With two weeks left until Selection Sunday, there are only a handful of teams that are in limbo in terms of their tournament status. The Missouri Valley Conference continues to be the feel-good story of the mid-major world this season. If the season ended today and all of the best teams win their conference tournaments, the MVC would get six teams in the Big Dance. That would be more than the Pac 10, the Big XII and the ACC. There aren’t a whole lot of bubble teams with convincing resumes. In fact, it wasn’t difficult at all for me to leave out any team of my current projected field. However, if Air Force, Gonzaga, Nevada, George Washington, Memphis, and Bucknell don’t win their conference tournaments, projecting the field will become extremely difficult. For instance, how does one differentiate between NC Wilmington and Hofstra or S. Illinois and Bradley? The amount of upsets in the conference tournaments will determine the difficulty in selecting the field. The field I have right now assumes all favorites win their conference tournaments.
Here are the changes I made to the projected automatic bid winners:
MWC Air Force replaces San Diego St.
Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
1 ACC Duke
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East UCONN
4 Big 12 Texas
5 Big Ten Illinois
6 Pac-10 Washington
7 MVC N. Iowa
8 MWC Air Force
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 George Washington
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Kent St.
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt W. Kentucky
16 Horizon Wisconsin-Mil.
17 MAAC Iona
18 Big Sky N. Arizona
19 MCC IUPUI
20 Big West Pacific
21 OVC Murray St.
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Bucknell
25 Southland Northwestern St.
26 Northeast Farleigh Dickinson
27 AEC Albany
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Southern
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Hofstra
33 At-Large Syracuse
34 At-Large Villanova
35 At-Large Pittsburgh
36 At-Large W. Virginia
37 At-Large Cincinnati
38 At-Large Marquette
39 At-Large Georgetown
40 At-Large NC State
41 At-Large Boston College
42 At-Large N. Carolina
43 At-Large Indiana
44 At-Large California
45 At-Large MSU
46 At-Large NC Wilmington
47 At-Large Michigan
48 At-Large Ohio St.
49 At-Large Wisconsin
50 At-Large Iowa
51 At-Large Kentucky
52 At-Large Tennessee
53 At-Large LSU
54 At-Large Alabama
55 At-Large Oklahoma
56 At-Large Kansas
57 At-Large Colorado
58 At-Large Arkansas
59 At-Large Arizona
60 At-Large UCLA
61 At-Large Bradley
62 At-Large Missouri St.
63 At-Large Wichita St.
64 At-Large Creighton
65 At-Large S. Illinois
This projected field assumes that there are no upsets in the conference tournaments. There could be anywhere from 5-10 teams that make the tournament who wouldn't have otherwise made it just from the conference tournaments alone. That would push five of my "projected" teams out of the field. Come conference tournament time, the last two or three teams that I have in the tourney will probably get pushed out by upsets if not more.
The last seven teams in the tourney right now:
1. Bradley
Of the six candidates from the Missouri Valley Conference that are looking for a bid to the NCAA Tournament, Bradley will probably be listed last in the pecking order. I think this is a mistake, though. Bradley is 9-2 in its last 11 games including wins @ N. Iowa, S. Illinois, and Missouri St. Bradley deserves a bid to the tourney regardless of how many MVC teams get in. S. Illinois will probably get in ahead of Bradley but this would be a mistake.
RPI rating: 43
Pomeroy rating: 34
Quality wins: W. Kentucky, N. Iowa, @ N. Iowa, Creighton, Missouri St., and S. Illinois,
Bad losses: @ Loyola Chicago, @ Indiana St. and @ Drake
2. S. Illinois
If S. Illinois gets in ahead of Bradley, it can thank two things; 1). Its slight advantage in RPI and 2). It’s slight advantage in conference record. The Salukis are two spots ahead in the RPI and are one game better in terms of conference record. The way I see it, these teams are tied. They have essentially the same computer ratings and conference records. They each have beaten more than a handful of teams from the RPI top 50. They each have three bad losses. The only thing that sets these two teams apart is recent performance. S. Illinois is 7-6 in its last 13 games. Bradley is 9-2 in its last 11 including a win over S. Illinois. Bradley also has a huge advantage in the Pomeroy ratings. S. Illinois lost to Division 2 Alaska Anchorage which isn’t factored into the computer ratings. That would seriously damage its RPI. If one of these teams bows out early in the MVC Tournament, that might differentiate them more for the committee. With conference tournament upsets surely to come, one of these teams will likely miss out on the tourney.
RPI rating: 41
Pomeroy rating: 69
Quality wins: Wichita St, Bradley, Creighton, @ Creighton, Missouri St, and N. Iowa
Bad losses: Monmouth (neutral), @Alaska Anchorage, Indiana St, and @ Evansville
3. Indiana
I had Indiana out of the tournament last week and that could still happen. The Hoosiers have to finish 8-8 in the Big Ten to have a better than 50/50 shot at getting a bid. The win over Michigan St. yesterday was a big surprise and gave Indiana a big-time boost. Indiana has quality wins on the year but it is 3-7 over its last ten games. The Hoosiers have two Big Ten games remaining. It will have to win at least one to stay in contention for a bid.
RPI rating: 45
Pomeroy rating: 53
Quality wins: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio St., Illinois, and Michigan St.
Bad losses: @ Indiana St. and @ Penn St.
4. Hofstra
As I mentioned right here last week, if NC Wilmington is a tournament team, then Hofstra should be as well. Hofstra finally played George Mason and came out victorious. Now, nothing separates Hofstra from NC Wilmington. Both teams beat George Mason. Both teams won a game against the other. Hofstra has a better record. Hofstra has more wins in the RPI top 55. Hofstra has beaten Old Dominion twice while NC Wilmington lost its only meeting with Old Dominion. Barring a major upset along the way, the CAA should be able to secure three bids to the tournament which would be a huge surprise. What makes it even more surprising is that one of those teams won’t be Old Dominion.
RPI rating: 38
Pomeroy rating: 59
Quality wins: NC Wilmington, George Mason, Old Dominion, @ Old Dominion
Bad losses: @ Towson
5. Cincinnati
As long as Cincy wins one of its two remaining Big East games, it will easily make the tournament. The Bearcats play a struggling Seton Hall team and W. Virginia. If Cincy loses both games, it would stand at 17-12 entering the Big East Tournament. Cincy won’t win the Big East Tournament so they would definitely pick up another loss. That would leave Cincy at 18-13 with few big wins on the season. It has a nice RPI right now but three straight losses would likely push Cincy out of the RPI top 35 and right on out of the tournament. Don’t be surprised if that happens.
RPI rating: 26
Pomeroy rating: 41
Quality wins: @ Vanderbilt, LSU (neutral), @ Marquette, @ Syracuse
Bad losses: Dayton
6. Syracuse
Syracuse is in the exact same boat as Cincinnati. If the Orange does not win at least one of its two remaining games in the Big East, things could go south quickly. Syracuse plays @ DePaul and Villanova. Losses to both teams and a loss in the Big East Tournament would leave Syracuse at 20-12 with even fewer good wins than Cincinnati. Its RPI would likely be outside of the top 35.
RPI rating: 28
Pomeroy rating: 43
Quality wins: Cincinnati, and W. Virginia
Bad losses: none
8. Michigan
Michigan is in the tournament. The Wolverines were on the fast-track out of the field but a stunning victory over Illinois put Michigan right back in position. Had Michigan not beaten Illinois, Michigan would’ve needed a victory over Indiana to secure a bid. Judging from Michigan’s struggles against Indiana recently it would’ve been a tall order. Had Michigan not beaten Illinois and ended the season on a three-game losing streak, there is no way Michigan would’ve made the tournament. Michigan would’ve been 1-7 in its last eight games. It would’ve been 7-9 in conference play. Even worse, Michigan would have had only TWO wins in the RPI top 68! Out of the RPI top 55, only Wisconsin Milwaukee would’ve had less wins against the RPI top 68. I don’t know if there has been a team in the history of college basketball to go 1-7 in its last eight regular season games and go 7-9 (or worse) in its conference and still make the tournament as an at-large. Thankfully, Michigan beat Illinois and secured at least an 8-8 conference record. After waiting eight long years, Michigan is in!
RPI rating: 25
Pomeroy rating: 38
Quality wins: Michigan St, Illinois, Wisconsin
Bad losses: @ Purdue
The teams waiting in the wings:
For the first time this year, there aren’t any teams that I’ve left out of my “projected” list that I feel deserve to be in. Maryland probably looks awkward being on the outside looking in but Maryland’s season has been overwhelmingly unimpressive. If they get in, it will be on reputation alone. The rest of these teams are virtual locks to miss the tournament with the exception of UAB. The Selection Committee has been kind to UAB in past seasons. There have been a couple of occasions where I’ve been surprised to see the Blazers show up on Selection Sunday. Because of that, I would not be shocked to see them again this year. However, there are far more deserving candidates.
1. UAB
UAB is a victim of a poor schedule. For the majority of the season, I had UAB pegged as a tournament team. UAB has done nothing but win since yet I have them headed to the NIT. The Blazers can blame its 170th ranked strength of schedule for missing the tournament this year. Louisville, Cincinnati and Marquette’s departure to the Big East caused Conference USA to plummet in the conference ratings. That left few marquee games for UAB. The Blazers did play and beat some name schools in its non-conference schedule (Massachusetts, Nebraska, Old Dominion, and Oklahoma St.) but none of those schools appear in the RPI top 50. UAB’s best win this season was against fellow conference foe Houston. That leaves a lot to be desired. UAB does have one chance at making the tournament and that involves beating Memphis in its last regular season game. The game will be at home which gives UAB a chance. A loss would close the door on a tournament bid. A win would likely give UAB a marquee win good enough to send it to the NCAA Tournament. I’d say the chances are about 15%.
RPI rating: 52
Pomeroy rating: 51
Quality wins: Houston
Bad losses: none
2. Maryland
Maryland is on Selection Sunday life-support. The Terps have to win their last two conference games (Miami and @ Virginia) just to have a shot at making the tournament. Both of those games are winnable. That would leave Maryland at 8-8 in the ACC and 17-11 overall heading into the ACC Tournament. Assuming Maryland gets to 8-8 in the ACC, a first round loss in the ACC Tournament would likely keep Maryland out of the tournament. This is a quintessential bubble team. If it were up to me, Maryland would not make the tournament. Its resume is extremely light on quality wins with zero wins in the RPI top 34.
RPI rating: 51
Pomeroy rating: 54
Quality wins: Arkansas (neutral) Boston College
Bad losses: @ Clemson
3. Seton Hall
Seton Hall seemed like a lock just a few weeks ago. Enter a 1-4 stretch that included three losses to teams with an RPI of 90 or higher and the Pirates have fallen all the way to 60 in the RPI. That number is too low to overcome for any team, not to mention a team that might finish below .500 in its conference and has six losses to teams outside of the RPI top 87. Seton Hall’s strength of schedule would be considered a good thing considering it played both Duke and Connecticut. However, it lost both of those games by a combined 95 points. The door is still open for the Hall but considering its final two Big East games are against Cincinnati and Pittsburgh, things will likely continue to fall apart for Seton Hall.
RPI rating: 60
Pomeroy rating: 61
Quality wins: @ N. Carolina St, @ Syracuse, W. Virginia
Bad losses: @Richmond, Northwestern, @ Rutgers, @ St. John’s, and @ DePaul
4. Houston
At least Conference USA is fair to its bubble teams. Houston, like UAB, will also have a season ending shot at making the tournament in the form of playing Memphis. Unfortunately for Houston, it has to play at Memphis. As far as I was concerned, Houston only needed to win its remaining regular season games sans Memphis to get serious consideration for the tournament. Instead, Houston lost to UTEP last week which put it in the back of the pack for bubble teams. Last week, ESPN was talking about Conference USA getting three bids. The way I see it, they will get one assuming Memphis wins the conference tournament.
RPI rating: 54
Pomeroy rating: 79
Quality wins: @ LSU, Arizona, UTEP
Bad losses: @ S. Alabama, @ UNLV, @ Rice, and C. Florida
5. Utah St.
Utah St. won’t blow anyone away with its 97th rated schedule but it is 6-2 in the RPI top 100. The problem for Utah St. is that it has five losses outside of the RPI top 100. There is no way that a team with that on its resume will get an at-large bid. Utah St. will have to win its conference tournament to make the NCAA Tournament. I feel obligated to include the Aggies on this list because they have a fairly impressive RPI of 49 which could rise a few spots by the end of the year.
