SEC = garbage conference

[kirbivore]

P6 on the round of 64:

PAC12 4-0
ACC 4-0
BE 3-0
B1G 4-2
Big XII 5-3
SEC 3-5

So Wazzu and the beavers get all those credits right?

 

[kirbivore]

Also ironic how awful Auburn and UVA have been in the tournament other than the one year they met in the final.

National Semi Final. UVA beat Texas Tech in the title game.

 

[Fly Rodder]

Nothing like making a pronouncement on a season of work because of results in a single elimination tournament on neutral courts.

 

[Niastri]

The implication is that the selection process is seriously flawed when certain conferences get huge numbers of bids, in very high seeds, but very small numbers of teams make it to the Sweet Sixteen.

Similarly, when a conference only gets 5 bids, work very low seeds, but 4 of those teams win through to the Sweet Sixteen...

The ACC is clearly either:

Outperforming

Or

Underrated

I tend to think the latter, especially in view of the catastrophe some of the higher rated conferences have thrown out there this tournament.

 

[MSOrange]

Nothing like making a pronouncement on a season of work because of results in a single elimination tournament on neutral courts.

It's the March Madness tradition to ignore all the data that doesn't make the point we want to make.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Nothing like making a pronouncement on a season of work because of results in a single elimination tournament on neutral courts.

There are trends though. And year over year certain conferences over and others under perform .

 

[MSOrange]

And remember the SEC teams can still do well in TBT! After all, that's where the real bragging rights are earned

 

[Fly Rodder]

There are trends though. And year over year certain conferences over and others under perform .

Everyone was bitching about Alabama being so high in the NET. Now they're in the S16. Does that make them good despite a mediocre record?

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Everyone was bitching about Alabama being so high in the NET. Now they're in the S16. Does that make them good despite a mediocre record?

This seems to be a complete non sequitur with regards to what I posted . My post refers to a general trend year over year involving entire conferences and your statement refers to 1 team in one tournament. I think someone discussing alien abductions or cattle mutilation would involve a more pertinent response to what I wrote .

 

[netman99]

What’s there record ??? Need to stick to football!!!!! What a joke!!

ACC network just showed a stat that ACC is 12 - 3 against Big 12 this season.. That seems crazy but that is what they said

 

[Fly Rodder]

This seems to be a complete non sequitur with regards to what I posted . My post refers to a general trend year over year involving entire conferences and your statement refers to 1 team in one tournament. I think someone discussing alien abductions or cattle mutilation would involve a more pertinent response to what I wrote .

Of course. just like your "trend" that someone can extrapolate an entire con conference overall ability to win basketball games based on the results of single game elimination tournaments on neutral courts.

 

[Niastri]

Of course. just like your "trend" that someone can extrapolate an entire con conference overall ability to win basketball games based on the results of single game elimination tournaments on neutral courts.

Yes, 10 or 15 games is a pretty small sample. But the SEC and Big 12 lost most of those games, including a bunch where they were the "favorite" to win, while the ACC won them...

You can't say results are irrelevant, especially when they are the most important games of the year.

Additionally, you could argue a whole 30 game season is a small sample. There's a reason the NBA plays 82.

Do we ignore all the results and just decide things are how we say they are?

In years where the ACC sucks in the tournament, nobody here is saying it doesn't matter. We gnash our teeth and say "Wait till next year!"

 

[Cusefan0307]

I don't understand how Bama is a 4 seed and Clemson is a 6 when Clemson beat Bama head to head. Bama had one win of note all year in Auburn. Clemson beat UNC. They both beat South Carolina. They have the same number of losses. It would appear to me Bama was overseeded based on SEC reputation.

 

[jncuse]

ACC network just showed a stat that ACC is 12 - 3 against Big 12 this season.. That seems crazy but that is what they said

It was 9-3 during the regular season, so I assume that updated figure with post-season is correct. It's a great stat, but pre-tourney OOC play, that helps structure the form of the bracket, goes beyond those 12 games.

ACC network probably didn't mention the following.

1) The Big 12 went 28-16 (64%) against the other 4 power conferences in regular season
The ACC went 22-29 (43%)against the other 4 power conferences in regular season.

2) So B12 won 31-25 (55%) overall and 31-32 (49%) overall.

3) in Q3 games (generally most games are out of P6) Big 12 went 25-1, and the ACC went 26-8. That's 8 questionable losses vs mostly non P6 schools vs 1.

Those things create an overall gap of some substance between the conferences. You can't seed one higher than the other because of 12 games against much bigger data.

The gap was exaggerated in NET I believe by how the B12 dominated Q4 games better than others.

 

[orangenauburn]

Yes, 10 or 15 games is a pretty small sample. But the SEC and Big 12 lost most of those games, including a bunch where they were the "favorite" to win, while the ACC won them...

You can't say results are irrelevant, especially when they are the most important games of the year.

Additionally, you could argue a whole 30 game season is a small sample. There's a reason the NBA plays 82.

Do we ignore all the results and just decide things are how we say they are?

In years where the ACC sucks in the tournament, nobody here is saying it doesn't matter. We gnash our teeth and say "Wait till next year!"

Plus outside Clemson choking their lead, the ACC teams won convincingly

 

[MSOrange]

Yes, 10 or 15 games is a pretty small sample. But the SEC and Big 12 lost most of those games, including a bunch where they were the "favorite" to win, while the ACC won them...

You can't say results are irrelevant, especially when they are the most important games of the year.

Additionally, you could argue a whole 30 game season is a small sample. There's a reason the NBA plays 82.

Do we ignore all the results and just decide things are how we say they are?

In years where the ACC sucks in the tournament, nobody here is saying it doesn't matter. We gnash our teeth and say "Wait till next year!"

No then people would brag about the regular season. People just use whatever stats they can to make the point they want to make imho.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Of course. just like your "trend" that someone can extrapolate an entire con conference overall ability to win basketball games based on the results of single game elimination tournaments on neutral courts.

Single games statistical significance add up when you have hundreds of these single games. Not sure what you are on about other than to claim no useful information can be gathered from tournament performance at all. It’s all random noise.