Toughest region

[OldPhiKap]

Which is toughest?

[hurleyfor3]

Kansas isn't even the best team in its "prong", much less its region.

[pamtar]

South is definitely the toughest as far as scare factor goes. VCU, NOVA, UNC, KU looks like a final four - much less a "prong" as HF3 stated. I can imagine all four of those team's knees are knocking. I'm pissed at our draw but if I'm a UNC fan I've already made alternate plans for next weekend. As for the bottom of that region: Gtown, UF, Tubby, and Los Angeles. Dayum.

[jipops]

The South even has Tubby as an 11 seed. It's not even close.

I think the West may be the weakest, 1st impression wise. Could argue the East.

[Deslok]

3272
This is just a little something I threw together after the bracket was announced. Its basically looking at the KenPom rating for each of the top 10 seeds in each region. I then took the average rating for all of the 1s, 2s, 3s, etc. Finally I took the differences for each region from the average seed rating to get an idea of how things stack up.
As you can see, the Midwest looks pretty stacked, with only 2 of the top 10 seeds "overseeded" per the average, St. Louis and Colorado St, and neither is a team that is on Duke's half of the bracket. The South is weirdest, with the top 2 seeds well overseeded, and the 3 and 4 seeds well underseeded. Could be a 3 vs 4 in the regional final instead of a 1 vs 2. For top seeds, Gonzaga is the biggest loser, as they got a ridiculously hard 8 seed in Pitt(as in, an 8 seed rated higher than a 1 seed!), and Louisville got a bit of a bum draw, getting the next two best teams in the 8/9 seeds as their matchup. Indiana got the nicest of the 8/9 draws. The Midwest seems to be pretty much slightly underseeded across the board, without anything too ridiculously out of whack. While the West has a way underseeded Wisconsin at the 5 and Pitt at the 8, and Kansas St well overseed at 4. The South is kind of a mirror of the MidWest, with most of the teams being just slightly overseeded, with the significant exception of Florida and Syracuse at the 3 and 4 spots. And the east, the east is a bunch of well overseeded teams, particularly in the 6-10 bracket, where the 3 most overseeded teams in the bracket all are found(Temple at +28, Butler at +19.5, and NC St at +16.25).

Anyway, there's a lot of numbers to start poring through, but that's a quick first look.

[sporthenry]

3272
This is just a little something I threw together after the bracket was announced. Its basically looking at the KenPom rating for each of the top 10 seeds in each region. I then took the average rating for all of the 1s, 2s, 3s, etc. Finally I took the differences for each region from the average seed rating to get an idea of how things stack up.
As you can see, the Midwest looks pretty stacked, with only 2 of the top 10 seeds "overseeded" per the average, St. Louis and Colorado St, and neither is a team that is on Duke's half of the bracket. The South is weirdest, with the top 2 seeds well overseeded, and the 3 and 4 seeds well underseeded. Could be a 3 vs 4 in the regional final instead of a 1 vs 2. For top seeds, Gonzaga is the biggest loser, as they got a ridiculously hard 8 seed in Pitt(as in, an 8 seed rated higher than a 1 seed!), and Louisville got a bit of a bum draw, getting the next two best teams in the 8/9 seeds as their matchup. Indiana got the nicest of the 8/9 draws. The Midwest seems to be pretty much slightly underseeded across the board, without anything too ridiculously out of whack. While the West has a way underseeded Wisconsin at the 5 and Pitt at the 8, and Kansas St well overseed at 4. The South is kind of a mirror of the MidWest, with most of the teams being just slightly overseeded, with the significant exception of Florida and Syracuse at the 3 and 4 spots. And the east, the east is a bunch of well overseeded teams, particularly in the 6-10 bracket, where the 3 most overseeded teams in the bracket all are found(Temple at +28, Butler at +19.5, and NC St at +16.25).

Anyway, there's a lot of numbers to start poring through, but that's a quick first look.

Kenpom is down for me. Not sure why you stopped at 10 but the obvious problem seems to be a few teams like Pitt/Creighton who are more than likely overrated according to Kenpom throwing everything else off.

I usually look at the top 4 seeds and by that metric, the South looks easily much more difficult.

[ice-9]

Posted this in the West thread, but will paraphrase here as it fits the subject:

The two ingredients that make a region difficult are
1) Good teams for each seed line (e.g. Florida at 3-seed is strong)
2) Match-ups that minimize chances of upsets (e.g. no team like Pittsburgh beating Gonzaga and opening up the bracket)

By that metric, the Midwest is tough and the West is easy.

The Midwest will probably play to seed. The probability of upsets opening up the bracket for everyone else seems lower. Louisville and Duke are above average teams for their seed; Michigan State is Michigan State.

Out West on the other hand, there's a not-insignificant chance Pittsburgh can upset Gonzaga, Arizona doing damage out West, Big 10 champ Wisconsin posing problems, etc. In fact, the West looks great for Ohio State, except they're far away from Columbus playing against a bunch of teams from the west. There could be upsets galore in this region -- I wouldn't be surprised to see a 6-seed get into the Final Four from here.

[DU82]

By definition, the toughest region is the one with Duke in it.

[ice-9]

South is definitely the toughest as far as scare factor goes. VCU, NOVA, UNC, KU looks like a final four - much less a "prong" as HF3 stated. I can imagine all four of those team's knees are knocking. I'm pissed at our draw but if I'm a UNC fan I've already made alternate plans for next weekend. As for the bottom of that region: Gtown, UF, Tubby, and Los Angeles. Dayum.

I know my view maybe a little contrarian, but to me, the more upset potential there is in a bracket, the easier it is.

Yes, UNC as an 8-seed might be scary...but only for Kansas. It's awesome for everyone else. Who would you rather play against, Kansas or UNC? That's right, Kansas. So the higher probability that Kansas is upset, the higher the probability everyone else has for winning the region. UNC makes the region easier, not harder.

[pamtar]

OK, i totally overlooked UofM in the top of the South bracket. If that doesn't say how tough that bracket is then i just dunno...

[FerryFor50]

I know my view maybe a little contrarian, but to me, the more upset potential there is in a bracket, the easier it is.

Yes, UNC as an 8-seed might be scary...but only for Kansas. It's awesome for everyone else. Who would you rather play against, Kansas or UNC? That's right, Kansas. So the higher probability that Kansas is upset, the higher the probability everyone else has for winning the region. UNC makes the region easier, not harder.

I don't think UNC as an 8 against Kansas is that scary. I think KU wins that game easily.

[devildeac]

I don't think UNC as an 8 against Kansas is that scary. I think KU wins that game easily.

Unless Roy uses timeouts early and often;):rolleyes:.

[sporthenry]

OK, i totally overlooked UofM in the top of the South bracket. If that doesn't say how tough that bracket is then i just dunno...

I agree. 1-4, the South is the most difficult. From Duke's perspective though, they have just about as hard of a 3 as the South. And since their 4 is weaker, it actually makes it tougher b/c theoretically, Louisville will have an easier game than they would if they had to play Michigan.

I think as a fan, you actually want to be in a very difficult bracket but in an easier side. That is why I like Miami's draw.

[pamtar]

I don't think UNC as an 8 against Kansas is that scary. I think KU wins that game easily.

Depends on which UNC team shows up. If its the UNC @ Cameron or ACCT then I'd be worried if I was KU. Still, Bill Self knows he's a better coach than Roy, and Roy is just dying to prove him wrong. If it does end up being KU/UNC then I'll bet many doll hairs that Roy chokes his team back to chapel hill.

Personally, I'd be more worried about Nova. They've got nothing to lose.

[ice-9]

I don't think UNC as an 8 against Kansas is that scary. I think KU wins that game easily.

Yeah actually agree with that. I just can't see UNC generating enough points vs. Kansas' elite defense. They couldn't penetrate at all against Miami, and if not for some hot shooting would have lost by much more.

My real point though is that the higher the probability that a high seed can be upset, the easier the bracket is overall.

I've always been amused when people take the average rating of a region as evidence of it's strength. I think a better metric is the probability that the top four seeds advance to the second weekend; the higher, the more difficult.

[pamtar]

I agree. 1-4, the South is the most difficult. From Duke's perspective though, they have just about as hard of a 3 as the South. And since their 4 is weaker, it actually makes it tougher b/c theoretically, Louisville will have an easier game than they would if they had to play Michigan.

I think as a fan, you actually want to be in a very difficult bracket but in an easier side. That is why I like Miami's draw.

Agreed. If Miami doesn't make it to the elite 8 then they have grossly underachieved.

[FerryFor50]

Agreed. If Miami doesn't make it to the elite 8 then they have grossly underachieved.

I think it's a very real possibility. Miami hasn't been great in the later part of the season (ACCT notwithstanding).

I could see the 7/10 winner taking them out.

[pamtar]

I dunno. They played 3 really good games against desperate teams in the tourney. BC played them great for 35minutes until Miami's D pressure finallly cracked them. The State win was about the most impressive win they've had since beating us. And being able to survive UNC's offensive output today (although I think UNC derived much of that output from game pace) cannot be taken lightly. Plus, I'd argue that Larkin has gotten much better in the past two weeks. Watching him today I feel obligated to say that he's the best true PG in the country...

