2017 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament

[Arles]

After losing Villanova, it was nice to see Duke lose. My impressions on this weekend were that Wichita St and Wisconsin were under seeded. Wisconsin should have been a 4-5 and Wichita should have been a 5-6.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Yea Lunardi, Ken Pom, all the pundits sure had that conference pegged!

KenPom had ND, Miami, WF, Virginia, and Virginia Tech losing to better teams. It also had Duke and FSU over seeded while SC and Xavier underseeded.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

KenPom had ND, Miami, WF, Virginia, and Virginia Tech losing to better teams. It also had Duke and FSU over seeded while SC and Xavier underseeded.

I might be overly harsh on Ken Pom, but my point is that the media overhyping if the ACC was absolutely ridiculous and the way this tourney has gone really exposes that fact.

[tarcone]

And underhyping the B1G

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And underhyping the B1G

I don't think you can really say that the big ten was underhyped by the media when the selection committee wasn't exactly in love with the conference either.

They could both be graded wrong on some counts and that's fair/fine. I just don't think it's a bus the media can be singled out to get thrown under if that makes sense.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Atocep

KenPom had ND, Miami, WF, Virginia, and Virginia Tech losing to better teams. It also had Duke and FSU over seeded while SC and Xavier underseeded.

That doesn't match the pre-tourney ratings. KenPom had Miami (32) better than Michigan St (43) and Virginia (7) better than Florida (9). KenPom also had Xavier at 40 (10 seed, not far off their 11) and SC at 32 (7-seed, where they were). Let's also not forget that KenPom had St. Mary's rated 6 spots above Arizona. KenPom seemed to be high on small conference teams that beat crap teams by 20-25 (Wichita State at 8, SMU at 11 and St. Mary's at 14), extremely high on the ACC - while down on the Big 10 and Pac 12. I still don't get how Arizona goes 30-4 against a top 60 SOS and they are rated well behind a St. Mary's team that goes 30-4 against the 140 SOS (270th Nonconf SOS). His ratings just seem way too dependent upon margin of victory for my taste and putting all these ACC teams in the top 10-15 at the start.

And this isn't a KenPom only issue, but when you are as high as all the CPU ratings were on the ACC teams going into the season - all those conference teams get propped up. I mean a 17-15 Clemson team was rated 35th in KemPom - and they lost to Oakland by 5 in the NIT. When you have so many conference teams rated so high (without even that tough of a nonconf SOS), it stacks the deck for that conference. Then, every conference game helps you immensely, even if you lose. Clemson (35 in KenPom) went 6-12 in conference play and got beaten by both Xavier (40) and Oklahoma (65) on neutral courts. How Clemson was rated higher than Xavier when the Tourney started is beyond me. Xavier played a significantly higher Non Conf (#38 compared to Clemson's 100), had a similar overall SOS, had a much better record and beat Clemson on a neutral floor. Yet, Clemson would have gotten a better seed in a KenPom tourney.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't think you can really say that the big ten was underhyped by the media when the selection committee wasn't exactly in love with the conference either.

They could both be graded wrong on some counts and that's fair/fine. I just don't think it's a bus the media can be singled out to get thrown under if that makes sense.

The problem is when you make the determination that the Big 10 is OK and ACC is great going into the season, that colors all the metrics used by the selection committee. Florida State won a home game against Florida and lost a neutral game to Temple, but had a crap overall nonconference (around #270). But, they lose 9 games and still get a 3 seed. Virginia's best non-conf win was Cal, have 7 conf losses (10 overall) and they get a 5 seed. KenPom has them 7th overall - better than Florida, Kansas, Arizona, UCLA and Oregon. The preconceived notion on the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 going into the season greatly shaped their final rankings and seeds.

[Young Drachma]

CBI Quarterfinals

Wyoming playing UMKC at home.

Loyola Marymount v. Coastal Carolina
UIC v. GW
Rice v. Utah Valley

Seems like, in theory, Wyoming could win the thing if they keep playing hot (and at home, frankly.) And yes, they'd probably raise a CBI banner. Been a long time since that national championship in the 40s.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Arles

The problem is when you make the determination that the Big 10 is OK and ACC is great going into the season, that colors all the metrics used by the selection committee. Florida State won a home game against Florida and lost a neutral game to Temple, but had a crap overall nonconference (around #270). But, they lose 9 games and still get a 3 seed. Virginia's best non-conf win was Cal, have 7 conf losses (10 overall) and they get a 5 seed. KenPom has them 7th overall - better than Florida, Kansas, Arizona, UCLA and Oregon. The preconceived notion on the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 going into the season greatly shaped their final rankings and seeds.

