PDA

View Full Version : Will We Be #1 Next Week?



matt1
03-10-2013, 10:12 AM
The Saint Mary's-Gonzaga game is not until tomorrow, but I think that there is a good chance that the pollsters move us over Gonzaga after our blowout of UNC.

weezie
03-10-2013, 10:19 AM
Probably. Considering Lunardi declared us at the #1 seed overall in the NCAAT.
This season has finally shown me the way to calm down over rankings.

FerryFor50
03-10-2013, 10:30 AM
I don't think Gonzaga drops unless they lose or struggle against St Mary's.

davekay1971
03-10-2013, 10:35 AM
Probably. Considering Lunardi declared us at the #1 seed overall in the NCAAT.
This season has finally shown me the way to calm down over rankings.

Being called the number 1 overall seed, wierdly enough, doesn't necessarily imply we'll be the number 1 ranked team. I do think that beating UNC solidified us, not just as a 1 seed, but at THE number 1 seed going into the conference tournaments. I doubt our number 1 seed status is at risk, no matter what we do next weekend, but we will need to do well in the tournament to lock down the number 1 overall seed, assuming Indiana doesn't fall flat on their faces.

I fully expect Gonzaga to be ranked number 1 in the polls after this weekend. But that doesn't matter nearly as much as what we did to improve our chances of being the 1 seed in the East regional.

MCFinARL
03-10-2013, 12:11 PM
Being called the number 1 overall seed, wierdly enough, doesn't necessarily imply we'll be the number 1 ranked team. I do think that beating UNC solidified us, not just as a 1 seed, but at THE number 1 seed going into the conference tournaments. I doubt our number 1 seed status is at risk, no matter what we do next weekend, but we will need to do well in the tournament to lock down the number 1 overall seed, assuming Indiana doesn't fall flat on their faces.

I fully expect Gonzaga to be ranked number 1 in the polls after this weekend. But that doesn't matter nearly as much as what we did to improve our chances of being the 1 seed in the East regional.

Well, I think our #1 seed status could be at risk if we lose our first game next week, but at this point that's probably what it would take. Agree that Duke may not pass Gonzaga in the polls, regardless of what Lunardi says about the bracket--they are different things and work sort of differently (and of course what Lunardi says about the bracket isn't necessarily a reliable predictor of what the seeding committee will do).

AGDukesky
03-10-2013, 12:57 PM
I think the media types and coaches like having Gonzaga #1, and since it is the first time ever will want to keep it there until the team loses. I don't believe a team has lost the #1 ranking this year without losing...

JasonEvans
03-10-2013, 01:30 PM
I mentioned last week that, despite our loss to Virginia, we would get a significant number of #1 votes from voters who saw Ryan Kelly's return and knew that they were now ranking the undefeated "with-Kelly" Duke not the team that lost 4 games without him. I was right and we got 5 #1 votes.

I think you may see even more of that this week. A big win on the road against a solid tournament team (UNC seems like about at #6 or #7 seed) is going to catch some attention. Everyone is already talking about how we are undefeated with Kelly.

-Jason "I don't think we will get to #1, but it will be sorta close" Evans

Olympic Fan
03-10-2013, 01:45 PM
I doubt Duke is No. 1 tomorrow -- I expect to be No. 2 in both polls.

Considering what's happened to No. 1 ranked teams this year, I'm not going to be unhappy to go into the NCAA Tournament No. 2.

I am relieved that we are a lock to finish in the top 10 -- no matter what happens in Greensboro.

I was thinking out our streak of top 10 rankings in the AP poll -- I think it's now 111 straight weeks. That means we will end the season at 113 straight weeks (the last AP poll is the week before the tournament) and counting. That's far and away the second longest such streak in history -- we're still a bit away from UCLA's record (I think is 155 weeks), but the chase is still on.

I admit that I was a bit concerned going into the Miami game. Duke was No. 6 and with a loss in that game, then a loss at Carolina, then a loss in the ACC Tournament would have almost certainly l;eft us outside the top 10.

Now, Duke is going to finish no worse that 3-4 in the rankings (even with a loss in Greensboro) ... probably No. 2 ... and possibly No. 1 (if Gonzaga is upset by St. Mary's).

Les Grossman
03-10-2013, 05:44 PM
Hope not; its a burden.

But, the buzz among the paid talkers is 'Duke w RK is undefeated.' Everybody else has 4 or 5 losses.

gwlaw99
03-10-2013, 05:51 PM
Has a number 1 ever dropped without losing?

CameronBornAndBred
03-10-2013, 05:52 PM
Hope not; its a burden.

But, the buzz among the paid talkers is 'Duke w RK is undefeated.' Everybody else has 4 or 5 losses.
You and everyone else that has pointed out we are undefeated with RK...that is true. But that does not mean we would be undefeated if he had played. I truly believe that with Kelly, we are the best team in America, but I still don't think we would not have a loss or two had he been on the court. (There would sure be a couple less court stormings though!)
Anyway..to the point of the thread..we will not be #1 but we will have a bunch of #1 votes.

Durham Thunder
03-10-2013, 05:54 PM
Joe Lunardi does not decide the rankings. Hopefully it's Gonzaga so we don't bear the curse of being the #1 overall for the big dance.

Kedsy
03-10-2013, 06:10 PM
It's fun to be #1 in the final AP poll (not next week but the week after the ACCT). Otherwise it really doesn't matter. And even being #1 in the final poll doesn't matter that much, but it's an achievement and I'm pretty sure we raise banners for it.

superdave
03-10-2013, 06:28 PM
It's fun to be #1 in the final AP poll (not next week but the week after the ACCT). Otherwise it really doesn't matter. And even being #1 in the final poll doesn't matter that much, but it's an achievement and I'm pretty sure we raise banners for it.

Yes, we have banners for that up in CIS.

I think Duke and Indiana are locks for 1 seeds. IU just solidified that - win on the road in Ann Arbor. If each of us reaches our respective tournament finals, we both get 1's I think. Lose in the first round and it becomes a debate.

People are readily discussing Duke as undefeated with Ryan Kelly in the lineup. It helps to have that buzz, so I'd say win the ACCT and we're the overall 1 seed.

While all of that is nice, I'm much happier that we are hot right now. This team is really good. They know how to win, know how to gameplan and execute. They can play a lot of styles, and do not get rattled. Maybe the most complete, mature team this year. Please peak in April. Please, pretty please peak in April.

Bob Green
03-10-2013, 06:49 PM
While all of that is nice, I'm much happier that we are hot right now. This team is really good. They know how to win, know how to gameplan and execute. They can play a lot of styles, and do not get rattled. Maybe the most complete, mature team this year. Please peak in April. Please, pretty please peak in April.

With Kelly back, we start three seniors. That is more experience than most teams. Add in junior Tyler Thornton, who Coach K inserted into the starting line-up yesterday, and we really have a significant experience advantage over most teams we will face. It will not surprise me if TT continues to start.

IMO, it is all about staying healthy and avoiding an off night. In a single elimination tournament you have to bring it every game. I am confident Duke is as ready as any team in the country right now.

sagegrouse
03-11-2013, 12:02 AM
ESPN's John Gasaway talks about Duke's offense being amazingly good. (Holy Cow! Is that a great name for a long-winded reporter?) But, in any event, here's a parsimonious quote from ESPN Insider:


...Duke's scored 1.23 points per possession since Kelly's return.... With the 6-foot-11 senior in the lineup, the Blue Devils are quite frankly destroying opposing defenses from the field, draining 57 percent of their 2s and 46 percent of their 3s....

Coach K's offense is starting to acquire some serious "irresistible force" credibility.

sagegrouse

hurleyfor3
03-11-2013, 11:14 PM
Gonzo's victory over St. Mary's probably does it for the year. Both we and Indiana had far more impressive wins last week than anything Gonzo did (ok, Indiana lost to tOSU, but that's not at all a "bad loss") but neither came close to breaking through to #1. "Look how good Gonzo is" is at least as strong a meme as "Duke is undefeated with Ryan Kelly" and I don't see this changing.

No hanging of frivolous "Final National Ranking 1" banners this year.

Henderson
03-11-2013, 11:29 PM
The Zags got it done, so they will continue to be No. 1 in the polls. Kelly Olynyk went off for a big double double, and he has an NBA career ahead.

But the standard rule of thumb is that you need to have three NBA players to win a natty. Olynyk ok. Maybe Elias Harris, but I doubt it. Maybe Kevin Pangos, but I doubt it.

I really like Gonzaga, and the way the polling works, they deserve the no. 1 ranking. But they are NOT the best team in the country, and they will be watching Atlanta from Spokane.

They beat St. Mary's. Good for them. But it was St.Mary's.

Kedsy
03-11-2013, 11:40 PM
But the standard rule of thumb is that you need to have three NBA players to win a natty.

Good thing Lance Thomas finally made it, otherwise we'd have to give back the 2010 title. Or would Mason or Miles count, despite limited minutes?

Who was the third NBA player on 2011 UConn, by the way? Or 2003 Syracuse? Or 2000 Michigan State?

OK, sorry if that all sounds a bit snippy on my part. But when did this become a "standard rule of thumb"?

Zephyrius
03-11-2013, 11:42 PM
But the standard rule of thumb is that you need to have three NBA players to win a natty..

are we saying every championship team should come out of the kentucky 2012 mold?

El_Diablo
03-12-2013, 12:12 AM
Good thing Lance Thomas finally made it, otherwise we'd have to give back the 2010 title. Or would Mason or Miles count, despite limited minutes?

Who was the third NBA player on 2011 UConn, by the way? Or 2003 Syracuse? Or 2000 Michigan State?

OK, sorry if that all sounds a bit snippy on my part. But when did this become a "standard rule of thumb"?

UConn's third will probably be Shabazz Napier. And Michigan State's 2000 team had four players drafted into the NBA, so...Jason Richardson.

So out of the last fifteen years, there was one (maybe two, if Napier doesn't ever pan out) NCAA champions who did not have three NBA players on the roster. That looks a pretty solid rule of thumb actually, especially considering the one real exception is Syracuse (which had two NBA players).

