Bracket Analysis

Throughout this bracketing project, the ultimate goal was to create a seeding curve through use of a computer model.  While I don’t have too many arguments with the final seeding, the one real case I think is for Duke or New Mexico to have a #1 seed over Gonzaga given some of the other seeding.  I had 22 teams within 0 or 1 spots of their actual spot on the seeding curve.  39 were within 3 spots and 52 were within 5 spots.

While it definitely missed on a number of teams (notably Saint Mary’s, Middle Tennessee, San Diego St., Illinois, Villanova), this is a pretty decent result.  The model also predicted 67 of 68 teams correctly, only missing La Salle (chose Kentucky instead).

For now, humans are still better than computers, but this is progress.

Here are the results:


Team Cro-Curve Actual Diff
Louisville 1 1 0
Duke 2 6 4
Kansas 3 2 1
New Mexico 4 9 5
Miami (FL) 5 5 0
Indiana 6 3 3
Georgetown 7 7 0
Gonzaga 8 4 4
Ohio St. 9 8 1
Michigan St. 10 11 1
Michigan 11 13 2
Florida 12 10 2
Kansas St. 13 14 1
Syracuse 14 16 2
Memphis 15 23 8
Marquette 16 12 4
Saint Louis 17 15 2
Arizona 18 21 3
Butler 19 22 3
Oklahoma St. 20 17 3
UCLA 21 24 3
Notre Dame 22 27 5
North Carolina 23 29 6
Creighton 24 25 1
VCU 25 20 5
Wisconsin 26 19 7
UNLV 27 18 9
North Carolina St. 28 32 4
Pittsburgh 29 31 2
Saint Mary’s 30 46 16
Colorado St. 31 30 1
Wichita St. 32 35 3
Missouri 33 33 0
Oregon 34 43 9
Middle Tennessee 35 50 15
Minnesota 36 41 5
Mississippi 37 47 10
Cincinnati 38 37 1
Colorado 39 36 3
Illinois 40 28 12
Temple 41 34 7
San Diego St. 42 26 16
Oklahoma 43 40 3
Belmont 44 44 0
Iowa St. 45 39 6
Akron 46 51 5
Kentucky 47 47
California 48 42 6
Boise St. 49 45 4
Villanova 50 38 12
Valparaiso 51 56 5
New Mexico St. 52 52 0
Bucknell 53 48 5
Davidson 54 55 1
Pacific 55 60 5
South Dakota St. 56 53 3
Harvard 57 58 1
Florida Gulf Coast 58 59 1
Northwestern St. 59 57 2
Iona 60 61 1
Western Kentucky 61 63 2
Montana 62 54 8
Albany 63 62 1
James Madison 64 66 2
Southern 65 64 1
Long Island 66 65 1
North Carolina A&T 67 67 0
Liberty 68 68 0


Final seeding is as of 3/17/2013


** AUTO BIDS in Italics.**


Projected Seeds

1 seeds: Louisville (#1 overall), Duke, Kansas, New Mexico

2 seeds: Indiana, Gonzaga, Georgetown, Miami (FL)

3 seeds: Michigan, Ohio St.Florida, Michigan St.

4 seeds: Kansas St., Syracuse, Memphis, Marquette

5 seeds: Arizona, Butler, Saint Louis, Oklahoma St.

6 seeds: UCLANotre Dame, North Carolina, Creighton

7 seeds: WisconsinVCU, UNLVPittsburgh

8 seeds: North Carolina St., Saint Mary’s, Colorado St., Missouri

9 seeds: Wichita St., Middle Tennessee, Minnesota, Oregon

10 seeds: Mississippi, Cincinnati, Illinois, Colorado

11 seeds: TempleSan Diego St., Oklahoma, Belmont

12 seeds: Iowa St., Akron, Kentucky/California, Villanova/Boise St.

13 seeds: Valparaiso, New Mexico St.BucknellDavidson

14 seeds: South Dakota St.Pacific, Harvard, Florida Gulf Coast

15 seeds: Iona, Northwestern St.Western Kentucky, Montana

16 seeds: Albany, James Madison, Long Island/Southern, North Carolina A&T/Liberty


Last 4 out: Tennessee, Southern Miss, La Salle, Iowa

Next 4 out: Alabama, Masssachusetts, Maryland, Virginia


By Conference:

Conference Teams
BE 8
B10 7
B12 5
P12 5
MW 5
A10 4
SB 2
AE 1
Asun 1
Bsky 1
Bsouth 1
BW 1
Horizon 1
Ivy 1
NE 1
Patriot 1
SoCon 1
Sland 1
Summit 1


  1. It’s close right now. Missouri still only has 3 losses which to me is a big factor, and Duke’s loss to Miami and Kansas’ loss to Davidson at home are both worse than losing to K-State. Teams 3-8 are all right there and it can definitely go either way. The game against Kansas tomorrow will probably cause some movement.

  2. Bama will be higher than a 10 seed in my opinion. Saint Louis will be punished for that horrible loss the other day.

  3. Saint Mary’s won the WCC title outright. They won the WCC Tournament. In the process, they beat Gonzaga two out of three. They finished with a better record than Gonzaga. Regardless of RPI, I can’t imagine that Gonzaga would get a better seed than Saint Mary’s.

  4. Maruqette? Really? It’s MARQUETTE!!!!!! And after we beat Louisville this Sunday you may wanna reevaluate there number 7 seeding. Sheesh.

  5. You have the #1 team in America (IU) who just beat UM and MSU in the past week as a 3 seed? LOL – can you please explain this logic?

  6. Nothing against Indiana, and I’m sure they will move up, but right now their Strength of Schedule is really hurting. Indiana has yet to play a tough road game. Michigan meanwhile beat Kansas St., NC St., and Pittsburgh in the non-conference.

    1. Their SOS is really hurting them? They beat Georgetown, North Carolina, Minnesota, Michigan State, and Michigan. That’s 5 top 30 RPI wins and their SOS is ranked 19th. Ask Wisconsin about winning at Iowa or Minnesota about winning at Northwestern. The SOS argument doesn’t make sense at all…IU is #2 in KenPom, #2 in Sagarin, #3 in the ESPN BPI, and of course #1 in the polls (for a reason). How could you have UM ahead of them after we just beat them head to head?

      1. I really don’t have anything against Indiana. In fact, they are #3 in my rankings just like many other rankings systems. They are 8-2 against the top 100, which is very solid. All I’m saying is that removing the names and just looking at the numbers, today they are on my 3 seed line.

  7. I would LOVE to hear the argument for all NINE teams with better resumes. If you remove the names from the jerseys and just look at the numbers, you MIGHT be able to argue 2 teams with better resumes at this point.

    1. It’s February, and the only tournament team Indiana has beaten away from Bloomington is Georgetown in Brooklyn. They have an opportunity to prove themselves with a lot of road games coming up. If they finish the season with 5 losses or less, they’re at worst a 2 seed.

  8. so you are basing everything on wins away from Assembly Hall? Name all the great road wins for the other teams ranked ahead of them on your S-curve. Let’s see, UM has ONE road win as well over a tournament team (Minnesota), yet, you still have them as a one seed despite the fact that we just beat them head to head? They have the same number of top 50 wins as IU (5) and they lost their two toughest road games so far (at OSU and at IU). Sorry, but there isn’t any team in the country that has a multiple road wins over tourney teams. How about Duke? (who you also have as a one seed) They have exactly ZERO good road wins and lost both of their tough road games (at NC State and at Miami by nearly 30 points). How can you explain this? I will give you Kansas who has 2 good road wins (OSU and K St), but they also lost to MSU (who IU beat) and to OK State last weekend. Top 50 road wins is just one section of a team’s overall body of work and it’s clear that you aren’t considering IU’s entire resume. Instead, you are just choosing to point at one minor flaw despite that fact that it applies to all the other teams you have on the top seed line. (Arizona has exactly zero road wins over top 50 teams as well).

    1. I certainly understand both sides. We’ll see what happens as the season progresses. Trust me, I like Indiana and think they’re a serious national title contender. Thanks for your comments.

      1. Out of the 70 Brackets on the Bracket Matrix, 61 have IU as a 1 seed, 8 have IU as a 2 seed, and 1 has IU as a 3 seed. You still have them behind Kansas and FL after what happened to them last night? And even though we beat UM head to head? IU is ranked #1 by Sagarin, #1 in both polls, and #2 by Ken Pom.

    1. There is a difference between rankings and seeding. I have Indiana ranked as my #3 team, but I’ll tell you guys what. If you can prove to me that Indiana’s resume is any different than Gonzaga’s, I’ll consider moving them up. Indiana’s non-conference schedule is a joke, and every one of their good wins came at home. The selection committee cares about those things regardless of what the bracket matrix says.

      1. How does it make any sense that you have Indiana ranked as your #3 team and yet you still have them as a 3 seed. Why does Joe Lunardi have them as his #1 overall team and he bases EVERYTHING on current resumes. What do you know that no one else in the world does? LOL. IU has 5 wins over the RPI top 32 and they are 4-0 in true road games (about to go 5-0 after they win at ILL tonight). Gonzaga has 5 wins over the RPI top 50 (so IU has much better wins here) and also 2 losses (one to Butler like IU and one to ILL, who IU will beat tonight). Gonzaga has a road loss while IU is undefeated in true road games. IU has wins over RPI teams ranked 4, 11, and 13. Zags best wins are over Oklahoma (21), K state (22), OK State (29), Baylor (49), BYU (45). IU also beat #30 Georgetown and #32 UNC. Next question please.

      2. I’m not an IU fan, I think there is no way in hell that they fall to a 3 seed and I respect your methodology but dude, I’m childish enough that I would have “Illinois 74, Indiana 72” in big bold letters at the top of the page, just to gloat for a few hours.

      3. Thanks for your comment. This made me laugh. It’s only February and still waiting for that first quality road win. As I’ve said all along, I don’t think Indiana ends up as a 3 either, but I’ll hold back from linking to a box score. The seeding projection is a calculation and right now because of all the cupcakes they steamrolled at home in November and December, the average opponent rank is just lower than other similar teams.

  9. Huge meltdown/collapse vs ILL – I was wrong. However, 3 losses by a combined 9 pts are a lot better than the other top teams vying for a 1 seed can claim (outside of UM, who we beat head to head) IU is still in line for a 1 seed but winning at OSU on Sunday has become necessary after last night’s implosion.

    1. Right now, Michigan and Duke are #1 and #2 in the pecking order. I have Arizona slightly behind them, but they’ve also beaten Florida, Miami and San Diego St. in the non-conference. After that, surely a strong case can be made for a number of teams. I think Louisville, FLorida, Miami, Kansas, Syracuse, Indiana, Gonzaga are all in the mix in some order. It’s very close.

      1. Well, we just beat UM so, I’m not sure how you could have them ahead of IU. Duke lost by 27 to Mia while IU has 3 losses by a combined 9 pts. And who do you think would win between IU and AZ?

      2. Head-to-Head doesn’t matter too much with seeding. Michigan has a road loss to Indiana. Indiana has a road loss to Illinois. Michigan also has a road loss to Ohio St. while Indiana has a home loss to Wisconsin. From purely a seeding perspective, Indiana’s 2 losses are worse than Michigan’s regardless of head-to-head, and that’s not including Indiana’s loss to Butler. Right now, Michigan has 13 top 100 wins while Indiana has 8.

        I realize that Duke got blown out at Miami, but Miami is a projected 2 seed. The loss at NC State also wasn’t bad. Duke really went after it in the non-conference this year. They beat Louisville, Minnesota, Kentucky, Temple and VCU all on neutral floors and got a home win over Ohio St. as well. At 20-2 they’re right there with Michigan.

  10. top 100 wins don’t mean anything. Indiana has FIVE top THIRTY wins. UM has 6. These two teams are very close and as of now, you can’t argue UM is better after we just beat them.

    1. Maybe top 100 is an arbitrary cut-off, but I disagree that wins over tougher teams don’t mean anything. Regardless how you cut it, Michigan has more quality wins than Indiana does.

      As far as which team is better (who would win on a neutral court), you can debate that all day. Seeding does not always reflect “who is better”. Read any documentation about selection process and they’ll tell you the same things. Who did you beat? Where did you beat them? How did you do it? Did you have a challenging non-conference schedule? Sorry, but Michigan is better than Indiana on these criteria.

      1. Interesting that up until last night Lunardi and every other analyst did not agree with you. IU 81 UM 73 is all that really matters until they meet again in March

      2. Duke is 7-2 against my top 50, Indiana is 7-3. Duke is 14-3 against my top 100, Indiana is 9-3. Duke has won 9 games away from Cameron. Indiana has won 8 games away from Bloomington. Not sure it matters in the grand scheme of things.

  11. I have a problem with Iowa and Iowa State playing each other in a First Four scenario. These teams have already played this year with Iowa winning by 9 and leading the whole game except the last seconds of the first half.

    1. I’m not sure if the committee would move a team down a line just to avoid this. I know they try to avoid it when pairing top teams, but I don’t know if this scenario would come into play. Very interesting

  12. Kentucky a 10 seed???????????????? They have one quality win (@Ole Miss which is a marginal NCAA tourney team) if you can call that a quality win. Their only other marquee win is versus a Maryland team that is probably in the NIT. If those two teams don’t get in, UK has beaten NO TEAM IN THE TOURNAMENT! There is NO WAY they make the tournament as ANY SEED unless they beat Mizzou or Florida and in which case they MIGHT squeak in as an 11 seed and still doubtful if that happened.

    1. Right now, Kentucky doesn’t have any bad losses and they’ve got a couple quality wins. A&M, Alabama and Tennessee are the only non-tournament teams they’ve lost to, and Alabama and Tennessee are hovering around the bubble. Unfortunately right now, other bubble teams have weaker profiles, so they’re in. Without Noel, things can change quickly.

  13. New Mexico a 5 seed really??? With a #3 RPI and #4 SOS along with more top 50 victories than any other team in the nation. How can you justify being so low in their seeding?

  14. No Villanova? I think they clearly are in at this point. Only one bad loss and a whole bunch of solid wins with a winning record in the Big East. How would they get left out?

  15. Good bracket, but I think you are clearly off on Villanova. I have them in over Cincy at this point. More like a 9 or 10 seed than last 4 out. I don’t see the love for Ole Miss or Virginia (example: Virginia has fewer good wins than Villanova, and many more bad losses). Southern Miss won’t get an at large bid without having some good wins.

    1. Nova is certainly right there with the rest of the bubble teams, but I think they’re closer to the in/out line than the 10 seed line. I know they have good wins, but against the top 80 they’re 5-9, plus they have the bad loss to Columbia. I really think they either need to win one of their final two games against Pitt/Georgetown, or get at least one win in the Big East tournament. You don’t want to be headed into selection Sunday 18-13 against D-1 competition.

      1. Why is it a bad thing to be 5-9 against the top 80? That is an often misquoted stat. If a team has 10 or 11 losses, it is better if those losses come against the top 80 than a bunch of 100+ rpi teams. Poor analysis in holding that against Nova (reminds me of when people quote out of conference SOS instead of overall SOS).

        Look at Virginia, they don’t have as many good wins as Nova. While they have fewer top 80 losses, that only means they have a bunch of bad losses. Would take Nova over Virginia’s resume every day of the week.

        Nova is looking pretty solid, they have 4 real good wins and only 1 bad loss, with a winning record in the Big East. Just don’t see how that would get left out. Beat Seton Hall and they move to lock category (will have 10 big east wins with 4 major scalps and only 1 bad loss, that doesn’t get left out of the dance too often)

      2. Villanova is the classic Big East argument. They benefit by playing in a large conference with a lot of good teams, so the opportunities for big wins are there.

        All I’m saying is that if they beat Seton Hall, lose to Pitt and Georgetown, and then lose to say Cincinnati in the Big East tournament, you have a team that is 18-13 against D-1 competition despite having 10 wins in the Big East. Maybe that’s good enough… maybe not. They’re currently right on my in/out border, and I think they need to get either one of those final two or a Big East tourney win. If they get one of those, I think they’ll be in.

  16. I actually think you are right on Arkansas. Too many people overvaluing teams like Virginia, St. Mary’s, Arizona State, Ole Miss. I think Arkansas looks better than those teams. Arkansas’ RPI is doing them no favors, but their only two bad losses are both road games in conference (somewhat understandable).

  17. Please explain how you have Marquette as a 5 seed! Everyone else mostly has them as a 3 or 4 and mostly a 3. Your bracket makes no sense. They are 11th or 12th in most rpi’s and have beaten A LOT of great teams!

    1. I have them up to a 4 after last night’s win. I honestly think they’re closer to a 5 than a 3, however. I don’t think Marquette should be in front of any of Duke, Indiana, Louisville, Kansas, Florida, Michigan, Michigan St., Gonzaga, Miami, Georgetown or New Mexico. That would leave one spot for the last 3, and I think Ohio St. and Syracuse get the nod

  18. Villanova still out? Wins over Georgetown, Syracuse, Louisville, Marquette and at UConn don’t do it for you? Wow, you need to do your homework!

  19. How is Cincy a 9 and Nova is out? Nova clearly has the better resume, despite the head to head loss @ Cincy. Do you even research at all? This is why amateurs shouldn’t be allowed to make bracket projections. You are a joke.

    1. I have done my homework, and yes I probably still am a joke. Cincinnati beat Oregon, Iowa St., Alabama and Xavier in the non-conference. Villanova’s best non-conference win is by 4 points at home over St. Joe’s. Nova lost at home to Columbia and to Seton Hall. Cincy has no losses that bad. Cincy won at Pitt, while Nova’s best road win is over UCONN. I doubt many of the professionals are overlooking these facts.

  20. Let’s see:
    Nova: 10-8 Big East
    Strength of Schedule: 19
    Top 25 Wins: 4
    Top 50 Wins: 5
    Top 100 Wins: 7
    Wins away from home: 7
    Bad Losses: Columbia (265 in November), Seton Hall 116 (not really that bad)

    Cincy: 8-9 Big East
    Strength of Schedule: 23
    Top 25 wins: 1
    Top 50 wins: 4
    Top 100 Wins: 8
    Wins away from home: 7
    Bad Losses: None

    We all know that the committee places huge emphasis on top 25 and top 50 wins. A loss to Columbia in November doesn’t negate the fact that Nova has four times as many top 25 wins and a better conference record than Cincy.

    I don’t even see these two as close at this point. Nova has a clear edge. I do think Cincy gets in after their win over us (UConn) last weekend, but I think Cincy is closer to the bubble than Nova. You are overrating the effect of one bad loss.

    But then I see you have Virginia in and Iowa State in, both who are much worse than Nova.

    Virginia: 20-9 (10-6)
    SOS: 123
    Top 25 wins: 3
    Top 50 wins: 4
    Top 100 wins: 6
    Wins away from Home: 3
    Bad losses: (7) George Mason (153), Delaware (126), Old Dominion (317), Wake Forest (168), Clemson (176), G-Tech (119), BC (124)

    How can you possibly justify Virginia over Villanova? You punish Villanova for losing to Columbia, who is not nearly as bad as Old Dominion, and Seton Hall, who is borderline top 100 and better than 7 of Virginia’s losses.

    Iowa State: 20-10 (10-7)
    SOS: 55
    Top 25 wins: 2
    Top 50 Wins: 3
    Top 100 Wins: 6
    Wins away from home: 4
    Bad losses: (2) Texas Tech (219), Texas (123)

    How is that a better resume than Villanova? The bad losses are similar, the good wins are not as good, the strength of schedule is not as good, the performance away from home is weaker.

    Clearly not doing your homework.

    Now let’s look at Mississippi:
    Ole Miss: 22-8 (11-6)
    SOS: 131
    Top 25 Wins: 0
    Top 50 wins: 1
    Top 100 wins: 6
    Wins away from home: 6
    Bad Losses: (2) South Car (206), Miss St (227)

    Ole Miss is an interesting one. Have a lot of wins, but played a real weak schedule, and only one top 50 win. That’s really bad. Also, they have more worse losses than a team like Villanova, with fewer good wins. Not sure how you think Mississippi belongs in and Villanova does not.

    And then Iowa, WTF are you thinking with this one?
    Iowa: 19-11 (8-9)
    SOS: 99
    Top 25 wins: 1
    Top 50 wins: 1
    Top 100 wins: 5
    Wins away from home: 4
    Bad losses: (3) V-Tech (165), Purdue (120), Nebraska (102)

    Again a weak schedule, not that many good wins and more bad losses than say Nova, who you have out.

    Not sure what to think about your effort here. I like that you are trying, but you aren’t analyzing things properly at all.

    1. Thank you for your bubble breakdown and the engaging debate. I think Villanova’s 12 losses, close home wins, and poor non-conference showing make them a bubble team, but I’m willing to agree to disagree. If they get a conference tournament win, they’ll be in. If not, they’ll have to hope on Selection Sunday. In the end, my computer model for selection most likely discriminates based on mascots.

