NCAA Tournament Scores and Discussion Thread

[ShockdaWorld]

LMAO. Now that's some funny sh!t right there.

[WstateU]

http://247sports.com/Bolt/North-Carolina-fan-petitions-to-overturn-Villanova-win-44683873

https://www.change.org/p/national-i-want-the-the-unc-villanova-ncaa-championship-game-overturned

You have got to be kidding me.

The comments section is delicious.

Y'all Trippin... Go DOOK
Greysun Allan, Durham, NC
10 hours ago

The comments are great

LMAO. Now that's some funny sh!t right there.

"Watching those refs steal the game made my rectum hurt. Reminded me of the time I went canoeing with some friends. Some hillbillies robbed us and said we had "perty mouths". I still pucker up when I hear banjo music."

https://archive.org/details/DuelingBanjos

[WSU and Reds Fan]

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.

The real difference is that the ACC teams improve during conference play, while the Big 12 teams do not improve as much during conference play.

Since most of these stats are the teams playing within conference the improved play will not show up as prominently.

This also explains why KU always wins the conference even though they struggle in the first 1/2 of conference play.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The real difference is that the ACC teams improve during conference play, while the Big 12 teams do not improve as much during conference play.

Since most of these stats are the teams playing within conference the improved play will not show up as prominently.

This also explains why KU always wins the conference even though they struggle in the first 1/2 of conference play.

ACC teams improve throughout the year, but Big 12 teams don't? How can that make any sense without a plausible reason as to "why" it would be the case? Even if true, without the why, we are still left with a really weird distinction that makes no sense as to why it occurs.

[ShockerFever]

I dunno where we're at here on the thread, but the Big 12 still sucks.

[shoxtop]

ACC teams improve throughout the year, but Big 12 teams don't? How can that make any sense without a plausible reason as to "why" it would be the case? Even if true, without the why, we are still left with a really weird distinction that makes no sense as to why it occurs.

My take is that the big 12 teams (sans a few teams) tend to rely on athletic ability vs a team approach. This works well early in the season when teams haven't gelled yet. IMHO, the acc has better coaching as far as making adjustments and an emphasis on more team play. This leads to the conference growing as a whole throughout conference play while the big 12 teams can rest on their laurels and continue trying to win with pure athleticism/skill. As someone who lives on statistics you must agree there is a trend. What is your opinion on why the trend exists?

[ShockingButTrue]

The real difference is that the ACC teams improve during conference play, while the Big 12 teams do not improve as much during conference play.

Since most of these stats are the teams playing within conference the improved play will not show up as prominently.

This also explains why KU always wins the conference even though they struggle in the first 1/2 of conference play.

I would say this is spot on and well put.

I've heard many times the theory put forth that stiffer competiton makes a team sharper in the end. The old Iron Sharpens Iron principle.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The real difference is that the ACC teams improve during conference play, while the Big 12 teams do not improve as much during conference play.

I would say this is spot on and well put.

I've heard many times the theory put forth that stiffer competiton makes a team sharper in the end. The old Iron Sharpens Iron principle.

Stiffer competition leads to greater improvement? Fine. If the ACC and Big 12 are equal in non-con play, where does the ACC's stiffer competition come from?

That makes no sense. The ACC can't have stiffer competition in conference play unless they have better teams to start conference play.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

This also explains why KU always wins the conference even though they struggle in the first 1/2 of conference play.

You are now just making things up.

KU's Record in Big 12 Conference Play During Their 12 Year Streak of Championships

	1st Half	2nd Half
2016	6-3	9-0
2015	8-1	5-4
2014	8-1	6-3
2013	7-2	7-2
2012	8-1	8-1
2011	7-1	7-1
2010	8-0	7-1
2009	8-0	6-2
2008	7-1	6-2
2007	6-2	8-0
2006	6-2	7-1
2005	8-0	4-4
Total	87-14	80-21

KU has been the exact opposite of a team struggling early and then finishing conference play strong.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

My take is that the big 12 teams (sans a few teams) tend to rely on athletic ability vs a team approach. This works well early in the season when teams haven't gelled yet. IMHO, the acc has better coaching as far as making adjustments and an emphasis on more team play. This leads to the conference growing as a whole throughout conference play while the big 12 teams can rest on their laurels and continue trying to win with pure athleticism/skill. As someone who lives on statistics you must agree there is a trend. What is your opinion on why the trend exists?

I definitely agree there is a trend. I'm just not yet convinced that I've found a reasonable explanation for it. The theory that the ACC has better coaches would be the closest thing to a possible explanation that I've heard yet, but I'm still not fully convinced. Mark Gottfried led 8 seed NC State to the Sweet 16 in 2015. The Big 12 never seems to get those types of results. Somehow I just don't see Mark as a better coach than most of the coaches in the Big 12.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Has anyone addressed the fact that WuShock is a straw man?

I feel that it is a shame that every single registered member of this fine board has not clicked "like" for this post. I've seen longer posts, but none better.

[Cdizzle]

I definitely agree there is a trend. I'm just not yet convinced that I've found a reasonable explanation for it. The theory that the ACC has better coaches would be the closest thing to a possible explanation that I've heard yet, but I'm still not fully convinced. Mark Gottfried led 8 seed NC State to the Sweet 16 in 2015. The Big 12 never seems to get those types of results. Somehow I just don't see Mark as a better coach than most of the coaches in the Big 12.

Perhaps having permanent tourney sites in North Carolina helps. It would be interesting to look at the average travel distance for Top 4 seeds over a long period of time.

It would also be interesting to look at the raw and average RPI and KP numbers of all opponents of Top 4 seeds in the first 2 rounds. Perhaps something geographical is putting much poorer 7 seeds (as an example) in the backyard of the ACC sites over long periods of time.

With the way everything for the tourney is chartered now, I really wish they would just do it based on straight S-curve.



Edit: I just restarted this. Oops. Didn't realize it was bumped from a year ago. I'll go ahead and take the week off. Carry on without me.

[ShockingButTrue]

Perhaps having permanent tourney sites in North Carolina helps. It would be interesting to look at the average travel distance for Top 4 seeds over a long period of time.

It would also be interesting to look at the raw and average RPI and KP numbers of all opponents of Top 4 seeds in the first 2 rounds. Perhaps something geographical is putting much poorer 7 seeds (as an example) in the backyard of the ACC sites over long periods of time.

With the way everything for the tourney is chartered now, I really wish they would just do it based on straight S-curve.



Edit: I just restarted this. Oops. Didn't realize it was bumped from a year ago. I'll go ahead and take the week off. Carry on without me.

Why has no one referenced National Championships? Or final 4's?

[MoValley John]

http://247sports.com/Bolt/North-Carolina-fan-petitions-to-overturn-Villanova-win-44683873

https://www.change.org/p/national-i-want-the-the-unc-villanova-ncaa-championship-game-overturned

You have got to be kidding me.

Okay, I went to the change.org site and started reading. I am the last person to criticize spelling and grammar, but holy crap! The following is a representaion of a fine, Tarheel education.

"The refs were very bias. Many times they let Villinova get away with alot of walks. As a basketball player I can tell you that letting a guy travel like that makes him hard to defend. Are guys work very hard on the court and in the classroom. Its not write for them to loose the game because of the refs. This was there championship that the refs stole."

I couldn't read anymore.