Official Obsessing Over Other People's Brackets Thread [Archive]

Olympic Fan

02-17-2012, 03:46 PM

I wouldn't pay too much attention to Lunardi's musings on the top line ... he can't keep his own rules straight. Over and over, he insists that his bracketology postings are based on the current situation ... whereas he also states how he thinks it will end up. That's fine, but AT THE MOMENT he is wrong to list Kansas ahead of Duke on the one line.

The two are very close -- so close that they are reversed in the two major polls -- the writer's have Kansas 4 and Duke 5 ... the coaches have Duke 4 and Kansas 5. Which do you think carries more weight with the commitee?

But say the rankings cancel out. What's the case for Duke over Kansas:

-- Duke has a better record 22-4 vs. 21-5 (against a tougher schedule)
-- Duke has a better RPI No. 2 to No. 7
-- Duke has a better overall strength of schedule (No. 2 vs. No. 6)
-- Duke has a better non-conference schedule (No. 3 vs. No. 40)
-- Both have exactly 4 wins vs top 25 and seven wins vs. top 50 (indeed, both are 4-3 vs. top 50; 7-4 vs. top 50)
-- Duke has a better record away from home: 5-2 on the road; 5-0 in neutral environaments ... Kansas is 6-2 on the road and 2-2 on neutral courts

Kansas does have a win over Ohio State (at home) vs. Duke's loss to Ohio State (at OSU) ... but the committee will factor that Sullinger didn't play in the Kansas game. Balancing that is the fact that Duke beat Davidson in Cameron, while Kansas lost to the Wildcats in Allen Field House.

Of course, if a tiebreaker is needed, Duke beat Kansas head-to-head on a neutral court in Maui. Yes, it was early in the season and that will discount it some, but in this case, where everything is even or Duke is slightly ahead, that's got to be the determining factor.

Interesting that in the linked video, Lunardi says the No. 1 factor for the committe is top 50 wins -- Duke and Kansas are dead even. He says the No. 2 factor is non-conference strength of schedule -- who you choose to play. There Duke has a big edge on Kansas (No. 3 vs. No. 40).

Now, that's the situation TODAY. If the committee picked today, I'm confident Duke gets the fourth No. 1.

But the selection is still almost a month away.

I can't project how Duke and Kansas finish, but I will say this -- it's very hard for two teams in the same conference to get a No. 1 because at least one has to lose in the conference tournament. It's happened a number of times (Duke and UNC more than anybody), but it's tough.

I'd say that right now, Kentucky and Syracuse are virtual locks for a number one seed.

Ohio State has a strong chance, but they are just one game better than Michigan State in record and trail the Spartans in most rankings. Interesting that they finish up with Ohio State in East Lansing (Mich State has already beaten the Buckeyes in Columbus). To be a No. 1 seed, either OSU or Michigan State must win that last game, then win the Big 10 Tournament (and not lose anywhere else).

The Big 12 has three candidates -- Kansas, Missouri and Baylor. Two of them necessarily lose in the Big 12 Toutrnament. Missouri alo has to go to Kansas in another week. Baylor doesn't have any of the top three contenders left (although they do have a game at erratic, but dangerous Texas on the road coming up).

Personally, I hink one of these three will eventually earn a No. 1 seed, but not two of them.

Finally, there are the two ACC teams. I say two because even though Florida State can still win the ACC, their early season stumbles takes them out of the mix for a 1 or 2 seed. Duke and UNC are pretty close -- Duke slightly ahead at the moment becauase of their win in Chapel Hill and their tougher schedule. But it's close enough that UNC could reverse that by beating Duke in Durham.

For Duke to get a No. 1 seed, I think that have to do three things: (1) win the ACC Tournament. That is by far the biggest hurdle; (2) at least split with FSU and UNC; (3) win everything else.

That would be 29-5 record and an ACC championship ... guys, that will be a No. 1 seed. Sweep UNC and FSU and lose in the ACC Tourney finals and it's possible, but less certain. Lose to FSU and UNC, then win the ACC and it's possible, but even tougher. Lose more than that and Duke will be a No. 2.

MulletMan

02-17-2012, 03:52 PM

I would rather have Duke be a high 2 seed and play in Boston or Atlanta than the lowest 1 seed and get shipped to Phoenix for the regional.

Discuss.

Duvall

02-17-2012, 03:53 PM

I would rather have Duke be a high 2 seed and play in Boston or Atlanta than the lowest 1 seed and get shipped to Phoenix for the regional.

Discuss.

Dissent - I would rather play the West 2 seed on the Moon than play Kentucky in CATlanta.

MulletMan

02-17-2012, 04:01 PM

Dissent - I would rather play the West 2 seed on the Moon than play Kentucky in CATlanta.

OK, but what about Cuse in Boston?

If we are the low 1, then we're getting the high 2 anyway. Assuming that UK and Cuse are locks for a 1 seed, then the other possibilities are Michigan State, Ohio State, Missouri and Kansas... and maybe UNC, right?

So if we take the low 1, I would guess that would mean that UNC is a 2 seed. I doubt the committee pairs Duke and UNC as a 1 and 2 in the same region. I would guess that we'd be looking at Kansas or Mizzou as the top 2 paired with us in the West.

I mean, I hear you on Kentucky and they are formidable, but I might be willing to take my chances, play closer to home, and maybe in a place with more Duke fan support.

Duvall

02-17-2012, 04:04 PM

OK, but what about Cuse in Boston?

If we are the low 1, then we're getting the high 2 anyway. Assuming that UK and Cuse are locks for a 1 seed, then the other possibilities are Michigan State, Ohio State, Missouri and Kansas... and maybe UNC, right?

So if we take the low 1, I would guess that would mean that UNC is a 2 seed. I doubt the committee pairs Duke and UNC as a 1 and 2 in the same region. I would guess that we'd be looking at Kansas or Mizzou as the top 2 paired with us in the West.

I mean, I hear you on Kentucky and they are formidable, but I might be willing to take my chances, play closer to home, and maybe in a place with more Duke fan support.

Duke fan support wouldn't matter in a game against Kentucky in the Georgia Dome, even a little. Not even worth considering.

There really isn't such a thing as a "high 2." The Committee picks #1 seeds on merit, but geography dominates the placement of the #2 seeds. If Duke isn't a #1 seed, they'll probably be headed to Boston or Atlanta regardless of the much-debated S-curve.

kestrel

02-17-2012, 04:07 PM

Dissent - I would rather play the West 2 seed on the Moon than play Kentucky in CATlanta.

Quick tangential question on that--by my map, Lexington is closer to St. Louis (339.9) than they are to Atlanta (380.3 mi). Since they get regional preference, why are they being slotted for Atlanta?

gam7

02-17-2012, 04:10 PM

So if we take the low 1, I would guess that would mean that UNC is a 2 seed. I doubt the committee pairs Duke and UNC as a 1 and 2 in the same region. I would guess that we'd be looking at Kansas or Mizzou as the top 2 paired with us in the West.

This will not happen. One of the Committee's principles is that the top 3 teams from any single conference must be placed in different regions.

MulletMan

02-17-2012, 04:15 PM

Duke fan support wouldn't matter in a game against Kentucky in the Georgia Dome, even a little. Not even worth considering.

There really isn't such a thing as a "high 2." The Committee picks #1 seeds on merit, but geography dominates the placement of the #2 seeds. If Duke isn't a #1 seed, they'll probably be headed to Boston or Atlanta regardless of the much-debated S-curve.

You're not even entertaining the possibility that Kentucky could lose before that regional final match-up?

And geography doesn't dominate the placement of the #2 seeds. That would favor the 2 over the 1 in some cases.

And even if it did, Duke as a 1 is getting shipped to Phoenix... which would put you with Kansas or Mizzou.

Bluedog

02-17-2012, 04:18 PM

Quick tangential question on that--by my map, Lexington is closer to St. Louis (339.9) than they are to Atlanta (380.3 mi). Since they get regional preference, why are they being slotted for Atlanta?

I believe they try to give geographic preference to the #1 seeds as a group; it's not dictated that the #1 team gets closest location by number of miles, then you go to #2, etc without concern for the other #1s. Since the St. Louis location would be better for potential #1 seeds like Mizzou, Kansas, and Michigan State, and the difference between Atlanta and St. Louis for UK is negligible, they'd rather help out those other #1s with geographic preference when it's basically the same for UK. Saving UK 40 miles on the trip and having the other #1 have to travel much farther is not preferred in the committee's mind. At least, that's my understanding.

And geography always takes precedence over the S-curve for #2s, which is a bit annoying since we'd like be slotted in the same region as UK or 'Cuse, the clear top 2 teams right now. But things can certainly change and Ohio State or UNC could overtake us easily, which would push us to the Midwest or West. Also, I guess we're worrying about things way ahead of time - an Elite 8 matchup probably shouldn't be on the radar of the list of things that are concerning right now. If we get that far, I'll be happy for sure and who knows who the opponent would be as upsets occur all the time in the tournament.

Duvall

02-17-2012, 04:20 PM

You're not even entertaining the possibility that Kentucky could lose before that regional final match-up?

Of course it's possible. It's just less likely than an early departure for any of the #2 seeds.

And geography doesn't dominate the placement of the #2 seeds. That would favor the 2 over the 1 in some cases.

Which happens. A lot.

And even if it did, Duke as a 1 is getting shipped to Phoenix... which would put you with Kansas or Mizzou.

Who aren't nearly as good as Kentucky. So what's the downside?

TexHawk

02-17-2012, 04:38 PM

sagegrouse

02-17-2012, 05:39 PM

I can't project how Duke and Kansas finish, but I will say this -- it's very hard for two teams in the same conference to get a No. 1 because at least one has to lose in the conference tournament. It's happened a number of times (Duke and UNC more than anybody), but it's tough.

.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

The #1 seeds will be largely determined by the winners of the conference tournaments. The NCAA TSC ("fool's errand" notwithstanding) has always shown great deference to the results of the tournaments.

Here's my take. There are the eight teams in the mix for a #1 seed:

Big East: Syracuse

SEC: Kentucky

ACC: Duke and UNC

Big 12: Kansas and Mizzou

Big Ten: Ohio State and Michigan State

I apply two rules. Harrumph! (Am I being pretentious enough yet? No? Just wait!)

The candidates for a #1 seed must finish strong: no more than one loss prior to the conference tournament.

Of they meet that criterion, 'Cuse and Kentucky are automatically #1 seeds, even if they lose in their conference tournaments.

Of the remainder, those that win the conference tournaments are #1 seeds. This can produce five #1 seeds, in principle: Ky. 'Cuse plus the winners of ACC, Big 12, and Big Ten. But I expect there to be an upset in at least one tournament, or that one or more of the eight to have a bit of a meltdown in the regular season. But if not, here are your four #1 seeds and the top #2 seeds.

Any questions?

sagegrouse

luman50

02-18-2012, 02:30 AM

I would rather have Duke be a high 2 seed and play in Boston or Atlanta than the lowest 1 seed and get shipped to Phoenix for the regional.

Discuss.

Agree 100%

uh_no

02-18-2012, 11:41 AM

Duke fan support wouldn't matter in a game against Kentucky in the Georgia Dome, even a little. Not even worth considering.

There really isn't such a thing as a "high 2." The Committee picks #1 seeds on merit, but geography dominates the placement of the #2 seeds. If Duke isn't a #1 seed, they'll probably be headed to Boston or Atlanta regardless of the much-debated S-curve.

If duke is a 1 seed, there is no chance (as of now) that they are one of the top 2. RIght now all indications are that kentucky and syracuse will be in atlanta and boston. To stay on the east coast, duke has to be a two pretty much.

Olympic Fan

02-18-2012, 05:47 PM

Baylor's fading chaces of getting a No. 1 seed took a major step back today with a homecourt loss to Kansas State.

Not a terrible loss -- about the equivilent to our home loss to Miami -- but coupled with their other recent slips, it's going to make it really tough for the Bears to kep up with the other contenders.

If you were to rank the No. 1 contenders right now (5:45 p.m. Saturday), they would be the last of eight teams with a chance to get a No. 1

Near locks:
Kentucky
Syracuse

Strong contenders
Ohio State
Michigan State
Duke
North Carolina
Kansas
Missouri

Barerly hanging on
Baylor

Bob Green

02-18-2012, 05:53 PM

Olympic Fan

02-18-2012, 06:01 PM

Earlier today, Wichita State won a major bracket buster game at Davidson.

Also today, UConn continues to play their way out of the NCAA field with a lackluster home loss to Marquette. The Huskies are now 16-10 overalll and 6-8 in the Big East. Two of their next three are on the road and the one home game coming up is against No. 2 Syracuse. They've lost six of their last eight.

But as of Thursday, Lunardi doesn't have them in trouble. He still has them as a No. 9 seed. Gotta say, they're season looks an awful lot like UNC's 2010 NIT season.

Sgt. Dingleberry

02-18-2012, 06:51 PM

Lunardi includes Washington in his Last Four In and the Huskies reinforced their resume with a 79-70 win over Arizona today. Terrence Ross was superb with 25 points. Tony Wroten contributed 22. Next up for me is the Murray State (14)/St. Mary's (16) game.

Washington would be a really, really scary opponent in the second round of the tourney for a lot of top seeds. I would want nothing to do with them.

CoachJ10

02-20-2012, 03:26 PM

hurleyfor3

02-20-2012, 03:44 PM

On CBS sportsline, Jerry Palm has 9 out of the 12 Big 10+2 teams making the NCAA tournament. 75% of the conference??

I'm not sure what conference you're referring to (the B1g Ten I guess), but back in the eight-team era the ACC got six teams in (75%) on several occasions. I think the Big Eight did it a couple times too. So not unheard of. Also there are 38 at-large bids now. When NC State is seriously discussed as a tournament candidate you know there are LOTS of bids out there.

Regarding the #1 seeds, I don't think we're good enough to play our way into one, but it's not out of the question. Ky and the Cuse aren't moving off their perches, but the other two #1s are certainly up for grabs. Mizzou's gonna win out? Really? In 2010 we weren't a serious candidate for a #1 until the last week of the season, a stretch in which we dropped a game even. Weird stuff happens towards the ends of regular seasons; schedules tighten up and teams start dropping games. Duke has not been immune to this phenomenon (1997, 2008).

devildeac

02-20-2012, 03:47 PM

Washington would be a really, really scary opponent in the second round of the tourney for a lot of top seeds. I would want nothing to do with them.

unc would probably be happy to see them again this year Greensboro, just like they did in (UN)Charlotte last year.

uh_no

02-20-2012, 04:01 PM

Olympic Fan

02-20-2012, 05:01 PM

Weird stuff happens towards the ends of regular seasons; schedules tighten up and teams start dropping games. Duke has not been immune to this phenomenon (1997, 2008).

Well, 1998 is a bad example -- Duke won nine straight in February/March then dropped the ACC championship game to UNC that year, but still got a No. 1 seed.

1997 -- okay, I buy that one, Duke lost two of its last three regular season games, then fell to NC State in the first round of the ACC. After losing three of four leading into Selection Sunday, Duke got a No. 2 seed.

Duke got a No. 1 in 2001, despite losing to Maryland in the last week of the regular season and in 2002, despite losing to Virginia in the lastw eek of the regular season. Duke got a No. 1 in 2004 despite losing to Georgia Tech in the last week of the regular season and then losing to Maryland in the ACC title game.

The 2005 team got a surprise No. 1 after losing to UNC in the finale and finished third in the ACC regular season standings.

The 2006 team got a No. 1 after losing its last two regular season games.

The 2010 team got a No. 1 despite losing at Maryland in the last week of the season.

The 2011 team got a No. 1 despite losing to Virginia Tech, then to UNC in the regular season finale.

Of course, the common denominator in all those years (except 2004() was that Duke won the ACC Tournament. Do that and there's a good chance Duke gets a No. 1.

In fact, I'll go on record -- if Duke wins out, the Devils are a stone cold lock to be a No. 1 seed.

If they split with Florida State and UNC, then win the ACC Tournament, I think there's about an 80 percent chance that Duke gets a No. 1 seed (assuming no crazy loss at home to VPI or at Wake).

Anything less than that and Duke will be a No. 2.

Wander

02-20-2012, 06:00 PM

In fact, I'll go on record -- if Duke wins out, the Devils are a stone cold lock to be a No. 1 seed.

Well, of course. At the moment Duke has four wins against the top 11, all of them away from home. Of the four losses, three of them are to currently ranked teams, and the worst loss isn't that bad. Winning out would probably involve adding three more top 25 wins - one home, one neutral, one away. And Duke has head-to-head victories over two of the teams fighting for a 1 seed.

There are serious problems this team needs to fix, I think underestimated by some here. But the resume is amazing.

CoachJ10

02-20-2012, 06:08 PM

I'm not sure what conference you're referring to (the B1g Ten I guess), but back in the eight-team era the ACC got six teams in (75%) on several occasions. I think the Big Eight did it a couple times too. So not unheard of. Also there are 38 at-large bids now. When NC State is seriously discussed as a tournament candidate you know there are LOTS of bids out there.

Regarding the #1 seeds, I don't think we're good enough to play our way into one, but it's not out of the question. Ky and the Cuse aren't moving off their perches, but the other two #1s are certainly up for grabs. Mizzou's gonna win out? Really? In 2010 we weren't a serious candidate for a #1 until the last week of the season, a stretch in which we dropped a game even. Weird stuff happens towards the ends of regular seasons; schedules tighten up and teams start dropping games. Duke has not been immune to this phenomenon (1997, 2008).

Yes, it is the conference formally known as the Big 10...and then the Big 10+1 and now the Big 10+2.

Northwestern is 6-8 in conference play with Illinois and Minnesota at 5-9. How many times have deserving ACC squads heard that the magical .500 in conference play standard is necessary. NC state and Miami's 7-5 conference records seem to be a bit more consistent with the justification that has been voiced in the past.

That being said, the dilution of quality teams due to the increased # of bids will make the bubble teams even less worthwhile than historically.

Dev11

02-20-2012, 07:40 PM

On CBS sportsline, Jerry Palm has 9 out of the 12 Big 10+2 teams making the NCAA tournament. 75% of the conference???

Over the past 10 yrs (I don't have the data in front of me), but it sure seems to me that the Big 10+2 gets way more love by the NCAA tournament selection committee than the ACC has. That is, despite the fact that the Big 10 has not won a title since 2000...and the ACC has won 5 of the last 11 tournaments.

I recall in the past that committee members do not take conference affiliation into account when evaluating resumes. Yes, it's certainly hard for that many teams from one conference to make it when they play each other so much, but if the non-con resumes are good enough, its not inconceivable.

How many championships a conference wins is irrelevant, because the committee determines your placement based on your play this year. As much as fans want to take all of these 'other' factors into account, they simply aren't in play. UNC winning a championship in 2005 has nothing at all to do with resumes of Illinois and Miami this year.

loldevilz

02-20-2012, 11:07 PM

I recall in the past that committee members do not take conference affiliation into account when evaluating resumes. Yes, it's certainly hard for that many teams from one conference to make it when they play each other so much, but if the non-con resumes are good enough, its not inconceivable.

How many championships a conference wins is irrelevant, because the committee determines your placement based on your play this year. As much as fans want to take all of these 'other' factors into account, they simply aren't in play. UNC winning a championship in 2005 has nothing at all to do with resumes of Illinois and Miami this year.

I just don't understand this hypocrisy of the committee. Its like a good midmajor has to win the conference tournament to get it but a team in the big 12 or big east can finish under .500 in their conference and get an at-large bid. Why is it that for some teams you look at the overall resume, but for others you check to see if they one a single game! Its frankly absurd. Nothing made me more furious than watching all those mediocre big east teams get in the tournament last year. It was very rewarding to watch them get crushed while almost every ACC team won at least one game.

Olympic Fan

02-21-2012, 12:21 AM

I just don't understand this hypocrisy of the committee. Its like a good midmajor has to win the conference tournament to get it but a team in the big 12 or big east can finish under .500 in their conference and get an at-large bid. Why is it that for some teams you look at the overall resume, but for others you check to see if they one a single game! Its frankly absurd. Nothing made me more furious than watching all those mediocre big east teams get in the tournament last year. It was very rewarding to watch them get crushed while almost every ACC team won at least one game.

I think you are overstating the case.

Quite a few teams from the good mid-majors get in as at large bids (example, VCU last year).

The battle between second andthird mid-major teams and fifth and sixth BCS conference teams has been debated for years.

I believe that for every team they do look at the total resume -- divorced of conference standing. But they will always favor a team with 3-4 top 50 wins and 6-7 top 10 wins over a team with a better overall record compiled against plus-100 teams.

I haven't checked the committee this season, but for the last four years, the MAJORITY of the committee members come from non-major conferences. I don't believe any mid-majors are getting screwed. I also don't think the Big 10 will get eight teams in the field.

nocilla

02-21-2012, 08:38 AM

Well, of course. At the moment Duke has four wins against the top 11, all of them away from home. Of the four losses, three of them are to currently ranked teams, and the worst loss isn't that bad. Winning out would probably involve adding three more top 25 wins - one home, one neutral, one away. And Duke has head-to-head victories over two of the teams fighting for a 1 seed.

There are serious problems this team needs to fix, I think underestimated by some here. But the resume is amazing.

Just wanted to note that Duke actually has 3 wins over the other possible #1 seeds and all away from Cameron; KU, MSU, UNC.

Dev11

02-21-2012, 11:02 AM

Why is it that for some teams you look at the overall resume, but for others you check to see if they one a single game!

ESPN makes it seem that way with BracketBuster weekend, but the committee is not made up of Gottlieb, Katz, and Brennan. The committee is supposed to factor in an entire season's worth of resume, while also putting a little extra weight on the end of the season to account for changes in personnel that might have occurred (injuries, transfers).

I give the committee credit for trying to sift through a ton of data and make some difficult decisions. It is indeed a bad system, and I agree with Bilas that the auto-bid system hurts good teams from lesser conferences.

Bob Green

02-21-2012, 09:14 PM

Regarding the #1 seeds, I don't think we're good enough to play our way into one, but it's not out of the question. Ky and the Cuse aren't moving off their perches, but the other two #1s are certainly up for grabs. Mizzou's gonna win out? Really?

Your skepticism was spot on. Missouri(#3) just lost at home to unranked Kansas State 78-68. And Georgetown (#8) lost to Seton Hall 73-55.

throatybeard

02-21-2012, 10:26 PM

I'm pessimistic that we'll do two of three of these feats (1) sweep UNC, (2) win at Tallahassee, (3) Win ACCT.

As such, I am rooting for Duke to be #2 in the Midwest. For obvious reasons. And we've already measured up with Michigan State this year. And we won the whole hoedown in 1991 as MW #2.

msdukie

02-21-2012, 11:32 PM

I would like to win Thursday night. Quite frankly, nothing else is important now.

uh_no

02-21-2012, 11:46 PM

I would like to win Thursday night. Quite frankly, nothing else is important now.

i mean...beating carolina a week from saturday on senior night in cameron would be nice..... :P

msdukie

02-22-2012, 11:59 AM

i mean...beating carolina a week from saturday on senior night in cameron would be nice..... :P

Yeah, but we can deal with that after the Wake game.

hurleyfor3

02-22-2012, 01:24 PM

Your skepticism was spot on. Missouri(#3) just lost at home to unranked Kansas State 78-68. And Georgetown (#8) lost to Seton Hall 73-55.

I don't think Mizzou is done losing, either. The Big XII strikes me as rather competitive this year, and anyway their next game is in Lawrence.

hurleyfor3

02-22-2012, 01:26 PM

I'm pessimistic that we'll do two of three of these feats (1) sweep UNC, (2) win at Tallahassee, (3) Win ACCT.

Reminder: Roy doesn't give a crap about the ACC Tournament. Assuming #1 means only beating them in Cameron, I think doing two of those things is very likely, and all three is quite possible.

Bob Green

02-23-2012, 09:26 PM

I'm pessimistic that we'll do two of three of these feats (1) sweep UNC, (2) win at Tallahassee, (3) Win ACCT.

One down, two to go!

dynastydefender

02-24-2012, 12:01 PM

Dissent - I would rather play the West 2 seed on the Moon than play Kentucky in CATlanta.

That's pretty funny!

jimsumner

02-24-2012, 12:05 PM

That's pretty funny!

Wouldn't you have to have 60-foot baskets?

And the jet lag is a bear. I guess the China trip would give Duke some experience. :)

MChambers

02-24-2012, 12:25 PM

Wouldn't you have to have 60-foot baskets?

And the jet lag is a bear. I guess the China trip would give Duke some experience. :)
I'd be worried that Miles might launch himself into orbit on a dunk attempt.

bob blue devil

02-27-2012, 03:10 PM

Help me understand something - for the #2 seeds, does the committee follow the S curve in setting them against the #1s or do they do it by closest region? For instance in Lunardi's latest bracket, he has:
South - #1 Kentucky; #2 UNC
East - #1 Syracuse; #2 Duke
Midwest - #1 Kansas; #2 Ohio St.
West - #1 Michigan St.; #2 Missouri
If it's by the S curve, then Duke and UNC are presumably beneath Missouri and Ohio St. - not likely. Whereas this makes more sense regionally - Duke ahead of UNC. But I remember several folks saying that they follow the S curve.
Thanks.

uh_no

02-27-2012, 03:24 PM

hurleyfor3

02-27-2012, 03:28 PM

Funny thing about that. Lunardi made a blog post last night stating we were the strongest 2 seed (fifth best team overall). So when his bracket comes out today he matches us up with... Syracuse!?

Separately, Jay Bilas gave us the last #1 over Kansas based on head-to-head. Jay Bilas!

Personally I'll take any bracket that matches us up with Michigan State, Kansas or Mizzou, no matter who is what seed where.

bob blue devil

02-27-2012, 03:38 PM

first two seeds are by closest region
next two seeds balance out the quality of the top two in each region
everyone else by s curve or wherever they fit because there are so many other rules about who can play where/when

thanks.
odd system, but there are bigger problems to moan about.

theAlaskanBear

02-27-2012, 03:39 PM

Whats the reasoning behind Michigan St as a #1 seed? They are about the same as Duke, but they lost to Northwestern, and Duke beat them head-to-head.

hurleyfor3

02-27-2012, 03:52 PM

Whats the reasoning behind Michigan St as a #1 seed? They are about the same as Duke, but they lost to Northwestern, and Duke beat them head-to-head.

See also: Kansas.

It's quite possible for us to have victories over three of the #1s if unc gets one. If this is the case I doubt we'll have gone undefeated against the #1s, however, as unc's path to a #1 almost certainly involves beating us at some point. Also, I don't see a way we and unc both get #1s unless all three of the good Big XII teams really screw up.

bob blue devil

02-27-2012, 04:06 PM

it's hard to get too worked up about current seeding projections given how much things will change. imho, if we win out (how much fun would that be?) we're almost definitely a #1; if we drop 1, we've still got a really good shot at a #1 (others will lose as well); if we drop 2, we're probably a #2. i know a lot depends on how others play, but right now we're in control of our destiny. and, yes, i view the possibility of us losing 3 not worth analyzing because of its highly unlikely nature (sorry wake; or did i just jinx us?).

1 24 90

02-27-2012, 07:53 PM

Whats the reasoning behind Michigan St as a #1 seed? They are about the same as Duke, but they lost to Northwestern, and Duke beat them head-to-head.

One thing Lunardi said about why he had Kansas & MSU as #1 seeds is because they currently have a lead in their conference whereas we're tied for the lead. Also, I think that MSU having a 2 game lead in the toughest conference in the country says a lot even with the loss at Northwestern.

Duvall

02-27-2012, 08:07 PM

One thing Lunardi said about why he had Kansas & MSU as #1 seeds is because they currently have a lead in their conference whereas we're tied for the lead.

That makes no sense. Duke is tied for the lead in its conference because North Carolina isn't dropping conference games to teams like Kansas State and Wisconsin. How does the fact that North Carolina has been better in conference play than Missouri and Ohio State make Duke look worse?

uh_no

02-27-2012, 08:28 PM

That makes no sense. Duke is tied for the lead in its conference because North Carolina isn't dropping conference games to teams like Kansas State and Wisconsin. How does the fact that North Carolina has been better in conference play than Missouri and Ohio State make Duke look worse?

good thing joe lunardi's opinion matters zilch to the committee

while he is usually pretty good about picking which teams will get IN to the tournament....he's usually pretty bad about picking their seed lines....

