Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Bracketology 101's Field of 65 - March 10

Where are all the bid stealers? Two nights after top-seeded Northern Iowa punched its dance ticket, and one night after top-seeded Old Dominion earned the Colonial's automatic bid, Butler destroyed Wright State 70-45 at Hinkle Fieldhouse in the final of the Horizon conference tourney.

The Bulldogs' blowout victory one of several key results on what was a busy day for major and mid-major bubble teams. Most of those teams are from the Big East and the A-10, both of which kicked off their tourneys on Tuesday. Here's a quick recap:

In the Big East...
UConn seemingly wasn't aware -or didn't care - that it was playing for its at-large life against St. John's in its Big East opener. The Huskies absolutely mailed it in against the much hungrier Red Storm, losing 73-51 and leaving (a retiring?) Jim Calhoun pretty speechless at the podium afterwards. In more important Big East news, both South Florida and Seton Hall each won their first round games to set up a pair of potential win-and-maybe-in games on Wednesday. Dominique Jones and the Bulls had no problem with DePaul in their first round game, and the Pirates escaped - after nearly blowing a 29-point lead - to beat Providence 109-106. South Florida faces Georgetown in the early game at the Garden on Wednesday, and Seton Hall takes on Notre Dame in the night session. St. John's will face Marquette, and Cincinnati - who barely survived a scare against Rutgers - will take on Louisville in the other two second round games.

In the A-10...
Charlotte's late-season skid ended with a loss to UMass in the first round of the A-10 tourney. Rhode Island beat St. Joseph's and Dayton beat George Washington in their first round games. The Rams face Saint Louis and the Flyers take Xavier in the quarterfinals on Friday.

Besides Butler, there were two other automatic bids handed out Tuesday night as well. Derick Nelson scored 36 points to lead Oakland to a 76-64 win over IUPUI in the Summit final, and Josh White hit the game-winner with 22 seconds left for North Texas, as the Mean Green beat Troy 66-63 in the Sun Belt final. Elsewhere, top-seeded Weber State and fourth-seeded Montana each won their semifinals to advance to tomorrow's Big Sky title game.

The Breakdown
Last Four In

San Diego State, Washington, Mississippi, South Florida

Last Four Out
Georgia Tech, Seton Hall, Illinois, Arizona State

Next Four Out
Minnesota, Mississippi State, Saint Louis, UAB

---------------------------------------------------------------

Conference Breakdown
Big East (9), Big XII (7), ACC (6), SEC (5), Big Ten (4), MWC (4), A-10 (3), C-USA (2), Pac-10 (2), WCC (2)

America East - Vermont

ACC - Duke, Maryland, Clemson, Florida State, Wake Forest, Virginia Tech

Atlantic Sun - East Tennessee State

A-10 - Temple, Xavier, Richmond

Big East - Syracuse, West Virginia, Villanova, Pittsburgh, Georgetown, Marquette, Louisville, Notre Dame, South Florida

Big Sky - Weber State

Big South - Winthrop

Big Ten - Purdue, Ohio State, Michigan State, Wisconsin

Big XII - Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor, Texas A&M, Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma State

