(03-18-2018 09:38 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 09:21 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Retrievers did what a couple bluebloods could not tonight — COMPETE! You’ll never be forgotten, Maryland-Baltimore County.

Hopefully they can parlay it into a better league...no reason they can't play in a league like the A-10 if a slot comes available.

I'd rather AmEast schools use this win as a way to distinguish itself. That it can compete on a higher level.

Always thought AmEast could be a better conference. The academic pedigree and some financial resources are there, albeit inconsistent.

I'd like to think this win is huge for the conference. Maybe a place who can raid instead of be raided.

What we learned last night: all good teams...are actually BAD teams, even though they are good teams. NOBODY wanted to score yesterday.

(03-18-2018 10:50 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  So, this what one half of the NCAA bracket looks like. One of these 8 teams will be playing for a National Title:

9 Kansas State vs 5 Kentucky
11 Loyola Chicago vs 7 Nevada

9 Florida State vs 4 Xavier
7 Texas A&M vs 3 Michigan

Kentucky and Michigan are the only blue bloods on this side. If they lose, we'd be guaranteed a surprise finalist


Other side has gone more to chalk outside of Syracuse

4-seed is obviously Gonzaga.

And to think Houston should be on that bracket. And how is Gonzaga a surprise?

(03-19-2018 03:42 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 09:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem that I have is why didn't Virginia get as the #1 overall seed the worst possible team? Why did Xavier get Texas Southern instead?

This is a flaw in the logic of the 16-line play-in's. It's built for the four worst teams, but it gives its winners a momentum push and exposure to the tournament format (television, timekeeping/stoppages, large venue, etc.). Sure, their first games can be draining, and then the winners have to travel to another city to play less than 48 hours later...it's still an edge over the likes of the other two who come out totally fresh. Guess that doesn't matter, though?

As to not "burden" the top #1, it's a level of risk the committee chooses not to force Virginia to assume. I don't know if UMBC could have beaten a different #1 if they didn't get UVA, or if TSU could have done what UMBC did, but playing these games kind of propel those 16's out of a proverbial doghouse. I agree, I think UVA should have the lowest-ranked 16. That should have been TSU. But, it should have been TSU without them getting a warmup. Warmed up TSU certainly gave Xavier a fight. Then again, so did the other non-play-in participant against their respective 1, Penn. And, of course, UMBC. Only Radford looked like the usual "scrub."

I still hate the 16-line play-in's. Really hate them. AQ's shouldn't be playing into any of this. Leave that all to the at-large's who can't clinch **** on their own merit. Don't care whether these really bad conferences should be lucky to get such an honor to compete, however unlikely to succeed, for a championship; it's a needless gimmick. I don't care if the pool looks indistinguishable from 16 to 14 or 13...heck, it's the top four lines that should be protected the first weekend. THAT'S the prevailing logic...or so it was.

TSU giving Xavy a fight had everything to do with having a few good spare parts and a good coach as much as it did having a warm up. Mike Davis not only used to be a high major coach but he took a team to the title game. Even if he wasn't cut out for Indiana or UAB, he's not a glorified AAU coach like many are at his level.

On top of that, they blew the other team out in the First Four. Before postseason play, TSU had the top non-conference RPI in the country. So TSU was likely to give whichever 1-seed they played anything but a free pass, except maybe Villanova.

(03-18-2018 10:53 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 10:49 PM)RandomFan Wrote:  Sucks if you got tickets to the San Diego games today as a general fan. Both games have been very uncompetitive.

Yeah, some of the pods got amazing deals, others got little.

I'm not sure that Charlotte pod really looked that exciting beforehand with a 1 and a 2 seed both in it, but they ended up getting to see a 9 seed and a 7 seed survive and the first ever 16 over 1 upset.

Nashville got little on Friday, but got two different double digit second half comebacks today to watch a 9 and 7 go through

Detroit got two great games today that came down to the final minute.

San Diego got screwed. But they got a couple good games Friday at least.

At least the 16-seed didn't stink it up in the second game and took it down to the final two minutes. That's better than many higher seeded teams.

still, there's no reason why the #1 overall seed should be seeing the best 16 seed. Virginia did. Why should the weakest 1 seed get the winner of 67/68?

(03-18-2018 10:14 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 09:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 09:38 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  UMBC is further proof the selection committee had trouble seeding and selecting teams. They were a 14-seed or a very high 15-seed. Virginia still should have beaten them but they got a way better opponent than they should have in the first round.

no they didn't.

UMBC was #111 in RPI- 1-3 0-2 5-3 15-2 vs 4 quads 210 non con RPI

15s
Georgia St 120 in RPI- 0-0 1-1 8-4 13-5 vs 4 quads 166 non con RPI
CS Fullerton 131 in RPI- 0-2 2-2 7-5 9-2 vs 4 quads 141 non con RPI
Lipscomb 101 in RPI- 0-4 1-0 5-2 14-3 vs 4 quads 24 non con RPI
Iona 107 in RPI- 0-3 1-2 5-4 14-4 vs 4 quads 110 non con RPI
other 16 non PIG team was
Penn 115 in RPI- 0-1 0-3 6-3 17-1 vs 4 quads 167 non con RPI

The problem that I have is why didn't Virginia get as the #1 overall seed the worst possible team? Why did Xavier get Texas Southern instead?

You don't go by RPI alone. Heck, they beat an RPI top 50-75 team to get in on their home floor. As I said, Lipscomb and especially Fullerton were better candidates.

They better be glad they didn't get TSU, TSU is better than UMBC, even if not on paper.

The RPI is about the only ranking where UMBC was anywhere near that high. Pretty much every other reputable rating service would have had them as a 16 seed (albeit the best 16 seed). The RPI is worse than useless as a metric for the committee to use.

(03-19-2018 04:06 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 09:38 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 09:21 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Retrievers did what a couple bluebloods could not tonight — COMPETE! You’ll never be forgotten, Maryland-Baltimore County.

Hopefully they can parlay it into a better league...no reason they can't play in a league like the A-10 if a slot comes available.

I'd rather AmEast schools use this win as a way to distinguish itself. That it can compete on a higher level.

Always thought AmEast could be a better conference. The academic pedigree and some financial resources are there, albeit inconsistent.

I'd like to think this win is huge for the conference. Maybe a place who can raid instead of be raided.

The key is that they have state flagships. Along with the Big Sky, they're one of a very few who do outside the FBS leagues, so there is some potential there. Maybe one day, UMass will realize it's in over its head and maybe join the AE, if not the CAA. Reeling in UConn is a bit ambitious and won't happen for decades, if ever but otherwise, they have all of New England's state flagships covered. Maybe, if Canadian schools are allowed to compete in D-I and not just D-II, then they could add a few schools from Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

(03-19-2018 08:34 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 04:06 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 09:38 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 09:21 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Retrievers did what a couple bluebloods could not tonight — COMPETE! You’ll never be forgotten, Maryland-Baltimore County.

Hopefully they can parlay it into a better league...no reason they can't play in a league like the A-10 if a slot comes available.

I'd rather AmEast schools use this win as a way to distinguish itself. That it can compete on a higher level.

Always thought AmEast could be a better conference. The academic pedigree and some financial resources are there, albeit inconsistent.

I'd like to think this win is huge for the conference. Maybe a place who can raid instead of be raided.

The key is that they have state flagships. Along with the Big Sky, they're one of a very few who do outside the FBS leagues, so there is some potential there. Maybe one day, UMass will realize it's in over its head and maybe join the AE, if not the CAA. Reeling in UConn is a bit ambitious and won't happen for decades, if ever but otherwise, they have all of New England's state flagships covered. Maybe, if Canadian schools are allowed to compete in D-I and not just D-II, then they could add a few schools from Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

Doubt it; have you seen the way they've been playing SEC teams?

(03-19-2018 08:17 AM)stever20 Wrote:  still, there's no reason why the #1 overall seed should be seeing the best 16 seed. Virginia did. Why should the weakest 1 seed get the winner of 67/68?

While true, it really shouldn't matter. Virginia was beating teams way better than UMBC all year. Even a slight disruption chemistry shouldn't have led to that.

It didn't hurt that the regular season champion or a team very high in the standings won almost every conference tournament. The opening round got rid of the weakest 16 seeds, leaving us with exceptionally strong 16-seeds, helped by the committee's incompetence/discretion of putting a team like Penn on the 16 line over Fullerton State, Iona or Lipscomb.

(03-18-2018 08:28 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 07:51 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 07:36 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Karma...NittanyBEARCAT!

I guess it is karma.

This loss allows you to make fun of UC losing instead of actually refuting my points and engaging in a logic-based discussion (you do tend to "cut and run" when people engage you with facts in a conversation).

Ahh BS...the results vindicated the selection committee on Cuse. You can make a case for 10-15 different teams for the last 4-6 slots. Cuse was selected twice when whiners like you protested...they have gone 7-1 in the tourney as a double digit seed. Will likely go 7-2 but still a great run for two different teams that were not worthy.

Cincy was terribly overseeded by garnering wins in a weak AAC this year...this is why saying any team that falls below .500% in a league shouldn't make the tourney is stupid. The top 2-3 conference (teams) should not get penalized for playing in a tough league because they lost against a bunch of Top 10-15 teams?

They were good enough to lead by 22. They just choked. Virginia lost by 20.

(03-19-2018 03:42 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 09:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem that I have is why didn't Virginia get as the #1 overall seed the worst possible team? Why did Xavier get Texas Southern instead?

