Which team deserves a higher seed?

[UrinalCake]

I pulled this information from the latest NCAA Team Sheets (which you can view here (https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/SitePages/Home.aspx)). You can probably guess what the teams are, but just for fun try to look at the raw numbers and play along. I'll reveal the teams later today.

(note: "avg rankings" is the average from the six computer rankings. The first three are quantitative and the last three are predictive.)




TEAM A: TEAM B:
RPI: 4 6
KPI: 5 6
SOR: 5 7
BPI: 7 3
POM: 7 3
SAG: 8 2
avg rankings: 6 4.5
avg RPI win: 85 109
avg RPI loss: 37 47
SOS overall: 1 17
SOS non-conf: 9 21
Q1: 14-8 6-5
Q2: 2-1 7-2
Q3: 5-1 9-0
Q4: 4-0 4-0

[freshmanjs]

I pulled this information from the latest NCAA Team Sheets (which you can view here (https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/SitePages/Home.aspx)). You can probably guess what the teams are, but just for fun try to look at the raw numbers and play along. I'll reveal the teams later today.

(note: "avg rankings" is the average from the six computer rankings. The first three are quantitative and the last three are predictive.)




TEAM A: TEAM B:
RPI: 4 6
KPI: 5 6
SOR: 5 7
BPI: 7 3
POM: 7 3
SAG: 8 2
avg rankings: 6 4.5
avg RPI win: 85 109
avg RPI loss: 37 47
SOS overall: 1 17
SOS non-conf: 9 21
Q1: 14-8 6-5
Q2: 2-1 7-2
Q3: 5-1 9-0
Q4: 4-0 4-0


I think it's very clear. Team A deserves the higher seed, even without considering the head to head advantage. Harder schedule, better wins, better losses.

[House G]

Hypothetically, if one of the teams cheated, would they “deserve” anything?

[CDu]

I pulled this information from the latest NCAA Team Sheets (which you can view here (https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/SitePages/Home.aspx)). You can probably guess what the teams are, but just for fun try to look at the raw numbers and play along. I'll reveal the teams later today.

(note: "avg rankings" is the average from the six computer rankings. The first three are quantitative and the last three are predictive.)




TEAM A: TEAM B:
RPI: 4 6
KPI: 5 6
SOR: 5 7
BPI: 7 3
POM: 7 3
SAG: 8 2
avg rankings: 6 4.5
avg RPI win: 85 109
avg RPI loss: 37 47
SOS overall: 1 17
SOS non-conf: 9 21
Q1: 14-8 6-5
Q2: 2-1 7-2
Q3: 5-1 9-0
Q4: 4-0 4-0


Team A. And that is without considering that Team A won 2 of 3 against Team B. Team B is better in the metrics-based stats, but Team A did better in the W/L department against like teams, and played a much harder schedule.

[kcduke75]

... seeded overall 5 - 7 so they would not meet the presumptive overall one seed until the final 4.

Does anyone see it differently? . . . ie., should cheating pond scum defending "champions" get knocked down a few notches to a 3 seed

[pamtar]

It’s definitely team A. Luckily team B stacks up pretty well against most of the other teams in its vicinity.

[UrinalCake]

So the Selection Committee agreed, and ranked the CHeats ahead of us. They got a matchup with the worst #1, but it meant they got sent to the West region. A lot of fans on this boards seemed to be terrified of playing in the West regardless of opponent, so in that sense I guess we should be happy.

[duke2x]

A lot of fans on this boards seemed to be terrified of playing in the West regardless of opponent, so in that sense I guess we should be happy.

We're terrified of playing out west because of the travel/time difference between ET and PT. It's been a huge problem for Duke regardless of sport, particularly when a P12 opponent is involved. Even Portland State has one of our larger predictive model errors for the year.

The S-curve used this year eliminated most of that problem when Arizona got sent to Atlanta as the P-12 champs. Gonzaga has to be absolutely ecstatic about that bracket. I think they would have finished 3rd outright in the ACC from what I've seen of them this year.

[Hingeknocker]

Obviously, I am biased, but Team B deserves a higher seed over Team A.

I'm beyond exhausted about hearing about records against quadrants, or the strength of schedule differences. I'm tempted to put this in all caps, but it's a Monday morning so I'll settle for italics: Any qualitative differences between strengths of schedule are already reflected in the rankings systems (no matter which one you choose) and therefore it is pointless to give extra credit to the team that played a harder schedule. I may need to get this tattooed somewhere on my arm after this nightmare of a bracketology season. This is the worst job I can remember the committee doing in seeding the top 1-16 teams.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I may need to get this tattooed somewhere on my arm after this nightmare of a bracketology season. This is the worst job I can remember the committee doing in seeding the top 1-16 teams.

No offense, but following "bracketology" is asking for insanity.