CSNbbs

.

Some of you may find this interesting:

.

Despite receiving less favorable seeding by the selection committee, the non-A5 at-large teams are winning the same percentage of their 2021 NCAA tournament games, through round 3 of the tournament.

This applies to the A5 and non-A5 teams that are seeded 1 through 11 and to the A5 auto-bid teams when compared with the auto-bid teams from the non-A5 multi-bid conferences:

.

NOTE: The "A5" schools are identical to the "P5" or "power 5" schools.

=============================================

..................................W.....L.....Winning %.......AVERAGE SEED:

=============================================

A-5 1-11 seeds:...........32...24......57.14%.......average: #5.72 seed

Non-A5 1-11 seeds:......12....9.......57.14%......average: #6.45 seed

=============================================

A-5 auto-bid teams:......6.....3.......66.67%......average: #5.40 seed
(ALA,OrSt,Ill,GT,UTx)

AAC,A10,BE,MVC,MWC,
& WCC autobid teams:...8.....4.......66.67%......average: #6.33 seed
(UH,St.B,Gtown,Loy,
SDSU,Gonzaga)

=============================================

NOTE: The play-in games are not included, because the play-in teams had equal seedings and were balanced by conference type. The VCU-Oregon game is not included, because it was not played due to Covid.

.

These data have important implications, since they are consistent with a range of other indices indicating that many non-A5 teams have been under-seeded relative to their tournament performance in this and previous NCAA tournaments.

.

.

Of the 26 NCAA tournament games pitting A5 teams vs. non-A5 teams, the A5 teams have won 16, and the non-A5 teams have won 10 games.

This comes as no surprise, because according to their seedings, the A5 teams were favored to win 16 of these 26 games (see seedings below).

However, a much larger percentage (6/10; 60%) of the non-A5 victories over A5 teams were upset victories (games in which their seedings were lower than those of their A5 opponents), as opposed to the percentage of A5 victories over non-A5 teams that were upset wins (4/16; 25%).

NOTE: The "A5" schools are identical to the "P5" schools.
......................................................................................................

Most importantly, these findings make it clear that the non-A5 at-large teams have matched the winning percentage of the A5 teams in the tournament (see data in OP above) - - despite the favorable seedings that A5 teams have benefited from in 70% of their matchups with non-A5 teams.

......................................................................................................

A5 teams have had 16 wins over non-A5 teams.

They were favored to win 12 of these games (i.e., 25% were upset wins)

Average seeding of the 16 victorious non-A5 teams: 5.50

Average seeding of the 16 defeated non-A5 teams: 11.06

#6 USC - #11 Drake
#3 Kans - #14 E. Wash U
#2 Iowa - #15 Gr.Canyon
#1 Mich - #16 TX So
#8 LSU - #9 St. Bon
#5 Colo vs. #12 GTown
#4 FSU - #13 UNC -Gr
#11 UCLA - #6 BYU NOTE: Their biggest upset was an #11 seed beating a #6 seed
#10 MD - #7 UConn
#12 Oreg St - #8 Loyola
#11 Syracuse - #6 SDSU (upset wins marked in blue)
#2 Ala - #15 Iona
#1 Baylor - #5 Villanova
#6 Tx Tech - #11 Utah St.
#3 Ark - #14 Colgate
#3 Ark - #15 Oral Roberts - - total: 16 games

A5 Tot: 88 (A5) ave. 5.5 seed; vs. non-A5 Tot: 177/16=11.06 seed

......................................................................................................

