Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 28 to 29 of 29

Thread: NCAA tournament performance vs. seed 1999-2011

  1. #28
    World Champ
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,657

    Default Re: NCAA tournament performance vs. seed 1999-2011

    Meeting your seed means meeting expectations. If the ranking systems have low expectations of your team, then you are likely to beat those expectations. Another way of looking at it: If you sandbag all year long, and then wrestle the tourney like it means something, you will be more likely to beat your seed. IMO, Brands and Sanderson both did good jobs of peaking their teams for Nationals this year.

  2. #29
    NCAA Champ BlueBloodLion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The same planet as you
    Posts
    1,013

    Default Re: NCAA tournament performance vs. seed 1999-2011

    I'm not sure who would sandbag an entire season in order to get a lower seed. I'll take the higher seed if that's an option, thank you very much! I agree that effectively happens often enough because of injury/illness and very occasionally a Quentin Wright type of year. In a vacuum, staying healthy and motivated for three days should be easier than for the 100+ days leading up to it.


    Looking at it from the seeding committee perspective, I think anyone who finishes within one (higher or lower) was accurately seeded therefore counting as a win for them. I'd love to see the "win percentage" for the seeding committee. Has anyone already looked at that?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •