Seedings ... and last bubble teams chosen

Discussion in 'College & Amateur Soccer' started by collegesoccerfan#1, Nov 15, 2004.

  1. collegesoccerfan#1

    collegesoccerfan#1 New Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    North Carolina
    The seeding from 1-16 is crystal clear, because the selection committee printed it right on the brackets. I'm not entirely confident of my logic, but if I understand the brackets correctly the seeding from 1-48 looks something like this:

    1. Wake Forest
    2. Indiana
    3. Maryland
    4. Virginia ***
    5. Notre Dame
    6. UCLA
    7. SMU ***
    8. UNC Greensboro
    9. UC Santa Barbara ***
    10. Penn State
    11. St. John’s (NY)
    12. ODU
    13. New Mexico ***
    14. Creighton
    15. Boston College
    16. Virginia Commonwealth
    17. North Carolina
    18. UConn ***
    19. Northwestern
    20. Washington
    21. Duke
    22. Boston U ***
    23. Tulsa
    24. San Francisco ***
    25. South Carolina
    26. California
    27. Loyola Marymount
    28. Ohio State
    29. American ***
    30. Seton Hall
    31. Michigan
    32. Florida International ***
    33. UCF ***
    34. Akron ***
    35. Hofstra ***
    36. Long Island ***
    37. Memphis ***
    38. Cal St. Northridge
    39. Santa Clara
    40. College of Charleston ***
    41. Wisconsin-Milwaukee ***
    42. Michigan State ***
    43. Dartmouth ***
    44. Coastal Carolina ***
    45. Portland
    46. Western Illinois ***
    47. Marist ***
    48. George Washington ***

    *** automatic bid

    I tried to mark the automatic bids, so if my logic for the seeding order is correct, it looks like the last at-large team chosen was Portland, followed by Santa Clara, then Cal St. Northridge, then Michigan, etc. It appears the committee was trying to do some geographic balancing, although I have no insight at all to the "real" selection process. For instance, would a west coast team get a bid over potentially a stronger east coast team if there were a shortage of strong west coast teams? I've seen a lot of posts on other threads about "how could so-and-so get in?" or "how could so-and-so be seeded so highly?". Does anyone know definitively how they select the at-large teams?
  2. recsoc

    recsoc Member

    Oct 4, 2003
    While your logic makes sense - unfortunately the NCAA's does not.
    Only the top 16 teams are seeded - the remianing 32 are largely based on costs associated w/ travel, and who has better facility/can draw a bigger gate for the first round home game.

    Note how the first round pairings geographically match, and how they also geographically match to the seeded team for the second round:
    Wake - UCF/FIU
    VCU - UNC/GW
    Notre Dame - OSU/Memphis
    ODU - Duke/Coastal
    UNM - Wash/Portland
    UVA - American/LIU
    Maryland - Seton Hall/HOfstra
    Creighton - Northwestern/W. Ill
    St. Johns - BU/Dartmouth
    UCLA - Loyola/CSUN
    SMU - Cal/Santa Clara
    Penn St - Tulsa/Mich
    BC - UCONN/Marist
    IU - Mich/Akron

    If you take travel costs into account - you will see the pairings make much more sense that way than seeding.
  3. collegesoccerfan#1

    collegesoccerfan#1 New Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    North Carolina
    You certainly have a point ... it would be good if there were some selection guidelines published somewhere ... that might make it easier for fans of "bubble" teams not chosen ... particularly if there were clear criteria.

    However, I guess like most season ending tournaments where all teams don't play the same schedule, there will always be that subjective judgment of the selection committee. Thanks for your perspective.
  4. numerista

    numerista New Member

    Mar 21, 2004
    Gotta say that these stick out. SMU was seeded #8, while New Mexico was seeded #13. There is no reason why geography would pair the Bay Area with Texas instead of New Mexico. So apparently the Cal/Santa Clara pairing was considered by the committee to be weaker than Washington/Portland.

    Here's what insane about that...
    -- Cal went 4-3-1 in the Pac-10, 8-0-2 in non-conference play.
    -- Washington also went 4-3-1 in the Pac-10 but only 7-3-1 in non-conference.

    -- Santa Clara went 8-4 in the WCC, 7-1 in non-conference play.
    -- Portland went only 6-5-1 in the WCC, 5-2-1 in non-conference.

    If you assume honesty and competence (big ifs, I know), I don't see how you come up with a bracket like this.

Share This Page