Top 16 Seed Projections - 02/08/20

Today at 11:30 AM CST, the NCAA Selection Committee will release the Number 1 through 4 Seeds through games played on Friday, February 7th.   Its a view from the committee of the top 25% of the field if the committee had to announce its brackets today.

You can read more about it here: Selection Committee To Reveal Top 16 Teams as of 02/08

The NCAA Selection Committee has been giving this early preview of how they are evaluating top teams for a few years now.  I haven't published a full bracket projection prior to this reveal in past seasons.

While this year will be no different in regards to the reveal of my first full bracket of 68 Teams, I thought I might try something different this year and reveal my Top 16 in advance of the Committee to see how my current evaluation stacks up against the Committee so far.

Below are my 1 Through 4 Seeds, by Regional Assignment, and placed there according to NCAA Bracketing Principles (I have a link on the right hand margin which provides the official NCAA Bracketing Principles and Guidelines).  Also included are my current Top 20 teams on the S-Curve.

I believe the NCAA will provide a ranked list, from 1-16 and should answer some questions about how this particular committee may evaluate teams as we head towards selection Sunday.  Some things I will be interested to find out:

• How will it rank Gonzaga compared to San Diego State?  Right now I have Gonzaga ranked above SD State by the slimmest of margins ... two better road or neutral court wins.  I will acknowledge though, that their loss to Michigan on a neutral court is starting to look worse with each passing week that Michigan slips in the NET rankings.  SD State remains unbeaten.  Which team gets ranked higher may give us a good idea of just how much weight the Committee is going to place on the NET in gauging Quad 1 wins.
• How does the committee use the NET to sort out the top teams from PAC 12, and which teams, if any, crack the top 16?  I'm a bit mystified by the high NET ranking of Arizona (8).  Colorado (18) and Oregon (19) seem to me to have much better resumes.  Arizona, Despite being 2-4 against Quad 1, 0-3 against the top tier of Quad 1 teams which I call 'Quad 1a', and losses on a neutral court to St. John's (72) and at Oregon State (82), are ranked 10 spots higher in the NET than PAC 12 Leader Colorado and the team from the conference that I think has the best overall resume' to date in Oregon.  The Ducks are 6-3 vs Quad 1 teams, 3 of which are against Tier 1a teams.  They have a neutral court win over Seton Hall, and beat Arizona at home earlier this year.  If Arizona shows up in the top 16, ranked higher that either Colorado or Oregon,  it would suggest that NET Rankings are carrying more weight with the Committee than actual wins and losses in the top quads.
• Dayton, similar to Arizona, is valued highly in the NET, ranked 5th but the basis for it is difficult to understand.  They do have a gaudy 20-2 record, but the resume' seems thin as I dive deeper.  They are the only team among my top 8 without a win against a Quad 1a tier opponent. Their best wins are on a neutral court against St. Mary's (33) and on their home court against VCU (32), who I have out of the field as of today with an S-Curve ranking of 73.  In fact, looking at the resume', St.Mary's is likely the only team they have beaten that I would expect in the field right now, and I have them as just a 7 seed.  Others have them even lower than that.  They have lost to every other team that I think is in at this point.  I have them as a #2 Seed today (barely) based on overall record and top 5 NET rating.  Can a team with only a single win against a  team that is probably no higher than a 6 or 7 seed today really be seriously considered for the 2 line?  Frankly, they look more like a 4 or 5 seed to me right now.  Where they land with the committee today should tell us something about how they evaluate wins against other teams in or under consideration for the field versus their overall record and NET ranking.  
• Auburn, by the way, has a very similar looking resume' to Dayton, has a road win against a Quad 1a opponent, but is ranked 12 spots lower at 17 in the NET.  Where these two teams land in the top 16 relative to each other will be revealing as well.

UPDATE:

 

The NCAA completed their top 16 Reveal a few minutes ago, and here is a quick look at how I did:

Quick Analysis:

1. 10 of 16 Teams on the correct Seed Line
2. 15 of 16 Teams within 1 of the Correct Seed Line*
3. 5 of 16 Teams Ranked Correctly
4. 12 of 16 Teams Ranked correct or within 2 Spots of NCAA Ranking*
5. Missed 2 Teams in Top 16 (West Virginia, Michigan State instead of Penn State and Kentucky)
6. Biggest Miss: West Virginia - 10 Ranks Spots/ 2 Seed Lines

* Committee Chairman indicated that LSU, Kentucky and Iowa generated the most discussion for inclusion in top 16.  Leads to assumption they were ranked in the 5 Seed line, and therefore counted Kentucky, who I included in top 16 as a 1 Seed Line Miss and 2 or less rank spots.

As I noted earlier, how the committee treated Dayton was going to be revealing.  They obviously think very highly of them despite the thin resume on wins over Quad 1 teams.  In looking at other metrics the committee appears to be relying upon beyond the NET ranking, Dayton and West Virginia both rank in the top 8 in efficiency metrics as ranked by Ken Pomeroy, at 6 and 7 respectively.  Auburn, who has similar, if not better resume in terms of quality of wins is ranked 29th by comparison in the Ken Pom rankings.  Seton Hall, who I had as the top 2 Seed, and ranked 5th overall is 13th in efficiency rankings.  To be honest, I think that is good thing.  I believe the Ken Pomeroy metrics to be among the very best in measuring team performance, especially when you have disparate schedules or resumes to try and compare.

Biggest shock to me was Michigan State being included given the quality of play recently.  Penn State just beat them this week, has a 6-3 record against Quad 1 (Michigan State is 3-6), are 10-4 against Quad 1&2 (Michigan State is 8-7) and 5-3 in Quad 1 & 2 games on Road or Neutral Courts (Michigan State is 3-5).  That to me was a big miss ... and could have made equally compelling cases for including Kentucky, LSU, Iowa or Colorado instead of Michigan State.  Again, it appears the Ken Pom rankings factor in heavily here.  Michigan State entered play today ranked 9th in efficiency.  Where I differ on this one though, despite my affinity for Ken Pom rankings, is that in my opinion, Michigan State just isn't winning enough against the best teams it plays.