bukie

Next 3 games: at Oklahoma City, vs. LA Lakers, at Washington. Which one is the most likely win?

Yeah, part of the reason I was so excited when I saw Illinois' draw (other than they got a 5 seed when they are probably a 6-7 without Frazier) was that their opponent was both overseeded and a terrific matchup for them that plays right into their strengths. Most experts that are picking Western Kentucky are giving reasons like "well they won 2 games last year" or "Illinois is shorthanded and overseeded" or "the Big Ten is so bad they barely deserve 4 bids" (even Bilas and Lunardi, who I normally respect).

If BC was Michigan's 7 seed opponent, I'd have them winning, no question. Clemson though? Tough draw.

Illinois was probably overseeded as a 5, especially without Frazier. I'm just glad they have the opportunity to play the weakest 12-seed.

Goran Suton was out for the early part of the schedule, including the UNC and Maryland losses. Raymar Morgan was out during the middle of the Big Ten season, which included the PSU and Northwestern losses. They are allegedly healthy now. Who was out for the Morgan St. loss? The entire team, I guess, since they didn't have Morgan St. on the schedule.

Because they choked their way out of the last 2 NCAA tourneys and lost as a 4/5 seed in the previous 2, maybe? :)

Goran Suton was out for the early part of the schedule, including the UNC and Maryland losses. Raymar Morgan was out during the middle of the Big Ten season, which included the PSU and Northwestern losses. They are allegedly healthy now.

Generally it's very good. Of course, even a team given a 80% chance of winning will lose on occasion. Difficult to get hard numbers on accuracy without spending hours doing calculations, since it's not really posted anywhere.

At least Nantz is doing early round games, even though it's the UNC and Duke pods. It's progress.

As far back as I can go, there's only been one case of a first round underdog (11 seed or higher) being a statistical favorite that lost: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/playbyplay?gameId=274000004 :(

how did the "most statistically probable" outcomes turn out last year? Pretty darned good, considering the four 1 seeds made the Final Four. sorry, i was talking about when going with the most likely upsets amongst 5-12's or 6-11's. do you happen to know? Last year's 5-12 matchups: 5 seed 12 seed Diff Result Notre Dame George Mason 0.18 W 68 - 50 Michigan St. Temple 0.109 W 72 - 61 Drake Western Ky 0.073 L 99 - 101 Clemson Villanova 0.066 L 69 - 75 Last year's 6-11 matchups: 6 seed 11 seed Diff Result Marquette Kentucky 0.093 W 74 - 66 Purdue Baylor 0.046 W 90 - 79 Oklahoma St. Joseph's 0.019 W 72 - 64 USC Kansas St. -0.017 L 67 - 80

how did the "most statistically probable" outcomes turn out last year? Pretty darned good, considering the four 1 seeds made the Final Four. EDIT: Putting it another way, since efficiency started being tracked (2004), there's only been one other 5-12 matchup where the 12 was statistically favored. In 2006, a hugely overseeded Syracuse (fresh off a 4-wins-in-4-days conference championship) was a statistical underdog to 12-seed Texas A&M. A&M won 66-58. Boeheim blamed "tired legs", but really they were grossly overseeded for their production. Similar situation here except with Wisconsin being very underseeded for their production (30th in efficiency, which is the equivalent of a high 8 seed, not a low 12 seed), and Florida State being on a roll of late after a largely unimpressive non-conference season.

I'm a little surprised to not see Iowa in either the CBI or CIT tourneys. They'd probably be a favorite if they played.

Almost none of the experts are picking Wisconsin over FSU as their 5-12 upsets, and yet that is the most statistically probable upset (unless you dock Illinois a whole bunch for being without Frazier...but they beat Michigan without him and Michigan is a whole lot better than Western Kentucky).

I'd feel a lot better about picking UCLA to reach the S16 if they weren't playing Villanova in Philly.

That Tennessee/OK St game is going to be really tough. Of course, the winner will just get demolished by Pitt anyway . . . Yeah, it looks like the best 3 games of the first round will be Ok State-Tennessee, LSU-Butler, and FSU-Wisconsin, at least if everyone plays up to their normal efficiency.

Adjusted efficiency margin difference between first-round matchups: Region Seed Team Rate Seed Team Rate Diff West 1 Connecticut 0.967 16 Chattanooga 0.383 0.584 South 1 North Carolina 0.967 16 Radford 0.481 0.486 Midwest 1 Louisville 0.966 16 Morehead State 0.491 0.475 East 2 Duke 0.959 15 Binghamton 0.504 0.455 South 2 Oklahoma 0.934 15 Morgan State 0.557 0.377 Midwest 2 Michigan State 0.943 15 Robert Morris 0.614 0.329 East 1 Pittsburgh 0.965 16 ETSU 0.639 0.326 West 2 Memphis 0.981 15 CS Northridge 0.675 0.306 East 4 Xavier 0.915 13 Portland State 0.623 0.292 East 3 Villanova 0.929 14 American 0.657 0.272 West 3 Missouri 0.954 14 Cornell 0.69 0.264 South 4 Gonzaga 0.965 13 Akron 0.723 0.242 South 5 Illinois 0.917 12 Western Kentucky 0.692 0.225 South 3 Syracuse 0.94 14 Stephen F. Austin 0.722 0.218 Midwest 6 West Virginia 0.957 11 Dayton 0.766 0.191 West 5 Purdue 0.941 12 Northern Iowa 0.771 0.17 Midwest 3 Kansas 0.945 14 ND State 0.806 0.139 East 6 UCLA 0.957 11 VCU 0.837 0.12 Midwest 4 Wake Forest 0.928 13 Cleveland State 0.81 0.118 West 4 Washington 0.939 13 Mississippi State 0.827 0.112 West 6 Marquette 0.928 11 Utah State 0.836 0.092 West 8 BYU 0.934 9 Texas A&M 0.85 0.084 South 6 Arizona State 0.945 11 Temple 0.861 0.084 South 7 Clemson 0.927 10 Michigan 0.855 0.072 Midwest 8 Ohio State 0.88 9 Siena 0.812 0.068 West 7 California 0.898 10 Maryland 0.842 0.056 East 7 Texas 0.898 10 Minnesota 0.865 0.033 Midwest 5 Utah 0.907 12 Arizona 0.877 0.03 East 8 Oklahoma State 0.892 9 Tennessee 0.892 0 South 8 LSU 0.864 9 Butler 0.867 -0.003 East 5 Florida State 0.885 12 Wisconsin 0.897 -0.012 Midwest 7 Boston College 0.829 10 USC 0.902 -0.073 Basically, the higher the diff margin, the greater the difference in efficiency between the 2 teams. A negative number suggests the lower seed is actually more efficient than the higher seed. What does it all mean? - Don't expect a 1 or 2 seed to fall, but especially Connecticut. - Kansas definitely has the toughest 3 seed game, and it's in a location closer to the 14 seed to boot. - As maligned as Wisconsin and Arizona have been for making the field over more deserving teams (SD State actually was even more efficient than Arizona), they both have favorable matchups. Heck, Wisconsin was more efficient than their opponent, and they're 7 seeds apart. - Ohio State got the weakest 9 seed, and gets to play in Dayton. If they lose, it'd be a pretty good upset even though it's an 8-9 game.

First go-through on the bracket: First-round upsets: USC over BC, Utah State over Marquette, Wisconsin over Florida State, Arizona over Utah, North Dakota State over Kansas Second-round upsets: Wisconsin over Xavier, North Dakota State over West Virginia, Clemson over Oklahoma, Ohio State over Louisville Final Four: MSU, Memphis, Pitt, UNC FInals: UNC over MSU

Nobody enters the tournament this year with fewer than 3 losses, the first time that's happened since the 30's.

Yeah, except for basically the complete opposite reasons. By selecting Arizona, the committee went against everything they've been saying the past decade. Yeah, I should have added that. That's exactly why I think so. There are worse teams to get in then Arizona (barely) but the reasoning is pathetic and disgraceful. If Michigan didn't get in because of that, I'd be really really upset at the NCAA I think a team like San Diego State has a right to be pissed about that.

I have the same feeling about Illinois chances this year as they did the last time they got a 5-12 game against Western Kentucky. So, look for Illinois to lose to Gonzaga by 30.

Yeah, I though they would be in as well. 64/65 teams in. 34/65 teams on the correct line. 59/65 within one line. Might want to recount on a few of those since I did it quick, but not too bad. Not bad at all. Actually, really really good. Other than Utah and Wisconsin (and Arizona), the bracket was very reasonable.

Yeah, except for basically the complete opposite reasons. By selecting Arizona, the committee went against everything they've been saying the past decade.

Early final four: MSU, Memphis, Pitt, UNC. Championship game: UNC over MSU.

I couldn't have said it better myself: http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=206