Bracketology 2017

[KitchinDeac]

Unrelated topic. Why would Dayton ever feature anything but eight contenders for 15/16 seeds? For example, here's Lunardi's bracket (just because unfortunately it's the first name I thought of).

Isn't saying that USC/Xavier would be 12 seeds and that Wake/Ill. St. would be 11 seeds admitting that you believe they are stronger teams than, for example, 16 seeds South Dakota St. and Texas Southern? Why not send those two to Dayton and adjust the other teams accordingly?

I have difficulty reconciling "well, Wake is barely qualified to make the tourney, let's make them win a play-in game" with "Wake would be better than 20 teams (4x 12-16 seeds) in the field of 64." I know this happens every year; is it part of the selection rules? Is it just to bolster the odds of a Cinderella story? Am I just totally missing something?

ETA: I understand a lot of those lower seeds aren't considered stronger, but just got in through winning their tournament. But that doesn't change my question as to why weaker teams get to avoid the play-in round. You're not exempt if you win your tournament, are you? For example, Lunardi has Mount St. Mary's in a play-in game in that bracket, and they won the NEC.

TV money, ultimlately. NCAA wants the Tuesday games to create interest....they don't just want to put the 4 worst teams there.

 

[DeaconBrews]

It wasn't but that was also Nova's A game. I've watched probably 90% of villanova's games this year and, offensively at least, that was as impressive as I've seen them.

We had no answer to their perimeter offense. Always open and couldn't miss. Bad combo for us.

 

[RJKarl]

We're much better than we were when we played nova the first time

I feel like that fame was closer than the score

That "fame"?

Were you paying tribute to me?

They played a perfect game as well. As well as they moved the ball and shot that game, I doubt any college team could have beaten them that day. Those things happen.

 

[pourdeac]

How about a simple direct answer- if a team has played seven ranked teams and lost to all seven, and is playing another ranked team that was ranked as the second highest among those eight games, wouldn't beating that team be a "long shot"?

After all you have actual results not theoretical ones.

Rankings are subjective and therefore quite theoretical.

 

[SpringChicken]

TV money, ultimlately. NCAA wants the Tuesday games to create interest....they don't just want to put the 4 worst teams there.

I guess, but then you end up later on with more (relatively) bad teams playing (relatively) good teams, which I guess creates a potential for upsets but realistically results in more blowouts which are not too interesting. I assume you're right that it's the reason, though.

 

[wufu bufu]

Unrelated topic. Why would Dayton ever feature anything but eight contenders for 15/16 seeds? For example, here's Lunardi's bracket (just because unfortunately it's the first name I thought of).

Isn't saying that USC/Xavier would be 12 seeds and that Wake/Ill. St. would be 11 seeds admitting that you believe they are stronger teams than, for example, 16 seeds South Dakota St. and Texas Southern? Why not send those two to Dayton and adjust the other teams accordingly?

I have difficulty reconciling "well, Wake is barely qualified to make the tourney, let's make them win a play-in game" with "Wake would be better than 20 teams (4x 12-16 seeds) in the field of 64." I know this happens every year; is it part of the selection rules? Is it just to bolster the odds of a Cinderella story? Am I just totally missing something?

ETA: I understand a lot of those lower seeds aren't considered stronger, but just got in through winning their tournament. But that doesn't change my question as to why weaker teams get to avoid the play-in round. You're not exempt if you win your tournament, are you? For example, Lunardi has Mount St. Mary's in a play-in game in that bracket, and they won the NEC.

I, too, could never reconcile this. Seems counter-intuitive to any real seeding reasoning. Other than money.

 

[BarcaDeac]

Unrelated topic. Why would Dayton ever feature anything but eight contenders for 15/16 seeds? For example, here's Lunardi's bracket (just because unfortunately it's the first name I thought of).

Isn't saying that USC/Xavier would be 12 seeds and that Wake/Ill. St. would be 11 seeds admitting that you believe they are stronger teams than, for example, 16 seeds South Dakota St. and Texas Southern? Why not send those two to Dayton and adjust the other teams accordingly?

I have difficulty reconciling "well, Wake is barely qualified to make the tourney, let's make them win a play-in game" with "Wake would be better than 20 teams (4x 12-16 seeds) in the field of 64." I know this happens every year; is it part of the selection rules? Is it just to bolster the odds of a Cinderella story? Am I just totally missing something?

ETA: I understand a lot of those lower seeds aren't considered stronger, but just got in through winning their tournament. But that doesn't change my question as to why weaker teams get to avoid the play-in round. You're not exempt if you win your tournament, are you? For example, Lunardi has Mount St. Mary's in a play-in game in that bracket, and they won the NEC.

I'm not in favor of autobids in Dayton, because they officially earned their way into the field of 64. they did what they had to do. whereas if you're a weaker bubble team, you still have something to prove that you belong.

 

[SpringChicken]

I, too, could never reconcile this. Seems counter-intuitive to any real seeding reasoning. Other than money.

Yeah, the obvious thing from a seeding/competition perspective would be to say "here are the 68 teams who qualified via auto-bids and at-larges, and the 8 lowest seeds are going to Dayton to play for the four 16 seed spots."

I'm wondering if there is anything in the official rules that requires the current method, or if it's just an unwritten understanding that you take some 11/12 seeds and send them to Dayton.

 

[PalmettoDeac19]

I guess, but then you end up later on with more (relatively) bad teams playing (relatively) good teams, which I guess creates a potential for upsets but realistically results in more blowouts which are not too interesting. I assume you're right that it's the reason, though.

