For comparison, Joe Lunardi has now released his own bracket. He disagrees on one #1 seed: Louisville instead of UCLA. The problem I have there is that the #2, #3 and #4 teams in the Big East will be better than those in the Pac-10. So even if Louisville ends up being better than UCLA, they will still lose more conference games and probably have a lower RPI. He agrees with my high seeding of Michigan State and Mississippi State, and is even more excited about NC State than I am. He also gives a high seeding to Georgia Tech. Some mistakes that I think he makes:
Tennessee as a #3 seed. There's a reason that I separate things out by conference first, to make sure I don't make the mistake of having something like the SEC champion as a #3 seed. Whoever wins the SEC is guaranteed to have a top 5 RPI and atleast a #2 seed.
Texas A&M as a #3 seed. I don't see why there is so much love for the Aggies. Do people remember what this program was like before Billy Gillespie and Acie Law?
New Mexico State as the WAC champ but at #13. I'm glad that he agrees with me on the winner, but this conference is too good for its best team and champion to only get a #13.
That's all I can really notice in a quick glance.
Any other comments people have on Lunardi or my own? I certainly am willing to discuss what I'm wrong about (although let's try to keep posting standards high on this website. I will delete posts again if the language gets too poor).