONN heading west. It is less now that there are the "pods" used for site selection purposes in the first and second rounds, but I think you underestimate the fever for college basketball in CT. With the success of both the men's and women's teams from UCONN, every little podunk paper, blog, radio station, junior high aspiring reporter and random household reports on these teams. The number of media credential requests fielded by the school every year is astounding. So by going out west, the team escapes about 2/3 of those folks and only those media with budgets that support sending a reporter out there will be there as a distraction to the team. This isn't me making this up, Calhoun has said as much in the past.

[Gopher]

Great input as usual but I continue to disagree with you about the impact of UCONN heading west. It is less now that there are the "pods" used for site selection purposes in the first and second rounds, but I think you underestimate the fever for college basketball in CT. With the success of both the men's and women's teams from UCONN, every little podunk paper, blog, radio station, junior high aspiring reporter and random household reports on these teams. The number of media credential requests fielded by the school every year is astounding. So by going out west, the team escapes about 2/3 of those folks and only those media with budgets that support sending a reporter out there will be there as a distraction to the team. This isn't me making this up, Calhoun has said as much in the past.

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying that they benefitted specifically from travelling out West. It sounds more like they benefitted from playing ANYWHERE but in the upper Northeast (close to home). And, since the Big 10/12 typically dominate the Midwest, the ACC/SEC the Southeast, and the Big East the East, it's fairly common for another top (or second tier) team from the Big East or ACC to have to travel out West as a 1-seed. I realize that the Huskies were a 2-seed in 2004, though. All I'm saying is that their success might have more to do with leaving home (and the distractions), and less to do with where exactly they travel to.

[Kid Cid]

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying that they benefitted specifically from travelling out West. It sounds more like they benefitted from playing ANYWHERE but in the upper Northeast (close to home). And, since the Big 10/12 typically dominate the Midwest, the ACC/SEC the Southeast, and the Big East the East, it's fairly common for another top (or second tier) team from the Big East or ACC to have to travel out West as a 1-seed. I realize that the Huskies were a 2-seed in 2004, though. All I'm saying is that their success might have more to do with leaving home (and the distractions), and less to do with where exactly they travel to.

Fair enough but I've never heard them talk that way about going to Greensboro or Chicago.

[bushwacked]

The clock situation in the UNC-Washington game, on the other hand, I thought was handled pretty poorly. Probably wouldn't have made much difference (if the Huskies had closer to a full second, instead of 0.4), but you never know. I just thought the officiating director's explanation (about having to account for a time lapse, etc.) was pretty weak.. I've seen dozens of situations where that did NOT happen, this year. In other words, situations where refs went to the monitor to determine how much time was left, and used the exact time that the clock should have stopped (based on the ball or a player going out of bounds), not when the whistle blew. . That's the only part I have an issue with... inconsistency makes people look stupid.

 

Apparently in the NIT the NCAA doesn't use the "when the whistle is blown and time lapse after" rule. In the Wash St. vs Nwestern game moments a go a foul occurred with 0.2 seconds and the whistle apparently happened after the buzzer, however the Wash St. player went to the line after booth review with 0.2 seconds on the clock.

 

Of course the Wash. St. player choked the free throws, so while the NCAA apparently isn't consistent in how they utilize the rule, Washington players are apt at clinching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Edited March 24, 2011 by bushwacked

[MikesVikes]

Back to something I touched on earlier... Two things I would have liked to have seen the committee do, in setting up the brackets:

 

- Don't understand why they had to have Big East teams facing each other last weekend. They could have set it up where none of those teams would have met until this coming Thurs/Friday, which I think would have made more sense. Not a big deal, but anyway....

 

- Secondly, if it were up to me, I would do everything within my own power to make sure there were as many games between a power conference team, and a mid-major team, as possible. Example: Not a big fan of facing teams like Old Dominion and Butler, against each other, in the first round. I'd rather see ODU play Tennessee, for example, and Michigan-Butler. To me, putting the top mid-majors against each other is like having Boise State and TCU play each other in a BCS bowl game... Doesn't really prove anything, and essentially could potentially screw at least one of those teams out of a chance of proving whether or not they can beat a power conference tournament team (or in the case of the BCS, since they don't advance like they do in basketball, it potentially screws BOTH teams out of a chance to prove themselves). Again, not a huge deal, but if it were my choice, I would avoid those scenarios.

 

I just think it makes for a more exciting tournament atmosphere when you have teams facing unfamiliar opponents, as well as teams facing opponents in a David vs. Goliath scenario, whether David is really undermanned or not.

 

That would be too logical. I always enjoy reading your posts on the Tourney.

[MikesVikes]

My complaints are, and it doesn't effect the tv audience whatsoever, is why do they have games played in the east later than the games played in the west? It's almost like the games are played in a studio and we don't care about the fans in attendance.

[Scooby's Hubby]

I like SDSU tonight. But the best part is that all games should be close. The line on the Duke/AZ game is 8.5 ... I am taking AZ in Anaheim.

[Chief Dick]

My complaints are, and it doesn't effect the tv audience whatsoever, is why do they have games played in the east later than the games played in the west? It's almost like the games are played in a studio and we don't care about the fans in attendance.

 

 

Agree.

[The Next Generation]

I like SDSU tonight. But the best part is that all games should be close. The line on the Duke/AZ game is 8.5 ... I am taking AZ in Anaheim.

 

I have Richmond in a "capture" pool. Do you think they will cover the -10.5 against Kansas tomorrow?

[Scooby's Hubby]

I have Richmond in a "capture" pool. Do you think they will cover the -10.5 against Kansas tomorrow?

I like Kansas too much to bet against them, here. Justin Harper will be less of a factor b/c Morris can shoot outside so well. Kansas should pull Harper out some and that will help Kansas rebound offensively. I think Kansas should cover, with a big run to open the second half. However, 10.5 points are alot for any team to beat, so my money is on the sidelines here. But if I had to, I would take Kansas on a first half bet if -5.5.

 

Just my

[The Next Generation]

I like Kansas too much to bet against them, here. Justin Harper will be less of a factor b/c Morris can shoot outside so well. Kansas should pull Harper out some and that will help Kansas rebound offensively. I think Kansas should cover, with a big run to open the second half. However, 10.5 points are alot for any team to beat, so my money is on the sidelines here. But if I had to, I would take Kansas on a first half bet if -5.5.

 

Just my

 

Nice analysis. Thanks!

[Cunning Runt]

Count me a Butler fan the rest of the way.

 

I was down in Indy for the Final 4 last year when they almost won the thing and the Butler fever was highly contagious. The atmosphere pretty much everywhere was electric.

 

If not them, then Ohio State. They're a Big Ten school plus they've got a guy on their team (DeShaun Thomas) who's from Fort Wayne.

 

Regardless though, I'm just really glad to have the "real" tournament on tonight again through the weekend and not the women's or NIT.