A #2 seed would benefit this years Marquette team a great deal.
No one should prefer a #3 seed based on the supposed "upset" potential of the #15 seed vs #2 seed. This is a fallacy and just hype to gain outside interest to watch these TV games.
All-time since 1985, the #2 seeds are 138-10 (.932 winning pct.) against the #15 seeds.
The #3 seeds are 126-22 (.851 winning pct.) against the #14 seeds.
So historically, in the first round, being a #2 seed is much better than a #3 seed.
In fact, the #2 seeds have a better record than the #3's in every round of the tournament, save for the Final Four round.
For analysis sake, let's assume MU wins its first game of the tournament. Now, what does this mean as a #2 seed or as a #3 seed historically?
#2 SEED SCENARIO
Assuming MU is a #2 seed and wins its first round game, it would then play the #7 or #10 seed in the second round. In the second round, the #2 seed is 110-48 (.696 winning pct.) historically. Furthermore, in the second round the #7 seed is 42-68 (.382 pct.) and the #10 seed is 30-48 (.385 pct.).
#3 SEED SCENARIO
If MU is a #3 seed and wins its first round game, MU would then play the #6 or #11 seed in the second round. In the second round, the #3 seed is 93-53 (.637 pct.). Furthermore, in the second round the #6 seed is 53-58 (.478 pct.) and #11 is 36-41 (.468 pct.).
So, historically being a #2 seed in much better than being a #3 seed in the first and second round. The #2 seed has also proven statistically to give a team an easier path to the Sweet Sixteen. However, there is a statistical outlier that exists in the Sweet Sixteen round for the #2 seed that needs to be discussed.
AN OUTLIER IN THE SWEET SIXTEEN
Keep in mind, if Marquette is a #2 seed and "if" they win their first 2 games, there is a possibility that MU could play a #6 seed in the regional semifinal (Sweet Sixteen). When the #6 seed is in the Sweet Sixteen round it is an amazing 15-20 (.430 pct.) all-time. This is one of the historical statistical outliers of the NCAA tournament.
Although MU, as a #2 or #3 seed, would not play a #4 or #5 in the Sweet Sixteen, the Sweet Sixteen records of these two seeds prove this statistical oddity of the #6 seed's winning percentage in that round.
In the Sweet Sixteen the #4 seed is only 22-48 and the #5 seed is only 10-40. These records equal winning percentages of .314 and .200, respectively. Amazingly, much lower than the .430 winning percentage of the #6 seed in the Sweet Sixteen. So, it is fair to say that when the #6 seed gets into the Sweet Sixteen it has proven to be a very dangerous team in that round.
FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE SWEET SIXTEEN OUTLIER
Note that the #3 seed is 37-40 (.480 pct.) in Sweet Sixteen.
If MU is a #3 seed and win its first two games it would play either the #2, #7, #10, or #15 in the Sweet Sixteen. Those four seeds have a .720, .357, .375, and .333 winning percentage, respectively, in that round. As you can see, the #7, #10, & #15 have no where near the winning percentage of the #6 seed in the Sweet Sixteen. Of those seeds, only the #2 as expected has a better winning percentage than the #6 seed in the Sweet Sixteen round, but amazingly only by .050 pct.
THE ULTIMATE VERDICT: A #2 OR #3 SEED?
Having said all of this and regardless of the "#6 Seed Outlier", I would prefer Marquette to be seeded as a #2. The #15 vs. #2 seed "upset" is proven to be a fallacy and the road for Marquette to the Sweet Sixteen is much easier as a #2. Plus, their geographical placement should be much better as a #2 seed.
I understand that as a #2 seed, the "#6 Seed Outlier" may come into play for Marquette in the Sweet Sixteen and I'm okay with that. This team needs to have some experience winning games in the NCAA tournament and being a #2 should create a nice path for this MU team develop that experience and get a Sweet Sixteen birth. After that, anything is possible for this year's team.
Next year I see this same MU team as a true National Title contender and anything less than a Final Four birth would be a disappointment. This season I'm looking forward to this team making its mark. How far it goes will come down to match-up and experience factors in this tournament.
A #2 seed this year can open the door to something very special this season and next season.
Great post, glad to have ya here
Fantastic analysis, much appreciated.
#crapshoot
With this team, I might rather have the 3. Do they deserve a 2? Maybe. But this team thrives when they feel disrespected. And none of the 2s are that scary.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 12, 2023, 07:18:17 AM
With this team, I might rather have the 3. Do they deserve a 2? Maybe. But this team thrives when they feel disrespected. And none of the 2s are that scary.
I think you might be right, but I don't really want to catch Purdue in Louisville, which I think happens if they're a two and we're a three.
This ground has been covered before, but I think the analysis of the winning percentages of all 2 seeds vs all 3 seeds to me is largely irrelevant when you're talking about the difference between the 8 overall seed vs the 9 overall seed.
Quote from: wisblue on March 12, 2023, 07:42:04 AM
This ground has been covered before, but I think the analysis of the winning percentages of all 2 seeds vs all 3 seeds to me is largely irrelevant when you're talking about the difference between the 8 overall seed vs the 9 overall seed.
Not only that, but 2 seeds are historically better teams than 3 seeds. So those records are kind of meaningless.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 12, 2023, 07:18:17 AM
With this team, I might rather have the 3. Do they deserve a 2? Maybe. But this team thrives when they feel disrespected. And none of the 2s are that scary.
I agree with this in large part because I think the competitive/matchup advantage of being the number 8 overall seed vs the number 9 overall seed is somewhere between minimal and nonexistent.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 12, 2023, 07:18:17 AM
With this team, I might rather have the 3. Do they deserve a 2? Maybe. But this team thrives when they feel disrespected. And none of the 2s are that scary.
Like Michael Jordan, Shaka is very good at "finding disrespect" to use as motivation. I want the seed we deserve.
Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on March 12, 2023, 07:32:17 AM
I think you might be right, but I don't really want to catch Purdue in Louisville, which I think happens if they're a two and we're a three.
I think Purdue secured their 1-seed yesterday.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 12, 2023, 07:59:06 AM
I think Purdue secured their 1-seed yesterday.
Especially with UCLA losing.
The Athletic has us as the last 2 and Gonzaga as the first 3.
In their bracket, we'd play in the NYC regional (Purdue #1 seed), facing Vermont in the first round and the FAU/Auburn winner in round 2. Our first two games would be in Columbus.
Zags would be in the KC regional (Kansas #1 seed), facing Grand Canyon and the winner of TCU/Rutgers. They'd be in Denver.
The second game will be tough for either favorite. As it should be.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 12, 2023, 07:59:06 AM
I think Purdue secured their 1-seed yesterday.
And that should put them as number 4 on the seed list and a placement in NYC. Alabama would likely claim the spot in the Louisville region.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on March 12, 2023, 07:45:48 AM
Not only that, but 2 seeds are historically better teams than 3 seeds. So those records are kind of meaningless.
Dear Mr.
TheSultan::
If you look at it that way, your logic is only halfwitted as you are just looking at it from the perspective of the higher seeds.
Yes the higher seeded team is a better team, if the committee did their job correctly or they did not move a team one line up or down due to location.
But, the same is true of the lower seeded teams in the first round. The 14 seed is almost always a better team than the 15 seed. This is almost always the case in terms of first round record unless it's 8/9 seeds. This means that if MU is a 3 seed, it will most likely be playing a better team in the First Round than if it was a 2 seed. This was point.
As I further elucidated, the statistical discrepancies/oddities/anomalies are always found in the Second or Sweet Sixteen Rounds. For example, the "#6 Seed Oddity" in the Sweet Sixteen Round.
There are other statistical discrepancies/oddities/anomalies as well, but since the original premise was... "Is a 2 seed or a 3 seed better for Marquette?"... the "6 Seed Oddity" then became very relevant for this discussion.
I also wanted to prove the irrelevance of the "tall tale" by television and the fear by some fans that the 15 seed over the 2 seed is a typical upset. However, it has no deviation when compared to other upsets. Meaning it does not occur more often than any other upsets. In fact, it occurs much less than every scenario but one.
So having first dispelled the 15 seed over 2 seed upset, I also wanted to demonstrate that receiving a 2 seed was the best scenario for a young Marquette team that needs tournament experience.
My belief is that regardless of the "6 Seed Oddity" in the Sweet Sixteen Round, the No. 2 seed is better for this young MU team than a 3 seed due to the likelihood MU could win games in the first two rounds.
Your point that records are meaningless looks valid on its face, but it's not. Unfortunately, historical records/numbers are all we have other than the "eye test", which has complete bias. The historical numbers don't have bias and here's why the numbers matter most? They prove that other than a few statistical anomalies here and there, the NCAA Selection Committee has done an excellent job seeding teams in the tournament; almost uncanny.
Here's also why the historical records/numbers matter Mr.
THE Sultan... the win/loss records of seeds in most cases may be obvious, but that's because the Selection Committee has done an excellent job seeding teams. If the historical records indicated that the Selection Committee was consistently making errors in judgment, you would be one of the first using these "meaningless", as you called them, records to prove it.
The Selection Committee's excellent track record demonstrates the high probability that MU will win its first two games. Still gotta play the games though.
Mr.
TheSultan, you don't know how bad I want to posterize you right now. However, I have given up posterizing for Lent. I am trying to become a "kinder/gentler" DB+2. So let me just say Mr.
TheSultan that you are a wonderful MU fan and asset to this board. Best wishes my friend.
Ugh! That was tough. :-\
PS - "If" Marquette wins its first 2 games in the tournament, guess who the "6 Seed Oddity" would be (assuming they also win)? The other half of the most frequent match-up in NCAA Tournament history; Kentucky.
Quote from: MU82 on March 12, 2023, 07:51:43 AM
Like Michael Jordan, Shaka is very good at "finding disrespect" to use as motivation. I want the seed we deserve.
This.