True but imo seeding is getting less and less important if you’re in that 4-11 range. I wish I had data but I feel like time/place is gaining in importance. Like I’d rather be a 6 playing Friday at anytime than a 4 playing at 11 on Thursday. Likewise I’d rather be a 6 playing in a place with a good crowd than a 4 playing in Anaheim. (This is all in terms of first/second rounds)
This is true, but it is impossible to predict and optimize given the way the tournament is thrown together by some dudes in a room the weekend before the tournament. All you can do is build the best resume that you can to (1.) ensure you get in and (2.) avoid the higher seeds as long as possible.
It's impossible to try and optimize your exact seeding line (say 3-4-5 depending on where the committee "needs" you) or your tipoff time or your exact opponent or where you're going to travel to play. All those factors are essentially random when the bracket is built in such a random,
ad hoc manner.
Yeah there is so much more parity now and it's so matchup dependent that a 4 vs a 6 really doesn't matter. Just try and stay off the 8/9 line to avoid a second round matchup with a 1 seed
Agreed -- sinking no lower than a #7 has a big impact on your survivability.
#8 and #9 always seem to have one upset over a #1 but 25% isn't great odds.
That is odd, but most likely it happens like that early in the season and becomes more "logical" as more games are played -- it wouldn't surprise me if some other teams right now are projected to have a lower seed but higher chance for at-large. Not enough "data," maybe.
@Sigmapolis probably can explain how the entire algorithm is structured (and I think has done so multiple times since starting to compile/post these in recent years.)
I would explain it like this...
The model has Iowa State ranked highly (#3 in the Big 12) but is being very "cautious" right now about how much better teams are than one another. We just don't have much data this early in the season to declare firmly that Iowa State is better than the rest of the non-KU/UH Big 12 slate of challengers.
So, Iowa State is ranked highly in a VERY tightly packed distribution of team quality. As that distribution spreads out as more games are played, especially between P6 foes, and more data comes in, then the projection for the NCAA tournament will either head up (if we really are the #3 team in the Big 12 then that should be 90%+ in a month) or down (if we are more like the #10 team, which we might if we play badly in Orlando and give up a bad "oopsie" game to DePaul or Iowa, they we'd be at <50% or so to make the tournament).
So, our ranking is high, but it's not robust. A loss would drop us like a rock right now.
If we were ranked that highly in late January, then it would be robust. A loss wouldn't change our outlook all that much. The swing of one W/L isn't much at that point in the face of more sample size.
Does that help?