RPI rating: 49
Pomeroy rating: 62
Quality wins: @ Nevada, BYU, and Northwestern St.
Bad losses: @ Middle Tennessee, @ Utah, @ Fresno St, New Mexico, and @ New Mexico
Highest rated RPI teams projected “out” of the tournament
#49 Utah St.
#50 St. Joseph's
#51 Maryland
#52 UAB
#54 Houston
#55 Old Dominion
#56 BYU
#57 Texas A&M
#58 San Diego St.
#60 Seton Hall
#61 Temple
#62 Vanderbilt
#64 UTEP
#65 Florida St.
Lowest rated RPI teams projected “in” the tournament
#59 California
#48 Colorado
#46 Arkansas
#45 Indiana
#44 Kansas
#43 Bradley
#42 Kentucky
#41 S.Illinois
#40 Bucknell
#39 Air Force
#38 Hofstra
#37 NC Wilmington
#36 Alabama
#35 Boston College
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (5)
Duke
NC State
Boston College
N. Carolina
Maryland
SEC (6)
Florida
Kentucky
LSU
Tennessee
Arkansas
Alabama
Big East (8)
UCONN
Syracuse
Villanova
Pittsburgh
W. Virginia
Cincinnati
Marquette
Georgetown
Big 12 (4)
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Colorado
Big Ten (7)
Illinois
MSU
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio St.
Wisconsin
Iowa
Pac-10 (4)
Washington
Arizona
UCLA
California
C-USA (1)
Memphis
A-10 (1)
GW
MVC (6)
N. Iowa
Creighton
Wichita St.
S. Illinois
Missouri St.
Bradley
(3)
George Mason
NC Wilmington
Hofstra
Monday, February 27, 2006
Friday, February 24, 2006
America's Overrated Olympic Dissapointment
The Olympics are an interesting phenomenon. The spectacle consists of countless sports that nobody pays attention to for four years. Sure, sports like figure skating and ice hockey get press between Olympics but the majority of the sports don’t even make it to the back-burner. They’re stuck in the cupboard. Yet, every four years, America is overwhelmed by the pomp and circumstance of the Olympic Games. The media turns its attention to everything Olympics. Athlete-profiles start popping up in magazines and inevitably, predictions start creeping in. By the time the Olympics start, not only are most Americans briefed on who’s who in each sport but they’ve also got expectations for Americans they’ve never heard of to go along with it. Never mind that a very small percentage of the population had even heard of Chad Hedrick before February or that the first thing that comes to mind when I hear the name Ted Ligety is a character from the Eminem-movie 8-Mile.
In the months preceding the Olympics, the media takes it upon itself to educate America about each event and the American athletes that will be participating in them. The media essentially shapes our views towards the athletes as well as our expectations. Since sports like curling and the biathlon are ignored in the United States nobody knows anything about them. As a result, we’re somewhat confined by what the media says. For instance, if I read in Sports Illustrated that Bode Miller and Chad Hedrick have a realistic shot at five gold medals, then I will expect those athletes to have exceptional performances at the Olympics. I don’t know anything about either athlete so I’m not going to argue with a writer who has spent time covering each athlete and surveying their respective sports. The media loves to say that so-and-so-athlete has a chance at 5+ gold medals. The fact that only one athlete has actually won five gold medals in one year in Winter Olympic history (Eric Heiden) seems to escape the press. Bloated expectations were also bestowed upon Michael Phelps in the 2004 Summer Olympics. In fact, the hype for Phelps was that he could possibly win eight gold medals. Regardless of how unrealistic it is for an athlete to win five or eight gold medals, when a news outlet makes that claim, Americans expect that athlete to at least come close to that total. It wasn’t until I watched the Men’s 1,500m Long-Track Speedskating that I found out that fellow American Shani Davis has beaten Chad Hedrick in seven of their eight head to head meetings. That alone should deter any talk of five gold medals for Hedrick. Despite Davis’ dominance over Hedrick in the 1,500m, the media still hyped the possibility of Hedrick winning five gold medals.
Coming in to this year’s Olympics, the media (NBC, magazines etc.) hyped this Olympic team as the best ever. The American medal-favorites were made stars before actually competing in the events. Fast forward to the second week of the Olympics and the mood has changed entirely. The media is having a “field day” with the American failures so far. Since the media shaped our expectations going in, we can’t help but to feel the same disappointment. As early as Bode Miller and Lindsey Kildow’s disappointing performances in downhill skiing (which happened in the first week), I was already feeling like the Americans were embarrassing themselves. This feeling progressed as other Americans like Apolo Anton Ohno and Chris Witty failed to medal in events.
Then, the reality of the situation hit me square on my forehead. I had been guilty of being irrational and ignorant. The belief that the Americans are failing in the Olympics is based on two fallacies. Two Fallacies that most Americans willingly accepted coming in to the Olympics. The first is the fallacy that the American athletes were being accurately hyped by the American media. The American media will surely overrate American athletes. NBC’s success in the ratings falls largely on its ability to get America excited about the Olympics. The way to get people excited about the Olympics is to give them a reason to watch. The more Americans that are “expected” to win medals, the more excited Americans will be so more people will watch. The second fallacy is that we have the right to judge people and their performances in sports that we don’t pay attention to with the exception of two weeks every four years. I have strong opinions on things that I follow (i.e. football, basketball, baseball, and hockey). I feel that I can make statements with regards to those sports and be justified in making them. However, for me to criticize Chris Witty because she got blown out in her speed skating events would be awfully reckless of me. I have no idea how good the competition is. I have no idea what Chris Witty has been through over the past four years. All I know is that she was featured in multiple magazines and was “expected” to win a medal again. The same goes with the women’s curling team and every other sport that I don’t pay attention to 99.9% of the time. For the first week of the Olympics, I bought these fallacies without any second guessing. I bought the media hype and I bought the fact that I had the right to expect greatness from people that a). I’ve never met or seen before and b). Know nothing about.
There is nothing wrong with being disappointed with athletes. I think the criticism directed towards the US Men’s Basketball Team in 2004 was warranted. America has the best basketball players in the world and a bronze finish in the Olympics is a black-eye for American basketball. But, to somehow turn America’s collective Olympic failures into a national crime or an embarrassment especially considering that we know little about these athletes is ridiculous. Again, the media is largely responsible for shaping America’s opinions. I just watched a post-figure skating recap by the American announcing team and one of the announcers said, “This clearly has to be viewed as a disappointment for Sasha Cohen.” I bet most people do view her silver medal as a failure considering how much hype she received. Her best finish on the national scene was a runner-up finish in the 2005 World Championships. Yet, it was gold medal or bust for her in the eyes of many. It’s unfortunate that a silver medal is viewed as a disappointment. That sort of thinking leads to the overall disappointing “feel” of the American performance thus far.
A sad reality of this year’s Olympics is the negative spin that has filtered out from the media. Low Olympic ratings have been blamed on such things as “American athletes’ failures” and a “decreasing American interest in the Olympics”. Although those reasons provide the best stories, the real reasons for the low ratings have nothing to do with either of those explanations. Americans like to watch live events. Nobody wants to watch an event on tape when they’ve already read the results on the internet. The majority of NBC’s coverage of the Olympics has been on tape. Thus, ratings are down. It doesn’t take a math major to figure that out. The second reason for low ratings is the enormous success of the shows on rival networks including Lost, American Idol, and Survivor.
The negativity surrounding America’s performance in the Olympics has overshadowed the fact that America is having one of its best Olympics ever. Here is a brief history lesson in the success of the United States in the Winter Olympics:
Year Medals
1924 4
1928 6
1932 12
1936 4
1948 9
1952 11
1956 7
1960 10
1964 6
1968 7
1972 8
1976 10
1980 12
1984 8
1988 6
1992 11
1994 13
1998 13
2002 34
2006 20 (and counting)
Instead of celebrating America’s arrival as a Winter Olympic force, most media attention has been given to the failed expectations. This, of course, is simply a byproduct of the ridiculous level of hype that NBC and other media outlets give to American athletes leading up to the Olympics. With many events still to come, the US already has the second most medals in its Winter Olympic history. That is certainly a far cry from the paltry medal count that was consistent from 1924-1998.
My feelings on “expectations” and “failures” changed gradually throughout the first week of the Olympics. I remember chuckling at hearing about the Canadian expectations in curling and hockey. The announcers were making a big deal about the possibility of the Canadian women’s team not winning a medal. They said it would be embarrassing to Canada since Canada “owns” curling. I thought that was a ridiculous statement. It made me realize how unrealistic Olympic expectations can be. There are hundreds of countries in the world that are home to thousands of dedicated athletes. For the Canadians (or Americans for that matter) to think that no other nation could possibly be good enough at curling or alpine skiing or whatever the sport is ridiculous. When Team USA (Men’s Basketball) finished 3rd in the 2004 Olympics, it was embarrassing because it consisted of the best players in the tournament. Any NBA team would gladly take every American player over every other player in the Olympics with the exception of one or two superstars (Manu Ginobli etc.). Women’s Curling is different. From what I saw, there were a number of competitive curlers. Sweden and Switzerland were clearly the best teams in Women’s Curling. For Canadians to feel embarrassed about not winning gold or silver is akin to the Patriots being embarrassed about not winning the Super Bowl this year. Just because you’re good doesn’t mean you’re going to win. That’s a lesson that the American media should learn above all else. That is a third fallacy that I failed to mention above. The same goes for the Canadian Hockey Team. There were six or seven great teams in the men’s hockey tournament. Russia, Sweden, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic all had teams that could match Canada’s prowess. Yet, Canadians were embarrassed because they supposedly “own” hockey.
The Olympics are fun to watch. I love learning the “ins and outs” of quirky sports like Curling and the Biathlon. The Olympics are even more fun to watch when you watch them with an open mind. Preconceived notions will likely ruin your Olympic experience. I’ve come to enjoy watching whatever event is on the screen whether there’s an American competitor or not. I enjoyed watching the Men’s Hockey Tournament infinitely more so than I enjoy the NHL. The Olympics are marketed to Americans as a chance for America to shine and dominate. The reality should be that the Olympics are a time to enjoy sports that are as rare to see on TV as it is to see a wolverine in Michigan. I just hope that I remember not to buy into the hype next time around.
In the months preceding the Olympics, the media takes it upon itself to educate America about each event and the American athletes that will be participating in them. The media essentially shapes our views towards the athletes as well as our expectations. Since sports like curling and the biathlon are ignored in the United States nobody knows anything about them. As a result, we’re somewhat confined by what the media says. For instance, if I read in Sports Illustrated that Bode Miller and Chad Hedrick have a realistic shot at five gold medals, then I will expect those athletes to have exceptional performances at the Olympics. I don’t know anything about either athlete so I’m not going to argue with a writer who has spent time covering each athlete and surveying their respective sports. The media loves to say that so-and-so-athlete has a chance at 5+ gold medals. The fact that only one athlete has actually won five gold medals in one year in Winter Olympic history (Eric Heiden) seems to escape the press. Bloated expectations were also bestowed upon Michael Phelps in the 2004 Summer Olympics. In fact, the hype for Phelps was that he could possibly win eight gold medals. Regardless of how unrealistic it is for an athlete to win five or eight gold medals, when a news outlet makes that claim, Americans expect that athlete to at least come close to that total. It wasn’t until I watched the Men’s 1,500m Long-Track Speedskating that I found out that fellow American Shani Davis has beaten Chad Hedrick in seven of their eight head to head meetings. That alone should deter any talk of five gold medals for Hedrick. Despite Davis’ dominance over Hedrick in the 1,500m, the media still hyped the possibility of Hedrick winning five gold medals.
Coming in to this year’s Olympics, the media (NBC, magazines etc.) hyped this Olympic team as the best ever. The American medal-favorites were made stars before actually competing in the events. Fast forward to the second week of the Olympics and the mood has changed entirely. The media is having a “field day” with the American failures so far. Since the media shaped our expectations going in, we can’t help but to feel the same disappointment. As early as Bode Miller and Lindsey Kildow’s disappointing performances in downhill skiing (which happened in the first week), I was already feeling like the Americans were embarrassing themselves. This feeling progressed as other Americans like Apolo Anton Ohno and Chris Witty failed to medal in events.