This is nonsense from a metrics perspective.

From a perception perspective it obviously holds some truth, but polls are much worse about that than computer metrics.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

This is nonsense from a metrics perspective.

From a perception perspective it obviously holds some truth, but polls are much worse about that than computer metrics.

This.

And thanks for saving me the time to say the same basic thing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

NIT presents a helluva conundrum for my kid.

It's Georgia Tech at Ole Miss on Tuesday ... half his sports heritage vs his current location.

Working plan is that he's just going to avoid the game at all.

His 2nd option was to wear a GT jersey under his Ole Miss jersey & then, depending upon the outcome, whip off the first jersey & turn heel.

[tarcone]

Iowa shot 42% from the FT lline and lost to TCU in OT. Bad game for the Hawks. I cannot wait until next year.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

CBI Quarterfinals

Wyoming playing UMKC at home.

Loyola Marymount v. Coastal Carolina
UIC v. GW
Rice v. Utah Valley

Seems like, in theory, Wyoming could win the thing if they keep playing hot (and at home, frankly.) And yes, they'd probably raise a CBI banner. Been a long time since that national championship in the 40s.

One correction-It's Loyola, MD not Marymount vs Coastal. Well two corrections, Coastal is going to win the tourney, not Wyoming

[Arles]

Originally Posted by digamma

This is nonsense from a metrics perspective.

From a perception perspective it obviously holds some truth, but polls are much worse about that than computer metrics.

The problem is "polls" and subjective opinions dictate the seeding process. The ACC is great, the Big 10 is average. There is no CPU ranking that determines who is a 2 seed and who is a 5 seed, it's all subjective. Then, you have even more craziness in awarding Minnesota a 5 and Wisconsin an 8 seed. There isn't one CPU ranking that has Minnesota above Wisconsin, yet they are seeded 3 spots higher? Here's a composite listing of all the ranking systems going into the tourney:

College Basketball Ranking Composite

Look at these and explain the Wisconsin-Minnesota decision. Or why Maryland is a higher seed than Michigan. And these are simple decisions within a conference, now try to justify Florida State being seeded higher than Purdue. The seeding process is what needs to be changed first and foremost.

My second issue is the logic behind these CPU rankings. It's all the same data, yet the results are extremely far off. Look at Virginia, they range from 3rd overall to 36th. Arizona is from 2nd to 25th. And that's not looking at the smaller school teams like Wichita (range from 3 to 47) or St Mary's (4 to 31). The standard deviations on some of these teams are as high as 7-10 for top 30 teams. There's no transparency here. Outside of the RPI (extremely flawed), we have no idea how KenPom, BPI, TeamRankings, Massey, etc are calculated. Then, you have people using these rankings (that they really don't even understand) to justify or argue against arbitrary seeding decisions. I feel that KenPom values high margin wins against crap teams a lot higher than Massey or Pugh (who tend to penalize losses more). There are people who cite KenPom leading up to the tournament as if it was the word of Jesus in college basketball - yet they have no idea what methodology is used in its conclusions.

At some point, we need to get to a point where we agree on some overall parameters within a ranking system and explain that to coaches/players. Hey, beating the 240th team by 25 isn't as good as beating the 75th team by 8 - so keep that in mind. Ratings like KenPom, BPI and TeamRankings are intended to be "predictive" ratings - not to fairly reward teams for their season with a tournament seed.

[hoopsguy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't think you can really say that the big ten was underhyped by the media when the selection committee wasn't exactly in love with the conference either.

My initial observation to this is if the Big Ten had lost a #2/#2/#3 seed yesterday and had 1 of 9 teams in the Sweet 16 that ESPN would annihilate the conference in just about every write-up on their site. Suffice it to say, I'm not seeing that reaction today. There were some pot shots taken at the ACC on Twitter, but that is about the extent of what I've seen over the last 24 hours.

In terms of the rankings, I'm glad that KenPom does factor in margin of victory as part of their score. I understand that there are positives/negatives to doing so, but I believe ignoring final scores results in weaker data. As far as the "proper weighting" of margin of victory, especially relative to difference in Top 50 vs Top 150 vs Top 300 foe, I would suggest that there is likely room for intelligent people to disagree and potentially fine tune the formulas.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

At some point, we need to get to a point where we agree on some overall parameters within a ranking system

And the BCS went heavily computer and everybody hated that too.

The problem here, frankly, is that there is no consensus stronger than the one that keeps a human element involved in the process. And that means someone always perceives their ox as being gored.

[Thomkal]

Well was not easy and had to come back from several down a couple times, but in the end the good guys prevailed 72-63 Not sure who they will play next, but likely will be a long road trip.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

CBI Quarterfinals

Wyoming playing UMKC at home.

Loyola Marymount v. Coastal Carolina
UIC v. GW
Rice v. Utah Valley

Seems like, in theory, Wyoming could win the thing if they keep playing hot (and at home, frankly.) And yes, they'd probably raise a CBI banner. Been a long time since that national championship in the 40s.

Utah Valley and UIC also won their games. Wyoming leads by 6 at the half, was up by a lot more at one point. Also its been announced UIC and Coastal will meet in one semi-final with Coastal getting its third home game.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Arles

The problem is "polls" and subjective opinions dictate the seeding process. The ACC is great, the Big 10 is average. There is no CPU ranking that determines who is a 2 seed and who is a 5 seed, it's all subjective. Then, you have even more craziness in awarding Minnesota a 5 and Wisconsin an 8 seed. There isn't one CPU ranking that has Minnesota above Wisconsin, yet they are seeded 3 spots higher?

Obviously Wisconsin was seeded 3 lines below Minnesota because of bias against the Big 10. Err, wait, for the Big 10.

Or, alternatively, the committee is just bad at its job and there isn't a grand conspiracy at play (though I do think they are a little biased at times against good mid-majors.)

[Radii]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Or, alternatively, the committee is just bad at its job and there isn't a grand conspiracy at play (though I do think they are a little biased at times against good mid-majors.)

Also, we dramatically overvalue the results of a very small number of games and make sweeping overreaching conclusions based on them. We do this every year, despite acknowledging at the same time that the NCAA tournament isn't really the best setup to determine the "best team" but it does crown a champion in a very fun way so that's ok.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Utah Valley and UIC also won their games. Wyoming leads by 6 at the half, was up by a lot more at one point. Also its been announced UIC and Coastal will meet in one semi-final with Coastal getting its third home game.

Wyoming wins, will host Utah Valley in the other semi. Pokes are 16-3 at home this year, apparently. This one will have higher stakes than the others though.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Radii

Also, we dramatically overvalue the results of a very small number of games and make sweeping overreaching conclusions based on them. We do this every year, despite acknowledging at the same time that the NCAA tournament isn't really the best setup to determine the "best team" but it does crown a champion in a very fun way so that's ok.

Only one of nine teams reached the Sweet 16 for the ACC, most losing in upsets (by seed). While I agree with you that the NCAA tourney results aren't necessarily the ideal conditions upon which to judge a team or conference's quality or lack thereof, they are also not just nothing results to sweep under the carpet--and especially these results, which are so extreme.

Eight of nine out by the second round isn't terrible. It's TERRIBLE.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Obviously Wisconsin was seeded 3 lines below Minnesota because of bias against the Big 10. Err, wait, for the Big 10.

Or, alternatively, the committee is just bad at its job and there isn't a grand conspiracy at play (though I do think they are a little biased at times against good mid-majors.)

This was my point. They can't even get apples to apples right (same conference), so it's not a surprise they are a disaster when it comes to cross conference comparisons. But, it's always been this way and next year won't be any different.

[Thomkal]

Coastal Carolina did not have much problem with UIC and wins 89-78. Utah Valley and Wyoming about to start. Would be pretty crazy for Coastal to win two national tournaments in the course of a year.

[Thomkal]

Wyoming hangs on and beats Utah Valley, so the finals of the CBI are all set. It's a Best of 3 so Coastal will finally have to play on the road.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Wyoming hangs on and beats Utah Valley, so the finals of the CBI are all set. It's a Best of 3 so Coastal will finally have to play on the road.

Woo!

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Coastal Carolina did not have much problem with UIC and wins 89-78. Utah Valley and Wyoming about to start. Would be pretty crazy for Coastal to win two national tournaments in the course of a year.

What was the other one?

[MrBug708]

Baseball, though this national title isn't quite the same as baseball

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Woo!



What was the other one?

Look at my sig

[cartman]

No team is more overrated in more NCAA tournaments than Duke - The Washington Post

[digamma]

The data has to be way worse on a percentage basis from 1995 to the present. Duke was pretty ridiculous from 1986-1994.

[Suicane75]

Oregon/Michigan played some great basketball. West Virginia/Gonzaga evening it out with some horribly sloppy play.

[tarcone]

Iowa women beat Colorado 80-62 to move on to the elite 8 of the WNIT. They host the next round Sunday.

[hoopsguy]

End game logic by WVU was wretched ... take the quick two!

[sovereignstar v2]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Iowa women beat Colorado 80-62 to move on to the elite 8 of the WNIT. They host the next round Sunday.

[CrescentMoonie]

Purdue played a good 25 minutes tonight.

