Very nice site! is it yours too http://oieypxa.com/kyrsxk/4.html wrote at 8/28/2010 5:24:07 PM
Very nice site! is it yours too http://oieypxa.com/kyrsxk/4.html

Very nice site! wrote at 8/24/2010 3:33:21 PM
Very nice site!

Very nice site! [url=http://opeyixa.com/qvoxtxa/2.html]is it yours too[/url] wrote at 8/24/2010 3:33:18 PM
Very nice site! [url=http://opeyixa.com/qvoxtxa/2.html]is it yours too[/url]

Ryan Feldman wrote at 3/15/2010 2:50:46 PM
According to the Selection Sunday Challenge on NCAA.com, a competition between all of the bracketology experts, I was ranked #2 overall behind Bracketology 101. That site had the correct region as the most important factor, but in reality that's the least important factor, so I really was significantly more accurate than Bracketology 101. Here is the link the results - find the group called "NCAA Hoops Experts" - http://www.ncaa.com/games/selectionchallenge/2010-groups.html The link to the Bracket Matrix is here: http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix_2010.htm

Ryan Feldman wrote at 3/14/2010 4:49:06 PM
My final results were 65 of 65 teams correct, 55 of 65 teams within 1 seed, and 28 of 65 teams correct. I beat Joe Lunardi and Bracketology 101. We have to wait for the Bracket Matrix to post the final results, but I'm confident that will be certainly be in the top 5 overall. I am very happy with the results. -Ryan Feldman, The Hoops Report

Anonymous wrote at 3/14/2010 12:53:54 PM
As an example, a few years ago George Washington was ranked No. 6 during Championship Week. They lost in the conference tournament and moved down to maybe No. 10 or something like that in the final top 25 that came out the day after Selection Sunday. But in the tournament, they were a No. 8 seed.

Anonymous wrote at 3/14/2010 11:05:58 AM
How is tennessee number 13 in your top 25, but you give them a 5 seed in the tournament? This makes no sense

Anonymous wrote at 3/13/2010 2:59:38 PM
Are you saying Seton Hall is out? If yes, why do you have them in the bracket? They have a good RPI and SOS and have no bad losses and 4 quality wins, they should be in

Anonymous wrote at 3/13/2010 11:44:27 AM
now that Houston beat UTEP, do the Miners still get an at-large?

bigleast wrote at 3/13/2010 7:28:44 AM
So this is what the bracket of a Big East apologist looks like.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 3/13/2010 7:19:26 AM
Overall record is absolutely meaningless, so the fact that VT has a better overall record than teams means nothing, especially when almost half of their wins are against teams like NC Central and UMBC. Why don't you look at things like RPI, SOS, record vs top 50, quality wins/bad losses, and non-conference slates, things that the committee actually looks at. That's why VT is out right now, but those other ACC teams are in. You can't be on the bubble and lose your first conference tourney game to a team not in the bubble conversation and expect to make the tournament.

Anonymous wrote at 3/13/2010 2:40:40 AM
A few more glaring errors- Seton Hall is universally considered out. Conference foes Virginia Tech and Wake Forest have almost identical resumes yet you have them separated by more than 12 teams.

Anonymous wrote at 3/13/2010 1:53:32 AM
i mean, really? you honestly believe the committee would do that to them? if Long Beach State wins, i understand. but UCSB's numbers are similar to Montana's, yet they are seeded ahead. All season long Santa Barbara has been a 15, why do they drop now??

Anonymous wrote at 3/12/2010 11:17:54 PM
I'm not trying to do anything but be accurate. If you read my posts below, you'll see when I wrote about how I totally re-evaluated every team's resume because we're coming close to Selection Sunday and I need to be as accurate as possible. Upon closely examining all of the resumes, I realized that Wichita State is behind those other teams. I'm not trying to promote any teams or "stick my neck out" for anybody. I'm just trying to accurate mirror the selection committee. And if you follow me on Twitter (@TheHoopsReport), I'm giving more frequent bracketology updates throughout the day, and in my last one tonight I had Wichita State has the 8th team out. Everything changes hour by hour. That's just how it goes, and unfortunately Wichita State isn't playing anymore, so they can't control their own fate like these other teams can and have.

Anonymous wrote at 3/12/2010 7:59:41 PM
As of 9:50 PM EST: Last 8 In-URI, Wash, Seton Hall, SD State, GT, Fla, Illin, UNLV. Last 8 Out-Ole Miss, W&M, Minn, USF, Memph, UAB, VT, ASU.

Anonymous wrote at 3/12/2010 11:10:43 AM
They lost 3 in a row, so they obviously dropped. Since then, they've won 5 in a row, but none of those wins came over quality teams, so that didn't help them move up. Like I stated below, I re-evaluated everything last night to cram down on my accuracy with Selection Sunday coming up in two days, so that's where I have them. It's not about moving up and down. It's just that compared to other teams, I have them as the first 11 seed right now. A win today and they will obviously move up. But don't worry, they are getting in the tournament regardless.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 3/12/2010 10:01:52 AM
Minnesota could be in with a with today but it will be close. If they win 2 games, they are definitely in. And the reason Illinois is still in is because the bubble is so weak. A win today and Illinois is definitely in. A loss and it will be close.

Anonymous wrote at 3/12/2010 1:33:15 AM
i meant lost to wisconsin. i spoke too soon. their loss to minnesota doesn't help either, though

Anonymous wrote at 3/12/2010 12:52:52 AM
I made some major revisions tonight. With Selection Sunday coming up in a couple days, I really broke down every team's resume to try and tighten up my accuracy. That's the reason for some of the significant changes. I'll be happy to answer any questions about it.

Anonymous wrote at 3/11/2010 9:02:57 AM
KB- Really? You looked at all 78 brackets? If the season ended today, none of those teams would be in. Washington and Mississippi State can still play themselves in but they have to at least get to the semifinals of their tournament, and most likely the finals. Wichita State's tournament ending before other conferences doesn't mean they can't be on the bubble. They aren't getting in but they will be considered strongly. TC- NM isn't a lock for a 2 but probably won't be less than a 3. They need to at least get to the MWC finals to get a 2. Ryan- Wich St won 2 games before they lost that game. That's how they moved up. It doesn't change the fact that Minn needs to at least get to the semifinals to get in, and maybe even the finals.

TC wrote at 3/10/2010 4:44:37 PM
Picked to finish 5th in the Mountain West Conf, regular season conf. champions, overall 28-3, and undefeated against 7 top 25 teams this year. Should this surprise team of the year be a lock for a two seed, or do they have to win in Vegas.

KB wrote at 3/10/2010 3:44:02 PM
georgia tech,sdsu, memphis, washington, ole miss...in that order. Illinois,ASU and UAB first 3 out in that order. va tech is in regardless. We'll see what happens. Thanks for the good commentary

Ryan Feldman wrote at 3/9/2010 9:32:59 PM
Ironically, Kansas State is now a 2 and Pitt is a 3. They are right next to each other, very close. Kansas State now has 7 top 50 wins instead of 6 because Dayton moved into the top 50 with its win, and KSU beat Dayton. No, UConn is not in the top 50. I'll have to let you later who all of the top 50 wins are, but I can't look right now because I'm still at MSG covering the Big East tourney. If South Florida and/or Seton Hall win tomorrow, they will be moved into the bracket. That is the only significant news from today as far as the bracket is concerned.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 3/9/2010 11:33:38 AM
You clearly don't understand the selection process, and that's okay because most people don't, but please try to follow me here. There is no definition of a "quality win" or "bad loss," and there are various degrees of both. If you want to argue with me what a bad loss or quality win is, that's fine, but I'm just letting you know. A loss to USC is a bad loss. A home loss to USC is a very bad loss. A loss to Texas Tech is a bad loss. A win over Arizona or Washington State or UCLA or whoever else is not a good win. There are 65 teams in the tournament but only 34 are at-large teams. About 20-25 of them are automatic qualifiers that wouldn't be in if they didn't win their conference tournament. A win over Winthrop or East Tennessee State is not a good win. If you lose to those teams, it's a bad loss. Believe what you want to believe, but I'm just telling you how it is. Washington doesn't have any quality road wins, and they have too many bad losses. They are not in right now. If they get to the Pac-10 final, they have a chance, but they're better off winning the conference tourney. Also, RPI isn't everything. It's only one part of the selection process. A 75 RPI hurts Illinois but they also have a ton of great quality wins, even on the road. Quality wins and bad losses are the most important factor in the process, and RPI is one of many factors in the process. Nothing is that simple. It's very complicated to compare team's resumes.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 3/9/2010 6:56:13 AM
Pitt has slightly better quality wins/bad losses than Kansas State and Ohio State. Kansas State's wins/losses are worst of the three teams but all three are very close. OSU has a significantly worse RPI and SOS than the other two teams. Pitt and KSU both have 6 top 50 wins, while OSU has 5. Pitt has the best top 50 record of the three teams at 6-3. Compared to OSU, Pitt has better wins/losses, RPI, SOS, more top 50 wins, and a better top 50 record. Compared to KSU, Pitt has a slightly worse RPI and SOS, and the same amount of top 50 wins, but a better top 50 record and most importantly, better wins/losses. The order is Pitt, KSU, OSU.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 3/8/2010 4:58:58 PM
There are different degrees of bad losses and quality wins. Of course, some losses are worse than others. But any loss to a team that isn't even remotely being considered for an at-large bid is a bad loss. For example, a loss to Seton Hall is not a bad loss, but a loss to Rutgers is a bad loss. KenPom ratings are not part of the selection process at all. RPI of course is. To a point, bad losses are factored into the RPI, but not fully. For RPI, it doesn't really matter who you beat and who you lost to, as long as you played those teams and got a win or a loss. For example, if you play Kansas or Alcorn State, a win or a loss still counts the same. Regardless of whether you won or lost the game, it still counts the same towards your SOS. You could have two games back-to-back against Kansas and Alcorn State, and whichever team you beat and lost to, as long as you went 1-1 against those two teams, it would be the same result for your RPI. The committee weights quality wins and bad losses the most of any factor. Everything is factored in. It's a long process. But it's easier for me to say that a team has so many bad losses or quality wins, etc., than to lay out every team's entire detailed resume.

KB wrote at 3/8/2010 3:15:10 PM
Since your are very heavily rating bad losses as a determining factor, what are the bad losses for the other bubble teams ot of curiosity? Also, aren't bad losses factored into RPI and KEN Pom ratings etc????

bewildered wrote at 3/8/2010 7:48:56 AM
Not sure why Marquette is getting so much love. Their only quality wins are Louisville (at home) and Georgetown. By comparison, Notre Dame beat two teams Marquette lost to (West Virginia and Pitt), also beat Georgetown, and took Louisville to 2OT away and without Harangody. Both teams beat UConn. ND beat Marquette away. Both teams played easy nonconference schedules. Why is Marquette an 8 and ND an 11 and not necessarily a lock to be in? Early season bad losses?

chase wrote at 3/7/2010 8:36:07 PM
i think your last update had louisville as a 9 seed and they beat the #1 team in the country and go up only one seed

Ryan Feldman wrote at 3/7/2010 4:39:45 PM
I moved them down 5 spots. They were the last team in earlier this week. Memphis, Wichita State, Virginia Tech and Arizona State each won at least one game since then. Also, I do the entire bracketology process from the beginning every time I post a new bracket. I don't just slide teams up and down based on losses like most other bracketologists do in lazy fashion throughout the season. Therefore, the positioning of teams could slightly change based on many factors every single day. It still doesn't change the fact that Minnesota is one loss from being permanently out and has a good chance to get in by getting to the B10 semis or final.

Bob wrote at 3/7/2010 3:09:22 PM
Did you forget to move Purdue down after they lost Robbie Hummel for the season? Or do you actually believe that they would still be a 1 seed if the season ended today?

Ryan Feldman wrote at 3/7/2010 12:42:22 PM
You're exactly right. And that's Washington's fault for making a bad schedule and the Pac-10's fault, as a whole, for performing poorly out of conference. Mid-majors have the same problem. They have 25 chances at a bad loss and 5-7 chances usually at a quality win. You have to win most of those chances and avoid too many bad losses. The committee could care less about a close loss or if Arizona is a promising young team. It's still a bad loss to a team that is nowhere on the tournament radar. And it doesn't matter what a team was when Washington played them. What matters is what they are now. Texas Tech is a bad loss. You don't know how well a team will do until late in the season. Obviously, TT was overrated. It's not like a team can be the 15th best team at one point and then a month later be the 100th best team. The fact is that they were overrated. All that matters is the end result. And the end result is that TT is not a quality team, so that's a bad loss. Same with USC. In the middle of the season, USC was a tournament-quality team (if they were eligible), but now USC is a bad loss. The committee doesn't care about excuses. No matter how you break it down, UW has 3 good wins and 6 bad losses. It's very tough to make the tournament with that resume. Northern Iowa had 5 chances at a quality win and won 4 of them. They also had 26 chances at bad losses and only lost 3 of them. Do you see the difference? Washington had more chances at good wins as a mid-major and won less and lost more. You can't get in without beating anybody, and especially if you also lose to bad teams. It's nobody's fault but UW for losing all of those games and not winning when they had their chances.

Dizzle wrote at 3/7/2010 12:14:39 PM
Alright, I see what you're saying about UW having some bad losses, but the truth is that by your definition literally any game UW played (except Georgetown, Texas A&M, Cal and ASU) could have been a bad loss this year. Not kidding- EVERY other game. I assume the losses you're talking about are @TTech, Oregon, @Arizona, @UCLA, @USC and USC. I wont disagree with Oregon or @UCLA, but USC is not a bad team at all. They had a shaky start but ended up destroying Tennessee and soundly beating St. Mary's and UNLV on neutral court. Arizona certainly isn't a bad team either- young and inconsistent but not bad. And although the Texas Tech loss looks bad now they were 7-0 and ranked at the time. Also, both the UCLA game and Texas Tech game were lost on buzzer beaters. I guess what I'm saying is that according to you Washington had 4 to 6 chances at quality wins this year (Gtown, Texas A&M, Cal 2x, ASU? 2x) and 25 chances to get a bad loss. How can they realistically be expected to get the same number of quality wins and bad losses with their schedule? Especially compared to say an average big east team like South Florida who this year had about a dozen chances at a quality win and a dozen chances to get a bad loss. Your logic seems somewhat flawed. I understand the pac10 is pretty much a defacto mid-major this year but UW played some quality teams out of conference and naturally lost a few conference games in a competitive league where any loss was a "bad" one.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 3/7/2010 11:12:31 AM
Spartyrocks, Michigan State still has the second worst RPI of any team currently seeded in the first six lines, and no team seeded in the first eight lines has less top 50 wins than Michigan State. Winning your conference is great but it doesn't get you a better seed without the quality wins. Did you forget that MSU lost 4 of 6, and it's only 2 wins in that stretch were to Penn State and Indiana? Sure, they got 1 quality win at Purdue because they were desperate. But 1 quality win isn't enough to get them better than a 5 seed right now. They have no other great road wins and only one other quality win over a team that isn't on the bubble (Wisconsin). If they want better than a 5, they better at least make the Big Ten championship game.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 3/7/2010 11:03:35 AM
JD, UAB getting in has more to do with other teams losing. I know they lost their last two games but everyone is losing so by default UAB is still hanging on as the last team in. That said, they probably have to get to the C-USA championship, as does Memphis, to really get in.

Dizzle wrote at 3/7/2010 7:34:25 AM
Yo feldman i know you're not hatin on the pac 10 like a lot of "experts" but I have to think the huskies are just about in at this point. It looks like you copied and pasted lunardi's bracket and made a few small changes. In any case I can straight up prove to you by the numbers that UW has a better resume than Memphis, SDSU, Ole Miss, and UAB to name the obvious ones. Part of it might be this isn't updated but UW has a better record, sos and rpi than virtually every other bubble team. Plus, they finished the year 9-2 with 4 straight true road victories (which was your biggest qualm before). They are 2-2 against the rpi top 50 and 6-5 against the top 100. Just about all of your bubble teams are WAY worse against the rpi top 50: 2-5 (SDSU and memphis) 2-4 (VTech) 4-7 (Illinois) 3-7 (Florida) 2-8 (Miss). True they don't have many quality wins but thats mostly because they didn't play many quality teams. Despite that, they still had a very high out of conference rpi and beat some tough teams like Wright state, montana, portland and texas a&m. They also lost 2 games they should have won on buzzer beaters against texas tech and ucla. Anyway, i think i've made my point. Check the stats again and give UW some love.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 3/6/2010 4:57:34 PM
I don't worry about what others think. My results will speak for themselves. Some people might look at one bad loss and think that means they're done but in reality it's only one game. You can make up for a bad loss with a quality win. Everyone thought Notre Dame was done after a few consecutive losses a few weeks ago but I kept them in the conversation and kept them as a quality win and they won four straight since then. Win and they'll be back in it. One more bad loss and they're done.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 3/4/2010 5:18:25 PM
The reason is because UConn and UAB lost yesterday and Minnesota still has better quality wins than those teams as well as St. Mary's, Dayton and Virginia Tech, and some other teams can't even be considered because they've been losing so many games. The fact that Minnesota is still right there if they get back on the winning track shows how extremely weak the bubble is right now.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 3/4/2010 11:53:13 AM
Sorry about that typo. The 4th team in is Illinois. I fixed it. As for Vandy, they have 8 quality wins and 4 quality road wins. It's more a product of no teams really having great resumes for that last #2 seed. WV and Nova have been losing games lately and Vandy's RPI and SOS dominates Ohio State. As far as the "eye test" as someone mentioned, Vandy certainly looks like a 2 seed in that regard. Did you see them at Florida the other day or in their two-point loss to Kentucky? As for spots opening up, a couple spots did open up because UConn and UAB lost. UAB was in until its loss to Memphis. ODU is already in but not by much. Miss State is barely in after the loss to Auburn. Wake is moving towards the bubble but still safe. The problem with St. Mary's is that they won't have another opportunity for a quality win until the WCC finals, so they need to hope for other bubble teams to screw up for the Gaels to get in.

JD wrote at 3/4/2010 1:33:18 AM
with yesterday's losses by UConn, Miss. State and Wake does that open up at-larges again if needed for Memphis/UAB, ODU, or a St. Mary's? the major conference teams keep on shooting themselves in the foot, especially Wake.

Shawn wrote at 3/3/2010 11:44:26 PM
Oh, I was more saying that it would be avoided if possible(when is it not possible), but you got the right idea. Re: ND. I wasn't so much saying that I didn't believe they could get back on the bubble, but more so that it wasn't right to put them as a quality win just because they could get back on the bubble. But honestly, who thought a Harangodyless ND would be able to beat Pitt, Georgetown and uconn?

Ryan Feldman wrote at 3/3/2010 9:17:51 PM
By the way, they are allowed to meet in the second round if they played in the regular season. But it is supposed to be avoided if possible. I probably could have changed it around, though, but it's not that big of a deal as compared to other procedures, especially in the second round. But thanks.

Shawn wrote at 3/3/2010 5:43:58 PM
just so you know you have a second round match between Wake Forest and Purdue, they played during the regular season so that's unlikely to happen.

Khale wrote at 3/3/2010 4:07:04 PM
uw sos, top 50 record, and ken pom rating are all generally better than most of the teams you have in last 4 in, first 4 out and next 4 out. You are not blindly jumping on the PAC 10 hatin bandwagon without sincerely looking at the numbers are you?

Unknown wrote at 2/24/2010 10:35:45 PM
If the A10 actually puts five teams in the tourney after watching that joke @ Temple tonight, I think the excrement will hit the ventilation device. Seriously? That's so not gonna happen. It's like calling some girl you just cheated on your wife with telling her to take her name of the voicemail, and then lying about doing it, and then apologizing from a script you seemingly wrote 10 minutes earlier!

Shawn wrote at 2/22/2010 9:08:21 AM
You stated, "Call it what you want, but wins over USF and UConn are certainly quality wins, and ND is for now. I said they could get back to the bubble if they win out. Will that happen? I highly doubt it, but I don't predict the future." What makes ND a quality win right now thought? Their one top 50 win against WVU? You call it a quality win because they could still get back on the bubble. Part of you says you don't predict the future, but you don't bother to look at ND's current tournament profile, but instead say they could get back on the bubble so they're a quality win. This in turn factors into your analysis of other teams QWs because once you count ND as a QW you can prop up profiles of BE teams you think should be on the right side of the bubble but minimize teams you didn't think should be, i.e VaTech. I love that you now decide VaTech is bubble worthy when the only thing that's changed is that they lost to Duke, whereas Cincy went for solidly in your bracket to not even the last 8 out with a loss to Marquette.

Shawn wrote at 2/22/2010 5:56:58 AM
Yes, every year teams get in with 10+ losses, that wasn't what I was saying though, I was saying, if you have 10+ losses at this point in the season, meaning with 3-5+ games to play, you shouldn't be getting in in most instances. there are just too many quality teams with less losses(presumably in most cases to equivalent teams), I wasn't saying when the season ends, I was saying today. Think about the teams on the right side of the bubble right now , and the teams on the wrong side of the bubble, almost invariably the teams on the right side of the bubble in most estimations have fewer than 10 losses at this point in the season, and the teams on the wrong side of the bubble have 10 or more. Is it a hard rule? No. But think about it for awhile, now if those 10 loss teams win out, its a different story, but your bracket as if the season ended today, and its pretty hard to have 10+ losses and still have enough QWs at this point in the season to be on the right side of the bubble. I honestly think you're confused about whether or not your bracket is a season ending today or a projection bracket though with the way you talk about remaining schedules as reasons why teams should get in TODAY.S

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/21/2010 8:09:30 PM
It looks to me like VT needs to win 3 of their last 4 to definitely get in. Going 2-2 in their last 4 without a strong performance in the ACC tournament will leave them very much on the bubble.

Shawn wrote at 2/21/2010 5:19:06 PM
and I'm telling you that as of today there is absolutely no way the selection committee would put Seton Hall, Cincy and Marquette in and leave VaTech out, it just wouldn't happen. The selection committee would not consider ND a marquee QW worthy of noting on a team's resume today or 3 weeks from now. I would say that if you have 10+ losses at this point in the season(not to say that absolute number of losses matter), you're not worth mentioning during a body of work discussion, and I think that's fair.

Shawn wrote at 2/21/2010 3:00:46 PM
Oh I also forgot ND's wins against USF, another team with a suspect at-large profile, that has creeped into people's at-large discussion because of wins versus Pitt and Georgetown. Apparently 16-10 and 6-8 in the BE puts you on the bubble just by having 1-2 QWs in the entire season with a few questionable losses. The middle of the BE is frankly overrated, they play crappy non-conference schedules and then beat each other up to make each other look good and occasionally steal wins from the top of the conference to somehow get into the bubble discussion with each of their 1 QW against the top and beat ups of the other middle of the pack teams. Its not a quality win to beat a team that beats one good team and then a bunch of average teams and beats up on the cream puffs in the non-conference season. Its the same story with USF, uconn and ND. The only thing that seperates them from St. John's is one BE upset.

Shawn wrote at 2/21/2010 2:39:03 PM
You mean Seton Hall's 3 straight wins to St. John's, DePaul and Notre Dame, two teams that aren't even in any discussion for anything but the NIT this season, and a team that shouldn't be in the bubble discussion, yes that's impressive for Seton Hall right there. Much more impressive than Virginia Tech's 4 straight wins versus Clemson, NC State, Virginia and Wake Forest. Again conference record totally matters, you think the selection committee isn't going to have in their head when they vote that Seton Hall is 6-8 in the BE and VaTech is 8-3 in the ACC? What makes Notre Dame any more bubble worthy than Maiami(FL) though? Because you say so? Miami(FL) has wins against Minnesota, Wake Forest and Georgia Tech. Notre Dame has a win against WVU and thats it. Is Notre Dame in the discussion because they're 6-8 in the BE but Miami is 3-9 in the ACC? Miami has more QWs than Notre Dame and bad losses to Boston College x2 and Virginia, compared to Notre Dame's bad losses to St. John's and Loyola Marymount. Notre Dame is only a decent win because people haven't actually looked at their resume closely, frankly its just as bad as Miami(FL). If you're going to count ND as a quality win, you've gotta count Miami(FL) a team with a better resume.

Shawn wrote at 2/21/2010 11:19:42 AM
Also, so since they weren't brought up for a vote that means they weren't discussed at all which was your contention? But Seton Hall wasn't even discussed besides in connection to VaTech's potential inclusion, and again, this was even before the Wake Forest win.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/21/2010 9:53:39 AM
That's all they were discussed for. They were never even brought up for a vote. Just like how I had them not even in the next 8 out before the Wake win and now I have them as 2nd out. It's the same thing. What don't you understand about the fact that conference doesn't matter? Individually, Cincy and SH have better resumes than VT. Cincy's neutral court wins over Vandy and MD are better right there than VT's wins. Then, you add in UConn twice, ND and USF, and only 1 bad loss at St. John's. SH beat Cincy, Louisville and Pitt, which right there is better than VT's wins, and then you add in at Cornell, vs. ND and no bad losses. 21-4, 8-3, and ACC are irrelevant factors that will never come into play. The quality wins and bad losses are the most important factors, followed by the computer #'s.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/20/2010 11:57:13 PM
Hey, I hope you're right and VT actually wins some quality games down the stretch and gets in. It would make it easier for me. All of the relevant bracketologists other than B101 project what would happen if the season ended today. Why would you want someone to predict the outcome of weeks worth of games? How does that help anyone? What makes you think their predictions would be correct? I can only say what would happen today because I don't know what will happen in the future. And what do you have to say about VT not even being in the discussion, let alone getting an at-large, in the NCAA mock bracket? I'm pretty sure you should trust that over anything else, right? So, believe it or not, if VT doesn't pick up any more quality wins, you're gonna have to deal with them not getting in. Sorry. It's the truth and the mock committee clearly agreed with me.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/20/2010 9:27:44 PM
B101 predicts what will happen at the end of the season, so their bracket can't be compared to ours. We project based on the season ending today, which is a totally different animal. A better comparison would be last week's NCAA mock bracket, in which Va Tech was never even really considered for an at-large spot, so I think I would trust that much more than 59 random bracketologists.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/20/2010 8:18:52 PM
I don''t know why. You''ll have to ask the other 56 people, most of which probably don''t have a clue. I would be happy to have a conversation with anybody about it, and I''ll tell them the same points I''ve been writing on here for weeks now. Your comment below made no arguments as to why VT should be in. Just because somebody else thinks they''re in, does that mean they''re in? We''ll see on Selection Sunday who is right. Maybe VT can win some quality games and we won''t have to have this argument anymore. This is deja vu to me of two years ago when I was one of the only people with Villanova in, and Lunardi and all the other guys had them out the whole way. Everybody told me I''m crazy, and then Lunardi suddenly changed his mind on Selection Sunday five minutes before the bracket came out, three days after Nova had lost in the BE quarterfinals. I don''t mind the criticism. As it is the same every year, the results will be proven on Selection Sunday. Would you rather have me just copy B101 or Lunardi''s bracket and put on here whatever they have? Would that make you happier? Or would you rather see different opinions from different people and let the results be proven on Selection Sunday?

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/20/2010 2:51:00 PM
Gonzaga has 6 quality road/neutral wins: Wisconsin, Cincinnati, Memphis, St. Mary''s, Illinois, Portland. Wake has 3: Gonzaga, UNC (if you want to count it), Virginia (if you want to count it). Is that really close? I had Gonzaga 5 spots away from Wake in the last update (Wake was the top 6, Gonzaga was the worst 4), but Wake''s loss to NC State separates the teams some more. I could care less about conferences. I''m not the least bit biased about anything. I actually live in the East.

YoYo wrote at 2/20/2010 7:08:03 AM
Winning at St. Mary''s and Memphis is all you need? Not that impressed, especially when you factor in losses at San Francisco and LMU. Sorry, but you are wrong that the Zags'' resume is clearly better than Wake''s. Wake has a better road win. Wake has a better RPI (15 vs 25 - not really that close). Wake has 4 top-30 RPI wins, Zags have 1. Wake has zero losses to RPI above 100, Zags have 2 losses to RPI above 100 (197 and 208). Wake has SOS of 20, Zags have SOS of 66. Wake beat the Zags on their home floor. Maybe it''s as simple as your an anti-ACC hack?

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/19/2010 8:20:02 PM
Like I said before, Wake beating Gonzaga doesn''t mean much unless the two teams have near identical resumes. And they don''t. Gonzaga''s quality road wins make their resume stronger than Wake''s.

Shawn wrote at 2/19/2010 1:12:32 PM
VaTech may have a worse SoS, but they also have 6 fewer losses, that''s right 6 fewer, and again they beat Seton Hall, which Cincy did not do. I''m not sure how you come out with 6 QWs for Cincy and only 3 for VaTech, the only way you come out with 6 is if you count ND and uconn as quality wins, and if you''re counting ND and uconn as quality wins, why are you not counting UNC as a quality win? How about Miami(FL)? Neither team will make the tournament if the season ended today, but neither will the QWs you''re counting of ND and uconn if the season ended today. Additionally, uconn is two of Cincy''s top 50 wins, and they''re 48. VaTech has 2 top 50 wins and one that''s at 51, Seton Hall, so you''re telling me that all it would take for VaTech to beat Cincy into the tournament would be for Seton Hall to win and uconn to lose pushing VaTech to 3 top 50 wins and Cincy down to 2 top 50 wins? Thats obviously ridiculous, the real answer is that VaTech should already be in over Cincy and 50 is an arbitrary cutoff that makes Cincy look better than it is, and VaTech look worse than it is in this instance.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/19/2010 11:24:43 AM
Do I think there will be 9 BE teams in the NCAA touranment? No. But this is if the season ended today, and right now all 9 deserve to be in over the other bubble teams. The bubble is very weak right now. Cincy has 6 quality wins and only 1 bad loss, and they have 4 top 50 wins, which is more than any other bubble team. Va Tech only has 3 quality wins and has a worse SOS, non-conference slate, and less top 50 wins (2) than any other bubble team. Marquette and Charlotte both have 4 quality wins and have very close resumes, as Marquette is the 3rd team in and Charlotte is 1st out. The small difference comes down to Marquette''s win over Georgetown being the better signature win. One good win or bad loss will put one of those teams over the other. And to correct you, Va Tech has not beaten Maryland. And Cincy is the 5th team in, so they are right there with the other bubble teams. None of those teams have done enough to definitely be in. They all need to get another quality win or two before Selection Sunday.

