Anyone know of a site that has a historical record of seed vs seed in the first round of the tourny? I know that the 5 seed has historically struggled vs the 12th seed, just wanted to see the records of the other seeds.
Tournament Question
- Thread starter Master Capper
- Start date
i thought this article rather informative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers pick top seeds, too
By PETE TIERNEN, NCAA Bracketologist
If anyone tells you he has a foolproof system for filling out the NCAA Tournament bracket, just nod politely. But whatever you do, don't listen.
related
There is no set of rules that will guarantee you'll win the office pool. What works one year invariably leads to embarrassment the next.
That said, certain patterns have emerged from the 18 brackets completed since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985. Some, like the supremacy of top-seeded teams in early rounds or the value of tourney experience, are obvious.
Others are less apparent. Who would know that strong backcourt scoring is critical to winning in the semifinals but frontcourt scoring is more important in the finals?
So, as you sit down with No. 2 pencil and bracket, here are some tips that might give you an edge. What you'll find is that this probably won't be a big year for upsets.
1. ADVANCE ALL NO. 1 SEEDS TO THE ELITE EIGHT.
And all second and third seeds should be moved to the Sweet 16. So, pencil in No. 2 Wake Forest in the East and No. 3 Duke in the West.
Fifty-five of the last 72 teams in the Final Four have been first, second or third seeds.
2. IN AN 8-VS.-9 MATCHUP, NO. 9 HAS THE EDGE.
No. 9 seeds have won 54.2 percent of those matchups. To improve that rate of success to 67 percent, take the eighth seed only if it averages at least 77 points and enters the tournament with less than a three-game winning streak, indicating that it plays a competitive schedule.
That's good news for fans of N.C. State, seeded ninth in the East. California, the eighth seed, is averaging only 74.5 points, so take the Wolfpack in the first round Thursday.
For that matter, look for No. 9 seeds Purdue, Gonzaga and Utah to move up, too. The best shot for an eighth seed? Oregon against Utah. The Ducks are averaging 82.2 points.
3. IN A 7-VS.-10 MATCHUP, USUALLY TAKE THE SEVENTH SEED.
The No. 7 teams have won 59.7 percent of those matchups. To improve on that, take the 10th seed only if it has won fewer than eight of its 10 games (again indicating a competitive schedule), gets 40 percent to 60 percent of its scoring from its guards (indicating balance) and gets 22 percent to 30 percent of its scoring from its bench.
Those criteria produce one first-round upset this season, 10th-seeded Colorado over Michigan State. Otherwise, go with seventh seeds St. Joseph's, Memphis and Indiana.
4. IN THE LONG-SHOT MATCHUPS, TAKE THE HIGHER SEED.
Nos. 4, 5 and 6 seeds have beaten Nos. 13, 12 and 11 seeds, respectively, 72 percent of the time.
Take the underdog only if:
a. it has a coach who's been to the tournament at least three times;
b. scores at least 77 points a game;
c. wins by an average of at least six;
d. and gets at least 60 percent of its scoring from its backcourt or frontcourt.
In other words, those teams present matchup problems, though it can get complicated, because many teams use swingmen who serve as guard-forwards.
UNC-Wilmington satisfies enough of the criteria to qualify as an upset candidate, but not enough to warrant taking the Seahawks over Maryland in the South. Sorry, UNCW fans.
For that matter, advance all the higher seeds here.
5. IN ROUND TWO, LEAN TOWARD FOURTH SEEDS OVER FIFTH SEEDS.
The No. 4's have won 62 percent of the time.
The exceptional fifth seeds: those that score more than 77 points a game, have won no more than two straight games and get more than 17 percent of their scoring from the bench.
This year, that would be Connecticut over No. 4 Stanford.
6. IN THE SWEET 16, TAKE THE THIRD SEED AGAINST A NO. 2 IF:
a. it's from one of the big six leagues;
b. its coach has been to the tournament;
c. it went to the NCAA last year;
d. it averages at least 76 points;
e. it has won no more than two straight games before the tourney;
f. it gets 45 percent to 55 percent of its scoring from guards.
Got all that? No third seeds meet the criteria this year.
7. IN THE ELITE EIGHT, USUALLY TAKE THE NO. 1 SEED.
If you've stuck with the plan so far, believe it or not, the NCAA seedings coincide with the historical results. All of the regional final matchups will be between first and second seeds.
In 1-vs.-2 games, successful second seeds tend to be those that have: at least four straight NCAA appearances, a coach who's gone to the NCAA at least four times, a scoring average of more than 74 and an average winning margin of more than 10, no more than 55 percent of their scoring from guards, and no more than two straight wins entering the tournament.
Again, the seedings are right. All four top seeds will make it to the Final Four.
8. 1-VS.-1 GAMES ARE TRICKIER.
Eliminate the team that either doesn't have a coach with at least three NCAA appearances or doesn't score more than 75 points per game.
If both teams possess both attributes, take the one that gets a higher percentage of scoring from its guards. If the two teams are even on that basis, take the one with the longer winning streak heading into the tournament.
First off, Oklahoma is out; the Sooners average 71.9 points. Texas is in the final.
In the other semifinal, Kentucky squeaks past Arizona based on backcourt scoring -- 48.7 percent to 46.3 percent.
9. THE FINAL: FAVOR FRONTCOURT SCORING BETWEEN TWO NO. 1 SEEDS
This runs contrary to the lessons of the previous rounds, but in the six title games in which the system correctly predicted a 1-vs.-1 final, the team that got more scoring from its big men won every time.
In our model pitting Kentucky against Texas, this favors the Wildcats, who have gotten 51.3 percent of their scoring from their forwards, compared with Texas' 34.6 percent.
So, there you have it. The four regional top seeds all reach the Final Four. Problem is, that's never happened, and it won't necessarily happen this year. It's just that the historical data favor Kentucky, Arizona, Texas and Oklahoma.
Some trends help explain why the seedings and the historical data coincide so closely. This is one of the lowest-scoring NCAA fields in recent years. In addition, this field gets more scoring from its guards than any other since 1985, and on average, it has more tournament experience, too.
Keep in mind that a model that looks across the past 18 tournaments, the picks naturally will skew to the conservative side.
Then again, you may have a yen for picking upsets. In that case, toss this aside, and if you see me, nod politely and look the other way.
Pete Tiernan started maintaining a database on NCAA Tournament teams and results in 1991 with the vain hope of winning his office bracket pool. His research covers all of the tournaments since the field was expanded to 64 in 1985. When he isn't squirreled away crunching NCAA numbers, Tiernan is director of marketing for a simulation software company in Michigan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers pick top seeds, too
By PETE TIERNEN, NCAA Bracketologist
If anyone tells you he has a foolproof system for filling out the NCAA Tournament bracket, just nod politely. But whatever you do, don't listen.
related
There is no set of rules that will guarantee you'll win the office pool. What works one year invariably leads to embarrassment the next.
That said, certain patterns have emerged from the 18 brackets completed since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985. Some, like the supremacy of top-seeded teams in early rounds or the value of tourney experience, are obvious.
Others are less apparent. Who would know that strong backcourt scoring is critical to winning in the semifinals but frontcourt scoring is more important in the finals?
So, as you sit down with No. 2 pencil and bracket, here are some tips that might give you an edge. What you'll find is that this probably won't be a big year for upsets.
1. ADVANCE ALL NO. 1 SEEDS TO THE ELITE EIGHT.
And all second and third seeds should be moved to the Sweet 16. So, pencil in No. 2 Wake Forest in the East and No. 3 Duke in the West.
Fifty-five of the last 72 teams in the Final Four have been first, second or third seeds.
2. IN AN 8-VS.-9 MATCHUP, NO. 9 HAS THE EDGE.
No. 9 seeds have won 54.2 percent of those matchups. To improve that rate of success to 67 percent, take the eighth seed only if it averages at least 77 points and enters the tournament with less than a three-game winning streak, indicating that it plays a competitive schedule.
That's good news for fans of N.C. State, seeded ninth in the East. California, the eighth seed, is averaging only 74.5 points, so take the Wolfpack in the first round Thursday.
For that matter, look for No. 9 seeds Purdue, Gonzaga and Utah to move up, too. The best shot for an eighth seed? Oregon against Utah. The Ducks are averaging 82.2 points.
3. IN A 7-VS.-10 MATCHUP, USUALLY TAKE THE SEVENTH SEED.
The No. 7 teams have won 59.7 percent of those matchups. To improve on that, take the 10th seed only if it has won fewer than eight of its 10 games (again indicating a competitive schedule), gets 40 percent to 60 percent of its scoring from its guards (indicating balance) and gets 22 percent to 30 percent of its scoring from its bench.
Those criteria produce one first-round upset this season, 10th-seeded Colorado over Michigan State. Otherwise, go with seventh seeds St. Joseph's, Memphis and Indiana.
4. IN THE LONG-SHOT MATCHUPS, TAKE THE HIGHER SEED.
Nos. 4, 5 and 6 seeds have beaten Nos. 13, 12 and 11 seeds, respectively, 72 percent of the time.
Take the underdog only if:
a. it has a coach who's been to the tournament at least three times;
b. scores at least 77 points a game;
c. wins by an average of at least six;
d. and gets at least 60 percent of its scoring from its backcourt or frontcourt.
In other words, those teams present matchup problems, though it can get complicated, because many teams use swingmen who serve as guard-forwards.
UNC-Wilmington satisfies enough of the criteria to qualify as an upset candidate, but not enough to warrant taking the Seahawks over Maryland in the South. Sorry, UNCW fans.
For that matter, advance all the higher seeds here.
5. IN ROUND TWO, LEAN TOWARD FOURTH SEEDS OVER FIFTH SEEDS.
The No. 4's have won 62 percent of the time.
The exceptional fifth seeds: those that score more than 77 points a game, have won no more than two straight games and get more than 17 percent of their scoring from the bench.
This year, that would be Connecticut over No. 4 Stanford.
6. IN THE SWEET 16, TAKE THE THIRD SEED AGAINST A NO. 2 IF:
a. it's from one of the big six leagues;
b. its coach has been to the tournament;
c. it went to the NCAA last year;
d. it averages at least 76 points;
e. it has won no more than two straight games before the tourney;
f. it gets 45 percent to 55 percent of its scoring from guards.
Got all that? No third seeds meet the criteria this year.
7. IN THE ELITE EIGHT, USUALLY TAKE THE NO. 1 SEED.
If you've stuck with the plan so far, believe it or not, the NCAA seedings coincide with the historical results. All of the regional final matchups will be between first and second seeds.
In 1-vs.-2 games, successful second seeds tend to be those that have: at least four straight NCAA appearances, a coach who's gone to the NCAA at least four times, a scoring average of more than 74 and an average winning margin of more than 10, no more than 55 percent of their scoring from guards, and no more than two straight wins entering the tournament.
Again, the seedings are right. All four top seeds will make it to the Final Four.
8. 1-VS.-1 GAMES ARE TRICKIER.
Eliminate the team that either doesn't have a coach with at least three NCAA appearances or doesn't score more than 75 points per game.
If both teams possess both attributes, take the one that gets a higher percentage of scoring from its guards. If the two teams are even on that basis, take the one with the longer winning streak heading into the tournament.
First off, Oklahoma is out; the Sooners average 71.9 points. Texas is in the final.
In the other semifinal, Kentucky squeaks past Arizona based on backcourt scoring -- 48.7 percent to 46.3 percent.
9. THE FINAL: FAVOR FRONTCOURT SCORING BETWEEN TWO NO. 1 SEEDS
This runs contrary to the lessons of the previous rounds, but in the six title games in which the system correctly predicted a 1-vs.-1 final, the team that got more scoring from its big men won every time.
In our model pitting Kentucky against Texas, this favors the Wildcats, who have gotten 51.3 percent of their scoring from their forwards, compared with Texas' 34.6 percent.
So, there you have it. The four regional top seeds all reach the Final Four. Problem is, that's never happened, and it won't necessarily happen this year. It's just that the historical data favor Kentucky, Arizona, Texas and Oklahoma.
Some trends help explain why the seedings and the historical data coincide so closely. This is one of the lowest-scoring NCAA fields in recent years. In addition, this field gets more scoring from its guards than any other since 1985, and on average, it has more tournament experience, too.
Keep in mind that a model that looks across the past 18 tournaments, the picks naturally will skew to the conservative side.
Then again, you may have a yen for picking upsets. In that case, toss this aside, and if you see me, nod politely and look the other way.
Pete Tiernan started maintaining a database on NCAA Tournament teams and results in 1991 with the vain hope of winning his office bracket pool. His research covers all of the tournaments since the field was expanded to 64 in 1985. When he isn't squirreled away crunching NCAA numbers, Tiernan is director of marketing for a simulation software company in Michigan.
