Committee top 16 reveal tonight! | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Committee top 16 reveal tonight!

Vowelguy said:
I've complained about the west overrepresentation for years.

Fewer than 1/6th (17%) of all D1 college teams are west of the Rockies.
Fewer than 15% of P4 programs are west of the Rockies.

Over the 7-year period 22-28, FORTY-SIX PERCENT of the regionals have been/will be west of the Rockies.
Expand ...
This is such a logical, black & white argument for more games east of the Rockies… therefore it is guaranteed to be ignored by the committee!
 
southie said:
I guess I disagree with that, or I don't understand what you mean by "already"; like "when", specifically, do you mean? After the bracket is announced, or once their teams win and advance to the Sweet Sixteen (which means less than one week until the regional begins)?

I am not sure how many tickets each Sweet Sixteen participant is allotted. I've always assumed that the majority of total tickets are available to the general public way in advance of the bracket being announced; they probably aren't great seats, but they are available for sale much earlier than when a school receives their ticket allotment. Those are probably gobbled up by the locals, especially if a Top10 team or two are expected to be placed in and advance to that regional. For Birmingham, I'd guess fans of LSU, South Carolina, and Tennessee bought tickets way in advance hoping their teams would be placed there. That's why I assume the same for fans of Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor, and LSU who all are hoping their teams get placed in Fort Worth.

I doubt last year that Oklahoma, NC State, Kansas State, and Ole Miss sold their allotment for a game or two all the way in Spokane, WA. Maybe LSU and UConn sold all theirs for one-two game(s). Once the bracket is announced, fans of teams have to purchase airfare with less than 2 weeks' notice; do you think teams seeded lower than a 4-seed like Ole Miss and Kansas State were expecting to make the Sweet Sixteen? Some die-hard fans probably purchased their airfare in advance and made hotel reservations (another tough assignment in smaller cities is hotel availability at reasonable prices). It's a difficult situation all the around for travel planning. So, I'd say these cities are depending on the locals to turn out, especially if a local team participates in the regional(s).
Expand ...
So, here is how the process works (well, at least for the last three years): First, NCAA Final Four tickets go on sale to the general public a week before Regional tickets go on sale (and a week after FF packages are offered to previous years' FF ticket buyers). For this year, the FF tickets were available on 21 October and the two Regionals on 28 October. For the Regionals, at that time you could only purchase a package that included all six games. Tickets were available in the lower level as well as the upper level, but the best seats were gobbled up pretty quickly.

As one can surmise, fans of specific teams who purchase packages on that first day are largely gambling/hoping that their team will be placed in a certain region. Nonetheless, almost all of the tickets are sold to the general public within a couple of hours (at the most). (That said, the NCAA will hold on to unsold tickets for premium seats that are part of their VIP packages. Suffice to say, they are significantly more expensive, but are available to deep-pocket fans.)

Next, some tickets purchased on that initial day will become available on the resale market. Generally speaking, the price is a little bit higher and the selection is somewhat limited. Once the Reveals start happening, there usually is an uptick of fans purchasing resale tickets, once again gambling on where their teams are going to end up. Things move in earnest in the resale market come Selection Sunday as fans now know exactly what region their team is placed. Finally, in the week prior to the Sweet Sixteen, the fans of the eight teams going to their respective region comprise the primary demand signal to the suppliers on the resale market.

Hopefully this explanation addresses the "when" questions in your first paragraph.

Regarding fans obtaining tickets from their schools, it is important to realize ticket allocation to the Regionals (and Final Four) is handled much different than tickets for games at the host school during the first and second rounds. Ticket allocation (number of tickets and seat location) for the first two rounds are handled by the host team. For the second and third weekends of the tournament, school allocation is handled by the NCAA. For the SS and EE rounds, the NCAA holds back a certain amount of tickets that will eventually be allocated - by game - to the eight schools who end up being placed in that region. I don't know the number (I think it depends on the venue), but I am pretty sure it is less than the number of tickets allotted to visiting teams during the regular season. (Additionally, the NCAA reserves two small areas on/near the floor for the bands supporting the two schools playing in each game - also a limited number.)

Regarding locals who want to go see the Regional games, they are subject to the same resale constraints facing the fans of teams playing in the Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight. That said, because they can decide to go the day of the games, they are afforded the opportunity to get quality seats when the resale market values drop drastically in the last 24 hours. Same holds true for any non-local fans within driving distance.

Interesting side story: during the Final Four in Tampa last year, there were handfuls of scalpers selling tickets out in front of Amalie Arena each day. Thirty minutes before tip-off, tickets were going at cost (supposedly), with the electronic transactions being worked through Ticketmaster. High tech scalping!

Cheers.
 
Vowelguy said:
Here it is …. (AP rank to the right)

13. Maryland 20
14. Michigan St 13
15. Ole miss 14
16. Oklahoma 10
Expand ...
Should venue and attendance be a factor in choosing the 4 seeds?

