The official NCAA tournament thread

[Young Drachma]

I'm just glad as a part-time Kentucky resident that I don't have to deal with a whole feed of UL-UK shit for another week. Wish Kentucky would've lost last night.

[HerRealName]

Before the season I thought MSU was a bubble team at best this year. Izzo is a wizzard.

[Buccaneer]

I told my son that one does not ever bet against Izzo to not make the Final Four.

[Solecismic]

Remarkable that Gonzaga has been in the tournament 17 straight years now (but never won a regional). Since their Cinderella days as a low seed in 1999-2001, they are only 2-9 as the lower seeded team in games (first-round wins as a 9 and as an 11) and 13-5 as the higher seeded team (15-14 overall).

Their average seeding over the last 14 years is 5.8.

Michigan State has been to 18 straight tournaments. While Gonzaga was playing Cinderella as a low seed, they went to three straight Final Fours as a one seed, winning one title.

But the regular season has been tougher on them since then. Their average seeding over the last 14 years is also 5.8. And their record is 29-13, with four more regional championships.

I don't want to downplay what Gonzaga has achieved too much, but I think mid-majors are generally over-seeded. If the goal is to win the national tournament, you're better off going 11-7 in a major conference than 14-0 in a mid-major and seeding should reflect that.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Remarkable that Gonzaga has been in the tournament 17 straight years now (but never won a regional). Since their Cinderella days as a low seed in 1999-2001, they are only 2-9 as the lower seeded team in games (first-round wins as a 9 and as an 11) and 13-5 as the higher seeded team (15-14 overall).

Their average seeding over the last 14 years is 5.8.

Michigan State has been to 18 straight tournaments. While Gonzaga was playing Cinderella as a low seed, they went to three straight Final Fours as a one seed, winning one title.

But the regular season has been tougher on them since then. Their average seeding over the last 14 years is also 5.8. And their record is 29-13, with four more regional championships.

I don't want to downplay what Gonzaga has achieved too much, but I think mid-majors are generally over-seeded. If the goal is to win the national tournament, you're better off going 11-7 in a major conference than 14-0 in a mid-major and seeding should reflect that.

Lol, if you use Michigan State as the yardstick literally every single team is going to be over-seeded by comparison. Kansas is 20-8 as the higher seed the past 10 years. Duke is 30-12 as the higher seed since 2002, which could look much worse if you were to selectively throw out national championships in the same vein as "discounting the 3 years Gonzaga went 7-3 as the lower seed, they're only 2-9."

[Young Drachma]

Gonzaga needs to get into the Big East like they wanted to back when the new league was formed. The WCC is killing them at tournament time.

[Solecismic]

6-3. But my point is that Gonzaga '99-'01 is one of the reasons mid-majors have been bumped up in the seedings. And since then, Gonzaga has underperformed. Teams seeded 9-16 aren't going to be over-seeded in this manner.

It's hard to use the under/over comparison when teams are seeded very differently. That's why I chose MSU to compare to Gonzaga - a team with a long run of getting into the tournament, but not necessarily a high seed. Obviously, MSU is the biggest tournament overachiever in this period.

Kansas and Duke have also made it the last 14 years, but both average a 1.9/2.0 seed. Wisconsin is the only other team to reach the tournament in the last 14 years (average seed 5.1) and is 24-13 in the tournament over that time.

Going through each game they've played in the last 14 years by seeding, Gonzaga would have an expected overall record of 16.5-12.5 rather than 15-14.

What they did in 1999-2001 was remarkable (7-3, including the win over a lower seed, versus an expected 3.5-6.5 record), but I think their record since reflects an overseeding. And is partly responsible for the perception that mid-majors aren't given enough respect.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Gonzaga needs to get into the Big East like they wanted to back when the new league was formed. The WCC is killing them at tournament time.

I don't think so. They are just usually a good to really good team. They never have an Anthony Davis type talent. Just really good players. They were a two seed this year (with maybe their best team in years....senior guards and talented bigs), and lost to a one in Duke in the regional final. Duke had some guys hit some big shots in the second half, and Winslow played like an animal. I was rooting hard for the Zags, but they were second best in that region. I don't think you can look down on them for losing to Duke.

The WCC is not killing them. Utah had a great team this year, but they only made the Final Four when they were in a "lesser" conference. It's about quality of player and coach, and Few is good, but not Izzo. The players are good, but not transcendent.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

6-3. But my point is that Gonzaga '99-'01 is one of the reasons mid-majors have been bumped up in the seedings. And since then, Gonzaga has underperformed. Teams seeded 9-16 aren't going to be over-seeded in this manner.

It's hard to use the under/over comparison when teams are seeded very differently. That's why I chose MSU to compare to Gonzaga - a team with a long run of getting into the tournament, but not necessarily a high seed. Obviously, MSU is the biggest tournament overachiever in this period.

Kansas and Duke have also made it the last 14 years, but both average a 1.9/2.0 seed. Wisconsin is the only other team to reach the tournament in the last 14 years (average seed 5.1) and is 24-13 in the tournament over that time.

Going through each game they've played in the last 14 years by seeding, Gonzaga would have an expected overall record of 16.5-12.5 rather than 15-14.

What they did in 1999-2001 was remarkable (7-3, including the win over a lower seed, versus an expected 3.5-6.5 record), but I think their record since reflects an overseeding. And is partly responsible for the perception that mid-majors aren't given enough respect.

Right, and that's where I'd say that underperforming its seed by 1.5 wins over 14 years falls (especially after overperforming its seed by 3.5 wins over 3 years) right in line with the randomness of a single-elimination tournament. Any inference beyond that is likely representation bias at work.

No matter which way you break it up, a large enough group of highly-seeded teams will almost certainly underperform - otherwise the tournament would be all chalk. Going purely by seed, 1 seeds are 13-1 this year when they're expected to be 16-0, 2 seeds are 8-4 when they're expected to be 12-4, and so on. I'm sure these trends do not significantly differ by conference or mid-major status, and any small differences could be just as easily attributed to stuff like last year's Wichita State team being placed in the region from hell or first-round matchups like 2008 Davidson-Gonzaga where the mid-majors cannibalize themselves.

In other words, power conference schools overperforming their seed are said to do so because the conference schedule toughened them up, and upsets are usually blamed on "the madness" or the particular team's coach/players. The opposite holds true for the small conference teams.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by nol

Right, and that's where I'd say that underperforming its seed by 1.5 wins over 14 years falls (especially after overperforming its seed by 3.5 wins over 3 years) right in line with the randomness of a single-elimination tournament. Any inference beyond that is likely representation bias at work.

No matter which way you break it up, a large enough group of highly-seeded teams will almost certainly underperform - otherwise the tournament would be all chalk. Going purely by seed, 1 seeds are 13-1 this year when they're expected to be 16-0, 2 seeds are 8-4 when they're expected to be 12-4, and so on. I'm sure these trends do not significantly differ by conference or mid-major status, and any small differences could be just as easily attributed to stuff like last year's Wichita State team being placed in the region from hell or first-round matchups like 2008 Davidson-Gonzaga where the mid-majors cannibalize themselves.

In other words, power conference schools overperforming their seed are said to do so because the conference schedule toughened them up, and upsets are usually blamed on "the madness" or the particular team's coach/players. The opposite holds true for the small conference teams.

1-seeds would be expected to be 4-0 in the first round, 3.4 - 0.6 in the second round, 2.7 - 0.7 in the third round and 1.6 - 1.1 in the regional final. So 11.7 - 2.4 (2.9 - 0.6 per team) total before you get to the FF. Not winning the regional is only a slight under-performance.

This year's cumulative 13-1 is a bit of an over-performance. Last year's 10-3 was a bit of an under-performance.

Could we eliminate the hypothesis that Gonzaga hasn't underperformed in the last 14 years? No. I think the only way to do this properly is to sum all of the expected performances of all teams over the last 10-20 years and break it down by conference. I'm interested in that, but I'm not sure I want to crunch all of those numbers.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

1-seeds would be expected to be 4-0 in the first round, 3.4 - 0.6 in the second round, 2.7 - 0.7 in the third round and 1.6 - 1.1 in the regional final. So 11.7 - 2.4 (2.9 - 0.6 per team) total before you get to the FF. Not winning the regional is only a slight under-performance.

This year's cumulative 13-1 is a bit of an over-performance. Last year's 10-3 was a bit of an under-performance.

Could we eliminate the hypothesis that Gonzaga hasn't underperformed in the last 14 years? No. I think the only way to do this properly is to sum all of the expected performances of all teams over the last 10-20 years and break it down by conference. I'm interested in that, but I'm not sure I want to crunch all of those numbers.

That last paragraph is my original point: Michigan State is pretty much the only team whose performance over the last 15 or so years you couldn't point to and just say "eh, randomness."

Your initial hypothesis seemed more along the lines of "Gonzaga did well for 3 years, and because of that mid-majors have been overseeded since then." It's a lot easier to reject that because, as you mentioned, an underperformance is going to be balanced out by an overperformance somewhere else. For every time Gonzaga's upset, there's a deep run from Butler or VCU or George Mason. For every year the Big 10/ACC/Big East/Big 12 proves it's the strongest conference in America by placing multiple teams in the Final Four, there's a year in which the conference is victimized by Cinderellas and wiped out by the end of the first weekend.

