Other People's Pretend NCAA Brackets

[TexHawk]

I was saying three losses total, but upon further reflection, that can't be right. Posting after midnight in China while everyone else has had a good night's rest is my excuse! I will modify my statement and say if KU loses three MORE games, Duke would get the #1 seed over the Jayhawks. Playing at OU, who is beating WVU by at least 10 at the moment in Norman, likely will be another loss and two other losses are certainly possible as well.

Personally, I am assuming losses to OU and WVU on the road. The next four have me worried (@OSU, @Tech, Baylor, @WVU). Much better KU teams have lost at those 3 places recently.

[toooskies]

If the season ended today, we're clearly a #1 seed. We have the top three road wins in the country over UVA, Wisconsin, and Louisville. (UK also won at Louisville, but we won by 11 and they only won by 8.) The selection committee loves overrating road wins almost as much as they love overrating non-conference strength of schedule (instead of regular SOS), and no one comes close to our road success this year.

Which is really odd to be saying about a Duke team.

[Duvall]

If the season ended today, we're clearly a #1 seed. We have the top three road wins in the country over UVA, Wisconsin, and Louisville.

Well, three of the top four. Think that one goes ahead of Louisville.

[Kedsy]

If the season ended today, we're clearly a #1 seed.

I don't think it's clear at all. We're 5th in the RPI and 7th in Pomeroy (4th in AP). We have a couple of "bad losses." So if the season ended today, we might be a #1 seed, but I think the outlook would be pretty muddy -- any four of UK, UVa, Gonzaga, Duke, Wisconsin, Arizona, Kansas, and Villanova could conceivably be current frontrunners for #1 seeds.

[CDu]

I don't think it's clear at all. We're 5th in the RPI and 7th in Pomeroy (4th in AP). We have a couple of "bad losses." So if the season ended today, we might be a #1 seed, but I think the outlook would be pretty muddy -- any four of UK, UVa, Gonzaga, Duke, Wisconsin, Arizona, Kansas, and Villanova could conceivably be current frontrunners for #1 seeds.

I think it is much more clear than you think. While the committee is notorious for leaning on the RPI over other metrics in choosing teams, they don't follow it to the letter in their seeding. Who you played and who you beat very much matters. And nobody in the field has played and beaten more of the top teams than us so far. As for the losses: we have one road loss against a top-20 team (Notre Dame), a road loss against an RPI top-50 team (State), and a home loss against an RPI top-55 team (Miami). None of those are "bad" losses in the committee's eyes, as they don't consider margin of victory in their analysis (and it is the margin of loss that is what was bad about the State and Miami losses).

In the RPI, we are currently ahead of Wisconsin (#9) and Villanova (#6), and our top-quality wins dwarf those of Wisconsin, Villanova, and Arizona. We are the only team in the country with multiple wins over top-10 teams, and the only team in the country with 3 wins over top-15 teams (and all of them are on the road):

Duke: 18-3 (5-3), RPI #5, 2-0 vs RPI top-10, 3-0 vs RPI top-20, 8-2 against the RPI top-50 (with both losses on the road), 10-3 against the RPI top-100, 9-0 vs outside the top-100
Arizona: 20-2 (8-1), RPI #4, 1-0 vs RPI top-10, 2-0 vs RPI top-20, 4-0 vs RPI top-50, 11-1 vs RPI top-100, 9-1 vs outside the top-100
Villanova: 19-2 (6-2), RPI #6, 1-0 vs RPI top-10, 2-0 vs RPI top-20, 3-2 vs RPI top-50 (both losses on the road), 9-2 vs RPI top-100, 10-0 vs outside the top-100
Wisconsin: 19-2 (7-1), RPI #9, 0-1 vs RPI top-10, 1-1 vs RPI top-20, 3-1 vs RPI top-50, 10-1 vs RPI top-100, 9-1 vs outside the top-100

I think, based on this information, we could clearly eliminate Wisconsin relative to Duke based on worse RPI, worse record against top teams, fewer games against good teams, more bad losses, and the head-to-head victory for Duke.

