CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on March 07, 2022, 12:20:19 PM
-
Here are the historic percentages of each seed to win at each round:
(https://i.imgur.com/SXYlb85.png)
The above are percentages of the TOTAL not the winning percentage for those seeds that got that far, ie:
- 15.97% of #1 seeds won the NC (23 out of 144).
- 3.47% of #2 seeds won the NC (5 out of 144).
- etc
Below are the winning percentages by seed in each round:
(https://i.imgur.com/962dlYA.png)
#1 seeds win at least three out of five games in EACH round. They are above 80% in each of the first three rounds and right around 60% in the E8, F4, and NC.
There are two big distinctions that I want to identify, explore, and explain:
First, #1 seeds are a breed apart:
They are MUCH better than everybody else. I think this makes sense intuitively. IMHO there are usually between about two and six teams in the country that are just a LOT better than everybody else. These teams make up generally the #1 seeds. Sometimes there aren't enough of them and you get one or two weaker (relatively) #1 seeds or one or two VERY GOOD #2 seeds but, in general, the #1 seeds are just REALLY good. Even with the #2 seeds there are chinks in the armor. They are good teams, I'm not saying that they aren't, but they have identifiable weaknesses.
#1 seeds have the best winning percentage of any seed in each of the first three rounds. Thus, an individual #1 seed has a nearly 70% chance to make the E8. This is nearly double the chance that an individual team of any other seed will make the E8.
The E8 is the first round in which the #1 seeds do not have the best winning percentage but even there they are fourth and there are two things to note about the seeds that do better in the E8:
First, the seeds that do better than #1 in the E8 are:
- #5 seeds win 77.8% of their E8 games (7-2)
- #4 seeds win 61.9% of their E8 games (13-8)
- #8 seeds win 62.5% of their E8 games (5-3)
Does anything stand out to you about those particular seeds?
Well, none of them have to play a #1 in the E8 because #8 seeds already did in the second round and the #5 and #4 seeds already either beat a #1 in the S16 or beat an 8/9 that beat a #1.
Secondly there is a lack of data issue. #1 seeds have won 60% of their E8 games (60-40). There have been 100 instances of a #1 playing an E8 game. The three seeds that are "better" in the E8 have only played a combined total of 38.
Moving on to the other big gap:
The 5/12 upset is well known to anyone with even a passing interest in CBB but here is the thing: 5/12 upsets aren't more likely than 6/11 upsets, they are slightly less likely than 6/11 upsets but 5/12 upsets are MUCH more likely than 4/13 upsets. Why?
Well, there are two theoretical possibilities, either:
- #4 seeds are substantially better than #5 seeds, or
- #12 seeds are substantially better than #13 seeds.
Which is it? It is the latter, #12 seeds are substantially better than #13 seeds, but why? Well, I'm going to tell you but first lets disprove the idea that #4 seeds are substantially better than #5 seeds:
- In the second round the gap between #4 and #5 tightens while the gap between #12 and #13 widens.
- In the S16 both the #4's and the #5's have very poor winning percentages (because they are almost always playing #1) but the gap isn't that big, the #13's have NEVER won a S16 game while the #12's have won two.
- In the E8 the #5's actually do BETTER than the #4's and they also do better in the semi-final before crashing they've never won a NC.
So then, why are #12's so much better than #13's? I'm glad you asked, here is the key reason:
(https://i.imgur.com/neVYPHO.png)
The above shows all 32 leagues that will get an auto-bid. The top-15 (down through Am East) each have at least one team in the top-68 which I'm using as a rough proxy for "tournament quality" because, of course, 68 teams make the tournament. After that the next few leagues listed have at least one team that is at least borderline "tournament quality". The top teams in the SoCon, Summit League, MAAC, and MAC are in the 70's in the NET rankings. Then there is a fairly large drop to the MWC whose best team (NMST) is #86. Then there is a humongous drop to the Ivy League whose best team (Princeton) is #109).
The bottom 12 leagues (starting with the Ivy) do not have any teams even remotely good enough to be involved in the National Championship tournament. Their Champions are purely "tallest midgets" and nearly all of them will get unceremoniously dismissed in the first round. A lucky few will pull off first round upsets and once in a while one will win a second round game to make the S16 but in the 36 Tournaments since expansion to 64 teams (1985-2021 not including 2020) no #13 or lower has EVER won a second weekend NCAA Tournament game.
Think about that for a minute. There have been 576 #13-#16 seeded teams and those 576 teams have won a grand combined total of ZERO second weekend NCAA games. These teams simply don't belong.
There are actually two sources of REALLY bad NCAA Tournament teams:
- As demonstrated above, there are about 12 leagues where it simply doesn't matter who wins the league, none of the teams are any good, and
- There are, of course, league tournament upsets. Nebraska (#166) or Georgia (#216) could get hot and win the B1G or SEC. This, however, isn't likely because either of them would have to beat a slew of actual tournament quality teams to pull that off. In the middling leagues, however, you have situations like the Am East where the best team is a respectable Vermont team (#63) but the second best team is UMBC (#235). Thus, if Vermont gets upset in the league tournament then the Am East will send a REALLY bad team to the NCAA. Similarly in the Summit League the best team is a decent SoDakSt (#71) but the second best is Oral Roberts (#146).
Note that this does not vary all that much from year to year. Here is the data for this year and the last two tournaments:
(https://i.imgur.com/J91IZ1y.png)
The bottom ten leagues didn't have a team in the top-68 in 2022, 2021, or 2019. Then, depending on the year, there were another six or seven leagues that didn't have a top-68 team in that particular year.
Based on that and the upsets, there are around 12-18 teams in the tournament every year that are just flat awful. These teams make up roughly the #13-#16 seeds.
-
For the reasons outlined above, I have long favored expanding the NCAA Tournament from the current 68-team format to 80 teams. I would eliminate the goofy oddity of having some teams that aren't the worst seeds playing play-in games and just effectively make the bottom eight teams in each region face a play-in game. I would expand the pods as follows:
- 1, 8, 9, 16: add #17.
- 2, 7, 10, 15: add #18.
- 3, 6, 11, 14: add #19.
- 4, 5, 12, 13: add #20.
Then I'd expand the first weekend from four days to six as follows:
Thursday/Friday:
- One game per pod.
- Two games per site.
- Eight games per day.
- 16 games total to get down to 64 teams.
Saturday/Sunday:
- Two games per pod.
- Four games per site.
- 16 games per day.
- 32 games total to get down to 32 teams.
Monday/Tuesday:
- One game per pod.
- Two games per site.
- Eight games per day.
- 16 games total to get down to the S16.
Advantages:
- Better viewing experience for fans because the BUSY days would be Saturday/Sunday instead of Thursday/Friday.
- More chances of upsets: Down the the 5/12 games, the lower seed has at least a one-in-three chance of winning but after that the #13-#16 seeds have only about a one-in-five or less chance of winning because they aren't any good. By forcing the #13 and below to play-in, you'd improve the quality of the #13-16 seeds so that you'd end up with more upsets in the 1/16, 2/15, 3/14, and 3/13 games.
- Winnable games for all conferences/teams: Some leagues haven't won a tournament game in years because they just aren't very good so each year their Champion (tallest midget) gets matched up against one of the best teams in the Country and gets drilled. Instead, I'd have their Champion playing a better but beatable team in the #13-#16 range.
- Reduces the disparity and unfairness to major conference teams who get a seriously raw deal. Look at Indiana. In order to make the tournament at this point they probably need to knock off multiple tournament teams in the BTT but note that Indiana (#43 in the NET) would be the best team in 20 leagues this year.
-
Medina- dude, you are a gem!
-
There is understanding it and UNDERSTANDING it
https://youtu.be/4MhGQqxaI2E
-
Personally, I don't like the idea of adding teams.
