- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Is there that much parity in CBB or is the committee biased?
Posted on 3/18/18 at 10:14 pm
Posted on 3/18/18 at 10:14 pm
Crazy things always happen during the tournament but this is ridiculous. Is this the height of parity in college basketball or does the selection committee favor the Xaviers and Arizona’s of the college basketball world?
9
Posted on 3/18/18 at 10:15 pm to UpToPar
How is any of this indicative of favor towards Arizona or Xavier?
Posted on 3/18/18 at 10:17 pm to UpToPar
A number 1 seed is meaningless.
Every year you see this honestly. If you don't bring your A game you can lose to anybody.
Every year you see this honestly. If you don't bring your A game you can lose to anybody.
Posted on 3/18/18 at 10:22 pm to Salamander_Wilson
I just picked those teams as examples this years. Arizona played in a terrible Pac12 this year and Xavier in the Big East.
I think it’s a fair question. I don’t follow college basketball closely outside the SEC, so I was legitimately asking.
There are always plenty of upsets in the tournament but this year there have been way more big upsets.
I think it’s a fair question. I don’t follow college basketball closely outside the SEC, so I was legitimately asking.
There are always plenty of upsets in the tournament but this year there have been way more big upsets.
Posted on 3/18/18 at 10:23 pm to UpToPar
The tournament is all about matchups and style of play.
For instance, if any #1 seed was ever going to lose it was gonna be Virginia. They are a team that wins with scheme rather than overwhelming talent, and while they won a lot of games in single elimination format they are at high risk because if a team gets hot to shoot over their great defense they lack to firepower to keep up.
And the fact is the combination of the three point shot, the one and done, the increasing lack of great fundamental post players and shortening the shot clock has really brought teams closer together over the years.
For instance, if any #1 seed was ever going to lose it was gonna be Virginia. They are a team that wins with scheme rather than overwhelming talent, and while they won a lot of games in single elimination format they are at high risk because if a team gets hot to shoot over their great defense they lack to firepower to keep up.
And the fact is the combination of the three point shot, the one and done, the increasing lack of great fundamental post players and shortening the shot clock has really brought teams closer together over the years.
Posted on 3/18/18 at 10:23 pm to sunnydaze
quote:
Every year you see this honestly.
No you don’t. They just said that only 4 times in tournament history have 2 #1 seeds missed the sweet 16. Not to mention Virginia being the first #1 to lose to a 16. That’s the opposite of seeing this every year.
Posted on 3/18/18 at 10:28 pm to UpToPar
quote:
Is there that much parity in CBB or is the committee biased?
Parity is a fancy word for Boone being that good this year. The top teams regressed to the lower teir as opposed to other teams getting better.
Posted on 3/18/18 at 10:30 pm to UpToPar
All poor pro quality guys are gone by end of year 2.
No team has mature first tier players.
The difference between 62 and 16 is not all that much.
LSU beat some of them.
And we all have our days.
As a Kentucky fan I am aware of some great teams that had all upperclassmen who went pro after graduating.
I'm sure Ohio state and duke had some too.
Not now.
No team has mature first tier players.
The difference between 62 and 16 is not all that much.
LSU beat some of them.
And we all have our days.
As a Kentucky fan I am aware of some great teams that had all upperclassmen who went pro after graduating.
I'm sure Ohio state and duke had some too.
Not now.
This post was edited on 3/18/18 at 10:33 pm
Posted on 3/18/18 at 11:11 pm to UpToPar
I'm talking about upsets in general. 1 seeds losing aren't the only upsets
There's upsets every year. Bucknell/Kansas, George Mason and VCU going to the final 4, etc. it happens every year.
There's upsets every year. Bucknell/Kansas, George Mason and VCU going to the final 4, etc. it happens every year.
This post was edited on 3/18/18 at 11:12 pm
Posted on 3/18/18 at 11:44 pm to UpToPar
Almost all of the top teams were inconsistent this year. UNC was a 2-seed with 10 goddamn losses. Virginia was pretty much the only team that played consistently great all year but you saw what can happen when it's just not your night.
Posted on 3/19/18 at 5:54 am to CelticDog
quote:
All poor pro quality guys are gone by end of year 2.
No team has mature first tier players.
This is what happens when you have a truly "amateur" sport.
This isn't the 80s anymore, where guys like Jordan, Ewing, Sampson and Olajuwon stay for 3-4 years and try to win titles.
Posted on 3/19/18 at 6:00 am to UpToPar
Uh the Big East is a very good league, this isn't football
Posted on 3/19/18 at 7:05 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
And the fact is the combination of the three point shot, the one and done, the increasing lack of great fundamental post players and shortening the shot clock has really brought teams closer together over the years
I also think you can add the increase in number of kids playing basketball year round with AAU and travel teams to that list. That extra talent being developed at youth level leads to more good players to be spread out across more schools.
Posted on 3/19/18 at 7:33 am to UpToPar
If you followed CBB this season you'd know there was more parity than normal. Top 5 was changing weekly. No real dominant teams. I said going in this was a year a 16 could beat a 1. Didn't think it would be Virginia to get beat though.
Posted on 3/19/18 at 12:54 pm to lsutigers1992
quote:because the disparity in money between college and the NBA has grown, that causes players to want to leave sooner or if they were in a certain period, not even go at all. the 80s players stayed in college longer bc the money wasn't as big
This isn't the 80s anymore, where guys like Jordan, Ewing, Sampson and Olajuwon stay for 3-4 years and try to win titles.
Posted on 3/19/18 at 12:58 pm to UpToPar
quote:
I think it’s a fair question. I don’t follow college basketball closely outside the SEC
quote:
Arizona played in a terrible Pac12 this year and Xavier in the Big East.
Such an informed opinion. Did you just conjure it out of thin air?
You admit you don't watch shite but have strong opinions about teams you don't watch.
Posted on 3/19/18 at 1:14 pm to UpToPar
quote:
Crazy things always happen during the tournament but this is ridiculous. Is this the height of parity in college basketball or does the selection committee favor the Xaviers and Arizona’s of the college basketball world?
The highest seed on an entire side of the bracket left in the Sweet Sixteen is a 4 seed. I think seeding and selection this year were definitely off.
Just my opinion and I don't have the data in front of me to back it up, but the committee needs to ditch the Quadrant wins crap. It's a system easily gamed, and even teams who don't game receive an out-sized benefit or detraction because of it. In no world should a road win against Rider be worth the same as a home win against Duke or Villanova.
Posted on 3/19/18 at 2:07 pm to UpToPar
here's one thing that i havent seen been brought up regarding the 16/1 matchup (and potential for upset).
with the field expanded to 68, and essentially 4 more bubble teams in, the teams that are now 16 seeds would have been 15 seeds in the past format.
Now, the true 16 seeds (i.e. the 4 worst teams in the tournament) are in the play in game and face off against each other. So in actuality, UVA did not play against one of the perceived 4 worst teams.
with the field expanded to 68, and essentially 4 more bubble teams in, the teams that are now 16 seeds would have been 15 seeds in the past format.
Now, the true 16 seeds (i.e. the 4 worst teams in the tournament) are in the play in game and face off against each other. So in actuality, UVA did not play against one of the perceived 4 worst teams.
Posted on 3/19/18 at 2:19 pm to 632627
quote:
with the field expanded to 68, and essentially 4 more bubble teams in, the teams that are now 16 seeds would have been 15 seeds in the past format.
2 of them are. UVA should be asking why as the overall #1 seed, why are they not playing one of the two winners from the First Four????? Since those teams aren't as good as the 16 seeds that get to skip ahead to the real tournament
Posted on 3/19/18 at 2:22 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:
2 of them are. UVA should be asking why as the overall #1 seed, why are they not playing one of the two winners from the First Four????? Since those teams aren't as good as the 16 seeds that get to skip ahead to the real tournament
In the old format, Virginia would have played NC-central and UMBC would have been a 15 playing against UNC or something.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News