PDA

View Full Version : Huge Difference: 1 seed vs 2 seed



tobizag
02-20-2013, 06:59 AM
since 1979, 132 teams have advanced to the final four:

33 years
4 teams per year

33 * 4 = 132

here's the number of participants by seed:

1 seed: 55 teams 42% of F4 participants
2 seed: 30 teams 23% of F4 participants
3 seed: 15 teams 11% of F4 participants
4 seed: 12 teams 9% of F4 participants
5-16: 20 teams 15% of F4 participants

to the posters who have been suggesting there isn't much difference between a 1 or a 2...i beg to differ.

Birddog
02-20-2013, 07:06 AM
Did they advance because they were seeded #1 or was it because they were the better team and the comm. seeded them correctly?

adoptedzag
02-20-2013, 07:07 AM
Did they advance because they were seeded #1 or was it because they were the better team and the comm. seeded them correctly?

^ This

J-Lo
02-20-2013, 07:15 AM
^ This

Agreed. ^ This, again.

Ekrub
02-20-2013, 07:15 AM
Probably a bit of both. Easier path (generally) #1 seeds face the 4 seed in the sweet sixteen. Whereas a 2 face a 3.

Birddog
02-20-2013, 07:26 AM
Given that seeding is a rather inexact science, it seems to me that being the highest #2 is not much different than being the lowest #1. It also has the added value of giving some teams a chip on their shoulder.

ZagMan in Philly
02-20-2013, 07:28 AM
Can't argue against statistics.
And being #1 seed, team will be able to dictate which color jersey to wear (home color) :)

adoptedzag
02-20-2013, 07:51 AM
And for some strange reason, Coach will pick the black ones. :P

GUZagDenver
02-20-2013, 07:56 AM
Probably a bit of both. Easier path (generally) #1 seeds face the 4 seed in the sweet sixteen. Whereas a 2 face a 3.



Exactly... would you rather play New Mexico or Michigan State??

JPtheBeasta
02-20-2013, 08:08 AM
I'll take whichever seed keeps us from playing a lower seed in their back yard.

tobizag
02-20-2013, 08:41 AM
I'll take whichever seed keeps us from playing a lower seed in their back yard.

THIS. and the key take away here:

while it matters who is better, the odds of advancing vs a 9 seed in your own backyard vs having to play davidson or someone like that in their backyard, potentially, is huge.

yes, the 1 seeds advanced because they were usually the better team on the court. but it also helps mitigate upsets when you're not playing sneaky good teams. i.e., in 2004 we were a 2 but had to play an underrated nevada squad. as a 1 seed, we wouldn't have seen anyone like that in early rounds.

gonzaga will win the WCC champ because their the best team, right? not so fast...i don't know about the rest of you, but i'd rather have to face LMU in the final game than SMC.

GeorgiaZagFan
02-20-2013, 09:03 AM
Did they advance because they were seeded #1 or was it because they were the better team and the comm. seeded them correctly?

I believe a little of both...if you think about it, if everything goes according to "seed" ...the 1's play the 4's to advance and the 4's would be the 13th -16th best teams. Most years I believe there is a substantial drop off after the top 10.

JPtheBeasta
02-20-2013, 09:05 AM
THIS. and the key take away here:

while it matters who is better, the odds of advancing vs a 9 seed in your own backyard vs having to play davidson or someone like that in their backyard, potentially, is huge.

yes, the 1 seeds advanced because they were usually the better team on the court. but it also helps mitigate upsets when you're not playing sneaky good teams. i.e., in 2004 we were a 2 but had to play an underrated nevada squad. as a 1 seed, we wouldn't have seen anyone like that in early rounds.

gonzaga will win the WCC champ because their the best team, right? not so fast...i don't know about the rest of you, but i'd rather have to face LMU in the final game than SMC.

That settles it. #1 seed it is. Tell the committee :]

"Any time, any place" has to be the attitude for our guys, but I am all for not facing an NBA laden 2009N. Carolina for as long as possible.

rijman
02-20-2013, 09:11 AM
since 1979, 132 teams have advanced to the final four:

33 years
4 teams per year

33 * 4 = 132

here's the number of participants by seed:

1 seed: 55 teams 42% of F4 participants
2 seed: 30 teams 23% of F4 participants
3 seed: 15 teams 11% of F4 participants
4 seed: 12 teams 9% of F4 participants
5-16: 20 teams 15% of F4 participants

to the posters who have been suggesting there isn't much difference between a 1 or a 2...i beg to differ.
Thanks for the stats.

One thing that struck me here is that the #1 seeds, presumably the best teams with the easiest path to the finals (relative to the other teams seedings which does not always result in playing "easier" teams) didn't reach the FF 58% of the time, interesting.