Shawn wrote at 2/19/2010 9:30:44 AM
So now please explain how VaTech is one Quality Win away from inclusion but both Marquette and Cincinnati have done enough to warrant them getting in, heck, Seton Hall has done more than Cincinnati and they are on the last four in list while Cincinnati is even more solidly in.

Shawn wrote at 2/19/2010 9:11:28 AM
There is absolutely no way the BE gets 9 teams in the tournament. You have basically put every single bubble team in the BE as a bubble in team, Louisville, Seton Hall, Maquette, Cincy along with the obvious locks of Pitt, WVU, Cuse, Georgetown and Nova. Cincy is 15-10 right now and still has games against WVU, Nova and Georgetown, along with fellow bubble Marquette they'll be lucky to finish 18-12, 9-9 in the BE. I know record isn't that important, but their best and only wins against teams in your bracket are at Vandy and Maryland back in November. But they're in while VaTech,, who has wins over Wake Forest, Clemson and Maryland and is 21-4, is out? What because Cincy plays in the BE and VaTech plays in the ACC? Not to mention the fact that VaTech is 47 in the RPI and Cincy is 50. VaTech also beat Seton Hall, something Cincy was unable to do. I'll continue on the other BE bubble teams in over VaTech(and your other last 8 out in the next post).

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/19/2010 12:14:57 AM
No, that is incorrect. Va Tech was not even in my last 8 out before the Wake win. I updated the bracket on Tuesday night after they beat Wake and they became the 4th team out. Now, they are the 2nd team out. Like I said before, they are one quality win from getting in. The Wake win proved they are a legitimate contender, now they need one more to get over the top. Two quality wins still isn't great. To dispute your arguments, the fact that they are in the ACC and the fact that they are in the No. 1 RPI conference doesn't really matter. The fact that they have 21 wins certainly doesn't matter at all. Wins are irrelevant when almost half of them came against UMBC, Longwood, Campbell, NC Central, etc. Like I've said over and over again, all that matters is quality wins and bad losses. Right now, they have one bad loss (Miami) and only three quality wins. That is not very impressive compared to most other bubble teams. Also, their computer #'s do not stack up well against other bubble teams. Despite all of this, they are one quality win from being in. And no, Washington is no longer in or even on the bubble after its loss tonight. The Huskies still could get back in the discussion by winning out and making a run in the conference tourney, but that's the only way they get back in the discussion.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/18/2010 4:20:25 PM
Dayton: 33 RPI, 30 SOS, 4 top 50 wins. Va Tech: 43 RPI, 159 SOS, 2 top 50 wins. That says it all right there. It's not even all that close. And I apologize, Va Tech's win over Wake this week would now be its best win. The Hokies need one or two more quality wins to definitely get in. Dayton is one bad loss from possibly being left out.

Rick wrote at 2/18/2010 12:52:30 PM
You have Dayton listed as an 8 seed. What have they done up to now to deserve an 8 seed? Did you see them lose to St. Louis? How do you have 6 ACC schools in but you leave Virginia Tech out? This bracket looks like it is from 2 months ago.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/16/2010 12:35:43 AM
OK, I understand now what you're saying. The NCAA originally listed Oklahoma City as a Fri/Sun site and Spokane as a Thurs/Sat site, but they swapped the two of them. If you look on other sites that copied the NCAA's original info, they still list it that way. Obviously, it's not a big deal at all and I doubt anyone else really cares about that, but I will switch it on my next update. Thanks.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/16/2010 12:15:50 AM
You are way off on your comments. No, I'm not a Washington grad. Saying no one else is considering them right now is inaccurate since they are one of the first 4 out in the Bracket Matrix that documents something like 50 different bracketologists. I don't really care about what others think, but I'm just saying. Their resume matches up to any other bubble team. They are above .500 in a power conference and have a solid non-conference resume. If any Pac-10 team gets in other than Cal, it's gonna be Washington. Conference teams meeting before the conference final is not a procedural error at all. That rule was changed a couple years ago. Look it up. If there's no other way to arrange things, they are allowed to meet before the conference final but it is to be avoided if possible. With so many conferences getting more than 4 teams in, it's impossible to avoid. Without doing bracketology yourself, it's hard to understand, but there are numerous procedures that have to be followed that make it impossible to avoid. None of them in my bracket would meet before the Sweet 16. The real committee may be better at changing things around to avoid this, but sometimes there's no possible way to avoid it in my bracket. And why wouldn't Kansas play the play-in winner? What does Oklahoma City have to do with it? I don't understand your point. Kansas is the No. 1 overall team in my bracket and therefore would play the play-in winner.

Shawn wrote at 2/15/2010 9:56:22 PM
RPI is a very misleading statistic though, and factors into the selection committee process a lot less than you give it credit for. If you followed the recent mock selection that was done with a group of sports writers it puts the whole thing in a very good perspective. The thing about RPI is that it rewards you for losses by giving you a better strength of schedule, also away wins count more and home wins count less, its pretty flawed in its analysis of how good a team actually is and the selection committee seems to have really de-emphasized it. Think about it this way, Texas A&M's RPI is 14, do they deserve to be a 3 seed? Texas' RPI puts them on the 7 line by that statistic, neither is very accurate, do you not agree? But look at Texas' wins MSU, Pitt and Texas A&M, that sounds worse than MSU or OSU(again don't forget 3 of OSU's losses were without their star). Also, head to head absolutely matters when cutting the line between two lines, if two teams come out in the voting 6 and 7, the committee will consider their head to head and side with the team that won the head to head, at least what I'm to understand from the mock selection. You mention WVU's numbers but fail to mention the fact that they have just as few wins against teams that are definitely in as MSU or OSU. Remember that Illinois has an RPI of 70, but is a tournament team, something that cuts bad for the Big Ten as far as top 50 wins are concerned.

YoYo wrote at 2/15/2010 11:43:28 AM
That's just silly. No reason for them to be two lines below Gonzaga considering Wake's win head to head on the Zags' home floor.

Shawn wrote at 2/15/2010 8:38:33 AM
Well frankly, both OSU and MSU as low as a 5 seed is ridiculous. So you're saying that if the season ended today Gonzaga is a better seed than MSU or OSU? Based on what? Their head to head loss versus MSU? Yes, I know Gonzaga has 2 less loses, but its hardly fair to compare their romp through the WCC to MSU's run through the Big Ten. 3 of OSU's losses came without Evan Turner, something the selection committee takes into account when seeding. One of MSU's recent losses(at Illinois) came without their star Kalin Lucas(he was hurt versus Wisconsin but they still would have loss, and he was coming off injury versus Purdue but they still would have lost). Also, both MSU and OSU are worse than Vanderbilt? Based on their two wins versus a reeling Tennessee team? WVU is also probably too high, their only wins against tournament level teams are against Pitt at home and OSU at home. They should probably be on the 4 line. Wake Forest is better than a 6 seed, especially if the season ended today, with wins against Xavier, Richmond, Gonzaga and Ga Tech. They should be ranked above Texas, who has wins against Pitt, MSU and Texas A&M. Maybe you should also ask yourself, what has Ole Miss done to deserve an at-large? Their one QW is Kansas State.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/14/2010 11:27:00 PM
I was just watching Lunardi on ESPN and I realized a huge disagreement we have right now. He has Michigan State as a No. 2 seed. I have Michigan State as a No. 5 seed. That's a huge disparity and I don't understand how he could have them as a No. 2. They lost 3 straight games to 3 tournament teams and then barely won at winless Penn State and that moves them up to a No. 2? I don't get it. I don't even have MSU as the best No. 5 seed. I have Ohio State barely ahead of them on that line. A 28 RPI and 2-3 vs the top 50 does not equal a No. 2 seed or really even close to that. Thoughts?

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/14/2010 11:19:44 PM
Florida, St. Mary's and South Florida are out. Louisville, Marquette and Washington are in. Florida's home loss to Xavier after a loss at South Carolina along with their 60 RPI have them 6th out now. The St. Mary's loss to Gonzaga didn't hurt them much, but the loss to Portland sure did. Now, they likely have to win the conference tourney to get in because they won't have another chance for a quality win until Gonzaga in the conference championship game. South Florida was looking good until two straight losses to ND and Marquette put them out of the picture for now. Marquette and Washington moved in by default after so many bubble teams lost. Washington's resume is better than people realize and could make the tourney by finishing 11-7 in the Pac-10. Syracuse's loss doesn't hurt much. Georgetown had a bad loss at Rutgers, but none of the No. 3 seeds were able to propel themselves to a No. 2. That's all I got for now. Any questions or comments?

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/14/2010 1:56:53 PM
Yes, Louisville is now a tournament team in good shape. Check back late tonight for the update.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/11/2010 11:55:21 PM
FYI, Maryland is the 5th team in right now. The only change in the teams from the last update is that Maryland is now in and Washington is out. The largest seed increase is Richmond up from a 9 to a 6.

AlexTerp wrote at 2/11/2010 9:36:43 PM
I thought I told you to leave my son out of this. You know he has problems but you still have hammered away at him ever since Heather Dinich ran her blog at the Baltimore Sun. Get a life. By the way, Maryland is easily in the tournament as of right now. This guy is a clown.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/11/2010 9:24:51 PM
I know what the actual difference is. It was a rhetoric question because you tried to claim that Kent State has a better resume than Virginia, which is a ridiculous statement. Kent State could win out and still wouldn't be an at-large, while Virginia could go 5-3 down the stretch and possibly get in. I'm not saying they definitely would, but it's very possible. My point was that they are similar cases in that they both have weak non-conference resumes, yet Virginia has a better non-conference win and a better conference win. I ralize the huge difference in RPI and SOS and the bad losses, and that's why Virginia isn't really on the radar right now. But I was responding to your crazy comment that Kent State has a better chance to be an at-large than Virginia. That was my point.

John wrote at 2/11/2010 9:05:18 PM
Virginia has an RPI that is 45 spots lower than Maryland's. It has a SOS that's nearly 60 spots lower than Maryland's. Virginia has three losses against teams outside the RPI top 100; Maryland has none. Virginia has three wins on the road, including none against the RPI top 50; Maryland has four, including one at #44 Florida State. On top of that, Maryland is, as you pointed out, ahead of Virginia by a game in the ACC. And yes, the UAB win is better than Maryland's best non-conference win, but that is literally the ONLY thing Virginia has going for it in a direct comparison. To say that the profiles are similar is an indefensibly stupid opinion that can only be held by someone who doesn't have any idea how the process works and tosses the notion of computer numbers and damaging losses completely out the window, or does understand the process and is trying to incite a reaction. I don't know which group you belong to, and I don't care to stick around here long enough to find out.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/11/2010 8:47:19 PM
What's the difference between Maryland and Virginia? Not too much. Virginia is one game behind Maryland in the ACC. Virginia has better wins - UAB, Georgia Tech, and at North Carolina. I know UNC is terrible right now and I don't count that too much either, but I'm just saying. A win over UAB in the non-conference is much better than Maryland's non-conference wins. What's Kent State's best win all season long other than its UAB win? Wofford? How would you rather take a team with its second best win over Wofford and losses to Green Bay, Miami OH and Bowling Green, 2 of which were at home, rather than a team with wins over Georgia Tech and at North Carolina as well as UAB?

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/11/2010 8:06:38 PM
It looks like I will have Maryland in after tonight because 4 of the other 5 teams in the last 6 out have already lost today or yesterday and Mississippi State could lose to Ole Miss. And in the last 4 in, Florida lost, Washington is looking like it will lose to Cal, and St. Mary's has a tough game at Gonzaga later tonight. So that's good news for all of you Maryland fans out there!

John wrote at 2/11/2010 6:59:52 PM
Which would presumably mean that, were those bids not stolen, Maryland would be even further from being one of the last four in, right?

John wrote at 2/11/2010 5:49:54 PM
Maryland just got in without being one of the last four in. Among the teams that have not made the field yet: St. Mary's, Washington, UAB, Mississippi, Cincinnati. Washington hasn't even been in the discussion.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/11/2010 3:42:48 PM
In the post below, it should say: "Do you really think that a loss to Virginia is worse than a loss to Sam Houston State or Weber State? If you really believe that, then you're NOT understanding the process."

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/11/2010 3:25:34 PM
Chief, you're not understanding what I'm saying and that's fine because it's tough to understand the selection process if you don't already understand it. Record means nothing. It's your quality wins compared to your bad losses. Who has better wins? Who has worse losses? Who has more quality road/neutral wins? Etc. The fact that they are 6-2 in the ACC and 16-6 overall doesn't mean anything. Va Tech is 6-3 in the ACC and 19-4 overall and is nowhere close to Maryland in terms of the bubble. Right now, they have a certain amount of quality wins. If they beat Ga Tech, Clemson and Virginia, that's three more quality wins. Ga Tech is a very good win, Clemson is a pretty good win, and Virginia is an OK win. If they lose to NC State, that would be a bad loss, so it would basically negate a quality win. They can't afford to lose to NC State. It doesn't matter that they are on pace to go 12-4. I don't predict the future. But I'm saying that if they go 10-6, I know that will include a few more quality wins, which is why they would get in. Not because they're 10-6, but because they would have a few more quality wins. I hope that helps you understand a little. Record is irrelevant. Who you beat is extremely relevant. If a team has a chance to get an at-large bid, that's a quality win.

Chief wrote at 2/11/2010 3:15:38 PM
Virginia Tech is one of only a handful of ACC teams to not get in with a winning record. They were also only 2 games above .500 in conference and had a winning percentage of .556. As of today Maryland is 4 games above .500 in conference and have a winning percentage of .750. Btw they are 4-0 in conference at home with a winning margin of 19 points. Your comment regarding Maryland getting in with 10 ACC wins is even more confusing. Today they are on pace to be 12-4 in conference and you don't have them in, but if they go 4 and 4 the rest of the way they would be in according to you. 4 and 4 could include wins at NC State and Georgia Tech, Clemson, Virginia at home. None would be high quality wins but according to you that would get them in, but if the season ends today they would not be in. That makes no sense.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/11/2010 1:34:44 PM
Matt, I agree with your assessment of the A-10, but I project the bracket based on today, so I can't predict what will happen even if I agree with you. Same with Maryland. If they win 10 games in the ACC, I'm pretty confident they will get in, but right now they don't have enough quality wins. If they win 10 ACC games, they will get 3 or 4 more quality wins, but right now they don't have enough. I just don't predict the future. I only base it on right now. Will Maryland end up with more quality wins and a better resume than Washington? Probably. But I don't do that. And you're right with the Penn State RPI. It wasn't 25 lower, I think it was around 63. But they made up for that with much better wins than Maryland has, including some huge road wins, so it's still a relevant comparison to a point. And record itself is virtually irrelevant to the committee. It's about the wins and losses individually. A team could be five games worse but have better wins and get in. It happens every year. Look at Arizona last year. Not a good overall or conference record but quality wins all over the board. Two years ago, Virginia Tech finished 9-7 in the ACC and won a game in the ACC tournament, but still didn't get in. So, there goes whoever it was below's argument that finishing above .500 in the ACC gets you in by itself.

John wrote at 2/11/2010 10:22:22 AM
Penn State had an RPI 25 slots lower than Maryland as well as a SOS that was 45 spots lower. The statement to Penn State wasn't that you have to win big games in the non-conference: it was that you have to challenge yourself in the non-conference slate. And if Washington losing to #132 and #145 in the RPI aren't considered bad losses in your book, I just simply do not know what to say.

Matt wrote at 2/11/2010 9:59:26 AM
Looks like I started a worldwind of comments regarding MD. You can give us all the #'s you want supporting your argument of leaving MD out, but none of them would mean anything if the selection committie was making a bracket today. You can't overlook 6-2 in the ACC which is tied for 1st in the loss column. That alone will get you in, unless you had an absoulute disastrous OOC play. But the bottom line is they're 16-6 overall and regardles of who they did or did not beat OOC, or what their RPI is, that would get them in, plan and simple. I think you are overthinking this way too much in terms of different rankings and who beat who. The ACC may not be as dominant as in years past, but there are still 12 quality teams that can't beat most teams in the country on any given day, so to overlook what they're doing in conference play is a little ridiculous. The committee looks at what teams do in conference just as much as all the other factors you gave us, and right now that alone gives them the nod. About the A-10 vs. ACC, I will say it again "There is no way the A-10 gets more bids than the ACC" You can talk all you want about what teams are doing right now, it won't matter in 4 weeks. Eventually those A-10 teams will eliminate each other leaving at the absolute very most.......4 teams to get in. The ACC will have an absolute bear minimum of 5 teams in, with a more accurate prediciton of 6 or 7. Please refer back to this comment on Selection Sunday.........thank you

Chief wrote at 2/11/2010 3:32:53 AM
Out of 58 bracket projections tracked you are the only one that has the Terps out. http://bracketproject.50webs.com they /matrix.htm Maryland might go into a slump, especially with 4 conference games in 8 days starting Saturday, but to say that they are out as of now is way off. They are 9 in the country in the Pomeroy rating. http://kenpom.com/rate.php Maryland is 6-2 in conference and not many teams with a winning conference record in the ACC have not made the NCAAs since the field was expanded to 64/65. In addition, while Maryland's non-conference resume is not impressive, they also do not have a terrible non-conference loss either.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/11/2010 2:31:37 AM
Also, because of the change in guidelines that eliminated the use of the record in the last 12 games, the committee now considers a win in November the same as a win in February or March. Every game is weighted equally now, regardless of when it was played. They wanted to find a way to reward teams for playing quality non-conference schedules.

John wrote at 2/11/2010 2:00:51 AM
First off, a win in November is NOT the same as a win in February. It's why teams that go on runs to win conference tournaments end up getting a bump in the seeding, and why the committee uses record in the last 12 as part of its criteria. To treat a win in November the same is fundamentally wrong, because teams can be playing radically different. Secondly, you still haven't explained to me how Washington has a much better resume. You keep saying that Maryland has issues in its profile for having not won anything of note on the road, but Washington HAS NOT WON ON THE ROAD AT ALL. 4-5 isn't much to write home about, I'll give you. But 0-6? Come on. That is such a pox on their profile that the increased quality of their couple of top 50 wins is offset. Washington then also has, as I mentioned, five losses that are worse than Maryland's worse loss. William & Mary may not be as sexy of a name as USC or Arizona, but the numbers don't lie - at #55, it is a better loss than Washington's loss to #70 Arizona. Even if you want to argue that the William & Mary loss being at home makes it worse, it doesn't excuse Washington's AWFUL loss - at home - to #145 Oregon. As far as St. Mary's and UAB go, the BYU and Northern Iowa comparisons are flawed because they have something that the other two don't, namely really gaudy RPIs. I also fail to see UAB's second "solid win" - do you mean the win over Cincinnati? Because right now, both the RPI and your bracket say that Florida State - who Maryland has beaten twice - is a better win than beating Cincinnati. If you want to say that beating Cincinnati counts as "solid," that's fine, but don't in the same breath say that beating Florida State twice, including once outside of Maryland's home building, is a win over a "mediocre" team. Be consistent. I've got the same basic problem with Ole Miss. You say they have no bad losses, but they've lost games at home to Mississippi State and Arkansas, who are both lower-rated teams than William & Mary, Maryland's worst loss. You also say that they've got a better RPI, but you give Washington credit for having a similar RPI to Maryland. Washington's got an RPI of 53, Maryland an RPI of 45 and Ole Miss an RPI of 39. How is Ole Miss' computer profile so much better, but Washington's is similar? Even going off of the older numbers that you posted, Ole Miss is not so much further ahead that you can't call the RPIs similar if you're going to call Washington's similar. The fact is that right now, you're basically just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks. You're punishing teams for losing to teams that aren't as bad as you think they are, not punishing teams for losing to teams that are worse than you think they are (Kent State is UAB's worst loss? You might want to check that again), and giving greatly differing amounts of credit for beating different teams based on criteria that nobody can decipher. On top of that, you don't seem to understand how the committee does what it does (I didn't even mention the fact that on at least three different occasions, you broke the NCAA's bracketing principles), and that goes beyond my belief that Maryland should be in the field. I'm no expert, I'll give you that. The difference is that I realize that I also don't claim to be an expert when I'm clearly not one.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/11/2010 12:29:00 AM
That's all the info below. Maryland doesn't have more quality wins than any of those teams and they only have more quality road/neutral wins than Washington, who has 2 more quality wins overall and a similar RPI and better SOS and the same top 50 wins. While St. Mary's and UAB may have weak schedules, they have taken care of business, much like BYU and Northern Iowa, who also have terrific overall and conference records but haven't beaten many quality teams. UAB has a much better RPI than Maryland and has two solid wins, including one over a top 20 team. Ole Miss has no bad losses, a better RPI, and a neutral win over KSU. It doesn't matter when it was. The committee looks at resumes as a whole. A win in November is equal to a win in February. Maryland hasn't beaten any high quality teams, especially away from home. They need a win over Duke or a couple solid road wins over teams like Clemson, Wake, etc. I have them as the second team out right now, so it's not like they aren't right there. There are many teams with similar resumes right now and it will come down to which teams separate themselves with quality wins, especially on the road, and no bad losses down the stretch.

Fredterp444 wrote at 2/10/2010 11:34:33 PM
Maryland is 6-2 in the ACC. This is TIED for FIRST PLACE in the loss column. I am highly amused that you even think Maryland is ON THE BUBBLE let alone out of the tournament. You are OUT ON A LIMB if you think the Terps are not currently worthy of a bid. My successful SON who is a CEO for a FORTUNE 500 company is also an amateur BRACKETOLOGIST in his spare time and he ASSURES me that the TERPS are COMFORTABLY in the field if the season ended TODAY. The biggest reason: TEAMWORK. Are you by any chance related to ALEXTERP?

Joey wrote at 2/10/2010 11:03:17 PM
LOL at you if you think Maryland would be out of the field. They would be an 8 or 9 seed right now and comfortably in. There are probably 15 teams below them in the pecking order right now. They could lose their next two games and still be in the field relatively easily. This is the worst bracket I have ever seen. Though at least you don't have four CAA teams anymore. Change of heart on William & Mary, huh? LOL. I'll make sure to check this throughout the year just to laugh at how horrible a bracketologist you are and I will be interested to see how off you are on Selection Sunday.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/9/2010 2:32:44 PM
That 31st ranking you're looking at was our preseason previews. Maryland only has 1 quality road win, over FSU. They lost at home to William & Mary. Other than that, they haven't done anything spectacular other than beat some mediocre or bad teams. They are very close to being in, but their 47 RPI and 2-4 record vs. the top 50 doesn't get it done. Yes, if they finish 11-5 in the ACC, they will get in because that would mean they pick up a few more quality wins. They have three tough road games left and they need to win at least one of them. They also can't lose to NC State. And the A-10 vs. ACC argument is irrelevant. When I or the selection committee evaluate the teams, the conference has nothing to do with it. If you want to tell me why an ACC team has a better resume than an A-10 team, go ahead and I'll have that argument with you. But it doesn't work to just say that the ACC should get more teams than the A-10. Richmond, Xavier and Dayton all have better resumes right now than Maryland.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/8/2010 5:09:31 PM
It's hard to say because it depends what other bubble teams do. A win over St. John's isn't a quality win, so it doesn't help much. It's unlikely that I'll have them in after that but it's possible. They need a quality win desperately.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/7/2010 11:55:32 PM
That was last week. Seton Hall is in trouble now at 3-7 in the Big East. They need a lot of help. Louisville is very close but needs one more quality win. A pair of wins this week over St. John's and Syracuse would get them in and keep them there for a while. Even just beating St. John's might get them in, although it probably won't. Wins over DePaul and St. John's and going 2-1 against Notre Dame, UConn and Marquette may be enough to get them in. Adding in one win out of three games against Syracuse (x2) and Georgetown will definitely get them in.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/7/2010 11:44:46 AM
No team has gotten an at-large bid without beating a tournament team, and no team will. Cornell will not get an at-large bid. But if they finish 14-0 in the conference, they will be seeded among the at-large teams. The only way they could be considered for an at-large spot would obviously be if they didn't win the conference. And the only way they wouldn't would win the conference is if they lose a game. And if they lose a game to an Ivy team, it's going to drop them significantly. Understand? If the season ended today, they'd be 6-0. If they finish 14-0 and actually finish the job, that's much different. Plenty of teams have won six games in a row, but how many teams have won 14 in a row and finished undefeated in their conference? There's a huge difference.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/6/2010 11:33:02 PM
I'm not necessarily trying to say that the coaches don't know anything. I'm making the point that the polls and the selection committee are two very different animals. For example, UConn was ranked last week as #21. UConn isn't even a tournament team right now or at best a bubble team. But they are the 21st best team in the country? Absolutely not. Maybe the coaches believe so, but their resume is not the 21st best resume in the country. Cornell is ranked 25th this week, but they don't have the 25th best resume right now. Also, BYU is ranked 12th in both polls and New Mexico is only 23rd in the coaches poll. New Mexico definitely has a better resume than BYU, even before today's games, but somehow BYU is ranked 11 spots higher by the coaches. This makes no sense. These are examples of how the polls do not accurately reflect the seeding. Alod, RPI is not the only factor in seeding. It is only one component. If Cornell wins out and finishes 28-3 overall and 14-0 in the conference, trust me that they will be seeded higher than they are now. I know that I will and everyone else will seed them higher. It's about the total resume, and although they wouldn't have any great wins, like you said they wouldn't have any bad losses, and they would have proved they are legit by beating almost every team on their schedule. But one loss will really hurt them against an Ivy League team. They likely won't be able to get an at-large bid because that one loss that would lose them the league would really hurt, but running the table and finishing 27-3 (14-0) with their decent non-conference resume would be impressive enough to give them a better seed than a 12. It's hard to really explain everything, but I'm extremely confident that will happen.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/2/2010 9:29:26 AM
RPI is a combination of a team's record, its opponents' records, and its opponents' opponents' records. Their RPI has a good chance of improving for two reasons: If they win out, their RPI will improve. If their major conference opponents win games, their RPI will get better. And RPI isn't the only factor used for the selection process. It does hurt that they won't be facing any tournament teams, but another win over Harvard helps and any road wins they can get will help as well. If they finish 27-3 or something like that, trust me. Their resume will be improved and they will move up in the seeding. And yes, I am telling you that coaches are not involved in the selection process and do not rank teams based on resumes. Most of these coaches, just like the beat writers, don't see most teams play. Why do you think UConn was ranked last week when they are a bubble team right now? Rankings are totally irrelevant. Being ranked doesn't make a team get a better seed.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/1/2010 6:07:06 PM
JP: First of all, you have to understand that Top 25 rankings are not part of the selection process at all. They are never even brought up or discussed, so that is totally irrelevant. The large majority of Top 25 voters have no idea how the selection process works and which teams really have the best resumes. Most voters are just beat writers for certain teams and don't really understand the selection process and they don't base their rankings on that anyway. The Top 25 is irrelevant. And also, please understand that Cornell will get a much better seed in the NCAA tournament if it continues to win. If the Big Red finish 14-0 or 13-1 in the Ivy, which I anticipate they will, they will get a much better seed. I don't want to speculate, but I'm guessing it will be closer to an 8. But my bracket, as well as Lunardi's and other top bracketologists, is not a prediction of what WILL happen. It's a projection of what WOULD happen if the season ended today. With a 4-0 conference record and its resume as it stands, Cornell would be around a 12 seed. That's what would happen today. But what will happen on Selection Sunday? Who knows? If they are 14-0, like I said, their seed will be much better. But I'm not in the business of predicting the outcomes of games. I'm in the business of projecting the bracket as everything stands right now, and that's what this is.

Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/1/2010 3:07:18 PM
The guidelines that have to be followed that supersede the point below are that the first three teams from a conference must be placed in different regions and that teams that played during the season can't meet in the first round. After that, the next guideline to follow is to try to place teams from the same conference as far apart from each other as possible. Teams from the same conference will never meet in the second round (unless there are more than 8 teams in from the same conference, then it could happen) but they certainly can meet now in the Sweet 16.

88wildcat wrote at 2/1/2010 11:28:11 AM
Your St. Louis bracket doesn't work. You can't put both Kansas St. and Missouri on one side of the bracket. Teams from the same conference can not play each other before the regional final (Elite 8). Your scenario would put Kansas St. and Missouri on a path to meet each other in the Sweet 16.

altosax29b wrote at 1/25/2010 3:00:04 PM
How about NO bad losses, Seton Hall is on a straight path to being a tournament AND a Top 50 team, and losing AT Kansas by 5 leading most of the game? Oh yeah, the wins against Alabama and St. John's were both on the road. Haven't gotten beaten by more than 15 points with Syracuse and Kansas on the schedule. And Siena over Cornell? Really? Get a clue.

JP wrote at 1/24/2010 9:16:41 PM
It's unfortunate that you obviously don't spend much time with the higher seeds. Having Cornell as a 13 with ODU, W&M and Sienna at 11's is just silly. A quick look SOS, total record, RPI, Pomeroy rankings, Sagarin rankings, road/neutral wins; pretty much any metric/anlysis (not too mention actually seeing these teams play) makes those seeds unsuportable. Would be nice to find a nice comparison/competitor to Lunardi's bracket, but this is just one of the more obvious ways yours falls well short. Too bad.

Bulls Fan wrote at 1/18/2010 1:49:54 PM
How could you have Akron in over Buffalo? Buffalo just beat them by double digits yesterday.