Let's get right to an overcrowded mail bag:
Pondering the 'play in' game
I was wondering one thing with the play-in game. Wouldn't you think that it would work better if the play-in actually was between two teams going for an at-large berth rather than two "minor" conference schools? Instead of seeing a SWAC school face a MEAC school, for example, you could see an SEC school face a Mountain West school. And instead of
playing for a No. 16 seed, the two schools are playing for a No. 11 or No. 12 seed.
My idea would allow all of small conference champions in the dance. It's what they play their entire season for. Why should they be forced to win their conference tournament, think they are in, only to find out that they have to play again?
Make two big-time institutions play the game. These guys are the last ones in, not the small conference schools. It might remove a little of the doubt. And it would make for a more interesting game on TV. And that's kinda what the NCAA tournament is all about.
And thanks for leaving Wisconsin as a No. 4 seed."
Russ Dopke,
Elkhart Lake, Wisc.
All of this makes perfect sense, which is in part why it will never happen. The 34-team, at-large rule is designed by and for the big-name schools. The implied threat is that, without such overrepresentation, they will take their ball and go home.
I know that the NCAA requires that 34 at-large teams make the tournament, but did they ever consider changing that to accommodate the 31st conference? I hate the thought that a conference will not have a representative in the 64-team field, while the seventh-best team in the Big Ten or the sixth-best team in the ACC will make it.
How about a new rule: A team must finish in the top half of its conference to be eligible for the tourney. Just a thought.
Yet another rule that makes too much sense to ever happen.
What a great article about the play-in game. I had heard about this on ESPN, but didn't know anything about it. You did a great job explaining it.
I also liked all your bracket positions. I am such a fan of March Madness that I always take off the first Friday of the tournament so I can stay home and watch games.
I am also a big women's basketball fan (University of Connecticut, I am originally from Ct.) and am saddened at the loss of Svetlana Abrosimova. She is my favorite UConn player, after Shea Ralph. I hope they can manage to do well with the rise of Diana Taurasi. She was outstanding in their loss to the Vols last week.
Andrea J. Bross,
Rockport, Mass.
One of these years we'll do "Bracketology" for the women's field. In the meantime, you should consider taking off Thursday AND Friday for tournament viewing!
Midwest Musings
Joe! How do you justify Kansas as a No. 2 seed and Iowa State as a No. 3? We just went into their house and knocked them off! We are alone in first place in the Big 12 right now and have won seven in a row. Our only losses are to Iowa, Oklahoma State (OT) and Missouri (4 OT). I am having flashbacks to last year when we finished 29-4, should have been a No. 2 seed, and got dissed by the selection committee. Please, have a little respect for the Clones!
Maybe you are not aware, Alan, that the bracket projections are done each Monday -- in this case, BEFORE Iowa State's win at Kansas. I don't think you'll be disappointed next week.
As for last season, Iowa State WAS a No. 2 seed.
Now that my Cyclones are on their way to winning the regular-season Big 12 title and hopefully play well in the conference tournament, is there any way we could get a No. 1 seed by the end of the year? I know we got jobbed last year and I think ISU will win the rest of their regular-season games. A No. 2 seed should be a lock by then, but I want a 1 seed! Kansas would get it if they had ISU's record at the end of the year.
I am not among those who believe Iowa State was "jobbed" last year. The four No. 1 seeds were clear, and someone has to be the best of the No. 2s. As for this season, it should be a great battle among Illinois, Michigan State and Iowa State for No. 1 in the Midwest. I am not of the opinion that Kansas can rebound to that status.
After watching Michigan St. and Illinois face off, and being crushed in the stands watching my beloved Jayhawks come up short to a SCARY Iowa State team, who do you think should get the No. 1 seed in the Midwest: the Big 12 winner or the Big 10 champ?
The best Midwest TEAM should get the No. 1 Midwest seed. It should have
nothing to do with conference affiliation.
Joe, I'm a big Missouri fan who's had to see a lot of nail-biters this season. After the recent three-game slide and the loss at OSU, I was ready to count us out when we were behind late to K-State. Luckily we
pulled it out.
Seeing that we have 14 D-1 wins with seven games left, plus the Big XII tourney, does Mizzou have a realistic shot at the bracket if they beat their weaker opponents (Colorado, A&M, Baylor), win in the first round in Kansas City, and lose the other games to finish 18-12? That record is identical to last year's team who nabbed the No. 8 seed in the South.
Our road-neutral record is atrocious. Is that alone enough to keep us out of it given our bubble status?
Brian Ping,
Columbia, Mo.
If your scenario holds, I believe the Tigers would squeeze in. The R+N record hurts, but not as much, obviously, as the Rush injury.
I am sure Iowa is a lock for the tourney, but where they seed is very much a mystery. With Luke Recker out for the remainder of the regular season, Iowa's chances of challenging for the Big Ten Championship have but all disappeared. With that said, will the committee hand Iowa a high seed giving them the benefit of the doubt that come tourney time, they will be healthy and worthy of a top 4 or 5 seed?
