Day one thoughts

1) Only real surprise to me was Oklahoma St getting stomped on. I didn't think Oregon was that good to win that convincingly. I concede they had a good shot to win (as do most teams), but not the 43% they were getting from ESPN's public (log5 had them at 38% though, so it was close).

2) Pitt losing to Wichita was annoying, but I managed to talk myself out of a Zags upset because Pitt didn't average much in the way of scoring. Which is risky in the tournament. Missing a couple first round games isn't as important to trying to win any pools as picking up potential elite eight teams.

3) New Mexico, had they been playing Davidson, or even Northwestern St, I would have picked against them in a heartbeat for the first round (I did have Arizona beating them in the second). It's possible those wouldn't have worked out and Harvard had a better matchup to win, but nevertheless, I did identify New Mexico as very weak 3. Marquette also was losing most of the second half and managed by some device of error to pull out a win. I feel pretty good about going against these two, even if I missed both for the first round the way I ended up picking them. Davidson had an absurdly high chance by the log5 metric for a 14 seed, about 1 in 3 odds, but Harvard was pulling about 3-4 times what the public thought was the case, about 17%. Clearly the public thought New Mexico was supposed to be pretty good for some reason. Clearly they haven't watched many MWC games.

3a) The line for NM was also 12 in that game. Which seemed absurdly high. New Mexico only won 10 games by more than that all year (and only a home win against NMSU was against anyone of Harvard's caliber). Apparently the Vegas thinks the public thinks 3 seeds are supposed to be good, but don't observe that they're not always. They should probably have set their lines a little more in line with the quality and style of the two teams involved first.

4) No idea why Colorado St wasn't favored in that Mizzou game. Haidt's not a very good coach, they were undersized, playing on the road, and Colorado St was actually pretty good (almost as good as New Mexico, and better than UNLV or San Diego St). Whatever. Thanks for the pot odds value.

5) Memphis barely won. Had St Mary's not played a day and a half earlier (and had travel delays before that), I think they should have won that game. I'd still pick this one again as either MTSU/St Mary's winning when the public was picking Memphis at an 88% clip.

6) Cal upset was pretty obvious, thanks to the committee. UNLV was a poor road team and the game was less than 50 miles from Cal. That was just a poor bracket setup. Then again, only the top 4 are supposed to be "protected" seeds anyway, but it helps to make the first round upsets easy to call.

7) Wow VCU is crazy on defence. That and Akron could have used a couple of extra players.

8) I am mildly surprised that Arizona won so handily, but not surprised they advanced. They're pretty talented for a 6 seed when all the other 6s are overrated. And the focus on their 3pt defence overshadowed that Belmont's wasn't very good and Arizona's 3pt% offence was in fact pretty good.

9) I'm curious if the RPI will get another pass to re-evaluate it after this season, but I doubt it will. When (if) the MWC ends up 1-5 in the tournament (San Diego St can win today, and could beat Georgetown on Sunday, but will probably not), the idea that somehow it was the best conference in the country should be taken as an absurdity that no decent system should have produced and be seen as a need for reform.

Second round of bracket thoughts, analysis mode

This will be by region

Midwest
Top Seeds
1) Louisville
2) Duke
3) Michigan St
4) St Louis
Wild Card
7) Creighton

First round.
None of the top seeds look promising as upsets or are playing promising upset prospects. Valpo is a little underrated as a 14 is the best option.
5-12 I'm not sure what the ESPN population is doing with the shower of picks for Oregon as a probable upset over Oklahoma St. Oregon isn't very good, and not so much so that they're near equals to OKSU
6-11 I'm also not sure what they're doing taking Memphis so heavily (87%). I'd take either of the 11 seeds over them, especially St Marys. It's possible this will shift after the play-in game is determined, but I doubt by that much. There's a huge value pick in taking the upset here.
7-10 And again, I'm not sure what the UC over Creighton pick is about. UC has a good defence, and Creighton.. doesn't know what defence is. But they score in bunches and are in the top tier of teams. Pretty good value just sticking with Creighton here.
8-9. This is a funny one. I don't think it matters who wins, so take your pick. Missouri is higher in my ratings, but not by that much. I'd weight toward CSU because Missouri is so bad on the road and because the public seems to favor Missouri to a very high extent.
2nd Round
Louisville is playing in Lexington. While that could be a semi-hostile crowd, I don't think that's sufficient. They're a good road team. Neither of their probable opponents are.
Duke- Creighton would represent one of the best second round matchups (much like UNC-Creighton did last year, not because it was close, but because it was high-scoring). I'd take Duke, mostly because I don't think Creighton can guard Duke but Duke could guard Creighton.
Michigan St-St Marys/MTSU/Memphis, I might take the 11s again here, but betting against Izzo isn't usually very smart. The game is also in Auburn Hills...
St Louis- OKSU. I'd take OKSU here. Typically the 4-5 is decided by who can score more. Neither can, and both can defend, but OKSU plays a little faster.
3rd Round
Louisville is clearly better than either St Louis or OKSU. Oklahoma St does seem like a more promising upset if forced to choose.
Duke is more of a tossup with Michigan St, as it's the first really good interior team they'll play. Duke though looks more promising to advance this far.
Final Four
Duke. Partly this is because Louisville is the most common team picked to win it all. Partly it's because Duke is really pretty good this year. I don't think Louisville's defence is that much better than Michigan State's to match up here. I also don't think Louisville's offence is that good (it's worse than UConn's was when they won with the Kemba Walker year). I don't trust them to score enough to keep up with Duke and they're not an interior style team that could pose problems (Maryland's got size, if we insist on the Maryland template for beating Duke).

South
Top Seeds
1) Kansas
2) Georgetown
3) Florida
4) Michigan
Wild Card
5) VCU, if forced to pick anyone.

