 |  |
 |
|
| Thursday, January 17 Bracket Banter |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Many of you write and ask: "Do I actually read every message that comes in?" The answer is "yes," although volume has become such that I can no longer respond to every e-mail individually. That's why we created "Bracket Banter!"
Wave 'em In Speaking of the aforementioned teams, with the exception of Fresno, these are all teams that my beloved Pepperdine Waves have played this year. I appreciate that you have us as one of the "last four out" right now. My question for you is: What are they going to need to do to get an at-large bid? Will a 12-2 conference record and WCC championship game appearance be enough? Or do you think we need to take at least one from the 'Zags. I agree with you, Friday night's game (vs. Gonzaga) is a huge one for us. It feels like mixed sentiment right now with regard to our at-large chances. I know that the big-conference-loving RPI will end up really hurting us, but it feels like a year that we could still make a case. On the one hand, we lost to Irvine and Santa Barbara; but on the other hand we played the No. 4 non-conference schedule in the country and came out with some big wins (at USC, at UCLA, BYU). What are your thoughts? By the way, I've been watching/playing against (Gonzaga's Dan) Dickau since he was in the sixth grade, so don't expect him to fall off any time soon. He's the real deal and always has been. I'm guessing John Stockton will retire and Dickau will pick right up for him running the show in Utah. You heard it hear first.
Adam Hoff We've been thinking of opening a Bracketology satellite office out west, and Malibu seems as good a spot as any... But, seriously, there's not been enough at-large talk about Pepperdine. Everyone seems to be asking the "can they lose their conference tournament and get in" question mostly about Butler and Ball State. Pepperdine is very much in the same category, as are Utah State, Bowling Green and Western Kentucky. History suggest there won't nearly be enough spots for all of these mid-majors, for a dozen reasons that make sense and another dozen that don't. The bottom line is that the system does favor the power conferences, at the very least by creating a much smaller margin of error for the so-called mid-majors. But let's not forget the message sent last year-spoken and unspoken-by the Committee: "Who" you play is almost as (if not equally) important as "how" you did against them. So let's take a look at non-conference RPI and schedules, as well as quality wins with regard to these six teams (listed alphabetically):
It says here that Butler has the most to worry about come Selection Sunday. The No. 270 is going to stick out just as much as any ranking or early-season win(s). As for Pepperdine, I suspect the Waves need to win at least one of three possible meetings with Gonzaga. That-provided so-called "bad" losses are kept to a minimum-should put the Waves in the NCAA field.
Logistics I really enjoy your work on ESPN.com. I have a couple of comments/questions involving the logistics of the new format of geographically placing first/second round games, and then another question: 1) I notice in your latest mock bracket that you have Pitt playing in Pittsburgh as a No. 7 seed in the first and second rounds. I realize that they are allowed to play there since they don't play home games regularly at that arena, but do you really think the committee would place them there? That seems like a huge disservice to the 10th seed (Mississippi State in this scenario), who, in what should be an evenly matched game, has to basically play a road game in the first round, and especially to Cincinnati, who deserves better in the second round as a No. 2 seed. I know that the committee wants to try to keep teams closer to home in the early rounds, but I'm not sure a team seeded 7th deserves such a great reward. Do you agree with this, or did Pitt just happen to end up there in your scenario? Much more the latter than the former. The only real issue here is Cincinnati, which should receive more "protection" as a No. 2 seed. You're probably right that Mellon Arena (vs. Pitt) would be considered a "home crowd disadvantage" for the Bearcats. If Cincy were a little bit closer (say two hours), it might be a different calculation. As for "protecting" a No. 10 seed, there is no such provision under the new guidelines (or the old ones, for that matter). Mississippi State would simply get screwed by procedure and/or greed in this scenario. Bottom line? The higher your seed, the greater your chance of regionalization working in your favor. 2) I have been doing some thinking about this new alignment for the first two rounds (I know, too much time on my hands). I'm not sure if the NCAA wanted this, but I think a likely by-product will be a decrease in the major first-round upsets (i.e. teams seeded 13 or lower). For example, if this placement system had been in effect last year, the Iowa State/Hampton game might have been in Kansas City. I think ISU may have been a different team if they had been playing in front of 10,000 Cyclone faithful instead of being stuck in Boise with only a few hundred fans. Having attended the first/second rounds for 10 straight years, I know that the crowds at these games always get fired up for the big underdogs if they have a chance, and this can really help these teams get over the hump when playing a top seed. By making these lower seeds play first round games in potentially hostile environments more often, don't you think it could decrease their chances of winning? Absolutely, and I wrote exactly that in this space when the new guidelines were released in July. Committee members disagree, but I promise to remain skeptical until I see a real bracket from them. And only a cynic would suggest that anyone in a position of authority would actually attempt to legislate fewer upsets... 3) Lastly, a question regarding the Big Ten. It seems that many in the media are jumping on the 'Big Ten is down this year' bandwagon, and I wonder why this is. The league is in the 4/5 RPI range as a conference, and there are four teams in the RPI Top 20. I think the perception is that the league is a bit down because there is not a dominant, Top 5 level team right now, but I think this will change. I think right now the reason for this is because two surprise teams (Indiana and Ohio State) are at the top of the league, and it will take a while for the polls and the RPI to figure out that pre-season favorites like Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan State aren't at the top of the league. As Indiana and OSU win more games, their rankings will slowly improve and by the end of the year they will be very highly rated. I agree that the bottom of the league (PSU, NW, Michigan, Purdue) is pretty soft this year, but I think the top is very strong. Ultimately, I think Indiana, OSU, Illinois and Iowa all have excellent chances to get to the Sweet 16 and likely beyond. What are your thoughts?
