We made the top 25

[brewcity77]

LOL...yes, apparently it works only one way.  The "deep run" only counts if it's capped off by the championship but making a deep run to get to the championship apparently doesn't.

You're playing dirty pool here. The reason the deep run of UConn is more significant in speaking to conference strength is because UConn was the 9th placed team in their conference. VCU was 4th. Butler tied for 1st. Yes, their accomplishments indicate greater strength in their conferences than many thought, but saying that a team's run from the Horizon or CAA indicates a stronger conference than expected means that they are probably the 7th-10th best conferences in the country. Saying that a team from that far down in the Big East's run indicates a greater strength in their conference than expected means that the conference is one of the best in NCAA history.

I'll be the first to agree that the Big East wasn't as top-heavy as it was a couple years ago, but there were legitimately 11 teams that were very good. No conference has ever had such quality of depth as this year's Big East did, and if Hazell had been healthy all year, even Seton Hall may have had a slim chance of making the field.

Bottom line, the 9th placed team in a conference winning the national title is more significant to a conference's strength than the 1st or 4th placed teams making it to the final weekend.

Secondly, you're using the extreme seedings to make your argument.

Really, Chicos? You're accusing someone else of using extreme seedings, then you pull out that laundry list of crap? Come on, that's weak.

42% of 1-seeds make the Final Four. 22% of 2-seeds make the Final Four. 14% of 3-seeds make the Final Four. So 78% of the Final Four teams come from the top three seed lines. Going two more lines down, we see that 92% of all Final Four teams come from the top five seed lines. That's not a crap shoot.

Yes, 11-seeds have a winning record against 1-seeds. With a sample size of 5 games. You're going to say that you have something definitive with a sample size that small? How many times have those 8-seeds you mentioned even played against 6 or 7 seeds? Being on the opposite sides of the bracket, my guess is the total sample size of those games is less than 10, and probably less than 5. I'm sure 8's have played 4's and 5's a few more times, but again, my expectation is that you are looking at a very small sample size. And again, you are looking at one seed line. If it's such a crapshoot, where is the 16 that beat a 1? Why don't you see any 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 seeds ever making it to the Final Four? If I'm not mistaken, only 1 team seeded 12 or lower has even made it to an Elite Eight.

All in all, the seeds generally bear out. There are exceptions, there are years where it is complete turmoil (this was one of those) but to say that the NCAA Tournament is a crapshoot because you can pull a few small sample size stats out of your pocket is about as logical as me flipping a coin four times, having heads come up three of those flips, and saying that heads is definitively a better pick.

[Marquette84]

This is beyond wrong.
The NCAA Tournament and NCAA tournament games are nothing close to a crapshoot, at least not any more a crapshoot than any other part of the college basketball season. To the contrary, in the NCAA Tournament, the better, highly seeded teams almost always win and advance. When a top seed does lose, it's almost always to another highly seeded (i.e. quality) team of which the respective difference is minor (i.e. a top 10 Kentucky team knocking off a top 10 Ohio State team). The results are downright predictable.

So why play the tournament? 

We have just handed the trophy to Pitt as the highest rated #1 seed and call it a day?

Since the tourney expanded to 64 in 1985, there have been 741 double-digit seeds. Three of them have made it to the Final Four. On the other hand, 48 of 104 #1 seeds and 23 of 104 #2 seeds have made the Final Four. This was the first NCAA tournament ever that a one or two seed hasn't been in the Final Four. Again, the results aren't guaranteed, but they're very predictable.

And only once in NCAA history have all four #1 seeds made the final four.

If the results were predictable, we wouldn't have to play the games. 

Oh sure, there are occasional upsets where a low seed knocks off a high seed, but such upsets occur no more often in the tournament than in the regular season. There's nothing extra "crapshoot-y" about the tournament games. Their randomness and unpredictability is no greater than any other college basketball game.

I'll grant you that the 1/16 matchup is predictable--and the 2/15 matchup is close. 

