Reseeding the Final Four

[the amoeba]

I rarely post but read this board often as I find the level of discussion here better than most any other basketball specific forum. I couldn't find any discussion on the matter using the search tool, so I'll ask the question myself. How does the DBR board feel about reseeding the Final Four. Yahoo's blog trots the idea out once a year only to denigrate the idea.

I know I bought into the idea in '04 when we had a thrilling (From a neutral observer's perspective) semi-final between the two best teams that was followed two days later by an anti-climactic "Final".

The primary argument I see over and over is that it would "ruin" office pools and the practice of filling out brackets. I can't say I understand this argument. Of the 63 (Now 67) lines to fill in on a bracket, reseeding the FF would eliminate exactly one of them; that of the National runner-up. Are there really that many pools where multiple participants correctly predict every single game up to the final that would require that line as a tiebreaker?

[Duvall]

I rarely post but read this board often as I find the level of discussion here better than most any other basketball specific forum. I couldn't find any discussion on the matter using the search tool, so I'll ask the question myself. How does the DBR board feel about reseeding the Final Four. Yahoo's blog trots the idea out once a year only to denigrate the idea.

I know I bought into the idea in '04 when we had a thrilling (From a neutral observer's perspective) semi-final between the two best teams that was followed two days later by an anti-climactic "Final".

Well, last year reseeding would have avoided the projected blowout of a Duke-Butler final in favor of making possible an exciting Duke-West Virginia final.

I'm not sure seeds make that much difference by the last weekend. Certainly not enough for the NCAA to risk damaging the golden goose of office pools.

[sporthenry]

It is all about the brackets. Just as this addition of 3 extra teams has screwed up filling out the brackets (VCU didn't win til 11:00 the day before the tournament started?), reseeding would make it worse. How would it even work? And the games in the later stages are worth more in most brackets.

The NCAA might do it b/c they are all about money just like they added teams and might add more but they also overlooked the fact that everyone watches for the brackets.

[uh_no]

Well, last year reseeding would have avoided the projected blowout of a Duke-Butler final in favor of making possible an exciting Duke-West Virginia final.

I'm not sure seeds make that much difference by the last weekend. Certainly not enough for the NCAA to risk damaging the golden goose of office pools.

THIS!!!

What happened after 2004 was that they changed the bracketing rules so that regions weren't paired with eachother til after the brackets came out. In 2004, the problem was that due to location rules, duke and uconn went to two regions that were predetermined to be matched with eachother, despite being 1 and 2 overall. So in today's world, they would have switched up the semifinal pairings on that sunday so that duke would have played like GT and Uconn would have played the other team. The caveat with this, though, is that it only works for the top seeds. As soon as there are upsets, the whole thing goes to chapel hill in a handbasket. So, you could theoretically reseed and put uconn with VCU and UK with butler, but once you get past the top seeds, like this year, you must assume that the rest of the seeds are closer in quality anyway (closer than the gap between the top seeds and the next lower guys), so reseeding makes less sense. Even with what would seem like optimal matchups, you still sometimes don't get the title game you want. For example, when UNC won, you would have had to say that uconn and UNC were the top two teams in the final four, and despite being on opposite sides of the bracket, uconn didn't end up winning anyway. SO, switching wouldn't guarantee the wanted matchups anyway, and may prohibit any good games in the final four. 2 years ago, who wouldn't have wanted to see hasheem thabeet v. tyler hansbrough in the semi instead of a guard heavy villanova team? Well, I did at least, but because they were on opposite side and uconn choked in the semi, we ended up with a blow out title game.

In the end you can't guarantee the best matchup in either case, and its much less of a hassle for everyone NOT to reseed.

[roywhite]

Generally speaking, I don't like to see meddling very much with the tournament format and procedures. It's such a great event that captures the attention of the nation, even for weeks before the games begin with conference play-ins and bracket talk.

Just don't see the advantage of re-seeding at the time of the Final Four.

Plus Billy Packer thought it was a great idea. Reason enough to be skeptical.

[brevity]

Seeding can't predict the future. I can't argue with that.

But, unless you can show me two brackets that have all 64 games called correctly up to this point, I can't see how reseeding affects office pools one bit. Am I missing something?

Sounds like you are missing something. Reseeding by definition ruins a personal bracket, whether perfect up to that point or not. Last year I (and many others) picked a Duke-West Virginia semifinal, and we would have received no additional points for picking the winner correctly had the Final Four been reseeded. All because a pair of 5 seeds managed to get into the Final Four instead of Kansas and Syracuse.

I can see why it's tempting to think about reseeding in a year like this, but this year is not a good example. Most people have stopped looking at their own brackets at this point, and no longer have a personal stake in what's going to happen.

If you read the ESPN article about the two people in their contest who picked the Final Four correctly, one of them had the strangest Southeast Region ever. He/she picked Butler to advance each round, but picked EVERY OTHER GAME wrong.

[OldPhiKap]

I rarely post but read this board often as I find the level of discussion here better than most any other basketball specific forum. I couldn't find any discussion on the matter using the search tool, so I'll ask the question myself. How does the DBR board feel about reseeding the Final Four. Yahoo's blog trots the idea out once a year only to denigrate the idea.

I know I bought into the idea in '04 when we had a thrilling (From a neutral observer's perspective) semi-final between the two best teams that was followed two days later by an anti-climactic "Final".

The primary argument I see over and over is that it would "ruin" office pools and the practice of filling out brackets. I can't say I understand this argument. Of the 63 (Now 67) lines to fill in on a bracket, reseeding the FF would eliminate exactly one of them; that of the National runner-up. Are there really that many pools where multiple participants correctly predict every single game up to the final that would require that line as a tiebreaker?

Good to see your post, and given how well-stated it is I hope you choose to post more often in the future.

My biggest problem is that you may punish a team that has already beaten a high seed by lining them up with another as a matter of rule. VCU beat Kansas, for example, and I don't think it is fair to say that they should now be paired with whichever team is perceived to be the strongest. (Even though the best team may turn out to be Butler). I like the the way this is turning out, actually -- two power teams on one side of the bracket, two mid-majors on the other.

Just wish we were one of the power teams. C'est la vie.

But good topic, I have not thought about that before.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I don't really care about the bracket argument but I am still opposed.

Of course I also expect the Committee to do a better job. I want it set up so that the top 1 seed is projected the play the 4th of the 1 seeds. I also want a better S curve filling out the field. By winning the ACC Tournament Duke should have been considered the 3rd of the 1 seeds and Pitt should have been sent out West.

It takes several things to win a NC and luck is usually one of them. Part of the luck is the match ups and how it plays out. I like it that either Butler or VC will be in the NC game. I know of no other match play type tournaments that reseed and don't know why college basketball should. Tennis and golf don't.

It will take lots of good fortune to keep the NCAA from ruining the tournament. Hopefully they will not do this.

SoCal

[uh_no]

I want it set up so that the top 1 seed is projected the play the 4th of the 1 seeds. I also want a better S curve filling out the field. By winning the ACC Tournament Duke should have been considered the 3rd of the 1 seeds and Pitt should have been sent out West.

The number 1 overall is always paired with the worst of the number ones. This rule was instituted after the 2004 debacle.

I didn't realize winning the ACC tournament meant you have to be the #3 overall. The committee made a lot of mistakes, I concur, but Duke as the 4th overall seed is not one of them. Pitt won their regular season crown, but not their tournament. Duke did the opposite. Pitt lost to SJ by 1, duke by a lot. Pitt's last two losses of the season came to final 4 teams by a COMBINED 3 points. Duke's last loss came to a team who didn't make the final 4 by 17 (given they certainly played fabulously). Given the facts on selection sunday, and looking at it retroactively, you really can't fault the committee for seeding pitt in front of duke.

[yancem]

Well, think of it this way, if you reseeded the final four you would have UConn playing VCU and Kentucky playing Butler. This could lead to a UConn vs Kentucky final which is a worst case scenario as far as I'm concerned. The way it stands now, we are guaranteed at least one of UConn or Kentucky not making the final and at least one of VCU or Butler making the final. This gives us the best chance of neither Cal or Calhoun winning a NC.

Seems like the seeding works well for this year at least!

[the amoeba]

Sounds like you are missing something. Reseeding by definition ruins a personal bracket, whether perfect up to that point or not. Last year I (and many others) picked a Duke-West Virginia semifinal, and we would have received no additional points for picking the winner correctly had the Final Four been reseeded. All because a pair of 5 seeds managed to get into the Final Four instead of Kansas and Syracuse.

I suppose I'm just looking at this too much from the gambling perspective, where the important consideration is having a clear winner at some point. From a personal perspective I could see why people could get very attached to their picks all the way through to the title game.

Still, if UConn/UK take a commanding lead Monday night I reserve the right to shake my fist at the sky.

Did people fill out brackets back when they had a third place game? How was it handled?

[theAlaskanBear]

I would like add my voice to chorus that has already decried this idea. The "projected blowout" the OP talks about in the Duke-Butler game was a 2-point thriller. Look at the great results of this years tournament.

The NCAA doesn't seem to realize the great simplicity to a successful tourney: we dont need first four 16s playing 12s who turn around and play 5s or 1s or reseeding the final four.

Seed the top 64 teams. (or 68 with play-in games; 16 seeds only). Play basketball. The drama, the excitement, the great storylines, the OT thrillers -- they take care of themselves.

[superdave]

My biggest problem is that you may punish a team that has already beaten a high seed by lining them up with another as a matter of rule. VCU beat Kansas, for example, and I don't think it is fair to say that they should now be paired with whichever team is perceived to be the strongest. (Even though the best team may turn out to be Butler). I like the the way this is turning out, actually -- two power teams on one side of the bracket, two mid-majors on the other.

Excellent point, OPK. Re-seeding would seem arbitrary after 2 weekends of basketball, especially in the event that a lower seed knocks off some higher seeds to make it to the Final Four. The tournament was and is a great fool-proof thing. We dont need to screw with it any more!

[brevity]

What happened after 2004 was that they changed the bracketing rules so that regions weren't paired with eachother til after the brackets came out. In 2004, the problem was that due to location rules, duke and uconn went to two regions that were predetermined to be matched with eachother, despite being 1 and 2 overall.

Meant to reply to this. You're remembering it wrong. Connecticut was not a top seed; they were a 2 seed in the West that year. They won the Big East tournament, but they had a 2nd place regular season finish in the league and 6 losses. This was also the season where Stanford and St. Joseph's flirted with undefeated records. (I'm sure a lot of people thought Duke and Connecticut were the two best teams, but the seeding did not reflect that.)

The bracketing rules were (probably) changed because of Kentucky and Arizona in 2003. The Wildcats and Wildcats were the top 2 teams and were placed on the same side of the bracket, which resulted in some criticism. Ultimately it didn't matter, as neither reached the Final Four.

[mgtr]

I don't believe in changing the rules once the game has started. Butler and VCU have played great so far. So, lets penalize both of them and make them play a higher seed! I don't know the Vegas line on any of the games, but I wouldn't be overly surprised if one of them win it all.

[NSDukeFan]

The number 1 overall is always paired with the worst of the number ones. This rule was instituted after the 2004 debacle.

I didn't realize winning the ACC tournament meant you have to be the #3 overall. The committee made a lot of mistakes, I concur, but Duke as the 4th overall seed is not one of them. Pitt won their regular season crown, but not their tournament. Duke did the opposite. Pitt lost to SJ by 1, duke by a lot. Pitt's last two losses of the season came to final 4 teams by a COMBINED 3 points. Duke's last loss came to a team who didn't make the final 4 by 17 (given they certainly played fabulously). Given the facts on selection sunday, and looking at it retroactively, you really can't fault the committee for seeding pitt in front of duke.

I can see the argument for seeding Pitt ahead of Duke, though I can also see an argument the other way. For all the mistakes the selections committee made, I don't think it is fair to have expected them to have taken into account Pitt's future loss to Butler and Duke's future loss to Arizona.

[SoCalDukeFan]

The number 1 overall is always paired with the worst of the number ones. This rule was instituted after the 2004 debacle.

I didn't realize winning the ACC tournament meant you have to be the #3 overall. The committee made a lot of mistakes, I concur, but Duke as the 4th overall seed is not one of them. Pitt won their regular season crown, but not their tournament. Duke did the opposite. Pitt lost to SJ by 1, duke by a lot. Pitt's last two losses of the season came to final 4 teams by a COMBINED 3 points. Duke's last loss came to a team who didn't make the final 4 by 17 (given they certainly played fabulously). Given the facts on selection sunday, and looking at it retroactively, you really can't fault the committee for seeding pitt in front of duke.

both had Duke 3 and Pitt 4.

I also want the Committee to put more weight on the conference tournaments than I think they do.

SoCal

[uh_no]

both had Duke 3 and Pitt 4.

I also want the Committee to put more weight on the conference tournaments than I think they do.

SoCal

the polls also do not measure the same things as the committee does

polls=if you lost last week you drop down...(and had lost in their tournament)
committee=overall body of work

[uh_no]

Meant to reply to this. You're remembering it wrong. Connecticut was not a top seed; they were a 2 seed in the West that year. They won the Big East tournament, but they had a 2nd place regular season finish in the league and 6 losses. This was also the season where Stanford and St. Joseph's flirted with undefeated records. (I'm sure a lot of people thought Duke and Connecticut were the two best teams, but the seeding did not reflect that.)

The bracketing rules were (probably) changed because of Kentucky and Arizona in 2003. The Wildcats and Wildcats were the top 2 teams and were placed on the same side of the bracket, which resulted in some criticism. Ultimately it didn't matter, as neither reached the Final Four.

You sir, are correct.

[SCMatt33]

Excellent point, OPK. Re-seeding would seem arbitrary after 2 weekends of basketball, especially in the event that a lower seed knocks off some higher seeds to make it to the Final Four. The tournament was and is a great fool-proof thing. We dont need to screw with it any more!

The counter argument in favor of re-seeding is that a bracket unnecessarily rewards lower seeded teams who have weaker opponents advance in their bracket. For example, UNC got a pretty big gift by having Marquette in it's path while Ohio State as the top seed had to play Kentucky. Somebody will get screwed in any format. We tend to find the case of Ohio State getting screwed more palatable because we are used to it. Obviously the NCAA will never do this because of bracketing and they aren't one to bite the hand that feeds them (on a completely different note I still find it so ironic that the popularity of an "amateur" tournament is largely based on gambling).

If they did do it, however, they should go all out and have reseeding for the regional rounds as well. Potential travel prevents reseeding between rounds 1 and 2 and between the S16 and E8, but there is no reason to put UConn vs. VCU in this bracket if you didn't put Marquette against Ohio State first. The NFL and NHL both re-seed and it works out fine for them. The NBA does not re-seed and their aren't any problems there. I don't think that there is one that is definitely better than the other, but since the NCAA has a vested interest in the bracket format, there is no reason not to keep it.

Meant to reply to this. You're remembering it wrong. Connecticut was not a top seed; they were a 2 seed in the West that year. They won the Big East tournament, but they had a 2nd place regular season finish in the league and 6 losses. This was also the season where Stanford and St. Joseph's flirted with undefeated records. (I'm sure a lot of people thought Duke and Connecticut were the two best teams, but the seeding did not reflect that.)

The bracketing rules were (probably) changed because of Kentucky and Arizona in 2003. The Wildcats and Wildcats were the top 2 teams and were placed on the same side of the bracket, which resulted in some criticism. Ultimately it didn't matter, as neither reached the Final Four.

The funny thing about 2004 (which HAD overall seeding for those thinking that 04 had anything to do with changing the rule) is that Kentucky was the number 1 overall seed, not any of the teams flirting with undefeated records or the two top teams in the Final Four. I highly doubt that any one bracket would cause the NCAA to change rules like that. I don't really know, but I imagine that it happened over time where the NCAA brass felt like the top two teams were on the same side of the bracket too often.