PDA

View Full Version : Bracketology- OUCH



OregonZag5
02-27-2012, 09:21 AM
Now we are headed to Greensboro- clear across the country and we are a 7- wonder if we win the WCC- can we move up- stange teams in Portland- think it is going to be hard to unload my tickets if GU does not go as those teams will not bring a lot of fans. Wash, St Mary's and BYU all lower seeds- travel less than we do.

Zag@LMU
02-27-2012, 09:25 AM
Link: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

Were not heading anywhere until selection sunday though

LongIslandZagFan
02-27-2012, 09:35 AM
Lunardi may be close on seed... Locations... Not so much. either way... Just go out and saw wood Zags... Cut em down one by one.

jim77
02-27-2012, 09:40 AM
Duke...Uconn.....no thanks.

BULLDOG#1
02-27-2012, 09:42 AM
I know this is all a guessing game right now, but doesn't it seem like every one of these brackets has BYU, though a lower seed, in a really winnable bracket to the sweet 16?

gu03alum
02-27-2012, 09:56 AM
selfishly, I would like them to play in Greensboro if they can't play in Portland. I would also take Louisville and Pittsburgh.

tobizag
02-27-2012, 10:03 AM
it's stupid that lunardi has GU as a 7 seed 1 spot higher than smc according to the nitty gritty report...and yet smc has a more favorable draw, imo. alabama in the first round is an easier opponent than the defending national champs. and a second round matchup with ohio st or duke? smc gets osu, a team that only plays 5 guys, whereas we get duke in greensboro.

TacomaZAG
02-27-2012, 10:03 AM
If this scenario plays out, and we are a mid seed (7-10) on the east coast, we will more than likely be playing an early morning (east coast time) game for TV considerations. That translates to a likely one and done (IMHO).

So, the guys need to dig deep and win the WCC Tourney. If they do that, I think they have a real chance of being in Portland, due to the generally horrible state of west coast basketball this season (PAC-12 specifically).

Those two WCC Tourney games will make or break the season......

Go ZAGS

thespywhozaggedme
02-27-2012, 10:07 AM
[QUOTE=jim77;757184]Duke...Uconn.....no thanks.[/QUOTE

UConn is awful, they have ZERO business being in the tourney

Das Zagger
02-27-2012, 10:12 AM
UConn is awful, they have ZERO business being in the tourney

Note to self, lock up the laptop before that game.

DixieZag
02-27-2012, 10:26 AM
I think all of this is pretty silly.

No one can even have an informed guess as to where we play until having seen the WCC tournament. If we just blast both teams from the top 3 (which we did at home - BYU not as much) then we probably move up a seed - maybe two. If we get beat in the semis, we are looking at a 9 or 10.

Lunardi draws up what he believes the brackets would be if they were released today. But the most critical two games of the year (so far) are coming up.

hooter73
02-27-2012, 10:29 AM
Maybe its just me but I dont see the WCC being a 3 bid league.

LongIslandZagFan
02-27-2012, 10:38 AM
Note to self, lock up the laptop before that game.

:000tens:

Bravo... Well played.

HOOTER
02-27-2012, 10:38 AM
Wash, St Mary's and BYU all lower seeds- travel less than we do.

I don't buy into all this bracketology business, but lower seeds traveling less than the Zags sounds just about right.

FieldHouseFishHouse
02-27-2012, 10:41 AM
Maybe its just me but I dont see the WCC being a 3 bid league.

IF BYU and SMC play in the finals I think it is. Or, if some dark horse goes on a run and wins the WCC tournament (not likely, but maybe LMU/USF?)

BobZag
02-27-2012, 10:50 AM
If der Zags can't get a 5 seed in PDX, then nab a 6 seed somewhere. That has to be our hope.

thespywhozaggedme
02-27-2012, 10:51 AM
Note to self, lock up the laptop before that game.

