PDA

View Full Version : Duke MBB's 2014 NCAAT seed



Pages : [1] 2

Turk
02-03-2014, 11:35 AM
I always wanted to start a "vigil" thread, and the topic of seedings came up more than once during this week's games. Now that February is here, it seemed appropriate so I thought I'd take a shot. Earlier last week, Lunardi's bracketology had Duke as a #3 seed (trending up) in Raleigh. Jerry Palm had Duke as a #4 in Orlando (eeeew). Both will be updated this week.

Duke has 9 games left. There are 3 plus-100 RPI teams that would be gruesome losses: @BC, @GT, VT. Nothing is a given in the ACC, especially on the road, but a team expecting a #3 seed or above can't lose those games. Let's eliminate them from the discussion.

There are 3 games with teams in 50-100 RPI range: WF, MD, @WF. Again, Duke should be heavily favored, but over the years WF has been a traditional PITA above and beyond the talent level of their teams, especially in Winston-Salem. A loss at Wake wouldn't be shocking, especially if the team gets caught looking past that game to the regular season finale vs. unc three days later. A sweep would be best (duh), but splitting with Wake would require (imho) another signature win from the remaining three games.

Here are the 3 games that will get all the attention: @unc, SYR, unc. Everyone is getting all wound up for the rematch in Cameron on 2/22, but be careful what you ask for - you might get it. Anyone who expects a Duke romp needs to calm down already; let's be conservative and call it a tossup. So that leaves the home-and-home vs. the dysfunctional but still dangerous Holes (current RPI 39). Sweeping those three would be a major major achievement and put the Devils in the conversation for a #2 or #1 seed, but I think a more probable result will be 2-1 or maybe even 1-2. (I do think Duke will win at least 1 of the 2 home games). Losing all three would not be disgraceful, but would certainly wipe out any momentum and it's better just to not go there.

Therefore, probable outcomes for the 9 games:
8-1: conf 14-4, overall 25-6
7-2: conf 13-5, overall 24-7
6-3: conf 12-6, overall 23-8

If the team went into the ACCT with a 12-6 record, they might get caught in a tiebreaker logjam for the #4 seed in the ACC tournament, especially depending on how Clemson and MD finish. Any record better than that, there should be no doubt about a 2 or 3 seed in the ACCT. A win in the quarterfinals should prevent any slippage, with a chance to solidify the RPI position in the semis.

Qualitative guesses:
If Duke can reach the ACC finals with two or fewer losses only to unc or Syracuse, I'll guess that's worth a solid #2, and maybe a sniff at a #1.
If Duke can reach the ACC semis with three or four losses, and no RPI +100 losses, that should be enough for a #3 and no worse than a #4.
If Duke goes 6-3 or worse and and then loses in the first round of the ACC, then something has gone seriously wrong, and we're talking a #5.

Next, we need to step outside the Duke bubble and see what else is going on with other teams contending for those seeds. Let me 'splain. No there is too much. Let me sum up. Duke needs Clemson to finish strong and ND to be more than mostly dead for a little extra RPI boost. But first, we have to kill Count Rugen.

Indoor66
02-03-2014, 11:45 AM
It seems to me that this is more than a little bit premature. We have not finished the first half of the ACC schedule. There is too much of the schedule yet to be played by all teams to have a meaningful discussion.

Turk
02-03-2014, 11:48 AM
It seems to me that this is more than a little bit premature. We have not finished the first half of the ACC schedule. There is too much of the schedule yet to be played by all teams to have a meaningful discussion.

I thought "vigil" threads were premature by definition - that's the entire point, no? Ah well, least I crossed it off my bucket list.... Next play!
(P.S. I think we're exactly at the halfway point.)

Ichabod Drain
02-03-2014, 11:55 AM
It seems to me that this is more than a little bit premature. We have not finished the first half of the ACC schedule. There is too much of the schedule yet to be played by all teams to have a meaningful discussion.

Technically we have finished the first half off the ACC schedule, but I agree it's a little early. Maybe after the first UNC game has been won.

UrinalCake
02-03-2014, 12:01 PM
Appreciate the breakdown. I think we'll be favored in every remaining regular season game except maybe Syracuse at home, but even then it should be close. But I care a lot more about winning the ACCT than the regular season. We've been in a "drought" by our own ridiculous standards, and I think winning it would put us ahead of Syracuse and UVA for the top seed out of the conference even if we finish third in the conference race.

Overall I think we're a likely 2, with a chance at a 1 if we win out or possibly falling to a 3 if we suffer an unexpected loss.

ice-9
02-03-2014, 12:06 PM
Perhaps this is me being overly optimistic, but I think duke will only take one more loss until the NCAA tournament and will be a 2 seed.

That could be the Syracuse game or the unc road game, but I'm guessing it'll be the ACC tournament where as a 3 seed our guys will be exhausted in the final.

I just think this team is battle tested. They've hit the bottom, learned from it and have rebounded with renewed spirit and energy.

This is a team that is beginning to learn how to win even on bad shooting nights with offensive rebounding and generating turnovers. And when duke is hitting shots, we are nigh undefeatable.

All we need to do is play a higher and more consistent level of defense like we did for a stretch before the Syracuse game. Do that and I'm going to feel great about our chances in the NCAA tournament no matter what the seed.

This isn't like certain duke teams (eg circa Austin Rivers year) where you got the sense we were vulnerable to a bad shooting night or a bad matchup. For those teams you wished like heck we got as high of a seed as possible; almost as if because they needed it.

If we can just play consistent, high level defense, I don't think this year's team is like that. This is a team that can take on all comers, 1 or 3 or 5 seed.

MarkD83
02-03-2014, 12:08 PM
I like the analysis because once Duke plays 5 or 6 more games the seedings will be more clear but there will be less to discuss. So let me take a general stab at other teams in the mix.

First, the ACC is being touted as being disappointing in the eyes of the media (underrated once again) so the ACC will probably get only one #1 seed and that would be Syracuse right now. So the best Duke can hope for is a #2 seed unless they beat Syracuse twice including the ACC tournament and take Syracuse's #1 seed.

The other #1 seeds will be from the SEC (Fla), Arizona, Wichita State and SDSU. So four teams for three slots. The one that does not get a number 1 is obviously a #2. The three other #2s would be taken form this next group, Big Ten school (again considered to be the best conference), Kansas (presumably they win the Big 12), Villanova or Cincy. One of these drop to #3s and that is where Duke would likely end up.

So pay attention to the following games:

Villanova vs Creighton (this will deciede Villanova's fate);
Cincy vs Louisville (this will decide Cincy's fate);
Kansas vs Tx, OSU and Okla
Mich State at Michigan
Michigan at Iowa
Fla at Ky and at home against Ky
Ariz vs Stanford
SDSU and Whicita State have has no one left on their schedule of any consequence;

tommy
02-03-2014, 12:15 PM
Besides this discussion being really quite premature, is it possible for us to have a discussion about an issue that involves the future, prediction, prognostication, or guesswork that doesn't have to be termed a "vigil?"

So played.

Kedsy
02-03-2014, 12:43 PM
I like the analysis because once Duke plays 5 or 6 more games the seedings will be more clear but there will be less to discuss. So let me take a general stab at other teams in the mix.

First, the ACC is being touted as being disappointing in the eyes of the media (underrated once again) so the ACC will probably get only one #1 seed and that would be Syracuse right now. So the best Duke can hope for is a #2 seed unless they beat Syracuse twice including the ACC tournament and take Syracuse's #1 seed.

The other #1 seeds will be from the SEC (Fla), Arizona, Wichita State and SDSU. So four teams for three slots. The one that does not get a number 1 is obviously a #2. The three other #2s would be taken form this next group, Big Ten school (again considered to be the best conference), Kansas (presumably they win the Big 12), Villanova or Cincy. One of these drop to #3s and that is where Duke would likely end up.

So pay attention to the following games:

Villanova vs Creighton (this will deciede Villanova's fate);
Cincy vs Louisville (this will decide Cincy's fate);
Kansas vs Tx, OSU and Okla
Mich State at Michigan
Michigan at Iowa
Fla at Ky and at home against Ky
Ariz vs Stanford
SDSU and Whicita State have has no one left on their schedule of any consequence;

I don't necessarily agree with your analysis. If Wichita State and/or San Diego State lose a game or two (especially if they lose in their league tournaments), they drop to a two (or even a three, depending on the losses). Arizona just lost a key player. If they lose a couple games, not out of the question without Ashley, and then lose in their conference tournament, they have little chance at a #1. They'd probably keep a #2 under those circumstances, but it's not a lock. The Big 10 tend to beat each other up; you can almost guarantee another loss or two for both Michigan and Michigan State. If a surprise team wins the Big 10 tourney as well, Michigan State would still have a shot at a #1 but more likely a #2 (they'd have to have a really bad loss or two to drop to a #3) but Michigan would have an upward struggle to get a #2, with the likelihood being a #3. No other Big 10 team would seem to have a realistic shot at a #2, maybe Iowa if they don't lose more than another game and win the Big 10 tournament, but even that feels like a long shot. Cincinnati has to win out to have even a chance at a #2 and they still probably don't get it. If Kentucky sweeps Florida and neither win the SEC tournament, I can't see Florida as a #1, and if they lose one or two others (unlikely but possible), they might even drop to #3. Villanova has to win at least one of the Big East regular season and Big East tournament to get a #2, and maybe both. In my mind, if Syracuse wants a #1, they have to avoid a bad loss, lose no more than two of their three big road games (@Duke, @Pitt, @UVa), and then win the ACC tournament.

On the other hand, if Kentucky splits with Florida and wins the rest of their regular season games, they'll be in the conversation for a #2, especially if they win the SEC tourney and maybe if they only get to the final game. If they run the table, UK has a shot at a #1. If Virginia either wins the ACC regular season or wins the ACC tournament, they'll be part of the conversation for a #2 as well. If they do both, they should be a lock for a #2. Same for Duke, but I'd also say if Duke wins the ACC tourney and comes in first or second in the conference standings, they have a shot at a #1. If Kansas wins out, they'll almost certainly be a #1. If they lose a couple games and then fall in the Big 12 tourney they might drop to a #3.

As someone else noted, there are too many permutations to make any hard statements. That said, I don't think this thread is premature for discussion purposes.

Matches
02-03-2014, 12:45 PM
I want us to be a top-4 seed so we can play the first two rounds in Raleigh. There's little chance of UNC or NCSU being assigned to the same subregional, so the closer to home we can play, the better.

Beyond that, honestly the matchups are more important than the seeding.

Also: I don't think ANY seed is off the table for us yet, including a #1. If the season ended today we'd be a 2 or a 3.

FerryFor50
02-03-2014, 12:48 PM
I want us to be a top-4 seed so we can play the first two rounds in Raleigh. There's little chance of UNC being assigned to the same subregional or NCSU making the tournament, so the closer to home we can play, the better.


Fixed it for you. ;)

I also hope we get Wichita St as our #1 seed.

flyingdutchdevil
02-03-2014, 12:50 PM
Appreciate the breakdown. I think we'll be favored in every remaining regular season game except maybe Syracuse at home, but even then it should be close. But I care a lot more about winning the ACCT than the regular season. We've been in a "drought" by our own ridiculous standards, and I think winning it would put us ahead of Syracuse and UVA for the top seed out of the conference even if we finish third in the conference race.

Overall I think we're a likely 2, with a chance at a 1 if we win out or possibly falling to a 3 if we suffer an unexpected loss.

This. With the B1G and Big 12 beating the crap out of each other, he have such a strong chance at being a 2 seed. I think if we maintain course (win all but 1 in the remaining ACC competition and make it to the semi-finals / finals of the ACC tourney), we are guaranteed a 2 seed. If we win out, we have a great chance at a 1 seed. If we loss to a team not named Syracuse from here until the end of the reg. season, we're a 3 seed. Any more loses and our seeding falls.

But Duke is improving every game. We looked incredible during 'Cus and I expect that loss will only add fire. I would hate to be facing us in the next couple of weeks.

MCFinARL
02-03-2014, 01:27 PM
Appreciate the breakdown. I think we'll be favored in every remaining regular season game except maybe Syracuse at home, but even then it should be close. But I care a lot more about winning the ACCT than the regular season. We've been in a "drought" by our own ridiculous standards, and I think winning it would put us ahead of Syracuse and UVA for the top seed out of the conference even if we finish third in the conference race.

Overall I think we're a likely 2, with a chance at a 1 if we win out or possibly falling to a 3 if we suffer an unexpected loss.

Agree winning the tournament is more important than the regular season--but if Duke loses more than one remaining regular season game there is at least some risk of finishing outside the top 4 seeds--which would mean having to start tournament play a round earlier. So it's of some importance.

TexHawk
02-03-2014, 02:08 PM
First, the ACC is being touted as being disappointing in the eyes of the media (underrated once again) so the ACC will probably get only one #1 seed and that would be Syracuse right now. So the best Duke can hope for is a #2 seed unless they beat Syracuse twice including the ACC tournament and take Syracuse's #1 seed.

The other #1 seeds will be from the SEC (Fla), Arizona, Wichita State and SDSU. So four teams for three slots. The one that does not get a number 1 is obviously a #2. The three other #2s would be taken form this next group, Big Ten school (again considered to be the best conference), Kansas (presumably they win the Big 12), Villanova or Cincy. One of these drop to #3s and that is where Duke would likely end up.

The conference arguments are weird this year. The Big10 was going strong, then Wisconsin/OSU vomited on themselves. The Big12 was next, but then ISU/OSU (top 10 before New Year's) have fallen apart a bit, while Texas has come out of nowhere. The Pac12 is strong in number (may get 7 bids), but 5 of those are right on the bubble and could slip off at any time. The SEC is just a mess. And the ACC is down in number, but may well have two #1 seeds if the chips fall correctly.

For the seeding, it depends how you look at the numbers (or how you think the committee will look at the numbers). Teamrankings (which I think is pretty good), has WSU and SDSU as #4 seeds. They have 'Zona a lock for a #1, followed by Nova, then KU/Cuse/MSU battling it out for the final two. Duke is sitting there right after. I think the numbers are a little tough on WSU, and I would bet that the committee would go against that, as there will be pressure to push up an undefeated team to a higher seed. (I don't know if that means a #1 seed, but it could.)

The Massey composite rankings have Zona-KU-Cuse-Nova as the four #1s, fwiw. They are slightly higher on WSU (#3 seed), but still low on SDSU (#4, potentially a #5).

ICP
02-03-2014, 02:18 PM
Ranked 11 this week,so now we are in the 3 seed range I gather. If we win out and reach the ACC tournament final game, it's not hard to see how we could get a 2 seed. Alternatively, it would probably take 2 losses to fall to a 4-5 seed. I think we're in pretty good shape, now all we need to do is keep improving our game and March will be a fun time to be a Blue Devil!

pfrduke
02-03-2014, 02:23 PM
I think there's virtually no way an undefeated Wichita State doesn't get a 1 seed. The committee does not want to deal with the inevitable firestorm that would erupt if Wichita State is 33-0 and given a 2 seed. A potentially more interesting scenario is what would happen if they go undefeated in the regular season but lose in the MVC tournament (or, put another way, how many losses can the Shockers suffer, and when, and still end up as a #1).

Matches
02-03-2014, 03:03 PM
I think there's virtually no way an undefeated Wichita State doesn't get a 1 seed. The committee does not want to deal with the inevitable firestorm that would erupt if Wichita State is 33-0 and given a 2 seed. A potentially more interesting scenario is what would happen if they go undefeated in the regular season but lose in the MVC tournament (or, put another way, how many losses can the Shockers suffer, and when, and still end up as a #1).

It's always hard to say because it's so dependent on what other teams do, but I think the magic number is "1". You're spot-on that there's just no way the committee can seed them below a 1 if they're unbeaten, but as soon as they lose I think that discussion is over (particularly since, given their schedule, just about any loss they have will be a "bad loss").

Eakane
02-03-2014, 03:09 PM
I think there's virtually no way an undefeated Wichita State doesn't get a 1 seed. The committee does not want to deal with the inevitable firestorm that would erupt if Wichita State is 33-0 and given a 2 seed. A potentially more interesting scenario is what would happen if they go undefeated in the regular season but lose in the MVC tournament (or, put another way, how many losses can the Shockers suffer, and when, and still end up as a #1).

Any loss WS suffers knocks them out of #1 seed consideration, because it would be a bad loss. If, otoh, they finish unbeaten, I can't see how the committee could deny them a 1 seed. The media (ESPN), loves KU and Sparty, so one or both of them will end up with a one (the press doesn't report the news anymore, it makes the news).

If Duke wins out, it's hard to see us not getting a one seed. But it's going to be difficult to catch Syracuse for the top seed, and ranked 2nd or 3rd could mean three brutal games to win the ACC tourney. Syracuse or Duke get a one seed; no way they both do.

TexHawk
02-03-2014, 03:50 PM
The media (ESPN), loves KU and Sparty, so one or both of them will end up with a one (the press doesn't report the news anymore, it makes the news).

Can you provide examples of this? I think the media loves the Big10 in general, and would like to give a #1 seed to the best team there, but that's different from them loving MSU and only MSU.

And ESPN loving KU? That's news to us. KU has the #1 RPI and Kenpom's #1 noncon SOS (by a mile). Those are both (mostly) objective measures. 3 of their 5 losses are to teams in the Top 6 of the AP Poll, another to #15 on the road, and another to a Top 15 team on the road before they lost their best player. There has been some love lately because KU won their first 7 games in an incredibly tough conference, before losing over the weekend. The last ESPN power rankings (published before last weekend's games) have KU at #5, which is right in line with where most computers have/had them.

jv001
02-03-2014, 03:54 PM
Can you provide examples of this? I think the media loves the Big10 in general, and would like to give a #1 seed to the best team there, but that's different from them loving MSU and only MSU.

And ESPN loving KU? That's news to us. KU has the #1 RPI and Kenpom's #1 noncon SOS (by a mile). Those are both (mostly) objective measures. 3 of their 5 losses are to teams in the Top 6 of the AP Poll, another to #15 on the road, and another to a Top 15 team on the road before they lost their best player. There has been some love lately because KU won their first 7 games in an incredibly tough conference, before losing over the weekend. The last ESPN power rankings (published before last weekend's games) have KU at #5, which is right in line with where most computers have/had them.

Let's face it, KU and MSU are year in and year out, very good teams. Their programs are top notch and so are their coaches. They recruit with the very best and hold their own. So yes, they get love from the media and deservedly so. GoDuke!

hurleyfor3
02-03-2014, 04:26 PM
Whichever mod changed the thread title to something less descriptive clearly wasn't paying attention last year (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?30342-pointless-debate-over-what-our-seed-is).

Eakane
02-03-2014, 05:20 PM
Can you provide examples of this? I think the media loves the Big10 in general, and would like to give a #1 seed to the best team there, but that's different from them loving MSU and only MSU.

And ESPN loving KU? That's news to us. KU has the #1 RPI and Kenpom's #1 noncon SOS (by a mile). Those are both (mostly) objective measures. 3 of their 5 losses are to teams in the Top 6 of the AP Poll, another to #15 on the road, and another to a Top 15 team on the road before they lost their best player. There has been some love lately because KU won their first 7 games in an incredibly tough conference, before losing over the weekend. The last ESPN power rankings (published before last weekend's games) have KU at #5, which is right in line with where most computers have/had them.

Lunardi, who is about the worst of the bracketologists, slotted them into a #1 seed and they promptly lost. I don't think their body of work merited their being there in the first place. Last year, KU got a 1 seed even though they had lost to TCU. TCU!! But it's not limited to KU and MSU; I'll concede that point. Espn has a chubby for other teams too. Again looking at last year, Indiana had played well most of the season, but really plotzed towards the end, but they still got a one seed, and while I can't prove it, I think espn had a lot to do with campaigning for that. Committee members watch Sportscenter too.

I respect your coach and team TexHawk, winning the Big 12 year in and year out is most impressive; but really, TCU?! :-)

TexHawk
02-03-2014, 06:08 PM
Lunardi, who is about the worst of the bracketologists, slotted them into a #1 seed and they promptly lost. I don't think their body of work merited their being there in the first place. Last year, KU got a 1 seed even though they had lost to TCU. TCU!! But it's not limited to KU and MSU; I'll concede that point. Espn has a chubby for other teams too. Again looking at last year, Indiana had played well most of the season, but really plotzed towards the end, but they still got a one seed, and while I can't prove it, I think espn had a lot to do with campaigning for that. Committee members watch Sportscenter too.

I respect your coach and team TexHawk, winning the Big 12 year in and year out is most impressive; but really, TCU?! :-)

Well, first of all, that's not true. Lunardi has had KU as #1 seed for two weeks. They won 4 games, then lost to Texas. His bracket prior to that had KU as the Top #2 seed, behind... Wisconsin. So Lunardi is not good (conceded), but he also basically followed the same rule that every pollster in the history of pollsters follows... He dropped a team when they lost and moved the next highest team to its place.

KU is 16-5 against the #1 SOS, #10 noncon SOS, and there are only two other power conference teams in the Top 50, Alabama(46) and Boston College(20). It's no surprise that computer models rank them highly. An average schedule and this team is probably 18-3 and in the conversation anyway.

KU also starts three freshman, six of them get regular minutes in the rotation. One other starter is a sophomore, the other is a junior. There isn't a senior anywhere close to playing. So you can also understand that some folks (some on networks other than ESPN!!!!) see potential.

Do I think KU is a top 4 team? Today, I do not. They are the worst defensive team of Bill Self's career, and it isn't close. When Andrew Wiggins is not on the floor, this team would be sub-150 in AdjD, I truly believe that. They also turn the ball over more than 260+ CBB teams, while forcing fewer than 300+. Not a good recipe for success. On the good side, they have already beaten all other competition for the Big12 title (two of them on the road), and they get the return game with Texas in a few weeks. (Yay for conference round-robins, you guys should try it.) KU has tough road games left at OSU, KSU, and Baylor, but if they finish the regular season with 2 (or less) losses and win the conference tournament, there is no reason why they shouldn't be considered for a #1 seed imo.

P.S. What's the statute of limitations on the TCU loss? Should we give up the hoops team for a couple years? How about we get rid of the starters from that team? (Too late on that one.)

throatybeard
02-03-2014, 08:44 PM
Whichever mod changed the thread title to something less descriptive clearly wasn't paying attention last year (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?30342-pointless-debate-over-what-our-seed-is).

I just changed it from the snarky title you describe to the more descriptive "Duke MBB's 2014 NCAAT seed."

I liked the OP's title for his own thread, too.

Turk
02-04-2014, 06:15 AM
Whichever mod changed the thread title to something less descriptive clearly wasn't paying attention last year (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?30342-pointless-debate-over-what-our-seed-is).

LOL. At least this year's edition started about a week later than last year. Each team has played 20+ games and is about halfway through the conference sched. First week in Feb seems about right to me to start looking at seedings, especially if one is thinking about making travel plans to see some games in person.

Turk
02-04-2014, 06:42 AM
Lunardi, who is about the worst of the bracketologists, slotted them into a #1 seed and they promptly lost. I don't think their body of work merited their being there in the first place. Last year, KU got a 1 seed even though they had lost to TCU. TCU!! But it's not limited to KU and MSU; I'll concede that point. Espn has a chubby for other teams too. Again looking at last year, Indiana had played well most of the season, but really plotzed towards the end, but they still got a one seed, and while I can't prove it, I think espn had a lot to do with campaigning for that. Committee members watch Sportscenter too.

I respect your coach and team TexHawk, winning the Big 12 year in and year out is most impressive; but really, TCU?! :-)

Wait, what? I know ESPN is the all-powerful Mother Ship, but where did the selection committee conspiracy theory come from? CBS is the network that pays the bajillions for the tournament. How would ESPN benefit from committee lobbying?