[FerryFor50]

I dunno. They played 3 really good games against desperate teams in the tourney. BC played them great for 35minutes until Miami's D pressure finallly cracked them. The State win was about the most impressive win they've had since beating us. And being able to survive UNC's offensive output today (although I think UNC derived much of that output from game pace) cannot be taken lightly. Plus, I'd argue that Larkin has gotten much better in the past two weeks. Watching him today I feel obligated to say that he's the best true PG in the country...

I think Trey Burke is better than Larkin....

[Deslok]

Just in case you don't have a love for Pomeroy ratings, here's the same data crunched for Massey Ratings, yielding similar results, though the variances are tempered down a bit, but the strength of the MidWest shows through again, the strength of the top of the South shows, along with the weakness of the bottom, and the reverse in the West, with the top weak and the bottom strong(potential for many upsets?) and the East is just weak all around.

3273

Two small details from the Pomeroy ratings, I had switched the regions of Michigan and Syracuse(East and South #4s) the net effect is minimal on the stats, but I was inaccurate on that account, and I was apparently loading on old source of the kenpom site, so the data was valid through March 10th, but not including the conference tourneys, so some of the rankings may be different now. My apologies for trying to rush and not noting the discrepancy.

[Kedsy]

...Big 10 champ Wisconsin posing problems, etc.

Well, the biggest problem posed by "Big 10 champ Wisconsin" is how'd they sneak into the locker room and steal the trophy from Ohio State?

[gofurman]

so if duke is number 6 WHY are we in the bracket with Louisville? Based on s curve should we be vs Indiana? I thought once they declared this list it was a simple S curve???

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/21899662/official-ncaa-168-seed-list
help here?
"1.Louisville
2.Kansas
3.Indiana
4.Gonzaga

5.Miami (FL)
6.Duke
7.Georgetown
8.Ohio State

9.New Mexico
10.Florida
11.Michigan St.
12.Marquette

13.Michigan
14.Kansas St.
15.Saint Louis
16.Syracuse
17.Oklahoma St.
18.UNLV
19.Wisconsin
20.VCU

[6th Man]

so if duke is number 6 WHY are we in the bracket with Louisville? Based on s curve should we be vs Indiana? I thought once they declared this list it was a simple S curve???

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/21899662/official-ncaa-168-seed-list
help here?
"1.Louisville
2.Kansas
3.Indiana
4.Gonzaga

5.Miami (FL)
6.Duke
7.Georgetown
8.Ohio State

9.New Mexico
10.Florida
11.Michigan St.
12.Marquette

13.Michigan
14.Kansas St.
15.Saint Louis
16.Syracuse
17.Oklahoma St.
18.UNLV
19.Wisconsin
20.VCU

The s curve no longer applies. It's based on geography now.

[El_Diablo]

so if duke is number 6 WHY are we in the bracket with Louisville? Based on s curve should we be vs Indiana? I thought once they declared this list it was a simple S curve???

It's not a simple s-curve. This has been discussed a number of times: geography is the primary factor in filling the top four seeds of each region. So as the second highest 2 seed, we got placed into our second closest region (after the closest one, DC, was already taken by Miami).

[uh_no]

so if duke is number 6 WHY are we in the bracket with Louisville? Based on s curve should we be vs Indiana? I thought once they declared this list it was a simple S curve???

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/21899662/official-ncaa-168-seed-list
help here?
"1.Louisville
2.Kansas
3.Indiana
4.Gonzaga

5.Miami (FL)
6.Duke
7.Georgetown
8.Ohio State

9.New Mexico
10.Florida
11.Michigan St.
12.Marquette

13.Michigan
14.Kansas St.
15.Saint Louis
16.Syracuse
17.Oklahoma St.
18.UNLV
19.Wisconsin
20.VCU

nope....

first, seeds 1 and 2 are based 100% on location....

3 and 4 seeds are based some combination of location, and balancing the weight of the 1 and 2 seeds

then after that it's S curve and then they modify it however they need to (within 1 seed line) to follow all the bracketing rules

[SCMatt33]

The only limiting factor is that the sum of the 1-4 seeds in each region must be within a certain amount of each other (I forget exactly how much, but it's pretty lenient). Here's how the regions stack out.

Midwest: 33 (1,6,11,15)
South: 32 (2,7,10,13)
East: 36 (3, 5, 12, 16)
West: 35 (4, 8, 9, 14)

So the committee looks at that and says that the difference between best and worst is only 4 overall seeds. The big disparity comes from disagreements with the committee. For example, most would not consider New Mexico the strongest 3 seed.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I'm the furthest thing from a statistician. But help me understand... if you're going to calculate and rate the toughness of regions based purely on the numbers, and the Midwest region keeps popping as the toughest, isn't that precisely because we are such a high performing #2 seed (RPI, BPI, etc.)? So, it would be fine to use this mathematical approach as a means to compare the relative strength of the regions against one another. But, folks, we can't play against ourselves (unless you want to get all psychological about it). So, continuing to say we are playing in the toughest region isn't really accurate from our perspective because we are in fact one of the primary reasons it is so difficult.