First round
Again, no promising upset potential in the top seeds. Northwestern St at 14 is fast paced and has beaten a 3 seed before several years ago, but they're playing Florida. Who is probably one of the best teams in the tournament. Whereas before they played Iowa, who was a high seeded Big 10 tournament winner and was pretty weak for a 3 (more like Marquette this year).
5-12 Akron is pretty good, but VCU is much better. The best advantage Akron has is the game is in Auburn Hills. The other is that it's a value pick as VCU is really popular for a 5 seed.
6-11 If Minnesota weren't so unpredictable and poor on the road, they'd make an excellent upset pick here. They're still very likely (not least because they'll crush UCLA on the boards). UCLA isn't that good, but is respectable on the road. The game is in Texas, which does put somewhat less stress on the travel involved for a west coast team. I lean toward UCLA here, but not by much.
7-10 San Diego State vs Oklahoma. I'd take Oklahoma, mostly because this game is in Philadelphia and all the way across the country for SDSU and because SDSU seems favored. Also MWC teams tend to under-perform, badly.
8-9. Take Villanova. North Carolina is heavily favored. I think UNC is better, but not 69% likely to win better.
Second Round
Kansas is much better than either UNC or Villanova and playing in Kansas City...
Georgetown is vulnerable as a 2 seed (they should have been a 4). But neither team is that promising as an upset candidate. This might be one of the ugliest games of the second round also. None of the 3 are good offensive teams, and two are top 15 defences.
Florida really got screwed on its location (four potential games in Texas), but there aren't many southern cities hosting. Neither team looks probable here to hurt them here.
Michigan-VCU, a very interesting game. It's in Auburn Hills, which helps Michigan, but VCU is very dangerous. I lean toward Michigan but not by much.
3rd Round
Kansas may have trouble with either team here, VCU causes more problems I suspect (highest TO margin in the country, and Kansas is the only top 10 team with a negative margin). Michigan certainly has the talent to beat them too.
Florida, no contest over Georgetown. Florida isn't getting very much love on the public picking them at all for later rounds. Just keep taking them.
Final Four
Florida. Kansas has potentially a harder path and Florida is better anyway.

West
Top Seeds
1) Gonzaga
2) Ohio St
3) New Mexico
4) Kansas St

This is the screwiest bracket by far, with some heavy over/under seeds from RPI effects.
First Round
New Mexico is the best 3 seed upset candidate in the field, but they're playing Harvard, which isn't that impressive or very good. The play-in game against Kansas St doesn't impress, and the game is in Kansas City. Iona is really good for a 15 and plays really fast but actually picking a 15 is usually dumb. So no upsets at the top end.
5-12 This is a curious one. Wisconsin seems to like playing the Mississippi style teams (they do well against Indiana for example). Both teams are underseeded. I'd say this is the second most likely 5-12 upset but I don't think I'd bite on it.
6-11 Could be the year Belmont actually plays up to their potential as a spoiler. They finally got the seeding to show for it, a year or two late (they're not as good as they were the last two years). Arizona has played poorly against the P-12 (mostly fast teams) and down the stretch. Probably one of the best first round games.
7-10 Iowa State is a gunner team, which could be a problem for Notre Dame, but they're also terrible on the road. Much like the Colorado St game, it probably doesn't matter. It's also a lot closer to ND (Dayton). Iowa St could be a decent value pick here, if they're not terrible on the road.
8-9 Pitt is a top 10 team. Wichita is not. The worst of these last year had two top 20 teams in one 8-9 game (Memphis and St Louis). I'll take Pitt here.

Second Round
Pitt is a heavy upset value pick here. Gonzaga is heavily favored. They are pretty good, but they're the weakest of the 1 seeds by a bit over Kansas and Pitt is way better than the other 8 seeds.
Kansas St playing basically at home against a slow moving team with a poor road record,  I'll take them.
I'd take either Arizona or Belmont over New Mexico. Especially Arizona.
Ohio State playing in Dayton against either of ND/Iowa St, I'll take them. Iowa St would be the more dangerous of the two (if they're hot, they're going to score a lot).

3rd Round
Pitt over Kansas St. Gonzaga over them too if hedging. Kansas St is more like a 7 seed here than a 4.
I might take Arizona over Ohio State. Games are in LA. But OSU is pretty good.

Final Four
Arizona, if not taking Belmont in the first round. Gonzaga if not taking Pitt in the second, Ohio State otherwise. As I said, it's a screwy region.

East
Top Seeds
1) Indiana
2) Miami
3) Marquette
4) Syracuse
Wild Card
None. This bracket is the weakest by far in the field. Even Marquette (4th best team) is not good enough to merit wild card potential.

First Round
Davidson is very likely over Marquette and worth looking at taking. None of the others are likely upsets.
5-12 Probably the most likely 5-12 upset. It's in San Jose so UNLV's road record is a factor. UNLV is probably the most overseeded team in the field. Take Cal. Could be the ugliest first round game (neither team can score).
6-11 Butler is probably the second most overseeded team. Bucknell isn't much worse than them and there's a heavy Butler push on ESPN. Probably take Bucknell on a value pick, but Butler is more likely.
7-10 Illinois is probably the 3rd most overseeded team. Having watched them at various points in the season, it can be painful for them to score unless Brandon Paul decides to have a national TV style game. I'd probably take Colorado here, largely because they're not well liked as a pick.
8-9 NC St is way better than Temple.

Second Round
Indiana. Next
Miami over Colorado/Illinois is okay here. Miami is a fairly weak 2 seed though (not quite as weak as Georgetown). They're also old. And old teams don't do well.
Davidson over Butler (or Butler over Marquette). Davidson, for a 14 seed, rates almost as well as Butler does as a 6.
Syracuse over Cal, but I'd consider Cal as an upset here. Cuse isn't that great outside of NY.

3rd Round
Indiana, Next.
Butler over Miami, or Miami over Davidson

Final Four
Indiana. Next.

Championship Rounds
Indiana vs Florida, Indiana, and this looks like the "title" game to me.
Duke vs Gonzaga/Ohio St/Pitt. Duke

Indiana vs Duke, Indiana. Taking Duke or Florida as the champ is a decent value pick, Duke is more likely in my view (the with and without Kelly stats are helpful) but Florida is less picked.

Arguments against Duke: they can't rebound and got blown out by Miami.
Argument against Florida, they struggle in close games (most of their games have been considerable blowouts).They also play slow, which can be a trouble spot (as when they get behind in a close game).
Louisville isn't a terrible pick, but if they're likely the most common to pick as winning, find someone else to pick is good advice to try to win (in case someone else nails the early rounds, it's best to beat them by having more available points later, where the rounds are more important anyway). I lean toward Indiana because I trust their offense more and they won't play anyone who slows it down (ala Wisconsin or Minnesota). Miami and Florida play slow, but Miami is suspect defensively.
I don't trust Gonzaga because the coach (Few) isn't very good. They haven't done as well with the often higher expectations since Monson left. They do have size this time however, which they didn't sometimes in years past. They're hard to evaluate as well with fewer meaningful games. One has to rely on the 3 peat over St Mary's a lot to presume they've got a lot of quality wins, when they've otherwise just got a close win at Oklahoma St, over Baylor, and pair of blow outs over Kansas St and Oklahoma.

