THB Tournament First Round: Tin Can Regional Results

Thb_countdown_tournament-tin_can-1st_medium

Another regional wraps up first round play in the THB Tournament and again it's nothing but chalk. The Tin Can Regional went according to seed and by wide margins. In addition to the results of the poll vote, I have included the results from simulating each match-up 20 times thanks to our friends SCACC Hoops' GameSim.

#1 1993 94% #8 1990 6%

GameSim Results

UNC (1993) has won 10 times (50.0%), won by 20+ pts 1 times (5.0%)
UNC (1990) has won 10 times (50.0%), won by 20+ pts 2 times (10.0%)
The average score is UNC (1993): 82.5 - UNC (1990): 82.4, decided by less than 5 pts 6 times (30.0%)
The game has gone into overtime 0 times (0.0%)

If we want to read too much into the vote(and we shouldn't given the small voting sample) 94% is not as resounding as one would think for a #1 seed. Does it speak to 1993's weakness among the top four seeds? We'll see, possibly as soon as the next round when the national champs get 2012.

The GameSim, as it did with 1982 vs 2003, called this a dead even match-up which is somewhat surprising, especially given 1990 won two games by 20+ points. Then again it's important to remember 1993 once got blown out by Wake Forest before losing to Duke by double-digits.

#4 2012 82% #5 1985 18%

GameSim Results

UNC (2012) has won 8 times (40.0%), won by 20+ pts 1 times (5.0%)
UNC (1985) has won 12 times (60.0%), won by 20+ pts 1 times (5.0%)
The average score is UNC (2012): 73.2 - UNC (1985): 73.9, decided by less than 5 pts 7 times (35.0%)
The game has gone into overtime 0 times (0.0%)

The GameSim leaned in the direction of 1985 even though the poll vote was an overwhelming win for 2012. In the GameSim seven games were within five points and both teams collected a blowout win. In the end 1985 took 12 wins to 2012's eight.

#2 2008 95% #7 2004 5%

GameSim Results

UNC (2008) has won 18 times (90.0%), won by 20+ pts 4 times (20.0%)
UNC (2004) has won 2 times (10.0%), won by 20+ pts 0 times (0.0%)
The average score is UNC (2008): 86.7 - UNC (2004): 76.1, decided by less than 5 pts 6 times (30.0%)
The game has gone into overtime 0 times (0.0%)

Is 2008 the team to beat in this regional? The first round results would point in that direction, especially if 1993 can't get past 2012. 2008 took 95% of the vote and won 18 of 20 simulations. Four of those came by 20 points or more and wins by an average of 10.6 points. That's sheer domination, something 2008 was known to do from time to time.

#3 2007 85% #6 2006 15%

UNC (2007) has won 18 times (90.0%), won by 20+ pts 3 times (15.0%)
UNC (2006) has won 2 times (10.0%), won by 20+ pts 0 times (0.0%)
The average score is UNC (2007): 83.8 - UNC (2006): 74.3, decided by less than 5 pts 5 times (25.0%)
The game has gone into overtime 1 times (5.0%)

Another dominant performance by the core of the 2009 NCAA title team. Ty Lawson, Wayne Ellington and Brandan Wright clearly made a huge difference with 2007 going 18-2 and collecting three 20+ point wins over 2006. The fan vote was similarly dominant.

The four wins in this regional setup some very interesting match-ups for the next round. 1993 is by no means a lock versus 2012 and 2007 versus 2008 might just make my head explode.

Next up: The Carmichael Regional.

Thb_countdown_tournament-round1-tc_medium

X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Tar Heel Blog

You must be a member of Tar Heel Blog to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Tar Heel Blog. You should read them.

Join Tar Heel Blog

You must be a member of Tar Heel Blog to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Tar Heel Blog. You should read them.

Spinner.vc97ec6e

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9347_tracker