Recently I have noticed a tendency to predict State’s seed in the NCAA tournament based on projections for a second-place finish in the ACC. While finishing second in the conference is certainly within reach, most of the projected seeds seemed too high to me. Given the decline in the ACC this year and the impact that State’s cupcake schedule is having on its RPI…it just seemed to me that a high seed was far from guaranteed.
So, I looked at the teams in the RPI Top-35 for the last four years and matched the teams up with their seeds in the NCAA tourney. Here is what I found in tabular and graphical format:
|
NCAAT |
RPI |
Average |
|
Seed |
Range |
RPI |
|
1 |
1-7 |
3 |
|
2 |
4-32 |
9 |
|
3 |
1-20 |
11 |
|
4 |
9-25 |
16 |
|
5 |
13-28 |
19 |
|
6 |
12-37 |
22 |
|
7 |
17-47 |
30 |
For the next several points, I recommend that you go back and right-click on the link to the graph and open it in a new window so that you can look at the graph and hopefully, the following comments will make some sense.
1) The bounding lines have no mathematical basis. They were simply drawn to encompass the majority of the data.
2) The shorter line in the middle is the linear regression through the average RPI for seeds 1-6. I was not really surprised with the spread in RPI rankings for a given seed, but I was surprised by the quality of the regression of average RPI vs seed. (The linear regression breaks down for the 7th and higher seeds.)
3) In 2004, State received a 3 seed with an RPI of 17. That means that State tied for the second worse RPI for a 3 seed over the last four years. That seeding probably makes sense when you consider that State finished second in the highest rated conference. However, the ACC is not nearly so strong this year.
4) Using the left most bounding line and the averages shown above, we can make some thumb-rules to cover what RPI ranking is generally needed for a given seed:
|
NCAAT |
Min RPI |
Ave RPI |
|
Seed |
Required |
Required |
|
1 |
Top-10 |
3 |
|
2 |
Top-15 |
9 |
|
3 |
Top-20 |
11 |
|
4 |
Top-25 |
16 |
|
5 |
Top-30 |
19 |
|
6 |
Top-35 |
22 |
I have always been surprised by the ability of some State fans to ignore data when they don’t like the conclusion that it brings. So as a final attempt to inject some realism into bracket discussions, here is a short lesson from recent ACC history.
In 2003, the ACC finished the year as the third-rated conference (Sound familiar?). Here is a summary of the top three ACC teams from that year:
|
|
Conference |
Final |
NCAAT |
|
Team |
Record |
RPI |
Seed |
|
WF |
13-3 |
7 |
2 |
|
Duke |
11-5 |
12 |
3 |
|
|
11-5 |
37 |
6 |
Note: Duke won the ACCT in 2003.
Those fans expecting to match Duke’s seeding in 2003 with worse credentials this year will probably not be convinced by anything that they read here…but they have been warned.
