The only thing better than projecting the NCAA Tournament field is hearing what the world thinks about it. What most of the world thinks is that I can't (think, that is).

But I love every word of it!

The Love Affair Continues
Just wanted to ask you a quick question: How in the world do you totally omit the No. 5 ranked team and future ACC champion Virginia Cavaliers?

Jeff Gililland

What I'm sure Jeff meant to say is, "How could I commit the capital crime of bracketing Virginia as a No. 4 seed?" Clairvoyance, of course!

As an ACC fan I've long wondered why you consistently give Virginia the shaft. Last season you underrated them consistently, and this year-No. 5 in one poll and No. 7 in the other-you rank them as a projected No. 4 seed.

Finding this strange, I clicked on Virginia expecting to see something about how they could be ranked higher and all it would take would be a quality win against a top team. Instead I found your reasoning that you were avoiding the wrath of Virginia fans and "protecting" Virginia, thus implying that you believe they should be ranked lower.

You're not a dumb man, Joe, and I cannot figure out why you have a grudge against Virginia. Can you please justify this projected seed? I personally believe they are no worse than a No. 3 seed and a potential No. 1 by the end of the year. I look forward to hearing your reasoning. Thanks.

Nick Haffer
Chapel Hill, NC (not Charlottesville, Va.)

Thanks, Nick, for the very reasonable post. It's the flaming I've gotten from so many UVa Wahoos (or is that yahoos?) that has created unnecessary "wrath" the past year or two.

Here are the facts: I like Virginia, its coach, their style of play and certainly the university. I've been to the town, the area, on campus and have had nothing but positive experiences.

Here are other facts: My job is to throw all that out the window in projecting brackets.

I dropped the Cavs last year because of a non-conference schedule that I thought would hurt them in the end. Only Pete Gillen really knows if that was so, but it sure looked that way in March. This year's Cavs played one road game before the ACC schedule and do not yet have a Top 50 win. I'm not making this stuff up; just interpreting the data. Shoot the messenger if you must, but facts are facts.

Prickly Pac-10
A couple quick questions ...

If Cal is the last team out with an RPI of 29, how is Stanford a No. 7 seed with an RPI of 31? And just exactly who has UCLA beaten that warrants a No. 3 seed? I'm more than a little confused. Cal has as many quality wins as Stanford, and one more than UCLA. Please explain this, or just tell me you picked teams out of a hat.

CalBearister99

I've been saying on ESPN Radio that the "next level" Pac-10 teams (Cal, Stanford, Oregon and USC) have extremely similar profiles. All four could make the NCAA field, although more likely is that they will cannibalize each other somewhat in conference play. I separated Cal -- for the moment -- due to its home (10-0)/road (0-2) disparity. No doubt this will change as the season progresses, but the Committee couldn't miss those numbers if Selection Sunday was today.

I've seen Cal twice in person and, to my eyes, they ARE a tournament team. Their profile just isn't quite there ... yet.

Thanks for starting the "bracketology" controversy nice and early this year. Well, if its not too early to predict brackets, then it's not too early to start the anti-Pac-10 bias! After placing four teams in the Sweet 16 last year, and three in the Final 8, we continue to get snubbed (sorry, having Cal as a "Last Four Out" doesn't really cut it). When will we get our due? We play in one of the toughest (if not THE toughest) conferences in the country, with some homecourts that are almost impossible for a visiting team to win in (Oregon, Cal, etc). Let's be fair here, and say that we'll get five teams in this year, with conference champ UCLA getting a No. 2 seed!

Mike Didovic

There are, in fact, five Pac-10 teams in the field this week (with one more knocking on the door, as you note). There is no bias here, East, West or otherwise.

Valley Girls ... & Boys
How can you pick Northern Iowa over Southern Illinois? SIU beat Indiana by 12 and lost to Illinois by 3.
Mike and Laura Coracy

As explained in the FAQ section (as well as the UNI pop-up window), my bracketing guidelines require the current regular-season conference leader to be listed as a league's automatic qualifier. At the time of this projection, UNI was 3-0 in Missouri Valley play over SIU's 2-0. This placed the Salukis into the "at-large" pool, where they missed the field (this week) by six spots.

Saw your first bracketology and, while I admire your hard work, I have to wonder where Southern Illinois is. This is a team that's 12-2, has an RPI of 53 and is the current MVC leader. They've lost by 3 to Illinois on a neutral court and had an aberration at Colorado State. Other than that, they've been a fairly solid team. Just wondered why UNI made the list, with four losses (San Diego State, UMKC, Butler and Iowa State).

Rick Gregg
Carbondale

SIU is now 13-2 after defeating Southwest Missouri State. A win over Northern Iowa on Saturday will likely put an end to this conflict.

Getting His Money's Worth
(I'll answer each of Jeff's questions in order ...) First off, I'm a huge fan of your Bracketology projections, columns, chats, etc. You obviously put a lot of work into this and I thank you very much for all the enjoyment that your work on ESPN.com has provided me over the past few years.

I have a few questions/comments on your 1/7 Bracketology:

1) Do your projections represent (a) what you think the committee SHOULD do if picking the bracket today or (b) what you predict the committee WOULD do if picking the bracket today? I am also curious as to how much difference you see between (a) and (b). I personally think the difference between (a) and (b) has been shrinking in recent years (at least with respect to which teams get in the field), but the committee still makes a lot of questionable seeding choices.

The answer is (b), what the Committee WOULD do. While I'd like to think my personal opinions really matter, they ultimately don't, of course. I would be doing the readers a disservice by injecting my views (there is plenty of room for that here and in Chat, etc.) and not replicating the Committee's procedures as accurately as possible. I agree, however, that the SHOULD/WOULD "gap" is shrinking, perhaps in part because of increased scrutiny of the process. If we've contributed to that in some way, great (although, like you, some of the seeding still makes little sense).

2) To me, the most surprising thing about your 1/7 projection is the absence of Ball State. Their RPI is 35 with a schedule strength of 8. They have quality wins over Kansas (RPI 1) and UCLA (9), both on a neutral court. They have quality losses to Duke (3, neutral), at Oklahoma State (14), at Indiana (16), plus Butler (51). I think the Ball State profile is currently MUCH stronger than some of your at large selections -- specifically George Washington (RPI 52; best win 42, worst loss 199) and Kent State (RPI 67, with a loss to Youngstown State 307). The committee clearly emphasizes SOS and quality wins, penalizes bad losses and does not penalize teams too much for quality losses. I realize that Ball State also lost to Kent State, but that is their worst loss. They have no bad losses, in fact no losses to any team below RPI 67 or to any team not in your field (and only one home loss). Considering their schedule, I don't think five losses is at all unreasonable. I am curious what your reasoning was on leaving out Ball State (and I also see they weren't even in your "last four out" list).

First of all, George Washington and Kent State were listed this week as the automatic qualifiers from their respective conferences. Ball State is thus compared against all other at-large candidates (and not these two teams). I guess what stuck out-negatively-to me was their 5-5 record in the Last 10. The Committee would have to weight "past" vs. "present" in evaluating such a team.

3) I love the new detail on the bracketology chart. One suggestion to improve the chart would be for you to include some analysis for the teams that didn't quite make your cut (similar to what is there for the teams in the field) to better explain decisions on why certain teams didn't make it (e.g., Reasons Why Not in Field, May Rise Because).

We've talked about it, but there are certain time/space limitations. I promise to re-visit the idea.

4) I don't understand your rationale for bracketing the current conference leader for the one-bid conferences. I think it would be much more meaningful to use the team most likely to get the automatic bid. For example, in the Ivy League, Penn is much stronger than Harvard and much more likely to get the Ivy automatic. If you want to use an objective criteria for determining the team from a one-bid conference, I think it would be much more logical (and make your projections more realistic) to use the current RPI leader regardless of conference standing (especially so early in the conference season). Also, if you did this, Penn would clearly be in the ballpark of a 13 seed, not a 16, so slotting Penn around 13 would make the seed lines at the bottom of the bracket more realistic. I don't think the quirks of early season conference schedules should impact the bracket projections.

These are all valid points, but I do it this way for three reasons: 1) Any potentially misleading projections are temporary, given that the cream invariably rises to the top in every conference; 2) It goes back to the SHOULD/WOULD distinction above (the Committee picks the actual winner, or in this case leader, not who they think might be best); 3) It's fun to give as many teams as possible their "day in the sun," as it were. We'll get more serious soon enough.

5) I get annoyed with certain media personnel (not you!) misusing the term "lock" when discussing tournament projections. I think a team should be labeled a "lock" only if you can reasonably argue that the team would still get an at-large bid even if it were to lose all of its remaining games. Therefore, no team can even be close to being mentioned as a "lock" at this point in the season. I'm curious if you have any comments on this definition.

