 |  |
 |
|
| Monday, February 3 Who's No. 1? Try picking four No. 1 seeds By Joe Lunardi Special to ESPN.com |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The inevitable question -- "Who's No. 1?" -- is especially vexing for bracketologists. At least four times as vexing, in fact, than for those who vote in the traditional polls. Bracketologists, you see, need to determine not one but four No. 1s. These are your No. 1 seeds each week. Next up is to identify the "number one" of the No. 1s, as NCAA bracketing procedures grant additional geographic and in-conference opponent preferences to the top overall team in the Field of 65. So, with Arizona -- the consensus No. 1 for most of the season to date -- stumbling to Stanford at home last week, where does that leave our search for a true No. 1? Or, more specifically, the search for one top dog and three very close associates? Let's break it down together ... To me, the very top of the bracket is determined a little differently than the more frequently discussed "middle seeds." The top four lines represent a "tournament within a tournament," if you will, so it is especially important to have a 1 through 16 overall ranking of the top teams (starting with the No. 1 seeds, of course). I also believe, in spite of my own fierce lobbying over the years, that polls do come into play at the very top of the bracket. That's not how I would do it, but it is how the Selection Committee has acted over the years. Thinking about it from their point of view, you can almost understand the logic. Say a team was consistently ranked among the top four teams in the country, but, for whatever reason, did not pile up the usual number of "power points." It would be awfully difficult for the committee to justify making that team a lower seed. They would be accused, like some of the rest of us, of being "computer geeks." That's why the current ESPN/USA Today poll is factored into the comparisons below: As it seems a reasonable assumption that the four No. 1 seeds would be drawn from this so-called "national" Top 10, let's make this our working list for further analysis. The first thing to do, then, is to eliminate those on the list who really don't cut it as potential No. 1s:
We are now down to six teams (Florida, Arizona, Texas, Louisville, Kentucky, Notre Dame) for four spots, so the job is a little easier. Florida, at No. 1 in the polls and with the most Top 100 wins in the country, seems obvious. So does No. 2 Arizona, which, despite losing a league game last week, has the No. 1 non-conference RPI in the land. That leaves Texas, Louisville, Kentucky and Notre Dame for the remaining two spots. The Longhorns have the fewest Top 50 wins of the group and also lost head-to-head to Notre Dame on a neutral floor. Texas, you're out for this week. Three teams left for two spots. Louisville, Kentucky and Notre Dame each have a boatload of quality wins. The Irish were drilled by Kentucky, though, which was drilled by Louisville. The Cardinals also have the nation's longest current winning streak, and the Wildcats can claim an undefeated record in the country's No. 1 conference. Notre Dame, you're out. So there you have it: Florida, Arizona, Louisville and Kentucky. In that order. Until the next game, that is, which for our overall No. 1, just happens to come Tuesday night at No. 1 seed Kentucky. It figures. Joe Lunardi is the resident Bracketologist for ESPN, ESPN.com and ESPN Radio. He may be reached at bracketology@comcast.net. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