Assuming we're sticking at 68, I would make all 16 seeds play-in games instead of the current, where (2) of the 16-seed and (2) of the 11-seed games are play-in.
You may argue that those 11-seed teams are the bottom of the barrel of P5 teams, so it makes sense to have them as play-in, right? No. Those 11-seed play-in game teams are so far ahead of the 16-seed play-in game teams that merely as mid-grade P5 teams they'd pound the 16-seed teams by 30 points.
Honestly, the truth is that 1-4 vs 13-16 seed games are usually snoozers. Why is that a bad thing? Yes, they're bad TV. I get that. But there are so many games on during those 2 days that there will be plenty of compelling TV to watch, and because you're constantly seeing up to 3 different scores on the top info bar on the broadcast of the game you're watching you know if any of those 1-4 vs 13-16 matchups are potential upsets, and can flip over to them as necessary.
The 1-4 vs 13-16 games are a reward for those teams who got a top 4 seed, that they're not getting beat unless they have a REALLY bad day. I think that's fine and don't see a problem with it.
-
I would like to see 137 teams admitted.
-
The baseline data:
(https://i.imgur.com/9kngnd7.png)
That is wins in each round so, for example, #1 seeds are:
- 143-1 in the first round against #16.
- 123-20 in the second round against #8/9.
- 100-23 in the S16 against #4/5/12/13.
- 60-40 in the E8 against 2/3/6/7/10/11/14.
- 37-23 in the National Semi-Final.
- 23-14 in the National Championship.
Also of note:
- #16 seeds have never been to the S16.
- #13, #14, and #15 seeds have never won a S16 game.
- #12 seeds have never been to the F4.
- #9, #10, and #11 seeds have never won a F4 game.
- #5 seeds have never won a NC.
- #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, and #8 have each won at least one NC (albeit for #4 and below it is exactly one each).
Also, @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) has talked about Purdue's seeming penchant for getting the highest possible seed every round and there is definitely some luck involved there but here are the percentage chances:
Who you will play in the second round:
(https://i.imgur.com/MuqFwyZ.png)
Who you will play in the S16:
(https://i.imgur.com/q3f7gn9.png)
Who you will play in the E8:
(https://i.imgur.com/G6HqmMP.png)
Who you will play in the F4:
(https://i.imgur.com/wN4RHUo.png)
Who you will play in the NC:
(https://i.imgur.com/UDELVDw.png)
-
Nice deep dive, love it!
But honestly, when does football season start up again?
-
Nice deep dive, love it!
But honestly, when does football season start up again?
Shad app.
As you continue to age and mature, you will understand that you never want to wish away any time.
Unless you're in jail.
-
As you continue to age and mature, you will understand that you never want to wish away any time.
Unless you're in jail.
This part: So true.
This part: Thankfully I don't know.
-
(https://c.tenor.com/IV1lMBNOA8AAAAAC/hangover-zach.gif)
-
Also, @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) has talked about Purdue's seeming penchant for getting the highest possible seed every round and there is definitely some luck involved there but here are the percentage chances:
Yeah, it's somewhat tongue in cheek... And it's not strictly even true... 2011 we were a #3 and faced #11 VCU, who had beaten the 6 seed, in the second round... That VCU team ran like a buzzsaw through the region, beating us at #3 by 18 points and then #1 seed Kansas by 10 points in the E8 to make the F4...
But part of it has to do with all the moronic Purdue fans who would claim that Matt Painter has a "Sweet 16 ceiling", when his first three times making the S16, Purdue was a 4 seed and faced the 1 seed. The fourth time we made the Sweet 16 we were a #2 seed, and faced #3 seed Texas Tech--but that was the year that Isaac Haas had his elbow broken in the R64 game, so we were NOT anywhere near full strength.
The next time we were in the S16, we were a #3 and at full strength, and beat #2 Tennessee in the S16 and took #1 UVA to the wire--we led the game as the clock ticked 0:00, but the wing and a prayer tying shot for UVA to force overtime [where they won] was already in the air.
But life as a Purdue fan is well known... If we didn't have bad luck, we'd have no luck at all...
-
I remain annoyed they went from 64 to 68 teams. "We have the most perfect postseason in sports? Let's mess around with it."
-
I remain annoyed they went from 64 to 68 teams. "We have the most perfect postseason in sports? Let's mess around with it."
I'm of course in favor except that it should be this way:
Assuming we're sticking at 68, I would make all 16 seeds play-in games instead of the current, where (2) of the 16-seed and (2) of the 11-seed games are play-in.
You may argue that those 11-seed teams are the bottom of the barrel of P5 teams, so it makes sense to have them as play-in, right? No. Those 11-seed play-in game teams are so far ahead of the 16-seed play-in game teams that merely as mid-grade P5 teams they'd pound the 16-seed teams by 30 points.
The expansion, as I understand it was due to an increase in the number of leagues (and thus auto bids). Extra tallest midgets shouldn't further screw over vastly superior power league teams who are already disadvantaged by the system which is one of the biggest reasons I favor expansion here.
-
That was the reason for the initial expansion from 64 to 65. The Mountain West split off of the Wac, and the other conferences weren't willing to decrease the number of at large bids by one. Then they decided that one play in game was stupid, so they added the other three (as if that was any less stupid).
-
They caved in so that the 7th-best team in a P5 conference would still get in all the time.
I cant think of anything more pathetic.
-
Now that I think on it, the addition of the other three play in games may very well have coincided with the AAC splitting off of the Big East.
-
Now that I think on it, the addition of the other three play in games may very well have coincided with the AAC splitting off of the Big East.
The initial move from 64 to 65 was due to the increase in conferences.
The move from 65 to 68 was a compromise after the Coaches association was pushing to expand it all the way to 96
-
I remain annoyed they went from 64 to 68 teams. "We have the most perfect postseason in sports? Let's mess around with it."
I remain annoyed by the 4-team playoff in college football
-
(https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--3WzAMWYc--/c_fit,g_north_west,h_841,w_593/co_faff9c,e_outline:40/co_faff9c,e_outline:inner_fill:1/co_ffffff,e_outline:40/co_ffffff,e_outline:inner_fill:1/co_bbbbbb,e_outline:3:1000/c_mpad,g_center,h_1260,w_1260/b_rgb:eeeeee/c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1573702404/production/designs/6721943_0.jpg)
-
I look forward to as close to as perfectly built a postseason as we have. Let us brush aside this fiddle faddle about expansion.
The current system pushes us to the midst of power conference mediocrity with like 44-46 teams. That feels about right. Letting in more power conference mediocrity seems unnecessary, especially since it likely wouldn't let anyone particularly more interesting in. Instead we get a 32-team bracket with about six play-in games.
Those top teams get to those sweet, sweet byes, except they have to earn it a bit. That lets in your batch of auto bids, which ends up good for the sport, good for interest, good for the product. And if a team with a "bye" game loses, well, tough s$&%. It's a great setup.
-
The. Best.
https://twitter.com/GaryParrishCBS/status/1501017327399284736?t=bRv9qey92DuSZtIi3VILkg&s=19
-
The. Best.
https://twitter.com/GaryParrishCBS/status/1501017327399284736?t=bRv9qey92DuSZtIi3VILkg&s=19
Was watching that when it happened. Great ending.
-
They caved in so that the 7th-best team in a P5 conference would still get in all the time.
I cant think of anything more pathetic.
I'm honestly shocked to see this opinion from you of all posters. In football you are our resident extremist on the "best teams only" side of things so why, in BB do you not object to letting in nearly two dozen crappy tallest midgets that are nowhere near as good as the "7th best team in a P5 conference".
To put some data behind this, the 7th best teams in the Power leagues:
- #37 Michigan in the B1G
- #49 TCU in the B12
- #51 your very own Gators in the SEC
- #67 Creighton in the BEast
- #80 UVA in the ACC
- #106 ASU in the P12
Even #106 ASU would be the best team in 12 leagues (Ivy, ASUN, B-West, Sunbelt, NEC, B Sky, Patriot, Horizon, MEAC, Southland, SWAC. Your bubble Gators would be the best team in 19 of the 32 leagues.
As is, the tournament is made up of:
- Roughly the 50 best teams, and
- Roughly 18 crappy tallest midgets.
By expanding to 80 it would be made up of:
- Roughly the 67 best teams, and
- Roughly 13 crappy tallest midgets
As is, roughly one fourth of the teams in aren't good enough to be there. IMHO, that is too many tallest midgets. I'm ok with some. As I've said in football, I'm fine with one out of eight. I'm not fine with as many as we have now.
-
what's the lowest/highest seeded team to get to the championship game or even the final 4 in the past 20 years?
the others don't belong
-
You would be eliminating any point of the regular season. Low majors, sorry, you're out before it starts. High majors, congrats, just based on your conference membership, you basically have to just be not horrible.
Beyond that, why do we want better, mediocre P5 teams in? Do we want them to win? I sure as hell don't. It's part of the reward for a great season, that you open with a few facto bye game. In the small minority of cases you lose that bye game,.that's fine, and fun.
It would be one thing if these mid majors were consistently.taking advantage of their autobids, upsetting a bunch of teams, and winning titles. They aren't. So replacing them with blah P5 teams, will either produce the same results, but in a less interesting manner, or they'll start winning more, which I think would actually be worse.
Football is different, because the field is so small. By giving a spot to an autobid, you are taking a spot from a legit title contender, a worthy top 5 claim team. In basketball the bubble teams have zero claim to be deserving of a national title. They are just the beneficiary of the format of the event. That's what it is, an event, that includes the conference tourneys. Once you start taking it as seriously as being upset that the 9th place Big Ten team is out to let the SWAC champ in, you are treating it as something completely different than what it is. If that's what you want, that's fine. But in that case you shouldn't want any sort of monstrous single elimination bracket
-
I'm honestly shocked to see this opinion from you of all posters.
OAM doesn't like the NCAAT... Too "entertaining".
He'd prefer Duke and UNC and UK and Kansas battle it out head to head each year. They're the best. Everyone else need not apply.
-
I'm honestly shocked to see this opinion from you of all posters. In football you are our resident extremist on the "best teams only" side of things so why, in BB do you not object to letting in nearly two dozen crappy tallest midgets that are nowhere near as good as the "7th best team in a P5 conference".
To put some data behind this, the 7th best teams in the Power leagues:
Well basketball is beyond help. It has decided that the regular season should be a prelude to the good stuff. Having 300+ programs in Division 1 is.....a choice. Basically, it's not going to change, so who cares?
When it comes to catering to the 7th-best team in a big-boy conference.....well often times that team has like 10 losses. Look at the "best" 7th-place team - Michigan (or MSU, same thing):
17-13
1 game over .500 in-conference
sub-.500 record on the road
2-7 vs top 25 teams
.
Set aside the tallest midgets like St. Francis of Assisi or Binghamton.....just looking at the resume in a vacuum.....THIS is what we want competing in a national championship tournament?!?
What's the point? If the defense for 68 teams and everyone with 5 breathing players getting in is buzzer-beaters, then you're honestly just advocating for a certain volume of games so that close endings are a certainty.
It has nothing to do with the brackets or earning your way in or the bubble or anything else - it's simply wanting enough games to happen so that some of them provide us with exciting endings.
Not about competition.
Not about who's best.
-
OAM doesn't like the NCAAT... Too "entertaining".
He'd prefer Duke and UNC and UK and Kansas battle it out head to head each year. They're the best. Everyone else need not apply.
Honestly, the "never gonna win its" group of teams in the tournament each year is akin to football's G5 teams. And like Cincinnati getting into the CFP, it's all a big, fat lie. Hooray, basketball gives them all a seat at the table!!! And they never, EVER get dessert. It's bullshit. They'll never win it, ever. It's spending more time with your wife, all while texting your mistress.
There are 124 FBS teams and 4 get into the playoff. That's 3.2%. Exclusive. An attempt to have the elite teams play to determine a champion.
There are 350 Division 1 basketball teams and 68 get into the tournament. 19.4%. Inclusive. An attempt to get as many games played with X% yielding exciting results in a cash-grab. A 6-seed wins it all? Great, we'll call them Cinderella and play "One shining moment" all the same.
Hooray!!!
-
You would be eliminating any point of the regular season. Low majors, sorry, you're out before it starts. High majors, congrats, just based on your conference membership, you basically have to just be not horrible.
Taking these one at a time:
Eliminating any point of the regular season.
- "Low majors, sorry, you're out before it starts." How is that different than now? Now or under my proposal they get an auto-bid but they don't have a plausible chance to win the tournament. Also, the extra 12 at-large bids wouldn't be limited to high majors so low majors would have more chances to get into the tournament that they can't win.
- "High majors, congrats, just based on your conference membership, you basically have to just be not horrible." Two things: First, it isn't based on conference membership, it is based on statistically valid comparisons of teams. Per NET Nebraska is the worst team in the B1G and they are substantially better than the best team in the SWAC. Second, how is this different than now? Lunardi currently has eight B1G teams in with three on the bubble: Michigan is the last team to avoid the play-in, Rutgers is in a play-in, and Indiana is the first team out. Those three teams are 11-9/17-13, 12-8/18-12, and 9-11/18-12. Indiana played their typically pathetic OOC in which their only loss was their Challenge game then went sub .500 in the league. They are 3-8 on the road and 3-7 in Q1 games. They aren't horrible and they are substantially better than about two dozen teams that will make the tournament but they aren't a good team and they don't even remotely resemble a Championship caliber team but they are squarely on the bubble. If they beat Michigan on Thursday night they are probably in. If your contention is that we shouldn't let in mediocre teams, that ship already sailed. We are already letting in mediocre teams at 68 (and would be at 64 as well).
Beyond that, why do we want better, mediocre P5 teams in? Do we want them to win? I sure as hell don't. It's part of the reward for a great season, that you open with a few facto bye game. In the small minority of cases you lose that bye game,.that's fine, and fun.
I get the argument for the bye. The #1 seeds earned the right to play the little sisters of the poor in round one but I still have a fundamental problem with letting in as many tallest midgets as we do. I'd be fine staying at 68 (or preferably going back to 64) if we'd put in a rule that conferences only get auto-bids if they have at least one team in the top 80 or 100 of the final NET rankings. This year that would cut your auto-bids from 32 down to 19 and increase your at-large slots from 36 up to 45 or 49. You'd still have a few really bad teams in the tournament but they would have earned their way in by winning a league tournament in which there was at least one team that my High School couldn't beat.
It would be one thing if these mid majors were consistently.taking advantage of their autobids, upsetting a bunch of teams, and winning titles. They aren't. So replacing them with blah P5 teams, will either produce the same results, but in a less interesting manner, or they'll start winning more, which I think would actually be worse.
I really don't get this argument at all. If the mid majors were consistently upsetting a bunch of teams and winning titles then:
- After a few occasions they wouldn't be upsets anymore, they'd be expected, and
- It would be abundantly apparent that our ranking systems are seriously flawed.
They are upsets when the mid majors win and our ranking systems aren't seriously flawed as evidenced by the fact that out of 576 teams seeded #13 and higher exactly zero have EVER won a second-weekend game. Our ranking systems say that those teams suck and those ranking systems are NOT wrong. Those teams do suck. Sure, they occasionally pull off an upset but that is mostly a volume issue. Broken clocks are right twice a day. They've had 576 first round opportunities and won 63 games (22% for the 13's, 15% for the 14's, 6% for the 15's, and 1% for the 16's). They've had 63 second round opportunities and won 10 games (19% for the 13's, 9% for the 14's, 22% for the 15's, and NONE for the 16's). They've had 10 second weekend opportunities and NEVER won.
I'd much rather see the SWAC Champion tallest midget play the Michigan/Indiana loser in a game that could conceivably go either way than to see them matched up against Arizona, Baylor, or Kentucky in a laugher.
Football is different, because the field is so small. By giving a spot to an autobid, you are taking a spot from a legit title contender, a worthy top 5 claim team. In basketball the bubble teams have zero claim to be deserving of a national title. They are just the beneficiary of the format of the event. That's what it is, an event, that includes the conference tourneys. Once you start taking it as seriously as being upset that the 9th place Big Ten team is out to let the SWAC champ in, you are treating it as something completely different than what it is. If that's what you want, that's fine. But in that case you shouldn't want any sort of monstrous single elimination bracket
I strongly agree that Football is vastly different. The small field in football is why I was adamantly opposed when you and others suggested a CFB tournament that included all conference Champions. I strongly oppose that because it would be not only unfair but insane to exclude an actual NC Caliber runner-up (or probably tie-breaker loser) from the SEC or B1G in order to make room for the tallest midget from the MAC. The example I always use is 2019 when MAC Champion Miami, OH was 8-5 with losses:
- by 14 to Ball State
- by 22 to WMU
- by 22 to Cincy - AAC Champ
- by 24 to Iowa - a middling B1G team
- by 71 (not a typo, SEVENTY-ONE) to tOSU - B1G Champ
I don't feel as strongly about Basketball because the excluded teams (ie, the IU/M loser) are NOT legitimate NC Contenders anyway.
But that leads me to my conclusion that we SHOULD expand to 80 teams. We are ALREADY taking a slew of teams that are NOT legitimate NC Contenders:
- 23 leagues do NOT have a team in the top-25 of the NET rankings. Those 23 auto-qualifiers are NOT legitimate NC Contenders even if the best team in the league wins.
- At least half of the 36 at-large teams are NOT legitimate NC Contenders. Call it half or 18 making 41 total.
So you have a "National Championship Tournament" in which we've accepted up front that 41 of the 68 entrants are NOT legitimate NC Contenders. What difference would it make for us to make it 53 of the 80? Either way there are a slew of teams that are only there for show but my way gives us a better schedule (16-game days on the weekend) and a lot more games that could go either way, and my way isn't quite as grossly unfair to major conference teams.
-
I don't feel as strongly about Basketball because the excluded teams (ie, the IU/M loser) are NOT legitimate NC Contenders anyway.
But that leads me to my conclusion that we SHOULD expand to 80 teams. We are ALREADY taking a slew of teams that are NOT legitimate NC Contenders:
- 23 leagues do NOT have a team in the top-25 of the NET rankings. Those 23 auto-qualifiers are NOT legitimate NC Contenders even if the best team in the league wins.
- At least half of the 36 at-large teams are NOT legitimate NC Contenders. Call it half or 18 making 41 total.
So you have a "National Championship Tournament" in which we've accepted up front that 41 of the 68 entrants are NOT legitimate NC Contenders. What difference would it make for us to make it 53 of the 80? Either way there are a slew of teams that are only there for show but my way gives us a better schedule (16-game days on the weekend) and a lot more games that could go either way, and my way isn't quite as grossly unfair to major conference teams.
What I don't get is why everything that you said (which I agree with) about tallest midgets gets you to the conclusion that we need to expand?
I.e. yeah, we let in the conference champ Little Sisters of the Poor and that means that teams with terrible resumes, such as Indiana, get excluded. But the reward for EITHER setting a NET ranking cutoff for conference champions OR expanding to 80 teams is... Letting Indiana into the tournament? Why should they have a reward for being mediocre?
IMHO they should go back to 64, and if that means a few less mediocre P5 teams get in, so be it. Nobody lower than an 8 seed has ever won the whole damn thing anyway, so it's excluding teams that can be easily excluded with no real downside. If they're not going to do that, they should make the play-in games all for 16-seed spots, so at least it's the Little Sisters of the Poor that have to play-in rather than 11-seed teams that are FAR superior to them.
But nothing you have said justifies why we should go to 80.
-
Yeah I don't really see the argument for expanding. They don't need more teams. It is correct criticism to say not the best 68 teams get in. But so what? The tradeoff is every team in Division 1 can play their way in, and it leads to the best postseason in sports. They could reverse course and shrink the field to the top 16 teams or whatever, which would make the regular season more important, but I dunno. Would probably make both the regular season and the postseason more boring.
-
There are 2 types of people in this debate:
those who want to go along with the big lie
and
those who don't
.
The big lie being that by letting everyone in, they all have a shot at the NC. But they don't. So it's a lie.
You can let me enter the Boston Marathon 20 years in a row, and I'm not winning it. I'm not coming close. So why bother entering every year?
-
There are 2 types of people in this debate:
those who want to go along with the big lie
and
those who don't
.
The big lie being that by letting everyone in, they all have a shot at the NC. But they don't. So it's a lie.
You can let me enter the Boston Marathon 20 years in a row, and I'm not winning it. I'm not coming close. So why bother entering every year?
?? They do have the same shot at the national championship. That's not a lie, that's reality. The fact that some teams are better than others is a fact of sports, not a lie. If you can't handle that, sports are not for you.
-
They do not have the same shot, they have a much tougher shot, technically, and no shot, actually.
Let's say you're a 13 seed, maybe a Vermont or something, and you're in the BIG DANCE! Woo-hoo! What's your prize? An opponent that's radically better than you.
Okay, say you pull the upset, great! What's your prize? An opponent that's drastically better than you.
You're rewarded the same way, over and over, every time you pull off a miracle, until at some point - BOOM - you get buzz-sawed and lose.
If I'm a 4-seed.....not the same thing. I play a worse opponent, then an equal opponent, then a better opponent. I need exactly 1 upset, 1 minor upset, to make the Elite 8.
You're going to pretend these paths are the "same shot"?!?!?
-
"on paper" vs "in reality"
Think about it. Then edit your post. Or delete it.
-
There are 2 types of people in this debate:
those who want to go along with the big lie
and
those who don't
.
The big lie being that by letting everyone in, they all have a shot at the NC. But they don't. So it's a lie.
You can let me enter the Boston Marathon 20 years in a row, and I'm not winning it. I'm not coming close. So why bother entering every year?
The point is that you CAN enter the Boston Marathon. Pay your entrance fee and you're in. It's within your own control. No, you won't win. You don't even have a chance. But you can enter. It's YOUR choice.
The argument for an egalitarian (all conference champions) tournament is that you control your own destiny to get in. Win your conference. That's it. You're in. What you do with it from there is up to you.
Yes, over half of the 68 teams in the tournament are not realistically going to have any likelihood of winning it. But they have absolutely zero chance if they're excluded before it even starts. If that's the case, they're not playing the same sport as the big boys.
In football, it's harder. Football is a violently dangerous game, and requires a week of rest between games to recover. It's really not particularly feasible to have, say, a 16-team playoff after a 12+CCG week conference season, and let all 10 FBS conference champions in.
In football, the big lie is that the G5 teams are playing the same sport, for the same trophy as the P5. In basketball, they ARE playing the same sport, for the same trophy. They're not going to win it, but at least nobody is excluding them from having a chance.
-
What I don't get is why everything that you said (which I agree with) about tallest midgets gets you to the conclusion that we need to expand?
I.e. yeah, we let in the conference champ Little Sisters of the Poor and that means that teams with terrible resumes, such as Indiana, get excluded. But the reward for EITHER setting a NET ranking cutoff for conference champions OR expanding to 80 teams is... Letting Indiana into the tournament? Why should they have a reward for being mediocre?
