Bracketology 2013

[licc85]

I just don't get it . . it seems like everyone in the media across the board is just unbelievably low on us this year. Lunardi has us as a number 4 seed. Seriously? No.4? This team is almost undoubtedly BETTER than last year's team that was a no. 2 seed . . . why does no one at ESPN realize this? So, basically, Lunardi is saying this is the worst Duke team since 2006-07. You can't be serious. I'd be absolutely shocked if we aren't a top 10 team in the country this year. I'd also be willing to bet significant money that we get a No. 3 seed or better in 2013. I'll give Andy Katz a pass because he put out his preseason rankings before we knew Mason was coming back, but I'm pretty close to losing a significant amount respect for Joe Lunardi. ESPN is giving Duke no respect at all.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/year/2013

[weezie]

Enjoyed seeing this thread start up. While I don't have too much regard for Lunardi, and think he's lucky to have any kind of a job, it's kind of like seeing the first crocus bulb sprout....another hoops season on the distant horizon!

[sagegrouse]

Here's the case AGAINST Duke at the beginning of the 2013 season:


The last game we stunk up the joint.
We then lost Rivers, our best player; Miles, a first round draft pick; and Andre, who was a key player in several wins.
Freshmen Rasheed and Amile are not likely to be impact players on the order of Kyrie or Rivers.
Folks are tired of waiting for Mason to play like an All-American.
Red-shirt freshmen (Marshall and Alex) have no cred with the media -- I mean, if they are so good, why didn't they play last year?
Duke's defense last year was mediocre for a Coach K team; where's the improvement?
The sports opinionocracy think we really were not a #2 seed last year, losing three of the last four games.



I suppose here's the counter case FOR Duke in 2013:


Mason, Ryan and Seth are front-line players who give the team a solid and tested group of veterans.
Mason and Kelly have substantial star potential, and as seniors, it's now "prime time."
Alex, Amile and Rasheed provide the length and quickness missing on defense last year; the Devils should become a typically Duke defense-oriented team.
Quinn Cook should "blow up" and become the best point guard in the ACC and beyond -- last year he was hampered by injuries.
Rasheed could provide the explosiveness lost when Austin departed.
The 50,000-foot view: Duke has six McD A-A's on the roster and the best coach on the planet. Why isn't this one of the very best teams in the country?


Stay tuned, but I don't mind flying below the radar at the beginning of the season.

sagegrouse





.

[Kedsy]

I just don't get it . . it seems like everyone in the media across the board is just unbelievably low on us this year. Lunardi has us as a number 4 seed. Seriously? No.4? This team is almost undoubtedly BETTER than last year's team that was a no. 2 seed . . . why does no one at ESPN realize this? So, basically, Lunardi is saying this is the worst Duke team since 2006-07. You can't be serious. I'd be absolutely shocked if we aren't a top 10 team in the country this year. I'd also be willing to bet significant money that we get a No. 3 seed or better in 2013. I'll give Andy Katz a pass because he put out his preseason rankings before we knew Mason was coming back, but I'm pretty close to losing a significant amount respect for Joe Lunardi. ESPN is giving Duke no respect at all.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/year/2013

I said this in another thread: I think it's great everyone outside Durham thinks we're down. I'll be shocked if we end up worse than a #2 seed and not surprised at all if we end up better. If they all think we stink, it'll be that much sweeter when we kick butt.

[OldPhiKap]

Here's the case AGAINST Duke at the beginning of the 2013 season:


The last game we stunk up the joint.
We then lost Rivers, our best player; Miles, a first round draft pick; and Andre, who was a key player in several wins.
Freshmen Rasheed and Amile are not likely to be impact players on the order of Kyrie or Rivers.
Folks are tired of waiting for Mason to play like an All-American.
Red-shirt freshmen (Marshall and Alex) have no cred with the media -- I mean, if they are so good, why didn't they play last year?
Duke's defense last year was mediocre for a Coach K team; where's the improvement?
The sports opinionocracy think we really were not a #2 seed last year, losing three of the last four games.



