Bracketology 2013/2014

[CVilleBuff]

WANT.

We're going to be on that 8/9 line, it seems. Any "surprise" would be 7 or 10. St. Joes would be a very favorable draw. Much preferred over some B1G or Big XII team. Lunardi has us a 9 seed playing UMass. Drawing either middling A10 school would be sweet, although St. Joes is preferable to UMass.

 

[cubuffs85]

WANT.

Playing Wisconsin in Milwaukee isn't great and maybe Tad would feel compelled to start Ben Mills at home, but that's a good problem to have. At this point, I'm just prepared for whatever they give us. Without seeing the draw, I'd like to win a game. For such a largely dormant program, I think winning two tourney games in three years -- this year minus their best player -- would be good. Yes, I want to win every game, I'm also a realist.

 

[CVilleBuff]

Playing Wisconsin in Milwaukee isn't great and maybe Tad would feel compelled to start Ben Mills at home, but that's a good problem to have. At this point, I'm just prepared for whatever they give us. Without seeing the draw, I'd like to win a game. For such a largely dormant program, I think winning two tourney games in three years -- this year minus their best player -- would be good. Yes, I want to win every game, I'm also a realist.

We're not starting Ben Mills in a Big Dance game. Not happening.

And yeah, we're in zero position to complain about who we'd face in the round of 32.

Also, Saint Louis is another possibility from the A10 along with St. Joes and UMass. Saint Louis has been falling apart and will be a 7 or 8 seed.

 

[Buffnik]

We're not starting Ben Mills in a Big Dance game. Not happening.

And yeah, we're in zero position to complain about who we'd face in the round of 32.

Also, Saint Louis is another possibility from the A10 along with St. Joes and UMass. Saint Louis has been falling apart and will be a 7 or 8 seed.

I'm afraid that the Buffs are going to be get stuck in Orlando looking ahead to a matchup with Florida.

 

[CVilleBuff]

I'm afraid that the Buffs are going to be get stuck in Orlando looking ahead to a matchup with Florida.

Would be the cruelest scenario, by far. A lot of beatable (relatively speaking) top seeds this year. Florida (and Arizona) are the two exceptions. If we're in Florida's region, let's hope we're a 7 or 10.

 

[CVilleBuff]

Here is a list of teams with good chances to be in the 7 thru 10 spots (and thus our opponent is probably in here): UMass, New Mexico, Saint Louis, Kentucky, Baylor, Oregon, Memphis, Gonzaga, George Washington, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa, Stanford, St. Joseph's, Pittsburgh, Arizona State, Southern Methodist, Nebraska.

We're not going to be playing a few of these squads for obvious reasons, so it can be narrowed down.

 

[cubuffs85]

We're not starting Ben Mills in a Big Dance game. Not happening.

And yeah, we're in zero position to complain about who we'd face in the round of 32.

Also, Saint Louis is another possibility from the A10 along with St. Joes and UMass. Saint Louis has been falling apart and will be a 7 or 8 seed.

I wasn't actually serious with that -- just making light of Tad's decision to start Ben Mills on Senior Night.

 

[CVilleBuff]

I wasn't actually serious with that -- just making light of Tad's decision to start Ben Mills on Senior Night.

Still a sore subject with me :lol:

 

[cubuffs85]

Still a sore subject with me :lol:

Same for me, I was fine with giving the Seniors the proper sendoff during the Patton/Bzdelik eras. Now, play it like a real game (assuming the game matters). If you absolutely insist, let them start and remove them ASAP.

 

[CVilleBuff]

7 of the old Big 8 schools will be in the Dance this year. Could have been all 8 had Mizzou not completely folded down the stretch.

 

[slider]

Iowa would be a dream matchup for me

 

[Buffenuf]

Good to see you earned that custom user title.

Ooooh, sorry to question your wisdom, oh great Hoops Poohbah!

So, what Shocker win drew your attention the most: That 84-68 drubbing of a ripe 14-19 Evansville squad? Or the 83-54 whupping of a 15-16 Drake juggernaut? Hmmmm?

