PDA

View Full Version : Back to # 2 AP, # 1 Coaches



Olympic Fan
02-09-2013, 11:51 AM
Right now, Michigan is locked in a one-point game at Wisconsin at halftime. Obviously, it could go either way, but here's the point I want to raise.

If Wisconsin wins and Duke doesn't lose at Boston College Sunday (either Duke wins or the game is postponed), would Duke be No. 1 again next week?

So far this week, No. 1 Indiana lost to unranked Illinois and No. 3 Florida has lost at unranked Arkansas -- in a blowout. Plus, No. 5 Kansas has lost to a terrible TCU team.

So if No. 2 Michigan also loses, does No. 4 Duke climb to No. 1 for the third time this season?

I realize there were be some "I don't want to be No. 1" reactions. That's understandable since the No. 1 team has lost in five straight weeks, including Duke twice.

(Trivia -- the last No. 1 to get through a week unbeaten? That would be Duke, which actually held the ranking four straight weeks before losing at N.C. State (the first of the five-week streak with the No. 1 team losing).

The tough things about regaining No. 1 on Monday is that I could easily see Duke extending the string of No. 1 losses. The Devils face a tough week -- UNC Wednesday night (with UNC getting an extra day of preparation) and then at Maryland Saturay -- with the Terps getting a whose week off to get ready for what could be Duke's last-ever visit to College Park (you think the Comcast will be rocking for that one?).

I know it doesn't matter as far as NCAA seeding or anything else ... still it could happen.

And if Michigan hangs on to win on the road, Duke will almost certainly be No. 2 (barring a loss tomorrow).

uh_no
02-09-2013, 12:07 PM
If Wisconsin wins and Duke doesn't lose at Boston College Sunday (either Duke wins or the game is postponed), would Duke be No. 1 again next week?


yes.

Voters aren't that savvy....you're number 4? everyone in front of you lost? you're #1 now.....especially since should michigan lose, all the losses will have been to unranked teams

matt1
02-09-2013, 12:21 PM
If Wisconsin wins, we will be #1. The interesting question would be if we lost after that. Would Indiana stay #1, or would #6 Gonzaga be #1?

El_Diablo
02-09-2013, 12:44 PM
If Wisconsin wins, we will be #1. The interesting question would be if we lost after that. Would Indiana stay #1, or would #6 Gonzaga be #1?

With three fouls to give in a tie game, Wisconsin let Michigan dribble down the clock and then bury a three-pointer with three seconds. Dumb dumb dumb.

EDIT: LONG BUZZER BEATER! WOW!

matt1
02-09-2013, 12:45 PM
With three fouls to give in a tie game, Wisconsin let Michigan dribble down the clock and then bury a three-pointer with three seconds. Dumb dumb dumb.

But after a contested half-court three, we go to OT!

Bob Green
02-09-2013, 12:45 PM
Overtime in Madison!

jimsumner
02-09-2013, 12:46 PM
Well, I think we know the top play on Sports Center.

Wander
02-09-2013, 12:47 PM
Wow. Also, amazing how fast in real time the game goes when there's no fouling.

Ggallagher
02-09-2013, 12:48 PM
Wow - what an end of game shot. Looked a LOT like the end of Duke-Butler -- except for the swish.

uh_no
02-09-2013, 12:49 PM
Wow - what an end of game shot. Looked a LOT like the end of Duke-Butler -- except for the swish.

looked even more like a good ole' sean dockery

1 24 90
02-09-2013, 12:50 PM
Now I understand why Zoubek intentionally missed the 2nd free throw.

throatybeard
02-09-2013, 12:53 PM
And yet, neither of these teams can make an open jumper or a layup.

matt1
02-09-2013, 12:59 PM
Wisconsin wins 65-62! We are #1 yet again!

dukelifer
02-09-2013, 12:59 PM
And yet, neither of these teams can make an open jumper or a layup.

Hmmm. Being number 1 again seems odd with this Duke team . Of course need to win against BC

Bob Green
02-09-2013, 01:00 PM
Wisconsin wins in OT! With Indiana, Florida, Michigan and Kansas having lost, a Miami victory over Carolina should vault them into the Top 5 next week.

uh_no
02-09-2013, 01:00 PM
Wisconsin wins 65-62! We are #1 yet again!

we still have to beat BC.....but rumor has it that boston has gone a bit "cold" lately

Turtleboy
02-09-2013, 01:00 PM
If Duke is ranked #1, and loses again, will that be the first time a #1 team loses three times in a season?

And down goes Michigan.

matt1
02-09-2013, 01:02 PM
If Duke is ranked #1, and loses again, will that be the first time a #1 team loses three times in a season?

Doubt it. We lost twice in one week in 2006 AND stayed #1 the following week.

subzero02
02-09-2013, 01:09 PM
Crazy... Let's just worry about improving... The rankings will take care of themselves

Olympic Fan
02-09-2013, 01:14 PM
Doubt it. We lost twice in one week in 2006 AND stayed #1 the following week.

Not quite -- Duke was No. 1 for the first 11 weeks in 2006, then lost to Georgetown and dropped to No. 2.

Duke regained No. 1 on Feb. 20 and repeated on Feb. 27. The next week, Duke did lose twice -- at FSU and at home vs. UNC in the regular season finale.

But Duke didn't stay No. 1 -- they dropped to No. 3 behind No. 1 UConn and No. 2 Villanova.

BUT Duke proceded to win the ACC Tournament, while UConn and Nova lost in the Big East ... so Duke vaulted back to No. 1 in the final AP Poll.

So technically, Duke lost four games as the No. 1 team in 2006 (Georgetown, at FSU, North Carolina and LSU in the NCAA Tournament).

Duvall
02-09-2013, 01:15 PM
Why not Miami? Better than Gonzaga at least.

matt1
02-09-2013, 01:17 PM
Not quite -- Duke was No. 1 for the first 11 weeks in 2006, then lost to Georgetown and dropped to No. 2.

Duke regained No. 1 on Feb. 20 and repeated on Feb. 27. The next week, Duke did lose twice -- at FSU and at home vs. UNC in the regular season finale.

But Duke didn't stay No. 1 -- they dropped to No. 3 behind No. 1 UConn and No. 2 Villanova.

BUT Duke proceded to win the ACC Tournament, while UConn and Nova lost in the Big East ... so Duke vaulted back to No. 1 in the final AP Poll.

So technically, Duke lost four games as the No. 1 team in 2006 (Georgetown, at FSU, North Carolina and LSU in the NCAA Tournament).

Back then, ESPN used the coaches poll, which kept us at #1 for the ACC Tournament.

The AP Rankings only started being used this year.

jimsumner
02-09-2013, 01:21 PM
The AP poll is the only one that matters.

The coaches poll is to line the birdcage.

devildeac
02-09-2013, 01:26 PM
Wisconsin wins in OT! With Indiana, Florida, Michigan and Kansas having lost, a Miami victory over Carolina should vault them into the Top 5 next week.

Heck, if they beat unc, coupled with their victory over us, could it vault them all the way to #1? Not likely, I'd guess, but...

uh_no
02-09-2013, 01:35 PM
Heck, if they beat unc, coupled with their victory over us, could it vault them all the way to #1? Not likely, I'd guess, but...

you're overestimating the thought that goes into rankings...plus a win over NCSU this week is much better than a win over UNC

Double DD
02-09-2013, 01:39 PM
If Duke is ranked #1, and loses again, will that be the first time a #1 team loses three times in a season?

And down goes Michigan.

No, teams have gained and lost the #1 ranking at least 3 times in the past as well. This wouldn't even be the first Duke team to do it. The following teams all did the trick.

Arizona 2002-03
Cincinnati 1999-00
Duke 1997-98
North Carolina 1993-94
Kansas 1989-90
Oregon State 1980-81
Kentucky 1958-59

This doesn't count teams like Kansas in '10 or Duke in '06 that gained #1 three different times but were #1 in the last AP poll and then lost in the NCAA tournament. So, they technically didn't lose #1 the third time.

Of note, UNC in '94 is the only team to gain #1 on 4 separate occasions. But they finished the regular season ranked #1 and so didn't officially lose it for a fourth time.

JasonEvans
02-09-2013, 01:55 PM
a Miami victory over Carolina should vault them into the Top 5 next week.

