NCAA Tournament Scores and Discussion Thread

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Straw man!!! He never said that the ACC doesn't game it. Both game it the same way (playing a nasty high percentage of home games and staying away from dangerous teams like the Shox), but one is real and the other gets exposed most years in the tournament.

So the ACC is just flat out better every year, but they can't perform any better during the regular season because of?... magic?... Dick Vitale?... I'm not following.

Also, for what it is worth, there was indeed a comment about the Big 12 gaming the system better than the ACC. I'd like to hear more from @rayc: on that concept.

Nah, it just shows that the Big12 is a little better than the ACC at gaming the RPI.

[wufan]

Things we've learned today:

1. 4 is greater than 3.
2. Big12 teams suck at defense.
3. JH4P cheapbucks do not appear redeemable at any reputable locations.

You're arguments have been really weak in this thread. I pronounce JH4P the winner of the internet today.

[Kung Wu]

So the ACC is just flat out better every year, but they can't perform any better during the regular season because of?... magic?... Dick Vitale?... I'm not following.

You're the one that said the ACC is better, I don't pay enough attention.

All I was saying is that even if one conference is a notch better than the other, if they both play primarily only home games against bad-to-mediocre teams, the outcome will be about the same -- a huge win percentage that makes it difficult to distinguish them. Where they should start to deviate is against good teams. Do you have an easy way to compare how each conference performs against Top-100 and better OOC opponents?

[ShockerFever]

You're arguments have been really weak in this thread. I pronounce JH4P the winner of the internet today.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Signed,
The guy who gets tripped up on the word "your".

[wufan]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Signed,
The guy who gets tripped up on the word "your".

Apple is at it again! They are using autocorrect to discredit my authority.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

All I was saying is that even if one conference is a notch better than the other, if they both play primarily only home games against bad-to-mediocre teams, the outcome will be about the same -- a huge win percentage that makes it difficult to distinguish them. Where they should start to deviate is against good teams. Do you have an easy way to compare how each conference performs against Top-100 and better OOC opponents?

This past season alone, the ACC and Big 12 combined for 65 non con losses. If they were winning 99% of their games and had only lost 2 games total, I would agree that it would be hard to distinguish between them. However, 65 losses means each had plenty of opportunities to have done better. If one conference were truly head and shoulders above the other, we should have seen that it the numbers. (RPI, KenPom, whatever)

I'm still not sold that anyone has presented a logical reason why the Big 12 is usually ranked equal to or better than the ACC following the non-con schedule, yet clearly the ACC has performed much better come tourney time. I'm not blaming anyone for failing to provide a theory, just perplexed that a reasonable theory isn't more readily obvious.

[ShockerFever]

Here's my argument:

The Big XII sucks because they suck.


Go ahead and statgeek that.

[ShockingButTrue]

One of my fondest memories of the tournament is when f. mason did the EXACT same dick move the b. greene did at k-state.

I'll bet the Rug got a kick out of seeing such a selfish move AGAIN. Then to go out and be really selfish against Nova (not passing to Perry) solidified every ounce of truth to it.

Not to mention 2.5 months of extra practice too!

b12 better than the ACC?!? LolLolLol... what a hoot

[Kung Wu]

This past season alone, the ACC and Big 12 combined for 65 non con losses. If they were winning 99% of their games and had only lost 2 games total, I would agree that it would be hard to distinguish between them. However, 65 losses means each had plenty of opportunities to have done better. If one conference were truly head and shoulders above the other, we should have seen that it the numbers. (RPI, KenPom, whatever)

I'm still not sold that anyone has presented a logical reason why the Big 12 is usually ranked equal to or better than the ACC following the non-con schedule, yet clearly the ACC has performed much better come tourney time. I'm not blaming anyone for failing to provide a theory, just perplexed that a reasonable theory isn't more readily obvious.

Right, I still think you need to analyze the 65 losses and top-100 wins to see if they are apples to apples.

[MoValley John]

I like lamp.

[1972Shocker]

Pie,

Forgive me, please.

I suspect that some, if not many, do not know what a straw man argument is.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

Again, please forgive me, Pie. I will say no more.

And I thought this was the straw man:

[MoValley John]

And I thought this was the straw man:

The best part was where you could see the shadow of the stage hand hanging himself in the background.

[BBjones]

The ACC has 16 teams, and the big 12 has 10. If they are truly equal out of conference statistically, and the big 12 placed seven teams in the tournament, the ACC should've placed 11 teams in the tournament. The top seven teams from the ACC therefore are superior to the top seven from the big 12 .

[ShockerPhi]

The last few pages of this thread are BORRRRRRIIIINNNNNGGGG!!

Dispute that one with numbers!

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The ACC has 16 teams, and the big 12 has 10. If they are truly equal out of conference statistically, and the big 12 placed seven teams in the tournament, the ACC should've placed 11 teams in the tournament. The top seven teams from the ACC therefore are superior to the top seven from the big 12 .

Alternate explanation:
Louisville was ineligible otherwise the ACC gets an 8th team in. The ACC also had 3 NIT teams while the Big 12 had none. Finally, the ACC had no more really bad teams than the Big 12. (both had 2 outside top 100)

The ACC was basically the Big 12, with 6 extra teams: 1 extra NCAA team, 3 extra NIT teams, 2 extra mediocre teams. In reality, the 7 eligible NCAA teams from each conference compared very similarly based on their selection sunday resumes, and that is why the "yet again" occurrence of the ACC outperforming the Big 12 once the tourney rolled around intrigues me.