NCAA Tournament Scores and Discussion Thread

[Kel Varnsen]

Sometimes weird stuff happens in small sample sizes (67 games out of around 5,000 per year, even smaller when you only count games with just these two conferences). It's perfectly rational and reasonable in this instance to say that there's no real explanation for the Big 12's capitulation in the tournament.

[ShockdaWorld]

I have to agree with JH4P rather than Kel on this one. Yes, it's a small sample size, but it's a small sample size that seems to be more of a trend than an outlier. That is what I believe JH4P is trying to discover through analysis of statistics.

[BBjones]

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.

The bottom three teams in your example from the big 12 ended up 1 and 5 against quality opponents , the bottom three from the ACC were three and three, that is the difference. I would extrapolate that the ACC teams in the eighth through 11th range had a better record against quality opponents then the big 12's bottom three.

[MoValley John]

Studying all of the statistics, there were several metrics that proved to be outliers and several trends were plotted. Using a numerical rubric that follows a quantitative aggregation of statistical plots, all compiled on an applet with cross checking of all derivitaves, one thing was proven factual and plotted on an analytical scattergraph:

The Big 12 sucks.

[MoValley John]

Studying all of the statistics, there were several metrics that proved to be outliers and several trends were plotted. Using a numerical rubric that follows a quantitative aggregation of statistical plots, all compiled on an applet with cross checking of all derivitaves, one thing was proven factual and plotted on an analytical scattergraph:

The Big 12 sucks.

This was all done with a framework that gives an error margin of +/- .00376.

[ShockingButTrue]

Studying all of the statistics, there were several metrics that proved to be outliers and several trends were plotted. Using a numerical rubric that follows a quantitative aggregation of statistical plots, all compiled on an applet with cross checking of all derivitaves, one thing was proven factual and plotted on an analytical scattergraph:

The Big 12 sucks.

Empirical rationality.

[Kel Varnsen]

I have to agree with JH4P rather than Kel on this one. Yes, it's a small sample size, but it's a small sample size that seems to be more of a trend than an outlier. That is what I believe JH4P is trying to discover through analysis of statistics.

I think I agreed with him. He seemed dumbfounded as to a reason for the Big 12's not succeeding in the tournament. Statistics support the idea that there is nothing to distinguish the Big 12 from the ACC otherwise. I thought that's what he was saying.

[Mike]

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?

Examples of regular season records of Big East teams who got into the NCAA Tournament without winning conference tournament:
2014 Xavier (10-8)
2015 St. John's (10-8)
2015 Xavier (9-9)
2016 Butler (10-8)
2016 Providence (10-8)

[ShockdaWorld]

I think I agreed with him. He seemed dumbfounded as to a reason for the Big 12's not succeeding in the tournament. Statistics support the idea that there is nothing to distinguish the Big 12 from the ACC otherwise. I thought that's what he was saying.

Got it. I thought you were saying that it was just a small sample size (this season's tournament) that didn't necessarily mean much. I think the premise was based on a larger sample size. I could've misunderstood, but I was under the impression that we (JH4P mostly) were looking for the reason the B12-2 underperformed in this year's tournament in order to determine if the same reasoning could be used to determine why it appears to be a trend, rather than an anomaly. If you were to consider several years worth, while the percentage doesn't change much, the sample size becomes much larger, but still seems to have the same result.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Geographical advantage? More games played east of Mississippi River?

You think Big 12 teams have to travel significantly farther for their tournament games than ACC teams? Not only that, you think this yet to be proven extra travel distance is potentially so significant that it has affected multiple outcomes the past few years?

Highly doubtful.

[im4wsu]

You think Big 12 teams have to travel significantly farther for their tournament games than ACC teams? Not only that, you think this yet to be proven extra travel distance is potentially so significant that it has affected multiple outcomes the past few years?

Highly doubtful.

Perhaps he's talking about referees and the way the games are officiated east of the Mississippi River. We all KNOW that KU gets screwed by officials every game, win or lose.

[Cdizzle]

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.

They choke because they don't play good defense and it gets exposed by quality teams and coaches on neutral courts in the tournament.

[60Shock]

JH4P, my typo, I knew we lost 2 regular season games.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

They choke because they don't play good defense and it gets exposed by quality teams and coaches on neutral courts in the tournament.

ACC
2015 - (8) NC State (#22 O, #87 D) - Sweet 16
2015 - (4) UNC (#10 O, #51 D) - Sweet 16
2015 - (3) Notre Dame (#2 O, #102 D) - Elite 8
2016 - (6) Notre Dame (#8 O, #172 D) - Elite 8
2016 - (4) Duke (#7 O, #107 D) - Sweet 16
2016 - (3) Miami (#10 O, #47 D) - Sweet 16

Just as a point of reference, only 6 teams (out of 72 total) have received single digit seeds the past 2 years without a top 100 defense. It just so happens 3 of those 6 are on the list above as ACC teams who not only appeared as single digit seeds, but experienced tournament success once there.

Meanwhile the Big 12 saw one of its poorer defenses, Iowa State (#4 O, #102 D) go to the Sweet 16 this year while its highly ranked West Virginia defense (#32 O, #7 D) choked first round.

Your theory is full of holes.

[Cdizzle]

You yourself said the numbers don't add up. I'm saying I've watched the games, and they suck at defense.