The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Sweet 16 average seeding for the past 21* years:

2014: 4.94
2013: 5.06
2012: 4.56
2011: 5.00
2010: 5.00
2009: 3.06
2008: 4.38
2007: 3.19
2006: 4.44
2005: 4.50
2004: 4.56
2003: 4.19
2002: 4.69
2001: 4.56
2000: 5.31
1999: 5.50
1998: 4.75
1997: 4.81
1996: 3.69
1995: 3.19
1994: 4.25

The system is designed to perpetuate the power teams within the power conferences so that TV ratings are maintained among the less than ardent BB fans across the nation. If fairness in seeding was the premium, they would have #1 play #9 and so on down to #8 playing #16 to reduce the differential between teams. Since the NCAA has only paid lip service to "fairness", that is not going to happen. We will see if having so many "name brand" teams ( Duke, UNC, OSU, Kansas, etc.) being eliminated this week has any effect upon the TV ratings for later games.

(03-23-2014 09:39 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  If fairness in seeding was the premium, they would have #1 play #9 and so on down to #8 playing #16 to reduce the differential between teams.

A 1 seed should have the easiest path to begin with. In theory they earned that during the regular season. What you're proposing would give the 8 seed an easier path than a 1 seed.

(03-23-2014 09:39 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The system is designed to perpetuate the power teams within the power conferences so that TV ratings are maintained among the less than ardent BB fans across the nation. If fairness in seeding was the premium, they would have #1 play #9 and so on down to #8 playing #16 to reduce the differential between teams. Since the NCAA has only paid lip service to "fairness", that is not going to happen. We will see if having so many "name brand" teams ( Duke, UNC, OSU, Kansas, etc.) being eliminated this week has any effect upon the TV ratings for later games.

They didn't manipulate seedings for TV. Tournaments have always been set so that the better teams play the weakest teams so that the best teams advance to the finals. This was in place before TV existed and it isn't just for basketball. Should a. NFL team that has the best record have to play a middle of the road team so everything is "fair"?

And this isn't the first time "name brand teams" have been eliminated first round.

(03-23-2014 09:43 PM)GreenMississippi Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 09:39 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  If fairness in seeding was the premium, they would have #1 play #9 and so on down to #8 playing #16 to reduce the differential between teams.

A 1 seed should have the easiest path to begin with. In theory they earned that during the regular season. What you're proposing would give the 8 seed an easier path than a 1 seed.

That is exactly the reason for the present system -- To give the big name teams the easiest route to the later rounds to keep general sport's followers watching the tournament. #1 playing #9 would have the same differential as the #8 playing the #16 so if the seeding is valid, there should be no advantage to the #8 position. However, having #1 play the worst team 16 seeds below them, is the reason the average cited above is so low. It is a part of the system that no #16 seeded team has ever made it to the round of 32, much less any farther.

Wichita State #1 seed = BIG NAME



St. Joe's #1 seed = big name

lOL.

#8 seed this year = Kentucky (little name)

(03-23-2014 09:39 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The system is designed to perpetuate the power teams within the power conferences so that TV ratings are maintained among the less than ardent BB fans across the nation. If fairness in seeding was the premium, they would have #1 play #9 and so on down to #8 playing #16 to reduce the differential between teams. Since the NCAA has only paid lip service to "fairness", that is not going to happen. We will see if having so many "name brand" teams ( Duke, UNC, OSU, Kansas, etc.) being eliminated this week has any effect upon the TV ratings for later games.

You realize that there's not a tournament in any sport at any level set up like you propose, right? That kinda negates your TV argument.

Yeah. The only point I can make to even sort of agree with BBF is that Wichita State did kind of get screwed on their one seed. It really sucks to be a #1 seed and get paired against possibly 3 of the last 4 national championship winning schools...just to get to a final four. They were going to have had to play Kentucky, Louisville, Michigan/Duke just to get to the final four. That's crap. It really looks like they wanted Wichita to lose as early as possible.

