| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
 Posted: 03/23/15 10:18 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Shades wrote: |
| Frese was a little bothered by Obama's bracket, eh? Helped her with the motivational part of the job. |
a total ass, imo.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7870
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 10:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| Frese was a little bothered by Obama's bracket, eh? Helped her with the motivational part of the job. |
a total ass, imo. |
You'll get no argument from me on that! I can only wonder, after her speech last year, what she would say about Geno.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 10:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GEF34 wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
When the shot clock is about to expire there is no lack of class when shooting the ball. I'm confident not one of the Tigers would agree the contrary sentiment.
If if if if if if if if if. If PU was better than an 8 seed, maybe they would have had a chance to win. They played the weakest #1 on its home court and made a game of it for a half. No shame or surprise in that.
Whatever metric Massey uses, it grossly overrated PU. |
I'm not sure how this lose proves anything, I don't think they should have been a 4 or a 5 seed, but certainly they have a valid argument for a #7 seed and this game doesn't do anything to prove otherwise. Sure they lost to a #1 seed, but any #7 seed would also be expected to lose to a #1 seed and I'm not sure that an argument can be made the of the 4 #7 seeds all of them were significantly better than Princeton. |
nothing proves anything i guess.....except PU performed like a million #8s before it.
they should have been 7 instead, maybe? is that what all the uproar was about?
if they were a 7, they wouldn't have been "disrespected"?
i didn't realize the wailing and gnashing of teeth was about 1 slot.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
acsuc99
Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Posts: 725
Back to top |
|
ripleydc
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 4778
Location: Washington, DC
Back to top |
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14127
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 10:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
When the shot clock is about to expire there is no lack of class when shooting the ball. I'm confident not one of the Tigers would agree the contrary sentiment.
If if if if if if if if if. If PU was better than an 8 seed, maybe they would have had a chance to win. They played the weakest #1 on its home court and made a game of it for a half. No shame or surprise in that.
Whatever metric Massey uses, it grossly overrated PU. |
I'm not sure how this lose proves anything, I don't think they should have been a 4 or a 5 seed, but certainly they have a valid argument for a #7 seed and this game doesn't do anything to prove otherwise. Sure they lost to a #1 seed, but any #7 seed would also be expected to lose to a #1 seed and I'm not sure that an argument can be made the of the 4 #7 seeds all of them were significantly better than Princeton. |
nothing proves anything i guess.....except PU performed like a million #8s before it.
they should have been 7 instead, maybe? is that what all the uproar was about?
if they were a 7, they wouldn't have been "disrespected"?
i didn't realize the wailing and gnashing of teeth was about 1 slot. |
For me personally I thought they would have been a #6 seed or a #7 seed, so I was surprised to see them as an #8 seed. I wasn't making any uproar, I didn't post anything here or anywhere else about their seeding or any other teams seeding for that matter, so I can't speak on other people's thoughts on the subject. But being a #7 seed is the difference between playing the #1 seed in your region and the #2 seed, sure either way the lower seeded team is the underdog, but theoretically speaking the #7 should be a bit closer to the #2 seed than an #8 seed to a #1 seed.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8290
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 11:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Princeton packed the lane and played off the Terp guards and, bad luck for them, Mincy and Brown probably had their greatest collective game of the season: 50 points, 17-27 FG and 11-18 3FG.
The Tigers' more sophisticated half court offense outscored Maryland 46-20 in the paint with shorter players. However, Maryland scored 24 more points from the three-point line with their smoking hot outside hands, and their athleticism scored 10 more points off turnovers.
Played on a neutral court with both teams shooting mean percentages, I think Maryland is about an eight point better team than Princeton. |
|
taropatch
Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 814
Location: Kau Rubbish Dump
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/24/15 2:51 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| I was impressed that the Tigers played tough and were breathing down Maryland's neck at the end of the half. I've never seen Maryland shoot like that -- not since that 2006 run. Princeton was underseeded for sure. As a #7 they would have faced a #2 (not a #1); but they deserved a #6 and would have played a #3, had they won in round 1. They were screwed but glad they made history and won one.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63979
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/24/15 7:11 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Played on a neutral court with both teams shooting mean percentages, I think Maryland is about an eight point better team than Princeton. |
I'm not sure why your focus is Maryland for this kind of comment. Are you going to go through every game with a team who earned homecourt advantage to try to lessen their victory with such a comment?
I appreciate that most people fell in love with Princeton because they went undefeated until now. They did well not to take a night off throughout the season and fall to a lesser team. But their best win was probably Michigan back in early December. You see the result when they actually play against worthy competition. This should be the realization.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
ripleydc
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 4778
Location: Washington, DC
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/24/15 7:53 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Princeton packed the lane and played off the Terp guards and, bad luck for them, Mincy and Brown probably had their greatest collective game of the season: 50 points, 17-27 FG and 11-18 3FG.
The Tigers' more sophisticated half court offense outscored Maryland 46-20 in the paint with shorter players. However, Maryland scored 24 more points from the three-point line with their smoking hot outside hands, and their athleticism scored 10 more points off turnovers.
Played on a neutral court with both teams shooting mean percentages, I think Maryland is about an eight point better team than Princeton. |
On a neutral court, MD would still shoot better than their "mean percentage" because Princeton made a decision to pack the paint, and that gave the Terps much more open looks than they're used to seeing. Thus, they hit more long range shots than they typically do. If PU extended their defense, there would be fewer Terps bombs, but the paint would be more open. Last night's game was a classic case of taking what the defense gives you. It wasn't really about "luck".
|
|
ThreeBall25
Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 2794
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/24/15 8:00 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Lexie Brown = Renee Montgomery IMO.
|
|
SocksTerp
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Posts: 108
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/24/15 8:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
Maryland showed a lack of class by trying to score when they could hold the ball.
Princeton shot 58% in first half and then in the low 30's in the second. If they had kept making shots they might have outscored Maryland. Maryland's defense was exposed tonight.
There's hope for Tenn. |
Terps played strong defense in 2nd half.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67164
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/24/15 8:22 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| nothing proves anything i guess.....except PU performed like a million #8s before it |
They performed better than the other #8s in this tournament.
_________________
The truth is like poetry
Most people hate poetry
|
|
SocksTerp
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Posts: 108
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/24/15 8:25 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| sigur3 wrote: |
| Durantula wrote: |
| Howard for Maryland is working so hard for post position but Brown hasn't passed her the ball once. Brown gets a lot of attention but to me she is the worst of Maryland's "Big 4". Mincy, Jones, and Walker Kimbrough all seem better to me. |
Agreed 100%. She's good but has gotten way too much credit for Maryland's success this season. |
Terps would not have run the table in the conference or won the B1G tournament without Lexie.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
|
ripleydc
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 4778
Location: Washington, DC
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/24/15 8:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| SocksTerp wrote: |
| linkster wrote: |
Maryland showed a lack of class by trying to score when they could hold the ball.
Princeton shot 58% in first half and then in the low 30's in the second. If they had kept making shots they might have outscored Maryland. Maryland's defense was exposed tonight.
There's hope for Tenn. |
Terps played strong defense in 2nd half. |
Factually incorrect. Go back and watch the replay. On Terps final possession, the game clock had a couple more seconds on it than the shot clock. They had to shoot or take a shot clock violation.
Brenda has always been very clear with her players: When you have a lead, hold the ball and run out the clock if you can without a violation. Against New Mexico on Saturday, I think they held the ball for about 28 seconds, IIRC. If you're going to accuse someone of lacking class, it would be a good idea to get your facts right first.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/24/15 8:45 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| nothing proves anything i guess.....except PU performed like a million #8s before it |
They performed better than the other #8s in this tournament. |
I guess that makes them this year's #1 #8?
Cool.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5428
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/24/15 11:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Played on a neutral court with both teams shooting mean percentages, I think Maryland is about an eight point better team than Princeton. |
I'm not sure why your focus is Maryland for this kind of comment. Are you going to go through every game with a team who earned homecourt advantage to try to lessen their victory with such a comment?
I appreciate that most people fell in love with Princeton because they went undefeated until now. They did well not to take a night off throughout the season and fall to a lesser team. But their best win was probably Michigan back in early December. You see the result when they actually play against worthy competition. This should be the realization. |
There are 5/6 seeds in this tournament that didn't beat anyone close to Maryland, and 2/3's who got their seeding by beating the lower half of the top 25. Princeton could beat a lot of the top 25. GW played one ranked team, Maryland, and lost by 10 at home.
Princeton deserved a shot at a 2 or 3 seed.
And if nothing else, Maryland's defense was exposed yesterday.
|
|
SpaceJunkie
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 4241
Location: Minnesota
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/24/15 12:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
There are 5/6 seeds in this tournament that didn't beat anyone close to Maryland, and 2/3's who got their seeding by beating the lower half of the top 25. Princeton could beat a lot of the top 25. GW played one ranked team, Maryland, and lost by 10 at home.
Princeton deserved a shot at a 2 or 3 seed.
And if nothing else, Maryland's defense was exposed yesterday. |
Princeton should've gotten a 6 or 7 seed, so they'd have chance to knock out one of the 2 or 3 seeds that flamed out by other lucky to not be seeded 8/9 teams (Oregon St, Kentucky):
Here's my examples:
Dayton got a #7 seed because they beat Green Bay, at home, by 6 points (Princeton showed they could beat Green Bay in the first round of the tournament).
Northwestern has no Top-25 wins, but a bunch of 26-50 wins, so they got a #7 seed despite having a loss to sub-200 RPI Penn St (Princeton had no bad losses, and probably could've beaten several 26-50 teams if they had the chance to)
#5 seed Mississippi St's best win was a 2-point win at home over Texas A&M.
|
|
acsuc99
Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Posts: 725
Back to top |
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/24/15 6:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Anything can happen in one game, so unless it was very close or a total blowout I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions. Bottom line is that Princeton was ranked 13th in both the AP and Coaches polls. Given that there are 4 teams per slot, that implies a 4 seed. Princeton's 8 seed means the committee had them ranked 29-32. That's huge drop from 13th. So, what makes the selection committee so much smarter than the coaches and the basketball press? Why do they deserve more credibility?
_________________
You can always do something else.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15765
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/24/15 10:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| root_thing wrote: |
| Anything can happen in one game, so unless it was very close or a total blowout I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions. Bottom line is that Princeton was ranked 13th in both the AP and Coaches polls. Given that there are 4 teams per slot, that implies a 4 seed. |
It's just not that simple. AP and Coaches' polls aren't based on as many 'layers' of criteria as the Selection Committee implement. Princeton ranked #13 in the last Coaches' Poll, Stanford at #17. Texas wasn't even IN the Top 25. Texas and Stanford are playing on yet, Princeton isn't. Even if Princeton had been a 5 (like the other 2), I can see them losing to teams like Oklahoma or Cal (the teams that Stanford and TX beat in round 2)
It proves that the POLL is flawed, more than proving the Selection Committee's process. And they're flawed, too, but they have so many more puzzle pieces they MUST fit into the finished product--the bracket--than a simple pollster has to do)
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/24/15 11:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| root_thing wrote: |
| Anything can happen in one game, so unless it was very close or a total blowout I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions. Bottom line is that Princeton was ranked 13th in both the AP and Coaches polls. Given that there are 4 teams per slot, that implies a 4 seed. |
It's just not that simple. AP and Coaches' polls aren't based on as many 'layers' of criteria as the Selection Committee implement. Princeton ranked #13 in the last Coaches' Poll, Stanford at #17. Texas wasn't even IN the Top 25. Texas and Stanford are playing on yet, Princeton isn't. Even if Princeton had been a 5 (like the other 2), I can see them losing to teams like Oklahoma or Cal (the teams that Stanford and TX beat in round 2)
It proves that the POLL is flawed, more than proving the Selection Committee's process. And they're flawed, too, but they have so many more puzzle pieces they MUST fit into the finished product--the bracket--than a simple pollster has to do) |
You can't just use the tournament results as 20-20 hindsight justification for the committee's choices. It's pretty easy to find games to justify any argument you want to make whether it's overseeding or underseeding. One and done situations aren't necessarily an indication of overall quality. It can simply mean that one team was hot that day, and the other picked the wrong time to get cold.
