Let's get right to an overcrowded mail bag:
Yes, Virginia
You are out of your mind, Joe. With their win against Duke, their consistent play in the tough ACC and their perfect out of conference record, Virginia is a lock for the big dance.
1. The Cavaliers are 11-0 out of conference. That's zero losses outside of the ACC. Zero! By almost every measure, the ACC is the toughest conference in the country this year. Just look at this week's ESPN.com Sweet 16, where two
ACC teams receive top seeds.
2. Close wins against bad teams? Hey, a win is a win, and tournament-bound teams find a way to get it done. As far as Virginia's RPI, I'm seeing a bit of bias in your logic. Take a look at Florida's 39 RPI. Virginia's standing in your eyes is just another case of the 4th or 5th place ACC team taking it on the chin from the media, who choose instead to shower praise on the 2nd or 3rd place team from a "second tier" basketball conference like the SEC. Please remember that the sport is basketball, and on the court I'll take Virginia over Florida any day.
3. Finally, let's not forget about last year. And, yes, last year does count. The Hoos were left out of the dance despite a 9-7 record in the ACC and a sweep of an eventual Final Four team: UNC. Last year, the Selection Committee just didn't have the heart to end the Tar Heels' streak of NCAA bids. Come March, there's no way in Hades that the Selection Committee leaves Virginia out for the second straight year.
Where do I begin, Cory?
1. We must be looking at different conference rankings. I haven't seen ANY measure, much less ALMOST EVERY measure, in which the ACC is No. 1 this year. The conference is quite good, obviously, but not the top dog in 2001.
2. The reason given for not "locking" Virginia into the NCAA field could not have been more clear. At one game above .500 in the conference, there is no guarantee that, after the ACC tournament, UVa will have a winning league
record. You may not like the facts, but no team with a losing conference record has EVER been considered a "lock" by the Selection Committee.
3. Last year DOES NOT matter. Teams "just miss" the NCAA field in consecutive years all the time (ask Wake Forest). I also find it amusing that, last year on Selection Sunday, Virginia fans said they had a tournament team and North Carolina did not. Two weeks later, the Cavs wanted "in" because they had swept a Final Four team. Which is it?
Now hear me: Virginia is almost certainly going to the NCAAs this year. They deserve it. But the word "almost" is why UVa was not a lock in Sunday's column.
PS: That "second-tier" team you mention, a forgotten No. 5 seed in the East last year, ran right past the ACC champion on its way to the national championship game.
This is a question on two teams, and I was just wondering your opinion. Again, I respect your work and think you do a great job.
I think UCLA is one of the most overrated teams in the country talent-wise, but they have a great coach. They don't have any overwhelmingly talented players (Kapono hasn't shown an ability to create on his own). None if these guys will make it big on the next level, except perhaps Cummings. I also think they have peaked a little early, with their talent, and will come down real soon. Furthermore, I think the Pac-10 is overrated. I really don't feel that UCLA has been that impressive. UCLA played a Stanford team that was injured. USC is a streaky team that has yet to impress me. They have great physical talent, but they are too streaky. Cal blew out UCLA, and Arizona has too many egos pushing it around. The rest of the Pac-10 is a joke.
Virginia is a team that I feel deserves to be ranked higher. They are slowly coming into form. The ACC is deeper than most people give them credit for. N.C. State is a good club that has had many injuries. Clemson is very young and talented. Heck, even Florida State would probably be in the upper half of the Pac-10. They have good talent; compared to the others in the ACC, though,
they are mediocre.
Virginia has had good wins when teams were doing well (Tennessee and Missouri). I know their RPI is not that strong, but there should be more consideration given to Virginia. They have good guard play (Hand is maturing). Mason looks to be a star, while Hall is just a phenomenal athlete. Williams is one of the hardest workers, and Watson single-handedly has given UVa an interior game. I would hope that the committee would see the work ethic of this team and take that into account, along with their talent. I
believe UVa beats UCLA in a head-to-head matchup. Mark my word, UVa will make a deep run in the tournament.
I know my letter is too long to get posted; I would hope you could incorporate a reply into other people's statements. Thanks.
Times like these are when I am reminded yet again that a person's frame of reference is everything. I mean, hasn't the rap on Steve Lavin always been that he has great talent but can't coach? As for the ACC/Pac-10 comparisons, let's just say that the top teams in both conferences are very, very good and the bottom teams in each are not. Trying to determine who's worst between Florida State and Washington State is, at best, impossible and, at worst, pointless.
You can say the ACC is not the best conference as soon as Virginia or Wake Forest, two teams you claim are not locks for the tournament, lose a non-conference game. Wake Forest beat Kansas by 31 points and Virginia beat Tennessee by 18. Maryland should have beaten Duke, and is the most dangerous and underrated team around. They lose in the ACC because the competition is
so much superior to any other conference. Name one other bottom-feeder from another conference who can beat the number one team in the country by 10 points or another "bubble" team that can beat the best team in the country, Duke. Don't forget this message when Virginia knocks off North Carolina next week. I'm surprised they're not favored in that game. They are not only a
lock for the tournament, but should get a 2 or a 3 seed. No other league has the two best teams in the country and the deepest talent in college basketball. I hope others are not as biased as you are.
What you call bias, Adam, I call facts.
1. Wake did lose a non-conference game (vs. Cincinnati).
2. Virginia SHOULD be unbeaten out-of-conference, what with the No. 197 non-conference schedule.
3. At least you're right about Maryland, Those consecutive wins over Stony Brook, Penn, UMBC, Norfolk State, Chicago State and Maryland-Eastern Shore make the Terps so dangerous I can hardly type their name.
Around the Bracket
As a student from the University of Illinois and a former resident of Iowa, I am an avid follower of the Big Ten. Life is treating the Illini very well right now, but I was curious about the seedings of the Big Ten teams in your latest projection. Why do you rank Iowa even or above both Ohio State and Indiana? Are you assuming that Recker will be back, because Ohio State and
Indiana definitely had better weeks than the stumbling Hawkeyes?
Looking forward to March,
Jason Niermann
It's a team's season-long profile that counts, not a mere week or two. Having said that, there is every reason to expect Iowa to continue to struggle and, in fact, fall below most other Big Ten entries on the seeding chart. Where the Hawkeyes fall three weeks from now will among the more difficult decisions for the committee.
I am a very dedicated Richmond fan, and I would like to know if there is any shot at an NCAA bid for the Spiders. If not, do you think it would be possible for U of R to enter the NIT?
As most now know, Richmond is ineligible for the CAA Tournament due to its impending move to the Atlantic 10. As such, the Spiders' only possible NCAA ticket is via an at-large bid. In that category, the Spiders are right on the bubble. They were among my "Last Four Out" this week in Bracketology, but can ill-afford any more losses. A regular-season championship (or co-championship
would be a HUGE lift). Otherwise, the NIT seems a near certainty.
Is the SEC completely out of whack? I also see UK as a No. 2, but Florida as a No. 3? And how can Tennessee and Georgia continue to have such a high RPI? Was their strength of schedule that much higher than the other conferences?
Plus, look at a team like Mississippi State's RPI. Am I missing something? The SEC performed poorly out-of-conference and no solid, let alone dominant team has come out of the conference. At least the ACC's middle division had a good non-conference record. How can Wake be a No. 10 seed when they played so well out-of-conference? Please explain, and tell me when (if?) the RPIs will finally be straightened out for some teams (Mississippi State, Tennessee, Georgia).
There is no objective data to suggest the SEC performed poorly out of conference. In fact, the SEC's non-conference RPI checks in at No. 2 (behind only the Big Ten). The ACC, meanwhile, has a No. 4 non-conference RPI against a comparable out-of-conference schedule. And here is my take on the three specific teams you mention:
Tennessee In spite of the current slide, the Vols have 12 RPI Top 100 wins. Only two teams (North Carolina and Kentucky) have more.
Georgia: The Bulldogs also have a dozen RPI Top 100 wins. They have also played the fewest sub-100 teams (two) in the country.
Mississippi State: It's non-conference schedule (No. 33) is fourth in the SEC behind Georgia, Kentucky and Tennessee. Still, I'll grant you State's RPI still seems a little bit on the high side.
I'm sorry, but your quick drop of Kansas is absurd. I know they have lost to Iowa State twice, and to Baylor (I literally threw up after that game), but without Gooden they are left with a bunch of stiffs up front. But as soon as they get him and his athleticism back, they will again be a top team to contend with, and don't be surprised when they meet up with Iowa State in the Big 12 tourney and just beat the heck out of them.
I am not the one who dropped KU; the Kansas players did that all by themselves. Look at the bright side, the loss to Baylor was no longer to the team with the worst non-conference schedule in America. The Bears are now all the way up to No. 318. Gooden or no Gooden, you'd have to say the Jayhawks are now, ahem, suspect.
Recently (well, five years ago), I became a fan of the Big West. What I am actually writing about is the possibility is that two Big West teams will make the tourney. The only way I see it could be possible is if UC Irvine wins the regular season title and Utah State wins the conference tournament. Are there any other ways they could get two teams in?
No, not with UC Irvine now enjoying a one-game lead. Neither team can afford another loss (unless to the other). Even then, we're talking two teams here with six combined non-Division I wins. I wouldn't want to have that on my record come March 11.
Just a few comments about this week's bracket. First of all, I am extremely glad to see you put Creighton as a No. 6 seed. A 20 RPI for a mid-major is unbelievable. It just seems weird for them to be the higher seed over a major conference team such as Oklahoma State, but they deserve it. I also think more people should be aware of Western Kentucky. I have a strong feeling that
Chris Marcus will become a force to be reckoned with come tourney time. However, they will first have to get past Louisiana-Lafayette, which has been horrendous in conference play after being everyone's preseason Sun Belt winner. I have been following them, and they have been playing good ball as of late and will play Western Kentucky in the Sun Belt final. One final thing: Does Miami (Fla.) have any chance of squeaking in? I am a huge 'Cane fan, but I know they have a 76 RPI.
Creighton deserves everything it gets. Regular readers know I am a big fan of successful mid-majors and believe they should be rewarded accordingly. I have also seen Western Kentucky in person, and wish they would have played a more rigorous non-conference schedule. As for the Hurricanes, the key is being .500 or better in the Big East (including conference tournament games). That will get them a LONG look.
Procedurally Speaking
With Stanford currently being the No. 1 team as well as having the best record in the country, including being undefeated on the road, why would the Selection Committee not have them play the winner of the "play-in" game, since that would be a matchup of the No. 1 team in the tournament versus the No. 64 team? Is it travel considerations for the No. 64 team that would be a concern, since that team would have to fly out to the West Coast? Or is it just that the committee is not likely to see Stanford (if they win out the
rest of the their games) as the No. 1 team in team in the country?
If there was any real competitive advantage for the No. 1 overall seed to play the No. 64 seed (as opposed to No. 63), it stands to reason that the committee would do exactly as you suggest. However, since there is no realistic advantage one way or the other, why bother? The committee does have the option to move the "play-in" winner to another region, I just don't think
it will happen. It has nothing to do with whether or not Stanford is No. 1 in their eyes.
I'm an avid fan of college basketball and have been following it religiously for the years now. However, I've never really been able to figure out the thought process that goes into who goes where in the brackets after the top few seeds in the four regions. For example, according to your current bracket predictions, you have Maryland a No. 9 seed in the Midwest Region. Why would
you pick them to be such a low seed (I figured currently a 5 to 7), and why place them in the Midwest Region? I see that Georgetown stays in the East, as well as St. Joseph's, and the Hawks are a No. 6, no less. I can't remember the last time Maryland was in the East (I do have a short memory, though). Could you explain the thinking behind this?
One of the most important bracketing guidelines is this: Once the first team from a conference is placed into the field, no other team from that conference can be placed in the same region (unless/until a seventh team is chosen from the conference). In Maryland's case, with Duke and/or Carolina so frequently being the top seed in the East, it would require an unusual combination of circumstances for the Terps to be in that region. As for Maryland's current projected seeding, let's not overlook that this team has a
very mediocre RPI (No. 50) and is 0-5 versus RPI Top 25 teams.
I am not a fan of RPI. Never have been; never will be. To show how little sense RPI makes, UTEP comes off its biggest win of the season against Fresno State and drops. UTEP deserves to be in more than Georgia Tech, Villanova, UConn, Penn State, South Carolina and a list of others, but will probably have to run the table in the WAC Tournament to get there. Just my $0.02.
I am an RPI proponent, not because it is the perfect measure of teams across the country but because it is the "best available" measure we've got. As for UTEP, according to my data, the Miners rose 14 spots last week. I'll leave your other "deserves to be in more" comments to the committee. They get paid a lot more than I do.
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 the editor of www.bracketology.net. Write to Joe at jlunardi@home.com. Send this story to a friend
|
|
ALSO SEE
Lunardi: NCAA Tournament Bracketology
Lunardi: Unlocking the NCAA field
Chat with Joe Lunardi, Thursday at 5 p.m. ET
|
