March Madnes 2021 NCAA Tournament

[Deep Creek]

And then the bottom of the league took on alot of bad losses OOC or losses in general.

Honestly the strength of the B1G was built on the fact the bottom of the league did tremendous OOC.

No doubt the PAC 12 is performing well in the tourney and those teams in the tourney may well have been undervalued. But, I think you nailed it on the conference depth part. I can't find any other PAC 12 team that should have been in the tourney.

Anyone else want to make a case for another PAC 12 team that deserved a shot?

While the B1G and the Big 12 were considered the best, both really only had a team or two that "stood out". The others were good and there were a lot of them which made the conference runs difficult and thus considered strong.

But, even with 9 and 7 teams in the tourney, I'm not sure many people thought more than one or two per conference would make deep runs...unless they got on a roll like Oregon State has. (I thought Illinois was on one of those runs but they were highly thought of anyway.) Michigan and Baylor are similar in that they aren't back to pre COVID status but were still expected to make deep runs.

So, outside of Michigan, Illinois and Baylor, which other B1G and Big 12 teams were truly expected to make deep runs? They may have had higher seeds, but someone had to occupy those spots.

 

[duckboy33]

This was a tough year to seed because of the lack of OOC games. I don't think the Pac 12 was under seeded this year, they are, however, performing great in the tournament. The pac 12 didn't perform all that well OOC, which is why we are where we are with seeding.

Oregon State lost to Wyoming and Portland OOC then went 10-10 in the Pac 12.
Colorado lost to Tennessee OOC, and had no wins of note OOC, and took on some bad losses in conference. I'd say a 5 was fair.
UCLA lost to San Diego State and Ohio State OOC, with no good wins OOC.
Oregon lost to Missouri, and didn't have any good OOC wins.
USC had the best OOC, by splitting with Uconn and BYU.

And then the bottom of the league took on alot of bad losses OOC or losses in general.

Honestly the strength of the B1G was built on the fact the bottom of the league did tremendous OOC. PSU beat two tournament teams OOC in VCU and Va Tech, Gophers went undefeated beating the 2nd team out of the tournament in St Louis. You could argue had SLU won that game they would have made it. NW only lost once OOC. Rutgers beat Cuse, MSU beat Duke at Cameron, not a great win, but had they lost probably aren't getting in. I also think the fact that the B1G got a majority of their games in helped, because you had the opportunity to compile more quality wins, a loss didn't really hurt, and your metrics overall, had a chance to be better.

When a team goes 12-8 in the Big Ten and gets a 2 seed, we are putting too much value in conference affiliation. The differences between the major conferences isn’t all that much. It’s clear the media and the committee overvalued the Big Ten this year. It’s still a good league but the differences are mole hills, not mountains

 

[wazzu31]

I never expect much with SC in regards to basketball. Really don’t follow basketball much. Under normal circumstances I do expect SC to beat Kansas by 5 TDs tho haha

Well too be fair no one takes SC seriously. You guys usually are good for a few years, find out your bball program cheated, self impose sanctions, fire your head coach, suck then repeat.

 

[ericd7633]

When a team goes 12-8 in the Big Ten and gets a 2 seed, we are putting too much value in conference affiliation. The differences between the major conferences isn’t all that much. It’s clear the media and the committee overvalued the Big Ten this year. It’s still a good league but the differences are mole hills, not mountains

Like I said, I think some of that is because the B1G got most of the games in. The B1G also had good metrics in the NET and KenPom. I'm not sure what the committee is supposed to do when evaluating resumes/metrics? It's not as though teams like UCLA and Oregon State were top 20 teams all season. Oregon State was 91st in the NET, UCLA 46th in the NET entering the tournament. Where should they have been seeded other than where they were? USC and Oregon could have been seeded better, but probably only an extra seed line bump.

