Seed chit-chat

[Bob Green]

Over the past seven years, eleven #12 seeds have won their first round game:

2006 - Texas A&M beat Syracuse, Montana beat Nevada
2005 - Wis-Mil beat Alabama
2004 - Pacific beat Providence, Manhatten beat Florida
2003 - Butler beat Miss St.
2002 - Tulsa beat Marquette, Creighton beat Florida, Missouri beat Miami
2001 - Utah St. beat Ohio St., Gonzaga beat Virginia
2000 - none

Over the same seven years, nine #11 seeds have won their first round game:

2006 - Mil-Wis beat Oklahoma, George Mason beat Michigan State
2005 - UAB beat LSU
2004 - none
2003 - C. Michigan beat Creighton
2002 - S. Illinois beat Texas Tech, Wyoming beat Gonzaga
2001 - Georgia St beat Wisconsin, Temple beat Texas
2000 - Pepperdine beat Indiana

So it appears that the #5 and #6 seeds have been a dangerous places the past seven years.

The bottom line is no matter where you are seeded you have to show up and play solid basketball to advance.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

[A-Tex Devil]

Any seed from 2-6 would be fine with me in all honesty. The teams in that range are that close. I think there is a drop off at 7, though, and the disparity between a 7 and 2 is much starker in the second round (not to mention the danger of the 10 in the first round!).

I think we'll do better against 1 man teams like Texas and Nevada. Not a lot of those this year, though. One team I don't want any part of are the aggys (Texas A&M for those not up on their derogatory nicknames). Their offense and defense have both been running like clockwork in recent weeks. If our offense isn't clicking against them, we'd be lucky to score 50.

[longtimefan]

Carolina 2
Duke 4
Va Tech 4
Maryland 5
BC 6
UVA 7
FSU or GT one or the other 12
Out (Clemson)

[KyDevilinIL]

The thing about being a No. 6 is that we would get some sort of sluggish major conference team -- Illinois, for example, or maybe like Seton Hall last year -- that makes it in by the skin of their teeth and has little mojo.

If we're going to be a No. 3 or a No. 6, I'd rather play someone like that than a scrappy mid-major No. 14 with nothing to lose, such as Winthrop, or Murray State back in 1997.

AFter the first round, though, it's toss-up.

[dukie8]

what are you people thinking saying that you would be happy with a 5 or 6? it's the top 4 that get protected and get to play close to home. i realize that we lost to michigan st 2 years ago close to home, but it has to be easier to drive to the game than to fly through several time zones.

i agree that lunardi is way off with us as a 5. we definitely are a 4 and i think that we are borderline 3. does he even look at the numbers? we have a 9 rpi off the 3rd hardest schedule and no bad losses (did everyone notice that ga tech slipped to 51 so we lost a top 50 win and picked up a 51-100? if we 1 of 2 this week and then win 2 in the accs, we should a 3. there just are not 12 teams with better resumes than that. it will be interesting to see if the committee follows the biased media and doesn't seed us accordingly.

as for teams that i would like to see in our bracket, i would love to see wisconsin, memphis, nevada (if the committee is delusional and follows lunardi by giving them a 4 seed) and byu/air force. i watched wisconsin twice last week and, other than tucker, they have zero offense. our defense would focus on him and the rest of those guys will not be able to pick up the slack. i think that we could hold them in the 40s (ohio st did). i watched memphis rally to beat a very mediocre gonzaga team. those guys brick ft after ft and are suffering from unlvitis (no competition during the regular season). as painful as some of our games have been, our guys definitely have gotten a lot of experience playing pressure-packed close games (in the 2nd half).

[Bob Green]

IMO, we will be a 3 or 4 seed. I stated that earlier in the thread. I provided all the 5 & 6 data, but I did not mean to imply we deserved to be a 5 or 6 seed. Additionally. Lunardi and ESPN are focused on ratings (i.e. controversy) not solid basketball analysis.

I agree with you that we could shutdown Wisconsin and Nevada. Memphis is very fast and that scares me. However, this Duke team has the potential to beat anyone if we can put together a full 40 minutes.

It looks like you and I finally agree on something!

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

[dukie8]

it must be the new board! i agree that memphis is very athletic and quick but they are nowhere near as good as the memphis team was last year, played a weaker oos this year and are terrible from the line (that was what kept a mediocre gonzaga team in the game).

the teams i want no part of are: ucla, ohio st, kansas and any of the acc teams.

[Caulk]

I think being a 3.4 or 5 is bit refreshing this year. When Duke is a #1 seed we get a easy game at first, then generally a underachieving but very talented team in the second round. Sweet sixteen games have been very tough for Duke the last few years as well. Maybe this year the field will open up a bit.

[wilson]

Much like everyone else, I think Lunardi's projection of Duke as a 5 seed is totally bogus. I do, however, love one part of his latest bracket. He has Florida as a 2 seed in kuralonna's region:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology

Boy would I love to hear the whining from chapel hill if that shook out (but let's be honest, it won't).

[Buckeye Devil]

I totally agree- I think Lunardi is way off. But, that being said, I'm fine with expecting a 4 or 5 seed and then being pleasantly surprised on Selection Sunday.

