NCAA Tournament – Quantitative Reference Thread

[Fieldhouse Flyer]

With respect to the HLOH Bracketology thread, the following is provided as supplementary reference information.

Note that this is not intended to be a discussion thread for the 2020 NCAA Tournament - just a 'numbers' thread.

NCAA Tournament Odds by Seed - BetFirm.com - March 12, 2019

TABLE: Odds to Advance to Each Round of the Tourney by Bracket Seed

Tournament Win/Loss Statistics by Seeding:
TABLE: First Round
TABLE: Second Round
TABLE: Sweet 16
TABLE: Elite 8
TABLE: Final Four
TABLE: Championship Game

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NCAA Tournament First Round Record by Seed - PrintYourBrackets.com – April 10, 2019

We have collected data from the past 35 NCAA Tournaments. The information below is from 1985 through 2019. The first year there were 64 teams in the tournament was 1985. The data shows the record of each seed in the first round of every tournament.

Records by Seed Matchup

The table below shows the records for each pairing in the first round of the NCAA Tournament. We analyzed data from 35 tournaments, and there are 4 matchups per tournament, per seeded pair(1 for each region), for a total of 140 games for each seed.

#1 Seed vs #16 Seed - 139-1 - 99.29% Winning Percentage #1 Seed
#2 Seed vs #15 Seed - 132-8 - 94.29% Winning Percentage #2 Seed
#3 Seed vs #14 Seed - 119-21 - 85.00% Winning Percentage #3 Seed
#4 Seed vs #13 Seed - 111-28 - 79.29% Winning Percentage #4 Seed
#5 Seed vs #12 Seed - 90-47 - 64.29% Winning Percentage #5 Seed
#6 Seed vs #11 Seed - 88-51 - 62.86% Winning Percentage #6 Seed
#7 Seed vs #10 Seed - 85-52 - 60.71% Winning Percentage #7 Seed
#8 Seed vs #9 Seed - 69-71 - 49.28% Winning Percentage #8 Seed

Here is the data made into a graph:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those of you with a decent knowledge of Probability & Statistics might be interested in the following scholarly 32-page .pdf slide show:

Seed Distributions for the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament: Why it May Not Matter Who Plays Whom – Sheldon H. Jacobson, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois – 2011

[Fieldhouse Flyer]

Here’s some numbers concerning two topics which appear regularly on the HLOH message board – the importance of the NET Rankings, and the fate of power-conference ‘good teams’ finishing the season with losing conference W-L records.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NCAA Basketball Tournament Selection Process - Wikipedia

During the 2018 offseason, the NCAA announced that the RPI would no longer be used in the selection process for the Division I men's tournament. The RPI has been replaced by the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET), a new metric that includes the following metrics:

• Game results
• Strength of schedule
• Location (home, away, or neutral site)
• Scoring margin — Teams will receive no added credit for victory margins above 10 points. Additionally, overtime games will be assigned a scoring margin of 1 point, regardless of the actual score.
• Net offensive and defensive efficiency
• All games will be evaluated equally; there is no bonus or penalty for when a game is played within the season.

• Quality of wins and losses — The NCAA will continue to use its "quadrant" system, introduced for the 2018 tournament selection process, to classify individual wins and losses. Quadrants are classified as follows, based on the location of the game with respect to the team under consideration and the ranking of its opponent in the NET as follows:

Quadrant .... Home ... Neutral Site ..... Away
..... 1 ......... 1–30 ......... 1–50 .......... 1–75
..... 2 ......... 31–75 ....... 51–100 ....... 76–135
..... 3 ........ 76–160 ..... 101–200 ..... 136–240
..... 4 ....... 161–353 ..... 201–353 ..... 241–353

Biggest Takeaways from the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee's Top 16 Reveal – Bleacher Report – February 9, 2019

Those of us in the bracketology industry were curious to see how the committee would use its new ranking tool, and these are the five biggest takeaways from the reveal:

1. Quadrant 1 Wins Are Still Huge

2. Conference Records Don't Matter

3. Player Absences Are Being Considered

4. Road Records Are Important

5. The Committee Loves NET

There were a couple of noteworthy differences between the committee's seedings and the NET rankings. But unless there's something about a resume that jumps off the page—such as a bunch of Quadrant 1 wins or an unsightly strength of schedule — it seems like the committee is more or less going to default to the NET rankings.

