Author Topic: 2016 NCAA Tournament  (Read 11782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament
« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2016, 09:16:30 AM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7424
  • Tommy Points: 788
Utah vs Gonzaga tomorrow (Poeltl vs Sabonis) is going to be a good one!

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament
« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2016, 09:34:26 AM »

Offline csfansince60s

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5007
  • Tommy Points: 1744
Utah vs Gonzaga tomorrow (Poeltl vs Sabonis) is going to be a good one!

I agree.

Nice to have head to heads especially at the same position regarding players that will likely be around when we pick.

Looking forward to it.

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament
« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2016, 09:49:57 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16998
  • Tommy Points: 807
Have like 40 person poll and I am only 1 of 2 that has Xavier winning it all, so if Xavier wins I am all but guaranteed 1st or 2nd.  Having said that, Xavier probably loses in the 1st round.
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2016, 09:59:43 AM »

Offline JohnBoy65

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 618
  • Tommy Points: 109
I know I am in the minority, but I hate the NCAA Tournament. I think it's the worst way to crown a champion. There's no advantage to being a higher seed. Can we please get the first 2 rounds at home of the higher seed, and then move the sweet 16 on to neutral courts?

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2016, 10:23:14 AM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17719
  • Tommy Points: 2374
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
I know I am in the minority, but I hate the NCAA Tournament. I think it's the worst way to crown a champion. There's no advantage to being a higher seed. Can we please get the first 2 rounds at home of the higher seed, and then move the sweet 16 on to neutral courts?

Highest seeds generally get something close to homecourt - UNC and/or Duke almost always get to play in Raleigh or Greensboro for example.  Even when they aren't as close the tourney's structured so they travel less.  The main advantage is that you're playing inferior teams, though.

I think the problem with actual HCA is scheduling and $.  The NCAA doesn't want to have to use a tiny venue like Cameron Indoor for their marquee event when they could sell 4x the tickets in a bigger arena.

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament
« Reply #20 on: March 18, 2016, 10:30:51 AM »

Offline JohnBoy65

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 618
  • Tommy Points: 109
I know I am in the minority, but I hate the NCAA Tournament. I think it's the worst way to crown a champion. There's no advantage to being a higher seed. Can we please get the first 2 rounds at home of the higher seed, and then move the sweet 16 on to neutral courts?

Highest seeds generally get something close to homecourt - UNC and/or Duke almost always get to play in Raleigh or Greensboro for example.  Even when they aren't as close the tourney's structured so they travel less.  The main advantage is that you're playing inferior teams, though.

I think the problem with actual HCA is scheduling and $.  The NCAA doesn't want to have to use a tiny venue like Cameron Indoor for their marquee event when they could sell 4x the tickets in a bigger arena.

A couple problems I have:

1) Read a good article from Joe Lunardi explaining how poorly the committee did scheduling teams close to their respective areas. For example, I think Oregon is playing in Providence Rhode Island.

2) Right you're supposed to play an inferior team, but in this format it gives everyone an equal chance. That's fine if that's what you're going for, but then seeding is pointless. That's like Golden State playing a one game series against Utah on a neutral court. Utah could win that game even though they're the 'inferior opponent'

3) I get the money thing, and that's why the tournament will never change because of how much money it makes, but the Women's tournament have HCA in the first 2 rounds, so it can be done.

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament
« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2016, 10:31:24 AM »

Offline Evantime34

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11664
  • Tommy Points: 739
  • Eagerly Awaiting the Next Fantasy Draft
Utah vs Gonzaga tomorrow (Poeltl vs Sabonis) is going to be a good one!
I was really impressed by Poeltl last night. If we draft at 4/5 I'd consider him. He has great footwork, solid quickness, and sets hard screens. When he got the ball with good position it was an automatic 2 and he was difficult to handle in the pick and roll. On defense he directed their entire defense and kept people out of the paint.
DKC:  Rockets
CB Draft: Memphis Grizz
Players: Klay Thompson, Jabari Parker, Aaron Gordon
Next 3 picks: 4.14, 4.15, 4.19

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2016, 10:36:25 AM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17719
  • Tommy Points: 2374
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
I know I am in the minority, but I hate the NCAA Tournament. I think it's the worst way to crown a champion. There's no advantage to being a higher seed. Can we please get the first 2 rounds at home of the higher seed, and then move the sweet 16 on to neutral courts?

Highest seeds generally get something close to homecourt - UNC and/or Duke almost always get to play in Raleigh or Greensboro for example.  Even when they aren't as close the tourney's structured so they travel less.  The main advantage is that you're playing inferior teams, though.

I think the problem with actual HCA is scheduling and $.  The NCAA doesn't want to have to use a tiny venue like Cameron Indoor for their marquee event when they could sell 4x the tickets in a bigger arena.

A couple problems I have:

1) Read a good article from Joe Lunardi explaining how poorly the committee did scheduling teams close to their respective areas. For example, I think Oregon is playing in Providence Rhode Island.

2) Right you're supposed to play an inferior team, but in this format it gives everyone an equal chance. That's fine if that's what you're going for, but then seeding is pointless. That's like Golden State playing a one game series against Utah on a neutral court. Utah could win that game even though they're the 'inferior opponent'

3) I get the money thing, and that's why the tournament will never change because of how much money it makes, but the Women's tournament have HCA in the first 2 rounds, so it can be done.

I respect your points but I don't think seeding is "pointless" when you're playing inferior teams.  Even though everything gets settled on the court and everyone starts 0-0, there's a big difference between UNC having to play FGCU and USC vs, say, Purdue and Kentucky to get to the Sweet 16.  Sure, the lower seed could win, but what's the alternative?  Series are impractical, and any format that virtually guarantees the best team wins calls into question why those lesser teams should even be allowed in.  Upsets are part of the equation and make the tournament more exciting in my opinion.

Oregon is playing in Spokane, Washington BTW.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2016, 10:43:03 AM by foulweatherfan »

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament
« Reply #23 on: March 18, 2016, 11:14:33 AM »

Offline JohnBoy65

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 618
  • Tommy Points: 109
I know I am in the minority, but I hate the NCAA Tournament. I think it's the worst way to crown a champion. There's no advantage to being a higher seed. Can we please get the first 2 rounds at home of the higher seed, and then move the sweet 16 on to neutral courts?

Highest seeds generally get something close to homecourt - UNC and/or Duke almost always get to play in Raleigh or Greensboro for example.  Even when they aren't as close the tourney's structured so they travel less.  The main advantage is that you're playing inferior teams, though.

I think the problem with actual HCA is scheduling and $.  The NCAA doesn't want to have to use a tiny venue like Cameron Indoor for their marquee event when they could sell 4x the tickets in a bigger arena.

A couple problems I have:

1) Read a good article from Joe Lunardi explaining how poorly the committee did scheduling teams close to their respective areas. For example, I think Oregon is playing in Providence Rhode Island.

2) Right you're supposed to play an inferior team, but in this format it gives everyone an equal chance. That's fine if that's what you're going for, but then seeding is pointless. That's like Golden State playing a one game series against Utah on a neutral court. Utah could win that game even though they're the 'inferior opponent'

3) I get the money thing, and that's why the tournament will never change because of how much money it makes, but the Women's tournament have HCA in the first 2 rounds, so it can be done.

I respect your points but I don't think seeding is "pointless" when you're playing inferior teams.  Even though everything gets settled on the court and everyone starts 0-0, there's a big difference between UNC having to play FGCU and USC vs, say, Purdue and Kentucky to get to the Sweet 16.  Sure, the lower seed could win, but what's the alternative?  Series are impractical, and any format that virtually guarantees the best team wins calls into question why those lesser teams should even be allowed in.  Upsets are part of the equation and make the tournament more exciting in my opinion.

Oregon is playing in Spokane, Washington BTW.

1) You're right. It's fun to cheer for the 'cinderella team', and upsets are fun. That's why it'll never change.

2) The alternative: Play rounds 1 and 2 with a legit home court advantage. Cameron indoor, Dean dome, Carrier dome etc. If Yale wins on the road at Baylor that's a good win and good for them.

3) Won't get into it, but sure, I am ok with getting rid of automatic bids to lesser conferences, again it won't ever happen, but in college football a 12-0 MAC champion probably won't make a big time bowl, so why include a 14-19 Holy Cross? 

4) I agree a 1 seed playing a 16 seed matters. The stats prove it. Never has a 1 seed lost. As you go down the list and get to that 8-9 matchup you start seeing them matter less. What advantage did Baylor have over yale yesterday? Or Little Rock over Purdue? They didn't have one, so that means that 5 seed was meaningless.

5) Sorry for the mess up on that Oregon statement, maybe if they win they need to go to Providence? I thought I remembered them being connected to Providence, but I could be totally mistaken.

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament
« Reply #24 on: March 18, 2016, 12:14:20 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17719
  • Tommy Points: 2374
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
I respect your points but I don't think seeding is "pointless" when you're playing inferior teams.  Even though everything gets settled on the court and everyone starts 0-0, there's a big difference between UNC having to play FGCU and USC vs, say, Purdue and Kentucky to get to the Sweet 16.  Sure, the lower seed could win, but what's the alternative?  Series are impractical, and any format that virtually guarantees the best team wins calls into question why those lesser teams should even be allowed in.  Upsets are part of the equation and make the tournament more exciting in my opinion.

Oregon is playing in Spokane, Washington BTW.


4) I agree a 1 seed playing a 16 seed matters. The stats prove it. Never has a 1 seed lost. As you go down the list and get to that 8-9 matchup you start seeing them matter less. What advantage did Baylor have over yale yesterday? Or Little Rock over Purdue? They didn't have one, so that means that 5 seed was meaningless.

With all due respect, that's not at all what that means.  It seems like you're arguing that unless the higher seed always wins the seed is "meaningless".  That's not at all accurate.  15 seeds beat 2s sometimes, but they also lose 90+% of the time.  That's not meaningless.  12 seeds beat 5 seeds with notorious regularlity, but they still lose more than they win.  That's not meaningless either.  The top seeds win more often than not across the board, with I believe the sole exception of 9 seeds who beat 8s a little more often.  I mean, would you argue that NBA seeds are meaningless since the lower seeds have sometimes won every matchup, including 8s beating 1s?

5) Sorry for the mess up on that Oregon statement, maybe if they win they need to go to Providence? I thought I remembered them being connected to Providence, but I could be totally mistaken.

Their regional is in Anaheim CA.  Providence only hosts 1st/2nd round games, and the top seeds there were Miami and Duke. 

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2016, 12:42:01 PM »

Offline JohnBoy65

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 618
  • Tommy Points: 109
In nearly every sport you work towards the highest seed you can be because it offers some sort of advantage. In nearly every sport it's a home court/field advantage. The NCAA gives no advantage to the higher seed in this tournament. They play close to their campus that's it. In a one game winner take all format it's an even playing field, in my opinion. It's a game of basketball, anyone can win. If that's the case then being the higher seed does not matter. IF you play the game at home then it does matter. Would Duke have lost to Mercer and Lehigh at home? Probably not, but because of the format they were offered no advantage to being a 2 seed.

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2016, 02:03:07 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16489
  • Tommy Points: 1445
Cal game is starting.  Really interested to see how Jaylen Brown does in this tournament.  Haven't gotten to watch him in live games yet this year, and I have a lot of questions about him as a prospect.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament
« Reply #27 on: March 18, 2016, 02:09:31 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17894
  • Tommy Points: 8772
In nearly every sport you work towards the highest seed you can be because it offers some sort of advantage. In nearly every sport it's a home court/field advantage. The NCAA gives no advantage to the higher seed in this tournament. They play close to their campus that's it. In a one game winner take all format it's an even playing field, in my opinion. It's a game of basketball, anyone can win. If that's the case then being the higher seed does not matter. IF you play the game at home then it does matter. Would Duke have lost to Mercer and Lehigh at home? Probably not, but because of the format they were offered no advantage to being a 2 seed.
the advantage to seeding is that the teams deemed stronger get to play against teams deemed weaker.  That in and of itself is a huge advantage that allows the vast bulk of the higher seeded teams to advance. 

If a top seed loses to a lower seed, that's part of the Cinderella magic of the tournament and too bad for the higher seeded team.  I think you'll the majority of people who watch/like the tournament to find that a big draw.  I don't hear a whole lot of people that follow the tournament get upset when a high seed loses, quite the opposite in fact.  the exception of course is when it's someone who's in a tournament pool and lost a team that they projected to go far.

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament
« Reply #28 on: March 18, 2016, 03:48:39 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16489
  • Tommy Points: 1445
Tell you what, this Jordan Matthews kid looks pretty good.  Is he on the draft radar?


Jaylen Brown has been unimpressive.  In fact, his poor defense and ballhandling have stood out to me, as opposed to anything positive.  He should probably stay in school another year, but I suspect his draft stock will be too high after workouts.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: 2016 NCAA Tournament
« Reply #29 on: March 18, 2016, 03:55:22 PM »

Offline Yoki_IsTheName

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10052
  • Tommy Points: 1149
  • I'm a Paul Heyman guy.
Tell you what, this Jordan Matthews kid looks pretty good.  Is he on the draft radar?


Jaylen Brown has been unimpressive.  In fact, his poor defense and ballhandling have stood out to me, as opposed to anything positive.  He should probably stay in school another year, but I suspect his draft stock will be too high after workouts.

Yeah, was high on Brown but this unimpressive showing might hit his draft stock. Which is good for us I think.

I really believe there is still a ton to work with there, and if he drops, he could be withing reach if we could move up using the Dallas and our pick.

California, though, man. I have them going to the Elite 8, very unimpressive perfomance.
"The Boston Celtics are not a basketball team, they are a way of life."

- Red