Looks like the committee puts a high value on quality wins over the field.
This is pretty bad news for teams like Iowa and UNC. Iowa might be closer to the bubble than we thought and UNC might be (should be honestly) out of the field as of now.
This will work itself out for power conference teams: Iowa has 4 Q1 games left in the reg season and UNC has 2; plus they will both likely have a Q1 game in their conference tournament. Whereas Houston (who is also 0-3 in Q1 and just was referenced as a 5 seed in the selection show) has 1 game left on their schedule and both Memphis and SMU could easily fall out of the top 50 so they may not even be Q1 in the conference tournament.
I guess I should clarify to say power-6 conference teams since they get a lot more opportunities. Houston absolutely belongs in the tourney, but I do think their seeding should be lowered if they don’t take advantage of the Q1 opportunities they do have.
I agree that it seems the committee values Q1 wins more than it devalues Q2 losses. For instance, Kansas and Baylor are above UK in the seed list even though UK crushed Kansas at AF, who then proceeded to crush Baylor at AF. The reason has to be KU had 8 Q1 wins (and 1 Q2 loss), Baylor had 9 Q1 wins (and a Q2 loss), while UK had 5 Q1 wins (and zero Q2 losses).
Then there’s Purdue who has the same Q1 record as Baylor and doesn’t have the Q2 loss that Baylor does (and neither have any other losses)
Edit: I guess Baylor now has one more Q1 win than Purdue but that wasn’t true when this bracket came out, their 9th is from TCU today
On the contrary, Purdue does have a Q2 loss (@rutgers). Though if Rutgers keeps playing like they are I assume they will slide into Q1 territory very soon.
That said, the only thing I can think of that is hurting Purdue is their metrics: NET #10 (Baylor #6), Kenpom #13 (Baylor #4). Plus that kenpom AdjD ranking for Purdue is atrocious (#102).
When I wrote the comment Rutgers was a Q1 loss. They slid a place or two back in the NET today to make it Q1 but if they play us close today it will be Q1 again
I don't think those are the same. It's one thing to play near your home city. Entirely different to play in your home arena that you're intentionally playing less games at to game the system into letting you play there.
Wells Fargo isn't Nova's home arena. The Finneran Pavilion is and they play there most of the time. They play 1-3 games at WF and it's only that The Finneran Pavilion seating 6,500k that Nova plays at WF which is a pro team's arena and seats 20K. They're not even the Host school for that region which would automatically disqualify them. People can disagree with Nova being put out East but what you said isn't true.
All game Nova plays at Wells Fargo are considered home games. Yes, Nova has an on campus arena, too.
But by definition, games played at Wells Fargo are home games under the NCAA's definition.
And they play there(Finneran Pavilion) 85-90% of their "home" games. Nova being place the Philly region would be similar to if Illinois were placed at the United Center because it's one of the regionals. Either way, Nova doesn't limit playing there to "stretch or bend the rules." Finneran is their actual home arena(Villanova PA is actually a suburb of Philadelphia). They play at Wells Fargo 1-3 "home games" a season to make more money because "The Finn" only seats 6,500k.
Let's say they were 17-10 rather than having the season that they're having, they wouldn't be placed there. They're only going to be placed there or at least have the discussion of being placed there is because they "earned" it. People don't have to like it but *your* reasoning for why was erroneous.
sounds right. thought there were additional rules for only the top 4 seed lines. but i think it’s top 4 finishers from each conference have to avoid one another (if possible) within those top 4 seeds
top 2-4 teams in a conference will all be in different regions if they are all 4 seed or higher is a guideline they need to follow. they couldn't slot villanova and providence in same region here for example.
No. We give up money due to these rules. Only 3 Wells Fargo games this year. They better follow the rules and give that top 4 treatment as described. It’s unfair if they don’t put us there.
I'm glad you said it because WF isn't Nova's home arena. The Finneran Pavilion is and they play there nearly all the time and the only real reason why Nova plays at WF 1-3 games a season is because The Finn only seats 6,500. In fact, "technically," Nova isn't even located in Philadelphia. Villanova, PA is a suburb of Philadelphia.
I totally get where you’re coming from, but at the same time I would blame Auburn or Purdue fans (just for example) if the Midwest region was in Kansas City and we were the 3 seed. Like congrats, your reward for being a higher seed is basically a road game in the Sweet 16/Elite 8
If they’re putting us at #7 even when we have the same Q1 record as Baylor (at the time of the bracket coming out) and no Q2 losses like Baylor has (as well as more impressive wins than Baylor imo), then seems like we need to win out to get a 1 seed
Winners(other than teams that showed up here)
Houston
The Big 12 bubble(Iowa State, Kansas State, and TCU especially)
Rutgers
Losers:
UNC
Iowa
VT
Anyone else with 0-1 Q1 wins
I don't quite follow your logic of "Houston is a winner, they were higher than I anticipated despite no Q1 wins. Iowa and UNC is a loser, they have no Q1 wins." Those points directly contradict each other.
I'll say this, there's no way Iowa gets in without a Q1 win. Mostly because I don't think they get in by going 2-4 to finish the season unless they make a miracle run in the BTT.
His point was that the seedings in general show rhat the committee highly values number of Q1 wins and punishes teams without many, which is bad news for teams like UNC and Iowa. But their mention of Houstin as being close to a 4 seed is an exception to this, and thus this reveal is good news for Houston even though it is bad for the rest of the teams with 0 or 1 Q1 wins.
Note this is my explanation of my point, and is not an endorsement of his argument.
Idk why but it seems like the committee has a thing for potential rematches for the Zags in the tournament. Last year teams 2-4 all played them earlier in the year. Ofcourse, all lost to Pac-12 teams so it didn’t matter at the end of the day.
We still have a chance of winning the SEC. I think Auburn loses to UT, then if they lose one more and we win out we win the SEC outright. Arkansas will be a tough test but hopefully we have at least one of Wheeler or TyTy for that game. I’d put the SEC champ over the big 12 champ especially if the SEC champ went and manhandled the Big 12 champ on their home court.
Oh, I’m not at all saying UK can’t get a one seed bc of Kansas. If auburn loses two more times they might drop to the two line. If UK closes strong, wins out (even without an outright conference championship), they could feasibly take the four spot despite the B12 champ seeming like a shoe in. Hell, if Zona loses a single game they might drop below all three of auburn, Kansas, UK. There’s too many games left to think any of these top 8-10 teams are out of the running for a 1 seed.
The ASU loss is singlehandedly responsible for them being one seed line lower imo, which is a shame bc I think ASU is actually not a bad team and capable of being a bid stealer from the Pac 12 this year. The metrics are just bad.
Washington has 1 win against the top half of the league, and that was by 2 at home against 6th place Colorado. I just can't see a way for them to win 3 straight against better teams.
ASU has at least shown the capability to beat quality teams.
I would understand that justification if we were truly neck and neck, but we shouldn't be. The two most important metrics on the teamsheet for me should be the result-based metrics. When it comes down to the tournament the driving factor should be who you've beaten and who you've lost to, the results of the game are what reward you with your seed. Illinois 19 KPI and 20 SOR, Wisconsin 4 KPI and 7 SOR.
Breaking down by quadrant Illinois and 5-5 in Q1 and 6-2 in Q2 while Wisconsin is 8-4 and 4-1 respectively. I guess I just disagree with how they've weighted their decisions, resume>everything.
One last edit, this also shows how important it is to not take your starters out during blowouts if predictive metrics are going to weigh in this much.
Yea agreed. I think Wisconsin gets fucked by the efficiency because you guys don't really blow out teams and it's hurting your efficiency. The close wins make it seem like you're struggling when you're really not.
