Interesting Stat

[CoBlueDevil]

I was bored at work so, as always, i started searching random Duke anything. I found out that this Duke team, in the 2010 tournament, played the highest average seed opponent than any other Duke national title team.

2010: Average seed of six opponents: 6.3
2001: Average seed of six opponents: 6.6
1992: Average seed of six opponents: 6.5
1991: Average seed of six opponents: 6.8

Just thought this was interesting, especially since we beat pretty much everyone handily, with the exception of Butler, and I guess Baylor.

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

This is interesting, I would also like to see the average seed of other past champions not just duke.

[Blue KevIL]

Since 1985:


2010 … 38 … 6.33 … Duke ( 16 . 8 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 5 )
2009 … 35 … 5.83 … North Carolina ( 16 . 8 . 4 . 2 . 3 . 2 )
2008 … 48 … 8.00 … Kansas ( 16 . 8 . 12 . 10 . 1 . 1 )
2007 … 36 … 6.00 … Florida ( 16 . 9 . 5 . 3 . 2 . 1 )
2006 … 46 … 7.67 … Florida ( 14 . 11 . 7 . 1 . 11 . 2 )
2005 … 42 … 7.00 … North Carolina ( 16 . 9 . 5 . 6 . 5 . 1 )
2004 … 40 … 6.67 … Connecticut ( 15 . 7 . 6 . 8 . 1 . 3 )
2003 … 34 … 5.67 … Syracuse ( 14 . 6 . 10 . 1 . 1 . 2 )
2002 … 36 … 6.00 … Maryland ( 16 . 8 . 4 . 2 . 1 . 5 )
2001 … 40 … 6.67 … Duke ( 16 . 9 . 4 . 6 . 3 . 2 )
2000 … 43 … 7.17 … Michigan State ( 16 . 8 . 4 . 2 . 8 . 5 )
1999 … 45 … 7.50 … Connecticut ( 16 . 9 . 5 . 10 . 4 . 1 )
1998 … 38 … 6.33 … Kentucky ( 15 . 10 . 6 . 1 . 3 . 3 )
1997 … 38 … 6.33 … Arizona ( 13 . 12 . 1 . 10 . 1 . 1 )
1996 … 36 … 6.00 … Kentucky ( 16 . 9 . 4 . 2 . 1 . 4 )
1995 … 37 … 6.17 … UCLA ( 16 . 8 . 5 . 2 . 4 . 2 )
1994 … 44 … 7.33 … Arkansas ( 16 . 9 . 12 . 3 . 2 . 2 )
1993 … 33 … 5.50 … North Carolina ( 16 . 8 . 4 . 2 . 2 . 1 )
1992 … 39 … 6.50 … Duke ( 16 . 9 . 4 . 2 . 2 . 6 )
1991 … 41 … 6.83 … Duke ( 15 . 7 . 11 . 4 . 1 . 3 )
1990 … 54 … 9.00 … UNLV ( 16 . 8 . 12 . 11 . 4 . 3 )
1989 … 36 … 6.00 … Michigan ( 14 . 11 . 2 . 5 . 1 . 3 )
1988 … 39 … 6.50 … Kansas ( 11 . 14 . 7 . 4 . 2 . 1 )
1987 … 42 … 7.00 … Indiana ( 16 . 8 . 5 . 10 . 1 . 2 )
1986 … 45 … 7.50 … Louisville ( 15 . 7 . 3 . 8 . 11 . 1 )
1985 … 20 … 3.33 … Villanova ( 9 . 1 . 5 . 2 . 2 . 1 )

[banneheim]

I was surprised at Arizona not being higher, considering they beat 3 #1 seeds but now I see.

[David]

I was surprised at Arizona not being higher, considering they beat 3 #1 seeds but now I see.

Your point suggests that both the mean and the variance are important statistics here. Would you rather play all mid-level seeds OR a mix of really low and really high seeds?

[snowdenscold]

So we're tied for 9th out of 26. (1 being hardest schedule)

I'm assuming the chance this mitigates any of the complaints that Duke was 'handed' the tournament is somewhere around 0%...

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

Even with this type of list, the majority of people won't care and will just keep on with the common misconception of Duke had an easy path.

