Reply With Quote
Not as bad as the PAC 12 having 3 teams in.
At those big east officials desperately trying to get Seton Hall the win in the big east championship game to get another team into the tourney.
Well, for all I know they'll still get in at 20-13 as a "power conference team" over some 26-6 "mid major"
Not as bad as the PAC 12 having 3 teams in.
BigEast is sneaking like that. Mafia mindset
ACC should get 3 Number One seeds with Tennessee flaming out today. Maybe Michigan State steals Gonzaga's spot
Gonzaga's one seed was never really in doubt. They were in the running for top seed overall before the St. Mary's upset. Michigan State had six losses, including three in a row at one point.
Don't get me wrong; there are plenty who probably would pick Mich State. But the committee is averse to screwing over the highest profile mid major Gonzaga, who is basically the one honorary Power Conference team at this point (following years of screwing them over on seeding and match-ups). If any team were to have snuck past Gonzaga, it would've been Kentucky; but imo, Gonzaga has looked like the more dominant team consistently throughout the season. As a gambler, I can tell you they were the most reliable team, imo. Kentucky was more lackadaisical in their play at times.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nca...cid=spartanntp
It just wasn't like this, back in the day. And the non PC teams get totally ed over on seeding to boot. The good thing is that sometimes when it gets to the Sweet Sixteen and the story lines are boring, sometimes people tune out. Maybe, some day this bull will be corrected; but apparently the motivation does not exist.Of the 36 NCAA tournament bids awarded to at-large teams in 2018, all but three went to programs hailing from the five football power leagues, the Big East and the American Athletic Conference. Same with the year before. And the year before that.
Well Washington was good enough for an at large bid and Oregon won the tournament, ASU making it (even as a play in team) was re ed.
The best basketball is this tourney.
Won't even pretend to be a knowledgeable basketball fan, but.....never miss this tourney. Love it.
Pay...0...attention until the tourney. Have been upon Zion however, yep....special.
ESPN was preemptively justifying Gonzaga not getting a number one seed. No surprise there.
Seth Walder ESPN Analytics
Gonzaga ranks 9th in Strength of Record entering today. It's not impossible, but BPI is skeptical that that will be enough for the Bulldogs to land a No. 1 seed.
I found Pac 12 the toughest conference to bet on the last few years with so much mediocrity and inconsistency; this year was worse than ever. Oregon, ASU, Washington I had some level of trust; but it was completely unpredictable with every thing else.
Last edited by Spurtacular; 03-17-2019 at 09:23 PM.
Teams that finish first in non "power" conferences but fail in the conference tourney more often than not get no consideration unless their win total hits 28 or more. It's pretty sickening, honestly. Teams like UC Irvine and Buffalo are legit 4 seeds. What will they get though? And what unfitting match-up(s) will they get to try and stop them from reaching the Sweet Sixteen. I'd say the same for Houston, but I think they've got enough exposure and should get a 3 seed. But I wouldn't be surprised if they're playing a 14 that should be a 7.
I haven't looked closely; the ASU selection doesn't bother me right off. Who would you have rather seen?
Spoke too soon. Houston lost to Cinci in the conference championship. That should be enough to drop a 29-3 team to a 5 or 6 seed. Maybe they'll squeak in at a 4 still.
Auburn who has been nothing special 'til lately beat Tennessee by 20 in their championship game. I'm sure they'll still a higher seed than Houston.
Brackets already done before the Hou champ game I think. They kept their 3 seed. Buffalo at 6 is nonsense. UCI at 13 is a sham. Maybe I over-rated them early; but 5-8 is obviously more fair.
More than Gonzaga, the UNC #1 seed is stupid. Their resume isn’t that good. They got blasted at home by 20 against Louisville. Trucked at the beginning of the season by Michigan. Lost another home game to Kentucky. And their two big wins against Duke came when Zion got hurt and the other when he didn’t play. The rest of their resume isn’t all that impressive when you consider and weigh those Duke wins accordingly. I would have slotted MSU and Kentucky both as #1 seeds over UNC and Gonzaga. But oh well...
Not sure who I would have rather seen, but the Pac-12 was beyond weak this year. ASU's out of conference schedule was a joke too, their only big out of conference win (against Kansas when Kansas was a #1) turned out to be not very impressive either.
As you've said, teams get too much credit simply for being in a "Power 5" conference, which is what IMO happened with ASU. They finished the season 2nd in a "Power 5" conference and the committee as a result overlooked their extremely mediocre NET ranking (63) when multiple other teams (NC State at 33, Indiana at 54 to name a few) that didn't make it had better NET rankings and a more impressive track record IMO.
I don't really pay attention to the smaller conferences but I'm sure there's a team out there that's superior to ASU and got snubbed on an at large bid.
I'm also in complete agreement that the Big East is a ing joke that regularly underachieves in March but regularly gets way too many at large bids.
Not sure how the NET rankings work but those two examples of NC State and Indiana having relatively strong NET rankings is also flawed. NC State complained about being snubbed but they were terrible this season. They have like 1 good win over Auburn, but lost to every other good team they played. What relevance is having a tough schedule if you lose to every good team you play? Indiana beat MSU twice and that appears to be the only reason they were even remotely a bubble team. They had like an 8 game losing streak and many of those losses were not to good teams.
Seems just like the RPI and SOS factors of previous seasons, the NET rankings isn't a precise or accurate gauge to determine at-large bids.
Not that ASU is deserving. I'm just suggesting it still isn't close to a perfect solution.
As a MAC basketball fan I have no problem with Buffalo's seeding. Before this year no MAC team in the 64-team era got higher than a 9-seed. And Buffalo did lose decisively to Marquette, a 5-seed. So I think it's fair.
The Duke Blue Devils are the heaviest favorites entering the NCAA tournament since the 2014-15 Kentucky Wildcats, who arrived at the Big Dance undefeated but lost in the Final Four.
Just dropped a thousand on Houston to win it all, at 30/1 odds. Yolo
All the teams in top 5 have those losses. Buffalo is high caliber and deserved better, imo.
Watch for Auburn vs UNC. Tigers can light it up from 3 and Heels don't defense the 3 point line well.
Like I said, something changed. When I was lucidly watching them a month ago, they were dreadfully mediocre. And I had my biggest gambling loss of the year with NC at home against Miami; so, even though people are calling them potential champs, I have my doubts.
In before Houston loses the le game on a buzzer beater.
I love Houston and Buffalo as dark horses; but they can lose in any given game.
That Tech vs. Buffalo match-up in the 2nd round is tragic. Both deserved to be in Sweet Sixteen. But this engineering is standard.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
