NCAA tourney, overseeded & underseeded

[HFCS]

Every year I look at which leagues played above and below seed. Last year Pac 12 was the best I have ever seen by miles, this year again the "down" conference ACC obliterated its seeding.

Big 10: -1
Lots of low seeds that couldn't possibly underperform seed, still couldn't get into positive territory in spite of great setup
Indiana, even
Rutgers, even
Michigan, +2
Michigan State, even
Iowa, -1
Illinois, -1
Ohio State, even
Wisconsin, -1
Purdue, even (couldn't beat a 15 seed to get to elite 8)

Big 12: even (Baylor's 1 seed second round loss is a killer)
TCU, +1
ISU, +2
Texas, even
Tech, even
Baylor, -3
Kansas, even (can get to +2 if they advance to champion or +1 if make title game)

SEC: -7
Ark, +1
Alabama, -1
Kentucky, -3
Tennessee, -1
LSU, -1
Auburn, -2

Big East: even
Uconn, -1
Marquette, even
Seton Hall, -1
Villanova, +1 (has a chance to add one or two)
Creighton, +1
Providence, even

ACC: +8
second year in a row "worst" conference severely underseeded, last year was Pac
ND, +1
Duke, +1 (can add 1 or 2)
UNC, +3 (can add 1 or 2)
VTech, even
Miami, +3

Pac 12: -3
UCLA, even
USC, -1
Arizona, -2

MWC: -3
0-3 with slightly better seed in all 3 games
CSU, -1
SDSU, -1
Boise St, -1

WCC: -2
Gonzaga, -2
St Mary's, even
SFU, even

American: +3
Houston, +2
Memphis, +1

A10: +1
Richmond, +1
Davidson, even

total
ACC +8
American +3
A10 +1
------
Big 12 even
Big East even
------
Big Ten -1
WCC -2
Pac 12 -3
MWC -3
SEC -7

Most interesting that all 3 western leagues struggled after Pac 12 obliterating their seeds last year. SEC had a high seed dropped immediately, but unlike Big 12 the rest of the conference didn't pick it back up. ACC was clearly much closer to the typical ACC than people thought.

 

[cytor]

Mountain West... 4 teams, total disaster. B1G too many teams in as usual. B1G style not conducive for post season play.... their track record proves it.

 

[HFCS]

Mountain West... 4 teams, total disaster. B1G too many teams in as usual. B1G style not conducive for post season play.... their track record proves it.

Michigan getting in as a low seeded bubble was the only redeemer for its number of selections. Nobody else really did much at all compared to seed.

If the “down” power conference has a fantastic tournament next year you can call it a trend.

 

[LOYALjamiSON]

Shouldn't Wisconsin be -1?

 

[goody2012]

Every year I look at which leagues played above and below seed. Last year Pac 12 was the best I have ever seen by miles, this year again the "down" conference ACC obliterated its seeding.

Big 10: -1
Lots of low seeds that couldn't possibly underperform seed, still couldn't get into positive territory in spite of great setup
Indiana, even
Rutgers, even
Michigan, +2
Michigan State, even
Iowa, -2
Illinois, -1
Ohio State, even
Wisconsin, even
Purdue, even (couldn't beat a 15 seed to get to elite 8)

Big 12: even (Baylor's 1 seed second round loss is a killer)
TCU, +1
ISU, +2
Texas, even
Tech, even
Baylor, -3
Kansas, even (can get to +2 if they advance to champion or +1 if make title game)

SEC: -6 (billed as near best in part because of Big12/SEC challenge, exposed)
Ark, +1
Alabama, -1
Kentucky, -3
Tennessee, -1
LSU, -1
Auburn, -2

Big East: even
Uconn, -1
Marquette, even
Seton Hall, -1
Villanova, +1 (has a chance to add one or two)
Creighton, +1
Providence, even

ACC: +8
second year in a row "worst" conference severely underseeded, last year was Pac
ND, +1
Duke, +1 (can add 1 or 2)
UNC, +3 (can add 1 or 2)
VTech, even
Miami, +3

Pac 12: -3
UCLA, even
USC, -1
Arizona, -2

MWC: -3
0-3 with slightly better seed in all 3 games
CSU, -1
SDSU, -1
Boise St, -1

WCC: -2
Gonzaga, -2
St Mary's, even
SFU, even

American: +3
Houston, +2
Memphis, +1

A10: +1
Richmond, +1
Davidson, even

total
ACC +8
American +3
A10 +1
------
Big 12 even
Big East even
------
Big Ten -1
WCC -2
Pac 12 -3
MWC -3
SEC -6

Most interesting that all 3 western leagues struggled after Pac 12 obliterating their seeds last year. SEC had a high seed dropped immediately, but unlike Big 12 the rest of the conference didn't pick it back up. ACC was clearly much closer to the typical ACC than people thought.

I'm not sure what to take from this since it's largely just a function of higher-seeded teams having no upside and much downside versus lower-seeded teams having no downside and all upside.

Conference could have four 1 seeds make the final four and have the same +/- as a conference with eight 9 and 10 seeds all losing in the first round.

 

[HFCS]

I'm not sure what to take from this since it's largely just a function of higher-seeded teams having no upside and much downside versus lower-seeded teams having no downside and all upside.

Conference could have four 1 seeds make the final four and have the same +/- as a conference with eight 9 and 10 seeds all losing in the first round.

It’s grading committee more than teams or leagues.

I think +2 to -2 means a league was about where committee thought. Beyond that is over or underperforming against the expectation.

Purely best conference ignoring expectation would be total wins per total teams in a league.

 

[HFCS]

Shouldn't Wisconsin be -1?

You’re right, corrected that.

 

[randomfan44]

I'm not sure what to take from this since it's largely just a function of higher-seeded teams having no upside and much downside versus lower-seeded teams having no downside and all upside.

Conference could have four 1 seeds make the final four and have the same +/- as a conference with eight 9 and 10 seeds all losing in the first round.

Yep. Any attempts to draw some sort of conclusion from a simple "did they play to seed" analysis is at best illogical based on the actual performance of teams over the years. All four #1 seeds have made the Final Four just once in the history of seeding yet it is set as the "expectation". That doesn't make sense.

 

[randomfan44]

It’s grading committee more than teams or leagues.

I think +2 to -2 means a league was about where committee thought. Beyond that is over or underperforming against the expectation.

Purely best conference ignoring expectation would be total wins per total teams in a league.

Seeds are given out as a reward for what teams did in the regular season, not as a prediction of who will do the best in the tournament. The committee shouldn't be graded based on the results of the tourney.

 

[rsoren001]

I know Iowa's loss was bad but aren't they -1?

 

[HFCS]

Seeds are given out as a reward for what teams did in the regular season, not as a prediction of who will do the best in the tournament. The committee shouldn't be graded based on the results of the tourney.

Agree 10000%. It’s why I’ve always been critical of the common fanboys who think we should seed the tournament based on a predictive computer rating vs evaluating a resume of work.

It’s still interesting to see who meets that resume evaluation, who exceeds it, and who Ends up far below it.

Nobody with any credibility is still going to claim the acc was the fifth or sixth best conference.

 

[HFCS]

I know Iowa's loss was bad but aren't they -1?

You are totally right. Must have been all the media pencilling them in for winning 3 or 4 games, but they were only seeded as a round of 32 team. It was a strange amount of love for a 5 seed.

 

[Clonedogg]

3 seed only gets S16 if all play to seed. That’s my system any way. Then I tack a bonus for making NC game and winning NC game so even a 1 seed can end up +2.

Wisconsin as a 3 seed did not make the S16, I agree with LOYAL by your standards they should be a -1. They lost in the round of 32 to the 6/11 seed.

 

[HFCS]

Wisconsin as a 3 seed did not make the S16, I agree with LOYAL by your standards they should be a -1. They lost in the round of 32 to the 6/11 seed.

You’re correct they should be -1, I must not have had my coffee. It doesn’t matter who beats them but they were done a round before their seeding would imply.

 

[HFCS]

Yep. Any attempts to draw some sort of conclusion from a simple "did they play to seed" analysis is at best illogical based on the actual performance of teams over the years. All four #1 seeds have made the Final Four just once in the history of seeding yet it is set as the "expectation". That doesn't make sense.

It means something in cases like Pac last year. They get four teams in, all low seeds, and those four teams obliterated mostly higher seeds, eventually all making the elite 8 except for beating each other. It doesn’t mean the seeding was even wrong, but it was some solid proof from all four teams that at the time of the dance the Pac was playing far better than their previous resume indicated.

I’d say the ACC is close to same territory this year.

On the SEC side that resume booster they got from Big 12 challenge may have been a bit of fools gold.

In terms of just “which conference had best tournament” I’d say divide the wins by total # of teams in the league (total, not selected total) and maybe pay a little attention to if the league got final four team or teams. Without even doing that math it’s acc and big 12 this year, but big 12 having just 10 teams to ACC’s 15 probably gives it the edge.

 

[PSYclone22]

@HFCS I like this exercise. Barttorvik has performance by team or seed or conference relative to seed. The metrics assign decimal expected wins vs real wins since every matchup isn't a binary 1 or -1. Assigning 1 expected win to a 1-seed in the first round is certainly different than assigning 1 expected win to an 8-seed in the first round.

Tourney Stats, PASE (Performance Against Seed Expectations) and PAKE

barttorvik.com

 

[heitclone]

Agree 10000%. It’s why I’ve always been critical of the common fanboys who think we should seed the tournament based on a predictive computer rating vs evaluating a resume of work.

It’s still interesting to see who meets that resume evaluation, who exceeds it, and who Ends up far below it.

Nobody with any credibility is still going to claim the acc was the fifth or sixth best conference.

What would you have done with North Carolina though? Their strength is in the metrics, their resume was terrible.

 

[HFCS]

@HFCS I like this exercise. Barttorvik has performance by team or seed or conference relative to seed. The metrics assign decimal expected wins vs real wins since every matchup isn't a binary 1 or -1. Assigning 1 expected win to a 1-seed in the first round is certainly different than assigning 1 expected win to an 8-seed in the first round.

Tourney Stats, PASE (Performance Against Seed Expectations) and PAKE

barttorvik.com

Yeah it’s an exercise seeing who over or under performed their evaluation and who was about right…but giving a full +1 or -1 to those 8/9 games or 7/10 games is obviously not ideal.

TCU was deserving of a plus one (or more) because they demolished an 8 seed and then outplayed (imho) a 1seed. But some other 9 seed barely winning one game pretty much is playing to seed.

 

[HFCS]

What would you have done with North Carolina though? Their strength is in the metrics, their resume was terrible.

I’m not even saying seedings are wrong or terrible…but you get conferences just wildly playing over or under their seeds and that is interesting.

Go back and look at 2021’s bracket at how Pac12 did vs its seeds, it’s unbelievable. I’m not sure that means they should have been seeded higher or got more teams in, but I don’t think it was a fluke either to get that out of multiple teams in same league.

Honestly think they did pretty well this year. Only three or four multi bid leagues weren’t close to playing to seed. We talk about big 12 and big ten the most here and they were about right. Two of the big ten bubble teams obviously sucked but the third looked good.

 

[LivntheCyLife]

In some ways I think it would be better to have tournament selection be something like NCAA wrestling or UEFA Champions League. Each league earns a certain number of slots based on non-conference and tournament performance over the past 2-3 years. Then a team earns a bid by finishing high enough in their conference.

Sure, there would be some times when it would be unfair based on how the bubble teams are distributed across conferences but it would be more objective. In reality, one season of non-conference games are a small sample size to try to compare teams from different conferences and almost all of those non-conference games are 2-3 months before the tournament. And a more objective system would bring some added excitement to both non-conference games and late season conference play.