FINAL EVALUATION OF TEAMS FOR NCAA TOURNAMENT PURPOSES

Below are tables showing NCAA Tournament seed and at large selection candidate groups based on all results for the season.

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.

In addition to the four pods of #1 through #4 seeds, the Committee this year will create four pods of #5 through #8 seeds.  The Committee has not done this before, so there are no directly applicable decision patterns to apply to the data.  Since 2010, however, the Committee each year has had 16 first round games involving unseeded opponents.  In those games, it appears the Committee has awarded home field to the team it concluded had performed better over the course of the season.  Since this is as good as we will get until the Committee actually has seeded four new pods, I have used the Committee patterns for selecting home teams for those games as a basis for projecting teams to be in the #17 through #32 seed range that will fill the four new pods.

To be clear:  All of the seeds and at large selections shown below are based on the assumption that  the Committee will follow its historic patterns, which may not happen.

In addition, there are some teams that have profiles the Committee has not seen before.  These show up as teams that meet some historic standards for always getting a positive Committee decision but at the same time meet some historic standards for never getting a positive Committee decision.  In these cases, I include the teams in the additional table part of the evaluation process.

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)

The table says Florida State, Notre Dame, and UCLA are clear #1 seeds.  Duke and Penn State are not #1 seeds.  Alabama and North Carolina are candidates for the last #1 seed slot.

The tiebreakers in the second tables I am showing come from a study of which factors have been the most effective over the years at matching Committee decisions.  The tiebreaker factors are specific to the particular decision the Committee is making.  The table says Alabama gets the fourth #1 seed.

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

Taking into account the already identified #1 seeds, North Carolina, Duke, and Stanford are clear #2 seeds.  Arkansas, Pittsburgh, and Harvard are not #2 seeds.  The remaining candidates for the open slot are Penn State, St. Louis, Virginia, and South Carolina.

The table says Virginia gets the fourth #2 seed.

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

The table says Pittsburgh is a clear #3 seed.  Although I could have included South Carolina and Michigan State, I decided to put them into the tiebreaker group along with Penn State, St. Louis, Southern California, and Arkansas.

The table says St Louis, Penn State, and Michigan State get the open #3 seeds.  As an alternative, South Carolina could replace Penn State.

#4 Seeds (Candidate Pool #1 through #26)

Here, I treat Arkansas and South Carolina as clear #4 seeds.  Here is the table for candidates for the two additional #4s:

The table says Southern California and Georgetown get #4 seeds.

Unseeded Automatic Qualifiers

Here are the unseeded automatic qualifiers:

Unseeded At Large Selections (Candidate Pool #1 through #57)

In the table, the teams from Clemson through UCF are at large selections, as are Texas, LSU, Arizona State, California, Mississippi State, and Arizona.  This leaves seven at large positions still open.  The candidates to fill them are the remaining teams in the table down through Wisconsin.

The table says teams 1 through 7 on the list get at large positions.

#5 Through #8 Seeds (Candidate Pool #1 through #51)

I set #51 as the outside edge for these new seeds since no team ranked poorer than #51 has hosted a first round game since 2010 when the NCAA started having only one round on the first weekend of the tournament.  Because identifying Committee patterns for these seeds is speculative, I will simply let the following table speak for itself.  It is based on the assumption, which may not be a good one, that the Committee will select these seeds following the same pattern as fits its past home team awards for unseeded teams.

Summary

The following table summarizes the above information.  The #1 through #4 seeds are 1 through 4 in the left hand column.  The #5 through #8 seeds are 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8, respectively.  The unseeded automatic qualifiers are 5.  The unseeded at large selections are 6.  Teams in the bubble but not selected are 7.