Seeding Prediction: Todays top 8, vs what may happen

[dnabbott25]

LOGIC needs to prevail.

Look at the top 8 teams. PERIOD. Seed them, place them 1 v 8, 2 v 7 etc... Then place them geographically and go from there. After that, do whatever you want. As long as you get those top 8 right, whatever happens, happens.

(as of todays top 25, prior to conference tourneys)

MIDWEST/CLEVELAND 1 Kentucky vs 8 Maryland

EAST SYRACUSE 2 Duke vs 7 Gonzaga

SOUTH HOUSTON 3 Virginia vs 6 Wisconsin

WEST LOS ANGELES 4 Villanova vs 5 Arizona


(my prediction, after conference tourneys)

MIDWEST/CLEVELAND 1 Kentucky vs 8 Kansas

EAST SYRACUSE 2 Duke vs 7 Villanova

SOUTH HOUSTON 3 Wisconsin vs 6 Virginia

WEST LOS ANGELES 4 Arizona vs 5 Gonzaga


I am obviously predicting Kansas to win the Big 12, Wisconsin to win the Big 10, Virginia to go out early in the ACC. Wisconsin moves rightfully into a 1 seed. Virginia drops, Arizona rises to a 1. And Gonzaga stays out west as Arizonas 2. Why does NOBODY predict this? Is there a reason why Gonzaga cant be Arizonas 2?? They are in 2 different conferences. If this plays out, everyone is happy. Everyone is regionally located and paired.

Again, if the conference tourney shake out, and Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, Wisconsin all win, this could happen. FORGET about Villanova, they are irrelevant. They have played no one. They play 2 decent teams, and got SMOKED

 

[mebeblue2]

i actually think we get the Zags

 

[007LeroyBond]

Originally posted by Tyblue22:

LOGIC needs to prevail.

Look at the top 8 teams. PERIOD. Seed them, place them 1 v 8, 2 v 7 etc... Then place them geographically and go from there. After that, do whatever you want. As long as you get those top 8 right, whatever happens, happens.

(as of todays top 25, prior to conference tourneys)

MIDWEST/CLEVELAND 1 Kentucky vs 8 Maryland

EAST SYRACUSE 2 Duke vs 7 Gonzaga

SOUTH HOUSTON 3 Virginia vs 6 Wisconsin

WEST LOS ANGELES 4 Villanova vs 5 Arizona


(my prediction, after conference tourneys)

MIDWEST/CLEVELAND 1 Kentucky vs 8 Kansas

EAST SYRACUSE 2 Duke vs 7 Villanova

SOUTH HOUSTON 3 Wisconsin vs 6 Virginia

WEST LOS ANGELES 4 Arizona vs 5 Gonzaga


I am obviously predicting Kansas to win the Big 12, Wisconsin to win the Big 10, Virginia to go out early in the ACC. Wisconsin moves rightfully into a 1 seed. Virginia drops, Arizona rises to a 1. And Gonzaga stays out west as Arizonas 2. Why does NOBODY predict this? Is there a reason why Gonzaga cant be Arizonas 2?? They are in 2 different conferences. If this plays out, everyone is happy. Everyone is regionally located and paired.

Again, if the conference tourney shake out, and Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, Wisconsin all win, this could happen. FORGET about Villanova, they are irrelevant. They have played no one. They play 2 decent teams, and got SMOKED

That's all just too easy for the NCAA Committee..and it's just too fair. "Fair" isn't in the NCAA Selection Committee's vocabulary. And Villanova has beaten St. John's (Twice.), Providence (Twice), Butler (Twice.), Georgetown, VCU, and Syracuse..they've most definitely played more than just TWO decent teams..and they Villanova has been the ones doing the smoking. :/

 

[dnabbott25]

you list those teams as if they are somebody. Syracuse and the others are not ranked this year. Butler is #22, Georgetown is #23

Georgetown beat Villanova DOWN by 20. And the next time they played nova won by 6.
This post was edited on 3/10 4:49 PM by Tyblue22

 

[BoulderCat_rivals187983]

Despite what you think everybody has Villanova projected as a 1. And their RPI is 4. I also wouldn't characterize an OT loss on the road as being smoked. For those who want so badly for Wisconsin to be a 1, I personally don't care, their best hope is Villanova losing this week. Assuming they win the B10T of course. I'm not at all convinced it matter's if UVa or Duke lose, or both. I do agree though that if Arizona somehow ends up a 1 it makes perfect sense for Gonzaga to be the 2 out west. If they win tonight that is. Instead of predicting those games I'm just going to wait and see what happens. It should all be clear late Saturday because UK is a 1 even if we lose on Sunday. Or Friday for that matter.

 

[007LeroyBond]

Originally posted by Tyblue22:

you list those teams as if they are somebody. Syracuse and the others are not ranked this year. Butler is #22, Georgetown is #23

Georgetown beat Villanova DOWN by 20. And the next time they played nova won by 6.
This post was edited on 3/10 4:49 PM by Tyblue22

No, Villanova beat Georgetown by 16 points..not just by 6 points..and the game was a lot worse than the 16 point final margin. And ALL of those teams I listed are NCAA Tournament teams except Syracuse..who probably would be, but they're banned. So, those teams are certainly decent..actually good teams.

 

[dnabbott25]

Question....Who do you think is better. Villanova? or Arizona, Wisconsin, Virginia, Duke

???

I said LOGIC. Stay on track with me. LOGIC says they are all better than Villanova. And they are. If Villanova gets a 1, big deal. They will be the first 1 to go home.

just discussion. And we all know the committee does not use LOGIC. And might I remind you that the RPI/BPI also had Kansas #1 most of the season, even when they had 6 losses. So forget that, Villanova would get waxed by any of the 3 I listed above.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Originally posted by Tyblue22:
Question....Who do you think is better. Villanova? or Arizona, Wisconsin, Virginia, Duke

???

I said LOGIC. Stay on track with me. LOGIC says they are all better than Villanova. And they are. If Villanova gets a 1, big deal. They will be the first 1 to go home.

just discussion. And we all know the committee does not use LOGIC. And might I remind you that the RPI/BPI also had Kansas #1 most of the season, even when they had 6 losses. So forget that, Villanova would get waxed by any of the 3 I listed above.

This is completely debatable tho. You could easily use logic to make a case for Nova on the 1 line. The three Arizona losses are all to teams that are worse than the two Nova losses.

Do I think that Wisconsin, UVA or Duke should be ranked higher then them? Yeah sure.

But it's not as if there's some huge differences between the teams in question here.

 

[dnabbott25]

I agree. It could go either way. And truth is, Villanova as a 1 or 2 doesn't matter. They will still be in a bracket with another debatable team as a 1 or 2. BUT, it does affect a team like Wisconsin, NOT getting a 1.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Originally posted by Tyblue22:
I agree. It could go either way. And truth is, Villanova as a 1 or 2 doesn't matter. They will still be in a bracket with another debatable team as a 1 or 2. BUT, it does affect a team like Wisconsin, NOT getting a 1.

In reality the last 16 1 seeds only 3 have made the final four I think I read somewhere.

I guess in the long run not getting a 1 seed might not be that big of a deal for these teams.

 

[UKWildcats#8]

The OP is basically trying to seed teams fairly, but there is very little chance UK does not get Wisconsin or UVA as its 2 seed.

 

[mjj_2K]

Originally posted by Tyblue22:

LOGIC needs to prevail.

Look at the top 8 teams. PERIOD. Seed them, place them 1 v 8, 2 v 7 etc... Then place them geographically and go from there. After that, do whatever you want. As long as you get those top 8 right, whatever happens, happens.

(as of todays top 25, prior to conference tourneys)

MIDWEST/CLEVELAND 1 Kentucky vs 8 Maryland

EAST SYRACUSE 2 Duke vs 7 Gonzaga

SOUTH HOUSTON 3 Virginia vs 6 Wisconsin

WEST LOS ANGELES 4 Villanova vs 5 Arizona


(my prediction, after conference tourneys)

MIDWEST/CLEVELAND 1 Kentucky vs 8 Kansas

EAST SYRACUSE 2 Duke vs 7 Villanova

SOUTH HOUSTON 3 Wisconsin vs 6 Virginia

WEST LOS ANGELES 4 Arizona vs 5 Gonzaga


I am obviously predicting Kansas to win the Big 12, Wisconsin to win the Big 10, Virginia to go out early in the ACC. Wisconsin moves rightfully into a 1 seed. Virginia drops, Arizona rises to a 1. And Gonzaga stays out west as Arizonas 2. Why does NOBODY predict this? Is there a reason why Gonzaga cant be Arizonas 2?? They are in 2 different conferences. If this plays out, everyone is happy. Everyone is regionally located and paired.

Here's the problem- the NCAA likes to pretend they are going about things by a certain set of well-thought out rules for bracketing. At some point, 2010 being my guess, school AD's and Presidents told the selection committee to start focusing more on keeping teams close to home. The selection committee's solution appears to be to pretend that every team on a seed line is equal- all 2 seeds alike, all 3 seeds alike, down the line to 16. So you just rank teams 1-68, then send to best to the closest available region. Balance means having 1 of each type of seed, 1 through 16.

This removes all common sense from the procedure. It's like the selection committee is proud that they can look at maps and find out which regional sites are closest to which schools (yay for them). In 2010, when UK was the 2nd overall seed, forced out of the closest regional by #1 Kansas, do you really think that UK was happier to go to Syracuse, with Big East Tournament champ West Virginia as its 2, as opposed to Houston, with fading Villanova as the 2? Yeah, Syracuse is closer, but either Syracuse or Houston is a long, long way away from Lexington.

And I'm sure that Ohio State, as #1 overall seed in 2011, was thrilled to draw UK as its 4. Because, you know, all 4 seeds are alike, and playing UK was really no more difficult than playing Texas or Louisville would have been (Wisconsin was the 4th 1 seed, so they weren't eligible to be in OSU's region).

It's the classic bureaucratic, all-or-nothing, "the rules are the rules are the rules" type of thinking at work. Instead of using geography as a guiding principle- put teams in the closest available region WHEN IT MAKES SENSE TO DO SO (which is pretty much how they did the brackets from 1985 until 2009- with a lot fewer complaints)- they've been using it as a hard and fast rule.



This post was edited on 3/10 6:36 PM by mj2k10

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by Tyblue22:

LOGIC needs to prevail.

Look at the top 8 teams. PERIOD. Seed them, place them 1 v 8, 2 v 7 etc... Then place them geographically and go from there. After that, do whatever you want. As long as you get those top 8 right, whatever happens, happens.

(as of todays top 25, prior to conference tourneys)

MIDWEST/CLEVELAND 1 Kentucky vs 8 Maryland

EAST SYRACUSE 2 Duke vs 7 Gonzaga

SOUTH HOUSTON 3 Virginia vs 6 Wisconsin

WEST LOS ANGELES 4 Villanova vs 5 Arizona


(my prediction, after conference tourneys)

MIDWEST/CLEVELAND 1 Kentucky vs 8 Kansas

EAST SYRACUSE 2 Duke vs 7 Villanova

SOUTH HOUSTON 3 Wisconsin vs 6 Virginia

WEST LOS ANGELES 4 Arizona vs 5 Gonzaga


I am obviously predicting Kansas to win the Big 12, Wisconsin to win the Big 10, Virginia to go out early in the ACC. Wisconsin moves rightfully into a 1 seed. Virginia drops, Arizona rises to a 1. And Gonzaga stays out west as Arizonas 2. Why does NOBODY predict this? Is there a reason why Gonzaga cant be Arizonas 2?? They are in 2 different conferences. If this plays out, everyone is happy. Everyone is regionally located and paired.

Here's the problem- the NCAA likes to pretend they are going about things by a certain set of well-thought out rules for bracketing. At some point, 2010 being my guess, school AD's and Presidents told the selection committee to start focusing more on keeping teams close to home. The selection committee's solution appears to be to pretend that every team on a seed line is equal- all 2 seeds alike, all 3 seeds alike, down the line to 16. So you just rank teams 1-68, then send to best to the closest available region. Balance means having 1 of each type of seed, 1 through 16.

This removes all common sense from the procedure. It's like the selection committee is proud that they can look at maps and find out which regional sites are closest to which schools (yay for them). In 2010, when UK was the 2nd overall seed, forced out of the closest regional by #1 Kansas, do you really think that UK was happier to go to Syracuse, with Big East Tournament champ West Virginia as its 2, as opposed to Houston, with fading Villanova as the 2? Yeah, Syracuse is closer, but either Syracuse or Houston is a long, long way away from Lexington.

And I'm sure that Ohio State, as #1 overall seed in 2011, was thrilled to draw UK as its 4. Because, you know, all 4 seeds are alike, and playing UK was really no more difficult than playing Texas or Louisville would have been (Wisconsin was the 4th 1 seed, so they weren't eligible to be in OSU's region).

It's the classic bureaucratic, all-or-nothing, "the rules are the rules are rules" type of thinking at work. Instead of using geography as a guiding principle- put teams in the closest available region WHEN IT MAKES SENSE TO DO SO (which is pretty much how they did the brackets from 1985 until 2009- with a lot fewer complaints)- they've been using it as a hard and fast rule.

This post was edited on 3/10 6:35 PM by mj2k10

To me tho it's not so crazy for them to think that all teams on a seed line are equal. If the committee does it's job, they should be pretty equal.

To me the issue wasn't so much Ohio St drawing UK because of proximity. The biggest mistake there was the simple fact that UK really wasn't a 4 seed that year........they were a 2 seed.

Seed teams the right way, don't use RPI, use better measures.......and this whole thing isn't such a huge issue anymore IMO

 

[dnabbott25]

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

 

[dnabbott25]

gave it its own post. Thought it would generate a good discussion......

 

[mjj_2K]

Originally posted by The_Answer1313:

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Here's the problem- the NCAA likes to pretend they are going about things by a certain set of well-thought out rules for bracketing. At some point, 2010 being my guess, school AD's and Presidents told the selection committee to start focusing more on keeping teams close to home. The selection committee's solution appears to be to pretend that every team on a seed line is equal- all 2 seeds alike, all 3 seeds alike, down the line to 16. So you just rank teams 1-68, then send to best to the closest available region. Balance means having 1 of each type of seed, 1 through 16.

This removes all common sense from the procedure. It's like the selection committee is proud that they can look at maps and find out which regional sites are closest to which schools (yay for them). In 2010, when UK was the 2nd overall seed, forced out of the closest regional by #1 Kansas, do you really think that UK was happier to go to Syracuse, with Big East Tournament champ West Virginia as its 2, as opposed to Houston, with fading Villanova as the 2? Yeah, Syracuse is closer, but either Syracuse or Houston is a long, long way away from Lexington.

And I'm sure that Ohio State, as #1 overall seed in 2011, was thrilled to draw UK as its 4. Because, you know, all 4 seeds are alike, and playing UK was really no more difficult than playing Texas or Louisville would have been (Wisconsin was the 4th 1 seed, so they weren't eligible to be in OSU's region).

It's the classic bureaucratic, all-or-nothing, "the rules are the rules are rules" type of thinking at work. Instead of using geography as a guiding principle- put teams in the closest available region WHEN IT MAKES SENSE TO DO SO (which is pretty much how they did the brackets from 1985 until 2009- with a lot fewer complaints)- they've been using it as a hard and fast rule.

This post was edited on 3/10 6:35 PM by mj2k10

To me tho it's not so crazy for them to think that all teams on a seed line are equal. If the committee does it's job, they should be pretty equal.

To me the issue wasn't so much Ohio St drawing UK because of proximity. The biggest mistake there was the simple fact that UK really wasn't a 4 seed that year........they were a 2 seed.

Seed teams the right way, don't use RPI, use better measures.......and this whole thing isn't such a huge issue anymore IMO

Getting the ratings right is an issue, but if you're ranking the teams 1-68, splitting them up into seed lines, and then you take the top (or bottom) team from each line and put them all in the same region, there is going to be a cumulative effect, regardless of whether your rankings make sense. And if you get in a situation where the Midwest Region (and the South, depending on exactly where the regional is) are invariably going to be the most difficult (since they're usually a lot closer to where the power teams are), while the West Region is almost always going to be a dump-off for the lowest seeds on each line, then you could get cases where teams at the top would be smarter to actually tank conference tournament games to move down in the rankings.