The bid for a No. 1 seed

[GODUKEGO]

#3 Purdue just beat Minnesota by one point. We could have moved to at least #4 in the polls this Monday.

[dukemsu]

#3 Purdue just beat Minnesota by one point. We could have moved to at least #4 in the polls this Monday.

Hummel is on crutches. Unfortunately, I doubt the Spartans are going to help the Devils much this weekend with the condition they're in.

Either way, the S curve means Purdue and Duke are very likely to be 1-2 in a region. The only thing that could mess that up is if Hummel is gone.

dukemsu

[pfrduke]

Hummel is on crutches. Unfortunately, I doubt the Spartans are going to help the Devils much this weekend with the condition they're in.

Either way, the S curve means Purdue and Duke are very likely to be 1-2 in a region. The only thing that could mess that up is if Hummel is gone.

dukemsu

Or the Big East getting 4 teams in the top 8. Looks less likely now than it did a week ago, but still very possible.

[SCMatt33]

Andy Glockner just put up an article on SI.com discussing the race for a one seed in the wake of Robbie Hummel's injury. The first few paragraphs are specifically about Purdue before he talks about everyone else. He says that Duke has the easiest road to get there because of an easier schedule, but K-State or Villanova could easily pass Duke in the pecking order if either one could navigate a tougher home stretch unscathed.

[tommy]

So as Duke has continued to win and now with Purdue's loss of Hummel, our chances of getting a #1 seed have increased, though of course a lot can still happen to derail that. But our chances our better than they were even a week ago.

My feeling, and it appears to be shared by others on the board, is that the toughest matchups for us as we (hopefully) move forward in the tournament will be, other than Kansas, the Big East teams. I mean in particular Syracuse, Villanova and W. Virginia, and really Georgetown too based on our January meeting. Pitt doesn't scare me much.

So the question I'm throwing out there is: what should we be rooting for in the remaining Big East matchups to help us avoid those difficult teams as long as possible? If we dare to assume we'll be a #1, then do we want, for instance, Syracuse to beat Villanova and try to push Nova closer down to maybe a 3 instead of a 2? Or do we want Nova to win so that we can gain on Syracuse on the S curve? If we assume we're going to end up a 2, then what does that do for our rooting interests in this and other Big East games? I think it's probably fruitless to engage in this kind of speculation when we don't know where we're going to end up, but still, it's kinda fun, and when watching these games it would be great to know how to root!

Any ideas?

[Jumbo]

Lunardi likes Duke's chances.

It's Insider, so I don't think I can post more than a sentence, but it's a good read:

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/insid...ory?id=4948421

"It's not that Purdue's great work up to now will be ignored, but that the committee must answer the very difficult question of whether or not the Boilers are one of the 'four best teams' without Hummel."

[BlueintheFace]

In Lunardi's chat today, somebody asked: "Does Duke now become the fourth #1 seed?"

Lunardi's Response: "Yes (holding my nose)"

[Olympic Fan]

While I agree that it makes little difference in the long run if Duke is No. 1 in the region with No. 2 Purdue or Duke is No. 2 in the region with No. 1 Purdue, it does make SOME difference -- getting to open with a 16 instead of a 15 ... getting an 8-9 instead of a 7 ... getting a 4 instead of a 3 in the Sweet 16 (which, let's face it, has been Duke's big bugaboo in this decade).

Plus, you never know when other seeding considerations force the committee to get away from the true s-curve. Just an example, but I heard Jerry Palm on radio today suggest that Duke is the No. 5 team on his s-curve at the moment and is most likely to get the fourth No. 1 seed if Purdue (his No. 4 team) falters without Hummel.

But in the bracket he posted today (supposedly based on what the field would look like based on actual results, not what he thinks is going to happen), he still has Purdue as a No. 1 seed and Duke as a No. 2.

