NCAA Tournament Performances 2001-2013

[jdmee]

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 glanced over the results from the NCAA from 01-13. In the first round. of the Non-BCS teams that were the higher ranked team and lost -12 were beaten by another Non-BCS team. 8 were beaten by a BCS team, with 5 of these happening within the last 3-4 years. Historically, it seems a Non-BCS team in a high seed is placed against an under seeded Non BCS team. i.e. WSU vs VCU a couple of years back.

[Shockeriffic]

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.

That's fair and I think the selection committee generally does a good job of seeding teams. My only criticism is that the 8 vs 9 game has historically been a coin flip and there's no real favorite. Either both should have been included or neither.