NCAA Top Seed Scenarios

[DavidBenAkiva]

I'm a long time reader, but I thought I would post a thread based on what I've been thinking about since yesterday.

After the end of the regular season, it looks like the top four seeds are universally agreed upon: Kentucky, Syracuse, Kansas, and UNC. After that, things get interesting. The #2 seeds are more in flux. With Michigan State losing to Ohio State this afternoon, I see the pecking order for #2's like this for now: Duke, Missouri, Ohio State, and Michigan State. Duke won't be in UNC's bracket, so they're likely slotted for the Midwest or maybe the Eastern regional. My hunch is the Midwest regional with Kansas as the #1.

Scenario #1 for Duke: Duke wins the ACC Tournament
If Duke does win the ACC Tourney, I assume the Blue Devils will be shipped out West as the #1. I believe Duke would have the #3 overall ranking in this scenario based on RPI, record against the top-25, and the head-to-head victory against Kansas. That being said, I would find it hard to believe the committee would ship KU out West and make Duke the Midwest regional #1. Either way, Duke will probably be matched up against the winner of the Big 10. This is not a good situation. As a Duke fan, I don't want them to go out West. If we are #1 in the Midwest, I don't want a B1G team as the #2. Either way, the road to the Final 4 will be rough.

Scenario #2: Duke loses in the final round of the ACC Tournament
Duke is pretty much locked into a #2 seed at this point, in my opinion. If we lose in the ACC Tourney final, our overall ranking will probably depend on how the Big 10 tourney pans out. If OSU and MSU both make it to the final (there's a 3-way tie atop the league standing with Michigan) somehow, those two teams will probably be given the top two #2 seeds with the winner in the Midwest against Kansas and the loser going out West to face UNC (assuming they win the ACC tourney). Duke and Missouri will be the other #2s. Unless Missouri wins the Big 12 tourney, they will probably be the fourth overall #2 (or Marquette if Missouri is upset before the Big 12 finals). That means Duke will be the matched against the second overall 1 seed, Syracuse in the East. Personally, I like our chances in Boston, if we can get there, against Syracuse. If we get hot from 3 (looking at you, Andre), we can shred that zone. Also, the Plumlees should do well on the offensive boards as the Orange are not good at defensive rebounding.

Scenario #3: Duke loses in the quarters or semis of the ACC Tournament
If this happens, Duke might drop to the fourth overall #2 seed (don't see Marquette or anyone else climbing ahead of them unless they win the conference tourney) and be matched against Kentucky in the South regional. I think Kentucky is beatable, but I certainly wouldn't want to face them before the Final Four if at all. Still, being in Atlanta as a #2 might be better than being #3 out West.

So, based on these three scenarios, I would prefer Duke to be a #2 in the East. That being said, I REALLY want Duke to win the ACC Tournament. I just won't like our seeding in the NCAA's.

What does everyone else think?

[fisheyes]

I for one am hoping that we're the 2 seed in the East.

Why?

1. I can drive there.
2. Sunday March 25th is my anniversary and I hope we don't get a Friday-Sunday site.
3. We do well coming out of the East.
4. If the 3s are going in then we can beat the 'Cuse zone.

Well, here's to dreaming...

:)

[uh_no]

I'll paraphrase what i said in another thread:

after the top two, there are four teams vying. IF the season ended today, i would have them in the following order:

3: kansas
4: UNC
5: MSU
6: Duke

So, who gets the one seeds depends on what happens in the tournaments If kansas or UNC win, obviously they're locks. If MSU wins and either of kansas or UNC lose, MSU snags one. For duke to get the one seed, they need a bit of help. First, I think we need to win the tournament. Second, we need EITHER to have beaten UNC in the title game and one of MSU and Kansas lose, or BOTH MSU and kansas lose.

in the first scenario (beating UNC in the title game), UNC gets bumped off the 1 line. In this scenario, if MSU and kansas both win, then they get the one seeds and Duke and UNC are both twos. If one of those two (msu/ku) loses, we get the other one seed. If we beat anyone else in the title game, I think UNC keeps the one seed with whoever of MSU and kansas won their league. Why you ask? because in the two games we would have played against carolina, we needed a furious comeback in one, and got shellacked in the other...so UNC stays ahead of us unless we beat them.

in the second scenario (both MSU and kansas lose), since we had won the tournament, both UNC and us get the one seeds. Again, if only one of them lose, and we didn't beat UNC again, UNC gets the other spot

so locations:

SU has boston, UK has st louis. THat's locked (effectively)

If the status quo above remains, kansas goes to atlanta, UNC goes to pheonix, MSU goes to st louis, and we go to atlanta

In my first scenario above, where we beat UNC in the title game, if its kansas who is the other one to win their conference, I think they stay #3 overall, so we end up as the 1 seed in pheonix (MSU in STL, UNC in atlanta) If MSU is the other team to win, then I think we end up as the #3 overall and get atlanta, and MSU goes to pheonix. (kansas in STL, UNC in atlanta). If both KU and MSU were to win, we would likely be the 2 seed in atlanta and UNC would be in STL.

In the second scenario above (where we beat someone else other than), I think kansas gets atlanta and we get pheonix. UNC goes to atl (as the 2) and MSU goes to stl.

ANWAY...that said, we will be in atlanta in almost every scenario, here are the exceptions

1) we are the number 4 overall with kansas as #3 overall, we go to pheonix
2)we are 6 overall and carolina is 5 overall, we go to STL (MSU and KU both win, we beat someone other than carolina in the title game)
3) carolina is #3 overall (means they have to win the tournament and kansas has to lose), we end up in STL (since two teams can't be in the same conference as the 1 and 2)

[uh_no]

I for one am hoping that we're the 2 seed in the East.

Why?

1. I can drive there.
2. Sunday March 25th is my anniversary and I hope we don't get a Friday-Sunday site.
3. We do well coming out of the East.
4. If the 3s are going in then we can beat the 'Cuse zone.

Well, here's to dreaming...

:)

The chances of ending up there are slim. it is the third preferred site, so we'd have to be at best the #7 overall. I think it would take a horrid beating on friday to drop us that low. I think we win one game, and we're guaranteed 6 overall or better meaning, no boston

[throatybeard]

I think Duke needs to be #2 in the Midwest for my personal benefit. Three metro stops from my condo.

Course, my luck, we'd lose in the 2R and not make it to Saint Louis.

I need to re-confirm when my mother-in-law will be here and how inebriated I can be during the Midwest Regional.

Carry on.

[Bluedog]

The chances of ending up there are slim. it is the third preferred site, so we'd have to be at best the #7 overall. I think it would take a horrid beating on friday to drop us that low. I think we win one game, and we're guaranteed 6 overall or better meaning, no boston

Isn't Boston closer to Durham than St. Louis? Google maps has it at 700 vs. 800 miles, at least while driving. If so, it seems like we're more likely to end up in Boston than St. Louis. But I could be missing something. Maybe the driving routes to St. Louis aren't as direct, though, so perhaps by air St. Louis is technically closer. I'd agree that we're most likely to end up in Atlanta, although I'd think the committee would avoid that if UNC ends up being the third #1 seed there (i.e. Kansas and MSU both lose and UNC wins conference tourney).

Edit: Just looked it up. Flight from Durham to Boston = 2 hours. Flight from Durham to St. Louis = 2 hrs 10 minutes. Basically even though...

[uh_no]

Isn't Boston closer to Durham than St. Louis? Google maps has it at 700 vs. 800 miles, at least while driving. If so, it seems like we're more likely to end up in Boston than St. Louis. But I could be missing something. Maybe the driving routes to St. Louis aren't as direct, though, so perhaps by air St. Louis is technically closer. I'd agree that we're most likely to end up in Atlanta, although I'd think the committee would avoid that if UNC ends up being the third #1 seed there (i.e. Kansas and MSU both lose and UNC wins conference tourney).

Is it? wow okay.....then we have little chance of ending up at st louis.....looked closer on the map....and i would venture that the straight line distance may even be closer....it all depends on the numbers that the committee gets....i don't know if they get straight line distance or not....

anyway, if that is true, then anywhere i said we would be in st louis, we'd be in boston instead

Edit: again, depends on the numbers the committee gets provided with....could be driving distance, driving time, straight line distance, flight time....who knows

Edit Edit: the committee also uses RPI....so whatever distance metric they use is probably horrid....perhaps the number of toll booths you have to cross to get from the school to the location or something

[DavidBenAkiva]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but doesn't the committee place the #2 seeds based on where they stack up against the #1 seeds? Like, if Duke is the #7 overall seed, they will be pitted against the #2 overall seed. If that's the case, then the committee won't send them to Boston because they are closer. They will go where to whichever location they slot into based on seeding.

For the lower seeds, geography seems to play a bigger role in the selection committee's placement decisions.

[johnpope]

I'll paraphrase what i said in another thread:

after the top two, there are four teams vying. IF the season ended today, i would have them in the following order:

3: kansas
4: UNC
5: MSU
6: Duke

So, who gets the one seeds depends on what happens in the tournaments If kansas or UNC win, obviously they're locks. If MSU wins and either of kansas or UNC lose, MSU snags one. For duke to get the one seed, they need a bit of help. First, I think we need to win the tournament. Second, we need EITHER to have beaten UNC in the title game and one of MSU and Kansas lose, or BOTH MSU and kansas lose.

in the first scenario (beating UNC in the title game), UNC gets bumped off the 1 line. In this scenario, if MSU and kansas both win, then they get the one seeds and Duke and UNC are both twos. If one of those two (msu/ku) loses, we get the other one seed. If we beat anyone else in the title game, I think UNC keeps the one seed with whoever of MSU and kansas won their league. Why you ask? because in the two games we would have played against carolina, we needed a furious comeback in one, and got shellacked in the other...so UNC stays ahead of us unless we beat them.

in the second scenario (both MSU and kansas lose), since we had won the tournament, both UNC and us get the one seeds. Again, if only one of them lose, and we didn't beat UNC again, UNC gets the other spot

so locations:

SU has boston, UK has st louis. THat's locked (effectively)

If the status quo above remains, kansas goes to atlanta, UNC goes to pheonix, MSU goes to st louis, and we go to atlanta

In my first scenario above, where we beat UNC in the title game, if its kansas who is the other one to win their conference, I think they stay #3 overall, so we end up as the 1 seed in pheonix (MSU in STL, UNC in atlanta) If MSU is the other team to win, then I think we end up as the #3 overall and get atlanta, and MSU goes to pheonix. (kansas in STL, UNC in atlanta). If both KU and MSU were to win, we would likely be the 2 seed in atlanta and UNC would be in STL.

In the second scenario above (where we beat someone else other than), I think kansas gets atlanta and we get pheonix. UNC goes to atl (as the 2) and MSU goes to stl.

ANWAY...that said, we will be in atlanta in almost every scenario, here are the exceptions

1) we are the number 4 overall with kansas as #3 overall, we go to pheonix
2)we are 6 overall and carolina is 5 overall, we go to STL (MSU and KU both win, we beat someone other than carolina in the title game)
3) carolina is #3 overall (means they have to win the tournament and kansas has to lose), we end up in STL (since two teams can't be in the same conference as the 1 and 2)

I think we cannot realistically be a No.1 seed unless Kansas or UNC lose in the first round of their tournaments. The committee doesn't put much emphasis on conference tournaments, and particularly our potential win vs. UNC being on Selection Sunday is unlikely to get us over the top at that late hour. And honestly, it shouldn't. We had our chance, and we blew it. UNC showed they are, at least at this point, a class above us. They traditionally don't much care about the ACC tournament, so a loss against us wouldn't mean much. Now, if Kansas were to lose early-ish in their tournament, than we could have a legitimate shot, given that MSU lost tonight to OSU at home.

[JasonEvans]

after the top two, there are four teams vying. IF the season ended today, i would have them in the following order:

3: kansas
4: UNC
5: MSU
6: Duke

Why do you have MSU ahead of Duke? What metric are you possibly using to arrive at that ranking?

We beat them head-to-head.
We have a better record against a tougher schedule.
We have a higher RPI.
We are ranked higher in the human polls.
They have lost 2 in a row.

I think we are #5 overall right now. Hard to see how we are much lower than that. I further think we still control our own destiny. A win in the ACC Finals should get us back onto the top line ahead of UNC.

-Jason "barring a flame out in the ACC quarters, we are getting a #2 seed... at worst" Evans

[uh_no]

I think we cannot realistically be a No.1 seed unless Kansas or UNC lose in the first round of their tournaments. The committee doesn't put much emphasis on conference tournaments, and particularly our potential win vs. UNC being on Selection Sunday is unlikely to get us over the top at that late hour. And honestly, it shouldn't. We had our chance, and we blew it. UNC showed they are, at least at this point, a class above us. They traditionally don't much care about the ACC tournament, so a loss against us wouldn't mean much. Now, if Kansas were to lose early-ish in their tournament, than we could have a legitimate shot, given that MSU lost tonight to OSU at home.

This is generally the case, but I think with the 4 teams being so closely matched, and the fact that we have wins over each of the other three, means that i think the conference tournaments may end up being a tiny part of what pushes one team ahead of another.

[freshmanjs]

I think we cannot realistically be a No.1 seed unless Kansas or UNC lose in the first round of their tournaments. The committee doesn't put much emphasis on conference tournaments, and particularly our potential win vs. UNC being on Selection Sunday is unlikely to get us over the top at that late hour. And honestly, it shouldn't. We had our chance, and we blew it. UNC showed they are, at least at this point, a class above us. They traditionally don't much care about the ACC tournament, so a loss against us wouldn't mean much. Now, if Kansas were to lose early-ish in their tournament, than we could have a legitimate shot, given that MSU lost tonight to OSU at home.

The situation last year was very similar. Duke had won the first matchup with UNC with a 2nd half comeback. UNC won the 2nd meeting fairly easily (more easily this year). Duke won matchup #3 and got the #1 seed. I don't see why it would be any different this year. I think Duke's resume is actually better this year.

[uh_no]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but doesn't the committee place the #2 seeds based on where they stack up against the #1 seeds? Like, if Duke is the #7 overall seed, they will be pitted against the #2 overall seed. If that's the case, then the committee won't send them to Boston because they are closer. They will go where to whichever location they slot into based on seeding.

For the lower seeds, geography seems to play a bigger role in the selection committee's placement decisions.

From what i've read (a lot of lunardi and his saying how the committee tends to do things) is that the top two seeds are generally strictly geography, and then the overall difficulty of the bracket is evened out using the 3 and 4 seeds.

BUt its not a hard and fast rule, and as there is turnover in the committee, how things are done can certainly change

[hurleyfor3]

Not us.

[uh_no]

Why do you have MSU ahead of Duke? What metric are you possibly using to arrive at that ranking?

We beat them head-to-head.
We have a better record against a tougher schedule.
We have a higher RPI.
We are ranked higher in the human polls.
They have lost 2 in a row.

I think we are #5 overall right now. Hard to see how we are much lower than that. I further think we still control our own destiny. A win in the ACC Finals should get us back onto the top line ahead of UNC.

-Jason "barring a flame out in the ACC quarters, we are getting a #2 seed... at worst" Evans

Just my opinion. We beat them in november.....and we also got blown out by OSU in the same timeframe. Yesterday we got blown out by UNC and today MSU took OSU to the final possesion. I am of the opinion that MSU has improved a lot more than we have since the time we played.

We have one fewer loss than they do.

They have played UNC, DUke, OSU twice, michigan twice, indiana twice, and wisconsin twice.....I would rather our schedule than ours, but even if ours is tougher, it can only be marginally so. Kenpom has us at 4 and them at 6. For all intents and purposes, those two schedules are equally difficult.

I think the higher RPI argument is the strongest one, as the committee seems to blindly follow it. but has that been updated this week yet? the rankings haven't at least

Further, MSU "won" their regular season championship (3 way tie) while duke did not, and in fact lost in in spectacular fasion on the last day of the season.

That's just my opinion. that they would be 5 and we would be 6....i don't think that's necessarily a reflection of which team is actually better or would win...just a guess as to where the teams would stand from the committees viewpoint.

[johnpope]

The situation last year was very similar. Duke had won the first matchup with UNC with a 2nd half comeback. UNC won the 2nd meeting fairly easily (more easily this year). Duke won matchup #3 and got the #1 seed. I don't see why it would be any different this year. I think Duke's resume is actually better this year.

Seemingly so, but I think the difference is in the much too quoted "eye test": this year UNC dominated both games against us and our win was viewed by many as a bit of a fluke. Plus, UNC played against us in Cameron like the best team in the country, not just the conference. The fact that they were seen as the no. 1 team pre-season and generally most talented team (like we were last year to some extent), and the fact that they played this year's overall no.1 seed, UK, at Kentucky,to the last shot, are two other possible arguments in their favor. Lastly, last year we had Kyrie coming back, which could have had an impact as well. As much as I'd love it to be otherwise, it's hard for me to objectively see us as a no.1 seed.