Also, I like Lunardi. Just keep in mind he's not a pollster or someone trying to create a pure statistical metric like kenpom. He's trying to apply the published NCAA selection rules and committee guidelines, which are only slightly less convoluted than the definition of "impermissible benefits." And sometimes strange coincidences occur when an AD from Conference X happens to chair the committee and one or two teams are either included or excluded despite the metrics.

As for Kansas, they're 8th on his latest S-curve:
http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10395937/latest-update-joe-lunardi-bracket-math-college-basketball

MarkD83
02-04-2014, 11:54 AM
LOL. At least this year's edition started about a week later than last year. Each team has played 20+ games and is about halfway through the conference sched. First week in Feb seems about right to me to start looking at seedings, especially if one is thinking about making travel plans to see some games in person.

I believe this is also about the time the selction committee gets together for the first time to run through a mock selection process. You have to think they already are thinking about what games in Feb which will decide the fate of the top seeds. Earlier in the thread I had a list of those non-ACC games that I thought would be critical for seeding. I imagine the selection committee is putting together a list of these games as well.

Turk
02-06-2014, 10:11 PM
No change this week in this week's projections:

Lunardi: Duke #3 in Raleigh
Palm: Duke #4 in Orlando

Palm has Iowa State as #3, where they are #4 seed in Lunardi's version. Palm also has both SDSU and Wichita St as #1 seeds. SDSU might be good, but I don't think they're THAT good, especially compared to Florida or Kansas or even Cincy and Villanova.

hurleyfor3
02-06-2014, 10:18 PM
Lunardi: Duke #3 in Raleigh

Again, if you needed any evidence of how useless other people's brackets are, he has us playing Vermont.

Kedsy
02-06-2014, 10:42 PM
Palm has Iowa State as #3, where they are #4 seed in Lunardi's version. Palm also has both SDSU and Wichita St as #1 seeds. SDSU might be good, but I don't think they're THAT good, especially compared to Florida or Kansas or even Cincy and Villanova.

You really think Cincinnati is that good? They're ranked in the mid-teens in the RPI and in the low-20s in Pomeroy and Sagarin. They're NCSOS is ranked #317 in Pomeroy, and with their league down this year (and forever), their overall SOS is #166. I think they're probably a #4 seed, but wouldn't be surprised to see them drop to a #5. I know Palm has them as a #2, but I can't imagine why.

Duvall
02-06-2014, 10:51 PM
You really think Cincinnati is that good? They're ranked in the mid-teens in the RPI and in the low-20s in Pomeroy and Sagarin. They're NCSOS is ranked #317 in Pomeroy, and with their league down this year (and forever), their overall SOS is #166. I think they're probably a #4 seed, but wouldn't be surprised to see them drop to a #5. I know Palm has them as a #2, but I can't imagine why.

We know Cincinnati's not that good, and the computers know Cincinnati's not that good, but the selection committee had made worse mistakes in the past.

Wander
02-07-2014, 09:22 AM
Again, if you needed any evidence of how useless other people's brackets are, he has us playing Vermont.

It's not a hard rule that teams can't play rematches in the first round.

Turk
02-07-2014, 11:35 AM
The rule against first-round rematches only applies within conference, I believe. And I agree trying to predict an opponent is a fool's errand. I think the main thing is to have some idea of seed and location.

As for Cincy, they win ugly, but they win. This year's edition reminds me of the way John Chaney's Temple teams used to play (excepting his matchup zone). Painful offense, ferocious defense, and scoring only in the low to mid 50's, so they can be hard to watch and easy to underestimate. I doubt they'll stay as a #2 seed, but someone has to beat them before they'll slide. Looks like their profile is very similar to SDSU's.

Kedsy
02-07-2014, 12:11 PM
The rule against first-round rematches only applies within conference, I believe. And I agree trying to predict an opponent is a fool's errand. I think the main thing is to have some idea of seed and location.

As for Cincy, they win ugly, but they win. This year's edition reminds me of the way John Chaney's Temple teams used to play (excepting his matchup zone). Painful offense, ferocious defense, and scoring only in the low to mid 50's, so they can be hard to watch and easy to underestimate. I doubt they'll stay as a #2 seed, but someone has to beat them before they'll slide. Looks like their profile is very similar to SDSU's.

Except Chaney's Temple teams played strong non-conference schedules and had a much better computer ranking than Cincinnati does. Honestly I don't know what Palm's been smoking, but there's just no way a team from a non-power conference with an RPI in the mid- to upper-teens (like San Diego State and Cincinnati) will get a #1 or #2 seed.

El_Diablo
02-07-2014, 12:15 PM
SDSU might be good, but I don't think they're THAT good, especially compared to Florida or Kansas or even Cincy and Villanova.

Pomeroy would agree with you (except for Cincy). Of course, SDSU beat Kansas at Kansas. And while I am not a huge fan of the transitive property in basketball, SDSU beat Creighton, who utterly demolished Villanova at Villanova (the Jays were at one point up by 41 points in that game).

If SDSU wins out, I think they would deserve a #1 seed. Their only loss would be a November single-digit loss to Arizona. It would still be somewhat controversial (like Gonzaga last year), but so what?

If SDSU loses before then, they would probably deserve a #2 or #3 (depending on the loss).

pfrduke
02-07-2014, 01:46 PM
Except Chaney's Temple teams played strong non-conference schedules and had a much better computer ranking than Cincinnati does. Honestly I don't know what Palm's been smoking, but there's just no way a team from a non-power conference with an RPI in the mid- to upper-teens (like San Diego State and Cincinnati) will get a #1 or #2 seed.

I think the AAC, with half the old Big East, will get major conference treatment by the committee.

Duvall
02-07-2014, 01:51 PM
I think the AAC, with half the old Big East, will get major conference treatment by the committee.

But will they deserve it? That conference is half NCAA Tournament-worthy and half hot garbage. How much credit can you give Cincinnati for dominating a conference in which 56% of the schedule is sub-CBI competition?

pfrduke
02-07-2014, 02:00 PM
But will they deserve it? That conference is half NCAA Tournament-worthy and half hot garbage. How much credit can you give Cincinnati for dominating a conference in which 56% of the schedule is sub-CBI competition?

Memphis got pseudo-major conference treatment for winning the CUSA. And while the bottom of the conference is dreadful, if Cincinnati wins out for the regular season, they'll have swept Louisville, Memphis, UConn, and SMU, all of which are likely tournament teams. That's far from the Wichita State or SDSU schedules, and far better than Gonzaga's last year.

Now, I don't think Cincinnati will sweep all those teams - in particular, a 3-game stretch of Louisville, @UConn, Memphis seems to have at least one loss in it.

Kedsy
02-07-2014, 02:12 PM
I think the AAC, with half the old Big East, will get major conference treatment by the committee.

The AAC has the 8th best conference RPI, behind the Atlantic 10, and just a little bit ahead of the West Coast Conference and Mountain West Conference. So I'm not sure the committee will give them major conference treatment but I am fairly sure (as Duvall suggests) that they won't deserve it.

Wander
02-07-2014, 03:41 PM
Honestly I don't know what Palm's been smoking, but there's just no way a team from a non-power conference with an RPI in the mid- to upper-teens (like San Diego State and Cincinnati) will get a #1 or #2 seed.

I guarantee you there's an absolutely 0% chance that a 32-1 team with a road win over Kansas and a neutral court win over Creighton would get anything lower than a 2 seed.



The rule against first-round rematches only applies within conference, I believe.


There is something for non-conference rematches as well, but as Jack Sparrow would say, it's more like a guideline. It's allowed to happen but they try and avoid it.

Kedsy
02-07-2014, 04:55 PM
I guarantee you there's an absolutely 0% chance that a 32-1 team with a road win over Kansas and a neutral court win over Creighton would get anything lower than a 2 seed.

Maybe. I think you're underestimating the power of both the RPI and the mid-major label. San Diego State's RPI is currently #16. Last year, Memphis went into the tournament carrying the #14 RPI and a 30-4 record. They got a #6 seed. The year before, Murray State was 27-1 going into the tourney, with an RPI of #23, including two wins over ranked teams (both #21 at the time, one on the road). They also got a #6 seed. In 2011, BYU went 25-2 and were #4 (!) in the RPI, had three wins over ranked teams (including road wins over #4 and #25 and a home win over #6). They got a #3 seed. Utah State in 2011 went 24-3 with the #24 RPI and got a 12 seed.

I get that none of these are perfect analogues, but I think there's a lot more than a 0% chance that the team you describe gets lower than a 2 seed, assuming its RPI doesn't go up between now and then.

Wander
02-08-2014, 12:50 PM
Maybe. I think you're underestimating the power of both the RPI and the mid-major label. San Diego State's RPI is currently #16. Last year, Memphis went into the tournament carrying the #14 RPI and a 30-4 record. They got a #6 seed. The year before, Murray State was 27-1 going into the tourney, with an RPI of #23, including two wins over ranked teams (both #21 at the time, one on the road). They also got a #6 seed. In 2011, BYU went 25-2 and were #4 (!) in the RPI, had three wins over ranked teams (including road wins over #4 and #25 and a home win over #6). They got a #3 seed. Utah State in 2011 went 24-3 with the #24 RPI and got a 12 seed.

I get that none of these are perfect analogues, but I think there's a lot more than a 0% chance that the team you describe gets lower than a 2 seed, assuming its RPI doesn't go up between now and then.

Not only are they not perfect analogues, they're not good analogues, and actually support my point. Memphis and Utah State had zero wins against kenpom top 50 teams. Let me repeat: zero. San Diego State has two wins away from home not just against the top 50, but the top 12 (top 7 teams by kenpom)! Murray State is a low-major, not a mid-major (it's a pet peeve of mine when people use "anything other than a BCS league" as a a definition for mid-major, which is a ridiculous classification system, but that's a tangent). I agree that a 2011 BYU team that went 25-2 that got a 3 seed with those wins would actually be a pretty good analogy. But such a team does not exist: BYU had 4 losses in 2011, not 2. They actually support my point well: a 30-4 with no bad losses and a few really good wins got a 3 seed. Take that BYU team and subtract 3 of its 4 losses and you (not perfectly I acknowledge, but roughly) have this year's San Diego State, if they don't lose again. Which would certainly be worth (at least) a seed line.

It's conceivable, by the way, that a 32-1 SDSU team would be ranked #1 in the human polls! They'd almost certainly be in the top three. That's not enough in and of itself to guarantee a 2 seed (although I'd be curious how many teams ranked in the top 3 or top 5 of the final human polls fell below a 2 seed... I honestly don't know), but add up all the evidence together - and yeah, it's safe to say that SDSU is going to get a 1 or 2 if they don't lose again.

Kedsy
02-08-2014, 01:54 PM
I agree that a 2011 BYU team that went 25-2 that got a 3 seed with those wins would actually be a pretty good analogy. But such a team does not exist: BYU had 4 losses in 2011, not 2. They actually support my point well: a 30-4 with no bad losses and a few really good wins got a 3 seed. Take that BYU team and subtract 3 of its 4 losses and you (not perfectly I acknowledge, but roughly) have this year's San Diego State, if they don't lose again. Which would certainly be worth (at least) a seed line.

Yeah, sorry, I don't know how I got BYU's record wrong. Must've misread my handwriting when I was jotting it down. But an even more important difference between that BYU team and this San Diego State team is BYU was ranked #3 in the RPI and SD State is ranked #16. Take away all the losses you want, but if BYU's RPI was #16 that year their seed would have been worse than a 3-seed, not better.

Who knows, maybe if San Diego State wins the rest of their games their RPI will jump into the top 10. If so, then I agree they could get a 2-seed. But not with an RPI in the mid-teens. And considering the quality of team on the rest of their schedule, I'd say SD State's RPI might go down even if they win out.

Kedsy
02-09-2014, 10:08 AM
Who knows, maybe if San Diego State wins the rest of their games their RPI will jump into the top 10. If so, then I agree they could get a 2-seed. But not with an RPI in the mid-teens. And considering the quality of team on the rest of their schedule, I'd say SD State's RPI might go down even if they win out.

OK, I re-looked at BYU in 2011 and now I see where I got BYU's record wrong: ESPN's website lists them as 25-2 in 2011 on its RPI page. Turns out I misquoted BYU's RPI as well -- they were ranked #5 in the RPI on Selection Sunday.

To atone for my error (and bad source), I went back over the last 7 years using a more reliable source. In that time, only one team with an RPI ranked below #11 has been a top two seed. That would be Ohio State in 2010, who was ranked #22 in the RPI at the time of selection.

Here's the breakdown:

#1 in RPI = a top 2 seed 7 times out of 7
#2 in RPI = a top 2 seed 6 times out of 7 (all but New Mexico in 2013, got a #3)
#3 in RPI = a top 2 seed 7 times out of 7
#4 in RPI = a top 2 seed 7 times out of 7
#5 in RPI = a top 2 seed 5 times out of 7 (all but BYU in 2011 and Pitt in 2007; both got a #3)
#6 in RPI = a top 2 seed 7 times out of 7
#7 in RPI = a top 2 seed 3 times out of 7
#8 in RPI = a top 2 seed 5 times out of 7
#9 in RPI = a top 2 seed 2 times out of 7
#10 in RPI = a top 2 seed 3 times out of 7
#11 in RPI = a top 2 seed 3 times out of 7 (Georgetown in 2013; Villanova in 2010; Kansas in 2007)
#22 in RPI = a top 2 seed 1 times out of 7 (Ohio State in 2010)

So it wouldn't be impossible for San Diego State to get a #2 seed with its current RPI of #18 (they dropped two spots after beating Nevada over the weekend; I think it's likely they drop some more based on their schedule, even if they keep winning). But it's not likely. It's certainly not "safe to say that SDSU is going to get a 1 or 2 if they don't lose again," unless SDSU's RPI makes an unlikely foray into the top 10.

tommy
02-10-2014, 01:49 AM
Not only are they not perfect analogues, they're not good analogues, and actually support my point. Memphis and Utah State had zero wins against kenpom top 50 teams. Let me repeat: zero. San Diego State has two wins away from home not just against the top 50, but the top 12 (top 7 teams by kenpom)! Murray State is a low-major, not a mid-major (it's a pet peeve of mine when people use "anything other than a BCS league" as a a definition for mid-major, which is a ridiculous classification system, but that's a tangent). I agree that a 2011 BYU team that went 25-2 that got a 3 seed with those wins would actually be a pretty good analogy. But such a team does not exist: BYU had 4 losses in 2011, not 2. They actually support my point well: a 30-4 with no bad losses and a few really good wins got a 3 seed. Take that BYU team and subtract 3 of its 4 losses and you (not perfectly I acknowledge, but roughly) have this year's San Diego State, if they don't lose again. Which would certainly be worth (at least) a seed line.

It's conceivable, by the way, that a 32-1 SDSU team would be ranked #1 in the human polls! They'd almost certainly be in the top three. That's not enough in and of itself to guarantee a 2 seed (although I'd be curious how many teams ranked in the top 3 or top 5 of the final human polls fell below a 2 seed... I honestly don't know)

It doesn't happen often. The most recent time was in 2008, when Wisconsin, who was rated #6 in the final AP but #5 in the final USA Today/Coaches poll, only got a 3 seed. They won two games and got blown out in the Sweet 16 by #10 seed Davidson.

Turk
02-10-2014, 11:32 AM
Bracket projections this week:

Lunardi: Duke #2 in Raleigh
Palm: Duke #3 in Raleigh

Bumped up +1 presumably because of Sparty's loss - they were #2 in Lunardi last week. Can't wait for Wednesday! GTCH! 9F!

Newton_14
02-10-2014, 08:29 PM
Bracket projections this week:

Lunardi: Duke #2 in Raleigh
Palm: Duke #3 in Raleigh

Bumped up +1 presumably because of Sparty's loss - they were #2 in Lunardi last week. Can't wait for Wednesday! GTCH! 9F!

Just got to keep winning. One game at a time.

Who was it that said after the Syracuse loss the best we could hope for was a 3 (and would need to win out) and most likely it would be a 5 or 6? Now, the work is not done, however, jumping from 17th to 11th after splitting road games at Pitt/Syracuse, combined with 2-0 last week, has us positioned right back as a solid 2 seed. The ball is in our hands. Just keep winning boys. Just keep winning.

tommy
02-10-2014, 11:42 PM
Two nice losses by Big 12 teams tonight. Iowa State, rated one spot ahead of us in the RPI, got just smoked by West Virginia. And #1 Kansas went down as well. Kansas shouldn't drop much as a result, but still, every loss by a team ahead of us, that is a potential seed competitor, is a good thing.

flyingdutchdevil
02-11-2014, 07:17 AM
Two nice losses by Big 12 teams tonight. Iowa State, rated one spot ahead of us in the RPI, got just smoked by West Virginia. And #1 Kansas went down as well. Kansas shouldn't drop much as a result, but still, every loss by a team ahead of us, that is a potential seed competitor, is a good thing.

Disagree. I think Kansas has, as of now, lost the #1 seed. Given SDSU's current record, they may actually be a 1-seed as well. Wow - can you imagine both Wichita St. and SDSU as 1-seeds? That would be depressing...

Kedsy
02-11-2014, 08:03 AM
Disagree. I think Kansas has, as of now, lost the #1 seed. Given SDSU's current record, they may actually be a 1-seed as well. Wow - can you imagine both Wichita St. and SDSU as 1-seeds? That would be depressing...

I continue to maintain there's no way a team that's 18th in the RPI (which is where SDSU is now) has any chance of a #1 seed, and have no better than a 50/50 chance (probably less) of getting a #2.

True, the RPI is a bad rating system, but as far as I know the committee still uses it pretty strongly when deciding on seeding.

Assuming Kansas (still #1 in the RPI, despite last night's loss) wins the Big 12 tournament, I think they have a much better chance of a #1 seed than San Diego State.

flyingdutchdevil
02-11-2014, 08:18 AM
I continue to maintain there's no way a team that's 18th in the RPI (which is where SDSU is now) has any chance of a #1 seed, and have no better than a 50/50 chance (probably less) of getting a #2.

True, the RPI is a bad rating system, but as far as I know the committee still uses it pretty strongly when deciding on seeding.

Assuming Kansas (still #1 in the RPI, despite last night's loss) wins the Big 12 tournament, I think they have a much better chance of a #1 seed than San Diego State.

I do agree with you that SDSU probably won't get a 1 seed. But there is a lot of media arguing that they deserve a high seed. Whether that be a 1 seed or a 2 seed I do not know, but many believe a team with an incredible win at Kansas, respectable wins against Creighton and Marquette, and the only loss vs Zona deserves a high seed. I can't really disagree with that.

And with regards to the RPI, Wichita is 6th and they are all but guaranteed a 1 seed. Seeding is an art more than it is a science. And while the committee takes into consideration RPI, if teams continue to to lose, SDSU and their one loss against Zona may look like a decent choice.

freshmanjs
02-11-2014, 08:43 AM
I do agree with you that SDSU probably won't get a 1 seed. But there is a lot of media arguing that they deserve a high seed. Whether that be a 1 seed or a 2 seed I do not know, but many believe a team with an incredible win at Kansas, respectable wins against Creighton and Marquette, and the only loss vs Zona deserves a high seed. I can't really disagree with that.

And with regards to the RPI, Wichita is 6th and they are all but guaranteed a 1 seed. Seeding is an art more than it is a science. And while the committee takes into consideration RPI, if teams continue to to lose, SDSU and their one loss against Zona may look like a decent choice.

how could wichita be all but guaranteed a 1 seed as #6 (not top 4) RPI and with a month of the season still to go? if they lose even 1 game, they have no chance at a 1 seed.

Kedsy
02-11-2014, 08:45 AM
I do agree with you that SDSU probably won't get a 1 seed. But there is a lot of media arguing that they deserve a high seed. Whether that be a 1 seed or a 2 seed I do not know, but many believe a team with an incredible win at Kansas, respectable wins against Creighton and Marquette, and the only loss vs Zona deserves a high seed. I can't really disagree with that.

And with regards to the RPI, Wichita is 6th and they are all but guaranteed a 1 seed. Seeding is an art more than it is a science. And while the committee takes into consideration RPI, if teams continue to to lose, SDSU and their one loss against Zona may look like a decent choice.

Well, 6th isn't too far off from 4th. I would expect an undefeated team with an RPI of 6 to get a #1 seed. If SDSU's RPI was #10 or even #11, I'd agree they have a good shot at a #2. But #18 is pretty far from #8. I posted earlier in the thread (about 8 posts ago) that since 2007 only one team has gotten a #2 seed with an RPI worse than #11. No matter what the media says, SDSU is facing an uphill climb.

tommy
02-11-2014, 10:58 AM
Disagree. I think Kansas has, as of now, lost the #1 seed. Given SDSU's current record, they may actually be a 1-seed as well. Wow - can you imagine both Wichita St. and SDSU as 1-seeds? That would be depressing...


I continue to maintain there's no way a team that's 18th in the RPI (which is where SDSU is now) has any chance of a #1 seed, and have no better than a 50/50 chance (probably less) of getting a #2.

True, the RPI is a bad rating system, but as far as I know the committee still uses it pretty strongly when deciding on seeding.

Assuming Kansas (still #1 in the RPI, despite last night's loss) wins the Big 12 tournament, I think they have a much better chance of a #1 seed than San Diego State.


I do agree with you that SDSU probably won't get a 1 seed. But there is a lot of media arguing that they deserve a high seed. Whether that be a 1 seed or a 2 seed I do not know, but many believe a team with an incredible win at Kansas, respectable wins against Creighton and Marquette, and the only loss vs Zona deserves a high seed. I can't really disagree with that.

And with regards to the RPI, Wichita is 6th and they are all but guaranteed a 1 seed. Seeding is an art more than it is a science. And while the committee takes into consideration RPI, if teams continue to to lose, SDSU and their one loss against Zona may look like a decent choice.


Well, 6th isn't too far off from 4th. I would expect an undefeated team with an RPI of 6 to get a #1 seed. If SDSU's RPI was #10 or even #11, I'd agree they have a good shot at a #2. But #18 is pretty far from #8. I posted earlier in the thread (about 8 posts ago) that since 2007 only one team has gotten a #2 seed with an RPI worse than #11. No matter what the media says, SDSU is facing an uphill climb.

To put a little bit finer point on it, here are the final regular season RPI's of the #1 seeds over the last ten years:

2013: Kansas (5), Gonzaga (6), Indiana (7), Louisville (3). Average: 5.25
2012: Kentucky (2), Michigan St (3), Syracuse (1), UNC (4). Average: 2.5 (lowest possible)
2011: Ohio State (2), Duke (4), Kansas (1), Pittsburgh (10). Average: 4.25
2010: Kansas (1), Syracuse (5), Kentucky (2), Duke (3). Average: 2.75
2009: Pittsburgh (2), UConn (8), Louisville (4), UNC (3). Average: 4.25
2008: UNC (2), UCLA (4), Kansas (5), Memphis (3). Average: 3.5
2007: Florida (6), UNC (2), Ohio State (1), Kansas (11). Average: 5
2006: Duke (1), Memphis (4), UConn (3), Villanova (4). Average: 2.5
2005: Illinois (2), Washington (3), UNC (6), Duke (4). Average: 3.75
2004: St. Joseph's (3), Kentucky (2), Duke (1), Stanford (7). Average: 3.25.

Given this history, I don't see any way that San Diego State gets a #1 seed with an 18 (and sinking) RPI. Only twice in the last 10 years has a team with a double digit RPI gotten a #1 seed. One a 10 and one an 11. Not an 18. Pitt got theirs, as a #10 in the RPI in 2011, in a year in which the Big East was so tough they had 6 of the top 18 teams in the final RPI. Not sure about Kansas in 2007, but the point remains that the #1 seeds are very, very likely to be chosen from the top 5 or 6 of the final RPI, or maybe a spot or two below that.

Can Wichita get one if their RPI stays at 6? They can, and being undefeated would certainly help in terms of perception, but I wouldn't say it's a guarantee.

TexHawk
02-11-2014, 11:12 AM
Not sure about Kansas in 2007, but the point remains that the #1 seeds are very, very likely to be chosen from the top 5 or 6 of the final RPI, or maybe a spot or two below that.

