From about the middle of February to the end of the season the Patriots bounced around the MRI ratings hanging in the #15 - #18 range. They were up there earlier in the year too but didn't get the attention that their high rating did at the end of the year. The reason? I projected them for most of the month of projections as a #5 seed based on the numbers.

So what does a #5 seed in the MRI projections mean? It means that they have a good shot of winning their first round game and an outside chance of making the Sweet 16 based on actual match-ups. However, putting a mid-major team at that level, especially before the tournament starts, means a lot of push back from the masses at large.

You can only imagine the emails when the tournament bracket came out and GMU was a #11 seed, and not only a #11 seed, but likely one of the last 4 teams to get a place in the bracket. They were matched against Michigan State who finished at #22 in the final MRI (projected and actual 6 seed) and that made the likelihood of an upset a tough deal since the percentages would be in the 50-50 range. Still, I went with George Mason in the first round and they were a winner.

Now, facing a North Carolina squad in the second round is a different story, because this is when a projected #5 seed should be dropping out. North Carolina finished #9 in the MRI (a projected and actual #3 seed) and should have been expected to handle a #5 seed. George Mason went on to pull the upset which started the country talking.

Now, if you had followed the MRI all season, a team like George Mason getting to the Sweet 16 should not have been so shocking. Yet how many out there were talking about what a story GMU was even though I had been "talking" them up all year with their high overall ranking.

(As a side note, the final MRI rankings of last year's Final Four teams entering the tournament were 8, 10, 13, and 18. Not a bad cluster of teams especially since the tournament didn't see a single #1 seed make the Final Four last season.)

So why do I go into this much detail on George Mason? Because the Patriots have a lot in common with this year's highly rated mid-major Davidson (although don't look past Virginia Commonwealth, also of the Patriot league, and a likely 1st round winner). Davidson is currently, entering the final week when most of the major conferences have their tournaments, at #16, a projected #4 seed. While that may be shocking, and it semi is for me also since they have made huge leaps in the standings during their tournament, remember that they are done playing. And they are within the pack of teams which could change greatly based on the results of the conference tournament games, because of how closely stacked all of the MRI rated teams from about #10 to #40 are this season.

While Davidson could potentially have the ability to make it to the second weekend of the tournament, a huge coup for a team from the Southern conference, the ability for them to hang onto that seed in the final projection is much less. More likely: Davidson drops to a #5 or #6 projected MRI seed and wins their opening round game before being beaten in the second round.

This year is interesting for the simple fact that no team from a smaller conference, despite last year's huge successes, is projected to make it to the second weekend. There is no Gonzaga this year. There is no Kent State, and as of right now, the closest things we have to George Mason are Davidson and VCU, who are likely second round knock outs.

Again, to stress, a #4 seed in the MRI projections doesn't mean that I think a team will win it all. By far that is not the case. But they do have the ability to win not only a single game but maybe a second game in the tournament. That is all that a #4 seeding tells me. Ask yourself what you would expect for a #4 seed to do in the tourney. At best, if all seeds hold, you would see them going to the 2nd week of the tourney and being in the Sweet 16 but that is it. No final four, no championship. Just winning two games. So what does my placement of them at a #4 seed mean? It means the MRI thinks they have the potential to win 2 games. Not 3, not 6, just two.

And that is all based on the match-up they get because the committee could place them so they are playing one of the 15 teams rated above them at this point in the season and they could crash out in the 1st round. I will be sure to let you know if that happens come Selection Sunday.

So, as I have received comments and emails, I have made a list of the teams that right now are at the front of everyone's mind as to their placement in the MRI brackets. The teams are Davidson (covered above), Washington State, USC, and Virginia. There was some chatter about Texas A&M and Memphis being on the #1 line this week, but #1 vs. #2 line is very difficult to decide at this point, and giving the baseline above, all it means is that it could be possible (percentages holding) for those two to be playing into April.

What I find funny about the emails and comments I get are that they don't come with reasons why someone should be ranked higher other than "They are #2 in the PAC-10" which is only important if you think the PAC-10 was as great as everyone said they were, or "30 of the other 31 brackets have them in". It is nice to be the dissenter in the group. Maybe there is a reason for that dissent (think 12 Angry Men). But as I don't get a lot of argument back as to why they think the teams should be higher other than everyone else said so, I have to take a shot to explain the reasons why things are the way they are.

Remember, the MRI rankings and projections are different and shouldn't represent what you are used to thinking. Rather it should give you a different way to look at things.

So let's start with Washington State. And to talk about Washington State, let's look at another team which finished second in a Western Conference, UNLV of the Mountain West. Both teams finished at 24-6. So with record and conference standing overall being equal, who should get the higher seed?

In the latest edition of the Joe Lunardi brackets, Washington State is a #3 seed while UNLV is a #4 seed. In the MRI projections, UNLV was a #10 seed and Washington State a #13 seed and the last team "IN".

Washington State - SOS: 108, 8-4 on road, 4-0 neutral, Non-Con SOS 319, Non-Con RPI: 78, Conf RPI: 28, Conf SOS: 60, vs Top 25: 2-2, vs 26-50: 0-2, vs 51-100: 9-1

UNLV - SOS: 28, 8-5 on road, 1-0 neutral, Non-Con SOS: 34, Non-Con RPI: 11, Conf RPI: 20, Conf SOS: 78, vs. Top 25: 3-3, vs. 26-50: 1-0, vs. 51-100: 5-1

Looking at the numbers, who should be the higher seed? Other than a slightly better SOS for playing in the PAC-10 conference, almost every number is in favor of UNLV.

Let's also look at how Washington State actually performed on its schedule. I throw out that it would be difficult to point to one game on Washington State's schedule where they established themselves as a great team. They beat Arizona twice which are good wins, but the margin of those victories were 6 and 4. If they were that much better than the Wildcats, they should have beaten them by more than 4 at home. Obviously Washington wasn't as good as they were assumed to be at the beginning of the season, so does a 28 point victory over the Huskies at home or does the 4 point win on the road say more about Washington State?

Honestly, the Cougars haven't done anything to prove to me they deserve to be in the Top 12 teams in the country. They haven't won a signature game by double digits (No, Gonzaga and Washington don't count). The Cougars get out-rebounded by their opponents, something that will haunt them in the NCAA tournament and obviously did against UCLA this season. Given the schedule they played, they should not have a deficit in the rebound column. Their saving grace may be turnovers where they do have a substantial gain on their opponents.

If you look at UNLV in comparison, a team that played a tougher schedule overall, they were essentially even in rebounding with their opponents and they were about the same level in turnover margin as the Cougars. Where UNLV really excelled though was in their ability to put opponents away. They beat Nevada by 9, Air Force by 10, and Utah twice, once by 13. In general, the Running Rebels knew how to beat the opponents they were supposed to beat. They didn't struggle to put away lesser teams like Washington State. That said, UNLV didn't distinguish itself to be a #4 seed either, but overall performance should give way to UNLV being ranked higher than the Cougars.

USC: 21-10 SOS: 61, 4-6 on road, 2-1 neutral, Non-Con SOS: 185, Non-Con RPI: 66, Conf RPI: 36, Conf SOS: 50, vs. Top 25: 2-3, vs. 26-50: 2-2, vs. 51-100: 7-3 MRI: 74

I don't know what the fuss over USC is. Despite their 11-7 conference record (against a conference that I don't think was as strong as everyone thought), where do the numbers above lead you to think that they are an "IN" team? Their RPI is very low for a major conference selection as an at-large, albeit higher than Washington State. They have one of their conference losses against Arizona State, who has trouble getting out of its own way at times. They have absolutely no signature win despite beating Oregon and Arizona twice each (none by double digits). They beat Wichita State when everyone thought they were the next coming of Gonzaga, and then we later found out they weren't.

I am more concerned that they lost to Washington State twice, a team that the MRI has mired as one of the last 4 in. If the computer is placing Washington State in, it makes it difficult to put USC ahead of them into the field. Add in that USC has lost to Washington and Washington State as its last two games and that they need to really show something in the conference tournament since they are currently #74 in the MRI (despite being closer to being in prior to the last two losses). This is not to say that USC isn't a good team (much better than an average team), but they haven't really shown their ability to string together more than 2 wins in a row at times. That bothers me and it hurts their computer numbers overall.

Virginia: 19-9 SOS: 42, 3-6 on road, 0-2 neutral, Non-Con SOS: 165, Non-Con RPI: 80, Conf RPI: 22, Conf SOS: 32, vs. Top 25: 4-1, vs. 26-50: 2-2, vs. 51-100: 7-3 MRI: 63

Honestly, Virginia is the one team that I am going to have a hard time defending their placement in my rankings. Obviously their road/neutral record is not great, but that doesn't factor into the MRI. They didn't do wonderful in scheduling non-conference games, but they did a better job than Washington State. And honestly, their performance against the Top 100 is very respectable.

However, I contend that the Top 100 is a product of their conference. And within the conference, Virginia played one of the softest unbalanced schedules with the combined conference record of their opponents in the ACC actually being less than .500 (18 games under). They played all three bottom dwellers in the conference twice, while only playing UNC, Duke, and BC once. And combined in those five conference losses are defeats coming from Miami and Wake Forest. So despite a "tough" SOS from the their conference, they actually played the easiest schedule in the conference. Much of that conference SOS also comes from the decent overall records of their opponents and doesn't consider only conference games.

Virginia is actually the best positioned of those teams which aren't currently in my bracket but the world at large seems to think they should be. If they can win two tournament games and get to the tournament finals, the MRI will most likely have them moving into the field, but that might require wins against Duke, and either Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech. Neither of those are easy games given that Cavs have recently lost to Miami and Wake.

So, overall, there are the "crazy" teams that I am missing. Remember, I don't try to recreate what the tournament committee does. I do things differently and I don't use the same criteria to rank teams that the committee will ultimately use when they pick the field.

One thing to think about. Once the field is selected, my computer does a very good job of identifying which teams end up with too high a seed or too low a seed, and where the first round upsets will be. Last year, it was George Mason, and this year, we are all scrambling to figure out who will recreate the Patriots' run. And the MRI had GMU up there all season long and got flack for it. So this year, if the MRI has VCU or Davidson winning a few games, and they do, don't be surprised. You heard it hear first.

The MRI Rankings are copyright 2007 by MRISports.com. Ben Miraski writes for MRISports.com and is a featured blogger on FanIQ. Readers can contact Ben at bmiraski@mrisports.com