Bracketology has Indiana as a No. 1 seed

And now for some speculative fluff.

ESPN’s Joe Lunardi has released his way-too-early Bracketology for the 2012-13 season. (It may be his first, I’m not sure if he did one at the end of last season or not.) Regardless, Indiana is listed as the No. 1 seed in the East Region. The Hoosiers would be set for second and third round games in Lexington, Ky., and a regional in Washington, D.C. before the Final Four in Atlanta.

The other three projected No. 1 seeds are Kentucky, UCLA and Louisville. The link to the whole bracket…


  1. I beleive in his first one, he had Indiana as the number one overall seed. In this one, he has us second behind Louisville. I beleive he had Kansas on the first line as the 3rd overall and Kentucky as the top number 2 seed. After their commitments, UCLA became the 3rd overall seed, Kentucky becamethe last 1 seed and Kansas dropped to the top 2 seed. There is an article by Lunardi but you have to be an EXPN insider.

  2. OMG! Where’s Duke!? Where’s NC!? Kansas off the list!? Somebody call Trey! Where’s Seth!? Where’s my panties!? Where’s my pink stat diary!? Where’s Michigan!? Where’s Coach Kartje!? Where’s Kellenberger!? Where’s Brett Finkelmeier!!!!?

    Funny how it’s “fluff” when its Hoosier feathers.

  3. Butler off the list! Really!? They lose no one plus they add Kellen Dunham and Roneti Clarke, they are also in a new conference the A10 where they can actually get a bid to the NCAA tourney without winning the conference championship.

  4. Harvard,
    I was kind of playing off Podunker’s phrase. It’s every bit as useful as any other college basketball projection in August. Got nothing against it at all, as I clearly posted it, and it gets people talking. But it’s obviously the definition of speculative.

  5. The Korman combover compared to the Kartje fauxhawk? Now that’s speculative fluff. Follicology with no seeding best describes Lunardi’s rug…Fluff-a-don’t his fluff-a-do.

  6. pUKe will be a #3 seed at best and only because they get to play a SEC sched. They’ll have little experience, no depth and merely good talent. They will be okay but not even close to a #1.

  7. Probably lose a #1 seed when Lunardi finds out which player loses a scholarship due to over signing.

  8. Dustin, do you refer, in post #4, about my use of the term “speculative puff?” If so, I’m honored.

    Yes, it’s speculative puff, but it’s fun speculative puff. I have less of an objection to this type of speculative puff when it creates excitement and enthusiasm amongst the Hoosier Nation. But then, there is always a pessimist out there, like Debbie, with an ax to grind, trying to dilute the good news.

  9. That was a fun debate Po…

    Deb – do you think the player “losing” a scholarship is one that would have a meaningful role on the team this year?

    Big E – that is pretty wishful thinking. Their recruiting class is comparable to last year’s, with the #1 C, a top 5 SF, top 5 SG, and another top 40 player. Their depth and experience will essentially be the same as last year, when they went 7 deep. This year they will have 4 freshman, 2 sophomores and a senior. That was the exact mix they had last year. Maybe when you wrote that you weren’t considering the two transfers that will be eligible this year, but that is going to be a huge part of the team and in the area they need it the most – the backcourt. They will be so talented up front that, just like last year, they are going to overwhelm a lot of teams.

  10. Dustin, whether it’s fluff or puff, you’re welcome to it.

    Given the recent news about Ron Patterson not enrolling for the 2012/2013 season, I hope we can put the BB scholarship debate to rest. And that means the posters like Debbie can stop taking their shots at Crean’s recruiting and roster management for a while.

    It’s funny, if Crean had the opposite problem, with too few scholarship players for this year’s team, people like Debbie would be criticizing him for allowing talented players to slip through his fingers and for not being aggressive enough in recruiting top talent. Given the dynamic nature of college basketball these days, coaches must over-recruit. It seems to me that it is an onerous fact of life as a big-time college BB coach. Too many players leave early for the NBA, transfer, flunk out or get kicked off their teams. If you look at the elite college basketball teams, my guess is that, relative to decades past, a low percentage of the bet talent stay with their original college team for four years.

Comments are closed.