DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
March Madness 2016
HTML https://marchmadness2016.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 26--------------------------------------------------
Email information compilation
DIR By: squire12
Date: March 14, 2016, 10:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
From Will W. via email information on 3-14-16
--- Quote ---
> By pretenders I mean none of them meet the criteria to be the
F4 team of that region per the PDF. Before 2014 that had
happened 5 times in 29 tournaments; there's two regions in this
one alone. The West Region is a complete disaster top to bottom;
worst 1 seed, 2 seed, 6 seed, and 7 seed. I'm conceding already
that I miss those two regions, but the other two seem fairly cut
and dry - Kansas is the only one to meet the criteria in their
region and out of the three-team region, Kentucky is the last
one standing (which makes sense - it would be a matchup of the
two best teams in shot volume in America and unless Dwyane Wade
is back in college I'm not trusting a Tom Crean-coached team).
>
> The other two are baffling. Considering three of the top six
seeds (Oregon, OU, and Texas) qualify under the upset chart
(sending that too), your best team might actually be A&M, which
as a Tennessee/SEC viewer feels very questionable. I ran it
through the multi-candidate conditions in the F4 PDF and it gave
me Oregon there and Purdue in the Midwest (!), but who knows. I
secretly like that Purdue pick...anyway, your Final Four under
those rules is Kansas, Kentucky, Purdue, and Oregon.
>
> Here's the upset candidates per the Upset PDF. Keep in mind
that the Seed Guide is a bit more lenient with regard to upsets:
>
> 1 seed: Oregon, Virginia (only 3 of 20 teams with an upset
trait have made Elite Eight; all others somewhere around 80%
successful)
> 2 seed: Oklahoma (only 4 of 25 teams with an upset trait have
made Sweet 16; all others around 75% successful)
> 3 seed: Miami (FL) (I think 6 of 35 teams with a trait have
made Sweet 16 (this nailed Baylor last year); all others around
65% successful)
> 4 seed: Iowa State (something like 23-17 in defeating 13
seeds; all others around 88% successful. To be fair this
would've told you GTown and Maryland in 2015)
> 5 seed: None (75% successful, meaning we'll still likely see
one 5 seed lose - the chances of all four winning in the same
tournament are about 31.6%)
> 6 seed: Texas (10-19 or so; nailed SMU last year; other 6
seeds around 75% successful)
>
> Round 1 low seeds
>
> 11 seeds: Gonzaga, Wichita State (~55% successful; all others
19%)
> 12 seeds: None (though SD State's coach has at least been to
the tourney before) (~25% successful)
> 13 seeds: Iona (~43% successful; all others 14%)
>
> Round 2 low seeds
>
> 8 seeds: None
> 7 seeds: Iowa
> 10 seeds: Pittsburgh
> 11 seeds: Michigan, Tulsa, Gonzaga, Wichita State, Vanderbilt
> 12 seeds: Arkansas-Little Rock, Yale
>
> Sweet 16 low seeds
>
> 7 seeds: Wisconsin, Dayton
> 8 seeds: All
> 9 seeds: Butler, UConn
> 10 seeds: VCU
> 11 seeds: Gonzaga, Wichita State
> 12 seeds: All
>
> Elite Eight
>
> 6 seeds: Notre Dame, Seton Hall, Arizona
> 7 seeds: Dayton
> 8 seeds: Colorado, St. Joseph's
> 9 seeds: Providence, UConn, Cincinnati
> 10 seeds: VCU
> 11 seeds: Gonzaga, Wichita State
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 27--------------------------------------------------
Re: Email information compilation
DIR By: squire12
Date: March 14, 2016, 10:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
From Will W. 3-13-16
--- Quote ---
> Meant to send this to the whole group, not just Alex...sorry
about that Alex!
>
> Alright, the mess is even worse than originally believed.
Indiana qualifies in the East Region as well, giving us three
teams that qualify...if a kind soul can help there as well, that
would be awesome. Your full list of F4 qualifiers/non-quals:
>
> 1 seed F4: Kansas, UNC
> Pretenders: Oregon (for four different reasons), UVA
>
> 2 seed F4: no one
> Pretenders: Xavier (15th in KenPom), Michigan State (SOS 48),
Villanova (rebound margin <2), Oklahoma (REB/TO <3)
>
> 3 seed F4: no one
> Pretenders: Utah (more than 8 wins in L10, TO margin +1 to
opponent), WVU (points-against <64), Miami (backcourt >72%,
rebound margin <3), A&M (starting unit <72% of points)
>
> 4 seed F4: Kentucky (9-8 road/neutral)
> Pretenders: ISU (WP%), Cal (WP%), Duke (WP%)
>
> 5 seed F4: Indiana
> Pretenders: Purdue (snake-bit), Maryland (snake-bit), Baylor
(WP% <.740)
>
> 6-8 seed F4: None
> Pretenders: Seton Hall, Wisconsin, USC, Texas Tech, Colorado,
St. Joseph's, Oregon State, Arizona, Dayton, Iowa, Texas, Notre
Dame (for a litany of reasons)
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 37--------------------------------------------------
Re: Email information compilation
DIR By: will
Date: March 15, 2016, 7:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's the rest of what I've done so far....
Seed guide upsets:
6 v. 11: Gonzaga, Wichita State (6 seed losers: Notre Dame,
Texas, Seton Hall)
5 v. 12: Yale (5 seed losers: Indiana, Maryland, Baylor)
4 v. 13: Iona (4 seed losers: Iowa State) - NOTE: Duke qualifies
here under the Upset PDF
3 v. 14: SF Austin, Green Bay (3 seed losers: Utah)
2 v. 15: Weber State, CSU Bakersfield (2 seed losers: none -
Xavier and OU came closest to qualifying)
Second round:
1 v. 8: None (1 seed losers: Oregon, Virginia)
1 v. 9: None (Butler came closest)
4 v. 12: None (4 seed losers: None)
5 v. 13: None (5 seed losers: Purdue, Baylor)
3 v. 11: Michigan, Tulsa, Gonzaga, Wichita State, Vanderbilt (3
seed losers: Miami, Texas A&M)
6 v. 14: Stephen F. Austin
2 v. 7: Dayton (2 seed losers: Xavier)
2 v. 10: Pittsburgh, VCU (6 straight tourney appearances is too
much for seed guide but that feels too flimsy to exclude) (2
seed losers: Oklahoma)
Sweet 16:
1 v. 5: Indiana (Purdue close) (1 seed losers: North Carolina
and Kansas)
4 v. 8: Texas Tech, Colorado, St. Joseph's
2 v. 6: Notre Dame, Arizona, Texas
2 v. 11: Gonzaga, Wichita State
3 v. 7: Dayton
3 v. 10: None
6 v. 10: None
Elite 8:
1 v. 6: Arizona
1 v. 11: Michigan, Tulsa, Wichita State
2 v. 8: Texas Tech, St. Joseph's
Seed guide toss-ups:
First round:
7 v. 10: Pittsburgh (VCU close but consec tourney bids) (7 seed
losers: Oregon State)
8 v. 9: All 9 seeds (8 seed losers: All 8 seeds)
Second round:
4 v. 5: Indiana, Maryland, Baylor (4 seed losers: Cal)
12 v. 13: Stony Brook, Hawaii, UNC Wilmington
3 v. 6: Seton Hall (3 seed losers: None)
Sweet 16:
1 v. 4: Kentucky, California, and Duke (1 seed losers: North
Carolina, Virginia, and Oregon)
2 v. 3: Utah, Texas A&M (2 seed losers: None)
6 v. 7 winners: Wisconsin, Dayton, Iowa, Texas
Elite 8:
1 v. 2 (1 seed winners): None
1 v. 3: West Virginia (1 seed losers: North Carolina, UVA,
Oregon)
2 v. 4 winners: Kentucky, Michigan State, California, Duke
3 v. 4 winners: Kentucky, Iowa State, Miami (FL), Duke
3 v. 5 winners: ???, Utah, ???, Texas A&M
4 v. 6 winners: Notre Dame, Seton Hall, California, Texas
#Post#: 38--------------------------------------------------
Re: Email information compilation
DIR By: will
Date: March 15, 2016, 7:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
And Contenders/Pretenders:
1 seed Contenders: UNC, Kansas
Pretenders: Oregon (MOV, coach, imbal, KP lower than 5th), UVA
(coach plus very close on MOV)
2 seed Contenders: Michigan State, Villanova, Oklahoma (close on
backcourt at 75.7%)
Pretenders: Xavier (backcourt >77%)
3 seed Contenders: West Virginia, Miami, Texas A&M
Pretenders: Utah (TO margin)
4 seed Contenders: Kentucky, California
Pretenders: Duke (FG% to FA%, REB/TO <3), Iowa State (REB/TO <3)