My definition isn't quite that strict, although I did write about this notion at length last season. I would suggest something like, "Team A is a lock because there is no reasonable chance its at-large profile won't be comfortably IN the field come Selection Sunday." This definition allows you to stop worrying about the incredibly remote chance of Duke or whomever losing the rest of their games.

Jeff Haggar Holly Springs, NC

Thanks, Jeff, for your time and interest.

Digging Deep Into the In Box
Just wanted to say thanks for your unbiased opinions. All of us in Spokane sure are glad guys like you and Katz and Bilas don't just stick to schools inside the Thirteen Colonies.

That being said, I saw that you picked the Gonzaga Bulldogs as a No. 4 seed in the West. I sure hope you are right, but, in the end, do you think the selection committee will feel the same way? I felt last year's team had a shot to get a good seeding, or even a good bracket, but instead got sent to Memphis and ran into Michigan State. This year's schedule is tough enough to get them a good seed, right ... hopefully?

Thanks again. Keep it up, and try to make it out to Spokane for the Pepperdine game. And maybe while you're at it, you should have ESPN pick up the tab for Dickie V to come along, so he could see what basketball is like on the Western frontier.

Steve Pickford
Spokane, Wash.

I guarantee you there isn't an analyst in the country who doesn't appreciate Gonzaga. I've seen them twice in person and twice more on the tube. Forget about past seedings (which aren't supposed to matter), this is a legitimate Top 15-20 team with scoring balance, solid defense, great rebounding and a "road warrior" mentality. And they might get better as Blake Stepp gets healthier. What's not to like?

P.S.: I will be in Spokane, but not until next season.

Obviously it's too early to get bent out of shape, but Bracketology always makes for great debate. Here is my question: How is Michigan State one of the last teams in? They have taken care of business on their home floor and their road losses are nothing to be ashamed of. Last time I checked, losing to Florida, Stanford, Syracuse and Fresno State are nothing to be ashamed of. The loss at Minnesota is not too shabby, either, considering that Gopher team play really well at home. Not to mention Michigan State was without their best player, Marcus Taylor.

Now I didn't dig too deep to find out why other teams were ahead of Michigan State, but Texas stuck out like a sore thumb. Texas ahead of Michigan State? C'mon Joe!! Its best player is out for the season. They have a 2-4 Top 100 record compared to State's, which is 2-5, but State has two Top 25 RPI wins. State's strength of schedule is better by 2. It's a travesty!

Okay, maybe I am being too dramatic, but I have March Madness already and I needed to vent. Love your work.

Rjhunt07

All I'm going to say is, Michigan State better figure out how to win some road games-and soon. Three Final Fours or not, the Committee ain't going to look favorably on anything close to 0-6 outside East Lansing. A slightly "down" Big Ten will either help or hurt, depending on whether the goal is winning games or sneaking in an extra at-large team. The Spartans may very well be that worrisome team.

Checked out your section for the first time today at ESPN.com. Enjoyed it. That being said, are you kidding me on Thursday's big game? UCLA and USC are traditional cross-town rivals and undefeated in Pac-10 play, and you are trying to tell me that UC-Irvine and Utah State is your big game? No disrespect to those two schools and their (quality) teams, but get real.

Matt Ceragioli
Manhattan Beach, Calif.

A blind monkey could list UCLA/USC as a "big game" (or, for that matter, any other major conference tilt). I pick games based largely upon NCAA Tournament ramifications, and there is no doubt the UC-Irvine/Utah State matchup will have more to say about the Big West's NCAA representative(s) than any comparable Pac-10 game that night. Let the networks worry about ratings, I worry about impact!

You've no doubt got a number of e-mails about your omission of North Carolina. I'm not writing to tell you that you were wrong; they've got no case. But my wife is a Carolina grad, so it's my job to get the scoop. A friend of mine was saying the other day that if Carolina plays .500 ball in the ACC this season (a pretty generous prediction), they're a lock for the NCAAs. I told him (no way). What do you think?

Dave Lein

I've made the ".500 in the ACC statement" myself once or twice, and there is certainly plenty of history to support that argument. Having said that, it now appears UNC would be an exception to that trend. Carolina will probably have to do even better because its non-conference performance has been so weak.

To their credit, Carolina fans have not been berating me (or anyone else that I know of). As for your wife, tell here to log on for herself!

Joe Lunardi is the resident Bracketologist for ESPN, ESPN.com and ESPN Radio. He is also editor and publisher of www.bracketology.net. Write to Joe at jlunardi@home.com.