 |  |
 |
|
| Wednesday, February 19 Bracket Banter |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The first sentence below is the story of my life this time of year ...
Mr. Lunardi,
Travis Robinett, First of all, Travis is right to an extent. It would be unusual for a team from a given conference to be seeded ahead of another from that conference if it trails said team in the league standings. However, this point is anything but absolute. It is more the result of teams that leads others in a given conference actually being better than those which trail them. And, at this moment in time, it is hard to argue that Kansas has a better NCAA profile than Texas. Let's take a closer look:
Viewing this comparison carefully, I believe it is more than fair to rate the Longhorns a shade ahead of the Jayhawks. In fact, I have Texas at No. 4 in the country overall and Kansas No. 6. This is a pretty insignificant difference until seeding is brought into play. However, I am still comfortable seeding UT ahead of KU regardless of the teams' head-to-head result. First of all, head-to-head play is not a selection committee criterion. Secondly, and most importantly, anyone who watched the game would have a hard time concluding that either team was better (on that particular night, both were outstanding). Bottom line: If the head-to-head result was inconclusive and should be removed from the calculus, then so should its (temporary?) effect on the conference standings. There is also no IF (Texas), THEN (Kansas) logic with respect to the No. 1 seeds. In other words, it just doesn't follow that KU has to be one if Texas is. To be a No. 1 seed, Kansas would need a better overall profile than Texas (or any of the other three No. 1s, for that matter). This week, that is simply not the case. Why do you have Maryland as a No. 6 seed? They are ahead of Duke and Wake in the ACC. Granted, your bracket came out before the Terps kicked Wake's a**. But, seriously, a No. 6 seed? I don't think you are giving the defending champs their due. But that's fine. I'd rather you sleep on them, instead of jinxing another trip to the Final Four.
Ryan Raley The top of the ACC is unusually difficult to project at the moment. None of the current contenders -- Duke, Wake Forest and your Terps -- have really separated themselves enough to make their eventual seeding clear. The picture will be even more muddled if Duke defeats Maryland tonight, as the three teams will have then split with one another. If Maryland sweeps Duke, the Terps are obviously in the driver's seat for the best seed among ACC teams. If Duke wins, and call me crazy for thinking they might, let's see how that would look:
It's close, as you might expect from three teams that would be essentially tied in their conference. But I'd still rank the teams in this order -- Duke, Wake, Maryland -- for seeding purposes. Now this doesn't mean they will each have different seeds in the next bracket projection, just that they would have to be part of the 1-65 order.
For instance, following Maryland's win over Wake, I had the three teams in this order: Duke (6) gets the nod, now and later, over Wake (4) and Maryland (3) on the basis of RPI Top 50 wins. In your team report for Wisconsin, you forgot that they beat UNLV, which is No. 42 in the RPI. So that gives them a fourth quality win against RPI 26-50. And, while I am advocating, I'll just point out that they also have wins at Ohio State and at Wisconsin-Milwaukee, who are pretty good at No. 61 and No. 62, respectively. Finally, good job in moving Wisconsin up to a No. 7 seed. Of course you'll have to rearrange your bracket to give them a No. 5 or No. 6 seed by Selection Sunday, but I'll let you worry about that. Tom Stalnaker That was "my bad," Tom, on the UNLV omission. We'll fix it next time. In the meantime, Wisconsin is a very interesting case. It's not easy to be the co-leader of a major conference this late in the year and receive virtually no national attention. Why do you think that is? Let us count the ways:
The last point is especially important, given that Wisconsin was an under-appreciated Big Ten co-champion not very long ago. In fact, it was last year. How did the NCAA selection committee treat that Badger team? They were a No. 8 seed, of course, defeating St. John's in the first round before a 30-point drubbing at the hands of eventual national champion Maryland. Two years before that, a Wisconsin team that was a mere 8-8 in conference play managed to overcome a No. 8 seed and march all the way to the Final Four. What these Badgers need to do to avoid the dreaded 8-9 game is make an extended appearance in the Big Ten tournament. Last year Wisconsin was upset by Iowa in the first round, rendering its 11-5 co-championship a bit irrelevant in the eyes of the committee. These Badgers need to validate their regular season when it really counts, and when the most important people are watching. What gives with these Bracket Buster matchups? I go to Drexel (CAA) and am one of the few students who actually go to games, and I have no hesitation in saying some of our competition this year -- UNC Wilmington and Penn, to start with -- would wipe the floor with half of those teams matching up on Saturday. Its a joke. UNCW gets no respect, even though over the past two seasons they have consistently beaten up on a good Colonial conference. They have two stars in Brett Blizzard and Craig Callahan, and they are more than capable of another first-round upset, maybe even a trip to the Sweet 16. Do they have ANY shot at an at-large bid? I hope they do, because naturally Drexel is going to receive the automatic bid for winning the conference tournament. (I can dream!). Also, what about Penn? Would they get an at-large bid if by some fluke they didn't win the weak Ivy?
