tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19671848.post9123439276316293291..comments2023-11-03T08:23:55.100-04:00Comments on Global Review: March MadnessMacro Guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735930711259574574noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19671848.post-51197100022683558802011-03-29T12:09:51.973-04:002011-03-29T12:09:51.973-04:00That's a fun idea, but it misses the philosoph...That's a fun idea, but it misses the philosophy that Nate Silver also misses. Seeding is done to most advantage the better seed, chronologically. So, 1 plays 16, 2 plays 15, etc. Then, presume the higher seed wins, repeat.<br /><br />Your idea is much more fun, but it allows for behavior which can punish the higher seed. After all, if a team earns a 1 seed (of 64) and the 2 seed (of 64) decides to play them in the first round, that might be "fair" to the 2 seed since they freely chose a high profile first game, but it's not very fair to the 1 seed. Why would the 2 choose to play the 1? Their second, third, and likely fourth round games will be much easier, since 3-32 will steer clear of that branch.<br /><br />Furthermore, the NCAA doesn't want to seed 1-64; the 1-16 seeds allow them to treat similar teams as equals, instead of trying to decide which team is 11 and which is 12, or which is 41 and which is 42. Trying to rank at that fine a granularity is fraught with peril.<br /><br />Fun idea, but I don't think it's the most fair to the teams which have earned the easiest route through the tourney.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06518111693994712650noreply@blogger.com