There was a lot of attention on the Big12 in 2007 because of Kevin Durant, who KU beat in the last game of the season and again in the conference championship game. That was also the year the committee had a crush on all things Florida (giving them the #1 overall when their resume wasn't really there), and KU had beaten them in the noncon. As I recall, UCLA likely had that last #1 seed locked up, but they lost to Cal in their first Pac12 tournament game.

As it was, KU was "rewarded" with a #1 seed, but got shipped to the West, with #2 UCLA playing all of their games close to home. The regional final between the two in northern California was 80% UCLA fans. (Yes, I'm still bitter.)

Duvall
02-11-2014, 11:29 AM
Given this history, I don't see any way that San Diego State gets a #1 seed with an 18 (and sinking) RPI. Only twice in the last 10 years has a team with a double digit RPI gotten a #1 seed. One a 10 and one an 11. Not an 18. Pitt got theirs, as a #10 in the RPI in 2011, in a year in which the Big East was so tough they had 6 of the top 18 teams in the final RPI. Not sure about Kansas in 2007, but the point remains that the #1 seeds are very, very likely to be chosen from the top 5 or 6 of the final RPI, or maybe a spot or two below that.

Can Wichita get one if their RPI stays at 6? They can, and being undefeated would certainly help in terms of perception, but I wouldn't say it's a guarantee.

*Is* San Diego State's RPI sinking, though? Or rather, will it be sinking in the scenario in which they win out to get to 30-1, with 2-3 wins over New Mexico? I could see their RPI creeping up to about 10 there, which should be enough to steal a 1 seed.

Kedsy
02-11-2014, 12:33 PM
*Is* San Diego State's RPI sinking, though? Or rather, will it be sinking in the scenario in which they win out to get to 30-1, with 2-3 wins over New Mexico? I could see their RPI creeping up to about 10 there, which should be enough to steal a 1 seed.

After SDSU beat Nevada, SDSU's RPI dropped from 15 to 18. With upcoming games against Wyoming, Air Force, Utah State, San Jose State, and Fresno State, plus a couple sacrificial lambs in their conference tournament, I can see them winning out and their RPI dropping into the mid-twenties, even with the multiple games against New Mexico and one or two against UNLV. Don't know that for sure, though. I guess we'll have to wait and see which of us is right.

ice-9
02-12-2014, 12:40 AM
Ouch, they just lost to Wyoming!

Olympic Fan
02-12-2014, 01:13 AM
You guys are too hung up on RPI ...

At the very top, the human polls provide a better guide to the top seeds than the RPI or Pomeroy or Sagarin ... as of today, the No. 1 seeds are Syracuse, Arizona, Wichita State and Florida.

Last year's first and second seeds lined up precisely with the eight teams that topped the AP poll polls. It's not always that perfect, but the final AP poll is almost always closer to the actual top seeds than the RPI rankings (for instance, only one of the top four RPI teams got a No. 1 seed last year -- and it wasn't Duke, which was No. 1 in the RPI).

I'd be much more confident if Duke gets to No. 4 in the AP poll than if Duke gets in the top four in the RPI.

And with No. 7 Kansas and No. 5 San Diego State losing in the last 48 hours, Duke could move up as high as 6 -- if the Devils take care of business this week. Maybe higher with No. 6 Villanova at Creighton Sunday.

flyingdutchdevil
02-12-2014, 07:43 AM
I make myself laugh. SDSU has zero chance now of getting a one seed. Silly rabbit...

Troublemaker
02-12-2014, 08:33 AM
Duke could move up as high as 6 -- if the Devils take care of business this week. Maybe higher with No. 6 Villanova at Creighton Sunday.

This is a huge game for those of us still dreaming about a #1 Seed in the East and playing the regionals at MSG.

Villanova is the biggest non-ACC threat to grab all of that for themselves. They play in the Big East, a conference that is ranked higher than the ACC in both RPI and KenPom. Villanova has quality non-conference wins against Kansas and Iowa. If they finish in first place in the Big East with a dominant record, it'll be tough for Duke to surpass them for the MSG placement.

BUT, if Villanova gets swept by Creighton, they won't look so dominant. So huge game there. While I think Villanova is going to paste Creighton in revenge for what the Blue Jays did to them in Philly, I'll be rooting on Creighton hoping they can have close to a repeat performance at home.

jv001
02-12-2014, 08:46 AM
If Duke and Syracuse were to both be #1 seeds, that would be a feather in the ACC's cap. You know it's not a rivalry when you can wish that for a team. I could never make that wish for unc. I'd root for Hitler, Stalin, etc. over the heels. GoDuke!

tommy
02-13-2014, 01:01 AM
You guys are too hung up on RPI ...

At the very top, the human polls provide a better guide to the top seeds than the RPI or Pomeroy or Sagarin ... as of today, the No. 1 seeds are Syracuse, Arizona, Wichita State and Florida.

Last year's first and second seeds lined up precisely with the eight teams that topped the AP poll polls. It's not always that perfect, but the final AP poll is almost always closer to the actual top seeds than the RPI rankings (for instance, only one of the top four RPI teams got a No. 1 seed last year -- and it wasn't Duke, which was No. 1 in the RPI).

I'd be much more confident if Duke gets to No. 4 in the AP poll than if Duke gets in the top four in the RPI.

You are correct that the AP poll has been a more accurate predictor of #1 seeds, though not really by all that much. The two systems are close to equal in terms of their mapping to the #1 seeds. As I indicated in a previous post in this thread, here are the final regular season RPI's of the #1 seeds over the last ten years:

2013: Kansas (5), Gonzaga (6), Indiana (7), Louisville (3). Average: 5.25
2012: Kentucky (2), Michigan St (3), Syracuse (1), UNC (4). Average: 2.5 (lowest possible)
2011: Ohio State (2), Duke (4), Kansas (1), Pittsburgh (10). Average: 4.25
2010: Kansas (1), Syracuse (5), Kentucky (2), Duke (3). Average: 2.75
2009: Pittsburgh (2), UConn (8), Louisville (4), UNC (3). Average: 4.25
2008: UNC (2), UCLA (4), Kansas (5), Memphis (3). Average: 3.5
2007: Florida (6), UNC (2), Ohio State (1), Kansas (11). Average: 5
2006: Duke (1), Memphis (4), UConn (3), Villanova (2). Average: 2.5
2005: Illinois (2), Washington (3), UNC (6), Duke (4). Average: 3.75
2004: St. Joseph's (3), Kentucky (2), Duke (1), Stanford (7). Average: 3.25.

Now, here are the final, post-conference tournament AP rankings of those same #1 seeds over the last ten years:

2013: Kansas (7), Gonzaga (1), Indiana (3), Louisville (4). Average: 3.75
2012: Kentucky (1), Michigan St (5), Syracuse (2), UNC (6). Average: 3.5
2011: Ohio State (1), Duke (5), Kansas (2), Pittsburgh (3). Average: 2.75
2010: Kansas (1), Syracuse (3), Kentucky (2), Duke (4). Average: 2.5 (lowest possible)
2009: Pittsburgh (2), UConn (3), Louisville (5), UNC (1). Average: 2.75
2008: UNC (1), UCLA (3), Kansas (5), Memphis (2). Average: 2.75 (had to use last post-regular season poll for this season)
2007: Florida (6), UNC (8), Ohio State (1), Kansas (2). Average: 4.25
2006: Duke (1), Memphis (4), UConn (2), Villanova (3). Average: 2.5
2005: Illinois (1), Washington (8), UNC (2), Duke (3). Average: 3.5
2004: St. Joseph's (1), Kentucky (8), Duke (5), Stanford (2). Average: 4.0

Totaling them up, the RPI's of the #1 seeds over the last ten years average out to be a 3.7. The final pre-tournament AP rankings of the #1 seeds average out to be a 3.225. To me, that's not a heck of a lot of difference.

Other random thoughts upon looking at these:

In the AP final rankings, three #8 seeds and a #7 managed to get #1 seeds, while in the RPI's, an 11, a 10, an 8 and two 7's have gotten a #1 seed.

Looking at some of those "outliers," the three #8 ranked AP teams to get #1 seeds were 2007 UNC, 2005 Washington, and 2004 Kentucky. Those teams were rated 2, 3, and 2 respectively in the final RPI of those years. The #7 AP team which got a top seed was 2013 Kansas, which was #5 in the RPI. So neither the AP nor the RPI would have had the Jayhawks as a #1 last year, had the seedings gone per their rankings. But those three #8 AP teams almost certainly were helped big time in getting their top seeds by their very high RPI ratings.

On the other side of it, the #11 and #10 RPI teams which got top seeds were 2011 Pitt and 2007 Kansas. Those teams were ranked 3 and 2, respectively, in the AP. The 8 and 7's in the RPI which got top seeds were 2009 UConn, 2013 Indiana, and 2004 Stanford. Those teams were rated 3, 3, and 2 by the AP. So by the same token, these lower ranked RPI teams who got top seeds were all rated in the top 3 of the AP poll.

Seems to me that while the AP ratings have been a slightly more accurate "predictor" of #1 seeds than have the RPI ratings, at least by averaging their pre-tournament ratings, a team rated significantly outside the top 4 in either the AP or RPI can still get a #1 seeds, so long as they are very highly rated (top 3) in the other system. The only exception was last year's Kansas squad, rated #7 AP and #5 RPI. I'm sure TexHawk will be in here soon to remind us why the Jayhawks deserved it anyway. :)

kAzE
02-13-2014, 02:37 AM
If Duke and Syracuse were to both be #1 seeds, that would be a feather in the ACC's cap. You know it's not a rivalry when you can wish that for a team. I could never make that wish for unc. I'd root for Hitler, Stalin, etc. over the heels. GoDuke!

Um, wait, what? I dislike UNC as much as the next Duke fan, but I think academic fraud is slightly the lesser of two evils compared to mass murder/genocide. Plus, it's not much of a rivalry when the other team constantly sucks. As much fun as it is to root against the Heels, Duke benefits when they are good.

TexHawk
02-13-2014, 09:24 AM
The only exception was last year's Kansas squad, rated #7 AP and #5 RPI. I'm sure TexHawk will be in here soon to remind us why the Jayhawks deserved it anyway. [/COLOR]:)

Ha! I wish I could remember my arguments from a year ago. I do recall not being super-passionate either way. But in hindsight, yea, if it had been switched and KU got the #2 in Louisville's region like Duke did, I would have flown off the handle. I'm like that sometimes.

To answer your question, I think some committee members still hold to the "tough schedule / conf champs / conf tournament champs" thing. KU won the conference title (actually tied with KSU, but beat them 3 times), and the conference tournament, while having a relatively high RPI. Duke didn't win either of those things, and I think Miami played a poor schedule. There were holes in everyone's resume.

Which is interesting to note for this year, because if KU runs the table to the tournament (unlikely, but not impossible), they would get a #1 seed 99/100 times in a normal year. But I think all history of #1 seeds, RPIs, AP polls, etc gets thrown out the window with an undefeated mid-major in the mix.

Kedsy
02-13-2014, 09:27 AM
Totaling them up, the RPI's of the #1 seeds over the last ten years average out to be a 3.7. The final pre-tournament AP rankings of the #1 seeds average out to be a 3.225. To me, that's not a heck of a lot of difference.

I agree with almost all of what you say in this post, but when the best you can do is 2.5, the difference between 3.7 and 3.225 seems pretty big to me. That said, your overall point holds: the committee appears to look at both measures.

That said, my original point was that whether or not the committee will (very rarely) dip down to a #11 RPI for a #1 or #2 seed if the team is ranked high in the AP poll, they've never gone as low as #18 for a #1 seed and only once have they gone that low for a #2 seed. So the statements saying San Diego State had a good chance for a #1 and a lock for a #2 were flying in the face of history.

tommy
02-13-2014, 05:53 PM
Ha! I wish I could remember my arguments from a year ago. I do recall not being super-passionate either way. But in hindsight, yea, if it had been switched and KU got the #2 in Louisville's region like Duke did, I would have flown off the handle. I'm like that sometimes.

To answer your question, I think some committee members still hold to the "tough schedule / conf champs / conf tournament champs" thing. KU won the conference title (actually tied with KSU, but beat them 3 times), and the conference tournament, while having a relatively high RPI. Duke didn't win either of those things, and I think Miami played a poor schedule. There were holes in everyone's resume.

Which is interesting to note for this year, because if KU runs the table to the tournament (unlikely, but not impossible), they would get a #1 seed 99/100 times in a normal year. But I think all history of #1 seeds, RPIs, AP polls, etc gets thrown out the window with an undefeated mid-major in the mix.

Yeah, it would be interesting if KU runs the table, Wichita remains unbeaten, and Syracuse, Arizona and Florida all finish very strongly. There would be five deserving teams (and Kansas likely to remain #1 RPI) but only four seats at the table. I agree with you that Wichita would not be denied. The other three have all had fabulous seasons and probably would get it over Kansas -- unless they suffer a bad loss, or multiple losses. Plus, isn't there an NCAA by-law against having two teams from the state of Kansas receive #1 seeds in the same year???

BlueDevilBrowns
02-16-2014, 07:35 PM
This is a huge game for those of us still dreaming about a #1 Seed in the East and playing the regionals at MSG.

Villanova is the biggest non-ACC threat to grab all of that for themselves. They play in the Big East, a conference that is ranked higher than the ACC in both RPI and KenPom. Villanova has quality non-conference wins against Kansas and Iowa. If they finish in first place in the Big East with a dominant record, it'll be tough for Duke to surpass them for the MSG placement.

BUT, if Villanova gets swept by Creighton, they won't look so dominant. So huge game there. While I think Villanova is going to paste Creighton in revenge for what the Blue Jays did to them in Philly, I'll be rooting on Creighton hoping they can have close to a repeat performance at home.

Well now that Creighton has destroyed Villanova AGAIN, Duke has a reasonable chance to move up to #5 in the polls, if voters can remember the Kansas loss from earlier in the week and not worry too much about Duke's close win vs. Maryland.

But this week is going to be make-or-break for Duke's #1 seed chances. Sweep all 3 games and Duke controls it's own destiny for a #1 seed, IMO.

Beat GT but lose to either one of UNC or Syracuse and a #2 seed would seem to be the best we could get without help. The reason I say that is, unlike most other years, we don't have really any "elite" wins from the non-conference season to hang our hat on. Plus we have two bad losses in Clemson and ND, which is unusual for us, as well. We do have the Michigan and UCLA wins which are solid, but not really "elite".

That's why this second meeting with the Orange is so key for us, along with the opportunity for a 2nd solid road win(to go along with Pitt) at Chapel Hill.

moonpie23
02-16-2014, 07:50 PM
i am definitely worried about Ga Tech…….TOTAL Akbar…..

Troublemaker
02-16-2014, 08:34 PM
But this week is going to be make-or-break for Duke's #1 seed chances. Sweep all 3 games and Duke controls it's own destiny for a #1 seed, IMO.

Yeah, I think if Duke wins out, we're very likely to be a 1 seed. Of course, probably 8 or so teams can say that right now. The hard part is the winning out. (As you do that, other teams will lose, and you'll move ahead). Even with just one more loss, I think we're probably out of the 1 seed race.

Turk
02-17-2014, 12:33 PM
Yeah, I think if Duke wins out, we're very likely to be a 1 seed. Of course, probably 8 or so teams can say that right now. The hard part is the winning out. (As you do that, other teams will lose, and you'll move ahead). Even with just one more loss, I think we're probably out of the 1 seed race.

I cuaght a clip of Lunardi saying exactly that: if Duke or a couple other teams (e.g. Kansas) win out, they will push into the #1 conversation.

Turk
02-17-2014, 12:49 PM
Adding other #2 seeds for a bit of flavor:

Lunardi: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology
EAST: 1. Syracuse / 2. Mich St
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. SDSU
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Kansas
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Duke (Raleigh)

Palm: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology
EAST: 1. Syracuse / 2. Cincy
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. SDSU / 3. Duke (Raleigh)
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Kansas
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Villanova

Palm says he didn't care Nova got smoked by Creighton last night. Really? He's got them and Cincy too high.

Eakane
02-17-2014, 01:03 PM
Amongst the "win-out" teams, it certainly helps us that we have Syracuse, probably twice on the schedule. If we win on Saturday, and then beat them in the ACC finals, I think both teams would get #1: Syracuse for its body of work, and Duke for the big wins and ACC tourney champs. But, as said above, the hard part is the winning out. A sixth loss probably eliminates us from contention for a one seed. Let's just win tomorrow -- step on Tech's neck and keep it there.

BlueDevilBrowns
02-17-2014, 01:08 PM
Adding other #2 seeds for a bit of flavor:

Lunardi: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology
EAST: 1. Syracuse / 2. Mich St
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. SDSU
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Kansas
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Duke (Raleigh)

Palm: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology
EAST: 1. Syracuse / 2. Cincy
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. SDSU / 3. Duke (Raleigh)
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Kansas
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Villanova

Palm says he didn't care Nova got smoked by Creighton last night. Really? He's got them and Cincy too high.

I don't get that line of thinking, either. Wherever Villanova is seeded, right now, Creighton should be seeded above them, seeing as how they dominated them twice and hold a 1/2 game lead on them in the regular season conference standings.

No way Villanova is a #2 seed if the tournament was today. And Cincy being a #2 is a joke, too.

TexHawk
02-17-2014, 01:15 PM
Adding other #2 seeds for a bit of flavor:
Lunardi: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology
EAST: 1. Syracuse / 2. Mich St
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. SDSU
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Kansas
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Duke (Raleigh)

Palm: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology
EAST: 1. Syracuse / 2. Cincy
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. SDSU / 3. Duke (Raleigh)
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Kansas
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Villanova

I think the craziest part of these predictions is that everybody's favorite conference is barely holding onto a 2 seed (in only Lunardi's bracket). The Indy regional was always assumed to be the Big10's to lose, as a 1 or at the very least, a 2. That would be two years in a row for that stadium, though you guys had to face MSU there.

Do teams below the 1 line get seeded by region too? ie. Does the #5 team on the S-curve get geographical preference over #6-8? I keep forgetting the answer to that. I note that because while everyone always just assumes KU = Midwest, the South regional (Memphis) is actually closer to Lawrence than Indy is.

tommy
02-18-2014, 12:30 AM
Adding other #2 seeds for a bit of flavor:

Lunardi: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology
EAST: 1. Syracuse / 2. Mich St
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. SDSU
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Kansas
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Duke (Raleigh)

Palm: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology
EAST: 1. Syracuse / 2. Cincy
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. SDSU / 3. Duke (Raleigh)
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Kansas
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Villanova

Palm says he didn't care Nova got smoked by Creighton last night. Really? He's got them and Cincy too high.

Well, Nova is still #5 in the RPI and #9 in KenPom. If they finish strong, including perhaps a win over Creighton in the BE tournament, they could still snag a 2. Their only losses to this point are to Creighton (twice) and Syracuse.


I don't get that line of thinking, either. Wherever Villanova is seeded, right now, Creighton should be seeded above them, seeing as how they dominated them twice and hold a 1/2 game lead on them in the regular season conference standings.

No way Villanova is a #2 seed if the tournament was today. And Cincy being a #2 is a joke, too.

Agree as to Cincy. They're 14 in the RPI and 25 in KenPom. While they don't have any bad losses, their best win is over #24 UConn. Not the profile of a #2 seed.


I think the craziest part of these predictions is that everybody's favorite conference is barely holding onto a 2 seed (in only Lunardi's bracket). The Indy regional was always assumed to be the Big10's to lose, as a 1 or at the very least, a 2. That would be two years in a row for that stadium, though you guys had to face MSU there.

Not only that, but the supposed "best conference in the nation" may only get 5 teams into the tournament. Michigan State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio State are in. Those are the only teams above .500 in the league. Nebraska sits at 6-6 but only 14-10 overall, 52 RPI, 62 KenPom. Minnesota has 17 wins, but is only 6-7 in the league. They do have a 33 RPI, which will help. They still have to go to Ohio State and Michigan and play Iowa at home, though. The rest of the teams in the league are worse than those two. I think they'll somehow get a sixth team in, but with no #1 seed, probably not even a #2 seed (Michigan State is 19 in the RPI, 18 in KenPom), the idea that this has been some sort of dominant league seems kinda silly.

ice-9
02-18-2014, 12:39 AM
I think they'll somehow get a sixth team in, but with no #1 seed, probably not even a #2 seed (Michigan State is 19 in the RPI, 18 in KenPom), the idea that this has been some sort of dominant league seems kinda silly.

Plus, didn't the ACC - Big 10 challenge end in a tie?

Turk
02-23-2014, 03:01 PM
Three games left: VT, @WF, unc.

Currently tied with holes at 4 losses each. Winning out puts Duke in 3rd place (most likely) for ACCT.
If Duke only wins 2 of 3, then the 5th conf loss would tie them with Pitt right now. Even if Pitt wins out (favorable sched but no gimme, NCSU at home and @Clem toughest two games), Duke should get the 4th seed because the win at Pitt gives them the head-to-head tiebreak. So chances are very good that Duke will be no worse than 4th seed in the ACCT.

Duke has pretty much taken care of business and should be a solid #2 seed in the NCAAT. SDSU should slip a little but not much losing at UNM. Winning out until the ACCT finals might put them in the conversation for a #1 seed, but there still needs to be more upsets among the current #1's.

It's probably about a week too soon, but I'm starting look at the #1's and trying to figure out who would be the most favorable matchup for Duke.

weezie
02-23-2014, 03:10 PM
So are you all fairly agreed that Duke indeed stays in Raleigh? How much of an influence might an early exit (say semi final game) of ACC tourney impact whether they stay local?
Just askin'....since I have Raleigh tix.

Kedsy
02-23-2014, 03:53 PM
SDSU should slip a little but not much losing at UNM.

I'm not sure I follow when you say they shouldn't slip much. SDSU will probably be outside the top 10 in the AP this week, and is currently ranked #20 in the RPI and #27 in Pomeroy. I expect they're hoping to hold on to a #3 seed at this point, with only an outside shot at a #2.

Turk
02-23-2014, 04:23 PM
Weezie, hard to guess percentages, but thinking Duke is in good shape for Raleigh. Even a semis ACCT loss shouldn't hurt, as long as it's to one of the other top 4 teams (UVa, Syr, unc). Each of the 8 sites should have either a #1 or #2, and there's no way the holes get into that conversation even though they're playing better - just too much ground to make up this late in the season.

Kedsy, I checked UNM and they are RPI 21, projected 8 seed, so losing in the Pit not a bad loss for SDSU. (Carolina is RPI 22 and was a projected 7 seed by comparison). Maybe they slip to #3 this week, but I think they're still in the hunt for a #2.

brevity
02-23-2014, 04:32 PM
So are you all fairly agreed that Duke indeed stays in Raleigh? How much of an influence might an early exit (say semi final game) of ACC tourney impact whether they stay local?
Just askin'....since I have Raleigh tix.

Due to a secret coalition between the NCAA and Sea World Parks and Entertainment, Inc., the first weekend's games will take place in Orlando, San Antonio, and San Diego, as well as the following 5 cities: Buffalo, Milwaukee, Raleigh, Spokane, St. Louis.

As you know, only 2 teams seeded 1-4 can play in Raleigh. Joe Lunardi* hasn't updated his bracket since sometime Thursday, when he had Duke and Virginia. UNC is a threat if they win the ACC Tournament, but I don't see them getting a higher seed than Duke otherwise. The real pressure comes from the many teams that would want to play in Milwaukee and St. Louis: Cincinnati, Creighton, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, St. Louis (who can't play in St. Louis), Wichita State, Wisconsin. Obviously, not all 12 are going to be among the top 16 overall seeds, but more than 4 will, and they will spill over and headline other cities.

Jerry Palm has updated his bracket (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology).

