PDA

View Full Version : Who is #1?



conmanlhughes
02-16-2014, 09:37 PM
While Syracuse is currently the number one team in the polls, their recent preformances seem to be a little underwhelming, while Arizona seems to spiraling in a downward fashion. Florida has recently been preforming well, as has Duke and Wichita State. Heading int the tournament, i am very curious to see who will be the best number one seed. Who do you guys see as the #1 team in the country right now?

OldPhiKap
02-16-2014, 09:44 PM
While Syracuse is currently the number one team in the polls, their recent preformances seem to be a little underwhelming, while Arizona seems to spiraling in a downward fashion. Florida has recently been preforming well, as has Duke and Wichita State. Heading int the tournament, i am very curious to see who will be the best number one seed. Who do you guys see as the #1 team in the country right now?

Syracuse and Florida certainly are playing at very high levels, and have done so all season.

I would give them the edge for the seeds at this point, but plenty of teams (Duke, UNC and UVa among others) have legitimate shots at getting to the Regional Finals. Anything can happen from there.

uh_no
02-16-2014, 09:45 PM
While Syracuse is currently the number one team in the polls, their recent preformances seem to be a little underwhelming, while Arizona seems to spiraling in a downward fashion. Florida has recently been preforming well, as has Duke and Wichita State. Heading int the tournament, i am very curious to see who will be the best number one seed. Who do you guys see as the #1 team in the country right now?

florida is playing very well right now, but the SEC is cupcake city

personally right NOW, I think it's duke....regardless of how good you are, you're bound to have some close games, and contrary to popular belief, there's not much difference in a teams ability whether they win by 1 or lose by 1.

arizona's best win is clearly us, and none of their other wins are actually that great...michigan is okay, but it was still a 2 point game

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss syracuse and duke....adjusted offensive and defensive efficiency on a game to game basis are going to fall on a bell curve....so even the best teams will have close games when you don't think they should.

so i'm going to go with duke, or syracuse.

I'd also like to point out how absurdly compact the top of kenpom is....example?

last year UL was .02 better than #2 UK (and there is often larger margins at the top...as they are outliers)

this year, almost the entire top 10 fit in that range.....parity is in style this year....

Troublemaker
02-16-2014, 09:48 PM
i am very curious to see who will be the best number one seed.

I think Florida has the best chance at being the overall #1 seed. If they suffer some surprising losses down the stretch (the SEC is weak), then maybe an undefeated Wichita St could move into there.

CameronBornAndBred
02-16-2014, 09:48 PM
Syracuse. They would have my vote for the #1 overall seed if selection Sunday were tomorrow. They also would have my vote to be the first #1 to get sent home, they are probably making their fans very nervous with their close calls of late.

FerryFor50
02-16-2014, 09:51 PM
I'd say it's still Syracuse right now. Still no losses, regardless of how shaky they have been.

Florida is up there, too, especially now that they have Chris Walker eligible.

Duke is a very good team, but still no "signature" wins. Pitt and Michigan were nice, but would have liked to see a win over Arizona, Kansas or Syracuse.

Kansas also scares me a bit.

FerryFor50
02-16-2014, 09:52 PM
Syracuse. They would have my vote for the #1 overall seed if selection Sunday were tomorrow. They also would have my vote to be the first #1 to get sent home, they are probably making their fans very nervous with their close calls of late.

Too bad the NCAAs aren't played in the Carrier Dome, eh? ;)

uh_no
02-16-2014, 09:53 PM
Too bad the NCAAs aren't played in the Carrier Dome, eh? ;)

actually, the carrier dome has hosted regionals.....of course syracuse can't play there

FerryFor50
02-16-2014, 09:54 PM
actually, the carrier dome has hosted regionals.....of course syracuse can't play there

Yea but I meant this year... :)

BlueDevilBrowns
02-16-2014, 10:04 PM
While Syracuse is currently the number one team in the polls, their recent preformances seem to be a little underwhelming, while Arizona seems to spiraling in a downward fashion. Florida has recently been preforming well, as has Duke and Wichita State. Heading int the tournament, i am very curious to see who will be the best number one seed. Who do you guys see as the #1 team in the country right now?

As of now, my top 4 teams, regardless of seeding, are Syracuse, Fla, Kansas, and Duke.

MSU and AZ would be with that group if totally healthy.

ice-9
02-16-2014, 10:35 PM
As of now, my top 4 teams, regardless of seeding, are Syracuse, Fla, Kansas, and Duke.

MSU and AZ would be with that group if totally healthy.


My Final Four as of right now would be Syracuse, Florida, Duke and Creighton -- maybe in that order.

