Bracketology BS

[hamcoboiler]

For years I have felt like some teams receive favorable positioning from the committee. I get that Lunardi's bracket isn't the actually bracket but this just cracked me up. Let's compare Purdue & Duke's resume:

Purdue
-15th AP
-13th Coaches
-16th KenPom
-16th RPI
-Record 24-7
-Conference Record 12-6

Duke
-17th AP
-21st Coaches
-20th KenPom
-18th RPI
-Record 22-9
-Conference Record 11-7

Before everyone corrects me, I realize KenPom isn't a stat used by the selection committee. I also decided to look at both teams record over their last five games. Purdue is 4-1 and Duke is 2-3.

Currently Lunardi has Purdue as a 5 seed and Duke as a 4. Jerry Palm has Purdue as a 4 and Duke as a 3. Shockingly neither have Duke playing in Raleigh.

 

[honey_badger]

For years I have felt like some teams receive favorable positioning from the committee. I get that Lunardi's bracket isn't the actually bracket but this just cracked me up. Let's compare Purdue & Duke's resume:

Purdue
-15th AP
-13th Coaches
-16th KenPom
-16th RPI
-Record 24-7
-Conference Record 12-6

Duke
-17th AP
-21st Coaches
-20th KenPom
-18th RPI
-Record 22-9
-Conference Record 11-7

Before everyone corrects me, I realize KenPom isn't a stat used by the selection committee. I also decided to look at both teams record over their last five games. Purdue is 4-1 and Duke is 2-3.

Currently Lunardi has Purdue as a 5 seed and Duke as a 4. Jerry Palm has Purdue as a 4 and Duke as a 3. Shockingly neither have Duke playing in Raleigh.

wow, this is a farce. Purdue deserves better. Maybe someone can point this out to Jay Bilas. Unbelievable. I'm glad someone caught it, ..... now it just needs to be exposed for what it is,,,, national homerism in favor of Duke

 

[bonefish1]

Well, in Duke's defense, they are the defending national champs and Coach K is one of the top 3 best tourney coaches ever. So, they'll make a run, no doubt.
I dislike Duke as much as the next guy, just being honest.

 

[TC4THREE]

Was looking g at this all last night and wanted to see Lunardi's updated bracket today before saying anything but I felt we have a strong case to be closer to the 3/4 borderline (top 12 teams) than the 4/5 (top 16). Given that we are in the top 16 in both polls (one of which ranked Louisville ahead of us who isn't a tourney factor) and in both rpi and kenpom not sure what metrics we fall short in to be a 4 other than we are not named "Duke" or "Kentucky". Maybe there is something obvious Im overlooking.

 

[hamcoboiler]

Well, in Duke's defense, they are the defending national champs and Coach K is one of the top 3 best tourney coaches ever. So, they'll make a run, no doubt.
I dislike Duke as much as the next guy, just being honest.

I agree, can't argue with Duke's success. Your seed isn't based on past success though. Each team is seeded based on what they have accomplished this year. I didn't even point out that Duke hasn't been the same team without Amile Jefferson.

 

[TC4THREE]

Well, in Duke's defense, they are the defending national champs and Coach K is one of the top 3 best tourney coaches ever. So, they'll make a run, no doubt.
I dislike Duke as much as the next guy, just being honest.

The Selection Committee claims that prior years are irrelevant.

 

[Statey]

Well, in Duke's defense, they are the defending national champs and Coach K is one of the top 3 best tourney coaches ever. So, they'll make a run, no doubt.
I dislike Duke as much as the next guy, just being honest.

While all true (and likely true on the run part), none of that should matter... but we all know it does. There are only 2 true choices for a ranking methodology - rank purely based on what have you accomplished (resume), or rank based on how good you will be in the next game and beyond. It seems there are a couple teams - Duke obviously being one of them - where they benefit from being evaluated using whichever methodology yields the highest result for them (regardless of which method is used for other teams). And no team gets more early round games in their own backyard than Duke. Any projection that doesn't have them playing a game in Raleigh or Charlotte... well, that seems more the exception than the rule.

