PDA

View Full Version : Worthless Friday Excercise--2005 NCAA Tournament, 60s style


Wolfpack
04-22-2005, 12:34 PM
To while away a Friday at work, I spent a little time conjuring up what the NCAA field for this year would have been like had the old process of just allowing the conference champions to play been used. With 31 conferences, that means one team gets a bye in the opening round, which I gave to Illinois. Also, teams were assigned regionally, rather than balanced brackets by seed (there's a partial reason for UCLA's 11 national titles in 12 years...the west absolutely sucked for basketball). I also believe teams were somewhat seeded within the region because the better ones got byes...I think.

At any rate, here's how the brackets would have looked for this year, IMO:

East
1) Syracuse
2) Old Dominion
3) George Washington
4) Penn
5) Vermont
6) Bucknell
7) Fairleigh Dickinson
8) Delaware State

South
1) Duke
2) Florida
3) Louisiana-Lafayette
4) Winthrop
5) SE Louisiana
6) Central Florida
7) Chattanooga
8) Alabama A&M

Midwest
1) Illinois
2) Louisville
3) Wisconsin-Milwaukee
4) Ohio
5) Niagara
6) Eastern Kentucky
7) Oakland

West
1) Washington
2) Oklahoma State
3) Gonzaga
4) Creighton
5) UTEP
6) New Mexico
7) Utah State
8) Montana

Seeding is based largely on seeds from the actual tournament this year. If two teams tied, then the one that faced the "weaker" opposing seed, as determined by the regional pairings was given precedent.

I'd say the NCAA did a smart thing opening up the field to at-large teams. After the top couple of seeds in each bracket, the teams are brutal. I would say Syracuse has an easy route to the Final Four, but they'd have a potential Sweet 16 game with Vermont. Then again, if the actual regional sites were used, Syracuse would be at home for the regionals. In the South, Duke really only needs to beat Florida to get to the Final Four. The Midwest should come down to Illinois and Louisville in the regional final. The only brutally tough region would be the West where the top six teams at least are reasonably strong. The top three of Washington, Oklahoma State, and Gonzaga is easily the best 1-2-3 combination of any region. Any one of them would be a Final Four contender in this region.

Samdari
04-22-2005, 12:41 PM
The top three of Washington, Oklahoma State, and Gonzaga is easily the best 1-2-3 combination of any region. Any one of them would be a Final Four contender in this region.

The midwest you list has a far better 1-2-3. UWM actually won games in the tournament, unlike Gonzaga, and the 1 and 2 teams were both ranked ahead of the and 2 teams in the polls. 4-5-6 are definitely best out west, but 1-2-3 is brutal in the midwest. Two of the final four teams are in your midwest, meanwhile, none of the west teams went beyond the sweet sixteen.

Wolfpack
04-22-2005, 01:24 PM
That's a fair point. I could qualify my statement by noting that by 2005 seeds, it's the best. The Midwest had the best 3 seeds after the fact, but Washington was a #1, Oklahoma State was a #2, and Gonzaga was a #3. By comparison, Illinois was #1, Louisville was (underseeded) #4, and UWM was a #12.

rexallllsc
04-22-2005, 02:26 PM
Also, teams were assigned regionally, rather than balanced brackets by seed (there's a partial reason for UCLA's 11 national titles in 12 years...the west absolutely sucked for basketball). I also believe teams were somewhat seeded within the region because the better ones got byes...I think.

I dunno about that. Keep in mind that like you say, only the conference champ got in. For example, in 71, USC was ranked #2 for part of the year, went 24-2 (both losses to Ucla), ended up at #5, and didn't make the tourney. Not to mention, in the era you speak of, Ucla went to 12 Final Fours and won the title 10 times. Every time they played in the Championship game, they won.

Just sayin'! :)