NCAA tournament seeding - facts and myths

[HuskyNan]

We’ve got a lot of folks arguing about seeding lately. One side is, perhaps a tad condescendingly, adamant that the numbers are this and that and can’t be changed while others feel that this should or shouldn’t affect seeding. Neither side is completely right. That brings me to:

• Myth 1: The AP poll matters in seeding. No, it does NOT matter, polls are irrelevant. Polls aren’t based on computer analysis or in depth scrutiny of rosters and records, it’s 32 sportswriters and bloggers filling out a form while they drink their coffee at breakfast. Why would a bunch of writers have any effect on tournament seeding?
• Myth 2: One big game matters in seeding. So, UConn won in Columbia (yay, us!). What does that do for seeding? The answer is little to nothing. Seeding is based on performance during the entire season, not the last game although I will say the Committee has the option to consider put more weight on late season performance as teams improve.
• Myth 3: Seeds are baked in/determined by math. Sorry, no. UConn fans should know this very well. How many times has UConn had “the numbers” to be a 1 or 2 seed in the East only to be slapped with a lower seed and shipped off to Spokane? The Committee can be, and has been, capricious, awarding and taking away seeds for reasons known only to themselves. And they don’t have to tell us why, either.

So, how is seeding determined? The NCAA released a list of criteria, some of them hard numbers, some of them squishy. The bottom line is, we have no idea what the Committee will do. If Paige or Olivia or Juju (love her name) twists her ankle before the Committee meets , the seedings could all go out the window because, yes, the Committee can consider injuries too. Or not. Stanford famously lost a key player before the tourney, kept its #1 seed, then lost in the first round to #16 Harvard, led by Allison Feaster (see what I did there?). There’s also the undefinable “observable component”, lol, aka eye test. Anyway, here’s the criteria for seeding from the NCAA:

 

[LesMis89]

If you look up the definition of "capricious" the citation reads Maryalyce Jeremiah aka 'Malice' Jeremiah.

Oldsters like me will get this reference

 

[oldude]

Speaking of which, UCLA almost lost to MI St at home last night with Lauren Betts sitting on the bench in a walking boot.

 

[Dugway]

So, how is seeding determined? The NCAA released a list of criteria, some of them hard numbers, some of them squishy. The bottom line is, we have no idea what the Committee will do. If Paige or Olivia or Juju (love her name) twists her ankle before the Committee meets , the seedings could all go out the window because, yes, the Committee can consider injuries too. Or not.

Coincidental, Lauren Betts did not play yesterday. She was in a walking boot just like the one Morgan is wearing these days. Reports are that she will be back, perhaps next game.

Flau’jae Johnson arrived to her game against Texas in a boot. Then she suited up and played. Obviously was not a horrible injury for her.

In baseball, injuries do occur and it is very unfortunate for the players and teams that sustain those injuries, particularly late in the season. Even worse is when it happens to a teams star. Let’s pray that the fortunes and unfortunates do not become a factor this year for any team and their fanbase!

 

[Bone Dog]

The NET has always seemed to me to be the most interesting criterion for two reasons.

• It’s more or less objective, though its objectivity probably improves as more games are played.
• It’s a publicly disseminated ranking. The networks have included NET rank in their in-game graphics for a couple weeks now.

The committee’s work may really be capricious. But I suspect public perception matters to them and they’d prefer to minimize the appearance of caprice if possible. To the committee this means sticking close to any publicly available objective measures, like the NET. Of course, the public’s perception is also shaped by other less objective elements, like AP rankings, which are bound to have some small impact on the deliberations.

Another, more intricate consideration the committee must pay attention to is regions and conferences. As many have observed, they try to avoid matching conference rivals in the early rounds. This is bound to entail departures from other objective measures. It may have gotten trickier with the recent consolidation of conferences.

I’d guess the NET provides a starting point for deliberations but hardly accounts for the end result.

 

[oldude]

The OP suggests that the impact of UConn’s win in Columbia yesterday is, “little to nothing.” But then lists 11 criteria used by the Selection Committee, 4 of which directly relate to UConn’s win yesterday: Early performance vs late performance, Head to head outcomes, Observable component and Significant wins.

At an absolute minimum, UConn’s statement win yesterday in Columbia vaults the Huskies ahead of SC in the overall seeding determination for the Big Dance. That is certainly not “little to nothing.”

 

[ERWUC65]

At an absolute minimum, UConn’s statement win yesterday in Columbia vaults the Huskies ahead of SC in the overall seeding determination for the Big Dance. That is certainly not “little to nothing.”

Oldude is certainly not going to be confused by facts. I may not agree with his position but I do acknowledge his right to be misinformed.

 

[huskeynut]

This is the "crazy time" of the year. Games do take on more importance. And we still have a ways to go.

My thoughts, UConn will be a #2 seed. Since there are no more regional sites, it's not a big deal.

UConn's big win yesterday does make a statement and may make a difference. I'm not an expert. When you get your butt handed to you on your home court, it matters.

UConn will play whoever we are matched up against in the tournament. Geno knows this better than most.

 

[Majic Hands]

As I understand it. The NET is the actual starting point. The most perfectly fair placement for every team in the tournament.

Then they have the list of exceptions about all sorts of things.

Resulting in being able to place any team anywhere they want.

It is what it is.

 

[oldude]

At an absolute minimum, UConn’s statement win yesterday in Columbia vaults the Huskies ahead of SC in the overall seeding determination for the Big Dance. That is certainly not “little to nothing.”

Oldude is certainly not going to be confused by facts. I may not agree with his position but I do acknowledge his right to be misinformed.

So you are suggesting that the Selection Committee criteria of “Head to Head” games has absolutely no bearing on UConn’s seeding vis a vis South Carolina, the defending national champions, despite a 29-point beat down to the Gamecocks on their home court?

Talk about the, “right to be misinformed……”

 

[YKCornelius]

The OP suggests that the impact of UConn’s win in Columbia yesterday is, “little to nothing.” But then lists 11 criteria used by the Selection Committee, 4 of which directly relate to UConn’s win yesterday: Early performance vs late performance, Head to head outcomes, Observable component and Significant wins.

At an absolute minimum, UConn’s statement win yesterday in Columbia vaults the Huskies ahead of SC in the overall seeding determination for the Big Dance. That is certainly not “little to nothing.”

Oldude, I agree with you and disagree with HuskyNan. Not just one big game, but a blowout big game; an out-of-conference big game against a (currently) #1 seeded opponent big game; on the opponent's home court in front of 18,000 people big game;
and in a nationally televised, College Game Day big game.

This is precisely the kind of big game that can/should/will impact seeding. To imply this win will not move the Huskies higher than their current #7 overall seed is simply incorrect for the criteria you stated. Will they move up to become one of the four #1 seeds? Probably not, but still possible. Other things need to fall into place.

Here's the bottom line: the selection committee has a bit of a "situation" on their hands given what just happened on national television surrounding their initial reveal. Presuming the Huskies win out the rest of their regular season games, either the committee moves UConn up to an overall #6, #5 or even #4 at the end of the month for the second reveal, or they risk being discredited in the eyes of everyone who follows WCBB.

 

[oldude]

Another criteria that the committee may consider is injuries. We have talked about Lauren Betts wearing a walking boot. While UCLA expects her back soon, if Betts is out for an extended period of time, that could very well impact UCLA’s tournament seeding.

But injuries can be a 2-way street. When UConn lost to ND, Azzi & Aubrey were both out. When UConn lost to USC, Aubrey was out and Azzi had just returned. I can’t say much about TN, but clearly, over the past 2 games, Azzi is back and playing like the former HS NPOY, which is something that the committee can consider relative to injuries or Early performance vs Late performance.

 

[Centerstream]

On a completely side note, some posters would quote Massey ratings in seeding discussions.
We slipped from 4 to 6 after the loss to TN. SC has been #1 all season (I think).
This morning, were are back to 4 and SC is 1. And weirdly, the Golden Domers are 5.

 

[DennieEddy]

So you are suggesting that the Selection Committee criteria of “Head to Head” games has absolutely no bearing on UConn’s seeding vis a vis South Carolina, the defending national champions, despite a 29-point beat down to the Gamecocks on their home court?

Talk about the, “right to be misinformed……”

I guess we're can defer speculation for this topic for about a month? Of course, other criteria may come into play during that month.