Then, the reality of the situation hit me square on my forehead. I had been guilty of being irrational and ignorant. The belief that the Americans are failing in the Olympics is based on two fallacies. Two Fallacies that most Americans willingly accepted coming in to the Olympics. The first is the fallacy that the American athletes were being accurately hyped by the American media. The American media will surely overrate American athletes. NBC’s success in the ratings falls largely on its ability to get America excited about the Olympics. The way to get people excited about the Olympics is to give them a reason to watch. The more Americans that are “expected” to win medals, the more excited Americans will be so more people will watch. The second fallacy is that we have the right to judge people and their performances in sports that we don’t pay attention to with the exception of two weeks every four years. I have strong opinions on things that I follow (i.e. football, basketball, baseball, and hockey). I feel that I can make statements with regards to those sports and be justified in making them. However, for me to criticize Chris Witty because she got blown out in her speed skating events would be awfully reckless of me. I have no idea how good the competition is. I have no idea what Chris Witty has been through over the past four years. All I know is that she was featured in multiple magazines and was “expected” to win a medal again. The same goes with the women’s curling team and every other sport that I don’t pay attention to 99.9% of the time. For the first week of the Olympics, I bought these fallacies without any second guessing. I bought the media hype and I bought the fact that I had the right to expect greatness from people that a). I’ve never met or seen before and b). Know nothing about.
There is nothing wrong with being disappointed with athletes. I think the criticism directed towards the US Men’s Basketball Team in 2004 was warranted. America has the best basketball players in the world and a bronze finish in the Olympics is a black-eye for American basketball. But, to somehow turn America’s collective Olympic failures into a national crime or an embarrassment especially considering that we know little about these athletes is ridiculous. Again, the media is largely responsible for shaping America’s opinions. I just watched a post-figure skating recap by the American announcing team and one of the announcers said, “This clearly has to be viewed as a disappointment for Sasha Cohen.” I bet most people do view her silver medal as a failure considering how much hype she received. Her best finish on the national scene was a runner-up finish in the 2005 World Championships. Yet, it was gold medal or bust for her in the eyes of many. It’s unfortunate that a silver medal is viewed as a disappointment. That sort of thinking leads to the overall disappointing “feel” of the American performance thus far.
A sad reality of this year’s Olympics is the negative spin that has filtered out from the media. Low Olympic ratings have been blamed on such things as “American athletes’ failures” and a “decreasing American interest in the Olympics”. Although those reasons provide the best stories, the real reasons for the low ratings have nothing to do with either of those explanations. Americans like to watch live events. Nobody wants to watch an event on tape when they’ve already read the results on the internet. The majority of NBC’s coverage of the Olympics has been on tape. Thus, ratings are down. It doesn’t take a math major to figure that out. The second reason for low ratings is the enormous success of the shows on rival networks including Lost, American Idol, and Survivor.
The negativity surrounding America’s performance in the Olympics has overshadowed the fact that America is having one of its best Olympics ever. Here is a brief history lesson in the success of the United States in the Winter Olympics:
Year Medals
1924 4
1928 6
1932 12
1936 4
1948 9
1952 11
1956 7
1960 10
1964 6
1968 7
1972 8
1976 10
1980 12
1984 8
1988 6
1992 11
1994 13
1998 13
2002 34
2006 20 (and counting)
Instead of celebrating America’s arrival as a Winter Olympic force, most media attention has been given to the failed expectations. This, of course, is simply a byproduct of the ridiculous level of hype that NBC and other media outlets give to American athletes leading up to the Olympics. With many events still to come, the US already has the second most medals in its Winter Olympic history. That is certainly a far cry from the paltry medal count that was consistent from 1924-1998.
My feelings on “expectations” and “failures” changed gradually throughout the first week of the Olympics. I remember chuckling at hearing about the Canadian expectations in curling and hockey. The announcers were making a big deal about the possibility of the Canadian women’s team not winning a medal. They said it would be embarrassing to Canada since Canada “owns” curling. I thought that was a ridiculous statement. It made me realize how unrealistic Olympic expectations can be. There are hundreds of countries in the world that are home to thousands of dedicated athletes. For the Canadians (or Americans for that matter) to think that no other nation could possibly be good enough at curling or alpine skiing or whatever the sport is ridiculous. When Team USA (Men’s Basketball) finished 3rd in the 2004 Olympics, it was embarrassing because it consisted of the best players in the tournament. Any NBA team would gladly take every American player over every other player in the Olympics with the exception of one or two superstars (Manu Ginobli etc.). Women’s Curling is different. From what I saw, there were a number of competitive curlers. Sweden and Switzerland were clearly the best teams in Women’s Curling. For Canadians to feel embarrassed about not winning gold or silver is akin to the Patriots being embarrassed about not winning the Super Bowl this year. Just because you’re good doesn’t mean you’re going to win. That’s a lesson that the American media should learn above all else. That is a third fallacy that I failed to mention above. The same goes for the Canadian Hockey Team. There were six or seven great teams in the men’s hockey tournament. Russia, Sweden, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic all had teams that could match Canada’s prowess. Yet, Canadians were embarrassed because they supposedly “own” hockey.
The Olympics are fun to watch. I love learning the “ins and outs” of quirky sports like Curling and the Biathlon. The Olympics are even more fun to watch when you watch them with an open mind. Preconceived notions will likely ruin your Olympic experience. I’ve come to enjoy watching whatever event is on the screen whether there’s an American competitor or not. I enjoyed watching the Men’s Hockey Tournament infinitely more so than I enjoy the NHL. The Olympics are marketed to Americans as a chance for America to shine and dominate. The reality should be that the Olympics are a time to enjoy sports that are as rare to see on TV as it is to see a wolverine in Michigan. I just hope that I remember not to buy into the hype next time around.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
NCAA Tournament Projections (week of 2-21)
With most teams having no more than four regular season games remaining, the projected field is starting to shape up. Some teams that look to be in trouble (i.e. Maryland) have three winnable games remaining while other teams that appear to be in solid shape (i.e. Cincinnati) may not win another game this season. The last two weeks of conference play will determine which teams slip out of the field and which teams slide in. There was only one change to my projected field this week as I replaced Indiana with NC Wilmington. I had originally included Houston but NC Wilmington’s RPI is 20 spots higher which gives them the nod. I did not make any changes to my projected automatic bids.
Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
1 ACC Duke
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East UCONN
4 Big 12 Texas
5 Big Ten Illinois
6 Pac-10 Washington
7 MVC N. Iowa
8 MWC San Diego St.
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10George Washington
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Kent St.
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt W. Kentucky
16 Horizon Wisconsin-Mil.
17 MAAC Iona
18 Big Sky N. Arizona
19 MCC IUPUI
20 Big West Pacific
21 OVC Murray St.
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Bucknell
25 Southland Northwestern St.
26 Northeast Farleigh Dickinson
27 AEC Albany
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Southern
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Seton Hall
33 At-Large Syracuse
34 At-Large Villanova
35 At-Large Pittsburgh
36 At-Large W. Virginia
37 At-Large Cincinnati
38 At-Large Marquette
39 At-Large Georgetown
40 At-Large NC State
41 At-Large Boston College
42 At-Large N. Carolina
43 At-Large Maryland
44 At-Large California
45 At-Large MSU
46 At-Large NC Wilmington
47 At-Large Michigan
48 At-Large Ohio St.
49 At-Large Wisconsin
50 At-Large Iowa
51 At-Large Kentucky
52 At-Large Tennessee
53 At-Large LSU
54 At-Large Alabama
55 At-Large Oklahoma
56 At-Large Kansas
57 At-Large Colorado
58 At-Large Arkansas
59 At-Large Arizona
60 At-Large UCLA
61 At-Large UAB
62 At-Large Missouri St.
63 At-Large Wichita St.
64 At-Large Creighton
65 At-Large S. Illinois
I haven't listed the 65 teams in order yet. I'll start doing that in a few weeks. The field that I have "projected" now assumes that there are no upsets in the conference tournaments. There could be anywhere from 5-10 teams that make the tournament who wouldn't have otherwise made it just from the conference tournaments alone. That would push five of my "projected" teams out of the field. Come conference tournament time, the last two or three teams that I have in the tourney will probably get pushed out by upsets.
Lowest at-large teams in the tourney from RPI
#65 California
#57 Arkansas
#53 UAB
#47 Colorado
#45 Maryland
#44 Seton Hall
#41 Kansas
#39 Kentucky
#38 Alabama
#37 NC Wilmington
#36 S. Illinois
#35 Washington
#34 Boston College
#33 George Washington
#32 Syracuse
#31 Michigan
#30 Creighton
Highest teams ommitted from RPI
#43 Indiana
#46 Hofstra
#48 St. Joseph's
#49 Air Force
#50 Utah St.
#51 Bradley
#52 Old Dominion
#55 Houston
#56 BYU
#58 S. Carolina
#60 Florida St.
#61 Vanderbilt
#62 Louisiana Tech
#63 Temple
#64 Minnesota
#66 Clemson
#67 Louisville
The last seven teams in the tourney right now:
1. S. Illinois
The Missouri Valley Conference went into the Bracket Buster Tournament with a chance to prove itself as a power conference deserving of five bids. Although some analysts felt that the MVC fell on its face, I didn’t see it that way. The conference’s top seven teams went 5-2. The only bad loss was the S. Illinois home loss to Louisiana Tech. Wichita St. lost the conference’s other game to George Mason which is nothing to be embarrassed about. S. Illinois would’ve been a sure bet to make the NCAA Tournament with a win over La. Tech. A respectable RPI and a couple of big wins against MVC teams are keeping S. Illinois in the tournament right now. However, with a conference game against N. Iowa still on the schedule and the MVC Tournament still to come, the Salukis will likely finish the regular season with ten losses which isn’t ideal for a team looking for a fifth bid from a mid-major conference.
RPI rating: 36
Pomeroy rating: 59
Quality wins: Wichita St., Bradley, Creighton, @ Creighton, Missouri St., Kent St., @ Murray St.
Bad losses: (neutral) Monmouth, @ Alaska-Anchorage, @ St. Louis
2. UAB
UAB probably has the weakest resume of any team seeking an at-large bid. In fact, I can’t rationalize putting UAB in the tournament ahead of Houston. I’m only projecting them ahead of Houston right now because I’m predicting that the committee would take UAB right now. Houston has a couple of bad losses and UAB beat Houston in their only meeting. Luckily for UAB, that meeting was a home game. UAB’s RPI is virtually the same as Houston’s. If UAB loses to SMU or Marshall, it will be out of the tournament field. The same would happen if UAB is upset in the C-USA tournament. C-USA’s RPI is so weak that teams will have to stand out to get a bid.
RPI rating: 53
Pomeroy rating: 56
Quality wins: Old Dominion, Houston
Bad losses: @ DePaul, @ Minnesota, @ UTEP
3. NC Wilmington
The selection committee has historically been kind to mid-major teams with very good computer ratings. NC Wilmington fits the bill. However, NC Wilmington’s resume is very close to the caliber of fellow Colonial Conference member Hofstra. NC Wilmington’s signature win this season was against the conference’s best team; George Mason. It also went 1-1 against Hofstra. Despite its impressive RPI, NC Wilmington only has two quality wins this season. A loss against Va. Commonwealth on Thursday would likely put NC Wilmington out of the tournament.
RPI rating: 37
Pomeroy rating: 52
Quality wins: George Mason, Hofstra
Bad losses: College of Charleston, @ East Carolina
4.Arkansas
Arkansas finally got its marquee win over Florida on Saturday. That win catapulted the Razorbacks into the tournament field. Arkansas will likely lose its next two games before winning its last two to finish 8-8 in the conference. With many close losses against good teams, Arkansas’ resume is much more impressive than its RPI indicates. It would take a 1-3 finish for Arkansas to miss the tourney.
RPI rating: 57
Pomeroy rating: 26
Quality wins: Kansas (neutral), Missouri St, Vanderbilt, Florida
Bad losses: @ Mississippi St., @ Mississippi
5. Michigan
Michigan’s long, slow demise has been equal parts crushing and expected for Michigan fans. Anybody who glanced ahead at the Big Ten schedule back in December and January could’ve predicted Michigan’s February swoon. However, injuries to Lester Abram, Dion Harris, Jerret Smith, and Chris Hunter certainly made things worse. Michigan will likely lose its next two games against Illinois and Ohio St. setting up what amounts to a one-game tournament against Indiana. If Michigan beats Indiana, then the Wolverines are in. If Michigan loses, it will finish 7-9 in the Big Ten having gone 1-7 in its last eight games. At that point, Michigan would have to reach the Big Ten tournament finals just to be considered. With Indiana struggling, Michigan might be able to squeeze out a win. This is a team that will be considerably better come the second week in March with the return of four key players.
RPI rating: 31
Pomeroy rating: 38
Quality wins: Michigan St., Wisconsin
Bad losses: @ Purdue
6. Cincinnati
Cincinnati looks like a lock to make the tournament. However, I don’t think they will make it. I would not be surprised to see the Bearcats lose their last three games and miss the tournament. Cincy has an incredibly high RPI but that might not be good enough to offset a 18-13 record with few marquee wins. The good news for Bearcats fans is that Cincy only needs to win one of its remaining three games to clinch a tourney bid. I’d put the odds right at 50/50.
RPI rating: 27
Pomeroy rating: 40
Quality wins: @ Vanderbilt, LSU (neutral site), @ Marquette, @ Syracuse
Bad losses: Dayton
The teams waiting in the wings:
1. Houston
If UAB is a tournament team, then Houston should be a tournament team as well. Granted, UAB won the only meeting between the teams but it was a home game. The outcome could’ve very well been different if the game was played in Houston. Also, the Cougars have two wins over top twenty teams (LSU and Arizona). Conversely, UAB has zero wins over top 50 teams. If I had to choose, I would take Houston. A bid for UAB would be rewarding a team for playing an incredibly easy schedule.
RPI rating: 55
Pomeroy rating: 84
Quality wins: @ LSU, Arizona
Bad losses: @ Rice, C. Florida, @ UNLV, @ S. Alabama
2. Utah St.
The Aggies are a tough team to figure out when analyzing their tournament chances. Their schedule looks like a bunch of meaningless games wrapped around two games against Nevada. Utah St. has an impressive record but it becomes less impressive when strength of schedule is taken into consideration. Utah St. has one win over the RPI top 55. It has five losses to the RPI +100. The WAC has a fairly decent power rating which gives some credence to the conference receiving two bids but I just don’t see it happening. The power of a specific conference really shouldn’t dictate how many teams that conference gets in the tournament. It’s entirely feasible for a conference to be top-heavy.
RPI rating: 50
Pomeroy rating: 54
Quality wins: BYU, @ Nevada
Bad losses: New Mexico St., @ New Mexico St., @ Middle Tennessee, @ Utah, @ Fresno St.
3. FSU
Florida St. has a terrible RPI. They haven’t beaten anyone of note. Yet, there is a strong possibility that the Seminoles will finish 8-8 in the ACC which could be good enough for an at-large bid. I would not put them in the tournament simply because of an 8-8 ACC record but stranger things have happened. The Seminoles would have to beat Maryland, Va. Tech and Miami (FL). If they lose one of those games, they are NIT bound.
RPI rating: 60
Pomeroy rating: 31
Quality wins: none
Bad losses: @ Clemson
4. Air Force
Air Force’s resume is deplorable. Only one team in the RPI top 55 even shows up on the schedule at all (a loss to Washington). Air Force has the 168th ranked strength of schedule. Also, Air Force’s best win is over San Diego St. which has an RPI of 59. In my opinion, no team with a strength of schedule as low as Air Force’s with no wins against the RPI top 55 deserves to make the tournament.
RPI rating: 49
Pomeroy rating: 42
Quality wins: none
Bad losses: @ Wyoming, @ New Mexico
5. Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt is nowhere near making the tournament as of today. However, if the Commodores go 3-1 in their last four games, they would be 8-8 in the SEC. That would give them a fighting chance to get an at-large bid. Vanderbilt should be able to beat S. Carolina and Mississippi. That would set up two games against LSU and Tennessee for a shot at the tournament. Vanderbilt controls its own destiny.
RPI rating: 61
Pomeroy rating: 50
Quality wins: @ Georgetown, @ Kentucky, Kentucky
Bad losses:
6. Hofstra
If NC Wilmington is a tournament team, then Hofstra is a tournament team too. Here is a comparison of the two teams:
Hofstra
Record: 19-5 (11-4)
Wins vs. RPI top 55: 3
Losses vs RPI 175 +: 1
Record vs. NC Wilmington 1-1
NC Wilmington
Record: 20-7 (13-3)
Wins over RPI top 55: 2
Losses vs RPI 175 +: 2
Record vs. Hofstra 1-1
NC Wilmington did beat George Mason. Hofstra has yet to play George Mason. I’m not saying that Hofstra deserves a bid over NC Wilmington, I’m just saying that Hofstra has every bit the argument to merit at-large consideration. Hofstra won’t receive an at-large bid unless it wins its remaining conference games and reaches the Colonial tournament finals.
RPI rating: 46
Pomeroy rating: 70
Quality wins: NC Wilmington, Old Dominion, @ Old Dominion
Bad losses: @ Towson, @ Northeastern
7. Bradley
If Bradley were in any other mid-major conference, my guess is that they would be in line for an at-large bid. Unfortunately for Bradley, they play in a conference that’s having quite possibly the greatest season ever by a mid-major conference. Bradley has five wins over the RPI top 42. However, a 9-7 record in a mid-major conference won’t be good enough for a bid in any season. Bradley is NIT bound.
RPI rating: 51
Pomeroy rating: 44
Quality wins: W. Kentucky, N. Iowa, Creighton, Missouri St., S. Illinois
Bad losses: @ Loyola Chicago, @ Butler, @ Drake, @ Indiana St.
8. Stanford
Stanford is 9-5 in the Pac-10. I don’t think there has been a team in college basketball history from a major conference to finish four games above .500 in conference and miss the tournament. Stanford will probably be the first team. If the Cardinal can go 3-1 in its last four games, that would be good enough for a 12-6 conference record. The selection committee would then be forced into the unenviable position of deciding Stanford’s tournament fate. For those of you wondering what the problem with Stanford getting a bid is, it has to do with Stanford’s abysmal RPI rating of 88.
RPI rating: 88
Pomeroy rating: 68
Quality wins: California, Washington
Bad losses: UC Irvine, @ Montana, @ UC Davis, Va. Tech, @ USC
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (5)
Duke
NC State
Boston College
N. Carolina
Maryland
SEC (6)
Florida
Kentucky
LSU
Tennessee
Arkansas
Alabama
Big East (9)
UCONN
Syracuse
Villanova
Pittsburgh
W. Virginia
Cincinnati
Marquette
Georgetown
Seton Hall
Big 12 (4)
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Colorado
Big Ten (6)
Illinois
MSU
Michigan
Ohio St.
Wisconsin
Iowa
Pac-10 (4)
Washington
Arizona
UCLA
California
C-USA (2)
Memphis
UAB
A-10 (1)
GW
MVC (5)
N. Iowa
Creighton
Wichita St.
S. Illinois
Missouri St.
Colonial (2)
George Mason
NC Wilmington
Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
1 ACC Duke
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East UCONN
4 Big 12 Texas
5 Big Ten Illinois
6 Pac-10 Washington
7 MVC N. Iowa
8 MWC San Diego St.
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10George Washington
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Kent St.
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt W. Kentucky
16 Horizon Wisconsin-Mil.
17 MAAC Iona
18 Big Sky N. Arizona
19 MCC IUPUI
20 Big West Pacific
21 OVC Murray St.
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Bucknell
25 Southland Northwestern St.
26 Northeast Farleigh Dickinson
27 AEC Albany
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Southern
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Seton Hall
33 At-Large Syracuse
34 At-Large Villanova
35 At-Large Pittsburgh
36 At-Large W. Virginia
37 At-Large Cincinnati
38 At-Large Marquette
39 At-Large Georgetown
40 At-Large NC State
41 At-Large Boston College
42 At-Large N. Carolina
43 At-Large Maryland
44 At-Large California
45 At-Large MSU
46 At-Large NC Wilmington
47 At-Large Michigan
48 At-Large Ohio St.
49 At-Large Wisconsin
50 At-Large Iowa
51 At-Large Kentucky
52 At-Large Tennessee
53 At-Large LSU
54 At-Large Alabama
55 At-Large Oklahoma
56 At-Large Kansas
57 At-Large Colorado
58 At-Large Arkansas
59 At-Large Arizona
60 At-Large UCLA
61 At-Large UAB
62 At-Large Missouri St.
63 At-Large Wichita St.
64 At-Large Creighton
65 At-Large S. Illinois
I haven't listed the 65 teams in order yet. I'll start doing that in a few weeks. The field that I have "projected" now assumes that there are no upsets in the conference tournaments. There could be anywhere from 5-10 teams that make the tournament who wouldn't have otherwise made it just from the conference tournaments alone. That would push five of my "projected" teams out of the field. Come conference tournament time, the last two or three teams that I have in the tourney will probably get pushed out by upsets.
Lowest at-large teams in the tourney from RPI
#65 California
#57 Arkansas
#53 UAB
#47 Colorado
#45 Maryland
#44 Seton Hall
#41 Kansas
#39 Kentucky
#38 Alabama
#37 NC Wilmington
#36 S. Illinois
#35 Washington
#34 Boston College
#33 George Washington
#32 Syracuse
#31 Michigan
#30 Creighton
Highest teams ommitted from RPI
#43 Indiana
#46 Hofstra
#48 St. Joseph's
#49 Air Force
#50 Utah St.
#51 Bradley
#52 Old Dominion
#55 Houston
#56 BYU
#58 S. Carolina
#60 Florida St.
#61 Vanderbilt
#62 Louisiana Tech
#63 Temple
#64 Minnesota
#66 Clemson
#67 Louisville
The last seven teams in the tourney right now:
1. S. Illinois
The Missouri Valley Conference went into the Bracket Buster Tournament with a chance to prove itself as a power conference deserving of five bids. Although some analysts felt that the MVC fell on its face, I didn’t see it that way. The conference’s top seven teams went 5-2. The only bad loss was the S. Illinois home loss to Louisiana Tech. Wichita St. lost the conference’s other game to George Mason which is nothing to be embarrassed about. S. Illinois would’ve been a sure bet to make the NCAA Tournament with a win over La. Tech. A respectable RPI and a couple of big wins against MVC teams are keeping S. Illinois in the tournament right now. However, with a conference game against N. Iowa still on the schedule and the MVC Tournament still to come, the Salukis will likely finish the regular season with ten losses which isn’t ideal for a team looking for a fifth bid from a mid-major conference.
RPI rating: 36
Pomeroy rating: 59
Quality wins: Wichita St., Bradley, Creighton, @ Creighton, Missouri St., Kent St., @ Murray St.
Bad losses: (neutral) Monmouth, @ Alaska-Anchorage, @ St. Louis
2. UAB
UAB probably has the weakest resume of any team seeking an at-large bid. In fact, I can’t rationalize putting UAB in the tournament ahead of Houston. I’m only projecting them ahead of Houston right now because I’m predicting that the committee would take UAB right now. Houston has a couple of bad losses and UAB beat Houston in their only meeting. Luckily for UAB, that meeting was a home game. UAB’s RPI is virtually the same as Houston’s. If UAB loses to SMU or Marshall, it will be out of the tournament field. The same would happen if UAB is upset in the C-USA tournament. C-USA’s RPI is so weak that teams will have to stand out to get a bid.
RPI rating: 53
Pomeroy rating: 56
Quality wins: Old Dominion, Houston
Bad losses: @ DePaul, @ Minnesota, @ UTEP
3. NC Wilmington
The selection committee has historically been kind to mid-major teams with very good computer ratings. NC Wilmington fits the bill. However, NC Wilmington’s resume is very close to the caliber of fellow Colonial Conference member Hofstra. NC Wilmington’s signature win this season was against the conference’s best team; George Mason. It also went 1-1 against Hofstra. Despite its impressive RPI, NC Wilmington only has two quality wins this season. A loss against Va. Commonwealth on Thursday would likely put NC Wilmington out of the tournament.
RPI rating: 37
Pomeroy rating: 52
Quality wins: George Mason, Hofstra
Bad losses: College of Charleston, @ East Carolina
4.Arkansas
Arkansas finally got its marquee win over Florida on Saturday. That win catapulted the Razorbacks into the tournament field. Arkansas will likely lose its next two games before winning its last two to finish 8-8 in the conference. With many close losses against good teams, Arkansas’ resume is much more impressive than its RPI indicates. It would take a 1-3 finish for Arkansas to miss the tourney.
