2017 March Madness

[dennyjones]

Wisconsin has the potential to go deep in the tournament.   They are good.   The surprise for me was how well Michigan State played.   The four freshman played extremely well and dominated a good Miami team.

UCLA looks good.

[Jakester23]

27 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

Wisconsin has the potential to go deep in the tournament.   They are good.   The surprise for me was how well Michigan State played.   The four freshman played extremely well and dominated a good Miami team.

UCLA looks good.

Big ten ball is its own animal. A lot of teams have problems playing that style. They start getting frustrated and force themselves into taking bad shots.  Both Michigan St and Wisconsin can make it to the final four or both lose in the sweet sixteen.

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, Jakester23 said:

Big ten ball is its own animal. A lot of teams have problems playing that style.

I agree. B10 basketball is different style. I think B10 has done a better job over the years in adapting to other teams play. It use to be B10 would struggle more in the tournament. 

1 hour ago, dennyjones said:

Wisconsin has the potential to go deep in the tournament.   They are good.   The surprise for me was how well Michigan State played.  

Don't discount the Izzo. The guy is a very good coach. 

[dennyjones]

9 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Don't discount the Izzo. The guy is a very good coach. 

I'm an UM alum so I'm not a MSU fan.  One can't discount what Izzo has accomplished and his ability to rally his teams in the NCAA tournament.   The kid from Flint, Miles Bridges is the real deal.    They have a steep road today against Kansas.  

[David in FL]

A pretty scathing article from ESPN talking about the ridiculous seeding of this year's tournament.  I couldn't agree more.  I guarantee, Kentucky is NOT excited about playing Wichita State today!

On Saturday night, the NCAA admitted a mistake.

The issue at hand was the officiating controversy of the day: Zach Collins' goaltending violation in No. 1 Gonzaga's 79-73 win over No. 8 Northwestern. The Wildcats had made an extended second-half run to cut the Zags' lead to five -- and should have cut it to three -- when Collins reached through the rim to block Dererk Pardon's shot. Which is, um, not legal.

The NCAA put it in more arcane terms: "Article 2.a.3 states that basket interference occurs when a player reaches through the basket from below and touches the ball before it enters the cylinder. Replays showed the Gonzaga defender violated this rule ..."

The NCAA did not, however, apologize for what happened next, when the refs T'd up a ballistic, floor-invading Northwestern coach Chris Collins "based on bench decorum rules outlined in the rules book."In sum: Your bad. But yeah, our bad, too. 

Which raises the question: Why stop there?

If the mea culpas are flowing -- if we're having a real heart-to heart moment here -- why not apologize for the way the 2017 bracket was put together? As long as we're opening up and saying what everybody's already thinking, why not admit how much the NCAA's outdated metrics have hurt the balance of the field?

Why not just come right out and say it: The way the selection committee evaluates teams is systematically flawed in a way that needlessly and avoidably punishes good teams. Our bad.

If the NCAA feels the sudden urge to get something off its chest, there will be few better opportunities than this weekend.

Before Gonzaga's goaltending stunted Northwestern's 8-over-1 upset bid Saturday evening, another Big Ten-borne No. 8 had already knocked off a No. 1 Saturday afternoon.

Except in Buffalo, unlike in Salt Lake City, Wisconsin's 65-62 win featured the downfall of the No. 1 overall seed, the defending national champion Villanova Wildcats. In Buffalo, unlike in Salt Lake, the No. 8 seed in question was not a team making its lovable first NCAA tournament foray but a roster whose seniors have been to two Final Fours and three Sweet 16s and played in 15 NCAA tournament games in the past four seasons -- the most tourney-tested group of players in the sport. In Buffalo, unlike in Salt Lake, the No. 1 seed's path to the second weekend went through one of the most underseeded teams in the 2017 NCAA tournament field.

Yes, Wisconsin was underseeded. Throw out the Badgers' past accomplishments (the selection committee certainly does), and there remains no actual basketball explanation for why Greg Gard's team was seeded where it was. The Badgers entered Selection Sunday 25-9 with a 12-6 record in the Big Ten -- same as Maryland, a No. 6 seed, and one win better than Minnesota, a No. 5 seed that Wisconsin beat twice.

Even after a 2-5 end to the regular season, the Badgers were the only Big Ten team other than Purdue to enter the postseason with a top-25 rank in adjusted efficiency. ESPN's Basketball Power Indexlikewise considered them (before Michigan started igniting nets NBA Jam-style) the league's No. 2 team.

Why did this happen? Because even as every coaching staff tracks its per-possession performance and Las Vegas builds books based on advanced analytic projections, the people responsible for deciding how the sport's most important competition is structured can't be bothered with all that much more than the RPI.

 

Wisconsin's upset of Villanova happened too early because the Badgers were seeded too low. Mark Konezny/USA TODAY Sports

Wisconsin's RPI was 36. Its nonconference strength of schedule -- which is based on RPI -- ranked in the low 300s. Its "best" wins -- which is to say "best" according to the RPI -- included only two against the top 25.

If you live in the selection committee's world, it isn't hard to understand how a team with Wisconsin's résumé could end up playing the top overall seed on the first weekend of the tournament. If you live in the real world, it's impossible to fathom.

This isn't just about Wisconsin.

Elsewhere Saturday, No. 7 seed Saint Mary's played No. 2 seed Arizona. The Gaels were 28-4 on Selection Sunday. Three of those four losses came against Gonzaga. As of this weekend, Randy Bennett's team ranked 14th in KenPom -- neck and neck with Duke and Oregon -- and 13th in BPI. Even the RPI ranked Saint Mary's 17th. But because the Gaels' nonconference schedule didn't include elite wins over elite opponents -- zero against the RPI top 25 and only two against the top 50 -- one of the best 15 or 20 teams in the country had to play Arizona in the second round. And vice versa.

Meanwhile, the most damning product of the selection committee's mistakes hasn't even taken the floor. That will come Sunday, when No. 2 Kentucky will, somehow, find itself lining up opposite No. 10 Wichita State in just its second NCAA tournament game.

The Shockers (now No. 6 in adjusted efficiency and No. 15 in BPI) were Selection Sunday's most laughable example of extreme bracketing malpractice. The committee sees a team such as Wichita State, notes its lack of wins in limited nonconference opportunities, dismisses reams of data about how good it is on each and every possession of its season relative to competition and emerges with a resounding shrug.

This isn't just about Wisconsin or Saint Mary's or Wichita State. It's also about Villanova and Arizona and Kentucky. It's about doing what the bracketing principles and procedures are supposed to do, especially with top seeds, teams that have spent months earning their spots. It's about rewarding those who deserve to be rewarded.

That's why the National Association of Basketball Coaches asked the committee to join the rest of the sport in the glories of modernity and why the genuinely smart, often forward-thinking folks at the NCAA responded by summiting with some of college basketball's best statistically inclined minds. It's why a new metric might soon replace the RPI -- maybe as early as next March.

 

Because the bracket could be better. Because it should be. Because days such as Saturday, when the top overall seed faces a team such as Wisconsin, shouldn't happen -- not this early, anyway.

Is it the selection committee's fault that Villanova lost? Of course not. Did it create the conditions for such a loss? Yes.

Was it the referees' fault that Collins broke decorum and ran onto the floor? No. Did they create the conditions for him to do so? Yes.

If the folks at the NCAA are in an apologetic mood -- if we're really airing out the past week's mistakes -- why stop there? While we're at it, why not drop a line to Villanova?

Your bad. But yeah, our bad, too.

[saevel25]

Actually the selection was not horrible. Though I do not like automatic ins from winning conference championship games. This lets teams in who have no right to be in through their entire body of work versus 1-2 weeks of getting on a roll. 

Like UC-Davis. If you look at Kenpom's rankings. Break each ranking into groups of four. Top 4 teams would be rank 1, next four would be rank 2, and so on. Basically what the NCAA does in creating a bracket by labelling four teams as a #1. UC-Davis would have an equivalent NCAA ranking of 44. 

If you consider that 51 of the teams are with in 4 ranking positions from their actually analytic ranking. I think the NCAA does a decent job. 

 

[Jakester23]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Actually the selection was not horrible. Though I do not like automatic ins from winning conference championship games. This lets teams in who have no right to be in through their entire body of work versus 1-2 weeks of getting on a roll. 

Like UC-Davis. If you look at Kenpom's rankings. Break each ranking into groups of four. Top 4 teams would be rank 1, next four would be rank 2, and so on. Basically what the NCAA does in creating a bracket by labelling four teams as a #1. UC-Davis would have an equivalent NCAA ranking of 44. 

If you consider that 51 of the teams are with in 4 ranking positions from their actually analytic ranking. I think the NCAA does a decent job. 

 

No not horrible but the badgers definitely got a terrible seed. Should have been a 5 maybe 6 at worst. I completely agree on automatic bid being lame. 

[David in FL]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Actually the selection was not horrible. Though I do not like automatic ins from winning conference championship games. This lets teams in who have no right to be in through their entire body of work versus 1-2 weeks of getting on a roll. 

Like UC-Davis. If you look at Kenpom's rankings. Break each ranking into groups of four. Top 4 teams would be rank 1, next four would be rank 2, and so on. Basically what the NCAA does in creating a bracket by labelling four teams as a #1. UC-Davis would have an equivalent NCAA ranking of 44. 

If you consider that 51 of the teams are with in 4 ranking positions from their actually analytic ranking. I think the NCAA does a decent job. 

 

I don't know that I consider "within 4" out of 16 seeds to be all that good.

Another perfect example is the beatdown that Xavier handed FSU last night.  

[saevel25]

9 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I don't know that I consider "within 4" out of 16 seeds to be all that good.

Another perfect example is the beatdown that Xavier handed FSU last night.  

You can't base bad seeding on the outcome of one game. Some teams are just bad matchups for others, and other teams just catch fire. The seeding should be based on the entire body of work in the season. 

[David in FL]

8 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

You can't base bad seeding on the outcome of one game. Some teams are just bad matchups for others, and other teams just catch fire. The seeding should be based on the entire body of work in the season. 

Absolutely true, but that's also why the KenPom analytics are better than the NCAA's.  I'm no expert by any measure, but this year you didnt need to be to have seen the glaring misses from the start.

That Wichita State / Kentucky game is gonna be another example today.  All you have to do is look at the betting line.  10 seed vs 2 seed, and it's the tightest line of the entire day.  UK -3.5 right now....and it could go down.  

Of course, now that I've said that UK will probably win by 20!  

[Chilli Dipper]

1 hour ago, David in FL said:

Absolutely true, but that's also why the KenPom analytics are better than the NCAA's.  I'm no expert by any measure, but this year you didnt need to be to have seen the glaring misses from the start.

That Wichita State / Kentucky game is gonna be another example today.  All you have to do is look at the betting line.  10 seed vs 2 seed, and it's the tightest line of the entire day.  UK -3.5 right now....and it could go down.  

Of course, now that I've said that UK will probably win by 20!  

If you plotted the variances between the projected and actual seedings of the teams on that chart (throwing out the automatic bids seeded 14th or worse), the data points on that graph would not show a normal distribution. There are a lot of teams seeded one or two places over their projected place on the bracket: it makes travel easier, and there are rules against having teams from the same conference play each other before the regional finals. However, the selection committee doesn't tend to seed teams one or two seeds below projections. Instead, the bracket always has a few noticeably underseeded teams: quality teams that are penalized for not playing in a power conference, and teams the committee simply didn't make room for.

In comparison, egregiously-overseeded teams are a very rare occurrence.

[saevel25]

Just now, Chilli Dipper said:

If you plotted the variances between the projected and actual seedings of the teams on that chart (throwing out the automatic bids seeded 14th or worse), the data points on that graph would not show a normal distribution. 

So? I wouldn't suspect the top half of the league to form an normal distribution. Maybe if you considered all the teams in Division-I NCAA. 

2 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

There are a lot of teams seeded one or two places over their projected place on the bracket: it makes travel easier, and there are rules against having teams from the same conference play each other before the regional finals.

Yep. Though I don't care if they do pair up teams from the same conference. 

[Chilli Dipper]

27 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

So? I wouldn't suspect the top half of the league to form an normal distribution. Maybe if you considered all the teams in Division-I NCAA.

I meant that if there was a normal distribution, there would be a couple of very overseeded teams, some mildly overseeded teams, some mildly underseeded teams, and a couple of very underseeded teams. Instead, the breakdown looks like this:

• 12 very underseeded teams (+3 difference or more)
• 10 mildly underseeded teams (+1 or +2)
• 14 mildly overseeded teams (-1 or -2)
• 5 very overseeded teams (-3 or more)

 

[Jay G]

I am a March Madness junkie!  This tourney has been great so far.  Super excited to see my Badgers back in the sweet 16!  Up next, the Gators!!

[dennyjones]

The Big 10 has hurt my bracket.   I still have 11 of the 16 but I didn't pick Purdue (Iowa St), Michigan (Louisville) and Wisconsin (Villanova).    Out of these three Wisconsin has the best chance to make it to the final 4.   Michigan and Purdue have Kansas in it bracket.  

[David in FL]

42 minutes ago, Jay G said:

I am a March Madness junkie!  This tourney has been great so far.  Super excited to see my Badgers back in the sweet 16!  Up next, the Gators!!

10:00 Friday night.  Ugh!

 

 

 

[Let it Fly]

Made a head-to-head bracket bet with my girlfriend:  

- If I win, she watches the final round of the Masters with me UNINTERRUPTED

- If she wins, I have to watch some Amy Schumer Netflix special with her

Thank God it wasn't an either/or bet in terms of timing (i.e. paying up on my end during Masters final round), because she's crushing me right now haha,  All signs are pointing to a night of wine coolers and jokes that I don't get in the near future  

 

[iacas]

35 minutes ago, Let it Fly said:

Made a head-to-head bracket bet with my girlfriend:  

- If I win, she watches the final round of the Masters with me UNINTERRUPTED

- If she wins, I have to watch some Amy Schumer Netflix special with her

Her special should be a lot shorter than Masters coverage, too.