And thusly begins the daily recaps. A short quick bite-size version of last night's results that matter.
Kansas 92, Michigan St 87
Duke 118, Kentucky 84 - truth is, all 4 of these teams will have so many big games that I'm not going to make a big deal about these results, for now. Could be useful in jumping up or down a seed line in March, but all these teams are expected around the top couple of lines
@Nevada 86, BYU 70 - one mystery with the new metrics will be how home wins over quality opponents will be handled. Will they be marginalized?
North Carolina 78, @Wofford 67 - this goes in the book as a true road win, which matters
@Florida St 81, Florida 60
@Washington 73, WKU 55
Louisiana Tech 71, @Wichita St 58 - time to recalibrate Wichita's expectations this year
Texas Southern 72, @Baylor 69 - oof
interesting mid-major scores of the night:
@Buffalo 82, St Francis(PA) 67 - MAC favorite > NEC favorite
@UCF 84, Rider 70 - AAC at large contender > MAAC favorite
@South Dakota St 79, Grand Canyon 74 - Summit favorite > WAC favorite
@New Mexico St 73, North Dakota St 56
quick hits:
Worries for the A-10? George Washington and George Mason lose home games to Penn and Stony Brook...Arizona St needed 2OT to beat CS-Fullerton at home...UMBC gets curb stomped on the road at Marquette; back to reality there
Wednesday, November 7, 2018
Friday, November 2, 2018
Preseason bracket breakdown
Let's chat briefly about the preseason bracket I put up.
Everyone says it these days: teams get bids, not conferences. True. However, schedule is increasing in importance, and your conference has a lot to do with your schedule. Therefore, every year, I always instruct the reader to do the following with my preseason bracket: don't pay attention to where specific teams are seeded. I'm bound to be off on some of them. I know I will.
What do I think you need to pay attention to? How well a conference is represented, and seeded, in the bracket. My opinion on the strength of a conference will be represented by the seedings. These opinions matter because the conferences will shape a significant portion of everyone's at-large profile. Therefore I wouldn't worry about where your specific team is seeded; look more at your overall conference position.
With that in mind, let's whip around conference by conference:
ACC: I have 9 teams in. Seeds of 1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 12. I feel like with 3 top tier teams who are vulnerable, I expect many teams in the middle of the conference to pick off signature wins. A typical year for the conference awaits.
B1G: 7 teams in. I expect a rebound year. I have a typical distribution (a 2 seed, a couple 4 seeds, and the rest scattered throughout the bracket). I expect the identify of teams 4-7 to be very fluid throughout the year.
SEC: 7 teams in. Like the B1G, I have a pretty even distribution of teams throughout the bracket, and I also expect the middle of this conference to be in a very fluid state.
Big 10: 6 teams in. Might be the strongest conference top to bottom. It's just so tough to put 70% of your conference in the field, though. I expect the teams that do make it to be solidly in, though. Looking back to last year's bubble, I expect this year's bubble teams to be in a bit stronger position overall.
Big East: 5 teams in. I'm not quite sure what to do with them. I found trouble identifying a second team I feel really good about getting a very high seed. Will there be enough signature win chances in the conference? They could easily slide down to 4 teams if things break the wrong way.
Pac-12: 4 teams in. I don't trust this conference. At all.
A-10: 2 teams in. Champ on the 8 line. Pretty standard year.
MWC: 2 teams in. Nevada up to the 5 line. This should be the year the conference rallies a bit. I still don't think the bottom half is strong enough; Nevada's computer profile will get tanked a bit.
WCC: 1 team in. St Mary's falls into the abyss; Gonzaga is alone. BYU could make it close.
MVC: 1 team in. Strong computer numbers last year; I expect it to continue this year. Think they can get a second team close to the field.
everyone else: Western Kentucky is my official bandwagon pick for at-large bid candidacy this year. You can also talk me into Charleston, if the CAA has a good year, and Buffalo.
