Field of 68 Projection

Donate To GopherHole
bizzle22 said:
Wofford. Buffalo. VCU. Nevada.
Gonzaga to a lesser extent.

Power 6 conferences aren't immune to it either. Could easily see a bid-stealer in the Pac 12 or Big East.

None of it really has anything to do with NET. Belmont would be under consideration with a loss in the conf tourney final either way. Lipscomb won't get in without winning their tourney -- committee looks at the whole resume.
Click to expand...

VCU I agree with.
Surprised ATL-10 is currently looking at only one bid.

Buffalo, agree.

Wofford would be interesting.
Nevada would be in. If neither Utah State or Nevada win that, Utah St might be questionable.
 

cjbfbp said:
Every year there are teams from mid-major conferences that people like you say "don't play anybody and don't deserve an at-large bid" who go on to beat power conference teams. Here's just last year's list of mid-majors beating power conference teams:

#11 seed St. Bonaventure beat #11 seed UCLA
#16 UMBC beat #1 Virginia
#13 Buffalo beat #4 Arizona State (with the #1 draft pick)
#11 Loyola-Chicago beat #6 Miami Florida
#7 Nevada beat #10 Texas
#13 Marshall also beat #4 Wichita but Wichita isn't a power 6 team
Click to expand...

Obviously the UMBC and Loyola are outliers. Even still, good mid major b-ball confs that I don’t consider to be historical 1-bid leagues. Certainly not MW, CUSA, MAC, or A10.

So this wasn’t really my point.
 

Face The Facts said:
VCU I agree with.
Surprised ATL-10 is currently looking at only one bid.

Buffalo, agree.

Wofford would be interesting.
Nevada would be in. If neither Utah State or Nevada win that, Utah St might be questionable.
Click to expand...

I have Wofford as a 7 right now. None of the bracketologists I follow have them lower than an 8. So I think they are safe regardless of what happens in their tournament.

I'm higher on Utah St than some others (have them as the last 8 seed), but plenty of others have them fairly safe as well. What would be interesting to me is if the Mountain West can pull off three bids if neither Nevada/Utah St win the conference. If Utah St loses to someone other than Nevada in the conference championship I could easily see that happening.

Also wouldn't be surprised to see a bid-stealer in the Pac 12. And I'd expect someone in the Big East to make a run as well, just don't know which team.
 

Face The Facts said:
ESPN Joe say #11 seed.

Last 4 byes
Ole Miss
Minnesota
St. John's
Arizona State

Last Four In
Alabama
Seton Hall
Temple
TCU

First Four Out
Clemson
Saint Mary's
Furman
Murray State

Next Four Out
Indiana
Georgetown
Xavier
Creighton

A team like Indiana or Clemson has some big games remaining to make good upwards movement, but them gaining another Q2 or Q3 win isn't going to carry a lot of water.
Click to expand...

I'd rather have an #11 seed than a #10 seed in the end.
 

howeda7 said:
I don't know how we are "safe" yet Lunardi and co. barely moved us up at all after last night. We are not safe. We need to win one more game.
Click to expand...

Maybe they will move us up a bit after the NET rankings update? They're only current as of the 4th.

Speaking of which, when do those update again? Is it a scheduled thing or is it random?
 


Keyser Söze said:
Maybe they will move us up a bit after the NET rankings update? They're only current as of the 4th.

Speaking of which, when do those update again? Is it a scheduled thing or is it random?
Click to expand...

Whenever Pat Chambers gets around to it. :cool:
 

Keyser Söze said:
Maybe they will move us up a bit after the NET rankings update? They're only current as of the 4th.

Speaking of which, when do those update again? Is it a scheduled thing or is it random?
Click to expand...

That's a fairly small part of the calculation so it won't have any major effect
 

Face The Facts said:
Small conferences can win games and upsets happen, but not frequently enough to take more bids away from major conferences.
Click to expand...

See, I think that is a perverse attitude, a prevalent one, but a perverse attitude nevertheless. What is the purpose of the NCAA tournament? I don't think that is ever really articulated. I think there should be two:

1) To have a playoff for the best teams in basketball and to crown a champion;

and

2) To reward programs having very good seasons with the ability to participate.

Very few programs belong in #1. Most of the programs in #2 have little chance to get to that last 8 or 4. For them, it's the recognition of being selected. I don't think a 19-14 power conference team has a much better chance than a 26-6 mid-major team of going deep in the playoff so I'd rather see the mid-major get selected for having a great season.
 

cjbfbp said:
See, I think that is a perverse attitude, a prevalent one, but a perverse attitude nevertheless. What is the purpose of the NCAA tournament? I don't think that is ever really articulated. I think there should be two:

1) To have a playoff for the best teams in basketball and to crown a champion;

and

2) To reward programs having very good seasons with the ability to participate.