Creighton is my dark horse pick but I think they are due this year after doing well last season and this being McDermott's college swan song.

Syracuse has had some close games but I think that can only make them stronger as they build the confidence that they can win close games; and I expect the Orange to lose a couple more times before the tournament so they'll play loose in the NCAA tournament.

I like the way we look even with that close game with Maryland; team defense can only improve, especially with the focus that comes in a lose-and-go-home tournament. Similar to the UNC team from...2009? Who dramatically improved their defense when it mattered most.

I don't know much about Florida so picking the Gators based on their poll rank and good dork numbers.

Wander
02-16-2014, 10:39 PM
I could see the argument for putting Florida ahead of Syracuse if these close calls were against bad teams, but aside from NC State, they're not. I don't think you knock Syracuse down for beating Duke and Pitt by really small margins. Put another way, Syracuse's 2 point wins against Duke and Pitt are still better than Florida's 7 point wins against the Alabamas and Auburns of the world.

brevity
02-16-2014, 11:42 PM
While Syracuse is currently the number one team in the polls, their recent preformances seem to be a little underwhelming, while Arizona seems to spiraling in a downward fashion. Florida has recently been preforming well, as has Duke and Wichita State. Heading int the tournament, i am very curious to see who will be the best number one seed. Who do you guys see as the #1 team in the country right now?

Based on the last two sentences of the original post, this thread seems to be combining what could be three very different things:

1. The overall #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament.
2. The best #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament, as it plays out.
3. The #1 team in the country right now.

All are valid questions, but unless the answer to all three is the same, they have to be separated. The historians and statisticians are welcome to have their say, but each answer would look like the following:

1. Couldn't tell you until Selection Sunday. Usually a team from a major conference that was in play for a #1 seed before its conference tournament, and then won it anyway. Right now the Selection Committee would drink a couple of pots of gourmet coffee, take a few smoke breaks, order in room service lobster, break out the nice cigars, make sure someone else pays their bill, and then tell you it's Syracuse.
2. The #1 seed that goes farthest in the tournament. Note that this is not necessarily the champion. I don't think Duke is a #1 seed yet, but even if they were, I'll guess Florida.
3. I'm biased, and not for Duke in this case. Undefeated teams do what's expected of them. Every player wearing a Syracuse or Wichita State jersey can honestly say they are nobody's b****. Maybe Florida is playing more dominantly, masters every statistical measure, and beats Syracuse by 20 in your mind. The point is that no one cares about the games you play in your mind. The answer to this particular question is either Syracuse or Wichita State, and the only valid debate is which.

Skitzle
02-17-2014, 06:02 AM
While Syracuse is currently the number one team in the polls, their recent preformances seem to be a little underwhelming, while Arizona seems to spiraling in a downward fashion. Florida has recently been preforming well, as has Duke and Wichita State. Heading int the tournament, i am very curious to see who will be the best number one seed. Who do you guys see as the #1 team in the country right now?

Not to be a downer, but Duke almost lost to Maryland at home. Don't understand how that is any different from Cuse almost losing to NCState in terms of underwhelming performances. :)

If Duke could potentially be a number 1 after the MD game, I don't see why Cuse is out of the running.

Troublemaker
02-17-2014, 06:33 AM
2. The #1 seed that goes farthest in the tournament. Note that this is not necessarily the champion. I don't think Duke is a #1 seed yet, but even if they were, I'll guess Florida.


conmanlhughes has indeed invited us to look at this discussion any number of ways. Here's my quickie take on who the best teams are (and how Duke stacks up), which is subject to change as the season winds down:

Florida is better than Duke.
Michigan St when healthy is better than Duke. (Fla and MSU strike me as having an edge over the rest of the country because of their experience.)
Kentucky has the potential to be better than Duke due to their physical talent, but is currently worse. (They're going to end up being a very dangerous 3/4/5/6 seed to avoid.)
Syracuse is as good as Duke. (I thought about saying that Duke is better, but it feels like splitting hairs).
Wichita St is as good as Duke. I believe in them.
Kansas has the potential to be as good as Duke and might be there already.
Arizona was better than Duke, is probably not as good now, but I want to see them play a few more games without Ashley just to be more confident in that assessment.

Then there are 10 or so other teams that are slightly worse than Duke and will remain that way (because of relative lack of upside), but it wouldn't be a huge surprise if they beat us. There are also, of course, a few teams that matchup well and would play us better than they might play others. (Every contender probably has someone like that.)

So (and this isn't groundbreaking or anything) I don't consider Duke to be the favorite but we're top-6. I'm not sure even if we win out, I'll like us better than Fla or a healthy MSU. And that's perfectly fine to me. I just hope we stay relatively healthy, get a good bracket unlike last season, and continue to improve (the things that are possible for us to improve).

NYBri
02-17-2014, 09:44 AM
We win out this week, and we are definitely in the #1 seed conversation, but tons of basketball yet to be played. That said:

Next game - Ga. Tech
Everything else - blog noise

:cool:

TexHawk
02-17-2014, 10:13 AM
Wichita St is as good as Duke. I believe in them.
Kansas has the potential to be as good as Duke and might be there already.


I will ask the same question that has probably been asked 1000 times around here: How can you possibly know how good WSU is, and why do you believe in them so strongly? Not saying you are wrong, but they have played two games against Top 100 Kenpom teams since early December, and it was the same team, #86 Indiana State. (Florida has played two Top 25 Kenpom teams in the last 6 days.) My gut says they are good, but I'm not putting any mortgage payments on it. Assuming they get a #1, their 8/9 opponent will likely come from a group similar to Pitt, K-State, SMU, Oklahoma State, Stanford, Memphis. Are you comfortable in your belief in WSU against teams like that?

And I think the Kansas thing is worded strangely, considering Duke already lost to them by double figures** on a neutral floor. If there is burden of proof on which one is the better team, I would think it's the other way around. To be clear, I am not saying KU is better, right now or later, we certainly have our own problems. It's similar to how KU could compare themselves against Florida. Yea, everyone has gotten a lot better since December, but we still lost to them in a "score-makes-it-seem-closer-than-it-really-was" game.

** Before we jump into a "that was November and we are surely better!" thing, it might be good to note that Joel Embiid scored two points on 4 shots in that game, and KU still scored 94 points.

FerryFor50
02-17-2014, 10:19 AM
I will ask the same question that has probably been asked 1000 times around here: How can you possibly know how good WSU is, and why do you believe in them so strongly? Not saying you are wrong, but they have played two games against Top 100 Kenpom teams since early December, and it was the same team, #86 Indiana State. (Florida has played two Top 25 Kenpom teams in the last 6 days.) My gut says they are good, but I'm not putting any mortgage payments on it. Assuming they get a #1, their 8/9 opponent will likely come from a group similar to Pitt, K-State, SMU, Oklahoma State, Stanford, Memphis. Are you comfortable in your belief in WSU against teams like that?

And I think the Kansas thing is worded strangely, considering Duke already lost to them by double figures** on a neutral floor. If there is burden of proof on which one is the better team, I would think it's the other way around. To be clear, I am not saying KU is better, right now or later, we certainly have our own problems. It's similar to how KU could compare themselves against Florida. Yea, everyone has gotten a lot better since December, but we still lost to them in a "score-makes-it-seem-closer-than-it-really-was" game.

** Before we jump into a "that was November and we are surely better!" thing, it might be good to note that Joel Embiid scored two points on 4 shots in that game, and KU still scored 94 points.

Eh, double figures, while factually accurate, is a stretch. That game was within single digits until the last minutes, as Duke forced up shots and had to foul to play catch up.

Also, while Embiid only had 4 and has gotten better, he's also stunk the past few games and is battling injuries.

That said, Kansas has the talent and potential to beat anyone.

TexHawk
02-17-2014, 10:26 AM
Eh, double figures, while factually accurate, is a stretch. That game was within single digits until the last minutes, as Duke forced up shots and had to foul to play catch up.

Also, while Embiid only had 4 and has gotten better, he's also stunk the past few games and is battling injuries.


Fair enough on double figures.

Like I said, I am making no claim that Kansas is better today, or will be better in March. There are several issues, most notably Embiid's injuries, but also suspensions to two rotation players for continually acting like college students.

My issue was the OP's wording, which made it sound like KU is a plucky group of underachievers who might just put it all together by March and possibly be as good as Duke someday. November wasn't THAT long ago.

Wander
02-17-2014, 10:41 AM
How can you possibly know how good WSU is[/I]

The same way we make guesses about how good any team is. Wichita's weaker conference makes the error bars on figuring out how good they are a little bigger, but it's not fundamentally different from any other team - particularly Florida (the SEC could still realistically get only 2 tournament bids). I'm getting a little bored pointing this out all the time, but the team made the Final Four last year and gave the national champion it's toughest game of the tournament (in contrast to Duke - we got blown out). It's not exactly the same team of course (most everyone says they're BETTER than last year's Final Four squad), but they're not some giant mysterious unknown that came out of nowhere.

TexHawk
02-17-2014, 11:11 AM
The same way we make guesses about how good any team is. Wichita's weaker conference makes the error bars on figuring out how good they are a little bigger, but it's not fundamentally different from any other team - particularly Florida (the SEC could still realistically get only 2 tournament bids). I'm getting a little bored pointing this out all the time, but the team made the Final Four last year and gave the national champion it's toughest game of the tournament (in contrast to Duke - we got blown out). It's not exactly the same team of course (most everyone says they're BETTER than last year's Final Four squad), but they're not some giant mysterious unknown that came out of nowhere.

That's too simplistic imo, because the WSU team from last year also lost to Creighton twice (who Duke blew out), Evansville twice, Indiana St, Northern Iowa, and #171 ranked Southern Illinois. That was not a Final Four team when the tournament started, but the breaks went their way, they played really well, and gave Louisville a great game. Kudos to them for a great tournament, but we could play that game all day.

And regarding Louisville, I personally think that a long list of teams could have played them tough in a national semi-final, but for one reason or another, those teams just didn't get there.

FerryFor50
02-17-2014, 11:34 AM
That's too simplistic imo, because the WSU team from last year also lost to Creighton twice (who Duke blew out), Evansville twice, Indiana St, Northern Iowa, and #171 ranked Southern Illinois. That was not a Final Four team when the tournament started, but the breaks went their way, they played really well, and gave Louisville a great game. Kudos to them for a great tournament, but we could play that game all day.

And regarding Louisville, I personally think that a long list of teams could have played them tough in a national semi-final, but for one reason or another, those teams just didn't get there.

Agreed. WSU had one of the easiest paths to the final four, especially considering the toughest opponent before Lville was Ohio St.

Plus, Duke played Lville tough most of the game. It was 35-32 at the half. They just ran out of steam at the end. Not to mention that Duke beat Lville earlier that year (granted, minus Gourgui Deng, but he wasn't a huge factor in the Lville win. Smith and Siva did Duke in.).

I'm still convinced the Ware injury provided a rallying cry for Lville that gave them added motivation ..

Wander
02-17-2014, 11:37 AM
That's too simplistic imo, because the WSU team from last year also lost to Creighton twice (who Duke blew out), Evansville twice, Indiana St, Northern Iowa, and #171 ranked Southern Illinois. That was not a Final Four team when the tournament started, but the breaks went their way, they played really well, and gave Louisville a great game. Kudos to them for a great tournament, but we could play that game all day.

My point is you can play these games with almost any team. It's not special to Wichita. Duke couldn't beat Notre Dame on the road, but Indiana State could (who Wichita swept). Wichita's single digit wins against mediocre conference foes aren't any different from Florida's single digit wins against mediocre Alabama or Arkansas or Auburn teams. You asked if we'd be comfortable with Wichita playing Pitt or Oklahoma State or Stanford or Kansas State or Memphis as the 8/9 game, but all those teams have already played other potential 1 seeds (Syracuse, Kansas, Arizona, Florida) all the way to the buzzer in one-possession games this season, and in the case of Kansas State, actually won - so that's not special to Wichita State either. My point is that the uncertainty surrounding how good Wichita is isn't that much different than that of other highly ranked teams.

TexHawk
02-17-2014, 11:56 AM
My point is you can play these games with almost any team. It's not special to Wichita. Duke couldn't beat Notre Dame on the road, but Indiana State could (who Wichita swept). Wichita's single digit wins against mediocre conference foes aren't any different from Florida's single digit wins against mediocre Alabama or Arkansas or Auburn teams. You asked if we'd be comfortable with Wichita playing Pitt or Oklahoma State or Stanford or Kansas State or Memphis as the 8/9 game, but all those teams have already played other potential 1 seeds (Syracuse, Kansas, Arizona, Florida) all the way to the buzzer in one-possession games this season, and in the case of Kansas State, actually won - so that's not special to Wichita State either. My point is that the uncertainty surrounding how good Wichita is isn't that much different than that of other highly ranked teams.

I get that there is uncertainty with everyone. But I do disagree that the uncertainty isn't that much different. It is possible that WSU's 8/9 opponent will be the toughest opponent they have faced all season, and I don't think we have ever had to say that before. And on those 8/9 teams, I saw K-State last week, and while it's hard to quantify a rivalry game, I don't think WSU puts up much of a fight if they were there instead of KU. That's my opinion of course, because that would easily be their toughest road game in at least a year, we just don't have a lot of/any data to go on.

That's all I am saying. Maybe I am just a 'half-glass empty' person. With my mortgage payment, if forced to choose, I am going to go with the team that I just saw with my eyes beat UK at UK. (Vegas agrees.)

uh_no
02-17-2014, 12:01 PM
Not to be a downer, but Duke almost lost to Maryland at home. Don't understand how that is any different from Cuse almost losing to NCState in terms of underwhelming performances. :)

If Duke could potentially be a number 1 after the MD game, I don't see why Cuse is out of the running.

