March Madness bracket predictions 3.0: Projecting the Subject of 68 for 2021 NCAA Tournament


Replace Sunday is, wisely, Sunday. How wintry is that? 

As ceaselessly, Carrying News’ Subject of 68 projections are in response to the save groups must be seeded in response to how resumes compare, if the season ended the outdated day. We’re no longer predicting how this week will play out because we don’t hang any belief how this week will play out. For every team, I’ve incorporated a pair of rankings and recordsdata that will probably be very relevant when the desire committee meets to plot the precise bracket. 

MORE: March Madness substitute guidelines, explained

Groups which hang clinched computerized bids hang double asterisks. Auto bids for conferences which hang no longer carried out their tournaments are given to the best doubtless final seed, and folk are renowned in parenthesis.

Projected No. 1 seeds

Gonzaga (West Wing), Baylor (Gigantic 12), Michigan (Gigantic Ten), Illinois

Gonzaga (24-0): NET/Pom: 1/1. vs. Q1: 7-0. vs. Q3/4: 13-0


Baylor (21-1): NET/Pom: 2/2. vs. Q1: 8-1. vs. Q3/4: 10-0


Michigan (19-3): NET/Pom: 3/3. vs. Q1: 7-2. vs. Q3/4: 6-0


Illinois (20-6): NET/Pom: 4/5. vs. Q1: 9-5. vs. Q3/4: 6-0

Keep in mind how we told you that Gonzaga, Baylor and Michigan all had heaps of room for error on the stay seed line? Wisely, Michigan examined that belief closing week, with a blowout loss at dwelling in opposition to Illinois and a loss to a Michigan Tell team that’s stunning clawed its plot wait on onto the bubble prior to now few weeks. And the Wolverines are smooth solid on the 1-seed line. 

Projected No. 2 seeds

Alabama (SEC), Iowa, Ohio Tell, Houston

Alabama (21-6): NET/Pom: 7/8. vs. Q1: 7-4. vs. Q3/4: 6-1


Iowa (20-7): NET/Pom: 6/4. vs. Q1: 7-5. vs. Q3/4: 8-0


Ohio Tell (18-8): NET/Pom: 9/7. vs. Q1: 7-6. vs. Q3/4: 6-0


Houston (20-3): NET/Pom: 5/6. vs. Q1: 2-1. vs. Q3/4: 13-1

It’s been a rough stretch for Ohio Tell; the Buckeyes hang lost four in a row — at Michigan Tell and at dwelling to Michigan, Illinois and Iowa. Four real groups, in deliver that they don’t descend powerful, but when they’d hang gone 2-2 in those four, they’d probably be on the 1 seed line as an substitute of Illinois. 

Projected No. 3 seeds

Arkansas, Oklahoma Tell, Virginia (ACC), Texas

Arkansas (21-5): NET/Pom: 16/18. vs. Q1: 6-4. vs. Q3/4: 10-0


Oklahoma Tell (18-7): NET/Pom: 33/37. vs. Q1: 8-5. vs. Q3/4: 8-1


Virginia (17-6): NET/Pom: 13/12. vs. Q1: 4-4. vs. Q3/4: 9-1


Texas (17-7): NET/Pom: 24/26. vs. Q1: 6-6. vs. Q3/4: 8-0

Three weeks prior to now, I hang no longer got guessed that Arkansas would possibly maybe be on the 3-seed line, but college basketball is nothing if no longer unpredictable. The Razorbacks hang obtained eight in a row, collectively with Ws over Alabama, Mizzou (on the boulevard), Florida and LSU. Their non-con slate wasn’t gigantic, but it’s worth noting that every body five of their losses are to groups that will solidly originate the NCAA Tournament as at-neat groups. 

Projected No. 4 seeds

Kansas, West Virginia, Florida Tell, Texas, Villanova (Gigantic East)

Kansas (18-8): NET/Pom: 14/22. vs. Q1: 6-8. vs. Q3/4: 8-0


West Virginia (18-8): NET/Pom: 23/25. vs. Q1: 6-7. vs. Q3/4: 7-0


Florida Tell (15-5): NET/Pom: 22/14. vs. Q1: 3-3. vs. Q3/4: 6-1


Villanova (16-5): NET/Pom: 11/10. vs. Q1: 3-3. vs. Q3/4: 8-0

West Virginia turned into sitting there at 16-6 with four games final — all at dwelling, the save the Mountaineers hang traditionally been no longer easy. However they lost the 2 games in opposition to quality groups (in OT vs. Baylor and by five aspects to Oklahoma Tell). With those losses evaporating any longshot at a No. 1 seed, and any life like shot at a 2 seed, too. 

