2011 NCAA Basketball Tournament Thread

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rowech

I look at VCU's resume prior the tournament and wonder how they got it. It just doesn't scream tournament team in any way, shape, or form.

See my comments about Butler's stats, they still don't look like it.

At least with VCU there's a little something to hang your hat on for a glimmer of explanation. Interesting too that turnover margin is the best stat for both teams.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

See my comments about Butler's stats, they still don't look like it.

At least with VCU there's a little something to hang your hat on for a glimmer of explanation. Interesting too that turnover margin is the best stat for both teams.

And that gives some indication - they rely on the turnovers with that full-court press of theirs.

[PackerFanatic]

Damn you, Kansas! The Final Four games should be actually pretty interesting.

Plus if UConn wins, I finish in the money in both my pools...so come on UConn

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

From ESPN recap on KU/VCU game:

"VCU guard Joey Rodriguez counted one of Kansas' vaunted Morris twins -- Marcus or Markieff -- as one of those many doubters. During a pregame captains meeting with officials, Rodriguez said one of the brothers offered him some parting words: "The run ends here.""

[Groundhog]

I don't have nearly the same faith in Butler this year as I did last. Mack has stepped up for them, but they really don't have a Gordon Hayward type this season. With them more than the other teams still alive, they seem the most likely to bomb out this weekend.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

From ESPN recap on KU/VCU game:

"VCU guard Joey Rodriguez counted one of Kansas' vaunted Morris twins -- Marcus or Markieff -- as one of those many doubters. During a pregame captains meeting with officials, Rodriguez said one of the brothers offered him some parting words: "The run ends here.""

What an idiot.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by molson

And I really don't think the selection committee should be using the "eye test" either. The last thing I want to hear is the committee elevating some random team and justifying it by saying, "I saw them play a lot, they looked good."

Well, it wouldn't be a random team. I don't think it's a terrible thing if knowledgeable people get to a point, in cases where several resumes are bunched up and extremely similar, where they simply say, "I think team A is just better than team B. Team A is in." That's knowledgeable people, not people who watch ESPN for their info. The way ESPN uses the "eye test" is exactly as you describe it -- to dismiss mid-major contenders.

In any event, VCU has justified their bid, emphatically. I guess I admire the stubbornness of those still holding out, but the committee had a bunch of similar profiles and clearly they were correct in picking out VCU amongst them. Maybe it was just pure luck, but they nailed it. Not only did the Rams make the F4, but they had a hell of a tough path to get there. Most F4 teams beat three legitimate tourney teams to get there (since they usually get to start with 14-16 seeds). Some beat four. VCU beat FIVE. Amazing job by them.

I wonder how many people had "USC/VCU" in the F4 in their bracket even though they meant USC?

[molson]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

The way ESPN uses the "eye test" is exactly as you describe it -- to dismiss mid-major contenders.

That was my point, if the committee starts using "style points", instead of just using resumes and what the teams accomplished, its going to be high profile teams in high profile games getting the style points. It will be a way to vaguely justify teams who don't necessarily belong there, but are good for TV or whatever. A mid-major with double digit losses got an at-large, I'd say there is a path for good teams to get to the tournament, there's no crisis here where need to start adding sentimental factors how a team looks. And the committee isn't selecting the "best teams", if that was the case, they should disregard any true upsets that occurred during the season. They're seeding and including teams based on how they performed during the season. VCU has proved that they're better than the other bubble teams at this point (they've probably proved they've been the best overall team in the tournament), but they definitely didn't prove during the season that they deserved to be in the tournament so much more than the other teams. The committee wasn't predicting which bubble team had the best chance of going on a run, they were awarding the team that had the best season. Whether they got it "right" or not, based only on the info they had pre-tournament, will always just be a matter of opinion. If the committee had gone insane and included Boston College, that would have been WRONG, even if BC made it to the final four. VCU, of course, deserved to be there way more than BC, but the point remains - the selection is independent of tournament performance, because it's not a prediction contest.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At least with VCU there's a little something to hang your hat on for a glimmer of explanation. Interesting too that turnover margin is the best stat for both teams.

It's a really important stat. If you can add a few possesions a game to your side, it can be a nice swing. That's the one thing I've noticed about Butler and VCU in this tournament. They don't have shitty possesions and make the other team work hard on theirs. You just can't make mistakes against them, they are too well coached.

[RainMaker]

I still don't get why there is so much hatred toward the RPI. It should be used much more in determining bids. It's the purest statistic for determining how a team did based on wins and losses.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I still don't get why there is so much hatred toward the RPI. It should be used much more in determining bids. It's the purest statistic for determining how a team did based on wins and losses.

Its like continuing to use just Batting Average, Home Runs, and RBIs to determine the MVP in baseball. We have a lot better resources now so continuing to use outdated resources is a bit stubborn IMO. They have made some changes to the RPI to make it better but it still has major flaws.

Ken Pomeroy had a nice article on some of its flaws however I cant seem to locate it at the moment. Basically one team dropped a few spots for beating a team convincingly while another team got blown out against a decent team and moved up in the RPI. Some screwy things like that.

The Ratings Percentage Index Myth

Lets say a top ten team(Kansas) played Long Beach and won by 25 they would move up in the RPI. If Kansas play a team like Pepperdine and won by 100 they would plummet badly in the rankings. This is a very poor indicator of team strength in my opinion. It uses winning % as a primary indicator of how good/bad a team is and since scoring margin isnt important its just flawed. Many people believe the committee actually use Sagarin/Pomeroy but wont admit it because they dont want to endorse running up the score. RPI and seedings dont seem match around tournament time.

[wade moore]

So cool to see (this was at 1:30 AM this morning):

[wade moore]

Hah.. If you've ever been to San Antonio, this is extra awesome:

[molson]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Its like continuing to use just Batting Average, Home Runs, and RBIs to determine the MVP in baseball. We have a lot better resources now so continuing to use outdated resources is a bit stubborn IMO. They have made some changes to the RPI to make it better but it still has major flaws.

Ken Pomeroy had a nice article on some of its flaws however I cant seem to locate it at the moment. Basically one team dropped a few spots for beating a team convincingly while another team got blown out against a decent team and moved up in the RPI. Some screwy things like that.

The Ratings Percentage Index Myth

Lets say a top ten team(Kansas) played Long Beach and won by 25 they would move up in the RPI. If Kansas play a team like Pepperdine and won by 100 they would plummet badly in the rankings. This is a very poor indicator of team strength in my opinion. It uses winning % as a primary indicator of how good/bad a team is and since scoring margin isnt important its just flawed. Many people believe the committee actually use Sagarin/Pomeroy but wont admit it because they dont want to endorse running up the score. RPI and seedings dont seem match around tournament time.

I agree with a lot of the RPI flaws (especially how you get huge credit for losing to a great team, as if that's some kind of accomplishment), but I hope the committee doesn't adopt something with that figures in point differential. That's something I'd rather not have to pay attention to all season (would teams keep their starters in longer and keep their foot on the gas to try to win by 15 instead of 8?) I prefer wins and losses in their simple form, as the definitive result of a game - not as just some soft threshold of point differential where you're either positive or negative. (i.e, where the difference between losing and winning by one point is just a difference of two points, as opposed to difference between a win and a loss.)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Its like continuing to use just Batting Average, Home Runs, and RBIs to determine the MVP in baseball. We have a lot better resources now so continuing to use outdated resources is a bit stubborn IMO. They have made some changes to the RPI to make it better but it still has major flaws.

Ken Pomeroy had a nice article on some of its flaws however I cant seem to locate it at the moment. Basically one team dropped a few spots for beating a team convincingly while another team got blown out against a decent team and moved up in the RPI. Some screwy things like that.

The Ratings Percentage Index Myth

Lets say a top ten team(Kansas) played Long Beach and won by 25 they would move up in the RPI. If Kansas play a team like Pepperdine and won by 100 they would plummet badly in the rankings. This is a very poor indicator of team strength in my opinion. It uses winning % as a primary indicator of how good/bad a team is and since scoring margin isnt important its just flawed. Many people believe the committee actually use Sagarin/Pomeroy but wont admit it because they dont want to endorse running up the score. RPI and seedings dont seem match around tournament time.

Those other rating systems are great if you're trying to determine who the best team is. Or who might win a game between two teams. It's definitely more accurate in that regard.

But your baseball comparision is wrong. We aren't determing who the best player or the best team is. We are determining who had the best season. Who is the most deserving. When we determine that, it doesn't matter how much you win by or how efficient you are in doing so. A baseball analogy would be determining the playoff teams by run differential and not wins and losses. It would be ludicrous to do so.

I feel that determining postseason teams should be done by wins and losses. Not point differential, not efficiency stats. RPI is still the purest rating for determining that based on the competition you face. We aren't letting the most efficient team in a game cut down the nets next weekend, so why do you want to use that philosophy in determining who had the best regular seasons?

[wade moore]

And, fwiw, Pomeroy's system did HORRIBLE at predicting the results of tournament games this year.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by wade moore

And, fwiw, Pomeroy's system did HORRIBLE at predicting the results of tournament games this year.

To be fair, I'd be curious to see what systems actually did well this year

SI

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

To be fair, I'd be curious to see what systems actually did well this year

SI

Sure, but I wanted to point that out before we got into a Pomeroy love-fest.

I tend to agree with RainMaker - we would introduce a lot of new problems if we used Pomeroy's rating rather than the RPI.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We aren't letting the most efficient team in a game cut down the nets next weekend, so why do you want to use that philosophy in determining who had the best regular seasons?

According to the "experts" on CBS and ESPN the committees job is to find the best from the pool of at large teams. Their job is to not just reward teams on good seasons otherwise you would have seen Long Beach St and Iona in this years tournament. I cant think of a way that Pomeroy wouldnt do this better than the RPI.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by wade moore

And, fwiw, Pomeroy's system did HORRIBLE at predicting the results of tournament games this year.

They all sucked. Sagarin, Pomeroy, and whoever else.

Pomeroy goes at lengths to explain that in a lose go home scenario crazy things will happen.

Pomeroy is generally within 1-2 points of the Vegas line which tells me his lines are either really sharp or the Vegas bookmakers use him as a resource.

[Young Drachma]

Nate Silver chimes on VCU and odds, comparing VCU to the other low seeds to make the tournament: George Mason, LSU, Villanova and Penn in 1979.



In Tournament of Upsets, V.C.U. Has Overcome Longest Odds - NYTimes.com



Some guy in the comments then says this. I thought he'd have sympathizers:

So Nate finally hits the nail on the head at the end of the post: when a 1:17,000 event occurs, are we seeing the inevitable manifestations of statistical chance or is something else going on?

I for one am pretty hard-pressed to believe that a team as unimpressive as VCU has legitimately knocked off Georgetown, Purdue, and Kansas (not to mention Florida St. and USC), all in the same tournament. Yes, I am really suggesting it. I think the fix is in. What's more likely in your mind: that a mediocre team from a weak conference pulls off five impressive (and three incomprehensibly impressive) upsets in a row? Or that the results of the tournament are being fixed? Seems like a no-brainer to me. Motive? Gambling - that universal scourge. If the bookmakers get to enough of the players and enough of the referees, the chances of a VCU going all the way are a lot better than 17,000 to 1.

I'm not saying that the fix is in for Butler, nor even really for VCU. Bookies don't get to pick and chose who they get to. They get to players and referees that gamble, have lost a lot of money, and owe someone big. The extent to which this happens and the teams to which it happens are necessarily somewhat random. There may be some big money to be made if VCU beats Georgetown, Purdue, and Kansas, but that can only happen if there are players on all those teams that can throw the game and/or the right referees officiating those games. So VCU's success has indeed been dependent upon a considerable amount of luck in that the right combination of players and referees got in trouble this year. But don't ask me to believe that VCU beat Georgetown, Purdue, and Kansas, straight up, in the same tournament in the same year. That's just too much for me to swallow.

[wade moore]

Wow DC. Just wow.

And seriously, someone who watched those games says that?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

According to the "experts" on CBS and ESPN the committees job is to find the best from the pool of at large teams. Their job is to not just reward teams on good seasons otherwise you would have seen Long Beach St and Iona in this years tournament. I cant think of a way that Pomeroy wouldnt do this better than the RPI.

It's up to how you want teams selected. By wins and losses or by point margins. No other sport does it by point margins although I guess I understand why some people want that.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's up to how you want teams selected. By wins and losses or by point margins. No other sport does it by point margins although I guess I understand why some people want that.

I just want the best teams. Wins and losses arent very important when teams like Boston are piling up wins against New Hampshire while UConn is losing to teams like Notre Dame and Pitt.

In pro sports the teams are more evenly matched and the schedules are similar to it works in that. I am not saying I want to see Kansas out there trying to win by 100 but winning big does usually say a team is strong. Most coaches are classy enough to call off the dogs anyway. Its not like Kansas is gaining much by winning by more as if they are good enough to win big, they are certainly good enough to make the tourny without needing to win big.

That came off sounding just wierd.


Im just saying that Ohio State or Kansas were winning big early in the season. Whether to not they were trying to or not it really wasnt going to effect if they made the tourny. I dont think piling it on to make the tourny is an objective most coaches use.

[Young Drachma]

ESPN interviews one of the two dudes in the ESPN Tournament bracket contest who has the Final Four exactly right.

Essentially has to say "it was a lucky guess" throughout the whole interview. Sort of funny.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I just want the best teams. Wins and losses arent very important when teams like Boston are piling up wins against New Hampshire while UConn is losing to teams like Notre Dame and Pitt.

That's why you have RPI. It determines the value of those wins and losses based off the wins and losses of the other team and their opponents. Beating New Hampshire is not helping a team nearly as much as a win against Notre Dame.

[Young Drachma]

Tennessee women about to go down to Notre Dame. So much for the vaunted UConn-Tennessee showdown, I guess.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's why you have RPI. It determines the value of those wins and losses based off the wins and losses of the other team and their opponents. Beating New Hampshire is not helping a team nearly as much as a win against Notre Dame.

RPI is 25 percent team being graded, 50 percent opp schedule, 25 percent opponents opp schedule. You dont find that flawed?

Why if a team you beat 2 months ago that loses 2 months later effect your RPI 3 months later? Its flat out goofy IMO.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

RPI is 25 percent team being graded, 50 percent opp schedule, 25 percent opponents opp schedule. You dont find that flawed?

Why if a team you beat 2 months ago that loses 2 months later effect your RPI 3 months later? Its flat out goofy IMO.

All the rating systems use data throughout the season. The opponent and opponents opponents are to determine strength of schedule.

[MizzouRah]

That video Wade put up was great, good for VCU.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Tennessee women about to go down to Notre Dame. So much for the vaunted UConn-Tennessee showdown, I guess.

Freshman PG that has led the team nearly all year picked up her 2nd foul just before the first TV timeout. She was totally out of synch in the 2nd half, ND is one of the few teams that could match the Lady Vols depth & those two things combined to do them in. Well those things and an inexplicable unwillingness to pound the ball inside late in the first half when the Irish were suffering through foul trouble of their own.

A nice year but disappointing to see them fail to finish the drill in such lackluster fashion.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Wow DC. Just wow.

And seriously, someone who watched those games says that?

The conspiracy theory post is clearly absurd.

I would have thought a better conspiracy theory is television based. CBS/Turner trying to build a case for expansion and the relevance of the First Four (in the future, the first more than four) so you rig a few games and get your first four participant into the Final Four. FIRST FOUR to FINAL FOUR, see these games matter, WATCH THEM!

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by digamma

I would have thought a better conspiracy theory is television based. CBS/Turner trying to build a case for expansion and the relevance of the First Four (in the future, the first more than four) so you rig a few games and get your first four participant into the Final Four. FIRST FOUR to FINAL FOUR, see these games matter, WATCH THEM!

That would be some serious dedication to the First Four concept, that they'd be willing to take a bath on the Final Four for the sake of the First Four. Which, by the way, logically should be the First Eight, but I realize people have a need for symmetry.

You'd think they'd have at least instructed the referees to will in giant gobs of three-pointers for USC or Clemson instead.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

That would be some serious dedication to the First Four concept, that they'd be willing to take a bath on the Final Four for the sake of the First Four. Which, by the way, logically should be the First Eight, but I realize people have a need for symmetry.

You'd think they'd have at least instructed the referees to will in giant gobs of three-pointers for USC or Clemson instead.

Yeah, it's silly, but slightly more plausible, I think than some random bookie buying off several different teams on short notice.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

Yeah, it's silly, but slightly more plausible, I think than some random bookie buying off several different teams on short notice.

Eh, the ad dollars in the early rounds are so minor relative to the later rounds that I'd buy a TV conspiracy toward the end rather than the beginning. And given the leaky nature of the media biz, the random bookie theory is at least as good IMO, it'd be too easy for the media moguls to get caught since so few of them know how to keep their mouths shut.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Eh, the ad dollars in the early rounds are so minor relative to the later rounds that I'd buy a TV conspiracy toward the end rather than the beginning. And given the leaky nature of the media biz, the random bookie theory is at least as good IMO, it'd be too easy for the media moguls to get caught since so few of them know how to keep their mouths shut.

Fair point.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Somewhere up the thread a bit I mentioned my surprise at seeing the younger male demos not holding up all that well with March Madness, at least not as well as I would have expected nor as well as the older demos.

