Thomas wrote:

This Illinois-Loyola Chicago game is playing out like the NCAA wanted where the big-name state school is in a knock-down, drag-out brawl with the lesser-known local school. Illinois was held to a season-low 24 first half points today. I mentioned how a similar scenario happened like this a few years ago where 7th or 10th seeded Wichita State had their with Kansas in the 2nd round. I'll go back a little further to when Maryland made its first Final 4 appearance in school history in the early 2000's, in the 1st round they were a 3 seed and barely beat 14th seeded George Mason, George Mason may have been the closest game they played on their way to the Final 4. I wonder how these BCS coaches feel when they get matched up with local schools that they are afraid to play in the regular season!!

I am not sure that Loyola (IL) game went the way the NCAA, err CBS, err NCAA, err samething, wanted. But certainly the power that be (CBS) is happier a team from Chicago is still alive than a team from a crummy TV market (Do you really think VCU would have gotten the boot if it said "New York City" on their uniforms?). Will it be a coincidence if only teams using one or two shoe companies are represented at the Final Four? Certainly no one at CBS is complaining to the NCAA that ´Cuse is still in it, in fact they are probably paving the way for a UCLA vs ´Cuse game just to boost ratings, err ad revenue. Meanwhile, the 64 women´s teams can fight over one (reduced) set of dumbells...

Last edited by GW Alum Abroad (3/21/2021 7:32 pm)

GW Alum Abroad,  let me rephrase that, I think the NCAA likes to set up rivalry matchups(like Illinois-Loyola Chicago, George Mason-Maryland or Kansas-Wichita State) in the early rounds, but they want the BCS team to advance. They definitely don't like a championship favorite like Illinois to give the putrid performance that we saw today. Illinois never led in this game, it was probably the worst game Illinois has played all year by far. I actually think Illinois would have beaten any other 8 or 9 seed by double digits, but Loyola Chicago was probably under-seeded and more importantly, the players and coaches were really hyped to play Illinois because Illinois refuses to play them, and a number of the Loyola players were ignored by Illinois in high school. 

Oral Roberts, a 15 seed knocking out two huge Power 5 programs is what makes this tourney and sport so great. A small WCC school has gone wire to wire as the clear cut #1 team in the nation, imagine that happening in College football.

Little Loyola Chicago, Sister Jean, what a sport.

 

Hate to say it but I think you have to attribute last night's Rutgers loss to Houston to our favorite non-GW coaching staff's decision to take the air out of the ball with a bit more than 5 minutes remaining.  The Knights simply stopped doing all of the things that were successful over the first 34-35 minutes.  Their lead was not nearly big enough to begin milking each possession and settling for "late in the shot clock" attempts as opposed to continuing to run their offense at a quicker pace.  Nevertheless, Steve, Karl,  TJ and everyone else associated with Rutgers should feel great pride in what they are accomplishing.  I have made good on my prediction to my Rutgers graduate friend when I told him upon Pikiell's hiring that he would have Rutgers as a mid-level Big 10 team within 5 years.  It actually took 4 years, amazing considering this program had not gone to the Dance since 1991.

Gwmayhem wrote:

Hate to say it but I think you have to attribute last night's Rutgers loss to Houston to our favorite non-GW coaching staff's decision to take the air out of the ball with a bit more than 5 minutes remaining.  The Knights simply stopped doing all of the things that were successful over the first 34-35 minutes.  Their lead was not nearly big enough to begin milking each possession and settling for "late in the shot clock" attempts as opposed to continuing to run their offense at a quicker pace.  Nevertheless, Steve, Karl,  TJ and everyone else associated with Rutgers should feel great pride in what they are accomplishing.  I have made good on my prediction to my Rutgers graduate friend when I told him upon Pikiell's hiring that he would have Rutgers as a mid-level Big 10 team within 5 years.  It actually took 4 years, amazing considering this program had not gone to the Dance since 1991.

