BAC'S PROJECTED 2018 NCAA TOURNAMENT FIELD

[bac2therac]

1: VIRGINIA, VILLANOVA, KANSAS, XAVIER

2: CINCINNATI, PURDUE, DUKE, NORTH CAROLINA

3: MICHIGAN STATE, TENNESSEE, MICHIGAN, ARIZONA

4: AUBURN , WEST VIRGINIA, CLEMSON, WICHITA STATE

5: OHIO STATE, KENTUCKY, GONZAGA, TEXAS TECH

6: TEXAS A&M, MIAMI, HOUSTON, FLORIDA

7: CREIGHTON, TCU, ARKANSAS, SETON HALL

8: NEVADA, KANSAS STATE, ALABAMA, MISSOURI

9: PROVIDENCE, NORTH CAROLINA STATE, RHODE ISLAND, TEXAS

10: VIRGINIA TECH, FLORIDA STATE, BUTLER, LOYOLA

11: DAVIDSON, OKLAHOMA STATE/UCLA, ARIZONA ST/ST BONAVENTURE, OKLAHOMA

12: BUFFALO, SOUTH DAKOTA STATE, NEW MEXICO STATE, SAN DIEGO STATE

13: UNC GREENSBORO, MURRAY STATE, CHARLESTON, MARSHALL

14: STEPHEN F AUSTIN, BUCKNELL, WRIGHT STATE, MONTANA

15: LIPSCOMB, IONA, PENN, GEORGIA STATE

16: LONG ISLAND/UNC CENTRAL, UMBC, CAL STATE FULLERTON, RADFORD/TEXAS SOUTHERN


LAST 4 IN: OKLAHOMA STATE, ARIZONA STATE, ST BONAVENTURE, UCLA
LAST 4 OUT: SAINT MARY'S, USC, SYRACUSE, LOUISVILLE

 

[shields]

Good job BAC. Oklahoma I hope does not make it.

 

[bac2therac]

Very tough this year....PAC 12 has 3 bubbles..one has some good stuff early (ASU) while the two others do not have much but do have nice rpis, I think USC has done absolutely nothing to get a bid and UCLA just enough including beating USC 2x as well as ASU and Zona.

Oklahoma based on criteria is solidly in

I am very concerned about my last two in of Oklahoma State and ASU so if I am wrong thats where I will miss. I think Okie State is like 8-12 vs tourney teams with 2 wins over Kansas tough to ignore that but that awful non conference SOS could play against them if left out.

I took out St Marys following the Davidson win. I had St Marys a lock for two weeks now but should have known better. The surprises runs of San Diego State and Davidison made a huge impact.

That said there is always a curveball thrown, Would I totally be shocked to see Nebraska in the field? Not at all.

 

[G- RUnit]

Outstanding job!!! Feel for the mid majors. Poor Vermont, MTSU, South Dakota. Penn State and Nebraska too.

 

[AreYouNUTS]

ECCC as a 7 is nauseating

 

[BigEastPhil]

Bac - only adjustment in my opinion will be St Mary's in and St Bonny out. Davidson knocks out St Bonny. Oklahoma also does not deserve to be in but will be in due to criteria as you stated.

 

[BigEastPhil]

Also if Ohio state is a 5 seed, there is your 12 seed upset for the brackets. Michigan State though will probably be a 3 seed is a legitimate 1 seed or 2 at worst. Hopefully for Michigan can sustain its Big 10 tourney success on the dance. For Purdue to make it far its key will be its ability to rebound as senior leadership should take them far

 

[RUJMM78]

The B1G clearly top heavy with 4 outstanding teams and Nebraska and Penn State also had solid seasons.Its really difficult for Nebraska with over 20 wins and not getting a NCAA bid which is a reminder for Rutgers fans that breaking the jinx isn't a certainty .with 20 wins.

 

[StevieB160]

Let's hope a former lock, St. Mary's, doesn't miss the tournament. That would be quite a blow to the credibility of this well-respected ritual.

I like Okie State over USC just not sure they will actually do it.

 

[bac2therac]

Bac - only adjustment in my opinion will be St Mary's in and St Bonny out. Davidson knocks out St Bonny. Oklahoma also does not deserve to be in but will be in due to criteria as you stated.

maybe...it could go either way but I like the Bonnies SOS OOC of 59 over St Marys 181

 

[bac2therac]

Let's hope a former lock, St. Mary's, doesn't miss the tournament. That would be quite a blow to the credibility of this well-respected ritual.

I like Okie State over USC just not sure they will actually do it.

and yes thats why I am conservative...at that time with such a bloated bunch of schools around the bubble, I didnt see the possibility of St Marys missing..thats my bad. But the last week or so really sent them into a freefall...basically all the things that could have happened went wrong for them.....Okie State won games down the stretch, Bama revived in SEC tourney, Nevada lost, URI lost, PC finished strong. Mistake by me but sometimes it happens, alot of bracketologists also had So Carolina as a lock three years back and then they didnt even make the tourney. I will be extra conservative next year


yes and thats why i put OSU in over USC...USC is trash, they literally beat no one...only school they beat of note was New Mexico State...they went 0-5 vs ASU, Arizona, and UCLA. They do have strong rpi overall somehow but beating up on the likes of Oregon, Stanford and Colorado shouldnt get in you in the tourney. By criteria USC should not get in and OSU should get in...the difference in sos though could be a factor that the committee points to

 

[bac2therac]

Bac - only adjustment in my opinion will be St Mary's in and St Bonny out. Davidson knocks out St Bonny. Oklahoma also does not deserve to be in but will be in due to criteria as you stated.

I like San Diego State as a 12...they are white hot

 

[bac2therac]

Jerry Palm going with the Cuse IN

 

[shields]

Jerry Palm is an idiot.

 

[BigEastPhil]

Lunardi has both St Mary's and St Bonny in with Arizona State as first team out.

 

[King of S]

St. Mary's over Arizona St.

 

[bac2therac]

Lunardi gets 2 wrong, he had St Marys and USC in

Palm gets 1 wrong, he had St Marys in

Bac gets 1 wrong, he had Oklahoma State in

St Mary's likely got bounced when Davidson won

 

[StevieB160]

Syracuse really doesn' thav ea good looking resume. Their doubleplays in ACC were UVA, Pitt, Wake, BC I believe. Soft conference schedule.

At least they have to go to Dayton

 

[shields]

Glad they are playing in play in game..

 

[bac2therac]

Syracuse really doesn' thav ea good looking resume. Their doubleplays in ACC were UVA, Pitt, Wake, BC I believe. Soft conference schedule.

At least they have to go to Dayton

I think it was their overall sos (19) and non conference sos (16) that did it...plus seems like the committee has a clear ACC bias with Notre Dame being last out

 

[StevieB160]

The thing about Syracuse's OOC is that they didn't really play many very good teams. Kansas was only team they played OOC that was a Top 10 seed i believe.

But what they did is player better low major teams rather than bad low major teams. Like playing Colgate instead of Loyola Maryland or playing Iona instead of Marist has a big impact on computer rankings but most likely if you are bubble team you are probably beating Colgate or Loyola - whoever you play. The only really bad team is Cornell from my quick look through their slate.

Smart I guess, but to me beating Colgate and Texas Southern instead of Loyola Maryland and Miss Valley State really doesn't impress me.

 

[bac2therac]

The thing about Syracuse's OOC is that they didn't really play many very good teams. Kansas was only team they played OOC that was a Top 10 seed i believe.

But what they did is player better low major teams rather than bad low major teams. Like playing Colgate instead of Loyola Maryland or playing Iona instead of Marist has a big impact on computer rankings but most likely if you are bubble team you are probably beating Colgate or Loyola - whoever you play. The only really bad team is Cornell from my quick look through their slate.

Smart I guess, but to me beating Colgate and Texas Southern instead of Loyola Maryland and Miss Valley State really doesn't impress me.

yes...schools hire guys who study this that can help with scheduling metrics....they had a few good wins but not nearly enough to put them in..it was SOS that was the deciding factor vs other bubble schools, how can you take St Marys who played no one and beat one good school. Big East is really good at manipulating the rpi sos, SEC did a much better job this year...Big 10 is absolutely atrocious.

 

[G- RUnit]

And it is impossible for any mid major to get an at large bid. Do not even try.

 

[bac2therac]

Nevada got one, URI got one, St Bonnie's got one...