I suppose here's the counter case FOR Duke in 2013:


Mason, Ryan and Seth are front-line players who give the team a solid and tested group of veterans.
Mason and Kelly have substantial star potential, and as seniors, it's now "prime time."
Alex, Amile and Rasheed provide the length and quickness missing on defense last year; the Devils should become a typically Duke defense-oriented team.
Quinn Cook should "blow up" and become the best point guard in the ACC and beyond -- last year he was hampered by injuries.
Rasheed could provide the explosiveness lost when Austin departed.
The 50,000-foot view: Duke has six McD A-A's on the roster and the best coach on the planet. Why isn't this one of the very best teams in the country?


Stay tuned, but I don't mind flying below the radar at the beginning of the season.

sagegrouse





.

Very well-summarized. A great "post of the month" although it looks like that experiment ran its course.

The OPK bald dome index says Duke will be a better team this year than last, and if we stay healthy we are a force to be dealt with come March. And if anyone doesn't think that K is coming back to Duke fired up and hungry to instill some of his Olympic experience into the home team . . . .



("Kobe Bryant ran this drill from dawn to dusk. You think you're better than him?" -- "You could be the next LeBron if you just learn to do X." -- "Watch how Chris Paul has his head up court as soon as he receives the ball. I picture you performing like CP")

[tommy]

I wouldn't put any stock in what Lunardi has to say 7 months before the tournament selections are to be made. His one sub-specialty is predicting the teams that make the field, but he has proven good at that only once he has all, or just about all, of the information -- meaning the results of the games. He has none of that now, obviously, so he's just guessing like anyone else would guess.

Just to illustrate, his Bracketology from November of 2011, predicting last year's tournament field and seedings, had these gems:

His #2 seeds were Duke (correct), Florida, Pitt, and UConn. Florida turned out to be a 7, UConn a 9, and Pitt didn't make the tournament at all. He had Memphis as a 3. They turned out to be an 8. He had Xavier as a 4. They were a 10.

From the opposite perspective, meaning where he badly underrated teams, he didn't have Indiana or Georgetown even making the field. Indiana turned out to be a 4 and Georgetown a 3. Michigan State was a #1 seed last year, but in November Lunardi had them as a 6. Missouri was an actual #2; Lunardi had them as a 7 this early. FSU was an actual #3 but Lunardi had them as an 8 in November.

All guys like him are doing is taking a very superficial look at the teams, and when he looks at Duke's roster, he sees we lost our best, most visible player as well as a recognizable big man who also turned out to be a first rounder in the NBA, off of a team that lost in the first round, and we didn't get any super-high name recognition recruits like Shabazz Muhammad to replace them. I'd bet dollars to donuts that's as far as his "analysis" of Duke has gone.

[ThePublisher]

I see Duke making a 1 seed. We are incredibly underrated this year.

[licc85]

I wouldn't put any stock in what Lunardi has to say 7 months before the tournament selections are to be made. His one sub-specialty is predicting the teams that make the field, but he has proven good at that only once he has all, or just about all, of the information -- meaning the results of the games. He has none of that now, obviously, so he's just guessing like anyone else would guess.

Just to illustrate, his Bracketology from November of 2011, predicting last year's tournament field and seedings, had these gems:

His #2 seeds were Duke (correct), Florida, Pitt, and UConn. Florida turned out to be a 7, UConn a 9, and Pitt didn't make the tournament at all. He had Memphis as a 3. They turned out to be an 8. He had Xavier as a 4. They were a 10.

From the opposite perspective, meaning where he badly underrated teams, he didn't have Indiana or Georgetown even making the field. Indiana turned out to be a 4 and Georgetown a 3. Michigan State was a #1 seed last year, but in November Lunardi had them as a 6. Missouri was an actual #2; Lunardi had them as a 7 this early. FSU was an actual #3 but Lunardi had them as an 8 in November.

All guys like him are doing is taking a very superficial look at the teams, and when he looks at Duke's roster, he sees we lost our best, most visible player as well as a recognizable big man who also turned out to be a first rounder in the NBA, off of a team that lost in the first round, and we didn't get any super-high name recognition recruits like Shabazz Muhammad to replace them. I'd bet dollars to donuts that's as far as his "analysis" of Duke has gone.

Yeah, you are totally right. I definitely overreacted. I guess I'm just so used to Duke being rated highly (and sometimes overrated) during the preseason stages that I'm just a bit taken aback this year because we aren't getting any respect from the media. It will definitely feel great when everyone realizes that our team is actually much better than anticipated. I definitely think this team has a chance to do something special and I would be surprised if we don't get a #1 or #2 seed.

[CDu]

I wouldn't put any stock in what Lunardi has to say 7 months before the tournament selections are to be made. His one sub-specialty is predicting the teams that make the field, but he has proven good at that only once he has all, or just about all, of the information -- meaning the results of the games. He has none of that now, obviously, so he's just guessing like anyone else would guess.

Just to illustrate, his Bracketology from November of 2011, predicting last year's tournament field and seedings, had these gems:

His #2 seeds were Duke (correct), Florida, Pitt, and UConn. Florida turned out to be a 7, UConn a 9, and Pitt didn't make the tournament at all. He had Memphis as a 3. They turned out to be an 8. He had Xavier as a 4. They were a 10.

From the opposite perspective, meaning where he badly underrated teams, he didn't have Indiana or Georgetown even making the field. Indiana turned out to be a 4 and Georgetown a 3. Michigan State was a #1 seed last year, but in November Lunardi had them as a 6. Missouri was an actual #2; Lunardi had them as a 7 this early. FSU was an actual #3 but Lunardi had them as an 8 in November.

All guys like him are doing is taking a very superficial look at the teams, and when he looks at Duke's roster, he sees we lost our best, most visible player as well as a recognizable big man who also turned out to be a first rounder in the NBA, off of a team that lost in the first round, and we didn't get any super-high name recognition recruits like Shabazz Muhammad to replace them. I'd bet dollars to donuts that's as far as his "analysis" of Duke has gone.

Yeah, people have to realize that Lunardi is not a basketball expert. He's a selection committee expert; and even then, he's only sort of good at that. He's not spectacular at predicting seeds, just somewhat good at predicting which 10 or so bubble teams will make the field (usually missing 1 or 2 of those).

Lunardi's whole schtick is, as tommy said, fairly accurately predicting which teams make it into the tournament based on their resumes. In the early days of his column, he would repeatedly remind folks that his seeds weren't a reflection of how good the team was but rather a reflection of how the committee would seed that team based on their body of work to that point.

So basically, a preseason Bracketology column is the antithesis of what Bracketology is supposed to be. I suspect the only reason he's doing one this early at all is because ESPN is pushing him to do it. But basically he's just, as tommy said, guessing based on a minimum amount of "research" at this point. And his guesses are actually even less informed than the actual (fairly uninformed) analysts' guesses.

Beyond that, preseason rankings are totally meaningless anyway. Who cares what Katz/Bilas/Lunardi/Gottfried/Phelps/Davis/etc. think we'll do, especially as of August? They won't play the games and they don't have a vote in the selection committee in March. Nothing to get worked up about.

[patentgeek]

Enjoyed seeing this thread start up. While I don't have too much regard for Lunardi, and think he's lucky to have any kind of a job, it's kind of like seeing the first crocus bulb sprout....another hoops season on the distant horizon!

I think Lunardi is particularly lucky to have a job in view of this article.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2053

which suggests that there isn't a lot of magic in predicting who will make the field.

[CDu]

I think Lunardi is particularly lucky to have a job in view of this article.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2053

which suggests that there isn't a lot of magic in predicting who will make the field.

To be fair, Lunardi's ESPN gig is a side job. His full-time gig is with St. Joe's. And I don't know that luck is the best choice of words. He's simply good enough at self-promotion and was one of the first to do bracketology.

But yes, it's not that hard to guess which teams will be in the field. Probably ~60 of them are given, so it's really just getting the last 8-10 spots right.

[Wander]

Playing the "no respect" card when you're a fan of Duke, UNC, Kentucky, or Kansas is kinda lame. I agree with all of you in that I'm pretty sure we'll be better than what Lunardi has there, but when your last impression is losing to a 15 seed, these things are going to happen.

[COYS]

Playing the "no respect" card when you're a fan of Duke, UNC, Kentucky, or Kansas is kinda lame. I agree with all of you in that I'm pretty sure we'll be better than what Lunardi has there, but when your last impression is losing to a 15 seed, these things are going to happen.