Non-A5 teams have had 10 wins over A5 teams

They were favored, by their seedings, to win 4 of these games (i.e., 60% were upset wins)


Average seeding of the 10 victorious non-A5 teams: 9.10

Average seeding of the 10 defeated A5 teams: 5.90

#1 Gonz - #8 U.OK
#13 OHIO - #4 UVA
#14 Abilene Ch. - #3 TX
#13 N. Tex - #4 Purdue
#15 Oral Rob - #2 OSUNOTE: Their biggest upset was a #15 seed beating a #2 seed
#15 Oral Rob - #7 Florida
#8 Loyola - #1 Illinois (upset wins marked in blue)
#8 Loyola - #9 GT
#2 Houston-#10 Rutgers
#2 Houston -#11 Syracuse - total: 10 games

non-A5 Tot: 91/10: 9.1 seed (non-A5) vs. A5 Tot 59/10: 5.9 seed (A5)

......................................................................................................

Grand total of A5 seeds in 26 A5/non-A5 games: 268/26=10.31 seed

Grand total of non-A5 seeds in 26 A5/non-A5 games: 148/26=5.69 seed

......................................................................................................


In their 2021 NCAA tournament games vs. non-A5 teams, the A5 teams have had an average seeding of #5.69. In comparison, their non-A5 opponents have had an average seeding of #10.31.

Yet, despite their favorable seedings in their 26 games vs. non-A5 teams, the A5 at-large teams have failed to win a higher percentage of their NCAA tournament games than the less favorably-seeded non-A5 at-large teams have won (as summarized in the original post above).

......................................................................................................

.

What is A5?

(03-28-2021 09:25 AM)pvtlamb Wrote: [ -> ]What is A5?

Thanks for asking. I'll add a note in the tables.

The five "A5" conferences are also known as the "P5" or "power five" conferences.

Some prefer to use the term "A5" rather than "P5" in discussions about basketball, since they believe that the term "power" in "P5" applies only to football schools.

(03-28-2021 09:25 AM)pvtlamb Wrote: [ -> ]What is A5?

To better answer your question, the A is for "autonomy"

Those five conferences have been granted by the NCAA a degree of autonomous rule making for themselves.

"P5" and "G5" aren't actual terms or categorizations, but the NCAA recognition of those five conferences' autonomy in governance is real.

The AAC response to autonomy has to been to do all the things the autonomy five do -- full cost of attendance, etc. That's a key part of the strategic plan, hand in glove with the "P6" information campaign.

P5 and G5 terms were developed by the media relative to football in the CFP era. Using either of those terms in basketball is very imprecise.
- in basketball, the Big East is widely recognized as performing at the highest level
- DI hoops includes a lot of conferences besides the 10 FBS conferences, so those two "5"s are inadequate
- basketball has long used major and mid major confetence terminology (including plenty of debate) so why not keep describing the two sports differently?

(03-28-2021 10:01 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2021 09:25 AM)pvtlamb Wrote: [ -> ]What is A5?

To better answer your question, the A is for "autonomy"

Those five conferences have been granted by the NCAA a degree of autonomous rule making for themselves.

"P5" and "G5" aren't actual terms or categorizations, but the NCAA recognition of those five conferences' autonomy in governance is real.

The AAC response to autonomy has to been to do all the things the autonomy five do -- full cost of attendance, etc. That's a key part of the strategic plan, hand in glove with the "P6" information campaign.

P5 and G5 terms were developed by the media relative to football in the CFP era. Using either of those terms in basketball is very imprecise.
- in basketball, the Big East is widely recognized as performing at the highest level
- DI hoops includes a lot of conferences besides the 10 FBS conferences, so those two "5"s are inadequate
- basketball has long used major and mid major confetence terminology (including plenty of debate) so why not keep describing the two sports differently?

Excellent, concise summary.

.

I'm guessing that what you see in these two tables of numbers is all too reminiscent of a now familiar pattern.

I put the data down on "paper," because somebody had to, if some of the 27 parties that have been affected in a way that would grant them "standing" (i.e., the non-A5 conferences) is ever going to actually get up the gumption to prepare "the lawsuit" (which will, of course, be resolved amicably enough in a settlement). They may never do so, but if not, it won't be due to a failure to have the data neatly summarized for them.

.