Selection Show thread (7 ET, ESPN)

[Plebe]

People are still whining about UCONN's "tough" bracket?

You don't take that as a compliment?

 

[triaddukefan]

You don't take that as a compliment?

maybe i would if my name were triadturtlefan

 

[Plebe]

maybe i would if my name were triadturtlefan

Well, since you're not here for the compliments anyway, here's the statistical power rankings on the 538 site:

 

[LETTERL]

I also think that NC State was the victim of a downward procedural bump from #5 to #6.

Once you take into account that ACC teams, Louisville and Miami were both awarded #4 seeds, there was no way NCSU could be a #5 seed in those regionals (OKC & STOCK). That left them the chance to be a #5 seed in either CT or KY.

But, in CT, there were already 2 ACC teams seeded, with #2 Duke and #8 Syracuse; I think that's where the committee didn't want to place a third team from the same conference (maybe there's an unwritten rule?). Most folks had Texas A&M as a #6 seed paired with #3 Texas; would have made for a short bus trip from College Station to Austin. But, A&M ends up as the #5 seed in CT with NCSU as the #6 seed matched up with #3 seed Texas in the KY regional.

In KY, I think Ohio State as the #5 seed is right. Don't think they were gonna place NCSU above the Buckeyes.

I am licking my chops at the prospect of seeing Miah Spencer go up against Brooke McCarty in what should be an outstanding point guard matchup if both NCState and Texas can survive their opening round games, with a Sweet 16 berth on the line.

 

[triaddukefan]

So the question Im wondering..... Can Duke beat Oregon?

 

[LO TRADER]

Well, since you're not here for the compliments anyway, here's the statistical power rankings on the 538 site:

Well, I'm not sure what a power rating is, or, how it is calculated, but I cannot get over how everyone ranks Texas above so many other teams. They are not worthy of being ranked 5th after the top seeds in the brackets in any rating category.

 

[eebmg]

Well, since you're not here for the compliments anyway, here's the statistical power rankings on the 538 site:

Not sure what this table is supposed to show? Both the seeding positions and power rankings are fluctuating (not steadily going from best to worst)

 

[ochoopsfan]

So the question Im wondering..... Can Duke beat Oregon?

No Way!!!
Go Ducks!!
Start the bus. JPM is driving. look out players!!

 

[Plebe]

Not sure what this table is supposed to show? Both the seeding positions and power rankings are fluctuating (not steadily going from best to worst)

The teams are listed there in the order of probability of winning the title. This listing is not in the same order as the raw power rating on the right because the probability of winning is also affected by matchup sequences, i.e. which teams they might have to face in what order.

So, for example, Maryland has the 5th-highest power score at 96.3, but because Maryland is in the same region as UConn, its probability of getting to the Final Four is considerably lower than that of both Texas and Stanford.

 

[Plebe]

Well, I'm not sure what a power rating is, or, how it is calculated, but I cannot get over how everyone ranks Texas above so many other teams. They are not worthy of being ranked 5th after the top seeds in the brackets in any rating category.

Texas is listed 5th there in terms of probability of winning the tournament, which is not the same as the raw power ranking. You can see in the numbers in the third column that Texas, at 94.4, has a lower raw score than Maryland, Stanford, Washington, and Mississippi State.

 

[eebmg]

The teams are listed there in the order of probability of winning the title. This listing is not in the same order as the raw power rating on the right because the probability of winning is also affected by matchup sequences, i.e. which teams they might have to face in what order.

So, for example, Maryland has the 5th-highest power score at 96.3, but because Maryland is in the same region as UConn, its probability of getting to the Final Four is considerably lower than that of both Texas and Stanford.

Thank you Plebe. I was just too lazy to go to 538. Love BY. One stop shopping.

 

[LO TRADER]

Texas is listed 5th there in terms of probability of winning the tournament, which is not the same as the raw power ranking. You can see in the numbers in the third column that Texas, at 94.4, has a lower raw score than Maryland, Stanford, Washington, and Mississippi State.

Thanks. That still seems odd (nicest way I can say it) that someone believes Texas' probability of winning the tournament is 5th highest among the 64 team field.

 

[DefenseBB]

Syracuse got a raw deal

View attachment 20727

It's called Karma! Maybe they should have played UConn last year for Stewie....

 

[Jimbo]

That seems like an odd rule. Oregon State and UCLA can't meet in a regional final?

That's right. The rule is that the top 4 teams from a conference must be placed in separate regions if they are on the top 4 seed lines.

This is also why Notre Dame, Duke, Florida State, and Louisville (the top 4 from the ACC) were each placed in a separate regional.

I believe this rule was instituted after the Elite 8 game in 2011 between Baylor and Texas A&M, which elicited a lot of complaints.

I know I'm late here, but I thought this explanation of the rule was interesting. The 2011 Baylor/Texas A&M situation was problematic, in my opinion, because they were the #1 and #2 seeds in that region. I do think there should be a rule in place to prevent that from happening; the committee should avoid placing two conference-mates in the same region when both are expected, if seeds hold, to reach the Elite 8. But I think the current rule goes further than it needs to. I don't see a compelling reason to avoid a possible, upset-produced Elite 8 matchup between a #2 and a #4 seed from the same conference (assuming that conference gets more than four teams in; otherwise, I'd prefer to see them all spread out in different regions to begin with).

 

[Plebe]

I don't see a compelling reason to avoid a possible, upset-produced Elite 8 matchup between a #2 and a #4 seed from the same conference (assuming that conference gets more than four teams in; otherwise, I'd prefer to see them all spread out in different regions to begin with).

But that's in fact how the rule works. If a conference gets more than 4 teams in, they obviously can't all be in separate regions. Case in point this year: Miami, as the 5th ACC team among the top 4 seed lines, was put into the same region as FSU (IIRC; don't have the bracket here to look at right now).

 

[DefenseBB]

How can anyone defend one region being more challenging than another region? I think the selection committee did as well as any other "selection committee" could have done. Let the games begin!

...says the guy in the easiest region with an over-rated conference that had at least one teams that doesn't belong...(yeah, that's right Cal Bears have no business in the Tourney!)

I ask you to name a top 10 program that a PAC12 team beat not in the PAC12?

 

[DefenseBB]

Your obsession is showing.

However the post is sooo accurate. The SEC was not good this year and had no business getting as many bids as it did...

 

[Jimbo]

But that's in fact how the rule works. If a conference gets more than 4 teams in, they obviously can't all be in separate regions. Case in point this year: Miami, as the 5th ACC team among the top 4 seed lines, was put into the same region as FSU (IIRC; don't have the bracket here to look at right now).

Right, that only makes sense. What I meant was if a conference gets four or fewer teams in the whole tournament, I'd prefer to see them all spread out in different regions. If a conference has five or more tournament teams, then obviously that's not possible, and in that case, I don't think separating a #2 seed and a #4 seed from that conference is really all that important. Barring an upset, those teams aren't "supposed" to meet in the Elite 8 anyway (unlike Baylor and Texas A&M in 2011). I understand the current rule requires that they be separated, but I don't think it's worth the trouble of shifting them off of where they naturally belong based on the S-curve.

 

[Jimbo]

Interesting post by someone with the handle "Canadaball" on RebKell's Junkie Boards,

"Last year, 4 male coached teams made the Final 4. This year, in studying the brackets, it ia apparent that the all women seeding committee did everything possible to avoid a repeat. There are 26 male coached teams in the 2017 field. Somehow 10 found their way into UConn's bracket. Male coached West Virginia put on a huge late season run beating, in succession, 6 seed Oklahoma, 3 seed Texas and 1 seed Baylor. This legitimate longshot for the Final 4 was lowseeded at 6, and given the UConn checkmate. Look at poor male coached Syracuse given an 8 seed. Miami got a coveted home seed at 4 despite getting buried by Syracuse in their only meeting this year, and having a worse ACC record. Just to be sure Syracuse would not repeat last year's Final 4 run, they too were given the UConn checkmate.
Looking at the other male coached legitimate teams not in UConn's bracket, some get matched with other male coached teams; thus we see 4 seed Kentucky colliding with 5 seed OSU; Louisville (4 seed) gets Jim Foster coached Chattanooga in first round, and the dangerous Tennesse in second round. Note that the Baylor and South Carolina brackets have precious few male coached top 6 seeds.[/b]"

Seeing conspiracy where there is none, lies, throwing up straw dogs, conjecture based on supposition or conjecture based on fact? Anyone?

