Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

16 vs 1 seeds and upset, what's changed?

Hidden Fees

Well-Known Member
I don't profess to have the answer. Even now the lowly 16's are 2-150 against the vaunted 1 seeds.

But the upset has now happened 2 times in the last 5 years.

What's changed?

Can we point to UMBC's 2018 grand upset as the turning point, or did it really begin to turn earlier?

The 3-point line was advertised as the great equalizer, and maybe that happened in certain games but never before in a 1 vs 16.

Are we missing the truly dominant teams in college bball?

Is this parity? I kind of doubt that one since no true cinderella's have been crowned champs (bayler is a felon, not a Disney princess, btw).

Scholarship limits have been in place for decades and NIL is a very recent development, so we can safely rule out those 2 factors.

Is the selection committee stuck in the dark ages where mid-majors are relegated to double-digit seeds?

So what is it? I used to write in #1 seeds as auto winners on tourney round one. Now my hand and pen are both suffering severe indecision.

Help me out here, I'm not seeing the "why now".
 
Hidden Fees said:
I don't profess to have the answer. Even now the lowly 16's are 2-150 against the vaunted 1 seeds.

But the upset has now happened 2 times in the last 5 years.

What's changed?

Can we point to UMBC's 2018 grand upset as the turning point, or did it really begin to turn earlier?

The 3-point line was advertised as the great equalizer, and maybe that happened in certain games but never before in a 1 vs 16.

Are we missing the truly dominant teams in college bball?

Is this parity? I kind of doubt that one since no true cinderella's have been crowned champs (bayler is a felon, not a Disney princess, btw).

Scholarship limits have been in place for decades and NIL is a very recent development, so we can safely rule out those 2 factors.

Is the selection committee stuck in the dark ages where mid-majors are relegated to double-digit seeds?

So what is it? I used to write in #1 seeds as auto winners on tourney round one. Now my hand and pen are both suffering severe indecision.

Help me out here, I'm not seeing the "why now".
Click to expand...
Both UVA and Purdue are pretty reliant to n their systems working. Neither recruits super high end talent and both play old school styles of ball. Purdue's roster did not look particularly talented AT ALL.

Also, there's just so much talent all over college basketball now that even 16 seeds have good players.
 
Hidden Fees said:
I don't profess to have the answer. Even now the lowly 16's are 2-150 against the vaunted 1 seeds.

But the upset has now happened 2 times in the last 5 years.

What's changed?

Can we point to UMBC's 2018 grand upset as the turning point, or did it really begin to turn earlier?

The 3-point line was advertised as the great equalizer, and maybe that happened in certain games but never before in a 1 vs 16.

Are we missing the truly dominant teams in college bball?

Is this parity? I kind of doubt that one since no true cinderella's have been crowned champs (bayler is a felon, not a Disney princess, btw).

Scholarship limits have been in place for decades and NIL is a very recent development, so we can safely rule out those 2 factors.

Is the selection committee stuck in the dark ages where mid-majors are relegated to double-digit seeds?

So what is it? I used to write in #1 seeds as auto winners on tourney round one. Now my hand and pen are both suffering severe indecision.

Help me out here, I'm not seeing the "why now".
Click to expand...
The one and done rule and G League have created a talent drain in college basketball. The top ranked teams are either full of talented, but undeveloped freshmen, or experienced upperclassmen who weren’t talented enough to be drafted after a year or two in college. So the result is that even the best teams just aren’t as good anymore and are more susceptible to being beaten. I think it’s also why you see top ranked teams lose so often during the regular season also.
 
Formerly_Medford said:
Both UVA and Purdue are pretty reliant to n their systems working. Neither recruits super high end talent and both play old school styles of ball. Purdue's roster did not look particularly talented AT ALL.

Also, there's just so much talent all over college basketball now that even 16 seeds have good players.
Click to expand...
At the top schools the best players often head off to the pros early. Some of these smaller schools have multiple seniors who have been with the system 4 years.
 
I think it's just parity.

Not every 1-seed is a dominant team. Every so often, one of them losing what amounts to a Quad 3 game to a team that, by definition, is "hot" since it just won a streak of games to make the Dance... not a surprise at all that it's going to happen every 3-5 years.
 
