Lunardi on ESPN

[TNDukeFan]

Says the #1 seeds are Ohio State (overall #1), Kansas, Texas, Pitt. Duke is "knocking on the door," but the weakness of the ACC may keep them off the #1 line.

[dukejim1]

Says the #1 seeds are Ohio State (overall #1), Kansas, Texas, Pitt. Duke is "knocking on the door," but the weakness of the ACC may keep them off the #1 line.

2 is good

[-bdbd]

2 is good

If we can run the table from here then I'd predict a #1, as odds seem good that ONE of those teams will lose again...if not more than one. Tournaments can be unpredictable.

People DO forget how important these seeds are in terms of not having to play as challenging a setof opponents in the early rounds, and getting to play near home potentially. Where is our preferred site for the first two rounds, DC?

[sagegrouse]

If we can run the table from here then I'd predict a #1, as odds seem good that ONE of those teams will lose again...if not more than one. Tournaments can be unpredictable.

People DO forget how important these seeds are in terms of not having to play as challenging a setof opponents in the early rounds, and getting to play near home potentially. Where is our preferred site for the first two rounds, DC?

Here's my take:

If Duke takes care of business (#1 regular season, ACC champion), then it is almost certain to be a #1 seed. Why? The NCAA values conference championships. But really because either Texas or Kansas has to lose the Big 12 tournament.

sagegrouse

[Dev11]

Where is our preferred site for the first two rounds, DC?

In terms of fan support, it well could be DC, but Charlotte is a couple hours closer to Durham, so that is likely our 'best' site draw in the committee's eyes.

[TNDukeFan]

Lunardi also said there'd be ten or twelve or sixteen teams from the Big East...didn't we just hear this last year?

I just went and looked at last year's bracket -- 2 BE teams in the Sweet Sixteen, one in the Elite Eight & FF (WVU). Good, but hardly dominant.

[Class of '94]

Here's my take:

If Duke takes care of business (#1 regular season, ACC champion), then it is almost certain to be a #1 seed. Why? The NCAA values conference championships. But really because either Texas or Kansas has to lose the Big 12 tournament.

sagegrouse

If Duke takes care of business and wins both the regular season and tournment conference championships, they'll be a number one seed because Kansas or Texas will lose at least their conference regular season or tournament championship. And when you consider that the ACC is still considered a top 4 conference (I believe the ACC was rated 4th behind the Big East, Big 10 and Big 12 a short while ago), Duke should hold more weight (if they won both the regular season and conference tournament) than a team that has only won their regular season or conference tournament (with respect to the Big 12).

[Bluedog]

If we can run the table from here then I'd predict a #1, as odds seem good that ONE of those teams will lose again...if not more than one. Tournaments can be unpredictable.

People DO forget how important these seeds are in terms of not having to play as challenging a setof opponents in the early rounds, and getting to play near home potentially. Where is our preferred site for the first two rounds, DC?

With the current pod system, being a 1 or so will basically have no difference in regards to the early round sites. The committee is supposed to protect seeds 1 through 4, giving highest priority to the 1, then 2, etc. Our first two rounds will be Charlotte pretty much guaranteed as they're aren't enough top teams with that being the closest site. I'd rather be in DC though...I'm sure UNC will also be in Charlotte.

[arydolphin]

With the current pod system, being a 1 or so will basically have no difference in regards to the early round sites. The committee is supposed to protect seeds 1 through 4, giving highest priority to the 1, then 2, etc. Our first two rounds will be Charlotte pretty much guaranteed as they're aren't enough top teams with that being the closest site. I'd rather be in DC though...I'm sure UNC will also be in Charlotte.

UNC would probably only be in Charlotte if they are a top-4 seed, they're not at that level right now. Obviously, things could change in the next few weeks, but I can't see the NCAA putting UNC as a 5-seed or 6-seed in Charlotte. For what it's worth, Lunardi has UNC as a 5-seed in the Washington, DC pod right now.

[SCMatt33]

In terms of fan support, it well could be DC, but Charlotte is a couple hours closer to Durham, so that is likely our 'best' site draw in the committee's eyes.

Luckily for us, UNC isn't in line to take the second slot in Charlotte right now. Georgetown can't play in DC because of home court issues, so Charlotte is their preferred site as well. As long as Georgetown stays ahead of UNC on the S-curve, UNC shouldn't get that slot. Incidentally, Charlotte is also the preferred site for UK by mere miles over Cleveland. There are also some other battles for first round sites that are interesting. Ohio State and Pitt have a pretty good lock on Cleveland, but Purdue, Wisconsin and Notre Dame are all fighting for Chicago. UConn, Syracuse and Villanova will all be fighting for DC. Since it's pretty much a given that there will be no space in Cleveland, the teams left out of Chicago and DC could take the second slot in Charlotte if they somehow beat out Georgetown, UNC and UK. If Charlotte is filled up, they will next go to Tampa (where Florida comes into play as well). After that, it's a fun trip westward.

After all of that, unless UNC of UK makes a big run, anti-Duke sentiment in Charlotte should be a little muted without the presence of a rival in the same building.

[OldPhiKap]

I am more concerned about where we play than our seed.

Please, no more Baylor's in TX!

[Duvall]

UNC would probably only be in Charlotte if they are a top-4 seed, they're not at that level right now. Obviously, things could change in the next few weeks, but I can't see the NCAA putting UNC as a 5-seed or 6-seed in Charlotte.

It's the NCAA. It probably depends on whether or not Charlotte has tickets left to sell.

[BD80]

There's a big game for us tonight: KU v KSU

A KSU win helps our strength of schedule and knocks KU down a notch.

Winning the ACC tourney guarantees us a #1 seed if Kyrie plays, and likely gives us a #1 if Kyrie doesn't play.

If we are a #2, who would you prefer as the #1 in our region? I'm torn. KU has the best chance of laying an egg before the regional finals, but has the most scary talent and match-up challenges. Texas the best chance of going stone-cold, but has a defense that could cause us the most problems (long and fast). OSU has often struggled in a mediocre conference, but has an inside-out game that gives us fits. Pitt doesn't seem to have the talent or height, but they always "bring it."

[superdave]

I think if Kansas gets healthy, they worry me the most. I think we can guard Sullinger and well, there's Rick Barnes.... Anyone seen Pitt play much? I dont know enough to comment on them.

I dont much care about being a 2 vs. 1 as long as we get favorable matchups with the 2/3/4 seeds! Of course if last year proves anything, you take care of business (TCB) and dont worry about who is a game or three down the road.

[timmy c]

UNC would probably only be in Charlotte if they are a top-4 seed, they're not at that level right now. Obviously, things could change in the next few weeks, but I can't see the NCAA putting UNC as a 5-seed or 6-seed in Charlotte. For what it's worth, Lunardi has UNC as a 5-seed in the Washington, DC pod right now.

UNC is a 4 seed right now, not a 5 seed.

By "right now" you mean in Lunardi's bracket that's were released Feb. 11, right after their loss to Duke. Previously, Lunardi had UNC ranked as a 4 seed on Feb. 7. Since there loss at CIS they beat a pesky Clemson team at Clemson and blew out Wake Forest. If Lunardi does a revision to the bracket today, they are back at a 4 seed.

Ultimately brackets are not determined today. I think by the end of the conference tourney’s they’ll be firmly within the 3 or 4 seed range. I will be shocked if they don't play their opening rounds in Charlotte.

[Bluedog]

There's a big game for us tonight: KU v KSU

A KSU win helps our strength of schedule and knocks KU down a notch.

Winning the ACC tourney guarantees us a #1 seed if Kyrie plays, and likely gives us a #1 if Kyrie doesn't play.

If we are a #2, who would you prefer as the #1 in our region? I'm torn. KU has the best chance of laying an egg before the regional finals, but has the most scary talent and match-up challenges. Texas the best chance of going stone-cold, but has a defense that could cause us the most problems (long and fast). OSU has often struggled in a mediocre conference, but has an inside-out game that gives us fits. Pitt doesn't seem to have the talent or height, but they always "bring it."

I agree with your assessment. Personally, if we're a 2, I think I'd like to see Texas as our 1. KU is a great TEAM in my mind and Bill Self is a great coach. I think they've got really nice balance and no real glaring weaknesses. They are the team I'd least like to play. I expect OSU to bring it when crunch time comes with Sullinger being a beast even though they've squeaked out a lot of close games. I really am no confident in our ability to defend Sullinger in the post. Pitt is so mentally tough and battle tested that I feel like anything we throw at them, they'd have seen before. Obviously, I think we can beat them, but we certainly would have to play very well and disciplined basketball. Admittedly, I've only seen a couple games of Texas and they look solid, but anybody who plays against a Rick Barnes-coach team, has a good chance. ;) They only beat UNC by two points when UNC wasn't playing that well (although it was on UNC's home court). I don't see any major mismatches on their team and think we can handle their speed and length just fine.

I'm hoping for us to get the #1 and SDSU being our #2. :) Just looked at Lunardi's bracketology. While I don't like OSU as our #1, I'd totally take Florida as a 3. They don't impress me at all. Illinois as a 7 honestly seems tougher to me. (I realize it's constantly dynamic and not that accurate this far in advance anyways).

[nocilla]

Lunardi also said there'd be ten or twelve or sixteen teams from the Big East...didn't we just hear this last year?

I just went and looked at last year's bracket -- 2 BE teams in the Sweet Sixteen, one in the Elite Eight & FF (WVU). Good, but hardly dominant.

Yes, And I love when the Big East homers claim Duke had the easiest bracket last year. I simply point out that Duke's bracket had the most Big East teams (3) in it, so yeah, cupcake city.

[uh_no]

Lunardi also said there'd be ten or twelve or sixteen teams from the Big East...didn't we just hear this last year?

I just went and looked at last year's bracket -- 2 BE teams in the Sweet Sixteen, one in the Elite Eight & FF (WVU). Good, but hardly dominant.

small sample size....the year before they had 5 teams in the sweet 16, 4 in the elite 8 and 2 in the final 4

[TNDukeFan]

small sample size....the year before they had 5 teams in the sweet 16, 4 in the elite 8 and 2 in the final 4

good point

[Duvall]

small sample size....the year before they had 5 teams in the sweet 16, 4 in the elite 8 and 2 in the final 4

And if you look back six years, you still won't find a national championship game marred by Big East "basketball."

[uh_no]

And if you look back six years, you still won't find a national championship game marred by Big East "basketball."

right. you win. the big east stinks.

[Ping Lin]

Anyone seen Pitt play much? I dont know enough to comment on them.

Living in Big East country, I've caught a couple of Pitt games.

Ashton Gibbs is mentioned in a lot of All-American discussions, and rightfully so. He's the real deal. Great shooting stroke, good head for the game. Pitt also features a lot of big bodies up front, although none have struck me as a force on the blocks.

They're a tough out for anyone in the tournament, I think.

[UrinalCake]

I would fear Kansas the most, although I say that almost every year and they usually find a way to lose early. Selby versus Irving would be an awesome matchup to see (yes, I'm getting way ahead of myself here). OSU is probably the next worst matchup although historically we do pretty well controlling our opponents' star player.

I may be in the minority but I do think a #1 seed makes a big difference as compared to a #2. I would much rather be a #1 in the West than a #2 in the East or South.

[PADukeMom]

Can't see us being a 2 seed. Ohio State & Pitt are going to lose again. Texas & Kansas, don't they still have to play each other?

[superdave]

Is Jared Sullinger any better than Jordan Williams?

Sullinger - 18 ppg, 10 rpg, 0.5 blocks, 1.4 apg, 1.4 TOs. 57% FG and 70% FT.

Williams - 17 ppg, 12 rpg, 1.2 blocks, 0.6 apg, 1.5 TOs. 55% FG and 56% FT.

Looks like if Williams hit another FT per game, he'd be sitting prettier than Sullinger and with worse pieces around him.

I hereby conclude Duke can beat OSU in the NCAA tournament! Ok, maybe so, maybe not. But we have done a decent job against Jordan Williams this year (23 and 13, 20 and 10, but both were Duke wins).

[PADukeMom]

Is Jared Sullinger any better than Jordan Williams?

Sullinger - 18 ppg, 10 rpg, 0.5 blocks, 1.4 apg, 1.4 TOs. 57% FG and 70% FT.

Williams - 17 ppg, 12 rpg, 1.2 blocks, 0.6 apg, 1.5 TOs. 55% FG and 56% FT.

Looks like if Williams hit another FT per game, he'd be sitting prettier than Sullinger and with worse pieces around him.

I hereby conclude Duke can beat OSU in the NCAA tournament! Ok, maybe so, maybe not. But we have done a decent job against Jordan Williams this year (23 and 13, 20 and 10, but both were Duke wins).

I couldn't have said it any better.

[dball]

Is Jared Sullinger any better than Jordan Williams?

Sullinger - 18 ppg, 10 rpg, 0.5 blocks, 1.4 apg, 1.4 TOs. 57% FG and 70% FT.

Williams - 17 ppg, 12 rpg, 1.2 blocks, 0.6 apg, 1.5 TOs. 55% FG and 56% FT.

Looks like if Williams hit another FT per game, he'd be sitting prettier than Sullinger and with worse pieces around him.

Probably this just confirms what we've already seen. Jordan Williams is a really good player. The "better pieces" around Sullinger are the issue with defeating OSU (add a "t" if you must).

