Lunardi's Bracketology

[throatybeard]

Lunardi has us #2 in the South.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology

[prefan21]

Congratulations to the ACC for earning 7 bids in the fantasy world in Joe Lunardi's head.

[dukie8]

Lunardi has us #2 in the South.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology

that was from 11/26 so we only are higher on the s-curve with more wins. i think that he updates it in 8 days. if seedings were put out today, i think that we would be a 2 and very close to a 1. if we split with unc, both unc and duke could get 1s this year.

[phaedrus]

if we split with unc, both unc and duke could get 1s this year.

I agree. Too bad we're going to beat them twice (or more).

[Lavabe]

if we split with unc, both unc and duke could get 1s this year.

That should have read: "when we take the series with unc, duke will get a #1 and unc will get a #2."

9F!!

Cheers,
Lavabe

[dukie8]

That should have read: "when we take the series with unc, duke will get a #1 and unc will get a #2."

9F!!

Cheers,
Lavabe

i don't think any sane person thought that that was possible before the season started but it now looks very possible.

[Duke09]

I'd salivate over that bracket with Kansas as the number 1, a team we already beat at 3 (Marquette) a revenge game against Florida, and a Lute-less Zona team. Sometimes it matters more who is in your bracket then where you are in the bracket. That being said, its way too early to care about this. Just kind of fun.

[Troublemaker]

i don't think any sane person thought that that was possible before the season started but it now looks very possible.

There was actually a small number of sane people who thought Duke would be this good before the season.

Anyway, on another note, let's not turn this thread into repeated disclaimers that it's too early for Bracketology to matter. We know that, but if you're a bball nerd, you probably still like looking at anyway.

[SilkyJ]

Sometimes it matters more who is in your bracket then where you are in the bracket. That being said, its way too early to care about this. Just kind of fun.

agreed. for most teams the two issues are of equal importance, but in our case we are usually a top 3 seed so I think who is in our bracket is more important than whether we were jipped out of a 2 seed or something.

that said, I think its really hard to speculate, even on selection sunday, what the committee is going to do on the bottom half of the s-curve. I find I can usually rate the top 8 teams in order so in years when we are a 1 or 2 seed I'll speculate on who we might face before the bracket comes out, but other than that its a complete crapshoot.

[devildeac]

Congratulations to the ACC for earning 7 bids in the fantasy world in Joe Lunardi's head.

Yea, but you know we'll be placed at Rupp and have to get by AZ, IU, TTech and Harvard in the process to get to the FF I would have listed UK also but I know they can't be placed at Rupp(are they even going to get a bid?)

[JasonEvans]

Congratulations to the ACC for earning 7 bids in the fantasy world in Joe Lunardi's head.

For some reason, this post made me think of...



--Jason

[Jaymf7]

I'd salivate over that bracket with Kansas as the number 1, a team we already beat at 3 (Marquette) a revenge game against Florida, and a Lute-less Zona team. Sometimes it matters more who is in your bracket then where you are in the bracket. That being said, its way too early to care about this. Just kind of fun.

I have absolutely no interest in a rematch with a team like that. I hate to see any potential rematches in the NCAAs. It is just too tough to repeat a big win in that environment. I know we have been knocked out by several such rematches over the past several years (MSU comes to mind but I think there are more examples of this).

For some odd reason, during our great ACC tourney run over the past decade, I would often prefer a macth-up with a tough team we split with than a weaker (on paper) team we swept during the regular season. Sweeps over solid teams are just too hard to get.

[Jarhead]

Why is it that brackets last updated by Lunardi on November 26, 2007, are getting so much attention? That was before our Marquette game, folks. It's like he just threw out a bunch of dominoes on a table.

[hurleyfor3]

Personally I'm waiting for all the dork polls (Sagarin, Pomeroy, etc.) to become connected. That's when serious time-wasting analysis can begin

[monkey]

i don't think any sane person thought that that was possible before the season started but it now looks very possible.

Possible. But Carolina's still really good. Let's not get too giddy just yet.

BTW, Jason, thanks for the Herman's head reference. That show used to make me laugh and I hadn't thought about it in a long time.

[3rdgenDukie]

I have absolutely no interest in a rematch with a team like that. I hate to see any potential rematches in the NCAAs. It is just too tough to repeat a big win in that environment. I know we have been knocked out by several such rematches over the past several years (MSU comes to mind but I think there are more examples of this).

For some odd reason, during our great ACC tourney run over the past decade, I would often prefer a macth-up with a tough team we split with than a weaker (on paper) team we swept during the regular season. Sweeps over solid teams are just too hard to get.

