Four 2 seeds, two 3 seeds, two 4 seeds and a 6, an 8, a 10 and an 11.

How'd the ACC do?

Ten in the NT and two in the PIT.

First round: 7 Kansas State beats 10 Miami.
Second round: 7 Georgia beats 2 UNC, 1 Arizona beats 8 FSU, 6 TAMU beats 3 BC, 2 Kentucky beats 7 Clemson.
Sweet Sixteen: 4 UCLA beats 1 NC State
Elite Eight: 2 Maryland beats 1 Georgia Tech.

Final Four is tonight, and it's 3 Duke vs 8 Virginia, winner plays the winner of 2 Maryland vs 6 TAMU.



In the PIT, 1 V Tech is playing 2 SIU for the title; 3 Wake lost to 6 Illinois in the first round.
.

Pending the result of the TAMU/Maryland game, the ACC will pull down either $55833/team or $57500/team in bonus money.  Second place (the Big 12) will get either $33750/team or $35417/team.  The best midmajor conferences (the Big East and the A-10) are taking home $11K and 7K respectively.

Not as bad as Knight, where none of the #1 seeds made it past past the S16. At least the 3x#1 NAC teams all had 4 losses or less. Knight had 4x#1 seeds from So. Cal where the teams were 21-8, 22-7, etc. 

Posted by tianyi7886 on 1/4/2012 5:32:00 PM (view original):
Not as bad as Knight, where none of the #1 seeds made it past past the S16. At least the 3x#1 NAC teams all had 4 losses or less. Knight had 4x#1 seeds from So. Cal where the teams were 21-8, 22-7, etc. 

To be fair, a So-Cal team with 7 losses did win it all as a 2 seed.

Posted by cornfused on 1/4/2012 4:00:00 PM (view original):
Pending the result of the TAMU/Maryland game, the ACC will pull down either $55833/team or $57500/team in bonus money.  Second place (the Big 12) will get either $33750/team or $35417/team.  The best midmajor conferences (the Big East and the A-10) are taking home $11K and 7K respectively.

a mere pittance for the evil empire.  How will they ever be able to recruit west of the Mississippi?

Posted by asher413 on 1/4/2012 6:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 1/4/2012 5:32:00 PM (view original):
Not as bad as Knight, where none of the #1 seeds made it past past the S16. At least the 3x#1 NAC teams all had 4 losses or less. Knight had 4x#1 seeds from So. Cal where the teams were 21-8, 22-7, etc. 

To be fair, a So-Cal team with 7 losses did win it all as a 2 seed.

And NAC team with 11 losses is in the F4, having knocked out a #1 seed along the way. It doesn't mean that seeding is done correctly right now. 

And let's not forget that you proposed NT performance as the benchmark to whether Knight D3 was seeded correctly. With all #1 seeds knocked out in Knight by S16, and earlier, I think Knight seeding failed your standard. 

I'm sorry tianyi, I'm not picking at you, I FULLY agree that seeding is a failure right now.  I'm just asking you paint the full picture about the So-Cal 7 loss teams and their seeds, not just the #1's.

(Not directed at you)- I personally feel that a lot of partial information is used to poke holes in the system, and not the full picture.  For example, were the #3-6 seeds correct/ decently done?  Same pet peeve I have when people quit or pretend to quit over one loss.  Yes, things are broken, but you have to bring more than 1 game as an example to the table.

Alot of coaches in Knight made the point that the lower seeds were not seeded correctly, especially with NC Wesleyan should have been an easy #1, instead of what they got. Similarly, I believe that my Husson team in Allen should not have the top #1 seed, with 3 losses and losing in CT semis. It should be the last #1 at best, or one of the top #2. 

Seeding isn't perfect, but it's better than before imho. Before, you didn't have to beat anyone and it was way too rpi reliant.

Personally, I liked the old seeding better because it was more transparent, with rpi having a pretty major factor and CT championships carrying value. But to each his own and I do see the merit of both system. Having said that, this system can definitely improve by implementing a win% system against top opposition, once you have hit some kind of benchmark (such as, having played 10 games against top 50 rpi team). Knight D3 seeding has shown that you can go 12-7 or 14-7 against top 50 rpi and get a 1 seed, while a 1 loss team with a 8-2 record against rpi 1-50 gets seeded lower. 

And speaking of seeding, what's going on with this projection report. I know it's early but umm...:

	School	Conf	Coach	Rank	RPI	SOS	Record	Home	Away	Neutral	Last 10	NT Projection
1.	Boston College	ACC	thorknight	1	1	3	9-1	3-0	6-1	0-0	9-1	Lock
2.	USC	PAC 10	rolltide08	3	3	34	10-0	5-0	5-0	0-0	10-0	Lock
3.	Stanford	PAC 10	doomey	4	2	11	10-0	4-0	6-0	0-0	10-0	Lock
4.	Georgia Tech	ACC	oldman	5	7	71	10-0	2-0	8-0	0-0	10-0	Lock
5.	Florida St.	ACC	sully712	2	14	114	10-0	5-0	5-0	0-0	10-0	Lock
6.	Arizona	PAC 10	amsiegel	7	24	84	9-1	5-1	4-0	0-0	9-1	Lock
7.	Texas	Big 12	dwoelflin07	8	8	22	8-2	1-1	7-1	0-0	8-2	Lock
8.	Duke	ACC	coach_ms	12	4	51	10-0	2-0	8-0	0-0	10-0	Lock
9.	Virginia	ACC	ARomano	6	5	54	10-0	3-0	7-0	0-0	10-0	Lock
10.	N. Carolina St.	ACC	joehof	10	10	92	10-0	5-0	5-0	0-0	10-0	Lock
11.	Miami (FL)	ACC	cheeznsweet	9	19	133	10-0	1-0	9-0	0-0	10-0	Lock
12.	Texas A&M	Big 12	Meatstacks	13	9	56	9-1	0-0	9-1	0-0	9-1	Lock
13.	UCLA	PAC 10	Stull	14	15	96	9-1	2-0	7-1	0-0	9-1	Lock
14.	Utah	MWC	shqipta	20	17	37	8-2	3-1	5-1	0-0	8-2	Lock
15.	St. Johns	Big East	johnsensing	15	13	94	9-1	1-0	8-1	0-0	9-1	Lock
16.	Oregon	PAC 10	sweetpeapapa	19	11	32	8-2	5-0	3-2	0-0	8-2	Lock
17.	Indiana	Big 10	bluejayscott	16	20	105	9-1	1-0	8-1	0-0	9-1	Lock
18.	Michigan St.	Big 10	professor17	11	21	108	9-1	3-0	6-1	0-0	9-1	Lock
19.	Northwestern	Big 10	mcmash007	17	6	38	9-1	6-0	3-1	0-0	9-1	Lock
20.	Florida	SEC		21	12	14	7-3	3-1	4-2	0-0	7-3	Lock
21.	Michigan	Big 10	tdvy31	23	16	64	9-1	2-1	7-0	0-0	9-1	Lock
22.	Villanova	Big East	nicilew	18	22	144	10-0	5-0	5-0	0-0	10-0	Lock
23.	Fresno St.	PAC 10	ohyesyouwill		31	154	9-1	0-0	9-1	0-0	9-1	Lock
24.	Louisiana Tech	Sun Belt	buddhagamer		25	42	8-2	6-1	2-1	0-0	8-2	Lock
25.	Alcorn St.	Big Sky	tianyi7886		52	242	10-0	0-0	10-0	0-0	10-0	Lock
26.	Washington St.	PAC 10			33	102	9-1	6-1	3-0	0-0	9-1	Lock
27.	Kansas St.	Big 12	beefpac	25	39	181	9-1	1-0	8-1	0-0	9-1	Lock
28.	Troy	Sun Belt	bow2dacowz		26	58	8-2	4-1	4-1	0-0	8-2	Lock
29.	Notre Dame	Big 10	khook19		43	200	9-1	0-0	9-1	0-0	9-1	Lock
30.	Virginia Tech	ACC	zissou47		30	177	10-0	5-0	5-0	0-0	10-0	Lock
31.	Missouri	Big 12	whunt1		54	228	9-1	0-0	9-1	0-0	9-1	Bubble
32.	Ohio St.	Big 10	gators55	22	83	285	9-1	2-0	7-1	0-0	9-1	Bubble
33.	Memphis	CUSA	worthy14sure		41	81	7-3	5-0	2-3	0-0	7-3	Bubble
34.	Alabama	SEC	cascook		44	100	8-2	1-2	7-0	0-0	8-2	Bubble
35.	Louisiana St.	SEC	mmt0315		35	126	8-2	3-0	5-2	0-0	8-2	Bubble
36.	Washington	PAC 10	whompus		18	24	7-3	3-1	4-2	0-0	7-3	Bubble
37.	New Mexico	MWC			48	120	8-2	4-1	4-1	0-0	8-2	Bubble
38.	Colorado St.	MWC	seventhwest		37	23	6-4	3-2	3-2	0-0	6-4	Bubble
39.	Texas Southern	MWC	trobone		47	74	7-3	2-2	5-1	0-0	7-3	Bubble
40.	UNLV	MWC	mpate10		59	117	8-2	4-2	4-0	0-0	8-2	Bubble
41.	Wisconsin	Big 10	wsut		42	18	6-4	2-4	4-0	0-0	6-4	Bubble
42.	Mississippi	SEC	dmpark		23	35	6-4	1-0	5-4	0-0	6-4	Bubble
43.	Minnesota	Big 10	darrenpv		53	30	6-4	2-3	4-1	0-0	6-4	Bubble
44.	Colorado	Big 12	lmschwarz		87	265	8-2	0-0	8-2	0-0	8-2	Bubble
45.	Iowa	Big 10	hawkfan1992		71	148	7-3	0-2	7-1	0-0	7-3	Bubble
46.	Kansas	Big 12	dhiattjr	24	66	192	7-3	1-0	6-3	0-0	7-3	Bubble
47.	Rider	Metro	jtgraves		86	195	8-2	3-2	5-0	0-0	8-2	Bubble
48.	Seton Hall	Big East	stockplayer		106	270	9-1	5-1	4-0	0-0	9-1	Bubble
49.	Cal	PAC 10	mrbinsd		57	146	8-2	4-1	4-1	0-0	8-2	Bubble
50.	Maryland	ACC	mniven		49	33	6-4	1-3	5-1	0-0	6-4	Bubble

I'm elated to see my team at #25 but it's just wrong!

I despised the RPI based seeding/bids, as RPI is too easy to manipulate by home/away and playing average teams with great records.  I do agree though that the logic is off on losing to "good" teams (Top 50 RPI), which I think is actually showing that the formula is still too RPI dependent (in the Knight D3 example, weren't the #1 seeds all the top 4 in RPI still?  I wish I had saved the data there).  Now, it's darn near impossible to eliminate RPI from a computer simulation, as in the end, it's a matter of formulas, but I do like the shift away from it, and I just think it needs a bit more tweaking when it comes to games against 'top' teams.