So you are suggesting that the Selection Committee criteria of “Head to Head” games has absolutely no bearing on UConn’s seeding vis a vis South Carolina, the defending national champions, despite a 29-point beat down to the Gamecocks on their home court?

Talk about the, “right to be misinformed……”

 

[HuskyNan]

Guys, read the NCAA item I linked above. This is how the seeding is done. We can’t make up our own methodology.

How the field of 68 DI women’s teams is picked for March Madness

The NCAA’s guide to how the 68 teams are chosen, seeded and bracketed for the Division I women's basketball tournament.

www.ncaa.com

 

[YKCornelius]

Guys, read the NCAA item I linked above. This is how the seeding is done. We can’t make up our own methodology.

How the field of 68 DI women’s teams is picked for March Madness

The NCAA’s guide to how the 68 teams are chosen, seeded and bracketed for the Division I women's basketball tournament.

www.ncaa.com

Thanks for sharing the link. Good stuff. Lots of discretion for individual committee members, before and after the field of 68 is selected.

 

[Rowdy831]

Two things can be true at the same time. You can have criteria that is used which does take into account your head to head and a beat down can be a contributing factor in how the final number is determined. I would say head to head is the final tie breaker if you will. A bad loss is a 29 point loss on your home floor, and in the end people determine the order so bias will also play a role.

In the end it really doesn't matter since theoretically you will have to play a few good teams along the way to win a championship. UConn played really tough defense yesterday and if they do move up to a 1 seed they would most likely be the 4th best and if they are a 2 seed they most likely would be the best 2 which should mean they play the same team in the field of 8.

All I can say is yesterdays game showed that UConn can play with SC and that they should believe in themselves to be good enough to win 12. They still have to play, they still have to play well, and they will still need a good draw for matchups but that is true of every team in the country.

 

[Inthepaint]

Time to get out the tea leaves & ouija board

 

[ubasketball]

I'll leave it to others to discuss the finer points of seeding. I'll just say I value the NET the most. As it stands now, I think our seeding is as good as we could hope for. The path is never easy, but we will not have to beat both ND and UCLA, and we will not see either until the championship game. And I'd rather face Texas and then SC to get to the final. And, up front I admit my bias, so even though the overall seeding as it is now looks about right to me, the one change I would make is replace SC with UCONN as a #1 seed.

 

[azfan]

Thanks for sharing the link. Good stuff. Lots of discretion for individual committee members, before and after the field of 68 is selected.

Yep!

 

[Plebe]

At an absolute minimum, UConn’s statement win yesterday in Columbia vaults the Huskies ahead of SC in the overall seeding determination for the Big Dance.

Not true.

Again, polls =//= committee.

The committee, unlike the polls, does not tend to overreact with recency bias to a single game result. As great as the win was, it was still just one win and by no stretch of the imagination does it put UConn's overall resume on par with SC's, much less past it.

 

[azfan]

Not true.

Again, polls =//= committee.

The committee, unlike the polls, does not tend to overreact with recency bias to a single game result. As great as the win was, it was still just one win and by no stretch of the imagination does it put UConn's overall resume on par with SC's, much less past it.

Agreed.
SEC Champ versus Big East Champ.... Apples to oranges or how do you like them apples?

 

[oldude]

Not true.

Again, polls =//= committee.

The committee, unlike the polls, does not tend to overreact with recency bias to a single game result. As great as the win was, it was still just one win and by no stretch of the imagination does it put UConn's overall resume on par with SC's, much less past it.

Forget about recency bias. Head to head outcome tips the seeding decision in favor of UConn over SC imo.

The committee members are human beings. Imagine trying to explain how you seeded SC ahead of UConn after the Huskies beat the Gamecocks by 29 on their home court.

 

[Plebe]

Agreed.
SEC Champ versus Big East Champ.... Apples to oranges or how do you like them apples?

Has absolutely nothing to do with that. UConn was the overall #1 seed for 5 consecutive years as the American Athletic Conference champion.

 

[HuskyNan]

Head to head outcome tips the seeding decision in favor of UConn over SC imo.

You have to compare the entire resume, not one game. So Carolina has more good wins than UConn. Head to head helps but it’s not THE determining factor