[JBDuke]

So we're tied for 9th out of 26. (1 being hardest schedule)

I'm assuming the chance this mitigates any of the complaints that Duke was 'handed' the tournament is somewhere around 0%...

Nah - they'll just respond that the teams that Duke faced didn't deserve the high seeds that they got. "It wasn't the upsets that made it an easy path for Duke, it was the teams placed in their region."

[Indoor66]

The higher your seed the lower your net number tends to be because of the seeding structure.

[davekay1971]

Since 1985:



1990 … 54 … 9.00 … UNLV ( 16 . 8 . 12 . 11 . 4 . 3 )



Hah! UNLV was HANDED the title in 1990. They must have really SUCKED!

The above statement, coming from a Duke fan who's team was spanked by 30 points by that UNLV squad, is just about as rational as the exact same comment being made by UNC fans about the Duke 2010 team, after we spanked their butts by 32 points. But, nonetheless, the UNC fans around here are chanting their mantra over and over again, hoping that somehow it will become true...

[rotogod00]

Since 1985:


2010 … 38 … 6.33 … Duke ( 16 . 8 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 5 )
2009 … 35 … 5.83 … North Carolina ( 16 . 8 . 4 . 2 . 3 . 2 )
2008 … 48 … 8.00 … Kansas ( 16 . 8 . 12 . 10 . 1 . 1 )
2007 … 36 … 6.00 … Florida ( 16 . 9 . 5 . 3 . 2 . 1 )
2006 … 46 … 7.67 … Florida ( 14 . 11 . 7 . 1 . 11 . 2 )
2005 … 42 … 7.00 … North Carolina ( 16 . 9 . 5 . 6 . 5 . 1 )
2004 … 40 … 6.67 … Connecticut ( 15 . 7 . 6 . 8 . 1 . 3 )
2003 … 34 … 5.67 … Syracuse ( 14 . 6 . 10 . 1 . 1 . 2 )
2002 … 36 … 6.00 … Maryland ( 16 . 8 . 4 . 2 . 1 . 5 )
2001 … 40 … 6.67 … Duke ( 16 . 9 . 4 . 6 . 3 . 2 )
2000 … 43 … 7.17 … Michigan State ( 16 . 8 . 4 . 2 . 8 . 5 )
1999 … 45 … 7.50 … Connecticut ( 16 . 9 . 5 . 10 . 4 . 1 )
1998 … 38 … 6.33 … Kentucky ( 15 . 10 . 6 . 1 . 3 . 3 )
1997 … 38 … 6.33 … Arizona ( 13 . 12 . 1 . 10 . 1 . 1 )
1996 … 36 … 6.00 … Kentucky ( 16 . 9 . 4 . 2 . 1 . 4 )
1995 … 37 … 6.17 … UCLA ( 16 . 8 . 5 . 2 . 4 . 2 )
1994 … 44 … 7.33 … Arkansas ( 16 . 9 . 12 . 3 . 2 . 2 )
1993 … 33 … 5.50 … North Carolina ( 16 . 8 . 4 . 2 . 2 . 1 )
1992 … 39 … 6.50 … Duke ( 16 . 9 . 4 . 2 . 2 . 6 )
1991 … 41 … 6.83 … Duke ( 15 . 7 . 11 . 4 . 1 . 3 )
1990 … 54 … 9.00 … UNLV ( 16 . 8 . 12 . 11 . 4 . 3 )
1989 … 36 … 6.00 … Michigan ( 14 . 11 . 2 . 5 . 1 . 3 )
1988 … 39 … 6.50 … Kansas ( 11 . 14 . 7 . 4 . 2 . 1 )
1987 … 42 … 7.00 … Indiana ( 16 . 8 . 5 . 10 . 1 . 2 )
1986 … 45 … 7.50 … Louisville ( 15 . 7 . 3 . 8 . 11 . 1 )
1985 … 20 … 3.33 … Villanova ( 9 . 1 . 5 . 2 . 2 . 1 )

just, wow, on nova's title back in '85. 3.33 w nobody else even in the 4s

[patentgeek]

Two other things jumped out at me. The first is that, for all of the talk by local fans of the hated Heels that Duke's path was so easy, Duke played the exact same seeds on their way to the final that the hated Heels did in 2009 (i.e., 16, 8, 4, 3, 2 for Duke and 16, 8, 4, 2, 3 for the Heels) - the only difference was Duke playing a 5 in the final vs. a 2 for them.

The second is how rarely the champ ends up beating more than one No. 1 seed. Arizona in '97 beat three (the only time this has happened), but the only others are Syracuse '03 and Kansas '08 (which is the only time that all four No. 1s made the FF, and the only time that a No. 1 had to beat more than one other No. 1). And eight different times since 1985 the champ has avoided a No. 1 seed entirely (including Duke this year). So a lot of this talk about an unprecedently easy path is just rubbish.

[dukeimac]

Even with this type of list, the majority of people won't care and will just keep on with the common misconception of Duke had an easy path.

I don't think it is a "common misconception," it is just what people want to believe. You can put out all the facts you want, but if someone doesn't want to believe it they won't. That is why history is doomed to repeat itself.

Example: UNC has won 5 national titles and my come back to that is Coach K has won 4. They are correct, UNC has won / been awarded 5 national titles and I'm correct that Coach K has won 4 national titles. They believe the 5 titles makes UNC better and I believe the 4 Coach K titles makes him better.

Bi-partisan people would say both of these statements are winning arguments but I don't. Its because of what I believe in and no matter how many times they say it, 4 > 5 in this case.

[TheRob8801]

Since 1985:


2010 … 38 … 6.33 … Duke ( 16 . 8 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 5 )
2009 … 35 … 5.83 … North Carolina ( 16 . 8 . 4 . 2 . 3 . 2 )
2008 … 48 … 8.00 … Kansas ( 16 . 8 . 12 . 10 . 1 . 1 )
2007 … 36 … 6.00 … Florida ( 16 . 9 . 5 . 3 . 2 . 1 )
2006 … 46 … 7.67 … Florida ( 14 . 11 . 7 . 1 . 11 . 2 )
2005 … 42 … 7.00 … North Carolina ( 16 . 9 . 5 . 6 . 5 . 1 )
2004 … 40 … 6.67 … Connecticut ( 15 . 7 . 6 . 8 . 1 . 3 )
2003 … 34 … 5.67 … Syracuse ( 14 . 6 . 10 . 1 . 1 . 2 )
2002 … 36 … 6.00 … Maryland ( 16 . 8 . 4 . 2 . 1 . 5 )
2001 … 40 … 6.67 … Duke ( 16 . 9 . 4 . 6 . 3 . 2 )
2000 … 43 … 7.17 … Michigan State ( 16 . 8 . 4 . 2 . 8 . 5 )
1999 … 45 … 7.50 … Connecticut ( 16 . 9 . 5 . 10 . 4 . 1 )
1998 … 38 … 6.33 … Kentucky ( 15 . 10 . 6 . 1 . 3 . 3 )
1997 … 38 … 6.33 … Arizona ( 13 . 12 . 1 . 10 . 1 . 1 )
1996 … 36 … 6.00 … Kentucky ( 16 . 9 . 4 . 2 . 1 . 4 )
1995 … 37 … 6.17 … UCLA ( 16 . 8 . 5 . 2 . 4 . 2 )
1994 … 44 … 7.33 … Arkansas ( 16 . 9 . 12 . 3 . 2 . 2 )
1993 … 33 … 5.50 … North Carolina ( 16 . 8 . 4 . 2 . 2 . 1 )
1992 … 39 … 6.50 … Duke ( 16 . 9 . 4 . 2 . 2 . 6 )
1991 … 41 … 6.83 … Duke ( 15 . 7 . 11 . 4 . 1 . 3 )
1990 … 54 … 9.00 … UNLV ( 16 . 8 . 12 . 11 . 4 . 3 )
1989 … 36 … 6.00 … Michigan ( 14 . 11 . 2 . 5 . 1 . 3 )
1988 … 39 … 6.50 … Kansas ( 11 . 14 . 7 . 4 . 2 . 1 )
1987 … 42 … 7.00 … Indiana ( 16 . 8 . 5 . 10 . 1 . 2 )
1986 … 45 … 7.50 … Louisville ( 15 . 7 . 3 . 8 . 11 . 1 )
1985 … 20 … 3.33 … Villanova ( 9 . 1 . 5 . 2 . 2 . 1 )


So we're tied for 9th out of 26. (1 being hardest schedule)

AND 7th of the 16 #1 seeds that have won it in the past.

Truly an outstanding accomplishment by an outstanding team.

[Kedsy]

Example: UNC has won 5 national titles and my come back to that is Coach K has won 4. They are correct, UNC has won / been awarded 5 national titles and I'm correct that Coach K has won 4 national titles. They believe the 5 titles makes UNC better and I believe the 4 Coach K titles makes him better.

Bi-partisan people would say both of these statements are winning arguments but I don't. Its because of what I believe in and no matter how many times they say it, 4 > 5 in this case.

I have no desire to stick up for Heels, but none of UNC's five national titles were "awarded." They won the NCAA tournament in 1957, 1982, 1993, 2005, and 2009. The Helms title is ridiculous, but if you count it, it makes six.

[grit74]

Indoor66 says: "The higher your seed the lower your net number tends to be because of the seeding structure."

I am not sure that is right.

For a #1 seed, the lowest possible seeding average is 5.5, which would reflect always playing the highest possible seed. For a #2 seed, the lowest possible is 4.6. For a 16 seed, the lowest possible is 2.83.

Am I missing something?

[crimsondevil]

Indoor66 says: "The higher your seed the lower your net number tends to be because of the seeding structure."

I am not sure that is right...
Am I missing something?

I suspect Indoor66 meant the same as you, and the confusion is about "higher" and "lower". How about this:
The better your seed the less impressive your net number tends to be.

[steely2400]

I did some research on the teams seeded in each bracket this year. The average RPI at the end of season for each #1 seed was as follows (I think, I did this yesterday, laughed and threw my scrap sheet away):

Duke: 12.5
Kentucky: 10.75
Syracuse: 14.5
Kansas: 20.75

After laughing at how "easy" we had it and how much the committee screwed Kansas I looked at the next big claim. That they stuck a weak Cal team in our region; well of the possible 8/9 seeds that a #1 could have faced in round two. Cal was by far the best with a 19 RPI. The next closest was Texas at 28 but they lost.

People will talk as they will, but in one comments forum I posted this question. Why? Why would the selection committee favor us? There are no Duke alumni there, so unless the spouse of every person on the selection team went to Duke there is no reason for them to give us an easy path. Furthermore, the Wake AD is on there. Given that both schools are recruiting from roughly the same pool (I'll spare the academic debate between the two). Why would he want to give Duke and "easy" title. Why would the big east or big 12 commissioners want to make Duke look good? It just doesn't make sense.

Don't get me started on the Duke gets all the calls claim. Why if K is so mean and berates officials and screams at them would they acquiesce to his requests for calls? The only reason can be that ALL officials went to Duke, ALL their spouses went to Duke or ALL officials have the character of a dog or small child. Yell at them and they well look away and do as their told. It is ridiculous...okay. I'm done, we won. There is no changing the whining of the masses, so I won’t bother.

One last thing, after the win we are sitting in bed and I'm talking to the wife about the claims people were going to make. I said to her, "They say Duke fans are smug, I don't even know what that means. Is it because if a drunk guy in a bar tries to start a fight with me over a basketball game I'll just laugh at him then walk away?". She said, "No, it's because you guys kicked his teams’ I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.. Then you laughed at how childish he was and will walk away". I said," I like being smug, that means we win."

[CDu]

People will talk as they will, but in one comments forum I posted this question. Why? Why would the selection committee favor us? There are no Duke alumni there, so unless the spouse of every person on the selection team went to Duke there is no reason for them to give us an easy path. Furthermore, the Wake AD is on there. Given that both schools are recruiting from roughly the same pool (I'll spare the academic debate between the two). Why would he want to give Duke and "easy" title. Why would the big east or big 12 commissioners want to make Duke look good? It just doesn't make sense.

Well, the answer to "why" is that Duke sells. So CBS (concerned with getting good ratings) and the NCAA (also interested in selling their product) had it in their best interest to make sure Duke had an easy path. I'm not saying that I believe this to be true (I don't), but that's the argument you'll hear when you ask "why."

As a general rule though, there's usually not a point in having a logic discussion with conspiracy theorists.

[steely2400]

Again I ask Why. Is the NCAA then giving kick backs to the schools or conferences in return for them ignoring the facts and giving Duke an easy ride. I know it's a pointless conversation and I think that is my point. It just makes no sense at all, how can even the dumbest person think it's true?

[CDu]

Again I ask Why. Is the NCAA then giving kick backs to the schools or conferences in return for them ignoring the facts and giving Duke an easy ride. I know it's a pointless conversation and I think that is my point. It just makes no sense at all, how can even the dumbest person think it's true?

Well, I can think of two answers to this "why?"

1. The super-conspiracy theorist would say something like, "Yes, the NCAA and/or CBS is giving kick-backs. They both need good ratings, and are willing to grease the pockets of the committee to get what they want."

2. The slightly-less-crazy-conspiracy theorist would say something like "Good tournament ratings eventually result in more revenue to the NCAA. This revenue trickles down to all of the schools. So it is in the best interest of the committee (every year) to make sure to create tournament bracket which maximizes ratings. The committee believes that this will ultimately mean more money for their school in the long-term."

There is no rational discussion with someone who believes #1. With #2, the counterargument is that the bump in ratings (generally speaking - this goes out the window when you have "Hoosiers" vs the "Evil Empire") isn't enough to offset the immediate potential gain from making sure your own team/conference has a good seed/draw. It's just not realistic that folks in the committee would hope for trickle-down revenue in the future over a chance at revenue now.

But as we've noted, conspiracy theorists (and sports fans in general) typically aren't thinking logically.

[Saratoga2]

Dukes path required them to beat out other high ranking seeds or teams which beat those high ranking seeds. Butler did beat both Syracuse and Kansas St to get to the finals. West Virginia did beat Kentucky to get to the finals and perhaps Baylor was the best big 12 team at the end of the year.

My point is that Duke beat the best teams to get to and win the finals. All arguments that they didn't are moot and not believable.

[CDu]

Dukes path required them to beat out other high ranking seeds or teams which beat those high ranking seeds. Butler did beat both Syracuse and Kansas St to get to the finals. West Virginia did beat Kentucky to get to the finals and perhaps Baylor was the best big 12 team at the end of the year.

My point is that Duke beat the best teams to get to and win the finals. All arguments that they didn't are moot and not believable.

Oh I completely agree. But again, the conspiracy theorists aren't being logical. And they aren't as concerned with the teams we faced as much as they are hung up on the bracket itself. Even then, the conspiracy theory is silly. But pointing out that we played an (underrated) 8 seed, a 4 seed, a 3 seed, and a 2 seed to get to the title game won't make a lick of difference to them.

[hurley1]

just, wow, on nova's title back in '85. 3.33 w nobody else even in the 4s

nova kicking some serious butt here......:D

[hurley1]

Hah! UNLV was HANDED the title in 1990. They must have really SUCKED!

The above statement, coming from a Duke fan who's team was spanked by 30 points by that UNLV squad, is just about as rational as the exact same comment being made by UNC fans about the Duke 2010 team, after we spanked their butts by 32 points.

i am 51 years old and i remember that unlv team quite well........they were a disgrace to college basketball.......the average age on the team was 24 years old.....2 of the starters had been recruited through a prison fence.......FACT !!!!......the coach, jerry tarkanian was at unlv for 14 years and hardly ever graduated a single player........NOW, with all that said, the significant thing was not the 30 point loss to unlv in 1990, it was the rematch between duke and unlv in 1991 with basically all starters back on both teams......go to your history book and see how that turned out.......to me, that was coach k's defining moment as someone very special in this sport.....as a duke fan for over 30 years, it was my most satisfying game....here is a very interesting link from an old newspaper about tark......notice in the article that coach k was not mentioned among the great coaches at this time.......

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19870329&id=m5McAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NGMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6762,6440138