#10 Texas A&M. Met no "yes" and no "no" standards. This made it a #3 seed candidate.
#15 Virginia. Met no "yes" and no "no" standards. This made it a #3 seed candidate.
#18 South Carolina. Met no "yes" and no "no" standards. This made it a #3 seed candidate.
#12 Santa Clara. Met 12 "yes" and 2 "no" standards. As I wrote about the #2 seeds, this means Santa Clara had a profile, in relation to seeding, that the Committee has not 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" #3 seed is a score of <=1, which means the team is ranked #1 for Top 50 Results. Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."
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" #3 seed is >=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 #3 seed "yes."
Yes Standard 29: This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Rank. The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is <=13.0. Santa Clara's ARPI Rank was 12 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 1, together producing a score of 13.0, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."
Yes Standard 38: This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Score. The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=181770. Santa Clara's ANCRPI Rating was .6299 and its Top 50 Results Score was 33288, together producing a score of 185583, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."
Yes Standard 39: This is a paired factor standard using a team's ANCRPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank. The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=2.5762. Santa Clara's ANCRPI Rating was .6299 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 1, together producing a score of 3.1756, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."
Yes Standard 48: This is a paired factor standard using a team's ANCRPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Rank. The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is <=21.20. 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 #3 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" #3 seed is >=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 #3 seed "yes."
Yes Standard 61: This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Score and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score. The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=42328. Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Score was 33288 and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Score was 3.55, together producing a score of 44825, which resulted in a #3 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" #3 seed is >=3.8891. Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1 and its Conference ARPI was .5239, together producing a score of 3.94338, which resulted in a #3 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" #3 seed is >=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 #3 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" #3 seed is >=14.6882. Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score was 3.55, together producing a score of 25.2500, which resulted in a #3 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 (for which I use, as a surrogate, poor results). The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=30.0000. Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1 and its Last Eight Games Results score was 0, together producing a score of 33.0000, which resulted in a #3 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" #3 seed is a score of <=0.5264. Santa Clara's Conference ARPI was .5239, which resulted in a #3 seed "no."
No Standard 80: This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Rank. The standard for a "no" #3 seed is <=3.0268. 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 #3 seed "no."
As was the case with Santa Clara for a #2 seed, it had excellent Top 50 Results at a level that historically always has gotten a #3 seed. On the other hand, its Conference ARPI is at a level where a team from the conference never has gotten a #3 seed. The Committee did not give Santa Clara a #2 seed, apparently deciding that its conference's relatively poor rating and rank outweighed its excellent Top 50 Results. For a #3 seed, however, the Committee went the other way, apparently deciding that at the #3 seed level, Santa Clara's excellent Top 50 Results were sufficient to outweigh its conference's rating.
#8 Southern California. Met 7 "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" #3 seed is >=3.8980. Southern California's 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 #3 seed "yes."
Yes Standard 45: This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank. The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=2.3429. Southern California's ANCRPI Rating was .6561 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 3, together producing a score of 2.4330, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."
Yes Standard 54: This is a paired factor standard using a team's ANCRPI Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank. The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is <=25.4. Southern California's ANCRPI Rank was 14 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 3, together producing a score of 24.8, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."
Yes 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 "yes" #3 seed is >=14.4498. Southern California's Conference ARPI was .5810 and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score was 1.18, together producing a score of 14.5452, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."
Yes 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 "yes" #3 seed is >=76.4432. Southern California's Conference ARPI was .5810 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score was 6.26, together producing a score of 76.5663, which resulted in a #3 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" #3 seed is >=3.5198. 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 #3 seed "yes."
Yes Standard 80: This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank. The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is <=13.2. Southern California's Conference Rank was 4 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 3, together producing a score of 11.4, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."
Thus over the last 11 years, every team with Southern California's profile got a #3 seed. So, the Committee broke with its historic pattern in giving seeds to three other teams that met no "yes" and no "no" standards.
#11 Duke. Met 1 "yes" standard and no "no" standards.
Here is the "yes" standard Duke met:
Yes 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 "yes" #3 seed is <=13.2. Duke's Conference Rank was 3 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 6, together producing a score of 12.3, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."
Over the last 11 years, every team with Duke's profile got a #3 seed. So, the Committee broke with its historic pattern in giving seeds to three other teams that met no "yes" and no "no" standards.
#13 Texas. Met 4 "yes" standards and no "no" standards.
Here are the "yes" standards Texas met:
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" #3 seed is >=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 #3 seed "yes."
Yes Standard 38: This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Score. The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=181770. Texas' ANCRPI Rating was .6872 and its Top 50 Results Score was 30417, together producing a score of 184358, which resulted in a #3 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" #3 seed is >=2.5762. Texas' ANCRPI Rating was .6872 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 2, together producing a score of 2.6972, which resulted in a #3 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" #3 seed is <=21.20. Texas' ANCRPI Rank was 6 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 2, together producing a score of 13.2, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."
Over the last 11 years, every team with Texas' profile got a #3 seed. So, the Committee broke with its historic pattern in giving seeds to three other teams that met no "yes" and no "no" standards.
Summary. In summary, the Committee's decision to give #3 seeds to Texas A&M, Virginia, and South Carolina rather than to Southern California, Duke, and Texas is inconsistent with its decisions over the last 11 years. In relation to the factors the Committee is required to use for at large selections, the decision is questionable.
The Committee, however, unlike for at large selections, is not required to use the factors it's required to use for at large selections. In fact, it has a free hand and can ignore them if it wants.
Is there an explanation for the #3 seeds? I don't know what actually went on, but I see a possible explanation:
With its #1 through #3 seeds, here is how the Committee distributed those seeds among the top 4 conferences (I'm recognizing that according to the RPI, they were closely rated and significantly stronger than #5 Big Ten):
#1 Big 12: 2 seeds (both #2)
#2 SEC: 3 seeds (one #2 and two #3)
#3 ACC: 3 seeds (two #1 and one #3)
#4 Pac 12: 2 seeds (one #1 and one #2)
Suppose the Committee had followed its historic pattern and given #3 seeds to Southern California, Duke, and Texas rather than to Texas A&M, Virginia, and South Carolina. Here's how the Committee would have distributed the #1 through #3 seeds among the top 4 conferences:
#1 Big 12: 3 seeds (two #2 and one #3)
#2 SEC: 1 seed (one #2)
#3 ACC: 3 seeds (two #1 and one #3)
#4 Pac 12: 3 seeds (one #1, one #2, and one #3)
Regarding the ACC's Virginia getting a #3 seed rather than the ACC's Duke, there is a possible explanation: Virginia won its game against Duke, at Duke. Virginia also had a slightly better overall conference record: it finished 3rd in the conference regular season and got to the semi-finals of the ACC tournament for an average conference standing of 3.25. Duke finished 2nd in the conference regular season but lost in the quarter-finals of the ACC tournament for an average conference standing of 4.25.
Notwithstanding the Duke/Virginia exchange, however, which did not affect the above numbers, the seed distribution consistent with the last 11 years' Committee decisions might have appeared to disrespect the #2 SEC. So, perhaps the Committee was engaging in "seed balancing" among the top 4 conferences. Nothing in the Committee's rules prevents this. The potential problem, however, is that seed balancing may put teams in positions inconsistent with the positions they've earned over the course of the season.
No comments:
Post a Comment