NCAA Tournament Scores and Discussion Thread

[Kung Wu]

Being in the Big East would be more fun on a nightly basis. It would do next to nothing to help WSU's perception, brand, and tournament seeding.

As CU has shown it can hurt all of the above if you fail to take care of business.

I think it helps elevate seeding.

[Kung Wu]

Well @Kung Wu, I was feeling generous. Here is your requested analysis.

Non-Con results using KenPom's A & B system
A = Top 50 after adjusting for home/neutral/away
B = 51-100 after adjusting for home/neutral/away
Other = 101+ after adjusting for home/neutral/away

KenPom does what we all wish the RPI would do and considers a road win at #55 as a group A (top 50) win, and home loss to #45 as a group B (51-100) loss. For example, UNI was ranked #66 by KenPom. WSU's road win @UNI bumped up to group A, the neutral loss remained constant at group B, and the home loss fell down into group "other".

ACC

Team	vs A	vs B	Other
UNC	0-2	5-0	6-0
UVA	3-1	2-0	6-0
Miami	3-0	2-0	6-1
Duke	2-2	2-0	7-0
ND	1-1	1-2	7-0
Syr	2-1	0-1	8-1
Pitt	0-1	0-0	11-0
Total	11-8	12-3	51-2

Big 12

Team	vs A	vs B	Other
KU	3-1	2-0	7-0
OU	4-0	2-0	6-0
WVU	2-2	0-0	9-0
ISU	1-1	3-1	7-0
Baylor	0-2	2-0	9-0
Texas	1-1	3-3	5-0
T Tech	0-2	1-0	9-0
Total	11-9	13-4	52-0

The numbers are extremely similar. I see nothing in these non con results to explain why the ACC was so much better in March than the Big 12.

Why are there so many teams missing?

[Cdizzle]

I think it helps elevate seeding.

Absolutely it does.

We have to find a new conference. I fear it will cost us our coach if we do not. And at this point, I really could not blame him.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Why are there so many teams missing?

I included all 7 NCAA participants from each conference. Clearly, they are nearly identical between conferences, and there is nothing special scheduling wise that UNC and Duke are doing that KU and OU are not. I see no reason to dig all the way down into the TCUs and Boston Colleges.

[Cdizzle]

I included all 7 NCAA participants from each conference. Clearly, they are nearly identical between conferences, and there is nothing special scheduling wise that UNC and Duke are doing that KU and OU are not. I see no reason to dig all the way down into the TCUs and Boston Colleges.

But digging that far might lead to why the B12 was rated more highly than the ACC. It's obvious that the ACC out-performed the B12. The question is why were expectations and rankings higher for the B12.

[Kung Wu]

I included all 7 NCAA participants from each conference. Clearly, they are nearly identical between conferences, and there is nothing special scheduling wise that UNC and Duke are doing that KU and OU are not. I see no reason to dig all the way down into the TCUs and Boston Colleges.

But isn't that possibly where the difference between the conference rankings lie?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

But digging that far might lead to why the B12 was rated more highly than the ACC. It's obvious that the ACC out-performed the B12. The question is why were expectations and rankings higher for the B12.

KenPom's ranks
1 - Big 12.. - 0.8366
2 - ACC..... - 0.8233
3 - Big East - 0.7891

There was no significantly higher expectation for the B12 over the ACC. They were effectively 1A and 1B this year. The evaluation I posted of the 7 teams from each conference shows a near tie, just as we would have expected.

[proshox]

I would guess some styles of play transfer better two the tournament format. Some offenses are more difficult to prepare for on a short turn... Some advantages can be game-planned away. Coaches could probably point to some factors, but I doubt the stats themselves are going to be able to explain it.

[60Shock]

As long as we remain in the MVC, we are virtually assured of winning 20+ games per year annually cause we are must likely guaranteed winning at least 16 -18 MVC games each season alone.

We saw clearly this year how much winning 18 games during the MVC regular season and not winning the conference tournament sat us with the selection tournament officials. Simply put, as long as we remain in the MVC, we need to win more than our share of top 50-100 non-conference games, or win the MVC tournament.

So what do you think it would take in a conference lets say equal to the Big East to insure NCAA selection if we did not win the Conference Tournament?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

@60Shock:, WSU won 16 regular season MVC games this year, 17 if you count St. Louis. Definitely not 18.

Shox are guaranteed about 12 MVC wins per year in my opinion. If things don't gel next year, 12-6 is definitely possible depending on what the rest of the league looks like.

[Kung Wu]

KenPom's ranks
1 - Big 12.. - 0.8366
2 - ACC..... - 0.8233
3 - Big East - 0.7891

There was no significantly higher expectation for the B12 over the ACC. They were effectively 1A and 1B this year. The evaluation I posted of the 7 teams from each conference shows a near tie, just as we would have expected.

On my phone and can't brain right now. But isn't it possible that the ACC has 8 or so really good teams and a few crappy teams, whereas the Big 12 has 4 good teams and some mediocre teams? Wouldn't those average out?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

On my phone and can't brain right now. But isn't it possible that the ACC has 8 or so really good teams and a few crappy teams, whereas the Big 12 has 4 good teams and some mediocre teams? Wouldn't those average out?

That would be a fine working theory if starting from scratch. Two leagues could easily be rated similarly, with one more top heavy, one more balanced. However, all the data I've given you so far fails to give any inkling of support to it. The ACC and Big 12 are virtually equal no matter what approach I take to review the regular season and/or just the non-con season.

Overall RPI says they are equal.
Non-con RPI says they are equal.
KenPom says they are equal.
My table of non con records (vs A, B, other) says they are equal.

Every way I've looked at it so far, the Big 12 and ACC looked like very equal conferences with the Big 12's top 7 = the ACC's top 7 after Louisville is removed.

[Cdizzle]

That would be a fine working theory if starting from scratch. Two leagues could easily be rated similarly, with one more top heavy, one more balanced. However, all the data I've given you so far fails to give any inkling of support to it. The ACC and Big 12 are virtually equal no matter what approach I take to review the regular season and/or just the non-con season.

Overall RPI says they are equal.
Non-con RPI says they are equal.
KenPom says they are equal.
My table of non con records (vs A, B, other) says they are equal.

Every way I've looked at it so far, the Big 12 and ACC looked like very equal conferences with the Big 12's top 7 = the ACC's top 7 after Louisville is removed.

Sooooooo...

Everything you have supports the claim that the Big 12 is a bunch of tourney choke-artists?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Yes! Exactly @Cdizzle! And I'm analytical enough that I find it really strange that I can't find an alternative theory. I'm normally the last guy to believe a random group of loosely associated schools are all chokers year in year out, but I can't find a supportable theory to suggest anything different.

[Kung Wu]

Yes! Exactly @Cdizzle! And I'm analytical enough that I find it really strange that I can't find an alternative theory. I'm normally the last guy to believe a random group of loosely associated schools are all chokers year in year out, but I can't find a supportable theory to suggest anything different.

Geographical advantage? More games played east of Mississippi River?