Cracketology: Non-Con Check In

 

George Mason has climbed into the NCAA Tournament picture

Photo by Jeff Hanisch | Imagn Images

We're in the back half of February and the brackets we are seeing now are more and more likely to look like the brackets we will see when Selection Sunday arrives in less than a month. Today we're going to go back to Marquette's non-conference schedule and see where our opponents from the first part of the season are standing right now, going in chronological order.

Stony Brook

NET: 334 (Quadrant 4) 

Record: 6-21 (2-12 CAA)

Postseason Projection: Auto-bid only

Season Summary: The win at Central Michigan in the Marquette Challenge was their best win of the year. The Seawolves had a lackluster non-con themselves, going just 4-9 and are currently 13th place in the 14-team CAA.

George Mason

NET: 64 (Quadrant 2)

Record: 21-5 (12-1 A10)

Postseason Projection: 11-Seed in NCAA Tournament

Season Summary: The Patriots stumbled out of the gate, beginning the season just 2-3 with a two of those losses coming by a combined two points (70-69 vs Central Michigan, 78-77 in 2OT vs Eastern Carolina). Since then, they have won 19 of 21 games including eleven straight. The Patriots are atop the A-10 standings and are slotted into today's bracket as an 11-seed playing in Dayton. They play at VCU on Saturday in a game that could all but clinch the A-10 regular season title. Their early losses and lack of a true marquee win don't give them much room for error, but GMU has emerged as a viable at-large contender.

Central Michigan

NET: 220 (Quadrant 4)

Record: 11-15 (4-9 MAC)

Postseason Projection: Auto-bid only

Season Summary: The Chippewas were the surprise challenge of the Marquette Challenge. They beat GMU, gave Marquette a test, and followed that up with a close loss at Minnesota. But they haven't been able to find that level consistently and sit in 9th in the 12-team MAC.

Maryland

NET: 12 (Quadrant 1A)

Record: 20-6 (10-5 Big 10)

Postseason projection: 5-Seed in NCAA Tournament 

Season Summary: Marquette dealt Maryland their only non-conference loss and the Terrapins have consistently risen up the S-Curve to the same 5-line Marquette occupies. Maryland is 5th in the 18-team Big 10. This is one of the best wins any team in the country has and is a cornerstone of Marquette's resume.

Purdue & Marquette are still competing for a protected seed

Photo by Jeff Hanisch | Imagn Images

Purdue

NET: 13 (Quadrant 1A)

Record: 19-8 (11-5 Big 10)

Postseason projection: 4-Seed in NCAA Tournament

Season Summary: The Boilermakers have had an up and down season. Marquette was their only loss in their first 8 games. They followed that up by dropping three of four. They got back to winning ways, securing twelve of the next thirteen, but now find themselves on a three-game losing streak that has dropped them down to the 4-line. Despite the inconsistency, Purdue sits 4th in the 18-team Big 10. This is still a marquee win for Marquette.

Georgia

NET: 39

Record: 16-10 (4-9 SEC)

Postseason Projection: First Four Out

Season Summary: The Bulldogs loss to Marquette was the only one in their 12-1 non-conference, but that was largely built on a weak non-conference schedule. They have stumbled to 12th in the 16-team SEC and find themselves squarely on the bubble. Georgia needs to add quality wins. Depending on how you look at it, that's good or bad news. They have two great opportunities with a trip to Auburn and a visit from Florida their next two opponents, but those are also very difficult games to win and if they can't get at least one of them, they'll likely be on the outside looking in come Selection Sunday.

Stonehill

NET: 293 (Quadrant 4)

Record: 14-13 (6-6 NEC)

Postseason Projection: Auto-bid only

Season Summary:  For a team we thought would be among Division 1's worst, it's actually been a successful season for the Skyhawks. They are above .500 and have matched the program record for wins in a D1 season. Included in those wins are victories over Bryant and Quinnipiac, two programs at the top of their respective leagues. They are locked deep into Q4, but sitting 4th in the 9-team NEC is far better than we expected in October.

Western Carolina

NET: 342 (Quadrant 4)

Record: 8-18 (4-11 SoCon)

Postseason Projection: Auto-bid only

Season Summary: In the preseason, we noted the Catamounts would likely have a clear offensive style of shooting a lot of threes and having players with a track record of success making those shots. We were right about the volume of threes (48.1% of shots from three is 17th nationally) but they have come up woefully short in the making those shots (29.2% is 353rd nationally) department. As a result, they are the bottom team on Marquette's resume. Clearly the gamble that we thought could allow WCU to compete in the SoCon was a failed one as they sit ninth in the 10-team league.

Iowa State is still safely in the protected seeds

Photo by Charlie Neibergall | AP Photo

Iowa State

NET: 8 (Quadrant 1A)

Record: 21-5 (11-4 Big 12)

Postseason Projection: 3-Seed in NCAA Tournament

Season Summary: The Cyclones were one of the hottest teams in the country through mid-January, rating as a clear 1-seed and in contention with Auburn and Duke at the top of the sport. Things took a turn as they lost four of six, including a three-game losing streak that knocked them off the top line and out of the Big 12 title hunt. Even still, ISU is tied for third in the 16-team Big 12 and losing in Ames is no stain on anyone's resume.

Wisconsin

NET: 10 (Quadrant 1A)

Record: 21-5 (11-4 Big 10)

Postseason Projection: 2-Seed in NCAA Tournament

Season Summary: The loss to Marquette was in the middle of a three-game slide for the Badgers, but since then they have won thirteen of fifteen and skyrocketed to the top-15 in every NCAA metric and taken a spot on the 2-line where Marquette once was. The Badgers are third in the 18-team Big 10 and one of the best wins on Marquette's resume.

Dayton

NET: 74

Record: 18-8 (8-5 A-10)

Postseason Projection: Next Four Out

Season Summary: Dayton's win over Marquette seemed like their Super Bowl at the time, and considering how they played in the month following that game, they might have thought the season was over. They fell out of our projected field thanks largely to the seven games after Marquette, as they went 3-4 in those seven with two of the wins over non-tourney contenders UNLV and Loyola-Chicago at home by a combined 3 points. They are trying to patch the season together and have won seven of their last nine to get back into the bubble discussion, and thankfully for them the wins over UConn and Marquette aren't going anywhere. The Flyers sit third in the 15-team A-10 and likely need to win out to truly be a bubble contender. They bear very little resemblance to the team that dismantled Marquette in the second half at UD Arena.

Here's the current S-Curve and bracket:

Winning the Bye Week

Welcome back #ScrambledEggs listeners after a rare weekend off for #mubb. In this episode we spend a little bit of time talking about DePaul but mostly focused around the performance of the team to date and how we can see the bye week helping (or not) the performance going forward. We then look ahead to the Seton Hall game, which should be a win for the boys, but we aren't taking chances and neither should they. We then talk about where the team stands in the standings and for March, including a discussion of the path to a share of the conference title. We close out the show with a Villanova discussion and projection. Enjoy! 

https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/2dubk57gzn266b44/Eggs_2025_Feb_16bhbji.mp3 

Cracketology: Reveal Reset

The NCAA Selection Committee released their midseason Top-16 on Saturday. Let's rundown the teams that were included, then see if there are any takeaways from the reveal.

1-Seeds: Auburn (1), Alabama (2), Duke (3), Florida (4)

Auburn, Alabama, and Duke were the easy selections. The only question was who would be the last 1-Seed. The Committee went with Florida. As we said in our preview, the Gators were a team we thought could jump up to the last 1-seed if they included Tuesday results. Clearly they did.

2-Seeds: Tennessee (5), Texas A&M (6), Purdue (7), Houston (8)

The first three were expected, the only surprise with Houston is they were that far back. The Cougars don't have a great collection of wins to support their elite metrics, which has to be what cost them. With the Arizona win and Texas Tech, Iowa State, and Kansas still on the schedule, there's room for them to move up.

3-Seeds: Iowa State (9), Kentucky (10), Wisconsin (11), Arizona (12)

We had Iowa State, Kentucky, and Wisconsin here, though in a different order. Arizona was our first 4-Seed. Most likely this means the Arizona win at BYU Tuesday was included.

4-Seeds: Texas Tech (13), Michigan (14), Kansas (15), St. John's (16)

We had Michigan State in and Michigan out, but as mentioned in the preview, which Michigan school is a protected seed would tell us which games were included. If this comes out Sunday or Monday, it would've been MSU. Because it was Michigan, we know their win over Purdue was factored in.We also had St. John's too high at 12. The loss to 'Nova on Wednesday probably knocked them down, but this spot indicates they were probably always a 4-Seed, indicating that being Big East leaders didn't help them much (similar for Michigan).

In Consideration: Michigan State, Marquette

These teams were said to be right there for the last spot in the Top-16. Both have winning records in Q1 and losses in Q2, which stands out against Ole Miss, who was not mentioned but came into the Reveal better metrically but with with a losing Q1 record and no Q2 losses.

Takeaways

• Wins Over Metrics: Houston had better predictive metrics than Florida, Tennessee, Texas A&M, and Purdue, but was behind them with only one Q1A win (the teams ahead all have at least three). Similarly, Kentucky was on a 3-Seed with a bevy of good wins despite being a metric 4-Seed. This is the exact opposite trend we saw last year.
  
• Focus on Resume (Metrics): The resume metrics were better seed predictors than the predictive metrics. SOR (5 exact, 13 +/-2 spots, 2.3 average away) and WAB (4 exact, 13 +/-2 spots, 2.2 average away) were the metrics closest to the Selection Committee's seeds. BPI was worst (0 exact, 7 +/- 2 spots, 4.6 average away).
  
• RAP is Still King: The average of the two averages was still the best predictor, with 7 exact, 15 within 2 spots, and an average of 1.3 away. If you used RAP as a strict guideline, 16 of the 18 teams mentioned would have been on the correct seed line, with only Kansas and Kentucky flipped.
• Marquette's Future: Chairman Bubba Cunningham mentioned Marquette as "right there" for the #16 overall spot. A 4-seed is still a very realistic goal, while a 3-seed is possible if they get hot (think 7 more total wins). I do think getting back to a 2-seed is probably unrealistic unless they get a lot of help.
  
• Championship Week Might Matter: We put the bracket together with Monday's data because historically, the Selection Committee hasn't included later in the week results. It is clear they at least used Tuesday data and likely used Wednesday results as well. Might this indicate that Championship Week results on Thursday, Friday, and maybe even Saturday will be factored into the final bracket? It seems more possible if this Committee is capable of processing data beyond what's immediately available when they walk into their meeting room.

So what did this mean further down the bracket? We feel confident with Memphis as a 6-seed thanks to their Q1 wins, even though their metrics would be an 8-seed. On the bubble, we looked closer at Q1 win percentages and teams with Q1-3 winning records. Vanderbilt, Arkansas, and Georgia were all in our last field, but now all are below .300 WP% in Q1 and have losing records in Q1-3. As a result, the SEC is down to 11 schools, with Texas, George Mason, and UC Irvine replacing them. Texas' late win over Kentucky lifted them into the field. BYU also moved in with their hot streak of late (including a win over K-State last night), as did Wake Forest after winning at SMU.

For the Big East, Xavier losing at Villanova was their last Q1 opportunity, which likely ends their at-large hopes. There just isn't enough meat on the Musketeer resume. Villanova's own tourney hopes took a hit yesterday with the loss at Providence. If they win their next two (at UConn, vs Marquette) maybe they can get another look, but for now they are under water and continuing to take on losses outside Q1 isn't helping.

Finally, let's see where we stand now with both what we learned from the Selection Committee and Saturday's results included:

Multibid Leagues

SEC: 11

Big 10: 10

Big 12: 8

ACC: 4

Big East: 4

Mountain West: 3

A-10: 2

Big West: 2

WCC: 2

Cracketology: Predicting the Top-16 Reveal

CBS reveals the 2024 Top-16

Photo from CBS Sports broadcast

On Saturday, the NCAA will reveal their initial Top-16 seeds ahead of the NCAA Tournament. This always occurs after the Super Bowl and shows the exact order of the first four seed lines if the Tournament were to begin that day. Well...sort of. In each of the past two seasons, the Cracked Sidewalks projection from the beginning of the week was more accurate than the projection we released on the eve of the Reveal.

What this tells us is that when the Selection Committee gets together on Tuesday, they are using the metrics and results including games on Sunday or Monday. While it seems counter-intuitive, it makes sense. They likely start work on putting together the top four lines on Tuesday, so they continue to work with the same data all week. It's not dissimilar to the week of Selection Sunday. In the past, we've dug into the numbers that show Championship Week results have minimal impact on the Sunday bracket, so why would the week of the Top-16 Reveal be any different?

We are using the records, Quadrant results, and metrics from Tuesday morning because it seems unlikely anything that happened after that will impact what we see on Saturday. Today, we will go seed by seed through the Top-16 to explain not just who you can expect to see in the Reveal, but why they are there. We'll also include at the end some other teams that may be considered.

As far as things to consider, to fit a seed line teams should have average resume metric averages that are four times the seed line. This means being at an average of 4.0 or under for 1-seeds, 8.0 or under for 2-seeds, 12.0 or under for 3-seeds, and 16.0 or under for 4-seeds. Volume of wins in Quadrant 1A, Quadrant 1, and Quadrants 1+2 are also heavily considered, usually more so than losses. Having winning Quadrant records is also a positive.

1-Seeds

1-Auburn: The Tigers 21-2 record is better than anyone else in contention for the top lines. Their 11 Q1 wins and 15 Q1+2 wins are both most in the country. They rank #1 in 5 of the 7 metrics on the team sheet. This one is an easy choice.

2-Alabama: The Tide edge out Duke because they have the same overall record, 7 Q1 wins to 5, and 14 Q1+2 wins to 9. The teams are near metric mirrors, with Alabama averaging 4.0 in the metrics while Duke is at 3.8, but the strength of what Alabama has had to do in the SEC to match Duke's overall record is the deciding factor.

3-Duke: This is the last easy selection. While other teams have a few more Q1 wins, Duke is the only team left that has 5 of their 7 metrics ranking in the top-3.

4-Houston: This would be the first surprise of the bracket, and it will depend on what data the Committee is using. You could also argue Tennessee or Florida for this spot, but Houston has the same number of Q1+2 wins as Tennessee, more Q1 wins than Florida, and a better predictive average (2.0) than the Vols (4.3) or Gators (6.0). Ultimately, predictive metrics are thought to drive seeding, and combining that with the Cougars being the presumptive Big 12 champs (another factor that has weighed heavily) gives Houston the edge.

2-Seeds

5-Tennessee: Comparing the Vols to Florida, the Vols have more Q1 wins (8-3) and rank higher on five of the seven team sheet metrics, including a better NET, resume average, and predictive average.

6-Florida: If the Committee considers results through Tuesday, the Gators could jump up to the last 1-seed, but we're confident they won't be lower than this. Six of the seven team sheet metrics have the Gators in the top-6 and no one left has fewer losses (3) and more Q1+2 wins (11).

7-Purdue: If Purdue can improve their predictive average (9.0) they have a legitimate shot at a 1-seed. The Boilermakers' 7 Q1 wins trail only Auburn and Tennessee, while their 14 Q1+2 wins are tied with Alabama for second best in the country. Metrically, they are two points behind the six teams ahead of them, but three points better than anyone behind them. This is one where using later data could hurt as the Boilermakers took a loss to Michigan Tuesday night.

8-Texas A&M: Another tough call here because no one fits the mathematical 2-seed profile of 8.0 or better averages. The Aggies are metrically deadlocked (both 10.7 average) with Arizona but have more Q1+2 wins (12) than the Wildcats. Wisconsin has as many Q1+2 wins, but the Aggies are better in 5/7 team sheet metrics and have more Q1A wins (4) than Bucky (1). No other team can claim a metric edge nor better collection of wins than Buzz Williams' team, so the Aggies land here.

3-Seeds

9-Wisconsin: The strength of Wisconsin's resume are 7 Q1 and 12 Q1+2 wins. While their metric average (13.0) fits a 4-seed more than a 3-seed, they have better results than the only two teams that meet a 3-seed mathematical profile: Arizona and Iowa State.

10-Iowa State: Iowa State's 12.2 metric average is better than anyone left except for Arizona, who we'll get to later. The only competition there is Kansas (13.3) but ISU also has more Q1 wins (6 to 5) which keeps the Cyclones on this line.

11-Kentucky: Metrically, Kentucky should be a 5-seed. So why are they here? Quite simply, the wins. Their 6 Q1A wins are more than any other team left and behind only Auburn. Their three wins over top-5 teams (up to 4 on Tuesday) are more than any other team in the country, Auburn included. No one can match their quantity of quality, which bumps them up higher than their metrics would indicate.

12-St. John's: There are two teams that have a better metric claim to this spot. Arizona is at 10.7, Kansas is at 13.3, and St. John's is only at 15.2. The Wildcats (7) and Jayhawks (5) have more Q1 wins than St. John's (3), but the Johnnies only have 3 losses with both of their competitors having double that. The real differentiator is that St. John's is recognized as our Big East champion.  We've seen the Selection Committee nod to this in the past when Marquette was given the #8 overall in 2023.

