The preseason chatter continues (and we won't even update the brackets until December). All of which proves that old line about opinions: Everybody has one!

Cincinnati And 'Friends'
Hi Joe,
Just a quick comment on Cincy. As a 'Cats fan, I go into every season with modest expectations. It's true Huggins comes up with a blue-chip guy from time to time, but his recruiting coups generally come from the JUCO ranks. While these guys often turn out to be solid, mature players that adapt quickly to Huggins' effort-oriented style of play, their pure basketball skills don't compare with the likes of the players Duke, Arizona, Kansas, etc., are able to attract. Steve Logan was the prime example of this type of player (though not a JC'er). I can't think of another program as successful as Cincinnati that attracts as few blue-chip freshmen. So, having said that, 2003 looks on the surface to be another iffy year. Yet, though I can't quote stats to support what I'm about to say (it's just a gut feeling from years of following the team), it seems to be true more often than not that when expectations are the lowest for a Huggins team, results are the greatest. Thus, look out for Cincy in 2002-03. They probably don't have enough to go all the way, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find them once again seeded in the 2-4 range come tourney time (as opposed to your No. 12, which means they just barely got in).

Ron Kampel

Must be something going on in Ohio this fall. We've probably gotten more preseason Bracketology feedback from Cincinnati, Xavier and Ohio State loyalists than any other. Ron has a point. Cincy has been no worse than a No. 5 seed over the past seven seasons, so a No. 12 projection seems way out of line. Of course, at the time of these projections, the Bearcats had lost both their best player and the coach (the latter for an undetermined period of time). With Huggins back and actively coaching, let's split the different with respect to '03 seeding. We'll take the average of the last seven years (2.5), factor in my negatively biased early forecast, and call UC a No. 7 today.

Ha Ha Ha Ha, Heeee Heeee, Ohhhh. How do you morons do it, every single year? It's laughable, I mean its absolutely comical. Every year you peons at ESPN or whatever other second rate sports medium come out with your preseason predictions, edicts and certainties of what will prevail in the upcoming season. And you're always wrong, dead wrong, especially when it comes to UC. When are you idiots going to learn? Never, ever bet against Cincinnati. Never, just don't do it, or you will wind up a broke loser or a dead wrong commentator who just looks embarrassed at the end of the season. Come on, please, for all that's sacred use your head just once. UC owns Conference USA, I mean they absolutely own it. It's theirs and has been since its beginning. Conference USA has existed now for seven years and UC has won all seven league titles. Not 5 of 7 or 6 of 7, but 7 of 7 as in 100 percent, as in a perfect flawless record. Yet every year some moron talking head comes along and says "Oh, now, wait a second. I mean they were good last year and they win the league every year, but this year is different. They lost a lot of players, they have no All-Americans. Look at Memphis, Louisville and Marquette. They're stacked and they have to beat them this year. There is no way UC will win it again." And guess what? Every single year they win it again. It's just pathetic, Joe, wake up and smell the history. Bob Huggins is the second-winningest active coach in all of Division I. The Bearcats have won every single Conference USA league title EVER. They have gone to the NCAA Tournament 12 straight years since 1990. They have finished in the Top 25 seven straight years and, in the past three years, only Duke has won more games. I don't care what recruits the lasagna brothers, Pitino and Calapari, bring in at their schools, it just doesn't matter. UC never, ever loses the league title. When are you going to learn it's different at UC than other schools?

Bearcat Fan

I guess this would be a bad time to mention graduation rates or the five times in the past six years Cincinnati hasn't played up to its seed in the NCAA Tournament. Maybe those C-USA titles aren't as valuable as Mr. Bearcat thinks. Or that Xavier fans are right.

P.S.: What's wrong with lasagna?

First, many kudos to your bravery for throwing a bracket out there. My friends and I had a lot of fun hashing and bashing it. But why no love for the Atlantic 10? Xavier is an obvious choice to win the conference and make some national noise. I think you're 6th seed is low, but the NCAA always seems to mistreat Xavier so you are probably spot on. Dayton and Saint Joseph's should be very good, and I am always happy to take the money of the fool who bets against Temple. After last year's disappointment of only one team (Xavier) in the NCAAs, why don't you feel the conference will return to it usual form of sending three teams to the dance? Especially after five teams came close and made the NIT last year (Dayton, Richmond, St. Bonaventure, Saint Joseph's and Temple)?

Jason Seifert
Columbus, Ohio

I travel the Atlantic 10 each season as part of my "regular" job and, although the incoming talent this year is a marked improvement over recent recruiting cycles, these teams are not going to come together all at once and return the conference to the days of 3-5 NCAA bids. The latter only happened when the league was regularly winning marquee non-conference games (with Temple and UMass doing most of the heavy lifting). Xavier this year, and Saint Joseph's last year, had the hype, but doing it on the court like the best of the A-10 past is another matter. I also don't view the five NIT teams from a year ago as a positive trend for the Atlantic 10. The league did not have a single legitimate NCAA at-large candidate after Xavier won the conference tournament, and let's not forget the NIT expansion to 40 teams may have helped the lower A-10 qualifiers.

I was very impressed to finally see a sportswriter address the immense talent of Romain Sato at Xavier, who has been playing second fiddle to David West for two years now. Do you think that he will take the reigns this season, or do you still see everything being run through the best (non-injury prone) center in college basketball? Even if Xavier runs off an impressive record (let's say 0-4 losses), wins the A-10 conference and tourney, do you think it's possible for them to ever see a No. 1 seed under any conceivable circumstance (given the committee's love affair with the power conferences)? How do you think they match up with the Kansas' and Arizona's of the world (I personally don't see anyone in the country who could contain Sato besides himself)? Is Xavier's supporting cast good enough to allow them to make a March run? Kevin Frey's tenacity and leadership will definitely be missed, but I think they can still achieve great things this season.

Danny Torello

You heard it hear first: Romain Sato will be a better pro than David West. I'd take either on my college team, mind you, but NBA forwards tend to be bigger and stronger than the ones West overpowers at Fordham, Duquesne or La Salle. As for Xavier this year, no, I don't think there is any reasonable scenario in which the Musketeers are a No. 1 seed. It's a matter both of conference power ratings and Xavier's own comparison against the elite. These Musketeers are very good, but they're not Top 5 or Top 10 good like many are suggesting. Going, say, 14-2 in the A-10 just ain't the same as posting that kind of mark in the Big 12 or SEC. The committee knows that and, on this matter at least, is correct. If and when the Muskies win their share against the Stanfords, Mississippi States and Alabamas on the schedule, then we'll talk.

You're going to eat your words in March for seeding Xavier so low. They're going to smite Kansas in the Preseason NIT and not enter the NCAAs with less than a two-seed.

Mike
Cleveland

Mike is sounding more like a Bearcat here, which is enough of an insult to Xavier fans that I won't elaborate any further.

I know you probably have heard from angry alumni from all 320+ schools that play Division I basketball about your preseason rankings, so I'm not going to be the angry type. But I respect your opinion, so I felt the need to gripe about my scarlet and gray. I think the track record of what coach O'Brien has done at Ohio State has shown that he can get the job done year in, year out. Every season since Mike and Scoonie departed, all the preseason prognosticators have implied the Buckeyes demise from the Big Ten top tier. But every year the team comes out, plays great team defense, listens to their coach and wins enough ballgames to make it into the dance. I'm not saying that the Buckeyes should be in the Top 25 or that you should have them neck-and-neck with Kansas and Arizona, but they should have enough of a history the last four years that it's pretty obvious Coach Obie is going to take them to the dance with the talent he has on this team. By the way, that talent includes first-team All-Big Ten selection Brent Darby, sharpshooter Sean Connelly and a talented frontcourt in Terence Dials, Zach Williams and Vel Radinovic. This is the nucleus of a team that went 6-0 to start Big Ten play last year and won the conference tournament. That should count for something, right?

Dave Becker
Charlestown, Mass.

I both like and respect Jim O'Brien and the Buckeye program. Having said that, please note that I list the Buckeyes among these teams "just missing" October's projected field. This suggests they will again be very much in the NCAA mix.

ACC Or Bust
You put Wake Forest ahead of only Clemson and FSU in the ACC, not even close to making the tournament? Everyone hears that Wake lost five seniors, but if you look closer you see that only two of them were full-time starters by the end of last season. We have a young team, but our starting point guard (sophomore Taron Downey) is back, and sophomore Vytas Danelius, who will start at the "four," started some games last year and looked great. That's not to mention the seniors; Josh Howard is one of the top players in all of college basketball and we're also expecting big things from three-point bomber Steve Lepore, who was Northwestern's top player before he transferred here. Now he has a year's experience in the system. The freshman class is looking strong and should contribute. And let's not forget Jamaal Levy, who was our top recruit last year and had a tough transition, but has looked great so far this year. I don't mean to ramble, but I have seen the team a lot in scrimmages this fall, and I will personally guarantee that the Deacs will be in the NCAA Tournament come March. Just remember, you heard it here first.

Jason Mazda

Jason could very well be right, but the smart money says a No. 7 seed without four double-figure guys (regardless of their roles at the end of the year) is going to struggle at least a little. And, even with the ongoing transition to younger talent, Wake managed only a 9-7 conference record. Anything less this winter means sneaking into the NCAA field from the dreaded "bubble."

I am too late to get on the web page, but I figured that there is no reason not to at least ask why there are only three ACC teams in your bracket this year? And how come none of the uproar I'm sure you heard over that did not make it in? I guess most people realize how useless it is to try and predict, but you gave the ACC absolutely no credit. You have your best team in the ACC as 10th, and the only other teams you give credit to are UVa and Maryland? I agree all of these teams will be in the tournament, but what about Wake, UNC and State? Herb Sendek has finally gotten a successful system, has been able to get recruits that will work inside this system and should improve on last year's team. UNC can only go up. They were horrible last year, but if Doherty is half the coach UNC people say he is and this recruiting class is anything, they should be respectable, on the bubble. And, finally, Wake Forest. It is true, they lost Songalia, but he was not getting good playing time last year because of foul trouble. The Deacs have Howard, a Naismith finalist, plus Downey should do a great job at the point (he was challenging senior Broderick Hicks last year and now has a full year of acclimation). The team is young and unpredictable, but the talent is there to perform well and go 9-7 in the ACC. There is no reason that the ACC won't send 4-5 teams.

David Simmons

Two things:
1) I have three more ACC teams among those "just out" of these projections, so the chance of more than three bids is quite high.
2) There is fairly recent history (1999) of only three ACC bids to the tourney, so the scenario isn't at all far-fetched.

The top school in the ACC gets a 3 seed? Out of the last 10 years, I'm sure the ACC has had numerous 1 seeds, numerous 2 seeds and probably more years with both 1 and 2 seeds than years with neither. It's nice that you're trying to right the wrongs of the selection committee, but, last time I checked, the ACC also generally manages to win a few games in the tournament. Whoever wins the ACC regular season will be a No. 1 or No. 2 seed, and you know it.

Dave Roderer
Silver Spring, Md.

The issue here isn't really the ACC, but Duke. The Blue Devils have been a No. 1 or No. 2 seed in nine of the last 10 seasons, while no other ACC school has managed the same feat in more than half of those years.

All of which tells me two things:
1) A non-Duke ACC winner has less than a 50/50 chance of being seeded 1-2 come March.
2) Our current choice of Duke as a No. 3 (the Blue Devils are No. 10 overall on our preseason S-Curve) is much closer to historical trends than would appear.

Pitino-ville
I think you have Louisville pegged better than any other preseason predictions I have read. Team chemistry may be a little rough at first, with seven newcomers (Marvin Stone, Taquan Dean, Francisco Garcia, JC Prileau Davis, JC Kendall Dartez, footballer Greg Tinch and walk-on Coric Riggs). By the time the tourney rolls around, we will likely be starting two seniors and three juniors (Gaines, Stone, Myles, Whitehead and Davis). How everyone left Reece Gaines off their preseason first-team All-America lists I will never understand. The kid is an absolute stud. With the 15 pounds of muscle he added this off season, there won't be a better or more versatile all-around baller in the country. I will be disappointed with anything short of an Elite Eight appearance.

P.S.: I wish I had some of whatever that guy was smoking when he predicted an upset by Air Force.

Steven M. Frederick
Seiller & Handmaker, LLP

I just think that when you combine depth and talent with the coaching preferences of Rick Pitino, very good things can happen. What I didn't think was that they let lawyers smoke that stuff at work (don't sue me, I'm just kidding!).

This team down here in Louisville is going to be very explosive, and it seems to me that no one anywhere has anything listed on them. Are you kidding me? They are a young team, but with the return of Reece Gaines, Ellis Myles and company, and with the addition of Stone from Kentucky (he seems a lot more in shape than at that junior college team in Lexington), along with freshmen like Dean and Dartez, how can anyone not at least mention a notion of a glass slipper coming to the big dance? With games this season against IU, UK, Ohio State, Tennessee, and two each vs. Cincy and Memphis, I think it's time to look at what Pitino has done with this team and give the notoriety and respect they deserve! Also, UK is overrated, seriously overrated. Losses of Prince, Carruth and company has left Bogans with a sub-par recruiting class and leftovers that no one else wants!

Frank O'Keefe

Frank, please contact Steve (above) for what I really have forecast for the Cardinals.

Around the Bracket
Now I don't mean to get radical in the sense that I go to Indiana and basketball is IU, but everything I have read on ESPN or from you gives IU no, I repeat NO love. We beat Oklahoma, we beat Duke, we went head-to-head with Maryland and didn't get blown away. Yet our preseason rank is 21? Come on! Even if I was from Purdue, I would say that is way off base. You're giving Oklahoma the toughness award? Have you heard of AJ Moye? Mr. Hustler, himself? Just because we lose Jeffries (we have Newton!) doesn't mean we go from being number two in the nation to 21 or 23!! That's ridiculous. In some articles you praise Mike Davis and our team, and then show it by throwing a preseason 21 at us. I actually like it. I like hearing when critics take back what they say and then are like, "Wow, these guys are for real baby!" Anyway, just wondering why all the hate to the runner-ups?

Disgruntled IU fan and student,
Brian Pace

I just checked last year's IU roster, Brian, and must have missed your name. Was trying to understand all that "we" stuff in your message.

More to the point, we all know preseason polls are almost as useless as the BCS. Having said that, it seems to me that a low-20s ranking for Indiana this year is just about right. Let's not forget the Hoosiers were a five-seed last March, meaning the NCAA committee had them in the very same range heading into the '02 tournament. As I've written and said many times, one has a greater chance to be accurate when evaluating a team based on 30 games rather than remembering only the final few.

P.S.: For the 1,234,587th time! The ESPN/USA Today Top 25 is voted on by COACHES ... not ESPN. Just like Tostitos isn't selecting the teams for this year's national championship football game.

Hello, again. I wrote to you last year about my beloved Zags and, although they disappointed me in the tourney last year, they still are my favorite team. First off, I have a question. How well will the Bulldogs be this year even without Dan Dickau? I realize he was their key player last year, but I can't help but think that this year they can do so much more. Secondly, I would just like to say that I hope everyone keeps bad-mouthing the Zags. It may not make sense, but it occurred to me that the doubters are what keep Gonzaga going. It happens every year in every sport; the underdog makes the greatest impact. It happened last year in hockey, football, basketball and soccer. Gonzaga has been doing it for the past five years in college basketball and, even if everyone is out to get them (see last year's tournament placing, such ignorance), they come out and play strong ball. They may not always win, but they never say die and that's why I love the Zags.

P.S.: All you TV guys learn how to say it. It's Gonzaga with a short "a" sound, not long. I don't see an "AH" in there anywhere.

Jake Radus

The 'Zags (or is it 'Zahgs?) will be very good again. I don't sense any decent pundit selling them short or not properly recognizing the recent accomplishments of the program.

P.S.: I think you meant to write "long" A in your phonetics lesson.

Call me hopelessly partisan, but is there any reason (other than the history of the last 20 years or so) you picked Penn to win the Ivy League? Yale, who returns pretty much everyone from last season's team that came within a hair's breadth of pulling it off, should be able to break the Penn-Princeton monopoly this year.

Sean Trende
Washington, D.C.

Let's see, in the games that mattered, Penn whipped Princeton (64-48) and Yale (77-58) to take the Ivy League's automatic bid. Three of the five returning Quaker starters were also first-team All-Ivy. That's not partisan, that's fact.

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.