Shaka's team

[bilsu]

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).

[Hards Alumni]

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.

[The Sultan]

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).

Outside of UConn's screwing up the last couple of years, the BE has performed pretty much to seed the last couple of tournaments.

[bilsu]

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.

[Newsdreams]

You are just looking at last year. Seton Hall, Providence and MU almost always lose in first round.

We always lose on national TV

[The Sultan]

We always lose on national TV

But at least we get the easy rebounds.

[BrewCity83]

You are just looking at last year. Seton Hall, Providence and MU almost always lose in first round.

You are just looking at the last nine years.

[MU82]

Damn light blue unis.

[The Equalizer]

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).

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 State

Performing at seed: 29 times
This 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.

[The Sultan]

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 State

Performing at seed: 29 times
This 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.

[brewcity77]

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.

[The Equalizer]

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 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.

[The Equalizer]

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.

As I said, I didn't consider a 1-seed difference large enough to warrant labeling a team as over- or under-performers.  I chose to use a minimum 2-seed difference as my threshold.

So I didn't include #2 Villanova beating #1 Kansas in 2016 as outperforming their seed. It also means that I didn't include #8 Seton Hall losing to #9 TCU in 2022 as underperforming. Or #4 Georgetown losing to #5 Utah in 2015. Or #8 Creighton losing to #9 Kansas State in 2018.

You know I already have the data--you could have just politely asked what the results would look like if I used a strict 1 seed threshold as opposed to 2 seeds.  In addition to Villanova as you cited, there were two #9s that beat #8s (PC and Butler in 2016).  On the other side of the ledger were the 3 examples cited above.   

So switching to a 1-seed difference, we would have
15 teams that underperformed (including 3 by a single seed line)
23 that performed to seed (generously counting a 0-3 performance in the First Four in this group).
4 that overperformed (only 1 by more than a single seed line)

Does that really change the argument for you?  Are you really going to look at the updated results and say 4 overperformers versus 15 underperforming teams is good performance?  The results still show the Big East has overwhelmingly underperformed their seed in the NCAA tournament.

[The Sultan]

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. 

Because you did so to declare a "winner" in a debate I wasn't having.

Or why you omitted those six years in the first place.

Because I wanted to.

[bilsu]

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.

[Newsdreams]

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 State

Performing at seed: 29 times
This 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.

The COLE is strong

[The Sultan]

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.

So the NCAA should not count the entire season?  That's ridiculous.  Does the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. weight late season games more strongly than early season ones?  Of course not.

And its not about conferences.  It's about teams.  A team's performance against its schedule is what gets them into the tournament.  The committee doesn't care at all about whether or not this performance comes against conference foes or non conference foes.  (Except for autobid conference champions of course.)  The entirety of the season is what matters.

[Herman Cain]

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.

Reality is performance  in non conference sets the trend on NET. Big East has done well since it's inception in non conference and gets a lot of bids as a result.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

NCAAT is not about making sure the best teams get in.  It's about the teams who earned a spot getting in

[MU82]

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.

Definitely.

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.

All games should decide who gets in the NCAA tournament. Teams that play strong non-conference schedules are rewarded, as they should be.

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?

What happened in previous seasons had nothing to do with what happened last season.

Last season, Marquette was 5-4 in second games against Big East opponents. Not tremendous but not horrible.

We were not a great defensive team last season, less so down the stretch.

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.

You're right ... there is a 0.00% chance of that happening.

[The Equalizer]

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. 

But now that you have all the data since the Big East restructuring, we can both move forward knowing that bilsu's point was spot on. The Big East teams really do underperform their seed far more frequently than overperform. 

At this point, I'm curious as to why this is the case.

[brewcity77]

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.

Sure, but if we're discounting November and December, there's no way to differentiate between the Big East and say the SWAC. So every league gets 2 bids. Conference tourney champ and highest league finisher that isn't the tourney champ.

[The Sultan]

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. 

Honestly I'm just mostly annoyed by bilsu's constant negativity.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[The Sultan]

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.

Disagree completely. The entire season should count equally. Just like every other sport...but college football. It's about performance over the course of the season. Not who gets hot at the end.