 |  |
 |
|
| Thursday, January 30 Updated: January 31, 11:08 AM ET Bracket Banter |
||||||||||
|
It's a rough crowd out there, but I can take the heat. You know the Super Bowl is over when the email bag is overflowing. So I'll do the best I can to include as many messages in this space as possible.
The Tournament Debate(s) When you think about it, there is only one men's basketball conference that doesn't have a conference tournament, the Ivy League. Everybody else has a conference tournament with an automatic bid into the Big Dance. So the way I see it, everybody is already in and has a chance to play into the field of 65. The at-large berths are just a "second chance" for teams who didn't win their conference automatic bids. So everybody out there who doesn't get an "at-large" berth should shut up and quit their whining. Now, how can we improve this system? One way I would love to see is for the NCAA to eliminate the current 65-team system altogether. According to my logic, since everybody is already in, why not just drop the pretenses? Bracket all 327 teams and have them go at it! No more "bubbles" or "at-large" berths or bitching and moaning from the seventh Big East team. Have a "play-down" round to get to 256 and then just seed the remaining teams. One plays 256, two plays 255 and so on. We can still have a lot of suspense and drama in the later rounds, and still a huge chance for upsets. I think that would be a great tournament set-up, level the playing field as never before and would eliminate all the complaining from the so-called "bubble" teams. Of course, it would also eliminate Bracketology, so maybe its not such a good idea.
Craig Bursch Just the thought of bracketing and seeding that many teams gives me a headache. In the meantime, you'll just have to trust me. There are many teams and some conferences which should not have a larger place on the national stage. I say keep the conference tournaments, in part because there are regional and historical rivalries involved, but find a less dramatic way to include more deserving teams among the so-called mid-majors. I really think the NCAA Tournament does need reformatting, but not just to add play-in games for the 16/17 seed to get into the main bracket, but to add an extra round throughout. There is a very sad problem occurring particularly to low-majors. If you do not win your conference tournament, then you aren't getting in. It doesn't matter if you go undefeated in your conference regular season, and just happen to slip up in a game in the conference tourney. You're out. Here's my idea for improvement: 1. All conferences get AT LEAST two entrants into the Big Dance. One can go to the regular-season champion, the other to the conference-tourney champion. If those teams are the same, then the committee can determine who the second team will be. This serves a double purpose. It eliminates the way that teams who bring it every night during the regular season get ousted because of one bad game in their conference tourney, and it provides a chance for more of these low-major and mid-major teams to get in. 2. The tournament should be expanded to 128 teams, with the opening round game being held at the higher-seeded team's home court (i.e.,. 1/32, 2/31, etc.). Then, the remaining 64 teams can advance to the main locations for the rest of the tourney. 3. No team should be allowed in (unless this violates No. 1 above) with a record below .500 either overall or in-conference. This will keep the committee from giving all these extra berths to only the power conferences. Of course this will also allow some more of the big guys in, but it will minimize it so the committee HAS to take a look at the better little guys. This will benefit the mid-majors more than the low-majors, but to be honest there shouldn't be more than two teams from a low-major conference anyway. I know some people would complain the costs for this extra round would be prohibitive (and I'm sure the people who run the postseason NIT would really throw a big fit, since their teams would be taken away), but I really think that the crowds (and some TV coverage) would be enough to make this opening round a wash, and the remaining six rounds are a huge profit. One of your readers commented in your most recent mailbag that "we really aren't missing anything by letting in that last major conference team in as an 11 or 12 seed." This guy may have forgotten how Missouri did last year as a 12 seed. They went all the way to the Elite Eight, and the fact that underdog teams can go on those kinds of winning runs is what makes the tourney magical. Don't contract it; expand it. I see nothing wrong with letting more teams in. The only possible (valid) complaint is the lost school time for adding another round.
