2024-25 NET/Bracketology Thread

I stumbled upon this post in a Utah State message board and found it interesting. It also hints at the idea Gonzaga's probably going to be seeded better than they've been projected for much of the season.

Long story short, if the tournament was seeded by NET ranking, Gonzaga would be a 2 seed (they're #8 overall w/o the win over SMC accounted for yet). Obviously that's not happening.

However, last year no team was underseeded by the committee compared to what their NET "seeding" would've been by more than 5 lines (New Mexico from a NET 6 seed to an actual 11 seed). Gonzaga would have to be underseeded by 6 lines to drop to an 8 seed this season.

From the linked research:

Screenshot 2025-03-12 at 10.21.39.png
 
There almost certainly are studies of how teams that are underseeded or overseeded (that is, in comparison to their KenPom, T-rank, NET, or other statistical ranking) do in the tournament, but I don't remember seeing any. Anyone got an example? For example, if KenPom thinks Gonzaga is the #9 best team, but the NCAA committee seeds them below 3, say 7, are they likely to do better than the typical 7 seed.
 
MChambers said:
There almost certainly are studies of how teams that are underseeded or overseeded (that is, in comparison to their KenPom, T-rank, NET, or other statistical ranking) do in the tournament, but I don't remember seeing any. Anyone got an example? For example, if KenPom thinks Gonzaga is the #9 best team, but the NCAA committee seeds them below 3, say 7, are they likely to do better than the typical 7 seed.
Click to expand...
It'd take more digging than I'm able to do right now, but filtering Bart Torvik's T-Rank to see his efficiency ratings heading into last year's tourney I can see right off the bat that Auburn was rated #4 overall yet only received a 4 seed.

However, instead of living up to that efficiency rating, they were upset in the first round by Yale (who then lost to SDSU by 28 points). Michigan State was also underseeded compared to efficiency ratings last year, looked the part in their 8/9 game and the first 10 min. vs. UNC, then got blown out the rest of the way.

On the flipside, Kentucky was overseeded (6 seed according to T-Rank, 3 seed in reality) and was upset by Oakland.
 
camion said:
Brackets will happen as they will happen. One might be wise to look to the words of the famous philosopher and person Robert whatshisname:

"Women and cats and the NCAA will do as they please, and men and dogs and Duke fans should relax and get used to the idea."
― Robert A. Heinleinn
Click to expand...
Agreed. Several times I've read some elaborate poo bah from The Committee about their priorities only to have them violate said priorities on Selection Sunday. Sometimes I think they fill out the brackets on Friday then swill martinis thru the weekend. Expecting them to stand by their alleged priorities is a fool's errand. If they actually did that, a computer could make the selections for them.
Of course the Bubba suckup factor will be huge this time, too.
 
BrummieDevil said:
Also, it is worth remembering that just because the Bracket Matrix consensus or groupthink indicate that Gonzaga's destined for an 8/9 game, the committee might have a rosier view of them when it comes to seeding. We see movement like that every Selection Sunday where a team people thought was locked in on a line is seeded a couple lines better/worse.

And that can even apply to a conference as a whole, like the MWC being seeded lower than expected pretty much across the board last year.

Plus, Saint Mary's has long been projected as about a 5 seed. Let's pretend that happens. Do we really think the committee is going to have Gonzaga 3 seeds lower than SMC? I have a hard time seeing that considering Gonzaga's metrics.
Click to expand...
This may be true. In some ways we went through this last year with Gonzaga. There was a lot of consternation about them possibly missing the Tournament. Then they beat Kentucky and everything was fine. Still, their average seed on bracket matrix was 6.88, but the committee gave them a 5 seed: http://bracketmatrix.com/matrix_2024.html

To be clear, I'm less worried about matchups than I have been in a very long time, given the strength of this Duke team. Still, Gonzaga is going to be a problem for somebody. If they get up to the 7 line, they could easily be a vegas favorite over the 2 seed in the second round (they are currently 6 spots in KenPom and a whopping 14 spots in Torvik above St. Johns, who could be on the 2 line.
 
Dr. Maturin said:
This may be true. In some ways we went through this last year with Gonzaga. There was a lot of consternation about them possibly missing the Tournament. Then they beat Kentucky and everything was fine. Still, their average seed on bracket matrix was 6.88, but the committee gave them a 5 seed: http://bracketmatrix.com/matrix_2024.html

To be clear, I'm less worried about matchups than I have been in a very long time, given the strength of this Duke team. Still, Gonzaga is going to be a problem for somebody. If they get up to the 7 line, they could easily be a vegas favorite over the 2 seed in the second round (they are currently 6 spots in KenPom and a whopping 14 spots in Torvik above St. Johns, who could be on the 2 line.
Click to expand...
They certainly could be a problem and I generally pull for them as a West Coast native. But I'm more skeptical of this version of the Zags than many others.

Since they hit the WCC portion of the schedule at the end of December, they're only #19 in Torvik's T-Rank. That's still better than normal for a team being mocked as an 8 seed, but I think it adds some valuable perspective, namely that a lot of their impressive efficiency rating is built on a high quality, early season NCSOS against which they went 9-4. Come to think of it, Michigan State was 19th in T-Rank entering last year's tourney as a mere 9 seed .... and got thoroughly handled by the Heels in the second round

If you merely remove their opening-night, 38-point victory over Baylor, they lose three spots in their T-Rank for the season, which also goes to show how much one outlier performance - a lifetime ago - can impact a season's worth of results. Gonzaga's good, they're always good, I'm just not convinced they'd give much trouble to any of the 1 seeds.
 
so who am I pulling for to keep UNC out of the tourney?

need help here. someone other than St Marys or Zags winning their tourney but the Zags already won...

who are real bid stealers? from weekend tourneys? someone other than Memphis I guess?

Baylor, Arkansas, SDSU, Ok, Indiana, VCU, Ohio State and Xavier all doing well as they are 10/11 seeds?

Help me know who to pull for. thanks !!!
 
MChambers said:
There almost certainly are studies of how teams that are underseeded or overseeded (that is, in comparison to their KenPom, T-rank, NET, or other statistical ranking) do in the tournament, but I don't remember seeing any. Anyone got an example? For example, if KenPom thinks Gonzaga is the #9 best team, but the NCAA committee seeds them below 3, say 7, are they likely to do better than the typical 7 seed.
Click to expand...
I've done a study on overseeded/underseeded teams, using KenPom ratings from 2002 to 2023 (sorry haven't updated it to include 2024). The table below shows the number of teams over- or under-seeded by a certain number and the aggregate Tournament wins and losses for each category.

tmsWLpct
w/i 1 seed line (e.g., should be #2, is #1 or #2 or #3)
650​
821​
631​
0.565​
2 or more seed lines better than should be (e.g., should be #8 but is #6)
505​
319​
504​
0.388​
4 or more seed lines better than should be
162​
110​
162​
0.404​
6 or more seed lines better than should be
45​
25​
45​
0.357​
2 or more seed lines worse than should be (e.g., should be #2 but is #4)
189​
182​
188​
0.492​
4 or more seed lines worse than should be
57​
47​
57​
0.452​
6 or more seed lines worse than should be
15​
8​
15​
0.348​

I guess the moral of this story is you want to be properly seeded. If you're overseeded too much, you run excess risk of getting upset and if you're underseeded too much, you have to play better teams too early.
 
tommy said:
My bad. My scores app was unclear. But what bracket rule?
Click to expand...
I assume they are referring to the rule of avoiding regular season rematches, where possible. See below from the NCAA's bracketing rules. However, if Maine were a 16 seed as you imply, the bolded consideration would not technically apply, since that would be a "first round" game. That said, I could see the committee wanting to have us play a different 16 seed, other things being relatively equal, than one we already played in the regular season.


Additional Considerations
1. If possible, rematches of regular-season games should be avoided in the second and third rounds.
2. If possible, rematches of previous years’ tournament games should be avoided in the second and third rounds.
3. If possible, after examining the previous five years‟ brackets, teams or conferences will not be moved out of its natural region or geographic area an inordinate number of times.
 
goFurman said:
so who am I pulling for to keep UNC out of the tourney?

need help here. someone other than St Marys or Zags winning their tourney but the Zags already won...

who are real bid stealers? from weekend tourneys? someone other than Memphis I guess?

Baylor, Arkansas, SDSU, Ok, Indiana, VCU, Ohio State and Xavier all doing well as they are 10/11 seeds?

Help me know who to pull for. thanks !!!
Click to expand...
Notre Dame. That would do it.
 
goFurman said:
so who am I pulling for to keep UNC out of the tourney?

need help here. someone other than St Marys or Zags winning their tourney but the Zags already won...

who are real bid stealers? from weekend tourneys? someone other than Memphis I guess?

Baylor, Arkansas, SDSU, Ok, Indiana, VCU, Ohio State and Xavier all doing well as they are 10/11 seeds?

Help me know who to pull for. thanks !!!
Click to expand...

AAC: Anyone but Memphis
*A-10: Not sure if VCU will make it as an at large, but they're the only team with a chance
Big East: Butler, DePaul, Georgetown, Providence, Seton Hall, Villanova
Big Ten: Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Rutgers, USC
*Big West: Not sure UC San Diego will make it as an at large, but they're the only one with a chance
Big XII: Cincinnati, Colorado, Kansas State, UCF
Mountain West: Air Force, Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, Nevada, San Jose State, UNLV, Wyoming
SEC: LSU, South Carolina, Texas
 
BrummieDevil said:
AAC: Anyone but Memphis
*A-10: Not sure if VCU will make it as an at large, but they're the only team with a chance
Big East: Butler, DePaul, Georgetown, Providence, Seton Hall, Villanova
Big Ten: Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Rutgers, USC
*Big West: Not sure UC San Diego will make it as an at large, but they're the only one with a chance
Big XII: Cincinnati, Colorado, Kansas State, UCF
Mountain West: Air Force, Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, Nevada, San Jose State, UNLV, Wyoming
SEC: LSU, South Carolina, Texas
Click to expand...
Thanks for compiling this list! I don’t believe in any of the Big Ten teams so could see someone surprise there. Big East has some potential but I have a feeling UConn will win it. No chance in the Big XII or SEC. Mountain West looks promising.
 
Kedsy said:
I've done a study on overseeded/underseeded teams, using KenPom ratings from 2002 to 2023 (sorry haven't updated it to include 2024). The table below shows the number of teams over- or under-seeded by a certain number and the aggregate Tournament wins and losses for each category.

tmsWLpct
w/i 1 seed line (e.g., should be #2, is #1 or #2 or #3)
650​
821​
631​
0.565​
2 or more seed lines better than should be (e.g., should be #8 but is #6)
505​
319​
504​
0.388​
4 or more seed lines better than should be
162​
110​
162​
0.404​
6 or more seed lines better than should be
45​
25​
45​
0.357​
2 or more seed lines worse than should be (e.g., should be #2 but is #4)
189​
182​
188​
0.492​
4 or more seed lines worse than should be
57​
47​
57​
0.452​
6 or more seed lines worse than should be
15​
8​
15​
0.348​

I guess the moral of this story is you want to be properly seeded. If you're overseeded too much, you run excess risk of getting upset and if you're underseeded too much, you have to play better teams too early.
Click to expand...
Great analysis, as usual Kedsy! Though I think the data doesn't prove no advantage to being overseeded. I think that could be shown by comparing how, say, 2-line overseeded #6s compare to a cohort of properly seeded 8s (with the analysis extended across seed lines). Said another way, an overseeded team might lose even more often % wise had they been properly seeded to begin with (and therefore playing tougher competition).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zeb
AGDukesky said:
Thanks for compiling this list! I don’t believe in any of the Big Ten teams so could see someone surprise there. Big East has some potential but I have a feeling UConn will win it. No chance in the Big XII or SEC. Mountain West looks promising.
Click to expand...
I'm not holding out much hope for bid stealers from the power conferences, but I'm hopeful about the MWC and AAC.

I'm at least keeping my eye on Cincy and Kansas State in the Big XII though because they're not bad and they have solid defenses. K-State has the friendlier remaining draw because they're not on the Houston side and today's game is against Baylor. Cincy would have to beat Iowa State then BYU then (probably) Houston just to get to the final.

Xavier's no lock for the tournament out of the Big East, so it could really help its cause just by beating Marquette in the quarters while also giving themselves a crack at St. John's. Texas is in worse shape, but they too have a shot right off the bat to beat a likely tourney team in vandy before, if they win, playing A&M. They're both better positioned to help their cause even if they don't go far, unlike those bums down the road.
 
blUDAYvil said:
Great analysis, as usual Kedsy! Though I think the data doesn't prove no advantage to being overseeded. I think that could be shown by comparing how, say, 2-line overseeded #6s compare to a cohort of properly seeded 8s (with the analysis extended across seed lines). Said another way, an overseeded team might lose even more often % wise had they been properly seeded to begin with (and therefore playing tougher competition).
Click to expand...
Yes, I was thinking the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top