Below are tables showing simulated seed and at large selection candidate groups based on the actual results of games played through October 16 and simulated results of games not yet played.
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. In addition, I have indicated potential Committee decisions based on the patterns. If there are positions open for which there are not clear seeds or at large selections, an additional table shows a potential basis for filling those positions. Each set of tables simply reflects Committee decision patterns from 2007 to the present.
Since this year the Committee also will be seeding teams #17 through #32 (in four seed pods designated #5 through #8 seeds). I have included a further table showing data on who those teams might be, using the assumption that the basis for their selection will be the same as the basis for selecting at large participants.
To be clear: All of the seeds and at large selections shown below are based on the assumption that all teams, through the end of the season, will perform in accord with their current ARPI ratings.
Reminder: From among the teams that are not automatic qualifiers, the Committee will pick 33 at large participants.
#1 Seeds
The historic candidate pool for #1 seeds is the teams ranked #1 through #7. As the table shows, five of these teams meet criteria that always have earned teams #1 seeds. Two meet criteria for teams that never have gotten #1 seeds. Since there are only four #1 seed slots, it is necessary to leave one of the five "Yes" teams not getting a #1 seed. For situations like this, for each seed position and for at large selections, I have identified the most powerful factor related to that decision -- the one that is the most consistent with past Committee decisions where it is not clear who should fill a slot. Where there are a number of equally powerful factors, I simply have picked one of them. For #1 seeds, the factor is Head to Head v Top 60 Rank (based on my own scoring system). Here is a table showing how the five "Yes" teams come out using that factor:
Based on this table, in the previous table I designated the teams ranked #1 through #4 in the 1 Seed Tiebreaker Rank column as #1 seeds: Alabama, UCLA, Notre Dame, and Florida State.
#2 Seeds
The historic candidate pool for #2 seeds is the teams ranked #1 through #14. The table shows that after bypassing the already selected #1 seeds, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Duke are clear #2 seeds. Since St. Louis meets both "Yes" and "No" standards for a #2 seed and Rutgers meets only one "No" standard, I moved to the Tiebreaker factor for #2 seeds, which is ARPI Rank combined with Top 50 Results Rank:
This suggests that St. Louis gets the remaining #2 seed. As a further check, I looked to see what #2 seed "No" standards St. Louis meets. They all relate to the Atlantic 10 average ARPI and its rank as a conference -- #10. Simply, the Atlantic 10 is the #10 ranked conference and historically no conferenced ranked #9 or poorer has had a team get a #1 or #2 seed. Thus if the situation on decision day matches the situation today, we will get an insight into the Committee mind: For a team that otherwise always would have gotten a #2 seed, will the Committee deny a #2 seed simply because its conference is ranked #10.
#3 Seed
The historic candidate pool for #3 seeds is the teams ranked #1 through #23. The table shows that after bypassing the already selected #1 and #2 seeds, Stanford, Virginia, and Pittsburgh are clear #3 seeds. Penn State looks preferable to Southern California, but I decided to run a Tiebreaker check:
The Tiebreaker check confirms that Penn State gets the #3 seed.
#4 Seed
The historic candidate pool for #4 seeds is the teams ranked #1 through #26. The table shows that after bypassing the already selected #1, #2, and #3 seeds, Rutgers and Southern California are clear #4 seeds. Harvard is close but meets two "No" standards, which appear primarily related to two poor results: a loss to Boston University in the #101 to #150 rank area and a tie with Penn in the #151 to 200 rank area. Since there are two open positions, I checked the #4 seed tiebreaker for Harvard and the teams meeting no "Yes" and no "No" standards.
This table suggests that Michigan State and Harvard get the two open #4 seed positions.
At Large
The historic candidate pool for at large selections is the teams ranked #57 or better, but to be on the safe side I extended that up to #60. In the table, the number 5 in the NCAA Seed or Selection column means the team is an unseeded Automatic Qualifier; 6 means the team is an at large selection; and 7 means the team gets left out. The table shows that after bypassing the already selected #1, #2, and #3 seeds and discounting the Automatic Qualifiers, the teams from Northwestern through Xavier and from LSU through California are clear at large selections. The teams from Oregon through Dayton are clear not at large selections. This leaves Virginia Tech with 9 "Yes" and 3 "No" standards, Wake Forest with 1 "Yes" and 2 "No" standards, and Georgia, Santa Clara, Wisconsin, Pepperdine, and Washington State with no "Yes" and no "No" standards. And, since Wake Forest has a net deficit of one "No," I decided to also look at VCU with its one "No." Putting all of these teams into the at large tiebreaker competition:
Since there are seven at large positions to fill from these eight teams, the table indicates that Washington State is the team left out.
#17 through #32 Seeds
There are no historic patterns to rely on for who will be the #17 through #32 seeds. One possibility is that those seeds will reflect the same kind of thinking as reflected in the at large selections. If so, here is a table of the unseeded teams, after culling out the Automatic Qualifiers who meet more "No" than "Yes" standards:
No comments:
Post a Comment