Everyone says it these days: teams get bids, not conferences. True. However, schedule is increasing in importance, and your conference has a lot to do with your schedule. Therefore, every year, I always instruct the reader to do the following with my preseason bracket: don't pay attention to where specific teams are seeded. I'm bound to be off on some of them. I know I will.
What do I think you need to pay attention to? How well a conference is represented, and seeded, in the bracket. My opinion on the strength of a conference will be represented by the seedings. These opinions matter because the conferences will shape a significant portion of everyone's at-large profile. Therefore I wouldn't worry about where your specific team is seeded; look more at your overall conference position.
With that in mind, let's whip around conference by conference:
ACC: I have 9 teams in. Seeds of 1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 12. I feel like with 3 top tier teams who are vulnerable, I expect many teams in the middle of the conference to pick off signature wins. A typical year for the conference awaits.
B1G: 7 teams in. I expect a rebound year. I have a typical distribution (a 2 seed, a couple 4 seeds, and the rest scattered throughout the bracket). I expect the identify of teams 4-7 to be very fluid throughout the year.
SEC: 7 teams in. Like the B1G, I have a pretty even distribution of teams throughout the bracket, and I also expect the middle of this conference to be in a very fluid state.
Big 10: 6 teams in. Might be the strongest conference top to bottom. It's just so tough to put 70% of your conference in the field, though. I expect the teams that do make it to be solidly in, though. Looking back to last year's bubble, I expect this year's bubble teams to be in a bit stronger position overall.
Big East: 5 teams in. I'm not quite sure what to do with them. I found trouble identifying a second team I feel really good about getting a very high seed. Will there be enough signature win chances in the conference? They could easily slide down to 4 teams if things break the wrong way.
Pac-12: 4 teams in. I don't trust this conference. At all.
A-10: 2 teams in. Champ on the 8 line. Pretty standard year.
MWC: 2 teams in. Nevada up to the 5 line. This should be the year the conference rallies a bit. I still don't think the bottom half is strong enough; Nevada's computer profile will get tanked a bit.
WCC: 1 team in. St Mary's falls into the abyss; Gonzaga is alone. BYU could make it close.
MVC: 1 team in. Strong computer numbers last year; I expect it to continue this year. Think they can get a second team close to the field.
everyone else: Western Kentucky is my official bandwagon pick for at-large bid candidacy this year. You can also talk me into Charleston, if the CAA has a good year, and Buffalo.
Preseason S-CURVE
A more full detail breakdown is coming soon, but wanted to get the official preseason stuff up for posterity.
The 1 line: Kansas, Duke, Virginia, Gonzaga
The 2 line: Kentucky, Michigan St, Villanova, West Virginia
The 3 line: North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Kansas St
The 4 line: Syracuse, Auburn, Michigan, Purdue
The 5 line: Cincinnati, Florida St, Nevada, Florida
The 6 line: Virginia Tech, Indiana, Marquette, UCLA
The 7 line: Texas, Butler, Clemson, LSU
The 8 line: Loyola(Chi), Wisconsin, TCU, St Louis
The 9 line: Washington, North Carolina St, Iowa St, St John's
The 10 line: Central Florida, San Diego St, Western Kentucky, Arizona
The 11 line: Mississippi St, Nebraska, St Joseph's, Temple
The 12 line: Providence, Miami, Minnesota, Alabama, Charleston, Buffalo
The 13 line: Harvard, Iona, South Dakota St, New Mexico St
The 14 line: Georgia St, Murray St, UC-Santa Barbara, Wofford
The 15 line: Vermont, Wright St, Bucknell, Lipscomb
The 16 line: Montana, Radford, Stephen F Austin, St Francis (PA), North Carolina Central, Texas Southern
Next 4 in:
Mississippi St
Nebraska
St Joseph's
Temple
Last 4 in:
Providence
Miami
Minnesota
Alabama
Last 4 out:
Illinois St
New Mexico
Davidson
BYU
Next 4 out:
USC
Wichita St
Louisville
Maryland
Break it down!:
ACC 9
B1G 7
SEC 7
