There have been comments on several threads about how much (if any) benefit MU would get from getting a 2 seed as opposed to a 3 seed.
I recently came across this site that has some data about how teams with various seeds have fared in the NCAA tournament.
https://bracketresearch.com/seed-analysis/2-seeds/
This page covers the 2 seeds and you can see other seeds on the pull down list "Historical Seed Facts".
There is information covering all 38 tournaments with 64 seeded teams (1985 through 2023) and the last 10 tournaments (2013 through 2023).
Some interesting things relating to 2 and 3 seeds in the last 10 tournaments:
1. 2 seeds are 35-5 in the first round against the 15 seeds and 3 seeds are 34-6 against the 14 seeds. (Interestingly. 4 of the 5 15 seeds that won in the first round have advanced to the Sweet 16, and one advanced to the Elite 8.)
2. 23 2 seeds and 23 3 seeds have advanced to the Sweet 16. (23 4 seeds have also advanced to the Sweet 16).
3. I skimmed through the results of the last 10 tournaments and 2 and 3 seeds have only faced each other in the third round 13 out of a possible 40 times. The number 2 seeds are 8-5 in those games; one of the 3 seed winners was Marquette over Miami in 2013.
4. 6 seeds are 20-20 against 11 seeds, meaning that a 3 seed winning in the first round has a decent chance of playing a lower seed in the second round than a winning 2 seed. (Interestingly, 11 of the 20 11 seeds that won in the first round have advanced to the Sweet 16, compared to only 6 of the 20 6 seeds.)
There are lots of other interesting things in this data that suggest to me that specific matchups are much bigger factors in a team advancing than being placed one seed line higher. With the parity in college basketball these days, the difference in quality between teams in seed line X and teams in seed line X+1 is somewhere between negligible and nothing.
I want MU to get a 2 seed, but I don't think their chances of reaching the Sweet 16 (or going further) will be reduced if they are given a 3 seed.
Good stuff, thanks.
With regards to #4, any chance you can give us the record 7 seeds versus the 10, and then the follow up of how many of the 7s and 10a advanced to the S16?
Appreciate it
Thanks for confirming with facts what a number of us believed was the situation.
We'd all rather our alma mater get the best seed possible, but being anywhere from 7-11 on the S-curve will be just fine.
I also think that having a very experienced team, coming off of last year's disappointment, gives MU a lot of advantages even if there WAS a significant difference between seed lines. They know this is their shot.
Yes.
Quote from: DoctorV on March 13, 2024, 02:41:16 PM
Good stuff, thanks.
With regards to #4, any chance you can give us the record 7 seeds versus the 10, and then the follow up of how many of the 7s and 10a advanced to the S16?
Appreciate it
7 vs 10 is 26-14 with 10 7's and 3 10's making the Sweet 16. Interesting that 10 seeds as a group have been that much less successful than 11 seeds.
8 vs 9 is 20-20 in the last 10 tournaments and 74-78 in all 38 tournaments. Some evidence that one seed higher doesn't mean a better team.
Of course those 8 and 9 seeds have had little success advancing further over the years because of almost always facing a 1 seed in the second round. But, in the last 10 years, 6 8 seeds and 4 9 seeds have reached the Sweet 16, perhaps a hint that the 1 seeds don't tower over the field as much as they did in the past.
In the first 28 tournaments only 10 8 seeds and 4 9 seeds reached the Sweet 16. Those second round upsets have become significantly less rare.
Definitely should be worried about seeds and sage.
Does advantsage have the same benefits as regular sage?
Regardless of seed, I think the most dangerous 14 and 15 seeds are ones that have experienced lineups that have played together for several years, play sound fundamentals, aren't intimidated by the NCAA stage, and play like they have nothing to lose. Those teams might not have great predictive metrics that earn higher seeds, but they can be tough outs.
I think last year's Princeton team and the 2013 Davidson team that almost took out MU are examples. Those teams stay in the game while the high seed feels the pressure of being expected to advance.
Quote from: wisblue on March 13, 2024, 03:38:59 PMwhile the high seed feels the pressure
Rico and Newsdreams beg to differ.
Quote from: tower912 on March 13, 2024, 03:50:10 PM
Rico and Newsdreams beg to differ.
High & drunk right now
We did pretty good as a 3 seed in 2003 and 2013.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 13, 2024, 10:54:45 PM
We did pretty good as a 3 seed in 2003 and 2013.
True, but we needed Diener's incredible performance to overcome Holy Cross in 2003, as Wade didn't play well ... and we needed a borderline miracle vs. Davidson in 2013.
Neither of which means a thing in 2024, of course.