Twelve of the 16 teams have a NET ranking within two spots of where the committee seeded them, and three of those teams are in the same spot on both lists. The No. 1 seeds are all in the top four in NET, and all eight Nos. 1 and 2 seeds are in the top nine in NET. We'll have to wait until Selection Sunday to see if that adherence to NET carries all the way to the bubble, but it does seem like the committee is more hesitant to disregard NET than it was RPI.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This NCAA tournament, getting in with a losing conference record isn’t such a stretch – The Washington Post - February 16, 2019

In the tournament’s history, only 44 teams have earned at-large berths without a conference record of .500 or better. For more than a quarter-century, the record for the most in a year was three (in 1991) — a stretch that covered seven seasons of a 68-team field. Which meant there usually there wasn’t too many gripes. Then last year, five teams with 8-10 conference records — Alabama, Arizona State, Oklahoma, Syracuse and Texas — found their way into the field. That was enough to get a lot of attention, not all of it good.

500 reasons losing league record shouldn't keep teams out of NCAA Tournament - Mike DeCourcy, The Sporting News – February 26, 2019

In 1990-91, the Saturday before Selection Sunday commenced with eight of the Big East’s nine teams still considered prospects for NCAA bids. Seven were chosen, including Villanova with a 7-9 record. No league since has come close to placing 78 percent of its teams into the field. By then I learned a simple lesson: All leagues are not the same. They’re not the same from year to year, even.

NCAA Tournament bracket dilemma: Good mid-majors vs. bad power conference teams – The Philadelphia Inquirer - March 1, 2019

According to ESPN bracketologist Joe Lunardi, in the last five seasons since conference realignment, eight teams with records below .500 in their conferences have made the NCAA field. Only two have advanced past the first round, and the overall record for the eight teams is 2-8.

Listing of NCAA Tournament At-large Selections Under .500 in Conference Play - CBS SPORTS NCAA TOURNAMENT HISTORY
.

[Fieldhouse Flyer]

.
Selection Sunday 2019: Comparing NET Rankings to NCAA Tournament Seeding

The next logical Quantitative Reference would be a comparison of NET Ranking to NCAA Tournament Seeding.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find a full listing published on-line, so as a Holy Land of Hoops exclusive, I have compiled two listings. The first lists teams in order of their NET Ranking, to which I have added the teams’ NCAA Tournament seeds. The second lists teams in order of their Official NCAA Tournament Seed Number, to which I have added the teams’ NET Rankings and Tournament Seed Numbers.

OFFICIAL NCAA NITTY-GRITTY (THROUGH GAMES OF March 17, 2019)

NET Rankings - Selection Sunday - March 17, 2019

1. Virginia (#1 Seed)
2. Gonzaga (#1 Seed)
3. Duke (#1 Seed)
4. Houston (#3 Seed)
5. Tennessee (#2 Seed)
6. Kentucky (#2 Seed)
7. North Carolina (#1 Seed)
8. Michigan State (#2 Seed)
9. Michigan (#2 Seed)
10. Texas Tech (#3 Seed)
11. Virginia Tech (#4 Seed)
12. Purdue (#3 Seed)
13. Wofford (#7 Seed)
14. LSU (#3 Seed)
15. Buffalo (#6 Seed)
16. Florida State (#4 Seed)
17. Wisconsin (#5 Seed)
18. Auburn (#5 Seed)
19. Mississippi State (#5 Seed)
20. Kansas (#4 Seed)
21. Iowa State (#6 Seed)
22. Louisville (#7 Seed)
23. Nevada (#7 Seed)
24. Kansas State (#4 Seed)
25. Cincinnati (#7 Seed)
26. Villanova (#6 Seed) • Big East Tournament Champion
27. Maryland (#6 Seed)
28. Marquette (#5 Seed)
29. Utah State (#8 Seed)
30. UCF (#9 Seed)
31. Florida (#10 Seed)
32. Saint Mary's (#11 Seed)
33. NC State ==> SNUBBED! See ‘snubbed’ articles below.
34. VCU (#8 Seed)
35. Clemson
36. Ole Miss (#8 Seed)
37. Oklahoma (#9 Seed)
38. Texas ==> SNUBBED! See ‘snubbed’ articles below.
39. Baylor (#9 Seed)
40. New Mexico State (#12 Seed)
41. Furman
42. Syracuse (#8 Seed)
43. Iowa (#10 Seed)
44. Murray State (#12 Seed)
45. Washington (#9 Seed)
46. Memphis
47. Belmont (#11 Seed*)
48. Nebraska
49. Lipscomb
50. Penn State

51. Oregon (#12 Seed)
52. TCU ==> SNUBBED! See ‘snubbed’ articles below.
53. Creighton ==> SNUBBED! See ‘snubbed’ articles below.
54. Indiana ==> SNUBBED! See ‘snubbed’ articles below.
55. Ohio State (#11 Seed)
56. Temple (#11 Seed*)
57. Seton Hall (#10 Seed)
58. Liberty (#12 Seed)
59. Alabama ==> SNUBBED! See ‘snubbed’ articles below.
60. UNC Greensboro ==> SNUBBED! See ‘snubbed’ articles below.
61. Minnesota (#10 Seed)
62. Toledo
63. Arizona State (#11 Seed*)
64. Butler
65. Arkansas
66. Colorado
67. Xavier
68. UC Irvine (#13 Seed)
69. Dayton
70. Providence
71. Vermont (#13 Seed)
72. ETSU
73. St. John's (#11 Seed*)
74. San Francisco
75. Davidson
76. Hofstra
77. Missouri
78. Northeastern
79. Oklahoma State
80. Fresno State
81. South Carolina
82. Georgetown ==> SNUBBED! See ‘snubbed’ articles below.
83. Wichita State
84. Texas A&M
85. BYU
86. Yale (#14 Seed)
87. Oregon State
88. Southern California
89. Northwestern
90. Utah Valley
91. Southern Miss.
92. Miami (FL)
93. Arizona
94. Tulsa
95. UConn
96. Grand Canyon
97. San Diego
98. SMU
99. South Fla.
100. Old Dominion (#14 Seed)

102. DePaul
103. Saint Louis (#13 Seed) • Atlantic 10 Tournament Champion
115. Northern Kentucky (#14 Seed)
121. Georgia State (#14 Seed)
124. Montana (#15 Seed)
132. Colgate (#15 Seed)
154. Abilene Christian (#15 Seed)
176. Bradley (#15 Seed)
173. Gardner-Webb (#16 Seed)

202. Iona (#16 Seed)
203. Fairleigh Dickinson (#16 Seed*)
205. Prairie View (#16 Seed*)
222. North Dakota State (#16 Seed*)

301. N.C. Central (#16 Seed*)

* Assigned to First Four Play-in game at UD Arena.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

........ 2019 NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament Bracket – NCAA.com ........ 2019 NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament - Wikipedia .......................

#5 Seed • Marquette • NET #28 ....... #6 Seed • Villanova • NET #26 ....... #10 Seed • Seton Hall • NET #57 ....... #11 Seed • St. John's • NET #73

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Official NCAA Tournament Bracket Seeding from 1-68 - March 17, 2019 (Selection Sunday)

A complete rundown of every team in the tourney, plus where they'll be seeded

1. Duke (29-5) NET Ranking: 3 (#1 Seed)
2. Virginia (29-3) NET Ranking: 1 (#1 Seed)
3. North Carolina (27-6) NET Ranking: 7 (#1 Seed)
4. Gonzaga (30-3) NET Ranking: 2 (#1 Seed)

5. Tennessee (29-4) NET Ranking: 5 (#2 Seed
6. Michigan State (28-6) NET Ranking: 8 (#2 Seed)
7. Kentucky (27-6) NET Ranking: 6 (#2 Seed)
8. Michigan (28-6) NET Ranking: 9 (#2 Seed)

9. Houston (31-3) NET Ranking: 4 (#3 Seed)
10. Texas Tech (26-6) NET Ranking: 10 (#3 Seed)
11. LSU (26-6) NET Ranking: 14 (#3 Seed)
12. Purdue (23-9) NET Ranking: 12 (#3 Seed)

13. Kansas (25-9) NET Ranking: 20 (#4 Seed)
14. Florida State (27-7) NET Ranking: 16 (#4 Seed)
15. Kansas State (25-8) NET Ranking: 24 (#4 Seed)
16. Virginia Tech (24-8) NET Ranking: 11 (#4 Seed)

17. Marquette (24-9) NET Ranking: 28 (#5 Seed)
18. Auburn (25-9) NET Ranking: 18 (#5 Seed)
19. Wisconsin (23-10) NET Ranking: 17 (#5 Seed)
20. Mississippi State (23-10) NET Ranking: 19 (#5 Seed)

21. Villanova (25-9) NET Ranking: 26 (#6 Seed) • Big East Tournament Champion
22. Maryland (22-10) NET Ranking: 27 (#6 Seed)
23. Buffalo (31-3) NET Ranking: 15 (#6 Seed)
24. Iowa State (23-11) NET Ranking: 21 (#6 Seed)

25. Louisville (20-13) NET Ranking: 22 (#7 Seed)
26. Nevada (29-4) NET Ranking: 23 (#7 Seed)
27. Cincinnati (28-6) NET Ranking: 25 (#7 Seed)
28. Wofford (29-4) NET Ranking: 13 (#7 Seed)

29. VCU (25-7) NET Ranking: 34 (#8 Seed)
30. Syracuse (20-13) NET Ranking: 42 (#8 Seed)
31. Ole Miss (20-12) NET Ranking: 36 (#8 Seed)
32. Utah State (28-6) NET Ranking: 29 (#8 Seed)

33. Washington (26-8) NET Ranking: 45 (#9 Seed)
34. UCF (23-8) NET Ranking: 30 (#9 Seed)
35. Baylor (19-13) NET Ranking: 39 (#9 Seed)
36. Oklahoma (19-13) NET Ranking: 37 (#9 Seed)

37. Iowa (22-11) NET Ranking: 43 (#10 Seed)
38. Seton Hall (20-13) NET Ranking: 57 (#10 Seed)
39. Minnesota (21-13) NET Ranking: 61 (#10 Seed)
40. Florida (19-15) NET Ranking: 31 (#10 Seed)

41. Ohio State (19-14) NET Ranking: 55 (#11 Seed)
42. Belmont (26-5) NET Ranking: 47 (#11 Seed*)
43. Temple (23-9) NET Ranking: 56 (#11 Seed*)
44. Saint Mary's (22-11) NET Ranking: 32 (#11 Seed)

45. Arizona State (22-10) NET Ranking: 63 (#11 Seed*)
46. Murray State (27-4) NET Ranking: 44 (#12 Seed)
47. St. John's (21-12) NET Ranking: 73 (#11 Seed*)
48. Oregon (23-12) NET Ranking: 51 (#12 Seed)
49. New Mexico State (30-4) NET Ranking: 40 (#12 Seed)
50. Liberty (28-6) NET Ranking: 58 (#12 Seed)

51. UC Irvine (30-5) NET Ranking: 68 (#13 Seed)
52. Vermont (27-6) NET Ranking: 71 (#13 Seed)
53. Saint Louis (22-12) NET Ranking: 103 (#13 Seed) • Atlantic 10 Tournament Champion

54. Northeastern (23-10) NET Ranking: 78 (#13 Seed)

55. Yale (21-7) NET Ranking: 86 (#14 Seed)
56. Old Dominion (26-8) NET Ranking: 100 (#14 Seed)
57. Georgia State (23-9) NET Ranking: 121 (#14 Seed)
58. Northern Kentucky (26-8) NET Ranking: 115 (#14 Seed)

59. Montana (26-8) NET Ranking: 124 (#15 Seed)
60. Colgate (24-10) NET Ranking: 132 (#15 Seed)
61. Bradley (20-14) NET Ranking: 176 (#15 Seed)
62. Abilene Christian (27-6) NET Ranking: 154 (#15 Seed)

63. Gardner-Webb (23-11) NET Ranking: 173 (#16 Seed)
64. Iona (17-15) NET Ranking: 202 (#16 Seed)
65. Prairie View (22-12) NET Ranking: 205 (#16 Seed*)
66. Fairleigh Dickinson (20-13) NET Ranking: 203 (#16 Seed*)
67. North Dakota State (18-15) NET Ranking: 222 (#16 Seed*)
68. N.C. Central (18-15) NET Ranking: 301 (#16 Seed*)

* Assigned to First Four Play-in game at UD Arena.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are this year's five biggest NCAA tournament snubs - Jeff Eisenberg, Yahoo Sports - March 17, 2019

1. TCU (20-13, 7-11, NET 52, KenPom 48)
… Q1 record: 3-9
… Q2 record: 6-4
… Q3, Q4 losses: 0
… Best wins: Iowa State (2), Florida, Baylor, Texas (2)

2. NC STATE (22-11, 9-9, NET 33, KenPom: 32)
… Q1 record: 3-9
… Q2 record: 5-0
… Q3, Q4 losses: 2 (Georgia Tech, at Wake Forest)
… Best wins: Auburn, Syracuse, Clemson (2)

3. INDIANA (17-15, 8-12, NET 54, KenPom 42)
… Q1 record: 6-9
… Q2 record: 2-6
… Q3, Q4 losses: 0
… Best wins: Michigan State (2), Wisconsin, Louisville Marquette

4. UNC GREENSBORO (28-6, 15-3 NET 60, KenPom 81)
… Q1 record: 2-6
… Q2 record: 2-0
… Q3, Q4 losses: 0
… Best wins: Furman (2), East Tennessee State (2)

5. TEXAS (16-16, 8-10, NET 38, KenPom 30)
… Q1 record: 5-10
… Q2 record: 4-5
… Q3, Q4 losses: 1 (Radford)
… Best wins: North Carolina, Purdue, at Kansas State, Kansas, Iowa State

Indiana, Alabama, UNC-Greensboro among NCAA tournament's biggest snubs on Selection Sunday - USA TODAY - March 18, 2019

NCAA tournament underseeded and overseeded teams: 5 things selection committee got wrong

Here's a look at the other bubble teams to suffer Selection Sunday blues by getting left out of the field of 68:

Alabama: Crimson Tide coach Avery Johnson said of his team's NCAA tournament hopes following an SEC tournament quarterfinal loss to Kentucky, "Hopefully, we'll be able to sneak in." That would have been exactly what Alabama (18-15, 8-10 SEC) would have done had the committee decided to award an at-large bid to a rather undeserving team. While the Tide have lost seven of their last 10, one of those wins was a Quad 1 neutral court victory over Ole Miss in the SEC tourney. The other major eye candy on this portfolio included a Jan. 5 win over Kentucky, which paired nicely with a top-20 overall strength of schedule largely filtered by a stronger SEC this year. A non-conference win over Murray State also looked much better on Selection Sunday.

TCU: The Horned Frogs (20-13, 7-11 Big 12) struggled down the stretch, having lost seven of their last 10 and finishing tied as the third-worst team in the Big 12. But this team had no bad losses on its profile, a top-35 strength of schedule and a NET score in the low 50s. An argument can be made that a team playing in the country's best NET conference, the Big 12, should have won more than three Quad 1 games. But TCU was undoubtedly snubbed here based on everything it had to offer.

North Carolina State:The Wolfpack (22-11, 9-9 ACC) were in line to be the NET metric's biggest fans given it scored them a highly respectable top-35 ranking. That's in comparison to an RPI in the high 90s. Virtually all of N.C. State's wins came against low-tier opponents, and the committee was smart enough to notice and not over-rely on its new system. The Wolfpack only posted three Quad 1 wins despite playing in the ACC and have the country's second worst (352nd) non-conference strength of schedule. Wonder why their NET score is so solid? Because they pummeled bottom feeders by large margins and it created the illusion that they were one of the 68 best teams in the country. The committee smartly used a magnifying glass for this portfolio.

Texas:The Longhorns (16-16, 8-10 Big 12) had a top-five strength of schedule and top-40 NET score despite all their losses. More than that, Texas posted five Quad 1 victories to entice the committee, including wins over Purdue, Kansas State and Kansas. But ultimately, the committee didn't want to set a negative precedent by including its first-ever 16-loss at-large team into the field since the tourney expanded in 1985.

Creighton: The Bluejays (18-14, 9-9 Big East) had features on their profile that the committee surely looked at, starting with a top-25 non-conference strength of schedule and followed by a top-55 NET score. There were only three Quad 1 wins on this profile, and even if one of those was on the road at Marquette, this profile was just too bare to sway the committee.

Georgetown: The Hoyas (19-13, 9-9 Big East) had five Q1 victories on their résumé, having taken down Marquette and Villanova in Big East play. But a NET score of 80 and non-conference strength of schedule that ranks 250 ultimately kept Patrick Ewing's young team out of the NCAA tournament.

NCAA tournament 2019: What did the bracket teach us about the NET? - Chris Dobbertean, SB Nation - March 18, 2019,

Predicting the bracket with the NET

So how is the Committee using the NET?

Is the NET better than the RPI?

Did the Committee use the NET to build the bracket fairly?

[kayako]

I don't want to create a realignment thread or necro an old topic, so I'll ask a hypothetical question here for those who want to chime in. If Dayton wins the NCAAT this year, how close are they from Val announcing them as a Big East member? This is supposed to be a wide open year to win the title...

[Toronto Rapture]

^
For what it's worth, the topic was briefly discussed on the pregame yesterday. They discussed who the 12th member should be. They said Dayton.

[stever20]

I don't want to create a realignment thread or necro an old topic, so I'll ask a hypothetical question here for those who want to chime in. If Dayton wins the NCAAT this year, how close are they from Val announcing them as a Big East member? This is supposed to be a wide open year to win the title...

It's an interesting question. Especially if the Big East this year only gets 5 or 6 teams in the tourney after how great the OOC play was.

[Omaha1]

I don't want to create a realignment thread or necro an old topic, so I'll ask a hypothetical question here for those who want to chime in. If Dayton wins the NCAAT this year, how close are they from Val announcing them as a Big East member? This is supposed to be a wide open year to win the title...

It's an interesting question. Especially if the Big East this year only gets 5 or 6 teams in the tourney after how great the OOC play was.

I’ve seen Dayton play once this year and I have no doubt they will not win the national title.

[stever20]

I don't know if they need to even win the title. A Final 4 appearance would be gigantic...

[Warriortommy]

And I'm equally sure Dayton will not be in the Big East anytime soon.

[marquette]

FF would appreciate it if this thread was not turned into a realignment thread. I fully support this position, especially as we are enjoying a pretty fun conference season.