Jump to content
HuskerFever

Postseason Tourney Talk

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, HuskerFever said:

 

I don't know if you heard, but the Big Ten is down this year...so that win really only counts as a half :D

Yup...the Big Ten and the Cornhuskers sucked.  Experts, pishshaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conference standings after Sunday's games:

 

1. Missouri Valley: 4-0 (100%)

2. Big Ten: 8-3 (73%)

3. Big 12: 12-6 (67%)

4. WCC: 2-1 (67%)

5. Big East: 7-5 (58%)

6. ACC: 12-9 (57%)

7. SEC: 8-8 (50%)

8. Mountain West: 2-2 (50%)

9. America East: 1-1 (50%)

10. Big South: 1-1 (50%)

10. C-USA: 1-1 (50%)

10. MAC: 1-1 (50%)

10: SWAC: 1-1 (50%)

14: Atlantic 10: 2-3 (40%)

14. AAC: 2-3 (40%)

16. Atlantic Sun: 0-1 (0%)

16. Big Sky: 0-1 (0%)

16. Big West: 0-1 (0%)

16. Colonial: 0-1 (0%)

16. Horizon: 0-1 (0%)

16. Ivy: 0-1 (0%)

16. MAAC: 0-1 (0%)

16. MEAC: 0-1 (0%)

16. Northeast: 0-1 (0%)

16. Ohio Valley: 0-1 (0%)

16. Patriot: 0-1 (0%)

16. Southern: 0-1 (0%)

16. Southland: 0-1 (0%)

16. Summit: 0-1 (0%)

16. Sun Belt: 0-1 (0%)

16. WAC: 0-1 (0%)

32. Pac-12: 0-3 (0%)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top 4 seeds from each conference:

 

1. Big 12: 9-3 (75%) -- Kansas, Texas Tech, West Virginia, TCU

2. Big Ten: 8-3 (73%) -- Michigan State, Purdue, Ohio State, Michigan

3. Big East: 6-3 (67%) -- Xavier, Villanova, Seton Hall, Creighton

4. ACC: 6-4 (60%) -- Virginia, Duke, Clemson, North Carolina

5. SEC: 5-4 (56%) -- Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, Kentucky

6. Pac-12: 0-3 (0%) -- Arizona, UCLA, Arizona State

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you break down the field of 68, here's what you get:

  • 2 play-in teams from "mid-majors"
  • 2 play-in teams from "majors"
  • 32 automatic bids for conference tournament champions
  • 32 at-large bids

So for power conferences, there's really 40 available spots for them (2 major play-in spots, 6 automatic bids, and 32 at-large bids).

 

Here's the breakdown of those available 40 spots for power conference schools:

  • ACC: 9 teams (22.5%)
  • SEC: 8 (20%)
  • Big 12: 7 (17.5%)
  • Big East: 6 (15%)
  • Big Ten: 4 (10%)
  • Pac-12: 3 (7.5%)

That makes up 37 of the 40 available spots for power conferences.

 

I just find it interesting that the ACC and SEC had nearly 50% of the available spots, yet there are ZERO of those conferences' teams in the Final Four.

 

It seems like some of those bracketologists may need to make some updates to their algorithms during the offseason.

 

photo-164605.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NCAA Tournament, more times than not, is about matchups.  Favorable pairings/ brackets allow for some teams to advance further than expected.  That being said, the SEC was clearly overrated but they did handle the Big XII in their  challenge and the ACC dominated the B1G.  I don’t believe the PAC 12 is that bad but the West Coast teams are at a disadvantage in the TV era.  Michigan is in the Final Four because they are peaking at the right time, Villanova is just very good as is Kansas.   Loyola Chicago benefits from the Virginia circumstance.  Kansas brought it when they had to and that is what great teams do.  I dearly hope Nebraska can develop as a team that brings their best when it is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who faced the toughest road to the FF?

Loyola: 6, 3, 7, 9 seeds with 3 1-possession games (and a couple of last-second shots)

Villanova: 16, 9, 5, 3 seeds and no 1-possession games.

Michigan: 14, 6, 7, 9 and 2 1-possession games (not counting FSU since they didn't foul to get it to 1 possession).

Kansas: 16, 8, 5, 2 with 1 OT and 2 4-point wins where the opponent did foul. :)

 

Kansas might have had the toughest road since they had to beat Duke, a legit 2 seed. Michigan's best opponent was a 6, and they needed a miracle shot to win that. Loyola had a tough game in every round, but didn't face a 1 or 2 seed. Nova had 2 tough games against Big 12 teams but won each by 12.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, khoock said:

The ACC and SEC were still better conferences than the B1G. Quit crying.

 

You really think that the SEC performed better in the tournament than the Big Ten did? Having 20% of the available field and getting the same amount of those teams as the Big Ten to the Sweet Sixteen with twice the amount of teams doesn't quite speak of dominance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newman's 31 unremarkable minutes against us and his performance yesterday should forever be used as a reason for the selection committee to put its crap about how "games- in- December- should- count- equally- with- games- in- March" to bed forever. If collegiate players and teams do not evolve and improve during the year, then why are coaches needed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jimmykc said:

Newman's 31 unremarkable minutes against us and his performance yesterday should forever be used as a reason for the selection committee to put its crap about how "games- in- December- should- count- equally- with- games- in- March" to bed forever. If collegiate players and teams do not evolve and improve during the year, then why are coaches needed?

I agree completely that players and teams evolve, and I think the NCAA does as well. The reason they count games equally, though, is to prevent big-league schools (cough, cough, Syracuse) from soft home schedules in non-con, then counting on their tough league schedule (half at home) to get in.

 

So road games and tough non-con are big with the NCAA. There's a downside to some individual teams (cough, cough NU) that takes a back seat to the bigger picture. The irony is that Syracuse and a couple of the SEC schools that got in are what the NCAA is trying to avoid. 

 

Regarding how the conferences fared, it's tough drawing conclusions. The more teams you get in, the more low seeds you get and the more first-round losses. So the BIG's overall record looks good in the tourney, partly because Michigan hit a miracle shot against Houston and partly because the lowest seed was No 5 Ohio State. All that being said, the Pac-12 does suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, if all the emphasis is going to be on the winner of the NCAA tournament, I would favor opening it to 128 teams and starting a week earlier to abolish all of the meaningless tournies. That would pretty much include any team who has players able to dribble with one hand and avoid the controversy about selection snafus like Nebraska got this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jimmykc said:

Personally, if all the emphasis is going to be on the winner of the NCAA tournament, I would favor opening it to 128 teams and starting a week earlier to abolish all of the meaningless tournies. That would pretty much include any team who has players able to dribble with one hand and avoid the controversy about selection snafus like Nebraska got this year.

I'm with you on this. The tournament's mostly a crapshoot anyway (does anyone think Loyola's one of the top 4 teams?), so why not expand it? Not like anyone would miss the NIT, CBI, CIT and the rest.

 

Downside: Would be especially annoying to hear complaints from the bubble teams who were left out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jimmykc said:

Personally, if all the emphasis is going to be on the winner of the NCAA tournament, I would favor opening it to 128 teams and starting a week earlier to abolish all of the meaningless tournies. That would pretty much include any team who has players able to dribble with one hand and avoid the controversy about selection snafus like Nebraska got this year.

Essentially you already have 300 plus team tournament with the conference tourneys...The at large bids are just second chances for the "top 36" teams that stumbled in the first phase of the 300 team tourney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not want a new NCAA tourney that eliminates the chance for all teams that get into a conference tourney to figure out how to survive and advance and make it as far a winning streak can carry them.

 

My favorite thing about basketball is that every team that qualifies for their conference tournament (there are a few conferences that don't invite all their members) controls their own destiny on winning the national tournament....

 

As a coach, you can build your team throughout the year, knowing that the champion is the team that wins their last game.....

 

In football, you lose 2 games in September, might as well put away the pads if your goal is to win the end of the year 4 team tournament.....That is not a system that allows a team to develop throughout the year.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, khoock said:

The ACC and SEC were still better conferences than the B1G. Quit crying.

This may be true, but I will never understand how anyone can think an 8-10 team from those two conferences can get in over a 13-5 team from a conference that has proved they are not much worse.  I am so sick of the Big 10 was Top heavy argument... Well weren't we in the Top? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, big red22 said:

This may be true, but I will never understand how anyone can think an 8-10 team from those two conferences can get in over a 13-5 team from a conference that has proved they are not much worse.  I am so sick of the Big 10 was Top heavy argument... Well weren't we in the Top? 

 

 

Guessing because the committee thinks the 8-10 is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Cazzie22 said:

Conference Champions must always qualify for the tourney, if not Loyola Chicago might get left out.  They have earned their way to San Antonio.

 

All 4 teams in the Final Four won their conference tournament. Two of 'em were played the week prior to "Championship Week," even.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×