[sporthenry]

The only limiting factor is that the sum of the 1-4 seeds in each region must be within a certain amount of each other (I forget exactly how much, but it's pretty lenient). Here's how the regions stack out.

Midwest: 33 (1,6,11,15)
South: 32 (2,7,10,13)
East: 36 (3, 5, 12, 16)
West: 35 (4, 8, 9, 14)

So the committee looks at that and says that the difference between best and worst is only 4 overall seeds. The big disparity comes from disagreements with the committee. For example, most would not consider New Mexico the strongest 3 seed.

Yes, this is correct. They are told to keep it within 5 points. But the fact that New Mexico is above Florida and MSU is one of the more ludicrous things that I saw. I don't really care to look up the numbers like top 25 wins but that certainly made it easier to balance the brackets but I sort of figured that Arizona or New Mexico would jump up and be the top 3 or 4 seed to make it easier.

But I also don't like the talk that the S-curve isn't used anymore b/c it most certainly is. They just don't put #1 v #8 overall. But the s-curve is the reason that Miami is in the East and Duke isn't.

[uh_no]

Yes, this is correct. They are told to keep it within 5 points. But the fact that New Mexico is above Florida and MSU is one of the more ludicrous things that I saw. I don't really care to look up the numbers like top 25 wins but that certainly made it easier to balance the brackets but I sort of figured that Arizona or New Mexico would jump up and be the top 3 or 4 seed to make it easier.

But I also don't like the talk that the S-curve isn't used anymore b/c it most certainly is. They just don't put #1 v #8 overall. But the s-curve is the reason that Miami is in the East and Duke isn't.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of S-curve.....s curve is not simply a list of teams....s-curve is how you would ideally slot them into regios

rank:region
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 4
6 3
7 2
8 1
9 1
....

much like fantasy football draft....it's called an "S" curve because the regions go back and forth like an S

in that sense, it is most certainly not followed for the first 4 seeds....and that doesn't mean that the actual ranking of the teams is ignored...

the ranking is what you would use to build the S curve, but the teams are not slotted in in S curve order, if that makes sense....they are slotted by region....if they were slotted by S curve, the overall 1 would always be paired with the overall 8 as it's 2 seed

[El_Diablo]

But I also don't like the talk that the S-curve isn't used anymore b/c it most certainly is. They just don't put #1 v #8 overall. But the s-curve is the reason that Miami is in the East and Duke isn't.

Miami is in the East because they were ranked higher than the other #2 seeds (and thus got geographical preference over Duke). There is no s-curve. It's a seed list, and the committee uses it to fill the regions in descending order along each seed line for the top sixteen teams (subject to various guiding principles).

[sporthenry]

I think you misunderstand the meaning of S-curve.....s curve is not simply a list of teams....s-curve is how you would ideally slot them into regios

rank:region
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 4
6 3
7 2
8 1
9 1
....

much like fantasy football draft....it's called an "S" curve because the regions go back and forth like an S

in that sense, it is most certainly not followed for the first 4 seeds....and that doesn't mean that the actual ranking of the teams is ignored...

the ranking is what you would use to build the S curve, but the teams are not slotted in in S curve order, if that makes sense....they are slotted by region....if they were slotted by S curve, the overall 1 would always be paired with the overall 8 as it's 2 seed

I guess I misunderstood the implications of S curve. But then I'll just call it the Seed List. But it is still just a matter of semantics. I guess I have a convoluted mind but in my mind, it is the exact same thing except instead of putting preference on an easier opponent, they put it on location first.

[nmduke2001]

Since we were 6 in the final 68 behind Miami, would we have been in the same predicament had we made it to the ACC Tourney final and lost to Miami?

[El_Diablo]

Since we were 6 in the final 68 behind Miami, would we have been in the same predicament had we made it to the ACC Tourney final and lost to Miami?

It's all speculation, of course, but I believe our ignominious exit from the ACC Tournament dropped us down a few pegs from where we would have been had we beaten Maryland and UNC this weekend. So no, I think we would have been a clear #1 seed had we advanced to the ACC finals.

[throatybeard]

It's all speculation, of course, but I believe our ignominious exit from the ACC Tournament dropped us down a few pegs from where we would have been had we beaten Maryland and UNC this weekend. So no, I think we would have been a clear #1 seed had we advanced to the ACC finals.

Yes. This is another thing about deep in your conference tournament--it means you had two more quality wins. This is one of the things the DUke haters don't seem to get--we rarely flame out in the ACCT early. So you get another couple good wins under your belt.

[uh_no]

I guess I misunderstood the implications of S curve. But then I'll just call it the Seed List. But it is still just a matter of semantics. I guess I have a convoluted mind but in my mind, it is the exact same thing except instead of putting preference on an easier opponent, they put it on location first.

yeah, you have the concept...it's convoluted by the fact that the "seed list" is called the "s curve"...it's really a misnomer that just confuses everyone

so yeah, you're right, they go down the seed list, and for the first 8 they slot exclusively by geographic preference, then next 8 are geography and balancing the regions, and after that it's easiest opponent all the way down the list (except if it would break rules....but usually enough rules are broken that the final bracket looks nothing like the easiest opponent order anyway...so it is pretty much just a free for all of how you can slot the teams into the bracket so they're somewhat close to the right spot on the seed list)

[hurleyfor3]

There is no S curve. There never was an S curve. Nothing about the ncaa tournament selection process involves any kind of curve or the letter S, other than the S-like figure that has a vertical line through it.

You know the Sanskrit "om"? They take the field and arrange it over that, then do a Laplace transform over the euro symbol from 0 to 2π. Then they take the three teams Jay Bilas thinks are most deserving of their seeds and switch them with the three teams Seth Davis thinks got jobbed. Then they keep switching teams until at least two of their "guidelines" are flagrantly violated, then they give the bracket to cbs.

I mean, when you look at how the Pac 12 teams were placed, how do you conclude they use any other method?

[throatybeard]

There is no S curve. There never was an S curve. Nothing about the ncaa tournament selection process involves any kind of curve or the letter S, other than the S-like figure that has a vertical line through it.

You know the Sanskrit "om"? They take the field and arrange it over that, then do a Laplace transform over the euro symbol from 0 to 2π. Then they take the three teams Jay Bilas thinks are most deserving of their seeds and switch them with the three teams Seth Davis thinks got jobbed. Then they keep switching teams until at least two of their "guidelines" are flagrantly violated, then they give the bracket to cbs.

I mean, when you look at how the Pac 12 teams were placed, how do you conclude they use any other method?

Yeah.

Everybody's all "Maryland and Virginia got what was comin to them." OK, so then how did Illinois get a 7-seed with a losing conference record? I know they don't really look at the conference record, but this would seem to confirm Bilas' assertion that it's more about who you lost to this year than who you beat.

[SCMatt33]

I guess I misunderstood the implications of S curve. But then I'll just call it the Seed List. But it is still just a matter of semantics. I guess I have a convoluted mind but in my mind, it is the exact same thing except instead of putting preference on an easier opponent, they put it on location first.

Semantics is a big deal for the NCAA. Just think, because of semantics, Duke actually has a first round bye! Those first four games are totally different than play-in games. Not the same thing at all.

[hurleyfor3]

Everybody's all "Maryland and Virginia got what was comin to them." OK, so then how did Illinois get a 7-seed with a losing conference record? I know they don't really look at the conference record, but this would seem to confirm Bilas' assertion that it's more about who you lost to this year than who you beat.

I was serious about the "committee violates two of their guidelines" part -- this year they cleverly pulled this off with a single matchup! Unlv vs. California. Not only does it repeat a matchup from earlier in the year, it gives 12-seed Cal a virtual home game.

[ice-9]

Well, the biggest problem posed by "Big 10 champ Wisconsin" is how'd they sneak into the locker room and steal the trophy from Ohio State?

Oops! That's what I get for posting after watching the UNC-Miami game, sleeping three hours, and then getting back up for Selection Sunday! (I'm in Asia.)

A scrambled brain...

[hurleyfor3]

Semantics is a big deal for the NCAA. Just think, because of semantics, Duke actually has a first round bye!

And we're not playing until Friday. So we're guaranteed to be in the Final 48!

[throatybeard]

Oops! That's what I get for posting after watching the UNC-Miami game, sleeping three hours, and then getting back up for Selection Sunday! (I'm in Asia.)

A scrambled brain...

It's easy when you're big in Japan.

Yes, Hurley, the Cal thing is ridiculous.

[uh_no]

I was serious about the "committee violates two of their guidelines" part -- this year they cleverly pulled this off with a single matchup! Unlv vs. California. Not only does it repeat a matchup from earlier in the year, it gives 12-seed Cal a virtual home game.

exactly which rules were violated?

cal is perfectly allowed to play in san jose as much as any other team, as it is not considered a home arena (in years where pods are in philly, villanova will often play fewer games there to ensure they are able to play there in the tournament)...

further, is there a rule that first round games cannot be repeats of earlier played games? or is that just a guideline which is flexible.....i'm guessing it's the latter

[sporthenry]

exactly which rules were violated?

cal is perfectly allowed to play in san jose as much as any other team, as it is not considered a home arena (in years where pods are in philly, villanova will often play fewer games there to ensure they are able to play there in the tournament)...

further, is there a rule that first round games cannot be repeats of earlier played games? or is that just a guideline which is flexible.....i'm guessing it's the latter

Darn semantics again. But when a guideline could easily be avoided, it might as well be a rule.