But by the time you get to a 3/14 or 4/13 or 5/12, there are enough times the lower seed wins that its no longer a predictable.

[Lennys Tap]

You're playing dirty pool here. The reason the deep run of UConn is more significant in speaking to conference strength is because UConn was the 9th placed team in their conference. VCU was 4th. Butler tied for 1st. Yes, their accomplishments indicate greater strength in their conferences than many thought, but saying that a team's run from the Horizon or CAA indicates a stronger conference than expected means that they are probably the 7th-10th best conferences in the country. Saying that a team from that far down in the Big East's run indicates a greater strength in their conference than expected means that the conference is one of the best in NCAA history.

I'll be the first to agree that the Big East wasn't as top-heavy as it was a couple years ago, but there were legitimately 11 teams that were very good. No conference has ever had such quality of depth as this year's Big East did, and if Hazell had been healthy all year, even Seton Hall may have had a slim chance of making the field.

Bottom line, the 9th placed team in a conference winning the national title is more significant to a conference's strength than the 1st or 4th placed teams making it to the final weekend.

+1 on everything, including (especially) the "dirty pool" part. It's what typically occurs when facts and logic don't fit the "whatever can make this year's Marquette  team look worse" narrative that Chico (along with 84) feels compelled to push.

[Marquette84]

UCONN didn't have a "deep run". They won the frackin' national championship.

It might be fun to hear how you explain how UConn would win a championship WITHOUT a deep run.

'This after tying MU and Villanova for 9th, 10th and 11th place with a 9-9 record.
Did Butler or VCU win the national championship? I must have missed that. Did Butler or VCU have 9 regular season losses in their conferences? I must have missed that too. In reality, though, the Colonial conference was pretty good this year. In addition to VCU, Old Dominion won an NCAA game and George Mason lost to Butler on a last second shot. Butler is, well, Butler. Two years in a row in the championship game, but you and Chicos would have us believe they just won the equivalent of 5 consecutive coin flips two years in a row.

So what?

UConn, Butler and VCU each won games against higher seeded teams.  

Those upsets don't "speak to the strength" of their respective conferences.

And its a blatant double standard to pretend that UConn's upset alone is meaningful.

If you want to continue to insist that the NCAA tournament is some meaningless crapshoot be my guest. Maybe we can just pick a name out of a hat next year and call them champions.

I never said it was meaningless.

But an upset isn't sufficient evidence to override an entire season, either.

And its certainly a double standard to say one team's upset is meaningful, while similar upsets from teams in other conferences aren't meaningful.

[brewcity77]

But by the time you get to a 3/14 or 4/13 or 5/12, there are enough times the lower seed wins that its no longer a predictable.

They aren't 100% predictable, but as I pointed out above, 78% of the Final Four teams come from the top 3 seed lines, and 92% of the Final Four teams come from the top 5 seed lines. That's a pretty darn good indicator that the Tournament bears out that in most cases, the teams that are generally thought of to be the top 12-20 teams in the nation, are.

[Marquette84]

+1 on everything, including (especially) the "dirty pool" part. It's what typically occurs when facts and logic don't fit the "whatever can make this year's Marquette  team look worse" narrative that Chico (along with 84) feels compelled to push.

How does calling you on your double standards and illogical statements make Marquette look worse?

[ChicosBailBonds]

You're playing dirty pool here. The reason the deep run of UConn is more significant in speaking to conference strength is because UConn was the 9th placed team in their conference. VCU was 4th. Butler tied for 1st. Yes, their accomplishments indicate greater strength in their conferences than many thought, but saying that a team's run from the Horizon or CAA indicates a stronger conference than expected means that they are probably the 7th-10th best conferences in the country. Saying that a team from that far down in the Big East's run indicates a greater strength in their conference than expected means that the conference is one of the best in NCAA history.

