2018 NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKET ANALYSIS: CONCLUSIONS

This year, some teams presented profiles to the Committee that forced it to decide how important teams' conference standings -- both regular season and conference tournament -- are for seeding and at large selection purposes.  The Committee's having to make this decision set an over-arching theme for the bracket formation process and, for the 11 years' I've been analyzing the Committee's decisions, created a watershed moment.

Fundamentally, the numbers show the Committee decided that for the top 5 conferences -- the so called "Power" conferences -- where teams finished in their conference standings matters very little.  And conversely, for all the other conferences it matters a lot.

Here are examples illustrating this:

#1 seed Florida State:  It finished #7 in the ACC's regular season standings and #1 in the conference tournament for an average of #4.  The ACC was the #3 ARPI conference.  In giving Florida State a #1 seed, the Committee effectively concluded its #7 regular season conference finishing position was not worth much weight.

#2 seed Tennessee:  It finished #2 in the SEC's regular season standings and #6.5 in the conference tournament (exited in the quarter-finals) for an average of #4.25.  The SEC was the #2 conference.  In giving Tennessee a #2 seed, the Committee effectively concluded its #6.5 conference tournament finishing position was not worth much weight.

#2 seed not going to Southern California:  It finished #3 in the Pac 12's standings.  The Pac 12 was the #4 conference.  The Committee's not giving Southern California a #2 seed and instead giving one to Tennessee highlights that the Committee effectively concluded Tennessee's conference tournament finishing position was not worth much weight, Tennessee being from a better ranked conference.

#2 seed not going to Santa Clara:  It finished #2 in the West Coast Conference's standings.  The WC was the #8 conference.  The Committee's not giving Santa Clara a #2 seed and instead giving one to Tennessee again highlights that the Committee effectively concluded Tennessee's conference tournament finishing position was not worth much weight.

#3 seed Texas A&M:  It finished #4.5 in the SEC's regular season standings and #6.5 in the conference tournament (exited in the quarter-finals) for an average of #5.5.  The SEC was the #2 conference.  In giving Texas A&M a #3 seed, the Committee effectively concluded its conference standing was not worth much weight.

#3 seed not going to Southern California:  It finished #3 in the Pac 12's standings.  The Pac 12 was the #4 conference.  The Committee's not giving Southern California a #3 seed and instead giving one to Texas A&M highlights that the Committee effectively concluded Texas A&M's conference standing was not worth much weight, Texas A&M being from a better ranked conference.

#4 seeds not going to Memphis or South Florida:  South Florida finished #1 and Memphis #2 in the American regular season standings and they reversed positions in the conference tournament, giving each an average of #1.5.  The American was the #7 conference.  They were the only non-Power 5 teams in competition for #4 seeds, but neither got one.  Boston College, on the other hand, got a #4 seed with a #5.25 average standing in the #3 ACC.  This highlights that the Committee effectively concluded Boston College's conference standing was not worth much weight.

At Large Selection Mississippi State:  It finished #11.5 (tied for 11-12) in the SEC.  The SEC was the #2 conference.  The Committee effectively concluded Mississippi State's conference standing was not worth much weight.

At Large Selection North Carolina State:  It finished #11 in the ACC.  The ACC was the #3 conference.  The Committee effectively concluded NC State's conference standing was not worth much weight.

At Large Selection Wake Forest:  It finished #9.5 (tied for 9-10) in the ACC.  The ACC was the #3 conference.  The Committee effectively concluded Wake Forest's conference standing was not worth much weight.

At Large Selection Northwestern:  It finished #9 in the Big 10.  The Big Ten was the #5 conference and the last of the Power 5 conferences.  The Committee effectively concluded that Northwestern's conference standing was not worth much weight.

Other At Large Selections:  Of the other other teams that were reasonable candidates for at large selections, those with the best conference standings were Butler, which finished #2 in the #6 Big East, and Pepperdine, which finished #3 in the #8 West Coast.  Neither got an at large selection.  Instead, the selections went to Wisconsin, which finished #5.0 in the #5 Big 10; Ohio State, which finished #5.0 in the #5 Big Ten; Mississippi, which finished #5.5 in the #2 SEC; Louisville, which finished #6 in the #3 ACC; and Virginia Tech, which finished #7.5 in the #3 ACC.  The Committee effectively concluded that these selected teams' conference standings were not worth much weight.

Overall, simply put, the Committee sent this message:  If you're a team from a top 5 conference (i.e., from a Power conference), where you finish in your conference standings is not likely to hurt you.  On the other hand, if you're in a conference outside the top 5, anything short of being conference champion is likely to hurt you.

2018 NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKET ANALYSIS: AT LARGE SELECTIONS

There are 64 slots in the NCAA Tournament bracket.  There are 31 conferences, each of which has an automatic qualifier.  That leaves 33 slots for the Committee to fill with at large selections.

This year, of the 16 seeded teams, 12 were at large selections.  Here are those teams with their ratings, followed by the number of "yes" at large standards and "no" at large standards they met:

#3 North Carolina: 68/0
#5 Baylor: 65/0
#7 UCLA: 45/0
#8 Southern California: 53/0
#9 Tennessee: 32/0
#10 Texas A&M: 38/0
#11 Duke: 45/0
#12 Santa Clara: 54/0
#13 Texas: 60/0
#15 Virginia: 36/0
#18 South Carolina: 30/0
#25 Boston College: 34/0

With those 12 teams seeded, this left the Committee to make 21 additional at large selections.

There were 12 teams that met at least 1 "yes" standard and no "no" standards.  They all received at large selections:

#13 Rutgers:  11/0
#16 South Florida:  35/0
#19 TCU:  17/0
#21 Vanderbilt:  30/0
#22 Penn State:  32/0
#23 Kansas:  31/0
#26 Arkansas:  45/0
#28 Auburn:  18-0
#29 Arizona:  14/0
#32 Washington State:  11/0
#34 Texas Tech:  5/0
#46 Clemson:  14/0

These 12, with the seeded 12, add up to 24, leaving the Committee with 9 more selections to make.

The Committee had 2 teams that met large numbers of "yes" standards but also smaller numbers of "no" standards, thus presenting profiles it hasn't seen over the last 11 years.  They are NC State, which met  32 "yes" standards and 4 "no" standards; and Mississippi State, which met 31 "yes" standards and 5 "no" standards.  The Committee gave both of them at large selections.  Going through all of the "yes" and "no" standards they met will be tedious, but it's important to understanding the Committee's decision.

#17 Mississippi State.  Met 31 "yes" standards and 5 "no" standards.

Here are the "yes" standards Mississippi State met:

