| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
 Posted: 03/19/19 8:18 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
Notes
The 1982 tournament is not included, as a few ranked teams played in the final AIAW tournament instead
NIT means Not In Tournament. Those teams may or may not have played in the actual NIT.
The rows don't add up the same because their have been ties in the poll and because the AP Poll was only 20 places until 1990.
The columns don't add up because we've had unranked teams seeded as high as a #3.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63763
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/19 9:37 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| What was the #10 AP that got a #1 seed?
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/19 10:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
| What was the #10 AP that got a #1 seed? |
Tennessee in 1983
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63763
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/19 10:28 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| What was the #10 AP that got a #1 seed? |
Tennessee in 1983 |
Figures!
How’d they do in that tournament?
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
Coyotes
Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 1467
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/19 10:37 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| What was the #10 AP that got a #1 seed? |
Tennessee in 1983 |
Figures!
How’d they do in that tournament? |
They lost to Georgia in the regional finals, 67-63. Georgia proceeded to lose to the eventual national champions USC in the Final Four. Tennessee did take triple overtime to beat Mississippi in the regional semifinals.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/19 8:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
More notes
The highest any unranked team has been seeded is #3, which happened once. Oregon got a #3 seed in 1984. Seven unranked teams have gotten #4 seeds, most recently Michigan State in 1991.
As you can see, four ranked teams have been left out of the tournament. All came before the field expanded to 64 teams. The last one was #23 Hawaii in 1993.
The two teams that were ranked #1 in the poll but didn't get a #1 seed were Texas in 1984 and Stanford in 2005. The committee proved smarter than the pollsters both times, as each of them was eliminated before the F4 by a #1 seed.
This the second consecutive year that the #2 team in the poll got a #2 seed. Last year Baylor was #2 in the final AP Poll.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/19 9:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I actually think reducing the number of teams would make sense. Have a play-in round for all the 13-16 teams...or even 9-16. I know this will never happen, but still I think it. It would give some of the lower seeds a chance to at least win a game.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/21/19 5:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| I actually think reducing the number of teams would make sense. Have a play-in round for all the 13-16 teams...or even 9-16. I know this will never happen, but still I think it. It would give some of the lower seeds a chance to at least win a game. |
I suspect many would agree that reducing the number of teams would make sense. But I equally expect that most will agree this is not likely to happen due to political considerations.
I do like the play-in option and I will get to that in more detail shortly.
If you think about why you might want fewer teams, two reasons come to mind.
One reason is that there are some teams that just don't seem qualified to be playing in such a tournament. A second reason, which is related to the first, is that the usual way of playing a 64 game tournament is to have the one versus 16, two versus 15 etc. in the first round. Many of these games are unwatchable.
The problem with cutting down the field is that if you list the teams who didn't deserve to be in the tournament based upon their ability, you would largely be talking about conference tournament winners. Perhaps a few of the weaker at-large teams but the majority of the unwatchable games involve conference tournament winners. For political reasons, I think it's a nonstarter to suggest eliminating any of those teams from the invitation. After all, the original (men's)tournament included only the conference winners, and then the field expanded with the addition of at-large teams. Eliminating a conference tournament winner seems untenable.
That said, one could invite them to the tournament but reformat the schedule so that some of these teams effectively are in play-in games.
I've put together a proposal which would involve all 64 teams. The top 16 teams get a double bye, the next 16 a single bye, and the bottom 32 play amongst themselves in the first round. (More details on request if anyone cares.)
I did a mathematical analysis showing that under an double by format, we would have more upsets, and more importantly, many more gains would be close.
I wrote this up in a letter to Val Ackerman a few years ago, which should be available at the following link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f37CHXqp32-ujvduHmOldgJWkpUZcwA6KeyZUZLnN9M/edit?usp=sharing
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/19 11:38 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Case in point
I've been counting down the days, the hours, and the minutes until this tournament starts and then we get Louisville - Robert Morris?
No offense to either team, but Louisville's frankly not playing all that well and they are still up 21-4. It's no longer watchable.
Wouldn't we all be better off if Robert Morris was playing (9 seed) Kansas State? Kansas State probably wins that game but at least it has a fighting chance of being an interesting game.
With a double bye tournament Robert Morris would be playing Kansas State right now, and it might be worth watching.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/19 12:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| The only problem with the bye/double bye thing is that seeding, which is already political, becomes too important. People whine about seeds now when all it affects is your path to the title. Ultimately teams still have to win six games regardless of where they're seeded. You're proposing the committee be in charge of giving some teams an actual advantage. That's asking for favoritism, cronyism, and corruption (to say nothing of the committee's questionable competence in the first place).
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
CBiebel
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 1055
Location: PA
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/19 2:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
As you can see, four ranked teams have been left out of the tournament. All came before the field expanded to 64 teams. The last one was #23 Hawaii in 1993.
|
I was going to say that ND in 1991 (my senior year) was one of them, but before I did I double checked and apparently my memory isn't quite accurate on that score (although it was close).
ND was #22 in the last week of the regular season, but lost 79-76 at Dayton before the MCC tournament, which knocked them out of the rankings (They had spent most of the season ranked after beating #11 La Tech at the end of Dec that year and stayed in the rankings all season up until the week of their conference tournament). ND did win the MCC Tournament, but that conference (now the Horizon) didn't have an automatic bid that year. That year was the first year the program had been ranked.
And as a nice ironic twist, the following year was ND's only losing season under McGraw, but they ended up winning the MCC Tournament and the NCAA decided that year to give the MCC conference a bid, so ND's first NCAA Tournament bid was during a losing season (14-17).
|
|
CBiebel
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 1055
Location: PA
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 2864
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/15/21 7:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| This is fascinating, and I certainly have thoughts. Just pointing out though that Ohio State is banned from the post-season this year which explains why they didn't make the field.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/17/21 9:11 am ::: |
Reply |
|
How have teams ranked #6 in the polls done when getting a #1 seed?
The first #6 team to get a #1 seed was Virginia in 1986. As you all know, they lost at home in the second round to James Madison.
Next was Stanford in 1993. They lost in the regional semis to Colorado.
After that came Vanderbilt in 1995. The lost to Purdue in the regional semis.
Then was Texas Tech in 1998. They lost at home in the second round to Notre Dame.
The last one was Duke in 2009. They lost in the second round to Michigan State.
Five times a team ranked #6 in the polls got a #1 seed and all five got upset before the Elite 8. Most didn't even reach the Sweet 16. Not a good omen for South Carolina fans.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/18/21 11:42 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Nice research, thanks
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/14/23 2:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Thanks
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/14/23 4:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Pilight, who was the 10th ranked team that got a 1 seed? |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/14/23 4:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Pilight, who was the 10th ranked team that got a 1 seed? |
Tennessee in 1983
The seeds have generally matched the poll much more closely than they did the first few years of the tournament.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/14/23 7:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Pilight, who was the 10th ranked team that got a 1 seed? |
Tennessee in 1983
|
They made but lost to Georgia in the E8. |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/24 5:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Fairfield is an anomaly.
There was a concerted campaign, perhaps in many social media places but I saw it in X, lobbying for a ranking. Voters apparently were swayed, and it didn't hurt that the coach is Mike Thibault daughter.
|
|
|
|
