Gregmcmorrow... I'm not sure what you're asking. Can you be more specific? Pete

Gregmcmorrow... I'm not sure what you're asking. Can you be more specific? Pete

Anyone have any thoughts on Siena and Purdue?

I like Purdue but without Hummel....

Anyone have any thoughts on Siena and Purdue? I like Purdue but without Hummel....

The #5 and #6 seeds may be the first ones to go down....it wouldn't surprise me if a #2 fell in the first round....I am cautions about all of the love Ohio State is getting....they look very careless with the ball and a pressing team or team with size could give them trouble....

The #5 and #6 seeds may be the first ones to go down....it wouldn't surprise me if a #2 fell in the first round....I am cautions about all of the love Ohio State is getting....they look very careless with the ball and a pressing team or team with size could give them trouble....

We've been hearing for weeks how this is the worst group of bubble teams we've ever seen. A sentiment that was repeated by everyone on espn yesterday after the bracket was released. While they may feel right based on the "eye test," it would appear from an efficiency standpoint this year is actually better than they average year.

We've been hearing for weeks how this is the worst group of bubble teams we've ever seen. A sentiment that was repeated by everyone on espn yesterday after the bracket was released. While they may feel right based on the "eye test," it would appear from an efficiency standpoint this year is actually better than they average year.

why don't you update the braket, it is still last years......what are we paying for?

why don't you update the braket, it is still last years......what are we paying for?

Interesting stuff.

The 8- 9 being better impact may not be very high if the #1 seeds are about as good as normal.

However, the 10, 11, and 12 seeds being strong does.

If a good 10 gets into a game with a poor 2 seed that could mean trouble.

and some 6 and 3 seeds could be in trouble against 11's(wait, in 2006 George Mason was an 11) and some 5 seeds against 5 seeds and 4 seeds.

Very interesting. So which of those 10 through 12 seeds are the best Pete? ... more » « less

Interesting stuff. The 8- 9 being better impact may not be very high if the #1 seeds are about as good as normal. However, the 10, 11, and 12 seeds being strong does. If a good 10 gets into a game with a poor 2 seed that could mean trouble. and some 6 and 3 seeds could be in trouble against 11's(wait, in 2006 George Mason was an 11) and some 5 seeds against 5 seeds and 4 seeds. Very interesting. So which of those 10 through 12 seeds are the best Pete?

:

About a month back, I started comparing the top 32 ranked teams based on Ken Pomeroy's efficiency data to the average of the top 32 ranked teams over the previous six tourneys. What I found was that the higher performing teams this year were weaker on average than previous elite teams, while the lesser squads were better. I promised back then that I'd do the analysis on the actual teams that made the dance- - and extend the comparison out to 52 teams. That would cover the squads that are theoretically seeded one through 13. Here's what I discovered"

<IMG SRC=/ blog/ 10pyth_ comp.gif>

Pretty dang telling. The four highest ranked teams (those falling into the column with the orange "1") are comparable to the the average top four from the 2004 through 2009 tourneys. But then the two, three, four and five "seed" groupings are considerably weaker than in past dances.

The six and seven grouping are pretty much the same- - and then we see a dramatic shift. From the 29th team all the way through the 49th team, theoretically the set of squads seeded eight through 12, this year's field is stronger than past fields. That's particularly true for the 10, 11 and 12 seed groupings.

Everyone has been saying that this dance will be more wide open than the recent tourneys. This chart quantifies it. If 10- 12 seeds are stronger than 2- 6 seeds, what does that say about opening round matchups like the 5v12 and 6v11 tilts...or second round tilts like 2v7, 2v10, 4v12, 5v13 and 3v11. Can't wait to find out. ... more » « less

: About a month back, I started comparing the top 32 ranked teams based on Ken Pomeroy's efficiency data to the average of the top 32 ranked teams over the previous six tourneys. What I found was that the higher performing teams this year were weaker on average than previous elite teams, while the lesser squads were better. I promised back then that I'd do the analysis on the actual teams that made the dance- - and extend the comparison out to 52 teams. That would cover the squads that are theoretically seeded one through 13. Here's what I discovered" <IMG SRC=/ blog/ 10pyth_ comp.gif> Pretty dang telling. The four highest ranked teams (those falling into the column with the orange "1") are comparable to the the average top four from the 2004 through 2009 tourneys. But then the two, three, four and five "seed" groupings are considerably weaker than in past dances. The six and seven grouping are pretty much the same- - and then we see a dramatic shift. From the 29th team all the way through the 49th team, theoretically the set of squads seeded eight through 12, this year's field is stronger than past fields. That's particularly true for the 10, 11 and 12 seed groupings. Everyone has been saying that this dance will be more wide open than the recent tourneys. This chart quantifies it. If 10- 12 seeds are stronger than 2- 6 seeds, what does that say about opening round matchups like the 5v12 and 6v11 tilts...or second round tilts like 2v7, 2v10, 4v12, 5v13 and 3v11. Can't wait to find out.