How to Pick Teams for the NCAA Tournament

When it comes to NCAA Tournament selection, we seem to be having a moment.

Coaches are up in arms about metrics they don’t understand. Teams who feel they were unfairly left out are spurning NIT bids. Everyone has a suggestion for how to improve the process – change the metrics, change the composition of the selection committee, expand the tournament, stop giving automatic bids… the ideas are flying.

I don’t claim to have final and definitive answers to all that. No matter what system is adopted, a line must be drawn, and teams on the wrong side of the line are not going to be happy about it. But I do think some changes could be made that would increase transparency, increase the perception of objectivity, and thereby reduce the noise. I’m going to group my thoughts under two headings. First, the structure of the tournament as it relates to size and automatic vs. at-large qualifiers; then second, I will dive more deeply into the selection of at-large teams and how that should work.

Structure

The system of awarding automatic bids to conference champions has been in place since the very beginning. Prior to 1975, all Division I conference champions qualified for the tournament, and then there were a few spots reserved for Independent teams. There was no such thing as an at-large bid for a team in a conference; if you weren’t the conference champion, either by winning the regular season or the tournament, then you didn’t make the NCAA Tournament. At this time, there was no seeding. Instead, teams went into predetermined slots in the bracket. So, for example, the West region bracket might have specified that the Pac-8 champion received a bye, and the WCAC champion played the Big Sky champion in the first round.

Starting in 1975, the tournament went through a series of changes that resulted in the current system. The two most fundamental changes were the introduction of at-large bids in 1975 and the introduction of a seeding system in 1979.

The introduction of multiple bids for a single conference is typically associated with the 1974 ACC Tournament in which Maryland, acknowledged by everyone to be one of the best teams in the country, fell in the final to the David Thompson-led NC State team in the “greatest game ever played”. The Wolfpack went on to win the national championship while the Terps went home. The seeming injustice of that for Maryland was the impetus for an expansion of the NCAA Tournament field from 25 teams to 32 and the addition of an at-large bid for certain conferences.

The next major change was the introduction of a seeding system in 1979, along with a further expansion of the tournament field to 40 teams. The expansion to 40 teams necessitated the addition of another round, meaning that some teams would have to play six games to win the tournament, as most do today. Once this step was taken, it was inevitable that the tournament would eventually expand to 64 teams, thereby filling out that first round and ending the practice of teams getting byes. This happened in a series of steps between 1979 and 1985, which was the first 64-team tournament.

The seeding system introduced in 1979 brought an end to the practice of predetermined conference matchups in the bracket and essentially brought the structure of the tournament to its modern form. Since then, the only thing that has changed is the number of teams. From 2001 to 2010, there were 65 teams which resulted in a single play-in game. In 2011, the current number of 68 teams was adopted along with the First Four round in Dayton.

Expansion from 68 teams has been brought up innumerable times over the years, and there is a wide variety of opinions on the topic. The Bigger is Better crowd argues that March Madness is an amazing event, and therefore wider participation would bring more joy to more people. The Status Quo crowd is concerned that diluting the participant pool would diminish the value of the achievement. Expansion would also bring a number of practical challenges – extending the overall length of the event; where and when you would hold the additional games; are fans going to care about and show up for the first round games among teams that aren’t very good; who would get the additional bids; and so on.

One thing that is important to point out about the NCAA Tournament is that most everyone recognizes what an amazing event it is. It generates a tremendous amount of revenue for both the NCAA and for the participating schools, and everyone is leery of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. This explains why the low-major conference champions continue to have a spot in the tournament – because the participation of these teams and the Cinderella narratives that arise generate intense fan interest and therefore money. Otherwise you can bet that the power conferences would cut them out in a heartbeat and have their own tournament.

Over the past several days, I’ve heard a number of half-baked ideas put forward. Eliminate automatic bids? Not going to happen. Conference tournaments are too compelling and too exciting with the “Championship Week” brand and all that. Provide a certain number of guaranteed slots for the major conferences? I don’t see that happening either. Who decides how many slots each conference gets? What happens when the 8th place team from the ACC is better than the 7th place team from the SEC, yet they don’t get in? How would teams be selected within the conferences? With imbalanced conference schedules, that might require a selection committee within each conference. There are just too many issues.

I do think the field will eventually be expanded, but my guess is that it will be done in small increments that won’t fundamentally change the structure of the event. For example, it would be easy enough to go from 68 teams to 72. The First Four would become the First Eight, and you would need a second site in addition to Dayton. Those aren’t radical changes. If you were to go to 80, or even 96, now you’re talking about a lot of additional games. Where would they be played? Would you need to add a fourth weekend to the tournament? Is that too much of a good thing? Again, the tournament is so perfect as it is that you have to be very careful about making changes.

How At-Large Teams Are Selected

Now to get on to what I really want to talk about. This is where the real controversy lies. It seems to me that it boils down to two things: 1) the committee needs to decide and communicate what matters; and 2) the analytics they are using need to measure what matters. All the disagreements can be put under one of those two headings. Either they are disagreements about what matters, or they are disagreements about how what matters is being measured. Let’s take these two in turn.

What Matters

This is where at all starts. Quad 1 wins? Road wins? Bad losses? Non-conference strength of schedule? NET? kenpom? Early-season games? Late-season games? All these are different ways of getting at what matters to the committee.

I would like to suggest that the various views on what matters can all be aligned to one of two fundamentally different views, the Resume View and the Best Teams View. The differences between these two views are quite subtle, but they are crucial nonetheless, and they lie behind a lot of the differences and debates that we hear. Let me try to describe the two views.

FactorResume ViewBest Teams View
The Essential QuestionWho has earned the right to a bid as a result of their wins and losses?Who are the teams most likely to be successful in the tournament?
Main DirectionLooking backward at what you have doneLooking forward at what you will do
Margin of victoryDoesn’t matterMatters
MetricsResults-based (e.g. Quad 1/2/3/4 record, Strength of Record)Predictive (kenpom, BPI, etc.)
TimingAll games count the sameRecent games matter more
Eye TestIrrelevantRelevant
Injuries, Roster ChangesIrrelevantRelevant

Do you understand the difference? Read it again, because this is the vital point. One thing that may be confusing is my assertion that the Best Teams View is essentially forward-looking. But I stand by that. Think about it, when you say that Team A is better than Team B, what do you really mean by that? Well, I say that a statement like that is essentially a prediction. What you really mean is that if Team A and Team B played tomorrow, all other things being equal, you would expect Team A to win. Perhaps they played last week, and Team B won. There is not necessarily a contradiction there, because you are making a forward-looking statement. Of course you are looking backward in the sense that you are drawing upon what Team A has already done, but you are doing so in an attempt to predict what they will do in the future.

Do you see how this shapes the debate? Are we using kenpom, or not? Well, that depends. If you take the Resume View, kenpom becomes irrelevant. If you take the Best Teams View, it may become very relevant, depending on your ideas on how to pick the best teams.

Are recent games more important than November and December games? In the Resume View, the answer is no. It’s about who you played and who you beat, nothing more. In the Best Teams View, recent games are more important, because they are more relevant to how good a team is right now and how they will fare in the tournament.

Best player just tore his ACL? In the Resume View, that doesn’t matter at all. It doesn’t change what you’ve already done. It doesn’t change what you’ve earned by your wins and losses. In the Best Teams View, it matters a lot. You may have been one of the 36 best teams before, but you aren’t anymore.

