PDA

View Full Version : Early Projected Tourney Seedings



airowe
12-22-2009, 03:34 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/andy_glockner/12/22/bracket-watch/index.html


We get a #1 Seed in the West (?)...

wolfpackdevil
12-22-2009, 03:53 PM
I thought that this was a pretty good "bracketology."

Except for him not having Wake Forest in the field of 65. Wake is for sure going to be a at-large bid.

And Duke being a #1 seed is great, even it is in the west. Memphis was the #1 seed in the west a couple years ago. So where your school is geographically doesn't affect where you play.

jv001
12-22-2009, 03:53 PM
But it's way too early to know how this will play out. But it's ok in that we can discuss it. The writer actually says so in the disclaimer. He also says he would favor Syracuse over Duke for a #1 seed, but the committee would pick Duke. I don't believe that because of our lack of success in the tourney in the past few years. Heck, I don't know what to make of Duke as far as how good we are nationally. Based on our defense I think we are pretty good, but just how good I don't have an idea. Go Duke!

Heelkiller1
12-22-2009, 08:32 PM
I would like to say we deserve a number one seed over anyone. But truth be told, it is way to early ,and the loss this year showed me that we need alot of improvment before we can hang the banner this year.But being the glass is half full kinda guy , Number one all the way baby.:D

Jarhead
12-22-2009, 08:56 PM
Here's another link to Bracketology (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology) from Espn. It doesn't have Duke as a #1 seed, but I like it a little better. this must be Joe Lunardi's only assignment at ESPN. He works on it all year, and I never see him do anything else. Oh, yeah, he seeds Duke as #2 in the South Region.

ice-9
12-22-2009, 09:04 PM
Texas looks really impressive this year. Their depth, athleticism, size...yikes. I have to keep reminding myself that we beat them last year (though they added Avery Bradley this year).

JaMarcus Russell
12-22-2009, 11:59 PM
There will definitely be a team playing out of its region as the number one seed in the West this year. There is no chance that a team on the West Coast will even get close to a 1 seed.

I think there are basically six teams with a shot at a 1 seed: Texas, Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, Purdue, and whichever team ends up winning the Big East, whether it is Syracuse, West Virginia, or Villanova.

FireOgilvie
12-23-2009, 12:20 AM
Texas looks really impressive this year. Their depth, athleticism, size...yikes. I have to keep reminding myself that we beat them last year (though they added Avery Bradley this year).

...and J'Covan Brown, who is averaging more points than Bradley, and Jordan Hamilton. That's 3 out of the top 5 scorers that are freshmen. Varez Ward is out, but they have Jai Lucas eligible now. I think Texas is the deepest team in the country.

superdave
12-23-2009, 09:18 AM
As much as I love the guy for pointing out that Dean Smith was a whiney little jerk, Barnes will find a way to blow it with this team. I just dont trust him.

Duke does not deserve a #1 seed though. Possibly a #2, definitely a #3. Of course, it's still December.

Super "Hope to see the ACC play their way into 6-7 tourney team this year" Dave

brevity
12-23-2009, 09:27 AM
There will definitely be a team playing out of its region as the number one seed in the West this year. There is no chance that a team on the West Coast will even get close to a 1 seed.

I was about to say that Kansas or Texas may get shipped out there, but with the Midwest Regional in St. Louis and the South Regional in Houston, that ain't gonna happen.

Also interesting that Syracuse hosts the East Regional, and that no first or second round games are anywhere near North Carolina, or even the mid-Atlantic.

airowe
12-23-2009, 09:41 AM
As much as I love the guy for pointing out that Dean Smith was a whiney little jerk, Barnes will find a way to blow it with this team. I just dont trust him.

Duke does not deserve a #1 seed though. Possibly a #2, definitely a #3. Of course, it's still December.

Super "Hope to see the ACC play their way into 6-7 tourney team this year" Dave

Just as you can't really say we do deserve a #1 seed, you can't really say we don't just yet. The brackets I posted seem like much more of a long term outlook than Lunardi's do. Even if we split with the Heels, winning the last one at home, win another ACC Championship, beat Georgetown at Georgetown, and don't lose more than two or three games in tourney play, I think we'll have a good chance of getting a #1 seed.

If we sweep the Heels and only lose one or two in conference play, it will be hard to keep us out of that spot.

JaMarcus Russell
12-23-2009, 04:02 PM
Duke does not deserve a #1 seed though. Possibly a #2, definitely a #3. Of course, it's still December.

I definitely can't think of 8 teams that I would rank ahead of Duke. Actually, I can't even think of 4 teams with a more impressive resume. For now, I would put the unbeaten teams other than New Mexico ahead of us, but over the next 10 days, I expect to see some of those teams lose.

Texas has been the most impressive team so far. Syracuse has also done very well and should be higher than number 5. Kansas has been good, but their best win so far is their nail-biter against Memphis. We all know what Kentucky has done up to this point with their 2 and 3 point wins over tiny programs although they also beat UNC and UConn. Purdue and West Virginia will be playing each other next week, and West Virginia will be playing a very good Ole Miss squad tonight. I wouldn't be surprised if Duke enters the New Year in the top 5.

UrinalCake
12-23-2009, 04:20 PM
He also says he would favor Syracuse over Duke for a #1 seed, but the committee would pick Duke. I don't believe that because of our lack of success in the tourney in the past few years.

Despite our poor record in the tournament recently, I don't think there was any year that our seeding was out of line based on our performance during the accompanying regular season. Maybe 2007 when we were a #5, but even then I think our "body of work" justified our seeding. The question is whether the tournament committee will factor in our recent tournament failures (relative to our seed) in how they seed us this year... in theory they should not but obviously decisions made by humans are never completely objective.

studdlee10
12-23-2009, 04:27 PM
Texas looks really impressive this year. Their depth, athleticism, size...yikes. I have to keep reminding myself that we beat them last year (though they added Avery Bradley this year).

Texas added more than just Bradley. They added J'Covan Brown, Jai Lucas, Wangmene, AND Jordan Hamilton. That group in itself is a potential top 10 team.

Texas has been the best team in the nation thus far. Scary that they'll get better as Bradley, Hamilton, and Brown get comfortable. Scary, scary team.

devilboomer
12-23-2009, 05:13 PM
FWIW, Texas' top-two scorers from the Duke/Texas game last year are not playing this year: Abrams (17) and Ward (16). We also lost our top scorer in Henderson (24) and Williams (2). IIRC, Gerald basically took that game over at the end.

But I agree that Pittman (8), James (15), Balbay (2), and Mason (3) are MUCH improved this year. Texas is the team I would like to see least in our bracket (which is why we need to get a #1 seed), although I do think Zoubek is a good foil for Pittman.

The freshman for Texas are very talented, but I tend to think that experience matters more than talented freshman...especially in NCAAt games.