2018 NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKET ANALYSIS: #2 SEEDS

The Committee's #2 seeds are #5 Baylor, #6 West Virginia, #7 UCLA, and #9 Tennessee.  I'll start with them and then do #8 Southern California, #11 Duke, #12 Santa Clara, and #13 Texas.

#5 Baylor.  Met 5 "yes" #2 seed standards and no "no" standards.

Here are the "yes" standards Baylor met:

Yes Standard 21:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=4.6303.  Baylor's ARPI Rating was .6654 and its Conference Rank was 1, together producing a score of 4.6596, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."  It's worth noting that not everyone agrees that the Big Twelve was the #1 conference.  It did, however, have the best average ARPI.  In that respect, it's also worth noting that Massey has the Big Twelve as the #2 conference behind the Pac 12 and barely ahead of the ACC.  In my opinion, Massey's are the best ratings for Division I Women's Soccer.

Yes Standard 25:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Last Eight Game Results (poor results over the course of the season is my surrogate for Last Eight Games Results).  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=120.4348.  Baylor's ARPI Rating was .6654 and its Last Eight Games Results score was 0 (no poor results), together producing a score of 122.0988 which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 32:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score <=8.2.  Baylor's ARPI Rank was 5 and its Conference Rank was 1, together producing a score of 7.1, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 83:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=25.9048.  Baylor's Conference Rank was 1 and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Score was 4.23, together producing a score of 26.2273, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 84:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score <=10.3.  Baylor's Conference Rank was 1 and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Rank was 8, together producing a score of 10.1, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

#6 West Virginia.  Met 3 "yes" standards and no "no" standards.

Here are the "yes" standards West Virginia met:

Yes Standard 32:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score <=8.2.  West Virginia's ARPI Rank was 6 and its Conference Rank was 1, together producing a score of 8.1, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 83:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=25.9048.  West Virginia's Conference Rank was 1 and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Score was 4.43, together producing a score of 26.4286, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 84:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score <=10.3.  West Virginia's Conference Rank was 1 and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Rank was 7, together producing a score of 9.1, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

#7 UCLA.  Met no "yes" standards and no "no" standards.  This made it a legitimate #2 seed candidate.

#9 Tennessee.  Met no "yes" standards and 3 "no" standards.

Here are the "no" standards Tennessee met:

No Standard 57:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Score and its Conference Standing.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=22096.  Tennessee's Top 50 Results Score was 3066 and its Conference Standing was 4.25 (the average of its #2 regular season finish in the SEC and its #6.5 finish -- quarter-final loss -- in the SEC tournament), together producing a score of 21184, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 64:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Rank and its Conference Standing.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score >=46.8.  Tennessee's Top 50 Results Rank was 26 and its Conference Standing was 4.25, together producing a score of 51.08, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 76:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Standing and its Last Eight Games Results.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=5.5455.  Tennessee's Conference Standing was 4.25 and its Last Eight Games Results score was -3 (tie with #126 Georgia), together producing a score of 5.4706, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

All of Tennessee's "no" standards involved its conference standing (regular season and tournament combined).  The SEC was the ARPI #2 ranked conference.  The Committee apparently did not give much weight to where it finished in the conference standings.  This suggests, as appears to have been the case with Florida State getting a #1 seed, that for highly ranked conferences, the Committee didn't give much weight to poor conference standings.  It's worth noting, in relation to this, that the top 3 conferences were very close in their average ARPI ratings:  Big Twelve .5896, SEC .5879, and ACC .5858.  The Pac 12 was fourth with .5810.  After that, there was a big drop to the Big 10 with .5554.

If the Committee indeed assigned little weight to where Tennessee finished in its conference standings, it could have seen Tennessee as in the same boat as UCLA with no "yes" and no "no" standards.

#8 Southern California.  Met 2 "yes" standards and no "no" standards.

Here are the "yes" standards Southern California met:

Yes Standard 24:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=3.9582.  Southern California's Top ARPI Rating was .6485 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 3, together producing a score of 3.9649, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 80:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=3.5775.  Southern California's Conference ARPI was .5810 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 3, together producing a score of 3.5870, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

The Committee did not give Southern California a #2 seed (indeed, did not even give it a #3 seed).  UCLA had a head to head win over Southern California, which may account for the Committee preferring UCLA as between the two of them.  The Committee's preferring Tennessee over Southern California for a #2 seed, however, appears to be inconsistent with the Committee's seeding over the last 11 years.

#11 Duke.  Met no "yes" standards and no "no" standards.

#12 Santa Clara.  Met 9 "yes" and 16 "no" standards.  Santa Clara clearly presented the Committee with a profile it hasn't seen over the last 11 years.

Here are the "yes" standards Santa Clara met:

Yes Standard 6:  This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score of <=1, meaning that the team is ranked #1 for Top 50 Results.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."  The Top 50 Results looks at teams' positive results -- wins and ties -- against teams ranked in the ARPI Top 50, with the scoring very heavily weighted towards good results against very highly ranked opponents.  Santa Clara's games under this factor were tie v #1 Stanford, win v #3 North Carolina, win v #19 TCU, and win v #33 North Texas.

Yes Standard 18:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=4.0092.  Santa Clara's ARPI Rating was .6383 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 1, together producing a score of 4.5744, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 39:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=2.5762.  Santa Clara's ANCRPI Rating was .6799 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 1, together producing a score of 3.1756, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 48:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score <=17.80.  Santa Clara's ANCRPI Rank was 8 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 1, together producing a score of 11.6, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 56:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Score and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=74864.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Score was 33288 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 1, together producing a score of 103288, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 65:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Rank and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=3.8891.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1 and its Conference ARPI was .5329 (#8 rank), together producing a score of 3.9388, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 67:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Rank and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=2.8000.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1 and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score was 0.14, together producing a score of 4.2429, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 68:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=14.6882.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score was 3.55 (rank #11), together producing a score of 25.2500, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 70:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Rank and its Last Eight Games Results.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=30.0000.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1 and its Last Eight Games Results score was 0 (no bad results), together producing a score of 33.0000, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Here are the "no" standards Santa Clara met:

No Standard 8:  This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score of <=.5322, meaning that over the last 11 years no team from a conference with an average ARPI less than .5322 has received a #2 seed.  Santa Clara's Conference ARPI was .5329, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 20:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=1.2005.  Santa Clara's ARPI Rating was .6383 and its Conference ARPI was .5329, together producing a score of 1.1622, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 21:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=3.7363.  Santa Clara's ARPI Rating was .6383 and its Conference Rank was 8, together producing a score of 3.6356, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 31:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=3.2112.  Santa Clara's ARPI Rank was 12 and its Conference Rating was .5329, together producing a score of 3.0171, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 32:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score >=22.1.  Santa Clara's ARPI Rank was 12 and its Conference Rank was 8, together producing a score of 28.8, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 41:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=1.6318.  Santa Clara's ANCRPI Rating was .6799 and its Conference ARPI was .5329, together producing a score of 1.6229, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 50:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=3.1842.  Santa Clara's ANCRPI Rank was 8 and its Conference ARPI was .5329, together producing a score of 3.0588, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 51:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score >=68.5.  Santa Clara's ANCRPI Rank was 8 and its Conference Rank was 8, together producing a score of 69.6, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 77:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=3.0599.  Santa Clara's Conference ARPI was .5239 and its Conference Rank was 8, together producing a score of 3.0064, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 78:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=13.2588.  Santa Clara's Conference ARPI was .5239 and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score was 0.14, together producing a score of 12.1922, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 79:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=69.2383.  Santa Clara's Conference ARPI was .5239 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score was 3.55, together producing a score of 66.9402, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 80:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=3.1542.  Santa Clara's Conference ARPI was .5239 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 11, together producing a score of 3.0247, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 81:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Last Eight Games Results Score.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=96.4900.  Santa Clara's Conference ARPI was .5239 and its Last Eight Games Results Score was 0, together producing a score of 94.8324, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 82:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=1.1792.  Santa Clara's Conference Rank was 8 and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score was 0.14, together producing a score of 0.6554, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 83:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=6.7500.  Santa Clara's Conference Rank was 8 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score was 3.55, together producing a score of 6.3000, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 84:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score >=26.5.  Santa Clara's Conference Rank was 8 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 11, together producing a score of 27.8, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

