The Holy Land of Hoops

Interesting article:

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/ncaa- ... e-arizona/

Consider this paragraph:

2. Geography drives everything when it comes to planning the regions.

When we assigned matchups, the very first thing mentioned with literally every team was which site was closest to its campus. This surprised me. It makes sense to do this with the top few seeds since it gives them more fan support. But why do it for the lower seeds? "To make travel less burdensome on the players and coaches" was the reason that kept popping up, but come on - it's 2015. Teams aren't riding covered wagons and fording rivers to get to their games. Is the difference between a two-hour flight and a five-hour flight - on a chartered plane, mind you - really worth losing some competitive balance in the bracket?

This guy really gets it when it comes to modern travel!

Bill Marsh wrote:Interesting article:

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/ncaa- ... e-arizona/

Consider this paragraph:

2. Geography drives everything when it comes to planning the regions.

When we assigned matchups, the very first thing mentioned with literally every team was which site was closest to its campus. This surprised me. It makes sense to do this with the top few seeds since it gives them more fan support. But why do it for the lower seeds? "To make travel less burdensome on the players and coaches" was the reason that kept popping up, but come on - it's 2015. Teams aren't riding covered wagons and fording rivers to get to their games. Is the difference between a two-hour flight and a five-hour flight - on a chartered plane, mind you - really worth losing some competitive balance in the bracket?

This guy really gets it when it comes to modern travel!

I hate the Geography thing. And it has nothing to do with making it easier on teams, it's all about making money for the NCAAs by having teams fans being closer to their teams. And it totally destroys the competitive balance of the bracket.

If you ask any team, coach, or player, heck even die hard fans if they'd rather their team have an easier match up or a game with in driving distance everyone would pick the easier game.

I think they should make sure that lower seeds don't have a home court advantage, because that's part of making sure the game is easier, but I don't care about my team having a home court advantage.

The top teams should get the sites closest to them, but the rest of the teams that fill out that region should be from as far away from that site as possible as well. Only the top 4 seeds should get any sort of geographic preference.

That operating procedure will be tested this year. The Midwest bracket is geographically closest to both UK and Wisc. If Wisc ends up 5th on the S curve and Gonz and Ariz end up 4th and 8th, where will they get placed. I'm secretly hoping for Nova to either be 2 in the East vs an undermanned UVA or 2 in the West with Gonzaga.

GumbyDamnit! wrote:That operating procedure will be tested this year. The Midwest bracket is geographically closest to both UK and Wisc. If Wisc ends up 5th on the S curve and Gonz and Ariz end up 4th and 8th, where will they get placed. I'm secretly hoping for Nova to either be 2 in the East vs an undermanned UVA or 2 in the West with Gonzaga.

Theoretically they can move a team up a line or down a line. Perfect balance would be for the top 4 seeds to add up to 34 but they are happy with a range of 31-36.

GumbyDamnit! wrote:That operating procedure will be tested this year. The Midwest bracket is geographically closest to both UK and Wisc. If Wisc ends up 5th on the S curve and Gonz and Ariz end up 4th and 8th, where will they get placed. I'm secretly hoping for Nova to either be 2 in the East vs an undermanned UVA or 2 in the West with Gonzaga.

very true. I think it's asinine quite frankly this thing. They should IMO go pure S-curve. #1 should have #8, #9, and #16 in their bracket.

hoyahooligan wrote:

Bill Marsh wrote:Interesting article:

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/ncaa- ... e-arizona/

Consider this paragraph:

2. Geography drives everything when it comes to planning the regions.

When we assigned matchups, the very first thing mentioned with literally every team was which site was closest to its campus. This surprised me. It makes sense to do this with the top few seeds since it gives them more fan support. But why do it for the lower seeds? "To make travel less burdensome on the players and coaches" was the reason that kept popping up, but come on - it's 2015. Teams aren't riding covered wagons and fording rivers to get to their games. Is the difference between a two-hour flight and a five-hour flight - on a chartered plane, mind you - really worth losing some competitive balance in the bracket?

This guy really gets it when it comes to modern travel!

I hate the Geography thing. And it has nothing to do with making it easier on teams, it's all about making money for the NCAAs by having teams fans being closer to their teams. And it totally destroys the competitive balance of the bracket.

If you ask any team, coach, or player, heck even die hard fans if they'd rather their team have an easier match up or a game with in driving distance everyone would pick the easier game.

I think they should make sure that lower seeds don't have a home court advantage, because that's part of making sure the game is easier, but I don't care about my team having a home court advantage.

The top teams should get the sites closest to them, but the rest of the teams that fill out that region should be from as far away from that site as possible as well. Only the top 4 seeds should get any sort of geographic preference.

John Thompson used to love to have his teams seeded out West. The Georgetown run of 3 finals in 4 years in the '80's was built on gaining the advantage that UCLA had for decades in the weaker West region. We were all happy to see it go to a Big East team.

Assuming the top 8 teams are pretty set which it seems they are: Based solely on Georgraphy it would seem:

Mid West: Kentucky, Wisconsin
West: Gonzaga, Arizona
South: Duke, Kansas
East: Nova, Virginia

Competitively if you gave the top 4 teams their geographic preference and then matched the top #1 with the worst #2 I think it's more like:

Mid West: Kentucky, Gonzaga
East: Nova, Arizona
South: Duke, Kansas
West: Virginia, Wisconsin.

Duke and the west coast teams get screwed, this way, so I think the top way is how it's more likely to look.

hoyahooligan wrote:Assuming the top 8 teams are pretty set which it seems they are: Based solely on Georgraphy it would seem:

Mid West: Kentucky, Wisconsin
West: Gonzaga, Arizona
South: Duke, Kansas
East: Nova, Virginia

Competitively if you gave the top 4 teams their geographic preference and then matched the top #1 with the worst #2 I think it's more like:

Mid West: Kentucky, Gonzaga
East: Nova, Arizona
South: Duke, Kansas
West: Virginia, Wisconsin.

Duke and the west coast teams get screwed, this way, so I think the top way is how it's more likely to look.

Right now Virginia would be ahead of Nova. Virginia is 25-1 so until they lose again, it's a no brainer.

Using lunardi's latest bracket as an example shows how unfair the geography emphasis can be:

3 seeded maryland would have to play 6 seed WV in Pittsburgh

3 seed Oklahoma would have to play 6 seed Butler in Columbus

Using geography to set up a top 4 in each region from the RPI top 16, it would look something like this:

EAST (Syracuse) = 35

Virginia (3)
Villanova (4)
VCU (12)
Arkansas (16)

MIDWEST (Cleveland) = 29

Kentucky (1)
Wisconsin (6)
Maryland (9)
Baylor (13)

SOUTH (Houston) = 32

Kansas (2)
Duke (5)
Utah (11)
Wichita State (14)

WEST (LA) = 40

Arizona (7)
Gonzaga (8)
Iowa State (10)
Oklahoma (15)

By geography, the Midwest (too strong) and the West (too weak) would be considered unbalanced. So, they would make some moves to restore competitive balance to these 2 regions to get them in the preferred range of 31-36. How they would accomplish that is anyone's guess.