Over/Under Seeded Teams in the Tournament | The Boneyard

Over/Under Seeded Teams in the Tournament

DefenseBB

Snark is always appreciated!
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
8,274
Reaction Score
30,796
Ok, I followed the "S" curve of the NCAA Committee with SC as #1, Iowa #8 all the way to Incarnate Word of #68. We know that it isn't perfect due to locations, conferences with multiple teams in the field that should not meet until S16 so the "S" curve could be off by 2, 3 or 4 slots or 1 seeding slot (#2 to #3, or #10 to #9). I then looked at Massey rating and WarrenNolan NET. I subtracted the bid of the NCAA against both rating services. For the most part, of the Top 50 teams (#1-12 seeds with the 2 #11 playins), are acceptable. There are 5 teams who seem under-seeded given their body of work and 8 teams Over-seeded. Ironically enough, the committee more closely resembled Massey than WarrenNolan which uses NET.

5 Under-seeded:
North Carolina at #17 (5 seed in Greensboro) could make a claim for #3 or #4 seed. Their Massey was #9 and WN was #7. They don't even get to host.
Oregon at #20 and the #5 seed in Wichita, could have also made a claim for the top #4 and hosting. Massey-#15/WN-#12
UCF at #27 (Massey-23/WN-15) and #7 seed in Bridgeport was also done a disservice. A #5 or #6 would have been more appropriate.
Gonzaga #36 (#29/#25) and #9 seed in Spokane deserved a #7 seed.
Princeton #43 (#39/#22) and a #11 seed in Bridgeport, seems to have deserved a #7, #8 or #9 seed.

8 Over-seeded:
Iowa as seeded as the last #2 seed (8th overall). However Massey had them at 12 and WN at 13. Iowa State was #8/#9, North Carolina was #9/#7 as candidates. Iowa State beat Iowa so to me, ISU should have gotten the 2 seed and Iowa #3. That said, flipflopping the seeding is tolerable.
LSU #10 overall, #3 in Spokane (Massey-17/WN-21) is a definite bias. A #5 seed would have been more logical, but given the turnaround Kim produced in Baton Rouge, I would have been ok with a #4 seed.
Oklahoma #14 overall, #4 in Bridgeport. Massey-18 and WN-35 differ a lot on this Sooner team. They should be a #5 or #6 team, instead they get to host. I feel good for Jen B and all those players to make the NCAAT after the few years under Sherri Coale but they didn't earn the hosting.
Kentucky #22, #6 in Bridgeport. Massey-30/WN-#34 shows this rating too favorable. The two SEC talking heads-Fargas and Peck glowed about the 10 game winning streak. But what about the 4 straight losses before that 10 OR the losing of 8 of before that 10 gamer? Yes, the stunner against SC was a great item but this 10 game win streak was built against Alabama, Vandy, Auburn, MSU twice and Missouri. Also with injured LSU (Morris) and Tennessee (Horston) so let's take it with a grain of salt shall we? Nikki also intimated Baylor lost to Texas because Smith was hurt and that Baylor deserved the #1 over Louisville. She wasn't hurt long as she came back into the game and was productive but somehow Kentucky's win is more deserving than Texas despite their wins over hurt team leaders?
Washington State #30, #8 in Bridgeport was #35 Massey and #59 WN! Now you can see why some were surprised they even made the field. Frankly a #11 bid was more logical than #8.
Miami at #32, #8 in Greensboro had a great run in the ACC to go from Bubble to In. But Massey-#41 and WN-#42 clearly show they should be a #11 seed, not #8.
South Florida #33, #9 in Greensboro. I guess as Jose used to be on the committee, they are still partial to him. Massey at #45 and WN at #40 state Jose should be the last #10 or an #11 seed.
Villanova #44, #11 in Wichita. Massey #67, WN-#71 show they are the worst by far, At-Large bid in the Tourney. Good for us? Maybe but the fact that there is a Villanova rep on the committee and the fact Schools like South Dakota State (43/36), Boston College (48/48), Oregon State (37/53) and Northwestern (49/66) are all more deserving. But Ok, fine, they are in but they should be a 12 or 13 seed. Auto bids like Belmont, UMass, FGCU that have a better body of work AND won their conference that should be a #11 seed.

Missing the correct seeding for 13 of 46 teams is still not great. As the Committee Chairwoman is from Duke, that's only a 72% accuracy....
 
Ok, I followed the "S" curve of the NCAA Committee with SC as #1, Iowa #8 all the way to Incarnate Word of #68. We know that it isn't perfect due to locations, conferences with multiple teams in the field that should not meet until S16 so the "S" curve could be off by 2, 3 or 4 slots or 1 seeding slot (#2 to #3, or #10 to #9). I then looked at Massey rating and WarrenNolan NET. I subtracted the bid of the NCAA against both rating services. For the most part, of the Top 50 teams (#1-12 seeds with the 2 #11 playins), are acceptable. There are 5 teams who seem under-seeded given their body of work and 8 teams Over-seeded. Ironically enough, the committee more closely resembled Massey than WarrenNolan which uses NET.

5 Under-seeded:
North Carolina at #17 (5 seed in Greensboro) could make a claim for #3 or #4 seed. Their Massey was #9 and WN was #7. They don't even get to host.
Oregon at #20 and the #5 seed in Wichita, could have also made a claim for the top #4 and hosting. Massey-#15/WN-#12
UCF at #27 (Massey-23/WN-15) and #7 seed in Bridgeport was also done a disservice. A #5 or #6 would have been more appropriate.
Gonzaga #36 (#29/#25) and #9 seed in Spokane deserved a #7 seed.
Princeton #43 (#39/#22) and a #11 seed in Bridgeport, seems to have deserved a #7, #8 or #9 seed.

8 Over-seeded:
Iowa as seeded as the last #2 seed (8th overall). However Massey had them at 12 and WN at 13. Iowa State was #8/#9, North Carolina was #9/#7 as candidates. Iowa State beat Iowa so to me, ISU should have gotten the 2 seed and Iowa #3. That said, flipflopping the seeding is tolerable.
LSU #10 overall, #3 in Spokane (Massey-17/WN-21) is a definite bias. A #5 seed would have been more logical, but given the turnaround Kim produced in Baton Rouge, I would have been ok with a #4 seed.
Oklahoma #14 overall, #4 in Bridgeport. Massey-18 and WN-35 differ a lot on this Sooner team. They should be a #5 or #6 team, instead they get to host. I feel good for Jen B and all those players to make the NCAAT after the few years under Sherri Coale but they didn't earn the hosting.
Kentucky #22, #6 in Bridgeport. Massey-30/WN-#34 shows this rating too favorable. The two SEC talking heads-Fargas and Peck glowed about the 10 game winning streak. But what about the 4 straight losses before that 10 OR the losing of 8 of before that 10 gamer? Yes, the stunner against SC was a great item but this 10 game win streak was built against Alabama, Vandy, Auburn, MSU twice and Missouri. Also with injured LSU (Morris) and Tennessee (Horston) so let's take it with a grain of salt shall we? Nikki also intimated Baylor lost to Texas because Smith was hurt and that Baylor deserved the #1 over Louisville. She wasn't hurt long as she came back into the game and was productive but somehow Kentucky's win is more deserving than Texas despite their wins over hurt team leaders?
Washington State #30, #8 in Bridgeport was #35 Massey and #59 WN! Now you can see why some were surprised they even made the field. Frankly a #11 bid was more logical than #8.
Miami at #32, #8 in Greensboro had a great run in the ACC to go from Bubble to In. But Massey-#41 and WN-#42 clearly show they should be a #11 seed, not #8.
South Florida #33, #9 in Greensboro. I guess as Jose used to be on the committee, they are still partial to him. Massey at #45 and WN at #40 state Jose should be the last #10 or an #11 seed.
Villanova #44, #11 in Wichita. Massey #67, WN-#71 show they are the worst by far, At-Large bid in the Tourney. Good for us? Maybe but the fact that there is a Villanova rep on the committee and the fact Schools like South Dakota State (43/36), Boston College (48/48), Oregon State (37/53) and Northwestern (49/66) are all more deserving. But Ok, fine, they are in but they should be a 12 or 13 seed. Auto bids like Belmont, UMass, FGCU that have a better body of work AND won their conference that should be a #11 seed.

Missing the correct seeding for 13 of 46 teams is still not great. As the Committee Chairwoman is from Duke, that's only a 72% accuracy....
The only reason NC net ranking and Massey is high is because they blew out a bunch of bad to mediocre teams. They are 5-6 against quad 1 teams. LSU is 8-4 against quad 1 teams, the same as UConn. NC best out of conference win was a bad Minnesota team who finished under .500. LSU best out of conference win is over Iowa State. So why is a 5 seed appropriate for LSU but a 3 or 4 for NC? It is obvious the committee looks at these things much deeper than you do.
 
There are simply other factors than NET or Massey, etc. interpretation and stats. If we just seeded by NET, we wouldn't need a committee. I don't disagree that a couple of the situations highlighted are at least worth a look, but in general I get some of them.

When was Jose on the committee? Never heard that before.
 
Princeton #43 (#39/#22) and a #11 seed in Bridgeport, seems to have deserved a #7, #8 or #9 seed.
Princeton lost to Fordham (#67), Seton Hall (#91) and Rhode Island (#61).
The devil is in the details.
Princeton's opponent will be the #6 seed Kentucky which you think is too favorable.
If that's truly the case then they should be ranked about the same and it would be a close game.
It's hard to believe that their talent level is as close as you think.
But if Kentucky has a convincing win then their seedings are accurate.

 
Last edited:
5 Under-seeded:
North Carolina at #17 (5 seed in Greensboro) could make a claim for #3 or #4 seed. Their Massey was #9 and WN was #7. They don't even get to host.
Greensboro is about 50 miles from the UNC campus, an easy drive too. It’s a virtual home game.
 
Honestly looking at the bracket the committee got it right overall. Yeah there could be a few quibbles here and there about moving up or down a seed line but those are minimal. I am genuinely excited about this year's postseason because it actually feels normal.
 
Honestly looking at the bracket the committee got it right overall. Yeah there could be a few quibbles here and there about moving up or down a seed line but those are minimal. I am genuinely excited about this year's postseason because it actually feels normal.
Feels normal for sure. Also, I don't see any bracket being easy even for the top 4 seeds. I'm looking forward to spending my weekends with several screens on the go for the next few weeks.
 
Nova is in for one reason and one reason only. February 9. Without beating UConn, I wonder whether they're even on the bubble.
Nova should not have got in. Great job beating UConn but half UConn’s team was missing. That game should not have been weighted as heavily as it was. No way L’ville beats UConn with Paige playing either. I’m a part time L’ville fan. I’d like to say BC got robbed by Nova but BC had too many blown opportunities. What a shame for them. Would of been great.
 
Greensboro is about 50 miles from the UNC campus, an easy drive too. It’s a virtual home game.

Yeah... That means that they will have about 50 fans in attendance if they make it back to Greensboro. I'd be willing to bet that there would be more Duke fans in attendance rooting against them, including me. . Not that I'm petty or anything.
 
Nova should not have got in. Great job beating UConn but half UConn’s team was missing. That game should not have been weighted as heavily as it was. No way L’ville beats UConn with Paige playing either. I’m a part time L’ville fan. I’d like to say BC got robbed by Nova but BC had too many blown opportunities. What a shame for them. Would of been great.
But Nova wasn't even one of the last 4 in. Those were Florida State, Missouri State, DePaul and Dayton.

I said at the time that the FSU/BC game at the ACC tournament just might have been a play-in game, and indeed that appears to be the case. I really thought Missouri was safer than FSU was, but the Seminoles caught a break.
 
I just hope for the Big East's sake that one of DePaul or Villanova has a good run to justify their selection. If the BE is to make any inroads on closing the Basketball gap between it and the P5 schools, the top schools in the conference need to win games and recruit. Having NCAAT eyeballs on your program can help with the recruiting. Morrow and Siegrist are two verifiable starts who can shine outside the UConn shadow. Good luck to the programs!
 
I posted this in a different thread, but will also paste it here.



This is really interesting if you're into odds of winning it all, and odds to win the first round game. In some ways, it sure looks like so many teams weren't seeded correctly (according to the oddsmakers).

Odds to win it all:

  • #1 South Carolina: +175
  • #1 Stanford: +350
  • #1 NC State: +650
  • #2 UConn: 4-1
  • #1 Louisville: 10-1
  • #2 Texas: 20-1
  • #2 Baylor: 25-1
  • #2 Iowa: 30-1
  • #3 Indiana: 40-1
  • #4 Maryland: 40-1
  • #6 Kentucky: 40-1
  • #3 Iowa State: 60-1
  • #3 LSU: 75-1
  • #6 Ohio State: 75-1
 
I posted this in a different thread, but will also paste it here.



This is really interesting if you're into odds of winning it all, and odds to win the first round game. In some ways, it sure looks like so many teams weren't seeded correctly (according to the oddsmakers).

Odds to win it all:

  • #1 South Carolina: +175
  • #1 Stanford: +350
  • #1 NC State: +650
  • #2 UConn: 4-1
  • #1 Louisville: 10-1
  • #2 Texas: 20-1
  • #2 Baylor: 25-1
  • #2 Iowa: 30-1
  • #3 Indiana: 40-1
  • #4 Maryland: 40-1
  • #6 Kentucky: 40-1
  • #3 Iowa State: 60-1
  • #3 LSU: 75-1
  • #6 Ohio State: 75-1
You might want to look at this thread. Five Thirty Eight's Prediction Model

Las Vegas doesn’t do analysis and predict winners, it’s trying to predict bettor behavior.
 

Online statistics

Members online
250
Guests online
1,698
Total visitors
1,948

Forum statistics

Threads
164,032
Messages
4,379,186
Members
10,172
Latest member
ctfb19382


.
..
Top Bottom