Selection Sunday and the Zips

[kreed5120]

1 hour ago, skip-zip said:

 

There might be a good argument for the ACC to get more participants, but other power conferences took a beating.  But I still think that the biggest issue if you are a school like Akron, or any other non-power-conference program is certainly that only ONE team from our category got through two rounds. 

 

By other power conferences you just mean the Pac-12? All the other P5 teams + Big East conferences have winning records. Outside of the incredible ACC 12-1 mark, only one B1G team had a seed better than 5, which somehow lost, and they still managed to go 8-4

 

ACC (7 bids): 12-1

Big Ten (7): 8-4

Big 12 (7): 6-4

Pac-12 (7): 3-6

Big East (5): 5-4

SEC (3): 3-2

[skip-zip]

4 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

only one B1G team had a seed better than 5, which somehow lost, and they still managed to go 8-4

 

But they were the higher seed in almost every game they played, and still lost 3 of their teams the first DAY, and needed a squeaker to get Iowa through, or it would have been 4 teams out the first day.  Then that 4th team got obliterated in the next round. 

 

So, it all depends on how you want to look at it.  When you have a few teams that are playing well, your overall conference record in the tournament can oftentimes look pretty good as those teams advance, and the total wins far exceed the total losses (because the teams eliminated can only lose ONCE).  But a closer look tells you that over half of their participants failed pretty badly, and most of them were placed in favorable circumstances at the beginning of the tourney.   

Edited March 22, 2016 by skip-zip

[kreed5120]

1 hour ago, skip-zip said:

 

But they were the higher seed in almost every game they played, and still lost 3 of their teams the first DAY, and needed a squeaker to get Iowa through, or it would have been 4 teams out the first day.  Then that 4th team got obliterated in the next round. 

 

So, it all depends on how you want to look at it.  When you have a few teams that are playing well, your overall conference record in the tournament can oftentimes look pretty good as those teams advance, and the total wins far exceed the total losses (because the teams eliminated can only lose ONCE).  But a closer look tells you that over half of their participants failed pretty badly, and most of them were placed in favorable circumstances at the beginning of the tourney.   

 

7 games the Big 10 was the higher seed

4 games they were the lower seed

1 game they were the same seed

 

I suppose being the higher seed 58% of the time in your mind is being "the higher seed in almost every game". They've actually won more games than what they were the higher seed in.

 

The B1G could have just as easily advanced 5 teams to round 2 as your supposed 3 as it took a 13 point comeback with 3 minutes left for Ark-LR to force OT.

 

They had 3 teams as 5 seeds. Statistically 1 was bound to lose to a 12. UM was the underdog in their matchup and won a play-in game prior to playing. Iowa lost to #2 seed Villanova. MSU was really the lone disappointing team. In the 2nd round the B1G team was the underdog in all but 1 game and still picked up 3 wins.

 

In your mind where you feel the higher seed should win 100% of the games, the Big 10 would only have 1 team left. They have 3, including Wisconsin who knocked off a 2 seed and Indiana who throttled Kentucky. I'd say that is a success.

[zippy5]

You really want to call that a success? 

 

Their champ lost to MTSU in the first round. Purdue lost to Arkansas Little Rock. Iowa gets crushed by a legit contender in round 2. I suppose it's not the worst tournament ever for them but man, that's far from a success.

[UAZippers]

23 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

 

In your mind where you feel the higher seed should win 100% of the games, the Big 10 would only have 1 team left. They have 3, including Wisconsin who knocked off a 2 seed and Indiana who throttled Kentucky. I'd say that is a success.

That is really the only line that was needed to prove your point.

 

I don't understand this thread. The same people who are arguing for more mid-majors are at the same time saying that P5 schools should never lose to a lower seed. If you think that P5 teams are so much better that they should always win, then the tourney should be nothing but P5. If mid-majors deserve to be in, then the P5 schools have to lose. The Big 10 has had an above average tourney with the obvious, major exception of their best team being upset. Saying that Purdue losing to Little Rock (one of the top name mid-majors all year) is a bad loss implies that you think the team that finished 4th in their P5 conference is automatically better than nonP5 teams.

