PDA

View Full Version : Dream NCAA Matchups (and the Nightmare)



Udaman
03-01-2010, 08:55 AM
Boy, if you had told me 3 weeks ago we would be in the driver's seat for the last #1 seed, I wouldn't have believed you. I thought we were getting tired, and playing above our heads, and that our shots would stop falling and it would be deja vu all over again. But then...Zoubek became our legit 4th option, and suddenly with our offensive boards and big 3, it didn't matter if we shot 32%. Wow.

Anyway, now that the tourney is close, I was thinking about the dream scenario for us.

Obviously, the best bet would be a #1 seed, with a weak #2 seed in our bracket. To me, that would mean Ohio State. They haven't really beaten great teams, and they've lost to some mediocre ones. It would be great to have a #3 seed like Butler or BYU as well - someone who would be thrilled to make the Elite 8 if they got there, and who (on paper) we are better than. For the 4-5 seeds, I would love people like Temple, Northern Iowa, Pittsburgh and Purdue....none of which scare me at all.

So, dream would be

1. Duke 2. Ohio State 3. Butler 4. Purdue 5. Temple

or

1. Duke 2. Ohio State 3. BYU 4. Butler 5. Purdue

Oh, bring that on, please

Middle ground would be to make it as a #1 seed, but get a brutal #2 and very solid #3, along with Texas and Michigan State as the 4-5. So something like

1. Duke 2. Kansas State 3. W. Virginia or Villanova 4. Michigan State 5. Texas

Nightmare would be for us to lose at Maryland, then lose in the ACC semifinals, and fall to a #2 seed with either Kansas or Kentucky (but especially Kansas - I think we could take the one man show of Kentucky, and I'm not sure why, but Syracuse just doesn't scare me).

So the nighmare scenario would be

1. Kansas 2. Duke 3. Villanova or W. Virginia 4. Michigan State 5. Texas

theAlaskanBear
03-01-2010, 09:08 AM
Syracuse SHOULD scare you, they are playing the best basketball in the nation right now, they play a very good zone that we havent seen all year, and have big, tall, strong wing players and big men.

I would love Purdue as a number two, and I also think Villanova is eminently beatable this year.

I also think Huggins WV is vastly overrated. Look at their conference wins, they have lost to all the good Big East teams. Georgetown to me is a much more dangerous team to play, because they can kill it on any particular night. Of course, they dont have the consistency to go all the way through the tourney.

Udaman
03-01-2010, 09:15 AM
No way. Syracuse is a paper tiger. They have some bad loses (home to Pittsburgh and Louisville), and survived a few games against bad, bad teams (5 points home to Marquette, 2 point win at DePaul). This is a 2nd round upset team waiting to happen.

West Virginia, on the other hand, has a great coach and all of their loses have been close. This is a team with some senior leadership, good depth, and quick on the perimeter. Not a team I want to face. Ditto with Villanova.

GTown won't get very far because they can't bring it for the normal opponents.

Chicago 1995
03-01-2010, 09:52 AM
No way. Syracuse is a paper tiger. They have some bad loses (home to Pittsburgh and Louisville), and survived a few games against bad, bad teams (5 points home to Marquette, 2 point win at DePaul). This is a 2nd round upset team waiting to happen.

West Virginia, on the other hand, has a great coach and all of their loses have been close. This is a team with some senior leadership, good depth, and quick on the perimeter. Not a team I want to face. Ditto with Villanova.

GTown won't get very far because they can't bring it for the normal opponents.

If Pitt and Louisville are bad losses, what is NC State?

Survived a few games against bad, bad teams? Like a three point win at BC and a tough game at Miami? 'Cuse looks pretty good to me.

Syracuse is the best team I've seen all year. I think Kansas is #2 and there's a pretty sizeable gap to #3.

DukeVol
03-01-2010, 10:04 AM
So, dream would be

1. Duke 2. Ohio State 3. Butler 4. Purdue 5. Temple

or

1. Duke 2. Ohio State 3. BYU 4. Butler 5. Purdue

Oh, bring that on, please


How did Purdue fall to a 4 or 5 seed? There's not a chance of that happening...

blueprofessor
03-01-2010, 10:31 AM
How did Purdue fall to a 4 or 5 seed? There's not a chance of that happening...

Zones (like Syracuse) with tall, athletic guards and wings are murder against motion offenses.:(
ABS (anybody but Syracuse)!
Also, no Kansas.

Duke in the West !

Best--Blueprofessor:)

Highlander
03-01-2010, 11:10 AM
How did Purdue fall to a 4 or 5 seed? There's not a chance of that happening...

If they continue to lose with Hummel out for the season, it's very possible they could fall to a 3 or 4. Don't see them as a 5 though.

Chill9192
03-01-2010, 11:11 AM
Zones (like Syracuse) with tall, athletic guards and wings are murder against motion offenses.:(
ABS (anybody but Syracuse)!
Also, no Kansas.

Duke in the West !

Best--Blueprofessor:)

For what it's worth, Digger Phelps said on Saturday night that Duke is best positioned to beat Syracuse, citing the (perceived) effectiveness of our outside shooting and offensive rebounding against the zone.

strawbs
03-01-2010, 11:25 AM
nightmare matchup in my mind would be any of the top teams from the big east. Mainly Syracuse, Nova, and WVU. You can also throw G'town in there, even though i think if we played them again the outcome would be different.
I'd also like to avoid being a 2 in the same bracket with Kansas. Other then that, no one really scares me.

GarrickB28
03-01-2010, 11:27 AM
For what it's worth, Digger Phelps said on Saturday night that Duke is best positioned to beat Syracuse, citing the (perceived) effectiveness of our outside shooting and offensive rebounding against the zone.

I also think 'Cuse is well suited for the tournament. How often do people see a Zone in conference, let alone a really well executed one like Syracuse runs. It will put a wrinkle in a lot of teams preparations, especially with only a few days to prepare...

hurleyfor3
03-01-2010, 11:30 AM
nightmare matchup in my mind would be any of the top teams from the big east. Mainly Syracuse, Nova, and WVU. You can also throw G'town in there, even though i think if we played them again the outcome would be different.
I'd also like to avoid being a 2 in the same bracket with Kansas. Other then that, no one really scares me.

Nice thing about getting a 1-seed would be that we probably wouldn't have to worry about the Big East until the regional finals. I don't see any of the teams you mentioned dropping to 4-5 seed territory. Maybe Georgetown, but I'd look forward to playing them again (see UConn/GIT, 2004).

blueprofessor
03-01-2010, 11:56 AM
West:
1 Duke
2 Purdue
3 Pitt
4 BYU
5 Butler
...
8 TX


I like it.
We need to win out through ACC semi-finals.

Best regards--Blueprofessor:)

A-Tex Devil
03-01-2010, 12:04 PM
Texas is not going to be a 4-5 seed unless they make the Big XII tourney finals. They are a 6-7 seed right now. Maybe. And if they lose out are at risk of not making the tourney. I meant what I said 5-6 weeks ago when I said Duke was a better team (and was mildly scoffed at). I don't really want to seem them in the second round again, but that team is severely damaged in between the ears.

I don't know how I feel about Ohio State. I think it's a good matchup because we usually do well against one man teams, but Evan Turner is the truth.

These are the teams that could end up with 4-5 seeds (or a 3 to our 2) that I don't want to face before the Elite 8:
1. K-State (think the LSU game 4 years ago, but much worse)
2. Any Big East team other than Pitt
3. Michigan St.

Here is who I'd love to see:

1. Any team from a mid-major. Other than the VCU debacle, we don't lose to mid-major schools.
2. Pitt
3. Vandy
4. Baylor

As for 7-8 seeds in the 2nd round, as mentioned, I don't want to see Texas again. I don't want Mississippi St., Cal, or Texas A&M either. Frankly, I would like to avoid UConn as well. I like what we could do against Mizzou. Based on our play against Clemson, that's a good matchup for us.

soccerstud2210
03-01-2010, 12:18 PM
If Pitt and Louisville are bad losses, what is NC State?

Survived a few games against bad, bad teams? Like a three point win at BC and a tough game at Miami? 'Cuse looks pretty good to me.

Syracuse is the best team I've seen all year. I think Kansas is #2 and there's a pretty sizeable gap to #3.

you gotta look at the whole season, not just that game against nova.

remember we made georgetown look like the best team in years

nova was just plain terrible. cuse looked good dont get me wrong, but they arent as good as they looked the other night.

soccerstud2210
03-01-2010, 12:22 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4956590

new pole. we are # 4. just where we should be

Exiled_Devil
03-01-2010, 12:31 PM
Syracuse SHOULD scare you, they are playing the best basketball in the nation right now, they play a very good zone that we havent seen all year, and have big, tall, strong wing players and big men.

I would love Purdue as a number two, and I also think Villanova is eminently beatable this year.

I also think Huggins WV is vastly overrated. Look at their conference wins, they have lost to all the good Big East teams. Georgetown to me is a much more dangerous team to play, because they can kill it on any particular night. Of course, they dont have the consistency to go all the way through the tourney.

The one upside for us if we face Syracuse is that Coach K knows the Cuse zone. Recall that our zone look is called Orange.

Working with Boeheim is one more advantage of Coach K coaching the Olympics team. I am not sure how we would do against them as far as execution goes,but I am not worried about the coaching staff trying to figure out how to play against their scheme.

MChambers
03-01-2010, 12:51 PM
For what it's worth, Digger Phelps said on Saturday night that Duke is best positioned to beat Syracuse, citing the (perceived) effectiveness of our outside shooting and offensive rebounding against the zone.

I was looking at Pomeroy and thinking we'd get a lot of good looks from outside against the zone. And I was thinking that Syracuse gives up a ton of offensive rebounds.

Now that I hear that Digger feels that way, I am reconsidering.

Underdog5
03-01-2010, 12:56 PM
If Pitt and Louisville are bad losses, what is NC State?

Survived a few games against bad, bad teams? Like a three point win at BC and a tough game at Miami? 'Cuse looks pretty good to me.

Syracuse is the best team I've seen all year. I think Kansas is #2 and there's a pretty sizeable gap to #3.

Cuse and KU scare me more than any team I've seen this year.

Despite what people traditionally think, the Cuse zone defends the perimeter very well. Their losses and tight games are just the norm for teams that play in a tough conference. And it's only 2 losses. Both Cuse and KU have good leadership, solid gaurd play, good size and at least 1 very difficult match up problem for anyone they play. To beat both we'll need continued great effort on team defense and rebounding as I think baskets will be tough to come by.

If Duke doesn't get there, I have them playing each other for the title in whatever bracket I complete.

Kewlswim
03-01-2010, 01:00 PM
I also think 'Cuse is well suited for the tournament. How often do people see a Zone in conference, let alone a really well executed one like Syracuse runs. It will put a wrinkle in a lot of teams preparations, especially with only a few days to prepare...

Hi,

Coach K's Olympic experience might really help Duke here. Coach Boeheim of Syracuse is on his staff. Duke's zone is even called "Orange" in deference to Syracuse. Coach K knows how it is supposed to run and how to defeat it from having worked with the Syracuse coach. It might not be enough, but it should be interesting if we get that far, etc. etc.

The last few years have not been very good NCAA tournaments (by our standards). No matter who we play, we are still Duke and have a big target on our back. Any team we play will probably play the best they have played all year just because it is against us. I see no easy games, but a hard-fought gauntlet heading towards April.

GO DUKE!

Mal
03-01-2010, 01:05 PM
+1 to most of A-Tex's thoughts. I don't want the 'horns under any circumstances. Underperforming, high talent teams with mental issues, be they arrogance, lack of effort, lack of discipline, whatever, seem to find those issues magically go away when they get the opportunity to play Duke in the NCAA tourney.* Plus, they remember that game from last year.

The point about avoiding a high seed Big East team that hurleyfor3 makes is a good one. Almost enough to make me rethink what's become my annual statement of "I don't want a Number 1 seed because of the heightened expectations and pressure, the grousing from everyone else that we don't deserve it/are a fraud, and the inevitable characterization of not making the Final Four as a 1 seed (if and only if you're Duke) as a colossal failure and reason for giddiness on the part of the 99% of the country that despises us." I'd take a 1 seed if it meant no Big East until the Regional Finals.

That said, I'm cautious after the last number of NCAA's, so I'm more focused on getting past the Sweet 16 than who we might get in the final eight. If we get there, it doesn't matter - the hounds back off, we're nationally relevant in the postseason again, and I have a good feeling about our guys in any one game scenario. It's that second Thursday/Friday game that scares me, so the tough 3 through 5 seeds that matter. I see Wisconsin looming down there, and I don't like it. I don't like gutty, gritty teams, either. I like one-dimensional or one-star teams like Purdue (even in '94!).

Also, rational or not, I'd like a rematch with G'town, while I want no part of 'Nova based solely on the nightmare they put us through last year.

I wouldn't worry too much about Kansas. For one thing, I don't think they going to be lower than the second 1 seed, and we're not likely to fall to one of the lower 2 seeds. For another, if Cornell can take them to the wire, I have confidence in our ability to do the same. Slowing down Aldrich could be Zoubs' One Shining Moment!


* Not a scientific statement. Gut feeling based on a plural of anecdotes.

Klemnop
03-01-2010, 01:14 PM
Texas is not going to be a 4-5 seed unless they make the Big XII tourney finals. They are a 6-7 seed right now. Maybe. And if they lose out are at risk of not making the tourney. I meant what I said 5-6 weeks ago when I said Duke was a better team (and was mildly scoffed at). I don't really want to seem them in the second round again, but that team is severely damaged in between the ears.

I don't know how I feel about Ohio State. I think it's a good matchup because we usually do well against one man teams, but Evan Turner is the truth.

These are the teams that could end up with 4-5 seeds (or a 3 to our 2) that I don't want to face before the Elite 8:
1. K-State (think the LSU game 4 years ago, but much worse)
2. Any Big East team other than Pitt
3. Michigan St.

Here is who I'd love to see:

1. Any team from a mid-major. Other than the VCU debacle, we don't lose to mid-major schools.
2. Pitt
3. Vandy
4. Baylor

As for 7-8 seeds in the 2nd round, as mentioned, I don't want to see Texas again. I don't want Mississippi St., Cal, or Texas A&M either. Frankly, I would like to avoid UConn as well. I like what we could do against Mizzou. Based on our play against Clemson, that's a good matchup for us.

*Post deleted for better reading comprehension. OP intended that Mizzou plays a similar style to Clemson...not that he preferred a match-up with Clemson.

Klem

noyac
03-01-2010, 02:49 PM
I know everyone on here (for the most part) is a Duke fan but I am still sick and tired of hearing about our bad losses in the NCAA in recent history. I don't think they are really that bad except for one. If you look at some of the research I did (not too complex) you may agree.

2009 lost to Villanova in the Sweet 16---Villanova went on to the Final Four only to lose to UNC eventual chump

2008 lost to West Virginia in the Second Round--Duke was a 2 seed and lost to WV the 7 seed but if you look at the rosters from that game Duke only had three upperclassmen that played (1 senior)

2007 lost to Virginia Commonwealth in the First Round--this was a bad loss but if it were not Duke no one would say that a 11 seed beating a 6 seed is a huge upset it happens every year

2006 lost to LSU in Sweet 16--LSU went on to the Final Four

2005 lost to MSU in Sweet 16--MSU went on to the Final Four and lost to UNC the eventual chump

2004 lost to Uconn by 1 in the Final Four--Uconn went on the be National Champ.

2003 lost to Kansas in the Sweet 16--Kansas went on to lose in the Finals.

2002 lost to Indiana in the Sweet 16--Indiana went on to play in the National Championship Game

2001 won NCAA tournament

Other than two losses we never lost to a team that didn't make it to the Final Four or further. I am like most of you and I absolutely hate it when Duke loses (especially in the NCAA) and I expect greatness but when you take a step back and let some time pass these losses are not that bad.

P.S. The IU loss still angers me

jv001
03-01-2010, 02:55 PM
I know everyone (for the most part) is a Duke fan but I am still sick and tired of hearing about our bad losses in the NCAA in recent history. I don't think they are really that bad except for one. If you look at some of the research I did (not too complex) you may agree.

2009 lost to Villanova in the Sweet 16---Villanova went on to the Final Four only to lose to UNC eventual chump

2008 lost to West Virginia in the Second Round--Duke was a 2 seed and lost to WV the 7 seed but if you look at the rosters from that game Duke only had three upperclassmen that played (1 senior)

2007 lost to Virginia Commonwealth in the First Round--this was a bad loss but if it were not Duke no one would say that a 11 seed beating a 6 seed is a huge upset it happens every year

2006 lost to LSU in Sweet 16--LSU went on to the Final Four

2005 lost to MSU in Sweet 16--MSU went on to the Final Four and lost to UNC the eventual chump

2004 lost to Uconn by 1 in the Final Four--Uconn went on the be National Champ.

2003 lost to Kansas in the Sweet 16--Kansas went on to the Final Four.

2002 lost to Indiana in the Sweet 16--Indiana went on to play in the National Championship Game

2001 won NCAA tournament

Other than two losses we never lost to a team that didn't make it to the Final Four or further. I am like most of you and I absolutely hate it when Duke loses (especially in the NCAA) and I expect greatness but when you take a step back and let some time pass these losses are not that bad.

P.S. The IU loss still angers me

Thanks for your post. Puts the tough losses in perspective. All the losses bother me, but the U-Conn probably bothers me the most. We were better, but got hosed by the refs. I guess not having that 4th Championship hurts the most. Go Duke!

Chicago 1995
03-01-2010, 03:18 PM
you gotta look at the whole season, not just that game against nova.

remember we made georgetown look like the best team in years

nova was just plain terrible. cuse looked good dont get me wrong, but they arent as good as they looked the other night.

I've been saying Syracuse is the best team in the country since the first of the year. The game against Nova was a little bit of confirmation, but I've had said the same thing about them win or lose last Saturday.

UrinalCake
03-01-2010, 03:26 PM
Other than two losses we never lost to a team that didn't make it to the Final Four or further.

I guess there are a few explanations for this:

1.) We had a stretch of bad luck where our opponents were under-seeded every year.
2.) There is a certain style of play that we have no answer for.
3.) Beating Duke gave these teams confidence, which helped them keep winning.
4.) Upsetting Duke meant the other team then takes over a higher seeding, giving them favorable position for the remainder of the tournament.

I think it's a lot of #2 and #3.

I personally can't start thinking about regional finals or final four matchups right now. I'm more concerned with who we'll face in the second and third rounds; we need to get over that hump. And once we get to that point, every game will be a tough one regardless.

Chicago 1995
03-01-2010, 03:28 PM
I know everyone on here (for the most part) is a Duke fan but I am still sick and tired of hearing about our bad losses in the NCAA in recent history. I don't think they are really that bad except for one. If you look at some of the research I did (not too complex) you may agree.

2009 lost to Villanova in the Sweet 16---Villanova went on to the Final Four only to lose to UNC eventual chump

2008 lost to West Virginia in the Second Round--Duke was a 2 seed and lost to WV the 7 seed but if you look at the rosters from that game Duke only had three upperclassmen that played (1 senior)

2007 lost to Virginia Commonwealth in the First Round--this was a bad loss but if it were not Duke no one would say that a 11 seed beating a 6 seed is a huge upset it happens every year

2006 lost to LSU in Sweet 16--LSU went on to the Final Four

2005 lost to MSU in Sweet 16--MSU went on to the Final Four and lost to UNC the eventual chump

2004 lost to Uconn by 1 in the Final Four--Uconn went on the be National Champ.

2003 lost to Kansas in the Sweet 16--Kansas went on to lose in the Finals.

2002 lost to Indiana in the Sweet 16--Indiana went on to play in the National Championship Game

2001 won NCAA tournament

Other than two losses we never lost to a team that didn't make it to the Final Four or further. I am like most of you and I absolutely hate it when Duke loses (especially in the NCAA) and I expect greatness but when you take a step back and let some time pass these losses are not that bad.

P.S. The IU loss still angers me

The teams we lose to may go on to do something the tourney, but we've been the highere seeded team in everyone one of those games save 2003 and 2004. When you lose that many years in a row as the higher seed, the losses begin to start to look bad.

There's also the problem with how the games actually looked. We looked tight and panicked against Indiana. Got blown off the court by 'Nova. Made Joe Alexander a lottery pick. Had no answer for Eric Maynor. Our offense was made to look awful against LSU and Michigan State. That LSU loss was as the #2 team in the country, if I remember right. Michigan State was when we were #3, I think. We'd been the better team in almost all of those games by a substantial margin before the loss in the tourney, and we've shown up in the tourney not looking the part of a favorite at all. After a while, it looks bad and people are right to mention it as they have, I think.

I'm not all that upset about the loss in 2002 to IU. I think it just spared us a loss to UMD in the National Title game.

A-Tex Devil
03-01-2010, 03:29 PM
I know everyone on here (for the most part) is a Duke fan but I am still sick and tired of hearing about our bad losses in the NCAA in recent history. I don't think they are really that bad except for one. If you look at some of the research I did (not too complex) you may agree.

2009 lost to Villanova in the Sweet 16---Villanova went on to the Final Four only to lose to UNC eventual chump

2008 lost to West Virginia in the Second Round--Duke was a 2 seed and lost to WV the 7 seed but if you look at the rosters from that game Duke only had three upperclassmen that played (1 senior)

2007 lost to Virginia Commonwealth in the First Round--this was a bad loss but if it were not Duke no one would say that a 11 seed beating a 6 seed is a huge upset it happens every year

2006 lost to LSU in Sweet 16--LSU went on to the Final Four

2005 lost to MSU in Sweet 16--MSU went on to the Final Four and lost to UNC the eventual chump

2004 lost to Uconn by 1 in the Final Four--Uconn went on the be National Champ.

2003 lost to Kansas in the Sweet 16--Kansas went on to lose in the Finals.

2002 lost to Indiana in the Sweet 16--Indiana went on to play in the National Championship Game

2001 won NCAA tournament

Other than two losses we never lost to a team that didn't make it to the Final Four or further. I am like most of you and I absolutely hate it when Duke loses (especially in the NCAA) and I expect greatness but when you take a step back and let some time pass these losses are not that bad.

P.S. The IU loss still angers me

I'll buy your argument to a point. All those losses hurt, but in retrospect, we generally lost to hot teams that continued to make some noise in the tourney (i.e. went to the final four). All that being said, sometimes you play well and lose. Those are the brakes. It will still be tough if we lose this year, but I at least hope that we would have given it our best shot and played up to the standards the coaching staff and players expect of themselves.

The only 3 games on that list where I think we can say that are KU, UConn and Michigan St. Every other loss we simply didn't play up to our standard. Throw seeding, what round we lose in, etc. out the window. The fact that our level of play in those other losses was not up to Duke standards is what is frustrating.

Jumbo
03-01-2010, 03:45 PM
No way. Syracuse is a paper tiger. They have some bad loses (home to Pittsburgh and Louisville), and survived a few games against bad, bad teams (5 points home to Marquette, 2 point win at DePaul). This is a 2nd round upset team waiting to happen.

West Virginia, on the other hand, has a great coach and all of their loses have been close. This is a team with some senior leadership, good depth, and quick on the perimeter. Not a team I want to face. Ditto with Villanova.

GTown won't get very far because they can't bring it for the normal opponents.

Syracuse is fantastic. Remember when you didn't like them in 2003 either? ;)
BTW, in your dream bracket scenarios, keep in mind that we'll have to have one of the following 4 teams, all of whom figure to get top-4 seeds: Syracuse, Villanova, Georgetown, West Virginia. Our only hope is that Pitt passes G-Town, as I think we'd have an easier time with Pitt. But we're getting a Big East team as a top-4 seed, whether we're a 1 or a 2.

-bdbd
03-01-2010, 03:49 PM
KA, Syr and KY scare me (in that order). Any way we can arrange to win a NC w/o playing any of those three???


For those not familliar, the selection commiee initially ranks the 65 teams 1 - 65. Then the rounds are set (groups of four, 1 - 16). Then they are applied in a "snale" pattern. The committee does have some discretion to move a team up or down a level ("line") (or two sometimes) for matchups/geography. So if you believe the current rankings (USA Today) then the seeds would look like this:
#1's - Syr, KA, KY, Duke (in that order)
Then #2's going back the other way (in order) - KSU, Purdue, OSU, WVU.
Then #3's: Nova, NM, Butler, MSU.
Then #4's going back: TN, Gonzo, BYU, Temple or Wisc.

I think this gives you a better perception of what sorts of teams we're likely to be bracketed with. Obviously things will change over the next week.

But if you assume Duke wins out (as do the other #1 seeds), then we are the "worst" of the number-1's, and so we'd get the "best" of the number-2's, the worst of the #3's and the best of the #4's.

I can live with a bracket of (top 4 in our regional): Duke, KSU, MSU, TN.
TN is a relatively tough 3rd round match-up, but we can handle KSU in 4th round. Though I think we should be rooting FOR Purdue to hang on to that #2 seed (win out) as I think they'd be over-ranked at #2, b/c of their pre-injury performance, and a good macthup for us now in the 4th round... Of the perceived #3's I'd prefer NM or Butler right now. Of that list of #4's, I'd prefer any of Gonzo, BYU or Temple over TN...

Frankly, I think we're about due for (luck-wise) some good NCAA match-ups for once. Stay focused boys -- just keep winning and good things will happen!!

:D :D :D

A-Tex Devil
03-01-2010, 04:04 PM
but we can handle KSU in 4th round.

While I think we should beat KSU, and if we get rolling, could beat them comfortably, I frankly do not want to see them. This is a more talented version of the LSU team that beat a better Duke team 4 years ago. They push and shove and grab and claw, but they also have real players at several positions, and can score.

Considering how we've fared against Bob Huggins coached teams in the past, and the fact that Frank Martin is a much better coach than anyone gave him credit for regardless of his on court antics, I'd happily miss them entirely.

I can't remember wanting a 1 seed so badly. It's a really big deal this year considering the drop off in quality from the 2/3 seeds to the 4 seeds.

sagegrouse
03-01-2010, 04:15 PM
Dialogue from "When Harry Met Sally:"


Sally Albright: Is Harry bringing anybody to the wedding?
Marie: I don't think so.
Sally Albright: Is he seeing anybody?
Marie: He was seeing this anthropologist, but...
Sally Albright: What's she look like?
Marie: Thin. Pretty. Big tits. Your basic nightmare.



That's Duke: everybody's basic nightmare. Too much discipline, too much defense, too much outside shooting, too many offensive rebounds. "Your basic nightmare."

sagegrouse

loldevilz
03-01-2010, 04:18 PM
I guess there are a few explanations for this:

1.) We had a stretch of bad luck where our opponents were under-seeded every year.
2.) There is a certain style of play that we have no answer for.
3.) Beating Duke gave these teams confidence, which helped them keep winning.
4.) Upsetting Duke meant the other team then takes over a higher seeding, giving them favorable position for the remainder of the tournament.

I think it's a lot of #2 and #3.

I personally can't start thinking about regional finals or final four matchups right now. I'm more concerned with who we'll face in the second and third rounds; we need to get over that hump. And once we get to that point, every game will be a tough one regardless.

I totally agree about second and third rounds...there are so many potential upsets that are waiting to happen this year. For instance, getting Texas in the second round is just absurd considering they are supposed to be a national championship caliber team and many teams have very scary good wins.

I think the problem with last years team was above all else confidence.The sweet sixteen loss to Villanova shouldn't have been a blow out, but it was because the team completely folded under pressure. Coach K was literally throwing every possible lineup combination out there but they all were getting trampled. I still don't think this team has enough confidence yet, but that doesn't mean that they can't get there (I still have hope). Beating Maryland will be a start. But confidence is built not just by wins, but by good team play and trust which we still haven't seen too much of this year unfortunately.

TampaDuke
03-01-2010, 04:51 PM
But if you assume Duke wins out (as do the other #1 seeds), then we are the "worst" of the number-1's, and so we'd get the "best" of the number-2's, the worst of the #3's and the best of the #4's.

Makes me wonder if it's not too bad if we end up as the best #2 or, for that matter, if there's much difference in potential opponent strength between worst #1 and best #2.

shoutingncu
03-01-2010, 04:54 PM
Dialogue from "When Harry Met Sally:"

That's Duke: everybody's basic nightmare. Too much discipline, too much defense, too much outside shooting, too many offensive rebounds. "Your basic nightmare."

sagegrouse

Is Duke supposed to be a dog in this scenario? Who is the dog, Harry?

A-Tex Devil
03-01-2010, 05:09 PM
Makes me wonder if it's not too bad if we end up as the best #2 or, for that matter, if there's much difference in potential opponent strength between worst #1 and best #2.

The 1 seed is ALWAYS better to have than the 2 seed (unless one is worried about over-optimistic expectations upon receiving a 1 seed).

This year it's even more so. Unless one of the top 4 Big East teams really struggles in the last week and conference tourney, they are all 1 through 3 seeds. The gap between the 2/3 and the 4/5 seeds in Lunardi's or any other projections is striking. Plus, add to the fact that 12/13 seeds often pick off 4/5 seeds in the first round, I could care less if we get the best no. 2 seed. If we get to the Elite 8, I'll deal with that then.

There is not a single reason other than the misguided reason of tempered expectations to not want a 1 seed over a 2 seed.

G man
03-01-2010, 05:44 PM
I like the current bracket on ESPN. I would take it not sure I would want to play Texas in the second round outside of that I like it

PumpkinFunk
03-01-2010, 05:47 PM
I want an overseeded 3/4/5 seed. A BYU, New Mexico, Northern Iowa, or Vanderbilt who either is bad in neutral/road games or has few good wins. Temple or Butler as a 3/4/5 seed wouldn't be terrible either as I expect them to be overseeded relative to who they've really beaten. These teams all have a gaudy record with some bad losses and few great wins.

sagegrouse
03-01-2010, 06:03 PM
Is Duke supposed to be a dog in this scenario? Who is the dog, Harry?

Maybe this is not as much a part of popular culture as I thought. Here's the link (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098635/)to the Bily Crystal + Meg Ryan film.

sagegrouse

shoutingncu
03-01-2010, 06:26 PM
Maybe this is not as much a part of popular culture as I thought. Here's the link (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098635/)to the Bily Crystal + Meg Ryan film.

sagegrouse

Yeah, the "basic nightmare" date in question, I believe, was to this wedding scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BLoG5iVvDo).

But on topic (although I love the movie diversions that come up from time to time here)...

I know some have discounted Kentucky for their youth and immaturity, but if Cousins could hold it together, so-to-speak, in conference play, where he has to hear it night-in and night-out from opposing fans (and probably players), then in a neutral setting, I don't see him losing his cool. And the combination of he and Patterson would make me worry (if I had a team in the tournament to worry about ;)). And with Wall's penetrating, they don't need to rely on the three as much as others, taking away the effectiveness of Duke's perimeter defense.

I know they just lost, but as is said every year, no team is going to go undefeated. And very few will only have one loss. I don't expect UK to lose again before the Final Four. That said, am I understanding some of the numbers right and Duke won't likely face them until then? Because if that's the case, then it'd certainly be a successful post season, I'd have to imagine.

Regardless, I just love the way that Kentucky gets a little crinkle up under its nose when it's looking at Calipari like he's nuts... or that they shoot coldly from three when it's 71 degrees out.

Acymetric
03-01-2010, 06:28 PM
Maybe this is not as much a part of popular culture as I thought. Here's the link (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098635/)to the Bily Crystal + Meg Ryan film.

sagegrouse

Well there was an episode of Scrubs essentially built around that movie (specifically the speech) so I think it qualifies as a pretty good pop culture reference.

Oh, and its always better to be a #1 than a #2. I would never trade down to a 2, why would anyone?

Hermy-own
03-01-2010, 06:37 PM
Dialogue from "When Harry Met Sally:"




That's Duke: everybody's basic nightmare. Too much discipline, too much defense, too much outside shooting, too many offensive rebounds. "Your basic nightmare."

sagegrouse

Great post. Everyone is talking about matchups, which is fine, but the most important factor is how we play. We can beat any team in the country if we play well - with maybe one or two exceptions at the very top. I don't think we should forget that no one wants to play Duke - we are balanced, experienced, disciplined, and play great defense. WE are everyone's nightmare.

Also, I think the previous poster who talked about confidence was dead on. That's why we posters enjoy Mason's swagger. It shows he always believes he is going to win, or that he can get that sort of confidence if he doesn't have it now. Confident teams are going to shoot & execute much better in the NCAA than nervous teams. If we get a #1 seed, then our team responds by thinking, 'Damn right we're a #1 seed' instead of 'I hope we can live up to expectations'.

-bdbd
03-01-2010, 07:50 PM
KA, Syr and KY scare me (in that order). Any way we can arrange to win a NC w/o playing any of those three???


For those not familliar, the selection commiee initially ranks the 65 teams 1 - 65. Then the rounds are set (groups of four, 1 - 16). Then they are applied in a "snake" pattern. The committee does have some discretion to move a team up or down a level ("line") (or two sometimes) for matchups/geography. So if you believe the current rankings (USA Today) then the seeds would look like this:
#1's - Syr, KA, KY, Duke (in that order)
Then #2's going back the other way (in order) - KSU, Purdue, OSU, WVU.
Then #3's: Nova, NM, Butler, MSU.
Then #4's going back: TN, Gonzo, BYU, Temple or Wisc.

I think this gives you a better perception of what sorts of teams we're likely to be bracketed with. Obviously things will change over the next week.

But if you assume Duke wins out (as do the other #1 seeds), then we are the "worst" of the number-1's, and so we'd get the "best" of the number-2's, the worst of the #3's and the best of the #4's.

I can live with a bracket of (top 4 in our regional): Duke, KSU, MSU, TN.
TN is a relatively tough 3rd round match-up, but we can handle KSU in 4th round. Though I think we should be rooting FOR Purdue to hang on to that #2 seed (win out) as I think they'd be over-ranked at #2, b/c of their pre-injury performance, and a good macthup for us now in the 4th round... Of the perceived #3's I'd prefer NM or Butler right now. Of that list of #4's, I'd prefer any of Gonzo, BYU or Temple over TN...

Frankly, I think we're about due for (luck-wise) some good NCAA match-ups for once. Stay focused boys -- just keep winning and good things will happen!!

:D :D :D

Ooops. A "Snake pattern" probably makes more sense than a "snale" one. Sorry for the typo.

Yes, to the earlier point, you ALWAYS want the highest seed. Remember, there's three other games before you get to the Region Final. Assuming that the seedings were well set, the higher seed is designed to get the easier path.

Assume for the moment that the seedings are spot-on and hold up in the tournament. Would you rather face (as a #1 seed) #16, then number 8, then #4 on your run to the regional finals..... or face (as a #2 seed) #15, #7, and #3 ...or (as a #3 seed) face #14, #6, and #2 ??? I think it is an easy answer. If anyone needs further convincing, look at the historical odds of making it to the Final Four. #1's make the FF at a higher rate than #2's, who make it more than #3's, etc.

I always thought that was one of Duke's big secret weapons in the glory years circa 1986 - 1994 --- we always earned very high seeds going in to the NCAAT, so we rarely faced serious challenges early on.


I'll take a number-1 seed and be very happy with it, thank you very much.

;)

Troublemaker
03-01-2010, 08:37 PM
Obviously, the best bet would be a #1 seed, with a weak #2 seed in our bracket. To me, that would mean Ohio State. They haven't really beaten great teams, and they've lost to some mediocre ones. It would be great to have a #3 seed like Butler or BYU as well - someone who would be thrilled to make the Elite 8 if they got there, and who (on paper) we are better than. For the 4-5 seeds, I would love people like Temple, Northern Iowa, Pittsburgh and Purdue....none of which scare me at all.

So, dream would be

1. Duke 2. Ohio State 3. Butler 4. Purdue 5. Temple

or

1. Duke 2. Ohio State 3. BYU 4. Butler 5. Purdue

Oh, bring that on, please

I actually think Ohio St is a poor matchup for Duke. They spread the floor for a top-2 NBA pick to penetrate and create with good to great (Diebler) shooters surrounding him. Our 1-on-1 defense would be severely tested and I don't think we have anyone that can check Evan Turner (not a criticism, btw, given his prodigious talent and all-around skills). Duke would be bigger inside but the Buckeyes do a very solid job on the defensive boards overall (30th in the country - kenpom) and have nice size on the perimeter, which would mitigate a little bit of the size advantage that Duke tends to enjoy outside with Singler and Scheyer.

The Buckeyes are just far from what I personally imagine to be a good matchup, which to me is a team that gives up offensive rebounds and can't spread the floor (and doesn't have an awesome player like Evan Turner).

GODUKEGO
03-01-2010, 09:31 PM
This would be a good road to the final four. I think for us the toughest obstacle would be Texas. There inside post-up game could hurt us!! He has 7 from the ACC.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

tommy
03-01-2010, 09:54 PM
But confidence is built not just by wins, but by good team play and trust which we still haven't seen too much of this year unfortunately.

You're kidding, right? What would you have needed to see from this team, especially in the month of February, that you didn't see in order to deem it "good team play and trust?"

licc85
03-01-2010, 10:08 PM
1. Duke 2. Ohio State 3. Butler 4. Purdue 5. Temple


I dont think we want to face ohio state. Evan turner is a monster. Also, I would rather face kansas than kentucky. Kentucky is a matchup nightmare for duke, we have no one who could guard wall or cousins 1 on 1, it would be very difficult to stop them.

TampaDuke
03-01-2010, 10:46 PM
Yes, to the earlier point, you ALWAYS want the highest seed. Remember, there's three other games before you get to the Region Final. Assuming that the seedings were well set, the higher seed is designed to get the easier path.


Oh, and its always better to be a #1 than a #2. I would never trade down to a 2, why would anyone?


The 1 seed is ALWAYS better to have than the 2 seed (unless one is worried about over-optimistic expectations upon receiving a 1 seed).

* * *
There is not a single reason other than the misguided reason of tempered expectations to not want a 1 seed over a 2 seed.

No doubt it is usually the case that the #1 seed is preferred, but with the snake pattern seeding is it always?

If you are the worst #1 seed, you get the best #4 seed right? If you are the best #2 seed, you would get the worst #3 seed. If the #3 is overrated, that matchup might be preferred to playing the best #4 seed.

I assume there isn't much difference between playing the #15 or #16. Likewise, there isn't likely to be much difference in the #7 or #8, particularly since these teams are actually ranked next to each other in the snake pattern.

Additionally, the worst #1 seed is likely to be sent to an unfavorable location. I assume the best #4 seed is more likely to be sent to the most favorable location.

Actually, just looking at the bracketology bracket kind of shows why the best #2 might not be too bad. Currently, it projects Duke having to play Quinnipiac, Texas, BYU, then Purdue to reach the final four as the worst #1 seed, with the BYU game out west. As the #2 seed in that region, we would have to play Troy, Missouri, Pittsburgh and then Purdue.

Quinnipiac and Troy are a wash and, personally, I prefer to play Missouri than Texas and Pittsburgh than BYU (out west anyway).

Lots of what ifs, but I can easily see where there isn't much difference with the worst #1 and the best #2. Also, I do think there is often more pressure on a #1 seed, which could be heightened by our recent earlier-than-expected exits. Depends on the particular team whether this would have an adverse impact, and I like our guys on this front.

Personally, I enjoy considering all the possible matchups as a part of the March Madness experience. That said, years ago I concluded that I didn't care who we ended up matched up against as I expect us to be able to compete and beat anybody to win the title. That's still my mindset to this day and I hope it is for the team as well. Bring on all comers!

juise
03-01-2010, 11:17 PM
I actually think Ohio St is a poor matchup for Duke. They spread the floor for a top-2 NBA pick to penetrate and create with good to great (Diebler) shooters surrounding him. Our 1-on-1 defense would be severely tested and I don't think we have anyone that can check Evan Turner (not a criticism, btw, given his prodigious talent and all-around skills). Duke would be bigger inside but the Buckeyes do a very solid job on the defensive boards overall (30th in the country - kenpom) and have nice size on the perimeter, which would mitigate a little bit of the size advantage that Duke tends to enjoy outside with Singler and Scheyer.

The Buckeyes are just far from what I personally imagine to be a good matchup, which to me is a team that gives up offensive rebounds and can't spread the floor (and doesn't have an awesome player like Evan Turner).


I know Turner is a huge force, but I actually think that a combination of Lance (if he could stay out of foul trouble) and Kyle would give him some trouble. I think that Jon would match up well with Diebler. I think that Buford and Lighty would be the real challenge for Duke as both are very athletic and have a few inches on Nolan. We may be able to guard one, but both would be a challenge. Having said that, I never doubt that K will put together a superb defensive game plan.

My concern is always about offensive match-ups. I think that Ohio State is one of the few teams that could expose Duke's lack of perimeter depth. I bet that OSU's length and quickness could spell trouble for our three stars. As much as it does not seem favorable for Duke, I would actually be pretty excited to have OSU as our two. It would be a fun game to watch... if our tournament games didn't stress me out so much.

GODUKEGO
03-02-2010, 08:19 AM
http://feeds.foxsports.com/cbk/story/NCAA-tournament-bracket-prediction-030110

ArtVandelay
03-02-2010, 08:43 AM
This would be a good road to the final four. I think for us the toughest obstacle would be Texas. There inside post-up game could hurt us!! He has 7 from the ACC.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

I think it's fair to say that I would be pretty psyched if this was our draw. Purdue, Pitt, and BYU? Nothing in there scares me. Although drawing Texas in the second round would be a tough break. That said, Joe Lunardi is often spectactularly wrong about this stuff.

GODUKEGO
03-02-2010, 08:49 AM
I think it's fair to say that I would be pretty psyched if this was our draw. Purdue, Pitt, and BYU? Nothing in there scares me. Although drawing Texas in the second round would be a tough break. That said, Joe Lunardi is often spectactularly wrong about this stuff.

Just noticed and got to love your screen name!!!

A-Tex Devil
03-02-2010, 09:14 AM
I think it's fair to say that I would be pretty psyched if this was our draw. Purdue, Pitt, and BYU? Nothing in there scares me. Although drawing Texas in the second round would be a tough break. That said, Joe Lunardi is often spectactularly wrong about this stuff.

A little bit in Lunardi's defense, until the last couple of years or so, he has gotten all but 1 or 2 teams right as far as the field is concerned as well as the 1 seeds. I don't think that he or any of the other "bracketologists" have ever claimed to try to nail the pairings, though. The idea is he thinks a team will be seeded "A" and that based on that seed, the road would b through teams similar to B, C, D. I may be wrong there, but I've never thought he claimed to be accurate on the actual pairings, just the field and the 1 seeds.

Memphis Devil
03-02-2010, 09:24 AM
http://feeds.foxsports.com/cbk/story/NCAA-tournament-bracket-prediction-030110

Would have to say that I would definitely prefer the draw here as opposed to that of ESPN (simply because of the potential 2nd round match up with Texas).

2nd Rd: Duke v. Cal(9)/Marquette(8)

3rd Rd: Duke v. Vandy(4)/Gonzaga(5)

4th Rd: Duke v. OSU(2)/WVa(3)

Also, to add to the worst 1 seed vs. best 2 seed discussion, OSU has a pretty nice road to an Elite 8 matchup with Duke. That is of course if you think that the Longhorns are just a complete mess and wouldn't be able to beat a quality team in the tourney (which I don't) and you believe that WVa is highly overated (which I do).

2nd Rd: OSU v. Texas(7)/Utah St.(10)

3rd Rd: OSU v. WVa(3)/Xavier(6)

4th Rd: OSU v. Duke(2)/Vandy(4)

The thing that stands out most to me is the potential 2nd round matchup with the 3 seed. While I do feel that WVa is very overated, they are still a much better team than either Vandy or Gonzaga.

Also worth noting from the linked bracket:

For the past four years, Chris Kulenych and Craig Gately of Bracketology 101 have been the most accurate bracketologists in the country.

Udaman
03-02-2010, 10:17 AM
Jumbo - good memory on me and Syracuse back in 2003. Yeah, I thought they were overhyped...but they had Carmelo Anthony who is now a top 5 player in the NBA. I don't think this year's team has that kind of person who can literally take over the game and carry the team on his shoulders like Carmelo did that tournament run. Wesley Johnson is a beast...but he's not Carmelo. Also, look at their team stats. They shoot AWFUL from the free throw line. Two of their starters are below 53%. Our size would negate their size, and our outside shooting could attack their zone. Like I said, I'll take Syracuse. If we had to be a #2 seed, I would certainly want them as our #1 seed (even over Ohio State).

Why? Because like you said, Nova and West Virginia are likely going to be #2 and #3 seeds, and I want no part of either of them, and Georgetown could be a #4 seed, and they won't put them in Syracuse's bracket if they are the top seed.

I could see the committee putting Georgetown as our #4 seed if we were the top seed....but I could take a rematch with them. We would certainly be motivated.

But, again, the absolute worst would be for us to be the #2 seed in with Kansas or Kentucky...and have a #3 seed of Villanova or West Virginia waiting for us.

And, as others have said, I want NO PART of Texas. This is a team that started 17-0, and has major, major talent. We faced them last year in a similar situation, and that game was terrifyingly close. I'm tired of teams facing us in the tourney thinking, "good, we got Duke, if we beat them we show everyone how good we are." I want teams with expectations on them to do well, where they have to worry about us knocking them off, instead of the opposite.

tbyers11
03-02-2010, 10:43 AM
A little bit in Lunardi's defense, until the last couple of years or so, he has gotten all but 1 or 2 teams right as far as the field is concerned as well as the 1 seeds. I don't think that he or any of the other "bracketologists" have ever claimed to try to nail the pairings, though. The idea is he thinks a team will be seeded "A" and that based on that seed, the road would b through teams similar to B, C, D. I may be wrong there, but I've never thought he claimed to be accurate on the actual pairings, just the field and the 1 seeds.

Correct that none of the bracketologists try to pick the actual matchups. That is near impossible. They concentrate on 1) picking the teams and 2) getting the seeds right. Getting the seeds right is usually measured by how many you got exactly right and how many you got within 1 seed line (+/- 1). The Bracket Project (http://bracketproject.50webs.com/rankings.html) tracked and scored all of the major bracketology websites for the past few years and graded them. It is explained at the top. Basically, 3 points for picking a team correctly, 2 points for getting the seed correctly and 1 point for getting the seed within 1.

I find it interesting that of the 12 sites that have published a bracket each of the last four years, Lunardi is ranked 10th by this metric. Having the biggest mouthpiece doesn't always mean you are the best.

cameroncrazy3104
03-02-2010, 11:19 AM
1. Duke
2. New Mexico
3. West Virginia
4. Michigan St.
5. Georgetown
7. Richmond
8. Missouri
9. Northern Iowa
10. Utep
11. VT
12. Cornell
13. Miss St.
14. Oakland
15. UC Santa Barbra
16. Lipscomb

Dont Get me wrong, teams like WV, Mich St, and Georgetown kinda scare me but if we play our best I am positive we can beat everyone of these teams on a NEUTRAL coart.

Mal
03-02-2010, 01:58 PM
Dont Get me wrong, teams like WV, Mich St, and Georgetown kinda scare me but if we play our best I am positive we can beat everyone of these teams on a NEUTRAL coart.

True enough, but all of us probably would have said that about everyone we've lost to in the tourney the last number of years, too. I know this thread is about the matchups (and I've been posting on the issue, too), but your comment brought home to me again that our problem hasn't been the matchups so much recently. It's been getting our best performance (although last year it was that combined with a bad matchup). Five tourney losses in a row now we haven't played anywhere close to our best. Here's hoping the pendulum swings back soon and if we go down this year, we go down having given it our best shot against an excellent team.

I would take a Sweet 16 matchup with Michigan State, by the way. We owe those guys.

dukemsu
03-02-2010, 09:42 PM
True enough, but all of us probably would have said that about everyone we've lost to in the tourney the last number of years, too. I know this thread is about the matchups (and I've been posting on the issue, too), but your comment brought home to me again that our problem hasn't been the matchups so much recently. It's been getting our best performance (although last year it was that combined with a bad matchup). Five tourney losses in a row now we haven't played anywhere close to our best. Here's hoping the pendulum swings back soon and if we go down this year, we go down having given it our best shot against an excellent team.

I would take a Sweet 16 matchup with Michigan State, by the way. We owe those guys.

I'll pass on the Duke/MSU matchup.

If it does happen, I think Duke has the edge this time around. Scheyer and Lucas would probably cancel each other out, but Duke has the superior depth up front and takes far better care of the ball.

dukemsu