Running 2016-17 College Rings Thread

CBS Sports Network.

 

As usual, it's going to be interesting to see what the committee does with Wichita State. Anybody who has watched them play can see it is pretty good and capable of a deep run.

But there's not really much of a resume there. The Shockers are 2-1 against Illinois State, but have no other good wins. You could make a legit case for anything from a 5 to a 10, depending on what criteria they weigh heavily.

 

I've said this many times, but the only bad seed in the tournament is 69 or lower. The Shockers are in. They'll have their chances.

 

This. The whining from teams that get "slighted" because they got a No. 2 seed instead of a No. 1 -- which is essentially the same seed -- is among the dumbest and most quickly-forgotten arguments in sports every March.

 

Not sure I really agree. Winning the thing, or even making it to the Final Four is all about the match ups you get. There's a pretty big difference between a 1 and 2 some years. Gulf Coast might be a 15 next week and that team is capable of winning a first round game. The 16 seeds are often made up of terrible teams that won terrible conference tournaments.

 

If you're one of the top eight teams in the country and have aspirations on a national title, you should not lose your first-round game no matter who it's against. If you do, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Plus, in terms of a second-round game the 2-seed usually gets a slightly better draw. The 8-9 game is typically a couple of decent major conference teams that, even if they're flawed or have struggled, should be capable of beating anyone in the country on a given night. The 7-10 game typically has at least one mid-major.

 

In an ideal world, yeah, your 18-23 year old players have their heads on straight for every game of a single elimination tournament. But in reality it never works like that. Lots of teams that advance to the Final Four do so after surviving a tough game against an inferior opponent. Kansas versus Holy Cross in 2002 comes to mind immediately. KU would have lost against three of the four 15 seeds that day, but a week later crushed a damn good Oregon team in the Elite 8.

And 7 to 8 and 15 to 16 are often the biggest quality gaps between seed lines. There's a reason a 1 seed has never lost in the first round. It's a significant advantage.

The teams that earn it in the regular season deserve to be seeded correctly. And with as much information is available to the committee, it should get it pretty close to right. The tournament is enough of a crap shoot as is.

 

It may seem that way, but the numbers don't bear it out.

No. 1 vs. No. 8: 52–12 (.813)
No. 1 vs. No. 9: 59–5 (.922)
Total: 111–17 (.867)

No. 2 vs. No. 7: 54–21 (.720)
No. 2 vs. No. 10: 27–18 (.600) - Wow.
Totsl: 81–39 (.675)

 

That is surprising, and I stand corrected. I'm not sure which is more stunning, the 2-10 records or the 1-9 records. For comparison, that means more No. 15 seeds have beaten No. 2s (eight) than No. 9 seeds have made it out of the opening weekend.

And Jake, you are right in that there's a big gap between the 15 and 16 seeds. The 16-seeds almost always deserve to be there. Every couple of years you get a 15-seed that's actually a good team from a small conference, yet it seems the committee just throws them wherever without much thought. And then on the other end, there's usually a 2-seed that had a good year overall but has some flaws or struggled down the stretch and comes in just a bit over-seeded.
It shouldn't make a difference, but I guess it actually does.

 

This is a very illuminating discussion, but it misses a larger truth. There are never more than 10 teams with a realistic Final Four chance anyway in any given year (yes, there are upsets like George Mason, but they are rare enough for us to know them by heart. Wichita State looks like a good team to me, but wherever they're seeded, if they get to the Sweet Sixteen they've had one hell of a tournament, or at least, their fans won't be all that bummed if they get no further.

 

e

This is laughable horseshit. Have you not watched the tourney at all in the last decade?

Let's analyze your statement, if fewer than 10 teams have realistic final four hopes, then it should be an extraordinarily rare occurrence that a team seeded lower than a 1, 2 or possibly 3 reaches the final four. Well, let's see how many of those "no chance" below-3 seeds have done that this decade:

2016: 10 seed Syracuse
2015: 7 seed Michigan State
2014: 8 seed Kentucky and 7 seed UConn
2013: 9 seed Wichita State
2012: 4 seed Louisville
2011: 11 seed VCU and 8 seed Butler
2010: 5 seed Butler and 5 seed Michigan State

Gee, looks to me like this extraordinarily rare thing has lately been happening Every. Single. Year. And often twice in the same year. Sure suggests a shitload more than 10 teams have a shot to me.

 

Look at how many of those are traditional big conference powers which must have had substandard regular seasons. I'll buy VCU and Butler, but don't try to sell me that Kentucky, UConn and Michigan State aren't among the classic Final Four suspects.