home

March Madness Day 3

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 11:20:53 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Didn;t decide the full slate, but I did pick the following ATS:

Kentucky -16 over Cincinnati, Ohio State +9 over Arizona, Georgia State +7 over Xavier, UAB +6 over UCLA.

If I get a chance I'll add more picks.

< FBI Investigating MS Hanging Death of Otis Byrd | Sunday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    March Madness Day 3 | 16 comments (16 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Wisconsin fans best enjoy the Badgers' run. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 12:28:17 PM EST
    Because if Gov. Scott Walker and the GOP-controlled state legislature have their way, employees will be able to "voluntarily waive" their right to at least one day off per week -- that is, if they'd like to keep their jobs.

    First game finished (none / 0) (#2)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 01:34:12 PM EST
    UCLA covers 92-75. That was the only game where I had both teams wrong in the round of 32. I need Gonzaga to win the South. I have it beating Duke to make the Final Four.

    I may have let my dislike of Duke influence that pick. I try to put aside my feelings and I did pick UK to win it all despite wishing they would lose but I feel almost compelled to vote against Duke.

    fwiw, perfect guy is still perfect (none / 0) (#3)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 01:40:35 PM EST

    Rank 1

    Bracket, Owner

    Malaquias4394 1,Malaquias4394

    320 20 0 0 0 0 Duke 1580 340 100.0


    What does this mean? (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 02:37:54 PM EST


    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#6)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 02:54:29 PM EST
    Rank 1
    Bracket, Owner

    Malaquias4394 1,Malaquias4394

     320 20 0 0 0 0 Duke 1580 340 100.0

    It means Malaquias4394's 1st bracket is ranked #1.

    320 means he got all 32 games  in the round of 64 correct (10 points a game)

    20 means he got the 1 game finished in the round of 32 correct (20 points agame)

     The 0 0 0 0 refers to the following rounds (each will also be worth a total of 320 a points so as it progresses, the games in each round are worth double the games in the preceding round).

     Duke means he picked Duke to win it all.

    1580, means he has 1580 possible points remaining if he gets all subsequent games correct (1920 is perfect).

     340 is her current point total (320 =20)

    100 is his percentile, meaning he is better than 100% of the other players.

    ____

    Because he has  a Final 4 of

    Kansas v. Wisconsin and

    Duke v. Louisville

    with Duke beating Kansas for the title, I would bet that he ends up finishing way back in the pack, but it's still impressive to have picked 33 in a row correct so far.

    Parent

    I should add (none / 0) (#7)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 03:06:23 PM EST
      "way back in the pack" doesn't take much.

    Currently, my percentile is 97.8% but I am ranked only 258,488.

    Parent

    Well he missed 3 yesterday, (none / 0) (#12)
    by Reconstructionist on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 08:35:57 AM EST
     but he's still ranked an impressive 720th with 420 points.

     By comparison I have 370 points and am ranked 220,937.

    Parent

    two entries are tied (none / 0) (#13)
    by Reconstructionist on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 08:39:00 AM EST
     for the lead now with 450 (out of 480).

    Parent
    It's noteworthy (none / 0) (#4)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 01:51:07 PM EST
      that UCLA, the first team in the Sweet 16, was probably the most controversial bid in the field (either it or Texas).

      Say what you will, but things like that are a big part of what makes it fun.

    UCLA, Texas and Oklahoma State were ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 03:30:46 PM EST
    ... likely selected this year for their marquee value as name brands in the TV ratings game, rather than for their actual prowess on the hardwood.

    Were I allowed to tweak the criteria for an NCAA bid, I'd start by capping the number of invitations per conference at no more than five, which would include the conference tournament champion. Then I would disqualify any team with a losing conference record from consideration, which would of course require that team to then win its own conference tournament and the automatic bid which comes with it, if they really feel deserving. Otherwise, such teams should rightfully stay home and watch the NCAA tourney games on TV, along with the rest of us.

    I heard ESPN's pundits try to defend the selections of Texas and Oklahoma State, which both finished at 8-10 in the Big 12, by pointing out than neither team had a "bad" loss between them. While it may be true that none of their respective losses were "bad," there were also 26 of them, not including the two incurred in the first round.

    There were simply too many bona fide Div. 1 conference regular season champions who were left out of The Dance because of their failure to win their conference tourney, to justify the NCAA's inclusion of such unspectacular underachievers as somehow representative of the 68 best Div. 1 men's teams in the country.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I don't want (none / 0) (#9)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 04:10:25 PM EST
    Such rigid rules but agree too  much bias in favor of the haves exists.

    Parent
    There is no reason why ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 12:20:57 AM EST
    ... teams from six self-anointed "power conferences" -- ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC -- should garner over half the slots in the NCAA tourney (36 out of 68), when there are 32 conferences competing in Division 1 men's basketball.

