Creme with new #1 seeds

[Fightin Choke]

I'd be curious to know what result would have persuaded Charlie to keep Louisville as a #1. Surely they weren't expected to beat UConn? If you are the 4th #1 seed and playing the first #1 seed, you are expected to lose.

Was the margin too high?

Sagarin predicted a 17 point victory and it was , drumroll... a 17 point victory.
Arguably, this mean that whatever you thought of Louisville before the game, you should think exactly the same thing after the game (arguably, because there are things other than point spread. But you might consider that Louisville did this without Smith, so arguably, they exceeded expectations)

Creme replaces Louisville with Duke.

Duke is a fine team, and may deserve a #1 seed, but Creme felt they were not quite there last week, and now does.

What happened between last week and this week?

1. 
   [ ]Louisville matched or slightly exceeded expectations with a loss to UConn by 17 which was predicted to be 17 by Sagarin
   [ ]Duke ever so slightly underperformed, by beating Clemson by 27, when Sagarin predicted 28 (as an aside, nice work Sagarin)

What else happened to move Duke ahead of Louisville?

Not much, but Louisville even dropped in Sagarin, falling from 6th to 7th.

 

[ASweet3781]

I'm not a "bracketologist". I go by my own eyes instead of dumb rules.

And my eyes tell me that once again, Stanford, a team that just lost to 13-10 Washington, would get the easiest path to the Final Four. And UConn the toughest. The dreaded 4th meeting against a conference rival (on their home floor to boot), a stumbling block for many teams in the past. Perhaps it's time for the committee to look into their rule book and ask why that scenario would play out. Mr. Creme could use his status to point out the absurdity of this instead of simply enabling it. The way this is set up, it's actually a benefit for UConn to lose one of the remaining games to Louisville.

But hey, Louisville is what, half an hour closer by plane than Lincoln to Connecticut? So let's throw competitive balance and fairness out the window by all means.

 

[Phil]

Not much, but Louisville even dropped in Sagarin, falling from 6th to 7th.

Sort of. Louisville's Rating changed by 0.08 (IIRC), while Maryland moved up roughly .42, so it is more accurate to say that Louisville didn't really move, while Maryland pulled ahead.

 

[Phil]

I'm not a "bracketologist". I go by my own eyes instead of dumb rules.

... So let's throw competitive balance and fairness out the window by all means.

Do you suggest that the committee ignore its "dumb rules"?

Seriously, have you been following the sport? The emphasis on " competitive balance and fairness" was changed to an emphasis on geography (read: expenses) years ago. This isn't news.

 

[Phil]

I'm not a "bracketologist". I go by my own eyes instead of dumb rules.

You are, of course, free to put together your own bracket, following your own rules, or none.

What you are not free to do is to claim that Charlie Creme should follow your rules instead of the Selection Committee rules.

 

[ASweet3781]

Do you suggest that the committee ignore its "dumb rules"?

Yes.

Geography and expenses should be a concern if your worried about attendance. With Louisville, ND, and Stanford hosting, you will likely have sell outs, and Nebraska supports their WCBB team as well so even if Nebraska doesn't make it attendance will be respectable there as well.

Their rule is dumb to begin with. It's really really dumb to use it this year.

 

[UConnCat]

What is the stated rationale behind the selection committee's geography rule?

 

[HuskyFan1125]

The geography "rule" may go to the side now that there are 4 schools hosting.

I personally don't think UCONN should have to play on someone's home floor to go to the FF, but it doesn't matter where you go this year it's gonna happen. With that said if Louisville is #2 seed or lower I would hope the committee wouldn't make UCONN play them a 4th time!

I'm quite ok going to Lincoln. Playing Nebraska to get a FF is unlikely.

I'm really interested in how the conference races finish up in the SEC and BIG12 and who wins the conference tourneys.

Seeding will be interesting.

But again it would be NCAA Tourney time and anything could happen.

 

[easttexastrash]

I'm waiting for the coaches poll...it seems to be more correct than the AP.

 

[Tonyc]

IMO UConn should go to Nebraska. One it would be great for WCBB and attract a lot of casual fans. Second they've earned the position to not face a top ranked team on their own floor. Its UConn and everybody else so let everybody else fight it out to see who will face UConn in the FF.