Yeah, I'm aware that the committee has to consider more things like locations, who is on the rise, who just incurred a key injury, who is getting injured players back, etc. They also have to include the automatic bids. However, Princeton didn't suffer any major injuries nor did they hit a cold streak. And I'd have no problem with Princeton being knocked down a few spots to account for all those other factors. However, they went from having 12 teams ranked ahead of them to having at least 28 teams ranked ahead of them. I just don't see how you can justify a subjective adjustment that large. They did beat Michigan by 30 on the road, Pittsburgh by 16 on the road, Wake Forest by 17 at home. Yes, those are bottom half teams in the Big Ten and ACC, but they were also the type of decisive wins that you would expect a good team from those conferences to have. In other words, the little pre-tournament evidence that existed indicated that Princeton was more than just another Ivy League champion that could only beat other Ivy teams. They deserved the benefit of a doubt, but instead got knocked down as low as possible without being a bottom half seed.
_________________
You can always do something else.
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14127
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/25/15 12:26 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| root_thing wrote: |
| Anything can happen in one game, so unless it was very close or a total blowout I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions. Bottom line is that Princeton was ranked 13th in both the AP and Coaches polls. Given that there are 4 teams per slot, that implies a 4 seed. |
It's just not that simple. AP and Coaches' polls aren't based on as many 'layers' of criteria as the Selection Committee implement. Princeton ranked #13 in the last Coaches' Poll, Stanford at #17. Texas wasn't even IN the Top 25. Texas and Stanford are playing on yet, Princeton isn't. Even if Princeton had been a 5 (like the other 2), I can see them losing to teams like Oklahoma or Cal (the teams that Stanford and TX beat in round 2)
It proves that the POLL is flawed, more than proving the Selection Committee's process. And they're flawed, too, but they have so many more puzzle pieces they MUST fit into the finished product--the bracket--than a simple pollster has to do) |
You can't use who is still playing and not playing as an indication of whether a team was rightly seeded and wrongly seeded. If was the #8 Stanford played #1 seed Maryland in the 2nd round and lost would anyone be saying Stanford was correctly seeded because they lose to the #1 seed, whom theoretically they should lose to anyways, or would people be saying they should have been a higher seed and not playing the #1 seed in the 2nd round.
As the #1 seed you should beat, in theory, any lower seed, so how can that be an indication on whether a team was seeded correctly because they lost to the #1 seed.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15765
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/25/15 10:12 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GEF34 wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
| root_thing wrote: |
| Anything can happen in one game, so unless it was very close or a total blowout I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions. Bottom line is that Princeton was ranked 13th in both the AP and Coaches polls. Given that there are 4 teams per slot, that implies a 4 seed. |
It's just not that simple. AP and Coaches' polls aren't based on as many 'layers' of criteria as the Selection Committee implement. Princeton ranked #13 in the last Coaches' Poll, Stanford at #17. Texas wasn't even IN the Top 25. Texas and Stanford are playing on yet, Princeton isn't. Even if Princeton had been a 5 (like the other 2), I can see them losing to teams like Oklahoma or Cal (the teams that Stanford and TX beat in round 2)
It proves that the POLL is flawed, more than proving the Selection Committee's process. And they're flawed, too, but they have so many more puzzle pieces they MUST fit into the finished product--the bracket--than a simple pollster has to do) |
You can't use who is still playing and not playing as an indication of whether a team was rightly seeded and wrongly seeded. If was the #8 Stanford played #1 seed Maryland in the 2nd round and lost would anyone be saying Stanford was correctly seeded because they lose to the #1 seed, whom theoretically they should lose to anyways, or would people be saying they should have been a higher seed and not playing the #1 seed in the 2nd round.
As the #1 seed you should beat, in theory, any lower seed, so how can that be an indication on whether a team was seeded correctly because they lost to the #1 seed. |
My simple point is that the last POLL RANKINGS will not fully correlate to the BRACKET SEEDINGS. That's all. That was root thing's assertion.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
|
|