IMHO they should go back to 64, and if that means a few less mediocre P5 teams get in, so be it. Nobody lower than an 8 seed has ever won the whole damn thing anyway, so it's excluding teams that can be easily excluded with no real downside. If they're not going to do that, they should make the play-in games all for 16-seed spots, so at least it's the Little Sisters of the Poor that have to play-in rather than 11-seed teams that are FAR superior to them.
But nothing you have said justifies why we should go to 80.
What I object to is the ridiculous disparity between teams like Rutgers, Indiana, and Michigan which are all on the bubble and the almost 20 teams that will get in despite being VASTLY inferior to RU/IU/M. I noted upthread that there are two sources of BAD teams in the tournament:
- Conference tournament upsets, and
- Conferences that simply don't have ANY decent teams.
I don't really object to #1. Like I said upthread, if Georgia or Nebraska win the SEC/B1G, they'll have earned their bid. My objection is more about the just awful leagues.
You talk about IU being mediocre (because you like saying that) and I'll add Rutgers and Michigan (because I like saying that). IU/RU/M ARE mediocre but relative to what? They are mediocre relative to UW/IL/PU but they are NOT mediocre relative to the best teams in a dozen or more leagues that WILL get auto-bids. IU/RU/M would smoke the best teams in a dozen leagues and they'd smoke an all-star team made up of the best players from all the teams in probably half-a-dozen leagues.
The situation would be slightly less unfair to the major conference schools if we added a dozen at-large slots such that .500ish B1G teams like IU/RU/M would be comfortably in and the only excluded teams from a league as strong as ours* would be the teams well below .500.
Secondly, I'd really like to have the Tournament's busiest days (the 16 game days) on the weekend. My proposal would do that by having the 16 play-in games on Thursday/Friday (8 per day) then the R64 games on Saturday/Sunday (16 per day) then the R32 games on Monday/Tuesday (8 per day).
*Note:
This isn't simply about "brand". I'm not saying that .500 B1G teams should get in just because they are from the B1G, I'm saying they should get in because the ranking systems that we have say they are among the top 31 (Michigan), 44 (Indiana), or 76 (Rutgers) teams in the nation. I realize that RU at #76 is the outlier here but I think most mock brackets have them a lot higher than that ranking would suggest because the thing holding their ranking down is three bad losses (@DePaul, vs Lafayette, @UMASS) that occurred consecutively in November. I think most people (myself included) feel that Rutgers is a MUCH better team now.
-
"on paper" vs "in reality"
Think about it. Then edit your post. Or delete it.
Buddy...you are under the delusion that making sports a glorified round of pachinko makes it better. To the contrary, that some teams are much better than others makes sports fun. You seem to want the postseason to be more like bingo - no upsets, no self - determination, just luck. The good news is instead of watching sports you could play bingo.
-
Buddy...you are under the delusion that making sports a glorified round of pachinko makes it better. To the contrary, that some teams are much better than others makes sports fun. You seem to want the postseason to be more like bingo - no upsets, no self - determination, just luck.
What is the purpose of the postseason? Let's start there.
-
This is funny, in the conversation I'm not participating in, I disagree with both sides.
-
What I object to is the ridiculous disparity between teams like Rutgers, Indiana, and Michigan which are all on the bubble and the almost 20 teams that will get in despite being VASTLY inferior to RU/IU/M. I noted upthread that there are two sources of BAD teams in the tournament:
- Conference tournament upsets, and
- Conferences that simply don't have ANY decent teams.
I don't really object to #1. Like I said upthread, if Georgia or Nebraska win the SEC/B1G, they'll have earned their bid. My objection is more about the just awful leagues.
You talk about IU being mediocre (because you like saying that) and I'll add Rutgers and Michigan (because I like saying that). IU/RU/M ARE mediocre but relative to what? They are mediocre relative to UW/IL/PU but they are NOT mediocre relative to the best teams in a dozen or more leagues that WILL get auto-bids. IU/RU/M would smoke the best teams in a dozen leagues and they'd smoke an all-star team made up of the best players from all the teams in probably half-a-dozen leagues.
The situation would be slightly less unfair to the major conference schools if we added a dozen at-large slots such that .500ish B1G teams like IU/RU/M would be comfortably in and the only excluded teams from a league as strong as ours* would be the teams well below .500.
Secondly, I'd really like to have the Tournament's busiest days (the 16 game days) on the weekend. My proposal would do that by having the 16 play-in games on Thursday/Friday (8 per day) then the R64 games on Saturday/Sunday (16 per day) then the R32 games on Monday/Tuesday (8 per day).
*Note:
This isn't simply about "brand". I'm not saying that .500 B1G teams should get in just because they are from the B1G, I'm saying they should get in because the ranking systems that we have say they are among the top 31 (Michigan), 44 (Indiana), or 76 (Rutgers) teams in the nation. I realize that RU at #76 is the outlier here but I think most mock brackets have them a lot higher than that ranking would suggest because the thing holding their ranking down is three bad losses (@DePaul, vs Lafayette, @UMASS) that occurred consecutively in November. I think most people (myself included) feel that Rutgers is a MUCH better team now.
Unfair?
Boo effing hoo...
Making the tournament for a P5 team should signify some level of accomplishment. If Purdue is sweating the bubble (or worse), I consider it to be an unsuccessful season. I don't feel like the tournament should move the finish line closer to the start just so a few more teams can get in.
64 is plenty. If we set a maximum NET rating cutoff for conference champions, I'd rather we consolidate to, say, 48 teams rather than boosting it to 80.
Likewise I wouldn't hate it if CFB bowl eligibility raised to >.500, not >=.500, so that you needed 7-5, not 6-6, to qualify. And I hate hate hate the idea that we're letting 5-7 teams in because we have too many bowl contracts and not enough teams to fill them.
-
.
The big lie being that by letting everyone in, they all have a shot at the NC. But they don't. So it's a lie.
You can let me enter the Boston Marathon 20 years in a row, and I'm not winning it. I'm not coming close. So why bother entering every year?
You don't win debate's around here but you plunge head long into those - can't leave yourself open like that you should know that by now
-
I really don't get this argument at all. If the mid majors were consistently upsetting a bunch of teams and winning titles then:
- After a few occasions they wouldn't be upsets anymore, they'd be expected, and
- It would be abundantly apparent that our ranking systems are seriously flawed.
They are upsets when the mid majors win and our ranking systems aren't seriously flawed as evidenced by the fact that out of 576 teams seeded #13 and higher exactly zero have EVER won a second-weekend game. Our ranking systems say that those teams suck and those ranking systems are NOT wrong. Those teams do suck. Sure, they occasionally pull off an upset but that is mostly a volume issue. Broken clocks are right twice a day. They've had 576 first round opportunities and won 63 games (22% for the 13's, 15% for the 14's, 6% for the 15's, and 1% for the 16's). They've had 63 second round opportunities and won 10 games (19% for the 13's, 9% for the 14's, 22% for the 15's, and NONE for the 16's). They've had 10 second weekend opportunities and NEVER won.
I (a) like the de facto byes; and (b) don't want to see middling power conference teams that MIGHT win. Nobody is arguing that the mid-major teams are better. But it rewards Power 5 teams for great seasons, and creates way more meaningful games.
If you want this to be truly the best teams, then you need to contract it. Adding more middling Power 5 teams, just means you'll see more boring upsets. Is Vandy better than Texas Southern? Sure. Neither one is likely going to win, but Vandy is MORE likely to win. I'd rather reward the better team for having that season, and if it goes south, at least it's fun. Instead of having more of them randomly knocked out by teams like Vandy, who had like 25 chances previously
-
What is the purpose of the postseason? Let's start there.
The postseason is something after the season. It's main purpose is to provide entertainment and make money. Typically (though not always) results in some sort of playoff or something to crown a champion.
-
My two cents. I’m ok with the current makeup of both college football and basketball postseasons. I don’t want basketball to expand. I’d be ok if football stayed at 4 or went to 8.
OAM made an analogy to the Boston Marathon. There is something to be said for just having the opportunity to participate in a big event. I know a lady who qualified to run in the BM. It’s one of the highlights of her life. Of course she didn’t stand a chance to win but just being able to compete was a huge accomplishment to her. Same with small schools in the NCAA.
Also, as opposed to football, basketball lends itself to upsets a little more. So, I’m ok with the little guys getting an invite.
I used to be staunchly against playoff expansion in football. I’ve softened a bit. Who are these games for really? They are for players, coaches, and fans. Is there anything more enjoyable as a fan than having a big game to look forward to? Anything more enjoyable for a player or coach than getting ready for a big game? If we can allow a few more fan bases and teams to experience that without making a mockery of the game I don’t see the harm in that.
-
My two cents. I’m ok with the current makeup of both college football and basketball postseasons. I don’t want basketball to expand. I’d be ok if football stayed at 4 or went to 8.
OAM made an analogy to the Boston Marathon. There is something to be said for just having the opportunity to participate in a big event. I know a lady who qualified to run in the BM. It’s one of the highlights of her life. Of course she didn’t stand a chance to win but just being able to compete was a huge accomplishment to her. Same with small schools in the NCAA.
Also, as opposed to football, basketball lends itself to upsets a little more. So, I’m ok with the little guys getting an invite.
I used to be staunchly against playoff expansion in football. I’ve softened a bit. Who are these games for really? They are for players, coaches, and fans. Is there anything more enjoyable as a fan than having a big game to look forward to? Anything more enjoyable for a player or coach than getting ready for a big game? If we can allow a few more fan bases and teams to experience that without making a mockery of the game I don’t see the harm in that.
No. It's science, not entertainment. If the best team isn't champion, what the hell are we doing here?
-
The postseason is something after the season. It's main purpose is to provide entertainment and make money. Typically (though not always) results in some sort of playoff or something to crown a champion.
Alright, great, thank you. Very honest answer. So let's say I'm idiotic and optimistic about the competition of sports in general and want to believe your last part - a playoff is to crown a champion.
What is a champion?
-
You don't win debate's around here but you plunge head long into those - can't leave yourself open like that you should know that by now
Maybe i value the discussion and am not overly worried about "winning."
-
No. It's science, not entertainment. If the best team isn't champion, what the hell are we doing here?
Maybe we should change the definition of "champion" to make way for fun factor and/or money for the wealthy.
-
Alright, great, thank you. Very honest answer. So let's say I'm idiotic and optimistic about the competition of sports in general and want to believe your last part - a playoff is to crown a champion.
What is a champion?
The winner of the playoff or whatever other set of rules that determine who the champion is.
-
No, no, hold on. What's the Webster's dictionary definition of the word 'champion'?
-
No, no, hold on. What's the Webster's dictionary definition of the word 'champion'?
"a winner of first prize or first place in competition"
-
"a winner of first prize or first place in competition"
So it's not:
a winner of first prize or first place in entertainment value
or
a winner of first prize or first place in money made
Right?
-
So it's not:
a winner of first prize or first place in entertainment value
or
a winner of first prize or first place in money made
Right?
Sure. But you asked about the postseason, which exists to entertain and make money, because just using the regular season is boring.
-
OAM made an analogy to the Boston Marathon. There is something to be said for just having the opportunity to participate in a big event. I know a lady who qualified to run in the BM. It’s one of the highlights of her life. Of course she didn’t stand a chance to win but just being able to compete was a huge accomplishment to her. Same with small schools in the NCAA.
My use of a marathon was a poor example, because it's not really a race. It's a marathon. You run it to see if you can, not to win it. Probably fewer than 5-10 people out of thousands are running it to win it.
-
Sure. But you asked about the postseason, which exists to entertain and make money, because just using the regular season is boring.
I thought the postseason was an opportunity for the championship to be won on the field.
Why change to a playoff from what we had before?
-
Wright St-Northern Kentucky was a good watch.
-
I thought the postseason was an opportunity for the championship to be won on the field.
Why change to a playoff from what we had before?
It is an opportunity to win it on the field. That is more fun and more entertaining and results in more fans and more money.
-
So it's not:
a winner of first prize or first place in entertainment value
or
a winner of first prize or first place in money made
Right?
Right. The NCAA Tournament is a competition. The winner of that is the champion. Everyone agrees on that. The discussion centers around who gets to participate in the competition.
-
Gonzaga-St Mary’s as the WCC Final is approaching death and taxes territory.
-
Right. The NCAA Tournament is a competition. The winner of that is the champion. Everyone agrees on that. The discussion centers around who gets to participate in the competition.
Yep. The wild card NY Giants beat the 18-0 Patriots, and you know what we call them?
Super Bowl Champions.
-
Is that what we want though??
-
Is that what we want though??
“We” is a big word. It might not be what you want. It might not be what I want, but it is what some people want.
-
It is an opportunity to win it on the field. That is more fun and more entertaining and results in more fans and more money.
Below a certain seed, it's not an actual opportunity - thus the big lie.
-
Just looked this up. The last time the WCC Final didn’t have either Gonzaga or St. Mary’s in it was 1994. That’s insane.
-
Just looked this up. The last time the WCC Final didn’t have either Gonzaga or St. Mary’s in it was 1994. That’s insane.
That's shallow.....a shallow conference.....with an automatic bid.
-
Below a certain seed, it's not an actual opportunity - thus the big lie.
The opportunity to say they played in it means something too.
-
The opportunity to say they played in it means something too.
Hmm, the "it's something good for the players" idea.
I happen to think being "conference tournament champions" and winning your last game in a triumphant moment is better than celebrating an automatic bid to be destroyed in your last game ever (for a vast majority of these guys) by a 2 seed on national TV.
But I'm probably wrong.
-
Hmm, the "it's something good for the players" idea.
I happen to think being "conference tournament champions" and winning your last game in a triumphant moment is better than celebrating an automatic bid to be destroyed in your last game ever (for a vast majority of these guys) by a 2 seed on national TV.
But I'm probably wrong.
Do you think the players on these 15 or 16 seeds would agree with you?
-
Below a certain seed, it's not an actual opportunity - thus the big lie.
It's an opportunity no matter the seed. The lottery is an opportunity too, people still play and have fun.
-
Hmm, the "it's something good for the players" idea.
I happen to think being "conference tournament champions" and winning your last game in a triumphant moment is better than celebrating an automatic bid to be destroyed in your last game ever (for a vast majority of these guys) by a 2 seed on national TV.
But I'm probably wrong.
How many teams have declined their bid?
-
So it's not:
a winner of first prize or first place in entertainment value
or
a winner of first prize or first place in money made
Right?
What did you think you were watching? This is an entertainment product that exists in a large scale way to make money.
Poll and rankings are entertainment product to make money. Every iteration of postseason College football has been entertainment product to make money. Just because this is the most functionally pure type of competition, it really seems to confuse people.
-
Is that what we want though??
It's poker. As long as you have a chip and a chair, you're alive. Long odds are better than no odds.
I'll never say those NY Giants were the best football team in the NFL that season. But they sure as hell earned the title of Champion. They beat the 18-0 Patriots on the field.
-
That's shallow.....a shallow conference.....with an automatic bid.
Well those two get in every year, and BYU makes it their fair share, and San Fran is poised to get in this year.
Deeper than the Pac 12.
-
It's an opportunity no matter the seed. The lottery is an opportunity too, people still play and have fun.
