2001 NCB Preview

M COLLEGE BB
Scores
Schedules
Rankings
Standings
Statistics
Transactions
Teams
Players
Recruiting
Message Board
FEATURES
NIT
Fans Poll Top 25
D-II Tournament
D-III Tournament
CONFERENCES


ESPN MALL
TeamStore
ESPN Auctions
SPORT SECTIONS
Thursday, January 31
 
Bracket Banter

The "friendly" conversations continue ...

Ripe Regions
Can't argue with you seeding Oklahoma ahead of Maryland, considering Oklahoma spanked the Terps. My question is regarding the first-round sites. I would think that, barring a serious collapse by Maryland, they are almost a lock to play at the MCI Center. Even if they were to slip to a 3/4 seed, there would need to be two "eastern" teams seeded higher and located closer to D.C. (to bump the Terps).

From what I can tell, the only team even close is UConn, and Maryland beat UConn earlier this year. Would you think Maryland is pretty safe for the MCI Center, barring a major collapse? Thanks.

Andy Passman
Catonsville, Md.

Andy, you are reading into the new regionalization guidelines perfectly. Right or wrong, this is how it's supposed to work for 2002 and beyond. Maryland fans hoping for the MCI Center are not likely to be disappointed. It could/should have been the same for Illinois in Chicago, but the Illini are putting the necessary seed in jeopardy.

Thanks so much for doing such a terrific job. I think you're the most thorough sports journalist working today. My question deals with the regionalization issue, which I thought I understood until I saw the latest round of bracketology.

Clearly, the SEC would like a spot in Greenville, although I understand that Duke might get one if they don't go to D.C. That being said, why would Florida as a No. 3 seed get to go there above Alabama or Georgia (as No. 2s)? I tried to reason it as them being low No. 2s, but it would still seem that the higher you're bracketed, the better treatment you should get.

Georgia's only a 1½-hour drive (from Greenville), and Alabama would rather play there than Dallas. If there's some kind of rule preventing a No. 1 and a No. 2 from sharing the same site, it would seem that the regionalization process hurts deep conferences, or at least the best of the deep conferences, since the No. 3s get picked over the No. 2s.

Maybe I've missed something in the regionalization maze? Thanks for any clarity you can bring, and keep those brackets coming.

Ryan Van Meter
Charlottesville, Va.

Thanks for the kind words, Ryan, especially since I work full-time in neither sports nor journalism. Let me try to deliver the clarity you seek.

Simply put, I probably goofed on this one. Bracketology is an evolving process each week, as we work up accurate seed (and now site) projections to best reflect what the committee might do on Selection Sunday. I tend to feel more confident with each new bracket, precisely because of this kind of give-and-take.

While there is no such rule preventing a No. 1 and No. 2 from sharing the same site, there were other considerations in my mind as this week's pairing were done. I happen to know, for instance, that tickets sales in Greenville are sluggish. So my knee-jerk (and probably incorrect) reaction was to send the two biggest "names" (Duke, Florida) there. This would obviously be unfair to Georgia and/or Alabama if they indeed finish as higher seeds. So, while I try not to be influenced by potential committee politics, it happened this time.

I'll work up an extra NIT bracket this week as my penance!

Love the brackets and the banter. I will let it slide that your latest bracket appears to be a blatant attempt at appeasing the Kentucky horde. My concern (as a devoted Jayhawk follower) is why you have them set up to meet Duke in the semis? Shouldn't you and the committee set it up so the obvious 1 and 2 teams in the country would meet in the final?

This oversight occurs with some frequency, but in a year where Duke seems head and shoulders above everyone and Kansas only slightly less more impressive, shouldn't the brackets reflect this?

Brian Kane
Pittsburgh

In a word, "no". It makes no sense to juggle 15 other teams in a region based on the POSSIBILITY that two No. 1 seeds will win five straight games and meet in the Final Four. The committee has stated repeatedly that it wants the brackets to be as evenly balanced as possible, but will then let the chips fall where they may at the Final Four.

Some have called for a re-bracketing at that point, but we all know it will never happen. Why? It would screw up every tournament pool in the land, and the television ratings would plummet accordingly.

P.S.: Regular readers know the word "appease" is not in my vocabulary.

When are you guys going to get the sites correct on your bracket? Every week you have the sites for the games incorrect. I'm sure there are no games in the East Region that will take place in Sacramento.

Richard Stewart

IIt's moments like these when I realize I'll always have a job from January through March. Richard, the NCAA announced in July that it was disconnecting the early-round sites from their natural geographic regions. The idea is to keep more teams closer to home during that first weekend, regardless of where they are bracketed the following week.

Look around the ESPN.com site a little bit, as we've written extensively on this topic.

Quaking in the Ivies
Do you think Penn has a chance of getting an at-large bid if they don't win they Ivy League, assuming they finish with a 12-2 record in the Ivies? My case for their at large bid:
1) Assuming they win all but one of their remaining games, they will finish with a record of 25-5.
2) They won the Philadelphia Big 5, finishing with a perfect record of 4-0.
3) Quality wins against the Big East (Villanova), ACC ( Georgia Tech), Big 12 (Iowa State) and Atlantic 10 (St. Josephs and Temple).
4) RPI of 53 as of the latest ranking.
5) The Ivy League has become a much better conference. In fact, the Ivies' non-conference record is better than the A-10's.