The way Miami is clobbering UNC at the half, I would vote them #1 on my ballot if I had one. At this point, there is little question in my mind that they are deserving of serious #1 consideration. I bet they get some #1 votes.

-Jason "the engravers should just go ahead and type the letters L-A-R on the national COY trophies... just to get a head start on the inevitable" Evans

Bob Green
02-09-2013, 01:59 PM
The way Miami is clobbering UNC at the half, I would vote them #1 on my ballot if I had one.

I agree. The 'Canes are looking good. And they're getting better every time they take the court. Miami appears to be a very good team that is improving. No wonder Coach Larranaga is being discussed as ACC COY, perhaps he should be National COY.

scottdude8
02-09-2013, 01:59 PM
What a game. The Big 10 is just an amazing conference... consider both these teams played OT games in their last time out (Michigan in a barn-burner against OSU, a game that I was at trying hard to make Chrysler resemble Cameron in some fashion). I think the Big 10 beating up on each other is going to do wonders for our seeding come March, but I still wouldn't want to face any of these teams in the tourney.

mgtr
02-09-2013, 02:02 PM
The way Miami is clobbering UNC at the half, I would vote them #1 on my ballot if I had one. At this point, there is little question in my mind that they are deserving of serious #1 consideration. I bet they get some #1 votes.

-Jason "the engravers should just go ahead and type the letters L-A-R on the national COY trophies... just to get a head start on the inevitable" Evans

Are those letters for Larry Brown? :)

JasonEvans
02-09-2013, 02:08 PM
Are those letters for Larry Brown? :)

Nope, Larry Eustachy (https://www.google.com/search?q=larry+eustachy+party&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=W6H&tbo=u&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=zawWUYOSLvCLyAG894CIAQ&ved=0CDMQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=665), who is actually having a really good year at Colorado State.

-Jason "Jim LARranaga is already a lock for ACC COY, IMO -- and the front-runner for national COY at this point" Evans

Indoor66
02-09-2013, 02:09 PM
The way Miami is clobbering UNC at the half, I would vote them #1 on my ballot if I had one. At this point, there is little question in my mind that they are deserving of serious #1 consideration. I bet they get some #1 votes.

-Jason "the engravers should just go ahead and type the letters L-A-R on the national COY trophies... just to get a head start on the inevitable" Evans

But you DO have to consider who they are playing today.

uh_no
02-09-2013, 02:13 PM
I agree. The 'Canes are looking good. And they're getting better every time they take the court. Miami appears to be a very good team that is improving. No wonder Coach Larranaga is being discussed as ACC COY, perhaps he should be National COY.

they're beating up on a pretty bad UNC team, but they also didn't look great in their win at NCSU.....I grant you, a win is a win, but it wasn't pretty.

jimsumner
02-09-2013, 02:16 PM
But you DO have to consider who they are playing today.

In three days this board will have convinced itself that the Heels are the reincarnation of the '68 UCLA team, with better shooters.

Wander
02-09-2013, 02:17 PM
The way Miami is clobbering UNC at the half, I would vote them #1 on my ballot if I had one. At this point, there is little question in my mind that they are deserving of serious #1 consideration. I bet they get some #1 votes.


Agreed. Their biggest problem is probably Arizona - I don't think Arizona is better than Miami at this point in the season, but the Wildcats have fewer losses and blew out the Hurricanes in the head-to-head matchup.

Indoor66
02-09-2013, 02:30 PM
In three days this board will have convinced itself that the Heels are the reincarnation of the '68 UCLA team, with better shooters.

You got that right. It should be a million laughs to watch the perverbial hand wringing that is to come.

devildeac
02-09-2013, 02:36 PM
C'mon canes, let's get that lead up >30;).

devildeac
02-09-2013, 02:37 PM
Ooh, just saw that unc still has 4 TO left. Wonder if ol roy's saving them for next week...

devildeac
02-09-2013, 02:45 PM
Before the game, I was going to suggest the coaches and/or writers just leave the #1 spot blank on all their ballots as no one seems to really justify that ranking, but after watching Miami today and looking at their season, I'm more serious about my suggestion/thought earlier in this thread or in another thread that they would/should/could be voted #1 now.

dukelifer
02-09-2013, 02:51 PM
Before the game, I was going to suggest the coaches and/or writers just leave the #1 spot blank on all their ballots as no one seems to really justify that ranking, but after watching Miami today and looking at their season, I'm more serious about my suggestion/thought earlier in this thread or in another thread that they would/should/could be voted #1 now.

I agree- Miami should make the jump to number 1. If not now- they will there very be soon. Having Reggie Johnson back is huge for them.

devildeac
02-09-2013, 02:55 PM
I agree- Miami should make the jump to number 1. If not now- they will there very be soon. Having Reggie Johnson back is huge for them.

Reggie Johnson? Huge? Nice sentence structure;).

tommy
02-09-2013, 02:56 PM
Agreed. Their biggest problem is probably Arizona - I don't think Arizona is better than Miami at this point in the season, but the Wildcats have fewer losses and blew out the Hurricanes in the head-to-head matchup.

Reggie Johnson was hurt and didn't play in that game. Remembering that voters factor injuries into the losses for all teams other than Duke, this could matter in trying to compare those teams.

Bob Green
02-09-2013, 02:56 PM
Reggie Johnson? Huge? Nice sentence structure;).

Of course, Reggie is still rounding into shape after his injury.

devildeac
02-09-2013, 03:01 PM
Of course, Reggie is still rounding into shape after his injury.



Yep. When a significantly overweight patient asked me last month if I thought he should get in shape, I replied, "What do you mean? Round is a shape.":o

Funny stuff, Bob;).

wsb3
02-09-2013, 03:40 PM
I am one of those who don't want us to be #1.... except after the first week of April...Seriously Miami..I would vote them #1..

cptnflash
02-09-2013, 03:52 PM
I think it still depends on what happens the rest of the weekend. If Indiana goes to Columbus and destroys Ohio State tomorrow (very unlikely, but still possible) they could easily retain the #1 spot despite the road loss to Illinois.

Florida probably isn't moving up even if they beat Mississippi State by 50 (which is a distinct possibility). They really missed an opportunity this week with their loss to Arkansas - I expected them to win both games, reach #1, and stay there the rest of the season. They may yet get there, but it'll be harder with Yeguete going down.

Michigan is almost certainly moving down given 2 losses in their last 3 games, even though there was no shame in either of them.

Arizona, Gonzaga, and Miami all likely to get votes, and we'll probably get a few as well, provided we win tomorrow (if there's a game tomorrow, that is).

Might be the most widely dispersed #1 vote in quite a while.

OldPhiKap
02-09-2013, 03:57 PM
Yep. When a significantly overweight patient asked me last month if I thought he should get in shape, I replied, "What do you mean? Round is a shape.":o

Funny stuff, Bob;).

"Do these balloons blow up into funny shapes?"
"No, not unless circular is funny."



(I guess that's better than hearing "son, you've got a panty on your head.")

jimsumner
02-09-2013, 05:07 PM
Reggie Johnson was hurt and didn't play in that game. Remembering that voters factor injuries into the losses for all teams other than Duke, this could matter in trying to compare those teams.

What makes you think voters factor in injuries? The NCAA selection committee, sure. But the voters. Way too much work.

flyingdutchdevil
02-09-2013, 06:01 PM
The only consistency is college ball is the upset bug. I really don't like this omen coming into the Duke-Carolina game.

tommy
02-09-2013, 06:09 PM
What makes you think voters factor in injuries? The NCAA selection committee, sure. But the voters. Way too much work.

Yeah, you're probably right. They probably wouldn't factor the game in at all, as most of these guys can't remember (and are too lazy to look up) what happened last week, much less all the way back in December.

weezie
02-09-2013, 06:33 PM
Is there a better/easier job than voting on mid-season rankings? Pretty much close your eyes and throw the dart.

msdukie
02-09-2013, 07:28 PM
In three days this board will have convinced itself that the Heels are the reincarnation of the '68 UCLA team, with better shooters.

Because in 3 days they will be, but for 2 nights only....

Durham Thunder
02-09-2013, 08:13 PM
I cannot remember the last time Duke has inherited the #1 spot as many times as they have this season, the way they have done so. It is very exciting, and fascinating that the top teams are constantly revolving.

uh_no
02-09-2013, 08:15 PM
I cannot remember the last time Duke has inherited the #1 spot as many times as they have this season, the way they have done so. It is very exciting, and fascinating that the top teams are constantly revolving.

