Thursday, March 08, 2007

D-3 BP65

1. UCLA (PAC 10)
1. NORTH CAROLINA (ACC)
1. OHIO ST. (BIG 10)
1. KANSAS (BIG 12)

2. FLORIDA (SEC)
2. Wisconsin
2. GEORGETOWN (BIG EAST)
2. Texas A&M

3. MEMPHIS (CONFERENCE USA)
3. Pittsburgh
3. Texas
3. Washington State

4. Southern Illinois
4. NEVADA (WAC)
4. Maryland
4. Tennessee

5. Marquette
5. Virginia Tech
5. Duke
5. Kentucky

6. Oregon
6. BYU (MWC)
6. Villanova
6. Virginia

7. UNLV
7. Louisville
7. Arizona
7. CREIGHTON (MVC)

8. USC
8. Air Force
8. Boston College
8. Indiana

9. Vanderbilt
9. Notre Dame
9. XAVIER (ATLANTIC 10)
9. Butler

10. Michigan State
10. Georgia Tech
10. Syracuse
10. VCU (COLONIAL)

11. GONZAGA (WCC)
11. Illinois
11. Texas Tech
11. Missouri State

12. WINTHROP (BIG SOUTH)
12. Old Dominion
12. DAVIDSON (SOUTHERN)
12. Stanford

13. Massachusetts
13. WRIGHT STATE (HORIZON)
13. VERMONT (AMERICA EAST)
13. TEXAS A&M CORPUS CHRISTI (SOUTHLAND)

14. AKRON (MAC)
14. PENN (IVY)
14. ORAL ROBERTS (MID-CON)
14. BUCKNELL (PATRIOT)


15. LONG BEACH STATE (BIG WEST)
15. BELMONT (ATLANTIC SUN)
15. NIAGARA (MAAC)
15. WEBER STATE (BIG SKY)

16. DELAWARE ST (MEAC)
16. NORTH TEXAS (SUN BELT)
16. EASTERN KENTUCKY (OHIO VALLEY)
16. JACKSON STATE (SWAC)
16. CENTRAL CONNECTICUT STATE (NORTHEAST)

And now the best of the rest, separated into different groups. Keep in mind that within each group, teams are not ranked. Rather, they are just put in conference alphabetical order (ACC teams before Big East teams, etc.):

Teams that might be in some brackets, but just miss the cut:
Florida State
West Virginia
Drexel
Bradley
Alabama
Arkansas

Good resumes, but need a little bit more:
Purdue
Georgia
Mississippi

Plausible bubble teams, but need a big turnaround:
Clemson
Michigan
Oklahoma State
Kansas State
Mississippi State

Still alive, but pretty much need a miracle:
San Diego State
Washington
Posted by at

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

U Mass? That's an interesting new addition. I assume this means you see them getting to the finals of their tourney, expecting wins over St Louis (RPI 81) and George Washington (RPI 86) along the way. Here's their profile:
University of Massachusetts
RPI 55
Top 25 0-2
Top 50 1-2 (1-4)
Top 100 5-0 (6-4)
Bad Losses 122, 165, 164
Road Record 10-5 road, 2-0 neut
Neutral Wins 124, 181
Road Wins 41, 76, 94, 98, 141, 153, 211, 265, 291, 314
Final Record 21-10

Hmmm. Their only top 50 win is over Louisville, back in December when they weren't very good (at all). They were playing the team that lost to Dayton, not the one that beat Pitt & Marquette. U Mass' best win after that is Dayton.

OK, they didn't lose too many games they shouldn't, but they haven't beaten anybody. Maybe this is the best team that can be predicted into the field, but going back to your Bradley analogy, there must be SOMEBODY who plays their way into the field over these guys.

p.s. BTW Jeff, you should get MAJOR applause for forecasting (back in December) that Louisville would be a tourney team, when they mostly sucked.

March 08, 2007 11:48 AM
Jeff said...

Thanks. It's not like I had any great inside information, it just seemed like a fairly young team with a great coach is bound to improve. They were different from UConn in that Louisville has some senior talent and leadership, and UConn does not. This is why Louisville has been able to win some close games, which the Huskies have not. Early in the season all you can do is play the odds, you can't know anything for sure.

As for UMass, it came down to this for me:

When you get down to those last two or three seeds, you're not talking about anyone with a great resume. In past years you'd be looking at 7-9 or 8-8 teams from top conferences, teams like Clemson or Alabama. But in recent years the Selection Committee has decided to give more chances to smaller teams with great performances but few real chances against elite teams.

If the Minutemen had gotten more chances against teams like Georgia Tech or Mississippi, there's no doubt in my mind they'd win some. The fact is that they've looked very impressive when they've been on national television (and I've actually been able to see them live). The A-10 isn't a junky conference. It's impressive to run through it like they have.

Look at the last few years, and the teams that have been "surprise" Tournament teams. George Mason. Utah State. Teams with great records against mediocre teams.

When all else is even, these are the teams the Selection Committee are going to lean towards. This is why I still think Drexel has a shot if more bubble teams go out early in the Conference Tourneys.

A final thing to remember is that for teams like Drexel and UMass, their RPI is really deflated because they have to play so many conference games against bad teams. Compare UMass to Purdue, for example. UMass has an RPI of 54 and a 23-10 record. Purdue has an RPI of 49 and a 20-10 record. The Minutemen RPI is killed because they got stuck playing 10 games against RPI 200+ teams, and Purdue only played 4. UMass is 5-4 against the RPI Top 100 (about to be 6-4 if they can finish off St. Louis), Purdue is 8-8. We can break it down even further: UMass is 3-3 on the road against the RPI Top 100, Purdue is 1-7. And, yeah, Purdue has had to play games at teams like Wisconsin and UMass hasn't, so those numbers are slightly deceptive. But they're impressive nonetheless.

Besides, if you were on the Selection Committee, wouldn't you rather see a red-hot mid-major get in over a 9-7 team from Big-10 that has had plenty of chances to earn its way in and hasn't?

March 08, 2007 7:22 PM
Jeff said...

Oh well, looks like I jinxed UMass. They would have been in if they made the Finals. In fact, they easily could have won the Finals, as they played Xavier real tough on the road in their one matchup. But they had the classic "look ahead game", and can book their tickets to the NIT now.

March 08, 2007 8:56 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)