It's #1 Seed Or Bust: The Path To The Title
-
“If #2 seeds are as good as #1s…” The thing with seeding is that really, there is a pretty clear separation on each seeding level. For instance, the best 2 seed could probably switch places with the weakest #1. However, the third best 2 seed is usually not nearly good enough to be a #1. The second best 4 isn’t good enough to be a 3 most likely, and so on.
That matters for one seeds because, most likely, the number one seeds are four of the best six teams in the country. Chances that one of the best six teams in the tournament wins in a single elimination set up are actually pretty good, especially given that no 16 seed has EVER beaten a 1, so #1s are really playing in a 32 team tournament while everyone else is playing in a 64 team field (ignoring the play-in games). That is an enormous advantage.
The other thing that hurts 2 seeds is that they are much closer to the rest of the field than the 1 seeds. For example, you can look at some of the incredibly dominant teams of the last 25 years - UNLV in 1990, Duke in 1992, Arkansas in 1994, Kentucky in 1998, UConn in 2004, Florida in 2007, the entire 2008 Final Four, Louisville last year, Kentucky the year before - those teams were truly elite and separated themselves from the field. The teams in the tournament are on more of a continuum than just a straight ranking. The five or six best teams in the field are usually quite a bit better than anyone else in the field. Being quite a bit better means you don’t have to play six perfect games to win the title. You just have to play solid to get into the Final Four. The best 2s and 3s have to play at the top of their game (or very close) because the 4s, 5s and 6s aren’t really all that much worse than they are, and if a 6 plays over their head, they can knock off a 2 or 3 (and often do).
-
@jaybate 1.0-As I observed Nash last evening I thought exactly the same, that he does not to appear as improved as was projected when he arrived at OSU. Some thought he was OAD & now I’ve doubts if he will play in the L at all.
Also great perspective on Smart as a failed gambler-again partly due to shortcomings with the staff on just how to help him to the next level. He is a great physical athlete for sure, but rying to “sell” the goods won’t work with no experience from the casting couch or real auditions with the producers. His immaturity is shining with increased frustration more & more all the while. The Academy Awards will simply have to be on his long range list of goals because at present he’s convincing no one.
Plus you’re 100% accurate on Cobbins injury report. They don’t have much of a shot without his journeyman like contributions & physical prowess, rebounds, & shot blocking in the paint. Also I mentioned to @HighEliteMajor before the matchup with OSU last week that perimeter defense vs Brown & Forte would be the keys if they had a prayer at AFH, & sure enough we got torched by those two. I don’t recall many kids that catch & shoot as well as Forte, from the distances he knocks them down. Geeeze louise-what a marksman! He may be the best assassin in all of CBB. If anyone’s better, I sure hope he’s a Jayhawk.
-
@globaljaybird Yes, to all, and about Forte, I had forgotten what a dead eye he was. The guy can gun.
-
@jaybate 1.0 and don’t forget Page, those 2 little guys always killed us!
-
@justanotherfan, you have just rocked my statistical thinking about the tournament structure to its stochastic foundations. This is just a fascinating insight you have shared; i.e., the one seeds are essentially playing in a 32 team tournament. It made my mind race to this: would you say this logic would also apply to the tournament back in the 32 team era? And the 16 team era (if that were what it were early)?
If the logic were linear and sound, then in a 32 team tournament, the 1 seeds would have been playing in a 16 team tournament and in a 16 team tournament the one seeds would have been playing in only an 8 them tournament!!
Perhaps the issue you have raised explains even more clearly why some of the accomplishments of the earlier eras are not duplicated.
Thinking about this leads into some dense thickets of trying to distinguish between randomize probabilities and biases from hot streaks that I am not able to unsnag yet.
Simpistically, the smaller the effective tournament, the greater the probability of each team winning it.
But if one introduces the bias of hot streaks, then as the effective tournament grows smaller, then the probability of any single one seed getting on a hot streak goes up, but so does the probability of any lesser seed, too.
