A few years ago, the Big East ravaged Conference USA by adding Cincinnati, DePaul, Marquette, Louisville and South Florida. The resulting basketball powerhouse regularly puts eight or nine teams in the NCAA Tournament. But Big East opponents often must travel hundreds of miles to play opponents, and teams rarely play one another more than once during the regular season.

Now, the Pac-10 is looking to take apart the Big 12 in a form of conference cannibalism. Colorado is packing its bags and on its way. The Big Ten has Nebraska on board. Yes, that means the Big Ten has 12 members while the Big 12 is left with 10. Oh, but the ridiculousness is just beginning.

Colorado jumped at the chance to move to the Pac-10 before the Big 12’s meat and potatoes bolts and leaves the Buffaloes roaming a conference ghost town with Kansas State, Kansas, Missouri and Iowa State. The Pac-10’s primary expansion target is Texas, which likely would be accompanied by Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma and Baylor. The Bears aren’t a guarantee, but Texas state officials probably would insist that all their schools go to the same loving home.

That super-conference, the Pac-16, would reach from Spokane, Wash., to College Station, Texas — a distance of more than 2,000 miles. Granted, Washington and Texas A&M would probably only travel to the other one’s home once every two or three years. But that’s a ridiculous amount of territory for 16 teams to cover. Travel costs would rise, and coaches would need to recruit a much broader segment of the country.

But the fun continues. The Big 12 refugee camp would include Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State. Iowa State and Missouri could be natural targets for the Big Ten. If not, the Mountain West might come calling. Perhaps the craziest rumor out there is that Kansas and Kansas State could join forces with the Big East, especially if the Big Ten grabs Notre Dame and Rutgers. Who wouldn’t love to see the Jayhawks and Connecticut Huskies go toe to toe every season? But the teams would be traveling nearly 1,500 to make that happen.

Oh, the insanity. Why don’t we just start over? Imagine if we took the top 112 programs — with a focus on college basketball and a nod to college football — and realigned them into eight 14-team conferences. But let’s set a ground rule based on common sense: All teams must reside within roughly 500 miles of the conference’s headquarters — or within two states of that headquarters. That two-state rule facilitates the Pacific Coast Conference.

After we move around teams, we need to revise the schedule, too.

• All eight conferences feature two seven-team divisions. Divisional opponents play one another twice each year (12 games).
• Every conference team plays the seven teams from the other division once each year (seven games), alternating home games each season.
• In addition to the 19 conference games, each team may schedule 10 non-conference games. Five of those games must be against teams outside the Power 112, and two of those five must be on the road. Teams that fail to comply lose a scholarship for the next season. Hit ‘em where it hurts.

Without any further ado, here’s my realignment plan.

These 2010 guys are out to prove something, though. One won’t know just how great a draft class it will be until years down the road, once these soon-to-be-rookies go on to participate in several All-Star games, win an MVP or simply bust out to play in Europe.

With that disclaimer in play, here is the best the 2010 NBA Draft has to offer.

1. John Wall, point guard, Kentucky

Wall’s undisputedly No. 1. Not only did he help make Kentucky one of the best teams in college basketball last season, he did it as a freshman while averaging great numbers: 16.9 points, 6.4 assists and 4.2 rebounds per game. The 19-year-old is a pure point guard with terrific size, speed and court vision. What he needs to improve is his inconsistent jump shot. But other than that, he’s exactly what troubled Washington — owner of the No. 1 pick — needs after such a tumultuous season.

2. Evan Turner, small forward, Ohio State

Averaging 20 points and almost 10 rebounds per game, Turner got to the rim and grabbed misses almost at will in college. He’s an offensive workhorse who can pass while also excelling on defense. His court vision also is outstanding, evidenced by his six assists per game in 2009-10. Just call him Mr. Versatility. It would be interesting to see how much he gets the ball in Philadelphia, which has the No. 2 pick, though. He was the man in Ohio, but he would be Andre Iguodala’s sidekick in Philly.

3. DeMarcus Cousins, center, Kentucky

So Wall didn’t make Kentucky a contender by himself. He had himself a stud of a big man helping him. Standing at 6-11 and weighing 270 pounds, Cousins averaged 15.1 points and 9.8 rebounds per game in limited playing time — mostly because of foul trouble. He’s only 19 years old and has a lot of potential, good and bad. He has great hands and a scoring mentality, but there are concerns about his weight and maturity. There’s no question Cousins has all the tools necessary to be very good in the NBA. The New Jersey Nets, who have the No. 3 pick, would hope he decides to use them.

4. Greg Monroe, power forward, Georgetown

Two seasons at Georgetown was all Monroe needed to be NBA ready. He’s a double-double machine with great passing ability, and he’s a lefty. He can create his own shot but needs to work on his jump shot, a lot. He’s only 20, though, so there’s a lot of potential for the already-skilled big man. He’ll be a nice pickup for Minnesota, if the Timberwolves take him with the No. 4 pick, who could really use the help after going 15-67 last season.

5. Derrick Favors, power forward, Georgia Tech

The youngest player entering the 2010 NBA Draft, Favors was among the top players in field goal percentage (61 percent) during the 2009-10 season. He averaged 12.4 points and 8.4 rebounds in 27.5 minutes per game. He’s a very effective big man with quickness and athleticism. His youth also means his body hasn’t fully developed, though, so he’ll need to gain some muscle to be a difference-maker. There’s nowhere to go but up for Favors, and the Kings (No. 5 pick) will likely take him.

The only certainty in this 2010 Draft, it seems, is that Wall will go No. 1. Turner at No. 2 is also as good a prediction as a Tim Duncan bank shot. Picks No. 3 through 5, however, can be switched around among New Jersey, Minnesota and Sacramento. None of those big men will be immediate franchise saviors. Potential is their main label.

Although draft night is still two and a half weeks away, every team is busy crunching the numbers on players from John Wall and Evan Turner to Jon Scheyer and Scottie Reynolds. They want a player who can contribute next season — or sometime in the near future. In many cases, that requires filling a specific need. But in others, teams go with the most talented player available.

Obviously, draft results largely depend on the available talent and team needs. However, several trends have emerged during the past few years. And one trend might not bode well for someone like Turner.

Point forwards can dominate the college game. They have the ball handling skills to cut to the hoop, shooting touch to extend defenses beyond their comfort zone, and size to post up smaller guards. However, their skills don’t always translate to the NBA.

In 2008, Italian forward Danilo Gallinari went to New York at No. 6, and Milwaukee picked West Virginia’s Joe Alexander two picks later. Those top 10 picks didn’t exactly inspire much excitement for undersized forwards who like to shoot. Gallinari averaged 6.1 points in 28 games for the Knicks during his rookie season, and Alexander struggled to put up 4.7 points in 59 games. Gallinari improved significantly in his sophomore campaign, but the Bucks gave up on Alexander, shipping him to Chicago for John Salmons.

In 2009, no one took a shot at a point forward until New Jersey took Louisville’s Terrence Williams with the No. 11 pick. Shortly after Williams came off the board, Gerald Henderson and Austin Daye followed. Of the three, Williams fared the best, averaging 8.4 points per game in his rookie season. He appears to be a decent part of the Nets’ rebuilding plans. The other two didn’t impress their teams, the Charlotte Bobcats and Detroit Pistons, respectively. Neither averaged much more than five points per game. What’s worse is Henderson’s shooting: 35.6 percent from the field and 21.1 percent from three-point range. For a 215-pound point forward, that’s unacceptable. And it will scare teams away from guys who haven’t proven that they can be great shooters or legitimate post players.

That spells trouble for Turner. Ohio State’s junior superstar averaged 20.4 points and 9.2 rebounds per game this past season en route to Player of the Year honors. However, Turner shot a decent-but-not-spectacular 36.4 percent from three-point range. And at 6-7 and 215 pounds, Turner might find scoring much tougher in the NBA.

Syracuse’s Wesley Johnson is another player looking to prove he can make it in the league as a small forward. In his one season with the Orange, Johnson dominated opponents for 16.5 points and 8.5 rebounds per game. Unlike Turner, though, Johnson shot 41.5 percent from three-point range, proving that he has the goods to consistently deliver from long range.

Turner and Johnson seem to be safe top 10 picks, though perhaps not as high in the top 10 as expected. However, Wake Forest’s Al-Farouq Aminu might be in trouble. He seems to more closely resemble Daye or Alexander than Turner or Johnson. Aminu is 6-9, 215 pounds and a 44.7 percent shooter. It’s even uglier from three-point range, where Aminu shoots 27.3 percent. Aminu is a hard worker, and he averaged 10.7 rebounds per game for the Demon Deacons. But he’s a risky pick, who could follow in the footsteps of other college point forwards who don’t dominate the post but aren’t good enough shooters to play the 3 spot in the NBA.

If the trends of the past couple of years continue, we might see some surprising results at the top of the draft and some long waits for players projected to hear their names called toward the end of the lottery. In a couple of weeks, we’ll find out how much emphasis NBA executives place on recent history.

According to the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions, two members of coach Jim Calhoun’s coaching staff made hundreds of impermissible phone calls and text messages to Husky recruits. Then they lied to NCAA investigators to cover their tracks.

In addition, the coaching staff improperly passed along tickets to recruits’ coaches, teachers or friends. The infractions committee also cited Connecticut for allowing Josh Nochimson, a former Husky student manager who became a professional agent, to interact with recruits on Connecticut’s behalf.

In sum, the infractions committee said Calhoun and the university failed to promote compliance and adequately monitor the program’s conduct. Those are pretty serious charges against a program that spends $55 million of taxpayers’ money on its athletics, according to the Hartford Courant.

But with Connecticut’s blatant disregard of compliance, an incident like this was bound to happen.

Connecticut is a powerhouse in men’s and women’s basketball and has recently emerged as a major player in the imminently profitable world of Division I football. The recruiting trail is filled with shady figures representing cutthroat competitors. In addition, the NCAA has legislated enough landmines to keep the Committee on Infractions permanently well staffed.

And if you’re a Connecticut executive, you might want to beef up the compliance office when your coach demonstrates a cavalier attitude toward compliance with statements like, “The [rules] manual is 508 pages. Someone could’ve made a mistake,” as reported by Yahoo’s Jason King.

Instead, as of May 2009, Connecticut had the smallest compliance office of any Big East team that plays Division I-A football, as reported by Dave Altimari and Paul Doyle for the Hartford Courant. The Huskies lumped the massive workload of overseeing the conduct of hundreds of student-athletes and dozens of coaches onto two employees. In comparison, Connecticut has already spent $338,000 on law services from Kansas City-based Bond, Schoeneck and King, according to the Hartford Courant, to defend the men’s basketball program against the recent allegations. To do so, the university had to ask the state to double the original three-year contract of $300,000, initiated in April 2009.

Someone in the athletics department — and even the university president or board of directors — should receive some of the blame for this mess. A major program of the Huskies’ magnitude needs major dedication to compliance. Yes, Calhoun has a dubious attitude toward the rules, and he should reconsider publicly antagonizing the NCAA. But the compliance office needs to have more clout and support. If Calhoun is concerned that he or his staff are not following all 508 pages of rules, he should be able to consult the experts and receive a quick reply.

In comparison, journalists have hundreds of Associated Press style guidelines that we’re supposed to follow. I don’t know anyone who has all of them memorized — why even try? But nearly every writer I know has the spiral-bound style guide within reaching distance of their computer. We might not know all the rules, but we know where to look.

Thankfully, the Associated Press doesn’t have an infractions committee to hunt down journalists who write that a game is underway — which is perfectly acceptable according to Merriam-Webster — instead of under way. But if AP style was a requirement for journalists’ performance, we’d be consulting the guide all the time. Writers who opted not to flip through the guide — or worse, knowingly wrote however they wanted regardless of AP style — would be risking professional condemnation.

At this stage, it’s difficult to determine whether Connecticut’s latest embarrassment is a product of negligence or intentional malfeasance. However, these matters likely would not be as prevalent — certainly not as public — if Connecticut’s power brokers placed more emphasis on compliance.

Count me as one person who hopes it all stops right there. And count me as one who figures it won’t.

The biggest reasons for the Big Ten wanting to expand are obvious: more money, and football as the driver for that. The Big Ten needs one more school to have divisions in football and a championship game, along with the revenue it would bring. It also would like more markets for its Big Ten Network, which seems a little odd considering I get the Big Ten Network here in metropolitan Boston as part of my cable package.

Speculation is that the Big Ten may not add just one team for an even dozen. In fact, the thinking is that the Big Ten might try to go to 16 schools, at which point one must wonder if the conference will change its name (although that never happened with the now-14-school Atlantic 10 Conference). It’s at that point where utter insanity would really begin to set in, and I’m not alluding to the fact that most, if not all, of the five schools it would add would likely be poached from the Big East.

No, the insanity has been going on for a while in this respect. In the 2009-10 season, 15 conferences in Division I had more than 10 schools. Most have 12 schools, while the Atlantic 10 has 14 and the Big East has 16. They are also getting more spread out geographically, which isn’t necessarily a good thing. The Atlantic 10 and Big East now stretch from New England as far south as North Carolina and Florida and as far west as Missouri and Illinois. Conference USA stretches from near the east coast of North Carolina to the far west end of Texas; the Sun Belt stretches from Miami to Denver. The Colonial Athletic Association stretches from Boston to Atlanta.

The move to expand conferences has by and large been first and foremost about football. Having 12 teams allows a conference to have divisions and ultimately a championship game, which brings in even more revenue. In basketball, the conferences already have championship games except in the Ivy League, which doesn’t have a tournament. Football was already a breadwinner for the major conferences, but that has become the case to an even larger degree now.

Basketball is hurt by an unbalanced schedule that results from this, which would only get worse with further expansion. In the first year of the 16-team Big East, each team had two schools it did not play at all. That changed once the conference expanded its schedule to 18 games, as they now play all 15 schools, three of them both home and away. The Pac-10 is the last of the big boys with a true round robin regular season, and if they add two more teams you can be sure that will be a thing of the past as well, which would be unfortunate.

Just by virtue of having an unbalanced schedule, calling one team a champion in the regular season becomes something of a misnomer. While that hasn’t yet happened in football, that could change if the Big Ten goes to 16 schools. While it would certainly have divisions, the eight-game conference schedule means each team will barely play half of its conference opponents. Can you really call the team that wins the championship game in such a scenario a true champion of the conference? At most, the champion will have played nine of the 15 other schools in the conference. It’s one thing to play nine of 11, as can happen in the SEC or Big 12, but it’s a little more significant in the Big Ten scenario.

The unbalanced schedule makes conference records not mean so much now. Former Seton Hall head coach Bobby Gonzalez once said that if a team goes .500 in the Big East, they should be in the NCAA Tournament. But the reality is, a 9-9 team might have played three teams behind them in the standings twice, while an 8-10 team might play three teams atop the standings twice. A 9-9 mark in the Big East doesn’t tell you as much as a 9-9 mark in the Pac-10 does because of the Big East’s unbalanced schedule.

In addition, the unbalanced schedule can also mean that great rivalries take an unnecessary breather or basically go away altogether. The ACC did the right thing in designating teams as primary partners, meaning they play twice every season, so that Duke and North Carolina will play home and home every year. But not every conference has done this, and frankly, it’s unfortunate that it would even have to be done.

A few big rivalries could go by the wayside if the Big Ten plucks some of the teams it is reportedly considering for expansion. Just imagine if Syracuse and Pittsburgh leave the Big East to join the Big Ten: with that, the Big East would not only lose two powerhouse teams, but they would also lose their signature rivalry in Georgetown-Syracuse and one of the best rivalries of late in Connecticut-Pittsburgh. If Missouri were to leave the Big 12 for the Big Ten, the Border Wars with Kansas would be a thing of the past.