Projected No. 5 seeds

Purdue, USC, Colorado, Tennessee

Purdue (18-8): NET/Pom: 20/13. vs. Q1: 6-6. vs. Q3/4: 5-1


USC (21-6): NET/Pom: 15/15. vs. Q1: 4-3. vs. Q3/4: 12-0


Colorado (20-7): NET/Pom: 12/16. vs. Q1: 3-4. vs. Q3/4: 10-3


Tennessee (17-7): NET/Pom: 18/23. vs. Q1: 6-5. vs. Q3/4: 10-0

The Pac-12 groups are no longer easy to seed. You survey the solid computer metrics for USC and Colorado, but each and each groups are gentle on Q1 victories, when compared with other groups with top-16 metrics. And Colorado has those three Q3 losses, which isn’t gigantic. After which instruct in Oregon, which has lower metrics but earned the No. 1 seed in the Pac-12 Tournament. The safe wager for those three groups is somewhere in the 5-7 seed differ for the time being. 

Projected No. 6 seeds

Creighton, Oregon (Pac 12), Texas Tech, Clemson

Creighton (18-7): NET/Pom: 25/17. vs. Q1: 4-3. vs. Q3/4: 7-3


Oregon (19-5): NET/Pom: 32/35. vs. Q1: 3-3. vs. Q3/4: 9-2


Texas Tech (17-9): NET/Pom: 17/21. vs. Q1: 4-9. vs. Q3/4: 12-0


Clemson (16-6): NET/Pom: 36/38. vs. Q1: 3-6. vs. Q3/4: 6-0

Both Creighton and Texas Tech are better on other bracket projections. Creighton’s three Q3 losses are difficult, and Texas Tech went 0-8 in Gigantic 12 play in opposition to four of the five top groups in the conference: Baylor, Kansas, West Virginia and Oklahoma Tell. I stunning don’t ponder those resumes scrub wisely when the committee will get to the nitty gritty.  

Projected No. 7 seeds

Missouri, Oklahoma, LSU, Florida

Missouri (15-8): NET/Pom: 45/48. vs. Q1: 7-5. vs. Q3/4: 6-0


Oklahoma (14-9): NET/Pom: 30/31. vs. Q1: 5-8. vs. Q3/4: 8-1


LSU (16-8): NET/Pom: 28/28. vs. Q1: 4-7. vs. Q3/4: 9-0


Florida (13-8): NET/Pom: 29/30. vs. Q1: 5-4. vs. Q3/4: 5-1

A entire bunch hit-or-creep away out SEC colleges on this seed line. That wasn’t intentional, I promise. 

Projected No. 8 seeds

UConn, Virginia Tech, Wisconsin, UCLA

UConn (14-6): NET/Pom: 31/24. vs. Q1: 3-3. vs. Q3/4: 8-0


Virginia Tech (15-5): NET/Pom: 42/47. vs. Q1: 2-2. vs. Q3/4: 10-0


Wisconsin (16-11): NET/Pom: 26/11. vs. Q1: 4-9. vs. Q3/4: 7-0


UCLA (17-8): NET/Pom: 41/42. vs. Q1: 2-6. vs. Q3/4: 12-0

Wisconsin has 11 losses and is 11th in the KenPom ratings. That has to be a predominant, stunning? The Badgers had been 0-8 in Gigantic Ten play in opposition to Michigan, Illinois, Ohio Tell, Iowa and Purdue, and their handiest capture of the season is per chance in opposition to a Missouri Valley team (Loyola Chicago). 

Projected No. 9 seeds

St. Bonaventure (Atlantic 10), BYU, San Diego Tell (Mountain West), Loyola Chicago (Missouri Valley)

St. Bonaventure (15-4): NET/Pom: 27/27. vs. Q1: 3-2. vs. Q3/4: 9-1


BYU (18-5): NET/Pom: 19/20. vs. Q1: 3-3. vs. Q3/4: 11-0


San Diego Tell (19-4): NET/Pom: 21/19. vs. Q1: 0-3. vs. Q3/4: 13-0


Loyola Chicago (22-4): NET/Pom: 10/9. vs. Q1: 2-2. vs. Q3/4: 16-0

Again, an unintentional grouping. Four groups originate air the “strength” conferences with sparking recordsdata. If I’m a 1 seed, I would possibly maybe be worried about going by any of these four in the second spherical. 

Projected No. 10 seeds

North Carolina, VCU, Rutgers, Georgia Tech

North Carolina (16-9): NET/Pom: 39/32. vs. Q1: 2-8. vs. Q3/4: 7-1


VCU (19-6): NET/Pom: 35/43. vs. Q1: 2-4. vs. Q3/4: 10-2


Rutgers (14-10): NET/Pom: 37/33. vs. Q1: 4-8. vs. Q3/4: 5-0


Georgia Tech (15-8): NET/Pom: 38/31. vs. Q1: 2-6. vs. Q3/4: 7-2

A capture over Duke isn’t what it turned into in outdated years, however the Tar Heels pleasing powerful eliminated any lingering doubts about their at-neat plot with their 18-level capture over the Blue Devils on Saturday. In part because it turned into a genuine resume capture, but also because that probably knocked Duke off the bubble. 

Projected No. 11 seeds

Maryland, Michigan Tell, Louisville, Winthrop (Gigantic South)

Maryland (14-12): NET/Pom: 34/29. vs. Q1: 4-9. vs. Q3/4: 8-0


Michigan Tell (15-11): NET/Pom: 67/56. vs. Q1: 5-9. vs. Q3/4: 6-0


Louisville (13-6): NET/Pom: 51/52. vs. Q1: 1-5. vs. Q3/4: 6-1

What are you doing, Maryland? The Terps dropped games to Northwestern and Penn Tell to entire their smartly-liked season, groups which would possibly maybe be a combined eight games under .500 on the season. They dropped to the No. 8 seed in the Gigantic Ten Tournament and hang to face a essentially warmth — and motivated — Michigan Tell squad. Yikes. 

Projected No. 12 seeds

Drake, Saint Louis, Wichita Tell (American), Western Kentucky (Conference USA),

*Colorado Tell (16-5): NET/Pom: 50/61. vs. Q1: 2-3. vs. Q3/4: 13-0


*Drake (23-4): NET/Pom: 47/55. vs. Q1: 1-2. vs. Q3/4: 17-2


*Xavier (13-7): NET/Pom: 57/60. vs. Q1: 1-2. vs. Q3/4: 7-0


*Saint Louis (14-6): NET/Pom: 44/49. vs. Q1: 2-2. vs. Q3/4: 10-2

The true instruct for the groups that snuck into the closing four at-neat berths this week is this: Seton Corridor, Indiana, Minnesota, Duke and Stanford had unpleasant weeks. So, y’know, the competition for the previous couple of spots turned into more a battle of attrition than a rush to the fabricate. 

No. 13 seeds: Colgate (Patriot), UC Santa Barbara (Gigantic West), UNCG (Southern), Toledo (MAC)


No. 14 seeds: Cleveland Tell (Horizon), Liberty (Atlantic Solar), Morehead Tell (Ohio Valley), Gigantic Canyon (WAC)


No. 15 seeds: Siena (MAAC), Hartford (The US East), Southern Utah (Gigantic Sky), Northeastern (Colonial)


No. 16 seeds: South Dakota Tell (Summit), Nicholls Tell (Southland), *Georgia Tell (Solar Belt), *Prairie Be conscious A&M (SWAC), *Bryant (Northeast), *North Carolina A&T (MEAC)

*First Four groups


Groups which hang clinched computerized bids

Dropped out: Abilene Christian, Belmont, Boise Tell, Jap Washington, James Madison, Texas Tell, Vermont

Rookies: Georgia Tell, Hartford, Michigan Tell Morehead Tell, Nicholls Tell, Northeastern, Southern Utah

Learn Extra

Africhoice

Read Previous

Projecting Tom Brady’s new contract with Buccaneers: How great may perhaps well peaceable Tampa Bay pay QB?

Read Next

Yaw Tog’s ‘Sore’ Remix Song Video Hits 1 Million Views In 72 Hours On YouTube

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *