Thought I'd get a diary up to talk seeds as Michigan has a six day layoff before a massive game Saturday.
As soon as the NCAA released the elements of the formula that went into the NET rankings, I thought that the inclusion of unadjusted efficiencies was absurd and would favor good teams in mid-major conferences. Now that we're almost finished with conference play and those good teams have been feasting on their lesser conference brethren, that appears to be absolutely the case with NET.
Compare the mid-majors in the top 25 of NET to their Kenpom ranks:
Gonzaga NET: 1; Kenpom: 2
Houston NET: 6; Kenpom: 15
Buffalo NET: 14; Kenpom: 20
Wofford NET: 15; Kenpom: 22
Cincinnati NET: 23; Kenpom: 31
Every single one is ranked higher in NET and kenpom and by an average of more than 6 spots. Again, the reason for this is that the NET treats a 30 point win over a 30 point win over the last place MAC team as the same as a 30 point win over the first place Big Ten team in the efficiency portion of the formula. There is no opponent adjustment like kenpom and the predictive advanced stats make.
What could potentially impact Michigan here is that disparity for Houston. In the committee's initial seeding on Feb 9, they had Houston as 3 seed (which is in the overall 9-12 range). At the time they were 7th in NET and 19th in kenpom, suggesting that committee seemed to stick surprisingly close to the NET ranking rather than using it mostly a tool determine the quality of a teams opponents.
After Houston lost a home game to UCF yesterday they only fell to 6th in NET.
Wofford and Buffalo have climbed significantly since that initial seeding, going from 29th to 15th and 23rd to 14th respectively as they've feasted on weak conference foes. Will be interesting to see if they sniff protected top 4 seeds as a result.
ADDITIONAL SEEDING RUMINATIONS
One thing that I think really stood out in the initial seedings in terms of where the committee deviated from NET rankings was Michigan's old bugaboo: non-conference SOS.
I think that's the reason Gonzaga was a 1 seed at the time despite having the same record against Michigan against a significantly worse overall schedule. The committee seems to be rewarding teams for schedule difficult games with the scheduling they control.
Kansas is the other example as the were a 4 seed despite being 18th in the NET with a 17-6 record. They were the only team included in the top 16 that weren't top 16 NET and my only guess is their SoS, particularly NC SoS
Just some food for thought and dicsussion.