The brackets are out.
Let the second-guessing commence.
Overall, I have to say that the committee did a better job than they have done in several years. Just my opinion, but there are no glaring issues to my eye.
But, since someone has to be wrong, me or them, let's get started on where they were wrong /sarcasm. First, were they right on who got in?
Well, here are the teams that they had in that I would have left out:
UCONN: I love the Huskies, seriously I have been rooting for them for years. BUT, you should not make the big dance with a losing record in your own conference...period. Choices like this combine with the automatic bids to continue to devalue the conference seasons. I disagree with that. That said, the Huskies were playing awfully well at the end of the season and may be dangerous.
WEST VIRGINIA: The Mountaineers were my second team out, directly after UCONN. They are not a great team, and they were pretty inconsistent this year. Also, I am always hesitant when a team only has a .500 record in conference. The Big East was a solid, but not spectacular league this year, so that was not an overwhelming record. Not a big beef here, but I had them out.
VIRGINIA: This is the one I don't get. I had Virginia as my 14th.....yes, FOURTEENTH team out. They can't score the ball, missed chances to lock up a big late in the season. And on top of that, a team in the ACC who plays all of those highly regarded teams twice a year should not have a Strength of Schedule above 80. They need an offense, and they need to go play someone.
Seriously, that's it. 3 teams that I had out that they had in. And, really one that I had a huge beef with.
Now, on to the teams that I had in that they had out.
DREXEL: Will someone tell me what the Colonial Athletic Association has to do to get some respect? Has everyone forgot what George Mason and VCU did in the tournament? This is the CHAMPION of that conference. 16 conference wins. 27 wins overall. Lost in the title game of the conference tournament. These guys got screwed. That said, if they can't get anyone to play them, this is going to keep happening.
MIAMI (Fl.): Miami was a bubble team that got in for me. They are a terribly athletic team that got better as the year went, knocking off a very good Florida State team late. They are a much tougher match up than the Virginia team that got in where I think they should have been.
MARSHALL: Marshall had an RPI of 44 against an SOS of 24. These numbers are supposed to matter. A run to the conference title game is supposed to matter. They played a tough schedule, they won a lot of games, and they were hot at the end. I know you don't think basketball when you think Marshall, but this is a solid team who should have been in.
.........................
Now, for the nitpicking....where were the seeds off. Now, I am not even going to worry about slots that had delta's of less than 3.
MEMPHIS (-4): Memphis had an RPI of 15 against an SOS of 20. I felt that I had them set conservatively at a 4. Dropping them in at a 8 was low. That said, Saint Louis is a tough match up for them because Memphis wants to run and Saint Louis will control the ball and pace...or try to.
COLORADO STATE (-6): The Rams haven't gotten any respect this year, but they played in a solid conference, played good at the end and had great numbers. Seriously, did anyone else notice that their RPI was 30 against an SOS of 7. Yes, the Colorado State rams played the 7th toughest schedule in the country. I had them at a 5, and admittedly, I do love numbers and may have fallen for those shiny numbers, but an 11 really disrespects them playing a consistently tough schedule.
MISSOURI (+4): I can't beef on this one too much with Missouri winning the Big 12 title, but they really are a one-trick pony. They will run you out of the gym, but a physical team gives them fits. (See K-State owning them). They got very lucky with their draw because none of the teams in their part of the region are big inside.
SOUTHERN MISS (-3): Again, and RPI of 20 should have had them at a 5 at lowest. I went conservative to have them at a 6, but a 9...really?
TEXAS (-3): Meh, I had them at an 8, but it really does depend on which Texas team you think is going to show up.
SOUTH FLORIDA (-3): South Florida is a ball control team, but they looked to be near peaking at the end of the year. A 12 tells me that they were nearly out of tournament. I had them at a 9, they are a really physical team who played a tough schedule.
NEW MEXICO (+4): New Mexico slipped late in the year. They had control of their conference and then lost some games they were expected to win and let some teams catch up. I don't see them as a top 20 team which is what a 5 tells us. I had them at a 9.
ST. MARY'S (+3): They were the best team in the WCC, but the Gonzaga is not quite what it used to be. Not a big beef here with them being a 7 instead of a 10, but I felt like they were falling off at the end of the year.
MURRAY STATE (+4): The press fell in love with the Racers. I don't get it, but at least the logic was consistent. Murray State beat St. Mary's so they better be rated ahead of them.
CINCINNATI (+5): Man, the committee does love the Big East. Cincy was up and down all year long but finished strong in the Big East tourney running to the title game. To my mind, that put them in the tourney (as an 11), but the committee must have had them in because it pushed them to a 6.
KANSAS STATE (-3): Kansas State is big and tough but they don't score the ball well. I had them in, but an 8 is high.
Anyway, I was really let down when I went to write this. They just did too good a job.
Oh, and for those who had challenged my picks from an earlier post, here are my top 4 seeds for each region. Have fun.
EAST:
1. Syracuse
2. Ohio State
3. Louisville
4. Georgetown
MIDWEST:
1. Kentucky
2. Kansas
3. Michigan
4. Wisconsin
SOUTH
1. North Carolina
2. Duke
3. Florida State
4. Memphis
WEST
1. Michigan State
2. Baylor
3. Marquette
4. Vanderbilt
There a lot of potential conference re-matches which I think the committee tries to prevent, but mix and match, I feel good about those seeds.
No comments:
Post a Comment