Perhaps the small size of tournaments in earlier eras triggered even MORE volatility in what could happen, given the bias of hot streaks, or perhaps not. Can’t clarify on this yet.
In an effective 8, or effective 16 tournament, each one seed only had to stay hot for a much shorter number of games and so perhaps every one seed was even more vulnerable to other one seeds, but also other lower seeds getting hot!
Maybe the larger tournament size of today and more games to win makes it less likely for any particular one seed to win it, but makes it MORE likely for the group of one seed to win it.
Maybe Wooden’s 10 rings are even more remarkable in retrospect, because perhaps in the earlier smaller tournaments, there was more intrinsic volatility. Maybe he learned how to manage that volatility with the style he played, not just with talent. I don’t know. I’m guessing out loud here.
Any one seed could get hot and win two, or four games in a row, whereas in today’s larger tournaments, with more games, it is more likely to be the deepest, most talented team that tends to win it.
Maybe in an effective 8, or effective 16 team tournament, UK’s 2012 team would have faced more risk from a lesser team only having to get hot and win fewer games?!
This is fascinating IMHO. Thanks for weighing in.
-
@jaybate 1.0-Only one right now, but the guy that comes to mind for me comparable to Forte is Steve Kerr. He rifled the path to the NBA Championship several times with Jordan’s Bulls. Forte is every bit that deadly of a sniper. Wouldn’t surprise me one iota if he has a long career in pro ball. His height may limit him to Europe, but he’ll make a good living if he desires. Didn’t Self offer him also?
-
@globaljaybird wasn’t he a pkg w/smart? Fortes dad played fb at KU. I thought he wanted to come here, but wasn’t offered???
-
“Does coach Self coach to get better for March, possibly losing a game or two by playing with an eye on the prize? Or does coach Self simply coach to win every game on the premise that the #1 seed is the first, most important consideration in winning the title?”
Let’s not forget, Coach Self first values winning the B12. He is going to do whatever he can to win league games now. That comes first.
I think he wants to give some minutes to Greene, but he’ll still keep Selden in receiving most of the minutes because Selden will be his main gun at the 2 going into March. If Selden also wasn’t a freshman I think he could be more liberal with minutes going to others, but Selden isn’t exactly the Rock of Gibraltar yet in his play. His confidence is increasing, but he still isn’t anywhere close to his potential for his first year in college. Self wants him to still play at a higher level and also play with more consistency. Selden’s play sometimes is at an all star level and other times he completely breaks down with TOs and uninspired play. When Selden is on, we are going to win, I don’t care who we are playing.
I don’t think Self wants to lose anymore games. First, he wants to sew up the league for #10. Second… because of our tough pre-conf schedule, he wants to build wins from here on out to help build team confidence.
Think back a few days ago to the TCU game. He could have subbed even more in that game, but even at the end he risked a banged-up Embiid. Self was going for the beat down. He wants these guys now to feel the rewards for all their efforts in the gym.
Self is out to win every game from here on out, and he’d like us to start racking up some mash victories. I don’t think it is so much about seeding in March… I think it is about building team confidence moving forward. Building team confidence is a strategy now to help them play better. We’ve already dropped 4 tough games including 1 at home!
Think of our season as a cycle, and we are all about peaking at the right time (March)… so we started the year hot, with energy and optimism… then we were handed our lunch by several teams, including one in AFH. That represents the dip we need to have in order to recover and shoot upwards. We are now on the upswing cycle, and we don’t need to go down again as long as we continue to make big gains upwards.
Teams like Syracuse have peaked too early. Probably the best thing that could happen to them is they lose immediately at least a couple, so there is time to build momentum again.
We still might need another loss or two before March. It is hard to say. But I think we all know that it is hard to improve drastically when you’ve done nothing but win up until now. What motivation do you have for improving?
March Madness is never about discovering the best team for the entire year. It is about discovering the best team in March! That’s why I put so much weight on winning #10 in the B12… because it represents the entirety of league play, not just about getting hot for 6 games.
We all need to focus on what it is going to take to peak in March. Even if we win out from here, it isn’t 100% that we snag a #1 seed, and that is a good thing! That means we have to stay hungry! That means we have to fight to get better every single day in practice and in games.