I think it's been mentioned that in 2006 we held the honor 3 separate times.

-bdbd
02-09-2013, 08:31 PM
Listening to Sports Talk Radio today, it seems to be very clear that Duke WILL jump back up to #1 yet again. Assuming we get past BC.

...just in time for the UNC@ch game. Ugh!

I'm ok with it - there's certainly WORSE #'s to have next to your team's name!!! (Or NO number, a la Kerlina...)
Just keep the perspective that it really doesn't matter at this point. When I'll start to really care is in early March, when it might affect NCAAT seeds.

It sure is amazing how many times #1's have crashed this season. I think it says a lot about how competitive the BB scene is right now. Really could make for a terrific NCAAT this year!

BTW, on TV today, on ESPN, I think after the UNC blowout, one announcer was predicting Duke to become the number one, "but the most feared team in the country right now is probably Miami." It'll be very interesting to see on Monday how far they jump up from their current #8 perch. Also, later on I heard a Jim Boieheim interview- recorded for radio a day or two ago - where he was saying that he thinks Duke will be the best team this year (in the NCAAT), once they get Ryan Kelly back. I thought that was a nice sentiment to hear from another top-10 Coach, even if he IS a Coach K buddy...:)

uh_no
02-09-2013, 09:02 PM
Listening to Sports Talk Radio today, it seems to be very clear that Duke WILL jump back up to #1 yet again. Assuming we get past BC.

...just in time for the UNC@ch game. Ugh!

I'm ok with it - there's certainly WORSE #'s to have next to your team's name!!! (Or NO number, a la Kerlina...)
Just keep the perspective that it really doesn't matter at this point. When I'll start to really care is in early March, when it might affect NCAAT seeds.

It sure is amazing how many times #1's have crashed this season. I think it says a lot about how competitive the BB scene is right now. Really could make for a terrific NCAAT this year!

BTW, on TV today, on ESPN, I think after the UNC blowout, one announcer was predicting Duke to become the number one, "but the most feared team in the country right now is probably Miami." It'll be very interesting to see on Monday how far they jump up from their current #8 perch. Also, later on I heard a Jim Boieheim interview- recorded for radio a day or two ago - where he was saying that he thinks Duke will be the best team this year (in the NCAAT), once they get Ryan Kelly back. I thought that was a nice sentiment to hear from another top-10 Coach, even if he IS a Coach K buddy...:)

not just #1s, but top teams overall....i imagine the overall record of the #1 team, top 5, and top 10 teams must be among the worst in the 64 team era

i mean this week alone the top 5 lost 5 games....and this isn't the first week that has seen such attrition at the top

Durham Thunder
02-09-2013, 09:16 PM
Wouldn't it be great, if by March 2nd Duke and Miami were #1, #2? What a game that would be. The intensity, and hype built up not only for ACC supremacy, but also for the last game between them.

If Kelly comes back, Miami loses a game so that if we beat them, we're tied for first......at CAMERON? That would be THE game.

#perfectstorm

BlueDevilBrowns
02-09-2013, 09:33 PM
Wouldn't it be great, if by March 2nd Duke and Miami were #1, #2? What a game that would be. The intensity, and hype built up not only for ACC supremacy, but also for the last game between them.

If Kelly comes back, Miami loses a game so that if we beat them, we're tied for first......at CAMERON? That would be THE game.

#perfectstorm

i think its highly likely we play miami at least 2 more times this year. it reminds me of 2001 when duke and md were clearly the best 2 teams in the acc and they knew it(even though unc was the 1 seed that year). in fact, i remember after the semifinals of the acc tournament, the players from both teams talking about playing again in the final 4.

uh_no
02-09-2013, 09:40 PM
i think its highly likely we play miami at least 2 more times this year. it reminds me of 2001 when duke and md were clearly the best 2 teams in the acc and they knew it(even though unc was the 1 seed that year). in fact, i remember after the semifinals of the acc tournament, the players from both teams talking about playing again in the final 4.

i'd be skeptical....it's likely they'll be 1 and we'll be 2 in the tournament....so we'd both have to reach the title game....obviously for us, that would be easier with kelly, but either way, anything can happen in a single elimination tourney (as we saw with NCSU last year)

either team could have to face maryland, NCSU, or even UNC in the semis.....

so, it may be the most probable outcome (according to current prediction), but i'm not sure I'd say it's highly probable at this point

matt1
02-09-2013, 09:48 PM
i'd be skeptical....it's likely they'll be 1 and we'll be 2 in the tournament....so we'd both have to reach the title game....obviously for us, that would be easier with kelly, but either way, anything can happen in a single elimination tourney (as we saw with NCSU last year)

either team could have to face maryland, NCSU, or even UNC in the semis.....

so, it may be the most probable outcome (according to current prediction), but i'm not sure I'd say it's highly probable at this point

According to TeamRankings, Duke has a 66.6% chance of making the ACC title game, and Miami has a 50.9% chance of doing so. Therefore, it is just over a 1 in 3 chance that Duke will play Miami for the ACC title.

BlueDevilBrowns
02-09-2013, 09:50 PM
i'd be skeptical....it's likely they'll be 1 and we'll be 2 in the tournament....so we'd both have to reach the title game....obviously for us, that would be easier with kelly, but either way, anything can happen in a single elimination tourney (as we saw with NCSU last year)

either team could have to face maryland, NCSU, or even UNC in the semis.....

so, it may be the most probable outcome (according to current prediction), but i'm not sure I'd say it's highly probable at this point

if we have kelly back, ncsu, unc, and md don't scare me in the least, especially playing in g'boro. and all miami has done is beat state at pnc, destroy both duke and unc at home, and beat everyone else too. so i'll stand by my statement that it's highly likely we meet in the finals of the acc.

uh_no
02-09-2013, 10:08 PM
According to TeamRankings, Duke has a 66.6% chance of making the ACC title game, and Miami has a 50.9% chance of doing so. Therefore, it is just over a 1 in 3 chance that Duke will play Miami for the ACC title.

and those probabilities are not independent....so the overall chance is actually slightly less....in other words, you have to subtract out the probability that both end up on the same side of the bracket.

matt1
02-09-2013, 10:21 PM
and those probabilities are not independent....so the overall chance is actually slightly less....in other words, you have to subtract out the probability that both end up on the same side of the bracket.

Statistically, it is almost certain that Duke and Miami will be on opposite sides (1 and 2 or 1 and 3). Therefore, it is actually about 1 in 3. Furthermore, this website factors the draws into its projections.

uh_no
02-09-2013, 11:17 PM
Statistically, it is almost certain that Duke and Miami will be on opposite sides (1 and 2 or 1 and 3). Therefore, it is actually about 1 in 3. Furthermore, this website factors the draws into its projections.

a) yes it is minimal in chance, enough so that you can say it's "about" the product
b) the fact that the website factors the draws into account does NOT mean you can simply multiply two dependent probabilities against eachother......suppose miami and duke were guaranteed to be the 2 and 3 seeds....they might each have, say 33% of reaching the title game....but you can't just say there is .33^2% chance that they both make it....since due to the conditional nature of the probability, there is in fact 0% chance that they both reach it.....since there is a non-zero probability that they could be in the same draw, it must necessarily be less than the product of the probability of either team making it

matt1
02-09-2013, 11:22 PM
a) yes it is minimal in chance, enough so that you can say it's "about" the product
b) the fact that the website factors the draws into account does NOT mean you can simply multiply two dependent probabilities against eachother......suppose miami and duke were guaranteed to be the 2 and 3 seeds....they might each have, say 33% of reaching the title game....but you can't just say there is .33^2% chance that they both make it....since due to the conditional nature of the probability, there is in fact 0% chance that they both reach it.....since there is a non-zero probability that they could be in the same draw, it must necessarily be less than the product of the probability of either team making it

You are right.

matt1
02-10-2013, 01:55 AM
1. Duke (36)
2. Indiana (15)
3. Miami (13)
4. Michigan (1)
5. Arizona
6. Gonzaga
7. Syracuse
8. Florida
9. Michigan St.
10. Kansas St.
11. Kansas
12. Ohio St.
13. Louisville
14. Butler
15. Oklahoma St.
16. Notre Dame
17. Georgetown
18. Pittsburgh
19. New Mexico
20. Wisconsin
21. Minnesota
22. Marquette
23. Missouri
24. Oregon
25. Colorado St.

Indoor66
02-10-2013, 08:15 AM
1. Duke (36)
2. Indiana (15)
3. Miami (13)
4. Michigan (1)
5. Arizona
6. Gonzaga
7. Syracuse
8. Florida
9. Michigan St.
10. Kansas St.
11. Kansas
12. Ohio St.
13. Louisville
14. Butler
15. Oklahoma St.
16. Notre Dame
17. Georgetown
18. Pittsburgh
19. New Mexico
20. Wisconsin
21. Minnesota
22. Marquette
23. Missouri
24. Oregon
25. Colorado St.

Where is unc?

devildeac
02-10-2013, 08:28 AM
Where is unc?
Easy:

3172

Indoor66
02-10-2013, 09:10 AM
Easy:

3172

You got that right. :cool:

cptnflash
02-10-2013, 02:04 PM
With Indiana posting a very solid win in Columbus (on national television), I think they'll probably retain the #1 spot, although others will certainly get votes as well.

hurleyfor3
02-10-2013, 03:26 PM
It should be

1. UMiami
2. Indiana
3. Duke if we beat BC
4. Zona if they beat Cal
5. Michigan
6. Florida
7. Gonzo
Also receiving votes Kansas

It *will* be something different, I'm sure.

Colorado State is good? Hmmm, time for a trip to FoCo.

moonpie23
02-10-2013, 04:16 PM
I'm good with Miami being 1 and us being 2. I'll take that.

G man
02-10-2013, 04:38 PM
I'm good with Miami being 1 and us being 2. I'll take that.

I totally agree. Miami should be number one and due to everyone losing I would but Duke second.

JNort
02-10-2013, 04:39 PM
Reggie Johnson was hurt and didn't play in that game. Remembering that voters factor injuries into the losses for all teams other than Duke, this could matter in trying to compare those teams.



Check out the BPI

JasonEvans
02-10-2013, 04:50 PM
With Indiana posting a very solid win in Columbus (on national television), I think they'll probably retain the #1 spot, although others will certainly get votes as well.

They also lost this week to a team that had a grand total of 2 Big Ten wins prior to beating Indiana.

It takes a special set of circumstances for the #1 team to retain that spot when they lose, especially when they lose to an unranked team that is just barely in the RPI top 100. I don't think IU will be #1 on Monday.

-Jason "it is ours if we win today" Evans

Cameron
02-10-2013, 05:10 PM
All I can think about as I watch this game right now is this thread. :(

davekay1971
02-10-2013, 06:31 PM
All I can think about as I watch this game right now is this thread. :(

One billion pitchfork points for you. This thread should have been locked immediately and reopened only after the BC game, and only if we win.

Olympic Fan
02-10-2013, 11:52 PM
Lunardi was on Sportscenter Sunday night arguing that Indiana would remain at No. 1 in the new poll.

Part of his reasoning is that they followed up their loss to Illinois with an impressive victory at Ohio State.

Then he added (I kid you not) "In a week where every other top 5 team lost, that's enough to keep Indiana at No. 1."

Now, I don't object to the argument that Indiana -- or Miami or even Michigan -- should be No. 1 this week. I can see the case for any of them.

But when a guy is paid to go on ESPN and give information and he doesn't know that there was one Top 5 team that didn't lose ... then all I can say is shame, shame, shame.

juise
02-11-2013, 01:41 AM
My guess is that the AP has Indiana #1 and the coaches put Duke #1. Not that it matters much. :)

OldPhiKap
02-11-2013, 06:01 AM
My guess is that the AP has Indiana #1 and the coaches put Duke #1. Not that it matters much. :)

Steve Spurrier has us #1.

DUKIE V(A)
02-11-2013, 06:46 AM
It would be extremely surprising if Duke is not No. 1. Duke was 2-0 this week -- an impressive win vs. State and a gutty conference road win. It's surprising that so many are arguing that close losses will (or should be) be more impressive to pollsters than an ugly win. Five of the Top 8 teams lost including the 3 in front of Duke. Duke found a way to avoid falling prey for this week anyway. Maintaining No. 1 will be a big challenge with Carolina and Maryland up this week.

My Guess...

1. Duke
2. Indiana
3. Miami
4. Michigan
5. Florida

Miami certainly has come a long way since an exhibition loss to Division II St. Leo's and losses to Florida Gulf Coast and Indiana State, but they are not deserving of No . 1 just yet. People forget that (like Duke) they also suffered a blow out loss. Theirs at the hands of Arizona.

UrinalCake
02-11-2013, 08:52 AM
Considering the #1 team has lost for something like the last five weeks, and we're about to play UNC, I'm really ok with us being #2 or even 3. The rivalry needs no added fuel, but an opportunity to knock us off of the top spot would give the UNC players even more motivation.

InSpades
02-11-2013, 11:12 AM
Indiana, Duke, Miami, Michigan, Gonzaga.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/ncaa/men/polls/

juise
02-11-2013, 11:15 AM
Indiana, Duke, Miami, Michigan, Gonzaga.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/ncaa/men/polls/

I'm holding to my Indiana #1 AP and Duke #1 in coaches. The coaches seem to have less time to watch games (i.e. Duke's struggles against BC) and seem to like Duke more than the AP in general. I'm pretty sure ESPN shows the coaches poll ranking during their telecasts, which will make some on this board more nervous about Wednesday night... which is perfectly logical. ;)

arnie
02-11-2013, 11:15 AM
Indiana, Duke, Miami, Michigan, Gonzaga.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/ncaa/men/polls/

Seems about right

johnb
02-11-2013, 11:19 AM
Seems about right


I am a fan of us locking in another week of # 1 whenever we can, but, after the lukewarm success in Boston, I'd probably have voted for Indiana this week as well. If we can get 2 wins this week, however, I'll be thinking we should be #1. And I'd definitely be stoked for Miami and us to be 1/2 on March 2.

killerleft
02-11-2013, 11:19 AM
I expect Duke to be No. 1 by a comfy margin. The polls just shake out this way.

Blue KevIL
02-11-2013, 11:24 AM
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings

1 - Indiana (26) - 1559
2 - Duke (20) - 1515
3 - Miami (FL) (17) - 1499
4 - Michigan - 1428
5 - Gonzaga (2) - 1371

CDu
02-11-2013, 11:34 AM
They also lost this week to a team that had a grand total of 2 Big Ten wins prior to beating Indiana.

It takes a special set of circumstances for the #1 team to retain that spot when they lose, especially when they lose to an unranked team that is just barely in the RPI top 100. I don't think IU will be #1 on Monday.

-Jason "it is ours if we win today" Evans

Jason, that's a very misleading stat you've posted regarding the Illinois loss. Illinois did have only 2 wins (7 losses) in conference play prior to beating Indiana. However, their 7 losses were as follows: @Wisconsin, vs Wisconsin, @MSU, vs Minnesota, vs Michigan, vs Missouri, @Purdue, vs Northwestern. Six of those 7 losses were to ranked teams, and 4 of their 7 were on the road. Only the loss versus Northwestern looks bad.

Conversely, Illinois has beaten Ohio State by 19. They beat Gonzaga by 11 at Gonzaga. They beat Butler by 17. And now they've beaten Indiana and Minnesota as well. This is a good Illinois team that had an AWFUL early-season Big-Ten schedule. There should be no shame in losing to them. It's much more impressive to lose only by a bucket at Illinois than to win only by a point at BC.

CDu
02-11-2013, 11:37 AM
Indiana, Duke, Miami, Michigan, Gonzaga.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/ncaa/men/polls/

Seems reasonable to me. I think if we had blown BC out, we'd have taken the top spot. But we didn't. As such, a close loss on the road against a good team followed by a huge road win against a top-10 team outweighs a big home win against a good team followed by a close road win against a bad team.

Duvall
02-11-2013, 11:40 AM
Jason, that's a very misleading stat you've posted regarding the Illinois loss. Illinois did have only 2 wins (7 losses) in conference play prior to beating Indiana. However, their 7 losses were as follows: @Wisconsin, vs Wisconsin, @MSU, vs Minnesota, vs Michigan, vs Missouri, @Purdue, vs Northwestern. Six of those 7 losses were to ranked teams, and 4 of their 7 were on the road. Only the loss versus Northwestern looks bad.

Conversely, Illinois has beaten Ohio State by 19. They beat Gonzaga by 11 at Gonzaga. They beat Butler by 17. And now they've beaten Indiana and Minnesota as well. This is a good Illinois team that had an AWFUL early-season Big-Ten schedule. There should be no shame in losing to them. It's much more impressive to lose only by a bucket at Illinois than to win only by a point at BC.

Well, let's not oversell them. Sagarin Predictor has Illinois at 44th in the country, Pomeroy at 41st - they aren't would-beaters. Sagarin suggests that Illinois would beat BC by 7-8 points on a neutral court, which would make Indiana's loss was slightly more impressive than Duke's win at best.

msdukie
02-11-2013, 11:41 AM
I'm holding to my Indiana #1 AP and Duke #1 in coaches. The coaches seem to have less time to watch games (i.e. Duke's struggles against BC) and seem to like Duke more than the AP in general. I'm pretty sure ESPN shows the coaches poll ranking during their telecasts, which will make some on this board more nervous about Wednesday night... which is perfectly logical. ;)

ESPN started using AP rankings this year as they no longer sponsor the coaches' poll.

MarkD83
02-11-2013, 11:47 AM
I would really like to see Gonzaga stay near the top in the rankings and then get a number 1 seed in the tournament (not that these are driectly related to one another). It would be interesting to see how Gonzaga reacts to be the hunted and not the hunter.

The same goes for Butler, they are around 10 or 11 in the polls. I hope they sneak up and get a #2 seed to see how they react to being favored in the tournament.

juise
02-11-2013, 11:49 AM
ESPN started using AP rankings this year as they no longer sponsor the coaches' poll.

Thanks for informing me.

Looks like I had the coaches pegged correctly (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/rankings). The coaches put Gonzaga ahead of Miami, which is a little interesting.

77devil
02-11-2013, 11:58 AM
Well, let's not oversell them. Sagarin Predictor has Illinois at 44th in the country, Pomeroy at 41st - they aren't would-beaters. Sagarin suggests that Illinois would beat BC by 7-8 points on a neutral court, which would make Indiana's loss was slightly more impressive than Duke's win at best.

Heck of a lot better than BC at 120 in both.

Duvall
02-11-2013, 12:00 PM
Heck of a lot better than BC at 120 in both.

Winning is also a heck of a lot better than losing.

CDu
02-11-2013, 12:04 PM
Well, let's not oversell them. Sagarin Predictor has Illinois at 44th in the country, Pomeroy at 41st - they aren't would-beaters. Sagarin suggests that Illinois would beat BC by 7-8 points on a neutral court, which would make Indiana's loss was slightly more impressive than Duke's win at best.

They are a good team. They are not world-beaters. But losing very close at their place is respectable. By comparison, Pomeroy and Sagarin both have Boston College at #120ish. That is much less respectable.

Sagarin suggests that, in a game at BC, Duke should win by 11 or 12. In a game at Illinois, they'd expect Duke to win by just 4. The difference in differential was just -3 for Indiana's loss to Duke's win. As such, Sagarin would suggest that the Indiana loss was 4-5 points more impressive than Duke's win.

I don't mean to suggest that Indiana should have lost that game. They should have won it. I just wanted to point out the misleading argument "oh, Illinois had only 2 conference wins, so they must be terrible." Illinois is likely to make the NCAA tournament. Boston College will not likely even make the NIT. To suggest that the Illinois loss is worse than the BC win is incorrect.

freshmanjs
02-11-2013, 12:06 PM
Winning is also a heck of a lot better than losing.

i think this is the crux of the discussion. i'd say losing by 1 point vs winning by 1 point is essentially the same outcome in terms of what it tells you about the quality of the teams.

CDu
02-11-2013, 12:06 PM
Winning is also a heck of a lot better than losing.

Winning is certainly a lot more fun than losing. But we should be smart enough to understand that there are much different gradations in performance than a simple dichotomous measure such as W/L. In terms of impressiveness, winning by 1 over the #120 team is less impressive than losing by 2 to the #41/42 team.

GGLC
02-11-2013, 12:13 PM
i think this is the crux of the discussion. i'd say losing by 1 point vs winning by 1 point is essentially the same outcome in terms of what it tells you about the quality of the teams.

Agreed.


Winning is certainly a lot more fun than losing. But we should be smart enough to understand that there are much different gradations in performance than a simple dichotomous measure such as W/L. In terms of impressiveness, winning by 1 over the #120 team is less impressive than losing by 2 to the #41/42 team.

And agreed.

juise
02-11-2013, 12:17 PM
In terms of impressiveness, winning by 1 over the #120 team is less impressive than losing by 2 to the #41/42 team.

I think we can agree that "impressiveness" is very subjective. I think that that statistical models will be more impressed by Indiana's loss, but I have a really hard time believing that the selection committee will penalize Duke more for the BC win than it will Indiana for the Illinois loss. Maybe I'm naive to the process.

Bluedog
02-11-2013, 12:20 PM
There's also a recency effect. If Duke barely beat BC midweek and then pummeled NC State yesterday, while IU beat OSU mid-week and lost to IL yesterday, I'd imagine Duke would be ranked #1. Voters are more influenced by the most recent game. In any event, doesn't matter much - I personally would rather be #2 and think somebody ranking IU as #1 is reasonable (although if I had a vote, I would probably rank Miami #1).

Durham Thunder
02-11-2013, 12:23 PM
SERIOUSLY?! IU was trying to choke it up so bad, they decided to not even MOVE on the last possession. #1? Really AP?

CDu
02-11-2013, 12:24 PM
I think we can agree that "impressiveness" is very subjective. I think that that statistical models will be more impressed by Indiana's loss, but I have a really hard time believing that the selection committee will penalize Duke more for the BC win than it will Indiana for the Illinois loss. Maybe I'm naive to the process.

In terms of the selection committee, I wholeheartedly agree. They generally aren't smart enough to understand that the world is not dichotomous. :)

My point was simply that, when you don't limit yourself to a dichotomous view of the world, you probably find that a close loss to a decent team is better than a close win against a bad team.

However, it looks like maybe the AP voters are smart enough. Or, it could also be just the following:


There's also a recency effect. If Duke barely beat BC midweek and then pummeled NC State yesterday, while IU beat OSU mid-week and lost to IL yesterday, I'd imagine Duke would be ranked #1. Voters are more influenced by the most recent game.

And I mostly agree with the following (with the exception that I really don't care whether we're #1 or #2):


In any event, doesn't matter much - I personally would rather be #2 and think somebody ranking IU as #1 is reasonable although if I had a vote, I would probably rank Miami #1.

toooskies
02-11-2013, 12:37 PM
First, there should be credit in having the poise to win. Second, there should be credit for the difficult travel circumstances. I'd definitely call that more impressive than a loss, even if it's our most disappointing win of the year.

That's not meant to discredit Indiana. But let's not argue about the statistical value when the stats clearly don't tell the whole story.

freshmanjs
02-11-2013, 12:39 PM
First, there should be credit in having the poise to win. Second, there should be credit for the difficult travel circumstances. I'd definitely call that more impressive than a loss, even if it's our most disappointing win of the year.

That's not meant to discredit Indiana. But let's not argue about the statistical value when the stats clearly don't tell the whole story.

so if that last shot went in or if the refs called a foul on cook on the last rebound, would duke have lacked "the poise to win?"

tele
02-11-2013, 12:45 PM
Winning is also a heck of a lot better than losing.

It might be more impressive from a statistical/probabilistic viewpoint to say "Winning is also a whole heck of a lot better than losing.

77devil
02-11-2013, 12:52 PM
Winning is also a heck of a lot better than losing.

That's debatable in the context of relative quality on polls and rankings. Notwithstanding the victory, Duke arguably could be #1 in the AP this week had it won decisively last night. And if you read the comments in other rankings, Duke was certainly penalized more for BC than IU for Illinois. Illinois has the #1,2, or 5 SOS ranking depending on which service you prefer. Timing of games could be a factor as well. Flip the order of last week's schedule for Duke and IU and the polls and rankings might be different.

Duvall
02-11-2013, 12:56 PM
Winning is certainly a lot more fun than losing. But we should be smart enough to understand that there are much different gradations in performance than a simple dichotomous measure such as W/L. In terms of impressiveness, winning by 1 over the #120 team is less impressive than losing by 2 to the #41/42 team.

