(03-17-2013 02:54 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  My final bracket I have UC as a 10 seed in the East playing in Philly against Colorado State. Possible 2nd round matchup with Duke.

Wow! Great call

(03-17-2013 05:16 PM)ucbrownsfan Wrote:  For some strange reason, I was annoyed we're in the same bracket as Louisville

Thats pretty impressive guys. A few of you knew we would be playing creigton and mark finished it up with the location and who a second round matchup could be if they win. Nice job all. I forgot to watch the show instead been watching the 3 week old at home

(03-17-2013 02:54 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  My final bracket I have UC as a 10 seed in the East playing in Philly against Colorado State. Possible 2nd round matchup with Duke.

Mark, how did the rest of your bracket match up?

(03-17-2013 06:52 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 02:54 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  My final bracket I have UC as a 10 seed in the East playing in Philly against Colorado State. Possible 2nd round matchup with Duke.

Mark, how did the rest of your bracket match up?

Haven't gone over it in detail yet. Seemed good watching it. I'll go over it tomorrow.

(03-17-2013 05:07 PM)bearcat54 Wrote:  we were given a 10 seed and going to philadelphia to play Creighton.

Way to go out on a limb there!

I had 67 of 68 and the miss came exactly where I said it may come from. I went with Tennessee based on a number of quality wins (some away from home), but the committee ultimately went Middle Tennessee State (who was my first team out). I nailed 29/68 exactly on seed and the big one, because seeds are so fluid teams get moved for procedural reasons and the difference in seed lines can be one spot, I got 56/68 within one seed line. I nailed all the one seeds and the 1-4 seeds were all within 1 spot. This is also true for the 12-16 seeds. Where the problems came were in the middle. Here is where I missed badly:

Oregon- They were something like 21-4 with Artis in the lineup. They were in first in the PAC 12 prior to his injury and won the PAC 12 tourney after he came back. They beat UCLA 3 times and beat UNLV at UNLV. I penalized this team a bit because of a not very good out of conference schedule and because the relative weakness of the PAC 12, but for them to be a 12 was absurd. The only PAC 12 team I thought should be above them was Arizona purely because of a strong OOC resume. I had UCLA two lines lower than the committee because of the season ending injury and because I could not seed them above Oregon. I am baffled by Oregon's seed.

NC State and North Carolina- First of all, I am fine with where both were seeded. I thought North Carolina and NC state both would get more respect, probably based on name and in UNC's cases RPI numbers. But looking deeper, UNC beat 2 tournament teams all season long, both at home, and was 2-8 against the RPI top 50. I cannot complain at all with it seed. In retrospect, I just missed on these two teams. Should have had both lower. Probably let finishing spot in annual overrated ACC influence me too much.

VCU- I don't actually think I missed badly on VCU. I had them as the first 7, committee had them as the last 5. It's 2 seed lines, but really not very far.

Pitt- I think Pittsburgh is the second biggest wiff by the committee. I think they were every bit of a 6 seed, the committee gave them an 8 (the second lowest 8 at that). It seems Pitt was penalized even more than I thought they would be for a bad non-conference SOS. I thought they'd probably get the UC treatment of the last two years. Their resume was really similar to ND this year (who got a 6) That's a really tough draw for Gonzaga.

Best Call:

UC- As usual, my best prediction comes when I evaluate the Bearcats resume (as I spend easily the most time evaluating it). I had UC as the 10 seed playing in Philadelphia, with the winner of Duke v. Albany waiting in the next round. I know I said they would be playing Colorado State, but Creighton was also a 7 seed in my bracket, and trust me when I say that I meant to put them their instead. Actually, in reality the Committee had UC three spots higher than I did ranking them as the highest 10 seed, not the lowest. Also while I'd love to rub it in to bearcatlawjd that I called Villanova as a 9 seed the committee actually has them as the second 10, but moved them to a 9 for procedural reasons.

