You know the old saying for this time of year: "What happens when Lunardi sees his shadow?" Six more weeks of Bracketology, that's what!

Tournament Debate
From your bracketology column on ESPN.com, you suggested expanding the field from 65 to 68 teams. I'll take it a step further. I suggest expanding the field to 80. Here's my thinking:

1) Essentially, the tournament takes the top 50 or so teams and gives those No. 12 seeds or higher. No. 13 and lower seeds tend to be teams that are not top 50, some nowhere near Top 50, who simply won their conference tournament.

2) Expanding to 80 would allow the tournament to take the Top 64 teams or so. This should catch most of the mid-major teams that get lost in the shuffle (e.g., from last year, Bowling Green, Utah State and Butler). However, care should be taken to reward major conference teams with tough schedules. Arkansas was a legit top-50 team last year despite the 14-15 record. They played a tough non-conference schedule and should be rewarded and be in the tournament under this system.

3) To make this a little more fun, I suggest that the extra eight games this would result in be played on the home court of the (automatic qualifiers). So teams like Alcorn State and Montana will have teams like Virginia and Georgetown visiting them to play their way into the "Round of 64."

There are some complications to this that would need to be worked out (for example, who gets the home court if No. 13 seed Gonzaga (conference tournament winner) plays No. 20 seed Siena? That would need to be thought out, but I think this could be a lot of fun.

An alternative might be for the NIT to make itself more relevant by only inviting teams from non-major conferences.

Regards,
Bo Polak

It is a fun idea, though, but the logistics would be awfully complicated. TV would need to know the "where" with more notice than this, and that's not even considering basic things like arena availability, ticketing and the like. All of which is why the current play-in game is set up well in advance.

The thing that I don't get about play-in games is that they involve the automatic bid teams. If they want to expand the tournament and make teams play in games outside of the field of 64, it should be the last four at-large teams.

First of all this would be economically sound, as way more people would watch if the game was, say, Auburn vs. Iowa than if it was Canisius vs. Holy Cross. Secondly, this way the lower level teams don't get knocked out of playing in the actual tournament.

Playing in Dayton (in a play-in game) is not the same as actually playing in the tournament. You talk about the winning experience as being important for the small schools, but all of those teams are more experienced at winning than playing against a team like Duke with a ton of fans and a major national TV audience.

I really think they should make the at-large teams play in the play-in games.

Kenyon Colloran
Kyoto, Japan

My sense of fairness agrees with Kenyon, and he is probably right about the low-majors wanting their "day in the sun" even more than the chance to win a play-in game against another low major. So, I have factored that thinking into the revised "Lunardi Plan" that will be unveiled in early March (or sooner, if I ever finish it!).

Hey, Joe:
As a graduate of Holy Cross (low major for sure), I think four play-in games would be a slap in the face (seeing as how HC would probably end up there more often than not). How exactly would this make the first-round opponents for a No. 1 seed any better? You're still talking about the eight lowest-rated teams vs. the four highest-rated teams. Only thing that would accomplish is robbing a possible No. 15 seed of a chance to upset a No. 2, a more likely scenario (happened four times I believe).

And don't give me the 'like vs. like' as a great thing. No one watches the play-in games (on TV or in person), and the losers may as well not been part of the bracket at all. It also gives the play-in contestants less time to prepare for the daunting No. 1 seed (two days).

Do the No. 1 seeds need another advantage (homecourt in most cases should be enough)? Having a legit shot at No. 2 Kentucky two years ago and playing No. 1 Kansas tough was as thrilling as it gets for a low-major school, almost as good as winning. Beating a No. 1 may have never happened, but this is March Madness, it'll happen one day.

I liked your other suggestion on how to limit the 'BCS' conferences, but the play-in game expansion would just open the door for more of them, not less. As for this year, I like HC's chances of the big upset. All these schools want is a shot to prove they belong (as if fighting tooth and nail through a one-bid conference isn't enough), no need to further stack the deck.

Ryan Donahue

Hmmm, this is a well-reasoned argument in defense of the low majors. Must be that Jesuit education.

P.S.: Let's not disrespect the good people of Dayton, who have supported the play-in game rather well the past two years. TV ratings are another story, and I don't have that data.

I like the idea of at-large bubble teams having to fight their way into the dance as opposed to the Alcorn State/Siena "winner gets a prompt beating" game. In a sense, the "Last Four Out" playing the "Last Four In" for a (No. 12) seed would be an exciting dynamic to the tournament. I'm sure last year Butler (25-5) would have jumped at the chance to take on Boston College (20-11) for a chance to play (in the NCAAs) instead of being junked to the NIT.

But, in reality, are we really making a better tournament by doing so? The winners of the "bubble buster" Tuesday would likely be fatigued, especially right on the heels of the conference tournaments, and would likely be smoked (in the next round). By doing so, you're almost making things easier for some (seeds) than others.

While I think it is more fair to make the Clemsons of the world earn their way in than the Sienas -- who did earn their way in -- I cannot think of a way to make it happen that would not create a disadvantage for any of the other seeds.

Kelly Hahn
Decatur, Ind.

Interestingly, prior to the 1985 expansion to the current 64-team format, whenever a highly seeded "bye" team was upset, someone would say it was because they were "too rested" and/or the team coming off an opening round win had all the momentum. Even so, I think most coaches would prefer the extra rest and preparation, and the issue is equal competitive opportunities for all seeds is a legitimate issue.

But the idea of a "Bubble Buster" really is growing on me, and might even grow on the likely BCS-type participants if there was enough money involved.

Many of your readers have suggested pitting the final two at-large teams in the play-in game, which is emotionally far more appealing than the current system. The problem, of course, is in seeding the winner of such a game. They are clearly better than a No. 16, but seeding the winner as a No. 12 (where they probably belong) is grossly unfair to the poor No. 5 seed who would then have to wait two or three extra days to find out whom their opponent is.

The current system is no good, either, as it is patently unfair to conference champions who ostensibly received automatic bids to the REAL tournament, and not some afterthought. Even if you spruced it up to four games and marketed it with clever slogans (I admit I did like "Bubble Buster"), I don't think it could ever feel like the real thing -- not to the fans, and certainly not to the team that sees its Cinderella hopes dashed by Cleveland State instead of Duke.

The most equitable "solution," of course, is to stop trying to fix what was never broken in the first place. Return to a 64-team field and, if that means that a 7th-place major has to settle for an NIT championship instead of a first-round loss, so be it. At least it's fair to everyone involved, which is more than I can say for any scheme involving 65, 66 or (God forbid!) even more teams.

Keep up the good work.

Mookie,
Chicago

Well, there is that ... meaning "go back to the way it was." Here's the problem: Current DI men's basketball championship rules stipulate that there must be no fewer than 34 at-large positions in the field (a bone to the major conferences, of course). Given that, and since there are now 31 automatic qualifying conferences, we're stuck with 65 pegs for 64 holes. Hence the ongoing debate.

I've been thinking the last few years that they should just abolish the NIT/NCAA tourneys as they are right now. They should start off the NCAA as a 128-team tournament, with the first-round losers going to what is currently the NIT and the winners to the NCAA. Play from then on out would continue as it does now, with the champion coming from the NCAA bracket.

Everyone would get a chance to play, and some of the higher-ranked teams who get bumped off in the NCAAs can redeem themselves by still competing to win the NIT. This might also help to make the NIT a bit more exciting because, as of right now, most people don't care two licks about it unless your school is in it.

Just a thought.

Ed Keenan
Havre De Grace, Md.

I actually floated an idea similar to this several years ago. I'm just not sure there would be enough interest in what would essentially be a 64-team "losers" bracket.

Team Talk
I'm a Syracuse grad, but you can continue to read -- I'm not going to bash you. On the contrary, I think you're analysis of their situation was very good and right on. I'm not going to sit here and defend a schedule that's only included five away games until February.

But, when analyzing that the win against Pitt was "narrow," then it must be said that the loss to Rutgers was also narrow (if perhaps more improbable given the bank shot from 25 feet that won the game). As you mention, the 'Cuse is 2-1 vs. RPI Top 25 and 5-2 in the Big East, both facts that are more deserving of a No. 5 or No. 6 seed as opposed to your No. 7 seed.

Just wanted to point that out. I think they have the most talented, albeit inexperienced, team in the Big East. The rest of the season (Notre Dame twice, at Michigan State, at UConn, at Georgetown) will hopefully bear that out.

Always enjoy the analysis,.

Bryan,
NYC

Here is why I've held back on a higher seed for Syracuse:

N-Memphis, No. 45, L, 63-70
at Seton Hall, No. 63, W, 70-66
at Pittsburgh, No. 16, L, 60-73
at Miami, Fla., No. 119, W, 65-68
at Rutgers, No. 133, L, 65-68

So, in five road/neutral games, the Orangemen are 2-3 and did not defeat a single team that currently projects into the NCAA field (and they lost to another team that probably won't even make the NIT). Since 'Cuse won't play any NCAA games at the Carrier Dome, this record is especially relevant. In fact, I think the notion of a separate road/neutral RPI may be the single best piece of data which could be added to the Bracketology arsenal.

And I'm working on it (which is probably bad news for Syracuse and several other "big-time" teams).

Mr. Lunardi:
I was curious, how does one consider a No. 1 seed underrated? Kentucky sits atop your East Region, and Louisville is on top of the Midwest. Is it a matter of the distance to travel? While Lexington to Indianapolis (185 mi.) and Louisville to Nashville (174 mi.) isn't the 125 miles or so from Gainesville to Tampa, it's the best you can do with both Lexington and Kentucky as No. 1s.

I thought No. 1 was as high as it goes, by definition the top rating, and also an impossible place to be "underrated." What was your line of thinking here?