This is a flaw in the logic of the 16-line play-in's. It's built for the four worst teams, but it gives its winners a momentum push and exposure to the tournament format (television, timekeeping/stoppages, large venue, etc.). Sure, their first games can be draining, and then the winners have to travel to another city to play less than 48 hours later...it's still an edge over the likes of the other two who come out totally fresh. Guess that doesn't matter, though?

As to not "burden" the top #1, it's a level of risk the committee chooses not to force Virginia to assume. I don't know if UMBC could have beaten a different #1 if they didn't get UVA, or if TSU could have done what UMBC did, but playing these games kind of propel those 16's out of a proverbial doghouse. I agree, I think UVA should have the lowest-ranked 16. That should have been TSU. But, it should have been TSU without them getting a warmup. Warmed up TSU certainly gave Xavier a fight. Then again, so did the other non-play-in participant against their respective 1, Penn. And, of course, UMBC. Only Radford looked like the usual "scrub."

I still hate the 16-line play-in's. Really hate them. AQ's shouldn't be playing into any of this. Leave that all to the at-large's who can't clinch **** on their own merit. Don't care whether these really bad conferences should be lucky to get such an honor to compete, however unlikely to succeed, for a championship; it's a needless gimmick. I don't care if the pool looks indistinguishable from 16 to 14 or 13...heck, it's the top four lines that should be protected the first weekend. THAT'S the prevailing logic...or so it was.

If you lose to a 16, you've got no complaints.

As for AQs playing in, there are about 10 conferences who have little business being in Division I. And the lowest seeded ones are from either the weakest conferences or simply won their tournament in an upset.

Although I would prefer to go back to 64 and get rid of the play-ins by eliminating some of the at large. Despite their wins, Syracuse still had no business being in the tournament. They should have been in the NIT. Same for Texas who, like Cincinnati, had a big lead on Nevada and let it slip away and lost in OT. And Texas was not even one of the last 4 in.

Wins three games in tournament hold the teams 30 pts under their scoring average. Doesn't belong, makes sense.

Yes, it's fair to claim 'Cuse didn't belong.

I agree with Bullet, Syracuse did not have the resume to garner an at-large. But, like we’ve seen, anything can happen. Teams in the ACC are used to seeing their zone and have figured it out; reference UNC’s 19 point route in the ACC tourney. When teams face Syracuse in the NCAA’s, they always seem to have trouble. Plus, the Orangemen are very well-coached, so it shouldn’t be a surprise they have done well. I didn’t think they deserved to go dancing, yet I still picked them going out two rounds! Unfortunately for them, Duke is looking like one of the hottest teams right now.

(03-19-2018 09:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 08:28 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 07:51 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-18-2018 07:36 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Karma...NittanyBEARCAT!

I guess it is karma.

This loss allows you to make fun of UC losing instead of actually refuting my points and engaging in a logic-based discussion (you do tend to "cut and run" when people engage you with facts in a conversation).

Ahh BS...the results vindicated the selection committee on Cuse. You can make a case for 10-15 different teams for the last 4-6 slots. Cuse was selected twice when whiners like you protested...they have gone 7-1 in the tourney as a double digit seed. Will likely go 7-2 but still a great run for two different teams that were not worthy.

Cincy was terribly overseeded by garnering wins in a weak AAC this year...this is why saying any team that falls below .500% in a league shouldn't make the tourney is stupid. The top 2-3 conference (teams) should not get penalized for playing in a tough league because they lost against a bunch of Top 10-15 teams?

They were good enough to lead by 22. They just choked. Virginia lost by 20.

This.... not afraid to admit as a UC fan/alum that they shat the bed. IMHO it was more on the coaches than the team... I think player vs. player UC was the better team and most reasonable minds would agree (since this board has always leaned MWC I would not expect many on here to agree).

(03-19-2018 09:59 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yes, it's fair to claim 'Cuse didn't belong.

Your opinion.... I think OU was the fraud

It's fair to say that Syracuse was given a tournament bid based on the strength of the teams that beat them, because they didn't have many quality wins. They have more quality wins in the NCAA tournament (3) than they did in the entire season before that (2). The committee said a couple of years ago that they were going to emphasize quality wins rather than just playing a lot of good teams and losing to them -- Syracuse is fortunate that the committee didn't do what they said they would.

far from me to defend Syracuse but they did have 6 Quad 1 wins on Selection Sunday. 2 More than USC, 4 more than Notre Dame, 4 more than St Mary's, and 2 more than Baylor(those 4 were the first 4 out).
Syracuse 6-8
USC 4-6
Notre Dame 2-9
St Mary's 2-1
Baylor 4-12

So I think the committee did just what they said they were going to do.

(03-19-2018 08:17 AM)stever20 Wrote:  still, there's no reason why the #1 overall seed should be seeing the best 16 seed. Virginia did. Why should the weakest 1 seed get the winner of 67/68?

If a number 1 seed is worried about whether they got the best or worst 16 seed, then they weren't going to go far anyways.

Virginia acted like they had the game won before it started, and that they could sleepwalk through it.