UberZagFan
02-20-2013, 09:14 AM
Nice stats and don't necessarily disagree with the premise. But wonder how, if at all, the numbers would change if you just used stats from 1985 (the first year of the true 64 team format)?

tobizag
02-20-2013, 09:21 AM
Nice stats and don't necessarily disagree with the premise. But wonder how, if at all, the numbers would change if you just used stats from 1985 (the first year of the true 64 team format)?

stats from 1985-2012

108 teams in 27 final fours

1 seed: 46 teams 43% of F4
2 seed: 25 teams 23% of F4
3 seed: 13 teams 12% of F4
4 seed: 11 teams 10% of F4
5-16: 13 teams 12% of F4

Vanzagger
02-20-2013, 09:23 AM
Take are of business

emersonw
02-20-2013, 09:29 AM
Ask an ye shall receive, here are the figueres since 1985. The difference is even greater since the tourney expaned to 64 teams.

Which Seeds Reach the Final Four Most Often?
The better the seed, the more often it reaches the Final Four. Here's a quick rundown of seeds and the number of times each one has reached the Final Four:
#1 - 43 appearances (44.7%)
#2 - 20 appearances (20.8%)
#3 - 12 appearances (12.5%)
#4 - 9 appearances (9.4%)
#5 - 4 appearances (4.1%)
#6 - 3 appearances (3.1%)
#7 - 0 appearances (0%)
#8 - 3 appearances (3.1%)
#9 - 0 appearances (0%)
#10 - 0 appearances (0%)
#11 - 2 appearances (2.1%)

tobizag
02-20-2013, 09:40 AM
Ask an ye shall receive, here are the figueres since 1985. The difference is even greater since the tourney expaned to 64 teams.

Which Seeds Reach the Final Four Most Often?
The better the seed, the more often it reaches the Final Four. Here's a quick rundown of seeds and the number of times each one has reached the Final Four:
#1 - 43 appearances (44.7%)
#2 - 20 appearances (20.8%)
#3 - 12 appearances (12.5%)
#4 - 9 appearances (9.4%)
#5 - 4 appearances (4.1%)
#6 - 3 appearances (3.1%)
#7 - 0 appearances (0%)
#8 - 3 appearances (3.1%)
#9 - 0 appearances (0%)
#10 - 0 appearances (0%)
#11 - 2 appearances (2.1%)

that's only 96 teams...or 24 final fours. that's 1988

KStyles
02-20-2013, 09:45 AM
that's only 96 teams...or 24 final fours. that's 1988

Looks like those stats are a few years old, and may just include tourneys from 1985-2008.

http://basketball.about.com/od/ncaatournament/a/topseeds.htm

Using the CBS List (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/ncaa-tournament/history/finalfourseeds), I get the following stats for 1985-2012 (112 total teams)

1: 46 (41.07%)
2: 25 (22.32%)
3: 14 (12.50%)
4: 11 (9.82%)
5: 6 (5.36%)
6: 3 (2.68%)
7: 0 (0.00%)
8: 4 (3.57%)
9: 0 (0.00%)
10: 0 (0.00%)
11: 3 (2.68%)
12: 0 (0.00%)

UberZagFan
02-20-2013, 09:51 AM
Ask an ye shall receive, here are the figueres since 1985. The difference is even greater since the tourney expaned to 64 teams.

Which Seeds Reach the Final Four Most Often?
The better the seed, the more often it reaches the Final Four. Here's a quick rundown of seeds and the number of times each one has reached the Final Four:
#1 - 43 appearances (44.7%)
#2 - 20 appearances (20.8%)
#3 - 12 appearances (12.5%)
#4 - 9 appearances (9.4%)
#5 - 4 appearances (4.1%)
#6 - 3 appearances (3.1%)
#7 - 0 appearances (0%)
#8 - 3 appearances (3.1%)
#9 - 0 appearances (0%)
#10 - 0 appearances (0%)
#11 - 2 appearances (2.1%)

While there is a big drop from 1 to 2, the 1&2s have comprised 65% of FF teams.

Interesting looking at the bottom. No 9s but 3 8s? They essentially have the same statistical path. And no 7/10s ever? Wow, and GU was just oh so close from being the only 10 to advance to the FF.

Zag4Hire
02-20-2013, 11:14 AM
I am going to respectfully disagree. Although the stats are there, I don't think one needs to put the entire scope of stats up there to paint the picture for a specific team in a specific year. I think most people would say your draw (where & who you play) is more important. It isn't a saving grace just to play in SLC and San Jose but it does help. Also I don't see a true 'buzzsaw team' (2012 Kentucky and 2009 North Carolina). There is no team I would say, "Aw man. Don't want to play them". I would happily put this GU squad against any competition. #1 or #2 seed, if they play their game, they are going to the FF.

UKWildcatsFan
02-20-2013, 11:44 AM
I would rather have a 1 than a 2, but if Gonzaga gets a 2 it's not going to put me in that mood that "oh there's no way we're going to have a chance at the title now".

exclusivelee
02-20-2013, 11:53 AM
CBS Sports has compiled a list of every final four team with seedings since 1979:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/ncaa-tournament/history/finalfourseeds

maynard g krebs
02-20-2013, 11:57 AM
The top seeds are generally the best teams, and that probably accounts for the majority of it, with slightly easier matchups in each round accounting for the rest.

The Zags will be the same team whether they are the last one or the first two. So while a one is better than a two due to likelihood of better location/matchups, I doubt it would double the chance of making a f4. Maybe increase the chance by a third or something, which is still significant.

rijman
02-20-2013, 12:25 PM
CBS Sports has compiled a list of every final four team with seedings since 1979:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/ncaa-tournament/history/finalfourseeds
Thanks for the link, interesting. In the list below the FF seedings I noticed #1 seeds have won the tournament 18 times, #2 seeds 5 times and #3 seeds 5 times with #4 seed winning only once.

Shanachie
02-20-2013, 12:35 PM
THIS. and the key take away here:

while it matters who is better, the odds of advancing vs a 9 seed in your own backyard vs having to play davidson or someone like that in their backyard, potentially, is huge.

yes, the 1 seeds advanced because they were usually the better team on the court. but it also helps mitigate upsets when you're not playing sneaky good teams. i.e., in 2004 we were a 2 but had to play an underrated nevada squad. as a 1 seed, we wouldn't have seen anyone like that in early rounds.



To be clear, Nevada was a 10 seed that year, having beaten Michigan State, the 7. The 1 seed plays against the winner of the 8/9 game, so the chances of facing someone "sneaky good" is about the same.

And as either a 2 or a 1, the Zags are likely to be playing in their own back yard (as they were when they lost to Nevada).

That being said, it's better to be a 1 than a 2, given that the matchups will be slightly better throughout.

Reborn
02-20-2013, 02:34 PM
[QUOTE=tobizag;874977]since 1979, 132 teams have advanced to the final four:

33 years
4 teams per year

33 * 4 = 132

here's the number of participants by seed:

1 seed: 55 teams 42% of F4 participants
2 seed: 30 teams 23% of F4 participants
3 seed: 15 teams 11% of F4 participants
4 seed: 12 teams 9% of F4 participants
5-16: 20 teams 15% of F4 participants:-*


This is a very good reason for wanting a #1 seed. However, if we are a two seed, the odds are okay too. I think the tournament is so unpredictable that no one can really say who wiill make it this year. There are just too many teams who are equal. I heard one analyst say that 20 teams could win it all this year. So when you hear someone that Gonzaga has a chance of winning it all, well so do 19 other teams.

:-*

CDC84
02-20-2013, 03:04 PM
One question you have to ask yourself: would getting a one seed be a major team distraction for Gonzaga? Most talking heads in the media would complain about it (especially the TV guys). Heck, Billy Packer might even come out of retirement to complain about it. Lunardi and Palm could offer all the supporting data in the world, and still the TV guys would gripe and gripe. If GU wins out, I don't think much controversy would result from them getting a two seed.

tobizag
02-20-2013, 03:30 PM
One question you have to ask yourself: would getting a one seed be a major team distraction for Gonzaga? Most talking heads in the media would complain about it (especially the TV guys). Heck, Billy Packer might even come out of retirement to complain about it. Lunardi and Palm could offer all the supporting data in the world, and still the TV guys would gripe and gripe. If GU wins out, I don't think much controversy would result from them getting a two seed.

this is the only reason i can see for not "wanting" the 1 seed. you can imagine digger, rece davis, and everyone else on espn who still says gun-ZAW-guh screaming and crying about it, and persistently harassing our guys in media appearances about it...then we go out and get matched with michigan state as a 4 seed somehow and lose in the S16 and everyone goes "Seeeee!?!?"

i just made myself sick

NumberCruncher
02-20-2013, 03:45 PM
this is the only reason i can see for not "wanting" the 1 seed. you can imagine digger, rece davis, and everyone else on espn who still says gun-ZAW-guh screaming and crying about it, and persistently harassing our guys in media appearances about it...then we go out and get matched with michigan state as a 4 seed somehow and lose in the S16 and everyone goes "Seeeee!?!?"

i just made myself sick


I always hit the mute button when digger opens his yap. No matter what our seed, some of those guys will try make a case that we're overrated.

I think we can get the #1 if, and only if, we win out and do it impressively.