It's #1 Seed Or Bust: The Path To The Title
-
This post is deleted!
-
@globaljaybird
My recollection is the same as @Crimsonorblue22. KU pursued Smart but not Forte whose father had played FB at KU; Forte was not ranked, out of HS, at the level that KU offers. OSU offered to both and that is where they ended up.
-
Wichita State and Arizona have the best chance of going unbeaten since both (particularly WSU) play in weaker conferences. One loss by WSU and any chance to a #1 seed they might currently have is gone; a KU team with 6 losses would be seeded ahead of them.
KU, Syracuse. Arizona and WSU are currently #1 seeds in the majority of current “Bracketology” projections; however, given the unpredictability of conference play, it is likely that the current seeds are precarious at best.
-
@drgnslayr I agree with you about how teams like Syracuse and Arizona are peaking early. Both of those teams are certainly not guaranteed to make it to the Final Four, despite what some sports pundits might say. Often times, the teams that suffer some losses and stay off the radar but make a surge late in the season are the ones that make it to the final four. Take last year for example. Syracuse and Michigan were both ranked very high early in the season but had several losses in conference play that kept them out of the spotlight. It was the same thing in '12 when KU was not widely talked about and yet went to the championship game with a team that had zero depth. That was probably my favorite team since following KU basketball.
-
@jaybate 1.0 “But OSU is still dangerous because of Brown, who has kept getting better.”
And don’t forget the short white dude who, according to statsheet.com has THE highest offensive rating in the nation. Yes, NATION. Forte is the hottest 3 point shooter in the country and one of the best free throw shooters as well.
-
Gosh that Forte kid can shoot! Those deep 3s look more like lob passes that somehow swish through the bottom of the nets.
Smart is too much in his own little world. It helped that he apologized for becoming such a burden to his teammates. Now if he can just live up to that challenge. He’s too focused on his own importance. I respect when a player wants the ball in crunch time, but he is over the top and believes it is HIS game to lose or to win. With that attitude, OSU has no chance of doing much of anything this year. I’m not sure if they can even snag 2nd place in the B12.
Compare his attitude with Wiggins.
-
Looks like the refs are finally catching up with Smart’s flopping and he is acting like a drama queen about it; he has been in foul trouble in both games after the KU game of “ghost elbow flop” fame. Even with the game out of reach against OU, he felt he had to do one last dramatic flop with seconds left in the game; it looked desperate and pathetic.
Smart is quickly developing a reputation as a flopper and becoming one of the more disliked players in the league. Analyst still like him because they do not see his behavior day in and day out like we, conference followers do.
Marcus Smart reminds me of Mike Tyson. At one time he was considered pound for pound the best boxer in the world, a rarity for heavy weight, and fighters were terrified of him, Then along came Buster Douglas that was no intimidated and knocked him out in Tokyo and exposed him as a very beatable boxer; Tyson was never the same after that fight and lost his last two fights to two unknowns before retiring for good.
-
@JayHawkFanToo It’s funny, at the end of last season and especially at the beginning of this season, when Smart returned to OSU instead of opting for the NBA, I had a lot of respect for him. After watching his antics this season I just think he’s a punk.
The only player in my life that I thought he should have went pro instead of staying another year or two.
-
Here is a great photo of Smart flopping when Embiid stares at him…funny as hell…
-
@HighEliteMajor I was listening earlier to somebody try to run the tired old" you’ll lose in the first round again" smack talk. In the past 7 years, we have:
1 National Championship
1 National runnerup
4 Elite 8’s
6 Sweet 16s
7 1st round victories
My point is: Before the last 7 years, we were simply begging to get to the 2nd round. I personally feel we are a number #1 seed. We are already listed on Lunardi’s Bracketology as a number 1. If we don’t end a number #1 seed, then we’ll be the 3rd number #2 seed in the past 25 years that wins the national championship.
-
Forte was offered as I recall, but I’m sure Self was honest and told him he’d be buried on the bench. I have no idea what Ford told the kid. It worked out great for OSU and Forte.
While I think Forte would be great to have coming off the bench, I wouldn’t give up one of our current players for him. Especially since the last player signed was Wiggins. And I sure wouldn’t give up Mason for Forte either (I like his fire and upside) .
-
@JayHawkFanToo And he was over on the bench after his 2 quick fouls in the first half yelling at the officials each time another foul was called on OSU. Fran and Brent even remarked that Ford during a timeout once got on the officials because OSU had “too many fouls” called on them. Smart was not in the “limelight” he thinks he is entitled to. His kicking the chair last game was something that no coach with cajones would have put up with. Ford lets him get away with all his antics because Ford knows he is nothing without Smart getting all the attention and that attention hasn’t been good the last several games.
-
@dylans - I don’t know, a guy that shoots 50% from the 3 point line (or 10 ft behind…) and 91% free throws, humble, hard-working kid who doesn’t turn the ball over might be worth trading SOMEONE for.
-
@JayHawkFanToo and @RockChalkinTexas
Both of you guys are so spot on!
I know Conner is a local favorite, but would you trade Frankamp for Forte? Forte has a solid build, too.
Isn’t Forte doing what we all thought Frankamp would do?
Before we second-guess on these questions lets remember that Forte is a sophomore and Frankamp is a freshman.
By next year will Frankamp become as lethal of a weapon as Forte? I’m not sure he’ll build as much body mass in 12 months, but I’m hopeful he’ll be shooting like Forte. Imagine if we had a weapon like that?!
-
http://imageshack.com/a/img208/5718/trj.gif
This flop is worse than the one with Selden.
-
@nuleafjhawk and… He doesn’t even start!!
-
That is the play at the end of the game last night that I mentioned in my post above…
-
@wissoxfan83 Good question, because it goes to perhaps a team playing a better schedule. Michigan St. was the only one to win the title. Only two got the FF (MSU in 2000 and Texas in 2003). By year:
-2013: Indiana, 6 losses, out in the sweet 16
-2012: Michigan St., 7 losses, out in sweet 16
-2007: North Carolina, 6 losses, out in elite 8
-2003: Texas, 6 losses, out in FF semis; Oklahoma, 6 losses, out in elite 8
-2001: Illinois, 7 losses, out in elite 8
-2000: Michigan St., 7 losses, won title; Arizona, 7 losses, out in round of 32.
-
@drgnslayr not to be cynical, but Self wouldn’t play Forte. I’m sure there would be a reason.
-
@HighEliteMajor
to your response to slayr above.
-
@HighEliteMajor-If he did, he bench him after this first miss.
-
@drgnslayr When a legacy kid so no… F’em. I wouldn’t trade any one for Forte. Sure he is more productive than Connor so far, but where do the minutes come from? No court time for Mason/Greene/White/Frankamp with Forte there. Talk about mass transfers following this season.
@HighEliteMajor I agree. Bill would develop someone with more upside, unless he needed a Morningstar like glue guy.
-
I think the thing is. The other teams you mentioned that are in the mix already know who they are, and we know who they are. However let me ask you this question. When you sit down to watch the game with Iowa state. What are you thinking? What are expecting. If you’re like me your thinking what am I going to see tonight. I would think you and most KU fans would agree we don’t even really know what this KU team is yet. All we know is that they can play, and can’t wait to see what the do next.
In a normal season I would totally agree with you on the #1 seed theory. However with this current KU team I just don’t think it matters. They have but just scratched the surface and already starting to look scary good. Even Vegas has them the favorite to win it all. Yet maybe that is the Achilles heel of this team. Being they never reach their potential. I don’t know, but I do know one thing no future #1 seed wants KU in their bracket.
-
@drgnslayr HA! QUOTE OF THE DAY BY drgnslayr: “Compare (Smart’s) attitude with Wiggins”. I absolutely love Wiggins team-first attitude. What a great kid. All business type of demeanor.
-
@jaybate 1.0 My thinking is that 1 seeds have always had a tremendous advantage in that their first round opponents are the weakest teams in the field. Whether it’s a 24 team tournament, a 48 or a 64, having your first game against the weakest team in the field is a huge advantage. Look at conference tournaments for an example. How often do you see the #1 seed in a conference tournament NOT make it to the conference semifinals? It’s pretty rare for the #1 to lose their first game. Not unheard of, but rare.
The talent gap is a bigger reason for the success of the #1s, though. Let’s imagine for a second that every team has a true talent level between 100 (best) and 1 (worst). Now, let’s say this year the #1 seeds end up being Arizona, Syracuse, Wichita State and KU (to borrow Lunardi’s prediction for a moment). Let’s say their TTL rank (I’m making these true talent rankings up as I go along) is UA (94), Syracuse (95) Wichita State (91) and KU (95). Then let’s say the #2 seeds are Florida (92), SDSU (90) , MSU (91) and Villanova (88). Let’s say that 16 seeds are TTL at around 65, 15s are high 60s. 3 seeds are 88-86, 4s are 86-83, 5s are 83-82, 6s are 82-80, 7s are 80-79, 8s and 9s are 78-77, 10s are 76-75, 11s are 74, 12s = 73-72 13s and 14s 71-70.
So in the first round, there’s close to a 30 point “gap” between the TTL of 1s and their 16 opponents. However, as you move through the field, the gap becomes much less. The difference between a 12 seed and a 5 is about 10 talent points. If a 5 plays poorly, they will likely lose simply because they aren’t that much better than a 12 seed. Even in the second round, the best #1s are still enjoying a 15+ point gap between them and their opponents talent. It isn’t until the third round (Sweet 16) where the gap may shorten to within 10 or 15 talent points. This is why 1 seeds almost always get to the Sweet 16. They are just so much better than 16 seeds, and even the 8/9 seeds.
But look at the 2 seeds. You see that Florida, Wichita State, SDSU and Michigan State are all roughly the same talentwise. WSU has the easier path, but there’s a decent gap in talent between the top 3 #1s and the rest of the field , especially when you consider that the difference between the #1s and any opponent they will see before the Elite Eight is going to be close to or greater than 10.
There is a limit to how bad tournament teams are because really bad teams - the ones that would be TTL of 50 or lower - generally don’t make the tournament, and if they do, they face a #1 seed that immediately shows them the door. But there really isn’t a limit on how good a tournament team can be. If somebody has a 98+ talent, that’s probably going to separate them from the field quite a bit. They would be a #1 seed. But the 2s would still cluster in the high 80s, low 90s. The threes would still be in the upper 80s, 4s in the mid 80s, etc. The only changes would be on the extremes - the best teams in the tournament could be incredible, the worst teams in the tournament could be horrible. But the middle would likely stay roughly the same.
That’s why it’s tougher as a 2. On your side of the bracket you would have a 3 seed (87), a 6 (81), a 7 (80) a 10 (76), an 11 (74) and a 14 (70), along with your first round opponent 15 (68). You enjoy that huge 20 point gap in round 1, but round 2 brings you an opponent that’s probably within 10 or 12 points of your talent level. The Sweet 16 likely gives you a team that is practically your equal (3) or very close to your round 2 opponent.
An elite #1 won’t face a team that is their equal (talent wise) until the final four.
-
@justanotherfan Your post made me think of the classic bell curve: the best are extremely good, the worst are extremely bad and both are very few. It’s normal that the “talent gap” should be greater at both ends.
Ken Pomeroy could have a field day with this stuff: before the NCAAs he calculates the odds of each team advancing to every round. He could just swap the one and 2 seeds, redo the calculations and show the difference just the seeding makes.
-
I agree and the gap is even bigger. Let’s remember that the top 64 (or is it 68?) teams do not make it to the tournament. Many of the automatic qualifiers are ranked well below the top 64. In some cases the top ranked teams will be playing the 60+ “seeded” teams but in reality, they are playing teams that were “ranked” in the 100+ and not in the top 60s.
I wish the “real” top 64 teams were selected, but it would mean that teams from smaller conference would not have chance to make it to the dance.
-
@ParisHawk Ken Pomeroy actually already does this and, unfortunately for HEM, his conclusion and his data show that being seeded #1 vs #2 does not have much of an affect on the actual outcomes of the best teams, meaning the best teams usually advance regardless of seeding (Which makes perfect sense. It’s better to actually be good than to be told you are, after all). I believe he also had an article last year (though I haven’t been able to find it in my few minutes of searching, and it could have been by another big data analyst) that shows that #2 seeds that played better SOSes tended to over achieve in the tournament compared to #1 seeds that played weaker SOSes (this was based on the average # of wins per seed over the tournament history. It’s about 3.3 for #1s and 2.4 for #2s). So again, it’s more important to be the stronger team than it is to achieve a particular seed. I would hope that’s self-evident, but when statistics get involved, people tend to have the habit of putting the cart before the horse.
As for HEM’s particular point about the win rate of #2 seeds in the finals, I’d point out that the win rate the #2 seeds enjoy is on par with the #1s when you consider how often the statistically favored team wins. What I mean by that is, regardless of seeding, teams that are rated higher in advanced statistical models (meaning better teams) win in the title game something like 72.5% of the time (based on KenPom.com ratings for since 2003), meaning 27.5% of the time, the title game features a statistical upset. This is right in line with the 72% win rate that HEM sites for #1 seeds. What HEM also calls remarkable in #2s having only won twice in the past 25 years, really isn’t in light of that data either. After all, #2s posted wins in 2 of 7 meetings with #1s for a 28% win rate, which is again, directly in line with what would be expected if the remaining #1 in the title game is statistically the stronger team. The only thing that is a bit unusual about #2 seeds is that both times they’ve faced off against #3 seeds, they’ve lost. In the case of KU vs Syracuse, this was a statistical upset. In the case of UCLA vs Florida, it was not. Given the sample size of two, you can’t make any meaningful statistical argument about the performance of #2s vs #3s.
Now I’m sure at this point, some will remain unconvinced and, for what ever reasons, stick to their guns about #1 seeds having a significantly easier path than #2 seeds in terms of winning a title. I don’t reckon I’ll be able to overturn their thinking. But I may be able to expose the flaw in it in a way that points out the error more starkly: There is a metric called PASE (performance against seed expectation) that simply rates how many wins a given seed will average in the tournament (the data in the link is from 2008, but the point will remain the same). Looking at the PASE data, the win rate for #7 seeds since the tournament expanded in 1985 has been nearly +60% that of #11 seeds, yet in that same span not one #7 seed has ever reached the Final Four, while three #11s have. If seeding truly does matter in regards to how easy a path a team has to the finals, then these results should be astounding. It would mean that if you want a chance to reach the Final Four, you’re much better off being a #11 seed than a #7. Plain as day, right? It couldn’t possibly just be that, as per the bell curve theory someone else mentioned, picking out and seeding the best teams at the top is easier than picking out who the best teams are in the middle and seeding them correctly, right? I mean, every other single digit seed has made it at least once, yet no #7s. So maybe #7 seeds are cursed, but I find it far more likely that the NCAA usually does a pretty good job of seeding the tournament, and seldom a great job, so sometimes better teams from smaller conferences slip more than they should, accounting for the reason that #11 seeds have the same Final Four rate as #6 seeds since 1985. But that’s just me.
-
Good post that illustrates that pre-concived notions are just that and reality sometimes tells a different story.
Also, using seeding can be misleading because it is not the same thing as ranking as you noted. KU is not ranked in the top 4 in any current poll but is a #1 seed in the majority of current bracket predictions. Also, during selection, seeds are arbitrarily changed to fit geography or to prevent early inter-conference match ups.
According to the NCAA, KU is ranked #1 by RPI which is supposed to be the ultimate decider:
If selection Sunday was today, would KU be ranked #1 overall? Probably not.
-
I had some more time to search for the story about #2 seeds and SOS. Finally found it here. It was Martin Manley, not Ken Pomeroy, but the methodology is sound. So again, let’s worry about KU becoming the best team it can be in the remainder of the season, rather than the acute seed we’ve arrived at by the time March rolls around.
-
Lots of excellent posts in here… Good work, everyone!
Personally… I just want to be the hottest team in March, regardless where they put us.
I believe it is all about peaking at the right time… so I’m thinking teams like Arizona and Syracuse won’t make the FF unless they lose a game or two now and then build back momentum.
It is crazy tough to go undefeated all year and walk with a NC. Wasn’t the last example Bobby Knight at Indiana? As bad as he defecated on all his players, they probably felt like they had lost most of their games that year!
-
@HighEliteMajor, this was a big league piece of writing that should be kept. I don’t hand out this kind of compliment every day. Writing has to be sound, elegant, moving and just a little uncomfortable before I do. Rock Chalk!
-
@nuleafjhawk, way to bring the facts. That IS amazing about Forte.
-
@nuleafjhawk-Forte, I believe is the leader in D 1 FT %. He’s waaaaaay up there in 3 pt % also.
-
@approxinfinity I really, REALLY want to play WSU. And by play, I mean beat like a rented mule. Spank. Whip. Embarrass. Humiliate. Destroy.
I want the game to be known forevermore as the " Mouth Marshall’s Meltdown ".