Very few programs belong in #1. Most of the programs in #2 have little chance to get to that last 8 or 4. For them, it's the recognition of being selected. I don't think a 19-14 power conference team has a much better chance than a 26-6 mid-major team of going deep in the playoff so I'd rather see the mid-major get selected for having a great season.
Click to expand...

A 19–14 power-conference season might be more of an accomplishment than a 26-6 mid-major season. There’s absolutely no guarantee that a 24+ win mid major team could hit 19 wins in a power conference schedule
 




Lakers612 said:
There’s absolutely no guarantee that a 24+ win mid major team could hit 19 wins in a power conference schedule
Click to expand...

The point isn't to pick the best 68 teams. If that were the case, they wouldn't have automatic bids where every league gets at least one representative. The original point of the current setup seemed to be to pick a subset of that 68 that has potential to be contenders in a playoff and to give recognition to the rest. If those are just representation spots, I'd rather see a team that had a great season within its competition than a team that didn't have a very good season at all within its competition. It's absurd to take power conference teams that fail to finish .500 in their conferences. Who cares how tough their schedules are? They chose to compete and that level and they should have to finish better than that to get the recognition.
 

cjbfbp said:
The point isn't to pick the best 68 teams. If that were the case, they wouldn't have automatic bids where every league gets at least one representative. The original point of the current setup seemed to be to pick a subset of that 68 that has potential to be contenders in a playoff and to give recognition to the rest. If those are just representation spots, I'd rather see a team that had a great season within its competition than a team that didn't have a very good season at all within its competition. It's absurd to take power conference teams that fail to finish .500 in their conferences. Who cares how tough their schedules are? They chose to compete and that level and they should have to finish better than that to get the recognition.
Click to expand...

The .500 conference record is completely arbitrary, especially in the B1G when they play an unbalanced 20 game schedule. How does that make any sense at all?
 

The Gophers barely move when they lose four in a row and barely move when they beat #11.

I personally don't think Lunardi knows **** because his final bracket an hour before the real brackets are revealed is completely different from the one he updates that same morning.
 



LongLiveMilesTarver said:
The Gophers barely move when they lose four in a row and barely move when they beat #11.

I personally don't think Lunardi knows **** because his final bracket an hour before the real brackets are revealed is completely different from the one he updates that same morning.
Click to expand...

I think he, like everyone at espn, does things to make espn properties more valuable.
 

cjbfbp said:
The point isn't to pick the best 68 teams. If that were the case, they wouldn't have automatic bids where every league gets at least one representative. The original point of the current setup seemed to be to pick a subset of that 68 that has potential to be contenders in a playoff and to give recognition to the rest. If those are just representation spots, I'd rather see a team that had a great season within its competition than a team that didn't have a very good season at all within its competition. It's absurd to take power conference teams that fail to finish .500 in their conferences. Who cares how tough their schedules are? They chose to compete and that level and they should have to finish better than that to get the recognition.
Click to expand...

I think most fans would rather watch a matchup between Ohio State and Texas than a matchup between VCU and Utah St.
 

LongLiveMilesTarver said:
The Gophers barely move when they lose four in a row and barely move when they beat #11.

I personally don't think Lunardi knows **** because his final bracket an hour before the real brackets are revealed is completely different from the one he updates that same morning.
Click to expand...

Lunardi eventually does pretty well, but after a win like MN had last night, he doesn't re-evaluate Minnesota and it's 8 closest peers. He simply moves them up or down a couple spots. Then maybe once or twice a week he'll do a revamp from top to bottom to re-align.

Basically, some bracket changes he has will have small changes, than others large.
 

It's interesting that Jerry Palm doesn't even have us on the bubble anymore, rather playing for seeding. He has been much higher on us than other "experts" for the duration of the season.
 

topos said:
It's interesting that Jerry Palm doesn't even have us on the bubble anymore, rather playing for seeding. He has been much higher on us than other "experts" for the duration of the season.
Click to expand...

Jerry isn't as lazy as Joe L.

ESPN makes Joe talk more and recite the "BPI" yet which is a ESPN marketing term and a waste of time.
 

Face The Facts said:
Jerry isn't as lazy as Joe L.

ESPN makes Joe talk more and recite the "BPI" yet which is a ESPN marketing term and a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Nailed it. He's even dabbling in the Ja Morant hype by having Murray St. in the first four out.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom