Now that we know the 65-team NCAA Tournament field, let's ask and answer the "Elite Eight" questions about it:
1. Did the committee watch the Sunday games?
One could certainly make the argument that the committee closed up shop on Saturday. I'm not losing sleep with Mississippi State as a No. 3 (Alabama, after all, did win the undisputed regular-season championship of the top conference in the country), but I do think Oklahoma should have been flip-flopped with Cincinnati after Sunday's win over Kansas (in Kansas City, no less). The Bearcats clearly have their own No. 1 seed credentials, but someone has to be No. 5 overall. At least they got it right and put the overall 4/5 teams in the same region.
2. What's with Duke in the South?
I'm sure the Dookies don't like it, slotted for Lexington and all that it brings. But I like the idea of Duke and Kansas being on opposite sides of the overall bracket (even though the committee said repeatedly it wouldn't worry about that). It could be the Maryland/Duke placements were merely for geographic convenience; after all, Maryland has not been an East Region team since the bracket expanded to 64 teams in 1985 (11 appearances).
3. Is the bracket consistent?
Incredibly so. Overall, I'd say the last three years have brought out the best in the committee. You can argue their point(s) of emphasis, but they are applying what they choose as priorities from region to region. There will always be snubs and complaints, of course, but the long arm of bracketology law is telling you there are way fewer howls now than in the early- and mid-1990s.
4. How did the much-ballyhooed 'regionalization' work?
There are good examples throughout the bracket. In the South, for instance, Southern Cal and Utah open in Sacramento instead of St. Louis or Greenville, S.C. In the West, top seed Cincinnati gets a convenient opening weekend in Pittsburgh instead of an Albuquerque-like spot. And, in the Midwest, teams like Pepperdine and Oregon have considerably easier travel thanks to the "floating" Sacramento quad.
5. Wait ... aren't there some "home" games out there?
It sure looks that way in the case of Pitt (Pittsburgh), Maryland (D.C.), Illinois (Chicago) and Texas (Dallas). The Pitt and Maryland instances are consistent with the new regionalization rules, as teams playing 1-3 seeds are no longer protected from opponents with a so-called "home crowd" advantage. However, the 4s and 5s were supposed to be given equal treatment this year (certainly not the case with a possible Illinois-Florida second-round game in Chicago). Same for No. 3 Mississippi State in the Midwest, which could face No. 6 Texas in a second-round game in Dallas. By and large, however, there is nothing like the Boise situation from a year ago, when four D.C.-area schools were shipped 2,000 miles.
6. What do I really think?
I'd still like to see more mid-majors in the field, not via the "hard cap" on major conferences Dick Vitale is espousing, but with the oft-referenced Lunardi Plan. Force all teams to become "tourney eligible" by playing .500 or better in their conference regular seasons and/or reaching .500 via extra league games in conference tournaments. This wouldn't have opened up a spot this year, but it would most times. And, while we're at it, let's make the entire No. 16 seed line a "play-in" proposition for the bottom eight (instead of the current bottom two) teams on the board. There are two huge advantages to this: Three more at-large slots would be available, and four teams who would otherwise never win an NCAA game (no No. 16 ever has) would get that experience on an annual basis.
7. How did you do, Lunardi?
Another 64 of 65 performance in projecting the field. The miss was Butler, which was our "last team in" throughout Selection Weekend. I don't have as much of a problem with Butler and its No. 303 non-conference schedule being out as much as I do the choice of Charlotte. The 49ers are extremely competitive and well-coached, to be sure, but that 1-7 record against Top 50 RPI teams stands out for all the wrong reasons. It's great to play good teams, but you should win more than once in eight tries.
8. What about seeding?
We placed 52 teams at or within one line of their actual seed. This is an especially good number given the difficult to predict effects of regionalization. We weren't off more than three lines on any team in the field, and only two (Gonzaga and Missouri) were even in that category.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Have a great tournament!
Joe Lunardi is the resident "bracketologist" for ESPN.com. Check out his postseason preview at www.bracketology.net.