Buffalo: Syracuse (1), Cincinnati (2)
Milwaukee: Michigan State (2), Wisconsin (3)
Orlando: Florida (1), Duke (4)
Raleigh: Villanova (2), Creighton (3)
San Antonio: San Diego State (3), St. Louis (4)
San Diego: Arizona (1), Michigan (4)
Spokane: Iowa State (3), Virginia (4)
St. Louis: Wichita State (1), Kansas (2)

This is... bizarre. I have no idea why Cincinnati goes to Buffalo, which sends Villanova to Raleigh. I could see a scenario where only one ACC team goes to Raleigh, but not zero.

*Last year I said that Joe Lunardi had the second easiest job on television, after Angus T. Jones, the kid from Two and a Half Men. Now that Jones found religion and decided he doesn't want to make $300,000 per episode anymore, Lunardi wins the prize. There are less talented people that make more money, but none that have to do so little, or can get away with doing it wrong.

Olympic Fan
02-23-2014, 04:56 PM
Weezie, hard to guess percentages, but thinking Duke is in good shape for Raleigh. Even a semis ACCT loss shouldn't hurt, as long as it's to one of the other top 4 teams (UVa, Syr, unc). Each of the 8 sites should have either a #1 or #2, and there's no way the holes get into that conversation even though they're playing better - just too much ground to make up this late in the season.

Kedsy, I checked UNM and they are RPI 21, projected 8 seed, so losing in the Pit not a bad loss for SDSU. (Carolina is RPI 22 and was a projected 7 seed by comparison). Maybe they slip to #3 this week, but I think they're still in the hunt for a #2.

First, Jerry Palm is living in some bizzaro world ... it's hard for me to accept, since he's always been better than Lunardi, but he's flat out ignoring the NCAA seeding principals at this point. The idea that he has Duke as a No. 4 seed at this point is ludicrous for a team that is No. 6 in the RPI, No. 8 in the BPI, No. 4 in KenPom and probably 5-7 in the new polls. That is CLEARLY No. 2 seed territory at the moment by every measure the committee uses.

I'm not as optimistic as some of you (including Turk) about Duke's chances for Raleigh.

You are wrong to say that each site should have a No. 1 or No. 2 ... That's the idea, but it doesn't always work that way. There are eight subregionals, each with two pods. You could have two No. 1 seeds at the same location (as happened in 2005 in Charlotte). Some sites could have a No. 3 and a No. 4. In recent years, the committee has been much more interested in geographical distribution than balance

More important than the difference between being a No. 2 or No. 3 seed is being seeded higher than UNC and/or Virginia in the NCAA bracket. All three of those teams are likely to be top 4 NCAA seeds (and that means heading a pod somewhere) and all three would have the preference to play in Raleigh. But only two of them can. By rule, the two that are seeded highest will get the preference. (BTW: Syracuse will wind up in Buffalo)

Right now, I think Duke is clearly ahead of North Carolina (despite the loss Thursday night) and maybe ahead of Virginia (despite their better ACC standing ... which technically if not a factor for the committee ... they look at overall record). But if UNC wins the rematch in Durham, they would have a good case for seeding UNC ahead of Duke. And if Virginia finishes 17-1 in the ACC and at least matches Duke in the tourney, they could easily get the nod.

I think the race for 3-4-5 in the ACC regular season is important too. Obviously, it's important to be a top 4 seed and get a bye into the quarterfinals Friday. But it is almost as important to get the No. 3 seed, instead of 4. I say that not because of the chance of facing either Syracuse or Virginia Saturday, but because the No. 4 seed is probably going to face the No. 5 seed on Friday. That means if Duke gets No. 4, they open the tournament against UNC or Pitt. If they get the No. 3 seed, they'll likely open against the No. 6 seed -- maybe Clemson, maybe NC State. I think that is preferable.

Duke has a good chance to win out to close the regular season. That would guarantee the No. 3 seed (unless Syracuse really stumbles down the stretch to give us No. 2) and would leave Duke in great shape for a No. 2 NCAA seed. But it all comes down to that UNC game in Cameron. It's close to a must win.

I do believe that a No. 1 seed is a remote possibility -- if Duke wins out in the regular season and wins the tourney. Even that wouldn't be a lock at this point -- it depends on what some of the other No. 1 contenders do.

FerryFor50
02-23-2014, 05:18 PM
First, Jerry Palm is living in some bizzaro world ... it's hard for me to accept, since he's always been better than Lunardi, but he's flat out ignoring the NCAA seeding principals at this point. The idea that he has Duke as a No. 4 seed at this point is ludicrous for a team that is No. 6 in the RPI, No. 8 in the BPI, No. 4 in KenPom and probably 5-7 in the new polls. That is CLEARLY No. 2 seed territory at the moment by every measure the committee uses.

I'm not as optimistic as some of you (including Turk) about Duke's chances for Raleigh.

You are wrong to say that each site should have a No. 1 or No. 2 ... That's the idea, but it doesn't always work that way. There are eight subregionals, each with two pods. You could have two No. 1 seeds at the same location (as happened in 2005 in Charlotte). Some sites could have a No. 3 and a No. 4. In recent years, the committee has been much more interested in geographical distribution than balance

More important than the difference between being a No. 2 or No. 3 seed is being seeded higher than UNC and/or Virginia in the NCAA bracket. All three of those teams are likely to be top 4 NCAA seeds (and that means heading a pod somewhere) and all three would have the preference to play in Raleigh. But only two of them can. By rule, the two that are seeded highest will get the preference. (BTW: Syracuse will wind up in Buffalo)

Right now, I think Duke is clearly ahead of North Carolina (despite the loss Thursday night) and maybe ahead of Virginia (despite their better ACC standing ... which technically if not a factor for the committee ... they look at overall record). But if UNC wins the rematch in Durham, they would have a good case for seeding UNC ahead of Duke. And if Virginia finishes 17-1 in the ACC and at least matches Duke in the tourney, they could easily get the nod.

I think the race for 3-4-5 in the ACC regular season is important too. Obviously, it's important to be a top 4 seed and get a bye into the quarterfinals Friday. But it is almost as important to get the No. 3 seed, instead of 4. I say that not because of the chance of facing either Syracuse or Virginia Saturday, but because the No. 4 seed is probably going to face the No. 5 seed on Friday. That means if Duke gets No. 4, they open the tournament against UNC or Pitt. If they get the No. 3 seed, they'll likely open against the No. 6 seed -- maybe Clemson, maybe NC State. I think that is preferable.

Duke has a good chance to win out to close the regular season. That would guarantee the No. 3 seed (unless Syracuse really stumbles down the stretch to give us No. 2) and would leave Duke in great shape for a No. 2 NCAA seed. But it all comes down to that UNC game in Cameron. It's close to a must win.

I do believe that a No. 1 seed is a remote possibility -- if Duke wins out in the regular season and wins the tourney. Even that wouldn't be a lock at this point -- it depends on what some of the other No. 1 contenders do.

One benefit Duke has that is unique to UNC and UVA is that they have a second home up north. If they end up in Buffalo, it's a nice consolation prize.

Reilly
02-23-2014, 05:21 PM
... I do believe that a No. 1 seed is a remote possibility -- if Duke wins out in the regular season and wins the tourney. Even that wouldn't be a lock at this point -- it depends on what some of the other No. 1 contenders do.

If Virginia wins the regular season title and the ACC tourney, would they get a #1 seed?

Since 1980, thirteen teams have finished first (or tied for first) in the regular season, and also won the ACC tourney. Of those thirteen, eleven got a #1 NCAA seed. The two that did not: 1985 GT and 2013 Miami -- both got #2 NCAA seeds.

Duke (86, 92, 99, 00, 01, 06, 10)
UNC (82, 07, 08)
WFU (95)

FerryFor50
02-23-2014, 05:25 PM
If Virginia wins the regular season title and the ACC tourney, would they get a #1 seed?

Since 1980, thirteen teams have finished first (or tied for first) in the regular season, and also won the ACC tourney. Of those thirteen, eleven got a #1 NCAA seed. The two that did not: 1985 GT and 2013 Miami -- both got #2 NCAA seeds.

Duke (86, 92, 99, 00, 01, 06, 10)
UNC (82, 07, 08)
WFU (95)

I doubt it. The only signature wins would be UNC and Duke/Syracuse, potentially, with some BAD losses.

It would depend on how a ton of teams ahead of them in the standings fare the rest of the year...

sagegrouse
02-23-2014, 05:36 PM
I doubt it. The only signature wins would be UNC and Duke/Syracuse, potentially, with some BAD losses.

It would depend on how a ton of teams ahead of them in the standings fare the rest of the year...

I believe a 17-1 UVa with an ACC Championship will be a #1 seed. In this case, it will have wins over UNC, Syracuse, @ Pitt, and Clemson (2) in the regular season and wins over, most probably, two of Duke, UNC and Syracuse in the ACCs.

The Tournament Selection Committee will rightfully ignore the bad losses in Nov. and Dec.

No conference will get two #1 seeds and UVa, with these results, will rank ahead of many of the other major conference champions.

Kedsy
02-23-2014, 05:50 PM
Kedsy, I checked UNM and they are RPI 21, projected 8 seed, so losing in the Pit not a bad loss for SDSU. (Carolina is RPI 22 and was a projected 7 seed by comparison). Maybe they slip to #3 this week, but I think they're still in the hunt for a #2.

I'm not saying it's a bad loss. But with a #20 RPI and a sub-100 SOS (along with #27 in Pomeroy and #25 in Sagarin Predictor) San Diego State shouldn't have been in the conversation for a #2 seed in the first place. The only reason they were was they had a stellar W/L record and a gaudy AP rank. I'll be surprised if the loss to NM doesn't drop them out of the AP top 10, and either way it gives them 3 losses. So, since their resume has always more resembled a #3 or #4 more than a #2 or #1, now that they have nothing exceptional about them, they have (IMO) virtually no chance at a #2 seed.

Put another way, New Mexico is #21 RPI (#31 Pomeroy, with Pomeroy's #73 NCSOS), with a 21-5 record. They also have a 14 point win over SDSU, a team that's #20 RPI (#27 Pomeroy with the #81 NCSOS) and has a 23-3 record (and a loss to NM). How can New Mexico be a #8 and SDSU be a #2? Even a #3 seems a stretch. If you're basing it on New Mexico, SDSU should be at best a #6. But assuming SDSU doesn't lose again (including the rematch with New Mexico), their high AP rank will probably give them a #3 or #4.

No matter how I look at it, I can't see them in the hunt for a #2, which would mean they'd have to beat out at least one of Arizona, Florida, Syracuse, Duke, Kansas, Villanova, Wichita State, and Michigan State, and also beat out every single one of St. Louis, Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia, Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Iowa, and Iowa State. Especially since it's hard to see them passing Wichita State (or even St. Louis at this point) and there's a pretty good shot that 7 of the above teams will win major conference tournaments.

weezie
02-23-2014, 06:15 PM
Weezie, hard to guess percentages, but thinking Duke is in good shape for Raleigh. Even a semis ACCT loss shouldn't hurt, as long as it's to one of the other top 4 teams (UVa, Syr, unc).

Thanks, Brother Turk. I'll wave if I get on tv.

Love you too Oly but you're bumming me out a bit. hoos w/#1 seed? They'd have to run the table for sure and that game of dueling zones and slow down offense against syr will be something else. I predict big coffee sales inside the jpj dome, just to keep the crowd alert.

Troublemaker
02-23-2014, 06:18 PM
Whom are we rooting against?

Bracket Matrix (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/) has Duke ranked 8th on the S-curve as of this morning. The order is:

1. Arizona
2. Florida
3. Syracuse
4. Wichita St
5. Kansas
6. Villanova
7. Creighton
8. Duke
9. Michigan St

If you click on the link, I can't see anyone below 9 eventually getting a 1 seed. Perhaps UVA if they win out, but for the purposes of this post, I'm going to assume Duke wins out because that's the only way we can get a 1 seed. Michigan St is iffy as to whether they are really in contention. I think they are because if they get Branden Dawson back the next game (which is what Izzo is suggesting) and THEY win out, I think the committee might discount their recent struggles enough to land them a 1 seed.

So, it's really those 8 teams that we're rooting against, if we care about the 1 seed and still think we can get one. Narrowing it down some more, I'm not going to bother too much with rooting against Florida and Wichita St because of the weak schedules those two are playing. They are the only two teams that I would classify as "likely" 1 seeds at this point. Arizona has to prove themselves over again without Brandon Ashley, but likewise, I'm not going to focus too much on them because they would very likely be placed in the Anaheim region and I'm not too interested in Duke being the 1 seed in the West anyway (but reasonable minds can disagree.)

So, I'm basically focusing my rooting energies (since clearly fans can affect games!) against 5 teams: Syracuse, Kansas, Villanova, Creighton, and Michigan St.

BlueDevilBrowns
02-23-2014, 08:19 PM
I'm not as optimistic as some of you (including Turk) about Duke's chances for Raleigh.

More important than the difference between being a No. 2 or No. 3 seed is being seeded higher than UNC and/or Virginia in the NCAA bracket. All three of those teams are likely to be top 4 NCAA seeds (and that means heading a pod somewhere) and all three would have the preference to play in Raleigh. But only two of them can. By rule, the two that are seeded highest will get the preference. (BTW: Syracuse will wind up in Buffalo)

Right now, I think Duke is clearly ahead of North Carolina (despite the loss Thursday night) and maybe ahead of Virginia (despite their better ACC standing ... which technically if not a factor for the committee ... they look at overall record). But if UNC wins the rematch in Durham, they would have a good case for seeding UNC ahead of Duke. And if Virginia finishes 17-1 in the ACC and at least matches Duke in the tourney, they could easily get the nod.

Duke has a good chance to win out to close the regular season. That would guarantee the No. 3 seed (unless Syracuse really stumbles down the stretch to give us No. 2) and would leave Duke in great shape for a No. 2 NCAA seed. But it all comes down to that UNC game in Cameron. It's close to a must win.

I do believe that a No. 1 seed is a remote possibility -- if Duke wins out in the regular season and wins the tourney. Even that wouldn't be a lock at this point -- it depends on what some of the other No. 1 contenders do.


Whom are we rooting against?

Bracket Matrix (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/) has Duke ranked 8th on the S-curve as of this morning. The order is:

1. Arizona
2. Florida
3. Syracuse
4. Wichita St
5. Kansas
6. Villanova
7. Creighton
8. Duke
9. Michigan St

So, I'm basically focusing my rooting energies (since clearly fans can affect games!) against 5 teams: Syracuse, Kansas, Villanova, Creighton, and Michigan St.

To summarize, for Duke to get the 1st two rounds in Raleigh, they're competing against UNC and UVA. If Duke wins out in the reg season, that should be enough to finish ahead of UNC when it comes to geographical preference. If we lose to UNC, we'll need to win the ACCT to avoid being shipped to Buffalo or Orlando.

To get the highest possible seed, we need to keep winning(in my best Tim McCarver voice).

FLA, AZ, and the Shockers all seem likely to grab 3 of the 4 #1 seeds(with the Shockers being 1 loss from dropping to a 2 seed).

So, assuming that those 3 do indeed grab those 3 slots, we need to REALLY root for Kansas to lose a couple of more games(as they hold a head-to-head win vs. Duke) along with Creighton and Villanova(to a lesser extent, IMO).

If we win out and win the ACCT, that would take care of Syracuse(as it's likely Syracuse won't win the regular season now) and with MSU's loss today, I don't see them being able to get a #1 seed.

Easy, right?

Reilly
02-23-2014, 09:30 PM
... To get the highest possible seed, we need to keep winning(in my best Tim McCarver voice) ...

Do you mean to say that we need to have more points than the other team, at the end of every game, between now and selection Sunday?

BlueDevilBrowns
02-23-2014, 09:46 PM
Do you mean to say that we need to have more points than the other team, at the end of every game, between now and selection Sunday?

That's right, Reilly. Don't forget, too, that Duke can also win every game between now and Selection Sunday by the opposing team scoring at least 1 point less than Duke in every game. That's key.

Olympic Fan
02-23-2014, 11:16 PM
Just a note, but Pitt's loss to FSU Sunday almost guarantees Duke a top 4 spot (and a Friday bye) in the ACC Tournament.

It's not a mathematical lock, but it is realistically -- Duke has a two-game lead on both Pitt and Clemson in the standings, plus the tiebreaker vs. Pitt. It would take a total collapse by the Devils to wind up playing Thursday.

FWIW, I haven't seen in posted yet, but Lunardi discussed his updated brackets on air and has Duke as the No. 2 seed in the South (Florida as the one). He has the ACC with a No. 1 (Syracuse), a No. 2 (Duke) a No 3 (Virginia) and a No. 4 (UNC).

Kedsy
02-23-2014, 11:23 PM
FWIW, I haven't seen in posted yet, but Lunardi discussed his updated brackets on air and has Duke as the No. 2 seed in the South (Florida as the one).

That would be unfortunate. Personally, I'd rather not see either Florida or Kansas until the Final Four.

ElSid
02-23-2014, 11:32 PM
FWIW, I haven't seen in posted yet, but Lunardi discussed his updated brackets on air and has Duke as the No. 2 seed in the South (Florida as the one). He has the ACC with a No. 1 (Syracuse), a No. 2 (Duke) a No 3 (Virginia) and a No. 4 (UNC).

That would not be good. Florida is the one team that scares me the most. I'd hate to be their 2 seed.

Syracuse is on a slippery slope right now with very tough games ahead against Maryland and Virginia. Very possible they slip into 2 seed territory as well. Whoever draws them and Wichita State will have "light" brackets, I believe. Arizona? I can stomach that, especially since we essentially found an antidote to the problems that plagued us the first game (MP3). But Florida? Least good option.

Gotta say, there are a lot of teams with a legitimate shot at the championship this year. Gonna be an exciting March!

sagegrouse
02-23-2014, 11:33 PM
FWIW, I haven't seen in posted yet, but Lunardi discussed his updated brackets on air and has Duke as the No. 2 seed in the South (Florida as the one). He has the ACC with a No. 1 (Syracuse), a No. 2 (Duke) a No 3 (Virginia) and a No. 4 (UNC).


That would be unfortunate. Personally, I'd rather not see either Florida or Kansas until the Final Four.

Yawn. Lunardi and the other prophets offer some value in looking at bubble teams and teams seeded 3-8. They are of little value in projecting the #1 and #2 seeds because the conference tournaments play such a big role in determining #1 seeds and, therefore, #2 seeds.

Kedsy
02-23-2014, 11:46 PM
Arizona? I can stomach that, especially since we essentially found an antidote to the problems that plagued us the first game (MP3).

You really think the problems we had against Arizona can be cured by Marshall Plumlee? I don't see that at all. Their big center, Tarczewski, scored just 10 points and wasn't even on the floor when they made their big run. We lost that game because we couldn't stop their penetration and because on offense we kind of panicked and started playing hero ball midway through the second half. I think we'd be better at both those issues today than we were then, and I think Arizona is a lot weaker today than they were then due to the loss of Ashley, but I don't see how Marshall is the antidote to anything.


Yawn. Lunardi and the other prophets offer some value in looking at bubble teams and teams seeded 3-8. They are of little value in projecting the #1 and #2 seeds because the conference tournaments play such a big role in determining #1 seeds and, therefore, #2 seeds.

Oh, I know that. I was just commenting that I wouldn't enjoy meeting Florida or Kansas before the Final Four.

Turk
02-24-2014, 06:23 AM
Just a note, but Pitt's loss to FSU Sunday almost guarantees Duke a top 4 spot (and a Friday bye) in the ACC Tournament.

It's not a mathematical lock, but it is realistically -- Duke has a two-game lead on both Pitt and Clemson in the standings, plus the tiebreaker vs. Pitt. It would take a total collapse by the Devils to wind up playing Thursday.

FWIW, I haven't seen in posted yet, but Lunardi discussed his updated brackets on air and has Duke as the No. 2 seed in the South (Florida as the one). He has the ACC with a No. 1 (Syracuse), a No. 2 (Duke) a No 3 (Virginia) and a No. 4 (UNC).

Yeah, Pitt seems to be seriously leaking oil. While I will never be a "paradigm of optimism", I like Duke's chances to play in Raleigh because of the team controls their own destiny and doesn't really have to play a whole lot better than they've been playing these last few games to take care of business.

Your points are spot-on, and I see your logic. Two out of three between Duke, UVa, and unc in Raleigh seems reasonable.

wilson
02-24-2014, 08:52 AM
First, Jerry Palm is living in some bizzaro world ... it's hard for me to accept, since he's always been better than Lunardi, but he's flat out ignoring the NCAA seeding principals at this point. The idea that he has Duke as a No. 4 seed at this point is ludicrous for a team that is No. 6 in the RPI, No. 8 in the BPI, No. 4 in KenPom and probably 5-7 in the new polls. That is CLEARLY No. 2 seed territory at the moment by every measure the committee uses.I've been wondering about this too...Palm obviously knows a lot about seeding history and convention, so like you, I think this is weird. But this is the same Palm who kept Duke out of his bowl projections until we had clinched eligibility, and who kept us down in the Weedeater/Pistachio/Whatever Bowl until well after it was clear we'd be in a much better game.
BAAAAAAAH JERRY PALM IS BIASED HE HATES DUKE HE'S AN EMBARRASSMENT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY. There, I've saved us all the two pages of tangential whining.

sporthenry
02-24-2014, 09:08 AM
I respect Palm in the sense that he doesn't overreact to individual games (at least for the most part, UNC game withstanding). And he is very knowledgable but almost goes out of his way to prove it. I remember earlier in the year, he had Pitt and Duke in the same pod. Sure, it was legal since they only played each other once but it seems silly to do it. I guess we'll see how much he is right but I think/hope the committee tries to avoid rematches.

sporthenry
02-24-2014, 09:16 AM
Yawn. Lunardi and the other prophets offer some value in looking at bubble teams and teams seeded 3-8. They are of little value in projecting the #1 and #2 seeds because the conference tournaments play such a big role in determining #1 seeds and, therefore, #2 seeds.

Really? After hearing the committee last year and what I remember over the past few years, fans tend to overrate the importance of the conference tournament. The committee takes a more holistic approach than the week to week bracketology. It seems like most 1 seeds are just about set going into conference tourneys.

TexHawk
02-24-2014, 09:25 AM
Really? After hearing the committee last year and what I remember over the past few years, fans tend to overrate the importance of the conference tournament. The committee takes a more holistic approach than the week to week bracketology. It seems like most 1 seeds are just about set going into conference tourneys.

Don't fall into the hole where you assume that the committee always knows what it's doing. I say that with respect because I think it's a tough job, and then one sacrificial lamb gets thrown to the media to answer for everything. Some years that lamb says "RPI", other years it's "conference strength", other times it's "head-to-head", others it's "last 10 games", etc.

wilson
02-24-2014, 09:28 AM
Don't fall into the hole where you assume that the committee always knows what it's doing. I say that with respect because I think it's a tough job, and then one sacrificial lamb gets thrown to the media to answer for everything. Some years that lamb says "RPI", other years it's "conference strength", other times it's "head-to-head", others it's "last 10 games", etc.This. The Selection Committee's criteria for season-long assessment have long been a moving target, and this is exacerbated by the fluidity of the committee's membership. There have been a few tried-and-true trends; there is some very good insight upthread with regard to rankings vs. RPI, and it's pretty clear by now that the committee prioritizes respectable scheduling (just ask Herb Sendek). But all the rest, as TexHawk has noted, is essentially the reading of so many tea leaves.

Wander
02-24-2014, 09:29 AM
You really think the problems we had against Arizona can be cured by Marshall Plumlee? I don't see that at all. Their big center, Tarczewski, scored just 10 points and wasn't even on the floor when they made their big run. We lost that game because we couldn't stop their penetration and because on offense we kind of panicked and started playing hero ball midway through the second half. I think we'd be better at both those issues today than we were then, and I think Arizona is a lot weaker today than they were then due to the loss of Ashley, but I don't see how Marshall is the antidote to anything.