Yes Standard 1: This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's ARPI Rating.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is a rating of >=.5989.  Mississippi State's ARPI Rating was .6216, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 2: This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's ARPI Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is a rating of <=30.  Mississippi State's ARPI Rank was 17, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 3: This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is a rating of >=.6247.  Mississippi State's ANCRPI Rating was .7043, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 4: This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's ANCRPI Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is a rank of <=9.  Mississippi State's ANCRPI Rank was 1, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 14:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its ARPI Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=3.3848.  Mississippi State's ARPI Rating was .6216 and its ARPI Rank was 17, together producing a score of 3.5399, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 15:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its ANCRPI Rating.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=1.7191.  Mississippi State's ARPI Rating was .6216 and its ANCRPI Rating was .7043, together producing a score of 1.8282, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 16:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its ANCRPI Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=3.4543.  Mississippi State's ARPI Rating was .6216 and its ANCRPI Rank was 1, together producing a score of 4.5432, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 17:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=245535.  Mississippi State's ARPI Rating was .6216 and its Top 50 Results Score was 1248, together producing a score of 245541.8, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 18:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=3.3704.  Mississippi State's ARPI Rating was .6216 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 35, together producing a score of 3.5096, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 20:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=1.2051.  Mississippi State's ARPI Rating was .6216 and its Conference ARPI was .5879, together producing a score of 1.2095, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 24:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=3.3867.  Mississippi State's ARPI Rating was .6216 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 55, together producing a score of 3.4992, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 25:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Last Eight Games Results score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=108.3332.  Mississippi State's ARPI Rating was .6216 and its Last Eight Games Results score was 0, together producing a score of 113.1335, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 26:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=2.1787.  Mississippi State's ARPI Rank was 17 and its ANCRPI Rating was .7093, together producing a score of 2.3286, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 27:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is <=128.6.  Mississippi State's ARPI Rank was 17 and its ANCRPI Rank was 1, together producing a score of 62.2, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 29:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is <=59.0.  Mississippi State's ARPI Rank was 17 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 35.0, together producing a score of 52.0, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 32:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is <=43.1.  Mississippi State's ARPI Rank was 17 and its Conference Rank was 2, together producing a score of 21.2, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 36:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Last Eight Games Results score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=1.0000.  Mississippi State's ARPI Rank was 17 and its Last Eight Games Results score was 0, together producing a score of 1.9412, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 37:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its ANCRPI Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=2.2597.  Mississippi State's ANCRPI Rating was .7093 and its ANCRPI Rank was 1, together producing a score of 3.2698, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 38:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=155126.  Mississippi State's ANCRPI Rating was .7093 and its Top 50 Results Score was 1248, together producing a score of 160131, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 39:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=2.1814.  Mississippi State's ANCRPI Rating was .7093 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 35, together producing a score of 2.2983, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 41:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=1.7552.  Mississippi State's ANCRPI Rating was .7093 and its Conference ARPI was .5879, together producing a score of 1.7675, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 44:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=44.3475.  Mississippi State's ANCRPI Rating was .7093 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results score was -4.24, together producing a score of 44.7064, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 45:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=2.1762.  Mississippi State's ANCRPI Rating was .7093 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 55, together producing a score of 2.2879, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 46:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Last Eight Games Results score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=66.5629.  Mississippi State's ANCRPI Rating was .7093 and its Last Eight Games Results score was 0, together producing a score of 73.7672, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 47:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=18192.  Mississippi State's ANCRPI Rank was 1 and its Top 50 Results Score was 1248, together producing a score of 71248, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 50:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=3.5362.  Mississippi State's ANCRPI Rank was 1 and its Conference ARPI was .5879, together producing a score of 4.2921, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 51:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is <=17.4.  Mississippi State's ANCRPI Rank was 1 and its Conference Rank was 2, together producing a score of 16.4, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 52:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=2.2000.  Mississippi State's ANCRPI Rank was 1 and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score was -1.00, together producing a score of 3.00, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 53:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=1.0158.  Mississippi State's ANCRPI Rank was 1 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score was -4.24, together producing a score of 16.7647, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 55:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Last Eight Games Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=2.1333.  Mississippi State's ANCRPI Rank was 1 and its Last Eight Games Results Score was 0, together producing a score of 32.0000, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 70:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Rank and its Last Eight Games Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=.7500.  Mississippi State's Top 50 Results Rank was 35 and its Last Eight Games Results Score was 0, together producing a score of .9429, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."  (Underlining is intentional.)

Here are the "no" standards Mississippi State met:

No Standard 7:  This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's Conference Standing.  The standard for a "no" at large selection is a standing of >=9.5.  Mississippi State's Conference Standing was 11.5 (tied for 11-12), which resulted in an at large selection "no."

No Standard 49:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Conference Standing.  The standard for a "no" at large selection is >=236.0.  Mississippi State's ANCRPI Rank was 1 and its Conference Standing was 11.5, together producing a score of 254, which resulted in an at large selection "no."

No Standard 57:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Score and its Conference Standing.  The standard for a "no" at large selection is <=8122.  Mississippi State's Top 50 Results Score was 1248 and its Conference Standing was 11.5, together producing a score of 7944, which resulted in an at large selection "no."

No Standard 72:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Standing and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "no" at large selection is >=31.2.  Mississippi State's Conference Standing was 11.5 and its Conference Rank was 2, together producing a score of 34.20, which resulted in an at large selection "no."

No Standard 75:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Standing and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "no" at large selection is >=116.050.  Mississippi State's Conference Standing was 11.5 and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Rank was 55, together producing a score of 122.85, which resulted in an at large selection "no."

A careful look at all of Mississippi State's "yes" standards shows that all but one included either its ARPI or its ANCRPI.  On the other side, every one of its "no" standards included its Conference Standing.  The Committee had to decide:  Which matters more, a team's ARPI and ANCRPI ratings or where it finishes in its Conference Standings?  Mississippi State was in the #2 rated conference.  At least as applied to a team from a conference with that rating, the Committee decided that ARPI and ANCRPI ratings matter more than a poor finish in the Conference Standings.  Thus it gave Mississippi State an at large selection.

It is worth noting, however, that as the underlined paragraph shows,  Mississippi State met one "yes" at large standard that did not rely on either its ARPI or its ANCRPI.  That standard relied on its Top 50 Results Rank and its Last Eight Games Results Score:  it had decent Top 50 Results, ranked #35, and no poor results.  Twelve of the top 45 ARPI teams were Automatic Qualifiers, so a rank of anything better than #45 (33 + 12) put a team within the group of the top 33 potential at large selections.  With that in mind, then even disregarding Mississippi State's ARPI and ANCRPI, it appears to have been a legitimate at large selection candidate.

I also looked manually at Mississippi State's last 8 games, in which they went 1 win, 5 losses, 2 ties.  Their win was v #68.  Their losses were v an average of #21.2.  Their ties were v an average of #41.5.  Notwithstanding their w/l/t record, these make them a legitimate at large selection candidate

This means that at least for teams in the #1 or #2 conference, if the conference has 14 teams, a team finishing as far down in the Conference Standings as 11.5 (tied for 11-12) is a potential at large selection.

#20 North Carolina State.  Met 32 "yes" standards and 4 "no" standards.

Here are the "yes" standards NC State met:

Yes Standard 1: This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's ARPI Rating.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is a rating of >=.5989.  NC State's ARPI Rating was .6166, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 2: This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's ARPI Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is a rank <=30.  NC State's ARPI Rank was 20, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 3: This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is a rating >=.6747.  NC State's ANCRPI Rating was .7091, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 4: This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is a rank <=9.  NC State's ANCRPI Rank was 2, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 5: This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's Top 50 Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is a score >=15890.  NC State's Top 50 Results Score was 18927, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 6: This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is a rank <=12.  NC State's Top 50 Results Rank was 12, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 14:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its ARPI Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=3.3848.  NC State's ARPI Rating was .6166 and its ARPI Rank was 20, together producing a score of 3.5032, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 15:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=1.7191.  NC State's ARPI Rating was .6166 and its ANCRPI Rating was .7091, together producing a score of 1.8190, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 16:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=3.4543.  NC State's ARPI Rating was .6166 and its ANCRPI Rank was 2, together producing a score of 4.0148, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 17:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=245535.  NC State's ARPI Rating was .6166 and its Top 50 Results Score was 261265.5, together producing a score of 4.0148, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 18:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=3.3704.  NC State's ARPI Rating was .6166 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 12, together producing a score of 3.5365, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 24:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=3.3867.  NC State's ARPI Rating was .6166 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 56, together producing a score of 3.4710, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 26:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=2.1787.  NC State's ARPI Rank was 20 and its ANCRPI Rating was .7091, together producing a score of 2.3191, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 27:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is <=128.6.  NC State's ARPI Rank was 20 and its ANCRPI Rank was 2, together producing a score of 74.0, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 28:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=17427.7.  NC State's ARPI Rank was 20 and its Top 50 Results Score was 18927, together producing a score of 22427.0, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 29:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is <=59.0.  NC State's ARPI Rank was 20 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 12, together producing a score of 32.0, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 32:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is <=43.1.  NC State's ARPI Rank was 20 and its Conference Rank was 3, together producing a score of 26.3, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 37:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its ANCRPI Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=2.2597.  NC State's ANCRPI Rating was .7091 and its ANCRPI Rank was 2, together producing a score of 2.7691, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 38:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=155126.  NC State's ANCRPI Rating was .7091 and its Top 50 Results Score was 18927, together producing a score of 177765, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 39:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=2.1814.  NC State's ANCRPI Rating was .7091 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 12, together producing a score of 2.3525, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 41:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=1.7552.  NC State's ANCRPI Rating was .7091 and its Conference ARPI was .5858, together producing a score of 1.7636, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 45:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=2.1762.  NC State's ANCRPI Rating was .7091 and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Rank was 56, together producing a score of 2.2870, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 46:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Last Eight Games Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=66.5629.  NC State's ANCRPI Rating was .7091 and its Last Eight Games Results Score was -5, together producing a score of 68.7464, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 47:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=18192.  NC State's ANCRPI Rank was 2 and its Top 50 Results Score was 18927, together producing a score of 53927, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 48:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is <=83.2.  NC State's ANCRPI Rank was 2 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 12, together producing a score of 45.2, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 50:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=3.5362.  NC State's ANCRPI Rank was 2 and its Conference ARPI was .5858, together producing a score of 3.7806, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 53:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=1.0158.  NC State's ANCRPI Rank was 2 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score was -5.11, together producing a score of 5.3947, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 55:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Last Eight Games Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=2.1333.  NC State's ANCRPI Rank was 2 and its Last Eight Games Results Score was -5, together producing a score of 11.0000, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 56:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Score and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=21275.  NC State's Top 50 Results Score was 18928 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 12, together producing a score of 24760, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 58:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Score and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=244441.  NC State's Top 50 Results Score was 18928 and its Conference ARPI was .5858, together producing a score of 249154, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 62:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Score and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=18938.  NC State's Top 50 Results Score was 18928 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 56, together producing a score of 20177, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 63:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Score and its Last Eight Games Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=7084.  NC State's Top 50 Results Score was 18928 and its Last Eight Games Results Score was -5, together producing a score of 7927, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Here are the "no" standards NC State met:

No Standard 7: This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's Conference Standing.  The standard for a "no" at large selection is a standing of >=9.5.  NC State's Conference Standing was 11, which resulted in an at large selection "no."

No Standard 49:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ANCRPI Rank and its Conference Standing.  The standard for a "no" at large selection is >=77.5.  NC State's ANCRPI Rank was 2 and its Conference Standing was 11, together producing a score of 244.0, which resulted in an at large selection "no."

No Standard 72:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Standing and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "no" at large selection is >=12.0.  NC State's Conference Standing was 11 and its Conference Rank was 3, together producing a score of 33.8, which resulted in an at large selection "no." 

No Standard 75:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Standing and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "no" at large selection is >=31.650.  NC State's Conference Standing was 11 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 56, together producing a score of 120.90, which resulted in an at large selection "no."

A careful look at all of NC State's "yes" standards shows that although a lot of them included either its ARPI or its ANCRPI, others relied on its Top 50 Results.  On the other side, every one of its "no" standards included its Conference Standing of 11.  The Committee had to decide:  How important is a team's Conference Standing?  NC State was in the #3 rated conference.  At least as applied to a team from a conference with that rating, the Committee decided that finishing #11 does not disqualify a team from getting an at large selection.

I also looked manually at NC State's last 8 games, in which they went 2 wins, 4 losses, 2 ties.  Their wins were v teams with an average rank of 180.5.  Their losses were v an average of #40.75.  Their ties were v an average of #6.5.  Notwithstanding their w/l/t record, these make them a legitimate at large selection candidate

This means that at least for teams in the #1, #2, or #3 conference, if the conference has 14 teams, a team finishing as far down in the Conference Standings as #11 is a potential at large selection.

With the Committee now having 12 seeded teams as at large selections, another 12 teams as clear at large selections, and Mississippi State and NC State as at large selections, that left it with 7 more at large slots to fill.

The Committee had one more team that presented it with a profile it hasn't seen over the last ll years.  #37 Wake Forest met 2 "yes" at large standards and 2 "no" standards.  The Committee gave it an at large selection.

#37 Wake Forest:  Met 2 "yes" standards and 2 "no" standards.

Here are the "yes" standards Wake Forest met:

Yes Standard 18:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is >=3.3704.  Wake Forest's ARPI Rating was .5996 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 31, together producing a score of 3.3730, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Yes Standard 32:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is <=43.1.  Wake Forest's ARPI Rank was 31 and its Conference Rank was 3, together producing a score of 37.3, which resulted in an at large selection "yes." 

Here are the "no" standards Wake Forest met:

No Standard 7: This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's Conference Standing.  The standard for a "no" at large selection is a standing of >=9.5.  Wake Forest's Conference Standing was 9.5 (tied for 9-10), which resulted in an at large selection "no."

No Standard 49:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Conference Standing.  The standard for a "no" at large selection is >=77.5.  Wake Forest's ANCRPI Rank was 27 and its Conference Standing was 9.5, together producing a score of 236.0, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

With the Committee giving Wake Forest an at large selection, it clearly decided that a team finishing tied for 9th-10th in the #3 conference, a 14 team conference, was not sufficient to disqualify the team from getting an at large selection.  With NC State, the Committee extended this to a team in the #11 position in the #3 conference, a 14 team conference.

After adding Wake Forest to its at large selections, the Committee was at 27 teams, with 6 more to get at large selections.  Based on past history, the apparent candidates for these 6 slots were:

#36 Wisconsin:  0-0
#38 Butler:  1-1
#39 Mississippi:  0-0
#40 Ohio State:  0-0
#43 Virginia Tech:  0-0
#45 Arizona State:  0-0
$48 Pepperdine:  0-0
#49 Colorado:  0-0
#50 Illinois:  0-0
#52 Louisville:  0-0

Of these, the Committee chose 5:

#36 Wisconsin:  0-0
#39 Mississippi:  0-0
#40 Ohio State:  0-0
#43 Virginia Tech:  0-0
#52 Louisville:  0-0

Since these 5 came from a group of candidates all of which met the same number of "yes" and "no" standards, the Committee's selecting them was consistent with its past decisions.

It is worth looking at 1-1 Butler, however, to see if it tells anything about the Committee's thinking:

#38 Butler:  Met 1 "yes" standard and 1 "no" standard.

Here is the "yes" standard Butler met:

Yes Standard 72:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Standing and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "yes" at large selection is <=12.0.  Butler's Conference Standing was 2 and its Conference Rank was 6, together producing a score of 11.60, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

Here is the "no" standard Butler met:

 No Standard 48:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ANCRPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "no" at large selection is >=259.60.  Butler's ANCRPI Rank was 54 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 57.5 (no good results against teams ranked #50 or better), together producing a score of 261.0, which resulted in an at large selection "yes."

In Butler's case, the Committee essentially decided that its lack of good results and its relatively poor non-conference results outweighed its being the #2 team in the #6 conference.

With the decisions I've covered so far, the Committee had filled 32 of the 33 available at large positions.  For the last at large position, it selected Northwestern

#47 Northwestern:  Met no "yes" standards and 2 "no" standards.

Here are the "no" standards Northwestern met:

No Standard 19:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Conference Standing.  The standard for a "no" at large selection is <=3.0550.  Northwestern's ARPI Rating was .5767 and its Conference Standing was 9, together producing a score of 3.0520, which resulted in an at large selection "no."

No Standard 49:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ANCRPI Rank and its Conference Standing.  The standard for a "no" at large selection is >=236.0.  Northwestern's ANCRPI Rank was 38 and its Conference Standing was 9, together producing a score of 236.0, which resulted in an at large selection "no."

As the numbers show, Northwestern just missed coming in with a 0-0 for at large standards.  Nevertheless, it's an important case, as it shows that the #9 team in the #5 conference can get an at large selection, as compared to the #2 team (Butler) in the #6 conference that didn't.

My conclusion is that the Committee's at large selections suggest that the Committee made a distinction among the conferences based on their average ARPI rankings.  For the top 5 conferences -- the so called "power conferences" -- it appears not to have mattered to the Committee where the conferences' teams fell within their individual conferences' standings.  They simply weren't going to be penalized for their Conference Standings positions.  On the other hand, for teams not in the top 5 conferences, where they finished in their conference standings was quite important.

2018 NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKET ANALYSIS: #4 SEEDS

The Committee's #4 seeds are #8 Southern California, #11 Duke, #13 Texas, and #25 Boston College.

#8 Southern California.  Met 20 "yes" standards and no "no" standards.  Based on the Committee's last 11 years' decisions, it would have been a #2 seed, so at least a #4 seed was virtually mandatory.

#11 Duke.  Met 10 "yes" standards and no "no" standards.  Based on the Committee's past decisions, it would have been a #3 seed, so a #4 seed was obvious.

#13 Texas.  Met 6 "yes" standards and no "no" standards.  Again based on the Committee's past decisions, it would have been a #3 seed, so a #4 seed was obvious.

#25 Boston College.  Met no "yes" standards and no "no" standards.  This made it a #4 seed candidate.

In addition to Boston College, there were  6 other teams that met no "yes" and no "no" standards, thus making them all #4 seed candidates:

#14 Memphis
#16 South Florida
#19 TCU
#21 Vanderbilt
#22 Penn State
#23 Kansas
#26 Arkansas

The Committee had these 6 plus Boston College to choose the fourth #4 seed from, all legitimate #4 seed candidates based on past precedent, but none with distinguishing favorable or unfavorable characteristics.  The Committee's decision to give Boston College the last #4 seed thus was not inconsistent with its past history.  Someone had to get it and, based on past precedent, it could just as well have been Boston College as any of the others.

Putting this together with the #1 through #3 seeds, and without regard for the seed positions the Committee gave them, all 16 of the seeded teams fit the Committee's historic patterns for getting "a" seed.  It's only at the level of the specific seeds some teams got that the Committee broke with its historic patterns.  In some of those cases, the Committee had to break the patterns because the teams presented it with profiles it hasn't seen before.  In other cases, the Committee broke the patterns for unknown reasons.

2018 NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKET ANALYSIS: #3 SEEDS

The Committee's #3 seeds are ARPI #10 Texas A&M, #12 Santa Clara, #15 Virginia, and #18 South Carolina.  I'll start with them and then do #8 Southern California, #11 Duke, and #13 Texas.

#10 Texas A&M.  Met no "yes" and no "no" standards.  This made it a #3 seed candidate.

#15 Virginia.  Met no "yes" and no "no" standards.  This made it a #3 seed candidate.

#18 South Carolina.  Met no "yes" and no "no" standards.  This made it a #3 seed candidate.

#12 Santa Clara.  Met 12 "yes" and 2 "no" standards.  As I wrote about the #2 seeds, this means Santa Clara had a profile, in relation to seeding, that the Committee has not seen over the last 11 years.

Here are the "yes" standards Santa Clara met:

Yes Standard 6:  This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is a score of <=1, which means the team is ranked #1 for Top 50 Results.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 18:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=4.0092.  Santa Clara's ARPI Rating was .6383 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 1, together producing a score of 4.5744, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 29:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is <=13.0.  Santa Clara's ARPI Rank was 12 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 1, together producing a score of 13.0, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 38:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=181770.  Santa Clara's ANCRPI Rating was .6299 and its Top 50 Results Score was 33288, together producing a score of 185583, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 39:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ANCRPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=2.5762.  Santa Clara's ANCRPI Rating was .6299 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 1, together producing a score of 3.1756, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 48:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ANCRPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is <=21.20.  Santa Clara's ANCRPI Rank was 8 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 1, together producing a score of 11.6, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 56:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Score and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=74864.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Score was 33288 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 1, together producing a score of 103288, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 61:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Score and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=42328.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Score was 33288 and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Score was 3.55, together producing a score of 44825, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 65:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Rank and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=3.8891.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1 and its Conference ARPI was .5239, together producing a score of 3.94338, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 67:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Rank and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=2.8000.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1 and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score was 0.14, together producing a score of 4.2429, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 68:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=14.6882.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score was 3.55, together producing a score of 25.2500, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 70:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Rank and its Last Eight Games Results (for which I use, as a surrogate, poor results).  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=30.0000.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1 and its Last Eight Games Results score was 0, together producing a score of 33.0000, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Here are the "no" standards Santa Clara met:

No Standard 8:  This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "no" #3 seed is a score of <=0.5264.  Santa Clara's Conference ARPI was .5239, which resulted in a #3 seed "no."

No Standard 80:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Rank.  The standard for a "no" #3 seed is <=3.0268.  Santa Clara's Conference ARPI was .5239 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 11, together producing a score of 3.0247, which resulted in a #3 seed "no."

As was the case with Santa Clara for a #2 seed, it had excellent Top 50 Results at a level that historically always has gotten a #3 seed.  On the other hand, its Conference ARPI is at a level where a team from the conference never has gotten a #3 seed.  The Committee did not give Santa Clara a #2 seed, apparently deciding that its conference's relatively poor rating and rank outweighed its excellent Top 50 Results.  For a #3 seed, however, the Committee went the other way, apparently deciding that at the #3 seed level, Santa Clara's excellent Top 50 Results were sufficient to outweigh its conference's rating.

#8 Southern California.  Met 7 "yes" standards and no "no" standards.

Here are the "yes" standards Southern California met:

Yes Standard 24:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=3.8980.  Southern California's ARPI Rating was .6485 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 3, together producing a score of 3.9649, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 45:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=2.3429.  Southern California's ANCRPI Rating was .6561 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 3, together producing a score of 2.4330, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 54:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ANCRPI Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is <=25.4.  Southern California's ANCRPI Rank was 14 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 3, together producing a score of 24.8, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 78:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=14.4498.  Southern California's Conference ARPI was .5810 and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score was 1.18, together producing a score of 14.5452, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 79:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=76.4432.  Southern California's Conference ARPI was .5810 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score was 6.26, together producing a score of 76.5663, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 80:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=3.5198.  Southern California's Conference ARPI was .5810 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 3, together producing a score of 3.5870, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 80:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is <=13.2.  Southern California's Conference Rank was 4 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 3, together producing a score of 11.4, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Thus over the last 11 years, every team with Southern California's profile got a #3 seed.  So, the Committee broke with its historic pattern in giving seeds to three other teams that met no "yes" and no "no" standards.

#11 Duke.  Met 1 "yes" standard and no "no" standards.

Here is the "yes" standard Duke met:

Yes Standard 84:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is <=13.2.  Duke's Conference Rank was 3 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 6, together producing a score of 12.3, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Over the last 11 years, every team with Duke's profile got a #3 seed.  So, the Committee broke with its historic pattern in giving seeds to three other teams that met no "yes" and no "no" standards.

#13 Texas.  Met 4 "yes" standards and no "no" standards.

Here are the "yes" standards Texas met:

Yes Standard 18:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=4.0092.  Texas' ARPI Rating was .6345 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 2, together producing a score of 4.0531, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 38:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=181770.  Texas' ANCRPI Rating was .6872 and its Top 50 Results Score was 30417, together producing a score of 184358, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 39:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is >=2.5762.  Texas' ANCRPI Rating was .6872 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 2, together producing a score of 2.6972, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 48:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #3 seed is <=21.20.  Texas' ANCRPI Rank was 6 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 2, together producing a score of 13.2, which resulted in a #3 seed "yes."

Over the last 11 years, every team with Texas' profile got a #3 seed.  So, the Committee broke with its historic pattern in giving seeds to three other teams that met no "yes" and no "no" standards.

Summary.  In summary, the Committee's decision to give #3 seeds to Texas A&M, Virginia, and South Carolina rather than to Southern California, Duke, and Texas is inconsistent with its decisions over the last 11 years.  In relation to the factors the Committee is required to use for at large selections, the decision is questionable.

The Committee, however, unlike for at large selections, is not required to use the factors it's required to use for at large selections.  In fact, it has a free hand and can ignore them if it wants.

Is there an explanation for the #3 seeds?  I don't know what actually went on, but I see a possible explanation:

With its #1 through #3 seeds, here is how the Committee distributed those seeds among the top 4 conferences (I'm recognizing that according to the RPI, they were closely rated and significantly stronger than #5 Big Ten):

#1 Big 12:  2 seeds (both #2)

#2 SEC:  3 seeds (one #2 and two #3)

#3 ACC:  3 seeds (two #1 and one #3)

#4 Pac 12:  2 seeds (one #1 and one #2)

Suppose the Committee had followed its historic pattern and given #3 seeds to Southern California, Duke, and Texas rather than to Texas A&M, Virginia, and South Carolina.  Here's how the Committee would have distributed the #1 through #3 seeds among the top 4 conferences:

#1 Big 12:  3 seeds (two #2 and one #3)

#2 SEC:  1 seed (one #2)

#3 ACC:  3 seeds (two #1 and one #3)

#4 Pac 12:  3 seeds (one #1, one #2, and one #3)

Regarding the ACC's Virginia getting a #3 seed rather than the ACC's Duke, there is a possible explanation:  Virginia won its game against Duke, at Duke.  Virginia also had a slightly better overall conference record: it finished 3rd in the conference regular season and got to the semi-finals of the ACC tournament for an average conference standing of 3.25.  Duke finished 2nd in the conference regular season but lost in the quarter-finals of the ACC tournament for an average conference standing of 4.25.

Notwithstanding the Duke/Virginia exchange, however, which did not affect the above numbers, the seed distribution consistent with the last 11 years' Committee decisions might have appeared to disrespect the #2 SEC.  So, perhaps the Committee was engaging in "seed balancing" among the top 4 conferences.  Nothing in the Committee's rules prevents this.  The potential problem, however, is that seed balancing may put teams in positions inconsistent with the positions they've earned over the course of the season.

2018 NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKET ANALYSIS: #2 SEEDS

The Committee's #2 seeds are #5 Baylor, #6 West Virginia, #7 UCLA, and #9 Tennessee.  I'll start with them and then do #8 Southern California, #11 Duke, #12 Santa Clara, and #13 Texas.

#5 Baylor.  Met 5 "yes" #2 seed standards and no "no" standards.

Here are the "yes" standards Baylor met:

Yes Standard 21:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=4.6303.  Baylor's ARPI Rating was .6654 and its Conference Rank was 1, together producing a score of 4.6596, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."  It's worth noting that not everyone agrees that the Big Twelve was the #1 conference.  It did, however, have the best average ARPI.  In that respect, it's also worth noting that Massey has the Big Twelve as the #2 conference behind the Pac 12 and barely ahead of the ACC.  In my opinion, Massey's are the best ratings for Division I Women's Soccer.

Yes Standard 25:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Last Eight Game Results (poor results over the course of the season is my surrogate for Last Eight Games Results).  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=120.4348.  Baylor's ARPI Rating was .6654 and its Last Eight Games Results score was 0 (no poor results), together producing a score of 122.0988 which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 32:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score <=8.2.  Baylor's ARPI Rank was 5 and its Conference Rank was 1, together producing a score of 7.1, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 83:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=25.9048.  Baylor's Conference Rank was 1 and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Score was 4.23, together producing a score of 26.2273, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 84:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score <=10.3.  Baylor's Conference Rank was 1 and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Rank was 8, together producing a score of 10.1, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

#6 West Virginia.  Met 3 "yes" standards and no "no" standards.

Here are the "yes" standards West Virginia met:

Yes Standard 32:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score <=8.2.  West Virginia's ARPI Rank was 6 and its Conference Rank was 1, together producing a score of 8.1, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 83:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=25.9048.  West Virginia's Conference Rank was 1 and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Score was 4.43, together producing a score of 26.4286, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 84:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score <=10.3.  West Virginia's Conference Rank was 1 and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Rank was 7, together producing a score of 9.1, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

#7 UCLA.  Met no "yes" standards and no "no" standards.  This made it a legitimate #2 seed candidate.

#9 Tennessee.  Met no "yes" standards and 3 "no" standards.

Here are the "no" standards Tennessee met:

No Standard 57:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Score and its Conference Standing.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=22096.  Tennessee's Top 50 Results Score was 3066 and its Conference Standing was 4.25 (the average of its #2 regular season finish in the SEC and its #6.5 finish -- quarter-final loss -- in the SEC tournament), together producing a score of 21184, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 64:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Rank and its Conference Standing.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score >=46.8.  Tennessee's Top 50 Results Rank was 26 and its Conference Standing was 4.25, together producing a score of 51.08, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 76:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Standing and its Last Eight Games Results.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=5.5455.  Tennessee's Conference Standing was 4.25 and its Last Eight Games Results score was -3 (tie with #126 Georgia), together producing a score of 5.4706, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

All of Tennessee's "no" standards involved its conference standing (regular season and tournament combined).  The SEC was the ARPI #2 ranked conference.  The Committee apparently did not give much weight to where it finished in the conference standings.  This suggests, as appears to have been the case with Florida State getting a #1 seed, that for highly ranked conferences, the Committee didn't give much weight to poor conference standings.  It's worth noting, in relation to this, that the top 3 conferences were very close in their average ARPI ratings:  Big Twelve .5896, SEC .5879, and ACC .5858.  The Pac 12 was fourth with .5810.  After that, there was a big drop to the Big 10 with .5554.

If the Committee indeed assigned little weight to where Tennessee finished in its conference standings, it could have seen Tennessee as in the same boat as UCLA with no "yes" and no "no" standards.

#8 Southern California.  Met 2 "yes" standards and no "no" standards.

Here are the "yes" standards Southern California met:

Yes Standard 24:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=3.9582.  Southern California's Top ARPI Rating was .6485 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 3, together producing a score of 3.9649, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 80:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=3.5775.  Southern California's Conference ARPI was .5810 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 3, together producing a score of 3.5870, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

The Committee did not give Southern California a #2 seed (indeed, did not even give it a #3 seed).  UCLA had a head to head win over Southern California, which may account for the Committee preferring UCLA as between the two of them.  The Committee's preferring Tennessee over Southern California for a #2 seed, however, appears to be inconsistent with the Committee's seeding over the last 11 years.

#11 Duke.  Met no "yes" standards and no "no" standards.

#12 Santa Clara.  Met 9 "yes" and 16 "no" standards.  Santa Clara clearly presented the Committee with a profile it hasn't seen over the last 11 years.

Here are the "yes" standards Santa Clara met:

Yes Standard 6:  This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score of <=1, meaning that the team is ranked #1 for Top 50 Results.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."  The Top 50 Results looks at teams' positive results -- wins and ties -- against teams ranked in the ARPI Top 50, with the scoring very heavily weighted towards good results against very highly ranked opponents.  Santa Clara's games under this factor were tie v #1 Stanford, win v #3 North Carolina, win v #19 TCU, and win v #33 North Texas.

