And the BIG is undefeated. Don't ever recall seeing that since the field went to 64/68. 8-0 I think. Pretty impressive for the conference. Hope a bunch can continue their march the next couple days
Last edited:
So the first round is complete
- Thread starter hdhntr1
- Start date
To some extent impressive, but all 8 teams were favored to win so really just none of the 8 got tripped up. The test is the next round.
In general, I don’t think a single-elimination tournament tells us all that much about leagues, so many things can go right or wrong and so much is about the matchups and who gets hot or runs cold.
Meanwhile, the mighty SEC is only 8-6
Well the B1G hasn’t won a Natty in a quarter of a century and neither conference has won a Natty in over a decade. Conferences have been the King of good not great.
If each expands enough, they are bound to win one eventually.
Yes, money invested in the programs makes a difference. Since the turn of the Century, the ACC and Big East have dominated. They have 16 of the 24 Natty’s. Of course, Duke, UConn, Villanova and NC have lead the charge and there isn’t a B1G program that comes close to them over this time period.
We have a major switch of power going on right before our eyes. The SEC was mainly just Kentucky and Florida and once in awhile Tennesee for years. The big was MSU and once in awhile Purdue, Illinois or Indiana. Now the rest of the conference has upped their game due to the investment of resources. It’s likely BOTH conferences get a Natty soon and the National power switches to the Big 2 conferences just like in football. There are rumblings of talks to merge the ACC and Big East after the next TV deal expires to make a super conference for basketball. Those calls will grow louder as the power shifts to the Big 2.
I believe the Big 12 has made some waves during that period as well with 3 wins as well as SEC with 3. But as much as BIG is maligned, they have been in the Championship game 1/3 of the games (8/24) during that period. Conspicuously absent of the major conferences during the period was the PAC with only two appearances in Championship game
Last edited:
Maybe but there always seem to be upsets and in fact the 5-12 matchups that did not include BIG teams both went to the 12 teams. One thing that has happened is through the first round every seed 1-4 mad it through the first round. Don't remember that happening before either. And now the BIG is 10-0 with Mich beating A&M
Well, the Big Ten still has not lost a game in March Madness. Purdue and Michigan already in the Sweet Sixteen. Just shows how competitive the Big Ten is. On Wisconsin and UCLA.
Jinx.
B1G 2-2 yesterday. SEC 4-1.
If SEC wins all 4 of their games Today( favored in 2) they would have half the sweet 16 field. Not likely, but not impossible with the match ups either. B1G also has 4 teams going today (favored in 3). The 2 conferences will likely combine for 10 or so of the sweet 16.
I don’t get this narrative that B1G is doing great and the SEC is floundering. The lower seeded SEC teams that have lost were supposed to lose for the most part. Flip in Indiana, OSU or next tier B1G that didn’t make it and they too would likely have been bounced. To me, both conferences are doing what they were supposed to do.
The narrative I see is that the SEC was significantly over-represented and the B1G probably earned one of the seeds given to the SEC. I expected Wisconsin would struggle in Denver at altitude, so the UCLA game was the surprise to me. We'll see how today goes, tho.
as I type this the Big Ten is 10-2 against the spread and the SEC is 8-11.
Big East 5-4
Big 12 7-2-1
I'm relying on this website
www.teamrankings.com
Big East 5-4
Big 12 7-2-1
I'm relying on this website
NCAA Basketball Team ATS Trends - NCAA Tournament Games
Free college basketball team ats trends and splits in simple, easy to read tables. This page tracks ncaa tournament games results.
www.teamrankings.com
Totally! But no way is any ref going to make that call in that moment. Maybe High Knees against us but otherwise probably not lol
Only one of them was really any kind of upset. (WISC 3/6 matchup) The others were Oregon was a 5/4 games IL was a 6/3 matchup and UCLA was a 7/2 matchup
Exactly, the B1G was seeded to have all 8 teams win in round 1, but only for 4 of them to make the sweet 16, which is what happened. I'm not really sure how Illinois was favored yesterday over Kentucky, but they were a volatile team all season - high potential but just as likely to have a crappy game. The SEC was seeded to have 9 teams win in round 1 and 6 in round 2 - they had 8 win round 1 and 7 win round 2. The Big 12 was seeded for 6 and 4, and got 6 and 4. The Big East is easily the biggest disappointment, no teams made it to the sweet 16 and their best teams got upset.
So the sweet 16 is the three top conferences and Duke. I'm not going to say that's boring, but I'm not not going to say it either.
The Big Ten had 8 teams in the tourney and half of them made it to the sweet 16. Of course all of them won in round 1. I've now watched the Queen winning bucket for Maryland about 10 times on the Athletic and do not believe it was traveling
The SEC has 7 of the final 16. They are killing it. I hate the SEC and their condescending fans as much as the next guy, but any conversation that they are underperforming is just false. Let’s hope we don’t have an all SEC final 4!
Well, maybe they are not really under performing, but they aren't really killing it. They are performing the way the Big Ten has been performing. Both conferences got half of their teams to the sweet 16
I can’t agree ole buddy. Has any conference ever got 7 teams in the sweet 16? We can agree their bottom half teams aren’t anything special, but even a 10th seeded Arkansas made the final 16. They are buying their way into prominence.
The complaint was that they did not deserve to have 14 teams in (sorry but 6-12 teams do not deserve to be in. Argument can be made for some 8-10 teams but not 6-12) and BIG deserved more than they got. Only big surprises in the tourney so far is a couple of 12s won in first round and Arkansas. Sort of disappointing.
And couple BIG games have been pretty close including WIS loss and Oregon's loss to Arizona which would have swung things, With those games going other way we would have been talking 7 and 6. (Other side is MD coming up big in last few seconds )
Last edited:
Has any conference been given 14 bids? And seeding was often in their favor as well.
