Lost to an at-large 16 seed last night Topic

Last night my defending national champs #1 seed lost to a #16 seed. My team was better but the opponent was actually a decent team, so I'm not complaining about the RNG throwing me some bad luck. What I am complaining about is the team I played made the tournament via an at large berth, ranked #52 on the projection report, yet somehow they ended up a 16 seed behind tons of automatic qualifiers who were ranked way lower on the projection report but got seeded higher.

I get that bad luck happens, but I never should have been put in the position of playing that team in round one. That's an obvious glitch in the game that really ended up screwing me.
2/27/2013 7:20 AM
that's D3 basketball for ya
2/27/2013 7:28 AM
How is the division relevant to a seeding glitch?
2/27/2013 8:07 AM
Unless you have humans doing the seeding, if you use a formula occasionally that formula whatever it is, will kick up anomalies. It is completely unavoidable. They played a strong schedule but, despite that, had only three wins against strong teams. Show some of the other teams you think, based on game results not ratings, should have been behind them, or that they have a strong case to be ahead of?
2/27/2013 8:25 AM
Looks like the point was missed. He's not upset about facing that team in the first round, what is frustrating is for example how this is a #16 seed while every single #15 seed is lower than this team on the projection report (I didn't look deeper than that). It seems the computer should know better than to have made them a #16 seed while giving that many lower rated teams higher seeds. I'm curious what CS would have to say here.
2/27/2013 8:43 AM
Maybe I didn't explain this clearly. Whitworth made the tourney as an at large. They were ranked #52 in the projection report, which should correlate to a 13 seed. (teams ranked #50 and #51 were appropriately seeded as 13 seeds.) Instead they got shuffled back to a 16 seed while ten lower ranked teams got higher seeds (for example, #90 on the projection report was a 14 seed). This is a glitch.
2/27/2013 8:51 AM
Thank you jsa for clarifying my point.
2/27/2013 8:53 AM
My question:  Did you check the projection report BEFORE the tournament? Do the projection reports continue to change during the NT?   I know the stats on that report continue to change, but I don't know about the actual ranking.   But, if they continue to change, your opponent could've moved up after defeating you. 

I suspect they  change, however. Letoureau, a #3 seed, lost last night to a #14. Letourneau is  now listed as #17 on the projection report which would be a #5 seed.
2/27/2013 9:27 AM (edited)
Yes, the projections continue to change as the tournaments go along. They'll change right through the national championship game, so if he's showing at 52 today, it means he probably went up from whatever he was. 

2/27/2013 9:55 AM
Yes, I checked. He was #52 before last night. 100% positive.
2/27/2013 10:09 AM
Al, he's talking about an at large team now at 52 vs auto qualifiers in the 90s and below. This team did not jump those teams after 1 tourney game - he was already far ahead on the projection report.
2/27/2013 10:10 AM
Are you sure the projections change after NT begins? I know rankings change but I thought you were locked in at your projection once the tourney started. I could be wrong but I'm almost certain I had a 20 projection that never went up or down throughtout the course of the NT.
2/27/2013 10:12 AM
Reddy, I don't think projection report changes during the tourney either. I stayed at #3 after my loss. But either way, I am 100% positive Whitworth was #52 before our game last night.
2/27/2013 10:26 AM
how many teams were in from the same conference as that #52 team? seble tweaked the seeding code a while back (like a year) because of some PIT issue, which then caused the NT seeding to change (i think, people always matched the projection report if possible when that came out, and now it doesnt, and supposedly there were no other changed). the change caused the seeding algorithm to try to place teams in regions their conf mates were not in first, and then half-regions, and who knows, maybe it goes further than that. i had wondered why a team of mine was seeded like 6 spots lower than the projection report suggested, and seble explained how it was supposed to work, and those 5 spots my team should have gotten, all had a conf mate in the region - i was the 4th team in from the conf in that case.

im not sure how things might work after you already have 4 teams in a region, theres a conflict everywhere, but teams seemed to be seeded properly when i looked. but maybe theres some bug in the code, pushing that 13 seed down to a 16? or maybe there were 8 teams from the conf and all other 7 half-regions had teams in them, so they wound up going all the way to the 8th half-region? the one with 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 in it - if thats all that was open, maybe i could see them getting bumped past all 14 and 15 spots?
2/27/2013 10:44 AM
I'm the 16-seed in question, and I can confirm that I complained on my coach's corner yesterday that I got a 16-seed despite being #52 in the projection report, higher than all of the 14 seeds and all of the 15 seeds. 

I honestly thought 13 was a little low, with 4 top 50 wins and no sub-100 losses, but I understand the overall record wasn't great, and that's life sometimes. But I definitely wasn't a 16-seed. 

This is my first ever NT win after six straight losses, and the degree to which I'm still complaining is exactly zero. But mrg is right, there's no way he should've had to play me in the first round. 
2/27/2013 10:47 AM
12345 Next ▸
Lost to an at-large 16 seed last night Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2018 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.