Thanks

Jake Hannaway
Tampa, Fla.

I generally define "underrated" (and, for that matter, "overrated") as defined by the polls. If a team's seeding by my analysis is notably differently from what the pollsters say, I list them accordingly.

For mid-major teams (for instance, Valparaiso), what is the better way to position yourself for March: Play a very tough non-conference schedule or play a weaker schedule and hope to have a very good winning percentage? Valpo has struggled against some very highly rated RPI teams thus far this season, but it seems to have paid off in gained experience.

Would it have been better to go into conference play 15-0 or 13-2 instead of 7-8, though? How do you escape the fate of playing 10+ sub-200 RPI teams in conference play and get a decent berth?

Jonathan Kilkenny

You don't (escape your in-conference opponents, that is), but I think there are two ways to approach your larger question:

1) If, by "positioning for March," you mean peaking for the conference tournament, I'd say that would depend on coaching philosophy and how veteran a team you've got. In other words, an experienced team may be able to shrug off a December of big losses and then steamroll lesser conference opponents (as Valpo seems to be doing).

2) If, on the other hand, you are talking about somehow scheduling to get an at-large bid, that's much more complicated (and it may vary depending on the level of your program/conference). For instance, even with a solid NCAA history in Valpo, the odds of a Mid-Continent team earning an at-large bid are slim. So, if you presume that it is "automatic bid" or nothing for the Crusaders, I say schedule well and hope to bag a major scalp or two along the way (e.g., Charlotte on Tuesday). The latter will affect seeding more than the low RPI of their Mid-Con opponents.

Bracketology as of Feb. 3 has no Ivy league champ. I assume that this is merely an oversight, because I can't imagine that the Ivy champ would be in the play-in game (especially Penn or Princeton). I know, Brown leads, but not for long!

Thanks,
Rhett Knuth

You answered your own question. Brown (4-0) leads both Penn and Princeton (each 2-0). So I have to list the Bears, and they would obviously be a Play-In selection in this scenario. Sorry.

Usually I can see where you're coming from on the weekly brackets, but putting Louisville as a No. 1 and Texas as a No. 2 is inexcusable. Hope to see that reasoning change soon.

Jacob Davidson

I think the fans at Colorado agree with me now.

Here & There
Dear Mr. Lunardi,
Rather than attacking your various seedings, I am more interested in knowing how you approach the seeding task, particularly in three areas: non-conference vs. conference SOS, matchups and "recency."

1. Why look at non-conference SOS when it only represents part of the games played? Doesn't a strong conference SOS atone for a week non-conference SOS and vice versa? So doesn't the entire SOS have to be considered? What insights do you gain from breaking SOS into two pieces?

2. Do you just go by the numbers, or do you look at "matchups?" E.g., clearly a team with a weak backcourt would have serious difficulty handling Texas or Pitt this year, so it doesn't seem reasonable to rank such a team above either of these. On the other hand, recently voted No. 1 Florida might have a tough time against a strong inside game (we'll find out when they play Kentucky). Do you consider matchups when seeding otherwise close teams?

3. Teams evolve during the season. What a team did in December is not necessarily indicative of what they'll do in March. Games that occur later in the season seem more relevant than earlier games. Do you consider the recency of games in your seeding?

Thanks!

Larry Seligman
Atlanta

"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
Nashville, Tenn.

I'll take each point in turn:

1) The committee (and I) look at both overall SOS and non-conference SOS. The latter is often, although not always, an indication of who a team "chooses" to play. To only factor in overall SOS would unduly reward those teams who gain schedule strength through mandated conference games, but then duck quality opponents in the non-league portion of the season. The converse can also be true, which is how teams like Temple have consistently managed to rate among the "big boys" over the years (present season notwithstanding).

2) I do not look at personnel or units matchups, nor does the committee. A teams respective strengths and weaknesses are measured by its won-loss record, along with the components of "who against" and "where played."

3) The "when" is also very important. Last year, for instance, Ball State defeated Kansas and UCLA in November but then stumbled down the stretch in their conference. If it had been the other way around, hypothetically, the Cardinals almost certainly would have received an NCAA at-large bid.

On the ticket application for Oklahoma City for the first two rounds of the NCAA Tournament, it states "The University of Oklahoma is the host and will not be allowed to play games there."

I don't know if you have other information, but I decided NOT to buy tickets since the application stated it in bold on the cover. (I may regret that decision if Texas AND Kansas end up in OKC as one of your brackets predicted!)

Kent Smith
Sweetwater, Texas

According to the NCAA web site, the Big 12 Conference is the designated host at the Ford Center in Oklahoma City. This may be a change from when the ticket application was printed and, by rule, would no longer prevent Oklahoma from competing at that site.

Joe Lunardi is the resident Bracketologist for ESPN, ESPN.com and ESPN Radio. He may be reached at bracketology@comcast.net.