#1 Seed Predictions

[jv001]

Louisville is probably the opposite example. They are likely a very good team that is playing like a #1 seed, but their horrific SOS and other numbers will keep them off the #1 line. Some have them as low as a 5 or 6, there are only a handful on bracket matrix that have them as high as a two.

I admit to being perplexed on some of this, because 7 days ago everybody on this board + Joey Donuts + Palm (I think) had KU as the likely fourth #1. In the 7 days since then... KU lost to WVU without Joel Embiid. Wisconsin lost to Big Red. Duke lost to Wake. Syracuse lost (at home) to Georgia Tech. UVA lost to Maryland. Michigan State lost to OSU. Arizona lost to Oregon. Unless there is a flashing "OMG 8 losses, we should just shoot them!" sign in the committee room in Indy this weekend, I don't see how anybody has anything locked in at this point. Outside of Florida and WSU, of course.

To be clear, I don't think KU deserves a #1. I only want a healthy team a week from today. I would take a low 2 or high 3 if you guaranteed that Embiid has no back trouble the rest of the year. If that requires us losing to OSU again this week, I will take it.

The bolded points are right on. 1) I want Duke healthy 2) I want Duke playing good basketball even if they lose in the ACCT. 3) I don't want Duke in a bracket that has a terrific pressing team(like Louisville). I don't think our guards can handle a great press. GoDuke!

[Duvall]

Embiid out for the Big 12 Tournament, longshot for the first weekend of the NCAAs.

Kansas hopes to have him back for the later rounds if possible. Oof.

[brevity]

Embiid out for the Big 12 Tournament, longshot for the first weekend of the NCAAs.

Kansas hopes to have him back for the later rounds if possible. Oof.

That's all the Selection Committee needed to hear. 2 seed. Win or lose this week, doesn't matter.

[hurleyfor3]

I really like the bracketmatrix site, especially the analysis page. If I'm reading it right, the collective intelligence of the Internet does better than ANY single site, save one. And the one that has outperformed the collective has a shorter history (five years vs. eight) so will almost certainly revert to the mean.

Lunardi in particular is right on the average. Nothing about his pretend bracket stands out statistically except that espn pays him for it. Think about this the next time you take any stock in his bracket, or anyone else's.

[Atlanta Duke]

Embiid out for the Big 12 Tournament, longshot for the first weekend of the NCAAs.

Kansas hopes to have him back for the later rounds if possible. Oof.

Like a 2001 Duke team that had a lot of talent waiting for Carlos Boozer to return for the second week of the tournament?

[sagegrouse]

I really like the bracketmatrix site, especially the analysis page. If I'm reading it right, the collective intelligence of the Internet does better than ANY single site, save one. And the one that has outperformed the collective has a shorter history (five years vs. eight) so will almost certainly revert to the mean.

Lunardi in particular is right on the average. Nothing about his pretend bracket stands out statistically except that espn pays him for it. Think about this the next time you take any stock in his bracket, or anyone else's.

Ye, Gods! There are 96 bracket predictions cited on bracketmatrix.com. Step right up, sports fans, you could be #97. What a waste of human effort!

The four schools from the "no-competition zone" have apparent locks on #1 seeds, according to the cognoscenti: Zona, Florida, Wichita State and Villanova. Which would mean that the survivors of the Big 12, Big Ten and ACC would are likely to be two seeds: Kansas/Iowa State, Wisconsin/Michigan, and Duke/Virginia/Syracuse.

I think this is hogwash. The four conferences of the prospective #1 seeds are PAC-12, SEC, Missouri Valley and Big East. The only other teams from these conferences as #6 seeds or better are Creighton (Big East) at #3 and UCLA at #6. No one from the SEC or Missouri Valley. Gee, I wonder why these four have such good records? I think that the Big 12, Big Ten and ACC winners will be just as deserving.

[CDu]

Ye, Gods! There are 96 bracket predictions cited on bracketmatrix.com. Step right up, sports fans, you could be #97. What a waste of human effort!

The four schools from the "no-competition zone" have apparent locks on #1 seeds, according to the cognoscenti: Zona, Florida, Wichita State and Villanova. Which would mean that the survivors of the Big 12, Big Ten and ACC would are likely to be two seeds: Kansas/Iowa State, Wisconsin/Michigan, and Duke/Virginia/Syracuse.

I think this is hogwash. The four conferences of the prospective #1 seeds are PAC-12, SEC, Missouri Valley and Big East. The only other teams from these conferences as #6 seeds or better are Creighton (Big East) at #3 and UCLA at #6. No one from the SEC or Missouri Valley. Gee, I wonder why these four have such good records? I think that the Big 12, Big Ten and ACC winners will be just as deserving.

