Chad's Seeds
12: Kent St., BYU, Florida, Oregon
11: Texas A&M, Maryland, UNLV, Wake Forest
10: Arizona St, Villanova, Miami (FL), St. Joe's
9: UMass, Syracuse, Arkansas, Baylor
8: Oklahoma, Mississippi St, Oklahoma, Arizona
7: Kansas St, USC
Lunardi's seeds
13: UAB
12: Davidson, New Mexico, Ohio St, Arizona St.
11: UMass, Florida, Maryland, Kent St.
10: St. Joe's, W. Virginia, UNLV, Miami (FL)
9: Texas A&M, S. Alabama, Baylor, Arkansas
8: St. Mary's, USC, Oklahoma, Mississippi St.
7: BYU, Washington St, Pitt, Arizona
We differ on a few teams; Lunardi has South Alabama, UAB, Davidson, New Mexico, and Ohio State in, while I have Syracuse, Oregon, Wake Forest and Villanova in. Here are my thoughts on these differences:
South Alabama - Not only does Lunardi include South Alabama in the tournament field, but he has them as a #9 seed. A win over Mississippi State and sweeping Western Kentucky is not enough to deserve a #9 seed, especially when you factor in losses to Middle Tennessee State and North Texas.
Ohio State - I said it last week and I will say it again, Ohio State is NOT a tournament team.
New Mexico - Their best win on the year is a home win over Texas Tech. The Lobos have upcoming games with UNLV and BYU, if they can win one of those then we can start looking at them as a tournament team.
UAB and Davidson - I can't really argue with Lunardi's inclusion of these teams as I have them just off the bubble.
Wake Forest - I discussed my inclusion of Wake Forest last week and I stand by what I said then. In fact, with Maryland's losses to Virginia Tech and Miami last week, it makes my point even stronger. How can Lunardi have Maryland in as a #10 seed and not even have Wake Forest listed in his "next 8 out"?
Oregon - I've been hesitant to drop Oregon in my rankings even though they have lost 3 straight. The reason for that is the losses have been at UCLA, at USC, and vs. Washington St. The problem is the losses are starting to overshadow their wins over K-State, Stanford and Arizona. I probably have the Ducks rated a little too high, but if they can finish the season with wins over Arizona, ASU, and Oregon St, then they will likely have done enough to earn a bid.
Syracuse - You know what? I think I'm wrong on Syracuse. Of their 7 wins in the Big East, only 2 have come against teams in the RPI top 100 (Georgetown and Villanova). They finish the year with Pitt, Seton Hall and Marquette; they will likely need to win two of those games to have a shot for an at-large bid.
Villanova - So I just admitted I was wrong on Syracuse, but you're not going to see me do it twice. The Wildcats picked up two very nice wins over UConn and West Virginia last week and they have a much easier finish to their schedule. A win at Louisville would be nice, but wins over South Florida and Providence will likely be enough.
5 comments:
I think it's pretty fair to say Nova completely negated their UCONN win with that loss to Marquette. Not a tournament team, IMO.
First, thanks for reading.
Second, why would you punish Villanova for losing to Marquette? Marquette is a very good team. Villanova does have a few questionable losses on their resume but the loss to Marquette is not one of them.
I think I probably fall somewhere in between the two of you. Whereas I don't think it's fair to "completely negate" a good win because of a loss against a good team I also think Villanova is not a tournament team as of today.
However, if I project them through the end of the year I would guess they'll end up getting those wins that Chad mentioned and end up getting into the tournament.
That said, even with just those two wins (and not even yet considering the Big East tournament) they still would be right there on the bubble and in that regard it seems as though Lunardi and Chad would agree.
A lot of bracketologists and commentators do not seem to pay enough attention to where games are played. Home losses and Road wins should be huge. Nova's loss hurts because it is at home.
I think this is what hurts mid-majors. The majors will not play them on their home court and then point out that the mids don't have as many quality wins. Catch 22. A mid-major has to perform like a top 20 team to make it off the bubble.
I agree on that home/away point but there's another part to that (especially with mid majors) that you didn't mention. Often the good mid major teams will lose road games against not great teams and it's considered horrible.
A good example is Drake losing at Missouri State last night. Missouri State actually has talent, in fact they have quite a bit more pure physical talent than Drake. So, although I do think Drake is a better team Drake losing in Springfield was not at all surprising. It was not a good loss, but it's not surprising or particularly embarrassing.
Post a Comment