Comments on: Thoughts on the Fourth #1 Seed

By: Matt G.

Matt G. — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:43:02 +0000

Ive posted before that I was an OSU alum. That being said, I love OSU but I will admit, we are not a #1 seed. End of discussion. This is coming from a diehard. However, we are an extremely solid #2, and very deserving of a #2. ET also deserves Player Of Year. I project OSU as top #2 seed and playing in a favorable region and geographically close to home. There is no other hotter team in the nation right now too.

As I type this, WV is up 7 with only 8-mins to go. If the Mountaineers hang on to win, I think WV gets the #1 over Duke.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:17:54 +0000

I like West Virginia as the 4th #1, and I think they could sew it up. I think it’s going to be about who has the best wins.

West Virginia has squeeked by Villanova on the road and somewhat routed both Pitt and G-town at home. They also beat a very good Texas A&M team at a neutral site. (Also, they beat Ohio State)

Duke’s best win is against Maryland to this point… doesn’t really scream #1 seed, but they are on top of the ACC and have been very consistent this year, I guess.

I don’t believe Ohio State should be included in the discussion, but let’s suppose they win their tournament… they will have beaten Purdue twice, Wisconsin, and Michigan State… but lost to WV.. to me that gives WV the nod over them no matter what happens the rest of the way, but who knows?

Purdue has beaten WV, Tennessee, Wisconson, Mich St, and Ohio St. They have the head-to-head with WV whereas Ohio State does not, so if Purdue wins their tournament, they have a shot at getting the 4th #1. I think Tennesee and Mich St are not as good wins as Villanova, Pitt, Georgetown, and Texas A&M. But, they could still squeek by into a #1.

New Mexico has only beaten BYU and Texas A&M for their top wins — not enough for a #1 seed in my opinion — but they have been very consistent!

I don’t think Villanova and K-State are close enough to discuss, but I suppose I would take Villanove over K-State

So, here is how I would right now rank/rate the chances of a #1 seed:

West Virginia – 25%
Duke – 22%
Purdue – 21%
New Mexico – 12%
Ohio State – 10%
Villanova – 8%
K-State – 2%

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:53:42 +0000

Great analysis. I’d like to see more folks outside of the WVU fanbase crunch these numbers. We beat Ohio State, and we’ve got a much better resume than Duke. Despite the fact that Duke’s RPI is slightly higher than that of WVU, the Mountaineers should pass the Blue Devils in that category IF we win the Big East Tournament (winning the BET is the only way we get a 1).

Let’s go Mountaineers!

By: James G

James G — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:15:25 +0000

Actually, I agree that if both WVU and Duke run the table, that the advantage goes to WVU because of the wins they will pick up on the way. However, if the season stopped today, I’d have to go with Duke. If Duke, WVU, Ohio State, and Purdue all lost prior to their league championships, I think I’d have to stick with Duke, although that would depend on who they beat before going down, and who they lost to.

I just don’t see Pitt at all. #1 seeds just don’t lose to Indiana. I know Pitt had early season injuries, but Evan Turner-less Ohio State beat Indiana by 25. I could see them up to a #2 if they won the Big East tournament, though.

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:02:09 +0000

If Pitt runs the table in the big east tourney, I would give it to pitt.

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:01:03 +0000

If WVU wins the Big East Tourney, they’ll probably have to go through at least two top-3 seeds to do so. Imagine them going through Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse versus whatever three teams Duke has to beat. And the Pomeroy and Sagarin numbers for WVU are pretty impressive in their own right. Surprisingly so.

I think if both Duke and WVU both run the table, WVU should deserve the #1. The only thing Duke would have on its side would be margin of victory, which is pretty good this year, but not comparable to dominant Duke teams of old.

By: David Mihm

David Mihm — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:08:11 +0000

“To get that last 1 seed, each of them really needs to win their conference tournament.”

That’s exactly right. However, in a tie-breaker where both teams do that, I’d almost certainly give the edge to West Virginia.

By: DMoore

DMoore — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:06:25 +0000

I agree with James G. The committee usually looks at both the Sagarin & Pomeroy numbers in their analysis, where Duke is ranked 1st based on both predictive models. The reason for that ranking is Duke’s margin of victory in their games — they have 22 double digit victories this year. Even so, this is actually an extremely tight decision, and that’s partly because one of the usual tiebreakers to decide is very, very close. Pomeroy rates WV’s schedule as the toughest in the nation, and ranks Duke’s as 4th.

To get that last 1 seed, each of them really needs to win their conference tournament.

By: David Mihm

David Mihm — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:55:11 +0000

It is reasoned subjectivity. If the Selection Process were 100% objective, there would be no need for a Committee at all…the NCAA would just pick the top 34 at-larges based on RPI and seed them accordingly. I’m not saying that the Committee necessarily looks at the name of the school, but rather where that school is seeded in the actual field. The exact phrase from the by-laws says something like ‘record against other teams under consideration’ and I interpret that to mean consideration of seeds as well as selection.

For these two teams that would look something like

West Virginia: N-4, 11, @13, 7, @12, 2, 10, 3, 13, 5, @3
Duke: N-13, N-7, 8, 10, @8, 8, 13, 5, 11

By: DT

DT — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:51:46 +0000

Thanks Dave for your response. Thank you for clarifying the last 12 game analysis, I was not aware of that. I do find the fact that you prioritize a subjective tool of analysis over a a quantitative tool of analysis to be puzzling. I understand that there is a degree of subjectivity to the selection process, but are you saying that you believe that the committee will first consider a team based on their subjective perception of the teams Duke and WVU have played versus the quantitative ranking of the team (RPI) in the decision process? I would assume the committee would prioritize RPI first and if they are fairly close use a subjective tool of analysis to differentiate the teams from each other. I would enjoy hearing your opinion. Thanks!