Big West - UC-Santa Barbara

Colonial - Old Dominion

Conference USA - Memphis, UTEP

Horizon - Butler

Ivy - Cornell

MAAC - Siena

MAC - Kent State

MEAC - Morgan State

MVC - Northern Iowa

MWC - New Mexico, BYU, UNLV, San Diego State

Northeast - Quinnipiac

Ohio Valley - Murray State

Pac-10 - California, Washington

Patriot - Lehigh

SEC - Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Florida, Mississippi

Southern - Wofford

Southland - Sam Houston State

Summit - Oakland

Sun Belt - North Texas

SWAC
- Jackson State

WAC - Utah State

WCC - St. Mary's, Gonzaga

----------------------------------------------------------------

The Seeds
The 1s
Kansas, Kentucky, Syracuse, Duke

The 2s
Purdue, West Virginia, Ohio State, Kansas State

The 3s
Villanova, New Mexico, Temple, Pittsburgh

The 4s
Michigan State, Wisconsin, Maryland, Tennessee

The 5s
Baylor, Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Butler

The 6s
Texas A&M, Xavier, BYU, Richmond

The 7s
Gonzaga, Texas, Missouri, Clemson

The 8s
Florida State, Oklahoma State, Northern Iowa, Wake Forest

The 9s
Marquette, Louisville, California, UNLV

The 10s
St. Mary's,
Utah State, Notre Dame, Old Dominion

The 11s
UTEP, Florida, Virginia Tech, Cornell

The 12s
Siena, San Diego State, Washington, Mississippi

The 13s
South Florida, Memphis, Kent State, Murray State

The 14s
Oakland,
Wofford, Weber State, UC-Santa Barbara

The 15s
Sam Houston State, Morgan State, North Texas, Vermont

The 16s
East Tennessee State, Winthrop,
Lehigh, Quinnipiac (Play-In Game), Jackson State (Play-In Game)

The Bracket
(Bracket courtesy Matt Reeves)











Questions? Comments? E-mail Bracketology 101 at bracketologyblog@yahoo.com

67 comments:

SamENole said...

Can you please explain your logic for having Gonzaga as your top rated 7 seed? I'm looking at all your 7 and 8 seeds' resumes and every single one of them has a better resume than the Zags.

They have exactly one good win and that came against Wisconsin in November. Their 2nd and 3rd best wins came against St. Mary's a team who just spanked them when it mattered the most and a team that might not have even gotten in the field if not for that win. A few weeks ago their wins over Illinois and Cincinnati might've looked good, but they don't any more. On top of their lack of quality wins they have 2 horrendous losses against (#175) Loyola Marymount and (#206) San Francisco.

If you're going by their resume and not their prior hisory, they should either be one of the last 8 seeds or one of the first 9 seeds.

Bracketology 101 said...

There are always going to be warts on the resumes of teams that are on the 7-9 lines, but we like Gonzaga to be a 7 for a couple of reasons (some of which you mentioned). They have a big OOC win (Wisconsin), they have 13 road/neutral wins, four Top 50 road/neutral wins, and they won the WCC regular season title. Their wins over Illinois and Cincinnati don't look as good anymore, but their wins over St. Mary's are looking better than ever. They also have a road win at Memphis that is looking better now than it did back in early February. And finally, they're Gonzaga. Prior history isn't supposed to play a role in this year's seeding, but the committee is made up of people who are used to seeing the Zags in the field. That will help them in the selection room and we have to give them credit for it too. For all of those reasons, we can't see Gonzaga falling below the 7 line.

Anonymous said...

Is Saint Louis really closer to the bubble than Wichita State? I don't think WSU is going to get in, but I do think they will be among the first 8 out.

Anonymous said...

It's funny how in a year with such a "weak" bubble that so far no bid stealers have come in to shrink the bubble. Now the chances for some of these teams to get in is getting much better when in most years they would already be preparing for the NIT.

Anonymous said...

Why does a team who hasn't lost in 14 games and who is in the top 25 and has a good RPI (Utep), keep going down in seed every time you release a new bracket. I could see if they were hurting themselves with losses, but that's not the case. I respect you guys, but your way off, if they don't win the tourney they are at the lowest a 9 or 10 if they win they are a 6 or 7.

Anonymous said...

Hi Guys, Love your work. You put a lot of effort into this and it's a pleasure to read. Still hanging on to hope that Minnesota could have a snowballs chance, if the unthinkable happens and Northwestern should beat Purdue, which they have two out of the last three, and Minnesota gets by Penn State and Michigan State and meets Northwestern in the semi's - is that enough? Or would Minnesota need the Purdue game, provided they win of course, to get a decent chance at a bid?

Anonymous said...

Guys on the last bracket criticized my use of the top 180 RPI to point out how awful Illinois and Ohio state were, in comparison to how they are thought of, because 180 is not a standardly-used number. My point was that maybe the standard numbers lie. So i looked further, dipping into the standard numbers...

Illinois is 5-12 vs the top 100. FIVE AND 11. They aren't just under .500 there, they are at .3125winning percentage. Can you really consider a team with a .3125 Winning percentage against the top 100 teams a legitimate contender for a berth as one of the top 48(the top 12 seeds tend to include the entirety of the bubble teams, 12 seeds is 48 teams). They are 5-8 vs the top 75... This looks much better, doesn't it? The only issue with that is it doesn't include the 5 losses against sub-75 RPI teams. They are 4-8 vs top 50 teams. Is that impressive? 3-4 vs top 25 teams, but their 3 wins include 2 that will not count against the teams they beat because of injuries, (wisconsin without leuer, michigan state without lucas) So they are really 1-4 vs top 25, with a couple of incredibly questionable wins.


My problem with rankings against the top 25-50-100 teams is the same, in essence, as your problem with my using the top 180, it's an incomplete stat. The top 180 doesn't include good wins, the top 25 excludes bad losses. So I'll find a different stat that is more inclusive... How about top 50ish wins/losses outside of top 75? This includes all the wins that are mostly good, and all the losses that are mostly bad.

Illinois, 2-6(plus win vs Leuer-less wisconsin, lucas-less michigan state, includes loss against 78 RPI minnesota).

Florida 3-3(includes win at 56 mississippi.)

Same number of wins, but 2 less bad losses, advantage florida.

Washington 4-5 ( includes 2 wins vs 53 ranked Washington)


Same number of bad losses, but 2 more good wins.Advantage Washington.

Arizona state 1-3

1 less quality win, but only 3 bad losses... Push.

Georgia Tech 4-3

Nothing to say here. HUGE advantage GT.

Seton Hall 3-0

Again, Huge advantage seton hall... Don't see how any number of wins vs. top 50 teams, whether it's 2(now) or 4(with things falling together for a finals run in the big 10) could overcome the fact that Illinois has 5 more bad losses than seton hall.

Conneticut 4-2.

Again, HUGE advantage Uconn...


Memphis 3-3(includes win vs 57 oakland)

Advantage memphis.

VCU 3-4

Advantage VCU.

Ole Miss 2-1

Advantage Ole Miss, Same as seton hall, how can you put illinois in over them, when Illinois has 4 more bad losses?

Charlotte 3-2

Advantage charlotte.

Mississippi St. 3-4

More Quality wins, less bad losses. ADV MSU

USF 5-3(includes 55 Uconn, 54 Seton Hall)

ADV USF


These advantages are based solely on the records displayed.

AG said...

All of what you're saying is probably why Illinois has such a weak RPI.

I think Minnesota and Northwestern are at serious risk of losing in the first round of the Big Ten Tournament to Penn State and Indiana. Minnesota needed a buzzer beater to beat PSU last time, and NW's defense has completely collapsed. At first glance, Michigan looks at risk too but Iowa is such an awful team away from Carver-Hawkeye.

USF and Seton Hall showed some serious warts in their first round games. Sure they won, but USF had 56 of its 58 points in the paint or at the free throw line. That means, against THE worst major conference team in America, they made exactly ONE jumpshot. And while Seton Hall's offense was the perfect matchup for Providence's non-defense, their own defense cost them dearly.

Finally, Butler's huge win was a hollow victory. Sure they went 21-0 vs the Horizon League, but does anyone expect them not to be the most likely 5/12 upset? Their record against major conference opponents is really really weak.

Bracketology 101 said...

UTEP's fall in our bracket over the last week is based on UAB's struggles down the stretch. UTEP was a single digit seed when those UAB wins really meant something; now they don't look as great and now the Miners have just one win over a team currently in our bracket. Even that team - Memphis - is in as a bid-stealer, not as an at-large worthy team.

Saint Louis is ahead of Wichita State because the Bilikens have a chance to pick up two more quality wins in the quarters (URI) and semis (Temple) of the A-10 tournament. Wichita is done for the season and finished with just one Top 50 win (UNI), two bad losses down the stretch (Evansville, Bradley) and a double-digit BracketBuster loss at Utah State. They don't have a resume worthy of an at-large. Saint Louis doesn't yet, either, but they can get there with a couple more wins.

Anonymous said...

OSU's situation is similar also...

5-2(loss to UM without turner excluded)

WVU 9-0(2 wins over 54 Seton hall, win over 56 OLE miss included, win over 59 marquette excluded)

KSU 6-2

Maryland 5-0

Massive advantage UM

Texas A&M 4-0

Massive ADV A&M

Butler 3-1

Georgetown 9-1 (includes win v Seton Hall, Uconn).

Oklahoma State 4-1(includes at 71 tulsa)

New Mexico 6-1(51 dayton included)

BYU 4-0 (53 Arizona st included)

Temple 8-1(51 dayton, only loss is at 76 St. johns)

Villanova 7-0 (51 dayton, 56 Mississippi, 54 Seton Hall included)(only ONE loss outside top 15.)

Pitt 8-1 (55 Uconn, 54 seton hall included)

I don't know if you can argue that OSU's resume is better than ANY of those teams, based on that statistic.

Anonymous said...

@AG

To be fair, Depaul only has 1 loss vs teams outside the top 151, Indiana has 4. And you can poke holes in ANY teams wins... But the fact is they still won the game. Is shooting percentage from outside the paint really a reliable statistic to rank teams by?

Dave said...

Sounds like "Anonymous" is a Michigan fan hating on Illinois and Ohio State.

Being an Illini fan I personally don't think we have the stats to get in, but with all of the other bubble teams so weak we've shown we can knock off the big boys (Clemson, Vandy, MSU, Wisconsin, OT loss to Gonzaga).

Does the committee want someone who can knock off the 100th best team in the country? or the 25th? Win vs. Wisconsin and the Illini are in.

Anonymous said...

The anonymous 9:28 post's records are using the same formula as the 8:54 post.

Anonymous said...

Dave, actually I'm not a michigan fan, I just think that illinois's schedule is exceptionally weak, a fact that is hidden by the fact that they have 6 conference wins vs teams ranked 189, 196, and 213 in the RPI.

Anonymous said...

But the beauty of it all is no one here is on the selection committee. Anything could happen. That's what makes it so damn fun.

Anonymous said...

Ohio State does not have a good PI resume. Outside of a few cases, primarily from highly ranked non-BCS schools, though, the AP poll's top 8 has been an excellent predictor of the #1 and #2 seeds. Look where Ohio State is there. I know Louisville 2005 was brought up as a counter argument before, but that was CUSA Louisville, who got a #4 seed despite being ranked #4. That team lived up to its AP ranking, too, by making the final 4.

Anonymous said...

I just defended Ohio State's seeding, but I won't defend Illinois. Teams with RPIs in the mid 70s just aren't picked as at-large teams, outside of extenuating circumstances. New Mexico '99 was ranked AP Top 25 all year long. Air Force '04 was a conference champion above other teams with typical at-large RPI rankings. I see Illinois as behind Georgia Tech and Seton Hall. If quality wins are the only factor, William & Mary has almost as much of a case as Illinois.

mag900 said...

since when do you knock a team for getting easy shots (in the paint) and getting to the foul line after being fouled? would you rather them to have been taking 20 foot jumpers than lay-ups and dunks?

Dave said...

In any other year, Illinois would not be in the conversation. The truth is Illinois has beaten the people they're supposed to beat in the Big 10. It's not their fault that Iowa, PSU, Indiana, Michigan etc are horrible.

They played a strong OOC schedule with Vandy, Clemson, Missouri, and Gonzaga.

I'm a realist in thinking that Illinois won't be in, but I don't understand how teams can be penalized for other teams playing poorly, affecting the SOS

Speaking for OSU if they win the Big 10 I think they should be the last #1.

mag900 said...

dave, beating the dregs of your BCS conference is not enough to get an at large bid. you need to do more against the upper half of your BCS conference to get a bid. illinois will have its shot to do that this week. if not, then hello NIT.

Justin said...

Count me among those that thinks that Illinois' record is much worse than every other at large team. They have 4 good wins, two of which came at the tail end of a 5 game winning streak and got them in the discussion, and one OK win over Wofford.

Besides those 5 wins, none of the rest of their wins are against teams that are good, and most of those are against teams that are downright terrible. In addition, they have THIRTEEN losses. Most to quality enough teams, though a few to questionable teams, but they've reached the UConn tipping point where you can't excuse that many losses.

That five game winning streak (3 of which were wins over Iowa, PSU, Indiana) is the only reason we're talking about them. It got them in the national discussion, and they somehow managed to stay in it despite tanking the rest of the way.

Dave said...

I agree 100% that beating the bottom teams in any conference shouldn't get you into the tournament.

But with how watered down the NCAA this league is year, beating all the teams below you and knocking off a few of the big boys may be enough.

What doesn't make much sense to me is beating a team in December that is ranked #1 is nearly worthless if they fall on their face in March. They were #1 for a reason in December, which means they were a good team. How can the level at which a team is playing in March diminish a win in December?

This doesn't apply to Illinois, but I keep hearing people say "This win doesn't look as good as it used to".

Anonymous said...

Dave, my theory would be that in most cases like you are saying, where a team is ranked number 1, or 2, or even 10, and then falls off a cliff, the reason is that instead of suddenly sucking, the team was just always bad, and we just didn't know it yet.

It looks, for example, like texas(who was #1) had only played a couple of games(in their undefeated start) in which the 50th best team could be expected to be challenged, and that's Pitt and UNC, and we obviously know UNC sucks,so is it more likely that texas was the best team, but got worse, or just hadn't really been tested enough to be revealed as mediocre?

mag900 said...

being #1 in december doesn't mean much if the team never should have been #1 in december. the polls are notorious for being way off and they are even further off the first couple months of the year when they are based largely on guesswork.

unc was preseason #4 and shouldn't have been so why should a team get some extra credit for having beaten them before their true colors showed and they dropped out of the pool? they don't.

Anonymous said...

What happens if URI beats St. Louis? How about if they then beat Temple? Two late bad losses but body of work otherwise e.g. close games against your #6 seeds should have them as a 12?

Anonymous said...

Is ND in even with a loss tonight to Seton Hall?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous... You don't get bids on close losses.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't be completely shocked if the committee let UConn in as a parting gift to Jim Calhoun.

Anonymous said...

I've been hearing all year that the ACC is down but yet looking at conference ratings of Ken Pomeroy and Sagarin, the ACC is 1 and 2 respectively. The Big 12 is 1 and 2 and Big East is 3 and Big Ten is 4. Does the committee look at these ratings and RPI more heavily than rankings when it comes time to seed.

mag900 said...

the acc is 1 or 2 because it doesn't really have a bottom pulling its ratings down. having the likes of depaul, rutgers, indiana, iowa or lsu drags the whole conference down. the acc doesn't have a team under .500 and the worst teams still are decent (bc, nc st and uva).

the acc also doesn't have much at the top, but that's another discussion.

Anonymous said...

According to my calculations...

Duke has 10 top 50ish wins, vs 1 loss outside the top 75,

Maryland has 6 top 50 wins, vs 0 outside the top 75

Florida state has 5 top 50ish wins, vs 0 outside the top 75

Wake has 6 top 50 wins, vs 1 loss outside the top 75

Clemson has 5 top 50 wins, vs 1 outside the top 75.

So ALTOGETHER

The ACC's 5 best team have a combined 32 top 50 wins, vs 3 losses(all in conference, all on the road) outside the top 75 teams.

I don't see quite how you can think the ACC's top teams are bad.

Anonymous said...

I understand WSU isn't probably getting in, but doesn't 9 RPI top 100 wins and having a top 50 RPI get you into the discussion at least?

mag900 said...

well, when the #1 team, duke, gets blown out by probably the 5th best BE team and then loses to probably the 4th best B10 team, it's hard to see them as even close to the top of the BE and B10.

the #2 team, maryland, likewise lost to wisconsin and also lost to villanova and cincy (they did beat bottom dweller indiana!) and none of these 3 games was close.

so, the 2 best teams in the acc were a combined 0-3 against NCAAT teams in the BE and B10 and lost another game to NIT-bound cincy. most of the top 50 wins you mention were just wins within the ACC. it's hard to argue that the top of the ACC is truly elite when the best OOC win by its top 2 teams is to gonzaga on a neutral court when gonzaga's best player was semi coherent with a lingering concussion.

DavidATL said...

@ Anon 11:42

Another issue with the various conference ratings, etc. is that they are necessarily self-fulfilling, and further, highly dependent on where you slot teams at the beginning of the season. Example: If you put Miami (FL) as your preseason #1 (yes, I know, nobody is, but just go with me on this for a sec), and then Miami goes on to have a perfect 14-0 start prior to league play beginning, then in most situations they will be the #1 ranked or at least very highly (top 5-10) ranked team going into the league season. Then, when they go on to go 4-12 in conference, all of the other teams in the conference benefit (i.e., get pulled up) from beating them. Meanwhile Miami does not go down as far/fast, since they are being beaten by highly ranked teams.

Just my 2 cents, and any computer ranking system is going to be prone to distortion, but it would be an interesting experiment if you took any of the various computer ranking systems and ran exactly the same season results, but with an inverse starting order (that is, take the actual #1 and put it as the #341 or whatever and just flip the entire starting table). I guarantee that your results would not look the same as they do now.

Anonymous said...

I think the ACC does have a lot at the top. Duke is #1 or #2 in every single predictive ranking like Sagarin Predictor or Pomeroy. Maryland hoves around #8 in such rankings.

DavidATL said...

OK, guys, in light of the lack of bid-stealing, etc., is it too early to contemplate a 3 bid Pac-10? I know that we all have been ripping on them all season, and for fairly good reason. However, seeing as I have no faith in either OleMiss or Miss.St. beating Florida and Tenn, and assuming that there are no big surprises coming out of the Big10 or BigEast tourneys (especially after UConn has flamed out), and considering that there are really not too many bubble teams in the Big12 or ACC (GaTech maybe, but they are in total disarray at the moment), it seems that the door is open for Cal, UWash and ASU all getting in (even though Wash and ASU are likely playing in the semis and last I checked there is no way under the rules for both to win that game). Thoughts B101?

Anonymous said...

The question was about what the committee uses not whether you agree with the statistics that the ACC conference is a better conference than the BE and B10.

The rankings are very subjective and you see teams that are much higher in the rankings than their RPIs like an Ohio State and a Michigan State and others that are much lower than their respective RPIs like a Northern Iowa and a Texas A&M.

Anonymous said...

My personal guess is that Washington and Arizona State are really playing a knockout game. Right now, it does seem like they could get both get in, and South Florida seems to be disappearing as a legit option as I type this, but I still think something funny is going to happen in some of these tournaments. The bid stealers aren't there yet, but I'm thinking UTEP, Utah State, one of the Big Three in A-10, one of the Big Three in the MWC is going to falter and close up some of these seemingly open bubble spots. I could see the Pac-10 getting three if some team knocks of Cal in the semis and then the ASU/Washington winner in the finals. Only one from ASU/Washington, but 3 Pac-10 teams.

DavidATL said...

Understood, but looking back at the long-since written off Pac 10, it seems that both Washington and ASU have (1) righted the ship and (2) avoided the kind of stupid in-conference losses that the rest of the bubblers are taking. In last 10 games, both are 8-2. ASU has only lost to Wash and Cal-Berkeley. Washington losses were at Cal and by 3 to USC. Each are right around the 50 mark in RPI, which is significantly better than Illinois, Miss, St.Louis, Minn, MissSt, etc. South Florida is gone -- playing the seniors and subs now. Seems that competitive bubblers are dropping like flies.

Seriously, assuming (1) each of UW and ASU win their first round Pac-10 tourney games and (2) there are not too many surprises out of the other BCS tourneys, then I think that the Pac-10 could be a 3-bid league.

mag900 said...

"The question was about what the committee uses not whether you agree with the statistics that the ACC conference is a better conference than the BE and B10."

um, no. the question was why the ACC is ranked 1/2 and if the committee accounts for that. i was explaining why the ACC is 1/2 despite not having done much OOC. if you swap out nc st and uva with depaul and rutgers, the ACC wouldn't be 1/2 anymore and neither nc st nor uva is in the discussion for bids.

Anonymous said...

How many of the ACC's top 50 wins came out of conference?

Other than UNC, everyone else's OOC resume just isn't that good in the ACC.

Anonymous said...

WTF is top 50ish?

Pretty sure that's not on the nitty gritty report.

Anonymous said...

The computer rankings won't have different end of season rankings if you started them in a different order. Pomeroy starts all the teams at 0. Sagarin has a preseason value that gets gradually removed over the season, and is non-existent at the end of the season.

Anonymous said...

Duke has 1 top 50 win OOC (Gonzaga).

Maryland has 0 top 50 wins OOC.

FSU has 0 top 50 wins OOC.

Wake has 3 top 50 wins OOC (Xavier, Richmond, Gonzaga)

Clemson has 1 top 50 win OOC (Butler)

Anyone noticing a pattern here? All the ACC's best teams top 50 wins are against mid major teams.

Anonymous said...

Florida State did beat Marquette, though. Yes, Marquette is not a top 50 RPI team, but I think they'd be considered a top 50 team in seeding principles.

mag900 said...

i think the fact that you are claiming that the ACC's marquee OOC win was against the team that tied for 5th in the BE speaks for itself in terms of how weak the ACC was OOC.

Anonymous said...

Top 100
Conf OOC Total %
Duke 13-3 6-2 .792
Purdue 11-4 4-0 .789
Wisc 10-5 4-1 .700
MD 13-3 0-3 .684
MSU 12-4 2-3 .667
OSU 10-4 2-3 .632
FSU 10-6 3-2 .619
Clem 9-7 2-2 .550

Anonymous said...

The acc doesn't have anyone at the top? Are you insane? Duke and Maryland will both be in the elite 8....not many if any at all can say that

mag900 said...

i'd love to take the other side of your claim of duke and maryland in the elite 8. could you make any more of an ignorant boast given that you haven't even seen the bracket yet?

Anonymous said...

Georgetown looks like they locked up a 5 seed and will likely be a 4 if they are decent tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

I think Georgetown actually gets on the end of the 4 line tonight, passing Tennessee. I think they are also ahead of Wisconsin, too. They probably fell a little too far out of a (perfectly reasonable) concern they were collapsing, but with the convincing wins over Cincy & S Fla, they should be back to their true S-curve spot (14 or so). If they lose tomorrow -- I think they end up at the bottom of 4/top of 5 depending on other results from the weekend. If they win -- I have to believe they are back in the 3 discussion.

Bracketology 101 said...

We can't believe we're typing this, but a three-bid Pac-10 is a possibility at this point. The two scenarios discussed so far (Cal loses in the semis and that team beats ASU/Wash in the final...or...Cal loses to ASU/Wash and the ASU/Wash loser gets in anyway) would only happen if favorites continue to win at the rate they are now, but it could happen.

Anonymous said...

What does that do to Mizzou's seed? Are they still safe?

DavidATL said...

B101: I'll take it one step further -- I think that the Wash/ASU loser has a 50/50 shot to get in even if Cal wins the Pac-10 tourney. Again, though, with your same proviso that the favorites continue to win at the rate they are now.

And remember the out-of-the-blue bid to Arizona a couple of years ago? True, no Lute Olson factor, but I am sure the Committee would not be entirely opposed to getting a southern California / Arizona geographic area representative into the tourney. Right now they have only San Diego St (who ASU has already beaten) unless one wants to consider UNLV as that area. TV ratings and filling the arenas are clearly not totally irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

Clearly one loss to Nebraska won't knock Missouri from a 7 to out of the field.

Mizzou? said...

How far will Mizzou fall after that terrible loss to Nebraska? Are they still in the running for a 7 seed or have they dropped to the dreaded 8-9 game or further?

Bracketology 101 said...

Missouri will be somewhere in the low 8/high 9 range tomorrow.

Rebels fan said...

If UNLV beats BYU and New Mexico will they slide by BYU and get a better seed than them?

Bracketology 101 said...

BYU and UNLV would be right around the same seed line if that happened.

Anonymous said...

Mag, obviously it nots going to matter....that's the point. If b101 has the official bracket right now....nobody scares me at all. Syracuse would scare, and kansas would. That's it...ky is too young to pose a threat to md

AG said...

Wow, Tulsa, wow. Getting run off your home court by a 1-win Rice??

Anonymous said...

I am a biased big ten fan, and I know your purpose is to pick the likely field and not necessarily judge talent, but cannot it be conceded that the big east is far overrated and the big ten underrated, in your analysis? Why was the Big Ten 5-2 overall against the Big East this year, 4-2 against Big East teams you put in the 64, and 3-1 in games where Big Ten teams not slated to make it played the Big East (Indiana v. Pitt, Northwestern v. Notre Dame, Michigan v. Marguette, and Michigan v. Connecticut). I'm not saying Indiana or Northwestern make it in, but I've got seven Big Ten in (the four plus Minnesota, Michigan and Illinois) before I have 9 Big East in. I'd put my money on those seven going 6-1 versus your Big East nine not doing better than 5-4 in the first round. I do not think you can be serious about putting less than 5 Big Ten through or more than 7 Big East, even while adhering to your purpose and design.

Vols203 said...

... you have Michigan in? Thank God you don't actually bother with a bracketology website or blog!

DavidH said...

To Anonymous at 3:25 PM...

Pomeroy would be different if you play the games in a different order, because he weights recent games more heavily than early games.

Anonymous said...

You can't just a team off of one head-to-head match-up. I'm a huge Big 10 fan and have been my entire life, but the Big 10 blows this year. I actually believe the Big 10 teams who are seeded are probably seeded too high. Their record means very little when the poor performance of the conference is considered. 4 of the 11 teams are below .500!

Also UConn is not in the tourny. Their season ending losing streak kept them out.

Anonymous said...

To Vols23 at 10:07

I didn't say I'd have Michigan in, I just said I'd have Michigan in (and 7 from Big Ten) before I'd have 9 from the big east (meaning that I would have neither event). Rather, the Big East should have 7, and the Big Ten should have 5 or 6 depending on how teams do this weekend. Think what you will, and I see that most are retreating at least from South Florida, but the Big Ten will outperform the Big East in the tournament. The Big East basically massages itself all year into high RPIs, and then it will show its true lack of strength in the tournament. I hope they get 9 in, so all can see how that conference really blows. Give me a shout back in a few weeks.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, you realize that the BE had half of the final four last year?