Bracket thoughts and final season rankings

Generally the committee does okay at picking the "right" teams. I think LaSalle is the only strange pick, mostly because they've got an unreasonably high RPI (40), but they're not an indefensible pick either over Virginia, Iowa, Baylor, Kentucky, or Denver, and certainly defensible over Maryland or Alabama or Tennessee. MTSU deserves a shot here as far as the metrics were concerned and critics of such really don't pay much attention to minor conferences, or don't want us to do so in favor of the power conferences that already dominate the tournament. Giving one or two slots to these kinds of teams provides some variety in the early rounds, if not the risk or danger of playing an unfamiliar team. (I also think MTSU was greatly helped by Mississippi winning the SEC tournament).

The committee's real struggle is, and always has been, properly seeding the teams they've picked. I gather that's a really hard system, with certain rules involved, but it's not that hard that they should consistently underrate teams that are much better than the seed line they end up with. I've highlighted some of teams that don't conform to the rankings very well. Some are really, really bad.

A legend of sorts, for interpreting the data.
a) Breaks in the ranking list are to designate a tier of sorts, where teams in the slot above are clearly better than the teams below them. If the NCAA title isn't won by any of the teams in the top two tiers, I would consider that a huge upset. Final four teams emerging from anything past the top 4 tiers would likewise be odd.
b) Records are listed by top 100 records, plus losses to non top 100 teams.
c) Bold is teams that won automatic bids. The relevance of this is teams who win auto bids and receive 3-5 seeds tend to under-perform. New Mexico and St Louis are the only teams who might conform to this (last year Florida St lost in the second round. Louisville however advanced to the final 4).
d) Teams with poor to bad road records have their top 100 record in red. Bolded text there indicates a very poor (bad) road record. Poor road performance correlates really well with under-performing in the tournament, particularly with the top half of the bracket. (It also explains most of the bubble teams who didn't make the field, as all of them have poor road performance). Florida last year was the only team that advanced deeply that had a poor road record (partly because Missouri was upset in the first round). Marquette two years ago upset Syracuse and an overseeded Xavier team as a bad road team is the only example from the last two years.


Final rankings (all NCAA teams, seed after)
1) Florida      11-7-0 (3!)
2) Louisville 15-5-0 (1)
3) Indiana      14-6-0 (1)

4) Gonzaga 13-2-0 (1)
5) Kansas   15-4-1 (1)
6) Ohio St   12-7-0 (2)
7) Duke      14-5-0 (2)

8) Pittsburgh       9-7-1 (8!!)
9) Wisconsin   11-11-0 (5!)
10) Michigan     12-6-1 (4)
11) Michigan St 12-8-0 (3)

12) Miami         12-4-2 (2)
13) Georgetown 11-5-1 (2)
14) Syracuse      12-9-0 (4)
15) Creighton    13-6-1 (7!!)

16) New Mexico  15-4-1 (3)
17) Arizona         11-6-1 (6)
18) Missouri        10-9-1 (9!)
19) St Louis       13-5-1  (4)
20) Oklahoma St   9-7-1  (5)
21) VCU             13-8-0 (5)

22) St Marys        7-5-1  (11!!)
23) Minnesota      10-10-2 (11!!)

24) Colorado St        6-7-1 (8)
25) Kansas St           8-7-0 (4!)
26) Marquette           8-7-1 (3!!)
27) North Carolina     6-9-1 (8)
28) North Carolina St 6-8-2 (8)
29) San Diego St       6-8-2 (7)

30) MTSU         2-3-2 (11)
31) Iowa          6-10-2 (out)
32) Wichita St   10-7-1 (9)
33) Mississippi  10-6-2 (12!)
34) Iowa St        8-9-2  (10)
35) Notre Dame 10-8-1 (7)
36) Memphis     7-4-0 (6!)
37) Virginia        7-3-8 (out)
38) UNLV          9-6-3 (5!!)
39) Baylor         5-11-3 (out)

40) Belmont    6-2-4 (11)
41) Cincinnati  9-10-2 (10)
42) Kentucky   8-10-1 (out)
43) Denver       3-7-2 (out)

44) UCLA       13-6-3 (6!!)
45) Oklahoma   8-9-2 (10)
46) Illinois       8-11-1 (7!!)
47) Oregon    10-6-2 (12)

48) Stanford  6-12-2 (out)
49) Colorado  9-8-3  (10)
50) Villanova  8-11-2 (9!)
(51 is UConn, who is ineligible)
52) Butler       14-7-1 (6!!)
53) Akron        6-3-3 (12)
54) Boise St     4-7-3 (13)
55) Davidson   2-3-4 (14!)
56) Maryland    4-8-4 (out)

57) Southern Miss  1-7-2 (out)
58) LaSalle            7-7-2 (13)
59) Stony Brook (out)
60) California       7-10-1 (12)
61) Bucknell      4-3-2 (11!)
62) Alabama       8-8-4 (out)
63) Tennessee    10-10-2 (out)
64) Temple         9-6-3 (9!!)
65) Valparaiso    2-3-4 (14!)

78) New Mexico St (13)
89) Iona (15!)
90) South Dakota St (13)
100) Harvard (14)
110) Florida Gulf Coast (15)
117) Pacific (15)
120) Northwestern St (14)
133) Montana (13!)
134) Albany (15)
170) Southern (16)
175) Long Island (16)
177) James Madison (16)
178) Western Kentucky (16)
230) NC A&T (16)
251) Liberty (16)

Last bubble watching post

Since none of the major games today have any real bubble implications (that is, none of the teams that could win would be taking a spot necessarily away, usually there's one or two of those). Some thoughts.
Here's the list of teams I'd have in that have no shot.
29) Iowa. 6-10-2. Will be the highest team I've rated to miss the field since Georgetown went 16-14 against a brutal schedule in 2009. They were 7-13 against the top 100. Iowa is only 6-10, but both have similar top 50 records (4-9 for G'Town and 3-9 for Iowa). My guess is the holdout factor for Iowa is non-conference play and a lack of big wins (1, Wisconsin at home). Georgetown by contrast had 4 top 25 wins that year. Really could have used that Michigan State game.

36) Virginia. 7-3-8. Played their way out by losing a ton of games against mediocre teams, the worst of which was Old Dominion. Injuries can be blamed on some of these, but that one is unforgivably bad. Loss to NC State is forgivable, but they lost by a lot when they needed to compete most.

38) Baylor. 5-11-3. Mysterious big win over Kansas wasn't enough. They needed that game against Oklahoma State in the conference tournament.

44) Denver 3-8-1. Loss to Texas State in WAC tournament? Good news for them, I guess, is Louisiana Tech won't make the field either.

48) Stanford. 6-12-2. Much like Iowa, has no big wins to point to in a tough schedule (1-9 against top 50).  They're slotted in my second to last at large spot anyway (Colorado is the last).

Teams that are rated low that should get in anyway (instead of the teams above).
50) Villanova 8-11-2 . Decent enough record and 3 top 25 wins helps here.
52) Boise State 6-7-3. Probably should be closer to on the bubble than appears to be the case.
53) Butler 14-7-1. The 14 top 100 wins is pretty much all that's needed here. That's a lot.
60) California 6-10-1. Their loss to Utah puts them in a very uncomfortable spot, but considering the other teams on this list, I think they're safe enough. Win over Arizona and splits with UCLA and Colorado is about it (Denver too). Sweep of Oregon now that Oregon won the automatic bid helps too.
65) Temple. 8-6-3. Wins over Syracuse, VCU, and St Louis are probably the fodder here (last two at home). Loss to Duquesne hurt a lot.

Of these, I'm comfortable with 3 of them (Villanova, Butler, and Temple) and Boise is acceptable with some good wins down the stretch in a tough (but overrated) conference. Cal is pretty ugly though.

Teams that are very fringe contenders for a spot.
55) Maryland 4-8-4. Two wins over Duke is very nice. Only two other wins is not.

58) Southern Miss. 1-7-2. Only win is over Denver. Win over Memphis in conference final would have been a big one too, but also wouldn't have mattered with the automatic qualifier that came with it. They do have an impressive looking RPI for such a mediocre resume is basically their only reason for inclusion.

63) Alabama 8-8-4. Win over Tennessee put a heartbeat back in their consistently fringe position from earlier in the year, but they didn't follow up in the game against Florida. It did weaken the case for Tennessee however.

Actual bubble (3 of these will get in, 2 won't).
31) Middle Tennessee State. 1-3-2. Lots of blowout wins over mediocre to terrible teams. Only win is over Mississippi. Which helps with Mississippi playing today. Assuming they are not blown out (which is possible, they're playing Florida). Right now they look to be in, but it's very close.

39) Mississippi. 8-6-2. Speaking of which. Basically two wins over Missouri is all they have to go on. The win over Vanderbilt didn't really help much. Probably needs to win anyway to get in. If they're stealing a bid, it would be from another SEC team most likely.

42) Kentucky 8-10-1. Loss to Vandy did not help at all after the big win over Florida. They seem to be prototypically like the other bubble teams that missed out (win one big one, lose a bad one). Probably out with the injury factors.

59) LaSalle 7-7-2. I've been waiting for this team to start falling out of favor but the rest of the bubble never really caught up to them. They've basically just beaten up on the lesser A-10 teams (the ones that look better on RPI, like Charlotte or UMass, beat them. Charlotte is probably the most overrated RPI team I've ever seen). They've got a road win over VCU, barely beat Butler at home, and beat Villanova in OT. Losing to Central Connecticut State may be what keeps them out if anything does.

64) Tennessee 10-10-2. Loss to Alabama didn't help, but didn't hurt that much either. Wins over Florida, Wichita State, Missouri, and 1 point loss to Georgetown help. But they piled up a lot of other losses. Memphis, Virginia, swept by Mississippi, split with Kentucky, lost twice to Alabama (won once), Arkansas, and the big hurt here, swept by Georgia. Other than a pair of wins over middling A-10 teams (Xavier and UMass), there's not much here. They didn't even have the toughest SEC schedule. If I had to guess, they miss out.

Minor conference watch
Conferences with decent teams that lost
Sun Belt: Middle Tennessee State might get in anyway, but Western Kentucky is going to be in a play-in game (rate around 180). MTSU would likely have been a 12 as an upset watch (at the time of their upset they looked like Memphis but does with fewer decent wins).

WAC: Denver. New Mexico State isn't bad (80), but Denver would have been a 12-13 seed with some higher potential. Both are rated better than Louisiana Tech was.

American East: 61) Stony Brook. Basically only major factor is being one of Maryland's decent wins. But they could have garnered a 13 or 14 seed while Albany is around 140 and will be a 15.


Summit. 74) North Dakota State lost on the road in the conference final. South Dakota State does have a win over New Mexico however and is still top 100 (90).


Southland: 75) Stephen F Austin really just had a win over Oklahoma to point to but could have been an upset spoiler for a 3 seed. As it is, Northwestern State makes a decent 15 seed, but they're not nearly as good (~120)

Big Sky: 85) Weber State has nothing on their resume to point to, basically played one of the weakest schedules in the country. But they also blew out most of those teams. Montana has a similar record, but just wasn't as impressive. It's probable this won't change seeding (probably a 14 either way), but Montana is more like a 15 (~130) and unlikely to consider much where Weber would have been an interesting team to look at.

NCAA: One week to dancing edition

1) Florida 11-6
2) Indiana 13-5

3) Louisville 13-5
4) Gonzaga  11-2
5) Duke       14-4

6) Kansas         13-4-1
7) Ohio St          9-7
8) Pittsburgh     10-6-1
9) Michigan       12-5-1
10) Michigan St 11-7

11) Wisconsin   9-10
12) Syracuse    11-8
13) Creighton  13-6-1
14) Miami         10-4-2
15) Georgetown 12-4-1

16) Oklahoma St  8-6-1
17) VCU            11-7
18) Arizona        10-5-1
19) Missouri        9-9
20) St Mary's      6-3-2

21) Colorado St  10-6-1
22) Minnesota    10-9-2
23) St Louis       11-5-1
24) Marquette    10-6-1
25) Virginia         7-2-8

Ranked Teams
26) New Mexico 16-5
28) Kansas St       7-6
35) Notre Dame  10-8
37) Memphis        6-4
45) UCLA          11-5-3

Clinched Bids
13) Creighton
42) Belmont   11-6
100) Harvard  (Princeton is slightly higher but lost two in a row this weekend to lose the conference title)
110) Florida Gulf Coast. Mercer wasn't far behind (~125) but lost at home in the conference finals.
251) Liberty. The best team in this conference was probably Charleston Southern and they are only about 170.