Big 12 6
Big East 5
Pac-12 4
AAC 3
A-10 2
MWC 2
The 1 line: Kansas, Duke, Virginia, Gonzaga
The 2 line: Kentucky, Michigan St, Villanova, West Virginia
The 3 line: North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Kansas St
The 4 line: Syracuse, Auburn, Michigan, Purdue
The 5 line: Cincinnati, Florida St, Nevada, Florida
The 6 line: Virginia Tech, Indiana, Marquette, UCLA
The 7 line: Texas, Butler, Clemson, LSU
The 8 line: Loyola(Chi), Wisconsin, TCU, St Louis
The 9 line: Washington, North Carolina St, Iowa St, St John's
The 10 line: Central Florida, San Diego St, Western Kentucky, Arizona
The 11 line: Mississippi St, Nebraska, St Joseph's, Temple
The 12 line: Providence, Miami, Minnesota, Alabama, Charleston, Buffalo
The 13 line: Harvard, Iona, South Dakota St, New Mexico St
The 14 line: Georgia St, Murray St, UC-Santa Barbara, Wofford
The 15 line: Vermont, Wright St, Bucknell, Lipscomb
The 16 line: Montana, Radford, Stephen F Austin, St Francis (PA), North Carolina Central, Texas Southern
Next 4 in:
Mississippi St
Nebraska
St Joseph's
Temple
Last 4 in:
Providence
Miami
Minnesota
Alabama
Last 4 out:
Illinois St
New Mexico
Davidson
BYU
Next 4 out:
USC
Wichita St
Louisville
Maryland
Break it down!:
ACC 9
B1G 7
SEC 7
Big 12 6
Big East 5
Pac-12 4
AAC 3
A-10 2
MWC 2
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
Mid-majors and conference schedules
Let's chat about conference schedules. Two conferences are going full bonkers in the 18-19 season with their schedules:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-sun-belt-is-the-latest-to-alter-its-scheduling-in-order-to-enhance-its-ncaa-tournament-chances/
Sun Belt: Has a 20 game conference schedule. The first 16 games will be standard: 10 games within your division (home-and-home), 6 games outside your division. Usual stuff.
The final 4 games are wildly different. Teams are placed in groups of three based on conference record: 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12. You play home-and-home within your group. This means the top 3 teams get 4 games against each other.
The end result? It's quite possible one or two of the road games in these final four games are Group 1 (top 70 RPI) win chances. And at the very least, they should be Group 2 win chances. Plus the home games should be Group 2 win chances.
CUSA: Has an 18 game conference schedule. First 14 games are against the other 13 teams, plus one designated rival/travel partner. Usual stuff.
The final 4 games are wildly different. Teams are placed in three groups based on conference record: 1-5, 6-10, 11-14. You play 4 games within your group (each team, either home or away). This means the top 5 teams get 4 games against each other.
The end result? You can copy and paste the paragraph above. It's probable that one or both road games are Group 1 win chances, and at the very least are Group 2 win chances. The added bonus is that a home game against a top top team (think MTSU) might squeak into Group 1 as well.
The methodology is clunky, but the goal is really, really simple. The committee has sent a message in the past couple of years. They care about quality wins a lot. More than most other resume items. The more quality wins, the better. The more Group 1 wins, the better. The overall record in such games isn't quite as important. Going 4-11 in such Group 1 games seems to be getting rewarded more than going 3-3 in such games. The raw number of wins is becoming more important than the ratio of wins to losses in such games.
This is the mid-major response to that. These teams don't get 10-15 Group 1 win chances. They get 3-6 on average. Even if you go 3-1 in such games, it seems the committee would rather take the team that went, say, 5-8 in such games. Therefore, the solution is obvious: more Group 1 games! These moves will give at-large contenders in each conference, on average, about 2 more Group 1 win chances. It may be 1, or 3, in some years, of course. But on average, I think 2 is the number. And if a team adds 2 such wins because of this? That 3-1 or 3-2 record becomes 5-1 or 5-2. Even if they go 1-1 in such games, you're going from 3-2 to 4-3. Every single win helps.
Also this will help SoS. Avoid the RPI calorie bombs at the bottom of your league. That's pretty big as the Sun Belt and CUSA both have some ugly RPIs at the bottom of their standings each year.
The bottom line: Mid-majors have received the message from the selection committee. Manufacture as many quality win chances as you can, period.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-sun-belt-is-the-latest-to-alter-its-scheduling-in-order-to-enhance-its-ncaa-tournament-chances/
Sun Belt: Has a 20 game conference schedule. The first 16 games will be standard: 10 games within your division (home-and-home), 6 games outside your division. Usual stuff.
The final 4 games are wildly different. Teams are placed in groups of three based on conference record: 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12. You play home-and-home within your group. This means the top 3 teams get 4 games against each other.
The end result? It's quite possible one or two of the road games in these final four games are Group 1 (top 70 RPI) win chances. And at the very least, they should be Group 2 win chances. Plus the home games should be Group 2 win chances.
CUSA: Has an 18 game conference schedule. First 14 games are against the other 13 teams, plus one designated rival/travel partner. Usual stuff.
The final 4 games are wildly different. Teams are placed in three groups based on conference record: 1-5, 6-10, 11-14. You play 4 games within your group (each team, either home or away). This means the top 5 teams get 4 games against each other.
The end result? You can copy and paste the paragraph above. It's probable that one or both road games are Group 1 win chances, and at the very least are Group 2 win chances. The added bonus is that a home game against a top top team (think MTSU) might squeak into Group 1 as well.
The methodology is clunky, but the goal is really, really simple. The committee has sent a message in the past couple of years. They care about quality wins a lot. More than most other resume items. The more quality wins, the better. The more Group 1 wins, the better. The overall record in such games isn't quite as important. Going 4-11 in such Group 1 games seems to be getting rewarded more than going 3-3 in such games. The raw number of wins is becoming more important than the ratio of wins to losses in such games.
This is the mid-major response to that. These teams don't get 10-15 Group 1 win chances. They get 3-6 on average. Even if you go 3-1 in such games, it seems the committee would rather take the team that went, say, 5-8 in such games. Therefore, the solution is obvious: more Group 1 games! These moves will give at-large contenders in each conference, on average, about 2 more Group 1 win chances. It may be 1, or 3, in some years, of course. But on average, I think 2 is the number. And if a team adds 2 such wins because of this? That 3-1 or 3-2 record becomes 5-1 or 5-2. Even if they go 1-1 in such games, you're going from 3-2 to 4-3. Every single win helps.
Also this will help SoS. Avoid the RPI calorie bombs at the bottom of your league. That's pretty big as the Sun Belt and CUSA both have some ugly RPIs at the bottom of their standings each year.
The bottom line: Mid-majors have received the message from the selection committee. Manufacture as many quality win chances as you can, period.
Sunday, March 25, 2018
Selection committee takeaways
Let's just do a quick recap. I usually like to wait a couple of weeks to let the dust settle, then analyze what happened.
1) The committee went full S-Curve on the top 2 lines. They did not place teams by geography; they matched 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, and so forth. This is a pretty big admission. They said they had trouble creating balance in the bracket if they went based on geography. So in the future, we now know the NCAA will protect balanced brackets, even over geography, if they have to.
2) Non-conference SoS just doesn't matter anymore. It's all about overall SoS. Kansas St skated by with an atrocious number; Florida St and Virginia Tech's seeds weren't punished at all. The committee is now showing the trend of forgiving a bad non-con SoS - IF your overall SoS is good.
2b) By that same token, if your conference is weak, then you WILL be punished, period. St Mary's had a non-con SoS around 180. Not good, but not awful either. Played the Wooden Legacy, played a few name teams. But since they failed to get tournament-caliber teams, they eventually got punished for it. A bad CUSA conference was the downfall of MTSU, even though their non-con SoS was in the top 10.
2c) This brings up a bigger-picture thing. The committee has increased the use of analytics, of additional statistics and metrics. This has benefited the Power 6 conferences. Make no mistake, the use of these new metrics are anti-mid major. Mid-majors simply do not have the resources to build the same type of resume as a Power 6 school.
