Sunday, February 24, 2008

W-3 BP65

1. TENNESSEE (SEC)
1. MEMPHIS (CONFERENCE USA)
1. UCLA (PAC 10)
1. NORTH CAROLINA (ACC)

2. KANSAS (BIG 12)
2. Duke
2. GEORGETOWN (BIG EAST)
2. Texas

3. XAVIER (ATLANTIC 10)
3. Stanford
3. MICHIGAN STATE (BIG 10)
3. Wisconsin

4. DRAKE (MVC)
4. UConn
4. BUTLER (HORIZON)
4. Louisville

5. Notre Dame
5. Washington State
5. Purdue
5. Marquette

6. Vanderbilt
6. Clemson
6. Indiana
6. Kansas State

7. BYU (MWC)
7. Arizona
7. Pittsburgh
7. Texas A&M

8. GONZAGA (WCC)
8. USC
8. West Virginia
8. Miami (Fl)

9. Mississippi State
9. Maryland
9. Syracuse
9. Saint Mary's

10. Arkansas
10. Rhode Island
10. Oklahoma
10. Wake Forest

11. Ohio State
11. Villanova
11. UNLV
11. DAVIDSON (SOUTHERN)

12. KENT STATE (MAC)
12. Florida
12. Houston
12. Baylor

13. SOUTH ALABAMA (SUN BELT)
13. ORAL ROBERTS (SUMMIT)
13. GEORGE MASON (COLONIAL)
13. NEVADA (WAC)

14. STEPHEN F AUSTIN (SOUTHLAND)
14. UC SANTA BARBARA (BIG WEST)
14. SIENA (MAAC)
14. CORNELL (IVY)

15. WINTHROP (BIG SOUTH)
15. BELMONT (ATLANTIC SUN)
15. AUSTIN PEAY (OVC)
15. MARYLAND BC (AMERICA EAST)

16. PORTLAND STATE (BIG SKY)
16. MORGAN STATE (MEAC)
16. ROBERT MORRIS (NORTHEAST)
16. HOLY CROSS (PATRIOT)
16. ALABAMA STATE (SWAC)


Other teams considered, but that just missed the cut:
Massachusetts, St. Joseph's, Illinois State, New Mexico, Arizona State, Kentucky, Mississippi

Good resumes, but need a little bit more:
NC State, Virginia Tech, Dayton, VCU, UAB, Oregon, Western Kentucky

Other teams with a decent shot, but that really need to improve their resume:
Boston College, Florida State, Duquesne, Seton Hall, Texas Tech, Wright State, Creighton, Southern Illinois, San Diego State, California

Still alive, but pretty much need a miracle:
Georgia Tech, Virginia, Charlotte, Temple, Cincinnati, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, UTEP, Ohio, Bradley, Washington, San Diego, Boise State, Utah State
Posted by at
Labels:

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Portland State - U. of Portland is a different school altogether.

Nice to see 'Nova getting some love. I've followed the debate on this blog about the Wildcats, and I've been biting my nails for weeks - they're the team I'm rooting for this yr.

Also - I'd count Kentucky in, and Florida out. Momentum matters!

February 24, 2008 6:01 AM
Jeff said...

Yeah, I'm sorry about that - I don't know how that "State" got deleted.

I'm going to go edit the post and put the State in.


I blame St. Mary's for scheduling that Kent State game so late at night. I had to stay up until that game finished to wrap up this BP65. Too late past my bedtime...

February 24, 2008 10:08 AM
Anonymous said...

I think you should probably give more consideration to UAB (19-8, 9-3 in CUSA). If you look only at the RPI, then it may not be clear that UAB should be in there with an RPI around 60-65. But the Selection Committee considers injuries and ineligibilities (of which UAB has had many). There are lots of other intangibles which the committee will look at other than simply the RPI such as narrow losses (UAB's 1pt loss to Memphis, a double OT loss to Southern Miss, and a 2pt loss to Georgia Southern), record in the last 10 games, previous tournament success/history, etc.

The next couple of weeks will tell the story. UAB has a good opportunity to continue to improve their RPI in the next 2 weeks.

February 24, 2008 1:54 PM
Jeff said...

Anonymous:

I don't know if you're a regular reader or not, but if you were you would know that there probably isn't another bracketologist who is more acutely aware of how little the RPI matters.

But a computer ranking that does matter is the Sagarin Rankings, and right now UAB is 72nd overall. The Sagarin takes those close losses into account, which is why the ELO_CHESS is 81st and the PREDICTOR is 61st. The ELO_CHESS usually more or less lines up with the RPI, while the PREDICTOR is a much better measure of where a team really is.


But that's the point - they're still 61st. And 72nd overall. It is unheard of for a team 72nd in the Sagarin ratings to get an at-large bid.

You can expect in a normal year that one or two teams with Sagarin Ratings in the 50s will manage to get an at-large bid. So if UAB can get up that high, then they will certainly merit serious consideration. But they've got to win out and they have to beat Houston in the Conference USA Tournament Semifinals. They need to establish themselves as the clear second best team in the conference, because CUSA is not getting three teams.

February 24, 2008 5:00 PM
Anonymous said...

Yeah, I would also give UAB more consideration that you are giving them. I think they will find their way into the tournament, if CUSA gets two teams in. I don't think that Houston gets the nod over UAB.

If for some reason UAB is overlooked for the tournament, I easily see them making the final four of the NIT.

February 25, 2008 12:10 PM
Anonymous said...

Seeding Kansas over Texas can not be argued.

There is no line of reasoning to have KU above Texas. You might think they'll perform better in the tournament which is definitely possible. But Texas' resume is much stronger, broader, and Texas owns a head to head win over the Jayhawks.

February 26, 2008 3:44 PM
Jeff said...

It can not be argued? A life lesson is to always be wary of anyone who says that something "can't" be done.


Anyway, here's a simple argument: the Texas win over Kansas really doesn't mean anything. They won be three points, at home. Home court advantage is worth at least three points, so the win is basically a wash. If these two teams play in the Big 12 title game (a very real possibility), then the winner of that game will almost certainly get a higher seed in the Tournament.

If Kansas wins the Big 12 Tournament, they will almost definitely be seeded ahead of Texas. Are you really saying that it can't be argued that Kansas might win the Big 12 Tournament?


Personally, I've seen plenty of both teams. And I think Kansas will beat Texas head-to-head on a neutral floor. In addition to the fact that I think Kansas is a slightly better team, rematches also generally favor the team that lost the first match-up.

It can't be argued? Hardly.

February 26, 2008 6:33 PM
Anonymous said...

You're right, I was too extreme in saying that KU over Texas can't be argued. It can.

Texas will not get the 1 seed unless it wins out the regular season. In addition, it will likely have to reach the Big 12 final. But should that occur, the result in that game, be it against Kansas or whoever, will not be all that important. First of all, the Sunday tourney finals do not have a huge impact on seeding due to their late times.

In addition, if KU and UT play in that game, it will not be a neutral court, it will be in Kansas City.

And if KU wins that game to win the Big 12 tourney, why should the committee seed them over Texas? They are going to award KU for one game? Rather than the entire season's work, which is far more impressive in Texas' case.

If Texas wins out until the Big 12 final, there is virtually no chance that KU is seeded above them. Should KU win, each team would probably be a 2 seed.x

And I realize you personally believe KU to be the better team. As a Texas fan I have thought the same thing all year, but it's about results, not opinions.

February 27, 2008 2:06 PM
Anonymous said...

Also, one more thing. Us Texas fans would actually rather be a 2 seed because we would almost certainly be in the Houston regional. As a 1 seed, we are unlikely to get the South regional.

Being in Houston would be beneficial obviously because of the amount of fans we could bring to the games and the short travel distance for the team.

February 27, 2008 2:11 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)