Immediate Bracket Reactions

Okay, more in-depth analysis later in the week, but I want to get my immediate reactions out for these pairings, while the irons are hot:

  • I usually don’t rip the committee–in fact, I usually defend them–but they absolutely screwed my team this year, so I’m gonna rip them.  But, I’m probably going to save it for a full post.  Cliff’s notes version:  Everyone talks about “selection” and such and they have cleaned that up, but they continue to absolutely screw the little guy with seedings.  Temple and Temple’s opponent included.  More on that later this week.
  • Cornell also got screwed, as their matchup with Temple is more like a second-round matchup than a first, but, again, more on that later in the week.
  • I love the fact that the committee is penalizing teams for not playing anyone in non-conference and for not playing well in their conference tournaments (ya know, with the exception of our Owls).  All of that is good for us, as spectators.
  • Each region’s best chance for a pretty big upset:  MIDWEST: 13-Murray St. over 4-Vandy; WEST: 11-San Diego St. over 6-Tennessee; EAST: 11-Washington over 6-Marquette; SOUTH: 13-Siena over 4-Purdue
  • Best first-round matchups in each region:  MIDWEST: Ok State-Ga Tech; WEST: Xavier-Minnesota; EAST: Temple-Cornell; SOUTH: California-Louisville
  • Best possible second-round matchups in each region: MIDWEST: Michigan St.-Maryland; WEST: Xavier-Pitt; EAST: Kentucky-Texas; SOUTH: Baylor-Notre Dame 
  • Overseeded teams:  Villanova (2), Florida (10), Vanderbily (4), New Mexico St. (12). Wake Forest (9)
  • Underseeded teams:  Cornell (12), Temple (5), Gonzaga (8), Butler (5), N. Iowa (9), Murray St. (13)
  • Notice that the overseeded teams are big guys and the underseeded teams are little guys…ya, get used to hearing that from me in the next couple of days.
  • The Midwest Region is LOADED.  They have the defined best 1-seed (Kansas).  They have either the best or second-best 2-seed (Ohio St.).  They have the best or second-best 3-seed (G’town).  They have the best or second-best 4-seed (Maryland).  Plus, Tom Izzo, Bruce Pearl, Tom Penders, and Lon Kruger in the rest of the field.  Throw in the star power of Derrick Favors and James Anderson in the 7-10 game, and this region is totally loaded.
  • The South is pretty weak.  They have, arguably, the worst 1-seed (Duke-even though they are technically the #3-overall).  They have the worst 2-seed (Nova).   And, their 4-seed (Purdue) is without its best player.
  • How amazing is it that there are only three programs in the country with a longer streak of consecutive tournaments than Gonzaga?  That is such an incredible feat.
  • Early Final Four picks:  Kansas, West Virginia, K-State, and Baylor

More on the whole field all week.

This entry was posted in College Hoops and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Immediate Bracket Reactions

  1. Doogan says:

    Here’s what I don’t really get. It’s supposedly an “S-curve”, right? So the rank the teams 1-65, then put them in an S-Curve in the seedings, with exceptions made for certain things like location and getting conferce-mates away from each other.

    So, if you look at this bracket, the committee told us that Villanova ranked higher on their 1-65 list than West Virginia. How is that possible? Because they announced that Duke was considered the third 1-seed over Syracuse (which I don’t agree with, but complaining about Duke getting special treatment is pretty useless). So then, the top seed is K-State, and the next 2-seed is Nova in the Duke region??? If Duke moved ahead of Syracuse because they won their conference tourney and Syracuse didn’t win a game, then how could West Virginia not have moved ahead of Nova after they won the same tourney that Nova wasn’t able to win a game in?

    It’s not only unfair to W. Virginia, but also to Kentucky, who gets a tougher 2-seed in their region, and even to Kansas, who should probably have Nova as the 2-seed in their region instead of Ohio State.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *