What do people think of BIG seedings?
- Thread starter hdhntr1
- Start date
I think the B1G got lucky in a good way. While the Big East, B12, and ACC had teams that completely missed the field and he P12, Mountain West, and ACc have play-in games. Our 3 lower seeds made the 8/9 cut. I would have a hard time putting any of them higher. Purdue was destined for the #1 seed. Illinois and Wisconsin earned their seeds. As a conference, we don’t have much to complain about.
Exactly how many #1 teams made the final 4 last year?
Exactly how many #1 teams made the final 4 last year?
The B1G has only six teams in the tourney, while the SEC and Big12 have more. I'm guessing that they wanted to avoid putting any of those six B1G teams in play-in games for political reasons. Three of them are 8/9 seeds, but I won't complain. Go Cats!
Did the Big East suffer because DePaul and Georgetown were so bad? 4 gimmes on all their league records,.
I did read a comment from someone online that indicated that the Big East's double round robin schedule screwed them, as only one other P6 team (Florida) had 4 conference games against teams which were that terrible.
See thread:
DePaul and Georgetown messed the Big East up. If you take those 4 games off the table, only Seton Hall has a winning conference record. Villanova and Providence have no case, period.
St. John's is the kid who rushed to turn in the their late homework right before the end of the marking period. Too late, buddy.
Seton Hall has a decent case to complain.
I would add that Indiana State got hosed as well. What were they 28-6 with a 29 net?
Rick Pitino is no fan of the NET. I wonder if this was him subliminally saying that MSU didn’t deserve their bid?
"First off, I think we should all probably never mention that word [NET] again because I think it's fraudulent," Pitino told SNY. "I think the NET is something that shouldn't even be mentioned anymore.
"I think that we had a good strength of schedule. KenPom, why mention him? We were 26th in KenPom. We tried to play a tough schedule. We tried to do things the right way, and we didn't get in. But I never make excuses. I respect the committee for what they do. They give their time, they give their energy to it. They didn't think we measured up to their standards, and we'll take it very positively like men and move forward. We're not going to gripe. We're not going to say we got screwed."
Had the Red Storm gotten in, Pitino would have led his sixth school into the NCAA tournament. Instead, they won't play again this season, as Pitino told the National Invitation Tournament selection committee that the team didn't want to play in the also-ran event.
"After thorough consideration of all that goes into postseason participation, we believe at this time it is best for our team and basketball program to prepare for next season," he said in a statement.
If you’re a mid-major, you need to win your conference tourney. If you can’t, you don’t deserve to be in.
The only 89 game BIG is not it is the sectional Purdue is in. In fact the BIG only has one team even on the other side of the bracket. (IL). You could have BIG teams in other than 8/9 games A 7-10 would have been similar and on the other side of the bracket. Just seems a little strange to have half of BIG games being 8/9. Nebraska could have gotten a 7 seed for example. MSU a 10 and they would have been on the other side of the bracket and evened things out
Sorry but the tourneys are new and in the past winning the conference was done with the season. And again mid majors (figure MAC) often got multiple bids. You may be thinking one bid conferences but they really fall a level below the mid majors. And with Indiana State they had a reasonable body of work
Last edited:
The tourneys, except for the Ivy, aren"t new at all. Most mid-majors are one bid leagues. Once in a while, a couple will get two, like this year , but when is the last time the MAC got more than one bid?
If you drill down on Indiana State's schedule, you will not necessarily be overwhelmed. 78% of their wins were against quad 3 and 4 and they were 1-4 against the only Quad 1 games they had. They had a great year, but it was against a softer schedule, especially compared to some of the other bubble teams.
The tourneys are new?
Toledo has won 4 straight MAC regular season titles and hasn't sniffed the tourney since 1980.
The B1G isn’t exactly a powerhouse this year. Several decent teams, maybe 2 that are very good. Win more games and you won’t be a 8-9 seed.
Saint John's would probably beat Virginia 3 times out of 4.
Virginia is my only real gripe. (and coincidentally Joe Lunardi's).
Somebody else deserved that spot - maybe it was Saint John's, maybe it was Indiana State, or some other team.
Personally, I think it should have been one of those two, but Pitt also has a a case, having swept the Cavs in their 2 meetings.
Every conference has bad teams. The Mountain West has 3 terrible teams.
Actually, I have a 2nd gripe. The Mountain West didn't deserve 6 teams. Somebody should have been booted. The Big East is just better at basketball, so 3 teams vs 6 is incorrect.
Last edited:
So if the seeds hold and only Purdue and Illinois make the Sweet 16, will that perpetuate the opinion (by the rest of the country) that the Big 10 isn't very good? Obviously if Purdue falls way short again, we'll hear screams, but if Illinois and Wisconsin (who isn't even supposed to make the Sweet 16) lose this weekend, I figure we'll hear about how we all suck again, especially if some less-heralded conference has more teams.
My email address is hashtag idontcare. We reshuffle the deck next year anyway with 4 new teams.
While I understand the excitement of conference tournaments for that magical bid, I've always thought it was stupid to punish the best team in the league over the course of the entire season because they had one bad night in the conference tournament. Give the auto-bid to the regular season champ. The conference championship in the major conferences rarely determines whether a team makes the NCAAs or not, but they are still exciting. Bragging rights alone mean something in conference.
East coast bias. How much MWC basketball you watch this year?
I’ll edit: I watched a lot. The Mountain West had a very strong group of teams this year. 7 teams that were strong, and a bottom four that were not great, but not total crap either. Should the Big East have had more than 3? Probably. Did the Mountain West deserve fewer than 6? Nope.
We’ll see how well that ages over the weekend, but there are some good, tough teams out in the MWC.
Last edited:
Conference tournaments ARE stupid. They make the regular season meaningless. Wisconsin was in a tailspin, righted the ship, got hot in tourney and parlayed into a 5 seed. We just missed the play-in game. Plus eff Illinois
Brilliant post! The conference tournament should be for bragging rights or something else of nominal value.
If the committee deems the winner worthy of a bid, then so be it.
But the regular season champion is the true champion and deserves the guaranteed bid. Period. End of story.
I watched enough MWC games to think that they aren't as athletic as the big boys.
I watched Wyoming and Utah State play Saint Louis.
Saint Louis had a really bad year, but beat Wyoming by 10 and played Utah State competitively while missing several players.
The fact that Wyoming went 8-10 in the MWC is one factor in my suspicion about the league overall.
I watched parts of many other MWC games throughout the season, just to see how the teams looked. As I mentioned, I thought they looked a cut below the good conferences. I have been running algorithms to evaluate the teams all season. Suffice it to say that I am quite familiar with the MWC teams (the scores of their games) and my opinion is that while several teams did well in their non-conference games, the useful dataset is small and it is therefore risky to conclude that the computer ratings are reliable for those teams. For that reason, I would not take 6 teams from the conference, especially after they got humiliated last year in the NCAA tournament.
It is worth pointing out that the bottom 3 teams in the Mountain West (Fresno, San Jose and Air Force) are all worse than Vanderbilt (SEC worst), Louisville (ACC worst), Michigan (Big Ten worst), Georgetown (Big East 2nd worst), West Virginia (Big 12 worst) and Fordham (A-10 2nd worst). Thats a lot of easy wins.
I'd agree that Utah State, New Mexico, Boise State, Nevada, Colorado State and San Diego State all have a reasonable claim to an NCAA bid, but for reasons listed above, I'd have tossed Colorado State (10-8), whose big win over Creighton looks to have been an outlier. Boise State doesn't look better than CSU, but they went 13-5 in conference games, so they're in.
It's a real matter of controversy in ACC-land that Virginia got in over Pitt when they have similar metrics and Pitt ran Virginia out of their own house, but they claim the Committee thought Pitt's non-conference schedule was too weak for a bubble team.
Colorado State just proved Virginia shouldn't be dancing.
Virginia missed 20 straight shots in that game. Terrible offensive team which they demonstrated often during the season,. And yet they won 22 games...They did have some nice nonconference wins vs. Florida and Texas A &M, BUT they had plenty of blowout losses like he one vs. Colorado State in the tourney. Interesting dilemma for the committee,
This is also the third time I can recall them embarrassing themselves in the dance.
In 2017 they set a tournament record for low points against Florida IIRC. And of course they were the first 1 seed to lose to a 16 before Purdue.
Including them and Michigan State over Seton Hall and Indiana State was very odd.
VA responded to the critics of their bid by going out there and giving a reason to every person in the arena to request a refund. That was worse than sticking tooth picks in my eyes
I believe I saw a shirt last night that said something like "Virginia: The Iowa Football of Basketball".
