Hey, Tournament Committee...

[silverback]

As the cocks go about wrecking Baylor here thus far, thanks for their obviously low bracket spot and for sending MU into a home game with them. (Is there a Scoop approved emoji for a middle finger?)

[#UnleashSean]

Welcome to Marquette seeding, where even when were a 3 seed, we play away games. (Cough Murray St)

[wadesworld]

The seed was fine, if not generous. The location was not.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

The seed was fine, if not generous. The location was not.

Mmmhmmm

[GoldenZebra]

They were seeded based on their performance during the year...

[forgetful]

The seed was fine, if not generous. The location was not.

Agreed.  They underperformed in conference season, and deserved their seed (or more realistically an 8).  They've got their crap together and officiating has been allowing them to defend super-aggressive.  Add in a Senior star (Thornwell) and you have a really difficult team to play.

[muguru]

Agreed.  They underperformed in conference season, and deserved their seed (or more realistically an 8).  They've got their crap together and officiating has been allowing them to defend super-aggressive.  Add in a Senior star (Thornwell) and you have a really difficult team to play.

How much do you want to bet though, if UW advances tonight to play USC, all of a sudden USC will come crashing back to earth..the shots will suddenly not fall, their supper agressive, physical perimiter defense will get whistled for fouls(when they haven't all tournament). This is the kind of sh*t that happens for Wisconsin in the NCAA's.

[brewcity77]

The seed was fine, if not generous. The location was not.

+1

The only problem with USC's seed is it was too high. Just because they've wrecked three opponents doesn't mean they were incorrectly seeded.

[forgetful]

How much do you want to bet though, if UW advances tonight to play USC, all of a sudden USC will come crashing back to earth..the shots will suddenly not fall, their supper agressive, physical perimiter defense will get whistled for fouls(when they haven't all tournament). This is the kind of sh*t that happens for Wisconsin in the NCAA's.

Oh I fully expect this to happen.  Suddenly their normal defense will become a foul fest.

[bobnoxious]

Hopefully Florida can do their part in preventing this

[wadesworld]

Hopefully Florida can do their part in preventing this

Don't see it. This offense is bad. While I'd love to defend like heck, I'm sure glad I get to watch our offense instead of Baylor's or Florida's. No identity at all.

[Jockey]

As the cocks go about wrecking Baylor here thus far, thanks for their obviously low bracket spot and for sending MU into a home game with them. (Is there a Scoop approved emoji for a middle finger?)

There is a particular reason it was a home game for them.

[bilsu]

Agreed.  They underperformed in conference season, and deserved their seed (or more realistically an 8).  They've got their crap together and officiating has been allowing them to defend super-aggressive.  Add in a Senior star (Thornwell) and you have a really difficult team to play.

The trouble with this is the SEC had no respect. Having three teams in the elite 8 shows they were much better than most people thought.

[brewcity77]

The trouble with this is the SEC had no respect. Having three teams in the elite 8 shows they were much better than most people thought.

No it doesn't.

[wadesworld]

No it doesn't.

Ehh, it pretty much does.  Even the teams that aren't in the E8 showed well.  They were underrated.

[GGGG]

Both Kentucky and Florida beat higher seeds the entire way so I'm not really sure what it means.

[🏀]

Ehh, it pretty much does.  Even the teams that aren't in the E8 showed well.  They were underrated.

They were rated exactly where their four months of play rated them at. The tournament doesn't change that. That's a bad narrative, leave it for the bad TV analysts.

[brewcity77]

Ehh, it pretty much does.  Even the teams that aren't in the E8 showed well.  They were underrated.

Kentucky was in the top-10. This is no surprise. Florida was top-20 and beat two teams (Virginia & Wisconsin) ranked behind them. This is no surprise.

So basically, because of one team overachieving, the SEC was underrated? That's BS. Pure complete BS. Was the ACC crap because only UNC is still standing? Was the Big 10 better than expected because they put three in the Sweet 16, or are they crap because they put zero in the Elite 8?

These narratives are all BS. Don't subscribe to stupidity like this, you're better than that.

[cheebs09]

By that measure, he Big East is underrated due to Xavier making the Elite 8. However, overrated because Villanova lost early. Otherwise, I think we pretty much went to seed other than Creighton.