[hurleyfor3]

Kidding aside, the committee has guidelines which are not iron-clad.

The "no more than three home games" is a rule. But one guideline is to avoid giving low-seeded teams games that are in their immediate home area. Another is to avoid repeating matchups from the regular season in the R64.

A third is to avoid repeating matchups from recent (last two or three) ncaa tournaments before the Sweet 16. This is potentially violated with kansas/unc.

[throatybeard]

Kidding aside, the committee has guidelines which are not iron-clad.

The "no more than three home games" is a rule. But one guideline is to avoid giving low-seeded teams games that are in their immediate home area. Another is to avoid repeating matchups from the regular season in the R64.

A third is to avoid repeating matchups from recent (last two or three) ncaa tournaments before the Sweet 16. This is potentially violated with kansas/unc.

And also the rule about conference foes not meeting before the Region Final.

Except when eleven teams from the Big Defunct make the field. Fortunately, most flamed out in the first two rounds.

[Lid]

But one guideline is to avoid giving low-seeded teams games that are in their immediate home area.

As opposed to the women's tournament, where they seem to try to do this as often as possible. I understand why it happens, but sheesh.

[nmduke2001]

Since we were 6 in the final 68 behind Miami, would we have been in the same predicament had we made it to the ACC Tourney final and lost to Miami?


It's all speculation, of course, but I believe our ignominious exit from the ACC Tournament dropped us down a few pegs from where we would have been had we beaten Maryland and UNC this weekend. So no, I think we would have been a clear #1 seed had we advanced to the ACC finals.

It would have been really interesting. If we lost to Miami again and still jumped to the 1 line would Miami have stayed on the 2 line? Think of the uproar from the Duke haters.

I guess we don't have to worry about it now.

[Udaman]

I hate doing this by bracket....just going with the overall picture.

1) I think for the first time that I can remember the committee made decisions that just seem absolutely insane. UNC as an 8 seed? Really? They are 17 in the RPI. They are 28 in Kenpom. There is simply no way they should be an 8 seed. Oregon as a 12 and UCLA as a 6? Given the injuries on UCLA and Oregon won the Pac-10 tournament? I honestly think they just wrote the wrong teams down. 47th in the RPI and a 12 seed. Nuts. NC State got an 8 seed as well. I just don't get it.

2) To me our bracket is by far the hardest. Mainly because of the top 2 seeds. A week ago we were projected by everyone to be the top overall seed. Louisville now has that. We are #2 in the RPI. Louisville is #3. I actually think Michigan State is overrated....but St. Louis is absolutely legit and Creighton is easily the best 7 seed from any of the brackets. The true dark horse is Memphis. They will make the Sweet 16. They finished the season going 24-1. Preseason they were ranked in the top 20. This is a classic underachieving, under the radar kind of team. My upsets: Michigan State losing to either Valpo or Memphis. I'll be nervous as heck if we play Creighton as well. Yeesh.

3) I think the South is mixed. Kansas is obviously good.....but the #2 and #3 seeds are paper tigers big time. Georgetown has some really bad losses, and has underachieved all year. Florida is even worse in this (they had awful losses at the end of the season to Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and Ole Miss - none of which are tournament teams). I think both Florida and Georgetown could lose in the first round (and certainly the second). I would say that Florida and Arizona are the most overrated teams in the country, and have been all year. I predict neither Florida or Georgetown make the Sweet 16. Of course UNC is incredibly underseeded as an 8 seed. Unfair to both them and Kansas.....and then they get the 9 seed in Villanova who beat Louisville, Syracuse, Marquette and Georgetown this year (though all of them at home). Michigan is scary good....so long as they don't zone out in the first round. Regardless, whoever comes out of that top bracket (from Kansas, UNC, Michigan or VCU) is going to the Final Four. Even if they play either Florida or Georgetown.

4) The joke conference is the West. It's not just that Gonzaga got a #1 (when they didn't deserve it over either Miami, or Duke for that matter.....Miami is the first team in the history of the ACC to win the regular season and tournament and not get a #1 seed: ridiculous), it's that they then also got the 8th seed on the S curve. So their bracket has the easiest 1 and the easiest 2. That should never occur. Miami should have been in the West (they didn't put them there because they would have had to travel). They also have massively overrated 4 and 5 seeds in Kansas State and Wisconsin. Those are nothings. New Mexico is certainly a dangerous 3 seed, but they have some bad losses. The also get to play out West, which will help them a great deal. I like them in the regional finals. Gonzaga gets lucky with their matchups. It's going to be Gonzaga v. New Mexico to go to the Final Four. Not sure who I'm picking yet....probably New Mexico.

5) My 2nd toughest bracket is the East. Indiana was ranked #1 most of the year, and Miami is great. They get another vastly underseeded team in NC State as their 8. Their not as tough as ours because their 3, 4, 5, and 6 are all pretty blah (Marquette, Syracuse, UNLV and Butler. They also have the weakest 7-10 matchup by far. This is my only bracket where I think it's near 100% that the top 2 seeds advance to the regional finals (with the ONLY chance of that not happening is if Indiana loses to NC State, who might not even beat Temple, though they should).

[uh_no]

Kidding aside, the committee has guidelines which are not iron-clad.

The "no more than three home games" is a rule. But one guideline is to avoid giving low-seeded teams games that are in their immediate home area. Another is to avoid repeating matchups from the regular season in the R64.

A third is to avoid repeating matchups from recent (last two or three) ncaa tournaments before the Sweet 16. This is potentially violated with kansas/unc.

Thanks for the clarification.

It seems as if these are "best effort" type things.

We would have had to play sdsu in anaheim 2 years ago, which is 90 minutes from campus...san jose is 50 minutes from cal's campus....it's a fuzzy line, and I'm not sure it's a great fault that it gets broken sometimes, as there are a bazillion other rules which are in fact iron clad.

the other two are are much more easily seen...and if you asked the committee, they'd probably say they knew/thought about it and it was necessary to make the bracket work without violating any of the other actual rules

[uh_no]

UNC as an 8 seed? Really? They are 17 in the RPI. They are 28 in Kenpom. 28 in kenpom would put them as the weakest 7 seed....by that metric, 8 seed seems absolutely reasonable. Also consider that they have effectively no really good wins....losing 6 of 6 to top teams (3xmiami, 2xduke, 1xindiana)...they have a couple mediocre wins over state and UNLV...but not much else in terms of good wins



2) To me our bracket is by far the hardest. Mainly because of the top 2 seeds. A week ago we were projected by everyone to be the top overall seed. Louisville now has that. We are #2 in the RPI. Louisville is #3. I actually think Michigan State is overrated....but St. Louis is absolutely legit and Creighton is easily the best 7 seed from any of the brackets. The true dark horse is Memphis. They will make the Sweet 16. They finished the season going 24-1. Preseason they were ranked in the top 20. This is a classic underachieving, under the radar kind of team. My upsets: Michigan State losing to either Valpo or Memphis. I'll be nervous as heck if we play Creighton as well. Yeesh.

well, we also have the weakest 15, you acknowledge that MSU is overrated, and we can't play both of STL and UL, so why worry that they are both in our bracket? seems UL has much more to worry about than we do



Miami is the first team in the history of the ACC to win the regular season and tournament and not get a #1 seed: ridiculous), it's that they then also got the 8th seed on the S curve. So their bracket has the easiest 1 and the easiest 2. That should never occur. Miami should have been in the West (they didn't put them there because they would have had to travel).
miami was the #5 overall seed...and the overall ranking has no effect on placement of the top two teams in each region, it's 100% geography as you go down the line....so it absolutely can and does occur....it's then balanced by the 3 and 4 seeds

[hurleyfor3]

Ruminations? "Ruminate" is usually what I do to the paper my bracket is printed on after the first weekend.

[Udaman]

By the way....one really interesting dark horse (I think) is Illinois.

They are the team from the Big Ten that nobody is talking about (rightfully so). They are a 7 seed.

But.....this year they won at Gonzaga by 11. They beat Butler by 17. Yes....17. They beat Ohio State, Minnesota, and Indiana. They play 4 guards and fire away from three point range. Unfortunately they got a tough, tough matchup with Miami in the 2nd round. But if they get hot from outside, and Miami overlooks them.....

[SoCalDukeFan]

is not making Miami the 4th number 1 seed in the West.

Then Gonzaga is the number 2 in the West and you have 4,5 on the S curve.

Ohio State would be the 2 in the Midwest, 1,8 on the S.

Duke, Georgetown East or South.

SoCal

[DukeAlumBS]

I agree with your comment about Miami. I have them winning against Indiana. Miami is very strong, on a mission. I have Duke beating them in the final. I did this because of the ESPN types that makes these comments.
We will see,

Have nice day
Jimmy

[Ichabod Drain]

Not sure if this has been stated before but if you include the teams heading to the ACC then we have the following seeds in the tourney.

#1 Louisville (Overall)
#2 Duke
#2 Miami
#4 Syracuse
#7 Notre Dame
#8 UNC
#8 NC State
#8 Pitt

Not too shabby. Acc future is looking bright if we can hold it together.

[Norman Pfyster]

I hate doing this by bracket....just going with the overall picture.

4) The joke conference is the West. It's not just that Gonzaga got a #1 (when they didn't deserve it over either Miami, or Duke for that matter.....Miami is the first team in the history of the ACC to win the regular season and tournament and not get a #1 seed: ridiculous), it's that they then also got the 8th seed on the S curve. So their bracket has the easiest 1 and the easiest 2. That should never occur. Miami should have been in the West (they didn't put them there because they would have had to travel). They also have massively overrated 4 and 5 seeds in Kansas State and Wisconsin. Those are nothings.

Wisconsin is a "nothing"? Not that Pomeroy is everything, but they are #9 and the highest ranked 5 seed (next is OSU at #20, with VCU right behind at #21). Can they lose to bad teams? Sure. So can Duke.

[ArtVandelay]

Just wondering why the Mods moved this thread into the "toughest bracket" thread? Can we not have a separate thread on people's overall tournament thoughts, predictions, upset picks, etc.?

[tele]

Yeah actually agree with that. I just can't see UNC generating enough points vs. Kansas' elite defense. They couldn't penetrate at all against Miami, and if not for some hot shooting would have lost by much more.

My real point though is that the higher the probability that a high seed can be upset, the easier the bracket is overall.

I've always been amused when people take the average rating of a region as evidence of it's strength. I think a better metric is the probability that the top four seeds advance to the second weekend; the higher, the more difficult.

If you want to compare across regions average rating is one way, if you want to rate a single regions internal strength your way may work, but only in terms of the lower seeds.

[nmduke2001]

Nate Silver makes his picks...

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/parity-in-n-c-a-a-means-no-commanding-favorite/

[ArtVandelay]

3) I think the South is mixed. Kansas is obviously good.....but the #2 and #3 seeds are paper tigers big time. Georgetown has some really bad losses, and has underachieved all year. Florida is even worse in this (they had awful losses at the end of the season to Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and Ole Miss - none of which are tournament teams). I think both Florida and Georgetown could lose in the first round (and certainly the second). I would say that Florida and Arizona are the most overrated teams in the country, and have been all year. I predict neither Florida or Georgetown make the Sweet 16. Of course UNC is incredibly underseeded as an 8 seed. Unfair to both them and Kansas.....and then they get the 9 seed in Villanova who beat Louisville, Syracuse, Marquette and Georgetown this year (though all of them at home). Michigan is scary good....so long as they don't zone out in the first round. Regardless, whoever comes out of that top bracket (from Kansas, UNC, Michigan or VCU) is going to the Final Four. Even if they play either Florida or Georgetown.

Sorry, can't agree with you on Florida. First of all, Ole Miss IS a tournament team. Second, both Kentucky and Tennessee were among the last teams out, so it's hard to say that those are "awful" losses, particularly compared to our losses to Maryland and UVA. Third, all of those "awful" losses were by 3-6 points. The only arguably "bad" loss I see is to Arkansas. True, the SEC is a bit weak, but Ken Pom has Florida as the number 1 rated team in the country. If anything, you could argue that they are under-seeded and under-rated.

[Newton_14]

Caught Bilas on the radio today and as usual he gave a great interview with solid analysis. He stated the Midwest is by far the hardest region using both "every metric available" and "eye test". I agree. His biggest gripe was how the balance of power is not spread evenly enough across the 4 regions. I agree on both points. His second biggest gripe was the fact the committee is never honest about how they selected the 68 teams. He felt the ACC and Virginia in particular, got hosed. He said, "Look, if they want to put X amount of Mid Major teams in the tourney to balance it out, and put those teams in over more deserving BCS teams, then fine, just state that. Don't hide behind statements like "UVA strength of schedule was not strong enough". It does not hold water"

The ACC got royally screwed in my opinion. Miami should have gotten a 1 seed. Duke got placed in the most difficult region despite being RPI 1 and 18-1 at full strength. UNC and NC State got under seeded and worse yet, stuck with 8 seeds, meaning if they survive the game with the 9 seed they get to play the 1 seed in practically a road game. And UNC gets Ol Roy's former school again, this time in Kansas City, while State gets Indiana. So grand total of 4 ACC teams and all get it stuck to them in one or more ways. Then UVA gets stiffed even though they finished 4th in the ACC. Maryland had less of a gripe about being left out but sure looked like a tourney level team in their last 10 games or so.

Meanwhile 2 of the non-BCS conferences get 5 teams in the dance.

I would have been ok with the 5 ACC teams getting in, but 4 is ridiculous as is their seedings and placement.

Time to tip it up and play though. Unfortunately, it will be on Miami and Duke alone to carry the flag on deep runs barring incredible upsets by UNC and NC State.