pointless debate over what our seed is

[DukieinSoCal]

I know we can debate ad nauseum about the importance of gettting a #1 seed in the NCAAT but since we're in a fan forum, I thought it would be fun to have one thread to monitor our prospects as we make our way towards Selection Sunday.

In the latests coaches' poll, we're ranked #5 behind Kansas, Michigan, Indiana, and Florida. Syracuse is right behind us and then there's a bit of a gap down to Gonzaga and Arizona. I don't really think any other teams can make much of a case for a #1 seed at this point.

Now, debating the merits of this group of teams, I can still see us easily getting a #1 seed considering our strong SOS and RPI. Of course, getting Ryan back healthy may ultimately be the factor that determines our seeding since it's obvious we are a much stronger team with him. If we don't get Ryan back before the the ACCT, I think we'll need to find a way to somehow at least tie for the ACC regular season crown. I think either Michigan or Indiana will fall off the top line if they don't tie for the Big Ten title. And even though the ACC is somewhat weak this year, finishing atop a major conference will still carry some weight with the selection committee.

Fortunately, there seems to be a lot of parity among the top teams this year and I anticipate some more losses for the teams ahead of and below us in the polls. Hopefully, we can string some Ws together and build towards the post-season.

[BigWayne]

Really not much to think about here for quite a while. Too many big games left for all the major contenders.

To be a #1 seed, you need to lose at most 5 games. If we can survive with no more than 2 losses the rest of the way, our chances for a #1 seed are good.
End the year with 6 or more losses and there is no chance. Just need to take one game at a time and win as many as we can.

[tommy]

Too early.

[DukieinSoCal]

I know it's too early but it just seems like there's a new thread every time one of the top teams loses a game so I figured we could just consolidate here. :D


Too early.

[JasonEvans]

SoCal nailed the important fact when it comes to Duke, to some extent our current games don't count as much as they do with other teams because we are missing a important key piece of the team. We established an incredible profile with Ryan Kelly and, assuming he comes back at full strength and we play well once he has returned, all our current games will be strongly discounted by the selection committee.

So, while the losses at NCSt and Miami may be troubling, we get at least a little bit of a pass on them.

But, it is worth noting that once Ryan returns, we need to get back to being what is clearly a top tier team.

-Jason "all of this is too early, but the conversation has to start at some point and this will be a fine collector thread" Evans

[JasonEvans]

Too early.

In the category of too early, is the fact that we simply don't know how any number of other teams will perform over the next 6 weeks of the season leading up to the tourney. It seems crazy, but I would submit that any BCS team that is currently even a mild contender for their conference's title is not out of the running for a #1 seed. Miami would be very much in the conversation for a #1 seed if they keep on playing the way they have been.

Allow me to put it this way -- If UNC were to run the table from here, they would get a #1 seed. They are currently at or near the bubble. It may not be likely, but there are dozens of teams still in the hunt for a #1 seed... all it takes is winning and winning and winning ;)

-Jason "I dunno if it is just the past 2 games, but Miami sure looks like a top ten team" Evans

[scottdude8]

According to ESPN we're still No. 1 in the RPI by a fairly decent margin. Considering the aesthetic beauty of our early-season wins, combined with Kelly being out for our only losses, I think we're in great shape for a No. 1 seed. If we can finish with 4 losses or less I think it's a given (depending on how bad those other two losses are), and we could even get a No. 1 seed with 5 or 6 losses given the Chaos that is permeating the NCAA this year and our SOS.

[IBleedBlue]

According to ESPN we're still No. 1 in the RPI by a fairly decent margin. Considering the aesthetic beauty of our early-season wins, combined with Kelly being out for our only losses, I think we're in great shape for a No. 1 seed. If we can finish with 4 losses or less I think it's a given (depending on how bad those other two losses are), and we could even get a No. 1 seed with 5 or 6 losses given the Chaos that is permeating the NCAA this year and our SOS.

I would much rather be a #2 seed close to home than being a #1 seed out west. This would put us at a disadvantage with regards to time zones and most probably end up playing Arizona at some point. Like we experienced 2 years ago, Arizona in west coast is virtually a home court for them without having to travel too much.

[sporthenry]

I would much rather be a #2 seed close to home than being a #1 seed out west. This would put us at a disadvantage with regards to time zones and most probably end up playing Arizona at some point. Like we experienced 2 years ago, Arizona in west coast is virtually a home court for them without having to travel too much.

This is true but with the power center of college basketball continually East, I would prefer going out West than staying home. Going out West as a #1 to Arizona as a #2 would give us most likely the weakest #2 seed. Sure, we're playing out West but this shouldn't matter much. Duke won't be the fan favorite just about anywhere they go so it shouldn't be a huge concern.

The only 2 places Duke will probably get a #1 are either East or West since the Big 10 will get the Midwest and KU will get the South. So would you rather play (according to Lunardi at the moment) either Louisville, Florida or Indiana in DC or Arizona in LA. Duke will probably travel better to DC but still wouldn't have a home court advantage and I think Arizona is rather far behind the other top teams (and I actually think the Florida game is evidence of this).

I think Kedsy or someone did a study last year or two that said we often came out of the West on a lot of our tourney runs.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

SoCal nailed the important fact when it comes to Duke, to some extent our current games don't count as much as they do with other teams because we are missing a important key piece of the team. We established an incredible profile with Ryan Kelly and, assuming he comes back at full strength and we play well once he has returned, all our current games will be strongly discounted by the selection committee.

So, while the losses at NCSt and Miami may be troubling, we get at least a little bit of a pass on them.

But, it is worth noting that once Ryan returns, we need to get back to being what is clearly a top tier team.

-Jason "all of this is too early, but the conversation has to start at some point and this will be a fine collector thread" Evans

In regards to Kelly's injury, Duke's seeding could swing from potentially a #1 overall seed to as low as the best #3 seed. Even if Duke were to lose 3 more games, if Kelly were to come back before the NCAAT, Duke's record pre-injury would justify a #1 seed despite 5+ losses. However, if Kelly were determined to not be able to play again this year, than all of our pre-conference wins would be downgraded(I'm thinking Kenyon Martin/Cincy situation).

As it seems with everything Duke these days, Ryan Kelly's foot is key. A mid-February return(or earlier) would be optimal, giving Duke enough time to bring him up to speed and get rollin' again.

[brevity]

Too early.

Selection Sunday is just under 7 weeks away. So, yeah, maybe a week too early. Traditionally, it makes sense to evaluate these things once the conference season is half-over. But that's not too far away, and with unbalanced schedules, not all that relevant a marking point.

Eh, wake me up when Florida is ranked ahead of Duke. Oh, they are? Then this discussion is right on time.

[sporthenry]

Selection Sunday is just under 7 weeks away. So, yeah, maybe a week too early. Traditionally, it makes sense to evaluate these things once the conference season is half-over. But that's not too far away, and with unbalanced schedules, not all that relevant a marking point.

Eh, wake me up when Florida is ranked ahead of Duke. Oh, they are? Then this discussion is right on time.

Perhaps it isn't too early to talk about it but most discussions won't get very far especially from a Duke stand point. So far, Duke has probably played 3 ACC games of note and are 1-2. 2 games versus UNC, return games versus Miami, UMD, and NC State along with games at FSU and UVA. Not even including the Kelly injury, Duke has plenty of games to prove themselves.

The Big 10 is still too close to call with 5 teams within 1 game in the loss column. Cuse and Louisville will probably drop a few more in the BE. KU and Florida are probably looking best for the #1 seeds b/c they have the easiest schedule but a team like Oregon could run the table and enter the discussion and that doesn't even include Butler or Gonzaga. I'd wait a month until this has any type of clarity.

[-jk]

This is true but with the power center of college basketball continually East, I would prefer going out West than staying home. Going out West as a #1 to Arizona as a #2 would give us most likely the weakest #2 seed. Sure, we're playing out West but this shouldn't matter much. Duke won't be the fan favorite just about anywhere they go so it shouldn't be a huge concern.

The only 2 places Duke will probably get a #1 are either East or West since the Big 10 will get the Midwest and KU will get the South. So would you rather play (according to Lunardi at the moment) either Louisville, Florida or Indiana in DC or Arizona in LA. Duke will probably travel better to DC but still wouldn't have a home court advantage and I think Arizona is rather far behind the other top teams (and I actually think the Florida game is evidence of this).

I think Kedsy or someone did a study last year or two that said we often came out of the West on a lot of our tourney runs.

I think we've done better East, regardless of seed. West is vile.

-jk

[Wander]

One thing to watch is how our toughest opponents are doing. VCU is on a 2 game losing streak, Louisville just broke a 3 game losing streak, and Minnesota's on a 4 game losing streak. For the most part, none of these losses are that bad, and our schedule is still very strong, but it'd be nice if a couple of our opponents crept back near the top of the polls.

[sporthenry]

I think we've done better East, regardless of seed. West is vile.

-jk

Upon further review, you are correct about the East. I think the comment was Duke does better as a #1 seed. I guess this is sort of a self fulfilling prophecy especially in the East or South where Duke would be sent for being one of the better #1 seeds.

Of the final 4 runs, we were in the East 7 times, the South 3 times and the Midwest once (titles came twice from the East and once from Midwest and once from South).

Of the final 4 runs, we were #1 6 times, #2 4 times and # 3 once (titles came from the 2 seed once and 1 seed 3 times).

The West hasn't been terrible but is more of a small sample size. K has only been West 5 times. As a 3 seed, he is 3-2, as a 6 seed 0-1, as a 2 seed 1-1 and as a 1 seed 2-1.

On the whole, he is 45-9 from the 1 seed, 24-6 from the 2 seed, 10-5 from the 3 seed, 2-1 from the 5 seed, 0-1 from the 6 and 8 seed. So again, it behooves Duke to be a #1 seed.

[tommy]

One thing to watch is how our toughest opponents are doing. VCU is on a 2 game losing streak, Louisville just broke a 3 game losing streak, and Minnesota's on a 4 game losing streak. For the most part, none of these losses are that bad, and our schedule is still very strong, but it'd be nice if a couple of our opponents crept back near the top of the polls.

Ohio State hasn't bowled anybody over either since we beat them. Their schedule has been weak. They do have the big win over Michigan, and that's not to be sneezed at. But that's all they have. But of their next eight games, six are against Wisconsin (twice), Michigan, Indiana, Minnesota, and Michigan State. Like to see them win a bunch of those. Indiana, Minnesota, and MSU, plus one of the Wisconsin games are at home.

And then there's Maude. OK, I mean Kentucky. They simply don't have any impressive wins this year. Their best is over Maryland, and that was in the season opener back in early November. It's really hard to root for them, of course, (and I won't) but if they were to get a win tomorrow night at Ole Miss that would help. Their only other remaining games against ranked teams are the home-and-home with Florida and a home game with Missouri. How many of those are they really going to win, given the stagnation of the progress of some of their key frosh, and the lack of development of some of the other guys they were counting on? It's hard to see them winning enough games that matter to help Duke's resume. That early season win by us is just not going to end up counting for much, I'm afraid. Except, of course, we get to lord it over their fans. Which is nice.

[DukieinSoCal]

Well, as of this week, Joe Lunardi still has us on the top line, ahead of Indiana. Our SOS seems to be an important factor that weighs heavily in our favor. Not sure if playing in the ACC will eventually start to drag down our SOS.
I know we just have to keep on winning until Ryan gets back. I'm very interested to see if we can perform on the road this week. This year's team has been Jekyll and Hyde so far home and away but a lot of that may have to do with adjusting to Ryan's absence.

[sporthenry]

Since we are trying to consolidate Duke's common opponents into one thread. This week was much better to Duke's opponents so far than last week. Louisville held off a feisty Pitt team to hopefully help them right the ship a bit. OSU took care of a tough Wisconsin team and Minnesota is blowing out a decent Northwestern team. But biggest game is UK who seems to be in control against Ole Miss. This gives UK a win to hold its hat on which will just help Duke.

Watching the UK game, this is the first game I've seen recently of them but apparently Poythress doesn't get many touches when he was easily their best player earlier in the year. He is shooting over 60% and has only the 5th most shots on the team. Goodwin seems to have hit a wall and this game is evidence of why we bottled up Wiltjer because once he gets going, he doesn't stop. But this team should be a top 25 team when all is said and done.

[sporthenry]

Spoke too soon about UK. Never saw a 17 point lead disappear so quickly. Ole Miss is in the midst of a 16-0 run.

[subzero02]

SoCal nailed the important fact when it comes to Duke, to some extent our current games don't count as much as they do with other teams because we are missing a important key piece of the team. We established an incredible profile with Ryan Kelly and, assuming he comes back at full strength and we play well once he has returned, all our current games will be strongly discounted by the selection committee.

So, while the losses at NCSt and Miami may be troubling, we get at least a little bit of a pass on them.

But, it is worth noting that once Ryan returns, we need to get back to being what is clearly a top tier team.

-Jason "all of this is too early, but the conversation has to start at some point and this will be a fine collector thread" Evans

Agreed... I was really hoping to have Ryan back for our game at FSU.. If that doesn't happen then hopefully he can help us exact some revenge vs. ncsu

[brevity]

Spoke too soon about UK. Never saw a 17 point lead disappear so quickly. Ole Miss is in the midst of a 16-0 run.

I'm not going to fault the Wildcats too much here. Ashley Judd is available again (http://espn.go.com/racing/story/_/id/8895698/ashley-judd-dario-franchitti-separate-11-years-marriage). It's easy to get distracted.

[moonpie23]

i guess that old writing on the wall that says: "no matter how hot she is, some guy is sick of her BS" could POSSIBLY be in play here, but i certainly can't see it.......

one of the most beautiful women ever..........imho

[CDu]

Upon further review, you are correct about the East. I think the comment was Duke does better as a #1 seed. I guess this is sort of a self fulfilling prophecy especially in the East or South where Duke would be sent for being one of the better #1 seeds.

Of the final 4 runs, we were in the East 7 times, the South 3 times and the Midwest once (titles came twice from the East and once from Midwest and once from South).

Of the final 4 runs, we were #1 6 times, #2 4 times and # 3 once (titles came from the 2 seed once and 1 seed 3 times).

The West hasn't been terrible but is more of a small sample size. K has only been West 5 times. As a 3 seed, he is 3-2, as a 6 seed 0-1, as a 2 seed 1-1 and as a 1 seed 2-1.

On the whole, he is 45-9 from the 1 seed, 24-6 from the 2 seed, 10-5 from the 3 seed, 2-1 from the 5 seed, 0-1 from the 6 and 8 seed. So again, it behooves Duke to be a #1 seed.

Actually, by your own analysis I disagree a bit with the bolded part. 23-5 (#2 outside of west) looks better than (or at least a good as) 2-1 (#1 out west). At the very least, a #2 seed further east is a push with a #1 out west.

[El_Diablo]

http://xkcd.com/904/

[wk2109]

Kenpom currently gives Florida a 57.2% probability of going undefeated in SEC play. That's pretty astounding regardless of how bad that conference is.

[throatybeard]

Why is this a Watch, and not a Vigil. I'm not asserting one or the other, but inquiring minds want to know.

[-jk]

Why is this a Watch, and not a Vigil. I'm not asserting one or the other, but inquiring minds want to know.

If I had to guess, a vigil is a worrisome thing, a watch is more hopeful.

But you're the linguist! You tell us.

-jk

[bedeviled]

Why is this a Watch, and not a VigilI think I've got it.
A vigil (etymologically from 'alertness' or 'wakefulness') is (per reference.com):
1. wakefulness maintained for any reason during the normal hours for sleeping.
2. a watch or a period of watchful attention maintained at night or at other times.
3. a period of wakefulness from inability to sleep.
So, a vigil is a watch, but it is a watch carried out while everyone is expected to be sleeping....a watch in the midst of darkness....you know, darkness, like 'what exactly is the injury?' or 'how long until he returns?"
Contrary to the darkness of injury status, the information for the #1 seed is currently out in the daylight for all to see. Once the committee takes that information into the double-secret seeding meeting, I'm sure this thread will be retitled to being a vigil ;)

[JasonEvans]

Agreed... I was really hoping to have Ryan back for our game at FSU.. If that doesn't happen then hopefully he can help us exact some revenge vs. ncsu

I think both of those are extremely unlikely. Extremely.

-Jason "at this point, I would be thrilled to get him back the end of February" Evans

[DukieinSoCal]

Florida and Kansas seem almost assured of ending up with #1 seeds considering they'll probably run away with their conference titles. Also, the big-10 winner will almost certainly be rewarded for winning a very tough conference. At least IU, MSU, and Michigan will beat up on each other, likely leaving 2 out of the 3 looking at lower seeds.

I never really considered Butler and Gonzaga as serious contenders for a top seed, even more so now after Butler got shellacked last night.

That leaves Syracuse and Arizona as potential threats to our pursuit of the last #1 seed. I would bet Arizona will lose at least 2 more games in a weak Pac-12. Syracuse will likely lose at least 1-2 more games as well but they may get a boost in their evaluation if Southerland comes back, much like us with Ryan.

Should be interesting to follow the rest of the way.


Kenpom currently gives Florida a 57.2% probability of going undefeated in SEC play. That's pretty astounding regardless of how bad that conference is.

[Kedsy]

Florida and Kansas seem almost assured of ending up with #1 seeds considering they'll probably run away with their conference titles.

In mid-January 2010, I remember people here saying Texas was pretty much a lock for a #1 seed. They ended up with a #8. I expect both Florida and Kansas have a better shot of continuing their strong play than that (then) top-ranked Texas team did, but my point is nothing is "almost assured" at this point in the season.

[sporthenry]

Pitt currently taking it to Cuse. I'd say the top 6 teams have sort of separated themselves but Cuse is in danger of falling out. Ultimately, I think it'll be the top 5 fighting for the 4 spots. I agree that KU and Florida have the inside track with their schedules. Then add one of IU/Michigan if either team sweeps or whoever wins the regular season title. Then it will come down to Duke versus the other if the other is able to win the conference tourney.

Now teams like Zona, Cuse or even a Miami can win its way into the discussion but this is probably most probable at this point and Duke sort of lucks out if the committee takes into account Kelly's injury.

[sporthenry]

So of course KU loses today. Biggest part of the loss was that it was at home but I don't think it will kill them assuming they right the ship but Duke is in a good position assuming they finish the year strong.

[Bob Green]

So of course KU loses today. Biggest part of the loss was that it was at home but I don't think it will kill them assuming they right the ship but Duke is in a good position assuming they finish the year strong.

Number 2 Kansas loses and either #3 Indiana or #1 Michigan will lose later tonight. Duke is in good shape as long as we continue to win, which is easier said than done.

[sagegrouse]

So of course KU loses today. Biggest part of the loss was that it was at home but I don't think it will kill them assuming they right the ship but Duke is in a good position assuming they finish the year strong.

#5 Duke "should be" #3 in the polls next week, moving up at least two places. #2 Kansas loses, and #1 Michigan plays #3 Indiana. #4 Florida should beat Ole Miss at home.

Moreover, Duke's impressive win was in a difficult environment in Tallahassee.

sagegrouse

[matt1]

#5 Duke "should be" #3 in the polls next week, moving up at least two places. #2 Kansas loses, and #1 Michigan plays #3 Indiana. #4 Florida should beat Ole Miss at home.

Moreover, Duke's impressive win was in a difficult environment in Tallahassee.

sagegrouse
If Ole Miss somehow pulls an upset, do you think Duke will be #2 on Monday?

[sporthenry]

If Ole Miss somehow pulls an upset, do you think Duke will be #2 on Monday?

Yes, unless Michigan wins in a tight game and they keep both teams ahead of Duke. But Ole Miss is already down 8. And rankings are relatively useless. This thread has the eye on the real prize, the #1 seed.

[cptnflash]

Florida already up 18 on Old Miss 13 minutes in. At this rate, they'll win by 50. I still don't get why the media keeps repeating the "no great teams this year" meme. Florida is clearly great. They'll get some #1 votes in the polls on Monday, but probably not enough to overtake whoever wins tonight's IU/MI game.

[sporthenry]

Florida already up 18 on Old Miss 13 minutes in. At this rate, they'll win by 50. I still don't get why the media keeps repeating the "no great teams this year" meme. Florida is clearly great. They'll get some #1 votes in the polls on Monday, but probably not enough to overtake whoever wins tonight's IU/MI game.

Well it is tough to be the great team when you aren't even #1. Ole Miss just lost to UK and Florida doesn't really have nearly the resume that Duke does in terms of high quality wins. Heck, Duke has better wins and their 2 losses were to top 20 teams just like Florida. Florida seems inconsistent and even more reliant on the 3 than Duke. They are a very good team and probably playing the best ball but that doesn't make them dominant in my eyes.

[cptnflash]

Well it is tough to be the great team when you aren't even #1. Ole Miss just lost to UK and Florida doesn't really have nearly the resume that Duke does in terms of high quality wins. Heck, Duke has better wins and their 2 losses were to top 20 teams just like Florida. Florida seems inconsistent and even more reliant on the 3 than Duke. They are a very good team and probably playing the best ball but that doesn't make them dominant in my eyes.

Florida will be #2 on Monday, and will be #1 the following week after Indiana loses at least one of their road games at Illinois and Ohio State (assuming Indiana manages to win tonight, which is looking less and less certain every minute). After that, I expect Florida will remain #1 through the NCAA tournament, where they'll almost certainly be the #1 overall seed.

Florida's average margin of victory in conference games so far this year is 26.5 points. That's not a typo. If that's not dominant, I don't know what is.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Florida's average margin of victory in conference games so far this year is 26.5 points. That's not a typo. If that's not dominant, I don't know what is.

if the SEC isn't a weak conference, i don't know what is. no doubt florida has put themselves in position for a #1 seed, but they don't impress me as dominant compared to duke, michigan, indiana, or kansas. the SEC is simply terrible and not playing legit teams for the rest of the reg. season may prove their downfall come March.

[sporthenry]

if the SEC isn't a weak conference, i don't know what is. no doubt florida has put themselves in position for a #1 seed, but they don't impress me as dominant compared to duke, michigan, indiana, or kansas. the SEC is simply terrible and not playing legit teams for the rest of the reg. season may prove their downfall come March.

I would certainly put them in the category with the other top teams. But I also wouldn't put them above the other teams b/c of the SEC. SEC has some decent teams but after UF, they don't have anything compared to what the Big East, Big Ten or ACC has to offer. So blowing out Ole Miss does very little to sway my opinion.

Something else to note. Some people were worried about Duke's reliance on the 3. This seems mainly a concern born out of history. But Florida shoots over 40% of their shots from 3. For comparison, Duke is at 31.7%. 34.9% of their points are from the 3 compared to Duke at 28.8%. Additionally, Florida is near one of the worst at scoring from the FT line (333 out of 347) while Duke is at 194.

What happens if the 3 stop falling and Patric Young gets in foul trouble? Complete, dominant teams can beat you in numerous ways. They can play a half court game, they can play at a fast pace. They can beat you down low or on the perimeter. That is what teams like Duke in 2001 or UNC in '05 or '09 boasted. The closest thing to this complete team is probably Indiana but even they have a few weaknesses in their starting roster and bench.

[-bdbd]

#5 Duke "should be" #3 in the polls next week, moving up at least two places. #2 Kansas loses, and #1 Michigan plays #3 Indiana. #4 Florida should beat Ole Miss at home.

Moreover, Duke's impressive win was in a difficult environment in Tallahassee.

sagegrouse

Concur, that Duke will probably climb back up to #3 on Monday, unless they say that Michigan played "well enough" to stay in the top-3. If the top-5 rankings constant state of change in recent weeks teaches us anything, it is that there is no dominant team this year, and a nice balance near the top. There seem to be at least six teams that will be strong National Champion candidates going into March Madness at this juncture (and who knows if others will emerge soon).

BTW, how long before ACC-dominating Miami gets serious ranking consideration, within at least the top-10, if not top-7 or so? What else do they need to prove?

[Cameron]

Concur, that Duke will probably climb back up to #3 on Monday, unless they say that Michigan played "well enough" to stay in the top-3. If the top-5 rankings constant state of change in recent weeks teaches us anything, it is that there is no dominant team this year, and a nice balance near the top. There seem to be at least six teams that will be strong National Champion candidates going into March Madness at this juncture (and who knows if others will emerge soon).

BTW, how long before ACC-dominating Miami gets serious ranking consideration, within at least the top-10, if not top-7 or so? What else do they need to prove?

While the Hurricanes are certainly playing at an entirely different level right now, they did lose to each Florida Gulf Coast (with Reggie Johnson) and Indiana State this year. It probably wouldn't be unreasonable to think that those losses have at least weighed on the minds of voters. I would expect that to change as the season progresses, but, if Miami ever were in a position to get a one seed, and were on the bubble, those losses, even with one of them coming without Johnson, would probably be enough to give the nod to the other team. (I'm not saying I necessarily agree one way or the other.)

I'm a big believer in Miami, though. I fully expected the Hurricanes to beat Michigan State early in the season and to go on to make a run at the ACC crown. The Hurricanes have a perfect blend of talent, experience and inside-out versatility. They're just a really, really good team and very well coached. Jim Larranaga got his big-time head coaching career start just down the road from me in Bowling Green, Ohio, and I spent many a nights of my youth watching his great Falcon teams in the mid-90s led by Antonio Daniels, the fourth pick in the 1997 NBA Draft. Larranaga's great.

[uh_no]

#5 Duke "should be" #3 in the polls next week, moving up at least two places. #2 Kansas loses, and #1 Michigan plays #3 Indiana. #4 Florida should beat Ole Miss at home.

Moreover, Duke's impressive win was in a difficult environment in Tallahassee.

sagegrouse

michigan will be #3, I think.....the blowout to miami will be fresh in voter's minds, despite not being this week....and a relatively close loss to a top 3 opponent is far better than what we had...

i have

indiana
florida
michigan
duke
kansas


we shall see!

[DukeWarhead]

I wouldn't be suprised to see Duke ranked at #5 again this week. I just think Jayhawkophile voters will put them at #4. I don't like it, but many will still hold the stinker in Miami against Duke, at least for another week.

Wouldn't be suprised to see:

1. Indiana
2. Florida (get many first place votes)
3. Michigan
4. KU
5. Duke

A lot depends on how bad they view Michigan's loss, which IMO, was not bad enough to slide them all the way to #4.

I dunno. Maybe I'll be pleasantly suprised. If Duke keeps playing like it did today, the numbers will take care of themselves.

[uh_no]

I wouldn't be suprised to see Duke ranked at #5 again this week. I just think Jayhawkophile voters will put them at #4. I don't like it, but many will still hold the stinker in Miami against Duke, at least for another week.

Wouldn't be suprised to see:

1. Indiana
2. Florida (get many first place votes)
3. Michigan
4. KU
5. Duke

A lot depends on how bad they view Michigan's loss, which IMO, was not bad enough to slide them all the way to #4.

I dunno. Maybe I'll be pleasantly suprised. If Duke keeps playing like it did today, the numbers will take care of themselves.

idk...losing at home to a mediocre squad might be enough to drop them below duke...especially after duke waxed FSU. the miami game at least was on the road, and miami is a bit better than oklahoma state, so it seems

[JNort]

1. Florida
2. Indy
3. Michigan
4. Duke
5. Kansas

Calling it

[Cameron]

1. Florida
2. Indy
3. Michigan
4. Duke
5. Kansas

Calling it

Like you (I am assuming), I happen to think that Florida is the best team in the country -- right now. With the tandem of Murphy and Young inside, and (what I believe to be) the best three-guard lineup in the country in Wilbekin, Boynton and Rosario, especially defensively around the perimeter, Florida is an outstandingly well-rounded team. We are, too, when fully healthy. Without Kelly, we are not in the same class as Florida, Michigan and Indiana when those three teams are at their best.

With that said, I don't think there is any way that Florida will jump Indiana after the Hoosiers upended the No. 1 team.

[uh_no]

Like you (I am assuming), I happen to think that Florida is the best team in the country -- right now. With the tandem of Murphy and Young inside, and (what I believe to be) the best three-guard lineup in the country in Wilbekin, Boynton and Rosario, especially defensively around the perimeter, Florida is an outstandingly well-rounded team. We are, too, when fully healthy. Without Kelly, we are not in the same class as Florida, Michigan and Indiana when those three teams are at their best.

With that said, I don't think there is any way that Florida will jump Indiana after the Hoosiers upended the No. 1 team.

Compare their schedule to anyone else up there....it's just atrocious....their best win is #16 ole miss....indiana has, I would argue, three wins better than that.

Given I can't exactly knock florida for winning, but I think that there's no way that they've demonstrated they're better than indiana, especially after how iniana played against michigan last night.

Given, florida is blowing away kenpom, so I don't know what to think...my impressions of them seem to go against the numbers. I think I need to keep a closer eye on them...lest they end up a dark horse final four team like was duke in 2010

[Class of '94]

Like you (I am assuming), I happen to think that Florida is the best team in the country -- right now. With the tandem of Murphy and Young inside, and (what I believe to be) the best three-guard lineup in the country in Wilbekin, Boynton and Rosario, especially defensively around the perimeter, Florida is an outstandingly well-rounded team. We are, too, when fully healthy. Without Kelly, we are not in the same class as Florida, Michigan and Indiana when those three teams are at their best.

With that said, I don't think there is any way that Florida will jump Indiana after the Hoosiers upended the No. 1 team.

I agree with you in that Florida deserves strong consideration for being the number 1 team right now; but like you I think IU will get it because of beating Mich (although it was at home). I used to agree with your assertion that Duke was no longer in the class of IU, Mich and Florida with the loss of Ryan; but after watching Duke dominate Fla St (and yes I know it's only one game), I'm beginning to think Duke is still in that class (or at least will evolve into that class) even without Ryan. If Duke continues to sharpen their offense and play tighter defense, they are and can be a really good team that is capable of beating any team on a neutral court. IU is still a different team away from Assembly Hall; and the other teams have shown that they can be beaten by lesser teams. I've always felt that the key was Rasheed stepping up and he's dong that now on both ends of the floor. Now w/o Ryan, I think we're most likely the 4th Nu 1 seed compared to the other fully healthy teams; but with a fully healthy and integrated Ryan to go with the improved play of Rasheed, Amile and Josh (not to mention that there is still time for Alex to emerge and Marshall to provide good spot minutes for Mason), I think Duke is arguably the overall top No 1 seed. The good news is that if Ryan returns by the end of February, there should be enough time for him to be re-integrated back into the team offensively and defensively to make a strong run in the NCAA tournament.

[cptnflash]

Compare their schedule to anyone else up there....it's just atrocious....their best win is #16 ole miss....indiana has, I would argue, three wins better than that.

Given I can't exactly knock florida for winning, but I think that there's no way that they've demonstrated they're better than indiana, especially after how iniana played against michigan last night.

Given, florida is blowing away kenpom, so I don't know what to think...my impressions of them seem to go against the numbers. I think I need to keep a closer eye on them...lest they end up a dark horse final four team like was duke in 2010

How were we a dark horse in 2010? We were a #1 seed in the bracket, and were #1 in kenpom from mid-February through the end of the season.

[Duvall]

idk...losing at home to a mediocre squad might be enough to drop them below duke...especially after duke waxed FSU. the miami game at least was on the road, and miami is a bit better than oklahoma state, so it seems

In what sense is Oklahoma State mediocre?

[uh_no]

How were we a dark horse in 2010? We were a #1 seed in the bracket, and were #1 in kenpom from mid-February through the end of the season.

we were picked by most pundits to lose first, and once we got to the second round, almost everyone kept picking us to lose.....dark horse in the sense that we were looked at as a weak 1 seed who really didn't have a chance against the big boys in the tournament.

[uh_no]

In what sense is Oklahoma State mediocre?

39th in the AP, no votes in the coaches poll.....there efficiencies are decent (18 kenpom) but until yesterday, their best win was over NCSU, and they'd lost every other game against ranked competition (not to mention a 10 point loss to a bad VT team).

They're not horrible, obviously, but they're not great. Perhaps our definitions of the word vary, but to me, that is mediocre

[Duvall]

39th in the AP, no votes in the coaches poll.....there efficiencies are decent (18 kenpom) but until yesterday, their best win was over NCSU, and they'd lost every other game against ranked competition (not to mention a 10 point loss to a bad VT team).

They're not horrible, obviously, but they're not great. Perhaps our definitions of the word vary, but to me, that is mediocre

Polls are the worst. And beating State on a neutral court is a quality win!

The word for teams that are #18 in Kenpom and #19 in Sagarin Predictor is good. Not great, but good.

[Cameron]

Compare their schedule to anyone else up there....it's just atrocious....their best win is #16 ole miss....indiana has, I would argue, three wins better than that.

Given I can't exactly knock florida for winning, but I think that there's no way that they've demonstrated they're better than indiana, especially after how iniana played against michigan last night.

Given, florida is blowing away kenpom, so I don't know what to think...my impressions of them seem to go against the numbers. I think I need to keep a closer eye on them...lest they end up a dark horse final four team like was duke in 2010

This is basically the same Florida team that has reached consecutive Elite Eights. They are talented, experienced (starting three seniors and two juniors) and, most importantly, have been there before. That counts for a lot in March and April. They also thoroughly handled Arizona for 38 minutes in Tucson, a tough feat to do in the McKale Center as we Duke fans well know, before collapsing in the final minute and a half. While "almost wins" do not count, the Gators have improved tremendously since then and are firing on all cylinders right now. Their guards are animals defensively. They play a suffocating brand of of ball on that end of the floor and in the NCAAs that can go a long way when you also have a well-balanced offense with ample shooters prowling the beyond the arc. I just really like what I see from them.

If you will notice, however, I did say that I believe Indiana will be the No. 1 team in the country on Monday. So we agree on that.

[cptnflash]

Compare their schedule to anyone else up there....it's just atrocious....their best win is #16 ole miss....indiana has, I would argue, three wins better than that.

Given I can't exactly knock florida for winning, but I think that there's no way that they've demonstrated they're better than indiana, especially after how iniana played against michigan last night.

Given, florida is blowing away kenpom, so I don't know what to think...my impressions of them seem to go against the numbers. I think I need to keep a closer eye on them...lest they end up a dark horse final four team like was duke in 2010

Florida's SoS is better than Indiana's so far this year - 45th best for Florida, 67th best for Indiana per KenPom, or listen to Joe Lunardi's most recent bracketology update, he said the same thing. That's why he has Florida as the #1 overall seed right now. The SoS disparity will change by the end of the year because of the huge gap between the Big 10 and the SEC, but as of right now, both are 2 loss teams and Florida has played the tougher schedule. If Indiana were to go through the rest of the Big 10 without a loss, obviously they would overtake Florida, but there's no way IU goes the rest of the way unscathed. They're very likely to lose at least one game this week alone (and possibly both).

[El_Diablo]

And the results are in:

1 Indiana (58)
2 Florida (7)
3 Michigan
4 Duke
5 Kansas
6 Gonzaga
7 Arizona
8 Miami
9 Syracuse
10 Ohio State


People who thought Florida would be ranked #1 may have an argument for it on the merits, but they are basically ignoring how the AP poll generally works. The voters who thought that Michigan was the best team in the country last week would be much more likely to shift their votes to the team that beat them rather than another team with otherwise very similar credentials. But more importantly, Indiana was ALREADY ranked ahead of Florida last week. The voters often just slide teams up or down based on who lost, and they are usually not going to swap the order of two teams if they both won out for the week, especially if the team they already had in front just beat the #1 team.

Miami slides in at #8, moving up from #14 last week and #25 the week before. That's a very impressive climb up the rankings this late into the season.

[juise]

For those who like to pull their hair out over polls and opinions, you'll be delighted to know that Mr. Bilas voted Duke #8 in the latest ESPN Power Rankings (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/powerrankings/_/show/first)... behind Gonzaga, Louisville, Arizona. Katz has Duke at #9 (Syracuse is also in front). Most others have Duke at #3 or #4. I'm fine with it. That Miami loss was a pretty big shiner, but the most important games for Duke's hopes of a #1 seed are yet to come.

[DukieinSoCal]

Another team to watch out for is Miami. No one's projecting them as a top seed yet, but if they win the ACC regular season outright, they may be in play for a 1 seed. I believe Duke and Miami are 1 and 2 in the RPI right now so our SOS/RPI advantage against most of our competitors may not apply against Miami. It would be interesting to see what the committee would do if we beat Miami at home but Miami still won the ACC. Since the league's schedule is unbalanced, would it really be fair to put much stock into the regular season championship?

[Bluedog]

Another team to watch out for is Miami. No one's projecting them as a top seed yet, but if they win the ACC regular season outright, they may be in play for a 1 seed. I believe Duke and Miami are 1 and 2 in the RPI right now so our SOS/RPI advantage against most of our competitors may not apply against Miami. It would be interesting to see what the committee would do if we beat Miami at home but Miami still won the ACC. Since the league's schedule is unbalanced, would it really be fair to put much stock into the regular season championship?

If both Duke and Miami continue to perform well, the winner of the ACC tournament may get the nod as a #1 seed. Unlikely that both Duke and Miami get #1 seeds, IMHO. With the unbalanced schedules, the committee has shown they don't care all that much about a team's league standing, just who they have beat and lost to. UConn was .500 in the Big East two years ago (good for 9th in the league), then won the Big East tournament and was rewarded with a 3 seed. Overall, we currently have a stronger resume than Miami, although that could potentially change.

[sporthenry]

If both Duke and Miami continue to perform well, the winner of the ACC tournament may get the nod as a #1 seed. Unlikely that both Duke and Miami get #1 seeds, IMHO. With the unbalanced schedules, the committee has shown they don't care all that much about a team's league standing, just who they have beat and lost to. UConn was .500 in the Big East two years ago (good for 9th in the league), then won the Big East tournament and was rewarded with a 3 seed. Overall, we currently have a stronger resume than Miami, although that could potentially change.

Agreed. If Miami wins out, don't see how they don't get a 1 seed over Duke. They can probably afford 1 loss to someone not named Duke and if they win the ACCT, they'd probably jump Duke.

[sagegrouse]

By a lot. It is 41-23 with 3 minutes to go in the 1st half. I'm tuning in now on ESPN.

sage

[juise]

By a lot. It is 41-23 with 3 minutes to go in the 1st half. I'm tuning in now on ESPN.

sage

I was just about to post... looks like Florida's average SEC scoring margin is going down a bit tonight.

[Duvall]

Arkansas only up 17 at the half. Can they win?

[dukelifer]

By a lot. It is 41-23 with 3 minutes to go in the 1st half. I'm tuning in now on ESPN.

sage

Pretty shocking. They have been doing the opposite to opponents of late. Just goes to show- good teams can lay an egg. Let's see if they come back- I expect they will.

[sagegrouse]

I was just about to post... looks like Florida's average SEC scoring margin is going down a bit tonight.

43-26 at the half. Just got treated to a "Duke fouled every play" discourse from Uncle Festus on Duke's FF comeback against Maryland. JWill was the recipient and said, "I got the ring!"

sage

[cptnflash]

By a lot. It is 41-23 with 3 minutes to go in the 1st half. I'm tuning in now on ESPN.

sage

This is amazing. For all the times we hear about "shocking" upsets (including many times when the media "underdog" is actually favored in Vegas), this would be a truly shocking result.

[FerryFor50]

Florida is getting beat down worse than Duke did at Miami. Arkansas is not nearly as good as Miami. Best win before tonight? Oklahoma.

[sporthenry]

Florida already up 18 on Old Miss 13 minutes in. At this rate, they'll win by 50. I still don't get why the media keeps repeating the "no great teams this year" meme. Florida is clearly great. They'll get some #1 votes in the polls on Monday, but probably not enough to overtake whoever wins tonight's IU/MI game.

So I'm assuming you are rescinding this. Florida is a good team and I'm sure they'll shake this off but they might not even be the best team in Florida.

[FerryFor50]

OSU and Michigan headed to OT. An OSU win would only be good for Duke. Gives UM another loss and gives OSU another quality win to make the Duke win over OSU more impressive...

[FerryFor50]

OSU loses in OT, mostly because Craft tried to be a hero and take it one on one against Burke twice. First time, in a 1 point game and gets blocked. 2nd time on a layup attempt that could have been called a foul. Neither time does he look for an actual scorer.

Grr.

[sagegrouse]

OSU and Michigan headed to OT. An OSU win would only be good for Duke. Gives UM another loss and gives OSU another quality win to make the Duke win over OSU more impressive...

Michigan won, but not without controversy. Aaron Craft was mugged driving for the tying score on a break at the end of OT. No call. Thumbs down.

sagegrouse

[cptnflash]

Gah!! Aaron Craft's offensive ineptitude is brought to the fore once again, and OSU loses a very winnable game against Michigan. Oh well, if he didn't go 3 for 15 against us, we wouldn't have beaten them anyway.

[cptnflash]

Michigan won, but not without controversy. Aaron Craft was mugged driving for the tying score on a break at the end of OT. No call. Thumbs down.

sagegrouse

Craft should have gotten a flagrant one on the previous play. It was textbook, but the refs chose not to call it so as not to be viewed as "deciding the game." So the "no calls" evened out.

[1 24 90]

The announcing hypocrisy at the end of the OSU Michigan game has me a little irate. Dickie V said that the officials shouldn't call a flagrant one when the only part of Robinson that Craft fouled was his head and then there's very minor contact as Craft tries to tie the game and Dickie V says you have to call that. What? I can't wait to hear all the OSU fans whining tomorrow at work even though the refs are the only reason the game even went to overtime since they allowed OSU 2 points on basket interference in the first half and a Craft 3 in the second after the shot clock expired.

[FerryFor50]

Gah!! Aaron Craft's offensive ineptitude is brought to the fore once again, and OSU loses a very winnable game against Michigan. Oh well, if he didn't go 3 for 15 against us, we wouldn't have beaten them anyway.

Also, for being so overrated for his on ball defense, Craft got lit up by Burke.

His DRTG is lower than Rasheed's for the year. I'm not sure why he gets so much credit for his defense outside of being "pesky."

[wallyman]

OSU didn't deserve to win. Horrible execution in the overtime -- turnovers, bad shots, lousy looks. They were lucky McGarrey missed the layup that should have ended it earlier.

[sporthenry]

Well I'm glad the ACC doesn't have the Big 10 or Big East refs. Refs were a bit atrocious. The flagrant is pretty black and white but on the Craft drive, I don't think the Michigan defender got any ball. This on the heels of last night where Jay Bilas couldn't go ten seconds without mentioning the refs just missing a call.

These conferences don't even play basketball anymore and I hope Duke doesn't run into any Big 10 squads in the NCAAT.

But that is the gamble when you force a shot at the end almost looking for a foul. You put it in the refs hand. You either have to put it in D. Thomas' hands b/c as Greenberg just mentioned, he is strong enough to finish in contact or you have to settle for an outside shot and actually get a shot off.

[FerryFor50]

Well I'm glad the ACC doesn't have the Big 10 or Big East refs. Refs were a bit atrocious. The flagrant is pretty black and white but on the Craft drive, I don't think the Michigan defender got any ball. This on the heels of last night where Jay Bilas couldn't go ten seconds without mentioning the refs just missing a call.

These conferences don't even play basketball anymore and I hope Duke doesn't run into any Big 10 squads in the NCAAT.

But that is the gamble when you force a shot at the end almost looking for a foul. You put it in the refs hand. You either have to put it in D. Thomas' hands b/c as Greenberg just mentioned, he is strong enough to finish in contact or you have to settle for an outside shot and actually get a shot off.

I liked the replay of the Hardaway two hand shove of his defender into the screen to get free for an open 3.

He's not the only player I see doing that - it happens a lot. Not sure why it's never called.

I think the worst part of the Big 10/Big East refs is the inconsistency in their calls during different points in the game. Sometimes they call the push on the big man hedging, sometimes they don't. Same with the moving screens, grabbing on defense, etc.

[sporthenry]

Also, for being so overrated for his on ball defense, Craft got lit up by Burke.

His DRTG is lower than Rasheed's for the year. I'm not sure why he gets so much credit for his defense outside of being "pesky."

Craft may be a bit overrated but he has traditionally done well against Burke. And Burke put up 16 on .500 and had 8 assists compared to his season averages of 18/7 so it seemed he was about average for the year and shot .500 compared to .470. Wouldn't exactly say Burke lit him up unless of course you compare it to the other times they played. Last time Burke went 4-13 for 15 points with 4 assists and 4 turnovers. Last year, he went 1-11 for 5 points 4 assists and 8 turnovers in the B10 tourney. And regular season, he went 6-14 for 17 points, 5 assists and 3 turnovers, and 5-11 for 13 points and 5 assists/5 turnovers.

So not exactly stellar numbers. I don't doubt Craft is a tad overrated mainly b/c announcers love his style of defense and it provides a ton of highlights but the guy is still good.

Also, where did you get DRTG numbers, I'd be interested to see them.

[FerryFor50]

Craft may be a bit overrated but he has traditionally done well against Burke. And Burke put up 16 on .500 and had 8 assists compared to his season averages of 18/7 so it seemed he was about average for the year and shot .500 compared to .470. Wouldn't exactly say Burke lit him up unless of course you compare it to the other times they played. Last time Burke went 4-13 for 15 points with 4 assists and 4 turnovers. Last year, he went 1-11 for 5 points 4 assists and 8 turnovers in the B10 tourney. And regular season, he went 6-14 for 17 points, 5 assists and 3 turnovers, and 5-11 for 13 points and 5 assists/5 turnovers.

So not exactly stellar numbers. I don't doubt Craft is a tad overrated mainly b/c announcers love his style of defense and it provides a ton of highlights but the guy is still good.

Also, where did you get DRTG numbers, I'd be interested to see them.

DRTG is here

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/aaron-craft-1.html

As for the "lighting up" it was more about *when* Burke hit his shots. Craft did have a good defensive play on him late, however.

[Bluedog]

The announcing hypocrisy at the end of the OSU Michigan game has me a little irate. Dickie V said that the officials shouldn't call a flagrant one when the only part of Robinson that Craft fouled was his head and then there's very minor contact as Craft tries to tie the game and Dickie V says you have to call that. What? I can't wait to hear all the OSU fans whining tomorrow at work even though the refs are the only reason the game even went to overtime since they allowed OSU 2 points on basket interference in the first half and a Craft 3 in the second after the shot clock expired.

I didn't see the game but can anybody explain to me why refs can spend forever reviewing if a three point shooter had his foot on the line or how much time should be on the clock if the ball goes out of bounds, but can't review shot clock violations? Vanderbilt is asking the same thing as they got hosed vs UK at the end of their game. Makes no sense to me-either way it has an impact on point on the board. If anything, I'd think reviewing if a shot was released in time would be one of the few things they always review when it's close. I mean, they already do that at the end of the half or game.

[-bdbd]

Well, Michigan sure looked vulnerable tonight. Not an impressive game all-around for either team I thought. And with Fla getting blitzed by a mediocre Ark. team (the secret is out - switch every time on Fla picks and they'll have trouble adapting), the 11 point margin does not do any justice to how they were just DESTROYED for the first 34 minutes. I think with 8 minutes left Ark was up by about 27, but then went to a very poorly executed stall ball game.

If Duke holds serve this week, we're moving up at least one slot, if not two.

[sporthenry]

DRTG is here

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/aaron-craft-1.html

As for the "lighting up" it was more about *when* Burke hit his shots. Craft did have a good defensive play on him late, however.

Thank you. And not to nitpick but DRTG is like golf. It is points per 100 so Craft's 88.3 is better than 95.2 of RS.

Florida has 3 of the top 20 probably a combination of the whole team defense but Erik Murphy is top 20 along with Patric Young, Otto Porter and Jeff Withey.

ETA: Thanks for the link. You'll see me referencing a lot as I have a new place to find the arbitrary stats to back up my points. Mason actually has a top 20 Defensive Wins Shares so perhaps my criticisms of him were a bit overrated but that is down from last year of 3 and his Sophomore year of 4.8.

[throatybeard]

The voters often just slide teams up or down based on who lost.

I wish more people understood this.

[sagegrouse]

Craft should have gotten a flagrant one on the previous play. It was textbook, but the refs chose not to call it so as not to be viewed as "deciding the game." So the "no calls" evened out.

Craft's play was a hard foul, but maybe not a flagrant one (or Flagrant 1 in the new terminology). The poress release by the NCAA on announcing the rule change in 2011


An example of a Flagrant 1 foul would be a player who swings an elbow and makes non-excessive contact with an opponent above the shoulders. The team whose player was struck would receive two free throws and possession of the ball.

If I recall the play correctly (and there is always a first time), Craft made an upward movement with his left arm trying to strip the ball. It may have touched the ball, then struck the player's arm, and after that, his head. It was not a head shot per se.

sagegrouse

[TexHawk]

Craft may be a bit overrated but he has traditionally done well against Burke. And Burke put up 16 on .500 and had 8 assists compared to his season averages of 18/7 so it seemed he was about average for the year and shot .500 compared to .470. Wouldn't exactly say Burke lit him up unless of course you compare it to the other times they played. Last time Burke went 4-13 for 15 points with 4 assists and 4 turnovers. Last year, he went 1-11 for 5 points 4 assists and 8 turnovers in the B10 tourney. And regular season, he went 6-14 for 17 points, 5 assists and 3 turnovers, and 5-11 for 13 points and 5 assists/5 turnovers.

So not exactly stellar numbers. I don't doubt Craft is a tad overrated mainly b/c announcers love his style of defense and it provides a ton of highlights but the guy is still good.

Craft can defend Burke well (er, sorta well) because he's bigger and stronger, while doing a good job staying in front of him. It's fine with me if he gets lauded for that. Burke is just one guy though, Craft matches up well there. My problem is that Craft has been *repeatedly* burned by other perimeter players, but you nary hear a whisper from the announcers during those games. Brandon Paul put up 43 points on him last January. It was so bad that Matta didn't even let Craft guard him last month in the return game.

Quinn Cook, Elijah Johnson, Tracy Abrams, and Keith Appling all put up solid-to-fantastic numbers against him in OSU's other losses this year. He's *gutty* though, so people put him on the same defensive value level as Jeff Withey and Nerlens Noel, which is beyond ridiculous.

[sporthenry]

Craft can defend Burke well (er, sorta well) because he's bigger and stronger, while doing a good job staying in front of him. It's fine with me if he gets lauded for that. Burke is just one guy though, Craft matches up well there. My problem is that Craft has been *repeatedly* burned by other perimeter players, but you nary hear a whisper from the announcers during those games. Brandon Paul put up 43 points on him last January. It was so bad that Matta didn't even let Craft guard him last month in the return game.

Quinn Cook, Elijah Johnson, Tracy Abrams, and Keith Appling all put up solid-to-fantastic numbers against him in OSU's other losses this year. He's *gutty* though, so people put him on the same defensive value level as Jeff Withey and Nerlens Noel, which is beyond ridiculous.

I agree that he does get burned a lot b/c of his style. He plays physical, in your face defense and when a PG can get by you with his speed, this type of defense is worthless. If he is able to stay in front, he can be a hassle.

But as far as comparing him to Noel and Withey, big man always have more of an influence on the defensive end so I'm not sure what the true correlation would be. Duke's highest rated DRTG is Mason Plumlee at 86.4 while the rest of the team isn't below 90 (well apart from Todd).

[wallyman]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Here's a guy from Grantland who's not impressed.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8921774/mark-titus-top-12-ncaa-power-rankings-why-ohio-state-fans-feel-fantastic-buckeyes-loss-michigan

[Duvall]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Here's a guy from Grantland who's not impressed.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8921774/mark-titus-top-12-ncaa-power-rankings-why-ohio-state-fans-feel-fantastic-buckeyes-loss-michigan

I've never been impressed with Titus' writing, but those rankings are remarkably terrible. Why can't Bill Simmons care enough about college basketball to hire a writer that can analyze college basketball?

[sporthenry]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Here's a guy from Grantland who's not impressed.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8921774/mark-titus-top-12-ncaa-power-rankings-why-ohio-state-fans-feel-fantastic-buckeyes-loss-michigan

It seems like he is almost ranking us as if Kelly won't ever get back. That is fine, and I'd say Duke at 10 without Kelly is pretty fair. They haven't really proven much without him and I don't think they are legit F4 contenders without Kelly.

That said, I don't really care if he gives up on Duke after 1 loss. For one, this is the same NC State who just took a top 10 team to the limit, should have won, and this was without their starting PG. Besides Duke seems to do better when nobody is talking about them.

[Monmouth77]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Here's a guy from Grantland who's not impressed.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8921774/mark-titus-top-12-ncaa-power-rankings-why-ohio-state-fans-feel-fantastic-buckeyes-loss-michigan

Shocked to learn that an Ohio State fan who writes for Bill Simmons' website thinks his alma mater who lost to Duke already this year should be higher in a meaningless mid-season power ranking because, uh, they just had a good loss to Michigan. Wha?

He's more readable than Shane Ryan though.

[weezie]

Hahaha, Gonzaga! I love how so many self-venerating experts fall for that scrappy little Gonzaga theme every year.
It's become a behavioral tick amongst the sports literati.

[sporthenry]

Looks like most if not all the top teams will have some nights to forget about. Florida must be hoping the committee wasn't watching last night. KU tonight. Even if they pull it out, not a pretty game. And Duke's egg at Miami was without Kelly.

But hopefully, Duke can take care of business this week while the rest of the teams falter.

[JasonEvans]

KU is having a Duke at Miami kind of night in terms of shooting. With 3 minutes left in the game, they are 1-13 from 3 and shooting just 25% overall from the field. I supose they are lucky to be playing an awful TCU team, which is only shooting 38% themselves. If KU was playing anyone good tonight, they'd be blown out of the gym.

Still, they are going to lose -- currently down 10 with 3 mins left -- to a team that came into the game with a 9-12 record. Blech!

-Jason "I think TCU is barely top 250 in the RPI" Evans

[tommy]

KU is having a Duke at Miami kind of night in terms of shooting. With 3 minutes left in the game, they are 1-13 from 3 and shooting just 25% overall from the field. I supose they are lucky to be playing an awful TCU team, which is only shooting 38% themselves. If KU was playing anyone good tonight, they'd be blown out of the gym.

Still, they are going to lose -- currently down 10 with 3 mins left -- to a team that came into the game with a 9-12 record. Blech!

-Jason "I think TCU is barely top 250 in the RPI" Evans

They were 223. Record vs D-1 of 8-12 coming in. O-fer in conference. No previous wins vs. Top 100. None. Lousy team by any measure. Beat Kansas tonight by 7 and didn't even play all that well especially down the stretch.

Looks terrible on KU's resume, but it happens. Miami lost to Florida Gulf Coast, for crying out loud.

[sagegrouse]

KU is having a Duke at Miami kind of night in terms of shooting. With 3 minutes left in the game, they are 1-13 from 3 and shooting just 25% overall from the field. I supose they are lucky to be playing an awful TCU team, which is only shooting 38% themselves. If KU was playing anyone good tonight, they'd be blown out of the gym.

Still, they are going to lose -- currently down 10 with 3 mins left -- to a team that came into the game with a 9-12 record. Blech!

-Jason "I think TCU is barely top 250 in the RPI" Evans

TCU 62, Kansas 55. TCU's first Big 12 victory and first win over a top five team -- ever. TCU was very tough down the stretch, and although they missed a whole bunch of free throws, they did not have any turnovers and scarfed up almost all of the rebounds.

sagegrouse

[loran16]

They were 223. Record vs D-1 of 8-12 coming in. O-fer in conference. No previous wins vs. Top 100. None. Lousy team by any measure. Beat Kansas tonight by 7 and didn't even play all that well especially down the stretch.

Looks terrible on KU's resume, but it happens. Miami lost to Florida Gulf Coast, for crying out loud.

Not even close to similar. Miami's loss was without Durand Scott. Florida Gulf Coast is #101 RPI, #148 Pomeroy. Not a terrible loss. TCU is AWFUL.

[awhom111]

I didn't see the game but can anybody explain to me why refs can spend forever reviewing if a three point shooter had his foot on the line or how much time should be on the clock if the ball goes out of bounds, but can't review shot clock violations? Vanderbilt is asking the same thing as they got hosed vs UK at the end of their game. Makes no sense to me-either way it has an impact on point on the board. If anything, I'd think reviewing if a shot was released in time would be one of the few things they always review when it's close. I mean, they already do that at the end of the half or game.

I have recently watched far more Big Ten "basketball" than I would care to admit so I have an answer for part of this, and the reviews of two vs three pointers is a Big Ten experiment for this year. It is only allowed during their conference games and it is supposed to be reviewed during TV timeouts.

[JasonEvans]

Not even close to similar. Miami's loss was without Durand Scott. Florida Gulf Coast is #101 RPI, #148 Pomeroy. Not a terrible loss. TCU is AWFUL.

I also think folks look differently on a loss in November, in one of the first games of the season, as compared to one in February.

-Jason "FGC is #1 in the Atlantic Sun and has a good shot to make the NCAA tourney -- TCU hopes to improve over the next couple years and maybe make the CBI" Evans

[sporthenry]

And Indiana falls apart at Illinois. Gives up an inbound with .9 seconds left.

Duke needs to take care of business but Kelly injury might save them in some sorts.

[FerryFor50]

Wow. A COMPLETE defensive lapse by Zeller on an inbound play with .9 seconds left costs Indiana the game...

[Furniture]

Just noticed they lost.....

[DukieinSoCal]

Joe Lunardi's latest bracketology update has Duke as the overall #2 seed, with IU, Arizona, and Michigan also on the top line. Miami, Kansas, Florida, and Gonzaga are 2 seeds.
Our return game vs Miami in CIS will surely be a huge game in our fight for a #1 seed.
Mods, can we merge this thread with the Miami as #1 seed thread? Most of the chatter basically revolves around the same topic. Thanks.

[hurleyfor3]

Mods, can we merge this thread with the Miami as #1 seed thread? Most of the chatter basically revolves around the same topic. Thanks.

I dunno, I think the overall "how good is Miami vs. the field" topic deserves its own thread.

[matt1]

Just saw on SportsCenterU that Lunardi now has Duke as the #1 overall seed. The other 1 seeds are Indiana, Michigan, and Arizona.

[DukieinSoCal]

If the brackets came out today, there's a good chance that the 4 #1 seeds would be from 2 conferences - IU, Michigan, Duke, and Miami. I doubt that's ever happened before.
If we beat Miami in the return matchup and Miami keeps winning its other games, I could easily see both ACC teams earning #1 seeds in March.
Which seems more likely at this point? 2 ACC #1 seeds or 2 Big 10 #1 seeds?

[Kedsy]

Which seems more likely at this point? 2 ACC #1 seeds or 2 Big 10 #1 seeds?

Two Big 10 #1 seeds. Everyone seems to think the Big 10 is a better conference than the ACC (and despite the results of the challenge, everybody's probably right).

[CDu]

Two Big 10 #1 seeds. Everyone seems to think the Big 10 is a better conference than the ACC (and despite the results of the challenge, everybody's probably right).

I agree that the Big-10 is better than the ACC this year. But for that very reason, I'd actually say that 2 ACC #1s is more likely.

There are 3 teams in the Big-10 with a legitimate shot at a #1 seed (Indiana, Michigan, and Michigan State). There are 2 ACC teams in the running for a #1 seed (us and Miami). But the ACC schedules for us and Miami look a lot less daunting than the schedules for those Big-10 teams. For reference, here are the tough (i.e., top-15 Pomeroy) games remaining for each of those 5 teams:

Indiana: @MSU, @Minnesota, vs OSU, @Michigan
Michigan: @MSU, vs MSU, vs Indiana
MSU: vs Michigan, @OSU, @Michigan, vs Wisconsin
Duke: vs Miami
Miami: @Duke

Also note that Duke and Miami are #1 and #2 in RPI, which (despite its flaws) is still the tool most heavily referenced by the committee in seeding.

Furthermore, it would be a surprise if Miami and Duke aren't #1 and #2 in the ACC regular season. As such, they'd only meet if they both reach the ACC championship. Meanwhile, at least one of those Big-10 schools is certain to not reach the Big-10 title game.

I think the Big-10 will get more teams in and have more high seeds than the ACC. But I think the ACC actually has an easier path to getting two #1 seeds, because their top teams have by far the easiest remaining schedule.

[El_Diablo]

MSU is putting an absolute beatdown on Michigan: the Spartans are up by 30 with 6 minutes left.

[dukelifer]

MSU is putting an absolute beatdown on Michigan: the Spartans are up by 30 with 6 minutes left.

An impressive performance. Looks like MSU is getting hot again to make their late season run- only to see it end at the Final Four.

[Zephyrius]

An impressive performance. Looks like MSU is getting hot again to make their late season run- only to see it end at the Final Four.

Hopefully Dawson doesn't have any lasting consequences but he might have to deal with concussion issues for a week at least. It was nice to hear him focusing in with his senior year.

[CDu]

Hopefully Dawson doesn't have any lasting consequences but he might have to deal with concussion issues for a week at least. It was nice to hear him focusing in with his senior year.

FYI - Dawson is only a sophomore.

[NSDukeFan]

FYI - Dawson is only a sophomore.

Didn't Nix play with Mateen Cleaves? He seems like he's been there awhile.

[DukieinSoCal]

Syracuse losing to UConn with Southerland back should further help our cause. Cuse could make a similar case as us with Kelly and push for a 1 seed.
With all the top teams losing lately, our margin for error grows a bit. I imagine we could even absorb a loss or two before Ryan comes back and still secure a 1 seed.

[Olympic Fan]

Syracuse losing to UConn with Southerland back should further help our cause. Cuse could make a similar case as us with Kelly and push for a 1 seed.
With all the top teams losing lately, our margin for error grows a bit. I imagine we could even absorb a loss or two before Ryan comes back and still secure a 1 seed.

I think we are directly in competition with Syrause and Miami for the No. 1 seed in the East -- and the regional in Washington, DC.

The Big Ten will produce the No. 1 seed in the Midwest (without question).

The 'Overflow' No. 1 will be in the West (Arizona is a big long-shot for a No, 1 seed. The South could be an overflow too .,.. although Florida seems in good shape to get the No. 1 there.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that Duke, Miami and Syracuse are the only three viable candidates for the East No. 1 (althoughj Miami COULD beat out Florida for the South No. 1).

So while we are in competition with the Big Ten powers for 'a' No. 1 seed ... we are more in competition with Miami and Syracuse for the No. 1 we want.

And before anybody asks -- yes, the NCAA has occasionally given prefernce to a team from one conference that finished behind another team -- meaning it's not necessary that Duke actually beat Miami in the regular season race to get the preferencial No. 1. Thiink back to 1998 when Duke beat UNC in the regular season finale to finish TWO games ahead of UNC in the regular season race ... but when UNC won the ACC Tournament, they got the favororable seed in the East and Duke ad to go South, Not saying it's a lock either way -- in 2002, Maryland won the regular season ... Duke won the ACC Tournament AND finihed with ahigher national ranking -- but Maryland got to the East and Duke was sent South. In 2011, UNC won the regular season, Duke won the ACC Tourney and was higher ranked -- UNC got the East, but as the No. 2 seed ... Duke got the West as the No. 1 seed.

So the Duke-Miami battle for the better No. 1 seed (which would probably mean the East) will not be simple to sort out.

[Bob Green]

Jay Bilas was on ESPN Sports Radio earlier today and the final question he was asked was to name his final four. He deflected the question slightly and stated the best four teams right now are: Indiana, Miami, Florida and Michigan. He acknowledged Michigan's recent big loss but stated they were still one of the four best teams in the nation. I did not watch the Michigan - Michigan State game so I can't comment on that one, but I was not overly impressed with Florida in the 1st half of their win over Kentucky.

[jv001]

Jay Bilas was on ESPN Sports Radio earlier today and the final question he was asked was to name his final four. He deflected the question slightly and stated the best four teams right now are: Indiana, Miami, Florida and Michigan. He acknowledged Michigan's recent big loss but stated they were still one of the four best teams in the nation. I did not watch the Michigan - Michigan State game so I can't comment on that one, but I was not overly impressed with Florida in the 1st half of their win over Kentucky.

There are a couple of things that need to happen for Duke to be considered FF bound. #1) Ryan Kelly. Will Ryan come back and be close to the same player he was before the injury. Plus how will the team come together if he does come back.#2) Quinn Cook. last night we saw the best of Quinn and the worst of Quinn. In the first half, Quinn pretty much kept unc in the game with his turnovers and not being the leader he should be. Quinn is a very good PG, but last night he failed to get his teamates the ball in good scoring position. He missed Mason a few times with late passes that turned intoa turnovers. We need Quinn to be an elite PG on a consistent basis. He has the skills to be one of the best to play for Duke. We have the potential to be the NCAA champs if things fall into place. GoDuke!

[BlueDevilBrowns]

I think we are directly in competition with Syrause and Miami for the No. 1 seed in the East -- and the regional in Washington, DC.

The Big Ten will produce the No. 1 seed in the Midwest (without question).

The 'Overflow' No. 1 will be in the West (Arizona is a big long-shot for a No, 1 seed. The South could be an overflow too .,.. although Florida seems in good shape to get the No. 1 there.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that Duke, Miami and Syracuse are the only three viable candidates for the East No. 1 (althoughj Miami COULD beat out Florida for the South No. 1).

So while we are in competition with the Big Ten powers for 'a' No. 1 seed ... we are more in competition with Miami and Syracuse for the No. 1 we want.

And before anybody asks -- yes, the NCAA has occasionally given prefernce to a team from one conference that finished behind another team -- meaning it's not necessary that Duke actually beat Miami in the regular season race to get the preferencial No. 1. Thiink back to 1998 when Duke beat UNC in the regular season finale to finish TWO games ahead of UNC in the regular season race ... but when UNC won the ACC Tournament, they got the favororable seed in the East and Duke ad to go South, Not saying it's a lock either way -- in 2002, Maryland won the regular season ... Duke won the ACC Tournament AND finihed with ahigher national ranking -- but Maryland got to the East and Duke was sent South. In 2011, UNC won the regular season, Duke won the ACC Tourney and was higher ranked -- UNC got the East, but as the No. 2 seed ... Duke got the West as the No. 1 seed.

So the Duke-Miami battle for the better No. 1 seed (which would probably mean the East) will not be simple to sort out.


the question i have is does the selection committee feel that florida/miami would rather be in the south bracket as opposed to the east bracket. if either team is ahead of duke in the s-curve and the committee put fla/mia in the south, then duke could still wind up as a #1 in the east if syracuse continues to struggle(the 4th #1 goes west from the B1G likely). if both fla and mia are on the 1 line ahead of duke, then of course we're headed west.

[sporthenry]

The biggest thing for Duke to be a 1 seed is Ryan Kelly. I know the committee got rid of your last 10 but with the Kelly injury, the committee can either dismiss our last month and a half or dismiss the first few months. Nobody is confusing our team right now with the same team with Kelly.

With Kelly back, the committee will look at our whole resume at least the 2012 part which is our bread and butter. With that resume, we are better than Miami and Cuse among others.

I can't really knock someone for not saying we are a top 4 team right now. Most here don't consider us title contenders without Kelly. And if we continue to play this way, I think we could lose another 1 or 2 games in the ACC. So any distance we might have between 'Cuse, KU, Arizona, etc. will shrink very quickly if that happens. The Miami game is probably most important. If we split with Miami, we instantly jump back over them with our resume. Now if they win the ACCT, they could jump back over us but that is getting a bit ahead of ourselves.

The team we put out there now is a good team but not a top 4 team. They have stretches where they could probably compete with anyone (think the first half in NC State or at FSU) but that requires Duke to be hot for 5 straight games. I just can't see Duke sustaining that offense for consecutive games against the likes of an OSU, MSU, Wisconsin followed by a game against a team like Florida, Syracuse or Arizona.

[dukelifer]

The biggest thing for Duke to be a 1 seed is Ryan Kelly. I know the committee got rid of your last 10 but with the Kelly injury, the committee can either dismiss our last month and a half or dismiss the first few months. Nobody is confusing our team right now with the same team with Kelly.

With Kelly back, the committee will look at our whole resume at least the 2012 part which is our bread and butter. With that resume, we are better than Miami and Cuse among others.

I can't really knock someone for not saying we are a top 4 team right now. Most here don't consider us title contenders without Kelly. And if we continue to play this way, I think we could lose another 1 or 2 games in the ACC. So any distance we might have between 'Cuse, KU, Arizona, etc. will shrink very quickly if that happens. The Miami game is probably most important. If we split with Miami, we instantly jump back over them with our resume. Now if they win the ACCT, they could jump back over us but that is getting a bit ahead of ourselves.

The team we put out there now is a good team but not a top 4 team. They have stretches where they could probably compete with anyone (think the first half in NC State or at FSU) but that requires Duke to be hot for 5 straight games. I just can't see Duke sustaining that offense for consecutive games against the likes of an OSU, MSU, Wisconsin followed by a game against a team like Florida, Syracuse or Arizona.

The rest of the season will determine where Duke should end up- with or without Kelly. Duke is about to enter a very challenging stretch of games. If they can win out- they are really good. But winning at Maryland, at VTech, at Virginia at UNC are not cakewalks and Miami looms. 3 or the 4 away games are in the next two weeks. Duke could win all those games or stumble. This is the time of year that teams need to show what they have and Duke will need to be road warriors if they are to keep contact with the top teams. We will know much more about this team come March 1.

[sporthenry]

the question i have is does the selection committee feel that florida/miami would rather be in the south bracket as opposed to the east bracket. if either team is ahead of duke in the s-curve and the committee put fla/mia in the south, then duke could still wind up as a #1 in the east if syracuse continues to struggle(the 4th #1 goes west from the B1G likely). if both fla and mia are on the 1 line ahead of duke, then of course we're headed west.

I guess they could put Miami/Florida in the South b/c it is about a 300 miles difference. I'm not sure what the precedent is on that.

As far as the 4th #1 seed if it is in the Big 10, I'm not sure why you are shipping them out West. If they are ahead of teams on the S-curve, it is much closer for them to go anywhere but West. As Lunardi has it now, Miami is the 4th #1 seed so they go West. If Miami/Florida get one of the 1 seeds in the East/South and Michigan/Indiana are both ahead of Duke, Duke is going out West.

[Monmouth77]

I guess they could put Miami/Florida in the South b/c it is about a 300 miles difference. I'm not sure what the precedent is on that.

As far as the 4th #1 seed if it is in the Big 10, I'm not sure why you are shipping them out West. If they are ahead of teams on the S-curve, it is much closer for them to go anywhere but West. As Lunardi has it now, Miami is the 4th #1 seed so they go West. If Miami/Florida get one of the 1 seeds in the East/South and Michigan/Indiana are both ahead of Duke, Duke is going out West.

It sure seems like Florida/Miami's fanbase, which is more East Coast oriented, would prefer DC to Dallas. Not sure whether that rates as a Tournament Committee consideration.

As far as Duke goes, I'm not sure there's a real reason to prefer Dallas to L.A. if we are pushed from the East, but still hold on to the #1 seed (which seems plausible if we lose again to Miami but win the ACCT with a healthy Ryan). At that point, I'd think we'd be more concerned with matchups than location.

[sporthenry]

It sure seems like Florida/Miami's fanbase, which is more East Coast oriented, would prefer DC to Dallas. Not sure whether that rates as a Tournament Committee consideration.


Well from what I remember, it is usually just distance. So they would go to DC ahead of North Texas based on that alone. The principles for the committee says to say as close to their area of natural interest as possible. Miami and Florida fit both South and East teams. So the committee could do either.

And if Duke is 3 and Miami/Florida is 2, it might make sense to send Duke to DC and Miami/Florida to Texas b/c neither way really affects Miami/Florida much but it is about 1,000 miles difference for Duke. So minimizing distances on the whole would send Duke to DC. But if this happens that way, this would just be more of Duke favoritism by the selection committee if they were behind on the S-curve.

[-jk]

Jay Bilas was on ESPN Sports Radio earlier today and the final question he was asked was to name his final four. He deflected the question slightly and stated the best four teams right now are: Indiana, Miami, Florida and Michigan. He acknowledged Michigan's recent big loss but stated they were still one of the four best teams in the nation. I did not watch the Michigan - Michigan State game so I can't comment on that one, but I was not overly impressed with Florida in the 1st half of their win over Kentucky.

Fortunately, Jay isn't on the selection committee. (And I hate typing that.)

-jk

[sporthenry]

Fortunately, Jay isn't on the selection committee. (And I hate typing that.)

-jk

Jay seems like someone who does better with criticizing from his pulpit than someone actually in the position to change it. I understand and appreciate what he says when he does his power rankings and doesn't include Duke in the top 4 but I think the committee does a fine job. And I even agree with him on VCU but I do like that the committee has provided every team with all the information necessary to make the NCAAT. Schedule as many tough teams out of conference and win as many games as possible. Not that I wouldn't mind putting a few basketball minds there but the current way makes it more objective than discrediting a team like VCU or Butler b/c of their competition.

[sporthenry]

Minnesota and OSU both won tonight. Louisville should pull away from the Johnnies. Those will probably be Duke's 3 best wins not including the Miami games outstanding.

[Bluedog]

Well from what I remember, it is usually just distance. So they would go to DC ahead of North Texas based on that alone. The principles for the committee says to say as close to their area of natural interest as possible. Miami and Florida fit both South and East teams. So the committee could do either.

And if Duke is 3 and Miami/Florida is 2, it might make sense to send Duke to DC and Miami/Florida to Texas b/c neither way really affects Miami/Florida much but it is about 1,000 miles difference for Duke. So minimizing distances on the whole would send Duke to DC. But if this happens that way, this would just be more of Duke favoritism by the selection committee if they were behind. on the S-curve.

The committee doesn't place teams based on minimizing distances on the whole. They simply place the team in their most desirable location without regard to the number one seeds below them. And distance isn't the only factor. Kentucky got Atlanta despite St. Louis being closer. The committee said Atlanta was more of a "natural geographic fit" which I'm sure most UK fans would agree with.

[sporthenry]

The committee doesn't place teams based on minimizing distances on the whole. They simply place the team in their most desirable location without regard to the number one seeds below them. And distance isn't the only factor. Kentucky got Atlanta despite St. Louis being closer. The committee said Atlanta was more of a "natural geographic fit" which I'm sure most UK fans would agree with.

Well I know it says the natural geographic fit and I guess that is the vagueness so they can do whatever they want. I figured there was a few examples where distance wasn't the only thing that mattered. Although now I'm confused as to what constitutes a "natural geographic fit."

But yes, I was wrong with the assumption they might try to cut down on distance since they made UNC go to St. Louis last year, yet somehow they can give the #2 seeds home court in the E8.

[throatybeard]

Thiink back to 1998 when Duke beat UNC in the regular season finale to finish TWO games ahead of UNC in the regular season race ... but when UNC won the ACC Tournament, they got the favorable seed in the East and Duke ad to go South

Well yeah, but Carolina beat us by 24 there, and 15 in the ACCT that happened hours before the selection show. Against our miraculous 2-point win over them.

If you want preferential treatment, you either have to be unbelievably amazing, or you have to win your conference tourney. And Carolina housed us in the latter.

[throatybeard]

The committee doesn't place teams based on minimizing distances on the whole. They simply place the team in their most desirable location without regard to the number one seeds below them. And distance isn't the only factor. Kentucky got Atlanta despite St. Louis being closer. The committee said Atlanta was more of a "natural geographic fit" which I'm sure most UK fans would agree with.

Yeah, and the actual distance in miles is so little that it's basically the same. I drive both of these stretches all the time.

[sporthenry]

Barring a miraculous comeback, Arizona's loss to Colorado probably ends their #1 seed hopes. Gonzaga might get on the #1 line but have to assume Gonzaga is either getting the #1 or #2 seed out West.

With them out there, the West might not be a terrible destination. They don't seem dominant and in LA, they won't have the crowds that a UA might have.

[sagegrouse]

Well yeah, but Carolina beat us by 24 there, and 15 in the ACCT that happened hours before the selection show. Against our miraculous 2-point win over them.

If you want preferential treatment, you either have to be unbelievably amazing, or you have to win your conference tourney. And Carolina hosed us in the latter.

That was a year -- 1998 --when the ACC got two #1 seeds. That doesn't happen very often and likely won't happen this year. So, I wouldn't worry about the regions for Duke and Miami when both are #1 seeds. It is most likely to be one #1 seed for the ACC; second most likely is for there to be no #1 seeds (but maybe two #2's). If the regular season standings are fairly close, then the tournament champion will likely get the nod as #1. If there is an upset in the tournament, then it may be that no ACC team gets a #1.

Third most likely is to have two #1's. To have two #1's, both Duke and Miami would have to avoid upsets and meet in the ACC finals. And then have Michigan, Indiana, Florida or Gonzaga falter along the way.

I have no idea what I am talking about, but it is fun to speculate.

sagegrouse

[sporthenry]

That was a year -- 1998 --when the ACC got two #1 seeds. That doesn't happen very often and likely won't happen this year. So, I wouldn't worry about the regions for Duke and Miami when both are #1 seeds. It is most likely to be one #1 seed for the ACC; second most likely is for there to be no #1 seeds (but maybe two #2's). If the regular season standings are fairly close, then the tournament champion will likely get the nod as #1. If there is an upset in the tournament, then it may be that no ACC team gets a #1.

Third most likely is to have two #1's. To have two #1's, both Duke and Miami would have to avoid upsets and meet in the ACC finals. And then have Michigan, Indiana, Florida or Gonzaga falter along the way.

I have no idea what I am talking about, but it is fun to speculate.

sagegrouse

I could very well see both getting #1's. Both UM and IU have a ton of games left in the Big 10. Not that Duke/Miami don't either but if they win all non common games and they split with one winning the next matchup and the other winning the ACCT, then you could very well make the argument. On top of that, you have the Kelly factor, which should just help Duke assuming he comes back.

Florida will also have something to say but I can help but think Gonzaga despite their ranking, will be passed over. Their resume isn't great when you compare it to a Duke or UM. If Gonzaga gets a 2 seed, it makes things easy since the #4 1 seed will go out West and Gonzaga will be the #1 or #2 2 seed. So balance will be fine, but if Gonzaga gets the last #1 seed, they'll probably get the weakest #2 seed as well.

[tommy]

The biggest thing for Duke to be a 1 seed is Ryan Kelly. I know the committee got rid of your last 10 but with the Kelly injury, the committee can either dismiss our last month and a half or dismiss the first few months. Nobody is confusing our team right now with the same team with Kelly.

With Kelly back, the committee will look at our whole resume at least the 2012 part which is our bread and butter. With that resume, we are better than Miami and Cuse among others.

I can't really knock someone for not saying we are a top 4 team right now. Most here don't consider us title contenders without Kelly. And if we continue to play this way, I think we could lose another 1 or 2 games in the ACC. So any distance we might have between 'Cuse, KU, Arizona, etc. will shrink very quickly if that happens. The Miami game is probably most important. If we split with Miami, we instantly jump back over them with our resume. Now if they win the ACCT, they could jump back over us but that is getting a bit ahead of ourselves.

The team we put out there now is a good team but not a top 4 team. They have stretches where they could probably compete with anyone (think the first half in NC State or at FSU) but that requires Duke to be hot for 5 straight games. I just can't see Duke sustaining that offense for consecutive games against the likes of an OSU, MSU, Wisconsin followed by a game against a team like Florida, Syracuse or Arizona.

I think you and some others on here are missing a key point about Duke minus Kelly. We're winning without him. It's not always pretty, but we are now 9-2 without Ryan. One loss was to a top 5 team and contender for a #1 seed, on the road, and the other was to a good team, on the road, in our very first game without Kelly. We've won the last six in a row without him. The committee isn't going to parse these wins and say, "but they had to come from behind in this one" or "that one was closer than it should've been." They primarily look at the data, look at did you win or lose, and how difficult was the schedule you faced. And look at RPI and a few other types of "rankings." We're #1 in the RPI and top 5 in strength of schedule, nonconference RPI and nonconference strength of schedule. Nobody else can say that. And we have the best record in the country too. Oh, and we've maintained all of that even without Ryan Kelly. Which is amazing.

There's no doubt in my mind that if the season ended today, we'd be the overall #1 seed in this tournament. It doesn't end today, I get it. But everyone talks about how the committee will downgrade us if we don't have a healthy Ryan, or look ahead and say "well, we don't think Duke could beat team X or team Y without Kelly." I don't think they make those kinds of guesses. Not as long as we continue to win without him. Bottom line, that's what counts.

[Olympic Fan]

I think you and some others on here are missing a key point about Duke minus Kelly. We're winning without him. It's not always pretty, but we are now 9-2 without Ryan. .

Just to be correct, Duke is 7-2 without Kelly. guess you could say 7 1/2 because he didn't play the second half of the Jan. 8 game against Clemson (although Duke was up 15 with him scoring 12 in the first half). Duke was 15-0 at that point ... and are 22-2 now.

That said, I agree that for Duke to be a No. 1 seed, it's important that Kelly comes back and establishes his level of play at what it was before the injury. That's the only way that the committee gives Duke full credit for all those November and December wins. If that happens, the committee will discourt to some degree any losses without him (just as people are discounting Miami's losses to Arizona and Indiana State without Johnson).

If he doesn't return, they'll try to evaluate the team Duke has been without him ... which is still good, but not at the level of the team that went 15-0 against the nation's toughest schedule (to that point).

PS -- I repeat ... it's a mortal lock that the best Big 10 team will be the No 1 seed in the Midwest. I THINK out of Miami, Duke, Florida and maybe Syracuse, they get the No. 1 in the East and South.

The West is the overflow region -- either for ACC or Big 10 No. 2 or maybe Florida ... Arizona is almost out of the mix for No. 1 with their loss Thursday night. I forgot Gonzaga, which is probably going to finish the season with two losses after winning at St. Mary's tonight. They are No. 5 in the poll ... there are some problems with their conference and their overall SOS , but they are definitely a candidate at least to be No. 1 in the West.

[Forrest]

I was catching up on some of the speculation regarding likely #1 seeds in the tourney (sad side note: I don't even have to say "NCAA tourney" to distinguish from "ACC tourney"; everyone knows which tournament matters now), and started wondering if it's really that important. Is there value to being a #1 seed? The short answer, based on research from this WaPo page (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/ncaa/mens-basketball/search/), is Yes. Specifically:



Round
#1 seed
appearance %
#1 seed win %
#2 seed
appearance %
#2 seed win %

64
100
100
100
94.7


32
100
87.5
94.7
67.9

Sweet 16
87.5
80.6
64.3
72.2

Elite Eight
70.5
58.2
46.4
48.1

Final Four
41.1
56.5
22.3
48.0

NC
23.2
65.4
10.7
33.3


In each and every round, #1 seeds are more likely to appear and more likely to win and advance. They're almost twice as likely to make it to the Final Four, and more than twice as likely to cut down the nets. They don't lose in the Round of 64 (cough-cough *Lehigh* cough-cough), and aren't eliminated in significant percentages until the Elite Eight.

Also, the most likely team to defeat a #1 seed, and the one to which we should be paying the most attention on Selection Sunday if Duke is fortunate enough to get a #1 seed, is the #2 seed in the same region. I didn't think this would be the case - both top seeds have to win three games to even play each other - but the numbers don't lie. The #1 and #2 seeds have met each other in 38 of the 112 Elite Eight games since 1985. The #2 seed has won 20 of those games.

Duke has done incredibly poorly of late as a #1 seed in the Sweet Sixteen, losing four of its last five (Arizona, Villanova, LSU and Michigan State, as if anyone wants to be reminded), but that is a huge anomaly. Overall, #1 seeds win over 80% of those games, including 75% when the opponent is a #4 or #5 seed.

So what does that mean for Duke? That the Blue Devils should go all out to get a #1 seed, including in the ACC tournament if necessary, rather than resting players or being cautious about those returning from injury. Obviously, risks of re-injury need to be considered, but the #1 seed is really worth striving for, up to and including in the ACC championship game on Selection Sunday.

[MCFinARL]

I was catching up on some of the speculation regarding likely #1 seeds in the tourney (sad side note: I don't even have to say "NCAA tourney" to distinguish from "ACC tourney"; everyone knows which tournament matters now), and started wondering if it's really that important. Is there value to being a #1 seed? The short answer, based on research from this WaPo page (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/ncaa/mens-basketball/search/), is Yes. Specifically:



Round
#1 seed
appearance %
#1 seed win %
#2 seed
appearance %
#2 seed win %

64
100
100
100
94.7


32
100
87.5
94.7
67.9

Sweet 16
87.5
80.6
64.3
72.2

Elite Eight
70.5
58.2
46.4
48.1

Final Four
41.1
56.5
22.3
48.0

NC
23.2
65.4
10.7
33.3


In each and every round, #1 seeds are more likely to appear and more likely to win and advance. They're almost twice as likely to make it to the Final Four, and more than twice as likely to cut down the nets. They don't lose in the Round of 64 (cough-cough *Lehigh* cough-cough), and aren't eliminated in significant percentages until the Elite Eight.

Also, the most likely team to defeat a #1 seed, and the one to which we should be paying the most attention on Selection Sunday if Duke is fortunate enough to get a #1 seed, is the #2 seed in the same region. I didn't think this would be the case - both top seeds have to win three games to even play each other - but the numbers don't lie. The #1 and #2 seeds have met each other in 38 of the 112 Elite Eight games since 1985. The #2 seed has won 20 of those games.

Duke has done incredibly poorly of late as a #1 seed in the Sweet Sixteen, losing four of its last five (Arizona, Villanova, LSU and Michigan State, as if anyone wants to be reminded), but that is a huge anomaly. Overall, #1 seeds win over 80% of those games, including 75% when the opponent is a #4 or #5 seed.

So what does that mean for Duke? That the Blue Devils should go all out to get a #1 seed, including in the ACC tournament if necessary, rather than resting players or being cautious about those returning from injury. Obviously, risks of re-injury need to be considered, but the #1 seed is really worth striving for, up to and including in the ACC championship game on Selection Sunday.
Thanks for providing the interesting data. But I'm not sure your conclusions follow, because correlation does not equal causation. To be sure, some of the success of #1 seeds likely stems from the fact that they are facing lower-seeded opponents. But some of it undoubtedly also comes from the fact that they are usually [not unheard of for seeing to be erroneous or at least questionable] better teams to start with than the #2 seeds. Without sorting out the impact of those two factors, it's hard to say in the abstract that fighting for a #1 seed will make that much difference for a team that is on the border of a 1 or 2.

[Forrest]

Thanks for providing the interesting data. But I'm not sure your conclusions follow, because correlation does not equal causation. To be sure, some of the success of #1 seeds likely stems from the fact that they are facing lower-seeded opponents. But some of it undoubtedly also comes from the fact that they are usually [not unheard of for seeing to be erroneous or at least questionable] better teams to start with than the #2 seeds. Without sorting out the impact of those two factors, it's hard to say in the abstract that fighting for a #1 seed will make that much difference for a team that is on the border of a 1 or 2.

Interesting reply, but I disagree. "Correlation does not equal causation" is often inappropriately used, and overused, in discounting statistical analyses. Here are some questions to be asked and answered for a statistical analysis before making that claim:

Is the sample biased?

This analysis is of 112 #1 seeds over 28 years, all chosen in roughly the same manner (by the NCAA committee), and of hundreds of games for those teams. It isn't from a biased sample, or even a random, unbiased sample; it represents the entire population.

Is there a clear mechanism to explain why the independent variable (tournament seed) leads to the dependent variable (success in the tournament)?

As you point out, the #1 seed generally plays lower-seeded teams than the #2 seed. That's the mechanism. Additionally, nothing is more clear than wins and losses in sports. Most statisticians would kill for such unambiguous measurements.

Are there any alternative explanations that at least seem better and can't be refuted?

Well, the board is a good place for these to be posited, so we'll see. Stating that #1 seeds are usually better than #2 seeds doesn't really meet those criteria. The point of the analysis is to show that #1 seeds have better results than #2 seeds. They do. I actually didn't test to see if #1 seeds are 'better' than #2 seeds, whatever that means, although the record in the Elite Eight (#1s 18, #2s, 20), certainly casts doubt on that hypothesis.

Another way to think about it is to ask if results of future tournaments are likely to be similar to results of past tournaments. There's probably enough data to use the first 20 or so tournaments as a base and compare results for #1 seeds there to results of the last 8 tournaments. Someone else is welcome to attempt that, but I'm pretty confident it would demonstrate the predictive value of the analysis.

So the Blue Devils will be the same team, with the same players and same coaches, come tournament time regardless of whether they're a #1 seed or a #2 seed, but statistically they're likely to do better in the NCAA tournament if they're a #1 seed.

[UrinalCake]

Is there a clear mechanism to explain why the independent variable (tournament seed) leads to the dependent variable (success in the tournament)?

As you point out, the #1 seed generally plays lower-seeded teams than the #2 seed. That's the mechanism. Additionally, nothing is more clear than wins and losses in sports. Most statisticians would kill for such unambiguous measurements.


I'm not buying this at all. The "mechanism" is that #1 seeds are better teams to begin with than #2 seeds. They are not assigned their seeds at random. Perhaps you could take the average regular season win-loss records of all the #1 seeds over time and compare them with those of the #2's. that should give you pretty conclusive evidence that #1's are better teams and therefore would be expected to win more regardless of where they are seeded.

What we really need is an experiment where the top 8 teams are randomly assigned a 1 or 2 seed, and all the other teams are seeded normally. Then we'd play the tournament and see what happens. Repeat this about 100 times and then you could test whether seeding makes a difference.

[matt1]

1 Seeds:
Indiana (Midwest)
Duke (East)
Miami (South)
Florida (West)

[Forrest]

#1 seeds are better teams to begin with than #2 seeds. They are not assigned their seeds at random.

That is confirmed by the analysis, the point of which is to show that the top two seeds are not random, in which case there would be no correlation between seed and result, but are predictive of success in the tournament. Since seeding is based on regular season and conference tournament results, it follows that teams should do everything they can to maximize those results and get the best seed. That, along with what I thought were interesting observations that the most likely team to beat a #1 seed is the #2 seed in its region, and that the Sweet Sixteen is not generally the tournament-ending game for a #1 seed that it has been for Duke recently, was the point of my original post. I'm not interested in which team is 'better', whatever that means; I'm interested in the more specific issue of whether it's worthwhile to try harder and risk more to get a #1 seed, based on the value of a #1 seed.

[sporthenry]

Also, the most likely team to defeat a #1 seed, and the one to which we should be paying the most attention on Selection Sunday if Duke is fortunate enough to get a #1 seed, is the #2 seed in the same region. I didn't think this would be the case - both top seeds have to win three games to even play each other - but the numbers don't lie. The #1 and #2 seeds have met each other in 38 of the 112 Elite Eight games since 1985. The #2 seed has won 20 of those games.

Duke has done incredibly poorly of late as a #1 seed in the Sweet Sixteen, losing four of its last five (Arizona, Villanova, LSU and Michigan State, as if anyone wants to be reminded), but that is a huge anomaly. Overall, #1 seeds win over 80% of those games, including 75% when the opponent is a #4 or #5 seed.

I use this site for all the records versus seeds. http://mcubed.net/ncaab/seeds.shtml

For one, shouldn't we compare all #1 versus #2 games? In which case, the #1 seeds are 35-30 versus #2 seeds (a 53% win rate). And you mention Duke having an anomaly, couldn't we say that same about the #2 seed winning 20 of 38 games. 38 games still seems rather small and it is still only 52.6% for a win rate. Either way, I don't think 53% on a 38 or 65 sample is that conclusive.

The biggest issue when comparing these numbers is that while normally it seems to come up when Duke is on the bubble of a 1/2 seed, which means Duke is around 4-6. However, comparing this data across the board actually ends up comparing the #1 team versus the #7/#8 team in which case, you would expect a difference in win %. The only way to really factor this in is to use something like a poll, kenpom, or I would use the S-curve but that was only made available for the first time next year.

If you look at it from the S-curve last year, the #6 and #8 overall seed both lost their first game. The #5 and #7 overall seeds went to the F4. The #1 overall seed won the whole thing, the #2 and #3 seed both lost in the E8 and the #4 seed lost in the S16. So while this data is too small of a sample size, you can still see the #1 seed dramatically outproduce the #8 seed and that doesn't take into account things like UNC having an injury.

Similarly, in 2010, you saw a weak #2 seed in Nova get knocked off in the first weekend while WV was probably the best #2 seed and they went to the F4. I know these few instances aren't conclusive and some people probably have an example to counter but on the whole, I'd say the top 1 seeds outperform the bottom 2 seeds.

But this isn't to discount the difference in scheduling but I believe the biggest impact in the strength of opponents is actually in the first game. Usually the 15 seed is actually a competent team whereas most 16 seeds are bad.

And then if you look at the next round, the #1 seed has an 80% and 90% win rate versus the #8 and #9 seed respectively and the #2 seed is 73.8% versus the 7 seed and 58.8% versus the 10 seed. That would indicate that this is more about the quality of the 2 seed and less about the schedule, at least beyond the first round.

[sporthenry]

I'm interested in the more specific issue of whether it's worthwhile to try harder and risk more to get a #1 seed, based on the value of a #1 seed.

And I don't think you've proven this. Trying harder or risking more doesn't make you better. And you haven't proven that the same team, as a 1 seed will outproduce the 2 seed. How you would do this? I don't know but that is what you'd have to prove, that just by getting the 1 seed, it somehow gives the team better odds.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

I think what can be agreed upon is that it's infinitely more important for duke to get kelly back than to be a #1 seed.

with kelly, we can win regardless of opponent. Without him, our chances are strictly matchup-driven. Still possible, just alot trickier.

[UrinalCake]

And I don't think you've proven this. Trying harder or risking more doesn't make you better. And you haven't proven that the same team, as a 1 seed will outproduce the 2 seed. How you would do this? I don't know but that is what you'd have to prove, that just by getting the 1 seed, it somehow gives the team better odds.

Yeah I don't think this is something you can really quantify. What if we "try harder" by playing Seth more minutes and he totally blows out his knee? Then not only do we not have him but the Selection Committee will probably drop us a seed anyways, which totally defeats the purpose.

Conversely, how much is the psychological benefit of finishing the year strong and earning the #1? You could argue that that would cause a team to play better versus taking a loss and falling to the 2.

Sorry if my last post came off a little snarky, I hadnt understood your original point.

[blondie_30]

Anyone know if Duke will be playing in Philadelphia this year for the tournament?? I would like to get tickets ;)

[Bob Green]

Selection Sunday is March 17th, I suggest you check back then.

[blondie_30]

Is there at least a decent chance that they will be in Phila??:confused: Or is there no way to know that at this point ??

[Bob Green]

Is there at least a decent chance that they will be in Phila??:confused: Or is there no way to know that at this point ??

There is know way to know at this point. If we win out, including the ACCT, Philadelphia and Washington DC are our most likely destinations. Perhaps we make it there without winning out but there is no guarantee.

[ice-9]

I'm not buying this at all. The "mechanism" is that #1 seeds are better teams to begin with than #2 seeds. They are not assigned their seeds at random. Perhaps you could take the average regular season win-loss records of all the #1 seeds over time and compare them with those of the #2's. that should give you pretty conclusive evidence that #1's are better teams and therefore would be expected to win more regardless of where they are seeded.

What we really need is an experiment where the top 8 teams are randomly assigned a 1 or 2 seed, and all the other teams are seeded normally. Then we'd play the tournament and see what happens. Repeat this about 100 times and then you could test whether seeding makes a difference.

Think about it this way - being labeled as a top four team (#1 seeds) or top eight team (#2 seeds) may not matter in the sense that it's just a label and the team is still the team. It's no better or worse to get one label over the other.

But being a #1 seed isn't just a label, because *you actually get to play weaker opponents* as a #1 seed. And THAT'S the mechanism.

Being in the top four matters. Not because of the label, but because you get to play the bottom four.

This year it matters more than ever, because the top 15 teams are all so strong and there is a noticeable drop off after. I'd much rather be facing the #4 seed in the elite eight than a #2 or #3, which can easily be a Louisville or Ohio State or Kansas. Give me Oklahoma State or New Mexico or Notre Dame instead any day.

Let's go get the #1 seed guys...

[sporthenry]

Think about it this way - being labeled as a top four team (#1 seeds) or top eight team (#2 seeds) may not matter in the sense that it's just a label and the team is still the team. It's no better or worse to get one label over the other.

But being a #1 seed isn't just a label, because *you actually get to play weaker opponents* as a #1 seed. And THAT'S the mechanism.

Being in the top four matters. Not because of the label, but because you get to play the bottom four.

This year it matters more than ever, because the top 15 teams are all so strong and there is a noticeable drop off after. I'd much rather be facing the #4 seed in the elite eight than a #2 or #3, which can easily be a Louisville or Ohio State or Kansas. Give me Oklahoma State or New Mexico or Notre Dame instead any day.

Let's go get the #1 seed guys...

Well the problem with this is that the drop off doesn't occur at one of the seed cut offs. Everyone will have their own but if it is at 15, that means 3 of the 4 seeds will be in that group. As it stands now, looking at Lunardi, Ohio State and Kansas State are both 4 seeds and looking at the polls (which aren't great indicators) the 4 seeds would be Ohio State, Kansas, Georgetown and Pittsburgh.

[1 24 90]

Snarky response:

Yes, the next time they play at Temple.

[SCMatt33]

I'd say there is a very good chance that Duke ends up there. Philadelphia will most likely be considered Duke's preferred destination by the committee. It it closer by about 60 or 70 miles (on the road) compared to Lexington, and Duke is more associated with the Northeast. So with that, as long as Duke earns a protected seed, they only need to make sure that there aren't two teams ahead of them who also prefer Philadelphia. The first round sites are a little bunched up in the Midwest this year with Dayton, Detroit, and Lexington all hosting. This coincidentally matches up with the rankings as several teams from this part of the country are from near those locations (Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St., Louisville, and Ohio State). Even the Florida teams (UF and Miami) are closer to Lexington than Philadelphia. The only school that has a decent chance to be ahead of Duke and wants Philly is Syracuse, but there is room for Both. The next best team who would want Philly is Georgetown.

Now there are two other ways that Duke could fall out of Philly. One is to simply drop to a 4 seed or lower, in which case we would be shipped to whatever leftover region was available (as a 4) or be at the mercy of the highest team in the pod (5 or lower). Duke dropping that far isn't very likely though.

The more realistic way is for Louisville to pass one of the Florida schools, and have Duke finish behind both of them plus Syracuse. In this case, Louisville would take one of the Lexington spots from a Florida school who would then go to Philly over Duke.

Given those options, the odds are fairly good that Duke will be there.

[ice-9]

Well the problem with this is that the drop off doesn't occur at one of the seed cut offs. Everyone will have their own but if it is at 15, that means 3 of the 4 seeds will be in that group. As it stands now, looking at Lunardi, Ohio State and Kansas State are both 4 seeds and looking at the polls (which aren't great indicators) the 4 seeds would be Ohio State, Kansas, Georgetown and Pittsburgh.

Let's take a look at the latest bracketology (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology) with the team's KenPom ranking in parenthesis:

3rd seeds: New Mexico (#34), Louisville (#3), Kansas (#12), Arizona (#17)
4th seeds: Kansas St (#41), Marquette (#30), Ohio State (#11), Georgetown (#21)

Give me the 4th seeds any day!

The only puzzling placement is New Mexico as the 3rd seed and Ohio State as the 4th (I guess New Mexico has the better win-loss record). Switch those around and the drop off on the 4th seed line is apparent.

[sporthenry]

Oops! You're right about that, I hadn't taken a close look at the latest AP standings. I'm assuming talented teams like Ohio State and Kansas will eventually make it to at least third seed.

But taking a look at the latest bracketology (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology) with the team's KenPom ranking in parenthesis:

3rd seeds: New Mexico (#34), Louisville (#3), Kansas (#12), Arizona (#17)
4th seeds: Kansas St (#41), Marquette (#30), Ohio State (#11), Georgetown (#21)

Give me the 4th seeds any day!

The only puzzling placement is New Mexico as the 3rd seed and Ohio State as the 4th (I guess New Mexico has a sterling win-loss record). Switch those around and the drop off on the 4th seed line is apparent.

I agree that some of those teams still have time to play themselves onto the 3 seeds or better. Obviously, I agree that I'd prefer the 4 seeds over the 3 seeds b/c they are weaker and I will agree there is a drop off but there seems to be a drop off after a couple of the 3 seeds and after a couple of the 4 seeds.

So ideally, you'd probably want Duke to have the weakest 4 seed, a strong 3 coupled with a weaker 2 so that their S16 game is taxing. Now of course this is getting ahead of ourselves quite a bit but the value from the 1 or 2 will be wholly dependent upon what other seeds they get but obviously the #1 would be best.

[tommy]

Is there a clear mechanism to explain why the independent variable (tournament seed) leads to the dependent variable (success in the tournament)?

As you point out, the #1 seed generally plays lower-seeded teams than the #2 seed. That's the mechanism.



Think about it this way - being labeled as a top four team (#1 seeds) or top eight team (#2 seeds) may not matter in the sense that it's just a label and the team is still the team. It's no better or worse to get one label over the other.

But being a #1 seed isn't just a label, because *you actually get to play weaker opponents* as a #1 seed. And THAT'S the mechanism.

Do you though? How often is that actually true? I suspected that what is generally assumed to be a "given" -- that the #1 seed always gets to play weaker opponents than does the #2 seed -- might not be as correct as many folks think. Of course they play a 16 in the first round and the #2 plays a 15. Only 6 times out of a total of 112 opportunities has a #15 beaten a #2, so the "advantage" to being a #1 seed in the first round is pretty minor in terms of bottom line wins and losses. They may be tougher games, closer games more often, but still, the #2 has almost always won.

But what about beyond the first round? I decided to do the work. I looked at every tournament since it expanded to 64 teams in 1985, through last year, and tested this assumption (the "mechanism") against the facts. I looked not at who the #1 and #2 were expected to play in rounds 2 and 3 of the tournament, because if the higher seed was to win each game, the #1 would always play a lower seed than would a #2 in each succeeding round, but who did the #1 and #2 seeds actually have to face in rounds 2 and 3? Note: no use in looking at round 4, the regional final, because if #1 and #2 each got there, they'd obviously be playing each other. And no reason to look at Final Four games, because those matchups have nothing to do with seeding.

So for each regional of each tournament, again looking at only rounds 2 and 3, who did the #1 and #2 seeds actually play? But I only considered rounds in which the #1`and #2 for a given region each reached that round. So for instance in last year's tournament, my counting went like this: In the second round, #2 seed (Duke) lost to Lehigh and didn't make it, so I didn't count the #1 in Duke's region (Kentucky) as playing a lower seed than did the #2, because the #2 wasn't in the tournament anymore in round 2. So nothing for that region. Same in the West, where #2 Missouri lost in the first round. Strange year. In the East, in the second round #1 Syracuse did in fact get to play a lower seed (#8 K-State) than did #2 Ohio State, who had to play #7 Gonzaga. But in the Midwest in the second round, #2 Kansas got to play #10 Purdue (who had upset #7 St. Mary's in the first round), which was a lower seed (more advantageous) than #1 UNC got to play, in #8 Creighton.

So for the second round of that tournament, I consider that as one #1 getting an easier game (Syracuse) and one #2 got an easier game (Kansas).

In the third round, in the East, #2 Ohio State got an easier game, against #6 Cincinnati (who had taken out #3 Florida St.), than did #1 Syracuse, who had to play #4 Wisconsin. On the other hand, in the Midwest, #1 UNC got to play #13 Ohio, while #2 Kansas had to face the slightly tougher #11 NC State. The other two regions didn't count, because at least one of the top two seeds (in this case, both #2's, Duke and Missouri) didn't play in this round either.

So for the third round of that tournament, I consider that as one #1 getting an easier game (UNC) and one #2 got an easier game (Ohio St.)

That's my methdology. What are the results over the last 28 years?

In the second round games, when both #1 and #2 have made that round in a given region, on 65 occasions the #1 has enjoyed a matchup against a lower seeded team than the #2 has had to face, while on 41 occasions, the #2 team has gotten to play a lower seeded team than the #1 has had to play. That's 61% of the time where it's been an advantage to be a #1, assuming of course that it's an "advantage" to match up with as low a seeded opponent as possible. (For those paying attention, the #1 always plays #8 or #9 in the second round, so this statistic is entirely dependent on the 7 vs. 10 matchup; if #7 wins, as "expected," and goes on to face #2, then the #1 in the region will automatically be playing an "easier" game against 8 or 9, while if instead #10 beats #7, then the #2 will always be playing an "easier" game against that #10 than the #1 seed, who is playing 8 or 9.)

However, when you get to the third round, again when both the #1 and #2 seeds in a region have made it to that round, the #1 seed has gotten to play a lower seeded team than has the #2 seed 33 times, while on 30 occasions the #2 has gotten a matchup with a lower seeded team than has the #1 seed. Only 52% of the time in the third round (regional semifinals) has it turned out to be an advantage to be the #1.

Putting those together, the #1 seeds have gotten the more advantageous matchups 98 times, the #2 seeds 71. That's only 58% of the time. Not that big of an edge, really. Sure, give a little bump up to the #1's for the first round break in getting to play the #16's, who have yet to break through, whereas there have been the small handful of times that #2's have been upset by #15's. But still, the data doesn't seem to support the idea that it's some huge advantage to be a #1 vis-a-vis a #2 in terms of the teams you actually get to face in the tournament. A slight advantage, yes, but not much of one.

Of course, I would still prefer Duke to be a #1. Any edge is better than no edge. And in some years there may be a bigger edge (or perceived edge) than others due to where there are perceived dropoffs in talent levels of the teams. But that is so subjective, speculative, murky, or whatever you want to call it. If we do get a #1 there shouldn't be anyone saying, "ok, exhale. Our road will be so much easier now." It may be, but there's a good chance it won't be. That's what the numbers say.

Note to anyone who cares: I have the data broken down year-by-year if you're interested, but I just didn't know how to put it in some kind of table in an organized and understandable way.

[Kedsy]

Do you though? How often is that actually true? I suspected that what is generally assumed to be a "given" -- that the #1 seed always gets to play weaker opponents than does the #2 seed -- might not be as correct as many folks think. Of course they play a 16 in the first round and the #2 plays a 15. Only 6 times out of a total of 112 opportunities has a #15 beaten a #2, so the "advantage" to being a #1 seed in the first round is pretty minor in terms of bottom line wins and losses. They may be tougher games, closer games more often, but still, the #2 has almost always won.

...

Putting those together, the #1 seeds have gotten the more advantageous matchups 98 times, the #2 seeds 71. That's only 58% of the time. Not that big of an edge, really. Sure, give a little bump up to the #1's for the first round break in getting to play the #16's, who have yet to break through, whereas there have been the small handful of times that #2's have been upset by #15's. But still, the data doesn't seem to support the idea that it's some huge advantage to be a #1 vis-a-vis a #2 in terms of the teams you actually get to face in the tournament. A slight advantage, yes, but not much of one.

Interesting analysis, Tom. Thanks. One comment I'd make is that 6 out of 112 is 5.4%, which doesn't seem so insignificant when talking about advantages, especially if you add it to the 58-42 advantage in the second and third rounds (which personally I think sounds like a pretty big advantage, rather than "slight," but perhaps that's just semantics).

[ice-9]

Putting those together, the #1 seeds have gotten the more advantageous matchups 98 times, the #2 seeds 71. That's only 58% of the time. Not that big of an edge, really. Sure, give a little bump up to the #1's for the first round break in getting to play the #16's, who have yet to break through, whereas there have been the small handful of times that #2's have been upset by #15's. But still, the data doesn't seem to support the idea that it's some huge advantage to be a #1 vis-a-vis a #2 in terms of the teams you actually get to face in the tournament. A slight advantage, yes, but not much of one.

Of course, I would still prefer Duke to be a #1. Any edge is better than no edge. And in some years there may be a bigger edge (or perceived edge) than others due to where there are perceived dropoffs in talent levels of the teams. But that is so subjective, speculative, murky, or whatever you want to call it. If we do get a #1 there shouldn't be anyone saying, "ok, exhale. Our road will be so much easier now." It may be, but there's a good chance it won't be. That's what the numbers say.

Note to anyone who cares: I have the data broken down year-by-year if you're interested, but I just didn't know how to put it in some kind of table in an organized and understandable way.

I don't know if the analysis is correct, or at least if it is preferable over the table of percentage advancement per seed posted before. If the second seed is upset by the fifteenth seed, that'd data. That's evidence why the first seed has a bigger advantage than the second seed. I'm not sure why we would want to exclude that.

We already have the data, and like a previous poster wrote it's not a sample it's the population. It's conclusive that first seeds on average go further than second seeds in the NCAA tournament. It's pretty much as close to a fact as you can get.

Should we try to get the #1 seed? Heck yeah, because on average we get to play weaker opponents, not to mention preferential geography.

[tommy]

I don't know if the analysis is correct, or at least if it is preferable over the table of percentage advancement per seed posted before. If the second seed is upset by the fifteenth seed, that'd data. That's evidence why the first seed has a bigger advantage than the second seed. I'm not sure why we would want to exclude that.

We already have the data, and like a previous poster wrote it's not a sample it's the population. It's conclusive that first seeds on average go further than second seeds in the NCAA tournament. It's pretty much as close to a fact as you can get.

Should we try to get the #1 seed? Heck yeah, because on average we get to play weaker opponents, not to mention preferential geography.

The numbers are correct. They are facts. The significance you attach to them is, of course, subjective.

Yes, first seeds on average go further than second, but that wasn't the focus of the work I did. The idea was to test the assumption that #1 seeds "always" or "almost always" get to play lower seeded teams than do #2 seeds, and the facts show that while more often than not the #1's do get to play lower seeds than do the #2's as they move through the tournament, they get to do so much less frequently than many people seem to presume.

[sporthenry]

I agree with Kedsy about one of the biggest values is getting to play a 16 seed. 16 seeds are usually weak conferences whose teams had a surprise winner. Now as the tourney expands, and we get more play in games, 15 seeds are now 16 seeds so you will probably see the 16/1 sometime in our lifetime and perhaps in the near future. Just like Lehigh or Norfolk State who some say might have been underseeded, two years ago, they'd probably be 14 seeds. But I've often heard, this is the biggest advantage to a 1 seed from a schedule perspective.

I think the 2nd round is pretty much irrelevant. You have the 7-10 seeds which are the 28-40 category which for the most part usually doesn't have that much separating each other (although the 7 seeds win at a 60% rate). I think the 2nd round win rate of the 2 seeds is more indicative of their weakness than the strength of schedule.

I think most of the discrepancy is explained by the 2 seed being weaker but there is some intrinsic value to having the higher seed.

[sporthenry]

The numbers are correct. They are facts. The significance you attach to them is, of course, subjective.

Yes, first seeds on average go further than second, but that wasn't the focus of the work I did. The idea was to test the assumption that #1 seeds "always" or "almost always" get to play lower seeded teams than do #2 seeds, and the facts show that while more often than not the #1's do get to play lower seeds than do the #2's as they move through the tournament, they get to do so much less frequently than many people seem to presume.

The one critique I would have of the way you did it was that you limited it to situations in which the #2 or #1 actually advanced. I would think you shouldn't restrict it to just when the #1 or 2 seeds advanced. I'd say we should look up all times when the 3, 6, or 11 advanced to the S16 and all times when the 4, 5, 12, and 13 advanced regardless of who they played in the S16 b/c that is what we are concerned with, not how often the 1 or 2 seed goes that far.

[CDu]

At this point, I'd start worrying less about a #1 seed, and more about hanging on to the #2 seed in the ACC tournament. We've got a bunch of tough road games left, and could very easily lose 2, 3, or 4 more games in the regular season, and another in the ACC tournament. If we lose even 3 more games total, I suspect we will be out of the running for a #1 seed. It might even be true if we lose only 2 more. For us to avoid losing 3 more, we either have to win the ACC tournament or win at least 2 of Miami, @UVa, and @UNC. Unless Kelly comes back soon, I think that will be very difficult.

[Forrest]

Lots of interesting replies, as I expected. I have just a couple of thoughts to add:

I started with a table because it was interesting and easy to read. I never actually did a statistical analysis to test whether tournament results are significantly better for #1 than #2 seeds. I'm too lazy, and frankly the tabulated data combined with the number of observations leaves little or no doubt that those results are significantly better. Some statistician with time on his/her hands can determine if that's at the 95% or 99% confidence level, but I don't see any real dispute over the results.

I made an observation that #1 and #2 seeds are evenly matched at the Elite Eight level, which is true enough, but it's been pointed out that the two seeds meet quite frequently in the FF and NC games. Overall, in 55 contests, #1 defeats #2 55.6% of the time. Again, I'm too lazy to do the test, but I suspect that's significantly different from 50%. One tortuous anecdotal piece of information: #1 and #2 seeds have met in the NC seven times, and #1 has won six of those. The outlier? Louisville 72, Duke 69 in 1986. Even all these years later, that game returns to depress me every once in a while.

[rotogod00]

Fwiw, Joe Lunardi over at ESPN still has Duke as a #1, but last in line and heading out West.

[CDu]

Fwiw, Joe Lunardi over at ESPN still has Duke as a #1, but last in line and heading out West.

For the moment, that sounds about right. And if we can somehow survive the next few weeks with only one more loss, I think we'll get a #1 seed. Two more losses? Then it will be very iffy. Three more losses and we're not going to get a #1.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

For the moment, that sounds about right. And if we can somehow survive the next few weeks with only one more loss, I think we'll get a #1 seed. Two more losses? Then it will be very iffy. Three more losses and we're not going to get a #1.

On the CBS halftime show today Gottlieb basically dismissed Duke as a 1 seed due to the fact that their best wins took place in Nov/Dec.

Surprisingly, Seth Davis still projected Duke as a 1 seed as long as they beat Miami.

Not very earth-shattering info but I found it interesting nonetheless.

[MaxAMillion]

I don't think there is anyway Duke gets the number one seed with two more losses. That would mean another loss most likely to a team working just to get in the tournament. Duke has not played like a number one seed in the last month and I can see the committee holding that against Duke. They always talk about how you are playing heading into the tournament being a criteria.

[tommy]

On the CBS halftime show today Gottlieb basically dismissed Duke as a 1 seed due to the fact that their best wins took place in Nov/Dec.

Good thing Gottlieb's opinion is irrelevant.

[sporthenry]

Assuming Kelly gets back, Duke isn't falling to the 3. They'd have to be passed by teams like OSU or Louisville who they already beat head to head and teams like Arizona and Syracuse who have looked just as bad as Duke recently.

Now if Kelly gets back and Duke wins the ACCT, it will be a great exercise to see how important injuries are. On paper, Duke's resume will probably be up there with any other #1 seed in terms of quality wins and with Kelly back and Duke looking good by way of an ACC title, they might discount games like Maryland or Miami or even the BC game.

[sporthenry]

On the CBS halftime show today Gottlieb basically dismissed Duke as a 1 seed due to the fact that their best wins took place in Nov/Dec.

Surprisingly, Seth Davis still projected Duke as a 1 seed as long as they beat Miami.

Not very earth-shattering info but I found it interesting nonetheless.

Davis is probably closer to being correct. Most analysts don't seem to care or understand how the process works. They give their best 4 teams at the moment much like polls and disregard the fact that the NCAA doesn't care nearly as much about recent results. It is impossible not to take recent performance into play but the committee has stopped with the last 10 played so unlike the BCS, it doesn't matter that much when you win or lose. The committee's job isn't to say who is playing best now nor is the eye test high up on their criteria so when they actually sit down and compare Duke to the other teams, Duke will actually look pretty good.

Lets see, Duke is #1 RPI, #6 in Kenpom and teams ahead of them like Pitt. and Louisville aren't in contention, and #5 in Sagarin (again behind Louisville who isn't really in the running for a #1, at least not yet). But lets look at a table.




RPI
SOS
Kenpom
Sagarin
RPI Top 25 Record
RPI Top 50 Record
RPI Top 100 Record
RPI 101+ Record
RPI 201+ Record
Non-Conference SOS


Duke
1
1
6
5
3-1
8-2
12-3
10-0
1-0
1


Syracuse
10
23
7
8
1-0
4-3
10-4
11-0
4-0
85


Gonzaga
11
60
8
10
3-1
5-2
10-2
14-0
6-0
17


Florida
4
25
1
2
1-2
5-2
10-3
11-0
6-0
5


Michigan
6
18
5
4
3-2
6-4
9-4
11-0
4-0
122


Indiana
12
32
2
1
4-1
6-3
8-3
15-0
7-0
81


Miami
2
2
9
11
3-1
6-1
13-2
7-1
2-0
2




Make of it all you want, bud this is how the committee will do it and Duke's resume looks pretty good especially if the committee keeps true to recent events and puts added emphasis on a hard non-conference schedule. Not to mention, the only team who has played less cupcakes has been Miami. Duke is right there in top 25 wins. Has the most top 50 wins and second most top 100 wins.

And if Gottlieb really wants to devalue all of Duke's wins, then Gonzaga must lose value as well considering since the new year, they've only beat 3 top 100 teams, St. Marys at 47 (twice), BYU at 63 and Santa Clara at 97. So they could lose their only recent top 50 wins and a recent top 100 win very easily.

ETA: These numbers are from CBS' RPI site so I'm assuming they are legitimate.

[CDu]

Assuming Kelly gets back, Duke isn't falling to the 3. They'd have to be passed by teams like OSU or Louisville who they already beat head to head and teams like Arizona and Syracuse who have looked just as bad as Duke recently.

Now if Kelly gets back and Duke wins the ACCT, it will be a great exercise to see how important injuries are. On paper, Duke's resume will probably be up there with any other #1 seed in terms of quality wins and with Kelly back and Duke looking good by way of an ACC title, they might discount games like Maryland or Miami or even the BC game.

If this was a response to my post, I wasn't suggesting we were in danger of falling to a #3 in th NCAAs. I was talking about the ACC tourney with regard to hanging on to the #2 seed.

[tommy]

The one critique I would have of the way you did it was that you limited it to situations in which the #2 or #1 actually advanced. I would think you shouldn't restrict it to just when the #1 or 2 seeds advanced. I'd say we should look up all times when the 3, 6, or 11 advanced to the S16 and all times when the 4, 5, 12, and 13 advanced regardless of who they played in the S16 b/c that is what we are concerned with, not how often the 1 or 2 seed goes that far.

I'm not clear on what it is you are saying here, or what you are suggesting. Can you clarify?

Thanks.

[sporthenry]

If this was a response to my post, I wasn't suggesting we were in danger of falling to a #3 in th NCAAs. I was talking about the ACC tourney with regard to hanging on to the #2 seed.

It might have been and I apologize. I was reading on my phone and wasn't completely thorough in my readings. But either way, it still remains. Crazy that Duke could be a 3 seed and still the 2 seed in the NCAA


I'm not clear on what it is you are saying here, or what you are suggesting. Can you clarify?

Thanks.

Sorry about that, I tried to think of a concise way to put it and failed miserably. But last year, you said you didn't count Missourri and Duke because they lost early. I'm not sure why that matters. Like with both 2 seeds losing in the first round, in both those brackets the 3 seeds went to the S16 so their path would have been harder which is what we are looking at.

I also don't think you should compare it to the other 1 seed in the bracket but to all 1 seeds. Because there are situations where the 1 might have a 14 and the 2 have a 3 or the 1 might have a 4 and the 2 a 3 and those shouldn't be considered equal. Perhaps this is somewhat better of an explanation but I'm not even sure.

Maybe later tonight, I'll do my own study which will compare what teams come out of the 4-5-12-13 pod and the 3-6-11-14 pod in terms of average seed as well as the amount of each individual seed.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Davis is probably closer to being correct. Most analysts don't seem to care or understand how the process works. They give their best 4 teams at the moment much like polls and disregard the fact that the NCAA doesn't care nearly as much about recent results. It is impossible not to take recent performance into play but the committee has stopped with the last 10 played so unlike the BCS, it doesn't matter that much when you win or lose. The committee's job isn't to say who is playing best now nor is the eye test high up on their criteria so when they actually sit down and compare Duke to the other teams, Duke will actually look pretty good.

Lets see, Duke is #1 RPI, #6 in Kenpom and teams ahead of them like Pitt. and Louisville aren't in contention, and #5 in Sagarin (again behind Louisville who isn't really in the running for a #1, at least not yet). But lets look at a table.




RPI
SOS
Kenpom
Sagarin
RPI Top 25 Record
RPI Top 50 Record
RPI Top 100 Record
RPI 101+ Record
RPI 201+ Record
Non-Conference SOS


Duke
1
1
6
5
3-1
8-2
12-3
10-0
1-0
1


Syracuse
10
23
7
8
1-0
4-3
10-4
11-0
4-0
85


Gonzaga
11
60
8
10
3-1
5-2
10-2
14-0
6-0
17


Florida
4
25
1
2
1-2
5-2
10-3
11-0
6-0
5


Michigan
6
18
5
4
3-2
6-4
9-4
11-0
4-0
122


Indiana
12
32
2
1
4-1
6-3
8-3
15-0
7-0
81


Miami
2
2
9
11
3-1
6-1
13-2
7-1
2-0
2




Make of it all you want, bud this is how the committee will do it and Duke's resume looks pretty good especially if the committee keeps true to recent events and puts added emphasis on a hard non-conference schedule. Not to mention, the only team who has played less cupcakes has been Miami. Duke is right there in top 25 wins. Has the most top 50 wins and second most top 100 wins.

And if Gottlieb really wants to devalue all of Duke's wins, then Gonzaga must lose value as well considering since the new year, they've only beat 3 top 100 teams, St. Marys at 47 (twice), BYU at 63 and Santa Clara at 97. So they could lose their only recent top 50 wins and a recent top 100 win very easily.

ETA: These numbers are from CBS' RPI site so I'm assuming they are legitimate.


Great chart! I'm surprised Miami's resume is as strong as it is. Maybe the ACC isn't as weak as the experts say.

Additionally, just to clarify, I wasn't agreeing with Gottlieb or disagreeing with Davis, just surprised Seth actually said something positive about Duke.

[sporthenry]

Using data that mined the amount of S16 appearances from '85 to '10 and adding the last 2 years, I've found the following.



Seed
Sweet 16's


3
57


6
38


11
15


14
2






Seed
Sweet 16's


4
49


5
39


12
19


13
5



The average seed coming out of the lower half (the 3-6-11-14) is 5.28 while the upper half (the 4-5-12-13) is 6.10. That is probably about as expected and a graph of the seeds by S16 appearances gives an R-squared value of .9661 which seems to signify that the higher seeds do progress as you would expect on an almost linear path. The 12 seeds outperforms its expected amount of appearances and in the process hurts the 5's expected value. The 3 seed also makes the S16 more than the linear relationship which was a point I was going to make is that this analysis assumes that the teams are linear which probably isn't the case because the difference between 5 and 10 is probably equal or bigger than the difference between 15 and 30. If linear, the 3 seed should have made the S16, 53 times instead of 57 times. So it doesn't appear the 3 outperforms its EV that much.

If you look at the 2nd round expected seed, the 7 seed wins 60% of the time which works out to an average seed of 8.2 while the 8 seed wins at a 47% rate which works out to an average seed of 8.53. So the 1 seed actually has a tougher 2nd round match up.

So after looking at the data, I think the greatest reason for 1's outperforming 2's is just that 1's are better. Second would be the first round upset which has never happened to the 1 and next would be the S16 game being tougher (although I guess you could flip this with the first round) and lastly would be the 2nd round match up.

[throatybeard]

Lunardi thinks he's Nate Silver, but he's really Gottlieb.

Gottlieb, I won't even dignify with a response.

[-bdbd]

Fwiw, Joe Lunardi over at ESPN still has Duke as a #1, but last in line and heading out West.

I saw him nterviewed on ESPN. He was comparing Duke and Gonzaga, implying that the final #1 seed would be betweeen those two, and pointed out that the vast majority of the Zags' wins have come beyond the top-150. Whereas he stated that "pretty much the exact opposite is true for Duke... and that makes (the decision) a slam dunk for Duke." I'm sold.

But, while obvious that Duke's hold on a #1 seed is obviously tenuous, I think it is also true that the other #1's still have some tough games ahead too, and at a minimum some conference tournament losses are on their way as well from some of the top-6 or so...

We need to stay focused on what we can control. Win games. Get Kelly back and re-integrated. Beat Miami. Win the ACCT/Conference. The rest will follow.

[-bdbd]

Fwiw, Joe Lunardi over at ESPN still has Duke as a #1, but last in line and heading out West.

I saw him interviewed on ESPN. He was comparing Duke and Gonzaga, implying that the final #1 seed would be betweeen those two, and pointed out that the vast majority of the Zags' wins have come beyond the top-150. Whereas he stated that "pretty much the exact opposite is true for Duke... and that makes (the decision) a slam dunk for Duke." I'm sold.

But, while obvious that Duke's hold on a #1 seed is certainly tenuous, I think it is also true that the other #1's still have some tough games ahead too, and at a minimum some conference tournament losses are on their way as well from some of the top-6 or so...

We need to stay focused on what we can control. Win games. Get Kelly back and re-integrated. Beat Miami. Win the ACCT/Conference. The rest will follow.

[sagegrouse]

I saw him nterviewed on ESPN. He was comparing Duke and Gonzaga, implying that the final #1 seed would be betweeen those two, and pointed out that the vast majority of the Zags' wins have come beyond the top-150. Whereas he stated that "pretty much the exact opposite is true for Duke... and that makes (the decision) a slam dunk for Duke." I'm sold.

But, while obvious that Duke's hold on a #1 seed is obviously tenuous, I think it is also true that the other #1's still have some tough games ahead too, and at a minimum some conference tournament losses are on their way as well from some of the top-6 or so...

We need to stay focused on what we can control. Win games. Get Kelly back and re-integrated. Beat Miami. Win the ACCT/Conference. The rest will follow.

More power to Lunardi, who makes a good living on the seedings gig, but he is a snake oil salesman. The picture will come sharply into focus in about a month. If Duke finishes close to the top of the ACC and wins the ACC championship, we will be a #1 seed. It is unlikely that we will get a #1 if we lose the ACC's, although our prospects for a #2 are pretty good. And Mr. Lunardi doesn't even have a vote.

sagegrouse

[tommy]

Jerry Palm, who I think is probably more accurate historically than is Lunardi, has us currently as a #2 in the Midwest, to Indiana's #1. And he has us with a first round matchup with Harvard. :) Our #3 is Butler, which I would take.

Other #1's are Miami, Michigan State, and Gonzaga.

His brackets don't seem very balanced. In the South, he's got Michigan State, Florida, Louisville, and Kansas, while in the West it's just Gonzaga, Arizona, New Mexico, and Minnesota. I just don't see how a Gonzaga-Arizona 1-2 seed combination is going to work very well. Throw in New Mexico as the 3, who appears to be weaker than Louisville, Butler, and his other #3 (Syracuse) and I just think that region is too weak.

But what difference does it make? Lot of hoop to be played still.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Jerry Palm, who I think is probably more accurate historically than is Lunardi, has us currently as a #2 in the Midwest, to Indiana's #1. And he has us with a first round matchup with Harvard. :) Our #3 is Butler, which I would take.

Other #1's are Miami, Michigan State, and Gonzaga.

His brackets don't seem very balanced. In the South, he's got Michigan State, Florida, Louisville, and Kansas, while in the West it's just Gonzaga, Arizona, New Mexico, and Minnesota. I just don't see how a Gonzaga-Arizona 1-2 seed combination is going to work very well. Throw in New Mexico as the 3, who appears to be weaker than Louisville, Butler, and his other #3 (Syracuse) and I just think that region is too weak.

But what difference does it make? Lot of hoop to be played still.

Yep, and then Palm has Ohio State and NCSU as 7 and 8 seeds in the West. If I'm filling out that bracket, they are my regional finalists.

[DukieinSoCal]

Florida and MSU losing last night was probably the best possible outcome for us. The Big Ten will continue to beat up on each other, likely leaving IU as their lone #1 seed. And Florida has such a weak schedule the rest of the way that they could have easily run the table, almost locking up another #1 seed.
It will be interesting to see if the committee would grant Gonzaga a top seed if they run the table. Their SOS is so weak that their ceiling may be a 2 seed unless several teams start collapsing down the stretch.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Florida and MSU losing last night was probably the best possible outcome for us. The Big Ten will continue to beat up on each other, likely leaving IU as their lone #1 seed. And Florida has such a weak schedule the rest of the way that they could have easily run the table, almost locking up another #1 seed.
It will be interesting to see if the committee would grant Gonzaga a top seed if they run the table. Their SOS is so weak that their ceiling may be a 2 seed unless several teams start collapsing down the stretch.

I agree with IU and FL being "locks" for #1 seeds as of now. I also agree with MSU and Mich beating each other up just enough to keep them off the 1 line. That leaves Miami, Duke, and Gonzaga for the other 2 spots. Gonzaga's resume is weak when compared to others in the top 10, though.

[sporthenry]

Florida and MSU losing last night was probably the best possible outcome for us. The Big Ten will continue to beat up on each other, likely leaving IU as their lone #1 seed. And Florida has such a weak schedule the rest of the way that they could have easily run the table, almost locking up another #1 seed.
It will be interesting to see if the committee would grant Gonzaga a top seed if they run the table. Their SOS is so weak that their ceiling may be a 2 seed unless several teams start collapsing down the stretch.

Their non-conference SOS is 15th. That is all they control and if the committee is consistent, their overall SOS shouldn't be a deal breaker especially with all these other teams stumbling.

I also don't think Florida is a lock for a #1 seed. The committee doesn't really care how they finish and they probably have to win the SEC tournament to guarantee a 1 seed. I think it is a 7 team race with no Big East teams in contention although I guess they could play their way into it.

[tommy]

I agree with IU and FL being "locks" for #1 seeds as of now. I also agree with MSU and Mich beating each other up just enough to keep them off the 1 line. That leaves Miami, Duke, and Gonzaga for the other 2 spots. Gonzaga's resume is weak when compared to others in the top 10, though.

I think Miami, even if they were to lose to Duke, is a lot closer to a lock than is Florida.

[ChicagoCrazy84]

Their non-conference SOS is 15th. That is all they control and if the committee is consistent, their overall SOS shouldn't be a deal breaker especially with all these other teams stumbling.

I also don't think Florida is a lock for a #1 seed. The committee doesn't really care how they finish and they probably have to win the SEC tournament to guarantee a 1 seed. I think it is a 7 team race with no Big East teams in contention although I guess they could play their way into it.

I think Syracuse or Louisville could play their way into it. The Big East Tournament is still thought to be the toughest conference tournament maybe with the exception of the Big Ten this year but if Cuse or Louisville take the Big East crowne, I would not be surprised to see them sneak in as a #1 seed.

[pfrduke]

I think Miami, even if they were to lose to Duke, is a lot closer to a lock than is Florida.

Agreed. They are the only team without a loss in 2013, correct? Or was the Gonzaga-Butler game in December (the months are starting to bleed together for me)?

[CDu]

Agreed. They are the only team without a loss in 2013, correct? Or was the Gonzaga-Butler game in December (the months are starting to bleed together for me)?

Either way, Gonzaga's run without a loss is much less impressive than Miami's run without a loss.

[sporthenry]

Either way, Gonzaga's run without a loss is much less impressive than Miami's run without a loss.

And both are much less impressive than IU's 3 wins versus 2 of the top 7 teams in the country.

This year you are going to have the Big 10 teams and to a lesser extent the Big East teams who have been tested with top 10-25 match ups every week. Then you have the rest of the country who hasn't really been tested, at least not to that degree.

[CDu]

And both are much less impressive than IU's 3 wins versus 2 of the top 7 teams in the country.

This year you are going to have the Big 10 teams and to a lesser extent the Big East teams who have been tested with top 10-25 match ups every week. Then you have the rest of the country who hasn't really been tested, at least not to that degree.

I don't know that I agree that Miami's resume in 2013 is much less impressive than Indiana's resume. They do have a blowout win over the only top-7 team they've faced and haven't lost (including wins over multiple top-50 schools). Indiana has more marquee wins and the better overall resume, but I think it's closer than you suggest.

I completely agree about Gonzaga. And I also agree that the Big-10 teams are certainly getting a tougher regular season schedule than anyone else.

[sporthenry]

I don't know that I agree that Miami's resume in 2013 is much less impressive than Indiana's resume. They do have a blowout win over the only top-7 team they've faced and haven't lost (including wins over multiple top-50 schools). Indiana has more marquee wins and the better overall resume, but I think it's closer than you suggest.

I completely agree about Gonzaga. And I also agree that the Big-10 teams are certainly getting a tougher regular season schedule than anyone else.

When dissecting Miami, it pretty much depends on how much value you put on the beating of Duke. Was that a fluke? How big of an influence is Kelly? Luckily, we'll get a 2nd round to see if that game was a fluke or not.

[CDu]

When dissecting Miami, it pretty much depends on how much value you put on the beating of Duke. Was that a fluke? How big of an influence is Kelly? Luckily, we'll get a 2nd round to see if that game was a fluke or not.

Well, that and they beat MSU. But yes. If you simply chalk up both of those wins as a fluke and don't value the Duke or MSU wins, then Miami's resume doesn't look overly impressive. But they did beat MSU and Duke.

Further, I wouldn't say that a Duke win in Cameron would suggest that Miami's win in Coral Gables was a fluke.

[throatybeard]

Well, that and they beat MSU. But yes. If you simply chalk up both of those wins as a fluke and don't value the Duke or MSU wins, then Miami's resume doesn't look overly impressive. But they did beat MSU and Duke.

Further, I wouldn't say that a Duke win in Cameron would suggest that Miami's win in Coral Gables was a fluke.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am NOT looking forward to seeing those guys again.

[ChillinDuke]

I don't know about anyone else, but I am NOT looking forward to seeing those guys again.

Oh. Oh no.

I most certainly am looking forward to it.

I want them again.

I. Want. Them. Bad.

- Chillin

[moonpie23]

if we beat them at cameron without kelly, it makes the debacle much more of a fluke, however, i've been impressed with their ability to close out close games on the road......

[sporthenry]

Well, that and they beat MSU. But yes. If you simply chalk up both of those wins as a fluke and don't value the Duke or MSU wins, then Miami's resume doesn't look overly impressive. But they did beat MSU and Duke.

Further, I wouldn't say that a Duke win in Cameron would suggest that Miami's win in Coral Gables was a fluke.

MSU and Miami were earlier in the season. I don't think either of those teams resemble what they are now. So perhaps I'm wrong to discount it but if we are going to discount the games against FGCU and others, than I'm not sure you can give them the MSU win.

That said, I'm not saying they have to win in Cameron, it will be how they play. I think it will be tough but I've sort of gone from being worried to playing them again to the whole, if you want to be the best, you have to beat the best. But if they play like they have the last 2 nights, I think you'll see a return of the favor. Now I don't expect this to be the case, since everyone gets up for Duke, but I think you'll see a very close game much like Miami at NC State.

[CDu]

MSU and Miami were earlier in the season. I don't think either of those teams resemble what they are now. So perhaps I'm wrong to discount it but if we are going to discount the games against FGCU and others, than I'm not sure you can give them the MSU win.

Sure. And then you have to discount all of our meaningful wins, so I'm not sure that's the road we want to take.


That said, I'm not saying they have to win in Cameron, it will be how they play. I think it will be tough but I've sort of gone from being worried to playing them again to the whole, if you want to be the best, you have to beat the best. But if they play like they have the last 2 nights, I think you'll see a return of the favor.

I see virtually no chance we beat Miami by 27 points (or anything close to that), so we won't be returning the favor.


Now I don't expect this to be the case, since everyone gets up for Duke, but I think you'll see a very close game much like Miami at NC State.

Which would, you know, suggest that Miami is pretty darn good, right?

[sporthenry]

Sure. And then you have to discount all of our meaningful wins, so I'm not sure that's the road we want to take.

Which would, you know, suggest that Miami is pretty darn good, right?

As for your first point, I guess it depends how you want to do it. I already discount many of our meaningful games at the moment since we had Kelly. If we don't get him back, then our resume isn't any better than Miami post 2013. I just don't know how they can say well Arizona and FGCU happened with injuries and then turn around and tout MSU as a big win.

As far as them being pretty good for keeping it close, for one we've already gone over how Miami seems to get up for big games. So sure, they can keep up with the best, but can they not play down to their competition. And then by my first comment, you can understand how I feel about beating Duke without Kelly. Duke has actually done pretty well without Kelly but if they were in the Big 10, you probably would have seen something like OSU's drop in the poll to the mid-teens.

[CDu]

As for your first point, I guess it depends how you want to do it. I already discount many of our meaningful games at the moment since we had Kelly. If we don't get him back, then our resume isn't any better than Miami post 2013. I just don't know how they can say well Arizona and FGCU happened with injuries and then turn around and tout MSU as a big win.

Well, it's quite simple: against FGCU, Miami didn't have Scott. Against Arizona (and subsequently against Illinois State), Miami didn't have Johnson (they lost Johnson the day before the Arizona game and two days before the Illinois State games). Against MSU, Miami had both of them. There were tangible differences in the team makeup between the MSU game and the games that Miami lost.

It's fine to devalue games played in 2012. But that doesn't mean that all games in 2012 were equal for Miami. There is absolutely reason to look at the MSU game differently than their losses.

Also, if we don't get Kelly back (which I hope isn't the case), our resume is unequivocally worse than Miami's 2013 resume - not just "not any better."


As far as them being pretty good for keeping it close, for one we've already gone over how Miami seems to get up for big games. So sure, they can keep up with the best, but can they not play down to their competition. And then by my first comment, you can understand how I feel about beating Duke without Kelly. Duke has actually done pretty well without Kelly but if they were in the Big 10, you probably would have seen something like OSU's drop in the poll to the mid-teens.

I think you're being guilty of only seeing the negatives with Miami and discounting the positives. Miami can certainly dominate inferior competition. They destroyed BC at home. They destroyed FSU at home. They won comfortably at Va Tech. They won comfortably at UNC and at Ga Tech, and blew UNC out at home. They struggled at BC (so did we) and they struggled at Clemson, and then they struggled to win against a very good UVa team.

For some reason, you seem to be fixating on those close games (none of which are really indicative of poor play by Miami) more than acknowledging that they've done plenty of beating up on the lesser teams.

[vick]

I think you're being guilty of only seeing the negatives with Miami and discounting the positives. Miami can certainly dominate inferior competition. They destroyed BC at home. They destroyed FSU at home. They won comfortably at Va Tech. They won comfortably at UNC and at Ga Tech, and blew UNC out at home. They struggled at BC (so did we) and they struggled at Clemson, and then they struggled to win against a very good UVa team.

For some reason, you seem to be fixating on those close games (none of which are really indicative of poor play by Miami) more than acknowledging that they've done plenty of beating up on the lesser teams.

Well, I think people may be fixated a bit too much on December games, but this (especially the VT game) strikes me as pretty generous spin in Miami's favor. Virginia Tech is a bad major conference team (151 in Pomeroy), and Miami trailed at half and with eleven minutes to play. It's not that this means they can't win the ACC or make the Final Four or anything, but if a fully healthy Duke team performed like that, I think very few people (including general optimists like myself) would term it a good performance.

Put another way, VT is roughly at the level of a 16 seed (who were Pomeroy 115, 117, 163, and 184 last year), and Miami trailed until nearly the final quarter. Even on the road, that is not a comfortable performance in my eyes.

[CDu]

Well, I think people may be fixated a bit too much on December games, but this (especially the VT game) strikes me as pretty generous spin in Miami's favor. Virginia Tech is a bad major conference team (151 in Pomeroy), and Miami trailed at half and with eleven minutes to play. It's not that this means they can't win the ACC or make the Final Four or anything, but if a fully healthy Duke team performed like that, I think very few people (including general optimists like myself) would term it a good performance.

Put another way, VT is roughly at the level of a 16 seed (who were Pomeroy 115, 117, 163, and 184 last year), and Miami trailed until nearly the final quarter. Even on the road, that is not a comfortable performance in my eyes.

The final score was a comfortable margin of victory. And from the under-12 timeout (when they trailed 45-44) to 8 minutes to go, Miami moved to a 54-45 lead. From that point on, the score was never closer than two possessions, and was generally 8-12 points difference. It wasn't a comfortable start for Miami, but it was ultimately a comfortable win.

And even this is an example of fixating on one game. It was certainly one of Miami's weakest games of the season (at least among their games at full strength). But they have weathered the storm against all comers when healthy, and they are currently healthy.

In general, I agree with the point that Miami (and any other team) could lose in the second round of the NCAA tournament. But I also believe that Miami is just as likely as anyone to make the Final Four.

[sporthenry]

And even this is an example of fixating on one game. It was certainly one of Miami's weakest games of the season (at least among their games at full strength). But they have weathered the storm against all comers when healthy, and they are currently healthy.

In general, I agree with the point that Miami (and any other team) could lose in the second round of the NCAA tournament. But I also believe that Miami is just as likely as anyone to make the Final Four.

Good point about the MSU game, I had thought that they were missing one of Scott or Reggie at that point.

But either way, each side is going to fixate on three or four games. If you believe in Miami, you fixate on the 27 point win versus Duke or the 26 point win versus UNC or even the 24 point win versus FSU or 22 point win versus BC. If you don't believe in Miami, you cite the game at BC, at NC State, at Clemson, versus UVA, or even the Va. Tech game or the one at FSU.

Perhaps b/c it is us putting them under the microscope but most of the other top teams don't seem so up and down. Florida has the bad loss at Arkansas but apart from that, they haven't really been in a game versus a bad team. Indiana had the close game at Iowa and the loss at Illinois if you want to consider that a bad one but recent games versus Northwestern or Purdue where they blew them out are equivalent games against teams like FSU or Clemson according to Kenpom.

[Olympic Fan]

Look, I give Miami a pass for their Christmas losses in Hawaii to Arizona (a very good team) and to Indiana State (not Illinois State .,. but Indiana State is a decent team that has also beaten Creighton, Ole Miss, Wichita State and Illinois State. Those twio losses on back-to-back nights came 48 hours after they lost Reggie Johnson. It does take a while to adjust to losing a key player (as Duke found out when Kelly went out -- both times we lost two of our first three).

But I give them NO pass for the FGC loss. , even if Durand Scott did miss the game. In the first place, he was suspended by the NCAA, not hurt -- so are you saying there's no penalty since we're going to discount the loss when he's serving his penalty? Secondly, it's a bad loss to a team that doesn't have another top 100 win. Scott or not, it's a game that Miami shouldn't lose by 12 (especially since they knew from last March that he would miss the game -- it wasn't like a surprise)

I know it was early, but ut was still a bad loss. Since then, I give them credit for being able to pull close game after close game out at the end. A onme point win at BC ... a one point win at NC State (do you discount that one because State was without its best player?).The last second win at Clemson (thanks to their great free throw defense down the stretch), the close win at home vs. Virginia aand the close win on the road at FSU.

They deserve credit for their record ... but don't try to tell me this is an overpowering team.

[CDu]

But I give them NO pass for the FGC loss. , even if Durand Scott did miss the game. In the first place, he was suspended by the NCAA, not hurt -- so are you saying there's no penalty since we're going to discount the loss when he's serving his penalty? Secondly, it's a bad loss to a team that doesn't have another top 100 win. Scott or not, it's a game that Miami shouldn't lose by 12 (especially since they knew from last March that he would miss the game -- it wasn't like a surprise)

The point isn't that they were caught off guard. The point is that they were short one of their best players. Should they still have won? Sure. But the loss still should be discounted some because they didn't have him. For comparison (and no, it's not an exact match), the Bulls have known since May that they'd play much of this season without Rose. Does that mean that they should perform exactly as well as they would with Rose just because they've had time to prepare for his absence? No. They are more prepared than they were in the playoffs when he went down, but they clearly aren't as good as with Rose.

And no one is saying they shouldn't be penalized for that loss. They should. But the penalty should be somewhat discounted because they were playing without one of their best players (and one of their only two ballhandlers).


They deserve credit for their record ... but don't try to tell me this is an overpowering team.

No one is saying this is an overpowering team. You're arguing against something that isn't being argued.

[DukieinSoCal]

Duke is #3 overall on Lunardi's latest S-curve, and Gonzaga moves up to claim the 4th #1 seed. Andy Katz also thinks Gonzaga is in good shape for a 1 seed if they win out.
I can't help wondering if it would be tougher to face Gonzaga out West or a team like Florida/Michigan/MSU in the East. I don't want to discredit Gonzaga because of the conference they play in but there's usually an inherent bias when stacking teams up against each other. Olynyk would be a really tough matchup for anybody and could neutralize Mason if they went head to head.
Still a long ways to go but the anticipation is building!

[MarkD83]

The best thing about Miami being discussed as a #1 seed is that Duke get's to play them once if not twice more. If Duke wins those games they are a # 1 seed because they would have beaten another team directly in line for that seed.
The same is true for several Big 10 teams.

The team that is at most risk for losing a #1 seed based on the whims of the selection committee is Gonzaga. If they suffer any loss or even a close game near the end they are not playing against the other top seeds so they can't point to a specific game to prove they deserve the #1 seed.

[sporthenry]

Duke is #3 overall on Lunardi's latest S-curve, and Gonzaga moves up to claim the 4th #1 seed. Andy Katz also thinks Gonzaga is in good shape for a 1 seed if they win out.
I can't help wondering if it would be tougher to face Gonzaga out West or a team like Florida/Michigan/MSU in the East. I don't want to discredit Gonzaga because of the conference they play in but there's usually an inherent bias when stacking teams up against each other. Olynyk would be a really tough matchup for anybody and could neutralize Mason if they went head to head.
Still a long ways to go but the anticipation is building!

The only real way for Duke to be in Gonzaga's bracket is to get the #1 out West and Gonzaga as a top #2 or for Duke to somehow fall to the worst 2 seed and U of A to stay off the 2 seed. This will most likely result in Duke getting one of the toughest 3 seeds and probably U of A in LA. So if Duke is the #2 out West, that is bad for them. But if they are the #1, Gonzaga will be a top #2 so the committee won't have to compensate with harder 3 and 4 seeds which will be good for Duke.

As far as Gonzaga, I haven't watched them extensively but Olynyk doesn't seem like the guy who gives Mason that much trouble. His defense is inconsistent, although I guess when people play Duke, that defense becomes very consistent. Not to mention, he only usually plays 25 minutes so perhaps he won't be ready to go for 30+ minutes versus Mason. Harris scares me a bit and Zaga has a few of those taller wings although Duke did pretty well against Hairston/Bullock.

[sporthenry]

The best thing about Miami being discussed as a #1 seed is that Duke get's to play them once if not twice more. If Duke wins those games they are a # 1 seed because they would have beaten another team directly in line for that seed.
The same is true for several Big 10 teams.

The team that is at most risk for losing a #1 seed based on the whims of the selection committee is Gonzaga. If they suffer any loss or even a close game near the end they are not playing against the other top seeds so they can't point to a specific game to prove they deserve the #1 seed.

I would say that at the moment, Duke and Miami are probably about equal with their resume. So if they split from here on out, meaning one wins the ACCT and the other the regular season match-up, I think they'll both be #1's assuming they don't lose any other games.

[Nugget]

The only real way for Duke to be in Gonzaga's bracket is to get the #1 out West and Gonzaga as a top #2 or for Duke to somehow fall to the worst 2 seed and U of A to stay off the 2 seed. This will most likely result in Duke getting one of the toughest 3 seeds and probably U of A in LA. So if Duke is the #2 out West, that is bad for them. But if they are the #1, Gonzaga will be a top #2 so the committee won't have to compensate with harder 3 and 4 seeds which will be good for Duke.


The seeding principle you describe, of trying to roughly balance the regions based on the S-curve, may no longer be applicable.

I was listening today to the CBSSports.com college basketball podcast and their writer who had been at the NCAA's media mock selection event (Jeff Borzello) reported that the NCAA has now essentially done away with trying to seed so as to balance the regions based on the S-curve.

Instead, he said, what they will do is slot the top 16 seeds based on geographic preference/advantage, rather than trying to match slots on the S-Curve (subject, of course, to the other bracketing principles -- e.g., not to have multiple teams from the same conference in the 1st 3 spots in the same region, etc.).

The stated explanation for this is that the feedback the Committee has received from coaches/schools is that it is significantly more important to teams to play clos(er) to home than to have a higher seed.

I have no idea if this is actually true. But, found it very interesting.

[sporthenry]

The seeding principle you describe, of trying to roughly balance the regions based on the S-curve, may no longer be applicable.

I was listening today to the CBSSports.com college basketball podcast and their writer who had been at the NCAA's media mock selection event (Jeff Borzello) reported that the NCAA has now essentially done away with trying to seed so as to balance the regions based on the S-curve.

Instead, he said, what they will do is slot the top 16 seeds based on geographic preference/advantage, rather than trying to match slots on the S-Curve (subject, of course, to the other bracketing principles -- e.g., not to have multiple teams from the same conference in the 1st 3 spots in the same region, etc.).

The stated explanation for this is that the feedback the Committee has received from coaches/schools is that it is significantly more important to teams to play clos(er) to home than to have a higher seed.

I have no idea if this is actually true. But, found it very interesting.

I know Seth Davis was saying there was no such thing as the S-curve but according to their principles and procedures for this year there is and all indications are that they will release the S-curve again. The problem with this isn't that it appears they do an S-curve, they just don't follow it religiously.


The committee will create a “seed list” (i.e. rank of the teams in “true seeds” 1 through 68) which reflects the relative qualitative assessment of the field in descending order, and is used to assess competitive balance of the top teams across the four regions of the championship. The seed list reflects the sequential order with which teams will be placed in the bracket. Once the “seed list” is finalized, it remains unchanged while the bracket is assembled.

But then they go with groups of 8 to finalize the actual seeding and placement.


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

So assuming Gonzaga is 4th (and theoretically they could be 3rd) and Duke is 8th that means they are already at 12. The average is 34 so with the 5 point discrepancy, you can go as high as 36/37. So they don't just cherry pick off the list to create a completely balanced bracket but with Gonzaga as the 1 and nobody else out West this year, you could see an imbalanced bracket out there.

[sporthenry]

I feel completely exonerated with everything I've said about Miami over the last few weeks. I still like them but they were getting way too much publicity and haven't been playing well. Perhaps this gets them motivated again but this is a bad loss.

[scottdude8]

Considering Miami's loss, I've got to think if we beat them in Cameron and nothing else crazy happens, we'll claim the No. 1 seed in the East given our superior non-conference resume, combined with the growing optimism about Kelly's return.

[cptnflash]

Considering Miami's loss, I've got to think if we beat them in Cameron and nothing else crazy happens, we'll claim the No. 1 seed in the East given our superior non-conference resume, combined with the growing optimism about Kelly's return.

You're assuming that we don't lose at Virginia, or at UNC, or both, but I wouldn't consider any of those outcomes to be crazy. After tomorrow's game, we have the toughest stretch of our ACC schedule, with three potentially losable games out of our last four (sorry VT, our home game against you is a lock). I think the Virginia game in particular is likely to be very tough. They are barely in the NCAA tournament field at this point, and we are their last chance to get a signature win. They will play like a desperate team, and matching their intensity for 40 minutes in front of a raucous road crowd will be difficult.

The good thing is we appear to control our own destiny at this point as far as a #1 seed goes. The bad news is that we've only got a one in four chance of winning out in the regular season (using Pomeroy's game probabilities, which probably overstate out chances a bit since they don't account for Ryan's absence).

[ynotme32]

Give me Duke fully healthy, and I'll go anywhere, be any seed, and play anyone! I truly believe Duke is the best team in the nation when fully healthy (which I pray they soon will be).

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Add Georgetown into the mix for a possible #1 Seed after beating Syracuse on the road. They are 21-4 and in 1st place in their conference. Louisville, too, is lurking at 22-5.

Syracuse isn't out of the discussion yet as they still play Marquette, Louisville, Depaul and at Georgetown to finish up the season. If Syracuse runs the table, it would be hard to deny them a 1 seed.

From our perspective, let's root for them to all beat each other up and go out early in their conference tournament less one of them take Duke's spot as #1 in the East and Duke gets shipped to the South.

[sagegrouse]

Considering Miami's loss, I've got to think if we beat them in Cameron and nothing else crazy happens, we'll claim the No. 1 seed in the East given our superior non-conference resume, combined with the growing optimism about Kelly's return.


You're assuming that we don't lose at Virginia, or at UNC, or both, but I wouldn't consider any of those outcomes to be crazy. After tomorrow's game, we have the toughest stretch of our ACC schedule, with three potentially losable games out of our last four (sorry VT, our home game against you is a lock). I think the Virginia game in particular is likely to be very tough. They are barely in the NCAA tournament field at this point, and we are their last chance to get a signature win. They will play like a desperate team, and matching their intensity for 40 minutes in front of a raucous road crowd will be difficult.

The good thing is we appear to control our own destiny at this point as far as a #1 seed goes. The bad news is that we've only got a one in four chance of winning out in the regular season (using Pomeroy's game probabilities, which probably overstate out chances a bit since they don't account for Ryan's absence).

For the #1 seeds, the last act is the most important: the winners of the conference tournaments will tend to get preferences for #1 seeds. As I have posted previously to the point of utter tedium, there is no way to compare strengths across conferences except by using stale results from November and early December. Therefore, teams who have good records and win conferences tournaments in the BEast, Big Ten (12), Big 12 (10), and ACC will be in good stead.

OTOH, you can't win the BEast tournament with 10 losses and expect to bubble all the way to the top.

sagegrouse
'Of course, Duke's impressive wins in November and December are not "stale" -- they are the revealed wisdom of the ages'

[sporthenry]

Well today was a huge game for Duke. And by that, I'm talking about the OSU-Michigan State game. While it isn't a terrible loss for MSU, it is still a loss even if its on the road. And Duke obviously beat OSU so every little bit helps especially with Minnesota falling off.

[Dukeface88]

Add Georgetown into the mix for a possible #1 Seed after beating Syracuse on the road. They are 21-4 and in 1st place in their conference. Louisville, too, is lurking at 22-5.

Syracuse isn't out of the discussion yet as they still play Marquette, Louisville, Depaul and at Georgetown to finish up the season. If Syracuse runs the table, it would be hard to deny them a 1 seed.

From our perspective, let's root for them to all beat each other up and go out early in their conference tournament less one of them take Duke's spot as #1 in the East and Duke gets shipped to the South.

Georgetown can't be in the East. They'd be playing at their home court, which isn't allowed.

(Also, I'm rather hoping we get the East instead of the South; I have tickets)

Edit: And isn't DC closer than Texas anyway?

[tommy]

Add Georgetown into the mix for a possible #1 Seed after beating Syracuse on the road. They are 21-4 and in 1st place in their conference. Louisville, too, is lurking at 22-5.

Syracuse isn't out of the discussion yet as they still play Marquette, Louisville, Depaul and at Georgetown to finish up the season. If Syracuse runs the table, it would be hard to deny them a 1 seed.

From our perspective, let's root for them to all beat each other up and go out early in their conference tournament less one of them take Duke's spot as #1 in the East and Duke gets shipped to the South.

I think Louisville is the only Big East team with a realistic chance at a #1, and even theirs is an outside shot. Syracuse and Georgetown aren't even in the top 10 in RPI, and they're worse than that in strength of schedule, and way, way, worse than that in out of conference strength of schedule. And they all have a bunch of games left with each other -- not counting the BE Tournament, so all of them are likely going to be taking more losses too. If I had to guess at this point, I don't even think the BE is going to get a team onto the 2 line -- maybe Louisville, but I don't think even they will get there -- much less the 1.

[rotogod00]

I think Louisville is the only Big East team with a realistic chance at a #1, and even theirs is an outside shot. Syracuse and Georgetown aren't even in the top 10 in RPI, and they're worse than that in strength of schedule, and way, way, worse than that in out of conference strength of schedule. And they all have a bunch of games left with each other -- not counting the BE Tournament, so all of them are likely going to be taking more losses too. If I had to guess at this point, I don't even think the BE is going to get a team onto the 2 line -- maybe Louisville, but I don't think even they will get there -- much less the 1.

I agree, it'd take too many losses by too many teams for a BE team to end up on the top line.

fwiw, Lunardi over at ESPN currently has all three of them as 3 seeds (in order, Georgetown, Syracuse, then Louisville)

[ChillinDuke]

I agree, it'd take too many losses by too many teams for a BE team to end up on the top line.

fwiw, Lunardi over at ESPN currently has all three of them as 3 seeds (in order, Georgetown, Syracuse, then Louisville)

Well, Syracuse lost to Marquette. I'd say that just about eliminates them from a #1 seed.

Meanwhile, Elijah Johnson just brought Kansas back from the brink to force OT. If they lose this one, their chances at a #1 seed take a serious hit. Maybe even have to win out.

- Chillin

UPDATE: Kansas now looking safe - up 8 with under 2 to play in OT. Johnson with 7 more pts in the period. Jeepers.

[Duvall]

Well, Syracuse lost to Marquette. I'd say that just about eliminates them from a #1 seed.

Meanwhile, Elijah Johnson just brought Kansas back from the brink to force OT. If they lose this one, their chances at a #1 seed take a serious hit. Maybe even have to win out.

- Chillin

Not a problem - the Big XII really wants Kansas to stay in the mix for a #1 seed.

[FerryFor50]

Not a problem - the Big XII really wants Kansas to stay in the mix for a #1 seed.

Yep. Terrible calls at the end of an otherwise good game.

[sporthenry]

And now the refs appear to be doing their best to get Iowa State back in the game.

[FerryFor50]

And now the refs appear to be doing their best to get Iowa State back in the game.

Yep. But Elijah saves the day.

Maybe the refs felt guilty for the end of game shenanigans.

[Duvall]

I tell you what, Iowa ain't Maryland.

[FerryFor50]

I tell you what, Iowa ain't Maryland.

Yea but KU showed all class on that last dunk after ISU had conceded.

[Saratoga2]

Not a problem - the Big XII really wants Kansas to stay in the mix for a #1 seed.

The obvious Withey foul charged to team mate and then the worst call on charging which gave KU the chance to come back. I don't ascribe it to a plot, but it did save KU and can understand why some might be embittered.

[TexHawk]

The obvious Withey foul charged to team mate and then the worst call on charging which gave KU the chance to come back. I don't ascribe it to a plot, but it did save KU and can understand why some might be embittered.

The Withey foul thing was weird, but it didn't impact the game positively for KU. After that, he had 1 rebound, then gave ISU 4 points on a travel and shooting foul in back-to-back plays (he fouled out on the latter).

I can agree that the no-call on the block/charge was a good break for KU, but can we at least agree that the officiating was historically awful on both sides? ISU took 41(!) three-pointers AND 34 free throws. I didn't think that was possible.

[-bdbd]

The Withey foul thing was weird, but it didn't impact the game positively for KU. After that, he had 1 rebound, then gave ISU 4 points on a travel and shooting foul in back-to-back plays (he fouled out on the latter).

I can agree that the no-call on the block/charge was a good break for KU, but can we at least agree that the officiating was historically awful on both sides? ISU took 41(!) three-pointers AND 34 free throws. I didn't think that was possible.

I don't care how biased you are, there is just no way to argue that the non-call on the KA charge with 4 seconds left and down 2 wasn't a plain blown call that changed the outcome of the game. The fact that two seconds later they call the guy laying UNDER the KA charger for holding, is just beyond absurd. (TexHawk, if the exact opposite occured you KNOW that you'd be livid at the refs who just stole a game from you.) Hard to make the argument that the refs, ALSO blowing the 5th foul on Withey* didn't alter the game. His mere presence, alters ISU shots and affects how they can defend KA (such as on the final play of regulation, plus the first 3 minutes of O/T). But for some really awful calls, KA should have lost that game - I fully expect league reprimands to those terrible refs. All that said, give KA some credit for not giving up and hitting a couple tough shots, even if the tying FT's weren't deserved.

* For those who didn't see the game, with KA down several points in the closing 20 seconds they were intentionally chasing down ISU players to foul. Withey hit the passing dribbler rather firmly with his forearm and the ref immediately blew the whistle. But then a diiferent KA player (give the kid an A for 'Awareness'), who was a few feet away, raised his arm, even as Whithey was walking to the bench. Stupid ref fell for it. (Question: is that something that is reviewable on instant replay? I kept waiting for the ISU bench to challlenge it.)

[CDu]

The Withey foul thing was weird, but it didn't impact the game positively for KU. After that, he had 1 rebound, then gave ISU 4 points on a travel and shooting foul in back-to-back plays (he fouled out on the latter).

I can agree that the no-call on the block/charge was a good break for KU, but can we at least agree that the officiating was historically awful on both sides? ISU took 41(!) three-pointers AND 34 free throws. I didn't think that was possible.

I would agree that the officiating was probably pretty terrible both ways. The only portion of play I saw of that game included one pretty bad calls in favor of ISU (Withey's third foul on a charge that clearly should have been an ISU blocking foul - with Withey getting 2 shots).

Obviously, the blown call on the charge at the end is more dramatic. But ultimately, it's just one (of many) bad calls throughout the game, and those bad calls went both ways.

[TexHawk]

I don't care how biased you are, there is just no way to argue that the non-call on the KA charge with 4 seconds left and down 2 wasn't a plain blown call that changed the outcome of the game. The fact that two seconds later they call the guy laying UNDER the KA charger for holding, is just beyond absurd. (TexHawk, if the exact opposite occured you KNOW that you'd be livid at the refs who just stole a game from you.) Hard to make the argument that the refs, ALSO blowing the 5th foul on Withey* didn't alter the game. His mere presence, alters ISU shots and affects how they can defend KA (such as on the final play of regulation, plus the first 3 minutes of O/T). But for some really awful calls, KA should have lost that game - I fully expect league reprimands to those terrible refs. All that said, give KA some credit for not giving up and hitting a couple tough shots, even if the tying FT's weren't deserved.

* For those who didn't see the game, with KA down several points in the closing 20 seconds they were intentionally chasing down ISU players to foul. Withey hit the passing dribbler rather firmly with his forearm and the ref immediately blew the whistle. But then a diiferent KA player (give the kid an A for 'Awareness'), who was a few feet away, raised his arm, even as Whithey was walking to the bench. Stupid ref fell for it. (Question: is that something that is reviewable on instant replay? I kept waiting for the ISU bench to challlenge it.)

Of course I would, not denying that whatsoever. I just think it's a bit foolish to ignore 39.5 minutes of action and say the refs handed KU the game. ISU is a crazy jump shooting team that shies from contact and they still shot a ridiculous amount of free throws. Both KU frontcourt players missed large chunks of the 2nd half due to foul trouble. This was just a case of the refs swallowing their whistles at the end of a close game. It's not right, they *should* be reprimanded for it, but it's hardly the first time it has ever happened in CBB.

[FerryFor50]

Of course I would, not denying that whatsoever. I just think it's a bit foolish to ignore 39.5 minutes of action and say the refs handed KU the game. ISU is a crazy jump shooting team that shies from contact and they still shot a ridiculous amount of free throws. Both KU frontcourt players missed large chunks of the 2nd half due to foul trouble. This was just a case of the refs swallowing their whistles at the end of a close game. It's not right, they *should* be reprimanded for ii, but it's hardly the first time it has ever happened in CBB.

No, no. It's not that the refs swallowed the whistle.

First, they gave an obvious foul that should have been the 5th on KU's best interior defender and rebounder to a player nowhere near the play.

Then, they swallowed the whistle on an obvious charge, which is fine, except they swallowed that same whistle after the charging party somehow got the ball back while on the ground, on top of the defender, with his hand possibly touching the floor out of bounds with possession of the ball.

And worse, after all of that, the refs then somehow deemed it necessary to call a foul on the guy (Niang) who took the "charge that wasn't" with 2.9 seconds left, on the floor, with the "charger that wasn't" on top of him. Those FTs tied the game.

That sequence alone gave the Jayhawks the chance they shouldn't have had.

[matt1]

I fell asleep on my couch during the KU / ISU game. I really wish that I had seen it now!

[CDu]

No, no. It's not that the refs swallowed the whistle.

First, they gave an obvious foul that should have been the 5th on KU's best interior defender and rebounder to a player nowhere near the play.

Then, they swallowed the whistle on an obvious charge, which is fine, except they swallowed that same whistle after the charging party somehow got the ball back while on the ground, on top of the defender, with his hand possibly touching the floor out of bounds with possession of the ball.

And worse, after all of that, the refs then somehow deemed it necessary to call a foul on the guy (Niang) who took the "charge that wasn't" with 2.9 seconds left, on the floor, with the "charger that wasn't" on top of him. Those FTs tied the game.

That sequence alone gave the Jayhawks the chance they shouldn't have had.

But what TexHawk is essentially saying is that you're cherrypicking one or two egregious calls (in KU's favor) and ignoring the other 39+ minutes' worth of egregious calls (some in KU's favor; some in ISU's favor). It's not complete to say the refs kept KU in the game at the end, as one could very conceivably argue that the refs aided in KU's struggles throughout.

In general, isolating the last few seconds (or any few-second stretch) of any basketball game is a bad idea.

[FerryFor50]

But what TexHawk is essentially saying is that you're cherrypicking one or two egregious calls (in KU's favor) and ignoring the other 39+ minutes' worth of egregious calls (some in KU's favor; some in ISU's favor). It's not complete to say the refs kept KU in the game at the end, as one could very conceivably argue that the refs aided in KU's struggles throughout.

In general, isolating the last few seconds (or any few-second stretch) of any basketball game is a bad idea.

I'm not ignoring the other 39+ minutes. For one, I think those calls evened out. Plus, ISU was at home... They *should* get some of those borderline calls.

My point was that the last minute of that game was much more impactful in terms of officiating than the rest of the game, both on terms of time and in terms of psychological wear.

[Bluedog]

But what TexHawk is essentially saying is that you're cherrypicking one or two egregious calls (in KU's favor) and ignoring the other 39+ minutes' worth of egregious calls (some in KU's favor; some in ISU's favor). It's not complete to say the refs kept KU in the game at the end, as one could very conceivably argue that the refs aided in KU's struggles throughout.

In general, isolating the last few seconds (or any few-second stretch) of any basketball game is a bad idea.


I'm not ignoring the other 39+ minutes. For one, I think those calls evened out. Plus, ISU was at home... They *should* get some of those borderline calls.

My point was that the last minute of that game was much more impactful in terms of officiating than the rest of the game, both on terms of time and in terms of psychological wear.

Well, the Big 12 thinks officiating was pretty terrible as they said mistakes were made at the end of regulation of the game. For them to make a public statement on officiating seems pretty unusual.


[The Big 12 said] ''appropriate measures will be taken'' against the two officials involved, including an adjustment of ''the number of future assignments.''

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-12-admits-officiating-errors-220242074--ncaab.html

[cptnflash]

Minnesota giving Indiana all they can handle up at the Barn. Something tells me there's considerable movement yet to come amongst the projected #1 seeds (other than Gonzaga, which is basically a lock).

[sporthenry]

Minnesota giving Indiana all they can handle up at the Barn. Something tells me there's considerable movement yet to come amongst the projected #1 seeds (other than Gonzaga, which is basically a lock).

I wouldn't go so far as to say Gonzaga is a lock, and this loss probably wouldn't hurt IU much assuming it rebounds.

[cptnflash]

I wouldn't go so far as to say Gonzaga is a lock, and this loss probably wouldn't hurt IU much assuming it rebounds.

Gonzaga is a lock. They have two games left, against a very mediocre BYU team and an awful Portland team. Overwhelmingly likely that they win both.

Indiana, on the other hand, is not going to "rebound" easily from this game, regardless of the outcome. They still have to play Iowa and Ohio State at home, and then close with Michigan on the road. I guarantee they lose at least one of those games, possibly in addition to this one. They could easily pick up another loss in the Big 10 tournament too. Don't be surprised if people are suddenly asking what's "wrong" with Indiana in a couple weeks, when in reality it's nothing more than a brutal Big 10 schedule.

[Henderson]

Minnesota still up with 6:00 to go against IU as I write. Go Go Gophers, Watchem Go Go Go. Anyone else remember that? Kind of a racist TV blast from the past.

Anyway, Gonzaga has to win out to maintain a #1 seed. They probably will. But their RPI is 10, meaning a loss would likely push them to a #2, depending of course of what other teams do. If they storm through, they'll be the darling of the pre-tourney talk. They haven't played a consistently strong schedule, and they aren't in a strong conference (read: rest), but they've gotten the job done consistently. Their two losses were to Illinois and Butler, but none of their wins (save Oklahoma State at #22) was against a ranked team. But hey, they beat Clemson on a neutral floor, and it's not their fault that Clemson has become so bad. People will ask whom have they beaten until they show up against major competition They might. They just might. But they have to. Until then, they are fragile as a seed and could fall into a mine shaft if they lose any game in the next weeks.

If Gonzaga wants to push it to the next level, they need tougher non-conference opponents or a new league. Problem: No major is eager to schedule them home-and-home.

[ChillinDuke]

For all the down talk on this board after Plumlee vs Len, don't be surprised if an unequal amount of discussion/weight is placed on Cody Z excreting feces where he slumbers against Mbakwe.

Mbakwe: 21 and 11 on 8/10 and 5/5 from the line.
Zeller: 9 and 4 on 2/9 and and 5/5 from the line.

- Chillin

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Gonzaga is a lock. They have two games left, against a very mediocre BYU team and an awful Portland team. Overwhelmingly likely that they win both.

Indiana, on the other hand, is not going to "rebound" easily from this game, regardless of the outcome. They still have to play Iowa and Ohio State at home, and then close with Michigan on the road. I guarantee they lose at least one of those games, possibly in addition to this one. They could easily pick up another loss in the Big 10 tournament too. Don't be surprised if people are suddenly asking what's "wrong" with Indiana in a couple weeks, when in reality it's nothing more than a brutal Big 10 schedule.


Minnesota still up with 6:00 to go against IU as I write. Go Go Gophers, Watchem Go Go Go. Anyone else remember that? Kind of a racist TV blast from the past.

Anyway, Gonzaga has to win out to maintain a #1 seed. They probably will. But their RPI is 10, meaning a loss would likely push them to a #2, depending of course of what other teams do. If they storm through, they'll be the darling of the pre-tourney talk. They haven't played a consistently strong schedule, and they aren't in a strong conference (read: rest), but they've gotten the job done consistently. Their two losses were to Illinois and Butler, but none of their wins (save Oklahoma State at #22) was against a ranked team. But hey, they beat Clemson on a neutral floor, and it's not their fault that Clemson has become so bad.

If Gonzaga wants to push it to the next level, they need tougher non-conference opponents or a new league. Problem: No major is eager to schedule them home-and-home.

Thoughts on Gonzaga: Definitely NOT a lock, as if they lose at ANY point, either in the regular season(unlikely) or in the conference tournament(even if they reach the finals), they will most certainly be a #2 seed. They have no wiggle room.

Thoughts on IU: Because of IU playing in the brutal B1G, they have probably a 2 loss cushion even after tonight's game. The B1G is far and away the best league this year so while they may lose "#1 seed overall" status, 6 losses and the B1G tournament finals appearance gets them the last #1 seed, especially if Michigan doesn't win the B1G tournament. It would be hard for the committee to explain how the best team in the best conference in D1 this year doesn't earn a spot on the top line.

[TexHawk]

Anyway, Gonzaga has to win out to maintain a #1 seed. They probably will. But their RPI is 10, meaning a loss would likely push them to a #2, depending of course of what other teams do. If they storm through, they'll be the darling of the pre-tourney talk. They haven't played a consistently strong schedule, and they aren't in a strong conference (read: rest), but they've gotten the job done consistently. Their two losses were to Illinois and Butler, but none of their wins (save Oklahoma State at #22) was against a ranked team. But hey, they beat Clemson on a neutral floor, and it's not their fault that Clemson has become so bad. People will ask whom have they beaten until they show up against major competition They might. They just might. But they have to. Until then, they are fragile as a seed and could fall into a mine shaft if they lose any game in the next weeks.

This is always a weird thing to say. Yes, when they lost to Illinois, the Illini were ranked #13. But they are not ranked today. When Gonzaga beat K-State, the Wildcats were unranked, but today they are #13 and tied for the Big12 conference lead. Ignoring strength of conference stuff obviously, the K-State win looks a lot better, and the Illinois loss doesn't look so great.

I mean, you guys aren't hanging your hat on beating Kentucky when they were #3, are you?

[FerryFor50]

This is always a weird thing to say. Yes, when they lost to Illinois, the Illini were ranked #13. But they are not ranked today. When Gonzaga beat K-State, the Wildcats were unranked, but today they are #13 and tied for the Big12 conference lead. Ignoring strength of conference stuff obviously, the K-State win looks a lot better, and the Illinois loss doesn't look so great.

I mean, you guys aren't hanging your hat on beating Kentucky when they were #3, are you?

No that Kentucky win looks mediocre right now. Doesn't make it feel any less awesome to have beaten them. :)

[FerryFor50]

Florida is down by 8 at Tennessee with about 4 min remaining...

[Kedsy]

The B1G is far and away the best league this year so while they may lose "#1 seed overall" status, 6 losses and the B1G tournament finals appearance gets them the last #1 seed, especially if Michigan doesn't win the B1G tournament.

What you say makes some sense, but 6-loss teams rarely get #1 seeds. It has happened only twice in the past seven years (UNC had 6 losses in 2007 and Michigan State had 7 losses in 2012). Having said that, I agree I'd be surprised if at least one Big 10 team doesn't get a #1 seed, so you may very well be right after all.