With all due respect to GWin06's post, I think the challenges for GW to win it all (and I applaud his optimism) will have much to do with their seeding. I don't believe we will win the national championship, but do think we have a better chance than 80% of the NCAA tournament field, at least.
That being said, I wanted to get some perspective on where we "really" will be seeded. I hate all of these brackets saying we'll be a 3 or a 7, or everything in between, because this is such an odd year. There's such a drop-off after the top 6-8 teams, that my guess is the hottest teams at the time of the draw will have the best seeds.
In other words, win out and we could be a 2 or a 3. But what about a loss? With just one loss on the schedule the rest of the way, what would that do to our seeding?
I found an interesting comparison, to College of Charleston in 1999.
Using today’s record/RPI, our RPI’s our identical, at 33. Our SOS is very similar, 217 vs. 216. although they had a much better out of conference SOS, and a much worse in conference.
Their record at tourney time was 25-2. Ours with one even one loss would likely be a comparable 28-2 at best.
Their best win was at #7 RPI North Carolina, better than our best win, against a Maryland team much better at the time than their current #45.
They lost one game vs. a non-top 100 RPI team, at University of South Carolina, by 11. They also lost to #66 RPI Georgia on the road by 21.
They finished the season on a 23-game winning streak. We’re at 14 and counting.
They played 15 games, all wins vs. teams 201 . We have 10 so far, but still have St. Bona on our schedule (#290).
The only significant difference is our non-RPI computer ratings, and it is significant. Our KenPom rating is 16 as of today, and theirs was 55 after a loss in the NCAA tournament. Our Greenfield rating, as of today, is 6, while their rating was #39 after that tournament loss. We are #7 in the polls...they reached #16 right before tournament selection.
Now, it is my feeling, that GW, regardless of seed, is not going to be “outmatched” by just about anyone in the country. We are much better than our RPI, but we all know that it is used by the tournament committee as a primary tool. I bring this up, because with one loss, we could drop 15 places in those computer polls, which are not even used as significantly as the RPI. They do reflect our margin of victory though, which is also looked at by the committee. It is only because of that margin that we are even in discussions for a 2/3 seed.
Anyway, the significance of winning out is this: with a loss, we are not very different than Charleston, 1999, and yes, they were a #8 seed! If there's one seed you don't want to be...it's an 8 or 9...tough first round match-up and a #1 seed on the first weekend.
Interested in other perspectives, but this is a very intriguing historical comparison. That's all I got...it's my argument about why winning out is imperative if we have realistic aspirations for greatness in the tournament.
Here’s the side by side comparison, for those who made it this far:
CHARLESTON 1999 GW 2006
RPI: 33 33
Record: 25-2 22-1
SOS: .4654 .4740
SOS Rank: 217 216
W-L vs. 1-50: 1-0 3-1
W-L vs. 51-100: 3-1 4-0
W-L vs. 101-200: 6-1 5-0
W-L vs. 201 : 15-0 10-0
Last 10 games: 10-0 10-0
Road/Neut. W-L: 14-2 9-1
Kenpom Rating: 55 16
Greenfield Rating: 39 6