Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 94
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Fayetteville NC

    Catlanta

    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    Dissent - I would rather play the West 2 seed on the Moon than play Kentucky in CATlanta.
    That's pretty funny!

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by dynastydefender View Post
    That's pretty funny!
    Wouldn't you have to have 60-foot baskets?

    And the jet lag is a bear. I guess the China trip would give Duke some experience.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Dangerous

    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    Wouldn't you have to have 60-foot baskets?

    And the jet lag is a bear. I guess the China trip would give Duke some experience.
    I'd be worried that Miles might launch himself into orbit on a dunk attempt.

  4. #44

    S curve or by geography

    Help me understand something - for the #2 seeds, does the committee follow the S curve in setting them against the #1s or do they do it by closest region? For instance in Lunardi's latest bracket, he has:
    South - #1 Kentucky; #2 UNC
    East - #1 Syracuse; #2 Duke
    Midwest - #1 Kansas; #2 Ohio St.
    West - #1 Michigan St.; #2 Missouri
    If it's by the S curve, then Duke and UNC are presumably beneath Missouri and Ohio St. - not likely. Whereas this makes more sense regionally - Duke ahead of UNC. But I remember several folks saying that they follow the S curve.
    Thanks.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by bob blue devil View Post
    Help me understand something - for the #2 seeds, does the committee follow the S curve in setting them against the #1s or do they do it by closest region? For instance in Lunardi's latest bracket, he has:
    South - #1 Kentucky; #2 UNC
    East - #1 Syracuse; #2 Duke
    Midwest - #1 Kansas; #2 Ohio St.
    West - #1 Michigan St.; #2 Missouri
    If it's by the S curve, then Duke and UNC are presumably beneath Missouri and Ohio St. - not likely. Whereas this makes more sense regionally - Duke ahead of UNC. But I remember several folks saying that they follow the S curve.
    Thanks.
    first two seeds are by closest region
    next two seeds balance out the quality of the top two in each region
    everyone else by s curve or wherever they fit because there are so many other rules about who can play where/when
    1200. DDMF.

  6. #46
    Funny thing about that. Lunardi made a blog post last night stating we were the strongest 2 seed (fifth best team overall). So when his bracket comes out today he matches us up with... Syracuse!?

    Separately, Jay Bilas gave us the last #1 over Kansas based on head-to-head. Jay Bilas!

    Personally I'll take any bracket that matches us up with Michigan State, Kansas or Mizzou, no matter who is what seed where.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    first two seeds are by closest region
    next two seeds balance out the quality of the top two in each region
    everyone else by s curve or wherever they fit because there are so many other rules about who can play where/when
    thanks.
    odd system, but there are bigger problems to moan about.

  8. #48
    Whats the reasoning behind Michigan St as a #1 seed? They are about the same as Duke, but they lost to Northwestern, and Duke beat them head-to-head.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by theAlaskanBear View Post
    Whats the reasoning behind Michigan St as a #1 seed? They are about the same as Duke, but they lost to Northwestern, and Duke beat them head-to-head.
    See also: Kansas.

    It's quite possible for us to have victories over three of the #1s if unc gets one. If this is the case I doubt we'll have gone undefeated against the #1s, however, as unc's path to a #1 almost certainly involves beating us at some point. Also, I don't see a way we and unc both get #1s unless all three of the good Big XII teams really screw up.

  10. #50
    it's hard to get too worked up about current seeding projections given how much things will change. imho, if we win out (how much fun would that be?) we're almost definitely a #1; if we drop 1, we've still got a really good shot at a #1 (others will lose as well); if we drop 2, we're probably a #2. i know a lot depends on how others play, but right now we're in control of our destiny. and, yes, i view the possibility of us losing 3 not worth analyzing because of its highly unlikely nature (sorry wake; or did i just jinx us?).

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Quote Originally Posted by theAlaskanBear View Post
    Whats the reasoning behind Michigan St as a #1 seed? They are about the same as Duke, but they lost to Northwestern, and Duke beat them head-to-head.
    One thing Lunardi said about why he had Kansas & MSU as #1 seeds is because they currently have a lead in their conference whereas we're tied for the lead. Also, I think that MSU having a 2 game lead in the toughest conference in the country says a lot even with the loss at Northwestern.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by 1 24 90 View Post
    One thing Lunardi said about why he had Kansas & MSU as #1 seeds is because they currently have a lead in their conference whereas we're tied for the lead.
    That makes no sense. Duke is tied for the lead in its conference because North Carolina isn't dropping conference games to teams like Kansas State and Wisconsin. How does the fact that North Carolina has been better in conference play than Missouri and Ohio State make Duke look worse?

