Second chance

Last year, I put together the probabilites of several interesting results prior to the Sweet 16 based on Nate Silver's intial attempt at forecasting March Madness for the New York Times' FiveThirtyEight blog. Mr. Silver used a combination of computer power rankings and seeds, with adjustments for geography, injury, and other factors, to generate probabilities for each team reaching a particular round in the bracket.

I didn't have time to do this before Thursday night's games, but there are still some interesting outcomes to consider.

These all assume the outcome of each region is independent. I think my math is right, but feel free to correct me if you notice anything wrong.

44.9% probability of a #1 seed winning the championship

18 champs have been #1 seeds - most since seeding began in 1979

11.0% probability of three #1 seeds in the Final Four

Three or more #1 seeds have made it four times since seeding began

12.2% probability of no #1 seeds in the Final Four

A #1-free Final Four has happened three times since seeding began, including last season

16.5% probability of a Kentucky vs. Ohio State final

The most likely championship game pairing

31.5% probability of #2 seed winning the championship

Six champs have been #2 seeds - second most since seeding began

4.3% probability of #3 seed (Baylor) winning the championship

Last year's champion (UConn) was a #3 seed.

0.8% probability of #10 seed or lower winning

Villanova (#8 seed) in 1985 is the lowest seed to win the championship

34.8% probability of all-SEC Final Four matchup (Kentucky vs. Florida)

There has never been an all-SEC Final Four game, despite ten championships between three teams

8.8% probability of both remaining Big 12 teams making the Final Four

More likely, there is an 44.7% chance neither will

2.3% probability of all-Big East final (Louisville vs. Syracuse)

Would be the first since Villanova defeated Georgetown in 1985.

0% probability of a rematch of last year's UConn/Butler championship game

A championship game rematch has not happened since 1961 and 1962 (Cincinnati defeated Ohio State both years)

8.9% probability of a rematch of the 2007 Florida/Ohio State championship game

15.8% probability of a rematch (in the semifinals) of the 2003 Syracuse/Kansas championship game (in New Orleans)

6.3% probability of a rematch of the 1996 Kentucky/Syracuse championship game

0.7% probability of a rematch of the 1987 Indiana/Syracuse championship game (in New Orleans)

1.2% probability of a rematch of the 1981 Indiana/North Carolina championship game

2012 Sweet 16 NEM Preview

Power rating systems like Pomeroy's and Sagarin's distill a team's season-long performance into one number. Sometimes one number isn't enough to gauge how well a team is playing recently or to understand the ebbs and flows encountered by all teams.

Several years ago, I unveiled net efficiency margin, or NEM, as a way to measure a team's game-by-game performance on a tempo-free, opponent-adjusted basis. NEM is derived from Ken Pomeroy's adjusted efficiency numbers. Charting NEM over the course of a season shows the "shape" of a team's season in a way that a single number or even a table of numbers can't.

Let's look at the teams remainig in each region to find some hidden nuggets that might not be obvious in the season power ratings. All charts show five-game running averages to smooth out the normal game-to-game noise. Remember that NEM inherents the strengths and weaknesses of Pomeroy's system.

South Regional

When Kentucky peaked, they peaked, but they've dropped off noticably over the last several games. I'd still take them to win the South, but the gap between the Cats and Indiana and Baylor isn't as large as it was several weeks ago. Perhaps, that's why...

East Regional

Ohio State just took over the #1 spot in the Pomeroy ratings, and the Buckeyes are the only team with clear NEM separation over their regionmates. Wisconsin is closest to the Buckeyes (though some of that may be the Pomeroy system's affinity for the Badgers, so an all B1G regional final wouldn't be a surprise.

Midwest Regional

Nobody outside of the Dean E. Smith Center knows the (Kendall) Marshall Plan, so assessing the Heels' chances in St. Louis is tricky. Their Triangle neighbor NC State may be playing the best right now of all four Midwest teams. The Wolfpacks' NEM trendline just converged with North Carolina's, and Kansas has been trending downward since late February. At the very best, the Heels will have a limited Marshall running the show, so the first Wolfpack berth in the Final Four since the Jimmy V era isn't as far fetched as it sounded several weeks ago.

West Regional

The West seems pretty wide open. Florida's surge is probably slightly exaggerated by their two strong tourney games, but all four seem to be peaking at the right time. Michigan State still seems like the favorite here.

2012 Round of 32 NEM

Sweet 16 previews to come later this week.

All raw efficiency data is from the sublime kenpom.com. I used the ratings through last Sunday's games to make the comparisons. (For my second round reviews, I'll update the ratings through the end of the first round, and so on.)

Top overall performances

 TeamOpponentNEM 
1.FloridaNorfolk State49.0Easily the most balanced team of the first weekend.
2.SyracuseKansas State43.8
3.KentuckyIowa State42.2
4.North CarolinaCreighton36.3
5.BaylorColorado35.7

Top offensive performances

 TeamOpponentNEM 
1.KentuckyIowa State37.0More evidence for Gasaway's theorem. In fact, Kentucky's defense was rather pedestrian this weekend.
2.BaylorColorado28.2
3.FloridaNorfolk State26.6
4.SyracuseKansas State25.9
5.Ohio StateGonzaga24.1

Top defensive performances (lower scores are better)

 TeamOpponentNEM 
1.MarquetteMurray State-33.2You could safely call this game a defensive struggle.
2.Murray StateMarquette-26.4
3.VCUIndiana-24.7
4.CincinnatiFlorida State-22.6
5.FloridaNorfolk State-22.5

2012 round of 64 NEM review

One game by itself can be misleading, but net efficiency margin (NEM) at least gives us a way to compare each team's performance from the same baseline. So who had the best games over the first two (real) days of the tournament?

All raw efficiency data is from the sublime kenpom.com. I used the ratings through last Sunday's games to make the comparisons. (For my second round reviews, I'll update the ratings through the end of the first round, and so on.)

Top overall performances

 TeamOpponentNEM 
1.FloridaVirginia58.8
2.GonzagaWest Virginia52.7
3.WisconsinMontana50.4
4.GeorgetownBelmont45.4This partly due to Belmont's overrating by Pomeroy's rating system, but nonetheless a solid performance.
5.South FloridaTemple40.6Didn't see that coming.

Top offensive performances

 TeamOpponentNEM 
1.Norfolk StateMissouri37.5Mizzou isn't known for their D, but this was the best offensive showing against the Tigers all season.
2.WisconsinMontana35.4
3.GonzagaWest Virginia30.7The Zags also had the third best offensive NEM in the round of 64 last year.
4.Iowa StateUConn29.1Not a bad showing. We'll see whether they can keep it up against Kentucky.
5.MissouriNorfolk State29.1Perfect exemplar of Missouri's season.

Top defensive performances (lower scores are better)

 TeamOpponentNEM 
1.Murray StateColorado State-45.5When a tournament-worthy team scores 0.66 points/possession, it's a mix of good defense and putrid offense.
2.South FloridaTemple-36.6Defense has carried the Bulls all season.
3.FloridaVirginia-33.8
4.KansasDetroit-32.6Seeing two #2 seeds go down earlier in the day certainly helped Bill Self get his players' attention.
5.St. LouisMemphis-28.9

Who are the bullies?

If you're using Ken Pomeroy's sublime ratings to fill out your bracket, there are few things you need to know.

First, a caveat. Even a full season of games is not always enough to know whether a team's numerical assessment reflects its true talent, so when we start looking at a subset of those games, misleading numbers can be more likely.

That said, some teams may have built up their high ranking against the nether regions of Division 1, while others have played their best games against the top of the heap. Of course, winning in the NCAA Tournament means you have to beat the best.

We can use Net Efficiency Margin, or NEM, to try to identify the teams that have built up their power rating against weaker teams and those that may be underrated in the tournament because they played down to lesser competition.

These teams may be overrated by Pomeroy's ratings (minimum 5 games against 201+ teams):

NEM
SeedTeamvs. 201+vs. 1-200Diff
5Wichita St.38.222.5-15.8
4Wisconsin40.425.7-14.8
14St. Bonaventure17.910.0-8.0
13Montana9.51.6-7.9
2Kansas35.728.0-7.8
14Brigham Young18.312.0-6.3

Two of those teams (Wisconsin and Montana) meet up in the round of 64, and chic Final Four sleeper Wichita State also shows up in the list. Only five of the Shockers' 31 games came against teams outside the KenPom top 200, so this could just be a statistical oddity.

These teams may be underrated by Pomeroy's ratings (minimum 5 games against top 100 teams):

NEM
SeedTeamvs. 1-100vs. 101+Diff
13Ohio22.46.815.6
4Michigan22.410.611.8
8Kansas St.23.214.68.6
9Southern Mississippi16.28.08.2
6San Diego St.16.48.87.6
3Baylor24.718.16.6

We have a pair of round of 64 matchups (Ohio vs. Michigan and Kansas State vs. Southern Miss) among these teams. Michigan played 22 of their 32 games against KenPom top 100 competition, giving more credibilty to their inclusion on the list. Ohio only played 6 games against the top 100.

Final 2012 BubbleGrid

Selection Sunday is finally here. I may make some small tweaks, but otherwise this is it. (See the BubbleGrid refresher if you have questions.)

BubbleGrid reminders:

  • Hover over a value for more information
  • Shaded teams are predicted to be in the field
  • Teams with a * are the projected automatic qualifier (AQ) for their conference. Bold shaded teams have clinched the AQ berth
  • Teams are listed in order of their selection confidence by the CTD model. In other words, the last shaded non-AQ team is the last team in, and the first non-shaded team is the first team out.
1-251-501-1001-200RoadGood road winsBad home losses
TeamScoreW-LWW+/-W+/-+/-+/-
Notre Dame> 99.922-1134-310255-5#13 Louisville
#32 Connecticut
#62 West Virginia
#68 Seton Hall
Southern Mississippi> 99.923-813-194117-6#30 Colorado St.
#54 Central Florida
Alabama> 99.921-1113-38-284-7#100 Georgia
Iowa St.> 99.922-1025-26-254-7#49 Kansas St.
Connecticut> 99.920-1313-59-253-7#39 Notre Dame
#53 South Florida
Purdue> 99.921-1223-79-125-5#11 Michigan
#64 Northwestern
#88 Minnesota
#93 Illinois
Harvard *> 99.925-4110521312-3#98 Pennsylvania
Xavier *> 99.921-1114-29-155-7#25 Vanderbilt
Virginia> 99.922-912-47167-4#48 North Carolina St.
#65 Oregon
#83 Louisiana St.
#116 Virginia Tech
California98.624-900-39275-6#65 Oregon
#70 Washington
West Virginia94.619-1314-49-244-6#53 South Florida
#96 Pittsburgh
#107 Kent St.
Colorado St.90.119-1113-37-243-9
Virginia Commonwealth *33.328-600-1621110-3#55 Akron#140 Georgia St.
Brigham Young25.623-811-55-159-3#117 Loyola Marymount
Texas20.120-1314-74-714-7
Seton Hall1.820-1213-47-244-7#81 Dayton#164 Rutgers
Marshall< 0.120-1324-26-4-25-8#43 Cincinnati#110 UAB
Ohio *< 0.126-70107478-6#42 Marshall
#72 Northern Iowa
#79 Buffalo
North Carolina St.< 0.122-1201-76-425-4#60 Miami FL#195 Georgia Tech
Miami FL< 0.119-1222-63-815-8#5 Duke
Long Beach St. *< 0.123-801-52-518-7#96 Pittsburgh
South Florida< 0.119-1312-76-425-8#13 Louisville
#96 Pittsburgh
Iona< 0.125-700-252811-4#94 Denver#150 Manhattan
Drexel< 0.127-601041611-4#86 Cleveland St.
Saint Joseph's< 0.120-1322-36-435-8#126 Richmond
#167 Charlotte
Colorado *< 0.121-1102-18004-7
Belmont *< 0.126-701-22-2810-6#56 Middle Tennessee#225 Lipscomb
Mississippi St.< 0.121-1112-27-243-6#25 Vanderbilt
Middle Tennessee< 0.124-600-130910-4
Northwestern< 0.118-1311-95-814-7#93 Illinois
Oral Roberts< 0.127-602030610-4#37 Xavier
Dayton< 0.120-121408063-7#18 Temple#108 Duquesne
#258 Rhode Island
South Dakota St. *< 0.125-70003058-7#70 Washington
Central Florida< 0.120-1013-43-413-8
Mississippi< 0.120-1301-66-644-8#100 Georgia
Arizona< 0.123-1101-25-458-5#38 California
#59 New Mexico St.
#97 Stanford
Oregon< 0.122-900-45-337-4#75 Arizona
#97 Stanford
#132 Oregon St.
Akron< 0.121-1102-13-7-18-7#42 Marshall
#74 Mississippi St.
Massachusetts< 0.122-111316-234-7

BubbleGrid for March 10

1 day to Selection Sunday. The cut line is getting a little more defined, but there will be several teams in the field that don't have at-large worthy profiles by historical standards. (See the BubbleGrid refresher if you have questions.)

To help you identify where that line is, I've added a score column to the grid. The selection score is a number from 0 to 100 describing how likely that team's profile would be an at-large selection based on at-large profiles over the past 12 years. The CTD selection model looks at all at-large teams (and conference champs that I've estimated would have been at-large selection based on their seed) during that period and calculates the score for each team. The list of CTD at-large teams is the 37 with the highest selection score among those who are not (or not forecast to be) conference champs.

This score is not a likelihood or forecast of whether each team will in fact make the field on Sunday. It is only a estimate of whether that team's profile is at-large worthy, based on what the committee has done in the past using the profile attributes they've publicly said are important.

A few other random comments:

  • We've had Iona in the at-large pool for quite a while, but they've slid all the way down to the final team in the field. Precarious spot with a number of AQ spots still in play.
  • Marshall has jumped into the field, but don't get too excited. If they lose to Memphis, I expect they'll drop right back out.
  • The teams with selection scores less than 0.1 can move up or down quickly with only small changes in their profile, so don't get too up or down if your team is one of those. The gaps between the teams near the cut line are small (as they always are), so small changes are amplified.

BubbleGrid reminders:

  • Hover over a value for more information
  • Shaded teams are predicted to be in the field
  • Teams with a * are the projected automatic qualifier (AQ) for their conference. Bold shaded teams have clinched the AQ berth
  • Teams are listed in order of their selection confidence by the CTD model. In other words, the last shaded non-AQ team is the last team in, and the first non-shaded team is the first team out.
1-251-501-1001-200RoadGood road winsBad home losses
TeamScoreW-LWW+/-W+/-+/-+/-
Harvard *> 99.925-4110521312-3#97 Pennsylvania
Iowa St.> 99.922-1025-26-254-7#46 Kansas St.
Connecticut> 99.920-1313-59-253-7#38 Notre Dame
#53 South Florida
Purdue> 99.921-1223-79-125-5#10 Michigan
#62 Northwestern
#88 Minnesota
#93 Illinois
Virginia> 99.922-912-47167-4#48 North Carolina St.
#66 Oregon
#81 Louisiana St.
#116 Virginia Tech
California99.424-900-39275-6#66 Oregon
#69 Washington
West Virginia98.319-1315-39-244-6#53 South Florida
#96 Pittsburgh
#107 Kent St.
Colorado St.97.719-1123-37-243-9
Virginia Commonwealth *9228-600-1621110-3#51 Akron#140 Georgia St.
Xavier55.720-1103-48-245-7#30 Vanderbilt
Brigham Young33.323-811-55-159-3#118 Loyola Marymount
Texas11.520-1314-74-714-7
Seton Hall1.420-1213-47-244-7#80 Dayton#162 Rutgers
Marshall< 0.120-122406-3-15-7#40 Cincinnati#109 UAB
North Carolina St.< 0.122-1101-66-335-4#58 Miami FL#195 Georgia Tech
Iona< 0.125-700-252811-4#94 Denver#151 Manhattan
Miami FL< 0.119-1222-63-815-8#4 Duke
South Florida< 0.119-1312-76-425-8#17 Louisville
#96 Pittsburgh
Drexel< 0.127-601041611-4#85 Cleveland St.
Belmont *< 0.126-701-22-2810-6#56 Middle Tennessee#224 Lipscomb
Middle Tennessee< 0.124-600-130910-4
Long Beach St. *< 0.122-801-52-508-7#96 Pittsburgh
Saint Joseph's< 0.120-1322-36-435-8#126 Richmond
#167 Charlotte
Ohio< 0.125-70106368-6#42 Marshall
#76 Northern Iowa
#79 Buffalo
Mississippi< 0.120-1201-56-554-8#100 Georgia
Arizona *< 0.123-1001-25-368-5#36 California
#65 New Mexico St.
#98 Stanford
Oral Roberts< 0.127-602030610-4#44 Xavier
South Dakota St. *< 0.125-70103058-7#69 Washington
Dayton< 0.120-121408063-7#16 Temple#106 Duquesne
#258 Rhode Island
Northwestern< 0.118-1311-95-814-7#93 Illinois
Mississippi St.< 0.121-1102-27-243-6#30 Vanderbilt
Massachusetts< 0.122-101316-144-7
Oregon< 0.122-900-45-337-4#72 Arizona
#98 Stanford
#131 Oregon St.
Central Florida< 0.120-1013-43-413-8
Akron *< 0.121-1001-13-608-7#42 Marshall
#74 Mississippi St.
Colorado< 0.120-1102-17-1-14-7

BubbleGrid for March 9

2 days to Selection Sunday. At this point, it's easy to overreact to one game, so remember to look at the season as a whole. (See the BubbleGrid refresher if you have questions.)

  • Hover over a value for more information
  • Shaded teams are predicted to be in the field
  • Teams with a * are the projected automatic qualifier (AQ) for their conference. Bold shaded teams have clinched the AQ berth
  • Teams are listed in order of their selection confidence by the CTD model. In other words, the last shaded non-AQ team is the last team in, and the first non-shaded team is the first team out.
1-251-501-1001-200RoadGood road winsBad home losses
TeamW-LWW+/-W+/-+/-+/-
Harvard *25-4110521312-3#98 Pennsylvania
Iowa St.22-1025-26-254-7#45 Kansas St.
Virginia22-812-37277-4#56 North Carolina St.
#64 Oregon
#83 Louisiana St.
#114 Virginia Tech
Purdue21-1124-49035-5#12 Michigan
#57 Northwestern
#85 Minnesota
#90 Illinois
Connecticut20-1314-39-253-7#37 Notre Dame
#46 South Florida
California *24-800-39385-6#64 Oregon
#68 Washington
Colorado St.19-1013-27-153-9
West Virginia19-1315-39-344-6#46 South Florida
#97 Pittsburgh
Virginia Commonwealth *28-6010621110-3#63 Akron#140 Georgia St.
Texas20-1214-54-624-7
Brigham Young23-812-45-159-3#120 Loyola Marymount
Seton Hall20-1213-47-244-7#74 Dayton#161 Rutgers
Miami FL19-1122-43-725-8#4 Duke
Iona25-701052811-4#92 Denver#150 Manhattan
Saint Joseph's20-1222-26-345-8#124 Richmond
#166 Charlotte
Dayton20-111318173-7#13 Temple#108 Duquesne
#256 Rhode Island
Xavier19-1102-57-335-7#28 Vanderbilt
North Carolina St.21-1103-55-425-4#49 Miami FL#193 Georgia Tech
South Florida19-1311-86-425-8#20 Louisville
#97 Pittsburgh
Drexel27-601-141611-4#86 Cleveland St.
Middle Tennessee24-600-130910-4
Belmont *26-700-22-2810-6#58 Middle Tennessee#225 Lipscomb
Mississippi19-1202-45-644-8#99 Georgia
Mississippi St.21-1102-27-243-6#28 Vanderbilt
Northwestern18-1311-95-814-7#90 Illinois
Long Beach St. *21-800-62-508-7#97 Pittsburgh
South Dakota St. *25-70103058-7#68 Washington
Tennessee17-1304-37-303-8#29 Florida
#83 Louisiana St.
#195 Austin Peay
Oral Roberts27-601-130610-4#53 Xavier
Central Florida20-912-33-323-7
Oregon22-900-55-337-4#77 Arizona
#96 Stanford
#129 Oregon St.
Marshall19-1212-25-4-25-7#62 Cincinnati#107 UAB
Arizona22-1001-25-358-5#34 California
#67 New Mexico St.
#96 Stanford
Ohio24-700-16358-6#55 Marshall
#73 Northern Iowa
#75 Buffalo
#101 Robert Morris

2012: A Bracketing Adventure (Episode I)

Despite the NCAA's recent attempts at transparency (which I applaud), many in the public still don't understand exactly how the selection committee builds the bracket. You can become an expert by reading the full details here, but it boils down to three steps: selection, seeding, and bracketing.

Crashing the Dance attempts to predict the selection and seeding based on the committee's past behavior, but not the placing of teams into the bracket. Once the 1-68 seed list (also known as the S-Curve) is set, bracketing is essentially a straighforward algorithm.

I decided to try my hand at following the committee's published bracketing procedure using the latest (through Wednesday's games) Crashing the Dance 1-68 seed list. Keep in mind this is in no way meant to predict how Sunday's bracket will turn out. This is merely an exercise to demonstrate how the committee could bracket a theoretical S-Curve using the actual sites and bracketing principles. That said, we may gain some insight into decisions the committee will have to make Sunday and how some scenarios could play out.

Before we start assigning region and pod sites, let's identify which teams are prohibited from certain sites based on the committee's criteria:

A team will not be permitted to play in any facility in which it has played more than three games during its season, not including conference post-season tournaments.
A host institution’s team shall not be permitted to play at the site where the institution is hosting. However, the team may play on the same days when the institution is hosting.

In addition to those criteria, BYU does not play on Sunday for religious reasons, so they cannot be assigned to a pod or region with Sunday games scheduled.

Pod site prohibitions (not comprehensive)

Albuquerque - New Mexico

Louisville - Louisville

Pittsburgh - Duquesne

Portland - Oregon

Columbus - Ohio State, BYU

Omaha - Creighton, BYU

Greensboro - BYU

Nashville - BYU

Region site prohibitions (not comprehensive)

Boston - Boston College

Phoenix - Arizona State

Atlanta - Georgia Tech, BYU

St. Louis - Saint Louis, BYU

The committee will then place the four “number 1 seed” teams seeded 1 through 4 in each of the four regions, then determine the Final Four semifinals pairings, making best effort to pair the top No. 1 seed’s region against the fourth No. 1 seed’s region and the second No. 1 seed’s region against the third No. 1 seed’s region.

The main principle to follow on the first line is teams will remain in or as close to their areas of natural interest as possible.

1. Kentucky - South (Atlanta)

Atlanta and St. Louis are roughly the same distance from Lexington, depending on exactly how you measure, and St. Louis could actually be much closer for travelers from the western part of the bluegrass state. With Missouri moving to the SEC, you could argue that St. Louis is also a "natural" region forKentucky. However, Atlanta seems the more natural region for Kentucky, especially given the recent frequency of the Georgia Dome as host of the SEC Tournament.

2. Syracuse - East (Boston)

Boston is closer to Syracuse than any regional site, so the Orange get their first choice.

3. North Carolina - Midwest (St. Louis)

Of the two remaining regions, St. Louis is the closer site to Chapel Hill. It is possible that the committee could put Kentucky in St. Louis in order to put North Carolina in Atlanta, saying that it would minimally affect Kentucky's travel and substantially help North Carolina's, though precedent for this is unclear. We'll keep it simple.

4. Kansas - West (Phoenix)

No teams on the top several seed lines claim the West as their natural region, so the fourth No. 1 seed will almost certainly be shipped to Phoenix.

In this scenario, the Final Four pairings will be South vs. West and East vs. Midwest. (I'm not clear why the "making best effort" part is in there. I can see no other bracket principles that conflict pairing 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3.)

The committee will then place the No. 2 seeds in each region in true seed list order.

This is when several of the bracketing principles can come into play, including:

Each of the first three teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions.
Conference teams shall not meet prior to the regional final unless a ninth team is selected from a conference. If the committee is unable to reconcile the bracket after exhausting all reasonable options, it has the flexibility to waive this principle to permit two teams from the same conference to meet each other after the second round.

5. Ohio State - Midwest (St. Louis)

St. Louis is slightly closer than Atlanta to Columbus, and there are no conflicts yet for a Big Ten team, so there they go.

6. Michigan State - South (Atlanta)

Michigan State would also prefer St. Louis, but the Buckeyes have already claimed the Jones Dome. All four Big 10 teams claim St. Louis as their closest and most "natural" region, so there is plenty to play for this weekend even if the conference yields no 1 seeds.

7. Duke - West (Phoenix)

8. Missouri - East (Boston)

On the first pass, Duke was assigned to the East with Boston as the second-closest region to Durham. That would then leave the West as the only option for Missouri on the No. 2 line, but with Kansas already in Phoenix the Tigers cannot be placed there. We could keep Duke in Boston and move Missouri down to the No. 3 line, but moving a team up or down a line does not happen often for teams in the top 4 lines, so we'll just swap Duke and Missouri. We may need to revisit this later when we assess competitive balance.

The committee will then place the No. 3 seeds in each region in true seed list order.

Additional bracketing principles can come into play on the third line, including:

No more than one team from a conference may be seeded in the same grouping of four in line Nos. 1-4 and 13-16 in a region, unless a conference has four or more teams seeded in line Nos. 1-4. In lines No. 5-12, two teams from the same conference may be placed in the same group of four

9. Marquette - Midwest (St. Louis)

Despite playing the Big East, Marquette claims St. Louis as its closest region. No conference conflicts prevent this.

10. Indiana - East (Boston)

St. Louis and Atlanta are closer to Bloomington, but both have already been claimed by Big Team teams, so the Hoosiers are shipped up to Boston.

11. Georgetown - South (Atlanta)

Syracuse is already in Boston, so Georgetown goes to the next closest site.

12. Michigan - West (Phoenix)

With four Big Ten teams in the field so far, Michigan could be placed in the same region as one of its conference brethren. However, all four are on the No. 2 or 3 lines and could meet before the regional final, which is prohibited. We'll put Michigan in the West region for that reason, but with the last No. 1 and No. 3 seed in Phoenix, competitive balance could be a problem down the road. We may have to come back to this.

The committee will then place the No. 4 seeds in each region in true seed list order.

13. Baylor - Midwest (St. Louis)

Interestingly, no Big 12 teams are yet in St. Louis, so Baylor get its wish. For now. St. Louis has the best team on three of the four lines, so somebody will probably have to move when we assess competitive balance.

14. Wisconsin - South (Atlanta)

The fifth Big Ten in the field means we'll have to be careful again with conference placement as with Michigan. St. Louis is already taken on the No. 4 line, and Atlanta is the next closest region. Michigan State is the 2 seed there, but they wouldn't meet Wisconsin until the regional final.

15. Wichita State - West (Phoenix)

Finally, a fresh conference means no worries about conflicts. The Shockers end up in Phoenix with St. Louis and Atlanta already taken.

16. UNLV - East (Boston)

The only slot left for UNLV is Boston, which unfortunately is the farthest from Vegas of the four regions. All hope is not yet lost for the Rebels, because…

After the top four seed lines have been assigned, determine the relative strengths of the regions by adding the "true seed" numbers in each region to determine if any severe numerical imbalance exists. Generally, no more than five points should separate the lowest and highest total.

Uh oh. Here's how the numbers add up:

Midwest: 30

South: 32

East: 36

West: 38

For now, the Midwest and South regions are more difficult (based on each team's "true seed" number) than the East and West. That means we'll have to do a little tweaking to balance that.

What options do we have? This is where the published guidance from the committee gets vague. We do know that teams ranked higher on the 1-68 seed list generally should get geographical preference:

If two teams from the same natural region are in contention for the same bracket position, the team ranked higher in the seed list shall remain in its natural region.

(By the way, this principle is why I think Kentucky will stay in the South.)

First, let's swap Wisconsin and Baylor to balance the South and Midwest

Having two Big Ten teams on each of the No. 2 and No. 3 lines makes many of the possible swaps impossible. We want to keep Ohio State in St. Louis as its preferred geography, but beyond that we may have to make some changes. We're going to swap the 2 and 3 seeds between the South and West.

Now we have:

Midwest: 31

South: 33

East: 36

West: 36

Five points difference between the lowest and highest. Good enough for now.

In “true seed” order, the committee then assigns each team (and, therefore, all teams in its bracket group—e.g., seeds 1, 8, 9, 16) to second-/third-round sites.

In other words, we need to assign pod sites for each of the 16 teams we've placed in regions. Most in the first several lines get their preferred site.

1. Kentucky - Louisville

2. Syracuse - Pittsburgh

3. North Carolina - Greensboro

4. Kansas - Omaha

5. Ohio State - Pittsburgh

Ohio State is prohbited from the Columbus pod.

6. Michigan State - Columbus

7. Duke - Greensboro

8. Missouri - Omaha

9. Marquette - Columbus

10. Indiana - Louisville

11. Georgetown - Nashville

Georgetown is the first team that wouldn't get its preferred pod site (Pittsburgh). In fact, their first four pod sites are already filled.

12. Michigan - Nashville

13. Baylor - Albuquerque

This is actually the closest site to Baylor, so as long as they are on the third seed line or one of the better four seeds, that's where they should end up.

14. Wisconsin - Albuquerque

15. Wichita State - Portland

16. UNLV - Portland

In Episode II, we'll tackle the remainder of the seed lines. There are fewer restrictions in the 5-12 lines, and generally fewer conference conflicts in the 13-16 lines, so they may not be quite as exciting.

BubbleGrid for March 6

5 days to Selection Sunday. Several of the better mid-major teams failed to win their conference tournaments, leaving therir fate in the hands of the committee. Drexel, Iona, MTSU, and Oral Roberts must wait, and each has a marginal at-large profile at best by historical standards. We'll see how much the "eye test" comes into play. (See the BubbleGrid refresher if you have questions.)

  • Hover over a value for more information
  • Shaded teams are predicted to be in the field
  • Teams with a * are the projected automatic qualifier (AQ) for their conference. Bold shaded teams have clinched the AQ berth
  • Teams are listed in order of their selection confidence by the CTD model. In other words, the last shaded non-AQ team is the last team in, and the first non-shaded team is the first team out.
1-251-501-1001-200RoadGood road winsBad home losses
TeamW-LWW+/-W+/-+/-+/-
Harvard *25-4110521312-3#94 Pennsylvania
Iowa St.22-924-15-264-7#42 Kansas St.
Connecticut18-1215-19-143-7#38 Notre Dame
#45 South Florida
Purdue20-1125-39025-5#11 Michigan
#48 Northwestern
#80 Illinois
#89 Minnesota
Virginia22-812-37177-4#50 Oregon
#56 North Carolina St.
#87 Louisiana St.
#119 Virginia Tech
West Virginia19-1214-39-154-6#45 South Florida
#98 Pittsburgh
#106 Kent St.
California23-802-17165-6#50 Oregon
#53 Washington
Colorado St.18-1013-28-143-9
Cincinnati22-92517167-5#10 Georgetown
#34 Connecticut
#98 Pittsburgh
#150 St. John's
#245 Presbyterian
Virginia Commonwealth *28-6010621110-3#64 Akron#145 Georgia St.
Brigham Young23-813-35-159-3#118 Loyola Marymount
Seton Hall19-1114-37-144-7#72 Dayton#153 Rutgers
Texas19-1213-64-614-7
Mississippi St.21-1003-18053-6#27 Vanderbilt#111 Georgia
Dayton19-111318163-7#13 Temple#104 Duquesne
#255 Rhode Island
Iona25-701052811-4#91 Denver#152 Manhattan
Saint Joseph's19-1222-26-335-8#122 Richmond
#165 Charlotte
Miami FL18-1122-53-714-8#4 Duke
Northwestern18-1211-95-724-7#80 Illinois
Xavier19-1102-56-435-7#27 Vanderbilt
Drexel27-601-141611-4#84 Cleveland St.
Middle Tennessee24-600-130910-4
South Florida18-1201-86-325-8#28 Louisville
#98 Pittsburgh
Long Beach St. *20-800-62-508-7#98 Pittsburgh
Oregon22-800-55-247-4#78 Arizona
#95 Stanford
#148 Oregon St.
Washington *21-901-54-426-5#78 Arizona
Tennessee17-1304-37-203-8#29 Florida
#87 Louisiana St.
#196 Austin Peay
Belmont *26-700-22-2810-6#59 Middle Tennessee#225 Lipscomb
Mississippi18-1201-57-434-8#99 Arkansas
North Carolina St.20-1100-85-425-4#55 Miami FL#190 Georgia Tech
South Dakota St. *24-70103148-7#53 Washington
Oral Roberts27-600-230610-4#57 Xavier
Nevada *23-500-34149-2#68 New Mexico St.
#81 Montana
#125 Missouri St.
#135 Idaho
Central Florida19-912-33-323-7
Arizona21-1001-35-347-5#37 California
#68 New Mexico St.
#95 Stanford