A novice looking at bracketmatrix.com

[SWC75]

Firstly, I've decided to step back a bit from SU basketball this weekend, rather than sweat it out. There are three kinds of teams in the NCAA tournament: the legitimate national championship contenders who have proven themselves to be among the elite teams in the country all year, the automatic bid teams and the "best of the rest" who are used to fill out the field. The only group who "deserves" to be in a national championship tournament are those in the first group: the tournament wouldn't be valid unless all the elite teams were in. The others are along for the ride. They might pull off some upsets or even go on a big run but they can't claim they deserve a chance at a national championship if nobody thinks they might be the best team in the country. We are hopeful of being in the "best of the rest" group but haven't done much down the stretch to prove it and if we are lucky enough to get in anyway, fine. If not, we can't claim to have been "snubbed". I only have so much emotion to give the team and prefer to use it to root for them to win actual games, rather than agonizing over opinions.

So I'm not going to hang on each score that comes in or argue with people about it. But I was interested when I looked at bracketmatrix.com. It's an interesting site to peruse:
http://bracketmatrix.com/
I'd not seen it before a post I made the other day in which I incorrectly interpreted it to mean that that the "first four out" were the first four out of the field of 64, (as the teams listed above them were 16 seeds) and would thus have to win a play-in game to get into the field of 64. I now see that the list has six 16 seeds, five 10 seeds and five 11 seeds, so there are 68 spots above that group and the matrix has us out at the present time.

But 51 of the 96 selectors have us in. 32 list us as an 11 seed and 16 as a 10 seed. So they think we will be in a play-in game. (I disagree with the Axeman who said that the play-in games are not part of the tournament: if you win a play-in game and then keep winning, you'll be the national champion, so it is part of the tournament: you are 'in'.) One selector had as a 12 seed and two has us as 9 seeds, so they think we'll be in the field of 64 without the play-in game.

Of course this is subject to change with the results. I don't know if it can only get worse or if some of the results might move us up. Obviously, we can't move up on our own. What I don't understand is how we are on the bubble if we are being considered for seeds 9-12 when there are 13, 14, 15 and 16 seeds. Are those seeds reserved for the lesser conferences? And why do the play-in games include 10 and 11 seeds when 12 seeds are in the field of 64?

 

[pearl31]

As jncuse has pointed out with BracketMatrix - it's important to look at only those submitted brackets that are up to date - the matrix holds on to older ones that tend to skew the #s

 

[UelSU]

Could you imagine the reaction of the #1 seeds if this SU team was the in the play-in game and won ? Can't imagine they would be thrilled. We have been up and down, but we are still very dangerous.

 

[djcon57]

Could you imagine the reaction of the #1 seeds if this SU team was the in the play-in game and won ? Can't imagine they would be thrilled. We have been up and down, but we are still very dangerous.

We wouldn't play a 1 seed. We'd play a 6 or 7

 

[Doc5120]

We wouldn't play a 1 seed. We'd play a 6 or 7

I can't believe that was posted. Do people really not understand how the play in games work? :crazy:

 

[kirbivore]

take the red pill

 

[SWC75]

I'd still like an answer for this:

"What I don't understand is how we are on the bubble if we are being considered for seeds 9-12 when there are 13, 14, 15 and 16 seeds. Are those seeds reserved for the lesser conferences? And why do the play-in games include 10 and 11 seeds when 12 seeds are in the field of 64?"

 

[andyw715]

A big chunk of auto bids are mediocre compared to the bottom of the atlarge bids.

 

[Rage4CUSE]

I'd still like an answer for this:

"What I don't understand is how we are on the bubble if we are being considered for seeds 9-12 when there are 13, 14, 15 and 16 seeds. Are those seeds reserved for the lesser conferences? And why do the play-in games include 10 and 11 seeds when 12 seeds are in the field of 64?"

All the lesser conference champions fill up the 13,14,15,16 seeds. That's why we would be a play-in game as a 12 seed because it's the worse we can do as a P5 program and still make the tourney.

 

[Rage4CUSE]

I'd still like an answer for this:

"What I don't understand is how we are on the bubble if we are being considered for seeds 9-12 when there are 13, 14, 15 and 16 seeds. Are those seeds reserved for the lesser conferences? And why do the play-in games include 10 and 11 seeds when 12 seeds are in the field of 64?"

