March Madnes 2021 NCAA Tournament

[duckboy33]

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.

Even in 2019 the PAC didn't perform that poorly. UW got unlucky as they had to play a 1 seed in the 2nd round. Oregon, as a 12 seed, blew out a team that went 14-6 in the Big Ten and went to the S16 before losing by 4 against the eventual champions. There's plenty of talent in the PAC 12, especially this year. To give the PAC 12 Champions a 7 seed was a joke. Fortunately for Oregon, they were able to prove it on the court.

 

[Mr.Hockey]

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.

You're still weighting all this on too much hindsight.

I think pretty much all of us can agree that for those of us who heavily follow the sport, our eyes and knowledge of the game tells us that Oregon is much, much more talented than a 7 seed.

But you can't seed off that. If everything became subjective all it would take is a couple dumbasses to make the bracket just as shitty but the other way around.

It's all about the resume. Which takes into consideration everything. NET, Who you beat, who you played, who your opponents played. UCLA had a horrendous resume, like not good...at all. They were fortunate to get the play in opportunity. Doesn't mean they sucked this year but you gotta put most of the weight into the metrics.

This year was always going to be a little more flawed because 1. Rona killing schedules and 2. It's truly a weak year outside of a couple elite teams(who are not even standard blue bloods).

I personally was never a full believer in the Big 10 hype(didnt think it would go this poorly) because the top teams didnt fair too great in their big out of conference match ups. But as Eric stated, the bottom teams did and the league as a whole played a lot of games. So that made the depth super strong for computer numbers.

All these Pac teams that youre griping about were seeding correctly in relation to every single bracket I saw released. No one had oregon as a 4 or 5 seed. They simply didnt have the resume.

This is what makes the tournament so unpredictable every year and why people love it. For most teams their draw is a complete crapshoot. Sometimes you get a dream personnel match up other times a terrible one. Sometimes you get a team way underseeded based of their talent, soemtimes its overseeded. It's always gonna be like this. Sometimes 1 conference is gonna dominate, other conferences face plant.

 

[duckboy33]

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

It's not on purpose. They are just putting too much of an emphasis on conference strength when the differences between the major conferences this year was minimal.

 

[ericd7633]

Even in 2019 the PAC didn't perform that poorly. UW got unlucky as they had to play a 1 seed in the 2nd round. Oregon, as a 12 seed, blew out a team that went 14-6 in the Big Ten and went to the S16 before losing by 4 against the eventual champions. There's plenty of talent in the PAC 12, especially this year. To give the PAC 12 Champions a 7 seed was a joke. Fortunately for Oregon, they were able to prove it on the court.

Yeah, I know there is talent in the P12, I never disputed that. Talent doesn't automatically translate to resume though. Yeah Oregon performed well in 2019. They perform well in every tournament basically since Altman has been there. Like I said I would have been fine with Oregon getting a 6 seed, but anything higher than that, would have been too high IMO. The last image we had of them was losing by double digits to a team ranked outside the top 100(who cracked the top 100 by Selection Sunday). But that's not a great image to leave with the committee.

 

[duckboy33]

You're still weighting all this on too much hindsight.

I think pretty much all of us can agree that for those of us who heavily follow the sport, our eyes and knowledge of the game tells us that Oregon is much, much more talented than a 7 seed.

But you can't seed off that. If everything became subjective all it would take is a couple dumbasses to make the bracket just as shitty but the other way around.

It's all about the resume. Which takes into consideration everything. NET, Who you beat, who you played, who your opponents played. UCLA had a horrendous resume, like not good...at all. They were fortunate to get the play in opportunity. Doesn't mean they sucked this year but you gotta put most of the weight into the metrics.

This year was always going to be a little more flawed because 1. Rona killing schedules and 2. It's truly a weak year outside of a couple elite teams(who are not even standard blue bloods).

I personally was never a full believer in the Big 10 hype(didnt think it would go this poorly) because the top teams didnt fair too great in their big out of conference match ups. But as Eric stated, the bottom teams did and the league as a whole played a lot of games. So that made the depth super strong for computer numbers.

All these Pac teams that youre griping about were seeding correctly in relation to every single bracket I saw released. No one had oregon as a 4 or 5 seed. They simply didnt have the resume.

This is what makes the tournament so unpredictable every year and why people love it. For most teams their draw is a complete crapshoot. Sometimes you get a dream personnel match up other times a terrible one. Sometimes you get a team way underseeded based of their talent, soemtimes its overseeded. It's always gonna be like this. Sometimes 1 conference is gonna dominate, other conferences face plant.

Sure it's based on hindsight but that's how you correct mistakes in the future. I think you identified the problem the committee had. The top teams in the Big Ten were given really high seeds based on some OOC wins from the bottom of the league. It's clear that playing Minnesota, Northwestern, and Nebraska didn't make Ohio State an elite team.