[mufvr]

the fact that SC played a home game against MU is not why they won.  It made it easier but they were clearly the better team. 

[romey]

I've been thinking about the seeding debate since selection Sunday.  Having listened ad nauseam to BADger fans complain about their seed, and the talk of USC's "home game" and I think a point many in the general population is missing, is this.  When your conference places multiple teams in the dance (7 or even 10)where do you place them?

There are only 4 of each seed, and 4 regions to put them in.  The committee tries to avoid early round same conference matchups.  So if you make a BEast team a 7, then you that eliminates one 10 seed for the rest of the BEast.  You can't have Seton Hall a 7 and MU a 10 in the same region.  The more teams you have in the dance, the more you have to spread them out.  Then you also have to consider the rest of the variables - "home court", TV viewership (potential Wojo vs. Duke) etc.

I told the BADger faithful who complained about the 8 seed that I thought 8 was fair given their "slide" into the end of the year.  And winning two games inttheBig14 tourney didn't impress me as much as it did their faithful - they beat two teams they should've beaten.  But I agreed the issue was that OTHER Big14 teams (that's you Minny) had better seeds. 

[MarquetteDano]

Kentucky was in the top-10. This is no surprise. Florida was top-20 and beat two teams (Virginia & Wisconsin) ranked behind them. This is no surprise.

So basically, because of one team overachieving, the SEC was underrated? That's BS. Pure complete BS. Was the ACC crap because only UNC is still standing? Was the Big 10 better than expected because they put three in the Sweet 16, or are they crap because they put zero in the Elite 8?

These narratives are all BS. Don't subscribe to stupidity like this, you're better than that.

Brew,

  They are 10-2.  C'mon man.  Everyone has been disparaging the SEC for years.  Give them their due.  They have been kicking ass in the tourney.

[awilhelmscream]

the fact that SC played a home game against MU is not why they won.  It made it easier but they were clearly the better team.

SC wanted it more but I was there and you're crazy if you believe the home court advantage wasn't a major factor in that game.  Every time MU got some momentum that place got deafeningly loud then somehow got even louder when SC got the momentum.

[wadesworld]

Kentucky was in the top-10. This is no surprise. Florida was top-20 and beat two teams (Virginia & Wisconsin) ranked behind them. This is no surprise.

So basically, because of one team overachieving, the SEC was underrated? That's BS. Pure complete BS. Was the ACC crap because only UNC is still standing? Was the Big 10 better than expected because they put three in the Sweet 16, or are they crap because they put zero in the Elite 8?

These narratives are all BS. Don't subscribe to stupidity like this, you're better than that.

Here's the thing. When asked who everyone is rooting for in the NCAA Tournament almost all responses are about rooting for the BE teams. Wanting Nova to go back to back. Wanting to prove ourselves as a league. Rooting for teams we hate throughout the regular season because it somehow validates our conference.

But now the SEC doing well doesn't validate their conference? It's utter BS to think the NCAA Tournament results change the perception of the conference? But if Nova was in the E8, Butler had beat UNC, MU had beat SC and lost to Duke, SH beat Arkansas, Creighton beat RI we'd be talking about how we have the greatest conference in the country and the ACC was down to 1 team after the first weekend and football is for the south and the B10 has no E8 teams.

Okay, got it. 

[brewcity77]

Brew,

  They are 10-2.  C'mon man.  Everyone has been disparaging the SEC for years.  Give them their due.  They have been kicking ass in the tourney.

And they've won as the favored seed 8 times. So two wins they weren't expected to get, or one less than Xavier has.

I'm not saying that proves anything about X, because it doesn't. But people overblow these results and use it to falsely claim a conference is superior.

[brewcity77]

But now the SEC doing well doesn't validate their conference? It's utter BS to think the NCAA Tournament results change the perception of the conference?

To people that don't know the game? Sure. But that's for the "fans" that think the CBB season starts the first weekend in March. Nova's win last year was great for public perception. But it didn't make our conference better. The most significant results to determine conference superiority occur in November and December.

Big East wins make Marquette money, but it's just plain wrong-headed to act like the Tournament is some mandate on conference quality. Is the SEC decisively better than the Big 10 because of a miracle buzzer beater over a team 4 seed lines lower? Of course not, that's just ridiculous.

Again, you're better than that. It's a dumb theory that is only applied by people who think the CBB season is 4 weeks long.