Also, Duke almost never gets shortchanged in the polls once the season starts. If Duke starts strong, we'll be back in the national spotlight quickly. As much as people doubted that the 2010 Devils would be able to win the title (especially after the Wisconsin, State, and Georgetown losses), it never affected Duke's rankings outside of the preseason, when we were ranked below 2010 UNC (which still brings a smile to my face when I think about how that season ended up for the Goats). The under-the-radar stuff will really only apply to the pre-season prognostications. If Duke wins, we'll immediately be back in the national discussion. If we lose, our profile is big enough that people will pay attention to that, as well (see: 2007 when Duke's struggles and forearms (Henderson, Gerald) probably garnered more attention than UNC's successes).

[gumbomoop]

Also, Duke almost never gets shortchanged in the polls once the season starts.... The under-the-radar stuff will really only apply to the pre-season prognostications.

Moreover, Lunardi's isn't a poll. The polls that count - even generously granting that pre-season polls count - are AP and ESPN-USA Today.

Lunardi's 4-seed for Duke would presumably translate into a 13-16 preseason ranking in some poll. I'll guess Duke will be a little higher, borderline top-10.

I'd expect some real differences among the several preseason-rankings and polls. Duke at #14 is no different from Duke at #8. UNC at #9 is no different from UNC at #13. NCSt could be #6 or 9 or 14. I'd expect some prognosticator will have KU at #4; but others will push them closer to 10. It does appear that IU and UL will be consensus top-2. And I guess UK will be consensus top-5, but if they are either anyone's #1 or a consensus top-3, they'd be overranked to begin the season. Their quality-depth is much, more questionable this year, as is their experience.

It's probably safe to assume, no matter the likely variations among pre-and-early polls, that UK will be ranked several spots ahead of Duke when they meet in Atlanta on Nov. 13. But based on the criteria of talent-experience-depth, if both teams play to their capabilities at that moment, Duke should win that game.

[Olympic Fan]

Just a few points:

-- count me among those who are glad to see Duke being underrated in preseason. It's nice for a a change. But I agree with Wander -- it's lame for a Duke (or a UNC, Kentucky, etc.) to play the "no respect" card. We get plenty of hype. The current skepticism is basically a penalty for losing to Lehigh in the first round last year.

-- also count me among the "don't take Lunardi very seriously" camp. The accuracy of his bracketology increases exponensially as the tournament approaches. His final bracketology -- the morning of the selection committee's announcement -- is usually pretty much on target. But, you know what, almost anybody could get 66-67 of the 68 teams on Selection Sunday. tommy does a good job of pointing out how off his preseason poll was last year ... but Lunardi's poll for the first of January every year is still pretty bad. And even when you get to the first of March, you'll see a number of clunkers.

I'm more concerned with the polls. I agree with gumbomoop that Duke will start the season as a borderline top 10 team. I hope it's inside the top 10 because of our ongoing streak of 93 straight weeks in the AP top 10 (the second-longest such streak in history).

But whether Duke starters the season at No. 8 or No. 12, doesn't matter much in the long run. The national perception of thise Duke team will be set in the second game on Nov. 14, when Duke meets Kentucky (which is going to be a top 5 team) in Atlanta. Win that and Duke is likely to spend the season in the top 10 ...lose it and Duke will be relegated to the second 10 and have to fight its way back into the top 10.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Just a few points:

-- count me among those who are glad to see Duke being underrated in preseason. It's nice for a a change. But I agree with Wander -- it's lame for a Duke (or a UNC, Kentucky, etc.) to play the "no respect" card. We get plenty of hype. The current skepticism is basically a penalty for losing to Lehigh in the first round last year.

Is this sarcasm, or are you serious? I feel that Duke is underrated every single year, especially when you consider our final NCAA seed. In recent memory, the only time that I can think of where we under performed our pre-season ranking was '06-'07. I think from a talent perspective, our ranking may be appropriate, but the voters always forget our ultimate trump card: Coach K.

[Wander]

I feel that Duke is underrated every single year, especially when you consider our final NCAA seed.

Well, first of all, we've been ranked #1 twice in the preseason recently - 2006 and 2011 - so I'm not sure how that can be underrated unless you want the preseason polls to just say Duke 25 times. In 2009 and 2012 we were ranked between #5 and #8 and ended up getting a 2 seed. So...

[flyingdutchdevil]

Well, first of all, we've been ranked #1 twice in the preseason recently - 2006 and 2011 - so I'm not sure how that can be underrated unless you want the preseason polls to just say Duke 25 times. In 2009 and 2012 we were ranked between #5 and #8 and ended up getting a 2 seed. So...

I should have clarified. Underrated or appropriately rated ;)

I guess your data helps to prove my point...

[CDu]

I should have clarified. Underrated or appropriately rated ;)

I guess your data helps to prove my point...

Well, if you're consistently a #1 or #2 seed by season's end, it's hard to be OVERrated. By my count, here's where we've fallen since Redick and Williams left Duke:

2011-12: preseason #6, final poll #8
2010-11: preseason #1, final poll #3
2009-10: preseason #8/9, final poll #3 (and eventual champion)
2008-09: preseason #8/5, final poll #6/5
2007-08: preseason #11/13, final poll #9
2006-07: preseason #11/12, final poll #21

So if anything, we've been overrated as much as we've been underrated (one time each; otherwise pretty much right on). So I think it is fair to say that it has been somewhat rare that we've been underrated.

[Billy Dat]

Well, if you're consistently a #1 or #2 seed by season's end, it's hard to be OVERrated. By my count, here's where we've fallen since Redick and Williams left Duke:

2011-12: preseason #6, final poll #8
2010-11: preseason #1, final poll #3
2009-10: preseason #8/9, final poll #3 (and eventual champion)
2008-09: preseason #8/5, final poll #6/5
2007-08: preseason #11/13, final poll #9
2006-07: preseason #11/12, final poll #21

So if anything, we've been overrated as much as we've been underrated (one time each; otherwise pretty much right on). So I think it is fair to say that it has been somewhat rare that we've been underrated.

Looking at those numbers, we've actually been pretty accurately rated. Missing by 1-2 places is pretty good. It's interesting when you add the final ESPN/Coaches post-tournament poll results, the Sweet-16-and-before exits really knocked us down.

2011-12: preseason #6, final poll #8, post NCAA poll #14
2010-11: preseason #1, final poll #3, post NCAA poll #7
2009-10: preseason #8/9, final poll #3, post NCAA poll #1
2008-09: preseason #8/5, final poll #6/5, post NCAA poll #11
2007-08: preseason #11/13, final poll #9, post NCAA poll #16
2006-07: preseason #11/12, final poll #21, post NCAA poll - for some reason, ESPN didn't have this poll on their site but I assume we wound up unranked after losing to VCU

[CDu]

Looking at those numbers, we've actually been pretty accurately rated. Missing by 1-2 places is pretty good. It's interesting when you add the final ESPN/Coaches post-tournament poll results, the Sweet-16-and-before exits really knocked us down.

2011-12: preseason #6, final poll #8, post NCAA poll #14
2010-11: preseason #1, final poll #3, post NCAA poll #7
2009-10: preseason #8/9, final poll #3, post NCAA poll #1
2008-09: preseason #8/5, final poll #6/5, post NCAA poll #11
2007-08: preseason #11/13, final poll #9, post NCAA poll #16
2006-07: preseason #11/12, final poll #21, post NCAA poll - for some reason, ESPN didn't have this poll on their site but I assume we wound up unranked after losing to VCU

Right. Like I said, one time overrated, one time underrated. The rest pretty much dead on.

[Olympic Fan]

I think the data (thanksCDu and Billy Dat) shows that Duke is very rarelly underrated.

Even the 2010 team -- which was underrated in my mind -- was a preseason top 10 team. Picking a team that finished No. 3 in the final AP poll at No. 9 in the preseason poll is hardly a big blip.
Now, I might argue that last year's team was "under-valued" for most of the season. Even as Duke was ripping off 26 wins in its first 29 games against the nation's second-toughest schedule, there were critics who thought Duke wasn't any good. But that skepticism was not reflected in the poll -- Duke was as high as No. 3 just before it closed out the regular season with a loss to UNC.

I beieve Duke is being -- and will continue to be -- underrated this season. Even if the preseason polls have Duke 9-11 nationally (as I suspect) and 2nd in ACC (which I'm betting will be the consensus), I think we will outperform that. But it's not like we're going to be off the radar.

I repeat, our national perception will -- to a large degree -- be set in stone on Nov. 14, when we faced Kentucky.

If I could talk to Lunardi, I'd love to bet him big money that (1) Duke finishes with better than a No. 4 seed; and (2) Duke finishes wilth a better seed that UNC. I THINK Duke will end up with a better seed than NC State, but I wouldn't risk big money on that opinion.