Sometimes Gonzaga does worse than its seed indicates. Sometimes it doesn't. The same goes for Duke, Kansas, UNC, Kentucky, and everyone else. The difference is that power conference schools have bigger fanbases and therefore more people who are consoled by hearing that even if their team didn't win, it was at least a winner by association.

[Arles]

I think there are bad seeds/under-seeding across the board - not just mid majors. There's no way Wichita State should have been a 7, while Georgetown was a 4 and Baylor a 3. There's also no way Ohio State should have been a 10 compared to higher seeded mid majors like Xavier and SMU (6). Heck, you could have easily Swapped the entire 6 line (SMU, Butler, Xavier and Providence) for 7/10 participants in MSU, OSU, Wichita and VCU - and been justified.

I think that the committee tries to hard to get interesting matchups like prior coaches (SMU-UCLA), rematches (Arizona-Wisconsin) or never-matches (Kansas, Wichita). Once again, great pedigree teams like Michigan State and Louisville get sent to a bracket with paper champions (Nova, Virginia) - while Duke gets layup after layup. Arizona and Wisconsin were arguably the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the country going into the Tourney (atleast according to Vegas and most ratings). They have to play each other in the regional and then the winner faces Kentucky on the first leg of the final 4. Worst case, Duke was going to face an overseeded Georgetown at the 1-4, an untested Gonzaga as the 1-2 and the weakest 1 by a mile (Nova) in the final 4.

A more reasonable setup would have been to put Nova/AZ at the #1/2 spot in the West, Duke/Zags the #1/2 in the East and Wisconsin/Virginia the #1/2 in South. Now, you've setup Kentucky vs the Nova-AZ winner for the one leg and Duke against Wisconsin on the other leg. But, we are now going to the see the finals in the first round (Kentucky-Wisc), while Duke still avoids facing a top 5 team in the tournament.

[Logan]

5 things every fan should know about the Final Four - SBNation.com

[cartman]

I think we are down to three possible winners for the Yahoo! group.

Kentucky makes the title game - I win
Wisconsin wins the title- hoosiergoody wins
Duke beats Wisconsin - JiMGA wins

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by cartman

I think we are down to three possible winners for the Yahoo! group.

Kentucky makes the title game - I win
Wisconsin wins the title- hoosiergoody wins
Duke beats Wisconsin - JiMGA wins

Go, hoosiergoody!

[Solecismic]

Just because I was curious, I ran expected records in the regional tournaments for the Big Ten. Took less time than I thought because the method itself lends itself well to spreadsheets.

From 2002-2015 (the time frame for the hypothesis), Big Ten teams were 114-66 in regional play. Their seedings revealed an expected 104.8-75.2 record from those games, or 9.2 wins above seeding.

However, Michigan State alone is almost eight wins above seeding, so it could be a magic Izzo spreadsheet.

Individual Results: Ill +0.3, Ind +0.3, Iowa -1.1, Mary -0.4 (just this year, of course), Mich +1.6, MSU +7.7, Minn -0.9, Neb -0.3, OSU -0.3, PSU -0.4, Purd +0.9, Wisc +1.8.

I'm probably going to continue this with at least one more power conference.

Editing to add Pac-12:

Total: 81-57
Expected: 74.7 - 63.3
+6.3 wins

Individuals: Ariz +1.8, ASU -0.3, Cal -0.7, Colo -0.6, Oreg +1.3, Stan -0.3, UCLA +4.2, USC -0.6, Utah +0.7, Wash +0.8, WSU -0.1.

Editing to add ACC:

Total 116-68
Expected: 117.2 - 66.8
-1.2 wins

Individuals: BC -0.7, Clem -1.9, Duke -3.3, FSU -0.4, GATech +1.3, Louis +1.3, Miami 0, NCSt +1.2, UNC +2.3, ND +0.6, Pitt -0.1, Syr +1.3, Virg -1.9, VATech -0.1, Wake -1.2, Mary +0.4.

[Marmel]

First, I love Izzo and think he is a great coach, but this Izzo love is a little overboard. For as great as his teams perform in the first 4 rounds of the tournament, assuming he doesn't get by Duke and Wisc/Kentucky, he is going to be 1 for 7 in the Final 4. Making the final 4 is great, but the goal for teams like MSU is winning a title and he only got it done once. In between his first final 4 and this year he also has 4 first round losses and another 2nd round losses.

On top of that, unless he pulls of the upset against Duke (and K owns Izzo), he has 5 losses in the national semis out of 7 tries.

So why is he good in the first 4 rounds, but basically sucks in the Final 4?

(Oh and since I still hear how Cuse was lucky to play in Boston/Albany in their title season, I'll point out that MSU's only title came in 4 similar home games during the tournament - Auburn Hills for the Regionals - , not that I actually think that diminishes it).

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Marmel

First, I love Izzo and think he is a great coach, but this Izzo love is a little overboard. For as great as his teams perform in the first 4 rounds of the tournament, assuming he doesn't get by Duke and Wisc/Kentucky, he is going to be 1 for 7 in the Final 4. Making the final 4 is great, but the goal for teams like MSU is winning a title and he only got it done once. In between his first final 4 and this year he also has 4 first round losses and another 2nd round losses.

On top of that, unless he pulls of the upset against Duke (and K owns Izzo), he has 5 losses in the national semis out of 7 tries.

So why is he good in the first 4 rounds, but basically sucks in the Final 4?

(Oh and since I still hear how Cuse was lucky to play in Boston/Albany in their title season, I'll point out that MSU's only title came in 4 similar home games during the tournament - Auburn Hills for the Regionals - , not that I actually think that diminishes it).

I asked my son to recall all of Izzo's MSU Final Four appearances/results and after consideration, he agrees with you with the caveat that they don't typically have the talent to achieve better results. Is it true that they get OSU and Michigan leftovers?

[ColtCrazy]

Great stuff Solecismic. Izzo's record in the tourney in quite impressive considering how he's improved the longer he's been there. 7 of the last 8 years, he's gotten the Spartans to at least the regional semifinals. He's probably my favorite current college basketball coach.

[ColtCrazy]

On a side note, the tourney always makes me sad that there's no good college basketball board game to play or even a console game from the last half decade.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Marmel

First, I love Izzo and think he is a great coach, but this Izzo love is a little overboard. For as great as his teams perform in the first 4 rounds of the tournament, assuming he doesn't get by Duke and Wisc/Kentucky, he is going to be 1 for 7 in the Final 4. Making the final 4 is great, but the goal for teams like MSU is winning a title and he only got it done once. In between his first final 4 and this year he also has 4 first round losses and another 2nd round losses.

On top of that, unless he pulls of the upset against Duke (and K owns Izzo), he has 5 losses in the national semis out of 7 tries.

So why is he good in the first 4 rounds, but basically sucks in the Final 4?

(Oh and since I still hear how Cuse was lucky to play in Boston/Albany in their title season, I'll point out that MSU's only title came in 4 similar home games during the tournament - Auburn Hills for the Regionals - , not that I actually think that diminishes it).

Because everyone basically sucks in the Final Four (if the standard for not sucking is winning the title half the time or having a winning record in FF games)? Dean Smith's 2 for 11, Pitino's 2 for 7, and K and Wooden are the only ones with a better track record. If MSU doesn't win the title, 4 of the 6 Final Four losses under Izzo will be to 1 seeds, and I doubt the Spartans were favored in all of those games. By my count there are 4 schools that have won more than one championship since Izzo's been coaching the Spartans, so "only' one is a step beyond a first-world problem in college basketball.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Marmel

First, I love Izzo and think he is a great coach, but this Izzo love is a little overboard. For as great as his teams perform in the first 4 rounds of the tournament, assuming he doesn't get by Duke and Wisc/Kentucky, he is going to be 1 for 7 in the Final 4. Making the final 4 is great, but the goal for teams like MSU is winning a title and he only got it done once. In between his first final 4 and this year he also has 4 first round losses and another 2nd round losses.

On top of that, unless he pulls of the upset against Duke (and K owns Izzo), he has 5 losses in the national semis out of 7 tries.

So why is he good in the first 4 rounds, but basically sucks in the Final 4?

(Oh and since I still hear how Cuse was lucky to play in Boston/Albany in their title season, I'll point out that MSU's only title came in 4 similar home games during the tournament - Auburn Hills for the Regionals - , not that I actually think that diminishes it).

His record is 3-5 in the Final Four. Expected record 4.3 - 3.7. Izzo gives back -1.3 from his +7.7. If you wanted to diminish the title, MSU was a one-seed that year and they beat an 8 and a 5 in the Final Four.

I hate to read too much into that small a sample size. That's why I'm looking to expand to conferences as a whole. The largest set I can think of is to group the power conferences together and subtract from the expected mean.

[Buccaneer]

Smith 2 for 11?? Boeheim has 4 victories - 3 FF wins and a NC win.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by nol

Because everyone basically sucks in the Final Four (if the standard for not sucking is winning the title half the time or having a winning record in FF games)? Dean Smith's 2 for 11, Pitino's 2 for 7, and K and Wooden are the only ones with a better track record. If MSU doesn't win the title, 4 of the 6 Final Four losses under Izzo will be to 1 seeds, and I doubt the Spartans were favored in all of those games. By my count there are 4 schools that have won more than one championship since Izzo's been coaching the Spartans, so "only' one is a step beyond a first-world problem in college basketball.

Knight was 3 for 5.

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Smith 2 for 11?? Boeheim has 4 victories - 3 FF wins and a NC win.

Yes, Boeheim has 4 trips, going 1-1, 1-1, 2-0, 0-1 for a 4-3 record.
I consider Boeheim and Izzo about equals. Give Izzo the edge in the tournament, Boeheim in the regular season, plus longevity.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Smith 2 for 11?? Boeheim has 4 victories - 3 FF wins and a NC win.

Success was defined as winning a title via the Izzo 1 for 7 statement. Pitino and Izzo are good examples of why the Final Four is rightfully celebrated as a pretty big deal - from that point, the title can be so random (even Kentucky is like a 50-50 shot this year) that you just want to get there enough times to eventually run into lower seeds.

All that circles back to the fact that being within 1-2 wins of your expected tournament record can be easily explained by how a team's bracket breaks in a given year. If Duke tripped up against Utah and Gonzaga advanced to the Final Four instead, the Zags would be one win against Michigan State (a game in which they'd be slightly favored) away from faring better than their expected record.

I do think it's legitimate to say that Michigan State pumps up its tournament performance relative to seed by underachieving in the regular season, and I don't think you can give that a nice story along the lines of "Izzo only recruits blue-collar players who have to learn to believe in themselves before they can win games in March." You could say Michigan State is not exactly an NBA factory (Morris Peterson, Jason Richardson, Zach Randolph, and Draymond Green might be the only Izzo players who have gone on to become regular NBA starters), but there seem to be a lot of McDonald's All Americans or otherwise highly ranked recruits who kind of go in and out of the doghouse for a few years (Raymar Morgan, Branden Dawson, Paul Davis, Drew Neitzel).

[ColtCrazy]

I always have my kids in my 5th grade class do a bracket. For the first time I can remember, I have 4 kids still alive. Each picked a different team to win the title, even Michigan St.

[nol]

Shaka Smart's going to be the Texas coach.

[cartman]

Strong football coach and Smart basketball coach.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by cartman

Strong football coach and Smart basketball coach.

*rimshot*

[Lathum]

I'm in Jamaica watching the game and it is on ESPN with Dicky V announcing. Kind of weird.

[tarcone]

Okafor is a man-child. He got game.

[Kodos]

This could be going better...

[tarcone]

Sparty cant make a lay up. Killing them.

[Brian Swartz]

This is not a game, it's a demolition. Too bad.

[EagleFan]

Ugh, now we have to keep hearing about Duke...

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Ugh, now we have to keep hearing about Duke...

Wait. It will get worse.

We'll have to hear about Duke and Kentucky.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Wait. It will get worse.

We'll have to hear about Duke and Kentucky.

+1 Only a Wisconsin win can save this; otherwise, it's baseball season!

[JPhillips]

Cauley-Stein will be a great NBA defender, but he has to develop that foul line jumper if he wants to be a star.

[tarcone]

Fast start to this game. Its fun to watch.

[Groundhog]

Wisconsin are working harder right now. Not just 50-50 plays either, they are working for 20-80 plays and coming away with the ball. Just then, no way Kaminski had that rebound, he was pushed away from the basket and boxed out, but he still comes up with it.

[Groundhog]

Kaminsky has about 4 near-travels so far... a bit shaky with the ball inside the arc.

[Arles]

For a tournament that's had its share of crap offense (see the entire East region) this first half was a delight to watch.

[nol]

This first half is looking less worrisome than the Notre Dame one for Kentucky. The Irish were spreading them out and beating them defensively, but Wisconsin has had quite a few highly-contested shots that luckily went in.

[Groundhog]

Wisconsin have also blown a couple of easy ones too. With Kentucky though it always feels like they're on the verge of an 8 or 10 point run.

[Groundhog]

I can see Dekker being one of those spot-up PF/Bonner types in the NBA.

[MikeVic]

lol, what why no flagrant?

[Glengoyne]

How was that NOT a flagrant foul?

[tarcone]

Wow. No flagrant. Terrible. Duke/Kentucky, anyone?

[Glengoyne]

I guess the same way that was a charge.