Author Topic: 2014-15 college basketball (Read 136278 times)

kso_FAN · « **Reply #1450 on:** March 30, 2015, 10:02:37 PM »

Quote from: michigancat on March 30, 2015, 09:57:00 PM

Quote from: ksu_FAN on March 30, 2015, 09:39:15 PM
2004 OSU was the last time a non-KU team made the Final 4 from the Big 12. Since then, Big 12 teams have made 63 NCAA appearances. 2 times Big 12 teams made the Final 4, both by KU (08, 12). 29 times those appearances were as top 4 seeds and since the tournament expanded to 64 teams, over 85% of Final 4 participants have been Top 4 seeds. So since OSU's appearance in 2004, only 3.2% of the Big 12 teams in the tournament made the Final 4. Even in the 46% of those appearances that have been as favorable seeds, only 6.9% of those Big 12 teams made a Final 4. And again, both of those were KU. You could also point out that the Big 12 has only made 2 of the 44 appearances in the Final 4 since 2005, good for 4.5%. 7 of those 11 years the Big 12 has been rated one of the Top 3 conferences in the country and 3 times it was ranked first.

That's a heck of a lot of bad luck.

That's actually not much bad luck at all. How many 1 seeds (non-KU) were in that group? not sure how "favorable seed" is defined.

Also, 2004 happened to be the last time a non-KU team won the league outright.

I defined favorable seed as 4 or above. Final 4s by seed are as follows (since 85): 1 seeds - 45%, 2 seeds - 21%, 3 seeds - 13%, 4 seeds 9%. Champs: 1 seeds - 63%, 2 seeds - 13%, 3 seeds 13%, 4 seeds - 4%.

KU has all the 1 seeds in the last 11 years (5).

nicname · « **Reply #1451 on:** March 30, 2015, 10:08:42 PM »

I can buy luck for a team say 2010 KSU or 2012 Mizzou falling short of a final four. (Yes, I know that a 2-seed isn't projected to the final four)

I can't buy the luck excuse when the conference has had this long of a run of minimal results in terms of tournament success. Variance levels off over time. It's either that the conference hasn't had many great teams, or that it has underachieved in the tournament. In reality it's probably a little bit of both.

The Big 12 has severely lagged behind the other power conferences in tournament success for more than a decade.

kso_FAN · « **Reply #1452 on:** March 30, 2015, 10:15:20 PM »

Last 11 years:

League   Final 4s   %
Big Ten   10   22.7%
Big East   8   18.2%
Southeastern   8   18.2%
Atlantic Coast   5   11.4%
Pacific-10   3   6.8%
Big 12   2   4.5%
Colonial   2   4.5%
Conference USA   2   4.5%
Horizon   2   4.5%
American   1   2.3%
Missouri Valley   1   2.3%

kso_FAN · « **Reply #1453 on:** March 30, 2015, 10:22:19 PM »

Since the field expanded to 64 in 1985:

League   Final 4s   %
Atlantic Coast   25   20.2%
Big Ten   23   18.5%
Big East   18   14.5%
Southeastern   18   14.5%
Pacific-10   9   7.3%
Big 12   7   5.6%
Big Eight   6   4.8%
Big West   3   2.4%
Conference USA   3   2.4%
Colonial   2   1.6%
Horizon   2   1.6%
Metro   2   1.6%
American   1   0.8%
Atlantic 10   1   0.8%
Great Midwest   1   0.8%
Missouri Valley   1   0.8%
Southwest   1   0.8%
Western Athletic   1   0.8%

MakeItRain · « **Reply #1454 on:** March 30, 2015, 10:26:07 PM »

Thanks fan, the last two posts provided much needed context, I guess the big 12 is indeed historically overrated and underachieving, hurts to see

nicname · « **Reply #1455 on:** March 30, 2015, 10:30:47 PM »

Beginning with 2005

14 top-two seeds out of the Big 12. 11 Elite 8 appearances. Not really remarkable underachievement imo. And like _Fan posted 5 1-seeds (All KU), two final fours and one title.

KU's 1-seeds:
2007 - E8 (Lost to 2-seed UCLA)
2008 - Nat Title
2010 - Rd of 32 (Lost to 9-seed UNI)
2011 - E8 (Lost to 11-seed VCU)
2012 - S16 (Lost to 4-seed Mich)

Add in KU's title game appearance in 2012 as a two seed, and you could say that the Big 12 (or KU, I guess) has underachieved at least a little bit in terms of Final Fours.

kso_FAN · « **Reply #1456 on:** March 30, 2015, 10:32:57 PM »

Quote from: MakeItRain on March 30, 2015, 10:26:07 PM

Thanks fan, the last two posts provided much needed context, I guess the big 12 is indeed historically overrated and underachieving, hurts to see

The ACC, SEC, and Big 10 are definitely ahead. The Big East as well, but many of those teams (UConn, Syracuse, Louisville) are in different leagues now. Pac 10/12 is probably about a tie.

nicname · « **Reply #1457 on:** March 30, 2015, 10:41:14 PM »

For consideration.

Beginning in 2005

The Big 10 has sent 6 teams to a total of 10 Final Fours. No titles, but two teams vying for one this season.
The ACC has sent 4 teams to a total of 8 Final Fours with 3 titles. A possibility of a 4th remains this season.
The SEC has sent 3 teams to a total of 8 Final Fours with 3 titles. A possibility of a 4th remains this season.
The Big 12 has sent 1 team (KU) to a total of 2 Final Fours with 1 title.
The Pac10/12 has sent 1 team (UCLA) to a total of 3 Final Fours. No titles.

The Big East has sent 6 teams to a total of 8 Final Fours with 3 titles. It might me 9. I was counting in my head. Either way pretty impressive.

Stevesie60 · « **Reply #1458 on:** March 30, 2015, 10:53:04 PM »

Dag nabbit you guys, the Big 12 just has the worst luck!

nicname · « **Reply #1459 on:** March 30, 2015, 10:58:31 PM »

Quote from: Stevesie60 on March 30, 2015, 10:53:04 PM

Dag nabbit you guys, the Big 12 just has the worst luck!

Better than the Pac 10/12, kinda!

michigancat · « **Reply #1460 on:** March 31, 2015, 12:07:23 AM »

Quote from: nicname on March 30, 2015, 10:08:42 PM

I can't buy the luck excuse when the conference has had this long of a run of minimal results in terms of tournament success. Variance levels off over time. It's either that the conference hasn't had many great teams, or that it has underachieved in the tournament. In reality it's probably a little bit of both.

A decade isn't very much time for variance to level off (in the context of a 64 team single-elimination tournament).

Especially when in the three years immediately preceding your 2005 cutoff, the Big 12 had 5 Final 4 teams in 3 seasons.

nicname · « **Reply #1461 on:** March 31, 2015, 03:12:54 AM »

Absolutely there was variance involved, but it's hard to argue that the quality of teams didn't play a bigger factor. There were multiple major players in the conference at that time. Just look at 2003 for an idea of how strong the conference was. 02 Missouri and 04 Kansas' runs are also an indicator.

Make no mistake, the Big 12 was obviously on the right side of variance, but they were playing with stronger hands as well. That you have the sheer number of teams getting high seeds, while lower seeds advanced further as well is plenty of evidence.

2002 Kansas - (1) F4 (lost to 1-seed Maryland)
2002 Oklahoma - (2) F4 (lost to 5-seed Indiana)
2002 Missouri - (12) E8 (lost to 2-seed Oklahoma)

2003 Texas - (1) F4 (lost to 3-seed Syracuse)
2003 Kansas - (2) CG (lost to 3-seed Syracuse)
2003 Oklahoma - (1) E8 (lost to 3-seed Syracuse)

2004 Oklahoma St - (2) F4 (lost to 3-seed GT)
2004 Kansas - (4) E8 (lost to 3-seed GT)

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #1462 on:** March 31, 2015, 10:04:09 AM »

We have better programs than most conferences. We just don't have as many elite coaches.

TownieCat · « **Reply #1463 on:** March 31, 2015, 10:28:22 AM »

I always forget how Syracuse just bitch slapped the Big 12 in 03. Good grief...

MakeItRain · « **Reply #1464 on:** March 31, 2015, 02:16:09 PM »

Quote from: Rage Against the McKee on March 31, 2015, 10:04:09 AM

We have better programs than most conferences. We just don't have as many elite coaches.

Much easier to make the inverse argument

michigancat · « **Reply #1465 on:** March 31, 2015, 02:19:35 PM »

I will say that the big 12 has had fewer championship caliber teams than other conferences. The question is, is that the best way to evaluate the relative strength of a conference?

MakeItRain · « **Reply #1466 on:** March 31, 2015, 02:28:39 PM »

Quote from: michigancat on March 31, 2015, 02:19:35 PM

I will say that the big 12 has had fewer championship caliber teams than other conferences. The question is, is that the best way to evaluate the relative strength of a conference?

It's either that or depth. The Big 12 has always been considered deep so that's likely a reason for why its considered a very good conference. The ACC and Big 10 have been traditionally great in the tournament but real top heavy.

Skipper44 · « **Reply #1467 on:** March 31, 2015, 02:39:13 PM »

there also hasn't been a surprise big 8 or big 12 team make the FF since KU in '88. Almost every other P5 has had lower seed like MSU this year, obviously Uconn and KY last year. It feels like the Big 12 is always on the wrong side of the upsets that allow 7/8/9 seeds to make a run.

I believe part of it is lack of depth, especially bigs, that hurt Big 12 teams. I am always super jealous when teams like NC State has multiple guys over 6-8 that are can really play inside. The Big 12 has become a small ball league and that style will always be easier for mid majors to match up with.

kso_FAN · « **Reply #1468 on:** April 01, 2015, 02:10:54 PM »

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/04/geno-auriemma-mens-game

michigancat · « **Reply #1469 on:** April 01, 2015, 02:15:22 PM »

Quote from: ksu_FAN on April 01, 2015, 02:10:54 PM

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/04/geno-auriemma-mens-game

his team wins every game by like 60 points

TownieCat · « **Reply #1470 on:** April 01, 2015, 02:28:22 PM »

Geno can STFU. Men's college basketball is in a much better place than the women's game. The same 7 or 8 women's teams go to the F4 every year. Who wants to watch that?

TownieCat · « **Reply #1471 on:** April 01, 2015, 02:31:21 PM »

I also wonder if women would be as accurate at shooting if they played with a men's ball. Of course it's easier for a smaller object to go in the same sized hole than a larger object. (Katdaddy no!)

SdK · « **Reply #1472 on:** April 01, 2015, 02:41:30 PM »

When does he find the time to watch men's ball? Maybe if wbb wasn't so easy to dominate, he'd have to less time to watch.

SdK · « **Reply #1473 on:** April 01, 2015, 02:43:27 PM »

Quote from: TownieCat on April 01, 2015, 02:31:21 PM

I also wonder if women would be as accurate at shooting if they played with a men's ball. Of course it's easier for a smaller object to go in the same sized hole than a larger object. (Katdaddy no!)

I think that if they practiced with a men's ball from high school on they would still be accurate. Why don't they play with a men's ball is my question.

kso_FAN · « **Reply #1474 on:** April 02, 2015, 11:38:22 AM »

https://twitter.com/richarddeitsch/status/583667972813803521