I hope you can see where I am going with this. Our collective thinking about this topic is so muddled primarily because we have failed to be clear about this distinction. Think about the talking heads and the variety of opinions about the Eye Test, about injury status, about the predictive metrics. What I am saying is that at the root of all that lie presuppositions, maybe unconscious but no less real, that when examined will turn out to be either the Resume View or the Best Teams View.

And I go on to assert that these two views are fundamentally incompatible, and that the selection committee’s basic problem is that they are trying to have it both ways. Either you can take the Resume View or you can take the Best Teams View, but you cannot take both. If the Resume View is right, then throw out the predictive metrics; banish all talk of the Eye Test; weigh every game the same. If the Best Teams View is right, then… well, good luck with that.

Which gets to my own position. I feel strongly that the Resume View is the correct one when it comes to picking at-large teams. Why? Well, it really comes down to this. In the immortal words of Herm Edwards, you play to win the game. That’s the object. Basketball isn’t like figure skating or gymnastics or diving where judges decide who wins based on who looks better. Basketball is about one objective, inarguable thing: who has more points at the end of the game. That’s it. And that’s why we love it. Whether you won by one point or thirty, it doesn’t matter.

Maybe you aren’t that good and got lucky to win your games. Doesn’t matter. Because you play to win the game.

Not only is this the only right and fair way to approach the decision, it also has a number of side benefits. It gets us out of the business of trying to predict the future, which humans are notoriously bad at. It gets us out of the subjective business of eye tests and other such nebulous criteria. It makes the task comparatively simple: whom did you play, where did you play them, and whom did you beat.

How What Matters is Being Measured

Now that we have arrived at the conclusion to rely solely on the Resume View, it may seem that our task is done. It’s simple. Wins are good. Losses are bad. The better the opponent, the better the win; the worse the opponent, the worse the loss. Your resume becomes the sum total of your wins and losses, with every game given equal weight. Throw out the predictive metrics, we don’t need them anymore.

You could envision a simple point system. Beating the best team in the country is 100 points. Beating the worst team in the country is 0 points. Losing to the best team in the country is 0 points. Losing to the worst team in the country is -100 points. That’s overly simplistic, but you get the idea. Add up the point totals for every team, and the top 36 get the at-large bids. Done.

But there is trouble lurking in the statement “the better the opponent, the better the win; the worse the opponent, the worse the loss”. Do you see it? The perceptive reader is saying, wait a second. I thought we just concluded that the whole notion of “better” and “worse” teams is too subjective. But if we are to reward teams more for beating good teams, we need a way to decide how good or bad teams are. Aren’t we back where we started?

In a way, we are; but I think there is a way out. The solution is that rather than banishing predictive metrics completely, we use them indirectly to determine how much credit to assign to a win, and how much debit to assign to a loss. The predictive metrics become the basis for our point system.

And so my radical proposal is this. Do away with the selection committee. No smoke-filled rooms, no subjective decisions. Instead, have a point system that is clear and transparent to everyone. When you win a game, you get points. When you lose a game, you lose points. What determines how many points you get or lose is where the opponent ranks in the predictive metrics. If Auburn is #4 in the predictive metrics and Tennessee is #7, then a win over Auburn is worth more points than a win over Tennessee. And a loss to Tennessee loses more points than a loss to Auburn. Publish the predictive metrics and the game-by-game point values on a website for everyone to see. No more guessing. You know where you stand. If you want more points, win more games against better opponents, and don’t lose games against worse ones.

There is one more devil lurking in the details. Which predictive metric or metrics should we use? Does it bother anyone else that Colorado State is #70 in the ESPN BPI but #38 in kenpom? Do we have any idea why that is the case or which one is right? Is Colorado State the 70th-best team in the country, or the 38th-best? If you’re going to use a system like the one I am suggesting, that difference matters a great deal to the teams that played Colorado State. My guess is that the NCAA doesn’t really understand how the metrics they are using work. They used kenpom, Sagarin, and ESPN BPI because they were available and the sources seemed credible. They are crossing their fingers and hoping that using them together closely approximates the truth. But just throwing more metrics together doesn’t necessarily improve the quality or accuracy of what you are measuring. Instead, you should strive to have one metric that is aligned with what you want to measure.

So that brings me to my final point. The NCAA should appoint a commission to develop their own predictive metric that measures what they want to measure and values what they want to value. Ken Pomeroy is a smart guy, but I’m not going to trust his metric at face value unless I understand how it works. Does the metric weight recent games more, or not? Does it adjust for end-of-game blowouts? How does it adjust for home-court advantage? Does it begin the season with a set of prior assumptions about team quality, or does everyone begin at zero? Pomeroy himself has been reasonably open about these things, and I’m not picking on him. What I’m saying is, the NCAA hasn’t been intentional about whether the way his metric works is they way they think it should work. Have they compared the differences in algorithm between kenpom and the BPI and then decided which they prefer? They should appoint a commission consisting of, yes, analytics gurus, but also analytically-minded coaches, players, and administrators to make decisions about how these things should be valued and create a predictive metric for the NCAA that reflects their values. Publish the algorithm for the predictive metric so that no one is guessing about how it works and so that it can be improved over time.

There you have it. My point of view on how to fix the selection process. Sure to be read by few and adopted by none, but it feels good to get it off my chest.

NC State Tournament Outlook

It won’t surprise anyone that I’ve been thinking a lot about NC State. How exactly did they do what they did last week? Is their improvement real? What should we expect on Thursday?

What happened last week is a good reminder that teams are not static. During the course of the year, there are injuries, there are changes to the rotation, coaches keep coaching and making adjustments, players improve and figure things out, players go through slumps and lose confidence. All of those dynamics affect the team’s performance.

The numbers for NC State tell a story. In the first half of the year, they were a good defensive team and a mediocre offensive team. In the second half of the year, they improved considerably on offense, but regressed on defense. In the ACC Tournament, they put both together. That’s what enabled them to do what they did.

Let’s draw a line after the Syracuse game on January 27. Up to this point in the season, the Wolfpack was 13-7, 5-4 in the ACC. They were ranked #78 in kenpom, #100 in offensive efficiency and #54 in defensive efficiency. They had had several games where they were rotten on offense: Ole Miss, Notre Dame, Carolina, at Virginia, at Syracuse. But they had had a couple of terrific games on defense (Carolina, Virginia) and several others where they were very good (Notre Dame, at BC, Vanderbilt, Wake).

Going into the ACC Tournament, NC State’s overall kenpom ranking hadn’t changed much at 76. But the composition changed a lot. Their offensive ranking had improved from 100 to 69, while their defensive ranking had regressed from 54 to 104. Starting with the Wake Forest game on February 10, the Wolfpack’s average adjusted offensive efficiency rating over their last eight regular season games was 121 points per 100 possessions, with no single game less than 119. For reference, 121 is a Top 10 offense. It’s the level of Gonzaga, Arizona, and Duke.

So NC State clearly had found some things on offense, but it was hard to tell by wins and losses in the second half because a) their defense was inconsistent and b) their schedule was harder.