 

[goru7]

BAC, Awesome job. As far as I am concerned you got it right with Oklahoma State who should have been in. I would have left out Oklahoma, ArizonaState and Syracuse and put in Oklahoma State , Middle Tennessee State and USC. When you win your conference , have a winning conference record , or win 11 straight games, or beat a one seed twice home and away, win on the road consistently, you deserve to be in compared to teams that struggle down the stretch. The committee basically ignoring the last 10 games is plain stupid. College basketball is about confidence and when you play like shit down the stretch you do not deserve to be rewarded for your November wins.

 

[bac2therac]

if I had my way I would have put Oklahoma State, Middle Tennessee and Nebraska in and take out Oklahoma, Syracuse and Arizona State

 

[goru7]

if I had my way I would have put Oklahoma State, Middle Tennessee and Nebraska in and take out Oklahoma, Syracuse and Arizona State

Could agree with that. Still amazing they left out Nebraska who finished 13-5 in the Big 10 no matter how down they think the conference was. I understand lack of so called quadrant wins but when you lose to Kansas by 1 damn point and they are a 1 seed which is a joke to begin with , that has to be factored in somehow. 13-5 and left out is criminal. Use your damn eyes. The same team that lost to Michigan in the tourney , the eventual champ and a 3 seed overall, beat the crap out of the same Michigan team by 20. They did not win by a point but laid a beat down on them. Just criminal.

 

[blockm2]

The same team that lost to Michigan in the tourney , the eventual champ and a 3 seed overall, beat the crap out of the same Michigan team by 20. They did not win by a point but laid a beat down on them. Just criminal.

That 1st Michigan-Nebraska game was during Michigan's insane jammed conference schedule week. They played @ MSU on Saturday and then had to turn around and play Maryland on Monday (which was a nailbiter buzzer beating win) and then fly out to Nebraska for a Thursday game (and then Rutgers on Sunday). With little time to prep for Nebraska, they got caught off guard by Nebraska's switch everything screen defense and they had dead legs and shot 4-18 behind the arc.

In the NBA they call those scheduling losses.

Don't give Nebraska too much credit for catching a tired team on a long road trip.

 

[blockm2]

Lunardi gets 2 wrong, he had St Marys and USC in

Palm gets 1 wrong, he had St Marys in

Bac gets 1 wrong, he had Oklahoma State in

St Mary's likely got bounced when Davidson won

crazy thing is they said Notre Dame was the last team left out.

 

[goru7]

That 1st Michigan-Nebraska game was during Michigan's insane jammed conference schedule week. They played @ MSU on Saturday and then had to turn around and play Maryland on Monday (which was a nailbiter buzzer beating win) and then fly out to Nebraska for a Thursday game (and then Rutgers on Sunday). With little time to prep for Nebraska, they got caught off guard by Nebraska's switch everything screen defense and they had dead legs and shot 4-18 behind the arc.

In the NBA they call those scheduling losses.

Don't give Nebraska too much credit for catching a tired team on a long road trip.

You are a metrics guy only which is one way to look at it. However, there is the eye test, there is 13-5 in conference with road wins which you ignore. Nebraska was harder for us to play than Purdue. You can look at things only by kenpom and then you can evaluate a basketball team by offense, defense, stars , do they compete. Nebraska had all of that.

 

[bac2therac]

crazy thing is they said Notre Dame was the last team left out.

this was crazy...obviously ESPN was tipped off by the committee that they would consider that injury heavily...however its really absurd for the selection committee to be guessing what a team would be like without injuries..and quite frankly the Irish were not all that good healthy..so its pretty scary that they were last team out with that weak resume..why should they be in over Louisville...is beating Va Tech in a ACC tourney game the new measuring stuck to punch a dance ticket. The selection committee needs to get their heads out of their asses, they disregard conference record and how a team finishes as criteria but then comes up with the idea that ooh this team would have won more games if they didnt have an injured player....yeah now they are clairvoyent...

 

[blockm2]

You are a metrics guy only which is one way to look at it. However, there is the eye test, there is 13-5 in conference with road wins which you ignore. Nebraska was harder for us to play than Purdue. You can look at things only by kenpom and then you can evaluate a basketball team by offense, defense, stars , do they compete. Nebraska had all of that.

Nebraska “looked” better because they were beating bad teams. They rank 75th in offense and 43rd on defense in KenPom.

Who were their best wins this season?

