• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

2012-13 Men's Basketball (B1G Tourney Champs, NCAA Elite Eight)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
LitlBuck;2312367; said:
Whoever wins the NCAA tournament pick'em this year just knows how to guess correctly. This season is just crazy. Miami losing to Georgia Tech at home and UCLA getting blown out by WSU and Iowa State beating Oklahoma State. This season is just crazy.
Click to expand...

In the tournament, the best talent usually wins - I think it makes sense to pick a team to win the tourney because you think their star player is going to make key, game-changing plays that others can't over the course of a game (and of course the supporting cast has to be really good as well). Also, focus on D - defense is just as important as offense but a lot of fans overlook it, so don't pick teams to go to the F4 if they, heading down the stretch run in the season, give up like 84 points in regulation against putrid teams like Penn State. ND in recent years has been a team that has had good offense but bad D ... and hasn't gotten anywhere in the tournament.

I'm wary of picking against the blue blood programs when they have great teams with no injury/suspension issues. On the other hand, when a team does have a serious injury/suspension issue relating to a key player, they should be picked to lose as soon as their seed would suggest them to lose or before that point, IMO.

When a team like Miami this year gets a high seed, that is the type of team that is susceptible to being upset, IMO - they didn't even make the tournament last year with the same players, clearly they have some problems that have been masked by their experience and age. And maybe they're also getting worn down by having to come to play every game in order to win a regular season championship in a BCS league. Regular season overachievers like Miami often underachieve in the tourney.

Teams that haven't been on top regularly typically have some flaws when they get high seeds such as a #2. Mizzou last year and Tennessee in '06 for example were teams that had overachieved in the regular season and were porous on D and got bounced early. Look at Auburn in '99, with Scott Pohlman (aka "Opie" - literally, they referred to him as Opie) as their starting SG, they had a guy who didn't have the size and athleticism to make an all-around impact at his position in key games as a starter - that is a huge problem in the tournament. You can't have one weak link if you're going to make an F4. You can still fail to make it without a weak link, but you're not going to make it if you do have one as a high seed that teams are gunning for.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1999-03-17/sports/9903170019_1_scott-pohlman-auburn-rca-dome

Which brings me to another point - initial opinions aren't irrelevant. Opie wasn't thought to be a great talent coming out of high school, and his team didn't make it past the S16. There are usually at least 1-2 teams that are in the preseason top-25 that disappoint during the regular season that bring it in the tournament - this year I'd look at UCLA and UNC for that category, as the talent of both teams seems to be coming together and they are capable of winning some games but likely not an F4 run. Both have flaws, but I think both have enough talent to win a couple tourney games this year.

It's also a huge problem if you don't have quality depth. Guys on the bench don't have to score a lot, but they do need to be able to come in and play at a high level for several minutes if and when foul trouble arises, as it inevitably does at some point for teams in F4 runs.

I think it's a lot more important to evaluate teams when they're at their best and discount bad losses. Louisville last year won the Big East tourney and were on a roll entering the tourney, they got all the way to the F4 - but they had lost by 30 to Providence earlier in the year. The blowout L to Providence didn't mean anything. Tennessee in '10 had beaten two #1 seeds that year, UK and KU, yet was a #6 seed ... gotta pay attention to how good a team is at its best. VCU rocking Butler recently - to me that's much more an indication VCU can be really tough when they're at their best than an indictment of Butler.

One stereotypical theory I have just started to look at is to pick the younger team to win when two seemingly evenly matched teams are playing. The theory is the older, more experienced team had the advantage of consistency during the regular season to help them, but the younger team learns and grows more during the season (and the tournament).

I also am inclined to pick against mid-major teams like Gonzaga when they are on top with high seeds (like 1-4 seeds) - they are used to teams with no talent like the Dons, Broncos, Waves and Toreros gunning for them, it's completely different when it's the Aces, Kings and Queens of the sport targeting them. It seems like the mid-major runs that we've seen in recent years have all been from teams that weren't expected to make big tourney runs. Only Memphis with D-Rose has made the F4 with a seed above #5 from a mid-major type league in recent years.

/dissertation
 
Upvote 0
DZ83CK said:
In the tournament, the best talent usually wins - I think it makes sense to pick a team to win the tourney because you think their star player is going to make key, game-changing plays that others can't over the course of a game (and of course the supporting cast has to be really good as well). Also, focus on D - defense is just as important as offense but a lot of fans overlook it, so don't pick teams to go to the F4 if they, heading down the stretch run in the season, give up like 84 points in regulation against putrid teams like Penn State. ND in recent years has been a team that has had good offense but bad D ... and hasn't gotten anywhere in the tournament.

I'm wary of picking against the blue blood programs when they have great teams with no injury/suspension issues. On the other hand, when a team does have a serious injury/suspension issue relating to a key player, they should be picked to lose as soon as their seed would suggest them to lose or before that point, IMO.

When a team like Miami this year gets a high seed, that is the type of team that is susceptible to being upset, IMO - they didn't even make the tournament last year with the same players, clearly they have some problems that have been masked by their experience and age. And maybe they're also getting worn down by having to come to play every game in order to win a regular season championship in a BCS league. Regular season overachievers like Miami often underachieve in the tourney.

Teams that haven't been on top regularly typically have some flaws when they get high seeds such as a #2. Mizzou last year and Tennessee in '06 for example were teams that had overachieved in the regular season and were porous on D and got bounced early. Look at Auburn in '99, with Scott Pohlman (aka "Opie" - literally, they referred to him as Opie) as their starting SG, they had a guy who didn't have the size and athleticism to make an all-around impact at his position in key games as a starter - that is a huge problem in the tournament. You can't have one weak link if you're going to make an F4. You can still fail to make it without a weak link, but you're not going to make it if you do have one as a high seed that teams are gunning for.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1999-03-17/sports/9903170019_1_scott-pohlman-auburn-rca-dome

Which brings me to another point - initial opinions aren't irrelevant. Opie wasn't thought to be a great talent coming out of high school, and his team didn't make it past the S16. There are usually at least 1-2 teams that are in the preseason top-25 that disappoint during the regular season that bring it in the tournament - this year I'd look at UCLA and UNC for that category, as the talent of both teams seems to be coming together and they are capable of winning some games but likely not an F4 run. Both have flaws, but I think both have enough talent to win a couple tourney games this year.

It's also a huge problem if you don't have quality depth. Guys on the bench don't have to score a lot, but they do need to be able to come in and play at a high level for several minutes if and when foul trouble arises, as it inevitably does at some point for teams in F4 runs.

I think it's a lot more important to evaluate teams when they're at their best and discount bad losses. Louisville last year won the Big East tourney and were on a roll entering the tourney, they got all the way to the F4 - but they had lost by 30 to Providence earlier in the year. The blowout L to Providence didn't mean anything. Tennessee in '10 had beaten two #1 seeds that year, UK and KU, yet was a #6 seed ... gotta pay attention to how good a team is at its best. VCU rocking Butler recently - to me that's much more an indication VCU can be really tough when they're at their best than an indictment of Butler.

One stereotypical theory I have just started to look at is to pick the younger team to win when two seemingly evenly matched teams are playing. The theory is the older, more experienced team had the advantage of consistency during the regular season to help them, but the younger team learns and grows more during the season (and the tournament).

I also am inclined to pick against mid-major teams like Gonzaga when they are on top with high seeds (like 1-4 seeds) - they are used to teams with no talent like the Dons, Broncos, Waves and Toreros gunning for them, it's completely different when it's the Aces, Kings and Queens of the sport targeting them. It seems like the mid-major runs that we've seen in recent years have all been from teams that weren't expected to make big tourney runs. Only Memphis with D-Rose has made the F4 with a seed above #5 from a mid-major type league in recent years.

/dissertation
Click to expand...
original.0


Solid take, DZ.
 
Upvote 0
DZ83CK;2312484; said:
In the tournament, the best talent usually wins - I think it makes sense to pick a team to win the tourney because you think their star player is going to make key, game-changing plays that others can't over the course of a game (and of course the supporting cast has to be really good as well). Also, focus on D - defense is just as important as offense but a lot of fans overlook it, so don't pick teams to go to the F4 if they, heading down the stretch run in the season, give up like 84 points in regulation against putrid teams like Penn State. ND in recent years has been a team that has had good offense but bad D ... and hasn't gotten anywhere in the tournament.

I'm wary of picking against the blue blood programs when they have great teams with no injury/suspension issues. On the other hand, when a team does have a serious injury/suspension issue relating to a key player, they should be picked to lose as soon as their seed would suggest them to lose or before that point, IMO.

When a team like Miami this year gets a high seed, that is the type of team that is susceptible to being upset, IMO - they didn't even make the tournament last year with the same players, clearly they have some problems that have been masked by their experience and age. And maybe they're also getting worn down by having to come to play every game in order to win a regular season championship in a BCS league. Regular season overachievers like Miami often underachieve in the tourney.

Teams that haven't been on top regularly typically have some flaws when they get high seeds such as a #2. Mizzou last year and Tennessee in '06 for example were teams that had overachieved in the regular season and were porous on D and got bounced early. Look at Auburn in '99, with Scott Pohlman (aka "Opie" - literally, they referred to him as Opie) as their starting SG, they had a guy who didn't have the size and athleticism to make an all-around impact at his position in key games as a starter - that is a huge problem in the tournament. You can't have one weak link if you're going to make an F4. You can still fail to make it without a weak link, but you're not going to make it if you do have one as a high seed that teams are gunning for.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1999-03-17/sports/9903170019_1_scott-pohlman-auburn-rca-dome

Which brings me to another point - initial opinions aren't irrelevant. Opie wasn't thought to be a great talent coming out of high school, and his team didn't make it past the S16. There are usually at least 1-2 teams that are in the preseason top-25 that disappoint during the regular season that bring it in the tournament - this year I'd look at UCLA and UNC for that category, as the talent of both teams seems to be coming together and they are capable of winning some games but likely not an F4 run. Both have flaws, but I think both have enough talent to win a couple tourney games this year.

It's also a huge problem if you don't have quality depth. Guys on the bench don't have to score a lot, but they do need to be able to come in and play at a high level for several minutes if and when foul trouble arises, as it inevitably does at some point for teams in F4 runs.

I think it's a lot more important to evaluate teams when they're at their best and discount bad losses. Louisville last year won the Big East tourney and were on a roll entering the tourney, they got all the way to the F4 - but they had lost by 30 to Providence earlier in the year. The blowout L to Providence didn't mean anything. Tennessee in '10 had beaten two #1 seeds that year, UK and KU, yet was a #6 seed ... gotta pay attention to how good a team is at its best. VCU rocking Butler recently - to me that's much more an indication VCU can be really tough when they're at their best than an indictment of Butler.

One stereotypical theory I have just started to look at is to pick the younger team to win when two seemingly evenly matched teams are playing. The theory is the older, more experienced team had the advantage of consistency during the regular season to help them, but the younger team learns and grows more during the season (and the tournament).

I also am inclined to pick against mid-major teams like Gonzaga when they are on top with high seeds (like 1-4 seeds) - they are used to teams with no talent like the Dons, Broncos, Waves and Toreros gunning for them, it's completely different when it's the Aces, Kings and Queens of the sport targeting them. It seems like the mid-major runs that we've seen in recent years have all been from teams that weren't expected to make big tourney runs. Only Memphis with D-Rose has made the F4 with a seed above #5 from a mid-major type league in recent years.

/dissertation
Click to expand...

So basically u think tOSU is going to win:wink2:
 
Upvote 0
Akron had some bad news tonight as starting PG Alex Abreu has been suspended indefinitely following an arrest for marijuana trafficking - putting the Zips NCAA tourney hopes in jeopardy. If they don't have Abreu for the MAC tourney, they may lose and miss the NCAA tourney as a result. If he doesn't come back before Selection Sunday, which he probably shouldn't, the NCAA has to evaluate Akron based on how they play without Abreu, meaning they are basically 0-0 right now.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/col...on_zips_basketball_guard_bo.html#incart_river
 
Upvote 0
DZ83CK said:
Akron had some bad news tonight as starting PG Alex Abreu has been suspended indefinitely following an arrest for marijuana trafficking - putting the Zips NCAA tourney hopes in jeopardy. If they don't have Abreu for the MAC tourney, they may lose and miss the NCAA tourney as a result. If he doesn't come back before Selection Sunday, which he probably shouldn't, the NCAA has to evaluate Akron based on how they play without Abreu, meaning they are basically 0-0 right now.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/col...on_zips_basketball_guard_bo.html#incart_river
Click to expand...
If he is not reinstatement by MAC tournament time, they will not win the tournament and will not go dancing because only one team from that conference will make the Big Dance.
 
Upvote 0
Those who are interested in Sabermetrics as it applies to college hoop might find this interesting.

I aggregated the rankings of team performance for the three main Sabermetric algorithms: KenPom.com, Sagarin's Predictor, and ESPN's BPI to arrive at a "consensus" ranking. Then, teams were listed 1 through 38 to find the at-large teams that "should" qualify even if they do not win their conference tourneys, and to seed those teams based on the resulting rankings:

1-seeds: Louisville (#1 overall), Indiana, Florida & Duke

2-seeds: Ohio State, Kansas, Gonzaga & Michigan State

3-seeds: Pitt, Syracuse, Michigan & Oklahoma State

4-seeds: Wisconsin, Miami (FL), VCU & Georgetown

5-seeds: Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico & Marquette

6-seeds: Creighton, Arizona, UNC & NC State

7-seeds: St. Mary's, Colorado State, San Diego State & Saint Louis

8-seeds: UNLV, Notre Dame, Kansas State & Memphis

9-seeds: Cincinnati, UVA, Iowa State & Colorado

10-seeds: Wichita State & Oklahoma

Last four in: the last four mentioned

First four out: Iowa, Middle Tennessee State, Kentucky & UCLA

Illinois and Oregon would be the next two out based on these numbers.

By conference: B1G six teams; Big East seven; Big 12 five; SEC two(!); ACC five; Pac-12 two(!); Missouri Valley two; Atlantic-10 two; Mountain West four; West Coast Conference two. CUSA gets one.

This seems to validate my view that the Buckeyes should be no worse than a 3-seed, and that the Big Ten may receive only six bids. Also, Butler is regarded much more highly than the Sabermetrics suggests they ought to be.

It will be interesting to compare this to the final brackets. I understand the Committee uses the RPI, which comes to far different conclusions from those above.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Team of the Week: Ohio State

I've taken more shots than anyone at the Buckeyes this season, going back to last October when I visited their practice and pronounced them overrated. Well look at 'em now. They finished in a tie for second place in the nation's toughest conference, and they did it the hard way -- by knocking off Indiana in Bloomington, on senior night no less. They also beat Illinois at home on Sunday to claim their fifth consecutive win and their sixth in their last seven games. Ohio State still has not corrected its fundamental flaw -- a lack of consistent second scorer to Deshaun Thomas -- but it has done a better job of masking it. Much of that starts with Aaron Craft's defense, which actually seems to get better at a time when so many players are running out of gas. Ohio State has a relatively low ceiling, but whoever plays this team better beat it, because the Buckeyes are not gonna beat themselves.
Click to expand...

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20130310/fast-break/#ixzz2NEViQ5Ag
 
Upvote 0
It's an ESPiN press release, so not linking it, but the top viewing markets for 2012-13 for Men's College Basketball had three Ohio cities and three North Carolina cities. Louisville was top overall market.

Top Markets for 2012-13
1. Louisville: 4.5 rating
2. Greensboro: 3.1 rating
3. Raleigh-Durham: 3.0 rating
4. Indianapolis: 2.9 rating
5. Kansas City: 2.7 rating
T-6. Cincinnati: 2.1 rating
T-6. Columbus: 2.1 rating
8. Dayton: 2.0 rating
9. Charlotte: 1.8 rating
T-10. Knoxville: 1.7 rating
T-10. Nashville: 1.7 rating
 
Upvote 0
VBSJ said:
It's an ESPiN press release, so not linking it, but the top viewing markets for 2012-13 for Men's College Basketball had three Ohio cities and three North Carolina cities. Louisville was top overall market.

Top Markets for 2012-13
1. Louisville: 4.5 rating
2. Greensboro: 3.1 rating
3. Raleigh-Durham: 3.0 rating
4. Indianapolis: 2.9 rating
5. Kansas City: 2.7 rating
T-6. Cincinnati: 2.1 rating
T-6. Columbus: 2.1 rating
8. Dayton: 2.0 rating
9. Charlotte: 1.8 rating
T-10. Knoxville: 1.7 rating
T-10. Nashville: 1.7 rating
Click to expand...
They have TV sets in Dayton now.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top