NCAAT - Geography seeding

[Rajon did it]

Why does it matter? They don't have to fill cavernous domes anymore pre-Final Four and most regionals are currently sold-out.

So geography's important for scalper revenue? Makes no sense to me.

 

[007LeroyBond]

It's their excuse to screw over UK and a few others like Wichita St. last year while giving Duke and teams like them a cake walk to the Final 4. That is no "conspiracy" either..so if you do reply, no replies talking that garbage..please. TIA.

 

[Untouchables22]

It's all about $$$$$$....the NCAA doesn't receive any revenue from the college football playoff instead there entire operating budget comes from March Madness revenue. You are correct that all the regional sites are sold out but they want to sell out all of the first and second round pod sites as well. The NCAA realized that once they started showing every game on cable nobody was going to be willing to fly out west to watch there team instead of just going to there local Buffalo Wild Wings and having almost as good a time spending several thousand less. So there big solution has been to switch to geographic seeding so as few east teams as possible have to go west and they can sell the maximum number of tickets.

This post was edited on 3/10 2:08 PM by Untouchables22

 

[fuzz77]

Originally posted by Untouchables22:
It's all about $$$$$$....the NCAA doesn't receive any revenue from the college football playoff instead there entire operating budget comes from March Madness revenue. You are correct that all the regional sites are sold out but they want to sell out all of the first and second round pod sites as well. The NCAA realized that once they started showing every game on cable nobody was going to be willing to fly out west to watch there team instead of just going to there local Buffalo Wild Wings and having almost as good a time spending several thousand less. So there big solution has been to switch to geographic seeding so as few east teams as possible have to go west and they can sell the maximum number of tickets.

This post was edited on 3/10 2:08 PM by Untouchables22

Ticket sales revenue is pennies compared to the television revenue.
There are few things that are more over emphasized by fans than revenue from ticket sales and profit from liquor sales.

The reason for geographic seeding is that the NCAA member schools have requested it so that their fan bases can have better access to the venues.

The cries of conspiracy are getting quite old. While some of you are trying to claim that the NCAA is "just trying to make it hard on UK"...what about all of the other teams in UK's region? I guess you must think that the NCAA doesn't like those teams either??? Who wants to be placed into a region with the prohibitive favorite?

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

As said they asked NCAA schools what they preferred and geography was the most important thing.

Also there's something to be said about home court advantage. Obviously you are going to get this in the first two rounds with most of the good seeds but teams that do well should have an advantage in this regard.

If UK got shipped out West and had to play Arizona as their two......I wouldn't be thrilled with that.

Also it helps the smaller schools to. The bad seeds also get to stay as close to home as possible for the first two rounds.

Say the top 13th seed. Obviously this will be based on where the 4 seeds go but if your first on that line u will go to the closest of the possible locations for the first two rounds.

So it helps them with travel.

It's just how it is.

 

[jarms24]

Originally posted by fuzz77:

The cries of conspiracy are getting quite old. While some of you are trying to claim that the NCAA is "just trying to make it hard on UK"...what about all of the other teams in UK's region? I guess you must think that the NCAA doesn't like those teams either??? Who wants to be placed into a region with the prohibitive favorite?

Several have stated that it's not fair to Wisconsin either, considering they're the 1st or 2nd 2 seed (Arizona is a moot point though. They'll be out west). Beyond the 2 seed, I don't care who complains about location or region pairing. Earn a better seed line if you want an easier path. Except, that same logic does not apply to UK this year.

 

[jb1010]

My only gripe/change is that they should pick the locations but don't have them set in place.

So if Wisconsin deserves a 1 seed, then make Omaha the 1 seed venue. Why already have 2 Charlotte's, 1 Louisville and 1 Pittsburg locations. Makes no sense for west coast teams.

Just reserve the venues and then you can decide on venues after you choose the teams.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[jb1010]

My only gripe/change is that they should pick the locations but don't have them set in place.

So if Wisconsin deserves a 1 seed, then make Omaha the 1 seed venue. Why already have 2 Charlotte's, 1 Louisville and 1 Pittsburg locations. Makes no sense for west coast teams.

Just reserve the venues and then you can decide on venues after you choose the teams.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[007LeroyBond]

West Virginia getting put in UK's bracket as UK's 2 seed in 2010..instead of Duke..and Duke getting the 1 seed over West Virginia..Yeah, that's all I need to trump the "It's not a conspiracy !!" crowd. Or the fact that UK got West Virginia the very next year in 2011 as their 2nd round game. And the fact that UK has played UL in 2 of the last 3 NCAA Tournaments..(You can bet if we made the NCAA Tournament in 2013..we would have been in the same bracket as UL that year as well.).and they probably will be again this year. UK along with Wichita St., Michigan, UL, K-State, etc etc..getting put in the toughest NCAA bracket ever. UK getting the WORST 4 seed in 2011 when they deserved at least a 3..maybe even the worst 2 seed. You 'It's not a conspiracy" morons need to get your heads out of the sand !!

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Originally posted by C8TS:
My only gripe/change is that they should pick the locations but don't have them set in place.

So if Wisconsin deserves a 1 seed, then make Omaha the 1 seed venue. Why already have 2 Charlotte's, 1 Louisville and 1 Pittsburg locations. Makes no sense for west coast teams.

Just reserve the venues and then you can decide on venues after you choose the teams.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

These are first two round locations. They are irrelevant to the discussion. Wisconsin regardless of being of 1 or 2 will most likely end up in Omaha (tho I can see the committee sending them to Columbus or even Louisville instead).

There's Seattle and Portland for the West Cast teams. The fact is there's just not very many NCAA teams that are out west compared to everywhere else.......that's why u only see two locations out there most of the time. And actually most of the time they end up shipping the last 4 seeds out West just because that's the only place left after going through the first three lines.

I think the locations are just fine actually. I do think it's unfair that Duke and UNC seem to always have opening round games in the state of North Carolina but it's just because they have the facilities there.

The YUM center was the best thing for UK in terms of the NCAA.

This post was edited on 3/10 3:12 PM by The_Answer1313

 

[FtWorthCat]

I don't have that much of a problem with it except is a couple of circumstances. For most of the early era of the tournament that was how they paired teams, in true regions. But I would make exceptions in situations like this year where Kentucky/Wisconsin would be paired together when Wisconsin is clearly superior to the "lower" of the 2-seeds, and in a situation where it would give a lower seeded team a decided geographical advantage over a higher seed, like if Virginia was sent to LA and they made UCLA an 8-seed or something similar.

 

[fuzz77]

Originally posted by C8TS:
My only gripe/change is that they should pick the locations but don't have them set in place.

So if Wisconsin deserves a 1 seed, then make Omaha the 1 seed venue. Why already have 2 Charlotte's, 1 Louisville and 1 Pittsburg locations. Makes no sense for west coast teams.

Just reserve the venues and then you can decide on venues after you choose the teams.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Huh?

The sites for the games have to be scheduled 2-3 years in advance at a minimum. After that, there is no predetermination as to what seeds will play at what sites until the actual selections are made. There are 8 first round sites that will each get 2 pods of 4 teams. Each pod consists of one of the following...
a 1-16, 8-9 pairing or,
a 2-15, 7-10 pairing or,
a 3-14, 6-11 pairing or,
a 4-13, 5-12 pairing

There is no relationship between the first round sites and the regional sites. Louisville could get a pod from the Midwest and a pod from the West regions. They could get 2 1-16, 8-9 pods...or any of the other combinations.

Not sure exactly what you are trying to say but nobody knows for sure where teams are going for their first round games until the actual pairings are announced. The regionals are in Cleveland, Syracuse, Houston and Los Angeles.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Originally posted by 007LeroyBond:
West Virginia getting put in UK's bracket as UK's 2 seed in 2010..instead of Duke..and Duke getting the 1 seed over West Virginia..Yeah, that's all I need to trump the "It's not a conspiracy !!" crowd. Or the fact that UK got West Virginia the very next year in 2011 as their 2nd round game. And the fact that UK has played UL in 2 of the last 3 NCAA Tournaments..(You can bet if we made the NCAA Tournament in 2013..we would have been in the same bracket as UL that year as well.).and they probably will be again this year. UK along with Wichita St., Michigan, UL, K-State, etc etc..getting put in the toughest NCAA bracket ever. UK getting the WORST 4 seed in 2011 when they deserved at least a 3..maybe even the worst 2 seed. You 'It's not a conspiracy" morons need to get your heads out of the sand !!

In 2010 was it really a no brainer that West Virginia was better than Duke? No. So Duke was rated 4th and WVU was rated 5th. There wasn't a huge difference between the teams IMO. If a committee of people want to rank Duke ahead of WVU that year so be it. That's not a conspiracy. Many ranking systems that year had Duke ahead of WVU. Duke ended the year 35-5 and won the national title. Maybe they were better than WVU. Duke only beat them by 21 in the Final Four.

UK is gonna play UL not because of conspiracy but because of the whole geography thing. Same with WVU. These are teams from different conferences so u don't run into the whole conference rules and these are teams that are located by us. That's it. That's all it is.

UK should have been at least a 3 in 2011........I agree with that. Again tho your talking about a few spots on the seed list. There's not a huge gap between teams.

 

[WCBcats]

didnt duke kill wv lol

 

[UKWildcats#8]

Did I miss where Duke was 4th in 2010? Because in reality they were the 3rd ranked team...you people and your revisionist history really need to do fact checking. Syracuse was 4th and the last 1 seed. UK WAS NOT the #1 overall seed in 2010, KU was .

Now WVU probably should have got the 1 seed over Syracuse, but Boeheim lied so it is what it is.

 

[007LeroyBond]

Originally posted by WCBcats:
didnt duke kill wv lol

Yeah, because Duke could shoot the ball from outside..UK couldn't. Still..the committe knew Huggins' record vs. Coach Cal and they knew all about the Zone defense played by WVU and they also knew UK's weakness was outside shooting, I'm sure. Even UK knew they got screwed that year.

 

[007LeroyBond]

Originally posted by The_Answer1313:

Originally posted by 007LeroyBond:
West Virginia getting put in UK's bracket as UK's 2 seed in 2010..instead of Duke..and Duke getting the 1 seed over West Virginia..Yeah, that's all I need to trump the "It's not a conspiracy !!" crowd. Or the fact that UK got West Virginia the very next year in 2011 as their 2nd round game. And the fact that UK has played UL in 2 of the last 3 NCAA Tournaments..(You can bet if we made the NCAA Tournament in 2013..we would have been in the same bracket as UL that year as well.).and they probably will be again this year. UK along with Wichita St., Michigan, UL, K-State, etc etc..getting put in the toughest NCAA bracket ever. UK getting the WORST 4 seed in 2011 when they deserved at least a 3..maybe even the worst 2 seed. You 'It's not a conspiracy" morons need to get your heads out of the sand !!

In 2010 was it really a no brainer that West Virginia was better than Duke? No. So Duke was rated 4th and WVU was rated 5th. There wasn't a huge difference between the teams IMO. If a committee of people want to rank Duke ahead of WVU that year so be it. That's not a conspiracy. Many ranking systems that year had Duke ahead of WVU. Duke ended the year 35-5 and won the national title. Maybe they were better than WVU. Duke only beat them by 21 in the Final Four.

UK is gonna play UL not because of conspiracy but because of the whole geography thing. Same with WVU. These are teams from different conferences so u don't run into the whole conference rules and these are teams that are located by us. That's it. That's all it is.

UK should have been at least a 3 in 2011........I agree with that. Again tho your talking about a few spots on the seed list. There's not a huge gap between teams.

Okay..so..why aren't UNC and Duke ever in the same bracket ? Just because they're both in the same Conference ? Tennessee was in UK's bracket last season. So..that can't be it.

This post was edited on 3/10 3:41 PM by 007LeroyBond

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Originally posted by 007LeroyBond:

Originally posted by The_Answer1313:

Originally posted by 007LeroyBond:
West Virginia getting put in UK's bracket as UK's 2 seed in 2010..instead of Duke..and Duke getting the 1 seed over West Virginia..Yeah, that's all I need to trump the "It's not a conspiracy !!" crowd. Or the fact that UK got West Virginia the very next year in 2011 as their 2nd round game. And the fact that UK has played UL in 2 of the last 3 NCAA Tournaments..(You can bet if we made the NCAA Tournament in 2013..we would have been in the same bracket as UL that year as well.).and they probably will be again this year. UK along with Wichita St., Michigan, UL, K-State, etc etc..getting put in the toughest NCAA bracket ever. UK getting the WORST 4 seed in 2011 when they deserved at least a 3..maybe even the worst 2 seed. You 'It's not a conspiracy" morons need to get your heads out of the sand !!

In 2010 was it really a no brainer that West Virginia was better than Duke? No. So Duke was rated 4th and WVU was rated 5th. There wasn't a huge difference between the teams IMO. If a committee of people want to rank Duke ahead of WVU that year so be it. That's not a conspiracy. Many ranking systems that year had Duke ahead of WVU. Duke ended the year 35-5 and won the national title. Maybe they were better than WVU. Duke only beat them by 21 in the Final Four.

UK is gonna play UL not because of conspiracy but because of the whole geography thing. Same with WVU. These are teams from different conferences so u don't run into the whole conference rules and these are teams that are located by us. That's it. That's all it is.

UK should have been at least a 3 in 2011........I agree with that. Again tho your talking about a few spots on the seed list. There's not a huge gap between teams.

Okay..so..why aren't UNC and Duke ever in the same bracket ? Just because their both in the same Conference ? Tennessee was in UK's bracket last season. So..that can't be it.

Straight from the rules:

Each of the first four teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded on the first four lines.

UK was an 8 seed. Further complicating it UT was an 11 seed that had to play in the play in game. They had to factor the other team in that play in game as well. Either way both were off the first four lines so the above rule did not apply.

 

[007LeroyBond]

Originally posted by The_Answer1313:

Originally posted by 007LeroyBond:

Originally posted by The_Answer1313:

Originally posted by 007LeroyBond:
West Virginia getting put in UK's bracket as UK's 2 seed in 2010..instead of Duke..and Duke getting the 1 seed over West Virginia..Yeah, that's all I need to trump the "It's not a conspiracy !!" crowd. Or the fact that UK got West Virginia the very next year in 2011 as their 2nd round game. And the fact that UK has played UL in 2 of the last 3 NCAA Tournaments..(You can bet if we made the NCAA Tournament in 2013..we would have been in the same bracket as UL that year as well.).and they probably will be again this year. UK along with Wichita St., Michigan, UL, K-State, etc etc..getting put in the toughest NCAA bracket ever. UK getting the WORST 4 seed in 2011 when they deserved at least a 3..maybe even the worst 2 seed. You 'It's not a conspiracy" morons need to get your heads out of the sand !!

In 2010 was it really a no brainer that West Virginia was better than Duke? No. So Duke was rated 4th and WVU was rated 5th. There wasn't a huge difference between the teams IMO. If a committee of people want to rank Duke ahead of WVU that year so be it. That's not a conspiracy. Many ranking systems that year had Duke ahead of WVU. Duke ended the year 35-5 and won the national title. Maybe they were better than WVU. Duke only beat them by 21 in the Final Four.

UK is gonna play UL not because of conspiracy but because of the whole geography thing. Same with WVU. These are teams from different conferences so u don't run into the whole conference rules and these are teams that are located by us. That's it. That's all it is.

UK should have been at least a 3 in 2011........I agree with that. Again tho your talking about a few spots on the seed list. There's not a huge gap between teams.

