Brad-ketology: February 6th Edition

The teams below are displayed below on an S-curve, so they are ranked from left to right within each seeding line.  The italicized teams are ones predicted to win their conference tourney and gain an automatic bid to the dance, and the bolded teams are squads who have already clinched automatic bids to either the NCAA or NIT.  For the conferences who currently have NCAA tourney teams, it is assumed that one of those teams will win their conference tourney.  If not, then a stolen bid would result, and the number of at-large bids would drop.

Also, just to clarify, my bracket projection is intended to project the NCAA Tournament field if it was chosen today.  Unlike some bracketologists, I am not trying to predict how each team will finish the season and then seed the teams based on that.  There is one slight exception to this rule, however, and that is that I have always chosen to award the projected automatic bid for each conference to my projected best team in that conference, and not the team who is currently leading the conference standings.   Given how unbalanced conference schedules are, it just seems like common sense to project that the best team in a conference will win the league championship, not the squad currently in first place.

Brad-ketology columns will be published at least twice a week (typically on Mondays and Fridays).  This bracket projection has been updated through all games played on Sunday February 5th.

NCAA Tourney Field:

1-seeds: Villanova, Gonzaga, Kansas, Louisville

2-seeds: Baylor, North Carolina, Florida State, Arizona

3-seeds: Butler, UCLA, Kentucky, Virginia

4-seeds: Florida, Duke, West Virginia, Oregon

5-seeds: Creighton, Wisconsin, Cincinnati, Purdue

6-seeds: South Carolina, Maryland, Xavier, St. Mary’s

7-seeds: Notre Dame, SMU, Southern California, Minnesota

8-seeds: VCU, Virginia Tech, Dayton, Northwestern

9-seeds: Oklahoma State, Michigan State, Kansas State, Iowa State

10-seeds: Marquette, Clemson, TCU, Tennessee

11-seeds: Seton Hall, Indiana, Arkansas, Middle Tennessee, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech

12-seeds: Illinois State,  Nevada, UNC Wilmington, Valpo

13-seeds: Monmouth, New Mexico State, Akron, Vermont

14-seeds: Belmont, Arkansas State, East Tennessee State, Winthrop

15-seeds: Bucknell, Florida Gulf Coast, Princeton, North Dakota State

16-seeds: Texas Southern, Sam Houston, Weber State, UC Davis, Mount St. Mary’s, North Carolina Central

NIT Tourney Field:

1-seeds: California, Miami-FL, Michigan, Texas Tech

2-seeds: Rhode Island, Pittsburgh, Georgetown, Houston

3-seeds: Providence, Georgia, Syracuse, Illinois,

4-seeds: Illinois State, Wichita State, NC State, Nevada

5-seeds: UNC Wilmington, Alabama, Valpo, Auburn

6-seeds: Monmouth, Ole Miss, Ohio State, Boise State

7-seeds: Memphis, Texas A & M, Stanford, Utah

8-seeds: New Mexico State, Penn State, Akron, Temple

Ranking of Other Postseason Contenders: Vermont, Charleston, UCF, New Mexico, La Salle


4 thoughts on “Brad-ketology: February 6th Edition

  1. You have Illinois State in both the NCAA and NIT. I think you meant to put Wichita State in the NCAA as that’s the obvious best team out of the Valley

    • Hey Ryan,

      For all the conference champs who would also receive at-large NIT bids I go ahead and put what seed they currently are in the NIT bracket. Several reasons for doing this actually. First of all, you can monitor how closely those teams are to actually getting NCAA at-large bids if they were to lose in their conference tournaments and the NIT always has about 8 teams get automatic bids to it when small conference regular season champs lose in their conference tournaments. By going ahead and putting 8-12 conference champs on the NIT s-curve you already get to see where the NIT cutline is most likely to end up.

      • That’s good to know. Great explanation.

        I’m still curious. Based on your comment “There is one slight exception to this rule, however, and that is that I have always chosen to award the projected automatic bid for each conference to my projected best team in that conference, and not the team who is currently leading the conference standings. ”

        Wouldn’t that be Wichita State rather than Illinois State? Factoring in the 41 point head to head victory that Wichita state got on Saturday?

  2. No- they split meetings and Illinois State’s RPI is 22 spots higher…

Leave a Reply to ADA_Deacon Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s