Bracket Reaction

The NCAA Tournament field is set and the brackets are out. It’s been a wonderful college basketball season and we are in store for an epic tourney. For as much balance as we’ve seen this year, no one can really predict what will happen over the next few weeks. But of course we’ll try!

Today we are bringing you our bracket reaction. We’ll provide you with our initial reactions to the bracket and the job of the selection committee. We’ll also tell you which bubble teams got screwed, which teams were over-seeded and under-seeded, which regions appear to be the strongest and weakest, and what our reactions are to the top seeds. Over the next couple days, we’ll go more in depth on specific team and individual matchups we can’t wait to see, hints on how to pick your bracket, and on Wednesday we’ll share our tourney picks. Over the next couple weeks we’ll do analysis like this Monday-Wednesday. Enjoy!

Initial Reaction

Andrew: My initial reaction to the tourney is that the committee did a pretty good job. I liked how they rewarded some of the mid-majors as they have been in recent years (such as the seeding of St. Louis, VCU, Butler). And I thought the selection of the 68 teams was basically justified (more on that in next paragraph). My biggest issue is the balance some of the regions lacked. I thought the best 2 seeds (Duke, Miami) were paired with the best 1 seeds (Louisville, IU). That’s not exactly fair.

In terms of bubble team selections, I do have a couple minor issues (although they really aren’t huge objections). I didn’t like that computer numbers and whom you lost to played a bigger role than whom you played and actually beat. St. Mary’s and Middle Tennessee had good computer numbers but whom did they actually beat? (Answer: Middle Tennessee’s only good win was Ole Miss, St. Mary’s only good win was Creighton). Virginia and Iowa had terrible computer numbers, but they played in good conferences, competed well, and beat some good teams. Virginia had wins at Wisconsin, and against Tennessee, UNC, NC State, Maryland twice, and Duke. Iowa beat Iowa State (a bubble team that got in), Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois. They also finished 9-9 in the best conference in the nation; a game ahead of tourney teams Illinois and Minnesota. I say screw the computer numbers, which mean nothing. Go by who teams can beat, their efficiency numbers, or even the eye test. At least the other bubble teams that made it (Boise State and La Salle) beat some teams… PREDICTION: Iowa will win the NIT.

My last reaction was that for a season full of upsets, I don’t see many on paper. Normally, there are some definite upsets that stand out when the brackets are released. This time, I don’t see many on first glance. But the beauty of the tourney is that they will occur, and pop out of nowhere. I can’t wait!

Greg: My initial overall reaction is that the tournament committee did a fairly good job. I thought the bubble teams they put in (La Salle, Boise State, St. Mary’s, Middle Tennessee) were solid choices. The ones that they did not (Southern Miss, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Virginia, and Iowa) did not deserve to be in overall. Iowa had the best resume because they played in the best conference all season, but the rest played relatively weak non-conference (and conference) schedules and were inconsistent all season long.

I agree with the seed of the top 4 in each region, with the exception of Kansas State as the 4 seed in the West region. I thought Wisconsin should have been the 4 seed there, and possibly deserved an even higher seed than that overall. But the committee balanced this out by making Kansas State play the winner of the La Salle/Boise State play-in game, which is tough.

Over-seeded Teams

Andrew: Memphis is a team that screams over-seeded. They beat Southern Miss and Tennessee, but those aren’t even tourney teams. Marquette seems to be a weak 3-seed, even if they did share the Big East crown. SD State is talented but their resume didn’t deserve a 7 seed. They lacked consistency all year. Villanova got too good of a seed also. They were a bubble team and they got a 9?

Greg: As I just mentioned, Kansas State was over-seeded. I did not see much of them this year, but their non-conference schedule didn’t impress me and included a loss to Gonzaga. That’s really the only team I have an issue with being over-seeded.

Under-seeded Teams

Andrew: The obvious answer here is Oregon. They just won the competitive Pac-12 tourney and nearly won the regular season also. They endured through the thick of the conference season without their best player (Artis), who is back now and it shows in how they’ve been played last week. Wisconsin is much better than a 5-seed. Valparaiso should have gotten a 13 instead of a 14. It kills their chances for an upset, which is the only reason I mention it. Pitt, NC State, and North Carolina all could/should have been slightly higher also. Lastly, Minnesota is better than an 11-seed, but they ended poorly so I guess I can sort of understand that.

