View Poll Results: Who will win?

Voters
176. You may not vote on this poll
  • Kentucky

    74 42.05%
  • Duke

    89 50.57%
  • Baylor

    5 2.84%
  • Indiana

    1 0.57%
  • Wichita State

    4 2.27%
  • UNLV

    1 0.57%
  • Notre Dame

    1 0.57%
  • Iowa State

    0 0%
  • Connecticut

    0 0%
  • Xavier

    0 0%
  • Colorado

    0 0%
  • VCU

    0 0%
  • New Mexico State

    0 0%
  • South Dakota State

    1 0.57%
  • 15/16 seeds

    0 0%
Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 313
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Brooklet, GA
    I'm pretty cool with the bracket. Heck you gotta beat the team in front of you. That's the tournament.

    However, I'm not looking forward to the baby blue fans cheering against us in G'boro. I was hoping to be done with them for a while.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern VA

    Not Great For Us At The Top, But The First Two Rounds Are Probably OK

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg_Newton View Post
    UK: #1 overall
    Duke: #6 overall
    Baylor: #9 overall

    Uhhhh?

    ETA: TruTV ch. 246
    Quote Originally Posted by 1 24 90 View Post
    So Duke, as the 2nd best #2 seed, gets the best #1, the best #3 and the best #7 according to their seeds list they are going over right now. Oh well, at least they gift wrapped us a title 2 years ago.
    Yes, in a word, we got hosed. But Baylor is in the right region, per the S-curve. The South Region (or whatever region they put the overall #1) should get the overall #8 and overall #9 and the overall #16. I'm guessing KY isn't thrilled either. By the S-curve, as the #6 overall, per the head of the committee, we should be in the same region as the #3 overall. When asked, the committee chairman said that "We try to keep those (top seed) teams in their 'natural regions.'" Frankly, I'd much rather be in any of the UNC*, MSU or Syracuse regions, even if it meant more traveling for the team and fans. Apparently Shane Battier was tweeting about the 'conspiracy' as well during the show (as they mentioned his tweet later in the ESPN show I believe).
    That said, given Ryan's foot, I do like that we are not playing until Friday and playing only an hour from home rest, bab, rest!

    But, yes, I have no doubt the draw of the 20th-anniversary of "The Shot" was too much for them to resist. But as we saw in the SEC tournament, KY is susceptible to a good outside shooting team...

    Let's just win our little 4-team mini-tournament this weekend in Greensboro first. Obviously we SHOULD win w/o a lot of late drama on Fri., and then the Sunday match-up vs Brey and the Fighting Irisish in Greensboro, or a tough Xavier squad. BTW, a couple of the talking heeads on TV are already picking Xavier over ND. So don't be surprised if we don't get to see the anticipated mentor-deciple pairing between K and Brey. (If we do, I think we actually match up with ND fairly well.) A Sweet-Sixteen match-up vs Baylor, who we beat two years ago in a classic in Houston (right?) on our way to the 2010 National Championship. I wonder what the crowd would be like in Atlanta if, for example, the top four seeds in the region make it there? I'm thinking there'd be a lot of KY-blue loudly rooting against Duke (vs Baylor or whoever in the Sweet-16) around the 23rd and 24th...

    I think NC@ch got pretty lucky with their road, except that it is a nice storyline if we get to see a KA and NC match-up in the Elite-8, given the history between those two schools (including ole Huck migrating eastward from there). Many will pick KA over NC.

    Let the fun begin!!!
    (Here's our chance to devastate another whole generation of Wildcat fans!!!! )




    *.... Obviously the committee would never put NC and Duke in the same region, as 1 and 2 seeds from the same conference.
    Last edited by -bdbd; 03-11-2012 at 10:48 PM.

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    In a weird way, I could see some UK fans almost rooting for Duke in a potential Sweet Sixteen matchup vs. Baylor/UNLV (if we get that far) in Atlanta. They think VERY little of Duke and want to destroy us. So, while they hate Duke, they may feel more confident going up against Duke and want to pummel us. But that may be delusional thinking on my part since I would never cheer for UNC to win in order to play us, for example, no matter how "weak" I perceived them to be...
    Didn't Cal say two years ago that his team lost to WVU because they were looking ahead to playing Duke? I think Kentucky absolutely wants a piece of us and I'd be really happy if we get a shot at them this year.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by -bdbd View Post
    Yes, in a word, we got hosed. But Baylor is in the right region, per the S-curve. The South Region (or whatever region they put the overall #1) should get the overall #8 and overall #9 and the overall #16. I'm guessing KY isn't thrilled either. By the S-curve, as the #6 overall, per the head of the committee, we should be in the same region as the #3 overall. When asked, the committee chairman said that "We try to keep those (top seed) teams in their 'natural regions.'" Frankly, I'd much rather be in any of the UNC*, MSU or Syracuse regions, even if it meant more traveling for the team and fans. Apparently Shane Battier was tweeting about the 'conspiracy' as well during the show (as they mentioned his tweet later in the ESPN show I believe).
    That said, given Ryan's foot, I do like that we are not playing until Friday and playing only an hour from home rest, bab, rest!

    But, yes, I have no doubt the draw of the 20th-anniversary of "The Shot" was too much for them to resist. But as we saw in the SEC tournament, KY is susceptible to a good outside shooting team...

    Let's just win our little 4-team mini-tournament this weekend in Greensboro first. Obviously we SHOULD win w/o a lot of late drama on Fri., and then the Sunday match-up vs Brey and the Fighting Irisish in Greensboro, or a tough Xavier squad. BTW, a couple of the talking heeads on TV are already picking Xavier over ND. So don't be surprised if we don't get to see the anticipated mentor-deciple pairing between K and Brey. (If we do, I think we actually match up with ND fairly well.) A Sweet-Sixteen match-up vs Baylor, who we beat two years ago in a classic in Houston (right?) on our way to the 2010 National Championship. I wonder what the crowd would be like in Atlanta if, for example, the top four seeds in the region make it there? I'm thinking there'd be a lot of KY-blue loudly rooting against Duke (vs Baylor or whoever in the Sweet-16) around the 23rd and 24th...

    I think NC@ch got pretty lucky with their road, except that it is a nice storyline if we get to see a KA and NC match-up in the Elite-8, given the history between those two schools (including ole Huck migrating eastward from there). Many will pick KA over NC.

    Let the fun begin!!!
    (Here's our chance to devastate another whole generation of Wildcat fans!!!! )




    *.... Obviously the committee would never put NC and Duke in the same region, as 1 and 2 seeds from the same conference.

    The problem is that the committee didn't follow the S curve even remotely. A grand total of 11 teams in the entire tournament (through 12 seeds when you get into play in game shenanigans) follow the s curve...11...so pointing out that baylor is where they're "supposed" to be is more the exception rather than the rule.They didn't go down thinking "this is where the belong because of the s curve"...the rest of the bracket is evidence that they didn't think about that at all...I don't know why they put baylor there...no clue.
    1200. DDMF.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    The problem is that the committee didn't follow the S curve even remotely. A grand total of 11 teams in the entire tournament (through 12 seeds when you get into play in game shenanigans) follow the s curve...11...so pointing out that baylor is where they're "supposed" to be is more the exception rather than the rule.They didn't go down thinking "this is where the belong because of the s curve"...the rest of the bracket is evidence that they didn't think about that at all...I don't know why they put baylor there...no clue.
    Same reason they put Duke in the Kentucky bracket along with ND, UNLV and UConn - sub-plots.

    Would be nice if they didn't pretend they weren't playing to the ratings.

  6. #106
    It seems to me that the selection committee got a bit carried away with creating storylines rather than seeding. It isn't just the Shot rematch - there's also setting up K against Brey in the second round Michigan-Ohio and the potential UNC-Creigton and UNC-Kansas matchups in the Midwest, possible (though not especially likely) St. Louis-Missouri game in the West. I'm knida surprised they didn't put Indianna in UNCs bracket.

    Edit: Semi-ninja'd by FerryFor50

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by FerryFor50 View Post
    Same reason they put Duke in the Kentucky bracket along with ND, UNLV and UConn - sub-plots.

    Would be nice if they didn't pretend they weren't playing to the ratings.
    They're clearly not. You have 63 games, no matter how you set the bracket up, there are going to be coincidences. If it wasn't uconn/UK it would be someone else.

    There is zero evidence that the committee brackets based on sub plots...none...

