danielb927
Orange Krush Class of 2013
- Rochester, MN
I'm looking back to last season's bracket to try and better understand the seeding process. It looks like the Big XII was the main logjam there, with 4 teams in the top 16 overall teams. The Big East also had 3, while the B1G, Pac-12, and SEC had 2 each.
A perfect S-curve would have looked like:
Some obvious conflicts in there - 3 Big XII teams in the West and 2 Big East in the East. How does the committee fix this? Well, here's how I would have thought through it (spoiler - this is not what the committee did).
Start with keeping the 1 seeds in place.
For the 2 seeds, Texas can't be in the West. Arbitrarily, swap them with UCLA as one of the two closest teams.
For the 3 seeds, K State now can't be in the West or East, and Baylor is in the same conference. So swap them with Gonzaga as the only option.
For the 4 seeds, UConn can't be in the East. Swap them with Tennessee.
Now look at the sum totals. It turns out the East is least (36) and the West is best (31), which is within the guidelines (max difference of 5).
You could do even better by swapping UCLA and Arizona - then you'd have sums of 34/33/33/36. The downside is the worse overall seed (UCLA) would get a better regional (West).
Or you could have gone with swapping Texas-AZ, KSU-Xavier, and then leaving the 4 seeds alone. Sums in that case would be 34/33/36/33.
What the committee actually did is this:
I'm not sure why they would have gone this route. Could be that something farther down the bracket wouldn't have worked for other options without moving teams up or down a seed line; maybe the "sum within 5" thing for top 4 seeds is more important than not bumping a natural 7 seed to the 8 line. Or maybe they just didn't notice the other options.
This mainly just goes to show that even reading the rules, it's hard to know exactly how the final bracket will be laid out.
A perfect S-curve would have looked like:
| Region | 1 seed | 2 seed | 3 seed | 4 seed | Sum of rankings |
| South | 1 Alabama (SEC) | 8 Marquette (BE) | 9 Baylor (XII) | 16 Virginia (ACC) | 34 |
| Midwest | 2 Houston (Amer.) | 7 Arizona (Pac) | 10 Gonzaga (WCC) | 15 Indiana (B1G) | 34 |
| West | 3 Kansas (XII) | 6 Texas (XII) | 11 K State (XII) | 14 Tennessee (SEC) | 34 |
| East | 4 Purdue (B1G) | 5 UCLA (Pac) | 12 Xavier (BE) | 13 UConn (BE) | 34 |
Some obvious conflicts in there - 3 Big XII teams in the West and 2 Big East in the East. How does the committee fix this? Well, here's how I would have thought through it (spoiler - this is not what the committee did).
Start with keeping the 1 seeds in place.
For the 2 seeds, Texas can't be in the West. Arbitrarily, swap them with UCLA as one of the two closest teams.
For the 3 seeds, K State now can't be in the West or East, and Baylor is in the same conference. So swap them with Gonzaga as the only option.
For the 4 seeds, UConn can't be in the East. Swap them with Tennessee.
Now look at the sum totals. It turns out the East is least (36) and the West is best (31), which is within the guidelines (max difference of 5).
| Region | 1 seed | 2 seed | 3 seed | 4 seed | Sum of rankings |
| South | 1 Alabama (SEC) | 8 Marquette (BE) | 9 Baylor (XII) | 16 Virginia (ACC) | 34 |
| Midwest | 2 Houston (Amer.) | 7 Arizona (Pac) | 11 K State (XII) +1 | 15 Indiana (B1G) | 35 |
| West | 3 Kansas (XII) | 5 UCLA (Pac) -1 | 10 Gonzaga (WCC) -1 | 13 UConn (BE) -1 | 31 |
| East | 4 Purdue (B1G) | 6 Texas (XII) +1 | 12 Xavier (BE) | 14 Tennessee (SEC) +1 | 36 |
You could do even better by swapping UCLA and Arizona - then you'd have sums of 34/33/33/36. The downside is the worse overall seed (UCLA) would get a better regional (West).
Or you could have gone with swapping Texas-AZ, KSU-Xavier, and then leaving the 4 seeds alone. Sums in that case would be 34/33/36/33.
What the committee actually did is this:
| Region | 1 seed | 2 seed | 3 seed | 4 seed | Sum of rankings |
| South | 1 Alabama (SEC) | 7 Arizona (Pac) | 9 Baylor (XII) | 16 Virginia (ACC) | 33 |
| Midwest | 2 Houston (Amer.) | 6 Texas (XII) | 12 Xavier (BE) | 15 Indiana (B1G) | 35 |
| West | 3 Kansas (XII) | 5 UCLA (Pac) | 10 Gonzaga (WCC) | 13 UConn (BE) | 31 |
| East | 4 Purdue (B1G) | 8 Marquette (BE) | 11 K State (XII) | 14 Tennessee (SEC) | 37 |
I'm not sure why they would have gone this route. Could be that something farther down the bracket wouldn't have worked for other options without moving teams up or down a seed line; maybe the "sum within 5" thing for top 4 seeds is more important than not bumping a natural 7 seed to the 8 line. Or maybe they just didn't notice the other options.
This mainly just goes to show that even reading the rules, it's hard to know exactly how the final bracket will be laid out.
Last edited:
