Saturday, January 05, 2008

W-10 BP65

Late night update because I won't have a lot of time Sunday morning to write this up. Only ten weeks until Selection Sunday:

1. KANSAS (BIG 12)
1. UCLA (PAC 10)

2. Duke

3. Marquette
3. Texas A&M
3. Texas
3. Washington State

4. Indiana
4. Pittsburgh
4. Stanford
4. Villanova

5. Arizona
5. Wisconsin
5. Oregon
5. Vanderbilt

6. Florida
6. BYU (MWC)
6. Louisville

7. Syracuse
7. Ohio State
7. Clemson

8. USC
8. Mississippi
8. California
8. West Virginia

9. Kansas State
9. Oklahoma
9. UConn
9. Dayton

10. Illinois
10. Florida State

11. Notre Dame
11. Boston College
11. Arkansas
11. Virginia

12. Southern Illinois
12. Miami (Fl)

13. MIAMI (OH) (MAC)


15. YALE (IVY)


Other teams considered, but that just missed the cut:
Georgia Tech, NC State, Duquesne, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Providence, Minnesota, Purdue, Baylor, Missouri, Drake, Illinois State, San Diego State, Washington, Alabama, Saint Mary's

Other teams with a decent shot, but that need to improve their resume:
Maryland, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, St. Joseph's, Depaul, Seton Hall, South Florida, Iowa State, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, VCU, Houston, Valparaiso, Akron, Kent State, Missouri State, Indiana State, Northern Iowa, New Mexico, UNLV, Arizona State, Mississippi State, South Carolina

Other teams I'm keeping an eye on, but that need to drastically improve their resume:
St. Louis, Temple, Cincinnati, Rutgers, St. John's, Penn State, James Madison, Tulane, UAB, UTEP, Wright State, Ohio, Bradley, Wichita State, Utah, Auburn, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, South Alabama, San Diego, Boise State, Utah State


Anonymous said...

Why do you keep projecting Southern Illinois and to a lesser extent Western Kentucky?

Derek said...

You don't have Rhode Island in the tournament at this point? You are crazy...that shows total incompetence on your part. They are 14-1. What else do they need to do? I've lost any respect I once had for your predictions.

Anonymous said...

You can see his "argument" against putting them in in his previous projections.

Derek said...

yeah...I saw his "argument." I wouldn't even call it that. It is just a very poor prediction. I used to think this guy was up there with the rest of the country's hoop analysts. I was wrong. There is NO way that Rhode Island should be out of the tournament based upon the CURRENT games played.

Anonymous said...

So I thought Illinois was suddenly supposed to be good when they entered Big Ten play? Oh, they still suck. If I take a page out of your playbook and project the rest of the season for the Illini, let's see what I come up with.

First allow me to be generous and give them home wins over Michigan, Northwestern, Purdue, and Minnesota. Then let's give them two road wins over Iowa and Michigan followed by one surprising upset ( though I think any road win or a home win over Minnesota would count at this point. )

15 - 16 ( 7 - 11 ) Is this still a tourney team, Jeff?

Jeff said...

Wow, I leave for a day and everyone gets all sorts of vicious... Let's try to settle down the anger:

Derek, you answered your own question. You said "There is NO way that Rhode Island should be out of the tournament based upon the CURRENT games played."

You're right. Based upon current games played, if the season ended now, Rhode Island would be in. But if you read about how I do the BP65, it's about a projection to how the season will end up. Like the anonymous poster said, if you read last week's BP65, I explain why I think Rhode Island will be left out.

The only thing that seems preposterous to me is the idea that everyone is projecting three or four teams out of the Atlantic Ten and only one out of the Missouri Valley, even though the Missouri Valley is rated higher.

I'm projecting two teams in from each conference. If Rhode Island can convince me that they're the second best team in the Atlantic Ten I'll move them in. They haven't done that yet. Beating up on a lot of mediocre teams does not a Tournament resume make.