HYPOTHETICALLY - Let’s assume that the committee uses its normal factors to rank these as 4 seeds. However, using the same factors, Iowa State or Tennessee would be 5 seeds.

Should the committee consider whether Iowa State or Tennessee is the better selection to host the first two tournament rounds based on size/quality of the arena and fan attendance of approximately 10,000 than, for example, Ole Miss with attendance of 3,000 ?
 
visitingcock said:
Should venue and attendance be a factor in choosing the 4 seeds?

HYPOTHETICALLY - Let’s assume that the committee uses its normal factors to rank these as 4 seeds. However, using the same factors, Iowa State or Tennessee would be 5 seeds.

Should the committee consider whether Iowa State or Tennessee is the better selection to host the first two tournament rounds based on size/quality of the arena and fan attendance of approximately 10,000 than, for example, Ole Miss with attendance of 3,000 ?
Expand ...
My quick reaction is a no. Teams cannot control crowds, however they can control their destiny in the W/L column.
 
visitingcock said:
Should venue and attendance be a factor in choosing the 4 seeds?

HYPOTHETICALLY - Let’s assume that the committee uses its normal factors to rank these as 4 seeds. However, using the same factors, Iowa State or Tennessee would be 5 seeds.

Should the committee consider whether Iowa State or Tennessee is the better selection to host the first two tournament rounds based on size/quality of the arena and fan attendance of approximately 10,000 than, for example, Ole Miss with attendance of 3,000 ?
Expand ...
N
O
 
.-.
visitingcock said:
Should venue and attendance be a factor in choosing the 4 seeds?

HYPOTHETICALLY - Let’s assume that the committee uses its normal factors to rank these as 4 seeds. However, using the same factors, Iowa State or Tennessee would be 5 seeds.

Should the committee consider whether Iowa State or Tennessee is the better selection to host the first two tournament rounds based on size/quality of the arena and fan attendance of approximately 10,000 than, for example, Ole Miss with attendance of 3,000 ?
Expand ...
At this point, unless Tennessee pulls two or three major upsets in their last remaining games or in the SEC tournament, I’m not convinced they deserve to make the tournament, let alone host. The craziest argument I’ve seen is that because Tennessee has the toughest strength schedule that the losses are acceptable. However, some of those losses have been absolute blowouts, and some of them have been where they absolutely should not have lost. It’s a tough reality, but this year’s Tennessee team has been terrible.

I’d also add that I do not believe they deserve to be ranked right now.
 
Tenn highly unlikely to fall completely out of ncaa tourney. Would require losing out and losing first SECT game...and that might even only lead to them in the play in game.

Hosting is out...the opposite would have to happen. Win out and make semis of SECT. Not going to happen.
 
Puppy Love said:
At this point, unless Tennessee pulls two or three major upsets in their last remaining games or in the SEC tournament, I’m not convinced they deserve to make the tournament, let alone host. The craziest argument I’ve seen is that because Tennessee has the toughest strength schedule that the losses are acceptable. However, some of those losses have been absolute blowouts, and some of them have been where they absolutely should not have lost. It’s a tough reality, but this year’s Tennessee team has been terrible.

I’d also add that I do not believe they deserve to be ranked right now.
Expand ...
They lost by 2 points to 1 seed Texas. You are nutz.

Have you seen some of the teams on the bubble?
 
visitingcock said:
Should venue and attendance be a factor in choosing the 4 seeds?

HYPOTHETICALLY - Let’s assume that the committee uses its normal factors to rank these as 4 seeds. However, using the same factors, Iowa State or Tennessee would be 5 seeds.

Should the committee consider whether Iowa State or Tennessee is the better selection to host the first two tournament rounds based on size/quality of the arena and fan attendance of approximately 10,000 than, for example, Ole Miss with attendance of 3,000 ?
Expand ...

Yeah, no.

But, if ever there was a decision to revive pre-determined neutral sites for the first two rounds, I wouldn't be opposed to that being the case on a trial basis strictly for the 4, 5, 12, and 13 parts of the bracket. That would be one way to "grow the sport" a bit more. Perhaps even find a way to have the play-in games as part of that.
 
Vowelguy said:
They lost by 2 points to 1 seed Texas. You are nutz.

Have you seen some of the teams on the bubble?
Expand ...

