NCAA tourney seeding and what it means

[gofurman]

Someone posted the percentages once and I would love to see that again. Percentages of each seed (1-4) that made the FF and won the title. The discrepancy was large

Here, to me, are the THREE reasons/things that affect your chances:

One, MATCHUPS. Some teams are huge, some have multiple penetrating guards etc.

Two, as everyone says, the difficulty of your opponent. Any 13/14 seed and up is a quality team in some respect so a 3 seed is a much tougher path than a one seed .. 3 Vs a 14.. 3 Vs a 6. As opposed to playing a 16 and an 8.

Points one and two are often mentioned


Three., And this is what gets overlooked - a one seed means WE are a better team (or whomever receives said one seed). Not speaking Of whether we would play a 14 or 16 as opponent... This is about how good WE were. Believe me, our 99 and 2001 and 2015 teams were one seeds. Elton Brand, Jay Williams, Maggette, Boozer, Dunleavy, Langdon, Okafor, Winslow, Jones, Grayson Allen. They won a lot and were strong. Thus they were awarded one seeds. This is a huge component of why one seeds win more and why a one seed has not yet lost to a 16 seed. But two seeds have lost to 15 seeds. Two seeds have small but intrinsic weaknesses. Our teams I mentioned wouldn't have lost to a 10 or 14 or 16 seed. We were just too good and thus a one seed

[Kedsy]

Someone posted the percentages once and I would love to see that again. Percentages of each seed (1-4) that made the FF and won the title. The discrepancy was large

Since the tournament went to 64 teams in 1985, here's the percentage that each seed has made the Final Four:

#1 seeds: 40.6%
#2 seeds: 21.9%
#3 seeds: 10.9%
#4 seeds: 10.2%
#5 seeds: 4.7%
#6 seeds: 2.3%
#7 seeds: 1.6%
#8 seeds: 3.9%
#9 seeds: 0.8%
#10 seeds: 0.8%
#11 seeds: 2.3%
#12 through #16: 0.0%


Here, to me, are the THREE reasons/things that affect your chances:

One, MATCHUPS. Some teams are huge, some have multiple penetrating guards etc.

Two, as everyone says, the difficulty of your opponent. Any 13/14 seed and up is a quality team in some respect so a 3 seed is a much tougher path than a one seed .. 3 Vs a 14.. 3 Vs a 6. As opposed to playing a 16 and an 8.

Points one and two are often mentioned

Three., And this is what gets overlooked - a one seed means WE are a better team (or whomever receives said one seed). Not speaking Of whether we would play a 14 or 16 as opponent... This is about how good WE were. Believe me, our 99 and 2001 and 2015 teams were one seeds. Elton Brand, Jay Williams, Maggette, Boozer, Dunleavy, Langdon, Okafor, Winslow, Jones, Grayson Allen. They won a lot and were strong. Thus they were awarded one seeds. This is a huge component of why one seeds win more and why a one seed has not yet lost to a 16 seed. But two seeds have lost to 15 seeds. Two seeds have small but intrinsic weaknesses. Our teams I mentioned wouldn't have lost to a 10 or 14 or 16 seed. We were just too good and thus a one seed

Obviously one reason #1 seeds have more success is they're generally better teams (although I don't think that is particularly overlooked in these discussions; it's always mentioned). But the main reason a #1 hasn't lost to a #16 is luck. One 1 v. 16 game went to overtime (Michigan St. over Murray State in 1990); two others were 1 point games (Georgetown over Princeton and Oklahoma over ETSU, both (oddly) in 1989). A dozen or so other 1 v. 16 games have had final margins in single-digits, including 4 such games in the past 5 seasons and also Duke over Mississippi Valley State by 7 in 1986 (a Duke team that went to the final game). You play that many close games, you don't win them all unless you're lucky, and up to now #1 seeds have been lucky to win them all. Based on expected performance calculations, the #16 should have won 4 or 5 games over the past 32 years.

As far as the path goes, there are two separate elements there. The first is the "chalk" path, which is easiest for a #1 seed. But the second element is actual path, which (at least for Final Four teams) is rarely chalk. Here are the number of teams that played chalk and made the Final Four vs. those who made the Final Four playing against lesser opponents, by seed:

#1 seed: chalk 9; non-chalk 43;
#2 seed: chalk 5; non-chalk 23;
#3 seed: chalk 3; non-chalk 11;
#4 seed: chalk 2; non-chalk 11;
#5 through #11 seeds: chalk 3; non-chalk 18.

Of course, part of the above has to do with the fact that teams don't play as many chalk paths as they do non-chalk, because there are a lot of upsets in the NCAAT, but part of it clearly has to do with playing easier games if your path is non-chalk. It's also true that the better your seed, the more likely it is you'll play a non-chalk path, and that's another reason why #1 seeds get to more Final Fours (because they play more non-chalk paths).

Looking at this a slightly different way, here are some calculated odds of seed performance against chalk, using historical performance to determine likelihood:

1-seed vs. 16/8/4/2: 26.66%
2-seed vs. 15/7/3/1: 22.62%
3-seed vs. 14/6/2/1: 6.58%
4-seed vs. 13/5/1/2: 4.46%

So, if you play straight chalk, not so much difference between a #1 and a #2, but a huuuuuge difference between either #1 or #2 and #3 or #4.

Now let's see how the odds change when the path goes "off-chalk." For example, even though 9-seeds beat 8-seeds 50% of the time, and 5-seeds beat 4-seeds 46.27% of the time (and thus a 16/9/5/2 path wouldn't be considered unusual) when the 1-seed's path is 16/9/5/2, the odds go up to 36.1%. If you make it 16/9/5/3, the odds go up to 46.82%. Here are selected various permutations for the top four seeds:

1-seed vs. 16/8/4/2: 26.66%
1-seed vs. 16/9/5/2: 36.10%
1-seed vs. 16/9/5/3: 46.82%
1-seed vs. 16/8/12/2: 41.64%
1-seed vs. 16/9/12/2: 44.00%
1-seed vs. 16/9/5/6 (UNC's path in 2016): 55.01%
1-seed vs. 16/9/12/3: 57.07%
etc.

2-seed vs. 15/7/3/1: 22.62%
2-seed vs. 15/10/6/1: 23.32%
2-seed vs. 15/7/11/1: 32.57%

3-seed vs. 14/6/2/1: 6.58%
3-seed vs. 14/11/2/1: 7.53%
3-seed vs. 14/11/7/1: 12.24%

4-seed vs. 13/5/1/2: 4.46%
4-seed vs. 13/12/1/2: 5.22%
4-seed vs. 13/12/8/2: 7.16%

As the path goes further off-chalk, the #1 seeds have yet another advantage.

Finally, here's a specific example I posted in another thread, using Pomeroy's model (pre-tournament numbers) to determine a team's chance of winning (e.g., according to Pomeroy, last season UNC had a 97.49% chance of beating its first round opponent, FDU).

Looking at last year's UNC team that was seeded #1 in the East and lost in the championship game, let's compare that team's chances of making the Final Four as the #1 in the East vs. the same team's chances of doing so as (for example) the #4 seed in the South. Here goes:

UNC 2016, chalk path as #1 in the East: FDU (97.49%) * USC (80.39%) * Kentucky (58.04%) * Xavier (65.14%) = 29.63% chance of making Final Four;

UNC 2016, actual path as #1 in the East: FDU (97.49%) * Providence (79.95%) * Indiana (64.83%) * Notre Dame (78.48%) = 39.66% chance of making Final Four;

UNC 2016, as #4 in the South (chalk and actual path the same): Hawaii (83.09%) * Maryland (69.86%) * Kansas (45.34%) * Villanova (52.36%) = 13.78% chance of making the Final Four;

As the #4 seed in the South, the exact same UNC team would have had approximately one-third as high a chance to make the Final Four as it did in the actual games as #1 in the East. So there's clearly a huge component having little to do with how good the #1 seeded team is. Who you play matters, a lot.

[duke4ever19]

Someone posted the percentages once and I would love to see that again. Percentages of each seed (1-4) that made the FF and won the title. The discrepancy was large

Here, to me, are the THREE reasons/things that affect your chances:

One, MATCHUPS. Some teams are huge, some have multiple penetrating guards etc.

Two, as everyone says, the difficulty of your opponent. Any 13/14 seed and up is a quality team in some respect so a 3 seed is a much tougher path than a one seed .. 3 Vs a 14.. 3 Vs a 6. As opposed to playing a 16 and an 8.

Points one and two are often mentioned


Three., And this is what gets overlooked - a one seed means WE are a better team (or whomever receives said one seed). Not speaking Of whether we would play a 14 or 16 as opponent... This is about how good WE were. Believe me, our 99 and 2001 and 2015 teams were one seeds. Elton Brand, Jay Williams, Maggette, Boozer, Dunleavy, Langdon, Okafor, Winslow, Jones, Grayson Allen. They won a lot and were strong. Thus they were awarded one seeds. This is a huge component of why one seeds win more and why a one seed has not yet lost to a 16 seed. But two seeds have lost to 15 seeds. Two seeds have small but intrinsic weaknesses. Our teams I mentioned wouldn't have lost to a 10 or 14 or 16 seed. We were just too good and thus a one seed

So your points are as follows:

1) Matchups affect a team's ability to get to the Final Four.

2) Teams are typically tougher outs in relation to their seeding, so you want a higher seeding to in order to play lower seeds as long as possible.

3) Having a 1-seed means you are a good team and have less flaws than a seeds in the 2-3 range.

Besides the obvious counter-arguments that could be made against your third point, all this seems to be kinda common knowledge about the tournament.

Edit: I am not wanting to come across dismissive (I apologize if I do). It's late and I've had a couple. I'm probably missing something, or you are trying to give a FYI as we get closer to tournament time.

[gofurman]

So your points are as follows:

1) Matchups affect a team's ability to get to the Final Four.

2) Teams are typically tougher outs in relation to their seeding, so you want a higher seeding to in order to play lower seeds as long as possible.

3) Having a 1-seed means you are a good team and have less flaws than a seeds in the 2-3 range.

Besides the obvious counter-arguments that could be made against your third point, all this seems to be kinda common knowledge about the tournament.

Edit: I am not wanting to come across dismissive (I apologize if I do). It's late and I've had a couple. I'm probably missing something, or you are trying to give a FYI as we get closer to tournament time.

No problem at all. In a sense My post is obvious ... but so is telling 20 year-old D1 kids not to take hard shots early In a shot clock and I see that all the time. "Hey, let's jack a three with 20 seconds left!" LOL. I just hear a lot about "its ok if we are a 2 seed, there is very little difference In a 15 or 16". Very little is actually said reflecting that one seeds are often much better teams than two seeds. Many people just look at the opponent (15 vs a 16) and not what the seeding reflects in the stronger team ( 1 v 2) as odd as that seems.

[duke2x]

Excellent work by the previous posters even though I am a little skeptical of seeding. It's not as accurate of a prediction as it was 10 years ago.

Don't do the math here, but one thing I would like to see is how much of a statistical advantage the pod system gives a team. In WBB, the advantage is ridiculous when a top 4 seed plays its first 2 rounds at home. It's something like 95%, which still would mean the #4 wins 70-80% against the #5. It's significant this year because Duke is probably between a 4-6 seed depending on how the next 3+ games go.

I think there's a big difference between playing someone in Greenville, the likely destination for Duke or UVA even as a #5 seed, or say being a #6 seed v. #3 seed KY/Purdue/Butler in Indianapolis. I know Duke has been on the unhappy end of this statistic more than average (2012, 2014, even Coach G. v. San Fran at home when I was a student), but Duke did go to the F4 just about every time it played in the Meadowlands between 1986-1994 (insert Rutgers-Durham joke from your UNC friends.)

[brevity]

I think there's a big difference between playing someone in Greenville, the likely destination for Duke or UVA even as a #5 seed, or say being a #6 seed v. #3 seed KY/Purdue/Butler in Indianapolis. I know Duke has been on the unhappy end of this statistic more than average (2012, 2014, even Coach G. v. San Fran at home when I was a student), but Duke did go to the F4 just about every time it played in the Meadowlands between 1986-1994 (insert Rutgers-Durham joke from your UNC friends.)

I know it's a hypothetical, and you're making a larger point, but it's extremely unlikely that Duke or UVA would still play in Greenville as a #5 seed.

As I mentioned on another thread, Duke and UVA are the only two teams who want to head that second Greenville pod (UNC has almost certainly locked up the first) AND are in a position to get it. Which should mean that the better seeded of the two (so long as it's at least a #4) will probably go to Greenville.

Now, if both Duke and UVA end up below the #4 seed line, I doubt either will be placed in the Greenville pod because they would be geographically advantaged over the #3 or #4 seed that gets dumped into that pod. The only way I see Duke in Greenville as a #5 seed, and it's a longshot, is if South Carolina (currently a #7 seed in Bracket Matrix) won the SEC Tournament, beating Florida and Kentucky, and moved way up to a #4 seed.

[duke2x]

I know it's a hypothetical, and you're making a larger point, but it's extremely unlikely that Duke or UVA would still play in Greenville as a #5 seed.

As I mentioned on another thread, Duke and UVA are the only two teams who want to head that second Greenville pod (UNC has almost certainly locked up the first) AND are in a position to get it. Which should mean that the better seeded of the two (so long as it's at least a #4) will probably go to Greenville.

Now, if both Duke and UVA end up below the #4 seed line, I doubt either will be placed in the Greenville pod because they would be geographically advantaged over the #3 or #4 seed that gets dumped into that pod. The only way I see Duke in Greenville as a #5 seed, and it's a longshot, is if South Carolina (currently a #7 seed in Bracket Matrix) won the SEC Tournament, beating Florida and Kentucky, and moved way up to a #4 seed.

Excellent points. I think the highlighted part is the most important for anyone sitting on the 4/5/6 lines in bracketologist predictions. If Duke or UVA doesn't earn it, there are too many other rules you would have to consider at 3PM Sunday to remove both from Greenville. I would expect the committee to flip the 4-5 and 12-13 designations to avoid criticism.

I do think the win @UVA would be enough to give Duke the advantage if both are #4 seeds because a rematch next week is highly unlikely. It will also probably be moot within 48 hours. A Duke win or UVA loss to UNC probably ends the discussion in Duke's favor.

[Kedsy]

Very little is actually said reflecting that one seeds are often much better teams than two seeds.

I don't agree with you in that I think plenty is said about this, but even putting that aside, your statement isn't necessarily true. This year, for instance, the difference between Pomeroy's #3 team and Pomeroy's #7 team is about 0.8 points on a neutral floor. Which means that if the ratings stay the same, at least two #1 seeds will not be "much better teams" than at least three #2 seeds. And if Kansas (Pomeroy's #8) becomes a #1 seed, then there would be at least three #2 (or lower) seeds that are better than a #1 seed. But Kansas's chances (in this hypothetical) of reaching the Final Four as a #1 seed would still be better than the theoretically better teams as lower seeds.

In general, #1 seeds are significantly better than #4 seeds, though. Let's expand my example in my earlier post and instead of just hypothetically putting UNC as #4 in the South, switch them in the 2016 tournament with the actual #4 seed in the South (California).

UNC 2016, chalk path as #1 in the East: FDU (97.49%) * USC (80.39%) * Kentucky (58.04%) * Xavier (65.14%) = 29.63% chance of making Final Four;
Cal 2016, chalk path as #1 in the East: FDU (94.56%) * USC (64.76%) * Kentucky (38.27%) * Xavier (45.58%) = 10.68% chance of making Final Four;

UNC 2016, actual path as #1 in the East: FDU (97.49%) * Providence (79.95%) * Indiana (64.83%) * Notre Dame (78.48%) = 39.66% chance of making Final Four;
Cal 2016, vs. actual path as #1 in the East: FDU (94.56%) * Providence (64.13%) * Indiana (45.24%) * Notre Dame (62.04%) = 17.02% chance of making Final Four;

UNC 2016, as #4 in the South (chalk and actual path the same): Hawaii (83.09%) * Maryland (69.86%) * Kansas (45.34%) * Villanova (52.36%) = 13.78% chance of making the Final Four;
Cal 2016, as #4 in the South (chalk and actual path the same): Hawaii (68.77%) * Maryland (50.96%) * Kansas (27.11%) * Villanova (33.01%) = 3.14% chance of making the Final Four;

UNC in 2016 was a much better team than California, and in all three situations had a much higher chance of making the Final Four than Cal did. Which is your point (or so I assume). But Cal as the #1 seed in the East against UNC's actual path would have had a better chance of making the Final Four than UNC would have had as the #4 in the South. Which is my point.


Excellent work by the previous posters even though I am a little skeptical of seeding. It's not as accurate of a prediction as it was 10 years ago.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say seeding is not as "accurate a prediction" now as it was 10 years ago, but the success percentages of each seed, as well as the number and quality of upsets, have been fairly consistent over that time. Perhaps it seems "inaccurate" because we had two crazy Final Fours in 2011 (seeds 3, 4, 8, 11) and 2014 (1, 2, 7, 8). But ten years ago (2006), the Final Four was 2, 3, 4, 11; and six years before that (2000) it was 1, 5, 8, 8. Sometimes you just get those crazy tournaments. I would say, overall, seeding is just as "accurate" now as it was at any other time in the past 32 years.

[budwom]

Moi, I don't care about seeding at all, especially since our goal is presumably to win it all, rather than seeing how far we can go.

As such, I'd much rather enter the tournament physically healthy as a six seed (for example) than hobbling in as a one seed.

If we're healthy, we can be competitive against anyone. So if Allen and Amile need to rest more and we lose a few more games, I can live with that.
It would presumably give some of the younger guys more minutes which could help their development...

[Indoor66]

Moi, I don't care about seeding at all, especially since our goal is presumably to win it all, rather than seeing how far we can go.

As such, I'd much rather enter the tournament physically healthy as a six seed (for example) than hobbling in as a one seed.

If we're healthy, we can be competitive against anyone. So if Allen and Amile need to rest more and we lose a few more games, I can live with that.
It would presumably give some of the younger guys more minutes which could help their development...

Bingo! Give me healthy and I'll take our chances against anybody in the field.

[TKG]

Moi, I don't care about seeding at all, especially since our goal is presumably to win it all, rather than seeing how far we can go.

As such, I'd much rather enter the tournament physically healthy as a six seed (for example) than hobbling in as a one seed.

If we're healthy, we can be competitive against anyone. So if Allen and Amile need to rest more and we lose a few more games, I can live with that.
It would presumably give some of the younger guys more minutes which could help their development...

I agree. Health is THE critical component for us. In addition, I would not mind getting the heck out of the eastern time zone for our first set of games.

[gofurman]

I agree. Health is THE critical component for us. In addition, I would not mind getting the heck out of the eastern time zone for our first set of games.

Seeing as how I - and I bet several others who are fans/graduates etc - have tickets or can get tickets to Greenville SC .. I definitely want to stay in the Eastern time zone.. . Plus that's a Friday/Sun region giving an extra day of rest for that first weekend which will be tough. And there would be a decent contingent of Duke fans there. Yes, yes, some UNC fans too. But I do put health over anything else. Agree with you on that... That Friday/Sunday item is worth something for a gimpy team though.

I will say that I read above it could help us if UNC beats UVA tonight - (which is obvious since UVA is below us and falling).. and that kills me. I guess its a lose/lose or win/win game. I want to see UVA beat the Heels but I want Duke to solidify 5th best in ACC or whatever.

[Wander]

As such, I'd much rather enter the tournament physically healthy as a six seed (for example) than hobbling in as a one seed.

If we're healthy, we can be competitive against anyone.



Bingo! Give me healthy and I'll take our chances against anybody in the field.



I agree. Health is THE critical component for us.

I think you guys are missing a key point. We're not going to be 100% healthy. That's already guaranteed. Even if everyone's current injuries heal, Giles and arguably Bolden are far behind where we expected them to be because of their early season injuries.

Giles especially was a large part of Duke's preseason projections. Given that he's not going to be who we thought he would be (because of injuries), those projections are out the window. I think we should move away from thinking of even a currently-healed Duke as a national championship favorite. Instead, it feels like more of a "we can make the Final Four if things break well" kind of year, which includes better seeding as an important component.

[gam7]

I know you can drive yourself crazy with bracketology, but I'd just like to say that I wish we could freeze this moment in time and get the bracket that Lunardi has for us right now (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology). It is perfect (given where we are record-wise) from my perspective.

We are #3 in the East with Villanova as #1, Baylor #2 and Florida #4.

Our chalk second round matchup is Minnesota (#6), which admittedly I know nothing about but BigWhatever is weak this year.

Miami is the 8, and I think they would have a reasonable shot at knocking off Nova if they were to win their 8-9 game (vs. Mich State).

Also of note, Notre Dame would be the #5 seed.

We avoid Kansas in Kansas City. We stay East. We avoid all of the dangerous PacWhatever top 3. No Louisville, no UNC. Really, this would be perfect.

Incidentally, UNC would howl to the high heavens in comparison as a #1 with Kentucky, Zona, West Virginia.

Louisville would have a very tough road as #2 in the Midwest with Kansas (in KC) and UCLA as the #3. If somehow UVA (#4) came out of the top half of the bracket, they have been Louisville's krytonite.

[COYS]

UNC in 2016 was a much better team than California, and in all three situations had a much higher chance of making the Final Four than Cal did. Which is your point (or so I assume). But Cal as the #1 seed in the East against UNC's actual path would have had a better chance of making the Final Four than UNC would have had as the #4 in the South. Which is my point.


Bravo. Excellent analysis. This is a really revealing thought experiment. And, while I want to enter March fully healthy and ready to compete, it lends credence to the idea that it is perhaps equally important to win our (hopefully) next four games to perhaps steal a number 1 seed at the last second. If we're assuming that Duke could end up anywhere from a #1 seed to a #5, there is arguably more advantage in being a flawed #1 seed than a strong #5.* I mean, if Duke wound up with, say, UNC's path from last season as a #1 seed, we would have a better chance of making it to the Final Four even if we had to rest Grayson for some of the early games than if we were a 5 seed with everyone healthy.

Of course, the absolute worst thing would be to play Grayson, lose against UNC, lose early in the ACCT, and be a weak #5 seed, so . . .

*Note: I absolutely don't advocate playing Grayson if it will in anyway hurt him or his future . . . especially for an outside chance to get a #1 seed.

[eddiehaskell]

Interesting stats. I wonder - what's the chance of making the final 4 as say a strong #2 seed vs weak #1? Are we talking about a somewhat negligible difference of say 30% vs 25%?

[CDu]

Interesting stats. I wonder - what's the chance of making the final 4 as say a strong #2 seed vs weak #1? Are we talking about a somewhat negligible difference of say 30% vs 25%?

This would be really hard to estimate as we don't have much data differentiating seeds. I think it is only very recently that the selection committee has provided detailed seed information that would tell us who was the top 2 seed, etc.

[Kedsy]

Interesting stats. I wonder - what's the chance of making the final 4 as say a strong #2 seed vs weak #1? Are we talking about a somewhat negligible difference of say 30% vs 25%?


This would be really hard to estimate as we don't have much data differentiating seeds. I think it is only very recently that the selection committee has provided detailed seed information that would tell us who was the top 2 seed, etc.

CDu is correct, as we don't have historical data as to what the committee considered the stronger #2 and/or weaker #1 seeds. That said, we could look at computer ratings (e.g., Pomeroy) and see which #1 might be the weakest and which #2 might be the strongest.

In the 2016 tournament, for example, according to Pomeroy the weakest #1 was Oregon (#9 nationally) and the strongest #2 was Michigan State (#3 nationally). Ironically, Oregon made the Elite Eight and Michigan State lost in the first round to the #15 seed (MTSU), but we can still make the calculations as if they'd moved through the bracket:

Oregon's path (chalk and actual the same): #16 Holy Cross (96.56%) * #8 St. Joseph's (70.12%) * #4 Duke (59.73%) * #2 Oklahoma (47.53%) = 19.22%

Michigan State's chalk path: #15 MTSU (92.19%) * #7 Dayton (82.85%) * #3 Utah (74.50%) * #1 Virginia (48.42%) = 27.55%
Michigan State's actual (theoretical) path: #15 MTSU (92.19%) * #10 Syracuse (80.01%) * #11 Gonzaga (73.52%) * #1 Virginia (48.42%) = 26.26%

Now, there are several anomalies here, the first being that Pomeroy thought #2 Oklahoma was better then #1 Oregon, the others being that Pomeroy ranked #10 Syracuse above #7 Dayton and also ranked #11 Gonzaga above #3 Utah. So, Michigan State's "actual" 15/10/11/1 path would have been more difficult than the 15/7/3/1 chalk path. Either way, Michigan State had a higher probability of making the Final Four than Oregon did. Or they would have if they hadn't lost to a Middle Tennessee team that Pomeroy gave them a 92.2% chance of beating. I guess the lesson here is that 92% is not the same as 100%.

That said, if you put Michigan State in Oregon's #1 in the West spot, the Spartans' chance of reaching the Final Four would have been 33.12%, which is a fair amount higher than their chances as #2 in the Midwest. If you made Oregon #2 in the Midwest, the Ducks' chance of reaching the Final Four would have been just 14.11%. It's obviously a combination of how good you are and how easy your path is. For what it's worth, Pomeroy's ratings would have given Michigan State a 62.3% chance of beating Oregon head-to-head.

[bleedingblue88]

Coach K and Duke pretty much never overperfors in the tournament. In other words, we've only really won with really good to great teams (#1 or #2 seeds). K has never taken just a good or mediocre team very far. So the stats say unless we win out and somehow steal a #2 seed, we probably won't win it this year (currently projected as a 3 or 4 seed by most).

[CDu]

Coach K and Duke pretty much never overperfors in the tournament. In other words, we've only really won with really good to great teams (#1 or #2 seeds). K has never taken just a good or mediocre team very far. So the stats say unless we win out and somehow steal a #2 seed, we probably won't win it this year (currently projected as a 3 or 4 seed by most).

This is only "true" in the last 15-20 years. And it is only "true" because we have almost exclusively been a really high seed. But from 1986-2001, Coach K's teams actually overperformed more than any other program.

The problem is that when you are always a really high seed, it is hard to exceed expectations.

That being said, we exceeded expectation in 2010 and 2015, and met or exceeded expectation in 2013 and 2016. So more often than not in the last 7 years we have played to or exceeded expectation compared to what a team with our seed would be expected to achieve.

[bleedingblue88]

2000 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2001 - #1 seed, CHAMPIONS, Just about right (we were pretty heavy favorites that year)
2002 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2003 - #3 seed, Sweet Sixteen, Just about right
2004 - #1 seed, Final Four, Just about right
2005 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2006 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2007 - #6 seed, First Round, UNDERPERFORM
2008 - #2 seed, Second Round, UNDERPERFORM
2009 - #2 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERFORM
2010 - #1 seed, CHAMPIONS, Just about right/slight overperform (we definitely weren't favorites this year, but hard to call a #1 seed winning a title some massive surprise)
2011 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2012 - #2 seed, First Round, HISTORIC UNDERPERFORM
2013 - #2 seed, Elite Eight, Just about right
2014 - #3 seed, First Round, UNDERPERFORM
2015 - #1 seed, CHAMPIONS, Just about right (Kentucky was obviously the favorite all year, but I think we were the second best team in the country)
2016 - #4 seed, Sweet Sixteen, Just about right

You might be right about pre-2000 (I wasn't paying attention to basketball then), but as you can see since 2000, we have never overperformed our seed. NEVER.

(you can make some sort of argument for 2010 even though we were a #1 seed).

[Kedsy]

You might be right about pre-2000 (I wasn't paying attention to basketball then), but as you can see since 2000, we have never overperformed our seed. NEVER.

He is right about 1987 through 1994, whether you were paying attention or not. He's also right that when a team is a #1 seed in more than half the years of your time period, it's kind of hard to overperform in those years. Which to me says your point isn't worth all caps.

[vick]

2000 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2001 - #1 seed, CHAMPIONS, Just about right (we were pretty heavy favorites that year)
2002 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2003 - #3 seed, Sweet Sixteen, Just about right
2004 - #1 seed, Final Four, Just about right
2005 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2006 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2007 - #6 seed, First Round, UNDERPERFORM
2008 - #2 seed, Second Round, UNDERPERFORM
2009 - #2 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERFORM
2010 - #1 seed, CHAMPIONS, Just about right/slight overperform (we definitely weren't favorites this year, but hard to call a #1 seed winning a title some massive surprise)
2011 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2012 - #2 seed, First Round, HISTORIC UNDERPERFORM
2013 - #2 seed, Elite Eight, Just about right
2014 - #3 seed, First Round, UNDERPERFORM
2015 - #1 seed, CHAMPIONS, Just about right (Kentucky was obviously the favorite all year, but I think we were the second best team in the country)
2016 - #4 seed, Sweet Sixteen, Just about right

You might be right about pre-2000 (I wasn't paying attention to basketball then), but as you can see since 2000, we have never overperformed our seed. NEVER.

(you can make some sort of argument for 2010 even though we were a #1 seed).

This is absurd. Winning the national championship is "just about right"? We were something like 7/1 underdogs (http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/12493051/2015-ncaa-men-tournament-field-slight-favorite-kentucky-wildcats) in 2015; in no sensible way is achieving something you had a ~13% chance of reaching not overachieving.

Secondarily, your "underperform" definition appears to just mean the team didn't meet "chalk." That's not the best way of looking at things; upsets are a part of life for every team. More sensible is to look at the expected number of wins (http://bracketodds.cs.illinois.edu/seedadv.html) for each seed level. Since 2000, we've averaged 2.5 wins per tournament. We should have won...2.7. So slightly worse than expectations.

I do think odds are against Duke winning the tournament but that's because winning the tournament is extremely hard, not because Coach K somehow forgot how to coach in the tournament in the 90s.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

CDu is correct, as we don't have historical data as to what the committee considered the stronger #2 and/or weaker #1 seeds. That said, we could look at computer ratings (e.g., Pomeroy) and see which #1 might be the weakest and which #2 might be the strongest.

In the 2016 tournament, for example, according to Pomeroy the weakest #1 was Oregon (#9 nationally) and the strongest #2 was Michigan State (#3 nationally). Ironically, Oregon made the Elite Eight and Michigan State lost in the first round to the #15 seed (MTSU), but we can still make the calculations as if they'd moved through the bracket:

Oregon's path (chalk and actual the same): #16 Holy Cross (96.56%) * #8 St. Joseph's (70.12%) * #4 Duke (59.73%) * #2 Oklahoma (47.53%) = 19.22%

Michigan State's chalk path: #15 MTSU (92.19%) * #7 Dayton (82.85%) * #3 Utah (74.50%) * #1 Virginia (48.42%) = 27.55%
Michigan State's actual (theoretical) path: #15 MTSU (92.19%) * #10 Syracuse (80.01%) * #11 Gonzaga (73.52%) * #1 Virginia (48.42%) = 26.26%

Now, there are several anomalies here, the first being that Pomeroy thought #2 Oklahoma was better then #1 Oregon, the others being that Pomeroy ranked #10 Syracuse above #7 Dayton and also ranked #11 Gonzaga above #3 Utah. So, Michigan State's "actual" 15/10/11/1 path would have been more difficult than the 15/7/3/1 chalk path. Either way, Michigan State had a higher probability of making the Final Four than Oregon did. Or they would have if they hadn't lost to a Middle Tennessee team that Pomeroy gave them a 92.2% chance of beating. I guess the lesson here is that 92% is not the same as 100%.

That said, if you put Michigan State in Oregon's #1 in the West spot, the Spartans' chance of reaching the Final Four would have been 33.12%, which is a fair amount higher than their chances as #2 in the Midwest. If you made Oregon #2 in the Midwest, the Ducks' chance of reaching the Final Four would have been just 14.11%. It's obviously a combination of how good you are and how easy your path is. For what it's worth, Pomeroy's ratings would have given Michigan State a 62.3% chance of beating Oregon head-to-head.

Lots of good numbers and good hypotheticals. But the trick to all of this is it is impossible to take into account which team is "better." To extrapolate to a ridiculous degree, let's say Duke got a #16 seed (this year). You wouldn't say "we are doomed because it is impossible for a 16 to beat a 1," because we are only a 16 seed in name. And, appropriately, when this hypothetical 16 seed Duke team knocked off Gongaza in the first round, people ought not bemoan "worst 1 seed ever, first to lose to a 16!"

Seeding matter, but how much? Your breakdown of worst 1/best 2 above is interesting because it sort of illustrates exactly how ridiculous the handwringing over seeds is. In theory, MSU should have had massive beef with being the 2 instead of the one. Ostensibly the better team, and by your breakdown would have had a statistically far improved chance of making the Final Four. So, does their first round loss prove their point, or disprove it?

[CDu]

To suggest that a #1 seed winning the title is "just about right" on expectations is illustrating a lack of understanding of the expectations in a tournament. A 1 seed is expected to win 3.3 games in the tournament. In others, reach the elite-8. Winning the title is 6 wins. A substantial overperform.

Per fivethirtyeight.com, here are the expected wins per seed:
1: 3.3 (elite-8)
2: 2.4 (sweet-16)
3: 1.8 (sweet-16)
4: 1.6 (sweet-16)
5: 1.1 (second round)
6: 1.1 (second round)

So, to correct a post above which had an unrealistically negative view of our tourney performances, here is our performance against what that seed would be expected to do:

2000: 1 seed, sweet-16, underperform
2001: 1 seed, champ, substantial overperform
2002: 1 seed, sweet-16, underperform
2003: 3 seed, sweet 16, right on
2004: 1 seed, Final Four, slight overperform
2005: 1 seed, sweet 16, underperform
2006: ditto
2007: 6 seed, first round, underperform
2008: 2 seed, second round, underperform
2009: 2 seed, sweet-16, right on
2010: 1 seed, champ, substantial overperform
2011: 1 seed, sweet-16, underperform
2012: 2 seed, first round, substantial underperform
2013: 2 seed, elite-8, slight overperform
2014: 3 seed, first round, substantial underperform
2015: 1 seed, champ, substantial overperform
2016: 4 seed, sweet-16, right on

So from 2000-2008, we underperformed 6 times (all but once as 1 seeds going to the sweet-16), met expectations once, exceeded expectations slightly once, and greatly exceeded expectations once.

From 2009 on? We have substantially underperformed twice, underperformed once more as a 1 seed, met expectations twice, exceeded expectations slightly once, and greatly exceeded expectations twice. So in 5 of the last 8 years we have matched or outperformed what the expected performance would be for our seed.

[OldPhiKap]

2000 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2001 - #1 seed, CHAMPIONS, Just about right (we were pretty heavy favorites that year)
2002 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2003 - #3 seed, Sweet Sixteen, Just about right
2004 - #1 seed, Final Four, Just about right
2005 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2006 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2007 - #6 seed, First Round, UNDERPERFORM
2008 - #2 seed, Second Round, UNDERPERFORM
2009 - #2 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERFORM
2010 - #1 seed, CHAMPIONS, Just about right/slight overperform (we definitely weren't favorites this year, but hard to call a #1 seed winning a title some massive surprise)
2011 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2012 - #2 seed, First Round, HISTORIC UNDERPERFORM
2013 - #2 seed, Elite Eight, Just about right
2014 - #3 seed, First Round, UNDERPERFORM
2015 - #1 seed, CHAMPIONS, Just about right (Kentucky was obviously the favorite all year, but I think we were the second best team in the country)
2016 - #4 seed, Sweet Sixteen, Just about right

You might be right about pre-2000 (I wasn't paying attention to basketball then), but as you can see since 2000, we have never overperformed our seed. NEVER.

(you can make some sort of argument for 2010 even though we were a #1 seed).

You must really not like March. Wow.

[dukebluesincebirth]

The Cincinnati coach made some comments the other day that NCAAT seeding is heavily influenced by ticket sales. Basically the point was that the committee doesn't seed fairly. You can get a few big wins towards the end of the year but end up getting pushed to a higher seed line (9/10 as opposed to 7/8) because of financially driven motives. I haven't studied the brackets enough in the past to notice if there's any truth to this. If so, it's very unfair. I thought I'd throw it out here to see what you DBR NCAAT experts have to say...thanks and go DEVILS!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

2000 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2001 - #1 seed, CHAMPIONS, Just about right (we were pretty heavy favorites that year)
2002 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2003 - #3 seed, Sweet Sixteen, Just about right
2004 - #1 seed, Final Four, Just about right
2005 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2006 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2007 - #6 seed, First Round, UNDERPERFORM
2008 - #2 seed, Second Round, UNDERPERFORM
2009 - #2 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERFORM
2010 - #1 seed, CHAMPIONS, Just about right/slight overperform (we definitely weren't favorites this year, but hard to call a #1 seed winning a title some massive surprise)
2011 - #1 seed, Sweet Sixteen, UNDERPERFORM
2012 - #2 seed, First Round, HISTORIC UNDERPERFORM
2013 - #2 seed, Elite Eight, Just about right
2014 - #3 seed, First Round, UNDERPERFORM
2015 - #1 seed, CHAMPIONS, Just about right (Kentucky was obviously the favorite all year, but I think we were the second best team in the country)
2016 - #4 seed, Sweet Sixteen, Just about right

You might be right about pre-2000 (I wasn't paying attention to basketball then), but as you can see since 2000, we have never overperformed our seed. NEVER.

(you can make some sort of argument for 2010 even though we were a #1 seed).

Glad you see 2010 and 2015 as "just about right."

Strangely, some people think our fans are entitled...

[duke2x]

The Cincinnati coach made some comments the other day that NCAAT seeding is heavily influenced by ticket sales. Basically the point was that the committee doesn't seed fairly. You can get a few big wins towards the end of the year but end up getting pushed to a higher seed line (9/10 as opposed to 7/8) because of financially driven motives. I haven't studied the brackets enough in the past to notice if there's any truth to this. If so, it's very unfair. I thought I'd throw it out here to see what you DBR NCAAT experts have to say...thanks and go DEVILS!

1. Cronin is preemptively complaining about his seeding, but he doesn't have any grounds. Besides losing to URI in our preseason tournament, they've played Iowa State and Butler with a 1-1 record. I would not be surprised to see them v. Duke in Greenville, but I have no interest in seeing Duke play UC due to family/HS classmates that went there. SMU/Semi Ojeyele makes for better TV, and you can probably toss in Marquette or Northwestern in there similarly.

2. Cronin is right about ticket sales, but it is not as bad as he's making it out to be. On the surface, the worst example I remember was OK getting shipped to NYC while UK got shipped to Minneapolis and an empty Metrodome about 12-15 years ago. KY only had to travel 77 extra miles. Every KU fan figured they would be in Chicago last year, a distance only 4 miles more than Louisville with a bunch more alumni in town. It shows you are gambling a little bit when you buy tickets in advance, particularly after the first 2 rounds.

3. Considering #2 and recognizing that you buy them at your own risk, there are still seats available in Greenville. The upper level seats there are not great relative to Greensboro. I think Duke has done enough to earn it unless KY tanks and Purdue or Butler win out.

[TexHawk]

The Cincinnati coach made some comments the other day that NCAAT seeding is heavily influenced by ticket sales. Basically the point was that the committee doesn't seed fairly. You can get a few big wins towards the end of the year but end up getting pushed to a higher seed line (9/10 as opposed to 7/8) because of financially driven motives. I haven't studied the brackets enough in the past to notice if there's any truth to this. If so, it's very unfair. I thought I'd throw it out here to see what you DBR NCAAT experts have to say...thanks and go DEVILS!

Cincinnati was a 9 seed in 2015, and was matched up against undefeated UK in Louisville, and Cincy is only slightly further away than Lexington. Maybe he thought his team was better than a 9, and was placed there for ticket sales. Plausible, I suppose.

