2008-09 Bracketology

[mr. synellinden]

For those interested in the ridiculous, here is Joe Lundardi's first bracketology (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology).

Somehow, Duke already has a down arrow. They are pegged as a #2 seed in the East with UConn as the #1. If I recall correctly, he had us as a #1 sometime during the off-season. Apparently he wasn't impressed by our first two outings.

Here is what he said in today's ESPN.com chat:

Dave (Columbus, OH: Do you think Duke has enough to win it all this year? They seem to be more athletic than the last few years.

Joe Lunardi: (4:42 PM ET ) Dave, I'm not even convinced Duke is the second-best team in the ACC.


I agree. We are the best team in the ACC.

[RainingThrees]

Than who else is 2nd?? Overated Miami?

[Kedsy]

Than who else is 2nd?? Overated Miami?

I would have thought he was referring to Wake, but he only gives them a 7 seed, so my new theory is he just couldn't resist the one-liner.

[Wander]

How can any team be rising or falling right now? And Wisconsin as a 2 seed? Not gonna happen.

He also has Miami overrated, but everyone does.

[BlueintheFace]

In Lunardi's chat wrap somebody asked him if he thought Duke was a title contender and he said he isn't even sure Duke is the second best team in the ACC... ouch

[Turk]

Good gravy, don't take it personally. Lunardi is the first to admit that November bracketology is like April batting averages - pretty much meaningless but you have to start counting somewhere....

When January and February come rolling around, I'm a big fan of his. He sees enough games with his own eyeballs to know who's good or not, and he knows the NCAA arcana inside and out.

Let's see if he gets enough WTF? mail where he has to explain the "not 2nd best" remark.

[CameronCrazy'11]

I'm sure he meant that we were actually the best team in the ACC!

[SMO]

Then why does he have Duke as a 2 seed and the next best ACC team is a 5??? I suppose he disagrees with himself.

[RainingThrees]

I never get a lot of Lunardi's seadings, he seems to disagree with from time to time with guys like Bilas and Katz who know what they are talking about.

[TwoDukeTattoos]

As one poster stated earlier, during the offseason Lunardi had Duke as a steady 1 seed. Since then, Duke lost King and added Plumlee. I am not so much puzzled by his dropping us from 1 to 2, however I AM suprised that he gave us the down arrow. Perhaps he does that simply by default when a team loses a spot. Doesn't matter til March, anyway.

[Diddy]

For Duke to be a high seed a couple of things have to happen. And those things are still up in the air after blowing out two overmatched opponents.

Duke has to get at least competent play from the post. Singler is great, but the rest of the low post is a question mark. Singler is at his most dangerous when he is not the sole post player. We don't know if the other guys will give us the competant play we need to really advance come march.

Second, for Duke to do well, our Big Three have to play at a very high level. Hendo, Singler, and Scheyer all have to play at high levels. Singler has done so after two games. Scheyer has played very well, and is nipping high level play. Hendo has looked shakey.

It is early, but the first games were not dominant from top to bottom. Last season's disasterous end left a bad taste in the mouths of the national media. The primary source of that bad taste was Duke woeful low post play. After two games, that remains a glaring question mark.

I would argue that Duke did not look like a top 4 team the last 2 nights. Top 8 or so, sure. But not top 4.

[Edouble]

Second, for Duke to do well, our Big Three have to play at a very high level. Hendo, Singler, and Scheyer all have to play at high levels. Singler has done so after two games. Scheyer has played very well, and is nipping high level play. Hendo has looked shakey.


My thoughts too. G has not looked like a First Team All-ACC, yet. This is a reasonable explanation for the down arrow.

[CameronCrazy'11]

For Duke to be a high seed a couple of things have to happen. And those things are still up in the air after blowing out two overmatched opponents.

Duke has to get at least competent play from the post. Singler is great, but the rest of the low post is a question mark. Singler is at his most dangerous when he is not the sole post player. We don't know if the other guys will give us the competant play we need to really advance come march.

Second, for Duke to do well, our Big Three have to play at a very high level. Hendo, Singler, and Scheyer all have to play at high levels. Singler has done so after two games. Scheyer has played very well, and is nipping high level play. Hendo has looked shakey.

It is early, but the first games were not dominant from top to bottom. Last season's disasterous end left a bad taste in the mouths of the national media. The primary source of that bad taste was Duke woeful low post play. After two games, that remains a glaring question mark.

I would argue that Duke did not look like a top 4 team the last 2 nights. Top 8 or so, sure. But not top 4.

True, but every team needs lots of things to go right to be a one-seed. Only UConn flamed out in the first round last year, and they too need to prove that they can go that far. Even UNC has question marks. There's no reason yet to suspect that we'll fall short. The UCLA game in the finals of Coach vs. Cancer could give us a hint of what our might be like.

[Diddy]

True, but every team needs lots of things to go right to be a one-seed. Only UConn flamed out in the first round last year, and they too need to prove that they can go that far. Even UNC has question marks. There's no reason yet to suspect that we'll fall short. The UCLA game in the finals of Coach vs. Cancer could give us a hint of what our might be like.

The UCLA game will be the bellweather for early season success. If we win that game then we are a top 5 team.

But this is a snapshot. The brackets represent his opinion of the seedings if the tourney started today. He is not projecting out to March, it is just a snapshot.

As for UCONN, they did lose in the first round last year, but they returned all their best players, AND their starting PG, who was lost to serious knee injury has returned. Based on talent, they are one of the top 4 teams until their play proves otherwise.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Instead of starting a new thread, I'll post here. This is Fox Sports' prediction, (http://msn.foxsports.com/id/8782922_37_1.pdf) which has us a 3 seed, ultimately losing to UCONN in the sweet 16.

[Olympic Fan]

I have no problem with Lunardi's projection of Duke as a No. 2 seed or even Fox Sports' prediction of a No. 3 seed. I do find Lunardi's comment about Duke not being the second best team in the ACC strange ... I wish he had elaborated. I'd love to know his reasoning ... or was it just a snarky remark?

I'm finding it hard to understand all the love for UConn in preason. Look, I'm not saying they aren't a candidate to be a top 10 team, but what makes them such a solid pick -- and what makes them better than Duke on paper?

True, last year's first-round NCAA flameout can be blamed on the injury point guard AJ Price suffered in the early moments of that game. Fair enough. I think we can all agree that they're not the same team without Price.

But the fact is that UConn wasn't all that great before Price got hurt. This is a team that was swept by Providence, finished 4th in the Big East (a weaker league than the ACC last season) and lost in its opening game of the Big East Tournament (to the same West Virginia team that Duke) -- before Price was injured.