MtnBuff said:
At the top schools the best players often head off to the pros early. Some of these smaller schools have multiple seniors who have been with the system 4 years.
Click to expand...
This is the biggest difference. One seeds like Duke used to have guys like Battier, Jay Williams, Carlos Boozer, and Mike Dunleavy all on the same team, spending 2-3 years together. Now Duke has a new roster every single year.

It's actually counterproductive to consistently competing for national titles to recruit the top 10-15 players every year like Duke and Kentucky do because they just bolt after a year.
 
BuffsNYC said:
It's a seeding problem. Win a lot of games in a sh*tty Big 10 and get an undeserved #1 seed.
Click to expand...
Penn State came in 10th in the big 10, gets a 10 seed in a cushy bracket with other weak overseeded teams. They beat absolutely no one of significance out of the conference (except, ironically, Furman!). The only ranked teams they beat were in the big, which is clearly over rated. They and at least half of the big 10 teams who got a bid have no business being there. If the Pac 12 was treated equivalently, we would have UCLA, UA, ASU, USC, OU, UU, CU, and maybe even one of WSU, UW or Stanford in the tournament.
 
Are we witnessing the beginnings of a trend? Every 3, 4, or 5 years a 16 rises to the occasion?

I think the transfer portal could be the fuel to make this possible.
 
UMBC and FDU had two things in common-very good backcourts. They also benefitted from UVA and Purdue respectively going ICE COLD. Both teams were under 20% from outside.
 
I am not currently able to connect all the dots, but there's something funky going on with the winners of two of the play-in games advancing to a 11 seed. Intuitively it makes sense that they should all advance to the 16 seeds.
 
hokiehead said:
I am not currently able to connect all the dots, but there's something funky going on with the winners of two of the play-in games advancing to a 11 seed. Intuitively it makes sense that they should all advance to the 16 seeds.
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken, the original thinking was that the play-in round was to take the lowest AQ's and pit them against each other, and the lowest At Larges and pit them against each other. Having the 11's play first would also increase eye-balls on those games.
 
Buffnik said:
11 seeds are the lowest seeded at-large bids. 16s are the lowest seeded auto bids.
Click to expand...
ok. I still don't understand why the four lowest seeds of the 68 aren't put in the first four games to play for the 16's in the field of 64, regardless of their status as auto or at-large. Forcing two teams to play an extra round when they're suppossedly seeded higher than 18 other teams that do get a bye -- doesn't make sense to me.
 
hokiehead said:
ok. I still don't understand why the four lowest seeds of the 68 aren't put in the first four games to play for the 16's in the field of 64, regardless of their status as auto or at-large. Forcing two teams to play an extra round when they're suppossedly seeded higher than 18 other teams that do get a bye -- doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...
If anything, you have it backwards. The four lowest at large should be in the play in. The other teams earned their way in. The fact that two 16 seeds have their seasons end in a play in game is a disgrace. They won their conference championship. They deserve to dance. Teams that go 6-12 in the Big 10 do not.
 
GIF by Groundhog Day


I swear @hokiehead has brought up the same subject before and we've had this exact same converstaion. Still love you Hokie.
 
hokiehead said:
ok. I still don't understand why the four lowest seeds of the 68 aren't put in the first four games to play for the 16's in the field of 64, regardless of their status as auto or at-large. Forcing two teams to play an extra round when they're suppossedly seeded higher than 18 other teams that do get a bye -- doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...
Politics and money. Created 4 extra at-large bids which generally go to the Power 6 conferences. TV is willing to pay more for the play-in games if it's schools like FSU than if it's schools like FDU. And it looks nicer to the little guy if all 16 seeds aren't forced to win a game to make it into the real tournament.
 
I'd be fine with the bottom 8 at large bids making up the first four games, but I keep coming back to why those wouldn't then be the four 16 seeds. I can't wrap my head around the idea that two 16 seeds get byes when two 11 seeds don't.
 
hokiehead said:
I'd be fine with the bottom 8 at large bids making up the first four games, but I keep coming back to why those wouldn't then be the four 16 seeds. I can't wrap my head around the idea that two 16 seeds get byes when two 11 seeds don't.
Click to expand...

The 16 are almost always the auto bid teams like Goose said. However getting an automatic bid to the dance doesn't guarantee you a certain seed. Once they come up with the 68 tournament teams then they rank them 1-68 and the small conference auto bid teams are always graded the lowest based on NET rankings, SOS, and other metrics they use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top