Couch Power 16: Re-Seeding the Top 4 In Each Bracket
Cameron Johnson, avoiding Grayson Allen's flailing hips to score en route to yet another victory over Duke
The college basketball regular season ended, fittingly, with a perfect lead-in to March Madness. After Michigan's surprising run to the Big Ten title 2 weeks ago, most other major conferences saw their premier teams take their respective titles (Virginia in the ACC, Villanova in the Big East, Kansas in the Big 12, Cincinnati in the American, and Arizona in the Pac-12). There was no shortage of exhilarating games along the way, though. Many of the smaller conferences saw incredible Cinderella runs (Texas Southern, anyone?). And, objectively the most important part of all, North Carolina re-established themselves as a top-tier team with a thrilling ACC Tournament run and a 2nd win over Duke.
Yes, I was still crowing about that victory late into the night and through the weekend, which brings us to Sunday, wherein the Selection Committee made their decisions, and TBS revealed them in the most befuddlingly terrible way ever. Long story short: there were some weird seeding decisions, but again, those decisions were muted by the terrible decision by TBS/CBS to change the selection show format. As is my natural reaction, I said "Ha! I can do better!" So, in lieu of one last Couch Power 10 this week, we instead present the Couch's Top 4 Seeds (TM).
To attempt to both sort out the madness and parity across the country, and inject as much objectivity as possible, I turned to numbers. Taking the committee's top 32 seeds, I concocted a cumulative ranking generated by AP ranking, BPI ranking, RPI ranking, Schedule Strength ranking amongst tournament teams, and Schedule Strength nationwide (with just a few re-adjustments done thanks to my 'eye test' prerogative). The AP polls have no determination on the NCAA's seeding, but I still found it important to incorporate the viewpoints of the basketball media that have been watching these teams week in and week out. BPI, RPI, and Schedule Strength (as well as Top 50 wins) were all tenets of the selection committee's rankings.
All this to say, here's my somewhat less futile attempt at a Top 16:
1-SEEDS
SOUTH (Atlanta):
Virginia (31-2)
AP: #1
BPI: #2
RPI: #1
Schedule Strength of Tournament Teams: #9
Schedule Strength Nationwide: #13
MIDWEST (Omaha):
Kansas (27-7)
AP: #4
BPI: #8
RPI: #5
Schedule Strength of Tournament Teams: #2
Schedule Strength Nationwide: #3
EAST (Boston):
Villanova (30-4)
AP: #2
BPI: #1
RPI: #2
Schedule Strength of Tournament Teams: #12
Schedule Strength Nationwide: #19
WEST (Los Angeles):
North Carolina (25-10)
AP: #10
BPI: #7
RPI: #4
Schedule Strength of Tournament Teams: #1
Schedule Strength Nationwide: #1
Breakdown: The top 3 almost held form with reality, with Kansas jumping Nova in my version, largely on the back of superior schedule strength. The big stunner here is North Carolina in the 4th spot. I don't blame you if you're accusing me of atrocious bias: after all, how could a team with 10 losses that was recently the 6 seed in its own conference be on the top line? But I assure you, no subjectivity jumped NC here; it's all numbers. Despite the 10 losses, the Heels rank in the Top 10 in the AP, BPI AND RPI, and their real kicker is schedule strength. Carolina had the hardest schedule not just of the tournament field, but in the entire nation, and it wasn't even close. They played 24 games against the Top 50, and while 9 of those 24 contributed to their 10 losses, that still leaves them with a whopping 15 'Quadrant 1' wins. That is INSANE.
How it actually is: Virginia (South) - Villanova (East) - Kansas (Midwest) - Xavier (West)
2-SEEDS
EAST (Boston):
Duke (26-7)
AP: #9
BPI: #3
RPI: #6
Schedule Strength of Tournament Teams: #11
Schedule Strength Nationwide: #17
WEST (Los Angeles):
Xavier (30-4)
AP: #3
BPI: #11
RPI: #3
Schedule Strength of Tournament Teams: #13
Schedule Strength Nationwide: #20
MIDWEST (Omaha):
Kentucky (24-10)
AP: #18
BPI: #20
RPI: #15
Schedule Strength of Tournament Teams: #4
Schedule Strength Nationwide: #6
SOUTH (Atlanta):
Tennessee (25-8)
AP: #13
BPI: #15
RPI: #8
Schedule Strength of Tournament Teams: #18
Schedule Strength Nationwide: #28
Breakdown: In Daniel's world, Xavier's record and RPI keep them near the top, but their BPI rank and especially schedule strength drop them beneath both Tobacco Road teams. The two SEC representatives here might be surprising, given the 18 losses between them. But Tennessee, who sits in the Top 15 in each of the three major rankings, has a resume full of good wins, and young Kentucky, fresh off their SEC Tournament triumph, has managed a solid season despite the 6th-hardest schedule in the country.
How it actually is: North Carolina (West) - Duke (Midwest) - Purdue (East) - Cincinnati (South)
3-SEEDS
SOUTH (Atlanta):
Clemson (23-9)
AP: #20
BPI: #18
RPI: #10
Schedule Strength of Tournament Teams: #8
Schedule Strength Nationwide: #12
MIDWEST (Omaha):
Purdue (28-6)
AP: #11
BPI: #4
RPI: #9
Schedule Strength of Tournament Teams: #24
Schedule Strength Nationwide: #45
EAST (Boston):
Cincinnati (30-4)
AP: #6
BPI: #5
RPI: #7
Schedule Strength of Tournament Teams: #34
Schedule Strength Nationwide: #66
WEST (Los Angeles):
Wichita State (25-7)
AP: #16
BPI: #13
RPI: #14
Schedule Strength of Tournament Teams: #21
Schedule Strength Nationwide: #33
Breakdown: In reality, Purdue and Cincinnati are on the 2-line, while Wichita State and Clemson are a 4 and 5 seed, respectively. A more holistic view, however, will show that the discrepancies of the latter two in terms of rankings are more than comparable to the deficiencies of the former two in schedule strength. Clemson, in fact, appears to be woefully under-seeded, as my formula actually rendered them worthy of a 2 seed. Given the slumping nature of their form of late, however, I swapped the Tigers with Kentucky.
How it actually is: Michigan State (Midwest) - Tennessee (South) - Michigan (West) - Texas Tech (East)
4-SEEDS
WEST (Los Angeles):
Michigan (28-7)
AP: #7
BPI: #14
RPI: #12
Schedule Strength of Tournament Teams: #32
Schedule Strength Nationwide: #61
MIDWEST (Omaha):
Ohio State (24-8)
AP: #17
BPI: #16
RPI: #20
Schedule Strength of Tournament Teams: 16
Schedule Strength Nationwide: #23
SOUTH (Atlanta):
Auburn (25-7)
AP: #19
BPI: #19
RPI: #11
Schedule Strength of Tournament Teams: #28
Schedule Strength Nationwide: #55
EAST (Boston):
Michigan State (29-4)
AP: #5
BPI: #6
RPI: #15
Schedule Strength of Tournament Teams: #44
Schedule Strength Nationwide: #112
Breakdown: This one almost averages out to be right: Auburn actually is a 4 seed, both Michigan teams are on the 3-line, and Ohio State is a 5. The regular-season SEC champion sports a '4 seed' resume through-and-through, with a decent record from a moderate strength of schedule. The Big Ten teams, however, are an interesting case. Ohio State's form to finish the season raised questions about its quality, but they still boast one of the better strengths of schedule of all tourney teams. Michigan was never really thought of as a contender (likely thanks to their lack of quality wins), but their late win over Ohio State and their ensuing Big Ten run has turned them into a 3-seed, and a very popular Final Four pick. Their rivals, Michigan State, are the most confounding team in the country. They were the preseason #2 team, and have all the pieces to be great. Yet, they just never really registered any signature moments that showed them to be a national title favorite this year. Still, they finished 29-4, and are a Top 5 team in the polls, and their fans are crying foul about their 3-seed in real life. So why on earth should the Spartans actually be a 4-seed, or even lower? Three words: strength of schedule. It's not just subpar, it's downright terrible. Look at this! Michigan State played 5 tournament teams all year, and finished 2-4 in those games. That's atrocious, and when taken into account with the eye tests they've been failing, a lower seed makes more sense for them.
How it actually is: Auburn (Midwest) - Wichita State (East) - Gonzaga (West) - Arizona (South)