[UrinalCake]

If we beat anyone else in the title game, I think UNC keeps the one seed with whoever of MSU and kansas won their league. Why you ask? because in the two games we would have played against carolina, we needed a furious comeback in one, and got shellacked in the other...so UNC stays ahead of us unless we beat them.

In this scenario, UNC would have lost in one of the first two rounds of the ACCT, probably to an unranked team (unless it's UVA). So they'd look better against us head-to-head, but their overall resume would take a hit. Since they'd have the same number of losses as us, I think we'd be seeded ahead of them overall.

I'd always prefer to be a #1 seed over a #2, even if it means having to travel farther. I think you're more likely to get favorable matchups the more highly seeded you are, and that's the most important thing. Of course, it's no guarantee and anything can happen. Playing against Arizona in Anaheim last year was tough, although ultimately I don't know that the location affected the outcome.

Also, any thoughts on how the Dawson injury will affect MSU's seed? I guess a lot will depend on how they play without him.

[uh_no]

In this scenario, UNC would have lost in one of the first two rounds of the ACCT, probably to an unranked team (unless it's UVA). So they'd look better against us head-to-head, but their overall resume would take a hit. Since they'd have one more loss than us, I think we'd be seeded ahead of them overall.

I'd always prefer to be a #1 seed over a #2, even if it means having to travel farther. I think you're more likely to get a favorable matchup. Of course, it's no guarantee and anything can happen. Playing against Arizona in Anaheim last year was tough, although ultimately I don't know that the location affected the outcome.

We'd have the same number of losses overall, and they would have just smacked us at home. I think the only way we can move ahead of them is if we beat them head to head. Many people view our first win as a fluke (and that was somewhat reinforced by the blowout yesterday)

[UrinalCake]

We'd have the same number of losses overall, and they would have just smacked us at home. I think the only way we can move ahead of them is if we beat them head to head. Many people view our first win as a fluke (and that was somewhat reinforced by the blowout yesterday)

Yeah, sorry I just realized my error. I guess we should hope for UNC to make it to the final (assuming we do too) so we have a chance at a big win. On the other hand, it's more likely that we'd lose versus playing a different team. I guess losing to UNC versus beating an unranked team probably has about the same effect on our seeding.

I agree that preseason perceptions may affect the seedings. UNC is viewed as being a far better team than us even though our records are close.

[Olympic Fan]

Just my opinion. We beat them in november.....and we also got blown out by OSU in the same timeframe. Yesterday we got blown out by UNC and today MSU took OSU to the final possesion. I am of the opinion that MSU has improved a lot more than we have since the time we played.

We have one fewer loss than they do.

They have played UNC, DUke, OSU twice, michigan twice, indiana twice, and wisconsin twice.....I would rather our schedule than ours, but even if ours is tougher, it can only be marginally so. Kenpom has us at 4 and them at 6. For all intents and purposes, those two schedules are equally difficult.

I think the higher RPI argument is the strongest one, as the committee seems to blindly follow it. but has that been updated this week yet? the rankings haven't at least

Further, MSU "won" their regular season championship (3 way tie) while duke did not, and in fact lost in in spectacular fasion on the last day of the season.

That's just my opinion. that they would be 5 and we would be 6....i don't think that's necessarily a reflection of which team is actually better or would win...just a guess as to where the teams would stand from the committees viewpoint.

I happen to agree with Jason ... I thought Duke would drop to six on the s-curve after the loss to UNC, but then Michigan State lost at home to Ohio State Sunday. That means Duke has a better record (26-5 vs. 23-6 ... not just one more loss, but three less wins), a better RPI (updated: Duke 4, MSU 5) and, of course, has beaten them head-to-head on a neutral court (no matter when it was). The fact that MSU tied for their conference title and Duke finished second in the ACC is not supposed to be a criteria for th committee -- for purposes of seeding, all at large teams are supposed to be judged as if they were independents (although who knows what this year's committee members think). One criteria the committee cites year after year as important is "who you choose to play" -- in other words, your non-conference SOS. In that metric, Duke is No. 2 in the country MSU is No. 19).

I could easily see Duke being ahead of MSU on the s-curve as of today.

All that said, I still think Duke is a No. 2 today. But I do believe that if Duke wins the ACC Tournament, there's a chance for the Devils to be a No. 1. If they beat UNC in the finals, I'm confident that Duke will finish ahead of UNC on the s-curve. I keep hearing people say the conference tournaments don't matter to the commitee (or matter only a little bit), but as I posted in another thread, that's simply not true. Look at history -- my fanorite example is 1998, when Duke beat UNC in the regular season finale to win the ACC regular season title and solidify its position as No. 1 in the polls. But UNC beat Duke in the ACC finals (its second win in three games with Duke) and moved ahead of Duke on the s-curve (Coach K complained that they got the more favorable bracketing). In 2005, we were behind Wake in the standings and the polls, but we won the tournament and got the No. 1 seed, while they got a No. 2.

If Duke ends up beating UNC two out of three times (and thus ending up with the same overall record and a better RPI) the committee would have no choice but to put Duke head of UNC on the s-curve.

The difference between UNC, Kansas, Duke and Michigan State is razor thin -- if one or two win their conference tournaments, they will be the No. 1 seeds.

[tommy]

so locations:

SU has boston, UK has st louis. THat's locked (effectively)

If the status quo above remains, kansas goes to atlanta, UNC goes to pheonix, MSU goes to st louis, and we go to atlanta

I don't think those are locks at all.

Syracuse has Boston, assuming they don't have an early flameout in the Big East. That I agree with.

But I don't think it's unlikely at all that UK plays in Atlanta. Lexington is equidistant from Atlanta and St. Louis. Especially if Kansas is the #3, UK could go to Atlanta, Kansas to St. Louis and Duke/UNC or whoever else to Phoenix.

If it's UNC as the other #1, it'll be interesting to see who is the third #1 and who is the fourth, between UNC and Kansas. If it's UNC, they could get Atlanta, UK to St. Louis, and Kansas to Phoenix, rather than the scenario I laid out above.

If it is UK in Atlanta and UNC in Phoenix, and we're #5 or 6, as I'd say is probable, then I'd say it's likely we'd go to Atlanta as the #2 opposite UK, for geographic reasons. This is not something I would like to see. Obviously.

This is just one of many reasons why I think it's REALLY, REALLY important for us to win the ACC and snag that #1 seed. Not just so we avoid Kentucky. But also, as a #1, even if we're behind Kansas, and therefore the fourth #1 and we get sent to Phoenix, it seems not unlikely that our #2 could be a team like Missouri or whoever else is #8. I'd venture to guess that Ohio State and Michigan State are in the 6-7 mix right now, so one could go to St. Louis and the other to Boston (with UNC as the #5 staying close to home in Atlanta). Now Missouri is a fine team and certainly dangerous, but I'd take my chances in a regional with them over any of the other teams mentioned in this post.

[Wander]

I'
So, based on these three scenarios, I would prefer Duke to be a #2 in the East.


I've heard this a few times, and I've gotta strongly disagree. Despite our stellar and hard-earned record, our team isn't good enough defensively to be looking ahead to what the potential Elite 8 match-up is and be worrying about that. We need every advantage we can get - facing a 16 seed instead of a 15, a 7 instead of an 8, etc. A 1 seed would be enormously helpful.

[Bluedog]

I've heard this a few times, and I've gotta strongly disagree. Despite our stellar and hard-earned record, our team isn't good enough defensively to be looking ahead to what the potential Elite 8 match-up is and be worrying about that. We need every advantage we can get - facing a 16 seed instead of a 15, a 7 instead of an 8, etc. A 1 seed would be enormously helpful.

I agree, but isn't it fun to analyze and look ahead as fans? ;) Plus, it's not as if it's clear that being a 2 seed in the East is harder than being a 2 seed in the South (using that simply for illustrative purposes) for the second round matchup. Way too many variables to make those predictions, so it's easier as fans to make the 1/2 seed probability/difficulty determinations. Teams in the 7-10 range are certainly NOT gimme games. Right now, Lundardi has New Mexico/West Virginia as our 7/10 as the #2 seed in the East. Neither of those teams would be an easy win at all. New Mexico may be the best team in the western U.S. right now. They have been very impressive. That matchup would not even be close to a walkover, and we could certainly lose (as could other 2 seeds in their second round so it's not only us that have glaring weaknesses). Other 7/10s? UConn is showing as a 10. I wouldn't want to seem them. Despite their struggles, they have a lot of talent and could beat quality teams on a given night. San Diego St and Creighton. Creighton has looked pretty good. Crazy things happen in the tournament and the expected Elite 8 matchup often doesn't even come to fruition, so it is a bit silly to look ahead, but as fans, we can't help it. Just need Coach K to keep the team focused on the immediate games, which I'm sure he has experience doing. He always says he likes to think of it as a four-team tournament each weekend. If you win your tournament you advance to the next one with your opponent TBD.

[UrinalCake]

I think Wander is rejecting the notion that it's better to be a #2 in the East than a #1 in a different region, to which I would agree. It's not an exact science, sometimes a lower-seeded opponent happens to be a tougher matchup for you, but overall the higher your seed the easier your opponent will be. And I think the strength of your opponent is far more important that where you play. A 7/10 winner in the second round just "feels" like a much harder game than an 8/9 winner.

Because of the pod system, we'll be playing in Greensboro the first weekend no matter what. Also, as we've seen, sometimes playing in an eastern venue winds up being a disadvantage due to all the UNC fans. So I'll take a #1 in, say, the west over a #2 in the east in a heartbeat.

[shoutingncu]

Now Missouri is a fine team and certainly dangerous, but I'd take my chances in a regional with them over any of the other teams mentioned in this post.

Be careful what you wish for... I think that Mizzou would "Lawson" Duke's defense. Now, they're a team (even moreso than Duke, imo) that will lose early if the outside shooting is cold, but they have more consistent weapons and if they are hitting, they are Final Four good. As a Carolina fan, the two teams I don't want to see until April are Mizzou and Kentucky.

[crimsonandblue]

Be careful what you wish for... I think that Mizzou would "Lawson" Duke's defense. Now, they're a team (even moreso than Duke, imo) that will lose early if the outside shooting is cold, but they have more consistent weapons and if they are hitting, they are Final Four good. As a Carolina fan, the two teams I don't want to see until April are Mizzou and Kentucky.

I dunno. Mizzou is playing Duke basketball this year, and at a high level. Threes, penetration, dumps to an efficient finisher. Mizzou's guards are a little quicker, but Mizzou's inside, with English, Ratliffe and Moore are undersized even compared to a Duke team that's worried about its length (albeit mostly on the perimeter). It would be interesting to see if Mizzou could out-Duke Duke.

[Udaman]

7 of the The #1 and #2 seeds are set. Done. End of story. They will be

1. Kentucky (in Atlanta)
1. Syracuse (in Boston)
1. Kansas (in St. Louis)

?. UNC (if they win the ACC tournament, they are the fourth #1 in Phoenix
? Duke (ditto)
? Michigan State (could get the last #1 seed if they win the Big Ten tournament, and neither UNC or Duke win the ACC tournament)
? Ohio State (could get the last #1 seed if they win the Big Ten tournament, and neither UNC or Duke or win their tournaments)

My strong feeling is that the following will happen

East: 1. Syracuse 2. UNC or Duke
South: 1. Kentucky 2. Last # 2 seed (Missouri, Baylor or Georgetown)
MidWest 1. Kansas 2. Michigan State
West. 1. UNC / Duke 2. Ohio State

The worst scenario for us is that somehow one of those top 7 loses early, and we end up with them as our #3 seed. It would be awful to have to play a Michigan State or Ohio State, just to get to Syracuse.

[BlueandWhite]

7 of the The #1 and #2 seeds are set. Done. End of story. They will be

1. Kentucky (in Atlanta)
1. Syracuse (in Boston)
1. Kansas (in St. Louis)

?. UNC (if they win the ACC tournament, they are the fourth #1 in Phoenix
? Duke (ditto)
? Michigan State (could get the last #1 seed if they win the Big Ten tournament, and neither UNC or Duke win the ACC tournament)
? Ohio State (could get the last #1 seed if they win the Big Ten tournament, and neither UNC or Duke or win their tournaments)

My strong feeling is that the following will happen

East: 1. Syracuse 2. UNC or Duke
South: 1. Kentucky 2. Last # 2 seed (Missouri, Baylor or Georgetown)
MidWest 1. Kansas 2. Michigan State
West. 1. UNC / Duke 2. Ohio State

The worst scenario for us is that somehow one of those top 7 loses early, and we end up with them as our #3 seed. It would be awful to have to play a Michigan State or Ohio State, just to get to Syracuse.

I agree with you on pretty much everything you say above, except I'm not so sure that an MSU or OSU loss say in the first game of their tournament (highly unlikely) would drop them one more notch. Looking at Lunardi's bracketology from today, I'd definitely take #2 in the East over #1 in the West.

[Kedsy]

7 of the The #1 and #2 seeds are set. Done. End of story.

Really? If Kansas loses in the 1st round of the Big 12 tournament, they can't slip to #2? If Ohio State or Michigan State (especially combined with the injury to their starting SF) lose in the first round of their tournament, they can't slip to #3? I'm not so sure.

[crimsonandblue]

7 of the The #1 and #2 seeds are set. Done. End of story. They will be

1. Kentucky (in Atlanta)
1. Syracuse (in Boston)
1. Kansas (in St. Louis)

?. UNC (if they win the ACC tournament, they are the fourth #1 in Phoenix
? Duke (ditto)
? Michigan State (could get the last #1 seed if they win the Big Ten tournament, and neither UNC or Duke win the ACC tournament)
? Ohio State (could get the last #1 seed if they win the Big Ten tournament, and neither UNC or Duke or win their tournaments)

My strong feeling is that the following will happen

East: 1. Syracuse 2. UNC or Duke
South: 1. Kentucky 2. Last # 2 seed (Missouri, Baylor or Georgetown)
MidWest 1. Kansas 2. Michigan State
West. 1. UNC / Duke 2. Ohio State

The worst scenario for us is that somehow one of those top 7 loses early, and we end up with them as our #3 seed. It would be awful to have to play a Michigan State or Ohio State, just to get to Syracuse.

I guess I agree with kedsy that KU isn't locked into a 1 seed at this point. Other items of note: (1) UK may technically be closer to St. Louis than Atlanta (by a matter of 40-ish miles), so while I expect UK might prefer Atlanta, I'm not sure how the committee will treat the geography of the 1 seeds; and (2) Baylor has no shot of getting a 2 seed at this point.

[Monmouth77]

Really? If Kansas loses in the 1st round of the Big 12 tournament, they can't slip to #2? If Ohio State or Michigan State (especially combined with the injury to their starting SF) lose in the first round of their tournament, they can't slip to #3? I'm not so sure.

And what about Marquette? Why couldn't they get a 2 seed if they won the Big East Tournament? If Duke loses to Clemson/Va Tech and Marquette or Georgetown run the Big East table, is it a sure thing Duke couldn't end up with a #3?

[gumbomoop]

Be careful what you wish for... I think that Mizzou would "Lawson" Duke's defense. Now, they're a team (even moreso than Duke, imo) that will lose early if the outside shooting is cold, but they have more consistent weapons and if they are hitting, they are Final Four good. As a Carolina fan, the two teams I don't want to see until April are Mizzou and Kentucky.

No one wants to see UK, just as no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

But Mizzou? They might "Lawson" Duke's defense, but not UNC's. Their quick jumpers might well crash the boards against our oft-inattentive perimeter, but they can crash all they want, they still won't get many O-boards on McAdoo, Zeller, and Henson. I don't know, maybe they can just outscore the Heels, 95-94. But I doubt it. Might pray for it, but doubt it.

So, I hope - of course I do - that UNC doesn't get Mizzou. I prefer UNC lose to Md, somehow slip to a 2-seed, and get the Spanish Inquisition at the top of its region. Although Heels v. Spanish Inquisition would be an exciting NC game, I prefer they play in Elite Eight.

[JasonEvans]

No one wants to see UK, just as no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

So, I hope - of course I do - that UNC doesn't get Mizzou. I prefer UNC lose to Md, somehow slip to a 2-seed, and get the Spanish Inquisition at the top of its region. Although Heels v. Spanish Inquisition would be an exciting NC game, I prefer they play in Elite Eight.

I know the committee looks at game results for the most part, but there is a gut/eye test that happens too and UNC sails through that test with flying colors. That is the test that had them rated #1 in the land in the pre-season and, despite a season with some inexplicable results for the Heels, I am betting the committee will not take the two teams with far and away the most NBA talent and put them in a bracket with each other.

So, even if Carolina slips to a #2 seed, I really don't see them being paired up with Kentiqusition.

-Jason "I would love to see it though.. as you would hear wails of complaints quite loud from both Chapel Hill and Lexington... music to my ears!" Evans

[barjwr]

I just wouldn't want to see it because it (more or less) guarantees that one of them will be in the FF. Blecch.

[Bluedog]

I just wouldn't want to see it because it (more or less) guarantees that one of them will be in the FF. Blecch.

But it more assuredly guarantees that only one of them could possibly make the FF. I'd take that for sure! :) But I don't see it happening.

[tommy]

So, even if Carolina slips to a #2 seed, I really don't see them being paired up with Kentiqusition.

Depends on how seriously the committee takes the "guideline" of seeding the #2's as close to home as possible, so long as they're not paired up with another team from their own conference. Chapel Hill is obviously a lot closer to Atlanta than it is to Boston -- over 300 miles closer. If Kansas goes to St. Louis, which is one of the two most likely scenarios that I see, and Duke beats UNC and therefore goes to Phoenix as a #1, then if the committee follows its guideline, UNC should go to Atlanta and be matched up with Kentucky.

Of course, both Columbus and East Lansing are a lot closer to St. Louis than Chapel Hill is to St. Louis, and all three are pretty close to the same distance from Boston. So it would make sense for OSU and MSU as #2 seeds to go to St. Louis and Boston, again with UNC in Atlanta.

This all changes if any of a huge number of variables changes, including Kansas not going to St. Louis as the #1, and instead Kentucky going there, which could happen if Kansas falters in the Big 12 and Duke/UNC win the ACC and are rewarded with Atlanta as its #1.

[sporthenry]

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2012-03-06/hardcore-brackets-air-trutv

Figured I'd put this here. I'm very excited to see the S-curve from the committee. Even Doug Gottlieb says we should be a #1 on paper which the committee usually uses as opposed to the eye test. So we should be fairly high on the S-curve and I think releasing the S-curve will force the committee to justify its location of the various 1-4 seeds for a more proportionate bracket. I know they said the balance out the brackets but I think releasing the S-curve will prevent situations like hopefully Duke in UK's bracket or WVU in UK's bracket in 2010.

[uh_no]

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2012-03-06/hardcore-brackets-air-trutv

Figured I'd put this here. I'm very excited to see the S-curve from the committee. Even Doug Gottlieb says we should be a #1 on paper which the committee usually uses as opposed to the eye test. So we should be fairly high on the S-curve and I think releasing the S-curve will force the committee to justify its location of the various 1-4 seeds for a more proportionate bracket. I know they said the balance out the brackets but I think releasing the S-curve will prevent situations like hopefully Duke in UK's bracket or WVU in UK's bracket in 2010.

They generally justify their selections regardless. People may not like their reasons, but they exist. They gave a reason why VCU was in the field for example. It was they had a good rpi, but they gave the reason. They give reasons for seeding....like why florida was a 2 seed last year and UK was not....

It will not change the way they actually do the bracketing. If they feel like they want to put a 2 seed closer geographically but with a better 1 seed then they would have faced otherwise, they will still do so. As someone pointed out, there are rules, and there are guidlines. The committee changes from year to year, and they can interpret the guidlines differently (or choose to bend them more from year to year).

Releasing the S-curve is more to give people things to talk about...to provide even more transparency in the process. In the end, after the first could seed lines, the S curve is largely meaningless. Teams are allowed to move a seedline in either directino (and likely often do) in order to satisfy other rules (where they can play, when they can play, against whom they can play) In the end we get what they happened to make work.

It will be interesting to see how they match the top 4 seeds though. I just don't think they will build the bracket any differently knowing that the s-curve is public. It will simply give conspiracy theorists something to complain about when their 8 seed team was pushed back to a 9 seed to avoid playing someone from their own conference.....

[Billy Dat]

Lunardi currently has us as a #2 seed potentially facing resurgent UConn in the 2nd round.....yuck.

[-bdbd]

I gotta agree with Jason again. No doubt that KY and Syr are the top-2 (and will probably get 90% of the "champion" votes in my annual NCAA pool...). After that I go KA, NC@ch, Duke and MSU (hard to put them ahead of Duke after we beat them straight-up, and they lost TWO last-week games vs our one loss). Also, if we beat out UNC in the ACCT, it would be very difficult to seed them ahead of us given Duke's higher RPI, having won the series (2-1) this year, being ACC champs, etc. KA is the only one I can't see us catching IF they win their tournament.

I spend time every year about now deciding who I am rooting against in the various tournaments, in order to help Duke's seeding. Clearly we as Duke fans want to be rooting against NC (no problem there on many levels... :rolleyes:), KA, MSU, MO and Marquette. I also tend to keep a wary eye on teams close behind us lest they overtake Duke and cause us to fall to a #3 seed (however unlikely).

So today I was disappointed to see KA win relatively easily over TA&M, and will be rooting loudly against MO (Vs OKSU), Marquette (vs Louisville) tonight. Also nice to see Georgetown lose. But Baylor beat KSU by 8.

I just LOVE this time of year! :cool::D:p

-- BD- "Go Terps!" -BD

Originally Posted by uh_no :
after the top two, there are four teams vying. IF the season ended today, i would have them in the following order:

3: kansas
4: UNC
5: MSU
6: Duke

Why do you have MSU ahead of Duke? What metric are you possibly using to arrive at that ranking?

We beat them head-to-head.
We have a better record against a tougher schedule.
We have a higher RPI.
We are ranked higher in the human polls.
They have lost 2 in a row.

I think we are #5 overall right now. Hard to see how we are much lower than that. I further think we still control our own destiny. A win in the ACC Finals should get us back onto the top line ahead of UNC.

-Jason "barring a flame out in the ACC quarters, we are getting a #2 seed... at worst" Evans





P.S. I think sporthenry makes a very good point - the NCAA Selection Committee is, for the first time, releasing (and discussing on TV at length) their 1-68 rankings and the S-curve. This as much as anything will hamper any shenanigans like dropping Duke to #8 overall in order to get them into KY's region. Odds are pretty good for us to be a 2-seed, but ultimately it shouldn't matter much whether we are a late-#1 selection or early-#2 pick. Either way, the Elite-8 matchup would be against one of KA or MSU (though the path there might be slightly easier as a #1)....

[tommy]

P.S. I think sporthenry makes a very good point - the NCAA Selection Committee is, for the first time, releasing (and discussing on TV at length) their 1-68 rankings and the S-curve. This as much as anything will hamper any shenanigans like dropping Duke to #8 overall in order to get them into KY's region. Odds are pretty good for us to be a 2-seed, but ultimately it shouldn't matter much whether we are a late-#1 selection or early-#2 pick. Either way, the Elite-8 matchup would be against one of KA or MSU (though the path there might be slightly easier as a #1)....

But you're forgetting that the #2 seeds are placed with as much, or perhaps more, of a nod to geography than they are to the straight S-curve. Because of that, if we're a #2, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see us in the Atlanta region, which is likely to be where Kentucky is.

[uh_no]

Lunardi currently has us as a #2 seed potentially facing resurgent UConn in the 2nd round.....yuck.

well we (and especially me) can take comfort in the fact that joe lunardi's matchups are almost always wrong.

[throatybeard]

But you're forgetting that the #2 seeds are placed with as much, or perhaps more, of a nod to geography than they are to the straight S-curve. Because of that, if we're a #2, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see us in the Atlanta region, which is likely to be where Kentucky is.

People from the committee insist, when interviewed, that they don't actively pursue "interesting" matchups, but I have trouble believing they won't try to set up a Duke-Kentucky matchup in the twentieth anniversary year, if they can and still follow the rules.

[Karl Beem]

People from the committee insist, when interviewed, that they don't actively pursue "interesting" matchups, but I have trouble believing they won't try to set up a Duke-Kentucky matchup in the twentieth anniversary year, if they can and still follow the rules.

Duke plays UK next November in the Champions Classic.

[sporthenry]

They generally justify their selections regardless. People may not like their reasons, but they exist. They gave a reason why VCU was in the field for example. It was they had a good rpi, but they gave the reason. They give reasons for seeding....like why florida was a 2 seed last year and UK was not....

It will not change the way they actually do the bracketing. If they feel like they want to put a 2 seed closer geographically but with a better 1 seed then they would have faced otherwise, they will still do so. As someone pointed out, there are rules, and there are guidlines. The committee changes from year to year, and they can interpret the guidlines differently (or choose to bend them more from year to year).

Releasing the S-curve is more to give people things to talk about...to provide even more transparency in the process. In the end, after the first could seed lines, the S curve is largely meaningless. Teams are allowed to move a seedline in either directino (and likely often do) in order to satisfy other rules (where they can play, when they can play, against whom they can play) In the end we get what they happened to make work.

It will be interesting to see how they match the top 4 seeds though. I just don't think they will build the bracket any differently knowing that the s-curve is public. It will simply give conspiracy theorists something to complain about when their 8 seed team was pushed back to a 9 seed to avoid playing someone from their own conference.....

Their usual justifications run mostly for the last few teams in and #1 seeds but in the five or so minutes on the CBS or ESPN program, you rarely if ever see them talk about actual seedings and matchups (Like best #3 and worst #2). I'm aware of the regional preferences but I think many would much rather see the #5 team play the #4 team regardless of location. The committee is supposed to balance out the top 4 so each bracket is relatively fair and I could pull up a few brackets where there was that tough bracket. Now the committee could just change the S-curve to fit their bracket but that could also make it obvious if Duke gets to Sunday and somehow falls to 8 on the S-curve.

I'm not saying it will change much but I think it will put a little seed in the back of the committee's mind where they know they have an hour on TV and the S-curve is published so they will have to justify every little thing as opposed to just who got a 1 or 2 or who got in. Now it will be, why did #1 overall get the best #2 and 2nd best #4.

[sporthenry]

But you're forgetting that the #2 seeds are placed with as much, or perhaps more, of a nod to geography than they are to the straight S-curve. Because of that, if we're a #2, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see us in the Atlanta region, which is likely to be where Kentucky is.

And I think this is where the committee will probably get criticized on the most either this year or at some point especially with the S-curve being published. I know the guideline is regional preference but many analysts tend to agree that it is much better to have the best 2 seed play the worst 1 seed which I tend to agree. The gap between 5 and 8 is usually significant so to see the #5 team play the #1 team when they could very well play the #8 team makes no sense to me. They try to bring up travel but those top 10 teams travel a lot so it shouldn't be a huge issue and funding can be derived from the millions made in the next few weeks if that becomes an issue.

[tommy]

Their usual justifications run mostly for the last few teams in and #1 seeds but in the five or so minutes on the CBS or ESPN program, you rarely if ever see them talk about actual seedings and matchups (Like best #3 and worst #2). I'm aware of the regional preferences but I think many would much rather see the #5 team play the #4 team regardless of location. The committee is supposed to balance out the top 4 so each bracket is relatively fair and I could pull up a few brackets where there was that tough bracket. Now the committee could just change the S-curve to fit their bracket but that could also make it obvious if Duke gets to Sunday and somehow falls to 8 on the S-curve.

I'm not saying it will change much but I think it will put a little seed in the back of the committee's mind where they know they have an hour on TV and the S-curve is published so they will have to justify every little thing as opposed to just who got a 1 or 2 or who got in. Now it will be, why did #1 overall get the best #2 and 2nd best #4.

I hope they answer those types of questions, but if history is any guide, they won't. I find those little "interviews" that the committee chair does with CBS after the bracket comes out to be so maddening. The chair basically just speaks in vague generalities and platitudes about how many well-qualified teams there were, how difficult the process was, how close these teams are to those teams, how they can't really get into these specifics or those, and just to "trust us, this is as fair to everyone as it can be" and is the interview over now? I think this year will be no different -- he'll just have to continue to dodge the real questions for a little longer than usual.

[FerryFor50]

I say if Duke wins the ACC tourny, they get a #1.

Heck, if they make the final, they still could get a #1 if Mizzou ends up losing in their tourny...

I never understood why Kansas was ahead of Duke to begin with with identical records and a head to head loss to Duke.

[hurleyfor3]

Syracuse is not, not, not, not, not dropping to a 2.

Nor is unc.

I think unc has to lose to ncsu and we have to win the ACC championship to snag the other #1, and even then it's not really likely.

[Billy Dat]

I say if Duke wins the ACC tourny, they get a #1.

Heck, if they make the final, they still could get a #1 if Mizzou ends up losing in their tourny...

I never understood why Kansas was ahead of Duke to begin with with identical records and a head to head loss to Duke.

Syracuse has only 2 losses.

The Big 12 was considered a better conference, especially at the top where KU, Baylor and Missouri has some great battles. Plus, KU played a really nasty schedule, too.

If we can win the ACCs and beat the Heels, we have a shot. Even then, it will be tough. If Missouri loses, too, it makes it easier, but we still have to win. I don't see it (getting a #1 even with an ACC tourny win) happening but I'll hope for it.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

When we win the tournament, we'll be a #1 seed. :cool: Syracuse will also be a #1 seed, today's loss means nothing.

[CDu]

I say if Duke wins the ACC tourny, they get a #1.

Heck, if they make the final, they still could get a #1 if Mizzou ends up losing in their tourny...

I never understood why Kansas was ahead of Duke to begin with with identical records and a head to head loss to Duke.

Syracuse's loss is irrelevant. They're a lock for a #1 even with today's loss. Same for Kentucky, who is pretty clearly the #1 overall seed.

Kansas losing will help our cause. We'll need to make the finals and it wouldn't hurt to have UNC lose at some point too. But I think we've got a reasonable shot at a #1 if we keep winning.

[FerryFor50]

Syracuse's loss is irrelevant. They're a lock for a #1 even with today's loss. Same for Kentucky, who is pretty clearly the #1 overall seed.

Kansas losing will help our cause. We'll need to make the finals and it wouldn't hurt to have UNC lose at some point too. But I think we've got a reasonable shot at a #1 if we keep winning.

I agree that Syracuse is a lock for a 1.

But them losing could help in terms of placement....

[CDu]

Syracuse is not, not, not, not, not dropping to a 2.

Nor is unc.

I think unc has to lose to ncsu and we have to win the ACC championship to snag the other #1, and even then it's not really likely.

I'm not sure that I agree. We've split with UNC and have many more quality wins (6 vs top-25) than they do (2). If we beat UNC in the final, there is no doubt we're the #1 seed over them. As is, if both of us lose early, I think you could still make a case for us over UNC. UNC is definitely the better team, but we have a better resume.

We also have a better RPI than Kansas and one more good win (basically the head-to-head win). I'd put us ahead of them, too. Same for Mizzou, unless they win their conference and we don't.

Basically, after UK and then Syracuse, I think we currently have as good a resume as anybody. We'll see how the Big-12 and ACC tourneys play out, though. A lot can still be decided.

[CDu]

I agree that Syracuse is a lock for a 1.

But them losing could help in terms of placement....

We won't jump them in placement. They're going to be the #2 overall regardless.

[sporthenry]

Syracuse is not, not, not, not, not dropping to a 2.

Nor is unc.

I think unc has to lose to ncsu and we have to win the ACC championship to snag the other #1, and even then it's not really likely.

Not sure why you think UNC is that high and mighty. They have some bad losses and if we beat them straight up 2/3 times, they only have the unbalanced ACC regular season championship. Traditionally, the committee looks favorably upon the tournament winners and even Doug Gottlieb on ESPN said that on paper, Duke's numbers are better which is what the committee usually pays more attention to. Now beating UNC will be a challenge but beating MSU, KU, and UNC twice will look very good come Sunday night.

[DukeWarhead]

I think Kansas losing is huge, at least, it should be.
They will end with a worse (or same) record as Duke, Duke won the head to head, and will finish with a higher RPI strength. Ever since KU's (albeit impressive) win againt Mizzou at home, people have been putting them down as a lock for #1. They shouldn't be automatically ahead of us, thought. On paper, Duke looks just a tad bit stronger.
If Duke can win just one more, thereby guaranteeing a better overall record than Kansas, that will be very big, I would think.
Then again, if MSU wins out, Duke and KU might both end up as #2s.

I must admit a bias here. After being surrounded by rather obnoxius KU fans for a number of years, I very much like
the idea of them having the rug swept out from under them this evening. I also want to see UNC and KU in the same bracket - that way I know at least one of them will not make the final 4.

[CDu]

Not sure why you think UNC is that high and mighty. They have some bad losses and if we beat them straight up 2/3 times, they only have the unbalanced ACC regular season championship. Traditionally, the committee looks favorably upon the tournament winners and even Doug Gottlieb on ESPN said that on paper, Duke's numbers are better which is what the committee usually pays more attention to. Now beating UNC will be a challenge but beating MSU, KU, and UNC twice will look very good come Sunday night.

Yup. If we win the ACC tournament, we'll be the third #1 seed. No questions asked. Our resume will be unquestionably better than UNC, Kansas, Mizzou, OSU, MSU, and anyone else laying claim to such a placement.

