EVALUATION OF TEAMS FOR NCAA TOURNAMENT PURPOSES BASED ON ACTUAL RESULTS OF GAMES THROUGH OCTOBER 23 AND SIMULATED RESULTS OF FUTURE GAMES

Below are tables showing simulated seed and at large selection candidate groups based on the actual results of games played through October 23 and simulated results of games not yet played.

For the candidate groups for seeds and at large selections, each table shows how many historic patterns each team meets indicating that the team will or will not get a positive decision from the Committee.  In addition, I have indicated potential Committee decisions based on the patterns.  If there are positions open for which there are not clear seeds or at large selections, an additional table shows a potential basis for filling those positions.  Each set of tables simply reflects Committee decision patterns from 2007 to the present.

Since there are no historic data showing how the Committee seeds teams #17 through #32 (in four seed pods designated #5 through #8 seeds), I have decided not to try to guess how the Committee will do that.

To be clear:  All of the seeds and at large selections shown below are based on the assumption that all teams, through the end of the season, will perform in accord with their current ARPI ratings as adjusted for game locations.  Further, they are based on Committee historic patterns.  Based on what I am seeing so far, it appears this is an unusual year.  I do not know why, but perhaps it is due to the Covid aftermath or increased parity, or both.  It also may be due to the no overtime rule, although a study I have done suggests the change to no overtime should not make a big difference.  Whatever the reason, however, it is possible Committee historic patterns will not hold up this year.

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

#1 Seeds (Candidate Pool #1 through #7)

As the table shows, four teams have met standards where teams meeting those standards always have gotten a #1 seed and at the same time have not met any standards for never having goten a #1 seed.  Complicating this, however, Alabama has met 6 Yes standards and 1 No standard.  Further, Florida State has met only 1 Yes standard.  Thus UCLA, Notre Dame, and North Carolina are clear #1 seeds, but after that it is not so clear.

For situations like this, for each seed position and for at large selections, I have identified the most powerful factor related to that decision -- the one that is the most consistent with past Committee decisions where it is not clear who should fill a slot.  Where there are a number of equally powerful factors, I simply have picked one of them.  For #1 seeds, the factor I use is Head to Head v Top 60 Rank (based on my own scoring system).  Here is a table showing how the 4 teams that are not clear #1 seeds come out using that factor:

According to this table, Alabama gets the fourth #1 seed.

#2 Seeds (Candidate Pool #1 through #14)

Florida State is a clear #2 seed.  After that, there are three teams have have met both Yes and No standards and two teams that have met no Yes and No standards.  Here is the tiebreaker table for those teams:

According to this table, Virginia, Arkansas, and Stanford join Florida State as #2 seeds.

#3 Seeds (Candidate Pool #1 through #23)

Duke is a clear #2 seed.  St. Louis and Penn State both meet Yes and No standards.  Michigan State, Pittsburgh, South Carolina, and Ohio State meet no Yes and No standards.  Here is the tiebreaker table:

According to the table, St. Louis, Michigan State, and Penn State join Duke as #3 seeds.

#4 Seeds (Candidate Pool #1 through #26

There are no clear #4 seeds.  Here is the tiebreaker table for the potential #4s:

According to the table, Pittsburgh, South Carolina, Northwestern, and Harvard are the #4 seeds.

Automatic Qualifiers

Here are the simulated Automatic Qualifiers:

At Large Selections (Candidate Pool #1 through #57, but expanded to #60)

According to the table, Clemson, Ohio State, LSU, Arizona State, Rutgers, Southern California, Portland, Tennessee, Xavier, Texas, NC State, Georgia, and Wake Forest are clear at large selections.  Virginia Tech, Quinnipiac, Santa Clara, and Auburn meet both Yes and No standards (although Auburn, at #59, is outside the historic range for at large selections).  Texas A&M, California, and Pepperdine meet no Yes and No standards.  If all of these teams get at large selections, the number still will be two short of the number needed to fill the bracket.  Thus it will be necessary to go farther down on the list, to teams that meet no Yes but some No standards.

To address this situation, I applied the tiebreaker for at large selections to the teams that meet Yes and No standards, the teams that meet no Yes and No standards, and the teams on the list through Vanderbilt.  From the list, the top 9 teams fill the bracket.

Of note, Quinnipiac has a #48 rank plus a win against Fairfield, who finishes at #40 in the simulation.

In addition, Auburn, the last team in, is ranked #59, outside the historic range for at large selections.  If the Committee were to stay within its historic range, Wisconsin at #54, would get the last at large position instead of Auburn, since Vanderbilt is at #60.