ACC Seeds

I really enjoy seeing people run down the importance of the RPI in selecting and seeding the NCAA teams. Today’s selections were pretty much in-line with what we’ve looked at before.

Two quick notes about two teams that the CBS idiots were squeaking about:

Gonzaga – RPI #10—–3 seed exactly as expected
Tenn – RPI #6—–2 seed exactly as expected

Monday Morning Edit

21 of the 24 teams in the top six seeds came from the RPI Top-25. (Last year it was 22 of 24 teams.) Projecting the top six seeds based solely on the RPI remains a reasonable approximation as shown below:

About VaWolf82

Engineer living in Central Va. and senior curmudgeon amongst SFN authors One wife, two kids, one dog, four vehicles on insurance, and four phones on cell plan...looking forward to empty nest status. Graduated 1982

General NCS Basketball

11 Responses to ACC Seeds

  1. VaWolf82 03/12/2006 at 6:56 PM #

    Forgot to mention that the Selection Committee usually gives recognition for performance in the ACCT. We’ve seen it in the past with State clearling the bubble….and BC improved their seeding this year.

  2. Jeff 03/13/2006 at 7:44 AM #

    BC deserved the 3 seed that Carolina got. They just beat Carolina AGAIN on Saturday (basically in Chapel Hill).

  3. choppack 03/13/2006 at 8:08 AM #

    I’m still shocked at UT’s #2 seed – what was their record for their last 10 games? IMHO, BC was much more deserving of the 2 seed. I remain skeptical of the RPI.

  4. VaWolf82 03/13/2006 at 8:43 AM #

    I neither defend nor attack the RPI….I’ve just been trying to see how it is used. I’m simply amazed at the number of posters who refuse to believe that a ranking system created by the NCAA Selection Committee would actually be used.

    They probably could have justified dropping Tenn…but maybe there was not one they wanted to move up.

    I seriously doubt that the Selection Committee looks at head-to-head matchups when seeding teams. BC and UNC are just another example that illustrates this.

    BC had a pretty lousy SOS (#70) and their RPI only earned them a 6 seed. Actually getting seeded fourth was a recognition of the way they finished the year and their ACCT performance.

  5. Trout 03/13/2006 at 8:57 AM #

    I think the NCAA did a good job. I was only shocked at Air Force making the tournament over Cincy. I did think BC had played their way to a #3. IMO, they are a real threat to make the Final 4.

    NC State at 10 was what I expected. As soon as I saw Cal, I turned to my wife and said we’ll be playing them.

    I wish we could have been in Tennessee’s bracket. I do think they are the weakest #2 seed, while Texas is the strongest #2.

    I do think NC State can beat Cal. But the team may have just folded the tents for the season. The play of the last 4 games (sans BC – the effort was there against BC) says they have.

  6. class of '74 03/13/2006 at 9:00 AM #

    I heard Craig Littlepage say they did not adhere to RPI for seeding and placement in his interview with CBS last night. There are a lot of inconsistencies with the seedings and placement this year not to mention mid-level schools displacing BCS schools in the dance.

  7. VaWolf82 03/13/2006 at 9:12 AM #

    They certainly don’t adhere to it…but the RPI clearly provides the baseline that the Committee then uses to determine seeding. Big surprises in the top six seeds based solely on RPI:

    West Virginia – RPI #38 – 6 seed
    Washington – RPI #35 – 5 seed
    Indiana – RPI #34 – 6 seed

  8. BJD95 03/13/2006 at 10:11 AM #

    I’ve quit listening to anything the selection committee says they use. They are way too inconsistent in their narratives.

    The Air Force pick was absurd. Did the NSA threaten the committee with lots of warrantless wiretapping if it didn’t reward a key ally in the War on Terror? That’s the only rationale I see. I don’t see Utah State deserving a bid, and I think I would have added another MVC team over George Mason, since their best player will be suspended for the opening game. I would have sent Cincy, Missouri State, and probably FSU instead of those three.

    Andy Katz reported this morning that the last team under discussion was not Maryland, FSU, Cincy, Michigan, or Missouri State – it was Western Kentucky. Strange.

  9. choppack 03/13/2006 at 10:32 AM #

    I couldn’t hear what Packer asked Littlepage regarding the mid-majors vs. majors – can anyone summarize his question?

  10. class of '74 03/13/2006 at 12:13 PM #

    ^Past years records in the NCAAT would indicate the mid-majors did not warrant their inclusion at the expense of some of the BCS leagues.

  11. choppack 03/13/2006 at 1:27 PM #

    I thought so – it sounded like he had some hard data. It also sounded like the guy evaded his answer.

    IMHO, while it is definitely used, the RPI is terribly flawed. I can’t figure out for the life of me why margin of victory isn’t used – unless the real reason to use the RPI is to get more mid-majors in there.

Leave a Reply