Summer Bracketology: 07.12.10
Posted by zhayes9 on July 13th, 2010Zach Hayes is a contributor, editor and bracketologist at Rush the Court.
Analysis of decision: When the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee opted in April to expand the premier postseason tournament in America to 68 teams rather than the widely expected 96, college basketball fans exhaled and rejoiced. Then the question became what to do with the four play-in games that were instituted as part of this decision. An answer was promised sometime this summer. Today, committee chairman Dan Guerrero unveiled a “hybrid” resolution that first began to pick up serious momentum earlier this month.
The new hybrid format requires the final four at-large teams to play for a seed line to be determined on Selection Sunday and requires the final four automatic qualifiers (the four schools with the lowest RPI’s) to face an identical task likely with #1 seeds facing them should they advance. The committee attempted successfully to compromise the wishes of both smaller schools from conferences such as the SWAC, MEAC and Southland that would have been relegated to the stigmatic play-in games every single year and the final at-large schools that would have put up a fuss should under-.500 Jackson State go dancing rather than their team.
While I would have preferred forcing the final eight at-large teams into the Tuesday/Wednesday games for two nights of scintillating matchups to get fans geared up for the 64-team Big Dance, this compromise should sit well with the majority of hoops fans. Maybe it’s hard for me to get real hot and bothered about anything after the committee only went to 68 teams—after all, beggars can’t be choosers—but this decision does hit the right balance: two games similar to the Tuesday play-in game from years past between small schools and two games between bigger name schools that should generate interest and intrigue. Also, for the first time, we’ll finally know the Last Four In that have never been previously officially revealed.
I constructed a summer bracket looking at the landscape of the 2010-11 season, but for some context on how a format like this one would have looked last March, one can guess the final two at-large teams left out of the field were Illinois and Mississippi State. These two teams move into the field at whatever spot the committee decides, likely as #12 or #13 seeds. That sets up the possibility of the two at-large games being something like Virginia Tech vs. Rhode Island and Arizona State vs. Seton Hall while the two automatic qualifier games would go to the #16 seeds each as undercards on either Tuesday or Wednesday- Lehigh vs. Arkansas Pine Bluff and Winthrop vs. East Tennessee State.
There have been a few changes since my post-2010 season bracket a couple of months ago (eligible transfers, recruits changing allegiances, perception changes for certain teams) and a slight tweaking was in order. Here is my official summer Bracketology under the new format:
Tuesday first round games: Morgan State vs. Bucknell, Colorado vs. Saint Louis
Wednesday first round games: Jackson State vs. Stony Brook, Arizona vs. Seton Hall
Last Four Out: UCLA, Boston College, Texas A&M, St. John’s
Automatic bids: Stony Brook, Temple, Duke, East Tennessee State, Kansas State, Villanova, Weber State, Winthrop, Purdue, UC Santa Barbara, Old Dominion, Memphis, Butler, Princeton, Fairfield, Kent State, Morgan State, Wichita State, UNLV, Quinnipiac, Murray State, Washington, Bucknell, Kentucky, Wofford, Stephen F. Austin, Jackson State, Oakland, North Texas, Gonzaga, Utah State.
Multiple bids per conference:
- Atlantic 10 (5) – Temple, Xavier, Richmond, Dayton, Saint Louis
- ACC (7) – Duke, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Florida State, NC State, Clemson, Maryland
- Big 12 (6) – Kansas State, Baylor, Missouri, Kansas, Texas, Colorado
- Big East (7) – Pittsburgh, Villanova, Georgetown, Syracuse, West Virginia, Marquette, Seton Hall
- Big 10 (7) – Purdue, Michigan State, Ohio State, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Minnesota
- Mountain West (4) – UNLV, BYU, San Diego State, New Mexico
- Pac-10 (3) – Washington, Arizona State, Arizona
- SEC (6) – Kentucky, Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, Georgia
What I’m interested to see is where the committee puts the two at-large play-in game winners. One would guess the 12 or 13 seed line but some articles have even mentioned the 10 or 11. I wonder how they would go about deciding that.
Nice to see the Pac 10 is up to 3 bids LOL. Looks like another solid year for the A-10 and Mountain West.
Is there something about Clemson I am missing? Purnell and Trevor Booker are gone. I think Brownell is an upgrade, but the ACC, even in its current state, is much tougher than the Horizon League.
Wake Forest will be there, but I don’t blame you for not picking them this early. We’re going to be so much better than anyone expects.
Brian- I’ve seen the articles suggesting 10 or 11 seeds, too. Unless there’s procedural restraints- location, BYU can’t play on Fri/Sun, regular season rematches- that don’t allow it, how can the committee not put the last at-larges as either 12 or 13 seeds? If it’s by a true ranking system, that would only make sense.
WakeFan- Clemson lost Booker. Believe me, I realize how huge of a loss that is. But the ACC is down as a whole and they do return Stitt, Grant, Smith, little Booker and Young plus some intriguing talents like Milton Jennings and Noel Johnson. Plus I believe they upgraded on the coaching front.
WakeFan: Purnell leaving in favor of Brownell will turn out to be a major upgrade for Clemson.
Zach: This last committee disregarded the principles and procedures with the 2010 bracket so I wouldn’t put it past them to do it again.
Agreed. Purnell could only get those teams so far.
Unless I’m misunderstanding something, couldn’t it work like this?
The last four at-large teams are: #10 New Mexico, #10 UCLA, #12 Ole Miss, #13 Creighton.
You could go #10 vs. #10 for a (surprise) #10 seed slot. And #12 vs. #13 for similar. Right? Or would they try to do #10 vs. #13 and #10 vs. #12 on the S-curve?
But then you’d have a scenario where #10 seeds are playing one more game than at-larges that are, say, a #11 seed and automatically in the field of 64. There aren’t enough automatic qualifiers filling up spots with the addition of these PiG to rank the lowest at-large teams as high as a #10 seed. Does that make sense?
Guerrero made it clear that they’re not going to have 2 teams with different seedings playing on Tue/Wed. It will always be 12 vs. 12 or 13 vs. 13 and not 11 vs. 13.
My picking of nits:
I can’t imagine UNLV as a 5 seed under the best of circumstances. With the Willis legal questions, they’re even shakier.
And SDSU is gonna win the MWC. They’re basically the same team as last year, with a year of experience under their belts, while everyone else in the conference has taken a step or two back. And watch Leonard average like 18/12 or better this season, with a handful of 30/20 games sprinkled in…
Colorado? Hmmmm…
I think Seton Hall, assuming Pope is healthy (huge assumption, I know), is a tournament team and one that won’t even need to sweat things out on Selection Sunday.
Andrew-
UNLV as a 5 seed is under the assumption that Willis will be cleared to play. Obviously that’s in serious jeopardy and his loss would drop them down quite a few notches. But with Willis, Bellfield, Stanback, Wallace and Jasper all back, that’s a good enough squad to take that conference IMO.
Leonard is a beast. I had him as one of my breakout players. Not as in love with the supporting cast as UNLV’s but there’s tons of talent there with White, Thomas and Gay. BYU also has a nice core back. Gonna be a strong conference again.
Colorado is a product of Burks + Higgins, plus an overall down Big 12. Texas A&M and Oklahoma State were depleted. Tech has returning pieces but they’re more NIT level. Oklahoma is clearly rebuilding and Nebraska is terrible. The Buffs were my last team in this thing.
Hall has the talent. How they adjust to Willard is a question. And the health of Pope as you mentioned. They’ll be a bubble team for sure, likely dancing when it’s all said and done.
I’ll have to read more on this, as I’m just now catching up.
As the resident Seton Hall fan, I have to agree with Andrew. If Pope is healthy, I have no doubt we’ll be a tournament team. The improvement in coaching skills from Gonzalez to Willard will be the difference, plus another year of experience for the key players.
Yeah I think you have some interesting sleepers. A lot of teams that can make you look smart but won’t make you look stupid if they don’t pan out (mainly looking at the Hall, Colorado and Northwestern. I do think the Hall has the chance to put it together though).
Looking at some of the teams on the bracket, it is leaving me a little concerned about the talent level this year. How you can justify putting a team like Maryland in your preseason bracket this season is kind of scary. I know (hope) some teams will exceed expectations and some teams off this list will be better than we thought but the quality of play might leave something to be desired this year (after some of the teams near the top). Here’s to hoping I am wrong.
I think you’re spot on, JR. The departure of an accomplished senior class + the growing # of early entries because of a looming lockout really ravaged college hoops next season. I was worried someone would bring up Maryland. I’m basically banking on 1 or 2 of their role players to make a big leap. Believe me, I didn’t think going into this they’d even be considered. The talent level will be a step down from 2009-10.
JR: Good point on Maryland but Gary Williams can probably get it done. College basketball seems to be one of the few sports where a great coach can make a huge difference. Did anyone think last year’s Pittsburgh team would be any good? Jamie Dixon turned them into a 3 seed in the tournament. I know I won’t be making that mistake again. I wouldn’t guarantee a bid for Maryland but I also wouldn’t put it past Gary to get the job done.
Maybe I’m nuts but I think a weaker talent pool can be good. I like seeing more than a select few teams having a chance to win it all. The games may not be filled with top talent but they have the potential to be more competitive across the board.
I think Maryland, Florida State, Clemson, BC and even Wake are all in a tier of teams in the ACC, a couple or three tiers back of Duke (with UNC, Va Tech and NC State making up those second and third tiers), where a couple of those teams are gonna get in. If I had to guess right now, I’d say Maryland and Florida State, but each of those teams is going to need somebody (or -bodies) to step up.
And, I didn’t say it before, so I’ll say it now, nice work Zach… I’ve got a few minor quibbles but I more or less agree with what you’ve got there, and I’m pretty much ready to skip ahead to November and see how it shakes out….
Thanks Andrew, appreciate it. I’m already anxious for November as well. This got the juices flowing.
Agree with everything you said Brian. Gary loves being the underdog.
Yeah, I agree Zach and Brian. It looks bleak right now but Brian makes a good point about the coaches. I had Pitt in mind as my example from last year as a team that nobody thought was going to be good but turned out to be a tournament team. I don’t know who that is this year (right now) but I am sure there is going to be at least one. That is why I got a little discouraged seeing some teams on the projection.
Nice job Zach. Let’s get this party started. It’s too bad its 5 months away.
Not 5, 4 months!
Which is part of the reason I was so shocked with UCLA and UNC’s collapses last year. Those are coaches who have traditionally gotten it done no matter who they had on the floor. Most years, though, a good rule of thumb is to overrate the progamrs with the consistently good coaches and underrate the bad ones.
To follow-up on my comment earlier. I agree that Brownell is an upgrade. But I think this year might be a difficult one as he adjusts to coaching in a ‘real conference’. Purnell could get them into the tournament, but once there he couldn’t win (I still can’t figure out why DePaul thinks he’s worth $3m/year). I think Brownell will be able to win in the tournament; I just don’t feel like he’s going to get them there this year. I think this year is going to be a very interesting year in the ACC with 3 new coaches and 2 coaches with their jobs in jeopardy. GT’s AD is just looking for Hewitt to do badly enough that he can convince boosters to pay that massive buy out, and Lowe will be out of excuses if NC State doesn’t do well this year. Plus, I feel like Greenberg is carefully awaiting the right opportunity to bolt out of Blacksburg.
Can hardly wait. (BTW: I am predicting a 7-9 ACC record for WFU. In my mind, whether or not we make the tournament will be determined by our OOC performance since we have a tough schedule and a young team).
To follow up on Herb Pope, I’m hearing he has been or will soon be cleared to play.