More evidence that everything tends to drift back to the beginning. There were posts here early in the season saying we weren't a tourney team. We weren't. Very good job to overachieve a couple of games in conference play, essentially stealing a bid.
Preseason ratings are much more valid than regular season results. That will always be the case even if the simpleton types are desperate to deny it. We can expect a deep run if we are ranked high in October. Not exactly complicated.
The other day I saw a segment on a tournament preview show debating why a 1 seed has never lost to a 16 seed. They had Nate Silver and a few other math guys analyzing matters, and perplexed that there should have been 3 such upsets by now, and not zero. Meanwhile, here's the issue that Silver and those guys don't seem to grasp: They are using math based on ALL of the games with pointspreads and therefore money lines and win expectancy in the range of the typical 1 vs. 16 games. Those pointspreads are generally in the 22-36 range. It is rare but not unheard of for college basketball favorites in that range to lose. That's why Silver is somewhat baffled at the 0-132 tournament record, or whatever it is.
However, when it happens during the regular season there is generally either a frailty on the high end or hidden excellence on the low end. A team that is good but not great will be a huge favorite over a bottom feeder, based on power ratings. As I've emphasized, everything is based on power ratings even if the conventional wisdom types envision all type of amazing subjective decisions going into that line. But since that heavy chalk is simply not an elite team they are not birthrighted to win every time. It's kind of like Mike Leach losing at home to Portland State and Eastern Washington despite being 30 point favorites both times. Are we supposed to be shocked at that? Nate Silver uses the college basketball examples of that type in his reference of how often a huge favorite should lose. It's not a perfect comparison to an elite top seeded team.
And once in a while a top program that is in a rare short term down stretch will be a massive underdog. But that team has significant personnel, far above a typical 25 point underdog. Those teams have greater opportunity than standard to spring an upset.
The seeding committee does a great job at recognizing long term foundational value. Upstart programs that overachieve are rarely granted top seeds. If they were, those 1-16 upsets already would have happened. Likewise, the 16th seeds are reserved for the weakling conferences, and not top programs from major conferences that barely sneaked into the tournament.
For a 1 to lose to a 16 you'd probably need some type of bizarre combo of the above, like an unbeaten team that wasn't ranked highly in preseason and really doesn't have great personnel but overachieved to such extent in the regular season that the committee thought it had no choice but to give them a 1 seed. It could also be a valid 1 seed with a wrath of key late injuries, like the women's example of Stanford losing to Harvard as 1 seed. I remember that game. Stanford was favored by 28.5 and it was bet up to -32.
In any event, I was disappointed that Silver and those analysts did not specify or recognize that the regular season upsets in the same pointspread range are not ideal parallels to 1 vs. 16 in the tournament opening round.
Sorry for the detour
***
* Regarding the Canes, I don't care if I don't see another 3 point shot for 8 months. Sickening. As much as I appreciate Davon Reed he had a stupid tendency to throw up a very long 3 from maybe 5 feet left of the arch, for no reason at all and early on the shot clock. He did that many times when things were going well, and often it started a run in the opposite direction
* We were probably the most disappointing mid seed in the event, from a technical standpoint and also effort level. Even when we led early it didn't look good and I sensed the inevitable
* Izundu really improved his physique this year. Now he needs to work on his touch from inside. Right now it's a joke. His little hook is not bad but any type of standard shot is brick inevitable
* It's been so refreshing to watch my USC alma mater, and actual diversity of play. The Canes under Larranaga do so many things well defensively but until you watch other programs on a regular basis it doesn't stand out how limited we are on the offensive end. Bottom line when a team resorts to throwing the ball into the backcourt every time it means they are cutting corners and doing things on the cheap. And that applies to offense also. Those 3 pointers are on the cheap.