In the ACC Tournament, somehow it all came together. Offensively, they essentially continued to play at the same level they had been, which again is Top 10. Keeping in mind that 120 is a Top 10-level adjusted offensive rating, their ratings for each game were:

  • Louisville – 125.7
  • Syracuse – 117.2
  • Duke – 116.1
  • Virginia – 121.9
  • Carolina – 128.0 (this was State’s second-highest offensive rating of the year, after their home win over Virginia)

But the really surprising thing is how much their defense improved after the first game against Louisville. Their adjusted defensive ratings were:

  • Louisville – 123.5
  • Syracuse – 90.5
  • Duke – 85.9
  • Virginia – 103.3
  • Carolina – 92.9

Duke was their second-best defensive game of the year, Syracuse was fourth-best, and Carolina was sixth-best.

I don’t have any quantitative analysis that would shed light on why their defense was better. But I did watch the games, and my thought is that it’s a combination of greater effort and focus, improvement by Diarra, and luck.

This is an interesting thing to think about. Would you rather be a good offensive team and an OK defensive team, or an OK offensive team and a good defensive team? The data suggest that offensive-oriented teams typically perform slightly better in the postseason than defensive-oriented. Why is that? My theory is essentially that defensive performance is more dependent on effort, whereas offensive performance is more dependent on skill. And for that reason, defense can be “turned on”, up to a point. But you can’t really “turn on” your offense. If you don’t have good shooters and good passers, no amount of effort is going to make up for that.

Of course there is such as thing as defensive skill as well, and a poor defensive team can’t turn themselves into Virginia just by playing harder. But I do think defensive performance is more variable with effort. Watching NC State this year, I think Morsell and Taylor were capable of being good defenders, but there were games they couldn’t seem to stay in front of anybody. But in the tournament, you could see the exceptional effort. Morsell in particular was really digging in. The increased effort was also evident in transition defense which was visibly improved in the tournament.

Then Mo Diarra started being a rim protector. In State’s last 12 games, Diarra is averaging 1.9 blocks per game, which would be second in the league if he had done it for the whole year. The uncontested layups which seemed so frequent in February were much less frequent in the tournament.

There was some luck, too. From three-point range, Syracuse was 6-19, Duke was 5-20, Virginia was 9-28, Carolina was 8-30. That’s a collective 29%. Some of that was good perimeter defense, yes, but some of it was just guys missing shots that they might make another day. I’m not convinced that State suddenly has a suffocating three-point defense.

Going back to offense… what changed from the first half of the season to the second? As you might expect, it wasn’t just one thing. Jayden Taylor played much better. He had an outstanding run the last six games of the regular season. Diarra also improved on the offensive end, becoming a legitimate threat from three and contributing a few buckets off the offensive glass and even off the dribble as well.

But what really stood out in the tournament was the play of O’Connell and Burns. As for O’Connell, in the regular season he had a total of three double figure scoring games. There were a lot of games where it seemed like he was just out there taking up space. He had some decent assist games, but he also had a lot of games with 3 points and 1 assist in 25 minutes or something like that. Not really making an impact. He had attempted only 25 free throws all year heading into the tournament.

And then he scored double figures in all five games in the tournament, going 9-16 from three, 15-18 from the line, and looking like a completely different player on the offensive end. I don’t really have an explanation for it. O’Connell is not a young player, having played 125 games in his career, and it would be unusual for a player like that to suddenly take a quantum leap forward. He has never been a scorer. He is a career 31% three-point shooter, which is not very good. I don’t know whether the coaches have been on him to shoot more, or if he decided on his own, but he clearly came into the tournament with a more aggressive mindset offensively, and once a few shots started going down, it fed his confidence.

O’Connell’s improved play is directly related to Burns’ performance. Burns has always been a skilled and unique offensive player, but the tournament was the best stretch of his career. I saw two things. One, Taylor’s, O’Connell’s, and even Diarra’s improved offense makes it much tougher to defend Burns. For a good portion of the season, the only real perimeter threat they had was Horne. Taylor was shooting poorly and O’Connell and Diarra weren’t shooting at all. It allowed their defenders to help on Burns with relative impunity. But with Taylor, O’Connell, and Diarra being threats to score, the situation changes completely. Choosing to double-team Burns means leaving a good offensive player open. Most teams therefore chose not to double team Burns, but when they did, he burned them.

That brings me to the other change I saw in Burns. He put a little Tyler Hansbrough in his game, which is to say, he did a better job of using his size and strength to get closer to the basket and get an easier shot. As big and skilled as Burns is, he winds up taking a lot of difficult shots. He shot 52% from the field this year, which is not bad, but it’s not that good either for a guy who is 6’9″ and 300 lbs. I’ve often thought that because he does have such nice touch, he falls in love with that a little bit and takes an 8-footer when he could use his size to get a 3-footer.

Then, too, I think the knowledge that teams weren’t double-teaming him gave him more time to work and get closer to the basket. In the past, he’s had to be mindful of going quickly and getting a shot off before the double team comes. In the tournament, he knew that teams weren’t going to double, and he could take 10 seconds to back a guy down and get a point-blank shot.

So I think all of that worked together to create offensive synergies for the Wolfpack. Will it carry over into the tournament? Anything can happen in a single game, but I think most of the improvements they’ve shown are real and sustainable. They now have 13 straight games with an offensive efficiency of 116 or better, which is outstanding. I’m not convinced that O’Connell will continue to be a threat offensively, but they have enough different ways to score now that I expect them to be a good, Top 20-type offensive team from here on out.

I have no doubt that teams, especially with time to prepare, will try to throw new wrinkles at them. But I will say this. Great offensive basketball is not primarily about being opportunistic and taking what the defense gives you; it’s about running stuff that the other guys know is coming and can’t stop. I think you saw in the tournament that NC State has some of that now. With the emergence of other scorers, the maturation of Burns, and the variety and efficiency of DJ Horne, defenses have to make some very difficult choices. Nothing could be more telegraphed in terms of what is coming than when Burns gets the ball, but the defenses in the tourney were at a loss for what to do about it. Most of them chose to defend Burns one-on-one, and he scored. If they doubled him, he passed to a teammate who was in favorable scoring position. I don’t think that fundamental dilemma is going to change in the NCAA Tournament.

What I am more skeptical of is whether NC State can maintain the defensive efficiency they showed in the tournament. I expect their effort to be excellent, but their fundamentals are shaky. They make mistakes in defending ball screens. They get beaten in transition. They give up back doors. Guys lose assignments for a second and give up open threes. All it’s going to take is a team having a good shooting night. But the way they’re playing offensively, it’s possible they could score enough points to survive a shaky defensive performance.

Watch the officiating as well. I loved the way the ACC Tournament was officiated. The officials let the players play and stayed in the background, which is the way it should be. Keatts’ teams at State, including this year’s team, have been high foul teams. That has hurt them at times, both from guys getting in foul trouble, but also from sending the other team to the line. But other than Horne in the Carolina game, State had no significant foul trouble issues, and they shot 128 free throws in the tournament to their opponents’ 65. If the upcoming games are called more closely, it could hurt State. I expect teams to try very hard to get Burns in foul trouble and get him out of the game. Watch for an early flop on a Burns back down to see if they can get the officials to bite.

I think the biggest stat to watch will be Texas Tech’s three-point shooting. If they shoot 6-for-27, State will win; 11-for-21 and we’ll be headed back to Raleigh. Also watch the foul situation closely. State cannot afford a major imbalance at the free throw line and they can ill afford foul trouble for Horne or Burns.