I think it depends on whether or not Recker returns in time to show the NCAA Committee that he (and, therefore, the team) is "back." If he/they can do that, it would be appropriate for the committee to fully consider the injury criteria in evaluating the Hawkeyes. Otherwise, Iowa would likely be seeded based on its performance WITHOUT Luke. I don't see any other
way that makes sense.
Around the Bracket
Once again, you have said Georgetown is overrated. What must they do to prove that they are a legit team? They are 8-1 on Road+Neutral sites. They have beaten Seton Hall twice, WVU twice, Minnesota, Charleston, UNLV, etc. They have three losses, just three, and they were all respectable. They have the deepest bench in America, and they have four legit players 6-foot-9 and over. I could go on and on about players who've stepped up this year, but I guess you would ignore that as well. Please
give the Hoyas a little respect. They are here to stay.
It's not about respect; it's about performance. Did you notice that, of all the supposedly "great" wins you reference, only one (Charleston) is against a team in the current bracket?
Now, my opinion is that the Hoyas are indeed a legit squad. That's what my eyes are telling me. The fact, however, are that this is a team padding its record on the No. 300 (300!) non-conference schedule. Beat a few (any?) more NCAA teams, and I'll gladly take the "overrated" label away.
You've got Georgia Tech as a 9th seed so far and I love it, but I have a question. What does Tech need to do the rest of the way out to get in? Can they really finish at or below .500 in the ACC and still make it in? I realize the ACC is strong, but just a few years back a better Tech team finished 8-8 in the ACC and was left scratching their heads after
Selection Sunday.
Tech has victories over Kentucky (neutral site), at UCLA, at UVA, Wake Forest, and Maryland. Of all their losses, only one (N.C. State) could be considered a game they 'should' have won. A concern in their losses to me is that none of the losing margins (except against UGA) are less than double digits.
My take is they need to beat either UVA or at Wake Forest and win the rest of the games in the ACC that they 'should' win (Clemson, NC State, FSU) to get an automatic ticket. That would put them at 17-10, 9-7 in the ACC and surely in the dance, no matter what they do in the ACC tourney. I think if they go 8-8 in the ACC, they need at least one if not two wins in the ACC tourney to get in.
I think both of your scenarios are correct. They key number is "9-7." Otherwise, you'll be sweating it out at the ACC tourney.
As a Xavier student, I am certainly a little bit biased towards the Musketeers. However, I believe that XU deserves a little more respect than you have given them in your weekly tournament projections. You have discussed Xavier as a potentially dangerous tournament team, and the consensus around the country seems to be that Xavier would have to take a huge fall to not qualify for the Big Dance. Furthermore, Xavier has won 13 of 14, has just one A-10 loss, one home loss (albeit
a miserable one to UMass, which Xavier will have the opportunity to avenge in Amherst), is ranked in the Top 25 (A.P.), and has an RPI in the top thirty.
Yet XU only qualifies for a seven seed? The merits of this seed can be reasonably argued, I agree. However, I was appalled to see that a team such as our Tri-State mates, Kentucky, were handed a four seed. Certainly, Kentucky has played a far tougher schedule (119 places better, in fact) and has superior wins, not to mention the national name. The problem is that Kentucky has an RPI just nine places higher than Xavier.
I know your projections, as well as the selection committee's, are strongly based on RPI, so there seems to be a problem here. Furthermore, Kentucky has not played with nearly the consistency that Xavier has. Xavier's next two weeks may prove me wrong, but please explain.
Kentucky has SIX RPI Top 25 wins, the most in America. Xavier has ZERO. That is a HUGE distinction in my eyes and, presumably, those of the men's basketball committee.
Having said that, I think Xavier is terrific. Its halfcourt defense is incredibly underrated. I have seen the Muskies twice in person and
several other times on the tube. But they are not a top-four seed under any established criteria.
The winning streak is history, as well, but you probably already knew that.
I really liked your notes on ESPN.com about the brackets for March Madness. Can the University of Richmond find any way into the NCAAs? How does it look for the NIT?
Thank you for your insight. Go Spiders!
As you know, Richmond is ineligible for the CAA tourney (and automatic bid) because of its impending move to the Atlantic 10. As such, the Spiders will likely get extra consideration in the at-large category.
At the start of this week, I had Richmond at No. 76 on my national "seeding chart." This is comfortably within the NIT field, but several big steps away from serious NCAA consideration.
Why no Penn State?? They have an RPI of 30 along with beating Illinois and other quality teams.
Penn State and Minnesota were in the same boat this week ("LAST FOUR OUT"). You just can't be three games under .500 in your conference and expect to get into a crowded NCAA field.
I am the host of a sports show on WRFT, the radio station for the Temple University Ambler Campus. I was wondering, could I get your opinion, hopefully something that I could repeat on air, about what Temple needs to do to make the tournament?
I have a sneaky suspicion Temple is about to play its way back to serious NCAA consideration. The Owls' next two games are at A-10 leaders Xavier and St. Joseph's. It wouldn't surprise me to see the Owls sweep.
How in the world does the WAC get only one team? Fresno is a lock, and one team out of UTEP, Tulsa, SMU and TCU should get in. The WAC is a deep conference and not an easy place to play. They deserve two teams. I
am a bit biased because I am an alum, but look at SMU, they have not lost a "bad" game all year -- their losses have come at UTEP, TCU, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Fresno. The worst loss they had was a loss against Nebraska on a neutral court, in a game they choked away at the end. We were ahead of both Tennessee and Oklahoma on the road, but blew leads in both of those games, losing a close one at Tennessee and losing a game in OT at Oklahoma on a missed tip-in at the buzzer.
Granted we don't have any "great" wins yet; those close losses really hurt us because they were our only games against premier teams. However, if SMU sweeps UTEP, TCU and Fresno when they come to play at our house, do we play our way into the tourney? At 17-6, we have a good record, and the team is exciting and fun to watch. I just don't understand how
people can be seriously considering a team like UMass, with a .500 record, while SMU has fallen off the radar screen. If you look at the schedule, we have won all the games we should have won and been close in the rest.
I agree that the WAC should have another team in the NCAA field. Rest assured that, as soon as said team steps up and separates itself from the WAC pack, I'll put them in. But my job isn't to project what MIGHT happen, but to select on the basis of what HAS.
The Committee's charge is the same. And I guarantee you there are no columns on their data sheet for "chokes" or "missed tip-ins." The first and most important column has a "W" on top of it.
Procedurally Speaking
Hey Joe, (I'll keep the Jimmi Hendrix references to a minimum).
First off, you are probably the best at "Bracketology," but I'm sure you know that by now. Second off, how in the world do you have three A-10 teams dancing? Are you now basing your picks on conference representation on the Selection Committee? If so, I understand, because Vandy got out "politicked" last year.
Does the fact that the SEC doesn't have representation on the committee hurt our chances?
The A-10 receiving three slots in each of the last two brackets is a bit of a procedural fluke. I had to list UMass as a qualifier because, at the time, the Minutemen were leading the conference standings. Now that they have dropped a rung, the A-10 will lose its third representative (unless someone else steps up, of course).
It has/had nothing to do with Selection Committee membership.
Okay, I'll admit that although I love to watch the game, I don't know much about all the rules, regs, how teams are seeded, etc. I've been watching your brackets for the past few weeks (just to make sure Kentucky shows up in there somewhere!) and I've noticed that you move them around from region to region. One week they were in the Midwest, this week, they're in the East. How and why does that work?
I know this is probably a no-brainer question, but humor me and explain it to me anyway.
There are all kinds of criteria about where teams are sent and why. The main application in this case has to do with conference members not being permitted to meet in the tournament until at least a regional final. In other words, Kentucky would have to be slotted AWAY from other SEC teams. This typically requires geographic shifting.
Just because I have the time ...
I think it is safe to project that PENN will be the Ivy League champion. I noticed that last week's projection had Princeton listed. And the week before had Yale? I assume this is because you are not an Ivy league hoops fan -- not that you should be, the teams aren't that good. BUT Penn is better than Princeton and DEFINITELY better than Yale, so maybe in next week's projection, you can list the team that will be slaughtered by UNC as PENN or even PENN/PRINCETON will do.
Thank you for listening
James Middleton,
UPENN '00
A Penn guy should be smarter than this. The projections clearly state that the current regular season (or, in the case of unbreakable ties) RPI leader is listed for traditional one-bid conferences. At this moment, that team is Princeton. Obviously we'll know more after next week's encounter at the Palestra.
A comment and a question:
1. Aztec Bowl Arena's real name is "Cox Arena." Cox bought the naming rights so early that no one here in America's Finest City could tell you where "Aztec Bowl Arena" is.
2. Why do you project the Mighty Stanford Cardinal (if it gets the No. 1 seed in the West) to join us here in San Diego rather than to bless the good folks in Boise with its presence?
Just a guess, but the No. 1 seeds are supposed to be "rewarded" when possible. No disrespect to the good people of Idaho, but I suspect most folks would prefer to spend a March weekend in San Diego. Furthermore, my assumption is that San Diego is considerably closer to Palo Alto and also more accessible by air travelers.
Does the committee make any effort to pair teams so that the first rounds are not games that were played in the regular season? I noticed that none of your first round games feature two teams from the same conference, but I also noticed that ND and Kentucky would play for the second time this year. Just curious.
The Committee tries to avoid regular-season rematches in the first two rounds (and certainly in the first round). This potential second-round game you mention was unavoidable due to other bracketing criteria.
Joe Lunardi is a regular in-season contributor for ESPN.com and ESPN Radio (Mondays, 9:20 p.m., EST and Saturdays, 2:25 p.m. EST). He is also contributing editor of the Blue Ribbon College Basketball Yearbook,
www.collegebaskets.com. Write to Joe at jlunardi@home.com.
|
|
ALSO SEE
Bracketology
Box Score Banter
Chat with Joe Lunardi, Thursday at 5 p.m. ET
|