Many believe it's the responsibility of the committee to account for these imbalances, and to help out the mid-major during the selection process. The committee has gone the other way. They are now saying that they will evaluate each school based on these metrics, without consideration to context or the ability of each school to build a good resume. The committee is basically saying it's not their responsibility if mid-majors can't build the same type of resume that a Power 6 school can.
On one hand, it's not the worst position in the world to take. The committee is stripping all context, all outside influences. They are simply stating that they will evaluate schools based solely on what is on their resume. However, it ignores that not all schools have the same chance to build the same resume. The NCAA is basically telling the mid-majors that their plight isn't their problem. I think that's the wrong approach.
In many sports, we're seeing the use of advanced metrics. Baseball has changed with sabermetrics. Basketball has changed once people realized long 2s are no longer good shots. Metrics and analytics are changing the ways sports are played in general. However, the NCAA is trying to apply the same methodology that other sports use for how to play the game, and applying it to a selection process. Selection of teams for a tournament, and style of play of teams are two different things, and the same process of applying metrics cannot be applied to both in the same way. What I'm saying is that we're getting a little too analytical in the selection process. We have a selection committee because we know the numbers by themselves are insufficient to judge teams. The road we're going down; we might as well create a BCS formula.
3) Seeding by the committee has improved. This year? I kind of have no major qualms. My biggest miss this year was Providence by 3 seed lines, but even I admitted going into Selection Sunday that I was overseeding Provi by default, and that I wasn't enthusiastic about it. I have no major issues with what they did.
4) I went 67 of 68. Missed Kansas St and USC. Had USC last in. In retrospect, I should've excluded USC for the same reason I excluded Louisville - lack of signature wins. But I didn't want to put in K-State's non-con SoS either. In the end, I'm okay with 67.
5) Seeding on the 11-12-13 lines is getting tougher. This year, it appears they highlighted signature wins first. Hence SDSU and Loyola on the 11 line, and Buffalo and Charleston slipping to the 13 line. I'm also surprised Marshall was so low given their wins over MTSU. Seeding these autobids are getting tougher and tougher by the year.
1) The committee went full S-Curve on the top 2 lines. They did not place teams by geography; they matched 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, and so forth. This is a pretty big admission. They said they had trouble creating balance in the bracket if they went based on geography. So in the future, we now know the NCAA will protect balanced brackets, even over geography, if they have to.
2) Non-conference SoS just doesn't matter anymore. It's all about overall SoS. Kansas St skated by with an atrocious number; Florida St and Virginia Tech's seeds weren't punished at all. The committee is now showing the trend of forgiving a bad non-con SoS - IF your overall SoS is good.
2b) By that same token, if your conference is weak, then you WILL be punished, period. St Mary's had a non-con SoS around 180. Not good, but not awful either. Played the Wooden Legacy, played a few name teams. But since they failed to get tournament-caliber teams, they eventually got punished for it. A bad CUSA conference was the downfall of MTSU, even though their non-con SoS was in the top 10.
2c) This brings up a bigger-picture thing. The committee has increased the use of analytics, of additional statistics and metrics. This has benefited the Power 6 conferences. Make no mistake, the use of these new metrics are anti-mid major. Mid-majors simply do not have the resources to build the same type of resume as a Power 6 school.
Many believe it's the responsibility of the committee to account for these imbalances, and to help out the mid-major during the selection process. The committee has gone the other way. They are now saying that they will evaluate each school based on these metrics, without consideration to context or the ability of each school to build a good resume. The committee is basically saying it's not their responsibility if mid-majors can't build the same type of resume that a Power 6 school can.
On one hand, it's not the worst position in the world to take. The committee is stripping all context, all outside influences. They are simply stating that they will evaluate schools based solely on what is on their resume. However, it ignores that not all schools have the same chance to build the same resume. The NCAA is basically telling the mid-majors that their plight isn't their problem. I think that's the wrong approach.
In many sports, we're seeing the use of advanced metrics. Baseball has changed with sabermetrics. Basketball has changed once people realized long 2s are no longer good shots. Metrics and analytics are changing the ways sports are played in general. However, the NCAA is trying to apply the same methodology that other sports use for how to play the game, and applying it to a selection process. Selection of teams for a tournament, and style of play of teams are two different things, and the same process of applying metrics cannot be applied to both in the same way. What I'm saying is that we're getting a little too analytical in the selection process. We have a selection committee because we know the numbers by themselves are insufficient to judge teams. The road we're going down; we might as well create a BCS formula.
3) Seeding by the committee has improved. This year? I kind of have no major qualms. My biggest miss this year was Providence by 3 seed lines, but even I admitted going into Selection Sunday that I was overseeding Provi by default, and that I wasn't enthusiastic about it. I have no major issues with what they did.
4) I went 67 of 68. Missed Kansas St and USC. Had USC last in. In retrospect, I should've excluded USC for the same reason I excluded Louisville - lack of signature wins. But I didn't want to put in K-State's non-con SoS either. In the end, I'm okay with 67.
5) Seeding on the 11-12-13 lines is getting tougher. This year, it appears they highlighted signature wins first. Hence SDSU and Loyola on the 11 line, and Buffalo and Charleston slipping to the 13 line. I'm also surprised Marshall was so low given their wins over MTSU. Seeding these autobids are getting tougher and tougher by the year.
Sunday, March 11, 2018
NIT projections FINAL
The 1 line: Notre Dame, Baylor, St Mary's, USC
The 2 line: Louisville, Middle Tennessee, Marquette, Oklahoma St
The 3 line: Boise St, Utah, Penn St, Nebraska,
The 4 line: Oregon, Western Kentucky, Washington, LSU
The 5 line: Mississippi St, Northeastern, Tulsa, Temple
The 6 line: Vermont, Louisiana, Rider, UC Davis
The 7 line: Harvard, Northern Kentucky, Wagner, UNC Asheville
The 8 line: SE Louisiana, FGCU, Hampton, Arkansas-Pine Bluff
Last 4 out: Georgia, Maryland, Stanford, BYU
Next 4 out: Toledo, Old Dominion, Colorado, Memphis
Next 4 out: Boston College, South Carolina, Central Florida, New Mexico
1) Notre Dame vs. 8) Hampton
4) Western Kentucky vs. 5) Temple
3) Penn St vs. 6) Vermont
2) Middle Tennessee vs. 7) Wagner
1) Baylor vs. 8) SE Louisiana
4) Washington vs. 5) Mississippi St
3) Nebraska vs. 6) Louisiana
2) Louisville vs. 7) Northern Kentucky
1) St Mary's vs. 8) Arkansas-Pine Bluff
4) Oregon vs. 5) Tulsa
3) Utah vs. 6) UC Davis
2) Marquette vs. 7) Harvard
1) USC vs. 8) FGCU
4) LSU vs. 5) Northeastern
3) Boise St vs. 6) Rider
2) Oklahoma St vs. 7) UNC Asheville
The 2 line: Louisville, Middle Tennessee, Marquette, Oklahoma St
The 3 line: Boise St, Utah, Penn St, Nebraska,
The 4 line: Oregon, Western Kentucky, Washington, LSU
The 5 line: Mississippi St, Northeastern, Tulsa, Temple
The 6 line: Vermont, Louisiana, Rider, UC Davis
The 7 line: Harvard, Northern Kentucky, Wagner, UNC Asheville
The 8 line: SE Louisiana, FGCU, Hampton, Arkansas-Pine Bluff
Last 4 out: Georgia, Maryland, Stanford, BYU
Next 4 out: Toledo, Old Dominion, Colorado, Memphis
Next 4 out: Boston College, South Carolina, Central Florida, New Mexico
1) Notre Dame vs. 8) Hampton
4) Western Kentucky vs. 5) Temple
3) Penn St vs. 6) Vermont
2) Middle Tennessee vs. 7) Wagner
1) Baylor vs. 8) SE Louisiana
4) Washington vs. 5) Mississippi St
3) Nebraska vs. 6) Louisiana
2) Louisville vs. 7) Northern Kentucky
1) St Mary's vs. 8) Arkansas-Pine Bluff
4) Oregon vs. 5) Tulsa
3) Utah vs. 6) UC Davis
2) Marquette vs. 7) Harvard
1) USC vs. 8) FGCU
4) LSU vs. 5) Northeastern
3) Boise St vs. 6) Rider
2) Oklahoma St vs. 7) UNC Asheville
S-CURVE FINAL
I don't know. I just don't bleeping know. Give me 67/68 right NOW.
