Latest Expert Predictions for 2013 NCAA Tournament Field

Instead of giving you one man's opinion on the current projected field (which you can find here), today we'll be giving you the combined opinion of seven experts in the field of bracketology.

With just under five weeks remaining until Selection Sunday, there's a fair amount of discord on many teams, particularly those in non-major conferences. For example, Creighton was a No. 6 seed in some brackets and a No. 11 seed in others. 

However, four teams received a unanimous seeding from the experts: Duke (No. 1 seed), Arizona (No. 2 seed), Syracuse (No. 2 seed) and Louisville (No. 3 seed).

Occasional similarities are nice, but read on to discover where your favorite bracketologists differ from the rest.

ESPN (Joe Lunardi)

Architect: Joe Lunardi

Last Updated: Tuesday morning

Link: Lunardi's Bracketology

Largest deviations from the mean:

Creighton (No. 6 seed)

Wichita State (No. 8 seed)

Oregon (No. 5 seed)

Illinois (No. 11 seed)

Synopsis:

Compared to his peers, Joey Brackets is significantly overvaluing the Missouri Valley Conference as a whole.

Both Lunardi and Andy Glockner have Creighton as a No. 6 seed, though the average for the Blue Jays comes in at 8.14. By putting the Wichita State Shockers as a No. 8 seed, he judges them in better shape than any of the other experts.

On the flip side of that coin, Lunardi was apparently not impressed by the weeks that Illinois and Colorado had, as he has both of those teams as low or lower than anyone else.

Perhaps he seeds with more foresight than I realized, as I consider Illinois and Colorado to be the teams currently on everyone's radar that are most likely to miss the tournament.

Yahoo (Brad Evans)

Architect: Brad Evans

Last Updated: Monday afternoon

Link: Evans' Bracketology

Largest deviations from the mean:

Colorado State (No. 9 seed)

Baylor (No. 10 seed)

Memphis (No. 11 seed)

Iowa State (No. 9 seed)

Synopsis:

To have some disagreements in the No. 9-12 range is normal, but Evans mostly agrees with the other experts in regard to the favorites. Of the teams he projects for a No. 8 seed or better, he has Pittsburgh (No. 4) and UNLV (No. 6) a full seed higher than the average, but all the other teams are within one seed of the mean.

I have to wonder why both he and Joe Lunardi have Baylor as a No. 10 seed (I have them missing out entirely), and why he has Colorado State two seeds lower than any of the other experts. Both of those teams have a challenging two weeks ahead, so perhaps he'll regress towards the mean on them both soon.

Sports Illustrated (Andy Glockner)

Architect: Andy Glockner

Last Updated: Tuesday afternoon

Link: Glockner's Bracket

Largest deviations from the mean:

Baylor (out)

Oklahoma State (No. 8 seed)

UCLA (No. 5 seed)

Creighton (No. 6 seed)

Synopsis:

By and large, I found myself agreeing more with Andy Glockner's bracket than any other. Considering how much he deviated from the mean, I'm not sure whether it's good or bad how much his opinions seemed to reflect mine.

He was a little reckless on the top lines, as he was the only person not to give Miami a No. 1 seed, but I trust the Hurricanes will win him over before much longer.

UCLA as a No. 5 seed is a bit crazy, as is the argument that Creighton is two seeds better than Oklahoma State. However, I like that he kept both Baylor and Virginia out of the field while including Arizona State, seeing as how I've adopted the Sun Devils as my west-of-the-Mississippi team.

SB Nation (Chris Dobbertean)

Architect: Chris Dobbertean

Last Updated: Tuesday morning

Link: SB Nation Bracket

Largest deviations from the mean:

Villanova (No. 11 seed)

Pittsburgh (No. 7 seed)

Oregon (No. 5 seed)

Saint Louis (No. 9 seed)

Synopsis:

With the exception of being the only person to include Villanova, Dobbertean had the most average bracket of the group.

It's curious, though, that he was the lowest on Pittsburgh. I have to assume that his primary argument for including Villanova is that the Big East is the second-best conference in the nation, so why no love for the Panthers?

It was also interesting to see that he was higher on Saint Louis than any of the other experts. I've been banging the Billikens' drum for the past month, but even I think a No. 9 seed is a bit excessive.

CBS Sports (Jerry Palm)

Architect: Jerry Palm

Last Updated: Monday morning

Link: Palm's Bracketology

Largest deviations from the mean:

Boise State (No. 10 seed)

Illinois (No. 7 seed)

North Carolina State (No. 8 seed)

Temple (No. 10 seed)

San Diego State (No. 5 seed)

Florida (No. 3 seed)

Synopsis:

Palm was the biggest outlier on five different teams, seeding NC State lowest of the seven experts while giving Boise State, Illinois, Temple and San Diego State a more favorable seed than anyone else.

Until now, I haven't paid much attention to what other bracketologists have been saying, so I don't know Palm's history with Boise State. However, by putting the Broncos as a No. 10 seed, he's saying there are at least eight other teams in the field less deserving of a berth than Boise State. Sorry, but that's absurd.

And can we talk for a second about Jerry Palm giving Florida a No. 3 seed? I'll admit that there's a considerable amount of debate to be had over whether Michigan State and Gonzaga deserve a No. 2 or No. 3 seed, but there's no way Florida is a No. 3. Three of the experts have them as a No. 1 seed. 

RealTimeRPI

Architect: Not Identified

Last Updated: Monday morning

Link: RealTimeRPI Bracket

Largest deviations from the mean:

Connecticut (No. 8 seed)

Wisconsin (No. 8 seed)

Saint Louis (out)

Saint Mary's (out)

Minnesota (No. 4 seed)

Synopsis:

This bracket is a complete disaster, which isn't a surprise since it's based almost exclusively on RPI.

I'll admit that when I'm typing through the RPI rankings, I occasionally start to type Connecticut before immediately remembering that they're ineligible for the tournament. Including them in a published bracket is nothing short of sloppy.

Two of the Big Ten seedings are a joke. Maybe a week ago you could have made an argument for Minnesota as a No. 4 and for Wisconsin as a No. 8 but not any longer. No one else has Wisconsin lower than a No. 5 seed, which might be a slight over-reaction, but they definitely shouldn't be worse than a No. 6.

Having both Saint Louis and Saint Mary's missing out on the tournament is somewhat laughable as well, but I suppose these things happen when you have to make room in your bracket for an ineligible team.

TeamRankings

Architect: Not Identified

Last Updated: Monday afternoon

Link: TeamRankings Bracket

Largest deviations from the mean:

Virginia (No. 8 seed)

Missouri (No. 12 seed)

Temple (out)

Colorado (No. 6 seed)

Memphis (No. 7 seed)

Ohio State (No. 7 seed)

Pittsburgh (No. 3 seed)

Synopsis:

Aside from that Connecticut blunder on the previous slide, Virginia as a No. 8 seed is far and away the biggest deviation from the mean by any of the experts. Joe Lunardi has the Cavaliers as a No. 11 seed, but none of the other five even have them in their projected field. I would love to know how they are this high in this bracket.

Missouri as a No. 12 seed was the second largest deviation from the mean by any expert. No other bracket has the Tigers projected for anything worse than a No. 9 seed. 

And while I'm personally lower than most on the Buckeyes, giving Ohio State a No. 7 seed is quite offensive.