Final NCAA Ranks

Records are top 100 games only, with any losses outside top 100 after.
Italicized names did not make the tournament.

1) Duke 18-5 (most top 25 wins, 9)
2) Gonzaga 12-3 (rates as best offense in country, by a large margin)
3) Virginia 19-3 (plays slowest tempo in country, again)
4) Michigan St 21-6 (most top 50 wins, 17)
5) North Carolina 17-6 (8 top 25 wins)
6) Michigan 21-6 (tied with Michigan St for most top 100 wins)
7) Tennessee 17-5
8) Kentucky 17-6 (8 top 25 wins)
9) Texas Tech 16-5-1 (rates as best defense in country)
10) Purdue 18-9
11) Auburn 17-9
12) Virginia Tech 12-8
13) Wisconsin 18-10
14) Iowa St 14-10-1
15) Florida St 15-6-1
16) Houston 12-3
17) Kansas 19-8-1 (16 top 50 wins, toughest schedule overall)
18) Louisville 12-12-1
19) Buffalo 4-1-2
20) LSU 17-6 (lowest rated top 3 seed)
21) Mississippi St 14-10
22) Nevada 6-1-3
23) Villanova 17-8-1
24) Kansas St 14-7-1 (lowest top 4 seed)
25) Marquette 15-9
26) Maryland 14-10
27) Wofford 9-4 (0 top 50 wins)
28) Florida 9-14-1
29) North Carolina St (first team out) 9-9-2
30) Cincinnati 11-5-1
31) Clemson 7-13
32) Texas 9-14-2 (lost three in a row at end of season)
(There is a rather steep drop here between Cincinnati and Syracuse)
33) Syracuse 12-11-2
34) Utah St 5-4-2
35) Oregon 9-9-3
36) St Marys 6-8-3
37) Oklahoma 14-11-2
38) Iowa 14-11
39) Indiana 11-15
40) VCU 7-4-3
41) Nebraska 12-16
42) Ohio St 11-14
43) Ole Miss 9-12
44) Baylor 11-11-2
45) Penn St 9-16-2 (18 losses, still rates as a top 50 team)
46) TCU 10-12-1
47) Washington 12-7-1
48) Central Florida 7-7-1
49) Minnesota 14-12-1
50) New Mexico St 0-2-2 (no top 100 wins)
51) Creighton 9-14
52) Seton Hall 15-11-2
53) Belmont 4-2-3
54) Murray St 1-3-1 (only win is the win that got them in)
55) Arkansas 6-14-1
56) Lipscomb 3-6-1
57) Arizona St 10-5-5 (5 non top 100 losses)
58) Memphis 6-10-3
72) St John's 10-10-2
75) Temple 6-7-2 (these two should be considered the last two in the field)
76) Irvine 2-3-3 (18 road/neutral wins, most in country)
78) Vermont 1-3-3
79) Liberty 2-3-3
81) Northeastern 3-6-4
94) Yale 1-3-4
95) St Louis 6-6-6
97) N Kentucky 0-2-6
104) Old Dominion 5-1-7
109) Georgia St 0-1-8

(nearly every team after this has no top 100 wins, and few such games played)
121) Colgate
127) Montana 1-3-5 (beat South Dakota St)
157) Abilene Christian
158) Bradley 1-0-14 (only win was over Penn St)
170) Gardner-Webb
192) Iona
200) North Dakota St
203) Prairie View
208) Fairleigh Dickinson
292) NC Central

Seeding overall looks a lot smoother now that they're not using the RPI system. A few teams were higher or lower than expected (Wisconsin, perennially), but there are not any embarrassing 5-12 or 6-11 games where the 12 or 11 is obviously better. There was a clear consensus who the top 8-10 teams were, with Houston being the only one much higher in the NET rating system than elsewhere, so there was nothing like "Xavier or Oregon gets a 1 seed as the 12th best team in the country"

Final Rankings NCAA 2017

Seem to be the best two teams now.
1) Gonzaga 10-1 - 6 top 25 wins, but 3 are against St Mary's
2) Villanova 19-3

Other likely title contenders.
3) North Carolina 17-7 - top rebounding team, 6 top 25 wins
4) West Virginia 17-7-1 - forces tons of turnovers
5) Kentucky 20-5

Mixed bag, mostly teams to avoid taking too far.
6) Louisville 14-8 - only 8-7 in Road/Neutral games
6) Kansas 20-4  - lowest 1 seed, 6 top 25 wins, 14 top 50
8) Wichita St 4-4 - 10 seed, 0 top 50 wins
9) Virginia 14-10 - 5 seed, #1 defense
10) Duke 18-7-1 - most top 25 wins, 8, 15 top 50 wins, also most
11) Florida 17-8

Sleepers
12) SMU 10-3-1 - 6 seed, but rates higher than 3 seed Baylor
13) Purdue 15-6-1
14) Oregon 14-5  -only 2-3 vs top 50
15) UCLA 11-4
16) Baylor 19-7 - 13 top 50 wins
17) Iowa St 16-10 - 13 top 50 wins

Upset potential teams (in either direction)
18) Florida St 15-7-1 - 13 top 50 wins, losing record in road/neutral games
19) Michigan 15-11 - 10 top 50 wins
20) Arizona 12-4
21) Cincinnati 10-5
22) Wisconsin 16-9 - 10 top 50 wins, but 8 seed...for some reason? (RPI has them at 32, I'm not sure how)
23) St Mary's 5-4
24) Notre Dame 14-9
25) Oklahoma St 13-12 - 10 seed, #1 offense, bad defence
26) Butler 17-6-2 - 11 top 50 wins
27) Creighton 11-9 - started year 18-1 overall, but slumped since starting PG was injured (was leading nation in assists)

Most teams from here will have middling records against competitive teams.
Non-NCAA bid teams will appear in italics
28) Marquette 9-11-1 - top 3 point shooting team, but awful defense
29) Kansas St 10-13
30) Wake Forest 8-13 - 3-13 vs top 50, worst defense among at-large teams
31) South Carolina 15-9-1 -only 3-5 vs top 50, worst offense among at-large teams to make the field, plays de facto home games in first and second round (7 seed)
32) Miami 8-11
33) Minnesota 13-9
34) Vanderbilt 12-14-1 - 4 top 25 wins got them in
35) Indiana 9-13-2 - first team out
36) Xavier 10-13- only one good win post-injury (Butler)
37) Northwestern 10-11 1st NCAA bid in school history
38) Arkansas 14-8-1 - 3-7 vs 50
39) Clemson 9-15 
40) Rhode Island 8-7-2
41) Michigan St 11-13-1
42) Dayton 10-4-3
43) TCU 9-15 - 2-8 in last 10 games
44) Syracuse 9-12-2 - 2-11 in Road/Neutral games
45) Texas Tech 7-14 - 2-11 in Road/Neutral games
46) Virginia Tech 11-9-1 - 8 top 50 wins
47) Maryland 14-7-1
48) VCU 8-7-1 - 1-3 vs 50
49) Middle Tennessee 4-1-3

Last "out" at larges and mixed upset mid-majors/low rated at-larges
50) Utah 4-8-3  - 0-6 vs 50
51) Houston 5-7-3  - 1-5 vs 50
52) Nevada 5-3-3
53) Seton Hall 11-9-2
54) Alabama 8-14  
55) Georgia 11-14 - 1-11 vs 50!
56) Illinois St 1-3-3 
57) Providence 10-9-3
58) UNC-Wilmington 4-3-2 - 0-2 vs 50
59) California 6-11 - 0-7 vs 50
60) USC 5-8-1 - lowest rated at-large team, 2-6 vs 50, got in because of RPI rating (41)
65) Vermont 0-4-1
66) ETSU 2-4-3 - 0-1 vs 50
70) Princeton 1-5-1

Rest of Field
77) Bucknell 3-5-3 - 1-2 vs 50
93) New Mexico St 0-1-4
105) Florida-Gulf Coast
110) Winthrop
112) Iona
132) Kent St
134) Troy
144) N.Kentucky
155) UNC-Central
166) Jacksonville St
178) North Dakota
179) South Dakota St
186) Texas Southern
194) Mount St Mary's (only team in field with negative scoring margin, also gets clobbered on the boards)
202) New Orleans
205) UC-Davis


Critical injuries
Xavier- Sumner (6-7 since, but 3 of those wins are against DePaul)
Creighton - Watson PG (6-6 since)
Oregon- Boucher (injured in conference tournament)

March NCAA Ranks

All records are top 100 records only (with any losses to non-tournament quality teams designated).

1) Gonzaga  9-1
2) West Virginia 14-7

I still don't feel like these are the two best teams. Gonzaga has only played one meaningful game since last month. The gap has also closed. The next two teams are right behind them now
3) Villanova 19-3
3) North Carolina 15-6

5) Kentucky 15-5
6) Florida 16-6
7) Kansas 21-3
8) Louisville 13-7
9) Virginia 12-9

10) Wichita St 2-4
11) UCLA 11-3
12) Purdue 14-6
13) Duke 14-6-1
13) Baylor 17-6

15) Oregon 13-4
16) Florida St 12-7

17) Oklahoma St 13-10

18) SMU 11-3-1
19) Butler 18-5-1

20) Iowa St 13-9
21) St Marys 4-3
22) Wisconsin 14-7
23) Cincinnati 10-4
24) Arizona 9-4
25) Creighton 12-7
26) Notre Dame 13-7

Bubble thoughts going into the tournament weeks
Teams I have "in". These are not all teams I would put in, in fact none of them are). These are teams ranked high enough to sneak in basically.
31) Wake Forest 7-12 - All of Wake's losses are in the top 50.
34) Texas Tech 7-12
36) Kansas St 7-12 (yes all three of these teams have 7-12 top 100 records)
38) Indiana 7-13-1
39) Clemson 10-14
40) Vanderbilt 9-13-1
46) Houston 7-6-2

Of these, Wake, Kansas St, Vandy, and Houston are the only ones even getting bubble chatter. The fact that any of these teams are seems like a problem. The bubble looks incredibly soft this year.

Teams I have "out" that will almost certainly get in
47) Michigan St 12-11-1 (injuries and actually a decent record against top-100 teams and a tough schedule)
56) Providence 11-9-2
58) Seton Hall 10-9-1
67) USC 5-7-1

Actual bubble right now
42) Xavier 11-12, fallen about 15 spots in the ranks in the two weeks. Probably safe, but fading badly
44) Syracuse 8-12-1
49) Rhode Island 5-7-2
50) California 4-8-1
51) Illinois St 1-2-3 (not much of a schedule)
All of these teams are in right now, probably. If there's a couple of at-larges because of upsets in conference tournaments, these are the teams getting axed. Syracuse appears to have a terrible RPI, but will probably be getting in anyway (again). Which is a good sign the RPI is useless and starting to be ignored/replaced.

Early NCAA ranks

All records are top 100 records only (with any losses to non-tournament quality teams designated).

1) Gonzaga  9-0
2) West Virginia 9-5

I don't have much faith these are the best two teams, mostly because they both have lower quality schedules, so far. Partly this is because nobody seems that far ahead of the rest of the pack this year.

3) Virginia 11-5
4) Louisville 10-5
5) Villanova 15-2

6) Kentucky 10-5 (seems to be in a funk, they were ranked #1 two weeks ago)
7) North Carolina 13-4
8) Kansas 13-3
9) Florida 11-5

10) Purdue 10-5
11) Wisconsin 12-3
12) Baylor 13-3
13) Duke 9-5
13) Florida St 11-4
15) Wichita St 2-4
16) UCLA 8-3

17) Cincinnati 7-2
18) Oregon 7-3
19) SMU 6-3-1

20) Arizona 7-3 (currently projected as a #2 seed on bracketmatrix)
21) Oklahoma St 7-8 (toughest schedule in the country)
22) Creighton 11-4
23) St Marys 5-2
24) Butler 14-4-1
25) Notre Dame 9-7

Non-top 25 notes
Michigan and Indiana are the first teams which I have ranked that are considered bubble teams (and probably out), at 31 and 32. Followed by Wake Forest and Miami. And Syracuse, as the ACC has a string of middling teams. None of these teams looks that distinguished. Syracuse has only one road/neutral win so far all year, for example. This is typical as bubble teams are usually mediocre.

ACC vs Big 12 as the "power conference" for the year
ACC has 11 potential teams up for bids (more like 10, Clemson hasn't beaten anyone, neither has Wake Forest), and the #3 and #4 and #7 teams.

Big 12 has 8 teams most likely all getting in, with #2 and #8 also in the conference. Additionally, even the weakest two teams that won't get in (Texas and Oklahoma) are in the top 100.

In general, the Pac-12 looks overrated by tournament prospects. Arizona's very high on the projected seed line, and Utah is projected as a bubble team, with a 2-7-1 record, and USC has a very low computer ranking (I have them at #59), mainly because they don't appear to have played anyone (5-4 record). California also has some bubble potential and a poor ranking (I have them at #55). I'd say there are probably some of the usual RPI shenanigans, but I don't look at RPI. These things could improve, but don't count on it.

UCLA rates as the best offense in college basketball.. but their defense is outside of the top 100.

Best non-major conference teams as upset spoilers should they get in:
#54 Middle Tennessee 5-1-3
#57 UNC Wilmington 3-3-1

NBA awards season

I have to confess a considerable amount of confusion at one award in particular (so far): 6th man.

For some reason it went to Jamal Crawford. This was a defensible (if flawed) pick two years ago. It is insane this season. He's no higher than 20th in any metric of analysis for overall quality of a bench player in the entire league, not even close to what should be given consideration as an award. He's a respectable volume scorer who doesn't play defense.

Examining the options for how this happened:

1) Voters pick someone who scores a lot off the bench. Will Barton scored more (and got rebounds and steals) and shot more effectively to score that much. Ryan Anderson scored more in fewer games. So there are better options available as "player who scores points off bench".

2) Voters pick someone "who scores a lot off the bench for a good team". Assuming that Denver and New Orleans had their bench players excluded because their teams were awful this season, that then leaves playoff quality reserve players. Which then means Enos Kanter is an option from Oklahoma City. And a superior one, well to Crawford at any rate. Since he actually gets rebounds alongside scoring points, and he shoots at a far more effective clip (as one should expect closer to the basket). He still fulfills the "doesn't play defense" requirement to boot. Kanter finished third in the vote, suggesting voters were aware of his existence as a suitable alternative.

3) Voters ignore someone who doesn't score. Tristan Thompson appears to have had the best season off the bench (he started a chunk of games but came off the bench for a majority). This is because he's a rebounding machine and a monster on the offensive glass. But he does not score points himself at a noticeable rate. Ed Davis on Portland seems to have suffered the same fate. This theory does not work because Iguodala finished second in the vote. And he doesn't score either. He's mainly a glue guy/defensive stopper in his role on the Warriors now.

4) Nobody really stood out so voters simply picked whoever's name was familiar and readily at hand and appeared to have a decent season (on a good team).

Quick pot odds projects

These will be premised not on the likelihood of an upset statistically, but on the relative nature of how many people are likely to pick it compared to that statistical probability. (bold is the post-first weekend reactions)

1) Champ
Avoid Kansas or Michigan St. Michigan St would be currently my favored pick if I had to pick someone, but there's a big drop-off and they have been heavily hyped it appears.

There's about an 8 or 9 team draw that makes the most sense to pull from as a title shot.
(In no particular order) Kansas, Michigan St, Oklahoma, Virginia, Carolina, Kentucky, and Villanova, with West Virginia and Purdue being the outside shots (although Virginia playing so slow doesn't help). Of these, Kansas, Michigan State, Carolina and Villanova seem the strongest. Oklahoma's offense isn't as great, Virginia plays too slowly, and Kentucky's defense is pretty meh (they have the top rated offense). (of these teams, 4 are gone, but two were outside shots anyway, only two of the top 7 are, and I avoided Michigan St on account of lots of people had picked them).

2) South Region

Best odds for improvement on the Final Four pick would be to take Villanova or Arizona.

Best odds for upsets:
Arizona losing in the first round - this is mostly the public not liking the play-in game winners. Also the winner of that game (Arizona/Wichita/Vandy) over Miami. (partly right)
Iowa to hold off Temple - this is not an upset, it's just undervalued because Iowa hasn't played well in the Big Ten.

3) West Region

Best odds for Final Four
Most teams here are about priced in correctly. The public seems to have figured out that Oregon was overrated. Oregon may actually be the best "bet", but Oklahoma still seems to be the favorite. Oregon's main weakness is an average defense.

Upsets:
VCU. Oregon St is pretty meh. For some reason this isn't being taken like crazy as a gimme. (duh)
Yale over Baylor - Yale is pretty good. Baylor is a little low for a 5 seed. Yale also looks promising as a rare pick versus Duke (Baylor only looks okay for an upset there). Neither Duke or Baylor has a good defense. (huzzah)
Texas advancing deeper in the field - Elite 8 for example. Northern Iowa is a reasonable upset chance in the first round, but about priced in correctly. After that, Texas is a little underrated. (fortunately didn't take my own advice)

4) East Region

Final Four
Indiana actually looks slightly favorable here, but mainly taking West Virginia would be useful. (ouch)

Upsets:
Notre Dame losing to Michigan or Tulsa. Notre Dame cannot play defense. (struggled against SFA even)
Pitt or Wisconsin over Xavier. (huzzah)

5) Midwest Region

Final Four
Virginia or Purdue. Avoid Michigan State if possible

Upsets:
Gonzaga over Seton Hall (and Utah) (huzzah)

Extended bubble thoughts

Lunardi's apparently throwing a fit about Tulsa and San Diego St, and it appears the AD at St Bonaventure is throwing a fit as well.

Looking at these specific cases:

San Diego State of the 8-9 bubble teams had the worst case by far for inclusion. They have one quality win (Cal). That's it. The only other top 100 wins they have are Fresno (lost to them twice) and Boise St (split in conference). They did play an impressive non-conference slate (Kansas, West Virginia, Utah, UALR, plus the aforementioned Cal game), but they lost those games. Most of them were not close. UALR was at home. They also lost two more non-conference games to poor quality opponents (San Diego and Grand Canyon). The idea that they had a case was premised on one win and some decent computer rankings that the committee never looks at (they are a top 50 team in those). That's not a very good case.

St Bonaventure is a poster child for "why we should abandon the RPI". They lost both meaningful non-conference games they played; Syracuse and Hofstra, plus another loss to Siena for good measure. They have two wins over St Joe's and a split with Dayton as their best wins, and one win over George Washington. Somehow or another in the magical formula that is RPI, despite none of their other wins being over teams ranked comfortably in the top 100 in any other computer ranking I can find, this means they have 7 top 70 wins in the RPI. I count 4 good wins, and zero are over teams in the top 40 (Dayton is in the top 25 in RPI, but they're not in any other system). To add to this, they have random losses to LaSalle, Duquesne, and Davidson. They would be banking a lot on that win over UD and requiring us to overlook a bunch of bad losses. This is not a good case for inclusion. The only case for inclusion was an absurdly high RPI ranking.

Tulsa - Has a win over Wichita St. Has splits with Connecticut, Cincinnati, SMU, Houston, and Temple (all in conference), a random win over Iona, and losses to UALR, South Carolina, Oregon State, two (blowout) losses to Memphis, and one very curious loss to Oral Roberts. This is a much more impressive resume than SDSU and St Bonaventure based on these merits. It includes several wins over actual teams and only one strange loss. While I did not think they would necessarily merit inclusion, over say, Florida State, South Carolina, Valparaiso, or Monmouth, they were certainly an easier case than these two alternatives. Who had very weak cases in support.

The others that inspired some puzzlement. Were less puzzling for me.

Syracuse: Wins over Texas A&M, Duke, Connecticut, Notre Dame. 3 of which were at neutral sites or on the road. Secondary wins over Georgia Tech, Florida St (split), Virginia Tech, and NC State. All solid top 100 teams that did not get in the field. Only one baffling loss to St John's without Boeheim as coach. Every other loss was to a team in the top 70. Swept by Pitt, 3 times actually, and North Carolina. Virginia, Louisville, Miami, Clemson, Wisconsin, and somehow, Georgetown. Two of those losses were in overtime. They also beat St Bonaventure head-to-head by 13. Those 4 top 40 wins, 2 in the top 25 were easily enough to get them in. I don't even think this was a close decision. A better argument here would be that Lunardi has been slipping in not including them in the first place. Most every bubble conversation I heard over the last week was puzzled by his decision not to put them in.

Vanderbilt: A more interesting decision. Here's the case for them: Zero bad losses and they scheduled hard. The worst loss was to Mississippi State by 1 point on the road, another loss to Mississippi by 7 on the road. I assume Tennessee looks much worse on the RPI than it does on other rankings, but they only lost to them in the conference tournament (beat them twice earlier in the season). Losses out of conference to Kansas, Purdue, Baylor (2 points on the road), Texas, and Dayton (5 teams in the top 30). Swept Florida (underrated team), split with Kentucky (underrated team), Texas AM (not underrated), and also lost to South Carolina and LSU. Random win over Georgia. Then they absolutely clobbered every non top 100 team they played. Most wins were by 20 points or more. The problem is that only Kentucky and Texas AM got into the field from the list of teams they defeated. But Kentucky and Texas AM are top 4 seeded teams. St Bonaventure defeated a 7 and an 8 seed, by comparison. They were slotted as a play-in team. So I think this was a fair assessment.

I think there's an excellent case to be made that the committee struggles to place teams in a sensible manner on seed lines. There were numerous strange decisions this season (Oregon as a 1 seed, Michigan St not as a 1 seed, Kansas and Virginia's regional placement being weird, Kentucky below Texas AM, Arizona/Cal/Oregon St being in a very weird order, SFA and some other teams downstream being seeded oddly, etc), and this has been a long-running problem that largely stems from the futility of RPI as a sensible computer ranking system (it has Oregon #2, and Michigan State #11 I believe, as an example, essentially reversed from other rankings). But they actually do a pretty decent job of picking teams despite the flaw of using the RPI so extensively. There are usually no more than one or two very strange picks (UCLA was one last year, and they ended up in the sweet 16 anyway), and these are being pulled from a list of teams that all have pretty weak cases for inclusion. This is not their problem. They have a much harder job snaking teams into the 68 spots correctly.

Random bracket thoughts, brain dump

Bubble team wise. The committee did not do terribly. Tulsa was a major shock to be included at all. I assumed that being blown out by Memphis would sink their chances. Syracuse and Michigan both had decent cases relative to the rest of the options. All of these teams were fairly middling
Teams that got in who were on the bubble or off the radar
25) Vanderbilt 9-13
39) Syracuse 9-12-1
50) Michigan 8-12
65) Tulsa 7-10-1

93) Temple 8-10-1

Teams that did not
31) St Mary's 4-3-2
38) Valpo 5-1-5
43) San Diego St 3-7-2 (very surprised they were considered at all as an at-large)
52) South Carolina 13-7-1 (biggest surprise not to be included. RPI ranks of their opponents probably screwed them out of some quality wins as I have them at 3 top 50 wins. They did not schedule well out of conference as another ding).
66) Monmouth 5-4-3
87) St Bonaventure 5-4-4 (very high RPI, 5-8 record is underwhelming, with zero top 25 wins).

What I notice is that the teams that got in have a) far more "quality games" played against top 100 opponents, b) zero or 1 bad loss only outside of that, and c) more top 25 or top 50 wins as well.

It is unclear to me why there was a campaign around Monmouth instead of Valparaiso as the small conference team that got screwed. Based on this assessment, probably the team that got screwed (by Tulsa being included) was South Carolina and not these other two however.

