This bracket does not take into consideration any games that were played on or after Monday, January 17th (MLK Day)
We do several types of brackets here at Hoops HD, and I want to make sure everyone understands what kind of a bracket this is. This IS NOT me trying to guess what the Selection Committee will do on Selection Sunday, nor is it me trying to make suppositions as to what the Selection Committee would do if the season ended today. If you want to see one of those CLICK HERE to check out Jon Teitel’s most recent bracket. He is an expert at guessing the committee.
This is simply my own bracket. In some cases I’m not even using the same criteria that the actual committee uses. I’m merely selecting and seeding the teams based on how good I personally think they are and how deserving I personally believe them to be.
Another thing that you need to understand is that, like all my other brackets, this bracket is absolutely perfect. No one should have any issues with it at all!! If you disagree with something, then you must be wrong because there is no way that I the one that’s wrong!!
I have some comments below, and then Chad Sherwood also has some comments. There are things that Chad will not agree with. Just remember that anything he says that contradicts what I have done is absolutely wrong!!
OTHERS CONSIDERED: Cincinnati, Northwestern, Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Texas A&M, Stanford, Florida State, Mississippi State, Dayton
COMMENTS FROM DAVID:
-Baylor lost twice at home this week, but they are still my #1 team overall. I look at a team’s entire body of work and try not to overreact to recency bias. That, and if there is one team that I would pick to beat all the others no matter who they were matched up against, it’s still Baylor.
-North Carolina is not in. That is not an oversight. They have done nothing to warrant inclusion. Not only that, the Tar Heels really don’t even look that good all that often. Ohio U’s resume isn’t great, but at least they look good when you watch them play. North Carolina doesn’t. The only reason I think so many other prognosticators are taking them is because of the one thing about North Carolina’s resume that does impress them, and that’s the name of the school at the top of the page.
-By the way, speaking of Ohio U, they are on my #12 line, but they are sandwiched in between the my First Four teams, so they are inside my bubble.
-Indiana is under consideration, but not in my field. They do have some decent credentials and have been playing a little better, but they have no true road wins. We are in to the second half of January. I cannot select a team that doesn’t have at least one true road win at this point in the season.
-Oregon went from not even being on my board to being way inside my bubble. Funny how much better a team looks after winning back-to-back road games against USC and UCLA.
OTHER STAFF COMMENTS:
From Chad:
– Although Auburn has the best resume now and not Baylor, David correctly has both on his 1 line so I will not complain about that too much. Instead, I have a serious issue with Duke as a 1 seed. The Blue Devils have one true road win and have a weak home loss to Miami. I will take Kansas, Wisconsin, Villanova or Arizona over them any day. In fact, there is a better case for Duke being a 3 seed than a 1.
– The rest of David’s protected seeds are acceptable, but he has lost his mind on the 6 line. Creighton and Iowa are both NCAA Tournament teams, but WAY over-seeded here. Creighton has a very good win over Villanova, but it was at home. They also have a horrible home loss to Arizona State. If you were to say those two cancel each other out, then all they have done is beaten BYU and Marquette. I just need to see more to get them above the 8/9 realm. Iowa is a complete joke as a 6 sed. They Hawkeyes have *ZERO* wins against anyone that David put in his field. This is a 10 or 11 seed team.
– Oklahoma has lost back-to-back games and now has a very questionable resume. The Sooners have only one true road win (at UCF) and only one win against a team clearly in the field (home vs Iowa State). Add in a bad home loss to Butler and OU is closer to the First Four than a top 8 seed in my opinion.
– I agree that the Oregon Ducks’ amazing week has them in the field as of right now, but David clearly overreacted with a 9 seed. The win at UCLA was great. The win at USC might not be much at the end of the day because the Trojans simply do not look good at all right now. Plus they need to make up for a few bad losses.
– Even worse than USC on the 9 line is Florida. THE GATORS DO NOT BELONG IN THE FIELD AT ALL. They beat Ohio State on a neutral court and did NOTHING ELSE GOOD. They did plenty bad, however, including losing at home to Texas Southern and on a neutral court to Maryland. Florida has a chance to get into the discussion still, but I would have them as my 8th team out right now. Quite frankly, having them as a 9 seed should disqualify David from ever making a bracket again.
– West Virginia as a 10 seed? They is 3-4 seed lines too low for a team with no bad losses and wins over Uconn, at UAB, and at home over Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Oakland. I cannot find any resumes on David’s 7 line or lower that I clearly like better than West Virginia’s.
– I understand leaving North Carolina and Indiana out, though I would have had both in my field. Boise State is not an awful selection, but Wyoming just does not have a marquee win that makes me believe in them. They won at Grand Canyon and at Utah State, but neither team is even Under Consideration. I would have taken Texas A&M over them. The Aggies have won 8 in a row and at least beat an Arkansas team that David (actually rightfully in my opinion) has in his First Four. Even picking St. Bonaventure here would have probably been better.
– All in all, I could say that David did a decent job, but I would be lying. His inclusion of Florida on the 9 line and placement of Iowa on the 6 line are flat-out inexcusable. Please disregard all future brackets he posts and comments he makes. He clearly needs to find another sport to follow.