I mean, I don't agree with the poster believing they don't "deserve" do be invited to the tourney. But, I don't think a "close" loss is a determining factor. If you didn't win the game, then you lost it. Unfortunately, I have seen the committee penalize teams when they get routed (maybe that's why Vandy got the final #1 seed over Texas in that first reveal?); so, then someone could argue that the Lady Vols' blowout losses at UConn and South Carolina should be weighed differently than "close" losses.
 
southie said:
I mean, I don't agree with the poster believing they don't "deserve" do be invited to the tourney. But, I don't think a "close" loss is a determining factor. If you didn't win the game, then you lost it. Unfortunately, I have seen the committee penalize teams when they get routed (maybe that's why Vandy got the final #1 seed over Texas in that first reveal?); so, then someone could argue that the Lady Vols' blowout losses at UConn and South Carolina should be weighed differently than "close" losses.
Expand ...
It’s built in to the NET algorithm
 
.-.
southie said:
But, I don't think a "close" loss is a determining factor.
Expand ...
Correct per se it does not.

But the notion that they are an awful team is false. They still have more Quad 1 wins than most.
 
visitingcock said:
Should venue and attendance be a factor in choosing the 4 seeds?

HYPOTHETICALLY - Let’s assume that the committee uses its normal factors to rank these as 4 seeds. However, using the same factors, Iowa State or Tennessee would be 5 seeds.

Should the committee consider whether Iowa State or Tennessee is the better selection to host the first two tournament rounds based on size/quality of the arena and fan attendance of approximately 10,000 than, for example, Ole Miss with attendance of 3,000 ?
Expand ...
I have been tracking the 16 seed attendance for years and I will guarantee that the lowest attended 1st two round games will be at DUKE. They have been abysmal at supporting the NCAAT. Queue up all the excuses why now-3...2...1 begin
 
Re: Tennessee

I know this is not about the top 16 teams but can Tennessee really get into the NCAA tournament with only 16 wins?

We had this discussion a couple weeks ago about how Tennessee would always get into the dance because of who they are. I agreed with that at the time..

But with only 16 wins and 2 games left against LSU and Vanderbilt (they could definitely lose both) how can they still possibly get in? They have lost a bunch of games in a roll now.

Of course they can get in by winning their tournament but if they dont?

How does the NCAA justify putting a team in with only 16- 18 wins and not winning their conference tournament?
 
southie said:
I mean, I don't agree with the poster believing they don't "deserve" do be invited to the tourney. But, I don't think a "close" loss is a determining factor. If you didn't win the game, then you lost it. Unfortunately, I have seen the committee penalize teams when they get routed (maybe that's why Vandy got the final #1 seed over Texas in that first reveal?); so, then someone could argue that the Lady Vols' blowout losses at UConn and South Carolina should be weighed differently than "close" losses.
Expand ...
southie said:
Okay. But, NET is only one metric used by the committee, right?
Expand ...
The NET is an algorithmic average (see Torvik T-Rank for a gist of the NET as they are similar). As a matter of course, specific game results (the resume) can challenge what NET (as an average) suggests for the S-Curve.
  • Close wins/losses suggest the neighborhood of a team’s true seed (see Michigan);
  • There are similar signals from blowout losses, dominant wins, head-to-head, etc.
  • If a team’s resume has several mixed signals (e.g. a Quad 4 loss and a Quad 1 win (see Virginia), then this is a subjective weighting (12 Committee beholder votes)).
NET is the initial guess of the Committee of the S-curve.
  • In their terminology, the NET is their (initial) “sorting tool”;
  • There is a specific procedure (really read it to understand seeding) used by the NCAA for the S-Curve. It is akin to a step-wise/ rolling hypothesis testing;
  • Every step in the procedure entails 12 Committee votes and “cross-country scoring”;
  • The Committee’s S-Curve will differ from the NET by considering all prescribed factors and other factors. (See ESPN’s Bracketology below for Crème’s approximation of the Committee’s work; NET and the Bracketed S-Curve (Overall Seed) are listed);
  • Note that Nebraska (NET 29) was excluded by Creme. Creme has noted that the NCAA had excluded other teams with a higher NET in the past. I am not saying TN will be booted, as the particulars may be different.

IMG_9325.jpeg
 
.-.
Vowelguy said:
Nebraska was excluded because they have 1 quality win —66-65 over Washington.
Expand ...
Oklahoma State (included by Creme) has no Quad 1 wins but “only” has 8 losses to Nebraska’s 11 losses.
  • Tennessee has 10 losses. (Only California Baptist (auto-bid) has 10 losses at 2/19 in Crème’s Bracketology).
  • TN’s remaining games are to LSU and Vanderbilt.
  • TN’s close loss to TX is data in its favor.
 
southie said:
I think cities with NBA/NHL teams just don't want to bid because they have to make their arenas available for an entire week. That also affects the availability for concerts or other non-sports events. I guess Sacramento is an exception.

So, it's not a surprise that the cities bidding are relatively small in size compared to the major US cities and they don't have professional sports teams to factor.
Expand ...
Amalie Arena in Tampa, home of the Tampa Bay Lightning, was the women’s Final Four site in 2025 and will host the men’s first and second rounds this year.
 
southie said:
I think cities with NBA/NHL teams just don't want to bid because they have to make their arenas available for an entire week. That also affects the availability for concerts or other non-sports events. I guess Sacramento is an exception.

So, it's not a surprise that the cities bidding are relatively small in size compared to the major US cities and they don't have professional sports teams to factor.
Expand ...
I don’t think the logistics are a road block. The issue is probably more general availability and potential revenue.
Madison square garden has not only the Rangers and Knicks but also a lot of concerts, with high ticket prices and sold out crowds. And these arenas probably have high costs.

Except for the final 4, WCBB tourney games aren’t sellouts and the ticket prices are more modest. MSG could easily make more money elsewhere.
Similarly story for other large cities, which is why the regionals generally make more sense for medium sized cities.
 
Hey experts - I'm trying to find out if there's another reveal before the selection weekend, and all I've come up with is the day before official brackets are out. Is this correct?
 
1974yankees said:
Re: Tennessee

I know this is not about the top 16 teams but can Tennessee really get into the NCAA tournament with only 16 wins?

We had this discussion a couple weeks ago about how Tennessee would always get into the dance because of who they are. I agreed with that at the time..

But with only 16 wins and 2 games left against LSU and Vanderbilt (they could definitely lose both) how can they still possibly get in? They have lost a bunch of games in a roll now.

Of course they can get in by winning their tournament but if they dont?

How does the NCAA justify putting a team in with only 16- 18 wins and not winning their conference tournament?
Expand ...
The selection process for the women's basketball tournament

explicitly States that they picked the 31 automatic qualifiers as well as:
"37 best at-large teams"

(emphasis added).
They go into excruciating detail to identify metrics to review.

Unless I missed something, they nowhere say that "16- 18 wins" is not enough.

Don't get me wrong, I am pulling for Tennessee to lose, but if they are one of the 37 best at-large teams, they deserve an invitation. At present, this isn't a close call. I'd be happy to elaborate if you disagree.

(This may not be appropriate for this thread, happy to move to one of the general threads if you want to discuss this).
 
.-.
I know everyone hates Mulkey but LSU as the weakest 2 seed is crazy. And Ohio State as a three seed? Nuts. It lools like the NCAA uses the AP poll more than NET.
 
Woof said:
I know everyone hates Mulkey but LSU as the weakest 2 seed is crazy. And Ohio State as a three seed? Nuts. It lools like the NCAA uses the AP poll more than NET.
Expand ...
The NCAA has Bracketing Principles that mandates/ permissively allows departures from the S-curve due to teams coming from the same conference.
  • A bracketing principle (highlighted below) currently affects LSU and Vanderbilt on the 1 and 2 seed lines.
  • Ohio St. is the 6th highest-seeded Big Ten team per ESPN’s Bracketology, so there should be no bracketing restrictions; their NET is 17 and their overall seed is 14.

IMG_9357.jpeg


IMG_9325.jpeg
 
HuskyNan said:
Amalie Arena in Tampa, home of the Tampa Bay Lightning, was the women’s Final Four site in 2025 and will host the men’s first and second rounds this year.
Expand ...

The cities we've seen so far for the women's Regionals are Spokane, Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Birmingham, Greenville, Fort Worth and Albany. So, two out eight sites were NBA cities/arenas. The women's Final Fours typically have been held in major cities.

Looks like it will be Las Vegas and Philadelphia in 2027; and Portland (again) and D.C. in 2028; so, maybe the women's Regionals are becoming more lucrative.
 
Phil said:
It is explicitly listed as a factor:

"Competitive in losses"
Expand ...

The word "competitive" is extremely subjective and open to interpretation.

My point was that Tennessee's 2-point loss (at home) to Texas (one game pointed out by one poster) when compared to their blowout losses at UConn, South Carolina, Ole Miss and a home rout against Miss. State doesn't give "competitive" feel for those 5 losses overall. What about their "close" 2-point loss at home to hapless Texas A&M where they trailed the entire game and trailed by as many as 20 points? Is that "competitive" to you?
 
NycUcWbbFan said:
The NCAA has Bracketing Principles that mandates/ permissively allows departures from the S-curve due to teams coming from the same conference.
  • A bracketing principle (highlighted below) currently affects LSU and Vanderbilt on the 1 and 2 seed lines.
  • Ohio St. is the 6th highest-seeded Big Ten team per ESPN’s Bracketology, so there should be no bracketing restrictions; their NET is 17 and their overall seed is 14.

View attachment 117408

View attachment 117409
Expand ...
I feel like they should restructure this set up since we now have super conferences where 12 of the 16 projected seeded teams come from 2 conferences.

LSU as your regional final matchup after going undefeated is infinitely more terrifying than facing Louisville the same round.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,263
Messages
4,560,449
Members
10,452
Latest member
WashingtonH


Top Bottom