Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 81 to 94 of 94
  1. #81

    The No. 1 seed

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Barring an early upset in the ACC tournament, I suspect the winner of this weekend's Duke-UNC match will get a #1 seed regardless of the outcome of the ACC championship game (provided they both get there).

    -Jason "the committee often says it favors regular season champs over tourney champs in the bigger conferences" Evans
    People keep saying that te regular season bears more weight with the conmmittee, but does it?

    A year ago, UNC beat Duke in the regular season finale to win the regular season ttile. Duke beat UNC in the ACC Tournament finale ... Duke got a No. 1 seed; UNC got a No. 2

    In 1998, Duke beat UNC in the regular season finale to win the regular season title. UNC beat Duke in the ACC Tournament finals ... both got No. 1 seeds -- but UNC got the better No. 1 seed (and Coach K complained aout it).

    The common thread in both instances is that the team that beat its rival 2 out of 3 got the better seed, even though the other one won the regular season.

    Let's see -- Duke got a No. 1 seed in 2005, when losing to UNC in the regular season finale (but winning in the tournament) and in 2006, losing to UNC in the finale, but winning the tournament.
    In 1997, Duke won the regular season outright and got a No. 2 seed. UNC won the tournament and got a No. 1 seed. In 2005, Duke finished THIRD in the ACC standings, but won the tournament and got a No. 1 seed.

    All I'm saying is don't get carried away with the idea that winning the regular season has more weight with the committee than the tournament. Especially in a situation like this year, when you have Duke and UNC vying for a No. 1 seed, it woul;d be very easy for them to make it an ether/or situation going into Sunday -- the winner gets the No. 1 and the loser gets a No. 2 seed. That wouldn't impact their brackets the way it would if maybe they were trying to decide on Duke or Kansas for the last Nio. 1.

    At this point, I think it's an absolute lock that if Duke beats UNC Saturday AND win the tournament, they get a No. 1 seed.

    But if Duke either beats UNC Saturday and loses to the Heels Sunday in the ACC finals or loses to UNC Saturday and beats UNC in the championship game, I think it's at least 50-50 that Duke gets a No. 1 seed. Losing to someone other than UNC in the tournament, or beating a lesser team in the ACC finals would lower Duke's chances.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    Not sure I agree. Lexington is actually closer in miles to St. Louis (344 miles) than it is to Atlanta (368 miles) so if Duke is a #1 and trying to get as many of the #1s as close to home as possible is a priority for the committe, it would seem to make sense to get Kentucky as close as possible, which would be St. Louis, and you'd get the additional benefit of getting Duke as close as possible, in Atlanta.

    I know, what about Kansas? If Duke is ahead of Kansas on the curve, which I think is quite possible -- see my earlier post for reasons why -- then why shouldn't it be Kansas going out west instead of Duke?



    Again, I posted on Duke vs. Kansas the other day. We are ahead of them in RPI, and our record against the top 25, top 100, and top 150 are all better. And we beat them head-to-head. If we win out we're the #3 overall seed -- at worst -- IMO, regardless of what Kansas does.
    Good points! did not realize about UK being closer to stl than atl.

    Point of emphasis though, there is no "get as many #1s as close to home as possible". It's 100% a greedy algorithm. The #1 overall gets their closest, the #2 overall gets the closest one left, the #3 gets the closest (etc). so they're not minimizing the total distance of the one seeds, it goes one by one.
    1200. DDMF.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    Maybe just nitpicky by me, but it looks like he had Kansas in there regardless of their result against Texas on Saturday, while Duke would have to beat UNC in order to retain the #1. That sounds like Kansas ahead of Duke -- if they'd be a #1 even with a loss in their regular season finale, while Duke could not survive such a result.
    I love that everyone is speculating about what I meant. I feel like Chris Nolan writing the final scene of Inception

    I merely listed them in the order I did because it was easiest to talk about Duke and UNC together after I had already mentioned Kansas. I think Kansas is probably neck and neck with Duke right now, both of them just a tad ahead of UNC. It is also worth noting that Kansas has a chance to go through the rest of the season without a loss while both Duke and UNC cannot. That simple fact probably gives Kansas a small leg up in this multi-pronged quest for the last 2 top seeds.

    -Jason "Duke's simplest path to a #1 is to win out... do that and we are a #1 for sure" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Albemarle, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    Maybe just nitpicky by me, but it looks like he had Kansas in there regardless of their result against Texas on Saturday, while Duke would have to beat UNC in order to retain the #1. That sounds like Kansas ahead of Duke -- if they'd be a #1 even with a loss in their regular season finale, while Duke could not survive such a result.
    I looked to me he was implying that Kansas should/will win that game.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    Good points! did not realize about UK being closer to stl than atl.