Duvall

02-27-2012, 08:32 PM

good thing joe lunardi's opinion matters zilch to the committee

while he is usually pretty good about picking which teams will get IN to the tournament....he's usually pretty bad about picking their seed lines....

He's actually not even all that good at picking that. Anyone that pays attention can, and does, do as well or better.

SCMatt33

02-27-2012, 09:31 PM

I just wanted to add a few factual things to the discussion here about competitive balance vs. geography for seeding purposes. If you don't like that stuff, the short version is that geography is much more important than competitive balance with the way the bracketing rules are laid out. You can scroll down to the smiley faces to get to stuff about current brackets.

There are two rules that really come into play here. The first is a series of rules stating basically that teams will be put into the bracket in true seed order (1st 1-seed, 2nd 1-seed, ... , 3rd 4-seed, 4th 4-seed). The second regards competitive balance as follows:

After the top four seed lines have been assigned, determine the relative strengths of the regions by adding the “true seed” numbers in each region to determine if any severe numerical imbalance exists. Generally, no more than five points should separate the lowest and highest total.

For example, a region following true s-curve order would have 1,8,9,16 in one region (i.e. the best 1 and 3 seeds with the worst two and four seeds). The average sum for each region will be 34. 5 points doesn't sound like a lot of wiggle room, but it really is. The most extreme scenario I can think of has the following:

1+5+9+16=31
2+6+10+15=33
3+8+12+13=36
4+7+11+14=36

In this scenario, I managed to fit the best 1-seed, best 2-seed, and best 3-seed all in one region and the 2nd best 1,2, and 3 seeds in another region, but still meet the guidelines laid out for competitive balance. That doesn't even factor in the wiggle room in the rule that allows more than a 5 point gap if absolutely necessary. From everything I've read and heard on the subject from guys like Lunardi, Jerry Palm, and others who do this for a living or have at least been to the mock selection, NCAA members, including coaches, AD's, and conferences at all levels consider geography a higher priority than competitive balance. They would rather be close to home in a tough region, than far away in an easy one. There are many who would probably disagree, but the people who matter want it that way.

Back to nitty gritty stuff. Since teams are placed in the bracket by true seed order, with the best 1s, 2s, 3s and 4s all getting geographical preference over other teams in the seed line, along with the distinct lack of top teams out west, there will likely be some top seeds from each line bunched in regions. The one rule that does throw a bit of a kink into this is the rule stating that the first three teams in from a conference (i.e. the top 3 in any conference) must be in separate regions. This rule has no wiggle room and will greatly affect the bracket when it comes to 3 seeds. Teams like Baylor and Michigan are currently projected as 3 seeds with 2 1's and 2's from the same conference. Let's say that Duke ends up as the first or second 2 seed and is placed in the South or East. Since those regions will have 1s from the Big East and SEC, with Duke as a two, it is very likely a landing spot for one of those two teams as there is no conference conflict as there would be in two of the other three regions.

:D:D:D:D

I've been looking at Duke vs. Kansas vs. Michigan State right now, because for the moment at least, those are the three teams that most everyone has at 3, 4, and 5 in their S-curve. Duke's biggest asset is it's 5 top quality wins, all away from home, but Kansas also has 5 RPI top 25 wins and Mich St. has 7. They both beat Duke in terms of top 50 resume with Duke at 7-4, Mich St. at 9-4, and Kansas at 10-4. Where Duke counters back is their 51-100 record of 6-0 vs. just 2-1 for Michigan State and just 1-1 for Kansas. BTW, that number could improve big time for Duke if Maryland at 101 or Va Tech at 103 could jump into the top 100 with only Penn at 94 in danger of dropping out. As far as playing it out, Michigan State has a brutal finishing schedule going to Bloomington tomorrow before welcoming Ohio State to Lansing on Sunday. If they win those two plus the Big Ten tourney, I don't see any way that they don't get 1 of the remaining two 1 seeds and it would be a really close race between them and a 4 loss Duke for the 3rd overall (even after considering H2H). Kansas on the other hand has a simpler road to winning out, but that means less opportunities for new good wins. They only have OK St and Texas left and unless Iowa St. beats Baylor in Ames this weekend (certainly possible) to bump Baylor to 4th in the B12, KU will only get an opportunity for another top win in the title game should it get there. If all three teams were to win out, I think KU is the clear choice to miss out on a 1 seed, but this is all assuming that Duke takes care of it's own business against Carolina. Otherwise, stuff gets really screwy.

One last note. There's always a lot of talk about winning conference tourneys, but historically, it is really tough for the committee to consider games played on selection Sunday as there is just to little time to change seeding and create a whole new bracket. Even last year, when the whole world assumed that the committee would just leave two spots for Duke and Carolina and fill them in based on the game, the chair said in an interview immediately afterword that Duke had it no matter what transpired in that game, so making sure that they are ahead of Carolina before Selection Sunday is important.

uh_no

02-27-2012, 09:40 PM

He's actually not even all that good at picking that. Anyone that pays attention can, and does, do as well or better.

Well the thing is he can say "i got 35 of 38 at large teams" (or however many there are)....but nearly 30 of them are givens....so pretty much he did just better than 50% of the actual bubble teams and coronates himself....you could simply pick the top 38 teams in teh RPI and do as well as JL

SCMatt33

02-27-2012, 09:58 PM

Well the thing is he can say "i got 35 of 38 at large teams" (or however many there are)....but nearly 30 of them are givens....so pretty much he did just better than 50% of the actual bubble teams and coronates himself....you could simply pick the top 38 teams in teh RPI and do as well as JL

One thing you should go to Lunardi for is his reasons why he picks and brackets the way he does. Unfortunately, much of it requires insider, but some of it you can get from free stuff like his chats. He (and a few others like Jerry Palm at CBS) really knows the process inside and out, and those guys are much better at predicting things like regions, especially among top seeds where there is less movement. You can pick just as many or maybe even 1 or 2 more of the final 68 teams at 5:30 on selection Sunday and "beat" him, but if you want to follow bracketology throughout the year and figure out some things that weigh on the committee members minds, go to guys like Lunardi and Palm vs. the guys who just pick teams based on their own criteria. I always find that I don't even look at the final predictive brackets half the time since I'm just waiting for the real thing, and there's no way to track who does better throughout the year, so I'd rather read the stuff from the guys who have actually studied how it works and have a better idea of the committee's thought process.

Sorry this is getting a little rant-y, but I just think that we all worry about where people stand right now (myself included), but at 6:30 on Selection Sunday, we're breaking down the real bracket with 95% of our thoughts, and wondering what the committee was thinking with the other 5%. None of us are dissecting the brackets from 5:30 to find out who was "right," so I try to at least learn about the process along the way since that helps with that 5%.

uh_no

02-27-2012, 10:12 PM

One thing you should go to Lunardi for is his reasons why he picks and brackets the way he does. Unfortunately, much of it requires insider, but some of it you can get from free stuff like his chats. He (and a few others like Jerry Palm at CBS) really knows the process inside and out, and those guys are much better at predicting things like regions, especially among top seeds where there is less movement. You can pick just as many or maybe even 1 or 2 more of the final 68 teams at 5:30 on selection Sunday and "beat" him, but if you want to follow bracketology throughout the year and figure out some things that weigh on the committee members minds, go to guys like Lunardi and Palm vs. the guys who just pick teams based on their own criteria. I always find that I don't even look at the final predictive brackets half the time since I'm just waiting for the real thing, and there's no way to track who does better throughout the year, so I'd rather read the stuff from the guys who have actually studied how it works and have a better idea of the committee's thought process.

Sorry this is getting a little rant-y, but I just think that we all worry about where people stand right now (myself included), but at 6:30 on Selection Sunday, we're breaking down the real bracket with 95% of our thoughts, and wondering what the committee was thinking with the other 5%. None of us are dissecting the brackets from 5:30 to find out who was "right," so I try to at least learn about the process along the way since that helps with that 5%.

Certainly all true.

What I enjoy the most, and what makes him valuable, is every year he looks at his bracket, and the committee bracket and talks to them/goes to great length to figure out what criteria they considered/put more weight on to cause him to have different picks. Whether his picks are good or not, he knows more about what factors into the committee's decisions than anyone, and even if he is wrong, he has wonderful insights.

moonpie23

02-27-2012, 10:20 PM

obsession about OTHER teams brackets = http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=78&f=1410

throatybeard

02-27-2012, 11:05 PM

He's actually not even all that good at picking that. Anyone that pays attention can, and does, do as well or better.

Where's Nate Silver when we need him?

JasonEvans

02-28-2012, 10:11 PM

My thoughts...

Coming into tonight, I thought there were 6 teams vying for 4 #1 seeds. Syracuse and Kentucky have 2 of them locked up. Duke, UNC, Kansas, and Michigan State were vying for the other 2... until tonight. I think MSU may have played their way out of anything but a longshot at a #1 seed as they got housed by Indiana tonight by 15 points. It was never really close as Indiana led by 14 at halftime. MSU still has a game left against Ohio State too.

Don't forget that both Duke and UNC have a victory over Michigan State earlier in the year. If either Duke or Carolina wins the ACC regular season and tourney, I can't see any way they are not significantly ahead of MSU for a #1 seed. In fact, I think the winner of the ACC regular season race (especially if it is Duke, who would have 2 wins over Carolina) is darn close to clinching a #1 seed (so long as they don't do something horrid in the first round of the ACC tourney).

So, right now the #1s have to be Kentucky, Syracuse, Kansas, and this weekend's Duke/UNC winner. Anyone disagree?

I further think that it would take a colossal collapse -- like losing to Wake and UNC or losing to Carolina and then in the first round of the ACC tourney -- for Duke to even be close to falling to a #3 seed. We are basically one win away from clinching at least a #2 seed, IMO, and we probably have the inside track at a #1.

Now, some have suggested there are other contenders for the #1 seeds. Allow me to discuss them...

Missouri has lost 2 in a row and has a nasty loss to a bad Okie State team on their resume (#115 in the RPI). Their only chance at a #1 seed would be a really impressive run through the Big12 Tourney, which would mean they would take out Kansas. That would likely knock Kansas out of the running for a #1 seed so it does not really matter to us. But, I am not sure even a run like that would get Mizzu a #1 seed as they are #16 in the RPI, not at all indicative of a team in the running for a #1 seed. Their SOS is #76 and their non-conf SOS is a pathetic #288, which the committee will not want to reward.

Marquette is an interesting case. Their RPI is #7, which is good, but they are just 2-3 against the RPI Top 25 and 5-4 against the RPI top 50. Not exactly super impressive. I don't see any really impressive wins on their resume, except maybe at Wisconsin (ranked #19 in the RPI). Now, if they win the Big East tourney, it likely means they posted wins over teams like Georgetown and Syracuse, which would be a big deal. But, would it be enough to outweigh the seasons that Duke, UNC, and Kansas have had (each of whom has a lot more impressive wins)? I doubt it. The only way I see Marquette really entering the conversation for a #1 seed is if all the other guys throw a couple stinkers out there in the next week.

Lastly, Ohio State has fallen to #9 in the RPI and they really lack impressive road wins. They took out #19 Wisconsin on the road, but their next best road win is at #84 Minnesota. It is true that most of their losses are to top 20 RPI teams, but they are just 5-5 against the RPI top 25. They need to beat MSU this weekend and then win the Big Ten tourney to even enter the #1 seed conversation again... and I think they would need a slipup by two of Duke, UNC, and Kansas to get serious consideration for a #1 seed at this point.

--Jason "of course, I may not know diddly about what I am talking about ;) " Evans

Swardy

02-28-2012, 11:17 PM

If we beat UNC Saturday we are a one seed. If we lose I'm not sure how it will play out as the committee has not taken into account Sunday championship games lately. I could see them slotting the winner as #1 in the west and the loser as #2 in the East. I am of the sentiment I'd rather play Cuse in the East then be #1 out West. I do not think Syracuse is all that good. They have been quite lucky to win most of their tough games with most of them being at home. I think they are ripe for a tournament upset. That being said no way in hell I want to lose to UNC so the #1 out West it is.

throatybeard

02-29-2012, 12:05 AM

If we lose I'm not sure how it will play out as the committee has not taken into account Sunday championship games lately. I could see them slotting the winner as #1 in the west and the loser as #2 in the East.

I'm not sure that's accurate. Everyone complains about the seed Duke gets...in the years that we win the ACCT and a lot of the rest of the top 10 lose in their conference tourneys. Does a lot of the decision-making rest on the QFs and SFs of those tourneys? Yes, but I've got to think that on Sunday, awaiting the SEC Final, B12 Final, B10 Final, and ACC Final, they go into the meeting on Sunday afternoon with two or three contingency plans. I bet most of the field is set, but they have two or three brackets that are in a decision tree. "If MSU loses and Duke wins..." etc.

I don't know. Surely though, our one seed LY had to do with beating UNC again. Surely our #1 in the s-curve in 2000 had to do with everyone and their dog losing in the conference tourneys...except us.

I think the committee does a pretty good job, actually.

SCMatt33

02-29-2012, 07:59 AM

Surely though, our one seed LY had to do with beating UNC again. Surely our #1 in the s-curve in 2000 had to do with everyone and their dog losing in the conference tourneys...except us.

I think the committee does a pretty good job, actually.

they really do have a hard time counting Sunday games. Even last year , the committee chair claimed that Duke had the 1 seed regardless of the outcome of the title game. The committe doesn't like to take time creating multiple contingency brackets and changing the seeding and bracketing at the last minute is too much for the committee. I think the bigger issue is the non existent time gap between the last game and the release of the bracket. That needs to be fixed.

JasonEvans

02-29-2012, 04:04 PM

Duvall

02-29-2012, 04:18 PM

they really do have a hard time counting Sunday games. Even last year , the committee chair claimed that Duke had the 1 seed regardless of the outcome of the title game. The committe doesn't like to take time creating multiple contingency brackets and changing the seeding and bracketing at the last minute is too much for the committee. I think the bigger issue is the non existent time gap between the last game and the release of the bracket. That needs to be fixed.

On the other hand, two years ago the committee chair cited the fact that Duke the ACC regular season "championship" and ACC championship as a reason for its one seed. So I think it can vary from year to year.

(Unless it's all just a cover for DUKE BIAS!1!)

Olympic Fan

02-29-2012, 04:27 PM

Right now, the ACC has four pretty solid NCAA teams -- Duke, UNC, Florida State and Virginia.

The ACC has six teams that can only get in the NCAA by winning the ACC Tournament -- Maryland, Clemson, Virginia Tech, BC, Wake Forest and Georgia Tech.

That leaves two teams still in the bubble picture.

We all know Miami is a viable candidate, especially with their wins at Duke and by double-figures versus Florida State. Lunardi has them as his fourth from the last team in.

I believe NC State is still in the picture, despite their recent four-game slide. FWIW, Lunardi currently as them as his fourth team out.

Well, Miami and NC Satte play tonight in Raleigh and that's going to give one of them a big boost ... while the other will be almost dead. Since I think Miami is in better shape at the moment, I think a win would leave the 'Canes very close to clinching a bid, while a loss would leave NC State virtually done. On the other hand, a, NC State win would leave the Pack with more work to do and leave Miami scrambling, but not out of it.

Here's the optimistic view from each team's POV:

A State win tonight in Raleigh (which would be their second win vs. Miami) and a Wolfpack victory at Virginia Tech Sunday (like Duke, State has played better on the road than at home for the most part this season) would leave Gottfried's team as 20-11, 9-7. They would probably get the fifth seed in the ACC Tournament and that would give them a matchup with BC or Georgia Tech in the first round. That's a game they could win. Then they would get Virginia in the second round. Certainly not a sure win, but a possible win. That gets them to 22-11 going into a semifinal matchup with Duke or UNC. I'd say at that point they'd be in -- no matter what happens in the semifinals (and I believe they'd have a chance in a rematch with us ... not so much with UNC).

I don't think that's an unrealistic scenario for State to earn a bid. But it has to start tonight.

Miami closes up Saturday with a home game against BC, that's pretty much a sure win (BC has not won on the road this year and is fading fast). Beat State and they're 19-10 and 10-6 and seeded either third or fourth. I think they'd be in, no matter what happens in the ACC quarterfinals.

Lose to State and beat BC and they're 18-11, 9-7 and seeded either fifth or sixth (depending on whether State beats Tech). That gets them an easy first round game, then another shot at Virginia in the quarterfinals (they lost by one at C'ville early this season, when the Cavs had Sene and a healthy Harris).

It's not inconceivable that both ACC bubble teams make it -- IF (and it's a big IF) State beats Miami tonight. Miami wins and I'm better on five NCAA teams.

Olympic Fan

02-29-2012, 11:42 PM

Well, State got the win over Miami, so I think the Pack is still alive or an at large bid. So is Miami, but neither is in the field. Both need to win this weekend.

Nationally, Northwestern -- which has never qualified for the NCAA Tournament -- lost a heartbreaker at home to Ohio State Wednesday night. A win would have made them fairly safe, but now there chances look tenuous.

BTW, I was losing at the ACC standings and the remaining schedule and it's not farfetched that we could have four teams tie for fourth at 9-7 and four teams tie for ninth at 4-12. In fact, I think the latter WILL happen if Georgia Tech can beat Wake in Atlanta. The four-way tie for fourth is a little more convoluted, but not impossible.

Good luck figuring out those tiebreakers!

tommy

03-01-2012, 01:35 AM

My thoughts...

Coming into tonight, I thought there were 6 teams vying for 4 #1 seeds. Syracuse and Kentucky have 2 of them locked up. Duke, UNC, Kansas, and Michigan State were vying for the other 2... until tonight. I think MSU may have played their way out of anything but a longshot at a #1 seed as they got housed by Indiana tonight by 15 points. It was never really close as Indiana led by 14 at halftime. MSU still has a game left against Ohio State too.

Don't forget that both Duke and UNC have a victory over Michigan State earlier in the year. If either Duke or Carolina wins the ACC regular season and tourney, I can't see any way they are not significantly ahead of MSU for a #1 seed. In fact, I think the winner of the ACC regular season race (especially if it is Duke, who would have 2 wins over Carolina) is darn close to clinching a #1 seed (so long as they don't do something horrid in the first round of the ACC tourney).

So, right now the #1s have to be Kentucky, Syracuse, Kansas, and this weekend's Duke/UNC winner. Anyone disagree?

First of all, Marquette is obviously out now, with their having laid an egg tonight.

The only question I have for you -- not a disagreement necessarily, but more of a 'what was your reasoning?' type question is this: Why do you seemingly have Kansas rated ahead of Duke at this point? Duke is several spots ahead of them in RPI. Duke is 6-3 vs. the top 25, KU is 5-3. Duke is 7-4 against the RPI top 50, while Kansas, I concede is 10-4. When you extend it to the top 100 though, Duke is 13-4, Kansas 11-5. Against the top 150, Duke is 19-4, Kansas 16-5. Not big differences, but mostly advantage Duke. And of course we beat them head to head.

Now of course we could lose to UNC. (Kansas could lose, theoretically, to Texas this weekend too though.) But even if we were to lose, that would still put us at 6-4 vs. top 25 vs. their 5-3, and while we'd be slightly more behind KU as to the top 50, we'd still be a little ahead of them vs. the top 100 and 150, and probably would retain our higher position in the RPI.

The other thing I've been wondering is what about UNC vs. Kansas. UNC is also ahead of Kansas in RPI as it stands tonight, they're 4-4 vs. the top 25 compared to KU's 5-3, but Carolina's record vs. the top 100 and the top 150 is superior to Kansas's. Not by a ton, but slightly better. If they beat Duke, their resume will look that much better.

So I guess what all that adds up to is this: if UNC beats Duke on Saturday, and the two play again in the ACC Finals, what about both of them earning #1 seeds? I know the committee doesn't like to wait for the results of the conference finals, but maybe they wouldn't have to. If the two teams are essentially even, and both can make legitimate cases to be slightly ahead of Kansas, then what about that guys? I know the rest of the country would have their heads explode if the ACC got two #1's, but might we not have a case for it?

nocilla

03-01-2012, 08:39 AM

I think the biggest concern for Miami and NCSU is the possibility of a shrinking bubble. Usually we see teams steal bids by winning conference tournaments when the favorite will still get an at-large bid. I don't know how many conferences have that possibility this year but I don't think Lunardi or others factor it in to their equation. So the last 4 in could all be out if there are 4 upset bids awarded.

CDu

03-01-2012, 08:58 AM

Lose to State and beat BC and they're 18-11, 9-7 and seeded either fifth or sixth (depending on whether State beats Tech). That gets them an easy first round game, then another shot at Virginia in the quarterfinals (they lost by one at C'ville early this season, when the Cavs had Sene and a healthy Harris).

It's not inconceivable that both ACC bubble teams make it -- IF (and it's a big IF) State beats Miami tonight. Miami wins and I'm better on five NCAA teams.

Now that State beat Miami, the picture seems pretty simple: both teams probably have to win their regular season finales and make it to the ACC Tournament semifinals. That means one of them will have to beat UVa in the 4/5 and the other will have to beat FSU in the 3/6 game. If State and Miami end up #4 and #5 then I don't think it's realistic for both to make the tournament.

With regard to the bolded part, Miami would only get UVa in the quarters if NCSU loses to VT and ends up with the #6 seed. Otherwise, Miami's quarterfinal opponent will likely be FSU.

snowdenscold

03-01-2012, 12:47 PM

So I guess what all that adds up to is this: if UNC beats Duke on Saturday, and the two play again in the ACC Finals, what about both of them earning #1 seeds? I know the committee doesn't like to wait for the results of the conference finals, but maybe they wouldn't have to. If the two teams are essentially even, and both can make legitimate cases to be slightly ahead of Kansas, then what about that guys? I know the rest of the country would have their heads explode if the ACC got two #1's, but might we not have a case for it?

I've been thinking about that as well, and your scenario makes sense to me. Though I would think we would have to split Saturday and the ACC Champ game - I imagine if either one of us lost both games that team would end up a #2 seed. Or to say it another way, if a team loses Saturday, I would think the committee would have a hard time automatically putting them ahead of Kansas without waiting to see how the tournament played out. But what do I know.

I think the biggest concern for Miami and NCSU is the possibility of a shrinking bubble. Usually we see teams steal bids by winning conference tournaments when the favorite will still get an at-large bid. I don't know how many conferences have that possibility this year but I don't think Lunardi or others factor it in to their equation. So the last 4 in could all be out if there are 4 upset bids awarded.

Exactly - also was thinking about this. If you're hoping for one of those "last 4 in" spots it might not even matter. Could be "last 2 in". Although it does give you a reason to check out some of the games in the mid-major tournaments.

rasputin

03-01-2012, 02:41 PM

JNort

03-01-2012, 08:35 PM

First of all, Marquette is obviously out now, with their having laid an egg tonight.

The only question I have for you -- not a disagreement necessarily, but more of a 'what was your reasoning?' type question is this: Why do you seemingly have Kansas rated ahead of Duke at this point? Duke is several spots ahead of them in RPI. Duke is 6-3 vs. the top 25, KU is 5-3. Duke is 7-4 against the RPI top 50, while Kansas, I concede is 10-4. When you extend it to the top 100 though, Duke is 13-4, Kansas 11-5. Against the top 150, Duke is 19-4, Kansas 16-5. Not big differences, but mostly advantage Duke. And of course we beat them head to head.

Now of course we could lose to UNC. (Kansas could lose, theoretically, to Texas this weekend too though.) But even if we were to lose, that would still put us at 6-4 vs. top 25 vs. their 5-3, and while we'd be slightly more behind KU as to the top 50, we'd still be a little ahead of them vs. the top 100 and 150, and probably would retain our higher position in the RPI.

The other thing I've been wondering is what about UNC vs. Kansas. UNC is also ahead of Kansas in RPI as it stands tonight, they're 4-4 vs. the top 25 compared to KU's 5-3, but Carolina's record vs. the top 100 and the top 150 is superior to Kansas's. Not by a ton, but slightly better. If they beat Duke, their resume will look that much better.

So I guess what all that adds up to is this: if UNC beats Duke on Saturday, and the two play again in the ACC Finals, what about both of them earning #1 seeds? I know the committee doesn't like to wait for the results of the conference finals, but maybe they wouldn't have to. If the two teams are essentially even, and both can make legitimate cases to be slightly ahead of Kansas, then what about that guys? I know the rest of the country would have their heads explode if the ACC got two #1's, but might we not have a case for it?

He never rated Kansas higher at all and ff he did I do not see it anywhere....

He said "...Duke, UNC, Kansas, and Michigan State were vying for the other 2 [#1 seeds]... until tonight." or are you referring to the way he listed them "So, right now the #1s have to be Kentucky, Syracuse, Kansas, and this weekend's Duke/UNC winner. Anyone disagree?" I thought he listed them that way because UK and Cuse he already said were locked in then he put Kansas because they were in by default because only 1 of Duke/Unc could get in which he elaborated on last.

because Mich St lost he is now saying 3 teams are vying for 2 number 1 seeds (Duke, Unc, Kansas). Now Duke and Unc still play each other which mean only one of them could get a 1 seed which leaves Kansas as another 1 seed by default (barring a collapse).

This was me just speculating though. Watch him come in here and completely make me look silly :o

tommy

03-02-2012, 12:26 AM

He never rated Kansas higher at all and ff he did I do not see it anywhere....

He said "...Duke, UNC, Kansas, and Michigan State were vying for the other 2 [#1 seeds]... until tonight." or are you referring to the way he listed them "So, right now the #1s have to be Kentucky, Syracuse, Kansas, and this weekend's Duke/UNC winner. Anyone disagree?" I thought he listed them that way because UK and Cuse he already said were locked in then he put Kansas because they were in by default because only 1 of Duke/Unc could get in which he elaborated on last.

because Mich St lost he is now saying 3 teams are vying for 2 number 1 seeds (Duke, Unc, Kansas). Now Duke and Unc still play each other which mean only one of them could get a 1 seed which leaves Kansas as another 1 seed by default (barring a collapse).

This was me just speculating though. Watch him come in here and completely make me look silly :o

Maybe just nitpicky by me, but it looks like he had Kansas in there regardless of their result against Texas on Saturday, while Duke would have to beat UNC in order to retain the #1. That sounds like Kansas ahead of Duke -- if they'd be a #1 even with a loss in their regular season finale, while Duke could not survive such a result.

juise

03-02-2012, 02:43 PM

Lunardi (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology) has Duke as #1 in the West. I would not like for that to be the outcome.

uh_no

03-02-2012, 02:53 PM

Lunardi (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology) has Duke as #1 in the West. I would not like for that to be the outcome.

Well, there's no chance we'll be the one seed in boston or atlanta.....and unless we win out and kansas loses, we likely won't pass them for the #3 overall, its either we take a #2 seed in the east with either syracuse or kentucky, or we take the 1 seed out west.

I know DBR loves to complain about this and seem to sometimes excuse tournament losses because we had to go out west.....other teams have gone west with great success. There's no reason we can't also.

juise

03-02-2012, 03:06 PM

Well, there's no chance we'll be the one seed in boston or atlanta.....and unless we win out and kansas loses, we likely won't pass them for the #3 overall, its either we take a #2 seed in the east with either syracuse or kentucky, or we take the 1 seed out west.

I know DBR loves to complain about this and seem to sometimes excuse tournament losses because we had to go out west.....other teams have gone west with great success. There's no reason we can't also.

Not complaining... just stating a preference (that is shared by others). Last year's draw was not favorable and while Duke could/should have won, I would rather see them closer to home - regardless of seeding.

I haven't been reading the boards as often, but I am not sure that I understand why Kansas is considered to be clearly ahead of Duke at this point. The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/ncaa-tournament-2012-will-kansas-or-duke-get-the-final-no-1-seed/2012/02/27/gIQAvo6zdR_blog.html) agrees, though I'm not sure the Midwest would be much better than the West. I agree that the South and East are locked up at this point.

Sgt. Dingleberry

03-02-2012, 03:10 PM

Lunardi (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology) has Duke as #1 in the West. I would not like for that to be the outcome.

LOL...I'm already picking apart that hypothetical bracket. Thinking that (1)Kansas gets a very rough possible second round matchup with (8)St. Louis (#13 in kenpom) and (1)Duke, (5)Florida and (4)Indiana in the top half of our bracket is a lot of offense and not a lot of defense. In my gut, I do feel an inevitable matchup with Indiana down the line. Our efficiency ratings say we are very similar teams, it would be a heck of game.

March 13th can't get here soon enough. Daylight savings, selection Sunday and hopefully a game with Duke playing for the ACC championship in the same day? Yes, please!

tommy

03-02-2012, 03:27 PM

Well, there's no chance we'll be the one seed in boston or atlanta

Not sure I agree. Lexington is actually closer in miles to St. Louis (344 miles) than it is to Atlanta (368 miles) so if Duke is a #1 and trying to get as many of the #1s as close to home as possible is a priority for the committe, it would seem to make sense to get Kentucky as close as possible, which would be St. Louis, and you'd get the additional benefit of getting Duke as close as possible, in Atlanta.

I know, what about Kansas? If Duke is ahead of Kansas on the curve, which I think is quite possible -- see my earlier post for reasons why -- then why shouldn't it be Kansas going out west instead of Duke?

and unless we win out and kansas loses, we likely won't pass them for the #3 overall, its either we take a #2 seed in the east with either syracuse or kentucky, or we take the 1 seed out west.

Again, I posted on Duke vs. Kansas the other day. We are ahead of them in RPI, and our record against the top 25, top 100, and top 150 are all better. And we beat them head-to-head. If we win out we're the #3 overall seed -- at worst -- IMO, regardless of what Kansas does.

Olympic Fan

03-02-2012, 03:55 PM

Barring an early upset in the ACC tournament, I suspect the winner of this weekend's Duke-UNC match will get a #1 seed regardless of the outcome of the ACC championship game (provided they both get there).

-Jason "the committee often says it favors regular season champs over tourney champs in the bigger conferences" Evans

People keep saying that te regular season bears more weight with the conmmittee, but does it?

A year ago, UNC beat Duke in the regular season finale to win the regular season ttile. Duke beat UNC in the ACC Tournament finale ... Duke got a No. 1 seed; UNC got a No. 2

In 1998, Duke beat UNC in the regular season finale to win the regular season title. UNC beat Duke in the ACC Tournament finals ... both got No. 1 seeds -- but UNC got the better No. 1 seed (and Coach K complained aout it).

The common thread in both instances is that the team that beat its rival 2 out of 3 got the better seed, even though the other one won the regular season.

Let's see -- Duke got a No. 1 seed in 2005, when losing to UNC in the regular season finale (but winning in the tournament) and in 2006, losing to UNC in the finale, but winning the tournament.
In 1997, Duke won the regular season outright and got a No. 2 seed. UNC won the tournament and got a No. 1 seed. In 2005, Duke finished THIRD in the ACC standings, but won the tournament and got a No. 1 seed.

All I'm saying is don't get carried away with the idea that winning the regular season has more weight with the committee than the tournament. Especially in a situation like this year, when you have Duke and UNC vying for a No. 1 seed, it woul;d be very easy for them to make it an ether/or situation going into Sunday -- the winner gets the No. 1 and the loser gets a No. 2 seed. That wouldn't impact their brackets the way it would if maybe they were trying to decide on Duke or Kansas for the last Nio. 1.

At this point, I think it's an absolute lock that if Duke beats UNC Saturday AND win the tournament, they get a No. 1 seed.

But if Duke either beats UNC Saturday and loses to the Heels Sunday in the ACC finals or loses to UNC Saturday and beats UNC in the championship game, I think it's at least 50-50 that Duke gets a No. 1 seed. Losing to someone other than UNC in the tournament, or beating a lesser team in the ACC finals would lower Duke's chances.

uh_no

03-02-2012, 05:22 PM

Not sure I agree. Lexington is actually closer in miles to St. Louis (344 miles) than it is to Atlanta (368 miles) so if Duke is a #1 and trying to get as many of the #1s as close to home as possible is a priority for the committe, it would seem to make sense to get Kentucky as close as possible, which would be St. Louis, and you'd get the additional benefit of getting Duke as close as possible, in Atlanta.

I know, what about Kansas? If Duke is ahead of Kansas on the curve, which I think is quite possible -- see my earlier post for reasons why -- then why shouldn't it be Kansas going out west instead of Duke?

Again, I posted on Duke vs. Kansas the other day. We are ahead of them in RPI, and our record against the top 25, top 100, and top 150 are all better. And we beat them head-to-head. If we win out we're the #3 overall seed -- at worst -- IMO, regardless of what Kansas does.

Good points! did not realize about UK being closer to stl than atl.

Point of emphasis though, there is no "get as many #1s as close to home as possible". It's 100% a greedy algorithm. The #1 overall gets their closest, the #2 overall gets the closest one left, the #3 gets the closest (etc). so they're not minimizing the total distance of the one seeds, it goes one by one.

JasonEvans

03-02-2012, 05:33 PM

Maybe just nitpicky by me, but it looks like he had Kansas in there regardless of their result against Texas on Saturday, while Duke would have to beat UNC in order to retain the #1. That sounds like Kansas ahead of Duke -- if they'd be a #1 even with a loss in their regular season finale, while Duke could not survive such a result.

I love that everyone is speculating about what I meant. I feel like Chris Nolan writing the final scene of Inception ;)

I merely listed them in the order I did because it was easiest to talk about Duke and UNC together after I had already mentioned Kansas. I think Kansas is probably neck and neck with Duke right now, both of them just a tad ahead of UNC. It is also worth noting that Kansas has a chance to go through the rest of the season without a loss while both Duke and UNC cannot. That simple fact probably gives Kansas a small leg up in this multi-pronged quest for the last 2 top seeds.

-Jason "Duke's simplest path to a #1 is to win out... do that and we are a #1 for sure" Evans

JNort

03-02-2012, 05:53 PM

tommy

03-02-2012, 05:59 PM

Good points! did not realize about UK being closer to stl than atl.

Point of emphasis though, there is no "get as many #1s as close to home as possible". It's 100% a greedy algorithm. The #1 overall gets their closest, the #2 overall gets the closest one left, the #3 gets the closest (etc). so they're not minimizing the total distance of the one seeds, it goes one by one.

Huh. Thanks. I didn't know that. I'd be interested in seeing where all those kinds of rules are actually enumerated. Where'd you get that?

uh_no

03-02-2012, 06:22 PM

Huh. Thanks. I didn't know that. I'd be interested in seeing where all those kinds of rules are actually enumerated. Where'd you get that?

Reading lots of Joe Lunardi....one can criticize the brackets he makes, but he talks with all the members of the committee about the process/rules/how they make their decisions. THe general gist is thus:

first find the top 68 teams and rank them in order

first team gets their closest site
second team gets their closest site (other than the one taken by #1)
same with 3 and 4
#5 overall (top #2 seed) gets their closest site
#6 gets the closest site left
same for 7 and 8

overall seeds 9-16 (the 3 and 4 seeds) are slotted first to balance out the overall strength of each brackets with the 1 and 2s (so if the #1 and #5 overall are in teh same bracket, it will be like # 12 and #16 overall to balance it out) so that the sum of the overall seeds in each bracket is about 35. Some preference may be given to location, but balance is the most important

after that, its fair game, from what i've read it seems they slot it out by the S curve all the way through 68 teams, and after avoiding rules about who can play who in which rounds, where they cannot play, on what days they can play, if they can get you in a region close to you, great, but they don't sweat about it

that's the gist. For example, if UK was actually closer to atlanta than STL, they would slot them there and send us to st louis, rather than putting UK in STL and us in atlanta to make the combined distance smaller.

the advantage of being the top seeds is you get the preferential treatment, even if its at the expense of the other #1 seeds. Unfortunately for us, we usually end up in that 3/4 overall slot and end up in a non-ideal location.

throatybeard

03-03-2012, 12:55 AM

Good points! did not realize about UK being closer to stl than atl.

"STL to LEX" just doesn't make as good a rap song, na mean?

Irrespective of actual distances, one has to account for the 250 miles of flat nothingness between Louisville and Saint Louis. (Excepting a little area of hills near Santa Claus, IN). Mount Vernon, IL is the high point, insofar as they've got a small mall and an Arby's. The interstate misses Evansville. No Amtrak. I'm going to a conference in Lexington in April and I'm actually flying thru CVG. I can't face driving across Illinois again. Mississippi is a pretty state by comparison.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'd rather drive from Lexington through Appalachia, which is gorgeous, to Atlanta, than waste my last eight brain cells on keeping the vehicle between the lines in Illinois.

I don't know what Wildcats fans would like to do. Who are we? The Wildcats. Who are we gonna beat?

I'm sure the committee considers none of this. But I-64 in Illinois. Do y'all understand that? It's like I-16 between Macon and Savannah if you mowed down the ugly loblolly pines.

tommy

03-03-2012, 01:09 AM

Reading lots of Joe Lunardi....one can criticize the brackets he makes, but he talks with all the members of the committee about the process/rules/how they make their decisions. THe general gist is thus:

first find the top 68 teams and rank them in order

first team gets their closest site
second team gets their closest site (other than the one taken by #1)
same with 3 and 4
#5 overall (top #2 seed) gets their closest site
#6 gets the closest site left
same for 7 and 8

overall seeds 9-16 (the 3 and 4 seeds) are slotted first to balance out the overall strength of each brackets with the 1 and 2s (so if the #1 and #5 overall are in teh same bracket, it will be like # 12 and #16 overall to balance it out) so that the sum of the overall seeds in each bracket is about 35. Some preference may be given to location, but balance is the most important

after that, its fair game, from what i've read it seems they slot it out by the S curve all the way through 68 teams, and after avoiding rules about who can play who in which rounds, where they cannot play, on what days they can play, if they can get you in a region close to you, great, but they don't sweat about it

that's the gist. For example, if UK was actually closer to atlanta than STL, they would slot them there and send us to st louis, rather than putting UK in STL and us in atlanta to make the combined distance smaller.

the advantage of being the top seeds is you get the preferential treatment, even if its at the expense of the other #1 seeds. Unfortunately for us, we usually end up in that 3/4 overall slot and end up in a non-ideal location.

Thanks. There's gotta be somewhere where these rules are actually written out though, right? Or are they not actually formal rules, giving the committee wiggle room to pretty much do what they want?

Only thing I'd say re: these rules as you've cited them is the possible real unfairness to teams like the #5 overall. If I'm the #5 overall, I'm much more interested in having a matchup set up with the #4 overall should we both make the Elite 8 than I am in staying close to home and potentially facing the #1 overall seed in that round. Adherence to the S-curve would be advantageous to me here, and I wouldn't want to sacrifice that advantage for the benefit of playing at the closest site, when the #1 overall, that I'd be playing against, would also be as close to home as possible, thereby negating my geographical home-ness.

Also I'm surprised that the committee wouldn't want to try to get as many of the #1's close to home as possible, rather than looking out for them in strict order of #1, 2, 3, then 4. And really, given the fact that Lexington is closer to St. Louis than it is to Atlanta, should Kansas get a #1 and be sent to St. Louis while Kentucky gets Atlanta, that would in fact be validation of my idea that they're looking out for the geography of all the #1's as a group rather than looking at them in order, for if they did the latter, Kentucky would play in the more proximate St. Louis. Right?

So if they went in strict order of geography, if Kansas is #3, it would be Kentucky in St. Louis, Syracuse in Boston, Kansas in Atlanta, and Duke/UNC in Phoenix. If Duke/UNC was #3 and Kansas #4, then Duke/UNC would be in Atlanta and Kansas in Phoenix.

If they tried to get as many of the #1's as close to home as possible, then again it would be Kentucky in St. Louis, Syracuse in Boston, Duke/UNC in Atlanta and Kansas in Phoenix.

Kedsy

03-03-2012, 01:20 AM

And really, given the fact that Lexington is closer to St. Louis than it is to Atlanta, should Kansas get a #1 and be sent to St. Louis while Kentucky gets Atlanta, that would in fact be validation of my idea that they're looking out for the geography of all the #1's as a group rather than looking at them in order, for if they did the latter, Kentucky would play in the more proximate St. Louis. Right?

I think you're putting too much stock in the fact that St. Louis is 14 miles closer than Atlanta. For all intents and purposes, the two are equal distance. They'd put Kentucky in St. Louis if the alternative was a lot farther, but if they can send them to a place that's essentially the same distance and then get the next seed close to home in St. Louis, of course they'd do that. And that potential use of common sense is probably why the rules aren't publicly written down.

Olympic Fan

03-03-2012, 01:41 AM

I think you -- and guys like Lunardi and Palm -- sometimes make too much out of the official guidelines (as opposed to the RULES of selection and bracketing).

The problem is that the committee changes membership every year and they change their piorities of selection and bracketing. If you listen to the interviews over the years, you find different committees place different emphasis of different criteria. It's always changing.

By their guidelines (not rules), if Kentucky is the No. 1 team on the S-curve, they are supposed to go to their closest regional -- whether it is 14 miles closer or 1,400 miles closer. But I wouldn't bet money that the committee abides by the guidelines. I agree that somebody may say, "Hmm, the Kentucky fans would go to Atlanta and fill the Georgia Dome, while the Kansas fans will go to St. Louis and fill the dome there, so we get the best of both worlds and nobody complains!'.

Listen and read hard enough and you hear some amazing stuff. Not long ago, I heard Lunardi justify putting Kansas ahead of Duke on the s-curve (even though virtually every criteria the committee uses for seeding would put Duke ahead of Kansas) because, he explained, Kansas is ow the clearcut leader in the Big 12 and Duke is still sharing the ACC lead with North Carolina. Is he making stuff up -- there's nothing like that in the NCAA selection committee guidelines! I guess it sounds good to Lunardi.

But, who knows. There are new people on the committee every year and they bring their own pre-conceived ideas with them. How a team finished used to be a big deal ... it's supposedly not a criteria now. Non-conference strength of schedule was a big deal in recent years (who you CHOOSE to schedule). Now, maybe not so much. Road record -- is it important or not?

Who knows.

So, yes -- Kentucky SHOULD be sent to St. Louis ... but don't count on it happening.

PS -- Let me explain why the rules suggest that mileage should matter, even if it's just 14 miles. That's to protect the committee frm having to make a controversial deciison. If you allow them to arbitrarily decide that 14 miles doesn't matter, then what about 25 miles? What about 50 miles? 75? Where do you draw the line and say that distance DOES matter? If you leave it to the committee you open the members up to criticism when they use judgement instead of following the strict guidelines. It's a lot easier to say, go to the closest site, period.

uh_no

03-03-2012, 01:51 AM

Thanks. There's gotta be somewhere where these rules are actually written out though, right? Or are they not actually formal rules, giving the committee wiggle room to pretty much do what they want?

Only thing I'd say re: these rules as you've cited them is the possible real unfairness to teams like the #5 overall. If I'm the #5 overall, I'm much more interested in having a matchup set up with the #4 overall should we both make the Elite 8 than I am in staying close to home and potentially facing the #1 overall seed in that round. Adherence to the S-curve would be advantageous to me here, and I wouldn't want to sacrifice that advantage for the benefit of playing at the closest site, when the #1 overall, that I'd be playing against, would also be as close to home as possible, thereby negating my geographical home-ness.

Somewhat yes, and somewhat no. ON the one hand, you should have a much easier road to the elite 8 (since the 3 seed is likely the worst 3 seed) but you could easily argue that the difference between # 1 and 4 overall is much greater than the difference between 9 and 12 overall. I would prefer some sort of adherence to s curve, regional balance, closeness of top seeds, and the closeness as a collective group....

I think the problem is that there are no formal rules on that. Mr. Lunardi said in his chat "Geographic priority goes in S-Curve order. In other words, the Committee places the No. 1 overall seed in the most advantageous position and continues through team No. 68" I think the problem is that the committee changes year to year, so each year may have slightly different preferences....I would be pretty confident that S curve (really a misnomer....since S curve implies that they are put in regions by ranking...not geography) geographic priority would reign through at least the first two seed lines. I'd have to dig back through his chats from the past couple years to find where he had a committee member saying that they did the 3 and 4 seeds by trying to balance each region.....but it would be some hefty digging....but yeah....the committee can pretty much just do whatever they want.

tommy

03-03-2012, 01:55 AM

I think you're putting too much stock in the fact that St. Louis is 14 miles closer than Atlanta. For all intents and purposes, the two are equal distance. They'd put Kentucky in St. Louis if the alternative was a lot farther, but if they can send them to a place that's essentially the same distance and then get the next seed close to home in St. Louis, of course they'd do that. And that potential use of common sense is probably why the rules aren't publicly written down.

Oh, I totally agree that it would make common sense to try to get other #1's close to home too so long as it doesn't negatively impact the overall #1 in any significant way, and Kentucky-to-Atlanta obviously wouldn't.

But by the same token then, if Duke (or UNC) is #3 and Kansas #4, it would seem to make common sense to send the ACC team to Atlanta, Kentucky to St. Louis, and Kansas to Phoenix. That would allow the top 3 to be at their closest sites. I'd be annoyed if Duke is #3 and it goes Kentucky to Atlanta, Kansas to St Louis and Duke to Phoenix, as then they'd still have 3 of the 4 top seeds close to home, but it would be #s 1, 2, and 4 getting that luxury with #3 Duke not getting it, rather than the #1,2, and 3 -- which it should be -- getting it by having it go Kentucky to St Louis, Duke to Atlanta and having Kansas go to Phoenix.

I have never liked either the pod system or the idea of going out of the way to have the top teams play as very close to home as possible. I know it's a straight-up dollars decision to prioritize top teams playing at home, but I'd prefer a system that actually made teams ineligible to play tournament games within x # of miles of its campus. Arizona shouldn't be playing NCAA tournament games in Phoenix; Ohio State shouldn't be playing them in Cleveland, Baylor shouldn't be playing them in Houston ;) and no, Duke and UNC shouldn't be playing them in Greensboro or Charlotte. IMO.

tommy

03-03-2012, 02:04 AM

.I would be pretty confident that S curve (really a misnomer....since S curve implies that they are put in regions by ranking...not geography) geographic priority would reign through at least the first two seed lines.

I think one of the problems with this is that S-curve geographic priority often is going to break down rather quickly due to not wanting to have two teams from the same conference be 1-2 in the same regional. So let's say the S-curve looked like this:

1- Kentucky
2- Syracuse
3- Kansas
4- Duke
5- UNC

and they put Kentucky in St Louis, Syracuse in Boston, Kansas in Phoenix and Duke in Atlanta. UNC, as the #5, if geography held sway, would also get Atlanta, as the #2 in that region. But they wouldn't do that so as to avoid Duke and UNC being 1-2 in the same regional. Now maybe if the S-curve looked like I've posited, they'd put Duke in Phoenix and shift Kentucky to Atlanta, with Kansas in St. Louis so they could get Carolina to Atlanta, but that would peeve me, because then the interests of a #2 seed would be being placed above the interests of a #1 seed.