Steve Neer The notion of a softer Big Ten is more than perception. It IS softer. While there is nothing wrong with being an RPI 4/5 conference, this is still measurably lower than the Big Ten's typical level. And, while the likes of Indiana have replaced preseason favorites at the top of the ratings, the bottom teams are considerably lower than we normally see. This has hurt the overall power of the conference, as well as its non-league performance. Of course there could be several Sweet 16 (and beyond) teams from the Big Ten. But "perception" -- not to mention seeding -- will be an issue until then.
Timing is Everything
Jamie Russell Remember that each bracket is compiled on a Sunday, reflecting games played up to and including that day. This past week, through Sunday, Memphis was No. 70 on our national seeding chart (meaning the Tigers were a mere five spots out of the projected NCAA field). With an RPI of No. 63 and zero Top 50 wins at that point, the Tigers simply didn't have the at-large profile to be rated higher. This week, the win over South Florida was big. If Memphis takes care of business at Southern Miss on Friday, they will very likely slide into next week's bracket. I am just wondering what your reasoning is for including Utah from the MWC and not BYU. BYU is playing better than Utah, and has shown that with the two MWC games that each team played against UNLV and San Diego State. BYU played solid in all areas. Utah had to survive both games with the three-point shot (a low percentage shot). How long can Utah keep up the threes and what happens to them when they drop back to their normal three-point average?
Randy Palmer This is another question of timing. At the time of this projection, Utah had the No. 23 schedule and two RPI Top 50 wins. BYU, on the other hand, had the No. 87 schedule and one Top 50 win. Now I'll be honest: I have no idea which team is better (yet), but I can tell you that on Jan. 14, the Committee would have rated Utah higher. As for the Utes' alleged reliance on the three-ball, I don't think the Committee much cares HOW you win. If Utah suffers the drop-off you predict, it will be plainly apparent in the only columns that matter: Ws and Ls. I know that Tulsa is generally not taken seriously, but what does Tulsa have to do in order to get an at-large consideration from you and the Selection Committee? This is a team, primarily intact from the NIT run a year ago, when they beat Mississippi State and Minnesota on the road to complete the championship. They have great guard play (something needed to make a run in the NCAAs), and have three close losses this year to teams that are either high seeds in your brackets or in consideration week in and week out. Can you explain to me why Tulsa does not get the respect that they deserve (3rd winningest program in last three years in Division I and a 12-3 so far this year)?
Chris Jensen As most know, last year (or even a three-year stretch) counts nothing toward selection for the current NCAA Tournament. I also dispute the tired notion, "lack of respect." Every media member has access to the same season data. They write and/or talk about teams that drive readers and viewers. We psuedo-Committee members do things a little differently (as does the real Committee, of course). We look at facts on paper, not images on a screen or commentators in a headset. Through this past Sunday, Tulsa had played the No. 170 schedule (No. 211 non-conference) and had exactly ZERO Top 100 wins. Yes, closes losses help when you're on the "bubble." But first you have to get there, and Tulsa is not ... at least not yet.
A-10 Worries
Shamus Williams Frankly, the Atlantic 10 is in serious trouble with regard to at-large team selection. While the conference played its typically excellent non-conference schedule, it got no real "scalps" as it has in years past. Part of this was the result of Temple limping along, the other part is that none of the contenders has had a real breakthrough. The best thing that could happen for A-10 fans is for two or three teams in the conference to pretty much run the table in league play. There needs to be real separation in each division so the Selection Committee can more easily identify the contenders (Xavier?) from the pretenders (George Washington?). As for the Bonnies, I believe they are much closer to being a contender than a pretender in the conference. If they are one of the 2-3 teams to "separate," as explained above, then their NCAA chances will be on the plus side of 50/50.
The Weekly Rant Virginia is an experienced, extremely talented team that gets absolutely no respect because all of you so-called basketball "experts" are too busy ogling over Duke. You need to take off your beer goggles (or whatever you're wearing that has impaired your ability to know what's going on) in the world of basketball and see that the ACC is a three-way race. Duke lost to FLORIDA STATE. All of you basketball experts can try and forget about that or make as many excuses as you want, but the fact remains that Duke is not the greatest team out there and Virginia and Maryland can and will beat them. Show a little respect and try and watch the teams play rather than staring at their jerseys and/or their past.
Greg Quast Yes, UVa defeated Wake Forest. Yes, this is a step toward justifying an incredibly inflated ranking in the polls. But one game does not a season make, especially when that game is played at home. I have a hard time calling any team elite that was 0-1 in its conference tournament and 0-1 in the NCAA Tournament. Virginia may in fact earn that status, and when they do I'll be the first to admit as much. In the meantime, I won't stare at jerseys or the past. I'll just look at the facts. 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. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
