Bracketology

[matt1]

I am an amateur Bracketologist, and I thought I would share my current projections:

Within a seed, teams are listed in s-curve order.

1 Seeds: Indiana (Midwest), Miami (East), Duke (South), Gonzaga (West)
2 Seeds: Michigan St., Michigan, Kansas, Louisville
3 Seeds: Florida, New Mexico, Syracuse, Georgetown
4 Seeds: Arizona, Wisconsin, Marquette, Kansas St.
5 Seeds: Ohio St., Colorado St., Oklahoma St., Notre Dame
6 Seeds: Memphis, Butler, St. Louis, UNLV
7 Seeds: NC State, Illinois, Minnesota, Pittsburgh
8 Seeds: Wichita St.,Missouri, San Diego St., Oklahoma
9 Seeds: Oregon, Creighton, Cincinnati, North Carolina
10 Seeds: Colorado, UCLA, VCU, Iowa St.
11 Seeds: Middle Tennessee, Belmont, Saint Mary's, La Salle
12 Seeds: California, Temple, Virginia / Ole Miss, Baylor / Kentucky
13 Seeds: Akron, Bucknell, Louisiana Tech, South Dakota St.
14 Seeds: Stephen F. Austin, Davidson, Montana, Long Beach St.
15 Seeds: Valparaiso, Harvard, Niagara, Norfolk St.
16 Seeds: Stony Brook, Robert Morris, Southern / Mercer, Northeastern / Charleston Southern

Last Four Byes:
Saint Mary's
La Salle
California
Temple

Last Four In:
Virginia
Baylor
Kentucky
Ole Miss

First Four Out:
Villanova
St. John's
Arizona St.
Indiana St.

Next Four Out:
Boise St.
Alabama
Maryland
Arkansas

Third Four Out:
Iowa
Air Force
Providence
BYU

[Bob Green]

1 Seeds: Indiana (Midwest), Miami (East), Duke (South), Gonzaga (West)

I am reasonably confident the ACC will not have two #1 seeds.

[matt1]

I am reasonably confident the ACC will not have two #1 seeds.

My guess is that there WILL only be 1 ACC 1-seed, but I think that IF THE SEASON ENDED TODAY, there would be 2.

[Bob Green]

My guess is that there WILL only be 1 ACC 1-seed, but I think that IF THE SEASON ENDED TODAY, there would be 2.

Okay, but now you are just cheating like Lunardi does. :)

[matt1]

Okay, but now you are just cheating like Lunardi does. :)

Miami is now a 2-seed. Michigan State has moved into the final #1 spot.

[sporthenry]

Okay, but now you are just cheating like Lunardi does. :)

I agree, it is kinda pointless to keep it up to date like this. I guess it gives people stuff to talk about. The other thing is that when you do it this early like Lunardi, it becomes like the polls and a team loses, and people feel obligated to drop them. It becomes somewhat of a recency type phenomenon when the committee always takes the whole resume into consideration.

[matt1]

I agree, it is kinda pointless to keep it up to date like this. I guess it gives people stuff to talk about. The other thing is that when you do it this early like Lunardi, it becomes like the polls and a team loses, and people feel obligated to drop them. It becomes somewhat of a recency type phenomenon when the committee always takes the whole resume into consideration.

Not necessarily, for instance, if Indiana were to lose, they would likely stay #1 overall.

[Bob Green]

The problem I have with "Bracketologists" is they constantly update their predictions and then make outlandish statements such as, "I successfully picked 67 of 68 teams in my bracket." Oh well, it gives us all something to talk about.

[sporthenry]

The problem I have with "Bracketologists" is they constantly update their predictions and then make outlandish statements such as, "I successfully picked 67 of 68 teams in my bracket." Oh well, it gives us all something to talk about.

Well that is b/c I think guys like Lunardi don't really buckle down til the last week b/c it is impossible to understand the far reaching effects. Like RPI, I know it seems arbitrary to cut it off at 50 or 100 but Gonzaga is looking at losing some RPI 100 or top 50 wins if Saint Mary's, Santa Clara or Davidson fall out or possibly get some if BYU or Baylor can get top 50.

But sort of reminds me like MLB umpires. They get 99% of the calls right, but I could get 99% of the calls right. On the close calls, I think the ESPN study did the study that they got under 50% wrong. Not to mention, Lunardi is terrible with seeding for "studying" this stuff.

[hurleyfor3]

I am an amateur Bracketologist

Who isn't?

[uh_no]

Who isn't?

the selection committee?

actually, they might be the most amateur of them all!

[scottdude8]

If Michigan is able to beat Michigan State at home next weekend, I've got to think they take the No. 1 seed (if there is one available for another Big 10 school at that point) given their superior non-conference resume. Not that I'm partial or anything.

[Olympic Fan]

Miami is now a 2-seed. Michigan State has moved into the final #1 spot.

Interesting, you posted this BEFORE Miami's loss to Wake.

Still, I don't get this ... losing at home to Indiana the last time out moves Michigan State up?

And hold off on Spartie until we see what happens in their next two games -- at Ohio State Sunday and at Michigan next Saturday.

[matt1]

Interesting, you posted this BEFORE Miami's loss to Wake.

Still, I don't get this ... losing at home to Indiana the last time out moves Michigan State up?

And hold off on Spartie until we see what happens in their next two games -- at Ohio State Sunday and at Michigan next Saturday.

I posted it at 3:07 PM, which was after the Miami game, or, at least, after the outcome was known. Michigan could very well get a one-seed over Michigan St. I very much disagree with Lunardi, who has Florida as the last one seed.

[throatybeard]

I'm sick of hearing about Lunardi. I might rather listen to Vitale talk about the field.

Might.

[uh_no]

I'm sick of hearing about Lunardi. I might rather listen to Vitale talk about the field.

Might.

So very true. All he does is make as good a guess as any....gets most right (as anyone would simply by following RPI), gets all the seedings wrong, and then spends the next week talking all about how the committee got it wrong.

I appreciate his knowledge of the selection rules and process, and that he can give generally unbiased analyses of most teams with respect to their tournament hopes (but who couldn't if they really tried?) but he isn't a wizard by any means. I would fully expect that someone like a Ken Pomeroy or Nate Silver could easily put together a computer projection of the field which would be both quantitative, and at least as accurate as Joe Lunardi's....