NCAA Tournament 2nd Round Game Thread

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
And the way seeding works, 12 seeds are often better teams than 5 seeds. Same way with 10-7 matchups.
What do you mean, “the way the seeding works”? There’s no real evidence 12 seeds are often better than 5 seeds, unless you consider winning one game as such. They win about 35% of the time, which is pretty much what the odds predict from 5-6 point underdogs, as they usually are.
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
39,431
Harrisburg, Pa.
What do you mean, “the way the seeding works”? There’s no real evidence 12 seeds are often better than 5 seeds, unless you consider winning one game as such. They win about 35% of the time, which is pretty much what the odds predict from 5-6 point underdogs, as they usually are.
12s are often very good mid major teams who are ot, 5s can often be mediocre Power 5 teams that have recently struggled.
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,839
Perkins is going to be shooting a lot of FTs in practice this week
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
39,431
Harrisburg, Pa.
Didn’t someone here say Gonzaga wasn’t a major program?

They’re headed to its 5 straight Sweet 16. It’s the longest active streak.
 

McBride11

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
22,109
Durham, NC
The gap between the 3 to 14 seeds is closer than ever. That will make for more games that aren't considered wild upsets which is what the tourney is built on.
As a Bucknell alum (14-3 over KU) i appreciate this!
Besides Lsu today (maybe wof) things havent been that close. And things like Minny and Murray st first round were clear.
I couldnt watch a lot of day games thurs / fri but didnt seem infused with drama nor the nite games (on large, relative to other tourney)
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
12s are often very good mid major teams who are ot, 5s can often be mediocre Power 5 teams that have recently struggled.
Which 12 this year was better than which 5?

The seedings tend to be very good, and correlate closely with advanced analytical ratings. People just think “12s are often better” based on hindsight. Those mediocre Power 5 #5 seeds win 2 out of 3 Times.
 

McBride11

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
22,109
Durham, NC
Which 12 this year was better than which 5?

The seedings tend to be very good, and correlate closely with advanced analytical ratings. People just think “12s are often better” based on hindsight. Those mediocre Power 5 #5 seeds win 2 out of 3 Times.
Is it that 12 beats 5 more often than 11-6 or 13-4? So we create a bias.
In my mind 12 and 10s seem to be the best picks for upset.
Sorry i cant crunch the numbers
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
39,431
Harrisburg, Pa.
Which 12 this year was better than which 5?

The seedings tend to be very good, and correlate closely with advanced analytical ratings. People just think “12s are often better” based on hindsight. Those mediocre Power 5 #5 seeds win 2 out of 3 Times.
I don’t think Murray State was an upset at all. Oregon too, but different since they’re P5.

Seeding is very good indeed, but a good mid major at 12 will hardly ever be seeeded higher because conference alignments. It’s not a negative.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
Which 12 this year was better than which 5?

The seedings tend to be very good, and correlate closely with advanced analytical ratings. People just think “12s are often better” based on hindsight. Those mediocre Power 5 #12 seeds win 2 out of 3 Times.
In the last 10 years, 12 seeds are 19-21 vs. 5 seeds.
2009--3
2010--1
2011--1
2012--2
2013--3
2014--3
2015--0
2016--2
2017--1
2018--0
2019--3
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
Why are you stopping at 10 years when we have complete data? Small samples are fun. This time last year, we’d have said 12s were 3-13 in the last four years. They win in very close approximation to their odds, which tend to be in the 4.5-6 point (~+185) range.

Edit: You also posted 11 years. So it’s 16-24= 40%.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
Why are you stopping at 10 years when we have complete data? Small samples are fun. This time last year, we’d have said 12s were 3-13 in the last four years. They win in very close approximation to their odds, which tend to be in the 4.5-6 point (~+185) range.

Edit: You also posted 11 years. So it’s 16-24= 40%.
You think data from 20 and 30 years ago matters much now in this argument? The quality of double digit seeds has gotten so much better in this century that evaluating what happened in the 80s and 90s is irrelevant.
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
39,431
Harrisburg, Pa.
Why are you stopping at 10 years when we have complete data? Small samples are fun. This time last year, we’d have said 12s were 3-13 in the last four years. They win in very close approximation to their odds, which tend to be in the 4.5-6 point (~+185) range.

Edit: You also posted 11 years. So it’s 16-24= 40%.
Mid majors now are not remotely comparable to them before say 2005. Entirely different environment.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
I don’t think Murray State was an upset at all. Oregon too, but different since they’re P5.
And that’s what I’m talking about. It’s easy to say after a loss. But in the real world, there’s no way Murray State is better than Marquette. kenPom has them as #53 and #31. Sagarin, 52 and 26. Murray State beat exactly nobody, and lost to three terrible teams. It’s just decency bias based on a single game that they were expected to win one out of three times. They hit their hand, that’s all.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
You think data from 20 and 30 years ago matters much now in this argument? The quality of double digit seeds has gotten so much better in this century that evaluating what happened in the 80s and 90s is irrelevant.
So, counting wins over 11 years and pretending it’s 10 is the way to go?
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
And that’s what I’m talking about. It’s easy to say after a loss. But in the real world, there’s no way Murray State is better than Marquette. kenPom has them as #53 and #31. Sagarin, 52 and 26. Murray State beat exactly nobody, and lost to three terrible teams. It’s just decency bias based on a single game that they were expected to win one out of three times. They hit their hand, that’s all.
I don't think this at all. If you had watched Marquette down the stretch of the season, you would have known they were a struggling team. They lost 5 of 6 heading into the NCAA Tournament.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
I'm not pretending it's 10 years. I made a mistake and should have said from 2009-2019.
Great, so in the past 5 years, 12s have won 30%. In the past 10 and 15 years, it's 40%. and since 1985, it's about 35%. Do you feel you've proven your point in showing me how wrong I was in saying they win about 35% of the time?

And you still should have said 19-25 from 2009-2019.
 
Last edited:

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
I don't think this at all. If you had watched Marquette down the stretch of the season, you would have known they were a struggling team. They lost 5 of 6 heading into the NCAA Tournament.
But how would they have fared if they'd been playing Morehead State and Austin Peay?
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
Great, so in the past 5 years, 12s have won 30%. In the past 10 and 15 years, it's 40%. and since 1985, it's about 35%. Do you feel you've proven your point in showing me how wrong I was in saying they win about 35% of the time?

And you still should have said 19-25 from 2009-2019.
Yes I should’ve said 19-25.

I just think that the mid-majors who are double digit seeds are better teams in the last 10 years or so. Therefore, I am no longer surprised when teams like Murray State,UC Irvine, or Liberty win games in the tournament. The talent gap in college basketball has shrunk.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
Yes I should’ve said 19-25.

I just think that the mid-majors who are double digit seeds are better teams in the last 10 years or so. Therefore, I am no longer surprised when teams like Murray State,UC Irvine, or Liberty win games in the tournament. The talent gap in college basketball has shrunk.
Well, including Liberty, there have only been 7 non-P5 #12 teams to beat P5 #5 seeds in the last 10 years. In the last 5 years, P5 5-seeds are 12-4 against nonP5 12-seeds. The talent gap just hasn’t actually shrunk nearly as much as it appears in the moment. It’s all pretty much math.
 
Last edited:

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
39,431
Harrisburg, Pa.
Not surprised about Auburn beating KU as I had Auburn winning here, but the margin at the half is something else. Wow.
Yea I picked Auburn because this is the weakest Kansas team in years but didn’t expect a blowout by halftime. So far I’m 7/7 on Sweet 16 teams, Auburn winning would make it 8/8 today. Not bad.
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,370
Can we just admit this tournament has been hot garbage? The quality of play is terrible and the games non competitive. If Zion wasn’t playing would anyone even watch this crap?
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
Can we just admit this tournament has been hot garbage? The quality of play is terrible and the games non competitive. If Zion wasn’t playing would anyone even watch this crap?
It has been hot garbage. Yesterday was really bad, (after a pretty bland first two days) and I can't remember a Round of 32 Saturday where there were 7 blowouts. And that's not a reach, the last 6 games yesterday were all not worth watching in the 2nd half. At least Wofford didn't fall apart until 90 seconds left in the game.

That's rough, but it happens.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Is Purdue this good or is Nova this bad?
Just catching up on this thread.

I think it's a combination of Nova on a bad day and Purdue - especially Carson Edwards, who played better than I have ever seen before - firing on all cylinders.

Was pretty clear since early in the year that Nova was not a serious contender to repeat. But that was still an impressive beat down by the Boilermakers.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Man, good to see that the “blame the refs” angle isn’t only limited to Celtics game threads. I bet Wofford 1H (won) and game (lost), watched every possession with buddy who had same. There was not one time either of us even considered this a lopsided officiated game to where we blamed the officiating on favoring UK. They bigger more athletic team is always going to have a physical advantage......that’s the advantage of being bigger and more athletic.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
Why are you stopping at 3 years when we have complete data? Small samples are fun.
Year before that, too. I’m not interested in going back to check forever, but I sure don’t remember when we had to walk through six miles of snow to school and they played the 8th game of the day before lunchtime.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
Sorry if I don't recall the TV schedule every year. It still sucks.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but how would you prefer it to be scheduled, and when was it scheduled that way (when it used to be the best weekend of the year)? For example, a quick check shows back in 2010, the SECOND game of the day wasn’t until 5:20 Eastern,

There are a lot of people living in the western part of the country. That’s probably not going to change in the near future.