Phil
Stats Geek
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,673
- Reaction Score
- 6,620
"Does it matter or does it not matter" is an example of binary thinking. Many questions qualify but some have probabilistic answers, which isn't aalways always comfortable for some people.
Southie ("it does matter more often than not.") and Gamecockfan77 ("you’d rather play the least number of teams that have the highest chance of beating you"), nailed it.
You have to win six (ignoring playing teams which can be ignored) but the chances of winning it all and materially different depending on the six teams you have to face.
2025 is a classic example. UConn was given a two seed which was not deserved, they not only deserved one seated should've been at worst the second best one seed. Their path included three number one seeds. Obviously, that worked out very, very well, but their years in which the luck of the draw turns out differently.
Gamecockfan77 also points out ("it's rich people problems"), it's astounding to contemplate that UConn with 12 national championships might well have more with different seeding. For that matter, perhaps UConn might have fewer, if one of the championships could be traced to favorable seeding.
It does matter.
It's all in the hands of committee members who have some absolutely well-defined stats, but they also have two poorly defined tools – the ability to wait absolutely defined stats anyway they want, and if that's not good enough, There is always the "observable component" to fall back upon.
Southie ("it does matter more often than not.") and Gamecockfan77 ("you’d rather play the least number of teams that have the highest chance of beating you"), nailed it.
You have to win six (ignoring playing teams which can be ignored) but the chances of winning it all and materially different depending on the six teams you have to face.
2025 is a classic example. UConn was given a two seed which was not deserved, they not only deserved one seated should've been at worst the second best one seed. Their path included three number one seeds. Obviously, that worked out very, very well, but their years in which the luck of the draw turns out differently.
Gamecockfan77 also points out ("it's rich people problems"), it's astounding to contemplate that UConn with 12 national championships might well have more with different seeding. For that matter, perhaps UConn might have fewer, if one of the championships could be traced to favorable seeding.
It does matter.
It's all in the hands of committee members who have some absolutely well-defined stats, but they also have two poorly defined tools – the ability to wait absolutely defined stats anyway they want, and if that's not good enough, There is always the "observable component" to fall back upon.