Thomas M. Henry I'm OK with expanding the tournament, particularly if it rewards regular-season and mid-major performance. To me, those are the areas more "under-represented" in the current system. But doubling the field is way too many teams. As an example, let me list the No. 128 RPI team (unadjusted) for each of the past five years:
Florida State would be eliminated by your "below .500" rule, but the others -- and many lesser low-majors -- would very eligible due to your "two per conference" minimum. All of this is too extreme for even this generally inclusive thinker. But all of this has me thinking of modifying the original "Lunardi Plan." So I promise to post a more comprehensive version between now and March. I agree with Peter Schroeder. Conference champions (regardless of conference) should not be punished. They already played their way in. The play-in game should be done away with, and all conference champs should be guaranteed at least a No. 14 seed. That way, 1-16 games will improve because you'll get deserving at-large teams either from mid-majors or the bottom of big conferences. And besides, adding more games and moving up the tournament makes it tough to coordinate office pools. 64 is the perfect number.
Barret LeBlanc The last sentence might be the most important of all. I also have no problem with rewarding conference champions. But I disagree with guaranteeing them a higher seed, if only because it would result in No. 1 and No. 2 seeds having more difficult first-round games than, say Nos. 3-4. That would be like the NFL giving the "bye" teams a harder road to the Super Bowl. During last year's tournament, No. 3 seed Mississippi State was forced to play No. 6 seed Texas in Dallas. Since seeds 1-4 are supposed to be "protected," has anything been done to prevent this situation from happening again?
Erik Instefjord I've been told the Selection Committee did not view Mississippi State as having a "home crowd disadvantage" in that game, as Dallas was also "drivable" for MSU fans. Never having made the trip myself, I'll leave it for others to judge. In the meantime, know that so-called "protected" seeds are now supposed to include the top five teams in each region.
Big East Bytes Chevy Troutman has emerged as an inside presence in the Big East, as he dropped 20 on Georgetown's Michael Sweetney last Saturday. Julius Page puts whoever he wants on lockdown and manages to go off for his 12-15 every night out. I haven't even mentioned Brandin Knight yet, the best pure leader in the country. Come on, JL, just show a little love for the Panthers. They can run some ball for kids in Western PA. They'll be dancing deep into March, so be ready to write an article after you see coach Howland cutting that last strand of the net.
Bill Smith Not sure how much more "love" can be given to a team that was a preseason No. 1 seed in this space and hasn't moved since. We also anointed Pitt as an NCAA team in early January last year, long before their march to a high seed. Now, as for a head-to-head comparison with Kentucky, well, there is none. At least on paper, as of this past Monday:
RPI: Pitt (13), Kentucky (9) Who would I like in a regional final if the two teams played in late March? Who knows? There's an awful lot of basketball between now and then. What I do know is that today, in terms of an NCAA résumé, the Panthers are a lot closer to a two-seed than the Wildcats. Hey, Joe. I love your insights. It's good stuff. I'm a UConn alum and I'm not going to kill you for making them a No. 9 seed. I go crazy every year (when) their schedule is released and it's top heavy with cream puffs. I just don't understand why they don't schedule better games. Win or lose I think they would be better off, and would probably have a little more edge to them right now. There is no doubt they have talent, and I hope they can get it together so you can write something good about them. But, regardless, keep up the good work.
Jason Beeler Having been evidently exiled from the State of Connecticut, I appreciate Jason's comments. UConn is hardly alone in the Big East, however. Pitt, Georgetown and others are even worse when it comes to scheduling creampuffs, and I believe their NCAA seeding (or selection) should be adjusted accordingly.
Joe, I thought that your RPI is what it is. It has a formula, and out spits a number and ranking. It would seem SU would've moved higher than a No. 7 seed given last week's performances against Seton Hall and Miami. Could you explain this? Also, what in your opinion would a Pitt win or loss mean to the Orangemen's tournament profile? Thanks.
Jon Byars Seems like the Syracuse and UConn fans are fighting over who gets to hang me first. These were about the kindest messages I could include among many. Allow me, in particular, to expand upon the now-infamous "inflated RPI" comment regarding Syracuse. Jon is right: the RPI is an unemotional number and, as the saying goes, it is what it is. What I'm saying is that there are teams for whom the RPI is a less reliable indicator of NCAA placement than others. Generally, these are teams from "power" conferences who play all kinds of powerful opponents, but don't post a respectable record against them. For instance, a team might go 6-10 in the SEC and have a strong power rating, but we all know that team's postseason, if not the RPI number itself, is "inflated." Syracuse is in a second, less obvious category of teams for whom (to me, at least) the RPI is of diminished importance. Intentionally or not, the Orangemen have piled up their "power points" by beating lots of teams in the safer 51-100 range (5-1 at the start of the week). They had played only two RPI Top 25 opponents, losing fairly convincingly at Pitt and defeating a Missouri team at home that falls into the first category above. Missouri may, in fact, be very good (and the 'Cuse will certainly benefit once that is demonstrated). But the Tigers' high RPI heading into the Carrier Dome was built largely on four RPI Top 50 games in which Mizzou went 0-4. So one has to ask the question, is this really the kind of "quality win" for Syracuse that would justify a top four seeding? I also look closely at where games are played. This one was at the Carrier Dome, of course, as were 11 of Syracuse's 15 games at the time of this projection. So, even though the Orange beat Missouri, I say they still have to "Show Me" (and, evidently, also Rutgers).
Team Talk Louisville went into Columbus the day after the Buckeyes took home the football national championship and beat an undefeated team at home. They went to Knoxville, where UK won by three, and pulled out a tough win against a very motivated team. Texas, the last No. 2 seed, got beat by 10 at No. 13 Kansas this week. I just don't understand!!!
Adam Adam, I'm here to help: 1) I wrote on Monday that Louisville had done nothing wrong, merely than Texas had passed them on the S-Curve. Since Texas has lost in the meantime, the Cardinals would certainly figure to benefit in terms of seeding. 2) While the respective schedule strength is closer than you might think, there is a big different between UL and UK in terms of "quality wins." Kentucky entered the week 7-2 vs. RPI Top 50 teams, Louisville was 3-1. It may not seem like a huge margin, particularly considering Louisville's head-to-head win, but then neither is the current difference between UK (No. 3) and UL (No. 8) on my current S-Curve. It would be extremely unlikely, however, for a team with double the number of "quality" wins to be seeded behind the other in question (regardless of a head-to-head result). 3) Beating national champions in other sports has not yet been made a criteria for NCAA Tournament selection in men's basketball. 4) Texas lost by three points at Kansas, not 10. 5) E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E means you have a zero after the hyphen in your record, alleged "fluke" games notwithstanding (and I suspect Purdue fans would not agree with your assessment of that game). I enjoy your Bracketology column located at ESPN.com. One question for you, though: How can you have Kansas as the No. 6 team in the Power 16, yet have them listed as a 7 seed in your bracketology column? Seems to me if Kansas is the sixth-best team in your opinion, they would be no worse than a No. 6 seed come tourney time. Given Kansas's high SOS and relatively high RPI, how did you arrive at a No. 7 seed for them? Just curious ...
Lance Redford I did not rank Kansas sixth in my Power 16 (that would be far more esteemed Jay Bilas). As for my projected seeding, it couldn't possibly have been that 22-52 half against Arizona? And, remember, these brackets came before the win over Texas. How can Ole Miss not be in the field of 65 and the "last five out?" Do you know that they exist?
Kyle Veazey I did not know Mississippi had a team this year. But if I did, I'd tell you Ole Miss was actually the SIXTH team out of the bracket this week. For a team with the No. 252 non-conference schedule, that's pretty good. What happened to Holy Cross (or Patriot League representative)? Last week you had them listed as a No. 13 seed. I know they laid an egg against American on Sunday afternoon, but that was after playing a Friday night game at Annapolis. And even good teams are having a hard time winning on the road this year. Rumor has it that the Cross will not be a No. 16 seed if they win the Patriot League. After the last two years of giving Kentucky and Kansas all they could handle, the committee will not want to risk the Cross beating a No. 1 seed in the first round. You know as well as I they do not want a 16 beating a 1. Did you forget the Crusaders in this week's bracket or did you have them earmarked for the play-in game considering the Patriot is not a highly regarded league? Just wondering. In any event, I look forward to Mondays and seeing your thoughts.
