Bracketology update (February 10)

[COYS]

Olympic Fan had a nice update on the brackets on January 30th. Lunardi (love him or hate him, it's still interesting) posted new brackets giving Duke essentially a "higher" 2 seed than UNC based on the results of the game this week. Duke get's a two seed in the Atlanta regional while UNC ships north to Boston. I think Duke would do well in either Atlanta or Boston, but Atlanta is definitely preferable. Boston would be a much tougher place for UNC based on fan bases, of course. At this point, it will be difficult for either Duke or UNC to move back onto the top line as Syracuse, Kentucky, Ohio St. and Missouri are pretty well entrenched while Kansas would probably be the ones to knock the Missouri Tigers off the top line if that happens. The thing is, I don't see this as a bad thing for Duke. It's obviously waaaaaaay to early to worry about seeding and locations, but I'd be very happy with Duke as a 2-seed playing in Greensboro for the first two rounds and then Atlanta for the next round. Boston wouldn't be a bad location, either. It actually sounds better than last year when we flew out west as a number 1. Of course, playing in Texas as a number 1 worked out just fine in 2010, so you never know.

[ScreechTDX1847]

At the end of the day a #2 seed is 99.999% as good as a #1 seed, IMO.

[tommy]

At the end of the day a #2 seed is 99.999% as good as a #1 seed, IMO.

Not sure what you mean by "as good as," but in the last 25 years of NCAA tournament play, 41 teams with a #1 seed have made it to the Final Four, while only 21 teams with a #2 seed have made it. And when it comes to actually winning the championship, in the last 25 years, 16 of them have been won by #1 seeds and only 3 have been won by #2 seeds.

#3 seeds have actually won more championships in the last 25 years (4) than have #2 seeds (3), but again neither approach the success of #1 seeds.

[Rich]

Olympic Fan had a nice update on the brackets on January 30th. Lunardi (love him or hate him, it's still interesting) posted new brackets giving Duke essentially a "higher" 2 seed than UNC based on the results of the game this week. Duke get's a two seed in the Atlanta regional while UNC ships north to Boston. I think Duke would do well in either Atlanta or Boston, but Atlanta is definitely preferable. Boston would be a much tougher place for UNC based on fan bases, of course. At this point, it will be difficult for either Duke or UNC to move back onto the top line as Syracuse, Kentucky, Ohio St. and Missouri are pretty well entrenched while Kansas would probably be the ones to knock the Missouri Tigers off the top line if that happens. The thing is, I don't see this as a bad thing for Duke. It's obviously waaaaaaay to early to worry about seeding and locations, but I'd be very happy with Duke as a 2-seed playing in Greensboro for the first two rounds and then Atlanta for the next round. Boston wouldn't be a bad location, either. It actually sounds better than last year when we flew out west as a number 1. Of course, playing in Texas as a number 1 worked out just fine in 2010, so you never know.

Considering we have to play Carolina once, maybe twice, more before the brackets are announced, and recency takes precedent over primacy when it comes to seeding, this is so premature it's not even worth thinking about, IMHO.

[ScreechTDX1847]

Not sure what you mean by "as good as," but in the last 25 years of NCAA tournament play, 41 teams with a #1 seed have made it to the Final Four, while only 21 teams with a #2 seed have made it. And when it comes to actually winning the championship, in the last 25 years, 16 of them have been won by #1 seeds and only 3 have been won by #2 seeds.

#3 seeds have actually won more championships in the last 25 years (4) than have #2 seeds (3), but again neither approach the success of #1 seeds.

Well, #1 seeds are technically better teams, right? What I meant was that I don't think the path to the final four is necessarily more difficult being a #2 seed. Maybe I should have been clearer. I would expect more #1 seeds to make it so maybe what you are saying is that you want Duke to be good enough to get a #1 seed.

[gumbomoop]

The single biggest preference I have is for UK and UNC to be placed in the same region. This has 2 obvious advantages: no way both could make FF, and Duke would avoid what appears, just now, the overall #1 seed.

Whatever region Duke gets, it'll be tough to make the FF. And to wind up in a FF with, say, UNC, UK, and tOSU would certainly be exciting. Still, prefer to see UK knock out UNC in regional, or vice-versa.

I do agree that it will be very tough for either Duke or UNC to sneak in to a 1-seed. The remaining 3 weeks of the ACC promise to be wild, and either the Devils or Heels would have to run the table, and maybe even win the ACCT, to get a 1-seed.

Btw, the remainder of the ACC season merits its own thread......

[Kedsy]

At this point, it will be difficult for either Duke or UNC to move back onto the top line as Syracuse, Kentucky, Ohio St. and Missouri are pretty well entrenched while Kansas would probably be the ones to knock the Missouri Tigers off the top line if that happens.

Waaaaay too early to say anybody's entrenched on the top line in early February. At this time last year, people were talking about how Texas was firmly entrenched as a top seed, and they ended up a #4.


Well, #1 seeds are technically better teams, right? What I meant was that I don't think the path to the final four is necessarily more difficult being a #2 seed. Maybe I should have been clearer. I would expect more #1 seeds to make it so maybe what you are saying is that you want Duke to be good enough to get a #1 seed.

Yes, #1 seeds are supposed to be a little better than #2 seeds, but I wouldn't say they're twice as good (if you go by Final Fours) or especially five times as good (if you go by championships). If seeds win out, every team the #1 plays is a little worse than the teams the #2 plays. That's really important in a one-and-done tournament. The #1 seed is important, if you can get it. If you can't, you just have to fight harder, that's all, but you are starting at a disadvantage.


I do agree that it will be very tough for either Duke or UNC to sneak in to a 1-seed. The remaining 3 weeks of the ACC promise to be wild, and either the Devils or Heels would have to run the table, and maybe even win the ACCT, to get a 1-seed.

I'm not so sure this is true. History suggests that if Duke or UNC wins the ACCT (and have a legitimate claim at being a top five team), that winner will have a pretty decent shot at a #1 seed, whether they run the table or not. Right now Duke is #3 in the RPI and UNC is #7, so assuming neither team tanks over the next few weeks (which I mean as 1 or 2 losses) and then one of them wins the ACCT, why wouldn't that team have a claim at a #1 seed?

[DukeWarhead]

For me, the only real message in Bracketology is a reminder at just how difficult Second Round match-ups have become. There just aren't any cake-walks through the first weekend any more. 8 or 9 seeds can be really solid, dangerous teams. That's the only thing I look at - to see which teams are hovering in that 8,9 seed range. Of course, if Duke ends up dropping to a 3 or (ugh) 4 seed, then there's at least the chance of meeting up with an upstart mid-major right off a big upset in the first round, but they'd also have a tougher than normal first game.
Only a month away. Crazy.

[Olympic Fan]

Jerry Palm (a better bracketologist than Lunardi, IMHO) also has Duke and UNC as No. 2 seeds in the bracket he posted today. He also has Duke No. 2 in the South (with kentucky No. 1 in the region). But he has UNC No. 2 in the Midwest (Missouri's region).

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology

Interesing speculation, but this is almost a month until Selction Saturday. A lot can change. For instance, somebody suggested Missouri was solid on the No. 1 line. Well, they are there now, but they have one more game with Kansas and one more with Baylor coming up, plus two other Big 12 road games. Then they have the Big 12 tourney. I agree that as of today Missouri is a one seed, but I think they are far from a lock to end up there.

[gumbomoop]

History suggests that if Duke or UNC wins the ACCT (and have a legitimate claim at being a top five team), that winner will have a pretty decent shot at a #1 seed, whether they run the table or not. Right now Duke is #3 in the RPI and UNC is #7, so assuming neither team tanks over the next few weeks (which I mean as 1 or 2 losses) and then one of them wins the ACCT, why wouldn't that team have a claim at a #1 seed?

I don't think we disagree much, maybe just marginally, or not at all. Any disagreement would turn on my phrase, "run the table" - which does imply no more losses. So, if you're saying that either Duke or UNC could get a 1-seed if they finish 13-3 [both could do so, of course] and win the ACCT, I agree: they could. Probably depends on whether the top 3 in the Big 12 beat each other, or whether any of those 3 winds up maybe 15-3 and wins the Big 12 tourney.

I infer from your reference to "2 losses" that you'd say if both Duke and UNC wind up 12-4 [also possible], even if one of them wins the ACCT, they probably wouldn't get a 1-seed.

All of this assumes - well, at least I do - that UK, 'Cuse, and tOSU are likely 1-seeds. But I may be jumping the gun there. OSU, at least, has some testy games in its end-season. I will say that if, by some chance, the final 1-seed came down to Duke and tOSU, wow, it would be controversial should the Selection Committee give Duke the final 1-seed.

[Kedsy]

I infer from your reference to "2 losses" that you'd say if both Duke and UNC wind up 12-4 [also possible], even if one of them wins the ACCT, they probably wouldn't get a 1-seed.

I think a 12-4 ACC team that wins the ACCT has a chance but not a great one. It would depend on the Big 12 teams beating each other up (which seems likely) and then the first place team not winning the Big 12 tourney (crapshoot). And/or Ohio State and/or Syracuse stumbling once or twice and then not winning their tournament. Which is more likely than it sounds. The Big East regular season champion has only won the Big East tournament twice in the past six years (I didn't look further than that). The Big Ten regular season champion only three times in six years (although a fourth Big 10 tourney winner was tied for first but #2 on a tiebreaker).

So conceivably a 12-4 ACC champion could get there. Depends on when they lost and to whom.

I think a 13-3 ACC champion (assuming it's Duke or UNC) has a pretty decent chance of a #1 seed.

[1 24 90]

A little off topic but Mateen Cleaves and Seth Davis agreed that of the current Top 10 teams, Duke will be the first one eliminated in the NCAA tournament. (this includes Murray State)

May be true but we'll see.

[NSDukeFan]

A little off topic but Mateen Cleaves and Seth Davis agreed that of the current Top 10 teams, Duke will be the first one eliminated in the NCAA tournament. (this includes Murray State)

May be true but we'll see.

Given my opinion of Seth Davis' knowledge, I find that somewhat encouraging.

[Kedsy]

At this point, it will be difficult for either Duke or UNC to move back onto the top line as Syracuse, Kentucky, Ohio St. and Missouri are pretty well entrenched while Kansas would probably be the ones to knock the Missouri Tigers off the top line if that happens.

And already Ohio State has lost, at home. Still entrenched? What if they lose a couple more and then don't win the Big Ten tournament? Still a #1? Like I said the other day, way to early to anoint our #1 seeds.

[Bob Green]

The DBR front page article shows ESPN with six ACC teams in the NCAA Tournament:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=43551

Lunardi has N.C. State and Miami in his "Last Four In" category. Jerry Palm's CBS bracket from Friday (see link in Olympic Fan's post) also includes six ACC teams. The NCAA Tournament is where the conference demonstrates its strength or weakness. Tournament wins equal conference success. ACC teams losing their first game equates to a weak conference. Having six teams in the Big Dance is good for the conference only if those teams win and advance. My preference would be for less teams to make the tournament but for those teams to play better.

Let's take a look at conference performance over the past five seasons:

In 2011, four ACC teams combined to post an 8-4 record for an average of 2 wins per team. Clemson lost their first game (technically they won their play in game).

In 2010, six ACC teams combined for a 9-5 record for an average of 1.5 wins per team with Duke providing six of the wins. Two teams lost their first game: Clemson and Florida State.

In 2009, seven ACC teams combined for a 9-6 record for an average of 1.28 wins per team with UNC providing six of the wins. Four teams lost their first game: Boston College, Clemson, Florida State and Wake Forest.

In 2008, four ACC teams combined for a 6-4 record for an average of 1.5 wins per team. Clemson lost their first game.

In 2007, seven ACC teams combined for a 7-7 record for an average of 1 win per team. Two teams lost their first game: Duke and Georgia Tech.

So what do these numbers tell us? For starters, the ACC won the National Championship 40 percent of the time, which validates the conference is strong at the top. However, out of 28 total teams that participated, 10 teams lost their first game. That is 36%. In the two years the ACC secured seven bids, the conference had their worst winning percentage.

So back to 2012 and the chance for six ACC teams to earn an invitation. Do we want to see six teams invited? Would the conference be better off with only four or five teams participating in the tournament? I'm not sure, but I believe these questions are worth discussing.

[DukieInBrasil]

The single biggest preference I have is for UK and UNC to be placed in the same region. This has 2 obvious advantages: no way both could make FF, and Duke would avoid what appears, just now, the overall #1 seed.

Whatever region Duke gets, it'll be tough to make the FF. And to wind up in a FF with, say, UNC, UK, and tOSU would certainly be exciting. Still, prefer to see UK knock out UNC in regional, or vice-versa.

I do agree that it will be very tough for either Duke or UNC to sneak in to a 1-seed. The remaining 3 weeks of the ACC promise to be wild, and either the Devils or Heels would have to run the table, and maybe even win the ACCT, to get a 1-seed.

Btw, the remainder of the ACC season merits its own thread......

It has one.
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?27540-ACC-s-final-3-weeks

[Kedsy]

So what do these numbers tell us? For starters, the ACC won the National Championship 40 percent of the time, which validates the conference is strong at the top. However, out of 28 total teams that participated, 10 teams lost their first game. That is 36%. In the two years the ACC secured seven bids, the conference had their worst winning percentage.

Well, I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but how does that compare to other major conferences? Last year, for example, the Big East set a record with 2,924 teams getting bids. OK, really 11, but 4 of those teams lost in the first round (36%, same as the ACC number you reference). Another five Big East teams lost in the 2nd round. Even with a national champion, the Big East overall winning percentage was 56.5% (average of 1.2 wins per team). In only one year of the past five has the ACC been that bad. Not counting UConn, the Big East won a putrid 41.2% of their games (0.7 wins per team).

You state that numbers like these would be bad for the conference, and I assume you mean the overall perception of the conference, but do you think 2011 hurt the perception of the Big East? Or was bad for the Big East in any other way?

I say, go ahead and invite the 6th ACC team. They won't do any worse than the 10th or 11th Big East team.

[Wander]

So back to 2012 and the chance for six ACC teams to earn an invitation. Do we want to see six teams invited? Would the conference be better off with only four or five teams participating in the tournament? I'm not sure, but I believe these questions are worth discussing.

Does Duke get some award for its conference having a higher winning percentage than other conferences? NCAA bids are always better than NIT bids, even if that means losing in the 1st round.

[uh_no]

Does Duke get some award for its conference having a higher winning percentage than other conferences? NCAA bids are always better than NIT bids, even if that means losing in the 1st round.

duke gets more money for every conference win....more teams=more chance of wins=more chance of money

[Bob Green]

You state that numbers like these would be bad for the conference, and I assume you mean the overall perception of the conference, but do you think 2011 hurt the perception of the Big East? Or was bad for the Big East in any other way?

I say, go ahead and invite the 6th ACC team. They won't do any worse than the 10th or 11th Big East team.

Yes, I mean the overall perception of the conference. And yes I believe 2011 hurt the perception of the Big East. It will be interesting to see how many Big East teams earn an invite in 2012 and more so it will be interesting to see how many Big East bubble teams are shunned.


Does Duke get some award for its conference having a higher winning percentage than other conferences? NCAA bids are always better than NIT bids, even if that means losing in the 1st round.

I am a diehard, lifetime, fanatical Duke fan but I am also an ACC fan so conference performance is important to me. Yes, I pull for Carolina when they play out of conference games. I'm a bit of a hypocrite here as I will laugh and poke fun at my Carolina fan friends/co-workers after a loss even though I was rooting for the Heels during the game. This year's Kentucky loss is a perfect example - I wish Carolina had won that game.

As far as NIT bids go, I disagree with your assessment that losing in the 1st round of the NCAA is always better than an NIT bid. For a young team, the opportunity to play in multiple NIT games instead of just one NCAA game offers the opportunity for improvement building toward next season. Of course, I never want to see Duke in the NIT. :)

[gumbomoop]

It has one.

I know; I started it, after having made the suggestion to no one in particular.

[tommy]

The DBR front page article shows ESPN with six ACC teams in the NCAA Tournament:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=43551

Lunardi has N.C. State and Miami in his "Last Four In" category. Jerry Palm's CBS bracket from Friday (see link in Olympic Fan's post) also includes six ACC teams. The NCAA Tournament is where the conference demonstrates its strength or weakness. Tournament wins equal conference success. ACC teams losing their first game equates to a weak conference. Having six teams in the Big Dance is good for the conference only if those teams win and advance. My preference would be for less teams to make the tournament but for those teams to play better.

Let's take a look at conference performance over the past five seasons:

In 2011, four ACC teams combined to post an 8-4 record for an average of 2 wins per team. Clemson lost their first game (technically they won their play in game).

In 2010, six ACC teams combined for a 9-5 record for an average of 1.5 wins per team with Duke providing six of the wins. Two teams lost their first game: Clemson and Florida State.

In 2009, seven ACC teams combined for a 9-6 record for an average of 1.28 wins per team with UNC providing six of the wins. Four teams lost their first game: Boston College, Clemson, Florida State and Wake Forest.

In 2008, four ACC teams combined for a 6-4 record for an average of 1.5 wins per team. Clemson lost their first game.

In 2007, seven ACC teams combined for a 7-7 record for an average of 1 win per team. Two teams lost their first game: Duke and Georgia Tech.

So what do these numbers tell us? For starters, the ACC won the National Championship 40 percent of the time, which validates the conference is strong at the top. However, out of 28 total teams that participated, 10 teams lost their first game. That is 36%. In the two years the ACC secured seven bids, the conference had their worst winning percentage.

So back to 2012 and the chance for six ACC teams to earn an invitation. Do we want to see six teams invited? Would the conference be better off with only four or five teams participating in the tournament? I'm not sure, but I believe these questions are worth discussing.


I don't think these numbers really tell us much, in all honesty. I put together a table to show why not:





2011
2010
2009
2008
2007

Totals



ACC
Teams in
4
6
7
4
7

28




Conf record (%)
8-4 .667
9-5 .643
9-6 .600
6-4 .600
7-7 .500

39-26 .600




Teams out in 1st round
1
2
4
1
2

10 (36%)















Big East
Teams in
11
8
7
8
6

40




Conf record
13-10 .565
8-8 .500
17-7 .708
11-8 .579
7-6 .538

56-39 .589




Teams out in 1st round
4
4
1
1
3

13 (32.5%)















Big 10
Teams in
7
5
7
4
6

29




Conf record
7-7 .500
9-5 .643
9-7 .563
5-4 .556
9-6 .600

39-29 .574




Teams out in 1st round
2
1
3
1
1

8 (27.6%)















Big 12
Teams in
5
7
6
6
4

28




Conf record
5-5 .500
9-7 .563
11-6 .647
12-5 .706
6-4 .600

43-27 .614




Teams out in 1st round
2
2
0
1
1

6 (21.4%)















SEC
Teams in
5
4
3
6
5

23




Conf record
7-5 .583
6-4 .600
1-3 .250
4-6 .400
11-4 .733

29-22 .569




Teams out in 1st round
3
2
2
3
1

11 (47.8%)















Pac-10
Teams in
4
2
6
6
6

24




Conf record
5-4 .556
3-2 .600
6-6 .500
8-6 .571
10-6 .625

32-24 .571




Teams out in 1st round
1
0
1
3
2

7 (29.2%)




















































































The Big East, which has gotten by far the most teams in the tournament over the last 5 years, sits in the middle of the pack in terms of percentage of teams to lose in the first round. In a couple of years when they had 7 and 8 teams in, they only lost one in the first round. In 2007 when they only got 6 teams in, 3 lost in the first. No apparent correlation like I think you're suggesting between more teams in = more likely to have first round losers.

Same with the ACC. One year we had seven and lost four right out of the gate. But another we had 7 and only lost two in the first round.

The SEC, which has received the least number of bids of the "major" conferences, also has the highest % of its teams to go out in the first round. The conference with the best success in the first round has been the Big 12, but their overall number of teams invited sits right in the middle, though their overall conference winning percentage is the highest of all (interesting -- I didn't know that.) The year they got 7 in, they only lost two in the first round. And their two best overall years in terms of winning % came when they had six teams in; they did worse when getting only four or five (or when getting seven).

So unless I'm missing something (definitely possible) or else I missed your point (also definitely possible) this data really doesn't seem to point to any real trends in terms of correlations between number of teams invited from a conference, number of teams beaten in the first round, and overall conference performance, either in a given year or over this five year period.

I'm with those who want our league to get as many bids as possible. That implies respect, and doesn't seem to be predictive of our overall performance.

[A-Tex Devil]

Catching up on this thread -- getting a 1 seed is much better than getting a 2 seed in every objective way. The path for a 1 seed is easier than a 2 seed. Barring upsets, each game is against a worse seed than the 2 seed faces until you meet the 2 seed in the elite 8. Also, the difference between the average 16 seed and the average 15 seed is probably the biggest in the tourney. The 16 seeds are usually teams with middling to losing records in tiny conferences that won their conference tourney. 15 seeds tend to be teams in the top 2 or 3 of tiny conferences who won their tourney. There is a reason a 16 seed has never won a game, and if we lay an egg in the first round, I want that extra slack. I'll take a 1 seed every single time and twice on Tuesdays. I hope and pray that when the dust settles we are in the running for a 1 seed and get it.

Now if you are making the "expectations" argument that a 1 seed puts too much pressure on the team, or creates a backlash among those that don't think Duke deserves it, I'll quietly disagree with you and move along, because that is a completely different discussion and an abstract one at best.

The only argument I would consider where a 1 seed is better than a 2 seed is in the event we were shipped out tot he West region. Even then, it depends on who the other other 1 seeds ended up being and who our 2 seed is in the West -- and would I prefer any of those 1 seeds over that 2. Probably not.

[OldPhiKap]

Catching up on this thread -- getting a 1 seed is much better than getting a 2 seed in every objective way. The path for a 1 seed is easier than a 2 seed. Barring upsets, each game is against a worse seed than the 2 seed faces until you meet the 2 seed in the elite 8. Also, the difference between the average 16 seed and the average 15 seed is probably the biggest in the tourney. The 16 seeds are usually teams with middling to losing records in tiny conferences that won their conference tourney. 15 seeds tend to be teams in the top 2 or 3 of tiny conferences who won their tourney. There is a reason a 16 seed has never won a game, and if we lay an egg in the first round, I want that extra slack. I'll take a 1 seed every single time and twice on Tuesdays. I hope and pray that when the dust settles we are in the running for a 1 seed and get it.

Now if you are making the "expectations" argument that a 1 seed puts too much pressure on the team, or creates a backlash among those that don't think Duke deserves it, I'll quietly disagree with you and move along, because that is a completely different discussion and an abstract one at best.

The only argument I would consider where a 1 seed is better than a 2 seed is in the event we were shipped out tot he West region. Even then, it depends on who the other other 1 seeds ended up being and who our 2 seed is in the West -- and would I prefer any of those 1 seeds over that 2. Probably not.

FWIW, I think pod location has a lot more to do with a deep run than whether a team is a 1-seed or a 2-seed. You gotta beat whoever they put in front of you, and there's not a lot of difference between a 3 seed and a 4 seed. (IF you can't get past a 15 seed, it just wasn't meant to be).

But playing close to home -- and out of a hostile location -- often translates directly to the scoreboard.

[bob blue devil]

But playing close to home -- and out of a hostile location -- often translates directly to the scoreboard.

so how do we get a pod other than Greensboro?

[OldPhiKap]

so how do we get a pod other than Greensboro?

No doubt. Heck, I went to a game in Charlotte last year where UNC played the first game and then we played Michigan the second. Not a very hospitable crowd.

(Although when UNC was struggling, we gleefully piled on as best we could too).

[moonpie23]

in 2010, seth davis did enough back pedaling to run a high velocity monorail train from new york to la in about 8 hrs....