Some Interesting End of Season Numbers

06-07 Basketball General NCS Basketball97

During various bubble discussions, we talked about whether there was significance to being a 20-win team in a power conference. VaWolf posited that it was correlation, not causation – and the final tally this year proves him correct. Nine such teams are in the NIT: Michigan, FSU, WVU, Alabama, Oklahoma St., Kansas St., Clemson, Ole Miss, Syracuse.

Interesting tidbits from the final Sagarin ratings:

– Final rating: Drexel 74, NC State 75

– Worst NCAAT snubs: Clemson (26), Missouri State (27)

– Weakest at-large selectons: Texas Tech (64), Old Dominion (68)

– Teams with more Top 25 wins than NC State’s 5: UCLA (8), UNC (7), Georgetown (6), Oregon (6), Virginia (6).

About BJD95

1995 NC State graduate, sufferer of Les and MOC during my entire student tenure. An equal-opportunity objective critic and analyst of Wolfpack sports.

06-07 Basketball General NCS Basketball

97 Responses to Some Interesting End of Season Numbers

  1. GAWolf 03/12/2007 at 3:30 PM #

    NYPack offers an interesting idea… I sort of like it.

  2. choppack1 03/12/2007 at 3:33 PM #

    “If you don’t like the first two days of the tournament, you are in the very small minority. I know people who consider that to be the greatest day in sports for the entire year.”

    That’s not a fair thing to say to O’s POV. Like most of us, he probably likes the first 2 days of the tournament but doesn’t really relish when that 1 vs. 1 game is on his tube. Put it this way – are you looking forward to UNCs, Kansas’, Florida and OSU’s first round games???

    How would you feel if your local affiliate for their 8 games carried all 1 and 2 seeds? Would you watch much of the tourney then?

  3. BJD95 03/12/2007 at 3:53 PM #

    Generally speaking, I don’t think we need to fix what isn’t broken. I have no problem with 4-8 games being uncompetitive (and the 3/14 game is too littered with upsets and near-upsets to consider those matchups uncompetitive from the tip) – it’s a reward for the best of the best. CBS also had a graphic re how much the average margin of victory in 1/16 games has narrowed significantly of late.

    Nobody’s local affiliate shows all #1 and #2 seeds on Th/Fr. In fact, they almost never get shown except for being of “local interest.”

  4. TNCSU 03/12/2007 at 3:54 PM #

    Like I mentioned, the drawback to “drawing” teams 9-16), is that a number one seed could face a presumed #9 seed in the first round. As it stands now, they always play the winner of a 8/9 game anyway. On the flip side, a #8 seed could play a presumed 16 seed — that’s why it would be the luck of the “draw.” Again, that would keep some of the human element out, like the fact that UCLA ALWAYS plays in California their first round no matter what seed they are.

  5. justaguy 03/12/2007 at 4:08 PM #

    Play-in games are just an expansion of the field with the proviso, “you’re lucky we’re even giving you a chance!” This is a kind of 2nd-class tourney citizenship that would make teams glad to be in the NIT should they not even be a selected as a play-in team.

    The NCAAT was expanded because it was demonstrated that more teams than the tourney accommodated were capable of winning it all. State’s win in ’83 helped to justify expanding the field from 48 to 64, and Villanova ’85 as an 8 seed proved expansion was a good move. Similarly, State’s win over Maryland in ’74 showed that a top 3 team was being left out of the NCAAT. The rules were changed to allow a 2nd team from a conference and we promptly saw Indiana and Michigan reach the finals.

    Since expanding the field to 64(65) teams, I don’t think it has been demonstrated that the field needs to be expanded further to rightly determine a champion. LSU ’86 and George Mason ’06 are the lowest seeded teams (#11) to make a final four. When 13 seeds start making the final four or an 11 seed wins it all, then it may be time to revisit the expansion.

  6. VaWolf82 03/12/2007 at 4:10 PM #

    That is historical record.