I'll be the first to agree that the Big East wasn't as top-heavy as it was a couple years ago, but there were legitimately 11 teams that were very good. No conference has ever had such quality of depth as this year's Big East did, and if Hazell had been healthy all year, even Seton Hall may have had a slim chance of making the field.

Bottom line, the 9th placed team in a conference winning the national title is more significant to a conference's strength than the 1st or 4th placed teams making it to the final weekend.

Really, Chicos? You're accusing someone else of using extreme seedings, then you pull out that laundry list of crap? Come on, that's weak.

42% of 1-seeds make the Final Four. 22% of 2-seeds make the Final Four. 14% of 3-seeds make the Final Four. So 78% of the Final Four teams come from the top three seed lines. Going two more lines down, we see that 92% of all Final Four teams come from the top five seed lines. That's not a crap shoot.

Yes, 11-seeds have a winning record against 1-seeds. With a sample size of 5 games. You're going to say that you have something definitive with a sample size that small? How many times have those 8-seeds you mentioned even played against 6 or 7 seeds? Being on the opposite sides of the bracket, my guess is the total sample size of those games is less than 10, and probably less than 5. I'm sure 8's have played 4's and 5's a few more times, but again, my expectation is that you are looking at a very small sample size. And again, you are looking at one seed line. If it's such a crapshoot, where is the 16 that beat a 1? Why don't you see any 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 seeds ever making it to the Final Four? If I'm not mistaken, only 1 team seeded 12 or lower has even made it to an Elite Eight.

All in all, the seeds generally bear out. There are exceptions, there are years where it is complete turmoil (this was one of those) but to say that the NCAA Tournament is a crapshoot because you can pull a few small sample size stats out of your pocket is about as logical as me flipping a coin four times, having heads come up three of those flips, and saying that heads is definitively a better pick.

Dirty pool?  Come now.

You're own statement kind of proves the point...how can the #9 team in the conference be the best team in the nation?  It can't. It can be the NCAA champion, but it can't be the best team if it cannot even be the best team in it's own conference, let alone one of the top 8.  That was my point from the beginning on the Best Team wins nonsense.  How can the 9th place team in a conference be the best team in college basketball?  By definition it is IMPOSSIBLE.

I also don't get how you can say UCONN winning the title means the Big East was the best conference (I'm actually not arguing it wasn't...I think it was, but it's like the tallest midget in the circus...college basketball is pedestrian these days) while ignoring how poorly the conference did the first two rounds.  That's truly dirty pool and having it both ways.     You're making an exception for the one team that got through but ignoring all the teams that stubbed their toes in the first and second rounds as if they have no bearing.

By the way, no one ever said the TOP seeds don't bear out in the tournament, but it's the others that do not and that was my point.  The crap shoot is the entire tournament, not just the top seeds.  You can't ignore seeds 3 through 16 as if they don't participate in the NCAA tournament.

Since MU is never a top seed (#1 or #2) it's going to be a crap shoot for us every time.  To suggest it isn't is silly.

You're only focusing on the top seeds, the NCAA has 68 teams and you're focusing on 8 of them.....when was the last time we were one of those 8 teams.....never.  Since seeding began we have NEVER been in the top 2 lines EVER.  Twice we have been a 3 seed and made the Final Four and got bounced in the second round...crap shoot.

Where you play, who you play, when you play, etc, etc....it's a crap shoot. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

WTF? Having 2 or 3 or 5 days to prep in the regular season is the rule, just like in the tournament. And you have to prep the team while the players are distracted by things like going to class. And during the season the coaching staff is also out recruiting. The only focus for players (other than some work with tutors) and coaches both in the tourney is on the next opponent.

Yes, it's the rule and much different than the regular season. He said the NCAA tournament is no more a crap shoot than the regular season which is patently absurd on all levels. 

You know who you play in the regular season.  You know WHERE you play them in the regular season, which more than half of the games at home.  In the NCAAs, you don't know WHO you will play until 2 to 5 days ahead of the game, don't know WHERE you will play, etc, etc.  It's way more of a crap shoot in the NCAA tournament.

[Pakuni]

So why play the tournament? 

We have just handed the trophy to Pitt as the highest rated #1 seed and call it a day?


And only once in NCAA history have all four #1 seeds made the final four.

If the results were predictable, we wouldn't have to play the games. 

I'll grant you that the 1/16 matchup is predictable--and the 2/15 matchup is close.  

Are you somehow arguing here that anything that isn't 100 percent certain is thereby unpredictable or, even worse, a crapshoot? Predictable and guaranteed are not synonyms.
By your definition, it would seem, it's an utter crapshoot whether or not a drunk driver crashes into my living room tonight. I would have suggested that it's predictable that it will not happen. But since I can't be 100 percent sure, I suppose it might be a crapshoot.

A 2-15 is close to predictable? Since the the tournament expanded, there have been 108 2 vs 15 games. The 2 seed has won 104 of them, or 96.3 percent. Are you really suggesting that something that occurs 96.3 percent of the time is unpredictable?
Three seeds have beaten 14 seeds 85 percent of the time. Fours have beaten 13s 79 percent of the time.
These results show predictability. Not guarantees - there can never be a guarantee - but strong likely outcomes.

[brewcity77]

Dirty pool?  Come now.

You're own statement kind of proves the point...how can the #9 team in the conference be the best team in the nation?  It can't. It can be the NCAA champion, but it can't be the best team if it cannot even be the best team in it's own conference, let alone one of the top 8.  That was my point from the beginning on the Best Team wins nonsense.  How can the 9th place team in a conference be the best team in college basketball?  By definition it is IMPOSSIBLE.

I'm not arguing that the best team always wins the tournament, but rather that the progress of certain teams can be indicative of the overall strength of a conference. In this case, UConn winning the title shows the Big East to have a deeper level of quality than any conference has ever had in the history of the sport.

I also don't get how you can say UCONN winning the title means the Big East was the best conference (I'm actually not arguing it wasn't...I think it was, but it's like the tallest midget in the circus...college basketball is pedestrian these days) while ignoring how poorly the conference did the first two rounds.  That's truly dirty pool and having it both ways.     You're making an exception for the one team that got through but ignoring all the teams that stubbed their toes in the first and second rounds as if they have no bearing.

Scroll back to the top of the last page. Everyone who says the Big East flubbed so badly early is simply wrong. I'll repost the stats I included before.

Initial Field: 11/68 -- 16.18% (Expected)
Third Round: 7/32 -- 21.88% (Overachieved by 1.8 teams)
Sweet 16: 2/16 -- 12.50% (Underachieved by 0.6 teams)
Elite 8: 1/8 -- 12.50% (Underachieved by 0.3 teams)
Final 4: 1/4 -- 25.00% (Overachieved by 0.4 teams)
Title Game: 1/2 -- 50.00% (Overachieved by 0.7 teams)
Champion: 1/1 -- 100.00% (Overachieved by 0.8 teams)

This whole expectation that the Big East was going to put 6+ teams in the Sweet 16 was only propagated by people like Charles Barkley, who spent weeks denigrating the conference. Based on the number of entrants from the Big East, the conference never underachieved by so much as a full team. Maybe they should have had 3 Sweet 16 teams, or 2 Elite 8 teams, but at every other point, the Big East actually overachieved based on the number of teams that were in the field. The myth that the Big East failed greatly (yet still had the second best winning percentage of all conferences in the tournament) is simply silly.

By the way, no one ever said the TOP seeds don't bear out in the tournament, but it's the others that do not and that was my point.  The crap shoot is the entire tournament, not just the top seeds.  You can't ignore seeds 3 through 16 as if they don't participate in the NCAA tournament.

