NIT Bracketology - With the bracket predictor

Thumbnail image for nit-logo-328.jpg

I've been doing these NIT projections for a while now, but, because I like computers, I wanted to see if I could model the projections instead and not have to do any actual work. Obviously this has some advantages - it just spits out the numbers so I don't have to compare resumes. There are also some drawbacks, like the odd results that could possibly occur. You'll see some funny stuff in the NIT bracket after the jump, but that's what the computer claims is the truth.

Note: The computer has Gonzaga, Penn State, Michigan and Minnesota in the NCAA Tournament currently. Which is why you won't see any of them here. I don't think that's likely, but hey, I'm a human. What do I know?

NIT Bracket projected by the computer:

1. Clemson
8. Duquesne
4. Miami (FL)
5. Drexel
2. California
7. James Madison
3. Cleveland State
6. USC
1. Virginia Tech
8. Rhode Island
4. Colorado State
5. Washington State
2. Boston College
7. Baylor
3. Dayton
6. Wichita State
1. Marshall
8. Alabama
4. Butler
5. Princeton
2. Oklahoma State
7. Mississippi 
3. Richmond
6. South Carolina
1. VCU
8. UCF
4. Arkansas
5. Valparaiso
2. Colorado
7. N.C. State
3. Maryland
6. Northwestern
Some Notes:
  • The computer doesn't have any name attachment, so some of the teams that are getting a little more publicity for at-large bids in real life are shunned here. This project shows how thin Alabama's actual profile is. The Crimson Tide are in a lot of bracket projections, but they're barely in the NIT here.
  • Marshall doesn't have many bad losses. I think that's what is helping them here. The computer projects every team the Thundering Herd lost to except for Chattanooga (very early) and East Carolina to play in either the NCAA Tournament or the NIT. UAB is projected into the NCAA's in this scenario.
  • The computer also respects strength of schedule more than the actual committee does during its deliberations I believe. That's why a 15-13 California team that's currently fifth in the Pac 10 is projected as a #2 seed. That's way too high.
  • Most unlikely projections: Marshall, California, Dayton and Wichita State. I think almost every other seed passes the eye-ball test and that's impressive. 

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Pardon me but I'm sure you have to revise at least one entry. USC's two-year probation from post-season play (can you say OJ Mayo?) continues through this year. I'm sure a lot of Trojans appreciate your sentiment, though.

  • In reply to Hannibal:

    Thanks! I completely forgot. (Also, file this in the things a computer can't know unless you explicitly tell it list.) Great catch.

  • In reply to johntemplon:

    Actually, upon further inspection it appears that USC's postseason ban only extended to last season. So the Trojans are eligible for the NIT this season. (I believe.)

  • In reply to johntemplon:

    You're right -- check out the ultimate authority -- http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/usc/la-sp-0227-usc-arizona-state-20110227,0,1293454.story
    Mucho apologiosos to you and your puter.

  • fb_avatar

    Once again where is Wyoming in all this mess? They were on the NCAA Tourney Bubble and they arent even assured of an NIT bid? Somthing wrong with this picture here.

Leave a comment