What does it really mean to be the

[stevemllerband]

overall #1 seed? What is the perceived advantage? Is it supposed to be the "easiest' road to the FF? Is it the regional with the supposedly weakest of the numbered seeds? Sorry if this has been discussed previously.

 

[armory]

It has to do with

1) Which regional you get, obviously you get your 'preferred' region as a higher #1 seed
2) Which of the #2-#16 seeds are put in your region. e.g. IIRC the worst #4 seed is put in the same region as the best #1 seed.

But I mean, the difference between teams of the same seed is so negligible and subjective that it really doesn't matter much since matchups are far more important than seeds.

 

[CorduroyG]

overall #1 seed? What is the perceived advantage? Is it supposed to be the "easiest' road to the FF? Is it the regional with the supposedly weakest of the numbered seeds? Sorry if this has been discussed previously.

Id like to know too, never really got a definitive answer. I think you get matched up with the 4th #1 seed in the final 4, but other than that i dont think it matters. Kansas was overall #1 in 2010 and got the toughest road.Do they put the weakest #2 seed in your bracket? I guess thats a decent advantage.

 

[Marsh01]

The #1 seed overall like Armory said has on paper the easiest path based on the way teams are ranked to make the FF and beyond. It rarely plays out however. I remember a few years ago when Louisville was the overall #1 seed and they drew Siena in the second round. Siena had them on the ropes BIG TIME and should have won that game but Louisville pulled it out. Nothing is guaranteed when you factor in potential upsets that could happen.

Still would be a nice problem to have.

 

[BuffOrange]

One of the Kentucky writers in yesterdays articles suggested there is a dropoff after the top 7 teams (UK, SU, KU, Mizzou, UNC, Duke) so theoretically the overall #1 could get an easier #2 in their region than the other #1s. Based on how Ohio St has played the last couple weeks that sounds right, but that can change pretty quickly in the next month and I'm still not convinced they're a cut below Missouri, Duke, or Kansas.
Plus the overall #1 last year - Ohio St - had arguably the toughest region so the 'S' curve doesn't always play out like it should.
Basically it means very little other than you wear white every game.

 

[44PRIDE]

overall #1 seed?

As a #1 seed, you get really cool embroidered jackets with your name on the front. It's all about the jacket.

 

[Knicks411]

It has to do with

1) Which regional you get, obviously you get your 'preferred' region as a higher #1 seed
2) Which of the #2-#16 seeds are put in your region. e.g. IIRC the worst #4 seed is put in the same region as the best #1 seed.

But I mean, the difference between teams of the same seed is so negligible and subjective that it really doesn't matter much since matchups are far more important than seeds.

Yeah, and the committee often needs to move teams up or down seed lines to make things work, which just makes it even more meaningless.

The only thing for sure is you are ont he same side of the draw as the 4th #1 seed.

 

[EastCoast2]

OSU was the #1 overall last season and look at their region

1) OSU
2) UNC
3) Cuse
4) Kentucky

 

[Marsh01]

OSU was the #1 overall last season and look at their region

1) OSU
2) UNC
3) Cuse
4) Kentucky

The kicker in that was Kentucky as the 4 seed. No way in hell was Kentucky a 4 seed. They should have been a 3 seed in another region. That was the #1 screw up of the committee last season IMO. Three seeds (other than us) ahead of Kentucky last year were Uconn, Purdue and BYU. Uconn won the title so hard to argue but they should have been no higher than a 4. BYU without that one kid should have dropped to a 4 and Purdue was a shaky #3 seed as well.

 

[Knicks411]

I think the committee usually does a pretty poor job seeding.

 

[BuffOrange]

The kicker in that was Kentucky as the 4 seed. No way in hell was Kentucky a 4 seed. They should have been a 3 seed in another region. That was the #1 screw up of the committee last season IMO. Three seeds (other than us) ahead of Kentucky last year were Uconn, Purdue and BYU. Uconn won the title so hard to argue but they should have been no higher than a 4. BYU without that one kid should have dropped to a 4 and Purdue was a shaky #3 seed as well.

I picked Kentucky to get to the F4 mostly because "hey, this is a talented team & everyone and their mother has Ohio St in their title game so I'll be different".
But there is a difference between how good a team is and what they deserve. They only won 2 road games in the SEC.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

I think the committee usually does a pretty poor job seeding.

They do a poor job "balancing" the brackets because they want to put they make some stupid attempt to keep the top 4 seeds in a region close to home. That usually ends up screwing up the whole "balance".

 

[EastCoast2]

The kicker in that was Kentucky as the 4 seed. No way in hell was Kentucky a 4 seed. They should have been a 3 seed in another region. That was the #1 screw up of the committee last season IMO. Three seeds (other than us) ahead of Kentucky last year were Uconn, Purdue and BYU. Uconn won the title so hard to argue but they should have been no higher than a 4. BYU without that one kid should have dropped to a 4 and Purdue was a shaky #3 seed as well.

Didn't Kentucky mop UF in the SEC title game yet UF got the higher seed? The committe really screwed OSU after they were the best team all season.

 

[Marsh01]

Didn't Kentucky mop UF in the SEC title game yet UF got the higher seed? The committe really screwed OSU after they were the best team all season.

Yes Kentucky won 70-54. Florida won the regular season however

 

[CorduroyG]

Actually if the overall #1 gets the worst #2 seed (basically #8 on the s-curve), that would be big for us. Im convinced we're getting unc as our 2 seed in the east, but if we get the overall #1 we should get ohio st if thats how it works. UNC has 1 seed talent and if not for duke's miracle barrage of 3's at the end of their game would be on the 1 line now, that would be a tough elite 8 matchup.

 

[Alsacs]

The reason why their is now a number 1 overall seed was because prior to the 2004 season the brackets were predetermined so that before the season you knew it would East v. South, Midwest v. West or any different matchup and because the brackets were determined then technically the number 1 and number 2 teams could be meet in the National Semi-finals instead of the Championship game. Two instances are what finally made the committee change it 1996 UMass and Kentucky were 1-2 in the country and instead of meeting in the championship game there brackets were slated to meet in the National Semis, and finally in 2003 the straw that broke the camels back Kentucky and Arizona were 1-2 in the country and they were destined to meet in the National Semis until Marquette and Kansas beat them. The uproar from the fact the brackets were predetermined caused the committee to put the brackets so that if the top 4 seed made it to the final four it would be 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3. So the number 1 overall seed will be bracketed on the same side as the 4th 1 seed and 2 and 3 will be on the other side. Hope this helps.

 

[Orangemen]

I think the benefits of the #1 overall are:

1. Region preference
2. Face the 'weakest' 1 seed in the FF
3. Have the weakest 2 seed in your region

The only one that is guaranteed to matter is region preference.

As has been said, once the bracketing starts, and teams get moved based on bracketing rules, the balance of the regions go out the window, and it's anyones guess as to who gets the tougher road.

 

[joct]

They do a poor job "balancing" the brackets because they want to put they make some stupid attempt to keep the top 4 seeds in a region close to home. That usually ends up screwing up the whole "balance".

I think that in making the bracket, the assigning the #1 seed in the whole tournament is to then put the overall #4 (of the #1s) in the bracket that is paired with it for the Final Four. Once you get past that, there are a million factors, in addition to this. That gets often overlooked is their policy of if at all possible, not having teams from the same conference playing until the final 8 (broken last year due to the high volume of Big East teams). Since many of the 1-4 seeds are from the same 4-5 conferences, this makes it tricky.

Combined with the factor of giving preference to teams staying in their closest bracket, as much as possible, and suddenly having the top #1 playing the worst #2 goes out the window. After that, it becomes even more of a puzzle. When those all play out, you get things like the Ohio State bracket last year (noted above).

 

[Alsacs]

BTW, the S-Curve doesn't give the number 1 overall the seed the 8th ranked team. The committee gives regional preference rather than following an S-Curve 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5. Duke was the 4th 1 seed last year and had San Diego State as their 2 seed who was not the 5th overall seed, but was given the West for location purposes. So techincally the 1st overall seed could get the 5th overall seed and top 2 seed. This year I believe that will happen I believe the 1's will be SU, UK, KU, and Duke. The 5th seed will be North Carolina and I believe they will be bracketed with either SU or UK.

 

[jncuse]

They supposedly follow the S-Curve but remember the top three teams from each conference have to be in a different region. And sometimes I understand they try to avoid rematches in the top 4 seed lines (1-2, 1-4, and 2-3), but that is not a hard rule by any means. And they also try to keep teams in regions. All fingers point to Duke or UNC as the 2 in the East.

At the end of the day, the top 4 seeds end up being whatever fits (especially if they try to avoid rematches), rather then putting the worst 2 and the worst 4 seed with the #1 overall.

The worst 4 seed I can remember was Purdue in 2010. They were brutal after Hummel was injured, but they had earned that 4 seed based on their entire season - but everyone expected them to get throttled early. Given that Kansas was the clear number one, it was only fair to put Purdue in their region. Nope, they gave Purdue to Duke -- surprise, surprise.

 

[Knicks411]

They do a poor job "balancing" the brackets because they want to put they make some stupid attempt to keep the top 4 seeds in a region close to home. That usually ends up screwing up the whole "balance".

Yeah, I think that's part of it, and maybe that plays a bigger role than I think, but after the top seeds, I dunno, I just feel like it's totally hit or miss. (And maybe part of it is also because of teams getting moved up and down seed lines)

 

[All4SU]

Regardless of seed or "S-Curves" you have to have some luck to win it all. Few teams go all the way, without one or two of the major hurdles cleared out for them by an upset or two. SU in 2003 is one of the rare exceptions in that SU had to run the gauntlet of top seeds. Of course, we had the benefit of playing in Albany and Boston -- an advantage that lots of other teams, namely Duke and UNC have had over the years by playing in their back yard to help them advance.

And bad luck can play as big a part as good fortune. The committee screwed SU last year by putting Marquette in our group. That was unprecedented, and worked to our disadvantage. We had already played them, and they were very familiar with us. I hated that we were the first team to every have that happen to, but of course, Marquette could say the same thing had they lost.

I will watch the selection show with great interest and excitement. But regardless of our bracket, I'm hopeful we get some help along the way.

 

[orange2win]

Id like to know too, never really got a definitive answer. I think you get matched up with the 4th #1 seed in the final 4, but other than that i dont think it matters. Kansas was overall #1 in 2010 and got the toughest road.Do they put the weakest #2 seed in your bracket? I guess thats a decent advantage.

Well in a straight 64 team tournament, being seeded #1 is a huge advantage. Round 1 you are guaranteed to meet the 64 seed. Round 2 you meet either the 32 or 33 seed. Round 3 you meet the 16, 17, 48 or 49th seed. That puts you into the Elete 8, where the highest seed you can meet there is the #8 seed. In the semis you may have to beat the #4 or #5 seed to make it into the final.

I'm not sure the NCAA's vary from this model.

 

[strumpfasaurus]

I think the committee usually does a pretty poor job seeding.

You mean in 2010 putting I believe the 8 ranked butler and preseason 10 or something as the number 5 seed? I know they were mid major but still.

 

[Garbs]

Well in a straight 64 team tournament, being seeded #1 is a huge advantage. Round 1 you are guaranteed to meet the 64 seed. Round 2 you meet either the 32 or 33 seed. Round 3 you meet the 16, 17, 48 or 49th seed. That puts you into the Elete 8, where the highest seed you can meet there is the #8 seed. In the semis you may have to beat the #4 or #5 seed to make it into the final.

I'm not sure the NCAA's vary from this model.

this is just not true, like others have said there are too many other factors that when all is said and done it is not even close to this