anyone interested in joining, here is the link.....http://games.espn.go.com/tournament-challenge-bracket/2016/en/group?groupID=112198
OT: Created a Scarletnation.com group on ESPN tourney challenge
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
Thanks for setting this up - Final 4....Seton Hall, Kentucky, Maryland and Northern Iowa - that is what happens when you fill out at 6AM.
I will gladly accept last place as I have not watched a basketball game in over 15 years. Not a one.
BUMP
my brackets were terrible last year, sometimes the more you watch and know about the team the worse you do
one angle that seems to work though is experienced teams vs inexperienced teams. Teams that have gone to the dance before have a distinct advantage over those who havent been there for awhile. Off the top of my head..Gonzaga-SHU comes to mind, Zags are not as good as last year but they still have holdovers and a coach who knows the routine, its new for SHU plus they got sent out to Denver where they will need to adjust to altitude and a large Gonzaga rooting section
my brackets were terrible last year, sometimes the more you watch and know about the team the worse you do
one angle that seems to work though is experienced teams vs inexperienced teams. Teams that have gone to the dance before have a distinct advantage over those who havent been there for awhile. Off the top of my head..Gonzaga-SHU comes to mind, Zags are not as good as last year but they still have holdovers and a coach who knows the routine, its new for SHU plus they got sent out to Denver where they will need to adjust to altitude and a large Gonzaga rooting section
Was just in Vegas last week and got to watch and bet on Gonzaga in the WCC Tournament. Gotta admit, for a team that is kind of down this year, they looked good in the semis against BYU and the final against St. Mary's. High scoring team and 2 exciting games. Wiltjer gets to the bucket and scores well, and Sabonis is legit too.
That Seton Hall-Gonzaga game should be a fun one in the first round. Naturally, it has to be the latest game on Thursday night, starting at 10pm.
That Seton Hall-Gonzaga game should be a fun one in the first round. Naturally, it has to be the latest game on Thursday night, starting at 10pm.
I'm probably pretty close to that, but I nearly won my pool a couple years ago. I think Kentucky beat Kansas or something like that, but if it were the other way around, I would have won.
Can anyone who actually follows basketball explain to me the logic behind the First Four? How does it make sense that the teams playing in the play-in games aren't battling for the lowest seeds? How are there two teams playing each other to determine who the 11 seed is, yet the 12-16 seeds are already figured out? Why not have one of the 11 seeds be the 12 seed, the 12 becomes 13, etc, and then 15 and 16 play each other to see who gets into the tournament?
one last bump
the attraction of the first 4 is to give a 16 seed a shot at glory at winning game before being fed to the lions..so they do 2 of those games but then what also makes it interesting is they take the 4 last at large entries and pit them together. Usually these teams would fall on the 11 line for seeding so thats where they are put. These teams are generally better than the seeded 12-16 school, thats why the are 11s
the attraction of the first 4 is to give a 16 seed a shot at glory at winning game before being fed to the lions..so they do 2 of those games but then what also makes it interesting is they take the 4 last at large entries and pit them together. Usually these teams would fall on the 11 line for seeding so thats where they are put. These teams are generally better than the seeded 12-16 school, thats why the are 11s
I still don't understand why if they are better than the 12-16 teams, they have to play a play-in game and 12-16 don't. Why are the last four at-large entries ranked higher than other teams? Does it have something to do with conference qualifiers etc?
Yes.
Conferences have gone to automatic big for the tourney champion... which might not be the best team in the conference. The lower level conferences do so in hopes of getting more than one team in and reap the direct and indirect financial benefits that come with tourney shares.
Without bids for conference champions, there are also conferences that would likely never receive a bid based on the play of their teams over the whole season. So each of those teams are thought to take a bid away from a better team.
The first occurrence of play-in games saw these teams largely face each-other. Small conference champ vs small conference champ. But that seems to have been thought to not be fair to these smaller conferences.. so now it seems they want to pair these "lesser" conference champs with the "last in" guys from the "power" conferences.
Overall I'd say its pretty good. They still make seeding errors but there is little way to avoid those. And the teams that would be denied bids without the auto-bids, they really are at a big disadvantage in trying to make a resume that would get them an open bid. The big conference teams will not come play them at their place, for example and wins in their own conference don't seem t count for much.. because wen all those teams play power conference teams it is generally on the road.
As for seeding errors.. are all these 1st round "upsets" really a sign of parity or are they a sign that seeding is getting worse and worse?[/QUOTE]
Similar threads
