NCAA tourney, overseeded & underseeded

[alarson]

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".

It's also hard to make blanket statements about tournament performance in general. Sometimes a conference was underseeded or overseeded as a whole. I think the big 12 was a bit underseeded and the big 10 overseeded. Sometimes it's more unique to individual teams. And some teams, especially teams with a lot of new talent that has to gel, are always going to be likely to over perform their seed because their seed is based on a full seasons resume, where they're much more likely to have a wider gap between where they are now than where they were in nov-jan