THE #4 SEEDS: WHO TO PICK FROM A MESS OF TEAMS?

As happens sometimes, the Committee had a mess of teams from which to pick the #4 seeds, with a lot to go on for which ones to pick.

The first group of candidates were the candidates for #3 seeds that didn't get them:

#10 Brown, which met 3 "yes" #4 seed standards and 0 "no."  I discussed Brown in my initial report on the Committee's decisions.  My conclusion was that the Committee probably believed the Ivy League and its members were significantly overrated and that Brown got swept up in that.

#14 Duke, which met 0 "yes" and 0 "no" #4 seed standards.

#18 Washington, with 0 "yes" and 0 "no" #4 seed standards.

#20 Texas Tech, with 0 "yes" and 0 "no" #4 seed standards.

The second group of candidates were teams that my computer didn't have in the #3 seed candidate group:

#13 Rutgers, with 2 "yes" and 1 "no" #4 seed standards.

#21 Texas A&M, with 0 "yes" and 0 "no" #4 seed standards.

A third group, which I'm including because the Committee gave one of them a #4 seed, are those that my computer had just missing a #4 seed:

#22 Penn State, with 0 "yes" and 1 "no" #4 seed standards

#23 Florida, with 0 "yes" and 1 "no" #4 seed standards.

#25 Michigan, with 0 "yes" and 1 "no" #4 seed standards.

Of the teams that had been candidates for #3 seeds, the Committee gave #4 seeds to two of them:  Washington and Texas Tech.  The Committee did not give seeds to two of them:  Duke and Brown.  I covered Brown in my earlier Ivy League report.  I'll come back to Duke in my comments at the end of this report.

Of the other five teams, Texas A&M met 0 "yes" and 0 "no" standards.  I'll come back to it, too, in my comments at the end of this report.

For the remaining four, here are their "yes" and "no" standards:

#13 Rutgers

Here are the "yes" #4 seed standards Rutgers met:

Non-Conference RPI and Common Opponents Score (Standard #44)

The "yes" #4 seed score for this standard is >=48.8539.

Rutgers' Non-Conference RPI was .6780 (#3) and its Common Opponents Score was 2.25 (#11), combining for a score of 49.0300 for this standard.  If Rutgers had not received a #4 seed, there are 6 teams, of 192 seeds over the last 12 years, that were in the "yes" #4 seed category but no longer would be.

Non-Conference RPI Rank and Common Opponents Rank (Standard #54)

The "yes" #4 seed score for this standard is <=42.6

Rutgers' Non-Conference RPI Rank was #3 and its Common Opponents Rank was #11, combining for a score of 42.6 for this standard.  Thus Rutgers was right at the edge of the "yes" score.  If it had not received a #4 seed, there are 3 teams, of 192 seeds, that were in the "yes" #4 seed category but no longer would be.

Here is the "no" #4 seed standard Rutgers met:

Top 50 Results Score and Last 8 Games (Standard #63)

The "no" #4 seed score for this standard is <=-13,056.

Rutgers' Top 50 Results Score was 636 (#34) and its Last 8 Games score was -8, combining for a score of -16,964 for this standard.  Rutgers' poor results were a tie in the 56-100 opponent rank area (v #70 Princeton, away); a tie in the 101-150 rank area (v #138 Nebraska, away); and a loss in the 101-150 rank area (v #111 Maryland, home).  With Rutgers getting a #4 seed, when I change this standard to be consistent with its getting that seed, there are 51 teams, of the 720 Top 60 teams over the last 12 years, that previously were in the "no" #4 seed category that now will move out of that category.

#22 Penn State

Here is the "no" #4 seed standard Penn State met:

RPI Rank and Top 50 Results Score (Standard #28)

The "no" #4 seed score for this standard is <=3,777.

Penn State's RPI Rank was #22 and its Top 50 Results Score was 501 (#41), combining for a score of 3,683 for this standard.  With Penn State getting a #4 seed, there are 7 of the 720 Top 60 teams over the last 12 years that previously were in the "no" #4 seed category that now will move out of that category.

#23 Florida

Here is the "no" #4 seed standard Florida met:

Non-Conference RPI Rank and Common Opponents Score (Standard #53)

The "no" #4 seed score for this standard is <=-0.9000.

Florida's Non-Conference RPI Rank was #25 and its Common Opponents Score was -1.95 (Rank #39.5), combining for a score of -1.100 for this standard.  If Florida had gotten a #4 seed, there are 17 of the 720 Top 60 teams over the last 12 years that previously were in the "no" #4 seed category that would have moved out of that category.

#25 Michigan

Here is the "no" #4 seed standard that Michigan met:

Top 50 Results Score and Last 8 Games (Standard #63)

The "no" #4 seed score for this standard is <=-13,506.

Michigan's Top 50 Results Score was 1,053 (#31) and its Last 8 Games score was -7.  Michigan's poor results were a tie in the #56-100 opponent rank area (tie with #90 Indiana, home); and a loss in the #151-200 rank area (#159 Marquette, away).  If Michigan had gotten a #4 seed, there are 17 of the 720 Top 60 teams over the last 12 years that previously were in the "no" #4 seed cagetory that would have moved out of that category.

Comments About the Committee's Decisions on #4 Seeds

The Committee's historic patterns did not give a clear indication of which teams should get #4 seeds.  Most of the teams' profiles weren't highly persuasive one way or the other.  Here are the Committee's #4 seeds, in order if I assume their order fits with standard bracket placement practices:  Washington (#13), Rutgers (#14), Texas Tech (#15), Penn State (#16).  So, what is the likely thinking behind the Committee's picks?

It seems likely that the Committee first selected Washington and Rutgers.  Washington finished tied with Southern California for 3rd in the Pac 12 conference.  The Pac 12 was the top ranked conference, and Stanford, UCLA, and Southern California already had received a #1 and two #2 seeds, making Washington a strong candidate for at least a #4 seed.  For Rutgers, its #3 Non-Conference RPI Rank could have given the Committee something to hang its hat on, especially combined with Rutgers' results against Common Opponents with other Top 60 teams (#11), even though Rutgers had some poor results.

If that's right, how did the Committee decide on the last two #4 seeds?

For a question like this, the first thing I look at is teams' Top 50 Results scores.  When I looked here, it was clear the Committee did not use teams' good results against Top 50 opponents as a basis for its decision on these seeds.  Here are the Top 50 Results Scores my system assigned the teams competing for the last two spots:

Duke  28,132
Florida  10,131
Texas Tech  3,824
Michigan  1,053
Brown  531
Penn State  501

Since Texas Tech and Penn State got the #4 seeds, this was not the basis for decision.

Based on reviews I've done over the past few years, something else I look at is "conference balancing."  This refers to spreading affirmative decisions around among the top conferences.  When I look at the teams' conference regular season and tournament (for those that have them) finishing positions, here as how my computer placed all of the seeded teams, plus some additional teams that were next in order in the conferences.  The placement is based on the average of the team's regular season and tournament finishing positions.  The conferences are in the order of their average RPI Rank.  For each seeded team, preceding its name I've put the team's seed position based on standard seeding practice.  I've highlighted in yellow which teams won their conference regular season and conference tournament competitions:

#1 Pac 12:

#1 Stanford  #1 = 1
#5 UCLA  #2  = 2
#7 Southern California  #3.5 = 3.5
#13 Washington  #3.5 = 3.5

#2 ACC:

#2 North Carolina  #1 in regular season + #1 in tournament = 1
#3 Virginia  #3 + #2 = 2.5
#4 Florida State  #2 + #3.5 = 2.75

NC State  #5 + #3.5 = 4.25
Louisville  #4 + #6.5 = 5.25
Duke  #6.5 + #6.5 = 6.5

#3 SEC:

#6 South Carolina  #2 + #1 = 1.5
#9 Arkansas  #1 + #2 = 1.5

Florida  #4.5 + #3.5 = 4
Vanderbilt  #4.5 + #3.5 = 4
Texas A&M  #3 + #6.5 = 4.75

#4 Big 12:

#10 Oklahoma State  #1 + #3.5 = 2.25
#15 Texas Tech  #2 + #3.5 = 2.75
#11 Kansas  #5 + #1 = 3

TCU  #6 + #2 = 4

#5 Ivy League:

Brown  #1 = 1

#6 Big 10:

Michigan  #2.5 + #2 = 2.25

#16 Penn State  #4 + #1 = 2.50
#14 Rutgers  #2.5 + #3.5 = 3
#12 Wisconsin  #1 + #6.5 = 3.75

#7 West Coast:

#8 BYU  #1 = 1

From this point of view, for the last two #4 seeds -- Texas Tech and Penn State -- it looks like the Committee was looking at the top conferences, and within them at teams' finishing positions in their conferences.  Plus, within conferences it was giving first preference to teams that finished #1 in the regular season competion and to teams that finished #1 in the conference tournament.  If teams (1) did not finish #1 in the conference regular season or tournament and (2) finished in an average position #4 or lower, those teams did not get seeds.  Thus, using Texas Tech as an example, the decision to seed it suggests the Committee might have decided, "Texas Tech finished #2 in its conference; Duke finished #6.5 in its conference.  As between Texas Tech and Duke, we've got to seed Texas Tech before we seed Duke."  This approach makes sense, seems reasonable to me, and is a possible explanation for all of the #4 seed decisions.

The other thing I think this analysis does is, it makes it virtually certain that the Committee believed the Ivy League was not the #5 conference, notwithstanding what the RPI said.  Indeed, it seems the Committee believed the Ivy League was not the #6 conference, either, but rather was the #7 conference (behind both the Big 10 and the West Coast Conference), at best.

In this light, given the difficulty of distinguishing among teams when the Committee gets to #4 seeds, this seems like a reasonable explanation for what the Committee did and also seems like a reasonable basis for its decisions.