    Humans love to make order out of chaos, to find patterns when there are none. No matter what the bracket was people would find stories. Heck I could take the seedings and generate brackets randomly and every time you'd find some subplots...teams who have histories that play in the first couple rounds or are in the same region. This might even be an exercise to try on this board...generate random brackets based on the given seed lines and have people on DBR find the subplots. I suppose my random number generator would have planned the Virginia VCU matchup in the first round that might have come up...or the memphis UK matchup in the second round.


    Now, if a committee member ever hinted that they had thought about such things, then yeah, maybe I would feel differently, but the fact of the matter is ther has never been such a claim. They are very clear that they only use a team's performance. Occams razor states that the simplest explanation is usually correct, and I believe that fully applies in this case. "sub plots" are just statistically likely to occur with so many teams and so many connections between them. Its the shared birthday problem in action...it only takes ~26 people in one room for it to become likely that two share a birthday. We have 64 teams...how likely is it that some pairing has a subplot that appears to be planned? pretty darn high.
    1200. DDMF.

  8. #108
    uh_no, you may be correct but you're fighting a losing battle. Even Shane Battier twittered that he saw through the whole Duke-is-kentuckys-2-seed thing.

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    The problem is that the committee didn't follow the S curve even remotely. A grand total of 11 teams in the entire tournament (through 12 seeds when you get into play in game shenanigans) follow the s curve...11...so pointing out that baylor is where they're "supposed" to be is more the exception rather than the rule.They didn't go down thinking "this is where the belong because of the s curve"...the rest of the bracket is evidence that they didn't think about that at all...I don't know why they put baylor there...no clue.
    Well they can't put Baylor in either KU or Mizzou's bracket. They also can't put FSU in Duke or UNC's bracket. They also can't put Marquette or Georgetown in Syracuse's bracket. And OSU and MSU have to be separated. It appears they put the 1's and 2's based solely off location. They wanted to keep all B10 teams away from MSU so they gave them Louisville as their 4 seed who just happens to be 16. Since they already had Mizzou out West b/c of regional preference (Duke-South, Kansas-Midwest, and OSU-East) they couldn't give them Baylor so they gave them next best 3 seed in Marquette to make it as difficult as possible. Since you already have Duke and UNC in the other two brackets, it sort of locks FSU into the East. Since KU is in the Midwest, Baylor must go in the South. And then the 4 seeds were just used to even out the brackets as best as possible. (I know some of the rules with putting intra-conference teams against each other have become more suggestions but they seemed to take them to heart)

    As I predicted, an unusual amount placed on regional preference for the 1 and 2 seeds.

  10. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    They're clearly not. You have 63 games, no matter how you set the bracket up, there are going to be coincidences. If it wasn't uconn/UK it would be someone else.

    There is zero evidence that the committee brackets based on sub plots...none...

    Humans love to make order out of chaos, to find patterns when there are none. No matter what the bracket was people would find stories. Heck I could take the seedings and generate brackets randomly and every time you'd find some subplots...teams who have histories that play in the first couple rounds or are in the same region. This might even be an exercise to try on this board...generate random brackets based on the given seed lines and have people on DBR find the subplots. I suppose my random number generator would have planned the Virginia VCU matchup in the first round that might have come up...or the memphis UK matchup in the second round.


    Now, if a committee member ever hinted that they had thought about such things, then yeah, maybe I would feel differently, but the fact of the matter is ther has never been such a claim. They are very clear that they only use a team's performance. Occams razor states that the simplest explanation is usually correct, and I believe that fully applies in this case. "sub plots" are just statistically likely to occur with so many teams and so many connections between them. Its the shared birthday problem in action...it only takes ~26 people in one room for it to become likely that two share a birthday. We have 64 teams...how likely is it that some pairing has a subplot that appears to be planned? pretty darn high.
    What you're saying does make a lot of sense, but I'd assume that if they were seeding games to create juicy matchups and subplots, they wouldn't admit that for obvious reasons.

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by hurleyfor3 View Post
    uh_no, you may be correct but you're fighting a losing battle. Even Shane Battier twittered that he saw through the whole Duke-is-kentuckys-2-seed thing.
    Yeah

    I'm done trying to ruin everybody's fun.

    Finding subplots is exciting, like bracketing, it causes people to be vested in games which they wouldn't normally pay any attention to.

    speaking of which...where's the DBR pool????
    1200. DDMF.