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    That makes no sense. Duke is tied for the lead in its conference because North Carolina isn't dropping conference games to teams like Kansas State and Wisconsin. How does the fact that North Carolina has been better in conference play than Missouri and Ohio State make Duke look worse?
    good thing joe lunardi's opinion matters zilch to the committee

    while he is usually pretty good about picking which teams will get IN to the tournament...he's usually pretty bad about picking their seed lines...
    1200. DDMF.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    good thing joe lunardi's opinion matters zilch to the committee

    while he is usually pretty good about picking which teams will get IN to the tournament...he's usually pretty bad about picking their seed lines...
    He's actually not even all that good at picking that. Anyone that pays attention can, and does, do as well or better.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Delaware
    I just wanted to add a few factual things to the discussion here about competitive balance vs. geography for seeding purposes. If you don't like that stuff, the short version is that geography is much more important than competitive balance with the way the bracketing rules are laid out. You can scroll down to the smiley faces to get to stuff about current brackets.

    There are two rules that really come into play here. The first is a series of rules stating basically that teams will be put into the bracket in true seed order (1st 1-seed, 2nd 1-seed, ... , 3rd 4-seed, 4th 4-seed). The second regards competitive balance as follows:

    After the top four seed lines have been assigned, determine the relative strengths of the regions by adding the “true seed” numbers in each region to determine if any severe numerical imbalance exists. Generally, no more than five points should separate the lowest and highest total.
    For example, a region following true s-curve order would have 1,8,9,16 in one region (i.e. the best 1 and 3 seeds with the worst two and four seeds). The average sum for each region will be 34. 5 points doesn't sound like a lot of wiggle room, but it really is. The most extreme scenario I can think of has the following:

    1+5+9+16=31
    2+6+10+15=33
    3+8+12+13=36
    4+7+11+14=36

    In this scenario, I managed to fit the best 1-seed, best 2-seed, and best 3-seed all in one region and the 2nd best 1,2, and 3 seeds in another region, but still meet the guidelines laid out for competitive balance. That doesn't even factor in the wiggle room in the rule that allows more than a 5 point gap if absolutely necessary. From everything I've read and heard on the subject from guys like Lunardi, Jerry Palm, and others who do this for a living or have at least been to the mock selection, NCAA members, including coaches, AD's, and conferences at all levels consider geography a higher priority than competitive balance. They would rather be close to home in a tough region, than far away in an easy one. There are many who would probably disagree, but the people who matter want it that way.

    Back to nitty gritty stuff. Since teams are placed in the bracket by true seed order, with the best 1s, 2s, 3s and 4s all getting geographical preference over other teams in the seed line, along with the distinct lack of top teams out west, there will likely be some top seeds from each line bunched in regions. The one rule that does throw a bit of a kink into this is the rule stating that the first three teams in from a conference (i.e. the top 3 in any conference) must be in separate regions. This rule has no wiggle room and will greatly affect the bracket when it comes to 3 seeds. Teams like Baylor and Michigan are currently projected as 3 seeds with 2 1's and 2's from the same conference. Let's say that Duke ends up as the first or second 2 seed and is placed in the South or East. Since those regions will have 1s from the Big East and SEC, with Duke as a two, it is very likely a landing spot for one of those two teams as there is no conference conflict as there would be in two of the other three regions.



    I've been looking at Duke vs. Kansas vs. Michigan State right now, because for the moment at least, those are the three teams that most everyone has at 3, 4, and 5 in their S-curve. Duke's biggest asset is it's 5 top quality wins, all away from home, but Kansas also has 5 RPI top 25 wins and Mich St. has 7. They both beat Duke in terms of top 50 resume with Duke at 7-4, Mich St. at 9-4, and Kansas at 10-4. Where Duke counters back is their 51-100 record of 6-0 vs. just 2-1 for Michigan State and just 1-1 for Kansas. BTW, that number could improve big time for Duke if Maryland at 101 or Va Tech at 103 could jump into the top 100 with only Penn at 94 in danger of dropping out. As far as playing it out, Michigan State has a brutal finishing schedule going to Bloomington tomorrow before welcoming Ohio State to Lansing on Sunday. If they win those two plus the Big Ten tourney, I don't see any way that they don't get 1 of the remaining two 1 seeds and it would be a really close race between them and a 4 loss Duke for the 3rd overall (even after considering H2H). Kansas on the other hand has a simpler road to winning out, but that means less opportunities for new good wins. They only have OK St and Texas left and unless Iowa St. beats Baylor in Ames this weekend (certainly possible) to bump Baylor to 4th in the B12, KU will only get an opportunity for another top win in the title game should it get there. If all three teams were to win out, I think KU is the clear choice to miss out on a 1 seed, but this is all assuming that Duke takes care of it's own business against Carolina. Otherwise, stuff gets really screwy.

