Seed List

Below are two tables that display the Seed List (at the time of publication) – a tool used for my bracket projects and by the actual Selection Committee to seed teams into the bracket.

A couple of things to note:

Teams listed in BOLD are those noted as the automatic conference qualifier for the tournament, per how the bracket is put together.

The Seed List is not a poll. It is a ranking of teams based on the overall field at the time of publication. Whether it’s RPI, KenPom or some other metric, a variety of factors go into the Seed List at any given point in time. The Seed List reflects the 68-team field – and next contenders – not the entire college hoops landscape.

Updated: March 13, 2015  |  5:10 p.m. ET

To make it easier to follow, I didn’t use an actual “S” shape on the table; rather the highest seed on each line is to the left.

1. Kansas 2. North Carolina 3. Virginia 4. Michigan State
5. Oregon 6. Villanova 7. Oklahoma 8. West Virginia
9. Xavier 10. Miami 11. Utah 12. Purdue
13. Indiana 14. Kentucky 15. Texas AM 16. California
17. Iowa State 18. Maryland 19. Arizona 20. Duke
21. Baylor 22. Texas 23. Seton Hall 24. Notre Dame
25. Iowa 26. Providence 27. Dayton 28. Colorado
29. Wisconsin 30. Texas Tech 31. Oregon State 32. USC
33. Saint Joseph’s 34. Butler 35. Cincinnati 36. Connecticut
37. Pittsburgh 38. VCU 39. St. Bonaventure 40. Gonzaga
41. Wichita State 42. Monmouth 43. Temple 44. Syracuse
45. Michigan 46. Chattanooga 47. Ark-Little Rock 48. Northern Iowa
49. Stony Brook 50. So Dakota St
51. Iona 52. Yale 53. NC-Wilmington 54. Hawaii
55. S.F. Austin 56. Fresno State 57. Mid Tennessee 58. Buffalo
59. Green Bay 60. CSU-Bakersfield 61. Weber State 62. NC-Asheville
63. Hampton 64. Austin Peay 65. Southern 66. Fla Gulf Cst
67. Fair-Dickinson 68. Holy Cross

This is where the FIRST OUT at-large teams begin. While South Carolina (in this case) isn’t rated lower than Holy Cross, automatic qualifiers have to be ranked within the Field of 68. That’s why I’ve compiled the s-curve this way. Other sites choose to compile the list differently. Either way is fine. To me, it’s just easier to see the clear break from which teams are IN and which are close but in the next tier.

69. South Carolina 70. Saint Mary’s 71. San Diego St 72. Vanderbilt
73. Florida 74. Valparaiso 75. Geo Washington 76. Georgia

Thanks for you continued interest. Please share your thoughts. That’s a huge part of the fun as we work toward Selection Sunday.

  1. Nick Tursi
    January 5, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    Baylor and Cincy should not be in bracket based on their RPI’s
    Baylor has played no one and got absolutely thrashed by Kansas
    St. Joes and St. Mary’s should definitely be in the field

    • Dave Ommen
      January 5, 2016 at 6:45 pm

      Definitely some inconsistencies this time of year. Let’s see how the early conference season unfolds. I imagine we’ll see a lot of movement in the middle and lower ends of the bracket over the next couple of weeks. It is worth noting that Baylor’s three losses are to teams all ranked in the top 20 of the Seed List. And two of Cincinnati’s losses (Butler and Iowa State) were a combined four points – and did beat George Washington.

    • Timmy
      March 10, 2016 at 7:25 pm

      Cincy RPI is 37.. If u pull Lville and SMU their rpi is 35 from tourney eligible teams….

  2. Nathan Wright
    January 9, 2016 at 12:10 pm

    Thanks so much for the frequent updates. You do a great job. I use your list every week to see which teams outside the current field I should keep an eye on. I think you may have listed Notre Dame twice on the Jan. 9 update (33 & 35).

    • Dave Ommen
      January 9, 2016 at 1:23 pm

      Thank you! And you are correct, No. 33 should have been Connecticut (AAC rep). I’ve made the update.

  3. Nick Tursi
    January 18, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    I respect what you do here but your putting way too much weight on home wins against RPI Top 50 opponents. You can’t reward Clemson for getting lucky by the ACC scheduling Gods for giving them home games against all the top tier ACC teams. The committee needs to award teams that win on the road. RPI Top 50 wins on the road should be worth at least 3 times more when evaluating these bubble teams

    • Dave Ommen
      January 18, 2016 at 7:03 pm

      Nick, I wouldn’t call Clemson’s wins lucky, but schedule variations exist for sure. As noted in my column, Clemson still has a lot of work to do to stay in the Field – played a very poor non-conference schedule. But as of the posting, few other bubble teams had the Tigers’ wins – and they did beat Syracuse on the road. With four of next five away from home, the Tigers will sink or swim on their road performance. Also, their seeding is fragile, for them and many others. Appreciate your interest.

  4. January 25, 2016 at 6:34 pm

    Hey Dave,

    Wanted to drop a comment since I cant tweet you (my tweets are private).

    What do you think Cincy needs to do to get in? Would 23-8 put them in? Let’s assume the two losses are at UConn and at Tulsa (both RPI top 75 teams), meaning they’ll knock off UConn and SMU at home.

    I guess my second question would be, would UC have a shot at getting in with something lower, say 22-9 or even 21-10? Obviously this isn’t a perfect world and other things come into play, but let’s just think of them on their own. I don’t think many people are giving UC props for their road win at VCU (who hasn’t lost since UC beat them), and beating GW neutral. Also played Iowa State, Butler and SMU to 2 point games. Losses don’t count for much, but if it wen’t to eye test, those who watch UC would know they have the talent to knock off a 1 or 2 seed.

    • Dave Ommen
      February 9, 2016 at 6:57 am

      Tyler, I apologize for the delayed response. It’s difficult and dangerous to give a firm answer on what Cincinnati needs to do (other than win the automatic bid at the AAC tourney). The reason? What does the cutline (bubble) look like a month from now? I will agree that from a talent standpoint, UC should be an NCAA team. But things don’t always work out as planned. Right now (Feb. 9), Cincy is very bubbly, with a mid 60s RPI and its overall profile. While Memphis isn’t a “bad” team, it’s the type of game that an NCAA bubble team need to win, and why UC was among the First Four in Monday’s (Feb. 8) bracket. If UC can win two of three against Tulsa, UConn, and SMU, I think the Bearcats will end up okay provided they don’t give another one back by falling to UCF or East Carolina. In your scenario, I think 23-8 is probably okay; 22-9 is bubbly; and 21-10 could be problematic, without knowing the actual results.

  5. Joe Brown
    February 7, 2016 at 9:50 am

    First of all, I am a Memphis fan so I have come to the realization that we probably cannot get in even with winning out all the way to the AAC championship game. I’m just curious what you think would be the maximum number of bids the AAC could get if everything broke right, including a team that wouldn’t have gotten in otherwise (really crossing my fingers that it’s us) getting the autobid.

    • Dave Ommen
      February 9, 2016 at 6:40 am

      Joe, Sorry I’m a few days late in responding. You are correct about Memphis. With an RPI over 100 and only three top 100 wins (and only 1 true road win), the Tigers would need an extremely strong finish to re-emerge in the at-large picture. As for your other question, I think the max number of bids would be four – and that would require Cincinnati and either Temple/Tulsa to clearly emerge as a firm at-large candidate. It’s doubtful that will happen, but it could. If three bids were locked up ahead of the AAC tourney, then a surprise winner could make it four. Realistically, the AAC should hope for three.

  6. Andy
    February 15, 2016 at 12:25 pm

    What do you see Vanderbilt having to do to solidify a spot in the 68? Obviously a loss against Miss St. tomorrow would be tragic to their chances, but what about Georgia at home? And do they HAVE to win one of their final games against quality opponents (Florida, Kentucky, Texas A&M)? Basically what is the worst they could perform down the stretch and still make it into the tournament?

    • Dave Ommen
      February 15, 2016 at 6:53 pm

      The quick and easy answer is for Vanderbilt to simply win games, especially away from home, where they are 2-7 (true road games). So avoiding a misstep at Mississippi State and winning at Florida would help. The reason I say win games is that Vandy is 4-9 against the RPI Top 100; that’s a rather non NCAA-like number. Vandy has four Top 100 games left; winning three of those would be a good idea. On a lesser note, the Commodores are two games under .500 against the RPI Top 150, or roughly the top half of Division I – sometimes that is problematic. Now, the RPI is not the end-all-be-all; other metrics have Vandy ranked a bit higher. The good news, this year’s bubble is again on the weak side; otherwise Vandy would have much more work to do. I hesitate to comment about “the least they have to do” because so much depends on the landscape when final decisions are made. What if we have some tournament upsets?

  7. February 29, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Hey Dave, as a guy with an early Provi future of +5000 should I be concerned on them falling out of the field? As always, nice work

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: