Thursday, February 18, 2010

W-3.5 BP65

Less than two weeks until the start of conference tournaments. The next BP65 will be out after Saturday night's games are all over.

Again I want to remind people to stay civil and to use facts and statistics. I allow comments because I like discussing college basketball. But the few who just want to angrily tell me that I must hate their team because how could I be stupid enough to rank them so low... don't bother. Also, please read About The BP65, because most of the people who flame make it clear that they don't know what the BP65 is or how teams or ordered.

For now, here's how I see things ending up:

1. KANSAS (BIG 12)
1. KENTUCKY (SEC)
1. PURDUE (BIG TEN)
1. VILLANOVA (BIG EAST)

2. DUKE (ACC)
2. Syracuse
2. Georgetown
2. GONZAGA (WCC)

3. West Virginia
3. Ohio State
3. Kansas State
3. Wisconsin

4. BUTLER (HORIZON)
4. Texas
4. Michigan State
4. Wake Forest

5. NEW MEXICO (MWC)
5. Baylor
5. Pittsburgh
5. NORTHERN IOWA (MVC)

6. Tennessee
6. BYU
6. Vanderbilt
6. XAVIER (ATLANTIC 10)

7. Missouri
7. Maryland
7. CALIFORNIA (PAC 10)
7. Temple

8. Texas A&M
8. Georgia Tech
8. Illinois
8. Clemson

9. UNLV
9. Oklahoma State
9. Louisville
9. Washington

10. Dayton
10. Mississippi
10. Florida State
10. SIENA (MAAC)

11. Virginia Tech
11. Richmond
11. Saint Mary's
11. CORNELL (IVY)

12. Cincinnati
12. Florida
12. San Diego State
12. MEMPHIS (CONFERENCE USA)

13. OLD DOMINION (COLONIAL)
13. UTAH STATE (WAC)
13. MURRAY STATE (OVC)
13. KENT STATE (MAC)

14. WEBER STATE (BIG SKY)
14. PACIFIC (BIG WEST)
14. OAKLAND (SUMMIT)
14. WOFFORD (SOUTHERN)

15. COASTAL CAROLINA (BIG SOUTH)
15. SAM HOUSTON STATE (SOUTHLAND)
15. VERMONT (AMERICA EAST)
15. MORGAN STATE (MEAC)

16. WESTERN KENTUCKY (SUN BELT)
16. BELMONT (ATLANTIC SUN)
16. QUINNIPIAC (NORTHEAST)
16. LAFAYETTE (PATRIOT)
16. JACKSON STATE (SWAC)


Other teams considered, but that just missed the cut:
Charlotte, Rhode Island, UConn, Marquette, Minnesota, UAB, UTEP

Decent resumes, but not good enough:
Notre Dame, South Florida, Northwestern, Texas Tech, William & Mary, Tulsa, Wichita State, Arizona State, Mississippi State

Long shots, but still in the at-large discussion:
Miami (Fl), North Carolina, Virginia, Saint Louis, Seton Hall, Oklahoma, Northeastern, VCU, Marshall, South Carolina, Portland, Louisiana Tech

Still alive, but pretty much need a miracle:
Boston College, Duquesne, Rutgers, St. John's, Northern Colorado, Michigan, Colorado, Iowa State, Southern Miss, Wright State, Harvard, Iona, Akron, Illinois State, Indiana State, Missouri State, Colorado State, Arizona, UCLA, Oregon, Washington State, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Nevada

62 comments:

Anonymous said...

What's the point of the still alive, but pretty much need a miracle column? IMO, it's useless. Like, Duquesne, really? They can run the table and would have absolutely 0% chance at an at-large.

Anonymous said...

It's about time to put Marquette in. Hard to see them out (especially at the expense of Florida or Cincinnati) at 20-10 (11-7) with wins over X, Georgetown, and @ UConn.

Jeff said...

In the final column I give teams the benefit of the doubt because I want to be extra sure that there's no mathematical shot for them in the Tournament before I pull them out. If Duquesne won out and lost in the A-10 tournament finals they'd be 20-13 with a 9-1 record over their final 10 games. Would that get them in? Maybe. It's not a zero percent chance.

I'd give Duquesne well less than a 1% chance of getting in at this point. But until I'm totally certain that it's zero then I leave them in that final column. That will probably take one more loss.


As for Marquette, they are getting very close to being in. They'd be one of the final teams discussed by the Selection Committee if the season ended now. They were one of my first three teams out of the bracket, along with UAB and Rhode Island.

Anonymous said...

I think UW still has a lot of work to do to earn a bid, much less a 9 seed. They've got one underwhelming road win (@ Stanford) and are 7-6 in the pac10 with some awful losses. I think they need to win out the regular season in order to be safely in.

Anonymous said...

I think Washington makes it in because I doubt the committee would make the Pac 10 a one bid league, but yeah, a nine is pretty redic.

DMoore said...

"I think UW still has a lot of work to do to earn a bid, much less a 9 seed."

Right, but the seeding is based on that prediction. UW is projected (KenPom) to end up 21-9 and 11-7 in conference. They will be favored in all their remaining games, so they could finish better than that. If they advance to the Pac10 tourney finals, a 9 seed is reasonable. From a prediction point of view, the only question is whether Arizona State finishes strong and makes it to the tourney finals in their place.

Anonymous said...

Let's do a comparison of a team you have as a 9 seed, compared to another who you have as a 13 seed.

Since you do a projected end of season bracket, it makes sense to use projected end of season RPI's. The 9 seed has an RPI of 42. The 13 seed has an RPI of 34. Since you love Elo Chess, the 9 seed has an Elo of 44. The 13 seed has an Elo of 48. You also mention the predictor, the 9 Seed has one of 48. The 13 seed has one of 37. The 9 seed has a conference record of 7-5, the 13 seed has a record of 13-3. Not to mention, the 13 seed has won @ Georgetown. And based on your projections, you don't have the 9 seed winning their conference, but you have the 13 seed winning their conference tourney.

To me, those look like awfully close resumes when debating the two. For them to be 4 seed lines apart? The word crazy comes to mind.

UNLV-Old Dominion btw.

Jeff said...

To the Old Dominion fan, I'm keeping them at 13 until that Northern Iowa game. If they can win that game to get a second quality win (right now that Georgetown win is their only win against the RPI Top 45) then I will move them up to a 12. The problem is that there are no opportunities for good wins in their conference, and plenty of opportunities for bad losses. UNLV has a much easier time to build a good resume in their conference.

Right now UNLV and Old Dominion both have 7 losses on the year, but UNLV has done it against a much tougher schedule. As I said, ODU has that win over Georgetown, but none others against the RPI Top 45. UNLV has wins over Louisville, New Mexico, BYU and San Diego State, all of whom are better than all of ODU's victories other than the Georgetown upset. They won't have any more RPI Top 50 opponents until the MWC tournament, but they should roll through their remaining regular season games (Pomeroy gives them a 90%+ chance of winning each of their remaining games). Meanwhile, Old Dominion will be the underdog against Northern Iowa, and Pomeroy only gives them a 67% chance of winning both of their final two regular season games as well.

The problem is that without that Northern Iowa win, ODU just does not have any more chances to add to their resume - only chances to gain bad losses. UNLV has chances to build their resume, and I think they will.

This is not a statement on how much I like or dislike ODU. It's just me trying to make a projection on how much the Selection Committee will like them in 3 1/2 weeks. I don't see a way for them to get an 11 seed without either a win over Northern Iowa, or a lot of help from other teams around the country. They can lose to Northern Iowa and get a 12 seed, though. Like I said, I nearly moved them to the 12 line this week, and just held them off for now as the best 13 seed.

Anonymous said...