 

[easttexastrash]

IMO UConn should go to Nebraska. One it would be great for WCBB and attract a lot of casual fans. Second they've earned the position to not face a top ranked team on their own floor. Its UConn and everybody else so let everybody else fight it out to see who will face UConn in the FF.

I was equally cocky last year. There is a reason the games are played. Some team goes wild from three point range and you can be left sitting at home watching the FF on TV instead of partying on Bourbon Street.

 

[Phil]

What is the stated rationale behind the selection committee's geography rule?

It was driven by expense considerations. I'm doing this from memory, but I'm fairly sure that's the rationale.

 

[Vowelguy]

It was driven by expense considerations. I'm doing this form memory, but I'm fairly sure that's the rationale.

I thought it was more the desire to have teams play close to home, making it easier for their fans to go the games.

Creme is very much a letter of the law guy. A couple of years ago, Texas A&M was sent to NC and not Iowa for a regional and Creme was indignant. I said: "Given that it's a several-hour plane ride to both, I'd say the spirit of the rule was not violated." His response: "The rule says distance only. The committee ignored its own rules." Harsh, imho.

 

[UConnCat]

It was driven by expense considerations. I'm doing this form memory, but I'm fairly sure that's the rationale.

I always like to go back to the reason for a rule to see if the stated objective is being achieved. The rule says that a higher seeded team should be assigned to the closest geographical site. That suggests the higher seed is being rewarded by having to travel a shorter distance. Since the NCAA picks up the tab for team travel, is it the fans' expenses the NCAA is concerned about? I understand that the NCAA can cut down on travel expense generally by assigning teams to the closest sites, but I'm trying to get at the rationale for giving priority to the higher seeded team. Given that the regionals are not spread out geographically and will be played on teams' home courts, I wonder if the selection committee will see a need to adjust how it rewards higher seeded teams.

This is the rule:

The committee will attempt to assign each team to the
most geographically compatible regional and first‐
/second‐round site, by order of the s‐curve. When
multiple teams are a similar distance from a site, the
team seeded higher in the s‐curve will be assigned to
the closest geographical proximity site.

 

[DobbsRover2]

As often has been noted, shorter distances need not mean less expensive fares, as a flight from NYC to LA will almost always be way cheaper than a flight from Pittsburgh to LA, so putting too much emphasis on geographical distances may not be the best idea when more important principles are in play. That said, for the fans, Louisville would be anywhere from $100 to $200 cheaper round trip from either Windsor Locks or an NYC airport than a flight to Lincoln. Sometimes schools can set up cheaper charters for some fans though, and flying to Omaha from NYC and driving an hour to Lincoln can be as cheap as going to Louisville.

As to Louisville and Sagarin, there is a huge SOS gap in those ratings between the ACC and SEC schools on the overloved side and the B12 and AAC schools that are set way back, even when like UConn they have played a nasty OOC. Duke gets crushed at home again but still sits comfortably at #3. Massey has Stanford, Duke, and Louisville bunched closely in the 3-5 spots and of course its ratings simply has a much better SOS scale. Brackets at this time of year still mean nada though when at least a quarter of the listed teams may not be in the tourney and seeding credentials will scramble a lot during the next month.

 

[UcMiami]

Couple of thoughts:
1. Given the one year 'Regional Host can play on home court' change to rules, this year is going to be very interesting in ways not seen recently.
2. The choice of regional sites was an absolute mockery in choosing three sites clustered in the heartland and a fourth on the west coast - if any geographic region should have been screwed the west coast with the weakest line-up of potential tournament teams should have been the one. The Atlantic coast and or the south should have had precedence over the west coast. And certainly clustering three regionals in the central 'zone' was stupid once they chose a west coast location. To use geography as the primary determination of regional assignment in setting the brackets after TOTALLY ignoring it in the selection of the sites boggles my mind!
3. As long as the committee continues to chose a Pacific coast location for its most western regional, and as long as the western region of the country continues to produce mediocre teams outside of Stanford, the geographic principle of assignment will mean that the regional will always be assigned the worst teams on most of the seeding lines as that location will generally be furthest from the top three teams on that line. I wouldn't mind them deciding to chose either a southwestern location or a mountain location for a western regional so at least some of the midwest/Texas teams would be closer to that regional than say a southeastern or northeastern location.
4. Charlie and a few other commentators have called for the committee to rewrite the geography principle for this year - specifically because based purely on geography Uconn should be sent to South Bend which would bump ND off their home court. I do not believe to date they have rewritten (at least published) anything that would counteract that happening. They have announced teams can host regionals but have not in fact said teams must host said regional if the geography rule would send them elsewhere.
5. If Stanford loses another game (something that no one really though likely prior to this past week so don't say it is unlikely) we may end up with two or three non-#1 seeds hosting regionals. That would be interesting.

