« MRI2006: Week 9 - 20-25 Shuffle | Main | MRI2006: Week 10 - North Carolina Runaway »

MRI2006: Tournament Projection #1

January 23, 2007  |  By Benjamin Miraski

Just thinking of posting this worries me. After last year's mess with Marquette, I can only imagine the craziness that this year's posting will bring out. First of all, remember, this is only through the games of January 21st. That means that all the losses that Duke has taken aren't in here. The losses that Oklahoma will take over the next two games after that point are not in here. Oklahoma State has yet to recover after a few tough losses, and the Missouri Valley is still an enigma that we are are trying to deal with.

Let me give you a different way to look at this projection, which will likely not jibe with any of the other projections will you will find on the Internet. Remember last year when I had George Mason as a 4 or 5 seed for most of the projections? Basically, the MRI was projecting that George Mason would behave as a #4 or #5 seed in the tournament based on how they had performed to date. That didn't mean the committee would honestly give them that seed (their actual seed was much lower), but it meant that they might surprise and perform to a #4 or #5 level. Now, it is always dependant on who they are slotted to play in the tournament. I didn't have them better than a North Carolina, or a Connecticut last season. So, in actuality, when the bracket came out, I had them going out in the second round. It didn't mean I didn't think they were still worthy of a #4 or #5. It just meant that I thought North Carolina was worthy of more like a #3 or #2 seed last season.

So, I know that won't quiet the critics, but I also know that the MRI managed to get 75% of the tournament games correct last season, which is more than most of the nation got right if ESPN is any indication. And picking round by round, well, that is an even better number. Just a thought.

With that said, here are the first round of tournament projections, and remember, that as of this posting, it is 3 weeks to the old.

Posted January 23, 2007 6:20 PM

Comments

To avoid spam we require you to log in to comment. Simply use your Facebook, Google or Yahoo login to verify you aren't a robot and post your thoughts on the site.

Post a comment