Safely in (from early tournaments)
29) Wichita St 11-7-1. Lost in the conference title game, and is high ranked on everything but RPI (41).

Unsurprising minor conference upset:
Iona over Niagara. Iona's in the top 100 (89). Niagara is roughly 145. I don't think Iona will be recognized as any better than a 15 though without some other upsets.
George Mason losing (by 2) put a much lesser team in the driver's seat for the Colonial, but either way they were probably a 15 or 16 seed.

Bubble of doom (from early tournaments)
31) Middle Tennessee St 1-3-2. Lost in semifinals of Sun Belt, has a gaudy 28-5 record overall, mostly against its own conference (20-2 in conference), which is terrible. The next best team is ranked at 167 (Arkansas St, which was also eliminated in the semis). I think they've got a decent shot at making it in anyway as they also have a decent RPI at 28. The defective computer ranking system the committee mostly uses by chance happens to be not far off in this case. If not, Sun Belt will go from having a 12 seed (that's really an 8) to a 16, possibly in one of the play-in games. Assuming they don't get in in another play-in game (as a 12 or 13). They're right now the first team out, but it's very close to Tennessee in likelihood. They have a better argument to make it in than Louisiana Tech will, which was blown out in the last two games (both against the next best teams in their conference).

Note: MTSU lost last year in their conference tournament and the eventual bid went to Western Kentucky (with a losing record). They didn't make it in last year either at large, but they were much lower in rankings (around 50, rather than 30) and were only 24-6 rather than 28-5.

62) Stony Brook  0-2. American East went from having a dangerous 13 seed to a 15 (Vermont) or a 16 (Albany) as cannon fodder. They're clearly out, but they're very close on my list.

Teams that will need to avoid losing in conference tournaments this week:
38) Denver   3-8
57) Akron     5-3-3
59) Davidson 1-3-4 (update: clinched Monday)
61) Bucknell  4-3-2 (in finals Wednesday)

72) Stephen F Austin 2-2-1
83) Weber State 1-1-4
(I included the last two because they're far ahead of the rest of their conferences. Montana is about 60 ranks below Weber, and NW St is around 100, well behind SFA. Ohio is about 20 spots behind Akron, and then the MAC is terrible after that).

Teams "in" on my list that won't make the field right now.
25) Virginia   (4-2 top 50)
36) Iowa        6-9-2 (3-8)
40) Baylor     6-10-3 (3-10)
44) Mississippi 7-6-2 (1-4)
47) Stanford 6-11-2 (1-9)
Virginia is probably the only one that deserves a bid here, but they've got 8 non top 100 losses and a terrible road record to shoot themselves out of the field at the moment.

This leaves room (along with MTSU) for
53) Oregon    7-6-2 (3-3)
54) California 6-10  (4-5)
55) Butler      11-6-1 (4-3)
58) Tennessee  9-9-2 (4-7)
62) Temple      9-5-3 (3-2)
Right now I would be surprised if any of these teams misses, but any upsets and Tennessee is toast, and possibly Kentucky (not on this list, but safely in on mine) as well.

SWAC note: Texas Southern passed Southern into the top 150. Grambling managed to win 0 games, and plays again on Wednesday.

NCAA March edition

1) Florida 11-5 2) Indiana 12-4 3) Louisville 11-5 4) Gonzaga  11-2 5) Duke       13-4 6) Kansas     13-3-1 7) Syracuse      11-7 8) Pittsburgh    10-6-1 9) Michigan      11-4-1 10) Wisconsin   10-9 11) Michigan St 10-7 12) Ohio St         7-7 13) Miami         10-4-1 14) Oklahoma St  7-5-1 15) Georgetown 11-3-1 16) Minnesota    10-8-1 17) Creighton     11-6-1 18) VCU            10-6 19) St Marys      6-3-2 20) Arizona        9-5-1 21) Missouri      8-8 22) Virginia        6-2-7 23) Marquette     9-6-1 24) St Louis      10-4-1 25) San Diego St 6-8 Ranked Teams 26) New Mexico 16-4 29) Kansas St       7-5 35) Memphis        6-4

44) Oregon          7-5-1

62) Louisiana Tech 3-2-1

Most of the action this week wasn't in the rankings, but in the bubble. Tennessee and Virginia both had big wins (Florida and Duke), and big losses (Georgia and BC), on balance this ought to be helpful to both however. Maryland had a big loss (Wake) that moved them out of contention entirely. Alabama could have moved back into discussion by beating Florida on the road but couldn't hold on. Boise St moved up into serious bubble contention finally. 

At the moment I have these teams in the field that won't (or can't) make it and/or are seriously weakened by the last week or so of games. 

37) Iowa      5-9-2

45) Connecticut 8-9 (ineligible) 

46) Baylor   5-10-2

47) Ole Miss 5-6-2

50) Denver   2-8 (will need to win WAC tournament)

And the bubble discussions have these two in that I don't

55) Villanova  7-10-2

71) Temple      8-5-3

Which likely leaves Boise or Tennessee as the other at-large, assuming nothing strange happens with conference tournaments. Neither is all that impressive. 

54) Boise         7-6-2

55) Tennessee  8-9-2

Last year Colorado came out of nowhere to win the Pac-12 tournament (but the Pac-12 was really, really weak last year for a supposed power conference) and St Bonaventure won the A10 where they shouldn't have also. Iona got an at-large from the MAAC as well.  I'd say an average of 2-3 bids are off every year from conference tournaments (plus the two-three teams that win a tournament unexpectedly but would have been at-large bids anyway). So it's quite possible that none of the bubble teams get in. And that none of them would have deserved to. Temple's the only one with a .500 record essentially. 

NCAA Week 4 plus bubble thoughts

1) Florida 10-4
2) Indiana 9-3

3) Louisville 10-5
4) Gonzaga 10-2
5) Duke 12-3
6) Michigan 9-4

7) Kansas 12-3-1
8) Wisconsin 9-8
9) Syracuse 12-5
10) Pitt 9-6-1
11) Ohio St 6-7
12) Michigan St 8-6
13) Miami 10-3-1

14) Georgetown 10-3-1
15) Arizona 9-4
16) Oklahoma St 7-5-1

17) Minnesota 9-8
18) Creighton 8-6-1
19) Virginia 5-2-6
20) VCU 9-6
21) Colorado St 8-5-1
22) San Diego St 6-7
23) Marquette 7-6-1

24) Middle Tennessee St 1-3-1
25) Missouri 7-8

Ranked Teams
30) New Mexico 14-4
29) St Louis 8-4-1
36) Memphis 6-3
51) Butler 8-5-1
37) Notre Dame 7-6
45) Oregon 7-5-1
27) St Marys 6-3-2
49) Akron 4-3-1
75) Louisiana Tech 4-2-1

I have no idea how Louisiana Tech got a bunch of votes. They've played almost no meaningful games (especially in the last couple of weeks). They're likely to win their conference but aren't the best team in that conference, which is Denver at #50, so it's unclear if they'd merit any bubble conversation. I rather doubt it.

Here's the list of bubble teams identified by the bracket matrix as teams not getting a solid percentage of inclusions or as low at large teams. Maybe 3 or 4 of these are thus far looking like legit tournament teams. 7 of them will get in anyway. 11 won't.
19) Virginia. 6 non top 100 losses is undoubtedly their problem here. Right now they're in but they cannot afford any more weird losses.
26) Kentucky 6-8, presumably this is because of the injury to Noel. They did get a big win at home against Missouri this week, so they could remain in as well. With Noel they were a no-brainer for inclusion and at a higher seed.
27) St Marys 6-3-2. Not sure what this is all about. They're ranked after all. The win over Creighton during bracketbusters this weekend really helped here. Swept by Gonzaga, but Gonzaga's really good this year.
39) Ole Miss 4-6-1. I'm not sure that they actually should merit inclusion, but they're ranked highly enough to do so. A sweep of Tennessee and a win over Missouri (at home) are basically their only resume fodder. They're also the only decent team Middle Tennessee St has beaten. Loss to South Carolina hurts here.
40) Iowa 4-7-3. Very fringe votes for inclusion. They're really high on the MOV/tempo metrics and have 3 wins against the top 25 (Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa St, all at home), and lost by only 4 to Indiana (also at home). Their losses @ Virginia Tech, @ Purdue, and @ Nebraska all hurt a lot here and other than Iowa St, they've only got a win against N. Iowa non-conference of any note. I think they should be in, but they probably will not be without a deep Big Ten tournament run.
43) Baylor 5-9-2. Possibly safe, with a number of decent wins (Kentucky, Oklahoma St, BYU, Lehigh, and St John's). Oklahoma St and early win over Kentucky are the only resume fodder and they're losing a lot of games lately (6 of the last 8, with the only wins coming over in-conference cannon fodder). I could see them slide out.
50) Denver. 3-8. Probably has to win the WAC to get in but did get a nice road win during bracket busters this weekend.
52) Stanford. 5-10-2 Probably shouldn't get in and doesn't look like they will.
55) California. 5-9. Probably shouldn't get in either but looks like they might. Win @ Arizona and sweep of Oregon seems to be the keys here. They've only got a win over Denver to point to out of conference, where they lost to Harvard and Creighton, were blown out by Wisconsin, and lost by 1 to UNLV.
56) Villanova 6-9-1. Wins over Louisville, Syracuse, and Marquette are most likely why they would get in. Swept by Providence, loss to Columbia and only one win over the other Philly teams (St Joe's) would be arguments why not. I'd be fine with them in instead of Stanford or maybe Baylor though.
57) Maryland 3-5-3. Win over Duke is pretty much the only reason they're even in the conversation. NC State and Stony Brook are the only other good wins, with a close loss to Kentucky also. I doubt they get in without a couple of ACC tournament wins (over the Carolina teams).
58) Southern Miss 1-6-1. Shouldn't get in. Seems like a safe bet to miss out.
62) Tennessee. 7-9-1. Win over Wichita St is about it, and then the blowout over Kentucky put them on the radar. Unlikely to make it. They do have a lot of wins over quality teams, but most of them are modest wins rather than impressive stock.
64) Boise St 6-6-2. Win over Creighton on the road helped. Lost by 4 to Michigan St also. Otherwise, win over UNLV and a sweep of Wyoming is about it. I could see them getting in, but they've got a lot more buzz surrounding them than I suspect is warranted.
67) Temple 7-6-2. Wins over Syracuse and St Louis. Lost to Duquesne. Otherwise, wins over LaSalle and Villanova is about it. I guess I could see them getting in as well, but it's not a strong case.

84) Arizona St 5-6-2. Win over UCLA and a sweep of Colorado is about it here. Getting swept by Washington does not help. Loss to Utah and DePaul also doesn't help. They also got smacked by Arkansas, Creighton and Arizona. They're a fringe candidate, but they shouldn't even be a candidate.
86) St John's 5-7-4. Close wins over Cincinnati and Notre Dame, and Detroit is about it. Losses to San Francisco and UNC Asheville do not help. Again, a fringe candidate, but shouldn't be even involved. Blow out losses to every good team in their conference (Louisville, Syracuse,Pitt, Georgetown twice), plus Baylor should suggest this isn't a very competitive team.
NR) Charlotte. 5-6-2 I don't think a team I'm not even tracking should be included as even a fringe possible bubble team. Something tells me there's a huge flaw in the RPI system that they are. Win at Butler and at Davidson is about it here, plus a win against LaSalle. Destroyed by Miami, blown out by St Louis, lost at home to VCU, swept by Temple. Otherwise a lot of close games against mediocre teams. If I had to guess, they're behind George Mason in the #120 range.

NCAA Week 3

1) Florida 9-3
2) Indiana 8-3
3) Louisville 11-5

4) Michigan 8-4
5) Duke 14-3
6) Gonzaga 10-2
7) Syracuse 11-4
8) Pittsburgh 9-5-1
9) Kansas 10-3-1

10) Miami 11-3
11) Wisconsin 10-8
12) Michigan St 8-4

13) Ohio St 4-7
14) Minnesota 8-7-1

15) Oklahoma St 7-4-1
16) Arizona 9-4
17) VCU 8-4-1
18) Colorado St 8-3-1
19) Creighton 8-5-1
20) Georgetown 10-3-1

21) Cincinnati 8-7
22) Kentucky 5-8 (about to start dropping though)
23) Missouri 6-7
24) Marquette 8-6
25) San Diego St 5-7

Ranked teams out of my top 25
49) Butler 7-4-1
36) New Mexico 13-4
42) Oregon 6-4-1
51) Notre Dame 6-6

I'm not sure what the NBA commentators for the ASG last night were talking about with "about 20 teams that could make the final four". I see maybe 10-12 good contenders, with even several of those as unlikely and draw dependent (because they're playing too slow in the cases of Pitt and Wisconsin, to a lesser extent Florida and Miami, same deal). There's a pretty hard gap between the top 10-12 teams and the rest, and even in there, a sizeable gap between the top 2-3 teams and the rest. There's a few teams beneath that gap that could make a run (Arizona?, VCU?) but not many. Last year Louisville was the only "surprise" final four team and even then they were 15-8-1 coming in, which was quite respectable and were one of the top ranked defenses, (this year they're the #1 ranked, but they're scoring at a much better clip than last year).

HS draft for the NBA

Since this topic comes up occasionally, I thought I should quantify it somewhat to see if the data supports the conclusion that I reached quite some time ago that the one and done rule the NBA imposed was arbitrary and dumb.

The list of HS players drafted into the NBA isn't very long, so data-driven conclusions are unlikely to reach very far unfortunately. But they are still useful to examine to see if there are any hints. I would suggest that we are likely being imprisoned by media narratives surrounding parts of the limited data rather than the whole from this analysis.

First off.
Starting just with the 1995-6 classes, we can see right away two Hall of Famers, both clearly the class of their draft class. Kevin Garnett is leaps and bounds above any other player drafted in 1995. The next best player in that draft is Rasheed Wallace (drafted right ahead of him at 4th), but he's way behind in value.

The following year we get Kobe Bryant picked 13th, again the best player of that class, but it's a much better draft. He's followed by Steve Nash, Ray Allen, Ben Wallace (who went undrafted), and Marcus Camby. Iverson and Stojakovic are also better than Rasheed was, for comparison of how deep this class is. Jermaine O'Neal was also in this draft at 17th and falls in a class behind these players but still had a respectable career (if injury riddled and complete with an infamous fight). He is roughly as productive and valuable as Stephon Marbury was (a one-done shoot first point guard who went 4th).

1997 Tracy McGrady, picked 9th, is the 3rd best player in a draft following Tim Duncan (just ahead of KG's class as a top tier Hall of Famer), and Chauncey Billups (a pretty clear HoF candidate too). It drops way off after those three (Antonio Daniels?).

1998 Finally a bust? Al Harrington as a HS pick is rather mediocre, but he was picked 25th. And despite being a rather average to below average player is still playing (because he can shoot reasonably well). Rashard Lewis picked 32nd is a capable NBA player and 5th best player in this draft (roughly as good as Antawn Jamison who went 4th). Dirk Nowitzki is an international player of note picked at 10th is the best player in this draft, followed by Paul Pierce and Vince Carter. Brad Miller goes undrafted and comes in at 6th. Korleone Young is drafted 40th and does pretty much nothing. Second round picks rarely do though. Famously this is the Olowakandi draft (he was terrible and picked 1st) and also famously Nowitzki was traded for Robert "Tractor" Traylor, who went 6th and has a short unimpressive career while Dirk has a surefire HoF career.

1999. Here some real worry probably started to creep in.  Jonathan Bender goes 5th, mostly on the strength of comparisons to KG. While he never really puts up any numbers anyway, he also has a very brief injury riddled career. Leon Smith is a total basket case of a human being, is drafted at 29th and doesn't amount to much either. More than likely, his career, what there was of it, IS the case against drafting HS players. But I have a hard time seeing much generalisation to be made of his circumstances to any high school athlete. Manu Ginobili goes 57th and is probably the 2nd best player in this draft (behind Shawn Marion).

2000 A historically bad draft class all around. Michael Redd is the only good player drafted (43rd), while Mike Miller (5th) and Kenyon Martin (1st) are the only other reasonably productive players picked and a pair of others (Turkoglu and Jamal Crawford) are decent. And that is all. Darius Miles goes 3rd, the highest a HS player has gone so far, probably because nobody else seems very good anyway, and doesn't amount to very much (but isn't nearly as bad as Marcus Fizer, picked after him at 4th). DeShawn Stevenson goes 23rd, and appears to have a niche as a bearded defensive player (and is still in the league today) but few other appreciable skills.

2001 Odd class all around. Kwame Brown goes 1st. He is a below average player, but sticks around in the league still today and isn't nearly as terrible as Olowakandi was. Pau Gasol is clearly better than anyone else from this class (picked 3rd), followed by Tony Parker (a young French point guard at the time, picked 28th), and Tyson Chandler (picked 2nd and another very good HS player). Despite the flops of Brown and Eddy Curry (a HS player picked 4th, a high volume scoring big man who can't do anything else at all, ends up with a heart condition to boot), this is actually a very deep draft with many highly skilled players scattered in it (about 11-12). Diop, while styled as an international player, played HS ball in the US and is picked 8th. Doesn't amount to much.

2002 Amare Stoudemire becomes the first HS player to win a rookie of the Year award after being picked 9th. He remains the best player from this draft, although Yao Ming was too injury prone to actually claim this title. Stoudemire's a problem child player for much of his career though and a terrible post defender.

2003 LeBron. Enough said there. Kendrick Perkins goes 27th and isn't all that productive but has a mean scowl and excellent post defense skills. Travis Outlaw goes 23rd and somehow ends up with a "Travis Outlaw's contract" style career, which is to say, he gets dramatically overpaid and isn't a very good player. Darko Milicic goes 2nd and isn't all that productive either. We could consider him either international or HS. Ndubi Edi and James Lang are also HS players drafted in this class. Neither amounts to much of anything. Both go late (26th and 48th).