Nik had it right: in a conference with a pulse (and a quality OOC sked), the Shockers have 8 losses.

 

[cubuffs85]

Greg Shaheen, the former NCAA VP who ran this Tournament, just said at this point, the committee is basically with the at-large selections at this point.

 

[Buffnik]

Ooooh, sorry to question your wisdom, oh great Hoops Poohbah!

So, what Shocker win drew your attention the most: That 84-68 drubbing of a ripe 14-19 Evansville squad? Or the 83-54 whupping of a 15-16 Drake juggernaut? Hmmmm?

Nik had it right: in a conference with a pulse (and a quality OOC sked), the Shockers have 8 losses.

To clarify, what I said was that Wichita State would have around 8 losses if they had played KU's schedule. For those who don't know, KU played the toughest schedule in the history of college basketball this season.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

7 of the old Big 8 schools will be in the Dance this year. Could have been all 8 had Mizzou not completely folded down the stretch.

You think Nebraska's in? Sounds like they probably are but when it's that close you just never know especially with their lack of prestige (yes, I think that plays a factor with the committee subconsciously). Palm has them as a 10 seed but Lunardi has them as one of the last 4 in.

 

[CVilleBuff]

Lunardi dropped us to a 10 playing Texas. Not sure how losing to the best team in the country drops us.

 

[cubuffs85]

Lunardi dropped us to a 10 playing Texas. Not sure how losing to the best team in the country drops us.

I thought we might fall a little, but didn't expect anything more than a spot or two. He had us as the second #9 seed and now were the fourth #10 seed, so falling six spots is unexpected.

This is today's:

No. 9: 33. Oklahoma State | 34. Pittsburgh | 35. Stanford | 36. Kansas StateNo. 10: 40. So. Methodist | 39. Arizona State | 38. Iowa | 37. Colorado
No. 11: 41. Saint Joseph's | 42. Tennessee*** | 43. Xavier | 44. Dayton@

I can't get yesterdays, it looks like he just edits this page.

Btw, Xavier is where the bubble begins.

 

[CVilleBuff]

I thought we might fall a little, but didn't expect anything more than a spot or two. He had us as the second #9 seed and now were the fourth #10 seed, so falling six spots is unexpected.

This is today's:


I can't get yesterdays, it looks like he just edits this page.

Btw, Xavier is where the bubble begins.

Looks like the first #10, no? It's listed backwards but our number is 37. So Stanford loses by 25 to UCLA and moves up, and CU loses by 20 to Arizona and falls. Clearly logical.

 

[cubuffs85]

Looks like the first #10, no? It's listed backwards but our number is 37. So Stanford loses by 25 to UCLA and moves up, and CU loses by 20 to Arizona and falls. Clearly logical.

Yeah that threw me off, good catch. We were #34 yesterday, so didn't fall as much as I thought initially reading it, but more than I thought we would've in the first place.

I wish I could find yesterdays entire page. It's tough since it's Insider.

 

[Eggon]

Lunardi dropped us to a 10 playing Texas. Not sure how losing to the best team in the country drops us.

Plus ducks an 8. Don't get it. Oh well I do like that bracket vs others.

 

[CVilleBuff]

Plus ducks an 8. Don't get it. Oh well I do like that bracket vs others.

Good news is there's a significant chance that CU was not dropped in the actual bracket, because Lunardi's movement is completely illogical. And there's a decent chance the bracket is already set and they'll only tinker with a couple spots for upsets.

 

[Eggon]

CVille you believe we stay in current bracket? I like if so.

 

[sackman]

CU behind Stanford - who we beat in their gym - is baffling to me. It's like he's not even paying attention.

 

[Eggon]

CU behind Stanford - who we beat in their gym - is baffling to me. It's like he's not even paying attention.

Totally agree w this!

 

[wyobuff]

I would not complain about getting knocked from a 9 to a 10. It presents a much easier path out of the first weekend than going against a #1 seed in game 2 does.

We have played the talent level of a 1 seed 4 times this year, and we are 1-3, with a close victory and 3 beat Downs.

Take care of business vs a 7 seed then give the 2 everything we've got.

 

[CVilleBuff]

CVille you believe we stay in current bracket? I like if so.

It's a complete crapshoot. Lunardi is good at naming the teams who make it and being in the general ballpark with seeding, but in terms of opponent and location, it's essentially a wild guess on his part.

 

[CVilleBuff]

CU behind Stanford - who we beat in their gym - is baffling to me. It's like he's not even paying attention.

Makes no sense. Stanford's resume is worse, CU beat them in their gym, and of all times to move them up...after they got completely destroyed by UCLA? OK.

 

[HotRack]

Suppose Lunardi got a beat down by his ESPN overlords for deviating from using CU as the political statement for their beloved BPI?

 

[cubuffs85]

Good news is there's a significant chance that CU was not dropped in the actual bracket, because Lunardi's movement is completely illogical. And there's a decent chance the bracket is already set and they'll only tinker with a couple spots for upsets.

I don't think it's completely illogical for them to lose a seed or two if teams behind them won (I can't see if that happened or not), someone has to be displaced. It's easier though IMO for Lunardi/Palm to make drastic moves than it is for a committee of multiple members to.

Here's an article on committee member(and future Pac-12 Deputy Commish) Jamie Zaninovich work on the committee:

Multiple times he mentions winning on the road, particularly winning road conference games. He notes that home teams win 70 percent of their games, so that's a way a team can distinguish itself.

"That's a big differentiator for me," he said. "If teams can't win meaningful road games in conference, then you have to take a second look at them."
Then comes nonconference strength of schedule.
"It's not definitive, but if you're getting towards the bubble, you better make sure you've at least shown some initiative to play some teams in the nonconference schedule or then it could become an issue," he said.
Then comes wins over top-50 and top-100 teams. Obviously, beating multiple good teams -- tournament teams -- shines on a résumé.


What's not as important as you might think? RPI.
"It's a valuable tool," he said. "There's no better tool to organize things. But it's way overvalued on an absolute basis. It's the relative basis [where it is useful]. It helps us organize batches of top-50 teams."
What isn't important? A team's conference.
"Conference is so overvalued, relative to its true value," he said. "Yes, it matters what conference you play in, but I've never heard the word 'conference RPI' uttered in the room. We don't even look at conference standings that much because there are so many unbalanced leagues now where teams don't play each other twice.

So what does happen inside a committee meeting?

On Wednesday, the committee members submit an initial ballot via a computer program with the names of all eligible 339 Division I college basketball teams on it. In the first column, they vote "In" for as many as 36 teams. Those teams, in the committee member's estimation, should get an at-large berth, regardless of what happens in the conference tournaments. In the second column, they vote for teams that should be "under consideration" for an at-large berth, with no minimum or maximum restrictions.
A team that gets all but two "In" votes gets a berth. A team that receives three or more "under consideration" or "In" votes gets put on the "under consideration" board, listed in alphabetical order, along with teams that won their regular-season conference titles.
In ballpark terms, that typically means 22-27 teams are "In" for 36 at-large spots, with additional at-large spots opening as those "In" teams win their conference tournaments. So the average starting point for discussion is over roughly nine to 14 slots open for at-large teams.

Then, of course, the fun starts. A working list of the top eight teams is pulled from the "under consideration" board, and committee members rank each in a series of votes, with the top four eventually getting into the field. Before the votes to list and rank teams occur, of course, there is discussion, with "team sheets" being put before the committee members to allow them to compare teams' credentials, head-to-head.

At any time during the process, the committee can begin seeding teams, using a "true seeds" list of 1 through 68.

 

[cubuffs85]

It's a complete crapshoot. Lunardi is good at naming the teams who make it and being in the general ballpark with seeding, but in terms of opponent and location, it's essentially a wild guess on his part.

And that's exactly why I don't get too tied up into the were playing Cleveland State in Kalamazoo and if we win we'll play Memphis game.