I don't understand your post at all. Sorry. :confused:

ZagSports
02-27-2012, 11:04 AM
What we need is to play BYU and SMC and beat them both..... if this occurs, I don't see anything better then a 4 (4 would be a miracle) and nothing less then a 6 (7+ would be a slap in the face)

gu03alum
02-27-2012, 11:23 AM
I need someone in the WCC to get a 4 seed (preferably the Zags) or I owe some East Coast tool I work with lunch for a bet we made before the season started.

zagzilla
02-27-2012, 11:32 AM
....because they refuse to play Sundays. Committee gives them special treatment and puts them in the Thu/Sat regions, often it seems, with positive geographical and seed results.

FWIW I think they do belong in the dance this year but they should be treated just like everybody else in their seeding. Let them make their own decision about whether or not to play the games they are assigned to.

ZZ

TheGonzagaFactor
02-27-2012, 11:39 AM
Maybe its just me but I dont see the WCC being a 3 bid league.

It shouldn't be and I don't think anyone who's not a fan of a WCC team sees it either. The only way it happens is if BYU beats SMC in the final, or if ALL expected mid major conference champions take care of business in their tournaments. The common best win for BYU and SMC is a win at home against Gonzaga. If beating us outside of Spokane is a résumé making win (neither of them have any other big wins that say "they beat them, we HAVE to put them in!") then I guess that is the world we live in. I know Lunardi has all 3 in and a lot of mock brackets do, but I think when Selection Sunday rolls around either BYU or SMC will get treated like last year's SMC: in on every mock bracket, but the committee saw no significant OOC wins and an overall weak body of work even with 25+ cheap "wins."

FieldHouseFishHouse
02-27-2012, 11:52 AM
It shouldn't be and I don't think anyone who's not a fan of a WCC team sees it either. The only way it happens is if BYU beats SMC in the final, or if ALL expected mid major conference champions take care of business in their tournaments. The common best win for BYU and SMC is a win at home against Gonzaga. If beating us outside of Spokane is a résumé making win (neither of them have any other big wins that say "they beat them, we HAVE to put them in!") then I guess that is the world we live in. I know Lunardi has all 3 in and a lot of mock brackets do, but I think when Selection Sunday rolls around either BYU or SMC will get treated like last year's SMC: in on every mock bracket, but the committee saw no significant OOC wins and an overall weak body of work even with 25+ cheap "wins."

Cognitive Dissonance.

04ZagFan
02-27-2012, 11:57 AM
UConn is awful, they have ZERO business being in the tourney

Famous last words. UCONN has a ton of talent, and are coming off an NCAA championship. You want to play them? Get ready for a big disappointment on the first day of the NCAA tournament.

Say we get past UCONN? Duke beats us by 20+.

The good news is, the fact that Joey Brackets projected this scenario means the chances it actually happens are about 0.001%. He's very good at what he does, but he never gets match-ups right, which is very understandable, there is no way to really project match-ups.

Just more reason why losing to USF was deadly. Killed our chances at getting to the sweet 16 or beyond, IMO. Seeding is everything. Playing in the WCC, you can't afford to slip up. Sucks, but it's reality.

Oregonzagnut
02-27-2012, 12:09 PM
We are a 7 seed now and it doesn't matter where. If we win the WCC tournament with 2 top 50 RPI wins, we could still be a seven seed.

I find it funny that Jay Bilas, whom I seem to always want to respect has this to say every year: http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/blog?name=bilas_jay&id=7578744&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fncb %2fblog%3fname%3dbilas_jay%26id%3d7578744

He seems to argue that since we trust the committee to pick the 37 we should trust them to do the entire 64 and that will make a more fair and competitive tournament. He says it would help mid-majors get better in the long run. but 90% of the replys and logic says it is completely wrong.

Get rid of the chance that each school has to go on a miracle run and you end the single most appealing thing about the NCAA tournament every year.

