HOW THE VARIOUS CONFERENCES DOING IN THE DANCE?

[SpanglerFan316]

WSU was the #2 team in the Valley, and we got beaten by Nevada in the 1st round of the NIT. Now, I love our Shockers, and I root hard for most of the MVC, but there is no way we should be saying that the MVC should have had more teams in the tourney this year. And, there are only 16 spots in the S16, so, leagues that have 4-5 top 25 teams should have at least 4-5 spots, but maybe only 1 gets into the S16...this shouldn't mean those teams leagues shouldn't get the 4-5 spots, should it?

Dear Idiot:
Did you go to that UNR@WSU game? Did you see the refereeing? It was a joke. I recall that WSU had 10 fouls and Nevada had 4 at one point in the second half. (Disclaimer: My numbers could be slightly off.) Now it is possible that WSU really deserved 10 fouls to UNR's 4. However this was not the case in that game.

[ShockTalk]

What really sticks out in my mind is the success rate of making the Sweet 16 compared to the seeding. Going by this guide, the top 4 seeds from each regional would move on.

Normally, a conference getting 2 teams into the S16 is considered a success. However, the Big Easy had a 1, 2, 2, 3, and 3 seeding. That's 5 of the top 12 spots. They are unquestionably the BIG losers to this point as the Big East Invitational just didn't pan out. :cry:

Slight losers: By the seeding, the ACC would have gotten 2 in, only got 1. Big 12 gotten 3, but only 2.

Even though the Big 10 struggled in several games, they did get 3 in, just not all 3 of the projected teams. To me, this was a surprise in reverse. I really expected the Big 10 to fall flat on their face. The SEC also got 2 in, as projected, just not one than was seeded to get in.

Slight winner: PAC-10 saved a little face, by getting one team in.

The BIG winner: Non-BCS teams!! Although the only team in this group seeded in the top 16, UNM, barely got by Montana, then got hammered by Washington, this group managed 5 S16 spots. That's a PLUS 4. This has made for a very enjoyable last four days.

As a note, 25% (4 teams) from the lower half of the seeding are in the S16.

[shox1989]

What really sticks out in my mind is the success rate of making the Sweet 16 compared to the seeding. Going by this guide, the top 4 seeds from each regional would move on.

Normally, a conference getting 2 teams into the S16 is considered a success. However, the Big Easy had a 1, 2, 2, 3, and 3 seeding. That's 5 of the top 12 spots. They are unquestionably the BIG losers to this point as the Big East Invitational just didn't pan out. :cry:

Slight losers: By the seeding, the ACC would have gotten 2 in, only got 1. Big 12 gotten 3, but only 2.

Even though the Big 10 struggled in several games, they did get 3 in, just not all 3 of the projected teams. To me, this was a surprise in reverse. I really expected the Big 10 to fall flat on their face. The SEC also got 2 in, as projected, just not one than was seeded to get in.

Slight winner: PAC-10 saved a little face, by getting one team in.

The BIG winner: Non-BCS teams!! Although the only team in this group seeded in the top 16, UNM, barely got by Montana, then got hammered by Washington, this group managed 5 S16 spots. That's a PLUS 4. This has made for a very enjoyable last four days.

As a note, 25% (4 teams) from the lower half of the seeding are in the S16.

And that's exactly where the Valley teams usually are (lower than a top 4 seed). UNI is a 9 seed this year. As I recall in 2006, WSU was a 7 seed and Bradley as a 13 seed when we both made the sweet 16.

SIU, I think was a 4 seed in 2007 when they did it, but that is very rare for the Valley.

[ShockerFever]

Is this supposed to mean something? If it's supposed to point out that the MVC has 100% of bids in the S16, that doesn't really mean anything. If we had had 2 or 3 bids, we more than likely would have been 1 of 2 or 1 of 3, or heaven forbid we get 4 and then we'd have 1 of 4.

Wait.. so you thought UNI could beat KU?

How do you know how well we would have done? We didn't get an opportunity.

I don't think UNI fans even thought they were gonna win yesterday.

This isn't a BCS board. There are plenty of those around though which you would enjoy..

[ShockerFever]

WSU was the #2 team in the Valley, and we got beaten by Nevada in the 1st round of the NIT. Now, I love our Shockers, and I root hard for most of the MVC, but there is no way we should be saying that the MVC should have had more teams in the tourney this year. And, there are only 16 spots in the S16, so, leagues that have 4-5 top 25 teams should have at least 4-5 spots, but maybe only 1 gets into the S16...this shouldn't mean those teams leagues shouldn't get the 4-5 spots, should it?

I'm sorry but comparing our intensity and emotion from an NIT game to an NCAA game is incredibly stupid.