The final kerjigger: Louisville out. Needed signature wins. So does USC frankly. To me it was 4 teams for 2 spots, Syracuse and USC in, K-State and UL out. Others are too flawed.
USC scares me. St Mary's scares me. EVERYONE on that mini-list below scares me.
The 1 line: Virginia, Villanova, Kansas, Xavier
The 2 line: North Carolina, Duke, Purdue, Cincinnati
The 3 line: Tennessee, Michigan St, Auburn, West Virginia
The 4 line: Michigan, Texas Tech, Arizona, Gonzaga
The 5 line: Kentucky, Clemson, Houston, Wichita St
The 6 line: Ohio St, Florida, Texas A&M, Miami
The 7 line: Arkansas, TCU, Seton Hall, Providence
The 8 line: Rhode Island, Virginia Tech, Missouri, Nevada
The 9 line: Butler, Creighton, Alabama, Florida St
The 10 line: North Carolina St, Texas, Oklahoma, UCLA
The 11 line: St Bonaventure, Arizona St, Syracuse, USC, Davidson, San Diego St
The 12 line: New Mexico St, Loyola(Chi), Buffalo, Marshall
The 13 line: Charleston, South Dakota St, Murray St, UNC Greensboro
The 14 line: Montana, Bucknell, Wright St, Iona
The 15 line: Georgia St, Penn, Lipscomb, Stephen F Austin
The 16 line: UMBC, Radford, Cal St-Fullerton, LIU-Brooklyn, North Carolina Central, Texas Southern
Last 4 in:
St Bonaventure
Arizona St
Syracuse
USC
Last 7 out:
Louisville
Kansas St
St Mary's
Middle Tennessee
Baylor
Oklahoma St
Marquette
The final kerjigger: Louisville out. Needed signature wins. So does USC frankly. To me it was 4 teams for 2 spots, Syracuse and USC in, K-State and UL out. Others are too flawed.
USC scares me. St Mary's scares me. EVERYONE on that mini-list below scares me.
The 1 line: Virginia, Villanova, Kansas, Xavier
The 2 line: North Carolina, Duke, Purdue, Cincinnati
The 3 line: Tennessee, Michigan St, Auburn, West Virginia
The 4 line: Michigan, Texas Tech, Arizona, Gonzaga
The 5 line: Kentucky, Clemson, Houston, Wichita St
The 6 line: Ohio St, Florida, Texas A&M, Miami
The 7 line: Arkansas, TCU, Seton Hall, Providence
The 8 line: Rhode Island, Virginia Tech, Missouri, Nevada
The 9 line: Butler, Creighton, Alabama, Florida St
The 10 line: North Carolina St, Texas, Oklahoma, UCLA
The 11 line: St Bonaventure, Arizona St, Syracuse, USC, Davidson, San Diego St
The 12 line: New Mexico St, Loyola(Chi), Buffalo, Marshall
The 13 line: Charleston, South Dakota St, Murray St, UNC Greensboro
The 14 line: Montana, Bucknell, Wright St, Iona
The 15 line: Georgia St, Penn, Lipscomb, Stephen F Austin
The 16 line: UMBC, Radford, Cal St-Fullerton, LIU-Brooklyn, North Carolina Central, Texas Southern
Last 4 in:
St Bonaventure
Arizona St
Syracuse
USC
Last 7 out:
Louisville
Kansas St
St Mary's
Middle Tennessee
Baylor
Oklahoma St
Marquette
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)