Joe Lunardi's Bracketology, 2/21 - Duke a #1 seed

• Leonardo

  

  http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology
  
  Sweet 16 matchups if seeds held:
  (1) Ohio State vs. (4) Villanova
  (2) San Diego State vs. (3) Notre Dame
  
  (1) Texas vs. (4) Connecticut
  (2) BYU vs. (3) Wisconsin
  
  (1) Pittsburgh vs. (4) North Carolina
  (2) Purdue vs. (3) Florida
  
  (1) Duke vs. (4) Louisville
  (2) Kansas vs. (3) Georgetown
  
  
  Play-in games:
  Butler vs. Memphis for #11 seed vs. (6) St. John's
  Boston College vs. Gonzaga for #12 seed vs. (5) Kentucky
  
  
  Number of teams from each "big" conference:
  Big East: 11
  Big 10: 6
  SEC: 6
  Big 12: 5
  ACC: 5
  Pac-10: 3
  
  
  Various notes:
  -Lunardi has Michigan State as an #11 seed, facing Texas A&M in the first round
  -Lunardi has George Mason as a #7 seed, facing Alabama in the first round; potentially Kansas in the second round
  -Lunardi has at least two Big East teams in each region
  -Lunardi has the highest Pac-10 team as Arizona, a #5 seed
• Mulva

  

  A don't really understand how he has a play-in game for an 11 seed, and then Minnesota gets in as an at-large as a 12 seed. Logic would seem to dictate that the last 4 in should be seeded lower than an at-large that isn't being forced to play its way in.
• wildcats20

  

  A don't really understand how he has a play-in game for an 11 seed, and then Minnesota gets in as an at-large as a 12 seed. Logic would seem to dictate that the last 4 in should be seeded lower than an at-large that isn't being forced to play its way in.

  It's the way the tournament is going to be set up. It's not him.
• Mulva

  

  wildcats20;685938 wrote:It's the way the tournament is going to be set up. It's not him.

  
  The one's the I follow (bracketography and bracketology 101) haven't had it like that. They either have both play-in games on the 12 line, or one playing for a 12 and the other for a 13. Either way, neither has any at-large bids getting lower seeds than the teams in the play-in games.
• georgemc80

  I like those sweet 16 matchups a lot
• wildcats20

  

  Mulva;685952 wrote:The one's the I follow (bracketography and bracketology 101) haven't had it like that. They either have both play-in games on the 12 line, or one playing for a 12 and the other for a 13. Either way, neither has any at-large bids getting lower seeds than the teams in the play-in games.

  
  This is from the ESPN article about the expansion, posted last July.

  This is the first time the last four at-large teams will be revealed publicly. Traditionally, the at-large teams are scattered throughout the seeding process, rarely going past No. 12, making it relatively easy to identify them. Yet the committee now will formally announce the last at-large teams by putting them in the first round.
  
  Guerrero and Shaheen said the last four at-large teams would be put on the seed line the committee decided they earned. So, this could mean that two could be considered No. 12 seeds playing for the right to play a No. 5 and two could be No. 11s vying to play a No. 6 in the second round.
  
  In its news release, the NCAA listed the 10th seed as a possible destination for the last at-large teams, something that has occurred in past years. It is unlikely that the committee will have one team seeded 10th, 11th or 12th to avoid having teams seeded differently playing in a First Four game.

  Here are the "First Four" Games, according to Joe.
  MARCH 15: SOUTHLAND/McNeese State vs. SWAC/Texas Southern (EAST, No. 16)
  MARCH 15: Boston College vs. Gonzaga (East, No. 12)
  MARCH 16: SUN BELT/Fla. Atlantic vs. MEAC/Bethune-Cookman (SOUTHWEST, No. 16)
  MARCH 16: Memphis vs. Butler (West, No. 11)
  
  Last 4 in being...
  Memphis
  Butler
  Boston College
  Gonzaga
• Big Gain

  START THE TOURNAMENT TODAY......I don't think Ohio State could get a much better draw.
• Laley23

  

  The last 4 at large teams are playing in the play-in games. I honestly think Lunardi made a mistake. You cant have an at large "earn" and 11 seed and then place someone as a 12. It makes no sense.
• SportsAndLady

  

  God that bracket would suck for KU...I would not feel comfortable playing George Mason in the second round lol
• CinciX12

  

  SportsAndLady;686682 wrote:God that bracket would suck for KU...I would not feel comfortable playing George Mason in the second round lol

  
  The 2nd round in Tulsa. Wouldn't that be a huge advantage for KU? I can't imagine George Mason travels well.
• CinciX12

  

  Arizona as a 5 seed proves my point about their ranking. But then again, Lunardi doesn't get seeding right.
• SportsAndLady

  

  1) Yes, it'd be a huge KU crowd, but that didn't really help KU last year. When you think that the other 2 teams will have games either before or after your game they will be there watching your gmae...they're gonna root for the upset, obviously.
  
  2) Lunardi is an idiot if he thinks Arizona would be a 5 seed right now...isnt that what his bracketology is? How it would look right now? Even if he did do bracketology as a prediction, Arizona is a top 10 team with very few challenging games remaining, they are a 3 seed at the very worst.
• dave

  Lunardi is assuming Zona loses at UCLA this week. They are 15th in RPI so it's hard to see them dropping out of the top 16.
• CinciX12

  

  Arizona has no wins though. I think it is a reflection of Joe thinking they don't deserve a high seed. Which I would certainly agree with. They just now got their first top 50 RPI win this past weekend against Washington, at home.
• SportsAndLady

  

  CinciX12;687215 wrote:Arizona has no wins though. I think it is a reflection of Joe thinking they don't deserve a high seed. Which I would certainly agree with. They just now got their first top 50 RPI win this past weekend against Washington, at home.

  
  Yes they have no good wins. But they only have 1 bad loss, are #15 in the RPI, and are 23-4. If Joe thinks they don't deserve a high seed, fine. But don't say your brackets are based on where the tourney would be right now and then put Arizona a 5 seed because they haven't beaten a great team. Everyone knows the committee looks at the RPI very highly, and a 23-4 record in a major conference with a 15 RPI is a 2 seed at worst.
• CinciX12

  

  SportsAndLady;687238 wrote:Yes they have no good wins. But they only have 1 bad loss, are #15 in the RPI, and are 23-4. If Joe thinks they don't deserve a high seed, fine. But don't say your brackets are based on where the tourney would be right now and then put Arizona a 5 seed because they haven't beaten a great team. Everyone knows the committee looks at the RPI very highly, and a 23-4 record in a major conference with a 15 RPI is a 2 seed at worst.

  
  Our AD, who is on the committee, has said repeatedly that RPI isn't looked at nearly as much as everyone thinks.
• georgemc80

  Arizona as a 2 seed would be a joke and there are 3 and 15 seeds praying Arizona is a 2 in their bracket.
• SportsAndLady

  

  CinciX12;687242 wrote:Our AD, who is on the committee, has said repeatedly that RPI isn't looked at nearly as much as everyone thinks.

  
  I mean if that's true then Arizona won't be that high. But who is Arizona going to lose to the rest of the year? Their hardest game is a road game at UCLA.
• CinciX12

  

  I personally don't even understand why he says it. He said something like they don't look at RPI very much at all, if at all, and then says that instead they look at the overall body of work. Correct me if I'm wrong but that is the RPI's main function right? So who knows.
  
  He is in charge of looking at the Big East though, so whatever method he deems fit to not allow 11 Big East teams in I am in favor of.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Everyone who talks about the process says that they don't use the RPI to evaluate individual teams, they use it to evaluate the schedule the team played and the resume they put together. Meaning they don't care if a team is 15 in the RPI, they care about how many top 25, top 50, top 100 RPI teams they beat and where they beat them.
• CinciX12

  

  Wouldn't that mean that RPI is very important then? If other team's RPI are used in determining how good you are, doesn't your's matter too?
• Laley23

  

  CinciX12;687357 wrote:Wouldn't that mean that RPI is very important then? If other team's RPI are used in determining how good you are, doesn't your's matter too?

  
  Kind of....but a team like BYU has a skyrocket RPI because they win all the time. Now, if you look at how many top 25 or even 50 RPI teams they have even played, I think it would be low.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  CinciX12;687357 wrote:Wouldn't that mean that RPI is very important then? If other team's RPI are used in determining how good you are, doesn't your's matter too?

  
  You would think so, but apparently it doesn't matter as much. I guess they can use the RPI as a guideline to say if you beat X number of top 50 or top 100 teams, then you must have beaten some pretty good teams, but they don't necessarily believe that #1 in the RPI is the best team or #2 is the second best team.
• TBone14

  

  Dangerous 4 seeds. North Carolina, Villanova, UConn, and Louisville. This tournament is going to be wide open.