Okay, that's fair ... but he also has Duke as the No. 2 in the same region with No. 1 Kansas ... the BEST No. 1. I'd love to ask him about that, but I suspect he'd argue that it's because Kansas State is also a No. 2 and can't be in the regional with Kansas and Villanova, West Virginia are also No. 2 and can't be in the bracket with No. 1 Syracuse.

Now, I don't put too much stock in Palm's bracket placement, but it's still an indication of why it could be significantly better to be the fourth No. 1 seed than the best No. 2 seed.

Obviously, for Duke, the key is to win out or at least nearly win out -- I don't think a loss at Maryland would kill our chances, although it would make it tougher. A loss to a team not in the top 100 (Virginia or North Carolina) would be close to fatal.

Going into this weekend, the three key games for Duke's No. 1 chances are:

1. Duke at Virginia -- Duke must take care of its own business before any scoreboard watching.

2. Michigan State at Purdue -- The loss of Hummel makes Purdue's status questionable. If they can beat a quality opponent like MSU without him, they might protect their No. 1. Even without Hummel, they should close out the regular season with wins over Big 10 patsies Indiana and Penn State.

3. Villanova at Syracuse -- Villanova could put themselves back in the No. 1 conversation with a victory over the Orange. It would help Duke's chances if the 'Cuse pounds 'Nova in the Dome.

Kansas State, which also has an outside chance at a No. 1, has a home game with Missouri they ought to win. Their big chance to get in the No. 1 debate will come March 3, when they go to No. 1 Kansas.

When I opened this thread, I thought Duke's chances of getting a No. 1 seed were something like 10 percent. As the Devils have reeled off seven straight wins, several other No. 1 favorites have stumbled (Villanova especially). I still only raised Duke's chances to 33 percent. But the Hummel injury -- and let me go on record as saying that I hate that happened ... I don't want to earn a No. 1 that way -- changed the equation.

As of this minute, I'd say it's 50-50 ... but I keep emphasizing, the most important thing is that Duke has to keep winning.

[airowe]

Corey Stokes may be out against Syracuse:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/s...e=NCBHeadlines

Villanova junior Corey Stokes was cited for public urination early Thursday morning but coach Jay Wright has not decided if it will affect the guard's status for the Wildcats' Big East showdown with Syracuse on Saturday.

[YourLandlord]

Corey Stokes may be out against Syracuse:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/s...e=NCBHeadlines

Villanova junior Corey Stokes was cited for public urination early Thursday morning but coach Jay Wright has not decided if it will affect the guard's status for the Wildcats' Big East showdown with Syracuse on Saturday.

That is spectacular.

[SCMatt33]

Okay, that's fair ... but he also has Duke as the No. 2 in the same region with No. 1 Kansas ... the BEST No. 1. I'd love to ask him about that, but I suspect he'd argue that it's because Kansas State is also a No. 2 and can't be in the regional with Kansas and Villanova, West Virginia are also No. 2 and can't be in the bracket with No. 1 Syracuse.

It also has to due with Pitt and Gtown being potential top four seeds. This was discussed ad nauseum earlier in this thread. There are specific rules about where all of the Big East teams can go.

If Duke can earn a 1-seed, the problems with bracketing rules and the Big East will largely go away. It would be based on the S-curve and not bracketing rules that would determine which Big East team would be the 2/3 in our region (not to get ahead of myself or anything).

[Jumbo]

While I agree that it makes little difference in the long run if Duke is No. 1 in the region with No. 2 Purdue or Duke is No. 2 in the region with No. 1 Purdue, it does make SOME difference -- getting to open with a 16 instead of a 15 ... getting an 8-9 instead of a 7 ... getting a 4 instead of a 3 in the Sweet 16 (which, let's face it, has been Duke's big bugaboo in this decade).

Plus, you never know when other seeding considerations force the committee to get away from the true s-curve. Just an example, but I heard Jerry Palm on radio today suggest that Duke is the No. 5 team on his s-curve at the moment and is most likely to get the fourth No. 1 seed if Purdue (his No. 4 team) falters without Hummel.

But in the bracket he posted today (supposedly based on what the field would look like based on actual results, not what he thinks is going to happen), he still has Purdue as a No. 1 seed and Duke as a No. 2.

Okay, that's fair ... but he also has Duke as the No. 2 in the same region with No. 1 Kansas ... the BEST No. 1. I'd love to ask him about that, but I suspect he'd argue that it's because Kansas State is also a No. 2 and can't be in the regional with Kansas and Villanova, West Virginia are also No. 2 and can't be in the bracket with No. 1 Syracuse.

Now, I don't put too much stock in Palm's bracket placement, but it's still an indication of why it could be significantly better to be the fourth No. 1 seed than the best No. 2 seed.

You're also missing the key info referenced in the Glockner article linked earlier in this thread. Regional distance takes preference over the S-Curve, as stupid as that might be. (I mean, who really cares if Duke gets sent to Salt Lake City vs. St. Louis?) But the NCAA literally tracks just how far each team would have to travel, and slots them accordingly. It bothers me, but it's how teams get screwed by getting stuck with better teams when they are supposedly being "helped" by getting placed closer to home.

[BlueintheFace]

You're also missing the key info referenced in the Glockner article linked earlier in this thread. Regional distance takes preference over the S-Curve, as stupid as that might be. (I mean, who really cares if Duke gets sent to Salt Lake City vs. St. Louis?) But the NCAA literally tracks just how far each team would have to travel, and slots them accordingly. It bothers me, but it's how teams get screwed by getting stuck with better teams when they are supposedly being "helped" by getting placed closer to home.

An awful lot of projected brackets have slotted Duke in the same pod as Florida at the Jacksonville site.

Additionally, a lot of brackets have pushed us to the East regional with Syracuse.

I am not a fan of the geography aspect.

[Jumbo]

An awful lot of projected brackets have slotted Duke in the same pod as Florida at the Jacksonville site.

Additionally, a lot of brackets have pushed us to the East regional with Syracuse.

I am not a fan of the geography aspect.

Syracuse can't be in the East regional.

[Olympic Fan]

You're also missing the key info referenced in the Glockner article linked earlier in this thread. Regional distance takes preference over the S-Curve, as stupid as that might be. (I mean, who really cares if Duke gets sent to Salt Lake City vs. St. Louis?) But the NCAA literally tracks just how far each team would have to travel, and slots them accordingly. It bothers me, but it's how teams get screwed by getting stuck with better teams when they are supposedly being "helped" by getting placed closer to home.

It's actually Glocker who misunderstands the balance the committee tries to strike between geography and balance.

The new emphasis on geography explain why Duke is almost certain to be sent to Jacksonville instead of Buffalo (I think I saw that Jax is 117 miles closer) -- even though both are a huge trip -- for the first/second rounds. It why Florida will almost certainly be in Jacksonville too (I'm hoping they are in the other pod -- I'm not afraid of them, but I'd hate to play them in front of essentially a home crowd).

But in terms of balancing the top seeds, geography is only a secondary factor -- somebody from the east/midwest HAS to go west to balance the field. Otherwise you'd have the top seeds in the West 1. Gonzaga; 2. California; 3. New Mexico 4. Artesia High School ????? (it can't be BYU/New Mexico in the same regional).

I agree with the poster who pointed out that the committee's biggest problem is going to be the 4-5 Big East teasms that get top four seeds. By rule the top three teams from a conference HAVE to be in different regionals ... by practice, they'll put the fourth team in the fourth regional where possible. If five teams make the top four segment, then two have to be in the same regional (although by rule they can't meet until the regional finals).

That's going to cause a lot of headaches ... and as Jumbo pointed out, Syracuse CAN'T be in the East because they can't play in the regional on their home floor). Let me point out that their first/second round pod will almost certainly be in Buffalo, but after that, they go West.

The four regionals are St. Louis, Houston, Syracuse, Salt Lake.

The way the committee balances geography and balance is that they start with the top No. 1 seed and place them in the most favorable geographic location.

