Did MU move up the seed line with BET win?

[MU82]

So for TAMU, brew and any other bracket folks here ...

There was much talk about the conference tournaments mattering little, so do you think we were a 2 all along? Or do you think winning the BET is what pushed us up from a 3 to a 2?

It seems some were saying we'd still behind Baylor and maybe Gonzaga even if we won the BET. If so, were you surprised that winning the tournament moved the needle?

How much of the human element do you think went into us getting a 2 if, indeed, we seemed to be behind on some of the important metrics even after winning the BET?

Just trying to understand the whole process better, so anything y'all want to discuss on this subject would be welcome.

[HowardsWorld]

I think it has more to do with who we beat than we just won the BET. Taking out Uconn and then crushing Xavier gave us two more quad 1 wins. If it would have been Providence and Depaul I believe we would have been a 3.

[PGsHeroes32]

I'm obviously far from the expert but I think it played out exactly how I predicted it would have to play out to get a 2.

We had to win out and do it while playing the most optimal opponents in the BET.

28-6 and winning both regular and post season of a power 6 league while snagging two more Q1 wins was going to be hard to ignore when Baylor won neither.

[MuggsyB]

So for TAMU, brew and any other bracket folks here ...

There was much talk about the conference tournaments mattering little, so do you think we were a 2 all along? Or do you think winning the BET is what pushed us up from a 3 to a 2?

It seems some were saying we'd still behind Baylor and maybe Gonzaga even if we won the BET. If so, were you surprised that winning the tournament moved the needle?

How much of the human element do you think went into us getting a 2 if, indeed, we seemed to be behind on some of the important metrics even after winning the BET?

Just trying to understand the whole process better, so anything y'all want to discuss on this subject would be welcome.

I think the UCONN win got them to the 2 line combined with Baylor losing to Iowa St. in the B12 tournament.

[forgetful]

I know I'm not one of the people that you listed, but I do think the BET win got us to the 2-seed line. The reason I believe so is Xavier's seed (a 3) and UCONN (a 4).

By almost all metrics, UCONN was ahead of Xavier before the BET, which means the committee did take tournament performance into mind.

So by extension, I think they looked at the MU victory and moved them from maybe the top 3 seed, to the last 2 seed.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Feels like tourney games mattered a little more this year.  Like the pendulum has started swinging back the other way after hitting the minimal value extreme.

It also feels like overall record mattered a little more this year, while total Q1 wins and SOS mattered a little less.  That was good news for bubble teams like Pittsburgh, North Carolina State, and Arizona State and bad news for others like Oklahoma State and Wisconsin.

I also think head to head played a factor in a few spots.  Marquette was 8 on the overall list, beat 9 Baylor, and Baylor beat 10 Gonzaga. Xavier at 12 swept 13 UConn.  That may have mattered more than in past years.

[DoctorV]

Sometimes we get too bogged down by numbers, so much so that we lose sight of the most obvious and important true data.

Kudos to the committee for recognizing that when it comes to Big East teams.

Oh, and Championships matta.

I was pretty certainly convinced that Marquette was a 2, they deserved it, but even I was (incorrectly) surprised when I saw that X was given a higher seed than UConn.

Why though? When you think about it clearly Xavier deserved the higher seed because they earned the higher seed.
We've been told that conference record doesn't matter, but in a true round Robin conference where everyone plays each other twice it does matter.
Xavier finished 15-5, UConn 13-7.
Xavier finished in 2nd place in the BE and beat UConn 2x.

Xavier didn't look as good against MU in the BET as UConn did, but they looked very good against Creighton and made the Final, answering any questions left about if they can play well without Freemantle.

So, the BET absolutely mattered.
Kudos to the committee for realizing that sure, UConn had an amazing start to the season with huge wins over Bama and Iowa State, but they ran up the score so much in their cupcakes that it skewed their metrics a bit.
Those big wins and elite metrics still helped them to a 4 seed.
The totality of the body of work earned X a 3 seed and Marquette a 2 seed.

Metrics matta, but wins matta more, and championships matta'd most.

[MU82]

Thanks for your answer, Dr V. I know you were on the "we're a 2 if we win the BET" thing real early, and you turned out to be right.

And I'm glad about that!

[PointWarrior]

It's very clear - we were told many times by the know it alls they were not a 2 and would never move to a 2.

[brewcity77]

We moved up. I think the Selection Committee was cognizant of the criticism they took by not moving Tennessee up last year and the early Baylor loss coupled with our BET win moved us up. Again, the reason I did not expect this was because historically, they have not done this. Glad to see they did.

This was also evident in the 15-seed given to Princeton. In past years, when teams won on the last day they would just give the team the seed the expected favorite was going to get. Yale would've been a 13, but the Selection Committee used more of the weekend data than they typically have. I'd be very interested to see what would've happened if Vandy had made it to Sunday, considering all the criticism over TAMU last year.

Really, other than a number of one-seed-line irregularities, I they seemed on point. FAU is the one where I really struggle to see why they had them on the 9-line, considering the 7-seeds given to Murray State and Wofford in recent years. In terms of getting screwed, the Owls got a lower seed than precedent would indicate they deserved.

And though I didn't have them in, I was glad to see Nevada get in over Rutgers. I'm used to the SC taking mediocre high majors over mid-major teams that have better resumes. Maybe a product of the larger Selection Committee.

[MU82]

We moved up. I think the Selection Committee was cognizant of the criticism they took by not moving Tennessee up last year and the early Baylor loss coupled with our BET win moved us up. Again, the reason I did not expect this was because historically, they have not done this. Glad to see they did.

This was also evident in the 15-seed given to Princeton. In past years, when teams won on the last day they would just give the team the seed the expected favorite was going to get. Yale would've been a 13, but the Selection Committee used more of the weekend data than they typically have. I'd be very interested to see what would've happened if Vandy had made it to Sunday, considering all the criticism over TAMU last year.

Really, other than a number of one-seed-line irregularities, I they seemed on point. FAU is the one where I really struggle to see why they had them on the 9-line, considering the 7-seeds given to Murray State and Wofford in recent years. In terms of getting screwed, the Owls got a lower seed than precedent would indicate they deserved.

And though I didn't have them in, I was glad to see Nevada get in over Rutgers. I'm used to the SC taking mediocre high majors over mid-major teams that have better resumes. Maybe a product of the larger Selection Committee.

Good explanations, brew. Thanks.

It's very clear - we were told many times by the know it alls they were not a 2 and would never move to a 2.

It obviously would have been illogical to seed Baylor ahead of Marquette given what happened in each team's conference tournament combined with Marquette's early-season 100-point win over Baylor, but logic has often defied the selection committee.

The reason our "know it alls" ended up failing to predict that MU would get the 2 was that they were guilty of following precedent.

It will be interesting to see next year if this is the new normal.

[SaveOD238]

Feels like tourney games mattered a little more this year. 

Even for relatively minor details.  Houston and Alabama were both always going to be #1s, but the "overall #1 seed" going to Alabama seems to have come down to Houston losing its conference title game.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I was one of the people if not the person who talked the most about the challenge of us moving up to a 2 seed. For me it wasn't about us not being able to get a 2 seed, it was responding to all of the posts that went along the lines of "There is no way that Purdue/UCLA/Texas/Arizona/Baylor/Gonzaga could possibly be ahead of us" and the idea that if we won the BET, nothing else mattered. We now know for a fact that Purdue/UCLA/Texas/Arizona were ahead of us and that even winning the BET didn't change that (in part because of what they did during their conference tournaments). I personally never believed that Gonzaga was ahead of us but there was at least an argument as to why they could be.

That just leaves Baylor. What we know is that we ended up one spot ahead of them on the S-Curve. It's possible that that we were in a virtual tie and we just eeked out ahead of them or it's possible that we were already ahead of them heading into the BET and the BET just solidified it. Only the selection committee knows for sure. Personally, for the reasons Brew articulated, I think the selection committee put a little more weight on conference tourneys this season then they have in the past (which is a good thing IMHO). I agree with Muggsy that the UConn game was the one that likely put them over the edge. That was either our best or second best win of the season and if the committee is fully counting tournament games that is a great notch in the belt to add at the last minutes. But I do wonder if we had lost to Xavier if that would have given the committee an "out". It would have made it easy for them to say "Oh they would have been a 2 if they had won the BET but they didn't so they're a 3". We made the decision on them as difficult as possible and forced them to give us a 2 seed.

[MU82]

I was one of the people if not the person who talked the most about the challenge of us moving up to a 2 seed. For me it wasn't about us not being able to get a 2 seed, it was responding to all of the posts that went along the lines of "There is no way that Purdue/UCLA/Texas/Arizona/Baylor/Gonzaga could possibly be ahead of us" and the idea that if we won the BET, nothing else mattered. We now know for a fact that Purdue/UCLA/Texas/Arizona were ahead of us and that even winning the BET didn't change that (in part because of what they did during their conference tournaments). I personally never believed that Gonzaga was ahead of us but there was at least an argument as to why they could be.

That just leaves Baylor. What we know is that we ended up one spot ahead of them on the S-Curve. It's possible that that we were in a virtual tie and we just eeked out ahead of them or it's possible that we were already ahead of them heading into the BET and the BET just solidified it. Only the selection committee knows for sure. Personally, for the reasons Brew articulated, I think the selection committee put a little more weight on conference tourneys this season then they have in the past (which is a good thing IMHO). I agree with Muggsy that the UConn game was the one that likely put them over the edge. That was either our best or second best win of the season and if the committee is fully counting tournament games that is a great notch in the belt to add at the last minutes. But I do wonder if we had lost to Xavier if that would have given the committee an "out". It would have made it easy for them to say "Oh they would have been a 2 if they had won the BET but they didn't so they're a 3". We made the decision on them as difficult as possible and forced them to give us a 2 seed.

Logical ... even if you're a ball-knowing know-it-all.

[DoctorV]

The UConn win was huge, but the Xavier win in complete domination blowout fashion was even bigger.

That's because in the committees eyes, Xavier was a better team than UConn and higher in their Scurve.

[lostpassword]

But I do wonder if we had lost to Xavier if that would have given the committee an "out". It would have made it easy for them to say "Oh they would have been a 2 if they had won the BET but they didn't so they're a 3". We made the decision on them as difficult as possible and forced them to give us a 2 seed.

I had the same thought and very much agree.  MU removed an easy (and aguably justified) explanation as to why we didn't move past Baylor.

[Jay Bee]

Heard they were flippin a lotta coins to seed teams dis year

[wisblue]

I think MU winning the BET caused them to switch spots with Baylor in the last scrub. As it is they finished 8 and 9 on the final seed list.

If Baylor had not lost so many games in the last couple of weeks, including the early exit in their conference tournament, I think MU would have stayed a 3 even with a win in the BET.

IMHO MU getting a 2 seed required MU winning the BET AND getting help, and both happened.

Duke and Texas A&M are two teams that didn't get the bump some expected despite their conference tournament performances. The result of the UCLA- Arizona conference final didn't seem to have any impact either.

[Dr. Blackheart]

We moved up. I think the Selection Committee was cognizant of the criticism they took by not moving Tennessee up last year and the early Baylor loss coupled with our BET win moved us up. Again, the reason I did not expect this was because historically, they have not done this. Glad to see they did.

This was also evident in the 15-seed given to Princeton. In past years, when teams won on the last day they would just give the team the seed the expected favorite was going to get. Yale would've been a 13, but the Selection Committee used more of the weekend data than they typically have. I'd be very interested to see what would've happened if Vandy had made it to Sunday, considering all the criticism over TAMU last year.

