I know there will be upsets. But there's not many out there that I feel very intrigued to pick, outside of the first couple rounds.

From a predictive metrics standpoint (Torvik, betting odds, etc) the seeds seem pretty spot on. I'm not saying perfect, but this seems like the cleanest bracket I remember seeing.

It gets lost because of the bracketology debates but they really have gotten better at this over the last ten years or so and the WAB metric this year was a really nice addition.

A few head scratchers every year but in general it's gotten a lot better.

I went through it and felt like I was forcing myself to make horrible bracket choices.

Yup, to win large groups you'd still have to throw in some crazy upsets and just hope. But the top 2 seed lines are so strong that I think for smallish friend/colleague groups (20-50 brackets), mostly chalk is the way to go this year.

I'm seriously going all four 1 seeds in the final 4, and 2 each of the 2 and 3 seeds to fill out the rest of the E8. I've never been close to doing that before. But there's no other picks that I think give me an improved chance of winning small groups this year.

Throwing in some early round upsets that I think have a strong chance of hitting to nudge me ahead of the pack if in fact the E8/F4 does end up being top seeds this year.

I think the committee got it right based on the regular season but I do think there are some absolute wildcards in this tournament that underperformed all year.

Baylor, Kansas, Arkansas, Gonzaga, UCONN, etc all hanging around the mid-seeds has me worried.

bobinator said:

---

I think the committee got it right based on the regular season but I do think there are some absolute wildcards in this tournament that underperformed all year.

Baylor, Kansas, Arkansas, Gonzaga, UCONN, etc all hanging around the mid-seeds has me worried.

---

Body of work always has meant performance in recent years including recent NCs.

bobinator said:

---

I think the committee got it right based on the regular season but I do think there are some absolute wildcards in this tournament that underperformed all year.

Baylor, Kansas, Arkansas, Gonzaga, UCONN, etc all hanging around the mid-seeds has me worried.

---

Agree with those. The thing is 3 of them are on the 8/9 line, and the other 2 (Kansas & Arkansas) are 7/10 playing against each other, in a year that the top 2 seed lines are incredibly strong.

I just can't bring myself to pick UConn over Florida or Baylor over Duke. Definitely considering Gonzaga over Houston. But the thing is I see Houston as the only top seed that isn't a popular pick, so strongly considering them as my pick to win it all. Got to find somewhere to zig where everyone else is zagging.

I do have Kansas over St Johns.

I just feel like most years there's that matchup against a 1 seed who overperformed this year. And several in the 4-6 and even 10-12 range that just look like solid picks to make a run. But I'm just not excited about any deep runs from outside the 1-3 seeds from what I'm seeing this year. Again, not saying they're not going to happen. Just I'm seeing zero insight into ones I'm excited to pick.

Wow. I have most of those teams over seeded due to their names., I think Kansas and Baylor are pretty bad.

They have been pretty bad. But you know they're talented and the tournament is a fresh start for some of those teams. Especially Arkansas and Kansas getting St. John's who's an absolute grind of a team. I wouldn't be that shocked if Kansas blows St. John's out of the gym.

Baylor is probably too soft to beat Mississippi State, but that's a talented team also.