 Going to beg to differ on the coaching strategy. It was clear that Rutgers was getting hammered on the offensive glass and had difficulty scoring even before the 5 minute mark (they had just 56 points). I think they made the decision to try and limit Houston possessions. Also one of their best defensive players McConnell fouled out with just under 3 minutes and he had been doing a good job on Grimes and Jarreau. All that said, if Johnson could have made the dunk with 4;21 left, made the put back at 1:27 left, or corralled the rebound with 0:26 left (all plays that should have been easily made), we have a different outcome. Of course Geo Baker contributed as well missing two key block outs (one leading to the key three point play with 0;24 left) and turning it over with 0:12 left. If any of those things don't happen, Rutgers is still playing despite whatever strategy was employed and no one is talking about it today.
 

Last edited by GWRising (3/22/2021 2:54 pm)

Kudos to a fantastic coach Leonard Hamilton and Florida St!

another trip to the Sweet 16

So, the Sweet 16 will have 1 Big 10 school and 1 Big 12 school, regarded as the two most competitive conferences in the sport this year.  Each will have less than the ACC, the Big East and of course, the Pac 12 which has stunned at least the eastern and central time zones of this country.  What should we take from this:

1) The Big 10 has pulled this sort of thing in the past.  It has a reputation for being the conference where teams beat one another up during the regular season and then falter at the Dance for regions ranging from refs calling games differently from what they are used to to teams being flat out exhausted.

2) The Big 12 had two fewer schools in the dance but their performance may be even more surprising if no other reason than this conference-wide failure may have been expected out of the Big 10 but no way was it anticipated from the Big 12.

3) The Pac 12 has had some crazy stuff happen as well as some fortuitous draws.  Under crazy, Oregon State was picked for last place in the conference, was 14-12 entering their conference tournament, and has not lost since.  UCLA had lost 4 straight games before knocking off Michigan State, BYU and Abilene Christian.  Oregon had a no-contest because of Covid hitting the VCU program and then routed an Iowa team which was as simple as predicting that Dana Altman will beat Fran McCaffrey in a tournament format regardless of personnel (Altman is great in tournaments and McCaffrey is lousy).  And USC knocked off an undermanned Drake squad and then a Kansas team that had been having Covid issues (though I would have liked USC in this matchup regardless as this just was not one of Bill Self's better teams.)

4) Before I get to my main point, I will preface this by saying that it's foolish to discredit an entire season based on a single loss in the tournament.  I am not dismissing the notion that at larger programs, coaches are paid not just to reach the Dance but to also win games once they are there.  Nevertheless, making the Dance is an achievement that most any school can not afford to take for granted.  Upsets happen every year and I'd like to think that a school who was good enough to earn their way into the tournament should have the time to figure out how to win once they are there.  Getting rid of a Smart or a McCaffrey does not strike me as the answer, not when their schools were good enough to earn a #3 and a #2 seed respectively.

5) Onto the main point.  Of all seasons, this one has been the one where the media, with the help of some computer models, force-fed us on who the best teams were.  Normally, a strong predictive factor for this would be each school's out of conference results.  However, these games were so few and far between that it would be difficult to rely on this with a great deal of confidence.  Looking back at 2019-20 results also likely factored into this thinking but this too has its share of flaws.  Last season, Wisconsin would have been the #1 seed in the Big 10 tournament.  They lost one player to graduation, their 6th man, and replaced him with a very sound freshman.  Virtually the same team only one year later, they lost to Marquette, to the conference schools who were head and shoulders above them (Michigan, Ohio State, Iowa, Illinois and Purdue) and to schools who were around their equal or worse (Maryland, Penn State).

We could argue all day long whether 14 of 16 Big 10 and Big 12 schools losing a game before the Sweet 16 makes these conferences overrated or simply victims of unfortunate timing.  The tendency is to think the former because most sports fans are knee-jerk reactors who for the most part care only about a team's most immediate result.  And to be fair, losing at the Dance is bigger, much bigger, than losing at any other point during the season.  Nevertheless, I would contend that any charge of "overrated" has far more to do with NCAA selection committee members and members of the media telling us who is the best and in what order, even without enough sufficient data to truly do so, than losing a single game in the tournament.  

I agree with Mayhem that you shouldn't overreact to a single loss in the Tourney, but how about 8? The Big 10 had 9 teams in the Tourney, including two 1 seeds and two 2 seeds, and only one of the teams made it to the Sweet 16. As for GWAA's comment, my preference to reform the Tourney selection would be that no team with a losing record in their conference should be eligible. This is similar to the requirement for football teams to win at least 6 games to qualify for a bowl game.

Thomas, you have more or less identified the challenge of the selection committee.  While they repeatedly state that they evaluate only the current season, it would be hard to not take some lesson from what happened this year and apply it to next year.  However, what happens when say the Big 10 dominates OOC play next year based on a broader spectrum of games than what was played this year?  Or when a team makes the most of its opportunities against the best schools in its conference, as Michigan State did this season?  Or, does any harsher view of the Big 10 also apply to the Big 12, who also sent just one school to the Sweet 16 with roughly the same percentage of conference members as the Big 10 missing out on the round of 16?  I'd say the moral of the story is that there just can't be any cut and dried rules, and contradictions over who and who did not get in, as well as seeding, are always going to exist.

As for Maryland, there is a lot to unpack here.  First, they may have lost badly to end their season but at least they lost to a team that has enjoyed a great season.  I thought Bama should have received the #1 seed ahead of Michigan due largely to the Livers injury.  The Terps are left to wonder how a Nate Oats can produce instantaneous success at a football school while Mark Turgeon remains in quicksand.  It's a fair question with several answers:

1) Maryland left one conference where it was near-impossible to dominate in basketball to another one that is also near-impossible.  The grind of playing 20 conference games against 13 member schools in which there are very few if any "nights off" is considerable.  The physical play of the Big 10, along with the top to near-bottom parity of the conference, wears teams down, and this was happening long before Maryland and Rutgers joined the conference.

2) Maryland may not always think rationally about its program.  And by that, I primarily mean Maryland fans.  They see a school with a great history, great arena, great facilities, substantial travel and recruiting budgets, and that happens to be located within the hotbed of high school basketball talent in the country, and ask why this program isn't a blueblood.  It's a fair question considering that Maryland does check many of the boxes which would normally constitute a blueblood.

3) Lefty Driesell won over 500 games and nearly 70% of the time at Maryland.  Gary Williams won about 65% of the time and won a national championship at Maryland.  Mark Turgeon has won 66% of his games at Maryland.  Let's put to bed the notion that any of these guys are bad coaches.  The common denominator, at least among Williams and Turgeon, is that Maryland is not landing the most talented DMV players nearly enough.  Thomas correctly points to the fractured relationship with AAU coaches as being a primary reason.  Gary was very vocal about this.  He didn't want to pay anyone, didn't want to promise an assistant coach's job in exchange for delivering a player, and frequently discussed his preference of coaching a player who wanted to stay and be coached for four years.  His national championship featured four starters who played at Maryland for four years along with Chris Wilcox who left early.  

As for Turgeon, it is harder to figure out what's going on.  He seems to have a better relationship with AAU coaches than Gary did and has brought in some top prospects from the area like Jalen Smith (who went pro after two seasons) and the Mitchell twins (who transferred out almost immediately).  There have also been some bad misses (Dickinson, Quickley, Williams, Moore) but nobody gets everyone.  

The bottom line is that the school's national championship is nearly 20 years old and recruits today do not think of Maryland or Turgeon as a national championship contender.  There are only a handful of programs who can realistically expect to compete for a title each year and while Maryland is just not on that list, its followers believe they ought to be.  Turgeon has had plenty of time to elevate this program.  He has kept it steady (though even that is arguable) but by no means has he elevated it.  With two years remaining on his contract, Maryland will absolutely need to at least make the Sweet 16 next year if Turgeon is to stay employed in CP.   

Abilene Christian Estimates Men's Tournament Run Worth $120 MillionGW, an overtly money-conscious institution, should understand this and invest appropriately:
https://www.si.com/college/2021/03/24/abilene-christian-victory-texas-worth-120-million-ncaa-tournament