Mythbuster #7: “Seeding doesn’t matter anymore in the tournament”

I said that I wasn’t going to write another post before Selection Sunday. Then “Around the Horn” had a debate on whether getting a one seed was all that important. And later in the night, some other analyst proclaimed that seeding no longer mattered in the dance because of the parity in college basketball.

Even Ken Pomeroy wrote a piece last year saying that seeding didn’t affect a team’s chances to win the dance. The line of reasoning was that efficiency ratings were what they were and the log5 formula probabilities of winning the tournament would be roughly the same whether a team was on the one, two or three line. Ken rightly pointed out that the most important rounds in determining whether a team would win the tourney were the Final Four and championship game…and that the ultimate champion would have to play great teams no matter what. He also stressed that a team’s chances of winning the dance were affected more by the difficulty of its region, as measured by efficiency statistics.

All of that is well and good if you’re trying to project the ultimate champion. But asking whether seeding matters in predicting the tourney winner is a very different question than asking whether seeding matters at all in tourney outcomes. I’ll agree that a team’s overall efficiency rating is more important than its seed position in determining its chances of cutting down the nets. But I don’t agree that seeding doesn’t matter in earlier round outcomes.

Let’s face it: seeding prescribes a certain path through the bracket. And that path is easier for one seeds than it is for twos, easier for twos than threes, and so on. Not only that, but there’s a significant degradation in the quality of teams seeded lower than 13. That’s because the teams getting automatic bids from small conferences aren’t actually the 52nd through 64th best teams in the tourney. One seeds don’t play the 61st most efficient team in the tournament; they play more like the 195th best team. It’s the difference between playing West Virginia and Albany. On the other hand, five seeds actually do have to play the 45th best team in the country. Maybe that’s why they struggle so much.

But let’s set aside efficiency stats for a moment. Here are the average seed gaps of the games that one through five seeds have to play in the first four rounds of the dance:


We all know the seed differences in round one. But those differences persist throughout the first four rounds. In the second round, one seeds are playing teams 7.5 seed positions away, while two seeds are just 6.2 seed positions from their opponents. Overall in round two, a one-seed difference means about a 1.5-seed gap in the quality of your opponent. And that gap gets bigger in the Sweet 16. One seeds still enjoy a sizable 5.2 seed gap over opponents, while two seeds have tighter games with only 3.3-seed gaps. Three seeds face near toss-up games, while fours and fives are facing higher seeded opponents (usually one seeds—don’t tell me seeding doesn’t matter between a three and four).

I’m right with Ken on the argument that seeding doesn’t matter in determining the ultimate tourney champion. But it does matter in how far some teams progress. Let’s revisit some efficiency numbers. There have been seven teams since 2004 (that’s as far back as I have KenPom stats in my database) who should’ve gotten a one seed based on efficiency numbers—but who wound up getting a three or four seed. If seeding didn’t matter, you’d expect these teams to play like other one seeds, averaging 3.35 wins per dance. In fact, they averaged only 1.29 wins per tourney, more than two wins worse. Not only that, but their average PASE value—even for their actual seeds—was an underacheiving -.336.

The Verdict: Maybe a small difference in a team’s seeding—dropping, say, from a one to a two—doesn’t have a significant impact on its overall chances of winning the tourney. But seeding does matter to a team’s tourney fate, particularly in the early rounds, where the bracket prescribes markedly different paths to the Final Four.

There. I’m glad I got that off my chest. Back to the stats sheet.

This entry was posted in Mythbuster, Tourney Trends. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Mythbuster #7: “Seeding doesn’t matter anymore in the tournament”

  1. BLAIR SNEAD says:

    Besides the aggregation strategy I suggested you might also consider your own pick-8-pool recomendations. Blair

    • ptiernan says:

      Blair – Good thought. Let’s see if I can get to it. Just told my wife (who runs our friends pool) that we must do a Crazy 8 game this year.

  2. Michael says:

    Pete, based on your knowledge, who are your top three overachievers and underachievers in the field? The top seeds look like Florida, Arizona, WS, Michigan. Villanova a #2. Kansas,Wisconsin and Duke. Potential 3’s like Louisville, Iowa St and Virginia can all realistically beat the top 2 seeds. Thoughts. Thanks, Michael

    • ptiernan says:

      Michael – I’m in the midst of my Excel sheet building…and generally don’t form conclusions until tomorrow. I’ll say that Michigan will lose today to MSU and not get a one seed. (And I’m a U-M grad…too hard to beat your rival three times.) Of the top teams, Louisville, Florida and ISU all looked good.

    • Dave K says:

      I got one: Louisville. Their MOV this year is a hefty 21.2!
      According to bracketmaster there’s only been 7 teams like that or better and they’re PASE is +0.789

  3. Ryan Tressler says:

    can we just simulate today’s games and get to the brackets? haha . . . outside of the A-10 and Sun Belt championships (they can play those two games and my viewership will flip between the two today, haha), these games today don’t even matter really (other than to the actual players and coaches, im sure it matters to them, lol), all the other teams in are in at this point and every year you hear these Sunday games change very little in seeding according to the committee.

    • ptiernan says:

      Tress – This would sure as Hell would help me in crunching these Excel stats! That said, I do think the outcomes of the Duke/Virginia and Michigan/MSU games could affect who gets the last one seed. If Michigan wins, they’re the one. But I don’t think the Wolverines will pull the season trifecta against a Spartan team that is healthy, playing well (finally)–and bent on revenge. And that’s coming from a Michigan alum. If Virginia beats Duke, they could get the last one seed. If both Michigan and Virginia lose, maybe Villanova sneaks back in. Of course, I don’t think any of these teams deserve a one. It ought to be Louisville–if not for that pansy schedule.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>