For the #2 seeds, according to my computer there were 3 clear teams to get the seeds:
South Carolina met 14 "yes" standards and 1 "no" standard. I'll cover the "no" standard below.
UCLA met 3 "yes" standards and 0 "no" standards.
Southern California met 3 "yes" standards and 0 "no" standards.
The Committee and my computer agreed, all 3 of these got #2 seeds.
As was the case with the #1 seeds, however, there was not an obvious fourth #2 seed. According to my computer there were 4 candidates for that spot:
Kansas, meeting 0 "yes" standards and 1 "no."
Oklahoma State, meeting 0 "yes" standards and 2 "no."
Arkansas, meeting 0 "yes" standards and 6 "no."
BYU, meeting 0 "yes" standards and 10 "no."
Doing a detailed review of each team and its "no" standards is tedious, but in this case it proved instructive on what the Committee seemed to think was important, so I'll go through a full review.
But first comes South Carolina's "no" #2 seed standard.
South Carolina
South Carolina met 1 "no" standard for a #2 seed:
Non-Conference RPI Rank (Standard #4)
The "no" #2 seed standard for this is >=35.
South Carolina's Non-Conference RPI Rank was #38. According to the Committee's pattern, this meant it would not get a #2 seed. South Carolina also, however, met 14 "yes" standards, so it gave the Committee a profile it hasn't seen over the last 12 years.
When I change the standard to >=39, which I will have to do to accommodate South Carolina's having gotten a #2 seed, there will be 33 teams that historically were in the "no" #2 seed group that now will not be in that group. That 33 is out of the 720 Top 60 teams over the last 12 years.
One of the things I measure is how important each standard appears to be in the Committee's decisions. I measure this by counting how many teams for each decision category -- #1 seeds, #2 seeds, ..., at large selections -- have a "yes" or a "no" for that standard. If no or few teams have a "yes" or "no," it means teams in the decision category have a wide range of scores for the standard. That, in turn, means that the Committee can't be making much use of that standard when making decisions. This is the case with teams' Non-Conference RPIs and Ranks. Ordinarily, the numbers say, they just aren't that important. (This is true, notwithstanding that Florida State's #1 Non-Conference RPI Rank may have played a part in its getting the fourth #1 seed.) And, in the case of South
Carolina, the Committee was willing to give it a #2 seed notwithstanding its #38 NCRPI Rank.
Kansas
Kansas met 0 "yes" standards and 1 "no." Here is its "no" standard:
RPI Rating and Top 50 Results Score (Standard #17)
The "no" #2 seed score for the standard is <=254,481.
Kansas' RPI was .6414 and its Top 50 Results Score was 2,410, giving it a score for this standard of 254,467. This is just below the "no" standard. If Kansas had gotten a #2 seed and I were to revise this standard to accommodate that, there would have been only 1 team out of the 760 Top 60 teams over the last 12 years that would have moved out of the "no" #2 seed category. Thus it would have been a minimal change from the Committee's pattern as to this standard.
Oklahoma State
Oklahoma State met 0 "yes" and 2 "no" standards. Here are its "no" standards:
RPI Rating and Top 50 Results Score (Standard #17)
This is the same as Kansas' "no" standard. The "no" #2 seed score for the standard is <=254,481.
Oklahoma State's RPI was .6382 and its Top 50 Results Score was 3,062, giving it a score for this standard of 253,860. If Oklahoma State had gotten a #2 seed and I were to revise this standard to accommodate that, there would have been 6 of the 760 Top 60 teams over the last 12 years that would have moved out of the "no" #2 seed category.
RPI Rating and Top 50 Results Rank (Standard #18)
The "no" #2 seed score for this standard is <=3.6208.
Oklahoma State's Top 50 Results Rank was #24. This plus its RPI Rating gave it a score for this standard of 3.6154. If it had gotten a #2 seed, there would have been 6 teams of 720 over the last 12 years that would have moved out of the "no" 2 seed category. These 6 probably overlapped with the teams for the previous standard.
Arkansas
Arkansas met 0 "yes" standards and 6 "no" standards. Here are its "no" standards:
Last 8 Games (Standard #13)
As I explained in my first article in this series about the Committee's decisions, I use this standard to measure a team's poor results. Although the factor the Committee is instructed to consider is teams' results over the last 8 games (both game results and strength of opponents), I instead consider poor results over the course of the entire season (primarily for computer programming reasons). The Committee's factor isn't explicitly for poor results, but it already has a number of factors related to good results, so my guess is that the Committee mostly is looking for poor results under this factor.
