EVALUATION OF TEAMS FOR NCAA TOURNAMENT PURPOSES BASED ON ATUAL RESULTS OF GAMES THROUGH OCTOBER 2 AND SIMULATED RESULTS OF FUTURE GAMES

Below are tables showing simulated seed and at large selection candidate groups based on the actual results of games played through October 2 and simulated results of games not yet played.  There also is a table showing simulated conference champion automatic qualifiers.  For the candidate groups for seeds and at large selections, each table shows how many historic patterns each team meets indicating that the team will or will not get a positive decision from the Committee.

For the at large selection table, although all at large selections historically have come from teams ranked #57 or better, I have included teams ranked #60 or better.

Reminder:  From among the teams that are not automatic qualifiers, the Committee will pick 33 at large participants.

#1 Seeds

In this table, Alabama is an interesting case study.  The number 4 in the 1 Seed Total column means that its profile has four characteristics where teams with those characteristics always have gotten #1 seeds.  On the other hand, the number 12 in the No 1 Seed Total column means it has 12 characteristics where teams with those characteristics never have gotten at large selections.  What Alabama’s having numbers in both columns means is that if this were to continue to the end of the season, it would have a profile that the Committee has not seen from 2007 to now.  Although this situation probably will clear up by the end of the season, I was curious to see what its No 1 Seed characteristics are.  On checking, they all are related to poor results (for a #1 seed): It has a tie at Utah (ranked in the #51 to #100 range) and a loss at Miami, FL (ranked in the #101 to #150 range).  In the poor results scoring system I use, this gives them a poor results score of -5 and a poor results rank of #34.  Since 2007, teams with that score or that rank never have gotten a #1 seed.  This accounts for 2 of its 12 No 1 Seed characteristics.  All of its other No 1 Seed characteristics are combinations of other profile aspects the Committee considers with either the poor results score or the poor results rank.  This means that the other aspects of its profile and not good enough to overcome the poor results, from a #1 seed perspective.

#2 Seeds

#3 Seeds

#4 Seeds

Automatic Qualifiers

At Large

There will be 33 at large teams.  Since 2007, teams ranked #30 or better always have gotten at large selections.  Teams ranked #58 and poorer never have gotten at large selections.  So, the likely bubble group is teams ranked #31 to #57.