ESPN Bracketology Update March 9

[Dawgg]

Hallelujah! The men finally moved to Last Four Byes (field of 64). The women remained in Last Four Byes.

Women's Bracketology: South Carolina debuts as No. 1 overall seed for 2026-27

With the additions of Jordan Lee and Oliviyah Edwards, the Gamecocks top our first look at next season's NCAA tournament.

www.espn.com

Men's Bracketology: Kentucky jumps up big with one roster move

Can one player be the difference between a first-round exit and Sweet 16 run? Kentucky's projections say yes.

www.espn.com

 

[Drebin]

Hallelujah! The men finally moved to Last Four Byes (field of 64). The women remained in Last Four Byes.

Women's Bracketology: South Carolina debuts as No. 1 overall seed for 2026-27

With the additions of Jordan Lee and Oliviyah Edwards, the Gamecocks top our first look at next season's NCAA tournament.

www.espn.com

Men's Bracketology: Kentucky jumps up big with one roster move

Can one player be the difference between a first-round exit and Sweet 16 run? Kentucky's projections say yes.

www.espn.com

I don't know why Lunardi forecasts the entire bracket because he never gets that right. But if for some reason he did, that draw would be absolutely perfect for us to make a run.

 

[MSUDAWGFAN]

Lunardi got the entire field correct (all 65 teams in, not the matchups) in 2008.

Joe Lunardi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Drebin]

Lunardi got the entire field correct (all 65 teams in, not the matchups) in 2008.

Joe Lunardi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The matchups are what I'm talking about. It's not difficult to get most of the field picked correctly, and if you do it long enough, you'll occasionally get them all right one year. But picking the matchups is stupid. It tells us nothing other than where he thinks everyone is going to be seeded, which is a crapshoot at best.

 

[GrandMoffBryan]

Lunardi got the entire field correct (all 65 teams in, not the matchups) in 2008.

Joe Lunardi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Been chasing that high ever since*

 

[MSUDAWGFAN]

The matchups are what I'm talking about. It's not difficult to get most of the field picked correctly, and if you do it long enough, you'll occasionally get them all right one year. But picking the matchups is stupid. It tells us nothing other than where he thinks everyone is going to be seeded, which is a crapshoot at best.

Nobody is going to be 100% correct on the matchups.... even members of the committee. What it does tell you is a close look at the pecking order and about how teams will be seeded. It isn't exactly a crapshoot. If you think so, I'll wager whatever you want that we will be closer to an 11 seed (what he has us projected as) than a 1 seed. And I'll make the exact same wager that Alabama will be closer to a 1 seed than a 10 seed. It isn't like they are throwing names in a hat and pulling them out.

 

[Drebin]

Nobody is going to be 100% correct on the matchups.... even members of the committee. What it does tell you is a close look at the pecking order and about how teams will be seeded. It isn't exactly a crapshoot. If you think so, I'll wager whatever you want that we will be closer to an 11 seed (what he has us projected as) than a 1 seed. And I'll make the exact same wager that Alabama will be closer to a 1 seed than a 10 seed. It isn't like they are throwing names in a hat and pulling them out.

What you are stating is obvious. We are obviously going to be somewhere on the 10-11 line with an outside shot at 9 and Alabama is obviously going to be on the 1 line unless they lose to us today. It takes no special knowledge to understand this, and I certainly don't need Lunardi to tell me this. A simple look at the NET rankings tell us that.

Lunardi predicting seeds 4 through 8 and ensuing matchups are a crap shoot. It's an uncontroversial take, so I don't understand the argument or the necessity you feel in defending Joe Lunardi.

 

[00Dawg]

I prefer the simplicity of who we're pulling for/against. Looking at Lundardi's 1:45 AM update last night, the theoretical order is:
1. Boise State
2. Providence (done)
3. Penn State
4. State (currently last bye)
5. Rutgers
6. Pitt (done)
7. Utah State
8. Arizona State (last team in)
9. Oklahoma State (done)
10. Clemson
11. Nevada (done)
12. Wisconsin (done)
13. UNC (done)
14. Oregon
15. Vandy
16. Michigan (done)

So today we're cheering for:
Boise State over Utah State
Northwestern over Penn State
Purdue over Rutgers
Arizona over Arizona State
Virginia over Clemson
UCLA over Oregon
Kentucky over Vanderbilt

Then you throw in the potential elimination of high quality teams who could get an at-large if they don't win their conference tournaments, and we want these results, too:
Michigan State over Ohio State
Houston over ECU
Memphis over UCF
FAU over MTSU
San Diego State over San Jose State

 

[DawgatAuburn]

I prefer the simplicity of who we're pulling for/against. Looking at Lundardi's 1:45 AM update last night, the theoretical order is:
1. Boise State
2. Providence (done)
3. Penn State
4. State (currently last bye)
5. Rutgers
6. Pitt (done)
7. Utah State
8. Arizona State (last team in)
9. Oklahoma State (done)
10. Clemson
11. Nevada (done)
12. Wisconsin (done)
13. UNC (done)
14. Oregon
15. Vandy
16. Michigan (done)

So today we're cheering for:
Boise State over Utah State
Northwestern over Penn State
Purdue over Rutgers
Arizona over Arizona State
Virginia over Clemson
UCLA over Oregon
Kentucky over Vanderbilt

Then you throw in the potential elimination of high quality teams who could get an at-large if they don't win their conference tournaments, and we want these results, too:
Michigan State over Ohio State
Houston over ECU
Memphis over UCF
FAU over MTSU
San Diego State over San Jose State

The only one I question is Boise State-Utah State. If we lose to Bama today, then yes, we are for Boise. But if we win, I'm for Utah State so we can pass Boise on the S Curve. We might pass them anyway with a win over Bama.

 

[MSUDC11-2.0]

There’s still a chance we end up in Dayton if some of the conference tourneys get weird the next couple of days. A win today would likely end that possibility, but just in case I think it’s still a good idea to root against other bubble teams and bid stealers.

 

[Drebin]

There’s still a chance we end up in Dayton if some of the conference tourneys get weird the next couple of days. A win today would likely end that possibility, but just in case I think it’s still a good idea to root against other bubble teams and bid stealers.

I realize I'm not Joe Lunardi, but I don't really see any scenario outside of complete lunacy in conference tourneys that would put us in Dayton at this point. Our resume speaks for itself and it can only get better win or lose today by virtue of playing number four Alabama.

 

[00Dawg]

The Boise State-Utah State comment above is true. There may be another team or two just above them like VCU that falls in the same bucket as well.
Side note: Lunardi has VCU in his bracket twice (both 12 seeds). Not sure if he left another team off that's solidly in, or if everyone should move up one slot.

 

[8dog]

I realize I'm not Joe Lunardi, but I don't really see any scenario outside of complete lunacy in conference tourneys that would put us in Dayton at this point. Our resume speaks for itself and it can only get better win or lose today by virtue of playing number four Alabama.

TCU a dropping out of the Top 30 could be the worst thing out of all this.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

The Boise State-Utah State comment above is true. There may be another team or two just above them like VCU that falls in the same bucket as well.
Side note: Lunardi has VCU in his bracket twice (both 12 seeds). Not sure if he left another team off that's solidly in, or if everyone should move up one slot.

They caught the dual VCUs.

The Rams are just there once now. Every team at the 12-to-16-seeds are AQs.

 

[Drebin]

TCU a dropping out of the Top 30 could be the worst thing out of all this.

Don't really see that happening. They just beat #23 Kansas State and next plays #9 Texas.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

TCU a dropping out of the Top 30 could be the worst thing out of all this.

Surely playing Texas won't cost them more than two spots if they lose.

 

[MSUDC11-2.0]

I realize I'm not Joe Lunardi, but I don't really see any scenario outside of complete lunacy in conference tourneys that would put us in Dayton at this point. Our resume speaks for itself and it can only get better win or lose today by virtue of playing number four Alabama.

I agree with this sentiment, but there are enough bid stealers still on the board where you can’t totally rule out the possibility of Dayton for us if we lose today.

Hopefully (and I would say probably) the list of potential bid thieves will shrink by a fair bit after today.

 

[Ranchdawg]

Hallelujah! The men finally moved to Last Four Byes (field of 64). The women remained in Last Four Byes.

Women's Bracketology: South Carolina debuts as No. 1 overall seed for 2026-27

With the additions of Jordan Lee and Oliviyah Edwards, the Gamecocks top our first look at next season's NCAA tournament.

www.espn.com

Men's Bracketology: Kentucky jumps up big with one roster move

Can one player be the difference between a first-round exit and Sweet 16 run? Kentucky's projections say yes.

www.espn.com

There is no way the committee will put 3 SEC teams in the same quadrant. If 8 teams make the tournament like he is predicting I expect to see 2 in each quadrant.

 

[Drebin]

There is no way the committee will put 3 SEC teams in the same quadrant. If 8 teams make the tournament like he is predicting I expect to see 2 in each quadrant.

helpful info here:

How the field of 76 DI men’s teams is picked for March Madness

The NCAA’s guide to how the 76 teams are chosen, seeded and bracketed for the Division I men's basketball tournament every season.

www.ncaa.com

 

[MSUDC11-2.0]

At the end of the day, and assuming we are in now, my hope is that 1. We don’t have to start in Dayton and 2. We get paired with an opponent and location that’s not a true road game like 2002, 2005, or 2009. Don’t want us having to play Duke in Greensboro or a Big 10 team with a big fan base in Columbus or Des Moines, for example.

 

[mcdawg22]

There is no way the committee will put 3 SEC teams in the same quadrant. If 8 teams make the tournament like he is predicting I expect to see 2 in each quadrant.

They did in 2018. Bama, Florida, and Arkansas were in the same regional.

 

[8dog]

Surely playing Texas won't cost them more than two spots if they lose.

Yeah I though they were still at 29 but they are at 27 so they are solid

 

[Drebin]

They did in 2018. Bama, Florida, and Arkansas were in the same regional.

Yeah, all they care about is preventing matchups of teams who have already played once in conference prior to the quadrant semi level (sweet 16), and preventing matchups of teams who have already played twice in conference prior to the quadrant final level (elite 8). Beyond that, they have no issue with putting three conference teams in the same quadrant.

 

[mstateglfr]

Ill take Lunardi's prediction- MSU in Des Moines. Thatll keep me from having to travel to Chicago for a few days during spring break too.
Beat SDSU and we then rematch against Marquette!
...then head into the 2nd weekend.

 

[Ranchdawg]

At the end of the day, and assuming we are in now, my hope is that 1. We don’t have to start in Dayton and 2. We get paired with an opponent and location that’s not a true road game like 2002, 2005, or 2009. Don’t want us having to play Duke in Greensboro or a Big 10 team with a big fan base in Columbus or Des Moines, for example.

Or like the women having to play Oregon in Portland.

 

[mstateglfr]

Or like the women having to play Oregon in Portland.

Ionesque(sp) was infuriatingly good.