The "no" #2 seed score for this standard is <=-7.0.
Arkansas' score for this factor was -8.0. This score came from a tie with a team in the 56-100 RPI Rank range (home v #57 Georgia), a loss to a team in the 56-100 range (home v #88 Oklahoma), and a tie with a team in the 151-200 range (neutral site v #157 Minnesota).
If Arkansas had gotten a #2 seed, there would have been 66 teams of 720 over the last 12 years that would have moved out of the "no" #2 seed category.
RPI Rank and Last 8 Games (Standard #36)
The "no" #2 seed score for this standard is <=-2.3774.
Arkansas' RPI Rank was #6. Combined with its Last 8 Games Score, its score for this standard was -2.5000. If Arkansas had gotten a #2 seed, there would have been 5 teams of 720 over the last 12 years that would have moved out of the "no" #2 seed category.
Non-Conference RPI and Last 8 Games (Standard #46)
The "no" #2 seed score for this standard is <=59.8006.
Arkansas' Non-Conference RPI was .6455 (Rank #14). Combined with its Last 8 Games Score, its score for this standard was 59.1358. If Arkansas had gotten a #2 seed, there would have been 23 teams of 720 over the last 12 years that would have moved out of the "no" #2 seed category.
Non-Conference RPI Rank and Last 8 Games (Standard #55)
The "no" #2 seed score for this standard is <=-2.3333.
Arkansas' Non-Conference RPI Rank was #14. Combined with its last 8 Games Score, its score for this standard was -5.7413. If Arkansas had gotten a #2 seed, there would have been 153 of 720 teams over the last 12 years that would have moved out of the "no" #2 seed category.
Common Opponents Score and Last 8 Games (Standard #90)
The "no" #2 seed score for this standard is <=-1.9167.
Arkansas' Common Opponents Score was 3.86 (Rank #9). Combined with its Last 8 Games Score, its score for this standard was -2.2143. If Arkansas had gotten a #2 seed, there would have been 11 of 720 teams over the last 12 years that would have moved out of the "no" #2 seed category.
Common Opponents Rank and Last 8 Games (Standard #91)
The "no" #2 seed score for this standard is <=-2.8000.
Arkansas' Common Opponents Rank was #9. Combined with its last 8 Games Score, its score for this standard was -4.3333. If Arkansas had gotten a #2 seed, there would have been 68 of 720 teams over the last 12 years that would have moved out of the "no" #2 seed category.
General Comments About Arkansas
It is possible to interpret the above as suggesting that poor results killed Arkansas' #2 seed chances. It had a good RPI Rank, a decent Non-Conference RPI Rank, and a good Common Opponents Rank, but they weren't good enough to balance out its poor results. On the other hand, poor results, by themselves, are a fairly "unused" factor in the Committee's seeding decisions so far as I can tell.
Thus although Arkansas may have been hurt by its poor results, there may have been other factors at play, as discussed at the end of this article.
BYU
BYU met 0 "yes" standards and 10 "no" standards. Here are the "no" standards it met:
RPI Rating and Top 50 Results Score (Standard #17)
The "no" #2 seed score for this standard is <=254,481.
BYU's RPI Rating was .6350 and its Top 50 Results Score was 4,514, combining to give it a score for this standard of 254,084. It's worth noting this was a little less than Kansas' score and a little more than Oklahoma State's score. With BYU getting a #2 seed, there will be 4 of 720 teams over the last 12 years that will move out of the "no" #2 seed category. This is a very small change.
RPI Rating and Top 50 Results Rank (Standard #18)
The "no" #2 seed score for this standard is <=3.6208.
BYU's Top 50 Results Rank was #18. Combined with its RPI Rating, this gave it a score of 3.6118 for this standard. With BYU getting a #2 seed, there will be 7 of 720 teams over the last 12 years that will move out of the "no" #2 seed category. This is a small change.
RPI Rating and Conference RPI( Standard #20)
The "no" #2 seed score for this standard is <=1.2005.
The West Coast Conference's RPI was .5338 (Rank #7). Combined with BYU's RPI Rating, this gave BYU a score of 1.1688 for this standard. With BYU getting a #2 seed, there will be 148 of 720 teams over the last 12 years that will move out of the "no" #2 seed category.
RPI Rating and Conference Rank (Standard #21)
The "no" #2 seed score for this standard is <=3.7363.
The West Coast Conference's Rank was #7. Combined with BYU's RPI Rating, this gave BYU a score of 3.6356 for this standard. With BYU getting a #2 seed, there will be 77 of 720 teams over the last 12 years that will move out of the "no" #2 seed category.
RPI Rank and Conference RPI (Standard #31)
The "no" #2 seed score for this standard is <=3.2112.
BYU's RPI Rank was #12. Combined with the WCC's Conference RPI, this gave BYU a score of 3.0725 for this standard. With BYU getting a #2 seed, there will be 135 of 720 teams over the last 12 years that will move out of the "no" #2 seed category.
RPI Rank and Conference Rank (Standard #32)
The "no" #2 seed score for this standard is >=22.1.
BYU's score for this standard was 26.7. With BYU getting a #2 seed, there will be 46 of 720 teams over the last 12 years that will move out of the "no" #2 seed category.
Non-Conference RPI Rating and Conference RPI (Standard #41)
The "no" #2 seed score for this standard is <=1.6318.
BYU's Non-Conference RPI Rating was .6368 (Rank #19). Combined with the WCC's Conference RPI, this gave BYU a score of 1.5976 for this standard. With BYU getting a #2 seed, there will be 77 of 720 teams over the last 12 years that will move out of the "no" #2 seed category.
Non-Conference RPI Rank and Conference RPI (Standard #50)
The "no" #2 seed score for this standard is <=3.1842.
BYU's Non-Conference RPI Rank was #19. Combined with the WCC's Conference RPI, this gave BYU a score of 3.0418 for this standard. With BYU getting a #2 seed, there will be 26 of 720 teams over the last 12 years that will move out of the "no" #2 seed category.
Conference RPI and Common Opponents Rank (Standard #80)
The "no" #2 seed score for this standard is <=3.1441.
BYU's Common Opponents Rank was #7. Combined with the WCC's Conference RPI, this gave BYU a score of 3.1320 for this standard. With BYU getting a #2 seed, there will be 12 of 720 teams over the last 12 years that will move out of the "no" #2 seed category.
Comments on the Choice of BYU for the Last #2 Seed
Looking at the above details, it seems like Kansas would have been first choice for the last #2 seed, followed by Oklahoma State. For Arkansas, its poor results seem to be a problem. And for BYU, its conference seems to be a problem.
Notwithstanding this, I think the following considerations are possible and reasonable explanations for the Committee's decision to give the fourth #2 seed to BYU:
1. The Committee may not have held the West Coast Conference's RPI and RPI Rank against BYU. It's possible, and maybe likely, that the Committee is feeling cautious about how much emphasis it should place on Conference ratings and ranks, especially in relation to the top mid-major conferences. Given what happened with the Ivy League this year, as discussed in my first report on the Committee's decisions, this would make sense. Of BYU's 10 "no" standards, 8 of them involved the WCC's rating and rank. If the Committee decided not to hold these against BYU, BYU's other two "no" scores were barely less than the "no" #2 seed scores for the standards and would have put BYU, Kansas, and Oklahoma State looking about equal.
2. During the season, BYU defeated Kansas at Kansas. Oklahoma State beat Kansas at Kansas in their conference regular season game, but lost to Kansas at a neutral site in their conference tournament game. The Committee might have seen this is placing BYU ahead of Kansas and Oklahoma State.
3. Regarding Arkansas, I think the most likely explanation for it not getting a #2 seed is its poor results. They weren't horrible results, but in the context of what's expected from a #2 seed, they weren't good.
4. BYU was undefeated, with an 18-0-1 record. It's tie was against Santa Clara at Santa Clara. Santa Clara beat almost #1 seed and clear #2 seed UCLA at UCLA. All rating systems have trouble with undefeated teams, particularly rating systems like the RPI that don't take goal differential into consideration. It's clear an undefeated team is very good, but rating systems can't tell you whether and if so, by how much, it's even better than the rating systems say.
In this context, the Committee's giving the last #2 seed to BYU seems reasonable.
No comments:
Post a Comment