I don't think he said cuse was out of the running, just that despite their gaudy record, it's certainly an open question. (further, there's a big difference between a close win on the road and at home....something like 7 points difference)

Do i think syracuse will win the natty? nope. I think their style of play leads them to big regular season performances and underwhelming tournament performances....

Troublemaker
02-17-2014, 12:07 PM
How can you possibly know how good WSU is, and why do you believe in them so strongly? Not saying you are wrong, but they have played two games against Top 100 Kenpom teams since early December, and it was the same team, #86 Indiana State. (Florida has played two Top 25 Kenpom teams in the last 6 days.) My gut says they are good, but I'm not putting any mortgage payments on it. Assuming they get a #1, their 8/9 opponent will likely come from a group similar to Pitt, K-State, SMU, Oklahoma State, Stanford, Memphis. Are you comfortable in your belief in WSU against teams like that?

Yeah, I would be. Or at least I'd feel about as comfortable about them as I would any other 1 seed. Since the top teams haven't really separated themselves from the pack this season (although Fla may be in the process of doing that right now), I don't consider grouping WSU with the top teams to be a grand gesture. So, like you, I won't be putting any mortgage payments on them making the Final Four, but I wouldn't do that with ANY 1 seed. We could easily have a FF this year with zero or one 1-seeds making it. Many of these top teams would not have gone undefeated against WSU's schedule, imo.

As for how I could possibly know about WSU, I like Wander's answer. WSU is not an unknown. If we count their tournament run from last season, I've probably watched more WSU games than Florida games over the past year. Something like 4 games to 3 games watched. Yeah I feel okay about being able to rank them while using KenPom and other metrics as a guide as well.



And I think the Kansas thing is worded strangely, considering Duke already lost to them by double figures** on a neutral floor. If there is burden of proof on which one is the better team, I would think it's the other way around. To be clear, I am not saying KU is better, right now or later, we certainly have our own problems. It's similar to how KU could compare themselves against Florida. Yea, everyone has gotten a lot better since December, but we still lost to them in a "score-makes-it-seem-closer-than-it-really-was" game.
[/I]

As Ferry noted, the Duke-KU game was more "the score made it seem worse than what it was, which was a tie game with 3 min left and a 1-possesion game with 2 min left." Then you guys shot a bunch of free throws down the stretch to extend the lead to 11. And you guys shot FTs really well that game, which was atypical. And Duke shot FTs really poorly, which was also atypical. Honestly, I remember thinking the better team lost that game. But, of course, I'm biased.

All that said, both teams have changed so much since then, and imo, that game should be mostly disregarded when comparing KU and Duke. Did I hair-split when I wrote that KU has the potential to be as good as Duke? Yeah, I probably did. Watched too much of the Texas game, probably. But all teams can all be forgiven one bad outing. So I'll amend to say: KU is as good as Duke. (And in my defense, I did say "they might be there already" in the original post).

In any case, I hope to see a rematch with KU, whether it's in the Elite 8, Final Four, or NC.

Wander
02-17-2014, 12:07 PM
And on those 8/9 teams, I saw K-State last week, and while it's hard to quantify a rivalry game, I don't think WSU puts up much of a fight if they were there instead of KU. That's my opinion of course, because that would easily be their toughest road game in at least a year, we just don't have a lot of/any data to go on.


I'm assuming you're not aware that Wichita State has a road win this season against a team ranked far ahead of Kansas State in every available metric? (polls, RPI, kenpom, Vegas)

TexHawk
02-17-2014, 12:43 PM
I'm assuming you're not aware that Wichita State has a road win this season against a team ranked far ahead of Kansas State in every available metric? (polls, RPI, kenpom, Vegas)

Mea culps on SLU, for some reason I thought that was one of those neutral Thanksgiving tournaments.

Regardless, a mostly meaningless noncon game against SLU in November doesn't have the history, fans, environment, etc of K-State/KU, Zona/ASU or others. So no, if you were to somehow recreate that environment (the history and fans) and magically swap WSU in, I don't think they come out any better. It's unfortunate that we can't test that, because the one team that probably could recreate that atmosphere as a rival is no longer in their conference.

DUKIECB
02-17-2014, 12:57 PM
Syracuse is #1...so say the voters in the newly released polls. Florida moves up to 2, followed by WSU, Arizona and some team named Duke is back in the top 5. (Duke is 6th in the coaches poll behind Louisville)

Wander
02-17-2014, 03:15 PM
Mea culps on SLU, for some reason I thought that was one of those neutral Thanksgiving tournaments.

Regardless, a mostly meaningless noncon game against SLU in November doesn't have the history, fans, environment, etc of K-State/KU, Zona/ASU or others. So no, if you were to somehow recreate that environment (the history and fans) and magically swap WSU in, I don't think they come out any better. It's unfortunate that we can't test that, because the one team that probably could recreate that atmosphere as a rival is no longer in their conference.

People seem to be applying a double standard to Wichita. Case in point: you had no problem citing the November, non-conference Kansas victory over Duke as a point in KU's favor (telling someone that "November wasn't that long ago"), but for Wichita a November, non-conference big win is "mostly meaningless."

At any rate, of course Wichita is capable of losing a road game against a decent team. We don't need to watch them play Creighton to discover that. My point isn't that WSU is leagues better than Florida or Duke or Kansas - actually, my point isn't that they're better at all. The point is that this idea of "aw shucks guys, we have no idea if little Wichita is any good or not because their schedule isn't great" is silly. Reasonable people can disagree over the exact order of the top teams (personally I like Troublemaker's ordering of Florida and healthy Michigan State on top, with Syracuse Wichita and Duke all tied just below), but we have enough data to know that Wichita is one of them.

TexHawk
02-17-2014, 03:48 PM
People seem to be applying a double standard to Wichita. Case in point: you had no problem citing the November, non-conference Kansas victory over Duke as a point in KU's favor (telling someone that "November wasn't that long ago"), but for Wichita a November, non-conference big win is "mostly meaningless."

Now we're just bouncing all over the place. SLU was brought up in direct comparison to one of those 8/9 games that top seeds have been tested or struggled against. My point was that a game against SLU on 12/1 does not have the same intensity of KU/KSU, Zona/ASU, or any number of others. Unless there is a deeply engrained hatred of the Shockers by SLU over the last 50+ years of twice annual basketball events, this doesn't apply. It's still a good win for WSU, and shouldn't be discounted. That game was "mostly meaningless" due to my love for exaggeration, but also it had minimal impact on polls, seeding (maybe), and zero impact on conference play. Michigan State's loss to UNC was mostly meaningless. As was Kentucky's loss to MSU, KU's loss to Florida, and yes, Duke's loss to KU. Again, I am merely placing some uncertainty on WSU because there are very few of those kinds of games on their resume for us to pull from.

Kansas-Duke was/is a discussion of strength of two teams, nothing about seeding or who is playing better. We have two teams who played on a neutral floor with the same basketball players. That kind of comparison is useful and informative, but of course not predictive. It's just information about how two teams match up. I would say the same thing about MSU's win over Kentucky (assuming their guys come back healthy), or Duke's games against Arizona and UCLA. The only way WSU fits in this discussion is if we want to have a debate about the relative strength of their team vs someone they played on a neutral court in November.

ice-9
02-17-2014, 08:15 PM
I'm assuming you're not aware that Wichita State has a road win this season against a team ranked far ahead of Kansas State in every available metric? (polls, RPI, kenpom, Vegas)

The thing is SLU is kind of like a Wichita State. In their only two games against ranked opponents SLU lost, to Wisconsin and Wichita State. The rest look OK but certainly not amazing -- their recent 2 point win at home against VCU might just be SLU's best win of the season.

Are Wichita St and SLU deserving of their ranks? I don't know. Both teams' dork poll numbers are worse than their actual ranks (Wichita St is #11 and SLU is #19 on KenPom...which to me sounds a lot better than #3 and #10 respectively on the AP Poll). But neither team has beaten anyone notable this season, so maybe their numbers are more of a function of how they haven't lost lost vs. how they've won.

It's not so much that they've moved up, it's more that everyone else has moved down.

What's the purpose of rankings and seeds though? I think TexHawk's proposed scenario is completely valid:
Syracuse vs. Kansas St -- who would you take?
Wichita St vs. Kansas St -- who would you take?

I think "Wichita St got to the Final Four last season" counts for something, but it doesn't count for everything.

If Wichita St gets a 1 seed, it just might be the first 1 seed to lose to a 16 seed. The way the Shockers play defence (to limit opponents' athleticism and penetration), they can be susceptible to a mid major on a hot shooting streak who relies more on finesse than talent.

devilnfla
02-17-2014, 08:22 PM
As Ferry noted, the Duke-KU game was more "the score made it seem worse than what it was, which was a tie game with 3 min left and a 1-possesion game with 2 min left." Then you guys shot a bunch of free throws down the stretch to extend the lead to 11. And you guys shot FTs really well that game, which was atypical. And Duke shot FTs really poorly, which was also atypical. Honestly, I remember thinking the better team lost that game. But, of course, I'm biased.

