That's right, we're back!  I've got to say that Chris from Blogging the Bracket has been doing such a nice job with his SBN Bracketology pieces that it somewhat killed my urge to actually do these this year.  But a) they're still fun, b) Ross made this fun image that I'd hate to go to waste, and c) they're still fun.  So I'm doing them.  Below the jump is my first projected bracket of February.

Mid-Major Showcase

Three Mountain West teams and Butler are all fighting for a potential 4-seed.  Gonzaga may end up a 5.  Northern Iowa may end up a 6.  Five mid-major teams are in the RPI Top 20 (#10 New Mexico, #12 Rhode Island, #13 Northern Iowa, #15 Butler, #17 Temple), while many major conference teams have winning records in their conference but RPIs of 60 or worse (#60 Marquette, #64 Virginia Tech, #72 Illinois, #94 Virginia, plus not those in the Pac-10, which frankly isn't a major conference this year).  SIX Atlantic 10 teams might make The Dance.

In other words, this is a strange year.

Now, some of this weirdness will get ironed out in proceeding weeks -- just from having to finish their conference seasons, some of these mid-major stars will see their RPI regress -- but we're late enough in the season that I think it's safe to say we could end up with more mid-majors in the tourney ... just enough to make Jay Bilas' head explode (had to use Bilas instead of Billy Packer since Packer's no longer on my television).

Speaking of Bilas, when I was going back through last year's Rock-M-Tology posts, I found this one, in which I lambasted Bilas for proposing a 128-team NCAA Tournament with no automatic bids on College Gameday.  Funny thing is, I have no recollection of this at all.  I've slept a lot since then, I guess.  And spent many hours writing about football.  Anyway, it's just ironic, then, that he recently said this in regard to the NCAA's plan to look into expansion to 96 teams:

It’s not broken now. The best teams are competing. All we’re really saying is, 'Let’s add some more at the end and would that be tragic?' Of course not. It wouldn’t be bad. It just wouldn’t be in the best interest of the best teams. ... If it’s just to give more kids the experience of playing in the NCAA Tournament, we’re always going to want to add more for that reason. I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to get in the way of the best teams competing for the national championship.

Continue reading this post »

UPDATE, 4:30pm - Alright, I broke the port-o-nail we were using to hammer in the wood floor, so...hooray!  Done for the day!  And back in time to redo the bracket to account for a) Mississippi State being in, and b) Louisville being closer to Dayton than Miami (I initially sent them to Miami because they were as close as anybody else, but as a #1 seed, that probably wasn't the correct logic.

Also, consider this your Selection Show open thread.  It's so much more fun when you know Mizzou's name is going to pop up at some point, isn't it???

I'm out most of the afternoon (got a new house to hammer on for a while), so just in case I don't get back in time, I'm going to crank this out now.  This post is based on the assumption that Tennessee will beat Mississippi State today.  If Mississippi State wins, replace St. Mary's with them.

Last 8 7 In

To me, there are three teams fighting for one spot, and I cannot for the life of me figure out where the committee might be leaning.  I believe Mississippi State made my SMC/Creighton/PSU comparison below moot, but I'll leave it up just in case

San Diego State
Dayton
Minnesota
Michigan
Wisconsin
Boston College
Maryland

First 8 9 Out

St. Mary's
Creighton
Penn State
Arizona (UPDATE, 11:47am - I skipped right over Arizona when I first wrote this out)
UAB
Tulsa
Auburn
New Mexico
UNLV

St. Mary's vs Creighton vs Penn State

RPI: Creighton 40, St. Mary's 48, Penn State 70

KenPom.com Rating: St. Mary's 60, Creighton 65, Penn State 78

Continue reading this post »

What a mess this bracket is right now.  The top seeds are a big mush, and really there are about 12 undeserving teams on the bubble, 4-6 of which will actually make the tourney.

No more overrated/underrated...we know who I think is too high or too low at this point.

Last 8 In

Boston College
Minnesota
Michigan
San Diego State
Penn State
UNLV
South Carolina
Florida

First 8 Out

Arizona
Maryland
Creighton
St. Mary's
Temple
UAB
New Mexico
Miami-FL

Really don't know how to differentiate between Florida, Arizona, and Maryland at this point.  If UF or the Terps keep winning, I guess they get it.  Or if they all lose and Temple makes the A10 finals, maybe they sneak in...either way, I don't understand Lunardi's New Mexico fasination.  I didn't understand it before they lost to Wyoming, and I REALLY don't understand it now.  But that's all I'll say about Lunardi's latest bracket--it makes no sense whatsoever.

Continue reading this post »

First, an open letter to Jay Bilas

Mr. Bilas,

Saturday on College Gameday, you asserted that the NCAA tournament should a) expand to 128 teams and b) get rid of automatic bids.  In the kindest words possible, let me explain why that is one of the most insane ideas I've ever heard.

Nevermind all the obvious "this is elitism" arguments.  I'll move straight to a couple examples.  Under your plan, N.C. State (16-13, #102 RPI) would be a tournament team, as would Stanford (17-12, #105), Washington State (16-14, #89) and Alabama (15-13, #111).  The ACC would get 11 teams into the field.  The Big East?  12.  The Big Ten?  10.  The Big 12?  9.

Meanwhile, teams from conferences like the SWAC, MEAC, and depending on the year, maybe Ivy, Northeast, or Big South, would have no reward for winning a conference tournament or conference title.  This is good for college basketball?

And you do realize that teams with losing records (Virginia is 10-17, but #109) might get in?  And that if you put in a "no teams with losing records" clause, that those lower-rung ACC teams would just schedule 14 cupcakes in non-con?  Again, this is good?  Every time people complain about football's bowl system, they talk about how you're rewarding mediocrity, and they say the system should be more selective like college basketball.  And now you want college basketball to reward sub-mediocrity?

Under your plan, Hampton wouldn't have beaten Iowa State (remember how great that celebration was?), Richmond wouldn't have beaten Syracuse.  You called this good for mid-majors because better teams like Tulsa would be in the field.  That's fair.  Tulsa (21-9, #61) would be in the field, as would Boise State (18-11, #103), Mount St. Mary's (19-12, #115), and Oakland (20-11, #120).  Mid-majors would be represented, and that's cool.

But here's the thing: right now, almost every team in the country (sans D1 independents, seven Ivy League teams who don't win their conference, and a handful of teams like SEMO, who don't qualify for their conference tourneys), technically has a chance to win it all, through their conference tournaments.  How great is that?  Instead of expanding the field to 128, let's expand the field to all 343 teams by giving everybody--including the NJIT's and UT-Pan American's--a bid in some tourney with an automatic bid?  Let's make sure that if a SWAC team wins their tourney in buzzer-beater fashion, and they rush the court like they won a national title, they actually get a reward.

I love college football--it's my favorite sport overall.  Can't beat it.  But it's different than college basketball.  Come March every year, I start wavering on what truly is my favorite sport, and it's because the thirteen days that constitute Championship Week are so freaking great.  Northern Iowa and Illinois State go to overtime, fighting and clawing for a win and a bid.  Morehead State unleashes a furious comeback and qualifies for the tourney for the first time in forever.  Awesome.  There are fantastic finishes every night.

If we expand the field to 128, does that mean you get rid of conference tourneys?  Because you might as well.  Most major conference teams will get into the field anyway, and if there's no automatic bid from the mid-major tourneys, then the drama is gone.  Plus, you'll need extra time for that extra round of games.  And at that point, what are you left with?  An extra NCAA tourney round of 64 games--at least 32 of which will be horrendously dull--and a complete voiding out of the nightly excitement that is Championship Week.

Again, this is good for college basketball?

One more thing: you said these changes should be made because half the current field of 65 doesn't have a chance at winning it all anyway.  But let's get real here--if we're trying to include only teams who honestly have a shot at winning the title, then we should just pare the field back down to 32 teams, or maybe even 24 or 16.  Expanding the field to 128 just means MORE teams who don't have a shot, only, again, you're removing the drama of Championship Week and preventing teams from having anything to play for.  It's a net loss, and an awful idea.

I do need to thank you for one thing, though: at least you said this very early on in Gameday so I could quickly remember why I don't watch Gameday and change the channel.  I do appreciate that--you did it before I had to even listen to Digger!

Anyway...

Continue reading this post »

It was an interesting week--teams on the wrong side of the bubble won big games, and teams that were barely in lost.  Lots of shakeup, so let's see how things look now!

Who's overrated?

As always, I'll compare my bracket to two main sources: Joe Lunardi and Jerry Palm.  And Lunardi posted his early today, so it's up to date!

There are fewer egregious entries this week, though Palm still has Maryland as a 10-seed when they're not even in my first 8 out.

Michigan - I don't get it.  I mean, I understand that nice wins do you big favors, and Michigan has a couple (Duke, UCLA).  But that doesn't give them a free pass to go 17-12 with an 8-9 conference record and #50 RPI and expect to get in.  If you're going 17-12, you better at least be in the RPI Top 40, right?  Palm has them in by the skin of their teeth, but...no.

Maryland - Don't know what to do with the Angry Turtles.  Their record screams "mediocre."  18-10 (mediocre), #52 RPI (mediocre), 7-7 ACC record (mediocre), 6-6 in last 12 (mediocre).  A couple great wins (UNC, Michigan State) paired with an awful loss (Morgan State) and a series of blowout losses (Duke by 41, Clemson by 29, Gonzaga by 22, Georgetown by 27).  The way I rank teams has them out by a decent amount, but conventional wisdom is starting to congeal around them being an 'in' team.  Ugh.  Give me Davidson or Creighton or Siena instead of major conference teams like this.  I realize that puts me at odds against the entire Gameday crew sans Bobby Knight, but still.

Kentucky - Lunardi has them a 10-seed.  I have them in by the skin of their teeth.  They're 19-10 with a #66 RPI and only an 8-6 record in a weak SEC.  They REALLY need to finish strong.

Virginia Tech - They're 17-11 with a #59 RPI and 7-7 ACC record.  Why exactly are they considered safely in by everybody?  I know they've lost a ton of close games, but...they still lost them, right?

California - Cal's certainly safely in the tourney, but their 21-8 record, #39 RPI, 3 losses to teams outside the RPI's Top 100, and 6-6 record in their last 12 games, I'm thinking they're closer to a 9 or 10 than the 7-seed they're currently getting.

Arizona - They're teetering.  18-11, #47 RPI, 8-8 Pac 10 record.  I do think they're in, but they're closer to the bubble than the 10-seeds they get from Palm.

Boston College - Another team that, at 8-6 in the ACC, is probably in.  But their #48 RPI doesn't impress me, and I'm sorry, but...while they beat Duke and UNC, they lost to SLU and Harvard.  That should automatically get you a double-digit seed.

Washington - They're running away with the Pac 10, they have a #12 RPI and 22 wins overall.  Good resume.  But their best win is at home against UCLA (on pace for a 6-9 seed), and they bounce straight to a THREE seed from Lunardi?  Really?  Three?

Continue reading this post »

An entertaining week of basketball, capped not only by BracketBuster Saturday, but also a fun Maryland win over UNC and a REALLY fun Texas win over Oklahoma.  What did that do to the brackets?  Let's see...but first...

Who's overrated?

As always, I'll compare my bracket to two main sources: Joe Lunardi* and Jerry Palm.  Lunardi because he's the most prominent, Palm because he's the best. 

* Lunardi is messing with me with his Bracketology schedule.  He puts out a new bracket Monday afternoon, but...by god, I'm not waiting for it to post my own!  Anyway, I'm comparing my bracket to Palm's from Monday mornings and Lunardi's from before the weekend.

Maryland - Come on, Palm.  They beat UNC, and they rocket straight to a #10 seed??  They're 6-6 in the ACC, their lone (yes, LONE, SINGLE, SOLO) road win was against last-place Georgia Tech, they sport a #52 RPI, they lost by 27 to Georgetown, 22 to Gonzaga, and of course, 41 to Duke.  Oh yeah, and they lost to Morgan State.  Come on, Palm.  Are they a bubble team now?  Sure.  But how's about we try not to overreact to one win?

Wisconsin - I really don't get this "8 teams in from the Big Ten" business.  The conference is clearly better this year than it has been in a while, but I see multiple B10 teams getting a hair too much credit.  Nevermind that Michigan is way too close to the bubble...Wiscy is quite baffling to me.  They're 16-10, 8-7 in conference, #27 RPI.  That's decent, and despite a 5-7 record in their last 12 games, I do think there's a case for getting them in.  But both Palm and Lunardi have them safely in as a #9 seed.  They're an 11-12 if anything.

Ohio State - Better overall record than the Badgers, same number of conference losses, more wins vs the Top 50 (3.0 vs 1.5...remember, I give wins versus #26-50 only half-credit), worse RPI (#43).  Choosing between the Badgers and Buckeyes would be pretty difficult, but there is no choice with Palm and Lunardi--tOSU is also safely in as an 8/9 seed.

Tennessee -  They're 16-10, 7-5 in a weak conference, and Lunardi still  has them as a #7 (though we'll see where he has them when his new bracket comes out later today).

Syracuse - Clearly an 18-8 record and #24 RPI are solid, but The Cuse is only 5-7 in its last 12 games, and I'm not sure a 7-7 conference record, even in the Big East, is enough for a Top 6 seed.  I'm wavering on them.

Penn State - They're the K-State of the Big Ten--all they've got going for them is a solid conference record.  Is 8-6 in the Big Ten enough to overcome a #62 RPI?  I'm leaning toward possibly not, but they're sporting a #11 seed with both Lunardi and Palm right now.

Virginia Tech - As of Friday, Lunardi still had them in.  At 16-10, #66 RPI, I don't even have them in my First 8 Out.

And no, Notre Dame is not yet back on the bubble.

Continue reading this post »

Nice week for Mizzou, to say the least.  Let's see how they shape up in the latest bracket.  But first...

Who's overrated?

As always, I'll compare my bracket to two main sources: Joe Lunardi and Jerry Palm.  Lunardi because he's the most prominent, Palm because he's the best.  One problem this week: not only did Lunardi (as always) post his bracket on Friday, before the weekend games, but Palm's weekly bracket was drawn up (one time only) on Thursday.  So we're not going to delve too deeply into overrated/underrated this week.

Duke - Really, this is just a casualty of timing.  I'm pretty sure that either or both Lunardi and Palm will drop Duke from their spot as a 2-seed.  Of all the candidates for a 1- or 2-seed, Duke has the worst record over the last 12 games and the fewest road/neutral wins.  Plus, at 4.5 Top 50 wins (I count #1-25 wins as 1 win, #26-50 wins as 0.5), they don't really distinguish themselves in that regard either.

Miami-FL - Let's just say that a 4-7 conference record doesn't get you an 8- or 9-seed from me.  And their #47 RPI doesn't do enough to balance that out.  It doesn't even get you into my bracket at all.

Georgetown - Still somehow a 10-seed in Palm's bracket.  They're 4-8 in the Big East!  And at this point they're only 13-10 overall.  This is not a tourney team right now.

Kansas State - I'm more than happy for another Big 12 team to make the field, but everything good in KSU's resume has come in the last month.  They have only 1.5 Top 50 wins, their loss to Oregon looks wretched right now, and their RPI is currently #76.  If they keep playing well, they'll probably play themselves in, but...they're not in yet.

UCLA - Like Duke, they'll probably fall on people's brackets soon, but in the meantime an 8-4 Pac 10 record and only 2.5 Top 50 wins does not earn them a 4-5 seed.

Texas - They righted the ship somewhat this week (though...letting CU take you to OT?  Eh?), and they're definitely in, but I still don't quite think they're in the 8-9 seed range.

Ohio State - Minor qualms here.  The Buckeyes definitely are a tourney team, but I don't think they've done enough to earn the 5- (Lunardi) and 6-seed (Palm) they're currently granted.  A 7-5 conference record, #26 RPI, and only 2.5 Top 50 wins get them more like a 7-seed for me.

Continue reading this post »

That's right, it's that time of year again--time to pointlessly predict the NCAA tourney bracket like hundreds of others, all of whom get paid much more than I do (but are almost undoubtedly even less accurate).

Who's overrated?

For the most part, I'll compare my bracket to two main sources: Joe Lunardi and Jerry Palm.  Lunardi because he's the most prominent, Palm because he's the best.  So when I talk about overrated and underrated teams, I'm comparing how I have a team ranked to how they do.  Now, this will never work perfectly, as Lunardi updates his bracket before the weekend games, but it'll have to do.

As a whole, my system rewards you for strengths in your resume, whether it's a handful of nice wins, a good RPI, a great overall record, whatever.  I try not to focus on just one thing.  So...that said, who's overrated?

Georgetown.  I understand how great the Big East is...I do.  But they Hoyas now hold a 4-7 conference record.  I can handle a team getting in with a conference record of .500 or a couple games below.  Oh, and they're only 13-9 overall, and their RPI is falling fast.  Lunardi has them a #8, Palm a #10.

Kentucky. Really, Lunardi?  A 10-seed for the 16-7 team with a #54 RPI, 5-3 record in a weak SEC, a loss to VMI, and a 3-game losing streak in conference?  No way.

Tennessee.14-8 overall, 5-3 in a weak conference.  They have a great-looking win over Marquette, but their seemingly impressive-at-the-time win over Georgetown is losing luster.  This is a #9-11 seed to me, but Lunardi has them a #5, Palm a #6.

Baylor.They've got time to recover, but the fact that Palm has them an #11 and Lunardi has them as the first team out is being very generous to a team that, honestly, probably doesn't deserve the slack.  For one thing, if I'm punishing Georgetown for being 4-7 in the Big East, then I'm really punishing Baylor for being 3-6 in the Big 12.  For another, their only truly good win is against Arizona State.  After that, it's slim pickins in the "achievements" category.

Texas.  I'm sure Lunardi would not still have them at a #6 seed after their weekend loss to Nebraska (though #6 was too high before that loss), but...honestly, Palm's #9 seed might be too high as well right now.  They're below KSU and Nebraska in the standings, and they're only 15-7 with a #43 RPI right now.  I'm just assuming they'll turn it around, but at this exact moment they're starting to creep toward the bubble.

Continue reading this post »