We have seen some strong shifts in the model based on the first two nights of the NCAA.

First, the CAA and the A-10 are looking stronger.

Secondly, the MWC, Big Sky, Pac-10, Big East, and Big Ten are looking weaker.

By default, the Big 12 and SEC have moved up in many head-to-head match-ups.

BYU-Kansas State:  now leans towards Kansas State.  This does have ramifications on our Elite 8.  Xavier is now in play to make the Elite 8 based on over-ride rules, rather than BYU.

Texas A&M has not surpassed Utah State in our models, but they are now much stronger against them.  Easily the closest game in our model.  If you are in Vegas, take the underdog regardless.

Vanderbilt is also looking stronger against Murray State, but this was an over-ride pick originally.  We still like Vanderbilt head-to-head, but the long term bracket trends likes Murray State.

We've been examining the output of the models and figuring out where the blaring opportunities are.  We found a few.

BYU-Kansas State:  It is really tough to pick BYU when K State will be playing in their own conference and you have such a strong SoS.  BYU is stronger on paper, and the models need 1 mid-major in the elite 8.  BYU is easily the best team to fit that need, given their productivity and they are playing in Salt Lake City.  

Texas A&M-Utah State:  Another Big 12 team against another team from Utah.  Utah State did beat Ohio State a few years ago.  Texas A&M's losses are all against legit teams for the most part.

Wisconsin-Kentucky:  I really don't think this is much of a stretch, but the % of points from 3 from Wisconsin have to make you worry about Wisconsin picks.

ODU-Notre Dame:  Which Notre Dame team shows up?  The re-invented one since Luke's injury?

Duke-Villanova-Baylor:  There are several model conflicts here.  Duke is the best team on paper, but Baylor playing in Houston and Villanova's recent success make this the highest leverage pick in the tourney.  Get this right, and you are in good shape.  Miss it, and it could cost you money.

The only thing we've learned from the NIT is that you can expect the A-10 to do well.

There are a couple of places where I am a little concerned with where we are going against long-term trends, but it is at such a granular level, it isn't statiscally significant.

That said, I would be remiss if I didn't tell you about these.

First, no 5 seeds to the Sweet 16.  That hasn't happened since 1992 and it has only happened 8% of the time.

Secondly, We have 2 6 seeds.  2 or more 6 seeds have happened 40% of the time.  One 6 seed has happened 10 out of 25 times.

Lastly, two 12 seeds has only happened once. A 12 and 13 has only happened once as well, so watch those 4-13 and 5-12 in the South and West like we are playing it.

Okay, now let's talk about some of our individual picks.  One that that has caught our attention is that no team played their conference tourney in a dome, so this may adversely affect teams that rely heavily on the 3 pointer.  Look at Duke.  They really depend on the 3, and in 2001 their conference tourney was in the Georgia Dome and they won the NCAA (playing in Minneapolis).

Kentucky will play in the Carrier Dome which is a different kind of dome, but only 22% of their points come from 3.  In contrast, Wisconsin gets 34% of their points from 3.  This introduces higher risk with the Wisconsin pick.  WVU gets 28.5% of their points from 3.

In the South (Houston), Duke gets 29.1% of their points from 3, compared to 28% for Villanova and 27.5% for Baylor.

Salt Lake (Syracuse, K State, BYU) is not in a dome.

FIRST ROUND

1.  Old Dominion (11) over Notre Dame
2.  Utah State (12) over Texas A&M
3.  Ga Tech (10) over Oklahoma State
4.  Northern Iowa (9) over UNLV
5.  Florida State (9) over Gonzaga
6.  St. Mary's (10) over Richmond
7.  Missouri (10) over Clemson

Couple of comments here.  First, we are taking Richmond over St. Mary's due to the translongitudinal stress disorder we expect St. Mary's to experience.  Second, this only looks at match-ups, it does not consider long-term bracket trends.  Third, we really don't consider 8-9 and 7-10 matchups upsets.  Fourth, Missouri over Clemson is based on rules other than pure productivity margin, but we agree with the over-ride.

When you consider "The Forest" and what your composite bracket should look like, we would add these games:

1.  UTEP (12) over Butler
2.  Murray State (13) over Vanderbilt
3.  Siena (13) over Purdue

We are not calling upsets for these four games, but you should look at them closely.

1.  BYU-Florida
2.  Marquette-Washington
3.  San Diego-Tennessee
4.  Xavier-Minnesota

So, officially, we are picking 5 true upsets and 5 of the 9 and 10 seeds.  We feel you should pick 3 to 5 upsets.  We were originally going to go with 3, but the committee did such a poor seeding job, we are moving this number up to 5.  Concentrating your upsets in to these two brackets will have the least impact on your overall bracket integrity and improve your chances of winning.

SECOND ROUND

1.  Marquette (6) over New Mexico
2.  Xavier (6) over Pitt
3.  BYU (7) over Kansas State

Again, those are the pure upsets we are picking (not big fans of BYU over K-State).  Here are the upsets you should consider based on long-term bracket trends.

1.  Utah State over Siena/Purdue
2.  UTEP over Murray State
3.  Murray State over UTEP

Purdue is a wild card here.  They could win 2 games or they could lose early.  If you simply evaluate their games since Hummel got hurt, Siena should win.  Siena has also been to the tourney the last 3 years and beat Ohio State in Dayton.  Murray State looks great on paper.  UTEP looks a little better, and if both of those teams win their first round game, you won't lose any points here, but could go up big on your competition.

THIRD ROUND

1.  Wisconsin (4) over Kentucky
2.  BYU (7) over Xavier

BYU is playing in Salt Lake City and has better efficiency.  We need one team from a mid-major to make our elite 8 based on long-term bracket trends.  Wisconsin doesn't have the hype and the talent that Kentucky has, but they play a better brand of team basketball and the statistics support that.  Wisconsin has been to a Final 4 before so that helps their cause.  Also, Kentucky did not go to the tourney last year and there is only a 36% chance of a team that didn't go to the tourney last year to make the Final 4 the next year.

One other note.  Baylor is statistically better than Villanova, and they are playing in Houston, but Villanova went to the Final 4 last year and was in the tourney last year, so the long-term bracket trends over-ride the statistics.  This is a high leverage game if you enter multiple brackets.

ELITE 8

(4) Wisconsin over West Virginia
(2) Villanova over Duke

Watching Duke vs. Georgetown makes you think they will have issues with any Big East Team.  They are fortunate to get one on a downward trajectory.  Duke is the better team on paper, but the long-term bracket trends point us to Villanova.  Wisconsin, surprisingly, is better than West Virginia in terms of productivity and they have many long-term bracket trends in their favor.

Championship:  Kansas over Wisconsin

Later today, I will post about long-term bracket trends and how this year compares.  The Final 4 and Elite 8 are nearly perfect with long-term trends.  The Sweet 16 has all 4 1 seeds, 3 2 seeds, and 5 seeds lower than 6.  For the first 2 rounds we show 34 games following seed (23 and 11).  This number is slightly lower than trend so consider that when looking at our prioritized list and how deep to go.