(03-18-2013 08:29 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I had 67 of 68 and the miss came exactly where I said it may come from. I went with Tennessee based on a number of quality wins (some away from home), but the committee ultimately went Middle Tennessee State (who was my first team out). I nailed 29/68 exactly on seed and the big one, because seeds are so fluid teams get moved for procedural reasons and the difference in seed lines can be one spot, I got 56/68 within one seed line. I nailed all the one seeds and the 1-4 seeds were all within 1 spot. This is also true for the 12-16 seeds. Where the problems came were in the middle. Here is where I missed badly:

Oregon- They were something like 21-4 with Artis in the lineup. They were in first in the PAC 12 prior to his injury and won the PAC 12 tourney after he came back. They beat UCLA 3 times and beat UNLV at UNLV. I penalized this team a bit because of a not very good out of conference schedule and because the relative weakness of the PAC 12, but for them to be a 12 was absurd. The only PAC 12 team I thought should be above them was Arizona purely because of a strong OOC resume. I had UCLA two lines lower than the committee because of the season ending injury and because I could not seed them above Oregon. I am baffled by Oregon's seed.

NC State and North Carolina- First of all, I am fine with where both were seeded. I thought North Carolina and NC state both would get more respect, probably based on name and in UNC's cases RPI numbers. But looking deeper, UNC beat 2 tournament teams all season long, both at home, and was 2-8 against the RPI top 50. I cannot complain at all with it seed. In retrospect, I just missed on these two teams. Should have had both lower. Probably let finishing spot in annual overrated ACC influence me too much.

VCU- I don't actually think I missed badly on VCU. I had them as the first 7, committee had them as the last 5. It's 2 seed lines, but really not very far.

Pitt- I think Pittsburgh is the second biggest wiff by the committee. I think they were every bit of a 6 seed, the committee gave them an 8 (the second lowest 8 at that). It seems Pitt was penalized even more than I thought they would be for a bad non-conference SOS. I thought they'd probably get the UC treatment of the last two years. Their resume was really similar to ND this year (who got a 6) That's a really tough draw for Gonzaga.

Best Call:

UC- As usual, my best prediction comes when I evaluate the Bearcats resume (as I spend easily the most time evaluating it). I had UC as the 10 seed playing in Philadelphia, with the winner of Duke v. Albany waiting in the next round. I know I said they would be playing Colorado State, but Creighton was also a 7 seed in my bracket, and trust me when I say that I meant to put them their instead. Actually, in reality the Committee had UC three spots higher than I did ranking them as the highest 10 seed, not the lowest. Also while I'd love to rub it in to bearcatlawjd that I called Villanova as a 9 seed the committee actually has them as the second 10, but moved them to a 9 for procedural reasons.

Bearcats were higher on the 1 through 68 ranking but Nova was moved due to procedural issues. So we both got it right, ha, funny stuff.

I actually had Middle Tenn State in because I assumed the associate commissioner of C-USA would have fought hard for a future C-USA member knowing their only tournament rep is leaving to Conference Aresco. St. Mary's was in too because the WCC commish was in the room. I know they can't vote for their our schools but that doesn't stop them from not voting for someone else. ( not sure about future member rules). Oklahoma AD on the committee kept the Sooners safe too.

Seeding was a big joke this season. I think Kenpom and Sagarin disliked the PAC-12 which hurt their seeding. RPI didn't for those schools didn't help either.

I know Bearcats were 1 higher. That's what I just said. I thought the seeding was fine. Really the only 2 problems I had were Oregon and Pitt. Missed horribly on Oregon, missed somewhat badly on Pitt. Every other thing the committee did was completely defendable. I am good with the bracket as a whole.

(03-18-2013 08:59 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I know Bearcats were 1 higher. That's what I just said. I thought the seeding was fine. Really the only 2 problems I had were Oregon and Pitt. Missed horribly on Oregon, missed somewhat badly on Pitt. Every other thing the committee did was completely defendable. I am good with the bracket as a whole.

I thought you did a very good job considering some of the issues the committee had with seeding. Pitt was hurt by a non-conference schedule and a bad RPI. I had them closer to 6-7 line. They also are playing in Salt Lake City.

I also have an issue with Illinois as a 7 seed. I think they were 28th as well. They had some greats wins but some really bad losses and didn't have a great second half of the season.

Syracuse and St Louis having to play in San Jose as 4 seeds isn't great. SDSU has to travel to Philly.

Cincinnati received a good draw considering the factors that were at play. I would be more concerned if they were playing the Blue Jays in Kansas City than on the east coast.