[4decadedukie]

Here's my take:

If Duke takes care of business (#1 regular season, ACC champion), then it is almost certain to be a #1 seed. Why? The NCAA values conference championships. But really because either Texas or Kansas has to lose the Big 12 tournament.

sagegrouse

I strongly agree . . . there is still a good deal of "regular season" basketball to be played this year.

[DU82]

I am more concerned about where we play than our seed.

Please, no more Baylor's in TX!

I disagree. I'd be happy playing Baylor in Texas again this year, in the same building! :-)

[uh_no]

I disagree. I'd be happy playing Baylor in Texas again this year, in the same building! :-)

well played, thought texas is the more likely opponent

[BD80]

Is Jared Sullinger any better than Jordan Williams?

Sullinger - 18 ppg, 10 rpg, 0.5 blocks, 1.4 apg, 1.4 TOs. 57% FG and 70% FT.

Williams - 17 ppg, 12 rpg, 1.2 blocks, 0.6 apg, 1.5 TOs. 55% FG and 56% FT.

Looks like if Williams hit another FT per game, he'd be sitting prettier than Sullinger and with worse pieces around him.

I hereby conclude Duke can beat OSU in the NCAA tournament! Ok, maybe so, maybe not. But we have done a decent job against Jordan Williams this year (23 and 13, 20 and 10, but both were Duke wins).

I would argue that having a better supporting cast would skew ppg average downward - because points are distributed to other players. Don't know much about OSU's schedule, but the only good defensive team I remember them playing this year is Wisconsin (maybe Purdue 20-5, but let's see how they do hosting OSU and Wisconsin this week - they don't seem to be playing D like last year). IIRC OSU starts a freshman at PG, a bad sign for the tourney unless his name is Kyrie.

[UrinalCake]

Looks like if Williams hit another FT per game, he'd be sitting prettier than Sullinger and with worse pieces around him.

And if he hit just one more field goal per game, he'd be an all-american!

[Duvall]

Is Jared Sullinger any better than Jordan Williams?

Sullinger - 18 ppg, 10 rpg, 0.5 blocks, 1.4 apg, 1.4 TOs. 57% FG and 70% FT.

Williams - 17 ppg, 12 rpg, 1.2 blocks, 0.6 apg, 1.5 TOs. 55% FG and 56% FT.

Looks like if Williams hit another FT per game, he'd be sitting prettier than Sullinger and with worse pieces around him.

It's awfully close (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=jordan-williams&p1=jared-sullinger). Sullinger might have a slight edge on offense, though I'm not sure how much of that is due to playing with teammates that can shoot. Williams is a little better defensively, but the only major difference is at the free throw line.

But yeah, I think this just tells us that Sullinger and Williams are both really, really good.

[trinity92]

Living in Big East country, I've caught a couple of Pitt games.

Ashton Gibbs is mentioned in a lot of All-American discussions, and rightfully so. He's the real deal. Great shooting stroke, good head for the game. Pitt also features a lot of big bodies up front, although none have struck me as a force on the blocks.

They're a tough out for anyone in the tournament, I think.

I've watched Pitt a bunch and I'm very impressed. In my mind, they're a virtual lock (to the extent those exist) for the FF. They have great guard play, tough and talented inside play, experience and a good coach. On top of that, I think they're an especially tough out for us because of that balance.

[uh_no]

I've watched Pitt a bunch and I'm very impressed. In my mind, they're a virtual lock (to the extent those exist) for the FF. They have great guard play, tough and talented inside play, experience and a good coach. On top of that, I think they're an especially tough out for us because of that balance.

I've thought for a long time pitt is the best team in the country. the loss to tennesse was bad, yes, and a loss somewhere in the BE was bound to happen, given ND is a great team. The way they won their games against uconn, syracues, and georgetown is very telling too. This game against st. johns in the garden will be very telling. If they can go into MSG and crash the red storm train that's been rolling along 34th street for a month now, I will continue to be impressed with them. I don't think either texas or kansas have the quantity of high quality wins that pittsburg does, and given pitt beat texas (and uconn beat texas who pitt thwacked) I think pitt should be #1. They just keep winning.

[texas]

Can't see us being a 2 seed. Ohio State & Pitt are going to lose again. Texas & Kansas, don't they still have to play each other?

no. we only play the teams in the "north" division once per year although that finally goes to home and home next season when we drop colorado and nebraska. obviously we could play KU again in the big 12 title game in kansas city.

we don't really care if we get a 1 or a 2 seed, we just want into the san antonio regional. this propelled us to the final four in 2003 and we're hoping for that route again

[texas]

also, for those who are interested in a little more research as to why texas turned things around this season, here is a great article on what barnes did in the offseason. i was as skeptical as anyone but the results and team chemistry are much better this season (as long as we don't have to play duke in NYC). my dream matchup would be the horns vs blue devils in the championship game in houston.

http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/11/16/inside-texas-basketball/

[House G]

also, for those who are interested in a little more research as to why texas turned things around this season, here is a great article on what barnes did in the offseason. i was as skeptical as anyone but the results and team chemistry are much better this season (as long as we don't have to play duke in NYC). my dream matchup would be the horns vs blue devils in the championship game in houston.

http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/11/16/inside-texas-basketball/

I would also love to see a title game with the Longhorns in Houston--talk about the ultimate homecourt advantage! A good friend of mine who went to UT still has
nightmares about this performance:


http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?xl=xl_blazer&v=vLQ_ULUMSY4

[Kfanarmy]

I am more concerned about where we play than our seed.

Please, no more Baylor's in TX! Seemed to me winning in that environment was kinda cool

[Olympic Fan]

Lunardi is pretty good at the prediction game, but he keeps pointing out that his brackets are based on TODAY's standings -- not a projection of the standings on Selection Sunday. That's why he has Duke as a No. 2 seed, but a 60 percent chance to get a No. 1 seed.

The one place I do question him is the continued placement of Duke -- his clear No. 5 team on the S-curve -- in the same regional as Ohio State -- his clearcut No. 1 team on the S-curve. I've heard the suggestions that they could balance that with weaker No. 3 and No. 4 seeds, but I don't think that will happen. If we get to Selection Sunday and it's No. 1 Ohio State and No. 5 Duke, then I'd be willing to bet that they are in different regions.

A few comments:

-- The ACC has failed to produce a No. 1 seed once since 1996 (in 2003, when Wake was a No. 2 and Duke was a No. 3). But, of course, this is the weakest ACC in ages, so we shouldn't count on that.

-- The opening for Duke to get a No. 1 is the Big 12 -- while Texas and Kansas don't play again this regular season, one of them will have to lose in the Big 12 Tournament. If Duke wins out -- or almost wins out .. say one more regular season loss (at Va Tech or UNC) and three wins in the ACC Tourney title, I would think it would be hard to deny the Devils a No. 1. If Duke loses to VPI and UNC or doesn't win the tournament, then a 2 seed is more likely.

-- It's going to be tough for UNC to earn a spot in Charlotte. The Heels would have to finish ahead of Duke or Georgetown on the S-curve. That's possible, plus Kentucky could have Charlotte as a preferred spot (although the 'Cats are now behind UNC in the polls -- plus have a head-to-head loss to them; for all the criticism of the ACC, it's still a higher ranked league than the SEC).

-- If Duke and UNC DO end up in Charlotte together, it won't be anything like 2005. That was a fluke -- UNC was a top-ranked team all year and their fans bought up all the tickets available to the public. Wake was in the top 10 all year and also expected to go to Charlotte ... only Duke's surprising ACC Tourney win pushed them ahead of the Deacs to Charlotte at the last minute. As a result, there were almost no tickets for Duke fans to buy (the NCAA holds just 550 tickets for each competing school). When Duke and UNC shared the Greensboro Coliseum in 2008, the crowds were MUCH more balanced. If anything, Duke should have the edge in Charlotte this time -- the Devils have been expecting to be in Charlotte all year .. UNC has only recently put itself in a position where that is possible. Duke fans already hold a majority of the tickets.

-- Keep watching the polls. The human rankings are MUCH better predictors of the top seeds than the RPI or any other computer poll.

[BlueintheFace]

Kansas (24-1)

@KSU (multiple players out) (#40 RPI)
Colorado
Ok. St. (#54 RPI)
@ OU
#17 A&M (fading) (#28 RPI)
#21 Mizzou (#27 RPI)

Texas (22-3)

Ok St. (#54 RPI)
@Neb
ISU
@ Colorado (tough one)
KSU (#40 RPI)
@ Baylor (poss tough one)

OSU (24-1)

MSU (#47 RPI)
@Pur (tough one) (#10 RPI)
Ill (#39 RPI)
Ind
@PSU (poss tough one)
Wiscy (#18 RPI)

Pitt (23-2)

USF
@SJU (poss tough one) (#17 RPI)
WVU (#22 RPI)
@ #16 Louisville (tough one) (#24 RPI)
@ USF
#14 Nova (#20 RPI)

Duke (23-2)

@UVA
GT
#25 Tem (#33 RPI)
@VT ( poss tough one)
Clem
@ #19 UNC (tough one) (#11 RPI)

_____________________________

Kansas
vs top 25 RPI (1-1)
vs top 50 RPI (7-1)

Texas
vs top 25 RPI (2-2)
vs top 50 RPI (7-2)
USC= #101

OSU
vs top 25 RPI (2-1)
vs top 50 RPI (6-1)

Pitt
vs top 25 RPI (7-1)
vs top 50 RPI (7-1)

Duke
vs top 25 RPI (1-1)
vs top 50 RPI ( 6-2)

BYU
vs top 25 RPI (1-1)
vs top 50 RPI (5-1 )



Basically, Duke needs OSU and UT to stumble down the stretch.

[SCMatt33]

The one place I do question him is the continued placement of Duke -- his clear No. 5 team on the S-curve -- in the same regional as Ohio State -- his clearcut No. 1 team on the S-curve. I've heard the suggestions that they could balance that with weaker No. 3 and No. 4 seeds, but I don't think that will happen. If we get to Selection Sunday and it's No. 1 Ohio State and No. 5 Duke, then I'd be willing to bet that they are in different regions.

Actually, Lunardi is right about this and has explained why in his chats. There are two bracketing principles here to follow. The first is that teams should travel as little as possible provided that no other bracketing principles are broken (for example, playing against a protecting seed in the first round). The second is that the relative strength of the 1-4 seeds should be as even as possible given the other bracketing guidelines. There is nothing, however, that breaks this down further. So one region could have strong 1 and 2 seeds on the S-curve, but weak 3 and 4 seeds. For example, if today's S-curve held, Duke and Ohio state would be 1 and 5 on the S-curve. If you threw in the worst 3 and 4 seeds (12 and 16 on the curve) the sum would be 34, which is the average sum of any individual 1-4 seeds. There is no rule that it has to be exactly 34, so some regions will inevitably be stronger than others.

There is one thing that could make a Duke-Ohio St tough and that is the Big East. There is a rule that states that the "first" three teams in (in other words, the top three teams) from a conference must be placed in different regions. If Gtown climbed up to a two seed, and Notre Dame and Pitt held, they would all have to be placed in different regions as 1/2 seeds, meaning that only one region could have a 1/2 pairing with no Big East team. That could still be OSU/Duke, but it would make the pairing less likely.

[WVDUKEFAN]

I think if Kansas gets healthy, they worry me the most. I think we can guard Sullinger and well, there's Rick Barnes.... Anyone seen Pitt play much? I dont know enough to comment on them.

I dont much care about being a 2 vs. 1 as long as we get favorable matchups with the 2/3/4 seeds! Of course if last year proves anything, you take care of business (TCB) and dont worry about who is a game or three down the road.

I've watched Pittsburgh play quite a bit. They are big and physical. Their front court would be tough for us to deal with physically. I think our guards are much better than theirs. It's all a matter of whether the 3 ball is dropping for us, and if Singler shoots like he did against UNC, they'd beat us by 20. Kansas doesn't concern me. I've said all year they are over rated. I feel the same way about Ohio State. Bring 'em on. They've got Sullinger. Period.

[Olympic Fan]

Actually, Lunardi is right about this and has explained why in his chats. There are two bracketing principles here to follow. The first is that teams should travel as little as possible provided that no other bracketing principles are broken (for example, playing against a protecting seed in the first round). The second is that the relative strength of the 1-4 seeds should be as even as possible given the other bracketing guidelines. There is nothing, however, that breaks this down further. So one region could have strong 1 and 2 seeds on the S-curve, but weak 3 and 4 seeds. For example, if today's S-curve held, Duke and Ohio state would be 1 and 5 on the S-curve. If you threw in the worst 3 and 4 seeds (12 and 16 on the curve) the sum would be 34, which is the average sum of any individual 1-4 seeds. There is no rule that it has to be exactly 34, so some regions will inevitably be stronger than others.



We'll have to wait and see, but I've been in mock seeding situations with NCAA officials and the balance of the s-curve is far more important that geography in the third and fourth rounds ... geography is almost always the deciding factor in the first and secord round (for the top seeds), but because of the pod system, they can do that without compromising the s-curve.

I stand by the prediction that the No. 1 and No. 5 teams in the s-curve (the top No. 1 and the top No. 2 seed) are extremely unlikely to be in the same regional.

[SCMatt33]

We'll have to wait and see, but I've been in mock seeding situations with NCAA officials and the balance of the s-curve is far more important that geography in the third and fourth rounds ... geography is almost always the deciding factor in the first and secord round (for the top seeds), but because of the pod system, they can do that without compromising the s-curve.

I stand by the prediction that the No. 1 and No. 5 teams in the s-curve (the top No. 1 and the top No. 2 seed) are extremely unlikely to be in the same regional.

Since the committee doesn't reveal the S-curve beyond the ones (and now the last four in), it is impossible to know for sure, but it was pretty well accepted that WVa and OSU were 5 and 6 on the S-curve last year (over K-state and Nova), yet were placed with 1 and 2 overall. Given that the Big East teams couldn't be sent out West with Cuse or K-state sent to St. Louis with Kansas (first three in rule), the 2 seed placement (OSU in midwest, WVa in East, K-state in West, and Nova in South) seemed to be based more on geography than competitive balance.

[gumbomoop]

Help: Why does Lunardi have BC as the 5th ACC team in the tourney?

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

As Jay Bilas is fond of saying these days, "Well, they gotta find 68 teams, so somebody's gonna make it in."

Lunardi seems to think the ACC gets 5. Duke, UNC, and then FSU and VaTech should each get to 10 wins. But it's very hard for me to see any of BC, Clemson, or Md getting to 10; so I infer Lunardi thinks (a) 9-7 will get a 5th bid, and (b) a 9-7 for BC would top a 9-7 for either Clemson or Md.

Help.

[Sir Stealth]

Help: Why does Lunardi have BC as the 5th ACC team in the tourney?

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

As Jay Bilas is fond of saying these days, "Well, they gotta find 68 teams, so somebody's gonna make it in."

Lunardi seems to think the ACC gets 5. Duke, UNC, and then FSU and VaTech should each get to 10 wins. But it's very hard for me to see any of BC, Clemson, or Md getting to 10; so I infer Lunardi thinks (a) 9-7 will get a 5th bid, and (b) a 9-7 for BC would top a 9-7 for either Clemson or Md.

Help.

I don't think that he's saying that he expects any team to end up with a certain number of wins, or that BC will ultimately be in the tournament. He's just saying that, based on what all teams have done to this point in time, BC would be in if the selection were done today. I wouldn't be surprised if Lunardi thought that Clemson or Maryland would end up with better records than BC, he is only saying that BC has the 5th best resume of the ACC teams as of now.

[SCMatt33]

Help: Why does Lunardi have BC as the 5th ACC team in the tourney?

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

As Jay Bilas is fond of saying these days, "Well, they gotta find 68 teams, so somebody's gonna make it in."

Lunardi seems to think the ACC gets 5. Duke, UNC, and then FSU and VaTech should each get to 10 wins. But it's very hard for me to see any of BC, Clemson, or Md getting to 10; so I infer Lunardi thinks (a) 9-7 will get a 5th bid, and (b) a 9-7 for BC would top a 9-7 for either Clemson or Md.

Help.

There are a couple of big reasons. First, the win over Texas A&M is easily the best win that any of them have OOC. Maryland's best is either Penn St. or CoC, and Clemson's best is either Seton Hall, CoC, or Long Beach St. You can also throw in wins over Cal, Indiana, and Providence as somewhat relevant wins for BC, while Maryland and Clemson haven't beaten anyone remotely relevent OOC other than the wins listed.

I know RPI numbers aren't the best, but they are what the committee uses. BC is the only one in the RPI top 50, while Clemson and Maryland aren't even in the top 70. As bad as it sounds to lose to Yale, Harvard, and Rhode Island, only Yale is outside the top 100, and they are still in the top 150. Clemson has two losses outside the top 100: UVA and South Carolina, both of whom BC beat. Maryland doesn't have any bad losses, but they don't have many good wins either. Maryland has only won 3 games against the top 100, while BC has won 7. Maryland has won ten of its games against teams outside the top 200 while BC has only won 3 of them. If Maryland wants to have any thoughts of an at large bid, it needs to win out, which includes the game in Chapel Hill. Clemson, with better wins and computer numbers than Maryland, has a better shot, but would still need to be 10-6 entering the ACC tourney and would probably have to win at least one game in Greensboro.

[Indoor66]

Today, Joe has Duke as the 1 seed in the SW Regional (San Antonio) with Kansas at the 2 seed. Prelim games are in Charlotte. Harvard is also in that bracket!

[Orange&BlackSheep]

Today, Joe has Duke as the 1 seed in the SW Regional (San Antonio) with Kansas at the 2 seed. Prelim games are in Charlotte. Harvard is also in that bracket!

Texas or Ohio St in it is OK by me.

[weezie]

In understand all the local issues, of course, but I wish we could come out of New Orleans, just for a change of scenery and some oysters.

[Bluedog]

We should all be Georgetown fans for the rest of the season, so they remain ahead of UNC and get placed in Charlotte with us...UNC to Tampa would be nice.

[TampaDukie]

We should all be Georgetown fans for the rest of the season, so they remain ahead of UNC and get placed in Charlotte with us...UNC to Tampa would be nice.

As much as I don't want UNC being sent to Charlotte, the idea of a puke blue invasion in my hometown makes me want to throw up. Send 'em to DC!

[devildeac]

We should all be Georgetown fans for the rest of the season, so they remain ahead of UNC and get placed in Charlotte with us...UNC to Tampa would be nice.


As much as I don't want UNC being sent to Charlotte, the idea of a puke blue invasion in my hometown makes me want to throw up. Send 'em to DC!

Charlotte, who cares?
Tampa, who cares?
DC, who cares?
Just send them straight to hell!

[gam7]

Wow, Lunardi has an updated bracketology up, and I don't like what I see for Duke. Lunardi's seeds are on the left and Kenpom rankings on the right. 5 of Kenpom's top 11 would be in our bracket (including Washington, which is a potential second round matchup). Here's what our bracket would look like:

1. Duke (1)
2. Kansas (3)
3. Wisconsin (8)
4. Villanova (14)
5. Kentucky (9)
6. West Virginia (25)
7. Cincinnati (20)
8. Washington (11)
9. Kansas St. (35)

[MulletMan]

Wow, Lunardi has an updated bracketology up, and I don't like what I see for Duke. Lunardi's seeds are on the left and Kenpom rankings on the right. 5 of Kenpom's top 11 would be in our bracket (including Washington, which is a potential second round matchup). Here's what our bracket would look like:

1. Duke (1)
2. Kansas (3)
3. Wisconsin (8)
4. Villanova (14)
5. Kentucky (9)
6. West Virginia (25)
7. Cincinnati (20)
8. Washington (11)
9. Kansas St. (35)

Really... what worries you about this bracket outside of Kansas? They are arguably the team left out of the one line, but after that:

Wisconsin: Yay. They beat tOSU at home (barely and because one player caught fire), and play in the overrated Big Televentwelve. They are slow and plodding and woefully under perform their seed in the NCAA tournament year after year.

Nova: Is there anything more dramatic than the sinking ship that is Nova right now? 3 years ago they scared me even before our bracket cam out, this year they are a team that is on the slide and ripe for an early round upset.

Kentucky: Meh... they have lots of talent. But Jones can't decide if he's a great player that will let the game come to him or the guy who is going to force it on every possession. Did I mention that their coach is pretty poor and that they play in the SEC... which, after UK and Florida, is woefully bad?

West Virginia: Why do they scare you? This Duke team is arguably better than last year's Duke team and this year's West Virginia team is arguably worse than last year's Mountaineer squad. So you're worried because...

Cincy: Is there a weaker 20 win team in the country? They've won one worthwhile game all year, and it was at home.

Washington: Pac10.

KState: See November.See Curtis Kelley. See Frank Martin implode.

And if the bracket plays to seed we get Washington, Nova and Kansas. Yeah... I'd take that.

[Olympic Fan]

PLEASE don't get too carried away by Lunardi's proposed matchups. He (and Palm) are very good at picking the teams that get in the field (they rarely miss on more than one team) and fairly good at approximately seeding.

But neither has EVER been very good at predicting matchups.

I happen to think Lunardi's suggestion that Duke would be No. 1 in the San Antonio Region (the regions are named now by sites, not regions) is an unlikely scenario ... especially if either Kansas or Texas ends up a one (which I think is very likely ... very unlikely that BOTH are 1s). Either one would almost certainly be No. 1 in the San Antonio Region.

But assume that one of the Big 12 powers or one of the Mountain West powers (BYU or SDSU) gets one of the ones (either BYU or SDSU would get the Anaheim site). It would be interesting to see the placement of Duke, Pitt and Ohio State if they are the other three No. 1s. The higher ranked of Pitt-Ohio State-Duke would get the Newark a regional.

But Duke is closer to New Orleans than either Ohio State or Pitt, so if it came down to a close call between Duke and the second of those two teams for New Orleans -- it would be Duke.

Obviously, any of this could change -- if Duke wins out while OSU and Pitt lose in their respective tournies, Dukie is probably the top seed in the tournament -- and would get Newark. If Duke stumbles to the finish and loses a No. 1 seed, the Devils could very likely be the No. 2 in Newark.

Right now, I think Ohio State is the top seed and would get Newark. But I don't see any justification in the guidelines for Pitt to get New Orleans over Duke. Duke is closer to New Orleans than Pitt is, Duke is higher ranked in the RPI than Pitt and Duke is higher ranked in the human polls (which as I keep pointing out, are a better gauge of the top seeding than any computer polls).

As of today, Duke is most likely in New Orleans (after two games in Charlotte). I believe that San Antonio is a long shot (although I love that city!).

[sagegrouse]

I believe that San Antonio is a long shot (although I love that city!).

The great thing about the San Antonio region is that one could fly to Texas on Thursday, March 24 and return on Tuesday, April 5, having watched both the regionals and the Final Four in Houston. In between, there is golf, bird-watching, fishing in the Gulf, some beach activity, and teleworking.

Mrs. Sagegrouse is already shuddering at the thought.

sagegrouse

[Wander]

Wisconsin: Yay. They beat tOSU at home (barely and because one player caught fire), and play in the overrated Big Televentwelve. They are slow and plodding and woefully under perform their seed in the NCAA tournament year after year.

Kentucky: Meh... they have lots of talent. But Jones can't decide if he's a great player that will let the game come to him or the guy who is going to force it on every possession. Did I mention that their coach is pretty poor and that they play in the SEC... which, after UK and Florida, is woefully bad?

Washington: Pac10.


I don't understand all the sarcasm here. We don't have to worry about SEC teams, Big 10 teams, or Pac 10 teams because those conferences aren't very good or are overrated? Should Pittsburgh or Ohio State fans be dismissive about playing Duke, since we play in a not very strong ACC?

Wisconsin is probably the strongest 3 seed in that projection. I'd say they're certainly better than Georgetown and Notre Dame, out of the 3 seeds in that bracket. Did they "woefully under perform" two years ago as a 12 seed?

Washington is pretty strong for an 8 seed, IMO, and I'm going to guess that the Pac-10 is the surprise conference of the tournament (but that's admittedly just a guess).

I don't know how you can say Cincy has only won one worthwhile game all year at home - they've beaten St John's and Georgetown on the road. How are road wins against NCAA tournament teams not "worthwhile?"

I agree with Olympic Fan that the projected match-ups aren't worth getting stressed over, but this post is pretty illogical from start to finish, and the evaluations of the teams are way, way off.

[gam7]

Really... what worries you about this bracket outside of Kansas? They are arguably the team left out of the one line, but after that:

Wisconsin: Yay. They beat tOSU at home (barely and because one player caught fire), and play in the overrated Big Televentwelve. They are slow and plodding and woefully under perform their seed in the NCAA tournament year after year.

Nova: Is there anything more dramatic than the sinking ship that is Nova right now? 3 years ago they scared me even before our bracket cam out, this year they are a team that is on the slide and ripe for an early round upset.

Kentucky: Meh... they have lots of talent. But Jones can't decide if he's a great player that will let the game come to him or the guy who is going to force it on every possession. Did I mention that their coach is pretty poor and that they play in the SEC... which, after UK and Florida, is woefully bad?

West Virginia: Why do they scare you? This Duke team is arguably better than last year's Duke team and this year's West Virginia team is arguably worse than last year's Mountaineer squad. So you're worried because...

Cincy: Is there a weaker 20 win team in the country? They've won one worthwhile game all year, and it was at home.

Washington: Pac10.

KState: See November.See Curtis Kelley. See Frank Martin implode.

And if the bracket plays to seed we get Washington, Nova and Kansas. Yeah... I'd take that.

I'm not really concerned about Cincy and West Virginia. In fact, Lunardi also has Butler in our bracket as an 11-seed playing WVU in the first round, which would be tough for them.

I think Washington would be the toughest second round matchup for a 1-seed of any of Lunardi's projected 8-9 matchups. True, Nova is sinking, but I have trouble discounting them entirely because of 2009. They certainly are capable. As usual, they have explosive guards and a couple of active, though somewhat undersized, bigs. And Jay Wright is as familiar with Coach K's thinking as just about anybody through USA basketball. I think I'd rather play Louisville, for example, which Lunardi has as a 4 as well.

It's amusing though that virtually every one of the teams in our bracket changed (except for Kansas) between Monday and today, even if those teams did not change seeds.

[94duke]

...

I happen to think Lunardi's suggestion that Duke would be No. 1 in the San Antonio Region (the regions are named now by sites, not regions) is an unlikely scenario ... especially if either Kansas or Texas ends up a one (which I think is very likely ... very unlikely that BOTH are 1s). Either one would almost certainly be No. 1 in the San Antonio Region.

.....


IIR, I couple of years ago they went back to calling the regions by their geographical locations.

[OldPhiKap]

He has BC, Clemson, and Md all out. Looks like they have some work to do in the next two weeks.

For me, whichever bracket has the most Big East teams in it is the one I want to avoid. Lots of talent there, unless they beat each other up so much coming down the stretch that everyone is wore out.

[gam7]

For me, whichever bracket has the most Big East teams in it is the one I want to avoid. Lots of talent there, unless they beat each other up so much coming down the stretch that everyone is wore out.

We'll likely see 3 brackets with 3 Big East teams each and one bracket with 2.

[1 24 90]

IIR, I couple of years ago they went back to calling the regions by their geographical locations.

This year, the San Antonio region is going to be called the Southwest Region and the New Orleans region is going to be called the Southeast Region. These names are taking the place of the Midwest & South region for this year based on those cities. East & West are still going to be called East & West.

[yancem]

We'll likely see 3 brackets with 3 Big East teams each and one bracket with 2.

I don't think that 11 teams from the Big East are going to make it into the tourney. Almost definitely 9 and possibly ten. WV already has 10 losses and UConn and Lousibville still on the schedule. Marquette has 11 losses but their remaining schedule isn't too difficult. Both teams only have 17 wins.

As for acc teams, I think that Clemson is done, MD is done unless they can beat unc and their other 2 remaining games and Vatech still has some work to do as well. To be honest, I'm not convinced that FlSt doesn't have to either beat unc or do well in the acc tournament. The injury to Singleton really hurts them.

[rasputin]

I don't think that 11 teams from the Big East are going to make it into the tourney. Almost definitely 9 and possibly ten. WV already has 10 losses and UConn and Lousibville still on the schedule. Marquette has 11 losses but their remaining schedule isn't too difficult. Both teams only have 17 wins.

As for acc teams, I think that Clemson is done, MD is done unless they can beat unc and their other 2 remaining games and Vatech still has some work to do as well. To be honest, I'm not convinced that FlSt doesn't have to either beat unc or do well in the acc tournament. The injury to Singleton really hurts them.

West Virginia does have the 10 losses, but their RPI is around 20 and their Kenpom rating is 25. I don't see them missing the tourney.

Marquette's RPI is low 50's, but their Kenpom is 29. Those numbers could improve.

[MulletMan]

I don't understand all the sarcasm here. We don't have to worry about SEC teams, Big 10 teams, or Pac 10 teams because those conferences aren't very good or are overrated? Should Pittsburgh or Ohio State fans be dismissive about playing Duke, since we play in a not very strong ACC?

Wisconsin is probably the strongest 3 seed in that projection. I'd say they're certainly better than Georgetown and Notre Dame, out of the 3 seeds in that bracket. Did they "woefully under perform" two years ago as a 12 seed?

Washington is pretty strong for an 8 seed, IMO, and I'm going to guess that the Pac-10 is the surprise conference of the tournament (but that's admittedly just a guess).

I don't know how you can say Cincy has only won one worthwhile game all year at home - they've beaten St John's and Georgetown on the road. How are road wins against NCAA tournament teams not "worthwhile?"

I agree with Olympic Fan that the projected match-ups aren't worth getting stressed over, but this post is pretty illogical from start to finish, and the evaluations of the teams are way, way off.

Sorry. It wasn't meant to be sarcastic... it was meant to express my feelings about those teams. OK... maybe the Yay for Wisconsin was sarcastic. I'm simply trying to say that none of those teams concern me against our current Duke team. Why be scared of a team that has done little in the regular season other than rack up wins against Mount St. Mary's, IPFW, Florida A&M, Savannah State, Dayton (ouch!), Wright State, Toledo, Utah Valley, Georgia Southern, and St. Francis (PA)? Congrats, Cincy... you ran that murderers row and started the season 15-0... you now sit at 22-6 (which is barely above .500 in the last 2 months of the season). So why should I worry about a team that has lost to nearly every quality opponent that they've played? That's all I'm saying.

My references to the strength of the conferences is obviously a subjective measure... but no, I don't think that Pitt or OSU fans should be dismissive of Duke because the ACC is down, just as I'm not dismissive of OSU eventhough I think the Big Televentwelve is overrated... whereforarthou MSU? My point is that certain teams may be overseeded based on preseason conference rep (see Big 10 and Big East... no on thought the SEC was going to be good.)

The Big East is a prime example... in the Big East teams are beating each other up because all the teams there are sooooo good. In the ACC everyone is beating each other up because every one is sooooo bad. Cincy shouldn't make the tourney on the strength of beating Georgetown and SJU and Lousiville... but I digress... the point is, they don't worry me. And I was simply asking why they worried gam7.

As far as 8 seeds go, and that includes Washington... if you can't beat the 8, then you don't deserve to be the one seed. Right Roy?

[rotogod00]

Lunardi still has Duke as a #1 seed, heading out West. Think we might have to win the ACCT to hold onto it though. If we lose a 2nd time to UNC, they might snatch it.

ACC also up to 6 bids.

[Lord Ash]

Wow. I would absolutely not give us a #1 seed. To me, a #2 is our ceiling. We just have not looked like a dominant team at almost any point this year. I know that everyone says this is a weak year, but still...

[DevilHorns]

Wow. I would absolutely not give us a #1 seed. To me, a #2 is our ceiling. We just have not looked like a dominant team at almost any point this year. I know that everyone says this is a weak year, but still...

It doesn't matter how we 'feel' about having a #1 seed. We've lost 4 games on the year. We got a #1 seed last year with 5 losses and we all know how that turned out.

The top 3 are pretty much defined, but the teams after that have flaws in their respective resumes.

I think if we win the ACC tourney it's ours. Now if ND wins their tourney as well sloshing through tougher competition... than I think it's theirs.

[Olympic Fan]

It doesn't matter how we 'feel' about having a #1 seed. We've lost 4 games on the year. We got a #1 seed last year with 5 losses and we all know how that turned out.

The top 3 are pretty much defined, but the teams after that have flaws in their respective resumes.

I think if we win the ACC tourney it's ours. Now if ND wins their tourney as well sloshing through tougher competition... than I think it's theirs.

I agree with this evaluation.

Duke's continued chance to get a No. 1 seed is pretty much a function of the fact that there is no other compelling candidate. After Ohio State, Kansas and Pitt -- pretty much locks after this weekend -- who is next? Notre Dame? San Diego State? It might have been Purdue, but they just lost at Iowa. Maybe Florida?

Tough call for the committee, especially since it's difficult for them to wait until Sunday to see if Duke wins the ACC or even late Saturday night to see if Notre Dame wins the Big East. Of course, an earlier than championship game loss by either would make it easier.

I'd like to think that Lunardi is right and that six ACC teams get in, but it's going to be tough. I really think Friday's (likely) Clemson-BC matchup in the semifinals will be an elimination game with the winner in and the loser out. The same could be true for the likely Virginia Tech/FSU quarterfinal -- although IMO there's a better chance the loser of that game gets in anyway.

So if I have to guess today, I'd predict five ACC teams get in -- with a reasonable chance of only four and a slim chance of six.

PS I've been arguing that Duke stood a fair chance of coming in ahead of Pitt as the third No. 1 seed on the s-curve, which would have put the Devils in New Orleans, instead of Anaheim. After Saturday's loss at UNC, I have to quote the great Emily Latella, "Never Mind." Even if Duke does scratch out the last No. 1, pretty good bet that we end up in Anaheim.

[throatybeard]

I don't think Lunardi has updated to reflect the fact that we just got our butts kicked by Carolina. The current bracket is thru the midweek games. I'd expect to see us on the 2 line on Monday or Tuesday or whenever he updates after the weekend games.

Gotta win the ACCT.

[rotogod00]

I don't think Lunardi has updated to reflect the fact that we just got our butts kicked by Carolina. The current bracket is thru the midweek games. I'd expect to see us on the 2 line on Monday or Tuesday or whenever he updates after the weekend games.

Gotta win the ACCT.

Incorrect. Updated overnight

[rotogod00]

I agree with this evaluation.

Duke's continued chance to get a No. 1 seed is pretty much a function of the fact that there is no other compelling candidate. After Ohio State, Kansas and Pitt -- pretty much locks after this weekend -- who is next? Notre Dame? San Diego State? It might have been Purdue, but they just lost at Iowa. Maybe Florida?

Tough call for the committee, especially since it's difficult for them to wait until Sunday to see if Duke wins the ACC or even late Saturday night to see if Notre Dame wins the Big East. Of course, an earlier than championship game loss by either would make it easier.

I'd like to think that Lunardi is right and that six ACC teams get in, but it's going to be tough. I really think Friday's (likely) Clemson-BC matchup in the semifinals will be an elimination game with the winner in and the loser out. The same could be true for the likely Virginia Tech/FSU quarterfinal -- although IMO there's a better chance the loser of that game gets in anyway.

So if I have to guess today, I'd predict five ACC teams get in -- with a reasonable chance of only four and a slim chance of six.

PS I've been arguing that Duke stood a fair chance of coming in ahead of Pitt as the third No. 1 seed on the s-curve, which would have put the Devils in New Orleans, instead of Anaheim. After Saturday's loss at UNC, I have to quote the great Emily Latella, "Never Mind." Even if Duke does scratch out the last No. 1, pretty good bet that we end up in Anaheim.

Has BC and VTech as 2 of his last 4 in the field, but yes, one or 2 of those games could be elimination games

[sporthenry]

I believe the 1 is assuming an ACCT win. If UNC wins the ACCT, hopefully either Purdue or ND win their respective tournament to stay ahead of UNC and go out west. Than, if Duke doesn't win the ACCT, have to believe UNC jumps them (if they beat them) as well as possibly Texas, Big 10 or Big East team who goes far in their tournament. So that puts Duke either as a low 2 or high 3 seed. I have to believe going out West is ideal and let UNC have the East with OSU or Pitt. So even if Duke drops to the 3, they would probably end up West as the strongest 3 seed to even out the relatively weak West with ND, SD. St or whoever else gets the 2 out west.

[RoyalBlue08]

I believe the 1 is assuming an ACCT win. If UNC wins the ACCT, hopefully either Purdue or ND win their respective tournament to stay ahead of UNC and go out west. Than, if Duke doesn't win the ACCT, have to believe UNC jumps them (if they beat them) as well as possibly Texas, Big 10 or Big East team who goes far in their tournament. So that puts Duke either as a low 2 or high 3 seed. I have to believe going out West is ideal and let UNC have the East with OSU or Pitt. So even if Duke drops to the 3, they would probably end up West as the strongest 3 seed to even out the relatively weak West with ND, SD. St or whoever else gets the 2 out west.

The 1 isn't assuming anything. The 1 is if the tournament started right now.

[throatybeard]

Incorrect. Updated overnight

Indeed. I was informed of this backchannel...and he was talking on the network last night apparently, keeping us on the one line. To my surprise.

[sporthenry]

The 1 isn't assuming anything. The 1 is if the tournament started right now.

Well even if the 1 isn't assuming anything. Then I will say that if Duke loses another game, they won't be a #1. So the season doesn't end today and there is no way Duke can stay a 1 and not win the ACCT. So if that isn't assuming they win the ACCT, then you can call it what you want. But there is no way UNC beats Duke twice in the final week and doesn't go ahead of them. And yes, Duke can lose the ACCT without UNC winning it but then another team from the Big 10, Big East, Texas, or SD St. will pass Duke.

[Atlanta Duke]

Lunardi's bracket as of March 7 has Duke #1 in the West - with BYU at #2 - imagine the "Duke always gets the easiest regional" screaming if that happens :)

North Carolina at #2 in the Southwest (Kansas #1 in that region)

Lunardi has Duke and UNC both going to the Charlotte pod - I would not want to have Duke in Charlotte with all the Carolina fans - that was a nightmare the last time both teams played at the same first round site in North Carolina

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

[mkline09]

Wow. I would absolutely not give us a #1 seed. To me, a #2 is our ceiling. We just have not looked like a dominant team at almost any point this year. I know that everyone says this is a weak year, but still...

I'm with you on this one. I think if the tournament started today Duke should be a #2 seed. If they win the ACC Tourney then I can see a No. 1 seed being justified but like you said they are not playing like a dominant team right now.

[YourLandlord]

Lunardi's bracket as of March 7 has Duke #1 in the West - with BYU at #2 - imagine the "Duke always gets the easiest regional" screaming if that happens :)

North Carolina at #2 in the Southwest (Kansas #1 in that region)

Lunardi has Duke and UNC both going to the Charlotte pod - I would not want to have Duke in Charlotte with all the Carolina fans - that was a nightmare the last time both teams played at the same first round site in North Carolina

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

This would be an incredible bracket for us. Just awesome. Of course, it won't happen (simply because there are are a million other games to be played)

[rotogod00]

In this Insider blog (http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog?name=ncbexperts&id=6189584), Lunardi writes:

"The fourth No. 1 seed is a toss-up right now between Duke and Notre Dame. I still have the Blue Devils ahead of the surging Irish, but strong arguments could be made either way. If Duke doesn't win the ACC tournament, someone is going to move up. If not Notre Dame, then Texas, North Carolina and Purdue are lurking. And don't discount the possibility of BYU playing through the Brandon Davies suspension and blitzing the Mountain West tournament field."

[-jk]

Let's keep the bracketology in one thread.

-jk