Let's get right to an overcrowded mail bag:
I certainly enjoyed reading your column in (Monday's) edition of ESPN.com. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the NCAA tournament projection. One item worth pointing out is that I think you've given an inordinate skewing to the ACC in your projections. The ACC is currently ranked fourth behind the Big Ten, SEC and Pac-10 in non-conference RPI
(which I believe the tournament Selection Committee views as very relevant). Despite that No. 4 ranking, you have:
1. Both Duke and North Carolina as No. 1 seeds.
2. Six of nine ACC teams being included in the NCAA tournament.
3. No Big Ten team projected as a No. 1 seed (Big Ten has the highest non-conference RPI).
4. Only six of 11 Big Ten teams making the tournament.
5. Only five of 12 SEC teams making the tournament (SEC has the No. 2 non-conference RPI).
I personally just don't see how the ACC will be this well represented come tournament seeding time. The numbers just don't seem to support them being viewed as the top conference.
Jim, your error is a common one. Remember, the committee is evaluating TEAMS, not conferences. While many of your observations will shake out in the end, teams are to be considered without regard to conference affiliation. If the 11th SEC team is better than the second ACC team, the latter is supposed to stay home.
My evaluations are done no differently.
First, let me begin by saying that I am a huge fan of college hoops and of your weekly Bracketology segments. It is really fun to project and watch the seedings shift around week to week.
Now, down to business. I am a Virginia grad and am appropriately biased. Therefore, I am still bitter about last year's shunning of the Cavaliers, and specifically wondering how North Carolina received a bid when Virginia swept UNC, had an equal conference record, and had a better overall record. Given this track record and the affinity the committee seems to have toward the big names, I now look at your predictions and can't believe that I see Maryland projected as a No. 3 seed and Virginia as a No. 5. Here's the data:
Virginia's RPI is 23, Maryland's is 34.
Virginia's coaches poll ranking is 11, Maryland's is 10.
Virginia's AP ranking is 11, Maryland's is 9.
Virginia's record is 14-4, Maryland's is 14-5.
Virginia's ACC record is 3-4, Maryland's is 5-2.
Virginia has quality out of conference wins over Tennessee, Purdue and
Missouri; Maryland has quality wins over Michigan and Louisville.
Virginia has no "bad" out of conference losses; Maryland has a "bad"
loss to Dayton
The two teams have not played.
Now, I'll give it to you that the ACC record discrepancy means quite a bit. But, in this first time through the conference schedule, UVa has played all the top-tier teams (Duke, UNC, Wake) away, while Maryland has played all three at home, which also means something. Our quality wins are significantly better and the Cavs have no bad out of conference
losses like Maryland does.
And, all I hear from the "experts" is that RPI is more important than anything, and we're a good 11 positions higher. So, why is Maryland a No. 3 seed, over eight teams higher seeded than Virginia at No. 5?
I look forward to the answer.
You answered your own question in part, Evan. Conference record does mean quite a bit. It is, after all, the most even-handed way of comparing league partners. Now I'll grant you Virginia's early ACC schedule has been brutal, but so have some of the results.
Having done my fair share of Maryland bashing in this space, turnabout is fair play. No reasonable person could have witnessed the Terps' performance against Duke (compared to Virginia's) and concluded that UVa is a better team right now.
I enjoy your weekly Bracketology, especially the explanation of the importance of RPI and not the polls. What makes college basketball so much superior to college football is that the polls mean nothing and everything is eventually decided on the court.
Now, writing as a Cal Bear fan, thanks for the mention of the team ranked No. 22 in the RPI yet not even getting a single vote in the coach's poll. However, why is California only an eight seed? If my math is right, No. 22 should translate to a six seed.
There are several teams with lower RPI rankings that you give higher seeds to (Oklahoma a sixth seed?). Again, I fully expect my team to make the tournament and as long as they do, I don't care what seed they get, but I would like to understand the methodology.
While RPI remains an excellent barometer for team selection to the tournament, it is much less reliable with regard to seeding. The latter is a more arbitrary process having to do with a team's standing in its own league, how it finishes the season, its overall record and even some "reputation" issues. I'm not saying that's right, just that we have observed this to be the case.
You said that George Mason would get the CAA nod over Richmond, through the automatic bid for the CAA. Was the fact that Richmond is not allowed to play in the CAA tournament this year taken into account? They are
moving to the A-10 next year and are ineligible for the CAA's automatic bid.
Are they in contention for an at-large bid? With some big non-conference road wins and almost beating Wake at home, wouldn't the selection committee want the "Giant Killers" in the Dance again? They are also currently 61st in the RPI.
Just curious if the little school from Virginia has a shot. Lots of alumni are wondering.
I had actually forgotten about Richmond's "limbo" status. While the Spiders will certainly be given serious at-large consideration, this is not an easy way to go. Who would you rather be competing with for a tourney spot? George Mason
or Georgetown?
Once again, I feel as though you have robbed the Big East with your bracket predictions. Last week, it was Connecticut and Georgetown. This week, you add Syracuse to go along with UConn. The Big East, I feel, has been a very underrated conference. It's always the Big Ten or the ACC, but where's the Big East?
Both UConn and Syracuse are in the Top 25, Syracuse being 8th ranked. Yet, you still manage to keep them off. The Big East, I feel, is one of the hardest, arguably THE hardest, conference to play in. Every team is on the same level that they wear and tear each other out.
UConn, although they are struggling, are very young and will rebound by tournament time. They have much talent, and so does Syracuse. You see the Big East teams losing a lot, but that's because they beat each other up. They can play with anybody else in the country. The competition in the Big East is very fierce, and I feel the conference deserves more credit than the others.
In the NCAA Tournament, the Big East will send at least six or seven teams and wreak havoc everywhere.
Dan Trinh,
Stamford, Connecticut
For the record, Dan, the Big East is only conference to receive seven spots in this projection. The fact that UConn is not among them may be the smartest thing I've ever typed.
I just read your page regarding projected brackets for the NCAA tournament. I'm a former Connecticut resident who graduated from Providence. I now live in Charleston, S.C., so I was interested in the piece on the
College of Charleston.
It was nice to see Providence projected to be in the tournament. I have always been frustrated by the lack of respect they seem to get in any of the polls. While I'm not completely sold on this year's team, it seems they are being overlooked once again based on their performance to date. There does not seem to be any logical reason for UConn (along with some
other teams, but I am most familiar with the Big East) to be ranked ahead of Providence.
How are they one of the last four in? I know they had some bad early losses, but 12-2 over their last 14 and a solid league record should get them some notice. Is it simply the size of the school/media? Lack of consistency in the program? Low profile coach?
I enjoyed your page and have added it to my favorites, and look forward to following it throughout the tourney.
I think Providence is appropriately regarded this season. As for other years, well, there hasn't been much to cheer about since '97. Guaranteed, though, that if the Friars hang on and make the tourney, TV will be all over their rags-to-riches story.
I just read the "Bracketology" on the ESPN web site and see that you mention Syracuse as being overrated. I live in Syracuse, have been a long-time fan and am just curious what forms your opinion in regards to
them being overrated.
I'm not a zealot or stalker type. Just looking for an honest opinion. Thanks for your time.
I just don't think the Orange are the eighth-best team in the country, which is where they sit in this week's poll. By definition, then, Syracuse makes the "overrated list".
PS: Syracuse Stalkers ... wouldn't that be a great name for a minor league team?
Tell me this, Joe. Will you still think USC is overrated when they win the Pac-10? I am predicting this right now, on January 29, 2001, before anybody else says it. USC will win the Pac-10. You better post this message when they win it.
I'll post it now, along with a list of USC's Top 50 wins ... oh yeah, the Trojans don't have any.
I don't believe I've seen you make a mistake like this before. You said Notre Dame made the biggest move this week (NIT to seven seed), but last week you had Oklahoma as one of the top four teams not in your field. This week they are a six seed. What gives? I'm a huge OU fan, but even I have to admit that a couple of victories against mediocre opponents
couldn't have elevated them that much.
Gregg Motz,
Winston-Salem, NC
The Sooners are not a true sixth seed on the S-curve. Other bracketing criteria caused them to be moved from No. 7 (same as Notre Dame). And one of the wins was over Texas, right? The same Texas which is No. 16 on the RPI.
