Biggest Takeaways from the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee's Top 16 Reveal
This year's men's NCAA tournament selection committee chair Tom Burnett sat down with Greg Gumbel, Clark Kellogg and Seth Davis on Saturday afternoon to reveal how the committee would seed the Top 16 overall teams if the final decisions were made now.
The result?
West Region: Gonzaga (No. 1 overall), Duke (No. 8), Illinois (No. 12), Texas (No. 16)
TOP NEWS
Tracking Men's Portal Moves 📡
Buzz: Biggest Spenders in Men's CBB
Projecting Every NFL Team's Starting Lineup 🔮
Midwest Region: Auburn (No. 2 overall), Purdue (No. 7), Texas Tech (No. 10), UCLA (No. 14)
South Region: Arizona (No. 3 overall), Baylor (No. 5), Tennessee (No. 11), Providence (No. 15)
East Region: Kansas (No. 4 overall), Kentucky (No. 6), Villanova (No. 9), Wisconsin (No. 13)
Unlike in college football, in which the selection committee puts out around a half dozen Top 25 rankings before making a final decision, this was our only chance to get a sense of what this year's committee will weigh most heavily in the days leading up to Selection Sunday on March 13.
Though we only get to see the Top 16, the hope of the bracketology community is that A) lessons learned in mid-February remain the same in three weeks and B) the principles used to rank the Top 16 will also apply to the other three-fourths of the bracket.
So, what did we learn from this reveal?
Quadrant 1, Quadrant 1, Quadrant 1
Baylor landing at No. 5 overall came as a surprise. The Bears were the consensus No. 7 overall seed in the Bracket Matrix, and ESPN's Joe Lunardi had them at No. 9 overall and on the No. 3 seed line Saturday morning.
But Burnett stated that both Baylor and Kentucky were very much in the discussion with Kansas for the fourth No. 1 seed. This despite Baylor losing by 24 to Kansas earlier this month and losing by 10 to Texas Tech just a few days ago.
Why did the Bears get so much love from the committee then?
Well, first and foremost, they're 9-4 vs. Quadrant 1, which is tied with Kansas for the most such wins in the nation. They also have 13 victories against the top two Quadrants, and they entered play Saturday ranked seventh or better in all six metrics (NET, KPI, SOR, BPI, KP and SAG) that appear on the team sheets the selection committee uses.
The reason most of us were a bit lower on Baylor than the committee is a combination of the recent injuries/losses and the fact that it only has one particularly great win, which came over Villanova. The Bears do have three wins against the top half of Quadrant 1, but two of them (vs. Texas, at Oklahoma) are smack dab on the border between the top half and bottom half. It just felt like that would keep the Bears behind both Kentucky and Purdue, each of whom has at least three high-quality wins.
But the Quadrant 1 record was too much to ignore and played a huge role in both Wisconsin and Providence appearing in the Top 16.
Wisconsin entered the day at No. 20 in the NET, but it landed at No. 13 overall with an 8-4 record in Quadrant 1 games. Providence was No. 29 in the NET (and outside the top 30 in each of BPI, KP and SAG), but the 21-3 Friars also secured a No. 4 seed with a 5-2 record vs. Quadrant 1 and 11 total wins against the top two Quadrants.
The clearest impact of the importance of Quadrant 1 record, though, is Houston.
The Cougars are No. 4 in the NET and top-10 in each of the other three quality metrics, but they did not appear in the Top 16 because of an 0-3 record in Quadrant 1 games.
Had Houston won the recent games against Memphis and SMU, it would have been interesting to see where the committee slotted that team. At that point, you're talking about a 23-2 squad with a two-point loss to Wisconsin on a neutral floor and a one-point loss (in controversial fashion) at Alabama. The Cougars would have been firmly on the No. 2 line and in the hunt for a No. 1 seed, but we'll never know.
Your NET Isn't That Important
Of the teams that entered Saturday ranked in the top 15 of the NET, 14 appeared in the Top 16 reveal. Those same 14 teams also rank in the top 15 of the consensus quality metrics from BPI, KenPom.com and Sagarin. Suffice it to say, it wasn't a surprise to see any of them.
But Burnett explicitly stated during the reveal, "The NET's been a great sorting tool for the committee, but it's not the be-all end-all for us. ... I look at the NET as really kind of a first step. I want to see why the NET is that way."
And that's how you end up with No. 20 and No. 29 getting in while No. 4 was left out.
Just like RPI back in the day, your own rating is nowhere near as important as the ratings of your opponents, which determines your Quadrant-based records.
That said, your NET does matter to some extent.
Both Wisconsin and Providence were seeded well above their NET ranking, but they both could have been a good bit higher. Wisconsin, which has eight Quadrant 1 wins and the fifth-best resume metrics (KPI and SOR) in the country, felt like a candidate for a No. 2 seed and surely no worse than a No. 3 seed, and yet the Badgers got the top No. 4 seed.
Had the Badgers more convincingly won games against the likes of Georgia Tech (70-66), Nicholls State (71-68), Illinois State (89-85), Penn State (51-49) and Nebraska (73-65), they would perhaps rank in the NET top 10 and would have been a much stronger candidate for a No. 2 seed. Same goes for Providence, which has a 9-1 record in games decided by five points or fewer.
They still made it into the Top 16, though, which bodes well for bubble teams such as Rutgers, Kansas State and Creighton, hoping to dance in spite of ranking outside the NET top 60.
Villanova in the East Region
We have known all season that Villanova is technically allowed to play in the East Region in Philadelphia. Penn is officially the host of those Sweet 16 and Elite Eight games at the Wells Fargo Center, which is not far from Villanova's campus. And because the Wildcats have only played three games there this season, a massive "home-court" advantage is permissible.
But a lot of folks assumed it was somewhat of a "No. 1 seed or bust" situation for Villanova, since the selection committee tries to avoid putting its No. 1 seeds at a geographical disadvantage. And if that region held to form through the first two rounds, Villanova would basically get to host No. 2 seed Kentucky and No. 1 seed Kansas.
Seth Davis specifically asked Burnett about it, and he didn't even suggest that there was any consideration to send Villanova to the Midwest or South instead. Rather, as the top No. 3 seed, the Wildcats would be placed in the East.
And that's nothing new. While I can't remember a situation where a No. 3 or No. 4 seed could practically walk to its second-weekend games, I do recall No. 1 Duke facing No. 3 Baylor in Houston in 2010.
There are a few other spots of note where geography could be a major advantage for a lower-seeded team. Purdue, Wisconsin, Illinois and Marquette are all within 125 miles of Chicago (Midwest), and Loyola-Chicago is obviously right there and technically eligible for the region that Northwestern is hosting. Also, Texas is about 75 miles away from San Antonio (South), while both Baylor and Houston would need to travel less than 200 miles for that site.
The committee won't avoid putting those teams in those regions.
Duke Is Still in the Mix for a No. 1 Seed
The Blue Devils aren't particularly close to the top seed line. There has been a pretty strong consensus on the top seven overall seeds for the past two weeks or so, and Duke hasn't been a part of that club.
Since Duke was the No. 8 overall seed in the reveal, though, it's crystal clear that there's still a path for Mike Krzyzewski to secure one final No. 1 seed.
Duke had sensational neutral-site victories over Gonzaga and Kentucky in November but seemed to be slipping into "what have you done for me lately?" territory. The Blue Devils lost at home to Miami (FL) and Virginia and dropped a road game against Florida State, giving them as many losses outside Quadrant 1 as they have top-tier wins over the past 10 weeks.
But, evidently, being the top dog in the ACC still carries a lot of weight, even with that conference in the midst of its worst season in decades.
However, even if Duke wins out to secure a sweep of the ACC's regular-season and conference tournament titles, a No. 1 seed is not guaranteed. The Blue Devils would presumably leapfrog one of Kansas/Baylor and one of Auburn/Kentucky, since only one of each duo can win its conference tournament. But they're going to need some help to climb all the way up to No. 4 overall.
Head-to-Head Does Sometimes Matter
We'll close on a quick note here: Burnett specifically said that the head-to-head result between Illinois and Wisconsin played a part in the decision to rank the former at No. 12 and the latter at No. 13.
How much of a factor was it?
Who knows?
But the fact that the Illini's 13-point home win over the Badgers on Feb. 2 was even mentioned on the broadcast surely means it was discussed among the committee—most likely near the end of the process while they were scrubbing the field and trying to decide if those teams should be flip-flopped on the No. 3 and No. 4 lines.
In spite of that little revelation, I still believe fans are way more swayed by head-to-head results than the committee is.
On occasion, it can serve as a tiebreaker of sorts. And the committee likely put a little extra emphasis on the Illinois-Wisconsin game because it was one of just eight contests in which both Kofi Cockburn and Andre Curbelo suited up for the Illini.
Generally speaking, though, one game won't make that much of a difference. (See: Kentucky two spots behind Kansas despite an 18-point road win over the Jayhawks.) Even two wins over No. 5 overall seed Baylor wasn't enough to get No. 10 overall seed Texas Tech up to the No. 2 seed line.
Kerry Miller covers men's college basketball and college football for Bleacher Report. You can follow him on Twitter: @kerrancejames.
.jpg?w=600 "Most Likely Post-June 1 Trade Candidates 👋")