"Actual" Seeds

Submitted by Ziff72 on March 12th, 2012 at 12:46 PM

I was curious if anyone has seen the official ranking of the 68 teams?   During the selection show CBS said they would reveal that in their breakdown show.   I didn't watch it, but I thought it would be available online.   I can't find it anywhere.  I thought it might be interesting because it feels like they maybe moved Michigan down a line to make things fit.  

For the inevitable,  I did spend 10 fruitless minutes with google, ESPN and CBS.   I'm sure I'll feel like an idiiot in 25 seconds when someone posts the link, but I'll take the abuse over trying fruitlessly to keep searching.  I'll admit defeat. 




March 12th, 2012 at 1:18 PM ^

and Georgetown should have been switched.  The committee put too much stock in the BTT.  Michigan State and Ohio State were hell-bent on having DEATHMATCH 3 and there was nothing that Michigan could do about.  I am not saying OSU does not beat Michigan 7 out of 10 times, I am just saying that Michigan mailed it in and it was obvious.   They should be a 3 based on their body of work.  That being said, I love the matchups as a 4.


March 12th, 2012 at 1:30 PM ^

that location of the game factored in the decision making process of choosing between Georgetown and Michigan.  I am OK with the committee keeping Michigan out of Columbus.

Mr. Yost

March 12th, 2012 at 12:54 PM ^

I think...and I could be wrong.

I think we were the last 3-seed and FSU jumped us when they beat Carolina and we ended up as the top 4-seed.


March 12th, 2012 at 1:26 PM ^

As you get to lower seeds -- 4, 6, etc. -- the ranking of seeding (high 4 v. low 4 etc.) becomes subject to many other extra factors, primarily avoiding having conference teams play each other.  Teams even get different seeds entirely -- bounced up or down -- because of the matchup issues . I think that was the explanation with BYU getting a 14, because they had matchup issues with conference affiliates.

But really, a high 4 versus low 4?  Does it matter?  (Esp where 3 of the 4 are B1G teams -- how weird is that -- and we know we would rank higher than UW and IU, based on conf standings.)

Moonlight Graham

March 12th, 2012 at 1:28 PM ^

you'll see a blockbuster collection of tranditional powerhouses and it's wonderful to see Michigan included. Then, systematically, beginning at 17 and lower the list downgrades into a mish-mash of mid-majors, one-hit-wonders, also-rans and fading stars. It's good to return back toward the top. 


March 12th, 2012 at 4:30 PM ^

How are they considered 29 overall and an 8 seed? Whether we should have been a 3/4 is where we all probably figured we would be. Creighton fans were probably hoping for at least a 6 seed. I think it is criminal to say to a team that the are ranked 29th among the field, and then give them an 8 seed and a potential second round matchup with UNC. Not to mention they beat San Diego State at their place this year and SDSU got a 6 seed. Creighton's seed is criminal, IMO.


March 12th, 2012 at 4:51 PM ^

kenpom 34 (offense 5, defense 183), 28-5 against strength of schedule 103 with a substantial amount of close-game luck.

I'd say their seed was about right. San Diego St.'s was high but I'm not sure why that's relevant.


March 12th, 2012 at 9:51 PM ^

Because Creighton beat SDSU on SDSU's home court, and they have similar records with a near similar SOS. Creighton also won their conference tourney, and SDSU did not. SDSU is a 6, and Creighton is an 8. How is that not relevant?


March 12th, 2012 at 10:57 PM ^

I don't know. I just felt like an 8 was a little low. They did have several close games toward the end of the year, but I think capping off their conference tourney should have gotten them to at least a 6 or 7.


March 12th, 2012 at 6:04 PM ^

Just because you pulled an upset doesn't make you a cinderella team. You actually have to go on a run, which means getting to the sweet 16.