That creates an interesting race to the wire with Kansas and Kentucky. Both would prefer St. Louis ... but the one that comes out on top will get it (not the one that's closest). The No. 2 team in that mix goes to Houston.

That leaves Salt Lake City for Syracuse, the probable No. 3 seed.

That means that if Duke earns the fourth No. 1, we probably get two games in Jacksonville, followed by two games in Syracuse.

Now, I wouldn't mind being the No. 2 in Syracuse with No. 1 Purdue ... but if Duke is a No. 2, the committee could decide that Villanova is a better fit as the No. 2 in Syracuse (I actually think that if Duke gets the No. 1 in Syracuse, then Villanova is the likely No. 2).

Anyway, my point is that Glockner misunderstands the committee's fascination with precise mileage measurements. Geography can trump the s-curve, but overall, the committee's goal is to combine geography with a balanced field.

[Jumbo]

It's actually Glocker who misunderstands the balance the committee tries to strike between geography and balance.

The new emphasis on geography explain why Duke is almost certain to be sent to Jacksonville instead of Buffalo (I think I saw that Jax is 117 miles closer) -- even though both are a huge trip -- for the first/second rounds. It why Florida will almost certainly be in Jacksonville too (I'm hoping they are in the other pod -- I'm not afraid of them, but I'd hate to play them in front of essentially a home crowd).

But in terms of balancing the top seeds, geography is only a secondary factor -- somebody from the east/midwest HAS to go west to balance the field. Otherwise you'd have the top seeds in the West 1. Gonzaga; 2. California; 3. New Mexico 4. Artesia High School ????? (it can't be BYU/New Mexico in the same regional).

I agree with the poster who pointed out that the committee's biggest problem is going to be the 4-5 Big East teasms that get top four seeds. By rule the top three teams from a conference HAVE to be in different regionals ... by practice, they'll put the fourth team in the fourth regional where possible. If five teams make the top four segment, then two have to be in the same regional (although by rule they can't meet until the regional finals).

That's going to cause a lot of headaches ... and as Jumbo pointed out, Syracuse CAN'T be in the East because they can't play in the regional on their home floor). Let me point out that their first/second round pod will almost certainly be in Buffalo, but after that, they go West.

The four regionals are St. Louis, Houston, Syracuse, Salt Lake.

The way the committee balances geography and balance is that they start with the top No. 1 seed and place them in the most favorable geographic location.

That creates an interesting race to the wire with Kansas and Kentucky. Both would prefer St. Louis ... but the one that comes out on top will get it (not the one that's closest). The No. 2 team in that mix goes to Houston.

That leaves Salt Lake City for Syracuse, the probable No. 3 seed.

That means that if Duke earns the fourth No. 1, we probably get two games in Jacksonville, followed by two games in Syracuse.

Now, I wouldn't mind being the No. 2 in Syracuse with No. 1 Purdue ... but if Duke is a No. 2, the committee could decide that Villanova is a better fit as the No. 2 in Syracuse (I actually think that if Duke gets the No. 1 in Syracuse, then Villanova is the likely No. 2).

Anyway, my point is that Glockner misunderstands the committee's fascination with precise mileage measurements. Geography can trump the s-curve, but overall, the committee's goal is to combine geography with a balanced field.

Well, if Glockner is wrong, then Lunardi is wrong too. He explains how the top 16 seeds are slotted and while, again, this is another Insider file, I guess I can say that a) ironically he's responding to a question from someone from Durham and b) he says this when slotting Duke in as a 2-seed in Syracuse (where Kentucky, 2nd on the S-Curve, is the No. 1 seed): "Remember, geography takes precedence over S-curve ranking so long as the overall regions are relatively balanced. "

[SCMatt33]

The way the committee balances geography and balance is that they start with the top No. 1 seed and place them in the most favorable geographic location.

That creates an interesting race to the wire with Kansas and Kentucky. Both would prefer St. Louis ... but the one that comes out on top will get it (not the one that's closest). The No. 2 team in that mix goes to Houston.

That leaves Salt Lake City for Syracuse, the probable No. 3 seed.

That means that if Duke earns the fourth No. 1, we probably get two games in Jacksonville, followed by two games in Syracuse.

Now, I wouldn't mind being the No. 2 in Syracuse with No. 1 Purdue ... but if Duke is a No. 2, the committee could decide that Villanova is a better fit as the No. 2 in Syracuse (I actually think that if Duke gets the No. 1 in Syracuse, then Villanova is the likely No. 2).

Anyway, my point is that Glockner misunderstands the committee's fascination with precise mileage measurements. Geography can trump the s-curve, but overall, the committee's goal is to combine geography with a balanced field.

The committee really will use precise geography measurments, whether it seems to make sense or not. In the case of Kentucky, its actually not even close. Syracuse is about 400 miles closer to Lexington than Houston (667 mi to 1070 mi). The only reason that someone could reasonably come up with to put Ky in Houston if they are #2 overall is that Syracuse is in Big East country and it is pretty much guaranteed that either the 2, 3, or 4 seed will be Nova, WVA, Gtown, or Pitt. Of those schools, Nova is the closest to Syracuse at about 250 miles. That far enough that Nova fans won't be the overwhelming majority and I doubt that the Syracuse fans who stay home will be rooting for a rival.

If Kansas falls behind Kentucky, however, they WILL go to Houston, causing Syracuse to be shipped out west.

It is important to remember that geographical "protection" only applies to FIRST round games. After that, the committee will try to keep teams as close to home (literally) as possible without breaking any bracketing rules.

[Olympic Fan]

SCMatt33,

I appreciate the geography lesson. You are right -- I had a brain fart and didn't realize that Lexington is much closer to Syracuse than to Houston.

So I amend the projections: If Kansas and Kentucky are 1-2 in that order, then Kansas gets St. Louis and Kentucky gets Syracuse ... Syracuse as the third No. 1, would then get Houston and Duke or Purdue would get Salt Lake City.

Jumbo, read your quote from Lunardi again: "so long as the overall regions are relatively balanced."

I've been in mock seeding sessions run by the NCAA -- and I repeat, the idea is to strike a balance between geographical considerations and balancing the field as close as possible to an s-curve. Pure mileage consideration does NOT trump considerations of balance.

But to get back to the real world, it's going to be interesting to see if the committee would place Duke -- as perhaps the strongest No. 2 seed -- with Kansas or Kentucky.

We'll see ... I would suspect that if Duke doesn't get a 1 (and a likely placement in Salt Lake City), then there committee would see little difference between Duke and Villanova and would send Villanova to Syracuse.

That would leave Duke, K-State and either West Virginia or Ohio State as the other No. 2 seeds (in this scenario, I'm assuming that Purdue gets the one).

Okay, I can see under this scenario that Duke might get sent to St. Louis -- although I still think the committee would try to avoid putting the top No. 1 and top No. 2 (if that's what Duke turns out to be) in the same region. Of course, they can't put K-State in the region with Kansas, so that leaves Duke and either Ohio State or West Virginia (at least that's what it looks like now) to be paired with Kansas.

It will be interesting ... I stand by the projection that Duke will start its NCAA path with two games in Jacksonville, but I agree that after that, it's very VERY cloudy.

PS Does all this mean I need to pull for Kentucky to leapfrog Kansas so that Duke has a chance at the Syracuse regional? I'm not sure I can do that.

[El_Diablo]

Kentucky lost to Tennessee today. If they lose again, do we pass them in the s-curve? Syracuse almost certainly will do so if they take care of business against Villanova...

[Duvall]

Kentucky lost to Tennessee today. If they lose again, do we pass them in the s-curve? Syracuse almost certainly will do so if they take care of business against Villanova...

Syracuse should already be ahead of them.

I don't see Kentucky losing again unless they completely phone in the SEC Tournament. Which they well might.