Really, other than a number of one-seed-line irregularities, I they seemed on point. FAU is the one where I really struggle to see why they had them on the 9-line, considering the 7-seeds given to Murray State and Wofford in recent years. In terms of getting screwed, the Owls got a lower seed than precedent would indicate they deserved.

And though I didn't have them in, I was glad to see Nevada get in over Rutgers. I'm used to the SC taking mediocre high majors over mid-major teams that have better resumes. Maybe a product of the larger Selection Committee.

First and foremost, thanks for compiling, tracking and reporting on all the bracketology work.  It takes a ton of time I know, but it is incredibly work. I just want to make sure Scoop calls this out.

Thanks to TAMU as well to patiently and concisely explain to nuances between seeds.  Also awesome work.

I have said this numerous times, but the MU community is heads and shoulders above others because of the understanding of the analytics...and because of the eye tests built on a lot of experience.

Scoop knows balz!

[Goatherder]

I know I'm not one of the people that you listed, but I do think the BET win got us to the 2-seed line. The reason I believe so is Xavier's seed (a 3) and UCONN (a 4).

By almost all metrics, UCONN was ahead of Xavier before the BET, which means the committee did take tournament performance into mind.

So by extension, I think they looked at the MU victory and moved them from maybe the top 3 seed, to the last 2 seed.

Maybe.  Maybe the committee has some strange standard by which it divides the number of letters in the team's name by its zip code.  But a simpler explanation would seem to be that Xavier beat UConn twice and finished two games ahead of them against the same schedule.  I would think that alone would justify seeding them ahead.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I think this year was a reminder to some of the self-proclaimed bracketology "experts" that Q1 losses are still losses. Sure, one or two down the stretch won't move the needle much, but teams can't just stack up "quality loss" after quality loss without it affecting their seeding.

And while conference championships may not be an official metric, they are an easy talking point when the selection committee director is getting interviewed by Brian Gumbal on national television.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I think this year was a reminder to some of the self-proclaimed bracketology "experts" that Q1 losses are still losses. Sure, one or two down the stretch won't move the needle much, but teams can't just stack up "quality loss" after quality loss without it affecting their seeding.

And while conference championships may not be an official metric, they are an easy talking point when the selection committee director is getting interviewed by Brian Gumbal on national television.

And yet Baylor only moved down two spots on the S curve from the reveal and one of the two teams that passed them needed to go undefeated through the BET and pick up 4 Q1 wins to get one shot ahead. (The other team was only 1 spot behind Baylor to start and went undefeated until their championship game).

Baylor stood still, they didn't drop. We won so much that we caught and passed them.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

And yet Baylor only moved down two spots on the S curve from the reveal and one of the two teams that passed them needed to go undefeated through the BET and pick up 4 Q1 wins to get one shot ahead. (The other team was only 1 spot behind Baylor to start and went undefeated until their championship game).

Baylor stood still, they didn't drop. We won so much that we caught and passed them.

That's kind of the point. You said it was impossible for us to get a 2 even if we won out, which was a wild hot take given how much winning we did.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

That's kind of the point. You said it was impossible for us to get a 2 even if we won out, which was a wild hot take given how much winning we did.

I didn't say that actually. I said that specifically about passing Texas which may be what you're remembering given that you responded and said I was crazy.

I did think we were going to get a 3 seed and was wrong but I never thought it was impossible. I repeatedly said that if we could win the BET we would give the selection committee a difficult decision. We fortunately came out on top.

[Jay Bee]

I didn't say that actually. I said that specifically about passing Texas which may be what you're remembering given that you responded and said I was crazy.

I did think we were going to get a 3 seed and was wrong but I never thought it was impossible. I repeatedly said that if we could win the BET we would give the selection committee a difficult decision. We fortunately came out on top.

To be fair, he might be thinking of posts like these... "I think the 2-seed door is slammed shut" isn't quite "impossible", though:

I think with Arizona winning, the 2-seed door is slammed shut. But hey, might as well win the BET and test that theory.

Problem is, Gonzaga may have jumped us on the S-Curve.