And Duke's 2010 team has already had four NBA players, with Mason about to make it five (and possibly Kelly).

FerryFor50
03-12-2013, 12:16 AM
UConn's third will probably be Shabazz Napier. And Michigan State's 2000 team had four players drafted into the NBA, so...Jason Richardson.

So out of the last fifteen years, there was one (maybe two, if Napier doesn't ever pan out) NCAA champions who did not have three NBA players on the roster. That looks a pretty solid rule of thumb actually, especially considering the one real exception is Syracuse (which had two NBA players).

And Syracuse was an exception because of how GOOD one of their future nba players was...

Kedsy
03-12-2013, 12:37 AM
UConn's third will probably be Shabazz Napier. And Michigan State's 2000 team had four players drafted into the NBA, so...Jason Richardson.

So out of the last fifteen years, there was one (maybe two, if Napier doesn't ever pan out) NCAA champions who did not have three NBA players on the roster. That looks a pretty solid rule of thumb actually, especially considering the one real exception is Syracuse (which had two NBA players).

And Duke's 2010 team has already had four NBA players, with Mason about to make it five (and possibly Kelly).

Believe it or not, I forgot about Mo Peterson. Although I don't think you're right about four guys drafted on Michigan State's 2000 team -- I'm pretty sure Charlie Bell went undrafted but did of course play in the NBA, first for 7 games on a couple of 10-day contracts, and then for several years after playing in Europe for awhile. Jason Richardson was on the 2000 team, but didn't play so much (~15 mpg) and only averaged around 5 ppg.

And that's the thing about this "rule of thumb." If it takes a guy several years to make the League after he leaves school (like Bell or Lance), then did the team really have an NBA player on it? Even more to the issue, if you count guys who didn't play a lot and didn't score a lot (or contribute too many other stats), but who later blossomed into NBA players (like 2000 J-Rich or 2010 Mason or Miles), then (a) how do you know Gonzaga doesn't have a guy like that sitting on the bench; and (b) what's the point of the "rule"?

sagegrouse
03-12-2013, 12:55 AM
The Zags got it done, so they will continue to be No. 1 in the polls. Kelly Olynyk went off for a big double double, and he has an NBA career ahead.

But the standard rule of thumb is that you need to have three NBA players to win a natty. Olynyk ok. Maybe Elias Harris, but I doubt it. Maybe Kevin Pangos, but I doubt it.

I really like Gonzaga, and the way the polling works, they deserve the no. 1 ranking. But they are NOT the best team in the country, and they will be watching Atlanta from Spokane.

They beat St. Mary's. Good for them. But it was St.Mary's.

How about having five NBA players, three still playing 14 years later, and losing in the finals? Duke 1999: Brand, Battier, Maggette, Avery, and Langdon.

Lessee, outdone by 1992 NC Duke with six: Laettner, Hurley, Parks, G. Hill, Brian Davis, and Tony Lang.

sage

El_Diablo
03-12-2013, 01:04 AM
Although I don't think you're right about four guys drafted on Michigan State's 2000 team

Andre Hutson was drafted in the second round in 2001. But even if you ignore both Hutson and Bell, there were still 3 first-round NBA draft picks on that MSU team. So they count.


If it takes a guy several years to make the League after he leaves school (like Bell or Lance), then did the team really have an NBA player on it?

Yes. If they were on the team, then they were on the team. He didn't say the rule of thumb was that they also had to lead the team in points or rebounds for that season.


Even more to the issue, if you count guys who didn't play a lot and didn't score a lot (or contribute too many other stats), but who later blossomed into NBA players (like 2000 J-Rich or 2010 Mason or Miles), then (a) how do you know Gonzaga doesn't have a guy like that sitting on the bench; and (b) what's the point of the "rule"?

(a) I don't know, and I never claimed to know. I don't think Henderson did either.
(b) It's mainly just an observation--that teams who win the national championship tend to have elite talent and relative depth, with three (or sometimes more) future NBA players on the roster--and one that tends to stand up year after year, thus offering marginal predictive power for those who think a particular team's lack of elite talent may signal that the team is not built to win 6 games in a row against the top college teams in the country.

Dr. Rosenrosen
03-12-2013, 01:16 AM
So by this rule (which seems pretty legit) no one should be dismissing the Zags too quickly. Olynyk and Harris gives them two. Pangos is probably three. Remains to be seen about others but Bell and Stockton are no slouches either. Telling you... These guys are for real. Not guaranteeing anything but I will be surprised if they bow out early. They can match up well with lots of teams.

Kedsy
03-12-2013, 01:51 AM
But the standard rule of thumb is that you need to have three NBA players to win a natty. Olynyk ok. Maybe Elias Harris, but I doubt it. Maybe Kevin Pangos, but I doubt it.


(a) I don't know, and I never claimed to know. I don't think Henderson did either.

Well, based on his quote above, he sort of did claim to know.



(b) It's mainly just an observation--that teams who win the national championship tend to have elite talent and relative depth, with three (or sometimes more) future NBA players on the roster--and one that tends to stand up year after year, thus offering marginal predictive power for those who think a particular team's lack of elite talent may signal that the team is not built to win 6 games in a row against the top college teams in the country.

I don't mind it as an observation. I think it doesn't hold up as a "rule." And I don't think it offers any predictive power whatsoever if you count freshmen who don't play much because nobody has any idea if they'll really pan out years later.

For example, I remember in 2010 a lot of people on these boards were dismissing Duke's chances because we supposedly didn't have three NBA players on the roster. I took some heat for suggesting that every recruited player on the team had a chance at making an NBA roster someday. The consensus was Kyle probably but not a 100% lock, Nolan maybe but maybe not, Jon probably not, Z and Lance and Ryan and Miles and Andre definitely not, and Mason probably but too soon to tell. Obviously the consensus was wrong about Lance and Miles, and probably Ryan. And Jon and Z might have won an end-of-the-bench role if they hadn't gotten injured. And Nolan blossomed the next year and Mason of course developed the way we hoped. And frankly it looks like a long shot but we still don't know about Andre. In retrospect we had tons of "NBA talent" on that team. But back then a lot of folks didn't think so, which eliminated any predictive power the rule might have had.

I challenge you to look at any of the national contenders and not find at least three guys who look more like NBA players than Lance and Miles did in 2010. In Gonzaga's case, after Olynyk, Elias Harris and Kevin Pangos are both much more accomplished players than Lance and Miles were in 2010. And Przemek Karnowski is a 7'1" freshman with decent stats in limited minutes -- he probably has a better chance of making it to the League than Lance or Miles or Ryan seemed to have in 2010, and possibly as good a chance as Mason did in 2010. So Gonzaga looks like it passes the test, especially if they win the national championship and a couple of the guys turn their 15 minutes of fame into getting drafted in the 2nd round, or even late first -- there is a bit of circular reasoning to this "rule" after all.

Ichabod Drain
03-12-2013, 08:31 AM
The Zags got it done, so they will continue to be No. 1 in the polls. Kelly Olynyk went off for a big double double, and he has an NBA career ahead.

But the standard rule of thumb is that you need to have three NBA players to win a natty. Olynyk ok. Maybe Elias Harris, but I doubt it. Maybe Kevin Pangos, but I doubt it.

I really like Gonzaga, and the way the polling works, they deserve the no. 1 ranking. But they are NOT the best team in the country, and they will be watching Atlanta from Spokane.

They beat St. Mary's. Good for them. But it was St.Mary's.

Gonzaga is good. Really good. I feel Gonzaga has had more respected and feared teams in the past and none of those teams went 31-2 and 16-0 in conference.

El_Diablo
03-12-2013, 09:28 AM
Well, based on his quote above, he sort of did claim to know.



I don't mind it as an observation. I think it doesn't hold up as a "rule." And I don't think it offers any predictive power whatsoever if you count freshmen who don't play much because nobody has any idea if they'll really pan out years later.

For example, I remember in 2010 a lot of people on these boards were dismissing Duke's chances because we supposedly didn't have three NBA players on the roster. I took some heat for suggesting that every recruited player on the team had a chance at making an NBA roster someday. The consensus was Kyle probably but not a 100% lock, Nolan maybe but maybe not, Jon probably not, Z and Lance and Ryan and Miles and Andre definitely not, and Mason probably but too soon to tell. Obviously the consensus was wrong about Lance and Miles, and probably Ryan. And Jon and Z might have won an end-of-the-bench role if they hadn't gotten injured. And Nolan blossomed the next year and Mason of course developed the way we hoped. And frankly it looks like a long shot but we still don't know about Andre. In retrospect we had tons of "NBA talent" on that team. But back then a lot of folks didn't think so, which eliminated any predictive power the rule might have had.

I challenge you to look at any of the national contenders and not find at least three guys who look more like NBA players than Lance and Miles did in 2010. In Gonzaga's case, after Olynyk, Elias Harris and Kevin Pangos are both much more accomplished players than Lance and Miles were in 2010. And Przemek Karnowski is a 7'1" freshman with decent stats in limited minutes -- he probably has a better chance of making it to the League than Lance or Miles or Ryan seemed to have in 2010, and possibly as good a chance as Mason did in 2010. So Gonzaga looks like it passes the test, especially if they win the national championship and a couple of the guys turn their 15 minutes of fame into getting drafted in the 2nd round, or even late first -- there is a bit of circular reasoning to this "rule" after all.

rule of thumb
noun
1. a general or approximate principle, procedure, or rule based on experience or practice, as opposed to a specific, scientific calculation or estimate.
2. a rough, practical method of procedure.

There's a difference between a "rule" and a "rule of thumb," and you seem to be treating it like the former. But we're talking about the latter here (basically, a mental shortcut, a heuristic), and only in reference to a necessary condition for a championship, not a sufficient one (so obviously more than one team can fit the profile, and those that do generally need something more--like experience, coaching, and luck--to win it all). But just because you did not foresee that multiple players from the 2010 Duke team would be drafted does not mean that it did not happen...it just means you made a bad evaluation. The NBA drafts on talent and potential as much as actual college production, so it's probably on you for not realizing that both Plumlees had a good shot to get drafted on athleticism alone (or at least listening to those like Jay Bilas who were saying that Mason was our best NBA prospect). If you relied in part on the rule of thumb to pick against Duke that year, then the problem wasn't the rule of thumb--it was your misapplication of it.

As for teams that do not fit the profile, my personal knowledge of non-ACC teams' personnel isn't great, so I will just have to rely on DraftExpress to give me a picture for them. I realize this has to be taken with a grain of salt, but the following ranked teams do not have 3 or more players projected in the next two years' worth of mock drafts:
-Gonzaga (2)
-Kansas State (0)
-Ohio State (2)
-Georgetown (1)
-Kansas (2)
-Marquette (0)
-Florida (2)
-Oklahoma State (2)
-New Mexico (0)
-St. Louis (0)
-Pittsburgh (1)
-Syracuse (2)
-UCLA (2)
-Wisconsin (0)
-Creighton (1)
-Arizona (2)

Since mock drafting is clearly error-prone and people can quibble about leaving Player X out, I would eliminate those teams with 2, since there's a good chance many of those teams will have a third as well, either in the next two drafts or the third or fourth drafts (which were not evaluated for obvious reasons). So the list of teams who do not seem to fit the rule of thumb right now would be:
-Kansas State (0)
-Georgetown (1)
-Marquette (0)
-New Mexico (0)
-St. Louis (0)
-Pittsburgh (1)
-Wisconsin (0)
-Creighton (1)

Again, this is based on tournament history and supported by basic common sense (that elite talent, and an abundance of it, significantly increases a team's chances of winning it all). Maybe it will not hold up, if for example Georgetown bucks the trend by riding one superstar (Otto Porter) all the way. But that's why it's just a rule of thumb and not an absolute, guaranteed rule of nature.

uh_no
03-12-2013, 09:41 AM
How about having five NBA players, three still playing 14 years later, and losing in the finals? Duke 1999: Brand, Battier, Maggette, Avery, and Langdon.

Lessee, outdone by 1992 NC Duke with six: Laettner, Hurley, Parks, G. Hill, Brian Davis, and Tony Lang.

sage

I believe there were 7 or 8 players on the 2004 squad who made the NBA at some point.

El_Diablo
03-12-2013, 09:45 AM
I also left out Notre Dame (2) and VCU (0) from the lists above.

FerryFor50
03-12-2013, 09:47 AM
Gonzaga is good. Really good. I feel Gonzaga has had more respected and feared teams in the past and none of those teams went 31-2 and 16-0 in conference.

I think the conferences were better those years.

I'm still not really sold on Gonzaga. They have an elite player in Kelly Olynyk and Elias Harris is really good, but there isn't elite talent after that. Pangos is decent and Stockton isn't quite his dad, but they don't impress me as much as Indiana, Michigan, etc.

sagegrouse
03-12-2013, 10:25 AM
I believe there were 7 or 8 players on the 2004 squad who made the NBA at some point.

How about six? JJ, Deng, Ewing, Shel, Duhon, Shav.

sage

Ichabod Drain
03-12-2013, 11:31 AM
I think the conferences were better those years.

I'm still not really sold on Gonzaga. They have an elite player in Kelly Olynyk and Elias Harris is really good, but there isn't elite talent after that. Pangos is decent and Stockton isn't quite his dad, but they don't impress me as much as Indiana, Michigan, etc.

Maybe, but thats objective. 31-2 and 16-0 not so much. I could be wrong, they may get ousted in the second round. However, when you watch them play, they play as a team and everyone knows their role. I think those are two of the most important factors come march.

Kedsy
03-12-2013, 12:07 PM
There's a difference between a "rule" and a "rule of thumb," and you seem to be treating it like the former.

Well, this started because someone said Gonzaga couldn't win because they didn't have three NBA players, so despite the fact that he called it a "rule of thumb," it sure sounded like a "rule."



But just because you did not foresee that multiple players from the 2010 Duke team would be drafted does not mean that it did not happen...it just means you made a bad evaluation. The NBA drafts on talent and potential as much as actual college production, so it's probably on you for not realizing that both Plumlees had a good shot to get drafted on athleticism alone (or at least listening to those like Jay Bilas who were saying that Mason was our best NBA prospect). If you relied in part on the rule of thumb to pick against Duke that year, then the problem wasn't the rule of thumb--it was your misapplication of it.

Well, first of all, it wasn't *me* who relied on anything. In the message board conversations I related to you, (a) several DBR posters dismissed Duke's chances because in their opinion we didn't have three NBA guys on the roster; (b) I thought that was ridiculous; and (c) I also opined that Duke might have as many as 7 or 8 future NBA players on the roster.

Second, my point now is that nobody can properly apply this rule of thumb in advance. Before the NCAA tournament in 2010, there were very few people who thought Lance or sophomore Miles were going to make it in the NBA.


As for teams that do not fit the profile, my personal knowledge of non-ACC teams' personnel isn't great, so I will just have to rely on DraftExpress to give me a picture for them. I realize this has to be taken with a grain of salt, but the following ranked teams do not have 3 or more players projected in the next two years' worth of mock drafts:

Well, to me this supports my point. Going into the NCAAT in 2010, Duke only had two guys in the mock drafts (Kyle and Mason) -- my recollection is Nolan and Jon were in very few mocks (and none of the big ones, and the few they were in they were late 2nd round picks, the kind of pick that rarely actually makes a roster), and Lance, Miles, and Ryan weren't in any mocks (nor Z or Andre).

We were talking about the 2000 Michigan State team, but I strongly doubt Hutson or Bell were in any mock drafts. Cleves and Peterson, probably. Maybe (freshman) Richardson, but maybe not.


Again, this is based on tournament history and supported by basic common sense (that elite talent, and an abundance of it, significantly increases a team's chances of winning it all). Maybe it will not hold up, if for example Georgetown bucks the trend by riding one superstar (Otto Porter) all the way. But that's why it's just a rule of thumb and not an absolute, guaranteed rule of nature.

The idea that talent helps a team win of course makes sense. The idea that you don't need three NBA players to make the Final Four but only to win the championship (which is implicit in this discussion because lots of teams make the Final Four with nowhere near three NBA guys) makes less sense. The idea that anybody knows who on a team is going to make the NBA -- especially when you count 10-day contracts and guys who made the League after spending three years in Europe, and even more especially if you count freshmen buried on the end of a bench who may or may not blossom into pros three years later -- doesn't make any sense at all. And because the latter doesn't make much sense, this "rule of thumb" is only applicable in retrospect, and thus has no predictive power at all.

77devil
03-12-2013, 12:25 PM
Well, this started because someone said Gonzaga couldn't win because they didn't have three NBA players, so despite the fact that he called it a "rule of thumb," it sure sounded like a "rule."

The OP didn't write couldn't, he/she used the rule of thumb to support the opinion that Gonzaga was not the best team in the country and will be watching from home. It's a meaningful distinction.

Kedsy
03-12-2013, 01:06 PM
The OP didn't write couldn't, he/she used the rule of thumb to support the opinion that Gonzaga was not the best team in the country and will be watching from home. It's a meaningful distinction.

I guess it was more of a "wouldn't" than a "couldn't." I'm not sure how that changes the discussion, however.

JasonEvans
03-12-2013, 01:09 PM
Folks, this thread is getting aggressive... or at least snippy. You can make your point while not wagging your finger in the face of other posters.

-Jason "mod much" Evans

El_Diablo
03-12-2013, 02:02 PM
The idea that talent helps a team win of course makes sense. The idea that you don't need three NBA players to make the Final Four but only to win the championship (which is implicit in this discussion because lots of teams make the Final Four with nowhere near three NBA guys) makes less sense. The idea that anybody knows who on a team is going to make the NBA -- especially when you count 10-day contracts and guys who made the League after spending three years in Europe, and even more especially if you count freshmen buried on the end of a bench who may or may not blossom into pros three years later -- doesn't make any sense at all. And because the latter doesn't make much sense, this "rule of thumb" is only applicable in retrospect, and thus has no predictive power at all.

Well, it has some predictive power if you* are able to do a reasonably good job of predicting who will be drafted and who will not (based on an analysis of individual player talent). Yes, that can be tough to do in advance. But so is any other predictive measure when it comes to forecasting the outcome of sporting events.

Of course, it does not tell you* who will be the champion. But it can be used to single out teams that will likely NOT be the champion (based on a criterion that speaks to the team's quantity and quality of individual talent, which is one of several factors that should be weighed in predicting results in advance).

*To clarify, I am using "you" as the royal "you" (as in "one") here. I was doing the same in my last post by referring to the doubters/naysayers but should of said "they" instead of "you." I do not know how you (Kedsy) personally predict results or have done so in the past, so I am speaking of people in general. So if my use of "you" seemed/seems snippy or aggressive, I apologize--it was not my intent. :cool:

Kedsy
03-12-2013, 04:40 PM
Well, it has some predictive power if you* are able to do a reasonably good job of predicting who will be drafted and who will not (based on an analysis of individual player talent). Yes, that can be tough to do in advance. But so is any other predictive measure when it comes to forecasting the outcome of sporting events.

Of course, it does not tell you* who will be the champion. But it can be used to single out teams that will likely NOT be the champion (based on a criterion that speaks to the team's quantity and quality of individual talent, which is one of several factors that should be weighed in predicting results in advance).

*To clarify, I am using "you" as the royal "you" (as in "one") here. I was doing the same in my last post by referring to the doubters/naysayers but should of said "they" instead of "you." I do not know how you (Kedsy) personally predict results or have done so in the past, so I am speaking of people in general. So if my use of "you" seemed/seems snippy or aggressive, I apologize--it was not my intent. :cool:

No problem. I apologize if I seemed overly sensitive.

As far as the predictive power of the rule of thumb goes, predicting who's going to be drafted is one thing but if you count a freshman who gets 5 mpg during the season in question and isn't drafted but two years after graduating might sign a ten-day contract, I don't believe anybody could do a reasonable job predicting that. Pretty much every true contender has three guys who might qualify someday under that criterion, and so the "three NBA player" rule of thumb becomes a "three really good college player" rule of thumb and if that's the case in my opinion it doesn't really have any point at all, except possibly as a moderately interesting discussion point after the fact.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-12-2013, 05:06 PM
This is a pretty snippy thread, agreed. I would argue that the answer to "Will We Be #1 Next Week" has been a resounding "no."

Let's just win games and let everything else take care of itself. We have somewhere between 2 and 9 games left.

In closing... isn't it also quite likely that winning a national championship frequently propels players into the NBA draft, not just the other way around?

Go Duke!

hurleyfor3
03-12-2013, 05:11 PM
In closing... isn't it also quite likely that winning a national championship frequently propels players into the NBA draft, not just the other way around?

It can certainly help your stock. Gordon Hayward comes to mind. So do Carmelo and Grant Hill. No doubt there have been people who went from no-draft to draft.

cptnflash
03-12-2013, 07:36 PM
Gonzaga almost certainly won't win the national championship, and it won't be because they do or do not have X number of players that will/won't play in the NBA some day. It'll be because there are 68 teams in the tournament and 67 of them will lose before it's over, including almost all of the very best ones.

Newton_14
03-12-2013, 08:21 PM
Gonzaga almost certainly won't win the national championship, and it won't be because they do or do not have X number of players that will/won't play in the NBA some day. It'll be because there are 68 teams in the tournament and 67 of them will lose before it's over, including almost all of the very best ones.

And therein lies the fact that flies over so many people's head and the reason it is borderline insane for fans who take the "Nation Title or bust, anything less is total failure" approach to their fandom.

That's why the ACC Tourney means so much to me. It is a great accomplishment and the odds of winning it are far more realistic. Getting to the Sweet Sixteen is the next milestone to reach, but I would rank that slightly below winning the ACC Tourney. The next biggest prize is winning the Regional Championship to win a spot in the Final Four which I do rank over the ACC Tourney.

Winning the big prize is awesome. Just not a reasonably acheivable goal year in and year out no matter how good the team is. Too many chances to either have one bad game or run into a matchup that is geared to give your particular team trouble. It is just the nature of the beast that is the NCAA Tourney.

Bob Green
03-13-2013, 10:40 AM
In closing... isn't it also quite likely that winning a national championship frequently propels players into the NBA draft, not just the other way around?


Gordon Hayward comes to mind.

Remind me again, how many national championships did Hayward win?

-bdbd
03-13-2013, 11:45 AM
I think that it is pretty obvious that we will be a #1 seed next week. I don't think it is guaranteed that we will be the East #1 yet, or that we will be the top #1 yet (and that has a lot of value, b/c I want to see a #2 in our bracket like New Mexico rather than a #2 like Georgetown or Kansas.

Now we just need to win the ACCT to ensure a #1 overall status....

hurleyfor3
03-13-2013, 11:48 AM
Remind me again, how many national championships did Hayward win?

Grrr... and I was there. He did a lot to improve his draft position, though.

Kedsy
03-13-2013, 11:55 AM
Remind me again, how many national championships did Hayward win?

Well, obviously Hayward's final shot rimmed out because his team didn't have three NBA players on its roster. ;)

Black Mambo
03-13-2013, 12:23 PM
Well, obviously Hayward's final shot rimmed out because his team didn't have three NBA players on its roster. ;)

Game. Set. Match. To Kedsy.

Bluedog
03-13-2013, 12:30 PM
I think that it is pretty obvious that we will be a #1 seed next week. I don't think it is guaranteed that we will be the East #1 yet, or that we will be the top #1 yet (and that has a lot of value, b/c I want to see a #2 in our bracket like New Mexico rather than a #2 like Georgetown or Kansas.

Now we just need to win the ACCT to ensure a #1 overall status....

Again, #1 overall does NOT get the weakest 2 seed. The #1 and #2 seeds are placed on geographic preference ONLY. That's why I'm cheering heavily for Louisville to win the Big East tournament as I don't want them to be our 2 seed (assuming we get the East, although they could theoretically move past us as the #1 for the East). Last year, Kentucky was the top 1 and Duke was the top 2 (at least according to the S-curve the committee released) and they both got placed in the same region because it was the closest. The committee tries to somewhat balance it out with 3 and 4 seed, but as long as the sum of the S-curve is within a certain amount (I forget the exact range), it's fine. So, a region can't reasonable have the highest ranked 1, 2, 3, and 4 seeds, but can definitely have the highest ranked 1 and 2 seeds, fourth highest 3 seed, and second highest 4 seed without running afoul of any rules. So, a a 1 seed, you'd be placed in a bracket with the toughest 2 and second toughest 4 if that's how the geography ends up falling. All the #1 overall really does for us is ensure we get the East. Louisville and Miami are the only other reasonable #1 seeds (that I can think of) that also has the East as the closest location (Georgetown can't play on its home floor), so as long as finish ahead of them, we'll be in the East.

-bdbd
03-14-2013, 06:09 PM
Again, #1 overall does NOT get the weakest 2 seed. The #1 and #2 seeds are placed on geographic preference ONLY. That's why I'm cheering heavily for Louisville to win the Big East tournament as I don't want them to be our 2 seed (assuming we get the East, although they could theoretically move past us as the #1 for the East). Last year, Kentucky was the top 1 and Duke was the top 2 (at least according to the S-curve the committee released) and they both got placed in the same region because it was the closest. The committee tries to somewhat balance it out with 3 and 4 seed, but as long as the sum of the S-curve is within a certain amount (I forget the exact range), it's fine. So, a region can't reasonable have the highest ranked 1, 2, 3, and 4 seeds, but can definitely have the highest ranked 1 and 2 seeds, fourth highest 3 seed, and second highest 4 seed without running afoul of any rules. So, a a 1 seed, you'd be placed in a bracket with the toughest 2 and second toughest 4 if that's how the geography ends up falling. All the #1 overall really does for us is ensure we get the East. Louisville and Miami are the only other reasonable #1 seeds (that I can think of) that also has the East as the closest location (Georgetown can't play on its home floor), so as long as finish ahead of them, we'll be in the East.

Not a huge fan of Bleacher, but this is a reasonable effort at averaging a handful off seeding projections. The nice thing is that they have Duke as the strongest of the number ones. I think that the numbers are so strong in here for Indiana, Duke and Gonzaga that it is very unlikely that any of them drop from the #1 line, even with uncharacteristic early departures from conference tournaments. They have L'ville and Georgetown right behind them, vying for the 4th #1 slot. I think iot is pretty obvious that, should either of those two win in NYC, then that'll be the 4th #1 seed. Next in line appears to be Kansas.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1562493-breaking-down-the-race-for-the-no-1-seeds-in-2013-ncaa-tournament

Blue, thanks for the write-up on your understanding of the NCAAT "modified" S-curve. I was aware that they didn't have to stick STRICTLY to the precise S-curve but was under the impression that the curve carried moire weight - especially since a Midwestern school could be seeded, for example, in the Eastern regional, and still play their first two games near home. But obviously you are under the impression that the Committee has a lot more leeway in terms of whether they stick to the S-curve, or emphasize geographic proximity instead for the 2-seed and beyond. Interesting. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out. Fair point, though, to want to see L'ville win the BE and get the South #1. Even if they lose in the BET, I'd think the MW Regional is closer for them... If that happens, with L'ville winning the BET, who do you think gets the East #2? (can't be Miami or G'town... so maybe FLA or Mich or MSU or OSU? Not like Mich/OSU is going to be #2 in the MW behind a #1 Indiana...) That leads me to think L'ville isn't likely to be the East #2 anyway, b/c they're needed in the MW to pair with #1 IND. :)

Bluedog
03-14-2013, 06:18 PM
Fair point, though, to want to see L'ville win the BE and get the South #1. Even if they lose in the BET, I'd think the MW Regional is closer for them... If that happens, with L'ville winning the BET, who do you think gets the East #2? (can't be Miami or G'town... so maybe FLA or Mich or MSU or OSU? Not like Mich/OSU is going to be #2 in the MW behind a #1 Indiana...) That leads me to think L'ville isn't likely to be the East #2 anyway, b/c they're needed in the MW to pair with #1 IND. :)

True, Indy is much closer to Louisville than DC, so they'll get placed there if they're ahead of Michigan, OSU, and Kansas. Seems like Florida/Mich/MSU/OSU are the most likely candidates for a 2 seed in the East as you say, but could be a school like Kansas or even New Mexico if other schools disappoint in their conference tourneys. I'd actually like to see Kansas - while Withey would be a tough matchup, when I've watched them, they've been underwhelming compared to years past IMO.

-bdbd
03-14-2013, 06:31 PM
True, Indy is much closer to Louisville than DC, so they'll get placed there if they're ahead of Michigan, OSU, and Kansas. Seems like Florida/Mich/MSU/OSU are the most likely candidates for a 2 seed in the East as you say, but could be a school like Kansas or even New Mexico if other schools disappoint in their conference tourneys. I'd actually like to see Kansas - while Withey would be a tough matchup, when I've watched them, they've been underwhelming compared to years past IMO.

I always thought the MOST sacred of the NCAAT pairings rules was to prevent schools from the same conference from meeting any earlier than could be avoided. So, even if MSU and Mich and OSU were ahead of L'ville, it would seem unlikely that they get seeded #2 behind an almost certain MW #1 - Indiana. Our biggest threat might be KA getting that MW #2, thus freeing up L'ville to come be our #2 in DC. Who really knows??? :confused:

In the meantime, for the next three days, I'm all about "Go Cardinals!" and "Go Jayhawks!"

;)

Bluedog
03-14-2013, 06:36 PM
I always thought the MOST sacred of the NCAAT pairings rules was to prevent schools from the same conference from meeting any earlier than could be avoided. So, even if MSU and Mich and OSU were ahead of L'ville, it would seem unlikely that they get seeded #2 behind an almost certain MW #1 - Indiana. Our biggest threat might be KA getting that MW #2, thus freeing up L'ville to come be our #2 in DC. Who really knows??? :confused:

In the meantime, for the next three days, I'm all about "Go Cardinals!" and "Go Jayhawks!"

;)

Right, true, my bad. They do like to avoid that (although I think by rule it's just that they can't meet before the Elite 8 unless there are more than 8 teams from one conference). So, very unlikely a B1G team gets the 2 seed in the MW.