Btw, there's a growing concern in Kansas that the committee will place Wichita State in the 8/9 matchup. Not only are they are much better team than 8/9 (#10 in KP), they are 2 hours closer to Tulsa than Lawrence is.

[Troublemaker]

Cincinnati was a 9 seed in 2015, and was matched up against undefeated UK in Louisville, and Cincy is only slightly further away than Lexington. Maybe he thought his team was better than a 9, and was placed there for ticket sales. Plausible, I suppose.

Btw, there's a growing concern in Kansas that the committee will place Wichita State in the 8/9 matchup. Not only are they are much better team than 8/9 (#10 in KP), they are 2 hours closer to Tulsa than Lawrence is.

That's one of the few positives of Duke staring at a 3 or 4 seed this season. Usually this time of year I'm compiling lists of teams that will be underseeded and putting voodoo hexes on them to stay away from Duke's bracket. It's not that we couldn't run into them as a 3 or 4 seed; it's just that I would care much more about it as a 1 seed. It would feel like we had earned but were robbed of a 1-seed path. As a 3 or 4, I know we're going to be playing tough teams right off the bat, and it doesn't bother me as much.

[TexHawk]

Btw #2... A Duke fan complaining about Duke tournament performance (even if it's just one fan), has totally made my weekend. And the weekend hasn't even started yet. Bravo sir.

[budwom]

This is only "true" in the last 15-20 years. And it is only "true" because we have almost exclusively been a really high seed. But from 1986-2001, Coach K's teams actually overperformed more than any other program.

The problem is that when you are always a really high seed, it is hard to exceed expectations.

That being said, we exceeded expectation in 2010 and 2015, and met or exceeded expectation in 2013 and 2016. So more often than not in the last 7 years we have played to or exceeded expectation compared to what a team with our seed would be expected to achieve.

I agree. Moreover, this team is kind of unique in that it (to me anyway) has #1 seed talent or very close thereto, but has had an inordinate number of injuries.
If we enter the tournament healthy, I think our chances will be far better than our lower seeding might indicate.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Btw #2... A Duke fan complaining about Duke tournament performance (even if it's just one fan), has totally made my weekend. And the weekend hasn't even started yet. Bravo sir.

Lol. Kansas and Duke are the most spoiled fan bases in America. We gotta complain about something!

[AustinDevil]

I would not be surprised to see [Cincy] v. Duke in Greenville, but I have no interest in seeing Duke play UC due to family/HS classmates that went there. SMU/Semi Ojeyele makes for better TV, and you can probably toss in Marquette or Northwestern in there similarly.

I am very curious whether Kevin White's participation in the committee may mean that some things that make good TV (like SMU, Marquette, and Northwestern--never mind Kentucky--being placed in Duke's path) will nevertheless be less likely because he is there. He has to be out of the room for discussions of Duke, but not for placement and seeding of everybody else, including teams that you'd imagine K would rather not play early.

[gofurman]

This is absurd. Winning the national championship is "just about right"? We were something like 7/1 underdogs (http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/12493051/2015-ncaa-men-tournament-field-slight-favorite-kentucky-wildcats) in 2015; in no sensible way is achieving something you had a ~13% chance of reaching not overachieving.

Secondarily, your "underperform" definition appears to just mean the team didn't meet "chalk." That's not the best way of looking at things; upsets are a part of life for every team. More sensible is to look at the expected number of wins (http://bracketodds.cs.illinois.edu/seedadv.html) for each seed level. Since 2000, we've averaged 2.5 wins per tournament. We should have won...2.7. So slightly worse than expectations.

I do think odds are against Duke winning the tournament but that's because winning the tournament is extremely hard, not because Coach K somehow forgot how to coach in the tournament in the 90s.

THIS. No one seed SHOULD win the tourney.. The only two teams to come close to having a 1/1 payout in Vegas since 1990? 1991 UNLV and 2015 UK.. NEITHER WON. Ironically, Duke won both of those ! More to the point - the post above about 'expected' outcomes made me look this up - the current odds are this

Best to worst among top teams...
UNC 1/6.5
UCLA 1/8
Nova 1/8.5
Duke 1/9
KU 1/9
Zags 1/10
UK 1/11
Oregon 1/14
Zona 1/15
Louisville 1/15

(odds from vegasinsider.com/college-basketball)

So from a $ perspective it shows how hard the tourney is... you could place a 100 dollar bet on UNC, 100 on UCLA AND 100 more on Nova and Vegas is saying they don't think any of the top three will win... IE if you put 100 on UNC and 100 on UCLA and 100 on Nova (300 total) if Any of those 3 win you win. Heck put Duke in there too and you have spent 400 total - and if UCLA wins you made a net profit of $400

Interesting - I just did the easy math. You could put $100 on every top team from UNC down to Gonzaga.. so you get SIX teams. And if any win you come out ahead. Obviously the limiting factor is the lowest payout of UNC at 6.5. And if any of those six win other than UNC (that's good !) then you do pretty well as you start making 200+ at UCLA

Anyway, point is I am supporting the posters above that Vegas says it's ridiculous to think any given team is a 'favorite' to win the tourney. There is a favorite - right now UNC / UCLA / Nova but even the favorites aren't a good shot to win it. If you win the tourney you have OVERACHIEVED.. case closed. Money talks and all that

[Indoor66]

THIS. No one seed SHOULD win the tourney.. The only two teams to come close to having a 1/1 payout in Vegas since 1990? 1991 UNLV and 2015 UK.. NEITHER WON. Ironically, Duke won both of those ! More to the point - the post above about 'expected' outcomes made me look this up - the current odds are this

Best to worst among top teams...
UNC 1/6.5
UCLA 1/8
Nova 1/8.5
Duke 1/9
KU 1/9
Zags 1/10
UK 1/11
Oregon 1/14
Zona 1/15
Louisville 1/15

(odds from vegasinsider.com/college-basketball)

So from a $ perspective it shows how hard the tourney is... you could place a 100 dollar bet on UNC, 100 on UCLA AND 100 more on Nova and Vegas is saying they don't think any of the top three will win... IE if you put 100 on UNC and 100 on UCLA and 100 on Nova (300 total) if Any of those 3 win you win. Heck put Duke in there too and you have spent 400 total - and if UCLA wins you made a net profit of $400

Interesting - I just did the easy math. You could put $100 on every top team from UNC down to Gonzaga.. so you get SIX teams. And if any win you come out ahead. Obviously the limiting factor is the lowest payout of UNC at 6.5. And if any of those six win other than UNC (that's good !) then you do pretty well as you start making 200+ at UCLA

Anyway, point is I am supporting the posters above that Vegas says it's ridiculous to think any given team is a 'favorite' to win the tourney. There is a favorite - right now UNC / UCLA / Nova but even the favorites aren't a good shot to win it. If you win the tourney you have OVERACHIEVED.. case closed. Money talks and all that

I agree with you. Being the "favorite" only means that the chance of winning is SLIGHTLY less remote.

Now, tell me more about that "and all that" referenced in the last sentence. 😂😎

[DukeandMdFan]

To suggest that a #1 seed winning the title is "just about right" on expectations is illustrating a lack of understanding of the expectations in a tournament. A 1 seed is expected to win 3.3 games in the tournament. In others, reach the elite-8. Winning the title is 6 wins. A substantial overperform.

Per fivethirtyeight.com, here are the expected wins per seed:
1: 3.3 (elite-8)
2: 2.4 (sweet-16)
3: 1.8 (sweet-16)
4: 1.6 (sweet-16)
5: 1.1 (second round)
6: 1.1 (second round)

So, to correct a post above which had an unrealistically negative view of our tourney performances, here is our performance against what that seed would be expected to do:

2000: 1 seed, sweet-16, underperform
2001: 1 seed, champ, substantial overperform
2002: 1 seed, sweet-16, underperform
2003: 3 seed, sweet 16, right on
2004: 1 seed, Final Four, slight overperform
2005: 1 seed, sweet 16, underperform
2006: ditto
2007: 6 seed, first round, underperform
2008: 2 seed, second round, underperform
2009: 2 seed, sweet-16, right on
2010: 1 seed, champ, substantial overperform
2011: 1 seed, sweet-16, underperform
2012: 2 seed, first round, substantial underperform
2013: 2 seed, elite-8, slight overperform
2014: 3 seed, first round, substantial underperform
2015: 1 seed, champ, substantial overperform
2016: 4 seed, sweet-16, right on

So from 2000-2008, we underperformed 6 times (all but once as 1 seeds going to the sweet-16), met expectations once, exceeded expectations slightly once, and greatly exceeded expectations once.

From 2009 on? We have substantially underperformed twice, underperformed once more as a 1 seed, met expectations twice, exceeded expectations slightly once, and greatly exceeded expectations twice. So in 5 of the last 8 years we have matched or outperformed what the expected performance would be for our seed.

From a statistical standpoint, I agree with your approach that a number 2 seed can only be expected to win 2.4 games.

From a fan/"bracket-filler-outer" viewpoint, I think a number 2 seed could be expected to reach the final 8, as they would be the higher seed in all of the games leading up to that point.

A more fair and accurate statement would be that Duke hasn't beaten a higher-seeded team since 1994.

I don't think there have been too many times (except Elton and Kyrie) where we could hope for getting a future NBA star player healthier for the tournament. Hopefully, this year will be different.

[Kedsy]

From a fan/"bracket-filler-outer" viewpoint, I think a number 2 seed could be expected to reach the final 8, as they would be the higher seed in all of the games leading up to that point.

In my opinion, this idea (that the higher seeded team should always win) is why people's expectations are out-of-whack in the NCAA tournament. In the 32 tournaments since the tourney went to 64 teams, #2 seeds have reached the Elite Eight fewer than half the time (46.9%, to be precise).

Seems odd to "expect" something to happen that fails to happen more often than not.

[tbyers11]

From a statistical standpoint, I agree with your approach that a number 2 seed can only be expected to win 2.4 games.

From a fan/"bracket-filler-outer" viewpoint, I think a number 2 seed could be expected to reach the final 8, as they would be the higher seed in all of the games leading up to that point.

A more fair and accurate statement would be that Duke hasn't beaten a higher-seeded team since 1994.

I don't think there have been too many times (except Elton and Kyrie) where we could hope for getting a future NBA star player healthier for the tournament. Hopefully, this year will be different.

Kedsy beat me to why fan expectations are out of whack with reality when the actual data shows that the 2 seed fails to reach the Elite Eight and a 1 seed fails to make the Final Four more often than not.

Your statement that Duke hasn't beaten a higher seeded team since 1994 is correct. However, my quick search shows that we've only played 3 such games.

#3 Duke loses to #2 Kansas in 2003
#2 Duke loses to #1 Louisville in 2013
#4 Duke loses to #1 Oregon in 2016


This can be interpreted as we haven't over-performed when we were a lower seed but I think it speaks more to how highly we have been seeded since 1994. In the 22 tournaments since 1994 we could not have beaten a higher seed in 12 of them. We missed the tourney in 1995 and have been a number one seed 11 times since then

[DukeandMdFan]

Kedsy beat me to why fan expectations are out of whack with reality when the actual data shows that the 2 seed fails to reach the Elite Eight and a 1 seed fails to make the Final Four more often than not.

Your statement that Duke hasn't beaten a higher seeded team since 1994 is correct. However, my quick search shows that we've only played 3 such games.

#3 Duke loses to #2 Kansas in 2003
#2 Duke loses to #1 Louisville in 2013
#4 Duke loses to #1 Oregon in 2016


This can be interpreted as we haven't over-performed when we were a lower seed but I think it speaks more to how highly we have been seeded since 1994. In the 22 tournaments since 1994 we could not have beaten a higher seed in 12 of them. We missed the tourney in 1995 and have been a number one seed 11 times since then

I don't think it is fair to say that Duke teams don't "overperform" on a regular basis. There haven't been many opportunities. Plus, the tournament selection committee must take into account Duke's and Coach K's proven track record when seeding teams. There have been times when I thought Duke was in the toughest region, but not many times when I thought Duke would get a higher seed.

[Troublemaker]

I don't think it is fair to say that Duke teams don't "overperform" on a regular basis. There haven't been many opportunities. Plus, the tournament selection committee must take into account Duke's and Coach K's proven track record when seeding teams. There have been times when I thought Duke was in the toughest region, but not many times when I thought Duke would get a higher seed.

Plus, sometimes Duke overperformed during the regular season and earned seeds they should not have gotten.

Some of those teams in the 2000s were missing a great PG or a great C or sometimes both and should not have gotten 1 and 2 seeds.

[gofurman]

Just curious. I was young. Well, younger. What seed were we when we beat unlv in 1991. I assume the killer runnin rebels were a 1 seed
What were we?

[DukeandMdFan]

Just curious. I was young. Well, younger. What seed were we when we beat unlv in 1991. I assume the killer runnin rebels were a 1 seed
What were we?

We were a 2-seed in the Midwest. Ohio State was the #1 seed, but they lost to #4 seed St John's in the Sweet Sixteen. We beat St John's in the Regional Finals to face UNLV (who had beaten Duke by 30 pts in the 1990 Finals) in the Final Four. After beating UNLV, we played Kansas in the Final. Kansas was a 3-Seed in the South East and had beaten #2 seed Indiana, #1 seed Arkansas, and #1 seed UNC before losing to Duke.

[gofurman]

We were a 2-seed in the Midwest. Ohio State was the #1 seed, but they lost to #4 seed St John's in the Sweet Sixteen. We beat St John's in the Regional Finals to face UNLV (who had beaten Duke by 30 pts in the 1990 Finals) in the Final Four. After beating UNLV, we played Kansas in the Final. Kansas was a 3-Seed in the South East and had beaten #2 seed Indiana, #1 seed Arkansas, and #1 seed UNC before losing to Duke.

Thx. So we OVERACHIEVED. nice.

[gofurman]

I think - what do I know - that by splitting FSU and UNC ... We are on the 3/4 line. We need to,win one, maybe two in the ACC to get a three seed which I would be happy w. Get healthy Grayson. You too Amile.

Let's win one or two this week and rest up.

[BandAlum83]

As of right now, Joe Lunardi has Duke as the #4 in the West.

The "chalk" path to the final 4 for us would be: #13 Princeton, #5 SMU, #1 Gonzaga, #2 Oregon (Butler is the #3)

What do you think? Discuss amongst yourselves. ;)

[Indoor66]

As of right now, Joe Lunardi has Duke as the #4 in the West.

The "chalk" path to the final 4 for us would be: #13 Princeton, #5 SMU, #1 Gonzaga, #2 Oregon (Butler is the #3)

What do you think? Discuss amongst yourselves. ;)

Is "chalk" anything like "sizzle" or "chedder"?

[OldPhiKap]

Is "chalk" anything like "sizzle" or "chedder"?

It tells you whether you have underperformed or just done about right, apparently. (Not with BA83)

[Indoor66]

It tells you whether you have underperformed or just done about right, apparently. (Not with BA83)

You missed the point. It seems to be the word of the day. :cool:

[OldPhiKap]

You missed the point. It seems to be the word of the day. :cool:

Does that mean the duck doesn't drop, and I don't get the $50?

[Indoor66]

Does that mean the duck doesn't drop, and I don't get the $50?

Yep, but we will send you one of Bill's old cigars.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

As of right now, Joe Lunardi has Duke as the #4 in the West.

The "chalk" path to the final 4 for us would be: #13 Princeton, #5 SMU, #1 Gonzaga, #2 Oregon (Butler is the #3)

What do you think? Discuss amongst yourselves. ;)

My hope is that we avoid any of the Big 3 PAC12 teams in the Regionals.

The best way to do that is to avoid being placed in the West Region.

If we beat Clemson, then Louisville, that should hopefully earn us a spot in the East as either the top 4 seed or in the Midwest as the last 3 seed.

[Rich]

As of right now, Joe Lunardi has Duke as the #4 in the West.

The "chalk" path to the final 4 for us would be: #13 Princeton, #5 SMU, #1 Gonzaga, #2 Oregon (Butler is the #3)

What do you think? Discuss amongst yourselves. ;)

While Lunardi is generally good at determining who gets in (no great feat, many of these guys are), his history of determining the actual brackets is abysmal.

[BandAlum83]

Does that mean the duck doesn't drop, and I don't get the $50?

Lol!!! Just how old are you, anyway? ;)

[BandAlum83]

My hope is that we avoid any of the Big 3 PAC12 teams in the Regionals.

The best way to do that is to avoid being placed in the West Region.

If we beat Clemson, then Louisville, that should hopefully earn us a spot in the East as either the top 4 seed or in the Midwest as the last 3 seed.

Those Big 3 teams will be dispersed across 3 regions. It may be really hard for us to avoid.

[duketaylor]

Looking bracket matrix, we're currently the 1st 4 seed, meaning we're close to a 3, need to get to at least ACC semis, prolly championship game, to move up a seed-or two. Doable, IMO.

Last night didn't hurt us any, except emotionally (or me, at least).

[BD80]

Anyone else amused that our seeding in the "Big Dance" will be higher than in the ACC Tournament?


OK, a 3 or 4 seed would actually be a 9-16 seed, but it does show that the ACC holds a quarter of the power in the nation, if not more.

[Turk]

Anyone else amused that our seeding in the "Big Dance" will be higher than in the ACC Tournament?


OK, a 3 or 4 seed would actually be a 9-16 seed, but it does show that the ACC holds a quarter of the power in the nation, if not more.

What amuses me is that this fact seems to be confusing a few of our fellow posters, who evidently think that a 5 seed in the ACCT means that Duke is on the bubble to get into the NCAAT, or doesn't even "deserve" to make it...

And you're right about the ACCT holding more than a quarter of the power in the nation. From Lunardi's latest bracket, here's the distro of seeds 1-4:

ACC: 5
Big 12: 3
"Conference of Champions": 3
SEC: 2
Big East: 2
Gonzaga: 1

[Troublemaker]

With this afternoon's freshly updated Bracket Matrix, I decided to draw in the ladder that we're trying to climb to get to a 2 seed:

http://i.imgur.com/UaMZGxZ.png

Those are the teams I'm going to be focusing on rooting against. (Now obviously the hardest part of getting a 2 seed is winning the ACC tournament. Acknowledged. I just like to have some teams to root against, too).

We obviously control our own destiny with regards to Louisville. Beat the Cards, and I think they will move below Duke on the ladder.

[gofurman]

My hope is that we avoid any of the Big 3 PAC12 teams in the Regionals.

The best way to do that is to avoid being placed in the West Region.

If we beat Clemson, then Louisville, that should hopefully earn us a spot in the East as either the top 4 seed or in the Midwest as the last 3 seed.

Not to get too far ahead - what really matters is how we are playing and HEALTH.. HEALTH HEALTH... Go Grayson and Amile - get healthy (look at some of Amiles moves last night!) but I would LOVE the west region w Gonzaga ! Play a 13 then a 5 - IF we can survive Gonzaga is the one seed I want to see. Absolutely.

I know we like the East but I want Duke in Greenville, SC and then to play Gonzaga... I think West is great - agree? disagree???

[60sDukie]

I just want them to play in Greenville. If not does anyone want to buy 3 tickets to see UNC?

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Not to get too far ahead - what really matters is how we are playing and HEALTH.. HEALTH HEALTH... Go Grayson and Amile - get healthy (look at some of Amiles moves last night!) but I would LOVE the west region w Gonzaga ! Play a 13 then a 5 - IF we can survive Gonzaga is the one seed I want to see. Absolutely.

I know we like the East but I want Duke in Greenville, SC and then to play Gonzaga... I think West is great - agree? disagree???

On paper, I'd prefer playing Gonzaga over any of the other #1 seeds.

But location matters too. And Duke playing in MSG matters. Especially when you consider if we are shipped West, not only would we play Gonzaga in the S16, but likely then having to play either UCLA, Oregon, or AZ in the E8 on their "home" turf.

No thanks to the West.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Those Big 3 teams will be dispersed across 3 regions. It may be really hard for us to avoid.

Fair point... and I would say the best way is to stay in the East region.

That way, if we do have to play one of the PAC12 teams, we do it on our side of the country.

[gofurman]

I just want them to play in Greenville. If not does anyone want to buy 3 tickets to see UNC?

Good points - is Greenville, SC necessarily tied to the west region for sure? Because I want Duke in Gville but I would rather them proceed through MSG, but I assume regional tie-ins (Greenville, SC goes to the West) are already firmly set in stone?? is that right?

[freshmanjs]

Good points - is Greenville, SC necessarily tied to the west region for sure? Because I want Duke in Gville but I would rather them proceed through MSG, but I assume regional tie-ins (Greenville, SC goes to the West) are already firmly set in stone?? is that right?

No, pod locations for the first 2 rounds are not tied to region (as of the last few years)

[Olympic Fan]

We all have our personal preferences ..

I definitely want Greenville for the first two rounds ...

And I want the West Regional. True, the top Pac 12 team (we could only get one of them in our regional) will be tough, but so will the other 1-2 seeds.

I'd MUCH rather play Gonzaga and/or Oregon in Anaheim than face Kansas in Kansas City.

[brevity]

I'd MUCH rather play Gonzaga and/or Oregon in Anaheim than face Kansas in Kansas City.

The West Regional semis and final will be in San Jose, which is slightly better (not in UCLA's backyard) and slightly worse (closer to Oregon and Gonzaga). Midwest plays in Kansas City, South in Memphis, East in NYC.

Duke should still get the Greenville pod that first weekend so long as they get a 4 seed or better and stay ahead of UVA. The placement of Kentucky and Florida seem high right now, so I guess I can't rule out South Carolina as a Greenville contender.

Favorites to join UNC in a Greenville pod (purely in my mind):
1. Duke
2. UVA
3. Distant 4-seed that wouldn't choose to be there
4. South Carolina

[TexHawk]

The West Regional semis and final will be in San Jose, which is slightly better (not in UCLA's backyard) and slightly worse (closer to Oregon and Gonzaga). Midwest plays in Kansas City, South in Memphis, East in NYC.

In one of the lesser known all-time tournament screw-jobs, the committee put a #2 seeded UCLA in the West region (San Jose) against #1 Kansas in 2007. We all thought the same thing... "San Jose is 350 miles away from LA, they won't have an advantage". This was an inaccurate prediction, to say the least. KU basketball has a pretty wide net as a national team, but UCLA owned the place. Wasn't even close.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

In one of the lesser known all-time tournament screw-jobs, the committee put a #2 seeded UCLA in the West region (San Jose) against #1 Kansas in 2007. We all thought the same thing... "San Jose is 350 miles away from LA, they won't have an advantage". This was an inaccurate prediction, to say the least. KU basketball has a pretty wide net as a national team, but UCLA owned the place. Wasn't even close.

Yeah, playing an elite west coast team on their home coast is not an exciting prospect as a Duke fan.

MSG is like our 2nd home so I'm praying Duke gets placed in the East, regardless of potential opponent.

[House P]

It's obviously a combination of how good you are and how easy your path is.

Kedsy has done an excellent job showing how a team’s seed can impact its likelihood of reaching the Final Four. Clearly, the overall strength of a team also has a major impact as well. I wanted to try to understand how these two factors affect a team’s chances for NCAA tournament success, so I did the following.

1) Built a mock bracket based on the KenPom AdjEM ratings for each seed as currently predicted by bracketmatrix.com (http://bracketmatrix.com/)

2) Built a spreadsheet which estimated the likelihood of each seed reaching each round of the tournament based on the KenPom ratings for each of the 120 potential match-ups in the mock bracket. Yes, I even estimated the likelihood of a 16 seed reaching the Final Four after defeating a 15 seed in the regional championship game (For those interested, I estimated this to be 1 in 30,908,080).

3) I then estimated the likelihood that a team with a KenPom rating of 20, 24, 28, and 30 would advance to the Final Four against this mock bracket for each possible seed. A KenPom rating of 20 is roughly equivalent to the 25th best team this year, a rating of 24 is roughly equivalent to the 25th best team, a rating of 28 is roughly equivalent to the 5th best team, and this year’s 2nd highest ranked KenPom team (Villanova) currently has a rating of 30.

Here is what I found.

Mock bracket

Here is the average KenPom AdjEM rating of each seed as currently predicted by bracketmatrix.com.



Seed
AdjEM


1 seed
29.34


2 seed
25.87


3 seed
23.94


4 seed
24.37


5 seed
23.58


6 seed
20.56


7 seed
18.86


8 seed
17.26


9 seed
17.80


10 seed
14.60


11 seed
14.75


12 seed
12.88


13 seed
10.12


14 seed
5.88


15 seed
0.81


16 seed
-0.84



One thing to note is that the gap between the average rating of the predicted 1 and 2 seeds is greater than the difference between the 2 seeds and 5 seeds. Compared to previous brackets, this is a bit of an anomaly due to the fact that a) there seems to a bit more parity than usual among teams rated 3-25 by KenPom, and b) a couple highly rated KenPom teams (#3 WVU and #5 UVA) are currently projected to receive 4 or 5 seeds. These factors cause the strength of 4/5 seeds to be a bit inflated compared to historical norms. Of course, the actual strength of each seed depends on what happens on Selection Sunday.

Likelihood of advancing to the Final Four.

The table below summarizes the likelihood of a team with a particular KenPom rating advancing to the Final Four against this mock bracket based on its seed. For example, a team with an KenPom rating (AdjEM) of 20 would have a 9.4% chance of reaching the final four as a 1 seed, an 8.5% as a 2 seed, a 6.7% chance as a 3 seed and so forth. A team with an AdjEM of 30 would have a 34.5% chance of reaching the Final Four as a 1 seed, a 32.2% chance as a 2 seed, a 28.7% chance as a 3 seed, etc.



Seed
Top25 (AdjEM=20)
Top15 (AdjEM=24)
Top5 (AdjEm=28)
Top2
(AdjEM=30)


1
9.4%
17.3%
28.2%
34.5%


2
8.5%
15.9%
26.2%
32.3%


3
6.7%
13.2%
22.8%
28.7%


4
5.2%
10.7%
19.3%
24.8%


5
4.5%
9.6%
17.8%
23.0%


6
4.4%
9.4%
17.6%
22.9%


7
4.1%
8.9%
17.8%
22.0%


8
3.0%
7.0%
13.9%
18.6%


9
3.1%
7.1%
14.1%
18.9%


10
3.4%
7.7%
15.1%
20.0%


11
3.4%
7.7%
15.0%
19.9%


12
2.7%
6.5%
13.1%
17.6%


13
2.7%
6.5%
13.1%
17.7%


14
3.3%
7.6%
14.9%
19.9%


15
3.4%
7.7%
15.2%
20.1%


16
2.9%
6.7%
13.6%
18.3%



A couple notes:

- The table does not consider the potential of playing a “First Four” game. Obviously, having to win a play-in game considerably reduces a team’s chances of advancing.

