Interesting on CBS between Big 10 games, Gavitt said not all Quad 1 or Quad 2 games are treated the same. Per chance that will change the makeup of the bracket.
He also indicated, and I am paraphrasing, results get you in and predictive analytics help determine your seed. Any thoughts in reply?
Thanks for doing this again. With SU what it is my interest level is down but this helps drag me back in.
#1. I have never heard that bolded philosophy for seeding, but it seems reasonable that is something they are evolving too as they become more reliant on predictive analytics like KP, Bart. NET since it uses margin as a key factor, is also in essence closer to predictive analytics.
"The results get you in" has always been their general motto.
The current consensus seed lines actually align pretty strongly with KP rating. There are a few exceptions though I noted at the tip. If that is indeed what they are doing a few teams to look at on Selection Sunday to test the comment would be
Gonzaga, St. John's. Oregon, Missouri.
Gonzaga is a consensus 7 seed per the matrix which aligns with their quality of record. But in KP they are #9, which suggests they should get a higher seed than #7.
St. John's is a consensus 2 seed per the matrix, but their KP is #13. Do they fall to a #3 seed.
Missouri is a consensus 7 seed per the matrix, but their KP is #15. Do they get a higher seed?
Oregon is a consensus 5 seed per the matrix, but their KP is #31, which suggests 8 seed.
I'll try to remember to come back to this point after the selection show, Remind me if you would like.
2) Regarding the comment
" Gavitt said not all Quad 1 or Quad 2 games are treated the same." I think that has always been the case... teams on the bubble get their resume wins "Scrubbed" more than the locks -- its not just arguing 6 total Q1 over 4 Q1... they will scrub down those wins when they decide.
I also believe they look at something as simple as top half Q1 and bottom half Q1 results.
For West Virginia, to me its the 2 losses that are Q2... that really should be treated as Q3. Nor is Utah a Q1 win, The conference's elevated margin in Q4 games allowed their members not to have any Q3 games all season. And I don't think the B12 is at that level.
I wonder if the committee digs into margin like I did earlier in the year. The NET status of the SEC and even the BIG seems largely deserved, but the NET status of the B12 was largely built off their Q4 margins.