From 64 to 16, how did the conferences fare?

[Jake]

While there will be lots of talk about how many teams each conference has in the Sweet 16 and their won/loss marks, I'm more interested in how each did in games they weren't supposed to win. After all they seed the teams, and while the Big East had 3 #1 seeds those teams sure as hell better go 6-0 in the first week. It's only news if they lose.

I like to see how conferences did in games they were supposed to LOSE, rather than those they were expected to win. Given all the attention afforded to the seeding process I think such upsets mean something.

Wins versus higher seeds (upset wins):

Big Ten: 3
PAC 10: 2
Horizon: 1
MAAC: 1
Big XII: 1
ACC: 1

Losses versus lower seeds (upset losses):

ACC: 3
PAC 10: 2
Mountain West: 2
Big Ten: 2

So while the talking heads sing the praises of the Big East and Big XII for winning games they were supposed to win remember which conference fared better when these "experts" said they were going to lose. The ACC should be criticized for losing 3 higher seed games, but that will no more happen than the Big Ten getting praised for winning 3 lower seed games. :ohwell:

Fourteen of the 16 top seeds made it. That's pretty remarkable. Only Purdue and Arizona bucked the trend, and the Cats benefitted from Utah being a 5th seed. The Mountain West continues to get seeded too high as they all lost to lower seeds, yet again. Purdue had to beat a higher seeded PAC 10 team in PAC 10 country (Oregon) to do it.

 

[BB73]

I heard them say that this is the first year that all 12 of the 1-2-3 seeds made the sweet 16.

 

[Jake]

I heard them say that this is the first year that all 12 of the 1-2-3 seeds made the sweet 16.

Now they're chomping on the Big East for getting 5 teams to the Sweet 16, even though all five of them were higher seeds expected to get there before they ever played a tournament game.

They won the games they were supposed to win, against lesser teams. Apparently, that's cause for celebration in New York City and Bristol, Connecticut.

 

[Jaxbuck]

ACC holds the crown for this years biggest bit spitting (by seed) with our tie dyed friends from Wake as a #4 losing to Cleveland State #13.

Just wanted to mention that.

 

[Jake]

ACC holds the crown for this years biggest bit spitting (by seed) with our tie dyed friends from Wake as a #4 losing to Cleveland State #13.

Just wanted to mention that.

Glad you mentioned it. God knows Hubert Davis won't be going on about it on ESPN.

 

[WoodyWorshiper]

Now they're chomping on the Big East for getting 5 teams to the Sweet 16, even though all five of them were higher seeds expected to get there before they ever played a tournament game.

They won the games they were supposed to win, against lesser teams. Apparently, that's cause for celebration in New York City and Bristol, Connecticut.

No bash, I guess, but I have NO idea what you're trying to say here. The gist seems that The Big East really shouldn't be too pleased that they sent 5 to the "SS" because they had the better teams to begin with? And that the Big Ten should be chest-pumping because 3 lower seeds won games?

The Big East had higher seeded teams winning games because they are the Elite Conference in CBB, plain and simple. Are they supposed to be ashamed that their teams kicked-ass all year and ended up in positions to get high seeds?

I don't know. Help me out on this one.

 

[Jake]

No bash, I guess, but I have NO idea what you're trying to say here. The gist seems that The Big East really shouldn't be too pleased that they sent 5 to the "SS" because they had the better teams to begin with? And that the Big Ten should be chest-pumping because 3 lower seeds won games?

I'm talking about tournament performance to date, hence the title 64 to 16. The biggest conference in America had a fine year and their teams were rewarded for it with 3 number one seeds. Congrats to them. Tournament wise, so far, they've largely done what was expected of them - beat lesser teams - except for West Virginia. I see no reason to fellate Louisville for beating Morehead State and Siena, for example. ESPN and CBS will do that for me.

I was curious about which teams exceeded their expectations - hence the wins by lower seeds over higher seeds - and which conferences fell short. The results are posted above. It's not about anyone "chest-pumping", but more about what happened versus what the media likes to yap about day after day.

 

[WoodyWorshiper]

I'm talking about tournament performance to date, hence the title 64 to 16. The biggest conference in America had a fine year and their teams were rewarded for it with 3 number one seeds. Congrats to them. Tournament wise, so far, they've largely done what was expected of them - beat lesser teams - except for West Virginia. I see no reason to fellate Louisville for beating Morehead State and Siena, for example. ESPN and CBS will do that for me.

I was curious about which teams exceeded their expectations - hence the wins by lower seeds over higher seeds - and which conferences fell short. The results are posted above. It's not about anyone "chest-pumping", but more about what happened versus what the media likes to yap about day after day.

Simply by looking at your above criteria, then I have to say that Arizona is easily #1 (based on the "experts" being in an uproar over their selection in the first place) and making it to the "SS" and Cleveland State is #2.

12's always beat 5's (3/4 this year) and 10/7 usually split. But for a #12 to get to the "SS" by beating a #13 that beat a #4 makes both impressive. So for exceeding expectations, these two take it easily.

I don't know how to grade the conferences that "fell short."

To me, fact is, once you get to the 2nd round (todays round) its really never a surprise what happens. I truly expected that 2 teams out of Louisville, MSU, Missouri, Pitt, would lose today. Couldn't pinpoint which ones, but it's how the tournament goes. I'm amazed that the top 9 seeds are still alive. Last year was the first year that all #1's made it. I have a feeling that some serious "bracket-busting" will take place next week as far as the #1's go.

JMO.

Peace.

 

[Jake]

Simply by looking at your above criteria, then I have to say that Arizona is easily #1 (based on the "experts" being in an uproar over their selection in the first place) and making it to the "SS" and Cleveland State is #2.

12's always beat 5's (3/4 this year) and 10/7 usually split. But for a #12 to get to the "SS" by beating a #13 that beat a #4 makes both impressive. So for exceeding expectations, these two take it easily.

Team wise, sure, but I think it was pretty clear I was talking about conferences. You're creating an entirely different topic.