NCAA Tournament Performances 2001-2013

[im4wsu]

There has been discussion at various times about the number of teams certain conferences get in the Dance and how they perform. I have taken a look at the Big 10, Big 12, Big East and MVC and compiled the won-loss record by seed vs opponent seed. Here is a summary of the Wins-losses in each of these conferences according to whether they were the higher or lower seeded team. Games between two teams from the same conference were excluded (only one game between Big 12 teams).

	Wins-High	Wins-Low	Losses-High	Losses-Low	Total Wins	Total Losses
Big 10	84	25	40	33	109	73
Big 12	88	17	38	31	105	69
Big East	106	26	42	42	132	84
MVC	7	12	4	21	19	25

	W?l High	W/L Low	W/Ltotal
Big 10	67.7%	43.1%	59.9%
Big 12	69.8%	35.4%	60.3%
Big East	71.6%	38.2%	61.1%
MVC	63.6%	36.4%	43.2%

The grid by seed for each conference follows:

Big 10

Big 12

Big East

MVC

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Excellent work im4wsu!

Here's a question to ponder...

Total record of 4-8 seeds
MVC: 7-8 (47%)
BE/Big12/Big10 Combined: 118-109 (52%)

To those who complain about how the MVC always gets the shaft in seeding… Why is it that the MVC seems to have performed no better than these other BCS conferences when they are actually given a seed where they are favored for 1 or more games? I always hear about lack of opportunity (BCS teams get loaded with 5, 6, 7 seeds while MVC gets saddled with double digits seeds), but in the cases where MVC teams do in fact get a nice seed, they don't seem to do any better than those "overrated" teams. I'm curious to hear from the "MVC teams get the shaft in seeding" crowd.

[ShockerFever]

An 0 for 1 start in your "pro-WSU/Valley with numbers" quest.

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

How about seeds 7-9?

I doubt anyone actually "complains" about being overseeded. When seeded in that range, we compete reasonably well compared to the P5 teams.

The MVC is 11-7 (61%) as 7-9 seeds. The P5 teams are 33-48 (40%).

Perhaps this is the "numerical evidence" that the lower performing P5 teams do get seeds that they don't deserve?

[MadaboutWu]

Excellent work im4wsu!

Here's a question to ponder...

Total record of 4-8 seeds
MVC: 7-8 (47%)
BE/Big12/Big10 Combined: 118-109 (52%)

I think 4-8 is too big a group as 4s iirc advance about 80% of the time and 8s obviously win right around 50%. I like the suggestion of 7-9 as a more accurate head-to-head metric, making 4-6 its own group.

[ABC]

Excellent work im4wsu!

Here's a question to ponder...

Total record of 4-8 seeds
MVC: 7-8 (47%)
BE/Big12/Big10 Combined: 118-109 (52%)

To those who complain about how the MVC always gets the shaft in seeding… Why is it that the MVC seems to have performed no better than these other BCS conferences when they are actually given a seed where they are favored for 1 or more games? I always hear about lack of opportunity (BCS teams get loaded with 5, 6, 7 seeds while MVC gets saddled with double digits seeds), but in the cases where MVC teams do in fact get a nice seed, they don't seem to do any better than those "overrated" teams. I'm curious to hear from the "MVC teams get the shaft in seeding" crowd.

I must not be following - the comparison about MVC teams being under-seeded and then how to perform with they get single digit seeds isn't related.

I think the complaint has been a team seeded 10,11,12,13 that might have warranted a 6,7,8,9.

[MadaboutWu]

I must not be following - the comparison about MVC teams being under-seeded and then how to perform with they get single digit seeds isn't related.

I think the complaint has been a team seeded 10,11,12,13 that might have warranted a 6,7,8,9.

Good point. Though how teams perform at seed lines is an interesting question.

Looking at rpi or a combination of rpi/pomeroy vs. seeding seems about the only way to measure under-seeding in a way that doesn't depend on the "eye test."

[Aargh]

CU's ability to get in the tournament (usually with a decent seed), but not win any games probably skews these stats a bit.

[Shockeriffic]

Excellent work im4wsu!

Here's a question to ponder...

Total record of 4-8 seeds
MVC: 7-8 (47%)
BE/Big12/Big10 Combined: 118-109 (52%)

To those who complain about how the MVC always gets the shaft in seeding… Why is it that the MVC seems to have performed no better than these other BCS conferences when they are actually given a seed where they are favored for 1 or more games? I always hear about lack of opportunity (BCS teams get loaded with 5, 6, 7 seeds while MVC gets saddled with double digits seeds), but in the cases where MVC teams do in fact get a nice seed, they don't seem to do any better than those "overrated" teams. I'm curious to hear from the "MVC teams get the shaft in seeding" crowd.

1. Don't draw too big of a conclusion from 15 games. If the kid from Western Kentucky misses that half court buzzer beater against Drake then the numbers would be almost identical.
2. I like how you stopped the comparison short of the 9 seeds. Can't have last year's Final Four run mess up your numbers.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I must not be following - the comparison about MVC teams being under-seeded and then how to perform with they get single digit seeds isn't related.

I think the complaint has been a team seeded 10,11,12,13 that might have warranted a 6,7,8,9.

Here is my logic.

Claiming MVC teams get under seeded means that they are actually better than their BCS counterparts who share the same seed. It means MVC seeds have to do more to earn a 12 seed than BCS schools do. The same would follow down into the 4/5/6/7/8 range, and if an MVC team seeded as a 5 is actually better than a BCS team seeded as a 5, one would expect that once tournament play began, they would outperform their BCS counterparts.

In reality, we see that MVC teams perform fairly similarly to BCS teams at the same seed level. This seems to argue against any claim that MVC teams are under seeded. if they were under seeded, they would over perform for their given seed.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

1. Don't draw too big of a conclusion from 15 games. If the kid from Western Kentucky misses that half court buzzer beater against Drake then the numbers would be almost identical.
2. I like how you stopped the comparison short of the 9 seeds. Can't have last year's Final Four run mess up your numbers.

I agree with your statement about not drawing too big of a conclusion from a fairly small sample. All I'm trying to say is that given the data that we do have, there is no significant difference in how given seeds perform when we compare BCS vs MVC.

As for my breakout of 4-8, I stated that I was trying to disprove those who claim BCS schools simply win a bunch of NCAA games and make sweet 16s because they get favorable seeds. That is why I picked the seeds where the MVC had been given a minimum of one game in which they would be the favorite.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I doubt anyone actually "complains" about being overseeded.

I'll try to address the rest of your post tomorrow, but I have to ask, what are you talking about? Who claimed that anyone complains about being over seeded?

[Blackmag]

I think there are select teams with-in the BCS who are traditionally given higher seeds because of who they are, and their usually playing in their backyard, playing a 16 seed followed by a third rd game with a 10 seed. Hence anotheir sweet 16.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

You can't play a 16 seed followed by a 10 seed prior to the Sweet 16.

[Cdizzle]

You can't play a 16 seed followed by a 10 seed prior to the Sweet 16.

Psshh. Unless you're Duke.