Final Ranks first
1) Kansas 21-3-1
(there's a very slight gap here, and yes, Kansas lost to a non top 100 opponent, they were blown out at Oklahoma State)
2) Michigan State 16-5 (was screwed out of #1 seed by the timing of the Big Ten title game)
3) North Carolina 19-6
4) Virginia 19-7
5) Villanova 17-5
6) West Virginia 13-8

7) Oklahoma 15-7
8) Kentucky 18-7-1 (totally baffled as to how they ended up a #4 and Texas AM got a #3. I can only conclude losing to Auburn on the road hurt them quite a lot.)
9) Purdue 13-7-1
10) Louisville 10-8 (ineligible)

11) Arizona 13-8
12) Indiana 12-4-3
13) Oregon 20-4-2
14) Miami 17-6-1
15) Texas AM 17-8
16) Xavier 13-5
17) Duke 13-10

18) Wichita St 4-7-1 (underwhelming record)
19) SMU (ineligible)
19) Iowa St 11-11
19) Iowa 10-8-2
22) Maryland 13-7-1

23) Gonzaga 6-7
24) California 12-8-2
25) Vanderbilt 9-13
26) Baylor 10-11
27) Connecticut 12-10
28) Seton Hall 12-7-1
29) Utah 17-7-1
30) Cincinnati 9-10
31) St Mary's 4-3-2 (NIT)

32) Texas 12-11-1
33) VCU 4-7-3
34) Butler 9-9-1
35) Notre Dame 10-11
36) Wisconsin 10-9-3
37) Florida 10-14 (NIT)
38) Valpo 5-1-5 (NIT)
39) Syracuse 9-12-1
40) Pittsburgh 8-11
41) St Joseph's 8-5-2
42) USC 11-11-1
43) San Diego St 3-7-2 (NIT)
44) BYU 3-5-5 (NIT)
45) Florida St 9-13 (NIT)
46) Texas Tech 9-11-1
46) Creighton 5-12-2 (NIT?)
48) Providence 11-7-3
49) Dayton 10-6-1
50) Michigan 8-12
51) Kansas St 4-15-1 (?)
52) South Carolina 13-7-1
53) Colorado 7-11
54) UALR 4-1-3
55) Clemson 7-12-2 (?)
(last likely upset bids were in that big clustered group)
56) Stephen F Austin 0-3-2
57) Yale 0-3-3
58) Georgia Tech 10-13-1 (NIT)

64) Hawaii 3-2-3
65) Tulsa 7-10-1
66) Monmouth 5-4-3 (NIT)
67) Oregon St 10-11-1
72) Northern Iowa 8-3-9 (9 bad losses?)
78) South Dakota St 0-1-6
87) Stony Brook 1-2-4
88) Iona 2-6-4
89) UNC Wilmington 5-3-4
93) Temple 8-10-1
100) Fresno St
101) Chattanooga
110) Bakersfield
121) Green Bay
122) UNC Asheville
124) Middle Tennessee
134) Buffalo
135) Weber St
(16 seeds)
179) Florida Gulf Coast
218) Austin Peay
219) Southern
246) Hampton
263) Fairleigh Dickinson
268) Holy Cross

General thoughts
Oregon looks like a very weak #1 seed. They beat a lot of teams but lost two games to inferior squads, and have a margin of victory that looks more like a #4 seed.

Michigan State effectively leads the nation in margin of victory (SFA is the only team ahead of them, and they have played no one) and rebounding margin. How that does not get a #1 seed, not sure.

Kentucky and Texas AM should have at least been flipped.

Arizona was probably screwed by seeding. They will now get a tough game against a pretty good #11 seed play-in (either team is pretty good), plus have to play a game in Providence, all the way across the country.

All of the 9 seeds look better than the 8 seeds. USC-Providence is the only one that even looks close. Tulsa in the field? Oregon St looks incredibly weak for a #7.

Weakest top 20 seeded (1-5s) teams for the first round really only looks like Cal (bad on the road). Baylor has bad odds against Yale, because the game is being played in Providence.

Easiest "upsets" possibilities appear to be Oregon St and Seton Hall to lose. Arizona has unpleasant odds against Vandy and Wichita also (partly because they must travel across the country).

East Region has 5 top 15 teams and then a huge drop (Notre Dame is the 6th best team in the region, but ranks like an 8-9 seed).

Midwest Region has 4 top 20 teams and a smoother drop.

South Region has 6 top 20 teams and 10 top 30 teams, then a big drop. Considering Kansas is the #1 overall, this is not an encouraging development for them.

West - 4 top 15 teams and a big drop after that. This is by far the "easiest" region. 

NCAA bubble thoughts

Most of the teams on the bubble this year, as usual, are pretty average to mediocre. I see no more than 2 teams on the actual bubble right now.

All of the A-10 and American conference teams that I see as likely or possible but not given (Temple, Tulsa, VCU, Connecticut, St Joe's, St Bonaventure; Dayton and Cincinnati are definitely in the field) are still active in their conference tournaments as of this. So it is likely one or two of them will end up getting automatic bids and remove the question mark anyway. Michigan is also still active.

I am using the bracket matrix bracket to assess whether a team is considered in safely or out.

Teams that aren't quite universally in but probably safe:
16) Wichita State - Lost in Arch Madness to Evansville. Doesn't have many quality wins (5-7-1 record). Almost certainly still makes the field at-large. Only one win in the top 50 (Utah).
29) Saint Marys - Gonzaga beat them to win the WCC tournament. Zags might have missed the field otherwise. Also hasn't played anyone. 3-3-2 record won't get it done. And two of those wins are against Gonzaga. But they also probably make the field.
38) VCU 4-7-2 Probably makes it. Most of their highest quality opponents were very competitive games. But all losses. *Could also win the A-10 tournament still.

Teams that have to win their conference tournament but are close to at large bids:
43) San Diego St 4-5-3. Beat Cal as the only notable win. Lost to San Diego.
59) UALR - 4-1-3 Was much higher until a late season loss to Appalachian St. Beat San Diego St and Tulsa.

Teams that are in the muddled bubble (only one of these teams probably gets in, possibly neither).

32) Connecticut 9-10 Probably makes it in, especially if they beat Cincinnati this evening. Win over Texas and SMU are about it though. No bad losses helps. Worst losses are being swept by Temple. *Pending result of today's game.
39) Syracuse 9-12-1 - Lots of high end wins. Duke, Texas AM, Connecticut, and Notre Dame. Loss in the conference tournament was very close. Loss to St John's (who is terrible), happened when Boeheim wasn't there as coach.

Teams that are outside looking in with some chance of appearing.
36) Valparaiso 5-1-5 - Win over Oregon State appears to be it (lost to Oregon by 6). They did crush Iona. For what that's worth. They did dominate a minor conference. Sometimes that helps.
37) Florida 11-14 - Win over West Virginia in January carries some weight. Also St Joe's. That's it though. LOTS of high end losses to teams in the top 50. Lots of wins over 50-100 ranked teams (mostly other SEC teams of middling rank).
52) Michigan 8-11 - Beat Purdue, Maryland, and Texas (and now Indiana as well). Worst loss was Ohio St, who is decent. So no bad losses.
54) Tulsa 7-9-1 - Win over Wichita, split with the other four good teams in their conference (Cincinnati, Connecticut, SMU, Temple, and also Houston). Lost by 2 to Oral Roberts as the lone bad loss. *Blow out loss to Memphis, will be heading to the NIT.
64) Monmouth 5-4-3 Notre Dame, a split with USC, and beat UCLA in OT. Lost to Iona twice (once in the conference final). Another minor conference dominating team. Earlier in the season they were much higher.

Teams not even on the bubble radar in my top 50
42) BYU 3-5-5 - Way too many bad losses (Harvard, Pacific). Wins against Gonzaga, St Marys, and Northern Iowa is all they have. Not a team that will get in.
45) Florida St 9-13 Wins over Virginia, Notre Dame, Florida, Syracuse, and VCU help here. Worst losses are a sweep by Virginia Tech. This is a team that ordinarily should get in, but doesn't appear likely to.
46) Creighton 5-12-2 - Xavier, Butler, Seton Hall as good wins. Loss to Loyola is pretty ugly. This is not a team that would get in.
47) Kansas St 6-16 - Oklahoma and Texas Tech is it as good wins. 6-16 teams don't make the tournament. They have had a brutal schedule, on account of the Big 12 being brutal this year, so they ended up in the top 50 in spite of this ugly record.
49) Clemson 7-12-2 - Louisville, Duke, Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, and split with Florida St. Blown out by Georgia and lost to Minnesota and Massachusetts as the worst losses. There are a lot of losses to teams in the 50-100 range however unlike Florida, which is less impressive.

Teams outside the top 50 probably or almost certainly getting in
50) St Joesphs 7-5-2 - Doesn't look that impressive. Beat Dayton is the best win. Swept by St Bonaventure. They probably should not get in. Probably will anyway. *A10
51) Providence 11-6-3 - Pretty solid record, beat Villanova on the road and Arizona at a neutral site. Losses to Marquette, twice, and DePaul as the bad ones. Definitely in.
53) Colorado 7-11 - Arizona, splits with Oregon, Oregon St, and Cal. Beat BYU. No bad losses. Probably gets in.
54) Dayton 10-5-1 Definitely in. Beat Iowa, Vanderbilt, VCU, and Monmouth. Lost to LaSalle? *A10
63) Oregon St 10-11-1 - Splits with Oregon, Cal, Utah, USC, and Colorado. Beat Tulsa. Worst loss was Stanford. Almost certainly gets in (very high RPI).
82) St Bonaventure 5-4-3 - Basically only in contention because they won a lot of games at the end of the year (one of which was Dayton) and because of the RPI placing them very high (in the top 30). Sweep of St Joes, and a split with Dayton is best they have. Another team that somehow lost to LaSalle. This is not a team that should get in, but probably will. *Lost to Davidson first round of A10 tournament. I really would not put this team in.
92) Temple 8-9-1 - SMU, swept Cincinnati and Connecticut. Bad loss to East Carolina. They're poorly rated largely because they have very, very few blowout wins, even against mediocre teams. *American

Update #1
Vanderbilt losing to Tennessee yesterday dropped them into the "not universal but probably okay" category. Tennessee has a losing record but I still have them ranked in the top 100 (barely). So it isn't as bad a loss as it appears. I have them at 9-13, with no bad losses, and some key wins down the stretch (Kentucky being the biggest).
Michigan winning over Indiana may have pushed them back up into the field. The team most in danger there should be Connecticut or Syracuse. Possibly Vandy or even St Marys, but less likely.

Update #2
Tulsa is done. Getting blown out by Memphis is not going to cut it.
St Bonaventure losing to Davidson did not reassure me they deserve a bid.
Connecticut's 4OT game probably clinched a bid.
St Mary's on reflection looks like they should be in the bubble or outside looking in section.

NCAA Week 3 rankings

1) Kansas 17-4
2) Villanova 13-4
2) Michigan State 12-5

4) North Carolina 14-6
5) Virginia 16-6
6) Oklahoma 16-6
7) Louisville (ineligible) 10-7
8) West Virginia 13-7

9) Kentucky 15-7-1
10) Indiana 11-4-2
11) Duke 13-8
11) Purdue 11-6-1
12) Wichita St 5-6-1
13) Xavier 12-4
14) Miami 16-4-1

15) Arizona 11-7
16) Iowa 9-8-1

17) Iowa St 13-9
18) SMU (ineligible) 8-4
18) Vanderbilt 9-11 (probably played their way to a bid over the last two weeks)
20) Texas AM 14-7

21) Maryland 12-5-1
22) Oregon 14-5-1
23) California 10-6-2
24) Utah 13-6-1
25) Gonzaga 4-7 (currently not listed on many brackets, which seems reasonable as they have few meaningful wins. As such may need to win their conference tournament to get in)

Edited to add another basketball note: there's been some complaining and discussion about the NBA three point line, mostly spurred by the shooting brilliance of Steph Curry. 

I see no pressing reason to move the line back. The quality of play by good teams remains very high, in particular the Warriors and Spurs this season but also the Thunder and Clippers teams, and these teams all have varying styles regarding threes; the Spurs in particular take very few of them relative to the rest of the league, and also defend them like crazy. Coaching via defensive offensive strategies should be allowed to evolve to deal with the shooting splurge to maximize it for their own teams. By attempting to optimize who takes such shots, and from where on the court, and by denying the other team their best shooters or allowing or even encouraging poor shooters to take more long jump shots. The Cavs did this with Curry in the Finals last year and he was not the Finals MVP because they were able to limit him specifically. They were not able to limit everyone on the Warriors team in order to win the series. Which is a different problem. 

Regardless, I do not think the best reason to move the line back is making any argument over Curry. The best shooters in the league will be unfazed by the distance of the line (within reason). A 25 ft line would have little impact on their ability to make three point shots. They may take somewhat fewer of them. I regard this as a poor effect as a result as we should want them to continue to take and make three point shots. The reason to move the line back before, when it was moved in for a few years, was that poor shooters like Antoine Walker or even old-style centers like Patrick Ewing were taking threes and this was producing a poorer quality product of play (many bricks), and also that there was poor offensive spacing because the line was too close to reduce post play. We still have poor shooters taking too many threes (LeBron James, Josh Smith), and centers (DeMarcus Cousins). But this seems more like a poor coaching decision now than a problem with the line being too close. Offensive spacing does not seem to be threatened by the current distances. And shooting percentages overall do not appear to be suffering. They suffered initially after the shift back to the current distance (for two seasons), but quickly recovered. I would be skeptical that such a change is needed to improve the quality of offensive play, or to improve the ability of defenders to defend. 

If I were to pick a single game strategy or tactic that needs to be looked at to improve the quality of game play, it would be intentional fouls of poor free-throw shooters (hack-a-Shaq as it was known when it started). As this breaks up the flow of the game, does not demonstrate high quality offense or defense, and doesn't really achieve much strategically as an advantage that I can determine in most games. Even for the worst shooters the expected points per possession is essentially a wash or a very small decimal figure at best. We also have intentional foul rules which differ at the end of quarters and games already. It seems odd that players are allowed to foul a poor free throw shooter when they do not have the ball and almost certainly do not affect the play on the court the rest of the game, and then that we would change this rule back at the end of games. 

NCAA week 2 rankings

Lots of shaking up occurred. Which is to be expected with the field being separated poorly. But it's basically the same group of teams in a different order or shape.

1) Villanova 14-4
1) Michigan State 12-5
3) Kansas 15-4

4) Oklahoma 15-5
5) North Carolina 14-5
6) Louisville (ineligible) 9-67) Virginia 13-6

8) Kentucky 14-6-1
9) West Virginia 11-7
10) Duke 12-7
11) Xavier 12-3

12) Arizona 11-6
13) Iowa 9-6-1
14) Wichita St 5-6-1
15) Indiana 10-4-2
15) Purdue 10-6-1
15) Miami 14-4-1

18) Iowa St 11-9
19) Maryland 12-4-1
20) Texas AM 14-7
21) SMU (ineligible) 8-4
22) Vanderbilt 7-11
23) Oregon 12-5-1
24) Notre Dame 8-8

25) Connecticut 9-8

NCAA Rankings

General thoughts on NCAA season so far: 

No clear favorite has emerged. Villanova appears to be slightly better but not by much, not only over the top 4 but also the next tier down. 

Two teams that are ineligible for post season play are in the top 25, which opens up slots for weaker teams.

Many more teams appear to be in a middling state that hasn't separated from the pack, which will make the bubble teams very soft at selection time. Few of those teams have good records against good teams, see Vanderbilt, Creighton, and Kansas St (teams with tough schedules and poor records) versus Providence, South Carolina, and Colorado (better records and similarly tough schedules, but more "bad" losses).

Almost none of those bubble or middling teams are in minor or mid-major conferences. Valparaiso, Monmouth, and UALR appear to be possible "surprise" teams for later, and maybe the only teams possible to "take" a spot should they not win their conference's automatic bid. Most of the bubble is from the ACC, SEC, and Pac-12 teams that are closer to average, and not minor conferences. There are somewhat more of these minor conference teams that are in the 69-85 range than usual right now, but not many in the top 60.

As always, records are versus top 100 teams only (teams generally likely to be in the NCAA tournament). Gaudy records against more mediocre teams will not impress me. 

1) Villanova 13-3

2) Michigan St 10-5

3) Virginia 13-5

4) Kansas 13-4

5) Louisville (ineligible) 7-6

6) West Virginia 11-6

7) Oklahoma 13-5

8) North Carolina 12-5

9) Duke 12-6

10) Arizona 11-5

10) Kentucky 12-5-1

12) Iowa 9-5-1

13) Miami  13-3-1

14) Xavier 10-3

14) Purdue 10-5-1

16) Maryland 11-4

16) Indiana 9-4-2

18) Iowa St 11-8

19) Wichita St 5-6-1

20) SMU (ineligible) 8-3

21) Texas AM 12-7

22) Oregon 11-5-1

23) Gonzaga 3-6

24) Notre Dame 8-7

25) Vanderbilt 5-11

Ranked Teams not in 25

40) Dayton 7-3-1

51) Providence 9-5-3

28) Texas 11-8-1

36) Baylor 9-7

54) South Carolina 10-4-1

Completely random sportsball post

I haven't followed football at all this year. I am vaguely aware that the Panthers are undefeated in spite of this limitation, simply because football information is damn near inescapable in America. I was asked, as one often is when one is male at a larger social gathering, of an opinion for the quality of NFL prospects for winning the Super Bowl. One thing I do know, or at least think I know, is that the computer rankings of NFL teams tend to be much, much more reliable than raw records in forecasting performance. Records are mostly irrelevant because football teams do not play enough games, nor against the same quality of schedule to use it as even a casual basis for evaluation. Every year a few teams can and frequently will accumulate gaudy records against inferior competition, with limited skill of their own often by what amounts to sheer luck, and a few teams will struggle for the same reasons. By contrast, baseball, basketball, and hockey teams all play many more games, and against somewhat more even schedule qualities that a record can signify roughly the actual performance of a team (there is still some variance that can be examined and usually explained by things such as a higher or lower quality bullpen).

It was further assumed that home field advantages matter. They don't matter that much. Quality of opponents may matter as a route to a title game, and that can give advantages to higher ranked teams by record that they may get to play crummier teams in the playoffs, but higher quality teams will tend to win games where ever they are played, and seeding isn't a guarantee of playing lower quality teams.

The reason this came up is that when I replied with the relevant information I could look up quickly and form an opinion based around, the teams I said would worry about would be the Seahawks and Cardinals over the Panthers. These are teams rated ahead of Carolina in computer rankings (Seattle in fact is rated well ahead). Cardinals are at least the #2 seed in the conference, so most people would expect them to be a reasonable challenger. The Seahawks only clinched a playoff spot in the last week. Seattle may end up playing Carolina in the playoffs fairly early (assume that Seattle beats the NFC East winner, and Minnesota loses to Green Bay).

So why is a computer ranking system so sour on an undefeated team? They appear to have very poor quality special teams, and only an above average offense (not a good offense, just a little above average) to pair with an excellent defense. Their competition has very good offenses (Arizona #3, Seattle #2, both well ahead of Carolina at #8) paired with very good defenses (Arizona's is rated #3, Carolina is #2, Seattle is #5).

None of that means that I would think Carolina is a bad team, unlikely to compete for a title. Football playoffs can break oddly and unpreditcably more easily than most sports. And they are a good team this year. But that's also not what I was asked (something like who has the best chances was the question).

What sometimes happens when people ask me a question I find is that they expect a certain answer. And then don't get it. And get something somewhat unconventional instead. That can make for a very interesting conversation. Except I think many people ask questions on the expectations that some other person will affirm their beliefs and suspicions when they answer. This makes for more rapid conversation and less argument.

NCAA rankings Final Madness edition

All records are top 100, with top 50 only records in parentheses.

1) Kentucky 23-0 (17-0) Gap closed a bit here. They will probably win the title, but if you're looking for a dark horse, don't expect one to appear until the Final Four (they would potentially play Arizona or Wisconsin, who are in the same region).

2) Arizona 12-2-1 (4-0)
3) Wisconsin 20-2-1 (13-2)
4) Villanova 19-1-1 (11-1)
5) Virginia 17-3 (9-3)
6) Gonzaga 9-2 (4-2)
7) Duke 20-4 (8-4)
Those are the best shots for a darkhorse. Duke is pretty clearly not a good choice however (lots of people are picking them and they're the worst of the group).

8) Utah 9-7-1 (2-4) - Fell out of the previous tier. I think with good reason, they didn't win many good games, and they didn't win on the road.
9) Oklahoma 14-9-1 (10-6)
10) North Carolina 14-11 (8-10)
11) Kansas 21-8. That's not a typo. That's basically their overall record. (13-6)
12) Notre Dame 15-5 (10-3)
13) Iowa State 18-7-1 (13-5)

14) Baylor 16-9 (10-8)
15) Michigan State 11-9-2 (8-8)
16) Wichita State 8-4 (1-2)
17) Ohio State 9-10 (4-9)
18) Louisville 12-8 (6-7)
19) Northern Iowa 8-2-1 (3-2)
I don't like Ohio State being this high, mostly because they look terrible record wise and don't win on the road. If they weren't playing VCU in the first round, they'd look interesting as an upset special team for a couple of rounds.

20) Texas 8-13 (3-12)
21) Butler 8-10 (4-9) (yes these two play each other in the first round)
22) Xavier 11-9-4 (8-5)
23) Georgetown 9-10 (5-9)
24) West Virginia 12-9 (6-9)

25) SMU 12-6 (0-5) Yes that's a 0 for wins in the top 50.
26) Iowa 9-10-1 (6-7)
27) Arkansas 13-8 (7-6)
28) BYU 3-6-3 (1-5) - Basically snuck in a play-in game because of the Gonzaga win.
29) San Diego State 10-6-2 (2-4)
30) Providence 12-8-3 (6-6)
31) VCU 13-8-1 (5-4)
32) Maryland 13-6 (8-6)

33) Davidson 8-5-2 (2-4)
34) North Carolina State 14-11-2 (4-9)
35) Georgia 10-10-1 (6-6)
36) Oklahoma State 9-12-1 (5-9)

37) Florida (Not in the tournament) 8-16-1 (3-14) - They're the highest rated in part because they played a lot of games against tough competition and played many of those games competitively. But lost almost all of them so they weren't going anywhere (probably not to the NIT either).
38) Miami 9-10-2 (also not in) (4-7)
39) LSU 11-6-4 (8-3)
40) Purdue 11-10-2 (7-8)
41) Mississippi 10-10-2 (5-8)
42) Cincinnati 8-7-3 (4-3)
43) Dayton 8-6-2 (3-3)
44) Stephen F Austin 1-3-1 (0-3)
45) Indiana 9-11-2 (5-11)
46) Boise State 6-5-3 (2-2)
47) St John's 9-9-2 (5-8)
- This group has the last set of teams to worry about as upset potential in the early rounds. None of them looks like a deep run team however.

48) Vanderbilt 9-11-2 (3-8) (not in tournament)
49) UCLA 4-10-3 (1-7) - I have little idea how this team was even considered for the NCAA tournament. Note that almost all of the at-large teams above have more than 4 wins against the top 100, and more than 1 win in the top 50. UCLA also appears to have been considered more highly than BYU (BYU is in a play-in game), which is baffling.
50) Stanford 5-10-2 (1-6) - Note the similarities in Stanford and UCLA. It seems strange that one was okay and the other was not.
51) Texas A&M 7-10-1 (4-7) - not in
52) Oregon 10-7-2 (3-5)
53) Illinois 6-12-1 (4-8) - not in
54) Buffalo 3-4-5 (0-2)
- There's a mix of "not-in" teams listed here for comparison. I do not think much of any of the teams that are in as a result.

66) Valparaiso 3-1-4 (0-0)
67) Georgia State 1-4-5 (0-1)
92) Wofford 2-3-3 (1-2)
94) New Mexico State 2-6-4 (0-2) - Not sure how they ended up with a 15 seed.
96) UC-Irvine
97) Harvard
102) Wyoming 7-4 (3-3)
111) Northeastern
- This grouping is possible upset fodder, but not much potential beyond that.

126) Albany
129) Eastern Washington
131) UAB
133) North Florida
145) Manhattan
146) Coastal Carolina
148) Belmont
168) North Dakota State
178) Robert Morris
186) Lafayette
190) Texas Southern
253) Hampton
- None of these teams should win a game.

Other bubble considered teams that did not get in.
62) Colorado State 7-3-3 (2-3)
63) Temple 8-9-1 (2-6) - This to me was the strangest exclusion when compared to UCLA.
64) Old Dominion 5-2-5 (2-0)
As I see it, these teams are all in the low 60 ranking wise anyway, so their inclusion would be quite strange as it is. If I had to pick a team to put in, it would have been Miami, followed by Temple or Texas A&M.

Bubble gut check

Last six in
62) Colorado St 7-5-1 - Wyoming winning both helped and hurt as it meant their two in-season losses weren't as bad, but it also meant there's a good chance they are the next team on the chop-block.
20) Texas 8-13 - Should be safe.
63) Temple 8-9-1 - Probably safely in.
44) Boise St 6-5-3 - Probably in. Wyoming winning also helped/hurt here (they were also swept by Wyoming)
28) BYU 3-6-3 - Win at Gonzaga is basically it. They're very highly rated but didn't win very many games.
45) Indiana 9-11-2 - Probably should be in, but probably won't be.

Last six out
43) Mississippi 10-10-2 - I think they should be in, but if it's between them and Indiana, that's not good for Mississippi.
50) UCLA 4-10-3 - No idea why this team is in the conversation.
77) Tulsa 6-8-2 No idea here either.
42) Miami 9-10-2 - Probably should be in, but won't be.
51) Texas AM 7-10-1
64) Old Dominion 5-2-5

Connecticut is not on the bubble and has a pretty good chance to beat SMU today, which that would knock another team out.

Quick sports thoughts. Basketball version

1) Harden-Curry looks to me still like the best cases for MVP. Westbrook has passed Harden in many discussions publicly but I see two major downsides to his case. He missed too many games, and his team isn't actually playing that great record-wise despite his run of insanity. Durant being out for a portion of that time has not helped, but Harden has had Howard out and basically ineffective most of the season and Houston was not fighting for it's playoff life the way Oklahoma City was for much of the season.

2) I'd still take the odds that Kentucky goes undefeated to be pretty high. They have an insane high chance to win the tournament, depending on how the seeding goes. I've not seen a team over 20% in a while. They're projecting over 40%, and were almost 50%. That will make winning your NCAA pool a little harder. Unless you pick someone else AND that team wins, which is what happened in 1997 for example, when Arizona won and upset both Kansas and Kentucky in route (both teams that were heavily favored). 50-60% still suggests a lot that could happen, but I'm also not sure who else I would take right now either (Arizona again looks like the best potential).

3) Draymont Green isn't a household name. But he should win defensive player of the year pretty handily. He might not because voters are weird. Really the best competition is a 6th man (Gobert, apparently being called the "Stiffel Tower"), a really old guy (Duncan), and a guy who was hurt off and on (Kawhi). That's it (two of them are on the same team, which may be important in the playoffs). But for some reason DeAndre Jordan keeps getting mentioned as a favorite. He has important skills for playing defense and does it rather well, but I do not buy that he is a great defender when I see the Clippers playing. The team defense moreover is pretty average (except at getting rebounds, which is Jordan's main value). Golden State's is fantastic.

Why is Golden St not the favorite?

A team with a high point differential, a good coach, a good defense, should be regarded as a heavy favorite to win a title. Add to this having an MVP candidate, Curry, to the "best player on the court usually wins" theory.

As a comparison. Currently GS's SRS rating (a combination of schedule strength and margin of victory) stands at 9.87, which is one of the highest of all time. The Celtics highest rating is around 9.3, and nearly every time they have been over or around 7.5 they have won a title (one exception was 2009 when Garnett was hurt). The 6 Bulls titles, the lowest came in at around a 6 (the year they beat the Suns). Three came in over a 10. This is a common theme to see "Won Finals" next to a very highly rated team.

There was only one team I could identify that was in the same elite ballpark, over a high 8 or low 9 and did not win a title with a "clear path" (no better team around).

The 2008-09 Cavs, who were upset by Orlando in the conference finals (but probably would have lost to a healthy Celtics team also).

There are several teams in the high 7 or low 8 range that lost however.

88-89 Cavs - "the Shot", Bulls upset them in the first round
02-03 Mavericks - lost to the Spurs in the conference finals. Note this was not the 06-07 team that lost to Golden St in the first round, or the 05-06 team that lost in the Finals.
72-73 Lakers - lost to the Knicks in the Finals
71-72 Bucks - this is the only team over a 10 that lost. And they lost to an even better Lakers team in the conference Finals.
85-86 Bucks - swept by an even better Celtics team in the conference Finals
72-73 Bucks - upset by the Warriors in conference semis
73-74 Bucks - lost in the Finals to the Celtics. If you are sensing a theme here, the answer is "Kareem was on the wrong team".
12-13 Thunder - lost in conference semis to Grizzlies, Westbrook got hurt the round before. Very good Spurs-Thunder and Heat-Thunder rematches were denied by that injury.
93-94 Sonics - upset by the Nuggets in the first round, probably the most improbable first round upset in NBA history.
94-95 Sonics - upset by the Lakers in the first round, probably the second most improbable, except the Lakers were a #5 seed (looking at their roster, I have no idea how).
67-68 Sixers - lost to Celtics in conference Finals
80-81 Sixers - lost to Celtics in conference Finals
90-91 Blazers - lost to Lakers in conference Finals, Bulls were better than both that year anyway.
01-02 Kings - lost to Lakers in conference Finals in one of the series widely considered tainted by an officiating scandal.
00-01 Spurs - swept by Lakers in conference Finals
03-04 Spurs - lost to Lakers in conference semis
96-97 Jazz - lost to Bulls in Finals, Bulls were much better anyway
94-95 Jazz - lost to Rockets in first round

A theme to these: either they lost to a better team in many cases or lost to specific teams (Lakers, Celtics, Bulls) that were likely to have gone on to win and in most cases were reasonably close in competitive value. The Warriors have no one in that range. Should they be pretty healthy, I see no reason not to favor them in the playoffs.

NCAA rankings March edition

1) Kentucky 18-0
Remains pretty well ahead. The lead has shrunk slightly, mostly because of a game they gave up almost 80 points (they scored over 100).

2) Arizona 11-2-1
3) Virginia 15-1
4) Wisconsin 15-2-1
5) Villanova 16-2
6) Gonzaga 12-2
7) Duke 18-3
8) Utah  8-6

9) Oklahoma 12-8-1
10) Baylor 15-8
11) Kansas 17-6
12) North Carolina 11-9
13) Wichita St 8-3
14) Ohio St 7-8
15) Louisville 11-6
16) Iowa St 14-7

17) Notre Dame 10-5
18) Butler 9-8
19) Michigan St 7-8-2
20) Northern Iowa 7-2-1
21) Texas 7-12
22) West Virginia 11-7
23) Xavier 10-9-3
24) Georgetown 8-9
25) BYU 4-8

Ranked Teams
27) Arkansas 10-6
28) SMU 7-6
30) Maryland 12-5
75) Murray St 1-2-2

Bubble discourse
I count 10 spots that are "bubbles", that could shift and are not totally certain and locked up going into the conference tournaments this week and next, and I see 15 teams that are in bubble discussion (plus two that I ranked lower than 48th that appear to be comfortably in, Dayton and Oregon). Syracuse would be right on the cutline also except they took themselves out of post-season play for the year.

Teams
21) Texas - Big win tonight put them back in the conversation officially. Their biggest issue: they were swept by all the Big 12 bigs (Oklahoma, Iowa St, Kansas, plus Oklahoma State), the split with Baylor and West Virginia helps. Wins over Iowa and Connecticut aren't bad, but don't help enough. The big help: no losses outside of the top 50. I would say they should be in comfortably but they'll be floating on the cut line all week and will need another win at least to be safe.

25) BYU - The win over Gonzaga might put them in. Being swept by Pepperdine doesn't help (barely top 100 team). Losses to Utah and Purdue and a win over Stanford is about it on the resume otherwise. They're highly ranked because they have crushed weaker teams they were supposed to crush and didn't lose any of those games.

33) North Carolina St 11-10-2 - Win over North Carolina on the road probably puts them in but the loss to BC following it up didn't help. They've beaten Duke and Louisville in conference as well so I'd think they're perfectly safe. Losses to BC and Wake Forest hurt. They've also played a ton of quality opponents. Out of conference they've got wins over Richmond, Boise St, and Louisiana Tech and losses to Wofford, Cincinnati, and Purdue. None of these are teams that are outrageously strong, but all are quality top 100 games. They should be in easily without discussion. I'm guessing RPI is the only reason they are not. I haven't checked that wacky thing yet.

37) Davidson 6-4-2 - Not many quality wins. Win over Dayton is it. Lost to St Bonaventure and St Joe's. Probably one of the last teams out.

39) Stanford 5-7-3 - Not many quality wins here. Beat Texas in OT. Lost to DePaul (by 15?), Washington St, and Colorado, all bad losses. I don't think they qualify without at least two good wins as that's too many bad losses to overcome a win over Texas as the only good win.

43) Purdue 9-8-2 - Beat OSU, BYU, NC State, Iowa, swept Indiana, and got blown out by Notre Dame, and lost to North Florida and, somehow, Gardner Webb (both at home). I think they're safe but they could use another good win to secure it. 

45) Boise St 7-3-4 - Swept San Diego State and split with Colorado State. Losses to Utah St, Loyola, Fresno St and Wyoming. Probably in, but that's a lot of bad losses.

46) Illinois 6-10-1 - Beat Baylor, Maryland, and also Michigan St (on the road), and then Purdue also. Loss to Nebraska on the road hurts the most. This seems like it should be enough given some of the other resumes are pretty barren, but they look to be out right now.
47) Minnesota 5-10-2 - Beat Michigan St, Iowa (both on the road), and then also Georgia, Purdue, and Illinois. Lost to Northwestern at home, and Nebraska. Also probably out. In both of these two cases, the RPI is probably at issue.

48) Cincinnati 6-6-3 - Swept SMU, Beat NC State and San Diego State. Losses to Nebraska, Tulane, and East Carolina hurt. Probably in though. 

50) Miami 7-9-2 - Beat Duke (at Duke, by 16), swept by Louisville. Lots of "good" losses, such as that is. Wins over Illinois and NC State help. Got blown out by Eastern Kentucky at home as the biggest red flag. I think they should be in based on the eyeball test on the resume, but again, RPI is probably killing them.

66) Colorado St 6-2-3 - Splits with San Diego St and Boise is basically it here. Got swept by Wyoming and lost to New Mexico. Seems thin. They probably get in by having a gaudy overall record, but most of those wins were against mediocre teams. Georgia St is the best team out of conference they have played.

69) Pittsburgh 7-8-3 - Beat North Carolina and Notre Dame, swept by Louisville. Got blown out by San Diego St and NC State. Swept Syracuse. Losses to Wake Forest, Virginia Tech, and Hawaii hurt. Probably out without another win. 

72) Tulsa 6-5-1 - Zero meaningful wins. Crushed by every good team they played basically. Swept Temple. Somehow lost to Oral Roberts. Should not be in. Texas win over Baylor this evening might have moved them out. Their schedule out of the top 100 does not include any teams from the top 150, and few of those. Mostly chewing up very bad teams. If they weren't being mentioned as a bubble team I wouldn't even be tracking this team at all.

73) Temple 6-8-1 - Big win over Kansas early in the season seems to be it. They got blown out by Duke and Villanova and Cincinnati. Swept by Tulsa. What helps is the only bad loss was to St Joe's (by 2). They appear to be likely to get in.

Team that would make it based on rank but have no shot.
42) Florida 6-14-1 - Just too many losses racked up and no big wins. The loss to Missouri is baffling.

Most interesting "bubble" question that won't come up
Valparaiso vs Green Bay. Basically whoever wins the Horizon League gets in and the other is out. They're right next to each other on my rankings at 67 and 68 and I'd rather take one or both of these teams if they don't win the conference tournament than a couple of those listed above. 

2015 NCAA rankings

1) Kentucky 18-0

2) Wisconsin 14-1-1
3) Virginia 15-1
4) Arizona 11-2-1
5) Gonzaga 10-1
6) Utah 8-4
7) Duke 16-3
8) Villanova 15-2

9) Oklahoma 10-8
10) Kansas 15-5

11) Ohio St 7-7
12) North Carolina 10-8
13) Louisville 9-6
13) Iowa St 12-5-1
15) Wichita St 5-3
16) Baylor 11-7

17) Notre Dame 12-4
18) N. Iowa 7-1-1
19) Texas 6-9
20) Michigan St 7-6-2
21) Butler 10-7
22) Georgetown 10-8
23) Xavier 11-7-3

24) Arkansas 10-5
24) West Virginia 8-6
26) San Diego St 6-5-1

Ranked Teams
35) Maryland 10-5
29) SMU 5-5
27) VCU 10-5-1

All records are top 100 opponents only (losses against sub 100 teams are the third number if any). I don't count games outside the top 100 mostly because such teams very rarely win and very rarely play many NCAA tournament games. Florida Gulf Coast won two a couple of years ago, but they were also barely outside the top 100. Such teams are typically 14-16 seeds, so wins are rare.

These rankings aren't a reflection of how good I think each team is, as many have pretty mediocre records or have played very poorly in road games that I wouldn't be confident in their performance.

Kentucky's comfortably above the next tier of teams. I think they should be undefeated going into the NCAA tournament. They're statistically looking like the best team in the last 15 years or so. The closest would be Kansas' national title team (that beat Memphis), and Louisville a couple years ago (also a champion). The "second tier" teams are actually looking a little better than the usual suspects also, but Kentucky looks just that much better. The main key is they have the best defense over that span. Their offense is solid, but not as dominating.

The only "surprise" team in the top 16, (teams that get a favorable early round location usually) would probably be Ohio State (instead of Maryland). They've played really poorly on the road so I would not anticipate them staying up there.

Weakest Teams on the "Bubble"
45) Miami 6-8-1
48) Texas AM 6-7
49) Cincinnati 6-6-3
52) UCLA 5-8-355) Boise St 6-3-4
57) Colorado St 5-2-3
58) Temple 6-6-2
NR) Oregon
NR) Tulsa
I don't track teams that are in the 75-100 range unless they are likely to win a low quality conference, so assume Oregon and Tulsa are roughly ranked 80th.

Best Teams out
30) BYU 3-8 (needs more wins)
34) Florida 2-11-2 (way too many losses)
39) Davidson 5-4-2

Syracuse is ineligible and comes in at 46 (they would barely make it)

So far I'm not sure there's a team that is likely to be screwed by not getting a bid. BYU has a case there, but needs to start winning meaningful games.

Best small conference teams
56) Stephen F Austin
59) Valparaiso
60) Green Bay (same conference as Valpo)
78) Murray St.

There aren't any minor powers that will deserve an at-large bid if they lose a conference tournament right now.

Quick notes on the football

1) Seattle and New England look like the most impressive teams coming in statistically. If I had to bet on it, Seattle repeating wouldn't surprise me. But they're about as good of odds statistically as a typical dominating NCAA title favorite in basketball. So it's not that sure of a thing.

2) Denver has slacked off and Green Bay has a typically mediocre defense to go with their ridiculous offense. Dallas has an even worse defense than Green Bay. Pittsburgh's D is worse than both. I'm not sure I'd go with any of these teams. Don't sleep on Baltimore would be my gut reaction to looking at the rest of the top tier of the field.

3) Arizona and Carolina are the two worst teams in the field. Both are in the bottom third of the league. Arizona at least has a decent D. Actually other than Seattle and Green Bay, nobody looks that great in the NFC. Detroit has a good defense, but not much offense.

4) AFC wise, Cincinnati has the same mediocre offense but also has a mediocre defense to go with it. Indy is in the same boat. This is unlikely to be a good playoff combination.