BuckeyeR0B
Junior
I could not get it to post right something was jacked with my browser.
I got it fixed
Upvote
0
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter Golferdow01
- Start date
I could not get it to post right something was jacked with my browser.
I got it fixed
zaga doesn't fit the profile of a 2 seed in my book. as 27 said, our competition for the #1 is memphis, not the zags.
HTML sometimes gives people fits when they try to post... no worries rob.
HTML sometimes gives people fits when they try to post... no worries rob.
Upvote
0
OSUBasketballJunkie
Never Forget 31-0
This is going to be merged with the NCAA discussion thread......1, 2, 3.....
Upvote
0
briegg
Heisman
FWIW, 5 seeds actually play 12 seeds in the 1st rd. Here is a link that show how the seeds have performed historically vs other seeds (that is confusing)
http://mcubed.net/ncaab/seeds.shtml
NCAA Basketball Tournament : Records per seed
Overall tournament record of #1 seeds: (328-94) 77.7%
vs. #1 (15-15) 50.0%
vs. #2 (27-22) 55.1%
vs. #3 (12-11) 52.2%
vs. #4 (32-16) 66.7%
vs. #5 (32-6) 84.2%
vs. #6 (10-5) 66.7%
vs. #7 (4-0) 100.0%
vs. #8 (43-13) 76.8%
vs. #9 (48-5) 90.6%
vs. #10 (4-0) 100.0%
vs. #11 (2-1) 66.7%
vs. #12 (13-0) 100.0%
vs. #13 (2-0) 100.0%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (84-0) 100.0%
Overall tournament record of #2 seeds: (238-103) 69.8%
vs. #1 (22-27) 44.9%
vs. #2 (1-1) 50.0%
vs. #3 (28-17) 62.2%
vs. #4 (3-3) 50.0%
vs. #5 (1-3) 25.0%
vs. #6 (19-9) 67.9%
vs. #7 (49-17) 74.2%
vs. #8 (4-2) 66.7%
vs. #9 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #10 (20-18) 52.6%
vs. #11 (9-1) 90.0%
vs. #12 (1-1) 50.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (80-4) 95.2%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%
Overall tournament record of #3 seeds: (172-105) 62.1%
vs. #1 (11-12) 47.8%
vs. #2 (17-28) 37.8%
vs. #3 (1-1) 50.0%
vs. #4 (4-1) 80.0%
vs. #5 (1-2) 33.3%
vs. #6 (32-34) 48.5%
vs. #7 (5-3) 62.5%
vs. #8 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #9 (2-0) 100.0%
vs. #10 (7-3) 70.0%
vs. #11 (21-7) 75.0%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (70-14) 83.3%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%
Overall tournament record of #4 seeds: (146-106) 57.9%
vs. #1 (16-32) 33.3%
vs. #2 (3-3) 50.0%
vs. #3 (1-4) 20.0%
vs. #4 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #5 (36-29) 55.4%
vs. #6 (2-4) 33.3%
vs. #7 (1-1) 50.0%
vs. #8 (2-5) 28.6%
vs. #9 (2-1) 66.7%
vs. #10 (2-0) 100.0%
vs. #11 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #12 (15-9) 62.5%
vs. #13 (65-18) 78.3%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%
Overall tournament record of #5 seeds: (128-108) 54.2%
vs. #1 (6-32) 15.8%
vs. #2 (3-1) 75.0%
vs. #3 (2-1) 66.7%
vs. #4 (29-36) 44.6%
vs. #5 (1-1) 50.0%
vs. #6 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #7 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #8 (1-3) 25.0%
vs. #9 (0-2) 0.0%
vs. #10 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #11 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #12 (74-30) 71.2%
vs. #13 (11-2) 84.6%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%
Overall tournament record of #6 seeds: (145-106) 57.8%
vs. #1 (5-10) 33.3%
vs. #2 (9-19) 32.1%
vs. #3 (34-32) 51.5%
vs. #4 (4-2) 66.7%
vs. #5 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #6 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #7 (4-3) 57.1%
vs. #8 (1-3) 25.0%
vs. #9 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #10 (6-4) 60.0%
vs. #11 (73-31) 70.2%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (9-2) 81.8%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%
Overall tournament record of #7 seeds: (92-108) 46.0%
vs. #1 (0-4) 0.0%
vs. #2 (17-49) 25.8%
vs. #3 (3-5) 37.5%
vs. #4 (1-1) 50.0%
vs. #5 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #6 (3-4) 42.9%
vs. #7 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #8 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #9 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #10 (66-41) 61.7%
vs. #11 (0-3) 0.0%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #15 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%
Overall tournament record of #8 seeds: (82-107) 43.4%
vs. #1 (13-43) 23.2%
vs. #2 (2-4) 33.3%
vs. #3 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #4 (5-2) 71.4%
vs. #5 (3-1) 75.0%
vs. #6 (3-1) 75.0%
vs. #7 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #8 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #9 (53-54) 49.5%
vs. #10 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #11 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #12 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #13 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%
Overall tournament record of #9 seeds: (63-107) 37.1%
vs. #1 (5-48) 9.4%
vs. #2 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #3 (0-2) 0.0%
vs. #4 (1-2) 33.3%
vs. #5 (2-0) 100.0%
vs. #6 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #7 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #8 (54-54) 50.0%
vs. #9 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #10 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #11 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%
Overall tournament record of #10 seeds: (70-107) 39.5%
vs. #1 (0-4) 0.0%
vs. #2 (18-20) 47.4%
vs. #3 (3-7) 30.0%
vs. #4 (0-2) 0.0%
vs. #5 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #6 (4-6) 40.0%
vs. #7 (41-66) 38.3%
vs. #8 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #9 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #10 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #11 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #15 (3-0) 100.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%
Overall tournament record of #11 seeds: (46-106) 30.3%
vs. #1 (1-2) 33.3%
vs. #2 (1-9) 10.0%
vs. #3 (7-21) 25.0%
vs. #4 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #5 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #6 (31-73) 29.8%
vs. #7 (3-0) 100.0%
vs. #8 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #9 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #10 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #11 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (3-0) 100.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%
Overall tournament record of #12 seeds: (44-104) 29.7%
vs. #1 (0-13) 0.0%
vs. #2 (1-1) 50.0%
vs. #3 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #4 (9-15) 37.5%
vs. #5 (29-74) 28.2%
vs. #6 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #7 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #8 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #9 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #10 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #11 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (4-1) 80.0%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%
Overall tournament record of #13 seeds: (21-83) 20.2%
vs. #1 (0-2) 0.0%
vs. #2 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #3 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #4 (18-65) 21.7%
vs. #5 (2-11) 15.4%
vs. #6 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #7 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #8 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #9 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #10 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #11 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #12 (1-4) 20.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%
Overall tournament record of #14 seeds: (16-84) 16.0%
vs. #1 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #2 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #3 (14-70) 16.7%
vs. #4 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #5 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #6 (2-9) 18.2%
vs. #7 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #8 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #9 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #10 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #11 (0-3) 0.0%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%
Overall tournament record of #15 seeds: (4-85) 4.5%
vs. #1 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #2 (4-80) 4.8%
vs. #3 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #4 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #5 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #6 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #7 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #8 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #9 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #10 (0-3) 0.0%
vs. #11 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%
Overall tournament record of #16 seeds: (0-84) 0.0%
vs. #1 (0-84) 0.0%
vs. #2 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #3 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #4 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #5 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #6 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #7 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #8 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #9 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #10 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #11 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%
Upvote
0
holybuckeye33
Hall of Fame
Has to be a typo, only four 15 seeds have won in round one (Richmond, 1991; Santa Clara, 1993; Coppin St., 1997; and Hampton, 2001) and none of them got past the second round. See the percentages of the 15 seeds, they only have four wins and only against two seeds, but for some reason have 0-1 against a four as well.
Upvote
0
Golferdow01
East-Coast Living
Seems fairly accurate. The seeding selection committee deserves kudos 
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Fungo Squiggly
Mortal enemy of all things Bucky
Yahoo Pickem Champ
Former Game Champion
'18 BPCFFB II Champ
'18 Keeper League Champ
If you look below, #13 seeds have a total of 83 losses listed, while #15 seeds have a total of 85. Since the tournament expanded to 64 teams 21 years ago, it is apparent that one of the victories by a #4 seed over a #13 seed was recorded incorrectly.
Upvote
0
briegg
Heisman
It must have been pre-1985. The four times it happened since 1985 have been 1 and done for the 15. (Hampton, Coppin St, Santa Clara, Richmond).
Another interesting site for those of us who's work is not so interesting.
http://bracketville.tripod.com/seeds.html
Upvote
0
calibuck
Too soon old, too late smart
The wonderful world of Mathematics
Outstanding job briegg, Bucky Katt, and holy buckeye33. I was in error on what my remembrances were. (of course an even (4) cannot play an even (12) in the first round). Slipped right by me. I guess the 13 vs 4 upsets make the most memorable games........I know I pick at least one when I do my office pool picks on who reaches the Final Four.
Now if I want to play the percentages, I'll use your cheat sheet. Again, great job.
:osu:
Outstanding job briegg, Bucky Katt, and holy buckeye33. I was in error on what my remembrances were. (of course an even (4) cannot play an even (12) in the first round). Slipped right by me. I guess the 13 vs 4 upsets make the most memorable games........I know I pick at least one when I do my office pool picks on who reaches the Final Four.
Now if I want to play the percentages, I'll use your cheat sheet. Again, great job.
:osu:
Upvote
0
Seeds have always been problematic, but getting a 1 vs a 2 is no big deal IMO.
What is far more important is who ends up in your path to the Final Four. It isn't even a matter of how 'good' those teams are, but how well you match up. You can look at two #7 seeds and find completely different types of team.
The issue of 1 vs 2 - other than the prestige that goes with a 1 - is a tempest in a teapot.
What is far more important is who ends up in your path to the Final Four. It isn't even a matter of how 'good' those teams are, but how well you match up. You can look at two #7 seeds and find completely different types of team.
The issue of 1 vs 2 - other than the prestige that goes with a 1 - is a tempest in a teapot.
Upvote
0
themongoose32
Senior
Well My Butler Bulldogs are official out of contention now for the Tournament, hopefully an NIT bid will go there way, so I can spend my full fan attention towards the buckeyes now. Hopefully they will not disapoint, but after the season we have had so far I don't know how we could say anything that happens in a the tournament could be a disapointment.
GO BUCKS
The Mongoose
GO BUCKS
The Mongoose
Upvote
0
OHSportsFan
Fan of Ohio Sports in Indy
I was hoping for a Butler win tonight also. Looks like only 1 Indiana team will make the tournament (IU). I was rooting for IUPUI last night too, but they blew it. They should be good for the next few years under Ron Hunter, they bring in some real good athletes (that usually aren't academically capable of getting into bigger schools).themongoose32 said:
On the Buckeyes- I agree with most in that the 1 or 2 doesn't really matter. We're going to meet some solid-to-real good teams either way down the road.
Upvote
0
OSUBasketballJunkie
Never Forget 31-0
Oral Roberts got in last night......its been I believe 20 + years since they last went to the Dance...
Upvote
0
Well, Good news for BN27. Jerry McNamara split two defenders and made a runner, taking off from just outside the 3-point line, to beat Cincy 74-73 with a half-second left. Cincy's half-court heave bounced off the front of the rim at the buzzer. I think 'Cuse still needs to beat UConn tomorrow to get in.
And Cincy's a little closer to the bubble.
And Cincy's a little closer to the bubble.
Upvote
0