But let's go a step further.
American sports fans are getting both a little smarter and more humble these days. Recent Olympics and the World Baseball Classic have provided proof that if teams are given equal footing, the supposed "top" teams are not as great as originally thought. But sports need seeds because a round-robin format is impossible to use in most sports tournaments.But to what extent is March Madness a self-fulfilling prophecy dominated by the major collegiate programs? Critics have rightfully argued that pre-rankings make no sense in sports since the pollsters already have set in their heads who is good and who is bad. But when it comes to the Tourney, why all of a sudden do the rankings mean so little? Isn't that what everyone so worked so hard for all season? Can hard numbers be used to show how the seeds for March Madness are flawed? Yes, we all know Tennessee sucked and did not earn a #2 seed but they were lucky to even lose in Round 2. But what about teams like UCLA? Would they last long if not given a #2 seed? Doubtful.
It really is not worth bitching and moaning about seeds when it comes to the NCAA Tourney because, despite strong opinions and some rational thought, it is a completely subjective ranking system. The selection process seems fair enough and everyone has their own take on who deserved a spot and who didn't. Still, one huge question looms: "why not just use the final poll rankings to determine who gets the seeds? What are the pools for if they are not used in the major event that determines the NCAA champion?" Let's see what happens when we apply a little hard science to the seeds and how they have fared so far in 2006.Using the final 2006 rankings from the USA Today/ESPN poll (pre-Tourney)[note- #26-#42 based on votes received, in order], we give you thefollowing ...
Table:
Number on the left is the final poll ranking.
Number on the right is the seed each team received.
* Indicate teams that received an oddly high seed
+ Indicate teams that received an oddly low seed
X Indicate teams that are out of the tourney
Of the final Top 42 teams according to the polls:
6 teams (*) received high seeds that they did not earn. All of these overrated teams except Wichita State are out of the tourney. The losses indicate that, despite getting easier draws as high seeds, these teams'final rankings rather than their seeds showed that they were not very good after all. 15 teams (+) received lower seeds than they deserved. 3 of these teams are in the Sweet Sixteen. The underrated teams who were ranked in the top 25 have gone a combined 7-1.
Fact: 11 of the teams ranked #25-#40 got a lower seed than their ranking deserved. Almost all of these teams are from minor conferences (UAB, Bucknell, UNCW, Pacific, Murray State, etc.). If one compares final ranking to seed rankings, then GW and Pacific got fucked the hardest: GW should have earned a 3-4 seed based on final rankings but instead got an 8 seed; Pacific, despite being ranked #34 in the country in the polls, it earned a 13 seed which is the equivalent of being ranked 52nd in the
country.
So the question that must be asked is: if the teams who unfairly (when based solely on final poll rankings) got seeds 9 or lower in the 2006 Tourney instead received fair seeds, would they be winning more? Yes-the numbers indicate that they would be getting more wins.
1. Duke (1 seed)2. Connecticut (1 seed)
3. Memphis (1 seed)
4. Villanova (1 seed)
+5. Gonzaga (3 seed)
X 6. Ohio St. (2 seed)
+ 7. Boston Coll. (4 seed)
8. UCLA (2 seed)
9. Texas (2 seed)
10. Florida (3 seed)
X + 11. Geo. Washington (8 seed)
X 12. North Carolina (3 seed)
X 13. Kansas (4 seed)
X 14. Illinois (4 seed)
X * 15. Iowa (3 seed)
X 16. Pittsburgh (5 seed)
17. Washington (5 seed)
18. LSU (4 seed)
X * 19. Tennessee (2 seed)
X 20. Oklahoma (6 seed)
X 21. Nevada (5 seed)X * 22. Syracuse (5 seed)
23. West Virginia (6 seed)
+ 24. Georgetown (7 seed)
X + 25. UAB (9 seed)
X + 26. Bucknell (9 seed)
X + 27. N.C. State (10 seed)
X * 28. Michigan St. (6 seed)
X 29.California (7 seed)
X + 30. N.C. Wilmington (9 seed)
X + 31. San Diego St. (11 seed)
X + 32. Southern Ill. (11 seed)
X * 33. Marquette (7 seed)
X + 34. Pacific (13 seed)
* 35. Wichita St. (7 seed)
X 36. Arkansas (8 seed)
X + 37. Kent St. (12 seed)
X + 38. Murray St. (14 seed)
X + 39. Texas A&M (12 seed)
X + 40. South Alabama (14 seed)
X 41. Alabama (10 seed)
X * 42. Indiana (6 seed)
[Mr. East note: The Final Four this year now features George Mason(11 seed), Florida(3), LSU(4), and UCLA(2). Would UCLA have made it if not for the high seed? We'll never know, but they're here aren't they? George Mason is a great story as only 2 other teams seeded 9th or lower have ever made the Final Four. Fuel for Mr. West's argument?]
No comments:
Post a Comment