Comments on: Thoughts on the 2009 NCAA Tournament Bracket

By: R. Orlando

R. Orlando — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 00:47:30 +0000

Penn State wasn’t good enough for the NCAA yet they win the NIT and knocked off MSU at Michigan. Something even UCONN couldn’t do. PSU got the shaft and the selection committee should be ashamed by their exclusion of the Lions!

By: Feel the Flow

Feel the Flow — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:59:39 +0000

It was clear that last year the selection committee made an effort to protect the big conferences at the expense of the mid-majors. If you remember, every mid major team was scheduled against another mid-major team in the first round last year. It was an obvious attempt by the committe to avoid the potential of embarassing first round losses by the big conferences. Couldn’t you just hear those suits scheming to each other, “will put six of them in, get rid of three right away and sit back and watch the remaining three get beat by winners in the second round”. When that somewhat backfired on them (thank you Davidson) they corrected their mistake by simply keeping the qualified mid-majors (St. Mary’s, Creighton, San Diego St) out of the tourney this year.

By: washington

washington — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:29:34 +0000

I don’t know if the MSU post kid has had to guard a guy like John Brockman. I can see foul trouble for his with the little guards slashing in the lane and JB being his usual self.

By: Biggus Piggus

Biggus Piggus — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:28:38 +0000

I use a simple method to review seedings. Rank on 1) games vs. RPI top 100; 2) number of wins vs. top 100; 3) fewest number of sub-100 losses; 4) fewest number of sub-200 losses.

It’s the committee’s job to compensate for unsolvable scheduling discrepancies, getting creative to imagine how good the best mid-majors could be given the chance. Nevertheless, it’s my assumption that playing more games vs. good competition makes a team better.

Vs. my method, here are the most overseeded teams (excluding lower auto bids):

Gonzaga, a 4 seed, only had 12 games vs. the top 100 and went 8-4. Twenty-one teams had no losses vs. sub-100 teams, unlike Gonzaga. This isn’t a classically good Gonzaga team and deserves more like a 10.

Boston College, a 7 seed, barely makes it in my top 60. Forty-seven teams had more top 100 wins; 51 teams had more top 100 games; and 56 teams had fewer sub-100 losses. They look like a juicy target for USC.

Clemson, a 7 seed, and Siena, a 9, had a lot of mediocre wins and a couple of not-so-good losses. Siena’s in trouble against Ohio State. Clemson probably squeaks by Michigan.

Wake Forest, a 4 seed, had a relatively low 16 games vs. the top 100 plus two sub-100 losses.

Xavier, a 4 seed, was 23rd in top 100 wins, 52nd in top 100 games, and had two sub-100 losses when 41 other teams had fewer.

Of the top seeds, least deserving based on my method was North Carolina. Fourteen top 100 wins ranked eighth. Eighteen top 100 games rated 26th. No bad losses compensates somewhat, but several other teams accomplished more against better opposition.

By my view, the Big Ten was most consistently underrated. Purdue had a fine record: Tenth in top 100 wins, second-most top 100 games, no bad losses. The Boilermakers got seeded a 5 when they may have deserved a 2. Ohio State, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin were four slots below where my method says they stack up. Michigan State would have been a 1 seed for me with UConn a 2.

Tennessee really got bent over for the SEC’s overall weakness. The Vols had the toughest nonleague schedule of anyone in the field and played 22 games vs. the top 100, tied with several for second most. No bad losses whatsoever. They could have been a 5 or 6 seed instead of a 9, lower than an LSU team with a miserable nonconference schedule.

Don’t you think Washington, arguably overseeded at a 4, got no favors drawing Mississippi State? The Huskies are one of the shortest teams in college hoop but score little from outside, instead relying heavily on offensive rebounding and getting fouled. MSU has Varnado in there owning the lane, while the perimeter guys rain threes and play shot-denial man without fouling a lot.

By: Atticus Funch

Atticus Funch — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:05:08 +0000

LSU losing 3 of 4 down the stretch should have been enough to force them below UT.

Personally, I like MSU to pull the upset of Washington. I think the Pac-10 in general is overrated. I also think MSU has the components necessary for the upset: phenomenal defense, dominant big man (at least defensively), and good (albeit streaky) 3-point shooting. The venue will be tough for them, as Washington is close to home.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:19:06 +0000

@ Cyclone Batch:

” if you don’t win 20 games you don’t get in. ” This would be a terrible rule to have in place — it would essentially result in Arizona (and every other BCS school) scheduling all cupcakes and never playing even each other during non-conference just to guarantee 20 wins.

By: Cyclone Batch

Cyclone Batch — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:09:00 +0000

I couldn’t agree more w/ David Mihm. I would have left out Arizona and Wisconsin, if you don’t win 20 games you don’t get in. I think that they absolutely be replaced w/ Creighton & St. Mary’s what makes the tourney fun. Those Mid-Major #12 seeds putting their lives on the line against overrated “BCS” schools who finished in the middle of the pack in their conference. Arizona and Wisconsin as #12 seeds takes the fun out of double digit upsets. I think if you implement a rule that major conference teams have to have 20 wins and mid-majors have to have 25 wins to be considered for an at large this is why you should remove Arizona and Wisconsin and put in St. Mary’s and Creighton. I think this year’s tournament will be full of upsets and crazy close games, no one is good like the UConn women who is dominating everyone they play. Let the March Madness begin!

By: Lukas

Lukas — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:19:37 +0000

Congrats on an absolutely fantastic projection. We placed 3rd in the Bracket Project Matrix this year out of the 61 expert brackets, but you guys were head and shoulders the best out there. It’s nice to see someone stick to their guns with Arizona, even when less than 15% of the brackets out there had them in.

By: nic

nic — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 05:24:04 +0000

i was suprised by how many teams from the big ten conference made it, i looked up the games they played and their schedule was no better than some of the midmajors and many of those teams from the big ten did not have any impressive wins. some lost more than fifty percent of their last 16 games.they should have gave couple a of more bids to the midmajors like saintmarys and creighton or san diego state. i also dont’t understand how a struggling team like arizona could have gotten an at large bid.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 05:15:33 +0000

Forgot to add, the 65/65 is nice, but the stat that says it all:

Teams w/in One Seed Line: 62/65 (95.4%)