Why is Geography Taking Precedent Over All this Year?

[MWes11]

I know you want to try to keep the high seeds in the tournament close to home, but is this the first year that geography is pretty much the end all be all? I can't ever remember a year in which geography became the main factor in seeding teams. I always thought, unless it was Kentucky, that the #1 overall plays the worst #2 seed.

Is this the first year they are emphasizing geography as the main factor in seeding teams? Anyone with any knowledge help me out here.

 

[Cats192]

They were very open and transparent that Geography was a huge deal last year. That's why everyone is talking about it now. Then someone that works with the committee was interviewed and said it would still play a large role.

 

[hotelblue]

pretty sure they mentioned emphasizing seed over location iirc. probably next year people will want to see it reversed lol.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

This farce is a slap in the face to teams who would have earned higher seeds, or easier brackets, based on performance. The NCAA seems to interested more in revenue than earned seeding. It is really pathetic on their part.

 

[thefolker]

The NCAA is interested in storylines and big name matchups as early in the tournament as possible for ratings purposes.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Originally posted by MWes11:
I know you want to try to keep the high seeds in the tournament close to home, but is this the first year that geography is pretty much the end all be all? I can't ever remember a year in which geography became the main factor in seeding teams. I always thought, unless it was Kentucky, that the #1 overall plays the worst #2 seed.

Is this the first year they are emphasizing geography as the main factor in seeding teams? Anyone with any knowledge help me out here.

This is something they have been doing for YEARS now.

Ever since seed lists began being made public (I think 2010), you can basically take the seed list, go team by team and see that geography was the major factor.

Other rules come into play like the first four teams from each conference if they are a 4 seed or better MUST go to different regions. You also have rules on what round a conference team can meet one another depending on the number of times they played in a given season.

Awhile back (again I think 2010)........NCAA Athletic Directors were asked about this and the majority said they prefer it to be based on location. They want to be closer to home.

And the misnomer here is it's not just for the higher rated teams. You have to think about the lower schools (ranked 13th to 16th seed). Take the 16 seeds. Obviously they can only go to regions where the 1 seeds are however they still benefit somewhat. The best 16 seed will go to the closest 1st/2nd round game site available. So it works out for them as well to cut travel costs. It's one of the reasons why back in 2012 we ended up playing WKU as the 16 seed (another was they were one of the weakest 16 having to play in the play in game).

A bigger deal is made about it today because I think back then people didn't realize. The NCAA is actually becoming more transparent now. On their website they publish all the available data the committee has at it's disposal when they select teams. They have RPI reports, Nitty Gritty Reports, Team Sheets etc etc. Also they began making public the actual seed list which is a listing of teams 1 to 68.

Another big deal is most people now realize that UK might be getting the toughest 2. That alone will make it a huge talking point here.

 

[mg721]

If the brackets were done purely on seeding, UK should get the lowest #2 seed, the highest #3 seed and the lowest #4 seed in our bracket.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

But it's not. That's not how it's been done for quiet some time and they have been pretty open about it in their rules and procedures.

This is what it says:
Teams will remain in or as close to their areas of natural interest as possible. A team moved out of its natural area will be placed in the next closest region to the extent possible. If two teams from the same natural region are in contention for the same bracket position, the team ranked higher in the seed list shall remain in its natural region.

Whether this is fair or we agree with it is an entire different conversation, but it's not like they haven't stated what their intentions were.

 

[mjj_2K]

It's been a huge deal for at least 5 years now.

Go back to 2010. We have no overall ratings, but we know that Kansas was the top overall seed, UK 2nd, Duke 3rd, and Syracuse 4th. The regionals were Syracuse, St. Louis, Houston, and Salt Lake.

Kansas got St Louis, UK got next closest, Syracuse, then Duke to Houston, and Syracuse to SLC.

The 2 seeds were West Virginia, Ohio State, Kansas State, and Villanova, probably in that order. West Virginia went to Syracuse, Ohio State to St. Louis, despite the fact that they were the best of the 2 seeds, and those regions already had the best of the one seeds.

2012 through 2014, we do have overall ratings for teams, 1-68. 2012 top 8 was UK, Syracuse, UNC, and Mich St as 1 seeds, then Kansas, Duke, Ohio State, and Missouri as the 2 seeds, with the regionals in Boston, Atlanta, St. Louis, and Phoenix. They again went purely on geography, ignoring the S Curve- UK got Atlanta, but they also sent Duke, who they rated as the 2nd best 2 seed, to that region, and they sent the last of the one seeds and the last of the 2 seeds out west.

It's a really simple formula they've been using. Stupid, but simple. Rate the teams 1-68. Break them into seed lines, 1-16. Start at the top, and send teams to the closest available regional. You just go down the seed line, send the team wherever is closest (without breaking rules about conference rematches, or having multiple teams from the same conference as top 4 seeds in the same region), and pay 0 attention to whether a a region is getting all the top teams on each seed line, or all of the worst. All that matters is that each region gets one team from each seed line.

IF they continue to follow that procedure, it's going to be almost impossible for UK to not have either Wisconsin or Virginia as its 2 seed (or Duke, if they lose in the ACC Tourney and drop from a 1). They'll face a sh**load of deserved criticism, but it's no different than what they've been doing.

Eventually, they're going to have to adjust this, because the distribution of quality basketball schools almost guarantees that the Midwest Region will be killer, every year, while the West Region is almost always going to be significantly weaker. That's a dumb way to run a tournament. However, we don't know if they'll start to adjust it this year (as some NCAA people have implied), or continue doing it the same way (as the selection committee chairman implied).

 

[WCBcats]

If Im not mistaken, no bracket has been released yet

 

[UKUGA]

The pod system was introduced in 2002. That was the genesis of all this. Even is more emphasis has been placed on geography since 2010, this still goes back to 2002.

 

[MWes11]

I appreciate all of the responses. Maybe I thought it was taking more precedent because they are talking about it more, but it looks as though it has played a main factor for at least 5 years now. Thanks. I still think it should be based on seeding (highest 1 gets the lowest 2) but geography is understandable based on revenue and getting the most fans in the crowd.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Originally posted by mj2k10:
It's been a huge deal for at least 5 years now.

Go back to 2010. We have no overall ratings, but we know that Kansas was the top overall seed, UK 2nd, Duke 3rd, and Syracuse 4th. The regionals were Syracuse, St. Louis, Houston, and Salt Lake.

Kansas got St Louis, UK got next closest, Syracuse, then Duke to Houston, and Syracuse to SLC.

The 2 seeds were West Virginia, Ohio State, Kansas State, and Villanova, probably in that order. West Virginia went to Syracuse, Ohio State to St. Louis, despite the fact that they were the best of the 2 seeds, and those regions already had the best of the one seeds.

2012 through 2014, we do have overall ratings for teams, 1-68. 2012 top 8 was UK, Syracuse, UNC, and Mich St as 1 seeds, then Kansas, Duke, Ohio State, and Missouri as the 2 seeds, with the regionals in Boston, Atlanta, St. Louis, and Phoenix. They again went purely on geography, ignoring the S Curve- UK got Atlanta, but they also sent Duke, who they rated as the 2nd best 2 seed, to that region, and they sent the last of the one seeds and the last of the 2 seeds out west.

It's a really simple formula they've been using. Stupid, but simple. Rate the teams 1-68. Break them into seed lines, 1-16. Start at the top, and send teams to the closest available regional. You just go down the seed line, send the team wherever is closest (without breaking rules about conference rematches, or having multiple teams from the same conference as top 4 seeds in the same region), and pay 0 attention to whether a a region is getting all the top teams on each seed line, or all of the worst. All that matters is that each region gets one team from each seed line.

IF they continue to follow that procedure, it's going to be almost impossible for UK to not have either Wisconsin or Virginia as its 2 seed (or Duke, if they lose in the ACC Tourney and drop from a 1). They'll face a sh**load of deserved criticism, but it's no different than what they've been doing.

Eventually, they're going to have to adjust this, because the distribution of quality basketball schools almost guarantees that the Midwest Region will be killer, every year, while the West Region is almost always going to be significantly weaker. That's a dumb way to run a tournament. However, we don't know if they'll start to adjust it this year (as some NCAA people have implied), or continue doing it the same way (as the selection committee chairman implied).

Exactly.

But although it's stupid, I really thought it was prevent people from crying out conspiracy. If everyone just understood they went down the seed list team by team and placed teams close to home, I thought that would stop people from saying it's all about giving UK the toughest region.

UK isn't getting the toughest region because the NCAA wants to stick it to them. They are getting the toughest region because of the teams situated around them geographically. There's a bunch of strong teams located near UK. If they have preference, it's only natural they will end up in the same region.

The good thing is the conference rules help a tiny bit. It sometimes will force a team out West that isn't the last on the seed line.

I used to think that this meant the West was the weakest all the time but surprising in the last media mock bracket here's the totals for each region.

Midwest 420
East 463
West 493
South 530

The South was actually the weakest.

They are supposed to evaluate after the first 4 seeds, tho I found they don't really do this. The rules say the best and worst should be within 5 points.

The media one (which is supposed to simulate the actual) went like this:
West 34
South 37
Midwest 32
East 35

So that actually was pretty balanced.

I think as long as they actually did this and made sure the first four seeds were balanced in each, they'd be ok with the current format. Cause really I'm not sure it matters all that much after the 4 seed.

 

[mjj_2K]

They clearly haven't been doing that.

As you know, S Curve logic says that the top 4 teams' rating in each region should add up to 34. The lowest you can possibly get is 28, the highest is 40.

2012 was: South 31, West 38, East 34, Midwest 33
2013 was: South 32, West 35, East 36, Midwest 33
2014 was: South 33, West 37, East 35, Midwest 31

It may not seem like much, but the South and the Midwest have been better every single year, and the Midwest last year came closer than any region ever to the lowest possible score. The West has been below average every single year, and twice came close to having the worst possible total.

They may claim that's balanced, but they're wrong.

 

[LineSkiCat]

Annoying they are SO strict on geography. So many of these conferences span into large parts of the U.S. They are constantly driving/flying weekly all over the damn place. Is it that big of a deal for Wisconsin to be in the South? Or Clemson to have to come up to the Midwest? They don't seem to mind during the entire 5 month season... why does it all the sudden matter for the last few weeks?

I still think they are just throwing crap around. Some teams will be seeded because of their ranking, others for geography.

If this REALLY was about Geography, we should get a weakened UofL and a weakened Kansas, along with Wisconsin... So why do I get the feeling that UofL and Kansas will be moved to Duke's region, but they will still call "Geography!" when they move Wisconsin to us..

Said it weeks ago, this process is shadier than the draft lottery behind closed doors.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Originally posted by mj2k10:
They clearly haven't been doing that.

As you know, S Curve logic says that the top 4 teams' rating in each region should add up to 34. The lowest you can possibly get is 28, the highest is 40.

2012 was: South 31, West 38, East 34, Midwest 33
2013 was: South 32, West 35, East 36, Midwest 33
2014 was: South 33, West 37, East 35, Midwest 31

It may not seem like much, but the South and the Midwest have been better every single year, and the Midwest last year came closer than any region ever to the lowest possible score. The West has been below average every single year, and twice came close to having the worst possible total.

They may claim that's balanced, but they're wrong.

They might want to just remove that language from the rules. Anyone now can take the seed list and see this isn't the case.

I'm not really sure they care about balanced regions at all anymore.

I mean say they got to the 4 line and the first four team was I dunno Maryland and they say well we are going to put you out West to balance the regions out. Even tho everyone else got to go where their natural region is. How fair would that be to them?

The best way to do this is probably straight S Curve. With the introductions of the pod system, the good teams will still be kept close to home for the first two rounds. The only difference would be where teams went regionally. But you would get the location preference first two rounds and you get completely balanced regions (assuming the committee ranks teams correctly).

You get the best of both worlds this way

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Originally posted by LineSkiCat:
Annoying they are SO strict on geography. So many of these conferences span into large parts of the U.S. They are constantly driving/flying weekly all over the damn place. Is it that big of a deal for Wisconsin to be in the South? Or Clemson to have to come up to the Midwest? They don't seem to mind during the entire 5 month season... why does it all the sudden matter for the last few weeks?

I still think they are just throwing crap around. Some teams will be seeded because of their ranking, others for geography.

If this REALLY was about Geography, we should get a weakened UofL and a weakened Kansas, along with Wisconsin... So why do I get the feeling that UofL and Kansas will be moved to Duke's region, but they will still call "Geography!" when they move Wisconsin to us..

Said it weeks ago, this process is shadier than the draft lottery behind closed doors.

I don't think it's really a big deal for a team like UK or Wisconsin to travel a couple hundred more miles. For the bigger teams, I think it's all about keeping them close to home for the home court advantage. I do think that's big. Although our fans travel everywhere I think we have a greater advantage playing say Arizona in Cleveland or Houston vs playing them in Los Angeles.

It's very possible UL is drawn into our region. Kansas is closer to the South region tho so if Duke goes South it's very likely they are paired. Kansas to the South regional site is 624 miles compared to 722 to the Midwest one.

 

[LineSkiCat]

Originally posted by The_Answer1313:

Originally posted by LineSkiCat:
Annoying they are SO strict on geography. So many of these conferences span into large parts of the U.S. They are constantly driving/flying weekly all over the damn place. Is it that big of a deal for Wisconsin to be in the South? Or Clemson to have to come up to the Midwest? They don't seem to mind during the entire 5 month season... why does it all the sudden matter for the last few weeks?

I still think they are just throwing crap around. Some teams will be seeded because of their ranking, others for geography.

If this REALLY was about Geography, we should get a weakened UofL and a weakened Kansas, along with Wisconsin... So why do I get the feeling that UofL and Kansas will be moved to Duke's region, but they will still call "Geography!" when they move Wisconsin to us..

Said it weeks ago, this process is shadier than the draft lottery behind closed doors.

I don't think it's really a big deal for a team like UK or Wisconsin to travel a couple hundred more miles. For the bigger teams, I think it's all about keeping them close to home for the home court advantage. I do think that's big. Although our fans travel everywhere I think we have a greater advantage playing say Arizona in Cleveland or Houston vs playing them in Los Angeles.

It's very possible UL is drawn into our region. Kansas is closer to the South region tho so if Duke goes South it's very likely they are paired. Kansas to the South regional site is 624 miles compared to 722 to the Midwest one.

Good post, but that brings up another point. Is geography based strictly on mileage.. or is it about preconceived locations... or is it in relation to other teams?

If it's mileage, sure Kansas should go South.
If it's location, I would imagine Kansas is considered mid-west, but I could be wrong.
If it's based off other teams, is there a higher concentration of tourney teams in the South, Northeast or Mid-west (Actual question)?

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Originally posted by LineSkiCat:

Originally posted by The_Answer1313:

Originally posted by LineSkiCat:
Annoying they are SO strict on geography. So many of these conferences span into large parts of the U.S. They are constantly driving/flying weekly all over the damn place. Is it that big of a deal for Wisconsin to be in the South? Or Clemson to have to come up to the Midwest? They don't seem to mind during the entire 5 month season... why does it all the sudden matter for the last few weeks?

I still think they are just throwing crap around. Some teams will be seeded because of their ranking, others for geography.

If this REALLY was about Geography, we should get a weakened UofL and a weakened Kansas, along with Wisconsin... So why do I get the feeling that UofL and Kansas will be moved to Duke's region, but they will still call "Geography!" when they move Wisconsin to us..

Said it weeks ago, this process is shadier than the draft lottery behind closed doors.

I don't think it's really a big deal for a team like UK or Wisconsin to travel a couple hundred more miles. For the bigger teams, I think it's all about keeping them close to home for the home court advantage. I do think that's big. Although our fans travel everywhere I think we have a greater advantage playing say Arizona in Cleveland or Houston vs playing them in Los Angeles.

It's very possible UL is drawn into our region. Kansas is closer to the South region tho so if Duke goes South it's very likely they are paired. Kansas to the South regional site is 624 miles compared to 722 to the Midwest one.

Good post, but that brings up another point. Is geography based strictly on mileage.. or is it about preconceived locations... or is it in relation to other teams?

If it's mileage, sure Kansas should go South.
If it's location, I would imagine Kansas is considered mid-west, but I could be wrong.
If it's based off other teams, is there a higher concentration of tourney teams in the South, Northeast or Mid-west (Actual question)?

This is actually an interesting one. For example, many mock brackets have Wisconsin playing their opening round games in Omaha which is the closest region possible. But 40 more miles and they could play in Columbus Ohio or even in Louisville. Looking at various projections, it seems like people are really split on this with some saying Omaha, some saying Columbus and a few having Louisville on there.

I always thought they end up in Columbus. Even with the distance being greater, I just thought Columbus is more of a Big Ten place than Omaha.

Look what they did in 2012 with us. They could have either put us in St. Louis or Atlanta. St. Louis was closer but only by a few miles I believe. They put us in Atlanta......which is more of an SEC type location.

So not exactly strictly mileage. Tho if u have Wisconsin and Kansas on a 2 seed line, I have to imagine they would put Wisconsin MW and Kansas S. I guess the interesting thing would be if KU was ahead of Wisconsin on that seed line, if they considered Kansas for the MW. That one would be interesting tho at this point I don't see any KU would be ahead of Wisconsin.

As for the last question I think the Midwest has the highest concentration and that's why it's generally the toughest region but I could be wrong on that. This is the reason tho they only have two locations for the first two rounds out west (Portland, Seattle).....there's just a lack of West teams. What ends up happening is usually the last of the four seeds end up getting shipped out there. This year might be different tho. You do have Gonzaga, Arizona and Utah that will use up three of those 4 spots tho Utah is fading a bit.

 

[Phantom]

M O N E Y