    And so is the fact that all of the at-large bids wore tennis shoes to their last ball game. The selection committee has been quoted over the years saying that 20 wins is not a key deciding factor. If 20 wins is so important, then why doesn’t the rule hold for mid-majors as well?

    One clarification…you clearly said Top-40, but somehow my brain parsed that as 1-39. There are only two teams since ’99 left out with an RPI in the 30’s. This year and last, I listed the highest ranked BCS school to get left out and the highest RPI rank to get an at-large bid. This year’s update was here:

    http://www.statefansnation.com/index.php/archives/2007/02/04/clearing-the-bubble/

  7. choppack1 03/12/2007 at 4:24 PM #

    “The NCAAT was expanded because it was demonstrated that more teams than the tourney accommodated were capable of winning it all. State’s win in ‘83 helped to justify expanding the field from 48 to 64, and Villanova ‘85 as an 8 seed proved expansion was a good move. ”

    Here’s the thought line I have to take issue with – the teams in the 64th and 65th spot have NO chance of winning it all. The teams in the 16th, 15th, and 14th seeds have no chance of winning it at all.

    I do find it interesting that all of the teams you mention in the Nova, LSU, State and George Mason were at large bids were from BCS conferences w/ the exception of George Mason. Of couse, George Mason didn’t win it all and neither did LSU. IMHO, it hasn’t been demonstrated that a double digit seed – especially from a non-BCS conference – can win this championship.

    Your statement about teams demonstrating that the tourney is expanding because more teams can win it is a half truth. It’s also the kind of thinking which created a fiasco in the ACC tourney during the late 90s after we made our run to the tournament finals after the play-in game. The ACC was smart enough to realize that while the play-in game victor could win it all, it probably wouldn’t and even so, it didn’t necessarily deserve a day off.

    You can only win the tourney if you’re in it – so yes, expanding the tournament means that more teams can win it. However, the more you expand it, the more difficult it is for a team like George Mason to win it all.

    Personally, I like the tourney the size it is now. I just don’t like this whining about the mid-majors.

  8. Mr O 03/12/2007 at 4:48 PM #

    It is really all a matter of you look at things. If you don’t consider it broke and like it as a 64 team tourney, then even with 4 or 8 “play in ” then you don’t have to consider those games a part of the real tournament. So it is still a field of 64 team with just a different way to select the final 4 or 8 bids.

    Settling it on the court seems a lot more logical than the current system.

    Central Conn. St making the field of 64 over the teams that didn’t make the field of 64 is a joke.

  9. Rumble Pack 03/12/2007 at 5:09 PM #

    The Future is bright with such youngsters as these.

  10. MadWolf92 03/12/2007 at 5:29 PM #

    chop,

    But the expansion didn’t add the 13, 14, 15 and 16 seeds to the tournament. Those are almost always conference winners, and they would have been in the tournament pre-expansion. Expansion added today’s 9, 10, 11, and 12 seeds, and they have a *much* better chance of winning it all.

  11. packpigskinfan23 03/12/2007 at 5:47 PM #

    love that RUmble!!!!! thanks!

  12. 98st8 03/12/2007 at 7:06 PM #

    off topic but I thought all might enjoy this from ESPN and especially the last comment from Bomani Jones
    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=jones/070312

  13. 98st8 03/12/2007 at 7:07 PM #

    • A Carolina fan behind me wore a T-shirt that said, “NC State is not our rival.” Uhhh, yes it is. And it will be for a while.

    Bomani Jones –ESPN

  14. 98st8 03/12/2007 at 7:34 PM #

    Rumble… that is awesome!!!! Can I adopt that kid

  15. packpigskinfan23 03/12/2007 at 7:45 PM #

    The Lady Pack plays their first game at the RBC vs Oral Roberts if I saw it correctly

  16. WolfPup35 03/12/2007 at 7:46 PM #

    At least you can tell that he’s Daddy’s boy!