    Point of emphasis though, there is no "get as many #1s as close to home as possible". It's 100% a greedy algorithm. The #1 overall gets their closest, the #2 overall gets the closest one left, the #3 gets the closest (etc). so they're not minimizing the total distance of the one seeds, it goes one by one.
    Huh. Thanks. I didn't know that. I'd be interested in seeing where all those kinds of rules are actually enumerated. Where'd you get that?

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    Huh. Thanks. I didn't know that. I'd be interested in seeing where all those kinds of rules are actually enumerated. Where'd you get that?
    Reading lots of Joe Lunardi...one can criticize the brackets he makes, but he talks with all the members of the committee about the process/rules/how they make their decisions. THe general gist is thus:

    first find the top 68 teams and rank them in order

    first team gets their closest site
    second team gets their closest site (other than the one taken by #1)
    same with 3 and 4
    #5 overall (top #2 seed) gets their closest site
    #6 gets the closest site left
    same for 7 and 8

    overall seeds 9-16 (the 3 and 4 seeds) are slotted first to balance out the overall strength of each brackets with the 1 and 2s (so if the #1 and #5 overall are in teh same bracket, it will be like # 12 and #16 overall to balance it out) so that the sum of the overall seeds in each bracket is about 35. Some preference may be given to location, but balance is the most important

    after that, its fair game, from what i've read it seems they slot it out by the S curve all the way through 68 teams, and after avoiding rules about who can play who in which rounds, where they cannot play, on what days they can play, if they can get you in a region close to you, great, but they don't sweat about it

    that's the gist. For example, if UK was actually closer to atlanta than STL, they would slot them there and send us to st louis, rather than putting UK in STL and us in atlanta to make the combined distance smaller.

    the advantage of being the top seeds is you get the preferential treatment, even if its at the expense of the other #1 seeds. Unfortunately for us, we usually end up in that 3/4 overall slot and end up in a non-ideal location.
    1200. DDMF.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    Good points! did not realize about UK being closer to stl than atl.
    "STL to LEX" just doesn't make as good a rap song, na mean?

    Irrespective of actual distances, one has to account for the 250 miles of flat nothingness between Louisville and Saint Louis. (Excepting a little area of hills near Santa Claus, IN). Mount Vernon, IL is the high point, insofar as they've got a small mall and an Arby's. The interstate misses Evansville. No Amtrak. I'm going to a conference in Lexington in April and I'm actually flying thru CVG. I can't face driving across Illinois again. Mississippi is a pretty state by comparison.

    I guess what I'm saying is, I'd rather drive from Lexington through Appalachia, which is gorgeous, to Atlanta, than waste my last eight brain cells on keeping the vehicle between the lines in Illinois.

    I don't know what Wildcats fans would like to do. Who are we? The Wildcats. Who are we gonna beat?

    I'm sure the committee considers none of this. But I-64 in Illinois. Do y'all understand that? It's like I-16 between Macon and Savannah if you mowed down the ugly loblolly pines.
    Last edited by throatybeard; 03-03-2012 at 01:02 AM.

    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

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    Reading lots of Joe Lunardi...one can criticize the brackets he makes, but he talks with all the members of the committee about the process/rules/how they make their decisions. THe general gist is thus:

    first find the top 68 teams and rank them in order

    first team gets their closest site
    second team gets their closest site (other than the one taken by #1)
    same with 3 and 4
    #5 overall (top #2 seed) gets their closest site
    #6 gets the closest site left
    same for 7 and 8

    overall seeds 9-16 (the 3 and 4 seeds) are slotted first to balance out the overall strength of each brackets with the 1 and 2s (so if the #1 and #5 overall are in teh same bracket, it will be like # 12 and #16 overall to balance it out) so that the sum of the overall seeds in each bracket is about 35. Some preference may be given to location, but balance is the most important

    after that, its fair game, from what i've read it seems they slot it out by the S curve all the way through 68 teams, and after avoiding rules about who can play who in which rounds, where they cannot play, on what days they can play, if they can get you in a region close to you, great, but they don't sweat about it

    that's the gist. For example, if UK was actually closer to atlanta than STL, they would slot them there and send us to st louis, rather than putting UK in STL and us in atlanta to make the combined distance smaller.

    the advantage of being the top seeds is you get the preferential treatment, even if its at the expense of the other #1 seeds. Unfortunately for us, we usually end up in that 3/4 overall slot and end up in a non-ideal location.
    Thanks. There's gotta be somewhere where these rules are actually written out though, right? Or are they not actually formal rules, giving the committee wiggle room to pretty much do what they want?

    Only thing I'd say re: these rules as you've cited them is the possible real unfairness to teams like the #5 overall. If I'm the #5 overall, I'm much more interested in having a matchup set up with the #4 overall should we both make the Elite 8 than I am in staying close to home and potentially facing the #1 overall seed in that round. Adherence to the S-curve would be advantageous to me here, and I wouldn't want to sacrifice that advantage for the benefit of playing at the closest site, when the #1 overall, that I'd be playing against, would also be as close to home as possible, thereby negating my geographical home-ness.

