2010 Tournament Brackets/Pod projections

[Mr. Ypsi]

Since the means are skewed by the 3-digit teams, the medians are:

upper right = 23

lower left = 31

[John Gleich]

I was wondering what people thought on which bracket/region would be the most difficult? And which is the easiest?

The only bracket that stands out against the rest is the WashU, IWU, Carthage, St. Thomas half - those are tough second round games.  I think Williams and VA Wesleyan have slightly easier paths to the final eight than most.

It's about as balanced a bracket as I've seen.

If you go by top 25 teams, the upper right has 8, lower right has 7, upper left has 3, and lower left has 6 7.

3 top 10 teams in the upper right, 1 in the lower right, 2 in the upper left and 4 in the lower left.

Correction for bottom left.

Why don't I just list them all... it would be much easier!

Upper Left (3):

2. Williams
6. Middlebury
22. St. John Fisher

Lower Left (7):

4. Guilford
5. Whitworth
7. Eastern Mennonite
8. UW Whitewater
12. Chapman
19. Wooster
24. John Carroll

Upper Right (8):

1. Wash U
3. St. Thomas
9. UW Stevens Point
15. UT- Dallas
16. Carthage
17. St. Norbert
23. Anderson
25. Central

Lower Right (7):

10. Willy Pat
11. Va Wes
13. MIT
14. St. Mary's
18. Randy Mac
20. F&M
21. Cabrini

[Mr. Ypsi]

And none of them resembles the Bracket of Death - thank God (and/or the NCAA)!

A large part of that is that the power is simply much more dispersed geographically this year than last.  But (as Pat showed last year) they could have easily relieved the B of D last year and didn't; this year they removed UWW and Whitworth from what still wouldn't have been as bad, but would have been clearly the toughest bracket.

[Gregory Sager]

THE HISTORY OF THE 2010 FIELD

school	yrs in tmt (first app)	Elite 8s	Final 4s	1-2-3-4	W-L (.pct)
Brandeis	7 (1975)	3	--	--	9-6  (.600)
Rhode Island C.	7 (1975)	2	--	--	6-8  (.429)
St. Lawrence	12 (1975)	1	--	--	10-13 (.435)
Franklin & Marshall	21 (1975)	8	5	0-1-1-3	36-25 (.590)
William Paterson	14 (1975)	5	2	0-1-0-1	22-14 (.611)
Plattsburgh State	6 (1976)	1	1	0-0-0-1	5-6  (.455)
Grove City	5 (1976)	--	---	--	3-5  (.375)
Oneonta State	2 (1977)	1	1	0-1-0-0	4-1  (.800)
Central	9 (1977)	--	--	--	5-9  (.357)
Albright	4 (1977)	1	--	--	4-3  (.571)
Clark	16 (1978)	8	2	0-2-0-0	26-15 (.634)
Virginia Wesleyan	10 (1978)	2	2	1-1-0-0	13-10 (.565)
Wooster	19 (1978)	3	2	0-0-1-1	18-19 (.486)
Centre	13 (1979)	3	2	0-0-0-2	12-18 (.400)
Brooklyn	3 (1982)	1	1	0-0-1-0	4-2  (.667)
Hope	21 (1982)	4	3	0-2-1-0	25-21 (.543)
Bridgewater State	5 (1983)	--	--	--	3-4  (.429)
Wisconsin-Whitewater	16 (1983)	3	3	2-0-0-1	23-14 (.622)
John Carroll	12 (1983)	3	1	0-0-1-0	20-13 (.606)
Nazareth	7 (1984)	1	--	--	5-6  (.455)
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps	10 (1984)	--	--	--	3-10 (.231)
St. Norbert	3 (1984)	--	--	--	1-2  (.333)
Illinois Wesleyan	19 (1984)	9	4	1-0-3-0	39-18 (.684)
Lycoming	5 (1985)	--	--	--	4-4  (.500)
Christopher Newport	17 (1986)	1	--	--	10-17 (.370)
Richard Stockton	13 (1987)	4	2	0-1-0-1	21-14 (.600)
Washington MO	15 (1987)	5	3	2-0-1-0	26-12 (.684)
Cabrini	8 (1988)	--	--	--	4-8  (.333)
Merchant Marine	8 (1989)	--	--	--	4-7  (.364)
Randolph-Macon	10 (1990)	--	--	--	5-9  (.357)
St. Thomas	11 (1990)	2	1	0-0-0-1	12-11 (.522)
Maryville	17 (1991)	1	--	--	13-16 (.448)
St. John Fisher	14 (1992)	1	--	--	8-13 (.381)
Defiance	4 (1993)	--	--	--	0-3  (.000)
Williams	11 (1994)	4	4	1-1-2-0	25-9  (.735)
Westminster MO	2 (1995)	--	--	--	0-1  (.000)
Wheaton IL	7 (1995)	1	--	--	7-6 (.538)
DeSales	3 (1996)	1	--	--	3-2 (.600)
Wisconsin-Stevens Point	9 (1997)	4	2	2-0-0-0	19-6 (.760)
Aurora	8 (1998)	--	--	--	1-7  (.125)
Carthage	4 (2000)	2	1	0-0-1-0	7-3 (.700)
Whitworth	5 (2003)	--	--	--	3-4  (.429)
Texas-Dallas	3 (2005)	1	--	--	2-2  (.500)
Gordon	2 (2006)	--	--	--	0-1  (.000)
Carleton	2 (2006)	--	--	--	0-1  (.000)
Guilford	4 (2007)	1	1	0-0-1-0	7-3  (.700)
Mary Hardin-Baylor	3 (2007)	--	--	--	1-2  (.333)
St. Mary's MD	2 (2008)	--	--	--	2-1  (.667)
Middlebury	3 (2008)	--	--	--	0-2  (.000)
Wesley	2 (2009)	--	--	--	0-1  (.000)
Medaille	2 (2009)	--	--	--	0-1  (.000)
MIT	2 (2009)	--	--	--	1-1  (.500)
SUNYIT	2 (2009)	--	--	--	1-1  (.500)
Maine-Farmington	1 (2010)	--	--	--	--
Rutgers-Newark	1 (2010)	--	--	--	--
Eastern Mennonite	1 (2010)	--	--	--	--
Wilmington	1 (2010)	--	--	--	--
Chapman	1 (2010)	--	--	--	--
Anderson	1 (2010)	--	--	--	--
Purchase	1 (2010)	--	--	--	--
Albertus Magnus	1 (2010)	--	--	--	--

[nwhoops1903]

And none of them resembles the Bracket of Death - thank God (and/or the NCAA)!

A large part of that is that the power is simply much more dispersed geographically this year than last.  But (as Pat showed last year) they could have easily relieved the B of D last year and didn't; this year they removed UWW and Whitworth from what still wouldn't have been as bad, but would have been clearly the toughest bracket.

Upper left is definitely the lightest of the four brackets and Williams can say a ton by making it through.  Upper right and lower left can argue for top difficulty.  Lower right is 3rd but still strong.

I am very impressed with the field and the structure of the brackets.  An apparent concern to have the top 8 or 10 teams dispersed and have a final 4 that would be compelling and HIGHLY competitive is a welcome relief from last years anticlimatic Salem. 

[altor]

Since the means are skewed by the 3-digit teams, the medians are:

upper right = 23

lower left = 31

The statistician in me says that you should figure averages (mean and/or median) of the actual rating, not the ranking.  Could also figure the standard deviation to get a good idea of how each fares top to bottom.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Since the means are skewed by the 3-digit teams, the medians are:

upper right = 23

lower left = 31

The statistician in me says that you should figure averages (mean and/or median) of the actual rating, not the ranking.  Could also figure the standard deviation to get a good idea of how each fares top to bottom.

Makes sense, but there is a reason I'm a retired statistician!

The key point, IMO, is there are variations among the regions, but there is NO Bracket of Death!   IMO, top right is slightly the toughest; top left is fairly clearly the weakest.  Compared to last year, it's nirvana!

[usee]

Greg- nice history and table format. Now if you just add their endowment numbers we'll be set.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Greg- nice history and table format. Now if you just add their endowment numbers we'll be set.

And you just KNOW he could!

(Might not even need to look 'em up! )

[Gregory Sager]

Greg- nice history and table format. Now if you just add their endowment numbers we'll be set.

Sure thing. Just call me Sisyphus.

(Boulder? What boulder?)

[sac]

8 newbies in the tournament, thats got to be the highest in quite a few years.

[Mr. Ypsi]

8 newbies in the tournament, thats got to be the highest in quite a few years.

And one of them is a serious threat to win it.  With their total demolitions of some excellent teams (including two ranked #1 at the time), EMU has shown that, IF on their game, they can beat anyone.

[magicman]

Greg- nice history and table format. Now if you just add their endowment numbers we'll be set.

Sure thing. Just call me Sisyphus.

(Boulder? What boulder?)

Hill? What Hill?
Plus k on the History of the 2010 field

[magicman]

Massey Ratings for the upper left bracket:

#6      Williams
#30    Middlebury
#36     Brandeis
#37     St. John Fisher
#57     Rutgers-Newark
#72     Nazareth
#74     Plattsburgh State
#86     Brooklyn
#98     Rhode Island College
#112   Gordon
#120   Medaille
#138   SUNYIT
#143   Bridgewater State
#188   St. Lawrence
#273   Maine-Farmington

Average rank for this bracket: 98

I guess according to Massey this would be the easiest bracket as Titan Q has already mentioned. Even though no one has done the remaining bracket yet, it appears the average won't be as high as this one.

[kiltedbryan]

8 newbies in the tournament, thats got to be the highest in quite a few years.

Plus 7 additional teams that have never won an NCAA game.