We are sitting in a great spot for March. I am so glad we aren’t undefeated! That is a horrible feeling to peak too soon, and watch all the hype and dreams go down the tubes because the top teams in college basketball catch up in March.
-
@Crimsonorblue22-Fran said last evening that Smart wanted to play with Forte. I just don’t recall if Self offered him or just was a passive recruitment.
-
@HighEliteMajor I enjoyed this article. I’m not an x’s and o’s guy like you and some others, so this is what appeals to me.
A few questions. Of the #1 seeds with 6 or more losses, how many of them won?
How many of those were KU teams?
How many of the 6 or more loss teams seeded first suffered from ugly early round losses?
It is interesting as you pointed out how the road was paved with top seeds being knocked out on our way to the '88 championship.
-
@drgnslayr-It’s a double edge sword with Bill. Beatdowns not only mean confidence but the seeding committee looks at the road wins as much as home losses, especially during conf, when everyone on the planet gets as way up as humanly possible for KU. We get their best shot always. The loss to SDSU may be the hole card for the # 1 this year, & as HEM’s reliable stats bear out, is characteristic of the increased % chances to win the proverbial fur-lined pot in April. Should we loose more than 2 conf games, that may be the nullification of that possibility. It’s going to be a witch in Texas, Stillwater, & the little (road) apple. And ISU at home is not a cup cake either. JMO
-
@globaljaybird
It is hard to say… but I think we can lose one more game here on out and still earn a 1-seed, but who knows? It also depends on the teams ahead of us. Take WSU… if they win out, they will own a 1-seed and they will be taking that 1-seed away from a power conference… but from which power conference?
As far as the seeding committee… I think they look at over-all record, SOS and key victories and losses the most. Our big advantage is that we haven’t suffered a beat down from anyone, and our losses have come from quality opponents. We have several quality wins… Duke on a neutral, ISU away… and hopefully we will win in Stillwater and at Texas. For some reason, I think Texas is the most-capable team of pinning a loss on us this year in the B12. Barnes does his best work when his team is a creeper.
BTW: I’m feeling like we are way too comfortable with this idea that we’ve already sewn up #10. We are in a great position, but that totally changes with a couple of poor performances. I’d like to see this team win out in conference. It would tell me that they are fighting the fight for consistent play from here on out… a trait we want to have in March!
So much has happened in the past couple of weeks… and hasn’t received enough media attention. We’ve made the biggest leap in January of any team in the nation. Our guys finally gelled as a team… they do everything outside of the court together. That is huge news. We have made big steps in improving our defense, and for the first time we are actually running a real offense… which helps showcase the talent of all our guys. This is night and day difference from December. I’m close to bumping these guys up to WARMER WARMER WARMER. If we can reach HOT HOT HOT I’d be willing to mortgage my house on another NC!
-
This post is deleted!
-
@globaljaybird
My recollection is the same as @Crimsonorblue22. KU pursued Smart but not Forte whose father had played FB at KU; Forte was not ranked, out of HS, at the level that KU offers. OSU offered to both and that is where they ended up.
-
Wichita State and Arizona have the best chance of going unbeaten since both (particularly WSU) play in weaker conferences. One loss by WSU and any chance to a #1 seed they might currently have is gone; a KU team with 6 losses would be seeded ahead of them.
KU, Syracuse. Arizona and WSU are currently #1 seeds in the majority of current “Bracketology” projections; however, given the unpredictability of conference play, it is likely that the current seeds are precarious at best.
-
@drgnslayr I agree with you about how teams like Syracuse and Arizona are peaking early. Both of those teams are certainly not guaranteed to make it to the Final Four, despite what some sports pundits might say. Often times, the teams that suffer some losses and stay off the radar but make a surge late in the season are the ones that make it to the final four. Take last year for example. Syracuse and Michigan were both ranked very high early in the season but had several losses in conference play that kept them out of the spotlight. It was the same thing in '12 when KU was not widely talked about and yet went to the championship game with a team that had zero depth. That was probably my favorite team since following KU basketball.
