Here's a link to the full Seed List. Those Google Sheets embeds just weren't working right. If you don't feel like going to a new link, the list is typed out here at the bottom.
~~~
I'm just waiting for Alabama to fail.
I get it. I really do get it. But I spent a lot of this morning pouring over the nation's top teams' resumes trying to split hairs and explain it to myself.
Why did the committee's bracket preview have Alabama at No. 1 overall?
If you've read previous iterations of my seed lists, you'll know I've had Kansas at No. 1 for some time. Kansas has one fewer loss than Alabama, marginally comparable metrics, and — here's my kicker — four more Quadrant 1 wins than any other team in America.
After a long and detailed review, though, I think the committee's decision to give top billing to the Crimson Tide comes down to three things:
1 - The eye test. I'm just going to get this one out of the way. I hate the eye test. We have too much quantifiable data at our disposal to let subjective observation split hairs between mountains of statistical samples.
That being said, I do have to say — when Alabama's good, they're absolutely disgusting. They're just out here murdering teams. Does the SEC's bottom tier suck? Yes. But I have literally zero doubt that Alabama will hang 400 points on whatever No. 16 seed gets stuck in the Tide's path come mid-March.
2 - A slightly better overall and conference record. I don't know. It's marginal. But it's there.
3 - This is the one I understand most, and it leads to my upcoming conclusion. Alabama ranks either No. 1 or No. 2 in every single team sheet metric available to the committee and has a Top 10 SOS. They've handled the very difficult schedule in front of them just as well as Kansas or any other team — and if you wanted to be cynical, you could just say that Kansas just happens to have had 18 Q1 opportunities compared to Alabama's 11. From there, an objective and subjective argument could be made that Alabama would have just as many Q1 wins as Kansas if the Tide had as many Q1 opponents.
With all of that being said, I've moved Alabama to the No. 1 overall slot.
But like I said — I'm waiting for the Crimson Tide to slip. Why? I like wins. I like proof. I like evidence. I'm a stats nerd and always will be, but my personal favorite resumes have a mountain of tangible proof that a team can and will beat tournament-caliber opponents in March. Alabama has plenty, Kansas has more.
Is Alabama's resume better today? Sure. But my gut says Kansas' resume will be better on Selection Sunday.
Anyway, that's the takeaway that'll create headlines. Here's a few more random bullets:
• I was surprised to see UCLA ahead of Tennessee on the committee's ranking, but I get it. UCLA's three games better on overall record, and while the Bruins lack Tennessee's impressive volume of elite tier (Q1A) wins, UCLA has three more combined between Q1 and Q2, has zero Q2 losses to the Vols' four, and is slightly better in the aggregate when it comes to the metrics (6.0 average to 7.2).
• I'm glad to see Iowa State get rewarded by the committee — both myself and the committee have ISU at No. 11 overall. Nine losses is a lot relative to other top-three seeds, but only two teams in the nation have more Q1 wins — and more Q1A wins — than the Cyclones, and only one of those nine losses falls outside the top quadrant.
• Another surprise for me in the committee's list was Gonzaga over Connecticut. The only thing Gonzaga has over the Huskies is a slightly better record and a higher listing in Strength of Record and KPI. UConn's efficiency metrics are off the charts and they have twice as many Q1 and Q1A wins. Both teams have one Q3 loss. On this one, the committee didn't sway me — I've still got UConn on the No. 4 line. That being said, I'd be willing to bet Gonzaga is a No. 4 when all's said and done, solely because they'll likely run the table all the way to the WCC title game, while UConn and Xavier feel like a safe bet for two or three more losses in a deep Big East.
• Creighton finally climbed the ladder. This team had insane preseason billing and looked like garbage out of the gate. The metrics never gave up on the Blue Jays, but the wins and overall record just weren't there. They're there now. I've got Creighton on the No. 5 line.
There's so many more random nuggets I'd love to point out down the seed list. If you'll indulge me, I'll just pick out a few more.
• Now that it's no longer cool to be high on Northwestern — which I've been for quite a while — I'm jumping over to Missouri's bandwagon. I've got the Tigers on the No. 9 line for one reason and one reason only — their efficiency metrics are brutal. No. 51 NET, No. 68 BPI, No. 62 KenPom and Sagarin? Yikes. But look a little bit closer and you'll see a Top 20 Strength of Record, a nice little 19-8 win-loss mark, and quadrant splits comparable to Maryland (on my No. 6 line). Watch out for Missouri to make a late push up the seed list.
• Welcome back, Kentucky.
• Put this one in stone — North Carolina will not get a bid without a Q1 win. We're at the point where nothing about this resume is good — not even the metrics. As such, I'd go as far as to say UNC vs. Virginia is a must-win on February 25.
Objectively, this is pretty funny, and coincides with a point I've been making for a long time — we need to stop hyping up teams in the offseason because they go on a quick winning streak that happens to fall in the month of March. UNC's resume is exactly what it was last February; this team isn't good. They weren't good last year, either. But March is March.
• Keep an eye out for Texas Tech. Every time I've built a seed list, I've noticed the Red Raiders are lurking just outside of the conversation. They belong now, but they've got no margin for error at 15-12 and NET No. 54. Texas Tech is literally a carbon copy of West Virginia with a mediocre NET ranking.
• Clemson is done. Cooked. Kiss the Tigers goodnight. You simply don't come back from NET No. 81 and three Q4 losses. And one of those losses is to Louisville? 4-23, NET No. 308, sub.-500 Q4 record Louisville? I tried to tell y'all.
SEED LIST:
1 — Alabama, Kansas, Purdue, Houston
2 — Texas, Arizona, Baylor, UCLA
3 — Tennessee, Virginia, Iowa State, Kansas State
4 — Indiana, Marquette, Xavier, Connecticut
5 — Gonzaga, Saint Mary's, Creighton, Miami
6 — San Diego State, TCU, Northwestern, Maryland
7 — Providence, Illinois, Michigan State, Iowa
8 — Rutgers, Duke, Auburn, Arkansas
9 — Missouri, Nevada, NC State, Oklahoma State
10 — Florida Atlantic, Texas A&M, Pittsburgh, Mississippi State
11 — West Virginia, Kentucky, (Boise State, Memphis, Southern California, Wisconsin)
12 — Oral Roberts, Charleston, Kent State, Drake
13 — VCU, Utah Valley, Southern Miss, Liberty
14 — UC Irvine, Iona, Yale, Colgate
15 — Eastern Washington, Youngstown State, Vermont, UNC Asheville
16 — Samford, Texas A&M-Corpus Christi, (Howard, Alcorn State, Morehead State, Fairleigh Dickinson)
FIRST FOUR OUT: Oregon, New Mexico, North Carolina, Texas Tech
NEXT FOUR OUT: Utah State, Penn State, Arizona State, Clemson
Comments