 

[punaj]

Well, in Duke's defense, they are the defending national champs and Coach K is one of the top 3 best tourney coaches ever. So, they'll make a run, no doubt.
I dislike Duke as much as the next guy, just being honest.

I think this statement just reinforces what the OP said. People favor teams that have been successful in the past.

Let's just win the B1G tournament, beat Iowa, Indiana, and Mich St, and get a 2 or 3 seed.

 

[bonefish1]

I agree, can't argue with Duke's success. Your seed isn't based on past success though. Each team is seeded based on what they have accomplished this year. I didn't even point out that Duke hasn't been the same team without Amile Jefferson.

While past success isn't supposed to matter, the selection and seeding are still done by humans and there's objectivity that enters the equation. Therefore, a team like Duke, only because it's Coach K and Duke, is going to get the benefit of the doubt. Same as any of the blue bloods would (UNC, UK, KU, etc.).
If this weren't the case, you could simply plug all the data into a computer and you field of 64 would be set that way.
So yeh, it matters what the name on the front of the jersey says....

 

[Heller]

The Selection Committee claims that prior years are irrelevant.

The selection committee is however human and will have prejudices.

 

[hamcoboiler]

I would much prefer a computer determining the field. Everyone would know the formula and it would eliminate the human element. The NCAA did it in football when they had to decided on two teams, I hate that subjective people decide on the 36th at large bid when the 37th might have a better resume.

 

[Dryfly88]

While past success isn't supposed to matter, the selection and seeding are still done by humans and there's objectivity that enters the equation. Therefore, a team like Duke, only because it's Coach K and Duke, is going to get the benefit of the doubt. Same as any of the blue bloods would (UNC, UK, KU, etc.).
If this weren't the case, you could simply plug all the data into a computer and you field of 64 would be set that way.
So yeh, it matters what the name on the front of the jersey says....

Great point.

One of my favorite things ESPN does is the "blind resume". Love to play that. I wish they would do it more for some of the better seeds but they usually focus on the "bubble teams" with that game. They probably don't want to do that with some of the higher seeds because some of the bias like we are talking about would be exposed.

 

[SqueakyClean]

Also as one note, Duke's SOS was much higher than ours (at least according to Kenpom and the RPI rankings), so that might be playing a little into Lunardi's thinking.

 

[ss32000]

For years I have felt like some teams receive favorable positioning from the committee. I get that Lunardi's bracket isn't the actually bracket but this just cracked me up. Let's compare Purdue & Duke's resume:

Purdue
-15th AP
-13th Coaches
-16th KenPom
-16th RPI
-Record 24-7
-Conference Record 12-6

Duke
-17th AP
-21st Coaches
-20th KenPom
-18th RPI
-Record 22-9
-Conference Record 11-7

Before everyone corrects me, I realize KenPom isn't a stat used by the selection committee. I also decided to look at both teams record over their last five games. Purdue is 4-1 and Duke is 2-3.

Currently Lunardi has Purdue as a 5 seed and Duke as a 4. Jerry Palm has Purdue as a 4 and Duke as a 3. Shockingly neither have Duke playing in Raleigh.

I think the Selection Committee does use Ken Pom stats in their analysis. The only big thing I would see is that the ACC is the second best conference this year and the Big Ten fifth, so conferences records are a little tougher to just flat our compare at a numbers level. Duke's best wins include Virginia and on the road at North Carolina. Purdue best wins are Michigan State and probably at Wisconsin. I'd say they are close. If Purdue has a big week beating Iowa, Indiana and Michigan St/Wisconsin, things should take care of themselves. Once you get to the 3/4/5 line, it doesn't really matter to much after round 1. You just want to be playing really well. You will need to beat a top 25ish type team in the second game of the weekend.

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

Bottom line: If we keep getting better, we are going to be stacking beaten teams like a cord of wood ! We are peaking at the right time. We should fear NOONE !

 

[hunkgolden]

I think the Selection Committee does use Ken Pom stats in their analysis. The only big thing I would see is that the ACC is the second best conference this year and the Big Ten fifth, so conferences records are a little tougher to just flat our compare at a numbers level. Duke's best wins include Virginia and on the road at North Carolina. Purdue best wins are Michigan State and probably at Wisconsin. I'd say they are close. If Purdue has a big week beating Iowa, Indiana and Michigan St/Wisconsin, things should take care of themselves. Once you get to the 3/4/5 line, it doesn't really matter to much after round 1. You just want to be playing really well. You will need to beat a top 25ish type team in the second game of the weekend.

In a world of unbalanced schedules - conference strengths mean nothing. The committee looks at the SOS of each time now.

 

[hamcoboiler]

The bottom line is seeding has a huge impact on results. Duke consistently plays in Raleigh and at a seed line higher makes post season success more likely.

The difference in one line is huge.

2 seeds have twice as many final four appearances as 4 seeds who have twice as many final four appearances as 5 seeds.

 

[Statey]

I would much prefer a computer determining the field. Everyone would know the formula and it would eliminate the human element. The NCAA did it in football when they had to decided on two teams, I hate that subjective people decide on the 36th at large bid when the 37th might have a better resume.

That wouldn't totally solve the situation, would it? The reason being, the human element would be required to set the weight of non-con SOS, weight of one conference vs. another, weight for # of neutral and road games played in non-con, etc. And even then, you'd still need a human review component to look at the results to say "does this pass the sanity check?".

Further, when they had the BCS ranking in football, the complaint was that it's entirely too complicated and nobody understands it. I think the fact that it was too computerized and lacked in subjective evaluation was part of (or even entirely) the reason it was eliminated when football went to the playoff system and created a committee. They didn't need a committee to get to a final-4 ranking, they chose to do it. So it's been tried in football, and they felt compelled to banish it.

As much as the seedings are not a perfect science, the selection committee gets a whole heck of a lot more right than they do wrong. I'm firmly in the camp that says keep it just the way it is. The NCAA tournament is the single greatest post-season across all of sports, and NCAA officials would be well-served to change nothing and risk nothing by doing so.

 

[Chuchumutha]

We are a very strong 4 seed currently. Here's our scenarios in the BTT:

1) Lose first game, 5 seed.
2) Win first, lose second, 4 seed
3) Win first two, lose final, 3 seed
4) Win BTT, 2 seed.

Don't worry about Lunardi. He is pretty good at predicting who gets in but horrible at seeding. Last year after the BTT he had us as an 11 seed in his bracketology. We were a 9.

 

[TC4THREE]

We are a very strong 4 seed currently. Here's our scenarios in the BTT:

1) Lose first game, 5 seed.
2) Win first, lose second, 4 seed
3) Win first two, lose final, 3 seed
4) Win BTT, 2 seed.

Don't worry about Lunardi. He is pretty good at predicting who gets in but horrible at seeding. Last year after the BTT he had us as an 11 seed in his bracketology. We were a 9.

I agree with 1 and 2. I think for us to move into a 2 or 3 seed it depends on what other teams in other tournaments do as well. I think a 2 seed would take an awful lot of other things to happen in addition to us winning out.

 

[atmafola]

We are a very strong 4 seed currently. Here's our scenarios in the BTT:

1) Lose first game, 5 seed.
2) Win first, lose second, 4 seed
3) Win first two, lose final, 3 seed
4) Win BTT, 2 seed.

Don't worry about Lunardi. He is pretty good at predicting who gets in but horrible at seeding. Last year after the BTT he had us as an 11 seed in his bracketology. We were a 9.

under no scenario do we get to 2 seed. Our ceiling is a #3 seed. The BTT championship ends way too late to use it for seeding.

 

[ss32000]

In a world of unbalanced schedules - conference strengths mean nothing. The committee looks at the SOS of each time now.

While true to an extent, I think having a decent record in a higher league does matter to an extent. In comparing SOS (according to KenPom)

• Overall SOS
  • Duke - 13
  • Purdue - 58
• Non Conference
  • Duke - 99
  • Purdue - 263
• Opp Offense SOS
  • Duke - 5
  • Purdue - 51
• Opp Defense SOS
  • Duke - 32
  • Purdue - 77

Regardless, I think Duke is on fumes and if Purdue takes care of business they will be fine.

 

[NVBoilerFan]

under no scenario do we get to 2 seed. Our ceiling is a #3 seed. The BTT championship ends way too late to use it for seeding.

I think Purdue should be a solid 3 right now and if they came out and pounded Iowa and IU then a 2 would be very reasonable. If both Purdue and MSU were set to go in the final, they both should get bumped up in seeds. The eyeball test says there aren't 8 better teams in the country right now than Purdue or MSU.

 

[CRBoiler]

Hoping for a 3 seed... need to win a couple more games

 

[IndyBoilers2000]

Past years have shown that the selectiom committee is playing for match-ups and ratings. Launardi is usually spot on in who gets in but horrible at seeding and regions. It will all shake out in a week.

 

[honey_badger]

This seems more accurate than Lunardi

www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2016/3/7/11171246/bracketology-2016-ncaa-tournament-college-basketball-syracuse-st-bonaventure-vcu-wichita-state

 

[depthcharge623]

That still has us at a 5, which is ridiculous in my opinion...

 

[proudopete]

That still has us at a 5, which is ridiculous in my opinion...

We should be a 4 if we win Friday. If we win Saturday, we should be a 3. Win on Sunday and we have an outside shot at a 2 but a 3 is more likely.
I think IU is still a 4. But a Friday win will lock them in at a 3. A Saturday win and they are a high 3 looking at a probable 2 if they win the Chanpionship. They are just now overcoming their bad losses and teams ahead of them, including us if we win Saturday, won't have those losses on their resume.

 

[CRBoiler]

I think we're looking at 2 as the best case seed, and we need to win the BTT + get some help from a couple top 10 teams (i.e. they lose).

Worst case now should be 5 IMO, which potentially applies if we lose on Friday.

Because it's about not just the BTT but how all the other teams do as well, it's tough to guesstimate beyond that.

 

[BoilerNGold013]

Don't worry about what the pundits say. I think we will be at worst a 4 and probably a 3 if we get to Sunday in the BTT. The selection committee has always liked Purdue. Last year I was shocked we were seeded so high and also we got a great seed the year JJ and Smooge were seniors.
None of these "experts" are in the decision room so their opinion means less than an IU fan's

 

[BoilerStation]

If Purdue wins the BTT going through Iowa, IU and then MSU they have a very good shot at the last 2 seed.

 

[uelnesm]

I think seed debates and actual seeding is one of the most ridiculous conversations in sports. When the madness starts you have to be playing well to make it to the second weekend. Whether you are a 2-5 seed doesn't matter. Upsets can and will happen. It's a matter of how you play at that time. If you are playing well you will make it to the sweet 16 and from there anything can happen.

If you aren't playing well - it doesn't matter you aren't making it past the first weekend regardless of where you are seeded.

It's time for this team to show us who they are.

A more silly conversation and waste of space on the Internet is "bracketology" followed closely by freaking professional sports power rankings.

 

[Cleanface]

God, grant me the serenity, to accept the things I cannot change.

 

[depthcharge623]

I think seed debates and actual seeding is one of the most ridiculous conversations in sports. When the madness starts you have to be playing well to make it to the second weekend. Whether you are a 2-5 seed doesn't matter. Upsets can and will happen. It's a matter of how you play at that time. If you are playing well you will make it to the sweet 16 and from there anything can happen.

If you aren't playing well - it doesn't matter you aren't making it past the first weekend regardless of where you are seeded.

It's time for this team to show us who they are.

A more silly conversation and waste of space on the Internet is "bracketology" followed closely by freaking professional sports power rankings.

Do you want to remind me again what the difference in success between 2 and 5 seeds historically is? How many 2 seeds have made the FF? How many 5 seeds?

 

[CRBoiler]

Do you want to remind me again what the difference in success between 2 and 5 seeds historically is? How many 2 seeds have made the FF? How many 5 seeds?

Agree with depthcharge... Yes there are upsets, but a better seed = higher probability of reaching FF and winning NC based on history. You want your team to have the best possible chance to win it all, right? A 2 seed, at worst, has to beat 7, 3, and 1 seeds (one top 30 team, one top 15 team, and one top 5 team) to get to a FF. A 3 seed, at worst, has to beat 6, 2, and 1 seeds (one top 25 team, one top 10 team, and one top 5 team). It's enough of a difference to desire the 2 seed.

 

[BoilerGal74]

While past success isn't supposed to matter, the selection and seeding are still done by humans and there's objectivity that enters the equation. Therefore, a team like Duke, only because it's Coach K and Duke, is going to get the benefit of the doubt. Same as any of the blue bloods would (UNC, UK, KU, etc.).
If this weren't the case, you could simply plug all the data into a computer and you field of 64 would be set that way.
So yeh, it matters what the name on the front of the jersey says....

Think that's subjectivity as opposed to objectivity...wink!

 

[uelnesm]

Do you want to remind me again what the difference in success between 2 and 5 seeds historically is? How many 2 seeds have made the FF? How many 5 seeds?

You imply the the "seed" makes the final four and not the "team". A team like Purdue isn't going to auto-magically go to the final four as a #2 seed. Likewise a top team like Kansas will likely make the final four whether there are seed #1 or #5. The seeding is just that seeding.

 

[mathboy]

You imply the the "seed" makes the final four and not the "team". A team like Purdue isn't going to auto-magically go to the final four as a #2 seed. Likewise a top team like Kansas will likely make the final four whether there are seed #1 or #5. The seeding is just that seeding.

The path for a 2 seed is much easier than the path for a 5 seed. Our Landry team was playing well and might have gone much further in the NCAA, had we not played the eventual NC in an early round.

If you ignore seeding then you seemingly place no importance on making the Sweet 16 or Elite 8. Thoise achievements are very strongly influenced by the seeding. Even the NC is highly dependent on initial seeding. Many times the NC can avoid bad match-ups by starting with a higher seed, playing the less competent teams..

 

[*4purdue*]

As of today, we moved up.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

 

[Statey]

The path for a 2 seed is much easier than the path for a 5 seed. Our Landry team was playing well and might have gone much further in the NCAA, had we not played the eventual NC in an early round.

If you ignore seeding then you seemingly place no importance on making the Sweet 16 or Elite 8. Thoise achievements are very strongly influenced by the seeding. Even the NC is highly dependent on initial seeding. Many times the NC can avoid bad match-ups by starting with a higher seed, playing the less competent teams..

I agree with the earlier part of your post, but think you swung the pendulum the opposite direction with the last part... seeding is important, but it's not that important. In only the rarest of situations would the NC game participants be that dependent upon seeding alone. If you make the NC game, you've had to beat some pretty damn good teams to get there, regardless of your seed. Stated another way, if you're playing in the NC game, you've earned it.

Exhibit A... assuming chalk:
Hardest path for a 2-seed to NC game - playing the 15, 7, 3, 1, 1 from the other half of the bracket (same side)
Hardest path for a 5-seed to NC game - playing the 12, 4, 1, 2, 1 from the other half of the bracket (same side)

Either route, you'd still have to go through 2 #1's. I would say the biggest advantage of being a 2 is merely the path to the Sweet 16. After that, you better be ready for serious competition, and then it's all about who's got the talent and who's better prepared for the big show.