Unfortunately likely to be the new reality for now. We can pretend Houston is still in the American, Arizona is still in the Pac-12 and BYU is in the West Coast Conference?
Can't agree with you either. SEC got too many teams in, some of which were undeserving as noted by some of the posters who have responded to you.
Yeah, Oklahoma and Texas had no business being in, I would much rather see spots to go to smaller conference second place finishers or regular season conference winners that stumbled in their conference tournament. I didn’t look this up, so I could be wrong, but it didn’t seem like there were as many upsets in conference tourneys resulting in bid stealers. Just saying OSU and Indiana were putrid too and had no business being in. This isn’t going to stop without a rule requiring a minimum conference record for a bid and we all know that will never happen.
They had more business being in the tourney than Oklahoma and Texas for sure and perhaps even a couple of the 8-10 teams like Vanderbilt
And since I went to grad school at Arizona (Wildcats) and still hard to say Oregon and Big Ten, I was OK with the outcome of that game
It pains me to say this but it felt to me IN kind of deserved to get in. They were putrid for the talent they had, I dislike them as much as anyone here, but it felt they had the numbers to get in.
I mean I’d rather the metrics somehow benefited those mid majors that stumbled but, under the current guidelines they use I think IN should have been in.
Is there another recent year no B1G team played a first round as the lower seed in a game?
Oklahoma beat Louisville, Arizona, and Michigan in non conference. Texas is awful.
In the first two rounds, seeding is very important. Being able to play a 15-16 seed first and then a 7-8 makes getting to the round of 16 much easier. SEC had 4 one or two seeds. B1G had 1 two seed (MSU).
The fact that half of the B1G teams got this far despite unfavorable seeding is impressive.
3 of 7 lower seeded B1G teams made round of 16. 3 of 11 SEC teams did.
The fact that half of the B1G teams got this far despite unfavorable seeding is impressive.
3 of 7 lower seeded B1G teams made round of 16. 3 of 11 SEC teams did.
Last edited:
The SEC has two subtle things working in its favor.
First, they understand the value of blowing out overmatched opponents in the non-conference.
And the whole league runs up the score when they can. This is deliberate.
Its a flaw in the computer ratings to not underweight those games.
But the committee is relying almost exclusively on the computer ratings, while ignoring common sense.
No 6-12 team should get in. Set the minimum conference winning percentage to .400 unless a team wins its conference tournament.
Second, the SEC has been the biggest portal talent acquirer. Their teams are filled with players who have experience (somewhere). Non-conference opponents are often mid-majors who are scrambling to figure things out after having their best players plucked away by the big boys in the offseason. So, the difference in outcomes is generally greatest at the beginning of the season (in the non-conference) and this is entirely to the advantage of the big schools, especially those with experienced players. There are plenty of exceptions, but this is the general case - and a significant impact when it comes to rating conferences overall. Once the preseason is over, the conference ratings are essentially locked in.
First, they understand the value of blowing out overmatched opponents in the non-conference.
And the whole league runs up the score when they can. This is deliberate.
Its a flaw in the computer ratings to not underweight those games.
But the committee is relying almost exclusively on the computer ratings, while ignoring common sense.
No 6-12 team should get in. Set the minimum conference winning percentage to .400 unless a team wins its conference tournament.
Second, the SEC has been the biggest portal talent acquirer. Their teams are filled with players who have experience (somewhere). Non-conference opponents are often mid-majors who are scrambling to figure things out after having their best players plucked away by the big boys in the offseason. So, the difference in outcomes is generally greatest at the beginning of the season (in the non-conference) and this is entirely to the advantage of the big schools, especially those with experienced players. There are plenty of exceptions, but this is the general case - and a significant impact when it comes to rating conferences overall. Once the preseason is over, the conference ratings are essentially locked in.
Yes this is true. The age of NIL and the portal has pushed the SEC to the forefront of basketball now.
Some pundits argue that this years SEC is the greatest collection of teams in one conference ever. My personal opinion is the SEC is by far the best conference THIS year. I hate to say that because I don’t care for the SEC’s bravado at all.
A better way to look at it is by a metric called PASE - Performance Above Seed Expectations. Basically, every seed is expected to win a certain number of games based on past performance.
Based off of that data:
1 seeds are expected to make the elite 8 every year, at 3.23 wins per tourney
2 seeds are expected to make the sweet 16 at 2.25 wins per tourney. St John's underachieved expectations here.
3-5 seeds are expected to win between 1-2 games. 1.93, 1.6, 1.16 wins respectively. Texas Tech and Kentucky overachieved as 3s, Purdue and Arizona overachieved as 4s, and Michigan overachieved as a 5. Clemson and Memphis underachieved as 5s.
Interestingly 7 seeds are expected to win 1 game per tourney, better than 6 seeds, so Kansas and Marquette underachieved.
6 and 11 seeds are expected to win about 0.8 games per tourney, so BYU, Ole Miss, Illinois, Mcneese and Drake overachieved while Missouri, UNC, Xavier and VCU underachieved.
Arkansas was the only other overachiever, so looking at this, the SEC has 3 overachievers and 2 underachievers, with 4 teams still undetermined, while the Big 10 has 3 overachievers and no underachievers, with 1 team still undetermined.
What do you call WIS? Sure seems like underachieving to me If you are supposed to win 1.93 and you only win one?? Of course it also would mean that hard to call KY and TT as overachievers either, Also hard to see 4 or 5 as either over or under achievers But if you had to based on expectations then 4 losing would be under achieving and 5 winning would be overachieving (Rounding 1.93 is rounded up to 2 as is 1.6 while 1.15 would be rounded down, Surprised that there is that much difference between 4 and 5 seeds)
Last edited:
Similar threads