Sincerely, Andy Katz is more of an expert on the "Bracket Buster" than yours truly, but I take it the CAA was not part of the event's formulation (which is ironic, given that the cover of this year's CAA media guide is headlined Bracket Busters). The Horizon League, Mid-American and Missouri Valley Conference were the prime movers in bringing it about, as historically those conferences have the most mid-major teams with legitimate NCAA at-large profiles. This year's participants were chosen in advance of the season, based in part on projected status and also on schedule availability. For instance, Butler -- an obvious candidate -- was not available, choosing instead to play a non-league game at Duke. I'm not sure if teams like UNCW and Manhattan, not to mention Penn or Weber State or others like them, were seriously considered. What I do know is that, logistically, the event is harder to arrange than it looks. For instance, you can't really take only one team from a given conference (as that would adversely disrupt said league's schedule on an otherwise pivotal Saturday). So you need an even number of teams from each conference involved, and that's where the guess-work begins. Hopefully event organizers will learn from this experience and continue to tweak what is otherwise a decent idea. Expectations must also remain reasonable, as these contests are still just one game for the teams involved.
Hey Joe, Thanks, Joe. Noah P.S.: I have absolutely no rooting interest here. Just curiosity. The missing piece of this logic are the respective conference tournaments. Before estimating any team's at-large chances, one must first consider their chances to earn an automatic bid. The latter must obviously be deducted from the former. So, in answer to Noah above (and Mike W. before that), let's glance at some up-to-date projections from Bracketology "Insider":
P.S.: One must frequently take into account the site and/or format of the respective conference tournament(s), or, in the case of the Ivy League, the lack of one. I also add in the history of a league in which top seeds are more often upset.
Mr. Lunardi, I am a UVa grad and huge Cavalier fan. I've now lived in Atlanta for four years. Georgia Tech and Virginia are nowhere close to great and haven't been for years. They are maybe, maybe, good teams. You were possibly polite to a fault when answering Mr. Christianson's claim. Plus, "people" have said year after year that the ACC is the best conference, so I'd say the ACC gets plenty of respect. And, year after year, "people" are generally correct. This year the ACC is definitely not the best conference. I'd probably give that to the Big XII, what with Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas in the lineup. And one more thing: I know you have given Virginia fans a hard time in the past for our opinions of your opinion (that sounds weird), but overall, I think you've made fair assessments of our team. We've been pretty average and have shown no ability in the postseason, so I really haven't disagreed with us being on the bubble every year (except for a few years ago, when we swept UNC, finished tied with them in conference at 9-7, and didn't make the dance, whereas they did). We are making our way back from the crap that was the end of the Jeff Jones era, but we're not there yet.
Dan Katz, Thanks. Sometimes reason does slip through the inevitable fog of fandom. Also, just for fun, I re-visited that fateful 2000 comparison of Virginia and North Carolina:
I believed then, as now, that North Carolina belonged in the 2000 NCAA Tournament. And, while I don't have instant recall of the other "bubble" teams with which Virginia was competing, the above UVa profile is going to keep you out about 95 percent of the time. To repeat, head-to-head results were (and still are) not a criterion for tournament selection. The committee was right, at least with respect to UNC, and the Tar Heels made that clear by reaching the 2000 Final Four. With a handful of Saint Joseph's "home" games taking place at the Palestra, will they be given any extra points by the selection committee for the neutral-type setting of these games? In other words, for example, for the Villanova game, 3,000 tickets went to the away team. That's hardly a traditional home court setting, right? Same goes for the other Big Five "home" games at the Palestra. Thoughts?
Glenn Jasper, There is no "extra credit" for said home games. Secondary home arenas are not unique to any one team, and it would be extremely difficult for the committee to track things like ticket distribution, etc. Plus, in this case, Saint Joseph's has won each of its Palestra games. In other words, no harm done. Are you still marketing your NCAA Tournament 'eve' Blue Ribbon analysis? I have received it the last few years (normally received by Wednesday before the tournament) and am interested in ordering it again. John Delargy There was no such guide last year, and I have not done one for the past two season. That's the bad news. The good news is that WE'RE BACK, and you can find everything you once liked right here in our Bracketology "Insider." I remember from a season or two ago, you were talking about Adjusted Scoring Margin (ASM) and how it was a useful prediction tool for the NCAA Tournament. Is there any chance of this being made available on ESPN.com? Or did this turn out to not be as useful as originally thought?
Thanks, Thanks for remembering, Brendan. Yes, Adjusted Scoring Margin is still a useful tool. And, yes, it will be made available ESPN.com. It will be part of each team's preview capsule in the online tournament preview coming the day after Selection Sunday. Joe Lunardi is the resident Bracketologist for ESPN, ESPN.com and ESPN Radio. He may be reached at bracketology@comcast.net. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
