MOCK Bracket Results

[cusportsfan]

This was conducted by the Media and Sports Writers, the top link is a breakdown of how the selection was done and the bottom link is the bracket they came up with. Remember this was being conducted like it was the actual tournament committee.


http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=2758650



http://espn.go.com/i/ncaa/07mens_MOCKbracket.pdf

[Tasmanian Devil]

I'm curious why they would put Evansville in as a 13 seed?

[bcrawf]

Looks like Evansville is winning the Tournament.

Three Valley teams... SIU, MSU and EVANSVILLE...

[Canevision]

Isn't CU in as well?

[bcrawf]

They are I missed 'em my bad!!

[Aceman96]

One of the twists of the process of the mock bracket was that some teams who were not predicted to win their tourney, did. EU was the twist out of the Valley.

I have been saying this for a while. If anyone other than SIU, MSU or CU wins the tourney, we have 4 teams in. Just like last year. I don't think SIU woulda made it last year without the tourney title... Go Dawgs!

But, this is a great article, deserves an entire read.

[Nyghtewynd]

I'd take the Gonzaga game in a heartbeat. I think MSU would get that one. But a couple more losses and they might get to play the Zags in the NIT.

[UE-BBALL#1]

They have Evansville as the automatic, but then left them to get crucified in the attached poll to the article as which at large team is most likely to get left out of the tournament.

[AcePurple]

One of the twists of the process of the mock bracket was that some teams who were not predicted to win their tourney, did. EU was the twist out of the Valley.

With a name like Aceman, I'd think you'd know it's UE, not EU...

[NoPlaceLikeDome]

UE fans remind me so much of UNI fans it makes me laugh! Keep on correctin'!

[MVC Fan]

Most disturbing things about those Katz's article:

1) That they'd think USC deserves a 4 seed. In fact, just like last yr's committee, this 'mock' group thoroughly overrates the Pac-10

2) That they'd have K-State so solidly in the field when they've beaten next to no one this year.

3) All of their final teams competing for bids are from the usual suspects conferences

4) There was a lot of debate over the final team that should be included in the first batch of at-large locks. A few of us, including me as chair, pushed for Texas. The argument against the Longhorns at this point was that Texas' best win came at Texas Tech, a team not yet in the field. Still, the losses in triple-overtime at Oklahoma State, in overtime at Tennessee, and the fact this team passes the sight test of being a quality, troubling tournament team that, yes, includes the best player in the country in Kevin Durant, made it worthy of being in the field. We were told this is the type of conversation that could occur.

That they would even think of taking Texas over Georgetown tells me the committee again is going to make the selections a beauty contest more than anything else.

[btisu22]

With a name like Aceman, I'd think you'd know it's UE, not EU...
Actually, I think he is a Southern Illinois fan. Just has ace in his name.:doh:
:sycamores:

[TheAsianSensation]

I don't know why people actually debate the seedings and teams that come out of this exercise. It is somewhat fictional, as it's based on results that haven't happened yet. Just like the Evansville twist, which is there solely as an example to the sportswriters how things can be changed in a heartbeat.

Pay attention to the bracket to how it was put together. Not which teams ended up in it or where they got seeded. That part is useless because of the decision to throw curveballs to the sportswriters.

[Bigcityp]

Looks like Evansville is winning the Tournament.

Anyone know where I can make a bet on this??? I'm in need of some cash and this seems like a goldmine!!!!

[Nyghtewynd]

So every single article of people who went to this thing say the same thing: "We don't discuss numbers of teams out of a conference." Then I read today's Drive to 65 on ESPN, and what do I read?

"Cannibalization alert is in full effect for the Valley. Six Valley teams are still in the mix, but are they ultimately chasing only three bids?"

I thought they didn't talk about this sort of thing. Face facts, kids: we're getting three teams. It's pretty much been decided. We'll be the highest-rated conference in history to only get three. The only question is, "Who are the three?"

[OmahaBen]

We'll be the highest-rated conference in history to only get three. The only question is, "Who are the three?"

That's an easy one. SIU, CU, MSU.

The Valley gets a 4th bid if someone other than those three wins the Bluejay Invitational in St. Louis.

[MVC Fan]

I don't know why people actually debate the seedings and teams that come out of this exercise. It is somewhat fictional, as it's based on results that haven't happened yet. Just like the Evansville twist, which is there solely as an example to the sportswriters how things can be changed in a heartbeat.

Pay attention to the bracket to how it was put together. Not which teams ended up in it or where they got seeded. That part is useless because of the decision to throw curveballs to the sportswriters.

But that's the point, though-the process they're using to come to the seeding conclusions they did. Somehow, w/committee members whispering into each writer's ear, they spit out that Stanford should be a 5 seed, Tennessee (a definitive bubble team right now) is an 8 seed, USC is a 4 seed, etc.

There's just no way those teams should be there, or Duke a 4 seed, or Kansas State invited as an at-large before teams like Georgetown, Notre Dame, etc. I know this is somewhat fictional and the part about teams like Evansville or Houston 'stealing' bids is right on as far as how it affects things, but the impression I got is the data they're using for at-large selection was real. (See citing Winthrop for discussion, but eliminating them based on 4 non-D I opp.). That they could be so far off even now is scary.

[Maggie]

So every single article of people who went to this thing say the same thing: "We don't discuss numbers of teams out of a conference." Then I read today's Drive to 65 on ESPN, and what do I read?

"Cannibalization alert is in full effect for the Valley. Six Valley teams are still in the mix, but are they ultimately chasing only three bids?"

I thought they didn't talk about this sort of thing. Face facts, kids: we're getting three teams. It's pretty much been decided. We'll be the highest-rated conference in history to only get three. The only question is, "Who are the three?"

I think what they are saying is that the Selection Committee doesn't discuss how many teams in a conference should receive at-large invitations. That does not mean that the media won't opine on this subject.

Notwithstanding, SIU, CU and MSU are the only teams out of the MVC, to date, that have earned at-large consideration. If there are any other teams out there, please point them out. Just because the MVC is the fifth ranked conference doesn't guarantee it "X" number of at large bids.

[Nyghtewynd]

The problem is that we've been taught that "at-large consideration" means something different for us than everyone else. If we were the Big ______, would someone like Bradley still be in the race? Darn right. Same thing with WSU. Just look at this sudden push for Iowa. Iowa getting in the NCAA tournament is silly. Gonzaga, if they weren't the media's sweethearts, wouldn't be discussed as much of anything with their RPI in the 50s.

[DawgieStyle]

I think what they are saying is that the Selection Committee doesn't discuss how many teams in a conference should receive at-large invitations. That does not mean that the media won't opine on this subject.

Exactly!

[TrueBlueJay]

That's an easy one. SIU, CU, MSU.

The Valley gets a 4th bid if someone other than those three wins the Bluejay Invitational in St. Louis.

I think some of us CU fans are WAY ahead of ourselves. We could drop out of contention very easily with out OOC record. I just hope we keep winning so we don't have to sweat it...or better yet just win in St. Louis.

[cpacmel]

I think both Bradley and WSU have very good opporunites to get into the bubble picture.

Bradley is 16-10 (7-7).

Conference wise, they could run the table heading into St. Louie. ( 3 home games vs. Drake, Indiana State, and UNI. 1 road game at Evansville).

That puts them 20-10 (11-7) overall. Not counting bracket buster.


WSU is 16-9 (7-7)

Conference wise, mixed bag. (games with Drake and Illinois State and games with Creighton and Mo State left.)

Let's say they beat Drake and Illinois State and some how manage a split with Creighton / Mo State.

That puts that 19-9 (10-8) overall. Not counting bracket buster.

[Nyghtewynd]

The "not counting BB" thing is pretty important. I think both Bradley and WSU (and probably MSU as well) HAVE to win their BB game. Losses could mean NIT Land for the holidays.

[Majik45]

At this point Bradley would probably have to win out, and win at least one if not 2 games in St. Louis to make the dance. They need to win out and win a game in St. Louis to even be considered in the at large talk.

[cufan]

I also agree that CU could very easily play its way out. It can withstand a loss to SIU tomorrow, but couple that with a loss to UNI, WSU or Drexel at home and they will be back squarely on the bubble. Lay an egg in St. Louis to finish off the season and I will be standing in line for NIT tickets.

[Panther Fan]

For what it's worth-

I can't find a link on the KC Star, but Blair Kerkhoff who is a general college sports columnist had a lengthy article yesterday about a group of 20 members of a college basketball sportswritters association going to Indianapolis to participate in a 1 day mock selection committee scenario put on by the NCAA. Tried to simulate what it's like for the committee but just in one day. Interesting read, and at the bottom he had the bracket they came up with. I don't have it in front of me but seedings for SIU, CU and MSU seemed OK. What was interesting is that Evansville was in the bracket. I actually emailed Kerkhoff to see why that was. I guess they had to assume that Evansville won the Valley tournament. The article did talk about having to take conference upsets into consideration and whoever ran the process would feed the committe info. For example, they were told that Iowa was playing Indiana in the Big 10 tourney final so they had to wait to see if Iowa got in until they were ultimately told Iowa lost.

[kyyle23]

For what it's worth-

I can't find a link on the KC Star, but Blair Kerkhoff who is a general college sports columnist had a lengthy article yesterday about a group of 20 members of a college basketball sportswritters association going to Indianapolis to participate in a 1 day mock selection committee scenario put on by the NCAA. Tried to simulate what it's like for the committee but just in one day. Interesting read, and at the bottom he had the bracket they came up with. I don't have it in front of me but seedings for SIU, CU and MSU seemed OK. What was interesting is that Evansville was in the bracket. I actually emailed Kerkhoff to see why that was. I guess they had to assume that Evansville won the Valley tournament. The article did talk about having to take conference upsets into consideration and whoever ran the process would feed the committe info. For example, they were told that Iowa was playing Indiana in the Big 10 tourney final so they had to wait to see if Iowa got in until they were ultimately told Iowa lost.


Does anyone else hear an echo? :doh:

[Nyghtewynd]

Send a copy of this story to the Department of Redundancy Department, STAT!