The pods for the 3/6 seeds are as follows:
Dayton
Lexington
Auburn hills
Kansas City
All of which would be decent spots for MU based on travel alone.
The pods for the 4/5 seeds are:
San Jose
Kansas City
Austin
I'd almost rather slide to a 6 based on location, but right now I see Florida, Michigan Louisville and Kansas on the 3 line. If that holds up, then never mind.
Quote from: JTBMU7 on March 01, 2013, 08:12:43 AM
I'd almost rather slide to a 6 based on location, but right now I see Florida, Michigan Louisville and Kansas on the 3 line. If that holds up, then never mind.
Might be time for a new crystal ball. One of those 4 may end up as a 3 seed, but I'll bet dollars to donuts 3 of the 4 of them end up among the top 8 seeds.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 01, 2013, 08:19:18 AM
Might be time for a new crystal ball. One of those 4 may end up as a 3 seed, but I'll bet dollars to donuts 3 of the 4 of them end up among the top 8 seeds.
That's where they are in palms latest bracket. But I agree w you. They will probably end up on the 2line, just what I'm seeing in his bracket today...
That's not how the tournament works. There are no predetermined seeds for the pods - it's all part of the selection committee's process.
To play in Auburn Hills we'll need to be a 2 seed or a 7 not 3 or 6
Quote from: cbowe3 on March 01, 2013, 08:31:15 AM
To play in Auburn Hills we'll need to be a 2 seed or a 7 not 3 or 6
Again, there is nothing predetermined. It all depends on where the selection committee sees fit to put everyone. They start with the 1 seeds and place them, then the 2 seeds, etc. While doing this, they try to keep the top seeds as close to home as possible.
Quote from: TJ on March 01, 2013, 08:33:07 AM
Again, there is nothing predetermined. It all depends on where the selection committee sees fit to put everyone. They start with the 1 seeds and place them, then the 2 seeds, etc. While doing this, they try to keep the top seeds as close to home as possible.
correct, but they only have a 4 places to put each seed... and they can't be in the same region, so every region has a location for their 1s, 2s, etc... so i think the structure shown on the projections is correct as far as what seed # matchup will be there. maybe im missing something?
Quote from: JTBMU7 on March 01, 2013, 09:03:40 AM
correct, but they only have a 4 places to put each seed... and they can't be in the same region, so every region has a location for their 1s, 2s, etc... so i think the structure shown on the projections is correct as far as what seed # matchup will be there. maybe im missing something?
Yes, but unlike the old days, multiple regions will be represented at each site. MU could be a 3 seed in a region, and be placed at the same site, say Lexington or Dayton along with Indiana who could be the 1 seed in a different region.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 01, 2013, 08:19:18 AM
Might be time for a new crystal ball. One of those 4 may end up as a 3 seed, but I'll bet dollars to donuts 3 of the 4 of them end up among the top 8 seeds.
MU is closer to a 3 right now than a 6..In fact, i'd say they probably are a 3 seed at the moment(and particularly if they win the BE title), if they win the BE tourney title, they COULD be a 2. RPI forecast projects their RPI to be #4 if they win 6 in a row. No way are they sliding to a 6 seed unless they lose the last 4 regular season games IMO, and that's not happening.
Quote from: JTBMU7 on March 01, 2013, 09:03:40 AM
correct, but they only have a 4 places to put each seed... and they can't be in the same region, so every region has a location for their 1s, 2s, etc... so i think the structure shown on the projections is correct as far as what seed # matchup will be there. maybe im missing something?
Here's (an overly simplified version of) how the selection process works:
1. Determine the 68 teams.
2. Order all 68 teams, 1-68.
3. "S-curve" teams into brackets
4. Evaluate & adjust
5. Break brackets into pods & assign sites
6. Evaluate and adjust
7. Shake hands for the cameras
8. Carry briefcase to CBS studio.
Hypothetically, if Michigan and Michigan State were the top #1 seeds, they would be in different regions, but both could (and would likely) play the first weekend in Auburn Hills. So a second/third round site can have two #1 pods assigned to it if the committee believes it maintains integrity.
Quote from: Benny B on March 01, 2013, 09:54:55 AM
Here's (an overly simplified version of) how the selection process works:
1. Determine the 68 teams.
2. Order all 68 teams, 1-68.
3. "S-curve" teams into brackets
4. Evaluate & adjust
5. Break brackets into pods & assign sites
6. Evaluate and adjust
7. Shake hands for the cameras
8. Carry briefcase to CBS studio.
Hypothetically, if Michigan and Michigan State were the top #1 seeds, they would be in different regions, but both could (and would likely) play the first weekend in Auburn Hills. So a second/third round site can have two #1 pods assigned to it if the committee believes it maintains integrity.
Right--I wrote some posts about this a few weeks back, based on projected seeding at that time: http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=36279.0. Don't have time to update now, but gives you a general sense of what sites are likely going to be taken based on teams that are probably going to be seeded higher than us.
Quote from: MUMountin on March 01, 2013, 10:00:56 AM
Right--I wrote some posts about this a few weeks back, based on projected seeding at that time: http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=36279.0. Don't have time to update now, but gives you a general sense of what sites are likely going to be taken based on teams that are probably going to be seeded higher than us.
And after two more weeks of basketball, the whole thing needs to be re-projected :)
Quote from: Benny B on March 01, 2013, 10:13:13 AM
And after two more weeks of basketball, the whole thing needs to be re-projected :)
Ha--very true, especially this season.
Most years, I'd rather wait as long as possible to play a 1, so I'd rather be a 3/6 than a 4/5.
This year is so crazy, though, I'm not sure it matters. Example, if Kansas is a 3 and Gonzaga is a 1, who would I rather play?
Quote from: muguru on March 01, 2013, 09:13:41 AM
MU is closer to a 3 right now than a 6..In fact, i'd say they probably are a 3 seed at the moment(and particularly if they win the BE title), if they win the BE tourney title, they COULD be a 2. RPI forecast projects their RPI to be #4 if they win 6 in a row. No way are they sliding to a 6 seed unless they lose the last 4 regular season games IMO, and that's not happening.
Guru - Where do you find the rpi forecasting tool? Good to know that if we win out we're rpi #4. That tool seems pretty slick.
Quote from: wardle2wade on March 01, 2013, 11:06:18 AM
Guru - Where do you find the rpi forecasting tool? Good to know that if we win out we're rpi #4. That tool seems pretty slick.
http://www.rpiforecast.com/index2.html
Click on a team to see its projection breakdown
Quote from: Benny B on March 01, 2013, 09:54:55 AM
Here's (an overly simplified version of) how the selection process works:
1. Determine the 68 teams.
2. Order all 68 teams, 1-68.
3. "S-curve" teams into brackets
4. Evaluate & adjust
5. Break brackets into pods & assign sites
6. Evaluate and adjust
7. Shake hands for the cameras
8. Carry briefcase to CBS studio.
Here is the second biggest mistake the public makes about this process: There is no such thing as an S-curve. Let me repeat that: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN S-CURVE!!!!
This was always a misnomer. Here's what actually happens. The committee will seed the entire field 1 through 68. Once that is completed, they will start placing teams into the bracket. Contrary to conventional assumption, the committee does not and never has assigned the top No. 2 seed (or the overall No. 5) to the same region as the lowest No. 1 seed (overall No. 4) and proceeded along that pattern. Rather, the top priority is geography. Competitive balance is taken into account, but only as a secondary concern.
All of this has to fit into the bracket's principles and procedures. One of those principles states that teams from the same conference may not meet until the Elite Eight. So let's say Gonzaga ends up as the overall No. 4 and Michigan is the overall No. 5. Gonzaga would be the No. 1 seed in the West. If there were an S-curve, Michigan would automatically be slotted as the No. 2 seed in the West. But since geography is the top priority, the committee would want to send them to the Midwest regional, which this year will be held in Indianapolis. However, if Indiana is the overall No. 1, the Wolverines could not be sent there. So the Wolverines would probably be the No. 2 seed in the South or the East, as long as another Big Ten team isn't the No. 1 seed. Got it?
Once the committee places the top 16 teams in the bracket, it will stop to assess the overall competitive balance. The software program they use for bracketing makes it easy by keeping a running tab of the seed totals. (So if the East has the overall 1, 6, 9 and 15 seeds, the number 31 will appear at the bottom of the column.) The committee can move teams around if those numbers get too out of whack. Otherwise, they will do their best to keep teams as close to home as possible.
In other words, there is no such thing as an S-curve.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20130221/hoop-thoughts/#ixzz2MJa2zplT
Quote from: gmhfordham1015 on March 01, 2013, 12:40:38 PM
Here is the second biggest mistake the public makes about this process: There is no such thing as an S-curve. Let me repeat that: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN S-CURVE!!!!
This was always a misnomer. Here's what actually happens. The committee will seed the entire field 1 through 68. Once that is completed, they will start placing teams into the bracket. Contrary to conventional assumption, the committee does not and never has assigned the top No. 2 seed (or the overall No. 5) to the same region as the lowest No. 1 seed (overall No. 4) and proceeded along that pattern. Rather, the top priority is geography. Competitive balance is taken into account, but only as a secondary concern.
All of this has to fit into the bracket's principles and procedures. One of those principles states that teams from the same conference may not meet until the Elite Eight. So let's say Gonzaga ends up as the overall No. 4 and Michigan is the overall No. 5. Gonzaga would be the No. 1 seed in the West. If there were an S-curve, Michigan would automatically be slotted as the No. 2 seed in the West. But since geography is the top priority, the committee would want to send them to the Midwest regional, which this year will be held in Indianapolis. However, if Indiana is the overall No. 1, the Wolverines could not be sent there. So the Wolverines would probably be the No. 2 seed in the South or the East, as long as another Big Ten team isn't the No. 1 seed. Got it?
Once the committee places the top 16 teams in the bracket, it will stop to assess the overall competitive balance. The software program they use for bracketing makes it easy by keeping a running tab of the seed totals. (So if the East has the overall 1, 6, 9 and 15 seeds, the number 31 will appear at the bottom of the column.) The committee can move teams around if those numbers get too out of whack. Otherwise, they will do their best to keep teams as close to home as possible.
In other words, there is no such thing as an S-curve.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20130221/hoop-thoughts/#ixzz2MJa2zplT
The bolded part is no longer the case. MU played Cuse in the Sweet 16 a couple years back.
I would prefer to be on the 4/5 line. If we are going to play a #1 seed I want it to be on a Thursday/Friday (more time to prepare), than on one day's rest.
Quote from: copious1218 on March 01, 2013, 12:56:20 PM
The bolded part is no longer the case. MU played Cuse in the Sweet 16 a couple years back.
Only because 11 big east teams made the tournament. Once nine teams from one conference make the tournament, there is no way to avoid the possibility of two teams from the same league meeting in the S16.