Bracket Reaction, Part 2: How Did I Do?

As a reminder, here was my final bracket. I have color-coded it to illustrate how I did. Teams in blue were picked and seeded correctly; teams in brown were one seed line off; teams in red were two or more seed lines off, or not picked correctly at all.

  1. UConnPurdue, Houston, Iowa State
  2. North CarolinaTennessee, Arizona, Marquette
  3. Creighton, Baylor, IllinoisAuburn
  4. Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Alabama
  5. Florida, Wisconsin, BYU, Texas Tech
  6. St. Mary’s, San Diego State, South Carolina, Clemson
  7. Dayton, Gonzaga, Nevada, Washington State
  8. Nebraska, Texas, Utah State, Boise State
  9. Texas A&M, Colorado, Mississippi State, TCU
  10. New Mexico, Florida Atlantic, Colorado State, Northwestern, Oklahoma, Michigan State
  11. Drake, Oregon, NC StateGrand Canyon
  12. James Madison, McNeeseSamford, Duquesne
  13. Vermont, Yale, College of Charleston, UAB
  14. Akron, Oakland, Morehead State, Colgate
  15. Western Kentucky, South Dakota State, Long Beach State, Longwood
  16. St. Peter’s, Stetson, Grambling, Montana State, Howard, Wagner

Adding it all up, I missed one team entirely, Oklahoma; I missed five other teams by 2 or 3 seed lines; 21 teams were off by one seed line; and 41 teams were perfect.

Is that good? One way to compare is at bracketmatrix.com. Their scoring system gives you three points for accurately predicting a team being in the field; two additional points for every team that is seeded correctly; and one additional point for every team that is seeded plus or minus one.

There are 226 brackets total brackets scored. My score was 345, which was tied for 54th. Not too shabby. Here are scores of some of the better known sites and experts:

  • This year’s top score: 355
  • Warren Nolan: 349
  • Washington Post: 347
  • The Barking Crow: 347
  • FOX Sports: 345
  • MUDVILLE ANALYTICS: 345
  • SI.com: 344
  • Bart Torvik: 344
  • The Athletic: 341
  • Jeff Borzello: 338
  • Sporting News: 337
  • Joe Lunardi/ESPN: 336
  • USA Today: 332
  • On3.com: 325
  • Jerry Palm/CBS: 323

I’m happy with that. The only picks I would like to have back are picking Iowa State over Carolina, which I knew was wrong as I was doing it but couldn’t stop myself, and picking Gonzaga as a 7. My model said Gonzaga was a 6, but I was influenced by external forces to knock them down to a 7.

Now for some speculation about some of the other misses. With FAU, sometimes I get the sense that the committee has its mind made up prior to the conference tournament, and then they can’t be bothered to change it based on what actually happens. FAU lost to Temple, which is a really bad loss, and it doesn’t seem to have hurt them. Same thing with Florida and Kentucky, the committee seems to have ignored the SEC Tournament. The Nevada/Boise State situation (both received much worse seeds than expected) seems to be some kind of conspiracy against the Mountain West. There was speculation that the committee felt that the Mountain West was overrated because most of their Quad 1 wins were within the league. If that’s true, that would call into question the validity of the NET rating, but that’s a discussion for another time.

There is more evidence of the committee ignoring the results of conference tournaments. Look at the St. Peter’s/Longwood situation. Longwood has a much better resume than St. Peter’s. Why did they get a lower seed? Well, a good guess is that the team that was supposed to win the MAAC, Fairfield, did have a better resume than Longwood. You can imagine the committee had Fairfield on the 15 line, and when Fairfield was upset in the conference tournament, they just did not do the work to understand how St. Peter’s resume was different and change the seeds accordingly.

Bracketmatrix has been doing this for a long time and you can look at past results on his site. Lunardi is OK, Palm is below average, although both have had some good years and some bad ones. There are just a handful of prognosticators who have been above average for five consecutive years.

Last year was my first year, and I was well below average. I definitely got better this year. We’ll see next year if my improvement is real and sustainable.

Bracket Reaction, Part 1: Why Did Virginia Make the Tournament?

This year’s bracket reveal went mostly according to expectations. The biggest surprise was definitely Virginia getting in. I did not see that coming at all, and I am struggling to figure out why they got in.

One interesting data point is from bracketmatrix.com. If you’re not familiar with that site, it’s an compilation of hundreds of bracket predictions. It includes all the well-known ones from Joe Lunardi, Jerry Palm, SI.com, USA Today, FOX Sports, etc., but it also includes predictions from people like me. Of the 200 bracket predictions on that site, only 20 of them had Virginia in. 135 brackets had Oklahoma in; 74 had St. John’s; 22 had Indiana State. St. John’s and Indiana State were my first two out.

Why did Virginia make it? There are essentially two possible answers: politics or resume. Perhaps they made it because Tony Bennett is well-connected, or perhaps the committee felt sorry for the ACC, or perhaps the Cavaliers enlisted Tom Sheehey to make selection committee chairman Charles McClelland an offer he couldn’t refuse… I don’t have any inside information about whether any of that is true, and I’m not going to speculate on it. For the sake of this post, I’m going to assume that the Cavaliers’ resume had something that the committee liked better than Indiana State, Oklahoma, and St. John’s. What was it?

The only thing that stands out in that regard is that Virginia ranked higher in what they call the Results-Based Metrics. There are five different “computer rankings” (if you’ll excuse the loose use of that term) that the committee looks at. Two of them are results-based, meaning their rankings look backward at what a team has done. You might think of these as the resume metrics. Three of them are predictive, meaning their rankings are forward-looking, i.e. what they expect a team to do in the future.

The predictive metrics are familiar to many fans: kenpom, Jeff Sagarin, and the ESPN BPI. The results-based metrics are not as well known. One of them is called the Kevin Pauga Index (KPI), and the other is called Strength of Record (SOR).

I don’t have a clear picture on how these metrics are calculated. Strength of Record is described as the probability that an average Top 25 team would have the team’s record or better, given the schedule. OK, I can kind of understand that intuitively, even if I don’t know exactly how it’s calculated. The Kevin Pauga Index is proprietary. According to ncaa.com:

KPI ranks every team’s wins and losses on a positive-to-negative scale, where the worst-possible loss receives a value of roughly around -1.0 and the best-possible win receives a value of roughly 1.0. KPI then averages these scores across a season to give a score to a team’s winning percentage. The formula uses opponent’s winning percentage, opponent’s strength of schedule, scoring margin, pace of game, location, and opponent’s KPI ranking.

Alrighty then… in any case, whatever these metrics are, they favor Virginia. Here is how the bubble teams compare in these metrics:

TeamKPISORAverage
Virginia383235
Oklahoma502839
Indiana State404040
Colorado State285642
Pitt554851.5
St. John’s714558

I don’t pretend to have enough information to know what is going on here, but I will engage in a little speculation. One of the many ways to evaluate a team is, what was their record, and what was their strength of schedule. If Team A and Team B have a similar strength of schedule, and Team A has a better record, then it follows that Team A is more deserving, right?

That reasoning is simplistic, but there is a certain persuasiveness to it. So I decided to look at Virginia compared to other teams with a similar strength of schedule. Of course I don’t know exactly how these ratings calculate strength of schedule, so I will use kenpom’s. Here is a selected group of teams with similar strength of schedule and record to Virginia:

TeamSoS RankW-L
Colorado State6524-10
Kentucky6623-9
Oregon6723-11
Nebraska6823-10
Duke7524-8
Colorado7624-10
Virginia7723-10
Washington State8424-9

Note, every team in this group made the tournament. And Virginia seems to fit right in. They are almost identical to Colorado. They compare reasonably well to Washington State (one game worse record, but tougher schedule).

Again, this is speculation on my part. But best I can tell, these resume metrics, especially Strength of Record, are doing something like this. Virginia did beat Florida and Texas A&M, and they did go 13-7 in the ACC – better than Pitt, Wake, Clemson, or NC State.

That’s the only good thing about Virginia’s resume that I can find. Their Quadrant 1 record was 2-7, so that wasn’t it. They look terrible on the predictive metrics, and that’s because, well, getting blown out is very bad for your predictive metrics. They lost to Wisconsin by 24, Memphis by 23, Notre Dame by 22, NC State by 16, Wake by 19, Virginia Tech by 34, and Duke by 25.

Oklahoma in particular has reason to complain. Do you realize, they did not lose a single game below Quad 1? There were undefeated in Quad 2/3/4 games. They are the only team in recent memory to go undefeated against Quad 2/3/4 and fail to get an at-large bid. Perhaps they were dinged for their non-conference strength of schedule, which was ranked only 262. But that’s deceptive; they actually played Iowa, USC, Providence, Arkansas, and UNC and went 4-1 in those games. It’s not their fault that USC and Arkansas turned out to be bad this year. What really caused that 262 ranking is that they also played four of the worst teams in Division I – Mississippi Valley State, Texas-Rio Grande Valley, Arkansas Pine Bluff, and Central Arkansas. Who cares? They played five major conference teams and a bunch of cupcakes. That’s a completely normal schedule. Should it matter that their cupcakes were even softer than everyone else’s?

Look, I’m not crying for these other teams. Their resumes were deeply flawed as well, and these are fine distinctions that have to be drawn. I personally am an advocate of emphasizing the resume more and the predictive metrics less. But the idea that some guy Kevin Pauga is the reason that Virginia is in and St. John’s is out… can you blame the coaches for being frustrated with that?

My Final 2024 Bracket

Wow. What a day for college basketball and what a day for bracketology. In yesterday’s post, my last four teams in were New Mexico, St. John’s, Seton Hall, and Pitt. Then I talked about three possible bid-stealing scenarios with NC State, Oregon, and Florida Atlantic.

Well, New Mexico took the suspense out of their selection by winning the Mountain West tournament. And then St. John’s, Seton Hall, Indiana State, Virginia, Providence, and anybody else hanging on to hopes of an at-large bid watched in horror as their bids vanished. First Florida Atlantic was upset by Temple in a battle of the Owls, ensuring that a second team from the American would get a bid. Next NC State seized a bid, completing its improbable run through the ACC. And Oregon made it a clean sweep for the bid-stealers by winning the Pac-12 title over Colorado.

As a result, there has never been less suspense about who is going to make the field. It seems like the distance between the last teams in (Florida Atlantic, Michigan State, Northwestern, Oklahoma) and the first teams out (St. John’s, Seton Hall, Virginia, Pitt, Indiana State) is vast. Is there room for a surprise?

I don’t see much. The only teams with any hope are probably Indiana State and St. John’s. As for Indiana State, it’s very difficult to compare a really good mid-major with a mediocre major conference team. It becomes a matter of philosophy as much as numbers. It’s possible the committee could choose philosophy over resume and pick the Sycamores. But I doubt it.

I suppose that if the committee shows a bias towards recency and the “eye test”, they could choose to go with St. John’s or even Pitt over Northwestern, Oklahoma, or Michigan State. But I don’t have any reason to believe they will.

At the top of the bracket, the only suspense left is whether Carolina will hang on to the fourth #1 seed. It seems like the consensus is that they will, but I am going to be a contrarian here and say that it’s going to Iowa State. Carolina’s 9-3 Quad 1 record is better then ISU’s 10-6, but ISU went 7-1 against Quad 2 versus Carolina’s 7-4. Then there’s the 28-point beatdown the Cyclones put on arguably the best team in the country yesterday while the Tar Heels were losing to NC State.

As I write this, I sense that I will probably be wrong, because it always seems like the committee gives comparatively little weight to the conference tournaments. But surely ISU winning the Big 12 in such dominant fashion counts for something. We will find out.

So without further ado… my final bracket:

  1. UConn, Purdue, Houston, Iowa State
  2. North Carolina, Tennessee, Arizona, Marquette
  3. Creighton, Baylor, Illinois, Auburn
  4. Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Alabama
  5. Florida, Wisconsin, BYU, Texas Tech
  6. St. Mary’s, San Diego State, South Carolina, Clemson
  7. Dayton, Gonzaga, Nevada, Washington State
  8. Nebraska, Texas, Utah State, Boise State
  9. Texas A&M, Colorado, Mississippi State, TCU
  10. New Mexico, Florida Atlantic, Colorado State, Northwestern, Oklahoma, Michigan State
  11. Drake, Oregon, NC State, Grand Canyon
  12. James Madison, McNeese, Samford, Duquesne
  13. Vermont, Yale, College of Charleston, UAB
  14. Akron, Oakland, Morehead State, Colgate
  15. Western Kentucky, South Dakota State, Long Beach State, Longwood
  16. St. Peter’s, Stetson, Grambling, Montana State, Howard, Wagner

Last Four Byes: Colorado, Mississippi State, TCU, Florida Atlantic

Last Four In: Colorado State, Northwestern, Oklahoma, Michigan State

First Six Out: St. John’s, Seton Hall, Pitt, Indiana State, Virginia, Providence

Bracketology – Daily Digest 3/16

Automatic Bids (14 of 32 decided)

  • Morehead State, Ohio Valley
  • Longwood, Big South
  • Drake, Missouri Valley
  • Stetson, Atlantic Sun
  • James Madison, Sun Belt
  • Samford, Southern Conference
  • Charleston, CAA
  • Oakland, Horizon
  • Wagner, Northeast
  • St. Mary’s, West Coast
  • South Dakota State, Summit
  • McNeese State, Southland
  • Colgate, Patriot
  • Montana State, Big Sky

#1 Seeds

Carolina winning along with Tennessee and Arizona losing would seem to lock up the last #1 seed for the Tar Heels. The only scenario I am wondering about is if Carolina loses today and Iowa State wins the Big 12, do the Cyclones have a chance? Based on resume, I would say they do.

Bubble Watch

If you read yesterday’s update, you saw that I had 11 teams on the bubble competing for 7 bids. Of those 11 teams, 3 of them won their way off the bubble yesterday: Colorado, Mississippi State, and Texas A&M. And one team, Ohio State, lost its way off the bubble.

