PDA

View Full Version : Seed chit-chat



JasonEvans
02-26-2007, 03:12 PM
We are up the #14 in both polls. I find that the polls are usually a fairly good indicator of the top seeds—much better than the RPI. So, according to the polls, we are a mid #4 seed, right on the verge of being a #3 seed.

That sounds about right to me.

CollegeRPI.com has us as a #3 already, in a bracket with Florida as the #1 and Texas A&M as our #2. Michigan State is the #6 we are likely to face in the round of 32. I’d take that bracket in a heartbeat!!

ESPN's Joe Lunardi, who I found last year to be stunningly wrong when the brackets were actually announced, has us as a #5 right now (which is utterly ludicrous and supported by no poll or computer ranking ANYWHERE). I discount him as a fool.

My read is that we get a #3 if we either win the two tough games this week or if we make the ACC finals. Split this week and lose to Carolina or someone else in the semis and we are a #4. Lose the next 3 in a row and we are a #5 or a #6.

Oh, and if we run the table including winning the ACC title and we are a #2.

-Jason "ACC has 6 bids locked up right now-- Clemson, Tech, and/or FSU need to do more" Evans

feldspar
02-26-2007, 03:14 PM
I have no problem being a 6-seed. I'd rather be a 6 than a 5, that's for sure. But I'd rather be a 2 than a 3. Who knows what could happen between now and Selection Sunday, though.

BTW, good to have you back, Jason.

dockfan
02-26-2007, 03:18 PM
I totally agree- I think Lunardi is way off. But, that being said, I'm fine with expecting a 4 or 5 seed and then being pleasantly surprised on Selection Sunday.

How sweet would it be to be the 2 or 3 seed in a region with Ohio State or Wisconsin at the 1 seed, and Memphis at the 2 or 3? I like our chances! Plus, I love the thought of Zoubek getting a chance to bang with Oden or Josh taking Oden on the perimeter. Not to mention our ability to extend on 3 point shooters- I can't see Ohio State beating us on midrange shots.

JasonEvans
02-26-2007, 03:29 PM
Work left to do--

Ga Tech- I think that a win against UNC will get them in so long as they do not follow it up by losing to both BC and their first round ACC opponent (especially if it is Wake or NC State). If they lose to Carolina then a loss to BC is pretty much a death blow. Even if they beat BC, they will need at least one and maybe even 2 ACC tourney wins to get to the dance. With 3 guaranteed games lefft, they are at 18 wins. I think 20 probably gets them in. 21 makes them a sure-thing. 19 and they head to the NIT.

FSU- Winning at Miami is a given to even be in the conversation. If they win their first round ACC tourney game after beating Miami then I think they may be in. That would give them 20 wins (and 8 in the ACC) against one of the nation's toughest schedules. Lose at Miami and you almost certainly need to make the ACC semifinals and maybe even the finals.

Clemson- If any ACC team is going to win 20 and not get invited, it is the Tigers. They are at 19 wins and damn well better beat Miami at home this week to get to 20. The problem is, especially when you look at their weak non-conf slate, 20 doesn't mean as much from them. If they follow up Miami with a win at Va Tech then their fortune really turns and they might even be in at that point. It would depend upon what other buble teams are doing and if there are some nasty upsets that send undeserving teams to the dance. without a victoy over Va Tech, they may need to make the ACC semifinals. Bottom line-- I think they need 21, maybe even 22 victories to feel safe at this point.

Everyone else is in.

--Jason "I've noticed FSU talking up Douglas' return lately. If he actually plays in the ACC tourney and plays well, that really helps their bid and seed chances" Evans

mph
02-26-2007, 03:47 PM
I agree. It seems like the most likely outcome will be a seed somewhere in the 3-4 range with 2 as our best case scenario and 6 as our worst care scenario. If we take care of business at home, we should eliminate a 6 seed from the range of possibilites.

I actually like FSU's chances. Florida, at Duke, and VT are all good wins, they look good to finish 8-8 in the league and, as you already mentioned, will finish with one of the 20 most difficult schedules. I also think the committee will take into account the fact that much of their schedule difficulty was voluntary (at Pittsburgh, at Wisconsin, and Florida). I also wonder if the committee will have last year on their minds if FSU is one of the last 2-3 teams on the bubble.