I'm fine with giving the Big Ten credit for their OOC wins in November. That should have been reflected in the seeding. Just not to the extent that we saw. A 12-8 Big Ten that finished 5th is a top 8 team in America? GMAFB

 

[duckboy33]

Yeah, I know there is talent in the P12, I never disputed that. Talent doesn't automatically translate to resume though. Yeah Oregon performed well in 2019. They perform well in every tournament basically since Altman has been there. Like I said I would have been fine with Oregon getting a 6 seed, but anything higher than that, would have been too high IMO. The last image we had of them was losing by double digits to a team ranked outside the top 100(who cracked the top 100 by Selection Sunday). But that's not a great image to leave with the committee.

To put in perspective. Texas Tech went 9-9 in Big 12 play if you include the tournament. Oregon went 15-5 if you include the tournament. Texas Tech got a 6 and Oregon got a 7. The Big 12 wasn't that much better than the PAC 12. I don't buy it and after last night, I know USC doesn't either.

 

[Mr.Hockey]

Sure it's based on hindsight but that's how you correct mistakes in the future. I think you identified the problem the committee had. The top teams in the Big Ten were given really high seeds based on some OOC wins from the bottom of the league. It's clear that playing Minnesota, Northwestern, and Nebraska didn't make Ohio State an elite team.

I'm fine with giving the Big Ten credit for their OOC wins in November. That should have been reflected in the seeding. Just not to the extent that we saw. A 12-8 Big Ten that finished 5th is a top 8 team in America? GMAFB

Nope. They had a top 8 resume though.

Again, if you completely flip that and all of a sudden Ohio State gets a 5 seed instead. Now with the right match up, OSU is in the sweet 16 and some 4 seed is ticked off because a team with a strong resume somehow got a 5 seed. And the 1 seed is now playing a team that proved themselves as a 2 seed all year, 1 round earlier

And like we said, most of this comes down to the right match up. I'm not saying Oregon woulda lost to Illinois or will lose to Michigan(if the match up comes) but part of the reason why that Iowa game was so juicy is outside of no size for Garza, Oregon was a dreadful match up for a much less athletic Iowa team. Doesn't mean Iowa wasn't worthy of a 2 though.

If Oregon plays Illinois instead, a team that still has a gigantic big, but welcomes plays a game of athletes vs athletes. It all could look much differently.

That's why when my team is fortunate enough to make it into the tournament. I'm more focused on the draw and not what seed we get. Shit, in some cases I welcome the disrespect. Disrespect and give my team a 11 seed over a respectful 8 seed anyday.

 

[duckboy33]

Nope. They had a top 8 resume though.

Again, if you completely flip that and all of a sudden Ohio State gets a 5 seed instead. Now with the right match up, OSU is in the sweet 16 and some 4 seed is ticked off because a team with a strong resume somehow got a 5 seed. And the 1 seed is now playing a team that proved themselves as a 2 seed all year, 1 round earlier

And like we said, most of this comes down to the right match up. I'm not saying Oregon woulda lost to Illinois or will lose to Michigan(if the match up comes) but part of the reason why that Iowa game was so juicy is outside of no size for Garza, Oregon was a dreadful match up for a much less athletic Iowa team. Doesn't mean Iowa wasn't worthy of a 2 though.

If Oregon plays Illinois instead, a team that still has a gigantic big, but welcomes plays a game of athletes vs athletes. It all could look much differently.

That's why when my team is fortunate enough to make it into the tournament. I'm more focused on the draw and not what seed we get. Shit, in some cases I welcome the disrespect. Disrespect and give my team a 11 seed over a respectful 8 seed anyday.

Being an 11/12 is much better than being an 8. 8 seed is brutal.

 

[stakesarehigh]

To be fair in most seasons OSU isnt a 2 seed. There was a total lack of quality once you got past 4 teams basically. You cant just look at record though...sure osu had 8 in season losses...2 were bad, 1 was msu on the road and the other 5 were 1, 2 or 4 seeds in the tourney.

Even when they lost to minny and nw those werent bad losses.

But they had 16 quad 1 games and oregon had 5. Thats a massive difference. Thus the net ranking.

 

[Mr.Hockey]

Being an 11/12 is much better than being an 8. 8 seed is brutal.

Yup.

And its why I love the tournament so much.

It's like I said in the thread yesterday. Even though we all wanna win as many games as possible, unless your team is a blue blood its hard to get mad at what happens in such a toss up of a tournament.

Now obviously if you happen to be a fan of team/coach that consistently no matter what seed you get, they are bounced opening weekend. Then yeah that would be annoying.

But the gist of college basketball is always the same. Schedule some good teams, hopefully beat some of them, hope your conference plays well, get into the dance. Then see what happens.

Sometimes it sucks for certain teams and leagues, but games in November gotta mean just as much as those in February.

 

[duckboy33]

Yup.

And its why I love the tournament so much.

It's like I said in the thread yesterday. Even though we all wanna win as many games as possible, unless your team is a blue blood its hard to get mad at what happens in such a toss up of a tournament.

Now obviously if you happen to be a fan of team/coach that consistently no matter what seed you get, they are bounced opening weekend. Then yeah that would be annoying.

But the gist of college basketball is always the same. Schedule some good teams, hopefully beat some of them, hope your conference plays well, get into the dance. Then see what happens.

Sometimes it sucks for certain teams and leagues, but games in November gotta mean just as much as those in February.

The issue is often a handful of games in November matter more than the whole month of February

 

[Mr.Hockey]

To be fair in most seasons OSU isnt a 2 seed. There was a total lack of quality once you got past 4 teams basically. You cant just look at record though...sure osu had 8 in season losses...2 were bad, 1 was msu on the road and the other 5 were 1, 2 or 4 seeds in the tourney.

Even when they lost to minny and nw those werent bad losses.

But they had 16 quad 1 games and oregon had 5. Thats a massive difference. Thus the net ranking.

Exactly. Was OSU a top 8 team talent wise? Probably not, even in such a watered down year. But did they have the resume and were they battle tested? Yup

Everyones seed has to be based off November-March. Then you just hope you get a team that is free falling into their seed rather than getting hot at the right time and capable of playing well above it.

 

[Mr.Hockey]

The issue is often a handful of games in November matter more than the whole month of February

Well, they definitely shouldn't matter more. But they have to matter just as much. The reason they appear to matter more is because those ones in November can cast a wider net. For example if Oregon beats Wisconsin and Texas Tech. They beat two quality teams in really good conferences. So now if Wisconsin and Texas Tech perform well in their leagues, those wins look really good. But if Oregon beats Washington in conference but washington decided to play shitty west coast mid majors all november. There isnt as much room for that win to expand

Look at Marquette in 2019. They went into the tournament a trainwreck losing 6 of 7. But their resume? Was absolutely a 5 seed resume. Them and Nova ran away with the BE. They were like 23-9 heading into the tourney and they had non con wins against Wisconsin/Buffalo/Kstate/Louisvile. It was one of the best non con resumes out there. Murray State was licking their chops at that draw. But if the committee goes biased an only looks at February. We end up a 10 or 11 seed. And god forbid Howard goes off for 40 twice in a weekend. You got 2 and 3 seeds crying foul

 

[ericd7633]

To put in perspective. Texas Tech went 9-9 in Big 12 play if you include the tournament. Oregon went 15-5 if you include the tournament. Texas Tech got a 6 and Oregon got a 7. The Big 12 wasn't that much better than the PAC 12. I don't buy it and after last night, I know USC doesn't either.

I would have been fine if Oregon was the 6 and TT was the 7. But Oregon was only 2-3 against the field(not including Oregon State as an AQ) and TT was 5-10. Oregon had 3 combined Q2/Q3 losses TT had none. It's splitting hairs.

 

[duckboy33]

I would have been fine if Oregon was the 6 and TT was the 7. But Oregon was only 2-3 against the field(not including Oregon State as an AQ) and TT was 5-10. Oregon had 3 combined Q2/Q3 losses TT had none. It's splitting hairs.

That's fine. If you want to not count Oregon State but then you should count Arizona, who Oregon beat twice. They would have been in the field if not for a postseason ban.

 

[ericd7633]

That's fine. If you want to not count Oregon State but then you should count Arizona, who Oregon beat twice. They would have been in the field if not for a postseason ban.

They may have gotten in, but they were right there with UCLA. It could have gone either way IMO. They were 2-6 against the field(again not counting Oregon State).

 

[duckboy33]

They may have gotten in, but they were right there with UCLA. It could have gone either way IMO. They were 2-6 against the field(again not counting Oregon State).

I don't see a situation where the committee would have left Arizona out. They wouldn't have been higher than a 9 or 10 seed. Possibly a play in game. But I really doubt they would have been out.

 

[jontaejones]

Yup.

And its why I love the tournament so much.

It's like I said in the thread yesterday. Even though we all wanna win as many games as possible, unless your team is a blue blood its hard to get mad at what happens in such a toss up of a tournament.

Now obviously if you happen to be a fan of team/coach that consistently no matter what seed you get, they are bounced opening weekend. Then yeah that would be annoying.

But the gist of college basketball is always the same. Schedule some good teams, hopefully beat some of them, hope your conference plays well, get into the dance. Then see what happens.

Sometimes it sucks for certain teams and leagues, but games in November gotta mean just as much as those in February.

What's funny is on the UConn forum they've been yappin all year about how the B1G was overrated and how they couldn't wait to match up with Ohio State or Iowa.

And then they lose to Maryland. That's how the tourney rolls...

 

[ericd7633]

I don't see a situation where the committee would have left Arizona out. They wouldn't have been higher than a 9 or 10 seed. Possibly a play in game. But I really doubt they would have been out.

Their resume wasn't all that different than what UCLA's was. We obviously don't know what would have happened in the P12 tournament, but they got swept by UCLA during the season, so my guess is they are behind them in the pecking order to begin with. They may have knocked Drake out, but had they made it I don't see any scenario where they aren't in the play in game, outside of making the final of the P12 tournament.

 

[OregonDucks]

Is Kansas' time done at the top of the Big12?