Umm...92% of the Final Four teams come not from the top 2 seeds, but from the top 5 seeds. I pointed that out. And that shows that the seeds generally hold further than just 1 and 2. Sure, some seeds have historically overachieved (notably 8 and 11) but that is less than a 10% minority. You are confusing upsets with a crapshoot. The tournament has upsets. That does not make it a crapshoot.

Since MU is never a top seed (#1 or #2) it's going to be a crap shoot for us every time.  To suggest it isn't is silly.

Considering that the 3-5 seeds account for 28% of the Final Four teams (odds of more than 1 a year), I'd hardly call it a crapshoot every time. Would our odds improve by getting to the 1 or 2 line? Of course. But if we can consistently be in the 3-5 range, we theoretically should be able to expect a Final Four about every 4 years.

You're only focusing on the top seeds, the NCAA has 68 teams and you're focusing on 8 of them.....when was the last time we were one of those 8 teams.....never.  Since seeding began we have NEVER been in the top 2 lines EVER.  Twice we have been a 3 seed and made the Final Four and got bounced in the second round...crap shoot.

Where you play, who you play, when you play, etc, etc....it's a crap shoot. 

Did you even read my post? I specifically mention seedlines down to 5, and in my post after that, I stated that the top 12-20 teams usually bear out to be the top teams in the nation. Is 28% a sure thing? No, but I wouldn't call it a crap shoot. Heck, it doesn't take much more than 28% for a three-point shooter to be considered a marksman.

Again, the problem here is that you are trying to skew the stats in your favor. When you talk about the tourney being a crapshoot, you look at one seed out of 16 and argue that the results of the 8 seeds against teams they barely play is somehow definitive proof of your argument. Then when I make an argument of the success of the top 5 seedlines, you say that I'm only using the top 2, which in terms of Final Four success ignores nearly a third of my argument.

And finally, using Marquette's success as a 3-seed indicates that if we can get a 3-seed, we have a 50% chance of making the Final Four. I'd call that a heck of a lot better odds than just a crapshoot. But let's be honest...2 cases is hardly enough to be a legitimate sample size.

[Pakuni]

The NCAA Tournament is no more of a crapshoot than the rest of the season? WTF?  On a Sunday you get invited and may have to play as early as Tuesday (i.e. what VCU did) against a team that you had not scouted, etc.....please tell me how that is anywhere close to anything in the regular season when you know who you are playing 3 to 4 months before playing them.

So wait ... you're now suggesting that the results of the tournament are a crapshoot because the vast majority of teams have a mere 4-5 days to prepare for their first round opponent?
How exactly does that make the outcomes any more or less predictable?

Want to win a beer at a bar.  The #11 seed all time has a winning record against the #1 seeds in the NCAA tournament...60% (3-2 record) while those same #11 seeds only win 33% against their opening round #6 seed, only win 9% of the time against #2 seeds and 28% of the time against #3 seeds...yet they have a winning record against the #1's.

Really? You're suggesting that of the more than 1,765 games played since the tournament expanded, five of them (which bore out a 3-2 record) has some significance? This is what's called a statistical anomaly, not evidence of unpredictability.

What you've decided to label as a crapshoot in the tournament is what most people would call an "upset" during the regular season. What evidence do you have that such upsets occur more often in the tournament than in the regular season? They don't. In fact, it's a frequent occurrence during the regular season to see bubble teams (the future 10, 11, 12 seeds) knock off future 2, 3, 4 seeds. But when the exact same thing happens in the tournament, now you've got a crapshoot? And you even see teams that are going to the NIT or lesser tourneys knocking off future top seeds (see: Virginia Tech over Duke, Georgia Tech over UNC, Nebraska over Texas), which is a degree of upset you rarely get in the tournament. And yet you don't see that as a crapshoot because the team's know one another schedules in advance?

[brewcity77]

What you've decided to label as a crapshoot in the tournament is what most people would call an "upset" during the regular season. What evidence do you have that such upsets occur more often in the tournament than in the regular season? They don't. In fact, it's a frequent occurrence during the regular season to see bubble teams (the future 10, 11, 12 seeds) knock off future 2, 3, 4 seeds. But when the exact same thing happens in the tournament, now you've got a crapshoot? And you even see teams that are going to the NIT or lesser tourneys knocking off future top seeds (see: Virginia Tech over Duke, Georgia Tech over UNC, Nebraska over Texas), which is a degree of upset you rarely get in the tournament. And yet you don't see that as a crapshoot because the team's know one another schedules in advance?

This is probably the most salient point of the argument. Upsets happen. They happen in the non-conference, they happen in conference play, they happen in the tournament. That's just part of college basketball.

While I agree with the idea that NCAA Tournament games are overrated in terms of the final coaches poll and in terms of how people regard the success or failure of a season, Chicos and M84 are underrating the importance of them as games. Just because it's one-and-done doesn't mean that the games are less important in regards to a team's quality at the end of the year.

The reason UConn looks so much better now is because they had a successful sample of six games to finish their season. The reason Pittsburgh shouldn't be dropped from 4 to 12 is because they only played 2 tournament games, and should only be regarded in terms of losing one game. If they lost to Butler in February, would they have dropped 8 places? No chance. Does UConn deserve to climb that high? I'd say so, because they are climbing while everyone else is idle.

Just because Tourney games are overrated by some doesn't mean that you have to underrate them to make a point, which is exactly what is happening here.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Initial Field: 11/68 -- 16.18% (Expected)
Third Round: 7/32 -- 21.88% (Overachieved by 1.8 teams)
Sweet 16: 2/16 -- 12.50% (Underachieved by 0.6 teams)
Elite 8: 1/8 -- 12.50% (Underachieved by 0.3 teams)
Final 4: 1/4 -- 25.00% (Overachieved by 0.4 teams)
Title Game: 1/2 -- 50.00% (Overachieved by 0.7 teams)
Champion: 1/1 -- 100.00% (Overachieved by 0.8 teams)

Wait a second Brew, when you were taking apart Bo Ryan a few weeks ago it was all about how he did against the seeds.  Now you're using a different argument, aren't you?  You're simply taking the number of teams left as they move forward...why the change in definition of success?  

Let's use the same criteria you used to take apart Coach Ryan

Big East got 11 teams in

According to the seeding in round 1, they should have gone 9-2 as Expected.  Reality is the Big East went 7-4 in that first round....one upset and 3 stubbed toes.  UNDERACHIEVED

In the second round, the Big East should have had 4 higher seeds win 4 games.  Instead they only won 1 game as the higher seed with Marquette the other...overall going 2-5 in the second round.  Of the losses, those included the #1 and #2 seeds going out in the second round.  Major stubbed toes again.  UNDERACHIEVED

So through the first two rounds we have of the 11 teams, 1 overachieved, 4 met expectation (WVU and Uconn, Cincy and Nova...which is a stretch because despite the 9 seed Nova was favored) while a whopping 6 underachieved (more than 50% of the Big East participants left the tournament as underachievers using the same system you used just two weeks ago to judge Bo Ryan).  

One team does not a conference make...nor should the NCAA tournament make any conference quite frankly.  I'd argue the Big East was the best conference based on getting 11 seeds, having a winning record against the 5 other power conferences, etc, etc.  The NCAA Tournament didn't show the Big East to be the best, just because one of it's members (9th place as it was) won the tournament...you can't ignore the multiple stubbed toes on one hand and only recognize the merits of one.

The other irony, using the seeding system you used last week, of the 6 games UCONN played, only ONE was against a "better" seed and that was playing #2 San Diego State...not exactly a strong #2.  Their run to the championship they were the better seed in all but one game in which they played a slightly overrated seed that was only one line better than them.

[rocky_warrior]

So...uh....in the final coaches poll we made the top #25 huh? 

Congrats Marquette!

Way to stay on topic guys.