Sure - it's three or four points less impressive. Not sure that's a big deal in terms of measuring a season, or even a week's body of work.

CDu
02-11-2013, 12:59 PM
That's debatable in the context of relative quality on polls and rankings. Notwithstanding the victory, Duke arguably could be #1 in the AP this week had it won decisively last night. And if you read the comments in other rankings, Duke was certainly penalized more for BC than IU for Illinois. Illinois has the #1,2, or 5 SOS ranking depending on which ranking you prefer.

Illinois will almost certainly be in the tournament. They may end up with 25 wins this year (5 more likely regular season wins, plus whatever they get in the Big-10 and NCAA tourneys). And they've now beaten multiple top-10 caliber teams (Indiana, Ohio State, @Gonzaga, Minnesota).

If we had lost by 2 points at NC State or at UNC and Indiana had won by 1 point against Rutgers, folks would likely have been complaining that Indiana didn't deserve to be ahead of us because they barely beat a bad team while we lost a tight game against a good team. Well, that's essentially what happened, but in reverse (we beat a team near Rutgers' level; Indiana lost to a team near State/UNC level).

CDu
02-11-2013, 01:03 PM
Sure - it's three or four points less impressive. Not sure that's a big deal in terms of measuring a season, or even a week's body of work.

I'm not saying it's a big deal. I'm simply correcting folks who use the BC win vs the Illinois loss as evidence that our week was more impressive than Indiana's. Both of Indiana's performances were better than our corollary performances (even though one of theirs was a loss).

Duke_92
02-11-2013, 01:25 PM
Often in a thread like this folks say they don't care about being #1. I certainly want the team to take the season game by game and just this morning I heard Coach K say he wasn't concerned about catching Miami in the standings. At the end of the day we want to get better each game and win championships. That said I want to to be a great program that attracts great recruits. On the front of this year's digital media guide (http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/0cbd5be2#/0cbd5be2/11), the program touts having spent 122 weeks at number one. I like that stat and want to see that number continue to increase. I know it is not the goal, but it sure is nice.

slower
02-11-2013, 01:30 PM
so if that last shot went in or if the refs called a foul on cook on the last rebound, would duke have lacked "the poise to win?"

Don't confuse people with logical questions. :D

toooskies
02-11-2013, 02:10 PM
so if that last shot went in or if the refs called a foul on cook on the last rebound, would duke have lacked "the poise to win?"

1) We played good enough defense for that shot to not go in. Good (or just lucky) offense can beat good defense, but yes; they could've gotten lucky, and we were in position to deserve a loss. But, we played well on the last play with the pressure on. Indiana didn't against Illinois. And that has to count for something, and in fact, it does: a W.

Speaking in more of KenPom terms: the "luck" category isn't luck, it's winning that isn't explained by per-possession stats; typically it answers the question "if basketball is a random number generator, did the team win more games than expected?" Intangibles like "poise", "experience", "leadership" play a significant role here. Duke consistently is in the positive column for "luck", with positive marks in the category since 2008 (and teams with strong senior classes almost always doing well). If you don't believe in such things, go ahead and ask the coach about whether those things help as the game comes down to the wire. Or shall we talk about how they had the poise to even take back the lead in the first place? Or Mason's poise at the free throw line? Whereas Indiana held a big lead but collapsed down the stretch.

2) When was the last time you saw a ref call a foul as time is expiring, especially without a shot attempt?

dukelifer
02-11-2013, 02:11 PM
Often in a thread like this folks say they don't care about being #1. I certainly want the team to take the season game by game and just this morning I heard Coach K say he wasn't concerned about catching Miami in the standings. At the end of the day we want to get better each game and win championships. That said I want to to be a great program that attracts great recruits. On the front of this year's digital media guide (http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/0cbd5be2#/0cbd5be2/11), the program touts having spent 122 weeks at number one. I like that stat and want to see that number continue to increase. I know it is not the goal, but it sure is nice.

It is nice to increase that number but not sure how many other teams are close in the last 20 years. Duke is already a great program and attracts great recruits. As long as K coaches, Duke will be fine. As for being number 1, I was much more happy when Duke made it to 1 when at full strength. I thought Duke was deserving. Right now Duke is finding itself and still has some issues. Miami is playing the best ball but they are not getting tested as much as Indiana. Indiana is deserving right now. If Duke keeps winning and beats Miami- I would be happy to see Duke go to number 1.

JasonEvans
02-11-2013, 02:43 PM
I fully agree that Illinois is a much, much better opponent than BC. I wrote my post prior to Duke's close victory over BC and I expected our result there to be more impressive.

That said, I hate the notion that a 1 point win and a 1 point loss are almost identical results. I know lots of the advanced analytic people would argue that they are but my eye test tells me otherwise. I can't really put it into words, but a team that wins a lot of close games is more than a couple points better than one that loses a lot of close games. Winning, not losing, means a lot more to me than a couple points in determining who the better team is, if that makes sense.


Illinois is likely to make the NCAA tournament.

Regarding the above quote and CDu's messages about Illinois' quality. The Illini have gone through a quite tough stretch in the BTen and their 2-7 record reflected that. But, you know what, a high quality team probably finds a way to win a couple of those games. I don't know that I would say Illinois is "likely" to make the NCAA tourney. They are not a team with no shot (such as BC), but they still have a good deal of work to do to even be on the bubble.

Illinois is currently 4-7 in the BTen. They have games left at Michigan and at Ohio State. They will be pretty solid underdogs in each of those games. Lose those two and the best they can do is go 9-9 in the league. The BTen is a very strong league (5 teams are ranked and Minnesota is not far from being ranked), but I think it is going to be quite difficult for a team that is 8-10 in the conference to make the dance, unless they do something impressive in the BTen conference tourney (by impressive, I mean beating at least one of those ranked teams).

So, I see Illinois path to the NCAA tourney as either beating one of the BTen's elite teams or winning out in their 5 games against the lesser teams that Illinois plays. Penn St and Nebraska (both at Illinois) should not pose an obstacle. But, they will have to win at home against a decent Purdue team and on the road against ok Northwestern and Iowa teams. Can they do it? Sure. But it sure as heck is not a lock. Heck, considering they pretty much have zero room for error, I give them no more than a 30% chance to running that 5 game stretch without losing.

Anyway, I stand by my belief that losing to Illinois should probably have ensured that Indiana did not hang onto the #1 spot in the rankings, but it matters quite little to me in the end. What I care about the most right now in the rankings is:

1) That Duke stay near the top, allowing us to maintain our likely hold on a #1 seed in the NCAa tourney

and 2) That we preserve our "wiggle room" on our current streak of 108 consecutive weeks in the Top Ten. The last time we were not there was Nov. 19, 2007. 5+ years and counting at this point.

-Jason "rankings schmankings... did I spell that right?" Evans

DukieInBrasil
02-11-2013, 03:00 PM
-Jason "rankings schpankings... did I spell that right?" Evans

fixed it for ya ;-)

Monmouth77
02-11-2013, 03:15 PM
Both of Indiana's performances were better than our corollary performances (even though one of theirs was a loss).

I not sure even this limited point is true. Teams sometimes do what they have to do to win a game. And a given team's efficiency rating doesn't tell you everything you have to know about whether that team will be a tough matchup for a team with a better overall efficiency rating (even correcting for home v. away like Pomeroy does).

Duke got flummoxed last night by a defense they weren't prepared for and were probably affected by the weird travel conditions/disruption of routine.

But they did what they had to do to win.

Indiana played a team with a better efficiency rating than BC, but blew a lead and did not do what it had to do to win.

I'm not impressed by the latter more than I am the former. And I don't think Indiana's loss was "better" than our win. It was a loss.

At the end of the day, you have to win a basketball game-- not play an efficient basketball game.

Winning is the standard.

Wander
02-11-2013, 03:19 PM
That said, I hate the notion that a 1 point win and a 1 point loss are almost identical results.

I would say it depends on the context. For kenpom-type stuff, I think it probably makes sense for the difference between a 1 point win and a 1 point loss to be about the same as the difference between a 1 point win and a 3 point win. For selection and seeding purposes for the NCAA tournament, I think we should only care about whether a team wins or loses a game, and a 1 point win and a 1 point loss should be VERY different.

At any rate, the "1 point win is not very different than a 1 point loss" only applies if the opponent is the same. Since Illinois is much better than BC, I completely agree that Indiana had a better week than Duke and deserves to stay ahead of us.