Just to level set us, here are the teams I consider to be locks for an at-large bid at this point:

  • Big 12 (9): Houston, Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas, BYU, Texas Tech, Texas, TCU, Oklahoma
  • Big 10 (6): Purdue, Illinois, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan State, Northwestern
  • Big East (3): UConn, Marquette, Creighton
  • ACC (3): North Carolina, Duke, Clemson
  • SEC (8): Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, Kentucky, Florida, South Carolina, Texas A&M, Mississippi State
  • Pac-12 (3): Arizona, Washington State, Colorado
  • Mountain West (5): San Diego State, Nevada, Utah State, Boise State, Colorado State
  • West Coast (1): Gonzaga
  • A-10 (1): Dayton
  • American (1): Florida Atlantic

That’s a total of 40 bids. For all but the West Coast and A-10, I am assuming that the automatic bid will come from this group. So subtract one automatic bid for the other eight conferences, and that leaves 32 at-large bids locked out of 36. So that leaves four bids remaining.

I have seven teams realistically competing for those last four bids: St. John’s, New Mexico, Pitt, Virginia, Indiana State, Seton Hall, and Providence.

Of those teams, New Mexico helped itself the most yesterday with another Quad 1 win over Colorado State. New Mexico is also the only team on that list who is still playing; they can erase all doubt by beating San Diego State today in the Mountain West final.

St. John’s, Pitt, and Providence had “good losses”, if there is such a thing, each losing to a Top 10 team. St. John’s and Pitt looked really good in losing, Providence less so.

Seton Hall and Indiana State did not play.

And Virginia, of course, lost a heartbreaker to NC State.

Yesterday, I ranked them this way:

  1. St. John’s
  2. Seton Hall
  3. Virginia
  4. Pitt
  5. CUT LINE
  6. Indiana State
  7. New Mexico
  8. Providence

After yesterday’s games, I’m going with:

  1. New Mexico – 90% chance
  2. St. John’s – 85% chance
  3. Seton Hall – 60% chance
  4. Pitt – 55% chance
  5. CUT LINE
  6. Indiana State – 45% chance
  7. Virginia – 40% chance
  8. Providence – 25% chance

As with any year, one of the important factors will be how much weight the committee give to the “eye test” vs. the resume. In particular, St. John’s and Pitt are certainly playing like tournament teams, and their predictive metrics are very good. But their resumes, especially St. John’s, are not as impressive as the eye test.

The other wildcard is what the committee does with Indiana State. As we’ve discussed before, comparing a team like the Sycamores with a major conference team is really an impossible task. It comes down to a decision based on philosophy and what the committee wants to reward. If you’re wondering if there is precedent for a team like Indiana State getting an at-large bid, look no further than another Missouri Valley team, Drake, in 2021. They received an at-large bid with a resume that looks very similar to the Sycamores.

The other thing to watch is bid-stealers that can reduce the number of available bids. There are three. NC State in the ACC; Oregon in the Pac-12; and anybody other that Florida Atlantic in the American. If any of those teams gets an automatic bid, somebody gets bumped. My probabilities above are based on the assumption that nobody gets bumped.

The main disagreements I have with Lunardi are with New Mexico and Pitt. Lunardi has New Mexico as the last team in, still below St. John’s and Seton Hall. But with two Quad 1 wins in two days, I think they are a little better than that.

Lunardi has Pitt still behind Virginia and Indiana State. If you want to put them behind Indiana State, fine, but I don’t see putting them behind Virginia. I think their resume is better than Virginia (arguable, but that’s my opinion) and they certainly look better than Virginia right now.

Keep in mind that Lunardi is also assuming that South Florida is getting the automatic bid from the American, so he is assuming one less at-large bid available than I am.

One other thing to watch is that in past years, it seems the committee pays less attention to what happens in conference tournaments than you might think. It’s as if they have their bracket set by Friday and can’t be bothered to change it based on what happens Saturday and Sunday. I wonder if that is factoring into Lunardi’s thinking in terms of not putting New Mexico higher.

Automatic Bids to be Decided Today:

  • America East, Vermont vs. UMass-Lowell, 11 AM
  • ACC, UNC vs. NC State, 8:30 PM
  • Big East, UConn vs. Marquette, 6:30 PM
  • Big 12, Houston vs. Iowa State, 6:00 PM
  • Big West, Long Beach State vs. UC-Davis, 9:30 PM
  • Conference USA, UTEP vs. Western Kentucky, 8:30 PM
  • MAAC, St. Peter’s vs. Fairfield, 7:30 PM
  • MAC, Kent State vs. Akron, 7:30 PM
  • MEAC, Howard vs. Delaware State, 1:00 PM
  • Mountain West, San Diego State vs. New Mexico, 6:00 PM
  • Pac-12, Oregon vs. Colorado, 9:00 PM
  • SWAC, Grambling vs. Texas Southern, 9:30 PM
  • WAC, Grand Canyon vs. Texas-Arlington, 11:30 PM

Bracketology – Daily Digest 3/15

Automatic Bids (14 of 32 decided):

  • Morehead State, Ohio Valley
  • Longwood, Big South
  • Drake, Missouri Valley
  • Stetson, Atlantic Sun
  • James Madison, Sun Belt
  • Samford, Southern Conference
  • Charleston, CAA
  • Oakland, Horizon
  • Wagner, Northeast
  • St. Mary’s, West Coast
  • South Dakota State, Summit
  • McNeese State, Southland
  • Colgate, Patriot
  • Montana State, Big Sky

Bubble Team Action Yesterday:

Won and Removed All Doubt:

  • Colorado State, W 85-78 vs. Nevada

Lost and Probably Eliminated:

  • Memphis, L 71-65 vs. Wichita St.
  • Utah, L 72-58 vs. Colorado
  • Iowa, L 90-78 vs. Ohio St.
  • Kansas State, L 76-57 vs. Iowa St.
  • Cincinnati, L 68-56 vs. Baylor
  • Wake Forest, L 81-69 vs. Pitt
  • Villanova, L 71-65 vs. Marquette

I can’t say with absolute certainty that Wake and Villanova are out, but I’d say < 10% chance.

Another consequential thing that happened yesterday is that Dayton lost. That means that someone else is going to get the Atlantic 10 automatic bid, Dayton will get an at-large bid, and there is therefore one less at-large bid available for everyone else. In my bracket, Indiana State is the victim who drops out.

I would say at this point, the bubble consists of the following teams, which I present in rank order:

  1. Colorado
  2. St. John’s
  3. Seton Hall
  4. Mississippi State
  5. Texas A&M
  6. Virginia
  7. Pitt
  8. CUT LINE IS HERE
  9. Indiana State
  10. New Mexico
  11. Providence
  12. Ohio State

All of these teams are still playing except for Seton Hall and Indiana State.

Today’s Bubble Games

Win and In:

  • Colorado vs. Washington State. I think Colorado will make it anyway, but this win would remove all doubt.
  • Texas A&M vs. Kentucky. I have them a few spots higher than Lunardi.
  • Mississippi State vs. Tennessee
  • St. John’s vs. UConn

Win Today, Then Win Again:

  • Ohio State vs. Illinois. Probably need to get to the tournament final, but if they were to win today and Providence, Pitt, and New Mexico all lose, then it would get interesting.

Win and Maybe In, Lose and Probably Out:

  • Providence vs. Marquette. It would be the Friars’ 7th Quad 1 win. No team with seven Quad 1 wins has ever been left out of the field as far as I can tell.
  • Pitt vs. North Carolina. Pitt really looks like a tournament team. I think Lunardi is underselling them. If they lose today, I wouldn’t rule them out, but I’d say their chances are no better than 25%.
  • New Mexico vs. Colorado State

And the Rest:

  • Virginia vs. NC State. Most of the teams Virginia is competing with have a Quad 1-A type game today. The Cavaliers do not. That makes it hard to pin down their prospects. Even if they win, they could get leapfrogged by Pitt, New Mexico, or Providence if any of them win. On the other hand, even if they lose, they could maintain their position if all the teams below them lose.
  • Indiana State. The poor Sycamores can only sit and watch. What they really need is for Providence, Pitt, New Mexico, and Ohio State to all lose today. Which could totally happen.
  • Seton Hall. Not a good showing against St. John’s yesterday. I think the Pirates have done enough, but I will have some doubt until I see their name on the board on Sunday.

Bracketology – Daily Digest 3/13

Automatic Bids (11 of 32 decided):

  • Morehead State, Ohio Valley
  • Longwood, Big South
  • Drake, Missouri Valley
  • Stetson, Atlantic Sun
  • James Madison, Sun Belt
  • Samford, Southern Conference
  • Charleston, CAA
  • Oakland, Horizon
  • Wagner, Northeast
  • St. Mary’s, West Coast
  • South Dakota State, Summit

Today’s Games of Consequence

Tournament Finals:

  • Southland – McNeese St. vs. Nicholls
  • Patriot – Colgate vs. Lehigh
  • Big Sky – Montana vs. Montana St.

Win and In:

  • TCU vs. Oklahoma. Both of these teams are probably in anyway, but today’s loser will be nervous on Selection Sunday. Especially if it’s TCU.
  • Colorado State vs. San Jose State

Definitely Out Without This Win, Not Necessarily In With It:

  • Wake Forest vs. Notre Dame. Probably have to beat Pitt on Thursday as well.
  • Providence vs. Georgetown
  • New Mexico vs. Air Force
  • Villanova vs. DePaul

Win Today, Then Win Again:

  • Virginia Tech vs. Florida State. The Hokies have to beat North Carolina on Thursday to get themselves into the mix.
  • UCF vs. BYU. I doubt that it’s possible for UCF to get an at-large bid, but the Big 12 Tourney does present an opportunity to rack up several Quad 1 wins.
  • Kansas State vs. Texas. See above, the Big 12 tourney is a Quad 1 gold mine.
  • Cincinnati vs. Kansas. Ditto.
  • Utah vs. Arizona State. I doubt there is a path for the Utes to get an at-large bid, but I can’t completely rule it out.
  • Butler vs. Xavier. Same situation, I doubt there is a path for Butler, but if they win today, they get a shot at UConn tomorrow.

Bracketology Update 3/11

Tickets Punched

  • Morehead State, Ohio Valley champions
  • Longwood, Big South champions
  • Drake, Missouri Valley champions
  • Stetson, Atlantic Sun champions

Top Seeds

Obviously you have Purdue, UConn, and Houston. For the fourth #1, I would rank them Tennessee, Arizona, North Carolina right now, but it’s very close. If one of those three teams wins its conference tournament and the other two do not, that team will get it. If Iowa State were to win the Big 12 tournament and none of the other three teams won their tournament, that would be an interesting decision.

Bubble Watch

I feel reasonably confident that the first three teams I have listed as “Last Four Byes” – Seton Hall, Colorado, Mississippi State – are going to get in.

I feel somewhat confident that the teams I have listed as “Next Four Out” – Ohio State, Memphis, Utah, and Iowa – are not going to get in.

That leaves nine teams – Texas A&M, my “Last Four In” and “First Four Out” – fighting for at most four spots, assuming no bid stealers.

I have Texas A&M at the top of that list due to their win quality. 11 wins against Quad 1 and 2 is just too much to leave out, considering the competition. But 2-4 against Quad 3 gives me pause.

I’m not sure that Indiana State is receiving serious consideration as an at-large candidate, and I understand why, but I think there is precedent for a team like them getting in, for example Drake 2021.

Villanova‘s record is 17-14. They must win a game in the Big East Tournament, or they have no shot. I don’t see the committee putting them in at 17-15.

ACC Watch

Virginia, Pitt, and Wake Forest are extremely close. In the NET, it goes Wake, Pitt, Virginia. In the results-based metrics, it goes Virginia, Pitt, Wake. In the predictive metrics, it goes Wake, Pitt, Virginia. Each team has 2 Quad 1 wins. Virginia’s Quad 2/3 record is similar to Pitt’s, perhaps a shade better, while Wake is only 6-6 against Quad 2.

Pitt and Wake are probably going to play each other in the ACC Tournament. It’s tempting to call that an elimination game, and it may well be. Virginia is probably going to play Clemson. That game could secure the Cavaliers’ spot in the field. If they lose… I don’t know. It will depend on what the other teams do.

Elevator Report

TeamPrior SeedNew SeedRecent Result (Opponents NET, Quad)
Baylor23L 78-68 at Texas Tech (NET 30, Quad 1-A)
Creighton32W 69-67 at Villanova (NET 33, Quad 1-A)
Duke34L 84-79 vs. North Carolina (NET 7, Quad 1-A)
Kentucky43W 85-81 at Tennessee (NET 5, Quad 1-A)
Florida57L 79-78 at Vanderbilt (NET 203, Quad 3)
Wisconsin56L 78-70 at Purdue (NET 2, Quad 1-A)
Dayton65W 91-86 vs. VCU (NET 76, Quad 3)
San Diego State67L 79-77 vs. Boise State (NET 23, Quad 1-B)
Texas Tech75W 78-68 vs. Baylor (NET 14, Quad 1-A)
Gonzaga76Idle
Washington State78Idle
St. Mary’s78Idle
Nebraska87W 85-70 at Michigan (NET 132, Quad 2)
Texas87W 94-80 vs. Oklahoma (NET 43, Quad 2)
Michigan State89L 65-64 at Indiana (NET 93, Quad 2)
TCU910L 79-77 vs UCF (NET 61, Quad 2)
Florida Atlantic98W 92-84 vs. Memphis (NET 69, Quad 2)
Mississippi State911L 93-89 vs. South Carolina (NET 49, Quad 2)
Northwestern109W 90-66 vs. Minnesota (NET 86, Quad 3)
Boise State109W 79-77 at San Diego State (NET 20, Quad 1-A)
Colorado1110W 73-57 at Oregon State (NET 161, Quad 3)
Villanova11OutL 69-67 vs. Creighton (NET 11, Quad 1-A)
New Mexico11OutL 87-85 at Utah State (NET 32, Quad 1-A)
Texas A&MOut11W 86-60 at Ole Miss (NET 90, Quad 2)
PittOut12W 81-73 vs. NC State (NET 81, Quad 3)
High Point14OutLost in Big South tourney
Morehead State1514Won OVC tourney
Eastern Washington15OutLost in Big Sky tourney
Quinnipiac1615In MAAC tourney
Weber StateOut15In Big Sky tourney
LongwoodOut16Won Big South tourney

The Bracket (automatic bids in bold, tickets punched in CAPS)

  1. Purdue, UConn, Houston, Tennessee
  2. ArizonaNorth Carolina, Iowa State, Creighton
  3. Marquette, Baylor, Kansas, Kentucky
  4. Duke, Auburn, Illinois, Alabama
  5. BYU, Texas Tech, Clemson, Dayton
  6. Nevada, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Gonzaga
  7. Texas, Florida, San Diego State, Nebraska
  8. Utah State, Washington State, St. Mary’s, Florida Atlantic
  9. Boise State, Oklahoma, Michigan State, Northwestern
  10. Colorado State, TCU, Colorado, Seton Hall
  11. Mississippi State, Texas A&M, St. John’s, Virginia, DRAKE, Princeton
  12. Indiana State, Pitt, Grand Canyon, James Madison
  13. McNeese State, Samford, VermontUC Irvine
  14. College of Charleston, Louisiana Tech, MOREHEAD STATE, Akron
  15. Oakland, Colgate, Weber State, Quinnipiac
  16. South Dakota St., LONGWOOD, STETSON, Norfolk State, Merrimack, Southern

Last Four Byes: Colorado, Seton Hall, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Last Four In: St. John’s, Virginia, Indiana State, Pitt

First Four Out: Wake Forest, New Mexico, Providence, Villanova

Next Four Out: Ohio State, Memphis, Utah, Iowa

Bracketology Update 3/8

Headlines

  • Nevada and Florida strengthen their positions with Quad 1-A wins
  • Colorado moves into the field with a Quad 1 win at Oregon
  • Wake Forest loses a game they couldn’t afford to lose

Top Seeds

Tennessee has it for now, but Arizona is close, and don’t count out North Carolina and even Iowa State. The conference tournaments will tell the tale.

Bubble Watch

Most of the teams listed as 9 or 10 seeds below are near-locks at this point. That includes Oklahoma, TCU, Florida Atlantic, Mississippi State, Northwestern, Boise State, and Colorado State. I suppose if Colorado State lost to Air Force on Saturday and then lost in the first round of the conference tournament, they might be in trouble. So we will stick with the term “near-locks” to refer to this group. They are in unless something really comes apart in these last couple of games.

After that, we get into the real bubble teams. These are the teams that if the Selection Show were today, I would not be shocked if they did not get in. Here is how I currently rank them:

  1. Seton Hall – huge win over Villanova. Their metrics are bad, but I think the win quality is too much to ignore.
  2. Virginia – they helped themselves this week by not playing while others around them lost.
  3. Colorado – their metrics are great, but the committee needed another Quad 1 win to justify putting them in. The Buffaloes delivered at Oregon. Careful with their last game at Oregon State who just beat Utah.
  4. St. John’s – if they beat Georgetown on Saturday, they will have won their last five.
  5. Villanova – monster game against Creighton tomorrow. A win would make them a lock. A loss will drop them to 17-14 overall. Another loss in the Big East tourney would be 15, and that may be just too many losses. Since 2016, only two teams with 15 losses have received at-large bids: Alabama 2018 and Florida 2019. Both of those teams were 19-15.
  6. New Mexico – huge game at Utah State on Saturday. A chance to win their way in. A loss doesn’t mean they’re out, but the odds get longer.
  7. Drake – on to the Missouri Valley tournament. If they meet Indiana State in the final, will the loser get in? That is the question. They may benefit from the teams above them losing (Villanova, New Mexico).
  8. CUT LINE IS HERE
  9. Providence – playing UConn at home tomorrow. In if they win, probably not if they lose.
  10. Pitt – must win game vs. NC State. NC State at home isn’t that great of a win, but the thing is, Villanova, New Mexico, and Providence all have extremely difficult games. If those three lose and the Panthers win, does that move them into the field? I think maybe it will.
  11. Texas A&M – they just won’t die. Six Quad 1 wins is a lot. Then again, four Quad 3 losses is a lot too. If they win at Ole Miss on Saturday, they have a shot.
  12. Utah – withering like cut grass. Tomorrow night’s game at Oregon could be the final nail – or it could be their path to get back in the mix.
  13. Wake Forest – the Georgia Tech loss just about finished them off.
  14. Iowa – no chance to make it unless they beat Illinois on Sunday.

ACC Watch

  • Wake Forest is dead in my opinion unless they win the ACC Tournament. I don’t think beating Clemson will be enough. I guess a win over Clemson and then a win over Carolina or Duke in the tournament might do it.
  • Virginia I think is going to squeak in so long as they don’t stumble against Georgia Tech on Saturday. Lunardi has them as the last team in. I think they are a little better than that.
  • Pitt has a shot. At a minimum, they have to beat NC State on Saturday, and then reach the semis of the ACC Tournament. I’m not saying they’re in if they do that. Probably need to reach the finals of the tournament, and then you may as well just win the darn thing.

Elevator Report

TeamPrior SeedNew SeedRecent Result (Opponents NET, Quad)
Marquette23L 74-67 vs. UConn (NET 3, Quad 1-A)
Baylor32W 93-85 vs. Texas (NET 26, Quad 1-B)
BYU45L 68-63 at Iowa State (NET 8, Quad 1-A)
Kentucky54W 93-77 vs. Vanderbilt (NET 214, Quad 4)
San Diego State56L 62-58 at UNLV (NET 75, Quad 1-B)
Florida65W 105-87 vs. Alabama (NET 7, Quad 1-A)
Washington State67L 74-68 vs. Washington (NET 66, Quad 2)
Texas78L 93-85 at Baylor (NET 13, Quad 1-A)
Boise State810L 76-66 vs. Nevada (NET 34, Quad 2)
Nevada86W 76-66 at Boise State (NET 28, Quad 1-A)
Northwestern910L 53-49 at Michigan State (NET 23, Quad 1-A)
Michigan State98W 53-49 vs. Northwestern (NET 52, Quad 2)
TCU109W 93-81 at West Virginia (NET 147, Quad 3)
FAU109W 80-76 at North Texas (NET 86, Quad 2)
Villanova1011L 66-56 at Seton Hall (NET 63, Quad 1-B)
Seton Hall1110W 66-56 vs. Villanova (NET 31, Quad 2)
Utah11OutL 92-85 at Oregon State (NET 159, Quad 3)
ColoradoOut11W 79-75 at Oregon (NET 69, Quad 1-B)
Lipscomb16OutLost in Atlantic Sun tourney
StetsonOut16Advanced to finals of Atlantic Sun tourney
  1. Purdue, UConn, Houston, Tennessee
  2. Arizona, Iowa State, North Carolina, Baylor
  3. Kansas, Marquette, Creighton, Duke
  4. Auburn, Alabama, Kentucky, Illinois
  5. BYU, Clemson, Florida, Wisconsin
  6. Dayton, Nevada, San Diego State, South Carolina
  7. Gonzaga, Texas Tech, Washington State, St. Mary’s
  8. Nebraska, Utah State, Michigan State, Texas
  9. Oklahoma, TCU, Florida Atlantic, Mississippi State
  10. Northwestern, Boise State, Colorado State, Seton Hall
  11. Virginia, Colorado, St. John’s, Villanova, New Mexico, Drake
  12. Indiana StatePrincetonJames MadisonGrand Canyon
  13. McNeese State, Samford, VermontUC Irvine
  14. College of Charleston, Louisiana Tech, Akron, High Point
  15. Oakland, Morehead StateEastern Washington, Colgate
  16. Quinnipiac, South Dakota St., Stetson, Merrimack, Norfolk StateSouthern

Last Four Byes: Colorado State, Seton Hall, Virginia, Colorado

Last Four In: St. John’s, Villanova, New Mexico, Drake

First Four Out: Providence, Pitt, Texas A&M, Utah

Next Four Out: Wake Forest, Iowa, Richmond, Ohio State