At least Jay Bilas gave us some props

[HoustonCuse]

I think first of all, these guys filling out their brackets in real time as they are being revealed is the height of idiocy. Secondly, this is the day or two where everyone, including the "experts" who watch this tournament every year, start talking about the UNC/Duke championship game and all the 1 seeds getting to the FF. Although they watch the tourney every year, it's like they have never seen it before. So in that light, the 8/9 game is the least interesting game out there, because nobody can bring themselves to see the 1 seed losing before the regional final at this point in time. Yet almost every single year, exactly that happens in at least one region.

All this to say I am not surprised or upset that we were deprived of whatever dime-vending-machine quality "analysis" any of these turds would have offered.

 

[HakAttack]

You’re surprised Seth ignored us? He learned his lesson years ago. And he hates us for it.

Insert goofy photo here

Sure.

 

[sufandu]

I think first of all, these guys filling out their brackets in real time as they are being revealed is the height of idiocy. Secondly, this is the day or two where everyone, including the "experts" who watch this tournament every year, start talking about the UNC/Duke championship game and all the 1 seeds getting to the FF. Although they watch the tourney every year, it's like they have never seen it before. So in that light, the 8/9 game is the least interesting game out there, because nobody can bring themselves to see the 1 seed losing before the regional final at this point in time. Yet almost every single year, exactly that happens in at least one region.

All this to say I am not surprised or upset that we were deprived of whatever dime-vending-machine quality "analysis" any of these turds would have offered.

I saw a stat that said 70% of the time at least 3 of the teams that make the final four are seeded 3 or better, so it makes sense to spend most of the time talking about the high seeds.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I saw a stat that said 70% of the time at least 3 of the teams that make the final four are seeded 3 or better, so it makes sense to spend most of the time talking about the high seeds.

That's not going to win you any brackets.
Typical final four of the last 20 years is 2 #1s, a 3 or 4, and one seed above 4.
The average total seeding points of the four participants has been 11.
75% of the time, the winner has been the overall #1 seed over the last 25 years.
Pick one 12 v 5, pick a 10 or 11 upset. Two double digit seeds will make the Sweet 16, but usually die there.
Pick a couple 6s or 7s in the second or third round for some randomness, but don't overdo it.

 

[teamco]

I'll guarantee this, IF we beat Gonzaga, and I don't even take beating Baylor for granted, but if we do get by them and then beat Gonzaga- by dint of the Zags not being able to handle our zone and/or we have one of those games where we are bombing it from threesville- Syracuse will be getting respect from a lot more than Jay Bilas. An eight seed bumping a one seed will be good for a lotta chatter. Let's get this party started!

 

[cuseattle]

That's not going to win you any brackets.
Typical final four of the last 20 years is 2 #1s, a 3 or 4, and one seed above 4.
The average total seeding points of the four participants has been 11.
75% of the time, the winner has been the overall #1 seed over the last 25 years.
Pick one 12 v 5, pick a 10 or 11 upset. Two double digit seeds will make the Sweet 16, but usually die there.
Pick a couple 6s or 7s in the second or third round for some randomness, but don't overdo it.

I won about 15 years ago picking all the ones. That was an outlier.

 

[44cuse]

Seth has been saying for weeks now that we’ll be a tough out in the tourney because of the zone. He’s said that in previous years. He’s not anti Syracuse. I just don’t think he believes we can get by Gonzaga if we advance. That’s okay. I don’t either, but we can hope.

Too much reality in your post. That doesn’t fit the “everyone hates SU” narrative.

44cuse

 

[44cuse]

From what I saw, they had some good size. I think they’ve got two ’s with decent size who handle the majority of the scoring and solid G play.

Obviously they’re a 1 for a reason, but they haven’t really played anybody since December.

It’ll be interesting to see if that schedule hurts them this year.

I’d love to see how we matchup if we get by Baylor. If we do, I’d look at our matchup as the highest % for a 1 to go down this weekend.

Got it, thanks.

44cuse

 

[44cuse]

I've watched several Gonzaga games. Size wise they are much like SU most of the time. They play 3 and 2 tall G's (6'11" guy plays 10 mpg). Other than that completely different in that they play uptempo and shoot 10% higher. I'm not sure SU would shoot 53% in warm ups. But I'll take that matchup. The zone will trouble them and I like this SU team when we play uptempo like the 1st Duke game. We won't be out sized or out physicalled.

Cool, thanks.

44cuse

 

[44cuse]

No

Well, let’s hope cuseincincy who has seen them is right!!

44cuse

 

[sufandu]

That's not going to win you any brackets.
Typical final four of the last 20 years is 2 #1s, a 3 or 4, and one seed above 4.
The average total seeding points of the four participants has been 11.
75% of the time, the winner has been the overall #1 seed over the last 25 years.
Pick one 12 v 5, pick a 10 or 11 upset. Two double digit seeds will make the Sweet 16, but usually die there.
Pick a couple 6s or 7s in the second or third round for some randomness, but don't overdo it.

Sure. So, if you're a tv analyst, you spend the most time talking about the top seeds and then the rest of the time you talk about a few lower seeds that will break up the party. I never said ignore the lower seeds, just that the numbers justify spending most of the time talking about the higher seeds.

The trick to being the best at picking brackets will always be getting lucky with picking which high seeds make it all the way. You pick the wrong one or two and you lose a million points. Most of the time, even if you pick a few early round upsets, they get beat in the second round, so if you miss on those, it doesn't hurt nearly as much as missing on which high seeds make a run. Having said all that, I suck at picking these things. I should probably have my wife pick it for me based on colors or mascots.

 

[kuethstheman]

Phonso talking about Frank coming on and how that's going to be big for us in the tournament.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Sure. So, if you're a tv analyst, you spend the most time talking about the top seeds and then the rest of the time you talk about a few lower seeds that will break up the party. I never said ignore the lower seeds, just that the numbers justify spending most of the time talking about the higher seeds.

The trick to being the best at picking brackets will always be getting lucky with picking which high seeds make it all the way. You pick the wrong one or two and you lose a million points. Most of the time, even if you pick a few early round upsets. They get beat in the second round, so if you miss on those, it doesn't hurt nearly as much as missing on which high seeds make a run. Having said all that, I suck at picking these things. I should probably have my wife pick it for me based on colors or mascots.

This is absolutely right. There are a lot of people bragging on the opening Thursday or Friday of every tournament talking about how they got one perfect region, and maybe only missed 2 or 3 on the whole day. But it's getting the second weekend picks right that separates the contenders from the also-rans.

 

[sufandu]

That's not going to win you any brackets.
Typical final four of the last 20 years is 2 #1s, a 3 or 4, and one seed above 4.
The average total seeding points of the four participants has been 11.
75% of the time, the winner has been the overall #1 seed over the last 25 years.
Pick one 12 v 5, pick a 10 or 11 upset. Two double digit seeds will make the Sweet 16, but usually die there.
Pick a couple 6s or 7s in the second or third round for some randomness, but don't overdo it.

I was just looking at that bolded part again. Given what you said about the seeding of the first three final four participants, that would, on average, make the fourth a 5 or 6 seed. So, on average, every final four participant is amongst the top 24 teams.

 

[NorSyr66]

Forget all the talk about Gonzaga. Let's take care of Baylor first. Only look at the game in front of us! That is all we can focus on.

 

[JLine]

We are not a very good uptempo team...our guards besides Carey can't push it up

Run if it’s there, but I don’t expect us to run a lot but we need to iniate offense early and move the ball. Can’t stand and get back into pounding the rock for 20 seconds before initiating what can barely be called an offense. Hopefully we turned the corner there. Frank even looks more confident with the ball. He actually drove to the basketball for what seemed like the first time all year. Battle can’t come back and get back into playing hero ball.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I was just looking at that bolded part again. Given what you said about the seeding of the first three final four participants, that would, on average, make the fourth a 5 or 6 seed. So, on average, every final four participant is amongst the top 24 teams.

I'm not going to go nuts and look up a bunch of stuff, but I remember us in 2003 being a 3 or a 4 seed, Kansas being a number 1, Texas may have been a number 1 or at worst a 2, and Marquette was like a 5 or a 6.

It's usually something like that - a couple expected / not surprising seeds; one team that was very good, but pulled an upset in the regional final against a slightly higher seed, and then the one outlier who has a great athlete leading them.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Run if it’s there, but I don’t expect us to run a lot but we need to iniate offense early and move the ball. Can’t stand and get back into pounding the rock for 20 seconds before initiating what can barely be called an offense. Hopefully we turned the corner there. Frank even looks more confident with the ball. He actually drove to the basketball for what seemed like the first time all year. Battle can’t come back and get back into playing hero ball.

This is it, right here. If we can move the ball on offense, close out on shooters, not get too many dumb fouls and try to get into the lane and not just hoist threes late in the clock, we can beat damn near anyone. That's not saying we're going to win 4 or 5 in a row, but in one game, if we play well we can beat just about anyone.

 

[IthacaMatt]

We are not a very good uptempo team...our guards besides Carey can't push it up

Tyus can certainly score in the open floor.
We do need to try to run off of turnovers.

 

[HoustonCuse]

I was just looking at that bolded part again. Given what you said about the seeding of the first three final four participants, that would, on average, make the fourth a 5 or 6 seed. So, on average, every final four participant is amongst the top 24 teams.

But one could rightfully point out that we don't need the world's best experts to tell us that. If they had anything to offer, it would be in talking about those teams in that 4-7 seed range who really have some interesting chances to make noise. I don't need an expert to tell me that "on average" the 1 seeds should make it to the final four. All that said - I reiterate that it is the reason they don't spend a lot of time on the 8/9 teams because they are the least sexy of all the seed lines with respect to the types of teams that wind up there and their likely fate.

 

[Day2]

I'm not going to go nuts and look up a bunch of stuff, but I remember us in 2003 being a 3 or a 4 seed, Kansas being a number 1, Texas may have been a number 1 or at worst a 2, and Marquette was like a 5 or a 6.

It's usually something like that - a couple expected / not surprising seeds; one team that was very good, but pulled an upset in the regional final against a slightly higher seed, and then the one outlier who has a great athlete leading them.

Kansas was a 2, we were a 3, Texas was a 1, and Marquette was a 4.

 

[Day2]

Kansas was a 2, we were a 3, Texas was a 1, and Marquette was a 4.

Just looked it up. Marquette was also a 3.

 

[Arangeman]

Love that they’re uptempo. Let’s speed the game up and get easy buckets. We probably stay off the offensive glass to get back on D. Get our tempo up, and slow theirs down.

We would slow a game vs. Gonzaga to a crawl

 

[BuffOrange]

Sure. So, if you're a tv analyst, you spend the most time talking about the top seeds and then the rest of the time you talk about a few lower seeds that will break up the party. I never said ignore the lower seeds, just that the numbers justify spending most of the time talking about the higher seeds.

The trick to being the best at picking brackets will always be getting lucky with picking which high seeds make it all the way. You pick the wrong one or two and you lose a million points. Most of the time, even if you pick a few early round upsets, they get beat in the second round, so if you miss on those, it doesn't hurt nearly as much as missing on which high seeds make a run. Having said all that, I suck at picking these things. I should probably have my wife pick it for me based on colors or mascots.

Yup. You can try the one random 7 seed to make a run so you don't have all chalk but good luck picking the right one.
Backing the undervalued kenpom darling doesn't even work. A) they seem to always get horrible draws. And B) you still have to get lucky. Tennessee was that team as a 6 or 7 a few years ago; they made the 2nd wknd and lost when the same Michigan doofus who flopped vs Triche the year before did it again and of course was rewarded again.. So annoying.

 

[shu 49]

We would slow a game vs. Gonzaga to a crawl

We should