NCAA tourney seeding changes

[94duke]

Last four at-large teams in the "First Four" tweaked.
Less geography for highest 2 seed, to avoid highest overall and highest 2 seed in a regional final.
More Kenpom and Sagarin.
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/luke-decock/article28520578.html

[SilkyJ]

Last four at-large teams in the "First Four" tweaked.
Less geography for highest 2 seed, to avoid highest overall and highest 2 seed in a regional final.
More Kenpom and Sagarin.
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/luke-decock/article28520578.html

Thanks for posting, this seemed to slip through the cracks this wknd, or at least it did for me. Can someone explain how what they are doing for the "First Four" is now different. From the article:


First, the official changes: Instead of sending the last four at-large teams voted into the field to the First Four, the four lowest-seeded at-large teams will go to Dayton instead. And the best of the No. 2 seeds will be bracketed with less concern for geography to avoid a top-heavy region with the No. 1 overall seed, although conference affiliation will still matter.

For teams near the back of the field, as N.C. State has been two of the past four seasons, this means the true “last four in” will end up in Dayton. (Texas and UCLA avoided Dayton based on when they were voted into the field but should have been there given their eventual seeding.)

Are they literally saying that when you received your vote to be in the field was the determinant of whether or not you played in the "First Four." i.e. if Texas was "voted" in at 3pm EST, but then NC State (or whomever) lost in the ACC finals at 5pm, so then they received their at large bid at 5:30pm, then that was the reason they were in the First Four as opposed to Texas? It seems clear that moving forward it will be the 4 lowest seeded at large teams, which is great, but I'm just confused on how they did it before. Also, does this mean they get rid of the 2 16 seed "play-in" games? They really should do that too...

[94duke]

Thanks for posting, this seemed to slip through the cracks this wknd, or at least it did for me. Can someone explain how what they are doing for the "First Four" is now different. From the article:



Are they literally saying that when you received your vote to be in the field was the determinant of whether or not you played in the "First Four." i.e. if Texas was "voted" in at 3pm EST, but then NC State (or whomever) lost in the ACC finals at 5pm, so then they received their at large bid at 5:30pm, then that was the reason they were in the First Four as opposed to Texas? It seems clear that moving forward it will be the 4 lowest seeded at large teams, which is great, but I'm just confused on how they did it before. Also, does this mean they get rid of the 2 16 seed "play-in" games? They really should do that too...

I had always assumed it was done as they are planning to do it. Strange that it was literally as they were selected.

[sagegrouse]

Thanks for posting, this seemed to slip through the cracks this wknd, or at least it did for me. Can someone explain how what they are doing for the "First Four" is now different. From the article:



Are they literally saying that when you received your vote to be in the field was the determinant of whether or not you played in the "First Four." i.e. if Texas was "voted" in at 3pm EST, but then NC State (or whomever) lost in the ACC finals at 5pm, so then they received their at large bid at 5:30pm, then that was the reason they were in the First Four as opposed to Texas? It seems clear that moving forward it will be the 4 lowest seeded at large teams, which is great, but I'm just confused on how they did it before. Also, does this mean they get rid of the 2 16 seed "play-in" games? They really should do that too...

Silky, I am heartened that you understood the quote you posted, which means that it is probably logical. But I, for one, have no idea what the difference between the two approaches actually means.

Kindly,
Sage

[SCMatt33]

The difference lies in how teams are selected vs. seeded. During the selection phase, each committee member votes for teams who should be in the field. Those teams receiving enough votes would be immediately in the tourney. This part of the process ensures that the committee didn't waste time last year discussing whether or not Duke should even be in the tourney. After this, teams with the most votes are entered into the field in groups. The top 8 teams who didn't get in yet (in terms of most initial votes I believe, though I don't remember 100% on this) are place onto a ballot. Each member ranks those teams 1-8 and the ballots are scored cross county style with the four top teams added to the field and the bottom four teams held over to next ballot with four new teams. The field is completed in this manner and then the entire field goes through the process of "scrubbing" in which individual teams are moved ahead or behind each other for seeding. Previously, the last four teams added to the field via the ballot system could not be "scrubbed" ahead of other teams and were placed into the first four. When they said that the "last four" at large teams as opposed to the "worst four" at large teams went to Dayton, they meant it. Now all teams can be moved up and down the seed list at will with the lowest four at large teams going to Dayton when all is said and done. It's a pretty big improvement

[SilkyJ]

Silky, I am heartened that you understood the quote you posted, which means that it is probably logical. But I, for one, have no idea what the difference between the two approaches actually means.

Kindly,
Sage

I am heartened to have heartened you :o, but I'm not actually sure that I did understand the quote. Maybe I did...it just seemed like an odd way to determine the "first four"

[sagegrouse]

The difference lies in how teams are selected vs. seeded. During the selection phase, each committee member votes for teams who should be in the field. Those teams receiving enough votes would be immediately in the tourney. This part of the process ensures that the committee didn't waste time last year discussing whether or not Duke should even be in the tourney. After this, teams with the most votes are entered into the field in groups. The top 8 teams who didn't get in yet (in terms of most initial votes I believe, though I don't remember 100% on this) are place onto a ballot. Each member ranks those teams 1-8 and the ballots are scored cross county style with the four top teams added to the field and the bottom four teams held over to next ballot with four new teams. The field is completed in this manner and then the entire field goes through the process of "scrubbing" in which individual teams are moved ahead or behind each other for seeding. Previously, the last four teams added to the field via the ballot system could not be "scrubbed" ahead of other teams and were placed into the first four. When they said that the "last four" at large teams as opposed to the "worst four" at large teams went to Dayton, they meant it. Now all teams can be moved up and down the seed list at will with the lowest four at large teams going to Dayton when all is said and done. It's a pretty big improvement

Good, and I am also glad you understand it.

[SilkyJ]

The difference lies in how teams are selected vs. seeded. During the selection phase, each committee member votes for teams who should be in the field. Those teams receiving enough votes would be immediately in the tourney. This part of the process ensures that the committee didn't waste time last year discussing whether or not Duke should even be in the tourney. After this, teams with the most votes are entered into the field in groups. The top 8 teams who didn't get in yet (in terms of most initial votes I believe, though I don't remember 100% on this) are place onto a ballot. Each member ranks those teams 1-8 and the ballots are scored cross county style with the four top teams added to the field and the bottom four teams held over to next ballot with four new teams. The field is completed in this manner and then the entire field goes through the process of "scrubbing" in which individual teams are moved ahead or behind each other for seeding. Previously, the last four teams added to the field via the ballot system could not be "scrubbed" ahead of other teams and were placed into the first four. When they said that the "last four" at large teams as opposed to the "worst four" at large teams went to Dayton, they meant it. Now all teams can be moved up and down the seed list at will with the lowest four at large teams going to Dayton when all is said and done. It's a pretty big improvement

Muchas gracias! I knew my interpretation had to be wrong, and I agree this is an improvement.

[Jarhead]

Thanks for posting, this seemed to slip through the cracks this wknd, or at least it did for me. Can someone explain how what they are doing for the "First Four" is now different. From the article:

Are they literally saying that when you received your vote to be in the field was the determinant of whether or not you played in the "First Four." i.e. if Texas was "voted" in at 3pm EST, but then NC State (or whomever) lost in the ACC finals at 5pm, so then they received their at large bid at 5:30pm, then that was the reason they were in the First Four as opposed to Texas? It seems clear that moving forward it will be the 4 lowest seeded at large teams, which is great, but I'm just confused on how they did it before. Also, does this mean they get rid of the 2 16 seed "play-in" games? They really should do that too...


I had always assumed it was done as they are planning to do it. Strange that it was literally as they were selected.

My understanding is that the change is that the four lowest seeded will be the teams to play in the first two play-in games. It used to be that those teams were selected based on the sequence of their selection. I don't know why the addition of four more teams to the tourney was made some years ago. Must have been some feeling of guilt by the selection committee, in that a few higher rated teams were left out so that the champions from lower conferences could participate. I guess they didn't consider the play-in round to be part of the tournament, and putting those conference champs in the play-in did not meet the rule that all Div 1 conference champs would play in the tournament. This change may seem proper, but four conferences lose the chance to play in the first round. So?

[mgtr]

Any wagers on how long it will take for the first four to become the first sixteen and then the first 64? Step right up, everybody is a winner!

[JasonEvans]

I think there was some confusion in this thread about not just the last 4 at-large teams but the bottom 4 automatic bid teams. The bottom 4 auto-bid teams will still play for the right to be a sacrificial lamb to a #1 seed. That is not changing at all.

-Jason "I love the #2 seed change ensuing that we cannot have the top #2 with the top #1 seed. A rare moment of sanity from the NCAA" Evans

[SCMatt33]

-Jason "I love the #2 seed change ensuing that we cannot have the top #2 with the top #1 seed. A rare moment of sanity from the NCAA" Evans

This is probably a pretty good point to expand upon a little bit as well. For those of you who aren't rules and procedure junkies, all you need to know is that previously, if #1 overall and #5 overall were closest to the same regional, the committee would be forced to put them both there (i.e. Kentucky and Wisconsin in the Midwest had Wisconsin been #5 overall this year). Now, the committee will have some leeway to avoid this should they choose.

For those who are interested in a more detailed explanation, read on.

First, I do have one contradictory point to what Jason said. The actual changes to the principles and procedures document (here's a link to the previous version for those interested (http://www.ncaa.com/content/di-principles-and-procedures-selection)) document have not been released to my knowledge, so I can't be 100% on this, but I think that the rules will still allow for the top #2 and top #1 to be placed together, but the committee will have an option to avoid it. This distinction is important as the differences between #1 seeds can vary from year to year. This year, Kentucky was far and away considered the favorite heading into the tournament. Furthermore, there was a separation between Duke, Wisconsin, and UVA from the other #2 seeds. This led to the conundrum for the committee that the top #1 seed would be clearly ahead of the other 3 and the top #2 would also be clearly ahead of the other 3. The current rules only contain a very general guideline on region strength based on seeding:


After the top four seed lines have been assigned, the committee will review the relative strengths of the regions by adding the “true seed” numbers in each region to determine if any severe numerical imbalance exists. Generally, no more than five points should separate the lowest and highest total.

This doesn't provide much protection from bad seed match-ups as a theoretical region with the best #1, #2, and #3 seed along with the worst # 4 could still pass this test depending on how the other regions were built. Furthermore, that word "generally" in the rule has allowed it to be broken in the past. In contrast, the rule for geography is very clear cut:


Teams (emphasis their's)will remain in or as close to their areas of natural interest as possible. A team moved out of its natural area will be placed in the next closest region to the extent possible. If two teams from the same natural region are in contention for the same bracket position, the team ranked higher in the seed list shall remain in its natural region.

In terms of what's changed, here is what the NCAA.com press release (http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2015-07-20/ncaa-adjusts-process-selecting-first-four-participants) said on the matter, which is a much weaker statement than the headline of the News & Observer article stating that #1 and #5 overall "won't be in the same region"


Another change the committee made will (emphasis mine)provide flexibility for seeding the four teams on the No. 2 line. While teams from the same conference will remain in separate regions, the committee (emphasis mine)may consider moving the team seeded fifth on the overall seed list out of its natural geographic area to avoid the best of the No. 2 seeds being placed in the same region as the top overall team.

“This change doesn’t mean we are going to a true S-Curve but if we can achieve it, or come closer to having more competitive balance on the top two lines without compromising our existing principles and without putting a team at a great disadvantage, we will consider it,” said Castiglione.

That makes it seem like the committee will have an option to either move them out or not as preference is not always clear cut. Take 2011 for example. The full seed list wasn't released that year, but it would not be unreasonable to believe that UNC was #5 overall (recall that many assumed that the ACC championship game was being played for the last #1 seed, despite the committee claiming later on that Duke had it either way). They were the #2 seed in the east with OSU as the top overall seed. I can recall plenty of people arguing that UNC had a better spot in the field than Duke that year (having to travel across the country to play west coast teams). Can you imagine if Duke had been #5 overall, but got moved out of the east simply because OSU was #1 overall. Not all #1's are created equal and hopefully the committee carefully considers each case individually going forward.