Opening Day Thread

duckboy33 said:
I agree but after watching the last NCAAT, I think we have to have a conversation about whether we're placing too much value on that. Despite really good NET ratings, the Big Ten teams did really poorly in the NCAAT. Likewise, the PAC 12 did very well despite the bottom tier PAC 12 teams performing poorly.

I do think last year was a bit off due to the lack of OOC games. I think with there being a normal amount of OOC games, the seeding won't be so off base.
Click to expand...

That won't come in to play if the top tier teams in the conference win the games against the teams that performed poorly OOC. For example, Oregon lost twice to Oregon State. Obviously Oregon State made the E8, but when evaluating Oregon's resume, that's an Oregon State team that lost to Wyoming and Portland OOC. Colorado lost to both Cal and UW last year.

I don't really think the seeding was that far off base. It was probably justified IMO. Props to the P12 for performing awesome in the tourney.

I will say, if the OOC were more spread out through out the year, that might help. The B1G was a very experienced league last year, it made sense they performed well OOC especially given the pandemic. I do think there might be some plateauing that happens, but that's never just going to be reflected in seeding/selection.
 
Hitman Hart said:
One thing when I learned in 2016 is that margin of victory in these games can be an indicator of how good a team is. In 2016, Wake beat Indiana, LSU and UCLA in OOC and were competitive with Xavier. However, they also struggled to put away teams like UNCG, Coastal Carolina and UMBC. Wake ended up going 2-16 in ACC play that year.

If I'm the ACC, i'm awfully concerned about UVa, GT and Pitt losing to god awful opponents. However, I would also be concerned by Louisville only winning by 12, Clemson winning by 11 and Miami winning by 10. These are teams you need to ass blast by 20+ points.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. Those teams should be winning by 20+ against the types of teams they were playing. I mean Southern is just atrocious.
 
ericd7633 said:
That won't come in to play if the top tier teams in the conference win the games against the teams that performed poorly OOC. For example, Oregon lost twice to Oregon State. Obviously Oregon State made the E8, but when evaluating Oregon's resume, that's an Oregon State team that lost to Wyoming and Portland OOC. Colorado lost to both Cal and UW last year.

I don't really think the seeding was that far off base. It was probably justified IMO. Props to the P12 for performing awesome in the tourney.

I will say, if the OOC were more spread out through out the year, that might help. The B1G was a very experienced league last year, it made sense they performed well OOC especially given the pandemic. I do think there might be some plateauing that happens, but that's never just going to be reflected in seeding/selection.
Click to expand...

I think this is where we see things differently. I understand the committee's logic and how they came to that conclusion. I just think you have to question the methodology. A team went 12-8 in Big Ten play and got a 2 seed, all while the PAC 12 Champs got a 7 seed. At some point, you have to start valuing wins over quality losses, especially when we're talking about P6 leagues. Otherwise we start having conversations about whether a .500 Penn State team should make the NCAAT over UCLA. That was absolutely bonkers.

As you mentioned, OOC often favors more experienced teams since they happen early in the year. That's why we're have a human element so people can watch the games and determine who's playing at a high level. Otherwise, get rid of the committee and just go based on NET ranking.

Anyways, it's not a big deal. As long as the right teams make the NCAAT, seeding isn't that important. Oregon's made it to the S16 twice in the last 10 years as a double digit seed. UCLA made the Final Four as a double digit seed. As long as you're in the field, you got a chance.
 
duckboy33 said:
I think this is where we see things differently. I understand the committee's logic and how they came to that conclusion. I just think you have to question the methodology. A team went 12-8 in Big Ten play and got a 2 seed, all while the PAC 12 Champs got a 7 seed. At some point, you have to start valuing wins over quality losses, especially when we're talking about P6 leagues. Otherwise we start having conversations about whether a .500 Penn State team should make the NCAAT over UCLA. That was absolutely bonkers.

As you mentioned, OOC often favors more experienced teams since they happen early in the year. That's why we're have a human element so people can watch the games and determine who's playing at a high level. Otherwise, get rid of the committee and just go based on NET ranking.

Anyways, it's not a big deal. As long as the right teams make the NCAAT, seeding isn't that important. Oregon's made it to the S16 twice in the last 10 years as a double digit seed. UCLA made the Final Four as a double digit seed. As long as you're in the field, you got a chance.
Click to expand...

I do think last year will be an anomaly due to the lack of OOC games and the overall disparity in the amount of games played. So this year, we'll have a much clearer base to judge from.

As far as judging a team down the stretch, I do think that's difficult, because UCLA did lose 4 in a row heading into the tournament. But that's where the problem comes into it. Oregon played great down the stretch, winning 11/12 before the Oregon State game in the conf tournament, but only two of those wins were against at large caliber teams(CU and UCLA). Is that playing good down the stretch or just beating mediocre/bad teams?

I do wonder if "the grind" is really a thing. I remember when the Pac 12 had a great regular season in 2015/16, but performed poorly in the tourney. I try not to place to much stock in tournament performance because it's just one data point out of 30-33 other ones.
 
ericd7633 said:
I do think last year will be an anomaly due to the lack of OOC games and the overall disparity in the amount of games played. So this year, we'll have a much clearer base to judge from.

As far as judging a team down the stretch, I do think that's difficult, because UCLA did lose 4 in a row heading into the tournament. But that's where the problem comes into it. Oregon played great down the stretch, winning 11/12 before the Oregon State game in the conf tournament, but only two of those wins were against at large caliber teams(CU and UCLA). Is that playing good down the stretch or just beating mediocre/bad teams?

I do wonder if "the grind" is really a thing. I remember when the Pac 12 had a great regular season in 2015/16, but performed poorly in the tourney. I try not to place to much stock in tournament performance because it's just one data point out of 30-33 other ones.
Click to expand...

I think people see the large gap between the SEC and everyone else in football and expect that's going to be true in basketball for one or two of the conferences. It just isn't. The nature of the sports are vastly different. We're generally talking about very small margins when we're comparing the major conferences. I think the committee needs to do a better job keeping that in perspective when they're seeding teams.

Or just eliminate the committee and go by NET rankings. If the humans aren't going to take into account things that are subjective, just eliminate them from the process.
 
ITS AMOST GAME TIME BROTHERS

DEACS VS BILL AND MARY
 
Hitman Hart said:
ITS AMOST GAME TIME BROTHERS

DEACS VS BILL AND MARY
Click to expand...

I had a couple good friends from HS that went to William and Mary. You're going to the game, right?
 
Hitman Hart said:
yup

i have season tickets
Click to expand...

Nice! I want to get season tickets for college basketball again, even if it's for a team that I don't root for. I used to have them when I lived in Oregon, it was a blast. Have fun.
 
duckboy33 said:
Nice! I want to get season tickets for college basketball again, even if it's for a team that I don't root for. I used to have them when I lived in Oregon, it was a blast. Have fun.
Click to expand...
tbh, i have had season tickets for a few years, but i haven't really used them b/c Danny Manning's teams sucked. I only bought them for those years to increase my seniority within the Deacon Club.

and it helps that I moved back home to Winston in May
 
Hitman Hart said:
tbh, i have had season tickets for a few years, but i haven't really used them b/c Danny Manning's teams sucked. I only bought them for those years to increase my seniority within the Deacon Club.

and it helps that I moved back home to Winston in May
Click to expand...

I hear ya. Season tickets were so cheap at Oregon, I got them even when I missed 2/3s of the game. It was still cheaper to get season tickets than just buy tickets for the 4-5 of the bigger games.

It's awesome you're back in Winston Salem and you're able to make the games. Hopefully the Deacs can start improving.
 
duckboy33 said:
I hear ya. Season tickets were so cheap at Oregon, I got them even when I missed 2/3s of the game. It was still cheaper to get season tickets than just buy tickets for the 4-5 of the bigger games.

It's awesome you're back in Winston Salem and you're able to make the games. Hopefully the Deacs can start improving.
Click to expand...
i actually think the Deacs are going to be decent this year. They really hit the transfer portal hard and got some talented guys.
 
Wakes floor makes me want to puke
 
Deacs win by 18, got pretty sloppy in 2nd half

I left with 8 minutes when the lead was around 30
 
duckboy33 said:
I think people see the large gap between the SEC and everyone else in football and expect that's going to be true in basketball for one or two of the conferences. It just isn't. The nature of the sports are vastly different. We're generally talking about very small margins when we're comparing the major conferences. I think the committee needs to do a better job keeping that in perspective when they're seeding teams.

Or just eliminate the committee and go by NET rankings. If the humans aren't going to take into account things that are subjective, just eliminate them from the process.
Click to expand...

Last year was an aberration. With a body of work of 30+ games, it's pretty solid usually.

There are truly years where a power conference can be absolutely atrocious pretty much top to bottom. But I think the gap between the conferences is smaller this year.
 
Deacs vs Western Carolina Friday night @ 730

be there or be SQUARE

amen
 
Hitman Hart said:
I miss the deacon head at midcourt
Click to expand...
Floor design isn’t great but I think it’s mostly the cross patterns along with the shitty accnx camera quality, it was just hard to watch
 
jontaejones said:
Last year was an aberration. With a body of work of 30+ games, it's pretty solid usually.

There are truly years where a power conference can be absolutely atrocious pretty much top to bottom. But I think the gap between the conferences is smaller this year.
Click to expand...

This happens but it's rare and usually obvious. I don't think there's much of a gap (if any) this year, which is closer to the norm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top