Matt Kelley As the lone remaining unbeaten team in the Patriot League, Lehigh got the automatic position in this week's bracket. However, without the overall profile of Holy Cross, the Mountain Hawks were slotted as a play-in participant. As for your seeding "rumors," they are just that. Assuming that my beloved Wolverines were in fact eligible for the tourney this year, would you see a spot for them in the Dance? They've got a No. 46 RPI with good wins against Wisconsin, Ohio State, Minnesota and Michigan State, and only one bad loss (Virginia Tech). Your answer will help stoke up a little tourney excitement on a campus sadly deprived of it this year. More generally, does the committee take a team's recent form into account when making selections (e.g., does a long winning streak somewhat "erase" some early-season bad losses)?
Ian Campbell All of the above. Yes, Michigan would have been in the bracket this week (in the 10-11 range). And, yes, "recent performance" is very much a factor in the eyes of the Selection Committee.
Tournament Preview? Apparently this game is not as important as the likes of Eastern Washington-Weber State, a game which has no significance because the Big Sky will not get an at-large bid, and everything rests on the conference tournament, or Wake Forest-North Carolina, a game between two above-average teams. I'd just like to let you know you'll be missing a great game.
Chris Healey "Games of the Week," in the context of Bracketology, are those games most likely to influence team selection and seeding in the next bracket projection. Anyone can list Arizona-Kansas, but an EWU-Weber State matchup is equally important (if not more so) to the respective teams involved. Plus, Pitt-Syracuse I was listed two weeks ago. One other thing: Pitt and Syracuse are now a combined 28-4. That'll happen when one of the "top two" teams in the conference loses at a team which had yet to win a league game. Just wanted to let you know how much I enjoy the Bracketology page at ESPN.com. You really show insight and what look to be superlatively educated theories on who will be the No. 1 seeds when it all matters. Instead of the Big East/ACC No. 1 seeds everyone else seems to think, I couldn't agree more with the fact that this year is going to be more of an SEC/Pac-10/Big 12 showdown. Kentucky and Florida look to me like they could wipe the floor with Duke, Pitt (who don't really play anyone, anyway), or Maryland at this point. I am very impressed with Arizona and Texas so far this year. Even after letting the Kansas game slip through their hands (Monday) night, it took Kansas being at home and Collison having the game of his life for them to squeak by a very promising Texas team. Keep up the good work, I'll be following you to the big dance!
Jonathan Bodine While I am not yet ready to preclude Big East and ACC teams from serious national championship contention, I agree with Jonathan with respect to the superiority of at least the SEC and Big 12. My only point of disagreement regards Pittsburgh, which, despite an embarrassing non-conference schedule, is very much a Final Four-type team in my eyes. I am an avid fan of your ESPN.com Bracketology, but I first starting following you through the Blue Ribbon publications. My questions are short. Are you still involved with Blue Ribbon? Also, do you know if they still put out the Tournament Preview prior to the Big Dance? My friends and I make an annual trip to Vegas for the first week of the tournament, and I feel lost without that magazine. If it no longer exists, can you recommend a similar all-inclusive tournament preview? If it has died, what a sad demise to one of the best college basketball publications on the face of the earth. Keep up the good work on ESPN.
Bruno Roti Thanks, Bruno. I'm sure your being in Las Vegas that weekend is a complete coincidence. As for Blue Ribbon, I am no longer involved in their editorial operations. It was a great run, but ESPN.com (along with ESPN Radio and ESPN News) has been very good to me. My biggest regret is that the exhaustive tournament guide was dropped by Blue Ribbon ownership a year after I joined ESPN. Many of my greatest college basketball memories were sharing a Selection Weekend bunker with guys who watched games and wrote about teams for 50 straight hours. That's the bad news. The good news is that the tournament preview will be re-born this year via ESPN.com's "Insider." We'll have an all-new web version of the publication that analyzes NCAA teams and matchups like no other. Stay tuned. Joe Lunardi is the resident Bracketologist for ESPN, ESPN.com and ESPN Radio. He may be reached at bracketology@comcast.net. |
|
|||||||||