While I don't want a re-match with Marquette either, I think the MSU game was the only time we got beat in that situation. MSU in the '99 and Kansas in the '86 FF were slugfest rematches with teams we had beaten earlier in the year, and I do think it cost us the NC both times as our finals opponents had much easier semifinal games. Also, MD took us to the brink in the 4th matchup of the year in '01. Of course, we crushed Michigan in just such a 'scary' rematch in '92, so who the hell knows.

[kydevil]

There was actually a small number of sane people who thought Duke would be this good before the season.

Yes, I would have to say I was one of them

[dukie8]

There was actually a small number of sane people who thought Duke would be this good before the season.

Anyway, on another note, let's not turn this thread into repeated disclaimers that it's too early for Bracketology to matter. We know that, but if you're a bball nerd, you probably still like looking at anyway.

they were the same people predicting that the football team would win 5 games this year. very few people who knew what was going on predicted that every player returning would be much improved, that all of the frosh would be better than advertised and that the sum would be greater than the parts (ie, chemistry).

[Sir Stealth]

they were the same people predicting that the football team would win 5 games this year. very few people who knew what was going on predicted that every player returning would be much improved, that all of the frosh would be better than advertised and that the sum would be greater than the parts (ie, chemistry).

I was one of the "insane" people who thought we'd be good. Why wouldn't every returning player be much improved? Isn't that how it usually works, especially when one went from having a broken foot to not having a broken foot and most of the other key players were only freshman last year? Weren't all our freshman very heralded coming in, especially Singler? Why would you not think that chemistry would be improved given that we lost a player who yelled at everybody all the time and never really unpacked his bags at Duke? And wasn't Coach K still going to be our coach? I didn't think it was too crazy to think he wouldn't have a team unravel two years in a row.

The thing about it is, this team really hasn't proven THAT much yet. The only player who has really been much better than I ever could have expected is Taylor King. Everyone else is pretty much at a level that could reasonably have been expected of them (you might also argue that Lance and Zoub have been somewhat below expectations to this point). Duke has looked good and beaten some good teams, but there aren't really that many great teams out there in college bball anymore. Not to mention the fact that the team started fairly strong record-wise last year too, although they didn't look as good. The team still hasn't beaten UNC (I think both/all games will be very, very close), and who knows if they actually will, but I'm baffled by thinking that that would be insane in any year, much less one in which we are loaded with talent and UNC lost 2 key players (while gaining nada).

[dukie8]

I was one of the "insane" people who thought we'd be good. Why wouldn't every returning player be much improved? Isn't that how it usually works, especially when one went from having a broken foot to not having a broken foot and most of the other key players were only freshman last year? Weren't all our freshman very heralded coming in, especially Singler? Why would you not think that chemistry would be improved given that we lost a player who yelled at everybody all the time and never really unpacked his bags at Duke? And wasn't Coach K still going to be our coach? I didn't think it was too crazy to think he wouldn't have a team unravel two years in a row.

The thing about it is, this team really hasn't proven THAT much yet. The only player who has really been much better than I ever could have expected is Taylor King. Everyone else is pretty much at a level that could reasonably have been expected of them (you might also argue that Lance and Zoub have been somewhat below expectations to this point). Duke has looked good and beaten some good teams, but there aren't really that many great teams out there in college bball anymore. Not to mention the fact that the team started fairly strong record-wise last year too, although they didn't look as good. The team still hasn't beaten UNC (I think both/all games will be very, very close), and who knows if they actually will, but I'm baffled by thinking that that would be insane in any year, much less one in which we are loaded with talent and UNC lost 2 key players (while gaining nada).

see last year. mcroberts, nelson and paulus were either the same or worse than the prior year. the freshmen last year, although good, were very highly rated but nowhere close to the level of singler and king (their preseason awards this year were few and far between). singler will be getting postseason awards THIS year and next year is going to be on everyone's acc and national lists. why would you think that by removing 1 player (mcbob) and adding 3 unknown players, you would necessarily go from a team with terrible chemistry to 1 with great chemistry?

last year's team may have been winning games in nov and dec but those wins were very very ugly and, it turned out, against teams that were very over-rated (except gtown). air force, gmu and kent state didn't even make the tournament and marquette (8), indiana (7) and gonzaga (10) all barely slid in. this team already has bludgeoned multiple teams (a rarity last year) and some of those poundings were against legit teams like wisconsin. i agree that this season is very young and there is a lot of ball left to play but this year's team has looked pretty damn good so far.