View Full Version : Evaluating the 2007 NCAA Seeding

04-01-2007, 09:46 PM
For those of you who enjoy statistics:

1. Of the 60 games played so far in the 2007 NCAA playoffs, the higher seeded team won 80% of the time.
2. No team beat two higher seeds.

Is it just my imagination, or do these figures suggest that this year the seeding committee did a better job than usual?

04-02-2007, 07:58 AM
Or it means that no lower seed played above it's abilities for more than one game, not even a two seed,

04-02-2007, 08:21 AM
When the brackets came out, I felt the committee did a nice job of seeding the tournament....even before play started.

That being said, I don't feel how things turned out can be totally explained by this. A lot of it is just plain luck, and also matchups.

If you take four 5 seeds, for instance, and you take one of the 12 seeds, that 12 seed might matchup exceedingly well with one of the 5 seeds. And that 5 seed might happen to be the best of the 5 seeds. It's about matchups. I think a lot of that went on in this tournament. But, again, I think a lot of that is just luck...I don't feel the committee really sits down and thinks, "Here we have a 12 seed, let's look at all the 5 seeds and see which one they matchup with the worst." They are going to matchup that 12 seed with the 5 seed that aligns with them on the S curve....based on their resume.

It's too easy to say the tournament has spun out the way it has due to the committee doing a great job with the seeding. There are other factors. I could easily see the committee doing a good seeding job but the results turning out differently next March. Also, maybe this year's field was just easier to seed compared to fields in the recent past?

I think what's interesting about this tourney is that the non-BCS teams that advanced past the first round were all teams that people were hardly surprised by. Even VCU beating Duke....it just wasn't a big upset. Gobs of people had VCU beating Duke in their bracket...and for very good, logical reasons. Not just because it had the feel of an upset.

04-02-2007, 09:03 AM
I think the committee generally does a very good job with seeding and this year was no better than usual. The thing about this year is that the upsets just didn't happen. I heard VCU over Duke referred to as the BIGGEST UPSET OF THE TOURNAMENT.... How ridiculous is that? A widely predicted first round 11 over a 6? And the overall top two seeds of the tournament playing each other for the championship (in a freakish reenactment of the BCS title game no less)??

I agree with CDC, a lot of it has to do with luck, and generally the top seeds will get unlucky one night and come out flat against a team that happens to be hot (should have been Wisconsin in the first round). Or one of the fairly high seeds suddenly plays out of their mind for the whole tournament (Florida last year). Or one of the low seeds rises to the occasion and slays a few giants (hmm.... trying to think of an example.... ;) )

None of that happened. No good storylines. Just chalk. And now the guy at work who I made fun of for putting Florida vs. Ohio State in the championship is going to win the pool. This sucks. :p