More Brackets

I hate brackets! I hate discussions about brackets that start in Dec/Jan. I hate the endless droning about seeding. I hate discussions about filling out brackets. I hate listening to talking heads discuss their brackets instead of the NCAAT games that are being played. I HATE BRACKETS.

I won’t bore you by either defending or explaining my view. But my feelings probably explain why I never even considered including “professional” projections in yesterday’s entry on how much work was left for the ACC teams in the ACCT.

However, this omission became obvious after reading the comments to yesterday’s entry. A quick summary of some well-known projections would have made a nice addition to that piece. So now that I have admitted my bias, I can also correct the omission that it caused. Here is a short summary from two of the better known projections…David Mihm from bracketology.com and Joe Lundardi from ESPN:

	Mihm	Lunardi
North Carolina	2	2
Maryland	3	4
Duke	5	7
Virginia Tech	5	5
Boston College	7	7
Virginia	7	5
Georgia Tech	8	10
Florida St.	LFO	NFO
Clemson	AC	—
Updated	3/5;  9pm	3/6
LFO	Last Four Out
NFO	Next Four Out
AC	Also Considered

Several comments:

Both projections agreed with my thoughts concerning Duke and Maryland’s seeding. Their OOC schedule and higher RPI rank will improve their seeding when compared to other teams with similar or better ACC records.

VT and BC split their regular season games. They have the same conference record and overall record. They essentially have the same RPI ranking (27 & 30). So why do both projections have VT two seeds higher than BC?

– My guess is that sweeping UNC must be paying off for VT. But the difference in seeding also suggests that people are ignoring VT’s four bad losses to NCSU (#114), Marshall (#182), and Western Michigan (#142).

Florida State is close and needs to impress some people in the ACCT.

Both projections hate Clemson’s chances too. 😉