 

[CTyankee]

Charlie really has to work this year to pick the #1 seeds... ND and UConn look like locks. It seems as if no one wants to be seed #3 or #4...

 

[Vowelguy]

3. As long as the committee continues to chose a Pacific coast location for its most western regional, and as long as the western region of the country continues to produce mediocre teams outside of Stanford, the geographic principle of assignment will mean that the regional will always be assigned the worst teams on most of the seeding lines as that location will generally be furthest from the top three teams on that line.

Two things.
First, the committee is making strides. They used to put 4 of the first/second rounds in the west, which gave the region an overabundance of sites at the expense of the rest of the country. This year there are only 2, which is a big improvement.
Second, I used to think the same about the west always getting assigned the worst teams. However, there is also a rule about keeping the regions roughly even in strength. I believe the committee adds up the ranks (from their ranking, not the AP or RPI) of 4 teams and tries to keep that number close across the regions. Perfectly balanced regionals would add up to 34. So you wouldn't see the #4,#8,#12,#16 in the west; they'd redistribute to even things up.

 

[pap49cba]

Charlie's article about his latest bracket....

 

[southie]

Baylor isn't even in the Top 15 RPI; that doesn't equate to a #2 seed (at the moment).

 

[Phil]

I always like to go back to the reason for a rule to see if the stated objective is being achieved. The rule says that a higher seeded team should be assigned to the closest geographical site. That suggests the higher seed is being rewarded by having to travel a shorter distance. Since the NCAA picks up the tab for team travel, is it the fans' expenses the NCAA is concerned about? I understand that the NCAA can cut down on travel expense generally by assigning teams to the closest sites, but I'm trying to get at the rationale for giving priority to the higher seeded team. Given that the regionals are not spread out geographically and will be played on teams' home courts, I wonder if the selection committee will see a need to adjust how it rewards higher seeded teams.

This is the rule:

The committee will attempt to assign each team to the
most geographically compatible regional and first‐
/second‐round site, by order of the s‐curve. When
multiple teams are a similar distance from a site, the
team seeded higher in the s‐curve will be assigned to
the closest geographical proximity site.

I believe the prime motivation is NCAA expenses, although that ought to be highly correlated with fan expenses.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Baylor isn't even in the Top 15 RPI; that doesn't equate to a #2 seed (at the moment).

RPI is of no value, though there are some on the BY who would argue it can be used for 40+ rated teams. For top teams it is brain-dead, even if UConn did just get moved up to the #3 spot following another Dukie dunk, but the Huskies trail a Stanford team that just got beat by lowly Washington.

Baylor is #5\#6 in Sagarin and Massey, which are hugely more solid markers of team strength.

 

[Vowelguy]

Baylor isn't even in the Top 15 RPI; that doesn't equate to a #2 seed (at the moment).

The RPI is just one of many tools. There is no direct correlation between RPI rank and NCAA seed.
In fact, I believe the AP poll tends to be better correlated with the NCAA seed than RPI.

 

[watanabe]

Now that Louisville is #3,
Does that change things? Sagarin doesn't seem to agree. Below UC and ND, things are a changin.

 

[UConnCat]

I believe the prime motivation is NCAA expenses, although that ought to be highly correlated with fan expenses.

So is giving preference to the higher seeded team just a convenient tie-breaker or is it also viewed as a reward to the higher seeded team? Either way, I hope that part of the rule (or guideline or whatever it is) is scratched this year.