All that said, both teams have changed so much since then, and imo, that game should be mostly disregarded when comparing KU and Duke. Did I hair-split when I wrote that KU has the potential to be as good as Duke? Yeah, I probably did. Watched too much of the Texas game, probably. But all teams can all be forgiven one bad outing. So I'll amend to say: KU is as good as Duke. (And
in my defense, I did say "they might be there already" in the original post).

In any case, I hope to see a rematch with KU,
whether it's in the Elite 8, Final Four, or NC.[/QUOTE]
__________________________________________________

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Andre Dawkins didn't even play in that Kansas game, did he? That along with the improved play of Suliamon, Plumlee and Jefferson makes us a much different team than we were in November.

Kedsy
02-18-2014, 12:21 AM
If Wichita St gets a 1 seed, it just might be the first 1 seed to lose to a 16 seed. The way the Shockers play defence (to limit opponents' athleticism and penetration), they can be susceptible to a mid major on a hot shooting streak who relies more on finesse than talent.

Some #1 is going to lose to a #16 some day, so it's possible you're correct. However, since I got slapped around for calling a low major team "mid major" not too long ago, I thought I'd pass along that it's highly unlikely a true mid major would ever be a #16 seed.

kAzE
02-18-2014, 12:23 AM
These rankings are ridiculous . . . Creighton blew out Villanova twice by 20+ and they are still ranked lower than Villanova in both polls. What is the point of the polls anymore? The voters are clearly oblivious to reality. Creighton should be top 10 in my opinion.

brevity
02-18-2014, 01:51 AM
Some #1 is going to lose to a #16 some day, so it's possible you're correct. However, since I got slapped around for calling a low major team "mid major" not too long ago, I thought I'd pass along that it's highly unlikely a true mid major would ever be a #16 seed.

Well...

There are 32 conferences which receive automatic bids to the NCAA Tournament. Presumably we divide them into major, mid-major, and low major, but how? The splintering of the Big East creates at least seven major conferences: ACC, American, Big East, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac-12, and SEC. (Don't knock the American. It boasts 2 of the last 3 champions.) Conference RPI (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/conference) listings tell us that other conferences have occasionally cracked the top 6 or 7: Atlantic-10, Conference USA, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, West Coast. Are they major conferences as well? I don't know. Maybe someone can see if these conferences regularly receive at least 3 bids. Low majors are easier to spot: perennial one-bid leagues at the bottom of the RPI listings. Mid-majors are everyone in between.

I bring this up because the 2012 tournament had Western Kentucky (15-18), the surprise champion of the Sun Belt, as a #16 seed. (You can find a list of NCAA Tournament teams with losing records here (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?id=7657319).) In that season, the Sun Belt had the 19th best RPI, which is arguably mid-major range. And while not of evidentiary value, it helps that Western Kentucky made the Sweet 16 in 2008. Anyway, the 2012 Hilltoppers won their play-in game before losing to Anthony Davis and their other Lexington neighbors.

One more point. The field expanded to 68 teams by adding 4 at-large teams in the 11/12/13 seed range. If you look at the bracket, you now see six #16 seeds instead of four. This means that two #16 seeds would have been #15 seeds in an old 64-team bracket. We all know the occasionally successful history of #15 seeds. It's just a matter of time before one of these fake #16 seeds claims a real victory over a #1 seed.

Kedsy
02-18-2014, 02:08 AM
Well...

There are 32 conferences which receive automatic bids to the NCAA Tournament. Presumably we divide them into major, mid-major, and low major, but how? The splintering of the Big East creates at least seven major conferences: ACC, American, Big East, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac-12, and SEC. (Don't knock the American. It boasts 2 of the last 3 champions.) Conference RPI (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/conference) listings tell us that other conferences have occasionally cracked the top 6 or 7: Atlantic-10, Conference USA, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, West Coast. Are they major conferences as well? I don't know. Maybe someone can see if these conferences regularly receive at least 3 bids. Low majors are easier to spot: perennial one-bid leagues at the bottom of the RPI listings. Mid-majors are everyone in between.

I bring this up because the 2012 tournament had Western Kentucky (15-18), the surprise champion of the Sun Belt, as a #16 seed. (You can find a list of NCAA Tournament teams with losing records here (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?id=7657319).) In that season, the Sun Belt had the 19th best RPI, which is arguably mid-major range. And while not of evidentiary value, it helps that Western Kentucky made the Sweet 16 in 2008. Anyway, the 2012 Hilltoppers won their play-in game before losing to Anthony Davis and their other Lexington neighbors.