Making more money is great, and it’s no secret that it’s the primary motivator here. But sometimes, the pursuit of the almighty dollar leads people to do things that might pull in more money but makes changes that aren’t very good in other respects. That’s why chasing dollars isn’t always a practical thing to do. Further expansion of conferences that in some cases are already too big is one such example, and that’s why we should hope that this doesn’t come to pass, no matter how inevitable it seems to be.

When Hill became the head coach at Rutgers, there was a lot of anticipation. Some of that was because it was the worst-kept secret in college basketball, as Hill had left Villanova to become the associate head coach at Rutgers a year earlier. It was an odd move, a step down in the minds of most as Villanova had become a consistent NCAA Tournament team while Rutgers was still trying to get to the NCAA Tournament. Gary Waters, the head coach at the time, was on the hot seat, so everyone figured Hill went to Rutgers to then succeed Waters once his contract ran out a year later.

But a lot of that anticipation came from other things. For one, Hill is a New Jersey guy. He was born there, went to college there, and did a lot of his coaching in or around the state save for stops at Marquette and Maine from 1988-94. There aren’t many people who are associated with college basketball in New Jersey as readily as Fred Hill. Also, his father is the long-time head baseball coach at the Rutgers, so there was a family angle to it as well – one that would come into play at the end, oddly enough. And this was Hill’s first head coaching job, sort of a hometown-kid-comes-home-for-his-first-job kind of story.

Hill has also been known for his recruiting, as he’s had a big hand in top players going to all of his stops, and that was a key because Rutgers had for years struggled to get the best New Jersey kids. There has been plenty of talent in the state, but Rutgers was always getting the second-tier players, the ones who were borderline Big East talents or better off in the Atlantic 10 if they wanted to be all-conference players. The thinking was that with Hill and a staff with plenty of roots and connections in the Garden State, more of the top-tier players would start coming to Rutgers.

Of course, there was a question about whether or not Hill could then coach those players. The jury is still out on that one, much like whether or not he could get the top players consistently. Sure, Hill landed Mike Rosario and Greg Echenique, but the Scarlet Knight roster this past season still had several borderline high-major players like Mike Coburn, Jonathan Mitchell and Hamady Ndiaye. Next year’s class wasn’t looking like a breakthrough group, as they didn’t land players like Kyrie Irving, Devon Collier, Ashton Pankey, Fuquan Edwin or Ronald Roberts. Chances are, neither Gil Biruta nor Austin Carroll, if they still go there (Carroll said recently he is still going to Rutgers), will make anyone forget Echenique or Rosario, let alone Phil Sellers or Eddie Jordan.

In four years at Rutgers, Hill had a 47-77 record, including a 13-57 Big East mark. With a new athletic director since he was hired, the thought was that Hill might not have much time before some results needed to be seen. But athletic director Tim Pernetti said Hill was going to get another year to try to turn the corner, and then the month of April came about.

On April 1, Hill was involved in an incident at a Rutgers baseball game. According to reports, he yelled at the Pittsburgh baseball coaches after the game and was told by Pernetti not to attend any more games between the two schools that week. Hill showed up again, however, and that led to the end. It was only a question of when, not if, he would be out as the head coach, as well as how much money he would get going out the door.

Hill’s tenure wasn’t without controversy prior to the incident. Last August, Hill hired Sal Mantesana as an assistant coach, which meant one of the current assistants either had to leave or move to another position on the staff. With that hire, he made Craig Carter the recruiting coordinator, which meant he was no longer an assistant coach and could not recruit. Not only is Carter a good recruiter who is well-liked and respected in the New York/New Jersey area, but the move left the team without a black coach on the entire staff, which had some in New Jersey up in arms until Carter was moved back into his assistant coaching role a month later. While Hill did move him back into the position before the season started, that he removed Carter from the assistants in the first place was an instance of dropping the ball at a bad time.

A milder controversy came early on, when Rutgers played a game against St. Peter’s in Jersey City. Although it was not on campus at the Yanitelli Center, it was basically a home game for St. Peter’s, the kind of road game a team like Rutgers basically doesn’t play because they don’t have to. But Hill took them on the road, and they lost the game, which brought some negative publicity. Hill looked at it the way he should have – that the Scarlet Knights have to be able to win games like that if they’re going to be able to win Big East games – but playing the game was seen as a questionable move. Perhaps it was a sign of things to come: they couldn’t beat a rebuilding MAAC team, and had trouble winning games for all of Hill’s tenure.

Even with all of that, surely no one foresaw the end to his tenure that occurred. No one would have been surprised if his tenure ended after another losing season that included a 6-12 Big East record, but this was a surprise. The New Jersey boy came home for his first head coaching job, and went out the door not in the best of ways. It was hardly a storybook ending, much like the prior four years were hardly storybook in nature.

It’s not a good vs. evil story. It’s merely the Final Four, and its two No. 5 seeds (injury-riddled Michigan State and Butler) battling each other for one spot in the championship game while the ACC’s and No. 1 seed Duke combats the Big East’s and No. 2 West Virginia for the other. Two feel-good stories vs. two bracket-saving, household names.

It should be fun. Let’s take a look at those Final Four-ers.

Even though it’s a second consecutive Final Four trip for the Spartans (28-8), the state of Michigan should still be pleasantly shocked to find them there. Michigan State has walked on the borderline of survival in every round to reach these instances, having won its four games by an average of 3.25 points. Clutchness and healthy doses of guards Korie Lucious and Durrell Summers have done the trick. They have the Spartans feeling they can go from 2009 runner-ups to 2010 champions despite their major underdog status.

However, when it comes to underdogs, no team barks louder than the Bulldogs of Butler (32-4). Fans are growing either hopeful or tired of hearing about how this team’s run is not unlike that of the Hickory team from the “Hoosiers” movie, the story of a small-town Indiana high school squad that wins the state championship — my apologies if I ruined the movie for anyone.

The similarities are there. Butler is also from Indiana and plays in the mid-major Horizon League. Adding to that, the Bulldogs have pulled their set of upsets to get to the Final Four. They beat their region’s No. 1 and No. 2 seeds — Syracuse and Kansas State, respectively — to get a shot at the title while playing in their home state.

As it’s been the case all tournament long, swingman Gordon Hayward will be key for Butler, not just because of his team-leading scoring but because of his rebounding. The sophomore will need to set a tone on the glass and hope his teammates follow. Michigan State is one of the best rebounding teams in the country, and extra possessions could be the difference. The Spartans, for their part, must take Butler’s playing-at-home spirit out right off the bat. And they shouldn’t rely on their crunch-time skills. Butler, which comes into the game having won 24 consecutive games, has been just as good in those instances this tournament.

Whichever squad remains alive after the underdog-off will have to face a powerhouse in the championship game. Duke (33-5), thought by many to be the most vulnerable No. 1 Tournament seed, is the only No. 1 seed to make it to the Final Four. The “Big Three,” guards Jon Scheyer and Nolan Smith and forward Kyle Singler, combine for about 70 percent of the Blue Devils’ total scoring and has carried Duke past every team it was supposed to beat. Now, however, Duke, a team that relies heavily on three-point shooting, will face its biggest offensive test against a lengthy West Virginia (31-6) squad that forced another No. 1 seed, Kentucky, into misfiring on 28-of-32 three-point attempts in their Elite Eight match.

The Mountaineers not only are long and effective zone defenders but also feature one of the most exciting players in the field: forward Da’Sean Butler. Butler hasn’t needed to hit any big shots this post-season as West Virginia hasn’t had any major scares during its run, but Butler is one bad dude when called upon, as proven by his two game-winners in the Big East Tournament. He and forward Devin Ebanks are the Mountaineers’ main offensive weapons.