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    They're clearly not. You have 63 games, no matter how you set the bracket up, there are going to be coincidences. If it wasn't uconn/UK it would be someone else.

    There is zero evidence that the committee brackets based on sub plots...none...
    You're probably right, but, this committee represents the organization that still supports the bowl system.

    The NCAA has shown a clear preference for dollars and cents over fairness and parity in other areas....It would not be unprecedented.

  13. #113
    I would have to agree with uh_no that I really don't think the committee puts too much into match-ups. They will get ratings regardless and the chances of 1's getting to 2's is so remote nowadays that it isn't realistic. I think you just have so many blue blood programs that of course there will be history of some sorts. Rematch with Baylor but we were looking at a rematch with Michigan otherwise. We avoided a rematch with WVU who we have history with in the 7/10 slot (forget what they were). What about putting Memphis against Kansas for the second round for rematch of the title game? Nobody brought up the NC State-Georgetown rematch waiting. I just think there are so many teams, coaches, players with history and with the media being so in-depth nowadays looking for story lines this is what you get.

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    They're clearly not. You have 63 games, no matter how you set the bracket up, there are going to be coincidences. If it wasn't uconn/UK it would be someone else.

    There is zero evidence that the committee brackets based on sub plots...none...

    Humans love to make order out of chaos, to find patterns when there are none. No matter what the bracket was people would find stories. Heck I could take the seedings and generate brackets randomly and every time you'd find some subplots...teams who have histories that play in the first couple rounds or are in the same region. This might even be an exercise to try on this board...generate random brackets based on the given seed lines and have people on DBR find the subplots. I suppose my random number generator would have planned the Virginia VCU matchup in the first round that might have come up...or the memphis UK matchup in the second round.


    Now, if a committee member ever hinted that they had thought about such things, then yeah, maybe I would feel differently, but the fact of the matter is ther has never been such a claim. They are very clear that they only use a team's performance. Occams razor states that the simplest explanation is usually correct, and I believe that fully applies in this case. "sub plots" are just statistically likely to occur with so many teams and so many connections between them. Its the shared birthday problem in action...it only takes ~26 people in one room for it to become likely that two share a birthday. We have 64 teams...how likely is it that some pairing has a subplot that appears to be planned? pretty darn high.
    Of course there isn't going to be proof, but if you look at the other brackets, you see a lot of the same stuff...

    - UNC has Kansas, Georgetown, NCSU, Creighton (with Harrison Barnes' old HS teammate), Michigan
    - Mich St has Florida
    - Kentucky has Duke, UConn, Indiana
    - Duke has Kentucky, Baylor, UConn, Indiana, ND

    If you swapped around the teams mentioned above with teams in other brackets and the same seeding, you don't get NEARLY the subplot.

    What if UNC had Missouri, Marquette, Colorado St, Memphis, Louisville? Yawn

    And if Mich St had St Mary's?

    Kentucky had OSU, Southern Miss, Wisconsin?

    Duke had Syracuse, FSU, Kansas St, Wisconisn, Gonzaga?

    Doesn't seem as interesting, eh?

    The committee's job is to get the right teams in and create intriguing matchups, but they usually seem to honor the second part of that more often. That's why you see so much weirdness in seeding and brackets every year.

  15. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    speaking of which...where's the DBR pool????
    Closed for the season, doesn't open until Memorial Day. But the DBR sauna and steam room are quite nice.

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by sporthenry View Post
    Well they can't put Baylor in either KU or Mizzou's bracket. They also can't put FSU in Duke or UNC's bracket. They also can't put Marquette or Georgetown in Syracuse's bracket. And OSU and MSU have to be separated. It appears they put the 1's and 2's based solely off location. They wanted to keep all B10 teams away from MSU so they gave them Louisville as their 4 seed who just happens to be 16. Since they already had Mizzou out West b/c of regional preference (Duke-South, Kansas-Midwest, and OSU-East) they couldn't give them Baylor so they gave them next best 3 seed in Marquette to make it as difficult as possible. Since you already have Duke and UNC in the other two brackets, it sort of locks FSU into the East. Since KU is in the Midwest, Baylor must go in the South. And then the 4 seeds were just used to even out the brackets as best as possible. (I know some of the rules with putting intra-conference teams against each other have become more suggestions but they seemed to take them to heart)

    As I predicted, an unusual amount placed on regional preference for the 1 and 2 seeds.
    Why can't they put FSU in Duke's bracket? NCSU ended up in UNC's... what is the rule for that sort of thing?

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by FerryFor50 View Post
    Of course there isn't going to be proof, but if you look at the other brackets, you see a lot of the same stuff...

    - UNC has Kansas, Georgetown, NCSU, Creighton (with Harrison Barnes' old HS teammate), Michigan
    - Mich St has Florida
    - Kentucky has Duke, UConn, Indiana
    - Duke has Kentucky, Baylor, UConn, Indiana, ND

    If you swapped around the teams mentioned above with teams in other brackets and the same seeding, you don't get NEARLY the subplot.

    What if UNC had Missouri, Marquette, Colorado St, Memphis, Louisville? Yawn

    And if Mich St had St Mary's?

    Kentucky had OSU, Southern Miss, Wisconsin?

    Duke had Syracuse, FSU, Kansas St, Wisconisn, Gonzaga?

    Doesn't seem as interesting, eh?

    The committee's job is to get the right teams in and create intriguing matchups, but they usually seem to honor the second part of that more often. That's why you see so much weirdness in seeding and brackets every year.
    duke and syracuse: two most winningest active coaches...and the coaches of the national team
    louisville and marquette with memphis: C-usa rematches
    duke and fsu: part 4...
    kentucky and memphis: calipari rematch
    temple vs any big east team: prove they belong in the big east

    there are potential stories everywhere.
    1200. DDMF.

  18. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by FerryFor50 View Post
    Why can't they put FSU in Duke's bracket? NCSU ended up in UNC's... what is the rule for that sort of thing?
    The first three teams are to be placed in different brackets and when conferences have more than that, they are supposed to try their hardest to avoid a match-up before the E8. UNC wouldn't see NC State till the regional final and they usually care less about this with seeds above 6 or so.

  19. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by jacone21 View Post
    I'm pretty cool with the bracket. Heck you gotta beat the team in front of you. That's the tournament.

    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by -bdbd View Post

    ...

    Let's just win our little 4-team mini-tournament this weekend in Greensboro first. Obviously we SHOULD win w/o a lot of late drama on Fri., and then the Sunday match-up vs Brey and the Fighting Irisish in Greensboro, or a tough Xavier squad. BTW, a couple of the talking heeads on TV are already picking Xavier over ND. So don't be surprised if we don't get to see the anticipated mentor-deciple pairing between K and Brey. (If we do, I think we actually match up with ND fairly well.) A Sweet-Sixteen match-up vs Baylor, who we beat two years ago in a classic in Houston (right?) on our way to the 2010 National Championship. I wonder what the crowd would be like in Atlanta if, for example, the top four seeds in the region make it there? I'm thinking there'd be a lot of KY-blue loudly rooting against Duke (vs Baylor or whoever in the Sweet-16) around the 23rd and 24th...

    ...

    Let the fun begin!!!
    (Here's our chance to devastate another whole generation of Wildcat fans!!!! )




    *.... Obviously the committee would never put NC and Duke in the same region, as 1 and 2 seeds from the same conference.
    As I've heard Coach K say, just concentrate on the first 4-team tournament. That's all that matters. If you get past that, then look at the next 4-team tournament... etc...

    You never have to beat all 67 teams to get the NC

    GO DUKE!!!

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    duke and syracuse: two most winningest active coaches...and the coaches of the national team
    louisville and marquette with memphis: C-usa rematches
    duke and fsu: part 4...
    kentucky and memphis: calipari rematch
    temple vs any big east team: prove they belong in the big east

    there are potential stories everywhere.
    Duke and FSU isn't really that intriguing. The Temple story line is a stretch, as is the C-USA angle.

    I get what you're saying... but your own numbers break the logic. The matchups don't make much sense at all, unless you start looking at storylines.

Similar Threads

  1. East/Boston region discussion (Syracuse #1)
    By hurleyfor3 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 03-25-2012, 03:47 PM
  2. MBB: South Regional Discussion (Duke #1 seed)
    By TNDukeFan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 467
    Last Post: 03-30-2010, 06:16 PM
  3. MBB: East Regional Discussion (Duke's region)
    By Troublemaker in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 203
    Last Post: 03-28-2009, 10:08 PM
  4. March Madness conversation: SOUTH Region
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 03-23-2008, 04:55 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
  •