Why Are We ONLY an 11-Seed?

[What Would Jesus Do?]

If we are favored to beat Ole Miss (per ESPN), why aren't WE the 6-seed?

I wonder how different the brackets would look if we let Las Vegas set them up based on betting odds?

This also looks like something AI might do better than humans - if not now, then soon.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

12-seed Colorado St is also slightly favored over 5-seed Missouri.

 

[NathanFielder]

If we are favored to beat Ole Miss (per ESPN), why aren't WE the 6-seed?

I wonder how different the brackets would look if we let Las Vegas set them up based on betting odds?

This also looks like something AI might do better than humans - if not now, then soon.

Was UNC's regular season worthy of being a 6 seed?

Also, the betting line reflects what the odds makers think will bring in 50/50 betting action on each side. So the line can be more objective. But with more popular teams, there's a chance that the line is favored in their direction because teams like UNC, Duke, or Kentucky might be heavily bet by the public regardless of the betting number. I think UNC opened a -1.5pt favorite and that's probably building in a UNC "tax" because UNC will be the more popular bet public side. If they set UNC as a +1 underdog (like they're projected on BartTorvik and I'd imagine KenPom), then the money liability the sports books would have might be too risky for the books. They may have like 80% of the money on UNC and that exposes them quite a bit.

That's how betting lines truly work. Most of the times, it's what the sportsbooks feel will bring in 50/50 action. Then you have to price in an inflated number depending on the team because they're such a publicly bet team.

For your question specifically, I think the tournament seeding should be based on the strength of the regular season. If you do it by Vegas power rankings, you're going to run into teams that have 10 losses that will be top 3 seeds because Vegas is less emotional about regular season results. You're also going to have some 15 loss teams being comfortably in the NCAA Tournament. There needs to be some reward for actually winning games in the regular

For example, a couple of years ago the Lions missed the NFL playoffs. But in week 18, the sportsbook director for Circa Sports tweeted that the Lions are their #1 ranked NFC team in their power rankings. The Lions missed the playoffs that year, but should they have been a 1 seed in the NFC because that's how Circa Sports ranked them?

Humans are going to make mistakes seeding the teams. The humans running the sportsbooks also make the lines. So neither system would be perfect.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Was UNC's regular season worthy of being a 6 seed?

No, but it seems like it's a better gauge of how worthy we are RIGHT NOW.

Which weighting should be favored?

It might be argued that the regular season should get more weight for getting in the tournament; whereas current strength ought to determine their seeding.

 

[superstar57]

There is overall record, and then it is the eye test. Overall all the loses we had in quad 1 games we shouldn't even be here. Ole Miss supposedly has the strongest conference of all time placing them as a 6 seed. Eye test tells anyone if you are weak at forward/center your going to have your hands full with us, and probably not be favored. We have exceptional guard play!

 

[NathanFielder]

No, but it seems like it's a better gauge of how worthy we are RIGHT NOW.

Which weighting should be favored?

It might be argued that the regular season should get more weight for getting in the tournament; whereas current strength ought to determine their seeding.

So then just put more value in last 10 games as opposed to the entire season. I wouldn't be opposed to that. But that's a slippery slope. You wouldn't have incentive to schedule difficult non-conference games and the college basketball season has an attention problem already where people only focus on it during March.

I wouldn't be opposed if the committee consisted of:
- Ken Pomeroy
- Creator of Bart Torvik, Haslam Metrics, there's one other advanced metrics site that evades my memory
- Maybe one media member from: ESPN, CBS, FOX (the main college basketball media partners)
- Three members from independent media sites too (Field of 68 kind of thing)

That way you have a variety of voices. Some that clearly would have anti-UNC bias like ESPN and CBS. Some that are more neutral like the analytics guys. And some from the independent sites that probably follow the sport closer than anyone else.

I would like that. There is 0 chance that would happen though, lol. The ADs are never relinquishing that power. But I think it would be a better system.