NCAA tourney, overseeded & underseeded

[cyclones500]

Two of the big ten bubble teams obviously sucked but the third looked good.

Michigan played well down the stretch and performed well in NCAAT, may have gotten slightly advantageous draw - Colorado State was more of a 7 seed, and U-M got to play in Indy ... but I thought Tennessee was dangerous and Michigan won that, so I can't scoff.

Seems like a lot of people (at least what I saw on CF) thought Michigan should have been First Four, but it was looking a lot like 10-seed area entering BiG tournament.

That's all just my analysis.

 

[PSYclone22]

In some ways I think it would be better to have tournament selection be something like NCAA wrestling or UEFA Champions League. Each league earns a certain number of slots based on non-conference and tournament performance over the past 2-3 years. Then a team earns a bid by finishing high enough in their conference.

Sure, there would be some times when it would be unfair based on how the bubble teams are distributed across conferences but it would be more objective. In reality, one season of non-conference games are a small sample size to try to compare teams from different conferences and almost all of those non-conference games are 2-3 months before the tournament. And a more objective system would bring some added excitement to both non-conference games and late season conference play.

Bring back Bracket Buster Saturday but for every conference, not just mid-majors.

 

[heitclone]

I’m not even saying seedings are wrong or terrible…but you get conferences just wildly playing over or under their seeds and that is interesting.

Go back and look at 2021’s bracket at how Pac12 did vs its seeds, it’s unbelievable. I’m not sure that means they should have been seeded higher or got more teams in, but I don’t think it was a fluke either to get that out of multiple teams in same league.

Honestly think they did pretty well this year. Only three or four multi bid leagues weren’t close to playing to seed. We talk about big 12 and big ten the most here and they were about right. Two of the big ten bubble teams obviously sucked but the third looked good.

I just bring UNC up because they are as odd a case as I can remember.

I think the ACC is interesting, I honestly feel like it was still a really bad conference after the first 5 or so teams but the top teams were clearly built well for the tournament. It was really odd that all of the ACC teams matched up against Big 12 schools. ND and Duke played Tech, UNC got Baylor, VT played Texas and Miami got us.

Each of those matchups was a total contrast of styles and in basically every single one, the offensive, uptempo team ended up controlling the pace. A couple games were "big 12" games for a half or so and then got higher scoring but for the most part, the team with most offensive playmakers won the game.

I think its really easy to overthink, I mean, was this just better teams, good matchups for the ACC, does offense matter more now? Was the physical big 12 style of play not conducive for winning in March? It's just wild and any conclusions drawn this year are likely out the window next year.

 

[HFCS]

I think the ACC is interesting, I honestly feel like it was still a really bad conference after the first 5 or so teams but the top teams were clearly built well for the tournament. It was really odd that all of the ACC teams matched up against Big 12 schools. ND and Duke played Tech, UNC got Baylor, VT played Texas and Miami got us.

Each of those matchups was a total contrast of styles and in basically every single one, the offensive, uptempo team ended up controlling the pace. A couple games were "big 12" games for a half or so and then got higher scoring but for the most part, the team with most offensive playmakers won the game.

I think its really easy to overthink, I mean, was this just better teams, good matchups for the ACC, does offense matter more now? Was the physical big 12 style of play not conducive for winning in March? It's just wild and any conclusions drawn this year are likely out the window next year.

Since big 12 shrank to ten and other leagues grew to 14 or 15 a big thing is media simply forget that difference. Same in football. Top heavy takes on new meaning if the top is 3 of 10 vs 3 of 15 or soon 3 of 16 in SEC.

Big 12 was 6-0 in that first round. The ACC going 6-0 (if they had six teams) is actually worse, not equal. Going 9-0 would have been an identical first round performance. If the conferences are comperable, they should have 50% more tourney teams and tourney wins because they have 50% more teams.

The big ten and big 12 got nearly the same % of teams in dance but it’s never reported that way. I think it’ll do our league good to get back to 12 in some ways because it’s never acknowledged when it achieves more despite having fewer teams.

 

[randomfan44]

It means something in cases like Pac last year. They get four teams in, all low seeds, and those four teams obliterated mostly higher seeds, eventually all making the elite 8 except for beating each other. It doesn’t mean the seeding was even wrong, but it was some solid proof from all four teams that at the time of the dance the Pac was playing far better than their previous resume indicated.

I’d say the ACC is close to same territory this year.

On the SEC side that resume booster they got from Big 12 challenge may have been a bit of fools gold.

In terms of just “which conference had best tournament” I’d say divide the wins by total # of teams in the league (total, not selected total) and maybe pay a little attention to if the league got final four team or teams. Without even doing that math it’s acc and big 12 this year, but big 12 having just 10 teams to ACC’s 15 probably gives it the edge.

It really doesn't mean anything at all. Teams get breaks in their match ups and suddenly it means that the conference was better than people thought? Nope.

There's really nothing that can drawn from tourney results about conference quality. Once the tourney starts, it's all about individual/team match ups and who gets buckets and stops.

People see seeds as data that can be tabulated and analyzed. That's in our nature. But we make data "say" things that it really don't mean all time time. That's unfortunately also in our nature.

 

[randomfan44]

In some ways I think it would be better to have tournament selection be something like NCAA wrestling or UEFA Champions League. Each league earns a certain number of slots based on non-conference and tournament performance over the past 2-3 years. Then a team earns a bid by finishing high enough in their conference.

Sure, there would be some times when it would be unfair based on how the bubble teams are distributed across conferences but it would be more objective. In reality, one season of non-conference games are a small sample size to try to compare teams from different conferences and almost all of those non-conference games are 2-3 months before the tournament. And a more objective system would bring some added excitement to both non-conference games and late season conference play.

Teams should never be prevented from making the tourney by the fact that their conference wasn't as good 2-3 years ago. How they pick the field now doesn't need to be changed. Putting limitations on a conference based on results of previous years is a removal of objectivity, not an addition.

 

[HFCS]

It really doesn't mean anything at all. Teams get breaks in their match ups and suddenly it means that the conference was better than people thought? Nope.

There's really nothing that can drawn from tourney results about conference quality. Once the tourney starts, it's all about individual/team match ups and who gets buckets and stops.

People see seeds as data that can be tabulated and analyzed. That's in our nature. But we make data "say" things that it really don't mean all time time. That's unfortunately also in our nature.

A contrarian KU fan is probably the most annoying non criminal person I can think of so agree to disagree that all four teams from one conference all wildly outplaying their seeds in the same year is completely meaningless chance and not indicative of their league being a little better than most thought.

 

[randomfan44]

A contrarian KU fan is probably the most annoying non criminal person I can think of so agree to disagree that all four teams from one conference all wildly outplaying their seeds in the same year is completely meaningless chance and not indicative of their league being a little better than most thought.

Meh, being a slave to the numbers removes any objectivity to the situations involved behind the numbers. It ignores the fact that Carolina had a new coach with a new system and that resulted in Carolina losing the majority of their resume building non con games. They are far better right now than the seed they earned not because the ACC was "better than we thought" but because of their coaching situation and the impact that had on their resume building opportunities. That doesn't mean the ACC is better than perceived. It ignores the fact that overall, the ACC has much less strength to it this year, allowing teams like Miami to get their offense in order with numerous games against weaker opponents.

If anything, it seems like the data lends more credence to a theory that playing in a weaker conference in the regular season may help you be better prepared for tourney success than anything. Players aren't as beat up. There isn't as much tape on your team being scouted and played well. And you tend to earn lower seeds with less resume building opportunities which increases your ability to "overperform". As another stated here, only lower seeds can over perform in the tourney. That means that a conference with more lower seeded teams is much more likely to win out in an analysis of "which conferences overperformed based on their seeds". It's an analysis rooted in bias.

Like I said, a person can come to virtually any conclusion depending on what numbers they choose to pay attention to and what numbers they choose to ignore.

 

[HFCS]

Meh, being a slave to the numbers removes any objectivity to the situations involved behind the numbers. It ignores the fact that Carolina had a new coach with a new system and that resulted in Carolina losing the majority of their resume building non con games. They are far better right now than the seed they earned not because the ACC was "better than we thought" but because of their coaching situation and the impact that had on their resume building opportunities. That doesn't mean the ACC is better than perceived. It ignores the fact that overall, the ACC has much less strength to it this year, allowing teams like Miami to get their offense in order with numerous games against weaker opponents.

If anything, it seems like the data lends more credence to a theory that playing in a weaker conference in the regular season may help you be better prepared for tourney success than anything. Players aren't as beat up. There isn't as much tape on your team being scouted and played well. And you tend to earn lower seeds with less resume building opportunities which increases your ability to "overperform". As another stated here, only lower seeds can over perform in the tourney. That means that a conference with more lower seeded teams is much more likely to win out in an analysis of "which conferences overperformed based on their seeds". It's an analysis rooted in bias.

Like I said, a person can come to virtually any conclusion depending on what numbers they choose to pay attention to and what numbers they choose to ignore.

A person can even lie to themselves about basic rules of basketball like goal tending.

Personally I find it interesting what Pac 12 did last year vs their seeds. You don’t, so you can stop posting here and find another thread to spew faux intellectual contrarian garbage.

 

[Marcelason78]

....There's really nothing that can drawn from tourney results about conference quality. ....

At least Mountain West fans agree with you....

 

[HFCS]

At least Mountain West fans agree with you....

He’s not even fully reading most of what he replies to. It’s the contrarian way. Just being on an ISU board while his team prepares for Final Four is a sign of an extremely hopeless contrarian in itself.

If I did ever hang on a Ku or Iowa board it definitely wouldn’t be a day or two before an ISU final four game.

 

[dahliaclone]

Isn't SEC -7 not -6? Maybe I'm not adding things right.

 

[HFCS]

Isn't SEC -7 not -6? Maybe I'm not adding things right.