5 seed Contenders: Indiana, Maryland, Baylor
Pretenders: Purdue (more than 72% frontcourt)
6 seed Contenders: Arizona
Pretenders: Notre Dame (3%-3A%), Texas (3%-3A%), Seton Hall (ATO
<1.0)
7 seed Contenders: All
Pretenders: None, but Wisconsin and Oregon State qualify for 2/3
criteria
8 seed Contenders: USC, St. Joseph's
Pretenders: Texas Tech (<73 PPG), Colorado (opponent 3PT% >35%)
9 seed Contenders: Butler, UConn, Cincinnati
Pretenders: Providence
10 seed Contenders: None
Pretenders: Temple (margin <2.5 PPG), Pitt (Pythag), Syracuse
(Pythag), VCU (backcourt)
11 seed Contenders: Wichita State
Pretenders: Vanderbilt (coach, WP%), Michigan (<73 PPG), UNI
(<73 PPG), Tulsa (margin), Gonzaga (TO margin)
12 seed Contenders: none (though South Dakota State's coach has
been to the tournament before)
Pretenders: All
13 seed Contenders: none (Iona defensive PPP 1.01)
Pretenders: All
14 seed Contenders: SF Austin
Pretenders: Fresno State (<76.5 PPG), Buffalo (<7 wins in L10),
Green Bay (defensive PPP >1)
15 seed Contenders: CSU Bakersfield, Weber State
Pretenders: MTSU, UNC Asheville
#Post#: 47--------------------------------------------------
Re: Email information compilation
DIR By: jean
Date: March 15, 2016, 11:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can someone give a quick explanation of Contender/Pretender? I
forget how that model is applied. For instance, does 1 seed
Contender suggest Final 4 appearance? What does it mean for 2
seed, etc?
#Post#: 48--------------------------------------------------
Re: Email information compilation
DIR By: will
Date: March 15, 2016, 11:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jean link ---
>
> Can someone give a quick explanation of Contender/Pretender?
I forget how that model is applied. For instance, does 1 seed
Contender suggest Final 4 appearance? What does it mean for 2
seed, etc?
>
--- End Quote ---
Basically, it means you achieve above seed expectations. For 1
seeds, that means making the F4; 2 seeds the E8; 3, 4, 5, and I
believe 6 seeds the S16, etc.
#Post#: 50--------------------------------------------------
Re: Email information compilation
DIR By: AlfisReal
Date: March 15, 2016, 12:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Will - not seeing Yale as the upset candidate here. First year
in the tourney gives them a .243 change based on Seed Guide.
#Post#: 52--------------------------------------------------
Re: Email information compilation
DIR By: will
Date: March 15, 2016, 1:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: AlfisReal link ---
>
> Will - not seeing Yale as the upset candidate here. First year
in the tourney gives them a .243 change based on Seed Guide.
>
--- End Quote ---
That's true. But the other criteria - 55-75% of scoring from
your frontcourt - is met by Yale's current roster achieving 59%.
(It was 50%, but Jack Montague was kicked off of the team a
month ago.) Those teams are 24-18 per Kyle's updated seed guide.
Plus, a .243 chance amongst all teams would imply one of the
four wins their 5/12 matchup.
#Post#: 87--------------------------------------------------
Re: Email information compilation
DIR By: b_sun
Date: March 16, 2016, 4:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
does anyone have the history of when else there were regions
where no one met the FF/Champ criteria?? Curious to see what
those regions were and how they turned out.
#Post#: 88--------------------------------------------------
Re: Email information compilation
DIR By: will
Date: March 16, 2016, 7:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought I forgot, but apparently I didn't...anyway, Duke meets
upset criteria under the Upset PDF, but no other page. UNCW
meets no criteria on any page and neither would Yale for a
second round 4/12 matchup other than the Upset PDF. Unsure on
this one.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1