In previous articles, I wrote about how the Committee might make at large selections for the NCAA Tournament, if the RPI is not usable. In those articles, I identified three history-based tiers of teams:
Tier 1 for the most likely Top 16 seeded teams, consisting of automatic qualifiers and at large selections;
Tier 2 for the 14 most likely next teams, consisting of automatic qualifiers and potential competitors for at large selections; and
Tier 3 for next level automatic qualifiers and longer-shot competitors for at large selections.
Based on bracket history since 2013, I assigned tier positions to conferences as shown in this table:
In this article, I will write about how the Committee might seed teams. And, since the Tournament will be at one site this year, I will cover how the Committee might seed all of the 48 teams in the bracket (with some in pods).
Tier 1 - Top 16 Teams
The above table, in Tier 1, shows the history-based distribution of the 16 seeded teams among conferences: 5 ACC teams, 3 Pac 12 teams, 3 SEC teams, 2 Big 10 teams, 2 Big 12 teams, and 1 West Coast team. The table, however, does not put the teams in seed order. The Committee practice has been to have four pods of seeds: four #1s, four #2s, four #3s, and four #4s. Is there a legitimate way to do that this year?
Here is a table with the history of the #1 seeds, by conference, for the period since 2013;
The table shows the distribution of the #1 seeds each year since 2013, by conference. The Average column shows the average per year. Using rounding of the averages, the Awarded column shows the distribution of the #1 seeds most consistent with history: 2 to the ACC, 1 to the Pac 12, and 1 to the SEC. Thus under a history-based distribution the tentative #1 seeds go to the #1 and #2 ACC teams and the #1 Pac 12 and SEC teams.
Here is a mostly similar table for the #2 seeds:
This table has the same format as the #1 seed table, but adds the two next-to-last columns on the right. In the Carry Forward column, I have carried forward from the #1 seed table the difference between a conference’s Average #1 seeds and its Awarded seeds. Thus, for example, the Big East had an Average of 0.1 #1 seeds but did not get a #1 seed, so I carried forward 0.1 to add to its #2 seed Average. Conversely, the SEC had an Average of 0.6 #1 and got 1 #1 seed, so I carried forward -0.4 to subtract from its #2 seed Average. The Net column shows the total of the #2 seed Average and the Carry Forward amount. Based on the Net amounts, the Awarded column shows the history-based distribution of the tentative #2 seeds: 1 each to the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, and Pac 12. Given the #1 seed assignments, these would be the the #3 ACC team, the #2 Pac 12 team, and the #1 Big 10 and Big 12 teams.
Here is a similar table for the #3 seeds:
The Awarded column shows the history-based distribution of the tentative #3 seeds: 2 to the SEC and 1 each to the ACC and West Coast. Given the #1 and 2 seed assignments, these would be the the #2 and #3 SEC teams, the #4 ACC team, and the #1 West Coast team.
Here is a similar table for the #4 seeds:
The Awarded column shows the history-based distribution of the tentative #4 seeds: 1 each to the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, and Pac 12. Given the #1 through #3 seed assignments, these would be the the #5 ACC team, the #2 Big 10 team, the #2 Big 12 team, and the #3 Pac 12 team.
The following table summarizes the tentative assignments of pod positions, by conference (not in order within the pods):
I do not see legitimately being able to put all four of the teams in a pod in order. The reason for this is simple. The Big 10 teams have played only conference games. Therefore, there is no way based on actual game results this season to compare Big 10 teams to the other teams in their seed pods. Further, the Pac 12 and West Coast teams combined have played a grand total of 4 games outside of the west region, with only 1 against a non-west conference that has teams in the seed group (BYU defeated Missouri). Therefore, there is no way based on actual game results to compare Pac 12 and West Coast teams to the other teams in their seed pods. Perhaps conference history and actual game results will support putting some teams in each pod in order, but that probably is the best that will be possible from a strict data-based perspective.
Tier 2 - Most Likely Candidates for Unseeded At Large Positions
Of the 16 Tier 1 seeded teams, 5 are likely to be automatic qualifiers and 11 at large selections. Of the 14 Tier 2 teams, 3 are likely to be automatic qualifiers and 11 are potential at large selections. With Tier 1 having 11 at large selections, this means it will be necessary to reduce Tier 2’s 11 potential at large selections down to 8, to get to the total of 19 at large selections for the Tournament.
To get from 11 Tier 2 potential at large selections down to 8, if the RPI is not usable this means the selection method must use the other NCAA-mandated factors to do it: head to head results, results against common opponents, results against highly ranked opponents (meaning, this year, against Tier 1 through Tier 3 opponents), and recent results. It will be a matter of doing the best one can with a limited set of data.
After eliminating three Tier 2 teams, what about trying to put the remaining Tier 2 automatic qualifiers and at large selection teams in seed order? For the same reasons that the Committee will not be able to put all the teams within the seed pods in order, it will not be able to put all of the Tier 2 automatic qualifiers and selected teams in order. It may be able to put some in order in relation to each other, but not all of them. This also will be true if the Committee drops some teams from Tier 2 and replaces them with Tier 3 teams.
Thus there would be pods of teams in seed order as follows:
#1 seeds: 4 teams, in order only to the extent justified by actual data
#2 seeds: 4 teams, in order only to the extent justified by actual data
#3 seeds: 4 teams, in order only to the extent justified by actual data
#4 seeds: 4 teams, in order only to the extent justified by actual data
Tier 2 automatic qualifiers and unseeded at large selections: 11 teams, in order only to the extent justified by actual data
Remaining Automatic Qualifiers
Finally, after identifying and seeding either individually or in pods the 27 Tier 1 and Tier 2 teams that will be in the bracket, there will be 21 automatic qualifiers to place in the bracket (assuming none of them have moved up into Tier 1 or 2 as part of the process). What about assigning seed positions to these teams? A reasonable way to do it is to base the order on the historic ranks of the automatic qualifiers from each conference. Here is a table that shows what I mean:
This table shows the rank of each conference’s automatic qualifier for each year since 2013. The Average column shows the average ranks of the conferences’ automatic qualifiers. The Rank by AQ column shows the rank of each conference in terms of the average rank of its automatic qualifiers. (Interestingly, as you can see, there is a big drop from the first eight conferences - the highlighted ones in earlier articles - to the remaining conferences.)
For the automatic qualifiers other than those from the first eight conferences (all of which are in Tier 1 or 2), a history-based way to rank them would be to follow the order in the table. This would assign tentative rank positions to the 21 remaining conference automatic qualifiers as follows:
#28 Conference USA
#29 Colonial
#30 Patriot
#31 Sun Belt
#32 Atlantic 10
#33 Southern
#34 Atlantic Sun
#35 Metro Atlantic
#36 Mid American
#37 Mountain West
#38 Big South
#39 Horizon
#40 Missouri Valley
#41 Southland
#42 WAC
#43 Ohio Valley
#44 Big Sky
#45 America East
#46 Summit
#47 Northeast
#48 Southwestern
Final Steps
The above creates an overall history-based assigned conference position framework for the bracket. This season’s actual in-conference results then would be the basis for selecting specific teams to fill the assigned conference positions. This would create a tentative bracket with teams seeded either individually or in pods from top to bottom.
Actual game results data from this season, however, might justify altering any of the tentative seed assignments. Looking for and making results-based adjustments thus would be the final step of the process.
As one example of a possible results-based adjustment, if St. Louis is the Atlantic 10 conference champion, it has a win over Arkansas. If Arkansas nevertheless gets a #1 seed, the Committee might elevate St. Louis a significant distance on the seed list. Indeed, if St. Louis by chance is not the Atlantic 10 automatic qualifier, the Arkansas win might justify the Committee moving St. Louis all the way from not in any of the three tiers into consideration for an at large selection.
This week, I am not discussing which teams will fill assigned conference positions (I will do that elsewhere strictly for fun). I likewise am not looking at actual game results to see changes they might justify to the tentative bracket. Next week, I will add those step to show how the process, in its entirety, will work.
No comments:
Post a Comment