PDA

View Full Version : When's the last time you saw this happen? Miami a projected #1 seed



jay
02-08-2013, 11:38 AM
According to Jerry Palm.

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

Yes, I know it's early. Yes, these are just projections, and yes, a lot will still happen between now and March.

But, c'mon. You gotta admit. That's some crazy stuff right there.

BlueDevilinNYC
02-08-2013, 11:40 AM
#1 in a region with a #2 of Indiana, #3 of Florida and a #4 of OSU?

Thanks, but I'll pass

JasonEvans
02-08-2013, 12:18 PM
Best part about that bracket -- if UNC (#11) beats Cincy (#6) they would likely face #3 seed Kansas in KC. Whew, the crowd would be wild for that game!

-Jason

CDu
02-08-2013, 12:18 PM
According to Jerry Palm.

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

Yes, I know it's early. Yes, these are just projections, and yes, a lot will still happen between now and March.

But, c'mon. You gotta admit. That's some crazy stuff right there.

My guess is never.

davekay1971
02-08-2013, 12:48 PM
Given Miami's record, performance, last 10 games, RPI, if the tournament were today, they would deserve consideration as a 1 seed, and certainly would be no lower than a 2 seed. Our job, as Duke, is to make sure their resume includes at least one more regular season loss, and does not include an ACC Championship.

Native
02-08-2013, 12:50 PM
Miami is good. They have everything: big, skilled in the middle, Kadji is versatile, and good, quick guards who can shoot. They'll go far.

sporthenry
02-08-2013, 12:54 PM
Given Miami's record, performance, last 10 games, RPI, if the tournament were today, they would deserve consideration as a 1 seed, and certainly would be no lower than a 2 seed. Our job, as Duke, is to make sure their resume includes at least one more regular season loss, and does not include an ACC Championship.

Agreed. Duke and Miami probably won't both be #1 seeds (although with the way KU and Co. are playing perhaps they both have a shot). But Miami's schedule is very favorable. No NC State. UNC and UVA at home. At FSU who they just blew out and at Duke are the only games left of note. This team looked to have turned that corner of a team learning to win and doesn't look in danger of dropping games to a team like Wake (but who knows).

And the game in Cameron will be a dog fight with or without Kelly. Beating Duke twice in the regular season might elevate them over Duke regardless of the ACCT. A split and Duke has the edge but the ACCT might be the deciding factor. Duke has the wins in non-conference and the Kelly x-factor but the committee will have a difficult decision.

CDu
02-08-2013, 12:55 PM
Miami is good. They have everything: big, skilled in the middle, Kadji is versatile, and good, quick guards who can shoot. They'll go far.

Yup. I had jumped on their bandwagon last year, but for whatever reason they didn't put it together. They seem to have corrected the problem this year.

They have no weaknesses. They have 2 very capable ballhandlers. They have 2 very capable 3 point shooters. They have two very capable post scorers and three big bodies. They are long and athletic on the wings. They are quick. They play defense. They have experience. And they are well-coached.

The only question is whether they stay focused on the offensive end, and make good decisions. Scott can occasionally play out of control and Brown has horrible shot selection. If Scott and Kadji are off and Brown is forcing shots, they can be beaten.

But it should be noted that (like us) they are undefeated when they have their full complement of players.

Miami is a VERY good team. They are better than I thought they'd be (I had guessed they'd be 3rd in the ACC behind us and State). And their resume right now (when you consider their games played with all of their players) is basically as good as anyone's in the country.

The Gordog
02-08-2013, 01:07 PM
According to Jerry Palm.

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

Yes, I know it's early. Yes, these are just projections, and yes, a lot will still happen between now and March.

But, c'mon. You gotta admit. That's some crazy stuff right there.

That Western region is terribly weak compared to the East.

gam7
02-08-2013, 01:07 PM
Miami is good. They have everything: big, skilled in the middle, Kadji is versatile, and good, quick guards who can shoot. They'll go far.

Glancing quickly at Lunardi's Bracketology for the first time, my big takeaway is that this year, more than most, getting a one-seed seems really important. We don't want to fall to that second line. The 1-3 seed lines are very tough, but there's a pretty steep drop off at the 4 line. Of course, Butler's always tough (as a 4), but not as worried about K State, Cincy, New Mexico. I'd much rather be playing teams of that ilk in the Round of 16 than the current 3 line of OSU, Louisville, Syracuse and Mich St.

JasonEvans
02-08-2013, 01:08 PM
They have no weaknesses. They have 2 very capable ballhandlers. They have 2 very capable 3 point shooters. They have two very capable post scorers and three big bodies. They are long and athletic on the wings. They are quick. They play defense. They have experience. And they are well-coached.


Just had to highlight the last line. This point cannot be underrated. I think many folks were surprised when Miami went with someone who was not "young and dynamic" in picking Jim Larranaga. He was already past 60 when they hired him. But, Miami saw something and they clearly made a very smart hire. Their team is more consistent and plays under more control than these guys ever did in the past under Haith or Perry Clark. The old assumptions about Miami not living up to expectations or gaaacking away games they are supposed to win seem to be gone.

Did you know that last year's Miami team, that went 9-7 in the ACC, was the first Miami club to post a winning regular season record in the conference? Now, in his second year in the league, Larranaga has put together what may be the best Miami club ever and is certainly the best team since the 99-00 Hurricanes tied for the Big East regular season title.

-Jason "mad props to Larranaga, who may already be a lock for ACC COY" Evans

sporthenry
02-08-2013, 01:14 PM
They have no weaknesses. They have 2 very capable ballhandlers. They have 2 very capable 3 point shooters. They have two very capable post scorers and three big bodies. They are long and athletic on the wings. They are quick. They play defense. They have experience. And they are well-coached.


They have experience in that they are older than most teams. Kenpom has them as the 9th most experienced teams. But there is a difference between experience and valuable experience. Miami hasn't been in the tourney since 2008. They don't have experience with the rigors of March or playing important games in March. That could come back to bite them.

Monmouth77
02-08-2013, 01:20 PM
Yup. I had jumped on their bandwagon last year, but for whatever reason they didn't put it together. They seem to have corrected the problem this year.

They have no weaknesses. They have 2 very capable ballhandlers. They have 2 very capable 3 point shooters. They have two very capable post scorers and three big bodies. They are long and athletic on the wings. They are quick. They play defense. They have experience. And they are well-coached.

The only question is whether they stay focused on the offensive end, and make good decisions. Scott can occasionally play out of control and Brown has horrible shot selection. If Scott and Kadji are off and Brown is forcing shots, they can be beaten.

But it should be noted that (like us) they are undefeated when they have their full complement of players.

Miami is a VERY good team. They are better than I thought they'd be (I had guessed they'd be 3rd in the ACC behind us and State). And their resume right now (when you consider their games played with all of their players) is basically as good as anyone's in the country.

I agree with this generally, but I want to see how the second half of the ACC season plays out before I'd sign on to "no" weaknesses. They are a complete and balanced team on all the vectors you laid out, and obviously well coached. Scott takes a lot of shots and is streaky (3 Pt % more like Cook's than Curry's) and if you make them a shooting team, they can be had. I also think there is a mental toughness you have to have as a team to win in the post season, especially when you are not the underdog.

Miami has been playing with house money. Let's see how it plays out with a big target on their chest.

Monmouth77
02-08-2013, 01:22 PM
They have experience in that they are older than most teams. Kenpom has them as the 9th most experienced teams. But there is a difference between experience and valuable experience. Miami hasn't been in the tourney since 2008. They don't have experience with the rigors of March or playing important games in March. That could come back to bite them.

I agree. And they have always been the hunters -- never the hunted.

hurleyfor3
02-08-2013, 02:48 PM
Why shouldn't the U get a 1 seed? Who in college basketball has been more consistent?

And if they don't get a #1... you know how every few years some school that comes from a major conference, but is not a consistent powerhouse, has its year in the Final Four? Georgia in 83. Providence in 87. Mississippi State in 96. Minnesota in 97. The Tree in 98, Bucky in 2000. Texas in 03. Oh, WVU in 2010, of course. (Note these teams always lose in the semifinal.) I'm getting serious vibes this is the year Miami does it.

CDu
02-08-2013, 03:09 PM
They have experience in that they are older than most teams. Kenpom has them as the 9th most experienced teams. But there is a difference between experience and valuable experience. Miami hasn't been in the tourney since 2008. They don't have experience with the rigors of March or playing important games in March. That could come back to bite them.

They have experience in that their starting lineup was the same starting lineup as last year, their top-7 is essentially the same as last year (minus Grant), and 4 of their starters and 5 of their top-7 have 3.5+ years of college basketball experience.

They have some tournament experience in that they have played multiple games in the NIT. No, that's not NCAA tournament experience. And that may eventually come back to haunt them. But we're talking about the team and their candidacy for a #1 seed - not how well or how poorly they'll do once they get there.

CDu
02-08-2013, 03:14 PM
I agree with this generally, but I want to see how the second half of the ACC season plays out before I'd sign on to "no" weaknesses. They are a complete and balanced team on all the vectors you laid out, and obviously well coached. Scott takes a lot of shots and is streaky (3 Pt % more like Cook's than Curry's) and if you make them a shooting team, they can be had. I also think there is a mental toughness you have to have as a team to win in the post season, especially when you are not the underdog.

Miami has been playing with house money. Let's see how it plays out with a big target on their chest.

In terms of position by position talent, they have all of the keys. Want good perimeter shooting? Check (Larkin and McKinney-Jones, with Scott and Kadji occasionally adding to that). Want good interior scoring? Check (Johnson and Kadji). Want a versatile, athletic, big PF who can cause all sorts of matchup nightmares? Check (Kadji). Want an explosive PG who can take over a game? Check (Larkin, and to some degree Scott). Rebounding? Check (Johnson). Size and athleticism on the perimeter? Check. Senior leadership? Check. Good coaching? Absolutely.

Any team can lose on an off-night (see, Kansas vs TCU). If Scott and Kadji aren't shooting well and the others don't offset it, the 'Canes can definitely be beaten. But they have no clear holes in their team. That's what I meant by no weaknesses. Not that they can't be beaten; just that they don't have any clear weaknesses to exploit. There's a difference.

freshmanjs
02-08-2013, 03:14 PM
(Note these teams always lose in the semifinal.)

ncsu 1983
villanova 1985
oklahoma 1988
seton hall 1989
umass 1996
ga tech 2004
illinois 2005

ok well maybe not always.

hurleyfor3
02-08-2013, 03:20 PM
GIT, Illinois and Oklahoma (edit: and Villanova) have reached multiple Final Fours within my basketball-following lifetime. NCSU is right on the border, but has significantly more long-term success than the class of schools I was thinking of.

UMass isn't major-conference, and lost on Saturday anyway. (As did Cincy '92 if you're gonna go there.)

I'll grant you Seton Hall. My list wasn't meant to be complete, anyway.

sporthenry
02-08-2013, 03:27 PM
Why shouldn't the U get a 1 seed? Who in college basketball has been more consistent?

And if they don't get a #1... you know how every few years some school that comes from a major conference, but is not a consistent powerhouse, has its year in the Final Four? Georgia in 83. Providence in 87. Mississippi State in 96. Minnesota in 97. The Tree in 98, Bucky in 2000. Texas in 03. Oh, WVU in 2010, of course. (Note these teams always lose in the semifinal.) I'm getting serious vibes this is the year Miami does it.

But what Miami is hoping to do, go from non tourney team to #1 team with the exact same team as the year before is crazy. WVU in 2009 was a 6 seed and in 2008 was a 7 seed. They also had a ton of Sophomores who took that jump from freshman to sophomore year.

Larkin is the only underclassmen on the team and he is a sophomore. He certainly took a jump from last year to this year, but the 3 most important players on this team are all seniors and they haven't had a ton of success in their 3 years. Yes, they were a 2 seed in the last 2 NIT's and they've consistently gotten better over the past 3 years but this seems rather unprecedented to have this success without adding a ton and not being that great beforehand.

I'm sure there are a few more similar parallels (probably closer to a mid-major) where a team built up over 4 years and then will more than likely suck again next year.

sporthenry
02-08-2013, 03:31 PM
They have experience in that their starting lineup was the same starting lineup as last year, their top-7 is essentially the same as last year (minus Grant), and 4 of their starters and 5 of their top-7 have 3.5+ years of college basketball experience.

They have some tournament experience in that they have played multiple games in the NIT. No, that's not NCAA tournament experience. And that may eventually come back to haunt them. But we're talking about the team and their candidacy for a #1 seed - not how well or how poorly they'll do once they get there.

To be fair, if you want to stick to their candidacy for a #1 seed. Then experience is irrelevant and you brought that up first. So their experience is meaningless and all that matters is their resume which at this point is worse than Dukes.

CDu
02-08-2013, 03:58 PM
To be fair, if you want to stick to their candidacy for a #1 seed. Then experience is irrelevant and you brought that up first. So their experience is meaningless and all that matters is their resume which at this point is worse than Dukes.

Experience is relevant in that experienced teams tend to be better than inexperienced teams with the same talent. That experience has helped Miami be really good this year. Which is why they are in the conversation for a 1 seed. Duke has some similar benefits, which is why we are also in the running for a 1 seed.

I would argue that Duke and Miami have the two most impressive resumes this year. Only one will likely get a 1 seed, but both have fantastic resumes.

sporthenry
02-08-2013, 04:00 PM
As far as Miami's rise to ascendancy. The closest thing I can sort of find to parallel with Miami was perhaps Tennessee in 2006. Pearl had just become coach and he took a team with some experience that was 14-17 to a 2 seed. They were younger than Miami and Lofton was just a Sophomore and they fell apart down the stretch but I'm not sure how much you can trust these older teams achieving success for the first time.

Assuming they don't fall apart, I suspect they'll be a hot pick for a F4 which usually seems to be the kiss of death.

sporthenry
02-08-2013, 04:06 PM
Experience is relevant in that experienced teams tend to be better than inexperienced teams with the same talent. That experience has helped Miami be really good this year. Which is why they are in the conversation for a 1 seed. Duke has some similar benefits, which is why we are also in the running for a 1 seed.

I would argue that Duke and Miami have the two most impressive resumes this year. Only one will likely get a 1 seed, but both have fantastic resumes.

But it seemed as if you brought up experience to somehow insinuate that they would be a contender in the tournament. Then seemed to change the rules and say this was just about a #1 seed discussion. This thread seems to be all things Miami, including their performance in the tournament and similar teams performance in the 1 seed. That was my main point and the only reason to bring up experience would be for future results and nothing to do with the committee.

As far as the 1 seed. They could both theoretically get 1 seeds. Nobody who does these brackets has shown any consistency with getting the seed lines right. Lunardi is actually very wrong for this being his night job. All that aside, I don't think many thought a 1 seed was viable for both but with recent losses, it seems very possible especially with the wildcard that is Kelly who might bump Duke over a KU or Florida when Duke doesn't have a bad loss and has no losses with its starting 5.

hurleyfor3
02-08-2013, 04:09 PM
As far as Miami's rise to ascendancy. The closest thing I can sort of find to parallel with Miami was perhaps Tennessee in 2006.

UConn in 1990?
Duke in '78?

vick
02-08-2013, 06:18 PM
UConn in 1990?
Duke in '78?

As I understand sporthenry, he's saying it's very rare to take nearly the exact same personnel from non-tournament to a top-2-seed caliber team. Duke '78 doesn't really qualify since they added Banks. I don't know about UConn.

sporthenry
02-08-2013, 06:27 PM
As I understand sporthenry, he's saying it's very rare to take nearly the exact same personnel from non-tournament to a top-2-seed caliber team. Duke '78 doesn't really qualify since they added Banks. I don't know about UConn.

Agreed. Now I'm also dated in this conversation as I can't go back as far as Hurley has or even yourself. But yes, it seems rare to have a team not add much and come relatively out of nowhere like this especially a senior laden squad.

Just looking at last year, their ACC schedule was pretty brutal so I guess it evens out. Last year with this schedule, they probably make the NCAAT, this year with last year's schedule, they probably have a few more losses. Their 8 ACC losses included (home and away to UNC and NC State, at FSU, at UVA, at UMD and in the ACCT versus FSU).

CDu
02-08-2013, 06:37 PM
But it seemed as if you brought up experience to somehow insinuate that they would be a contender in the tournament. Then seemed to change the rules and say this was just about a #1 seed discussion. This thread seems to be all things Miami, including their performance in the tournament and similar teams performance in the 1 seed. That was my main point and the only reason to bring up experience would be for future results and nothing to do with the committee.

Well, then you misinterpreted my original post. I merely brought it up as an example of (1) why they're good this year and (2) part of why they're a candidate for a #1 seed.


As far as the 1 seed. They could both theoretically get 1 seeds. Nobody who does these brackets has shown any consistency with getting the seed lines right. Lunardi is actually very wrong for this being his night job. All that aside, I don't think many thought a 1 seed was viable for both but with recent losses, it seems very possible especially with the wildcard that is Kelly who might bump Duke over a KU or Florida when Duke doesn't have a bad loss and has no losses with its starting 5.

They certainly could both get #1 seeds. In fact, in 2009, 3 Big East teams were #1 seeds. And two from the same conference have made it in 2003, 2005, and 2006 as well. So it is certainly not out of the question. But I don't know that I'd say it is likely, either.

throatybeard
02-09-2013, 01:23 AM
I'm convinced that Duke in 1978 was a singular miracle.