The play-in games actually benefit major conference bubble teams though. They make four automatic qualifiers play each other for two spots, which frees up two spots for at large teams in addition to the two extra slots for the 11 and 12 seed play-in games. Your main problem is with automatic qualifiers in general. If it was just the 16 seeds playing in the play-in games that would mean four automatic qualifiers would be eliminated before the field of 64. Personally that doesn't bother me but I can see the committee not wanting to give four conference champs the shaft to benefit major conference bubble teams further.

 

[SpringChicken]

I'm not in favor of autobids in Dayton, because they officially earned their way into the field of 64. they did what they had to do. whereas if you're a weaker bubble team, you still have something to prove that you belong.

I would understand that being a rule (although I would somewhat disagree with whether it's justified). But, it's not (unless Joey Brackets done goofed). In that case, I don't know why some 16 seed auto-bid teams are worthy of exemption and others aren't.

 

[thatguy2016]

Yeah, the obvious thing from a seeding/competition perspective would be to say "here are the 68 teams who qualified via auto-bids and at-larges, and the 8 lowest seeds are going to Dayton to play for the four 16 seed spots."

I'm wondering if there is anything in the official rules that requires the current method, or if it's just an unwritten understanding that you take some 11/12 seeds and send them to Dayton.

I believe the official rules state that 4 of the play-in teams will be the lowest 4 auto qualifiers, while the other 4 play-in teams will be the lowest 4 at-large bids.

Thus in theory if LSU wins the SEC, they will not be in Dayton as they are better than the weakest 4 auto qualifiers, even though they would still be regarded as worse than the worst at-large team.

 

[wufu bufu]

The play-in games actually benefit major conference bubble teams though. They make four automatic qualifiers play each other for two spots, which frees up two spots for at large teams in addition to the two extra slots for the 11 and 12 seed play-in games. Your main problem is with automatic qualifiers in general. If it was just the 16 seeds playing in the play-in games that would mean four automatic qualifiers would be eliminated before the field of 64. Personally that doesn't bother me but I can see the committee not wanting to give four conference champs the shaft to benefit major conference bubble teams further.

Why wouldn't they seed all the automatic qualifiers where they believe they fit, 1 - 16, and then slot all remaining at large teams in, and give the play-in game to the lowest possible seeds that are not automatic qualifiers?

 

[wsc8521s]

Yeah, the obvious thing from a seeding/competition perspective would be to say "here are the 68 teams who qualified via auto-bids and at-larges, and the 8 lowest seeds are going to Dayton to play for the four 16 seed spots."

I'm wondering if there is anything in the official rules that requires the current method, or if it's just an unwritten understanding that you take some 11/12 seeds and send them to Dayton.

I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but the last four at-larges and the worst four auto-bid teams get sent to Dayton (with some wiggle room due to scheduling)

 

[deacdiggler]

100% agree that if anyone should be "playing in" it should be the bubble teams, since that way there are fewer teams bitching about getting left out.

 

[SpringChicken]

The play-in games actually benefit major conference bubble teams though. They make four automatic qualifiers play each other for two spots, which frees up two spots for at large teams in addition to the two extra slots for the 11 and 12 seed play-in games. Your main problem is with automatic qualifiers in general. If it was just the 16 seeds playing in the play-in games that would mean four automatic qualifiers would be eliminated before the field of 64. Personally that doesn't bother me but I can see the committee not wanting to give four conference champs the shaft to benefit major conference bubble teams further.

There are 68 spots in the tournament, so it doesn't help the major bubble teams that they aren't sending the 8 lowest seeds to play-in. I actually like that there are auto-bids...it keeps a technical chance for the dance for anyone all year until the conference tournaments. I just feel that once you're there and the committee has said "from the 68, these teams are better than these teams," then the worse teams should have to play-in.

 

[SpringChicken]

I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but the last four at-larges and the worst four auto-bid teams get sent to Dayton (with some wiggle room due to scheduling)

Thank you; I did not realize this at all. That's a rule (with wiggle room) for the selection committee? I disagree with it for the reasons I've said, but at least that explains why it happens...

 

[deacdiggler]

once you win your conference tournament, I think you have earned the right to a shot at the big boys, no matter how shitty you are. I think the last 8 at large teams should be in the playin games if we're going to have them.

 

[PalmettoDeac19]

Why wouldn't they seed all the automatic qualifiers where they believe they fit, 1 - 16, and then slot all remaining at large teams in, and give the play-in game to the lowest possible seeds that are not automatic qualifiers?

The thing is the the bottom 8 teams will almost always be small conference champs. In your scenario above all the play-in games would be for 11 or 12 seeds since that's usually as low as at large teams get seeded. Just goes back to the argument of whether the tournament should be for the actual 64/68 best teams in America or all the conference champs plus the remaining 30 or so best remaining teams.

 

[wufu bufu]

The thing is the the bottom 8 teams will almost always be small conference champs. In your scenario above all the play-in games would be for 11 or 12 seeds since that's usually as low as at large teams get seeded. Just goes back to the argument of whether the tournament should be for the actual 64/68 best teams in America or all the conference champs plus the remaining 30 or so best remaining teams.

With some revision of the conference championship format for some of these smaller conferences, I think that's exactly the way it should be.

Or just go back to round of 64 and ditch the whole play-in game concept.

 

[SpringChicken]

The thing is the the bottom 8 teams will almost always be small conference champs. In your scenario above all the play-in games would be for 11 or 12 seeds since that's usually as low as at large teams get seeded. Just goes back to the argument of whether the tournament should be for the actual 64/68 best teams in America or all the conference champs plus the remaining 30 or so best remaining teams.

Yes, it also depends what you consider the Dayton round to be. I know the NCAA considers it part of the tournament and hates it being called a "play-in" round. I have no problem saying that even the lowliest of conference champs gets to vie for a national championship, but the weakest 8 teams (out of all auto-bids and at-larges) just have to win one more game to get there.