Interesting Article About Tournament Seeds

[BraveRicky1]

In case you missed this article, it raises an interesting point:

http://www.collegeinsider.com/knoll/

Basically he is saying how it is sometimes better to lose marquee games early and get a 10-12 seed as opposed to winning some and getting screwed over with an 8 or 9 seed... some of the numbers are really crazy... Drake and Creighton might be in this boat if Drake loses a couple and Creighton wins a couple. I know everyone has Drake as a 4 or 5 seed now, but I doubt it would take many loses for everyone to lose respect for them and drop them to an 8 or 9... which means they can kiss goodbye to any tournament run... When Bradley made the sweet 16 they were a 13 seed - maybe that is actually better (if you are genuinly good, but underrated) then getting an crappy 8-9 game with a higher seed...

[SaintLouBrave22]

This is very true unless you have the inside talent to matchup w/ a Carolina or UCLA

[MacabreMob]

I called the Snell/Coach's show years ago and raised this point/question to Molinari. He disagreed with me.... he felt a team needs to get as good as possible seed and if that means an 8/9 instead of the 10-12 (or 13)... then that's what he wanted.

[SaintLouBrave22]

I called the Snell/Coach's show years ago and raised this point/question to Molinari. He disagreed with me.... he felt a team needs to get as good as possible seed and if that means an 8/9 instead of the 10-12 (or 13)... then that's what he wanted.

Coach Mo lived to disagree...

Unfortunately 1 NCAA appearance and he got his wish and we played most likely the best Stanford team they've had in the last 25 years...(and yes, I do include the present)

[squirrel]

I called the Snell/Coach's show years ago and raised this point/question to Molinari. He disagreed with me.... he felt a team needs to get as good as possible seed and if that means an 8/9 instead of the 10-12 (or 13)... then that's what he wanted.

As a coach, would you actually not want to win a game all for the sake of assuming a lower NCAA seed?

[BradleyBrave]

Coach Mo lived to disagree...

Unfortunately 1 NCAA appearance and he got his wish and we played most likely the best Stanford team they've had in the last 25 years...(and yes, I do include the present)

Yes, Coach Mo was as stubborn as they come, almost to a fault. I recall someone asking him on the show about '2-for-1' at the end of a half or game, and he said he didn't believe in that, and that it was 'an NBA thing'. Why a coach wouldn't want to ensure he had the ball last is beyond me.

[MacabreMob]

As a coach, would you actually not want to win a game all for the sake of assuming a lower NCAA seed?

Actually, my discussion with Mo never suggested losing a game to get a "better" seed.

Before I called the show....

It was in the 98-99 season. There was a lot of buzz over the MVC getting 2 or maybe 3 bids if not more. The MVC was the 7th/8th best conference and the talk was how many bids the 7th/8th best conference typically gets. (the year before that, the A10 was 7th and got 5) Anyway... the MVC was pretty tight and projections of final standings and conference tourney success could land this bid or that bid.

Mo was optimistic to get as high a finish as possible and maybe winning in St Louis. Discussion led to an 8 or 9 being possible.

So I called and asked about the opportunity to win more games as a 12/13 seed versus the 8/9. My argument was simple: 8/9 puts you in a dogfight with someone just like you with a chip on their shoulder and something to prove, knowing the next one is likely gonna send you packing for sure. Slip in as an overlooked/underrated 12/13 (yea - good enough to be a 7, 8 or 9) and draw an overrated/fading 4/5 seed. I believed you had a better chance to win 2 games as a 12/13 than you do at the 8/9.

That year, Bradley finished in a 3-way tie for 2nd with Mo St and Creighton (E'ville won the league). We beat SIU in the 4/5 game then lost by 1 to Eville in the Semi's. Creighton beat Mo St in the semis and won the Tourney. So Creighton got in with a 10 seed, Eville got in (won regular season) as an 11 seed, and Mo St had the best out-of-conference resume and got a 12 seed.

Evansville got smoked in Rd 1 by Kansas. Creighton won 1 game (over L'Ville, lost to Maryland). Mo St as the 12 seed rolled to the Sweet 16 (wins over Wisky and Tenn). (Bradley went to the NIT that year)

Btw - Bradley rolled to the Sweet 16 as what? A 13 seed.

[squirrel]

Perhaps. But you get the big dog out of the way and should be smooth sailing thereafter.

I know 8's and 9's don't have a particularly good W% against 1's, but of those teams that have beaten 1s in the 2nd round, without looking it up anywhere 67-80% reach the Final Four. I know Wisconsin and LSU both made it as an 8, and Villanova won the title as an 8.

Yea 12s through 14s have a decent track record and about every other year you have a 12-13
2nd round matchup.

Location and travel plays a factor too. . .the better seed you are, the closer to home the committee will try to send you.

The way I see it, your first two games will be your toughest, but if you win those you can take all comers.

As a lower 12-13-14 seed, you're so relieved to advance you're probably not mentally prepared enough to see the 1 or 2 seed in a near home game for them.

Give me the best seed possible.

[squirrel]

I'm thinking 6 or so 8-9 seeds have reached the Final Four our of only 10-12 wins over 1s. . .so maybe it's closer to 50%.

But more 8's and 9's have made it than 12s or 13s. Several 11s have made it though.