As for Illinois - again, I emphasize, these predictions come out BEFORE SUNDAY'S GAMES ARE PLAYED. Therefore, today's loss against Penn State is not included. And if the anonymous poster is continuously so smart about Illinois, I'm assuming that he bet big money on them to lose to Penn State and Tennesse State? If he didn't, then it's ridiculous to give me a hard time about not seeing a big upset coming.

As for this game against Penn State, I can't tell you exactly what happened because I didn't watch it. Breaking down the stats, it looks like Illinois got dominated on the boards. They won every other important stat. Why did this happen? Like I said, I didn't watch the game, but I think I can make a pretty good guess. Brian Randle fouled out. And the two best centers on the team (Shaun Pruitt and Mike Tisdale) both got four fouls. Illinois basically ran out of big guys.

As I emphasized last week, Illinois wins based on their size. If Randle and Pruitt keep having to sit on the bench (the two combined for 45 minutes today), Illinois is in trouble.

It's possible this was just a look ahead game (they head to the Kohl Center later this week). I still think Illinois is the 5th best team in the Big Ten. Who exactly do you think is the 5th? And the Big Ten is not getting four teams in, so somebody has to get the fifth spot.

Derek said...

Bottom line Jeff, Rhode Island isn't and won't be the third best team in the A-10 this year. I'd say they'll be first, with maybe being able to make a case for Xavier. Have you seen what the A-10 has done to the Big East and ACC this year...teams like URI, Dayton, UMASS, and Xavier have all beaten up on Syracuse, Providence, Pitt, Virginia, and the list goes on. This prediction or projection is just flat out wrong. Sorry, I just don't know what you are thinking. I've read your "argument" and it makes no sense...why Dayton over URI? Have they played a better schedule?? Not really...or just you project them better based on what??? Last year??? I hope not.

Jeff said...

Okay, well you are welcome to your belief that Rhode Island is the second best team in the A-10. I don't think it's quite so obvious that they're not the third best team that it's worth flipping out and using immature personal attacks...

As for how good the A-10 has looked against the Big East - that's nice. But they are still rated behind the Missouri Valley in the RPI and the Sagarin Ratings. The RPIs of teams like Rhode Island and Dayton will all be dropping as they play in conference. Remember, all of these teams have to play each other - so somebody is going to pick up losses. You can't possibly think the conference is going to end up with four teams in the RPI Top 20, do you?

You are welcome to think Rhode Island is the best team in the A-10. But I've seen all of the top five teams play atleast once, and I think Xavier and Dayton are the two best. This will all settle itself as the season goes on, so there's no reason to get all too worked up right now.

Derek said...

Immature personal attacks, huh? I don't think I attacked anyone personally. I just stated my opinion, I never directly attacked you. I just don't agree with your "predictions." I'm not that worked up. I just can't understand how you are the only "bracketologist" in the country who does not have URI in the dance. I'm a Syracuse grad anyway and even I would have them in over Syracuse right now. Sorry I hurt your feelings. I just think you need to show more love for the A-10.

Evilmonkeycma said...

There is a flaw in your logic that since the MVC is rated higher, it should get more or equal number of bids to the A-10. That flaw is that the MVC is a balanced conference, while the A-10 is not. While the Missouri Valley has no outstanding teams, they have no bad teams dragging down their conference RPI either. Only Evansville has a RPI lower than 150. The A-10 has 6. These bottom feeders drag down conference RPI.

Even if you ignore that, know that the selection committee does not look at conference affiliation when making their decision. They don't even look at the RPI of the teams they are evaluating! They look at SOS, Non-Con SOS, Wins against top RPI teams, and losses against lower RPI teams.

Ignoring that, you can still look at SIU, what they've done, and their pathetic start to the conference schedule, and predict that they will not be in. Especially with how Drake (not in your bracket) has done.

Moving past the MVC/A-10:

Villanova. This bracket was made in the space between their loss to Depaul and win vs. Marquette. During that time period I decided that they were vastly overrated (two bad losses, no good wins). Why did you still have them projected as a 4 seed? (Of course, in light of their victory over Pittsburgh, they just look bipolar. Or lucky.)

Oregon. Another bipolar team. Why do you predict that they will have a good conference run when they have proven they can lose to Oakland and Nebraska? I would guess a mediocre Pac-10 season at best.

I hope this helps. Seriously though... I would take the 3rd team in the A-10 over the 1st team from the MVC.

Jeff said...

I am the only major bracket site that predicts where things will end up at the end of the year. That's what makes this site different.

As I already said, Rhode Island would be in the Tournament if the season ended now. That's why they're in every bracket. I don't think they'll be in when the year ends.

Derek said...

we agree to disagree... my "I told you so" will come in March. Enjoy the
rest of the season. Go Orange!

Jeff said...

Taking those in reverse order, evilmonkeycma, you answered your own question on Villanova. They are oozing talent and have a great coach, and I knew that they were going to break through with a few big wins. With all of the injuries to Pitt and Louisville, Nova has a shot to actually finish third in the Big East. Hard to see the third team in the Big East getting much lower than a five seed.

As for the Valley/A-10 argument, I'm completely aware of that logic. Which is why I'm closer to putting a third A-10 team in than a third Valley team, even though the Valley is more highly rated.

But, people need to realize that the Atlantic Ten is way overrated. They had a couple of big glamor wins that got a ton of attention because they were over the Big East. If they'd pulled those wins over Oklahoma and Baylor, they wouldn't be getting 1/10th the attention. And this is what the computers bear out.

The real problem with the Atlantic Ten is one that you already implied - there are a bunch of bad teams. The odds that we're going to go through the whole season without Dayton, Rhode Island and Xavier getting a couple of bad losses are pretty low.

Take Rhode Island. They're 14-1, which means that their winning percentage can't really get any higher. So the strength of schedule will drop as the season goes on, and the record HAS to drop (unless they roll through the conference, in which case this discussion about them finishing third and getting an at-large is moot).

Look, we'll see how these things play out. But this happens every year, that some mid-majors start the season 12-1 with a couple of upsets and everyone jumps all over them. These teams return to reality almost every time. It's the same thing with people giving St. Mary's a 3, 4 or 5 seed (at least until they got rocked by Texas yesterday). That ain't happening either.

People just need perspective. It's a long season...

Evilmonkeycma said...

Not to jump on you - but you'd drop St. Mary's seed for losing to a top ten team on the road? The only thing that proves is that they aren't a top ten team. They've only lost on the road to Texas and SIU (who are both in your bracket).

More A-10 debate: On the contrary, the fact that there are a bunch of bad teams makes it more likely that the four teams at the top will end up with a gaudy amount of wins.
End A-10 discussion (for this post)

You missed my final point on the MVC. Even if you do predict in 2 teams from the MVC, SIU should NOT be one of them. Drake (not in your bracket) has done better to open their conference schedule, while having a better non-conference resume. It seems at this point foolish to assume that SIU is going to turn things around quickly enough to have a decent resume.

Evilmonkeycma said...

Oh, and whats the response to the Oregon comment?

Jeff said...

Well, I've talked about Oregon a lot in the past because I thought they were the most overrated team in the Top 10 in pre-season. The thing with Oregon is that they will continue to be "bipolar" as you put it because of their make-up. They are a hustle team. Did you get a chance to watch the Arizona game? Arizona had the most talent on the floor, but Oregon out-hustled them.

So, Oregon's performance each night will come down to hustle. If their opponent shows up fired up, Oregon is going to have a hard time winning. If the team zones out for several-minute stretches (like Arizona seems to do), they're going to lose to Oregon. In the end, I think Oregon will end up third in the Pac-10, because they beat Arizona on the road and I just don't feel comfortable putting California up there until they win a few big games in conference..

Now, back to the Drake issue. I would agree that Drake has probably been the best team in the Missouri Valley so far. But the Valley season is very grueling. You don't get a night off, and almost everyone plays good defense and rebounds well. Creighton and SIU have been through this before - Drake has been a bottom-feeder.

Up until now, Drake has been sneaking up on people. But what happens when they go from being the hunter to the hunted? Can they beat teams like Creighton, SIU, Indiana State, Missouri State and Bradley when the pressure is on? I still have my doubts.

Jeff said...

Oh, and I didn't jump of St. Mary's bandwagon because of the Texas loss. I've never been on the bandwagon. Just saying that St. Mary's dropped in some brackets after the loss this weekend.

Evilmonkeycma said...

I realize that you've never been on the SMC bandwagon (as I've been attempting for weeks to get you on it). Let me try again. If SMC goes 13-1 in conference (losing on the road to Gonzaga), and then wins the semifinal game, and loses in the finals to Gonzaga, they would be 26-4 with wins over Oregon (the team you say will be the 3rd best team in the deepest conference) and Drake, and 4 road losses (the Zags twice, SIU (who you believe is the second best MVC team), and Texas). How is that not a tournament resume?

Evilmonkeycma said...

I accept your reasoning about Drake/SIU, although I personally don't believe it has that much of an effect. One thing that I didn't mention earlier that is bothering me: why do you still have WKU in over S. Alabama for the Sun Belt?

Jeff said...

If Saint Mary's wins every game the rest of the way other than the game at Gonzaga, they will get in the Tournament for sure. No question there.

But what I said was that speaking of bipolar teams, St. Mary's is a very different team on the road. They could easily win every game the rest of the way at home. But I think they're going to drop three or four conference games on the road.

And for Drake - they certainly have a good enough out of conference resume. It doesn't blow you away, but it's good enough. If they finish in the top two in the regular season MVC they will get in the Tournament. If they finish third, it will be tough.

If the MVC finishes all bunched up like they did last year, they are not going to get three teams. The only way they'll get three teams in the Tournament is if Creighton, Drake and SIU run away with the conference. If those three more or less beat everybody else, and only lose to each other, then all three will be in.

But from what we've learned the past few years, the Valley season is a real battle. Everybody can beat everybody on any given night. Every team will end up with a bunch of losses. Drake's record is not going to hold up. And their resume won't look quite as good with a few losses to teams like Illinois State and Missouri State.

I just want to see what happens to Drake when they start out 4-1 or 5-2 in the Valley. If they're still in first place in late January. How do they handle the pressure? It's very hard for a relatively young team that is unaccustomed to the pressure of being the hunted ever night to continue to win each game.

Jeff said...

Okay, so for the Sun Belt issue. In the pre-season I picked Western Kentucky, which means that I need a reason to bump South Alabama ahead of them.

Now, through the out-of-conference schedule, both of these teams were pretty similar. Both teams took care of the games they were supposed to win, and neither team managed to pull off any real nice upsets. Western Kentucky had one fairly bad loss (a close one at Northern Arizona... not really that bad of a loss). You probably agree that there isn't really any big difference between how these two teams played in the out-of-conference?

So that brings us to yesterday's game. It was at South Alabama and they won by four... that doesn't tell me that they're the better team. Home court advantage is worth about four or five points, so this tells me that Western Kentucky should win their matchup at home in late February. In my mind, nothing was settled yesterday.

At this point, nothing has happened so far to separate WKU and South Alabama. So I'm sticking with my pre-season roster analysis, and keeping WKU as the favorite.

But you'll notice that I have South Alabama as a bubble team. They had a pretty good run in the out-of-conference, and if they go something like 24-4 in the regular season, I'm not so sure that the Sun Belt doesn't get a second team.

Of course, the odds of South Alabama going undefeated the rest of the way (other than the game at Western Kentucky) are pretty low. That's why I don't have them in my bracket right now.

Evilmonkeycma said...

