NCAA Seeding (Updated through 3/16)

[historyman]

It's hard to believe that even Michigan has so much more for U of Michigan than Michigan State.

[vu72]

To me, and too Sagarin, the committee giving Bucknell an 11 and us a 14 is certainly as silly.  We are ranked 65 with a schedule rank of 179 while Bucknell is ranked 73 with a schedule rank of 200 in a conference ranked 19th versus the Horizon's 12. In the BPI they are 59 and us at 61, still extremely close.

Reasonably close rankings.  They get an 11 and us a 14? 

[valporun]

All I can think with our seeding compared to Montana and SDSU at 13 and Bucknell at 11...recent tournament appearances. As stupid as it sounds, the three schools we're bickering about here getting better seeds than us have had more recent tournament appearances than we have. Part of our seeding might have had something to do with our consistency of recent tournament appearnaces. Just looking at a different perspective, whether you think it is stupid or not, the proof of tournament appearances in the last ten years is there.

[a3uge]

This is why we were given a 14, and Montana a 13:



Nothing to do with bad losses. Nothing to do with Sagarin. Nothing to do with RPI. Nothing to do with any rating system. Nothing to with how ugly the championship game looked. Nothing to do with recent tournament appearances (Davidson would not be a 14). Nothing to do with Bryce Drew flopping on the floor. Valpo was the closest 13-14 seed to Detroit. Montana was closer to San Jose. They flipped the teams. That's it.

[Kyle321n]

This is why we were given a 14, and Montana a 13: Nothing to do with bad losses. Nothing to do with Sagarin. Nothing to do with RPI. Nothing to do with any rating system. Nothing to with how ugly the championship game looked. Nothing to do with recent tournament appearances (Davidson would not be a 14). Nothing to do with Bryce Drew flopping on the floor. Valpo was the closest 13-14 seed to Detroit. Montana was closer to San Jose. They flipped the teams. That's it.

So why did we get the (harder) Auburn Hills 14 seed and not the Dayton 14 seed?

[agibson]

To a3uge's comments:

I _assumed_ that their published "overall 1 to 68 ranking" was done before the pairings and other assignments.  That's always the way the S curve was supposed to work, as I remember Whelliston describing it based on his Mock Selection experience.  Rank the teams first, then figure out seedings, pairings, locations. 

That said, I'm not really sure I believe it.  It seems like their "1 to 68" ranking matches too closely to how the seeds and pairings worked out.  I'd expect more shifting to be necessary.

In that first vision, geographical moves like you're talking about shouldn't have an effect - we were ranked lower than Montana (for some inscrutable reason) in the 1 to 68 ranking.  We get a lower seeded.

In the second vision, of course, your description can be true.  And, it's similar to the only response I got to my query on the Montana message board, " Teams are seeded regionally. So Valpo might be better than Montana, but might also be playing in a stronger region. The committee has a tough job - they don't try to make it even more complicated by ensuring absolute equity across the regions."

But, why do they care where the low seeds play?  They want to give the top seeds a home court advantage - fine.  MSU plays in Detroit.  But, why should we play against them?   Were they trying to do us a _favor_ by giving us a low seed?  Were they trying to reduce the CO2 footprint of the tournament?  Were they trying to make it (relatively) easier for fans of low seed teams to travel to the tournament?

Davidson's relatively close to home.  Montana I guess.  Valpo.  New Mexico State.  Northwestern State.  South Dakota State's coming "all the way" to Detroit. Harvard has to go "all the way" to Salt Lake City. 

Maybe they did factor in geography, even for the low seeded team, when possible.

Anybody have a good description of the factors the Selection Committee was supposed to consider this year?

I don't even have a good source for the "1 to 68 ranking".  I got it from some blog, with a claim that the NCAA released it.  The blog doesn't have much description.  Wikipedia, a little strangely, doesn't give a citation for their numbers. 

[agibson]

So why did we get the (harder) Auburn Hills 14 seed and not the Dayton 14 seed?

The way the bracket stands the Dayton games are 7-10 and 2-15.

The 14's are in Auburn Hills, Austin, Lexington, and Salt Lake City.  At least according to wikipedia.

Or am I misunderstanding your question?

[Kyle321n]

So why did we get the (harder) Auburn Hills 14 seed and not the Dayton 14 seed?

The way the bracket stands the Dayton games are 7-10 and 2-15.

The 14's are in Auburn Hills, Austin, Lexington, and Salt Lake City.  At least according to wikipedia.

Or am I misunderstanding your question?

So why did we get the (harder) Auburn Hills 14 seed and not the Dayton 14 seed?

The way the bracket stands the Dayton games are 7-10 and 2-15.

The 14's are in Auburn Hills, Austin, Lexington, and Salt Lake City.  At least according to wikipedia.

Or am I misunderstanding your question?

Yep my question was wrong.  The other 3-14 I was referring to was Marquette-Davidson in Lexington.

[zvillehaze]

Anybody have a good description of the factors the Selection Committee was supposed to consider this year?

I don't even have a good source for the "1 to 68 ranking".  I got it from some blog, with a claim that the NCAA released it.  The blog doesn't have much description.  Wikipedia, a little strangely, doesn't give a citation for their numbers. 

Here's the seed list from the NCAA.  http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2013-03-18/ncaa-seed-list-louisville-no-1  According to their procedures, this list is completed prior to the "bracketing" process.  For those of you with an interest, some free time and a lot of patience, here are the principles and procedures.  http://www.bracketwag.com/rules.htm

As I understand things, the #14 seeds would be placed based upon the "pure seed" ranking (Davidson, Valpo, Northwestern State, Harvard).  Davidson goes to closest site in Lexington, Valpo to closest remaining site in Auburn Hills, NSU to closest remaining site in Austin and Harvard to the only remaining site in Salt Lake City. 

As someone pointed out, the larger complaint should be the placement on the "pure seed" ranking.  Only people in the committee room can give you an answer on that one, although I've always suspected that the rankings in the bottom half get less scrutiny than the top half.  Keep in mind that had Valpo gotten a #13, they could have still ended up in Auburn Hills playing Michigan ... same issues with facing a home crowd, but that would be a better matchup for Valpo, IMO.

[zvillehaze]

All I can think with our seeding compared to Montana and SDSU at 13 and Bucknell at 11...recent tournament appearances. As stupid as it sounds, the three schools we're bickering about here getting better seeds than us have had more recent tournament appearances than we have. Part of our seeding might have had something to do with our consistency of recent tournament appearnaces. Just looking at a different perspective, whether you think it is stupid or not, the proof of tournament appearances in the last ten years is there.

FWIW, the committee always states that tournament performance (good or bad) in prior years has nothing to do with a team being selected or how that team is seeded.  I guess it could have some impact (the committee members are human and can't "unsee" what's happened in prior years), but it clearly isn't supposed to.

[chef]

I would guess if you asked each individual committee member who has been to the tournament more over the last five years Valparaiso or South Dakota State over half would say Valparaiso. These are not basketball junkies. They are administrators.

[StlVUFan]

I would guess if you asked each individual committee member who has been to the tournament more over the last five years Valparaiso or South Dakota State over half would say Valparaiso. These are not basketball junkies. They are administrators.

I honestly do not know whether to be glad or sad about that

[valporun]

My originial opinion wasn't about tournament records, but about just getting a bid to the tournament.