Bracketology - week of Mar 2 thru 15 | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Bracketology - week of Mar 2 thru 15

typhaon said:
Committee can consider whatever they want, but when it comes down to 2 teams that are close, I think that if head-to-head is on the table, it should be the #1 consideration.

Doesn't mean I'd leave ASU out, but BYU > ASU.
Expand ...
I definitely see that line of reasoning. Thank God Richmond's on the bottom and Nebraska barely above them. So in my view BYU should push one of those out, in spite of the view that the big 12 is a pathetic conference whose coaches tend to schedule Lame I think Nebraska prior to soiling themselves in the tournament in the first round against Indiana had lost six out of seven. So they were staggering.

Richmond spider loss in their tournament was equally embarrassing to the Husker tournament debacle.
 

Attachments

  • 1000003184.jpg
    1000003184.jpg
    162.5 KB · Views: 86
Last edited:
For those of you who like to pursue the whole bracket, here's last night's late update:

www.espn.com

Women's Bracketology: How the committee's top-16 reveal rippled through the field

Saturday, the committee revealed the top-16 teams that will host early round games. North Carolina moved in.
www.espn.com

With Selection Sunday just days away and all the top teams in the country finished playing and waiting to find out their NCAA tournament fate, movement in the bracket will be minimal. The No. 1 seeds -- UConn, UCLA, Texas, South Carolina -- are set. The only debate might be their order. The top-16 to determine which teams will host first- and second-round games in the NCAA tournament also won’t have any movement. West Virginia’s Big 12 tournament title looks to have given the Mountaineers that coveted final spot. Even the bubble has held steady -- though it is still awaiting Ivy Madness this weekend. If Princeton does not win the bd, the Ivy likely gets a second team in the field, bumping a current bubble team. (Richmond and Nebraska should not rest easy.) Three more teams punched their tickets on Tuesday with Green Bay (Horizon), Gonzaga (WCC) and Colorado State (MWC) all earning bids.​

No change to the four groups:

LAST FOUR BYES (Last teams to skip the First Four round) - Iowa State, USC, Colorado, Clemson
LAST FOUR IN (Last teams to make the field overall) - Virginia, Arizona St, Nebraska, Richmond
FIRST FOUR OUT (Teams ranked 69-72 that missed the cut) - BYU, Utah, N Dakota St, Texas A&M
NEXT FOUR OUT (Teams ranked 73-76 that missed the cut) - Mississippi St, Stanford, Kansas St, Indiana
 
Can't wait for Sunday. So I asked AI what the possibility was of a ASU versus Nebraska play in game. Hey I indicated around 11% with a possibility of the game is in LA.

But there's a 15% chance the game would be in Durham.

So the overwhelming prediction is they will not play.

So now I have to reconsider my advocacy for BYU. Lol
 
Whew! Nebraska and Richmond fans are going to be so NERVOUS heading into Ivy Madness. 😭 😭 😭 😭 😭
 
2026 WCBB NCAAT Bracketology Teams by Overall Seeding:
  • Number in () is the NET on the day on/before the Bracketology date.
  • AQ next to Conference Affiliation means “Automatic Qualifier” for a Conference.
  • AQ next to team name means that team has “punched its ticket” as an actual Auto Qualifier.
IMG_0285.jpeg
 
NCAA Dashboard (3/10/2026) appended to ESPN Bracketology (3/10/2026) to provide insight on:
  • (a) the Hypothesis Testing continuum of the 37 At-Large (Type &1 = 2) Qualifiers;
  • (b) the 68-team Bracketed S-Curve (Overall Seed (OSeed)).
The NCAA procedures for (a), S-Curve and (b) are here.

&1 Type = 1 (Automatic Qualifier) and 2 (At-large Qualifier). “AQ” next to team name means that team has “punched its ticket” as an actual Auto Qualifier.

IMG_0280.jpeg


Top 20 Overall Seed | Remaining Schedule
By Conference Bids: Conference Standings | Conference Tournaments

IMG_0284.jpeg
 
.-.
This is great analysis. You might want to trademark "Threshold Rejections" and become a pundit. 😁

You make a nice case for Tenn, U$C, Nebraska and my fave bubble/threshold team this year ASU.

Will be interesting to compare yours with Creme and the committee. I would guess y'all bat 67 of 68 and hope ASU is not the miss.
 
packwrap said:
This is great analysis. You might want to trademark "Threshold Rejections" and become a pundit. 😁

You make a nice case for Tenn, U$C, Nebraska and my fave bubble/threshold team this year ASU.

Will be interesting to compare yours with Creme and the committee. I would guess y'all bat 67 of 68 and hope ASU is not the miss.
Expand ...
The Bracketology above is not mine.
  • They are Creme’s March 10th Bracketology.
  • In the first post, I flattened the disparate Bracketologies (Creme’s, HerHoopStats’ Megan Gauer and the Selection Committee’s Top 16 reveals) for comparison.
  • The “Threshold Rejections” are Creme’s (Overall Seed 69-76); I’ve added 4 more based on NET.
I’ve appended the published NCAA Dashboard (some of the factors the Selection Committee is supposed to consider) to give context to the decisions the Committee has to make (37 At-Large, S-Curve and Bracketed S-Curve).
 
NycUcWbbFan said:
NCAA Dashboard (3/10/2026) appended to ESPN Bracketology (3/10/2026) to provide insight on:
  • (a) the Hypothesis Testing continuum of the 37 At-Large (Type &1 = 2) Qualifiers;
  • (b) the 68-team Bracketed S-Curve (Overall Seed (OSeed)).
The NCAA procedures for (a), S-Curve and (b) are here.

&1 Type = 1 (Automatic Qualifier) and 2 (At-large Qualifier). “AQ” next to team name means that team has “punched its ticket” as an actual Auto Qualifier.

View attachment 118066

Top 20 Overall Seed | Remaining Schedule
By Conference Bids: Conference Standings | Conference Tournaments

View attachment 118067
Expand ...
Thanks for bringing this together. As an ASU fan it is nerve-racking.

At one point I'd seen bracketology that showed ASU playing Nebraska. After reviewing the material you've assembled it appears that's not going to happen. Also it appears my anxiety and tension level should rise significantly. Based upon what I'm seeing I think if I were on the committee I would give the nod to BYU by virtue of their head to head against that ASU

I know that there is considerable energy and thought invested in the statistical analysis it certainly seems to me that recency before the tournament as well as performance within the conference tournament should also have some weight. I say that because both advantage ASU over Richmond, Nebraska and BYU.

I will say this. Speculation before the reveal is a real positive for fans. Over the past 3 years I've not had a horse in the race.
 
azfan said:
Thanks for bringing this together. As an ASU fan it is nerve-racking.

At one point I'd seen bracketology that showed ASU playing Nebraska. After reviewing the material you've assembled it appears that's not going to happen. Also it appears my anxiety and tension level should rise significantly. Based upon what I'm seeing I think if I were on the committee I would give the nod to BYU by virtue of their head to head against that ASU

I know that there is considerable energy and thought invested in the statistical analysis it certainly seems to me that recency before the tournament as well as performance within the conference tournament should also have some weight. I say that because both advantage ASU over Richmond, Nebraska and BYU.

I will say this. Speculation before the reveal is a real positive for fans. Over the past 3 years I've not had a horse in the race.
Expand ...
Not sure if it will help with your anxiety, but I think Arizona St. >> BYU.
The () are NET and Torvik’s T-Rank. They are mostly the same for most teams, but Torvik does some adjustments, which is why Arizona St.’s T-Rank is much better than NET, which will be evident to the Selection Committee.
  • Though their NETs are similar, they have different resumes, so the head to head will not become a factor.
  • BYU’s resume is fluffed by its dominant cupcake early season OOC wins;
  • Sure, Arizona St. has won all of its Quad 4 games (unlike BYU which lost to NET 109 Cincinnati on 2/17) but not in such fluffed way.
  • This is exposed by Torvik as he does certain adjustments (explained here) (recency bias and dwindled blowout wins).
  • Torvik’s T-Rank is part of the Selection Committee’s dashboard (team sheets).
It also helps that Arizona St. has 1 Quad 1 win (vs. 0 for BYU).
  • Aside from that head-to-head, every other factor is favorable to ASU (NET, overall record, significant win, significant loss, WAB, T-Rank).
IMG_0291.jpeg
 
NycUcWbbFan said:
Not sure if it will help with your anxiety, but I think Arizona St. >> BYU.
The () are NET and Torvik’s T-Rank. They are mostly the same for most teams, but Torvik does some adjustments, which is why Arizona St.’s T-Rank is much better than NET, which will be evident to the Selection Committee.
  • Though their NETs are similar, they have different resumes, so the head to head will not become a factor.
  • BYU’s resume is fluffed by its dominant cupcake early season OOC wins;
  • Sure, Arizona St. has won all of its Quad 4 games (unlike BYU which lost to NET 109 Cincinnati on 2/17) but not in such fluffed way.
  • This is exposed by Torvik as he does certain adjustments (explained here) (recency bias and dwindled blowout wins).
  • Torvik’s T-Rank is part of the Selection Committee’s dashboard (team sheets).
It also helps that Arizona St. has 1 Quad 1 win (vs. 0 for BYU).
  • Aside from that head-to-head, every other factor is favorable to ASU (NET, overall record, significant win, significant loss, WAB, T-Rank).
View attachment 118127
Expand ...
Amazing work and analysis! And THANK YOU. This past week has been reminiscent of the week before Christmas when I was a young lad.
 
.-.
azfan said:
Amazing work and analysis! And THANK YOU. This past week has been reminiscent of the week before Christmas when I was a young lad.
Expand ...
I don't think there's a fan on this board more deserving of experiencing some success more than you. I'm hoping Arizona State makes the field and makes you proud (just as long as NC State isn't involved). If Molly Miller can take out Courtney Banghart in that cavernous gym in Chapel Hill, I would be forever grateful.
 
Updated grid to reflect the top 16 reveal, and what Charlie did with the remaining teams.
www.espn.com

Women's Bracketology: How the committee's top-16 reveal rippled through the field

Saturday, the committee revealed the top-16 teams that will host early round games. North Carolina moved in.
www.espn.com
​
On Saturday, the committee released the top 16 teams in the NCAA bracket in alphabetical order. Their seed and regional placement won’t be released until Sunday (8 p.m. ET, ESPN). The takeaway from Saturday’s news is that late-season and Champ Week results mattered. North Carolina and West Virginia -- neither of which were included in the NCAA’s Feb. 14 or March 1 top-16 reveals -- made it in when it counts most. First- and second-round NCAA tournament games will be in Chapel Hill and West Virginia. They won’t be hosted by Kentucky, Maryland or Michigan State. The Wildcats were just outside of the top 16 all season. The Terrapins and Spartans were in both earlier reveals but stumbled during Champ Week. Neither won a game in the Big Ten tournament, which appears to have cost them.​
1773526208991.jpeg
 
Who can tell me why Creme has Oklahoma paired with fellow SEC team Texas? Why wouldn't WVU and Oklahoma be switched?
 
The NCAA announced the 16 sub-regional host sites:

The 16 teams that will host are, in alphabetical order: Duke, Iowa, Louisville, LSU, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio State, Oklahoma, South Carolina, TCU, Texas, UCLA, UConn, Vanderbilt and West Virginia.

www.espn.com

UNC, WVU make top 16, to host women's tournament games

The top 16 seeds of the women's NCAA tournament were announced Saturday, with both North Carolina and West Virginia making the cut.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
 
southie said:
The NCAA announced the 16 sub-regional host sites:

The 16 teams that will host are, in alphabetical order: Duke, Iowa, Louisville, LSU, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio State, Oklahoma, South Carolina, TCU, Texas, UCLA, UConn, Vanderbilt and West Virginia.

www.espn.com

UNC, WVU make top 16, to host women's tournament games

The top 16 seeds of the women's NCAA tournament were announced Saturday, with both North Carolina and West Virginia making the cut.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Expand ...
Minny and Michigan are hosting. Love it!! Let's pack the Barn!!
Dave Chappelle Prince GIF
 
.-.
southie said:
Who can tell me why Creme has Oklahoma paired with fellow SEC team Texas? Why wouldn't WVU and Oklahoma be switched?
Expand ...
Are you referring to the rule:
"By bracketing rules, the first four teams from a conference must be placed in different regions."

If so, South Carolina, Texas, LSU and Vanderbilt the first four teams from the SEC and are in different regions. Oklahoma is the fifth team from that conference.
 
Not that it matters since the NCAA Brackets will be revealed tonight, but Creme (ESPN Bracketology) made a small mistake.
  • He listed UC San Diego (Big West AQ) twice.
  • He omitted Western Ill. (OVC AQ)
 
2026 WCBB NCAAT Bracketology Teams by Overall Seeding:
  • Number in () is the NET on the day on/before the Bracketology date.
  • AQ next to Conference Affiliation means “Automatic Qualifier” for a Conference.
  • AQ next to team name means that team has “punched its ticket” as an actual Auto Qualifier.
IMG_0300.jpeg
 
NCAA Dashboard (3/14/2026) appended to ESPN Bracketology (3/14/2026) to provide insight on:
  • (a) the Hypothesis Testing continuum of the 37 At-Large (Type &1 = 2) Qualifiers;
  • (b) the 68-team Bracketed S-Curve (Overall Seed (OSeed)).
The NCAA procedures for (a), S-Curve and (b) are here.

&1 Type = 1 (Automatic Qualifier) and 2 (At-large Qualifier). “AQ” next to team name means that team has “punched its ticket” as an actual Auto Qualifier.

IMG_0298.jpeg


Top 20 Overall Seed | Remaining Schedule
By Conference Bids: Conference Standings | Conference Tournaments

IMG_0299.jpeg
 
The last ESPN bracketology head ASU as one of the last four in playing Virginia in Norman Oklahoma... a 16 hour drive from Flagstaff

Let's hope that holds. And like all fans I'm super demanding I would love to see iASU play Nebraska in LA... The closest site for me.
 
Heard something interesting in the men's bracket Selection Show which I had not heard before; the overall #5 seed cannot be paired with the overall #1 seed; that would imply it is regardless of those other intra-conference rules we've been discussing here for days.

Don't believe I've heard that rule mentioned as applicable in the women's tourney guidelines.
 
.-.
southie said:
Heard something interesting in the men's bracket Selection Show which I had not heard before; the overall #5 seed cannot be paired with the overall #1 seed; that would imply it is regardless of those other intra-conference rules we've been discussing here for days.

Don't believe I've heard that rule mentioned as applicable in the women's tourney guidelines.
Expand ...
I agree, I haven't heard that restriction. In theory there is nothing that absolutely requires men's and women's rules have to be identical, but it's been my impression that they were largely in sync.

One thing I've been thinking about a lot lately is that the intra-conference restrictions have always been a minor annoyance, but with the conference realignment, the biggest conferences are getting even more teams in and that makes those rules come into play more often.

It occurred to me that I have a sense of the distribution of teams for the women but not so much for the men so I looked it up for the top two conferences:

Women
Big Ten 12, SEC 10

Men
SEC 14 Big Ten 8

Interesting to see that while for the men it's much more heavily weighted to the SEC, in both cases there are 22 teams in the top two conferences. Of course, the major restrictions apply to the top four seeds and I checked how that compares men versus women, but we are definitely seeing a number of situations where teams have to be moved from the natural S-curve location, either changing seed lines or changing venue which affects who can play whom. I won't be surprised if we run into a situation where the rules are impossible to meet and/or they have to invoke a meta rule which tells him what to do when rules collide.

I won't be surprised if this in history in the rule you mentioned – I'm betting there was a circumstance where either the selection committee had the number one versus the number five overall, and the feedback resulted in a rule that they would never do that again, or was an early proposal and slapped down.
 
Phil said:
I agree, I haven't heard that restriction. In theory there is nothing that absolutely requires men's and women's rules have to be identical, but it's been my impression that they were largely in sync.

One thing I've been thinking about a lot lately is that the intra-conference restrictions have always been a minor annoyance, but with the conference realignment, the biggest conferences are getting even more teams in and that makes those rules come into play more often.

It occurred to me that I have a sense of the distribution of teams for the women but not so much for the men so I looked it up for the top two conferences:

Women
Big Ten 12, SEC 10

Men
SEC 14 Big Ten 8

Interesting to see that while for the men it's much more heavily weighted to the SEC, in both cases there are 22 teams in the top two conferences. Of course, the major restrictions apply to the top four seeds and I checked how that compares men versus women, but we are definitely seeing a number of situations where teams have to be moved from the natural S-curve location, either changing seed lines or changing venue which affects who can play whom. I won't be surprised if we run into a situation where the rules are impossible to meet and/or they have to invoke a meta rule which tells him what to do when rules collide.

I won't be surprised if this in history in the rule you mentioned – I'm betting there was a circumstance where either the selection committee had the number one versus the number five overall, and the feedback resulted in a rule that they would never do that again, or was an early proposal and slapped down.
Expand ...

It is really tough to keep up with the frequent rule changes. To me, it seems like the women's bracketology rules eventually catch up to the men's bracketology rules, but it may take a year or two to adopt them.

I thought the men's team had a rule which tried to keep the Top 16 teams in their "natural" geographic region as long as the bracket was "balanced" and avoided those intra-conference pairings. Obviously, the men still have four regionals, while the women only have two regionals. So, a 2-seed Houston gets to be placed in the hometown Houston Regional opposite 1-see Florida advantage 2-seed. Similarly, 2-seed UConn gets to be placed in the Philadelphia Regional opposite 1-seed Duke. And, it even worked out for 2-seed Iowa State being placed in the St. Louis Regional opposite 1-seed Michigan; advantage 2-seed.
 
Here are Creme's results from his last projection vs the official bracket:

Seed and region - 18
Seed only - 24
Seed guessed too high - 16
Seed guessed too low - 6
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,223
Messages
4,558,021
Members
10,443
Latest member
StatsMan


Top Bottom