Just saw some detailed ratings for Atlanta cable & now I understand why, it has nothing to do with who is playing or basketball or anything like that. It's apparently because they're busy watching VH1, Bravo, and HGTV.

I'll put a little more about this in one of the TV threads I guess, but only 2 NCAA games on cable made the local top 45 for M18-34 during the week of 3/14 - 3/20.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'll put a little more about this in one of the TV threads I guess, but only 2 NCAA games on cable made the local top 45 for M18-34 during the week of 3/14 - 3/20.

This is shocking to me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

This is shocking to me.

Caught me off guard too really, especially since what I was working on today has a target of W25-54 & I wasn't really looking for anything to do with basketball at the time. Just going from one tab to the next & it kind of caught my eye, to the point that I started looking to make sure what the date range was.

and sure enough I MADE A MISTAKE !!! in the other thread, which I'm about to go correct.

But there were only 2 games in the M18-34, just as I said here.

[digamma]

How did the CBS only ratings compare to last year?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

How did the CBS only ratings compare to last year?

Down for the 1st two rounds, as discussed previously. Weekend ratings were delayed until today (which probably cut down on conversation about them so far) but let's see what I can find ... {looking} ...

Sunday regional finals up 6% total viewers, flat in households vs last year
That's CBS vs CBS

I still haven't seen Saturday broken out, but there are several stories with references to how the "torrid ratings pace has cooled", so I'm left to assume that the year-to-year wasn't up considerably Thurs thru Sat.

Total tourney-to-date all networks versus CBS last year is up 11%.

[Ragone]

If anything.. the success of vcu will prompt the ncaa to add even more play in games for for 16 seeds and 11 seeds..

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Ragone

If anything.. the success of vcu will prompt the ncaa to add even more play in games for for 16 seeds and 11 seeds..

I'd so much rather see them limit the total number of teams from major conferences, something like you can't go more than 4 or maybe 6 deep. If you finish #7 in your conference, tough, do better to make it next year.

[DataKing]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'd so much rather see them limit the total number of teams from major conferences, something like you can't go more than 4 or maybe 6 deep. If you finish #7 in your conference, tough, do better to make it next year.

Can you imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth from the Big East? The rest of the nation would drown in their tears...

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DataKing

Can you imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth from the Big East? The rest of the nation would drown in their tears...

Yup, and the ACC in some past years sending like 7 of 11 teams and the like.

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'd so much rather see them limit the total number of teams from major conferences, something like you can't go more than 4 or maybe 6 deep. If you finish #7 in your conference, tough, do better to make it next year.

So penalize big conferences? Let lesser qualified teams into a tournament that determines your champion? Great idea!

[Butter]

If you can't finish in the top half of a freakin' conference, do you really belong in the tournament? No.

Great idea, never happen.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

If you can't finish in the top half of a freakin' conference, do you really belong in the tournament? No.

Great idea, never happen.

If the purpose is to keep conferences small, it would make more sense to just put a cap on conference size. Otherwise, it's just an arbitrary designation. If the 7th best team in a 12 team conference is far better than the 2nd best team in a 10 team conference, they shouldn't be penalized because their conference has two more teams. That's just silly.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

If you can't finish in the top half of a freakin' conference, do you really belong in the tournament? No.

Great idea, never happen.

Careful getting too reliant on pithy statements. This sort of thing gets tossed around in multiple sports, in multiple settings, and in pretty much every one of them, it's poorly placed. Every time we don't like some particular outcome of a well-intentioned system and we decide to place another veneer or "improvement" on the system, we tend to move away from an orderly assessment and toward a frankensteined mess.

Here's what I support: Pick your selection system in a reasonable way, and live with it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Careful getting too reliant on pithy statements. This sort of thing gets tossed around in multiple sports, in multiple settings, and in pretty much every one of them, it's poorly placed. Every time we don't like some particular outcome of a well-intentioned system and we decide to place another veneer or "improvement" on the system, we tend to move away from an orderly assessment and toward a frankensteined mess.

Here's what I support: Pick your selection system in a reasonable way, and live with it.

So you don't think we should ban 8-8 teams from the NFL playoffs even if they played their way in under the existing rules? Ya, me neither.

This stuff comes up in college football too, in terms of teams losing conference and division tiebreakers but still getting into BCS games. "They couldn't even win their division". (Ya, that's because their division had a top 5 team in it).

College is different because the divisions aren't balanced like they are in the pros. The divisions and conferences are actually intentionally unbalanced. You can't treat them like the Eastern Conference Atlantic Division of the NBA.