I agree with half of that. And I don't mean to badmouth those schools. Certainly Arizona handled their non-conference schedule quite well (though the injury to Ashley definitely changes them), and Florida beat Kansas at home and lost a close game @Wisconsin (no shame there). But Wichita State avoided playing anyone in their non-conference schedule, and Villanova got absolutely smoked by 3 of the 4 top-25 teams they faced.

I won't hold those teams' conference schedules against them; that's just the reality of the situation that they're stuck with. But at least Arizona and Florida went out and played top-10 teams and did a decent job against them.

[Wander]

I agree with half of that. And I don't mean to badmouth those schools. Certainly Arizona handled their non-conference schedule quite well (though the injury to Ashley definitely changes them), and Florida beat Kansas at home and lost a close game @Wisconsin (no shame there). But Wichita State avoided playing anyone in their non-conference schedule, and Villanova got absolutely smoked by 3 of the 4 top-25 teams they faced.

I won't hold those teams' conference schedules against them; that's just the reality of the situation that they're stuck with. But at least Arizona and Florida went out and played top-10 teams and did a decent job against them.

I remain mystified by the Villanova talk here. Why are you praising Florida's big non-conference results against Kansas and Wisconsin (win at home, loss on the road), but not Villanova's big non-conference results against Kansas and Syracuse (win on neutral, loss on the road)? Florida does have a better profile than Villanova, but the way you're phrasing it here seems inconsistent and unfair to nova.

By the way, both RPI and kenpom have the Big East as better than the ACC, for whatever it's worth.

[Duvall]

I remain mystified by the Villanova talk here. Why are you praising Florida's big non-conference results against Kansas and Wisconsin (win at home, loss on the road), but not Villanova's big non-conference results against Kansas and Syracuse (win on neutral, loss on the road)? Florida does have a better profile than Villanova, but the way you're phrasing it here seems inconsistent and unfair to nova.

Still, doesn't Villanova's record against quality competition come down to beating Kansas in a ballroom in November and getting embarrassed everywhere else? Not just losing, but getting rolled.

[Wander]

Still, doesn't Villanova's record against quality competition come down to beating Kansas in a ballroom in November and getting embarrassed everywhere else? Not just losing, but getting rolled.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong, I would just assert that:

1) People generally put too much relative emphasis on results against top 10 teams
2) People generally put not enough emphasis on losses
3) All that matters is where Villanova stacks up relative to other teams in this particular season, not an idea for how a 1 seed should generally look, and given the losses by other teams to Wake Forest and BC and the like, they deserve to be seriously contending for the last 1 seed

[CDu]

I remain mystified by the Villanova talk here. Why are you praising Florida's big non-conference results against Kansas and Wisconsin (win at home, loss on the road), but not Villanova's big non-conference results against Kansas and Syracuse (win on neutral, loss on the road)? Florida does have a better profile than Villanova, but the way you're phrasing it here seems inconsistent and unfair to nova.

By the way, both RPI and kenpom have the Big East as better than the ACC, for whatever it's worth.

It's a combination of things:
- Praising Arizona for what they did against the good teams on their schedule
- Tolerating UF for splitting the two really tough games on their schedule (and playing both of them close)
- Bashing Villanova for getting killed by Syracuse and Creighton (twice)
- Bashing Wichita State for not playing anybody

I probably didn't word it very well on the first post. Hopefully this explains it better.

[sagegrouse]

By the way, both RPI and kenpom have the Big East as better than the ACC, for whatever it's worth.

Aha! My favorite topic! There have been no meaningful inter-conference games since early January. Therefore, any average rankings of the conferences must be based on suspect results in November and December -- suspect because there have been significant changes in the performance of teams. Three words: University of Virginia -- now one of the best teams in the nation, but their awful performance early pulled down the rankings of all the ACC teams. Similarly, UNC had bad losses (offset to some degree by good wins). Even BC is not as bad as their OOC performance.

To say that the Big East is better than the ACC has to recognize the weaknesses of the conference rankings.

[Wander]

Aha! My favorite topic! There have been no meaningful inter-conference games since early January. Therefore, any average rankings of the conferences must be based on suspect results in November and December -- suspect because there have been significant changes in the performance of teams. Three words: University of Virginia -- now one of the best teams in the nation, but their awful performance early pulled down the rankings of all the ACC teams. Similarly, UNC had bad losses (offset to some degree by good wins). Even BC is not as bad as their OOC performance.

It's a fair point, but I noticed you only mentioned ACC schools as examples of teams that have improved. I assume you did this because, like me, you follow the ACC a little bit closer than other conferences, so you're more knowledgeable about the ACC teams that have improved over the course of the season. But there are probably Big East teams that have done the same. The rankings aren't perfect, but they give us a good overview since we can't follow all 351 D1 teams.

In the specific case of Villanova, kenpom has them as the the 10th hardest schedule in the country, ahead of Arizona, Florida, Wichita State, Louisville, Virginia, and many other good teams. Kenpom could certainly be off here. But they're probably not, you know, 100 spots off. At least I don't think so. Even if Villanova is 28-3 against the 50th hardest schedule in the country, that still strikes me as a really, really good team that could be a 1 seed.

[TexHawk]

It's a fair point, but I noticed you only mentioned ACC schools as examples of teams that have improved. I assume you did this because, like me, you follow the ACC a little bit closer than other conferences, so you're more knowledgeable about the ACC teams that have improved over the course of the season. But there are probably Big East teams that have done the same. The rankings aren't perfect, but they give us a good overview since we can't follow all 351 D1 teams.

In the specific case of Villanova, kenpom has them as the the 10th hardest schedule in the country, ahead of Arizona, Florida, Wichita State, Louisville, Virginia, and many other good teams. Kenpom could certainly be off here. But they're probably not, you know, 100 spots off. At least I don't think so. Even if Villanova is 28-3 against the 50th hardest schedule in the country, that still strikes me as a really, really good team that could be a 1 seed.

Agreed. I certainly don't think conference rankings are a fantastic measure, but they are better than nothing. Does anyone think Arizona waltzes in and beats Michigan sans-Ashley tomorrow? Michigan is a whole lot better today then they were then. But that Arizona noncon win DOES mean something more than zero, but how much is debatable.

[-jk]

Aha! My favorite topic! There have been no meaningful inter-conference games since early January. Therefore, any average rankings of the conferences must be based on suspect results in November and December -- suspect because there have been significant changes in the performance of teams. Three words: University of Virginia -- now one of the best teams in the nation, but their awful performance early pulled down the rankings of all the ACC teams. Similarly, UNC had bad losses (offset to some degree by good wins). Even BC is not as bad as their OOC performance.

To say that the Big East is better than the ACC has to recognize the weaknesses of the conference rankings.

I seem to recall you suggesting the NCAA should have a week in early Feb for nothing but out-of-conference games; everyone gets a couple. I think it's a fabulous idea. We need to get Jay Bilas on board.

-jk

[tommy]

I seem to recall you suggesting the NCAA should have a week in early Feb for nothing but out-of-conference games; everyone gets a couple. I think it's a fabulous idea. We need to get Jay Bilas on board.

-jk

I love the intent, but unfortunately I think the result would be Syracuse scheduling a few more games against SUNY-Buffalo and Quinniepac.

[sagegrouse]

I seem to recall you suggesting the NCAA should have a week in early Feb for nothing but out-of-conference games; everyone gets a couple. I think it's a fabulous idea. We need to get Jay Bilas on board.

-jk

Yes, I had a real diatribe on the topic a couple of years ago. But wasn't it you that suggested it just last week?

sage
'Ah, yes -- it was. Read here'

[-jk]

Yes, I had a real diatribe on the topic a couple of years ago. But wasn't it you that suggested it just last week?

sage

Trying to keep it alive.

-jk

[ice-9]

2) People generally put not enough emphasis on losses

Huh? The entire poll system is predicated on which preseason teams have the fewest losses.

No, if anything, people place too much emphasis on losses.

[Troublemaker]

I didn't see a great place to put this, so I'll use this thread.

Add the Tennessee Volunteers to the list of possible underseeded teams. I mean, something has really gotten into them lately.

In their past 3 games, they've won by these scores:

• 76-38 over Vanderbilt
• 82-54 over Auburn
• 72-45 over Missouri

None of those teams are good, but still, what utter beatdowns Tennessee has been handing out lately to conference opponents.

On the strength of those wins, the Volunteers have climbed to #13 in Kenpom. What's interesting is Bracket Matrix has them listed as a 12 seed right now, with several brackets not even including them in the field yet. They're a bubble team as of today, but with one more blowout win, they'll probably lock up a bid. And if they move up a couple more spots in kenpom in the process, it's quite possible they accomplish the rare feat of being a tournament team with a seed that is numerically greater than its kenpom rank, e.g. 11 seed > #10 kenpom.

Watch out for the Volunteers. They could win the SEC tournament the way they've been playing. If Duke's going to be a 2 seed, I hope Tennessee doesn't rise to become a 7 or 10 seed.