- The importance of a high seed as described by Kedsy is clear. A team of a fixed strength has a 1.5-2x greater likelihood of reaching the Final Four as a 1 seed than as a 4 seed. That being said, it looks like the importance of seeding begins to drops off a bit once you get past the top 4 or 5 seeds.

- The importance of being a “better” team is also very clear. If a top 5 caliber team somehow got seeded 16, they would still have a much greater chance of reaching the Final Four than a borderline top 25 caliber team which somehow got a 1 seed.

- The importance of being “better” becomes even more pronounced if the goal is not just to reach the Final Four, but win a National Championship. I ran a separate analysis (which I can post if anyone is interested) which predicts that, regardless of seeding, a top 5 caliber team always has a better chance of winning a National Championship than a top 15 caliber team.

What does this mean for Duke’s chances?

If you assume that Duke's may be seeded anywhere between 2 and 6, here are some scenarios to consider.

- Duke’s season-long KenPom rating is ~24. If this represents Duke’s “true” strength going into the NCAA tournament, Duke would have about a 16% chance of reaching the Final Four as a 2 seed and a 9.5% chance as a 6 seed.

- Duke’s KenPom rating over the past 5 games has been ~20. If Duke doesn’t get any “better” before the NCAA tourney, they would have an 8.5% Final Four chance as a 2 seed and 4.5% as a 6 seed.

- Duke’s KenPom rating over the course of their 7 game ACC winning streak was ~30. This is also about the same KemPom rating Duke had through the start of conference play. If Duke can somehow get back to this level of performance, they would have somewhere around a 32% chance of reaching the Final Four as a 2 seed and a 23% chance as a 6 seed.

The short takeaway to a long post

While getting high seed is very helpful, having a great team is probably a bit more helpful. Hopefully, Coach K can work some magic* to get the guys performing on an elite level again.

*Options may include, but are not limited to, finding a way to get Grayson healthy, building confidence with a strong ACC tourney run, finding a 4th Plumlee to shut down the pick and roll, etc.

[Kedsy]

Very cool stuff, House P. Great job.

Interesting that once you get below the 8th seed, your chances of reaching the Final Four don't change appreciably. Also between 5th, 6th, and 7th seed.

Most interesting to me is that the importance of seeding varies based on strength. In other words, the better your team is, the less seeding matters. While this may sound obvious on its face, to me it's a little counter-intuitive. For example, a top 25 team would have a 3.24 times better chance of making the Final Four as a #1 seed as opposed to a #8 seed, while a top 2 team would only have a 1.88 times better chance. Since you'd be playing the same opponents no matter good you were, that difference intrigues me.

For a team like Duke, whose seed possibilities appear to be anywhere from #2 to #5, this allows us to measure the components and at least attempt to answer the original question. For example, we can compare Duke winning the ACC championship and getting a #2 seed, but due to a lack of healing remaining a top 15 quality team, vs. Duke tanking the ACCT but healing up and going into the NCAAT as a top 5 quality team with a #5 seed. Using your table, we can compare those two scenarios and find the comparative chances of making the Final Four, which in this case is 15.9% as the top 15 quality #2 seed and 17.8% as a top 5 quality #5 seed. Pretty close, but a slight advantage to getting healthy regardless of seed.

Of course, real life isn't quite that binary. We could go for the ACC championship, miss, and be a top 15 quality team with a #3 or #4 seed (13.2% or 10.7% chance). Or we could attempt to heal, fail, and be a top 15 quality team with a #5 seed (9.6% chance). Slight advantage to going for it if both attempts fail.

Looking at everything, it seems like the two options (go-for-it or tank-and-heal) probably have similar probabilities of success. Which to me says, go for it, because if the two options are equivalent you might as well try to take home at least one fine piece of hardware. Though, of course, YMMV.


3) I then estimated the likelihood that a team with a KenPom rating of 20, 24, 28, and 30 would advance to the Final Four against this mock bracket for each possible seed. A KenPom rating of 20 is roughly equivalent to the 25th best team this year, a rating of 24 is roughly equivalent to the 25th best team, a rating of 28 is roughly equivalent to the 5th best team, and this year’s 2nd highest ranked KenPom team (Villanova) currently has a rating of 30.

Small typo. You made it clear elsewhere in your post, but you meant 15th in the bolded area, rather than 25th.

[House P]

Likelihood of advancing to the Final Four.

The table below summarizes the likelihood of a team with a particular KenPom rating advancing to the Final Four against this mock bracket based on its seed. For example, a team with an KenPom rating (AdjEM) of 20 would have a 9.4% chance of reaching the final four as a 1 seed, an 8.5% as a 2 seed, a 6.7% chance as a 3 seed and so forth. A team with an AdjEM of 30 would have a 34.5% chance of reaching the Final Four as a 1 seed, a 32.2% chance as a 2 seed, a 28.7% chance as a 3 seed, etc.


Here is what the results from the table in my previous post look like when plotted as a graph.

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7237&stc=1

[BandAlum83]

Very cool stuff, House P. Great job.

Interesting that once you get below the 8th seed, your chances of reaching the Final Four don't change appreciably. Also between 5th, 6th, and 7th seed.

Most interesting to me is that the importance of seeding varies based on strength. In other words, the better your team is, the less seeding matters. While this may sound obvious on its face, to me it's a little counter-intuitive. For example, a top 25 team would have a 3.24 times better chance of making the Final Four as a #1 seed as opposed to a #8 seed, while a top 2 team would only have a 1.88 times better chance. Since you'd be playing the same opponents no matter good you were, that difference intrigues me.

For a team like Duke, whose seed possibilities appear to be anywhere from #2 to #5, this allows us to measure the components and at least attempt to answer the original question. For example, we can compare Duke winning the ACC championship and getting a #2 seed, but due to a lack of healing remaining a top 15 quality team, vs. Duke tanking the ACCT but healing up and going into the NCAAT as a top 5 quality team with a #5 seed. Using your table, we can compare those two scenarios and find the comparative chances of making the Final Four, which in this case is 15.9% as the top 15 quality #2 seed and 17.8% as a top 5 quality #5 seed. Pretty close, but a slight advantage to getting healthy regardless of seed.

Of course, real life isn't quite that binary. We could go for the ACC championship, miss, and be a top 15 quality team with a #3 or #4 seed (13.2% or 10.7% chance). Or we could attempt to heal, fail, and be a top 15 quality team with a #5 seed (9.6% chance). Slight advantage to going for it if both attempts fail.

Looking at everything, it seems like the two options (go-for-it or tank-and-heal) probably have similar probabilities of success. Which to me says, go for it, because if the two options are equivalent you might as well try to take home at least one fine piece of hardware. Though, of course, YMMV.



Small typo. You made it clear elsewhere in your post, but you meant 15th in the bolded area, rather than 25th.

Wouldn't it depend on how badly you miss? Say NCState had beaten Clemson, and we tank in the opener to NCState. In that scenario, would we be a top 15 KenPom team or would we sink to a top 25?

[Kedsy]

Wouldn't it depend on how badly you miss? Say NCState had beaten Clemson, and we tank in the opener to NCState. In that scenario, would we be a top 15 KenPom team or would we sink to a top 25?

I think the hypothetical is how good we actually are, in the moment. In that sense performance in one game wouldn't matter. For example, if we rest our guys and lose our first ACCT game, our KenPom rank might go down, but how good we are (if Grayson and Amile fully heal) would go up. That's what I meant when I suggested we could be a top 5 quality team with a #5 seed.

[BandAlum83]

I think the hypothetical is how good we actually are, in the moment. In that sense performance in one game wouldn't matter. For example, if we rest our guys and lose our first ACCT game, our KenPom rank might go down, but how good we are (if Grayson and Amile fully heal) would go up. That's what I meant when I suggested we could be a top 5 quality team with a #5 seed.

Ahh, but that undermines the model itself. The model in the original post relates to the actual KenPom rankings, not the rankings in the last 5 or the rankings during your hottest stretch.

All of the other teams in the top 15 presumably have had stretches or games with a rating over 30, as we did during our win streak. For the model to be meaningful, don't we have to look at the actual over the full season going into the NCAAT?

So...if we play better than our season KenPom rating, it makes it more likely that we will beat the odds and make the final 4. If we don't it's likely we will not beat the odds. I use the term "beat the odds" because all teams have a less than 50% chance of making the final 4. Even the top 2 teams. (Based on the model)

[Kedsy]

Ahh, but that undermines the model itself. The model in the original post relates to the actual KenPom rankings, not the rankings in the last 5 or the rankings during your hottest stretch.

All of the other teams in the top 15 presumably have had stretches or games with a rating over 30, as we did during our win streak. For the model to be meaningful, don't we have to look at the actual over the full season going into the NCAAT?

If so, the choice of whether to go-for-it vs. tank-and-heal would be simple. The only way to improve our season-long rating would be to go for it and succeed. Except then our rating would be stronger but our team might not be (if going for it made us less healthy than tanking). Because teams and players are not computer algorithms.

If we were fully healed, we'd be a better team than if we're playing injured. We can all agree on that, right? So the hypothetical I proposed assumed that tank-and-heal would make us a top 5 quality team (because we healed) with a #5 seed (because we tanked), and win-the-ACCT would make us a top 15 quality team (because we played our guys instead of healing) with a #2 seed (because we won the ACCT). I then used to chart to see what our odds would be in each scenario, before exploring a few variations.

[House P]

Interesting that once you get below the 8th seed, your chances of reaching the Final Four don't change appreciably.



I could be wrong, but here are my thoughts.

I think the lack of difference beyond the 8/9 seed has to do with the fact that, within a particular "pod" of 4 teams, your first two games are likely to be pretty similar if you are the lower seed. For example, consider the following paths for the teams seeded 10 and lower.

10 seed: 7 seed and 2 seed (6% chance of 15 seed)
15 seed: 2 seed and 7/10 seed

11 seed: 6 seed and 3 seed (10% chance of 14 seed)
14 seed: 3 seed and 6 seed (32% chance of 11 seed)

12 seed: 5 seed and 4 seed (20% chance of 13 seed)
13 seed: 4 seed and 5 seed (25% chance of 12 seed)

16 seed: 1 seed and 8/9 seed

These paths are of roughly equivalent difficulty. The only real difference is the order the games are played.




Also between 5th, 6th, and 7th seed.



I think the "flatness" between the 5th, 6th and 7th seed is due to the current bracketmatrix.com predictions which show only a small difference between the average rating of 2, 3, and 4 seeds. There also isn't much difference between the 10,11, and 12 seeds. In such a case, it doesn't make a big difference whether you play the 10 seed or 12 seed in the first round or whether you play the 2 seed or 4 seed in the round of 32. I also ran the simulation using the actual seeds from 2011-2016 and this "flatness" remained.




Most interesting to me is that the importance of seeding varies based on strength. In other words, the better your team is, the less seeding matters. While this may sound obvious on its face, to me it's a little counter-intuitive. For example, a top 25 team would have a 3.24 times better chance of making the Final Four as a #1 seed as opposed to a #8 seed, while a top 2 team would only have a 1.88 times better chance. Since you'd be playing the same opponents no matter good you were, that difference intrigues me.



I think this has to do with the fact that weaker teams are more sensitive to who they play (and benefit more from avoiding to play really good teams). Think about a the hypothetical difference of being seeded 1 vs 8.

- A team with a AdjEM rating of 30 would have a 76% vs 40% chance of making the Sweet 16 as a 1 vs 8 seed. (As a 1 seed: 98% vs a 16 seed and 78% vs a 8/9 seed. As an 8 seed: 78% vs the 9 seed and 52% vs the 1 seed.)

- A team with a AdjEM rating of 20 would have a 50% vs 15% chance of making the Sweet 16 as a 1 vs 8 seed (As a 1 seed: 90.8% vs a 16 seed and 55.6% vs a 9 seed. As an 8 seed: 55.6% vs the 9 seed and 27.6% vs the 1 seed.)

Taken to the extreme, if the NCAA mistakenly invited the Cleveland Cavs instead of the Virginia Cavs, I don't think it would make much difference what seed Lebron, Kyrie and company received.

[gofurman]

Two questions - you can see my online name so I want Duke in Greenville!

If Duke moves up to a two or three seed would we still be in Greenville? Or (assume UNC is a one seed) would us at a two seed force us out of Greenville - in other words can the same Greenville pod have a one AND a two/three seed? ..Or do we need to stay a four seed to stay in Greenvile?

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Two questions - you can see my online name so I want Duke in Greenville!

If Duke moves up to a two or three seed would we still be in Greenville? Or (assume UNC is a one seed) would us at a two seed force us out of Greenville - in other words can the same Greenville pod have a one AND a two/three seed? ..Or do we need to stay a four seed to stay in Greenvile?

Seeding doesn't matter in the way you're describing it.

But where it would come into play is if say UNC and UVA were seeded above Duke. In that scenario, UNC and UVA would get geographic preference(i.e. Greenville) over Duke, even if Duke was still a top 4 seed.

So basically root for Virginia to lose before Duke in the ACCT(just in case).

[gofurman]

Seeding doesn't matter in the way you're describing it.

But where it would come into play is if say UNC and UVA were seeded above Duke. In that scenario, UNC and UVA would get geographic preference(i.e. Greenville) over Duke, even if Duke was still a top 4 seed.

So basically root for Virginia to lose before Duke in the ACCT(just in case).

Thx!! Sounds like what someone else said. The top two of UNC. Duke. UVA. South Carolina will be put in Greenville.

SC is probably too far back ...UNC has a lock. Which leaves Duke and UVA. Duke w a slight edge right now...

Sound right ?

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Thx!! Sounds like what someone else said. The top two of UNC. Duke. UVA. South Carolina will be put in Greenville.

SC is probably too far back ...UNC has a lock. Which leaves Duke and UVA. Duke w a slight edge right now...

Sound right ?

Right as rain! 😁

[gofurman]

Right as rain! 😁

Currently Lunardi has us in Gville. But vs Wake Forest in second round possible (12 seed). I want no part of Wake forest. No. Part.
I would think they would avoid conference possibilities farther if it's easy. Which here it is. Most other regions don't have an acc team on the four line so if wake is a twelve put them anywhere but w Duke... Right? Why force a conference repeat so soon? I know it's 'legal' but other four/ five line pods don't have ACC. wouldn't they try to avoid that ? Or is that of absolutely no concern anymore?

I know it's allowed now to make a conference do a replay in second round but wouldn't committee still try to avoid it?? Thx for help

[Troublemaker]

Currently Lunardi has us in Gville. But vs Wake Forest in second round possible (12 seed). I want no part of Wake forest. No. Part.
I would think they would avoid conference possibilities farther if it's easy. Which here it is. Most other regions don't have an acc team on the four line so if wake is a twelve put them anywhere but w Duke... Right? Why force a conference repeat so soon? I know it's 'legal' but other four/ five line pods don't have ACC. wouldn't they try to avoid that ? Or is that of absolutely no concern anymore?

I know it's allowed now to make a conference do a replay in second round but wouldn't committee still try to avoid it?? Thx for help

Yes, they would probably try to avoid it.

[gam7]

Currently Lunardi has us in Gville. But vs Wake Forest in second round possible (12 seed). I want no part of Wake forest. No. Part.
I would think they would avoid conference possibilities farther if it's easy. Which here it is. Most other regions don't have an acc team on the four line so if wake is a twelve put them anywhere but w Duke... Right? Why force a conference repeat so soon? I know it's 'legal' but other four/ five line pods don't have ACC. wouldn't they try to avoid that ? Or is that of absolutely no concern anymore?

I know it's allowed now to make a conference do a replay in second round but wouldn't committee still try to avoid it?? Thx for help

I thought one of the seeding rules was that if you played someone twice during the season, you wouldn't play them until sweet 16 at the earliest. (And if you've played 3 times, you can't meet under regional final.)

[gofurman]

I thought one of the seeding rules was that if you played someone twice during the season, you wouldn't play them until sweet 16 at the earliest. (And if you've played 3 times, you can't meet under regional final.)

Interesting. Is that right ?

[gam7]

Interesting. Is that right ?

As of 2013, it was a guideline: http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2013-08-01/committee-changes-bracketing-guidelines-division-i-tournament

But not a hard and fast rule...

[Troublemaker]

UVA's loss tonight locks up the Greenville pod for Duke.

Today was also fruitful in the chase for the 2 seed, as three teams ahead of us lost. (So did Kansas, but they're not moving off the 1-line)

http://i.imgur.com/58AXG0h.png

Obviously, the hardest part of getting a 2-seed is still winning the ACC tournament. But it's still nice to know that we're beginning to get the results elsewhere that we need. (Of course, Louisville losing was a case of Duke controlling its own destiny).

[BandAlum83]

Currently Lunardi has us in Gville. But vs Wake Forest in second round possible (12 seed). I want no part of Wake forest. No. Part.
I would think they would avoid conference possibilities farther if it's easy. Which here it is. Most other regions don't have an acc team on the four line so if wake is a twelve put them anywhere but w Duke... Right? Why force a conference repeat so soon? I know it's 'legal' but other four/ five line pods don't have ACC. wouldn't they try to avoid that ? Or is that of absolutely no concern anymore?

I know it's allowed now to make a conference do a replay in second round but wouldn't committee still try to avoid it?? Thx for help

They would need to get past the 5 seed first. Who is that?

Also, after today's win, many believe it moves us up to the 3 line.

[gofurman]

Seeding doesn't matter in the way you're describing it.

But where it would come into play is if say UNC and UVA were seeded above Duke. In that scenario, UNC and UVA would get geographic preference(i.e. Greenville) over Duke, even if Duke was still a top 4 seed.

So basically root for Virginia to lose before Duke in the ACCT(just in case).

And UVA lost. That's nice for us though I like UVA in general. Maybe we havea three seed now ... But it's Health. Health. Health. Grayson get fully healthy

[gofurman]

They would need to get past the 5 seed first. Who is that?

Also, after today's win, many believe it moves us up to the 3 line.
five seed is SMU

[BlueDevilBrowns]

And UVA lost. That's nice for us though I like UVA in general. Maybe we havea three seed now ... But it's Health. Health. Health. Grayson get fully healthy

Exactly right, more than seeding, our team just needs to be healthy...

With nearly 10 wins against the RPI top 40, we've proven we can beat anyone.

I'd predict at this moment in time we're a 3 seed. Win the ACCT and we're AT LEAST a 2 seed.

Yeah, I said it... AT LEAST a 2 seed 😎

[bluedev_92]

I keep seeing Butler seeded ahead of us. What's up with that? They just lost successive games to Xavier & Seton Hall. Their losses were to worse teams than our losses. Same basic record. I know they beat Nova. Remember, Nova needed a tip in at home to beat Virginia at home. We beat Virginia at Virginia...

[Troublemaker]

I keep seeing Butler seeded ahead of us. What's up with that? They just lost successive games to Xavier & Seton Hall. Their losses were to worse teams than our losses. Same basic record. I know they beat Nova. Remember, Nova needed a tip in at home to beat Virginia at home. We beat Virginia at Virginia...

Butler will be behind us now and probably a 4 seed.

Anxiously awaiting Bracket Matrix's morning update, where we'll have a better sense of the impact of yesterday's results. I'd be shocked if we weren't ahead of Butler at this point.

[OldPhiKap]

As of 2013, it was a guideline: http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2013-08-01/committee-changes-bracketing-guidelines-division-i-tournament

But not a hard and fast rule...

I didn't know that the NCAA followed the Pirate's Code. But in retrospect it makes sense.

[bluedev_92]

Butler will be behind us now and probably a 4 seed.

Anxiously awaiting Bracket Matrix's morning update, where we'll have a better sense of the impact of yesterday's results. I'd be shocked if we weren't ahead of Butler at this point.


Agreed!

[BandAlum83]

Butler will be behind us now and probably a 4 seed.

Anxiously awaiting Bracket Matrix's morning update, where we'll have a better sense of the impact of yesterday's results. I'd be shocked if we weren't ahead of Butler at this point.

They haven't update yet, but I did take a look at the underlying brackets for the first seven or so source brackets that show Duke as a number 4 seed. All but 2 of them have been updated, and in all but one, Duke has been moved up to a 3. One actually had us moved up to a 2.

So when bracketmatrix does update, I expect we will move from the top 4, to a 3.

ETA: The site that has us as a 2 seed (http://nicktursisbestbracketperiod.weebly.com/), has us in the East region. In the south: 1. UNC 2. Kentucky In the Midwest: 1. Kansas 2. Oregon In the West: 1. UCLA 2. Gonzaga

So basically, Baylor and Louisville out of the 8, and Duke and UCLA in. Duke at a 2, UCLA at a 1, with Gonzaga losing a 1 seed.

The site is ranked 17 out of 58 in the new in the last five years category.

[gam7]

UVA's loss tonight locks up the Greenville pod for Duke.

Today was also fruitful in the chase for the 2 seed, as three teams ahead of us lost. (So did Kansas, but they're not moving off the 1-line)

http://i.imgur.com/58AXG0h.png

Obviously, the hardest part of getting a 2-seed is still winning the ACC tournament. But it's still nice to know that we're beginning to get the results elsewhere that we need. (Of course, Louisville losing was a case of Duke controlling its own destiny).

We've moved past Butler on bracketmatrix, and with Purdue's loss to Michigan, there is no chance Purdue will jump us. I think the top 12 teams (in a TBD order) are locked in with us moving in and Florida moving out. MAYBE Florida can be a 3 seed with an SEC tourney win over Kentucky, but I doubt it - someone (maybe FSU with a loss to ND?) would really have to slip up.

I think the permutations for Duke as a 2 seed are somewhat limited (with a bunch of assumptions - UNC is a 1, Gonzaga-Pac12 winner are 1-2 in the west, UK and the second place Pac12 team will be a 2). With all of those assumptions, I think it would have to be one of:

Nova-Duke-Baylor (East)
Nova-Duke-3rd place Pac 12 (East)
Kansas-Duke-3rd place Pac 12 (Midwest)

[SCMatt33]

So the morning update on Bracket Matrix has Duke in the final 3 seed, just barely behind FSU (3.11 average to 3.10). Duke is actually barely ahead of FSU on brackets released today as some from yesterday are still being counted. Either way, it's essentially a dead heat and since the matrix does not account for true seed placement when averaging (not all brackets involved produce a 1-68 list), it's really hard to tell for sure who is projected ahead. At this point, there's enough of a split that you'd be fooling yourself to say you know for sure which team of FSU, Duke, and Louisville will be forced out west for a given set of results. I think the only certainty would be tha if Duke or FSU wins the tournament, that team would be definitively safe from being forced out west.

[Duke79UNLV77]

So the morning update on Bracket Matrix has Duke in the final 3 seed, just barely behind FSU (3.11 average to 3.10). Duke is actually barely ahead of FSU on brackets released today as some from yesterday are still being counted. Either way, it's essentially a dead heat and since the matrix does not account for true seed placement when averaging (not all brackets involved produce a 1-68 list), it's really hard to tell for sure who is projected ahead. At this point, there's enough of a split that you'd be fooling yourself to say you know for sure which team of FSU, Duke, and Louisville will be forced out west for a given set of results. I think the only certainty would be tha if Duke or FSU wins the tournament, that team would be definitively safe from being forced out west.

With more top 50 wins than any other team in the country, I just can't see us being a 4 seed. To me, the question should be if we can become a 2 seed. We hurt ourselves a bit by scheduling 3 teams ranked 281 or higher and a 4th team ranked 240. I think at the upper level, though, how many really good teams you beat should matter much more than if you scheduled a few teams that were truly terrible, instead of just bad.

[BandAlum83]

So the morning update on Bracket Matrix has Duke in the final 3 seed, just barely behind FSU (3.11 average to 3.10). Duke is actually barely ahead of FSU on brackets released today as some from yesterday are still being counted. Either way, it's essentially a dead heat and since the matrix does not account for true seed placement when averaging (not all brackets involved produce a 1-68 list), it's really hard to tell for sure who is projected ahead. At this point, there's enough of a split that you'd be fooling yourself to say you know for sure which team of FSU, Duke, and Louisville will be forced out west for a given set of results. I think the only certainty would be tha if Duke or FSU wins the tournament, that team would be definitively safe from being forced out west.

There are a surprising number of brackets that have pushed us up to the #2 seed (20 by my count). Enough to believe that many of the sites reporting a 4 were not updated in time for the bracketmatrix aggregation.

[flyingdutchdevil]

There are a surprising number of brackets that have pushed us up to the #2 seed (20 by my cunt). Enough to believe that many of the sites reporting a 4 were not updated in time for the bracketmatrix aggregation.

Dude. You need to spell count correctly. I'm dying here laughing.

[BandAlum83]

Dude. You need to spell count correctly. I'm dying here laughing.

ROTFLMAO!!!

How on earth did that get past the wankerizer???

Fixed in time!

[SCMatt33]

I agree with the sentiment that a four is unlikely (though I don't thinks it's impossible if we lose today and things break wrong around us), but it's possible right now that all three out of Duke/FSU/Louisville are on the 2/3 line. We could very well be the last of that group, which would still force us out west. Duke and FSU both have 11 top 50 wins as of this morning, while Lousiville only has 7, but Lousiville has not even a mediocre loss. The worst is @Wake, who's probably in the tourney. FSU has two losses outside the top 100 while Duke has a home loss outside the top 100 (plus an extra loss total if we don't win the tourney). I'm not trying to say what's right or wrong, but the committee is surely debating this and I don't think anyone outside that room can truly know the result of it.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I don't think I've seen it mentioned here, but a factor in our seeding will be how the committee considers absences of Coach K and players. We lost our one game without Grayson (not sure how they judge suspension vs. injury) and I believe we lost 3 games when Coach K was out. Also, Tatum, Giles and Bolden were not available for the Kansas game. I don't think this will have a huge influence on things, but all things being equal, it could push us ahead of another team.

[CDu]

I don't think I've seen it mentioned here, but a factor in our seeding will be how the committee considers absences of Coach K and players. We lost our one game without Grayson (not sure how they judge suspension vs. injury) and I believe we lost 3 games when Coach K was out. Also, Tatum, Giles and Bolden were not available for the Kansas game. I don't think this will have a huge influence on things, but all things being equal, it could push us ahead of another team.

Yes, and Jefferson was out for 2 of the 3 losses while Coach K was out.

We have a whopping 3 losses with the entire team and staff in place.

Of course, that discounts the fact that 2 of our 3 toughest road games (Louisville and FSU) were in this group, so it is possible we'd have lost those anyway. But we probably beat Va Tech and Miami with a healthy and available Allen.

[Olympic Fan]

I don't think I've seen it mentioned here, but a factor in our seeding will be how the committee considers absences of Coach K and players. We lost our one game without Grayson (not sure how they judge suspension vs. injury) and I believe we lost 3 games when Coach K was out. Also, Tatum, Giles and Bolden were not available for the Kansas game. I don't think this will have a huge influence on things, but all things being equal, it could push us ahead of another team.

Actually, Duke lost TWICE without Grayson (at VPI and at Miami). Also, Duke lost twice without Amile Jefferson (at Louisville and at FSU) and once without Jayson Tatum (Kansas). Those are key players -- guys like Jeter and Giles and Bolden have also missed games we lost. That would help is they had come back and established themselves as ley players (as Tatum has done). But since Giles, Bolden and Jeter remain marginal contributors, their absences won't have much impact.

But that's still five of Duke's eight losses with key players out.

Duke did lose three games without K (at Louisville, at FSU and NC State at home). I'm not sure how much the NCAA counts that, but there was a lot of talk last year that the committee cut Syracuse a break because Boeheim had to miss nine games due to NCAA suspension. To be fair, that was never officially confirmed.

But, again, Duke SHOULD be judged slightly more favorably than its record because of the games lost with injury ... since the injured players (and the coach) have returned.

[OldPhiKap]

Yes, and Jefferson was out for 2 of the 3 losses while Coach K was out.

We have a whopping 3 losses with the entire team and staff in place.

Of course, that discounts the fact that 2 of our 3 toughest road games (Louisville and FSU) were in this group, so it is possible we'd have lost those anyway. But we probably beat Va Tech and Miami with a healthy and available Allen.

Our losses this season:

Kansas (#1 or now likely #2 seed) by 2
@ V.Tech (likely in the tourney)
@ FSU (tourney team, top-four ACC seed)
@ Louisville (same)
State (bad loss)
@ Syracuse at the buzzer (bubble team)
@ Miami (likely in the tourney)
@ UNC (#1 seed until we beat them tonight)

Is that more losses than usual? Sure. But the ACC was without question the toughest league in the country, and the best top-to-bottom I can remember since the mid-1980's (and we only had 8 teams then). We have:

Two losses to #1 or #2 seeds (one of those on the road);
Two losses on the road to #3 or #4 seeds (+/-);
Two losses on the road to likely #8 seeds (+/-);
One loss on the road to a bubble team likely to get in; and
One bad loss.

That's a pretty damn strong resume, eight losses notwithstanding. Only one bad home loss, and one squeaker on a neutral site. The rest were losses to tournament teams on the road, most of which are damn strong ranked teams at that. And that's without even considering injuries to coach and player throughout the season, which Coach always says isn't an excuse so I'm gonna assume the same.

I like our chances to be a #3 seed, and I like our chances in the tourney wherever they put us.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Our losses this season:

Kansas (#1 or now likely #2 seed) by 2
@ V.Tech (likely in the tourney)
@ FSU (tourney team, top-four ACC seed)
@ Louisville (same)
State (bad loss)
@ Syracuse at the buzzer (bubble team)
@ Miami (likely in the tourney)
@ UNC (#1 seed until we beat them tonight)

Is that more losses than usual? Sure. But the ACC was without question the toughest league in the country, and the best top-to-bottom I can remember since the mid-1980's (and we only had 8 teams then). We have:

Two losses to #1 or #2 seeds (one of those on the road);
Two losses on the road to #3 or #4 seeds (+/-);
Two losses on the road to likely #8 seeds (+/-);
One loss on the road to a bubble team likely to get in; and
One bad loss.

That's a pretty damn strong resume, eight losses notwithstanding. Only one bad home loss, and one squeaker on a neutral site. The rest were losses to tournament teams on the road, most of which are damn strong ranked teams at that. And that's without even considering injuries to coach and player throughout the season, which Coach always says isn't an excuse so I'm gonna assume the same.

I like our chances to be a #3 seed, and I like our chances in the tourney wherever they put us.

Great synopsis here. I also find it odd that Kansas and UNC are considered locks for #1 seeds while Duke's resume is pretty darn similar. Fortunately, some teams have lost this week that benefit Duke. Purdue, Baylor, Florida, and Butler all had upset losses. Two of UCLA, Arizona, and Oregon are going to take a loss, too. With an ACC Tournament victory, the narrative of Duke is going to change a ton. The NCAA committee has said that they will take injuries and the absence of Coach K into consideration.

I honestly believe that Gonzaga, Villanova, and Kansas will get a #1 seed. Gonzaga will get the #1 out west, Villanova in the East, and Kansas in the Midwest. In contention for the South #1 seed and #2 seeds are UNC, Kentucky, Baylor, UCLA, Oregon, Arizona, Louisville, Florida State, and Duke. That's 9 teams for 5 spots. That's a crowd. So let's think about what might happen.

For whatever reason, maybe the same reason Justin Jackson got the ACC Player of the Year Award, UNC is going to get the other #1 seed. Kentucky will be a #2 seed, most likely in the South with UNC. One of the PAC 12 teams is going to get a 2 seed out west while the loser of the title game will get a #2 seed. So that leaves Duke, PAC 12 Runner-Up, Baylor, and Louisville competing for the 2 remaining #2 seeds. I really think Baylor's collapse will knock them down to a #3 seed. That leaves Duke vs. Louisville or Florida State if they meet in the ACC Tournament Finals. With an ACC Tournament win, Duke can claim a head-to-head tie over Louisville but the Tournament Championship in a head-to-head comparison or a 2-1 record vs. Florida State. That happens, and I think they will most likely end up as the #2 seed in the East with Villanova and maybe a team like Arizona as the #3 seed. We'll see what happens!

[Troublemaker]

Duke's a 2 seed as of right now. Kentucky and Oregon are strong 2s. Duke and Lville are between a 2 and a 3.

A win locks up a 2 seed. A loss? Not sure.

UNC is somehow still a 1 seed.

http://i.imgur.com/R7o1n63.png

[Billy Dat]

The more I think about it, I am more worried about playing ACC teams than anyone else. There are going to be so many league teams in every bracket and none of them are scared of us. I'd like to avoid them at all costs.

[gam7]

I think the permutations for Duke as a 2 seed are somewhat limited (with a bunch of assumptions - UNC is a 1, Gonzaga-Pac12 winner are 1-2 in the west, UK and the second place Pac12 team will be a 2). With all of those assumptions, I think it would have to be one of:

Nova-Duke-Baylor (East)
Nova-Duke-3rd place Pac 12 (East)
Kansas-Duke-3rd place Pac 12 (Midwest)

Sure enough - as of right now, Lunardi and Palm are in agreement on Nova-Duke-UCLA in the East. Interestingly, Palm has the top 1, 2, 3, and 4 seed (West Virginia) all in the East. It won't play out like that. If it is those four teams, they won't be the best of each of their seeds on the S-curve...

[dukebluesincebirth]

How would we match up with Nova? I haven't seen them play one game this year.

[House P]

Kedsy has done an excellent job showing how a team’s seed can impact its likelihood of reaching the Final Four. Clearly, the overall strength of a team also has a major impact as well. I wanted to try to understand how these two factors affect a team’s chances for NCAA tournament success, so I did the following.

[Long winded post describing an attempt to look at how a teams seed affects their chance's of making the Final Four DELETED]



Now that we know the actual brackets, I thought it might be interesting to look at the difficultly of the path to the Final Four in each Region for each seed. To do this, I used the methodology I described in my previous post to estimate the probability that a team with an AdjEM of 28 (approximately equal to a Top-5 caliber team) would advance to the Final Four based on receiving a particular seed in a particular region in the 2017 bracket.

The table below summarizes the results.

Row 1 of this table can be interpreted as follows: "A top-5 caliber team (AdjEM=28) would have a 23% probability of reaching the Final Four as a 1 seed in the East Region, a 29% probability as a 1 seed in the West, a 29% probability in the Midwest and a 33% probability in the South".



Seed
East
West
Midwest
South


1
23%
29%
29%
33%


2
21%
20%
25%
22%


3
18%
21%
24%
21%


4
15%
18%
21%
24%


5
15%
15%
20%
19%


6
17%
15%
18%
16%


7
14%
17%
14%
11%


8
12%
12%
18%
18%


9
10%
12%
17%
17%


10
14%
12%
14%
17%


11
11%
16%
16%
14%


12
9%
11%
15%
18%


13
9%
11%
15%
17%


14
12%
15%
16%
14%


15
13%
13%
14%
12%


16
10%
11%
17%
17%



A couple notes:

- These estimates are based on KenPom ratings. I tend to think that KenPom ratings are pretty good for predicting games overall (KenPom ratings closely match the Vegas point spreads and Jason has a couple threads which show how difficult it is to beat Vegas). That being said, it is likely that some individual teams are over- or under-rated by KenPom. There are lots of threads elsewhere discussing the relative merits of the KenPom ratings, so I won't get into this here.

- These estimates are pre-tourney and don't reflect the results of games played after March 13.As such, they should be interpreted as the difficulty of a particular path as of Selection Sunday. Now that the results of many games are known, the current probabilities are different from those listed in the table.

- From Duke's standpoint, the difficulty of the various paths facing #2 seeds in each region is pretty similar. The only real difference is that the Midwest looks to be a bit easier than other regions for a #2 seed. This is mostly due to KenPom having Kansas as the weakest #1 seed. However, the probabilities don't consider the fact that the Midwest Regional Finals will be held in a near-homecourt environment for Kansas.

- Also from Duke's standpoint, there is a clear difference between #2 in the East (21% Final Four chance) and a #1 seed in the South (33% Final Four chance). This is partially due to seeding. The #1 seed almost always faces an easier path than the #2 seed. However, this also has a bunch to do with the shamefully easy path the #1 seed in the South has to the Elite 8 this year. In the round of 32, the South's #1 seed faces either the 2nd weakest #8 seed (Arkansas) or the weakest #9 seed (Seton Hall). Then, in the Sweet 16, the South's #1 seed was originally set up to face either the weakest #4 seed (Butler), the weakest #5 seed (Minnesota), or a 12 seed ranked #48 by KenPom. The committee did redeem themselves a bit by putting a several strong teams (Kentucky, UCLA, Wichita St) in the bottom half of the bracket, but the #1 seed will only have to play one of these teams at most.

- The title contender who has the most right to complain is Villanova. Their path to the Elite 8 includes an 8 seed (Wisconsin) with a higher KenPom rating than the South's 4 seed (Butler). Villanova's path then includes either a 4 seed ranked 9th by KenPom (Florida) or a 5 seed ranked 7th by KenPom (UVA). My calculations estimate that, prior to the start of the tourney, a team of Villanova's strength would have a 46% chance of advancing to the Elite 8 in the East bracket and a 65% chance of advancing to the Elite 8 in the South bracket. I haven't re-calculated this, but now that the favorites have won in the East, I suspect the probability of Villanova advancing to the Elite 8 is a now bit lower than 46%.

[Reilly]

... Also from Duke's standpoint, there is a clear difference between #2 in the East (21% Final Four chance) and a #1 seed in the South (33% Final Four chance) ... .

Neat information. Thanks for putting that together. My question: so the 12% spread (21% v 33%) in the chance of a team taking the Duke vs Carolina path would be expected to lessen/become closer as the tournament progresses? In other words, if they hypothetical teams of equal strength took the respective #2 Duke and #1 Carolina paths and both made it to the regional finals, and in the elite 8 those teams played the #1 and #2 teams in their regions for the FF berth, then the teams' chance of reaching the final 4 at that point would probably be pretty equal -- around 50%, I'm guessing? Put another way, where does the biggest chunk/hurdle of the 12% more difficult path lie for a hypothetical team taking the Duke path -- X% attributable to Troy v. #16; Y% in the round of 32 game; Z% in the possible Sweet 16 game ...

[House P]

Neat information. Thanks for putting that together. My question: so the 12% spread (21% v 33%) in the chance of a team taking either Duke and Carolina's path would be expected to lessen/become closer as the tournament progresses? In other words, if both #2 Duke and #1 Carolina made it to the regional finals, and played the #1 and #2 teams in their regions for the FF berth, then the teams' chance of reaching the final 4 would probably be pretty equal at that point -- around 50%, I'm guessing? Put another way, where does the biggest chunk/hurdle of the 12% more difficult path lie for Duke -- X% attributable to Troy v. #16; Y% in the round of 32 game; Z% in the possible Sweet 16 game ...

Let me try to answer the question I think you asked.

Here is the probability that a team with an AdjEM=28 has of advancing in a particular round (given that they won in the previous round) based on the potential paths of the #2 seed in the East and #1 seed in the South.



Path
R64
R32
R16
R8


#2 East
95%
75%
60%
51%


#1 South
98%
80%
73%
58%



In other words, the rightmost column in the table shows that, if they reach the Elite 8, the hypothetical team as a #2 seed in the East has a 51% of winning while the #1 seed in the South has a 58% chance of winning.


While the path of the #1 seed in the South is easier for each round, the biggest difference is in the Sweet 16. The #2 seed in the East likely faces a tough game in either KenPom's #11 pre-tourney team (SMU) or KenPom's #13 pre-tourney team (Baylor). Conversely, the #1 in the South likely faces either KenPom's #26 team (Butler), #33 team (Minnesota, no longer possible), or #48 team (Middle Tennessee).