 |  |
 |
|
| Wednesday, October 23 Bracket Banter |
||||||||||
|
The only thing better than projecting the NCAA Tournament field is hearing what the world thinks about it. What most of the world thinks is that I can't (think, that is). But I love every word of it! Of course, attempting Bracketology before practice even starts is sheer insanity. But if there is someplace past insanity, you've gone there by projecting Missouri as a 10 seed (and 36th overall). I'll be the first to admit that many preseason polls have Missouri overrated in the Top 10. But not a poll in the nation has them missing from the Top 25. Yes, Missour lost Rush and Gilbert (almost 50 percent of all points), but the development of Rickey Paulding, Travon Bryant and the addition of Ricky Clemons (keep an eye on him) will have them back in Elite Eight form. Life in the Big 12 is tough, but, by conference season, Mizzou will be finding its stride.
Brett One of the biggest annual mistakes among preseason pollsters is an over-reliance on the prior year's NCAA Tournament results (I should know, I used to make the same mistake pretty much every year). So now I ask, what is a better indicator of a team's probable placement the following year? A handful (or less) of games in March? Or a 30-plus sample of game results spanning the inevitable slumps and high points? Any statistician would go for the larger sample size, of course. In the case of Missouri, we're forced to consider three great NCAA wins juxtaposed against a 2002 "bubble" team now without its two best players. The Tigers may, in fact, surprise us all again, but the odds are strongly against a 2003 seed commensurate with last year's Elite Eight finish. One day you'll learn and put Charlotte in your preseason bracket. No way Memphis gets in. They haven't won a big game since ... Looking forward to the season and reading your stuff.
John Sample First of all, Memphis is not among projected '03 tourney teams at this point. Secondly, while I admire the consistency with which Charlotte has performed in recent years, I remain strongly unconvinced they were a deserving NCAA team last year. They sure didn't play like one when it mattered. I applaud your courage in forecasting the Field of 65 five months prior. But how could you POSSIBLY leave out Saturday, January 25, from your list of games "you'd pay to see?" This, of course, is when your No. 2 Arizona Wildcats come into Allen Fieldhouse to take on your No. 1 Kansas Jayhawks. What's better than that??
Andrew Wymore Clearly this is the "Game of the Year" nationally among regular season contests. However, it will likely have little (if any) effect upon NCAA selections or seeding. Both KU and Arizona will be in the bracket come March 16, most likely as No. 1 seeds. The games I gravitate toward more typically involve so-called bubble teams and/or mid-majors who are fighting for their tourney lives most every time out. PS: Obviously I'd pay to see this game, unless you invite me! Hey, Joe, you don't know how great it is to see Bracketology back. Well, I guess you probably do, but my question is about the South Carolina Gamecocks. I saw that you have seven teams from the SEC in your preseason projection, and I'm wondering why South Carolina was not one of them? I know we are struggling at point guard and with outside shooting. But I think the momentum coming off an NIT final, Rolando Howell and Tony Kitchings controlling the middle, and Chuck Eidson being able to handle the ball, will make up for those soft spots. With Howell and Kitchings roaming the middle, we should be able to control the paint and the glass, and I know Dave Odom will have this team ready to play every night. I am just wondering why you think that USC won't make it to the Big Dance? Thank you very much for your time, Joe, and keep up the fabulous work!
Jim Henry You answered your own questions, Jim. First, given the team weaknesses you cite, I just can't see placing South Carolina ahead of any of the projected seven SEC teams (Florida, Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, LSU, Mississippi State, Mississippi) in this early bracket. Second, I also think it unlikely (although not impossible) that the SEC will gain an eighth NCAA bid. Third, even if I could pick an eighth team today, it'd probably be Arkansas or Tennessee. Sorry. You are underestimating the strength, top to bottom, of the MWC. UNLV will be in the NCAAs this year, as well as Utah, Wyoming and possibly Colorado State or San Diego State. Here are a few upsets that will strengthen the overall conference RPI:
There are some gimmies in this and four maybes (Arizona, Gonzaga, Alabama, Kansas). The fact that these games are on the schedule is a plus. This reminds me of the season in the old WAC when New Mexico, Utah, TCU and Tulsa were all good and ranked in the Top 25. This time, you don't have 12 other teams dragging them down, but instead an improving conference that has something to prove. Would love to hear your thoughts!
Patrick Chavez Well, Patrick, your loyalty to your league is admirable. But let's not let facts stand in the way of a good tale. While the MWC is indeed on the upswing, it took San Diego State's upset win in the conference tournament last year to place three conference members in the NCAA field. And, while Wyoming was most deserving, Utah was a "bubble" team at best. To suggest that four or five MWC teams will dance this year, plus record even half the upsets you list above, is not supported by a single shred of evidence (or, for that matter, recent NCAA Tournament performance). Welcome back, Joe. I thought I'd chip in with my own preseason commentary on your early guesstimates. Being a huge (but hopefully objective) Pepperdine fan, I am always interested in Gonzaga, WCC and mid-major discussion, so I'll get right to it. Why does everyone still think Gonzaga is the clear class of the WCC? You have them seeded five and "ranked" 20, Pepperdine seeded nine and "ranked" 35. Pepperdine went toe-to-toe with Gonzaga last year (a three-game series can't be any more evenly matched), both surprisingly lost in the first round of the NCAA tourney and their win/loss achievements were very similar (I maintain the Waves' schedule was somewhat more difficult with several more tough road games, thus the "poorer" record). This year, as good as their program is, Gonzaga is going to have to play without Dickau. If Pepperdine "matched" the Bulldogs evenly with Dickau -- their undisputed general -- how can everyone think that the Dickau-less 'Zags will still be the class of the WCC (and of mid-majors on the whole)? Pepperdine returns virtually its entire team (four starters, top five scorers, two all-conference first-teamers and freshman of the year), and a rather proven team at that (lots of tough road/neutral wins the past two seasons). Not that they've "earned" it for real yet, but it seems that at least on paper the Waves should at long last be considered the front-runner in the annual WCC war. I think that for the first time in a decade or so the pressure is on Gonzaga to catch the Waves, especially since this year's Gonzaga floor-leaders aren't nearly as experienced in their roles as the Wave veterans. At the very least, it's a complete toss-up. Why does virtually every analyst seem to think otherwise? Thanks for your thoughts.
Sam Parmelee There is something to be said for your argument, Sam. And, while I generally prefer to look forward in making projections given the nature of the college game, Gonzaga's track record has to count for something. The 'Zags also return four starters, I believe, and they have a positive recent history of replacing a star scorer without losing much in the won/loss column. I also disagree that the pressure is on Gonzaga to catch Pepperdine, given that the Waves have been the ones without the WCC banner. On paper, you're right, the teams are at worst even with perhaps Pepperdine deserving a slight edge. But let me offer another West Coast analogy: on paper, Sacramento is probably better than the Lakers. Yet until the Kings win that series-clinching contest, the edge goes to L.A. As my buddy Jay Wischum liked to say, "you're the champ 'til somebody beats you."
Joe, Let me explain why. Every year Tulsa has a schedule strong enough to give them an opportunity to make a statement prior to the conference schedule. But, year after year (except 1999-2000, when we beat Tennessee and Iowa), we seem to fail in those marquee games. We are then left to make our claim to the Big Dance via the WAC conference and tournament, and we fail to win the tournament even though it has been in Tulsa the last two years. Tulsa is experienced (four starting seniors), exceptionally athletic, blindingly quick and better than average shooters, which against most teams will allow Tulsa to win more games than it loses. That is until it runs up against a tall, strong, inside skilled team (see Kansas, Arizona). Tulsa once again has the opportunities: Nov. 30 at Arkansas; Dec 12 vs. Kansas; Dec 23 vs. TCU; Dec 28 vs. Iowa; and Feb 23 at Gonzaga. That's five important games. If Tulsa can go 4-1 or at worst 3-2, it will go a long way in determining our seeding for March Madness 2003. Of course, a 5-0 run through those games might get Tulsa to No. 11 nationally and a 3 seed in the Big Dance! So here's to your early predictions coming true! (Oh, and thank you for giving the University of Tulsa some preseason love and karma! It does not happen often, so I wonder if some of this happens to be a coincidence in the fact that Tulsa will have the same coach as it had the year before -- for the first time in three years!). Thanks Again!
Michael L. Young Of course Tulsa won't be a No. 3 seed in March, just like Gonzaga wasn't last year. The NCAA committee continues to take care of its power members before the rest feed off the crumbs. But that doesn't mean these teams aren't worthy of being seeded that high. This year, when I look at returning talent on probable good teams, Tulsa simply jumps out at me. Even without Harrington, the experience on the court (and the bench) is unusually high for this day and age. And the benchmark, at least this year, is not Arizona or Kansas. No one can match those rosters. The real question is how Tulsa matches up with the next tier of very good teams. My gut is that, on a neutral court, the Hurricane can play with any of them. Joe Lunardi is the resident Bracketologist for ESPN, ESPN.com and ESPN Radio. He is also editor and publisher of www.bracketology.net. Write to Joe at jlunardi@comcast.net. |
|
|||||||||
