Seed List

0Below 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: February 23, 2017

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. Villanova 2. Kansas 3. North Carolina 4. Gonzaga
5. Baylor 6. Louisville 7. Oregon 8. Arizona
9. Florida 10. Kentucky 11. Florida State 12. Duke
13. Butler 14. UCLA 15. West Virginia 16. Purdue
17. Notre Dame 18. Cincinnati 19. Wisconsin 20. Virginia
21. Minnesota 22. Creighton 23. SMU 24. Saint Mary’s
25. Maryland 26. Iowa State 27. Oklahoma State 28. Virginia Tech
29. South Carolina 30. Miami-FL 31. Northwestern 32. Dayton
33. VCU 34. Xavier 35. Arkansas 36. Michigan
37. USC 38. Michigan State 39. Wichita State 40. Marquette
41. Mid Tenn St 42. Syracuse 43. Seton Hall 44. California
45. Providence 46. Kansas State 47. Illinois State 48. NC-Wilmington
49. Monmouth 50. UT-Arlington
51. Valparaiso 52. Nevada 53. Vermont 54. Princeton
55. Akron 56. E. Tennessee St 57. Belmont 58. Fla Gulf Coast
59. Bucknell 60. NC-Asheville 61. No. Dakota St 62. CSU-Bakersfield
63. Tx-Southern 64. North Dakota 65. NC-Central 66. New Orleans
67. UC-Irvine 68. Mt. St. Mary’s

This is where the FIRST OUT at-large teams begin. While Wake Forest (in this case) isn’t rated lower than Mount St. Mary’s, 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. Wake Forest 70. TCU 71. Georgia Tech 72. Rhode Island
73. Vanderbilt 74. Clemson 75. Alabama 76. Houston
77. Tennessee 78. Pittsburgh 79. Boise State 80. Indiana
81. Texas Tech 82. Georgia 83. Charleston 84. Ole Miss
85. Illinois 86. New Mexico St 87. Colorado State 88. Auburn

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

  1. Marlu
    January 29, 2017 at 3:03 pm

    Ok state should be in one of the toughest schedules almost all of their losses were close and vs good teams and have beaten so very tough teams and have one of the premier stars in juwan Evans

    • Dave Ommen
      February 1, 2017 at 5:38 pm

      You’re correct about Oklahoma State’s strength of schedule. Related to OSU’s wins: TCU and Arkansas are very bubbly right now, as is Georgetown and Texas Tech. OSU moved just back in today, but they are still 3-6 in league play, which will need to be improved. I like the Cowboys, but their profile is very much around the cutline. As to Evans, “stars” are not an official consideration for the Selection Committee. Thanks!

  2. gotigersgo21
    February 1, 2017 at 8:42 am

    Hi Dave,

    I’m a Memphis fan, and I see we are the 11th team out at this point, which with the mess Pastner left us with is something that really couldn’t be fathomed at the start of the season. The fact that we are even in the hunt is a credit to Tubby, although Pastner seems to have changed his coaching philosophy and is doing well at GA Tech, go figure, but I digress. The Tigers only have 1 top 50 win at this point, with South Carolina (No. 20). We only have two top 50 opportunities remaining with Cincy and SMU…we also only have 1 win over teams 51-100, so my question is what would there be a lot of value if Iowa (#103), Tulsa (#107), UCF (#110), and maybe even UAB (#131) moving into the top 100? We also still have games remaining with Temple (#80) and Houston (#68).

    • Dave Ommen
      February 1, 2017 at 5:28 pm

      Thanks for following along! To your question, yes, those teams moving up would help to a point. Honestly, Memphis is being helped by the overall list of mediocre profiles out there. We have so many teams under consideration with sub-500 league records that eventually, winning still has to matter. Memphis needs to keep winning and avoid a bad loss; then see what happens around them. Could also still have another shot at Cincy or SMU in the AAC tourney.

  3. KREED5120
    February 2, 2017 at 5:37 pm

    Hi Dave,

    I see that you have the Zips as your 49th seed. I imagine that it is fair to assume that means you have them out if they don’t win the MAC as things currently stand. Roughly where would you place them in regards to the other at-large candidates?

    • Dave Ommen
      February 3, 2017 at 6:29 am

      First, thanks for your interest in Bracketville. The biggest hurdle facing Akron is a lack of “Quality” wins and/or opponents. The MAC isn’t helping. As of this morning, Akron is 0-2 vs. Top 100 teams and they’ve played 11 of 21 games against teams ranked 200+ in the RPI (10-1 against those teams). No shame in losing at Gonzaga or Creighton, but there isn’t much else to showcase. The BPI has them at 76, but with a better SOR (Strength of Record – 34, a relatively new metric). Akron is No. 99 at KenPom. Their overall SOS and NC-SOS numbers are over 200. In other words, the numbers don’t look favorable. But there is a caveat (at least right now). The bubble is mired in mediocrity, with a bunch of teams posting significant sub.500 league records and other issues. And winning still matters. So in a round-about way, I would put Akron somewhere in the group of four teams maybe 12-15 spots away. It depends on how metrics might be used. Example: Wichita State is similar in some respects, but the MVC is a little stronger at the top. WSU has a notably higher BPI (24) and KenPom (21) marks, although worse in the RPI. If Akron avoids another “really bad” loss and wins the MAC with say a one-loss run, they’ll be in the conversation should they lose in the MAC final. But at best, it’s probably a 50-50 deal in that situation, depending upon teams around them. Long way to go.

  4. kreed5120
    February 3, 2017 at 11:50 am

    Thanks Dave, I really appreciate the time and effort you took into getting that response. It was clearly well thought out. I actually agree with your assessment.

  5. Henry Muto
    February 4, 2017 at 12:56 pm

    I don’t see how Wichita State gets an at large bid this year even if they win out and then lose to Illinois State in the MVC finals. If they make it…it will be based on name alone. They have 0 top 100 RPI wins. If they win out they will have 1 top 100 RPI win. Their best non conf win was at home vs Tulsa. They beat LSU who stinks, Colorado State who is not good, Oklahoma who has a losing record. All losses were “good” losses but you have to beat someone. I pull for the mid majors as much as anyone but they do not deserve a bid based on their resume. Not sure how their KP rating can be so high when they have beat no one.

  6. February 6, 2017 at 3:15 pm

    How can Illinois State be one ahead of Wichita state, after they just lost to Wichita by 41?

    • Dave Ommen
      February 6, 2017 at 6:18 pm

      It can seem odd, but two quick things. Illinois State was several spots higher on the Seed List before the game. While the margin was certainly notable, Wichita State lost by double-digits at ISU three weeks ago. Based on how auto bids are chosen, ISU retained the MVC auto bid. They also have one other T100 win and hadn’t lost (prior to Saturday), since Dec. 23. Either way, both teams are right at the cutline as at-large contenders – at least for now. Thanks for your interest!

  7. Jim Costello
    February 13, 2017 at 12:38 pm

    Would Creighton have been a 1 or 2 seed if Maurice Watson hadn’t got hurt ? Do you think they could possibly have won it all ?

    • Dave Ommen
      February 20, 2017 at 6:53 pm

      I’m not sure Creighton could have been a 1 seed, but a 2-seed certainly if Watson had stayed healthy. Could easily have been a Final Four sleeper.

  8. Henry Muto
    February 19, 2017 at 10:37 pm

    I changed my tune on Wichita State. Their resume says out but their play says in. The problem I have is will the committee actually take them with such a bad resume ? They were a hot debate last year in or out and ended up in. I think if they lose in the conf tournament they will be a hot debate again.

  9. Kdjason
    February 20, 2017 at 6:21 pm

    Minnesota as an 8 seed? How is that possible with their rpi and sos? I know it seems like the big ten is weak, but the gophers are a couple overtime games from being a top 4 seed.

    • Dave Ommen
      February 20, 2017 at 6:59 pm

      Two quick things … Minnesota is the Top 8 seed, so one spot from a 7. Another solid week and the Gophers’ profile will even back out. The Committee made it clear on their first reveal that the Big Ten (at least then) didn’t have the same cache it’s had in the past. As of this morning, the Gophers had 4 wins vs. teams in the Field and two (Arkansas, Michigan) would still be bubble teams. It’s going to be tough for a Big Ten team to move above the 4 line. We’ll see how it plays out. Right now, those wins over Illinois, Ohio State, Indiana, and even Vanderbilt aren’t helping as much as anticipated. If that changes, it helps the Gophers.

  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: