Seed FACTS for the last 20 - 21 years

[dnabbott25]

Only 3 of the last 16 one seeds have made the final 4. (last 4 years) but 2 of those years, a 1 seed won it all. The reason for this is because the committee has really screwed up recently by using the RPI and BPI too much. This causes weak teams (like Villanova and Kansas this year) to be way over seeded. Here are the statistical seeding facts for the last 21 seasons.

1994 thru 2014: NCAA Seeding FACTS

80 number 1 seeds = 32 one seeds made final 4 (40%)
80 number 2 seeds = 18 two seeds made final 4 (23%)
80 number 3 seeds = 10 three seeds made final 4 (13%)
80 number 4 seeds = 10 four seeds made final 4 (13%)
80 number 5 seeds = 6 five seeds made final 4 (8%)

80 number 6 seeds = 0 six seeds made final 4 (0%)
80 number 7 seeds = 1 seven seed made final 4 (1%)

80 number 8 seeds = 4 eight seeds made final 4 (5%)
80 number 9 seeds = 1 nine seed made final 4 (1%)

80 number 10 seeds = 0 ten seeds made final 4 (0%)

80 number 11 seeds = 2 eleven seeds made final 4 (3%)

It does not pay to be a 6 or 10 seed. They have NOT made the final 4 in the last 2 decades. AND, however you want to look at it, you CANT DENY that the OVERWHELMING majority of the time the 1 and 2 seeds make it more than any other seed, followed by 3 and 4 seeds. So YES, the seeding is EXTREMELY important.

2006, and 2011 saw ZERO 1 seeds make the final 4

2008 all of the 1 seeds made the final 4

7 out of the last 10 years a 1 seed has won it all (70%)

13 out of the last 20 years a 1 seed has won it all (65%)

So if you are Wisconsin, or Arizona, or Villanova, it is extremely important to get that 1 seed

It does not pay to be a 6 or 10 seed. They have NOT made the final 4 in the last 2 decades. AND, however you want to look at it, you CANT DENY that the OVERWHELMING majority of the time the 1 and 2 seeds make it more than any other seed, followed by 3 and 4 seeds. So YES, the seeding is EXTREMELY important.

2006, and 2011 saw ZERO 1 seeds make the final 4

2008 all of the 1 seeds made the final 4


7 of the last 10 years a 1 seed has won it all (70%)

13 out of the last 20 years a 1 seed has won it all (65%)

So if you are Wisconsin, or Arizona, or Villanova, it is extremely important to get that 1 seed


This post was edited on 3/11 8:26 AM by Tyblue22

 

[gossie21_rivals69805]

Re: Seed FACTS for the last 21 years

I don't think your numbers quite add up. You are looking at 21 years of the tournament, so there should be 84 number "X" seed....

This post was edited on 3/10 7:20 PM by gossie21

 

[Big_Blue79]

Re: Seed FACTS for the last 21 years

^ there's a cause and effect problem with your claim that "it is extremely important to get that 1 seed." I would imagine the benefit, if any, in being a 1 or a 2 or even a 3 (and remember that a 2 plays a 3, and that winner plays the 1 if the seeding holds) is dwarfed by the effect of simply being a good enough team to earn a 1 seed. And not all 1 seeds are alike (let alone all 2s and 3s). Gonzaga was a 1 in 2013, and UK was a 1 in 2012. Huge gulf in team strength. How many champions, or FF participants, were the no-brainer 1 seeds? How many were on the margins of 1/2?

In a scenario where the 1 and 2 are the 4/5 best teams overall (leaving out geography and simply going snake style), the only difference is the teams they play if the two teams are equal. So the real difference is 7 or 10 versus 8 or 9 and 3 or 6 versus 4 or 5 (barring upsets, but good luck accounting for that). Maybe there's a few percentage point difference in the win probability on average, but I would bet it's dwarfed by the exact match up at that level of difference. Every year there is a weak 2 seed, a strong 4, a WTF 3, etc... and that variance makes it very difficult to suss out the effect of the seed.

TLR - any difference is likely marginal, and is certainly not accurately reflected in high level stats like in the OP. After all, if UK was a 16 seed this year they'd still be the favorite, no?

 

[Saguaro Cat]

Re: Seed FACTS for the last 21 years

It's interesting that fewer number one seeds have succeeded of late. But I don't think the cause is poor seeding. If that was the case, you'd think number two's would stepping up. But that's not the case.

In 2014 the final four was 1, 2, 7,& 8.
In 2013, the final four was 1, 4, 4 & 9.
In 2012, the final four was 1,2,2,4.
In 2011, the final four was 3, 4, 8, 11.

Except for the 2012 tourney, I'm afraid what we are seeing is that that the tournament is becoming more random. But this also could just be a few weird years and everything becomes text book this year.

 

[dnabbott25]

Re: Seed FACTS for the last 21 years


sorry, it was 20 years. I then went back and looked at last year as well, making 21. I was trying to copy and paste. got lazy. Point is I noticed a stark change in the last few years. And I was responding to another poster who said its not important to be a 1 or 2

 

[Dutycat]

Re: Seed FACTS for the last 21 years

Proof that I am an old man.

I don't understand why all caps mean screaming on a message board, but double sized bold letters don't.

 

[mjj_2K]

Re: Seed FACTS for the last 21 years

Originally posted by SaguaroCat:
It's interesting that fewer number one seeds have succeeded of late. But I don't think the cause is poor seeding. If that was the case, you'd think number two's would stepping up. But that's not the case.

In 2014 the final four was 1, 2, 7,& 8.
In 2013, the final four was 1, 4, 4 & 9.
In 2012, the final four was 1,2,2,4.
In 2011, the final four was 3, 4, 8, 11.

Except for the 2012 tourney, I'm afraid what we are seeing is that that the tournament is becoming more random. But this also could just be a few weird years and everything becomes text book this year.

I think some of it is style of play. There are fewer possessions now in the average college basketball game than at any point in history. Fewer possessions= less separation= more chance for randomness. If you go back to the last era when the game was this low-scoring (stall-ball era, approximately 79-85), you see a LOT of surprise champs. UL in 80 (they had a great season, but they started that year outside the top 10), IU in 81 with 9 losses, NC State in 83, Villanova in 85.

 

[fatguy87]

Re: Seed FACTS for the last 21 years

Originally posted by Tyblue22:
Only 3 of the last 16 one seeds have made the final 4. (last 4 years) but 2 of those years, a 1 seed won it all. The reason for this is because the committee has really screwed up recently by using the RPI and BPI too much. This causes weak teams (like Villanova and Kansas this year) to be way over seeded. Here are the statistical seeding facts for the last 21 seasons.

Seeding is a relatively poor predictor of tournament success because it's not designed to predict future results. The seeding process relies on resumes to organize teams. This style of rating judges the quality of a team's season, rather than their actual strength.

Also, why do you think Kansas is going to be way over seeded? A two or three seed seems about right.



This post was edited on 3/10 9:13 PM by fatguy87

 

[Big_Blue79]

Re: Seed FACTS for the last 21 years

^ probably something to the pace factor, mj2k10. Also factor in that elite talent usually leaves early, meaning the gap between teams shrinks.

 

[UKWildcats#8]

Re: Seed FACTS for the last 21 years

Originally posted by SaguaroCat:
It's interesting that fewer number one seeds have succeeded of late. But I don't think the cause is poor seeding. If that was the case, you'd think number two's would stepping up. But that's not the case.

In 2014 the final four was 1, 2, 7,& 8.
In 2013, the final four was 1, 4, 4 & 9.
In 2012, the final four was 1,2,2,4.
In 2011, the final four was 3, 4, 8, 11.

Except for the 2012 tourney, I'm afraid what we are seeing is that that the tournament is becoming more random. But this also could just be a few weird years and everything becomes text book this year.

It's all relative to parity, good players leaving early, and such. Plus, UK in talent was a 1-2 seed last year, and same in 2011.

All that said, in the past 4 seasons 2/4 favorites won it all in UK in 2012 and UL in 2013 (I know you can argue IU as co-favorite but UL was #1 overall I believe).

I'm still not sure how UCONN won it all last year...but have to give them credit. Their path in 2011 was much easier than 2014 IMO.

 

[dnabbott25]

Re: Seed FACTS for the last 21 years

BIG_BLUE......

I agree, and there are so many variables that one could successfully argue any point any given year, and those points would be null the next year. .....Another factor is this, the Power conference. Many teams are leaving and joining larger conferences. Example, Louisville. If Louisville had remained in the Big East this season, given that they were top ten / top 5 in the preseason polls, and assuming that they would have had a better record on the season had they stayed there, we would be talking about them as a 2 seed? perhaps? instead, they played in the ACC, and lost more games. Now, they are likely a 4 to 6 seed. So, we are seeing good teams, entering the tourney with lower seeds than they would have been, or even should be. They then upset a team from a weak conference, who is seeded higher than them. But, all along they were always the better team. Truth is this, this tournament is amazingly fun, and dynamic. But, most of the time it gets it right by the last weekend, and most of the time a top 5 team wins it all. But not always, and that's what makes it great.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Re: Seed FACTS for the last 21 years

Originally posted by Tyblue22:
BIG_BLUE......

I agree, and there are so many variables that one could successfully argue any point any given year, and those points would be null the next year. .....Another factor is this, the Power conference. Many teams are leaving and joining larger conferences. Example, Louisville. If Louisville had remained in the Big East this season, given that they were top ten / top 5 in the preseason polls, and assuming that they would have had a better record on the season had they stayed there, we would be talking about them as a 2 seed? perhaps? instead, they played in the ACC, and lost more games. Now, they are likely a 4 to 6 seed. So, we are seeing good teams, entering the tourney with lower seeds than they would have been, or even should be. They then upset a team from a weak conference, who is seeded higher than them. But, all along they were always the better team. Truth is this, this tournament is amazingly fun, and dynamic. But, most of the time it gets it right by the last weekend, and most of the time a top 5 team wins it all. But not always, and that's what makes it great.

True. I think that comes into play when dealing with the borderline 1 seeds, maybe 2s/3s. But the truly elite teams (the true 1s, so to speak) are going to be 1s in almost any conference. But yeah, a team slipping (like Louisville last year) to a 4 seed when their peripherals are more like a 1 or 2 can upset a bracket pretty easily. The more the committee incorporates a lot of sophisticated measures and blends the reward/team strength balance (as in part of seeding is reward for wins, and part a reflection of actual team strength) and gets away from RPI and simple W/L record, the better the tournament will be seeded, imho.