 

[duckboy33]

Like I said, I think some of that is because the B1G got most of the games in. The B1G also had good metrics in the NET and KenPom. I'm not sure what the committee is supposed to do when evaluating resumes/metrics? It's not as though teams like UCLA and Oregon State were top 20 teams all season. Oregon State was 91st in the NET, UCLA 46th in the NET entering the tournament. Where should they have been seeded other than where they were? USC and Oregon could have been seeded better, but probably only an extra seed line bump.

Oregon, SC and Colorado should have all been 4 or 5s, at worst. And I guess Colorado was there. I agree on Oregon State, they just got hot at the right time. They were seeded appropriately.

My point is if at the end of the season you are seeding a 12-8 Big Ten team as a 2 seed and a 14-4 PAC 12 team as a 7 seed, your system is broken. There isn't that big of a divide in talent.

 

[SU Nittany Tide]

No doubt the PAC 12 is performing well in the tourney and those teams in the tourney may well have been undervalued. But, I think you nailed it on the conference depth part. I can't find any other PAC 12 team that should have been in the tourney.

Anyone else want to make a case for another PAC 12 team that deserved a shot?

While the B1G and the Big 12 were considered the best, both really only had a team or two that "stood out". The others were good and there were a lot of them which made the conference runs difficult and thus considered strong.

But, even with 9 and 7 teams in the tourney, I'm not sure many people thought more than one or two per conference would make deep runs...unless they got on a roll like Oregon State has. (I thought Illinois was on one of those runs but they were highly thought of anyway.) Michigan and Baylor are similar in that they aren't back to pre COVID status but were still expected to make deep runs.

So, outside of Michigan, Illinois and Baylor, which other B1G and Big 12 teams were truly expected to make deep runs? They may have had higher seeds, but someone had to occupy those spots.

Big 10 had two 1s and two 2s so I think somebody must have thought they should have more than one or two make a deep run...

 

[ericd7633]

Oregon, SC and Colorado should have all been 4 or 5s, at worst. And I guess Colorado was there. I agree on Oregon State, they just got hot at the right time. They were seeded appropriately.

My point is if at the end of the season you are seeding a 12-8 Big Ten team as a 2 seed and a 14-4 PAC 12 team as a 7 seed, your system is broken. There isn't that big of a divide in talent.

If you include the respective tournaments OSU was 15-9 and Oregon 14-5 in their conference record.

I don't really think anything is broken. Like I said USC, probably could have been a 5, Oregon probably a 6, but that's splitting hairs at that point. Oregon lost to Oregon State and Wazzu at home, that's going to affect your seeding negativity. It also hurt their metrics. They were 33rd in NET entering the tournament, which translates to a 9 seed.

You're right in regards to the talent. The B1G might have two 1st rounders in the entire conference. Which might be part of the reason they peaked as a conference and did so well OOC, is because they had a bunch of older teams. And didn't have teams go on pause either for the most part. Oregon went on pause and came back and didn't play well. I'm guessing had they not gone on pause they would have been a 3/4 seed because they wouldn't have taken on those losses.

 

[duckboy33]

If you include the respective tournaments OSU was 15-9 and Oregon 14-5 in their conference record.

I don't really think anything is broken. Like I said USC, probably could have been a 5, Oregon probably a 6, but that's splitting hairs at that point. Oregon lost to Oregon State and Wazzu at home, that's going to affect your seeding negativity. It also hurt their metrics. They were 33rd in NET entering the tournament, which translates to a 9 seed.

You're right in regards to the talent. The B1G might have two 1st rounders in the entire conference. Which might be part of the reason they peaked as a conference and did so well OOC, is because they had a bunch of older teams. And didn't have teams go on pause either for the most part. Oregon went on pause and came back and didn't play well. I'm guessing had they not gone on pause they would have been a 3/4 seed because they wouldn't have taken on those losses.

Even if you include the conference tournaments, you have 15-5 vs. 15-9. There's no way someone should say the 15-9 team deserves a 2 while the 15-5 team deserves a 7. If the metrics say that, then it's time to change the metrics.