I'm not an Old Dominion fan at all - I just think it's one of the glaring errors on your bracket. You note that they are low because they only have one marquee win. Honestly, that doesn't matter that much. If we were debating whether they should be an at-large or not, that would come into play. But we're not. We're debating their seeding. We're talking about a team that's likely going to share/win a conference with several other top 100 teams which the committee has always gave respect to. And if they win their conference like your projecting, there is no way they are a 13. There are plenty of examples of it every year (like Utah St. last year - 11 seed, one notable win - which wasn't nearly as good as @ Georgetown). These teams get more respect from the committee than you're interpreting.

Jeff said...

I explained to you already why Utah State last year had a better resume than Old Dominion has this year.

Keep in mind that every year there are a couple of teams that steal automatic bids that push everybody up. For example, if a team like Georgia wins the SEC tournament again then that pushes all of the 12 & 13 seeds up a slot. That has happened a lot in recent years.

If Old Dominion wins out (other than the NIU game) then they will probably get a 12 seed. But they've got to do the winning out part, and they've got to hope that the help that teams have gotten in previous seasons happens again.

There is no "glaring error": all of the teams with 11 and 12 seeds have stronger resumes than Old Dominion other than perhaps Memphis, and as I already explained, Memphis will jump Old Dominion if they win the Conference USA tournament.

By the way, the process for seeding is no different from the process for picking at-large teams. The Selection Committee ranks all teams it selects from 1-through-65 using the same process by which they exclude teams 66,67, etc. It's bizarre to me how often I see people argue "Well I know Team A would get into the Tournament before Team B, but Team B would still get seeded higher because it's a different process." No, it's not.

Anonymous said...

I don't need you to explain the process to me - I do a bracket as well.

You have Old Dominion finishing the season at 26-8 (15-3).

Last year's Colonial winner (a weaker CAA than this year) was VCU who went 24-9 (14-4) and they didn't beat one tournament team last year. Guess what seed they got? An 11! Wake up buddy!

Anonymous said...

Friendly bet Jeff...let's compare our brackets from the beginning of the month on Selection Sunday and see which one scored higher using Paymon scoring. If you beat me I'll shutup in the future and come back on here admitting I was wrong.

Jeff said...

I assumed it was pretty obvious to most people that VCU was a 12 seed last year that got bumped up a spot to help keep teams from the same conference from playing before the Elite 8. Their resume wasn't even in the vicinity of Wisconsin, a team that got a 12 seed... most likely because they were an 11 seed that was dropped to a 12 to avoid a match-up problem.

This is the last time I'm responding to you until you improve your maturity. Believe it or not it's possible to make an argument for a team getting a higher or lower seed without some immature personal attack.

I usually only respond multiple times to my high quality posters, and I've made an exception for you, but I'm losing patience.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

VCU was bumped up last year? Or was the committee just giving respect to a team from one of the better mid major conferences that won their regular season and tournament titles like they always do...?

Go ask the makers of the dance card. They'll tell you the same thing I am.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jeff said...

It's pretty easy to come up with counter-examples. Last year Northern Iowa went 14-4 in the 9th ranked conference and won the conference tournament and got a 12 seed. The year before it was Western Kentucky that went 16-2 in the 14th ranked conference and won the conference tournament and got a 12 seed.

There's pretty much no question that VCU was a 12 seed. The problem was that Wisconsin was the 11 seed in their bracket, and they could not have another Big Ten team in that 1/8th of the bracket, so Wisconsin and VCU were switched. There's no way to argue that VCU had a better resume than Wisconsin last season.

Anonymous said...

This year's Colonial has way more quality teams than last year's MVC and the '08 Sun Belt. And neither of those teams you mentioned beat a 3/4 seed on the road. So no, those are not counter examples.

Anonymous said...

I mean seriously, I would put down 1k that if Old Dominion wins their conference tourney like you project, that they will get at least an 11 seed. And I think deep down you know it, you just don't want to admit it.

Anonymous said...

Gonzaga sure doesn't look like a two.

Anonymous said...

Vandy as a 6 looks worse everyday, if they beat UK Sat do you move them up?

Anonymous said...

Dayton seeded higher than Richmond? You've got to be kidding me.

Jeff said...

If you think that this year's Colonial is better than last year's MVC, then I think it's pretty clear that you're incapable of having an objective opinion on ODU. You're letting your bias get to you.

Tim said...

Vandy as a 6 is ridiculous. 19-5, 9-2 in the SEC. RPI of 11, SOS around 20. 5-2 against the RPI Top 50, 10-4 against RPI Top 100. If you're basing it purely on ELO_CHESS, then that's a bit ridiculous. Look at the RESUME. Northern Iowa will be lower than 5, Texas will be lower than where you have them, Gonzaga will FOR SURE be lower than us, Wisconsin is falling, etc etc.

If we lose to UK, we are a top 4 seed. If we win, we're a top 3 seed. ELO_CHESS won't be looked at in the committee's room, RESUMES will.

Jeff said...

Tim, you can't tell people not to talk about the ELO_CHESS and then throw a whole bunch of RPI numbers out. Nobody is saying that the Selection Committee just takes the ELO_CHESS numbers and uses that to make their bracket, but there's no question that it's by far the most accurate objective metric. Teams with RPIs in the Top 25 sometimes miss the Tournament, and teams with RPIs in the Top 20 sometimes get 9 or 10 seeds. The RPI is simply a horrible metric. It's overly simplistic, and easy to manipulate (I've explained many times on this blog how a team should design its schedule to inflate its RPI - there is no way to artificially inflate your Sagarin rating).

Now, things like "Record against the RPI Top 50" are useful because they give approximate performances against elite opponents, but a team's specific RPI really is pointless. The only reason it constantly gets mentioned on tv is because it's been around the longest, and because it's very simple, so it's easy to explain to people. Joe Six Pack doesn't want to learn what an ELO ranking system means, or why the heck Jeff Sagarin puts out three different computer rankings for the same sport.

But on this blog, I expect my readers to realize how the Selection Committee actually looks at resumes. And there's no question that ELO_CHESS is much more important to them than RPI.

Vandy is still a 6 seed right now. Two straight shaky wins suggest that they're due for at least one more weak loss. Obviously they can make a run at a 3 seed if they win their next six or seven games, but their most likely finish will be 3-2 over their final five games, and then a win or two in the SEC tournament. I think that gets them a 6.

Tim said...

Fine, I'll make my point WITH ELO_CHESS then. Let me first relate ELO_CHESS to Vandy's most recent high seed, a 4 seed in 2008. Granted this seeding was high, but at the time, Vandy's ELO_CHESS was 32 and PREDICTOR was 60. Currently, we have an ELO_CHESS of 23 and a PREDICTOR of 25. So a 4 seed is more deserving right now.


Now, let's compare ELO_CHESS to other teams above us:

Northern Iowa has an EC of 21 and a P of 50+. They have also played absolutely no one of note and have some bad losses due to their conference weakness. They won't be a 5 seed.

Tennessee has almost identical EC and P ratings to us. They are also 1-4 against RPI Top 50 and 3-4 against RPI Top 100. We also swept them. We should be higher than them.

Butler has an EC of 20 and a P of 40. Fairly identical, until you look at their resume and they only have 2 notable wins against Ohio State (without Evan Turner?) and against Xavier. SOS of 88 proves this point. They are a 5 or 6, not a 4.

Michigan State has an EC of 25 and a P of 21. Almost identical to Vandy. Then you look and you see their recent slide and the fact that they have only beaten Gonzaga and Wisconsin (and not even at the Kohl Center), and I give the nod to Vandy.

Gonzaga has an EC of 13 and a P of 35. So from this, slight edge to Gonzaga. Then I look at RPI, SOS, and who they've lost to. RPI of 18, SOS around 60 and 2 really bad losses to 200+ RPI teams to offset a good win against Wisconsin and a sweep of St. Marys (bubble team). They are most definitely not a 2 and probably around a 5.

Texas has an EC of 19 and a P of 4. Strong Predictor! Except that they started 17-0 and are now 20-6. They have 3 good wins, but they are 3-6 over their last 9 and falling rapidly. They can of course correct this fall, but I don't see it happening.


Here's some non-RPI facts about Vandy as well: 4-2 on the road in SEC play (5-3 overall). That's a pretty strong measurement of the mental toughness of this team and it's further enhanced by a season sweep of UT (archrival and team that gave Kansas its only loss of the season). RPI against 50 and 100 only solidify all these facts. I implore you to put Vandy where they deserve to be: on the 4 seed line.

Jeff said...

Actually, Vandy's ELO_CHESS was in the Top 25 when they got that 4 seed two years ago. The finished the season 32nd because of their Tournament performance. And that 4 seed was always kind of ridiculous - I correctly advised my readers to bet against them in the Tournament - and the Selection Committee usually doesn't make mistakes like that too often.

And surely your argument isn't "Vandy outdid their ELO_CHESS two years ago, therefore they will outdo their ELO_CHESS this time", is it?

Tim said...

They actually finished 44th, leading me to believe that their ELO_CHESS was slightly higher before that (30-32 maybe? 25 sounds a bit high).

Of course my argument is not based on previous ELO_CHESS. My main argument is below my intro, where I lay out many other ELO_CHESS numbers and then equate their resume to it, proving that Vandy should be higher. Just as you think it was laughable for Vandy to be a 4, I think it is equally laughable at this point to have Vandy at a 6 when their resume dictates a 4. This team is much stronger than in '08, based on mental toughness and overcoming road/neutral court challenges. I mean, you must see the points I made as valid, right? I find it hard it extremely hard to believe that you think Gonzaga will be a 2 and N.Iowa will be a 5. It just feels like you're intentionally holding Vandy down when their strong resume cannot be denied.

Anonymous said...

Bias? I have no bias...I told you before that I'm not an Old Dominion fan. I just will point out errors as I see them.

Like always, you're missing the point. The Colonial has four teams floating around the RPI top 50. The conferences you mentioned had nowhere close to that. If you win a conference like that including both regular and postseason, there is no way you're getting a 13.

Anonymous said...

I love how you use 'right now' comments when this is a projected end of season bracket. Contradiction? I'll let you be the judge.

Anonymous said...

Vandy as a 6 is low plain and simple. They aren't automatically or a 4 or better, but teams with a 12-4 conference record don't get 6. It just doesn't happen.

Jeff said...

"I love how you use 'right now' comments when this is a projected end of season bracket. Contradiction? I'll let you be the judge."

Read it again: "For now, here's how I see things ending up" In other words, this is a projection for the end of the season, but I reserve the right to make changes as the season goes along.

Jeff said...

"Like always, you're missing the point. The Colonial has four teams floating around the RPI top 50. The conferences you mentioned had nowhere close to that. If you win a conference like that including both regular and postseason, there is no way you're getting a 13."

Once again, these bizarre points about how if someone wins this type of a conference they MUST be an 11 seed, but not if they win that type of conference. It's this bizarre way that the Selection Committee most certainly does not think. And besides, you won't find an objective ranking system somewhere that would rate the 2009-10 Colonial ahead of the 2008-09 MVC, or even particularly close to it. It's not even an opinion. A 14-4 there last year is more impressive than 13-3 in the Colonial this year. Everybody on the Selection Committee would agree with me.

Jeff said...

"but teams with a 12-4 conference record don't get 6"

Again, just flat out false. Why do people feel the need to constantly make assertions like "If my team does [so-and-so] then no team could ever do that and not get a [whatever] seed." None of them are true, they just aren't. There are no signs in the Selection Committee room that say these things.

Some quick examples of something that, according to you, could never happen:

2008-09:
LSU went 13-3 and got an 8 seed.
UCLA went 13-5 and got a 6 seed.

2007-08:
Indiana went 14-4 and got an 8 seed.

2006-07:
Louisville went 12-4 and got a 6 seed.

I could go on, but obviously teams can go 12-4 in BCS conferences and get 6 seeds or worse.

Tim said...

Jeff, I'm still waiting for you to refute my facts regarding the ELO_CHESS with Vandy. I gave you 6 teams that have a relatively equal ELO_CHESS to Vandy but a weaker resume, thereby allowing Vandy to move up.

Jeff said...

Tim, I don't want to go through each and every team in the BP65 and explain why they are where they are. I think I've gone through the Vandy situation enough.

But here's an exercise for you: Put yourself in the position of arguing for those other teams over Vandy. Pretend you're arguing against a person who's an even bigger Vandy fan than you are, and see what argument you'd make, and then see how convincing it is. It's a good exercise to go through.

Because the argument isn't "I just want to give them a low seed because I hate them." Early in the season I was the only bracketologist who was on the Vanderbilt bandwagon, the only one calling them a Top 25 team and saying that they should be getting more attention, and got a positive thread about that on the Vandy message board on scout.com. So even though I've been accused of "hating" basically every team in the country after doing this for a few years, I can assure you that I don't hate Vanderbilt.

Tim said...

My arguments are pretty sound and the arguments of my opponents do not hold the same weight as mine. Gonzaga and Northern Iowa have played HIGHLY weak schedules ans have very bad losses in conference. Texas has ONE win on the road against an RPI Top 100 team (Vandy has 5) and has lost 6 of their last 9. We swept Tennessee and should be ahead of them (their win against Kansas only carries them so far). Butler has a chance to prove me wrong with a game against Siena, but they should be a bit lower due to their weak schedule and lack of true marquee wins.

The teams I've specifically targeted do not have much argument to stand on at this point and would not be seeded higher than Vandy right now. If you were the only predictor early in the season that called Vandy a T25 team, then why are they stagnant on your board now? We haven't backslid down some seedings, and the committee doesn't punish us for close wins against inferior opponents (only you, I guess). Finally, if you aren't here to banter with fans that spend a ton of time bringing up stats you love to prove a point, why do this blog at all?

Tim said...

And I will finish with this, since it is evident that I cannot change your mind. IF Vandy beats UK tomorrow night, where do you put them in the seeding? And if they lose? They just beat Ole Miss last night in a tough road game and I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Jeff said...

If Vanderbilt beats Kentucky then I'll either make them a 4 or 5. It will depend on what goes on with other teams.

One key thing that a lot of people complaining here don't realize is that there are a finite number of seeds. You can't look at a team's resume in a vacuum and say "That's a [whatever] seed resume", you have to look at what the other teams do. So whether I give Vandy a 4 or a 5 will depend on what other teams do.

Anonymous said...

12-4 is better than 13-5. Get your math straight.

I love how you compare them to LSU who had a much weaker schedule and had no notable OOC wins away from home. Well played!

Anonymous said...

It's not about conference rank dude. It's about how many quality teams are in the conference. Sure, a conference like the WAC might be rated better than the Colonial, but winning the CAA is way more impressive because there's four RPI top 50 teams compared to one.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jeff said...

Alright, let's settle down. No reason to get angry about college basketball.

Anonymous said...

ODU - #34 on Dance Card (translates to a 9), also a 9 seed on Lunardi.

Anonymous said...

I'm not saying there getting a 9, but for those two resources to have them there, that's a huge gap between 9 and 13.

Anonymous said...

Gonzaga is a truly under achiving 6 seed, not a two. New Mexico has won all their top 25 games and by all rights should be ranked well ahead of Gonzaga.

I do like that you included San Diego in the dance, you are one of the first to recognize that the MWC is most likely the 5th toughest conference in the nation this year.

Anonymous said...

time to pull the plug on texas and gonzaga. Both teams are longer upper tier teams, they both shoulc be 6 or worst seeds.

