NCAA tournament question...

[nasdadjr]

I'm pretty knowledgable about how seeds are determined and how team locations and bracket slotting works. However, there is one question I have that I don't know the answer to.

Say your a play-in game 10 seed projection like Seton Hall. Your still above some teams on the S curve. You lose to a team like Xavier which will drop you a little but not out of the tournament with a strong showing. Say they drop to an 11 but are one of the top 11 seeds. Would a loss actually take a team from the Tuesday play-in game to a Thursday regular game by dropping seed? Just curious and want to see if anyone knows this answer.

[XMuskieFTW]

No. The bottom 4 at larges play in the play in no matter what. The reason the play in can shift between seeding(10 11 12) is due to the quality of the at large teams. For example, most mid major teams are going to be the worst seeds, however teams like VD or valpo could have better resumes than the last 4 at larges. In this case the play in game could move back from an 10 seed matchup to an 11 if both of those teams had better resumes than the last at larges. There are 32 automatic qualifiers so theoretically the best matchup a play in game of at larges could see is 9 seeds and worst would be 16 seeds although both of those scenarios are pretty impossible.

[nasdadjr]

Okay but wouldn't the better seeded team have a better resume anyway?

[xubrew]

They're not done with seedings until late Saturday night, so by then all the games are over and no one is really moving up or down.

They also don't move teams out so much as they move teams in. There are 36 at large bids, so they start off by basically voting 36 teams into the field. Every time one of those 36 teams wins a conference tournament they'll vote another team in. Losing to Xavier would not get a team moved down, or moved out. They really don't move teams out at all. That's a "bracketologist" thing. Once a team is in, they're pretty much in. It would take eight votes out of ten to get them out once they're in, and that's just not going to happen because by that point nearly all of the games are over and a team's profile is what it is.

As of this year, the four teams in the First Four are the lowest teams on the seed list. So, if you're fifth from the bottom relative to all the at-large teams, you're inside the First Four and in the round of 64. If you're among the four lowest rated at-large teams, you're in the First Four.

Now I'm not really sure what you're asking because it was hard to follow your question, but I hope that answers it.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I get what he is asking and I have the same question. If the First 4 participants are the lowest teams on the seed list, then how could they be 10 seeds? Why would they not be 11 seeds or 12 seeds etc? That makes no sense to me.

I get they wouldnt be 13 seeds bc those are usually where the auto bids start but I have no idea why they would be higher than 12 really.

[xubrew]

I get what he is asking and I have the same question. If the First 4 participants are the lowest teams on the seed list, then how could they be 10 seeds? Why would they not be 11 seeds or 12 seeds etc? That makes no sense to me.

I get they wouldnt be 13 seeds bc those are usually where the auto bids start but I have no idea why they would be higher than 12 really.

If they were 10 seeds, then it is because all at-large teams were 10 seeds or better, or becuase they needed to move the game up to the 10 line to make the bracket work (ie most likely to avoid a conference rematch, or because one of the games has to be on Tuesday with the winner playing on Thursday, and the other has to be on Wednesday with the winner playing on Friday).

[XMuskieFTW]

Okay but wouldn't the better seeded team have a better resume anyway?

Yea. I was referring to VD and Valpo as if they won their conference tourney. If so, they wouldn't need an at large and two more teams who did need them would get in but at a lower seedline.

[xu82]

I think they decide who they like the least, and they send them to Dayton.

[D-West & PO-Z]

If they were 10 seeds, then it is because all at-large teams were 10 seeds or better, or becuase they needed to move the game up to the 10 line to make the bracket work (ie most likely to avoid a conference rematch, or because one of the games has to be on Tuesday with the winner playing on Thursday, and the other has to be on Wednesday with the winner playing on Friday).

Does that happen often that all at large teams are 10 or better? Where every seed 11 on down was an auto bid? I'd have to think that would be fairly rare but maybe I'm way off.

[XMuskieFTW]

Does that happen often that all at large teams are 10 or better? Where every seed 11 on down was an auto bid? I'd have to think that would be fairly rare but maybe I'm way off.

That would be very rare. That would mean only 4 AQs were better than the final 4 at large teams to get two 10 seed play ins or 6 AQs to get one 10 seed play in game and one 11 seed play in game.

[xubrew]

Does that happen often that all at large teams are 10 or better? Where every seed 11 on down was an auto bid? I'd have to think that would be fairly rare but maybe I'm way off.

Not really. That would mean that almost none of the 36 initial teams won their conference tournaments.

[nuts4xu]

I believe AQ's are occasionally sent to the play in games as well, correct?

[xubrew]

I believe AQ's are occasionally sent to the play in games as well, correct?

The last four on the S curve, which are the 16 seeds

[sgarcia]

If I'm not mistaken, the teams that have played in the at large play in games have all been 11 or 12 seeds.

[xubrew]

If I'm not mistaken, the teams that have played in the at large play in games have all been 11 or 12 seeds.

They've been as low as 13 seeds, and actually were 14 seeds one year.

[D-West & PO-Z]

So when Palm has 10 seeds in his bracketology in the first 4 games that is because he was avoiding rematches? Or because why?

[xubrew]

So when Palm has 10 seeds in his bracketology in the first 4 games that is because he was avoiding rematches? Or because why?

I guess it just worked out that way. Everyone on the #12 line looks like an automatic qualifier so none of those teams would be in it. Jerry goes off conference standings, so VCU is his A10 qualifier and Temple his is American qualifier so they can't be in it. Monmouth and Wichita are obviously automatic qualifiers so they can't be in it.

I guess he has the First Four teams higher than those AQs on his seed list.

[X-band '01]

It's because automatic qualifiers (i.e. Monmouth, San Diego State, Chattanooga, Ark-Little Rock) aren't as high on his overall seed list as First Four teams are.

[XMuskieFTW]

So when Palm has 10 seeds in his bracketology in the first 4 games that is because he was avoiding rematches? Or because why?

My guess is he's saying that only 6 AQs are better than the worst at larges. So the AQ from the ACC, B10, B12, BE, Pac 12 and SEC. It looks like he's assuming VCU wins the A10 and Dayton gets an at large? That's how it makes sense to me at least.

[xubrew]

Think of it like this. There are 36 at large bids. The committee starts off with 36 teams that are in the tournament no matter what. Every time one of those 36 teams wins a conference tournament, they add another team in. The more teams out of that initial 36 who win conference tournaments, the more spots there will be and the lower (worse) the first four teams will be seeded. But, when you have so many teams in as AQs that aren't in the top 36 like Jerry does (for whatever reason) it pushes up the First Four. In this case to the 10 line.

[xubrew]

It's because automatic qualifiers (i.e. Monmouth, San Diego State, Chattanooga, Ark-Little Rock) aren't as high on his overall seed list as First Four teams are.

More simply put than how I explained it.

[paulxu]

I'm totally lost trying to follow this discussion.

With that in mind, didn't they make some sort of rule this year that teams who automatically qualify (mostly conference tournament winners) will NOT be placed in the First Four in Dayton?

[sgarcia]

I'm totally lost trying to follow this discussion.

With that in mind, didn't they make some sort of rule this year that teams who automatically qualify (mostly conference tournament winners) will NOT be placed in the First Four in Dayton?

I think that's always been the rule for the non 16 vs 16 games.

[xubrew]

I'm totally lost trying to follow this discussion.

With that in mind, didn't they make some sort of rule this year that teams who automatically qualify (mostly conference tournament winners) will NOT be placed in the First Four in Dayton?

No.

It's the last four at-large teams, and the last four automatic qualifiers.

In other words, it's two games between #16 seeded teams, and two games between bubble teams.

[Cheesehead]

My head hurts.

[nuts4xu]

The last four on the S curve, which are the 16 seeds

Huh? English Brew, English!!


No.

It's the last four at-large teams, and the last four automatic qualifiers.

In other words, it's two games between #16 seeded teams, and two games between bubble teams.

Ok, now I got it. This makes more sense.

[XU '11]

I think the bigger point here that nobody has mentioned is that teams can be moved off of their "true" seed line to help adhere to bracketing principles. For example, if teams from the Big 12 and ACC play each other in Dayton, they'll need to be sent to a pod that doesn't include any teams from either of those two conferences. In the latest ESPN Bracketology, that would eliminate every 3/6 pod so the "seed" of that play in game would either need to bump up to 10 or drop to 12.

[xubrew]

I hate the First Four.

I think that if a team is a consensus top forty team, they will make the NCAA Tournament regardless of what happens to them in the conference tournament. I also think that with 11-15 out of conference games, any team can play their way into the consensus top forty regardless of what conference they're in. 64 teams is enough teams.

But, if we must have 68 teams, I think this is a stupid format. You find out on Sunday night that you're in the tournament. You essentially have less than 48 hours to get your team and your fans to Dayton. Then, if you win, you have about the same amount of time to get your fans and your team to the next site. The schools in the First Four don't get tickets to the Round of 64 site until after the First Four. So, essentially, it's a logistical nightmare. On top of that, the atmosphere at the First Four does not feel like the NCAA Tournament. It technically is the tournament, but it practically isn't.

It's much better to play two games in two days at one place than two games in three days at two places. If they insist on 68 teams, then they should send the teams to the sites that they're playing into rather than sending them to Dayton first. It's much better to play on Wednesday night and again on Thursday afternoon in one place, than to play on Tuesday night and Thursday night in two different places. The travel is cut down significantly, and it gives you an extra day for your team and your fans to get there, and for the fans, they only have to go to one place instead of two.

I realize this is way unconventional, but if they insist on 68 teams, I'd be for having a #17 line, and actually having the #17 seeds play at the #16 seeds. I know some of those arenas are tiny, and I know that logistically they can't get all the media and other elements there that come with having the tournament. But, my response to that is....SO WHAT?? It's still a much better atmosphere than playing in a cavernous half empty UD Arena where the fans are indifferent, and most of them don't even know who the teams are. And, since it's a home game for the #16 seed, you don't have to worry about getting the fans to Dayton, and then to another site where they don't even have tickets to that site until after they've won in Dayton.

[X-band '01]

There are hard rules and there are also soft rules when it comes to shuffling teams around. An example of a hard rule is Xavier not being allowed to play Butler or Seton Hall in the 2nd round since they play each other twice in the regular season. An example of a soft rule would be rematches from the prior 2 NCAA Tournaments - let's say Wichita State as a 12 seed plays Kentucky as a 5 seed (they played each other in 2014). The Selection Committee would try to avoid this rematch if they could, but they won't bump Wichita up or down a line just to do that.

[muskiefan82]

is there a rule that if a conference has four teams in the tournament, they should all be in different regions and if they have more then teams 5-8 are placed in the other half of the regions bracket?

[xubrew]

is there a rule that if a conference has four teams in the tournament, they should all be in different regions and if they have more then teams 5-8 are placed in the other half of the regions bracket?

The top three teams from a conference have to be in different regions.

There cannot be two teams from the same conference that are seeded #4th or better in the same region, unless of course more than four teams from the same conference are seeded 4th or better.

But, the First Four is exempt. If the last two teams are from the same conference, then they'll play each other in the First Four.

[X-band '01]

The top three teams from a conference have to be in different regions.



I thought that only applies if the top 3 teams are in the top 4 seed lines.

[X-ceptional]

I thought that only applies if the top 3 teams are in the top 4 seed lines.

You are correct, sir.

To wit, see the following from the official 2015-16 NCAA DIVISION I MEN’S BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING THE BRACKET:


Each of the first four teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded on the first four lines.

Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional final if they played each other three or more times during the regular season and conference tournament.

Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional semifinals if they played each other twice during the regular season and conference tournament.

Click here (http://www.ncaa.com/content/di-principles-and-procedures-selection) for the 2015-16 seeding guidelines. Only 7 pages long, and an interesting read... if you're interested in this kind of stuff, I guess.


Edited to add... I guess X-band, you were partially correct, in that it is the first 4 teams, not 3... but I digress.

[xubrew]

Well I'll be damn.

Well, when I learned all this, the top three teams had to be in different regions. I was just assuming that was still the rule. I guess it no longer is.

So, if it was the last region that was being revealed, and you were on the bubble, and only one team from your conference had been called and it wasn't the automatic qualifier, then you knew you were toast.

[X-band '01]

You are correct, sir.

To wit, see the following from the official 2015-16 NCAA DIVISION I MEN’S BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING THE BRACKET:

Click here (http://www.ncaa.com/content/di-principles-and-procedures-selection) for the 2015-16 seeding guidelines. Only 7 pages long, and an interesting read... if you're interested in this kind of stuff, I guess.


Edited to add... I guess X-band, you were partially correct, in that it is the first 4 teams, not 3... but I digress.

Thanks - I just mentioned 3 teams since that was the scenario that Brew was asking about.

[nasdadjr]

I guess it just worked out that way. Everyone on the #12 line looks like an automatic qualifier so none of those teams would be in it. Jerry goes off conference standings, so VCU is his A10 qualifier and Temple his is American qualifier so they can't be in it. Monmouth and Wichita are obviously automatic qualifiers so they can't be in it.

I guess he has the First Four teams higher than those AQs on his seed list.

XUbrew that makes a lot of sense thank you for clearing that up for me cause I didn't know how it was handled

[nasdadjr]

is there a rule that if a conference has four teams in the tournament, they should all be in different regions and if they have more then teams 5-8 are placed in the other half of the regions bracket?

To an extent yes this is a rule

[bigdiggins]

I hate the First Four.

I think that if a team is a consensus top forty team, they will make the NCAA Tournament regardless of what happens to them in the conference tournament. I also think that with 11-15 out of conference games, any team can play their way into the consensus top forty regardless of what conference they're in. 64 teams is enough teams.

But, if we must have 68 teams, I think this is a stupid format. You find out on Sunday night that you're in the tournament. You essentially have less than 48 hours to get your team and your fans to Dayton. Then, if you win, you have about the same amount of time to get your fans and your team to the next site. The schools in the First Four don't get tickets to the Round of 64 site until after the First Four. So, essentially, it's a logistical nightmare. On top of that, the atmosphere at the First Four does not feel like the NCAA Tournament. It technically is the tournament, but it practically isn't.

It's much better to play two games in two days at one place than two games in three days at two places. If they insist on 68 teams, then they should send the teams to the sites that they're playing into rather than sending them to Dayton first. It's much better to play on Wednesday night and again on Thursday afternoon in one place, than to play on Tuesday night and Thursday night in two different places. The travel is cut down significantly, and it gives you an extra day for your team and your fans to get there, and for the fans, they only have to go to one place instead of two.

I realize this is way unconventional, but if they insist on 68 teams, I'd be for having a #17 line, and actually having the #17 seeds play at the #16 seeds. I know some of those arenas are tiny, and I know that logistically they can't get all the media and other elements there that come with having the tournament. But, my response to that is....SO WHAT?? It's still a much better atmosphere than playing in a cavernous half empty UD Arena where the fans are indifferent, and most of them don't even know who the teams are. And, since it's a home game for the #16 seed, you don't have to worry about getting the fans to Dayton, and then to another site where they don't even have tickets to that site until after they've won in Dayton.

They have addressed this issue by conveniently having local teams slotted in the first four. X, UD, and this year there will be a team within 2.5-3 hours whether it is UC, Butler, or Michigan, etc driveable schools will be scheduled in Dayton.

That being said I selfishly like the first four. I enjoy going up for all the games as a way to kick off my vacation days watching the tourney.

[X-band '01]

A team's location has NOTHING to do with being assigned to the First Four. Xavier got there in 2014 and Dayton got there based on merit (or lack thereof) according to the Selection Committee each year. In fact, the only reason UCLA wasn't in Dayton last year was because they were voted into the field BEFORE Dayton was voted in last year. That has been corrected this year; when the list is scrubbed by the Committee, a team can move in or out of the First Four starting this season.

[xubrew]

I don't think BigDiggins was being serious.

[mid major]

I don't think BigDiggins was being serious.

About driving up to the dump and being excited to watch the First Four?

[vee4xu]

I think they decide who they like the least, and they send them to Dayton.

This.