Corrected it. I’m sure some of our programming geniuses here could just pull data but I just look at bracket one team at a time and add as I go. Nothing as impressive as the guys here who create models that predict big 12 standings/tourney bracket in real time.

 

[trajanJ]

All you had to do was watch the games and it was pretty obvious the Big 12 was very good. All the teams won first round. ISU beat Wisconsin, Baylor played UNC to OT, TCU played Arizona to OT, UNC had to shoot 70% in the second half to beat Tech, KU reached the FF. Texas didn't look that great but they are leaving anyway and Houston did look good.

 

[CascadeClone]

@HFCS I like this exercise. Barttorvik has performance by team or seed or conference relative to seed. The metrics assign decimal expected wins vs real wins since every matchup isn't a binary 1 or -1. Assigning 1 expected win to a 1-seed in the first round is certainly different than assigning 1 expected win to an 8-seed in the first round.

Tourney Stats, PASE (Performance Against Seed Expectations) and PAKE

I use the individual coaches PASE as part of my brackets analysis. Guys who choke in the tournament tend to keep choking (cough cough Rick Barnes cough).

 

[randomfan44]

A person can even lie to themselves about basic rules of basketball like goal tending.

Personally I find it interesting what Pac 12 did last year vs their seeds. You don’t, so you can stop posting here and find another thread to spew faux intellectual contrarian garbage.

I find their performance interesting as well since I find just about everything to do with the tourney interesting. I just don't draw the conclusion that it meant that the PAC 12 was better than we thought. Because it wasn't. Some of their teams just performed better than their "expectation" given their seed is all.

This isn't meant to be contrarian just for the sake of it. I just get bothered by poor data analysis. Maybe it's because I spend a good chunk of my work day telling people "that isn't really what that set of data means".

 

[randomfan44]

@HFCS I like this exercise. Barttorvik has performance by team or seed or conference relative to seed. The metrics assign decimal expected wins vs real wins since every matchup isn't a binary 1 or -1. Assigning 1 expected win to a 1-seed in the first round is certainly different than assigning 1 expected win to an 8-seed in the first round.

Tourney Stats, PASE (Performance Against Seed Expectations) and PAKE

The PASE and PAKE stats highlight exactly what I was talkign about. Stats like that are skewed to favor one bid leagues as well as leagues who get a lot of lower seeds. There is little chance for #1 seeds to perform well above their seed if the expectation is to always get to the Final Four. Whereas a lower ranked team can have one hot game or one lucky break in the bracket and perform well above the expectation from a statistical standpoint.

 

[PSYclone22]

The PASE and PAKE stats highlight exactly what I was talkign about. Stats like that are skewed to favor one bid leagues as well as leagues who get a lot of lower seeds. There is little chance for #1 seeds to perform well above their seed if the expectation is to always get to the Final Four. Whereas a lower ranked team can have one hot game or one lucky break in the bracket and perform well above the expectation from a statistical standpoint.

If PASE and PAKE stats are skewed to favor one-bid leagues, then PASE and PAKE should be above 0 for non-power (ACC | B10 | B12 | BigEast | P12 | SEC) leagues.

The data below shows a much different story. They're basically zero with a very bad year in 2019.

The top 2 leagues in PASE over the 10 tournaments from 2011-2021 were the SEC and the Pac-12.

Non-Major Conferences	PAKE	PASE
2018​	1​	1.6​
2019​	-4.2​	-5.2​
2021​	0.5​	-0.5​

 

[randomfan44]

If PASE and PAKE stats are skewed to favor one-bid leagues, then PASE and PAKE should be above 0 for non-power (ACC | B10 | B12 | BigEast | P12 | SEC) leagues.

The data below shows a much different story. They're basically zero with a very bad year in 2019.

The top 2 leagues in PASE over the 10 tournaments from 2011-2021 were the SEC and the Pac-12.

Non-Major Conferences	PAKE	PASE
2018​	1​	1.6​
2019​	-4.2​	-5.2​
2021​	0.5​	-0.5​

Third in PAKE from 2016-2021 was the Missouri Valley. 4th was Conference USA, 6th was the West Coast Conference.

The Big 12, despite having 3 different teams make the Final Four, was 17th.

Second in PASE from 2016-2021 was the Missouri Valley. 4th was the West Coast Conference. 5th was Conference USA.

The Big 12, despite having 3 different teams make the Final Four, was 28th.

Not sure what conclusions there are to draw from that data other than "huh, OK".

 

[PSYclone22]

Third in PAKE from 2016-2021 was the Missouri Valley. 4th was Conference USA, 6th was the West Coast Conference.

The Big 12, despite having 3 different teams make the Final Four, was 17th.

Second in PASE from 2016-2021 was the Missouri Valley. 4th was the West Coast Conference. 5th was Conference USA.

The Big 12, despite having 3 different teams make the Final Four, was 28th.

Not sure what conclusions there are to draw from that data other than "huh, OK".

Which is very different than:

"Stats like that (PASE and PAKE) are skewed to favor one bid leagues."

PAKE and PASE are fine stats to show who is under- or over-performing their metrics or seed. Regardless of conference.