    Also I'm surprised that the committee wouldn't want to try to get as many of the #1's close to home as possible, rather than looking out for them in strict order of #1, 2, 3, then 4. And really, given the fact that Lexington is closer to St. Louis than it is to Atlanta, should Kansas get a #1 and be sent to St. Louis while Kentucky gets Atlanta, that would in fact be validation of my idea that they're looking out for the geography of all the #1's as a group rather than looking at them in order, for if they did the latter, Kentucky would play in the more proximate St. Louis. Right?

    So if they went in strict order of geography, if Kansas is #3, it would be Kentucky in St. Louis, Syracuse in Boston, Kansas in Atlanta, and Duke/UNC in Phoenix. If Duke/UNC was #3 and Kansas #4, then Duke/UNC would be in Atlanta and Kansas in Phoenix.

    If they tried to get as many of the #1's as close to home as possible, then again it would be Kentucky in St. Louis, Syracuse in Boston, Duke/UNC in Atlanta and Kansas in Phoenix.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    And really, given the fact that Lexington is closer to St. Louis than it is to Atlanta, should Kansas get a #1 and be sent to St. Louis while Kentucky gets Atlanta, that would in fact be validation of my idea that they're looking out for the geography of all the #1's as a group rather than looking at them in order, for if they did the latter, Kentucky would play in the more proximate St. Louis. Right?
    I think you're putting too much stock in the fact that St. Louis is 14 miles closer than Atlanta. For all intents and purposes, the two are equal distance. They'd put Kentucky in St. Louis if the alternative was a lot farther, but if they can send them to a place that's essentially the same distance and then get the next seed close to home in St. Louis, of course they'd do that. And that potential use of common sense is probably why the rules aren't publicly written down.

  10. #90

    guidelines

    I think you -- and guys like Lunardi and Palm -- sometimes make too much out of the official guidelines (as opposed to the RULES of selection and bracketing).

    The problem is that the committee changes membership every year and they change their piorities of selection and bracketing. If you listen to the interviews over the years, you find different committees place different emphasis of different criteria. It's always changing.

    By their guidelines (not rules), if Kentucky is the No. 1 team on the S-curve, they are supposed to go to their closest regional -- whether it is 14 miles closer or 1,400 miles closer. But I wouldn't bet money that the committee abides by the guidelines. I agree that somebody may say, "Hmm, the Kentucky fans would go to Atlanta and fill the Georgia Dome, while the Kansas fans will go to St. Louis and fill the dome there, so we get the best of both worlds and nobody complains!'.

    Listen and read hard enough and you hear some amazing stuff. Not long ago, I heard Lunardi justify putting Kansas ahead of Duke on the s-curve (even though virtually every criteria the committee uses for seeding would put Duke ahead of Kansas) because, he explained, Kansas is ow the clearcut leader in the Big 12 and Duke is still sharing the ACC lead with North Carolina. Is he making stuff up -- there's nothing like that in the NCAA selection committee guidelines! I guess it sounds good to Lunardi.

    But, who knows. There are new people on the committee every year and they bring their own pre-conceived ideas with them. How a team finished used to be a big deal ... it's supposedly not a criteria now. Non-conference strength of schedule was a big deal in recent years (who you CHOOSE to schedule). Now, maybe not so much. Road record -- is it important or not?

    Who knows.

    So, yes -- Kentucky SHOULD be sent to St. Louis ... but don't count on it happening.

    PS -- Let me explain why the rules suggest that mileage should matter, even if it's just 14 miles. That's to protect the committee frm having to make a controversial deciison. If you allow them to arbitrarily decide that 14 miles doesn't matter, then what about 25 miles? What about 50 miles? 75? Where do you draw the line and say that distance DOES matter? If you leave it to the committee you open the members up to criticism when they use judgement instead of following the strict guidelines. It's a lot easier to say, go to the closest site, period.

  11. #91
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    Thanks. There's gotta be somewhere where these rules are actually written out though, right? Or are they not actually formal rules, giving the committee wiggle room to pretty much do what they want?

    Only thing I'd say re: these rules as you've cited them is the possible real unfairness to teams like the #5 overall. If I'm the #5 overall, I'm much more interested in having a matchup set up with the #4 overall should we both make the Elite 8 than I am in staying close to home and potentially facing the #1 overall seed in that round. Adherence to the S-curve would be advantageous to me here, and I wouldn't want to sacrifice that advantage for the benefit of playing at the closest site, when the #1 overall, that I'd be playing against, would also be as close to home as possible, thereby negating my geographical home-ness.