How sweet would it be to be the 2 or 3 seed in a region with Ohio State or Wisconsin at the 1 seed, and Memphis at the 2 or 3? I like our chances! Plus, I love the thought of Zoubek getting a chance to bang with Oden or Josh taking Oden on the perimeter. Not to mention our ability to extend on 3 point shooters- I can't see Ohio State beating us on midrange shots.

I could be totally wrong, but I don't think Duke matches up well with Ohio State. Oden is not as developed as he could be offensively in part to his right hand still being only at about 75-80%, but he would eat Zoubek alive if Z was in the game. And Oden would not necessarily always have to guard McRoberts (there are other options and plenty of fouls to give from the bench), plus OSU has the ability to, and will play some zone. I do not like the potential Paulus vs. Mike Conley Jr. matchup either. In short, I think OSU's quickness, depth, and inside/outside ability would pose serious trouble for the Devils. Even though Duke has the edge with Coach K, a Xavier team coached by Thad Matta and short on talent gave the '04 Final 4 team all that it could handle before finally losing in the Elite 8. I prefer to be in another region with another #1 seed.

[hurleyfor3]

Much like everyone else, I think Lunardi's projection of Duke as a 5 seed is totally bogus. I do, however, love one part of his latest bracket. He has Florida as a 2 seed in kuralonna's region:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology

Boy would I love to hear the whining from chapel hill if that shook out (but let's be honest, it won't).

That makes sense. Weakest #1 should get the strongest #2. One can even argue Flawda and unc should be switched.

I wouldn't mind that draw at all for Duke. If we're any good we have to face a #1 at some point, and there's nobody on the bottom half that region that scares me (we already beat Gtown).

[dukestheheat]

jason,

great to see you back on the board! i think duke is a 3 in the ncaa if we beat maryland and can win at least 2 or maybe 3 games in the acc tourney. our numbers are looking very strong right now (RPI, SOS, NON-CONF SOS, NON-CONF RPI andNCAA rank of 9 on their official website including games through 2/25).

at any rate, the team is looking better.

GO DUKE!

dth.

[throatybeard]

I'm fairly certain that, in the 64-team era, the 6 seed has a better 1st-round record than the 5 seed.

[hurleyfor3]

I'm fairly certain that, in the 64-team era, the 6 seed has a better 1st-round record than the 5 seed.

You are correct. Since 1985, five-seeds are 59-29 and sixes are 61-27.

It's even worse for the fives if you include the entire tournament. Fives are 101-88; sixes are 113-87. No five has ever won a title; two sixes have (Ncsu '83 and Kansas '88).

[KyDevilinIL]

I wouldn't mind that draw at all for Duke. If we're any good we have to face a #1 at some point, and there's nobody on the bottom half that region that scares me (we already beat Gtown).

I absolutely loathe tournament rematches against teams we beat in the regular season. Those games really give me the creeps. Seems like they often put the team who won first at a distinct disadvantage.

On an unrelated note, I'll join the chorus of those calling shenanigans on Lunardi's latest bracket. No way, come Selection Sunday, that we'll be seeded worse than Nevada or UNLV, for example.

If Florida does wind up a No. 2, though, I sure as heck don't wanna be their No. 3. That's the one team that, when they are playing well, scares the daylights out of me. We can wonder if they've lost their interest and/or mojo -- and there's reason to believe they might have -- but I want nothing to do with them.

[KyDevilinIL]

I absolutely loathe tournament rematches against teams we beat in the regular season.

Before someone asks, I can't right off hand recall a recent example where this worked against Duke. I was mainly thinking about the experiences of some other teams, as well as the general psychology of such a situation.

[hurleyfor3]

While the bracketologists™ generally do a good job of predicting the teams in the tournament, they're usually way off on the actual draws, regarding who's in which region, seeding etc. There's a big difference between, say, a three and a four regarding which chunk of the bracket you get.

The ones and twos are often pretty well set by the time the dust clears on the conference tournaments, but after that the draw is anyone's guess, despite what I wrote a few posts back.

So I wouldn't be too worried about actually getting Georgetown or Air Force or whomever again. Heck, this year I WANT another crack at VPI and even BC, and what would we have to lose by playing unc again?

Also... I have no idea what kind of team Unlv has this year but it would be fun to play them. Imagine the hype on ESPN.

[dukie8]

how about 2005?

[tommy]

Sure, I think the Committee will reward the two Big 10 schools with #1's. One will go to Kansas/A&M and the other to Florida. I think even if Carolina pulls out the ACC tourney, they fall to a 2 (b/c they are losing in Cameron).

UCLA is a mortal lock at this point for #1 in the west, or whatever they call it now. What will be interesting is which of the 5 top teams gets left with a #2. I had thought it would be the Big 10 runner-up, but with those teams splitting games, and the OSU win being so close yesterday, if they meet in the Big 10 tourney and it's close again, they both would probably get #1 seeds unless UNC runs the table.

[darthur]

A lot of people seem to think we could be a 3 seed. What assumptions are you all making on how we end the season?

Anything less than 2 more losses would be a real accomplishment, and would we really be in the running for a 3 seed after 2 losses?