OT: Historically lucky ACC 2nd-round seeding?

Submitted by 1974 on

I just noticed that the ACC has placed six teams in the Sweet Sixteen of this year's NCAA tourney. That's a remarkably high number and it prompted a look at the details, which I found very interesting.

*All six* teams faced the lowest possible seed in the second round:

Virginia (1) over Butler (9)
North Carolina (1) over Providence (9)
Miami (3) over Wichita State (11)
Duke (4) over Yale (12)
Notre Dame (6) over SFA (14)
Syracuse (10) over MTSU (15)
 
The first two aren't that remarkable, as there's not much difference between an 8 and a 9.
 
There are quite a few 6-11 and 5-12 upsets every year, so those aren't very odd, either, though Yale doesn't strike me as a typical "12."
 
Look at the last two, though. 14s rarely beat 3s, and 15s have beaten 2s fewer than ten times in history. (Thanks, Sparty.) Which conference benefitted in both cases? The ACC. (To the credit of Syracuse, they at least had to beat a higher-seeded team, #7 Dayton, to get to the second round.)
 
In other words, everything went the ACC's way in the first round. Also, I might have too much time on my hands.
MGoBoard
Basketball
2016 NCAA Tournament

Code-7

March 20th, 2016 at 8:20 PM ^

They are 1,2,3, seeds for a reason. They did their job and won. I don't think it it relates to being lucky. But still....eff the ACC.

Joined: 02/27/2014

MGoPoints: 19820

Mich OC

March 20th, 2016 at 11:43 PM ^

Syracuse got a 15 seed instead of a 2. Notre dame got a 14 seed instead of a 3. They played higher seeds due to upsets, not because of how they themselves were seeded. How would you not consider that somewhat lucky? Even Duke getting an 11 instead of a 5 makes for a much easier road.

Joined: 10/09/2014

MGoPoints: 554

Mich OC

March 21st, 2016 at 10:59 AM ^

Commenting on the statistical anomaly of all 6 underdogs moving on to face ACC teams in the second round doesn't have to be butthurt...people are allowed to comment on interesting things. Also, if you're suggesting that MSU losing to a 15 seed would somehow result in "butt hurt" around here, you're sadly mistaken.

Joined: 10/09/2014

MGoPoints: 554

M2NASA

March 21st, 2016 at 11:19 AM ^

Ever think that the reason that the ACC played those games in the second round is because other major conferences like the B1G couldn't beat those teams?

The ACC took care of business in the first round unlike how anyone else did, and then beat the team that beat the other major conference teams.

One of the arguments this thread uses is that Syracuse was lucky to play a 15 seed.  If a B1G team doesn't lose to a 15-seed then that doesn't happen.

The fact of the matter is, the ACC took care of what the other conferences couldn't, and that's after winning all of their first round games, which other conferences couldn't.

Virginia (1) over Butler (9)  (As a 1-seed they were always going to play an 8/9, which isn't much different)
North Carolina (1) over Providence (9)   (Again, as a 1-seed they were always going to play an 8/9, which isn't much different)
Miami (3) over Wichita State (11)  (because a Pac-12 team lost)
Duke (4) over Yale (12)  (because a Big XII team lost)
Notre Dame (6) over SFA (14)  (because a Big XII team lost)
Syracuse (10) over MTSU (15)  (because a B1G team lost)
 

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 8670

ak47

March 21st, 2016 at 9:51 AM ^

Yale outplayed Baylor, MTSU outplayed msu. SFA outplayed WVU.  The ACC teams played those teams because they won their first round games.  Just like Maryland got to play Hawaii in the second game.  Not sure why its considered luck.

Joined: 05/05/2011

MGoPoints: 33614

Mich OC

March 21st, 2016 at 11:08 AM ^

MTSU outplayed MSU that one game, sure, but that doesn't suddenly make them a better team. I guarantee Syracuse was thrilled they got that matchup and they would have had a much tougher time against MSU. So Syracuse would much rather play MTSU, and MTSU probably only beats MSU 1 out of 10 times they play. How would that not be considered lucky for Syracuse? The same goes for several other teams.

Joined: 10/09/2014

MGoPoints: 554

Tater

March 21st, 2016 at 3:21 AM ^

I've heard of resistance to change, but "Maryland is still an ACC team to me" is juuuust a bit extreme.

Has anyone noticed that two of the three Big Ten teams to make it are both teams Michigan defeated this season?  Here's why: both are finesse teams.  The "tough," clunky teams that play hardwood football (MMSU, Iowa, Purdue) weren't able to adjust to games being called like every other conference in the NCAA calls them.  

It's time for the Big Ten refs to call the same game that everyone else does so that the Big Ten's results, seedings, and eventually their style of play are more in alignment with what it takes to win in the NCAA Tournament.

Joined: 08/13/2008

MGoPoints: 30584

Needs

March 21st, 2016 at 8:44 AM ^

That hardly describes how Iowa plays. Sure, they have Woodbury, but they're primarily an up tempo team that relies on a lot of drive and kick, with their wing guys alternately slashing and shooting 3s.

This may also be the first time that Wisconsin's ever been described as a finesse team.

Joined: 08/05/2008

MGoPoints: 11632

ak47

March 21st, 2016 at 11:55 AM ^

There is something to be said for it in Marylands case.  Last year in big ten play Melo Trimble shot nearly 7 free throws per game.  Other coaches bitched and bitched about it and this year he shot under 5 free throws a game and got the shit beat out of him as he faltered down the stretch.  

Well in the NCAA tourney he has shot almost 12 free throws per game in the two games and has gotten 24 and 19 points while maryland won both games.  He got reffed differently in the big ten than he has in the tourney.

Joined: 05/05/2011

MGoPoints: 33614

UMxWolverines

March 20th, 2016 at 11:48 PM ^

But the point is they were in the positon to be upset like that. That's why it was so laughable when they brought up App State all the time for a few years...because we beat them that year and they didn't actually win anything themselves but continued to bring up that loss (and then they got good in football). 

We are nothing more than a bubble team and I can't take much joy in an MSU loss when we didn't actually win anything ourselves. 

Joined: 03/01/2009

MGoPoints: 65305

schreibee

March 21st, 2016 at 12:29 AM ^

Well, let's be honest - we sucked and didn't really deserve to be even be there. Beating the Hoosiers in the B1G tournament to get a bid elicited a "whoop" from me; beating Tulsa to actually get into the dance was satisfying. It felt like accomplishiing something.

But for sparty - they had legit title aspirations, and lost to a team that Syracuse (who had even less claim to a tournament berth than us) beat by 25 pts!!!

And the record will reflect that we actually won a game in this tournament!

So, yeah, if you call chuckling at them with knowing glee being "like them", I guess I'll have to to wear that. Like they'll wear mentions of MTSU like we do Appy St for the rest of their misbegotten lives.....

Joined: 11/02/2009

MGoPoints: 21103

LSAClassOf2000

March 20th, 2016 at 8:38 PM ^

There's a site where you can get some fascinating breakdowns of cumulative team records by tournament seed - LINK. The link is Duke's page, just as an example.

Duke is 2-1 as a #4 historically, not counting the wins this year. They are 51-9 as a #1 seed, but interestingly, four of those losses came at the hands of a #5 seed.

Anyway, hopefully it will supplement the research here.

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130561

IMB87

March 20th, 2016 at 10:50 PM ^

...but Michigan benefited in 1993 when Arizona (2) lost to Santa Clara (15) and Georgia Tech (4) lost to Southern (13).  I couldn't help but notice this when reading 538's ranking of MSU's upset this year (not the greatest in terms of Elo but MSU was the strongest team to have ever lost in the 1st round since 1985).

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/michigan-state-and-the-biggest-ncaa-tournament-upsets-ever/

B1G getting three teams in the Sweet 16 is not too bad.

Of course, could just say 1993 never happened.

 

Joined: 03/14/2016

MGoPoints: 344

UMinSF

March 20th, 2016 at 9:17 PM ^

looks really good in the tourney so far.

Syracuse crushed the same MTSU team that upset Sparty, and they just squeaked into the tournament, and all the higher seeds are taking care of their business.

The one exception, of course, is Pitt - Jamie Dixon is the worst tournament coach in college basketball.  

This is his 12th Pitt team to make the NCAA's, and they've been to the elite 8 ONE time - no final fours at all.  Half those teams were seeded #3 or higher!

 

Joined: 04/06/2009

MGoPoints: 18204

bronxblue

March 20th, 2016 at 9:21 PM ^

They just won the games they had to win, and at some point stuff like that can happen.  But yeah, the ACC is pretty good as basketball, and a couple of their crappier teams got favorable matchups (looking at your Syracuse and, to a lesser extent, Duke) due to no real influence of their own.

That said, woo boy does the Pac-12 look bad.  

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171030

UMinSF

March 20th, 2016 at 9:24 PM ^

you ain't kiddin' about the Pac - wow.  Utah was an embarrassment yesterday, and only they and Oregon made it past the first round.  Ugh.

Joined: 04/06/2009

MGoPoints: 18204