[K92]

So, let me get this straight. . .the Big 10 shouldn't get 7 teams in because they are unworthy and a mid-major like our beloved Zips should be in line for one of those spots (by whatever rationale).

 

Didn't that whole argument get blown to Hell when the Zips got beat by the 8th best team in that league?  I mean, damn. 

[kreed5120]

40 minutes ago, zippy5 said:

You really want to call that a success? 

 

Their champ lost to MTSU in the first round. Purdue lost to Arkansas Little Rock. Iowa gets crushed by a legit contender in round 2. I suppose it's not the worst tournament ever for them but man, that's far from a success.

 

They have had better years, but remember they did what they are doing despite another conference going 12-1 and despite only having 1 team with a top 4 seed (the teams the selection committee tries to protect).

Edited March 22, 2016 by kreed5120

[zippy5]

So basically, if you're not that good, and you do not so good, it's not that bad? 

[UAZippers]

21 minutes ago, zippy5 said:

So basically, if you're not that good, and you do not so good, it's not that bad? 

 

I guess that you have higher expectations for the Big 10 than I do. You say that they have not had a successful tournament, which implies that they should have done better. Looking at the Big 10 this year, I really didn't expect anything from them except for MSU, which I mentioned as their major upset. The rest of their teams I saw as average to sub-average tournament teams. With that in mind, I find their 8-4 record to be performing slightly above my expectations.

 

It is all a matter of perspective. I believed (even before their great tournament so far) that the ACC was the best conference this season. If they went 8-4 in the tournament I would have called it a disappointment. If the MAC ever goes 8-4 in the tournament, I will be jumping for joy.

Edited March 22, 2016 by UAZippers

[kreed5120]

12 minutes ago, zippy5 said:

So basically, if you're not that good, and you do not so good, it's not that bad? 

 

In what was a down regular season for the B1G they have shown they are still the 2nd best conference. I wish the MAC was not that good and did not so good come tournament time if that's what your definition is.

 

If anything they are victims of their own prior success. 

[kreed5120]

10 minutes ago, UAZippers said:

 

I guess that you have higher expectations for the Big 10 than I do. You said that they had a terrible tournament, which implies that they should have done better. Looking at the Big 10 this year, I really didn't expect anything from them except for MSU, which I mentioned as their major upset. The rest of their teams I saw as average to sub-average tournament teams. With that in mind, I find their 5-4 record to be performing slightly above my expectations.

 

It is all a matter of perspective. I believed (even before their great tournament so far) that the ACC was the best conference this season. If they went 5-4 in the tournament I would have called it a disappointment. If the MAC ever goes 5-4 in the tournament, I will be jumping for joy.

 

I think you are looking at the Big East who went 5-4. The B1G is 8-4 and evidently they should be 15-0 by what others think.

[UAZippers]

2 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

 

I think you are looking at the Big East who went 5-4. The B1G is 8-4 and evidently they should be 15-0 by what others think.

You are right. I somehow had 8-4 in my head and repeatedly typed 5-4.

[Blue & Gold]

Here is an interesting brief on how the MVC manipulated the RPI a while back & how the Mountain West Conference sort of did the same more recently.

 

http://d1scourse.typepad.com/blog/2013/01/2013-mountain-west-meet-the-2006-missouri-valley.html

[GJGood]

Once you are in the NCAA tournament conference affiliation is pretty much irrelevant, at that point it becomes a matter of matchups and styles of play.

 

I will generally root for the MAC representative in the tourney because the league needs more respect but I have never understood why fans of Power 5 conference teams root for the other members of their conference once they have already made the tournament. Your conference rivals winning only means that it could improve their recruiting and you probably frequently recruit against them. At the very least as they improve it becomes less likely that your own team defeats them in the future.

 

Its an odd thing. Mid-majors frequently need others in their conference to help open doors for them so I get rooting for your conference brethren but in the power leagues it seems logical that you would not want to root for your closest recruiting rivals. Look at OSU for example. How does rooting for Indiana help them? OSU isn't going to be judged next season by a run Indiana made in the tourney this year but it could help Indiana in recruiting against OSU. Had a school like Buffalo made a run this year, though, maybe it helps the MAC in terms of seeding or even at-large possibilities next year because the MAC may be seen as a more viable conference.

