Blind Resumes: Who Deserves No. 1 Seeds?

Posted by Daniel Evans on February 26th, 2013

As we’re now fewer than four weeks from Selection Sunday, it’s always fun to start speculating about resumes of teams on the bubble. On some of the days when Daniel Evans (@bracketexpert) isn’t providing us with his updated Bubble Watch (Sunday nights and Thursday afternoons) or his weekly Bracketology (Fridays), he’ll give us an interesting comparison or two of teams that he finds difficult to distinguish. Today, he shows us just how tough it is to decide on No. 1 seeds.

I think if you threw 100 people in a room right now to decide on No. 1 seeds, most would agree that Indiana and Duke are clearly No. 1 seeds right now. My bracketology has reflected that for weeks, so let’s concede that as of today those two teams would be on the top line. The race for the third and fourth No.1  seeds is as tough, though, as I have ever seen it. So, today I have put up five blind resumes of potential No.1  seeds. All you have to do is vote below. Which two teams out of the five most deserve a No. 1 seed? Remember, don’t give the team names away and do not research the team names before voting. That takes the fun out of it!


Overall Record  24-4 27-2  22-4  22-4 23-4
RPI  4 10 5 2 6
SOS  14  79  22 3  41
BPI  7 5 2  14  6
Sagarin  4 7 2  14  6
Kenpom  9 4 1  13 8
Record vs. RPI top 50 9-3 5-2 5-3 6-1 7-4
Record vs. RPI top 100  13-3 10-2 12-4 14-2 10-4


The two teams are revealed after the jump…

Team A is Kansas. The Jayhawks have 13 wins against the RPI top 100, but their entire resume has to be brought down by a loss against TCU. Despite that setback, Kansas has nine wins against the RPI top 50, by far the most of any team listed above. KU also has wins against Saint Louis, Colorado, Belmont, Ohio State, Temple, Kansas State (twice), Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. All of those teams are safely in my current NCAA Tournament field except for Colorado, Temple, and Belmont.

Team B is Gonzaga. The Bulldogs have not been tested in the weakish West Coast Conference but have managed five wins against the RPI top 50. In non-conference play Gonzaga took advantage of playing teams from the competitive Big 12, knocking off Oklahoma, Kansas State, West Virginia, Baylor, and Oklahoma State.  As impressive as Mark Few’s team has been, it is important to note that 16 of Gonzaga’s 27 wins have come against teams rated at 100+ in the RPI.

Team C is Florida. Although the SEC is historically weak, Florida has run through the conference with few problems. The Gators lost at Arizona on a buzzer-beater, lost on the road to home heroes Missouri and Arkansas, and fell to Kansas State in Kansas City. None of those losses are bad. At the same time, the great wins may not outweigh the losses enough to earn a No. 1 seed. Florida has dominant wins over Wisconsin, Marquette, Kentucky, and Missouri on its resume.

Team D is Miami (FL). The Hurricanes have an unbelievable 14 victories against the RPI top 100, including a 27-point victory against Duke. Miami’s downfall might be its losses in non-conference play to up/down Indiana State and Florida Gulf Coast. The Hurricanes played the third toughest non-conference schedule and it shows because only eight of their wins came against teams above 100 in the RPI. Five of those eight were against ACC opponents.

Team E is Michigan. Michigan has 10 wins against the RPI top 100, but has fallen to arguably the best two teams it has played in Indiana and Michigan State. The good news is that re-matches with both the Spartans and Hoosiers are still coming up, but those upcoming games do not factor into this exercise.

Daniel Evans (60 Posts)

Share this story

One response to “Blind Resumes: Who Deserves No. 1 Seeds?”

  1. Justin says:

    You left out another strong contender…
    (As of today)
    Overall record: 24-4
    RPI: 2
    SOS: 3
    BPI: 15
    Sagarin: 25
    Kenpom: 28
    Record vs. RPI Top 50: 8-3
    Record vs. RPI Top 100: 16-4

    Steve Alford frowns upon your shenanigans.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *