Page 2 of 32 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 634
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    But it would be folley to say that name doesn't have any effect...you could see it with arizona last year, uk the year before...
    The committees argued that the names were not part of that process. If you can provide some evidence other than a Packer-esque declaration of truth (IIRC, that was Vitale's stance on UK) I would love to see it.

    Form the great wiki:

    The selection committee uses a number of factors to place teams on the S-curve, including record, strength of schedule, the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI), and a team's overall performance in recent games. The RPI rating is often considered a significant factor in selecting and seeding the final few teams in the tournament field, though the selection committee stresses that the RPI is used merely as a guideline and not as an infallible indicator of a team's worth.
    There is nothing in there about coaches/AP polls, which is where many people seem tobe coming from here. In RPI, we are still very strong (#2 or so). SOS we are top 10. Record, if we finish out (which is the assumption we started at here) would be 30-4 on selection Sunday, with a 10-0 record for the final month of play. Given the actual criteria for seeding/selection, that's a strong case.

    The last month of play counts a lot (according to the interwebs) which means the Big East teams will need to show one of them is boss, as the top 4 (nova, Gtown, Cuse and WVU) all play at least 2 games against the other three before their conference tourney. If there is a lot of parity there, it will be easy to leapfrog them.

    This is all based on the hypothetical of winning out, but also a reminder to check your sources when it comes to the seeding of teams. If a strong team got dinged for past performances then half the one seeds in a given year would be disqualified because of lack of success, often including missing hte tourney in the last 5 years.

  2. Of the four #1 seeds, I think it's going to come down to the following:

    First #1 seed: Kentucky. They have the easiest path there.

    Second #1 seed: Kansas. Or Kansas St/Texas if Kansas falters at the expense of one of the other two. But probably Kansas.

    Third #1 seed: A Big East team. Yes, they're gonna beat each other up, but one of the teams will win the conference season and/or tournament. Hopefully it's the same team. But I'm pretty darn sure one of those teams is going to get the third #1 seed.

    Fourth #1 seed: It could be a second Big East team, Michigan St, or Duke. If one clear winner emerges from the Big East, then it's likely us or the Sparties. We'd need to win out though to have a shot.

    Given our poor play on the road, I think chances are we'll end up as a #2.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Oregon

    Red face #2 Seed at Best

    Quote Originally Posted by JG Nothing View Post
    I think our main problem right now is losing two of three out-of-conference games against the current top 25. We will not have a chance to improve that record before the NCAA tourney (unless UCon sneaks back into the top 25).
    Agree. We have had our chance to impress the committee with our performance against other conferences. Nothing Duke does from against the ACC from here on out will be enough for a #1 seed.

    But a #2 seed is a reasonable goal and achievable with a confernece championship.

    Neal

  4. #24
    ESPN's Joe Lunardi's latest Bracketology (updated today) has us back to being a #2 seed in the South. #1 seed in the region is Syracuse and the #3 we'd face in the Sweet 16 is Kansas St.

  5. #25

    Long time to go yet

    Our losses to Wisconsin, Georgetown and GT on the road are understandable and don't hurt our seeding that much. The loss to NC State however is pretty hard to explain, road or none. We were blown out by a team who looks weak on the record.

    We have a way to go before we can say that we will only have these losses. Several teams have a dcent chance of beating us and we still have the ACC tournament as well. Whether a 2 or 3 seed, we will have a good chance of advancing.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by RockLobster View Post
    Here's MY Top 12:

    1 seeds:
    1. Syracuse
    2. Kansas
    3. Villanova
    4. Kentucky

    2 seeds:
    5. West Virginia
    6. Georgetown
    7. DUKE
    8. Purdue

    3 seeds:
    9. Michigan State
    10. Kansas State
    11. Tennessee
    12. Ohio State

    If you ask me, there is a LARGE talent gap between the top line and the rest of those teams. The Big East teams will suffer losses at each others' hands, sure, but the fact is we do not have a single ranked opponent left on our schedule. Don't get me wrong - teams like Maryland and UVA are certainly good and tournament-caliber. But those four teams at the top have clearly outclassed the rest of the field so far this year.

    We need to lose no more than one more game, win the ACCT, and hope one of those teams at the top stumbles a little bit if we want a 1 seed. (If it happens, my guess is Kansas.)

    Would I like a 1 seed? Yes. Not for the prestige, but for the practicality...the difference between facing a 3 and a 4 seed in the Sweet Sixteen can be rather large.

    But, honestly, it is, of course, about matchups. Duke can play with anyone when we execute well. I'm not awfully worried about whether we get a 1 or a 2.
    Why would Villanove get a #1 seed and Georgetown a #2 seed when Georgetown beat them badly last week ?

  7. #27
    I still think the top three 1 loss teams will come back to the rest of the field with a loss or two. It seems likely there will be a 3 loss team and maybe even a 4 loss team getting one seeds. This year who the 3 and 4 seeds are in a bracket may be more important than who you draw as a 1 or 2. Duke could still land a 1, but a two is a definite possibility. That is, unless the UNC games drag down the RPI too much

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Boston by way of North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by NYC Duke Fan View Post
    Why would Villanove get a #1 seed and Georgetown a #2 seed when Georgetown beat them badly last week ?
    Body of work. G'town may have upset Nova, but Nova has a more impressive resume across the board.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    OK so we have a chance to dominate our conference. But we likely wont by a whole lot and we likely will come from the 3rd best conference.
    The ACC is the 3rd best conference? By what measure? All the computers rank us #1 or maybe #2. It is rue that the ACC is not as top heavy as some other leagues that have more top 10-15 teams, especially the Big East. But, when looked at on a whole, the ACC makes a compelling argument as the best league because our middle and bottom as waaaaay better than the middle and especially bottoms of other conferences.

    There are no off days in the ACC. There are no easy wins, not even close. Look at other conferences and you simply cannot say that.

    -Jason "if we are a #2, I want to be in Kentucky's bracket" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Neals384 View Post
    Agree. We have had our chance to impress the committee with our performance against other conferences. Nothing Duke does from against the ACC from here on out will be enough for a #1 seed.

    But a #2 seed is a reasonable goal and achievable with a confernece championship.

    Neal
    Again, that is absolutely not how this process works. That's why people like Lunardi had Duke at 30% odds to get a #1 see before last week (in other words, that was coming right off the Georgetown loss, before a pair of Duke wins, before Georgetown lost to South Florida, before Villanova lost to Georgetown, before Michigan State lost twice, before Texas lost again, etc.). There's still (counting the conference tourney) basically a third of the pre-NCAA season left. That's a long, long time. The scenarios people are discussing basically involve Duke losing, at most, one more regular season game and then winning the ACCT. If that happens, I will guarantee you that Duke ends up with a #1 seed. It means the team will have won 11 of its final 12 games. Depending on where that one loss comes, it could mean Duke would have scored an impressive road win at Maryland. In the process, other teams will have lost. If, on Selection Sunday, if Duke is sitting there at 29-5 (13-3) with an ACC regular season and conference tourney championship, that team is getting a #1 seed. The tough part of the equation isn't getting the selection committee to cooperate. It's actually winning all those games to make the scenario valid.

    Also, it's incorrect to say that Duke had it's "chance" to impress the committee and didn't. Everything Duke does from here on out can impress the committee. The win over Gonzaga couldn't have been more impressive. The UConn win wasn't as big as it looked, but still matters. So do some under-the-radar games, like a 42-point thrashing of a Charlotte team that is now 18-5 and very much in play for the tourney. And the losses? Yeah, Georgetown gave it to Duke. That happens to everyone. Duke lost by four on the road against a Wisconsin team that is now ranked fourth (!!!) in the nation by kenpom. NC State? Yeah, that loss was rough, but not as bad as, say, Georgetown losing at home to South Florida. And at Georgia Tech at the wire in a tough conference game? No big deal.

    Duke has a lot of work left to do. But the body of work the team has already established is far more impressive than some of you realize.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    In his chat today, Joe Lunardi was asked, "If Duke wins the ACC regular season and tournament, is there any way they are not a #1 seed?"

    Joe's answer, "Probably not."

    http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/30742

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    So, in today's bracketology, Lunardi had Duke with a 35% chance of landing a #1 seed. And that was before West Virginia lost at Pitt. Duke obviously has to take care of its own business, but if the team can finish the season with a major winning streak, the opportunity to grab a top seed should be there.

    The other interesting thing is that it's hard to imagine the four Big East teams dropping anywhere below a 3-seed, and most likely they'll end up as 1's or 2's. That means they're going to be placed in four different regions. Which means that wherever the other 4 1's or 2's go, they'll get a Big East team. So there's a lot less left up to chance. It also means if we get a #1 or a #2, and the 4 Big East teams end up that high as well, we won't be in a region with Kansas or Kentucky.

    More and more, it feels like the 1's and 2's (in no particular order) will be Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Purdue, Syracuse, Villanova, Georgetown and West Virginia. Obviously, some team could lose a bunch of games, maybe Wisconsin could rise up and you have to wonder what the committee will think of BYU and New Mexico. But assuming the status quo doesn't change in some dramatic way, you have to start to think about these two things:
    1) Which of the four Big East teams do you feel most/least comfortable with being in Duke's region?
    2) If Duke ends up as a 2-seed, can they avoid Michigan State and Texas as a 3-seed, two teams which are currently struggling and haven't reached peak form, but are quite talented and, in MSU's case, tourney-tested? That might be hard, seeing as they'll be separated from Purdue and Kansas, respectively, which is why getting a #1 seed is such a priority. Much better to have a Big East team as a 2-seed and have that team battle it out against someone like Kansas or MSU than potentially having to go through both.

    Obviously, there's a lot of ball left to be played, but the picture looks a lot less cloudy at this point of the season compared to a typical year. And that's especially odd, considering this year is devoid of dominant teams at the top.
    Last edited by Jumbo; 02-13-2010 at 12:24 PM.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    We are not one of the top 4 teams in the country. I would assume the seeding committee sees that as well.
    You are absolutely correct...we are not.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    When Duke lost to VCU, W.Virginia and Villanova and just beat Belmont in recent years, what seed did Duke have in those tournaments?

    Thank you.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by NYC Duke Fan View Post
    When Duke lost to VCU, W.Virginia and Villanova and just beat Belmont in recent years, what seed did Duke have in those tournaments?

    Thank you.
    Wow. Did you know that lost its last game in the tourney in 9 of the last 10 years? Clearly they don't deserve a good seed.

    It's unclear if you are arguing against the merit of DUke getting a one seed or the desire to have on. In either case, you are wrong. Previous tourneys are not a consideration for the selection committee. And Jumbo makes a pretty clear argument for the benefit of a 1 seed in this years tourney.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Quote Originally Posted by NYC Duke Fan View Post
    When Duke lost to VCU, W.Virginia and Villanova and just beat Belmont in recent years, what seed did Duke have in those tournaments?

    Thank you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Exiled_Devil View Post
    Wow. Did you know that lost its last game in the tourney in 9 of the last 10 years? Clearly they don't deserve a good seed.

    It's unclear if you are arguing against the merit of DUke getting a one seed or the desire to have on. In either case, you are wrong. Previous tourneys are not a consideration for the selection committee. And Jumbo makes a pretty clear argument for the benefit of a 1 seed in this years tourney.
    As with tournament seeds, where you look at the body of work, I think NYC Duke Fan's posts here and in other threads have made an abundantly clear point: it's better to be right about Duke eventually losing than to enjoy being a fan.

    Back on point, sort of, there are a few teams that have managed to emerge mostly unscathed so far, and they've become the story of the season. Duke is not one of those teams. They could still ascend to that company, provided they capitalize when another team doesn't, but the headlines will say that Duke snuck in. Nothing wrong with that; this program has done that before.

    If Duke were to get a #1 seed, you could speculate that it would come at the expense of the 2nd-best Big East team, or Kentucky (if the committee feels uncharitable toward the SEC). There's an outside chance that this could put Duke in the East Regional (which is in Syracuse, so Syracuse can't be placed there). But it's more likely that a top-seeded Duke team would be shipped out west, to Salt Lake City.

    There are a couple of advantages here: Duke hatred is fairly national, but probably not nearly as intense in SLC. People will root for Duke's opponent because they like the underdog, not because they hate Duke. Also, because the hoops landscape out west is fairly thin, the committee would have to fill Duke's bracket with teams that aren't exactly local: the 3rd or 4th place Big East team, Kansas State, Gonzaga.

    The one disadvantage is that BYU (from nearby Provo) will almost certainly be in this bracket. (I think BYU stays in the West, and New Mexico goes to the South Regional in Houston, no matter which one wins the MWC.) Joe Lunardi has them as a 4 seed; that's a dangerous third round possibility.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Baltimore
    In all honesty is it that important to land a #1 seed? I rather have a #2 with a #1 Kentucky in my bracket than say a #1 with a #2 MSU with a #3 K-state.

