Tournament seeding history--conference breakdown

[bierce]

I posted a comment on the Tennessee is still #1 rpi thread about the poor locations the Big 12 top seed has drawn over the last four years.

I thought I'd throw out these things for discussion in their own thread.

NCAA tournament committee is required (under the heading "additional considerations") to look at the last 5 years of brackets to see if a team or conference has often been moved out of its "natural" region.

So, I looked at the last 5 years to see which conference's top seeds got unfavorable locations more often.

1) Big 12--Texas was in San Antonio in 2003. Three other teams were moved far away from best spot. One team (Texas in 2006) didn't have any good option.

2) SEC--Kentucky drew St. Louis in 2004. In 2006, Tennessee went to DC instead of Atlanta, which I guess wasn't too bad, and in the other 3 years, there really wasn't a good option, but the top seed did as good as could be expected. I put this down as the second worst screw job because there was rarely a good place for an SEC to go in most years.

3), 4) tie Big East and Big Numerically Challenged. In 2005-2007, both conferences got a 1 or a 2 seed in their natural region, even though Ohio State was in San Antonio last year with Wisconsin as a 2 seed in St. Louis. However in 2003-04, neither conference's top seeds played anywhere close to home. (Of course, the Big One-oh base eleven had just one team ranked as high as a 4.)

5), 6) tie Pac-10 and ACC. Never failed to get the most favorable location. I would give Pac-10 the nod over the ACC, since the Pac-10 always gets a spot in which it brooks no clear rival (except one year when the regional was in Albuquerque), but the ACC has had far more total 1 and 2 seeds, and only one was moved from the East or South regional--Wake Forest in 2005, when the ACC had UNC and Duke as 1 seeds in the East and South.

Whether this means a damn thing for seeding this year or not, I have no idea, just some suspicions. I note 2009 has no very good location for the Big 12 again (Memphis as the best option). Of course, it has no good option for the ACC unless BC wins, so I guess that's something.

 

[KosherHorn]

I guess the question for UT's sake is whether the committee would give UT the 1 seed in Houston, even if Memphis is deemed a better 1 seed, simply because it's been a while since UT got a really good location and since Memphis got SA last year. We could scream in the committee's ear, "You put Texas in f'ing Spokane last year! Pay them back!!!"

But it'd be easier to cheer for Memphis to lose. I just don't see that happening, though, except in the conference tournament final where a team like Houston or UAB will be completely desperate for a victory to make it to the NCAAs. One can dream, though!

 

[bierce]

I think the idea is to get UT fans to bombard the commissioner's office with emails and letters and whatnot to get him to push hard for the most favorable location for the top Big 12 team. He should note the rule, the history of unfavorable locations, and the fact that Memphis has a uniquely desirable location next year (though I suppose they are about to lose Rose, Dorsey, Douglas-Roberts and maybe Dozier) and how Detroit isn't that much farther from Memphis. I guess this is the equivalent of working the refs.

I still think a lot of it depends on either Tennessee or the ACC schools dropping another game (other than the UNC/Duke match-up) and falling behind UCLA, because I don't see the committee putting Texas as a #1 in Houston if Tennessee, Memphis or UNC/Duke has to go to Phoenix as a #1.

Of course, if Texas loses from here on out and Kansas doesn't, the committee can make it "easy" on itself by deciding Kansas gets the top Big 12 seeding over Texas (boo!) and is nearly equidistant from Houston and Detroit.

 

[KosherHorn]

You're doing what I do sometimes - think too much about it, especially since we can't expect the committee to be reasonable. But I really enjoy the data you're putting out.

The outright conference title for UT is going to be huge. If history tells us anything, conference titles mean overseeding (see Virginia last year as a 4 seed even though the reason they won it was because of the unbalanced schedule). Any slipups and a tie with KU for the title, and it'll be hard for UT to keep their 1 seed.