What I don't get is how people complain about how postseason seeding is screwed up, "I shoulda been a 2 seed but I'm a 6 seed", etc. but when supposedly lower ranked seeds beat supposedly higher ranked seeds all hell breaks loose. I'm not in Smith so I don't know this for sure, but I willing to bet that most of those 4 and 5 seeds were overranked and most of those 10, 11, and 12 seeds were underranked.

I'm not trying to justify the results, I'm just wondering how everyone forgets how flawed the seeding system is as soon as the first "upset" happens

Well, I was a 4 seed that got upset in the first round of Smith and I was not over ranked or seeded.  I had a 5 -2 record against the top 25.  Beat the #1 ranked team in preseason, beat the #2 ranked team, #9, #11, #14, and #17 ranked teams during the season.  My 4 losses came to the number #1, #23 and two teams that were ranked throughout the season but not when I was beat by them.  In other words I was seeded correctly.  However, even though I was clearly superior to my opponent (my guards for example were on average 40 points faster than my opponent) I fouled him 31 times and allowed almost 60% shooting from the field.  If you watch the game results you will realize it just doesn't make sense.  I chalk it up to the fact that my opponent won the WS engine lottery.  Not sure what is going on with the engine in Smith but something is broke.  

You run a press. That stuff happens. It happened to my team last season multiple times, and we were no joke. We made it to the champ game. We just got lucky the press didn't crap out us in the NT like it did in the season.

I understand that the press is spuratic but why does my player who is 40 points faster, more athletic, higher IQ, etc see the need to foul?  My beef is that it just isn't realistic.  But hey, it is what it is.   

Having been one of those teams who lost to jj, I can say he has one heck of a team. He shouldn't have lost in the first round. I don't have a problem with my loss in the 2nd round but to lose as bad as I did doesn't make sense. Alot of this Division II tournament doesn't make sense. And NO, the teams who are losing aren't overseeded. I can bet you that.

You started intentionally fouling with a full three minutes left and gave up 12 of your thirty-one fouls in that span and only 19 the rest of the game.  INcluding three of ROwe's fouls and four of Walton's fouls.  SInce it was set to intentionally foul with three minutes left, the reason he saw the need to foul with a forty point rating difference is because his coach told him to.

Sure, I understand your point a_in_the_b.  It really isn't the fouls alone that makes the game a bit frustrating.  It is the combination of all the results.  The fact that his D+ foul shooter made 8 of 9 free throws.  The team as a whole shot close to 60% from the field.  The fact that in the first half he got up by 12 because he shot 20 foul shots.  My team on the other hand (outside of the last 3 minutes when I made all but 1 or 2 shots) seemed to have the exact opposite results for the first 75% of the game.  I am not meaning to make a big deal out of the lost, it happens, but it is a bit frustrating when you have a team with such high potential and you lose so quick.  I have never had great luck in the NT and this team had so much success during the season that I thought it would end a bit different.   

Wasn't commenting on the rest of the game, just noting that the foul issue has an explanation. 

The other thing that happened, as far as I can see, is that you averaged less than six three attempts a game, and he took advantage of that by using a minus five.  Interestingly, given you tried that few threes it doesn't look like that tactic was used against you much the rest of the season.  But yeah, you did have a bit of bad luck in there.

Posted by jjwarden on 8/19/2010 10:50:00 PM (view original):
Sure, I understand your point a_in_the_b.  It really isn't the fouls alone that makes the game a bit frustrating.  It is the combination of all the results.  The fact that his D+ foul shooter made 8 of 9 free throws.  The team as a whole shot close to 60% from the field.  The fact that in the first half he got up by 12 because he shot 20 foul shots.  My team on the other hand (outside of the last 3 minutes when I made all but 1 or 2 shots) seemed to have the exact opposite results for the first 75% of the game.  I am not meaning to make a big deal out of the lost, it happens, but it is a bit frustrating when you have a team with such high potential and you lose so quick.  I have never had great luck in the NT and this team had so much success during the season that I thought it would end a bit different.   

I feel your pain, those tough losses leave a sting

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/19/2010 10:56:00 PM (view original):
Wasn't commenting on the rest of the game, just noting that the foul issue has an explanation. 

The other thing that happened, as far as I can see, is that you averaged less than six three attempts a game, and he took advantage of that by using a minus five.  Interestingly, given you tried that few threes it doesn't look like that tactic was used against you much the rest of the season.  But yeah, you did have a bit of bad luck in there.

That's actually a good point.  From my understanding though (and I could be wrong) a -5 defense clogs the lane and takes away interior scoring.  That's fine, it will just be my guards then that shoot and knock down easy jumpers.   I typically welcome people who play a strong negative defense against me.  This particular team has good shooters and great speed and athletcism.  People who play negative 5 usually get in big time foul trouble and my guards murder them with 10 foot jumpers.  Unfortunately, for some reason, that was not the case in this game.  To your point though, I probably could have increased the 3's a bit and taken more advantage of the open perimeter.  But either way my guards were shooting, whether it was from beyond the arc of 3 steps in front of the arc.  Because my team was so balanced and had great rebounders I usually didn't have too much trouble adapting to a -5 or +5 defense.   

lots of upsets in first round of IBA too, i am a 16 seed in Div 2 who beat a #1 seed last nite

Yeah, 2 more #1s fell in the second round including the defending champ who only lost like 1 or 2 players. In the sweet 16 we have 3 10+ seeds playing, and only 1 #1 seed. 3 of the 4 #2 seeds are still left, and the rest is full of upsets other then east which has 1,2,3,4 advancing. Div I West is still crazy. In the sweet 16 you have 9, 10, 11, 12. Not sure I've ever seen that. They also only have 2 #1 seeds left who made it out of the 2nd round.

Posted by furry_nipps on 8/20/2010 12:00:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, 2 more #1s fell in the second round including the defending champ who only lost like 1 or 2 players. In the sweet 16 we have 3 10+ seeds playing, and only 1 #1 seed. 3 of the 4 #2 seeds are still left, and the rest is full of upsets other then east which has 1,2,3,4 advancing. Div I West is still crazy. In the sweet 16 you have 9, 10, 11, 12. Not sure I've ever seen that. They also only have 2 #1 seeds left who made it out of the 2nd round.

I was the #1 seed in the West Region that lost last night.  My hat is off to LSU for holding on for the win but a Sweet 16 comprised of the 9, 10, 11 and 12 seeds?  Saying the Final Four spot from that region is wide open would be the understatement of the year.

I decided to take a look at stats from the 2010 D1 and D2 tournaments in terms of higher seeds advancing to see how they compare to what we are seeing right now.  In this I consider upsets in round 1 a lower seeded team beating a higher one, and in round 2 whether a team advanced with a seed that shouldn't be in a sweet 16 (basically any seed 5-16). I actually thought the D2 Smith upsets seemed really abnormal but in RL there is much more parity actually.  In the first round of the D2 tourney 37% of games had upsets.  In round 2 - 62% had upsets - and only once did the top four seeds in a bracket advance to the third round.  Smith D2 this post-season there were 43% upsets in round 1 and 75% in round 2.  Both are higher than RL this past season.  I personally think 75% is way too high but after seeing 62% in RL it's a little easier to swallow.

In D1 this past year, there were 31% upsets in round 1 and 50% upsets in round 2.  In Phelan this post-season (where TWO #1 seeds lost to 16 seeds) there was 34% upsets in round 1 and a staggering 81% in round 2.

This last one stands out most.  Nowhere near realistic.  The sweet 16 consists of:

1,2,6,13
3,5,8,10
7,8,11,13
5,7,8,11

In all only 3 teams seeded 1-4 made the sweet 16.  Expand to look at teams seeded 1-6 advancing and in the 2010 tourney 75% of sweet 16 teams were seeded 1-6.  In Phelan, only 37% of sweet 16 teams were seeded 1-6. 

Just something to chew on.

whats the point of regular season if the tournaments going to be a crap shoot. and in fact ou have btter odds being a 7-13 then a 1-6 in making it farther in the tourny.