      1. I think you overvalue the distinction between conference v. non-conference performance, instead of just looking at the overall body of work. The committee doesn’t really care if your big wins come in conference or out of conference. Obviously Villanova has a top 25 strength of schedule, so they have challenged themselves this year (as opposed to many of the teams you have ahead of them). 12 losses (13 on selection sunday) isn’t great, but for a top 25 schedule that’s actually not bad. Teams with only 12 or 13 losses against a top 25 schedule actually make the dance a decent amount.

        Hey, I’m a UConn fan, I just thought this one was real odd. Pretty much everyone agrees Nova is a lock at this point. Has the committee ever left out a team with 4 top 25 wins?

        Close home wins? That’s not a factor at all. Where did you pull that from?

      2. I personally do think that Nova ends up in the tournament. I assume that they’ll crack my model’s at-large barrier at some point. If not, I’m willing to be wrong on a team. Conference tourneys should be a lot of fun.

  21. You really think Iowa and Ole Miss have a shot? I don’t. The two of them combined only have TWO top 50 wins. That’s not tournament caliber. That’s why Villanova is a mortal lock at this point, and Cincy, Virginia and Iowa State have better chances than ole miss or iowa.

    1. I think both teams have a shot, and I think Mississippi is on the right side right now. I don’t see Boise St., Villanova and Tennessee all higher than them right now, which is what I think it would take to knock them out. Beating LSU is a must, however, and I think they’d need to win the conference tourney if they lost it. My computer model likes Iowa more than I do, but I think they will have the opportunity to play their way in or out.

    2. Um, Iowa and Ole Miss combined only have 2 Top 50 wins? Iowa has beaten Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin which are all Top 50 as well as Iowa State which is Top 50 by multiple rating systems. Ole Miss only has Mizzou and I don’t think they deserve to be in, especially without playing in the First Four, but Iowa has more than 2 Top 50 wins.

  22. I think Iowa and Cincy are in MUST WIN mode. Can’t have a losing conference record and make the dance. Providence might be in better shape than Cincy if they can be a UConn team that has pretty much quit this past week.

    1. UCONN made it last year with an 8-10 conference record. Providence are 13th out right now on my seeding curve. I think they have too much ground to make up. Cincy is still OK I think, but Iowa absolutely can’t afford to lose to Nebraska. They need that and at least one tourney win most likely to have a shot.

    1. There’s a balance to everything. Villanova certainly has better wins. Mississippi has 4 losses to non-tournament teams while Villanova has 5. Nova’s RPI is 52, Mississippi 58. Villanova has played a tougher schedule, but Ole Miss has a far greater margin of victory, which it has been said for quite some time that the committee looks at more than just wins and losses. I think Nova ends up in.

      1. Margin of victory? First, margin of victory is not a factor (except to the extent that a big win over a top team can be a positive)(would simply be way too much information overload for the committee to take out the calculators and compute that), and second, Ole Miss has a horrible strength of schedule, they should have a better margin of victory.

        Mississippi has worse losses than Villanova. They lost to South Carolina and Mississippi State, both are as bad as Nova’s loss to Columbia. You’re punishing Nova for losing to teams that are in the top 100?

        I don’t get that one at all.

  23. So I looked up Ole Miss’s schedule, and that margin of victory argument is REEEEEEEEDICULOUS. Look at the teams they ran out of the gym early in the season, those teams are horrible. So Ole Miss gets in because they beat MVSU, CCAR, UARL, MCNS, LIP, ETSU, LMU, FOR by big numbers (I haven’t heard of these schools) but Nova barely squeeked by Syracuse, Louisville, Georgetown, Marquette and UConn?


    1. Yes, I would punish a team for getting swept by Providence or losing to Alabama. Maybe it’s just wishful thinking on my part. Mississippi’s 4 losses to non-tournament teams were by a total of 13 points. Villanova’s 5 losses to non-tournament teams were by a combined 47 points including 2 home losses. I think it’s great that Nova went 4-7 against the top 50, and maybe that’s enough to get them in. I’m not so sure, however, that with 11 games against the top 50, Ole Miss wouldn’t win 4.

      1. Providence is pretty good. Alabama has a top 75 RPI. Why would those losses hurt Villanova?

        You can’t deal in speculation, as in: “with X games against the top 50, Ole Miss would win Y.” Fact of the matter is, Ole Miss played a lousy schedule, and as a result they only have 1 top 50 win.

        Tell me what the team did, not what you think they would have done against a different schedule.

        Nova’s resume is significantly better than Ole Miss. Not even close really. I’m a Boston College fan, I don’t even like Nova, I just couldn’t believe how awful your bracket was when I saw it on bracket matrix. You should be ashamed.

        Villanova’s only real bad loss is Columbia, but that was before Thanksgiving. Ole Miss has two losses just as bad in this past month.

  24. Providence is not good. The fact that Providence plays in a strong conference which improves their SOS does not make them a better team.

    You actually can deal in speculation. It’s the reason there’s a mid major vs. BCS conference debate every year. Some teams have opportunities for bigger wins in conference and others don’t. Villanova got 6 shots at home against top 50 teams, which I agree they did well.

    Also, when the losses/wins happened has no relevance at all, which the committee has said all along. Losing by 18 at home to Columbia is worse than pretty much any bubble team has.

    One bubble team doesn’t make a bracket, but if you think it’s that awful I respect that. Villanova will most likely make my final bracket, which may make this whole point moot.