2004 Dwight Howard. Again, enough said. A ton of HS players are picked this year in the first round. Al Jefferson goes 15th and is the 3rd best player in this class (behind Iguodala). Josh Smith goes 17th and while something of a coaching problem (for putting up ill-advised jump shots, among other reasons), is actually quite good (probably 6th best in class behind Luol Deng). JR Smith is an even bigger coaching problem at 18th, but again, at least a skilled scorer. Dorell Wright goes 19th and takes a while to get some PT, but turns out okay (better than JR, but with less minutes). This class is marred basically by the Bassy Telfair pick at 13th, who had a documentary film produced about his HS to NBA leap and the knee injuries to Shaun Livingston (picked 4th). (don't click on that if you're squeamish, his leg literally bends sideways suffices to say). And then the pick of Robert Swift at 12th, which amounts to a total dud, but certainly not any bigger than Araujo at 8th.

2005 Andrew Bynum goes 10th, aside from injuries, he's probably the 4th best player in this class (just ahead of undrafted Jose Calderon) but well behind Deron Williams and way behind Chris Paul. Monte Ellis goes 40th and becomes a famous ballhog but otherwise is a solid player (especially for a second round pick). Louis Williams goes 45th and ends up as a very good instant offense shooter as well. Martell Webster goes 6th and ends up just below average (behind Francisco Garcia who went 23rd). Andrey Blatche is a headcase picked at 49th but having a productive season this year with the Nets. Amir Johnson goes 56th, gets limited minutes with the Pistons, but plays very productively in them (followed also with somewhat less limited minutes with Raptors and still more productive play). Gerald Green goes 18th and wins a dunk contest, but not much else is done. CJ Miles goes 34th and is also largely unproductive.

I don't count very many "busts" here such that the problem was NBA teams needed to protect themselves from themselves. There's a good volume of late-first round and second round picks (picks which rarely turn out to be suggestive of productive NBA careers). This suggests that many NBA teams already recognized the dangers of HS evaluations and adjusted accordingly. The famous busts of Kwame Brown (thanks be to Michael Jordan), and Telfair's documentary, and a few problems of immaturity (Miles, Stoudemire, the Smiths, Blatche), appear to be the cause of concerns here. There are also numerous cases where these players had to play a year or two of pro ball to begin to become productive however. Garnett or Kobe don't start out as a perennial All-Star for example and McGrady doesn't win a couple scoring titles right away either. Howard or LeBron are both very good immediately but neither is rookie of the year, and neither is in the discussion for top 5 best players in the league for at least a couple of seasons. So it is possible an extra year of seasoning may help these players mature better or polish their games. That argument is not invalidated by saying the age restriction is dumb. It also takes most college players a year or two to begin to adjust to the skill level jumps, and usually year 3 is when any player begins to really flourish.

What it suggests is the NBA prefers to have someone else pay to develop the players, pushing risks off on someone else (in this case, the players themselves and colleges who recruit them for one-and-done runs). For the most part, college freshmen who are drafted are a relatively safer bet than HS players, in the defence of this practice. But college freshmen are rarely drafted outside of the lottery or first rounds. HS players were. In addition, statistically valid issues can be raised with international player scouting and that of 4 year seniors who are drafted, both groups that fail on a very high rate relative to HS players and underclassmen who are drafted. There are prominent examples of both groups who succeed, who are held up as exemplars (particularly Tim Duncan or Steve Nash types as 4th year college players) but we rarely hear about 4th year seniors who are terrible professionals who are drafted. This may be because such players are rarely lottery picks in the first place (Jimmer Fredette so far is in this category, Terrence Williams from a few years back, Acie Law and Al Thornton in the same draft, and then Luke Jackson, as but a few examples). But if such a comparison is fair and honest, we should admit that many of the HS players who have failed and busted or been mediocre are of similar draft status to that of international or college players and have similar expectations leveled upon them. Whatever the valid reasons may be behind such a policy, it doesn't appear that "protecting" owners from their supposed stupidity is one of them.

HS great picks would be
KG
Kobe
LeBron
Howard
McGrady
Chandler
Stoudemire
Jefferson
Lewis (mostly because he was second round)
Josh Smith

Value picks
Bynum
Wright
JR Smith
Jermaine O'Neal
Williams
Ellis
Johnson
Perkins
Blatche
Harrington

HS Busts would be
Brown (#1 picks aren't supposed to be below average)
Swift
Telfair
Darius Miles
Bender
Webster
Livingston
Eddy Curry

Lost picks would be
Young
Lang
Ebi
Leon Smith
Outlaw
Green
CJ Miles
Stevenson

This looks like a fairly normal distribution, but it has some serious top heavy options.

Week 2

Not much changed, despite the apparent chaos of upsets. The bigger sort seemed to occur among the middle, bubble quality teams with a few (Illinois, Virginia), playing up, and a few (BYU, Maryland), playing down.

I will start posting top 100 records. Any extra record element is non-top 100 losses. For most good teams, this would be a non-factor, but it becomes an issue with many bubble teams, if for no other reason than to explain absurdly high RPIs. I consider games against non-top 100 teams to be irrelevant record padding (college football is much worse on this front with very few games outside the top 30-40 teams). Top 50 records aren't much better as a metric unless a team has a bunch of 50-100 wins but nothing in the 1-50 range (California did this last year, and lost in the first round).

1) Florida 9-3
2) Indiana 8-3
These two may take a lot, a major injury for example, to drop down to the next tier.

3) Michigan 9-3
4) Louisville 9-5
5) Duke 13-2
6) Syracuse 9-3
7) Pittsburgh 8-4-1
I could see Michigan moving up from this tier, and Miami or Gonzaga moving up.

8) Miami 12-3
9) Gonzaga 9-2
10) Ohio St. 4-6
11) Kansas 11-3-1
12) Minnesota 8-6-1
13) Wisconsin 8-7
14) Michigan St 8-4
15) Arizona 8-3
Pretty stable group here I think. Minnesota is the highest team I'm charting that isn't ranked in the AP (they're 26th, they were ranked last week though).

16) Kentucky 4-6
17) Creighton 8-4-1
18) Colorado St 6-3-1
19) Oklahoma St 8-4-1
20) VCU 7-4-1
21) Cincinnati 6-6
22) St Marys 2-3-1
23) Baylor 6-6-2
24) Georgetown 8-3-1
25) San Diego St 5-5
Creighton dropped way too much for their loss this week in the polls.

Honorable Mentions (ranked teams)
27) Virginia 6-1-5 (5!)
28) Marquette 5-4-1
36) New Mexico 12-4
40) Butler 8-4
41) Memphis 4-342) Notre Dame 6-5
47) Oregon 5-4-1