Florida got super lucky with who is winning in their bracket:
#16 Albany, #9 Pittsburgh, #4 UCLA, #11 Dayton/#10 Stanford

This is really based on obvious bias, but it seems like they seeded the ones like this:
#1 Florida
#2 Arizona
#3 Virginia
#4 Wichita

(03-23-2014 10:15 PM)biglizard Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 09:39 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The system is designed to perpetuate the power teams within the power conferences so that TV ratings are maintained among the less than ardent BB fans across the nation. If fairness in seeding was the premium, they would have #1 play #9 and so on down to #8 playing #16 to reduce the differential between teams. Since the NCAA has only paid lip service to "fairness", that is not going to happen. We will see if having so many "name brand" teams ( Duke, UNC, OSU, Kansas, etc.) being eliminated this week has any effect upon the TV ratings for later games.

You realize that there's not a tournament in any sport at any level set up like you propose, right? That kinda negates your TV argument.

The way the evidence points, it PROVES the TV point. TV is about ratings and ratings can't be trusted to follow teams that are not well known to the general public. (That is why lesser teams play FB on Tue, Wed, Thur, and Fri nights when TV tells them to -- if they want to be on the tube at all.) EVERYTHING to do with major sports - college or pro - is about what the TV people tell them they want done. TV is the "tail that wags the dog" every time. of course, TV pays very well to get what it wants in terms of hoops the teams must jump through.

Wichita got screwed on their bracket, while # THREE seeds duke and Syracuse got pseudo-home games in Raleigh and buffalo.

(03-23-2014 10:30 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 10:15 PM)biglizard Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 09:39 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The system is designed to perpetuate the power teams within the power conferences so that TV ratings are maintained among the less than ardent BB fans across the nation. If fairness in seeding was the premium, they would have #1 play #9 and so on down to #8 playing #16 to reduce the differential between teams. Since the NCAA has only paid lip service to "fairness", that is not going to happen. We will see if having so many "name brand" teams ( Duke, UNC, OSU, Kansas, etc.) being eliminated this week has any effect upon the TV ratings for later games.

You realize that there's not a tournament in any sport at any level set up like you propose, right? That kinda negates your TV argument.

The way the evidence points, it PROVES the TV point. TV is about ratings and ratings can't be trusted to follow teams that are not well known to the general public. (That is why lesser teams play FB on Tue, Wed, Thur, and Fri nights when TV tells them to -- if they want to be on the tube at all.) EVERYTHING to do with major sports - college or pro - is about what the TV people tell them they want done. TV is the "tail that wags the dog" every time. of course, TV pays very well to get what it wants in terms of hoops the teams must jump through.

So the person at the beginning of time who came up with the idea of tournament seedings did so with TV in mind, even though it had not been invented yet.

Top 5 Men's basketball salaries per bracket (2011-2012 numbers unfortunately). These numbers are pretty crazy. The Midwest bracket ended up spending about 8-12 million more overall than the other brackets (i.e. Wichita State got screwed). I'm not including everyone's numbers because that would take me forever. The top 5 salaries in the Midwest bracket are almost as much as the entire West or East brackets (16 teams).

South Bracket:
$3,639,800
$3,633,657 <---Florida
$2,854,000
$2,200,000
$1,830,176


East Bracket:
$3,598,700
$2,700,000
$2,290,346
$1,782,200 <----Virginia
$1,713,938


West Bracket:
$2,275,000
$2,175,312
$2,100,000 <-----Arizona
$2,100,000
$1,800,000


Midwest Bracket:
$5,387,978
$4,812,769
$4,699,570 <---This is Duke, and it's actually 7.2 million nowadays
$2,400,000
$2,225,930
---

$1,155,000 <---here's Wichita State

(03-23-2014 10:03 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 09:43 PM)GreenMississippi Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 09:39 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  If fairness in seeding was the premium, they would have #1 play #9 and so on down to #8 playing #16 to reduce the differential between teams.

A 1 seed should have the easiest path to begin with. In theory they earned that during the regular season. What you're proposing would give the 8 seed an easier path than a 1 seed.

That is exactly the reason for the present system -- To give the big name teams the easiest route to the later rounds to keep general sport's followers watching the tournament. #1 playing #9 would have the same differential as the #8 playing the #16 so if the seeding is valid, there should be no advantage to the #8 position. However, having #1 play the worst team 16 seeds below them, is the reason the average cited above is so low. It is a part of the system that no #16 seeded team has ever made it to the round of 32, much less any farther.

I really can't even comprehend your thinking sometimes. This is so ridiculously stupid(and that's as politely as I can put it) that I can't believe you would type it and then sit here and argue it.

Just for fun:
1 seed Wichita State 4 in the RPI
8 seed Kentucky 18 in the RPI

9 see Kansas State 50 in the RPI
16 sed Cal Poly 208 in the RPI

So, you want to give Wichita State a gap of 14 in the RPI while give Kansas State a gap of 158 for having a worse season. That is fantastic. Seriously.

And you can do this with any of the regions. There is nothing "fair" about this unless you want to try to reward mediocrity with something that somebody else has earned.

(03-23-2014 10:30 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 10:15 PM)biglizard Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 09:39 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The system is designed to perpetuate the power teams within the power conferences so that TV ratings are maintained among the less than ardent BB fans across the nation. If fairness in seeding was the premium, they would have #1 play #9 and so on down to #8 playing #16 to reduce the differential between teams. Since the NCAA has only paid lip service to "fairness", that is not going to happen. We will see if having so many "name brand" teams ( Duke, UNC, OSU, Kansas, etc.) being eliminated this week has any effect upon the TV ratings for later games.

You realize that there's not a tournament in any sport at any level set up like you propose, right? That kinda negates your TV argument.

The way the evidence points, it PROVES the TV point. TV is about ratings and ratings can't be trusted to follow teams that are not well known to the general public. (That is why lesser teams play FB on Tue, Wed, Thur, and Fri nights when TV tells them to -- if they want to be on the tube at all.) EVERYTHING to do with major sports - college or pro - is about what the TV people tell them they want done. TV is the "tail that wags the dog" every time. of course, TV pays very well to get what it wants in terms of hoops the teams must jump through.

So I guess the middle school tournament back home featuring the Community Vikings and Cascade Champions was set up the same way for TV revenue. Ok, gotcha.

If you want to have the discussion about regular season scheduling that's another argument. But to claim that seeding based on regular season results is "unfair" is simply preposterous

To further BamanBlazerfan's great concept of seeding even further, it would be even more fair to everyone if the #1 seed played the #2 seed in the first round and the # 15 seed played the #16 seed in the first round.

Stupidest thing posted on this board by far since Sax was banned.

Out of all the losses that have ruined my bracket, the one I truly enjoyed was Kentucky over Wichita State.

Calipari is the best in the nation and teams like WSU shouldn't be ranked in the top 5.

Proof that you are just baiting

(03-24-2014 08:29 AM)Montgomery Blazer Wrote:  Out of all the losses that have ruined my bracket, the one I truly enjoyed was Kentucky over Wichita State.

Calipari is the best in the nation and teams like WSU shouldn't be ranked in the top 5.

Mods, please run this guy. He's grown tiresome.

Interesting to note though that Kentucky beat #1 seed Wichita State in the 2nd round which was the same round that UAB beat Kentucky as the #1 seed. UAB's victory was treated like more of an upset than the Kentucky game yesterday.

Now Kentucky was the overall #1 seed then as well & UAB was the 9 seed whereas Kentucky was the 8 seed yesterday.

As a follow up to UAB's victory over Kentucky, the bracketeers decided to set up a rematch between UAB & Kentucky a few years later where I believe Kentucky was the 8 seed & UAB was the 9 seed.

(03-23-2014 10:30 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The way the evidence points, it PROVES the TV point. TV is about ratings and ratings can't be trusted to follow teams that are not well known to the general public. (That is why lesser teams play FB on Tue, Wed, Thur, and Fri nights when TV tells them to -- if they want to be on the tube at all.) EVERYTHING to do with major sports - college or pro - is about what the TV people tell them they want done. TV is the "tail that wags the dog" every time. of course, TV pays very well to get what it wants in terms of hoops the teams must jump through.

Well, in our house at least, it is the Cinderella stories that make for compelling viewing and keep us watching. A tournament with only big dogs and no underdogs to root for is more likely to lose us as viewers. Perhaps it's because, being a UAB fan, I pull for non-power conferences in general, but the games I especially want to see are the power conference vs cinderella non-power conferences. It's logical that the big dogs may bring higher TV ratings in general, but I also suspect there are other TV viewers around the country more like me who keep watching precisely because of the cinderellas.