    Has anyone run the numbers on this... what seed tends to win the tourney and at what rate? Im guessing there is not a huge favoritism for a #1 seed to win the tourney vs a #2... though I havent seen the math, just a hunch.

    Also, if we win out as Jumbo says, we are definitely worthy of a #1. But realize, its going to be hard to win out (or even incredibly hard to just lose 1 from here on out).

    K said it himself. We are a very good team, not a great team... at this point in the season.

    I have a weird feeling about everything coming together. With Lance injured (or semi-injured), that affords our other bigs to show us some more defensive and offensive prowess. Is miles gets back on track, and if mason blossoms, we are going to be nasty come tourney time.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Texas/NC
    A significant part of me wants to be stiffed by the committee so we (1) don't have the expectations associated with a #1 seed and (2) we have a chip on our shoulder about getting stiffed

  19. #39
    I'm with Blue in the Face. A #1 seed is nice, but if relative strengths are at selection time what they are now, Duke would be perceived as undeserving (to get a #1 seed). Add to it our recent tourney history of not going particularly deep, and the burden of expectations becomes heavy (at least it does for us fans - I know the team will do its best always). I would rather us be perceived as getting the seed we earn, and going from there. If I thought the team would play different if we were slighted by a lower-than-deserved seed, then, yeah, let's play with a chip on our shoulder and prove everyone wrong. But I can't help but suspect that's a bigger factor for fans than the team itself. Sure, some teams play the "chip on shoulder" card, but that doesn't necessarily work as a strategy. [You notice who in that situation wins, and then in hindsight attribute it to the chip. Those who lose despite a chip are judged to have been justly slighted. Attribution bias I guess]

    I care a lot more about Duke winning >=3 games in the NCAAs (and 3 in the ACCs) than a #1 seed in either. If we drop one or two between now and then as we get used to a modified lineup, but that helps us down the road, OK. (but man, let's definitely hand MD a loss, today of all days!]

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by cspan37421 View Post
    I'm with Blue in the Face. A #1 seed is nice, but if relative strengths are at selection time what they are now, Duke would be perceived as undeserving (to get a #1 seed). Add to it our recent tourney history of not going particularly deep, and the burden of expectations becomes heavy (at least it does for us fans - I know the team will do its best always). I would rather us be perceived as getting the seed we earn, and going from there. If I thought the team would play different if we were slighted by a lower-than-deserved seed, then, yeah, let's play with a chip on our shoulder and prove everyone wrong. But I can't help but suspect that's a bigger factor for fans than the team itself. Sure, some teams play the "chip on shoulder" card, but that doesn't necessarily work as a strategy. [You notice who in that situation wins, and then in hindsight attribute it to the chip. Those who lose despite a chip are judged to have been justly slighted. Attribution bias I guess]

    I care a lot more about Duke winning >=3 games in the NCAAs (and 3 in the ACCs) than a #1 seed in either. If we drop one or two between now and then as we get used to a modified lineup, but that helps us down the road, OK. (but man, let's definitely hand MD a loss, today of all days!]
    If we get a #1 seed, we HAVE earned it. I understand your point about perceptions, but perceptions don't play basketball games. I also don't buy this "its ok if we lose, because it will help down the road." We need to WIN with these modified lineups. When I look at this team, I see a team with all of the parts: the talent, the players, the defense, the coaching. What I haven't seen thus far is the CONFIDENCE that we are going to step on the throats of whomever our opponents may be. This leads to inconsistent starts, because players aren't sure if the cold-shooting or hot-shooting Duke team is going to show up. I think confidence is the biggest factor separating our "good" team from being a "great" team, and losing games is not going to help that confidence.

Similar Threads

  1. And the fourth and last #1 seed goes to?
    By houstondukie in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 03-15-2009, 01:02 PM
  2. Can we still get a #1 seed?
    By Johnny B in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 03-11-2008, 10:31 PM
  3. #6 Seed against VCU
    By drion97 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 147
    Last Post: 03-12-2007, 11:48 PM
  4. I love our #7 seed!
    By ccCrazie in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-05-2007, 10:58 AM
  5. What will our NCAA seed be?
    By hurleyfor3 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-27-2007, 10:44 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
  •