PDA

View Full Version : The bid for a No. 1 seed



Pages : [1] 2 3

Olympic Fan
02-07-2010, 01:45 PM
If the NCAA selection were made today, Duke would almost certainly be a No. 2 seed. But I think some commentators have been too quick to dismiss our chances of earning a No. 1 seed.

I know that didn't look likely after our blowout loss at Georgetown, but should a blowout loss to the Hoyas Saturday eliminate Villanova? Look at the presumed No. 1 seeds -- even Kansas is floundering -- in their last three games they've won twice in OT and trailed mediocre Nebraska by four in the second half at home (before pulling away to win). Two weeks ago, Texas looked like a lock No. 1 seed -- now they are in free fall.

I'm not saying Kansas or even Texas won't be a No. 1 seed. And I'm not saying Duke is a favorite to move up a line. I'm just saying the possibility is out there.

Right now, Duke is No. 2 in the Pomery ratings, No. 3 in the RPI and No. 3 in Sagarin. Our SOS is 4-8-5 in the three big computer rankings.

More important -- in terms of predicting seedings -- are the rankings in the AP (tied for 10th) and Coaches polls (9th). While I'm sure we'll move up in Monday's rankings, we won't be in the top five -- not yet.

To vie for a No. 1 seed, Duke obviously will have to finish strong -- maybe a 7-1 record in our final eight regular season games, PLUS an ACC Tournament title. That would be 29-5 ... Tough, but not nearly impossible. And even if we do that, it will still depend a good deal on what other people do -- Kansas and Kentucky (despite their lousy SOS) appear to be pretty solid No. 1s. The schedule appears to favor Syracuse -- after today's game at Cincinnati, they have only Providence and Louisville left on the road.

Certainly today, Georgetown, Villanova and West Virginia would be ahead of us, but they are all in the Big East, so they'll beat each other up. We're in a mix with Michigan State, Texas and Purdue.

This entire situation remainds me of 2005 -- Duke was 18-4 after losing back-to-back games to Maryland and Virginia Tech, but finished 4-1 in the regular season, then won the ACC Tournament, while most of the other contenders faltered in their tournaments ... and Duke got a No. 1 seed.

Not saying it will happen ... only that it's not farfetched.

(I won't go into the scenario that would drop us from our current No. 2 seed to a No. 3 or 4 seed -- but that's a reasonable possibility too).

CameronCrazy'11
02-07-2010, 02:28 PM
I think we would have to run the table. I don't think we can get in 5 losses. Although I think the toughest part of our schedule is behind us (2xGT, 2xClemson, @Georgetown), I still think we will drop at least one more. A 2-seed is probably the most likely outcome.

Bob Green
02-07-2010, 02:41 PM
To vie for a No. 1 seed, Duke obviously will have to finish strong -- maybe a 7-1 record in our final eight regular season games, PLUS an ACC Tournament title. That would be 29-5 ... Tough, but not nearly impossible.

This scenario would definitely put us in contention for a #1 seed. If we end the season 29-5 and ACCT Champions, a #1 seed would be appropriate. As you stated, the Big East teams are going to beat each other up down the stretch.

We need to win out at home and go 3-1 on the road with tough road matchups at UNC, Miami, Virginia, and Maryland. Ending up 2-2 over those four games wouldn't be shabby, but would most likely end our quest for a #1 seed. We absolutely must win all our remaining home games.

It is going to be an exciting stretch run, and the one factor which keeps my excitement level peaked is the hypothesis that this Duke team is a team that still has their best basketball in front of them. We are simultaneously an experienced team and a young team and we are an improving team, which bodes well for March/April.

uh_no
02-07-2010, 03:00 PM
This scenario would definitely put us in contention for a #1 seed. If we end the season 29-5 and ACCT Champions, a #1 seed would be appropriate.

I don't think you can determine it that way. At this point its looking like kansas and UK are shoe ins for 1 seeds. Villanova and Syracuse have 2 and 1 losses and each are currently above us, and at the moment, villanova's losses have each come to ranked teams....something we can't say. Its quite possible that each of those teams finish with 4 losses, and both are #1 seeds....the acc championship won't mean as much this year with the incredible weakness of the conference (relatively).

If MSU wins the big 10, they might also get the nod over us, becuase even though they have 4 losses at the moment, their last one was with a broken kailen lucas....thus will not be factored in. They also have 1 'blowout' to a good wisconsin teams.....ours to NCST will not be looked upon lightly. The juxtaposition of our home and away play will also not be looked upon favorably.

I would also like to point out that currently we are ranked 9/10 in the polls, which would make a 3 seed much more likely at the moment than a two seed, especially with our wins over uconn and clemson looking much less impressive of late. At this point, for us to move up into the top 4 in the ranking will necessitate us to win out, which is obviously not out of the question with our immensely easy rest of the season, but we can't let down. We also will need a lot of help from the teams in front of us, and needing 6 other teams in front of us to lose 1 or 2 more games than us is a very tough call, especially with how good teams like villanova and syracuse are.

I say, even if we run the table, we get a 2.

BlueintheFace
02-07-2010, 03:06 PM
I don't want a #1 seed, no joke. I want a #2 seed.

DevilHorns
02-07-2010, 03:46 PM
I think too much is made of #1 seed. Its all about matchups, If we're a #2, the question is, which #1 would you want in our bracket. I don't want Cuse, I dont want Kansas (well I rather have them over Cuse), I may want Kentucky.....

superdave
02-07-2010, 03:53 PM
We are not one of the top 4 teams in the country. I would assume the seeding committee sees that as well.

Bob Green
02-07-2010, 04:12 PM
We are not one of the top 4 teams in the country. I would assume the seeding committee sees that as well.

Well the computer rankings disagree with you as evidenced in Olympic Fan's original post:


Right now, Duke is No. 2 in the Pomery ratings, No. 3 in the RPI and No. 3 in Sagarin. Our SOS is 4-8-5 in the three big computer rankings.

And the discussion is not about which are the best four teams in the country right now, but rather which four teams will be the best in the middle of March. There is a lot of basketball left to be played prior to the selection committee making their decisions and I do not believe it is unreasonable that Duke could end up a #1 seed.

strawbs
02-07-2010, 05:59 PM
even if we win out the rest of the regular season and acc tourney i don't think we'd get a 1 seed unless there were a lot of losses for the teams above us.
I think we have a very good shot at being a 2 seed if we play well down the stretch. potentially even the top 2 seed, but i don't think a 1 is in duke's cards this year and i don't think they deserve it at this point. I think they are 3 clear number one's: Syracuse, Kansas, and Kentucky. I'm also going to assume that the 4th number one will come from either: Nova, G'town, or WV.

77devil
02-07-2010, 06:08 PM
Even if Duke finishes strong and wins the ACC tournament, I suspect the mediocre performances in the Big Dance in recent years, including the last 2 times Duke was a # 1, will influence the Committee and all but eliminates any chance of a # 1 seed this year.

Bob Green
02-07-2010, 06:29 PM
even if we win out the rest of the regular season and acc tourney i don't think we'd get a 1 seed unless there were a lot of losses for the teams above us.

Not to get too far ahead of ourselves as winning out is a tall order, but a lot of the teams above us are going to lose.

For example, Syracuse, Villanova, Georgetown, and West Virginia are all in the Big East. All but one are guaranteed to lose in the Big East tournament, plus Syracuse has regular season games left with Villanova and Georgetown.

Kansas, Kansas State, and Texas will face off in the Big 12. Michigan State and Purdue in the Big 10.

Only Duke and Kentucky are in a situation where they are the only highly ranked team in their conference....of course, that doesn't guarantee any wins.

Exiled_Devil
02-07-2010, 08:13 PM
Even if Duke finishes strong and wins the ACC tournament, I suspect the mediocre performances in the Big Dance in recent years, including the last 2 times Duke was a # 1, will influence the Committee and all but eliminates any chance of a # 1 seed this year.

Unlike sports commentators and fans, the committee doesn't consider previous years' performance when seeding. Especially tournament performance 4 and 5 years ago.

They seed based on the current year's accomplishments. That's it.

uh_no
02-07-2010, 08:33 PM
Unlike sports commentators and fans, the committee doesn't consider previous years' performance when seeding. Especially tournament performance 4 and 5 years ago.

They seed based on the current year's accomplishments. That's it.

But it would be folley to say that name doesn't have any effect....you could see it with arizona last year, uk the year before....

superdave
02-07-2010, 09:29 PM
OK so we have a chance to dominate our conference. But we likely wont by a whole lot and we likely will come from the 3rd best conference.

Even if our outcomes are 8-3, 9-2, 10-2, 7-4, 9-1 etc, we have a lot in January to answer for.

So likely scenario is two to three more losses, which is fine. But not #1 territory and not a runaway team.

Hmmmmmm

Super ''Im hoping for team improvement from week to week over stats/milestones" Daaaaaaave.

SCMatt33
02-07-2010, 11:09 PM
If MSU wins the big 10, they might also get the nod over us, becuase even though they have 4 losses at the moment, their last one was with a broken kailen lucas....thus will not be factored in.

I don't know if anyone knows for sure, because I've never seen it in writing, but I was wondering if anyone knows for sure about how injuries are handled by the committee. I was always under the impression that games without a key injured player were given less, but not zero, weight provided that said player returned and the team re-established its pre-injury level. There are a few other questions that I have no idea about.

1) Are injuries to role players (a Lance Thomas type) given any consideration at all?
2) How are short term injuries considered? For example, the Kalin Lucas thing. He was out for the loss against Illinois, but there likely won't be a string of games (like OSU with Evan Turner) to prove that the team was worse because he was gone and not just a bad night for everyone else. If they do give less weight, this would seem to unnecessarily punish a team like Clemson for trying to play a guy like Stitt when he was injured.
3) Are teams given more credit for wins when a player is in or out (ex: Will UNC get more credit for beating OSU than Butler)?

I've never seen anything in writing about this. It may be just discretion of the committee, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

uh_no
02-07-2010, 11:37 PM
I don't know if anyone knows for sure, because I've never seen it in writing, but I was wondering if anyone knows for sure about how injuries are handled by the committee. I was always under the impression that games without a key injured player were given less, but not zero, weight provided that said player returned and the team re-established its pre-injury level. There are a few other questions that I have no idea about.

1) Are injuries to role players (a Lance Thomas type) given any consideration at all?
2) How are short term injuries considered? For example, the Kalin Lucas thing. He was out for the loss against Illinois, but there likely won't be a string of games (like OSU with Evan Turner) to prove that the team was worse because he was gone and not just a bad night for everyone else. If they do give less weight, this would seem to unnecessarily punish a team like Clemson for trying to play a guy like Stitt when he was injured.
3) Are teams given more credit for wins when a player is in or out (ex: Will UNC get more credit for beating OSU than Butler)?

I've never seen anything in writing about this. It may be just discretion of the committee, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

Everything is very subjective.....if lance was out, and we lost played markedly different, this would be brought up by the committee

if kailin only misses this game, it will likely be mentioned that he was not there, especially if they don't lose as many similar games

i don't think you get more credit....there are two instances here....that the player is still injured come tourney time, then the commitee would devalue wins when the player WAS there because they're not there anymore, or if the player had returned, then they will look harder at games when teh player was there and not consider as much what happened when he wasn't....I'm not an expert...i don't pretend to be....I do read a bit about the committee and how the process works, and what it sounds like is that its all very subjective.....it goes on a case by case basis....they look at your 'body of work' and pick the better teams....i don't think you can say there are set rules, becuase it really all depends

Jumbo
02-07-2010, 11:45 PM
I'm not sure why you seem to think analysts are "writing Duke off" for a #1 seed. Last week -- right after the Georgetown loss -- Joe Lunardi (http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/insider/news/story?id=4849206)still gave Duke a 30% chance of earning a #1 seed through whatever historical formula he uses -- ahead of Purdue, Texas, Georgetown and Villanova.

RockLobster
02-08-2010, 12:07 AM
Here's MY Top 12:

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, honestly, it is, of course, about matchups. Duke can play with anyone when we execute well. I'm not awfully worried about whether we get a 1 or a 2.

sagegrouse
02-08-2010, 12:42 AM
I think we would have to run the table. I don't think we can get in 5 losses. Although I think the toughest part of our schedule is behind us (2xGT, 2xClemson, @Georgetown), I still think we will drop at least one more. A 2-seed is probably the most likely outcome.

The most important thing for a number one seed in any of the power conferences is to win the conference tournament. Yeah, I know. UNC lost the ACC last year and got a #1, but they were a dominant team nationally.

If Duke wins the regular season ACC and then wins the tournament, we stand a pretty good chance for a #1 seed. In both 2002 and 2005, we were not first in the regular season but won the ACC tourney and got a #1 seed.

The fact is, most everyone in the top ten is going to lose games, especially the four Big East teams ahead of Duke, who will play each other in a number of games. Perhaps Kentucky can waltz through unscathed, although I doubt it. Kansas has looked shaky at times. Those two teams are probably the surest bets for #1 seeds. In the Big East, it will be fratricide, and they may not get two #1 seeds. If they don't, and Duke comes through in the ACC, who is better positioned for a #1? I think we would look better than any of the Big Ten teams. The PAC 10 and Atlantic 10 are not factors. And I doubt that a second place team in the Big 12 (Texas?) would merit a #1

sagegrouse
Rereading this, it sounds like I think I know what I am talking about, which of course is total nonsense'

JG Nothing
02-08-2010, 12:56 AM
The fact is, most everyone in the top ten is going to lose games, especially the four Big East teams ahead of Duke, who will play each other in a number of games. Perhaps Kentucky can waltz through unscathed, although I doubt it. Kansas has looked shaky at times. Those two teams are probably the surest bets for #1 seeds. In the Big East, it will be fratricide, and they may not get two #1 seeds. If they don't, and Duke comes through in the ACC, who is better positioned for a #1? I think we would look better than any of the Big Ten teams. The PAC 10 and Atlantic 10 are not factors. And I doubt that a second place team in the Big 12 (Texas?) would merit a #1

I think our main problem right now is losing two of three out-of-conference games against the current top 25. We will not have a chance to improve that record before the NCAA tourney (unless UCon sneaks back into the top 25).

Exiled_Devil
02-08-2010, 01:27 AM
But it would be folley to say that name doesn't have any effect....you could see it with arizona last year, uk the year before....

The committees argued that the names were not part of that process. If you can provide some evidence other than a Packer-esque declaration of truth (IIRC, that was Vitale's stance on UK) I would love to see it.

Form the great wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_basketball_tournament_selection_process):


The selection committee uses a number of factors to place teams on the S-curve, including record, strength of schedule, the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI), and a team's overall performance in recent games. The RPI rating is often considered a significant factor in selecting and seeding the final few teams in the tournament field, though the selection committee stresses that the RPI is used merely as a guideline and not as an infallible indicator of a team's worth.

There is nothing in there about coaches/AP polls, which is where many people seem tobe coming from here. In RPI, we are still very strong (#2 or so). SOS we are top 10. Record, if we finish out (which is the assumption we started at here) would be 30-4 on selection Sunday, with a 10-0 record for the final month of play. Given the actual criteria for seeding/selection, that's a strong case.

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

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

ice-9
02-08-2010, 11:51 AM
Of the four #1 seeds, I think it's going to come down to the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Neals384
02-08-2010, 01:23 PM
I think our main problem right now is losing two of three out-of-conference games against the current top 25. We will not have a chance to improve that record before the NCAA tourney (unless UCon sneaks back into the top 25).

Agree. We have had our chance to impress the committee with our performance against other conferences. Nothing Duke does from against the ACC from here on out will be enough for a #1 seed.

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

Neal

rotogod00
02-08-2010, 02:04 PM
ESPN's Joe Lunardi's latest Bracketology (updated today) has us back to being a #2 seed in the South. #1 seed in the region is Syracuse and the #3 we'd face in the Sweet 16 is Kansas St.

Saratoga2
02-08-2010, 02:44 PM
Our losses to Wisconsin, Georgetown and GT on the road are understandable and don't hurt our seeding that much. The loss to NC State however is pretty hard to explain, road or none. We were blown out by a team who looks weak on the record.

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

NYC Duke Fan
02-08-2010, 03:13 PM
Here's MY Top 12:

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, honestly, it is, of course, about matchups. Duke can play with anyone when we execute well. I'm not awfully worried about whether we get a 1 or a 2.

Why would Villanove get a #1 seed and Georgetown a #2 seed when Georgetown beat them badly last week ?

tele
02-08-2010, 03:13 PM
I still think the top three 1 loss teams will come back to the rest of the field with a loss or two. It seems likely there will be a 3 loss team and maybe even a 4 loss team getting one seeds. This year who the 3 and 4 seeds are in a bracket may be more important than who you draw as a 1 or 2. Duke could still land a 1, but a two is a definite possibility. That is, unless the UNC games drag down the RPI too much:)

RockLobster
02-08-2010, 03:14 PM
Why would Villanove get a #1 seed and Georgetown a #2 seed when Georgetown beat them badly last week ?

Body of work. G'town may have upset Nova, but Nova has a more impressive resume across the board.

JasonEvans
02-08-2010, 03:15 PM
OK so we have a chance to dominate our conference. But we likely wont by a whole lot and we likely will come from the 3rd best conference.

The ACC is the 3rd best conference? By what measure? All the computers rank us #1 or maybe #2. It is rue that the ACC is not as top heavy as some other leagues that have more top 10-15 teams, especially the Big East. But, when looked at on a whole, the ACC makes a compelling argument as the best league because our middle and bottom as waaaaay better than the middle and especially bottoms of other conferences.

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

-Jason "if we are a #2, I want to be in Kentucky's bracket" Evans

Jumbo
02-08-2010, 04:12 PM
Agree. We have had our chance to impress the committee with our performance against other conferences. Nothing Duke does from against the ACC from here on out will be enough for a #1 seed.

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

Neal

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

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

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

striker219
02-08-2010, 06:41 PM
In his chat today, Joe Lunardi was asked, "If Duke wins the ACC regular season and tournament, is there any way they are not a #1 seed?"

Joe's answer, "Probably not."

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

Jumbo
02-13-2010, 01:03 AM
So, in today's bracketology, Lunardi had Duke with a 35% chance (http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/insider/news/story?id=4908010) of landing a #1 seed. And that was before West Virginia lost at Pitt. Duke obviously has to take care of its own business, but if the team can finish the season with a major winning streak, the opportunity to grab a top seed should be there.

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

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

Obviously, there's a lot of ball left to be played, but the picture looks a lot less cloudy at this point of the season compared to a typical year. And that's especially odd, considering this year is devoid of dominant teams at the top.

NYC Duke Fan
02-13-2010, 05:28 AM
We are not one of the top 4 teams in the country. I would assume the seeding committee sees that as well.

You are absolutely correct...we are not.

NYC Duke Fan
02-13-2010, 05:35 AM
When Duke lost to VCU, W.Virginia and Villanova and just beat Belmont in recent years, what seed did Duke have in those tournaments?

Thank you.

Exiled_Devil
02-13-2010, 07:22 AM
When Duke lost to VCU, W.Virginia and Villanova and just beat Belmont in recent years, what seed did Duke have in those tournaments?

Thank you.

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

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

brevity
02-13-2010, 08:56 AM
When Duke lost to VCU, W.Virginia and Villanova and just beat Belmont in recent years, what seed did Duke have in those tournaments?

Thank you.


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

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

As with tournament seeds, where you look at the body of work, I think NYC Duke Fan's posts here and in other threads have made an abundantly clear point: it's better to be right about Duke eventually losing than to enjoy being a fan.

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

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

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

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

DevilHorns
02-13-2010, 09:30 AM
In all honesty is it that important to land a #1 seed? I rather have a #2 with a #1 Kentucky in my bracket than say a #1 with a #2 MSU with a #3 K-state.

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

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

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

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

BlueintheFace
02-13-2010, 09:32 AM
A significant part of me wants to be stiffed by the committee so we (1) don't have the expectations associated with a #1 seed and (2) we have a chip on our shoulder about getting stiffed

cspan37421
02-13-2010, 09:48 AM
I'm with Blue in the Face. A #1 seed is nice, but if relative strengths are at selection time what they are now, Duke would be perceived as undeserving (to get a #1 seed). Add to it our recent tourney history of not going particularly deep, and the burden of expectations becomes heavy (at least it does for us fans - I know the team will do its best always). I would rather us be perceived as getting the seed we earn, and going from there. If I thought the team would play different if we were slighted by a lower-than-deserved seed, then, yeah, let's play with a chip on our shoulder and prove everyone wrong. But I can't help but suspect that's a bigger factor for fans than the team itself. Sure, some teams play the "chip on shoulder" card, but that doesn't necessarily work as a strategy. [You notice who in that situation wins, and then in hindsight attribute it to the chip. Those who lose despite a chip are judged to have been justly slighted. Attribution bias I guess]

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

theAlaskanBear
02-13-2010, 11:10 AM
I'm with Blue in the Face. A #1 seed is nice, but if relative strengths are at selection time what they are now, Duke would be perceived as undeserving (to get a #1 seed). Add to it our recent tourney history of not going particularly deep, and the burden of expectations becomes heavy (at least it does for us fans - I know the team will do its best always). I would rather us be perceived as getting the seed we earn, and going from there. If I thought the team would play different if we were slighted by a lower-than-deserved seed, then, yeah, let's play with a chip on our shoulder and prove everyone wrong. But I can't help but suspect that's a bigger factor for fans than the team itself. Sure, some teams play the "chip on shoulder" card, but that doesn't necessarily work as a strategy. [You notice who in that situation wins, and then in hindsight attribute it to the chip. Those who lose despite a chip are judged to have been justly slighted. Attribution bias I guess]

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

If we get a #1 seed, we HAVE earned it. I understand your point about perceptions, but perceptions don't play basketball games. I also don't buy this "its ok if we lose, because it will help down the road." We need to WIN with these modified lineups. When I look at this team, I see a team with all of the parts: the talent, the players, the defense, the coaching. What I haven't seen thus far is the CONFIDENCE that we are going to step on the throats of whomever our opponents may be. This leads to inconsistent starts, because players aren't sure if the cold-shooting or hot-shooting Duke team is going to show up. I think confidence is the biggest factor separating our "good" team from being a "great" team, and losing games is not going to help that confidence.

pfrduke
02-13-2010, 11:11 AM
When Duke lost to VCU, W.Virginia and Villanova and just beat Belmont in recent years, what seed did Duke have in those tournaments?

Thank you.

6, 2, and 2. The point of your useless observation being?

theAlaskanBear
02-13-2010, 11:15 AM
A significant part of me wants to be stiffed by the committee so we (1) don't have the expectations associated with a #1 seed and (2) we have a chip on our shoulder about getting stiffed

Is it easier to play with a chip on your shoulder as the number two seed (number 5 overall) or as a #1 seed who gets badmouthed in the media and by pundits as the weakest 1 and undeserving? Because I would make the case for the second.

Now, if you are considering matchups, thats a different story, and a reasonable reason to want a #2. But to think a #2 seed would magically motivate this team more than a #1 is silly. This team, these players, have not had much success in the NCAA tourney, and I think its safe to say they are hungry and ready to bring it no matter what seed they get.

Jumbo
02-13-2010, 12:09 PM
When Duke lost to VCU, W.Virginia and Villanova and just beat Belmont in recent years, what seed did Duke have in those tournaments?

Thank you.

What does that even mean?

Jumbo
02-13-2010, 12:23 PM
In all honesty is it that important to land a #1 seed? I rather have a #2 with a #1 Kentucky in my bracket than say a #1 with a #2 MSU with a #3 K-state.

As I was saying, though, it would be virtually impossible to end up as a #2 seed with Kentucky as the #1 (or Kansas, for that matter) unless at least one of the 4 Big East teams drops below the #2 line.

Also, the key to the #1 scenario you described above is that it's either/or MSU/K-State, not both, in a potential regional final. If you end up as a #2, on the other hand, there's a strong likelihood you'd have to go through a team like K-State in the Sweet 16.

DevilHorns
02-13-2010, 12:34 PM
As I was saying, though, it would be virtually impossible to end up as a #2 seed with Kentucky as the #1 (or Kansas, for that matter) unless at least one of the 4 Big East teams drops below the #2 line.

Also, the key to the #1 scenario you described above is that it's either/or MSU/K-State, not both, in a potential regional final. If you end up as a #2, on the other hand, there's a strong likelihood you'd have to go through a team like K-State in the Sweet 16.

You're right about the scenarios that I didn't really think through, but I was simply trying to make a broader point since there's too much season left to be able to accurately predict seeds. My point was that its about matchups and that though a #1 seed implies the easiest route to the final 4, its not necessarily so depending on how each individual team matches up.

In the end its one game at a time, one matchup at a time, and so, the value of a #1 seed may be overblown.

Jumbo
02-13-2010, 12:34 PM
I'm with Blue in the Face. A #1 seed is nice, but if relative strengths are at selection time what they are now, Duke would be perceived as undeserving (to get a #1 seed). Add to it our recent tourney history of not going particularly deep, and the burden of expectations becomes heavy (at least it does for us fans - I know the team will do its best always). I would rather us be perceived as getting the seed we earn, and going from there. If I thought the team would play different if we were slighted by a lower-than-deserved seed, then, yeah, let's play with a chip on our shoulder and prove everyone wrong. But I can't help but suspect that's a bigger factor for fans than the team itself. Sure, some teams play the "chip on shoulder" card, but that doesn't necessarily work as a strategy. [You notice who in that situation wins, and then in hindsight attribute it to the chip. Those who lose despite a chip are judged to have been justly slighted. Attribution bias I guess]

I don't understand this school of thought, or other sentiments that have been stated in stronger fashion elsewhere in the thread. If Duke manages to earn a #1 seed, it means Duke will have finished the season in outstanding fashion, most likely including an ACC regular season and tourney title. In other words, our whole discussion is moot anyway if Duke suffers a couple more losses. But if Duke were to win out? The team would be 30-4 going into the NCAA Tourney, riding a 14-game winning streak. There wouldn't be a single semi-rational person in the country who would complain about a team with that status earning a #1 seed. And even if Duke loses, say, one more regular season game and wins the ACC Tourney, you're looking at 29-5 with 13 wins out of 14 games to close the season. Again, that's an incredibly strong resume, and that's not even taking into account the fact that all of Duke's computer rankings should be fantastic in that scenario (Duke is already far better in every computer ranking than in either poll.

I wonder if the "perception" issue isn't more of a question of Duke's own fans having lingering concerns after a couple of losses (such as the Georgetown game) and having some lingering feelings of being "undeserving" after a couple of years of struggling in the tourney. (As an aside, when a #3 beats a #2, it's hardly an upset, so I don't really understand the complaints about not living up to expectations last season.) Because we, as Duke fans, don't follow other schools as closely with the same level of scrutiny, we're far more willing to overlook similar stumbles. The point is, regadless, Duke is very much in the running for a top seed and earning that seed does include an inherent advantage in the quality of team you should face in each round. And wouldn't it be nice if this is the year where Duke's bracket finally breaks in its favor, with a few other top seeds getting upset?

And the great thing about all of this is that Duke gets to settle everything on the court. If the team really is deserving of a No. 1 seed, it will go out and grab it. A win today could go a long way toward helping that cause, and it's what I'm most concerned about right now.

jv001
02-13-2010, 12:35 PM
I know that good seeding is important but players improving over these next 7games is more important. I think that was what Coach K was talking about in the unc postgame interview. He mentioned coaching this team like he did some of his 1980's teams. Mason had his best game in ACC competition, Dre and Ryan got more minutes in the last couple of games in a while. I'm looking for more improvement today against the twerps. Go Duke!

Duvall
02-14-2010, 08:56 PM
I don't understand this school of thought, or other sentiments that have been stated in stronger fashion elsewhere in the thread. If Duke manages to earn a #1 seed, it means Duke will have finished the season in outstanding fashion, most likely including an ACC regular season and tourney title. In other words, our whole discussion is moot anyway if Duke suffers a couple more losses. But if Duke were to win out? The team would be 30-4 going into the NCAA Tourney, riding a 14-game winning streak. There wouldn't be a single semi-rational person in the country who would complain about a team with that status earning a #1 seed.

Unfortunately, most of the commentary on the NCAA Tournament won't be coming from semi-rational people, it'll be coming from sportswriters.

Of course there would be widespread criticism of the committee if it were to award a #1 seed to a 30-4 or 29-5 Duke team. Indeed, I suspect it would be the prevailing view. We would hear a lot about the lack of elite teams in the ACC, and nothing about the league's strength top-to-bottom.

The good news is that it wouldn't matter, even a little bit.

Jumbo
02-14-2010, 09:04 PM
Unfortunately, most of the commentary on the NCAA Tournament won't be coming from semi-rational people, it'll be coming from sportswriters.

Of course there would be widespread criticism of the committee if it were to award a #1 seed to a 30-4 or 29-5 Duke team. Indeed, I suspect it would be the prevailing view. We would hear a lot about the lack of elite teams in the ACC, and nothing about the league's strength top-to-bottom.

The good news is that it wouldn't matter, even a little bit.

And, meanwhile, Duke's case is helped a bit more with losses by Syracuse and Georgetown today. And seeing as they'll meet on Thursday, someone's going to lose again. It will be interesting seeing how much the Big East teams beat up on each other down the stretch, and whether that opens up a No. 1 seed. At this point, given the relative weakness of Kansas' remaining Big 12 schedule and what Kentucky has left in the SEC, it's hard to see either team falling off the top line.

moonpie23
02-14-2010, 09:08 PM
uk has 3 possible traps @vandy, @tenn and the rematch with s carolina....from what i saw with them against Tenn....those could all be L's.


not predicting, just pointing out..


i think kansas finishes strong...

Jumbo
02-14-2010, 09:11 PM
uk has 3 possible traps @vandy, @tenn and the rematch with s carolina....from what i saw with them against Tenn....those could all be L's.


not predicting, just pointing out..


i think kansas finishes strong...

I don't even think the two road games are trap games -- those are good teams and I expect one to beat UK, if not both. But I don't see any way UK loses at home against South Carolina or finishes the regular season with more than 3 losses. Now, if Duke somehow finished with only 4 losses and UK finished with 3, who would be more deserving? IMO, Duke, by far -- the schedule strength and computer rankings are quite stark. Still, I'm not sure it would work out in Duke's favor.

MChambers
02-14-2010, 09:31 PM
I don't even think the two road games are trap games -- those are good teams and I expect one to beat UK, if not both. But I don't see any way UK loses at home against South Carolina or finishes the regular season with more than 3 losses. Now, if Duke somehow finished with only 4 losses and UK finished with 3, who would be more deserving? IMO, Duke, by far -- the schedule strength and computer rankings are quite stark. Still, I'm not sure it would work out in Duke's favor.

I agree with you, but let's say UK loses @Vandy and @Tenn, and then loses in the SEC tourney, and Duke wins out. So there is a chance, but it's not probably, just possible.

Duvall
02-14-2010, 09:36 PM
And, meanwhile, Duke's case is helped a bit more with losses by Syracuse and Georgetown today. And seeing as they'll meet on Thursday, someone's going to lose again. It will be interesting seeing how much the Big East teams beat up on each other down the stretch, and whether that opens up a No. 1 seed. At this point, given the relative weakness of Kansas' remaining Big 12 schedule and what Kentucky has left in the SEC, it's hard to see either team falling off the top line.

Finishing stretches for this week's AP top ten, some of whom probably fell out of consideration this week:

Kansas: @Texas A&M, Colorado, Oklahoma, @Oklahoma State, Kansas State, @ Missouri
Syracuse: @Georgetown, @Providence, Villanova, St. John's, @Louisville
Kentucky: @Mississippi State, @Vanderbilt, South Carolina, @Tennessee, @Georgia, Florida
Villanova: Connecticut, @Pittsburgh, South Florida, @Syracuse, @Cincinnati, West Virginia
West Virginia:@Providence, Seton Hall, @Connecticut, Cincinnati, Georgetown, @Villanova
Purdue: @Ohio State, Illinois, @Minneota, Michigan State, Indiana, @Penn State
Georgetown: Syracuse, @Louisville, Notre Dame, @West Virginia, Cincinnati
Duke: @Miami (FL), Virginia Tech, Tulsa, @Virginia, @Maryland, North Carolina
Kansas State: Nebraska, @Oklahoma, @Texas Tech, Missouri, @Kansas, Iowa State
Michigan State: @Indiana, Ohio State, @Purdue, Penn State, Michigan

JaMarcus Russell
02-14-2010, 10:34 PM
At this point, I think the only teams that have a shot at a 1 seed are Kansas, Kentucky, Syracuse, Villanova, Purdue, Duke, and Kansas State. Purdue has games left to play at Ohio State and home against a healthy Michigan State, while KSU has a road game against the Jayhawks.

I think that Duke is in good shape to either grab the last 1 seed or the top 2 seed.

crimsonandblue
02-14-2010, 10:41 PM
And, meanwhile, Duke's case is helped a bit more with losses by Syracuse and Georgetown today. And seeing as they'll meet on Thursday, someone's going to lose again. It will be interesting seeing how much the Big East teams beat up on each other down the stretch, and whether that opens up a No. 1 seed. At this point, given the relative weakness of Kansas' remaining Big 12 schedule and what Kentucky has left in the SEC, it's hard to see either team falling off the top line.

Relative weakness being relative to what exactly? Using, for example, Sagarin as of Sunday, KU has roadies at #25 A&M, #44 Ok State, and #22 Mizzou and a home game versus #8 KState. KU's got two probable rummies with Colorado (#103) and Oklahoma (#89) at home.

If we're talking relative to Duke, Duke's got roadies at #58 Miami, #69 UVa, and #27 Maryland, with home games against VaTech (#29), Tulsa (#71) and UNC (#59).

Relative weakness. Really?

cspan37421
02-14-2010, 11:04 PM
I don't understand this school of thought, or other sentiments that have been stated in stronger fashion elsewhere in the thread. If Duke manages to earn a #1 seed, it means Duke will have finished the season in outstanding fashion, most likely including an ACC regular season and tourney title. In other words, our whole discussion is moot anyway if Duke suffers a couple more losses. But if Duke were to win out? The team would be 30-4 going into the NCAA Tourney, riding a 14-game winning streak. There wouldn't be a single semi-rational person in the country who would complain about a team with that status earning a #1 seed.

We're in more agreement than I think you realize. If we win out, sure, your point is solid. My point was that if we finished at the same relative strength as we are now, e.g., AP rating of 8, not Pomeroy and not Sagarin, much as I'd like to think we're the 2nd or 3rd best team in the country. [I hope they're right! But yes, the losses to Wisconsin, Ga Tech, and the thumpings at G-Town and NCSU lead me to doubt somewhat].

Duvall
02-14-2010, 11:06 PM
Relative weakness being relative to what exactly? Using, for example, Sagarin as of Sunday, KU has roadies at #25 A&M, #44 Ok State, and #22 Mizzou and a home game versus #8 KState. KU's got two probable rummies with Colorado (#103) and Oklahoma (#89) at home.

If we're talking relative to Duke, Duke's got roadies at #58 Miami, #69 UVa, and #27 Maryland, with home games against VaTech (#29), Tulsa (#71) and UNC (#59).

Relative weakness. Really?

I think he meant relative to the Big East finishing schedules.

crimsonandblue
02-14-2010, 11:08 PM
I think he meant relative to the Big East finishing schedules.

Still, I'm terrified...

Jumbo
02-14-2010, 11:16 PM
Relative weakness being relative to what exactly? Using, for example, Sagarin as of Sunday, KU has roadies at #25 A&M, #44 Ok State, and #22 Mizzou and a home game versus #8 KState. KU's got two probable rummies with Colorado (#103) and Oklahoma (#89) at home.

If we're talking relative to Duke, Duke's got roadies at #58 Miami, #69 UVa, and #27 Maryland, with home games against VaTech (#29), Tulsa (#71) and UNC (#59).

Relative weakness. Really?

What Duvall said -- relative to the Big East. I guess the fact that I don't worry that much about Kansas' remaining schedule (for some reason, the OK State game seems the most difficult to me) shows the kind of faith I have in the Jayhawks as the best team in the country.

Kedsy
02-14-2010, 11:17 PM
Has anyone run the numbers on this.... what seed tends to win the tourney and at what rate? Im guessing there is not a huge favoritism for a #1 seed to win the tourney vs a #2.... though I havent seen the math, just a hunch.

Since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, there have been 25 tournaments. In that time, there have obviously been 100 #1 seeds and 100 #2 seeds. Of those, 44 #1 seeds have made the Final Four (44%), vs. 22 #2 seeds (22%, meaning twice as many #1s as #2s, for those who don't feel like doing the math). There have been 15 #1 seeds who became champion in those 25 years, against 4 #2 seeds (almost four times more #1s than #2s). So, while I don't want to misrepresent what you're saying, I think your hunch is wrong.

It may be that the #1 seeds are that much better than the #2 seeds, or it may be that their path is that much easier, but mathematically if you want to make the Final Four (or be champion) you'd much rather be a #1 than any other seed. It's not even close (or anywhere near close, for that matter).

crimsonandblue
02-14-2010, 11:52 PM
What Duvall said -- relative to the Big East. I guess the fact that I don't worry that much about Kansas' remaining schedule (for some reason, the OK State game seems the most difficult to me) shows the kind of faith I have in the Jayhawks as the best team in the country.

Well, I think Kansas is somewhat bored right now, ala UNC last year at times. But, you've got more faith in their handling of their sked than I do. We should win tomorrow in College Station, but A&M is hot. My hope is that OSU is further beaten down before we play them (they're so tiny it will resemble a bit the Tennessee roadie and give an interesting possible preview of games against teams like Xavier).

If KU manages to get through its conference schedule undefeated leading into the Mizzou game (last game of the regular season), the Mizzou game will likely be our toughest of the season. They're liable to use automatic weapons in an attempt to forestall a perfect season.

Back on topic, at this point, unless UVa manages to completely dictate tempo and Landesburg goes off, I can't see Duke losing other than in College Park. And even then, I just don't think Maryland has the inside game to beat Duke even at home.

I do think you're right that teams like Nova and the Cuse will falter a bit against their schedules, so I think Duke has a strong shot at a one seed.

brevity
02-15-2010, 12:27 AM
Since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, there have been 25 tournaments. In that time, there have obviously been 100 #1 seeds and 100 #2 seeds. Of those, 44 #1 seeds have made the Final Four (44%), vs. 22 #2 seeds (22%, meaning twice as many #1s as #2s, for those who don't feel like doing the math). There have been 15 #1 seeds who became champion in those 25 years, against 4 #2 seeds (almost four times more #1s than #2s). So, while I don't want to misrepresent what you're saying, I think your hunch is wrong.

It may be that the #1 seeds are that much better than the #2 seeds, or it may be that their path is that much easier, but mathematically if you want to make the Final Four (or be champion) you'd much rather be a #1 than any other seed. It's not even close (or anywhere near close, for that matter).

Thanks for the stats.

Out of curiosity, though, what are the success rates of 1 and 2 seeds playing to form and making the Elite Eight in this modern era? Because that would be the more interesting stat. I think the numbers above get skewed once 1 and 2 seeds play each other, or play other 1 or 2 seeds.

In other words, if the argument earlier in this thread was whether it would be better to be a 1 seed or a 2 seed, then the best stat to measure that is to see how many of those teams in the past got upset in the first 3 rounds.

BlueintheFace
02-15-2010, 12:30 AM
I don't understand this school of thought, or other sentiments that have been stated in stronger fashion elsewhere in the thread. If Duke manages to earn a #1 seed, it means Duke will have finished the season in outstanding fashion, most likely including an ACC regular season and tourney title. In other words, our whole discussion is moot anyway if Duke suffers a couple more losses. But if Duke were to win out? The team would be 30-4 going into the NCAA Tourney, riding a 14-game winning streak. There wouldn't be a single semi-rational person in the country who would complain about a team with that status earning a #1 seed. And even if Duke loses, say, one more regular season game and wins the ACC Tourney, you're looking at 29-5 with 13 wins out of 14 games to close the season. Again, that's an incredibly strong resume, and that's not even taking into account the fact that all of Duke's computer rankings should be fantastic in that scenario (Duke is already far better in every computer ranking than in either poll.

I wonder if the "perception" issue isn't more of a question of Duke's own fans having lingering concerns after a couple of losses (such as the Georgetown game) and having some lingering feelings of being "undeserving" after a couple of years of struggling in the tourney. (As an aside, when a #3 beats a #2, it's hardly an upset, so I don't really understand the complaints about not living up to expectations last season.) Because we, as Duke fans, don't follow other schools as closely with the same level of scrutiny, we're far more willing to overlook similar stumbles. The point is, regadless, Duke is very much in the running for a top seed and earning that seed does include an inherent advantage in the quality of team you should face in each round. And wouldn't it be nice if this is the year where Duke's bracket finally breaks in its favor, with a few other top seeds getting upset?

And the great thing about all of this is that Duke gets to settle everything on the court. If the team really is deserving of a No. 1 seed, it will go out and grab it. A win today could go a long way toward helping that cause, and it's what I'm most concerned about right now.

That sounds about right. I'll be the first to admit. I have felt a bit burnt. It starts with 2006 obviously, and moves forward from there.

However, though some may disagree, I suspect that a few players suffer from the same feeling. You can have the most confident team in the world in the regular season, but March is an odd animal. I think some players on this team (most notably Jon, but Nolan too) really get a lot of motivation from being "overlooked" or "underrated." I personally believe that this team does not have the personality of a frontrunner. I don't think they are pushed by that attitude of "We are gonna win and you can't stop us"... I think this team's personality more closely matches the sentiment, "So you think Duke isn't what it once was? We'll show you."

Yes, I feel burnt and would prefer a #2 seed for "perception" reasons, but I also think that being stiffed for a #1 seed would have some distinct advantages for this team.

Jumbo
02-15-2010, 12:48 AM
That sounds about right. I'll be the first to admit. I have felt a bit burnt. It starts with 2006 obviously, and moves forward from there.

However, though some may disagree, I suspect that a few players suffer from the same feeling. You can have the most confident team in the world in the regular season, but March is an odd animal. I think some players on this team (most notably Jon, but Nolan too) really get a lot of motivation from being "overlooked" or "underrated." I personally believe that this team does not have the personality of a frontrunner. I don't think they are pushed by that attitude of "We are gonna win and you can't stop us"... I think this team's personality more closely matches the sentiment, "So you think Duke isn't what it once was? We'll show you."

Yes, I feel burnt and would prefer a #2 seed for "perception" reasons, but I also think that being stiffed for a #1 seed would have some distinct advantages for this team.

This is a veteran team. Motivation won't be an issue in March, considering that this is the final opportunity for so many key players to make a run. They don't need to feel like an underdog to get up for a game. The guys would benefit much, much more from a presumably easier road as a No. 1 seed than some feeling of being "slighted" by only receving a No. 2 seed. More to the point, they'd be in much better shape facing a No. 4 seed like, say, Vandy in the Sweet 16 and the winner of, say, Villanova/Texas in the regional final than having to face both Texas and Villanova to get to the Final Four. (None of that is to say that Duke will even make it that far, or that Duke couldn't lose to any of those specific teams. In fact -- and I want to get to this at another point -- I think Duke's postseason success hinges quite strongly on matchups this year.) But in as much as one road can be easier, you want that road.

Kedsy
02-15-2010, 12:49 AM
Thanks for the stats.

Out of curiosity, though, what are the success rates of 1 and 2 seeds playing to form and making the Elite Eight in this modern era? Because that would be the more interesting stat. I think the numbers above get skewed once 1 and 2 seeds play each other, or play other 1 or 2 seeds.

In other words, if the argument earlier in this thread was whether it would be better to be a 1 seed or a 2 seed, then the best stat to measure that is to see how many of those teams in the past got upset in the first 3 rounds.

Since 1985 (the first year of the 64 team format), #1 seeds have made the Elite Eight 73% of the time (73/100) and #2 seeds have made the Elite Eight 46% of the time (46/100). You really want to be the #1 seed if you can.

Kedsy
02-15-2010, 12:51 AM
I think Duke's postseason success hinges quite strongly on matchups this year.

I could not agree more with this statement. Matchups are critical for this year's team.


But in as much as one road can be easier, you want that road.

I'm also strongly in this camp.

sagegrouse
02-15-2010, 12:58 AM
Since 1985 (the first year of the 64 team format), #1 seeds have made the Elite Eight 73% of the time (73/100) and #2 seeds have made the Elite Eight 46% of the time (46/100). You really want to be the #1 seed if you can.

No, you really want to be a lot better than anyone else.

There are two competing hypotheses: (a) #1 seeds have an easier schedule (vs. #16, #8, #4) than #2 (vs. #15, #7, #3) or lower seeds.

Or, (b) because the #1 seeds represent the extreme tail of the distribution, they are much better than #2 seeds in many years.

I vote for hypothesis (b).

sagegrouse

brevity
02-15-2010, 01:04 AM
Since 1985 (the first year of the 64 team format), #1 seeds have made the Elite Eight 73% of the time (73/100) and #2 seeds have made the Elite Eight 46% of the time (46/100). You really want to be the #1 seed if you can.

Fantastic. Thanks for the info.

Another potential hazard for 1 seeds in the Sweet 16 round: Texas. They've become an interesting case this season: the makeup of a 1 seed, running the campaign of a 4 seed. If they start looking like they can put it together by the end of this month, I'm tempted to put them in the Elite Eight of any region in my bracket, sight unseen.

(Of course, if the Selection Committee also notices that the Longhorns have finally put it together, then it won't be a 4 seed.)

NYC Duke Fan
02-15-2010, 02:51 AM
6, 2, and 2. The point of your useless observation being?

Just curious. No need for your sarcasm, I was just asking a simple question that is all. So please do not look into deeper meanings, there were none.

BlueintheFace
02-15-2010, 10:53 AM
This is a veteran team. Motivation won't be an issue in March, considering that this is the final opportunity for so many key players to make a run. They don't need to feel like an underdog to get up for a game. The guys would benefit much, much more from a presumably easier road as a No. 1 seed than some feeling of being "slighted" by only receving a No. 2 seed. More to the point, they'd be in much better shape facing a No. 4 seed like, say, Vandy in the Sweet 16 and the winner of, say, Villanova/Texas in the regional final than having to face both Texas and Villanova to get to the Final Four. (None of that is to say that Duke will even make it that far, or that Duke couldn't lose to any of those specific teams. In fact -- and I want to get to this at another point -- I think Duke's postseason success hinges quite strongly on matchups this year.) But in as much as one road can be easier, you want that road.

I agree that Duke needs the right matchups to get to the final four. I think you and I just differ on the mental makeup of this team and the importance of the "nobody believed in us" mindset to this team.

Nine times out of ten I want the #1 seed, but this year I feel that the team has benefitted from a prove the doubters wrong mentality. However, I will defer to your assessment of the team's mental makeup as you likely know better than I.

Now, as a fan, I still want the #2... for obvious reasons

pfrduke
02-15-2010, 11:00 AM
Just curious. No need for your sarcasm, I was just asking a simple question that is all. So please do not look into deeper meanings, there were none.

My apologies. When this post:


When Duke lost to VCU, W.Virginia and Villanova and just beat Belmont in recent years, what seed did Duke have in those tournaments?

Thank you.

came right after this post:


You are absolutely correct...we are not.

it seemed like you were asking a rhetorical question to try to prove some point (although what point was not clear).

davekay1971
02-15-2010, 11:05 AM
Even if we win out and win the ACC tournament, barring some significant missteps from other teams, I just don't think we've earned a 1 seed. We're a good team, I think a deserving 2 seed (particularly if we take care of business in the ACC and perform well in the tourney).

Regardless, of course, it's just a matter of playing the games when we get there. We're a team that may succeed or struggle based on matchups. Run into the wrong team on the wrong night, and we could be out in the sweet 16. Get some decent matchups, we could make the final four. That sounds about right for a 2 seed.

pfrduke
02-15-2010, 11:10 AM
Even if we win out and win the ACC tournament, barring some significant missteps from other teams, I just don't think we've earned a 1 seed. We're a good team, I think a deserving 2 seed (particularly if we take care of business in the ACC and perform well in the tourney).

Regardless, of course, it's just a matter of playing the games when we get there. We're a team that may succeed or struggle based on matchups. Run into the wrong team on the wrong night, and we could be out in the sweet 16. Get some decent matchups, we could make the final four. That sounds about right for a 2 seed.

Well, our resume will look a lot different if we win out. We would be 30-4, on a 12-game with streak, with a 6-4 road record that includes wins in the last 5 road games, plus a 7-0 neutral court record for a total of 13-4 away from home, plus we'll be ACC champions. The number of teams that reach Mar. 13 with 4 or fewer losses is not going to be large, and almost all (if not all) of them would have (in that scenario) more recent losses. Plus we'll be a top-4 RPI team (and Pomeroy, and Sagarin, etc.). If we win out, it will be hard to find four more deserving resumes for a 1-seed.

BlueintheFace
02-15-2010, 11:14 AM
Even if we win out and win the ACC tournament, barring some significant missteps from other teams, I just don't think we've earned a 1 seed. We're a good team, I think a deserving 2 seed (particularly if we take care of business in the ACC and perform well in the tourney).

Regardless, of course, it's just a matter of playing the games when we get there. We're a team that may succeed or struggle based on matchups. Run into the wrong team on the wrong night, and we could be out in the sweet 16. Get some decent matchups, we could make the final four. That sounds about right for a 2 seed.

If we win out, we are a #1 seed. Guaranteed.

UrinalCake
02-15-2010, 11:18 AM
I agree that if we win out I think we'll be a #1. The State loss is really our only bad loss of the year. Georgetown certainly felt like a blowout, but on paper it's a 12-point loss to a top 25 team on a neutral court. By the end of the season we'd probably be ranked in the top 4 by virtue of the fact that other teams will lose.

NYC Duke Fan
02-15-2010, 12:05 PM
I agree that if we win out I think we'll be a #1. The State loss is really our only bad loss of the year. Georgetown certainly felt like a blowout, but on paper it's a 12-point loss to a top 25 team on a neutral court. By the end of the season we'd probably be ranked in the top 4 by virtue of the fact that other teams will lose.

I am not sure that when Duke lost to Georgetown it could be considered a , " neutral" court. I guess in the letter of the law it is a neutral court because it is not on the Georgetown campus, but Georgetown plays all its big games at the facility where they beat Duke, ( I think it is the Comast Center).

NYC Duke Fan
02-15-2010, 12:09 PM
My apologies. When this post:



came right after this post:



it seemed like you were asking a rhetorical question to try to prove some point (although what point was not clear).

No big deal. The ," absolutely, you are correct, we are not", post was a response to a post that said that Duke was not the 4th best team in the country and I just agreed with him. I still don't think that we are the 4th best team in the country but I cannot name anyone who is even the 3rd best after Kansas and Kentucky.

pfrduke
02-15-2010, 12:09 PM
I am not sure that when Duke lost to Georgetown it could be considered a , " neutral" court. I guess in the letter of the law it is a neutral court because it is not on the Georgetown campus, but Georgetown plays all its big games at the facility where they beat Duke, ( I think it is the Comast Center).

Yeah, the Georgetown loss definitely goes down as a true road loss. Which, all things considered, is probably better for us - looks less bad to lose on an opponent's home floor than on a neutral court.

davekay1971
02-15-2010, 12:10 PM
The Georgetown game was a true road game. We've looked good on neutral court games.

I meant no disrespect to our team by stating that I didn't think they would be a 1 seed. I love the team, but there are enough question marks and potential matchup issues that I think they'd be a little over-seeded to be a 1. If they win out and some of the teams ahead of them stumble, they may be awarded a 1 seed, and it would be quite an accomplishment.

Hopefully, of course, they will outplay their seeding this year, no matter what seed they are awarded.

Kedsy
02-15-2010, 12:22 PM
No, you really want to be a lot better than anyone else.

There are two competing hypotheses: (a) #1 seeds have an easier schedule (vs. #16, #8, #4) than #2 (vs. #15, #7, #3) or lower seeds.

Or, (b) because the #1 seeds represent the extreme tail of the distribution, they are much better than #2 seeds in many years.

I vote for hypothesis (b).

sagegrouse

Well you could be right, I suppose. If 100% of the top two teams make the Final Eight and 50% of teams #3 through #6, and 40% of teams #7 and #8, then we'd get roughly the same percentages that happen in real life, and there would be no difference between the bottom two #1 seeds and the top two #2 seeds. Obviously it doesn't really happen exactly like that, but it could be something similar.

My guess is it's a combination of your hypothesis (a) and hypothesis (b). Just to be safe, though, I'm rooting for a #1 seed.

CDu
02-15-2010, 12:27 PM
No, you really want to be a lot better than anyone else.

There are two competing hypotheses: (a) #1 seeds have an easier schedule (vs. #16, #8, #4) than #2 (vs. #15, #7, #3) or lower seeds.

Or, (b) because the #1 seeds represent the extreme tail of the distribution, they are much better than #2 seeds in many years.

I vote for hypothesis (b).

sagegrouse

I vote for hypothesis (c):

A little from column (a), and a little from column (b). It is theoretically he case that #1 seeds are better than #2 seeds. It is also theoretically the case that #1 seeds face an easier path to the elite-8 than do #2 seeds. Both theoretical truths are also probably true in practice. And both factors almost certainly play into the increased probability of #1 seeds making it further than #2 seeds.

loldevilz
02-15-2010, 02:48 PM
Does anyone else think that we are going to end up competing with Purdue for a #1 seed?

Jumbo
02-15-2010, 03:07 PM
I am not sure that when Duke lost to Georgetown it could be considered a , " neutral" court. I guess in the letter of the law it is a neutral court because it is not on the Georgetown campus, but Georgetown plays all its big games at the facility where they beat Duke, ( I think it is the Comast Center).

That is Georgetown's home court. It counts as a road game, as it should, since the place was packed with Georgetown fans.

Wander
02-15-2010, 03:14 PM
Does anyone else think that we are going to end up competing with Purdue for a #1 seed?

The last #1 seed will come down to Duke, a Big Ten team, and a 2nd Big East team. My guess right now would be Kansas, Kentucky, Syracuse, and Villanova, but a lot can happen in the next few weeks.

Oh, and re: Kansas. I think they're relatively easily the best team in the country and I have no idea why I keep hearing people say that there's no dominant team this year.

DukieInBrasil
02-15-2010, 03:14 PM
I think it possible that Duke wins out the rest of the year, only UVA and @MD are really even threats. UNC @ Duke might be a good challenge if UNC can wake up by then. If we win out the ACC conference schedule from here and then lose in the ACCT finals, would we still get a #1 seed? Maybe, as G'town has lost 2 games and the Cuse just lost last night too, our chances just improved slightly. Any of the other top 5 teams could lose (and probably will at least 1).
So, if Duke wins out the ACC conference but then loses the ACCT title game, I think we still would get a #1 seed. I'm with Jumbo, you want the easiest road, always.

Jumbo
02-15-2010, 03:20 PM
So, I mentioned matchups earlier. And I'm concerned about one type of matchup in particular and, unfortunately, it's one that Duke hasn't seen much of in the ACC. I'm concerned about teams with tough, physical perimeter players who can score and defend. Teams with multiple ball-handlers. Teams who can swtich on screens and bounce our guards around. This was the type of team Villanova had last year, and why Villanova is still scary this year. Even without Clark and Anderson, Reynolds, Stokes and Redding are all unbelievably thick for their size. Add in Fisher's quickness and strength and Wayns brings off the bench, and there are issues to face again, even though there's a pretty big difference between Cunningham/Clark vs. Pena/King.

West Virginia is similar. Truck Bryant is built like, well, a truck. Da'Sean Butler is unbelievably strong. Devin Ebanks isn't as physical, but he's really long. Again, this is the type of team that could disrupt our big 3.

Now, the good thing about Duke this year is that we're playing 2 bigs and Singler at the 3, meaning Lance Thomas can gaurd players like Ebanks while someone else can still man the post. I think we'll defend those types of teams better than in the past. But I'm worried about how our offense will run; we'd need to score well on the offensive glass.

Then there's Syracuse. You'd think the zone might help us, except it would take away a lot of our perimeter action, and we've been a streaky 3-point shooting team. Plus, Syracuse's zone actually does a great job of denying open 3s. It's vulnerable to dribble penetration, but that's not Duke's strength. So, I'm not anxious to face Syracuse either, although I do think Lance Thomas could do a nice job on Wesley Johnson, Scheyer could deny Rautins, etc.

So if you're going to face one of the Big East teams, that leaves Georgetown. And, despite the loss, I think Duke matches up better with the Hoyas than any of the teams I mentioned above. I honestly think K just let his guys go against Georgetown and didn't bother making major strategic moves. Duke played lousy man-to-man and K wouldn't bail them out. In a Tourney setting, if Duke had anywhere close to the same kind of trouble, I'd expect to see a zone look pretty quickly.

That said, I don't relish playing any of the Big East teams, which is why, again, I will stress the importance of grabbing a No. 1 seed. Hopefully whichever Big East team ends up as Duke's No. 2 seed, in that scenario, would then get knocked out by the No. 3 (or, even better, the No. 7. Or the No. 15). That, again, is the key to getting a No. 1 seed -- it gives you an extra round (assuming the 4/5 survivor is a legit step down in quality) before you have to face a super-tough foe, and by then, maybe something weird will have happened and you'll end up facing a lower-seeded team.

Durhamrocks68
02-15-2010, 03:32 PM
Jumbo, you nailed it. After the Georgetown game, I thought the best we could do was #2 seed and that would require a strong turn-around in our playing. Well, here we sit and a one seed is certainly not out of the question, and that's huge because of potential match-ups and run through the tourney. There are a few teams that worry me, but a one seed probably means that we don't see them until the Sweet 16 or Great 8 games. At that point, I'm hoping K and the boys (especially the seniors) play like the Duke teams of old that faced up-hill regional final battles (Georgetown and Temple games) and return to the FF.

rotogod00
02-15-2010, 03:36 PM
Just released Lunardi bracket has Duke 2 in the East, facing UNLV, Ohio St., and Villanova on their road to the Final Four

BlueintheFace
02-15-2010, 04:05 PM
Just released Lunardi bracket has Duke 2 in the East, facing UNLV, Ohio St., and Villanova on their road to the Final Four

GULP!

BlueintheFace
02-15-2010, 04:08 PM
So long as we are talking about teams we don't want to see, here are my non #1 seeds:

Texas A&M
Baylor
WVU
Kstate
Vandy
Tennessee

DukeUsul
02-15-2010, 08:59 PM
Let's also not forget that one of the teams we'll likely be competing for a #1 seed against also has a very similar loss to G-town on their resume.

pfrduke
02-15-2010, 08:59 PM
Let's also not forget that one of the teams we'll likely be competing for a #1 seed against also has a very similar loss to G-town on their resume.

And (knock on wood) may have a loss to UConn coming up as well!

loldevilz
02-15-2010, 09:11 PM
And (knock on wood) may have a loss to UConn coming up as well!

and at home as well

there are a lot of teams that I don't want to see, but very few that I don't think we can beat on a good day

hopefully we'll be more prepared this year for the intensity of tournament play. last year I thought we looked a little disappointing against villanova

Jumbo
02-15-2010, 09:18 PM
And (knock on wood) may have a loss to UConn coming up as well!

<Mr. Burns>Patience, Dukies. Climb the ladder.</Mr. Burns>
If Duke takes care of its own business, everything else will sort itself out. For seeding purposes, we just need to worry about Duke continuing to win basketball games. It's as simple (and difficult) as that.

sagegrouse
02-15-2010, 10:11 PM
The fact is, most everyone in the top ten is going to lose games, especially the four Big East teams ahead of Duke, who will play each other in a number of games. Perhaps Kentucky can waltz through unscathed, although I doubt it. Kansas has looked shaky at times. Those two teams are probably the surest bets for #1 seeds. In the Big East, it will be fratricide, and they may not get two #1 seeds. If they don't, and Duke comes through in the ACC, who is better positioned for a #1?

sagegrouse
Rereading this, it sounds like I think I know what I am talking about, which of course is total nonsense'

When I mentioned this in my original post on this thread, by "fratricide" I meant Nova, Syracuse, WVa and Georgetown beating up on each other. In fact, Rutgers has beaten Georgetown; Louisville beat the Orange in the Carrier Dome; and now UConn has upset Villanova at Villanova.

Fact is, all four top ten Big East teams may have five losses or more. They are still dangerous but hard to see the conference providing two #1 seeds.

If Duke takes care of business [knock on wood], a #1 seed is attainable.

sagegrouse

cspan37421
02-16-2010, 09:46 AM
I think I've changed my mind and am persuaded - the preference for a #2 is simply an artifact of being a fan who is weary of feeling that we didn't live up to our seed come tourney time. It's better to be a #1, whether because of the path it lays before you or what it implies about the strength your team has shown to that point.

jv001
02-16-2010, 10:53 AM
When I mentioned this in my original post on this thread, by "fratricide" I meant Nova, Syracuse, WVa and Georgetown beating up on each other. In fact, Rutgers has beaten Georgetown; Louisville beat the Orange in the Carrier Dome; and now UConn has upset Villanova at Villanova.

Fact is, all four top ten Big East teams may have five losses or more. They are still dangerous but hard to see the conference providing two #1 seeds.

If Duke takes care of business [knock on wood], a #1 seed is attainable.

sagegrouse

It would be great coming into March Madness without having to hear "what's wrong with Duke" or "Duke has peaked too early again". I agree with the sage, if we take care of business this could be a very different year. Go Duke!

Duvall
02-16-2010, 03:19 PM
Unfortunately, most of the commentary on the NCAA Tournament won't be coming from semi-rational people, it'll be coming from sportswriters.

Of course there would be widespread criticism of the committee if it were to award a #1 seed to a 30-4 or 29-5 Duke team.

Amusingly, we are already seeing criticism of the mere possibility (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=4917745) that a 30-4 Duke team might earn a #1 seed.

Semi-rational was far too high a standard.

jv001
02-16-2010, 03:30 PM
Amusingly, we are already seeing criticism of the mere possibility (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=4917745) that a 30-4 Duke team might earn a #1 seed.

Semi-rational was far too high a standard.

I would take the artifical #1 seed and let the media talk. Then we could prove them wrong. Go Duke!

bird
02-16-2010, 05:13 PM
Computers love Duke this year. Kenpom says we are No. 2, and basketballprospectus, which publishes a semi-ranking based on an overall evaluation of objective data, agrees: No. 2. The oft-maligned RPI has Duke as No. 2.

Subjectively, a lot of folks, including a lot of folks around here, are having a hard time seeing Duke as the No. 2 team in the land, or even one of the top 4, maybe the top 6. Part of the mindset is historical: Computers have loved Duke in recent prior years, where Duke has underperformed its seed as well as the computer-love. Another part of the mindset is revealed by the "alarmingly unathletic" tiff: Duke just doesn't look like a team that is that good. There is a lot of subjectivity going on here, some of which may be fair and some of which is just hot air. While subjectivity has its strong place in the crazy world of college basketball (vive la crazy, I say), if Duke wins out or even comes close to winning out (say, getting regular season championship with one more loss plus a showing in the ACC tourney championship game), then Duke would have to be on the short end of an epic s___w job not to get a No. 1.

cspan37421
02-16-2010, 09:48 PM
Americans love rooting for the underdog. It's part of our national identity. [the flipside of that is that they also like to see the mighty knocked down]. So you can see how that has worked for us, as fans.

I have a vague recollection of, I think, John Wooden being asked if he would rather be the favorite or the underdog. The tacit part of that was dealing with expectations. Wooden said, IIRC, that he would rather be the favorite, all the time. When asked why, he said (heavily paraphrased), "well, if you're the favorite, you're the better team, right? And if you're the better team, you have a better chance of winning. I want to win, so I'd rather have the better team, the favorite."

Makes perfect, simple sense, but the psychological burden of expectations is that when you don't play as well as your seed, those legions of Duke-hating (envying) fans just gloat at you, and it's not pleasant to bear.

Troublemaker
02-16-2010, 10:26 PM
Computers love Duke this year. Kenpom says we are No. 2, and basketballprospectus, which publishes a semi-ranking based on an overall evaluation of objective data, agrees: No. 2. The oft-maligned RPI has Duke as No. 2.

Subjectively, a lot of folks, including a lot of folks around here, are having a hard time seeing Duke as the No. 2 team in the land, or even one of the top 4, maybe the top 6. Part of the mindset is historical: Computers have loved Duke in recent prior years, where Duke has underperformed its seed as well as the computer-love. Another part of the mindset is revealed by the "alarmingly unathletic" tiff: Duke just doesn't look like a team that is that good. There is a lot of subjectivity going on here, some of which may be fair and some of which is just hot air. While subjectivity has its strong place in the crazy world of college basketball (vive la crazy, I say), if Duke wins out or even comes close to winning out (say, getting regular season championship with one more loss plus a showing in the ACC tourney championship game), then Duke would have to be on the short end of an epic s___w job not to get a No. 1.

One other subjective factor -- actually, I suppose it can be objectively measured -- for why Duke isn't as highly regarded as its computer rankings would suggest, is that there's such a wide disparity between the home and road performances of Duke this season. Duke just throttles opponents at home, and that fact, by and large, is the reason Duke is ranked so high by the computers, which count every single game the same whether it is home, away, or neutral. But of course, postseason play takes place away from home, so I would subjectively lower Duke a bit in my own rankings.

My slight bump downwards isn't really dramatic, though. I put Kansas and Kentucky ahead of us. Beyond those two teams, I'm not sure there are any that I wouldn't take Duke to win against at least 50% of the time.

Especially with the way I believe Duke is going to finish this season post-UNC-win. It already started with Maryland and I think it will continue on through the rest of the schedule. Duke is going to play its best basketball of the season in these final 7 games.

All of this is my roundabout, long-winded way of saying that Duke is, imo, the third best team in the country but there are several teams "behind" us like WVU that are essentially just as good and a tough matchup for Duke, making it a 50/50 tossup game.

That's not a bad place to be at this point in the season. And it's a lot better than what many predicted preseason.

Jumbo
02-16-2010, 10:33 PM
One other subjective factor -- actually, I suppose it can be objectively measured -- for why Duke isn't as highly regarded as its computer rankings would suggest, is that there's such a wide disparity between the home and road performances of Duke this season. Duke just throttles opponents at home, and that fact, by and large, is the reason Duke is ranked so high by the computers, which count every single game the same whether it is home, away, or neutral. But of course, postseason play takes place away from home, so I would subjectively lower Duke a bit in my own rankings.

My slight bump downwards isn't really dramatic, though. I put Kansas and Kentucky ahead of us. Beyond those two teams, I'm not sure there are any that I wouldn't take Duke to win against at least 50% of the time.

Especially with the way I believe Duke is going to finish this season post-UNC-win. It already started with Maryland and I think it will continue on through the rest of the schedule. Duke is going to play its best basketball of the season in these final 7 games.

All of this is my roundabout, long-winded way of saying that Duke is, imo, the third best team in the country but there are several teams "behind" us like WVU that are essentially just as good and a tough matchup for Duke, making it a 50/50 tossup game.

That's not a bad place to be at this point in the season. And it's a lot better than what many predicted preseason.

I think at least two of the Big East teams (Syracuse and Villanova) are better than Kentucky, and maybe more (WVU and GTown). I feel like Kansas is the best team in the nation (well, besides Duke, of course ;) ) -- far from unbeatable, but the toughest out with the most margin for error.

Also, something which is getting conveniently ignored by those who refuse to give Duke full credit is the absolute demolition of Gonzaga at MSG. Yes, it was in December. Yes, Gonzaga had to travel all the way across the country. Yes, Bouldin was just coming back from a concussion. But that game was beyond lopsided, and Gonzaga is a darn good team.

Troublemaker
02-16-2010, 10:49 PM
I think at least two of the Big East teams (Syracuse and Villanova) are better than Kentucky, and maybe more (WVU and GTown). I feel like Kansas is the best team in the nation (well, besides Duke, of course ;) ) -- far from unbeatable, but the toughest out with the most margin for error.

Also, something which is getting conveniently ignored by those who refuse to give Duke full credit is the absolute demolition of Gonzaga at MSG. Yes, it was in December. Yes, Gonzaga had to travel all the way across the country. Yes, Bouldin was just coming back from a concussion. But that game was beyond lopsided, and Gonzaga is a darn good team.

Believe me, I give tremendous credit to Duke for that win. I love this Gonzaga team from both a talent and aesthetic standpoint -- I love watching them play -- and I think they are top 15 this season, a season that could once again mark "their time" to make a Final Four.

Kentucky is an interesting case. I believe they have easily the most talent in the country. They may have 4 lottery picks including #1 overall because I think even Bledsoe has lottery talent. BUT, and it's a significant but, they are soooo inexperienced and this is Calipari's first season at the program and first season implementing his systems with these kids. I think they're very susceptible to upset so I can see your point of view.

BlueintheFace
02-16-2010, 10:52 PM
Just reiterating this as I watch UK play it's first RPI top 60 team of the season:

If we are a #2 seed, I want UK

Troublemaker
02-16-2010, 10:58 PM
Before I sign off and sleep. Just wanted to say I love the bball talk in this thread. I'll probably have more to add later. I love you all (with the possible exception of NYC Duke Fan, who posts annoying things all the time :-) nah I love him too). We're all Dukies afterall.

Good night and Goooo Duke!

RoyalBlue08
02-16-2010, 11:20 PM
Just reiterating this as I watch UK play it's first RPI top 60 team of the season:

If we are a #2 seed, I want UK

Kentucky scares me...not because of their body of work, but because of their potential. I don't know if it will happen, but if those kids decide they want to go 100% and play together come tournament time, I don't see anyone beating them. They got two kids that could be legit NBA all stars and two others (Bledsoe and Patterson) that could have long careers in the NBA as well. They don't come to play every game, and they sometimes aren't all on the same page, but it may just be that the NCAA tournament is what is required to get their attention. I'd much rather see them way on the other side of the bracket.

Jumbo
02-16-2010, 11:23 PM
Believe me, I give tremendous credit to Duke for that win. I love this Gonzaga team from both a talent and aesthetic standpoint -- I love watching them play -- and I think they are top 15 this season, a season that could once again mark "their time" to make a Final Four.

Kentucky is an interesting case. I believe they have easily the most talent in the country. They may have 4 lottery picks including #1 overall because I think even Bledsoe has lottery talent. BUT, and it's a significant but, they are soooo inexperienced and this is Calipari's first season at the program and first season implementing his systems with these kids. I think they're very susceptible to upset so I can see your point of view.

Oh, I wasn't implying that you don't appreciate Gonzaga. I meant more along the lines of various members of the national media when it comes to analyzing Duke's resume.
Would be very interesting to see Kentucky against either a very disciplined, system-based mid-major in, say, the second round or exactly the opposite -- a team that really likes to force tempo.

Jumbo
02-16-2010, 11:24 PM
Just reiterating this as I watch UK play it's first RPI top 60 team of the season:

If we are a #2 seed, I want UK

But as I've said, that's virtually impossible unless either WVU or Georgetown falls off significantly, which would also mean we'd likely end up with one of them as our #3. Be careful what you wish for ...

BlueintheFace
02-16-2010, 11:35 PM
But as I've said, that's virtually impossible unless either WVU or Georgetown falls off significantly, which would also mean we'd likely end up with one of them as our #3. Be careful what you wish for ...

If they had lost tonight, and again later this week, that might push them down to the #3 or #4 overall. I think, at that point it would be feasible. It looks less likely now though. I agree.

BlueintheFace
02-16-2010, 11:38 PM
I think, in an ideal world, we get a #1 seed and gets Purdue as the #2 seed in our region

Jumbo
02-16-2010, 11:42 PM
If they had lost tonight, and again later this week, that might push them down to the #3 or #4 overall. I think, at that point it would be feasible. It looks less likely now though. I agree.

No, that's not why. I'm assuming that if Duke is a 2-seed, it means two Big East teams are #1 seeds (Cuse+Nova). If that happens, and WVU/GTown are 2-seeds, Duke has to be placed with either Cuse or Nova.

BlueintheFace
02-17-2010, 12:06 AM
No, that's not why. I'm assuming that if Duke is a 2-seed, it means two Big East teams are #1 seeds (Cuse+Nova). If that happens, and WVU/GTown are 2-seeds, Duke has to be placed with either Cuse or Nova.

Now, see, I don't agree with that. I can see plenty of scenarios in which Duke is a #2 seed and the Big East has only one #1 seed.

KU
UK
Syracuse/Nova
Michigan State

KU
UK
Syracuse/Nova
Purdue

... both possibilities

BlueintheFace
02-17-2010, 12:16 AM
Also, if the Cuse wins @ georgetown this weekend, I can very easily see a scenario in which they win out in the regular season (including a win at home over Nova) and maybe a loss in the Big East tourney (whenever). If that happens, Duke loses one more, and UK drops 2 games between now and selection sunday, we COULD be looking at something like this.

1) KU
2) Cuse
3) UK
4) Purdue

5) Nova
6) Duke
7) Mich St.
8) WVU

ice-9
02-17-2010, 02:00 AM
Kentucky scares me...not because of their body of work, but because of their potential. I don't know if it will happen, but if those kids decide they want to go 100% and play together come tournament time, I don't see anyone beating them. They got two kids that could be legit NBA all stars and two others (Bledsoe and Patterson) that could have long careers in the NBA as well. They don't come to play every game, and they sometimes aren't all on the same page, but it may just be that the NCAA tournament is what is required to get their attention. I'd much rather see them way on the other side of the bracket.

I think Kentucky is overrated.

Yes, on paper they have ridiculous amount of talent, and their win-loss record is sterling. But who have they really beaten?

- Miami of Ohio at home by only 2 points.

- OT to beat a down Stanford team in a neutral setting.

- UNC at home by 2 points. Yes, the same lovable UNC who got clobbered at the Dean Dome by giants like UVA.

- U-Conn by 3 points in a neutral setting who Duke demolished and who now may not even make the NCAA tournament.

- OT to beat 18-8 Mississippi State.

- Louisville at home. This actually might be Kentucky's best win, and Louisville isn't even certain to make the NCAA tournament.

- Florida away may be their other best win, and yet, Florida also isn't a sure fire NCAA tournament team.

- They LOST to 14-10 South Carolina 68-62.

What it all boils down to is that Kentucky hasn't defeated anyone notable and had close games with teams they should have theoretically blown out.

Is this Kentucky team for real?

Perhaps, but IMO they haven't proven it yet in the way Kansas, Syracuse, Villanova and a healthy Michigan St have. Of all the likely #1 seeds, I think Kentucky is the least tested.

CDu
02-17-2010, 09:43 AM
Now, see, I don't agree with that. I can see plenty of scenarios in which Duke is a #2 seed and the Big East has only one #1 seed.

KU
UK
Syracuse/Nova
Michigan State

KU
UK
Syracuse/Nova
Purdue

... both possibilities

And don't rule out the following either:

KU
UK
Syracuse/Nova
KSU

KU has built enough cache that they could possibly survive two losses to Kansas St and remain a #1 seed.

brevity
02-17-2010, 10:04 AM
And don't rule out the following either:

KU
UK
Syracuse/Nova
KSU

KU has built enough cache that they could possibly survive two losses to Kansas St and remain a #1 seed.

You mean the March 3 game and the Big 12 Tournament? Because the Jayhawks won in Manhattan last month.

If so, that's still a weird way to phrase it, since no one is talking about KSU as a top seed. But yeah, if they won in Lawrence and took the tournament (beating KU again in the process), they should be in the mix.

Jumbo
02-17-2010, 10:06 AM
Also, if the Cuse wins @ georgetown this weekend, I can very easily see a scenario in which they win out in the regular season (including a win at home over Nova) and maybe a loss in the Big East tourney (whenever). If that happens, Duke loses one more, and UK drops 2 games between now and selection sunday, we COULD be looking at something like this.

1) KU
2) Cuse
3) UK
4) Purdue

5) Nova
6) Duke
7) Mich St.
8) WVU

If you don't think 4 Big East teams will get 1/2 seeds, then obviously my point is moot. And the S-Curve doesn't matter, as the key is needing to avoid 2 teams from the same conference as the 1/2 in the same region.

CDu
02-17-2010, 10:08 AM
You mean the March 3 game and the Big 12 Tournament? Because the Jayhawks won in Manhattan last month.

If so, that's still a weird way to phrase it, since no one is talking about KSU as a top seed. But yeah, if they won in Lawrence and took the tournament (beating KU again in the process), they should be in the mix.

Yup, that's exactly what I mean. No one is currently talking about KSU as a top seed. But if they win out, they'll have beaten KU at least once, will be in the top-5 in the polls as well as in the RPI, will have won a major conference tournament, and will have only 4 losses. And if they beat KU in the tournament, then KU would have only 3 losses (two of them to another Top-5 team) and would thus still be deserving of a #1 seed.

Olympic Fan
02-17-2010, 10:17 AM
FWIW, I stayed up late last Friday night to watch a college basketball wrapup on ESPNU ... Lunardi was on, talking about his top seeds.

Going into the weekend, he thought Kansas, Kentucky, 'Nova and Syracuse were clearcut No. 1 seeds. If any falter, he had Purdue next in line ... Duke was the next team on his list. (That was before UConn won at Villanova and Louisville won at Syracuse).

Lot's of chances for losses coming up (for Duke too). Kentucky, which hasn't beaten a top 50 team on the road (Miss State is No. 63), gets a chance this weekend at Vandy ... they also have a game coming up at Tennessee.

I keep saying Duke is in the race because of the DEPTH of its schedule. There's a reason the computers love the Blue Devils (all three major computer rankings have Duke at either No. 2 or No. 3 in the nation) -- Duke has played and Duke has beaten more top 50 opponents than any of the other national contenders.

If you look at Lunardi's top six teams by top 50 performance, you get:

Kansas 8-1
Kentucky 4-0
'Nova 5-3
Syracuse 4-2
Purdue 5-2
Duke 9-3

UConn's big win moved them into the top 50, which helps us (and Kentucky, which also beat the Huskies) VPI, coming up Sunday, moved up to No. 44 by beating Wake.

I started this thread by suggesting that while a No. 2 seed is most likely, a No. 1 is not impossible.

I'm even more convinced that's true -- but to make it happen, Duke would have to come close to winning out (no worse than 5-1 down the stretch) AND win the ACC Tournament. I'm pretty certain that 2-3 of the teams ahead of us will stumble a few more times in the remaining week (plus, only one of Syracuse and 'Nova can win the Big East Tourney).

A No. 2 seed is still most likely, but a win tonight at Miami keeps the No. 1 hope alive.

El_Diablo
02-17-2010, 10:20 AM
If you don't think 4 Big East teams will get 1/2 seeds, then obviously my point is moot. And the S-Curve doesn't matter, as the key is needing to avoid 2 teams from the same conference as the 1/2 in the same region.

Is that a rule, that a region can't have 2 teams from the same conference at the top?

Jumbo
02-17-2010, 10:33 AM
Is that a rule, that a region can't have 2 teams from the same conference at the top?

Yes. Seeds are protected from their own conference.* The way things work, a seeded team should not have to face anyone from its own conference until, at the earliest, the regional final. And, assuming it's possible, no top-4 seeds should be placed in the same region.

*Now, when you have a conference as good as the Big East was last year, you run into trouble. Three teams earned a #1 seed. Two others -- Syracuse and Villanova -- earned No. 3 seeds. That meant that one of the No. 3 seeds had to be placed in the same region as one of the No. 1 seeds, which led to that Pitt-Nova regional final.

BlueintheFace
02-17-2010, 10:39 AM
If you don't think 4 Big East teams will get 1/2 seeds, then obviously my point is moot. And the S-Curve doesn't matter, as the key is needing to avoid 2 teams from the same conference as the 1/2 in the same region.

I think it is possible, but I think Georgetown or WVU will fade to a #3 seed.

sagegrouse
02-17-2010, 10:43 AM
Is that a rule, that a region can't have 2 teams from the same conference at the top?

The practice is to spread out conference teams among the regions, so that except in the rare case that a conference has nine or more teams, then two conference foes cannot meet until the regional final. Therefore, if five teams or more are selected from a conference, then it is possible that two teams can meet in the round of eight.

The NCAA in recent times has not put a #1 and #2 from the same conference in the same regional. But back in the early days of the expanded format, Duke and UNC were put in the East Regional in 1979 as the top two teams. Both lost in Raleigh the first weekend: Duke to St. Johns and UNC to UPenn. I think that killed that practice.

sagegrouse

D.C. Devil
02-17-2010, 09:23 PM
I'm headed to Cuse-GU tomorrow. If GU pulls that one out, does Duke have the inside track for a #1 seed?

ice-9
02-17-2010, 09:29 PM
Is Purdue ahead of us? We might need to get Purdue to trip up a game or two -- the Big East will most assuredly get at least one team as a #1 seed. And I don't see Kansas or Kentucky losing it.

Still plenty of basketball to be played though...as today's game showed, it's too early to start penciling Duke in anywhere.

D.C. Devil
02-17-2010, 09:34 PM
Is Purdue ahead of us? We might need to get Purdue to trip up a game or two -- the Big East will most assuredly get at least one team as a #1 seed. And I don't see Kansas or Kentucky losing it.

Still plenty of basketball to be played though...as today's game showed, it's too early to start penciling Duke in anywhere.

PU's win at OSU today gives them the inside track. So yeah, if 'Cuse or VU wins the BIG EAST tourney, they probably get it ahead of the Devils.

Great win tonight. I'll be in Charlottesville later this month, and I hope to make it to the Comcast Center as well. Hopefully we can continue this strong run and then the tourney seeding will work itself out.

GoingFor#5
02-17-2010, 09:52 PM
I think I'd rather be the top 2 seed, than the last 1 seed. As the last 1 seed, we're almost certainly getting shipped out West.

dukemsu
02-17-2010, 10:59 PM
PU's win at OSU today gives them the inside track. So yeah, if 'Cuse or VU wins the BIG EAST tourney, they probably get it ahead of the Devils.

Great win tonight. I'll be in Charlottesville later this month, and I hope to make it to the Comcast Center as well. Hopefully we can continue this strong run and then the tourney seeding will work itself out.

Purdue's list of victims, particularly those away from Mackey (MSU, Tenn, and now OSU) likely gives them the inside track to the 1 seed in the West.

Their schedule is favorable. At Minnesota, home to MSU and Illinois. Neither MSU nor Illinois are likely to win at Mackey.

Barring a major slip-up, the Boilers are an extremely likely 1 seed.

dukemsu

ice-9
02-17-2010, 11:11 PM
Purdue's list of victims, particularly those away from Mackey (MSU, Tenn, and now OSU) likely gives them the inside track to the 1 seed in the West.

Their schedule is favorable. At Minnesota, home to MSU and Illinois. Neither MSU nor Illinois are likely to win at Mackey.

Barring a major slip-up, the Boilers are an extremely likely 1 seed.

dukemsu


If we win out, including the ACC tournament, and Purdue loses in their Big 10 tournament (highly likely given the number of strong teams at the top of the Big 10: MSU, Ohio State and Wisconsin), we can move ahead of them.

But if both teams win out and claim their conference tournaments, I think Purdue might have the edge.

Kedsy
02-18-2010, 01:02 AM
Barring a major slip-up, the Boilers are an extremely likely 1 seed.

At this point nobody (other than perhaps Kansas and Kentucky) are "extremely likely" #1 seeds unless they win their league tournament, and for the Big East and Big 10, especially, that's a major crap shoot.

bill brill
02-18-2010, 11:57 AM
it's my view if duke wins out, including the tournament, it will get a no. 1. gary parrish mentioned that in a recent column while at the same time denigrating it. but the teams ahead of duke will have a much tuffer schedule and obviously syracuse and villanova can't both win the big east, and, in fact, neither may win. had purdue fallen at ohio state, it would have been helpful, but the big ten tourney will be tuffer at the top than acc and boilers have just one less loss than duke. if devils don't get a no. 1, then being the top no. 2 would certainly be preferable. much more important -- if the big three play an entire game the way they did the second half againsrt miami (49 points), duke can make it to indy.

BlueintheFace
02-18-2010, 12:07 PM
it's my view if duke wins out, including the tournament, it will get a no. 1. gary parrish mentioned that in a recent column while at the same time denigrating it. but the teams ahead of duke will have a much tuffer schedule and obviously syracuse and villanova can't both win the big east, and, in fact, neither may win. had purdue fallen at ohio state, it would have been helpful, but the big ten tourney will be tuffer at the top than acc and boilers have just one less loss than duke. if devils don't get a no. 1, then being the top no. 2 would certainly be preferable. much more important -- if the big three play an entire game the way they did the second half againsrt miami (49 points), duke can make it to indy.

^^ The legend speaks. All must listen.

throatybeard
02-18-2010, 12:08 PM
I tell you who's gonna be hoppin mad is the 1-seed who ends up with Texas as their 4 or 5. In freefall now, but still dangerous in one game.

tbyers11
02-18-2010, 12:16 PM
I tell you who's gonna be hoppin mad is the 1-seed who ends up with Texas as their 4 or 5. In freefall now, but still dangerous in one game.

With Texas' remaining schedule (@Texas Tech, OkSt, @ A&M, OK, @ Baylor) and the way they have been playing recently, the 1 seed who ends up with Texas as the 8/9 in their bracket might be the hoppin mad team :D

I don't think Texas wins enough games the rest of the way to be 4/5. They could but I'd guess they end up 6/7.

Jumbo
02-18-2010, 01:22 PM
it's my view if duke wins out, including the tournament, it will get a no. 1. gary parrish mentioned that in a recent column while at the same time denigrating it. but the teams ahead of duke will have a much tuffer schedule and obviously syracuse and villanova can't both win the big east, and, in fact, neither may win. had purdue fallen at ohio state, it would have been helpful, but the big ten tourney will be tuffer at the top than acc and boilers have just one less loss than duke. if devils don't get a no. 1, then being the top no. 2 would certainly be preferable. much more important -- if the big three play an entire game the way they did the second half againsrt miami (49 points), duke can make it to indy.

The only area where I disagree is in the value placed on winning the conference tourney. We've seen it happen often lately, where the bracket is basically set before the ACC or Big 10 Tourney finals are even finished. So if, say, Duke and Purdue are both in their respective tourney finals, I highly doubt whatever happens on that Sunday would affect where either team is seeded. The interesting thing would be if a team like Purdue were to lose early in its conference Tourney.

I am going to continue to assume that there's no way Kansas or Kentucky can blow a No. 1 seed at this point. So the remaining questions are:
1) Is there any way the Big East doesn't get at least one No. 1 seed? (I just don't think that would be right.)
2) How many losses would it take from either Syracuse or Villanova for the Big East not to get two No. 1 seeds?
3) Is Purdue ahead of Duke in the pecking order right now (I think so) and, if so, what has to happen to flip that?

Kedsy
02-18-2010, 01:54 PM
The only area where I disagree is in the value placed on winning the conference tourney. We've seen it happen often lately, where the bracket is basically set before the ACC or Big 10 Tourney finals are even finished. So if, say, Duke and Purdue are both in their respective tourney finals, I highly doubt whatever happens on that Sunday would affect where either team is seeded. The interesting thing would be if a team like Purdue were to lose early in its conference Tourney.

You may be right, but I'm not so sure. My impression has been that if the conference final is between two top teams they do things like slot "Big East championship game winner" in one slot and "Big East championship game loser" in another. Or if it's a top team against a mid-level team they slot "Duke if they win ACC."

Last year, they gave UConn a #1 despite the fact that they lost early in the Big East tourney and seemingly in disregard of the fact that Duke won the ACC tournament, but they had plenty of warning about UConn's loss, so they must have just decided they were the most worthy, despite the seemingly large amount of data to the contrary (personally I thought at least six teams had better resumes than UConn, meaning three teams were shafted, but of them only Duke played a late game on Selection Sunday). And I remember one year when they seemed to ignore the Big 10 championship game, but generally they appear (to me, at least) to take those games into account.

crimsonandblue
02-18-2010, 02:10 PM
Of course, at the end of the day, Duke's big win over Wisconsin in Madison (which Purdue couldn't pull off) could be important. Think that's impossible? Maybe not. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20030318/ai_n11796012/)

Moral of the story, I think we probably know and think more about this stuff than the selection committee.

MChambers
02-18-2010, 02:14 PM
Of course, at the end of the day, Duke's big win over Wisconsin in Madison (which Purdue couldn't pull off) could be important. Think that's impossible? Maybe not. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20030318/ai_n11796012/)

Moral of the story, I think we probably know and think more about this stuff than the selection committee.

Maybe the commitee will get confused with Duke's big wins at Madison Square Garden.

uh_no
02-18-2010, 06:27 PM
Last year, they gave UConn a #1 despite the fact that they lost early in the Big East tourney and seemingly in disregard of the fact that Duke won the ACC tournament, but they had plenty of warning about UConn's loss, so they must have just decided they were the most worthy, despite the seemingly large amount of data to the contrary

Lets see...Uconn made the final four.....duke didn't make the elite 8 by a longshot.....despite all your 'evidence' it would seem that the committee got it right....

Kedsy
02-18-2010, 07:16 PM
Lets see...Uconn made the final four.....duke didn't make the elite 8 by a longshot.....despite all your 'evidence' it would seem that the committee got it right....

Or it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy because the #1's road was so much easier. Duke's road to the Final Four was Texas, Villanova, and then Pitt. UConn's was Texas A&M, Purdue, and Missouri. Obviously they wouldn't make UConn play two Big East teams, but which was the harder road? Personally I think Duke would have made the Final Four if all they had to do was beat the teams UConn beat.

In 2006, George Mason made the Final Four and none of the #1 seeds made it. Does that mean the committee screwed up that year and George Mason should have been a #1?

Your logic is flawed.

blueprofessor
02-19-2010, 03:33 PM
South
1 'Cuse
2 Duke
3 New Mexico
4 Vandy
5 Wisconsin
6 Butler
7 Baylor
8 FL State...
Best regards--Blue Prof:)

MChambers
02-19-2010, 04:09 PM
South
1 'Cuse
2 Duke
3 New Mexico
4 Vandy
5 Wisconsin
6 Butler
7 Baylor
8 FL State...
Best regards--Blue Prof:)

I'd take that, even though I'd prefer not to have Syracuse as the #1, because New Mexico is #36 in Pomeroy. Of course, it won't happen.

BlueintheFace
02-19-2010, 04:10 PM
Baylor in the second round? NO THANK YOU

Kedsy
02-19-2010, 04:14 PM
Baylor in the second round? NO THANK YOU

You have to play somebody. If you're a #2, you probably play a #7, which is theoretically a top 30 team.

MChambers
02-19-2010, 04:15 PM
I missed Baylor in the second round. That would be absurd.

loldevilz
02-19-2010, 04:22 PM
I'd take that, even though I'd prefer not to have Syracuse as the #1, because New Mexico is #36 in Pomeroy. Of course, it won't happen.

I think that Baylor might be the worst possible matchup we could get. Does anybody else think that we are screwed if we hit the Bears? They may be the most underrated team in the country.

Greg_Newton
02-19-2010, 05:12 PM
Why are people scared of Baylor? Is it a style of play thing? Aside from an upset of free-falling Texas, they haven't been particuarly impressive against a mediocre schedule. I'd rather see them than, say, Texas or GT in the second round, but more importantly I would be THRILLED to see NMU and Vandy as the 3/4 combo in our bracket.

pfrduke
02-19-2010, 05:24 PM
Why are people scared of Baylor? Is it a style of play thing? Aside from an upset of free-falling Texas, they haven't been particuarly impressive against a mediocre schedule. I'd rather see them than, say, Texas or GT in the second round, but more importantly I would be THRILLED to see NMU and Vandy as the 3/4 combo in our bracket.

The 3/4 combo isn't really relevant - we would only play the 4 if they beat the 1. The 3/6 combo is our sweet 16 matchup, which according to this would be NMU/Butler. Not sure whether that changes your thrilledness or not, just pointing it out.

CoachJ10
02-19-2010, 07:08 PM
I am not sure why Purdue would get the nod over us at this point. Our RPI and SOS are better, and winning the ACC vs the Big 10 is at worst a push in our favor. And from a pure basketball matchup, we have an advantage over them player vs. player (the only edge in their favor being jajuan johnson over lance).

Regardless...if we are a 1...I hope Purdue is our 2. Or if we are a 2...I would love to have Purdue as our 1. I think we match up very competitively against their team.

sagegrouse
02-19-2010, 07:27 PM
Why are people scared of Baylor? .

Do they still prohibit dancing and ban the use of alcohol at all social functions?

Then there is always the risk that one may get posted to Waco, which is truly frightening.

sagegrouse
'College Station and Lubbock aren't much better, but if your daughter wants to marry a rancher, Texas Tech, not Texas A&M, is the place to go'

loldevilz
02-19-2010, 07:39 PM
Why are people scared of Baylor? Is it a style of play thing? Aside from an upset of free-falling Texas, they haven't been particuarly impressive against a mediocre schedule. I'd rather see them than, say, Texas or GT in the second round, but more importantly I would be THRILLED to see NMU and Vandy as the 3/4 combo in our bracket.

Baylor is very much a potential upset. Scott Drew is one of the best coaches and my second favorite coach in all of basketball. They have some very strong, experienced, and talented guards in Tweety Carter and LaceDarius Dunn. They have shown an ability to beat very good teams (texas at texas). This team is absurdly under seeded. Their RPI is 14 and they are 3rd in the Big 12. I think Duke is the exact type of team that they could beat on a good day.

blueprofessor
02-19-2010, 08:56 PM
Do they still prohibit dancing and ban the use of alcohol at all social functions?

Then there is always the risk that one may get posted to Waco, which is truly frightening.

sagegrouse
'College Station and Lubbock aren't much better, but if your daughter wants to marry a rancher, Texas Tech, not Texas A&M, is the place to go'

Ranching women and men are in shape! Nothing here suggests that interpersonal relations, if you catch the drift (and I have a notion sagegrouse does) have been banned.
I recall one friend from a religion that banned caffeine and alcohol indicating that interpersonal relations were definitely on tap.:D:D

Best regards--Blueprofessor:)

rotogod00
02-19-2010, 11:24 PM
I am not sure why Purdue would get the nod over us at this point. Our RPI and SOS are better, and winning the ACC vs the Big 10 is at worst a push in our favor. And from a pure basketball matchup, we have an advantage over them player vs. player (the only edge in their favor being jajuan johnson over lance).

Regardless...if we are a 1...I hope Purdue is our 2. Or if we are a 2...I would love to have Purdue as our 1. I think we match up very competitively against their team.

Probably little things like:
Road W-L - Purdue: 6-2; Duke: 4-4
vs top 25 - Purdue: 5-1; Duke: 2-2

rotogod00
02-19-2010, 11:29 PM
From Lunardi: # 1 Seed Odds
Kansas - 90%
Kentucky - 70%
Syracuse - 65%
Purdue - 50%
Duke - 40%
Villanova - 35%
Kansas State - 15%
Michigan State -15%
West Virginia - 10%
"FIELD" - 10%

ice-9
02-19-2010, 11:31 PM
South
1 'Cuse
2 Duke
3 New Mexico
4 Vandy
5 Wisconsin
6 Butler
7 Baylor
8 FL State...
Best regards--Blue Prof:)

I agree Baylor is a tough second round, but once past it, it's a favorable draw for Duke:
- New Mexico has got to be the weakest 3rd seed.
- Vandy/Wisconsin has an excellent chance of upsetting Syracuse
- We should be able to take Vandy down and our players would be hungry for revenge vs. Wisconsin. It's gonna be hard to beat us twice in a season

TexHawk
02-20-2010, 01:57 PM
Baylor is very much a potential upset. Scott Drew is one of the best coaches and my second favorite coach in all of basketball. They have some very strong, experienced, and talented guards in Tweety Carter and LaceDarius Dunn. They have shown an ability to beat very good teams (texas at texas). This team is absurdly under seeded. Their RPI is 14 and they are 3rd in the Big 12. I think Duke is the exact type of team that they could beat on a good day.
Baylor could beat anyone in the country on a good day. They have a strong PG who can shoot, an all-conference shooting guard, and extremely athletic big men.

On a good day, there were tied with KU at AFH with under 1 to play before Sherron Collins took over. (The only team to shoot better than 50% against KU in 3 years, including 48% from 3.)

On a bad day, they lose to Colorado.

Indoor66
02-20-2010, 02:47 PM
Baylor could beat anyone in the country on a good day. They have a strong PG who can shoot, an all-conference shooting guard, and extremely athletic big men.

On a good day, there were tied with KU at AFH with under 1 to play before Sherron Collins took over. (The only team to shoot better than 50% against KU in 3 years, including 48% from 3.)

On a bad day, they lose to Colorado.

It is our job to see that they have a bad day - if we play them.

BlueintheFace
02-21-2010, 02:23 PM
Nova losing helps a lot. Now we root for the Cuse to beat Nova again.

Jumbo
02-21-2010, 02:29 PM
Nova losing helps a lot. Now we root for the Cuse to beat Nova again.

Nova lost twice this week; Duke has to be ahead of them in the pecking order right now. So, maybe you root for Nova to beat Cuse and Cuse to lose another game or two.

The big one is Purdue. Illinois had a real chance yesterday, but it's going to be tough for Purdue to drop another one in the regular season. And I just don't see the conference tournaments mattering that much. Duke has to run the table in the regular season at this point.

Morris614
02-21-2010, 02:35 PM
I am not sure why Purdue would get the nod over us at this point. Our RPI and SOS are better, and winning the ACC vs the Big 10 is at worst a push in our favor. And from a pure basketball matchup, we have an advantage over them player vs. player (the only edge in their favor being jajuan johnson over lance).

Regardless...if we are a 1...I hope Purdue is our 2. Or if we are a 2...I would love to have Purdue as our 1. I think we match up very competitively against their team.

Scheyer vs Kramer would be a pretty sweet battle

juise
02-21-2010, 02:41 PM
Scheyer vs Kramer would be a pretty sweet battle

I haven't had a chance to see much of Purdue this year, but statistically there isn't much comparison between the two players.

Jumbo
02-21-2010, 02:44 PM
I haven't had a chance to see much of Purdue this year, but statistically there isn't much comparison between the two players.

Kramer is an outstanding defender. I imagine that's the end of the court the poster above was focusing on.

houstondukie
02-21-2010, 02:51 PM
Nova lost twice this week; Duke has to be ahead of them in the pecking order right now. So, maybe you root for Nova to beat Cuse and Cuse to lose another game or two.

The big one is Purdue. Illinois had a real chance yesterday, but it's going to be tough for Purdue to drop another one in the regular season. And I just don't see the conference tournaments mattering that much. Duke has to run the table in the regular season at this point.

Purdue will face very tough competition in the Big Ten tournament (Ohio St., Michigan St., Illinois, Wisconsin, etc), wheras Duke will face relatively lesser competition. It's very possible that Duke runs the table and wins the ACCT, in which case, all Duke needs is for Purdue to lose one more regular season game or maybe even a Big Ten tournament loss.

As far as Villanova, I agree that Duke has probably overtaken them in the pecking order. They still have to play @ Syracuse, @ Cincinati, and West Virginia.

Jumbo
02-21-2010, 03:05 PM
Purdue will face very tough competition in the Big Ten tournament (Ohio St., Michigan St., Illinois, Wisconsin, etc), wheras Duke will face relatively lesser competition. It's very possible that Duke runs the table and wins the ACCT, in which case, all Duke needs is for Purdue to lose one more regular season game or maybe even a Big Ten tournament loss.

As far as Villanova, I agree that Duke has probably overtaken them in the pecking order. They still have to play @ Syracuse, @ Cincinati, and West Virginia.

But what I'm saying is if Purdue enters the Big 10 Tourney with only 3 losses and happens to get tripped up, I don't think that will matter much to the committee. As we've seen in the past, it seems like a lot of decisions are made before that final weekend. And more to the point, if you were on the committee and Purdue lost in the Big 10 semis to, say, Michigan State, would you really say "Oh, well, that means they they should now be a No. 2 instead of a No. 1?" That's a tough argument to make. Now, if Purdue loses before then, it changes the equation. They enter the conference tournaments (and the beginning of the tough committee discussions) with the same number of losses, Duke riding a long winning streak (in this scenario, Duke wins out), etc. I think it would be much easier for committee members to make the case for Duke under those circumstances.

uh_no
02-21-2010, 03:09 PM
But what I'm saying is if Purdue enters the Big 10 Tourney with only 3 losses and happens to get tripped up, I don't think that will matter much to the committee. As we've seen in the past, it seems like a lot of decisions are made before that final weekend. And more to the point, if you were on the committee and Purdue lost in the Big 10 semis to, say, Michigan State, would you really say "Oh, well, that means they they should now be a No. 2 instead of a No. 1?" That's a tough argument to make. Now, if Purdue loses before then, it changes the equation. They enter the conference tournaments (and the beginning of the tough committee discussions) with the same number of losses, Duke riding a long winning streak (in this scenario, Duke wins out), etc. I think it would be much easier for committee members to make the case for Duke under those circumstances.

as it stands now anyway, purdue is probably the fourth overall seed and duke is fifth overall....so you'd just be switching the two of them....and the 3 and 4 seeds would be the 12th and 13th overall seeds, so flipping the one and 2 in that region doesn't matter a whole lot anyway

Jumbo
02-21-2010, 03:26 PM
as it stands now anyway, purdue is probably the fourth overall seed and duke is fifth overall....so you'd just be switching the two of them....and the 3 and 4 seeds would be the 12th and 13th overall seeds, so flipping the one and 2 in that region doesn't matter a whole lot anyway

Except things rarely go straight by the S-Curve, because of conference considerations. For instance, and I've mentioned this throughout the thread, let's say that somehow the S-Curve looked like this: 1) Kansas 2) Syracuse 3) Kentucky 4) Purdue 5) Duke 6) Villanova 7) West Virginia 8) Georgetown. So, Duke should play Purdue, right? Wrong. Because that would mean Syracuse would have to be placed with Nova, West Virginia or Georgetown. And that can't happen. So, in that scenario, Purdue would play Nova, Kentucky would play West Virginia and Duke would end up facing Syracuse.

Spreading the placement of the 4 Big East teams is going to be one of the major issues to watch. If Duke ends up as a 2-seed, the best thing to happen could be for Georgetown to fall to a 4 and WVU to end up as a 3. That would enable, say, Duke to be te 2 in the region with Purdue as a 1, with Georgetown ending up as the 4. (It would also mean you wouldn't see Ohio State or Michigan State as a 3; probably means Kansas State in that spot). Kentucky and Duke are going to be the most flexible teams, because there probably won't be another top-4 seed from the ACC, and maybe only one other from the SEC (Tennessee). How the committee spreads out 4 (and maybe 5, with Pitt) top-4 seeds from the Big East, at least 3 and maybe 4 (Wiscons) from the Big 10 and 2 potential 1/2 seeds from the Big 12 (Kansas and Kansas State) is going to be interesting, and will take a lot of the S-Curve out of the process this year. It's a strange year, because the Pac-10 isn't even a factor and the ACC has great depth but lacks a true top team other than Duke.

houstondukie
02-21-2010, 03:30 PM
as it stands now anyway, purdue is probably the fourth overall seed and duke is fifth overall....so you'd just be switching the two of them....and the 3 and 4 seeds would be the 12th and 13th overall seeds, so flipping the one and 2 in that region doesn't matter a whole lot anyway

You're right, it doesn't make much difference if the committee pairs up Duke and Purdue in the same region. However, I just have a feeling that a #2 seed Duke will be paired with Kentucky. Just a feeling.

And like Jumbo said, it doesn't always goes by the S-curve exactly.

mo.st.dukie
02-21-2010, 03:37 PM
Except things rarely go straight by the S-Curve, because of conference considerations. For instance, and I've mentioned this throughout the thread, let's say that somehow the S-Curve looked like this: 1) Kansas 2) Syracuse 3) Kentucky 4) Purdue 5) Duke 6) Villanova 7) West Virginia 8) Georgetown. So, Duke should play Purdue, right? Wrong. Because that would mean Syracuse would have to be placed with Nova, West Virginia or Georgetown. And that can't happen. So, in that scenario, Purdue would play Nova, Kentucky would play West Virginia and Duke would end up facing Syracuse.



Villanova was in the same bracket as Pitt last year. Conference teams can be in the same bracket but cannot play until at least the Elite 8. Seeing as how it is very unlikely GTown, WVU, and Nova will get below a 3 seed there is a very real possibility that Cuse could play one of those 3 in the Elite 8. If Duke has a #1 seed or is a top 2 seed I don't see how they put us anywhere else other than the East Region. The question is would the committee put UK as the #1 in the East or Purdue

Jumbo
02-21-2010, 03:49 PM
Villanova was in the same bracket as Pitt last year. Conference teams can be in the same bracket but cannot play until at least the Elite 8. Seeing as how it is very unlikely GTown, WVU, and Nova will get below a 3 seed there is a very real possibility that Cuse could play one of those 3 in the Elite 8. If Duke has a #1 seed or is a top 2 seed I don't see how they put us anywhere else other than the East Region. The question is would the committee put UK as the #1 in the East or Purdue

I've explained this already in the thread. Pittsburgh was only in the same bracket as Villanova last year because five(!!!) Big East teams had top-3 seeds. As such, there was no choice but to have one region where the teams could have met in the regional final. You'll note the following: There was no region in which the Big East was 1/2 and that the other No. 3 seed (Syracuse) was placed in a region without a Big East team as a 1/2 seed. The committee follows these guidelines, and will separate teams from the same conference accordingly. The committee cannot, for instance, put Kentucky and Duke together as the 1/2 seeds and put Syracuse/West Virginia as the 1/2 in another region. You just swap one for the other, and that seeding principle comes ahead of the S-Curve.

NYC Duke Fan
02-21-2010, 03:58 PM
Agree thatr the #1 seeds will be Kentucky, Kansas, Syracuse and Purdue

I think that they will be placed in the following regions:

Purdue- East Regional in Syracuse

Kentucky- Mid West in St. Louis

Syracuse - South in Houston

Kansas- West in Salt Lake City

They could swap Syracuse and Kansas...The NCAA has put Eastern teams in the West Regional

In the above picture, I think that Duke as a # 2 seed would be placed in the Eastern Region...still a lot of basketball to played , however.

BlueintheFace
02-21-2010, 04:56 PM
Nova lost twice this week; Duke has to be ahead of them in the pecking order right now. So, maybe you root for Nova to beat Cuse and Cuse to lose another game or two.

The big one is Purdue. Illinois had a real chance yesterday, but it's going to be tough for Purdue to drop another one in the regular season. And I just don't see the conference tournaments mattering that much. Duke has to run the table in the regular season at this point.

I am pushing more for Cuse to solidify so we have- UK, KU, and Cuse and then one more. Yah, I am rooting pretty hard for Purdue losses at this point. I think Michigan St. is the last hump for them.

RoyalBlue08
02-21-2010, 05:14 PM
I am pushing more for Cuse to solidify so we have- UK, KU, and Cuse and then one more. Yah, I am rooting pretty hard for Purdue losses at this point. I think Michigan St. is the last hump for them.

This is what I am rooting for as well. I think these are the three best teams by a long shot, and would love to be able to run the table to get the 4th one seed and not have to deal with any of them until the final four.

Kedsy
02-21-2010, 06:03 PM
This is what I am rooting for as well. I think these are the three best teams by a long shot, and would love to be able to run the table to get the 4th one seed and not have to deal with any of them until the final four.

I agree Syracuse is good, and are currently a favorite for a #1 seed, but to see they are one of the best three teams "by a long shot" might be overstating things. Don't forget this is a team that lost an exhibition game to Le Moyne, a Division II team. Even if you discount that, they're only #4 in Pomeroy and in the RPI (and #2 in Sagarin), which of course is very good, quite possibly top 3, but doesn't say top 3 by a long shot to me.

For that matter, Kentucky isn't in the top three of any of the major rating systems (#5 RPI, #7 Pomeroy, #4 Sagarin), so I don't know if I could apply "by a long shot" terminology to them, either.

On the other hand, I'm perfectly comfortable saying Kansas is currently the best team by a long shot.

Wander
02-21-2010, 06:10 PM
I am pushing more for Cuse to solidify so we have- UK, KU, and Cuse and then one more. Yah, I am rooting pretty hard for Purdue losses at this point. I think Michigan St. is the last hump for them.

I think this the exact right way to look at things. It's hard to imagine that no Big East team will get a 1 seed, so we should root for Syracuse to beat Villanova and Purdue to lose to Minnesota. And, of course, for Duke to win out.

loldevilz
02-21-2010, 06:15 PM
If we get a #1 seed we could very likely get Villanova as the 2 seed in our bracket. We might be able to get some sweet (sixteen) revenge.

Wander
02-21-2010, 06:21 PM
But what I'm saying is if Purdue enters the Big 10 Tourney with only 3 losses and happens to get tripped up, I don't think that will matter much to the committee. As we've seen in the past, it seems like a lot of decisions are made before that final weekend.

Not that I've crunched numbers or anything, but I've actually thought that the committee overvalues the conference tournaments. In 2005, Duke finished behind Wake Forest but Duke won the ACC tournament, Wake lost early, and as a result Duke got a 1 seed (as did an inferior Washington team that won the Pac 10 tournament) and Wake did not. In 2006, Syracuse wasn't even on the right side of the bubble, but they won the Big East tournament and somehow shot all the way up to a 5 seed. Would Duke have been seeded higher than Villanova last year if the Wildcats won the BE tournament and Duke did not win the ACC? I doubt it (yeah, yeah, I know, lots of good that did). I realize this is all just anecdotal, but just intuitively I think conference tourneys matter a lot.

Assuming KU, UK, and Syracuse get 1's, I think the battle between Duke, Purdue, and Villanova for the last top seed will depend greatly upon on their performance in the conference tournaments.

RoyalBlue08
02-21-2010, 06:28 PM
I agree Syracuse is good, and are currently a favorite for a #1 seed, but to see they are one of the best three teams "by a long shot" might be overstating things. Don't forget this is a team that lost an exhibition game to Le Moyne, a Division II team. Even if you discount that, they're only #4 in Pomeroy and in the RPI (and #2 in Sagarin), which of course is very good, quite possibly top 3, but doesn't say top 3 by a long shot to me.

For that matter, Kentucky isn't in the top three of any of the major rating systems (#5 RPI, #7 Pomeroy, #4 Sagarin), so I don't know if I could apply "by a long shot" terminology to them, either.

On the other hand, I'm perfectly comfortable saying Kansas is currently the best team by a long shot.

The problem with basing your opinions on these rankings is that all of them only consider what teams have done to this point. On paper, Kentucky hasn't accomplished all that much. By eye, I think most people can see that they have a ton of talent. And talent usually shines come tournament time. Now, I can't stand Cal and his semi-pro, one and done players. I am certainly hope they find a way to screw up in the tournament. And I wouldn't trade teams with them in a second. (And I certainly think Duke has a chance to beat them if they were to play in the tournament, although I don't think they would be the favorite.) However I think a lot of people on these boards are fooling themselves if they think Kentucky is going to come with the same mediocre effort in March that they are currently giving in Feb.

Kedsy
02-21-2010, 06:34 PM
The problem with basing your opinions on these rankings is that all of them only consider what teams have done to this point. On paper, Kentucky hasn't accomplished all that much. By eye, I think most people can see that they have a ton of talent. And talent usually shines come tournament time. Now, I can't stand Cal and his semi-pro, one and done players. I am certainly hope they find a way to screw up in the tournament. And I wouldn't trade teams with them in a second. (And I certainly think Duke has a chance to beat them if they were to play in the tournament, although I don't think they would be the favorite.) However I think a lot of people on these boards are fooling themselves if they think Kentucky is going to come with the same mediocre effort in March that they are currently giving in Feb.

I don't disagree with this, but the poster to whom I was responding opined that Kansas, Syracuse, and Kentucky are the best three teams in the country "by a long shot." I agree about Kansas, but I think Kentucky and Syracuse, even if they are the next two best teams are not there "by a long shot." I think there are approximately ten teams in the soup after Kansas, and Kentucky and Syracuse are among them. And I'm not just basing this on the computer numbers -- I've seen both Kentucky and Syracuse on TV. They're both very good, but both have weaknesses and neither is dominant.

houstondukie
02-21-2010, 06:34 PM
But what I'm saying is if Purdue enters the Big 10 Tourney with only 3 losses and happens to get tripped up, I don't think that will matter much to the committee. As we've seen in the past, it seems like a lot of decisions are made before that final weekend. And more to the point, if you were on the committee and Purdue lost in the Big 10 semis to, say, Michigan State, would you really say "Oh, well, that means they they should now be a No. 2 instead of a No. 1?" That's a tough argument to make. Now, if Purdue loses before then, it changes the equation. They enter the conference tournaments (and the beginning of the tough committee discussions) with the same number of losses, Duke riding a long winning streak (in this scenario, Duke wins out), etc. I think it would be much easier for committee members to make the case for Duke under those circumstances.

Even though I agree with you that the committee values the regular season more than the conference tourneys, I think you are underestimating the conference tourneys. I don't think it matters much when a team like Kansas or last year's UNC loses in their conference tourneys, but Purdue is not nearly as elite as those teams. A loss before the Big Ten championship game loses the #1 seed IMO.

BlueintheFace
02-21-2010, 06:42 PM
At this point, you have to believe UK and KU are golden with one loss each.

1) KU 26-1

2) UK 26-1

3) Syracuse 25-2
@ Prov, Nova, SJU, @ Lou

4) Purdue 23-3
@ Minn, MSU, Ind, @PSU

5) Duke 22-4
VT, Tulsa, @UVA, @MD, UNC

6) Villanova 22-4
USF, @Cuse, @Cin, WVU

7) KSU 22-4
@TTU, Mizz, @KU, ISU

8) WVU 21-5
@ Conn, Cin, Gtown, @Nova

Other possible #2's with implications for Duke

Georgetown- 18-7 (slim chance for a #2 seed)
@Lou, ND, @WVU, Cin

Also,

Gonzaga
MSU
Ohio State

As Jumbo and others have pointed out, the conference tournaments don't appear to be too significant to the committee for top seeds. I just don't see the losses for Cuse to fall out, and more importantly, there is no way the committee doesn't hand out a #1 seed to a Big East team. Duke is most likely sitting ahead of Nova if both teams win out, but I'd feel a lot safer if Cuse could just finish them off.

That leaves Purdue. Looking at their OOC and body of work, Duke should have the very slight advantage for the 4th #1 seed if they win out in the regular season and Purdue loses to Michigan St. We might actually see the committee using the conference tournaments as a tie breaker for the two teams in this situation. Advantage Duke there.

If that does not occur, then Duke will more than likely be looking at the top #2 seed. At this point, conference considerations come in to play for the S curve and determination of Duke's #1 pairing. Since it is basically impossible for both WVU and Georgetown (who looks like a 3 seed now anyways) to go on a run late due to scheduling, there should be just two Big East #2 seeds and one Big East #1 seed.

With Duke winning out in the regular season (knock on wood.. a lot) Duke will likely get Purdue in the tournament.

El_Diablo
02-21-2010, 07:01 PM
With Duke winning out in the regular season (knock on wood.. a lot) Duke will likely get Purdue in the tournament.

In which case, the fourth Big East team would be the #3 seed in our region, since the top 3 would be spread amongst the other three brackets. I would much rather see Purdue and Georgetown (or Purdue and WVU) battle it out to face us rather than have to face them both ourselves, so hopefully we win out and take that #1 seed!

uh_no
02-21-2010, 07:04 PM
I've explained this already in the thread. Pittsburgh was only in the same bracket as Villanova last year because five(!!!) Big East teams had top-3 seeds. As such, there was no choice but to have one region where the teams could have met in the regional final. You'll note the following: There was no region in which the Big East was 1/2 and that the other No. 3 seed (Syracuse) was placed in a region without a Big East team as a 1/2 seed. The committee follows these guidelines, and will separate teams from the same conference accordingly. The committee cannot, for instance, put Kentucky and Duke together as the 1/2 seeds and put Syracuse/West Virginia as the 1/2 in another region. You just swap one for the other, and that seeding principle comes ahead of the S-Curve.

The rule says that teams may not meet before the elite 8 unless the conference has more than so many teams.....it does not say how many high seeds can be in a region or anything like that.....even if the big east only had 2 teams in the tournament, it would be perfectly legitimate to have them as the 1 and 2 seeds in the same bracket.....please cite a rule that proves me incorrect if you so believe I am

Jumbo
02-21-2010, 08:44 PM
The rule says that teams may not meet before the elite 8 unless the conference has more than so many teams.....it does not say how many high seeds can be in a region or anything like that.....even if the big east only had 2 teams in the tournament, it would be perfectly legitimate to have them as the 1 and 2 seeds in the same bracket.....please cite a rule that proves me incorrect if you so believe I am

I am citing what I know to be the seeding practices. I'm not going hunting for the rule. This was discussed at length last year with so many Big East teams in the mix. The way the seeding practices work are that the top seeds are the first that are "protected." As such, they're not going to stick a 1/2 or 1/3 from the same conference unless they have to. Otherwise, why hasn't that happened more in the past? If you really don't believe me, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Edit: Screw it, I decided to look up some info for you. It took less than a minute thanks to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_basketball_tournament_selection_process).

Relevant Passages:

"In theory, the teams 1-4 on the seed list will all be #1 seeds (the #1 "seed line"), 5-8 will be #2 seeds (the #2 seed line), and so on; however, bracketing rules often lead to some deviation from this." [Emphasis Mine]

"Teams are spread out according to conference. The first three teams selected from each conference must be placed in different regions. When a conference has more than three teams in the tournament, the committee tries to seed the teams so that they cannot meet until the regional final. Before 2006, this was an absolute rule. However, in the summer of 2005, the NCAA changed its rules to allow intraconference matchups as early as the second round of the tournament, assuming all measures to keep the teams apart until the regional finals have been exhausted. The NCAA was clearly preparing for the chance that a conference would place more than eight teams in the tournament, which became a realistic possibility when the Big East, already a power conference, expanded to 16 members, with several of the new members having traditionally strong programs.

The committee may move a team up or down one seed from its seed line in the S-curve in order to preserve other principles. [Emphasis Mine] While this may be seen as unfair in some instances, the seeding process is an inexact science anyway and a slight move in seeding is unlikely to affect the chances of any team."

ACCBBallFan
02-21-2010, 11:41 PM
I agree with Jumbo that if you look across the major confernences, Duke has the benefit of being the only top team from its league, excellent metrics like RPI 2 of 347, SOS 5 of 347, Sagarin 3 of 347, Pomeroy #1 of 347, undefeated at home or on neutral sites, etc.

By contrast BE has 5 top teams in Nova, Syr, W VA, G-town and Pitt

B10 has 4 to spread across regional sites in Purdue , Mich St, Ohio St and Wisc

B12 has 3 in KU, K-St and TX if they stop self destructing

SEC has 3 in UK, TN and Vandy

Except for Duke, the other top candidates for top 4 seeds all come from mid majors: Butler, BYU, New MX, Gonzaga , N Iowa and the A-10 winner, none except Duke being a serious candidate for a 1 or 2 seed.

I doubt the committee places mid majors as highly as I have them at moment. Though they say they do not go by conference, it appears to me they do and Lunardi does.

So I would not be surprised to see Ohio St and Wisc edge out a couple of mid majors I list in top 4 seeds. Also as they play their confernece tourneys their metrics increase playing better competition than a mid major faces in its remaining league games and tourney.

01 B12 Kansas -1
02 ACC Duke -1
03 SEC Kentucky -1 (E-1)
04 BE Villanova -1

05 BE Syracuse -2
06 B10 Purdue -1
07 BE West VA -3
08 B12 Kansas St. -2

09 B12 Texas - 3
10 HOR Butler -1
11 B10 Michigan St -2
12 MWC BYU -1

13 WCC Gonzaga -1
14 BE Georgetown -4
15 MWC New MX -2
16 SEC Tennessee -2 (E-2)

17 B10 Ohio St. -3
18 B10 Wisc -4
19 MVC Northern Iowa -1
20 ACC Wake Forest -2

21 SEC Vandy -3 (E-3)
22 BE Pittsburgh -5
23 A10 Xavier -1
24 A10 Temple -2

25 A10 Richmond -3


I had Wake at #20 and last 5 seed (good candiate for 5-12 upset) but with loss to NC State, they slide next time I do the calcs. It's tough to get a lot of movement his late in the season, so regardless of ACC finish, I don't see anybody else getting into top 4, with too many teams to leapfrog.

BTW, from a pure metrics standpoint, Duke is #2 overall IMO and does not even need the conference equalization that Jumbo validly raised.

SCMatt33
02-21-2010, 11:58 PM
The committee may move a team up or down one seed from its seed line in the S-curve in order to preserve other principles. [Emphasis Mine]

I found a .pdf of the official principles and procedures (http://www.ncaa.com/graphics/champpage/Bracket_Prin-Proc_2009-10_07.07.09.pdf). I believe this was released for the media mock bracket. The rule about moving a seed actually refers to true seed, and not S-curve placement.

A team may be moved one seed line from its true seed line (e.g., from a No. 13 seed to a No. 12 seed) when it is placed in the bracket if necessary to meet the principles.

As an example, this rule would come into play if four ACC teams were either a 7 or a 10 seed (quite possible) and Duke were a 2 seed (likely). One of the four teams would have to be moved to a 8 or 9 seed to avoid a potential second round or sweet 16 match-up with Duke. This rule also gets used at the bottom of the bracket to keep 1-bid league champs closer to home as per the guidelines.

The rule to which Jumbo has been referring for a while is the following:

No more than one team from a conference may be seeded in the same grouping of four in line Nos. 1-4 and 13-16 in a region, unless a conference has four or more teams seeded in line Nos. 1-4. In lines No. 5-12, two teams from the same conference may be placed in the same group of four.

It sounds confusing, but basically says that unless a conference has at least four top four seeds, none can be placed in the same region. For example, if Gtown tanks and Pitt fails to get a top four seed, by rule, WVA, Nova, and Cuse must be in different regions. The Big East has a chance for five teams, which would allow this rule to be broken, but precedent suggests that they will try to avoid a 1-2 pairing if possible, instead going for a 2-4, 3-4, or 1-3 match-up.

If the tourney started today, Cuse would likely be a 1, Nova and WVA 2's, Gtown a 3, and Pitt a 4 or 5. Since the committee would avoid a 1-2 matchup, Duke would have to be either in a region with Gtown or Cuse. This is the Case in Lunardi's latest bracket with the only possible swap being between Duke and Kstate (he assumes in this scenario that the committee would avoid the Duke-Gtown sweet 16 game, even though the rules only explicitly discourage 1st and 2nd round games as rematches).

Jumbo
02-22-2010, 12:01 AM
I found a .pdf of the official principles and procedures (http://www.ncaa.com/graphics/champpage/Bracket_Prin-Proc_2009-10_07.07.09.pdf). I believe this was released for the media mock bracket. The rule about moving a seed actually refers to true seed, and not S-curve placement.

A team may be moved one seed line from its true seed line (e.g., from a No. 13 seed to a No. 12 seed) when it is placed in the bracket if necessary to meet the principles.

As an example, this rule would come into play if four ACC teams were either a 7 or a 10 seed (quite possible) and Duke were a 2 seed (likely). One of the four teams would have to be moved to a 8 or 9 seed to avoid a potential second round or sweet 16 match-up with Duke. This rule also gets used at the bottom of the bracket to keep 1-bid league champs closer to home as per the guidelines.

The rule to which Jumbo has been referring for a while is the following:

No more than one team from a conference may be seeded in the same grouping of four in line Nos. 1-4 and 13-16 in a region, unless a conference has four or more teams seeded in line Nos. 1-4. In lines No. 5-12, two teams from the same conference may be placed in the same group of four.

It sounds confusing, but basically says that unless a conference has at least four top four seeds, none can be placed in the same region. For example, if Gtown tanks and Pitt fails to get a top four seed, by rule, WVA, Nova, and Cuse must be in different regions. The Big East has a chance for five teams, which would allow this rule to be broken, but precedent suggests that they will try to avoid a 1-2 pairing if possible, instead going for a 2-4, 3-4, or 1-3 match-up.

If the tourney started today, Cuse would likely be a 1, Nova and WVA 2's, Gtown a 3, and Pitt a 4 or 5. Since the committee would avoid a 1-2 matchup, Duke would have to be either in a region with Gtown or Cuse. This is the Case in Lunardi's latest bracket with the only possible swap being between Duke and Kstate (he assumes in this scenario that the committee would avoid the Duke-Gtown sweet 16 game, even though the rules only explicitly discourage 1st and 2nd round games as rematches).

Well done -- thanks.

blueprofessor
02-22-2010, 01:19 PM
A blog referenced by A-Tex Devil has an interesting article on the 6 teams the author believes have a shot at a #1 seed. Since the article was posted (Feb.20), one of the six ('Nova) has lost.

http://marchtomarch.fantake.com/2010/02/20/big-dancing-sorting-out-the-one-seeds/

Best--Blueprofessor :)

burns15
02-22-2010, 04:51 PM
Lunardi has Texas as a 5 seed in Kentucky's bracket. That is an absolute brutal matchup, and one I would love to see, especially if Duke is on the other half of the bracket. Seeing them beat up each other and have to then turn around and play Duke would be great. However, if Duke was given Texas as a 5 seed, I would think that would be an absolute nightmare matchup, b/c of the talent level of the 'Horns

BlueintheFace
02-22-2010, 04:56 PM
Purdue v Michigan St.

Mark it down on all of your calendars

blueprofessor
02-22-2010, 05:15 PM
Lunardi has Texas as a 5 seed in Kentucky's bracket. That is an absolute brutal matchup, and one I would love to see, especially if Duke is on the other half of the bracket. Seeing them beat up each other and have to then turn around and play Duke would be great. However, if Duke was given Texas as a 5 seed, I would think that would be an absolute nightmare matchup, b/c of the talent level of the 'Horns

CBS(Palm) has Duke:

West

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

I like this better.:)

Lunardi (ESPN) wrote that either Purdue or Duke will be the fourth #1 seed depending on how far each goes in each team's respective conference tourney.

Best--Blueprofessor:)

CDu
02-22-2010, 05:18 PM
CBS(Palm) has Duke:

West

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

I like this better.:)

Lunardi (ESPN) wrote that either Purdue or Duke will be the fourth #1 seed depending on how far each goes in each team's respective conference tourney.

Best--Blueprofessor:)

That makes the most sense realistically. The worst #1 seed is going to be sent to the West. I think we'll be battling for the last #1 seed. So if we fall just short of that, it would make sense that we'd be in the west.

Purdue is, I think, a terrific matchup for us. I would love to have them as our #2 or us as their #1.

blueprofessor
02-22-2010, 05:34 PM
That makes the most sense realistically. The worst #1 seed is going to be sent to the West. I think we'll be battling for the last #1 seed. So if we fall just short of that, it would make sense that we'd be in the west.

Purdue is, I think, a terrific matchup for us. I would love to have them as our #2 or us as their #1.

Agree. It is generally bad luck for my teams when I wish for certain ,preferred matchups, so I will refrain.
However, a benefit would be skiing during spring vacation in Park City, Cottonwood Canyon ,or Little Cottonwood Canyon and driving 30 minutes to see the regionals in Salt Lake.Not a bad schedule.:D

Best--Blueprofessor:)

Morris614
02-22-2010, 06:03 PM
Agree. It is generally bad luck for my teams when I wish for certain ,preferred matchups, so I will refrain.
However, a benefit would be skiing during spring vacation in Park City, Cottonwood Canyon ,or Little Cottonwood Canyon and driving 30 minutes to see the regionals in Salt Lake.Not a bad schedule.:D

Best--Blueprofessor:)

Yeah I am already gonna be in Salt Lake and going to those games so I would love to see Duke out there.

ice-9
02-23-2010, 01:45 AM
CBS(Palm) has Duke:

West

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

I like this better.:)



I absolutely love this bracket (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/12962943/projecting-the-field-marquette-separates-itself-from-weak-atlarge-class) for us.

We get Missouri or Florida in the second round. Missouri is a pretty good squad so this will be a battle, but we should have enough talent to grind it out.

In the Sweet Sixteen we'll get one of Pitt, BYU or Charlotte. BYU is a team that computers love and I think has a legit chance to upset Pitt. Pitt is an inconsistent team that has looked awesome (vs. Villanova) and bad (vs. Indiana), and this means to me there is a good chance they'll lose before we get to play them. Even if we do play them, we have proven we can win tough, grind it out basketball.

For the Elite Eight, we get a favorable match-up with Purdue if they get that far. But Purdue has to watch out for a potential upset in bruising Florida State in the second round, and certainly, Texas has the talent to beat them. If we get Texas, they will be a tough team for sure but reasonable given it's the Elite Eight.

All in all, a doable path to the Final Four.

Fish80
02-23-2010, 08:51 AM
Sleepers is a bit of a stretch. More accurately contenders.

No. 1 sleepers (http://today.sportingnews.com/sportingnewstoday/20100223?sub_id=DCYlXSIzHiUzU&folio=1#pg1)

SCMatt33
02-23-2010, 07:35 PM
The Big East has a chance for five teams, which would allow this rule to be broken, but precedent suggests that they will try to avoid a 1-2 pairing if possible, instead going for a 2-4, 3-4, or 1-3 match-up.

I apologize, there actually is a second rule and not just precedent that prevents most cases of a 1-2 match-up. The rule reads as follows:

Each of the first three teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions.

Originally, I thought this rule meant that unless a conference had more than three teams in, they must all be in different regions, and then after the fourth got in, the rule about not meeting until the regional final superseded that one. Apparently, this applies to the top three teams regardless of how many total teams get in. I was alerted to this in Andy Glockner's email answers (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_glockner/02/23/bracket.questions/index.html) in regards to his bracket. Incidentally, he has some very good insight about how bracketing works, specifically about why teams from the Mountain West and Gonzaga could get screwed because of the large number of top Big East teams and why they might be put in specific situations.

This would mean that the Big East would have to get four top two seeds to even have a 1-2 match-up be possible. As it currently stands, with most projections having Syracuse as a 1 and WVA, Nova, Gtown, and Pitt as 2/3 seeds, Duke would have to either move up to a 1 or have at least of those teams drop to a 4 or worse if we wanted to avoid a potential 2/3 sweet 16 match-up with one of those teams.

D.C. Devil
02-23-2010, 09:22 PM
I apologize, there actually is a second rule and not just precedent that prevents most cases of a 1-2 match-up. The rule reads as follows:

Each of the first three teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions.

Originally, I thought this rule meant that unless a conference had more than three teams in, they must all be in different regions, and then after the fourth got in, the rule about not meeting until the regional final superseded that one. Apparently, this applies to the top three teams regardless of how many total teams get in. I was alerted to this in Andy Glockner's email answers (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_glockner/02/23/bracket.questions/index.html) in regards to his bracket. Incidentally, he has some very good insight about how bracketing works, specifically about why teams from the Mountain West and Gonzaga could get screwed because of the large number of top Big East teams and why they might be put in specific situations.

This would mean that the Big East would have to get four top two seeds to even have a 1-2 match-up be possible. As it currently stands, with most projections having Syracuse as a 1 and WVA, Nova, Gtown, and Pitt as 2/3 seeds, Duke would have to either move up to a 1 or have at least of those teams drop to a 4 or worse if we wanted to avoid a potential 2/3 sweet 16 match-up with one of those teams.

None of those BIG EAST teams will be a pushover, but I'd relish the chance to avenge disappointing losses from this season or the last two tournaments. I think we match up best against Pitt. I'd love to see McGhee against Zouberman.

Saratoga2
02-23-2010, 10:00 PM
None of those BIG EAST teams will be a pushover, but I'd relish the chance to avenge disappointing losses from this season or the last two tournaments. I think we match up best against Pitt. I'd love to see McGhee against Zouberman.

To prove your point, Georgetown got a slow start but went on to beat a good Louisville tonight. Georgetown can be a very good team, as we found out. Syracuse is another winner tonight and is a very good team.

I think a lot of us older guys live through the exploits of our kids vicariously, and they are really great kids to admire. Looking at them on a comparison basis with many of the Big East teams, and they don't really match up man for man physically in terms of brawn, speed and agility. What they do have is experience because the starters have played together through many a tough, physical game and have learned how to win. They also have an excellent coaching staff behind them. I hope that is enough to make a solid run in the tournament.

RoyalBlue08
02-24-2010, 10:38 PM
So Robbie Hummel is walking around the Minnesota game on crutches after sustaining a leg injury. No idea how serious it is. And I in no way am rooting for the kid to be injured. But this has to potential to effect our chances of getting a 1 seed it would seem.

GODUKEGO
02-24-2010, 10:40 PM
#3 Purdue just beat Minnesota by one point. We could have moved to at least #4 in the polls this Monday.

dukemsu
02-24-2010, 10:56 PM
#3 Purdue just beat Minnesota by one point. We could have moved to at least #4 in the polls this Monday.

Hummel is on crutches. Unfortunately, I doubt the Spartans are going to help the Devils much this weekend with the condition they're in.

Either way, the S curve means Purdue and Duke are very likely to be 1-2 in a region. The only thing that could mess that up is if Hummel is gone.

dukemsu

pfrduke
02-24-2010, 11:06 PM
Hummel is on crutches. Unfortunately, I doubt the Spartans are going to help the Devils much this weekend with the condition they're in.

Either way, the S curve means Purdue and Duke are very likely to be 1-2 in a region. The only thing that could mess that up is if Hummel is gone.

dukemsu

Or the Big East getting 4 teams in the top 8. Looks less likely now than it did a week ago, but still very possible.

SCMatt33
02-25-2010, 05:06 PM
Andy Glockner just put up an article on SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_glockner/02/25/hummel.bracket/index.html?eref=sihp) discussing the race for a one seed in the wake of Robbie Hummel's injury. The first few paragraphs are specifically about Purdue before he talks about everyone else. He says that Duke has the easiest road to get there because of an easier schedule, but K-State or Villanova could easily pass Duke in the pecking order if either one could navigate a tougher home stretch unscathed.

tommy
02-26-2010, 02:53 PM
So as Duke has continued to win and now with Purdue's loss of Hummel, our chances of getting a #1 seed have increased, though of course a lot can still happen to derail that. But our chances our better than they were even a week ago.

My feeling, and it appears to be shared by others on the board, is that the toughest matchups for us as we (hopefully) move forward in the tournament will be, other than Kansas, the Big East teams. I mean in particular Syracuse, Villanova and W. Virginia, and really Georgetown too based on our January meeting. Pitt doesn't scare me much.

So the question I'm throwing out there is: what should we be rooting for in the remaining Big East matchups to help us avoid those difficult teams as long as possible? If we dare to assume we'll be a #1, then do we want, for instance, Syracuse to beat Villanova and try to push Nova closer down to maybe a 3 instead of a 2? Or do we want Nova to win so that we can gain on Syracuse on the S curve? If we assume we're going to end up a 2, then what does that do for our rooting interests in this and other Big East games? I think it's probably fruitless to engage in this kind of speculation when we don't know where we're going to end up, but still, it's kinda fun, and when watching these games it would be great to know how to root!

Any ideas?

Jumbo
02-26-2010, 05:18 PM
Lunardi likes Duke's chances.

It's Insider, so I don't think I can post more than a sentence, but it's a good read:

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/insider/news/story?id=4948421

"It's not that Purdue's great work up to now will be ignored, but that the committee must answer the very difficult question of whether or not the Boilers are one of the 'four best teams' without Hummel."

BlueintheFace
02-26-2010, 05:30 PM
In Lunardi's chat today, somebody asked: "Does Duke now become the fourth #1 seed?"

Lunardi's Response: "Yes (holding my nose)"

Olympic Fan
02-26-2010, 06:07 PM
While I agree that it makes little difference in the long run if Duke is No. 1 in the region with No. 2 Purdue or Duke is No. 2 in the region with No. 1 Purdue, it does make SOME difference -- getting to open with a 16 instead of a 15 ... getting an 8-9 instead of a 7 ... getting a 4 instead of a 3 in the Sweet 16 (which, let's face it, has been Duke's big bugaboo in this decade).

Plus, you never know when other seeding considerations force the committee to get away from the true s-curve. Just an example, but I heard Jerry Palm on radio today suggest that Duke is the No. 5 team on his s-curve at the moment and is most likely to get the fourth No. 1 seed if Purdue (his No. 4 team) falters without Hummel.

But in the bracket he posted today (supposedly based on what the field would look like based on actual results, not what he thinks is going to happen), he still has Purdue as a No. 1 seed and Duke as a No. 2.

Okay, that's fair ... but he also has Duke as the No. 2 in the same region with No. 1 Kansas ... the BEST No. 1. I'd love to ask him about that, but I suspect he'd argue that it's because Kansas State is also a No. 2 and can't be in the regional with Kansas and Villanova, West Virginia are also No. 2 and can't be in the bracket with No. 1 Syracuse.

Now, I don't put too much stock in Palm's bracket placement, but it's still an indication of why it could be significantly better to be the fourth No. 1 seed than the best No. 2 seed.

Obviously, for Duke, the key is to win out or at least nearly win out -- I don't think a loss at Maryland would kill our chances, although it would make it tougher. A loss to a team not in the top 100 (Virginia or North Carolina) would be close to fatal.

Going into this weekend, the three key games for Duke's No. 1 chances are:

1. Duke at Virginia -- Duke must take care of its own business before any scoreboard watching.

2. Michigan State at Purdue -- The loss of Hummel makes Purdue's status questionable. If they can beat a quality opponent like MSU without him, they might protect their No. 1. Even without Hummel, they should close out the regular season with wins over Big 10 patsies Indiana and Penn State.

3. Villanova at Syracuse -- Villanova could put themselves back in the No. 1 conversation with a victory over the Orange. It would help Duke's chances if the 'Cuse pounds 'Nova in the Dome.

Kansas State, which also has an outside chance at a No. 1, has a home game with Missouri they ought to win. Their big chance to get in the No. 1 debate will come March 3, when they go to No. 1 Kansas.

When I opened this thread, I thought Duke's chances of getting a No. 1 seed were something like 10 percent. As the Devils have reeled off seven straight wins, several other No. 1 favorites have stumbled (Villanova especially). I still only raised Duke's chances to 33 percent. But the Hummel injury -- and let me go on record as saying that I hate that happened ... I don't want to earn a No. 1 that way -- changed the equation.

As of this minute, I'd say it's 50-50 ... but I keep emphasizing, the most important thing is that Duke has to keep winning.

airowe
02-26-2010, 07:21 PM
Corey Stokes may be out against Syracuse:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4946709&campaign=rss&source=NCBHeadlines

Villanova junior Corey Stokes was cited for public urination early Thursday morning but coach Jay Wright has not decided if it will affect the guard's status for the Wildcats' Big East showdown with Syracuse on Saturday.

YourLandlord
02-26-2010, 07:29 PM
Corey Stokes may be out against Syracuse:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4946709&campaign=rss&source=NCBHeadlines

Villanova junior Corey Stokes was cited for public urination early Thursday morning but coach Jay Wright has not decided if it will affect the guard's status for the Wildcats' Big East showdown with Syracuse on Saturday.
That is spectacular.

SCMatt33
02-26-2010, 09:10 PM
Okay, that's fair ... but he also has Duke as the No. 2 in the same region with No. 1 Kansas ... the BEST No. 1. I'd love to ask him about that, but I suspect he'd argue that it's because Kansas State is also a No. 2 and can't be in the regional with Kansas and Villanova, West Virginia are also No. 2 and can't be in the bracket with No. 1 Syracuse.

It also has to due with Pitt and Gtown being potential top four seeds. This was discussed ad nauseum earlier in this thread. There are specific rules about where all of the Big East teams can go.

If Duke can earn a 1-seed, the problems with bracketing rules and the Big East will largely go away. It would be based on the S-curve and not bracketing rules that would determine which Big East team would be the 2/3 in our region (not to get ahead of myself or anything).

Jumbo
02-26-2010, 09:41 PM
While I agree that it makes little difference in the long run if Duke is No. 1 in the region with No. 2 Purdue or Duke is No. 2 in the region with No. 1 Purdue, it does make SOME difference -- getting to open with a 16 instead of a 15 ... getting an 8-9 instead of a 7 ... getting a 4 instead of a 3 in the Sweet 16 (which, let's face it, has been Duke's big bugaboo in this decade).

Plus, you never know when other seeding considerations force the committee to get away from the true s-curve. Just an example, but I heard Jerry Palm on radio today suggest that Duke is the No. 5 team on his s-curve at the moment and is most likely to get the fourth No. 1 seed if Purdue (his No. 4 team) falters without Hummel.

But in the bracket he posted today (supposedly based on what the field would look like based on actual results, not what he thinks is going to happen), he still has Purdue as a No. 1 seed and Duke as a No. 2.

Okay, that's fair ... but he also has Duke as the No. 2 in the same region with No. 1 Kansas ... the BEST No. 1. I'd love to ask him about that, but I suspect he'd argue that it's because Kansas State is also a No. 2 and can't be in the regional with Kansas and Villanova, West Virginia are also No. 2 and can't be in the bracket with No. 1 Syracuse.

Now, I don't put too much stock in Palm's bracket placement, but it's still an indication of why it could be significantly better to be the fourth No. 1 seed than the best No. 2 seed.


You're also missing the key info referenced in the Glockner article linked earlier in this thread. Regional distance takes preference over the S-Curve, as stupid as that might be. (I mean, who really cares if Duke gets sent to Salt Lake City vs. St. Louis?) But the NCAA literally tracks just how far each team would have to travel, and slots them accordingly. It bothers me, but it's how teams get screwed by getting stuck with better teams when they are supposedly being "helped" by getting placed closer to home.

BlueintheFace
02-26-2010, 09:57 PM
You're also missing the key info referenced in the Glockner article linked earlier in this thread. Regional distance takes preference over the S-Curve, as stupid as that might be. (I mean, who really cares if Duke gets sent to Salt Lake City vs. St. Louis?) But the NCAA literally tracks just how far each team would have to travel, and slots them accordingly. It bothers me, but it's how teams get screwed by getting stuck with better teams when they are supposedly being "helped" by getting placed closer to home.

An awful lot of projected brackets have slotted Duke in the same pod as Florida at the Jacksonville site.

Additionally, a lot of brackets have pushed us to the East regional with Syracuse.

I am not a fan of the geography aspect.

Jumbo
02-26-2010, 10:02 PM
An awful lot of projected brackets have slotted Duke in the same pod as Florida at the Jacksonville site.

Additionally, a lot of brackets have pushed us to the East regional with Syracuse.

I am not a fan of the geography aspect.

Syracuse can't be in the East regional.

Olympic Fan
02-27-2010, 11:37 AM
You're also missing the key info referenced in the Glockner article linked earlier in this thread. Regional distance takes preference over the S-Curve, as stupid as that might be. (I mean, who really cares if Duke gets sent to Salt Lake City vs. St. Louis?) But the NCAA literally tracks just how far each team would have to travel, and slots them accordingly. It bothers me, but it's how teams get screwed by getting stuck with better teams when they are supposedly being "helped" by getting placed closer to home.

It's actually Glocker who misunderstands the balance the committee tries to strike between geography and balance.

The new emphasis on geography explain why Duke is almost certain to be sent to Jacksonville instead of Buffalo (I think I saw that Jax is 117 miles closer) -- even though both are a huge trip -- for the first/second rounds. It why Florida will almost certainly be in Jacksonville too (I'm hoping they are in the other pod -- I'm not afraid of them, but I'd hate to play them in front of essentially a home crowd).

But in terms of balancing the top seeds, geography is only a secondary factor -- somebody from the east/midwest HAS to go west to balance the field. Otherwise you'd have the top seeds in the West 1. Gonzaga; 2. California; 3. New Mexico 4. Artesia High School ????? (it can't be BYU/New Mexico in the same regional).

I agree with the poster who pointed out that the committee's biggest problem is going to be the 4-5 Big East teasms that get top four seeds. By rule the top three teams from a conference HAVE to be in different regionals ... by practice, they'll put the fourth team in the fourth regional where possible. If five teams make the top four segment, then two have to be in the same regional (although by rule they can't meet until the regional finals).

That's going to cause a lot of headaches ... and as Jumbo pointed out, Syracuse CAN'T be in the East because they can't play in the regional on their home floor). Let me point out that their first/second round pod will almost certainly be in Buffalo, but after that, they go West.

The four regionals are St. Louis, Houston, Syracuse, Salt Lake.

The way the committee balances geography and balance is that they start with the top No. 1 seed and place them in the most favorable geographic location.

That creates an interesting race to the wire with Kansas and Kentucky. Both would prefer St. Louis ... but the one that comes out on top will get it (not the one that's closest). The No. 2 team in that mix goes to Houston.

That leaves Salt Lake City for Syracuse, the probable No. 3 seed.

That means that if Duke earns the fourth No. 1, we probably get two games in Jacksonville, followed by two games in Syracuse.

Now, I wouldn't mind being the No. 2 in Syracuse with No. 1 Purdue ... but if Duke is a No. 2, the committee could decide that Villanova is a better fit as the No. 2 in Syracuse (I actually think that if Duke gets the No. 1 in Syracuse, then Villanova is the likely No. 2).

Anyway, my point is that Glockner misunderstands the committee's fascination with precise mileage measurements. Geography can trump the s-curve, but overall, the committee's goal is to combine geography with a balanced field.

Jumbo
02-27-2010, 11:45 AM
It's actually Glocker who misunderstands the balance the committee tries to strike between geography and balance.

The new emphasis on geography explain why Duke is almost certain to be sent to Jacksonville instead of Buffalo (I think I saw that Jax is 117 miles closer) -- even though both are a huge trip -- for the first/second rounds. It why Florida will almost certainly be in Jacksonville too (I'm hoping they are in the other pod -- I'm not afraid of them, but I'd hate to play them in front of essentially a home crowd).

But in terms of balancing the top seeds, geography is only a secondary factor -- somebody from the east/midwest HAS to go west to balance the field. Otherwise you'd have the top seeds in the West 1. Gonzaga; 2. California; 3. New Mexico 4. Artesia High School ????? (it can't be BYU/New Mexico in the same regional).

I agree with the poster who pointed out that the committee's biggest problem is going to be the 4-5 Big East teasms that get top four seeds. By rule the top three teams from a conference HAVE to be in different regionals ... by practice, they'll put the fourth team in the fourth regional where possible. If five teams make the top four segment, then two have to be in the same regional (although by rule they can't meet until the regional finals).

That's going to cause a lot of headaches ... and as Jumbo pointed out, Syracuse CAN'T be in the East because they can't play in the regional on their home floor). Let me point out that their first/second round pod will almost certainly be in Buffalo, but after that, they go West.

The four regionals are St. Louis, Houston, Syracuse, Salt Lake.

The way the committee balances geography and balance is that they start with the top No. 1 seed and place them in the most favorable geographic location.

That creates an interesting race to the wire with Kansas and Kentucky. Both would prefer St. Louis ... but the one that comes out on top will get it (not the one that's closest). The No. 2 team in that mix goes to Houston.

That leaves Salt Lake City for Syracuse, the probable No. 3 seed.

That means that if Duke earns the fourth No. 1, we probably get two games in Jacksonville, followed by two games in Syracuse.

Now, I wouldn't mind being the No. 2 in Syracuse with No. 1 Purdue ... but if Duke is a No. 2, the committee could decide that Villanova is a better fit as the No. 2 in Syracuse (I actually think that if Duke gets the No. 1 in Syracuse, then Villanova is the likely No. 2).

Anyway, my point is that Glockner misunderstands the committee's fascination with precise mileage measurements. Geography can trump the s-curve, but overall, the committee's goal is to combine geography with a balanced field.

Well, if Glockner is wrong, then Lunardi is wrong too (http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog?name=ncbexperts&id=4945627). He explains how the top 16 seeds are slotted and while, again, this is another Insider file, I guess I can say that a) ironically he's responding to a question from someone from Durham and b) he says this when slotting Duke in as a 2-seed in Syracuse (where Kentucky, 2nd on the S-Curve, is the No. 1 seed): "Remember, geography takes precedence over S-curve ranking so long as the overall regions are relatively balanced. "

SCMatt33
02-27-2010, 12:17 PM
The way the committee balances geography and balance is that they start with the top No. 1 seed and place them in the most favorable geographic location.

That creates an interesting race to the wire with Kansas and Kentucky. Both would prefer St. Louis ... but the one that comes out on top will get it (not the one that's closest). The No. 2 team in that mix goes to Houston.

That leaves Salt Lake City for Syracuse, the probable No. 3 seed.

That means that if Duke earns the fourth No. 1, we probably get two games in Jacksonville, followed by two games in Syracuse.

Now, I wouldn't mind being the No. 2 in Syracuse with No. 1 Purdue ... but if Duke is a No. 2, the committee could decide that Villanova is a better fit as the No. 2 in Syracuse (I actually think that if Duke gets the No. 1 in Syracuse, then Villanova is the likely No. 2).

Anyway, my point is that Glockner misunderstands the committee's fascination with precise mileage measurements. Geography can trump the s-curve, but overall, the committee's goal is to combine geography with a balanced field.

The committee really will use precise geography measurments, whether it seems to make sense or not. In the case of Kentucky, its actually not even close. Syracuse is about 400 miles closer to Lexington than Houston (667 mi to 1070 mi). The only reason that someone could reasonably come up with to put Ky in Houston if they are #2 overall is that Syracuse is in Big East country and it is pretty much guaranteed that either the 2, 3, or 4 seed will be Nova, WVA, Gtown, or Pitt. Of those schools, Nova is the closest to Syracuse at about 250 miles. That far enough that Nova fans won't be the overwhelming majority and I doubt that the Syracuse fans who stay home will be rooting for a rival.

If Kansas falls behind Kentucky, however, they WILL go to Houston, causing Syracuse to be shipped out west.

It is important to remember that geographical "protection" only applies to FIRST round games. After that, the committee will try to keep teams as close to home (literally) as possible without breaking any bracketing rules.

Olympic Fan
02-27-2010, 12:40 PM
SCMatt33,

I appreciate the geography lesson. You are right -- I had a brain fart and didn't realize that Lexington is much closer to Syracuse than to Houston.

So I amend the projections: If Kansas and Kentucky are 1-2 in that order, then Kansas gets St. Louis and Kentucky gets Syracuse ... Syracuse as the third No. 1, would then get Houston and Duke or Purdue would get Salt Lake City.

Jumbo, read your quote from Lunardi again: "so long as the overall regions are relatively balanced."

I've been in mock seeding sessions run by the NCAA -- and I repeat, the idea is to strike a balance between geographical considerations and balancing the field as close as possible to an s-curve. Pure mileage consideration does NOT trump considerations of balance.

But to get back to the real world, it's going to be interesting to see if the committee would place Duke -- as perhaps the strongest No. 2 seed -- with Kansas or Kentucky.

We'll see ... I would suspect that if Duke doesn't get a 1 (and a likely placement in Salt Lake City), then there committee would see little difference between Duke and Villanova and would send Villanova to Syracuse.

That would leave Duke, K-State and either West Virginia or Ohio State as the other No. 2 seeds (in this scenario, I'm assuming that Purdue gets the one).

Okay, I can see under this scenario that Duke might get sent to St. Louis -- although I still think the committee would try to avoid putting the top No. 1 and top No. 2 (if that's what Duke turns out to be) in the same region. Of course, they can't put K-State in the region with Kansas, so that leaves Duke and either Ohio State or West Virginia (at least that's what it looks like now) to be paired with Kansas.

It will be interesting ... I stand by the projection that Duke will start its NCAA path with two games in Jacksonville, but I agree that after that, it's very VERY cloudy.

PS Does all this mean I need to pull for Kentucky to leapfrog Kansas so that Duke has a chance at the Syracuse regional? I'm not sure I can do that.

El_Diablo
02-27-2010, 02:36 PM
Kentucky lost to Tennessee today. If they lose again, do we pass them in the s-curve? Syracuse almost certainly will do so if they take care of business against Villanova...

Duvall
02-27-2010, 02:40 PM
Kentucky lost to Tennessee today. If they lose again, do we pass them in the s-curve? Syracuse almost certainly will do so if they take care of business against Villanova...

Syracuse should already be ahead of them.

I don't see Kentucky losing again unless they completely phone in the SEC Tournament. Which they well might.

uh_no
02-27-2010, 02:42 PM
Syracuse should already be ahead of them.

I don't see Kentucky losing again unless they completely phone in the SEC Tournament. Which they well might.

well, if calipari comes from the ole' roy school of coaching.....they just might....

i wonder if aw shucks will rest his starters during the tournament in order to prevent injuries in preparation of the CBI

Welcome2DaSlopes
02-27-2010, 05:05 PM
If Kansas loses today(which looks very possible right now)
Cuse loses to Nova(Is very possible)
Purdue Loses to Michagan St.(without Rob, becomes very possible)

Duke and be ranked #1 in the polls.

uh_no
02-27-2010, 05:18 PM
If Kansas loses today(which looks very possible right now)
Cuse loses to Nova(Is very possible)
Purdue Loses to Michagan St.(without Rob, becomes very possible)

Duke and be ranked #1 in the polls.

Incorrect sir!

there is no way that 2 loss kansas and 2 loss UK drop below us.....not a chance in h***

ReformedAggie
02-27-2010, 05:18 PM
ya well that position hasn't been very lucky for the others who have held it. maybe we should hope for number 2 :)

Olympic Fan
02-27-2010, 05:19 PM
Kentucky lost to Tennessee today. If they lose again, do we pass them in the s-curve? Syracuse almost certainly will do so if they take care of business against Villanova...

Okay, here's a brain teaser ...

Syracuse wins tonight and wins out, including the Big East Tournament.

Kentucky, which lost today, loses again in the SEC Tournament.

Kansas, off to a slow start at Okie State, loses that one, then loses against in the Big 12 tourney.

Does that make Syracuse the overall No. 1 seed? And if it does, what's the closest regional site for the 'Cuse (other than their homecourt which they can't play on)?

Is there a chance that Syracuse could squeeze both Kansas and Kentucky out of the St. Louis regional??

Welcome2DaSlopes
02-27-2010, 05:24 PM
Incorrect sir!

there is no way that 2 loss kansas and 2 loss UK drop below us.....not a chance in h***

Duke is ranked #5

If the top 4 teams all lose and we win tommorow i don't see how we couldn't be #1 in next week polls. I wouldn't be shocked if we weren't though.



jus saying.

pfrduke
02-27-2010, 05:28 PM
Duke is ranked #5

If the top 4 teams all lose and we win tommorow i don't see how we couldn't be #1 in next week polls. I wouldn't be shocked if we weren't though.



jus saying.

Because if they lose, they'll still have 2 losses (Kansas, Kentucky), and if we win, we'll still have 4. There's no real reason for us to leapfrog Kansas and Kentucky just because they lose one game.

Indoor66
02-27-2010, 05:30 PM
You know the polls: What have you done for me lately? That said, I doubt we could climb over the all of the 4 ahead of us.

Jumbo
02-27-2010, 06:04 PM
Okay, here's a brain teaser ...

Syracuse wins tonight and wins out, including the Big East Tournament.

Kentucky, which lost today, loses again in the SEC Tournament.

Kansas, off to a slow start at Okie State, loses that one, then loses against in the Big 12 tourney.

Does that make Syracuse the overall No. 1 seed? And if it does, what's the closest regional site for the 'Cuse (other than their homecourt which they can't play on)?

Is there a chance that Syracuse could squeeze both Kansas and Kentucky out of the St. Louis regional??

Yes, I think Syracuse would be the No. 1 overall seed. And then that does raise a very, very interesting question that I can't answer.
Similarly, is there any way for Duke to get a No. 1 seed and avoid Salt Lake City?

El_Diablo
02-27-2010, 06:45 PM
Yes, I think Syracuse would be the No. 1 overall seed. And then that does raise a very, very interesting question that I can't answer.
Similarly, is there any way for Duke to get a No. 1 seed and avoid Salt Lake City?

Okay, let me take a stab at this. St. Louis is the primary spot for Kansas, UK, and Syracuse. Of those three, whoever finishes on top will go to St. Louis.

If UK finishes #1, they'd go to St. Louis, and Kansas at #2 would go to Houston. Syracuse at #3 would have to take Salt Lake City, and we'd go to Syracuse. Switch Kansas and Syracuse around, and Syracuse would take Houston while Kansas takes SLC.

If UK loses again and drops to #4 overall, then we could end up #3. That would put us in the East region, since Kansas/Syracuse (whatever order they end up in) would go to Houston and St. Louis.

But if UK ends up #2 or #3, they would end up in the East bracket and likely push us out to SLC.

Welcome2DaSlopes
02-27-2010, 06:58 PM
My comment was if all four teams ranked ahead of us were to lose(top 2 already lost) and we win our game on sunday, we have a great chance to be number 1 in next week polls.

Jumbo
02-27-2010, 07:02 PM
My comment was if all four teams ranked ahead of us were to lose(top 2 already lost) and we win our game on sunday, we have a great chance to be number 1 in next week polls.

You've said that three times now. And a bunch of people have told why that won't be the case. If people keep losing, it doesn't mean you just keep sliding down a list to the last team with an unbeaten week to pick the new No. 1. If the top 20 teams were all to lose this weekend, No. 21 wouldn't be No. 1. Duke will not leapfrog Kansas or Kentucky on the basis of one loss. That alone ends the "possibility" of this happening. Add in the fact that Syracuse and Purdue haven't played yet, nor has Duke actually taken care of its own business, and there is not a "great chance." There's no chance. And who cares about the polls anyway?

78Devil
02-27-2010, 07:12 PM
I'm in Houston, and would theoretically love to see Duke play here.

But based on some prior posts, it would appear that either Kentucky or Kansas will likely be in Houston (?). So is it true that for Duke to be in Houston they would have to be a No. 2 seed, and one of the lower ones to be matched with a top or second No. 1 seed? Are there other likely scenarios where Duke would be in Houston other than to be No. 2 to either Kentucky or Kansas?

SCMatt33
02-27-2010, 08:04 PM
I'm in Houston, and would theoretically love to see Duke play here.

But based on some prior posts, it would appear that either Kentucky or Kansas will likely be in Houston (?). So is it true that for Duke to be in Houston they would have to be a No. 2 seed, and one of the lower ones to be matched with a top or second No. 1 seed? Are there other likely scenarios where Duke would be in Houston other than to be No. 2 to either Kentucky or Kansas?

As a 1-seed, it would be nearly impossible to get to Houston. Lets assume that the teams still in the running for any 1 seed are UK, KU, Cuse, Duke, Purdue, Nova, and K-state. I don't think that there's any other team that could climb past four of those teams.

For all but 2, Duke and Nova, the closest regional is St. Louis. Since Duke and Nova are not likely to get #1 overall, the first team will go to St. Louis. As #2 overall, KU, Cuse, K-state, and Purdue would go to Houston, Duke, Nova, and UK would go to Syracuse. If #2 overall is either UK or Nova, #3 overall will go to Houston no matter what and #4 overall will go to Salt Lake City.

If you want Duke to go to Houston as a 1-seed, you need to root for Duke to be exactly #3 overall with UK or Nova as #2 overall.

El_Diablo
02-27-2010, 08:10 PM
I'm in Houston, and would theoretically love to see Duke play here.

But based on some prior posts, it would appear that either Kentucky or Kansas will likely be in Houston (?). So is it true that for Duke to be in Houston they would have to be a No. 2 seed, and one of the lower ones to be matched with a top or second No. 1 seed? Are there other likely scenarios where Duke would be in Houston other than to be No. 2 to either Kentucky or Kansas?

Yes, the following scenarios would do it:

Kansas is #1 overall, they go to St. Louis. Kentucky, #2 overall, goes to Syracuse. Duke, #3 overall, goes to Houston. Syracuse, #4 overall, goes to SLC.

or

Syracuse-1-St. Louis
Kentucky-2-Syracuse
Duke-3-Houston
Kansas-4-SLC

And I guess I just contradicted my last post, where I said we'd probably be in SLC if UK finishes second overall.

El_Diablo
02-28-2010, 09:46 AM
I understand that there is fine tuning to avoid two teams from the same conference meeting too early in the tournament, but my point still stands at this time of the season. In other words, sometimes the real world interferes with the ideal.

This is a snippet from the Lunardi article, describing how seeds are placed into brackets: "Remember, geography takes precedence over S-curve ranking so long as the overall regions are relatively balanced."

In his Friday "real world" model, he had the Blue Devils as the strongest #2 seed. He paired us with not the fourth #1 (Purdue), but the team that happens to be in the region we're geographically slotted in--Kentucky. So the strongest #2 seed would be playing the second-strongest #1 seed, which contradicts the hypothetical model you posited in the Tenn/UK thread (strongest #2 seed always being matched against the weakest #1).

Using my analysis given what's happened so far this weekend, we'd still be the #5 overall seed. Using the following order of seeds, Syracuse (1) would go to the St. Louis region, Kansas (2) would go to the Houston region, and Kentucky (3) would go to Syracuse region. Purdue (4) would go to the Salt Lake City region. Duke (5) would go to the Syracuse region because "geography takes precedence over S-curve ranking so long as the overall regions are relatively balanced." In that case, we would be facing the third overall seed, not the fourth one. Again, your model would break down.

Of course, if Purdue loses today and we win, then we should slide up to the #4 overall seed, placing us in Salt Lake City. Using some guesswork for the new rankings, then K-State (5) would go to St. Louis. If Purdue only slides to (6), then they would go to Syracuse and face Kentucky. WVU (7) would go to Houston region along with Kansas. I guess you could swap WVU and Purdue if their rankings dictate--they'd just swap regions too. And looks like Ohio State (8) would get moved to SLC with us. The brackets would start to become a little unbalanced (with the s-count in our bracket at 12 and the s-count in St. Louis at 6), but it's not unreasonable to the point they would swap out one of the #2 seeds. They could easily correct it by giving us high #3 and #4 seeds.

Yeah, the season's not ending today, so all this can and will change over the next couple weeks. But the point that the strongest #2 seed will always face the weakest #1 seed is false. It might work out that way based on geography, but it would be simply fortuitous.

El_Diablo
02-28-2010, 09:53 AM
Someone (SCMatt?) posted earlier in this thread that the committee explicitly recognizes that the s-curve rankings (1-65) and/or seed lines are an inexact science. So the need to match up the weakest #1 with the strongest #2 is not a compelling reason to overcome geographic considerations. Just so long as the brackets are relatively balanced, geography wins out.

Which might be good for us if we go to Salt Lake City. A lot of the good teams are concentrated on the East Coast or Midwest, so they'd be taking the other regions over the weaker teams in their seed-line. We might end up with the weakest #2 if we go out to SLC (which is what I had happen in my post above).

BlueintheFace
02-28-2010, 02:09 PM
Purdue- Michigan State is today. Probably the most significant non-Duke game left in the regular season when it comes to Duke's bid for a #1 seed.

airowe
02-28-2010, 02:14 PM
Someone (SCMatt?) posted earlier in this thread that the committee explicitly recognizes that the s-curve rankings (1-65) and/or seed lines are an inexact science. So the need to match up the weakest #1 with the strongest #2 is not a compelling reason to overcome geographic considerations. Just so long as the brackets are relatively balanced, geography wins out.

Which might be good for us if we go to Salt Lake City. A lot of the good teams are concentrated on the East Coast or Midwest, so they'd be taking the other regions over the weaker teams in their seed-line. We might end up with the weakest #2 if we go out to SLC (which is what I had happen in my post above).

Clearly, we need Michigan State to beat Purdue today. It would be nice to see them lose again, just to give us some cushion.

I think the only other teams that have a chance to take over a #1 Seed from us are:

6. Kansas State 22-4 1,302
7. Villanova 22-4 1,189 *Actually, 22 - 5 now
8. West Virginia 21-5 1,183
9. Ohio State 21-7 1,097

I just don't see anyone else being able to rip that #1 seed away from us. Purdue is clearly our best competition, followed closely by K-State, Nova, and West Virginia. Here are their schedules:

K-State:

March 3 at No. 1 Kansas
March 6 Iowa State

Purdue:

February 28 Michigan State
March 3 Indiana
March 6 at Penn State

Nova:

March 2 at Cincinnati
March 6 No. 7 West Virginia

West Virginia:

March 1 No. 13 Georgetown
March 6 at No. 8 Villanova

I think if West Virginia wins out and we lose to Maryland, they may sneak past us. Obviously, I haven't taken into account the conference tournaments as I don't know the seeding yet...

-jk
02-28-2010, 02:56 PM
Just that pesky problem that we actually have to take care of our business, too! ;)

-jk

airowe
02-28-2010, 03:10 PM
Just that pesky problem that we actually have to take care of our business, too! ;)

-jk


Yeah, there's always that...

airowe
02-28-2010, 10:23 PM
kenpomeroy

Just so everyone can prepare - barring a hellacious draw, Duke will be the favorite to win the NCAA's when we do log5 on BP in two weeks. about 1 hour ago via TweetDeck

El_Diablo
02-28-2010, 10:33 PM
kenpomeroy

Just so everyone can prepare - barring a hellacious draw, Duke will be the favorite to win the NCAA's when we do log5 on BP in two weeks. about 1 hour ago via TweetDeck

Strangely, UNC_Bball:
Love it. RT @kenpomeroy barring a hellacious draw, Duke will be the favorite to win the NCAA's when we do log5 on BP in two weeks.

Olympic Fan
02-28-2010, 10:43 PM
Well, Duke took care of business in Charlottesville, while Michigan State knocked off Purdue in W. Lafayette -- which is a bigger loss than it normally would be since it's the Boilermaker's first game without Hummel. They have to re-establish how good they are without him -- and unlikely they make that case with wins over Indiana and Penn State to close things out.

As of today, Duke is the fourth No. 1 seed. Ohio State and Kansas State are right on our heels. Villanova took another step back with their loss at Syracuse.

I think when the polls come out tomorrow, Syracuse will be No. 1, followed by No. 2 Kansas, No. 3 Kentucky and No. 4 Duke ... not sure if K-State will leapfrog Purdue for fifth ... I don't think Ohio State will.

Obviously, Duke has to win out to guarantee a No. 1 seed ... a loss Wednesday night would open the door for one of our pursuers. K-State goes to Kansas that same night ... it would help if the Jayhawks bounce back with a win.

Funny how things change ... when this thread started, Duke was an almost certain No. 2 seed and some of you thought it was crazy to even raise the possibility that Duke could get a No. 1. As of today, Duke is a No. 1 -- it's up to us to hold onto it.

Newton_14
02-28-2010, 11:05 PM
Well, Duke took care of business in Charlottesville, while Michigan State knocked off Purdue in W. Lafayette -- which is a bigger loss than it normally would be since it's the Boilermaker's first game without Hummel. They have to re-establish how good they are without him -- and unlikely they make that case with wins over Indiana and Penn State to close things out.

As of today, Duke is the fourth No. 1 seed. Ohio State and Kansas State are right on our heels. Villanova took another step back with their loss at Syracuse.

I think when the polls come out tomorrow, Syracuse will be No. 1, followed by No. 2 Kansas, No. 3 Kentucky and No. 4 Duke ... not sure if K-State will leapfrog Purdue for fifth ... I don't think Ohio State will.

Obviously, Duke has to win out to guarantee a No. 1 seed ... a loss Wednesday night would open the door for one of our pursuers. K-State goes to Kansas that same night ... it would help if the Jayhawks bounce back with a win.

Funny how things change ... when this thread started, Duke was an almost certain No. 2 seed and some of you thought it was crazy to even raise the possibility that Duke could get a No. 1. As of today, Duke is a No. 1 -- it's up to us to hold onto it.

If the committee holds to their guidelines/patterns in recent years and that is a very BIG IF, then a win against Maryland and unc-ch will secure the Number 1 seed.

Last year, unc-ch secured the Number 1 seed by beating Duke in the regular season finale to finish 1st in the ACC Reg Season. The committee did not factor in the loss in the ACC tourney. I would hope they follow that same logic this year.

Should they not, then winning against the terps and unc-ch plus making it to the ACC Tourney final should then secure the Number 1 seed.

But to remove all doubt, we need to run the table including the ACC Tourney. Do that and there no way we don't get a Number 1 seed.

Olympic Fan
02-28-2010, 11:38 PM
If the committee holds to their guidelines/patterns in recent years and that is a very BIG IF, then a win against Maryland and unc-ch will secure the Number 1 seed.

Last year, unc-ch secured the Number 1 seed by beating Duke in the regular season finale to finish 1st in the ACC Reg Season. The committee did not factor in the loss in the ACC tourney. I would hope they follow that same logic this year.

Agree that the Maryland and UNC games are more important to a No. 1 seed than winning the ACC Tournament -- unless we were to lose early in the tournament. That's true of almost any conference. Not that the committee discounts tourney outcomes, it's just harder to work them in.

Basically, that's because of logistics. The ACC finals are 1-3 p.m. on Selection Sunday. Unless the committee can set up an easy either/or scenario, (which is not always possible to do) it usually can't wait until late Sunday afternoon to pencil in its No. 1 seeds and to figure out all the other seeding that depend on those placements.

So the rule of thumb is that the longer a team lasts in the tourney, the less likely a loss will change its seeding. A loss Friday to a Virginia or a BC is something that COULD cost Duke a No. 1. A loss Saturday to a Wake or Clemson might not change things. A loss Sunday probably would be too late to change things.

So, realistically, Wednesday's game at Maryland is not only for the outright ACC regular season title and the No. 1 seed in the ACC Tournament, it is the team's most important single step left to secure a No. 1 NCAA seed.

loldevilz
02-28-2010, 11:57 PM
So, realistically, Wednesday's game at Maryland is not only for the outright ACC regular season title and the No. 1 seed in the ACC Tournament, it is the team's most important single step left to secure a No. 1 NCAA seed.

This is making me nervous already.

duketaylor
03-01-2010, 12:40 AM
OlympicFan, you're dead on with that post. Duke wins @thetwerps, beats unc, it doesn't really change where they are in the seeding business right now. A loss does. Duke's a 1 to lose now. Still, the Big East conference tourney can be carnage and the other players in the Big 10 and Big 12 have a say. This year it's a crapshoot, pure-and-simple, seedwise and who's gonna advance because no team has demonstrated that they're so much better than anyone else, IMO. I think it's easy to put about 10 teams out there and play a guessing game as to whether they're a 1, 2 or 3, tho' certainly KU, UK and 'Cuse are not 3s. I don't think Duke would be either barring a collapse, which I don't see. WVU can still make a strong case for a 1; win out and win their tourney.

Fun time of year;)

pfrduke
03-01-2010, 12:46 AM
OlympicFan, you're dead on with that post. Duke wins @thetwerps, beats unc, it doesn't really change where they are in the seeding business right now. A loss does. Duke's a 1 to lose now. Still, the Big East conference tourney can be carnage and the other players in the Big 10 and Big 12 have a say. This year it's a crapshoot, pure-and-simple, seedwise and who's gonna advance because no team has demonstrated that they're so much better than anyone else, IMO. I think it's easy to put about 10 teams out there and play a guessing game as to whether they're a 1, 2 or 3, tho' certainly KU, UK and 'Cuse are not 3s. I don't think Duke would be either barring a collapse, which I don't see. WVU can still make a strong case for a 1; win out and win their tourney.

Fun time of year;)

I could see Kansas State taking our spot if they win out. The question then would be whether Kansas holds on to their #1, since they would have to have 3 losses (OK St, K St, Big XII tourney) in the last 3 weeks of the season for KSU to win out.

airowe
03-01-2010, 12:55 AM
I could see Kansas State taking our spot if they win out. The question then would be whether Kansas holds on to their #1, since they would have to have 3 losses (OK St, K St, Big XII tourney) in the last 3 weeks of the season for KSU to win out.

That would give KU four losses. Don't forget about Rocky Top.

I don't think it happens, at least not the one in Phog Allen...

I could see somebody else winning the Big XII Tourney though.

There really isn't a team that scares me after this weekend.