The question for me is, how early could we lose in the ACC tournament and still get a #1 seed? Hopefully, we won't have to find that out. :)

[FerryFor50]

We won't jump them in placement. They're going to be the #2 overall regardless.

I was thinking in terms of some of the asinine decisions made over late season performances. There have been head scratchers before... but was probably more wishful thinking. :)

[FerryFor50]

I think Kansas losing is huge, at least, it should be.
They will end with a worse (or same) record as Duke, Duke won the head to head, and will finish with a higher RPI strength. Ever since KU's (albeit impressive) win againt Mizzou at home, people have been putting them down as a lock for #1. They should be automatically ahead of us, thought. On paper, Duke looks just a tad bit stronger.
If Duke can win just one more, thereby guaranteeing a better overall record than Kansas, that will be very big, I would think.
Then again, if MSU wins out, Duke and KU might end up as #2s.

I must admit a bias here. After being surrounded by rather obnoxius KU fans for a number of years, I very much like
the idea of them having the rug swept out from under them this evening. I also want to see UNC and KU in the same bracket - that way I know at least one of them will not make the final 4.

The perfect bracket:

#1 Kentucky
#2 UNC
#3 Kansas

But that won't happen... :)

[sporthenry]

Ideal situation would be Duke gets the 1 seed out West, gets Indiana as a 4 seed and a team like Temple as the 5. Ultimately, Duke needs to avoid Baylor as a 3 seed, Florida as a 4/5 seed. I also wouldn't want to see Cincy, Uconn, or Memphis in the second round.

[FerryFor50]

Ideal situation would be Duke gets the 1 seed out West, gets Indiana as a 4 seed and a team like Temple as the 5. Ultimately, Duke needs to avoid Baylor as a 3 seed, Florida as a 4/5 seed. I also wouldn't want to see Cincy, Uconn, or Memphis in the second round.

I don't get why UConn is still in. They've not had many quality wins and have a pretty shoddy record. They're getting in on name, mainly.

I wouldn't mind seeing Florida. I don't think they're that great.

Definitely don't want to see Baylor, considering they'd still be angry about losing to Duke 2 years ago in the tourny...

[FerryFor50]

I don't get why UConn is still in. They've not had many quality wins and have a pretty shoddy record. They're getting in on name, mainly.

I wouldn't mind seeing Florida. I don't think they're that great.

Definitely don't want to see Baylor, considering they'd still be angry about losing to Duke 2 years ago in the tourny...

Actually I take it back RE: Uconn. RPI is sound and 4 wins against top 50.

Maybe I just blindly hate UConn.

[CDu]

Actually I take it back RE: Uconn. RPI is sound and 4 wins against top 50.

Maybe I just blindly hate UConn.

Yeah, the knock on UConn is their sub-.500 conference record. But they played a really tough schedule. They'll also likely get a benefit from the committee discounting games that Calhoun didn't coach.

[pamtar]

Yup. If we win the ACC tournament, we'll be the third #1 seed. No questions asked. Our resume will be unquestionably better than UNC, Kansas, Mizzou, OSU, MSU, and anyone else laying claim to such a placement.

The question for me is, how early could we lose in the ACC tournament and still get a #1 seed? Hopefully, we won't have to find that out. :)

Agreed. If we win out we're the third #1 seed. This should also give us the south or mid west region. If we lose in the final we could still get the 1 if MSU loses. It's possible the committee could give it to mizzou if they win out and we beat State for the championship but highly unlikely.

IMO, we should still be ahead of KU if we lose, unless MSU dominates the rest of the big televen. In that case they have earned it. All that said, I'd still rather get the high two and be in KU's bracket than get a one and go west.

To many if's. Let's just wait till Sunday!

[Olympic Fan]

Agree that the Syracuse loss is irrelevant to our seeding. Same if Kentucky loses in the SEC Tournament. Those two are absolutely solid No. 1s and ahead of Dujke no matter what.

But the Kansas loss DOES matter. It does open the door for Dukie to get a No. 1.

I still say that it would take an ACC Tournament victory. Actually, it would be even more certain if Dukie beat UNC in the finals, than if State upsets UNC ... it would be another quality win for Duke and a 2-1 head-to-head record with the Heels.

IF -- and only IF -- Duke beats UNC in the finals, Duke and UNC would have exactly the same record. Duke would have a better RPI and a better non-conference SOS, more top 50 wins and more top 10 wins.

Duke would get a No. 1.

[CDu]

Agree that the Syracuse loss is irrelevant to our seeding. Same if Kentucky loses in the SEC Tournament. Those two are absolutely solid No. 1s and ahead of Dujke no matter what.

But the Kansas loss DOES matter. It does open the door for Dukie to get a No. 1.

I still say that it would take an ACC Tournament victory. Actually, it would be even more certain if Dukie beat UNC in the finals, than if State upsets UNC ... it would be another quality win for Duke and a 2-1 head-to-head record with the Heels.

IF -- and only IF -- Duke beats UNC in the finals, Duke and UNC would have exactly the same record. Duke would have a better RPI and a better non-conference SOS, more top 50 wins and more top 10 wins.

Duke would get a No. 1.

You say all this as though we're fighting UNC for a single #1 seed. I don't think that's accurate. Frankly, I don't see any reason why both Duke and UNC can't get a #1 seed. We are now, unequivocally ahead of Kansas. We have a better RPI, more good wins, a similar record, and a head-to-head victory over them. So basically we're competing with UNC, MSU, OSU, and Mizzou for two #1 seeds. IF Wisconsin or Michigan wins the Big-10 and Mizzou loses in their tournament, then I think both Duke and UNC are in position to take a #1 seed.

Basically, the only threat to us getting a #1 seed is if one or more of Mizzou, OSU, and MSU win their tournaments and we don't. Without a conference championship, our resumes are going to be better than theirs.

[sporthenry]

I don't get why UConn is still in. They've not had many quality wins and have a pretty shoddy record. They're getting in on name, mainly.

I wouldn't mind seeing Florida. I don't think they're that great.

Definitely don't want to see Baylor, considering they'd still be angry about losing to Duke 2 years ago in the tourny...

I usually judge the teams based off potential. Like last year, Duke had an extremely tough bracket and we saw what happened. Zona was very hot and Texas was the most talented #4 seed. Similar to this year, I'd say Florida is the most talented #4 seed. They could easily lose their first game but if they are around for the second weekend, it means they have their act together and that amount of guards scares me considering Duke can't cover one.

Uconn isn't great but as an 8/9 or 7/10 game, they will be a tough out. Again, good penetration, good wing in Lamb and a big guy who can take over a game. The second game I'd much rather see a St. Louis or Iowa State (although I will admit I haven't seen Iowa State much this year). Traditionally, Duke plays well against these disciplined teams so I'm not as fearful of a St. Louis or Wichita State as I am of a Florida or Uconn b/c I can see Lamb, or Beal going off a la Derrick Williams. Now we aren't a usual Duke team so perhaps we will get out executed by a good mid-major but I like our track record against them regardless.

But ultimately, I'd love to see a team fading in front of us like Nova was in 2010. Granted we had the best #3 with Baylor to counter that. But I'd love to see Indiana who is a bit hobbled right now.

[uh_no]

I don't get why UConn is still in. They've not had many quality wins and have a pretty shoddy record. They're getting in on name, mainly.


I mean the #1 SOS, wins over tournament teams WV(x2), ND, FSU, Harvard, USF Seton hall(maybe).....if you find 40 other teams with 6-7 wins over tournament teams....

[FerryFor50]

I mean the #1 SOS, wins over tournament teams WV(x2), ND, FSU, Harvard, USF.....if you find 40 other teams with 6 wins over tournament teams....

I corrected myself in the post right after that. Blind UConn hate. :)

[jv001]

I mean the #1 SOS, wins over tournament teams WV(x2), ND, FSU, Harvard, USF.....if you find 40 other teams with 6 wins over tournament teams....

I don't like em(uconn) but they deserve to be in the tournament. Just hope we play them and we crush them. GoDuke!

[uh_no]

I corrected myself in the post right after that. Blind UConn hate. :)

I agree, though, they don't LOOK like a tournament team....they have some decent wins and have played SU to two losses by a combined 5 points. The losses the Providence and Rutgers are really really bad though. They are just so terribly ugly when they play...the offense is atrocious and has cost them most of their losses, especially last night where they went the last 10 minutes and scored like 5 points. They'll give whatever 1/2 seed they run into in the second round a run for their money, but ultimately, I think they bow out. Just don't have the leader on the floor......nappier tries, but makes bad decisions, lamb is too quiet and just stands around waiting for things to happen often....didn't score in the last 20 minutes of last nights game....and on the last play to tie it, he was just standing there....

anyway

If we beat UNC in the finals, we get a 1 seed with MSU if they win the big 10, or UNC if they don't. If we beat someone other than UNC, I think its MSU if they win the title, or us if they don't (along with UNC). Just my guesses...but I don't htink they will win the big 10....so it's down to UNC Kansas and Duke....and if we win and MSU loses we're in. Carolina is in as soon as MSU loses regardless of what happens in the ACC

[CDu]

If we beat UNC in the finals, we get a 1 seed with MSU if they win the big 10, or UNC if they don't. If we beat someone other than UNC, I think its MSU if they win the title, or us if they don't (along with UNC). Just my guesses...but I don't htink they will win the big 10....so it's down to UNC Kansas and Duke....and if we win and MSU loses we're in. Carolina is in as soon as MSU loses regardless of what happens in the ACC

Agree with you on the first part, but not on the bolded part. If we win the ACC tournament, our resume will be better than UNC's. That will be true regardless of whether we beat UNC or State to do so. We will then have a better RPI, more wins against the top-25, a split in the head-to-head, and the ACC Tournament Championship to counter their ACC Regular Season Championship.

If you look at resumes (ignoring the fact that UNC is better, because that doesn't play into the seeding process), ours is very comparable with UNC as is. Perhaps even better. They have only two top-25 wins, only one away from home. We have 6 top-25 wins, 5 of them away from home. They need to beat do better than us in the ACC to clearly separate themselves from us.

[uh_no]

Agree with you on the first part, but not on the bolded part. If we win the ACC tournament, our resume will be better than UNC's. That will be true regardless of whether we beat UNC or State to do so. We will then have a better RPI, more wins against the top-25, a split in the head-to-head, and the ACC Tournament Championship to counter their ACC Regular Season Championship.

If you look at resumes (ignoring the fact that UNC is better, because that doesn't play into the seeding process), ours is very comparable with UNC as is. Perhaps even better. They have only two top-25 wins, only one away from home. We have 6 top-25 wins, 5 of them away from home. They need to beat do better than us in the ACC to clearly separate themselves from us.

Yeah, I know our resume is better on paper. I think it comes down to what the committee weighs. If they just look at numbers, you're right, they're #1, and they usually do "just look at numbers"

Its just hard for me to think that the committee would look at these two teams after what happened last week and say we could be a one seed while they could not. Ultimately, we're making guesses about what the committee will value, and its really anybody's guess. Joe L gets seeds hugely wrong most of the time, even at the tops of the brackets. For all we know it could be kansas and Missou as 1s and duke and uncs as twos. and they could come up with some explanation like "missouri played better on saturday noon games when the moon was in a waxing crescent phase."

So i just throw out there what i think they will do....and sometimes they make decisions that go against everything.

[sporthenry]

Agree with you on the first part, but not on the bolded part. If we win the ACC tournament, our resume will be better than UNC's. That will be true regardless of whether we beat UNC or State to do so. We will then have a better RPI, more wins against the top-25, a split in the head-to-head, and the ACC Tournament Championship to counter their ACC Regular Season Championship.

If you look at resumes (ignoring the fact that UNC is better, because that doesn't play into the seeding process), ours is very comparable with UNC as is. Perhaps even better. They have only two top-25 wins, only one away from home. We have 6 top-25 wins, 5 of them away from home. They need to beat do better than us in the ACC to clearly separate themselves from us.

I would agree that our resume is better. It'd be interesting to see who the committee would put on the 1 line at this point in time. I would personally put UNC there but the committee rarely uses the eye test. But I do find it weird that people are almost rewarding UNC for losing in the semi's b/c somehow us winning the ACCT without facing them wouldn't be as big? I hardly think their #1 is locked up. I think the last two 1 seeds come down to Mizzou, MSU, OSU, Duke, and UNC. I'd say whoever wins the conference title will get the 1 seeds. I think OSU could sneak up especially with the beatdown on Duke and I don't really think KU's record is that substantially better than those listed above although they do have the head to head vs Mizzou. But my guess would be whoever wins the B10 tourney and ACC tourney.

[CDu]

Yeah, I know our resume is better on paper. I think it comes down to what the committee weighs. If they just look at numbers, you're right, they're #1, and they usually do "just look at numbers"

Its just hard for me to think that the committee would look at these two teams after what happened last week and say we could be a one seed while they could not. Ultimately, we're making guesses about what the committee will value, and its really anybody's guess. Joe L gets seeds hugely wrong most of the time, even at the tops of the brackets. For all we know it could be kansas and Missou as 1s and duke and uncs as twos. and they could come up with some explanation like "missouri played better on saturday noon games when the moon was in a waxing crescent phase."

So i just throw out there what i think they will do....and sometimes they make decisions that go against everything.

True that they often do strange things. But not usually with the #1 seeds. Usually, they follow the numbers there. It's usually toward the middle of the bracket and on the bubble that they get really crazy. I agree that if you go by the "eye test," we lose out to UNC. I just think that by almost any easily measurable stat (and we know that the committee won't reach too hard to find their measurables), we compare pretty favorably. Obviously the next couple of days can change things a lot, either way.

[Dr. Tina]

The Duke Curse was in full effect tonight for the Syracuse game, and this is why. I was at one of our local sports bar/restaurants in town. They had 4 HUGE flat screen TVs for people to watch the games. Initially, they had ESPN2 on one of the TVs, and then they changed it over to ESPN, so all 4 TVs were showing the Syracuse. Now, granted I live in NY (not far from Syracuse...), but still...they refused to change even one of the TVs to the Duke game. So, I had to watch the game on this old school TV with a picture that wasn't even that clear the whole time. In the first half of the Cuse game, I told my friends at the table that Cuse would lose because the bar couldn't give up a TV for the Duke game. Sure enough, they lost! HA!

LOLOLOL!

On a side note, King Rice walked right past me in the restaurant because he was home for a family party taking place downstairs. I told my friend I'd be happy to tell him what I thought of the Tarholes. Also, I had another UNC guy making comments to me about Duke, and every time he did, I had an answer for him. At the end, he finally had to realize I'd schooled him in ACC basketball.... :)

GO DUKE!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Furniture]

Well done!

[-bdbd]

You say all this as though we're fighting UNC for a single #1 seed. I don't think that's accurate. Frankly, I don't see any reason why both Duke and UNC can't get a #1 seed. We are now, unequivocally ahead of Kansas. We have a better RPI, more good wins, a similar record, and a head-to-head victory over them. So basically we're competing with UNC, MSU, OSU, and Mizzou for two #1 seeds. IF Wisconsin or Michigan wins the Big-10 and Mizzou loses in their tournament, then I think both Duke and UNC are in position to take a #1 seed.

Basically, the only threat to us getting a #1 seed is if one or more of Mizzou, OSU, and MSU win their tournaments and we don't. Without a conference championship, our resumes are going to be better than theirs.

This same question was asked on ESPN in between the Duke game and the nightcap (FSU-MIA). The "expert" - might have been Lunardi - came back with #1 seeds being KY and even still Syracuse as "locks", then the ACC Champ (if Duke or UNC), plus probably MSU. He was asked directly about two ACC #1 seeds and he said, "That's pretty unlikely." Then he went on to explain that the committee might put the ACC champ as a #1 and give the other ACC team a "good #2" set-up. I agree that both UNC and Duke getting #1's is possible, but I agree with Lunardi that its unlikely. If KA (already), Duke or UNC loser, and MSU (and maybe MO and OSU - though I think they're stretches for them being #1 candidates), all finish with losses, then for the fourth #1 it seems to me they'd revert to the seeding schemes we were looking at earlier this week, i.e KA ahead of Duke ahead of MSU. The NCAA guys always deny it, but there is also a "beauty pagent" element to all of this.....so losing close to UNC in the ACC Championship might help Duke get a #1 over, for example, MSU who was losing by 10+ to Michigan. KA losing in their semi's could really help us. Very hard to say for sure.

I'm really more interested in the match-ups they give us, b/c a #1 seed could easily get lousy pairings and end up with at least as tough a road as a favorable #2 's path. If we lose in the ACCT, I'll be OK with a #2, as long as we don't land in KY's and SYR's regions. To that end, I think we want to be the #4 or #5 overall ranked team in the S-curve so we'd be either #1 or #2 vs KA or MSU in the regional finals (regardless of who got the #1 or the #2 between us).

Everybody root against MSU, and maybe OSU and maybe MO!!

[crimsonandblue]

You say all this as though we're fighting UNC for a single #1 seed. I don't think that's accurate. Frankly, I don't see any reason why both Duke and UNC can't get a #1 seed. We are now, unequivocally ahead of Kansas. We have a better RPI, more good wins, a similar record, and a head-to-head victory over them. So basically we're competing with UNC, MSU, OSU, and Mizzou for two #1 seeds. IF Wisconsin or Michigan wins the Big-10 and Mizzou loses in their tournament, then I think both Duke and UNC are in position to take a #1 seed.

Basically, the only threat to us getting a #1 seed is if one or more of Mizzou, OSU, and MSU win their tournaments and we don't. Without a conference championship, our resumes are going to be better than theirs.

I wouldn't balk, necessarily, at Duke being seeded ahead of KU, but explain to me how Duke has more good wins than Kansas. See e.g. Sagarin (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkt1112.htm).

[tommy]

I wouldn't balk, necessarily, at Duke being seeded ahead of KU, but explain to me how Duke has more good wins than Kansas. See e.g. Sagarin (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkt1112.htm).

Depends on how you define a good win. If you look at wins against the top 100, Duke leads 13-12. If it's wins against the top 50, Kansas leads 12-7. If it's wins against the top 25, it's Duke leading 6-5. Duke's overall SOS is better than Kansas's and our nonconference SOS is way better -- # 2 compared to #33.


On another note, I'm not sure why Missouri is really even in the conversation for a #1. Their RPI is only #16. Their strength of schedule is 89. (nonconference SOS is an embarrassing 293) Yes, they have 9 wins against the top 50, but only 3 of those were against the top 25 (Baylor twice and Kansas once.) They have one ugly loss, that against #119 Oklahoma State.

Compare to, say, Michigan State, who's 5 in the RPI with the #1 SOS, and has 6 wins against the top 25 (Ohio State, Indiana, Michigan, FSU, and Wisconsin twice). They also have one ugly loss, that against #90 Illinois by the score of 42-41.

Compare Missouri to Ohio State, who is #7 in the RPI, SOS is 12. They have 7 top 50 wins, 5 of which came against the top 25. They also lost once to Illinois.

UNC, who's RPI is 3, SOS is 4, has 7 wins against the top 50, and also has just 3 wins against the top 25 (Duke, Michigan St, Wisconsin).

Kansas is 6 in the RPI, SOS is 10, with 12 top 50 wins, 5 of which were against the top 25. Their worst loss was the home loss to #64 Davidson.

And Duke is 4 in the RPI, SOS is 2, with 7 top 50 wins, 6 of which were against the top 25. Only bad loss was to #52 Miami, which is a bubble tournament team.

I mean, maybe if all these teams falter and Missouri wins the Big 12, then maybe they'd deserve to jump them all and get a #1, but first, I don't see that happening, and second, I don't think they should jump any of these teams based on total body of work.

[NYC Duke Fan]

If Duke ever got a Number 1 seed they would be one of the weakest number 1 seeds in recent years. In my opinion, UNC has already locked up the number 1 seed no matter the outcome of the ACC tournament. I think that the committee sees what most of us see, UNC is just better than Duke even if Duke wins the Tournament. They first have to beat FSU, a daunting task in its own right.

I know that we all wear rose colored glasses when it comes to Duke basketball which is admirable for fans, but unless someone can show me otherwise, this team is nowhere near a championship team no matter the outstanding coaching job that Coach K has done this year.

We do not have the players to bring us to the level of a Final 4 team. We don't rebound that well, we are not that quick, and we depend too much on the 3s and if they are not falling we might not escape the first weekend of the tournament

[Johnny Chill]

If Duke ever got a Number 1 seed they would be one of the weakest number 1 seeds in recent years. In my opinion, UNC has already locked up the number 1 seed no matter the outcome of the ACC tournament. I think that the committee sees what most of us see, UNC is just better than Duke even if Duke wins the Tournament. They first have to beat FSU, a daunting task in its own right.

I know that we all wear rose colored glasses when it comes to Duke basketball which is admirable for fans, but unless someone can show me otherwise, this team is nowhere near a championship team no matter the outstanding coaching job that Coach K has done this year.

We do not have the players to bring us to the level of a Final 4 team. We don't rebound that well, we are not that quick, and we depend too much on the 3s and if they are not falling we might not escape the first weekend of the tournament

What does that mean?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

If Duke ever got a Number 1 seed they would be one of the weakest number 1 seeds in recent years. In my opinion, UNC has already locked up the number 1 seed no matter the outcome of the ACC tournament. I think that the committee sees what most of us see, UNC is just better than Duke even if Duke wins the Tournament. They first have to beat FSU, a daunting task in its own right...

Okay, I agree that nothing's determined yet, but I think that everyone on this board sees winning the ACC Championship as a must for that #1 seed. If they do so, they likely beat UNC and the two teams will end up with nearly identical resumes.

Also, with Kansas and Syracuse losing this weekend early, why not both Duke and UNC as top line teams? UK, 'Cuse, UNC, Duke? Is that so far-fetched?

As far as "weakest #1 seed in years" - I'm pretty sure that we already locked that up in 2010. :)

[Papa John]

If Duke ever got a Number 1 seed they would be one of the weakest number 1 seeds in recent years. In my opinion, UNC has already locked up the number 1 seed no matter the outcome of the ACC tournament. I think that the committee sees what most of us see, UNC is just better than Duke even if Duke wins the Tournament. They first have to beat FSU, a daunting task in its own right.

I know that we all wear rose colored glasses when it comes to Duke basketball which is admirable for fans, but unless someone can show me otherwise, this team is nowhere near a championship team no matter the outstanding coaching job that Coach K has done this year.

We do not have the players to bring us to the level of a Final 4 team. We don't rebound that well, we are not that quick, and we depend too much on the 3s and if they are not falling we might not escape the first weekend of the tournament

There is only one truly dominant team this season, by the eyeball test and on paper, and that is Kentucky. Syracuse comes close to being one as well, but the Big East is somewhat weak this year. UNC also could be, given their wealth of experienced, athletic talent, but they have fallen short at times this season. Beyond those 3 teams, it's pretty much a logjam of teams with similar resumes, glaring weaknesses, fatal flaws... Were we to receive a 1-seed, you could argue that we'd be a weak one, but you could also make the same argument for most of the other teams currently in the discussion. If you're not Kentucky, Syracuse, or UNC, then anyone can argue that you're a "weak" 1-seed, and I imagine that ultimately someone will, regardless of who gets that final 1-seed.

[tbyers11]

If Duke ever got a Number 1 seed they would be one of the weakest number 1 seeds in recent years. In my opinion, UNC has already locked up the number 1 seed no matter the outcome of the ACC tournament. I think that the committee sees what most of us see, UNC is just better than Duke even if Duke wins the Tournament. They first have to beat FSU, a daunting task in its own right.

I know that we all wear rose colored glasses when it comes to Duke basketball which is admirable for fans, but unless someone can show me otherwise, this team is nowhere near a championship team no matter the outstanding coaching job that Coach K has done this year.

We do not have the players to bring us to the level of a Final 4 team. We don't rebound that well, we are not that quick, and we depend too much on the 3s and if they are not falling we might not escape the first weekend of the tournament

I tend to agree that UNC is more talented than Duke. I also agree that, especially without Kelly, I am not super optimistic about our final four chances mainly because our defense is not strong.

However, if we beat FSU and UNC (a big if) over the next 2 days I don't see any way that we aren't a #1 seed. Our resume will be stronger than UNC's and, IMO, stronger than anyone's but UK and Syracuse. Pretty sure that the committee is supposed to weigh body of work a little more than the eye test.

[Duvall]

If Duke ever got a Number 1 seed they would be one of the weakest number 1 seeds in recent years.

I'm sure there will be plenty of time for such posts after Duke's next loss. Pace yourself.

[CDu]

I wouldn't balk, necessarily, at Duke being seeded ahead of KU, but explain to me how Duke has more good wins than Kansas. See e.g. Sagarin (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkt1112.htm).

See the RPI (http://realtimerpi.com), which is what the committee has historically relied upon. We have 6 wins against the RPI top-25 versus 5 for Kansas.

Kansas has a very good resume. But when you look at the RPI numbers for overall RPI, overall SOS, and number of RPI top-25 wins, Duke is ahead across the board. And Duke has the head-to-head win and an identical record.

Now, if the committee changes its M.O. this year and uses Pomeroy or Sagarin, then Kansas jumps Duke. But history tells us that the committee still hasn't made that leap yet. They've seemed loathe to the idea of using measures that reward anything other than win/loss in favor of "how much you won by" or "how close you lost." Maybe they make the jump this year.

[CDu]

If Duke ever got a Number 1 seed they would be one of the weakest number 1 seeds in recent years. In my opinion, UNC has already locked up the number 1 seed no matter the outcome of the ACC tournament. I think that the committee sees what most of us see, UNC is just better than Duke even if Duke wins the Tournament. They first have to beat FSU, a daunting task in its own right.

I know that we all wear rose colored glasses when it comes to Duke basketball which is admirable for fans, but unless someone can show me otherwise, this team is nowhere near a championship team no matter the outstanding coaching job that Coach K has done this year.

We do not have the players to bring us to the level of a Final 4 team. We don't rebound that well, we are not that quick, and we depend too much on the 3s and if they are not falling we might not escape the first weekend of the tournament

All that you say is true. However, it has little if any bearing on what the committee uses to decide seeds. They look at the resume, not the "eye test." UNC is clearly the better team. We have arguably the better resume. If we win the ACC, we'll have unquestionably the better resume.

The tourney committee isn't tasked with making qualitative judgements of who is better. They make judgements on results. And right now, we've split with UNC and have many more top-25 wins and many more big wins away from home. UNC probably has a slight lead at the moment due to the more recent head-to-head win, slight edge in RPI, and the ACC regular season title. If we win the ACC, that all goes out the window. We'll have a better RPI, a title as well, the head to head split, and as good a record overall to go along with the more quality scalps.

[tommy]

It'll be interesting to see the effect of the Henson injury, assuming he doesn't play and UNC doesn't win the ACCT. (If he plays and they win it, or he doesn't play and they win it, they're an automatic #1; if he plays and they don't win it, and especially if Duke does, then they're not a #1 pretty much no matter what else happens)

I think even though Roy doesn't care much about the ACCT, there is a lot of motivation for UNC to try to win it this year, because there is a likelihood that if they don't, they're going to be #2 in the Atlanta region with Kentucky as the #1, which of course everyone would like to avoid. Not assured of course, but I think there's a pretty good chance of this. So if Henson can at all play, even if it's to just stand there and put those long arms up and make life more difficult inside for State, they may have reason to do that.

What would really be upsetting is if Henson doesn't play, UNC loses in the ACCT, and the committee says, in effect, "they woulda won with Henson, Henson will be back for the big tournament, so let's bump them up above (fill in the blank) who they otherwise should be behind, due to that injury."

[Devilsfan]

Nobody wants to be a #2 in Atlanta behind #1 Kentucky.

[tommy]

If Duke ever got a Number 1 seed they would be one of the weakest number 1 seeds in recent years. In my opinion, UNC has already locked up the number 1 seed no matter the outcome of the ACC tournament. I think that the committee sees what most of us see, UNC is just better than Duke even if Duke wins the Tournament. They first have to beat FSU, a daunting task in its own right.

I know that we all wear rose colored glasses when it comes to Duke basketball which is admirable for fans, but unless someone can show me otherwise, this team is nowhere near a championship team no matter the outstanding coaching job that Coach K has done this year.

We do not have the players to bring us to the level of a Final 4 team. We don't rebound that well, we are not that quick, and we depend too much on the 3s and if they are not falling we might not escape the first weekend of the tournament

So you think that despite Duke playing even with UNC for the first half of the first game, showing tremendous mettle in coming back to beat them on their floor in the second half of that game, getting blown out in the first half of the rematch, outscoring them and at least making it a game in the second half, and then beating them in the rubber game on a neutral floor, plus having a better RPI and SOS, that UNC would -- and SHOULD -- be ahead of us? Other than being blinded by their sheer talent, as opposed to actual results, what would be the logic there?

[uh_no]

Nobody wants to be a #2 in Atlanta behind #1 Kentucky.

IDK....UK had a pretty tough time with juggernaut LSU yesterday.....The SEC doesn't have all that many very good teams, and UK's best wins are UNC (by 1) and KU(and MSU has improved light years since then).

They're talented, yes, but so was UK last year, the year before, the year before that...etc.......They won't win it....if only because they haven't played a really good team since december.

Once again KU and UF have inflated records due to the fact that the rest of the SEC is pretty darn bad.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Am I the only one who thinks that Duke and UNC could both get #1 seeds tomorrow? Conventional wisdom is that whichever team wins will get the #1, but if Duke and UNC play a tight game and Duke comes out on top, isn't it likely that UNC would get the fourth over a Kansas team that dropped the ball yesterday or a MSU team that lost to both Duke and UNC? No one seems to be mentioning this possibility - here or in the media - but it doesn't sound far-fetched to me.

If you ignore the debacle in Chapel Hill (I know, impossible to do) Duke's finished as strong as any team in the country.

[davekay1971]

If Duke ever got a Number 1 seed they would be one of the weakest number 1 seeds in recent years.

Last time I saw that was in 2010. Hopefully the NCAA and CBS will conspire to give us a cakewalk to the championship again!

[uh_no]

Am I the only one who thinks that Duke and UNC could both get #1 seeds tomorrow? Conventional wisdom is that whichever team wins will get the #1, but if Duke and UNC play a tight game and Duke comes out on top, isn't it likely that UNC would get the fourth over a Kansas team that dropped the ball yesterday or a MSU team that lost to both Duke and UNC? No one seems to be mentioning this possibility - here or in the media - but it doesn't sound far-fetched to me.

If you ignore the debacle in Chapel Hill (I know, impossible to do) Duke's finished as strong as any team in the country.

I'm not sure what your criterion is for "finishing strong" but there are plenty of other teams that had about the same records over the last month of the season. Furthermore, you can't simply discount a blowout in the last game of the season and say otherwise we finished strong. Because the fact is we didn't finish strong, we lost by 18 in the season finale. That's like saying "if you discount bill buckners error in 1986, the red sox won the world series." Yeah, if you remove the things that caused them to lose, sure they would have won, but the fact is they didn't. If you remove the thing that caused us to not have a strong finish (loss to UNC) then sure, we finished strong.

Its sort of a pointless exercise, imo. If you take out UK's loss to IU, they're undefeated. See how silly it is? You can play the other game too. "If you discount AR's last shot against UNC, duke is 0-2 against carolina this year". I think the point has been made.

ANyway, they could in theory, but I think its highly unlikely, mostly because I don't think we will win the tournament (without ryan kelly against 2 big teams.....). Not that I hope we lose or don't think we CAN win, just that If i had to put money on it, i would bet against us (watch us win now....). BUt that said, the committee does like numbers and complete resume's...and dukes numbers are very good. I think, though, the fact that both kansas and UNC had 3 more wins against the top 50 than do we puts them in front of us regardless if we win or not. (unless, as I've said, we actually beat UNC in the final)

[1 24 90]

Just an FYI since I've seen this mentioned numerous times on this board, Davidson did not win at Phog Allen. The game was played in the Sprint Center.

Davidson 80
(7-3, 2-0 Southern)
(11) Kansas 74
(7-3, 5-1 home)
Watch HighlightsAlerts Coverage: ESPNU
9:00 PM ET, December 19, 2011

Sprint Center, Kansas City, MO

[sporthenry]

Last time I saw that was in 2010. Hopefully the NCAA and CBS will conspire to give us a cakewalk to the championship again!

Yeah, I was just about to ask if the poster was sure they were worse than the 2010 team? Quite frankly, the poster is wrong in his assertion that UNC has locked up a #1. The committee puts an emphasis on the tourney champions which is why Missouri is still in the discussion. There have been many times over the last ten years or so where Duke was in this same position, won the tourney, and got rewarded. I don't know if the committee wants to show the tournament matters or if they believe its a better indication of the team since they don't get an unbalanced schedule and it is a "what have you done for me lately" sport.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I'm not sure what your criterion is for "finishing strong" but there are plenty of other teams that had about the same records over the last month of the season.

Really? Plenty of teams with our RPI, our SOS that went 8-1 in the last month of the season? I doubt that.

Anyway, my point isn't the validity of Duke being a #1 - as I say everyone seems to agree that if Duke and UNC meet in the final, winner gets the seed. My point is, if Duke wins that UNC would still be a viable #1 seed over Kansas. If UNC wins, I wouldn't say the same about Duke. But really, the two would have nearly identical resumes if Duke plays UNC and wins tomorrow.

[CDu]

Really? Plenty of teams with our RPI, our SOS that went 8-1 in the last month of the season? I doubt that.

Anyway, my point isn't the validity of Duke being a #1 - as I say everyone seems to agree that if Duke and UNC meet in the final, winner gets the seed. My point is, if Duke wins that UNC would still be a viable #1 seed over Kansas. If UNC wins, I wouldn't say the same about Duke. But really, the two would have nearly identical resumes if Duke plays UNC and wins tomorrow.

I agree with this. If we beat UNC tomorrow, we're the 3rd #1 seed. No question. UNC would have no ground to stand on compared to us. UNC would still have a great argument for the 4th #1 though. If we lose to UNC, UNC is clearly a #1. At that point, the committee might go with Kansas or MSU/OSU (if one of them wins their conference). But we should still be in the hunt with our resume.

That said, we still have a lot of work to do today to make any of the scenarios matter.

[slower]

I'm sure there will be plenty of time for such posts after Duke's next loss. Pace yourself.


Looks like it should be about one hour from now.

[1 24 90]

So I'm thinking Syracuse - Duke in Boston, UNC - Big Ten runner up in Atlanta - Kentucky - Missouri in St. Louis & Big Ten Champ - Kansas in Phoenix.

[FerryFor50]

So I'm thinking Syracuse - Duke in Boston, UNC - Big Ten runner up in Atlanta - Kentucky - Missouri in St. Louis & Big Ten Champ - Kansas in Phoenix.

If UNC loses tomorrow, I doubt they get a #1.

[superdave]

If UNC loses tomorrow, I doubt they get a #1.

Agreed. It would highlight their 33 point loss to FSU.

Of course if the selection committee can give a #1 seed to a team with a 33 point loss on their resume, then I know nothing about anything.

[ThePublisher]

No chance of a 1 seed now, bummer.... Unless we magically get it together, this team will do well to hit the sixteen.

[diveonthefloor]

No chance of a 1 seed now, bummer.... Unless we magically get it together, this team will do well to hit the sixteen.

After the FSU loss in the semis, hard to imagine that the committee put Duke higher than a #3 seed. If we eek out a #2, no doubt we'd be placed with Kentucky in whichever region they are in.

To reach the second weekend, we'd have to beat a legit tourney team (#14 seed), followed by a legit top 20 (#6 seed).
Definitely doable, but will need Ryan back, and will need to figure out how to get good shots with teams learning to crowd our shooter.

[1 24 90]

After the FSU loss in the semis, hard to imagine that the committee put Duke higher than a #3 seed. If we eek out a #2, no doubt we'd be placed with Kentucky in whichever region they are in.

To reach the second weekend, we'd have to beat a legit tourney team (#14 seed), followed by a legit top 20 (#6 seed).
Definitely doable, but will need Ryan back, and will need to figure out how to get good shots with teams learning to crowd our shooter.

So who gets the final #2 seed?

[uh_no]

So who gets the final #2 seed?

I the top 8 are pretty clearly (in no particular order)

UK
SU
UNC
Kansas
MSU
DUke
Missou
OSU

Not a chance that Marquette displaces duke as the 2 seed. I think the only 5 with the shot at a 1 seed are

UK
SU
UNC
Kansas
Missourri

I think the first three are a lock, and missouri locks it up with a win over baylor here.

[Udaman]

The top 8 seeds are now set, in my mind. They are

1's: Kentucky, Kansas, Syracuse UNC

2's: Ohio State, Michigan State, Duke, Missouri

The real question is who ends up as the #2 seed with Kentucky. Hopefully (hopefully) it will be Missouri. But they look good to win their tournament, so I don't see them sticking them there. So, it could be the loser of Ohio State, Michigan State.

But, I think our loss today likely means it will be us. And that sucks. We don't match up with them. We would have a tough time staying close with them....and we get the top #3 seed on the S-curve.

Too bad....because I think we could beat Syracuse (they are terribly overrated, in my mind, and capable of losing in the Sweet 16 or earlier), and we already know we can beat Kansas. And the double bummer is that if we do end up with Kentucky, it means UNC avoids either Ohio State or Michigan State, either of which could give them a good game.

Hopefully the committee sees that we were without Kelly and gives our high RPI a break.....but my guess is

1. Syracuse 2. Ohio State / Michigan State loser

1. Kansas 2. Ohio State / Michigan State winner

1. UNC 2. Missouri (just write UNC into the Final Four if that happens. Missouri matches up terribly with them)

1. Kentucky 2. Duke

[uh_no]

The top 8 seeds are now set, in my mind. They are

1's: Kentucky, Kansas, Syracuse UNC

2's: Ohio State, Michigan State, Duke, Missouri

The real question is who ends up as the #2 seed with Kentucky. Hopefully (hopefully) it will be Missouri. But they look good to win their tournament, so I don't see them sticking them there. So, it could be the loser of Ohio State, Michigan State.

But, I think our loss today likely means it will be us. And that sucks. We don't match up with them. We would have a tough time staying close with them....and we get the top #3 seed on the S-curve.

Too bad....because I think we could beat Syracuse (they are terribly overrated, in my mind, and capable of losing in the Sweet 16 or earlier), and we already know we can beat Kansas. And the double bummer is that if we do end up with Kentucky, it means UNC avoids either Ohio State or Michigan State, either of which could give them a good game.

Hopefully the committee sees that we were without Kelly and gives our high RPI a break.....but my guess is

1. Syracuse 2. Ohio State / Michigan State loser

1. Kansas 2. Ohio State / Michigan State winner

1. UNC 2. Missouri (just write UNC into the Final Four if that happens. Missouri matches up terribly with them)

1. Kentucky 2. Duke

Out of curiousity, why do you ahve kansas ahead of missouri? Missouri will have a better record, the league title, and a split head to head. Are you basing it solely on wins v top 25? (7-4 mizzou) that's about the only think kansas has on mizzou this point. Wins vs top 50 will be the same now.

[1 24 90]

Won't the whole geography question put either a Big 10 team or Missouri in St. Louis or Atlanta rather than Boston? Just seems to me that the most logical #2 seed in Boston is Duke. (assuming UNC is #1 in Atlanta which I believe is a lock now even if they lose tomorrow)

[TexHawk]

Out of curiousity, why do you ahve kansas ahead of missouri? Missouri will have a better record, the league title, and a split head to head. Are you basing it solely on wins v top 25? (7-4 mizzou) that's about the only think kansas has on mizzou this point. Wins vs top 50 will be the same now.

Missouri lost the league title to Kansas by two full games.

It's very easy for Missouri to have only four losses when their best noncon opponents were Cal, Villanova, and Old Dominion. Which is why they are #290+ on noncon SOS. Contrast that with KU that played UK, Duke, Ohio State, and Georgetown.

[uh_no]

Missouri lost the league title to Kansas by two full games.

It's very easy for Missouri to have only four losses when their best noncon opponents were Cal, Villanova, and Old Dominion. Which is why they are #290+ on noncon SOS. Contrast that with KU that played UK, Duke, Ohio State, and Georgetown.

The conference championship....whatever you want to call it. They split with kansas, won as many games against top 50 opponents and just won the big 12 championship. Kansas may end up with the 1 seed, but its hardly 100% clear cut as you make it. I would say its a toss up at this point.

[gumbomoop]

It appears there are still several, even numerous, location options for 7 of the top 8. As best I can tell from posters more informed than I, only 'Cuse [East] seems absolutely set as to location.

Long ago I posted my strong preference that UNC would be 2-seed in UK's region, but I would now be shocked were that to happen. Further, I am close to resigned to seeing UK and UNC on opposite sides of the brackets, meaning they couldn't meet until NC.

I do assume Duke will be a #2, with either 'Cuse or UK. Down the road we'd probably have to worry a lot about that, and other teams, too; but in view of inconsistent play lately, and rather often this season, I'm willing to say, "I sure hope we get to play both UK and 'Cuse before our season ends."

And so do you.

[TexHawk]

In a very strange way, I think it was better for KU to lose to Baylor, rather than beat them for a 3rd time then possibly lose to Mizzou in the final. If that were to happen, Mizzou would have won 2 of 3, added a top 5 win, both which would drastically improve their RPI. It would be hard to give KU a #1 over them in that case. As it is, KU won the conference by 2 games with a full round-robin 18 game schedule, splitting the head-to-head. If the committee really does care about the entire season, it's a no-brainer. ( I'm not saying that necessary means a #1 for KU, but they should be ahead on the S-curve. )

And anyone who is putting Mizzou as Kentucky's #2 in St. Louis is kidding themselves. No chance. That would be similar to be "awarding" a #1 seed then being forced to play UCLA in California ( this happened to KU in 2007 ).

[TexHawk]

The conference championship....whatever you want to call it. They split with kansas, won as many games against top 50 opponents and just won the big 12 championship. Kansas may end up with the 1 seed, but its hardly 100% clear cut as you make it. I would say its a toss up at this point.

Ok, let me ask you this... Has there ever been a case of someone losing the conference by a couple games to a team, then they go on and take a #1 seed ahead of them after the conference tournaments? I'm honestly curious. This seems like something that may have come up between UNC/Duke in the past.

Maybe I drank too many Roy cocktails when he was in Lawrence, talking about how much he hated the "cocktail party" conference tournaments, but 18 games >> 3 games in 3 days at the end of conference season.

[uh_no]

Ok, let me ask you this... Has there ever been a case of someone losing the conference by a couple games to a team, then they go on and take a #1 seed ahead of them after the conference tournaments? I'm honestly curious. This seems like something that may have come up between UNC/Duke in the past.

Maybe I drank too many Roy cocktails when he was in Lawrence, talking about how much he hated the "cocktail party" conference tournaments, but 18 games >> 3 games in 3 days at the end of conference season.

Perhaps not in that exact scenario, but in 2010 Duke and maryland tied for the regular season title, and duke went on to win the tournament. Duke was a 1 seed and maryland was a 4. On the one hand, duke was clearly the other team, but on the other hand, it semonstrates that exactly how two teams finished relative to each other in the conference schedule is not indicative of their seeding. The committee looks at, as they say, the body of work. I doubt the fact that Kansas played 2 games better in a relatively arbitrary subset of their games than did mizzou will have more weight than the fact that kansas played and beat more good teams.

The two games the teams played against each other were incredibly close, one was decided by 3 points, the other was in OT. Looking at differentiators, kansas won 3 more games against top 25 opponents, and mizzou won the title. THe wins against the top opponents is likely enough for kansas, but mizzou made a statement beating baylor by 15 today. We do not know which the committee will end up valuing more, as they are not really consistent year to year (seeing as the composition changes, this makes sense). I believe, though, there are valid justifications for choosing either team as the 1 seed.

[TexHawk]

I doubt the fact that Kansas played 2 games better in a relatively arbitrary subset of their games than did mizzou will have more weight than the fact that kansas played and beat more good teams.

Arbitrary? KU & Missouri played the exact same teams in that 18 game schedule, home and away. Missouri got swept by Kansas State, and the games were not close. KU swept Kansas State (one in a blowout). Missouri also has a terrible loss at OSU (where KU won by 12). The other KU loss was at Iowa St, which is a tournament team and finished 3rd in the regular season. Missouri won there.



The two games the teams played against each other were incredibly close, one was decided by 3 points, the other was in OT. Looking at differentiators, kansas won 3 more games against top 25 opponents, and mizzou won the title.

Here we are with the "title" again. Not sure why you're trying to diminish it. KU has a nice, big championship trophy for winning the league by 2 games. I would much, much rather have that one than the other.


I believe, though, there are valid justifications for choosing either team as the 1 seed.
Well, I want to be clear, I'm not really arguing about a #1 seed here. The Ohio St/MSU winner should probably get it, assuming UNC gets the other one.

[uh_no]

Here we are with the "title" again. Not sure why you're trying to diminish it. KU has a nice, big championship trophy for winning the league by 2 games. I would much, much rather have that one than the other.


Title is any name you can ascribe to a team. Missouri are the 2012 Big 12 Tournament Champions. That is a title. Today they won the title game. Perhaps you do not value you it as much as the regular season title, but that does not preclude the tournament champions from calling themselves the title holders.

[TexHawk]

Title is any name you can ascribe to a team. Missouri are the 2012 Big 12 Tournament Champions. That is a title. Today they won the title game. Perhaps you do not value you it as much as the regular season title, but that does not preclude the tournament champions from calling themselves the title holders.

Absolutely agree, they should be commended for winning today. My reaction was more that your comment that Mizzou won THE title. Which can be debated, as KU is the 2012 Big 12 Conference Champions. It says so in nice, big letters on the trophy.

[sagegrouse]

Ok, let me ask you this... Has there ever been a case of someone losing the conference by a couple games to a team, then they go on and take a #1 seed ahead of them after the conference tournaments? I'm honestly curious. This seems like something that may have come up between UNC/Duke in the past.

Maybe I drank too many Roy cocktails when he was in Lawrence, talking about how much he hated the "cocktail party" conference tournaments, but 18 games >> 3 games in 3 days at the end of conference season.

1998 is the closest. Duke finished the ACC 15-1 after an amazing comeback in Cameron in the final game against UNC. UNC, which had both Jamison and Carter, was 12-4 in the ACC, losing to State, GT, Maryland and Duke. UNC won the conference something like 83-68 over Duke (the famous Makhtiar Ndiaye taunting incident).

Both Duke and UNC got #1 seeds, but UNC got the preferred regional assignment, and K was fairly upset about it. Duke lost to Kentucky in the regional finals after having a 17-point lead, while UNC lost to Utah in the Final Four in San Antonio.

sagegrouse

[tendev]

There is no way they get a No. 1 if they lose to FSU tomorrow. They win, they get the No. 1. If not, they are a 2.

[ice-9]

If both UNC and MSU win tomorrow, they would be the remaining two #1 seeds. Not Missouri.

What's more interesting is if they both lose -- then it'd be a crapshoot among UNC, MSU, Kansas, Missouri and maybe even OSU.

At this point we are a clear #2 seed; we won't slip to #3 unless Kelly is out for the season and the committee uses that. If we don't want to be the fourth #2 seed, we should hope MSU wins as OSU is the only team of the bunch that is clearly below us.

(Ironic given that we beat three other contenders and lost badly to OSU.)

[1 24 90]

There is no way they get a No. 1 if they lose to FSU tomorrow. They win, they get the No. 1. If not, they are a 2.

What is your thinking in this matter? What 2 teams would get it over UNC? UNC is 29-4 and #3 in the RPI. Kansas has 6 losses, both Big Ten teams have at least 6 losses too. Missouri was #11 in the RPI coming into their title game and they did not win their regular season. I think UNC is a lock as a #1.

[TexHawk]

If both UNC and MSU win tomorrow, they would be the remaining two #1 seeds. Not Missouri.

What's more interesting is if they both lose -- then it'd be a crapshoot among UNC, MSU, Kansas, Missouri and maybe even OSU.



Why the "maybe"? If they win tomorrow and UNC loses, they should be set. I know they haven't had the strongest last few weeks, but here are their losses:
@KU in December (no shame in that, w/o Sullinger)
@Indiana (MSU lost here too, as did Kentucky)
@Illinois (bad loss, but MSU lost here too)
@Michigan (ok loss, but again, MSU lost here too)
MSU (but then won @MSU)
Wisconsin (not a great home loss, but this is a better loss than losing at Northwestern, which happened to MSU)

[ice-9]

Why the "maybe"? If they win tomorrow and UNC loses, they should be set. I know they haven't had the strongest last few weeks, but here are their losses:
@KU in December (no shame in that, w/o Sullinger)
@Indiana (MSU lost here too, as did Kentucky)
@Illinois (bad loss, but MSU lost here too)
@Michigan (ok loss, but again, MSU lost here too)
MSU (but then won @MSU)
Wisconsin (not a great home loss, but this is a better loss than losing at Northwestern, which happened to MSU)

You're right! Let's remove the "maybe" -- OSU would be a contender if they win the B1G tournament.

[Greg_Newton]

My bracketology:

East:

1. Syracuse
2. Duke
3. Indiana
4. Murray State

South:

1. Kentucky
2. OSU
3: Baylor
4. FSU

Midwest:

1. MSU
2. Missouri
3. Marquette
4. Georgetown

West:

1. UNC
2. Kansas
3. Michigan
4: Wisconsin

(I'm assuming FSU and MSU will win tomorrow :p)

[NYBri]

who cares? we will be where we are and if we make it to the sweet 16, be overjoyed.

[tommy]

My bracketology:

East:

1. Syracuse
2. Duke
3. Indiana
4. Murray State

South:

1. Kentucky
2. OSU
3: Baylor
4. FSU

Midwest:

1. MSU
2. Missouri
3. Marquette
4. Georgetown

West:

1. UNC
2. Kansas
3. Michigan
4: Wisconsin

(I'm assuming FSU and MSU will win tomorrow :p)

No way Indiana is a 3 since the season-ending injury the other day to Jones. I think they're going to drop down to a 5 or so.

OK I'll try my luck, assuming that UNC and MSU win tomorrow:

South
1. Kentucky
2. Duke
3. Baylor
4. Georgetown

East
1. Syracuse
2. Ohio State
3. FSU
4. Murray St.

Midwest
1. Kansas
2. Michigan St.
3. Marquette
4. Wichita St.


West
1. UNC
2. Missouri
3. Michigan
4. Louisville

[Udaman]

Tommy,

I think you are right on. We'll be the#2 with Kentucky, with Baylor as our #3. It's a nightmare scenario for our team....though with the way we are playing, it probably doesn't matter.

[davekay1971]

Here's a nice chart I swiped from Statefansnation.com. Not much news regarding Duke and UNC's seeding, which are obviously basically locked at 2 and 1, respectively. But for a visual look at the probabilities of various team seeds according to the bracketologists, it's pretty cool.

http://www.statefansnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Group-think.png

[sporthenry]

No way Indiana is a 3 since the season-ending injury the other day to Jones. I think they're going to drop down to a 5 or so.

South
1. Kentucky
2. Duke
3. Baylor
4. Georgetown


While I agree that Indiana will drop to a 4 possibly a 5 and getting them as a 3 would be a huge break but there is also no way this bracket occurs. While Lunardi isn't always on point, he is the best thing going and he has Gtown and Baylor as 3 seeds. Not to mention, Baylor is probably the #1 3 seed. Gtown would probably be the #1 4 seed and UK the #1 1 seed. While the committee uses location for the 1 and 2, their justification is that they will even it out with the 3 and 4 so that all brackets according to the S-curve will be around the 34 when counting up the top 4 seeds in each bracket.

Duke as a 2 seed is tough to tell where they will fall since one two seed won their conference, the other was ahead of us coming into the week, and the other one reached its conference final. Putting these 2's on the S-curve will be splitting hairs but even if we fall to 8, your bracket would still seem unrealistic.

[Highlander]

From the Main page:


There are some very dangerous teams on this list. Just a few to consider: Belmont, Davidson, Harvard and Davidson. We’ll have more after the pairings are announced.

The Wildcats must be really dangerous if they are going to play as two different seeds in the Tournament. Now that's some serious respect!

[uh_no]

My guesses:

UK in stl (people say they'll end up in atlanta, but JOe L has them in Stl, and I'd imagine he knos more than anyone what distance metric they use for preferred sites
SU in bos
UNC in atl
winner of MSU OSU in pho

Then the two seeds end up depending on whether the committee values geography or seeding

so on to the two seeds, I think kansas gets the nod as the top two, followed by loser of B10, missouri, and duke

so if its based on seeding, kansas goes to phoenix, L-B10 goes to atl, mizzou goes to boston, and duke goes to stl

if its based on location, kansas goes to stl with UK (and ends up with likely the weakest 3 and 4 seeds), L-B10 goes to boston, with the next weekest 3 and 4, mizzou goes to atl with the next weakest, and duke goes to phoenix with the strongest 3 and 4.

Assuming the top seeds are correct, the following must be true, duke cannot go to atlanta, and the L-B10 cannot go to phoenix.

[House G]

I am sure we will get a favorable draw, given the makeup of the selection committee: ;)
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/ncaa-tourney-selection-committee-140009975.html?sf3453492=1

[tommy]

While I agree that Indiana will drop to a 4 possibly a 5 and getting them as a 3 would be a huge break but there is also no way this bracket occurs. While Lunardi isn't always on point, he is the best thing going and he has Gtown and Baylor as 3 seeds. Not to mention, Baylor is probably the #1 3 seed. Gtown would probably be the #1 4 seed and UK the #1 1 seed. While the committee uses location for the 1 and 2, their justification is that they will even it out with the 3 and 4 so that all brackets according to the S-curve will be around the 34 when counting up the top 4 seeds in each bracket.

Actually, if we're the last #2 (meaning #8 overall) which isn't unlikely, and we're matched with the #1 overall, then a true S-curve would have the best #3 (meaning #9 overall) matched up with us. If Baylor is the top #3 then it would perfect sense in my scenario that they'd be our #3.

I can see your point about Georgetown, if they're a #4. Maybe I'd switch them with Louisville.

[sporthenry]

Actually, if we're the last #2 (meaning #8 overall) which isn't unlikely, and we're matched with the #1 overall, then a true S-curve would have the best #3 (meaning #9 overall) matched up with us. If Baylor is the top #3 then it would perfect sense in my scenario that they'd be our #3.

I can see your point about Georgetown, if they're a #4. Maybe I'd switch them with Louisville.

Yes, we could very well get Baylor if we fall to #8 on the S-curve. The committee can pretty much put whoever they want 5-8. Like many, I'm not really sure how KU is ahead of us when we have a head to head and a higher RPI and SOS. We are 5-5 vs top 25 RPI they are 5-4. I would think the head-head would give us the edge. But again, we'd have to fall to #8 and we'd still get the worst #4 in the bracket which probably would be Indiana, Wichita State, or possibly Louisville.

But we may also luck out by the regional preference if they want to put OSU in the East, Kansas/Mizzou in the South and us out West.

[uh_no]

I am sure we will get a favorable draw, given the makeup of the selection committee: ;)
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/ncaa-tourney-selection-committee-140009975.html?sf3453492=1

Its likely due to his ties to duke that Joe won't be able to talk concerning Duke. Members must leave the room when discussing schools which they are affiliated with (I believe), and have no vote for schools from the conference, just allowed to provide information. I'm not sure this extends necessarily to past employments (such as alleva and duke), but the committee seems to be very professional about these things, and I wouldn't be surprised if Joe recused himself from discussions about duke and abstained from a vote on them.

[SCMatt33]

Jeff Hathaway just gave an interview on CBS and said that 3 of the 4 one seeds were already set, and they were still kicking around 3 or 4 teams for the last one. If you step back today, and look at the resumes with a fresh eye (as opposed to looking at what the situation was a week ago, plus what has happened lately), I think that UNC is the third lock. You have to look at what the NCAA concentrates on. Their top 50 record at 8-4 isn't much worse than those of Kansas, Mich St, OSU, Duke, etc. They are the only one who doesn't have any questionable losses, with their worst being UNLV. Beyond that, they have 2 fewer losses than every other contender (except Mizzou, who has a terrible SOS and NCSOS). The big knock on them was not enough top end wins, but they have two great ones vs. Mich St. and @Duke. The committee also hasn't really been interested in top 25 and top 10 wins in the past. Duke 2010 got a 1 seed with only one win against a top 6 seed, which is roughly your top 25. You could bring up Henson, but half the teams they're competing against have significant injuries (Duke, MSU).

For some reference, here is todays official Nitty Gritty sheet (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/pdfs/2012/2012+03-10+nitty+gritty+2). This is the top sheet results that the committee is actually looking at right now.

For the other teams contending for that last spot, Hathaway mentioned "3-4" teams, which would theoretically mean that while most of the mainstream media has felt that 8 teams have separated themselves, it might only be 6 or 7 in the committee's mind. Who's in and out of that group is tough to say. A team like Mizzou has the best top 50 record outside of Cuse and UK, at 11-3, but they have a terrible SOS and NCSOS. Duke has the opposite situation, with the worst top 50 mark of the bunch, at only 7-5, but has the second best SOS and best NCSOS of the group. Duke also has one of the best road records among the group. Michigan St has great SOS numbers, but has struggled on the road and also has 7 losses. I think it's been something like 10 years since a 7 loss team has gotten a 1 seed. Beyond that, MSU is the only team in the group with multiple losses outside the top 50, losing to Illinois and Northwestern. OSU falls somewhere in the middle of that, with good but not great SOS and Top 50 numbers, and mediocre, but not terrible road numbers, and NCSOS. Kansas is in a similar boat with good, but not great numbers across the board. It's tough to say where everyone falls in that group. Of coarse that's before you count the eye test, which who knows how much they actually look at that, and also injuries. MSU has to deal with losing Brandon Dawson, who won't come back, but it hasn't really affected them so far. Duke has an unknown situation with Kelly, and it appeared to affect them, but they didn't take a bad loss either.

It's really tough to discern what the committee will do, and I could see Duke falling anywhere from 4-8 on the S-curve, but most likely in the 5-7 range. Within that, though, It's a total crap shoot.

One last thing I wanted to address was the location situation with UK. Lunardi has them in St. Louis with everyone else having them in Atlanta. I don't know what metric they use. As the crow (or charter plane) flies, Atlanta is closer. But in terms of driving distance, St. Louis is closer because there is a more direct path to drive there. Both Palm and Lunardi, who are the guys actually put effort into their brackets beyond the S-Curve, both say St. Louis for UK.

[uh_no]

I ran some numbers on all possible permutations of the likely 2 seeds to come up with our likely destinations.

Assumptions:
the top 4 seeds in order are
UK
SU
UNC
Winner of the B10

and they go to
STL
Bos
ATL
Phx

THe number 2 seeds are (in any order)
duke
KU
loser of the B10
missouri

Duke may not be in atlanta with UNC
the loser of the big 10 cannot be in phoenix with the winner of the big 10


Under those assumptions, I ran two sets of numbers: if the committee seeds the 2s based on location, or based on seeding. I iterated over all 24 permutations of the #2 seeds. Now, its likely that not all 24 permutations are equally likely, but I think a justification can be made for any of the 4 2s to be ahead of the other 3. Therefore we can say that the committee could possibly come up with any one of the 4 permutations later today. That said, we do not end up in each of the four regions with equal probability. Why not? well first of all, we cannot be in atlanta. Second, STL would be our #3 preferred location (distance) whereas for the big 10 schools and b12 schools, it would be their most preferred. So, on to the numbers

If its based strictly on seed:
we go to pheonix 1/4 of the time, boston 5/12 of the time, and stl 1/6 of the time. THe loser of the big 10 ends up in atlanta a whopping 7/12 times. Pheonix and stl are both evenly divided among the teams that can end up there

if its based on location:
we go to boston a whopping 5/8 times and pheonix the other 3/8.....that's right...if its based on location, we cannot end up in st louis! no UK! hooray! the stl region ends up evenly distributed among the other three teams. THe big 10 team ends up in atlanta 10 times, and boston 6 times. Missouri and ks are pretty even between stl atl, and phx.


So pretty much we need to hope that either a) the committee does it off location, or b) we are not the #8 overall seed (which is the only way seeding puts us in stl). Unfortunately we have a pretty good chance to be #8 overall. Each other team has more wins against top 25 and top 50 than do we, except missouri who has one fewer top 25 win, but after beating baylor for the big 10 title yesterday, i'm not sure the committee would put them all the way down at #8. If MSU loses today, I can see them as the 8 overall, but by the time that game ends, I think the committee will already have a pretty good idea of where they want to put people.

[turnandburn55]

1998 is the closest. Duke finished the ACC 15-1 after an amazing comeback in Cameron in the final game against UNC. UNC, which had both Jamison and Carter, was 12-4 in the ACC, losing to State, GT, Maryland and Duke. UNC won the conference something like 83-68 over Duke (the famous Makhtiar Ndiaye taunting incident).

Both Duke and UNC got #1 seeds, but UNC got the preferred regional assignment, and K was fairly upset about it. Duke lost to Kentucky in the regional finals after having a 17-point lead, while UNC lost to Utah in the Final Four in San Antonio.

sagegrouse

2002 comes to mind as well. Maryland went 15-1 in the conference, but lost in the ACC Semifinals to State, while Duke went 13-3 and won the Tournament. Both get #1 seeds, us in the South and Maryland in the East, and Boozer was fouled.

[uh_no]

2002 comes to mind as well. Maryland went 15-1 in the conference, but lost in the ACC Semifinals to State, while Duke went 13-3 and won the Tournament. Both get #1 seeds, us in the South and Maryland in the East, and Boozer was fouled.

2009 Louisville won both the regular season and tournament crowns in the big east....but both pitt and connecticut got 1 seeds anyway (along with louisville).

[SCMatt33]

So pretty much we need to hope that either a) the committee does it off location, or b) we are not the #8 overall seed (which is the only way seeding puts us in stl). Unfortunately we have a pretty good chance to be #8 overall. Each other team has more wins against top 25 and top 50 than do we, except missouri who has one fewer top 25 win, but after beating baylor for the big 10 title yesterday, i'm not sure the committee would put them all the way down at #8. If MSU loses today, I can see them as the 8 overall, but by the time that game ends, I think the committee will already have a pretty good idea of where they want to put people.

The real answer is that they do it off of both. The rule is that teams are put into the bracket in S-curve order, but when they are put in, they get put in their preferred location, not preferred #1 matchup. With the location of the 2 seeds, the only way that the 8 seed does not end up in Phoenix is if they can't go there based on who the one seed is, or if the 7 overall seed can only go out west because the other remaining region has a 1 seed from it's own conference.

I mentioned this earlier, but I'm not convinced that Duke will be 8. The committee doesn't really care about winning your conference or conference tourney in the era of unbalanced schedules. They really do look at each teams body of work overall. They also don't look at top 25 wins. That information is only available to them if they were to look at each teams schedule and count. It appears nowhere on the info sheets they get. They look at top 50 and top 100. They also look at SOS and NCSOS. Beyond what is on the stuff they receive, they really only look at individual big wins and bad losses as well as the eye test. They could theoretically ask for whatever info they want, but somehow I doubt that they do. I'm also not convinced that a Big Ten team gets a one seed. OSU has 7 losses and it's been at least 10 years since a 7 loss team got a 1 seed. I know six of those losses were to very good teams, but they have a very mediocre NCSOS at 124, which is something they look at, and they're only 7-4 on the road. The committee has also put little emphasis on Sunday games in recent years, especially the Big Ten game since there is so little time between the end of that game and when the bracket is due. Even last year, when everyone assumed that there were two spots for Duke and UNC and the title game would settle it, the committee claimed that it had already been settled. The other thing that could potentially stop the one seed discussion is how well the Bonnies are playing right now against Xavier, which would completely blow up the bracket if they won.

[uh_no]

The real answer is that they do it off of both. The rule is that teams are put into the bracket in S-curve order, but when they are put in, they get put in their preferred location, not preferred #1 matchup. With the location of the 2 seeds, the only way that the 8 seed does not end up in Phoenix is if they can't go there based on who the one seed is, or if the 7 overall seed can only go out west because the other remaining region has a 1 seed from it's own conference.


Right. The issue is that assuming the winner of the MSU/OSU game is the 1 seed in pheonix, the loser of the game CANNOT be in pheonix. That increases the probability that the other 3 teams have of ending up there, as if the loser of the game today ends up as the #8 overall. This puts us in a situation where we could be the #7 overall and end up in pheonix if the big 10 team is number 8. I think the takeaway is that we have very little chance of ending up in pheonix and a very good chance of being in boston.

[SCMatt33]

Right. The issue is that assuming the winner of the MSU/OSU game is the 1 seed in pheonix, the loser of the game CANNOT be in pheonix. That increases the probability that the other 3 teams have of ending up there, as if the loser of the game today ends up as the #8 overall. This puts us in a situation where we could be the #7 overall and end up in pheonix if the big 10 team is number 8. I think the takeaway is that we have very little chance of ending up in pheonix and a very good chance of being in boston.

I think the big takeaway is that if UNC get #3 overall, we will likely be in Boston, with Phoenix being the next most likely. The highest 2 seed out of Kansas, Mizzou, Mich St, and OSU will almost certainly go to St. Louis. If Duke is ahead of all of them, they go to Boston anyway, so if UNC is in Atlanta, we'd go to Boston unless they're 8 overall or if they're 7 overall and 8 overall is in the same conference as 4 overall preventing them both from heading west. I think we mostly agree on this other than I'm not convinced that the winner of the Big Ten game get the last one seed. I still think a Big 12 team could get it, especially if it's OSU that wins the game. I already talked about my reasons and won't rehash it.

[sporthenry]

I think the big takeaway is that if UNC get #3 overall, we will likely be in Boston, with Phoenix being the next most likely. The highest 2 seed out of Kansas, Mizzou, Mich St, and OSU will almost certainly go to St. Louis. If Duke is ahead of all of them, they go to Boston anyway, so if UNC is in Atlanta, we'd go to Boston unless they're 8 overall or if they're 7 overall and 8 overall is in the same conference as 4 overall preventing them both from heading west. I think we mostly agree on this other than I'm not convinced that the winner of the Big Ten game get the last one seed. I still think a Big 12 team could get it, especially if it's OSU that wins the game. I already talked about my reasons and won't rehash it.

Since you guys are doing most of the discussion. Is there anyway we avoid Baylor as a 3 seed. I don't care too much who our 1 seed is b/c it will take enough to get there but the 3 seed will be more important.

[uh_no]

Since you guys are doing most of the discussion. Is there anyway we avoid Baylor as a 3 seed. I don't care too much who our 1 seed is b/c it will take enough to get there but the 3 seed will be more important.

It depends. If we end up in boston (2 overall) and end up #5 overall, chances are we'll have the 11/12 seed (since that's a very strong 1 and 2 seed). If we end up in pheonix as the #8 overall (with the #4 1 seed), bank on having baylor. If we instead end up in boston with a low overall seed (say we're #7 and cuse is #2) then we could feasibly end up with any of the 3 seeds as the committee is trying to balance the strength of the region and the 1 and 2 seeds are already balanced. If the other big 10 team is the 8 overall, forcing the 7 overall into pheonix, baylor may end up elsewhere.....so again our best bet is to end up in boston with the #4 and #8 overall seeds in pheonix.

[1 24 90]

I'd like to nominate uh_no to be on the committee next year. All those in favor?

[sporthenry]

It depends. If we end up in boston (2 overall) and end up #5 overall, chances are we'll have the 11/12 seed (since that's a very strong 1 and 2 seed). If we end up in pheonix as the #8 overall (with the #4 1 seed), bank on having baylor. If we instead end up in boston with a low overall seed (say we're #7 and cuse is #2) then we could feasibly end up with any of the 3 seeds as the committee is trying to balance the strength of the region and the 1 and 2 seeds are already balanced. If the other big 10 team is the 8 overall, forcing the 7 overall into pheonix, baylor may end up elsewhere.....so again our best bet is to end up in boston with the #4 and #8 overall seeds in pheonix.

UNC could conceivably drop to the 4 #1 seed now. Would the committee put MSU or OSU in the South or push UK down South and put the B10 in the Midwest? Then we avoid the West as UNC goes out there and they ship out Baylor out West. Baylor will be tough to avoid since presumably both Mizzou and KU will be on the 2 line. But I think ideal situation is Duke in the East with Syracuse and anyone not named Baylor.

[uh_no]

UNC could conceivably drop to the 4 #1 seed now. Would the committee put MSU or OSU in the South or push UK down South and put the B10 in the Midwest? Then we avoid the West as UNC goes out there and they ship out Baylor out West. Baylor will be tough to avoid since presumably both Mizzou and KU will be on the 2 line. But I think ideal situation is Duke in the East with Syracuse and anyone not named Baylor.

They could, but i don't think they would. If they did, its hard to know what the committee will do with UK. They are 10 miles closer to stl than atlanta. THey may say "well they're closer to stl so they go there" or they may say "well they're almost as close to atlanta, but we can make it much better for some other 1 seed, so they'll go there"

I don't know if we've had a situation where the #1 overall is so equidistant to two sites....no precedent.

But if they stay in stl, UNC would go out west and the B10 team would be in Atlanta. This would be cool since it would guarantee we couldn't go out west. Which also decreases our likelihood of getting baylor, even if we are a low seed. If they put UK in atlanta, then the big 10 team is in STL.

I think we end up in boston, UNC in pheonix and they get the loser of the B10, and baylor ends up in pheonix.

[howardlander]

UNC could conceivably drop to the 4 #1 seed now. Would the committee put MSU or OSU in the South or push UK down South and put the B10 in the Midwest? Then we avoid the West as UNC goes out there and they ship out Baylor out West. Baylor will be tough to avoid since presumably both Mizzou and KU will be on the 2 line. But I think ideal situation is Duke in the East with Syracuse and anyone not named Baylor.

I have to agree that I'd like to be in the region with Syracuse. Best way to beat their zone is to flash someone to the free throw line. Assuming Kelly is healthy, Duke has a 6'11" guy that's an 80% free throw shooter. Coach K should have Kelly camp there...

Howard

[nmduke2001]

The talking heads are concerned that UNC might have fallen to a two seed. Would that move us out of the two in the east and into the Kentucky bracket.

[NashvilleDevil]

The talking heads are concerned that UNC might have fallen to a two seed. Would that move us out of the two in the east and into the Kentucky bracket.

The thing about talking heads is they rarely know what they're talking about.

[turnandburn55]

The talking heads are concerned that UNC might have fallen to a two seed. Would that move us out of the two in the east and into the Kentucky bracket.

Does Kentucky losing make Syracuse the #1 overall?

[cptnflash]

Since you guys are doing most of the discussion. Is there anyway we avoid Baylor as a 3 seed. I don't care too much who our 1 seed is b/c it will take enough to get there but the 3 seed will be more important.

Why is everyone assuming that we're still a 2 seed? Given Ryan's uncertain status and the way we've played lately, the committee could very well drop us to the 3 line.

[Chris Randolph]

My guess for the #1 seeds:

Kentucky
Syracuse
Mich St
Kansas

#2 seeds:
UNC
Mizzou
Ohio St
Duke

[turnandburn55]

Why is everyone assuming that we're still a 2 seed? Given Ryan's uncertain status and the way we've played lately, the committee could very well drop us to the 3 line.

Who do you move ahead of us? Michigan? Baylor? Don't forget we're still #5 in the RPI, #2 in strength of schedule, and have a lot of high-quality wins. It would be hard to find someone who could match our resume to bump us off the #2 line.

[uh_no]

My guess for the #1 seeds:

Kentucky
Syracuse
Mich St
Kansas

#2 seeds:
UNC
Mizzou
Ohio St
Duke

I think henson being out today, along with the near guarantee that he'll be back for the tournament, locks up the 1 seed. That means the committee can write off the loss today.

My final guess is

UK in stl
syracuse in boston
unc in atl
msu in phx


kansas in stl
duke in boston
missouri in pheonix
OSU in atlanta

baylor in atlanta

[cptnflash]

Who do you move ahead of us? Michigan? Baylor? Don't forget we're still #5 in the RPI, #2 in strength of schedule, and have a lot of high-quality wins. It would be hard to find someone who could match our resume to bump us off the #2 line.

Injuries matter, and we are clearly not the same team without Ryan. Remember what they did to Purdue in 2010 after Hummel got hurt. I'm not saying we'll drop 2 full seed lines like they did (from a 2 seed to a 4 seed), but they could easily drop us a few places on the S-curve, enough to move us down a line. We certainly don't look like one of the top 8 teams in the country right now, regardless of how many quality wins we had earlier in the season.

That being said, the difference between a 2 and a 3 will be completely academic unless Ryan comes back and we start playing much better. At this point, I'm just hoping we make it past the first weekend. Anything beyond the sweet 16 is gravy.

[SCMatt33]

Why is everyone assuming that we're still a 2 seed? Given Ryan's uncertain status and the way we've played lately, the committee could very well drop us to the 3 line.

There's nobody on the 3 line that has a profile close to any of the two seeds. The other thing is that Duke lost to a good team. It's not like Purdue 2010 where they just fell apart. I mentioned this in this thread or another one before, but I think the best analogy is Cuse 2010 and Arinze Onuaku. Onuaku had a similar impact on his teams in terms of raw numbers and team rank for things like points and rebounds. He went down against Georgetown in their first BE tourney game and they lost. Georgetown got a 3 seed that year, which isn't too far off where FSU is expected to be. Onuwaku's status on Selection Sunday was completely unknown. Ultimately the punished the team not by dropping them a seed line, but sending them out west. I don't think that the committee will drop a team a seed line, when they didn't lose any bad games without the injured player.

[sporthenry]

Does Kentucky losing make Syracuse the #1 overall?

No, UK was overall #1 coming into this week and advanced further than Syracuse in their respective conference tourney.

[uh_no]

No, UK was overall #1 coming into this week and advanced further than Syracuse in their respective conference tourney.

ahhhhhh is it 6pm yet?????grrrrrr

[cptnflash]

There's nobody on the 3 line that has a profile close to any of the two seeds. The other thing is that Duke lost to a good team. It's not like Purdue 2010 where they just fell apart. I mentioned this in this thread or another one before, but I think the best analogy is Cuse 2010 and Arinze Onuaku. Onuaku had a similar impact on his teams in terms of raw numbers and team rank for things like points and rebounds. He went down against Georgetown in their first BE tourney game and they lost. Georgetown got a 3 seed that year, which isn't too far off where FSU is expected to be. Onuwaku's status on Selection Sunday was completely unknown. Ultimately the punished the team not by dropping them a seed line, but sending them out west. I don't think that the committee will drop a team a seed line, when they didn't lose any bad games without the injured player.

That's a good point. It certainly didn't hurt that Florida State played well again today, albeit against a depleted Tar Heels lineup. Also, the committee (supposedly) doesn't consider margin of victory, so our recent unimpressive (in my book) wins against Wake and Virginia Tech just count as wins. I hope you're right, even if it doesn't really matter in the end.

[sporthenry]

Why is everyone assuming that we're still a 2 seed? Given Ryan's uncertain status and the way we've played lately, the committee could very well drop us to the 3 line.

But K and Duke have played this wonderful. Even if Ryan's injury is worse like some predicted, it has not been in the media like Chris Singletons (I think it was him either last year or the year before) or any others. They have played it off like a small foot sprain and just keeping him out for precautionary reasons. Now this could be the case or it could be season ending but nobody has really talked about it so I see no reason the committee would bring it up.

[uh_no]

But K and Duke have played this wonderful. Even if Ryan's injury is worse like some predicted, it has not been in the media like Chris Singletons (I think it was him either last year or the year before) or any others. They have played it off like a small foot sprain and just keeping him out for precautionary reasons. Now this could be the case or it could be season ending but nobody has really talked about it so I see no reason the committee would bring it up.

I believe they keep all the athletics departments on speed dial so they can get up to the minute injury information. The committee will have an idea whether kelly is coming back or not.

[gumbomoop]

I don't have access to, or can't easily locate, a literally-up-to-this-minute [3:59 pm] update for both Lunardi and Palm. I did catch Lunardi 15 minutes ago on ESPN.

Interests me that both Lunardi and Palm have UK as #1 in MW rather than S. UNC #1 S. Seems highly unlikely that Duke would be shipped to MW, and can't be placed in UNC's region. So, I hope they're right that Duke goes to Boston with #1 'Cuse. [Be careful, etc......]

Also interesting that both have Baylor as #3 with UNC in South; and both have Mich as #3 with 'Cuse/Duke.

[1 24 90]

But K and Duke have played this wonderful. Even if Ryan's injury is worse like some predicted, it has not been in the media like Chris Singletons (I think it was him either last year or the year before) or any others. They have played it off like a small foot sprain and just keeping him out for precautionary reasons. Now this could be the case or it could be season ending but nobody has really talked about it so I see no reason the committee would bring it up.

If it is revealed that Kelly is out for the season, won't K be raked over the coals for "covering it up"?

[uh_no]

I don't have access to, or can't easily locate, a literally-up-to-this-minute [3:59 pm] update for both Lunardi and Palm. I did catch Lunardi 15 minutes ago on ESPN.

Interests me that both Lunardi and Palm have UK as #1 in MW rather than S. UNC #1 S. Seems highly unlikely that Duke would be shipped to MW, and can't be placed in UNC's region. So, I hope they're right that Duke goes to Boston with #1 'Cuse. [Be careful, etc......]

Also interesting that both have Baylor as #3 with UNC in South; and both have Mich as #3 with 'Cuse/Duke.

UK is closer to STL than it is to atlanta, which is why they are slotted there. We are closer to boston than we are to STL, so again the chance is duke is in boston.

Baylor will likely go to the region with some combination of a weak 2 seed and total of weak 1+2 seed. If the #3/4 and #8 overall end up in the same region, baylor is all but guaranteed to go there.

[pfrduke]

So if we were to end up with Kentucky, Syracuse, UNC, and Kansas as the four 1 seeds, it would mean all four top seeds did not win their conference tournaments. I'm sure the committee doesn't consider big picture things like that (too much else going on), but has that ever happened before?

[pfrduke]

UK is closer to STL than it is to atlanta, which is why they are slotted there. We are closer to boston than we are to STL, so again the chance is duke is in boston.

Baylor will likely go to the region with some combination of a weak 2 seed and total of weak 1+2 seed. If the #3/4 and #8 overall end up in the same region, baylor is all but guaranteed to go there.

With the #1 overall seed, and with a situation like this (where St. Louis and Atlanta are essentially equidistant), I wonder if they ask the athletic department for geographical preference (or maybe, generally, whether they offer each school the opportunity to submit their ordered geographical preferences). If the whole idea of geographic preference is to benefit the better teams, wouldn't you want the school's input? In this situation, I could easily see Kentucky saying that they'd rather travel 14 extra miles to play in Atlanta in the heart of SEC country than take the shorter trip to St. Louis.

[uh_no]

So if we were to end up with Kentucky, Syracuse, UNC, and Kansas as the four 1 seeds, it would mean all four top seeds did not win their conference tournaments. I'm sure the committee doesn't consider big picture things like that (too much else going on), but has that ever happened before?

funny i was just thinking the same thing!...and even if not, then neither of the top two overall seeds will have won their tournament.

I do think SU and UK are weaker than made out to be, UNC had a guy out, and theres just a lot of very good teams out there that are not necessarily dominant, but can beat people on any given night....Louisville, baylor, indiana, wisconsin

[Delaware]

But K and Duke have played this wonderful. Even if Ryan's injury is worse like some predicted, it has not been in the media like Chris Singletons (I think it was him either last year or the year before) or any others. They have played it off like a small foot sprain and just keeping him out for precautionary reasons. Now this could be the case or it could be season ending but nobody has really talked about it so I see no reason the committee would bring it up.

I've thought all day that we might get dropped to a 3, but then I looked at the candidates for the a 2 that may have helped their case late or in their tournaments:
Baylor - inconsistent play
Michigan - lost badly in their tournament
Marquette - lost early in their tournament
Georgetown - same
Louisville - coming from too far back
Wisconsin - maybe because Big 10 is deemed best conference
Inidana - same

I think we are a solid 2. Probably in East but perhaps in South if UK is there.

[mgtr]

Help me out here -- with all the talk about 1 and 2 seeds, Missouri seems to left out of the discussion. Didn't they just win the Big 12 (over Baylor, who is in the mix).
What am I missing?

[SCMatt33]

One other thing that worries me since we're likely going to the East or West (look back earlier for my reasoning) is that both of those regions are Thursday-Saturday, and Greensboro is Friday-Sunday. For the west especially, I don't like the prospects of going cross-country on three days rest potentially against a team that has four days rest and a shorter flight. Especially late in the year, Duke hasn't handled short rest, and particularly shorter rest than its opponent, to well.

[pfrduke]

Help me out here -- with all the talk about 1 and 2 seeds, Missouri seems to left out of the discussion. Didn't they just win the Big 12 (over Baylor, who is in the mix).
What am I missing?

They're at the very least a 2-seed, and have a shot at the last #1, although I think their extremely weak NCSOS will keep them from getting it. My bet is that they'll be the #2 in the South (it would be a little unfair to make them #2 in the midwest, which would give them a huge home court advantage over the #1 in that region).

[uh_no]

Help me out here -- with all the talk about 1 and 2 seeds, Missouri seems to left out of the discussion. Didn't they just win the Big 12 (over Baylor, who is in the mix).
What am I missing?

they'll be a two seed...

[SCMatt33]

Help me out here -- with all the talk about 1 and 2 seeds, Missouri seems to left out of the discussion. Didn't they just win the Big 12 (over Baylor, who is in the mix).
What am I missing?

They have an overall SOS somewhere in the 80's and a non conference SOS outside the top 200. The committee really, really hates that.

[coldriver10]

ESPN just asked six of its analysts who would be the first 1 or 2 seed to exit the tournament...5 of the 6 voted for Duke (including J-Will). I hope K shows this to the team...a little extra motivation never hurts.

[1 24 90]

ESPN just asked six of its analysts who would be the first 1 or 2 seed to exit the tournament...5 of the 6 voted for Duke (including J-Will). I hope K shows this to the team...a little extra motivation never hurts.

Fran Fraschilla said Coach K would show it to the team as he was picking us to lose. Let the Duke bashing begin!

[Tappan Zee Devil]

ESPN just asked six of its analysts who would be the first 1 or 2 seed to exit the tournament...5 of the 6 voted for Duke (including J-Will). I hope K shows this to the team...a little extra motivation never hurts.

Yeah, but I like our chances with Lunardi's last brackets that are up now.
Don't know how close they will be to the actual ones

Jim

[sagegrouse]

espn just asked six of its analysts who would be the first 1 or 2 seed to exit the tournament...5 of the 6 voted for duke (including j-will). I hope k shows this to the team...a little extra motivation never hurts.

Bulletin Board!!!!

sagegrouse

[NashvilleDevil]

ESPN just asked six of its analysts who would be the first 1 or 2 seed to exit the tournament...5 of the 6 voted for Duke (including J-Will). I hope K shows this to the team...a little extra motivation never hurts.

Didn't they say the same thing in 2010?