 

[ericd7633]

Even if you include the conference tournaments, you have 15-5 vs. 15-9. There's no way someone should say the 15-9 team deserves a 2 while the 15-5 team deserves a 7. If the metrics say that, then it's time to change the metrics.

Well sure, if you look at it like that without any context. You also need to include OOC play, who you beat/lost too, and how you perform overall.

Also, this isn't a normal year, if Oregon would have played all their games, and not gone on pause, they would have had a much better resume.

I'm of the mind frame that not all conferences are created equal. You need to distinguish yourself in OOC play. The B1G won 83% of their OOC games the Pac 12 won 73% of their OOC games. That's not a huge difference, but an MSU loss to Duke probably keeps them out and a Rutgers loss to Cuse might have kept them from making it.

 

[duckboy33]

Well sure, if you look at it like that without any context. You also need to include OOC play, who you beat/lost too, and how you perform overall.

Also, this isn't a normal year, if Oregon would have played all their games, and not gone on pause, they would have had a much better resume.

I'm of the mind frame that not all conferences are created equal. You need to distinguish yourself in OOC play. The B1G won 83% of their OOC games the Pac 12 won 73% of their OOC games. That's not a huge difference, but an MSU loss to Duke probably keeps them out and a Rutgers loss to Cuse might have kept them from making it.

As you noted, it's not a huge difference. However, when it came time to seed teams, it was treated as a huge difference. That's the issue. I don't really have an issue with any of the teams that made the tournament (Michigan State was a little suspect but the bubble was weak). The bigger issue was the seeding.

It's not just a Big Ten thing. Look at Virginia. They won a clearly down ACC and had some terrible OOC performances and were given a 4 seed. There's nothing on their resume to suggest they should be significantly higher ranked than USC or Oregon.

At the end of the day, it didn't really matter. USC and Oregon both moved on to the S16 and can pretend they were 2 and 3 seeds from here on out.

 

[ericd7633]

As you noted, it's not a huge difference. However, when it came time to seed teams, it was treated as a huge difference. That's the issue. I don't really have an issue with any of the teams that made the tournament (Michigan State was a little suspect but the bubble was weak). The bigger issue was the seeding.

It's not just a Big Ten thing. Look at Virginia. They won a clearly down ACC and had some terrible OOC performances and were given a 4 seed. There's nothing on their resume to suggest they should be significantly higher ranked than USC or Oregon.

At the end of the day, it didn't really matter. USC and Oregon both moved on to the S16 and can pretend they were 2 and 3 seeds from here on out.

There is a trickle down affect from OOC play as you go through your conference slate. The top of the B1G was definitely helped by the middle/bottom of the league performing well in OOC. A win over Minnesota, Penn State and NW just meant more to resume/metrics than a win against ASU, Washington and Cal for example. Hell if you beat psu on the road, that was a Q1 win. That also affects SOS based on how well your conference performs OOC.

It doesn't really matter, you're right, at the end of the day. I just don't know how the committee could have done it differently? I'd agree UVA was probably seeded to high. But anything within a 1 seed line isn't a big deal to me.

 

[duckboy33]

There is a trickle down affect from OOC play as you go through your conference slate. The top of the B1G was definitely helped by the middle/bottom of the league performing well in OOC. A win over Minnesota, Penn State and NW just meant more to resume/metrics than a win against ASU, Washington and Cal for example. Hell if you beat psu on the road, that was a Q1 win. That also affects SOS based on how well your conference performs OOC.

It doesn't really matter, you're right, at the end of the day. I just don't know how the committee could have done it differently? I'd agree UVA was probably seeded to high. But anything within a 1 seed line isn't a big deal to me.

I understand how it works. My point is that they should rethink their formula. If the Big Ten performs slightly better than the other conferences their seeding should only be slightly better. 10 of the top 16 seeds went to Big Ten and Big 12 teams. Only two of them got to the sweet 16. It's pretty clear they went too far. All 6 of the major conferences should have had at least 2 teams seeded 1-4.