RPI rating: 57
Pomeroy rating: 26
Quality wins: Kansas (neutral), Missouri St, Vanderbilt, Florida
Bad losses: @ Mississippi St., @ Mississippi
5. Michigan
Michigan’s long, slow demise has been equal parts crushing and expected for Michigan fans. Anybody who glanced ahead at the Big Ten schedule back in December and January could’ve predicted Michigan’s February swoon. However, injuries to Lester Abram, Dion Harris, Jerret Smith, and Chris Hunter certainly made things worse. Michigan will likely lose its next two games against Illinois and Ohio St. setting up what amounts to a one-game tournament against Indiana. If Michigan beats Indiana, then the Wolverines are in. If Michigan loses, it will finish 7-9 in the Big Ten having gone 1-7 in its last eight games. At that point, Michigan would have to reach the Big Ten tournament finals just to be considered. With Indiana struggling, Michigan might be able to squeeze out a win. This is a team that will be considerably better come the second week in March with the return of four key players.
RPI rating: 31
Pomeroy rating: 38
Quality wins: Michigan St., Wisconsin
Bad losses: @ Purdue
6. Cincinnati
Cincinnati looks like a lock to make the tournament. However, I don’t think they will make it. I would not be surprised to see the Bearcats lose their last three games and miss the tournament. Cincy has an incredibly high RPI but that might not be good enough to offset a 18-13 record with few marquee wins. The good news for Bearcats fans is that Cincy only needs to win one of its remaining three games to clinch a tourney bid. I’d put the odds right at 50/50.
RPI rating: 27
Pomeroy rating: 40
Quality wins: @ Vanderbilt, LSU (neutral site), @ Marquette, @ Syracuse
Bad losses: Dayton
The teams waiting in the wings:
1. Houston
If UAB is a tournament team, then Houston should be a tournament team as well. Granted, UAB won the only meeting between the teams but it was a home game. The outcome could’ve very well been different if the game was played in Houston. Also, the Cougars have two wins over top twenty teams (LSU and Arizona). Conversely, UAB has zero wins over top 50 teams. If I had to choose, I would take Houston. A bid for UAB would be rewarding a team for playing an incredibly easy schedule.
RPI rating: 55
Pomeroy rating: 84
Quality wins: @ LSU, Arizona
Bad losses: @ Rice, C. Florida, @ UNLV, @ S. Alabama
2. Utah St.
The Aggies are a tough team to figure out when analyzing their tournament chances. Their schedule looks like a bunch of meaningless games wrapped around two games against Nevada. Utah St. has an impressive record but it becomes less impressive when strength of schedule is taken into consideration. Utah St. has one win over the RPI top 55. It has five losses to the RPI +100. The WAC has a fairly decent power rating which gives some credence to the conference receiving two bids but I just don’t see it happening. The power of a specific conference really shouldn’t dictate how many teams that conference gets in the tournament. It’s entirely feasible for a conference to be top-heavy.
RPI rating: 50
Pomeroy rating: 54
Quality wins: BYU, @ Nevada
Bad losses: New Mexico St., @ New Mexico St., @ Middle Tennessee, @ Utah, @ Fresno St.
3. FSU
Florida St. has a terrible RPI. They haven’t beaten anyone of note. Yet, there is a strong possibility that the Seminoles will finish 8-8 in the ACC which could be good enough for an at-large bid. I would not put them in the tournament simply because of an 8-8 ACC record but stranger things have happened. The Seminoles would have to beat Maryland, Va. Tech and Miami (FL). If they lose one of those games, they are NIT bound.
RPI rating: 60
Pomeroy rating: 31
Quality wins: none
Bad losses: @ Clemson
4. Air Force
Air Force’s resume is deplorable. Only one team in the RPI top 55 even shows up on the schedule at all (a loss to Washington). Air Force has the 168th ranked strength of schedule. Also, Air Force’s best win is over San Diego St. which has an RPI of 59. In my opinion, no team with a strength of schedule as low as Air Force’s with no wins against the RPI top 55 deserves to make the tournament.
RPI rating: 49
Pomeroy rating: 42
Quality wins: none
Bad losses: @ Wyoming, @ New Mexico
5. Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt is nowhere near making the tournament as of today. However, if the Commodores go 3-1 in their last four games, they would be 8-8 in the SEC. That would give them a fighting chance to get an at-large bid. Vanderbilt should be able to beat S. Carolina and Mississippi. That would set up two games against LSU and Tennessee for a shot at the tournament. Vanderbilt controls its own destiny.
RPI rating: 61
Pomeroy rating: 50
Quality wins: @ Georgetown, @ Kentucky, Kentucky
Bad losses:
6. Hofstra
If NC Wilmington is a tournament team, then Hofstra is a tournament team too. Here is a comparison of the two teams:
Hofstra
Record: 19-5 (11-4)
Wins vs. RPI top 55: 3
Losses vs RPI 175 +: 1
Record vs. NC Wilmington 1-1
NC Wilmington
Record: 20-7 (13-3)
Wins over RPI top 55: 2
Losses vs RPI 175 +: 2
Record vs. Hofstra 1-1
NC Wilmington did beat George Mason. Hofstra has yet to play George Mason. I’m not saying that Hofstra deserves a bid over NC Wilmington, I’m just saying that Hofstra has every bit the argument to merit at-large consideration. Hofstra won’t receive an at-large bid unless it wins its remaining conference games and reaches the Colonial tournament finals.
RPI rating: 46
Pomeroy rating: 70
Quality wins: NC Wilmington, Old Dominion, @ Old Dominion
Bad losses: @ Towson, @ Northeastern
7. Bradley
If Bradley were in any other mid-major conference, my guess is that they would be in line for an at-large bid. Unfortunately for Bradley, they play in a conference that’s having quite possibly the greatest season ever by a mid-major conference. Bradley has five wins over the RPI top 42. However, a 9-7 record in a mid-major conference won’t be good enough for a bid in any season. Bradley is NIT bound.
RPI rating: 51
Pomeroy rating: 44
Quality wins: W. Kentucky, N. Iowa, Creighton, Missouri St., S. Illinois
Bad losses: @ Loyola Chicago, @ Butler, @ Drake, @ Indiana St.
8. Stanford
Stanford is 9-5 in the Pac-10. I don’t think there has been a team in college basketball history from a major conference to finish four games above .500 in conference and miss the tournament. Stanford will probably be the first team. If the Cardinal can go 3-1 in its last four games, that would be good enough for a 12-6 conference record. The selection committee would then be forced into the unenviable position of deciding Stanford’s tournament fate. For those of you wondering what the problem with Stanford getting a bid is, it has to do with Stanford’s abysmal RPI rating of 88.
RPI rating: 88
Pomeroy rating: 68
Quality wins: California, Washington
Bad losses: UC Irvine, @ Montana, @ UC Davis, Va. Tech, @ USC
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (5)
Duke
NC State
Boston College
N. Carolina
Maryland
SEC (6)
Florida
Kentucky
LSU
Tennessee
Arkansas
Alabama
Big East (9)
UCONN
Syracuse
Villanova
Pittsburgh
W. Virginia
Cincinnati
Marquette
Georgetown
Seton Hall
Big 12 (4)
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Colorado
Big Ten (6)
Illinois
MSU
Michigan
Ohio St.
Wisconsin
Iowa
Pac-10 (4)
Washington
Arizona
UCLA
California
C-USA (2)
Memphis
UAB
A-10 (1)
GW
MVC (5)
N. Iowa
Creighton
Wichita St.
S. Illinois
Missouri St.
Colonial (2)
George Mason
NC Wilmington
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
The Diesel's big advantage
I will be traveling to Scotland tomorrow so my next post won’t be until Monday at the earliest. This should be an exciting weekend in the sports world with Michigan-Michigan St. and the Bracket Buster in college basketball. The NBA All-Star game featuring four Pistons should be memorable as will the Olympics. Sadly, I probably won’t be watching any of it. Something tells me that might not be such a bad thing (MSU-UM). Have an enjoyable weekend!
This site often doubles as a venting zone for me. Sometimes it takes me a while to get fed up enough to devote a lengthy post complaining about something. Well, the time has come for me to vent about a particular situation that seems to bother me more and more each year. As you might have guessed from the title of this post, it has to do with Shaquille O’Neal.
In a way, my complaint isn’t really with Shaq at all. He’s completely innocent of any wrongdoing. I’ve long felt that Shaq is the most unstoppable force that has ever played in the NBA. He’s an athletic wonder who moves amazingly well for a man that stands over seven feet tall and 330 pounds. He was my favorite basketball player when he was at LSU with Chris Jackson. I was perplexed and outraged when Christian Laettner made the 1992 Dream Team over Shaq. Shaq was the better player then and a better player now. While I don’t hold the same affection for Shaq as I did back then, I still respect his incredible athleticism and low-post prowess.
Shaq has made the All-Star team 13 times. He is unanimously considered a top-10 player in NBA history. He’s won an MVP award and three Finals MVP awards. His career averages are an amazing 27 points and 12 rebounds. Few can match those credentials. Additionally, I highly doubt that anybody will ever be able to match Shaq’s physical dominance in the NBA. Wilt Chamberlain dominated in an era where big men were 6’7. Shaq would’ve scored 100 points per game if he played during that era.
That said, Shaq’s dominance would not be possible if he weren’t allowed to break the rules more blatantly that any player in NBA history. As a frequent player of the game of basketball and knowledgeable fan of the NBA, I understand the rules quite well. The NBA referees have an entirely different rulebook for Shaq. Some might argue that this is necessary because Shaq’s size poses a problem. I feel that this is a cop-out of monumental proportions. The reality is that if the referees called a foul every time Shaq committed a foul, the Diesel would have to change his game so much that he wouldn’t be nearly as effective or risk fouling out of every game in the first half. The NBA is clearly not in the interest of sabotaging the game of one of its marquee players so they let Shaq break the rules.
Shaq started off his NBA career in an entirely different manner. He shocked the NBA in his rookie season by making quick moves to the basket and using his athleticism to get around defenders. His combination of size, quickness and power was something the NBA had never seen before especially from a rookie. As his career progressed, he relied more and more on his size to the point that his primary offensive weapon is powering through a defender. In a sense, his progress as a basketball player was sacrificed by a combination of the refs letting him get away with committing offensive fouls and his ever increasing size.
Every superstar in the NBA gets “calls” that the average player doesn’t get. It’s a fact of the game. Michael Jordan got the benefit of the doubt virtually every time he drove the lane. However, Jordan was given the benefit of the doubt when people fouled him or appeared to foul him. Shaq is allowed to gain an advantage by fouling other people and getting away with it. That is an advantage that nobody has ever had in the NBA.
I really have no idea how the general public feels about this issue. My guess is that there are some people that feel that the contact that occurs with Shaq and other players in the lane is incidental. Others might refuse to give credence to Shaq’s advantage because it would take away from Shaq’s accomplishments and notoriety (probably LA Lakers and Miami Heat fans.). I would be surprised, however, if the majority of the NBA fans haven’t noticed this.
I have read the argument that because of Shaq’s size, he takes more abuse from defenders. That argument is hogwash. Countless times per game, Shaq bulls over a defender often knocking the player to the floor. It often results in an uncontested dunk while the player on the floor looks around in bewilderment. Since Shaq has gotten away with punishing defenders for 14 years with illegal contact, defenders have no recourse other than to brace for the contact. Over time, NBA defenders have realized that Shaq will likely not be called for an offensive foul if they get knocked down. So, they often initiate contact to offset the impending collision. That is hardly the defenders fault. That is simply a result of the NBA referee’s double-standard over the last 14 years.
Shaq is also guilty of pushing people out of the way going for offensive rebounds. This has long been attributed to his enormous size. The fact of the matter is that size makes absolutely no difference. Just because someone is bigger doesn’t change what constitutes a foul. Charging is defined as illegal contact by pushing or moving into another player's torso. Pushing is defined as contact which attempts to force a player to move. Those rules go for players that are 175 pounds or 375 pounds. Shaq already has tremendous advantages due to his size. He should be able to box out every player in the league. He should be able to establish position every time down the court. He should be a dominating shot blocker. He is all of those things. Those are advantages that come with having incredible size. But, he has much more than that. He is allowed to bull players over on the offensive end. He is allowed to push people out of the way when going for rebounds.
Fortunately, this argument will soon be moot as far as how it effects the NBA. Shaq will retire soon and we will unlikely see someone who’s a) as big as he is and b) allowed to break the rules for a long time. However, I am surprised that more hasn’t been made of this situation. I have never seen an athlete in any sport that has been allowed to break the rules like Shaq has. The equivalent would be like letting Randy Moss push off on every deep throw. That seems laughable. Moss is already an athletic freak. He doesn’t need a bigger advantage. Yet, Shaq is allotted just that luxury. It has become common belief that a player as big as Shaq can’t help but to push off and bull people over. How this became an accepted belief is beyond me. That would be like someone saying that they can’t help but to drive 100 MPH because they drive a Ferrari. Rules are rules. The fact that Shaq has only been called for an average of 3.4 fouls per game over his NBA career reeks of impropriety on the referee’s behalf.
I watched the Miami-Detroit game this past Sunday. Shaq was shoving people around on what seemed like every other possession. At one point, the Pistons had Antonio McDyess guarding Shaq. Based on the NBA rules, Shaq would have to drive by (around) McDyess or shoot a jump shot to score. This is how the plays generally unfolded: 1) Shaq blasts his body into McDyess, 2) McDyess tries to body up Shaq to avoid being knocked to the floor 3). Either McDyess is called for a foul or he is knocked to the floor 4) Shaq gets free throws or he dunks over a battered McDyess. It did not take the slightest inkling of basketball skill for Shaq to score on McDyess. Shaq did not score because McDyess couldn’t defend him. Shaq scored on McDyess because the refs did not follow the NBA rule book. No wonder McDyess can’t stop Shaq. If I were playing against my four-year old neighbors, I would already have a size advantage to begin with. Now, imagine if I was also allowed to thrash my body into them as I drove to the lane. My four-year old neighbors would be lying on the ground crying in a puddle of their own blood as I dunked in their faces. Yet, nobody cares when Shaq is afforded the same luxury.
I realize that this will likely fall on def ears in terms of affecting how people view Shaq. The NBA won’t all of a sudden start calling Shaq like every other player. The precedent has been set. However, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t annoy me (and possibly you) considerably. It also doesn’t mean that I can’t take the Diesel’s big advantage into consideration when I rate him among the NBA greats. Shaq is a good basketball player but he isn’t nearly as good as the NBA has allowed him to be. If you don’t believe me, then tell me how a player who isn’t quick, can’t shoot free throws, lacks stamina, can’t shoot three pointers, can’t shoot outside of ten feet and can’t dribble facing the basket can dominate a game that is filled with players who are proficient in all of those areas (i.e. Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett).
This site often doubles as a venting zone for me. Sometimes it takes me a while to get fed up enough to devote a lengthy post complaining about something. Well, the time has come for me to vent about a particular situation that seems to bother me more and more each year. As you might have guessed from the title of this post, it has to do with Shaquille O’Neal.
In a way, my complaint isn’t really with Shaq at all. He’s completely innocent of any wrongdoing. I’ve long felt that Shaq is the most unstoppable force that has ever played in the NBA. He’s an athletic wonder who moves amazingly well for a man that stands over seven feet tall and 330 pounds. He was my favorite basketball player when he was at LSU with Chris Jackson. I was perplexed and outraged when Christian Laettner made the 1992 Dream Team over Shaq. Shaq was the better player then and a better player now. While I don’t hold the same affection for Shaq as I did back then, I still respect his incredible athleticism and low-post prowess.
Shaq has made the All-Star team 13 times. He is unanimously considered a top-10 player in NBA history. He’s won an MVP award and three Finals MVP awards. His career averages are an amazing 27 points and 12 rebounds. Few can match those credentials. Additionally, I highly doubt that anybody will ever be able to match Shaq’s physical dominance in the NBA. Wilt Chamberlain dominated in an era where big men were 6’7. Shaq would’ve scored 100 points per game if he played during that era.
That said, Shaq’s dominance would not be possible if he weren’t allowed to break the rules more blatantly that any player in NBA history. As a frequent player of the game of basketball and knowledgeable fan of the NBA, I understand the rules quite well. The NBA referees have an entirely different rulebook for Shaq. Some might argue that this is necessary because Shaq’s size poses a problem. I feel that this is a cop-out of monumental proportions. The reality is that if the referees called a foul every time Shaq committed a foul, the Diesel would have to change his game so much that he wouldn’t be nearly as effective or risk fouling out of every game in the first half. The NBA is clearly not in the interest of sabotaging the game of one of its marquee players so they let Shaq break the rules.
Shaq started off his NBA career in an entirely different manner. He shocked the NBA in his rookie season by making quick moves to the basket and using his athleticism to get around defenders. His combination of size, quickness and power was something the NBA had never seen before especially from a rookie. As his career progressed, he relied more and more on his size to the point that his primary offensive weapon is powering through a defender. In a sense, his progress as a basketball player was sacrificed by a combination of the refs letting him get away with committing offensive fouls and his ever increasing size.
Every superstar in the NBA gets “calls” that the average player doesn’t get. It’s a fact of the game. Michael Jordan got the benefit of the doubt virtually every time he drove the lane. However, Jordan was given the benefit of the doubt when people fouled him or appeared to foul him. Shaq is allowed to gain an advantage by fouling other people and getting away with it. That is an advantage that nobody has ever had in the NBA.
I really have no idea how the general public feels about this issue. My guess is that there are some people that feel that the contact that occurs with Shaq and other players in the lane is incidental. Others might refuse to give credence to Shaq’s advantage because it would take away from Shaq’s accomplishments and notoriety (probably LA Lakers and Miami Heat fans.). I would be surprised, however, if the majority of the NBA fans haven’t noticed this.
I have read the argument that because of Shaq’s size, he takes more abuse from defenders. That argument is hogwash. Countless times per game, Shaq bulls over a defender often knocking the player to the floor. It often results in an uncontested dunk while the player on the floor looks around in bewilderment. Since Shaq has gotten away with punishing defenders for 14 years with illegal contact, defenders have no recourse other than to brace for the contact. Over time, NBA defenders have realized that Shaq will likely not be called for an offensive foul if they get knocked down. So, they often initiate contact to offset the impending collision. That is hardly the defenders fault. That is simply a result of the NBA referee’s double-standard over the last 14 years.
Shaq is also guilty of pushing people out of the way going for offensive rebounds. This has long been attributed to his enormous size. The fact of the matter is that size makes absolutely no difference. Just because someone is bigger doesn’t change what constitutes a foul. Charging is defined as illegal contact by pushing or moving into another player's torso. Pushing is defined as contact which attempts to force a player to move. Those rules go for players that are 175 pounds or 375 pounds. Shaq already has tremendous advantages due to his size. He should be able to box out every player in the league. He should be able to establish position every time down the court. He should be a dominating shot blocker. He is all of those things. Those are advantages that come with having incredible size. But, he has much more than that. He is allowed to bull players over on the offensive end. He is allowed to push people out of the way when going for rebounds.
Fortunately, this argument will soon be moot as far as how it effects the NBA. Shaq will retire soon and we will unlikely see someone who’s a) as big as he is and b) allowed to break the rules for a long time. However, I am surprised that more hasn’t been made of this situation. I have never seen an athlete in any sport that has been allowed to break the rules like Shaq has. The equivalent would be like letting Randy Moss push off on every deep throw. That seems laughable. Moss is already an athletic freak. He doesn’t need a bigger advantage. Yet, Shaq is allotted just that luxury. It has become common belief that a player as big as Shaq can’t help but to push off and bull people over. How this became an accepted belief is beyond me. That would be like someone saying that they can’t help but to drive 100 MPH because they drive a Ferrari. Rules are rules. The fact that Shaq has only been called for an average of 3.4 fouls per game over his NBA career reeks of impropriety on the referee’s behalf.
I watched the Miami-Detroit game this past Sunday. Shaq was shoving people around on what seemed like every other possession. At one point, the Pistons had Antonio McDyess guarding Shaq. Based on the NBA rules, Shaq would have to drive by (around) McDyess or shoot a jump shot to score. This is how the plays generally unfolded: 1) Shaq blasts his body into McDyess, 2) McDyess tries to body up Shaq to avoid being knocked to the floor 3). Either McDyess is called for a foul or he is knocked to the floor 4) Shaq gets free throws or he dunks over a battered McDyess. It did not take the slightest inkling of basketball skill for Shaq to score on McDyess. Shaq did not score because McDyess couldn’t defend him. Shaq scored on McDyess because the refs did not follow the NBA rule book. No wonder McDyess can’t stop Shaq. If I were playing against my four-year old neighbors, I would already have a size advantage to begin with. Now, imagine if I was also allowed to thrash my body into them as I drove to the lane. My four-year old neighbors would be lying on the ground crying in a puddle of their own blood as I dunked in their faces. Yet, nobody cares when Shaq is afforded the same luxury.
I realize that this will likely fall on def ears in terms of affecting how people view Shaq. The NBA won’t all of a sudden start calling Shaq like every other player. The precedent has been set. However, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t annoy me (and possibly you) considerably. It also doesn’t mean that I can’t take the Diesel’s big advantage into consideration when I rate him among the NBA greats. Shaq is a good basketball player but he isn’t nearly as good as the NBA has allowed him to be. If you don’t believe me, then tell me how a player who isn’t quick, can’t shoot free throws, lacks stamina, can’t shoot three pointers, can’t shoot outside of ten feet and can’t dribble facing the basket can dominate a game that is filled with players who are proficient in all of those areas (i.e. Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett).
Monday, February 13, 2006
NCAA Tournament Projections (week of 2-13)
As the season rolls along, each week provides less movement by teams going on and off my projected NCAA Tournament list. However, a two or three game winning/losing streak can happen in just seven short days. That means teams can go from firmly being in the projections (Michigan, Kentucky) to barely hanging on to an at-large bid in the span of a week. Conversely, teams can go from “also-ran” status to being firmly in the field (Alabama, Seton Hall). It seems like this year’s crop of bubble teams is much weaker than in years past. Teams like Cincinnati and Kentucky are carrying around questionable resumes but with a short list of qualified teams to take their place, I can’t project those two teams out of the tournament yet.
Here are the changes I made to the projected automatic bid winners:
MWC San Diego St. replaces Air Force
Big West Pacific replaces UC Irvine
Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
1 ACC Duke
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East UCONN
4 Big 12 Texas
5 Big Ten Illinois
6 Pac-10 Washington
7 MVC N. Iowa
8 MWC San Diego St.
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 George Washington
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Kent St.
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt W. Kentucky
16 Horizon Wisconsin-Mil.
17 MAAC Iona
18 Big Sky N. Arizona
19 MCC IUPUI
20 Big West Pacific
21 OVC Murray St.
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Bucknell
25 Southland Northwestern St.
26 Northeast Farleigh Dickinson
27 AEC Albany
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Southern
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Seton Hall
33 At-Large Syracuse
34 At-Large Villanova
35 At-Large Pittsburgh
36 At-Large W. Virginia
37 At-Large Cincinnati
38 At-Large Marquette
39 At-Large Georgetown
40 At-Large NC State
41 At-Large Boston College
42 At-Large N. Carolina
43 At-Large Maryland
44 At-Large California
45 At-Large MSU
46 At-Large Indiana
47 At-Large Michigan
48 At-Large Ohio St.
49 At-Large Wisconsin
50 At-Large Iowa
51 At-Large Kentucky
52 At-Large Tennessee
53 At-Large LSU
54 At-Large Alabama
55 At-Large Oklahoma
56 At-Large Kansas
57 At-Large Colorado
58 At-Large Arkansas
59 At-Large Arizona
60 At-Large UCLA
61 At-Large UAB
62 At-Large Missouri St.
63 At-Large Wichita St.
64 At-Large Creighton
65 At-Large S. Illinois
I haven't listed the 65 teams in order yet. I'll start doing that in a few weeks. The field that I have "projected" now assumes that there are no upsets in the conference tournaments. There could be anywhere from 5-10 teams that make the tournament who wouldn't have otherwise made it just from the conference tournaments alone. That would push five of my "projected" teams out of the field. Come conference tournament time, the last two or three teams that I have in the tourney will probably get pushed out by upsets.
The last seven teams in the tourney right now:
1. Alabama
Alabama is projected to be in the tournament for the first time since November. The Crimson Tide opened the season on a disappointing note after unanimously being considered a top 25 team. On Dec. 31, Alabama stood at 6-5. Now, the Tide is 14-8 including an impressive 7-3 record in the SEC. This past week, Alabama beat LSU, Vanderbilt and Mississippi. If Alabama can finish its last six conference games at 3-3 or better, it will be tourney bound.
RPI rating: 42
Pomeroy rating: 73
Quality wins: @ Kentucky, Arkansas, LSU, Vanderbilt
Bad losses: Mississippi, @ Georgia
2. Arkansas
The Razorbacks almost pulled off a tournament bid-clinching victory at LSU this week. Instead of picking up the monumental win, they lost 78-77 to stay firmly on the bubble. Arkansas has the lowest RPI of any team that I have projected in the tournament field. I have to admit that I’m a bit confused by its low number. The Razorbacks have good non-conference wins and stand at 5-5 in the SEC. Also, in each of Arkansas five conference losses, it has lost by less than five points. Arkansas’ Pomeroy rating is very impressive at 26 so hopefully the selection committee will take that into consideration. Nonetheless, it looks like Arkansas will have to pull off a big win down the stretch to improve its RPI to something more respectable.
RPI rating: 66
Pomeroy rating: 26
Quality wins: Kansas (neutral site), Missouri St., Vanderbilt,
Bad losses: @ Mississippi
3. Cincinnati
I don’t think Cincinnati will make the tournament. Its remaining Big East schedule is just too daunting. The Bearcats are only 5-6 in the conference with games @ Syracuse, Villanova, @ Seton Hall, and W. Virginia still left on their schedule. I don’t anticipate Cincinnati doing any better than 2-3 in those games leaving it at 7-9 in conference play. Even though there are worse resumes among bubble teams in terms of “bad losses” and “RPI”, Cincinnati’s is hardly impressive.
RPI rating: 32
Pomeroy rating: 49
Quality wins: LSU (neutral site), @ Vanderbilt, @ Marquette,
Bad losses: Dayton
4. Kentucky
Kentucky is in trouble. I thought the Wildcats would take advantage of a weak SEC. It looked like they were going to do just that after starting off 5-2 in conference play. However, three straight losses have put Kentucky at an unenviable record of 15-9. With a resume lacking of quality wins, Kentucky needs to beat a good team. The good news for Kentucky is that the next three games should be wins (Georgia, @ S. Carolina, and Mississippi). That would set up Kentucky nicely for its brutal three-game stretch to close out SEC play which includes game @ LSU, @ Tennessee, and Florida. A 4-2 record in those six games would clinch a bid. A 3-3 record would probably require a strong showing in the SEC tournament. A team with 13 losses doesn’t normally get into the tournament.
RPI rating: 44
Pomeroy rating: 53
Quality wins: W. Virginia (neutral site), Arkansas
Bad losses: none
5. Missouri St.
No team did more for its tournament chances this week than Missouri St. Last week, it looked like Missouri St. was destined for the NIT. The Bears beat N. Iowa on the road in a must-win game to raise their RPI to an impressive 26. The Missouri Valley Conference usually doesn’t stand a chance at four at-large bids but the teams from this conference are forcing the committee’s hand by keeping their RPI’s in the top 30. Missouri St. was lacking a marquee win to go along with an impressive record and solid RPI. The victory on the road over N. Iowa has bolstered an already strong resume.
RPI rating: 26
Pomeroy rating: 30
Quality wins: S. Illinois, Bradley, @ N. Iowa
Bad losses: none
6. Indiana
Indiana is a mess right now. What looked to be a promising season has gone south. It wasn’t a coincidence that Indiana’s struggles started when D.J. White went down for the season. The Hoosiers are wasting the unexpected emergence of senior transfer Marco Killingsworth. This was the season for Indiana to break out. Since it didn’t happen, this could be the season that puts Mike Davis on notice. Fans in Bloomington want more than what they’re getting and Davis obviously knows this after his comment this past week. Luckily for Indiana, there is a Big Ten team that is struggling even more. That team is Michigan. Indiana has six Big Ten games remaining. With two games against Penn St. and two others against Purdue and Michigan, the Hoosiers should go 4-2 in those games which would be good enough for 9-7 in the Big Ten. That would get Indiana in.
RPI rating: 35
Pomeroy rating: 50
Quality wins: Kentucky, Ohio St., Illinois
Bad losses: @ Indiana St., @ Minnesota
8. Michigan
If the season ended today, Michigan would be in the tournament. Unfortunately for Michigan, the season doesn’t end today and they won’t be in the tournament come March. The bad breaks keep coming in Ann Arbor for Tommy Amaker. Two weeks ago, if you would’ve asked a college basketball “expert” whether Michigan will make the tournament or not, they’d laugh in your face for asking such a silly question. Three straight losses later, the wheels are falling off. Entering this week, Michigan only needed to beat Purdue and Minnesota to secure a tournament bid. That means Michigan could’ve gone 2-4 in its last six games and still made the tournament. Michigan got blasted by Purdue this week which leaves only one winnable game left on the schedule. Michigan will like lose its last four games and finish 7-9 in the Big Ten.
RPI rating: 31
Pomeroy rating: 39
Quality wins: Michigan St., Wisconsin
Bad losses: @ Purdue
The teams waiting in the wings:
The teams on this list aren’t as close to being in the tournament as it appears. As of now, I can conveniently assume that teams like Gonzaga and Nevada will win their conference’s automatic bids. If they don’t, some of the teams that I have projected in the tournament will get bumped which will push the teams below even farther down the list. But, like Alabama and Seton Hall, it is possible for a team to come off of this list and jump into the 65-team field.
1. Vanderbilt
Vandy is holding on to a position on the bubble admirably. After embarking on a four-game losing streak, Vandy beat Kentucky for the second time this season to bring its conference record to 4-6. If the Commodores can go 4-2 in their last six conference games, they will make the NCAA Tournament. The problem is that I see three wins at the most.
RPI rating: 58
Pomeroy rating: 60
Quality wins: @ Georgetown, @ Kentucky, Kentucky
Bad losses: @ Ga. Tech, Georgia
2. NC Wilmington
My guess is that NC Wilmington will have a top 45 RPI at the end of the season. The question will be whether or not NC Wilmington’s unimpressive resume is impressive enough for the selection committee. The Seahawks have virtually no marquee wins while playing in a mid-tier conference. That doesn’t bode well for a tournament bid.
RPI rating: 45
Pomeroy rating: 54
Quality wins: George Mason
Bad losses: College of Charleston, E. Carolina,
3. Xavier
Xavier should not make the tournament. Short of winning the A-10 conference tournament, Xavier can’t possibly do enough with its remaining schedule to earn an at-large bid. The Musketeers are 5-5 in an incredibly weak A-10 conference. They have one quality win and that was at home, in overtime over a struggling Cincinnati team. Xavier’s RPI is a disaster at 74.
RPI rating: 74
Pomeroy rating: 52
Quality wins: Cincinnati
Bad losses: St. Louis, @ St. Louis, LaSalle
4. Air Force
While Air Force has been impressive at times, losing four times in the Mountain West Conference is not the best way to get noticed by the committee. The Falcons need to win the MWC to make the tournament. San Diego St. appears to be the best team in the conference while Air Force is battling UNLV and BYU for second place. Air Force has no marquee wins and an average RPI.
RPI rating: 46
Pomeroy rating: 44
Quality wins: Miami (FL)
Bad losses: @ Wyoming, @ New Mexico, @ BYU
5. Houston
Of all the teams on this list, Houston has the best shot at receiving an at-large bid. It might not look like it now, but the Cougars could finish the regular season at 19-7 and 10-4 in Conference USA. Earlier in the year, Houston won at LSU and beat Arizona. Those two wins are as impressive as any combination of wins by a team on the bubble. My guess is that Houston will not make the tournament due to the mediocrity of C-USA. But, if teams like Michigan, Indiana, and Kentucky continue to struggle, Houston’s resume might end up being good enough squeeze in.
RPI rating: 59
Pomeroy rating: 91
Quality wins: @ LSU, Arizona
Bad losses: @ S. Alabama, @ Rice, Central Florida
6. Louisville
Louisville has seven Big East games left. If the Cardinals go 5-2 in those games, I think they will likely get an at-large bid. Anything less would mean an NIT berth for a team that started the season in the top 10. I don’t think computer ratings and quality wins or losses will come into play for Louisville. I think it will all come down to whether it has a .500 or better conference record. 8-8 will probably get them in. 7-9 will keep them out.
RPI rating: 65
Pomeroy rating: 45
Quality wins:
Bad losses: none
7. Florida St.
Florida St. is in the same category as Houston. Right now, FSU does not look like a threat to make the tournament. However, at 5-5 in the ACC, FSU has legitimate shot at finishing 8-8 in the ACC. For a conference that is considered among the top two in college basketball, a sixth team would not be a lot to ask for. FSU needs to beat Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Miami (FL) to get to 8-8. I doubt those wins will improve FSU’s weak RPI but 8-8 goes a long way in the ACC.
RPI rating: 67
Pomeroy rating: 28
Quality wins: @ Virginia
Bad losses: @ Clemson
8. Miami (FL)
On the surface, it looks like Miami (FL) would have a better shot at making the tournament since it stands at 6-5 in the ACC. However, with a tough remaining schedule, Miami might only pick up one more win in conference play. If Miami can win two (the best chance for this would be wins over Va. Tech and Florida St.), it will be at 8-8 in the ACC. There is probably a 50/50 chance that either FSU or Miami will finish at 8-8 in the ACC.
RPI rating: 82
Pomeroy rating: 58
Quality wins: Maryland, @ N. Carolina, @ FSU
Bad losses: none
9. Virginia
Like FSU and Miami, Virginia could reach 8-8 in the ACC. It would only require two victories over FSU and Clemson. The problem for Virginia is that 8-8 in the ACC would only be good enough for a 15-12 record overall. Virginia only has one marquee win this season. Virginia would have the worst shot at receiving an at-large bid of the teams that could finish at 8-8 in the ACC.
RPI rating: 56
Pomeroy rating: 65
Quality wins: N. Carolina, Miami (FL)
Bad losses: @ Ga. Tech, Fordham
10 Iowa St.
11 Utah St.
12 S. Carolina
13 Stanford
14 Hofstra
15 Old Dominion
Here are the highest rated (RPI) teams that I have projected out of the tournament:
#45 NC Wilmington
#46 Air Force
#50 St. Joseph's
#51 Old Dominion
#52 South Carolina
#53 Utah St.
#54 Hofstra
#56 Virginia
#57 Temple
#58 Vanderbilt
#59 Houston
#61 BYU
#62 Bradley
#63 Iowa St.
#64 Virginia Commonwealth
#65 Louisville
Here are the lowest rated (RPI) teams that I project to be in the tournament
#66 Arkansas
#55 California
#49 Colorado
#48 UAB
#44 Kentucky
#43 Kansas
#42 Alabama
#41 Maryland
#40 Washington
#36 Marquette
#35 Indiana
#33 Seton Hall
#32 Cincinnati
#31 Michigan
#30 Creighton
#29 Boston College
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (5)
Duke
NC State
Boston College
N. Carolina
Maryland
SEC (6)
Florida
Kentucky
LSU
Tennessee
Arkansas
Alabama
Big East (9)
UCONN
Syracuse
Villanova
Pittsburgh
W. Virginia
Cincinnati
Marquette
Georgetown
Seton Hall
Big 12 (4)
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Colorado
Big Ten (7)
Illinois
MSU
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio St.
Wisconsin
Iowa
Pac-10 (4)
Washington
Arizona
UCLA
California
C-USA (2)
Memphis
UAB
A-10 (1)
GW
MVC (5)
N. Iowa
Creighton
Wichita St.
S. Illinois
Missouri St.
Here are the changes I made to the projected automatic bid winners:
MWC San Diego St. replaces Air Force
Big West Pacific replaces UC Irvine
Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
1 ACC Duke
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East UCONN
4 Big 12 Texas
5 Big Ten Illinois
6 Pac-10 Washington
7 MVC N. Iowa
8 MWC San Diego St.
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 George Washington
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Kent St.
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt W. Kentucky
16 Horizon Wisconsin-Mil.
17 MAAC Iona
18 Big Sky N. Arizona
19 MCC IUPUI
20 Big West Pacific
21 OVC Murray St.
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Bucknell
25 Southland Northwestern St.
26 Northeast Farleigh Dickinson
27 AEC Albany
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Southern
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Seton Hall
33 At-Large Syracuse
34 At-Large Villanova
35 At-Large Pittsburgh
36 At-Large W. Virginia
37 At-Large Cincinnati
38 At-Large Marquette
39 At-Large Georgetown
40 At-Large NC State
41 At-Large Boston College
42 At-Large N. Carolina
43 At-Large Maryland
44 At-Large California
45 At-Large MSU
46 At-Large Indiana
47 At-Large Michigan
48 At-Large Ohio St.
49 At-Large Wisconsin
50 At-Large Iowa
51 At-Large Kentucky
52 At-Large Tennessee
53 At-Large LSU
54 At-Large Alabama
55 At-Large Oklahoma
56 At-Large Kansas
57 At-Large Colorado
58 At-Large Arkansas
59 At-Large Arizona
60 At-Large UCLA
61 At-Large UAB
62 At-Large Missouri St.
63 At-Large Wichita St.
64 At-Large Creighton
65 At-Large S. Illinois
I haven't listed the 65 teams in order yet. I'll start doing that in a few weeks. The field that I have "projected" now assumes that there are no upsets in the conference tournaments. There could be anywhere from 5-10 teams that make the tournament who wouldn't have otherwise made it just from the conference tournaments alone. That would push five of my "projected" teams out of the field. Come conference tournament time, the last two or three teams that I have in the tourney will probably get pushed out by upsets.
The last seven teams in the tourney right now:
1. Alabama
Alabama is projected to be in the tournament for the first time since November. The Crimson Tide opened the season on a disappointing note after unanimously being considered a top 25 team. On Dec. 31, Alabama stood at 6-5. Now, the Tide is 14-8 including an impressive 7-3 record in the SEC. This past week, Alabama beat LSU, Vanderbilt and Mississippi. If Alabama can finish its last six conference games at 3-3 or better, it will be tourney bound.
RPI rating: 42
Pomeroy rating: 73
Quality wins: @ Kentucky, Arkansas, LSU, Vanderbilt
Bad losses: Mississippi, @ Georgia
2. Arkansas
The Razorbacks almost pulled off a tournament bid-clinching victory at LSU this week. Instead of picking up the monumental win, they lost 78-77 to stay firmly on the bubble. Arkansas has the lowest RPI of any team that I have projected in the tournament field. I have to admit that I’m a bit confused by its low number. The Razorbacks have good non-conference wins and stand at 5-5 in the SEC. Also, in each of Arkansas five conference losses, it has lost by less than five points. Arkansas’ Pomeroy rating is very impressive at 26 so hopefully the selection committee will take that into consideration. Nonetheless, it looks like Arkansas will have to pull off a big win down the stretch to improve its RPI to something more respectable.
RPI rating: 66
Pomeroy rating: 26
Quality wins: Kansas (neutral site), Missouri St., Vanderbilt,
Bad losses: @ Mississippi
3. Cincinnati
I don’t think Cincinnati will make the tournament. Its remaining Big East schedule is just too daunting. The Bearcats are only 5-6 in the conference with games @ Syracuse, Villanova, @ Seton Hall, and W. Virginia still left on their schedule. I don’t anticipate Cincinnati doing any better than 2-3 in those games leaving it at 7-9 in conference play. Even though there are worse resumes among bubble teams in terms of “bad losses” and “RPI”, Cincinnati’s is hardly impressive.
RPI rating: 32
Pomeroy rating: 49
Quality wins: LSU (neutral site), @ Vanderbilt, @ Marquette,
Bad losses: Dayton
4. Kentucky
Kentucky is in trouble. I thought the Wildcats would take advantage of a weak SEC. It looked like they were going to do just that after starting off 5-2 in conference play. However, three straight losses have put Kentucky at an unenviable record of 15-9. With a resume lacking of quality wins, Kentucky needs to beat a good team. The good news for Kentucky is that the next three games should be wins (Georgia, @ S. Carolina, and Mississippi). That would set up Kentucky nicely for its brutal three-game stretch to close out SEC play which includes game @ LSU, @ Tennessee, and Florida. A 4-2 record in those six games would clinch a bid. A 3-3 record would probably require a strong showing in the SEC tournament. A team with 13 losses doesn’t normally get into the tournament.
RPI rating: 44
Pomeroy rating: 53
Quality wins: W. Virginia (neutral site), Arkansas
Bad losses: none
5. Missouri St.
No team did more for its tournament chances this week than Missouri St. Last week, it looked like Missouri St. was destined for the NIT. The Bears beat N. Iowa on the road in a must-win game to raise their RPI to an impressive 26. The Missouri Valley Conference usually doesn’t stand a chance at four at-large bids but the teams from this conference are forcing the committee’s hand by keeping their RPI’s in the top 30. Missouri St. was lacking a marquee win to go along with an impressive record and solid RPI. The victory on the road over N. Iowa has bolstered an already strong resume.
RPI rating: 26
Pomeroy rating: 30
Quality wins: S. Illinois, Bradley, @ N. Iowa
Bad losses: none
6. Indiana
Indiana is a mess right now. What looked to be a promising season has gone south. It wasn’t a coincidence that Indiana’s struggles started when D.J. White went down for the season. The Hoosiers are wasting the unexpected emergence of senior transfer Marco Killingsworth. This was the season for Indiana to break out. Since it didn’t happen, this could be the season that puts Mike Davis on notice. Fans in Bloomington want more than what they’re getting and Davis obviously knows this after his comment this past week. Luckily for Indiana, there is a Big Ten team that is struggling even more. That team is Michigan. Indiana has six Big Ten games remaining. With two games against Penn St. and two others against Purdue and Michigan, the Hoosiers should go 4-2 in those games which would be good enough for 9-7 in the Big Ten. That would get Indiana in.
RPI rating: 35
Pomeroy rating: 50
Quality wins: Kentucky, Ohio St., Illinois
Bad losses: @ Indiana St., @ Minnesota
8. Michigan
If the season ended today, Michigan would be in the tournament. Unfortunately for Michigan, the season doesn’t end today and they won’t be in the tournament come March. The bad breaks keep coming in Ann Arbor for Tommy Amaker. Two weeks ago, if you would’ve asked a college basketball “expert” whether Michigan will make the tournament or not, they’d laugh in your face for asking such a silly question. Three straight losses later, the wheels are falling off. Entering this week, Michigan only needed to beat Purdue and Minnesota to secure a tournament bid. That means Michigan could’ve gone 2-4 in its last six games and still made the tournament. Michigan got blasted by Purdue this week which leaves only one winnable game left on the schedule. Michigan will like lose its last four games and finish 7-9 in the Big Ten.
RPI rating: 31
Pomeroy rating: 39
Quality wins: Michigan St., Wisconsin
Bad losses: @ Purdue
The teams waiting in the wings:
The teams on this list aren’t as close to being in the tournament as it appears. As of now, I can conveniently assume that teams like Gonzaga and Nevada will win their conference’s automatic bids. If they don’t, some of the teams that I have projected in the tournament will get bumped which will push the teams below even farther down the list. But, like Alabama and Seton Hall, it is possible for a team to come off of this list and jump into the 65-team field.
1. Vanderbilt
Vandy is holding on to a position on the bubble admirably. After embarking on a four-game losing streak, Vandy beat Kentucky for the second time this season to bring its conference record to 4-6. If the Commodores can go 4-2 in their last six conference games, they will make the NCAA Tournament. The problem is that I see three wins at the most.
RPI rating: 58
Pomeroy rating: 60
Quality wins: @ Georgetown, @ Kentucky, Kentucky
Bad losses: @ Ga. Tech, Georgia
2. NC Wilmington
My guess is that NC Wilmington will have a top 45 RPI at the end of the season. The question will be whether or not NC Wilmington’s unimpressive resume is impressive enough for the selection committee. The Seahawks have virtually no marquee wins while playing in a mid-tier conference. That doesn’t bode well for a tournament bid.
RPI rating: 45
Pomeroy rating: 54
Quality wins: George Mason
Bad losses: College of Charleston, E. Carolina,
3. Xavier
Xavier should not make the tournament. Short of winning the A-10 conference tournament, Xavier can’t possibly do enough with its remaining schedule to earn an at-large bid. The Musketeers are 5-5 in an incredibly weak A-10 conference. They have one quality win and that was at home, in overtime over a struggling Cincinnati team. Xavier’s RPI is a disaster at 74.
RPI rating: 74
Pomeroy rating: 52
Quality wins: Cincinnati
Bad losses: St. Louis, @ St. Louis, LaSalle
4. Air Force
While Air Force has been impressive at times, losing four times in the Mountain West Conference is not the best way to get noticed by the committee. The Falcons need to win the MWC to make the tournament. San Diego St. appears to be the best team in the conference while Air Force is battling UNLV and BYU for second place. Air Force has no marquee wins and an average RPI.
RPI rating: 46
Pomeroy rating: 44
Quality wins: Miami (FL)
Bad losses: @ Wyoming, @ New Mexico, @ BYU
5. Houston
Of all the teams on this list, Houston has the best shot at receiving an at-large bid. It might not look like it now, but the Cougars could finish the regular season at 19-7 and 10-4 in Conference USA. Earlier in the year, Houston won at LSU and beat Arizona. Those two wins are as impressive as any combination of wins by a team on the bubble. My guess is that Houston will not make the tournament due to the mediocrity of C-USA. But, if teams like Michigan, Indiana, and Kentucky continue to struggle, Houston’s resume might end up being good enough squeeze in.
RPI rating: 59
Pomeroy rating: 91
Quality wins: @ LSU, Arizona
Bad losses: @ S. Alabama, @ Rice, Central Florida
6. Louisville
Louisville has seven Big East games left. If the Cardinals go 5-2 in those games, I think they will likely get an at-large bid. Anything less would mean an NIT berth for a team that started the season in the top 10. I don’t think computer ratings and quality wins or losses will come into play for Louisville. I think it will all come down to whether it has a .500 or better conference record. 8-8 will probably get them in. 7-9 will keep them out.
RPI rating: 65
Pomeroy rating: 45
Quality wins:
Bad losses: none
7. Florida St.
Florida St. is in the same category as Houston. Right now, FSU does not look like a threat to make the tournament. However, at 5-5 in the ACC, FSU has legitimate shot at finishing 8-8 in the ACC. For a conference that is considered among the top two in college basketball, a sixth team would not be a lot to ask for. FSU needs to beat Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Miami (FL) to get to 8-8. I doubt those wins will improve FSU’s weak RPI but 8-8 goes a long way in the ACC.
RPI rating: 67
Pomeroy rating: 28
Quality wins: @ Virginia
Bad losses: @ Clemson
8. Miami (FL)
On the surface, it looks like Miami (FL) would have a better shot at making the tournament since it stands at 6-5 in the ACC. However, with a tough remaining schedule, Miami might only pick up one more win in conference play. If Miami can win two (the best chance for this would be wins over Va. Tech and Florida St.), it will be at 8-8 in the ACC. There is probably a 50/50 chance that either FSU or Miami will finish at 8-8 in the ACC.
RPI rating: 82
Pomeroy rating: 58
Quality wins: Maryland, @ N. Carolina, @ FSU
Bad losses: none
9. Virginia
Like FSU and Miami, Virginia could reach 8-8 in the ACC. It would only require two victories over FSU and Clemson. The problem for Virginia is that 8-8 in the ACC would only be good enough for a 15-12 record overall. Virginia only has one marquee win this season. Virginia would have the worst shot at receiving an at-large bid of the teams that could finish at 8-8 in the ACC.
RPI rating: 56
Pomeroy rating: 65
Quality wins: N. Carolina, Miami (FL)
Bad losses: @ Ga. Tech, Fordham
10 Iowa St.
11 Utah St.
12 S. Carolina
13 Stanford
14 Hofstra
15 Old Dominion
Here are the highest rated (RPI) teams that I have projected out of the tournament:
#45 NC Wilmington
#46 Air Force
#50 St. Joseph's
#51 Old Dominion
#52 South Carolina
#53 Utah St.
#54 Hofstra
#56 Virginia
#57 Temple
#58 Vanderbilt
#59 Houston
#61 BYU
#62 Bradley
#63 Iowa St.
#64 Virginia Commonwealth
#65 Louisville
Here are the lowest rated (RPI) teams that I project to be in the tournament
#66 Arkansas
#55 California
#49 Colorado
#48 UAB
#44 Kentucky
#43 Kansas
#42 Alabama
#41 Maryland
#40 Washington
#36 Marquette
#35 Indiana
#33 Seton Hall
#32 Cincinnati
#31 Michigan
#30 Creighton
#29 Boston College
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (5)
Duke
NC State
Boston College
N. Carolina
Maryland
SEC (6)
Florida
Kentucky
LSU
Tennessee
Arkansas
Alabama
Big East (9)
UCONN
Syracuse
Villanova
Pittsburgh
W. Virginia
Cincinnati
Marquette
Georgetown
Seton Hall
Big 12 (4)
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Colorado
Big Ten (7)
Illinois
MSU
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio St.
Wisconsin
Iowa
Pac-10 (4)
Washington
Arizona
UCLA
California
C-USA (2)
Memphis
UAB
A-10 (1)
GW
MVC (5)
N. Iowa
Creighton
Wichita St.
S. Illinois
Missouri St.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