Greg: NC State and UNC. I put these teams in the same line because they are both immensely talented teams that hit rough patches and stumbled a bit, but recovered and played very well towards the end of the season. I would have had these two teams no lower than a 6/7 seed. To put both of these teams in the 8/9 matchup is very tough. Two other teams that are under-seeded are Oregon and Minnesota. These teams as a 12/11 respectively are incredibly tough matchups for lower seeds.

Toughest Region

Andrew: I think it’s the South region by a hair over the Midwest. The South has as good of top seeds as you’ll find in any year. Kansas was a 1-seed lock and was in the National Championship Game a year ago. Georgetown was the Big East Champs and has potentially the best player in college basketball on their team (Otto Porter Jr.). Florida is the only team in the nation that is top 5 on offense and defense, and is the #1 team in the nation according to the Pomeroy rankings. Michigan was the best team in the nation a month and a half ago, and was a roll of the ball away from winning the Big Ten (and a Ben Brust half courter away from winning it outright on top of that). Michigan is also led by Trey Burke, who is likely to win the National POY award. I can’t think of a better 4-seed…ever! VCU is nightmare to play against in the tourney, as evidenced by their Final Four run two years ago, and 6-seeded UCLA won the Pac-12 and is as talented as any team nationally. I even like UNC as an 8, Minnesota as an 11, and Akron/South Dakota State as dangerous lower seeds. NOTE: Remember the name Nate Wolters…

Greg: In my estimation it’s the Midwest region, not for the strength of the top seeds necessarily, but for the strength of the teams on the 1-12 lines. Oregon, Pac-12 tourney champions are seeded at 12, Middle Tennessee/Saint Mary’s at 11, Cincinnati at 10, Missouri at 9, Colorado State at 8, Creighton at 7, Memphis at 6, Oklahoma State at 5, Saint Louis at 4, Michigan State at 3, Duke at 2, Louisville (overall #1) at 1. The depth in this region will give us some of the most exciting games of the tournament, and possibly the most upsets in a region before any team gets to the final four.

Weakest Region

Andrew: This one is easy… it’s the West. This region has the weakest 1-seed (Gonzaga), weakest 3-seed (New Mexico), and the weakest 4-seed (Kansas State). Ohio State and Wisconsin may be the region’s best two teams, but when they played yesterday they combined for 93 points (so they obviously have deficiencies). What this means though is that this could be the toughest region to predict, but maybe the best region to watch if you like upsets.

Greg: It’s the South region. The top 5 teams are very good, but the 6-16 seeds are by far the weakest in the tournament. This region should play out as the most “chalk” region of the four and get the fewest upsets of them all. I would not be surprised if no more than one double-digit seed reaches the sweet 16. Minnesota being the only team with that chance.

Analysis of 1-Seeds

Andrew: In terms of whom the teams are, I only have an issue with Gonzaga. As this past week finished, I think Miami was deserving of a 1-seed over the Bulldogs. Miami won the ACC Regular Season and Tournament. They played and beat better teams, despite having a few more losses.

In terms of the order, I still believe Indiana should have been the #1 overall seed, and been placed in the Midwest. The Big Ten was better than all the other conferences combine… The fact that they won the league outright should have carried more weight than the fact they lost in the semifinals of the league tournament. Road wins over Ohio State, Michigan State, and Michigan were three wins Louisville (or any other team) only wished they had. That should have set them apart. It worked out though because Louisville was put with Duke, whom I think is one of the favorites to win it all now that Ryan Kelly has returned from injury. Ouch.

Greg: Louisville - I think this team does not deserve the #1 overall seed. They were mediocre for a large part of the middle of their conference season, and though they recovered nicely and finished well, they should not be the overall seed.

Kansas - I thought that Kansas being a #1 seed was justified, but I thought they should have been the #3 or #4 chosen, not the second. That being said, they had only one bad loss (to TCU), and outside of that were arguably the most consistent team in the entire country.

Indiana - They were the best team in the best conference in the country all season. I don’t know if they were deserving of the #1 overall seed, but I also don’t think they shouldn’t have been paired with the best #2 seed (Miami).

Gonzaga - Had one top 25 win all season and were basically rewarded for not losing as much as other teams in the country with their seed. They are clearly the weakest #1 seed and the most unlikely to make it to the Final Four of the #1 seeds.

Feel free to make comments if you agree or disagree. Plus, there is more to come over the next couple days…

By: The Sports Guys