Re: NCAA Tournament – Quantitative Reference Thread
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:30 pmGoing back to the top of this thread, it really shows that 10, 11, and 12 seeds are all pretty much the same, with the same thing applying to 5, 6, 7 seeds. In fact, the entire group from 5 up to 12 is very competitive. 5 is where teams begin to have major flaws, making them vulnerable. 12 is where you have the best of the auto bids that would have landed on the wrong side of the bubble. Unlike the 16 and 15 seeds, these 12s are actually good teams, and are quite capable of beating anything below the 4 seeds, including football 5 schools, and BE schools as well. It gets shaky at 13. These teams aren't usually too good, although you will occasionally get a mis-seeded team on the 13 line. Above 13 is usually crap. When they pull an upset, it's usually because the 2 or 3 seed they beat has been vastly overrated.
Sometimes you get a team from one of the stronger mid major leagues like the MVC, or the CAA before the A10 gutted it, that has a really good record, but didn't play enough good teams to really prove themselves, and end up being underseeded. The Loyola, George Mason, Wichita, and VCU teams that reached the Final Four fit this description. It's tough for teams like that to have good schedules, because why risk playing a team that actually might beat you, but whom beating really doesn't benefit you. The BE offers enough tough games for it's members. Sure, a game against Duke or Kentucky is a no brainer, as it carries no risk, but a high reward, but a game vs Loyola offers mild risk, with little reward, and let's not even talk about the insanity of playing them on the road. Is it fair that those teams can't get good ooc schedules, sure, but you can't blame the teams above them for protecting their positions.
Sometimes you get a team from one of the stronger mid major leagues like the MVC, or the CAA before the A10 gutted it, that has a really good record, but didn't play enough good teams to really prove themselves, and end up being underseeded. The Loyola, George Mason, Wichita, and VCU teams that reached the Final Four fit this description. It's tough for teams like that to have good schedules, because why risk playing a team that actually might beat you, but whom beating really doesn't benefit you. The BE offers enough tough games for it's members. Sure, a game against Duke or Kentucky is a no brainer, as it carries no risk, but a high reward, but a game vs Loyola offers mild risk, with little reward, and let's not even talk about the insanity of playing them on the road. Is it fair that those teams can't get good ooc schedules, sure, but you can't blame the teams above them for protecting their positions.