The gap between the Big Ten/Big 12 and everyone else just doesn't exist.

 

[jontaejones]

I understand how it works. My point is that they should rethink their formula. If the Big Ten performs slightly better than the other conferences their seeding should only be slightly better. 10 of the top 16 seeds went to Big Ten and Big 12 teams. Only two of them got to the sweet 16. It's pretty clear they went too far. All 6 of the major conferences should have had at least 2 teams seeded 1-4.

The gap between the Big Ten/Big 12 and everyone else just doesn't exist.

You can't do it like football.

There's years where major conferences are legitimately terrible. Namely the PAC-12 has had some years in recent memory where they've just been horrendous.

This year was different in that you didn't have a full body of work to compare the conferences, so the committee had the choice to do what you suggest. They did not, but I digress...

In normal years, it works pretty well.

It's also about matchups. UConn beat USC, doesn't mean they could beat Kansas. Redoing the bracket and shuffling the regions would yield a whole new result.

 

[ericd7633]

I understand how it works. My point is that they should rethink their formula. If the Big Ten performs slightly better than the other conferences their seeding should only be slightly better. 10 of the top 16 seeds went to Big Ten and Big 12 teams. Only two of them got to the sweet 16. It's pretty clear they went too far. All 6 of the major conferences should have had at least 2 teams seeded 1-4.

The gap between the Big Ten/Big 12 and everyone else just doesn't exist.

I'm all for tinkering anything if it doesn't appear to be correct. I'm just not sure what the committee could have done in this instance for this season? What 3 seed is going to take the place of one of the B1G's two seeds? WVU, KU, Texas, Arkansas? I mean maybe Arkansas, but I tend to not look at things in hindsight. What 4 seed? UVA, Oklahoma State, FSU? Everyone had flawed resumes once you get past the top 3 seed lines IMO.

There is no perfect way to seed a bracket. You have to take into account the entire year. This year was obviously different because of the pauses, which I do think negativity affected seeding. Mostly because when a team typically came back they weren't as good, and didn't play as many games, thus not having the same amount of data points.

There was a gap between the B1G/Big 12 and Pac 12. Probably not at the top, again, looking at things in hindsight, but the middle to bottom of the B1G/Big 12 was much better than that of the Pac 12. Teams are also on different trajectories. At the beginning of the year Oregon State was losing to Wyoming and Portland. Now they just beat Tennessee and Oklahoma State back to back. But them losing those games OOC drags the rest of the league down, especially when Oregon loses to that team twice. Which affects seeding.

 

[SU Nittany Tide]

I'm all for tinkering anything if it doesn't appear to be correct. I'm just not sure what the committee could have done in this instance for this season? What 3 seed is going to take the place of one of the B1G's two seeds? WVU, KU, Texas, Arkansas? I mean maybe Arkansas, but I tend to not look at things in hindsight. What 4 seed? UVA, Oklahoma State, FSU? Everyone had flawed resumes once you get past the top 3 seed lines IMO.

There is no perfect way to seed a bracket. You have to take into account the entire year. This year was obviously different because of the pauses, which I do think negativity affected seeding. Mostly because when a team typically came back they weren't as good, and didn't play as many games, thus not having the same amount of data points.

There was a gap between the B1G/Big 12 and Pac 12. Probably not at the top, again, looking at things in hindsight, but the middle to bottom of the B1G/Big 12 was much better than that of the Pac 12. Teams are also on different trajectories. At the beginning of the year Oregon State was losing to Wyoming and Portland. Now they just beat Tennessee and Oklahoma State back to back. But them losing those games OOC drags the rest of the league down, especially when Oregon loses to that team twice. Which affects seeding.

I'm with you on not overreacting to how things went in a weird season. It isn't like they prop up the Big 10 every season.

 

[ericd7633]

I'm with you on not overreacting to how things went in a weird season. It isn't like they prop up the Big 10 every season.

In the 2018 tournament the B1G only got 4 bids(and rightfully so). Michigan making the title game, didn't mean that Nebraska should have made the tournament or teams like OSU and MSU deserved better seeds IMO.

 

[duckboy33]

You can't do it like football.

There's years where major conferences are legitimately terrible. Namely the PAC-12 has had some years in recent memory where they've just been horrendous.

This year was different in that you didn't have a full body of work to compare the conferences, so the committee had the choice to do what you suggest. They did not, but I digress...

In normal years, it works pretty well.

It's also about matchups. UConn beat USC, doesn't mean they could beat Kansas. Redoing the bracket and shuffling the regions would yield a whole new result.

I hear you. If one of the major conferences is obviously down, then don't include them. However, that wasn't the case this year.

 

[duckboy33]

I'm all for tinkering anything if it doesn't appear to be correct. I'm just not sure what the committee could have done in this instance for this season? What 3 seed is going to take the place of one of the B1G's two seeds? WVU, KU, Texas, Arkansas? I mean maybe Arkansas, but I tend to not look at things in hindsight. What 4 seed? UVA, Oklahoma State, FSU? Everyone had flawed resumes once you get past the top 3 seed lines IMO.

There is no perfect way to seed a bracket. You have to take into account the entire year. This year was obviously different because of the pauses, which I do think negativity affected seeding. Mostly because when a team typically came back they weren't as good, and didn't play as many games, thus not having the same amount of data points.

There was a gap between the B1G/Big 12 and Pac 12. Probably not at the top, again, looking at things in hindsight, but the middle to bottom of the B1G/Big 12 was much better than that of the Pac 12. Teams are also on different trajectories. At the beginning of the year Oregon State was losing to Wyoming and Portland. Now they just beat Tennessee and Oklahoma State back to back. But them losing those games OOC drags the rest of the league down, especially when Oregon loses to that team twice. Which affects seeding.

And if that gap means the Big Ten champ gets a 1/2 seed while the PAC 12 champ gets a 3/4 seed, that's all fine and dandy. When the PAC 12 Champ gets a 7 seed and the 5th place team in the Big Ten gets a 2 seed, we got a problem.

 

[ericd7633]

And if that gap means the Big Ten champ gets a 1/2 seed while the PAC 12 champ gets a 3/4 seed, that's all fine and dandy. When the PAC 12 Champ gets a 7 seed and the 5th place team in the Big Ten gets a 2 seed, we got a problem.

The pac 12 champ 2 years ago was an 8 seed, while the ACC 5th place team was a 4 seed. The 3rd place ACC team was a 1 seed. The imbalance was there in 2019 and the Pac 12 didn't perform that year like it did this year(outside of Oregon) in 2019). Utah went 11-7 in the P12 and didn't even make the NIT, Va Tech was 12-6 in the ACC and got a 4 seed. It was similar this year, not as big of a scale, but the only difference is the P12 is winning in the tournament unlike past years. The P12 just needs to start performing better OOC and it will get seed bumps. I don't think in any way a team like Oregon with their profile this year deserved a 4 seed. Fortunately for them they are still alive and playing well.

 

[SU Nittany Tide]

The pac 12 champ 2 years ago was an 8 seed, while the ACC 5th place team was a 4 seed. The 3rd place ACC team was a 1 seed. The imbalance was there in 2019 and the Pac 12 didn't perform that year like it did this year(outside of Oregon) in 2019). Utah went 11-7 in the P12 and didn't even make the NIT, Va Tech was 12-6 in the ACC and got a 4 seed. It was similar this year, not as big of a scale, but the only difference is the P12 is winning in the tournament unlike past years. The P12 just needs to start performing better OOC and it will get seed bumps. I don't think in any way a team like Oregon with their profile this year deserved a 4 seed. Fortunately for them they are still alive and playing well.

I've always thought they over seed the ACC but I don't think it's on purpose.