The lottery is a tax on the poor. The people with the least amount of disposable income spend the most on impossible odds. This is the worst thing you could've mentioned.
-
It's poker. As long as you have a chip and a chair, you're alive. Long odds are better than no odds.
I'll never say those NY Giants were the best football team in the NFL that season. But they sure as hell earned the title of Champion. They beat the 18-0 Patriots on the field.
But it's not long odds vs no odds......it's no odds while pretending its long odds.
-
What did you think you were watching? This is an entertainment product that exists in a large scale way to make money.
Poll and rankings are entertainment product to make money. Every iteration of postseason College football has been entertainment product to make money. Just because this is the most functionally pure type of competition, it really seems to confuse people.
It is not an entertainment product - it's only ballooned out to become a money-making monster.
But football could be, and once upon a time was, just another sport with anonymous players.......a women's lacrosse, if you will. And if no one came to watch them play, they'd still play, have a winner and a loser, and still keep stats.
As long as the competition side of things exists and matters and isn't lost, yes, people want to watch. But just because a sport is bastardized into a money-making cow doesn't stop this from being true.
You set up a framework in which the regular season is irrelevant and you've routinely got .500 teams being crowned champion, and you'll find the stands empty.
We're not there yet, but it's trending that way, across sports.
-
It is not an entertainment product - it's only ballooned out to become a money-making monster.
But football could be, and once upon a time was, just another sport with anonymous players.......a women's lacrosse, if you will. And if no one came to watch them play, they'd still play, have a winner and a loser, and still keep stats.
As long as the competition side of things exists and matters and isn't lost, yes, people want to watch. But just because a sport is bastardized into a money-making cow doesn't stop this from being true.
You set up a framework in which the regular season is irrelevant and you've routinely got .500 teams being crowned champion, and you'll find the stands empty.
We're not there yet, but it's trending that way, across sports.
You are making counterpoints to your own arguments. Which is it? Is it a farce lower seeds are making playoff tournaments because they have no chance to win them or, are sports in danger of losing fans because they are setting up tournaments where .500 teams are routinely crowned champions?
Which argument are you making?
-
The lottery is a tax on the poor. The people with the least amount of disposable income spend the most on impossible odds. This is the worst thing you could've mentioned.
???
Are you saying the NCAA tourney is a tax on the poor? That the teams that are there are somehow being harmed by being there? Your whole point seems to be that Wright State thinks they will win the national championship and is somehow the victim of fraud. This is...probably not correct.
-
How many teams have declined their bid?
Only Marquette comes to mind for me.
-
It is not an entertainment product - it's only ballooned out to become a money-making monster.
But football could be, and once upon a time was, just another sport with anonymous players.......a women's lacrosse, if you will. And if no one came to watch them play, they'd still play, have a winner and a loser, and still keep stats.
As long as the competition side of things exists and matters and isn't lost, yes, people want to watch. But just because a sport is bastardized into a money-making cow doesn't stop this from being true.
You set up a framework in which the regular season is irrelevant and you've routinely got .500 teams being crowned champion, and you'll find the stands empty.
We're not there yet, but it's trending that way, across sports.
Yes, it should be pure, like NCAA Women's Lacrosse...
...which hosted a 42-team tournament to determine its champion in 2021 (https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/lacrosse-women/d1/2021).
-
I can tolerate the NCAA Tourney bashing, but I'll be damned if I am going to stand for all of this women's lacrosse bashing.
-
I can tolerate the NCAA Tourney bashing, but I'll be damned if I am going to stand for all of this women's lacrosse bashing.
I thought that’s why you watch lacrosse, when they use the sticks the bash each other
-
UGA might be setting the largest gap in history between football and MBB prowess in a single year. They probably have some competition somewhere. 1995 Nebraska?
-
UGA might be setting the largest gap in history between football and MBB prowess in a single year. They probably have some competition somewhere. 1995 Nebraska?
I think that award annually goes to Kansas, but I know you were talking about it going the other direction.
Nebraska’s bball team was actually posting winning records during their dominant football run in the 90s.
-
In the 1991-92 academic year, Miami went 12-0 in football, and 8-24, 1-17 in Big East play for basketball.
That might be your most recent contender in the direction you are talking
-
UGA is 6-25 with losses wot Wofford and Gardner-Webb.
They are about to be 6-26. The have one conference win.
-
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/g0_0VxcFlWcH-DLM0Osw1ufjiyk=/1400x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4091598/Crean.0.png)
-
UGA is 6-25 with losses wot Wofford and Gardner-Webb.
They are about to be 6-26. The have one conference win.
So almost exactly the same
-
Yup, very close. Miami did split the NC with UDubb that year.
-
Yup, very close. Miami did split the NC with UDubb that year.
But they also didn't lose a game, which would have left them in like the Citrus Bowl under 1991 rules
-
Yup, it's a very close comparison. And I took us off point again.
-
But they also didn't lose a game, which would have left them in like the Citrus Bowl under 1991 rules
What were the rules in 91?
-
What were the rules in 91?
We are talking '91 Miami football, there were no rules
-
We are talking '91 Miami football, there were no rules
There really weren't.
Technically, the Big East existed, and Miami was 2-0 in conference games.
VT played 1 Big East game.
WV played 7.
None of this makes sense.
-
GTech reward in '90 was facing a train wreck 3 loss Nebraska team that for the only time in my living memory quit during the Osborne era.
-
I wonder how often a team gets demoralized and mails it in. My senior year in HS we had a very talented baseball team, but the coach was so bad we mailed it in when we got to the playoffs. He was fired. He was by far the worst coach I ever had. I'm surprised we didn't quit en mass.
-
I wonder how often a team gets demoralized and mails it in. My senior year in HS we had a very talented baseball team, but the coach was so bad we mailed it in when we got to the playoffs. He was fired. He was by far the worst coach I ever had. I'm surprised we didn't quit en mass.
The playoffs is a weird time to mail it in.
-
The playoffs is a weird time to mail it in.
There was a HS wrestler I heard about. Dad was his coach. Kid was good, dad was an excellent coach. Not sure if the kid was state title good, but when he got to state his last two years, he lost pretty early and there were always rumors he threw the match as an act of rebellion.
His dad was just an asshole to a lot of people, so I can only imagine with the son he was coaching.
-
The playoffs is a weird time to mail it in.
We were good enough to make the playoffs without motivation, but once we made it, we wanted the season to end. The coach was that bad.
I had torn my labia in my throwing arm as a junior and couldn't pitch well at all, he'd come out and scream at me on the mound, cursing me out. Once he gave me two of three indicators to steal second and brushed his belt so I went, and then he cussed me out for running without the sign. He treated others worse than me.
I hate thinking about him.
-
Cripes, we have this thread, and I didn't even get into why this event is an iron mine of disappointment.
Medina has helpfully provided the stats that show, basically, if you have a seed higher than eighth, you on average won't play to seed. The average 1 doesn't, make the Final Four. Average 2 doesn't make the Elite 8, etc. But instead of incorporating that math, we go the other way.
The fans of every 1 seed think short of the Final Four is a disappointment. Same for most 2 seeds, unless the 1 is really strong. And usually a 3 seed or two thinks they should have a shot. So you have say 8 teams that'll be disappointed without a Final Four. The issue remains that most of the ability to overachieve is tied up in being a lower seed (a tall midget, as someone puts it).
And that's before you factor in upsets. So you might play to seed, except in the second weekend, your opponent might be 7 or lower. And then, even if you're a 5 in the Sweet 16, you'll be pissed if you lose to an 8. (I remember an argument with an OSU fan after an Elite 8 run as a 2 seed being highly pissed because they lost to an upstart).
Wisconsin will be interesting there. The computers say this team is vulnerable, and the last two games don't help. Still, it looked Final Four quality early. It'll probably be a 3 seed (though maybe a 4?), so a Sweet 16 would be to seed, and a second-round upset would be pretty unsurprising. But I'd bet UW fans will feel something was left on the table unless it's a close loss to the 2 or a loss to a very solid 1.
-
Texas A&M is one of a cluster of .500 in-conference teams in the SEC and I believe they've played themselves into the tournament. They played fellow .500 team Florida and won, then went on to beat 1 seed Auburn and 4 seed Arkansas.
That's earning your way.
-
Texas A&M is one of a cluster of .500 in-conference teams in the SEC and I believe they've played themselves into the tournament. They played fellow .500 team Florida and won, then went on to beat 1 seed Auburn and 4 seed Arkansas.
That's earning your way.
Well…
-
I guess 17-14 Michigan earned their way in.
-
The Wolverines got in at 17-14? What in the everloving eff? I've seen better OSU teams get snubbed by the NIT.
-
I'd be pissed if I was Baylor. UNC is their 8-seed.
-
I guess 17-14 Michigan earned their way in.
What's the alternative?
-
All the snubs - Dayton, Texas A&M, Wake, Xavier.....
It's just fun that a team who won 55% of its games gets the happy action invitation.
-
The regular season is obviously playing for a good seed (or any seed at all depending). Then the real season started, one and done.
It's very popular, MM, I surmise, and gets a lot of action I'm sure. I have yet to watch a minute of BBall on TV this year of any sort. Maybe some of that is that UGA is the Vandy of Bball. And Vandy isn't. Shirley somebody at UGA could coach them to a half decent season.
-
Florida's HC jumps ship to UGA, lol.
I guess he'd rather have a .500 season and be a savior than have a .500 season and get fired next year.
-
.500 would be an improvement of late, but UGA has often had .500+ seasons back when. They even made a Final Four. Once. One time in history. I can't understand how they can't have a half decent program there. Coaching obviously.
Gymnastics usually outdraws men's bball.
-
.500 would be an improvement of late, but UGA has often had .500+ seasons back when. They even made a Final Four. Once. One time in history. I can't understand how they can't have a half decent program there. Coaching obviously.
Gymnastics usually outdraws men's bball.
I know next-to-nothing about UGA BB so this is just a guess but I would imagine that location is a problem. If you are a really good BB player in the ATL it seems likely to me that you might prefer to go play college ball at a nearby ACC school because the ACC is more known for BB unlike the SEC which is more known for FB. That is probably less of an issue for most of the rest of the SEC because UGA is closer to ACC campuses than most of the SEC. I would imagine that fact that GaTech is in the ACC, generally better than UGA at BB, and in the ACC can't help matters much either.
-
We were good enough to make the playoffs without motivation, but once we made it, we wanted the season to end. The coach was that bad.
I had torn my labia in my throwing arm as a junior and couldn't pitch well at all, he'd come out and scream at me on the mound, cursing me out. Once he gave me two of three indicators to steal second and brushed his belt so I went, and then he cussed me out for running without the sign. He treated others worse than me.
I hate thinking about him.
Just seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Go win states and tell him you did this for y’all and not him and flip him the bird or refuse to let him in the team picture.
I don’t get tanking at the most important time of the season.
-
I don't think there's a labia in my throwing arm. Women have them, though....not in their arms.
-
I don't think there's a labia in my throwing arm. Women have them, though....not in their arms.
Lmfao! I didn’t catch that at first. I actually think a lot of people would accuse someone of having a torn labia if they quit in the playoffs.
-
Torn labia is quite a common injury in both the delivery room and the porn industry.
-
Just seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Go win states and tell him you did this for y’all and not him and flip him the bird or refuse to let him in the team picture.
I don’t get tanking at the most important time of the season.
I don't want to speak for Cincy, but I could imagine a situation where a coach is so awful, he simply robs you of enjoyment of the game. And if you're getting no joy, while the person robbing you of joy is getting glory, I could see that becoming a thing.
-
So the first round percentages didn't change much this year but here is a question to discuss:
Will a #13 or lower ever win a second weekend game?
I certainly hope we don't see it this year as the only remaining #13 or below is Purdue's opponent, #15 St Peters. In the previous 37 tournaments (1985-2021 not incl 2020):
- #13 seeds made the S16 six times and went 0-6.
- #14 seeds made the S16 twice and went 0-2.
- #15 seeds made the S16 twice and went 0-2.
- #16 seeds have yet to make it out of the first weekend.
This year's example is a pretty good indication of why it hasn't happened yet. St. Peter's already knocked off bluest of blue blood #2 Kentucky in the first round and a decent Murray State team in the second round and their reward is #3 Purdue. St. Peter's obviously had to play at least close to their ceiling to win those first two games and how long can they keep that up?
St. Peter's is currently riding a nine-game winning streak. Prior to that they lost three out of four to such luminaries as Siena, Iona, and Rider. On February 20 St. Peters walked out of Siena's gym as a team barely over .500 (12-11) and decidedly NOT on anybody's NCAA Tournament radar. They haven't lost since. They won their last four regular season games to finish 16-11/14-6 then charged through the MAAC Tournament to hit the NCAA Tournament at 19-11 and obviously they beat #2 Kentucky and #7 Murray State so they are now 21-11.
To answer my own question, I think we will see it eventually but not in the way that I initially thought was most likely. My initial thought was that eventually two #13 or below seeds would bump into each other in the S16 and one of them would have to win. Upon looking into the numbers, that may never happen. Including St. Peter's this year, the #13's and below have made it to the S16 11 times. There have been 592 S16 teams (16*37) so #13 seeds and below make up 1.86%. My initial thinking was ok, 2% is roughly one in fifty so there should be something like a one in 2,500 (50*50) chance of two #13's and below running into each other in the S16, right? Well actually no. It is worse than that.
Note from above that the #13's have more S16 appearances than the #14's, #15's, and #16's combined. That limits the chances of two #13's or below meeting in the S16 because the only potential #13 or below opponent for a #13 is #16 and none of them have ever made it.
Thus, the more likely meeting of two #13's or below in the S16 would be a meeting of a #14 and a #15 (in what, by chalk, would be the #2/3 game). Two #14's and three #15's (including St. Peter's) have made the S16 out of 148 chances for each seed. Multiplying the 2/148 chance of a #14 being there by the 3/148 chance of a #15 being there we get a 6/21,904 or roughly one in 3,651 chance of a meeting of two #13's or below in the S16. Even with four chances per year that is statistically a once every 913 year occurrence.
Therefore, my suspicion is that the more likely method for a #13 or below to win a second weekend game is for a #13 to get lucky and get a #8 or #9 and beat them. Statistically, if a #13 makes it to the S16 their likelihood of opponent is:
- 85.71% #1
- 10.14% #8
- 4.73% #9
- 0.00% #16
Rounding that off and expressing it a different way, in 20 trips to the S16 a #13 would face (on average):
- 17 #1 seeds,
- 2 #8 seeds, and
- 1 #9 seed.
The chances of a #13 taking out a #1 are near zero but I would guess that a #13 has around a one-in-three chance of beating a #8 or #9 seed so given enough trips to the S16 by #13 seeds they should eventually get through to the E8 possibly with a path of #4, #12, #8.
-
Lmfao! I didn’t catch that at first. I actually think a lot of people would accuse someone of having a torn labia if they quit in the playoffs.
Prolly called 'em a pussy for it too!!! Ya I tore my Glenoid Labrum,saw the crack on the MRI - it looks like the Libertly Bell.The other crack...well what OAM said 😍
-
Labral Tear (SLAP) | Michigan Medicine (uofmhealth.org) (https://www.uofmhealth.org/conditions-treatments/cmc/shoulder/labral-tear)
I'm going to claim spell checker.