Wow, this really brought back some memories. I haven't heard anything like this in years, but there used to be a lot of high-profile coaches (including Geno, according to a couple old articles I just dug up) who put some stock in the theory that the committee was purposely grouping male coaches together so they'd knock each other off before the Final Four. Not saying I buy into it myself, but this was a hot topic back 15-20 years ago.

Just in case anyone's really interested in drudging all this up again, here you go. (Some of these pieces deal with multiple topics; run a search for "male coaches" to get to the relevant parts.)
Scorecard
COLLEGE BASKETBALL; Debating the Male Coach's Role
Men vs. women coaches, the debate wages on daily | Eastern Progress
ESPN.com - Page2 - Outside the Lines: <br>By Invitation Only

 

[Plebe]

...says the guy in the easiest region with an over-rated conference that had at least one teams that doesn't belong...(yeah, that's right Cal Bears have no business in the Tourney!)

I ask you to name a top 10 program that a PAC12 team beat not in the PAC12?

Sigh. Here we go again.

Stanford beat Texas.

And Cal dominated Oklahoma on a neutral court. Does Oklahoma not belong in the tourney either?

How many other top-16 teams not in the top 4 won OOC games against the top 10?

 

[j66kicker]

Wow, this really brought back some memories. I haven't heard anything like this in years, but there used to be a lot of high-profile coaches (including Geno, according to a couple old articles I just dug up) who put some stock in the theory that the committee was purposely grouping male coaches together so they'd knock each other off before the Final Four. Not saying I buy into it myself, but this was a hot topic back 15-20 years ago.

Just in case anyone's really interested in drudging all this up again, here you go. (Some of these pieces deal with multiple topics; run a search for "male coaches" to get to the relevant parts.)
Scorecard
COLLEGE BASKETBALL; Debating the Male Coach's Role
Men vs. women coaches, the debate wages on daily | Eastern Progress
ESPN.com - Page2 - Outside the Lines: <br>By Invitation Only

Not since this time last year - heh heh

 

[LO TRADER]

...says the guy in the easiest region with an over-rated conference that had at least one teams that doesn't belong...(yeah, that's right Cal Bears have no business in the Tourney!)

I ask you to name a top 10 program that a PAC12 team beat not in the PAC12?

University of Southern Maine

 

[LO TRADER]

...says the guy in the easiest region with an over-rated conference that had at least one teams that doesn't belong...(yeah, that's right Cal Bears have no business in the Tourney!)

I ask you to name a top 10 program that a PAC12 team beat not in the PAC12?

Ohhhhh....are you referring to the conference that had 2 of the 4 FF teams last year? Yeah, that overrated conference

 

[DefenseBB]

That was last year as you noted, this year let's see how they do against other 1-2-3 seeds. That's the beauty of opinion boards! Based on the 2016-17 games ...not so much Never let the fact get in the way of a discussion..I can list them all for you if you want then parse why they all lost... ND-Wash; Stan-Tenn; UCLA-Baylor; UCLA-SC and OSU to umm oh yeah you didn't play anyone! Stan did beat Texas so yeah, PAC12 is 1-4 against top 5 seeds. Yeah power conference...

 

[DefenseBB]

My sort of light-hearted discussion with my OSU collegue has led me to this observation on the committee- they talk about signature wins yet NO PAC12 team save Stanford had such a win out of conference butyhere are OSU, Wash and UCLA all top 4 seeds.

Give me the ACC any day.