Hubbo said...

NEW MEXICO
RPI: 10
SOS: 61
Vs. RPI Top 50: 7-2
Vs. RPI Top 100: 10-2
Bad Losses: Oral Roberts (RPI 136)

BUTLER
RPI: 20
SOS: 88
Vs. RPI Top 50: 2-3
Vs. RPI Top 100: 5-4
Bad Losses: None out of Top 100 RPI

GONZAGA:
RPI: 25
SOS: 66
Vs. RPI Top 50: 4-3
Vs. RPI Top 100: 8-3
Bad Losses: San Francisco (RPI 208), Loyola Marymount (RPI 197)

TEXAS:
RPI: 28
SOS: 44
Vs. RPI Top 50: 5-5
Vs. RPI Top 100: 7-6
Bad Losses: Oklahoma (RPI 99)

WAKE FOREST:
RPI: 15
SOS: 20
Vs. RPI Top 50: 5-5
Vs. RPI Top 100: 7-6
Bad Losses: None

Can you explain why you have all of these other teams seeded ahead of New Mexico? Because when you look at Vs. RPI Top 50, it's clearly no contest, and you yourself said that was an important factor.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jeff said...

Hubbo, I can refer you to the people in this comments thread who think I'm nuts for having New Mexico as high as a 5 seed, but the answer to your question is that you have to break apart that RPI Top 50 record. Did those wins come over Top Ten teams, or did they beat up some teams in the RPI 35th-50th, and the latter is what New Mexico has done. Their win over Texas A&M is starting to look pretty good, but otherwise their only RPI Top 25 win is over BYU, and the Selection Committee likes to see out of conference wins.

I do think that New Mexico could realistically end up as high as a 3 seed if they finish well, but I do think that right now they're right on the border between a 4 and a 5 seed.

Hubbo said...

Jeff,

Um, Gonzaga's only Top 25 RPI win was against Wisconsin (19), while UNM beat Texas A & M (16). Two of the other three Top 50 RPI wins Gonzaga has are against St. Mary's (47) and the other one against Cincinnati (barely making it in at 49). If you're saying that the committee cares about quality OOC wins, then ranking Gonzaga ahead of UNM makes no sense.

Anonymous said...

New Mexico is certainly at least a four. They're ahead of Gonzaga in my book, but not the other teams you listed.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hubbo said...

Why not Butler? Their best win was against Xavier (23) and next best Ohio St. (43). No other wins even in the Top 50, let alone against OOC opponents. They have a weaker SOS and even a worse record than UNM.

Wake Forest only has Top 25 wins against Xavier (23) and that dreaded Gonzaga (25). Two of their other three Top 50 wins are in conference. This one I can see a little more simply because of SOS, but still, it's hard to reconcile when you look at the numbers.

Anonymous said...

I think New Mexico has the slightly better resume, I just don't think they have one that is that much better than Butler as to where I'd make a stink about it.

Jeff said...

Hubbo, Gonzaga will obviously be dropped after that shocking loss last night. I'm actually leaning towards making them a 4 seed in tomorrow night's bracket, although it will depend on the other action between now and then.

And New Mexico will move up if they win out. This projection assumes that they lose to BYU next Saturday.

If New Mexico wins out then they will do at worst a 4 seed, with a real chance at a 3.

Anonymous said...

Shocking loss? I'm not sure why everyone has gone out of their way to talk up Gonzaga this year. They already lost to lowly San Francicso, so I'm not sure how you can be surprised if they lose. Even in a lot of their conference wins they have been very unimpressive. They were lucky to escape a bad Santa Clara team, LMT was right with them in their first matchup for a good part of the game, they squeaked by Pepperdine at home, etc.

It's amazing to me how a team with a 35 point loss on their resume can even be considered close to a top 10 team.

They are more like a 7 seed to me.

Anonymous said...

Time to put UTEP in...

mitchell said...

I think if Michigan can beat Minnesotta on tuesday they might be able to make the tournament.