This was a lot more fun when we were involved
ESPN Insider
Welcome back to the expanded edition of Joe Lunardi's Rundown. This series will feature tournament odds, an element that will take you deeper into Bracketology. Bracketology provides a snapshot of how the bracket looks on a specific day, but through the use of Lunardi's extensive database of previous seasons, tournament odds tell you how the bracket is likely to look come Selection Sunday.
Next update: March 2, 2015
It's time for one of those dreaded "blind résumé" comparisons, although it shouldn't take long to figure out which two teams we're talking about:
Category
Team A Team B
W-L 27-1 25-2
Polls 3/2 5/4
RPI/SOS 8/76 6/23
Nonconference RPI/SOS 5/14 8/17
BPI 4 3
Top 50 4-1 6-1
Team A, of course, is Gonzaga. The Bulldogs are currently No. 4 overall on our seed list and are squatting atop the NCAA bracket as the fourth and final No. 1 seed.
Team B is Wisconsin. The Badgers are a single Duke or Gonzaga loss from ascending to the top line and would be no worse than 50/50 to reside there now given the perfectly reasonable arguments in their favor.
Ultimately, my job is to tell you what the NCAA selection committee would do given a specific set of circumstances (as opposed to advocating for my own voting preferences). And this case, for now, is simply too close to call.
Every argument against the Zags comes down to conference affiliation, even though that item is specifically excluded as selection or seeding criteria by the committee. Every argument in Wisconsin's favor starts by excluding from its résumé the Kaminsky-less loss at Rutgers, which is a very realistic and likely discussion item when the committee convenes in two and a half weeks.
So the logic problem in my mind goes something like this:
• The teams are essentially even in terms of good wins, analytics and the especially unhelpful (at least in this case) "eye test."
• Gonzaga's one loss (in overtime at Arizona) is less damaging in my eyes than Wisconsin losing by 10 at home to Duke.
• The additional loss for Wisconsin (without Kaminsky) can't be completely ignored, just as a comparable Gonzaga defeat -- at Santa Clara, let's say, without Kyle Wiltjer or Kevin Pangos -- would be a major black mark.
Put it all together and ask yourself this question: If Wisconsin had only one loss (in overtime at a top-10 team) and Gonzaga had two, including one at Santa Clara without its best player, would we even be having this conversation? Of course not, as no one would question Wisconsin's top line spot in that evaluation.
As a branding and reputation question, the Badgers are the choice. As a logic problem, it's still Gonzaga by the thinnest hair of your head. And that hair gets even thinner if Wisconsin or another No. 2 seed wins out and piles up a high number of NCAA-level wins in the process.
But those things haven't happened yet. So for another day, the Zags are a No. 1 seed as a matter of both fact and logic (confirmed in our latest tourney odds chart below)...............
This post was edited on 2/24 8:37 AM by Halldan1
ESPN Insider
Welcome back to the expanded edition of Joe Lunardi's Rundown. This series will feature tournament odds, an element that will take you deeper into Bracketology. Bracketology provides a snapshot of how the bracket looks on a specific day, but through the use of Lunardi's extensive database of previous seasons, tournament odds tell you how the bracket is likely to look come Selection Sunday.
Next update: March 2, 2015
It's time for one of those dreaded "blind résumé" comparisons, although it shouldn't take long to figure out which two teams we're talking about:
Category
Team A Team B
W-L 27-1 25-2
Polls 3/2 5/4
RPI/SOS 8/76 6/23
Nonconference RPI/SOS 5/14 8/17
BPI 4 3
Top 50 4-1 6-1
Team A, of course, is Gonzaga. The Bulldogs are currently No. 4 overall on our seed list and are squatting atop the NCAA bracket as the fourth and final No. 1 seed.
Team B is Wisconsin. The Badgers are a single Duke or Gonzaga loss from ascending to the top line and would be no worse than 50/50 to reside there now given the perfectly reasonable arguments in their favor.
Ultimately, my job is to tell you what the NCAA selection committee would do given a specific set of circumstances (as opposed to advocating for my own voting preferences). And this case, for now, is simply too close to call.
Every argument against the Zags comes down to conference affiliation, even though that item is specifically excluded as selection or seeding criteria by the committee. Every argument in Wisconsin's favor starts by excluding from its résumé the Kaminsky-less loss at Rutgers, which is a very realistic and likely discussion item when the committee convenes in two and a half weeks.
So the logic problem in my mind goes something like this:
• The teams are essentially even in terms of good wins, analytics and the especially unhelpful (at least in this case) "eye test."
• Gonzaga's one loss (in overtime at Arizona) is less damaging in my eyes than Wisconsin losing by 10 at home to Duke.
• The additional loss for Wisconsin (without Kaminsky) can't be completely ignored, just as a comparable Gonzaga defeat -- at Santa Clara, let's say, without Kyle Wiltjer or Kevin Pangos -- would be a major black mark.
Put it all together and ask yourself this question: If Wisconsin had only one loss (in overtime at a top-10 team) and Gonzaga had two, including one at Santa Clara without its best player, would we even be having this conversation? Of course not, as no one would question Wisconsin's top line spot in that evaluation.
As a branding and reputation question, the Badgers are the choice. As a logic problem, it's still Gonzaga by the thinnest hair of your head. And that hair gets even thinner if Wisconsin or another No. 2 seed wins out and piles up a high number of NCAA-level wins in the process.
But those things haven't happened yet. So for another day, the Zags are a No. 1 seed as a matter of both fact and logic (confirmed in our latest tourney odds chart below)...............
This post was edited on 2/24 8:37 AM by Halldan1