All the lesser conference champions fill up the 13,14,15,16 seeds. That's why we would be a play-in game as a 12 seed because it's the worse we can do as a P5 program and still make the tourney.

 

[andyw715]

Bottom 4 auto bids play for 2 16 seeds
Bottom 4 at large play for 2 11 seeds.

 

[SWC75]

All the lesser conference champions fill up the 13,14,15,16 seeds. That's why we would be a play-in game as a 12 seed because it's the worse we can do as a P5 program and still make the tourney.

But we wouldn't be in a play-in as a 12 seed. The play-ins were for 16, 10 and 11 seeds.

 

[pearl31]

Bottom 4 at large play for 2 11 seeds.

those at large play-in seeds have also been 12 seeds and 10 seeds though in different years

 

[SWC75]

those at large play-in seeds have also been 12 seeds and 10 seeds though in different years

That's just very strange. You are a 12 seed and you're in the round of 64. You're a 10 or 11 seed and you have to win a play-in game. :crazy:

 

[pearl31]

That's just very strange. You are a 12 seed and you're in the round of 64. You're a 10 or 11 seed and you have to win a play-in game. :crazy:

yeah there's never been any consistency to the "last 4 in" teams since they added those play-in games

 

[TDTOrange]

yeah there's never been any consistency to the "last 4 in" teams since they added those play-in games

It has more to do with the relative strength or more accurately, weakness of the low-major auto-bids. I think you need to think of it like this, once a team is selected into the field they are all ranked relative to each other, no matter how they got in. The difference is that the lowest 4 at-larges are sent through the play-in round, just like the lowest 4 auto-bids are.

 

[SWC75]

It has more to do with the relative strength or more accurately, weakness of the low-major auto-bids. I think you need to think of it like this, once a team is selected into the field they are all ranked relative to each other, no matter how they got in. The difference is that the lowest 4 at-larges are sent through the play-in round, just like the lowest 4 auto-bids are.

If that were the case, would all the at large teams wind up seeded above all the auto-bid teams?

 

[TDTOrange]

If that were the case, would all the at large teams wind up seeded above all the auto-bid teams?

Not necessarily. Depends on how good those auto-bid teams are.

Just as an example, I'll use Syracuse an Monmouth. Since both of these teams are considered on the bubble, they're relatively similar in profile. Had Monmouth won their tournament and gotten an auto-bid, they may be ranked in the 1-68 seed list right around where the last of the at larges appear. So they could get slotted at about a 11 or 12 seed, and the last of the at-larges would also fall around the 11 or 12 seed line.

All 32 conferences get an auto-bid. When UVa or UNC wins tonight, they get the ACC auto-bid and will be ranked somewhere in the top 4, just because that's how good those teams are. The loser will go in as an at-large and likely be slotted no lower than 6-8th overall. Once you're in the field of 68, it doesn't matter how you got there (except the bottom 4 of each category are slotted for the extra game in Dayton).

 

[SWC75]

Not necessarily. Depends on how good those auto-bid teams are.

Just as an example, I'll use Syracuse an Monmouth. Since both of these teams are considered on the bubble, they're relatively similar in profile. Had Monmouth won their tournament and gotten an auto-bid, they may be ranked in the 1-68 seed list right around where the last of the at larges appear. So they could get slotted at about a 11 or 12 seed, and the last of the at-larges would also fall around the 11 or 12 seed line.

All 32 conferences get an auto-bid. When UVa or UNC wins tonight, they get the ACC auto-bid and will be ranked somewhere in the top 4, just because that's how good those teams are. The loser will go in as an at-large and likely be slotted no lower than 6-8th overall. Once you're in the field of 68, it doesn't matter how you got there (except the bottom 4 of each category are slotted for the extra game in Dayton).

Then why couldn't we be a 12, 13 or 14 seed, if they don't think w e're good enough for 10 or 11?

 

[TDTOrange]

Then why couldn't we be a 12, 13 or 14 seed, if they don't think w e're good enough for 10 or 11?

In theory, it's possible. But historically the last few at larges fall in the 11 or maybe 12 seed lines. The low-major conference champions fill out the remainder of the bracket.

Often these leagues are referred to as one-bid leagues as none of their teams are good enough to warrant an at large bid when compared with the rest of the field.