-
@jaybate 1.0 “But OSU is still dangerous because of Brown, who has kept getting better.”
And don’t forget the short white dude who, according to statsheet.com has THE highest offensive rating in the nation. Yes, NATION. Forte is the hottest 3 point shooter in the country and one of the best free throw shooters as well.
-
Gosh that Forte kid can shoot! Those deep 3s look more like lob passes that somehow swish through the bottom of the nets.
Smart is too much in his own little world. It helped that he apologized for becoming such a burden to his teammates. Now if he can just live up to that challenge. He’s too focused on his own importance. I respect when a player wants the ball in crunch time, but he is over the top and believes it is HIS game to lose or to win. With that attitude, OSU has no chance of doing much of anything this year. I’m not sure if they can even snag 2nd place in the B12.
Compare his attitude with Wiggins.
-
Looks like the refs are finally catching up with Smart’s flopping and he is acting like a drama queen about it; he has been in foul trouble in both games after the KU game of “ghost elbow flop” fame. Even with the game out of reach against OU, he felt he had to do one last dramatic flop with seconds left in the game; it looked desperate and pathetic.
Smart is quickly developing a reputation as a flopper and becoming one of the more disliked players in the league. Analyst still like him because they do not see his behavior day in and day out like we, conference followers do.
Marcus Smart reminds me of Mike Tyson. At one time he was considered pound for pound the best boxer in the world, a rarity for heavy weight, and fighters were terrified of him, Then along came Buster Douglas that was no intimidated and knocked him out in Tokyo and exposed him as a very beatable boxer; Tyson was never the same after that fight and lost his last two fights to two unknowns before retiring for good.
-
@JayHawkFanToo It’s funny, at the end of last season and especially at the beginning of this season, when Smart returned to OSU instead of opting for the NBA, I had a lot of respect for him. After watching his antics this season I just think he’s a punk.
The only player in my life that I thought he should have went pro instead of staying another year or two.
-
Here is a great photo of Smart flopping when Embiid stares at him…funny as hell…
-
@HighEliteMajor I was listening earlier to somebody try to run the tired old" you’ll lose in the first round again" smack talk. In the past 7 years, we have:
1 National Championship
1 National runnerup
4 Elite 8’s
6 Sweet 16s
7 1st round victories
My point is: Before the last 7 years, we were simply begging to get to the 2nd round. I personally feel we are a number #1 seed. We are already listed on Lunardi’s Bracketology as a number 1. If we don’t end a number #1 seed, then we’ll be the 3rd number #2 seed in the past 25 years that wins the national championship.
-
Forte was offered as I recall, but I’m sure Self was honest and told him he’d be buried on the bench. I have no idea what Ford told the kid. It worked out great for OSU and Forte.
While I think Forte would be great to have coming off the bench, I wouldn’t give up one of our current players for him. Especially since the last player signed was Wiggins. And I sure wouldn’t give up Mason for Forte either (I like his fire and upside) .
-
@JayHawkFanToo And he was over on the bench after his 2 quick fouls in the first half yelling at the officials each time another foul was called on OSU. Fran and Brent even remarked that Ford during a timeout once got on the officials because OSU had “too many fouls” called on them. Smart was not in the “limelight” he thinks he is entitled to. His kicking the chair last game was something that no coach with cajones would have put up with. Ford lets him get away with all his antics because Ford knows he is nothing without Smart getting all the attention and that attention hasn’t been good the last several games.
-
@dylans - I don’t know, a guy that shoots 50% from the 3 point line (or 10 ft behind…) and 91% free throws, humble, hard-working kid who doesn’t turn the ball over might be worth trading SOMEONE for.
-
@JayHawkFanToo and @RockChalkinTexas
Both of you guys are so spot on!
I know Conner is a local favorite, but would you trade Frankamp for Forte? Forte has a solid build, too.
Isn’t Forte doing what we all thought Frankamp would do?
Before we second-guess on these questions lets remember that Forte is a sophomore and Frankamp is a freshman.
By next year will Frankamp become as lethal of a weapon as Forte? I’m not sure he’ll build as much body mass in 12 months, but I’m hopeful he’ll be shooting like Forte. Imagine if we had a weapon like that?!
-
http://imageshack.com/a/img208/5718/trj.gif
This flop is worse than the one with Selden.
-
@nuleafjhawk and… He doesn’t even start!!
-
That is the play at the end of the game last night that I mentioned in my post above…
-
@wissoxfan83 Good question, because it goes to perhaps a team playing a better schedule. Michigan St. was the only one to win the title. Only two got the FF (MSU in 2000 and Texas in 2003). By year:
-2013: Indiana, 6 losses, out in the sweet 16
-2012: Michigan St., 7 losses, out in sweet 16
-2007: North Carolina, 6 losses, out in elite 8
-2003: Texas, 6 losses, out in FF semis; Oklahoma, 6 losses, out in elite 8
-2001: Illinois, 7 losses, out in elite 8
-2000: Michigan St., 7 losses, won title; Arizona, 7 losses, out in round of 32.
-
@drgnslayr not to be cynical, but Self wouldn’t play Forte. I’m sure there would be a reason.
-
@HighEliteMajor
to your response to slayr above.
-
@HighEliteMajor-If he did, he bench him after this first miss.
-
@drgnslayr When a legacy kid so no… F’em. I wouldn’t trade any one for Forte. Sure he is more productive than Connor so far, but where do the minutes come from? No court time for Mason/Greene/White/Frankamp with Forte there. Talk about mass transfers following this season.
@HighEliteMajor I agree. Bill would develop someone with more upside, unless he needed a Morningstar like glue guy.
-
I think the thing is. The other teams you mentioned that are in the mix already know who they are, and we know who they are. However let me ask you this question. When you sit down to watch the game with Iowa state. What are you thinking? What are expecting. If you’re like me your thinking what am I going to see tonight. I would think you and most KU fans would agree we don’t even really know what this KU team is yet. All we know is that they can play, and can’t wait to see what the do next.
In a normal season I would totally agree with you on the #1 seed theory. However with this current KU team I just don’t think it matters. They have but just scratched the surface and already starting to look scary good. Even Vegas has them the favorite to win it all. Yet maybe that is the Achilles heel of this team. Being they never reach their potential. I don’t know, but I do know one thing no future #1 seed wants KU in their bracket.
-
@drgnslayr HA! QUOTE OF THE DAY BY drgnslayr: “Compare (Smart’s) attitude with Wiggins”. I absolutely love Wiggins team-first attitude. What a great kid. All business type of demeanor.
-
@jaybate 1.0 My thinking is that 1 seeds have always had a tremendous advantage in that their first round opponents are the weakest teams in the field. Whether it’s a 24 team tournament, a 48 or a 64, having your first game against the weakest team in the field is a huge advantage. Look at conference tournaments for an example. How often do you see the #1 seed in a conference tournament NOT make it to the conference semifinals? It’s pretty rare for the #1 to lose their first game. Not unheard of, but rare.
The talent gap is a bigger reason for the success of the #1s, though. Let’s imagine for a second that every team has a true talent level between 100 (best) and 1 (worst). Now, let’s say this year the #1 seeds end up being Arizona, Syracuse, Wichita State and KU (to borrow Lunardi’s prediction for a moment). Let’s say their TTL rank (I’m making these true talent rankings up as I go along) is UA (94), Syracuse (95) Wichita State (91) and KU (95). Then let’s say the #2 seeds are Florida (92), SDSU (90) , MSU (91) and Villanova (88). Let’s say that 16 seeds are TTL at around 65, 15s are high 60s. 3 seeds are 88-86, 4s are 86-83, 5s are 83-82, 6s are 82-80, 7s are 80-79, 8s and 9s are 78-77, 10s are 76-75, 11s are 74, 12s = 73-72 13s and 14s 71-70.
So in the first round, there’s close to a 30 point “gap” between the TTL of 1s and their 16 opponents. However, as you move through the field, the gap becomes much less. The difference between a 12 seed and a 5 is about 10 talent points. If a 5 plays poorly, they will likely lose simply because they aren’t that much better than a 12 seed. Even in the second round, the best #1s are still enjoying a 15+ point gap between them and their opponents talent. It isn’t until the third round (Sweet 16) where the gap may shorten to within 10 or 15 talent points. This is why 1 seeds almost always get to the Sweet 16. They are just so much better than 16 seeds, and even the 8/9 seeds.
But look at the 2 seeds. You see that Florida, Wichita State, SDSU and Michigan State are all roughly the same talentwise. WSU has the easier path, but there’s a decent gap in talent between the top 3 #1s and the rest of the field , especially when you consider that the difference between the #1s and any opponent they will see before the Elite Eight is going to be close to or greater than 10.
There is a limit to how bad tournament teams are because really bad teams - the ones that would be TTL of 50 or lower - generally don’t make the tournament, and if they do, they face a #1 seed that immediately shows them the door. But there really isn’t a limit on how good a tournament team can be. If somebody has a 98+ talent, that’s probably going to separate them from the field quite a bit. They would be a #1 seed. But the 2s would still cluster in the high 80s, low 90s. The threes would still be in the upper 80s, 4s in the mid 80s, etc. The only changes would be on the extremes - the best teams in the tournament could be incredible, the worst teams in the tournament could be horrible. But the middle would likely stay roughly the same.
That’s why it’s tougher as a 2. On your side of the bracket you would have a 3 seed (87), a 6 (81), a 7 (80) a 10 (76), an 11 (74) and a 14 (70), along with your first round opponent 15 (68). You enjoy that huge 20 point gap in round 1, but round 2 brings you an opponent that’s probably within 10 or 12 points of your talent level. The Sweet 16 likely gives you a team that is practically your equal (3) or very close to your round 2 opponent.
An elite #1 won’t face a team that is their equal (talent wise) until the final four.
-
@justanotherfan Your post made me think of the classic bell curve: the best are extremely good, the worst are extremely bad and both are very few. It’s normal that the “talent gap” should be greater at both ends.
Ken Pomeroy could have a field day with this stuff: before the NCAAs he calculates the odds of each team advancing to every round. He could just swap the one and 2 seeds, redo the calculations and show the difference just the seeding makes.
-
I agree and the gap is even bigger. Let’s remember that the top 64 (or is it 68?) teams do not make it to the tournament. Many of the automatic qualifiers are ranked well below the top 64. In some cases the top ranked teams will be playing the 60+ “seeded” teams but in reality, they are playing teams that were “ranked” in the 100+ and not in the top 60s.
I wish the “real” top 64 teams were selected, but it would mean that teams from smaller conference would not have chance to make it to the dance.
-
@ParisHawk Ken Pomeroy actually already does this and, unfortunately for HEM, his conclusion and his data show that being seeded #1 vs #2 does not have much of an affect on the actual outcomes of the best teams, meaning the best teams usually advance regardless of seeding (Which makes perfect sense. It’s better to actually be good than to be told you are, after all). I believe he also had an article last year (though I haven’t been able to find it in my few minutes of searching, and it could have been by another big data analyst) that shows that #2 seeds that played better SOSes tended to over achieve in the tournament compared to #1 seeds that played weaker SOSes (this was based on the average # of wins per seed over the tournament history. It’s about 3.3 for #1s and 2.4 for #2s). So again, it’s more important to be the stronger team than it is to achieve a particular seed. I would hope that’s self-evident, but when statistics get involved, people tend to have the habit of putting the cart before the horse.
As for HEM’s particular point about the win rate of #2 seeds in the finals, I’d point out that the win rate the #2 seeds enjoy is on par with the #1s when you consider how often the statistically favored team wins. What I mean by that is, regardless of seeding, teams that are rated higher in advanced statistical models (meaning better teams) win in the title game something like 72.5% of the time (based on KenPom.com ratings for since 2003), meaning 27.5% of the time, the title game features a statistical upset. This is right in line with the 72% win rate that HEM sites for #1 seeds. What HEM also calls remarkable in #2s having only won twice in the past 25 years, really isn’t in light of that data either. After all, #2s posted wins in 2 of 7 meetings with #1s for a 28% win rate, which is again, directly in line with what would be expected if the remaining #1 in the title game is statistically the stronger team. The only thing that is a bit unusual about #2 seeds is that both times they’ve faced off against #3 seeds, they’ve lost. In the case of KU vs Syracuse, this was a statistical upset. In the case of UCLA vs Florida, it was not. Given the sample size of two, you can’t make any meaningful statistical argument about the performance of #2s vs #3s.
Now I’m sure at this point, some will remain unconvinced and, for what ever reasons, stick to their guns about #1 seeds having a significantly easier path than #2 seeds in terms of winning a title. I don’t reckon I’ll be able to overturn their thinking. But I may be able to expose the flaw in it in a way that points out the error more starkly: There is a metric called PASE (performance against seed expectation) that simply rates how many wins a given seed will average in the tournament (the data in the link is from 2008, but the point will remain the same). Looking at the PASE data, the win rate for #7 seeds since the tournament expanded in 1985 has been nearly +60% that of #11 seeds, yet in that same span not one #7 seed has ever reached the Final Four, while three #11s have. If seeding truly does matter in regards to how easy a path a team has to the finals, then these results should be astounding. It would mean that if you want a chance to reach the Final Four, you’re much better off being a #11 seed than a #7. Plain as day, right? It couldn’t possibly just be that, as per the bell curve theory someone else mentioned, picking out and seeding the best teams at the top is easier than picking out who the best teams are in the middle and seeding them correctly, right? I mean, every other single digit seed has made it at least once, yet no #7s. So maybe #7 seeds are cursed, but I find it far more likely that the NCAA usually does a pretty good job of seeding the tournament, and seldom a great job, so sometimes better teams from smaller conferences slip more than they should, accounting for the reason that #11 seeds have the same Final Four rate as #6 seeds since 1985. But that’s just me.
-
Good post that illustrates that pre-concived notions are just that and reality sometimes tells a different story.
Also, using seeding can be misleading because it is not the same thing as ranking as you noted. KU is not ranked in the top 4 in any current poll but is a #1 seed in the majority of current bracket predictions. Also, during selection, seeds are arbitrarily changed to fit geography or to prevent early inter-conference match ups.
According to the NCAA, KU is ranked #1 by RPI which is supposed to be the ultimate decider:
If selection Sunday was today, would KU be ranked #1 overall? Probably not.
-
I had some more time to search for the story about #2 seeds and SOS. Finally found it here. It was Martin Manley, not Ken Pomeroy, but the methodology is sound. So again, let’s worry about KU becoming the best team it can be in the remainder of the season, rather than the acute seed we’ve arrived at by the time March rolls around.
-
Lots of excellent posts in here… Good work, everyone!
Personally… I just want to be the hottest team in March, regardless where they put us.
I believe it is all about peaking at the right time… so I’m thinking teams like Arizona and Syracuse won’t make the FF unless they lose a game or two now and then build back momentum.
It is crazy tough to go undefeated all year and walk with a NC. Wasn’t the last example Bobby Knight at Indiana? As bad as he defecated on all his players, they probably felt like they had lost most of their games that year!
-
@HighEliteMajor, this was a big league piece of writing that should be kept. I don’t hand out this kind of compliment every day. Writing has to be sound, elegant, moving and just a little uncomfortable before I do. Rock Chalk!
-
@nuleafjhawk, way to bring the facts. That IS amazing about Forte.
-
@nuleafjhawk-Forte, I believe is the leader in D 1 FT %. He’s waaaaaay up there in 3 pt % also.
-
@approxinfinity I really, REALLY want to play WSU. And by play, I mean beat like a rented mule. Spank. Whip. Embarrass. Humiliate. Destroy.
I want the game to be known forevermore as the " Mouth Marshall’s Meltdown ".
