You know me. If I go too long without building an actual NCAA Tournament bracket, my brain turns to mush (or, more accurately, it becomes even
mushier than usual).
The recent procedural changes announced by the NCAA men's basketball committee, which I've already voiced my opinion on, are a perfect excuse to whip out the old
draw sheet. Better make that a new draw sheet, as next year's bracket could look a whole lot different than what we're used to seeing.
Taking the most cursory look at a 2002 tournament field -- and please don't hold me to these picks until at least January! -- let's try to digest a
pair of possible brackets, one built under the old guidelines and another featuring the committee's new principles and procedures.
We've also got some of your feedback to report, and will solicit even more based upon what you read here. But first things first. Bracket No.
1 is the 2002 tourney field, built the "old" way.
(CAPS indicate projected conference champion or those leagues likely to receive only one bid.)
|
SOUTH REGION
|
March 14: Greenville, S.C.
|
|
1. FLORIDA
|
16. BIG SOUTH |
|
8. California |
9. Miami (Fla.) |
|
5. UTAH |
12. Minnesota |
|
4. Temple
|
13. COLONIAL |
March 14: St. Louis, Mo.
|
|
3. Iowa
|
14. SOUTHERN CONFERENCE |
|
6. Arizona |
11. South Florida |
|
7. North Carolina |
10. MVC |
|
2. MISSOURI |
15. MID-CONTINENT |
REGIONAL FINAL
March 21-23: Lexington, Ky.
|
|
WEST REGION
|
March 14: Albuquerque, N.M.
|
|
1. Maryland
|
16. MEAC |
|
8. Tulsa |
9. Alabama |
|
5. Oklahoma State |
12. Louisville |
|
4. GONZAGA
|
13. BIG WEST |
March 14: Sacramento, Calif.
|
|
3. BOSTON COLLEGE
|
14. BIG SKY |
|
6. Indiana |
11. MAC |
|
7. Texas |
10. New Mexico |
|
2. UCLA |
15. ATLANTIC SUN (formerly TAAC) |
REGIONAL FINAL
March 21-23: San Jose, Calif.
|
|
EAST REGION
|
March 15: Washington, D.C.
|
|
1. Duke
|
16. Playin-In Game winner:
PATRIOT vs. SWAC |
|
8. Stanford |
9. WESTERN KENTUCKY |
|
5. MEMPHIS |
12. Auburn |
|
4. Connecticut
|
13. MAAC |
March 15: Pittsburgh, Pa
|
|
3. ST. JOSEPH'S |
14. IVY |
|
6. Mississippi |
11. Wyoming |
|
7. Michigan State |
10. Providence |
|
2. Kansas |
15. NORTHEAST |
REGIONAL FINAL
March 22-24: Syracuse, N.Y.
|
|
MIDWEST REGION
|
March 15: Dallas
|
|
1. Kentucky
|
16. SOUTHLAND |
|
8. Xavier |
9. Cincinnati |
|
5. FRESNO STATE |
12. Colorado |
|
4. Georgetown
|
13. Horizon League (formerly MCC) |
March 15: Chicago, Ill.
|
|
3. Virginia
|
14. AMERICAN EAST |
|
6. Syracuse |
11. Southern California |
|
7. Tennessee |
10. Oklahoma |
|
2. Illinois |
15. OVC |
REGIONAL FINAL
March 22-24: Madison, Wis.
|
Multiple Conference Breakdown: Big East (6), Big 12 (6), SEC (6), Big
Ten (5), Pac-10 (5), ACC (4), C-USA (4), Atlantic 10 (3), Mountain West
(3), WAC (2).
Last Four In: Wyoming, Louisville, Minnesota, Auburn.
Last Four Out: Charlotte, Notre Dame, Arizona State, San Diego State.
But, enough from me (for now, anyway). What do you think? Here are some emails from college bracket junkies like me:
Joe,
Why is the NCAA messing with the greatest thing in sports? Every March you see who really are the better teams. If we sugarcoat the
1-4 seeds, that ruins the tournament.
Every March, we circle teams like Gonzaga. If they are going to break
the field into pods, why don't they just completely ruin the tournament
and make it exactly like the women's? Have the host teams be the No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4 seeds?
I just wanted to report that there is nothing better than seeing a high seed finally have to play a smaller seed away from home (like Gonzaga).
-- John Sterrett
I share some of yours concerns, John. While there will (and should never be) "true" home games in the tournament, my biggest worry under the new
format is that certain allegedly neutral matchups will become "less neutral" -- with geographic placement blatantly favoring the higher seed.
I'm willing to give the committee the benefit of the doubt (for now!). But we'll be watching how this unfolds over time.
Joe,
I read with interest your July 18 article on ESPN.com ("NCAA Tourney Tweaks Make Good Sense"). While I agree with many of the reasons
for doing so, I must say that my initial reaction was not positive. I have two reasons for this:
1) The NCAA basketball tournament is easily the best laid out sporting event of our time. Why mess with something that works so well? It seems
changing something that is already the best is, at best, risky business.
2) I paid $300 for two tickets to the Pittsburgh sub-regional in 2002. Unlike many venues, it is already sold out and it sold out quickly in
1997. As there are seldom Pittsburgh area teams in the tournament given their lackluster play over the last decade or so, the excitement comes
from seeing in-person teams you never get to see locally like Arizona, North Carolina, Stanford, etc. By regionalizing the first two rounds, we
are likely to not get to see as many of the top-flight teams from other conferences, but instead a healthy dose of Big East and Big 10 teams
which already frequent the area.
Thus, as a non-college basketball hotbed, we are likely to get the "leftover" quads (thanks for using my word, Tim!), which seems grossly
unfair to those who shelled out boatloads of money to see early round games in hopes of getting what Boise had last year. There were four
great first-round games there that included lots of out-of-region teams
as well as four buzzer-beaters in one day. Not to mention enough
memories to last a lifetime!
The memories of past tournaments are not only made of the champions, but
are most often produced by Princeton/Georgetown, Hampton/Iowa State,
Weber State/North Carolina, Princeton/UCLA and Austin Peay/Illinois.
Regionalized play will certainly lessen the chances of these memorable
outcomes occurring, and where does that leave the greatest show on
earth?
If I lived in North Carolina, I would be rejoicing as the locals are
"the thing." But here in Pittsburgh, I say BOO! HISS!!!! As the saying goes,
"It's all relative."
-- Tim Sager
Irwin, Pa.
Tim, you make excellent points throughout. The only nit I'll really pick is about "memorable outcomes." I don't think regionalization -- if the
tourney does, in fact, comes to that in the early rounds -- will produce
fewer great games. I think what you're really talking about are the
possibility of fewer "great matchups" (or at least nationally attractive
matchups), and that is one potential drawback of the new guidelines.
More likely is that a site such as like Pittsburgh would not get a
marquee No. 1 seed (although that didn't happen in Bracket No. 2 below).
For what it's worth, I think my most likely first/second round
destination next year is Pittsburgh. And I expect it to be a fabulous
sub-regional (much to the chagrin of my in-laws, who will have to put up
with me for four days!).
With that fine segue from Tim, let's proceed directly to a sample "new" bracket (with a few comments from me along the way):
|
SOUTH REGION
|
March 14: Greenville, S.C.
|
|
1. FLORIDA
|
16. BIG SOUTH |
|
8. North Carolina |
9. WESTERN KENTUCKY |
March 14: Albuquerque, N.M.
|
|
5. MEMPHIS |
12. BIG WEST |
|
4. Georgetown
|
13. COLONIAL |
March 14: St. Louis, Mo.
|
|
3. Iowa
|
14. BIG SKY |
|
6. Arizona |
11. Wyoming |
March 14: St. Louis, Mo.
|
|
7. Tennessee |
10. MVC |
|
2. MISSOURI |
15. OVC |
REGIONAL FINAL
March 21-23: Lexington, Ky.
|
Joe Says: Note that there could now be as many as four first/second round sites in each region, contested on alternate days as in the past.
In this example, three sites "feed" the South finals in Lexington.
|
WEST REGION
|
March 15: Washington, D.C.
|
|
1. Maryland
|
16. MEAC |
|
8. Stanford |
9. Miami (Fla.) |
March 14: Sacramento, Calif.
|
|
5. FRESNO STATE |
12. Auburn |
|
4. GONZAGA
|
13. MAAC |
March 15: Chicago, Ill.
|
|
3. BOSTON COLLEGE
|
14. AMERICA EAST |
|
6. Indiana |
11. MAC |
March 14: Sacramento, Calif.
|
|
7. Xavier |
10. Oklahoma |
|
2. UCLA |
15. NORTHEAST |
REGIONAL FINAL
March 21-23: San Jose, Calif.
|
Joe Says: Look at the Washington, D.C., "quad" above (led by Maryland)
and the one below (led by Duke). One suspects this is what the committee
is talking about in terms of "atmosphere," even at the possible expense
of other first weekend sites.
|
EAST REGION
|
March 15: Washington, D.C.
|
|
1. Duke
|
16. Playin-In Game winner:
PATRIOT vs. SWAC |
|
8. Tulsa |
9. Alabama |
March 14: Albuquerque, N.M.
|
|
5. UTAH |
12. Colorado |
|
4. Connecticut
|
13. Louisville |
March 15: Pittsburgh, Pa.
|
|
3. SAINT JOSEPH'S |
14. IVY |
|
6. Mississippi |
11. South Florida |
March 15: Dallas
|
|
7. Michigan State |
10. Providence |
|
2. Kansas |
15. MID-CONTINENT |
REGIONAL FINAL
March 22-24: Syracuse, N.Y.
|
Joe Says: This region is the best example of what will be happening,
with four mostly "team convenient" sites feeding a single regional. The
only high seed not reasonably accommodated here is Connecticut, but the
Huskies first weekend travel is balanced by the possibility of a short
ride to Syracuse for the Sweet 16.
|
MIDWEST REGION
|
March 15: Pittsburgh, Pa.
|
|
1. Kentucky
|
16. SOUTHLAND |
|
8. California |
9. Cincinnati |
March 15: Dallas
|
|
5. Oklahoma State |
12. Minnesota |
|
4. Temple
|
13. Horizon League (formerly MCC) |
March 14: Greenville, S.C.
|
|
3. Virginia
|
14. SOUTHERN CONFERENCE |
|
6. Syracuse |
11. Southern California |
March 15: Chicago, Ill.
|
|
7. Texas |
10. New Mexico |
|
2. ILLINOIS |
15. ATLANTIC SUN (formerly TAAC) |
REGIONAL FINAL
March 22-24: Madison, Wis.
|
Joe Says: Some sites really do get the shaft in terms of marquee
teams. Albuquerque, for instance, has two quads led by a No. 4 seed. No
doubt the committee will need regional draw(s) when this happens to
compensate for the lower seeds being sent to those sites.
Joe Lunardi is the resident "bracketologist" for ESPN.com. He may be
reached at jlunardi@home.com.
|
|
|