Yes Standard 18:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=4.0092.  Santa Clara's ARPI Rating was .6383 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 1, together producing a score of 4.5744, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 39:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=2.5762.  Santa Clara's ANCRPI Rating was .6799 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 1, together producing a score of 3.1756, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 48:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score <=17.80.  Santa Clara's ANCRPI Rank was 8 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 1, together producing a score of 11.6, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 56:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Score and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=74864.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Score was 33288 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 1, together producing a score of 103288, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 65:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Rank and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=3.8891.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1 and its Conference ARPI was .5329 (#8 rank), together producing a score of 3.9388, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 67:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Rank and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=2.8000.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1 and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score was 0.14, together producing a score of 4.2429, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 68:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=14.6882.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score was 3.55 (rank #11), together producing a score of 25.2500, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 70:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Rank and its Last Eight Games Results.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=30.0000.  Santa Clara's Top 50 Results Rank was 1 and its Last Eight Games Results score was 0 (no bad results), together producing a score of 33.0000, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Here are the "no" standards Santa Clara met:

No Standard 8:  This is a stand-alone factor standard, a team's Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score of <=.5322, meaning that over the last 11 years no team from a conference with an average ARPI less than .5322 has received a #2 seed.  Santa Clara's Conference ARPI was .5329, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 20:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=1.2005.  Santa Clara's ARPI Rating was .6383 and its Conference ARPI was .5329, together producing a score of 1.1622, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 21:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=3.7363.  Santa Clara's ARPI Rating was .6383 and its Conference Rank was 8, together producing a score of 3.6356, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 31:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=3.2112.  Santa Clara's ARPI Rank was 12 and its Conference Rating was .5329, together producing a score of 3.0171, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 32:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score >=22.1.  Santa Clara's ARPI Rank was 12 and its Conference Rank was 8, together producing a score of 28.8, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 41:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=1.6318.  Santa Clara's ANCRPI Rating was .6799 and its Conference ARPI was .5329, together producing a score of 1.6229, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 50:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=3.1842.  Santa Clara's ANCRPI Rank was 8 and its Conference ARPI was .5329, together producing a score of 3.0588, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 51:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score >=68.5.  Santa Clara's ANCRPI Rank was 8 and its Conference Rank was 8, together producing a score of 69.6, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 77:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=3.0599.  Santa Clara's Conference ARPI was .5239 and its Conference Rank was 8, together producing a score of 3.0064, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 78:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=13.2588.  Santa Clara's Conference ARPI was .5239 and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score was 0.14, together producing a score of 12.1922, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 79:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=69.2383.  Santa Clara's Conference ARPI was .5239 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score was 3.55, together producing a score of 66.9402, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 80:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=3.1542.  Santa Clara's Conference ARPI was .5239 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 11, together producing a score of 3.0247, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 81:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Last Eight Games Results Score.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=96.4900.  Santa Clara's Conference ARPI was .5239 and its Last Eight Games Results Score was 0, together producing a score of 94.8324, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 82:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=1.1792.  Santa Clara's Conference Rank was 8 and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score was 0.14, together producing a score of 0.6554, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 83:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=6.7500.  Santa Clara's Conference Rank was 8 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score was 3.55, together producing a score of 6.3000, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 84:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score >=26.5.  Santa Clara's Conference Rank was 8 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 11, together producing a score of 27.8, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

Although these are a lot of standards, the message seems clear.  Santa Clara was a #2 seed based on its Top 50 Results Rank of #1; but it was not a #2 seed based on its Conference Rank of #8, especially given its Conference Standing of #2.  The Committee had to decide which has greater weight.  The Committee appears to have decided that Santa Clara's Conference Rank, especially with its Conference Standing, was too poor to give it a #2 seed, notwithstanding Top 50 Results.

#13 Texas.  Met 3 "yes" standards and 3 "no" standards.

Yes Standard 18:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=4.0092.  Texas' ARPI Rating was .6345 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 2, together producing a score of 4.0531, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 39:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score >=2.5762.  Texas' ANCRPI Rating was .6872 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 2, together producing a score of 2.6992, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 48:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #2 seed is a score <=17.8.  Texas' ANCRPI Rank was 6 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 2, together producing a score of 13.2, which resulted in a #2 seed "yes."

No Standard 33:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=.3417.  Texas' ARPI Rank was 13 and its Top 60 Head to Head Results Score was 0.00, together producing a score of .3154, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 34:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Score.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score <=3.8095.  Texas' ARPI Rank was 13 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Score was 1.60, together producing a score of 3.2923, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

No Standard 35:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponent Results Rank.  The standard for a "no" #2 seed is a score >=27.  Texas' ARPI Rank was 13 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Results Rank was 19, together producing a score of 32, which resulted in a #2 seed "no."

For Texas, the Committee had a clear conflict between excellent Texas' Top 50 Results and its #13 ARPI Rank.  Further, with Texas scoring 0.00 in its Top 60 Head to Head Results, notwithstanding its good results against Top 50 teams, there's a strong suggestion that Texas was inconsistent.  Texas' good results against Top 50 teams were: tie v #3 North Carolina, win v #5 Baylor, win v #23 Kansas, and win v #37 Long Beach State.  On the other hand, its other results against Top 60 teams were: tie v #54 Oklahoma State, loss v #34 Texas Tech, loss v #19 TCU, and loss v #6 West Virginia (twice).  It appears the Committee gave greater weight to Texas' ARPI Rank -- and everything that went with it -- than to its positive results against Top 50 teams.

Looking at the #2 seeds as a whole, the Committee's picks of Baylor and West Virginia seem obvious.  Southern California also seems obvious and, after that, either of UCLA or Duke would have been a relatively easy pick.  The Committee, however, did not pick Southern California.  It did pick UCLA, but it did not pick Duke.  Instead, it picked Tennessee.  In relation to the Committee's past decisions, the pick of Tennessee is a departure, with the Committee apparently giving little weight to Tennessee's conference standing (#4.25, which is the average of its #2 regular season conference standing and its #6.5 conference tournament standing) and giving a lot of weight to the SEC's #2 Conference Rank.  This is as compared to Duke's identical #4.25 conference standing and the ACC's #3 Conference Rank; and Southern California's #3 conference standing and the Pac 12's #4 Conference Rank.  While the Committee's decision perhaps is defensible, it is not consistent with the Committee's history of decisions.

Regarding Santa Clara's not getting a #2 seed, it's pretty clear that the Committee considered Santa Clara's #2 Conference Standing put together with its #8 Conference Rank to disqualify it from a #2 seed, no matter how good its Top 50 Results.

In summary, the #2 seeds seem to indicate that the Committee gave a great deal of weight to a team's Conference Rank as compared to a team's Conference Standing.  This matches with twhat seems to have been the case with the Committee's giving Florida State a #1 seed.

2018 NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKET ANALYSIS: #1 SEEDS

Here is the first of my analyses of the Women's Soccer Committee's decisions on the seeds and at large selections for the NCAA Tournament.  The Committee starts with the #1 seeds and builds out from there, so I'm beginning with the #1 seeds.  Plus, there's a good chance that the #1 seed decisions set the table for some later decisions.

This will be long, and for some of you tedious, so get yourself a beverage, kick back, and read on.

For those who are new to my bracket analyses or have forgotten how I do them, here's a brief explanation of my process:

The Women's Soccer Committee must use certain factors in making NCAA Tournament at large selections.  The Committee no doubt also uses those factors in seeding teams, but for seeding the Committee is not required to use them and also can look at other factors.  The Committee members individually decide how much weight to assign to the factors.

For each factor, and for each factor paired with each other factor, I've created a program for measuring how a team has performed over the course of the season in relation to that factor or factor pair.  For factor pairs, each factor in the pair has a 50% effective weight.  There are 92 factors or factor pairs.

I have the game data for the last 11 seasons, as well as the Committee's bracket decisions for those seasons.  My program puts these together and, for each factor or factor pair, for each type of decision the Committee must make, comes up with a "yes" and a "no" standard.  A "yes" standard means that if a team meets that standard, it always (over the last 11 years) has gotten a particular favorable decision from the Committee.  For example, it has gotten a "yes, you get a #1 seed" decision.  A "no" standard means that a team meeting that standard always has gotten an unfavorable decision, as in "no, you don't get a #1 seed."  There are standards for #1, #2, #3, and #4 seeds and for at large selections.

Some of the factors may not have a "yes" or a "no" standard for some of the decisions the Committee must make.  And, my program applies some of the factors to only the Top 60 ARPI teams.  The Top 60, for practical purposes, are the only teams, since the most poorly ranked team to get an at large selection over the last 11 years was #57.

When all the games are done on the last day of the season, my program analyzes how each team performed in relation to all of the factor standards, with a focus on the Top 60 teams in the ARPI rankings.  The program generates a summary of how many "yes" and "no" standards a team meets for each Committee decision -- on the seed pods and on the at large selections.  It also generates a table I can use to see which "yes" and "no" standards each team met.

From these numbers, I can see what decisions the Committee will make if it follows the same pattern it's followed over the last 11 years.  Or, in some cases, it will show where the Committee is seeing a team with a profile it hasn't seen over the last 11 years such that the team meets some "yes" and some "no" standards for the same decision.  In those cases, the Committee must decide what to do with the team; and that decision will give insight into the Committee's thinking about the weight it assigns to the different factors.

For a more complete explanation of this process and for tables showing all of the factors and their standards, see these three webpages at the RPI for Division I Women's Soccer website: Predicting the Bracket: At Large Selections, Predicting the Bracket: Seeding, and Predicting the Bracket: Track Your Team.  On the Track Your Team webpage, you also may want to look at the 2018 Website Factor Workbook 11.5.2018 that is an attachment at the bottom of that page.

The following review of the Committee's #1 seeds will put meat on the bones of the above explanation:

The Committee's four #1 seeds are Stanford, North Carolina, Florida State, and Georgetown.  Here's how they and other ARPI highly ranked teams fared in relation to the #1 seed factor standards.  I'm leaving out #6 Santa Clara, which was not close to being in the running for a #1 seed.

Stanford:  Met 30 "yes" standards and no "no" standards.  That's so one-sided I'm not going to discuss Stanford further.  They were a clear #1 seed.

North Carolina:  Met 3 "yes" standards and no "no" standards.  This says they were a #1 seed.  For illustration of how my process works, I'll go through the "yes" standards they met:

Yes Standard 24:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 60 Common Opponents Rank.  For each Top 60 team, my program does a complex computation that compares each Top 60 team to each other Top 60 team based on the results they had against opponents they had in common.  It then assigns each team a Top 60 Common Opponents Score and a Top 60 Common Opponents Rank based on that Score.  For this paired factor, the standard for a "yes" #1 seed decision is a paired factor score of >=4.2287.  North Carolina's ARPI Rating was 0.6697 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Rank was #2, together producing a score of 4.2504, which resulted in a #1 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 35:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #1 seed decision is a score of <=7.0.  North Carolina's ARPI Rank was #3 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Rank was #2, together producing a score of 5.0, which resulted in a #1 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 45:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rating and its Top 60 Common Opponents Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #1 seed decision is a score of >=2.5762.  North Carolina's ANCRPI Rating was 0.6591 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Rank was #2, together producing a score of 2.6090, which resulted in a #1 seed "yes."

It's worth noting that none of the individual factors, prior to pairing, resulted in a #1 seed "yes."  It is the paired factors that produced the three "yes" results.  This illustrates, I think, how Committee members most likely think:  It's great that your ARPI Rank is #3, but that alone isn't good enough to get you a #1 seed.  The same is true of your Top 60 Common Opponents Rank of #2.  But when I look at the two of them together, that's enough to say you get a #1 seed.  And, I'll add that the Committee's decision patterns show that as a team's performance on one half of this factor pair gets poorer, its performance on the other half must get better in order to maintain a #1 seed "yes."  This interrelationship is true for all of the factor pairs.

So, North Carolina was a pretty easy "yes" #1 seed decision.

After Stanford and North Carolina, however, it gets much more interesting.

Florida State.  Met 6 "yes" standards, but also 7 "no" standards for a #1 seed.  In other words, it met some standards that say "yes" you get a #1 seed but also some that say "no" you don't get a #1 seed.  Since the standards are entirely consistent with Committee decisions over the last 11 years, what this means is that Florida State presented the Committee with a profile it hasn't seen over those years.

Here are the "yes" standards Florida State met:

Yes Standard 26:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Adjusted Non-Conference RPI.  The standard for a "yes" #1 seed decision is a score of >=2.7525.  Florida State's ARPI Rank was #2 and its ANCRPI was 0.7042, together producing a score of 2.7536, which resulted in a #1 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 28:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Score.  The Top 50 Results Score looks at each game a team played against an opponent ranked in the ARPI Top 50.  For each positive result the team has (a win or a tie counts as a positive result), the team receives an amount of points that depends on the rank of the opponent, the game site, and whether the result was a win or a tie.  The points system is very heavily weighted towards positive results against highly ranked opponents.  For this particular paired factor, the standard for a "yes" #1 seed decision is a score of >=63525.3.  Florida State's ARPI Rank was #2 and its Top 50 Results Score was 29062, together producing a score of 64062, which resulted in a #1 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 29:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #1 seed decision is a score of <=6.0.  Florida State's ARPI Rank was #2 and its Top 50 Results Rank was #3, together producing a score of 5.0, which resulted in a #1 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 31:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "yes" #1 seed decision is a score of >=3.6970.  Florida State's ARPI Rank was #2 and its Conference ARPI was 0.5858, together producing a score of 3.7806, which resulted in a #1 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 34:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Score.  The standard for a "yes" #1 seed decision is a score of >=15.800.  Florida State's ARPI Rank was #2 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Score was 5.57, together producing a score of 16.5714, which resulted in a #1 seed "yes."

Yes Standard 35:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Rank.  The standard for a "yes" #1 seed decision is a score of <=7.0.  Florida State's ARPI Rank was #2 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Rank was 5, together producing a score of 7.0, which resulted in a #1 seed "yes."

Here are the "no" standards Florida State met:

No Standard 7:  This is a factor (not paired) using a team's Conference Standing.  For Conference Standing, my system uses the average of a team's Conference Regular Season Standing and its Conference Tournament Standing.  Florida State's Regular Season Standing was #7 and its Conference Tournament Standing was #4.  The average of these is #4.  For the Conference Standing factor, the standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of >=4.  Florida State's Conference Standing score was 4, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 13:  This is a factor (not paired) using a team's poor results.  The Committee does not have an overt poor results factor that it must use.  It does, however, have a Last Eight Games Results factor.  It is not clear what this factor is intended to cover, but my best guess is that it is looking for poor results over the last eight games.  For computer programming reasons, my system looks at poor results over the entire season rather than over the last eight games, using a weighted scoring system that increases penalties for poor results as the opponent's ARPI rank gets poorer.  I call this the Last Eight Games Results factor but it really is a surrogate for that factor.  For the Last Eight Games Results factor, the standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=-4.  Florida State's Last Eight Games Results score was -4, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."  Its -4 was for its loss to #135 Miami FL.

No Standard 49: This is a paired factor standard using a team's ANCRPI Rank and its Conference Standing.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of >=85.0.  Florida State's ANCRPI Rank was #2 and its Conference Standing was 4, together producing a score of 91.0, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 71:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Standing and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=3.2727.  Florida State's Conference Standing  was 4 and its Conference ARPI was 0.5858, together producing a score of 3.2377, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 72:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Standing and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of >=11.9.  Florida State's Conference Standing  was 4 and its Conference Rank was #3, together producing a score of 14.20, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 76:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Standing and its Last Eight Games Results (poor results).  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=6.5789.  Florida State's Conference Standing  was 4 and its Last Eight Games Results score was -4, together producing a score of 5.0000, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 88:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Head to Head Score and its Last Eight Games Results.  For each Top 60 team, my program does a complex computation that determines the result of each game a Top 60 team has with another Top 60 team.  Based on the results of all of the team's games against Top 60 opponents, it then assigns the team a Top 60 Head to Head Score and a Top 60 Head to Head Rank based on that Score.  For No Standard 88, the standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=3.0000.  Florida State's Head to Head score was 0.80 and its Last Eight Games Results score was -4, together producing a score of 2.4000, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

The Committee, in giving Florida State a #1 seed, decided that Florida State's positives, as indicated by the "yes" #1 seed standards it met, outweighed its negatives, as indicated by the "no" #1 seed standards.  Looking at all of the "no" #1 seed standards Florida State met, they each consisted entirely or in part of its Conference Standing or its poor result against Miami.  Effectively, the Committee said that even though a team in the #3 ARPI conference comes in #7 in its conference regular season standings and #1 in its conference tournament, for an average of #4, and even though it has a loss to the #135 ARPI team, it can get a #1 seed.  Thus, at least for #1 seeds, conference regular season standing is not that important; and a quite poor result is not that important.  (It does not surprise me that the Committee considered Florida State's poor result against Miami as not that important.  Over the years, I do not recall seeing any evidence that the Committee singles out individual poor results as a basis for its decisions.  Rather, it appears to feel that the RPI by itself sufficiently addresses poor results.)

The Committee's decision to look past Florida State's #7 regular season conference standing in the ARPI #3 conference, very possibly, could have set the table for decisions the Committee was going to have to make later on at large selections.

Georgetown.  Met 1 "yes" standard and 9 "no" standards.  Georgetown too presented the Committee with a profile it hasn't seen over the last 11 years.

Here is the "yes" standard Georgetown met:

Yes Standard 57:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Top 50 Results Score and its Conference Standing.  The standard for a "yes" #1 seed decision is a score of >=99763.  Georgetown's Top 50 Results Score was 22929 (ranked #7) and its Conference Standing was 1, together producing a score of 99929, which resulted in a #1 seed "yes."  Since it is in a conference with a conference tournament, its #1 Conference Standing means it was #1 in both the conference regular season and the conference tournament.

Here are the "no" standards Georgetown met:

No Standard 20:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=1.2285.  Georgetown's ARPI Rating was 0.6691 and its Conference ARPI was 0.5437, together producing a score of 1.2128, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 21:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=3.8550.  Georgetown's ARPI Rating was 0.6691 and its Conference Rank was 6, together producing a score of 3.8469, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 41:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ANCRPI Rating and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=1.6684.  Georgetown's ANCRPI Rating was 0.6881 and its Conference ARPI was 0.5437, together producing a score of 1.6667, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 50:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ANCRPI Rank and its Conference ARPI.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=3.2560.  Georgetown's ANCRPI Rank was 5 and its Conference ARPI was 0.5437, together producing a score of 3.2446, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 79:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Top 60 Common Opponents Score.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=72.9024.  Georgetown's Conference ARPI was 0.5437 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Score was 3.65, together producing a score of 69.4356, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 80:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Top 60 Common Opponents Rank.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=3.3206.  Georgetown's Conference ARPI was 0.5437 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Rank was 10, together producing a score of 3.1446, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 81:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference ARPI and its Last Eight Games Results (poor results).  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=98.4001.  Georgetown's Conference ARPI was 0.5437 and its Last Eight Games Results score was -1, together producing a score of 97.4965, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 83:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Score.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=8.8421.  Georgetown's Conference Rank was 6 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Score was 3.65, together producing a score of 7.3167, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 84:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Rank and its Top 60 Common Opponents Rank.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of >=20.1.  Georgetown's Conference Rank was 6 and its Top 60 Common Opponents Rank was 10, together producing a score of 22.6, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

What stands out about Georgetown's "no" standards is that they all involved either its conference's ARPI or its conference's rank of #6.  The Committee, in giving Georgetown a #1 seed, apparently decided that it was not going to "punish" Georgetown because of the conference it's in.  Given that Georgetown won both the conference regular season competition and the conference tournament, one can argue that there's no reason to see Georgetown as limited in any way by its conference's rank, it may be far better than its conference affiliation indicates.  This appears to be an argument the Committee as a whole bought, leaving Georgetown as a double conference champion in the #6 conference with excellent results against Top 50 opponents sufficient to justify a #1 seed.

Baylor.  Met no "yes" standards and no "no" standards.

Baylor was a possible #1 seed, with no negatives. The fact that the Committee did not give it a #1 seed reinforces the likely correctness of the above explanation about Florida State and Georgetown.

Southern California.  Met no "yes" standards and 4 "no" standards.

Here are the "no" standards Southern California met:

No Standard 2:  This is a single factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a rank of >=8.  Southern California's ARPI Rank was 8, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 21:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=3.8550.  Southern California's ARPI Rating was 0.6485 and its Conference Rank was 4, together producing a score of 3.8167, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 36:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Last Eight Games Results.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=4.0000.  Southern California's ARPI Rank was 8 and its Last Eight Games Results score was -1, together producing a score of 3.1250, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 72:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's Conference Standing and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of >=11.9.  Southern California's Conference Standing was 3 and its Conference Rank was 4, together producing a score of 12.40, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

Fundamentally, Southern California was out of the picture for a #1 seed due to its #8 ARPI Rank, which was at a level that has not received a #1 seed over the last 11 years.  In addition, it was out due to its #3 position in the #4 ARPI conference.

UCLA.  Met no "yes" standards and 6 "no" standards.

Here are the "no" standards UCLA met:

No Standard 17:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Score.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=259875.  UCLA's ARPI Rating was 0.6485 and its Top 50 Results Score was 4512 (rank #24), together producing a score of 259381, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 18:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=3.6994.  UCLA's ARPI Rating was 0.6485 and its Top 50 Results Rank was 24, together producing a score of 3.6734, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 21:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rating and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=3.8550.  UCLA's ARPI Rating was 0.6485 and its Conference Rank was 4, together producing a score of 3.8169, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 28:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ARPI Rank and its Top 50 Results Score.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=14574.8.  UCLA's ARPI Rank was 7 and its Top 50 Results Score was 4512, together producing a score of 14512.0, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 39:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ANCRPI Rating and its Top 50 Results Rank.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=2.0844.  UCLA's ANCRPI Rating was 0.6364 (rank #21) and its Top 50 Results Rank was 24, together producing a score of 2.0781, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

No Standard 42:  This is a paired factor standard using a team's ANCRPI Rating and its Conference Rank.  The standard for a "no" #1 seed decision is a score of <=2.2408.  UCLA's ANCRPI Rating was 0.6364 and its Conference Rank was 4, together producing a score of 2.2228, which resulted in a #1 seed "no."

The most obvious deficiencies for UCLA were its Top 50 Results Rank of #24 and its ANCRPI Rating that produced an ANCRPI rank of #21.

Key "Decisions."  The following appear to have been key Committee decisions:

*  A team's regular season poor standing position in a highly ranked conference does not get a lot of weight.

*  One poor result for a team does not get a lot of weight.

*  If a team wins both its conference regular season and its conference tournament, the ranking level of its conference will not get as much weight as it otherwise might get.