Just a quick question/comment. You've said a couple of times that the selection committee doesn't (or isn't supposed to) take a teams' ranking in one of the polls into consideration when they select teams for the tournament. Yet, I remember in either 1997 or 1998, they took a woeful New Mexico who was in the 70s in the RPI but ranked in both polls.
New Mexico had a very questionable profile that year, and it seemed that the committee used the polls to justify New Mexico's inclusion. Any chance of that happening this year with certain unnamed teams that have horrible RPI rankings but are actually receiving notice by the pollsters?
It was the 1999 Lobos who went dancing with the lowest RPI ever for an at-large team. In fairness, New Mexico did finish strong that year. And the committee claimed to have very positive reports on UNM from the regional coaches advisory board.
I did not agree with the decision at the time, but I think the outrage over it might make a repeat less likely.
A little harsh to drop Texas from a No. 3 seed to a No. 6 seed based only on two road losses (at a tough Big 12 opponent plus one of the top national teams, Arizona, that is back in stride). Even after these losses, Texas remains at No. 16 on the RPI with quality wins against top conference and non-conference foes, including Illinois. If having a top-quality road win is required to be a four or five seed, you may not have enough teams to fill those slots.
Why the sharp drop three spots? Do you think Texas is a lock to make the tournament? Assuming Texas continues its way of winning at home (Missouri, Iowa State and Oklahoma), beating teams from the state of Texas (Baylor, Texas Tech twice, Texas A&M) and losing on the road (Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma State -- two winnable games and one probable
loss) to finish 22-8, where do you see Texas seeded?
Love your weekly projections. It is my most anticipated Monday web-site stop. Hook 'em Horns!
It is still early enough in the process for teams to have fairly significant movement. What hurt Texas the most this week is that the Horns were no longer the clear No. 2 team from their own conference (in fact, there were surpassed for that distinction by Iowa State).
Having said that, the Longhorns are in very solid position. Regular readers know I do not convey the "lock" label lightly. However, I'd be surprised if Texas finishes with a top-four seeding. The remaining
competition is too good.
I understand that you are rating teams based on today. However, I still think it is unjust that the best seeded A-10 team is at a seven. This has always been a major to mid-major conference, and just because Temple
isn't the cream of the crop this year doesn't mean that the league is down.
For fair warning, four of Xavier's last 10 games are nationally televised. If they finish strong, which you can expect, there is no
reason why their stock won't rise.
Caleb Clarke,
Springfield, MO
No. 1 ... I have already seen nine of 11 Atlantic 10 teams in person this season, and the A-10 is, in fact, down. It has nothing to do with Temple not being an elite team. It has to do with no one else stepping up to the elite level and the bottom of the league being absolutely awful. A-10 fans should be thankful the conference RPI has held up.
No. 2 ... as soon as Xavier (or any other A-10 team) posts some truly quality wins, I'll move them up. For the record, the Atlantic 10 is currently 1-11 against RPI Top 25 competition.
I love your work, but I have a legitimate beef with you this week, Joe.
On your most recent "Bracketology" update on ESPN.com, you had Kent listed over Central Michigan for the MAC's automatic bid because Kent supposedly has a higher RPI. However, when I looked at the current RPI
rankings, I saw CMU at 98, approximately 10 spots higher than Kent.
What gives? Is this an honest mistake, or is there something else that might give Kent the edge? I know Central hasn't played the most difficult schedule, but I think Kent's SOS was lower than ours, too.
Other than that, I liked what I saw. I'm real hopeful that Iowa State can do as well this year as they did last year, and I like the potential matchups. I hope that a couple of deserving mid-majors can make it in. It's a shame when teams like Bowling Green were kept out last year in favor of an overrated "name" squad like UNLV, who went on to get crushed by Tulsa. Keep up the good work.
It might be that we are looking at different RPI. Other services post what they call RPI, but the only accurate duplication of the NCAA formula is done by Collegiate Basketball News. In their most recent RPI Report, Kent had the slimmest of edges over Central (No. 109 to No. 110).