Although these are a lot of standards, the message seems clear.  Santa Clara was a #2 seed based on its Top 50 Results Rank of #1; but it was not a #2 seed based on its Conference Rank of #8, especially given its Conference Standing of #2.  The Committee had to decide which has greater weight.  The Committee appears to have decided that Santa Clara's Conference Rank, especially with its Conference Standing, was too poor to give it a #2 seed, notwithstanding Top 50 Results.

#13 Texas.  Met 3 "yes" standards and 3 "no" standards.

Yes Standard 18:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=4.0092.  Texas' ARPI Rating was .6345 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 2, together producing a score of 4.0531, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 39:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=2.5762.  Texas' ANCRPI Rating was .6872 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 2, together producing a score of 2.6992, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 48:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score <=17.8.  Texas' ANCRPI Rank was 6 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 2, together producing a score of 13.2, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

No Standard 33:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=.3417.  Texas' ARPI Rank was 13 and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score was 0.00, together producing a score of .3154, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 34:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Score.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=3.8095.  Texas' ARPI Rank was 13 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score was 1.60, together producing a score of 3.2923, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 35:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Rank.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score >=27.  Texas' ARPI Rank was 13 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 19, together producing a score of 32, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

For Texas, the Committee had a clear conflict between excellent Texas' Top 50 Results and its #13 ARPI Rank.  Further, with Texas scoring 0.00 in its Top 60 Head to Head Results, notwithstanding its good results against Top 50 teams, there's a strong suggestion that Texas was inconsistent.  Texas' good results against Top 50 teams were: tie v #3 North Carolina, win v #5 Baylor, win v #23 Kansas, and win v #37 Long Beach State.  On the other hand, its other results against Top 60 teams were: tie v #54 Oklahoma State, loss v #34 Texas Tech, loss v #19 TCU, and loss v #6 West Virginia (twice).  It appears the Committee gave greater weight to Texas' ARPI Rank -- and everything that went with it -- than to its positive results against Top 50 teams.

Looking at the #2 seeds as a whole, the Committee's picks of Baylor and West Virginia seem obvious.  Southern California also seems obvious and, after that, either of UCLA or Duke would have been a relatively easy pick.  The Committee, however, did not pick Southern California.  It did pick UCLA, but it did not pick Duke.  Instead, it picked Tennessee.  In relation to the Committee's past decisions, the pick of Tennessee is a departure, with the Committee apparently giving little weight to Tennessee's conference standing (#4.25, which is the average of its #2 regular season conference standing and its #6.5 conference tournament standing) and giving a lot of weight to the SEC's #2 Conference Rank.  This is as compared to Duke's identical #4.25 conference standing and the ACC's #3 Conference Rank; and Southern California's #3 conference standing and the Pac 12's #4 Conference Rank.  While the Committee's decision perhaps is defensible, it is not consistent with the Committee's history of decisions.

Regarding Santa Clara's not getting a #2 seed, it's pretty clear that the Committee considered Santa Clara's #2 Conference Standing put together with its #8 Conference Rank to disqualify it from a #2 seed, no matter how good its Top 50 Results.

In summary, the #2 seeds seem to indicate that the Committee gave a great deal of weight to a team's Conference Rank as compared to a team's Conference Standing.  This matches with twhat seems to have been the case with the Committee's giving Florida State a #1 seed.