Sweet 16 by conference

[Alsacs]

ACC: 5 Duke, Louisville, NC State, North Carolina, Notre Dame
Pac-12: 3 Arizona, Utah, UCLA
Big 12: 2 Oklahoma, West Virginia
Big Ten: 2 Michigan State, Wisconsin
Big East: 1 Xavier
Missouri Valley:1 Wichita State
SEC: 1 Kentucky
West Coast: 1 Gonzaga

The ACC tied the record for most Sweet 16 teams with the 2009 Big East

 

[Shark58]

TBE has 3, none named Xavier

 

[jordoo]

ACC: 11-1 (Lost seeds 2)(remaining seeds 1, 3, 4, 4, 8) 6 teams 12 games = Max
Pac-12: 7-1 (Lost seeds 8)(remaining seeds 2, 5, 11) 4 teams 8 games = Max
Big Ten: 7-5 (Lost seeds 4, 7, 9, 10, 10)(remaining seeds 1, 7) 7 teams 12 games = -2
Big 12: 5-5 (Lost Seeds 2, 3, 3, 9)(remaining seeds 3, 5) 6 teams 10 games = -2
Big East: 5-5 (Lost seeds 1, 4, 6, 6, 9) (remaining seeds 6) 6 teams 10 games = -2
SEC: 4-4 (Lost seeds 5, 9, 10, 11) (remaining seeds 1) 5 teams 8 games = -2

Looking at seeds lost/remaining its obvious that the B12 and the BE were over seeded.

As good as the ACC has done by seed they only have one team that over achieved and then one team that underachieved to counteract that. The Pac in contrast has only one loss and its a team that by seed played to that seed and then it has two teams that overachieved their seed.

The sweet16 is where the ACC can really separate itself as clearly the best conference: IF:
ND(3) holds serve against WichSt(7)
Duke(1) holds serve against Utah(5)
UNC(4) takes out Wisc(1)

Lville(3) takes on NcSt(8) The winner has a great chance to make the FF by taking on the winner of Ok(3)MSU(7)

At best the ACC can be 15-2 after the next round and have half the Elite 8 while already cannibalizing one of its own. That would be a great tourney for any conference with any seeds. There would also be no ACC vs ACC in the round of 8 so every game would have an ACC team and a chance to be an all ACC FF.

 

[orangecuse]

I love the fact that the ACC is having a strong showing, however, I'm one that doesn't equate that to being over/under seated, over ranked, etc. It makes for great banter amongst us fans, the media, etc., but a lot of times, once in the tourney, you have to be lucky...certainly fortunate.

NC State was outplayed by LSU for most of that game, LSU clearly choked by missing 6 straight free throws down the stretch...my point, anything can happen in the tourney...the better/best teams often don't 'survive and advance' (as we all know from some past heartaches, etc.) Baylor gave that game away to Georgia State by all the foolish to's...as they were up 12 late...UCLA is in the sweet sixteen...many thought it was unbelievable that they even got into the tourney...another case and point.

 

[jordoo]

I love the fact that the ACC is having a strong showing, however, I'm one that doesn't equate that to being over/under seated, over ranked, etc. It makes for great banter amongst us fans, the media, etc., but a lot of times, once in the tourney, you have to be lucky...certainly fortunate.

NC State was outplayed by LSU for most of that game, LSU clearly choked by missing 6 straight free throws down the stretch...my point, anything can happen in the tourney...the better/best teams often don't 'survive and advance' (as we all know from some past heartaches, etc.) UCLA is in the sweet sixteen...many thought it was unbelievable that they even got into the tourney...another case and point.

There is some truth to this but there is also some truth to simply being over seeded as a conference when:
Day 1: you lose to 3 seeds to 14 seeds
Day 2: you lose a 2 seed to a 7 seed

 

[orangecuse]

There is some truth to this but there is also some truth to simply being over seeded as a conference when:
Day 1: you lose to 3 seeds to 14 seeds
Day 2: you lose a 2 seed to a 7 seed

Absolutely, certainly an argument can be made. But again, Baylor threw that game away, they win that match up 9 out of 10. I really don't equate MSU beating UVA as an upset, let alone a major one at that. Just a very bad match up for UVA, as I had eluded to in an different thread. I also had Wichita State knocking off KU, I'm not sure what the point spread was, but I doubt it was more than 3-4 points in KU's favor. Kansas was probably over seeded (I think they always get the benefit of the doubt) whereas, WSU was under seeded. Louisville, I think, got a very favorable draw as a 4 to get to the Sweet 16...again, fortunate...

 

[longislandcuse]

I think the Tourney is a good indicator although very flawed. If you send a bunch of highly seeded teams to the tourney and they all flame out then it's more than just a fluke.

On the other hand, it's kind of sad, there's a reason why people say the regular season is meaningless. It's because it pretty much is. As long as you make the tournament and don't get put in a once in a decade team like Kentucky's way early on, you have as good of a shot as anyone to advance. No "Best of" series to weed out bad officiating or a flukey loss and no home court advantage (in regards to playing on your home floor).

CBB is really just a one month sport.

 

[jordoo]

Absolutely, certainly an argument can be made. But again, Baylor threw that game away, they win that match up 9 out of 10. I really don't equate MSU beating UVA as an upset, let alone a major one at that. Just a very bad match up for UVA, as I had eluded to in an different thread. I also had Wichita State knocking off KU, I'm not sure what the point spread was, but I doubt it was more than 3-4 points in KU's favor. Kansas was probably over seeded (I think they always get the benefit of the doubt) whereas, WSU was under seeded. Louisville, I think, got a very favorable draw as a 4 to get to the Sweet 16...again, fortunate...

I also agree that your argument is just as valid. Its much more complicated than such and such was over seeded because they lost especially on a team by team basis. My point is that its an easier case to make by conference since much of their rating/strength/seeding comes from playing each other. When you have 3 very highly seeded teams go down from your conference and your lower seeded teams bow out its not that hard of a correlation to make.

 

[Scotch]

I think the Tourney is a good indicator although very flawed. If you send a bunch of highly seeded teams to the tourney and they all flame out then it's more than just a fluke.

On the other hand, it's kind of sad, there's a reason why people say the regular season is meaningless. It's because it pretty much is. As long as you make the tournament and don't get put in a once in a decade team like Kentucky's way early on, you have as good of a shot as anyone to advance. No "Best of" series to weed out bad officiating or a flukey loss and no home court advantage (in regards to playing on your home floor).

CBB is really just a one month sport.

Yep, and fans and pundits put far too much emphasis on tourney results when defining coaches/programs. It needs to be a factor, but it also has to be acknowledged that this is an annual crapshoot and most games are decided by a few calls and a few bounces of the ball.

 

[Madbiker]

ACC: 11-1 (Lost seeds 2)(remaining seeds 1, 3, 4, 4, 8) 6 teams 12 games = Max
Pac-12: 7-1 (Lost seeds 8)(remaining seeds 2, 5, 11) 4 teams 8 games = Max

The Pac in contrast has only one loss and its a team that by seed played to that seed and then it has two teams that overachieved their seed.


The Pac 12 has to get an asterisk because UCLA really lost to SMU but was given a gift by the zebras.

 

[jordoo]

Then pretty much ever one possession game in the tourney needs an asterisk . . . . have you seen a well officiated game yet? I have not.

 

[pfister1]

Yep, and fans and pundits put far too much emphasis on tourney results when defining coaches/programs. It needs to be a factor, but it also has to be acknowledged that this is an annual crapshoot and most games are decided by a few calls and a few bounces of the ball.

And in the case of WVa's win over Maryland...probably a cautious medical staff.

 

[longislandcuse]

Then pretty much ever one possession game in the tourney needs an asterisk . . . . have you seen a well officiated game yet? I have not.

Who was it that had Mike Eades respond to a tweet? Since officiating has been universally hammered on every sports talk show this morning, I wonder if Mike Eades has any snarky comments for the 500 analysts who destroyed the officiating over the weekend?