4-Seeds

13-Arizona: The Wildcats fit a 3-seed perfectly. Their metric average is 10.7, no one left has more Q1 wins (7) than they do, and they don't have any bad losses. However, they also have more total losses than anyone ahead of them and they don't have any top tier wins away from home. It wouldn't surprise us to see them higher, but there just isn't room on the 3-line for them so a 4-seed feels appropriate.

14-Kansas: The Jayhawks edge Michigan State in 5 of the 7 team sheet metrics, a better metric average (13.3 to 15.0), have more Q1 wins (5 to 4), and more Q1+2 wins (10 to 9). They edge Texas Tech in 4 of 7 metrics with metric average edge (13.3 to 15.0 again), but have one fewer Q1 win (5 to 6). However, Kansas' Q1+2 advantage (10 to 7) and not having multiple Q2 losses kept them ahead.

15-Texas Tech: While MSU was a better comp for Kansas, Texas Tech gets the slight nod over Sparty. They are in a metric dead heat, though TTU is better in 4 of 7 resume metrics when NET is included. The Red Raiders also have more Q1 wins (6 to 4) and digging deeper, the win at Houston is something Sparty just can't match. If they factor the Tuesday games, it favors the Red Raiders even more.

16-Michigan State: Metrically, no one left is close to Sparty. Their 15.0 metric average is far better than the next closest team (Michigan at 18.5). There are seven other teams with metric averages below 24.0 and MSU. Illinois is the only one that is ahead of Michigan State in as many as three metrics, the rest Sparty leads in at least six of seven. The biggest question is which data set they use. If it is from Tuesday morning, Michigan State belongs here. If they include this week's results, the edge likely goes to Michigan who we have at #17. Which of the Michigan schools is a protected seed likely tells us which games they included.

In Consideration

17-Michigan: The Wolverines have better metrics than Kentucky and added the big Purdue win this week. 10 Q1+2 wins is excellent, but the two Q2 losses knocked them down here.

18-Marquette: The Golden Eagles boast 11 Q1+2 wins, but shoddy metrics (20.7 average) and three Q2 losses keep them out of the Top-16.

19-Ole Miss: This team fits the 5-line perfectly. Nine Q1+2 wins, a losing Q1 record, and 6 of 7 metrics outside the top-16 keep them outside the conversation.

24-Memphis: The Tigers are a wildcard here. Their resume average is 13.3 but all predictive metrics are sub-40. Their metric profile fits an 8-seed, but the Selection Committee has boosted conference champs with great W/L profiles before (2022 Providence). I don't think they'll be here, but they could be the out-of-the-blue shocker.

Here's the current S-Curve and bracket:

Multibid Leagues

SEC: 13

Big 10: 10

Big 12: 7

ACC: 5

Big East: 4

MWC: 3

WCC: 2

Pull up your therapy furniture of choice

Well, we were hoping it wouldn't come to this but it's time for some #ScrambledEggs therapy. It's been a rough 7 days of basketball outcomes for #mubb, so let's do the hard work and come to a good place. First we talk through the losing streak overall and what our biggest concerns are. We then talk about the results directly and what needs to change. We then get therapeutic for a bit before closing out on #DLTD. Also there is the jinxiest jinx to ever jinx. Enjoy!

Cracketology: What's a Protected Seed Worth?

 

Marquette was the #12 overall seed when they reached the 2013 Elite Eight

Photo by Alex Brandon | AP Photo

Next week the NCAA Selection Committee will reveal their midseason top-16 seeds. The reveal is often considered a way for teams to gauge where they are at and for bracketologists to get an idea of how the Committee will approach Selection and Seeding. However we also hear about how in a single-elimination tournament, anything can happen and every team has a chance to win it all through their conference tournament and luck of the NCAA draw. Today, we will dig into the truth of that.

2012 was the first year the NCAA revealed their complete S-Curve. Cracked Sidewalks went back through every bracket since that reveal and pulled the data to see how far each of the protected seeds went. Past is not always a perfect predictor, but this might be worth bookmarking for March if you want an idea of how successful the various seeds are.

First, let's talk about what the table shows. Each seed is broken into four columns for the four exact seeds. So if we look at the first column, that represents the #1 overall seed, projected to be the favorite by the Selection Committee. The top line represents wins (see the leftmost column) by that exact seed, color coded so no shading represents an outcome that has never happened, lighter green shading representing fewer instances and darker shading representing more likely outcomes. The bottom shows the average number of wins per seed and the number of times that exact seed reached the Final Four (4 or more wins). With the data above, let's go seed by seed to see the best case scenario, worst case scenario, and expected results.

UConn captured the title as the #1 overall seed in 2024

Photo by Tyler Schank | NCAA Photos

1-Seeds

#1

Best Case: National Champions (2012 Kentucky, 2013 Louisville, 2024 Connecticut)

Worst Case: First Round loss (2018 Virginia)

Expectations: Half of all #1 seeds made the Final Four, with half of those winning it all. All but two made the second weekend, so if you are getting this seed, the expectation should be a second or third weekend run with odds as good as anyone of winning the title. 3.5 wins puts the average outcome between the Elite Eight and Final Four. Interestingly, this is the only exact seed that has had ever possible outcome, from zero wins to six.

#2

Best Case: National Champions (2018 Villanova, 2019 Virginia, 2021 Baylor)

Worst Case: Second Round loss (2015 Villanova)

Expectations: 33% of these teams reach the Final Four, but 92% made the second weekend, the highest rate of any exact seed. The #2 overall has been unlikely to be upset early and has also won the national title as often as any other seed. 3.42 wins puts the average outcome between the Elite Eight and Final Four, leaning slightly toward the former.

#3

Best Case: National Champions (2015 Duke, 2017 North Carolina, 2022 Kansas)

Worst Case: Second Round loss (2014 Wichita State, 2021 Illinois, 2023 Kansas)

Expectations: The #3 overall is less likely to go to the Final Four (42%) than the #1 but more likely to be a first weekend victim (25%) than the #2. 3.33 wins puts the average outcome between the Elite Eight and Final Four, leaning more likely to the former.

#4

Best Case: Runner-Up (2015 Wisconsin, 2017 Gonzaga)

Worst Case: First Round loss (2023 Purdue)

Expectations: This is the first notable expectation dropoff. Only 17% reach the Final Four, half as much as any other 1-Seed. 33% do not get out of the first weekend and the 2.33 wins on average puts the expected outcome between the Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight with the former being more likely. Interestingly, when #4 seeds do get to the Final Four, they have always made the title game.

Kris Jenkins' buzzer beater won the title for #7 overall Villanova in 2016

Photo by Bob Donnan | USA Today

2-Seeds

#5

Best Case: Runner-Up (2012 Kansas)

Worst Case: First Round loss (2016 Michigan State)

Expectations: Considering this seed is the first team to not be a 1-Seed, it feels disappointing. No Final Four appearances since 2012, the fewest average wins of any 1/2-Seed and there are teams on the 3-Seed and 4-Seed lines that average more wins than the #5 overall. 1.92 average wins means the outcome is between one win and the Sweet Sixteen, with the latter far more likely.

#6

Best Case: Final Four (2016 Oklahoma, 2019 Michigan State)

Worst Case: First Round loss (2012 Duke, 2021 Ohio State, 2022 Kentucky)

Expectations: If the #6 can get out of the first round (three losses are the most for any 1/2-Seed) they will most likely go to the Elite Eight. Five times ending the season there is one of the highest prevalence outcomes. Despite that, the average win total of 2.25 (pulled down by the first round exits) puts them between the Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight as the average finish, with the former more likely.

#7

Best Case: National Champions (2016 Villanova)

Worst Case: First Round loss (2013 Georgetown, 2023 Arizona)

Expectations: This is one of just three non-1-Seeds to win the title. This seed has a wide range of outcomes, and while the 2.25 win average puts them between the Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight with the former more likely, having multiple outcomes of every possibility from a first round exit through the Final Four makes this one of the more unpredictable seeds.

#8

Best Case: Final Four (2014 Wisconsin, 2021 Houston, 2022 Duke)

Worst Case: First Round loss (2012 Missouri)

Expectations: The most frequent outcome is a second round loss, but when the #8 does get out of the first weekend, they make it to the Final Four half the time. The 2.00 average win total equates to a Sweet Sixteen expectation.

#10 overall seed Texas Tech came up short in 2019

Photo by Hannah Foslien | Getty Images

 

3-Seeds

#9

Best Case: Final Four (2017 Oregon)

Worst Case: First Round loss (2013 New Mexico, 2014 Duke, 2015 Iowa State, 2016 West Virginia)

Expectations: Like the #5 overall, the top 3-Seed is the least successful on its line. It stands out that this seed suffered four straight first round upsets followed by its only Final Four appearance. The four first round losses are tied for the most of any protected seed. By and large, this seed loses early. 67% of the time the #9 does not get out of the first weekend. 1.33 wins on average puts the expectation between one win and the Sweet Sixteen, with the former more likely.

#10

Best Case: Runner-Up (2019 Texas Tech)

Worst Case: First Round loss (2015 Baylor)

Expectations: While the highest frequency outcome is one win, this seed's outcomes are evenly split between a first weekend exit and making the Sweet Sixteen or better. 1.83 wins projects between one win and the Sweet 16, with the latter more likely.

#11

Best Case: Runner-Up (2018 Michigan)

Worst Case: First Round loss (2021 Texas, 2024 Kentucky)

Expectations: The Sweet Sixteen is the most frequent outcome, but they rarely go further than that (83% lose in the Sweet Sixteen or earlier). This is the seed that led to Shaka Smart leaving Texas for Marquette after the loss to Abilene Christian. 1.75 average wins puts most outcomes between the second round and Sweet 16, with the latter more likely.

#12

Best Case: Elite Eight (2013 Marquette, 2015 Notre Dame, 2018 Texas Tech, 2019 Purdue, 2024 Illinois)

Worst Case: Second Round loss (2012 Georgetown, 2021 Kansas)

Expectations: This has the narrowest range of outcomes, with every #12 seed winning between 1-3 games. 83% made the second weekend, but none went further. Because of the low volatility, the 2.25 average wins puts the expected outcome between the Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight, with the former more likely. This seed has the best win average of any 3-Seed. Marquette checks in at #12 in today's S-Curve.

#13 overall UConn is the lowest protected seed to win a national title

Photo from Getty Images

 

4-Seeds

#13

Best Case: National Champions (2023 Connecticut)

Worst Case: First Round loss (2012 Michigan)

Expectations: This is the lowest protected seed to win it all, though 2014 7-Seed UConn won it from outside the protected seeds. While there's a wide outcome range, half of these teams saw their season end in the Sweet Sixteen, and the 2.33 average wins is the best exact seed outcome for any team outside the 1-Seed line. That win average leads to an expected finish between the Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight, with the former more likely.

#14

Best Case: Elite Eight (2014 Michigan State, 2017 Florida)

Worst Case: First Round loss (2013 Kansas State, 2016 California, 2018 Wichita State, 2021 Purdue)

Expectations: This is the least successful protected seed. It is the only protected seed that has seen less than 50% of its teams reach the second weekend or beyond. The 1.25 win average puts the expectation between the second round and Sweet 16, with the former being more likely. The four first round losses are tied for the most of any protected seed.

#15

Best Case: Elite Eight (2015 Louisville)

Worst Case: First Round loss (2019 Kansas State, 2024 Auburn)

Expectations: This is the second least successful protected seed. It also has a narrow range of outcomes, with 75% of the teams winning 1-2 games. The 1.42 win average puts the expectation between the second round and Sweet 16, with the former being slightly more likely.

#16

Best Case: Final Four (2012 Louisville, 2024 Alabama)

Worst Case: First Round loss (2018 Arizona, 2021 Virginia, 2023 Virginia)

Expectations: The most frequent outcome is the Sweet 16, but there is a wide range of outcomes. The 2.00 win average puts the expectation at the Sweet 16.

Here's the updated S-Curve and bracket:

Multibid Leagues

SEC: 13

Big 10: 10

Big 12: 7

Big East: 4

ACC:4

MWC: 3

Big West: 2

WCC: 2

Yep, we have the NMD Sads too

 Welcome back #mubb fans, and we at #scrambledeggs are just as sad about the NMD result as you. We kind of, sort of, skip over the Butler game and jump right to the disappointing result against UCONN. We break down what we saw in the game, what we're concerned about, and how this team pivots from this moment. We then spend a lot of time talking about the St John's game on the road as it is likely the toughest test left on the schedule. We also talk about the road game at Creighton and what #mubb can do to replicate the early conference season victory. It's gonna be a tough week but there's potential to come out at the end of the week fighting for possession of a conference title. Enjoy!