Seeding Mismatches for the 2011 NCAA Tournament

Just as I did last year, I am going to examine the seeding mismatch relative to the RPI ratings.  Now, through various discussions — both here (via comments) and elsewhere — it has become understood and agreed that RPI is not the ultimate measure for tournament selection.  While true, should it not at least count towards seeding?  Even if it is the Sagarin Index, something needs to be used to place logic behind the seedings (and, I’d be willing to look at Sagarin mismatches if I have the time).

Still, while it is all too easy to point to Utah State and say that they lost and did not deserve a higher seeding, their placement as a 12 also gave them a tougher opening round matchup.

Here are the differences between RPI-predicted seeding and actual seeding.  A zero means the team was appropriately seeded; positive numbers mean the team was over-seeded (seeded higher than expected); negative numbers mean the team was under-seeded (seeded lower than expected).

Team Predicted Actual Seed Dif
Ohio State 1 1 0
Kansas 1 1 0
Pittsburgh 3 1 2
Duke 1 1 0
San Diego State 1 2 -1
Florida 2 2 0
Notre Dame 3 2 1
North Carolina 2 2 0
Syracuse 5 3 2
Purdue 3 3 0
BYU 2 3 -1
UConn 4 3 1
Texas 3 4 -1
Wisconsin 4 4 0
Louisville 5 4 1
Kentucky 2 4 -2
West Virginia 6 5 1
Vanderbilt 7 5 2
Kansas State 6 5 1
Arizona 5 5 0
Cincinnati 9 6 3
St. John’s 6 6 0
Georgetown 4 6 -2
Xavier 6 6 0
Washington 8 7 1
Texas A&M 8 7 1
UCLA 11 7 4
Temple 8 7 1
Michigan 12 8 4
Butler 9 8 1
UNLV 7 8 -1
George Mason 7 8 -1
Villanova 10 9 1
Illinois 11 9 2
Old Dominion 5 9 -4
Tennessee 9 9 0
Penn State 10 10 0
Michigan State 11 10 1
Florida State 13 10 3
Georgia 11 10 1
Marquette 13 11 2
USC 14 11 3
Gonzaga 13 11 2
Missouri 9 11 -2
Virginia Commonwealth 12 11 1
UAB 8 12 -4
Memphis 7 12 -5
Utah State 4 12 -8
Richmond 10 13 -3
Clemson 13 12 1
Princeton 10 13 -3
Morehead State 14 13 1
Belmont 12 13 -1
Oakland 12 13 -1
Bucknell 14 14 0
Wofford 15 14 1
St. Peter’s 16 14 2
Indiana State 15 14 1
Long Island University 14 15 -1
Akron 15 15 0
UC Santa Barbara 17 15 2
Northern Colorado 15 15 0
Hampton 16 16 0
UNC Asheville 17 17 0
Boston University 16 16 0
Arkansas-Little Rock 17 17 0
Texas-San Antonio 16 17 -1
Alabama State 17 17 0

Here is the breakdown by conference:

  • ACC: +1
  • Atlantic Sun: -1
  • Big 12: -0.2
  • Big East: +1.1
  • Big Sky: 0
  • Big South: 0
  • Big Ten: +1
  • Big West: +2
  • Colonial: -1.33
  • Conference USA: -4.5
  • Horizon: +1
  • Ivy League: -3
  • MAAC: +2
  • MEAC: 0
  • Mid-American: 0
  • Missouri Valley: +1
  • Mountain West: -1
  • Northeast: -1
  • Ohio Valley: +1
  • Pac-10: +1.8
  • Patriot: 0
  • SEC: +0.2
  • Southland: -1
  • Summit: -1
  • Sun Belt: 0
  • SWAC: 0
  • WAC: -8
  • West Coast: +2

~Quick Explanation: Predicted seeds are based on RPI order only of tournament teams.  Teams with an RPI 1-4 would be the top four seeds, meaning in the end the last seeds should have an RPI between 65-68.  However, because the selections have automatic qualifiers  with RPIs greater than 68, the tournament teams are ordered based off of their RPI — first is Kansas (RPI 1) and last is UNC Asheville (RPI 322).

For each set of four, there is a predicted seeding — 1-4 are predicted to receive the number 1 seeds; 5-8 are predicted to receive the number 2 seeds; 9-12 are predicted to receive the number 3 seeds; etc.  That predicted seed is subtracted from the actual seed to get the seed difference in order to determine mismatch.

For teams 65-68, those teams are given a predicted seed of 17.  Seed 17 goes to the AQ teams that participate in the “First Four” (i.e., not the last four at-large teams in).  Thus, the teams predicted to participate in the “play-in” game are UNC Asheville, UC Santa Barbara, Alabama State, and Arkansas-Little Rock.  Of those that had an actual “17-seed,” three of the four were involved in the “First Four” — only UC Santa Barbara was seeded higher, giving way to Texas-San Antonio.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s