# Second Round Discussion



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Second round still sounds pretty weird when this is the real start of the tourney, but whatever. 

MSU/Valpo scheduled to start in about an hour.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

I have MSU vs. Miami in the Championship.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

I still can't get use to calling this the second round. 

Some brutal shooting so far from MSU and Valpo


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

You know you aren't too worried about your opponent when your first alley oop attempt fails and you come right back trying another one a couple of seconds later, this time successfully.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Those back to back fast breaks perfectly describe this game. Valpo gets a run out and misses the shot as MSU hustles back to defend. MSU has a player cherry picking and makes the shot.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Bucknell to receive the second half kickoff. Wait, they aren't playing football...


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

I muted the TV for the Pitt - Wichita State game. No way I can listen to Doug Gottlieb for more than 2 minutes.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Pitt getting blown out in the second half, didn't see that one coming.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

**** Pitt


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

They were, unfortunately, very statistically overrated all year. Disappointing team. Marquette is so cold, which is a shame because they're doing everything else pretty well.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Memphis almost gave it away at the end.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

It would be awesome if Gonzaga is the first 1 to lose to a 16.


----------



## EpicFailGuy (Mar 5, 2010)

I'm rooting for Davidson. I picked them out of spite.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Marquette can't make a three all game long, is generally bad at shooting threes and now they connect on three in a row?


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Marquette with the huge comeback, very impressive.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Davidson just threw that game away. First they throw the ball out of bounds and then they let Marquette just stroll right in for a layup.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

I watched Pitt play a half dozen times this year and never once thought their offense was anything above below average, yet somehow they were statical darlings. 

Oregon as a 12 is probably the worst seeding job I have ever seen in a tournament. It's funny that I picked OK State and in my head thought of it as an upset. I think the committee intentionally sets up these 5/12 games for "upsets".


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

Also, for those wondering, Southern lists their PG as 6'0" 180 which is hilarious. My guess is they are being generous by 4 inches and 60 pounds.


----------



## FSH (Aug 3, 2002)

Dam it sooo Close. I had Marquette losing


----------



## FSH (Aug 3, 2002)

Mrs. Thang said:


> I watched Pitt play a half dozen times this year and never once thought their offense was anything above below average, yet somehow they were statical darlings.
> 
> Oregon as a 12 is probably the worst seeding job I have ever seen in a tournament. It's funny that I picked OK State and in my head thought of it as an upset. I think the committee intentionally sets up these 5/12 games for "upsets".



Had Pitt losing and most people i knew did also

And ya Oregon as a 12 seed is a joke. They might go far


----------



## EpicFailGuy (Mar 5, 2010)

Gonzaga tied with 4 mins to go.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

It would be great to see S. Dakota St pull this off. Still a loooooong way to go.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

cpawfan said:


> I muted the TV for the Pitt - Wichita State game. No way I can listen to Doug Gottlieb for more than 2 minutes.


Yeah that guy is ****ing brutal.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

Diable said:


> *Davidson just threw that game away*. First they throw the ball out of bounds and then they let Marquette just stroll right in for a layup.


Literally.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Go Cal!


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

College basketball officiating has always been bad, which is actually part of its charm since the loose officiating allows the game to move up and down without the constant stoppages that you have in the NBA. That being said, I feel like its getting pretty close to a crisis point. They just don't call ANYTHING anymore and the players and coaches know it. It's like these guys are put on the floor to do nothing but call charges.

Now, free throws are just about the most boring thing in all of sports, so i don't want to protest too much, but players need to feel at least the threat of being called for a foul on some of the stuff that passes for defense.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

MWC :laugh:


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Well, Harvard probably just ****ed up everyone's bracket.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

Pittsburgh ****ed up almost all my brackets.


----------



## FSH (Aug 3, 2002)

Dear "experts" at CBS that pick Montana to beat Syracuse(It was all of them)

Suck it

Kindly Yours,
Syracuse Fans


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Not mine, I had Arizona beating New Mexico. Barkley is right. If you have the most talent, you can't let the lesser team dictate tempo, especially in a one and done scenario.


----------



## FSH (Aug 3, 2002)

> J.A. Adande ‏@jadande 50m
> 
> Harvard: 7 US presidents, 19 Supreme Court Justices, 46 Nobel laureates and now, 1 NCAA tournament victory


And ya i had New Mexico losing to Arizona in the next round also


----------



## FSH (Aug 3, 2002)

btw there is alot of people that went 16/16 today on yahoo


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

Knicks4life said:


> Pittsburgh ****ed up almost all my brackets.


I had them beating Gonzaga so they ****ed mine up pretty good. Luckily I picked most of the upsets except for the Harvard one to make up for it. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

HKF said:


> Not mine, I had Arizona beating New Mexico. Barkley is right. If you have the most talent, you can't let the lesser team dictate tempo, especially in a one and done scenario.


This is simple math or playing the odds and often a successful underdog strategy. The fewer possessions, the more random the outcome becomes. If New Mexico played Harvard ten times, they would win at least eight of those games. It's also why teams like Georgetown tend to struggle in the tournament, they just don't maximize the talent differential. If the final score ends up in the 40s or 50s, underdogs have a greater chance to pull off the upset. In the long run, quality prevails.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Wisconsin struggling mightily.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

That was a huge 3 by Marshall Henderson!!!


----------



## EpicFailGuy (Mar 5, 2010)

Marshall Henderson is fun to watch. He's like Jason Williams from Florida.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

El Shaqtus said:


> Marshall Henderson is fun to watch. He's like Jason Williams from Florida.


This is why March Madness is so bitter-sweet. I love rooting for guys like this, but Wisconsin losing would severely damage my big money bracket. Quite the conundrum.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

croco said:


> This is simple math or playing the odds and often a successful underdog strategy. The fewer possessions, the more random the outcome becomes. If New Mexico played Harvard ten times, they would win at least eight of those games. It's also why teams like Georgetown tend to struggle in the tournament, they just don't maximize the talent differential. If the final score ends up in the 40s or 50s, underdogs have a greater chance to pull off the upset. In the long run, quality prevails.


Funny you mention Georgetown, they're in a lot of trouble right now against FGCU.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

Wow I can't believe Georgetown might lose to Florida Gulf Coast.


----------



## FSH (Aug 3, 2002)

I knew Georgetown wouldnt go far they really didnt look good this season even though their record. I mean i didnt pick them to lose to FGC. But still


----------



## EpicFailGuy (Mar 5, 2010)

For a fan of a school that Georgetown is keeping out of the Big East, that was fun.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

You're faster, more athletic, stronger, quicker and yet you let the worse team walk the ball up the court, play 30 seconds over and over again. It's silly. One of these days John Thompson III will learn. No reason you can't press and play tough defense and play great motion-offense.

And this pisses me off that Kansas got a number 1 seed over Miami. The Hurricanes deserved it.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

croco said:


> This is simple math or playing the odds and often a successful underdog strategy. The fewer possessions, the more random the outcome becomes. If New Mexico played Harvard ten times, they would win at least eight of those games. It's also why teams like Georgetown tend to struggle in the tournament, they just don't maximize the talent differential. If the final score ends up in the 40s or 50s, underdogs have a greater chance to pull off the upset. In the long run, quality prevails.


Wisconsin too. This is pretty much why we don't have problems with high major programs, but go out every year to a mid-major.

UCLA looks like shit, although that's not really any different from the rest of the year. Howland should not have a job tomorrow if UCLA has any respect for itself. The fact that he had to gamble on those guys UNC chased away is bad enough, but he couldn't even succeed with them.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Western Kentucky could have easily won this game. They just had to hit two or three treys and the win was right there for them. Had tons of great looks too.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

The problem with this Wisconsin team is they didn't actually have any good players (save maybe Dekker), but they did one thing really well: they got open threes out of their offense. That's normally good, except they didn't have any good three point shooters, so even though they had seven guys who would regularly shoot threes, must of them were horrible at (even worse than their already poor percentages considering how many uncontested looks they would get). They were able to beat good teams when the shots would fall, but could also as to bad ones when they didn't. Their defense was overrated as all teams who slog through possessions have overrated defenses. Offense gets more efficient towards the end of the half once teams get into the bonus. By slowing the game down, you limit the amount of 'bonus time' available which skews efficiency numbers away from offense and towards defense.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

Other than that, the Big 10 showed really well. Six teams going to the round of 32 with a good chance of putting 4-5 in the sweet 16. No scares amongst there top 4 teams, and they throttled some schools (Valpo, SD State) I thought had a chance to make some noise before the matchups came out. Minnesota looked particularly giddy to get away from the conference grind.

A10 was the other big winner. 5-0! VCU might have had the most impressive win of anybody.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Nimreitz said:


> Wisconsin too. This is pretty much why we don't have problems with high major programs, but go out every year to a mid-major.
> 
> UCLA looks like shit, although that's not really any different from the rest of the year. Howland should not have a job tomorrow if UCLA has any respect for itself. The fact that he had to gamble on those guys UNC chased away is bad enough, but he couldn't even succeed with them.


Yeah, but I think Wisconsin actually benefits overall from their strategy because the talent on the team isn't overwhelming to say the least. They will win some they aren't expected to win, but conversely they are also going to lose some games you would expect them to win. A team like Georgetown always has at least one future NBA player on the team and they continue to play crappy in the tournament. When they made that run at the end and almost completed the comeback, the actual difference in talent was more visible. Preaching fundamentals is necessary and valuable, but you can't become mechanical. I think teams have a tendency to become a little robotic and kill creativity when they are playing too slow.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

Mrs. Thang said:


> The problem with this Wisconsin team is they didn't actually have any good players (save maybe Dekker), but they did one thing really well: they got open threes out of their offense. That's normally good, except they didn't have any good three point shooters, so even though they had seven guys who would regularly shoot threes, must of them were horrible at (even worse than their already poor percentages considering how many uncontested looks they would get). They were able to beat good teams when the shots would fall, but could also as to bad ones when they didn't. Their defense was overrated as all teams who slog through possessions have overrated defenses. Offense gets more efficient towards the end of the half once teams get into the bonus. By slowing the game down, you limit the amount of 'bonus time' available which skews efficiency numbers away from offense and towards defense.


I agree with everything you say, except about the defense. Although limiting "bonus time" is something I never considered before and it would absolutely have an effect on per possession defense.

Still, that Wisconsin defense was NOT overrated. They allowed .90 points per possession in the Big Ten. That is RIDICULOUS. They gave up an eFG% of 42.2% in conference, 3 points better than the second place team, and that does not factor in FT shooting. Kenpom is on a bit of a crusade about how 3 point defense is not really measured by defensive 3P%, but rather how many 3 pointers the other team takes; well, Wisconsin allows the fewest of all power conference teams.

But you're right, aside from Dekker, this was not a good team. Elite defense and poor offensive teams have historically gone out in the tournament very early.


----------