[GGGG]

And they've won as the favored seed 8 times. So two wins they weren't expected to get, or one less than Xavier has.

I'm not saying that proves anything about X, because it doesn't. But people overblow these results and use it to falsely claim a conference is superior.

If what you are saying is that extrapolating conference strength by NCAA tournament results is overrated, I agree with you.  The BE has proven through its regular seasons that it's a power conference.

However, the tournament does provide validation like it did for the BE last year.  And yeah while 8 of their wins are due to being a favored seed, they also avoided any losses as the favorite.  I believe they are the only Power 6 conferences to do that.

[Jay Bee]

Why use a one, two or three game sample when the same teams have 31-3x samples available?

[cheebs09]

I think it was more important early on to establish the Big East after realignment to prove it as a conference. Mainly a media thing and to show it's not some mid-major conference. I think we've gotten to the point now where March results aren't defining the conference as much. Nova last year and 7 teams this year helps.

ETA: the tournament credits are a big reason to be Pro-conference this time of year.

[brewcity77]

Why use a one, two or three game sample when the same teams have 31-3x samples available?

This exactly.

If one off results were the be-all, end-all, why weren't we a 1-seed after beating Villanova? Because the other 30 games mattered too.

The tournament is great fun, it's my favorite annual sporting event, but it's not the best way to determine or justify conference strength, nor is it even a particularly good way.

[wadesworld]

To people that don't know the game? Sure. But that's for the "fans" that think the CBB season starts the first weekend in March. Nova's win last year was great for public perception. But it didn't make our conference better. The most significant results to determine conference superiority occur in November and December.

Big East wins make Marquette money, but it's just plain wrong-headed to act like the Tournament is some mandate on conference quality. Is the SEC decisively better than the Big 10 because of a miracle buzzer beater over a team 4 seed lines lower? Of course not, that's just ridiculous.

Again, you're better than that. It's a dumb theory that is only applied by people who think the CBB season is 4 weeks long.

So when the 10th best team from the BE loses to the 2nd best ACC team in November when teams are still finding their identity and figuring out what they have we should put more value into that than when only the top teams are around to play each other in March and the 2nd best team in the SEC beats the 2nd best team in the B10?

Count me in as someone who thinks that's plain silly. If it's purely for public perception and it really doesn't matter what conferences do in March then why would people root for other BE teams to do well in the Tourney? Maybe guru is onto something here. I'd rather see Marquette be the best in the BE, so maybe we should all root for the BE teams to all be one and done in the Tourney of Tourney success means nothing.

Also last week when that B1G team 4 seed lines below the SEC team beat our awesome BE brothers 7 seed lines above the B1G team the excuse here was the B1G team really had the talent of of a top 10 team like they were early in the season and half way through the B1G season so the loss for our 1 seed wasn't really as bad as it seems. But now we're going to downplay the 4 seed SEC team's win because they beat a team 4 seed lines below them.

We're talking out of both sides of our mouth here.

That win was a very good win against a really good Wisconsin team who has a group of seniors that won 13 NCAA Tournament games, and the SEC aid proving to have been a pretty dang solid conference at the top.

[brewcity77]

So when the 10th best team from the BE loses to the 2nd best ACC team in November when teams are still finding their identity and figuring out what they have we should put more value into that than when only the top teams are around to play each other in March and the 2nd best team in the SEC beats the 2nd best team in the B10?

Sample size matters. You can use a 30+ game full season sample size, or the results of a one-off that boiled down to whether one shot rattled in or out. Sorry, but acting like any one play from one game is definitive is what's truly plain silly.

Count me in as someone who thinks that's plain silly. If it's purely for public perception and it really doesn't matter what conferences do in March then why would people root for other BE teams to do well in the Tourney? Maybe guru is onto something here. I'd rather see Marquette be the best in the BE, so maybe we should all root for the BE teams to all be one and done in the Tourney of Tourney success means nothing.

Did you miss the part about the Marquette making money for these games? Our league is in it together. That's why I cheer league success, because it profits all of us.

Also last week when that B1G team 4 seed lines below the SEC team beat our awesome BE brothers 7 seed lines above the B1G team the excuse here was the B1G team really had the talent of of a top 10 team like they were early in the season and half way through the B1G season so the loss for our 1 seed wasn't really as bad as it seems. But now we're going to downplay the 4 seed SEC team's win because they beat a team 4 seed lines below them.

I don't know whose argument that was. It wasn't mine. I've said repeatedly UW would probably win that game 20% of the time. Just because they got lucky and it happened to be one of their days doesn't make any bold, sweeping statement any more than Chiozza's shot rattling in does.

We're talking out of both sides of our mouth here.

Speak for yourself.

That win was a very good win against a really good Wisconsin team who has a group of seniors that won 13 NCAA Tournament games, and the SEC aid proving to have been a pretty dang solid conference at the top.

But that wasn't ever in question. The SEC had two teams in the top-20 that are still alive. Kentucky beat three teams that by pretty much any metric were ranked lower than them. Florida beat three teams that by pretty much any metric were ranked lower than them. We're supposed to suddenly act like they were in a power conference for doing that? That's preposterous.

So the one argument anyone has is South Carolina. So because one team overachieved after falling apart down the stretch of the regular season, the entire SEC is vindicated? Give me a break. That makes no sense.

[bilsu]

And they've won as the favored seed 8 times. So two wins they weren't expected to get, or one less than Xavier has.

I'm not saying that proves anything about X, because it doesn't. But people overblow these results and use it to falsely claim a conference is superior.

How many games did the other conferences lose as the favorite seed? I believe that the NCAA tournament is proof which conference is best. The rankings are all flawed because they largely depend on non-conference wins that came in November and December. Teams improve at different rates and November wins are not a perfect barometer fro ranking conferences.

[GooooMarquette]

How many games did the other conferences lose as the favorite seed? I believe that the NCAA tournament is proof which conference is best. The rankings are all flawed because they largely depend on non-conference wins that came in November and December. Teams improve at different rates and November wins are not a perfect barometer fro ranking conferences.

The tournament is one piece of evidence about which conference is best, but it certainly isn't "proof."  If it was, you could argue that the Horizon was the second best conference a few years back.  It wasn't.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Why does everything have to be an absolute?  It is good for public perception to win in the tournament.  But it also represents only one part of the entire season. Both sides are right.

[wadesworld]

Fair enough. If a single BE team goes on a magical run and wins the National Title while the rest of the BE flames out in the NCAA Tournament like Nova and the BE last year the BE is validated as a legitimate power.

If a football conference is written off as garbage and has basically every team that makes it to the Tournament overachieve (Florida was a wildly popular pick to be upset in the first round and was given basically no chance to make it to the second weekend, let alone the E8 and on, Vandy expected to lose right away and did, Arkansas basically a toss up first round and got a win and played with UNC, Kentucky is where they should be but many had UCLA winning that game given they lost to UCLA at home in the ever important December schedule, and Sourh Carolina was predicted to lose first round by just about everyone and is sitting in the E8) sends 3 teams to the E8 and is guaranteed at least 1 FF team but hey, NCAA Tournaments don't mean anything towards conference strength or how they should be viewed. Crap shoot, right?

Fair enough.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Again. Why does everything have to be an absolute? I think the SEC sending 3 teams to the Elite 8 absolutely does wonders for the perception (and bottom line) of that conference. I also think that the three of them making the elite 8 does not mean that they were underseeded to start the tournament. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[wadesworld]

Again. Why does everything have to be an absolute? I think the SEC sending 3 teams to the Elite 8 absolutely does wonders for the perception (and bottom line) of that conference. I also think that the three of them making the elite 8 does not mean that they were underseeded to start the tournament. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I agree that they weren't underseeded at all. But I do think it was an under appreciated basketball conference.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I agree that they weren't underseeded at all. But I do think it was an under appreciated basketball conference.

That's fair. It doesn't change my personal perception of the SEC. I don't value games in March more than any other game (besides the publicity and money it brings).

[wadesworld]

That's fair. It doesn't change my personal perception of the SEC. I don't value games in March more than any other game (besides the publicity and money it brings).

I don't totally disagree with that. I don't think it changes my view on the SEC overall but this year I think the conference as a whole was probably somewhat undervalued/under appreciated. Clearly some of the teams in the conference were better than thought to be. There were talks at points of the year the the conference might only be worthy of 3 total bids. Now 3 of their members are in the E8.

[brewcity77]

There were talks at points of the year the the conference might only be worthy of 3 total bids. Now 3 of their members are in the E8.

Tournament bids are based on what you do from November to February. NOTHING that happens after the tournament starts justifies a bid. That is the very definition of flawed logic.

[forgetful]

Clearly some of the teams in the conference were better than thought to be. There were talks at points of the year the the conference might only be worthy of 3 total bids. Now 3 of their members are in the E8.

I don't think that is how it works.  South Carolina, Kentucky and Florida were all highly valued most of the year.  South Carolina only lost value because they closed the conference season going 3-6.  With the only wins coming against Tennessee and Mississippi State, two very bad teams.  Even late in the season they were still getting votes in the coaches poll for top 25. 

Everyone agreed all season that those 3 teams were tournament teams.  After them, almost everyone agreed that Arkansas was a good team (and tournament team).  The problem for the SEC is everyone below there was not good. 

That means 3 dominant teams (all made the elite 8), and one so-so team that won 1 NCAA game as an 8-seed. 

They've outperformed expectations as Florida/SC are closer to top 20 than top 8 teams, but that doesn't mean the SEC was better than advertised.  It mostly means SC is back to playing ball like they were when they were 19-4 and a top 20 team.

[wadesworld]

Tournament bids are based on what you do from November to February. NOTHING that happens after the tournament starts justifies a bid. That is the very definition of flawed logic.

Who said otherwise?

Fact of the matter is, they got the 5 they deserved and they're proving they can play some ball.

You can think that getting 2 quality wins, 1 win over a mid major, maybe 1 loss to a really good team, and beating a bunch of cupcakes spread out over 2 months while teams are finding an identity is more impressive and important than 2 quality wins following a win over a quality mid major in consecutive games, resulting in an E8 run and maybe even FF. I think every coach in the world would disagree.

[wadesworld]

I don't think that is how it works.  South Carolina, Kentucky and Florida were all highly valued most of the year.  South Carolina only lost value because they closed the conference season going 3-6.  With the only wins coming against Tennessee and Mississippi State, two very bad teams.  Even late in the season they were still getting votes in the coaches poll for top 25. 

Everyone agreed all season that those 3 teams were tournament teams.  After them, almost everyone agreed that Arkansas was a good team (and tournament team).  The problem for the SEC is everyone below there was not good. 

That means 3 dominant teams (all made the elite 8), and one so-so team that won 1 NCAA game as an 8-seed. 

They've outperformed expectations as Florida/SC are closer to top 20 than top 8 teams, but that doesn't mean the SEC was better than advertised.  It mostly means SC is back to playing ball like they were when they were 19-4 and a top 20 team.

Florida and SC were far from "dominant." Even Kentucky was not dominant."

[MarquetteDano]

If everyone took their brackets through the Sweet Sixteen and added up the conference wins  I would bet good money a lot of people had the ACC and Big 12 with double digit wins.  No one had the SEC with double digit wins.  They are 10-2.

That is the very definition of underrated.

[wadesworld]

If everyone took their brackets through the Sweet Sixteen and added up the conference wins  I would bet good money a lot of people had the ACC and Big 12 with double digit wins.  No one had the SEC with double digit wins.  They are 10-2.

That is the very definition of underrated.

Bingo.

[brewcity77]

If everyone took their brackets through the Sweet Sixteen and added up the conference wins  I would bet good money a lot of people had the ACC and Big 12 with double digit wins.  No one had the SEC with double digit wins.  They are 10-2.

That is the very definition of underrated.

By what standard? "Everyone" So Alice in the office pool picking ACC teams based on uniform colors is as valid as what avid fans pick, or what TV pundits pick, or what a coin-flip picks? That's completely subjective.

The SEC was rated just fine. Kentucky won games in which they were seeded higher, rated higher in computer rankings like Pomeroy, and favored by Vegas. Florida won games in which they were seeded higher, rated higher in computer rankings, and favored by Vegas. South Carolina is the only outlier of the three.

If you want to argue that other conference underperformed relative to expectations, I'd grant that. But anyone saying that USC's run (and that's the ONLY outlier the SEC has) is some declaration of an underrated conference and some heretofore unknown conference strength is making an irrational argument.