    More specifically, why should a team that finished its Ohio Valley Conference season undefeated but lost in the conference tourney finals (Murray State, 16-0) be passed over by the NCAA in favor of two teams that ended up tied for 6th place in the Big 12 with losing records (Texas and Oklahoma State, both 8-10) and never even made their conference tourney final?

    How exactly would you fix the problem of disproportionate representation by six conferences in the NCAA tourney field, if not by a rule which expressly caps the number of teams a given conference can send to The Big Dance?

    Even with my proposed rule changes, those six aforementioned conferences could still conceivably occupy up to 30 slots in the 68-team tourney, so what I'm suggesting is hardly a radical notion. Rather, it would potentially open up 6 to 10 more at-large bids for the remaining 27 D-1 conferences, and perhaps give greater meaning to the concept of a first-place regular season finish in a mid-major conference.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I would prefer (none / 0) (#11)
    by Reconstructionist on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 08:24:32 AM EST
     Greater representation on the selection committee from the "mid-major" conferences combined with tweaking the criteria to reduce the emphasis on strength of schedule and indexes like the RPI which disadvantage teams in the non-power conferences.

      A conference that has 14 (15 in the ACC) teams should not be arbitrarily limited to 5 teams. Just as an example, N.C. State (which busted my bracket because I had Nova making it to the championship game) was the 6th bid from the ACC.

    Even the Big 12 could (although I agree with you didn't this year) have more than 5 teams that deserve a bid.

      I have less of an issue with the rule that a losing conference record should make a team ineligible, but I still think it could cause a bad result some years. A good team could have a very strong non-conference record featuring  several wins over top 50 teams and then playing in a very strong conference finish 8-10 because injuries early in the conference schedule contributed to losses.

      If such a team went 13-0 non conference, 8-10 conference regular season then 2-1 in the conference tournament, and let's say beat 3 top ten teams and 10  top 50 teams, with no bad losses, that would sound like a deserving team to me, but would be shut out because of the losing conference record.

    Parent

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 10:20:14 PM EST
    They could still win the conference tournament and earn a bid that way. But yeah, an 8-10 conference record and 7th place conference finish should otherwise be a disqualifying factor for postseason play. Otherwise, an NCAA bid amounts to a mulligan that's granted the team on the sole basis of membership in a so-called "elite" conference.

    The Big 12 was an overrated conference this year, and did not deserve seven invites. That may not be the case next season, particularly with Kansas, which loses only one senior off a young team. But today, the second-seeded Jayhawks ran into a buzz saw in an outstanding and well-disciplined Wichita State team, whose experience showed and prevailed.

    I have a good friend out here who is a Kansas alum, and he didn't believe me when I told him Friday night that Wichita State would be a very difficult game for his Jayhawks. I think he's still stunned by the can of whoopass opened by the Shockers on KU this afternoon. I wasn't. Having watched Wichita State play in the UH Diamond Head Classic last Christmas, I felt going into today that the Shockers were clearly the better team of the two, and they proved me right.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald (none / 0) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 08:58:45 AM EST
    Since the 6 power conferences made up 53% of the original field, but 87% of the Sweet 16 consists of teams from those 6 power conferences, it could easily be said that the power conferences were underrepresented and the mid-majors overrepresented in choosing the NCAA field this year.

    Parent
    No one questions (none / 0) (#16)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 03:20:45 PM EST
    the "Power 6" are the best conferences by a considerable margin. After that you have the strongest of the rest (American, Atlantic 10, MVC, MWC, WCC) which do produce more than 1 worthy team on a pretty consistent basis.

      The other 21 conferences simply don't. In fact they very rarely produce more than 1 and more often probably produce zero that would get in on merit if you defined merit as being one of the 68 best teams. They still get the auto-bid though because their presence adds to the tournament. Most like the David v. Goliath upsets and the Cinderella stories.

      Take Murray State this year out of the OVC. 27-5 is a very good record, but it was only 10-4 outside the OVC and Western Kentucky was probably the best win.  MSU played 2 non-conference games against teams in the field. MSU lost 89-62 to Xavier and 93-58 to Valparaiso. It split against Belmont who got the OVC auto-bid.

      It's hard to make a case MSU is better than UCLA, Ok. St. or Texas-- and  it also  had a chance to get a bid by winning the conference tournament the same as those teams had and also failed to do so.

      Now, there is an argument to be made-- one I agree with to a considerable extent-- that picking only to get the "best" teams in the field would ruin the tournament because it's "more fun" to have some  high achieving but lesser quality teams ion the field. Would I rather see a low-major upstart pull an upset or 2 than see UCLA do it? Yeah, I would. I also think the deck is so heavily stacked against the little guys it is fair to "cheat" in their favor a bit, but that doesn't mean such teams are necessarily more deserving than slightly above average power conference teams.

    March Madness Day 3 | 16 comments (16 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment