PDA

View Full Version : Premature Bracketology



Olympic Fan
01-17-2010, 12:36 PM
Crash Davis believed in opening Christmas presents on Christmas morning and not Christmas night and that Oswald acted alone. I have always believed that you don't hang Christmas decorations (or run Christmas sales advertising) until after Thanksgiving and you don't get excited about the next presidential election until the previous off-year elections are done in November.

I also firmly believe that you don't start worrying about bracketology and the bubble until the first of February.

I'm going to break my own rule to talk about two teams -- the two bastions of NCAA Tournament futility: Northwestern and Army.

Now, with the rush to grab a piece of the NCAA payday, literally hundreds of small schools have moved up to Division 1 and have, so far, failed to crack the field. But I'm pretty sure that Northwestern and Army are the only two schools that have been eligibily for NCAA selection since the tourney began in 1939 that have NEVER gotten a bid (I'm positive that neither has gotten a bid and pretty sure that no other school meets that criteria).

I bring this up because both schools have a reasonable shot at earning an NCAA bid this season.

Northwestern helped its case Saturday night with an upset of No. 5 Purdue (which, to be fair, has now lost three straight in the Big 10). That improved the Wildcats to 13-4 -- a record that includes wins over Purdue (at home), Notre Dame, Iowa State and Stanford (all on neutral courts) and on the road at NC State and Michigan. The four losses have all been to teams that are either in the top 25 now or have been at some point this season -- at Illinois, Butler, Wisconsin and Michigan State.

All that said, at the moment, Northwestern is probably out. Neither Jerry Palm, nor Joe Lundardi -- the two best national prognosticators -- have them in the field. Northwestern is ranked No. 60 in the RPI and No. 65 by both Sagarin and Pomeroy. That's usually not quite good enough to get in.

Still, they are close and it will be fun to see if the Wildcats can win enough to get over the line.

Army is in a different case. No way the Cadets -- ranked between 150-200 in the major rankings -- get an at-large bid. They are in a one-bid league and that bid will be determined in the Patriot League Tournament.

However, what makes this interesting to watch is the fact that 11-5 Army is the top-rated team -- in the RPI, Sagarin and Pomeroy -- in the Patriot League. Right now, they trail Lafayette in the standings, but clearly they'll be a factor at tournament time.

As for the ACC, it's still too early to judge -- Lunardi has seven ACC teams in his most recent mock bracket (last Monday) and Palm has eight in the bracket he filled out Friday -- and he included FSU among his last four out (on the other hand, he included Miami, Va Tech and Georgia Tech among his last four in).

One last point for something to follow. In Joe Lunardi's blog today, he became the first national writer to suggest that UNC might have to worry about getting into the field, unless they start winning. Both he and Palm had them safely in their brackets -- although Lunardi's choices were made before the Clemson and GTech games; Palm (which had them as a No. 6 seed) was made before the homecourt loss to Ga Tech.

Right now, UNV is No. 55 in the RPI; No. 46 in Pomeroy and No. 35 in Sagarin. Based on past selections, the NCAA at-large cutoff is usually around 43-45 (although a handful of weaker ranked teams have made it over the years).

It's going to be fun to watch Northwestern and Army bid to break their NCAA jinx ... and see if UNC has to struggle to make the field.

arnie
01-17-2010, 12:46 PM
One last point for something to follow. In Joe Lunardi's blog today, he became the first national writer to suggest that UNC might have to worry about getting into the field, unless they start winning. Both he and Palm had them safely in their brackets -- although Lunardi's choices were made before the Clemson and GTech games; Palm (which had them as a No. 6 seed) was made before the homecourt loss to Ga Tech.


The Heels can still celebrate if they don't get in - another possible 3rd place NIT banner to hang high and quite possibly the Helms Foundation will posthumously award them "2010 NCAA champions if they weren't so young". That banner would look nice next to the other Helms Foundation banner.

78Devil
02-22-2010, 02:24 PM
While none of us want to count our chickens before they hatch, for purposes of this post let's assume we get a No. 2 seed in the NCAAs.

Until today, I have seen lots of speculation putting us in the same region with Kentucky (I would welcome that, since I think we can beat them).

But in today's USA Today, they project us as the No. 2 seed in the Midwest, with Kansas. (The East is Purdue, followed by Villanova; the West is Syracuse followed by KState, and the South is Kentucky followed by WVa). That seeding would be very hard on us, as it puts us up against the top team in the country. Essentially, doesn't that mean they have us as the weakest No. 2?

I know some of this is premature, as the performance of all of the likely No. 2 seeds from here on out will determine alot. But I am curious mainly because this is the first time I saw anything like that.

What is the thinking here? Is USA Today off target, or are we likely to get thrown under the bus? Is this a comment on the perceived weakness of the ACC in general?

Zeb
02-22-2010, 02:27 PM
I'm not one of those curmudgeons who bemoans every posting musing about something hypothetical as worthless or irrelevant.

That said, worrying about matchups in hypothetical brackets is pretty damn close to worthless and irrelevant.

ChicagoCrazy84
02-22-2010, 02:36 PM
I'm not one of those curmudgeons who bemoans every posting musing about something hypothetical as worthless or irrelevant.

That said, worrying about matchups in hypothetical brackets is pretty damn close to worthless and irrelevant.


I agree. There is a lot of basketball to be played and I don't even think it's out of the question that Duke gets a #1 seed. I am not going to worry right now about POSSIBLY playing in Kansas' bracket.

With that said, you don't have to be so MEAN about it.

DukeGirl4ever
02-22-2010, 02:37 PM
Every year I see hypothetical match-ups and I get freaked out about them, and every year when the actual bracket comes out, it is nothing like the hypothetical match-ups. I then come to find I like the hypothetical match-up to begin with!

I originally saw us with Kentucky as the 1, Duke as 2, Georgetown as a 3, and Pitt as a 4. Again, its hypothetical, but man I'd love a re-match with the Hoyas on a neutral site.

Zeb
02-22-2010, 02:52 PM
With that said, you don't have to be so MEAN about it.

I appreciate your edit from the initial version. (Maybe your hypocrisy alert went off?)

I still don't think my post was MEAN.

ChicagoCrazy84
02-22-2010, 02:55 PM
I appreciate your edit from the initial version. (Maybe your hypocrisy alert went off?)

I still don't think my post was MEAN.


It must have. Luckily I just got new batteries for my hypocrisy detector. :D

OZZIE4DUKE
02-22-2010, 02:56 PM
I think we will be a #1 seed this year.

I am sure that the fans of every team that is in our bracket will be upset/dread that they will have to play us to advance.

It is good to be Duke! :cool:

gumbomoop
02-22-2010, 03:07 PM
I am sure that the fans of every team that is in our bracket will be upset/dread that they will have to play us to advance.

I'm a little surprised you say this. I'd have thought that the combination of ubiquitous Duke-hatred, omnipresent "same old overrated Duke" assumptions, and "Duke plays only 3 guys, what a joke" expertise - that this combo would have fans across the land salivating at the prospect of facing our "amazingly unathletic" guys. I'd have thought mostly ignorant fans would respond to the now-frequently heard, "Duke plays every play," with, "Yeah, badly."

But maybe this team's toughness is evident even to, say, Maryland or UK fans.

No, that can't be right.

CrazieDUMB
02-22-2010, 03:13 PM
Um, I don't think anyone actually gets bothered by hypothetical matchups. I think about them because daydreaming about basketball and arguing on duke message boards is much more fun than my job. As such, allow me to proceed with my fantasy Duke Kansas matchup.

Sherron Collins is the fastest guy on the court and can muscle past anyone duke can throw at him, so he gets 15 first half points. Duke switches to a zone for part of the second half, and he finishes with 22. Zoubek and LT punish Cole Aldrich the whole game, keeping him off the offensive boards and the score sheet; he drops in just 8/10, but also comes up with 5 blocks. Earth, Wind and Scheyer play a very typical Duke offense - not too many spectacular plays against such a good defensive squad, but constantly find the best option on every set. They shoot 47%, and combine for 62 points. Xavier Henry is shocked and confused as a seemingly harmless Scheyer lights it up with deft passing and schrewd maneuvers and cold blooded shooting. Zombie Kyle Singler (http://sethcurrysavesduke.blogspot.com/2010/02/zombie-singler.html#comments) continues his stratospheric rise from his simply above average play during the season to All-American matchup nightmare, and hits 5/8 from 3.

Despite these efforts, Duke remains down by 3 with a minute to go. Cole Aldrich gets the ball in the post, but unused to playing against someone 7-1, thinks he can go over the top and the ball is tipped out to Mason Plumlee, who executes a perfect outlet pass to a streaking Nolan Smith who lays it in for two.Sherron Collins drives on the next possession, finds an open Marcus Morris who clangs an 18 footer off the back of the rim, but Aldrich tips it back to Collins, who gets fouled by Z and hits one of two free throws. With 12 seconds left, K draws up a mind boggling free motion offensive play in which every Duke player touches the ball at various points on the floor. Kyle drives baseline, kicks it to Nolan at the high elbow, who cuts across the key to Dish to Mason who dumps it behind his back to Grant Hill who dishes it under his leg back to the point to Jason Williams who hits a bounce pass to a cutting Shane Battier who lays it up for Nick Horvath who drops the alley-oop but it's picked up by Bobby Hurley who finds Scheyer coming off a screen in the corner to hit a 3 as time expires. Duke wins.

Jarhead
02-22-2010, 03:16 PM
While none of us want to count our chickens before they hatch, for purposes of this post let's assume we get a No. 2 seed in the NCAAs.

Until today, I have seen lots of speculation putting us in the same region with Kentucky (I would welcome that, since I think we can beat them).

But in today's USA Today, they project us as the No. 2 seed in the Midwest, with Kansas. (The East is Purdue, followed by Villanova; the West is Syracuse followed by KState, and the South is Kentucky followed by WVa). That seeding would be very hard on us, as it puts us up against the top team in the country. Essentially, doesn't that mean they have us as the weakest No. 2?

I know some of this is premature, as the performance of all of the likely No. 2 seeds from here on out will determine alot. But I am curious mainly because this is the first time I saw anything like that.

What is the thinking here? Is USA Today off target, or are we likely to get thrown under the bus? Is this a comment on the perceived weakness of the ACC in general?

Well then you will like the ESPN Bracketology (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology) which has us bracketed #2 in the East with Kentucky, #1. In the South it is Syracuse as #1, and K State as #2. In the West it is Purdue #1 with West Virginia at #2. (You know, without West, they would be nothing but Virginia. Old joke.) In the Midwest It is Kansas #1 with Villanova #2. So much for the accuracy of pre March seedings. The two agree only on 'Cuse and K State, but not on the region.

The rankings are out (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/rankings), and we are #5 ahead of Villnova.

pfrduke
02-22-2010, 03:47 PM
Well then you will like the ESPN Bracketology (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology) which has us bracketed #2 in the East with Kentucky, #1. In the South it is Syracuse as #1, and K State as #2. In the West it is Purdue #1 with West Virginia at #2. (You know, without West, they would be nothing but Virginia. Old joke.) In the Midwest It is Kansas #1 with Villanova #2. So much for the accuracy of pre March seedings. The two agree only on 'Cuse and K State, but not on the region.

The rankings are out (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/rankings), and we are #5 ahead of Villnova.

Also interesting to note that (if it all ended today, at least), the ACC's 7 bids are rather comfortable. No team is in the last 4 in, and no team is seeded lower than 10.

Duke - 2
Wake - 6
Maryland - 7
Clemson - 8
FSU - 8
Virginia Tech - 9
Georgia Tech - 10

blueprofessor
02-22-2010, 04:07 PM
Midwest

1. Kansas
2. West Virginia
3. New Mexico
4. Vanderbilt

East

1. Kentucky
2. Villanova
3. Ohio St.
4. Baylor

South

1. Syracuse
2. Kansas St.
3. Georgetown
4. Temple

West

1. Purdue
2. Duke:)
3. Pittsburgh
4. Texas

I like this better.It looks like Palm is rewarding us as the top #2 seed by placing Duke with the lowest #1 seed.
Of course Lunardi (ESPN) wrote that either Purdue or Duke will be the fourth #1 seed depending on how far each goes in the conference tourney.

Best--Blueprofessor:)

78Devil
02-22-2010, 04:11 PM
I'm the one who started a thread today that got consolidated into this one.

Just to clarify, I'm worried less about the actual pairings then what USA Today was trying to say when they placed us with Kansas. Its not so much as whether they are right (as my post indicated, I know that future games will determine that result), as what they were telegraphing with that seed.

For example, one intepretation might mean that the NCAA feels more comfortable placing us in lots of different regions without losing $$ because we are a national fanbase school.

Another interpretation is that they they think the ACC is weak, and thus we are a weak No. 2 seed.

Obviously we don't know the answer, but I respect the collected wisdom of some on these boards so I was merely curious as to comments.

pfrduke
02-22-2010, 04:13 PM
I'm the one who started a thread today that got consolidated into this one.

Just to clarify, I'm worried less about the actual pairings then what USA Today was trying to say when they placed us with Kansas. Its not so much as whether they are right (as my post indicated, I know that future games will determine that result), as what they were telegraphing with that seed.

For example, one intepretation might mean that the NCAA feels more comfortable placing us in lots of different regions without losing $$ because we are a national fanbase school.

Another interpretation is that they they think the ACC is weak, and thus we are a weak No. 2 seed.

Obviously we don't know the answer, but I respect the collected wisdom of some on these boards so I was merely curious as to comments.

A third interpretation is that it's the USA Today, and maybe they don't put a ton of thought in to all of the S-Curve, regional seeding rules, etc., when they do their mock brackets.

hurleyfor3
02-22-2010, 04:23 PM
I'm not one of those curmudgeons who bemoans every posting musing about something hypothetical as worthless or irrelevant.

That said, worrying about matchups in hypothetical brackets is pretty damn close to worthless and irrelevant.

I propose an addition to the Handy Pocket Reference:

Did anyone see website X, where they have us as the Y seed in Z's bracket? That's such an [easy/impossible/unallowable] draw. And check it out, we'd have to play Q in intermediate round R! I think we should be an A seed in B's bracket instead.