UConn finished 24-9 and 18th in the RPI (compared to Duke at 28-7 and No. 7 in the RPI). A year ago, Duke started the season at No. 13, climbed as high as No. 2 in the AP poll and finished No. 9. UConn spent most of the year unranked and never got higher than 13, finishing at No. 16.

My point is that Duke was better than UConn last year (and the year before, when UConn missed the NCAA Tournament). I know Duke is a better, stronger team this season. How much better will UConn be?

Well, a year ago, they were a very poor perimeter shooting team -- have they addressed that? (Actually, one of their losses was Doug Wiggins, their second best long-range shooter last season). I keep hearing talk that freshman Nate Miles is another Rip Hamilton ... maybe, but they only averaged 7.6 points a game last year in either high school or community college (I know his numbers, but I can't tell where he played last ... he's attended five high schools and two community colleges in the last four seasons). Kemba Walker is a big-time recruit at point guard -- a super-quick jet ... but shooting is supposed to be the flaw in his game.

And what's the status of forward Stanley Robinson, who is currently out of school due to "personal issues"? What about big man recruit Ater Majok, who hasn't graduated from high school yet? Calhoun said he expects both to enter school and join the team in December, but aren't those a couple of question marks that need to be answered?

Then there's Price. That injury that sidelined him in the NCAA Tournament opener turned out to be a torn ACL that required reconstructive surgery. He was on crutches all spring and limited in his workout all summer. Has anybody got an update on his progress -- that's an injury that usually requires a year for full recovery?

Now, I know I'm putting a negative spin on a lot of issues. I'm just saying that I don't see what's happened to suddenly make UConn a top 5 team. Yes, they have a lot of big, strong players (especially if Robinson and Majok come back). Price is a primetime player at the point -- if he's healthy. They'll block a bunch of shots. Thabeet and Adrien are a formidable post pair. But I would think that even the off-court issues resolve themselves, this is a team that has to prove it can come up with the outside firepower to balance its inside strength.

UConn could do that and end up being a great team ... even a national championship contender. But until they prove they've solved that problem, I don't think they're a top 5 or even a top 10 team on paper.

And, prejudiced as I am, I don't see what makes them a better preseason team than Duke.

[Huh?]

I'm not even going to begin to read all that.

[-jk]

I'm not even going to begin to read all that.

Your loss. OF is one of our most esteemed posters (and historians).

I think part of the pass the press is giving UConn is Calhoun's ability to get and keep players eligible in the face of adversity.

-jk

[CameronBornAndBred]

I'm not even going to begin to read all that.
Agreeing with -JK there, it's a good read with good arguments. Beats the purpose of a message board if you don't read the messages.

It will be interesting to see how much respect vs. expectation Duke gets this year. I think everyone with any knowledge give us the respect, but will be leary with the expectation. We have a lot to prove.

[nyr484]

Yes, this is mostly meaningless, but... I still find it interesting that Lunardi has 8 ACC teams in the field and only 7 Big East teams. I wasn't a math major, but 8 is more than 7, and 8 out of 12 is better than 7 out of 16.

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


So does it bother anyone else when the "experts" say the Big East is "clearly" the country's best conference? (see, e.g. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bubblewatch?id=84)

[toughbuff1]

For what its worth, Lunardi has three ACC teams in the Midwest, and only one in the West, which I'm pretty sure isn't allowed. But to answer your question, it doesn't bother me, because the people that matter are slowly but surely figuring out which conference is better.

[CDu]

Yeah, it's nice to see the middle of the ACC get some love from the Bracketologist. Of course, those four middling ACC teams do have to play each other a bunch down the stretch, which could knock one or two of them out. I think it's pretty safe to say we'll get at least six in there, though.

However, while it's fun to see Lunardi put more ACC teams in, it's only fair to note that he has two Big East schools in the first four out and one in the next four out. So while he has the Big East with only seven at the moment, they could still very easily get ten come March.

[brevity]

Yes, this is mostly meaningless, but... I still find it interesting that Lunardi has 8 ACC teams in the field and only 7 Big East teams. I wasn't a math major, but 8 is more than 7, and 8 out of 12 is better than 7 out of 16.

For whatever reason, Lunardi is being a contrarian. Maybe he can logically assemble a bracket with only 7 Big East teams, but it's a bit silly that he can find an 8th ACC team when only 7 have winning conference records.

Over the season, the ACC has been better than advertised, and the Big East not as great as advertised, but if you go by teams that make the NCAAs, the Big East will have more.

(As for conference superiority, the best measures come from postseason results. If, say, Oklahoma and Texas make the Final Four, then maybe the entire Eastern Seaboard should be quiet.)

[pfrduke]

(As for conference superiority, the best measures come from postseason results. If, say, Oklahoma and Texas make the Final Four, then maybe the entire Eastern Seaboard should be quiet.)

Right, because a collection of single game results that are in many ways no better than a 50/50 chance is a far better barometer than an entire season's worth of play.

[ice-9]

What pundits need to recognize is that the best way to get a maximum number of teams into the tournament from a given conference is...to have a weak bottom. This year we have it in Virginia, Georgia Tech and NC State. This is what's driving the 6-8 ACC teams and the 7-9 Big East teams to the NCAA tournament.

[CDu]

For whatever reason, Lunardi is being a contrarian. Maybe he can logically assemble a bracket with only 7 Big East teams, but it's a bit silly that he can find an 8th ACC team when only 7 have winning conference records.

Over the season, the ACC has been better than advertised, and the Big East not as great as advertised, but if you go by teams that make the NCAAs, the Big East will have more.

(As for conference superiority, the best measures come from postseason results. If, say, Oklahoma and Texas make the Final Four, then maybe the entire Eastern Seaboard should be quiet.)

In fairness to Lunardi, conference record is just one criteria for selection. Right now, Miami has some quality wins (Wake, FSU, @BC), two borderline road losses (@Maryland, @NCSU), and five of their other six losses are against the RPI top 20. So the loss total isn't that damning when you look at the actual body of work. In that sense, he's being true to his system. Teams can get in with a sub-.500 conference record if the overall body of work suggests it.

That said, I doubt Miami actually gets in with a sub-.500 record. I think 8-8 gets it done for them, but at 7-9 it'll be hard to argue aganst a Big East team with a winning conference record (like Cincy). I agree that we'll most likely see 8-9 Big East teams and 6-7 ACC teams.

[brevity]

Right, because a collection of single game results that are in many ways no better than a 50/50 chance is a far better barometer than an entire season's worth of play.

You might be right, but hold off on the know-it-all sarcasm. There are 2 main ways to measure how good a conference is:

1. Their nonconference winning percentage during the regular season; and
2. Their nonconference winning percentage during the NCAA tournament.

Each presents its own problems. During the regular season, results can be skewed because the teams from any given conference aren't required to play the very best nonconference competition. During the NCAA tournament, teams DO play the very best nonconference competition, but the randomness of the brackets don't ensure that teams from different conferences have equally difficult tournament paths.

When it comes to establishing conference superiority, you can take many approaches (including nonconference record, RPI, polls, postseason qualifiers, etc.) but none are definitive, and few are even satisfactory.

[devildownunder]

Right, because a collection of single game results that are in many ways no better than a 50/50 chance is a far better barometer than an entire season's worth of play.

their value as an actual barometer of conference superiority may be questionable but certainly no more so than random head-to-head meetings or even, I would argue, the season-long records of clubs (because teams have so much control over who they play and can thus inflate their records).

Plus, the tournament is crunch time. Whoever wins at crunch time can talk all they want.

[CDu]

What pundits need to recognize is that the best way to get a maximum number of teams into the tournament from a given conference is...to have a weak bottom. This year we have it in Virginia, Georgia Tech and NC State. This is what's driving the 6-8 ACC teams and the 7-9 Big East teams to the NCAA tournament.

Yup. And it's also the reason the ACC has been low on bids in many previous years. We've always had the great top tier. But the problem has been that the middle tier can't separate from the bottom tier. Sometimes, that's simply because the middle isn't very good. But I'd say that the more frequent problem has been that the bottom of the conference is "too good."

If your conference has a bunch of similarly-mediocre teams, you're more likely to wind up with some 5-11 teams and some 7-9 teams. If you have 3-4 terrible teams (i.e., 3-13 rather than 5-11), the 7-9 teams can wind up 9-7 instead.

[Duvall]

Yup. And it's also the reason the ACC has been low on bids in many previous years. We've always had the great top tier. But the problem has been that the middle tier can't separate from the bottom tier. Sometimes, that's simply because the middle isn't very good. But I'd say that the more frequent problem has been that the bottom of the conference is "too good."

If your conference has a bunch of similarly-mediocre teams, you're more likely to wind up with some 5-11 teams and some 7-9 teams. If you have 3-4 terrible teams (i.e., 3-13 rather than 5-11), the 7-9 teams can wind up 9-7 instead.

And that's why the league has often ended up with a high computer ranking but a low number of bids - the bottom teams taking wins away from the middle tier.

[InSpades]

Lunardi is definitely trying to make some waves by putting in more ACC teams than Big East teams. However he does have a point with the Big East. G'town really needs to step it up to make the tournament. They need to go 5-2 in conference to make it to .500 (w/ games against Syracuse, Louisville, Marquette and Villanova). They could certainly do it, but they need to start playing better (they also have 2 losses to Cincinatti, so if 1 gets in, it's not them). G'town probably can make it in w/ an 8-10 record in BE and a win in the BE tournament or 2. Right now I'd say Cincy has a much better shot at that last spot.

I doubt the ACC would get 8 as of right now, either Miami or BC would most likely bubble out.

One thing that bugs me about Lunardi though... I think he gets inside info when the teams are being finalized. Last year he had Villanova as not even one of the last 4 teams out up until the last days. Villanova then lost in the BE tournament and Georgia won the SEC (which seemed like it dashed a bunch of teams hopes). Sure enough, the last Bracketology had Villanova getting in out of nowhere... Kind of takes the fun out of the guessing game if you are getting tipped off.

[pfrduke]

You might be right, but hold off on the know-it-all sarcasm. There are 2 main ways to measure how good a conference is:

1. Their nonconference winning percentage during the regular season; and
2. Their nonconference winning percentage during the NCAA tournament.

Each presents its own problems. During the regular season, results can be skewed because the teams from any given conference aren't required to play the very best nonconference competition. During the NCAA tournament, teams DO play the very best nonconference competition, but the randomness of the brackets don't ensure that teams from different conferences have equally difficult tournament paths.

When it comes to establishing conference superiority, you can take many approaches (including nonconference record, RPI, polls, postseason qualifiers, etc.) but none are definitive, and few are even satisfactory.


their value as an actual barometer of conference superiority may be questionable but certainly no more so than random head-to-head meetings or even, I would argue, the season-long records of clubs (because teams have so much control over who they play and can thus inflate their records).

Plus, the tournament is crunch time. Whoever wins at crunch time can talk all they want.

All snarkiness aside (and apologies for the tone of the initial post), I certainly agree with using tournament results as a factor in determining conference superiority, but not the factor.

Part of that is due to how you measure post-season results. For example, say the ACC gets 7 teams in the field, all to the second round, 4 to the Sweet 16, and 3 to the Elite 8, but none to the Final Four. The SEC, by contrast, gets 4 teams in the field, 2 of which lose in the first round, but Florida and LSU somehow both make the Final Four. Which conference had a better postseason? And if it's the SEC, does that mean that it was the better conference?

Or say the ACC and the Big East each get an equal number of teams in, but the ACC's teams are seeded lower on the whole. If the conferences post identical post-season records, but the Big East gets more final four teams and a championship, did the ACC do better, because it was better than their seeds would have indicated, or did the Big East do better, because its top teams went further? What happens if by some amazing coincidence, ACC and Big East teams never play each other in the tournament, so there's no head to head? Or if the only matchups are high seeded teams against low seeded teams - do we learn anything if UCONN beats BC by 30 but UNC only beats Providence by 12?

Obviously, all of these are hypotheticals, but the point is that postseason results are too inherently random to be looked at as the determinant of conference superiority, or even the best determinant. Going back to your original post, even if Texas and Oklahoma make the Final Four, I have no qualms saying the Big East and ACC were better conferences than the Big XII for the 2008-09 season.

[Faustus]

Something else to keep in the back of our minds is that members of large conferences like the Big East and ACC are not playing complete round robin conference schedules anymore, and thus the selection committee can no longer assume a conference record of, say, Florida State's is the same as Miami's. The committee has SAID they keep this in mind (and I know even with complete home and home schedules things aren't identical - Duke never has to play Duke while GT would have to play Duke twice per season) and the committee has SAID they now simply look at each team individually, regardless of conference affiliation, and examine their schedule game by game, not caring whether they were conference wins and losses or not. I don't think anyone seriously believes them, but this is their assertion.

And if so, conceivably Miami could have a much stronger body of work than Virginia Tech even should VT have maybe an 8-8 conference record and Miami a 7-9 one. That 8-8 or 7-9 number is not technically SUPPOSED to mean anything in the committee's eyes. And the committee would in my opinion be mostly right. And should Duke end up trailing Wake by half a game in conference regular season standings, but played UNC twice when Wake only played them once, then yes, I think simple conference win/loss records are not as critical a factor in getting in, and seeding once when in, than they use to be with true round robin schedules. I believe this is even more true in the Big East where very few teams are played twice (I think in recent years some BE teams didn't even meet at all). Another reason why I so dislike expansion.

Of course the committee also claims they don't pay attention to how many teams from different conferences get in...

[ice-9]

All snarkiness aside (and apologies for the tone of the initial post), I certainly agree with using tournament results as a factor in determining conference superiority, but not the factor.

Part of that is due to how you measure post-season results. For example, say the ACC gets 7 teams in the field, all to the second round, 4 to the Sweet 16, and 3 to the Elite 8, but none to the Final Four. The SEC, by contrast, gets 4 teams in the field, 2 of which lose in the first round, but Florida and LSU somehow both make the Final Four. Which conference had a better postseason? And if it's the SEC, does that mean that it was the better conference?

Or say the ACC and the Big East each get an equal number of teams in, but the ACC's teams are seeded lower on the whole. If the conferences post identical post-season records, but the Big East gets more final four teams and a championship, did the ACC do better, because it was better than their seeds would have indicated, or did the Big East do better, because its top teams went further? What happens if by some amazing coincidence, ACC and Big East teams never play each other in the tournament, so there's no head to head? Or if the only matchups are high seeded teams against low seeded teams - do we learn anything if UCONN beats BC by 30 but UNC only beats Providence by 12?

Obviously, all of these are hypotheticals, but the point is that postseason results are too inherently random to be looked at as the determinant of conference superiority, or even the best determinant. Going back to your original post, even if Texas and Oklahoma make the Final Four, I have no qualms saying the Big East and ACC were better conferences than the Big XII for the 2008-09 season.


Excellent points! There are just too many variables in looking at the post-season alone. IMO the only way to really measure conference superiority is to hold head-to-head matches a la the ACC-Big 10 Challenge. I did a hypothetical exercise for ACC and the Big East (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/116456-the-acc-big-east-challenge-which-is-the-better-conference/) and conclude the ACC is superior.

P.S. Cherokee Parks!!

[pfrduke]

Excellent points! There are just too many variables in looking at the post-season alone. IMO the only way to really measure conference superiority is to hold head-to-head matches a la the ACC-Big 10 Challenge. I did a hypothetical exercise for ACC and the Big East (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/116456-the-acc-big-east-challenge-which-is-the-better-conference/) and conclude the ACC is superior.

P.S. Cherokee Parks!!

This, too, is too simplistic. A one game head-to-head contest does not determine who the "best" team is; we all know that UNC is better than Boston College and Boston College is better than Harvard, despite the one-game results from this season. My overall point is that there is no one way to measure conference superiority. Instead, it's a balancing of factors - things like (and this is very much in no particular order) RPI rating, other computer ratings, non-conference record, non-conference record against the Big 6 conferences, head-to-head record among equivalent teams (so a game like Duke-Pitt would count more than a game like Duke-Rutgers), tournament bids, tournament performance, etc. And, accordingly, it's subjective - each of us can look at the same factors, weigh them differently, and come to different conclusions about who's better.

[ice-9]

It's true there are many metrics to look at and that using all those statistics is probably the most fairest and accurate way to judge conference superiority...

But for the sake of what's practical, I think these made for TV challenges are the one best measure. I don't, for example, hear anyone talking about how the Big 10 is better than the ACC. It is almost established "fact" that the ACC is better and I believe the reasons aren't RPI, number of teams in the tourney (the Big 10 in recent years sent more), or the number of top tier teams, I argue it's because year in and year out we beat them in the challenge.

Even if simple, there is no other test that is more definitive. If the ACC had a challenge with the Big East and won, I don't believe we'd hear all this talk about how the Big East is the best.

[I_am_a_Blue_Devil]

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

Clemson and Wake are #2 seeds? Duke a #3 seed? I know Clemson whooped us but im not sure about this one. Still some games to play and anything can happen, but can anyone see it really coming out like this? Virginia Tech is out and I think thats funny (I live 10 miles from Blacksburg)

[Bluedog]

Interesting that the ACC has 8 in, while Big East only has 7...Lunardi has Gtown in as a 9 seed (i.e. not bubble), which seems surprising given what they've done recently.

Edit: something is wrong. He has Penn St and San Diego St and "last four in" but they aren't in the bracket. He had ND as "first four out" but it is listed in the bracket, among other teams. Plus, every team is stable...no ups or downs. Obviously, something hasn't been updated.

[91devil]

Joe Lunardi has had very good success at predicting the field. That being said, I, too, was surprised at the notion that, right now, Wake would be a higher seed than us (there is nothing, right now, that Wake 'bests' us in....tied head-to-head, lower in the conference standings, lower RPI, lower strength of schedule, much lower out of conference strength of schedule).

Also surprised at G'Town - not only being included in the field but also as a #9 seed (meaning about ten other schools would be more on the bubble than the Hoyas). This seeding doesn't include last night's loss, which would theoretically push them down even farther. Yes, they have a strong SOS, but that only goes so far.

[davekay1971]

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

Clemson and Wake are #2 seeds? Duke a #3 seed? I know Clemson whooped us but im not sure about this one. Still some games to play and anything can happen, but can anyone see it really coming out like this? Virginia Tech is out and I think thats funny (I live 10 miles from Blacksburg)

There's so much left to be played that it's hard to speculate on how the tournament will actually be seeded, but I would think that if, it was seeded today, we would be a 2 seed. Our RPI is still 2 seed material.

All the more reason to take care of business this week - 2 road games against teams that look at us as the game to put them over the top.

[Klemnop]

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

Clemson and Wake are #2 seeds? Duke a #3 seed? I know Clemson whooped us but im not sure about this one. Still some games to play and anything can happen, but can anyone see it really coming out like this? Virginia Tech is out and I think thats funny (I live 10 miles from Blacksburg)

FYI, this was not the "regular" Lunardi Bracketology. This was an exercise by ESPN employees to mimic the selection process where they were given some arbitrary end of season results to use as a guide (as I recall they were to assume that Davidson did not win the SoCon automatic berth, for example.)

This exercise was done on Sunday afternoon - prior to the result of the Sunday evening game being known.

Understanding context for THIS Bracketology is very important before getting indignant about a team that beat Duke by 27 points (and a lot of other things in the comparison being equal) being assigned a higher seed. :)

[CameronBornAndBred]

As stated above, they did the bracket before the Duke-Wake game (a little obvious). Here is a line from a sister article (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3928104&name=katz_andy).
"Keep in mind this ballot was completed before Wake Forest lost to Duke on Sunday night. We voted on teams based only on games through Saturday night. "

[InSpades]

1 of the main "outcomes" given was that Georgetown made a run and won the Big East tournament. Seems a pretty big stretch considering how they are playing of late. That's why they get a 9 seed or whatever they got, because they would likely have to beat 3 top 25 teams in a row on consecutive days (after beating 2 teams the previous 2 days).

I still say Lunardi gets inside info right before his last bracketology is posted. Some of the changes he makes at the last minute make no logical sense based on his previous brackets and end up being right.

[Black Mambo]

I know, I know...one game at a time...But for those of us not too uptight to deal in hypotheticals, what happens if Duke and UNC both win their next game and Duke wins at Chapel Hell? They would both be 12-4. Who gets the 1-seed? They would be tied in the head-to-head, and then i believe it goes to who has the best record against the 3 seed. This poses a problem b/c of the unbalanced scheudle. Duke is 1-1 vs Wake and they would be 2-0 vs FSU and 0-1 vs Clemson. UNC is 0-1 vs Wake, 1-0 vs Clemson, and 1-0 vs FSU. On a side note, just typing that makes me realize he difference in the scheudle difficulty between UNC and Duke.

Anwyays, who gets the top seed in the ACC? And if Duke wins out (last 2 and wins ACC tourney), is that enough for a 1 seed, likely out west and likely knocking UNC to a 2? Is a 1 out west better than a 2 anywhere else, or a 3 in the east per lunardi's most recent edition of bracketology (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology)? Thoughts welcome.

[The1Bluedevil]

If they tie it would be decided upon who did better against whoever earns the 3 seed. If it happens to be Wake, Duke would get the 1 seed.

Scenario happened in 2001. Duke and Carolina both went 13-3 but Carolina swept Maryland who finished 3rd, Duke lost to them on senior night.

It looks more and more like Duke is going to have to do beat Carolina just to be in the discussion for a 2 seed. Memphis and Louisville appear to be locked into 2 seeds and Michigan State and Kansas are going to win their respect vive leagues. I guess winning the league title in a weaker league is more impressive then getting 2nd in a very strong one.

[InSpades]

Like you said, if we tie UNC then the #1 seed goes by tiebreaker which is record against the next highest placing team. That will depend how other teams finish.

As for our NCAA seed... if we win out we are definitely a #1 seed. I'd argue that we are a #2 seed right now. Of Lunardi's #2 seeds I think the only one that would get a #2 over us is Memphis. Kansas, Louisville and Michigan St. all played a worse schedule with a similiar record.

Edit: I guess if you want to get technical, Michigan St. has a SOS schedule higher than Duke's (4 to 5) but Memphis is way lower. I don't think we'll get a 2 ahead of Memphis though. We probably won't get it ahead of Michigan St. either (especially when they win their conference tournament). I still think we would have a good shot at a #2 over Kansas or Louisville (more likely Kansas).

[CDu]

If we tie UNC for the best record, the tie is broken by head to head against the next best team. If that's a tie (which can only happen if FSU finishes third and we beat them on Tuesday), then it goes to head to head against the next best team. Basically, if we win out and Wake is ahead of Clemson, we get the #1 seed in the ACC tournament.

For us to get a #1 seed in the NCAA tournament, we have to beat UNC and probably win the ACC tournament. If we beat UNC and then lose to UNC in the ACC tourney, we probably get a #2 seed. If we lose to UNC and win the ACC tourney, we probably get a #2 seed. If we lose to UNC and lose in the ACC tourney, we are probably a borderline #2 or #3 seed.

[Black Mambo]

Does the unbalanced schedule make a difference? If the 3 seed is Wake, we are 1-1 and UNC is 0-1? While 1-1 is better than 0-1, the unbalanced schedule creates a lack of opportunity for a fair comparison. That was the impetus for the original question.

Having said all that, maybe we do want the 2 seed, if Wake is the 3 and Clemson is the 4. On the other hand, maybe we SHOULD play Clemson again.

[ice-9]

Does the unbalanced schedule make a difference? If the 3 seed is Wake, we are 1-1 and UNC is 0-1? While 1-1 is better than 0-1, the unbalanced schedule creates a lack of opportunity for a fair comparison. That was the impetus for the original question.

Having said all that, maybe we do want the 2 seed, if Wake is the 3 and Clemson is the 4. On the other hand, maybe we SHOULD play Clemson again.


Either way, it ain't gonna be easy! :)

[CDu]

Does the unbalanced schedule make a difference? If the 3 seed is Wake, we are 1-1 and UNC is 0-1? While 1-1 is better than 0-1, the unbalanced schedule creates a lack of opportunity for a fair comparison. That was the impetus for the original question.

Having said all that, maybe we do want the 2 seed, if Wake is the 3 and Clemson is the 4. On the other hand, maybe we SHOULD play Clemson again.

The conference doesn't care about fairness. They view 1-1 as better than 0-1 and worse than 1-0. They view 2-0 as equal to 1-0, and 0-2 equal to 0-1.

Therefore, since we're 1-1 versus Wake while UNC is 0-1, we have that tiebreaker (if necessary). Because we're 0-1 versus Clemson while UNC is 1-0, we lose that tiebreaker. As long as we don't lose to FSU, they'll be irrelevant to the tiebreaker scenarios. We'd have the BC tiebreaker over UNC.

[pfrduke]

The conference doesn't care about fairness. They view 1-1 as better than 0-1 and worse than 1-0. They view 2-0 as equal to 1-0, and 0-2 equal to 0-1.

Therefore, since we're 1-1 versus Wake while UNC is 0-1, we have that tiebreaker (if necessary). Because we're 0-1 versus Clemson while UNC is 1-0, we lose that tiebreaker. As long as we don't lose to FSU, they'll be irrelevant to the tiebreaker scenarios. We'd have the BC tiebreaker over UNC.

Isn't BC a push?

[CDu]

Isn't BC a push?

Aack! You're right. For some reason, I thought we had beaten them earlier in the year at home. Nevermind! BC is thus irrelevant to the equation.

[ACCBBallFan]

The UNC-VA Tech outcome has no bearing on the ACC first seed, but would affect whether UNC wins the title outright or ties for first with Duke, were Duke to win at the Dean Dome.

The tie breakers that favor Duke are:
1. Wake beating Clemson, or
2. a 4-way tie for third, where Duke wins next tie breaker by being undefeated versus ACC bottom 6 and eventually the loss to MD costs UNC.

The tie breakers that favor UNC are:
1. Wake-Clemson only tie for third (Clemson wins and FSU and BC both lose)
2. Wake-Clemson-BC but not FSU tie for third (Clemson & BC win, FSU loses)
3. Wake-Clemson-FSU but not BC tie for third (Clemson & FSU win, BC loses)

[InSpades]

How does the UNC-VT game not matter? What if Wake-Clemson tie for 3rd, then UNC would have the tiebreaker over us and the VT loss would put them behind us by a game and we'd get the #1 seed (and the outright title of course).

[ACCBBallFan]

How does the UNC-VT game not matter? What if Wake-Clemson tie for 3rd, then UNC would have the tiebreaker over us and the VT loss would put them behind us by a game and we'd get the #1 seed (and the outright title of course).The reason I labeled the UNC-VA Tech as immaterial is that Duke/UNC has to win the rivalry game in either event to have a chance for first.

The scenario you describe is another one where UNC would win the tie breaker if Wake, BC and FSU all lost.

There is even a remote chance that VA Tech could end up tied for 4th @ 9-7 but would not get the bye because they lose the tie breaker in all instances.

FSU by virtue of two wins over Clemson owns most but not all of the 4th place tie breakers, the one they would lose if if only BC and FSU end up 10-6 if Wake beats Clemson.

UNC, Duke and Wake have already wrapped up the first 3 seeds but order is still wide open with UNC 1 or 2, Wake 2 or 3 and Duke 1 or 2 or 3.

Any of FSU, Clemson and BC but not VA Tech could get the bye that comes with the fourth seed.

[CameronCrazy'11]

As best I can tell, here is how the seedings would work for the ACC Tournament

Assume UNC beats VT:

If Duke beats UNC, and Wake beats Clemson: #1
If Duke beats UNC, and Wake loses to Clemson: Massive confusion, lots of contingencies, but we can't do any worse than a #2 seed, #1 seed still possible

If Duke loses to UNC, and Wake beats Clemson: #3
If Duke loses to UNC, and Wake loses to Clemson: #2

So basically, no worse than a 3 seed, and still in the running for a 1 if we beat UNC, but it's not guaranteed.


As for NCAA tourney, we're probably a lock for a three seed as long as we can win one more game. To get a one seed we'd probably need to beat Carolina and win the ACC tournament. But safe money is on another 2-seed for Duke.

[UrinalCake]

It's hard to directly correlate performance with seeding (i.e. if we do X then we will get a seed of Y) because so much is dependent on what other teams do. But I do think that if we win out, including the ACC tournament, we would have to be a #1. I can't think of a year in which the ACC regular season and tournament winner wasn't a #1.

As far as tournament game location, I personally would rather play farther from home as a higher seed versus close to home as a lower seed, but it doesn't matter as much with the pod system (which I still don't fully understand). Our guys are used to traveling and are well-tested on the road so the most important thing is the matchup.

[CDu]

The UNC-VA Tech outcome has no bearing on the ACC first seed, but would affect whether UNC wins the title outright or ties for first with Duke, were Duke to win at the Dean Dome.

Umm, the UNC/Va Tech game absolutely does have bearing on the ACC first seed. If Va Tech beats UNC and then we beat UNC, we win the title outright (UNC would be 11-5, we'd be 12-4). If UNC wins, then we can only tie and go to the tiebreaker scenarios that you've laid out.

But yes, in either case Duke has to win.

[CDu]

It's hard to directly correlate performance with seeding (i.e. if we do X then we will get a seed of Y) because so much is dependent on what other teams do. But I do think that if we win out, including the ACC tournament, we would have to be a #1. I can't think of a year in which the ACC regular season and tournament winner wasn't a #1.

As far as tournament game location, I personally would rather play farther from home as a higher seed versus close to home as a lower seed, but it doesn't matter as much with the pod system (which I still don't fully understand). Our guys are used to traveling and are well-tested on the road so the most important thing is the matchup.

If we won out, we'd have a record of 29-5 with strong wins over @UNC, Wake, FSU, @FSU, @Purdue, Xavier, and likely two more nice wins from the ACC tournament, not to mention several additional wins over bubble teams. We'd have an RPI that would be either #1 or #2. We'd have won our last nine ball games. There'd be no criteria in which we wouldn't look fantastic. We would absolutely be a #1 seed.

[alaskan assassin]

Were ranked #1 on the rpi. (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/polls) Does have any affect on wether we get a 1 seed?

[Dar95]

Were ranked #1 on the rpi. (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/polls) Does have any affect on wether we get a 1 seed?

Marginally, but it's really not that important a factor. More of a factor would be the # of top 50 / 100 wins that we have / will be accruing, especially if we make a run in the tournament. Probably the biggest factor is what happens with the other contenders - if UNC beats us again, it would be hard to pass them; if Pitt and UConn only lose to each other, they may be hard to pass. I think we would get past Oklahoma (and any other team) if we win out, but to get a #1 seed without winning out would require some slip-ups by the other contenders.

[CDu]

Were ranked #1 on the rpi. (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/polls) Does have any affect on wether we get a 1 seed?

Sure, if we are still #1 in RPI on March 8. But it will only matter in the sense that it coincides what we've done overall. And remember, if we lose to UNC and then lose in the ACC tournament, we won't remain #1 in the RPI. We'll probably fall back to #3-6. Which, with 7 losses, would mean #2 status.

If we win out, we'll keep the #1 RPI spot and we'll have won the ACC championship. We'd also have at least split with UNC (possibly beaten them twice), and we'd have a better profile than UNC otherwise (more quality wins). We'd also have a better profile than Memphis and at least one of Pitt or UConn (whomever doesn't win the Big East). There just wouldn't be four teams with a better profile. There'd be at most one.

[CDu]

Marginally, but it's really not that important a factor. More of a factor would be the # of top 50 / 100 wins that we have / will be accruing, especially if we make a run in the tournament. Probably the biggest factor is what happens with the other contenders - if UNC beats us again, it would be hard to pass them; if Pitt and UConn only lose to each other, they may be hard to pass. I think we would get past Oklahoma (and any other team) if we win out, but to get a #1 seed without winning out would require some slip-ups by the other contenders.

If we win out, we will be a #1 seed. We'd be a #1 seed ahead of UNC if we win out. We'd be a #1 seed ahead of almost anyone. Winning out would mean we'd have beaten @UNC, Wake, @FSU, FSU, @Purdue, Xavier, and at least one or two top-tier ACC teams in the tourney. UNC can't say anything close to that, and we'd have beaten them (possibly twice) more recently. It would be hard to imagine any team other than UConn or Pitt (whichever one of them wins the Big East) that could boast a better resume.

[InSpades]

Seems like the only way for Duke to get the #1 in the ACC tournament is to have Wake beat Clemson (and obviously Duke beat UNC).

If Clemson and Wake are tied alone at 10-6 then we lose the tiebreaker (we are 1-2 against those 2 teams, UNC is 1-1). If FSU is also tied at 10-6 then we are 3-2 while they are 2-1 which barely squeaks ahead of us.

Virginia will definitely get the #11 seed, and GA Tech (despite their win) still gets the #12 seed regardless.

If Clemson and Wake are tied alone then Wake wins the tiebreaker (better record against UNC or UNC+Duke).

If Clemson, Wake and Florida St. all tie at 10-6 then Wake gets the #3, Florida St. gets the #4 and Clemson gets #5 (Wake has a better record against Duke+UNC or just UNC than the other 2, and Florida St. would then beat out Clemson head-to-head).

So Wake is at worst the #3 seed.

Beyond that I'm not bored enough to figure it out :).

[InSpades]

A little more...

If BC and FSU are tied at 9-6 alone then BC gets the #5 and Florida St. gets the #6.

If Clemson is also tied at 9-6 then... FSU gets the tiebreaker (2-1 combined record) and takes the #4 seed. Clemson then gets the #5 via head-to-head and BC gets the #6.

I'm assuming it works like the NFL when 1 team wins in a 3-way tie then you immediately go to a 2-team tiebreaker. This would matter if those 3 were all tied at 9-6 since based on record between the 2 teams they are ranked FSU, BC, Clemson. However if you take FSU out, Clemson beat BC.

[rthomas]

http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm

Composite of 78 bracket websites.

[pfrduke]

http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm

Composite of 78 bracket websites.

Some of these are a little preposterous (like the guy who has Niagara as an 8 seed, Siena as a 5, and Utah State as a 3).

[hurleyfor3]

Lunardi updated his bracket today (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology). Be careful what you ask for: He moved us up to a #2 all right... but we're UConn's #2. But it won't matter, 'cuz we get to lose to West Virginia again in the second round!

Curiously, his top four seeds are very similar to the East region in the actual 1990 bracket, with us and Kansas switched. (IOW, Clemson was UConn's #4 in 1990, and Kansas was the 2 with us the 3). However, Kansas lost to #7 Ucla in the second round.

[CDu]

Lunardi updated his bracket today (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology). Be careful what you ask for: He moved us up to a #2 all right... but we're UConn's #2. But it won't matter, 'cuz we get to lose to West Virginia again in the second round!

Curiously, his top four seeds are very similar to the East region in the actual 1990 bracket, with us and Kansas switched. (IOW, Clemson was UConn's #4 in 1990, and Kansas was the 2 with us the 3). However, Kansas lost to #7 Ucla in the second round.

As expected, Va Tech and Miami fell out of the bracket. Despite their loss, Maryland has jumped IN to the bracket (as one of the last four in). Miami and Va Tech will have to do a lot down the stretch and in the ACC tournament to get in. And if Miami beats NC St, the 8/9 game is going to almost certainly eliminate one of the teams. But right now, the best bet for getting a seventh team is clearly Maryland beating UVa and NC St/Miami in the opening round of the ACC tournament.

[feldspar]

As expected, Va Tech and Miami fell out of the bracket. Despite their loss, Maryland has jumped IN to the bracket (as one of the last four in). Miami and Va Tech will have to do a lot down the stretch and in the ACC tournament to get in. And if Miami beats NC St, the 8/9 game is going to almost certainly eliminate one of the teams. But right now, the best bet for getting a seventh team is clearly Maryland beating UVa and NC St/Miami in the opening round of the ACC tournament.

Hopefully VaTech can pull it out at Florida State and then beat Miami in the 8/9 game and take it to the wire against their quarterfinal opponent.

If they can do that and Maryland can get into the quarters and play well against the 2 seed, we could have a shot at 7.

[Reddevil]

Lunardi updated his bracket today (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology). Be careful what you ask for: He moved us up to a #2 all right... but we're UConn's #2. But it won't matter, 'cuz we get to lose to West Virginia again in the second round!

I beg to differ! I would love to see both VCU and WVA in Duke's bracket. Coach K already has experience with one "redeem team". Eric Maynor is a Sr. now, and a potential 1st round draft pick, but he really needs Duke to end his NCAA career (if they get in).

[CDu]

Hopefully VaTech can pull it out at Florida State and then beat Miami in the 8/9 game and take it to the wire against their quarterfinal opponent.

If they can do that and Maryland can get into the quarters and play well against the 2 seed, we could have a shot at 7.

Yeah, if Maryland and Va Tech win this weekend and win on Thursday in the ACC tournament, I like our chances of getting a 7th team into the tournament. It certainly wouldn't be a lock, but the case would look a lot better than it does right now.

The worst-case scenario is Miami and NC St stealing wins next Thursday from the stronger bubble teams and then losing on Friday anyway.

[ron mckernan]

I was originally of the mind that the roads of a 1 and a 2 seed weren't that different. But, looking at the latest Bracketology, there are some really potent 3 seeds -- Kansas, Wake, Missouri -- while the 4s seem a big step down -- Washington, Xavier, Clemson. Beating just UConn or Pitt or UNC or Oklahoma doesn't seem that inconceivable, especially with a little underdog mojo. But, the thought of playing, say, Kansas and UConn, or Wake and Pitt, in one weekend is admittedly a little scary. On the other hand, the difference between the 2 and 3 seeds -- of which a 1 seed only has to play one, of course -- seem minimal.

Getting way ahead of myself with silly speculation -- for all you know we could find ourselves licking our chops for revenge games against LSU and Clemson in the regionals -- but it's interesting how sometimes I see a bracket and think "we can do that" and then a little shuffling and I think "oh s**t."

[Chitowndevil]

Lunardi updated his bracket today (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology). Be careful what you ask for: He moved us up to a #2 all right... but we're UConn's #2. But it won't matter, 'cuz we get to lose to West Virginia again in the second round!



You're not kidding. I do NOT want to play this year's WVA team. Their numbers are actually better than last year's team: they're monsters on the offensive glass, great at both limiting turnovers on offense and creating them on defense, and defend the perimeter extremely well.

It may be oversimplifying, but I think it's at least a pretty good approximation to say that Maryland, VT, and Miami need 1, 2, and 3 more wins respectively to secure bids.

Both are currently listed as in, but it is just wrong to me to put South Carolina ahead of Maryland. SC is 9-6 in a mediocre-to-put-it-politely SEC and has by my count ZERO wins against teams currently in the bracket. The terps have two wins (UNC and Mich St) against teams that are vastly better than anyone SC has played all season.

I'm also kinda scratching my head over New Mexico, which barely finished above .500 against a horrible nonconference schedule. But hey, they did finish tied for 1st in their conference with BYU, who nobody can argue with as a tournament team.

Did anybody ever think we'd see the Mountain West getting more teams in the bracket than the SEC? I'm not necessarily arguing with that, it just made me do a double take.

[pfrduke]

One little bit of good bracketology news tonight - Duke will not have to play Belmont in the first round this year. ;) They got bounced by ETSU in the A-Sun semis.

[DukeChapel'90]

I'm scratching my head at how the Big Ten gets more bids than either the ACC or Big East according to Joe's latest bracket. The Big Ten just seems like a lot of mediocre teams to me without any truly great team. I guess Mich State is pretty good, but who else would even comete in the top 5 in the ACC? I imagine the ACC record against the Big Ten is pretty good. KenPom has the ACC as the top conference.

And yes, I would love to see the SEC get passed by several smaller conferences. I seem to recall that Duke went to the Sweet 16 and then the Finals in the 2 years after winning back to back NCAA champs. FLorida is looking like back to back NITs after back to back NCAA champs. :rolleyes:

[geraldsneighbor]

Latest Bracketology has Duke playing in Greensboro as the 3 seed. They have Michigan State as the 2 and Pitt as the one. Obviously Pitt is a tall task but any region involving Michigan State sounds fair.

Wake is a 3 seed projected to head to Miami. I assume that whoever doesn't get to the finals this weekend will be sent to Miami now and not Philly as projected in the earlier brackets.

[CDu]

I'm scratching my head at how the Big Ten gets more bids than either the ACC or Big East according to Joe's latest bracket. The Big Ten just seems like a lot of mediocre teams to me without any truly great team. I guess Mich State is pretty good, but who else would even comete in the top 5 in the ACC? I imagine the ACC record against the Big Ten is pretty good. KenPom has the ACC as the top conference.

Actually, the ACC record against the Big-10 is probably close to .500 this year. We went 6-5 in the challenge, but we lost the Duke/Michigan game, won the Maryland/MSU game. There may be another game or two, but that's probably about it. That's 7-6 for the ACC - not a walloping by any means.

One problem for the ACC is that it's hard to argue that a team with a below-.500 record in conference deserves to be in the tournament. Also, while the ACC is clearly better at the top, that's not what ultimately determines how many teams get in. What matters just as much is how many decent/strong teams you have, not how good the top of your conference is compared to the top of other conferences.

For comparison, the 6th-place Big-10 school (Wisconsin) won at one of our bubble teams (VT) and has only one questionable loss (at Iowa). The #7 big-10 school (Minnesota) has a win over Louisville, no out-of-conference losses, and no bad losses. The #8 team in the Big-10 (Michigan) has a win over Duke and no bad losses. The RPIs of those teams are 38, 41, and 42, compared to 53 (Miami), 62 (Va Tech), and 67 (Maryland).

If Maryland hadn't lost to UVa and Morgan St, they're probably in ahead of Michigan based on similar resumes and Maryland's win over Michigan in December. But those two losses push Maryland behind. If Va Tech hadn't lost to UGa and UVa, they're probably in over over Michigan. If Miami hadn't lost to Ga Tech and NC St, they're probably in. But that didn't happen.

In reality, The #6-8 big-10 teams are probably very similar to the #7-9 ACC teams. It's just that the warts on our bubble teams' resumes happen to look slightly worse than those on the Big-10's bubble team's resumes.

[MulletMan]

Latest Bracketology has Duke playing in Greensboro as the 3 seed. They have Michigan State as the 2 and Pitt as the one. Obviously Pitt is a tall task but any region involving Michigan State sounds fair.

Wake is a 3 seed projected to head to Miami. I assume that whoever doesn't get to the finals this weekend will be sent to Miami now and not Philly as projected in the earlier brackets.

I wouldn't put a ton of stock in Lunardi. He's decent, but he's not all that good at actually putting teams in the right spots. His claim is always something along the lines of, "We got 64 out of 65 within one line of thier seed". BFD... that means that if he says Duke is a 2, then Duke can be a 1, 2 or 3 seed and he will consider that he got it right... and that's a 1, 2 or 3 in ANY region... not the CORRECT region.

[CDu]

I wouldn't put a ton of stock in Lunardi. He's decent, but he's not all that good at actually putting teams in the right spots. His claim is always something along the lines of, "We got 64 out of 65 within one line of thier seed". BFD... that means that if he says Duke is a 2, then Duke can be a 1, 2 or 3 seed and he will consider that he got it right... and that's a 1, 2 or 3 in ANY region... not the CORRECT region.

Yeah, Jay Bilas pointed out (kudos to him for calling out a fellow ESPNer) that there's nothing that impressive about predicting 64 of 65 teams into the field. We are handed 31 of them automatically, and another 25-30 are gimmes. So that's essentially getting 5 of the 6 bubble teams correct.

It's also interesting to note that Lunardi hasn't even been THAT successful in recent years. In each of the last few years, he's been wrong on two or three of the bids. That makes his (or perhaps rather his editor's) claim even less impressive.

[hurleyfor3]

Quick stupid question: Is Wake allowed to play Greesnboro this year, or are they the host? And if Wake isn't the host, who is?

[feldspar]

Quick stupid question: Is Wake allowed to play Greesnboro this year, or are they the host? And if Wake isn't the host, who is?

I believe when it's at a neutral site, the conference is the host. Thus, the ACC is the host at Greensboro.

Wake is only the host when the first round is played at LJVM.

[hurleyfor3]

I believe when it's at a neutral site, the conference is the host. Thus, the ACC is the host at Greensboro.

Wake is only the host when the first round is played at LJVM.

So if Wake ends up seeded above us, say they're a two and we're a three, they'd be bound to give the other Greensboro slot to Wake, no?

[Duvall]

I believe when it's at a neutral site, the conference is the host. Thus, the ACC is the host at Greensboro.

Wake is only the host when the first round is played at LJVM.

It's based on the number of home games a team has played on that floor. So if a team has hosted more than three games on a floor it's considered a home court, and the team cannot be sent there regardless of the official host.

Wake hasn't used Greensboro as a home court in years, though, so they could definitely be sent there.

[feldspar]

It's based on the number of home games a team has played on that floor. So if a team has hosted more than three games on a floor it's considered a home court, and the team cannot be sent there regardless of the official host.

Wake hasn't used Greensboro as a home court in years, though, so they could definitely be sent there.

Interesting. When is the last time Wake used GBO as a home court and why?

[Duvall]

Interesting. When is the last time Wake used GBO as a home court and why?

They played a few home games there every year until the Joel opened in 1989. I think it may have been Wake's full-time home court while the Joel was under construction.

[DU82]

They played a few home games there every year until the Joel opened in 1989. I think it may have been Wake's full-time home court while the Joel was under construction.

They moved out of the old W-S arena in either 80 or 81 (somewhere around then) and that helped pressure the city to build LJ. I remember attending a Wake-Arkansas game in '83 there (Greensboro). It's interesting that the ACC played the tournament there while it was Wake's home court, but won't consider the RBC Center for the tournament. I think it could become "neutral" for the tournament and would be a great venue for it.

Regarding seeding, assuming both make the semis, the winner between Duke and Wake will probably get the second spot in Greensboro, and the loser will go to Miami, since there's nobody else close to there. It's possible if FSU grabs a number 4 seed, they'd go there, too. (I'd guess they'd have to beat UNC to do it, and of course we're all rooting for them to do so.)