I know its old news but here is a summary of how the conferences (together) did in the playoffs and maybe a way of seeing how the forecasters did as well.
But first a special notice to the one team that showed every bracketeer up..Loyola of Chicago who more or less breezed into the final 4 when time ran out on a phenomenal year. The Loyola Chi record was 28-5 coming in and they buzzed through wins over the ACC, SEC, MW and Big 12 before losing to Michigan. The other noteworthy splash brother was University of Maryland, Baltimore county, who took down a #1 ACC rep in Virginia by 20. UMBC was 24-10 coming in. At a minimum it speaks to the disregard for small schools vs. the bigger hyped conferences by the selectors.
And how did the selectors do in their seeding, which is the ultimate way the committee should be weighed. Well here are the conferences by number of teams and average seeding (the lower number the better), W-L %, and record in the 6 potential rounds:
SEC: 9 teams, Average seed-6th, 8-9 W-L, .471%. Lost 2 teams in round 1, 4 in round 2, 3 in round 3. Best teams Kentucky and TAMU at 2-1 each. Overall a below average to poor record. Below .500 and no teamk further than Sweet 16. 9 Picks ..really?
ACC: 9 teams, Average seed- 5-6th, 12-7 W-L, .632%. Lost 4 teams in round 1, 1 in round 2, 2 in round 3, 2 in round 4 (elite eight). Best teams Duke and FSU, and Syracuse who was an afterthought play-in team at 3-1 each. Overall average- little better record. No further than Elite 8. But again, they lost #1 Virginia by 20 points to a #16 UMBC ever. Embarrassing.
Big 12: 7 teams, Average seed- 6-7th, 12-9 W-L, .571%. Lost 3 teams in round 1, 1 in round 3, 2 in round 4, 1 in round 5 (final 4). Best team Kansas at 4-1. Overall a good record. The selection committee got this one more right than the others.
Big East: 6 teams, Average seed- 6-7th, 9-5 W-L, .643%. Lost 2 teams in round 1, 3 in round 2. . Best team- Villanova by far at 6-0 and the champion (the rest were 3-5). Overall a good record. But not much without ace Villanova. None other getting past the round of 32. The selection committee over selected on this one.
Big 10: 4 teams, Average seed- 3rd, 9-4 W-L, .692%. Lost 2 teams in round 2, 1 in round 3 (sweet 16), and 1 in the Championship game. Best team Michigan at 5-1.Overall very good record. The selected teams did well and under that lays a big probably of underestimating the strength of this conference.
Atlantic 10: 3 teams, Average seed- 10th, 2-3 W-L, .400%. Actually I was thinking of not including this conference in the list but they seem to be there with 3 or more selections every NCAA tournament. They Lost 2 teams in round 1, 1 in round 2, St. Bonaventure won in the play-in round. Best team Rhode Island at 1-1.Overall below average.
PAC12: The Worst for last. 3 teams, Seeds- Arizona 4th and 2 play-ins (#11). 0-3 W-L, .000%. Lost 2 teams in play-in and 1 in round 1.Overall very poor record. A big goose egg that undermined the better teams in the conference (many went deep in the NIT). Will the selection committee refer to this NCAA comes next selection? You bet they will. FYI in a recent early top 25 the PAC12 had 1 team (Oregon) at #25. And last year's 10-4 NCAA playoffs record meant zip. Will the same committee hurt the poor performing conferences of the SEC and Big East (sans Villanova) . I don't see that..
Your thoughts?
But first a special notice to the one team that showed every bracketeer up..Loyola of Chicago who more or less breezed into the final 4 when time ran out on a phenomenal year. The Loyola Chi record was 28-5 coming in and they buzzed through wins over the ACC, SEC, MW and Big 12 before losing to Michigan. The other noteworthy splash brother was University of Maryland, Baltimore county, who took down a #1 ACC rep in Virginia by 20. UMBC was 24-10 coming in. At a minimum it speaks to the disregard for small schools vs. the bigger hyped conferences by the selectors.
And how did the selectors do in their seeding, which is the ultimate way the committee should be weighed. Well here are the conferences by number of teams and average seeding (the lower number the better), W-L %, and record in the 6 potential rounds:
SEC: 9 teams, Average seed-6th, 8-9 W-L, .471%. Lost 2 teams in round 1, 4 in round 2, 3 in round 3. Best teams Kentucky and TAMU at 2-1 each. Overall a below average to poor record. Below .500 and no teamk further than Sweet 16. 9 Picks ..really?
ACC: 9 teams, Average seed- 5-6th, 12-7 W-L, .632%. Lost 4 teams in round 1, 1 in round 2, 2 in round 3, 2 in round 4 (elite eight). Best teams Duke and FSU, and Syracuse who was an afterthought play-in team at 3-1 each. Overall average- little better record. No further than Elite 8. But again, they lost #1 Virginia by 20 points to a #16 UMBC ever. Embarrassing.
Big 12: 7 teams, Average seed- 6-7th, 12-9 W-L, .571%. Lost 3 teams in round 1, 1 in round 3, 2 in round 4, 1 in round 5 (final 4). Best team Kansas at 4-1. Overall a good record. The selection committee got this one more right than the others.
Big East: 6 teams, Average seed- 6-7th, 9-5 W-L, .643%. Lost 2 teams in round 1, 3 in round 2. . Best team- Villanova by far at 6-0 and the champion (the rest were 3-5). Overall a good record. But not much without ace Villanova. None other getting past the round of 32. The selection committee over selected on this one.
Big 10: 4 teams, Average seed- 3rd, 9-4 W-L, .692%. Lost 2 teams in round 2, 1 in round 3 (sweet 16), and 1 in the Championship game. Best team Michigan at 5-1.Overall very good record. The selected teams did well and under that lays a big probably of underestimating the strength of this conference.
Atlantic 10: 3 teams, Average seed- 10th, 2-3 W-L, .400%. Actually I was thinking of not including this conference in the list but they seem to be there with 3 or more selections every NCAA tournament. They Lost 2 teams in round 1, 1 in round 2, St. Bonaventure won in the play-in round. Best team Rhode Island at 1-1.Overall below average.
PAC12: The Worst for last. 3 teams, Seeds- Arizona 4th and 2 play-ins (#11). 0-3 W-L, .000%. Lost 2 teams in play-in and 1 in round 1.Overall very poor record. A big goose egg that undermined the better teams in the conference (many went deep in the NIT). Will the selection committee refer to this NCAA comes next selection? You bet they will. FYI in a recent early top 25 the PAC12 had 1 team (Oregon) at #25. And last year's 10-4 NCAA playoffs record meant zip. Will the same committee hurt the poor performing conferences of the SEC and Big East (sans Villanova) . I don't see that..
Your thoughts?