Thanks for taking the time to post your weekly brackets. My buddies and I truly enjoy the effort you put into your work. Unfortunately, I feel the need to drop you a note this week, because your work has struck a nerve.
How in the world can Ohio University be listed under "falling down" (or falling out or slipping away)? Being an Ohio U. alum, I am enjoying the Bobcats current three-game winning streak and victories in nine of their last 11. True, the 'Cats have bad losses to Western Michigan and Duquesne, but they also have losses at Virginia and at Wisconsin. A win
Wednesday over a Jeckyl/Hyde Toledo in Toledo would be huge, before returning home for three straight home games (including two cupcakes). How can the 'Cats be falling out as a result of a three-game winning streak?
Keep up the good work! I enjoy reading your material. Don't forget about the Bobcats! If they win Wednesday, they won't lose again until late February at Kent (a team Ohio has already defeated this season).
Joe Kelley,
Cincinnati, Ohio
Ohio University B.S. Communications '89
Joe, we pointed out last week (and it bears repeating), that the "Moving Up" and "Going Down" listings pertain only to RPI. If a team rises or falls 10 or more RPI positions in a given week, it makes the list.
As a Columbia grad and Ivy League basketball fan, I just about had a heart attack when I saw you had put Yale as the projected conference winner and said that they would be playing in a play-in as one of the two weakest teams in the field. Now, I am painfully aware that the Ivy League is not quite as strong in basketball as it is in, say, quantum physics, but I didn't think it was that weak.
Then I took a little closer look and realized that it's not as bad as I thought. You only picked Yale as the conference winner because they're a half-game ahead of Princeton and Penn in the current standings. In other words, they've played one extra conference game. To which I respond: get a life!
Princeton is the clear favorite in the Ivy League this year. Yale is not even in the top half of the league in terms of RPI. And if they somehow managed to beat Princeton and Penn three out of four times (the minimum required to win the league, realistically), their RPI would presumably rise somewhat, taking them out of the play-in.
I'm not merely writing this as an apology (in the Socratic meaning of the word) for Ivy League basketball. My point is that by going on a technicality like Yale's very early and very meaningless lead in the conference standings, you distort your bracket. If you really want the most accurate bracket projection possible, you should go with Princeton, which currently stands 100 RPI rankings above the rest of the league, at least until someone knocks them out and takes a clear lead in the
conference.
Thank you and good luck with what promises to be a fascinating column.
I disagree on two counts:
1. It makes no sense, in traditional one-bid leagues, to list anyone other than the current leader. After all, suppose the supposed favorite isn't really good enough to claim its rightful place?
2. If I wanted the most probable Ivy projection, I would have selected Penn.
Thanks for getting UC-Irvine some ink in this week's bracket (well, at least in the analysis). I'm sure you'll have the 'Eaters in next week's bracket after we whip up on Utah State on Wednesday.
Just a note: It's not "Cal-Irvine." It's UC-Irvine. "Cal" is that Pac-10 team coached by Ben Braun, who the Anteaters disposed of on Dec. 2, 2000.
Love the column, and see you @ the Bren Center on Wednesday.
Ghizal Hasan,
UC-Irvine, Class of 1993
I've actually been to the Bren Center, but will not be in town this week. I plan to be studying up on nomenclature for the U.C. and Cal-State system(s).
Just read your responses to the responses to the first "Bracketology" report of 2001. I wondered about Connecticut, and I liked your response and the explanation of your analysis. This is my first time around with your predictions, and I look forward to watching it as the season progresses.
I can't imagine getting paid to do the job you do. Only in America.
Dan McCue,
Champaign, IL (obligatory "Go ILLINI")
Who said I get paid? Seriously, welcome aboard! You are among the few who agree with our analysis regarding UConn.
Joe Lunardi is a regular in-season contributor for ESPN.com and ESPN Radio (Mondays, 9:20 p.m., EST and Saturdays, 2:25 p.m. EST). He is also contributing editor of the Blue Ribbon College Basketball Yearbook,
www.collegebaskets.com. Write to Joe at jlunardi@home.com.
|
|
ALSO SEE
Bracketology: Jan. 29
Lunardi: Working overtime
Chat with Joe Lunardi, Friday at 2 p.m. ET
|