Smith is the guy for Duke. His ability to break down defenses and create, along with his reliable jump shot, could have West Virginia scrambling out of their zone defense rather early. The Blue Devils are an outstanding shooting team, and the Mountaineers might not have a choice but to play them man-to-man. How West Virginia adjusts to Duke’s shooting ability will be the deciding factor. And it would also help the Mountaineers if they could make a couple of shots. Defense is what’s gotten them this far, but they’re the worst shooting team remaining. West Virginia has shot less than 42 percent in all of their tournament wins.

Because of its underdog of underdogs’ status, Butler is the team that seemingly everyone wants to win it all, especially because the Bulldogs are playing in front of their home crowd. Michigan State will be a tough rival, but these teams are evenly-matched. Meanwhile, on the other side, Duke will need a good shooting day to get past the Mountaineers, who will pray for an average shooting day to help them get back to the championship game for the first time since 1959. It should be fun.

Predictions that will probably be completely wrong: Butler and Duke advance. And Duke wins it all.

Racers’ fans went into a frenzy. Many people who had never even heard of the school before celebrated the feel-good upset just because of its own strange nature. Even more people, however, kicked at the ground and muttered curse words because the unexpected result shook up their brackets.

That was just the beginning. Perhaps inspired by the Racers’ Day 1 shocker, a No. 12 seed, Cornell, decided it would ride hot-shooting all the way into the Sweet 16, a similar case to that of No. 10 St. Mary’s, which unleashed its beast of a center, 6-11 Omar Samhan, in the South Region and knocked out second-seeded Villanova to also join the field of 16.

And after No. 9 Northern Iowa’s Ali Farokhmanesh made the most cold-blooded crunch-time 3-pointer in recent tournament memory to cement his team’s Sweet 16 ticket while taking down overall-top-seeded Kansas on Saturday, it was official that at least 90 percent of the country’s brackets had gone more busted than a piñata on Cinco de Mayo.

Putting aside the almighty custom of wagering on tournament predictions, however, March Madness has been splendid so far. Down-to-the-wire games have been numerous, as have been upsets. High seeds Kansas, Villanova, Georgetown, Vanderbilt, Wisconsin and Temple all got axed, but their executioners gave the competition parity and diversity. Entering the Sweet 16, 11 conferences will be represented.

Out of all surprise teams, Cornell has been the most pleasant one. The Big Red’s wins made it the first Ivy League team to make it this far in more than 30 years, and it did so with authority. Cornell smacked around No. 5 Temple in the first round and then did the same to No. 4 Wisconsin in the second while shooting a combined 58.6 percent in the games.

Even better than that, though, has been the performance of St. Mary’s Samhan, who has totaled 61 points through two games while making 24 of 32 field goal attempts. His supremacy has been the reason the Gaels are enjoying the best season in their history while Villanova is already home, lamenting its collapse.

Speaking of failure, that’s been the theme of the postseason for Nova’s conference. The Big East, widely regarded as the best league in college basketball, had a tournament-best eight entrants, but half were done by the end of the first round, and two more followed soon after in the second. Only No. 1-seed Syracuse in the West Region and No. 2-seed West Virginia in the East remain.

First-round meat: No. 6 Marquette, which blew a 15-point lead in the second half and lost to an out-to-prove-the-Pac-10-is-not-that-weak No. 11-seed Washington; No. 3-seed Georgetown, which was blasted by Ohio, a team that had a losing record in the MAC and got into the Dance only after winning its conference’s tournament; Notre Dame, which was zoned out of the tournament by No. 11-seed Old Dominion; and No. 9-seed Louisville, which also got embarrassed by the Pac-10, by Cal.

No. 3-seed Pittsburgh made the second round, but the Panthers couldn’t hang with No. 6-seed Xavier on Sunday and were ousted.

With so many high seeds gone so early, thanks in big part to the Big East, it’d clearly be silly to count any team out. In the East, No. 1-seed Kentucky will have the challenge to cool down the Big Red’s red-hot shooting, and West Virginia will have to remain impressive to get past an also-remarkable Washington. In the South, No. 1-seed Duke, which has made quick work of its rivals so far, will face a Purdue team missing Robbie Hummel, and No. 3-seed Baylor will deal with Samhan, St. Mary’s scary big man.

In the Midwest, Cinderella Northern Iowa will face No. 5-seed Michigan State, ecstatic after its buzzer-beating win over Maryland Sunday, and No. 2-seed Ohio State, the favorite to win the section now that Kansas is gone, will take on No. 6-seed Tennessee. In the West, No. 5-seed Butler, which got a scare from Murray State before advancing via a 54-52 win Saturday, will meet with Syracuse. The winner will play the winner of the Kansas State-Xavier game.

Predictions? We’re not too big on them these days, but the solid candidates to advance are Kentucky, Syracuse, Duke, West Virginia and Ohio State. These teams have been imposing through their first two games. They’re as dependable picks as Kansas was before Saturday.

Syracuse Orange (Overall: 28-4, Big East: 15-3)

No. 1 seed, West Region

The Orange enter the NCAA Tournament as a favorite to contend for the national championship. But they will need to overcome some adversity to work their way through the West Region, even though they are a No. 1 seed. Syracuse will play at least the first weekend without senior Arinze Onuaku, who injured a quad in the Orange’s Big East Tournament loss to Georgetown. The Orange primarily use a seven-man rotation, so the loss of Onuaku makes them dangerously thin against No. 16 Vermont and either No. 8 Gonzaga or No. 9 Florida State.

Despite Onuaku’s loss, Syracuse should be able to get through the first weekend of action, though likely with more difficulty than originally anticipated. Syracuse’s offense will continue to roll along as one of the most efficient offenses in the country, according to Ken Pomeroy’s statistics. Guards Wes Johnson and Andy Rautins fuel the No. 9 offense in the country. Both are tall guards — at 6-7, Johnson is more of a swingman — and present match up problems for opponents. They each shoot better than 39 percent from three-point range and combine to average 27.7 points per game.

However, Syracuse is not unbeatable, as Louisville proved twice this season. The Orange give up a lot of offensive rebounds because they play the 2-3 zone nearly exclusively. That scheme makes it more difficult to box out opponents. And offensively, Syracuse has a bad habit of turning the ball over.

Syracuse won’t meet a team until at least the Sweet 16 that can take advantage of those weaknesses. And that team is No. 13-seed Murray State, which would be overmatched offensively. However, if Onuaku remains out and the Racers find a way to get past No. 4-seed Vanderbilt and Butler/UTEP, Murray State has an excellent chance to shock the Orange.

Most likely, Syracuse will reach the Elite Eight, where the Orange’s run through the tournament will come to an abrupt halt. Three likely opponents — No. 2-seed Kansas State, No. 3-seed Pittsburgh and No. 7-seed BYU — all have the type of profile that would give the Orange fits.

Kansas State can rebound well and plays a fast-paced, intense game that would prevent Syracuse from stalling the Wildcats’ offense. Pittsburgh already has one win against the Orange this season. And BYU shoots 43 percent from three-point range and plays at one of the fastest paces in the country. The Cougars will try to beat Syracuse’s defense down the floor to prevent the Orange from setting up the 2-3 zone. And if they have to play in the half court, the Cougars can shoot over the zone.

West Virginia Mountaineers (Overall: 27-6, Big East 13-5)

No. 2 seed, East Region

The Mountaineers are one of the trendy picks to reach the Final Four as a No. 2 seed. And why not? West Virginia has five wins against teams seeded No. 1-3. The Mountaineers already have proven that they can beat anybody.

The key to West Virginia’s success is methodical offense, stout defense and better effort than their opponents’. A trio of players averages at least 11 points and six rebounds per game, led by senior Da’Sean Butler’s 17.4 points and 6.3 rebounds per game. Butler proved in the Big East Tournament that he is a clutch player who can hit game-winning shots when needed. And West Virginia might need those services once or twice if West Virginia wants to reach the Final Four.

