NCAA Tournament Field

Clarkmeister · #1 03-13-2005, 03:51 PM

One of my favorite days of the year. With that, here are my final top 16 teams. This is my opinion of where they *should* be seeded, not where they will be seeded. Of note is that 89% of Final Four teams have come from the top 16 teams, almost 75% from the top 8.

Note that Okie St. and Duke are flexible based on their results today.
In order:

1 Seeds
Illinois
North Carolina
Wake Forest
Oklahoma State

2 Seeds
Duke
Kentucky
Gonzaga
Washington

3 Seeds
Oklahoma
Arizona
Kansas
UConn

4 Seeds
Louisville
Boston College
Syracuse
Villanova

Teams most likely to be seeded too high by the NCAA:
Louisville (and anyone from CUSA), Kansas, Michigan State.

Teams most likely to be seeded too low by the NCAA:
Gonzaga, Oklahoma, Pitt.

pshreck · #2 03-13-2005, 04:22 PM

What do you think about GT? This has got to be the mid-seed team that all the good teams dont want to see in their bracket. Win or lose today, they are playing some pretty good basketball.

Corey · #3 03-13-2005, 04:36 PM

I haven't wasted a whole weekend watching TV in so long...well, since last March.

The end to the Duke-GT game was awesome and I'll second the idea that GT is the team nobody wants to see in the first round. That being said, I think this little run will elevate their seed to the 6-7 range, when three weeks ago 10-12 was not out of the question.

Duke's win today seals a #1 seed. The final #1 seed comes down to Ok. State or Wake Forest but I think OK state needs to win convincingly to knock wake out of the top seed. Kentucky is assured a two with the way they lost just hours before the selections are final.

tbach24 · #4 03-13-2005, 04:50 PM

How good are they? I'm an A-10 fan, but didn't really follow the NCAA this year. How do they stand against the rest of the country?

Corey · #5 03-13-2005, 05:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How good are they? I'm an A-10 fan, but didn't really follow the NCAA this year. How do they stand against the rest of the country?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen them on TV a couple of times since moving to the DC Area and I can tell you I'm not impressed. They're simply the best team in a very down year for the A-10. They did beat Michigan State and (then top-10) Maryland early in the season, but were inconsistent at best in the A-10.

I think one of the biggest factors for team like G.W. for pulling an upset is quality gaurd play and they don't have the leadership or organizational skills at the point. Thompson, their PG, is a turnover machine.

GW does have have a couple of things going for them: (1) They have a couple of shooters and we know how important that is in pulling an upset and (2) they are a solid defensive team, especially on the perimiter.

That's my take from the 3ish times I've seen them play on TV.

hoyaboy1 · #6 03-13-2005, 05:26 PM

Someone explain to me why Buffalo is probably going to make the tourney.

Corey · #7 03-13-2005, 05:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Someone explain to me why Buffalo is probably going to make the tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Buffalo gets in. Before the developments on the west coast last night, they were definately in the mix. There just aren't enough at-large bids to go around. When you're from one of the low mid majors, you need better quality wins than home to Miami (OH) and home to Ohio. The MAC is just a bad conference and there's no way the committee lets them in when teams like Iowa, Iowa State, and UAB are there who play in much better conferences with similar records.

MicroBob · #8 03-13-2005, 06:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The MAC is just a bad conference

[/ QUOTE ]

The MAC is the 9th strongest conference in the RPI this year.
This will me it the first year EVER that the 9th strongest does not send 2 teams to the dance (assuming Buffalo doesn't get in).

The MAC was a victim of their own general parity (and number of decent but not great teams).
Miami finished 12-6 in conference...5 or 6 others teams (including Ohio and Buffalo) all finished 11-7 in conference.

Nobody really stood out. Miami had a chance after beating Wichita State...but Miami finished pretty poorly after that including a reg. season finale loss to BG and the semi-final loss to Ohio.

Buffalo also had some chances and would be very serious at-large consideration with just 1 or 2 more regular season wins.

Ohio finished the strongest of all the teams in the conference...but obviously already has the automatic bid.

I agree that Buffalo didn't exactly rack up many noteworthy non-conf wins....but to say it's a weak conference is incorrect.

Everyone wants to talk about the 'flaws' in the RPI when a conference like the MAC does well.

In 1999 I was talking about the RPI with a bunch of reporters from Utah.
Miami with an RPI of 18 was a 10 seed. Utah with an RPI of 14 was a 2 seed.
The MAC was rated as a higher conference that year too.
They all rolled their eyes when I said that their conferences were roughly equivilent in strength and that they shouldn't breathe too easy playing Miami (they were all happy that Utah didn't have to face 7th seeded Washington).

Miami beat Utah by 11 or 13 points in the 2 seed vs. 10 seed 2nd round game and it wasn't even as close as that.

The mid-majors never get much respect.

Again - I don't disagree that Buffalo's non-conf wins are unimpressive and that they likely don't deserve a berth.
Just disputing the notion that the MAC is a 'bad' conference.

I completely agree with Clark that C-USA is overrated.
I think Louisville is a strong team....but UC, Charlotte, Depaul all don't impress me that much.

Just wait till next year when the C-USA features the likes of Marshall, Cent-Fla, Rice and Tulsa!!

I don't think Gonzaga as a 3 or 4 seed is really 'under' rated. I do not consider them a serious contender for the national title.
I also don't think Pitt is going to go anywhere either but it will be interesting to see what the brackets have in store for them.

Clarkmeister · #9 03-13-2005, 07:02 PM

"I don't think Gonzaga as a 3 or 4 seed is really 'under' rated. I do not consider them a serious contender for the national title. "

Despite winning over potential #1 seeds Washington and Okie State with another win over a healthy Georgia Tech?

Corey · #10 03-13-2005, 07:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Just disputing the notion that the MAC is a 'bad' conference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I overstated it, but I believe the MAC is down for a conference that is considered in the upper echelon of the mid majors. Thus, I doubt Buffalo gets in no matter what sort of RPI conference rankings there are. Last time I checked they had the WCC as the #7 conference and that is 100% from good non-conference schedules, not the results of the games.