Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

***Official 2021 NCAA Tournament Thread***

I am really looking forward to USC Gonzaga because I think USC has the athletes to hang with the Zags. The key to beating Gonzaga is not turning the ball over and getting Timme in foul trouble because their bigs aren't great behind him and the Mobley's could feast in the paint. Also E. Mobley v. Kispert is intriguing. That is a lot of length he has to shoot over. I still think Gonzaga wins but I think it will be close.
Still not sure what to think about UCLA. I keep thinking they will get exposed and keep getting it wrong.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Acylum and BigCyFan
I wouldn't be all that surprised to see both PAC 12 teams win tonight, actually.
 
NENick said:
I agree, although I think Michigan winning without Livers shows they belong as a 1-seed. The point is that in a one game, win or go home tournament, saying team A is over or under seeded based on a win or a loss isn't accurate. Illinois losing to Loyola doesn't mean either was mis-seeded.
Click to expand...

If you reseeded the tournament Michigan gets a #1...the Big Ten would not get a 1, 1, 2, 2, and 4 seed though. That was ridiculous and a product of covid combined with the media love affair.

I looked up in another thread and we had five teams recently with similar or drastically better resumes than 2 seed Ohio State without ever getting a 2 seed.

You could even look at Illinois as still a one but it's pretty clear the Pac 12 was more deserving than the Big Ten and it was a big mistake to think they had 50% of the elite teams when really it was just one elite team.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Acylum
HFCS said:
If you reseeded the tournament Michigan gets a #1...the Big Ten would not get a 1, 1, 2, 2, and 4 seed though. That was ridiculous and a product of covid combined with the media love affair.

I looked up in another thread and we had five teams recently with similar or drastically better resumes than 2 seed Ohio State without ever getting a 2 seed.

You could even look at Illinois as still a one but it's pretty clear the Pac 12 was more deserving than the Big Ten and it was a big mistake to think they had 50% of the elite teams when really it was just one elite team.
Click to expand...
Who specifically do you feel was more deserving of a #2 seed than Ohio State? The #3 seeds were 19-7 Texas, 20-8 Kansas, 18-9 West Virginia and 22-6 Arkansas. You gonna give that #2 seed to one of the PAC-12 teams? Make a case base on their resume as of Selection Sunday.

You can't just say "they didn't deserve it" without naming what you feel was a better option.
 
randomfan44 said:
Who specifically do you feel was more deserving of a #2 seed than Ohio State? The #3 seeds were 19-7 Texas, 20-8 Kansas, 18-9 West Virginia and 22-6 Arkansas. You gonna give that #2 seed to one of the PAC-12 teams? Make a case base on their resume as of Selection Sunday.

You can't just say "they didn't deserve it" without naming what you feel was a better option.
Click to expand...

Lots of teams won a regular season title, conference tournament title or had a better record than Ohio State. Like a dozen.

I think we might need to change what we look at in criteria if it's just straight Net ranking (ohio State's #8 net ranking gets them the 2 seed but Loyolya's #10 net ranking somehow doesn't get them a 3 seed but all the way down to an 8 seed).

This is not a 2 seed:
Ohio State had lost 5 of their last 9 games
Ohio State didn't win their conference tournament
Ohio State lost 9 games
Ohio State finished 5th in their conference, not 5th in the nation like a 2 seed, 5th in their conference.
12-8 conference record, that is not 2 seed worthy.

You're just being obtuse if you can't imagine a criteria where that isn't a top 8 team in the nation.

The only reason they're a 2 seed is if we all think the Big Ten was 20x better than the other conferences, it wasn't. That was a sham. It was a super average conference with one good team in Michigan and bunch of bad teams at the bottom unlike the Big 12 with only a couple bad teams.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: CychiatricWard and Acylum
HFCS said:
Lots of teams won a regular season title, conference tournament title or had a better record than Ohio State. Like a dozen.

I think we might need to change what we look at in criteria if it's just straight Net ranking (ohio State's #8 net ranking gets them the 2 seed but Loyolya's #10 net ranking somehow doesn't get them a 3 seed but all the way down to an 8 seed).

This is not a 2 seed:
Ohio State had lost 5 of their last 9 games
Ohio State didn't win a game in their conference tournament
Ohio State lost 9 games
Ohio State finished 5th in their conference, not 5th in the nation like a 2 seed, 5th in their conference.
12-8 conference record, that is not 2 seed worthy. 12-9 if you count tourney loss.

You're just being obtuse if you can't imagine a criteria where that isn't a top 8 team in the nation.

The only reason they're a 2 seed is if we all think the Big Ten was 20x better than the other conferences, it wasn't. That was a sham. It was a super average conference with one good team in Michigan and bunch of bad teams at the bottom unlike the Big 12 with only a couple bad teams.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about the Buckeyes being overseeded, but you are factually incorrect about them not winning a game in the Big Ten tournament.

In fact they made it all the way to the championship game before they lost to Illinois. I think it might have even gone to overtime.

Which might explain why they got that #2 seed in the first place.
 
ISUChippewa said:
I agree with you about the Buckeyes being overseeded, but you are factually incorrect about them not winning a game in the Big Ten tournament.

In fact they made it all the way to the championship game before they lost to Illinois. I think it might have even gone to overtime.

Which might explain why they got that #2 seed in the first place.
Click to expand...

Oh I didn't realize those were tourney games and not regular season.

Still how many times does a team get seeded #5 in their conference based on an outright 5th place finish and then get seeded #2 in and NCAA regional without actually winning that tournament?

That's not normal.

Big 12 5 seed: tourney 4 seed
ACC 5 seed: tourney 7 seed
SEC 5 seed: tourney 7 seed
Pac 5 seed: didn't make tournament
Big East 5 seed: didn't make tournament

The committee honestly thought that while 4 teams were better than Ohio State in their own league...somehow only 7 teams could be better than them in the entire country? It's ludicrous and worth completely scrapping whatever selection criteria they're using. Otherwise I want to see conference 5 seeds regularly getting 2 seeds, why not give them a 1 seed for getting fifth in a conference?
 
HFCS said:
Lots of teams won a regular season title, conference tournament title or had a better record than Ohio State. Like a dozen.

I think we might need to change what we look at in criteria if it's just straight Net ranking (ohio State's #8 net ranking gets them the 2 seed but Loyolya's #10 net ranking somehow doesn't get them a 3 seed but all the way down to an 8 seed).

This is not a 2 seed:
Ohio State had lost 5 of their last 9 games
Ohio State didn't win a game in their conference tournament
Ohio State lost 9 games
Ohio State finished 5th in their conference, not 5th in the nation like a 2 seed, 5th in their conference.
12-8 conference record, that is not 2 seed worthy. 12-9 if you count tourney loss.

You're just being obtuse if you can't imagine a criteria where that isn't a top 8 team in the nation.

The only reason they're a 2 seed is if we all think the Big Ten was 20x better than the other conferences, it wasn't. That was a sham. It was a super average conference with one good team in Michigan and bunch of bad teams at the bottom unlike the Big 12 with only a couple bad teams.
Click to expand...
Again, all you did is list more complaints. Offer up a specific team and then compare their total body of work to Ohio State's on Selection Sunday. Who they beat, who they lost to, etc...
 
randomfan44 said:
Again, all you did is list more complaints. Offer up a specific team and then compare their total body of work to Ohio State's on Selection Sunday. Who they beat, who they lost to, etc...
Click to expand...

Two Pac teams easily could have gotten one of the 2 seeds over a 5th place team from a conference that already had a 1, 1 and 2. KU had one of their weakest teams in years but their resume and accomplishments are as good as Ohio State's super average year that magically resulted in a 2 seed.

When fifth place teams are getting seeded 5-8 overall in the NCAA tournament we need to scrap the seeding process because it's a guessing game joke at that point. Giving an eye test to one conference and thinking they need 50% of the top 8 seeds when in reality the conference isn't very good...dog**** system.

The scenario where a single conference gets a 4th team seeded in the top 8 should be incredibly far flung and that team should have a dynamite resume compared to Ohio State's super average resume. Loyola was #10 in net ranking. Put them over there before you deem that the Big Ten has half of all the elite teams. Does net ranking matter or not? Ohio State's #8 net ranking is the only reason to suggest they are a 2 seed...so why wasn't Loyola a 3?

I didn't realize you need it spelled out like you are five years old.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Acylum
HFCS said:
Two Pac teams easily could have gotten one of the 2 seeds over a 5th place team from a conference that already had a 1, 1 and 2. KU had one of their weakest teams in years but their resume and accomplishments are as good as Ohio State's super average year that magically resulted in a 2 seed.

When fifth place teams are getting seeded 5-8 overall in the NCAA tournament we need to scrap the seeding process because it's a guessing game joke at that point. Giving an eye test to one conference and thinking they need 50% of the top 8 seeds when in reality the conference isn't very good...dog**** system.

The scenario where a single conference gets a 4th team seeded in the top 8 should be incredibly far flung and that team should have a dynamite resume compared to Ohio State's super average resume. Loyola was #10 in net ranking. Put them over there before you deem that the Big Ten has half of all the elite teams. Does net ranking matter or not? Ohio State's #8 net ranking is the only reason to suggest they are a 2 seed...so why wasn't Loyola a 3?

I didn't realize you need it spelled out like you are five years old.
Click to expand...

I don't need it spelled out like a five year old. I need it supported by facts and reasoning like an adult.

There are no PAC 12 teams that had a resume even remotely as good as Ohio State's on Selection Sunday. Please. Have you actually looked at the schedules of any of the teams you are talking about? the top 2 teams in the PAC 12 were Oregon and USC. Oregon lost to Mizzou in their only non-con game of relevance. They split with Colorado, lost their only game vs. USC, lost 2 of 3 to an Oregon State team that finished 10-10 in the PAC 12 and lost to a Washington State team that finished 7-12 in PAC 12 play. USC? Their non-con matchup with Kansas got cancelled (thank god apparently), they beat BYU (meh), lost to UConn and then lost all 3 PAC 12 games to Colorado and several others, including to a bad Utah team that just fired their coach at the end of the year.

Loyola a two seed?!?! Outside of winning two of three from 11 seeded Drake, their total list of accomplishments against tourney teams was a 14 point loss to an OK Wisconsin that finished 6th in the Big Ten.

We get it. You don't like the Big 10 and you think all their teams got overseeded because of reputation. But at some point, you have to actually look at what people have and have not done. Stop comparing this year to other years. No season in history compares to this messed up year. So many teams had non-con games cancelled and conference games rescheduled into weird slots that it was a nearly impossible task to "properly" seed just about everyone below Gonzaga and Baylor.

Every year we hear this same nonsense about how the tourney overseeded specific teams or conferences. It's as lame as chanting "overrated" when a team beats a ranked team.
 
Seedings were invented for one reason, and one reason only: to prevent the better teams (or individuals) from meeting too early in a tournament. A committee is formed to "seed" who they think are the best teams. I want a committee to go with their "gut" and their "eye test" - that's their job.
NET, Ken Pom, etc. are fine, but faulty. Colgate was #9 in the NET. Iowa #6.
 
randomfan44 said:
I don't need it spelled out like a five year old. I need it supported by facts and reasoning like an adult.

There are no PAC 12 teams that had a resume even remotely as good as Ohio State's on Selection Sunday. Please. Have you actually looked at the schedules of any of the teams you are talking about? the top 2 teams in the PAC 12 were Oregon and USC. Oregon lost to Mizzou in their only non-con game of relevance. They split with Colorado, lost their only game vs. USC, lost 2 of 3 to an Oregon State team that finished 10-10 in the PAC 12 and lost to a Washington State team that finished 7-12 in PAC 12 play. USC? Their non-con matchup with Kansas got cancelled (thank god apparently), they beat BYU (meh), lost to UConn and then lost all 3 PAC 12 games to Colorado and several others, including to a bad Utah team that just fired their coach at the end of the year.

Loyola a two seed?!?! Outside of winning two of three from 11 seeded Drake, their total list of accomplishments against tourney teams was a 14 point loss to an OK Wisconsin that finished 6th in the Big Ten.

We get it. You don't like the Big 10 and you think all their teams got overseeded because of reputation. But at some point, you have to actually look at what people have and have not done. Stop comparing this year to other years. No season in history compares to this messed up year. So many teams had non-con games cancelled and conference games rescheduled into weird slots that it was a nearly impossible task to "properly" seed just about everyone below Gonzaga and Baylor.

Every year we hear this same nonsense about how the tourney overseeded specific teams or conferences. It's as lame as chanting "overrated" when a team beats a ranked team.
Click to expand...
Your circular reasoning isn’t a winning argument. You can’t say the b1g was some great conference and point to the seeds they got, then when they don’t live up to those seeds say they deserved them anyway because they were such a tough conference. Fact is they were probably a distant third.
 
Acylum said:
Your circular reasoning isn’t a winning argument. You can’t say the b1g was some great conference and point to the seeds they got, then when they don’t live up to those seeds say they deserved them anyway because they were such a tough conference. Fact is they were probably a distant third.
Click to expand...
Don’t bother with this guy. He thinks he’s a basketball savant because he’s the fan of a blue blood, which makes his opinion better than others. These team’s resumes look amazing because they were propped up to be. Ohio State had a huge slide near the end of the year before the Big Ten Tournament run. Most years that isn’t getting you a 2 seed. Not one ranking or metric is the end all be all, but there’s some real discrepancies with some. Like I get Loyola shouldn’t have been a 3 seed because of their top-10 NET ranking, but it should have got them a 5. Sure as hell shouldn’t have gotten them an 8. And I will remind everyone that Colgate (top-10 NET) arguably gave Arkansas their best game until Baylor.

I think the point is the entire country plays basketball not just the Big Ten. No conference should ever get that many top-4 seeds, especially in a year with almost no non-conference data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Acylum
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom