Chalk
Why does chalk look so good this year?
Last year, it made a ton of sense - there were a clear top four teams, and lots of space between them and #5 Duke. Under the top group, the underseeded teams pretty much all got put in the bottom half of the same bracket. So of course you picked a few upsets in the first two rounds, and otherwise went with chalk.
This year, there's a clear top six (or five, if you don't believe in Memphis), and very little space between them and the next ten or so. (Quantitatively, via Sagarin, nobody's got more than a 38% shot at the final four this year. Last year, all the top seeds had at least a 40% chance, and two were over 50%.) And there are seeding errors all over the place.
And yet, I've got more chalk than ever in my bracket. And I'm hearing a lot of people say the same thing.
Why?
Yes, the committee is a little better at evaluating teams than they used to be, but I think the main thing is that they've gotten much savvier at using the bracket to cover their asses.
That is, they seem to recognize that they've made a seeding mistake, but then, instead of fixing it, they hide it against a similar mistake in the same direction.
So: We've let thoroughly unqualified Arizona back in to the tournament for no reason whatsoever? And we can't justify giving Utah better than a 7 seed, but somehow gave them a 5? Great! Now if Utah turns out to suck and Arizona wins, their inclusion is justified. Or, if Utah stomps all over Arizona, their high seed is justified. Boo.
Clemson was a good pick to make a lot of noise from the 5-seed they deserved, but we've inexplicably dropped them to a 7? Also, Michigan should be an 8, but we've made them a 10 for some reason? Great! Put them against each other in the first round! So it's harder to pick Michigan than it would be against a real 7, and harder to pick Clemson over OU since they might not even get there.
We gave Villanova a 3 seed? Hey, look, they can play the first two rounds in Philadelphia! And we can make UCLA and VCU have to get through each other for the right to play that road game!
And so on.
The other problem is that most of the plausible-seeming upsets are intolerable.
West Virginia over Kansas: WVU has basically established that they don't win against top 20 teams, or lose against anyone else. (Exceptions: Pitt last week, Davidson and Kentucky last fall.) Kansas _is_ a top 20 team, but they've overachieved all year, and had two bad losses in three games.
Gonzaga over UNC: It was probably a fluke when Gonzaga beat UNC in the NIT two years ago. But... Gonzaga's improved since then by subtracting black hole Derek Raivio and adding 7-footer Austin Daye, while UNC has lost three of the top six players from that team (and basically replaced them with dudes off the bench).
Texas over Duke: All it takes is one concussion.
Cleveland State over Wake Forest: Because CSU is the best unheralded mid-major, and Wake in the tournament is about as reliable as Oberyn Martell.
Florida State over Pitt: FSU played them to a standstill in Tallahassee back in December, and seems to have improved since.
BYU over UConn, or a deep run by Utah State: These just require assuming that the MWC and WAC are better than people thought, and the Big East is worse. I believe the latter assumption.
So my brackets are about as conservative as ever this year, and yet I'm convinced they'll be more destroyed than usual, because of the parity.
Last year, it made a ton of sense - there were a clear top four teams, and lots of space between them and #5 Duke. Under the top group, the underseeded teams pretty much all got put in the bottom half of the same bracket. So of course you picked a few upsets in the first two rounds, and otherwise went with chalk.
This year, there's a clear top six (or five, if you don't believe in Memphis), and very little space between them and the next ten or so. (Quantitatively, via Sagarin, nobody's got more than a 38% shot at the final four this year. Last year, all the top seeds had at least a 40% chance, and two were over 50%.) And there are seeding errors all over the place.
And yet, I've got more chalk than ever in my bracket. And I'm hearing a lot of people say the same thing.
Why?
Yes, the committee is a little better at evaluating teams than they used to be, but I think the main thing is that they've gotten much savvier at using the bracket to cover their asses.
That is, they seem to recognize that they've made a seeding mistake, but then, instead of fixing it, they hide it against a similar mistake in the same direction.
So: We've let thoroughly unqualified Arizona back in to the tournament for no reason whatsoever? And we can't justify giving Utah better than a 7 seed, but somehow gave them a 5? Great! Now if Utah turns out to suck and Arizona wins, their inclusion is justified. Or, if Utah stomps all over Arizona, their high seed is justified. Boo.
Clemson was a good pick to make a lot of noise from the 5-seed they deserved, but we've inexplicably dropped them to a 7? Also, Michigan should be an 8, but we've made them a 10 for some reason? Great! Put them against each other in the first round! So it's harder to pick Michigan than it would be against a real 7, and harder to pick Clemson over OU since they might not even get there.
We gave Villanova a 3 seed? Hey, look, they can play the first two rounds in Philadelphia! And we can make UCLA and VCU have to get through each other for the right to play that road game!
And so on.
The other problem is that most of the plausible-seeming upsets are intolerable.
West Virginia over Kansas: WVU has basically established that they don't win against top 20 teams, or lose against anyone else. (Exceptions: Pitt last week, Davidson and Kentucky last fall.) Kansas _is_ a top 20 team, but they've overachieved all year, and had two bad losses in three games.
Gonzaga over UNC: It was probably a fluke when Gonzaga beat UNC in the NIT two years ago. But... Gonzaga's improved since then by subtracting black hole Derek Raivio and adding 7-footer Austin Daye, while UNC has lost three of the top six players from that team (and basically replaced them with dudes off the bench).
Texas over Duke: All it takes is one concussion.
Cleveland State over Wake Forest: Because CSU is the best unheralded mid-major, and Wake in the tournament is about as reliable as Oberyn Martell.
Florida State over Pitt: FSU played them to a standstill in Tallahassee back in December, and seems to have improved since.
BYU over UConn, or a deep run by Utah State: These just require assuming that the MWC and WAC are better than people thought, and the Big East is worse. I believe the latter assumption.
So my brackets are about as conservative as ever this year, and yet I'm convinced they'll be more destroyed than usual, because of the parity.