WILLIAMS: Analyzing Iowa State’s NCAA Tournament situation after a big week

[MisterO]

sheesh, some fans are clueless when it comes to the tournament. In no world is a 12 seed and playing an extra game preferable to a 7-10 seed. You get the best seed you possibly can and hope for a good draw.

Some fans like you don’t watch or understand the tournament very much…
In fact, 12 seeds have beaten a 5 seed almost 40% (35.7%) of the time since the field expanded to 64 in 1985. Whereas the win rate for 11 over a 6 and 10 over a 7 is much lower. A 12 seed upsets a 5 almost every year (there’s only been 3 tournaments where all four 5-seeds won the first round game).

Moreover, a 5 seed plays at worst, a 4 seed in the second round, whereas a 6-11 goes on to face a 3…an 8-9 is facing a 1 in the second round. So- I know the amateur fan in you screams out for a high seed at all costs, a seasoned, educated fan understands that lower seeds, like a 12, can sometimes be a blessing. So…put away the sour face and try to understand how the entire bracket works- not just the first round.

 

[dahliaclone]

I'm guessing more 12-13 seeds have made the sweet 16 than 8-9s in the last 10 years.

I was right there with you but did some quick research.

Since the 2012 NCAA Tourney:

• 4 12/13 seeds have made Sweet 16
• 6 8/9 seeds have made Sweet 16

 

[Cyforce]

I was right there with you but did some quick research.

Since the 2012 NCAA Tourney:

• 4 12/13 seeds have made Sweet 16
• 6 8/9 seeds have made Sweet 16

We remember the Cinderellas.

 

[CloneIce]

Some fans like you don’t watch or understand the tournament very much…
In fact, 12 seeds have beaten a 5 seed almost 40% (35.7%) of the time since the field expanded to 64 in 1985. Whereas the win rate for 11 over a 6 and 10 over a 7 is much lower. A 12 seed upsets a 5 almost every year (there’s only been 3 tournaments where all four 5-seeds won the first round game).

Moreover, a 5 seed plays at worst, a 4 seed in the second round, whereas a 6-11 goes on to face a 3…an 8-9 is facing a 1 in the second round. So- I know the amateur fan in you screams out for a high seed at all costs, a seasoned, educated fan understands that lower seeds, like a 12, can sometimes be a blessing. So…put away the sour face and try to understand how the entire bracket works- not just the first round.

Do you have the win rate for a 10 over 7? I can’t imagine it’s much lower, as you put it. That’s a highly competitive game.

Instead of hoping we barely sneak in as a 12 seed, I think we should be hoping we stay hot and be a 7 seed or better. We are already a 7 in some projections. That’s a good place to be.

 

[SolarGarlic]

Some fans like you don’t watch or understand the tournament very much…
In fact, 12 seeds have beaten a 5 seed almost 40% (35.7%) of the time since the field expanded to 64 in 1985. Whereas the win rate for 11 over a 6 and 10 over a 7 is much lower. A 12 seed upsets a 5 almost every year (there’s only been 3 tournaments where all four 5-seeds won the first round game).

Moreover, a 5 seed plays at worst, a 4 seed in the second round, whereas a 6-11 goes on to face a 3…an 8-9 is facing a 1 in the second round. So- I know the amateur fan in you screams out for a high seed at all costs, a seasoned, educated fan understands that lower seeds, like a 12, can sometimes be a blessing. So…put away the sour face and try to understand how the entire bracket works- not just the first round.

You said we must avoid 7-10 seeds at all costs. That's a moronic way of looking at it as you increase the likelihood that you never even make it to the round of 32 as an 11-12 seed. That's not even factoring in having to win an extra game in Dayton.

Being an 11 or 12 seed will never be better than being an 8-9 seed. Sorry, your logic is dumb.

 

[dahliaclone]

Do you have the win rate for a 10 over 7? I can’t imagine it’s much lower, as you put it. That’s a highly competitive game.

Instead of hoping we barely sneak in as a 12 seed, I think we should be hoping we stay hot and be a 7 seed or better. We are already a 7 in some projections. That’s a good place to be.

10 seeds have a 57-87 record over 7 seeds since 1985 (39.6%)

 

[EvilBetty]

I'm a little nervous about the WVU game. I didn't think we were very competitive in the first meeting. Not sure we march up well.

not very competitive against TCU at home this year either. Or at OU when they shot 80% + for an entire half.

turned it around against those two.

 

[MisterO]

I’m not hoping for a lower seed. I’m merely arguing that some lower seeds aren’t that bad. For example- a 12 would be far better than an 8, 9, or a 10. Not only is there a lower percentage for upsets at those seeds, you’re facing a much better second round opponent if you do get through the first round as a 7-10…

 

[MisterO]

You said we must avoid 7-10 seeds at all costs. That's a moronic way of looking at it as you increase the likelihood that you never even make it to the round of 32 as an 11-12 seed. That's not even factoring in having to win an extra game in Dayton.

Being an 11 or 12 seed will never be better than being an 8-9 seed. Sorry, your logic is dumb.

So you’d rather go in as an 8-9 and get wasted in the second round even if you do survive round 1? Makes no sense to me.

Higher seeds aren’t always the best route- that’s all I’m saying. The fact you don’t get it doesn’t necessarily make it dumb, it just means you can’t understand anything beyond the obvious…and that’s ok.

 

[CloneIce]

10 seeds have a 57-87 record over 7 seeds since 1985 (39.6%)

Thanks. I didn’t think his statistics passed the smell test. He was wrong, and not even close.

 

[madguy30]

So you’d rather go in as an 8-9 and get wasted in the second round even if you do survive round 1? Makes no sense to me.

Higher seeds aren’t always the best route- that’s all I’m saying. The fact you don’t get it doesn’t necessarily make it dumb, it just means you can’t understand anything beyond the obvious…and that’s ok.

I'm not so sure it's so obvious...do teams strive for a lower seed?

 

[madguy30]

10 seeds have a 57-87 record over 7 seeds since 1985 (39.6%)

Pretty sure ISU is 2-0 as a 10 seed.

So obviously if they're a 10 this season, they're a shoe in.

 

[flynnhicks03]

I'm a little nervous about the WVU game. I didn't think we were very competitive in the first meeting. Not sure we march up well.

I'm nervous, too, but TCU destroyed us at home, and we got them the second time, so hopefully we do the same to WV.

Edit: OU, also.

 

[MisterO]

The 10 upsets are at a slightly higher percentage- I stand corrected. However, it’s a mere 2 or 3 percentage points which is nothing over 5 years. The 11-6 is practically the same with the 11 winning 37.2%.

My main argument is winning a 7-10, you play a 2 seed. Winning as a 12 you play a 4. We are 1-5 against potential 2 seeds (Tech, Baylor, Kansas). We have a much better chance beating a 4 seed and getting into the Sweet 16. The 6-11’s have a much more difficult second round opponent than a 5-12…that’s all I’m arguing here.

 

[MisterO]

I'm not so sure it's so obvious...do teams strive for a lower seed?

I’m not arguing a lower seed is always better. What I am saying is that as 12, you have a relatively easier path to get to the Sweet 16 versus a 8–11. You have a much easier opponent in the second round against a 4 instead of a 1 or a 2.

 

[CloneIce]

The 10 upsets are at a slightly higher percentage- I stand corrected. However, it’s a mere 2 or 3 percentage points which is nothing over 5 years. The 11-6 is practically the same with the 11 winning 37.2%.

My main argument is winning a 7-10, you play a 2 seed. Winning as a 12 you play a 4. We are 1-5 against potential 2 seeds (Tech, Baylor, Kansas). We have a much better chance beating a 4 seed and getting into the Sweet 16. The 6-11’s have a much more difficult second round opponent than a 5-12…that’s all I’m arguing here.

It’s a slightly higher win percentage, but you claimed it was a much lower win percentage. That’s why your argument was way off base. You also made the same incorrect claim about the 6 v 11 matchup.

I like my crazy idea of winning more games and being a higher seed better.

 

[Pat]

I’ll suggest that a little can be gleaned from historical seed performance, but it’s ultimately much more about match-ups. #7 Notre Dame had a good season, but was in no way built to deal with #10 ISU. So keep winning, let the seeds fall where they may, and revel in the fact that this team was picked unanimously by Big 12 coaches to finish last in the conference.

 

[NWICY]

I'm guessing more 12-13 seeds have made the sweet 16 than 8-9s in the last 10 years.

@Sigmapolis fact or fiction?

 

[cyclones500]

@Sigmapolis fact or fiction?

In case sig isn't immediately available:


Fiction (also fairly close, I guess).

10 seasons inclusive, 2011-2021 (normally that’s 11 seasons, but no tournament in 2020).

12/13: 5 (3 12s; 2 13s)
8/9: 7 (5 8s; 2 9s)

 

[MisterO]

It’s a slightly higher win percentage, but you claimed it was a much lower win percentage. That’s why your argument was way off base. You also made the same incorrect claim about the 6 v 11 matchup.

I like my crazy idea of winning more games and being a higher seed better.

And I acknowledged my error.

However, the point still stands: it’s almost the same chances of winning the first round, but likely a lower-seeded opener in the second round. A lower seed isn’t the end of the world…just one win out of 4 remaining games gets us in and we can be dangerous no matter where we end up.

Ultimately, the team that gets hot is going to do the best. Our boys have shown they can hang with the top teams and beat several top 25 teams on a given night. Regardless of our seed, if the team that beat Tech, blew out the hoks, Texas, and nearly upset Kansas and Baylor shows up, we have a chance to beat anyone. If the K-State/TCU at home team shows up, it’s likely we will lose, regardless of the opponent.