    1. Providence is good. They were bad to start the yr when their players were out. They finished .500 in the big east. Losing to providence is not a bad thing for a team. Do you even follow college basketball?

      1. Providence was 9-10 in games both Kris Dunn and Vincent Council played. I do follow college basketball. Losing at South Carolina and at Miss St. may or may not be worse than losing by 18 at home to Columbia, but it doesn’t matter when the losses happened. Entire body of work, as the committee has said for years.

    2. Losing by 18 to Columbia is not as bad as losing to both South Carolina and miss state. I will take one bad loss over two bad losses. You are an idiot. And ole miss lost those horrible games recently.

      Also, margin of victory is less important than when the losses happen. Again, you are proving to be terrible at making brackets. Get a real job, tool.

  25. Bro! You got Middle Tenn State as a 9? You gots Ole Miss as an 11, and Iowa as a 12 seed? Damn kid, you be off on all those dogs.

  26. you also be waaay off on Nova and Tennessee. TERRIBLE BRACKET!! LOL!! Don’t quit your day job, noooob

  27. * Denotes Punched Ticket Already

    ACC: Duke
    BE: Louisville
    B10: Indiana
    A10: St. Louis
    B12: Kansas
    PAC12: Arizona
    SEC: Florida
    MWC: New Mexico
    CUSA: Memphis
    WCC: Gonzaga
    MVC: Creighton *

    Here are my Current 37 at-large teams:

    1. Georgetown
    2. Miami
    3. Michigan St.
    4. Michigan
    5. Marquette
    6. Ohio St.
    7. Kansas St.
    8. Okla St.
    9. UNLV
    10. Pittsburgh
    11. Syracuse
    12. UCLA
    13. North Carolina
    14. Wisconsin
    15. Colorado St.
    16. Butler
    17. VCU
    18. NC State
    19. Oklahoma
    20. Colorado
    21. Missouri
    22. Minnesota
    23. Notre Dame
    24. Illinois
    25. SD St.
    26. Wichita St.
    27. Oregon
    28. Villanova
    29. Temple
    30. Cincinnati
    31. Boise St.
    32. Iowa St.
    33. California
    34. Tennessee
    35. St. Mary’s
    36. LaSalle
    37. Kentucky
    38. Virginia
    39. So. Miss
    40. Mississippi
    41. MD Tenn St.
    42. Alabama
    43. Baylor
    44. Xavier
    45. Maryland

    Bids by Conference:
    Big East: 8
    Big 10: 7
    Big 12: 5
    Atlantic 10: 5
    PAC12: 5
    MT West: 5
    SEC: 4
    ACC: 4
    West Coast: 2
    Miss. Valley: 2

  28. Your argument on Villanova makes no sense. I have a feeling you root for a conference/bubble team that might be on the outside looking in and you have selected Villanova as the team you think your squad should make it over. Villanova is clearly in the dance, they have too many big wins, and one loss to Columbia is not any worse than a bunch of teams you are putting in your bracket.

  29. You think Villanova is going to end up in the Play-in games? Why? They are clearly going to be in the tournament and will not be one of the last couple teams in.


  30. Ole Miss over Villanova? What on earth are you smoking???

    19-13 (11-9) Big East
    SOS: 17; RPI: 51
    Top 25 wins: 4
    Top 50 wins: 5
    Top 100 wins: 8
    Bad Losses: (2) Columbia (274); Seton Hall (136)

    Ole Miss
    23-8 (12-6) SEC
    SOS: 130; RPI: 56
    Top 25 wins: 0
    Top 50 wins: 1
    Top 100 wins: 7
    Bad losses: (2) South Carolina (222); Miss State (228)

    Villanova has better wins, and not as bad losses as Ole Miss.

    I don’t see these two as close at all.

    Are you an Ole Miss fan?? LOL

    1. Nothing against Villanova and don’t care about Ole Miss either way. I agree with all of your points, but I do think they’ll be one of the final 5 or so teams in the field.

      It’s all a matter of how you cut it. You could say Nova is 6-11 against the Top 90, while Misssissippi is 6-5. You could say Nova has 7 double digit losses while Ole Miss only has 3. Ole Miss lost 4 games away from home to teams outside the Top 50 by a combined 11 points. Nova lost at home to Columbia by 18.

      Nova absolutely has the edge on SOS and on quality wins. They also have 13 losses. I just don’t think their resume is all good and no bad. They should be in the field.

  31. But the committee doesn’t really care about margin of victory, except to the extent that a big win against a good team could stand out. Lose by 5, lose by 15, doesn’t matter. The committee knows that both those games might have been 10 pts with a minute to go and foul shots either way swung them by another 5 pts to either 5 or 10, that’s why margin of victory is not part of the RPI. Margin of victory is worthless.

    Nova being 6-11 against the top 90 is a good thing as it means they don’t have bad losses. Would you rather Nova be 6-5 against the top 100, which would mean they would have a resume like Virginia that includes 8 bad losses? I would rather have 11 losses against decent teams than 8 losses against bad teams.

    13 loss teams with top 20 schedules frequently make the tournament. Horrible point there on your part. Horrible. Is this your first year doing a bracket?

    It is very rare for teams with only 1 top 50 win to make the ncaa tournament. Bad losses don’t hurt nearly as much as a lack of quality wins can hurt a bubble team. You don’t seem to grasp that in your readings. You have little grasp of what is actually going on here.

    Nova lost to Columbia, but Ole Miss has those two 200+ losses to South Carolina and Miss State. I know that Columbia is Ivy league and the others are SEC, but South Carolina and Miss State are horrible. Margin of victory doesn’t really matter, so who cares how many points Nova lost by. Also, Nova’s loss to Columbia was before Thanksgiving, while Ole Misses stinkers were a couple of weeks ago. Record in your last 12 no longer matters, but you better believe the committee knows when your bad losses happened.

    No team with 4 top 15 wins has ever been left out of the tournament. Villanova is not going to be the first.

    Ole Miss is OUT. Nova is IN. FACT.

  32. Wisconsin as an 8 seed? After just beating Michigan in B1G tourney, to go 2-0 against them for year. WI is 4-3 against the top B1G (top conference):
    1-0 vs Indiana (beat them at Indiana.
    2-0 vs Michigan
    1-1 vs Ohio State
    0-2 vs Mich State

    Pomerey has Badgers as 9th best team –
    Sagarin has Badgers as 13th best by W/L, 10th best factoring margin –

    And Crotistics have Badgers as 30th best? Big disconnect.

    1. WI controls IN entire game for W, and goes undefeated against them also for entire year.

      WI now tied with IN for best record against the top 4 B1G teams (IN, WI, MIst, MI):
      IN – 5-3
      WI – 5-3
      MIst – 4-4
      MI – 2-6

      where B1G has been consistently ranked as top conference this year – e.g. Sagarin:

      WI lost their starting PG (Sr) for the entire year in before season, and also lost their best PF defender (Sr) for alot of the 1st half of season, accounting for their early losses. 2nd half of season, Badgers consistently showed up as 1 of the top B!G teams, even having a chance to share the B1G title with 1 game remaining.

      And you/crotistics rank WI as the 30th best team and a #8 seed.
      C’mon man!

      1. Definitely have a bunch of good wins and up to #24 on the Cro-Curve and a #6 seed after beating Indiana. If they win the Big 10 tourney I’ll probably have them as a 5. 11 loss at large teams very, very rarely get higher than a 6 or 7.

    2. The #30 ranking was on the seeding curve. I have them #18 overall in my actual rankings, which use similar elements to Pomeroy/Sagarin. Could be a very dangerous 5 or 6 seed if that’s where they end up.

      1. First – not major, but Badgers have 10 losses, not 11 from you post.

        Most (6) of those 10 losses are against quality top 15-20 teams:
        Florida, MichState (twice), Creighton, Marquette, OhioState

        They counter those losses with 5 wins against top 10 teams:
        Indiana (twice, including win at IN), Michigan (twice), Ohio State (>20 pt blowout)

        Your rankings appear to over-weight pure wins/losses, and therefore definitely over-rewards teams playing easier schedules and punishes those playing harder schedules.

        If your overall rankings actually used elements similar to Pomeroy/Sagarin, which more accurately factors in how a team wins or loses and against who they win/lose, then Badgers overall ranking in Crostatistics(#18), would be much closer to where Pomeroy (#9) and Sagarin (#8 – Predictor ranking).

        As an illustration of your disconnected rankings, check out BracketMatrix:
        Which polls 88 commonly referenced brackets on Internet.
        Out of 88 brackets, only yours and an overly-biased ACC ranking from a ACC site have badgers as a 6 seed.
        Out of those same 88 brackets, 9 have badgers as a 3 seed, with majority coming in as a 4 seed.

        Again, Badgers played entire 1st half of season without 2 of the most important starting seniors (PG and PF), where they lost a few games they probably wouldn’t have if healthy. Since, then in the 2nd half, they’ve been as strong and consistent as any team in B1G, as shown by how well they’ve played and beat Indiana(twice), Michigan(twice) and Ohio State (blew out once).

      2. They currently have 10 losses. If they lose in the final they’d have 11 and be an at large team. I was simply stating that it is rare for an 11 loss at large team to be a 4 or even 5 seed.

        If Wisconsin wins Sunday they can be a 4, but I personally think a 3 is a reach. Pomeroy notoriously overrates Wisconsin. I’m comfortable w my #18 ranking

  33. You really thought Nova was one of the last four teams in? What a jagoff. Villanova was clearly in the tournament. You know nothing about how the brackets work.

    admit you were wrong!!

  34. It is okay dude. You can admit you were DEAD WRONG on Villanova. Hopefully you learned something from this mistake.

    What a tool

  35. Just reading your old posts on why you had Villanova so low, I have to wonder if you were dropped on your head as a child. Did you honestly believe the words you were typing?

    And you had Kentucky as a lock for over a week. What is wrong with you? You are very bad at this. You should quit.

  36. No comment from this chub?

    Hey, you can admit you were wrong. It is not a bad thing to that once in a while. You thought a team with 4 top 15 wins and another win at UConn and with a winning record in the Big East and a decent RPI and a top 20 SOS was on the bubble. Sure that makes you the dumbest bracketologist on the planet, but no biggie. Just admit you were wrong.

  37. Looks like you were WAAAY off on Ole Miss and Villanova?

    The exact two teams that people were telling you that you were off on.

    How does it feel to not listen to those smarter than you? Are you this stubborn in everything you do?

  38. As some constructive criticism, you really overvalued margin of victory too much. Margin of victory is not really a factor. Also, you kept criticizing teams for losing to other top 100 teams. You do realize that a top 100 loss is preferred over a 100+ or even 200+ loss? I hope you see why that is the case. Better to be 6-8 against the top 100 than 6-3 against the top 100 with a bunch of bad losses. Better to lose to good teams than bad teams.

    Also, like in the case of Villanova, you kept hanging on to one bad loss that happened in November. Then you would ignore the bad losses of teams like Ole Miss, and those happened recently The committee specifically said (when discussing Kentucky) that their RECENT PERFORMANCE showed that they just were not good enough. The committee used to count record in last 10, then record in last 12, and then got rid of that. But they never said they don’t evaluate how a team is playing down the stretch.

    So, with Villanova, you kept complaining that they lost a game in november to a bad team. But then with Ole Miss you completely ignored that they lost two games in february to teams just as bad, and that Nova had been red hot after the new year.

    People warned you that you were off, and you ignored them all. Hopefully you pay better attention in the future.

  39. Thank you all for all of the hate mail while the brackets unfolded. As stated at the top with the results, the ultimate goal of this year was to create a predicted seeding curve using a computer model and see how close it got to the actual seeding.

    I was off on Villanova, which I’m aware I was in a very small minority on. I was even more off on San Diego St. and Saint Mary’s, which is OK.

    Taking data and creating something meaningful is what is truly enjoyable to me. Some factors are relevant and others are not. A team like Illinois went 6-9 against the Top 50, had 2 pretty bad losses, lost 4 of their last 6, and still wound up with a 7 seed.

    Meanwhile, Duke went 10-3 against the top 50, had 0 bad losses, played the most difficult non-conference schedule in the country and ended up a 2 seed. It is a difficult task to combine all these elements and create the logic with a computer model that the committee uses. I will continue to work on it, and hopefully will end up with better results next season.

    Thanks for all of your comments, both good and bad. I read every single one and will take every bit into account.


  40. I don’t get your comment on Illinois. 6-9 against the top 50 is good. You think they should have been a higher or lower seed?

  41. I see you had Illinois at a 40/10 seed. How could you justify Ole Miss as being ahead of Illinois.

    Your model appears to be deficient in the following areas:
    – You do not value good wins enough. Illinois beat #6, #9, #10, #22, #34, #34. That’s 6 top 50 wins. Teams with 6 top 50 wins are tournament locks and nowhere near the bubble. Meanwhile, Ole Miss only had 3 top 50 wins, and only one top 25 win.
    You don’t seem to realize just how much credit a team gets for those big wins.

    – You fail to appreciate SOS. Teams you were off huge on included Villanova and Illinois. Both had top 20 SOS. You don’t seem to realize that the committee rewards a strong SOS, and you are allowed to lose games when you have a strong SOS. Illinois had 11 losses against the 9 SOS, and Villanova had 12 against the 18 SOS. That is usually pretty good.
    Meanwhile, Mississippi played a horrible SOS, in the 100’s.

    – You overstate margin of victory. Who cares if Ole Miss is stomping teams nobody heard of, while Illinois and Villanova are playing close games against better competition.

    – Your bad loss calculations are misguided. Who were Illinois’ bad losses? Teams ranked #135 and #168? Villanova also had only two 100+ losses, to a 250+ team and a team just over one hundred. OIe Miss on the other hand had two terrible losses, late in the season. Losing to a team ranked 130 happens. But losing twice to teams ranked in the 200’s in february really should not happen. For some reason you discounted the bad losses of the teams you liked and overplayed the bad losses of teams you didn’t like. You were not consistent on this point at all.

    The committee has always stated the following as important:
    Who did you play?
    Who did you beat?
    Where did you beat them?

    The committee has always shown a lack of desire to reward teams that compile a bunch of wins by large margins against bad teams. Better to go 18-13 against a top 20 SOS than to go 25-6 against a 150’ish SOS. Better to be 6-9 against the RPI top 50 than 3-0 against the RPI top 50.

    Show the committee you can beat good teams. Show the committee you can win away from home (neutral or true road games). Villanova and Illinois had clearly met that standard. However, until the SEC Tourney, a team like Ole Miss had not.

    1. That all seems completely reasonable. I guess I’m more hung up on the Gonzaga argument. Given that Gonzaga is a #1 I’m still working through how Illinois is a 7, San Diego St. is a 7, Minnesota is an 11 and Saint Mary’s is in a play-in.

      Some of these things are easy to explain in words, but a little bit more difficult mathematically. When you correct things for one team, another gets bumped. For example, Duke had 6 top 25 wins, 9 top 50 wins, no bad losses, won 11 games away from home, had the #1 RPI and had the most difficult non-conference schedule in the country. It is very difficult to reward other teams for doing those things well, but at the same time justify Duke being a #2.

      1. Why are you getting hung up over the Duke/Gonzaga comparison? You only missed Duke by 1 seed. The committee probably could have flipped a coin on Duke/Miami/Gonzaga. Gonzaga is currently ranked #1 in the nation, and while that shouldn’t necessarily matter it is tough to overlook. Has the #1 team in both polls ever not been a 1 seed?

        There is some subjectivity for each sideline, but don’t let that cloud your big picture, which you apparently did with Nova and Illinois.

        The commitee always rewards teams with a lot of big wins. Win 4 top 25 games, you are making the tourney.

  42. Bro, you finished in like last place on the bracketmatrix website. What a loser!! Your picks sucked. You should have listened to the people who told you that your picks sucked all along, you could have saved yourself some embarrasment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s