[Young Drachma]

Didn't realize Quinnipiac made the Sweet 16 in the women's NCAA tournament as a 12-seed. There is some parity outside of the UConn streak, as it turns out.

[MrBug708]

Arizona is approaching Dukeish levels of flopping

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

End game logic by WVU was wretched ... take the quick two!

Between that & to a lesser extent Arizona's lethargy down 2 with 15 seconds left not a great night for teams I had going to the Final 4 & clock management!

[tarcone]

Xavier is not the mid major I expected to be here.

My bracket sucks this year.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Arizona is approaching Dukeish levels of flopping

It was really a frustrating game. Arizona had more size, quickness and talent - yet shot 27 3s

Even as poorly as they played on offense, they were up 8 with 5 min left and just went brain-dead on offense. A lot of hero ball by Trier and settling for contested jumpers. I don't know what it is about Sean Miller's teams - but they just don't have good offense down the stretch in big games. Maybe Arizona needs to dial back a few recruits and shoot for some guys who will stay for 3-4 years and get some stability late in games with their experience. Every year we have 1-2 19-20 year old talented stars (Trier, Markkanen, Stanley Johnson, Hollis-Jefferson, Aaron Gordon...) who resort to hero ball or just disappear at the end of the big games.

The best team we had was the elite 8 2014 team that had some veteran players with experience (TJ McConnell, Nick Johnson, Jordan Mayes) along with some talented freshmen/sophs (Gordon, Tarczewski, Hollis-Jefferson). They lost by a point to a very good Wisconsin team - but had the experience to overcome the inconsistency of some talented young guys. This year the entire core was underclassmen (outside of Jackson-Cartwright, a junior). Maybe Miller needs to look at a JC guy or two and try to get a transfer like McConnell was to bring in some big game experience. There's no reason this team should have taken 27 3s against Xavier given their size and quickness.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I have no champion left in my bracket.
I have only 2/4 Final Four candidates still alive.

I'm in the 56th percentile.

What a mess.

[CrescentMoonie]

I have 2 of the final four but my champion is gone and I'm still only in the 45th percentile.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

I have 2 of the final four but my champion is gone and I'm still only in the 45th percentile.

Wild guess: you have 4 of 8 teams playing tonight while I have 5 of 8. That sounds like maybe an 11 percent difference kinda thing.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Wild guess: you have 4 of 8 teams playing tonight while I have 5 of 8. That sounds like maybe an 11 percent difference kinda thing.

Yep. I've only got Florida on that side while I only missed on Wichita St beating Kentucky on the other side.

[Julio Riddols]

I miss the days when the NCAA tournament was on the main channels all day long. I have hardly seen any of this one because I can never find the damn channel its on. At work I can't stream..

So it makes me wonder why ABC and the like don't have it on all day long like they used to. Surely it would get better ratings than whatever else they have on.

Am I remembering it wrong?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

I miss the days when the NCAA tournament was on the main channels all day long. I have hardly seen any of this one because I can never find the damn channel its on. At work I can't stream..

So it makes me wonder why ABC and the like don't have it on all day long like they used to. Surely it would get better ratings than whatever else they have on.

Am I remembering it wrong?

Several issues.

You're remembering right, everything was on CBS. The difference was that not every game got full national coverage (was regional/local games, like Sunday afternoon NFL) that was the one upside to the way it is now vs then.

But then the contract came up for renewal (NCAA exercised an early opt-out claus) and the only way CBS could come up with the cash to lock them back in was by splitting the costs (and the games) with Turner Networks. That's the price of outbidding ESPN who was reportedly coming after the deal hard.

14 yrs, $10.8B. They've since added another term to the deal, for an additional $8.8B that takes it til 2032

edit to add: oh, and in a separate deal, ESPN International got the rights for coverage outside the U.S.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

I miss the days when the NCAA tournament was on the main channels all day long. I have hardly seen any of this one because I can never find the damn channel its on. At work I can't stream..

So it makes me wonder why ABC and the like don't have it on all day long like they used to. Surely it would get better ratings than whatever else they have on.

Am I remembering it wrong?

CBS previously had all the coverage. Round 3 as far as I can remember(87) has always been at night.

The only thing that has really changed is we now have the ability to watch any game we want where we didnt used to.

[MrBug708]

Does 3 seconds in the key exist anymore?

[tarcone]

Did you here the Florida player say "Give me that shit!" as he blocked Nigel Hayes shot?

[CrescentMoonie]

How can someone not find TBS, TNT, and TruTV after 7 years? It's literally the same 4 channels every year. Hell, DirecTV has them bunched together.

The SEC seems to be having a good tourney. Great finish in the Florida/Wisconsin game.