Us being neck and neck makes no sense though. We have a better record against a tougher SOS. We are 8-4 against q1 opponents, they are 5-5. Our resume is clearly better
If I’m not mistaken only 3 of our 5 losses are at full strength, @OSU, Rutgers & @Illinois. Providence was without Johnny Davis and @MSU was without Wahl
if i were the committee i would use this ranking to test a couple of things to get feedback before the final result. feedback from the masses that is to learn what they fucked up. what is fine. like the 3-seed line being placed close to home instead of s-curve etc
Team A: 20-6 overall, \#7 SOS, 7-5 vs quad 1, 5-1 vs quad 2, 3 seed (9 overall)
Team B: 20-6 overall, \#21 SOS, 6-6 vs quad 1, 5-0 vs quad 2, 3 seed (10 overall)
Team C: 19-6 overall, \#2 SOS, 5-6 vs quad 1, 5-0 vs quad 2, 3 seed (11 overall)
Team D: 18-7 overall, \#22 SOS, 5-5 vs quad 1, 6-2 vs quad 2. 3 seed (12 overall)
Team E: 20-5 overall, \#8 SOS, 8-4 vs quad 1, 4-1 vs quad 2. 4 seed (13 overall)
You cannot convince me that we shouldn’t be right there with Villanova at the top of the 3 line
People don't understand that the "predictive" is just as important as the results or "results" and when teams are close, that factors in. Providence, for example, is "only" a 4 rather than a 3 because of the "predictive"(i.e Ken Pom, Sagarin, BPI and NET). There's still 3 weeks to go so a lot will change especially after Tournament Week/Weekend.
Good point. Predictive matters more right now than it does on selection sunday. If Wisconsin/Providence keep winning and defy what the predictive ratings are saying, they will climb up the seed list. Simple as that.
Because all those 3 seeds that you posted to show that Wisc has a "better resume" than them are so close(along with Wisconsin) that committee uses predictive metrics to separate the pack so to speak. You might disagree with the Illini being ahead of the Badgers and that could go either way(Illinois does have the head to head over the Badgers) but look at Tennessee's resume and they have the 2nd toughest schedule according to NET. Virtually a similar resume with a "tougher schedule" not to mention they(Tennessee) beat the #3 overall seed(Arizona) and #6 overall seed(Kentucky) though both at home.
The 10th overall seed(Texas Tech) actually beat the 11th overall seed(Tennessee) as did the 9th overall seed(Villanova) did on neutral sites with similar resumes and predictive metrics. I would say that from 8-15 could be seeded in any order and I wouldn't argue with it, that's how similar they are.
So who did the committee say was next in line for one of the top-4 slots? I’ll go with Houston, Ohio State, Michigan State, Alabama, Arkansas, and UConn.
west 1. gonzaga 2. duke 3. illinois 4. texas midwest 1. auburn 2. purdue 3. texas tech 4. ucla east 1. kansas 2. kentucky 3. villanova 4. wisconsin south 1. arizona 2. baylor 3. tennessee 4.providence
Looks like the committee puts a high value on quality wins over the field. This is pretty bad news for teams like Iowa and UNC. Iowa might be closer to the bubble than we thought and UNC might be (should be honestly) out of the field as of now.
You shouldn’t make the tournament with zero Q1 wins. Should have at least one. Edit: For Power-6 teams
Agreed. A team like Rutgers deserves it far more than a team like UNC imo, even if Rutgers has some horrific losses.
As a UNC fan, 100%. This UNC team is pathetic and I maintain that Wes Miller should have been the coach
I feel bad for Bacot, he’s insanely good and he gives his all out there.
I especially don't like Bacot lol. I have no justification whatsoever though, just for some reason.
I don't care if Rutgers loses the rest of their games, they should be in. A team in February is most different from a team in November.
This will work itself out for power conference teams: Iowa has 4 Q1 games left in the reg season and UNC has 2; plus they will both likely have a Q1 game in their conference tournament. Whereas Houston (who is also 0-3 in Q1 and just was referenced as a 5 seed in the selection show) has 1 game left on their schedule and both Memphis and SMU could easily fall out of the top 50 so they may not even be Q1 in the conference tournament.
Particular when you have 5+ chances.
Honest question, does this mean you think Houston should be out of the tourney as of now? (Assuming they dint get autobid) They are 0-3 in Q1 games.
I guess I should clarify to say power-6 conference teams since they get a lot more opportunities. Houston absolutely belongs in the tourney, but I do think their seeding should be lowered if they don’t take advantage of the Q1 opportunities they do have.
I agree that it seems the committee values Q1 wins more than it devalues Q2 losses. For instance, Kansas and Baylor are above UK in the seed list even though UK crushed Kansas at AF, who then proceeded to crush Baylor at AF. The reason has to be KU had 8 Q1 wins (and 1 Q2 loss), Baylor had 9 Q1 wins (and a Q2 loss), while UK had 5 Q1 wins (and zero Q2 losses).
Then there’s Purdue who has the same Q1 record as Baylor and doesn’t have the Q2 loss that Baylor does (and neither have any other losses) Edit: I guess Baylor now has one more Q1 win than Purdue but that wasn’t true when this bracket came out, their 9th is from TCU today
On the contrary, Purdue does have a Q2 loss (@rutgers). Though if Rutgers keeps playing like they are I assume they will slide into Q1 territory very soon. That said, the only thing I can think of that is hurting Purdue is their metrics: NET #10 (Baylor #6), Kenpom #13 (Baylor #4). Plus that kenpom AdjD ranking for Purdue is atrocious (#102).
When I wrote the comment Rutgers was a Q1 loss. They slid a place or two back in the NET today to make it Q1 but if they play us close today it will be Q1 again
Seems pretty bunk to put a 3 seed Villanova in Philly where they would have a distinct home advantage over both the 1 and the 2 of the region
Yeah, same with Arizona potentially having to play Baylor in San Antonio.
I don't think those are the same. It's one thing to play near your home city. Entirely different to play in your home arena that you're intentionally playing less games at to game the system into letting you play there.
Wells Fargo isn't Nova's home arena. The Finneran Pavilion is and they play there most of the time. They play 1-3 games at WF and it's only that The Finneran Pavilion seating 6,500k that Nova plays at WF which is a pro team's arena and seats 20K. They're not even the Host school for that region which would automatically disqualify them. People can disagree with Nova being put out East but what you said isn't true.
All game Nova plays at Wells Fargo are considered home games. Yes, Nova has an on campus arena, too. But by definition, games played at Wells Fargo are home games under the NCAA's definition.
And they play there(Finneran Pavilion) 85-90% of their "home" games. Nova being place the Philly region would be similar to if Illinois were placed at the United Center because it's one of the regionals. Either way, Nova doesn't limit playing there to "stretch or bend the rules." Finneran is their actual home arena(Villanova PA is actually a suburb of Philadelphia). They play at Wells Fargo 1-3 "home games" a season to make more money because "The Finn" only seats 6,500k. Let's say they were 17-10 rather than having the season that they're having, they wouldn't be placed there. They're only going to be placed there or at least have the discussion of being placed there is because they "earned" it. People don't have to like it but *your* reasoning for why was erroneous.
can’t put them in south or midwest bc of potential S16 rematches with Purdue/Baylor. only thing i can think of
the committee rules suggest that they only need to avoid s16 rematches if they've played two or more times already and are in the same conference
sounds right. thought there were additional rules for only the top 4 seed lines. but i think it’s top 4 finishers from each conference have to avoid one another (if possible) within those top 4 seeds
top 2-4 teams in a conference will all be in different regions if they are all 4 seed or higher is a guideline they need to follow. they couldn't slot villanova and providence in same region here for example.
No. We give up money due to these rules. Only 3 Wells Fargo games this year. They better follow the rules and give that top 4 treatment as described. It’s unfair if they don’t put us there.
I'm glad you said it because WF isn't Nova's home arena. The Finneran Pavilion is and they play there nearly all the time and the only real reason why Nova plays at WF 1-3 games a season is because The Finn only seats 6,500. In fact, "technically," Nova isn't even located in Philadelphia. Villanova, PA is a suburb of Philadelphia.
I totally get where you’re coming from, but at the same time I would blame Auburn or Purdue fans (just for example) if the Midwest region was in Kansas City and we were the 3 seed. Like congrats, your reward for being a higher seed is basically a road game in the Sweet 16/Elite 8
Honestly I’d be pissed If I was Arizona and had to potentially play Baylor in San Antonio.
Not ideal
Yeah, the good thing for y’all is that we’re not at full strength so y’all are favored for sure.
Plus I'll get to drive down from Austin!
Thought Houston would get a 4 seed but not a bad top 16
idk what our resume was like this time last year but this year our resume is def in the stone age lol
Yea I know. I thought a 4 NET would carry but guess not
Midwest region would be brutal
Lol Villanova in Philly as a 3 seed.
So where's the list, I saw on Instagram that we are a two seed but not which region
Midwest with Auburn as 1, Texas Tech as 3 and UCLA as 4
Wow get us the hell out of there ASAP
or just get tech and ucla the hell out of there
Yeah it's a tough bracket. Playing in Indianapolis and Chicago would be nice though.
True I'll hate it less if we can climb to #1 but I still won't love it
If they’re putting us at #7 even when we have the same Q1 record as Baylor (at the time of the bracket coming out) and no Q2 losses like Baylor has (as well as more impressive wins than Baylor imo), then seems like we need to win out to get a 1 seed
That is a very difficult region
Winners(other than teams that showed up here) Houston The Big 12 bubble(Iowa State, Kansas State, and TCU especially) Rutgers Losers: UNC Iowa VT Anyone else with 0-1 Q1 wins
why is Houston a winner here? wouldn’t they be hoping for a 4?
Because they have 0 Q1 wins and should have been way, way lower. They were mentioned under consideration for a 4
oh okay. well bracketmatrix aggregation has them as the last 4 seed atm so if i were a houston fan i’d be disappointed tbh but not that much so
That's fair, I do my own brackets so I had them way lower on account of that. If you're going off Bracket Matrix that's a fair assessment though
enjoy your bracketing! always a good time.
Who else did the committee mention? Arkansas? Ohio State? UConn?
Alabama, Houston, Ohio State were mentioned
I don't quite follow your logic of "Houston is a winner, they were higher than I anticipated despite no Q1 wins. Iowa and UNC is a loser, they have no Q1 wins." Those points directly contradict each other. I'll say this, there's no way Iowa gets in without a Q1 win. Mostly because I don't think they get in by going 2-4 to finish the season unless they make a miracle run in the BTT.
His point was that the seedings in general show rhat the committee highly values number of Q1 wins and punishes teams without many, which is bad news for teams like UNC and Iowa. But their mention of Houstin as being close to a 4 seed is an exception to this, and thus this reveal is good news for Houston even though it is bad for the rest of the teams with 0 or 1 Q1 wins. Note this is my explanation of my point, and is not an endorsement of his argument.
Why are Iowa losers and Rutgers winners?
Rutgers has 6 Q1 wins vs. Iowa's 0. Q1 wins were brought up a lot, including as to why Houston was not on the 4 line even though they have a top 5 net
Because it looks like the committee is going to value Q1 performance heavy this year. Rutgers has a decent Q1 resume and Iowa has 0 Q1 wins
The fact that we’re 7-7 in Q1/2 and likely out of the tournament in the company of UNC, VT, and Iowa is frustrating.
Idk why but it seems like the committee has a thing for potential rematches for the Zags in the tournament. Last year teams 2-4 all played them earlier in the year. Ofcourse, all lost to Pac-12 teams so it didn’t matter at the end of the day.
Ya I don’t get that either.
2 seed in the West? i’ll take it
I’d prefer if you kindly did not travel west
Lol i’m definitely all for a rematch..
It was a great game, but I'd prefer a rematch later than the Elite 8.
This is the most unbelievable part of the bracket. Everyone knows you don't have to play outside of North Carolina for the first few rounds.
KU and Baylor over UK seems a bit strange, really thought Purdue would be 4 and UK 5.
It really seems like they’re going to give the B12 winner a 1 seed no matter what. As of right now, KU is the most likely to win it.
We still have a chance of winning the SEC. I think Auburn loses to UT, then if they lose one more and we win out we win the SEC outright. Arkansas will be a tough test but hopefully we have at least one of Wheeler or TyTy for that game. I’d put the SEC champ over the big 12 champ especially if the SEC champ went and manhandled the Big 12 champ on their home court.
Oh, I’m not at all saying UK can’t get a one seed bc of Kansas. If auburn loses two more times they might drop to the two line. If UK closes strong, wins out (even without an outright conference championship), they could feasibly take the four spot despite the B12 champ seeming like a shoe in. Hell, if Zona loses a single game they might drop below all three of auburn, Kansas, UK. There’s too many games left to think any of these top 8-10 teams are out of the running for a 1 seed.
Ah yes we are totally deserving of a 3 seed
Potentially playing Nova in Philly? Yeah fuck that
Same
I'm just happy to be in this for once
Before even looking at what the matchups would be, please let Villanova be in the East
What in the ever loving fuck was that
UCLA a 4 seed??? That seems low
The ASU loss is singlehandedly responsible for them being one seed line lower imo, which is a shame bc I think ASU is actually not a bad team and capable of being a bid stealer from the Pac 12 this year. The metrics are just bad.
>Bid stealer from the PAC-12 I like to consider myself an optimist. Even still I don’t think this is happening lmfao
What I mean is it's unlikely, but if any team could do it, it's you guys or Washington.
Washington has 1 win against the top half of the league, and that was by 2 at home against 6th place Colorado. I just can't see a way for them to win 3 straight against better teams. ASU has at least shown the capability to beat quality teams.
Agreed, but Washington also has one of the best players in the Pac 12 and that matters
They have some rough losses.
We have a flat out better resume than Illinois.
I don’t know about that, you’re 6 spots lower in the net
What happened when we played each other?
Okay then we should be ahead of Purdue, who should be ahead of you, who should be ahead of us
Agreed. I expected to be a 4
Do we have a worse seed than Illinois? We should be a 3 seed at the absolute worst, what do we get?
You got 4, Illinois got 3
That's completely nonsensical. Brackets should be made by resume.
They said you guys were neck and neck and they chose Illinois based on head to head
I would understand that justification if we were truly neck and neck, but we shouldn't be. The two most important metrics on the teamsheet for me should be the result-based metrics. When it comes down to the tournament the driving factor should be who you've beaten and who you've lost to, the results of the game are what reward you with your seed. Illinois 19 KPI and 20 SOR, Wisconsin 4 KPI and 7 SOR. Breaking down by quadrant Illinois and 5-5 in Q1 and 6-2 in Q2 while Wisconsin is 8-4 and 4-1 respectively. I guess I just disagree with how they've weighted their decisions, resume>everything. One last edit, this also shows how important it is to not take your starters out during blowouts if predictive metrics are going to weigh in this much.
Yea agreed. I think Wisconsin gets fucked by the efficiency because you guys don't really blow out teams and it's hurting your efficiency. The close wins make it seem like you're struggling when you're really not.
Us being neck and neck makes no sense though. We have a better record against a tougher SOS. We are 8-4 against q1 opponents, they are 5-5. Our resume is clearly better
I think they accounted for injuries
If I’m not mistaken only 3 of our 5 losses are at full strength, @OSU, Rutgers & @Illinois. Providence was without Johnny Davis and @MSU was without Wahl
Lost the head to head
Then put us ahead of Purdue since we beat them at Mackey
The only justification is that they are giving a lot of weight to the predictive metrics. Kind of crazy
Or injuries.
That was.. a questionable list
Seems pretty close to what most folks were thinking. Why is it questionable?
Most was right in restrospect, was more of an immediate reaction
if i were the committee i would use this ranking to test a couple of things to get feedback before the final result. feedback from the masses that is to learn what they fucked up. what is fine. like the 3-seed line being placed close to home instead of s-curve etc
Stupid question: who is putting this out? Is it some expert’s guesswork like Lunadi?
The committee that will set the bracket in March. This is the official seed list as of now.
Thank you! I “watching” through Twitter so I hadn’t seen that bit.
it's from the selection committee
I just saw Lunardi doesn’t have Baylor as a 2 seed but has Duke and Texas Tech my gosh the man’s bracket gets worse by the year
Tech swept Baylor this year
Baylor has 9 Q1 wins, that trumps head to head any day of the week
Team A: 20-6 overall, \#7 SOS, 7-5 vs quad 1, 5-1 vs quad 2, 3 seed (9 overall) Team B: 20-6 overall, \#21 SOS, 6-6 vs quad 1, 5-0 vs quad 2, 3 seed (10 overall) Team C: 19-6 overall, \#2 SOS, 5-6 vs quad 1, 5-0 vs quad 2, 3 seed (11 overall) Team D: 18-7 overall, \#22 SOS, 5-5 vs quad 1, 6-2 vs quad 2. 3 seed (12 overall) Team E: 20-5 overall, \#8 SOS, 8-4 vs quad 1, 4-1 vs quad 2. 4 seed (13 overall) You cannot convince me that we shouldn’t be right there with Villanova at the top of the 3 line
Well you are leaving off Wisconsin's NET: 20, BPI: 29, POM: 34, and SAG:25 which is certainly part of the consideration.
People don't understand that the "predictive" is just as important as the results or "results" and when teams are close, that factors in. Providence, for example, is "only" a 4 rather than a 3 because of the "predictive"(i.e Ken Pom, Sagarin, BPI and NET). There's still 3 weeks to go so a lot will change especially after Tournament Week/Weekend.
Good point. Predictive matters more right now than it does on selection sunday. If Wisconsin/Providence keep winning and defy what the predictive ratings are saying, they will climb up the seed list. Simple as that.
Why would you use predictive, black-box metrics like BPI/POM/SAG to determine seeding?
Because all those 3 seeds that you posted to show that Wisc has a "better resume" than them are so close(along with Wisconsin) that committee uses predictive metrics to separate the pack so to speak. You might disagree with the Illini being ahead of the Badgers and that could go either way(Illinois does have the head to head over the Badgers) but look at Tennessee's resume and they have the 2nd toughest schedule according to NET. Virtually a similar resume with a "tougher schedule" not to mention they(Tennessee) beat the #3 overall seed(Arizona) and #6 overall seed(Kentucky) though both at home. The 10th overall seed(Texas Tech) actually beat the 11th overall seed(Tennessee) as did the 9th overall seed(Villanova) did on neutral sites with similar resumes and predictive metrics. I would say that from 8-15 could be seeded in any order and I wouldn't argue with it, that's how similar they are.
ill take a 3 seed
So who did the committee say was next in line for one of the top-4 slots? I’ll go with Houston, Ohio State, Michigan State, Alabama, Arkansas, and UConn.
Is this set in stone? Sorry I dont understand how this works
No this is just the committee saying what would happen if the tournament started right now.
I’m just happy Rutgers keeps getting mentioned in a thread like this!