Reader! You’re back! And it appears you’ve multiplied! We have so much to catch up on. Here, take a look at the ol’ disclaimers just to refresh your memory and then we can chat.
The Usual Disclaimers
- Projections attempt to simulate what the selection committee would do given what we know about each team. This is not my opinion of the teams, this is my prediction of the committee’s opinion.
- This bracketology is a snapshot, frozen in time. It does not aim to predict what will happen; it is a simulation of what would happen if the season ended today.
- Conference champions are determined by whoever has the fewest losses in conference play, with NET used as a tiebreaker.
- Projections made based on NET data entering Monday but win-loss records entering Tuesday
- Please feel free to @ me on Twitter with any comments, questions, concerns
Ah yes, nothing like the fine print. The devil’s in the details, you know! In fact, that’s what this week’s column is about: the fine print. Reader, I made a disturbing discovery last night. I have been building brackets incorrectly my whole life. I am so sorry. Year after year you return to my humble bracket bunker, and all this time I’ve been leading you astray.
But before I expand on that, it appears I owe you a second apology. What’s happened since we last spoke?
- We left off with me stumbling into the most accurate final forecast in the history of the Bracket Matrix. 57 teams seeded correctly! What a world.
- A couple days later, I connected with a writer for the Los Angeles Times who wanted to interview me. Next thing you know, I was in the paper!
- I returned from spring break to law school
- Gonzaga drove another stake through my heart, courtesy of Julian Strawther
- Finished a semester, then summer, then back to law school
- And then in January I left a note on the door in which I said I would reopen the bunker in either the last week of January or the first week of February
Right, so about that last part…let me dig through my meme folder. N, O, P, Q, R…Reacting…got it!
Reacting to me lying, a classic. But yes, I am terribly sorry for being behind schedule. After managing to elude her for four years, Ms. Corinne O’Vyress XIX finally paid me a visit, which meant I then had a week’s worth of law school classes to catch up on. And there’s also the small matter of me trying to procure employment, what with me graduating in three months and all.
I am also doing a public policy clinic this semester, which has kept me knee-deep in Nevada and North Carolina state election statutes and regulations. Reader, a word to the wise: if for whatever reason you are considering engaging in voter intimidation, poll worker harassment, or election interference, maybe don’t do that. In addition to undermining our democratic system, these things are also, like, very illegal. Highly illegal. Illegal in so many different ways, more ways than I thought possible. Told you this week’s column was about the fine print!
All of this is to say, I had to put bracketology on the back burner. The brack burner, if you will. I apologize for that.
Now, as for the first apology. The incorrect bracketing. Reader, one thing I’ve learned in my 5.25 semesters of legal education is that many laws are drafted quite poorly. Dangling participles, vague pronoun usage, inconsistent terms––these things cause serious problems. Whenever you’re making rules of any kind, it’s important to be extremely precise with your language. Do not leave anything up for interpretation. The fine print matters.
Which brings me to the bracketology bible, a 7-page PDF entitled NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Championship Principles and Procedures for Establishing the Bracket. I have relied on the fine print of the Principles and Procedures every year since I started doing bracketology in 9th grade.
Last night I tried to consult the latest edition of the principles and procedures to figure out which first-weekend site Tennessee would be sent to if both Memphis and Charlotte were still available.
The answer is Charlotte. The most recent PDF version I could find was for the 2021-22 season. The relevant portions appear to have been unchanged for the 2022-23 edition, so I’ll refer to the PDF since it’s easier to follow along. Note the second full principle from the top on the right side of page 4:
“Teams will remain in or as close to their areas of natural interest as possible, as determined by mileage from campus to the venue. A team moved out of its natural area will be placed in the next closest region to the extent possible. If two teams from the same natural region are in contention for the same bracket position, the team ranked higher in the seed list shall remain in its natural region.“
Knoxville is closer to Charlotte than it is to Memphis, so the Vols would likely go to Charlotte despite having a site in their home state available. Keep the above principle in mind.
On the bottom right of page 4 and continuing to the left side of page 5, you’ll find the seven-step procedure for placing teams into the bracket. I will summarize steps 1-6 and directly quote step 7:
- Place the four one seeds into each of the four regions, in true seed order
- Repeat that step with the two seeds
- Repeat that step with the three seeds
- Repeat that step with the four seeds
- Assess the competitive balance between the four regions (note that only the top four seeds in each region are assessed when determining competitive balance)
- Assign first-weekend sites to each of the top 16 teams in true seed order
- “The committee will then place seeds Nos. 5-16 in the bracket, per the principles. The four teams assigned to the seed line, 5 through 16, will have the same numerical value.” (emphasis added)
Step 7 isn’t exactly precise but I always thought I understood it. Recall the principle I listed above:
Teams will remain in or as close to their areas of natural interest as possible, as determined by mileage from campus to the venue. A team moved out of its natural area will be placed in the next closest region to the extent possible.
To explain how I interpreted these provisions, I’ll use this week’s bracket as an example. I’ve completed the first six steps of the process and now it’s time for me to place the 5-seeds. The first 5-seed is Dayton. I look at the regions: Midwest (Detroit), East (Boston), South (Dallas), and West (Los Angeles). Of these four cities, Dayton is closest to Detroit, so I slot Dayton in as the 5-seed in the Midwest.
Reader, it turns out my entire life has been a lie. Because when I was searching for the 2023-24 version of the principles and procedures, I stumbled upon a four-part video series published by the NCAA two months ago to educate people about the selection and bracketing process. I watched part four, the one on bracketing, to make sure that there were no major changes for this season.
Andy Katz goes through the entire bracketing process using the 2019 bracket as an example. The video is 23 minutes and 53 seconds long. It is on the “NCAA Resources” YouTube channel. It has, as of this writing, 204 views. I’m sitting in bed, watching him go through the bracketing process exactly as I have done it many, many times for the past decade. I am questioning my life choices. And then, 15 minutes and 57 seconds into the video, Andy says something that turns my world upside down:
I’m sorry, the committee’s charge is what????? They send Marquette where??????
No, no, no, this can’t be right. What did the fine print say?
“Teams will remain in or as close to their areas of natural interest as possible, as determined by mileage from campus to the venue. A team moved out of its natural area will be placed in the next closest region to the extent possible.”
Next closest REGION. REGION!!! If a team moved out of its natural area is to be placed in the next closest region, does that not imply that a team that wasn’t moved out of its natural area was placed in its closest region?
Evidently not. Or maybe that is right, but “region” is being used in the strictly geographical sense rather than the bracketological one.
In any event, my interpretation was wrong, and has been wrong for the past decade. Sad! But now, reader, you and I both know: first-weekend venue, not second-weekend venue, is what matters when placing 5- through 16-seeds in the bracket.
There you have it! Dayton slots in as the 5-seed in the west region to play in Brooklyn.
Anyways, here are my projections in text format. I’ll be back with another update next week, hopefully. In the meantime, I am respectfully asking Northwestern, Nebraska, and New Mexico to beat a tournament-caliber team on the road.
Bracket in Text Format
Midwest
Detroit
Indianapolis
(1) Purdue
(16) Green Bay
(8) TCU
(9) Texas A&M
Spokane
(5) Creighton
(12) Samford
(4) South Carolina
(13) UC Irvine
Omaha
(6) Saint Mary’s
11 Neb./Ole Miss
(3) Iowa State
(14) Morehead St.
Charlotte
(7) Texas
(10) Mississippi St.
(2) North Carolina
(15) Vermont
East
Boston
Brooklyn
(1) UConn
16 Norf. St./Merr.
(8) Virginia
(9) Michigan State
Spokane
(5) San Diego State
(12) App State
(4) Illinois
(13) Akron
Pittsburgh
(6) BYU
11 UNM/Gonzaga
(3) Alabama
(14) UNCW
Omaha
(7) Utah State
(10) Butler
(2) Kansas
(15) Eastern Wash.
South
Dallas
Memphis
(1) Houston
(16) Southern U
(8) Florida
(9) Washington St.
Salt Lake City
(5) Clemson
(12) Richmond
(4) Wisconsin
(13) Yale
Pittsburgh
(6) Texas Tech
(11) Utah
(3) Duke
(14) High Point
Charlotte
(7) Colorado State
(10) Northwestern
(2) Tennessee
(15) Quinnipiac
West
L.A.
Salt Lake City
(1) Arizona
16 S. Dak. St./EKU
(8) FAU
(9) Indiana State
Brooklyn
(5) Dayton
(12) McNeese
(4) Auburn
(13) South Florida
Memphis
(6) Kentucky
(11) Grand Canyon
(3) Baylor
(14) Louisiana
Indianapolis
(7) Oklahoma
(10) Boise State
(2) Marquette
(15) Colgate
LAST FOUR BYES: Boise State, Mississippi State, Northwestern, Utah
LAST FOUR IN: Nebraska, Ole Miss, New Mexico, Gonzaga
FIRST FOUR OUT: Nevada, Cincinnati, St. John’s, James Madison
NEXT FOUR OUT: Providence, Seton Hall, Drake, Kansas State
Jake Liker's Bracketology 