The only way, the ONLY way, that assertion would be valid is if it were accompanied by statements that the 2010 Horizon League, the 2011 Colonial Athletic Association and Horizon League, and the 2013 Missouri Valley Conference were top four leagues in those respective years due to having representatives in the Final Four. Anything less would be disingenuous.

[forgetful]

Florida and SC were far from "dominant." Even Kentucky was not dominant."

Admitted, I am using dominant here loosely.  I'm using in reference to a top 20 national team.  Amongst the top 20, it is a bit of a crapshoot on who makes the elite 8 in the NCAA.  Florida and SC were top 20 teams this year...SC dropped out of that range when they lost 6 of their last 9 games...got in a funk.

[MarquetteDano]

By what standard? "Everyone" So Alice in the office pool picking ACC teams based on uniform colors is as valid as what avid fans pick, or what TV pundits pick, or what a coin-flip picks? That's completely subjective.

The SEC was rated just fine. Kentucky won games in which they were seeded higher, rated higher in computer rankings like Pomeroy, and favored by Vegas. Florida won games in which they were seeded higher, rated higher in computer rankings, and favored by Vegas. South Carolina is the only outlier of the three.

If you want to argue that other conference underperformed relative to expectations, I'd grant that. But anyone saying that USC's run (and that's the ONLY outlier the SEC has) is some declaration of an underrated conference and some heretofore unknown conference strength is making an irrational argument.

The only way, the ONLY way, that assertion would be valid is if it were accompanied by statements that the 2010 Horizon League, the 2011 Colonial Athletic Association and Horizon League, and the 2013 Missouri Valley Conference were top four leagues in those respective years due to having representatives in the Final Four. Anything less would be disingenuous.

Not talking about seeding. What I am saying is other than SEC territory no one had the conference going 10-2 at this point. Though  I bet they had  double digit wins  for conferences like the ACC et al.

Thus they were underrated by people. That sinple.

[bilsu]

That's fair. It doesn't change my personal perception of the SEC. I don't value games in March more than any other game (besides the publicity and money it brings).

The teams that are in the tournament have spent the whole year getting better to the point they are at in March. There is not a team in the tournament that would not absolutely destroy their November team, if it was possible to have such a game. For example MU would just roll over the team that MU was in the first game of the season. At that time Markus and Sam were not starters.

[wadesworld]

By what standard? "Everyone" So Alice in the office pool picking ACC teams based on uniform colors is as valid as what avid fans pick, or what TV pundits pick, or what a coin-flip picks? That's completely subjective.

The SEC was rated just fine. Kentucky won games in which they were seeded higher, rated higher in computer rankings like Pomeroy, and favored by Vegas. Florida won games in which they were seeded higher, rated higher in computer rankings, and favored by Vegas. South Carolina is the only outlier of the three.

If you want to argue that other conference underperformed relative to expectations, I'd grant that. But anyone saying that USC's run (and that's the ONLY outlier the SEC has) is some declaration of an underrated conference and some heretofore unknown conference strength is making an irrational argument.

The only way, the ONLY way, that assertion would be valid is if it were accompanied by statements that the 2010 Horizon League, the 2011 Colonial Athletic Association and Horizon League, and the 2013 Missouri Valley Conference were top four leagues in those respective years due to having representatives in the Final Four. Anything less would be disingenuous.

That's the difference. That's one team making a run at the right time. And I'd argue in those cases those single teams were under appreciated and the fact that while they did make those runs may not have proven they were legitimately a top 4 team in the country, it did prove that they legitimately could play with any team in the country on any night and I doubt many people in the country thought that was true going into the Tournament.

This is 3 teams from the same conference all making runs. And the only team that has challenged UNC so far this Tourney is another SEC team. When you're a 4 seed or a 7 seed you aren't expected to be in the E8. No matter who falls before you get to them, a 4 seed in the E8 is exceeding the expectation of them losing in the S16 like they were supposed to have done.

[brewcity77]

That's the difference. That's one team making a run at the right time. And I'd argue in those cases those single teams were under appreciated and the fact that while they did make those runs may not have proven they were legitimately a top 4 team in the country, it did prove that they legitimately could play with any team in the country on any night and I doubt many people in the country thought that was true going into the Tournament.

This is 3 teams from the same conference all making runs. And the only team that has challenged UNC so far this Tourney is another SEC team. When you're a 4 seed or a 7 seed you aren't expected to be in the E8. No matter who falls before you get to them, a 4 seed in the E8 is exceeding the expectation of them losing in the S16 like they were supposed to have done.

So if a 3 seed beat a 14, 11, and 15 to reach the Elite 8 they'd be overachievers, but if they lost to that 15 they'd be doing what they were supposed to? 

The only overachiever in the SEC is South Carolina. Which is why it's as meaningful as Wichita, VCU, or Butler, and frankly less so unless they win tomorrow.

The tournament is great entertainment. It allows non-CBB fans to jump in in March and enjoy the single elimination. But for avid CBB fans, ignoring 80% of the season because of the weekends at the end is nonsensical.

[wadesworld]

So if a 3 seed beat a 14, 11, and 15 to reach the Elite 8 they'd be overachievers, but if they lost to that 15 they'd be doing what they were supposed to? 

The only overachiever in the SEC is South Carolina. Which is why it's as meaningful as Wichita, VCU, or Butler, and frankly less so unless they win tomorrow.

The tournament is great entertainment. It allows non-CBB fans to jump in in March and enjoy the single elimination. But for avid CBB fans, ignoring 80% of the season because of the weekends at the end is nonsensical.

You are completely wrong. A 4 seed is supposed to lose in the S16. So yes, a 4 seed in the E8 is overachieving.

[brewcity77]

You are completely wrong. A 4 seed is supposed to lose in the S16. So yes, a 4 seed in the E8 is overachieving.

No, it's absolutely ridiculous to not take circumstances into account.

[Billy Hoyle]

I'll bet the Oregon board is whining like puppies over having to play a "road game" against a lower seed too.

[wadesworld]

I'll bet the Oregon board is whining like puppies over having to play a "road game" against a lower seed too.

A 1 seed? Interesting bet there.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The teams that are in the tournament have spent the whole year getting better to the point they are at in March. There is not a team in the tournament that would not absolutely destroy their November team, if it was possible to have such a game. For example MU would just roll over the team that MU was in the first game of the season. At that time Markus and Sam were not starters.

The general gist of your point is correct. Most teams improve from November to March. Though, I don't think it is by as much as you think or as universal as you think. I'm not sure what this has to do with the post you quoted.

[MU82]

Again. Why does everything have to be an absolute? I think the SEC sending 3 teams to the Elite 8 absolutely does wonders for the perception (and bottom line) of that conference. I also think that the three of them making the elite 8 does not mean that they were underseeded to start the tournament. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Common sense ... man, TAMU, you are boring.

[wadesworld]

I value games in March more because you're playing for a championship. In November-February you're playing for seeding for that championship.

Go ask DeAaron Fox if he felt the same way after Kentucky's loss to Tennessee in January. Ask Roy Williams if he felt the same after UNC's losses to Louisville and Notre Dame to start February of 2016 as he did after they lost to Villanova last year.

[MarquetteDano]

I value games in March more because you're playing for a championship. In November-February you're playing for seeding for that championship.

Go ask DeAaron Fox if he felt the same way after Kentucky's loss to Tennessee in January. Ask Roy Williams if he felt the same after UNC's losses to Louisville and Notre Dame to start February of 2016 as he did after they lost to Villanova last year.

Yup.  There are three things that matter in Division I basketball.  In order...

1. NCAA Tournament
2. Conference regular season title
3. Conference tourney title

Regular season wins are nice but let's face it... those don't mean jack compared to above.

[rocket surgeon]

When it comes to tournament time, people have short memories and it becomes "what have ya done for me lately". It's a long season, ratings change like a flip chart in the wind, early season upsets become a distant memory.  It's all about getting HOT at the right time and all the pieces fall together.  Lots of quality teams; a turnover, a flagrant foul, a missed call, an errant bounce...what a game!

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I value games in March more because you're playing for a championship. In November-February you're playing for seeding for that championship.

Go ask DeAaron Fox if he felt the same way after Kentucky's loss to Tennessee in January. Ask Roy Williams if he felt the same after UNC's losses to Louisville and Notre Dame to start February of 2016 as he did after they lost to Villanova last year.

I value the wins more as a fan. The wins feel better and the losses feel worse. No denying that. But when I evaluate the quality of team's season I don't value the games in March more than I do the games the rest of the season.