Well, I agree I wouldn't call him an "antidote," but Marshall is our best shot blocker, so it seems reasonable to me to say that he could help by making their penetration less punishing by altering the subsequent shots.

wilson
02-24-2014, 09:32 AM
Well, I agree I wouldn't call him an "antidote," but Marshall is our best shot blocker, so it seems reasonable to me to say that he could help by making their penetration less punishing by altering the subsequent shots.This may be true, but to me, the more encouraging (and more relevant) recent development has been the at least partial reappearance of our old standby man-to-man defense, playing of passing lanes, etc. This team is not a defensive juggernaut, but it is much better overall in that category than it was in November.

Turk
02-24-2014, 10:14 AM
Lunardi: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. Creighton / 3. UVa
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Duke (Raleigh) / 3. Mich State
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Kansas / 3. Michigan
EAST: 1. Syracuse / 2. Wisconsin / 3. Villanova

Palm: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. Kansas / 3. SDSU
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Wisconsin / 3. Creighton
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Cincy / 3. Duke (Raleigh)
EAST: 1. Syracuse / 2. Villanova / 3. Iowa State

Palm still in love with Cincy and Villanova; I don't understand why. At least he moved Duke up from #4 seed in Orlando.
Lunardi's looks better to me. He has Duke #2, UVa #3, unc #5. Duke has inside track to stay in Raleigh (as long as we avoid scoring one less point than our opponents at the end of the game - hee hee).

nocilla
02-24-2014, 10:32 AM
Lunardi: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. Creighton / 3. UVa
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Duke (Raleigh) / 3. Mich State
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Kansas / 3. Michigan
EAST: 1. Syracuse / 2. Wisconsin / 3. Villanova

Palm: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. Kansas / 3. SDSU
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Wisconsin / 3. Creighton
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Cincy / 3. Duke (Raleigh)
EAST: 1. Syracuse / 2. Villanova / 3. Iowa State

Palm still in love with Cincy and Villanova; I don't understand why. At least he moved Duke up from #4 seed in Orlando.
Lunardi's looks better to me. He has Duke #2, UVa #3, unc #5. Duke has inside track to stay in Raleigh (as long as we avoid scoring one less point than our opponents at the end of the game - hee hee).

Well, Palm may still be crazy, but I would take a #3 seed with WSU and Cincy over a #2 seed with Florida and MSU given the choice.

Turk
02-24-2014, 11:00 AM
Palm still in love with Cincy and Villanova; I don't understand why. At least he moved Duke up from #4 seed in Orlando.
Lunardi's looks better to me. He has Duke #2, UVa #3, unc #5. Duke has inside track to stay in Raleigh (as long as we avoid scoring one less point than our opponents at the end of the game - hee hee).

I'm surrendering to the grammar police. "As long as we avoid scoring one FEWER point than our opponents..."

As Sister Camilla Mary used to say, "Be still my beating heart, and fan me with a brick."

El_Diablo
02-24-2014, 11:47 AM
Lunardi: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. Creighton / 3. UVa
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Duke (Raleigh) / 3. Mich State
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Kansas / 3. Michigan
EAST: 1. Syracuse / 2. Wisconsin / 3. Villanova

Palm: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. Kansas / 3. SDSU
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Wisconsin / 3. Creighton
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Cincy / 3. Duke (Raleigh)
EAST: 1. Syracuse / 2. Villanova / 3. Iowa State

Palm still in love with Cincy and Villanova; I don't understand why. At least he moved Duke up from #4 seed in Orlando.
Lunardi's looks better to me. He has Duke #2, UVa #3, unc #5. Duke has inside track to stay in Raleigh (as long as we avoid scoring one less point than our opponents at the end of the game - hee hee).

Lundardi is not considering geographic preferences here, because there is no possible s-curve order that would distribute the 2-seeds in that particular manner (in which none of the 2-seeds are given their closest region). If we were the top 2-seed, we would get NY.* If it were Kansas, they would get Memphis. If it were Wisconsin, they would get Indy. If it were Creighton, they would get Indy.

*However, though not required to do so, I could see the committee moving us out of NY to our second spot so as to avoid having two ACC members in that region. In that case, we would go to Indy--not Memphis.

Turk
02-24-2014, 03:33 PM
Lunardi is not considering geographic preferences here, because there is no possible s-curve order that would distribute the 2-seeds in that particular manner (in which none of the 2-seeds are given their closest region). If we were the top 2-seed, we would get NY.* If it were Kansas, they would get Memphis. If it were Wisconsin, they would get Indy. If it were Creighton, they would get Indy.

*However, though not required to do so, I could see the committee moving us out of NY to our second spot so as to avoid having two ACC members in that region. In that case, we would go to Indy--not Memphis.

I have a hard time believing Lunardi isn't considering geography, especially at the top of the bracket.
Part of the problem is the distribution of this particular group of 2 seeds - three teams from the midwest, plus Duke.

If Kansas is the top 2-seed (5 on S-curve), why wouldn't they get sent to Indy, especially if Wichita St is the fourth #1 seed on the curve in that region? Then if Duke is next at 6 on the S-curve, Memphis is next best available (and you're probably right about not wanting to pair #3 Syr and #6 Duke in the same region if it can be easily avoided). So that leaves Creighton and Wisconsin to get what's left over. Seems plausible to me...

(And don't get me wrong - I would love it if Duke gets sent to the East and MSG, even if Syracuse is there.)

TexHawk
02-24-2014, 03:48 PM
I have a hard time believing Lunardi isn't considering geography, especially at the top of the bracket.
Part of the problem is the distribution of this particular group of 2 seeds - three teams from the midwest, plus Duke.

If Kansas is the top 2-seed (5 on S-curve), why wouldn't they get sent to Indy, especially if Wichita St is the fourth #1 seed on the curve in that region?

Lawrence is closer to Memphis than Indy. Not by a lot, but Indy is still a further trip.

Personally, I would almost rather play in Memphis because it's an actual basketball venue. I can't stand the sightlines for hoops in a football stadium, and the players hate the depth perception issues. I know it will never happen, but they should move it to where the Pacers play, it's right down the street from Lucas Oil. That's where the Big10 tourney is this year.

BlueDevilBrowns
03-01-2014, 08:29 PM
Well, if you're a Duke fan, today was a pretty solid day for helping our seed in the NCAAT.

Creighton, Cincy, MSU, and Louisville all lost. All of these teams were in the 2-3 seed range on most mocks.

Syracuse losing probably helps Duke as well, although VA now will move up some.

Barring a collapse(losing to Wake or in the Quarterfinals of the ACCT), Duke looks to be a 2 seed at worst.

Black Mambo
03-01-2014, 08:40 PM
Even though Syracuse has been struggling late, I think the body of work argument means they still keep their 1 seed even after tonight's loss. Or maybe Kansas gets the 1 and Syracuse the 2. However, if Kansas loses tonight to OKState and Duke beats Cuse again, maybe Duke has a legit argument about being the weakest one seed, with Syracuse as the strongest 2 seed.

Troublemaker
03-01-2014, 10:19 PM
Kansas just lost to Okie St 72-65. Hmmm, KU losing by that score might be an omen for Duke!

Duvall
03-01-2014, 10:23 PM
Now all Duke probably has to do beat three top 15 teams, with a couple more wins besides, to have a great shot at the top line. Sure, why not?

duke4ever19
03-01-2014, 10:34 PM
Let's see....

Getting a #1 seed in the East, playing in the relatively friendly North East and avoiding becoming the Gator's 2-seed are great incentives to steamroll both UNC and the whoever is in our way in the ACC tourney.

Exiled_Devil
03-01-2014, 10:37 PM
11:30 Sportscenter, Lunardi said that Cuse drops to 2 seed, Kansas jumps to 1 (even with OKState loss) and UVA jumps to 2. Duke stays at 2 so he forecasts 3 ACC teams and Wisconsin on that line.

I guess that would eliminate an issue of ending up in the same region for Duke/Cuse/UVA.

Black Mambo
03-01-2014, 10:39 PM
11:30 Sportscenter, Lunardi said that Cuse drops to 2 seed, Kansas jumps to 1 (even with OKState loss) and UVA jumps to 2. Duke stays at 2 so he forecasts 3 ACC teams and Wisconsin on that line.

I guess that would eliminate an issue of ending up in the same region for Duke/Cuse/UVA.

I assume the SC list is in order of the S-curve, so Duke is the top 2 seed? I think each of the current 1 seeds wold need more than 1 loss for Duke to ascend to the 1 line, even if we win out the regular season and the ACC tournament.

The question is, would we rather be the weakest 1 or the strongest 2?

sbroc012
03-01-2014, 10:50 PM
The question is, would we rather be the weakest 1 or the strongest 2?

Put us in the west as a 2 with Wichita state as the 1 and I'm a happy man

hurleyfor3
03-01-2014, 10:55 PM
There. Is. No. S-Curve.

Wahoo2000
03-01-2014, 10:59 PM
Put us in the west as a 2 with Wichita state as the 1 and I'm a happy man

Right now it looks like Florida, Wichita, and AZ are all pretty much LOCKS to get 1 seeds. That leaves one spot for Kansas, Duke, & Villanova to fight over. If only one of those 3 win their conf tourney, that one probably gets the 1 seed. If none win, Kansas probably gets it with a huge nod to their ridiculous schedule. I suppose it's POSSIBLE that 'Cuse or UVa could also sneak into that last spot by winning out, including beating 2 of Duke, Carolina, and 'Cuse/UVa in the ACC tourney, but I think it's unlikely.

Duvall
03-01-2014, 11:03 PM
I assume the SC list is in order of the S-curve, so Duke is the top 2 seed? I think each of the current 1 seeds wold need more than 1 loss for Duke to ascend to the 1 line, even if we win out the regular season and the ACC tournament.

The question is, would we rather be the weakest 1 or the strongest 2?

Forget that you ever heard the phrase "S-curve." You will be happier for it.

It would be better to be a 1-seed, if for no other reason than to avoid the other 1-seeds.

Cameron
03-01-2014, 11:09 PM
In spite of whatever Joe Lunardi said tonight, I think if Duke wins out and cuts down the nets in Greensboro, with a second win over either Syracuse, North Carolina or Virginia along the way, the Blue Devils are getting a number one seed at 28-6. I'd just be very surprised if we didn't get the nod over KU, even with the head-to-head loss to them (which was much closer than the final score), in that scenario. It would mean Duke finished the year with seven straight wins, with three of them coming against Syracuse, North Carolina and one (possibly two) of either Syracuse/North Carolina/Virginia in the ACC Tournament. (Again, I'm basing all of that off the hypothetical situation that we would actually face any of those teams in the ACC Tournament. We obviously may not, which could have a different effect on our seeding and give Kansas the edge.)

Wins over Wake Forest on Wednesday and Carolina on Saturday should lock us into a two seed at the very least.

hurleyfor3
03-01-2014, 11:10 PM
People think we'll win out? People are presupposing at least a 2 seed, looking all the way out to 1/2 matchups and ignoring the intervening rounds? With this team? Really?

Bluedog
03-01-2014, 11:10 PM
I assume the SC list is in order of the S-curve, so Duke is the top 2 seed? I think each of the current 1 seeds wold need more than 1 loss for Duke to ascend to the 1 line, even if we win out the regular season and the ACC tournament.

The question is, would we rather be the weakest 1 or the strongest 2?

Strongest 2 likely puts us in the South (with Florida), while being the weakest 1, we've got a good chance to be sent to NYC. So, yeah, #1 seed is greatly preferred. Remember, the "strongest 2" does NOT necessarily get the "weakest one" - it's all based on geography and the strongest two gets geographic preference. The South is the closest site even though most Duke fans would rather be in NYC. Still a long way to go to be worrying about this, though, I agree.

Cameron
03-01-2014, 11:13 PM
People think we'll win out? People are presupposing at least a 2 seed, looking all the way out to 1/2 matchups and ignoring the intervening rounds? With this team? Really?

I don't think we'll win out, but, in the event that we do, I think we'll be a one seed. Like Joe Lunardi's "bracket updates," it's all hypothetical and essentially meaningless right now. But still fun to discuss.

bbosbbos
03-01-2014, 11:18 PM
Before the last UNC game we talked about winning all the remaining games and we would be #1, then you know what happened. So I think we should focus on next game and keep improving, good things will happen. I do not want to dream now.

Cameron
03-01-2014, 11:26 PM
Before the last UNC game we talked about winning all the remaining games and we would be #1, then you know what happened. So I think we should focus on next game and keep improving, good things will happen. I do not want to dream now.

I agree with what you are saying in theory, but, with all due respect, nothing any of us say here will have any impact on the events moving forward.

It's an internet message board. I mean, sometimes we take ourselves far too serious.

El_Diablo
03-01-2014, 11:42 PM
Strongest 2 likely puts us in the South (with Florida), while being the weakest 1, we've got a good chance to be sent to NYC. So, yeah, #1 seed is greatly preferred. Remember, the "strongest 2" does NOT necessarily get the "weakest one" - it's all based on geography and the strongest two gets geographic preference. The South is the closest site even though most Duke fans would rather be in NYC. Still a long way to go to be worrying about this, though, I agree.

No, the South region (Memphis) is the third closest for Duke (behind NYC and Indy).

Troublemaker
03-01-2014, 11:43 PM
Strongest 2 likely puts us in the South (with Florida), while being the weakest 1, we've got a good chance to be sent to NYC. So, yeah, #1 seed is greatly preferred. Remember, the "strongest 2" does NOT necessarily get the "weakest one" - it's all based on geography and the strongest two gets geographic preference. The South is the closest site even though most Duke fans would rather be in NYC. Still a long way to go to be worrying about this, though, I agree.

Double check those distances! NYC is actually closer to Durham than Memphis. (Even Indianapolis is about 100 miles closer to Durham than Memphis).

Olympic Fan
03-02-2014, 12:04 AM
In spite of whatever Joe Lunardi said tonight, I think if Duke wins out and cuts down the nets in Greensboro, with a second win over either Syracuse, North Carolina or Virginia along the way, the Blue Devils are getting a number one seed at 28-6. I'd just be very surprised if we didn't get the nod over KU, even with the head-to-head loss to them (which was much closer than the final score), in that scenario. It would mean Duke finished the year with seven straight wins, with three of them coming against Syracuse, North Carolina and one (possibly two) of either Syracuse/North Carolina/Virginia in the ACC Tournament. (Again, I'm basing all of that off the hypothetical situation that we would actually face any of those teams in the ACC Tournament. We obviously may not, which could have a different effect on our seeding and give Kansas the edge.)

Wins over Wake Forest on Wednesday and Carolina on Saturday should lock us into a two seed at the very least.

I agree with Cameron's evaluation 100 percent. Win out for a 28-6 finish and I think Duke will end up as a No. 1 seed. I know there are other contenders, but several of them will lose in the coming two weeks ...

Win out in the regular season, then I thing Duke stays a No. 2 seed no matter what happens in the ACC Tournament. A loss next week and an early loss in Greensboro COULD mean a No. 3 seed.

It's funny, but there is more pressure coming behind us that in front of us. Right now, there are only three logical No. 1 seeds (and that includes Wichita State, which will get a one, even though everybody knows they aren't a top 5 team). It's so bad that Lunardi moved Kansas up from a 2 to a 1 seed Saturday even after they lost!!!

The fact is there is a dearth of No. 1 seed candidates, but a ton of teams with resumes that scream No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 seeds.

It's there for Duke to take ...

PS I'm trying to follow Lunardi's reasoning. Going into today's game, he had Syracuse as a No. 1 and Kansas as a No. 2. Both lost on the road. But Syracuse lost to a higher ranked team (No. 12 Virginia, which is significantly higher ranked than unranked Okie State). Syracuse STILL has four less losses than Kansas. I know Kansas is higher in the RPI, but they were higher in the RPI Saturday morning when he had Syracuse ahead of Kansas.

So what happened Saturday that justified jumping Kansas over Syracuse?

Wander
03-02-2014, 04:17 AM
Right now, there are only three logical No. 1 seeds (and that includes Wichita State, which will get a one, even though everybody knows they aren't a top 5 team).

Everybody except, you know, most people who follow the sport, as well as objective measures like kenpom and BPI.

ice-9
03-02-2014, 04:40 AM
Everybody except, you know, most people who follow the sport, as well as objective measures like kenpom and BPI.

Wichita St is #5 on KenPom right now with a hairline 0.0003 advantage over Louisville. But c'mon, this was a 6-10 team on most other dork polls more than it was 1-5 team. They're more top 10 than top 5.

That said I think Wichita St being the #5 team in the country is plausible and that would get them a 2-seed in the tournament. But they're #2, not #5, and they'll probably get the 1-seed, not the 2-seed.

I wonder what would happen if Florida loses? Say to Kentucky in the SEC tournament. Would we be ready to anoint the Shockers as the best team in the country?

ice-9
03-02-2014, 05:10 AM
I was curious to see how many tournament teams the Shockers actually defeated. I don't have subscriptions to any sites to make this easy, but I've got a flu, stuck in bed, so why not. According to Bracketology (not the best source I know, but whatever close enough), the Shockers have defeated the following projected tournament teams:

- St Louis (4-seed, #30 on KenPom)
- BYU (11, #45)
- Tennessee (11 play-in game, #23)
- Davidson (16, #115)

And...that's it. I have to say I'm surprised there are as many as four teams, but BYU and Tennessee are hanging by a thread. Davidson is there as the projected conference champion, so not a shoe-in.

That means St Louis is Wichita St's only victory against a sure-fire NCAA tournament team.

Yikes. This is the profile of a team many are calling a lock for a 1 seed? A team who with one Florida loss will likely be ranked the #1 team in the country? Has any #1 team in history had so few good wins at this point in the season?

(Who else is surprised too see the Vols outrank the Billikens on KenPom?)

Saratoga2
03-02-2014, 07:09 AM
I was curious to see how many tournament teams the Shockers actually defeated. I don't have subscriptions to any sites to make this easy, but I've got a flu, stuck in bed, so why not. According to Bracketology (not the best source I know, but whatever close enough), the Shockers have defeated the following projected tournament teams:

- St Louis (4-seed, #30 on KenPom)
- BYU (11, #45)
- Tennessee (11 play-in game, #23)
- Davidson (16, #115)

And...that's it. I have to say I'm surprised there are as many as four teams, but BYU and Tennessee are hanging by a thread. Davidson is there as the projected conference champion, so not a shoe-in.

That means St Louis is Wichita St's only victory against a sure-fire NCAA tournament team.

Yikes. This is the profile of a team many are calling a lock for a 1 seed? A team who with one Florida loss will likely be ranked the #1 team in the country? Has any #1 team in history had so few good wins at this point in the season?

(Who else is surprised too see the Vols outrank the Billikens on KenPom?)

Sorry to hear that you are ill.

The Shockers are a very good team who would be competitive in any power conference but would no doubt rack up a number of losses. Presumably, they would have played a better class of teams if they could have, but these situations come up nearly every year. In deference to their 31 and 0 I think you have to make them a #1 and whoever gets to play them in the 2nd or 3rd round will have a good chance of taking them down. I wouldn't mind Duke getting a #2 seed with them as the #1.

ice-9
03-02-2014, 08:21 AM
Sorry to hear that you are ill.

Thanks!! I usually post only every now and then, but this weekend was an exception as I have nothing much to do in bed; thus the outburst of posts recently. I'll be fine for Monday.

Indoor66
03-02-2014, 08:44 AM
Thanks!! I usually post only every now and then, but this weekend was an exception as I have nothing much to do in bed; thus the outburst of posts recently. I'll be fine for Monday.

Durn, you must be nearly as old as I am. LOL :cool: I hope you get to feeling better.

CDu
03-02-2014, 09:01 AM
Right now it looks like Florida, Wichita, and AZ are all pretty much LOCKS to get 1 seeds. That leaves one spot for Kansas, Duke, & Villanova to fight over. If only one of those 3 win their conf tourney, that one probably gets the 1 seed. If none win, Kansas probably gets it with a huge nod to their ridiculous schedule. I suppose it's POSSIBLE that 'Cuse or UVa could also sneak into that last spot by winning out, including beating 2 of Duke, Carolina, and 'Cuse/UVa in the ACC tourney, but I think it's unlikely.

I don't think Villanova is in the discussion for a #1 seed. They're 1-3 against the top-25, and they were blown out in those 3 losses. Compare that to Duke (4-4 vs top-25), Syracuse (3-2), Kansas (7-4), and Wisconsin (5-2), and it just doesn't hold up. For comparison, Lunardi has Villanova as a #3 seed.

I think if Duke wins out (including the ACC tourney), we stand a good shot at a #1. But if Wisconsin wins out, I think they'll end up being the #1 seed. That'll put them at either 6-2 or 7-2 against the top-25 and 9-3 or 10-3 against the top-5. Yes, they have one questionable loss and one bad loss, but that performance against the top is just too hard to ignore.

NYBri
03-02-2014, 09:10 AM
Put us in the west as a 2 with Wichita state as the 1 and I'm a happy man

I'm down with that. However, we've had some tough bracket placements recently and we may be destined to another because we are Duke...not that we've played well in those placements.

OldPhiKap
03-02-2014, 09:40 AM
I am hoping we win two games this week, let alone win out. But having said that,I do not see a real difference between a 1 and 2 seed. The big questions for me:

1. Do we get the Raleigh and NY games? Big plus if we do.
2. If we are in Raleigh, is Carolina there too? Big negative if we are both there.
3. We have match-up problems with big teams that can penetrate from the top. Which teams we face is more important than the seed number of the teams we face.

I frankly do not see us as a 1 seed, let alone the best team in our conference. But we have the best coach, a first-team All-American (arguably) and some kids who can absolutely fill it up if we are hitting all gears. So we have a better chance than most to make the Final Four, and then all bets are off for everyone.

gumbomoop
03-02-2014, 09:45 AM
People are presupposing at least a 2 seed, looking all the way out to 1/2 matchups and ignoring the intervening rounds?


... we've had some tough bracket placements recently and we may be destined to another because we are Duke....

Duke's most likely a 2-seed in NCAAT. Wonder whether downsliding UK would fall to a 7 should they lose early in SECT. And if so, the Selection Committee would be tempted .......... Actually, "tempted" might be understating things.

Of course, the 2/7 matchup might be sidetracked, too, in an intervening round.

BlueDevilBrowns
03-02-2014, 09:47 AM
I am hoping we win two games this week, let alone win out. But having said that,I do not see a real difference between a 1 and 2 seed. The big questions for me:

1. Do we get the Raleigh and NY games? Big plus if we do.
2. If we are in Raleigh, is Carolina there too? Big negative if we are both there.
3. We have match-up problems with big teams that can penetrate from the top. Which teams we face is more important than the seed number of the teams we face.

I frankly do not see us as a 1 seed, let alone the best team in our conference. But we have the best coach, a first-team All-American (arguably) and some kids who can absolutely fill it up if we are hitting all gears. So we have a better chance than most to make the Final Four, and then all bets are off for everyone.

1. If the Selection Show was today, the answer, IMO, is yes(as a #2 seed).
2. UVA wrapped up Raleigh with their win yesterday. Only 1 spot left for either UNC or Duke. Winner next Saturday(or if either one wins ACCT) gets the last spot in Raleigh.
3. I'm not sure what your question is here, but if you're saying is matchup more important than seeding, the answer, especially this year, is yes.

Atlanta Duke
03-02-2014, 10:07 AM
Jerry Palm of CBSSports.com still has Syracuse at #1 in the East and now has Duke at #3 in the West:confused:

His #1 seeds - Syracuse, Florida, Wichita State and Arizona
His #2 seeds - Wisconsin, Kansas, San Diego State, and Villanova

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

I have no clue why San Diego State is there (#27 kenpom/high 20s depending which RPI equivalent you see)

Palm's theory on Syracuse

Syracuse stayed on the top line despite a loss at Virginia, mostly because Kansas lost also.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24463633/bracketology-when-everybody-loses-somebody-has-to-win

Kedsy
03-02-2014, 10:29 AM
Jerry Palm of CBSSports.com still has Syracuse at #1 in the East and now has Duke at #3 in the West:confused:

His #1 seeds - Syracuse, Florida, Wichita State and Arizona
His #2 seeds - Wisconsin, Kansas, San Diego State, and Villanova

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

I have no clue why San Diego State is there (#27 kenpom/high 20s depending which RPI equivalent you see)

Palm's theory on Syracuse

Syracuse stayed on the top line despite a loss at Virginia, mostly because Kansas lost also.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24463633/bracketology-when-everybody-loses-somebody-has-to-win

I think Palm's losing it. His brackets have been weird all year. His Syracuse and Villanova predictions seem off, but San Diego State as a #2 seed is totally indefensible.

No way this resume:

25-3, #13 AP, #23 RPI, #27 Pomeroy, #136 SOS (from RPI) <-- SDSU

beats out any of the following resumes for a #2 seed:

25-5, #12 AP, #10 RPI, #2 Pomeroy, #25 SOS (RPI) <-- UVa
23-6, #6 AP, #7 RPI, #3 Pomeroy, #7 SOS (RPI) <-- Duke
23-5, #9 AP, #9 RPI, #7 Pomeroy, #23 SOS (RPI) <-- Creighton

There are at least half a dozen other teams that don't belong in the conversation for a #2 seed but still have as good or better resumes than San Diego State. Yet Palm still trots SDSU out as a #2 seed. Crazy.

Atlanta Duke
03-02-2014, 10:51 AM
There are at least half a dozen other teams that don't belong in the conversation for a #2 seed but still have as good or better resumes than San Diego State. Yet Palm still trots SDSU out as a #2 seed. Crazy.

The wagering public agrees

Current odds on San Diego State cutting down the nets in Dallas are 65-1 (+6500) - that puts them at #22

Odds on other teams

Florida +500
Kansas +700
Arizona +900
Duke +1000
Michigan State +1050
Syracuse +1200
Wichita State+1200
Louisville +1250
Kentucky +1500
Virginia +2000

bird
03-02-2014, 11:35 AM
I am hoping we win two games this week, let alone win out. But having said that,I do not see a real difference between a 1 and 2 seed. The big questions for me:

1. Do we get the Raleigh and NY games? Big plus if we do.
2. If we are in Raleigh, is Carolina there too? Big negative if we are both there.
3. We have match-up problems with big teams that can penetrate from the top. Which teams we face is more important than the seed number of the teams we face.

I frankly do not see us as a 1 seed, let alone the best team in our conference. But we have the best coach, a first-team All-American (arguably) and some kids who can absolutely fill it up if we are hitting all gears. So we have a better chance than most to make the Final Four, and then all bets are off for everyone.

I am worried that our competition for Raleigh is Villanova not UNC. Villanova has a better RPI than Duke right now, according to CBS. And as discussed elsewhere here RPI still seems really important. Villanova seems to be a trendy team to love. Buffalo is a little bit closer to Villanova than Raleigh, but not by much. Palm does not put is in Raleigh, and, also as pointed out here, somebody is going to get the short end by being sent to Orlando (so why not Duke?). I have big $ in a trip / tickets to Raleigh planned for a year, so this is making me nervous!

OldPhiKap
03-02-2014, 11:42 AM
I am worried that our competition for Raleigh is Villanova not UNC. Villanova has a better RPI than Duke right now, according to CBS. And as discussed elsewhere here RPI still seems really important. Villanova seems to be a trendy team to love. Buffalo is a little bit closer to Villanova than Raleigh, but not by much. Palm does not put is in Raleigh, and, also as pointed out here, somebody is going to get the short end by being sent to Orlando (so why not Duke?). I have big $ in a trip / tickets to Raleigh planned for a year, so this is making me nervous!

Agree that Villanova is a challenge on the court. I am talking more about a stadium full of Heel fans. We get screwed every time that happens.

Olympic Fan
03-02-2014, 12:00 PM
Agree that Villanova is a challenge on the court. I am talking more about a stadium full of Heel fans. We get screwed every time that happens.

The 2005 NCAA subregional in Charlotte seems to have left some kind of psychic damage on Duke fans. I agree that was ugly -- Duke was harassed during the public workouts and during both games. It was like playing two road games.

But that's the ONLY time it has happened. I've been to every NCAA site that has contained both Duke and UNC since and it's never again been a problem. In 2009 in Greensboro, it was fine ... in 2011 in Charlotte, it was fine ... in 2012 in Greensboro, Duke lost to Lehigh, but there was no problem with UNC fans in the stands.

If Duke and UNC end up in Raleigh, I'm not in the least worried about UNC fans creating a hostile atmosphere. The 2005 situation was unique and had more to do with the late collapse of Wake Forest (which had expected to get a Charlotte pod) than anything else. U*NC (which has expected to be in Charlotte all along) and Wake had bought up all the public tickets there. When Duke very unexpectedly wound up in Charlotte, Duke fans had to scramble for tickets.

Right now, I think Villanova is more likely to wind up in Buffalo -- its closer and even small differences mean a lot to the committee. But I think it EXTREMELY likely that Virginia gets one of the Raleigh pods. Then it comes down to Duke-UNC ... right now, Duke has a slight edge -- despite the loss in Chapel Hill. To me, that makes next Saturday's Duke-UNC game so important. If Duke wins, they would have a clearcut edge on the Heels ... but if UNC sweeps Duke, they would have the edge -- and the right to a Raleigh pod.

ChillinDuke
03-02-2014, 12:40 PM
Right now, I think Villanova is more likely to wind up in Buffalo -- its closer and even small differences mean a lot to the committee. -

Is this true? I seem to recall a discussion on UK seeding by the Committee (maybe 2 yrs ago?) where they seemed to seed them location-wise based on fanbase considerations (and maybe even school preference? Can't remember) rather than physical distance in miles.

That was my understanding of how the #1 and #2 seeds get placed. Could be wrong.

- Chillin

Bluedog
03-02-2014, 03:53 PM
Is this true? I seem to recall a discussion on UK seeding by the Committee (maybe 2 yrs ago?) where they seemed to seed them location-wise based on fanbase considerations (and maybe even school preference? Can't remember) rather than physical distance in miles.

That was my understanding of how the #1 and #2 seeds get placed. Could be wrong.

- Chillin

It's on a case by case situation. You are right that the committee said Atlanta was a more natural fit for Kentucky than St. Louis was despite StL being closer in 2012. Having said that, I don't see Raleigh being a better fit for Villanova than Buffalo. I see them as more of a Northeastern school just as Kentucky is viewed as Southern and in SEC country rather than the Midwest. I'm hoping the committee sees Duke as a better fit in NYC than Memphis (assuming the East is still available when they place Duke). They probably won't though....

Troublemaker
03-02-2014, 04:24 PM
I'm hoping the committee sees Duke as a better fit in NYC than Memphis (assuming the East is still available when they place Duke). They probably won't though....

I dunno. I think it's pretty common knowledge among people who follow college basketball that Duke has a lot of NYC area fans and would prefer MSG. I would guess the committee received some input from Kentucky to let the committee know that Atlanta was a more natural fit, and Duke could provide the same input.

brevity
03-02-2014, 04:56 PM
I am worried that our competition for Raleigh is Villanova not UNC. Villanova has a better RPI than Duke right now, according to CBS. And as discussed elsewhere here RPI still seems really important. Villanova seems to be a trendy team to love. Buffalo is a little bit closer to Villanova than Raleigh, but not by much.


Right now, I think Villanova is more likely to wind up in Buffalo -- its closer and even small differences mean a lot to the committee.


It's on a case by case situation. You are right that the committee said Atlanta was a more natural fit for Kentucky than St. Louis was despite StL being closer in 2012. Having said that, I don't see Raleigh being a better fit for Villanova than Buffalo. I see them as more of a Northeastern school just as Kentucky is viewed as Southern and in SEC country rather than the Midwest.

Let's limit the discussion for a moment and concentrate only on Villanova. The way the season is shaping up, I believe that even the lazy Selection Committee would know to put Villanova in Buffalo.

1. It's closer. If we measure driving distances from arena to arena, Villanova is 364 miles from Buffalo, and 412 miles from Raleigh.

2. It's easier for the fans. There's no definitive map of Villanova's fanbase, but there are a couple of good guesses. Facebook has served no purpose to society until it compiled March Madness fandom maps last year. They classified U.S. counties by Facebook likes. Here's one that includes Villanova. Click to enlarge.

3977

(Source (http://www.facebook.com/notes/sports-on-facebook/march-madness-fandom-on-facebook/10151473245234487))

You'll find a less sophisticated but similar map here (http://www.floatingsheep.org/2010/04/ncaa-basketball-nations.html). Buffalo is a good choice for the fans in Philadelphia, but a great choice for the fans in the rest of PA and much of NY (Buffalo included).

3. There's no competition. Syracuse is going to Buffalo as long as they get a 4 seed or better. Villanova is the best candidate to join them because there's no other high seed that makes as much sense there. Michigan State students would have a shorter drive if they go through Ontario, but Milwaukee is closer for them anyway. In the event that Michigan State gets a lower seed than, say, Wisconsin and Michigan, they would get bumped to another site, but I have a hard time believing they would go to Buffalo over Villanova. Michigan State has a national fanbase and would be fine elsewhere.

Highlander
03-02-2014, 05:21 PM
1. If the Selection Show was today, the answer, IMO, is yes(as a #2 seed).
2. UVA wrapped up Raleigh with their win yesterday. Only 1 spot left for either UNC or Duke. Winner next Saturday(or if either one wins ACCT) gets the last spot in Raleigh.
3. I'm not sure what your question is here, but if you're saying is matchup more important than seeding, the answer, especially this year, is yes.

I doubt very seriously UVA wrapped up anything yesterday. Yes they won the ACC regular season, but the schedule is so imbalanced, that title doesn't mean as much as it used to. UVA only had to play UNC, Duke, and Syracuse once each, and two of the three were at home. I think it will come down more to the relative performances in the ACC tournament. If UNC outperforms UVA in the ACC Tourney, they can easily get the Raleigh pod. Duke could lose Raleigh, but I think we are in the driver's seat right now. We would have to lose to UNC and flame out in the Tourney to either UNC or UVA for one of them to pass us. Unlikely, but very possible.

BlueDevilBrowns
03-02-2014, 06:40 PM
Since it's that time of year again(yeah!), I thought I'd list Duke's performance as a top 4 seed in the NCAAT since 1986(I'm sure someone did this last year and in every previous year, but just to refresh everyone's memory - what the heck!).

Duke's been a Top 3 seed 24 times(crazy!) in the 28 NCAAT's since 1986.

9 times seeded in the East Regional(5 times as a #1 seed) and has a dominate 32-2 record in East Regional games during that time.

9 times seeded in the South(or Southeast) Regional(6 times as a #1 seed) with a solid, but not spectacular, 22-6 record.

3 times seeded in the Midwest Regional(never as a #1 seed) with an elite 8-2 record(although small sample size, of course).

3 times seeded in the West Regional(1 time as a #1 seed) with an average 5-3 record(again, small sample size).



Of Duke's 11 Final Fours and 4 National Championships since '86:

7 FF's and 2 NC's came from the East

3 FF's and 1 NC came from the South(Southeast)

1 FF and 1 NC came from the Midwest

0 FF and 0 NC's from the West

I excluded '87, '96, and '07 as we were seeded below a top 4 seed and didn't have a realistic chance to reach a FF in those years.

The bottom line:

Regardless of seed, if you're a fan of trends and history repeating itself, hope Duke is placed in the East, though the MW would be a solid 2nd choice.

BlueDevilBrowns
03-02-2014, 06:56 PM
I doubt very seriously UVA wrapped up anything yesterday. Yes they won the ACC regular season, but the schedule is so imbalanced, that title doesn't mean as much as it used to. UVA only had to play UNC, Duke, and Syracuse once each, and two of the three were at home. I think it will come down more to the relative performances in the ACC tournament. If UNC outperforms UVA in the ACC Tourney, they can easily get the Raleigh pod. Duke could lose Raleigh, but I think we are in the driver's seat right now. We would have to lose to UNC and flame out in the Tourney to either UNC or UVA for one of them to pass us. Unlikely, but very possible.

You're point about the ACC schedule being unbalanced and the regular season being cheapened now is well taken. However, UVA did beat UNC by double digits(we've yet to beat them), defeated Syracuse by nearly 20 in their only meeting(we went 1-1 in 2 close games), and lost to us by 1 at CIS.

Virginia will likely win the regular season by AT LEAST 2 games without any bad losses in conference, while we had losses to ND and Clemson. UNC lost to Miami, and Syracuse lost to BC. Going 17-1, even in an unbalanced ACC, is still top 4 NCAAT seed worthy. Remember, too, that the Duke/UNC loser will have 5 conference losses and a 4th place finish by the time the ACCT starts - that's a pretty big gap.

The ONLY scenario I can see UVA possible losing Raleigh would be if they lost to Duke in the Semis of the ACCT(giving Duke the season sweep) and then Duke loses to UNC in the ACCT Final(giving UNC the conference crown).

Kedsy
03-02-2014, 07:02 PM
I doubt very seriously UVA wrapped up anything yesterday. Yes they won the ACC regular season, but the schedule is so imbalanced, that title doesn't mean as much as it used to. UVA only had to play UNC, Duke, and Syracuse once each, and two of the three were at home. I think it will come down more to the relative performances in the ACC tournament. If UNC outperforms UVA in the ACC Tourney, they can easily get the Raleigh pod. Duke could lose Raleigh, but I think we are in the driver's seat right now. We would have to lose to UNC and flame out in the Tourney to either UNC or UVA for one of them to pass us. Unlikely, but very possible.

First of all, assuming Virginia beats Maryland next weekend, the Hoos will have won the ACC regular season by at least two games. Even if they'd played the three return games and lost two out of three, they'd still be the ACC regular season champion (or at worst tied).

Also, the only way UNC passes UVa for anything seeding-wise is if UNC wins the ACC tournament and UVa loses its first game. Virginia will have beaten UNC by at least 3 (4 if Duke beats UNC in Cameron) games in the ACC regular season, has a #10 RPI to UNC's #18, is #2 in Pomeroy to UNC's #22, and will probably be ranked ten or so spots better than UNC in the AP. So, objectively, UNC won't "easily" accomplish anything vis-a-vis Virginia. UNC will have to not only "outperform" UVa in the ACCT, they have to crush expectations while UVa embarrasses themselves, and even that might not do it.


...and lost to us by 1 at CIS.

Slight quibble -- we beat UVa by 4 (69-65), not 1.

Olympic Fan
03-02-2014, 07:36 PM
The problem with all this Virginia love is that conference record is NOT a factor in NCAA consideration.

The committee's guidelines dictate that all at large teams are treated as at large team. As much as the UVa lovers would like to forget the early part of the season, those games count -- just as Duke's early ACC losses to Clemson and Notre Dame count.

The fact is that as of this moment, Duke's overall body of work is better than Virginia's -- at least in the RPI -- No. 7 Duke is 3-points higher than No. 10 UVa. And I'm fairly certain that Duke will be higher in tomorrow's polls.

With two weeks to go, that doesn't guarantee anything, but it does support Highlander's contention that Virginia has locked up NOTHING. They are certainly in the mix with UNC and Duke to get a spot in Raleigh and I think they are in good shape -- I actually think the loser of next Saturday's Duke-UNC game is the one that gets shipped out.

But I could also see a scenario were whichever team loses Saturday beats the winner in the ACC championship game (the two are likely to be in opposite brackets) ... then both Duke and UNC could get Raleigh and Virginia would be moved.

Just remember -- unbalanced schedule or not -- conference records don't factor in the decision.

Turk
03-02-2014, 09:07 PM
Agreed. I think two of Duke, UVa, and unc will go to Raleigh. As of Sunday night, I would guess Duke and UVa would get the nod, while unc goes to Orlando. I don't see Villanova in Raleigh at all.

Here's how I would slot the teams geographically, guessing at 1's and 2's

Buffalo: Syracuse (2) and Villanova
Raleigh: Duke (2) and UVa (2)
Orlando: Florida(1) and unc
San Antonio: Creighton and Michigan St
Milwaukee: Wisconsin (2) and Michigan
St. Louis: Wichita St (1) and Kansas (1)
Spokane: Iowa St and St Louis
San Diego: Arizona (1) and SDSU

Wahoo2000
03-02-2014, 09:30 PM
Agreed. I think two of Duke, UVa, and unc will go to Raleigh. As of Sunday night, I would guess Duke and UVa would get the nod, while unc goes to Orlando. I don't see Villanova in Raleigh at all.

Here's how I would slot the teams geographically, guessing at 1's and 2's

Buffalo: Syracuse (2) and Villanova
Raleigh: Duke (2) and UVa (2)
Orlando: Florida(1) and unc
San Antonio: Creighton and Michigan St
Milwaukee: Wisconsin (2) and Michigan
St. Louis: Wichita St (1) and Kansas (1)
Spokane: Iowa St and St Louis
San Diego: Arizona (1) and SDSU

UNC still has work to do do crack that 4-seed line. And if they can't do that, they won't be placed ANYWHERE, they'll be subject to the placement of the highest seeded team in their pod. Personally, I think you guys will give them the beatdown next week and push them off of any hope of anything above a 5/6 seed.

Turk
03-03-2014, 11:56 AM
Lunardi: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. Wisconsin / 3. Creighton
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Duke (Raleigh) / 3. Iowa State
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Villanova (Buffalo) / 3. UVa (Raleigh)
EAST: 1. Kansas / 2. Syracuse / 3. Michigan

Palm: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. SDSU / 3. Duke (Orlando)
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Kansas / 3. Creighton
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Wisconsin / 3. UVa (Raleigh)
EAST: 1. Syracuse / 2. Villanova (Raleigh) / 3. Michigan

I think I'm done with Palm. His fanboy crush on SDSU is inexplicable, and I can't figure out where he slotted Kansas among the #2's. He also put #4 seed Cincy in the other half of the Buffalo pod with Syracuse, which also doesn't make sense. I believe Buffalo is the natural spot for Villanova as a #2. I need to find another bracket to compare with Lunardi. Any nominations?

Turk
03-03-2014, 12:05 PM
Agreed. I think two of Duke, UVa, and unc will go to Raleigh. As of Sunday night, I would guess Duke and UVa would get the nod, while unc goes to Orlando. I don't see Villanova in Raleigh at all.

Here's how I would slot the teams geographically, guessing at 1's and 2's

Buffalo: Syracuse (2) and Villanova
Raleigh: Duke (2) and UVa (2)
Orlando: Florida(1) and unc
San Antonio: Creighton and Michigan St
Milwaukee: Wisconsin (2) and Michigan
St. Louis: Wichita St (1) and Kansas (1)
Spokane: Iowa St and St Louis
San Diego: Arizona (1) and SDSU

I guessed wrong about uncheat moving up to a #4 and getting into the mix for Raleigh / Orlando. (Glad when I'm wrong like that!)

Here's what Lunardi had today (highest 2 seeds only):

Buffalo: Syracuse (2) and Villanova (2)
Raleigh: Duke (2) and UVa (3)
Orlando: Florida (1) and Sparty (4)
San Antonio: Creighton (3) and iowa St (3)
Milwaukee: Wisconsin (2) and Michigan (3)
St. Louis: Wichita St (1) and Kansas (1)
Spokane: St Louis (4) and SDSU (4) (** woof!** Don't think that will be a tough ticket; hardcore hoopheads only, no bandwagon-hoppers going up there...)
San Diego: Arizona (1) and Cincy (4)

TexHawk
03-03-2014, 12:07 PM
Lunardi's is a bit wonky to me, and I think he goes out of his way to put together crazy matchups to get fans angry or interested. I mean...

Kansas St vs Wichita St.
Kansas vs SMU (Larry Brown).
UCONN vs Syracuse.
UMASS vs Nova (that's a rivalry, correct?).
Zona vs Memphis (Pastner).
Duke vs VCU (rematch of upset).

tbyers11
03-03-2014, 12:08 PM
Lunardi: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. Wisconsin / 3. Creighton
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Duke (Raleigh) / 3. Iowa State
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Villanova (Buffalo) / 3. UVa (Raleigh)
EAST: 1. Kansas / 2. Syracuse / 3. Michigan

Palm: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. SDSU / 3. Duke (Orlando)
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Kansas / 3. Creighton
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Wisconsin / 3. UVa (Raleigh)
EAST: 1. Syracuse / 2. Villanova (Raleigh) / 3. Michigan

I think I'm done with Palm. His fanboy crush on SDSU is inexplicable, and I can't figure out where he slotted Kansas among the #2's. He also put #4 seed Cincy in the other half of the Buffalo pod with Syracuse, which also doesn't make sense. I believe Buffalo is the natural spot for Villanova as a #2. I need to find another bracket to compare with Lunardi. Any nominations?

I don't know if you are familiar with The Bracket Matrix (http://bracketmatrix.com/), but they amalgamate all the brackets out there and come up with an average. He hasn't updated the site with this weekends' results yet but you should be able to click on any of the links at top to find the most recent brackets. If you click the rankings link at top you can also see how they score everyone's brackets every year. Lunardi and Palm are mediocre at best over the last 5 years. Based on the rankings it looks like Jeff Borzello at CBSSports (bracket here (http://www.bustingthebracket.com/)) does a good job. If you want a bracket forecast with a little analysis, I think Daniel Evans at Rush the Court (http://rushthecourt.net/2014/02/24/rtc-bracketology-february-24-edition/#more-103563) does a good job too. Neither Borzello or Evans has updated this week yet but they usually do by Monday evening.

flyingdutchdevil
03-03-2014, 12:10 PM
Assuming that WSU is a clear 1-seed (yup) and Kansas is a clear 2-seed (like Duke, a borderline 1-2 seed), then isn't it rational to put both Kansas and WSU in the same bracket? Doesn't geography trump everything?

Ideally, you'd want the top 2 seed to play the weakest 1 seed, right? But, like last year with Duke and Louisville, the Selection Committee gave the geography excuse.

IMO, if we're not a 1-seed in the South or East, I'd love to be WSU's 2 seed.

BlueDevilBrowns
03-03-2014, 12:12 PM
Lunardi: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. Wisconsin / 3. Creighton
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Duke (Raleigh) / 3. Iowa State
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Villanova (Buffalo) / 3. UVa (Raleigh)
EAST: 1. Kansas / 2. Syracuse / 3. Michigan

Palm: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. SDSU / 3. Duke (Orlando)
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Kansas / 3. Creighton
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Wisconsin / 3. UVa (Raleigh)
EAST: 1. Syracuse / 2. Villanova (Raleigh) / 3. Michigan

I think I'm done with Palm. His fanboy crush on SDSU is inexplicable, and I can't figure out where he slotted Kansas among the #2's. He also put #4 seed Cincy in the other half of the Buffalo pod with Syracuse, which also doesn't make sense. I believe Buffalo is the natural spot for Villanova as a #2. I need to find another bracket to compare with Lunardi. Any nominations?

Here's one from NBC Sports:

http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/03/bracketology-florida-arizona-battle-for-no-1-overall-seed/

EAST: 1. KU / 2. Syracuse / 3. Creighton / 4. Cincy
SOUTH: 1. FLA / 2. Michigan / 3. 'Nova / 4. UNC
MW: 1. WSU / 2. Wisconsin / 3. Duke(raleigh) / 4. SDSU
WEST: 1. AZ / 2. UVA / 3. ISU / 4. MSU

Now, I put as much value in these mock brackets as I do in mock NFL drafts but, I agree, it's interesting to compare, nonetheless.

FWIW, I would LOVE our #3 seed if we really were with the Shockers, Wisconsin, and SDSU.

TexHawk
03-03-2014, 12:29 PM
Assuming that WSU is a clear 1-seed (yup) and Kansas is a clear 2-seed (like Duke, a borderline 1-2 seed), then isn't it rational to put both Kansas and WSU in the same bracket? Doesn't geography trump everything?

I posted somewhere else on here that KU's preferred region is the South, Memphis is closer to Lawrence than Indy. Memphis is also closer to Wichita, but the assumption is that Florida takes that as the #1.

flyingdutchdevil
03-03-2014, 12:33 PM
I posted somewhere else on here that KU's preferred region is the South, Memphis is closer to Lawrence than Indy. Memphis is also closer to Wichita, but the assumption is that Florida takes that as the #1.

Kansas and Florida in the EE would be the best game of the year, IMO. I know they already played, but both those teams are pretty different from early January.

rasputin
03-03-2014, 01:18 PM
Due to a secret coalition between the NCAA and Sea World Parks and Entertainment, Inc., the first weekend's games will take place in Orlando, San Antonio, and San Diego, as well as the following 5 cities: Buffalo, Milwaukee, Raleigh, Spokane, St. Louis.

As you know, only 2 teams seeded 1-4 can play in Raleigh. Joe Lunardi* hasn't updated his bracket since sometime Thursday, when he had Duke and Virginia. UNC is a threat if they win the ACC Tournament, but I don't see them getting a higher seed than Duke otherwise. The real pressure comes from the many teams that would want to play in Milwaukee and St. Louis: Cincinnati, Creighton, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, St. Louis (who can't play in St. Louis), Wichita State, Wisconsin. Obviously, not all 12 are going to be among the top 16 overall seeds, but more than 4 will, and they will spill over and headline other cities.

Jerry Palm has updated his bracket (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology).

Buffalo: Syracuse (1), Cincinnati (2)
Milwaukee: Michigan State (2), Wisconsin (3)
Orlando: Florida (1), Duke (4)
Raleigh: Villanova (2), Creighton (3)
San Antonio: San Diego State (3), St. Louis (4)
San Diego: Arizona (1), Michigan (4)
Spokane: Iowa State (3), Virginia (4)
St. Louis: Wichita State (1), Kansas (2)

This is... bizarre. I have no idea why Cincinnati goes to Buffalo, which sends Villanova to Raleigh. I could see a scenario where only one ACC team goes to Raleigh, but not zero.

*Last year I said that Joe Lunardi had the second easiest job on television, after Angus T. Jones, the kid from Two and a Half Men. Now that Jones found religion and decided he doesn't want to make $300,000 per episode anymore, Lunardi wins the prize. There are less talented people that make more money, but none that have to do so little, or can get away with doing it wrong.

St. Louis can't play in St. Louis? I thought the rule was that you can't play on your home court (unless you're Dayton). St. Louis University has their own facility for home games, it's not the one the NCAA uses.

tbyers11
03-03-2014, 02:11 PM
St. Louis can't play in St. Louis? I thought the rule was that you can't play on your home court (unless you're Dayton). St. Louis University has their own facility for home games, it's not the one the NCAA uses.

St Louis can play in St Louis this year. The Missouri Valley Conference is listed as the host for the first weekend games (I refuse to acknowledge them as 2nd/3rd round) so SLU can play at the Scottrade center (which isn't even their home arena, that's the Chaifetz Arena).

Turk
03-04-2014, 07:00 AM
Lunardi's is a bit wonky to me, and I think he goes out of his way to put together crazy matchups to get fans angry or interested. I mean...

Kansas St vs Wichita St.
Kansas vs SMU (Larry Brown).
UCONN vs Syracuse.
UMASS vs Nova (that's a rivalry, correct?).
Zona vs Memphis (Pastner).
Duke vs VCU (rematch of upset).

That's a good question. My understanding is that they try to follow committee rules. I remember an earlier bracket where Duke had a rematch with Vermont, but I don't believe there is an explicit attempt to create storylines like the ones you found. I would think that in any valid bracket that meets the rules, it is likely that certain matchups will jump out for one reason or another.

As to your specific examples - Larry Brown is a gimme - he's coached half the teams in the country (both college and pro), so he's bound to be a story just for being in the tournament. UMass and Nova is not a rivalry - you're getting mixed up with UMass and Temple, when Calipari was at UMass and John Chaney was at Temple. Similarly, there might be a statute of limitations for Duke / VCU. With Coach K's history, it's inevitable there will be rematches. (I want Lehigh! I like our chances this year!)

Speaking of Chaney, I remember it seemed like there were two or three years in a row where his pretty good Temple teams got matched up with Cincinnati back when Huggy Bear was coaching them, and people around Philly thought the NCAA deliberately gave Chaney the shaft because he was never shy about calling them a bunch of fools. (No evidence was ever found to prove or deny those allegations).

(Note to self: find a plausible bracket from someone other than Lunardi and try to look for some fun matchups).

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-04-2014, 07:37 AM
For giggles, here's Pat Forde's take on the race for #1 seeding... http://sports.yahoo.com/news/forde-minutes--which-teams-are-still-alive-in-the-hunt-for-the-final-no--1-seed-061537716-ncaab.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I always find it interesting that this time of year there is always criticism of Duke's "true road record" (4-4 this year). As we Duke fans know, K prefers to schedule "tournament-like" games early, against top opposition on neutral courts. I do understand that there's something to be said for preparing your team for going against tough opponents in hostile environments, I just don't really see it as relevant for the tournament. Even playing Butler in Indianapolis for the title is nothing like the crowd atmosphere you would face against Kansas at Kansas in November or December. In my opinion, playing "true road games" more prepares you for the conference season rather than the NCAA tournament.

Anyways, Forde sees us as in the mix.

TexHawk
03-04-2014, 08:57 AM
That's a good question. My understanding is that they try to follow committee rules. I remember an earlier bracket where Duke had a rematch with Vermont, but I don't believe there is an explicit attempt to create storylines like the ones you found. I would think that in any valid bracket that meets the rules, it is likely that certain matchups will jump out for one reason or another.

Yea, this is one of my favorite conspiracy theories from the nutjob section of the KU fanbase. These folks are *absolutely* convinced that the committee has an agenda to pit KU against... UNC, Illinois, SMU, Missouri, WSU, Bucknell, Bradley, VCU, etc, as a "we are going to move heaven and earth to make juicy matchups for KU". Mind you, this is only for KU, they wouldn't do similar things for other schools. My favorite is the absolute certainty that the committee will put KU/WSU together "for the TV viewers". I don't know about you, but I'm certain viewers across the nation are struggling to get through their day, because they know it's possible that two schools in Kansas might play each other in 3 weeks. I am going to build my own little TexHawk-ville outside of Lucas Oil this afternoon to get in line.

Of course that is insane, because there are a bajillion rules about where teams can go, who they can or can't play in the early rounds, geographic considerations, etc. I just think that since Lunardi is an entertainer who routinely doesn't seem to care about those rules, he will look at the possible 8/9 seeds for KU and see Larry Brown as an option, and that matchup causes discussion. Same for UCONN/Cuse and some of the others. They may happen, because only a few options are available, but there is no illuminati here.

Troublemaker
03-04-2014, 11:14 PM
I don't know if you are familiar with The Bracket Matrix (http://bracketmatrix.com/), but they amalgamate all the brackets out there and come up with an average. He hasn't updated the site with this weekends' results yet but you should be able to click on any of the links at top to find the most recent brackets. If you click the rankings link at top you can also see how they score everyone's brackets every year. Lunardi and Palm are mediocre at best over the last 5 years. Based on the rankings it looks like Jeff Borzello at CBSSports (bracket here (http://www.bustingthebracket.com/)) does a good job. If you want a bracket forecast with a little analysis, I think Daniel Evans at Rush the Court (http://rushthecourt.net/2014/02/24/rtc-bracketology-february-24-edition/#more-103563) does a good job too. Neither Borzello or Evans has updated this week yet but they usually do by Monday evening.

Bracket Matrix (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/) was updated tonight, reflecting results through Monday's games (so Cuse's loss to GaTech won't hurt them until the Wednesday update). Kansas is the fourth 1-seed. Duke is 8th and UVA is 9th on the overall rankings.

Turk
03-05-2014, 07:19 AM
Yea, this is one of my favorite conspiracy theories from the nutjob section of the KU fanbase. These folks are *absolutely* convinced that the committee has an agenda to pit KU against... UNC, Illinois, SMU, Missouri, WSU, Bucknell, Bradley, VCU, etc, as a "we are going to move heaven and earth to make juicy matchups for KU". Mind you, this is only for KU, they wouldn't do similar things for other schools. My favorite is the absolute certainty that the committee will put KU/WSU together "for the TV viewers". I don't know about you, but I'm certain viewers across the nation are struggling to get through their day, because they know it's possible that two schools in Kansas might play each other in 3 weeks. I am going to build my own little TexHawk-ville outside of Lucas Oil this afternoon to get in line.

Of course that is insane, because there are a bajillion rules about where teams can go, who they can or can't play in the early rounds, geographic considerations, etc. I just think that since Lunardi is an entertainer who routinely doesn't seem to care about those rules, he will look at the possible 8/9 seeds for KU and see Larry Brown as an option, and that matchup causes discussion. Same for UCONN/Cuse and some of the others. They may happen, because only a few options are available, but there is no illuminati here.

Whether Lunardi is entertaining or not is apparently an open question, but I do know he tries to follow all the committee rules rigorously, and any misses are rare mistakes. I used to read his chat transcripts once in a while, and if an alert reader thought they caught an error, Lunardi would explain the rule.

P.S. How's the weather in TexHawk-ville? If it's above freezing I would be tempted to join you; anywhere warmer than here...

Matches
03-05-2014, 09:52 AM
For giggles, here's Pat Forde's take on the race for #1 seeding... http://sports.yahoo.com/news/forde-minutes--which-teams-are-still-alive-in-the-hunt-for-the-final-no--1-seed-061537716-ncaab.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I always find it interesting that this time of year there is always criticism of Duke's "true road record" (4-4 this year).

Heh. Did you know we are 0-6 in games that we have lost this season? 0-6?!? How can we be in the running for a #1 seed when we have not won a SINGLE ONE of the games we have lost?

I think that if K wasn't so afraid and would schedule more losses, we would be better prepared to win some of our losses. I'm too lazy to look it up but I am confident that UNC has won at least half of its losses this season.

Kedsy
03-05-2014, 10:23 AM
I'm too lazy to look it up but I am confident that UNC has won at least half of its losses this season.

Line of the day. Kudos to you, sir.

tbyers11
03-05-2014, 10:42 AM
Heh. Did you know we are 0-6 in games that we have lost this season? 0-6?!? How can we be in the running for a #1 seed when we have not won a SINGLE ONE of the games we have lost?

I think that if K wasn't so afraid and would schedule more losses, we would be better prepared to win some of our losses. I'm too lazy to look it up but I am confident that UNC has won at least half of its losses this season.


Line of the day. Kudos to you, sir.

I think we may have to agree to disagree Kedsy. I think "Did you know we are 0-6 in games that we have lost this season? 0-6?!?" wins line of the day by hair :D

Thanks for the laugh Matches.

BlueDevilBrowns
03-05-2014, 10:49 AM
Heh. Did you know we are 0-6 in games that we have lost this season? 0-6?!? How can we be in the running for a #1 seed when we have not won a SINGLE ONE of the games we have lost?

I think that if K wasn't so afraid and would schedule more losses, we would be better prepared to win some of our losses. I'm too lazy to look it up but I am confident that UNC has won at least half of its losses this season.

You must be a Tom Izzo fan ;)

I've never seen a school get more credit for losses than MSU, year in and year out.

JasonEvans
03-05-2014, 11:01 AM
I am eager to hear someone tell me the following is wrong, but it seems to me that Duke's NCAA seeding math is pretty darn simple at this point.

I'd put Duke's scenarios for the next 2 games and ACC tourney like this...


0 losses - #1 seed
1 loss - #2 seed
2 losses - #3 seed
3 losses - #4 seed

Simple math!

-Jason "I am sure some of you will dispute this, but I really think that is where we stand" Evans

-jk
03-05-2014, 11:14 AM
The usual caveat - a loss in the ACC champ game is late in the game, and difficult for the NCAA to adjust for - unless there's an ACC contingency swap. Swapping out of conference cascades across the entire bracket.

I would have said (before their implosion and if we both mostly won out) there would be a 1 and 2 reserved for Duke/Syracuse. Now I'm not sure.

I hope we get to test the logic...

-jk

Kedsy
03-05-2014, 11:18 AM
I would have said (before their implosion and if we both mostly won out) there would be a 1 and 2 reserved for Duke/Syracuse. Now I'm not sure.

If both win out until then, the same deal might be there for Duke and Virginia.

hurleyfor3
03-05-2014, 11:20 AM
Oooooh, a 1/2/2 three-way contingency! Conference champion gets the 1. Actually I believe they settle the brackets Saturday night.

What if unc wins out?

Duvall
03-05-2014, 11:25 AM
What if unc wins out?

Then we know who will be Kansas' 2 seed in the East.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-05-2014, 11:32 AM
Heh. Did you know we are 0-6 in games that we have lost this season? 0-6?!? How can we be in the running for a #1 seed when we have not won a SINGLE ONE of the games we have lost?

I think that if K wasn't so afraid and would schedule more losses, we would be better prepared to win some of our losses. I'm too lazy to look it up but I am confident that UNC has won at least half of its losses this season.

Well, Duke is also 23-0 when outscoring the other team. Given that simple stat, I can't imagine why Coach K doesn't put a bigger emphasis on scoring.

Kedsy
03-05-2014, 12:26 PM
Well, Duke is also 23-0 when outscoring the other team. Given that simple stat, I can't imagine why Coach K doesn't put a bigger emphasis on scoring.

It's because when our defense gives up more points than we score, we lose. It's that simple. :p

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-05-2014, 12:38 PM
It's because when our defense gives up more points than we score, we lose. It's that simple. :p

I guess it's true... defense wins championships. A team has never lost an NCAA tournament game when they hold their opponent to fewer points.

flyingdutchdevil
03-05-2014, 12:39 PM
I guess it's true... defense wins championships. A team has never lost an NCAA tournament game when they hold their opponent to fewer points.

Not true. Ask any Memphis and UMass when they had Calipari ;)

Matches
03-05-2014, 12:43 PM
Not true. Ask any Memphis and UMass when they had Calipari ;)

I wasn't aware Cal coached any NCAAT games when he was at Memphis or UMass. :)

BlueDevilBrowns
03-05-2014, 04:17 PM
I am eager to hear someone tell me the following is wrong, but it seems to me that Duke's NCAA seeding math is pretty darn simple at this point.

I'd put Duke's scenarios for the next 2 games and ACC tourney like this...


0 losses - #1 seed
1 loss - #2 seed
2 losses - #3 seed
3 losses - #4 seed

Simple math!

-Jason "I am sure some of you will dispute this, but I really think that is where we stand" Evans

I would agree with you if no other team(s) we were competing with were to lose, but the odds are they will.

Therefore, we probably could lose 2 more games and still have a shot at a 2 seed.

The key really would be what game(s) we lose, not necessarily how many.

Turk
03-05-2014, 04:26 PM
I'll add a layer of complexity:

0 losses - #1 seed
1 loss - #2 seed
2 losses - #2 seed (if UNC and ACCT semis or finals)
2 losses - #3 seed (if @WF and ACCT first round vs. Pitt or Clemson)
3 losses - #3 seed

YMMV.

quahog174
03-05-2014, 04:40 PM
Can someone please correct the thread title to NCAAT? I wish it didn't bother me, but it's been a month now.

Kedsy
03-05-2014, 04:48 PM
Can someone please correct the thread title to NCAAT? I wish it didn't bother me, but it's been a month now.

You don't think we can get a #2 seed in the NCCA tournament?

El_Diablo
03-05-2014, 08:46 PM
Goodbye, #1 seed. We hardly knew ye.

On the plus side, Duke's loss to Wake Forest shows that the ACC is stacked. There are no easy games! Even middle-of-the-pack ACC teams are dangerous! #Big12logic

jipops
03-05-2014, 08:51 PM
You don't think we can get a #2 seed in the NCCA tournament?

Doubting we get a 2 seed in the ncaa tournament either

hurleyfor3
03-05-2014, 08:56 PM
Goodbye, #1 seed. We hardly knew ye.

On the plus side, Duke's loss to Wake Forest shows that the ACC is stacked. There are no easy games! Even middle-of-the-pack ACC teams are dangerous! #Big12logic

I would have preferred losing to a bubble team, which helps the conference with tournament bids and which the winner could have built upon, rather than to college basketball's Chicago Cubs.

FerryFor50
03-05-2014, 09:22 PM
I didn't want a #1 seed anyway. Bring on the Shockers!!

dukelifer
03-05-2014, 09:28 PM
Doubting we get a 2 seed in the ncaa tournament either

Duke is a 3 or 4 seed unless they win out.

Atlanta Duke
03-05-2014, 09:56 PM
Duke drops from #4 to #8 in KenPom rankings after this evening's collapse (#2 on offense, a discouraging #70 on defense - top 5 KenPom teams all in top 10 on defense)

http://kenpom.com/

jipops
03-05-2014, 10:24 PM
Duke drops from #4 to #8 in KenPom rankings after this evening's collapse (#2 on offense, a discouraging #70 on defense - top 5 KenPom teams all in top 10 on defense)

http://kenpom.com/

This does expose a flaw with kenpom. This is an efficiency rating for the entire season of games played so far. But does anyone in their right mind think we're the 2nd most efficient team on offense right now? I wonder what those numbers would look like just taking from Feb 1 to today.

pfrduke
03-05-2014, 10:30 PM
This does expose a flaw with kenpom. This is an efficiency rating for the entire season of games played so far. But does anyone in their right mind think we're the 2nd most efficient team on offense right now? I wonder what those numbers would look like just taking from Feb 1 to today.

We've scored 1.16 points per possession since the start of February, against a schedule that definitely is tougher than average (so the Pomeroy "adjusted" version of the offensive rating would be higher than 116). It's been lower since Feb. 15 - just 1.06. But that's also just a 6 game stretch, and even including that 6 game stretch our offense is, on the season, both a) the 2nd most efficient in the country and b) the most efficient in ACC play, by a wide margin (we score 1.18 points per possession in conference play; Virginia is second at 1.13).

Also, you call it a flaw, but why do we automatically assume that the team will play the way it has over the past 3-6 games vs. how it played over the bulk of the season?

Atlanta Duke
03-05-2014, 10:47 PM
Duke is a 3 or 4 seed unless they win out.

FWIW the SI.com story on the Wake game speculates "[u]nless they bow out early in the ACC tournament, the Blue Devils are likely locked into a 2-seed in the big dance."

http://college-basketball.si.com/2014/03/05/duke-wake-forest-upset-acc-ncaa-tournament/

If Syracuse and Virginia both make the ACC championship game I disagree with that statement by the SI writer.

Acymetric
03-05-2014, 11:09 PM
FWIW the SI.com story on the Wake game speculates "[u]nless they bow out early in the ACC tournament, the Blue Devils are likely locked into a 2-seed in the big dance."

http://college-basketball.si.com/2014/03/05/duke-wake-forest-upset-acc-ncaa-tournament/

If Syracuse and Virginia both make the ACC championship game I disagree with that statement by the SI writer.

If we lose to unc I think we are a 3 unless we make the ACC final. With a a loss to unc and a poor showing in the tournament we could (should) drop to a 4.

I believe we will be a 2, read into that whatever you wish.

Kedsy
03-06-2014, 01:06 AM
If Syracuse and Virginia both make the ACC championship game I disagree with that statement by the SI writer.

Seriously? Syracuse has lost 4 of its last 5 games, including losses to BC and Georgia Tech at home and a 19 point drubbing at Virginia. You think if Duke makes it past its first ACCT game (which is what the SI writer supposed) there's any scenario short of the Orange winning the ACCT in which Syracuse is ahead of us?


Also, you call it a flaw, but why do we automatically assume that the team will play the way it has over the past 3-6 games vs. how it played over the bulk of the season?

Because it's a stone cold fact that the team will always play exactly how it has in its most recent game. I learned that here at DBR.

Atlanta Duke
03-06-2014, 10:30 AM
Seriously? Syracuse has lost 4 of its last 5 games, including losses to BC and Georgia Tech at home and a 19 point drubbing at Virginia. You think if Duke makes it past its first ACCT game (which is what the SI writer supposed) there's any scenario short of the Orange winning the ACCT in which Syracuse is ahead of us?

Because it's a stone cold fact that the team will always play exactly how it has in its most recent game. I learned that here at DBR.

This is not an "it's over" lament based upon just the Wake loss.

UVA presumably is seeded above Duke at this time. If UVA goes to the ACC championship game and Duke does not, that is not going to change.

Based on my expectation Duke will beat UNC, my understanding is Duke and Syracuse will be the 2 and 3 seeds in Greensboro. If Syracuse beats Duke, that means Duke only wins one game in the ACC tournament while Syracuse wins 2 games while winning the Duke season series 2-1, including the most recent win on a neutral court one hour from the Duke campus. Added to that, if Duke beats UNC Saturday night and loses next Saturday to Syracuse, that will result in a 4-3 record over their last 7 games (losses to UNC, Wake, and Syracuse, and an escape at home against a mediocre Maryland team). The Syracuse losses to BC and Georgia Tech are pretty bad, but the Duke loses to Notre Dame and Wake are no beauties either.

And this is not a closed system where 3 ACC teams are going to do no worse than 2 of the top 8 seeds. Just because Duke might get a higher seed that Syracuse does not mean that will be a #2.

So in answer to your question, yes, seriously.

FWIW Jerry Palm, whom I believe has underseeded Duke for the past month, dropped Duke from a #3 to #5 seed after last night. He has Syracuse as a #2 seed.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24470437/bracketology-duke-upset-cal-out-nebraska-in

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

Kedsy
03-06-2014, 10:50 AM
FWIW Jerry Palm, whom I believe has underseeded Duke for the past month, dropped Duke from a #3 to #5 seed after last night. He has Syracuse as a #2 seed.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24470437/bracketology-duke-upset-cal-out-nebraska-in

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

Palm used to have some cred, but I'm not sure why they're even paying the guy at this point.

I agree it's possible for both Duke and Syracuse to get a #3 at this point. Unless Duke loses in the first round of the ACCT or Syracuse wins the ACCT, I don't think it's possible Syracuse gets a better seed than Duke. Obviously, we'll see in a week and a half.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-06-2014, 11:05 AM
Because it's a stone cold fact that the team will always play exactly how it has in its most recent game. I learned that here at DBR.

This one sentence sums up everything on this board in the last 24 hours. And most of what I have seen here in the last 7 years. Basically, Duke basketball is epitomized by whatever happened in the most recent 24 hour period.

I'll be interested to see what happens Sunday morning here, after protecting our home court for a 33rd straight time, saying a warm goodbye to some seniors (and possibly others), seeing a healthy and energized Coach K on the sidelines, and playing host to a swarm of young talent who are eager to wear the Duke uniform.

Atlanta Duke
03-06-2014, 11:07 AM
Palm used to have some cred, but I'm not sure why they're even paying the guy at this point.

I agree it's possible for both Duke and Syracuse to get a #3 at this point. Unless Duke loses in the first round of the ACCT or Syracuse wins the ACCT, I don't think it's possible Syracuse gets a better seed than Duke. Obviously, we'll see in a week and a half.

Agree on Palm

At this point my main concern is getting a trip to the Raleigh pod for the first weekend of the NCAAs. Only needing to make a short drive down I-40 to PNC (fka RBC) Arena is a big advantage. A loss Saturday night could put that in play.

After last night's crash Luke Winn at SI.com now has UNC at #6 and Duke at #8 in his weekly power rankings
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20140306/power-rankings-florida-wichita-state-arizona-wisconsin-virginia/?eref=sihp

Deep3Ball
03-06-2014, 11:30 AM
Palm used to have some cred, but I'm not sure why they're even paying the guy at this point.

I agree it's possible for both Duke and Syracuse to get a #3 at this point. Unless Duke loses in the first round of the ACCT or Syracuse wins the ACCT, I don't think it's possible Syracuse gets a better seed than Duke. Obviously, we'll see in a week and a half.

I agree that Palm has lost all credibility this year. It's almost like he is intentionally trying to make horrific predictions to gin up discussion (but I doubt it). Duke as a 5 seed at this point is his most ridiculous prediction I have seen this year. There is zero chance that the #7 RPI team with 4 top 25 wins is being seeded a 5. ZERO.

DukieinSoCal
03-06-2014, 11:31 AM
Lunardi has us "dropping" from a 2 seed in the South vs Fla to a 2 seed in the West vs AZ. Not sure how everyone else feels but I think Fla will be the favorite heading into the NCAAT and I'd rather avoid them if possible. Everyone else seems to have some flaws that make them vulnerable. Personally, I wouldn't mind facing AZ again after that debacle in 2011. I was at the game and had such high hopes for that team, esp with Kyrie coming back. I feel like we owe them one for that unbelievable performance that Derrick Williams put on. He was shooting out of his fricking mind that night!
Does anyone else believe in NCAAT karma? I've always felt like UConn beating us in '99 and Kentucky knocking us out in '98 was some form of cosmic justice for our buzzer-beaters in '90 vs UConn and '92 vs Ky. If so, we might be due for some payback against AZ. We could easily have to face them out West again. :)

Selover
03-06-2014, 11:37 AM
Now that we have caught up to Kansas in the loss column maybe we'll trump them in the discussions for that final number one seed. :cool:

No but seriously, I looked outside this morning and the sky was still there. It has yet to fall.

jmck214
03-06-2014, 12:40 PM
Does anyone else believe in NCAAT karma? I've always felt like UConn beating us in '99 and Kentucky knocking us out in '98 was some form of cosmic justice for our buzzer-beaters in '90 vs UConn and '92 vs Ky. If so, we might be due for some payback against AZ. We could easily have to face them out West again. :)

If you believe in NCAAT karma then you could argue that zona beating us in 11 was payback for the 01 Natl. Championship. Also if that's the case we still owe the other potential one seeds Florida (2000) and Kansas (2003).

Also if we can sure up a trip to Raleigh I am wondering if we can finally experience somewhat of a home court advantage since UNC won't be there. I've only been to one tourney game and it was 2011 vs Michigan when the UNC and Michigan fans made it seem like we were playing in a true road game. Also watching tourney games on TV through the years it always seems that way when UNC is at the same location.

rolm
03-06-2014, 01:47 PM
"karma" -- a term in Hinduism -- doesn't mean that you take turns. It means that the outcome (result) is based on your (previous) deeds. If we (Duke) did not cheat to win the previous game (with a specific opponent), or have not been cheating within the program, in general, then Karma doesn't come in to play at all. Duke beating Arizona in '01 and then us losing to them in '11 does not involve Karma at all.

dukelifer
03-06-2014, 03:58 PM
I am not all that sure it really matters. The 1 seeds - whoever they are will not be that formidable. Duke is the same team whether a 2 or a 3. It will be a tourney of matchups. I am more concerned about the team getting into a good rhythm. A win on Sat and a decent ACC tourney should help a lot. But a loss and an early exit will not bode well. This long late layoff was not a good idea in my opinion. Even a game against some lowly opponent last Sat would have been welcome preparation.

-bdbd
03-06-2014, 04:49 PM
I am not all that sure it really matters. The 1 seeds - whoever they are will not be that formidable. Duke is the same team whether a 2 or a 3. It will be a tourney of matchups. I am more concerned about the team getting into a good rhythm. A win on Sat and a decent ACC tourney should help a lot. But a loss and an early exit will not bode well. This long late layoff was not a good idea in my opinion. Even a game against some lowly opponent last Sat would have been welcome preparation.

Yeah, generally agree. I was worried about the big layoff from the moment I saw it before the season even started.

This is a year when the 1-seeds are not going to be as dominant as some years past. (Anybody thinking this year there's a chance of all four #1's making the Final Four? No way.) I wouldn't be stunned if NONE of the #1's make it there. But a 2-seed is almost always better than a #3 seed, if only because you only have to play a #3, at best, to make it to the Elite-eight, as well as the (expectantly) easier path in the first two games - and, yes, that is important. But to 'lifer's main point, the bigger concern/issue is whether Duke can get its collective act together and get into trhythm heading into the NCAAT. THAT's the MOST important thing.

But beating UNC and 1-2 wins in the ACCT, which is what I'm expecting, should set us up as a soilid #2-seed, and a reasonable path to the FF .... hopefully in the same region as Wichita State. We certainly are due for some good match-up's from the selection committee.... :)

Turk
03-06-2014, 06:56 PM
"karma" -- a term in Hinduism -- doesn't mean that you take turns. It means that the outcome (result) is based on your (previous) deeds. If we (Duke) did not cheat to win the previous game (with a specific opponent), or have not been cheating within the program, in general, then Karma doesn't come in to play at all. Duke beating Arizona in '01 and then us losing to them in '11 does not involve Karma at all.

I believe in karma when it comes to matters of ethics and morality, choices between right and wrong. "What goes around comes around", or "as you sow, so shall you reap."

Doesn't apply to basketball. Teams change, so what happened in 2001 or whenever has no bearing now. One esteemed philosopher cut right to the chase: "Ball don't lie."

hurleyfor3
03-06-2014, 06:59 PM
Ask Clemson whether there's such a thing as athletic karma.

jipops
03-06-2014, 07:36 PM
We've scored 1.16 points per possession since the start of February, against a schedule that definitely is tougher than average (so the Pomeroy "adjusted" version of the offensive rating would be higher than 116). It's been lower since Feb. 15 - just 1.06. But that's also just a 6 game stretch, and even including that 6 game stretch our offense is, on the season, both a) the 2nd most efficient in the country and b) the most efficient in ACC play, by a wide margin (we score 1.18 points per possession in conference play; Virginia is second at 1.13).

Also, you call it a flaw, but why do we automatically assume that the team will play the way it has over the past 3-6 games vs. how it played over the bulk of the season?

I wonder if our ppp is largely due to a decrease in number of possessions to help compensate for our problems on defense. Or maybe the zone is slowing us down, even though we did put up 89 at Syracuse (78 in regulation). The scoring has definitely been way down. We were averaging 83.8 ppg from FSU to BC (5 game span). Since then we've averaged 67.8. Umm, that's pretty big. Also, I wonder what those ppp differences are between the 1st half and the 2nd? If the number of possessions is down that certainly goes against what K wanted to accomplish with this team at the beginning of the season.

If I can't try to gauge how the next game will go based on the last six, then should I not feel good about the fact that UNC has looked much less impressive since they blew out Wake?

The seasons are usually full of peaks and valleys. These usually consist of a group of games. I think we would pretty much agree that Duke is not on a peak right now. I really think Quinn not being in the starting lineup has hurt him. He's not in the flow of the game as much and his facilitation has suffered. Our offense was far more potent when Quinn was in from the start.

JasonEvans
03-07-2014, 07:26 AM
I'm not going to give him clicks but does Palm give any explanation for making Duke a #5? Is there any ranking/metric out there that would indicate Duke should even be close to a #5 seed? A #5 seed is a team that would be ranked between 17 and 20.

According to the AP/USAT polls, Duke is a #1. They are not updated through Wake, but we were #4 and there is a zero percent chance we fall to #17.

According to RPI, we are a #2 with a ranking of #7.

According to KenPom we are a #2 with a ranking of #8.

Pom has us playing the 11th toughest schedule in the land the RPI has our SOS at #7, so there is no logic in saying we should be penalized for some weak scheduling or something like that.

I suppose he thinks that San Diego St, #20 in the RPI, #25 in KenPom, and #10 in the AP/USAT polls should be ranked ahead of us, right?

-Jason "I know he started the whole RPI tracking thing, but Jerry Palm is just a clown at this point" Evans

dukelifer
03-07-2014, 07:50 AM
I'm not going to give him clicks but does Palm give any explanation for making Duke a #5? Is there any ranking/metric out there that would indicate Duke should even be close to a #5 seed? A #5 seed is a team that would be ranked between 17 and 20.

According to the AP/USAT polls, Duke is a #1. They are not updated through Wake, but we were #4 and there is a zero percent chance we fall to #17.

According to RPI, we are a #2 with a ranking of #7.

According to KenPom we are a #2 with a ranking of #8.

Pom has us playing the 11th toughest schedule in the land the RPI has our SOS at #7, so there is no logic in saying we should be penalized for some weak scheduling or something like that.

I suppose he thinks that San Diego St, #20 in the RPI, #25 in KenPom, and #10 in the AP/USAT polls should be ranked ahead of us, right?

-Jason "I know he started the whole RPI tracking thing, but Jerry Palm is just a clown at this point" Evans

Makes no sense. A win against UNC will make it even more silly.

flyingdutchdevil
03-07-2014, 07:53 AM
Makes no sense. A win against UNC will make it even more silly.

It's impossible to justify us as a 4 or 5 seed. Just like it's nearly impossible to justify us as a 1 seed.

I believe that we are a 2 or 3 seed. A win to UNC and a strong showing at the ACC Tourney pushes us into guaranteed 2 seed zone. A loss to UNC and a poor showing pushes us keep into 3 seed zone, potentially 4 seed zone.

TexHawk
03-07-2014, 08:30 AM
This is a year when the 1-seeds are not going to be as dominant as some years past. (Anybody thinking this year there's a chance of all four #1's making the Final Four? No way.) I wouldn't be stunned if NONE of the #1's make it there. But a 2-seed is almost always better than a #3 seed, if only because you only have to play a #3, at best, to make it to the Elite-eight, as well as the (expectantly) easier path in the first two games - and, yes, that is important.

I feel like someone says this kind of thing every year, regardless of how good the #1 seeds really are. In the last 6 years, here are the #1 seeds to make the F4, 1-1-0-1-2-4. Last year's #1s included a 7 loss Indiana team, a mid-major, and a team that had previously lost to TCU. This year, you will likely have an undefeated mid-major, a team with an undefeated conference season from a power conference, and a juggernaut out west with two losses (one at the buzzer, the other in 2 OT). The 4th is up for grabs, but will probably go to either a 7 loss KU team, a Wiscy team that had a 5 game losing streak, or Villanova, playing in a power conference by name only.

Of course we have hindsight on one season and not the other, but at least on paper, I would probably take the prospective 2014 #1s over 2013.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-08-2014, 12:54 PM
I feel like someone says this kind of thing every year, regardless of how good the #1 seeds really are. In the last 6 years, here are the #1 seeds to make the F4, 1-1-0-1-2-4. Last year's #1s included a 7 loss Indiana team, a mid-major, and a team that had previously lost to TCU. This year, you will likely have an undefeated mid-major, a team with an undefeated conference season from a power conference, and a juggernaut out west with two losses (one at the buzzer, the other in 2 OT). The 4th is up for grabs, but will probably go to either a 7 loss KU team, a Wiscy team that had a 5 game losing streak, or Villanova, playing in a power conference by name only.

Of course we have hindsight on one season and not the other, but at least on paper, I would probably take the prospective 2014 #1s over 2013.

Kansas, down 19 with 7:30 to go.

Who the heck are the #1 seeds? Anyone want it?

tbyers11
03-08-2014, 01:24 PM
Kansas, down 19 with 7:30 to go.

Who the heck are the #1 seeds? Anyone want it?

As of the moment with KU going down I guess it's Villanova. They only have 3 losses but my problem with them is the only sure fire tourney team they have played in 2014 is Creighton and they have been annilihated twice by the Blue Jays.

Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia and maybe still Kansas would IMO jump Nova regardless of what the Wildcats do if any of them were to win out.

devildeac
03-08-2014, 01:32 PM
Kansas, down 19 with 7:30 to go.

Who the heck are the #1 seeds? Anyone want it?

If the cheaters win out, do they get a #1 seed? (ducks, covers and runs...):o

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-08-2014, 01:36 PM
If the cheaters win out, do they get a #1 seed? (ducks, covers and runs...):o

It's a moot point in about 8.5 hours.

Turk
03-10-2014, 11:27 AM
Not to distract from the ACCT, but here are a couple data points to consider.

Lunardi: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. Wisconsin / 3. Creighton / 4. SDSU
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Michigan / 3. UVa (Raleigh) / 4. unc (Spokane! hee hee)
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Kansas / 3. Syracuse / 4. Cincy
EAST: 1. Villanova (Buffalo) / 2. Duke (Raleigh) / 3. Iowa St / 4. Louisville

Warren Nolan: http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2014/projection
WEST: 1. Arizona / 2. Wisconsin / 3. Duke (Raleigh) / 4. Louisville
SOUTH: 1. Florida / 2. Syracuse / 3. Iowa St / 4. UVa (Spokane! ouch)
MW: 1. Wichita St / 2. Michigan / 3. Creighton / 4. Oklahoma
EAST: 1. Villanova (Buffalo) / 2. Kansas / 3. Cincy (Raleigh) 4. unc (Orlando)

At this point, I don't think there's much value in just listing seeds 1-16 in groups of four teams. If you're not slotting teams into regions, I don't think you can call yourself a bracketologist. Dug up Warren Nolan off Bracket Matrix site. Little bit of disrespect for UVa I think, and Oklahoma as a #4 is completely off my radar.

Quick skim of any other story lines that jumped at me:
Lunardi: Chance for Coach K vs. Johnny D (10th seed) matchup in Raleigh; Virginia vs. VCU; Wichita St vs. Kansas St; Kansas vs. Kentucky
Nolan: West Region - Arizona plus 3 teams from east of the Mississippi River; has Pitt missing the tournament (!)

Duke should be a solid #2 with one win in ACCT, and Raleigh is looking pretty good.

TexHawk
03-10-2014, 11:50 AM
and Oklahoma as a #4 is completely off my radar.

OU flew under everyone's radar. They finished 2nd in the Big12, two games off the lead, after being picked sixth in the preseason. KU and OU played a really good game in Norman in early January that KU won. But OU was unranked at the time, and many in the KU fanbase were worried about the team after it struggled there. That win looks a lot better today. They did benefit from the Marcus Smart suspension, winning in Stillwater, but that's not their fault.

I don't think they are a particularly great team, their defense is pretty bad, but they can score with anyone. I expect them more in the 5-6 range, but a nice run this weekend could net them a 4. Keep an eye on Buddy Hield, probably my favorite non-Jayhawk in the conference.

BlueDevilBrowns
03-15-2014, 04:53 PM
So with the wins today, this should lock up the Raleigh pod for both UVA and Duke.

Also, Duke has locked in at least a 3 seed(sorry Palm) and with a win tomorrow, they'll lock up a 2 seed with a chance for a #1.

I still believe if we win tomorrow, we're in the East regardless of seed.

pfrduke
03-15-2014, 04:54 PM
So with the wins today, this should lock up the Raleigh pod for both UVA and Duke.

Also, Duke has locked in at least a 3 seed(sorry Palm) and with a win tomorrow, they'll lock up a 2 seed with a chance for a #1.

I still believe if we win tomorrow, we're in the East regardless of seed.

Agreed on the last point. I think if we're ACCT champs, we'll grade out ahead of Villanova, which is all that matters for landing in MSG.

ice-9
03-15-2014, 04:58 PM
Agreed on the last point. I think if we're ACCT champs, we'll grade out ahead of Villanova, which is all that matters for landing in MSG.

What if we lose? If Michigan wins the Big 10, they'd get the last 1-seed; UVA would get the 2-seed in the East.

If the Badgers beat Michigan State (currently down 10 with 6:22 left to go), we'd be behind them. We might still be behind Villanova too -- yikes, we could get shipped to the West in that case. Hopefully if we don't get the East, we can be in the Midwest with Wichita St. I think we're ahead of Kansas with their early loss and Embiid injury.

There's a lot at stake in tomorrow's game with UVA.

pfrduke
03-15-2014, 05:00 PM
What if we lose? If Michigan wins the Big 10, they'd get the last 1-seed; UVA would get the 2-seed in the East.

I'd think Duke might be behind Wisconsin (if the Badgers beat Michigan State; currently down 10 with 6:22 left to go) and Villanova -- yikes, we could get shipped to the West in that case. Hopefully if we don't get the East, we can be in the Midwest with Wichita St. I think we're ahead of Kansas.

If we lose, it will be hard to land in MSG. I think both Virginia and Villanova would be ahead of us in that scenario. We will only be in the West if we're #8 on the S-curve.

ice-9
03-15-2014, 05:07 PM
If we lose, it will be hard to land in MSG. I think both Virginia and Villanova would be ahead of us in that scenario. We will only be in the West if we're #8 on the S-curve.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

1-seeds: Florida, Wichita St, Arizona, Michigan
2-seeds: UVA, Wisconsin, Villanova, Duke

We should be rooting for the Spartans like crazy to beat the Badgers. If Wisconsin loses and we lose tomorrow, we can avoid the West and move up to #7 on the S-curve.

Michigan St up 9 with 4:12 to go. Looking good.

ice-9
03-15-2014, 05:11 PM
P.S. Louisville can be in the conversation if they beat UConn tonight. But I think their #23 RPI is the deal breaker. Hopefully UConn wins and removes all doubt.

Henderson
03-15-2014, 05:22 PM
If we take care of business tomorrow, I think it'll be hard to justify any other team getting that last #1 seed ahead of us.

If we don't, it's #2 or maybe #3, which really amount to the same thing in an NCAA bracket.

Devils eat Fish.

duke4ever19
03-15-2014, 06:39 PM
As of 5:34pm Jerry Palm has us as a 4-seed in the West Region playing our first rounds in San Antonio.

?????

BlueDevilBrowns
03-15-2014, 06:47 PM
As of 5:34pm Jerry Palm has us as a 4-seed in the West Region playing our first rounds in San Antonio.

?????

I posted this link in the "1 Seed Predictions" Thread a couple of minutes ago. This answers your question as to what Palm's "thinking".

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24486063/bracketology-battle-for-fourth-no-1-seed-heats-up

pfrduke
03-15-2014, 06:50 PM
I posted this link in the "1 Seed Predictions" Thread a couple of minutes ago. This answers your question as to what Palm's "thinking".

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24486063/bracketology-battle-for-fourth-no-1-seed-heats-up

Well, that explains why he doesn't have us as a 1-seed. It doesn't explain why he has us as a 4-seed. There's a gulf between those two spots.

BlueDevilBrowns
03-15-2014, 07:26 PM
Well, that explains why he doesn't have us as a 1-seed. It doesn't explain why he has us as a 4-seed. There's a gulf between those two spots.

A follower on twitter remarked today that it was "hilarious" that Palm still had Cincy ahead of Duke on the seed line, with Cincy as a 3 and Duke as a 4.

Palm responded that it was "hilarious" that Duke lost at ND and Wake.

So it seems that Palm is holding our road record heavily against us.

Henderson
03-15-2014, 07:36 PM
For a lot of people shouldering around in a very crowded space to get noticed, saying idiotic things is just a way of getting noticed.

Don't feed it.

Kedsy
03-15-2014, 07:43 PM
If we don't, it's #2 or maybe #3, which really amount to the same thing in an NCAA bracket.

Not sure why you think #2 and #3 are equivalent in the bracket. I assume part of the following stat is because 2 seeds are just better than 3s, but since the tourney went to 64 teams, 2 seeds have reached the Final Four 21.6% of the time and 3 seeds have reached the Final Four only 12.1%.

If you use Pomeroy ratings and log5 method to predict probability of winning, here's the difference between #2 and #3 over the past five seasons:



2-seed 3-seed
------ -------
Avg Pomeroy Rating 0.9439 0.9261
Avg Pomeroy Rank 9.55 16.1
% chance to make Sweet 16 63.40% 49.57%
% chance to make Elite 8 36.49% 22.65%
% chance to make Final 4 15.36% 8.20%
Actual trips to Sweet 16 64.66% 51.72%
Actual trips to Elite 8 46.55% 25.86%
Actual trips to Final 4 21.55% 12.07%


So 2-seeds have a higher rating (but not that much higher -- this year that difference would roughly be the difference between #5 and #6) and a higher ranking (#10 vs. #16), but the chances of making each stage of the tournament based on expected matchups (i.e., the 2 would be expected to play a 15, 7, 3, and 1; while the 3 would be expected to face 14, 6, 2, and 1) is huge, even bigger than the actual results over 29 years (which is a pretty big disparity).

I conclude getting a #2 and #3 don't amount to anywhere near the same thing in an NCAA bracket.

bbosbbos
03-15-2014, 07:44 PM
Can not agree more. Why should we look at a fool? Rankings, various rankings determine the seeding.


For a lot of people shouldering around in a very crowded space to get noticed, saying idiotic things is just a way of getting noticed.

Don't feed it.

El_Diablo
03-15-2014, 07:45 PM
A follower on twitter remarked today that it was "hilarious" that Palm still had Cincy ahead of Duke on the seed line, with Cincy as a 3 and Duke as a 4.

Palm responded that it was "hilarious" that Duke lost at ND and Wake.

So it seems that Palm is holding our road record heavily against us.

Someone should ask him how many teams have more top 25 wins than Duke.

Hint: 0

Duke has five such wins, and a chance to extend it tomorrow by beating Virginia. No one else has more than four. He's cherry picking "top 50" wins, which also glosses over our three wins against teams in the 51-53 range.

EDIT: Nevermind...it seems he's not holding the top 50 wins against us.

Henderson
03-15-2014, 07:48 PM
Not sure why you think #2 and #3 are equivalent in the bracket. I assume part of the following stat is because 2 seeds are just better than 3s, but since the tourney went to 64 teams, 2 seeds have reached the Final Four 21.6% of the time and 3 seeds have reached the Final Four only 12.1%.

But that's just because #2 teams are typically better than #3 teams. When it comes to the beginning of the tourney, a number 2 seed has as tough a road to the Final Four as a number 3 seed. You answered your own question.

LBF
03-15-2014, 07:58 PM
Lunardi's south projection is sickening.

1)Florida
2)Duke
3)lows St.
4)Louisville

Winning tomorrow would go a long way toward getting us in the east which looks way easier

1) Michigan
2)
3)UVA
4)cincy

Kedsy
03-15-2014, 08:00 PM
But that's just because #2 teams are typically better than #3 teams. When it comes to the beginning of the tourney, a number 2 seed has as tough a road to the Final Four as a number 3 seed. You answered your own question.

Actually, I provided a fair amount of stats that show the discrepancy is way more than the difference in quality between the 2 and 3 seeds.

Also, there's a big flaw in your reasoning. Assuming that 2 seeds are better than 3 seeds, if we get a 3 seed we'll have to play a 2 seed but if we get a 2 seed we'll only have to play a 3 seed. No matter how you slice it, the 3 seed has a much tougher road.

Kedsy
03-15-2014, 08:01 PM
Lunardi's south projection is sickening.

1)Florida
2)Duke
3)lows St.
4)Louisville

Winning tomorrow would go a long way toward getting us in the east which looks way easier

1) Michigan
2)
3)UVA
4)cincy

Except we can't be a #2 in a region in which Virginia is the #3. So we'd have to get someone else, possibly the same Iowa State team you're unhappy about.

FerryFor50
03-15-2014, 08:04 PM
No matter how you slice it, the 3 seed has a much tougher road.

This is why you see wayyyy more 3-14 upsets than you see 2-15 upsets. A 3 seed's road is harder from the start. 14 seed teams are generally underseeded. 15 seed teams are generally not much better than 16 seeds (unless you're Lehigh).

Troublemaker
03-15-2014, 08:04 PM
Lunardi's south projection is sickening.

1)Florida
2)Duke
3)lows St.
4)Louisville

Winning tomorrow would go a long way toward getting us in the east which looks way easier

1) Michigan
2)
3)UVA
4)cincy

Hey, at least UNC is the 5 seed in that South bracket. The rival fans can suffer together.

LBF
03-15-2014, 08:07 PM
Except we can't be a #2 in a region in which Virginia is the #3. So we'd have to get someone else, possibly the same Iowa State team you're unhappy about.

Ah I guess that's right. Is that because the committee tends to avoid intra-conference match ups in the sweet sixteen?