Okay..so..why aren't UNC and Duke ever in the same bracket ? Just because their both in the same Conference ? Tennessee was in UK's bracket last season. So..that can't be it.

Straight from the rules:

Each of the first four teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded on the first four lines.

UK was an 8 seed. Further complicating it UT was an 11 seed that had to play in the play in game. They had to factor the other team in that play in game as well. Either way both were off the first four lines so the above rule did not apply.

Okay, great..then if UNC is seeded where they should be with their 10..soon to be 11 losses..then I hope to God I see UNC in the same bracket with Duke. Highly doubtful though.

 

[fuzz77]

Originally posted by 007LeroyBond:

Originally posted by The_Answer1313:

Originally posted by 007LeroyBond:

Originally posted by The_Answer1313:

Originally posted by 007LeroyBond:
West Virginia getting put in UK's bracket as UK's 2 seed in 2010..instead of Duke..and Duke getting the 1 seed over West Virginia..Yeah, that's all I need to trump the "It's not a conspiracy !!" crowd. Or the fact that UK got West Virginia the very next year in 2011 as their 2nd round game. And the fact that UK has played UL in 2 of the last 3 NCAA Tournaments..(You can bet if we made the NCAA Tournament in 2013..we would have been in the same bracket as UL that year as well.).and they probably will be again this year. UK along with Wichita St., Michigan, UL, K-State, etc etc..getting put in the toughest NCAA bracket ever. UK getting the WORST 4 seed in 2011 when they deserved at least a 3..maybe even the worst 2 seed. You 'It's not a conspiracy" morons need to get your heads out of the sand !!

In 2010 was it really a no brainer that West Virginia was better than Duke? No. So Duke was rated 4th and WVU was rated 5th. There wasn't a huge difference between the teams IMO. If a committee of people want to rank Duke ahead of WVU that year so be it. That's not a conspiracy. Many ranking systems that year had Duke ahead of WVU. Duke ended the year 35-5 and won the national title. Maybe they were better than WVU. Duke only beat them by 21 in the Final Four.

UK is gonna play UL not because of conspiracy but because of the whole geography thing. Same with WVU. These are teams from different conferences so u don't run into the whole conference rules and these are teams that are located by us. That's it. That's all it is.

UK should have been at least a 3 in 2011........I agree with that. Again tho your talking about a few spots on the seed list. There's not a huge gap between teams.

Okay..so..why aren't UNC and Duke ever in the same bracket ? Just because their both in the same Conference ? Tennessee was in UK's bracket last season. So..that can't be it.

Straight from the rules:

Each of the first four teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded on the first four lines.

UK was an 8 seed. Further complicating it UT was an 11 seed that had to play in the play in game. They had to factor the other team in that play in game as well. Either way both were off the first four lines so the above rule did not apply.

Okay, great..then if UNC is seeded where they should be with their 10..soon to be 11 losses..then I hope to God I see UNC in the same bracket with Duke. Highly doubtful though.

They were in the same bracket in 2004. Duke was the #1, UNC was #6.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Originally posted by 007LeroyBond:

Originally posted by The_Answer1313:

Originally posted by 007LeroyBond:

Originally posted by The_Answer1313:

Originally posted by 007LeroyBond:
West Virginia getting put in UK's bracket as UK's 2 seed in 2010..instead of Duke..and Duke getting the 1 seed over West Virginia..Yeah, that's all I need to trump the "It's not a conspiracy !!" crowd. Or the fact that UK got West Virginia the very next year in 2011 as their 2nd round game. And the fact that UK has played UL in 2 of the last 3 NCAA Tournaments..(You can bet if we made the NCAA Tournament in 2013..we would have been in the same bracket as UL that year as well.).and they probably will be again this year. UK along with Wichita St., Michigan, UL, K-State, etc etc..getting put in the toughest NCAA bracket ever. UK getting the WORST 4 seed in 2011 when they deserved at least a 3..maybe even the worst 2 seed. You 'It's not a conspiracy" morons need to get your heads out of the sand !!

In 2010 was it really a no brainer that West Virginia was better than Duke? No. So Duke was rated 4th and WVU was rated 5th. There wasn't a huge difference between the teams IMO. If a committee of people want to rank Duke ahead of WVU that year so be it. That's not a conspiracy. Many ranking systems that year had Duke ahead of WVU. Duke ended the year 35-5 and won the national title. Maybe they were better than WVU. Duke only beat them by 21 in the Final Four.

UK is gonna play UL not because of conspiracy but because of the whole geography thing. Same with WVU. These are teams from different conferences so u don't run into the whole conference rules and these are teams that are located by us. That's it. That's all it is.

UK should have been at least a 3 in 2011........I agree with that. Again tho your talking about a few spots on the seed list. There's not a huge gap between teams.

Okay..so..why aren't UNC and Duke ever in the same bracket ? Just because their both in the same Conference ? Tennessee was in UK's bracket last season. So..that can't be it.

Straight from the rules:

Each of the first four teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded on the first four lines.

UK was an 8 seed. Further complicating it UT was an 11 seed that had to play in the play in game. They had to factor the other team in that play in game as well. Either way both were off the first four lines so the above rule did not apply.

Okay, great..then if UNC is seeded where they should be with their 10..soon to be 11 losses..then I hope to God I see UNC in the same bracket with Duke. Highly doubtful though.

Well you do have those other factors as well. They played each other twice already. If they face each other a third time, they could not meet until the regional finals. If UNC is a 5 seed, they wouldn't be able to go into Duke's region.

Also it will depend on who else is on that 5 line and where UNC is on that line.

There's just a bunch of factors that come into play that make it hard for UNC and Duke (or any two conference teams that are highly rated) to meet in the same region.

Here's the other principles I posted in the other thread:


Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional final if they played each other three or more times during the regular season and conference tournament.


Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional semifinals if they played each other twice during the regular season and conference tournament.


Teams from the same conference may play each other as early as the third round if they played no more than once during the regular season and conference tournament.
This post was edited on 3/10 4:00 PM by The_Answer1313

 

[KingOfBBN]

So what the eff is the benefit of doing real well all year if you get the best two seed and the weakest 1 seeds get the easiest bracket? How does that make sense? So the logic is "Hey Virginia and Duke, we know you didn't do as well as Kentucky but we're going to make sure you have an easier path/region." Its like taxing someone more because they're more successful than you. BS logic.

Every single year, the committee does this crap. There is always a brutal region and a pathetic region. 2012's garbage region was the one Louisville came out of and we have had the brutal bracket in 2011 and 2014. Seriously, look at how often Duke and Florida got pathetic brackets.

 

[007LeroyBond]

Originally posted by The_Answer1313:

Originally posted by 007LeroyBond:

Originally posted by The_Answer1313:

Originally posted by 007LeroyBond:

Originally posted by The_Answer1313:

Originally posted by 007LeroyBond:
West Virginia getting put in UK's bracket as UK's 2 seed in 2010..instead of Duke..and Duke getting the 1 seed over West Virginia..Yeah, that's all I need to trump the "It's not a conspiracy !!" crowd. Or the fact that UK got West Virginia the very next year in 2011 as their 2nd round game. And the fact that UK has played UL in 2 of the last 3 NCAA Tournaments..(You can bet if we made the NCAA Tournament in 2013..we would have been in the same bracket as UL that year as well.).and they probably will be again this year. UK along with Wichita St., Michigan, UL, K-State, etc etc..getting put in the toughest NCAA bracket ever. UK getting the WORST 4 seed in 2011 when they deserved at least a 3..maybe even the worst 2 seed. You 'It's not a conspiracy" morons need to get your heads out of the sand !!

In 2010 was it really a no brainer that West Virginia was better than Duke? No. So Duke was rated 4th and WVU was rated 5th. There wasn't a huge difference between the teams IMO. If a committee of people want to rank Duke ahead of WVU that year so be it. That's not a conspiracy. Many ranking systems that year had Duke ahead of WVU. Duke ended the year 35-5 and won the national title. Maybe they were better than WVU. Duke only beat them by 21 in the Final Four.

UK is gonna play UL not because of conspiracy but because of the whole geography thing. Same with WVU. These are teams from different conferences so u don't run into the whole conference rules and these are teams that are located by us. That's it. That's all it is.

UK should have been at least a 3 in 2011........I agree with that. Again tho your talking about a few spots on the seed list. There's not a huge gap between teams.

Okay..so..why aren't UNC and Duke ever in the same bracket ? Just because their both in the same Conference ? Tennessee was in UK's bracket last season. So..that can't be it.

Straight from the rules:

Each of the first four teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded on the first four lines.

UK was an 8 seed. Further complicating it UT was an 11 seed that had to play in the play in game. They had to factor the other team in that play in game as well. Either way both were off the first four lines so the above rule did not apply.

Okay, great..then if UNC is seeded where they should be with their 10..soon to be 11 losses..then I hope to God I see UNC in the same bracket with Duke. Highly doubtful though.

Well you do have those other factors as well. They played each other twice already. If they face each other a third time, they could not meet until the regional finals. If UNC is a 5 seed, they wouldn't be able to go into Duke's region.

Also it will depend on who else is on that 5 line and where UNC is on that line.

There's just a bunch of factors that come into play that make it hard for UNC and Duke (or any two conference teams that are highly rated) to meet in the same region.

I'm excited that UK is probably going to get UL as their 4/5 seed..I know UK can and will beat the crap out of them. But I can't help to think that it's just like the NCAA Committee is saying "Okay, Pitino, buddy..he's you another shot at UK."..plus, I'm just tired of playing them..UK owns UL. Coach Cal owns Pitino now. It's just..became a bore fest beating them twice every season now. But, UK will smoke the crap out of them if they play in Big Dance this year..so..that's awesome !! Bring it again, I guess..lol UK's going to just have to spank them and send them home again..lol

 

[007LeroyBond]

Originally posted by HeismanWildcat85:
So what the eff is the benefit of doing real well all year if you get the best two seed and the weakest 1 seeds get the easiest bracket? How does that make sense? So the logic is "Hey Virginia and Duke, we know you didn't do as well as Kentucky but we're going to make sure you have an easier path/region." Its like taxing someone more because they're more successful than you. BS logic.

Every single year, the committee does this crap. There is always a brutal region and a pathetic region. 2012's garbage region was the one Louisville came out of and we have had the brutal bracket in 2011 and 2014. Seriously, look at how often Duke and Florida got pathetic brackets.

Right on, man !!

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Originally posted by HeismanWildcat85:
So what the eff is the benefit of doing real well all year if you get the best two seed and the weakest 1 seeds get the easiest bracket? How does that make sense? So the logic is "Hey Virginia and Duke, we know you didn't do as well as Kentucky but we're going to make sure you have an easier path/region." Its like taxing someone more because they're more successful than you. BS logic.

Every single year, the committee does this crap. There is always a brutal region and a pathetic region. 2012's garbage region was the one Louisville came out of and we have had the brutal bracket in 2011 and 2014. Seriously, look at how often Duke and Florida got pathetic brackets.

Well you still want to do well. I mean 1s will still have an easier path than 2s and 3s etc etc.

The problem is not all 1s are equal, not all 2s are equal etc etc. I think they look at things like they are. But really thinking about it is there really such a drastic difference? If there is then maybe their seeding process should be looked at. Ideally most of the teams on the same seed line SHOULD be equal.

So if we are complaining because we get Wisconsin as a 2 seed and Duke ends up with say Gonzaga.......if the difference between the two teams are large, maybe they shouldn't be on the same seed line to begin with.

 

[anon_013cn8yrfncx2]

You neglected to mention that teams can be moved a seed line up or down to comply with other rules. There will be no rule in force this year to keep UNC and Duke out of the same region EVEN in the unlikely event they meet for a third time in the ACC finals (unlikely imo)

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Originally posted by no_neutrality:

You neglected to mention that teams can be moved a seed line up or down to comply with other rules. There will be no rule in force this year to keep UNC and Duke out of the same region EVEN in the unlikely event they meet for a third time in the ACC finals (unlikely imo)

There is something about this in the rules but based on my research from previous tournaments it's only used in extreme situations. Many years it's not used at all. I recall one where they had to move BYU (since they cannot play on Sundays it restricted them to certain regions) from their original seed line. It's happened in the past but not much at all.

Since 2010 the seed list has been published. Other than the instance above and I think another one with some Pac 12 teams one year I cannot recall when teams have been moved up or down.

 

[KingOfBBN]

When was the last time we got a weak region? Seriously?

2003- We got the overall number one seed and got placed in Minneapolis with Wisconsin and Marquette. Yeah, that was fair.

2010- We got the best 2 seed in WVU at Syracuse where WVU had played already.

2011- We got the region from hell with the overall #1 seed Ohio State, UNC as the 2 seed, WVU again despite winning our conference.

2012- Wasn't too bad. Baylor was a good 3 seed and we got the one team who beat us during the regular season in Indiana and Duke as our 2 but they got beat so no real complaints, I suppose.

2014- 8 seed with undefeated Wichita State, Louisville, and Michigan. Granted, we don't have a lot of room to complain on this one..


Duke's projected bracket this year is like a duplicate of the 2010 bracket. They got by far, the weakest 2 seed in their region despite being one of the weakest 1 seeds. In 2010, it was Villanova who, of course got knocked out in the 2nd rd which is what will likely happen to the 2015 Zags too.

This post was edited on 3/10 5:26 PM by HeismanWildcat85

 

[007LeroyBond]

Originally posted by HeismanWildcat85:
When was the last time we got a weak region? Seriously?

2003- We got the overall number one seed and got placed in Minneapolis with Wisconsin and Marquette. Yeah, that was fair.

2010- We got the best 2 seed in WVU at Syracuse where WVU had played already.

2011- We got the region from hell with the overall #1 seed Ohio State, UNC as the 2 seed, WVU again despite winning our conference.

2012- Wasn't too bad. Baylor was a good 3 seed and we got the one team who beat us during the regular season in Indiana but no real complaints, I suppose.

2014- 8 seed with undefeated Wichita State, Louisville, and Michigan. Granted, we don't have a lot of room to complain on this one..


Duke's projected bracket this year is like a duplicate of the 2010 bracket. They got by far, the weakest 2 seed in their region despite being one of the weakest 1 seeds. In 2010, it was Villanova who, of course got knocked out in the 2nd rd which is what will likely happen to the 2015 Zags too.

I got your point and I agree with all of it. BUT be prepared for some know-it-all or "there is nobody out to get UK" guy to come along and make up some excuses as to "WHY" these things happened and blah blah blah..LOL it already happened to me earlier in this thread..but your case is definitely more concrete and in detail than mine was. Still though..be prepared..lol

This post was edited on 3/10 5:14 PM by 007LeroyBond

 

[Untouchables22]

I already posted this a week ago but I think it's important for as many people as possible to see it. Geography Bracketing is patently unfair and bull **** because history tells us that west will ALWAYS be weaker than the other regions and therefore throw off competitive balance with the south and midwest always being tougher.


My argument is that history has demonstrated to us that the Western United States since John Wooden's retirement has not been equal in producing college basketball success when compared to the other regions of the country. Let us first start with a calculation of geographic success with NCAA men's basketball champions since 1976. I choose 1976 because it was the first year after John Wooden's retirement and to me is the point at which the modern college basketball era starts. That is not to diminish Wooden's accomplishments but rather to acknowledge his total domination of the sport and how things went back to a more level playing field once he was no longer a player on the national scene.


* For the purposes of this regional breakdown I grouped the school's from North Carolina and Virginia in the South because they are both Southern States and share more in common culturally with the south than with the rest of the Eastern Coastal School's. I also grouped in the flyover states and Texas with the Midwest region. In a perfect world they would have their own region but the NCAA only has 4 regions in the tournament each year and these school's again share more common culture with the traditional midwest than the Pacific Coast or South.



1976-2014: NCAA Champions


East: 8 by 5 teams
Georgetown-1
Villanova-1
Connecticut-4
Maryland-1
Syracuse-1




Midwest: 9 by 5 teams
Indiana-3
Marquette-1
Michigan State-2
Kansas-2
Michigan-1


South: 19 by 7 teams
Kentucky-4
Louisville-3
North Carolina-4
North Carolina State-1
Duke-4
Arkansas-1
Florida-2


West: 3 by 3 teams
UNLV-1
UCLA-1
Arizona-1


However after compiling this data it occurred to me that it would be more fair to list all of the final four participates not simply the champions because if a school is capable of reaching the Final Four then they are capable of winning a championship. So here is a geographic breakdown of the NCAA Final Four participants from 1976 on:



Final Four Participants:


East:
Rutgers
Pennsylvania
Georgetown:4
Villanova:2
St. John's
Syracuse:4
Providence
Seton Hall
Massachusetts
Connecticut:5
Maryland:2
George Mason
West Virginia
Total: 25 by 13 schools


Midwest:
Indiana: 5
Michigan:5
Marquette:2
Notre Dame
Michigan State:7
Indiana State
DePaul
Purdue
Iowa
Kansas:8
Oklahoma:2
Illinois:2
Cincinnati
Oklahoma State:2
Minnesota
Ohio State:3
Wisconsin:2
Texas
Butler:2
Wichita State
Houston:3
Total: 52 by 21 schools.


South:
North Carolina:12
Charlotte
Kentucky:9
Duke:12
Arkansas:4
Louisville:7
Virginia:2
LSU:3
North Carolina State
Georgia
Memphis State:2
Georgia Tech:2
Florida:5
Mississippi State
VCU
Total: 63 by 15 schools


West:
UCLA:6
UNLV:4
Arizona:4
Utah
Stanford
Total: 16 by 5 schools.




Now if the NCAA is going to cater so much in seeding the top lines of the tournament so the top schools can compete close to their natural locations geographically that idea only works logically if the regions equally create Final Four participants. I believe the data clearly demonstrates that the West does not routinely generate enough Final Four participants to justify relying on this geographic proximity system. In essence Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Louisville, and Indiana are being punished for something as arbitrary as being founded in neighboring states. The system as constituted now is greatly helping teams like UCLA, Arizona, and UNLV because they are going to be paired together is a less competitive bracket historically speaking. I'm not sure why cities such as Portland, Seattle, San Fransisco, San Jose, Phoenix, and Salt Lake City have been unable without the help of Bill Russell to generate any success at collegiate basketball and they are some of the greatest cities this country has to offer so I understand them being viable locations for Regional NCAA Tournament sites. But if we are going to insist upon having a western United States regional site each year then we need to return to the S-Curve because there are not enough successful teams out West to justify geographic centered seeding in the NCAA tournament each year and not expect for the West bracket to be the easiest with the Midwest and Southern brackets littered with traditional powers.
I simply having reviewed the history of college basketball for almost the last 40 years believe that a geographic centered approach to seeding in the tournament is patently unfair for everyone not located in the west coast.

 

[jes95407]

I believe there is always an agenda with the committee, most likely $ driven but you can guarantee there is favoritism being shown toward teams who "do it that right way" and punishment for those that in their eyes "don't." I think the public would go nuts if they knew the real conversations going on concerning these selections. But you're never going to know the truth of what happens behind those doors. So heres what you get...its geographical one year then its not, conference tournaments matter one year, then they don't, its total body of work one year, then its how you finished the season the next, its who had injuries, then its who didn't, RPI matters, then it doesn't...the committee can't even explain it or even be on the same page as each other when trying to explain it after the fact. You ever ask yourself why?


This post was edited on 3/10 11:11 PM by js40484

 

[fuzz77]

Originally posted by Untouchables22:
I already posted this a week ago but I think it's important for as many people as possible to see it. Geography Bracketing is patently unfair and bull **** because history tells us that west will ALWAYS be weaker than the other regions and therefore throw off competitive balance with the south and midwest always being tougher.


My argument is that history has demonstrated to us that the Western United States since John Wooden's retirement has not been equal in producing college basketball success when compared to the other regions of the country. Let us first start with a calculation of geographic success with NCAA men's basketball champions since 1976. I choose 1976 because it was the first year after John Wooden's retirement and to me is the point at which the modern college basketball era starts. That is not to diminish Wooden's accomplishments but rather to acknowledge his total domination of the sport and how things went back to a more level playing field once he was no longer a player on the national scene.


* For the purposes of this regional breakdown I grouped the school's from North Carolina and Virginia in the South because they are both Southern States and share more in common culturally with the south than with the rest of the Eastern Coastal School's. I also grouped in the flyover states and Texas with the Midwest region. In a perfect world they would have their own region but the NCAA only has 4 regions in the tournament each year and these school's again share more common culture with the traditional midwest than the Pacific Coast or South.



1976-2014: NCAA Champions


East: 8 by 5 teams
Georgetown-1
Villanova-1
Connecticut-4
Maryland-1
Syracuse-1




Midwest: 9 by 5 teams
Indiana-3
Marquette-1
Michigan State-2
Kansas-2
Michigan-1


South: 19 by 7 teams
Kentucky-4
Louisville-3
North Carolina-4
North Carolina State-1
Duke-4
Arkansas-1
Florida-2


West: 3 by 3 teams
UNLV-1
UCLA-1
Arizona-1


However after compiling this data it occurred to me that it would be more fair to list all of the final four participates not simply the champions because if a school is capable of reaching the Final Four then they are capable of winning a championship. So here is a geographic breakdown of the NCAA Final Four participants from 1976 on:



Final Four Participants:


East:
Rutgers
Pennsylvania
Georgetown:4
Villanova:2
St. John's
Syracuse:4
Providence
Seton Hall
Massachusetts
Connecticut:5
Maryland:2
George Mason
West Virginia
Total: 25 by 13 schools


Midwest:
Indiana: 5
Michigan:5
Marquette:2
Notre Dame
Michigan State:7
Indiana State
DePaul
Purdue
Iowa
Kansas:8
Oklahoma:2
Illinois:2
Cincinnati
Oklahoma State:2
Minnesota
Ohio State:3
Wisconsin:2
Texas
Butler:2
Wichita State
Houston:3
Total: 52 by 21 schools.


South:
North Carolina:12
Charlotte
Kentucky:9
Duke:12
Arkansas:4
Louisville:7
Virginia:2
LSU:3
North Carolina State
Georgia
Memphis State:2
Georgia Tech:2
Florida:5
Mississippi State
VCU
Total: 63 by 15 schools


West:
UCLA:6
UNLV:4
Arizona:4
Utah
Stanford
Total: 16 by 5 schools.




Now if the NCAA is going to cater so much in seeding the top lines of the tournament so the top schools can compete close to their natural locations geographically that idea only works logically if the regions equally create Final Four participants. I believe the data clearly demonstrates that the West does not routinely generate enough Final Four participants to justify relying on this geographic proximity system. In essence Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Louisville, and Indiana are being punished for something as arbitrary as being founded in neighboring states. The system as constituted now is greatly helping teams like UCLA, Arizona, and UNLV because they are going to be paired together is a less competitive bracket historically speaking. I'm not sure why cities such as Portland, Seattle, San Fransisco, San Jose, Phoenix, and Salt Lake City have been unable without the help of Bill Russell to generate any success at collegiate basketball and they are some of the greatest cities this country has to offer so I understand them being viable locations for Regional NCAA Tournament sites. But if we are going to insist upon having a western United States regional site each year then we need to return to the S-Curve because there are not enough successful teams out West to justify geographic centered seeding in the NCAA tournament each year and not expect for the West bracket to be the easiest with the Midwest and Southern brackets littered with traditional powers.
I simply having reviewed the history of college basketball for almost the last 40 years believe that a geographic centered approach to seeding in the tournament is patently unfair for everyone not located in the west coast.

Dude, geography matters because NCAA member schools have requested that it matter. School presidents and ADs asked the NCAA to give preference to geography not some clandestine committee within the NCAA.
Schools would rather be closer to home than be given easier paths.

 

[Dreklie]

Wasn't UL shipped out west a couple years back?

 

[rick64]

NCAAT selection committee should be primarily concerned with balanced brackets, geography should be farther down the priority list. Geography should be a consideration, but not the main determining factor where teams play.

 

[fuzz77]

Originally posted by rick64:
NCAAT selection committee should be primarily concerned with balanced brackets, geography should be farther down the priority list. Geography should be a consideration, but not the main determining factor where teams play.

Shouldn't the committee do what the NCAA member schools ask that they do?

 

[bthaunert]

Originally posted by HeismanWildcat85:
When was the last time we got a weak region? Seriously?

2003- We got the overall number one seed and got placed in Minneapolis with Wisconsin and Marquette. Yeah, that was fair.

2010- We got the best 2 seed in WVU at Syracuse where WVU had played already.

2011- We got the region from hell with the overall #1 seed Ohio State, UNC as the 2 seed, WVU again despite winning our conference.

2012- Wasn't too bad. Baylor was a good 3 seed and we got the one team who beat us during the regular season in Indiana and Duke as our 2 but they got beat so no real complaints, I suppose.

2014- 8 seed with undefeated Wichita State, Louisville, and Michigan. Granted, we don't have a lot of room to complain on this one..


Duke's projected bracket this year is like a duplicate of the 2010 bracket. They got by far, the weakest 2 seed in their region despite being one of the weakest 1 seeds. In 2010, it was Villanova who, of course got knocked out in the 2nd rd which is what will likely happen to the 2015 Zags too.

This post was edited on 3/10 5:26 PM by HeismanWildcat85

2003 - I agree, I think the Minn region was where we should have been, but they should have swapped Marquette with another 3 seed.

2010 - WVU did not play at the Dome prior to the tournament in 2009-10. Add to that, they got beat by 20 to Duke. I have no problem with that one.

2011 - No problem with that one on my end. We were the 4 seed, possibly could have been a 3 seed. We did not get screwed...Ohio State got screwed.

2012 - fair draw

2014 - fair draw