Running 2022-23 NCAA Basketball Thread

UNC is going to have to win out -- at ND, vs. UVA, at FSU, vs. Duke -- to feel good about getting in. Those are their two Q1 opps remaining. Don't see it happening. They've been far too inconsistent this year. If they split those, win the road games and make it to the ACCT semifinals, they'll have an argument, albeit not a very good one.

The problem for the mid-major type at-large candidates is none of them are much better on that line. Oral Roberts (44 NET) is 0-4 against Q1 and has 24 Q3 or worse wins. Liberty (45 NET) is 0-3 and is (gack) 3-3 against Q3, so they have no at-large shot. North Texas at least has a Q1 win (at UAB) but probably is going to need to make it to the CUSAT title game, minimum, and hope that if they lose it's to Florida Atlantic. Charleston (53 NET) lost to UNC and their best win (VT) continues to look worse and worse. Kent State (55 NET) is 0-3 vs. Q1. Sam Houston (60 NET) is 2-3 vs. Q1 but plays in a terrible league and has both a Q3 and Q4 loss.

For all of the hand wringing over UNC, who else would you put in ahead of them out of that group?

 

IDK about those teams. But there are plenty of others who merit consideration but aren't getting any. USC is 3-4, 4-2 against quads 1-2 (7-6), and 12-2 vs. the rest. They are considered a bubble team at best, with only UCLA and Arizona considered Pac-12 locks. USC should be an absolute lock. Colorado is 3-6, 3-2 (6-8), and 9-5, should be a bubble team but isn't even mentioned. LMU is 2-3, 3-4 (5-7) and 12-4, with maybe the best win of the entire year (at Gonzaga), and isn't even mentioned.

But of course they are West Coast teams, so they don't count. I remember 20-21, the Pac-12 supposedly sucks, and they went 19-5 or something like that in the tournament.

My point remains, no team with no quad 1 wins in as many opportunities as UNC - many at home - has belongs in the NCAA tournament. And the teams you mentioned certainly never get the home opportunities for Q1 wins that Carolina does.

And there is always a team like St. Peter's, who supposedly isn't good enough but then knocks off Kentucky, Purdue and Murray State in the tournament. Neutral courts are a great equalizer.

 

Any of them? Who wants to see North Carolina stumble to loss no. 14 or 15 at the expense of a 28-4 mid-major that did everything right and stumbled in the title game against another excellent foe? Is it fair to reward North Carolina for months of mediocrity and punish Charleston b/c they scheduled up and the teams they scheduled up to face ended up sucking? (Feel free to punish Liberty, though. They can go to the CBI and suck it)

 

St. Peter's has no bearing on this discussion. They were not getting in as an at-large. Loved their run through.

USC is going to have a chance to play its way up. It closes with three Q1 games and a Q2 at Arizona State. If the Trojans can take care of business there, they'll have their shot.

Colorado is 15-13 with four Q3 losses and a Q4 loss. That's hard to overcome.

LMU is 102nd in the NET. C'mon. The Gonzaga win is great. They also lost to UC Riverside, UC Irvine, Pacific and San Diego.

Trust me, I do not like arguing for Carolina (I hope they lose to ND or FSU, which I think would put them out of their misery), but there aren't a lot of teams with knockout resumes behind them.

 

Southern Miss is 24-5, probably should get to 27 or 28 wins fairly easily, and is a great story but won't get a whiff unless it wins the Sun Belt tournament. I think its NET is somewhere in the 100s and its best wins are Vanderbilt and Liberty (both true road games, but not exactly resumé-builders). It doesn't help that three of its losses are by double digits, and another was a 31-point blowout at South Alabama.

 

Southern Miss ending up in the Sun Belt is a weird one to me. I know they were terrible the last few years, but they good when C-USA was good and now they're scrambling for an auto bid in a 14-team clusterfuck of random schools. Throw out the records when Southern Miss and Arkansas State clash!

 

St. Peter's does have a bearing, because it's just another example of a team the NCAA's metrics saying was not worthy proving it was. The NCAA does this every year as a justification to keep a 25-7 or so mid-major out of the tournament.

Why should USC "have to play its way up" when it clearly has already accomplished more than Carolina? So has LMU, which also already has accomplished more than UNC, even with some bad-looking losses.

And true, Lunardi or Palm or those other guys don't pick the field. But don't tell me their solid 6 weeks of pimping teams as "locks" and spinning the narrative for millions in their audiences doesn't have an impact on the Selection Committee. It does. I guarantee you if they all in a sudden started calling USC a "lock" it would get much more favorable treatment in the Selection room (and I can't stand SC).

And it bugs the crap out of me when Lunardi is a guest on ESPN and says "Carolina (to use them as an example) is a lock" that no one ever challenges him and says, "Joe, you're full of shit, Carolina (as the example) has NO quad 1 wins and doesn't deserve a sniff unless it wins the ACC tournament." But ESPN is not gonna have its own guys challenge the house brand.

PS: LMU beat Portland twice by 19 or more points. Carolina needed, and got, every favorable call in the world to beat Portland by 8.

 

I'm just saying "play its way up the NET." I think USC should be in and probably will be if they do what they're supposed to, because as I already noted several teams above them in the NET (Oral Roberts, Liberty, Florida and Charleston) are most certainly not getting in as at-larges.

And I know you're a CAA homer, BYH, but that league picked a terrible year to pick up a bunch of shit basketball programs. Charleston's resume is just killed by the fact that nearly half of the league is sub-300 in the NET, including all four of this year's newcomers. Charleston will present a very compelling case if it runs the table and loses in the CAA final.

 

Oh, I get where you're coming from and totally agree, it just bugs me that the system is so rigged in favor of the P5 conferences. Some guy Monday was pushing for all 10 Big 12 teams to make the field.

 

I AM NOT A CAA HOMER I CHALLENGE YOU TO A FIGHT AT PENN STATION...yeah, I am and they have an AWFUL bottom of the league. It is indefensibly bad. MAYBE Charleston has a shot if it loses in the final, but I don't expect it. My argument, such as it is, is that I'd much rather see the rando mid-major than UNC, USC, et al, which I think we all agree upon, even if we're realistic about it.

 

In "pipe dreams that'll never happen," I wish the NCAA did a huge beginning of the year round robin tournament, with all the teams randomized, or seeded based on last year's NET, or some kind of midseason, two week tournament. There's just no incentive for teams from larger conferences to play mid-majors, because they might lose. I also think that because of all the player movement, there's probably more parity in men's basketball than there ever has, and I'm not sure if there's a huge difference between the bordering quadrants, except at the extreme ends. (I'm pretty sure Houston, Alabama and UCLA are better than everyone else, and that IUPUI, Green Bay, Hartford and LIU are the worst teams in the country.)