    One last note. There's always a lot of talk about winning conference tourneys, but historically, it is really tough for the committee to consider games played on selection Sunday as there is just to little time to change seeding and create a whole new bracket. Even last year, when the whole world assumed that the committee would just leave two spots for Duke and Carolina and fill them in based on the game, the chair said in an interview immediately afterword that Duke had it no matter what transpired in that game, so making sure that they are ahead of Carolina before Selection Sunday is important.
    Pratt '09
    GO DUKE!

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    He's actually not even all that good at picking that. Anyone that pays attention can, and does, do as well or better.
    Well the thing is he can say "i got 35 of 38 at large teams" (or however many there are)...but nearly 30 of them are givens...so pretty much he did just better than 50% of the actual bubble teams and coronates himself...you could simply pick the top 38 teams in teh RPI and do as well as JL
    1200. DDMF.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Delaware
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    Well the thing is he can say "i got 35 of 38 at large teams" (or however many there are)...but nearly 30 of them are givens...so pretty much he did just better than 50% of the actual bubble teams and coronates himself...you could simply pick the top 38 teams in teh RPI and do as well as JL
    One thing you should go to Lunardi for is his reasons why he picks and brackets the way he does. Unfortunately, much of it requires insider, but some of it you can get from free stuff like his chats. He (and a few others like Jerry Palm at CBS) really knows the process inside and out, and those guys are much better at predicting things like regions, especially among top seeds where there is less movement. You can pick just as many or maybe even 1 or 2 more of the final 68 teams at 5:30 on selection Sunday and "beat" him, but if you want to follow bracketology throughout the year and figure out some things that weigh on the committee members minds, go to guys like Lunardi and Palm vs. the guys who just pick teams based on their own criteria. I always find that I don't even look at the final predictive brackets half the time since I'm just waiting for the real thing, and there's no way to track who does better throughout the year, so I'd rather read the stuff from the guys who have actually studied how it works and have a better idea of the committee's thought process.

    Sorry this is getting a little rant-y, but I just think that we all worry about where people stand right now (myself included), but at 6:30 on Selection Sunday, we're breaking down the real bracket with 95% of our thoughts, and wondering what the committee was thinking with the other 5%. None of us are dissecting the brackets from 5:30 to find out who was "right," so I try to at least learn about the process along the way since that helps with that 5%.
    Pratt '09
    GO DUKE!

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by SCMatt33 View Post
    One thing you should go to Lunardi for is his reasons why he picks and brackets the way he does. Unfortunately, much of it requires insider, but some of it you can get from free stuff like his chats. He (and a few others like Jerry Palm at CBS) really knows the process inside and out, and those guys are much better at predicting things like regions, especially among top seeds where there is less movement. You can pick just as many or maybe even 1 or 2 more of the final 68 teams at 5:30 on selection Sunday and "beat" him, but if you want to follow bracketology throughout the year and figure out some things that weigh on the committee members minds, go to guys like Lunardi and Palm vs. the guys who just pick teams based on their own criteria. I always find that I don't even look at the final predictive brackets half the time since I'm just waiting for the real thing, and there's no way to track who does better throughout the year, so I'd rather read the stuff from the guys who have actually studied how it works and have a better idea of the committee's thought process.

    Sorry this is getting a little rant-y, but I just think that we all worry about where people stand right now (myself included), but at 6:30 on Selection Sunday, we're breaking down the real bracket with 95% of our thoughts, and wondering what the committee was thinking with the other 5%. None of us are dissecting the brackets from 5:30 to find out who was "right," so I try to at least learn about the process along the way since that helps with that 5%.
    Certainly all true.

    What I enjoy the most, and what makes him valuable, is every year he looks at his bracket, and the committee bracket and talks to them/goes to great length to figure out what criteria they considered/put more weight on to cause him to have different picks. Whether his picks are good or not, he knows more about what factors into the committee's decisions than anyone, and even if he is wrong, he has wonderful insights.
    1200. DDMF.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    raleigh
    obsession about OTHER teams brackets = http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=78&f=1410
    "One POSSIBLE future. From your point of view... I don't know tech stuff.".... Kyle Reese

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    He's actually not even all that good at picking that. Anyone that pays attention can, and does, do as well or better.
    Where's Nate Silver when we need him?

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

Similar Threads

  1. Official WoW thread
    By snowdenscold in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 05-10-2009, 07:13 PM
  2. The Official Go Sparty Thread
    By pfrduke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 172
    Last Post: 04-07-2009, 09:48 AM
  3. The Official Recipe Thread
    By 2535Miles in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 307
    Last Post: 03-18-2009, 01:04 PM
  4. For The Ladies: People's 2008 Sexiest Man Alive
    By sue71, esq in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-20-2008, 09:45 AM
  5. Official GTAIV thread
    By billybreen in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 201
    Last Post: 05-23-2008, 04:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •