Here we go! It seems like just yesterday that I had the following teams projected into the 2015 NCAA Tournament field (January 12 projection): Seton Hall (3-seed), Stanford (6-seed) and George Washington (9-seed). While it would certainly be a surprise to hear any of the above three teams announced later on this evening when the selection committee reveals its field of 68, there are a few teams that are squarely on the “bubble” – and it wouldn’t surprise me either way as to the inclusion or exclusion of a handful of teams.
- As the NCAA selection committee is supposed to do, I attempted to avoid match-ups that would involve rematches from this season and teams from the same conference potentially playing each other (generally until the Sweet 16). Also, teams cannot play in their home arena (e.g., Creighton can’t play in the “Omaha Region”, Louisville can’t play in the “Louisville Region”). If necessary, the committee in the past has allowed for a “one-seed” movement from a team’s “true” seed to help in putting together the bracket.
- I’ve used information from the various RPI/efficiency sites out there in compiling my somewhat educated guesses but will mostly site RPI and KenPom.
- Below the bracket, I’ve also listed the “Last Four In”, “First Four Out” and “Next Four Out”.
Now for the bracket projection (March 15 – FINAL)…
LAST FOUR IN: Indiana, Texas, Temple, BYU
FIRST FOUR OUT: Boise State, Richmond, Tulsa, Miami (FL)
NEXT FOUR OUT: Old Dominion, UCLA, Green Bay, Texas A&M
MULTIPLE BID LEAGUES: Big Ten (7), Big 12 (7), ACC (6), Big East (6), SEC (5), American (3), Atlantic 10 (3), MWC (3), Pac-12 (3), MVC (2), WCC (2)
8 (is enough) thoughts about the final projection
1. Have you ever handed in a final exam feeling that you answered a couple of questions incorrectly? This is what my final projection feels like as I felt the last four spots came down to six teams – BYU, Boise State, Indiana, Richmond, Temple and Texas. The tough part was that when weighing the positives and negatives of each résumé, these six teams, for me, were inseparable. It would not surprise me at all if Boise State or Richmond received an at-large nod. Anyone who gets all 36 at-large teams correct really did well in parsing through all of the information.
2. You might wonder how I went from having Texas A&M as an 11-seed last week to my next four out in this projection? Not only was the Aggies SEC tourney opening game loss to Auburn a negative but Auburn also beating LSU was the real nail in A&M’s NCAA coffin. The Auburn win over LSU took away any chance that A&M had of a top 50 win vs. anyone (0-5).
3. As to item #2, why then is Georgia into the field of 68 with the same 0-5 record vs. the RPI top 50, you might ask? They were fortunate enough to play Kentucky, twice, during SEC play (A&M faced UK only once) and showed well in both losses to the Wildcats. I also think a plus on Georgia’s résumé will be its decisive win against Seton Hall back in December. Why would a win vs. a team with an RPI of 98 be a positive? At the time, the Pirates had a top 20 RPI and were considered by many to be lock (myself included) for the NCAA field. As much as I found the “last four in” teams to be inseparable, the teams that received at-large nods who ended up on seed lines 10 and 11 were equally tough to determine.
4. In re-evaluating everyone’s season results, I did some re-seeding compared to last week – even though these teams did not do anything overly great or bad during the past seven days. I mentioned in Thursday’s version of The Bracketeer that I felt I had been over-seeding Ohio State. Although the Buckeyes should grade well based on the “eye test” with many committee members, a 1-7 mark vs. the RPI top 50 will not likely yield an 8-seed – as I had them in each of the previous two projections. I dropped OSU to a 10-seed in my final projection, and would not be shocked to see them receive an 11-seed.
5. If Wisconsin had lost in the Big Ten tournament final, I was prepared to keep Virginia as a 1-seed. But the Badgers made that a moot point…
Sidebar: I really wanted to type “mute”, but I try to respect the English language whenever possible. If you are not a frequent reader of the Bluejay Underground, this last sentence just flew over your head.
As for why I would have kept UVa as a 1-seed, I felt the Cavaliers regular season crown in the ACC, a deeper, more difficult league than this year’s version of the Big Ten, would have been the deciding factor. I will admit that they have not been the same team since the injury to Justin Anderson – who didn’t look good in two ACC tourney games, either. So, UVa losing to North Carolina in the conf. tourney semis coupled with Wisconsin taking down the Big Ten regular season and conf. tourney crown was enough to move the Badgers up to the #1 line and the Cavaliers down to the #2 line.
6. Wyoming ended up being the only real bid “thief” in 2015. In doing so, they may have cost conference-mate Boise State a Selection Sunday nod. The Broncos are the first of my “first four out”. BSU does have three top 50 wins, but had an out-of-league strength of schedule of 165. Their best non-league win came against Loyola-Chicago (RPI 123). Some might say, why not Colorado State as the odd team out in the MWC? The Rams finished behind BSU in the conference standings and were also knocked out in the Conf. Tourney semis and had one less RPI top 50 win. Although it is a thin line that these bubble teams walk, the three non-conference RPI top 100 wins that Colorado State had along with a 12-5 road/neutral record (Boise was a similarly solid 12-7) likely has them just in front of BSU in the pecking order. Do I have Colorado State over-seeded as a “9” in my final projection? Possibly. As mentioned in item #1, this is one “final exam” that was tougher than in other years.
7. I think the only other drastic move I made among the top 4 seed lines was moving Iowa State up to a 2-seed and dropping Gonzaga to a 3-seed. This move wasn’t so much about the Zags as it was about the Cyclones having 13 top 50 RPI wins – T-most in NCAA (Villanova).
8. I just want all reading this to know that I was not asleep the entire weekend and do realize that Notre Dame won the ACC tournament – essentially beating Duke and UNC on their home-away-from-home court. The problem that I’ve had with seeding the Irish too high is their dreadful non-league SOS (319). While all of the other metrics point to a top-4 seed for the Irish, I also think that is their ceiling. The selection committee has done this to teams previously who scheduled marshmellowy soft in November and December.