    Somewhat yes, and somewhat no. ON the one hand, you should have a much easier road to the elite 8 (since the 3 seed is likely the worst 3 seed) but you could easily argue that the difference between # 1 and 4 overall is much greater than the difference between 9 and 12 overall. I would prefer some sort of adherence to s curve, regional balance, closeness of top seeds, and the closeness as a collective group...

    I think the problem is that there are no formal rules on that. Mr. Lunardi said in his chat "Geographic priority goes in S-Curve order. In other words, the Committee places the No. 1 overall seed in the most advantageous position and continues through team No. 68" I think the problem is that the committee changes year to year, so each year may have slightly different preferences...I would be pretty confident that S curve (really a misnomer...since S curve implies that they are put in regions by ranking...not geography) geographic priority would reign through at least the first two seed lines. I'd have to dig back through his chats from the past couple years to find where he had a committee member saying that they did the 3 and 4 seeds by trying to balance each region....but it would be some hefty digging...but yeah...the committee can pretty much just do whatever they want.
    1200. DDMF.

  12. #92
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    I think you're putting too much stock in the fact that St. Louis is 14 miles closer than Atlanta. For all intents and purposes, the two are equal distance. They'd put Kentucky in St. Louis if the alternative was a lot farther, but if they can send them to a place that's essentially the same distance and then get the next seed close to home in St. Louis, of course they'd do that. And that potential use of common sense is probably why the rules aren't publicly written down.
    Oh, I totally agree that it would make common sense to try to get other #1's close to home too so long as it doesn't negatively impact the overall #1 in any significant way, and Kentucky-to-Atlanta obviously wouldn't.

    But by the same token then, if Duke (or UNC) is #3 and Kansas #4, it would seem to make common sense to send the ACC team to Atlanta, Kentucky to St. Louis, and Kansas to Phoenix. That would allow the top 3 to be at their closest sites. I'd be annoyed if Duke is #3 and it goes Kentucky to Atlanta, Kansas to St Louis and Duke to Phoenix, as then they'd still have 3 of the 4 top seeds close to home, but it would be #s 1, 2, and 4 getting that luxury with #3 Duke not getting it, rather than the #1,2, and 3 -- which it should be -- getting it by having it go Kentucky to St Louis, Duke to Atlanta and having Kansas go to Phoenix.

    I have never liked either the pod system or the idea of going out of the way to have the top teams play as very close to home as possible. I know it's a straight-up dollars decision to prioritize top teams playing at home, but I'd prefer a system that actually made teams ineligible to play tournament games within x # of miles of its campus. Arizona shouldn't be playing NCAA tournament games in Phoenix; Ohio State shouldn't be playing them in Cleveland, Baylor shouldn't be playing them in Houston and no, Duke and UNC shouldn't be playing them in Greensboro or Charlotte. IMO.

  13. #93
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    .I would be pretty confident that S curve (really a misnomer...since S curve implies that they are put in regions by ranking...not geography) geographic priority would reign through at least the first two seed lines.
    I think one of the problems with this is that S-curve geographic priority often is going to break down rather quickly due to not wanting to have two teams from the same conference be 1-2 in the same regional. So let's say the S-curve looked like this:

    1- Kentucky
    2- Syracuse
    3- Kansas
    4- Duke
    5- UNC

    and they put Kentucky in St Louis, Syracuse in Boston, Kansas in Phoenix and Duke in Atlanta. UNC, as the #5, if geography held sway, would also get Atlanta, as the #2 in that region. But they wouldn't do that so as to avoid Duke and UNC being 1-2 in the same regional. Now maybe if the S-curve looked like I've posited, they'd put Duke in Phoenix and shift Kentucky to Atlanta, with Kansas in St. Louis so they could get Carolina to Atlanta, but that would peeve me, because then the interests of a #2 seed would be being placed above the interests of a #1 seed.

  14. #94
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    I think one of the problems with this is that S-curve geographic priority often is going to break down rather quickly due to not wanting to have two teams from the same conference be 1-2 in the same regional. So let's say the S-curve looked like this:

    1- Kentucky
    2- Syracuse
    3- Kansas
    4- Duke
    5- UNC

    and they put Kentucky in St Louis, Syracuse in Boston, Kansas in Phoenix and Duke in Atlanta. UNC, as the #5, if geography held sway, would also get Atlanta, as the #2 in that region. But they wouldn't do that so as to avoid Duke and UNC being 1-2 in the same regional. Now maybe if the S-curve looked like I've posited, they'd put Duke in Phoenix and shift Kentucky to Atlanta, with Kansas in St. Louis so they could get Carolina to Atlanta, but that would peeve me, because then the interests of a #2 seed would be being placed above the interests of a #1 seed.
    I would think in that case they would put carolina in boston....the geographical preference of the higher seed always goes first....they wouldn't displace duke to appease carolina
    1200. DDMF.

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
  •