#1 - tired Michigan team at home
#2 - PSU missing Mike Watkins at home
#3 - at Wisconsin
#4 - at Northwestern
#5 - Maryland at home

That's it. The also lost to Illinois and UCF and St. Johns. That's just not an impressive resume any way you slice it. And looking good against bad teams isn't passing the look test, it's just beating bad teams.

 

[bac2therac]

Nebraska and Penn State certainly looked better than Notre Dame thats for sure

 

[blockm2]

Nebraska and Penn State certainly looked better than Notre Dame thats for sure

Notre Dame was always going to be about how the handled the Colson injury situation. If he came to full strength, they were supposed to discount losses without him (right or wrong).

 

[bac2therac]

why should they discount losses...should the Minnesota win count as a quality win for Nebraska or any other school that beat early season Minnesota


injuries and what ifs do not belong as criteria for borderline schools to get in thats for sure...if ND had a solid resume than yes I could see it applicable but otherwise I dont see it with them at all

 

[blockm2]

why should they discount losses...should the Minnesota win count as a quality win for Nebraska or any other school that beat early season Minnesota

Why? Because that's what their guidelines say they should do. I think the intent is that if you lose an All American player for some games and lose them and then they come back full strength, you are a significantly better team now.

On the other hand I wouldn't make it a criterion because it's too subjective and difficult to apply fairly. But if it's there, they should follow it.

 

[goru7]

Nebraska “looked” better because they were beating bad teams. They rank 75th in offense and 43rd on defense in KenPom.

Who were their best wins this season?

#1 - tired Michigan team at home
#2 - PSU missing Mike Watkins at home
#3 - at Wisconsin
#4 - at Northwestern
#5 - Maryland at home

That's it. The also lost to Illinois and UCF and St. Johns. That's just not an impressive resume any way you slice it. And looking good against bad teams isn't passing the look test, it's just beating bad teams.

You cite their losses but not their Minnesota win when they were at full strength and ranked and also an underrated BC team. You also poke fun at their Penn State win without Watkins , which was the same Penn State team that beat Ohio State for the third time. You can make any argument you want but you change the goalposts to fit them , you sound thick and myopic . The Nebraska team that we saw in the conference this year was an NCAA caliber team. The committee not really looking at the last 10 games or so, is plain stupid and a disservice to coaches whose teams get better as the year goes on. You probably think Oklahoma and Arizona State were good choices over Oklahoma State and Nebraska because they had some nice wins in 2017 but none in 2018.

 

[blockm2]

You cite their losses but not their Minnesota win when they were at full strength and ranked and also an underrated BC team. You also poke fun at their Penn State win without Watkins , which was the same Penn State team that beat Ohio State for the third time. You can make any argument you want but you change the goalposts to fit them , you sound thick and myopic . The Nebraska team that we saw in the conference this year was an NCAA caliber team. The committee not really looking at the last 10 games or so, is plain stupid and a disservice to coaches whose teams get better as the year goes on. You probably think Oklahoma and Arizona State were good choices over Oklahoma State and Nebraska because they had some nice wins in 2017 but none in 2018.

I'm not poking holes in anything. If Nebraska was such a slam dunk NCAA tourney team, how come they were a 5 seed in the NIT? Why didn't anybody that is paid to pay attention think so? Why did the computers hate them so much? I'm giving realistic explanations for WHY they were not in the tourney.

The goalposts have never moved. It's always about who you beat and where. Nebraska finished the season with 1 win over a tourney team and it was at home. A near total lack of quality wins imploded their chances. Everyone sees 13-5 Big Ten, but nobody sees they played almost the easiest schedule possible in a very down year for the Big Ten.

 

[bac2therac]

Why? Because that's what their guidelines say they should do. I think the intent is that if you lose an All American player for some games and lose them and then they come back full strength, you are a significantly better team now.

On the other hand I wouldn't make it a criterion because it's too subjective and difficult to apply fairly. But if it's there, they should follow it.

were they a different team squeaking by awful Pitt or getting thumped by Duke...if they wanted to make their case go out and beat Duke, we dont need some silly subjective view on how the season would turn out without injuries

 

[bac2therac]

what was St Bonaventure's claim to fame vs Nebraska...do you think the Bonnies would be 13-5 in Big 10 play..I dont. You think Nebraska couldnt replicate St Bonnies record. Apparently leeway is given for schools for lesser conferences