I think we could eliminate Villanova relative to Duke based on having played just 5 games against the RPI top-50 (and going just 3-2 in those games) compared to Duke's 8-2 in games against the RPI top-50, and Duke's more impressive 3 road wins over the RPI top-15.

And I think we could eliminate Arizona based on their having played just 4 teams in the top-50 and having two worse losses than any of Duke's losses.

Basically, I think that Kentucky and UVa are the most clear #1s, with Duke and Kansas as clearly more deserving than Arizona and Villanova, who are in turn more deserving than Wisconsin.

[Kedsy]

Basically, I think that Kentucky and UVa are the most clear #1s, with Duke and Kansas as clearly more deserving than Arizona and Villanova, who are in turn more deserving than Wisconsin.

I hope you're right. Do you think our not being regular season conference champion (all the other contenders are 1st in their conference, while we're currently 6th in ours) will play against us?

[CDu]

I hope you're right. Do you think our not being regular season conference champion (all the other contenders are 1st in their conference, while we're currently 6th in ours) will play against us?

I don't, mainly because the regular season conference champion in the ACC will also be a #1 seed in this hypothetical scenario. No reason that two teams from one conference can't be #1 seeds. The other "contenders" for the 4th #1 seed either play in second-tier conferences (Arizona and Villanova) or have a decided disadvantage relative to Duke (Wisconsin).

[Kedsy]

I don't, mainly because the regular season conference champion in the ACC will also be a #1 seed in this hypothetical scenario. No reason that two teams from one conference can't be #1 seeds. The other "contenders" for the 4th #1 seed either play in second-tier conferences (Arizona and Villanova) or have a decided disadvantage relative to Duke (Wisconsin).

You don't consider Gonzaga a legitimate contender for a #1 seed? I suppose even if you did they'd fall in the "second-tier conferences" bucket.

In any event, by season's end I think after UK any three of the next seven could end up with #1 seeds. And possibly a couple other teams could worm their way into the conversation by winning out (or coming close to winning out).

[CDu]

You don't consider Gonzaga a legitimate contender for a #1 seed? I suppose even if you did they'd fall in the "second-tier conferences" bucket.

In any event, by season's end I think after UK any three of the next seven could end up with #1 seeds. And possibly a couple other teams could worm their way into the conversation by winning out (or coming close to winning out).

Gonzaga's resume is even less impressive than the others (aside from maybe Wisconsin). They have no top-20 wins at all. And I'd say their conference is a third-tier conference.

I agree with your next paragraph though. Obviously a lot can happen in the second half of the conference schedule to change the resumes. I don't think anyone will surpass our top-3 wins, but we could certainly add a bad loss or two (or just enough total losses) to offset our gains at the top. This is purely a hypothetical debate as there is no decision to be made right now.

[English]

Gonzaga's resume is even less impressive than the others (aside from maybe Wisconsin). They have no top-20 wins at all. And I'd say their conference is a third-tier conference.

I agree with your next paragraph though. Obviously a lot can happen in the second half of the conference schedule to change the resumes. I don't think anyone will surpass our top-3 wins, but we could certainly add a bad loss or two (or just enough total losses) to offset our gains at the top. This is purely a hypothetical debate as there is no decision to be made right now.

I think it's with an asterisk that we mention Wisconsin's loss to Rutgers, since the Committee does discount outcomes based on injuries that course correct. In this case, Frank Kaminsky sat out with a concussion (and has since returned), and less black-and-white, Traveon Jackson sustained his lengthy foot injury at the beginning of the second half. If/when Jackson returns and Scon doesn't suffer another blip loss--and this was a road conf loss, albeit to a pretty brutal team--the Committee could write it off on the basis of injury.

As is customary in the B1G, I'm sure some more wacky losses will come down the stretch, just as they will in most conferences...the WCC and SEC possible exceptions.

[El_Diablo]

we can't complain

You must be new here. Welcome to DBR!

[CDu]

I think it's with an asterisk that we mention Wisconsin's loss to Rutgers, since the Committee does discount outcomes based on injuries that course correct. In this case, Frank Kaminsky sat out with a concussion (and has since returned), and less black-and-white, Traveon Jackson sustained his lengthy foot injury at the beginning of the second half. If/when Jackson returns and Scon doesn't suffer another blip loss--and this was a road conf loss, albeit to a pretty brutal team--the Committee could write it off on the basis of injury.

As is customary in the B1G, I'm sure some more wacky losses will come down the stretch, just as they will in most conferences...the WCC and SEC possible exceptions.

That is a fair point. Lots could change with regard to how they view that loss.

[fuse]

Lots of basketball yet to be played.
Kentucky, Duke -OR- UVa, Wisconsin, and Gonzaga -OR- Arizona seem to be the ones in the hunt for a number one seed.

I don't think the ACC gets enough respect to earn two number one seeds (deserved or not).

Where I think the discussion gets interesting is the ACC Tournament final.
How does the committee handle a Duke-UVa final for seeding? Or if neither are in the final?

The good news is we largely control our own seeding destiny.
Keep winning and the seeding will take care of itself.
Avoiding UVa, Kentucky, and Wisconsin prior to the NCAA tournament final would be nice if we can swing that.

[sagegrouse]

"Still trying to figure out how Duke got that win last weekend at Virginia? You're not alone. But the Blue Devils' toughness showed in handing UVa its first loss."

If you need to create some locker room motivation, that's your right, but I don't find these comments insulting. UVA's loss was "stunning" because of how it happened; Duke's ability to take control and engineer that turnaround, without a scoring punch from Okafor, kind of came out of nowhere.

I'm with Lunardi: I have no idea how we won that game.

Kindly,
Sage

[Kedsy]

I don't think the ACC gets enough respect to earn two number one seeds (deserved or not).

I don't necessarily agree. The committee has quite often put two teams from the same conference as #1 seeds, and the narrative in the national press/ESPN to date has been how great the ACC is with five top 15 teams. If Duke and Virginia both have 1-seed-worthy resumes, I think there's a decent chance they both get it.

[Duvall]

Lots of basketball yet to be played.
Kentucky, Duke -OR- UVa, Wisconsin, and Gonzaga -OR- Arizona seem to be the ones in the hunt for a number one seed.

I don't think the ACC gets enough respect to earn two number one seeds (deserved or not).

Look, either conference reputation matters or it doesn't. If the committee is paying attention to conference strength, then Kentucky, Wisconsin, Gonzaga and Arizona will be penalized for winning glorified mid-major leagues.

[sagegrouse]

I don't necessarily agree. The committee has quite often put two teams from the same conference as #1 seeds, and the narrative in the national press/ESPN to date has been how great the ACC is with five top 15 teams. If Duke and Virginia both have 1-seed-worthy resumes, I think there's a decent chance they both get it.

Not surprisingly, there is a lengthy #1 seed watch list now in early February. I include ten teams:

The leaders of the pack in five of the six major conferences (yep, I am including the Big East):

Villanova
Kansas
Wisconsin
Arizona
Kentucky

Four teams from the ACC:
Virginia
Notre Dame
Louisville
Duke

Plus one:
Gonzaga

I can imagine two ACC teams with #1 seeds, but it looks like Kentucky and Arizona have clear sailing, and if one of Wisconsin, Kansas and Villanova also emerges unscathed, then the ACC will likely not get two #1 seeds.

[bob blue devil]

just my 2 cents, but if duke and uva play well from here and duke wins the acct, i'd bet serious money we both get a #1. conference tournies matter and winning the acct should be quite a feat (the semi's should be final 4 quality).

[77devil]

I don't necessarily agree. The committee has quite often put two teams from the same conference as #1 seeds, and the narrative in the national press/ESPN to date has been how great the ACC is with five top 15 teams. If Duke and Virginia both have 1-seed-worthy resumes, I think there's a decent chance they both get it.

This is an exaggeration. Occasionally is accurate.

[Kedsy]

This is an exaggeration. Occasionally is accurate.

It has happened 7 times in the last 15 years. I think "quite often" is quite accurate.