Yes they do look similar in non-conference, though I don't know if you could say that Northern Arizona is "not that bad of a loss". NAU has losses to Utah St., Portland St., and Pepperdine, and their best win excluding WKU is Cal Poly. To me, thats a horrific loss. Also, I realize that a 4 point home win doesn't mean much. However, when deciding between two close teams, its bad form to say "Well, I predicted this one earlier, so lets stay with it". At least, that is my opinion.

Jeff said...

Well that's not what I meant. What I meant was that in pre-season I looked at the rosters, and Western Kentucky seems like the better team. And up until this point, there is no real difference between how the two teams have played.

If one team had clearly played better than the other, then I'd predict that team to finish ahead. But if the two teams have looked identical so far, how would you propose determining the winner? Beating a team by four at home means that you are essentially identical in ability, or at least that you were on that given night.

I still think WKU's roster is better, so that's the difference for me. I can't think of any other way to pick a winner....

Evilmonkeycma said...

I'll drop it. I still think the loss at NAU differentiates them, but they ARE almost identical.

I'm sorry for attacking you. I thought about it afterwards and it wasn't necessary.

Jeff said...

Let me note for a second that this is going to be the 25th comment made on this blog today... definitely a new record.

Jeff said...

Okay, well the NAU loss is a "bad" loss (I only said that it's not that "bad" because it's not like they lost to Longwood - NAU is a leading contender to win a conference).

But anything can happen on any one night. I'm not going to jump off a team just because they blow one game on one night to a mediocre team.

There are simply two questions here:

1) Can WKU hold serve at home
2) Which team can avoid blowing games against the lesser teams in the Sun Belt

Right now, neither of those questions have been answered.

Jameson said...

This is the first time I've seen your site, and from what i read in the comments you project based on how you think the season will end. I still have to question leaving Rhode Island out. If this team losses less than six games in the A10 which they'll do, they go to the tourney. Villanova as a four will also never happen. 'Nova won't win 10 games in the Big east out of 18. That means a seed of around 11 if they even make the dance. Also Louisville in as a 6? You realize they are going to have to win about 13 or 14 Big East games and a bunch in the conference tourney to even make the NCAA tournament. Florida as a 6? Will never happen because their RPI is so terrible because they've played no one. Illinois is terrible they shouldn't even be closely considered. Good chance Sam Houston State goes undefeated in their conference with only one legitimate team that can beat them. If they go into the NCAA tourney with only one or two losses they get seeded around a 10. Other than that, it looks like you really put work into this stuff. I just go to question just a few of your seeds.

Jeff said...

Okay, well I'll take these a bit out of order:

Louisville doesn't need to win 14 games to get a #6 seed. They've gone through a fairly tough schedule and they will get credit for going through with so many injuries. If they can get some players healthy at the end of the season and finish strong, they will end up with a solid seed. Even if they only do something like 12-6 in the Big East.

And I'm not sure why you think Villanova is only winning 10 games. Scottie Reynolds might be the best player in the conference. Shane Clark. Dante Cunningham. They ooze talent, and have a good coach. In my mind, they could finish as high as third in the Big East.

Rhode Island... we've re-tread this ground a few times. Read my explanations. Everyone still has their mind clouded by the insane RPIs at the top of the A-10. You have to realize that all of those RPIs are coming back.

And, finally, Sam Houston State? It's a "good chance" they'll go undefeated in conference? Really?? Do you realize how hard it is for a team to go undefeated in conference? And even if they did - Winthrop went undefeated last year, and had a much more impressive out-of-conference resume than Sam Houston State, and still only got an 11 seed.

So, if Sam Houston State goes undefeated in conference the best they'll do is an 11 seed. Probably a 12. But to even say that it's a "good chance" that they'll go undefeated is insane. I would hesitate to even use those words for Memphis in Conference USA.

There's a reason they play the games - upsets happen.

Jameson said...

Alright, I'll give you Sam Houston State.

Villanova no. This team simply isn't that good. Most Big East guys will agree, Villanova isn't that great. They don't have much a front court. They have a great player in Scottie Reynolds, but I don't have faith in one player.

Louisville hasn't played that tough of a schedule. They've lost two games against teams 100 or worse in the RPI. That's inexcusable. Their strength of schedule is 88th. They are 83rd in the RPI one game into conference play. A 12-6 record in the conference gets them to probably around 50th in the RPI. That wasn't enough to get Syracuse in last year and S.U.'s resume looked better than this. They have Marquette and Georgetown twice which right now looks like three losses. As well as going to Pitt and UCONN. 12 wins for this team would be pushing it.

Barring a collapse from the A-10 teams, they will get at least three teams in, if not four.

Also you didn't respond to having Florida and Illinois being where they were.

And it's hard to accurately project these teams based on where they are going to be at the end of the year, how is it really possible to guess about 340 divison one teams?

Also you're like covering your butts by naming like 50 more teams to consider. Cincy, St. John's, Rutgers? They are the very worst of the Big East, there is no NCAA consideration even if they dramatically improve their resumes. They would need 15 Big east wins, something no team might do. That's assinine to think those teams could make it if they dramatically improve. Why would you keep an eye on those teams?

Jameson said...

What I think your biggest problem is after reading some of the comments on past posts is it seems like you don't take in account these teams have played. For example you praise Villanova for their players and what they've done, but look at their non-conference schedule. It's a joke, plain and simple. Their best out of conference game is NCST which they lost. Their best OOC win?? George Mason I guess. That's pretty pathetic. If a team like Syracuse played that schedule, they'd have probably one loss also, add a 2-0 Big East start and you'd be praising them and they'd have about a three or four seed right now.

Jeff said...

Okay, Jameson, it's simply a matter of opinion at this point. I told you where I think Villanova and Louisville will end up. If you're right that I'm overvaluing Villanova's talent, and they end up 8-10 in the Big East, so be it. I'll adjust my BP65 if they start really struggling. Same for Louisville. Although, again, you're forgetting to take into account Louisville's injuries. And Villanova, I mean, they're currently ranked 19th in the AP and 17th in the Coaches Poll. So the voters clearly don't think it's too absurd to project them as a four seed.

Now, to try to tread a bit of new ground... Illinois has already been discussed to death. You can see my comments on this and last week's BP65. I've discussed Florida a bit too, although not quite as much. So here's my take there:

The thing to remember is that these RPIs will converge as these teams play in conference. 3/4 of the RPI is strength of schedule, and most teams will play a majority of their games in conference. Therefore, about 1/2 * 3/4 = 3/8 of each team's RPI will be identical in every conference.

For Florida, you have to remember that this is still the SEC. The second place and third place SEC teams have to get decent seeds. And who are the second and third best teams in the SEC? I think most people would agree it's Florida and Vanderbilt, in some order. So those two teams have to do okay with their seedings. Maybe you want me to drop them to a 7 or an 8? I can't really fathom the 3rd team in a BCS conference getting a 9 or a 10 seed, regardless of their out-of-conference resume. The mistake people make is to look at their resumes right now. No great wins, poor RPI... fine. But something like 13-5 in the SEC? That will look pretty damn good at the end of the year.

As for all of the mediocre teams I'm listing, again please read the About The BP65. I list teams until I'm satisfied that they're eliminated. Is St. John's going 14-4 in the Big East? Almost definitely not - they are incapable of playing team offense, so their scoring consists of a lot of guys trying to beat their man one-on-one off the dribble. Norm Roberts is a good recruiter, but I'd be unhappy with his in-game coaching if I was a Johnnies fan. But because it's possible, and 14-4 would obviously get them in the Tournament, I have them alive.

Starting January 15th I will stop putting new teams on that list. The idea being that after that I will have every team listed with any possibility of an at-large. This is why I need to list a lot of teams, because there is usually a team or two that finishes really strong and makes a bubble run seemingly out of nowhere. I will delete them week by week after I'm satisfied that they no longer have any plausible shot. It's a fun way of narrowing down the field. Each week, the number of teams I list will shrink.

The reason I differentiate these teams into three groups is so that readers can see who I project as plausible bubble teams (like Drake and Rhode Island) versus teams that are extreme long shots (like St. John's and Temple).

Jameson said...

I'm just wondering I guess why you even take the time to list them. There's not much point to listing almost every school from the BCS conferences. But whatever, keep doing what your doing. I'm used to seeing projections if it was today. It's hard to me to really accurately gauge where these teams are going to end up.

Jeff said...

Well, I list them for two reasons. One is that it's enjoyable to move the teams up and down through the categories as they play well or poorly. And it's also to be thorough - like I said, after January 15th I will stop adding new teams. So I need to make sure that I have every team with any plausible shot at an at-large bid.

And as for making projections, of course it's more difficult. It's very easy to go down the Sagarin rankings and make "where things stand today" lists. But what matters is the final bracket in March. It's more interesting and more pertinent. And, yes, it's harder. But that's why I welcome constructive criticism, so I can continue to improve in my prognostication.

Jameson said...

Yeah I feel you. I just think you need to look more at some of the scheduling of these teams. Like Florida has two wins over top 100 RPI teams-Georgia Southern and Temple. With an RPI above 100 before conference play, they'll need probably a 12-4 record in the SEC to be considered around a 10 seed. I don't think that team is nearly good enough to go 12-4 with two games each against Tenn. and Vandy.

So that's my only suggestion for you if you do it that way, just look more at their non-conference schedule. That's what burned Syracuse last year and will burn a team like Florida or Villanova this year is their pathetic out of conference slate.

Jeff said...

Something to remember with Syracuse was that they only went 10-6 in a Big East conference that was a bit down. And then they slipped up in the Big East Tournament Quarterfinals (if they'd made the Semis, they'd definitely have gotten in). Also, they were an atrocious 9-9 against the RPI Top 100. And they only had an RPI themselves of 46.

I thought they should have gotten in as a 12 seed, but it's not a shock that the committee could rationalize keeping them out.

If Florida finished 12-4 in the SEC... what is the worst seed EVER for a team that won 3/4 of its conference games in a BCS conference? No way has anybody who achieved that finished with a double-digit seed. Florida doesn't need to get a lot of low-RPI wins out of conference, because they'll get to build up wins against Ole Miss, Vandy and maybe even Tennessee. Not to mention that a couple other SEC teams will be in the RPI Top 100.

Florida had no big wins, but they also didn't have any bad losses. Florida State and Ohio State are both good teams that will end up with Top 50 RPIs. Florida is 13-2 overall. A 12-4 conference record would make them 25-6 with an RPI inside the Top 20... that team is getting a 5 seed or better for sure.

Of course, I'm not projecting them there. I'm projecting an 11-5 season, which should be plenty for a 6 or 7 seed, assuming that they don't fall on their face in the SEC Tournament.

Evilmonkeycma said...

You're right.. the lowest seed for any team going .750 or higher was Alabama in 1994, who was a #9 seed. In 1986 Arizona was a #12 seed at 13-5, or .722 . No major conference has had fewer than 3 bids since the tourney expanded to 64. If Florida goes 12-4, they will be in.

Anonymous said...

You still feel WKU should be ahead of South Alabama huh? Well, USA won the head to head matchup. I know you reason that it wasn't that impressive. I agree, it wasn't. USA did not play that well, but even without playing well they won the game. Out of Conference USA lost only 3 games, all to teams with an RPI of 38 or lower. USA lost to undefeated Ole Miss by on shot, to undefeated Vanderbilt by one shot in Double Overtime, and to Miami(OH). I think that USA is the better team.

Anonymous said...

I agree with poster on UNC. All those close games by UNC will definitely make them stronger once March Madness comes around. I think that quality wins aren't given enough merit. Teams that have patsy schedules for the most part should be ranked not number 2 but number 12. How would a Memphis fair in the ACC, Big 10 or Big East?