West Virginia’s weakness is flat-out ugly shooting. The Mountaineers shoot 48.8 percent from inside the arc, 33.6 percent from three-point range, and 69.6 percent from the free throw line. And West Virginia’s defense allows opponents to put up nearly identical numbers. The difference is that West Virginia is second-best in the country at collecting offensive rebounds, and the Mountaineers are among the top third in grabbing defensive rebounds. All of West Virginia’s starters are at least 6-7, except point guard Darryl “Truck” Bryant.

West Virginia should have no troubles against its first two opponents. In the Sweet 16, No. 3-seed New Mexico could present problems. The Lobos are No. 5 in the country at gathering defensive rebounds, and they shoot well from three-point range. New Mexico also doesn’t commit turnovers. If West Virginia faces New Mexico, they’ll lose. But the Mountaineers look like they might catch a break thanks to a tough second-round draw for the Lobos, and West Virginia should make it to the Elite Eight.

In the Elite Eight, West Virginia will either step up its offensive game or lose to No. 4-seed Wisconsin, which has the talent and offensive skills to get past tough defenses like Temple and Kentucky. The Badgers play as slow as West Virginia does and are more efficient on offense. That spells trouble for a team that doesn’t shoot well. Because Wisconsin isn’t concerned about setting up fast breaks, the entire team crashes the boards, which would neutralize West Virginia’s strength. Somewhat counterintuitively, the Mountaineers want the top seed, Kentucky, to reach the Elite Eight because that would present a much easier match up. But it’s not going to happen.

Villanova Wildcats (Overall: 24-7, Big East: 13-5)

No. 2 seed, South Region

Villanova is in trouble. The No. 2 seed in the South Region started the season 20-1 before losing six of its final 10 games. Three of the four wins came against teams that aren’t playing in the NCAA Tournament. Opponents started to figure out that the Wildcats’ defense is vulnerable to attacking offenses. Villanova is one of the most foul-prone teams in the tournament.

Villanova’s defensive liability will likely rear its head sooner rather than later because No. 7-seed Richmond and No. 10-seed Saint Mary’s will have match up advantages that will lead to an upset. The Wildcats have one of the most efficient offenses in the country, which will keep them in the game. And senior Scottie Reynolds is one of the most clutch players in the country, shooting better than 54 percent from the field and 39 percent from three-point range. But Richmond and Saint Mary’s have the height to frustrate Villanova’s outside shooters. And both teams shoot free throws well, which will likely be the deciding factor in a major second-round upset.

Pittsburgh Panthers (Overall: 24-8, Big East: 13-5)

No. 3 seed, West Region

For the Panthers, the West Region’s No. 3 seed, success will come slowly — literally. The Panthers average only 62 possessions per game, one of the slowest tempos in the country. After bleeding some of the clock, the Panthers are usually efficient on offense, even though they don’t shoot particularly well inside or outside the arc.

The team’s most critical player is sophomore Ashton Gibbs, who leads the team with 15.8 points per game. He is the team’s lone three-point threat, and he makes 40.2 percent of his three-point attempts. Joining Gibbs in the backcourt, Jermaine Dixon and Brad Wannamaker are a pair of seasoned guards who can help Pitt control the pace.

To beat Pittsburgh, an opponent needs to put pressure on a sometimes stagnant offense, force a faster tempo, deny second-chance points by grabbing rebounds, and play solid interior defense. That’s a lot to ask of an opponent, but the Panthers might face a few teams that meet that profile, starting with No. 6-seed Xavier in the second round. The Panthers find a way past the Musketeers before falling to No. 2-seed Kansas State or No. 7-seed BYU in the Sweet 16.

Georgetown Hoyas (Overall: 23-10, Big East: 10-8)

No. 3 seed, Midwest Region

The Hoyas are one of the more dangerous teams in the tournament, as they proved at Madison Square Garden when they beat Syracuse and Marquette before losing to West Virginia in the Big East championship game. But Georgetown is the No. 3 seed in the Midwest Region. Although the Hoyas have the offense to hang with top-seeded Kansas, they don’t have a good enough defense. And Georgetown turns the ball a little too often to seriously threaten Kansas. Of course, that would assume the Hoyas can get past No. 2-seed Wisconsin.

Georgetown excels at finding good shots, thanks to sophomore center Greg Monroe. The big man looks like a surefire top five lottery pick in this year’s NBA Draft, and Hoya fans hope he can help deliver a deep NCAA Tournament run before moving to the pros. With Monroe as the centerpiece of the offense, Georgetown shoots 54.6 percent inside the arc. Led by newly diagnosed diabetic Austin Freeman, Georgetown’s perimeter players shoot 38.8 percent from three-point range.

Despite the presence of Monroe on defense, the Hoyas aren’t great at stopping opponents. That likely won’t be a problem until Georgetown reaches Ohio State in the Sweet 16. Led by Evan Turner, the Buckeyes have the offensive efficiency needed to hang with Georgetown. And because Ohio State forces a significant number of turnovers, Georgetown’s tournament run will unravel in St. Louis.

Marquette Golden Eagles (Overall: 22-11, Big East 11-7)

No. 6 seed, East Region

It’s hard to tell whether Marquette will win more than a game or two — or any — in the tournament. But it is almost certain that the No. 6 seed in the East Region will be involved in some great finishes.

In four out of five of Marquette’s final regular-season games, the Golden Eagles had to work overtime, winning three of them. The Golden Eagles played 16 games in which the final margin was five points or less. That’s nearly half the team’s games. However, Marquette won only half those tight games.

For the most part, Marquette doesn’t beat itself, committing the fifth-fewest turnovers in the country. With a guard-oriented lineup, the Golden Eagles rely heavily on three-point shooting. But they’re good at it, hitting 40.6 percent from three-point range. As often happens to guard-heavy teams, Marquette struggles to get rebounds.

That could pose an immediate problem against No. 11-seed Washington. The Huskies are hot as winners of seven consecutive games. And they are good at rebounding. Washington crashes the offensive glass, often successfully. In addition, the Huskies don’t commit many turnovers. Washington has a more balanced offensive and defensive attack than Marquette, and if the Huskies can control the pace, they’ll upset Marquette.

Despite a strong season, Marquette will fall to a Washington team that has an experienced starting cast that will dictate the pace.

Notre Dame Fighting Irish (Overall: 23-11, Big East: 10-8)

No. 6 seed, South Region

Notre Dame stormed through the final weeks of the regular season, much of that without Luke Harangody, to earn an NCAA Tournament bid. Their run impressed the selection committee, which rewarded the Fighting Irish with a No. 6 seed in the South Region. Frankly, that’s too good of a seed for this team, despite victories against Pittsburgh (twice), Georgetown and Marquette in the past three weeks.

Meanwhile, Notre Dame’s first-round opponent, No. 11-seed Old Dominion, is probably better than that seeding. This match up could easily be a No. 8 seed vs. No. 9 seed, which would be considered a toss up. With that in mind, it’s not surprising that Old Dominion has an excellent shot to beat the heavily imbalanced Irish. Notre Dame has the No. 4 offense in efficiency but the No. 140 defense. That defensive ranking has improved since Harangody’s injury and subsequent reduced role. But the team’s offense has also leveled off a little, too.

For its part, Old Dominion has the No. 16 defense and No. 72 offense. That’s not great balance, but it’s better than Notre Dame. Plus Old Dominion has a tall lineup anchored by senior center Gerald Lee, who should cause fits for the Fighting Irish. Old Dominion leads Division I in offensive rebounding, which should continue against Notre Dame. The Irish like to mix a health dose of zone coverage into their defensive sets.

These teams might not combine for 100 points, but look for the Monarchs to end Notre Dame’s impressive late-season surge.

Louisville Cardinals (Overall: 20-12, Big East: 11-7)

No. 9 seed, South Region

Louisville is a more balanced version of its first-round opponent, No. 9-seed California. The Cardinals, who are the No. 8 seed in the South Region, have a fairly efficient offense and a middle-of-the-road defense. In comparison, Cal’s offense is No. 4 in efficiency, but its defense is No. 81. For Louisville to get past California and cause problems for top-seeded Duke, the Cardinals need to channel the energy they played with against Syracuse, which Louisville beat twice this season.

For the Cardinals to take care of California, sophomore Samardo Samuels needs to use his superior size to create a mismatch. Samuels averages 15.3 points and 7.0 rebounds per game for the Cardinals. WIth his size, he can force California to collapse its defense, opening opportunities for Edgar Sosa and Louisville’s outside shooters. That formula delivered huge wins against Syracuse.

The Cardinals will use that game plan to success against Cal, but it won’t be enough against Duke. Although Louisville might frustrate Duke at times, the Blue Devils have too much talent to fall to an inconsistent Louisville team.

A few seasons passed then he made the breakthrough to the “World’s Most Famous Arena.”  Now he’s a regular as the Big East Tournament progresses through the rounds. Earlier in the week Brian explained that Big East supervisor Art Hyland assigned the first two rounds of the tournament. After that, Hyland would assign games after each round. The officials, like the teams, would have to advance.
About a year ago fellow official Pat Devaney, who coordinates the very competitive Hamilton Park Summer league in Jersey City, asked me if Brian would be interested. I explained he would need clearance from his college supervisors but why not try. Devaney and O’Connell grew up together and were football teammates in Bayonne. The call was put out and Brian accepted. Those of us given the chance to work with Brian at Hamilton were truly fortunate. During halftime or post game he would give constructive advice on what you did right or wrong.
Brian is one of those who has given back. He has made the big-time and bright lights. On the flip side his friendly, polite demeanor has not changed. He’s the same person I met in the early 1990s.
Ed Corbett, Pat Driscoll and Brian were the crew chosen by Hyland for that outstanding final between Georgetown and West Virginia. Brian O’Connell had “arrived” long before stepping on the Garden floor that stormy (weather wise) Saturday night. He has gone deep, working later rounds into both the NCAA and NIT. But to an official and person who knows how special the game in general and Big East Conference in particular is, this had to be a special night.

However, the Longhorns fell into a tailspin and finished the season by losing nine of 16 games. Instead of receiving a No. 1 seed, Texas will have to face a No. 1 seed in the second round. The selection committee gave the disintegrating Longhorns a No. 8 seed in the East region. The Longhorns will face No. 9 Wake Forest in New Orleans with a possible second-round match up against No. 1 Kentucky. That’s a dramatic fall in less than two months.

A few other teams appeared on pace for great seeds before faltering down the stretch.

• Purdue fell to No. 4 after remaining in consideration for a No. 1 seed as recently as two weeks ago. The loss of forward Robbie Hummel might derail the Boilermakers’ Final Four aspirations.
• Wake Forest lost five of its final six games, including an opening-round ACC tournament game to No. 12-seed Miami. As a result, the selection committee dropped the Demon Deacons to a No. 9 seed, which could be considered generous.
• Utah State looked to be in contention for a No. 8 or 9 seed before losing the WAC championship game to New Mexico State. The selection committee gave Utah State a No. 12 seed as a result.
• Tennessee has wins against Kansas and Kentucky this season, but the Volunteers’ last game was a 30-point drubbing to the Wildcats in the SEC tournament. A lack of other quality wins and that blowout led to the Volunteers falling to a No. 6 seed.

While some teams played their way down to worse seeds, a few other stormed through February and early March to rise in seeding. Notre Dame is the most notable ascender because the Fighting Irish were barely in bubble contention when superstar Luke Harangody went down to injury. But the Irish found a way to rattle off six straight wins before falling to West Virginia in the Big East tournament semifinals. That win streak included upsets of Pittsburgh — twice — Georgetown, Connecticut and Marquette. The streak added several great wins to a profile that already featured a marquee win in South Bend against West Virginia. The late season resurgence delivered Notre Dame an invitation to the NCAA Tournament as a No. 6 seed, one of the most remarkable late-season charges in recent years.

Here are some of the other late bloomers.

• En route to a No. 3 seed, Georgetown also had a late run in the Big East with wins against Cincinnati, Syracuse and Marquette.
• Before losing to Georgia Tech in the ACC tournament quarterfinals, Maryland had won nine of 10 games, including a huge victory against Duke in College Park and road wins at Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina State and Florida State. The selection committee gave the ACC co-champion a No. 4 seed.
• Ohio State enters the NCAA Tournament as a No. 2 seed thanks to a sensational finish in which the Buckeyes won 13 of their last 14 games, including three wins against Illinois and solid victories against Minnesota and Michigan State.

As Selection Sunday arrives, the Mock Tournament has once again undergone significant changes. We have a new No. 1 seed, West Virginia, and fewer major conference bubble teams thanks to upset victories by Houston and New Mexico State. UTEP and Utah State take two at-large bids, turning the Conference USA and WAC into two-bid conferences.

The bubble could contract further today if Mississippi State wins the SEC championship. Today’s action could produce other changes to the brackets.

• Temple and Richmond could swap spots as No. 4 and No. 5 seeds if the Spiders beat the Owls.
• Florida would be the first team out if the Bulldogs win.

We have only four more games to go before all automatic bids are accounted for. Enjoy the games, and check back later to see how closely the Mock Tournament comes to predicting the field.

Here are the latest brackets and links to previous projections.

• Mock Tournament 9.0
• Mock Tournament 8.0
• Mock Tournament 7.0
• Mock Tournament 6.0
• Mock Tournament 5.0
• Mock Tournament 4.0
• Mock Tournament 3.0
• Mock Tournament 2.0
• Mock Tournament 1.0

Teams in bold have won an automatic bid.

A couple of teams out west, namely Washington and San Diego State, have benefited from the failure of Atlantic 10 and Big East bubble teams to solidify their résumés. In the Mountain West semifinals, the Aztecs scored an important second win against New Mexico. They can avoid the need for at-large bid at all if they beat UNLV in the championship game today. Meanwhile, the Huskies simply continue to win, dispatching Stanford in the Pac-10 semifinals. Win or lose against California in the championship game, Washington should be in.

With the late addition of Washington and San Diego State to the field, teams like Rhode Island, South Florida and Dayton are on the outside looking in. And only the Rams can do anything about it because the Bulls and Flyers have already lost in their conference tournaments. Rhode Island can make a stronger case for the NCAA Tournament with a win against Temple in the Atlantic 10 semifinals. The Rams have only one win against the RPI top 50, so even an upset against the Owls might not be enough to make the field.

A slew of automatic bids are on the line today. Check out the bracket as the stand Saturday morning, and let us know if they look right to you or totally out of whack.

Here are the latest brackets and links to previous projections.

• Mock Tournament 8.0
• Mock Tournament 7.0
• Mock Tournament 6.0
• Mock Tournament 5.0
• Mock Tournament 4.0
• Mock Tournament 3.0
• Mock Tournament 2.0
• Mock Tournament 1.0

Teams in bold have won an automatic bid.

The win puts the Red Storm at 17-14. They will face Marquette at 2:30 on Wednesday. UCONN fell to 17-15.

Calhoun said an NIT bid is something he and his staff will discuss. “No disrespect to the NIT,” Calhoun said. “We won it in 1988 and it jump-started our program. Right now we as a staff will sit down and discuss which direction we want to go.”

The eight games of four points or less – all losses – plus the campaign highlighted by inconsistency, has weighed heavily on the entire UCONN program. “For now,” Calhoun said, “there will be no practice the next few days.”
Awards were given following the afternoon doubleheader. Lance Stephenson of Cincinnati earned Rookie of the Year. Syracuse made a big splash with Wes Johnson getting Player of the Year and Jim Boeheim Coach of the Year. Hamady Ndiaye of Rutgers earned Defensive Player of the Year.

The keys:

1. Defense: “I thought we came out with good energy and defensive intensity,” USF coach Stan Heath said.  At the half the Bulls enjoyed a 30-15 lead largely due to a defensive effort that limited the Blue Demons to 23 percent shooting from the field. USF doubled down on inside threat Mac Koshwal of DePaul. No one from DePaul responded especially on the perimeter.
2. Dominique Jones: The Bulls’ outstanding junior scored a team-high 20 points while taking only five shots the second half. “Dominique doesn’t care about his points or shots,” Heath said. “He just wants to win. Their zone slowed him and didn’t give him many looks but he gladly sacrificed for his teammates.

The hot shooting of DePaul guard Will Walker, who tied for game-high scoring honors with 20 points, allowed the Blue Demons to rally. They cut it to a two-possession game late before USF regrouped.

Interestingly USF did not hit a three, shooting 0 for 8 from the field. They dominated inside with a 50-20 edge on scoring in the paint.  “We have guys who can hit (outside) shots and will,” Heath said. “If we didn’t hit a three and lost I would be concerned but we won so it isn’t a big thing.” The USF mentor did admit knocking down a few against second round opponent Georgetown will be necessary.

In a tempo free note…The game had 64 possessions, a moderately slow pace with the following efficiencies:

USF  91
DePaul 78

That, anyone will agree, is great defense. DePaul finished 8-23 while ,USF advanced to 20-11, the third twenty-win season in school history. Heath did not get into “bubble talk”, stating, “Our idea is to keep playing. You keep playing here and everything takes care of itself.”

While South Florida, Connecticut, Cincinnati and Seton Hall tip off Tuesday in hopes of avoiding a devastating opening-round loss, half the conference will sit back and watch. Of those eight teams waiting until later in the week to play, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Marquette, Georgetown and Louisville will be playing only to improve their NCAA Tournament seeds. Notre Dame also has a bye in the opening round and will want to avoid a loss to Seton Hall or Providence Wednesday to feel better about its at-large prospects. However, a late-season resurgence probably has the Fighting Irish in the Big Dance.

Connecticut and Cincinnati have 14 losses apiece entering the Big East tournament. Since the NCAA Tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, no at-large team has had more than 14 losses. Unless the selection committee makes history this season, the Huskies and Bearcats will need to win five games in five days to reach the NCAA Tournament. Connecticut seems better poised to make a miraculous run because they are 2-1 against their first three opponents, with the only loss being a two-point game against Marquette. If the Huskies were to reach the Big East semifinals, they could find themselves in a Big East tournament rematch with top-seeded Syracuse. Last season, the two teams played one of the best conference tournament games of all time in a six-overtime epic won by the Orange.

South Florida and Seton Hall are in slightly better position entering the tournament because they probably can claim an at-large bid with three wins. That’s not an easy task for either team. However, the Bulls draw the Big East’s worst team, DePaul, which has won only one conference game this season. In the second round, South Florida would get Georgetown, whom the Bulls have already beaten once this season. A run to the quarterfinals would give South Florida three wins against the RPI top 25 and 21 wins.

The Pirates enter the Big East tournament with one of the most explosive players in the nation, Jeremy Hazell. The Harlem native averages 21.2 points per game and will be looking to light up the scoreboard in his hometown. Seton Hall will enter the tournament with a lot of confidence because the Pirates have wins against each of the first three teams they would play. Seton Hall won at Providence by a dozen Saturday and will look to repeat that performance Tuesday. If the Pirates win, they will look for a second win against Notre Dame en route to a critical quarterfinal match up against Pittsburgh. If Seton Hall can find a way into the semifinals by beating Pitt for the second time this season, the Pirates would have four wins against the RPI top 50 and 21 wins.

Although Seton Hall and South Florida have the talent to make a run, their NCAA Tournament hopes remain dicey. Most likely, those teams need to reach the Big East championship game to leapfrog bubble teams like Illinois, Florida and Mississippi. And they must hope that teams like Butler and Utah State can make their respective conferences one-bid leagues.

With so many teams playing for their NCAA Tournament lives, the Big East tournament will feature nonstop drama. And with several elite teams likely to meet, the match ups could resemble Sweet 16 pairings as early as the Big East tournament quarterfinals. Because Syracuse, Villanova, West Virginia and Pittsburgh are all legitimate Final Four contenders, we could easily see a national championship or national semifinal preview at some point in the Big East tournament.

For the second consecutive weekend, big losses were rampant throughout the basketball nation. Connecticut’s loss to South Florida gives the Huskies 14 losses, meaning that they would need to become the first at-large team with 15 losses to make the NCAA Tournament unless they find a way to win the Big East tournament this week. Cincinnati finds itself in the same boat after losing its third straight game and fifth in six tries.

In the Big Ten, Illinois paralleled the Bearcats’ poor finish with its third straight defeat Sunday, a 72-57 loss in Champaign to Wisconsin. Illinois has a more compelling case for an at-large bid than Cincinnati does thanks to three wins against the RPI top 25. However, the Illini have 13 losses and an RPI of 73. Illinois will get another crack at the Badgers in the quarterfinals of the Big Ten Tournament, and the Illini might need to win that game to avoid getting bounced off the bubble.

Besides the bubble teams, several others lost big games that affect their seeding in the latest version of the Mock Tournament.

• Kansas State drops to a No. 3 seed after inexplicably losing at home in overtime to Iowa State, ranked No. 113 in the RPI.
• Villanova also drops to the No. 3 line after losing at home in overtime. However, these Wildcats shouldn’t be as ashamed to lose because West Virginia is finishing the season strongly.
• Vanderbilt also suffered a home loss — to South Carolina — and falls to the No. 6 line.

Here are the latest brackets and links to previous projections.

• Mock Tournament 5.0
• Mock Tournament 4.0
• Mock Tournament 3.0
• Mock Tournament 2.0
• Mock Tournament 1.0

Teams in bold have won an automatic bid.

However, the percentage of conference teams invited to the NCAA Tournament is a good indicator of a conference’s strength.  Another barometer of conference strength should be the number of teams with losing records that receive at-large bids.

That metric would go hand-in-hand with the percentage of teams in the tournament. Logically, if a 12-team conference gets seven teams in the tournament, at least one team is likely to have a losing record in conference play. If seven teams in the conference had at least a .500 conference record, it would mean the bottom of the conference is weak, and the top teams simply had beaten up on those cellar dwellers and split games among the rest. This season, the Big Ten exemplifies that profile. Iowa, Indiana and Penn State are abysmal and have combined for 10 conference wins. Meanwhile, six of the 11 teams in the misnamed Big Ten have at least a .500 conference record.

However, a conference like the Big East is a different beast. All but two of the conference’s 16 teams have at least five wins in Big East play entering the final week of the regular season. Eight teams have .500 or better Big East records and eight teams are worse than .500. And one of those teams with a .500 or better record is Notre Dame, which likely sits on the wrong side of the bubble.

Come Selection Sunday, at least two Big East teams could make the NCAA Tournament as at-large teams with a losing conference record. That’s a big deal because it has happened only 29 times since the NCAA Tournament expanded in 1985. Eight teams in the past decade have reached the tournament with losing conference records, including Arizona and Maryland last season. According to the latest Mock Tournament, there are eight teams flirting with records that generally don’t deliver at-large bids:

• Connecticut (17-12, 7-9)
• Louisville (19-10, 10-6)
• Illinois (18-11, 10-6)
• Cincinnati (16-12, 7-9)
• Notre Dame (19-10, 8-8)
• South Florida (17-11, 7-9)
• Seton Hall (16-11, 7-9)
• Minnesota (17-11, 8-8)

Besides the six Big East teams, two Big Ten teams, Illinois and Minnesota, appear on the list because they have a lot of overall losses. Since 1985, only 18 teams have earned an at-large bid with 13 losses or more, and no team has ever reached the tournament as an at-large team with 15 losses. Of those eight teams, the latest Mock Tournament has the top four in the field. Based on averages since 1985, only one of those eight teams should reach the field if they can’t avoid the 13-loss/sub-.500 threshold.

With two games remaining in the regular season, several of these teams figure to enter the danger zone. And that doesn’t count their conference tournaments, in which none of these teams is expected to cut down the nets and earn an automatic bid. So that will add another loss to most of these teams’ overall records.

It’s a logical conclusion that any team that reaches the NCAA Tournament with a losing conference record or 13 or more losses overall represents a powerful conference. Their inclusion would signify that the selection committee respects the conference highly. Indeed, those six Big East teams have 12 wins against the RPI top 25, mostly against the Big East elite. They have proven they can beat the best teams in the country, many of which come from their conference.

The ACC is the only conference to field two teams with losing conference records in the NCAA Tournament in the same season. If the Big East can match that feat, which seems likely, the conference will be poised to proclaim that it has had one of the best seasons in history.

Of course, when the dust settles and there are four teams heading to Indianapolis, the Big East’s season will only be considered one of the best ever if the conference has at least one representative in the Final Four.

This season, the Big East is once again poised to have a fantastic NCAA Tournament and will likely put more teams in the tournament than any other conference. Entering the final weekend of February, Syracuse, Villanova, West Virginia, Georgetown and Pittsburgh are locks to make the tournament. In addition to those five powerhouses, eight other Big East teams have a legitimate shot at reaching the NCAA Tournament. But the bubble will invariably burst for some of those teams.

The eight teams competing NCAA Tournament bids are:

• Cincinnati
• Connecticut
• Louisville
• Marquette
• Notre Dame
• Seton Hall
• South Florida
• St. John’s

Check out their profiles below, and pick four teams to reach the NCAA Tournament. Then check out the latest Mock Tournament to see which teams we project to reach the field as of Feb. 26. The answer key for the team profiles is below.

Team A (Overall: 17-11, Big East: 7-8)

RPI: 40
Strength of schedule:  2, non-conference SOS: 5, conference SOS: 32
Record vs. RPI top 50: 3-6
Losses to teams outside RPI top 100: 2
Record in neutral/road games: 3-8
Best wins (teams listed by RPI): vs. 5, at 8, vs. 22, vs. 52, vs. 57
Worst losses (teams listed by RPI): at 148, at 109, twice vs. and at 59, vs. 55

Team B (Overall: 18-9, Big East: 9-6)

RPI: 55
Strength of schedule:  65, non-conference SOS: 203, conference SOS: 44
Record vs. RPI top 50: 3-7
Losses to teams outside RPI top 100: 2
Record in neutral/road games: 6-6
Best wins (teams listed by RPI): vs. 9, vs. 14 (neutral), at 40, at 59, vs. 66
Worst losses (teams listed by RPI): at 185, vs. 122

Team C (Overall: 18-10, Big East: 7-8)

RPI: 72
Strength of schedule: 61, non-conference SOS: 196, conference SOS: 37
Record vs. RPI top 50: 2-4
Losses to teams outside RPI top 100: 2
Record in neutral/road games: 2-7
Best wins (teams listed by RPI): vs. 10, vs. 59, twice vs. and at 66
Worst losses (teams listed by RPI): at 127, vs. 93 (neutral) vs. 75, at 59, at 52

Team D (Overall: 16-11, Big East: 6-9)

RPI: 66
Strength of schedule: 43, non-conference SOS: 246, conference SOS: 20
Record vs. RPI top 50: 3-4
Losses to teams outside RPI top 100: 1
Record in neutral/road games: 6-7
Best wins (teams listed by RPI): at 9, vs. 10, vs. 49, vs. 52, vs. 59
Worst losses (teams listed by RPI): vs. 209, at 75, twice vs. and at 72, at 59

Team E (Overall: 16-11, Big East: 7-8)

RPI: 59
Strength of schedule: 29, non-conference SOS: 53, conference SOS: 72
Record vs. RPI top 50: 4-6
Losses to teams outside RPI top 100: 0
Record in neutral/road games: 4-8
Best wins (teams listed by RPI): vs. 15 (neutral), vs. 28 (neutral), twice vs. and at 40,
Worst losses (teams listed by RPI): at 75, at 72, at 66, vs. 55

Team F (Overall: 15-12, Big East: 5-10)

RPI: 75
Strength of schedule: 33, non-conference SOS: 73, conference SOS: 46
Record vs. RPI top 50: 3-8
Losses to teams outside RPI top 100: 2
Record in neutral/road games: 6-6
Best wins (teams listed by RPI): vs. 13 (neutral), vs. 36 (neutral), vs. 41, vs. 59, at 66
Worst losses (teams listed by RPI): at 127, vs. 109, vs. 55, vs. 52

Team G (Overall: 18-10, Big East: 9-6)

RPI: 41
Strength of schedule:  6, non-conference SOS: 21, conference SOS: 34
Record vs. RPI top 50: 2-6
Losses to teams outside RPI top 100: 1
Record in neutral/road games: 4-6
Best wins (teams listed by RPI): at 4, vs. 40, vs. 59, vs. 66
Worst losses (teams listed by RPI): vs. 119, at 75, vs. 56, at 52

Team H (Overall: 16-10, Big East: 7-8)

RPI: 52
Strength of schedule: 18, non-conference SOS: 162, conference SOS: 17
Record vs. RPI top 50: 3-9
Losses to teams outside RPI top 100: 0
Record in neutral/road games: 3-7
Best wins (teams listed by RPI): vs. 10, vs. 41, at 48, vs. 59
Worst losses (teams listed by RPI): at 66

Team A: Connecticut

Team B: Marquette

Team C: Notre Dame

Team D: South Florida

Team E: Cincinnati

Team F: St. John’s

Team G: Louisville

Team H: Seton Hall

Almost two weeks later, Connecticut has wins against Villanova and West Virginia — two marquee wins to brag about, in addition to the No. 2 toughest schedule. As a result of the Huskies’ recent hot streak, Connecticut makes its debut in the tournament as a No. 8 seed. Yes, teams can go from the wrong side of the bubble to a solid middle-of-the-road seed in less than two weeks. With remaining games against Louisville, Notre Dame and South Florida, Connecticut has an opportunity to build a six-game winning streak heading into the Big East Tournament and move up the seed chart.

While Connecticut rises, William & Mary continues to falter. After dropping a must-win BracketBusters game at Iona, the Tribe returned home to lose to Towson, ranked No. 273 in the RPI. That loss gives William & Mary three losses to teams in the bottom 150 of the RPI. That’s just too many losses to bad teams, which neutralizes the strength of quality wins against Wake Forest, Richmond and Maryland. Unless the Tribe make a run to capture the Colonial Athletic Association’s automatic bid, the Tribe will once again fail to reach the NCAA Tournament. The team has never gone to the Big Dance since it started in 1939.

Here are some of the other highlights of Mock Tournament 3.0.

• The No. 1 seeds remain the same, but watch Purdue’s performance without Robbie Hummel.
• Baylor and Missouri inch higher in seeding, which reflects the strength of the Big 12 Conference this season.
• Florida State and Virginia Tech are entering bubble trouble, while Louisville can start to feel a little more secure.
• Florida is coming on strong at the right time of year, and Utah State and UTEP are getting closer to earning an at-large bid if they don’t win their conferences’ automatic bids.

Without further ado, here are the Mock Tournament 3.0 seeds. UAB and Cincinnati in the tournament? Florida and Charlotte out? Am I crazy or right on point? Submit a comment to share your thoughts and opinions.

For comparison, also check out Mock Tournament 1.0 and Mock Tournament 2.0. Also, check out a map of NCAA Tournament sites and the schedule for all rounds of the tournament.