 

[jncuse]

ACC won the weekend. With 5 top 4 seed's you are expected 3 to 4 teams to make the sweet 16, but 5 clearly exceeds expectations. A+

I really wonder if there was enough 3/4 quality seeds in this tourney. One can argue Wichita St and Northern Iowa did not get enough credit and could have been 3/4. You just could not put Michigan St on those lines -- they did not deserve it. Utah could have been another that could be moved uo.

As I mentioned before I don't think the tournament indicates that the Big 12 was not a 6 team league, or perhaps even the 7 it got. It just indicates the flaw that when you have many legit but not great teams, the resumes of a few those tounrey legit teams will often became mistakenly very good or great.

It happened with 2 conferences this year... but if you look at something unbiased like KenPom it will also support these team games.

But it also shows you how important November and December really are -- they dictate everything whether its RPI, KP, Jeff Sag.. because at that point the level of play of your league will not change. And they key sample of games for each conference (top 100) is maybe 50 games per conference.. so a conference gets 2, 3, or 4 more favourable results it changes everything.

 

[Dave85]

ACC: 11-1 (Lost seeds 2)(remaining seeds 1, 3, 4, 4, 8) 6 teams 12 games = Max
Pac-12: 7-1 (Lost seeds 8)(remaining seeds 2, 5, 11) 4 teams 8 games = Max
Big Ten: 7-5 (Lost seeds 4, 7, 9, 10, 10)(remaining seeds 1, 7) 7 teams 12 games = -2
Big 12: 5-5 (Lost Seeds 2, 3, 3, 9)(remaining seeds 3, 5) 6 teams 10 games = -2
Big East: 5-5 (Lost seeds 1, 4, 6, 6, 9) (remaining seeds 6) 6 teams 10 games = -2
SEC: 4-4 (Lost seeds 5, 9, 10, 11) (remaining seeds 1) 5 teams 8 games = -2

Looking at seeds lost/remaining its obvious that the B12 and the BE were over seeded.

As good as the ACC has done by seed they only have one team that over achieved and then one team that underachieved to counteract that. The Pac in contrast has only one loss and its a team that by seed played to that seed and then it has two teams that overachieved their seed.

The sweet16 is where the ACC can really separate itself as clearly the best conference: IF:
ND(3) holds serve against WichSt(7)
Duke(1) holds serve against Utah(5)
UNC(4) takes out Wisc(1)

Lville(3) takes on NcSt(8) The winner has a great chance to make the FF by taking on the winner of Ok(3)MSU(7)

At best the ACC can be 15-2 after the next round and have half the Elite 8 while already cannibalizing one of its own. That would be a great tourney for any conference with any seeds. There would also be no ACC vs ACC in the round of 8 so every game would have an ACC team and a chance to be an all ACC FF.

A really great post. Nice job!

 

[Dave85]

Yep, and fans and pundits put far too much emphasis on tourney results when defining coaches/programs. It needs to be a factor, but it also has to be acknowledged that this is an annual crapshoot and most games are decided by a few calls and a few bounces of the ball.

At least with craps you know the odds of each bet!

I love your avatar pic. That was such a great movie. The scene under the stars with the cow still cracks me up!

 

[jordoo]

A really great post. Nice job!

Sheet, shot my wad for the year might as well put me on ignore now.

 

[Dave85]

Sheet, shot my wad for the year might as well put me on ignore now.

OMG that's funny!!!!

 

[Scotch]

At least with craps you know the odds of each bet!

I love your avatar pic. That was such a great movie. The scene under the stars with the cow still cracks me up!

Underrated movie. Downey should have won an Oscar.

 

[Dave85]

Underrated movie. Downey should have won an Oscar.

When I first saw I did not even know it was him!!!

 

[Dave85]

Underrated movie. Downey should have won an Oscar.

This is pure Oscar right here:

 

[Dave85]

Underrated movie. Downey should have won an Oscar.

Tom Cruise was pretty sensation too as Les Grossman.