That's like saying KU didn't deserve to be in the tournament because they were ousted in the second round. :roll:

[ShockerFever]

WSU was the #2 team in the Valley, and we got beaten by Nevada in the 1st round of the NIT. Now, I love our Shockers, and I root hard for most of the MVC, but there is no way we should be saying that the MVC should have had more teams in the tourney this year. And, there are only 16 spots in the S16, so, leagues that have 4-5 top 25 teams should have at least 4-5 spots, but maybe only 1 gets into the S16...this shouldn't mean those teams leagues shouldn't get the 4-5 spots, should it?

Dear Idiot:
Did you go to that UNR@WSU game? Did you see the refereeing? It was a joke. I recall that WSU had 10 fouls and Nevada had 4 at one point in the second half. (Disclaimer: My numbers could be slightly off.) Now it is possible that WSU really deserved 10 fouls to UNR's 4. However this was not the case in that game.

Oh my God... please shut up.

Let me guess. All 10 of our losses are because of the officials. Am I right?


Jesus.. get a clue. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[shock-it-to-me]

Here's another angle, and I whipped this up quickly, so I apologize if anyone finds err in the numbers, but I think the point holds true regardless:

There have been 23 games in this tournament involving a major v. mid-major. I did not count 15 and 16 seeds, since those sacrificial lambs would generally be considered 'low-major', but even considering all the way up through the 14 seed, in those 23 games, the 'major' school was favored (the higher seed) in 86% of those games, but guess what, they only won 56% of those games. The 'majors' are barely over .500 in all of their games with the mids, despite being prohibitive favorites (in regard to seed) in the vast majority of them.

[ShockTalk]

Here's another angle, and I whipped this up quickly, so I apologize if anyone finds err in the numbers, but I think the point holds true regardless:

There have been 23 games in this tournament involving a major v. mid-major. I did not count 15 and 16 seeds, since those sacrificial lambs would generally be considered 'low-major', but even considering all the way up through the 14 seed, in those 23 games, the 'major' school was favored (the higher seed) in 86% of those games, but guess what, they only won 56% of those games. The 'majors' are barely over .500 in all of their games with the mids, despite being prohibitive favorites (in regard to seed) in the vast majority of them.

Nice point!! :good:

[jocoshock]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/sports/ncaabasketball/22thamel.html?hp

[kcshocker11]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/sports/ncaabasketball/22thamel.html?hp

Fantastic article, I printed it to give cred to my discussion with my Big 12 friends. Thanks :wsu_posters: 8)

[im4wsu]

Over the 25 years from 1985-2009, the sweet 16 included the following seeded teams:

Seed - Number
1 - 91
2 - 63
3 - 52
4 - 43
5 - 35
6 - 35
7 - 18
8 - 9
9 - 3
10 - 18
11 - 10
12 - 17
13 - 4
14 - 2
15 - 0
16 - 0

[shockball]

They made UNI a 9 seed. 3 have made it to the sweet 16 in 25 years not because they are bad teams, but the 2nd round matchup has always been with a 1 seed. If they were trying to bury them that makes the win even more special.

[shocker3]

What really sticks out in my mind is the success rate of making the Sweet 16 compared to the seeding. Going by this guide, the top 4 seeds from each regional would move on.

Normally, a conference getting 2 teams into the S16 is considered a success. However, the Big Easy had a 1, 2, 2, 3, and 3 seeding. That's 5 of the top 12 spots. They are unquestionably the BIG losers to this point as the Big East Invitational just didn't pan out. :cry:

Slight losers: By the seeding, the ACC would have gotten 2 in, only got 1. Big 12 gotten 3, but only 2.

Even though the Big 10 struggled in several games, they did get 3 in, just not all 3 of the projected teams. To me, this was a surprise in reverse. I really expected the Big 10 to fall flat on their face. The SEC also got 2 in, as projected, just not one than was seeded to get in.

Slight winner: PAC-10 saved a little face, by getting one team in.

The BIG winner: Non-BCS teams!! Although the only team in this group seeded in the top 16, UNM, barely got by Montana, then got hammered by Washington, this group managed 5 S16 spots. That's a PLUS 4. This has made for a very enjoyable last four days.

As a note, 25% (4 teams) from the lower half of the seeding are in the S16.

By these standards the Valley is VERY OUTSTANDING! Since 1994 we have only had one team seeded #4 or better, yet we have had 8 teams make the sweet sixteen.

We are exceeding our expections by 8 fold since 1994! I doubt if ANY other conference can beat that stat.

Heck, even our 1981 team that made it to the Elite 8 was only a 6 seed. :wsu_posters: