Ladies and gentlemen, Bauertology is back.
It’s finally the new year, and now that we’re more than two months into an already-wild college basketball season, it’s finally time to start analyzing the great puzzle that is the NCAA Tournament bracket.
We’ve got plenty of data at our fingertips that we can use to analyze teams that seem fit to head to the NCAA Tournament. The issue lies in how exactly we analyze that data to evaluate teams.
As I begin bracketology in 2022, I’m keeping in mind something that really stuck with me following the Selection Sunday reveal in 2021, and that’s the importance of predictive metrics vs. results. As I recall in great detail, the selection committee valued team’s on-court results (measures such as road wins, strength-of-schedule, quadrant victories and losses) as the measuring stick for selecting which teams would make it to the big dance, while they leant more on efficiency metrics (KenPom and the like) for seeding teams into place.
I, like many other bracketologists, ended up over-seeding teams like Oklahoma State (projected: 3 seed / actual: 4 seed) and Missouri (projected: 7 seed / actual: 9 seed), as while they put up gaudy numbers in terms of quality wins, their predictive numbers were not nearly as favorable.
And honestly, I think that’s a totally fair way to assess teams. You reward teams that put together strong results-based résumés by giving them a spot in March Madness, but you use predictive metrics, a baseline on how you generally expect teams to perform, in order to make tournament matchups more fair.
Consistency with the selection committee has been an issue in the past (and even this method isn’t 100% foolproof; see 2021’s 9-seed Wisconsin), but considering its viability and how much of a trend it seemed to be in last year’s selection process, it’s something that I’ll be implementing quite heavily into my evaluations this year. So if I’m stuck between two teams for the last 3 seed, I’ll probably be more likely to give the edge to the team with a higher KenPom rating. And if I’m stuck between two teams as the last one into the at-large field, perhaps I’ll give the advantage to the team with more Quad 1 wins.
With that little introduction out of the way, let’s hop into it. Remember, don’t get too mad if you think I’m slighting your team. There are still two months of basketball to go before we get to the big reveal—a lot is going to change in that time. And we won’t know exactly what the committee is thinking until we get their little top-16 sneak preview sometime soon after the Super Bowl. So it’s a big guessing game right now, meaning you should take any and all projections with a grain of salt!
Alright, NOW let’s hop into it. Welcome back to Bauertology.
THE BRACKET
#1 SOUTH REGION (SAN ANTONIO)
FORT WORTH
1 Baylor vs. 16 Louisiana
8 Iowa vs. 9 Colorado State
BUFFALO
5 Xavier vs. 12 Miami / Murray State
4 Alabama vs. 13 Ohio
MILWAUKEE
6 Providence vs. 11 Belmont
3 Michigan State vs. 14 Wagner
SAN DIEGO
7 Texas Tech vs. 10 Saint Mary’s
2 UCLA vs. 15 UC Irvine
#2 WEST REGION (LOS ANGELES)
PORTLAND
1 Gonzaga vs. 16 Montana State
8 North Carolina vs. 9 San Diego State
PORTLAND
5 UConn vs. 12 Chattanooga
4 USC vs. 13 New Mexico State
INDIANAPOLIS
6 Seton Hall vs. 11 Minnesota
3 LSU vs. 14 Oakland
INDIANAPOLIS
7 BYU vs. 10 Florida
2 Purdue vs. 15 Princeton
#3 MIDWEST REGION (CHICAGO)
SAN DIEGO
1 Arizona vs. 16 Gardner-Webb / Nicholls
8 Oklahoma vs. 9 Indiana
BUFFALO
5 Kentucky vs. 12 UAB
4 Illinois vs. 13 Iona
MILWAUKEE
6 Iowa State vs. 11 Marquette / Mississippi State
3 Houston vs. 14 Towson
GREENVILLE
7 Texas vs. 10 Memphis
2 Auburn vs. 15 Navy
#4 EAST REGION (PHILADELPHIA)
GREENVILLE
1 Duke vs. 16 Texas Southern / Howard
8 West Virginia vs. 9 San Francisco
PITTSBURGH
5 Tennessee vs. 12 Davidson
4 Ohio State vs. 13 South Dakota State
PITTSBURGH
6 Wisconsin vs. 11 Wake Forest
3 Villanova vs. 14 Vermont
FORT WORTH
7 Loyola Chicago vs. 10 Creighton
2 Kansas vs. 15 Liberty
THE TRUE SEED LIST
1 SEEDS
1. Baylor (15-0)
2. Gonzaga (12-2)
3. Arizona (12-1)
4. Duke (12-2)
2 SEEDS
5. Auburn (14-1)
6. Kansas (12-2)
7. Purdue (13-2)
8. UCLA (10-1)
3 SEEDS
9. LSU (14-1)
10. Houston (14-2)
11. Villanova (11-4)
12. Michigan State (13-2)
4 SEEDS
13. USC (13-0)
14. Ohio State (9-3)
15. Alabama (11-4)
16. Illinois (11-3)
5 SEEDS
17. Tennessee (10-4)
18. Xavier (12-2)
19. Kentucky (12-3)
20. UConn (10-4)
6 SEEDS
21. Seton Hall (10-3)
22. Wisconsin (12-2)
23. Iowa State (13-2)
24. Providence (14-2)
7 SEEDS
25. Texas Tech (11-3)
26. Texas (12-3)
27. Loyola Chicago (10-2)
28. BYU (12-3)
8 SEEDS
29. West Virginia (12-2)
30. Iowa (11-4)
31. Oklahoma (12-3)
32. North Carolina (11-4)
9 SEEDS
33. Indiana (11-3)
34. Colorado State (10-1)
35. San Francisco (13-2)
36. San Diego State (10-3)
10 SEEDS
37. Florida (9-5)
38. Saint Mary’s (11-4)
39. Creighton (10-4)
40. Memphis (8-5)
11 SEEDS
41. Belmont (11-3)
42. Wake Forest (13-3)
43. Minnesota (10-2)
*44. Marquette (10-6)
*45. Mississippi State (10-4)
12 SEEDS
46. Davidson (11-2)
*47. Miami (13-3)
*48. Murray State (9-2)
49. UAB (11-4)
50. Chattanooga (11-3)
13 SEEDS
51. Iona (11-3)
52. New Mexico State (10-2)
53. Ohio (11-2)
54. South Dakota State (11-4)
14 SEEDS
55. Vermont (8-4)
56. Oakland (9-4)
57. Towson (9-5)
58. Wagner (7-2)
15 SEEDS
59. Navy (9-4)
60. Princeton (10-3)
61. Liberty (7-6)
62. UC Irvine (4-4)
16 SEEDS
63. Louisiana (6-5)
64. Montana State (9-5)
65. Gardner-Webb (5-7)
66. Nicholls (6-7)
67. Texas Southern (4-8)
68. Howard (4-6)
THE BUBBLE
LAST FOUR BYES
Creighton (10-4)
Memphis (8-5)
Wake Forest (13-3)
Minnesota (10-2)
LAST FOUR IN
Marquette (10-6)
Mississippi State (10-4)
Miami (13-3)
Murray State (9-2)
FIRST FOUR OUT
Clemson (10-5)
TCU (10-2)
Virginia Tech (8-6)
Louisville (10-5)
NEXT FOUR OUT
Michigan (7-6)
Boise State (9-4)
St. Bonaventure (8-3)
UCF (9-4)
BIDS BY CONFERENCE
Big Ten: 8
Big 12: 7
Big East: 7
SEC: 7
ACC: 4
WCC: 4
Pac-12: 3
American: 2
Mountain West: 2
Ohio Valley: 2