Scholarship table
It only matters if you improve vis-a-vis your competition.
This is probably why Big East has not done well in NCAA tournament. They perform well enough in November and December to earn multiple bids, but during the conference season they do not improve enough to win first round games(except for Villanova).
Providence lost to the National Champs by 5 in a S16 game, and Creighton had just lost to the National Champs by 7 in the second round.UConn, Marquette, and SHU got bounced in the first round.So the facts don't support your claim at all.You're being a bit of an Eeyore lately.
You are just looking at last year. Seton Hall, Providence and MU almost always lose in first round.
We always lose on national TV
Outside of UConn's screwing up the last couple of years, the BE has performed pretty much to seed the last couple of tournaments.
I was curious as to which of these is closer to the truth.I looked at the Big East NCAA tournament performance since the Big East restructuring, and the track record actually isn't that good. Big East teams frequently underperform and almost never overperform their seed.For this analysis, I excluded teams that won or lost by one seed line. In other words, I didn't count a #1 seed losing to a #2 as underperforming, or a #9 seed beating a #8 as overperforming. I also didn't limit this to the first round--I figure that a #1 seed losing to a #8 or #9 in the second round isn't supporting the argument that teams are playing to their seed. If you want to take consolation that in 2017 Villanova beat #16 Mount St. Marys before losing to #8 Wisconsin, be my guest. Performing below seed: 12 times- 2014 #2 Villanova lost to #7 UConn- 2014 #3 Creighton lost to #6 Baylor- 2015 #1 Villanova lost to #8 UNC- 2015 #6 Providence lost to #11 Dayton- 2016 #2 Xavier lost to #7 UW- 2016 #6 SH lost to #11 Gonzaga- 2017 #1 Villanova lost to #8 Xavier- 2017 #6 Creighton lost to #11 URI- 2018 #1 Xavier lost to #9 FSU- 2019 #5 MU lost to #12 Murray State- 2021 #7 UConn lost to #10 Maryland- 2022 #5 UConn lost to #12 New Mexico StatePerforming at seed: 29 timesThis includes 3 first four losses: Xavier in 2014, St. Johns in 2019, and Providence in 2017.Performing above seed: 1 time (technically it was twice, but it was the same tournament by #11 Xavier who beat #3 FSU and #2 Arizona in 2017).I think it's fair to say that bilsu wins the argument--the Big East underperforms far more frequently than it overperforms.
I said “the last couple of tournaments” and specifically mentioned UConn. So you used a lot of words to verify what I said. Congrats on wasting your time.
I'm pretty sure 2016 Villanova outperformed their seed. Ignoring teams that are highly seeded is just silly and trying to reinforce one side of the argument.
I guess I don't understand why you think it's a waste of time for me to start with the two years of data you provided and add the six years you omitted.
Or why you omitted those six years in the first place.
This is why I think November and December games should not decide who gets in tournament. A league that wins the early non-conference games gets more weight at tournament time than a league that underperforms.
Every tournament I list the number of bids by conference and then cross out the teams that lose.Big 10 did very poorly this year, with several of their teams losing in first round. Many of them were upsets. Clearly, the Big 10 was way overrated.This is why I think November and December games should not decide who gets in tournament. A league that wins the early non-conference games gets more weight at tournament time than a league that underperforms. All teams improve from November to March, but not at the same rate. Generally, in the last few years MU has done very well early on and then fades the last half of conference season. Does MU peak earlier than other teams? Very disappointing that the same thing happened last year. It may be that the other Big East coaches are better at adjusting to what MU does the second time around. I may be wrong, but I felt MU pulled back on their pressure defense after we lost to Providence. Our offense fed off of defense, so playing more passively on defense hurt our offense. Did anyone else feel like we were less aggressive on defense or was it just me?It is not going to happen, but to get a better picture for the NCAA tournament, the conference season should be played first. The non-conference season after the conference season and then the conference tournaments.
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
Big 10 did very poorly this year, with several of their teams losing in first round. Many of them were upsets. Clearly, the Big 10 was way overrated.
Every tournament I list the number of bids by conference and then cross out the teams that lose.I think November and December games should not decide who gets in tournament.
Generally, in the last few years MU has done very well early on and then fades the last half of conference season. Does MU peak earlier than other teams? Very disappointing that the same thing happened last year. It may be that the other Big East coaches are better at adjusting to what MU does the second time around. I may be wrong, but I felt MU pulled back on their pressure defense after we lost to Providence. Our offense fed off of defense, so playing more passively on defense hurt our offense. Did anyone else feel like we were less aggressive on defense or was it just me?
It is not going to happen, but to get a better picture for the NCAA tournament, the conference season should be played first. The non-conference season after the conference season and then the conference tournaments.
Because you did so to declare a "winner" in a debate I wasn't having.
To be fair, your comment was made in direct response (and even quoted) bilsu's post that asserted that the Big East underperforms in the NCAA tournament. The nature of your comment, and that it was made in the context of the quoted post, made it sound like you disagreed that that point. If I got you wrong and you weren't trying to dispute the point, I apologize.
NCAAT is not about making sure the best teams get in. It's about the teams who earned a spot getting in
The NCAA used to put greater emphasis on the last 10 games a team played. Teams that “limped in” were either not invited or saw their seed drop significantly. The reverse was true for teams on a charge. IMO that was an improvement to the way they do things now.