I think there's a lot of hype that goes into Championship Week, especially at ESPN with "Joey Brackets" and elsewhere, where everyone throws in their two cents, so here's mine. First, it looks like I was wrong about at least one thing, perhaps two. Colorado State, an 11-loss MWC team will likely make the tournament and set the record for the worst at-large MWC team ever, edging out a 24-8 UNLV team from a few years back. I said no chance a few weeks ago, but with the expanded field and the increasing parody in college basketball, I'll go ahead and eat my crow on that one. Second, BYU seemed solidly in the field at one point, but, while I still believe they hear their name on Selection Sunday, it's likely as one of the last two teams to NOT play in a play-in, or actually in the play-in game instead of being a "comfortable" 11-seed where I thought/hoped they'd land a week ago.
Also, I believe the "experts" put too much emphasis on conference tournaments. Last season, it seemed very clear (to me at least) that the Committee valued the regular season immensely more than runs, or early losses, in conference tournaments. The committee didn't appear to sort the bubble teams by their performance in conference tournaments, as Lunardi and others have continuously indicated is the case this week (with his Bracketology updates every few hours as tournament games finished). Seton Hall or Mississippi State won't necessarily miss the field because of early losses in their tournaments. NC State or Texas won't necessarily get into the field b/c they pulled off an upset in their conference tournament and USF didn't.
One final thought, the Committee included two mid-majors in the play-in games last season. Neither of the two seemed to the "experts" to fit in the tournament, which would seem to favor Drexel and Iona over other potential bubble teams. The Committee tried and failed on UAB last year, but definitely hit on VCU, so I think they take their chances with at least one this year, even if it doesn't "fit." That's one interesting thing I'm looking at: do Drexel and Iona get chances in play-in games or will high majors like Washington, Seton Hall, NC State, Mississippi State get the nod?
The Pac 12 was guaranteed to "steal" a bid today, which Colorado certainly did, but for the most part, conference tournaments have gone about as predicted. St. Bonaventure gets a shot at Xavier which would steal a bid (I think Xavier will make it either way, but for them it may be the difference of a play-in game or not).
So, here's my thoughts on the seeding:
1-Kentucky, Syracuse, North Carolina, Ohio State (I think the winner of Big Ten Title game takes the fourth 1-seed over KU or Mizzou, and I'm picking OSU to win that game)
2-Kansas, Missouri, Michigan State, Duke (KU won the Big XII regular season crown and Mizzou won the Big XII conference tourney title, but I think the fourth #1 seed will go to a team that won both regular season AND conference tourney title, i.e. the Big Ten Champ, since there was a tie for the regular season crown between the teams playing in the title game)
3-Marquette, Baylor, Michigan, Louisville (Louisville winning the Big East title gave them 3 more wins over tourney teams and 1 potential tourney team and probably moves them from a 5 to a 3)
4-Florida State, Georgetown, Indiana, Murray State (even with a win over UNC on Sunday, I think FSU maxes out at a 4-seed; I'm not sure Murray State actually makes it this high, but 30-1 is 30-1 and I hope the Committee rewards that, especially because they went on the road and played two teams that made the NCAA Tournament last season and beat them both)
5-Florida, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Saint Mary's (this is where the bracket really starts to get tricky, because there isn't much difference between the teams in the 5-8 seed range; if Murray State didn't end up as high as four, I'd pick Florida as the team to replace them on the 4-line)
6-Wichita State, Cincinnati, New Mexico, Gonzaga (Cincinnati picked up two extremely valuable wins in the Big East tourney; Wichita State is the most likely team to rise to a vacancy in the higher seeds if Murray State drops this far; New Mexico was MWC regular and tournament champs, so they get the highest of the MWC seeds in spite of the worst RPI of the four tourney teams)
7-Creighton, UNLV, Memphis, Temple (yes, I recognize these are all mid majors that could be seeded anywhere 5-8; Creighton won their conference tournament; UNLV lost in the semis on their homecourt conference tourney but still did great in a popular MWC; Memphis won their regular season title and then conference tourney title, in Memphis; Temple had an early exit from their conference tourney but had a great season and has a great RPI)
8-SDSU, Vanderbilt, Purdue, Virginia (SDSU could easily be a 6-seed but I don't see any team that I listed ahead of them that I see fit to necessarily push down; Vanderbilt certainly could move up as many as two lines with a win against Kentucky on Sunday, but otherwise, they fall into the 8-9 range we typically see from BCS conference teams that underperform in conference play; this may be reaching a little on Purdue, but I certainly feel they're an 8/9 game team; Virginia is the same as Purdue, they MAY be a 9 seed, but they're playing in the same game either way)
9-Southern Miss, Alabama, Kansas State, Iowa State (Southern Miss is the most likely from this group to move up in the 8 range, but again, this 8/9 group every year tends to be those teams, mostly from BCS conferences, that showed flashes of brilliance but couldn't put it together for regular season or conference tournament titles which perfectly suits Southern Miss and the rest of these teams)
10-Connecticut, West Virginia, California, Long Beach State (this may be reaching on both California schools, but given the group of 11s I have, I don't see why these teams couldn't be the last two 10 seeds)
11-Harvard, St. Louis, Colorado State, BYU (another thing the Committee seems to do is pit mid-majors against each other in 6/11 or 5/12 matchups; a lot of people want Harvard to be higher, and they could be a 10 in place of Cal or LBSU but let's not get nuts here, they needed a Penn collapse to be here and boast losses against some bad schools; I could easily see Texas replacing BYU on this line, but either way, I think Texas and BYU will end up being the last two non-play-in at-large teams)
12- Texas and Xavier, assuming they win their conference tourney, otherwise they join the play-in game group, NC State slides out, and VCU takes Xavier's place on the 12 line; play-ins South Florida, Washington, Drexel, NC State (I do firmly believe at least one non-BCS team will make the play-in games; I originally had Mississippi State in here as I thought their entire body of work was potentially better than the Wolfpack, but NC State actually played a few teams in the non-conference and the Committee often rewards a team that challenges itself, even if it costs them an extra loss or two; a week and a half ago, I would have said Mississippi State easy over NC State; in fact, five minutes ago I had MSU in here but...this LAST SPOT is tough, really tough, not just to decide but to pick what I think the Committee will decide; I HOPE the Committee gives the LAST bid to Iona instead of either of those two, but I don't really believe it's going to happen. Of the bubble teams in contention for these play-in games, I firmly believe Iona has the best chance of being this year's VCU and I'd love to see them get that chance: Iona and South Florida for a shot at St. Mary's with UW and Drexel battling it out for a chance to take on the Irish...if only...)
13-VCU, Colorado, South Dakota State, New Mexico State (given this group of 13s, the 4-seeds better watch out, especially with what I deem a pretty weak group of 4 seeds)
14-Belmont, Ohio, Davidson, Montana (if St. Bonaventure's beats Xavier they probably land here, moving either Belmont or Ohio up to the 13 line as VCU moves up to a 12; if the 3 seeds weren't particularly strong this year, any of these four teams would be capable of an upset, as it is, though, I don't see an upset as the 3s are pretty legit this season)
15-Loyola (MD), Long Island, Lehigh, Detroit (Doug Gottlieb says watch out for Detroit in the tournament, so whatever 2-seed they play, I will instantly move the 2-seed on, IF Detroit ends up with a 15 ahead of UNC-Asheville, which I'm not sold on)
16-UNC-Asheville, Lamar; play-ins Norfolk State, Vermont, Mississippi Valley State, Western Kentucky (some of these are familiar names in recent NCAA Tournament history, but none of them stand much of a chance this year)
First Four Out: Mississippi State, Seton Hall, Arizona, Iona. I don't feel like there is anyone to really "get screwed" this season as I believe Colorado (and one other team that escapes me at the moment) was last year. Any of these teams COULD be in the tournament, but I could make a very reasonable argument for any of these teams belonging in the NIT, and even as 2-seeds in that tournament.
Other teams also in consideration for the final at-large bids are Northwestern, Miami, and Ole Miss, but, again, I do not think any of them could feel "screwed" by an NCAA Tournament snub. There is a reason we have the NIT. Any of the last four in or the first seven out exemplify that reason! Some are young, talented but inconsistent teams: they benefit from potentially deep runs in the NIT and the experience of playing in Madison Square Garden (like Alabama and Wichita State which are both single digit seeds in the NCAA this season). Others are veteran teams that just didn't have enough talent to compete with the big guys: their seniors get a chance to go out on the court and get a few more games in front of the home crowd (like Washington State which made a nice run last year but clearly had some rebuilding to do this year).
The NIT is a beautiful thing, and this is why I'm glad expanding the field stopped at 68 instead of 98. It's bad enough some of the teams I've discussed will make the tournament. But could you imagine comparing the resumes of bubble teams such as Illinois, UCLA, and Maryland this season? That's what we would be looking at in a field of 96!
No comments:
Post a Comment