Wander
02-11-2013, 03:24 PM
I not sure even this limited point is true. Teams sometimes do what they have to do to win a game. And a given team's efficiency rating doesn't tell you everything you have to know about whether that team will be a tough matchup for a team with a better overall efficiency rating (even correcting for home v. away like Pomeroy does).

Duke got flummoxed last night by a defense they weren't prepared for and were probably affected by the weird travel conditions/disruption of routine.

But they did what they had to do to win.

Indiana played a team with a better efficiency rating than BC, but blew a lead and did not do what it had to do to win.

I'm not impressed by the latter more than I am the former. And I don't think Indiana's loss was "better" than our win. It was a loss.

At the end of the day, you have to win a basketball game-- not play an efficient basketball game.

Winning is the standard.

So, by this logic, should we just do away with the selection committee entirely and just select and seed teams according to their overall record without any adjustment for strength of schedule? We can make the 1 seeds of the NCAA tournament Duke, Gonzaga, Stephen F. Austin, and Indiana.

juise
02-11-2013, 03:38 PM
So, by this logic, should we just do away with the selection committee entirely and just select and seed teams according to their overall record without any adjustment for strength of schedule? We can make the 1 seeds of the NCAA tournament Duke, Gonzaga, Stephen F. Austin, and Indiana.

The selection committee uses RPI, not KenPom. So they are considering strength of schedule and quality of opponents in wins/losses as opposed to pure efficiency. I don't think you represented Monmouth77's logic correctly.

Monmouth77
02-11-2013, 03:39 PM
So, by this logic, should we just do away with the selection committee entirely and just select and seed teams according to their overall record without any adjustment for strength of schedule? We can make the 1 seeds of the NCAA tournament Duke, Gonzaga, Stephen F. Austin, and Indiana.

This snarky post does not even remotely reflect what I wrote. My point is that it pushes statistical analysis too far when we start to say that wins are "worse performances" than losses, which is the reductio ad absurdum in the opposite direction of the mocking straw argument you allege I made.

Of course Tournament seedings should be determined by reference to the various metrics we hoop heads obsess over, which provide meaningful information beyond wins and losses.

My point is that in real life, where championships are won, a win is always better than a loss. Duke didn't win the 2010 National Championship because it had an extremely efficient game against Butler. It won because we finished the game with more points than the other team-- even though our performance was not as efficient as the one against WVU in the semis.

I'm also saying that teams do what they have to do to win. That "something" is not always quantifiable. But you can't say (and neither can I) that Duke would not have done what it had to do to beat Illinois in Champaign if they had played there last Thursday. But Indiana definitely didn't.

Bluedog
02-11-2013, 03:44 PM
The selection committee uses RPI, not KenPom. So they are considering strength of schedule and quality of opponents in wins/losses as opposed to pure efficiency. I don't think you represented Monmouth77's logic correctly.

Actually, the selection committee has indicated in recent years they use efficiency ratings like KenPom in addition to RPI. So, they use both. Not sure how much weight they give to each ranking, though.

vick
02-11-2013, 03:52 PM
This snarky post does not even remotely reflect what I wrote. My point is that it pushes statistical analysis too far when we start to say that wins are "worse performances" than losses, which is the reductio ad absurdum in the opposite direction of the mocking straw argument you allege I made.

Of course Tournament seedings should be determined by reference to the various metrics we hoop heads obsess over, which provide meaningful information beyond wins and losses.

My point is that in real life, where championships are won, a win is always better than a loss. Duke didn't win the 2010 National Championship because it had an extremely efficient game against Butler. It won because we finished the game with more points than the other team-- even though our performance was not as efficient as the one against WVU in the semis.

I'm also saying that teams do what they have to do to win. That "something" is not always quantifiable. But you can't say (and neither can I) that Duke would not have done what it had to do to beat Illinois in Champaign if they had played there last Thursday. But Indiana definitely didn't.

I'm actually not sure I agree with this (although I'm not sure I disagree either...these are half-formed thoughts in my head). If you're referring to taking into account strength of schedule, so that Stephen F. Austin isn't a #1 seed, well of course. But as for using metrics that take into account margin of victory...I dunno, and it's not because I don't believe in them--I feel like I'm way out on the statistically-inclined part of the spectrum.

But take the 5OT game last weekend between Louisville and Notre Dame. Now objectively, I think pretty much anyone would agree that which team's bench players finish a basket ahead after 65 minutes where so many people have fouled out tells you practically nothing about which team is better. But isn't it more exciting for it to matter who won? It seems like if we go too far on the "stathead" spectrum, we lose some of the excitement, even if an "inferior" team makes the tournament. If we're going to act under the collective delusion that a single-elimination tournament is the best way to identify the best team, why not do the same thing with wins and losses, no matter what the "truth" is about the stronger team (my own personal view, for what it's worth, is that there almost certainly are basketball factors that lead to teams being better in close situations, but there are so few close games in a year for good college basketball teams that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to actually identify them consistently)? Since every team, with the exception of a couple of independents and I believe the Ivy league, has an equal opportunity to make the tournament by winning their conference tournament, I don't really think this is particularly unfair, but then again, I'm a longtime advocate of fans not being as obsessed with the national championship over the regular season as they appear to be.

Indoor66
02-11-2013, 03:57 PM
I not sure even this limited point is true. Teams sometimes do what they have to do to win a game. And a given team's efficiency rating doesn't tell you everything you have to know about whether that team will be a tough matchup for a team with a better overall efficiency rating (even correcting for home v. away like Pomeroy does).

Duke got flummoxed last night by a defense they weren't prepared for and were probably affected by the weird travel conditions/disruption of routine.

But they did what they had to do to win.

Indiana played a team with a better efficiency rating than BC, but blew a lead and did not do what it had to do to win.

I'm not impressed by the latter more than I am the former. And I don't think Indiana's loss was "better" than our win. It was a loss.

At the end of the day, you have to win a basketball game-- not play an efficient basketball game.

Winning is the standard.

I agree Monmouth. Success is measured in wins vs losses not Pomeroy or Sagarin or RPI. No one hangs banners for Pomeroy ratings (at least not yet - but don't give unc any ideas.)

Wander
02-11-2013, 04:05 PM
This snarky post does not even remotely reflect what I wrote. My point is that it pushes statistical analysis too far when we start to say that wins are "worse performances" than losses, which is the reductio ad absurdum in the opposite direction of the mocking straw argument you allege I made.


My post came across snarkier than I meant it to. My bad.

Your argument basically seemed to discount the differences in strengths of the opponents - "Duke won and Indiana lost, so Duke's performance was better." Taken to a ridiculous extreme: would you admit that Duke beating my intramural team by 1 point is a "worse performance" than Indiana losing to the Miami Heat by 2 points? Obviously a silly example, but it gets the point across - strength of the opponent matters a lot, and some losses can be "better" in a sense than some wins.

Lulu
02-11-2013, 04:07 PM
So what's the biggest disparity anyone remembers between the coaches poll and the AP poll? After being stomped by Miami we're still ranked too high imo (though it it all depends what you wish to factor into the rankings), but it's also no surprise that the AP poll would have us lower. I just don't remember seeing such a difference in the #1 votes between the two polls in quite some time, if ever. And it extends to the rest of the top 5 teams or so, too, just shows how interesting this year may be.

-bdbd
02-11-2013, 04:37 PM
No biggie.

It really is pretty neat to see how competitive things are this year at the top of the polls. I really believe that any of the top-8 or so teams could win it, and the 1-2-3 teams only have a very slight edge over the 5-6-7 teams. No one dominant team and no one dominant player. Those March Madness pools will be all OVER the map!! I am perfectly fine with Duke at #2 in the AP and #1 in the USA-Today polls. Mostly, I watch this stuff with an eye towards, "Where do we need to be in order to get a number one seed and, hopefully, play near home in the NCAAT. As high as Miami is ranked now, it is certainly possible for us to lose to them twice more and STILL get a #1 NCAAT seed. Obviously that's impacted by how others perform too.

But this year really drives home K's focus every year on improving as a team as the season progresses, getting healthy for March, rather than worryiung about the polls. Our record to date has beaten my expectations for sure. And the fact that we've done the last month of it sans-Kelly is just amazing. How many of us, coming into this season, if asked if you'd take a 21-2 record on Feb. 10, or "take your chances," how many would've taken their chances? I think 90% of us would've taken that 2-loss record for sure.

That all said, I think we'll need him back and contributing significantly if we hope to make it to Atlanta.


Argument for Miami:
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8936430/indiana-hoosiers-stay-no-1-ap-top-25-defeat

Side by side polls:
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings

Bluedog
02-11-2013, 05:44 PM
As the regional sites are DC, Indy, Arlington (TX), and LA, both Duke and Miami would have DC as the preferred site as I understand it. The only other top team right now in which this is the case (besides Duke) is Syracuse. (Hard to tell Florida would get Arlington or DC as they're pretty equidistant...I'd think Arlington, though.) If Miami is the #1 overall and Duke gets a #1 seed, but is behind Miami, Duke likely gets Indy with its 2 seed being one of Michigan/IU/MSU (although I realize a lot can change still). I, for one, wouldn't want to play a Big Ten team in the heart of Big Ten country - it would be an away game against any one of those teams in that region. Thus, we really should be pulling hard to finish ahead of Miami AND Syracuse in order to avoid a top Big Ten team in Indy as the potential Elite 8 matchup. I'd much rather be a 2 seed in the East playing Syracuse/Miami in DC. Although it's probably likely we'll be the 1 seed in the East if we beat Miami in Cameron and win the ACC tournament, while getting a 2 if we lose, so maybe things will work out nicely and we'll get DC no matter what instead of playing Big Ten teams in Indy. (Of course, I'm not saying we're guaranteed a 1 or 2 seed at this point either, and the tournament will be very unpredictable this year, so it probably doesn't make sense to worry too much about possible Elite 8 matchups.)

Kedsy
02-11-2013, 11:40 PM
I'd much rather be a 2 seed in the East playing Syracuse/Miami in DC. Although it's probably likely we'll be the 1 seed in the East if we beat Miami in Cameron and win the ACC tournament, while getting a 2 if we lose, so maybe things will work out nicely and we'll get DC no matter what instead of playing Big Ten teams in Indy.

As I understand it, if Miami is the #1 seed in the East, we aren't allowed to be the #2 in the East (unless five or more ACC teams are #1 or #2 seeds, and obviously that's not going to happen).

sporthenry
02-12-2013, 12:24 AM
As I understand it, if Miami is the #1 seed in the East, we aren't allowed to be the #2 in the East (unless five or more ACC teams are #1 or #2 seeds, and obviously that's not going to happen).

Yes. Top 3 teams from the same conference are to be in different brackets. Presumably, it is a 4 team race for the top 2 seeds in the East between Duke, Miami, Florida and Syracuse. OSU and Louisville are also close but they are closer to Indianapolis. Assuming the #1 seed in the East probably goes to one of Duke/Miami, the #2 seed will then go to Syracuse/Florida.

slower
02-12-2013, 06:38 AM
First, there should be credit in having the poise to win.

I don't think the word "poise" really applies to our end-of-game performance.

tbyers11
02-12-2013, 07:27 AM
I don't think the word "poise" really applies to our end-of-game performance.

"Poise" is pretty subjective but I think we showed quite a bit in the last 2 minutes. After Hanlan hit 2 FTs with 2:15 left to put up BC up 5, it went Cook 3pt, Block by mason, missed jumper by Anderson, missed jumper by Cook but our ball OOB, Mason hit 2 FTs to tie, D stop where we force a badly missed 3 by BC, Mason hit 1 of 2 FT and then the final defensive possession where we played the pick and roll by Hanlan (which had been killing us all half) well which led to the missed shot and ensuing scrum. 3 D stops and 6 pts on our 3 possessions.

Now for most of the first 38 minutes I agree that our heads didnt seem screwed on right and we seemed to be in slow motion. But I thought the team, Mason and Quinn in particular, came up big at the end.

slower
02-12-2013, 07:42 AM
My point is that in real life, where championships are won, a win is always better than a loss.

Yes, but this is a thread about RANKINGS. So, there's that...

slower
02-12-2013, 08:23 AM
"Poise" is pretty subjective but I think we showed quite a bit in the last 2 minutes. After Hanlan hit 2 FTs with 2:15 left to put up BC up 5, it went Cook 3pt, Block by mason, missed jumper by Anderson, missed jumper by Cook but our ball OOB, Mason hit 2 FTs to tie, D stop where we force a badly missed 3 by BC, Mason hit 1 of 2 FT and then the final defensive possession where we played the pick and roll by Hanlan (which had been killing us all half) well which led to the missed shot and ensuing scrum. 3 D stops and 6 pts on our 3 possessions.

Now for most of the first 38 minutes I agree that our heads didnt seem screwed on right and we seemed to be in slow motion. But I thought the team, Mason and Quinn in particular, came up big at the end.

Good points. I think I was just remembering a couple of lackluster plays in the last 4-5 minutes.

Monmouth77
02-12-2013, 08:37 AM
Yes, but this is a thread about RANKINGS. So, there's that...

Yes, but this is a thread about HUMAN RANKINGS, so there's that.

That's where real life, and making plays to win a game come in.

Like, stuff that a computer doesn't comprehend (yet).

slower
02-12-2013, 08:54 AM
Yes, but this is a thread about HUMAN RANKINGS, so there's that.

That's where real life, and making plays to win a game come in.

Like, stuff that a computer doesn't comprehend (yet).

Um, yeah, that's the point. In the eyes of some humans, some losses are better than some victories, for the purpose of rankings.

Monmouth77
02-12-2013, 09:12 AM
Um, yeah, that's the point. In the eyes of some humans, some losses are better than some victories, for the purpose of rankings.

Yes. And that is my point. I disagree with that thinking, at least as it manifests in an assessment that, say, Indiana had a "better" week than Duke, when Duke won twice and Indiana went 1-1.

Now, I am with the other posters who say that right now, it's hard to distnguish very much at all among a cohort of 8-10 teams, and that Duke is one of those, but without Kelly it's hard to say whether we are 8 or 5 or 2 or 6 or 10.

I think that's basically right.

I also understand from 25+ years of weekly poll watching since I was a kid in the '80s that the writers and coaches more or less just bump teams up and down weekly based on who won and lost, with some measure of skepticism concerning gaudy records built on cupcake schedules. I am not saying that's the right way to do it either.

My issue comes in when we say that a team that lost a real game in the real world perfomed better than a team that won a real game in the real world. I disagree with that fundamentally. That is not inconsistent with agreeing that, in the aggregate, the strength of one's opponent is highly relevant to how we assess overall wins and losses.

BTW--there really isn't any need for the level of sarcasm attendant to your last posts. It's unattractive.

slower
02-12-2013, 09:42 AM
Yes. And that is my point. I disagree with that thinking, at least as it manifests in an assessment that, say, Indiana had a "better" week than Duke, when Duke won twice and Indiana went 1-1.

Now, I am with the other posters who say that right now, it's hard to distnguish very much at all among a cohort of 8-10 teams, and that Duke is one of those, but without Kelly it's hard to say whether we are 8 or 5 or 2 or 6 or 10.

I think that's basically right.

I also understand from 25+ years of weekly poll watching since I was a kid in the '80s that the writers and coaches more or less just bump teams up and down weekly based on who won and lost, with some measure of skepticism concerning gaudy records built on cupcake schedules. I am not saying that's the right way to do it either.

My issue comes in when we say that a team that lost a real game in the real world perfomed better than a team that won a real game in the real world. I disagree with that fundamentally. That is not inconsistent with agreeing that, in the aggregate, the strength of one's opponent is highly relevant to how we assess overall wins and losses.

BTW--there really isn't any need for the level of sarcasm attendant to your last posts. It's unattractive.

So, we'll agree to disagree.

Bluedog
02-12-2013, 09:56 AM
As I understand it, if Miami is the #1 seed in the East, we aren't allowed to be the #2 in the East (unless five or more ACC teams are #1 or #2 seeds, and obviously that's not going to happen).

Thanks for the note. Thus, if we're a #2 seed, we'll likely get Indy (unless we fall to 7 or lower on the S-curve and the 2 seeds ahead of us are in the Midwest/East) with UMich/IU as our 1. Even more reason as to why a #1 seed is important for us this year.

TruBlu
02-12-2013, 10:00 AM
Like, stuff that a computer doesn't comprehend (yet).

I am really glad that there is stuff that a computer doesn't comprehend, because I am having lots of trouble comprehending computers.