Olympic Fan
08-13-2010, 03:45 PM
Just came across this (posted Wednesday):
http://beyondthearc.nbcsports.com/2010/08/duke-earns-top-spot-in-first-look-at-68-team-bracket.php
It's Dave Ommen -- NBC's version of Joe Lunardi -- offering his early take on the 2010 NCAA Tournament bracket.
He's got Duke as his top seed, unsurprisingly. And Michigan State and Purdue also rated No. 1 seeds. All no brainers so far.
Okay, I could take issue with his choice of Kentucky as the fourth No. 1. I love their talent (provided Kanter is cleared to play), but I don't think it's quite as good as last year ... and they don't have a veteran anchor who is anywhere near as good as Patrick Patterson. Still, it's not ridiculous. I think I could pick apart any other candidate for the fourth No. 1 -- I'd probably go with Ohio State, but when March comes around, I doubt any one conference has three No. 1s -- two No. 1s is rare enough. Maybe Kansas (if Shelby is cleared). Who else?
My real problem with the bracket is how this guy has the ACC ranked. I've got to admit, I'm happy to see that he includes NINE ACC team (funny, the accompanying notes list the ACC with eight, but look at the bracket, he includes nine).
He sees the ACC this way:
1. Duke (a No. 1 seed)
2. North Carolina (a No. 4 seed)
3. Wake Forest (a No. 6 seed)
4. Maryland (a No. 7 seed)
5. (tie) Florida State (No. 9 seed)
Georgia Tech (No. 9 seed)
7. Virginia Tech (No. 10 seed)
8. (tie) N.C. State (in the new 12 vs. 13 game)
Miami (in the new 12 vs. 13 game)
10. Virginia (listed as teams also given consideration
11. (tie -- no mention) Clemson
Boston College
I'd argue that he has Wake w-a-a-a-y too high; Virginia Tech w-a-a-ay to low. I'm pretty sure when the ACC media votes in late October, Va Tech will be 2 or at worst 3 (personally, I think UNC bounces back, but Va Tech will get a lot of support, plus they have a much easier ACC schedule). Wake won't be picked last, but they'll be in the bottom three.
I'd also contend that Maryland and Georgia Tech are rated too high. I respect Gary as much as anybody, but he's not a miracle worker -- he has missed the NCAA three times in the last six years and he has some huge holes to fill in his backcourt; Georgia Tech has no frontline left -- they're going to have to win with a backcourt that was their weakness last year.
I like both NC State and Miami to be young teams on the rise -- the way Miami played in Greensboro last March after losing Collins makes be think they have huge potential -- I love Durand Scott. And I think State's new starting backcourt of Harrow and Brown will have much more impact than adding Leslie.
But I can see why they are ranked where they are.
But how can you not at least consider Clemson (when you DO consider Virginia?). They've won 20-plus four straight times and they've added a coach who has improved every program he'd ever taken over.
Anyway, we can argue about that stuff any time ... I just thought you'd like to see the projection, for what it's worth.
http://beyondthearc.nbcsports.com/2010/08/duke-earns-top-spot-in-first-look-at-68-team-bracket.php
It's Dave Ommen -- NBC's version of Joe Lunardi -- offering his early take on the 2010 NCAA Tournament bracket.
He's got Duke as his top seed, unsurprisingly. And Michigan State and Purdue also rated No. 1 seeds. All no brainers so far.
Okay, I could take issue with his choice of Kentucky as the fourth No. 1. I love their talent (provided Kanter is cleared to play), but I don't think it's quite as good as last year ... and they don't have a veteran anchor who is anywhere near as good as Patrick Patterson. Still, it's not ridiculous. I think I could pick apart any other candidate for the fourth No. 1 -- I'd probably go with Ohio State, but when March comes around, I doubt any one conference has three No. 1s -- two No. 1s is rare enough. Maybe Kansas (if Shelby is cleared). Who else?
My real problem with the bracket is how this guy has the ACC ranked. I've got to admit, I'm happy to see that he includes NINE ACC team (funny, the accompanying notes list the ACC with eight, but look at the bracket, he includes nine).
He sees the ACC this way:
1. Duke (a No. 1 seed)
2. North Carolina (a No. 4 seed)
3. Wake Forest (a No. 6 seed)
4. Maryland (a No. 7 seed)
5. (tie) Florida State (No. 9 seed)
Georgia Tech (No. 9 seed)
7. Virginia Tech (No. 10 seed)
8. (tie) N.C. State (in the new 12 vs. 13 game)
Miami (in the new 12 vs. 13 game)
10. Virginia (listed as teams also given consideration
11. (tie -- no mention) Clemson
Boston College
I'd argue that he has Wake w-a-a-a-y too high; Virginia Tech w-a-a-ay to low. I'm pretty sure when the ACC media votes in late October, Va Tech will be 2 or at worst 3 (personally, I think UNC bounces back, but Va Tech will get a lot of support, plus they have a much easier ACC schedule). Wake won't be picked last, but they'll be in the bottom three.
I'd also contend that Maryland and Georgia Tech are rated too high. I respect Gary as much as anybody, but he's not a miracle worker -- he has missed the NCAA three times in the last six years and he has some huge holes to fill in his backcourt; Georgia Tech has no frontline left -- they're going to have to win with a backcourt that was their weakness last year.
I like both NC State and Miami to be young teams on the rise -- the way Miami played in Greensboro last March after losing Collins makes be think they have huge potential -- I love Durand Scott. And I think State's new starting backcourt of Harrow and Brown will have much more impact than adding Leslie.
But I can see why they are ranked where they are.
But how can you not at least consider Clemson (when you DO consider Virginia?). They've won 20-plus four straight times and they've added a coach who has improved every program he'd ever taken over.
Anyway, we can argue about that stuff any time ... I just thought you'd like to see the projection, for what it's worth.