Bilas, you show your true "Blue" colors here with this load of cr@%

awberke
02-27-2012, 12:28 PM
Removing the automatic bids makes conference tournaments less prone to upsets. It doesn't matter what a team does the whole season, if they play their hearts out they could still make the NCAA tournament.

I guess that could be looked at as good or bad though. Ultimately there are conferences that would never make the tournament without autobids and that wipes out large portions of the country that would be watching their games (i.e. money money money).

FieldHouseFishHouse
02-27-2012, 12:51 PM
Is it possible for someone to re-post the Bilas' Insider article.
Can't justify subscribing, considering my massive student loan debt.

MickMick
02-27-2012, 03:25 PM
Cognitive Dissonance.

Well played Fish.

bullzag23
02-27-2012, 03:35 PM
Is it possible for someone to re-post the Bilas' Insider article.
Can't justify subscribing, considering my massive student loan debt.

Ask and ye shall receive:

Ever since Murray State tumbled unexpectedly to Tennessee State, the bubble talk began to swirl around the Racers. Suddenly, a team that previously was undefeated and ranked in the top 10 of the polls might need to walk a tightrope in the conference tournament just to make the NCAA tournament field. To me, this is silly. Silly not because the Racers are tournament locks in my mind but because they belong in the field and their exclusion would point directly to a serious flaw in the way we decide the national championship.

Murray State is clearly one of the 68 best teams in the nation and has proved as much in the course of its nonconference schedule with wins against Memphis, Southern Miss, Dayton and UAB. The Racers sit at No. 55 in the RPI, No. 46 in ESPN's BPI and an even loftier No. 29 in my Bilas Index. This team is good and belongs in the bracket. That it might miss the NCAA tournament altogether illustrates the problematic nature of the automatic bid and how it hurts, not helps, competitive programs outside of the major conferences.

In fact, the more I consider how the automatic bid affects the fairness of the NCAA tournament, the more I am convinced that automatic bids should be eliminated altogether.

If we can have a selection committee that is trusted to select the best 37 teams, that same committee certainly could be trusted to select the best 64 teams to compete for the national championship. There would still be debate, as there always is, about the 64th- and 65th-best teams in the nation, but it's better to have the debate at that level than to exclude the 38th-best team in the nation in favor of, say, the 199th-best team, as we do with automatic bids.

With no automatic bids, every team is essentially an independent for which scheduling and its performance against that schedule are amplified. Every team, big and small, has the same chance to be considered among the best teams in the country. And if we have the best 64 teams, we will have the best mid-majors or non-"power six" teams and a much more competitive NCAA tournament.

I expect this proposal will draw a cry of how this is unfair to the little guys and how "Bilas just wants to eliminate the mid-majors from the field and get more middling majors in." That is nonsense, albeit nonsense that has been embraced by the president of the NCAA, who wrote in The Wall Street Journal that some critics don't want the VCU Rams or Butler Bulldogs in the Final Four or don't care about Boise State. Respectfully, that is without legitimate foundation and is exactly the kind of lame argument the NCAA often pushes back against when aimed its way.

If you think about it, the elimination of automatic bids would help a number of mid-majors gain access to the tournament field instead of being left on the doorstep after losing in their conference tournaments.

[+] Enlarge

Bob Donnan/US Presswire
With the 64 best teams in the tournament, we'd still see underdog stories such as VCU.Taking last year as an example, if the best 64 teams were included without automatic bids, we still would have had VCU and Butler in the field, but we also would have had teams such as Wichita State and Missouri State. In short, we would have the best of the non-power-six conference teams instead of far too many teams that are not qualified to compete for the national championship. And, if we eliminate automatic bids, we also eliminate the chance for middling majors to steal a bid in their conference tournament that might otherwise have gone to a qualified mid-major. Everybody wins, at least everybody who wants the best teams to compete for the national championship.

For those who still believe eliminating automatic bids would favor the major conference powers, consider this: The leagues outside the power six make up almost 80 percent of Division I and more than 50 percent of the NCAA tournament field. The power six conferences (or BCS conferences: ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC) account for approximately 20 percent of Division I, just less than 50 percent of the NCAA tournament field and more than 70 percent of all NCAA tournament wins. And, since 1991, 100 percent of NCAA champions.

Part of the reason for that top-heavy success is because we're often placing traffic cones in front of the nation's best teams in the first round rather than a legitimate challenge. If we're going to bestow a national title to the team that survives the March gantlet, it should actually be a gantlet. The teams that annually constitute the No. 16 seeds pose no challenge to No. 1 seeds, as clearly seen by the fact that no men's No. 16 has upset a No. 1. Start taking the best 64 teams in the nation, however, and I'm willing to bet that would change drastically. Using the teams in the latest Bilas Index as an example, rather than facing the winner of the SWAC or America East, the Kentucky Wildcats could have to prove themselves against Saint Joseph's, Stanford or Pittsburgh.

That leads to the next argument opponents of my proposal are likely to lean on: Eliminating the automatic bids will eliminate some of the great upset storylines from future tournaments and negatively affect the viewer experience. Again, I think that's flawed thinking.

Teams that are capable of pulling big upsets and making deep runs will be in this field. VCU, Butler, Gonzaga, Davidson from 2008, those teams would have been in any field composed of the nation's top 64 teams. We're not excluding dark horses, just lame ones. As for viewer experience, look at that hypothetical first-round No. 1/16 matchup above. On the first day of the tournament, would you rather see Kentucky-Pittsburgh or Kentucky-Mississippi Valley State? These would be better, more competitive games in pursuit of a national title. How is that not more compelling television?

But the biggest reason I would advocate the elimination of automatic bids is a simple one: fairness.

It seems silly to argue that any Division I team should be given a competitive break simply because of a league affiliation or that all leagues are essentially the same and therefore should each have a spot in the national championship process.

Look at the Olympics. Do you see Trinidad and Tobago getting an automatic qualification into the final heat of the 100 meters? No, every sprinter must earn his or her place on the starting blocks. Would we do this for academics? Would we reserve a spot in Phi Beta Kappa for C-level students just because they attended smaller institutions?

In my mind, there is no problem with awarding NCAA tournament spots based solely on merit. The elimination of automatic bids would have no effect on true competition. For those who argue that it would affect the players on the MEAC or SWAC champions unfairly, that ignores the unfair impact on the players of far better teams such as Wichita State, Missouri State, Colorado and Harvard -- all of whom were left out last season. Are we to believe that proponents of student-athlete fairness and competition are fine with unfair impact on select athletes instead of one standard for all who choose to compete in Division I?

Clearly the elephant in the room with regard to the elimination of automatic bids is money. Selecting the best 64 teams could very well have an effect on the revenue pocketed by conferences and conference officials, and that is significant. It might compromise the popularity of Championship Week, conference tournaments and the surrounding revenues those events generate. But that is the only factor that argues in favor of the status quo.

If you want to argue that the men's basketball national championship tournament should be carried out in the fairest way possible, I believe you have to argue for the elimination of automatic bids. And if you would care to argue for their continued existence in the NCAA tournament, well, you had better be prepared to admit that the only thing that matters about this event and its execution is the money the current incarnation generates.

I too have massive student loan debt, but found ESPN to be worth the cost :)

TheGonzagaFactor
02-27-2012, 04:13 PM
Cognitive Dissonance.

Well it's a 3 bid league at this very moment but probably not on Selection Sunday. BYU's résumé will look less tourney worthy with another loss. I can see why they could sneak in if the field were selected now.

If GU, BYU, and SMC all won the WCC tournament simultaneously (this is to say if we could all make it to Selection Sunday without another loss), I would say we're a 3 bid league. However, out of GU, BYU, and SMC at least two will take another loss so I just feel like BYU will get the short end of the stick and be in the NIT.

Lunardi works for ESPN so he is going to give the WCC more love than it is deserving of, like when he had SMC in last year even though they had no business being in the conversation with more deserving teams like Colorado, VCU, USC, and a few others. I don't think that beating a fringe top-25 team like GU at home should warrant a tourney bid for BYU or even SMC for that matter. If BYU loses the final they would have 3 losses to SMC which would make them a bubble team, most likely on the outside looking in.

3 bids might happen, but it would involve BYU beating us and SMC in back-to-back games which I don't think they are capable of.

04ZagFan
02-27-2012, 04:38 PM
I gotta say, unless SMC or BYU is upset by anybody other than Gonzaga or each other, I don't see how the WCC doesn't get all 3 teams in.

SMC and GU are locks, IMO and according to Joey Brackets, BYU isn't even really on the bubble right now, so I don't see a loss to us kicking them out. I could be wrong, but I think we are pretty safe to get 3 teams in.

FieldHouseFishHouse
02-27-2012, 05:45 PM
Agree to disagree GonzagaFactor.

I understand (and hope) that BYU suffers one more loss before selection sunday. However, as of right now they are in. Which means right now they are a nose ahead of other bubble teams.

Many other teams on the bubble will also lose before selection sunday.

As long as the bubble doesn't completely collapse, BYU will probably stay on the inside.

If they finish 23-8, with an RPI of around 50 and wins over GU/Nevada/Oregon/Weber St, and 6 of their losses to NCAA tourney teams (Baylor, Wisc, SMCx2, GUx2) I think they are in.

Expectations have to be re-calibrated due to the expanded tournament field. Remember, the "first four out" are now the "last four in" these days.

NotoriousZ
02-27-2012, 06:32 PM
If BYU loses in their first round game, they will probably get the shaft. If they lose to us in the semi finals...bubble city.

The winner of the WCC tourny (if it's the Zags or SMC) should get a 4 or 5 seed.

Jay "dream killer" Bilas should really find something else to b!tch about.

madness
02-27-2012, 09:23 PM
If Zags end up in Greensboro opposite Duke or UNC in the second round I will be a very unhappy panda.

willandi
02-27-2012, 10:10 PM
If you really want to make it fairer, make each regular season conference champion in, and each conference tourney champ in. It won't guarantee the best 68, but it will mean that you actually had to accompish something! Along the same vein, if you aren't above .500 in conference play (8-7, 6-5, etc ABOVE) you aren't in. No more 10 conference participants. Win your way in or NIT it, or worse!

Ekrub
02-27-2012, 10:34 PM
If you are going to eliminate the automatic bid then you would have to take into account that a lot of smaller schools would not get a fair schedule. No way Kentucky is going to play @LMU.

If the scheduling wasn't such a big deal, I think he would have a point (I'd love to see the true top 64 teams play). But given the way the power conferences are already at an advantage, I think his idea of "fairness" would = 60/64 teams being from the Power 6

*edited to add: It's still 68 again right? In the article he said something about there would still be arguments for the 64/65 best team. Just wanted to note that.

Beer_Engineer
02-27-2012, 10:50 PM
I think all of this is pretty silly.

No one can even have an informed guess as to where we play until having seen the WCC tournament. If we just blast both teams from the top 3 (which we did at home - BYU not as much) then we probably move up a seed - maybe two. If we get beat in the semis, we are looking at a 9 or 10.

Lunardi draws up what he believes the brackets would be if they were released today. But the most critical two games of the year (so far) are coming up.

I too think we'll end up a 9 or 10, regardless of what happens. Id love to eat some crow here too, but we've had better teams with a 9-10 seed.

Beer_Engineer
02-27-2012, 10:51 PM
If BYU loses in their first round game, they will probably get the shaft. If they lose to us in the semi finals...bubble city.

The winner of the WCC tourny (if it's the Zags or SMC) should get a 4 or 5 seed.

Jay "dream killer" Bilas should really find something else to b!tch about.

4 or 5 seed? You're smokin the good stuff. We could win the tourney by an avg of 50 and not get a 5...