I'm hoping we win the title outright, but who knows? It's college basketball we are talking about. Your thoughts?

Keith
Pennsylvania '94

There is little question that Penn's Quakers are among the Top 65 teams in the country. The at-large question, however, requires a team to be among the Top 34 in the country. And this is where the calculus gets a little sticky for teams like Penn.

As Keith points out, Penn can reach the 25-win mark without capturing the Ivy League title. And the Quakers have indeed won four games (actually 4-1) against their Philadelphia Big 5 opponents. While Philadelphians understand just how impressive this is, it is not among the criteria for NCAA Tournament selection. In fact, none of the vanquished in this group are currently RPI Top 50 teams. So, while the "names" Villanova, Temple, Saint Joseph's and La Salle look very good, it is no different to the committee than if Penn defeated four similar RPI teams (say UMass, George Washington, San Diego and Belmont). The combined Division I record of this non-Big 5 foursome is 36-35.

With regard to other non-conference victories, Penn has done all that could reasonably be asked of a non-scholarship program. Yet the "names" of the victims are more impressive than their actual standing. Georgia Tech (7-13; RPI No. 111) and Iowa State (8-12; RPI No. 164) are simply not very good basketball teams.

Penn's own RPI and schedule strength can and does give the Quakers legitimate at-large consideration. I had the Quakers at No. 78 this week on the national seeding chart, which is just 13 spots out of the NCAA field. This is an unusually good position for an Ivy team that does not currently lead the league. However, history suggests that such a profile would still fall a little short on Selection Sunday.

Penn should win the Ivy League because it is the best team. And that's what the committee will think if they don't.

P.S.: The Ivies do, in fact have a slightly better non-conference winning percentage than the Atlantic 10. In no way, however, can it be considered a better overall performance. The A-10 has the No. 8 non-conference RPI against the nation's No. 1 non-conference schedule. The Ivy League is No. 18 overall in non-conference RPI (against the No. 31 non-conference schedule).

Miscellany
Joe, I love bracketology. It's great to watch how much things can change in only a couple of games week to week. The question I have is, are wins against non-Division I teams really that much of a bad thing? Enough to drop a team a spot or two (or even change their tourney site)?

Granted, in the beginning and middle of the year, I can see how having an "empty" win can hurt the percentages and numbers. But being a month into the conference season, don't other factors wipe that out? Take Indiana, at 6-1 in the Big Ten, with their only loss being at Ohio State, and three wins coming on the road. The win against Alaska-Anchorage shouldn't help them, but it shouldn't be a reason to drop. And their SOS is still one of the tops in the country.

Yes, I'm an IU alum and Mike Davis fan, so I'm a little (biased), but I think it's a legit question for many teams.

Darren Sell

It is a perfectly legitimate question, and probably one which won't come into play in Indiana's case. First of all, the Hoosiers' overall profile is (and should be) such that playing the host team in the Alaska Shootout shouldn't matter. Also, it wasn't necessarily IU's choice to face Anchorage in the opening round. The committee understands this.

What the committee doesn't typically accept is the intentional scheduling of non-DI opponents. It's not so much that these games inflate the RPI (because they don't even count), but that they prevent the possibility of Division I losses. In other words, a team that gives itself 28 chances to lose is considered differently than one which gives itself, say, 26 such chances.

Teams have been left out of the tourney for this reason in the past, and some conferences now mandate that no non-DI games be scheduled by its members.

I thought one of the main criteria of bracketing was to separate conference selections if they totaled four or more. Why do you have Charlotte in the South with Cincinnati? Wouldn't the committee slot them in the East at this point in time?

Nick Terry
Akron

This bracket principle has been changed. Now, only the first three teams from any conference must be sent to different regions. The committee feels it needs this added flexibility to achieve the desired "regionalization."

Your No. 3 seed Ohio State should be replaced with Pittsburgh for two reasons: Pitt beat Ohio State and has a better record. More importantly, if you look at the ESPN/USA Today Coaches Poll for this week, Ohio State did not even receive one stinking point. Not one coach even thinks of Ohio State as a Top 25 teams. O-V-E-R-R-A-T-E-D.

John McKernan

John must be very new to Bracketology, so we'll go easy on him. While the first point (comparing the records of these two teams) is legitimate, I thank God every day that polls are not part of the NCAA selection process. Better to flip a coin that to trust the nitwits who actually vote in these things.

For about the 563rd time, let me state that there is virtually NO CORRELATION between the polls and the selection/seeding process. It's about who you beat, and where and when you beat them.

Temple, for instance, was voted ninth by one of these brilliant pollsters this week. The Owls were 6-12 at the time. Enough said.

I have recently read these new rules. Instead of wasting the brain cells on the whole document, can you tell me the following:

Do these new rules affect the way "office pools" are constructed? Would a new bracket have to go out after the second round?

Thanks and keep up the good work.

Tim Milanich

Arguably the most important question of the year. The answer is NO, there will be no re-bracketing. Everybody back in the pool!

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.






 More from ESPN...
Bracket Banter: Jan. 23
Every edition of ...

Bracket Banter: Jan. 17
Every edition of ...

Bracket Banter: Jan. 9
Every edition of ...

Bracketology: Projecting 2004's field fo 65
Just where will Syracuse ...

 ESPN Tools
Email story
 
Most sent
 
Print story
 
Daily email