Bob Green
02-26-2007, 03:59 PM
...are focused on ratings more than basketball analysis. That is unfortunate but it is reality. ESPN is playing the Duke hand for maximum effect. First, we were in danger of being NIT bound, then we rebounded to be a mid-level seed, now we need one more victory to move past our current #5 position.

We will be a #3 or #4 seed, IMO.

FSU & Clemson have much work to accomplish to earn an invitation. The ACC will max out at seven bids or possible just six.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

wilson
02-26-2007, 04:04 PM
I too would have little problem with a 6 seed...I guarantee that no 3 seed would want to see us in the second round. I nevertheless think 6 is horribly low. What I really don't get is that kuralonna, with 4 losses, is a distinct possibility (and not far from an outright lock) for a 1 seed, whereas our 7 losses push us far enough down to even be mentioned as a 6, with a stronger schedule in the same conference.
If I had to predict just one number, I'd project us as a 4 right now. Might be kind of nice...I agree with others that we just may actually be peaking at the right time this year, and it'll definitely be fun to play the hunter as opposed to the hunted (at least for a round or two).

Indoor66
02-26-2007, 04:07 PM
...are focused on ratings more than basketball analysis. That is unfortunate but it is reality. ESPN is playing the Duke hand for maximum effect. First, we were in danger of being NIT bound, then we rebounded to be a mid-level seed, now we need one more victory to move past our current #5 position.

We will be a #3 or #4 seed, IMO.

FSU & Clemson have much work to accomplish to earn an invitation. The ACC will max out at seven bids or possible just six.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan


I think you are dead on. If we win out through the ACC Tourney we are a 2 :rolleyes:

trajanthegreat
02-26-2007, 04:17 PM
Carolina 2
Duke 3
Va Tech 4
Maryland 6
BC 6
UVA 7

Out (Clemson, GTech, FSU)

JasonEvans
02-26-2007, 04:21 PM
Carolina 2
Duke 3
Va Tech 4
Maryland 6
BC 6
UVA 7

Out (Clemson, GTech, FSU)

Care to discuss how you came up with those-- what assumptions you are making in terms of results of upcoming games-- or did you just sorta do it by feel?

-Jason "I really think FSU and Tech have a good shot at getting a bid" Evans

bird
02-26-2007, 04:27 PM
The conventional wisdom seems to be that getting a top 4 seed is important -- there is a big difference between a 4 and 5 or 6 seed. Is the CW true or false? If true, is Duke on the "bubble" seeding wise?

trajanthegreat
02-26-2007, 04:34 PM
Sure, I think the Committee will reward the two Big 10 schools with #1's. One will go to Kansas/A&M and the other to Florida. I think even if Carolina pulls out the ACC tourney, they fall to a 2 (b/c they are losing in Cameron).

As pointed out by others, Duke at a 3 is about right, unless we win out, which is ambitious. Maryland is hot at the right time, which goes a long way to undoing their terrible start. BC's 10 ACC wins are hard to ignore, but I think their last 10 and loss of Williams (not to mention underachieving in past few tourneys) will hurt them. UVA is a tough call but I see them stumbling early in the ACC tourney.

I would love to see Clemson make it in but their finish in league play will keep them out. You may be right that one of the other 2 will get a bid, but I think it would take a run into the ACC semis for either. The ACC deserves 7, no doubt. But, unless one of those 2 does something special over the next two weeks, I see the Committee looking elsewhere.

delfrio
02-26-2007, 04:39 PM
CollegeRPI.com has us as a #3 already, in a bracket with Florida as the #1 and Texas A&M as our #2. Michigan State is the #6 we are likely to face in the round of 32. I’d take that bracket in a heartbeat!!

-Jason "ACC has 6 bids locked up right now-- Clemson, Tech, and/or FSU need to do more" Evans

Jason,
This may be looking too far ahead, but why would you want to be in the same bracket as Florida? They seem like the most dangerous #1.

JasonEvans
02-26-2007, 04:52 PM
Jason,
This may be looking too far ahead, but why would you want to be in the same bracket as Florida? They seem like the most dangerous #1.

First of all, so long as we are not a #4 or #5, I am just not worrying too much about who the #1 is in our bracket. We would play the #1 in the Final 8 and at that point, you are playing a great team no matter what. Plus, forecsating all the way to the final 8 is a crapshoot. Plenty of very strong #1s lose before getting to the final 8.

Secondly, while I agree that Florida is very good, I'd much rather play them than UCLA, Wisconsin, or especially Ohio State. I think Florida loafs a lot and, sorta like UConn last year, thinks they are entitled to things instead of fighting for them. Florida can be had.

I hate our matchups versus ultra-quick teams like UCLA and Wisconsin. I don't want to see Memphis as our #2 either (i we get a #3) because they too are insanely quick. Speed is my biggest fear for this team. I think super-speed is the hardest thing for our D to handle and, as we all know, our D is our life.

As for OSU, they too are fast but the reason they scare me is Oden. I think he would just kill McBob and Nelson's ability to take the ball to the hoop. All those drive and dish buckets we get go away against OSU because the other OSu players don't help off their men as much because Oden can provide all the help they need all by himself. Plus, I suspect that as Oden gets healthier, Ohio State becomes increasingly impossible to beat. Yes, he is that good.

So, give me Florida, the team that thinks it can turn it on when it needs to. Teams like that NEVER win the title and it seems they are always upset victims (see UConn 2006 and Duke 2002 for recent examples).

-Jason "lets just run the table and be a #2, ok?" Evans

Clipsfan
02-26-2007, 05:00 PM
I was just thinking that if we run the table, we'll be a very similar 2 seed to UCLA last year. They finished the season strongly after some rough patches, and entered the tourney on a high note. I'm not saying that we'll make the finals or anything, but I'd love to see the recent play continue. I think that a key element will have to be finding a go-to scorer, as right now our offense looks ragged when we "need" to score, especially at the ends of halves.

JasonEvans
02-26-2007, 05:26 PM
The conventional wisdom seems to be that getting a top 4 seed is important -- there is a big difference between a 4 and 5 or 6 seed. Is the CW true or false? If true, is Duke on the "bubble" seeding wise?

There is at least a subtle difference in each of them.

#4 seeds and #5 seeds face #1 seeds in the Sweet 16. This year especially, the #1 seeds seem to be a LOT stronger than many of the #2 seeds. I know more than a few Duke fans who say they would rather be a #6 than a #4 so they could avoid UCLA, Florida, Ohio State as long as possible.

A lot of folks think the #5 is a very bad seed to be in because the #5s have a dreadful record in first round games against the #12 (at least that is the perrception, I forget how true it turns out to be). The #12s tend to be the very best of the teams that made the dance from the small conferences. Meanwhile, the #5s tend to be largely major conference teams who were good, but not great. Yup, the kind of team that is ripe for an upset. There are some NCAA Tourney watchers who consider the #5 to be the worst seed to bet upon.

--Jason "as I have been saying, lets get a #2 and not worry about all this :cool: " Evans

trajanthegreat
02-26-2007, 05:38 PM
I think that a key element will have to be finding a go-to scorer, as right now our offense looks ragged when we "need" to score, especially at the ends of halves.

Agreed. Seems that K is intent on having that clutch scorer be McRoberts, and by way of clearing out and letting him create off the dribble. Not saying this won't work, but it's getting pretty predictable. I'd like to see them run Scheyer off a double screen once in a while. My gut tells me he'll drain it.

hurleyfor3
02-26-2007, 05:41 PM
Sure, I think the Committee will reward the two Big 10 schools with #1's. One will go to Kansas/A&M and the other to Florida. I think even if Carolina pulls out the ACC tourney, they fall to a 2 (b/c they are losing in Cameron).

They're playing in Cameron again?

trajanthegreat
02-26-2007, 05:43 PM
They're playing in Cameron again?

Good point. Amazing how quick I blocked that out.

DomerDevil
02-26-2007, 05:44 PM
Stewart Mandel has us currently with a four seed. But the interesting thing in his article is that he mentions that unbalanced conference schedules will be a variable with the Committee. (I missed this over the weekend.) The example he uses is with "bubble teams," but it would seem to apply for seeding as well. That might help us considering (a) the overall strength of the ACC vis-a-vis other conferences and (b) our schedule in the ACC. Has anyone heard anything official about unbalanced conference schedules will impact seeding by the Committee?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/02/26/road.tourney/1.html

Bob Green
02-26-2007, 06:05 PM
Over the past seven years, eleven #12 seeds have won their first round game:

2006 - Texas A&M beat Syracuse, Montana beat Nevada
2005 - Wis-Mil beat Alabama
2004 - Pacific beat Providence, Manhatten beat Florida
2003 - Butler beat Miss St.
2002 - Tulsa beat Marquette, Creighton beat Florida, Missouri beat Miami
2001 - Utah St. beat Ohio St., Gonzaga beat Virginia
2000 - none

Over the same seven years, nine #11 seeds have won their first round game:

2006 - Mil-Wis beat Oklahoma, George Mason beat Michigan State
2005 - UAB beat LSU
2004 - none
2003 - C. Michigan beat Creighton
2002 - S. Illinois beat Texas Tech, Wyoming beat Gonzaga
2001 - Georgia St beat Wisconsin, Temple beat Texas
2000 - Pepperdine beat Indiana

So it appears that the #5 and #6 seeds have been a dangerous places the past seven years.

The bottom line is no matter where you are seeded you have to show up and play solid basketball to advance.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

A-Tex Devil
02-26-2007, 06:25 PM
Any seed from 2-6 would be fine with me in all honesty. The teams in that range are that close. I think there is a drop off at 7, though, and the disparity between a 7 and 2 is much starker in the second round (not to mention the danger of the 10 in the first round!).

I think we'll do better against 1 man teams like Texas and Nevada. Not a lot of those this year, though. One team I don't want any part of are the aggys (Texas A&M for those not up on their derogatory nicknames). Their offense and defense have both been running like clockwork in recent weeks. If our offense isn't clicking against them, we'd be lucky to score 50.

longtimefan
02-26-2007, 06:49 PM
Carolina 2
Duke 4
Va Tech 4
Maryland 5
BC 6
UVA 7
FSU or GT one or the other 12
Out (Clemson)

KyDevilinIL
02-26-2007, 07:04 PM
The thing about being a No. 6 is that we would get some sort of sluggish major conference team -- Illinois, for example, or maybe like Seton Hall last year -- that makes it in by the skin of their teeth and has little mojo.

If we're going to be a No. 3 or a No. 6, I'd rather play someone like that than a scrappy mid-major No. 14 with nothing to lose, such as Winthrop, or Murray State back in 1997.

AFter the first round, though, it's toss-up.

dukie8
02-26-2007, 07:05 PM
what are you people thinking saying that you would be happy with a 5 or 6? it's the top 4 that get protected and get to play close to home. i realize that we lost to michigan st 2 years ago close to home, but it has to be easier to drive to the game than to fly through several time zones.

i agree that lunardi is way off with us as a 5. we definitely are a 4 and i think that we are borderline 3. does he even look at the numbers? we have a 9 rpi off the 3rd hardest schedule and no bad losses (did everyone notice that ga tech slipped to 51 so we lost a top 50 win and picked up a 51-100? if we 1 of 2 this week and then win 2 in the accs, we should a 3. there just are not 12 teams with better resumes than that. it will be interesting to see if the committee follows the biased media and doesn't seed us accordingly.

as for teams that i would like to see in our bracket, i would love to see wisconsin, memphis, nevada (if the committee is delusional and follows lunardi by giving them a 4 seed) and byu/air force. i watched wisconsin twice last week and, other than tucker, they have zero offense. our defense would focus on him and the rest of those guys will not be able to pick up the slack. i think that we could hold them in the 40s (ohio st did). i watched memphis rally to beat a very mediocre gonzaga team. those guys brick ft after ft and are suffering from unlvitis (no competition during the regular season). as painful as some of our games have been, our guys definitely have gotten a lot of experience playing pressure-packed close games (in the 2nd half).

Bob Green
02-26-2007, 07:11 PM
IMO, we will be a 3 or 4 seed. I stated that earlier in the thread. I provided all the 5 & 6 data, but I did not mean to imply we deserved to be a 5 or 6 seed. Additionally. Lunardi and ESPN are focused on ratings (i.e. controversy) not solid basketball analysis.

I agree with you that we could shutdown Wisconsin and Nevada. Memphis is very fast and that scares me. However, this Duke team has the potential to beat anyone if we can put together a full 40 minutes.

It looks like you and I finally agree on something!

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

dukie8
02-26-2007, 07:19 PM
it must be the new board! i agree that memphis is very athletic and quick but they are nowhere near as good as the memphis team was last year, played a weaker oos this year and are terrible from the line (that was what kept a mediocre gonzaga team in the game).

the teams i want no part of are: ucla, ohio st, kansas and any of the acc teams.

Caulk
02-26-2007, 07:28 PM
I think being a 3.4 or 5 is bit refreshing this year. When Duke is a #1 seed we get a easy game at first, then generally a underachieving but very talented team in the second round. Sweet sixteen games have been very tough for Duke the last few years as well. Maybe this year the field will open up a bit.

wilson
02-26-2007, 07:58 PM
Much like everyone else, I think Lunardi's projection of Duke as a 5 seed is totally bogus. I do, however, love one part of his latest bracket. He has Florida as a 2 seed in kuralonna's region:

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

Boy would I love to hear the whining from chapel hill if that shook out (but let's be honest, it won't).

Buckeye Devil
02-26-2007, 08:18 PM
I totally agree- I think Lunardi is way off. But, that being said, I'm fine with expecting a 4 or 5 seed and then being pleasantly surprised on Selection Sunday.

How sweet would it be to be the 2 or 3 seed in a region with Ohio State or Wisconsin at the 1 seed, and Memphis at the 2 or 3? I like our chances! Plus, I love the thought of Zoubek getting a chance to bang with Oden or Josh taking Oden on the perimeter. Not to mention our ability to extend on 3 point shooters- I can't see Ohio State beating us on midrange shots.

I could be totally wrong, but I don't think Duke matches up well with Ohio State. Oden is not as developed as he could be offensively in part to his right hand still being only at about 75-80%, but he would eat Zoubek alive if Z was in the game. And Oden would not necessarily always have to guard McRoberts (there are other options and plenty of fouls to give from the bench), plus OSU has the ability to, and will play some zone. I do not like the potential Paulus vs. Mike Conley Jr. matchup either. In short, I think OSU's quickness, depth, and inside/outside ability would pose serious trouble for the Devils. Even though Duke has the edge with Coach K, a Xavier team coached by Thad Matta and short on talent gave the '04 Final 4 team all that it could handle before finally losing in the Elite 8. I prefer to be in another region with another #1 seed.

hurleyfor3
02-26-2007, 08:34 PM
Much like everyone else, I think Lunardi's projection of Duke as a 5 seed is totally bogus. I do, however, love one part of his latest bracket. He has Florida as a 2 seed in kuralonna's region:

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

Boy would I love to hear the whining from chapel hill if that shook out (but let's be honest, it won't).


That makes sense. Weakest #1 should get the strongest #2. One can even argue Flawda and unc should be switched.

I wouldn't mind that draw at all for Duke. If we're any good we have to face a #1 at some point, and there's nobody on the bottom half that region that scares me (we already beat Gtown).

dukestheheat
02-26-2007, 09:07 PM
jason,

great to see you back on the board! i think duke is a 3 in the ncaa if we beat maryland and can win at least 2 or maybe 3 games in the acc tourney. our numbers are looking very strong right now (RPI, SOS, NON-CONF SOS, NON-CONF RPI andNCAA rank of 9 on their official website including games through 2/25).

at any rate, the team is looking better.

GO DUKE!

dth.

throatybeard
02-26-2007, 09:08 PM
I'm fairly certain that, in the 64-team era, the 6 seed has a better 1st-round record than the 5 seed.

hurleyfor3
02-26-2007, 09:27 PM
I'm fairly certain that, in the 64-team era, the 6 seed has a better 1st-round record than the 5 seed.

You are correct. Since 1985, five-seeds are 59-29 and sixes are 61-27.

It's even worse for the fives if you include the entire tournament. Fives are 101-88; sixes are 113-87. No five has ever won a title; two sixes have (Ncsu '83 and Kansas '88).

KyDevilinIL
02-26-2007, 09:50 PM
I wouldn't mind that draw at all for Duke. If we're any good we have to face a #1 at some point, and there's nobody on the bottom half that region that scares me (we already beat Gtown).

I absolutely loathe tournament rematches against teams we beat in the regular season. Those games really give me the creeps. Seems like they often put the team who won first at a distinct disadvantage.

On an unrelated note, I'll join the chorus of those calling shenanigans on Lunardi's latest bracket. No way, come Selection Sunday, that we'll be seeded worse than Nevada or UNLV, for example.

If Florida does wind up a No. 2, though, I sure as heck don't wanna be their No. 3. That's the one team that, when they are playing well, scares the daylights out of me. We can wonder if they've lost their interest and/or mojo -- and there's reason to believe they might have -- but I want nothing to do with them.

KyDevilinIL
02-26-2007, 09:52 PM
I absolutely loathe tournament rematches against teams we beat in the regular season.

Before someone asks, I can't right off hand recall a recent example where this worked against Duke. I was mainly thinking about the experiences of some other teams, as well as the general psychology of such a situation.

hurleyfor3
02-26-2007, 10:03 PM
While the bracketologists™ generally do a good job of predicting the teams in the tournament, they're usually way off on the actual draws, regarding who's in which region, seeding etc. There's a big difference between, say, a three and a four regarding which chunk of the bracket you get.

The ones and twos are often pretty well set by the time the dust clears on the conference tournaments, but after that the draw is anyone's guess, despite what I wrote a few posts back.

So I wouldn't be too worried about actually getting Georgetown or Air Force or whomever again. Heck, this year I WANT another crack at VPI and even BC, and what would we have to lose by playing unc again?

Also... I have no idea what kind of team Unlv has this year but it would be fun to play them. Imagine the hype on ESPN.

dukie8
02-26-2007, 10:06 PM
how about 2005?

tommy
02-26-2007, 11:34 PM
Sure, I think the Committee will reward the two Big 10 schools with #1's. One will go to Kansas/A&M and the other to Florida. I think even if Carolina pulls out the ACC tourney, they fall to a 2 (b/c they are losing in Cameron).

UCLA is a mortal lock at this point for #1 in the west, or whatever they call it now. What will be interesting is which of the 5 top teams gets left with a #2. I had thought it would be the Big 10 runner-up, but with those teams splitting games, and the OSU win being so close yesterday, if they meet in the Big 10 tourney and it's close again, they both would probably get #1 seeds unless UNC runs the table.

darthur
02-27-2007, 12:08 AM
A lot of people seem to think we could be a 3 seed. What assumptions are you all making on how we end the season?

Anything less than 2 more losses would be a real accomplishment, and would we really be in the running for a 3 seed after 2 losses?

tommy
02-27-2007, 12:21 AM
I think we lose at UNC and lose somewhere in the ACC tournament. So with 9 losses, I can't see us as a 3 seed. Due to our SOS and RPI, and a strong last 1/3 of the season, I can see us as a 4 or a 5. Has anyone done any historical research -- has a team with 9 losses ever been a 3 seed?

wilson
02-27-2007, 07:27 AM
Has a team with 9 losses ever been a 3 seed?

I was surprised to find so easily that in 2001 (good tournament that year, as I recall ;) ), Maryland was a 3 seed with 10 losses, and the 4 seed in their region was Indiana, who came in with 12:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0881083.html

So yes, there is at least one bit of precedent there, and I'm sure there's more out there. This is just the first thing Google brought back.

KyDevilinIL
02-27-2007, 07:29 AM
how about 2005?

Perfect example.

gw67
02-27-2007, 08:03 AM
In my view, the seedings for Duke and the other ACC teams is not as important as the bracket and location where the games are played. Sure, the seedings are intended to reflect the relative strengths of the teams but the Selection Committee often moves teams around and raises/lowers their seeding to meet a myriad of their rules.

Give me a relatively good bracket and sites near home and we can take our chances.

gw67

dukie8
02-27-2007, 08:14 AM
i'm assuming a split this week and 2 wins in the acc tournament. that would mean 2 more losses and 2 more wins against tournament teams (plus another win against an nit team). if you don't think that that resume earns a 3 seed, then provide 12 teams and i will find at least 1 that will have a worse resume. i also agree with other people that, while fun to speculate on, at the end of the day the actual seed means very little. this year, more than any i can remember, the teams seem so even. can anyone remember another year where the projected 1 seeds suffered 4 losses the second to last week of the season? also, being close to home is nice for the fans and easy for the players but we don't have the greatest track record close to home (eg, 2005), the 2 closest venues will be decidedly anti duke (ws and lexington) and we won at least 1 of the national championships from far away (was it 1991?) the bottom line is that you are going to be playing good teams starting in round 1 and are going to have to beat good teams if you want to advance.

feldspar
02-27-2007, 08:17 AM
this year, more than any i can remember, the teams seem so even. can anyone remember another year where the projected 1 seeds suffered 4 losses the second to last week of the season?


Eh, last year it felt like there was no clear-cut national champion when the tournament started (unless you were a UConn fan, and we all know how that turned out). The field is just as wide open this year, really anything can happen. LOTS of peoples' brackets got busted last year by teams like LSU, George Mason, Wichita St. and there is definitely the potential for that again this year.

dukie8
02-27-2007, 08:39 AM
last year, duke steamrolled into the tournament and was a clear #1 seed. uconn, despite the blip to syracuse, also steamrolled in. they had won 16 of their last 18 with the only losses at an outstanding villanova team by 5 and syracuse in the be tournament. even memphis had won 22 of 23 heading into the tournament with the only loss at a tough uab team by 6.

this year, i don't even think that there is going to be agreement on who the 4 1s are because all of them have sizeable warts. the florida loss to last place lsu without their best player was horrible. ohio got blown out by florida, unc and wisc (i know oden wasn't there for 2 of them and they were on the road but still). unc lost to a bad nc st team, va tech twice and maryland. wisc now has lost 2 in a row and now everyone knows they can't score. ucla is the one team who seems to have done the least bad things and they still lost at wvu (without their pg). with all these slip ups, kansas, with its early season terrible losses, has now crept into the 1 seed picture.

last year, where 3 of the 1s were flying into the tournment, is nothing close to this year where all of the teams in contention for a 1 seed have been slipping up.

blazindw
02-27-2007, 10:53 AM
I'd like to see us as a 2, 3 or 6. Anything that keeps us on the other side of the bracket from the 1 seed. The bracket predictions that have us as a 6 seed or 3 seed have us playing in some very favorable regions that could help us make a great run in the tourney. One thing that's great though is that we're playing much better, and should we continue this kind of play, we should be a 2 or 3 seed come tourney time.

Troublemaker
02-27-2007, 10:59 AM
I'd like to see us as a 2, 3 or 6. Anything that keeps us on the other side of the bracket from the 1 seed.

I agree with what gw said above. It just depends on matchups. I would take a 4/5 seed with Wisconsin/OSU/Pittsburgh/Georgetown as the 1 seed over being a 3 seed with UCLA/Florida as the 2 seed, for example. For that reason, I'm not going to fret too much about seeding.

Carter431
02-27-2007, 11:34 AM
Where does everyone think we will play our first and second rounds? I'm curious because I tried to guess ahead of time and have decided to convienantly go visit my uncle in Columbus, Ohio on March 15-19. He can get me pretty good seats inside Nationwide Arena.

ikiru36
02-27-2007, 12:03 PM
Where does everyone think we will play our first and second rounds? I'm curious because I tried to guess ahead of time and have decided to convienantly go visit my uncle in Columbus, Ohio on March 15-19. He can get me pretty good seats inside Nationwide Arena.

If we are a Top 4 seed, Winston-Salem is our most likely location, regardless of which region we are in due to the POD system (if I'm correct that this still exists.) At this point not knowing our seeding it is simply far to soon to hazard a guess, but once again, if we are a Top 4 seed then that seems the most likely place to me.

OTOH, if we were a 4 but UNC and Virginia Tech were nevertheless seeded higher than us, they might be in Winston-Salem and us elsewhere.

As 1st weekend locations go, I would rather be in Columbus or Buffalo than Lexington. Could be wrong but they don't seem to like us too well, round those parts.

Clipsfan
02-27-2007, 01:03 PM
I agree with what gw said above. It just depends on matchups. I would take a 4/5 seed with Wisconsin/OSU/Pittsburgh/Georgetown as the 1 seed over being a 3 seed with UCLA/Florida as the 2 seed, for example. For that reason, I'm not going to fret too much about seeding.

I don't think that there is any chance that UCLA is a 2 seed. They've got the best record, the best RPI, and one of their 3 losses was on in road without their PG (and will be viewed in that light by the comm.) The team isn't the same without Collison.

Indoor66
02-27-2007, 01:11 PM
UCLA is a mortal lock at this point for #1 in the west, or whatever they call it now. What will be interesting is which of the 5 top teams gets left with a #2. I had thought it would be the Big 10 runner-up, but with those teams splitting games, and the OSU win being so close yesterday, if they meet in the Big 10 tourney and it's close again, they both would probably get #1 seeds unless UNC runs the table.

I think Wiscy is questionable for a 1 after the injury to Butch.