[skip-zip]

19 minutes ago, GJGood said:

Look at OSU for example. How does rooting for Indiana help them? OSU isn't going to be judged next season by a run Indiana made in the tourney this year but it could help Indiana in recruiting against OSU.

 

I agree that it only helps the individual team that's winning.  But in the case of OSWho fans, I think they have always falsely thought that it makes their team look stronger if the other conference teams are doing well.  I think it may have started in Football.  OSWho fans have developed this perennial hatred for the SEC over the way the SEC has dominated them, and dominated college football over the last decade or two.  For instance, I can probably guarantee that every one of them was devastated when Michigan State was pounded by Alabama in January, even though it had nothing to do with their school, and had no bearing on the status of their team at all.  In addition, I was in a crowded bar when Middle Tennessee was beating Michigan State last week.  You would think that you would get the usual crowd that would cheer for the major upset to happen, but that was not the case at all.  There was a ton of very quiet and disappointed Suckeye fans at the conclusion of that game. 

[kreed5120]

7 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

I agree that it only helps the individual team that's winning.  But in the case of OSWho fans, I think they have always falsely thought that it makes their team look stronger if the other conference teams are doing well.  I think it may have started in Football.  OSWho fans have developed this perennial hatred for the SEC over the way the SEC has dominated them, and dominated college football over the last decade or two.  For instance, I can probably guarantee that every one of them was devastated when Michigan State was pounded by Alabama in January, even though it had nothing to do with their school, and had no bearing on the status of their team at all.  In addition, I was in a crowded bar when Middle Tennessee was beating Michigan State last week.  You would think that you would get the usual crowd that would cheer for the major upset to happen, but that was not the case at all.  There was a ton of very quiet and disappointed Suckeye fans at the conclusion of that game. 

 

I'm not disputing the fact that B1G fans cheer for other B1G schools to do well other than UM. I feel that silence you were hearing though was people going oh crap there goes by bracket. They were projected to go deep in virtually every bracket and on ESPN they were the 2nd most popular pick to win the tourney. I know that's what caused my silence.

[zippy5]

55 minutes ago, GJGood said:

Once you are in the NCAA tournament conference affiliation is pretty much irrelevant, at that point it becomes a matter of matchups and styles of play.

 

I will generally root for the MAC representative in the tourney because the league needs more respect but I have never understood why fans of Power 5 conference teams root for the other members of their conference once they have already made the tournament. Your conference rivals winning only means that it could improve their recruiting and you probably frequently recruit against them. At the very least as they improve it becomes less likely that your own team defeats them in the future.

 

Its an odd thing. Mid-majors frequently need others in their conference to help open doors for them so I get rooting for your conference brethren but in the power leagues it seems logical that you would not want to root for your closest recruiting rivals. Look at OSU for example. How does rooting for Indiana help them? OSU isn't going to be judged next season by a run Indiana made in the tourney this year but it could help Indiana in recruiting against OSU. Had a school like Buffalo made a run this year, though, maybe it helps the MAC in terms of seeding or even at-large possibilities next year because the MAC may be seen as a more viable conference.

It's mostly a B1G thing. I don't really think I see many other fans do that in other conferences. B1G fans have this inferiority complex, or a lot of them do, and it makes them feel better when their conference proves the haters wrong. Or something like that.

[kreed5120]

3 minutes ago, zippy5 said:

It's mostly a B1G thing. I don't really think I see many other fans do that in other conferences. B1G fans have this inferiority complex, or a lot of them do, and it makes them feel better when their conference proves the haters wrong. Or something like that.

I feel this cheering for all the teams in your conference started in SEC football as fans would flaunt how great their conference is. It trickled to the other conferences as B1G and PAC-12 fans just wanted to shut them up. Go to any PAC-12 message board and you'll see posts about how they are disrespected because they aren't on the east coast.

[tpsjugglerdude]

Indiana players watching MSU lose

[skip-zip]

13 minutes ago, tpsjugglerdude said:

Indiana players watching MSU lose

 

Pretty funny.  Maybe Indiana people don't share the same complex that OSWho fans have?  Don't feel that they need the others in the conference to do well to feel better about themselves?  Who knows.