  17. packpigskinfan23 03/12/2007 at 7:47 PM #

    excuse me… Robert Morris.

    Sunday at noon. ESPN 2

  18. MrPlywood 03/12/2007 at 7:47 PM #

    Great article 98.

    I trolled the Inside Carolina board last night, just curious. While some UNX fans were willing to give the Pack their props not only for the champ game but the regular season games as well, the majority blamed the refs for “letting” State back into the title game. The sense of entitlement over there is staggering, funny, and a little sad actually. They were actually complaining about calls “not going their way” and geting “every team’s best shot”. Fine. I do hope they remain complacent and get their asses handed to them by Lowe & Co. 2.0.

  19. RedTerror29 03/12/2007 at 7:49 PM #

    The worst fan logic I heard watching the game with a VT fan and a UNC fan? Sidney Lowe is a bad coach because his ACC tournament final team didn’t win more games during the regular season.

  20. packpigskinfan23 03/12/2007 at 7:52 PM #

    as of right now… you can get center court first level tickets for the State womans team for $16!!! lets fill that place up!

  21. highstick 03/12/2007 at 9:07 PM #

    Mr. Plywood,

    I look occasionally at Inside Carolina. Most of the posters are just blatant idiots with no clue about anything. I wish there was a survey to determine how many are students, how many are alumni, and how many are high school kids or Walmart fans that don’t know “jack about squat”. I also monitor my son’s college(he’s a grad) and it’s equally full of idiots who just like to “flame back and forth”.

    I’ll be perfectly honest with you, I have absolutely no respect for most of the younger Tar Heel alumni. I emphasize “most”, because they are not all that way. They don’t know the rules, most never played a full game of horse in the driveway, and are just basically uninformed about the game of basketball, history of basketball, nor ACC history.

    Don’t waste your time getting upset. Everytime I go over there I get pissed, however I’ve never registered or posted.

    We got “their attention” this year I can assure you. Roy will not be sitting back and gloating cause he knows, YES HE KNOWS, that N C State is back and Sid is up for the challenge. I also think that “K” sees the handwriting too. Actually I hope they underestimate how far this program has advanced in a short number of months.

  22. justaguy 03/13/2007 at 8:33 AM #

    choppack,

    I appreciate your comments. I guess we disagree on what constitutes a lower seeded team’s ability to demonstrate that to win. I would agree that the NCAAT is the right size now.

    One of the issues that I did not delve into is the NCAA’s goal of the tournament. If it is strictly to determine the national championship, then taking the best 64 teams is the best route. There would undoubtedly be controversy over the last few teams that get in, or perhaps even the last dozen, but certainly the top 50 would get in. But the NCAA being the NCAA often has other goals, such as policing feathers on the W&M logo. As such, fairness is a component, which is why, I suspect, champions of the smaller conferences are given automatic bids. Single-bid conferences are given a change , even though they have no chance out of a sense of fairness.

    Another problem inherent to any single-elimination playoff format is powers-of-two bracketing. The expansion from 32 to 48 teams got criticism because 16 teams got a bye. There was considerable debate over whether this was an advantage or not. The top 16 ended up playing against a good team (usually) that had already gotten its feet wet in NCAAT play. Whether that was a real problem or just perception, the feeling was, wouldn’t it be better to have the top 16 play as well, even if they played cupcakes? For a combination of reasons, money among them, the field was expanded to the next power of two: 64. (This year the NIT was reduced from 40 to 32 teams to get back to a power of two.)

    I would argue that any meaningful incremental expansion short of 128 would experience the same problem with byes, even if the problem was only one of perception. It would also mean lengthening the tournament by a week. I’m not opposed to an expansion to 128 teams in principle, but it would be a huge change in the logistics of the tournament. It would likely doom the NIT as well, and if so, only expands the number of post-season teams by 32, not 64 (or 63). So I don’t think we will see that happening.

1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply