I can't help having this radical idea.

[drunkernhelldawg]

I have a big fairness issue with the Dance. Seeding and bracketing give some teams an easy ride to advance while others must play tougher competition. For me, the whole thing is tainted by this. Also, the upsets prove that rankings throughout the season do not always reflect the true quality of a team. Sometimes they have lucky or unlucky games, scheduling, or circumstances. I'd like to see every team in the Dance have a real and fair opportunity to shine. Therefore, I think this:

Get rid of the seedings and bracketing by the committee. Let the committee select the teams. Then, put 68 team names into the randomizer and let it spit out the matchups and brackets. See what happens. I think it'd be great, but I've always liked a measure of true chaos.

 

[RebelBruiser]

In hindsight it appears some teams get better draws than others, but I think all the upsets are simply a product of the fact that most teams in the tourney are pretty evenly matched. The top 12 seeds are typically the top 50 or so teams in the nation. There isn't a lot of differentiation in the best and worst of those teams, so upsets happen.

13s are usually still Top 100 teams. 14s thru 16s are typically further down the totem pole, which is why you rarely see them pull off upsets.

I don't think it's poor seeding so much as it is the random bounces of the game that can make the difference for low seeds to make runs.

 

[EAVdog]

I'd break down the field of 64+4 into the 4 brackets by rankings and then put the 16 teams into the randomizer. That way you wouldn't end up with 4 #1 seeds playing each other in the first round. Honestly if you did that I don't think the final results would change much at all.

Duke will still get to the Final Four pretty much every year.

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

then what's the incentive to try once you've wrapped up a spot? if nova has the same chance of playing unc-asheville in round 1 as pitt, then why should pitt even try down the stretch?<div>
</div><div>the whole point of seeding is that opening games are exponentially easier for #1-3 seeds than #4+ seeds. as rebelbruiser said, the top 12-13 seeds are usually all top 50 teams and therefore capable of beating anyone on any given night. 14-16 seeds are the weakest teams, either surprise champs out of decent mid-majors or the champs of the weakest conferences, and thus the #1-3 seeds are rewarded for their overall season by getting a relatively easy 1st round game, along with being given priority host sites.</div><div>
</div><div>now if you wanted to randomize all the #1s and draw, all the #2 and #3s and draw, and the #4-6s, and the #7-10s, ets, basically breaking the field down into groups and randomizing the matchups from there i could see it. but not a total mess that completely takes away the advantages kansas and ohio st, etc earned by having superior regular seasons.</div>

 

[maroonmania]

of ANY tournament that seeds teams (NBA, NFL and NHL playoffs included). That is to reward teams who have achieved more in the regular season with a little easier path to advance at least in the initial rounds. Eventually, if you win it, you are going to have to beat the best of whoever else is out there anyway. Now I will agree that the committee sometimes does a lousy job seeding but there is nothing wrong with the principle. To take away the seeding process only does more to diminish any results coming out of the regular season.

 

[seshomoru]

They are considered stupid because it's simply not the accepted norm.

This one is just stupid.

 

[thedog]

go along with random pulling from the hatafterthe seeds are determined. IE put the 4 number1's in a hat and draw; then the 2's and so on, that would eliminate some of the perceived unfairness

 

[ckDOG]

The end result would be the same. In theory, the best team would likely win the entire thing. However, depending on how the random results panned out you could have the best game of the tournament in Round 1 (best team vs second best team) and the one of the worst games as the championship game (best team vs 6th worst team in tournament, assuming the 6th worst beat the 5 other teams they could, in theory, beat to get there).

I'd rather the tournament be seeded to where it's most likely that the two best teams are playing the last game of the year. Random seeding doesn't provide the best odds for that.

 

[muddy]

Why not simply rank out all the teams 1 through 68 and distribute the teams accordingly?<div>
</div><div>For example:</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>East<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>SW<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>SE<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>West</div><div>1 Seed<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>1<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>2<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>3<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>4</div><div>2 Seed<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>8<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>7<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>6<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>5</div><div>3 Seed<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>9<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>10<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>11<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>12</div><div>4 Seed<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>16<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>15<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>14<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>13</div><div>. . .</div><div>. . .</div><div>. . .</div><div>15 Seed<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>57<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>58<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>59<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>60</div><div>16 Seed<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>64v65 winner<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>63v66 winner<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>62v67 winner<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span>61v68 winner</div><div>
</div><div>I don't really understand the logic of having the last four at-large teams play for the right to be an 11 or 12 seed versus simply having the worst eight teams play each other.</div>

 

[jakldawg]

I mean, are you really ready to go out there? What if the middle seeds got to do their own seeding (or why it really, really sucks to be the 8th seed)?

 

[hankp]

I mean, are you really ready to go out there? What if the middle seeds got to do their own seeding (or why it really, really sucks to be the 8th seed)?

An 8 seed is guaranteed to get the #1 seed in the second round. As an 8 seed, I'd rather trade with the 10 or 11 seed. Id much rather be involved in an 6-11 first round match-up, and then you would be playing the 3 seed in the second round as opposed to Kansas.

For the purpose of this example, assume you are George Mason in this years bracket. As an 8 seed, you play:

Villanova- 1st round
Oh State- 2nd round

Say that had the opportunity to defer to a lower seed such as 11, they would play:

Xavier- 1st round
Syracuse- 2nd round

Which path would you want? Its obvious. I love the NCAA Tourney and the idea of randomizing the bracket is stupid. But the idea of an 8 seed being at a disadvantage when they had a better season than the 11 seed is very relevant.

 

[boomboommsu]

1-8 get first round byes. is this the existing 96 team proposal? if so, it's far better than the current one, by the math anyway.

the only problem is, do you have two "9-level" teams play each other other, ie the 9 and 10 seeds, for the "#9 spot" against the 8 seed, or do you have the 9 play the 24? if the latter, then the 9 seed is basically getting a tune-up game, and the 8 seed isn't much better than it is now.

Here's my proposal, make the "play-in" teams play on a real short turnaround, preferably the same day. Example: #12 plays #20 in the morning, winner plays #5 in the evening. Gives the advantage back to the top 8 seeds, like it's supposed to be.

you could also have #9 play #10 for the "9 seed", and so on down to the 16 seed. I'd be fine with that too.

 

[Cousin Jeffrey]

Very interesting. And it's something that, if you really follow the tournament and understand what's going on, you kinda knew intuitively. But for a stats nerd like myself, it's nice to see it in numbers.

The difference between the No. 2 and No. 3 seeds is also fairly large, but from that point onward things begin to level off, especially in the range from about the No. 5 seed to about the No. 12 seed, where the teams are poorly differentiated from one another. The difference between the No. 5 seed and the No. 12, in fact, is roughly the same as the difference between the No. 1 and the No. 2.

No surprise, then, that the 5-12 matchup is the first one to get serious upset consideration from those filling out brackets. I wouldn't have guessed that they were statistically ascloseas a #1 and a #2, though.

There is, however, some noticeable decay in team quality in the bottom three or four seeds, which may be teams that qualified automatically out of very weak conferences, sometimes — especially in the case of No. 15 and No. 16 seeds — as a result of having won their conference tournaments as an underdog.

This is why I think a #16 will never beat a #1. It's tough to say "never". But it would take a fluke of beyond monstrous proportions. #1 seeds are a breed all their own. As the article points out, there's even a significant difference between #1s and #2s. #16 seeds are teams that fluked their way into a conference championship in a crappy conference. I just don't see this upset ever happening.

As for some of his suggestions to change the tourney format...

Third, rather than level the playing field for the No. 8 seeds, it could instead put teams seeded No. 10 and below at a disadvantage by increasing the number of play-in games. I am not a fan of the 96-team tournament proposal that nearly passed last year, but it would solve this particular problem.

Great... A statistical based reason for the NCAA to expand the tournament to 96 teams. This will likely happen in the next several years. I don't like it.

The proposal, then, is that the N.C.A.A. would rank only the first six seeds in each region (that is, the top 24 teams over all); the others would be slotted purely at random... The advantages to this system are threefold. First, it would remove any incentive for a team to tank — instead, it would want to go for broke to claim one of the highly valuable top 24 seeds. Second, it might create more spontaneity in the first two rounds and make the No. 1 or No. 2 seeds at least somewhat more vulnerable to upsets. Third, it would be fun. There would be two “bubbles” — a seeded-team bubble and an in-the-field bubble — rather than one.

This would be drastic. But I would actually like it. I like how soccer tournaments in Europe randomly draw opponents against each other. I think it makes things interesting. But I like the idea of rewarding the better teams, too. I like the idea.

 

[patdog]

The proposal, then, is that the N.C.A.A. would rank only the first six seeds in each region (that is, the top 24 teams over all); the others would be slotted purely at random... The advantages to this system are threefold. First, it would remove any incentive for a team to tank — instead, it would want to go for broke to claim one of the highly valuable top 24 seeds. Second, it might create more spontaneity in the first two rounds and make the No. 1 or No. 2 seeds at least somewhat more vulnerable to upsets. Third, it would be fun. There would be two “bubbles” — a seeded-team bubble and an in-the-field bubble — rather than one.

Only the top 32 players are seeded in a Grand Slam out of 128 in the tournament. The rest are totally at random. Also, once you get to the rounds where seeded players would meet, #1 doesn't necessarily match up with #32 in the round of 32. He could meet anyone seeded from #17 - #32. Then in the next round, he could meet anyone from #9 - #16 and so on.