I don't think the definition of "mid-major" is strictly mathematical. I'd say right now the Atlantic 10, West Coast, Mountain West, Missouri Valley, MAC, Conference USA, Horizon, and Colonial are the mid-majors. You can make an argument for the MAAC, but I don't think it quite makes it. The Sun Belt, WAC, and maybe the Big West used to be mid-majors but aren't any longer (not even close, really). I think the Sun Belt's mid-majorness pre-dated 2012, so I disagree with your assessment that a mid-major was ever a #16.

Moving forward, I see the AAC dropping to mid-major, probably next season (even with Louisville in the conference, the AAC conference RPI is 8th, well below the Atlantic 10). Conference USA will probably soon be a low-major; looking at the roster of teams in that conference, it's teetering on the brink already. Same with the Colonial, after losing VCU, Richmond, and George Mason.


One more point. The field expanded to 68 teams by adding 4 at-large teams in the 11/12/13 seed range. If you look at the bracket, you now see six #16 seeds instead of four. This means that two #16 seeds would have been #15 seeds in an old 64-team bracket. We all know the occasionally successful history of #15 seeds. It's just a matter of time before one of these fake #16 seeds claims a real victory over a #1 seed.

I totally agree with this.

sagegrouse
02-18-2014, 09:18 AM
I don't think the definition of "mid-major" is strictly mathematical. I'd say right now the Atlantic 10, West Coast, Mountain West, Missouri Valley, MAC, Conference USA, Horizon, and Colonial are the mid-majors. You can make an argument for the MAAC, but I don't think it quite makes it. The Sun Belt, WAC, and maybe the Big West used to be mid-majors but aren't any longer (not even close, really). I think the Sun Belt's mid-majorness pre-dated 2012, so I disagree with your assessment that a mid-major was ever a #16.

Moving forward, I see the AAC dropping to mid-major, probably next season (even with Louisville in the conference, the AAC conference RPI is 8th, well below the Atlantic 10). Conference USA will probably soon be a low-major; looking at the roster of teams in that conference, it's teetering on the brink already. Same with the Colonial, after losing VCU, Richmond, and George Mason.



I totally agree with this.

I haven't given this a lot of thought, but I thought the term originated in football, where there only -- what? -- 130 Division 1A teams. Therefore, all 130 are "major" in a sense. "Mid-major" would be those teams and conferences which are not in the erstwile BCS equation: all but the teams in the Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, PAC-12, SEC and AAC.

I tend to agree with your list, but that then implies there are "Low Majors," such as the Southern Conference and its teams. Do we really use that term?

Sage

Wander
02-18-2014, 09:24 AM
Some #1 is going to lose to a #16 some day, so it's possible you're correct. However, since I got slapped around for calling a low major team "mid major" not too long ago, I thought I'd pass along that it's highly unlikely a true mid major would ever be a #16 seed.

Haha, well, as the person (I think) who made that comment, I'll say that I agree with your breakdown and that there's no need to divide the categories up into equal thirds. Off the top of my head, I'd say that high majors are the 7 conferences that spawned from the BCS leagues, the mid majors are other conferences that regularly or semi-regularly contend for at least one at-large selection, and low majors are everyone else, which basically are never in contention for at-large bids except for the extremely rare year like Murray State a few seasons ago. It's not super clear how exactly the conferences divide themselves up now due to the realignment stuff, I guess we'll need a few years of (for example) the Horizon without Butler to figure it out.

flyingdutchdevil
02-18-2014, 09:26 AM
Haha, well, as the person (I think) who made that comment, I'll say that I agree with your breakdown and that there's no need to divide the categories up into equal thirds. Off the top of my head, I'd say that high majors are the 7 conferences that spawned from the BCS leagues, the mid majors are other conferences that regularly or semi-regularly contend for at least one at-large selection, and low majors are everyone else, which basically are never in contention for at-large bids except for the extremely rare year like Murray State a few seasons ago. It's not super clear how exactly the conferences divide themselves up now due to the realignment stuff, I guess we'll need a few years of (for example) the Horizon without Butler to figure it out.

I agree. Even within conferences. Isn't UNC a low major?

Wander
02-18-2014, 09:41 AM
I tend to agree with your list, but that then implies there are "Low Majors," such as the Southern Conference and its teams. Do we really use that term?


I guess it is just academic, but I think it's useful to not have classifications that lump the Missouri Valley, which semi-regularly sends different teams to the Sweet 16, with conferences that haven't even won a tournament game in over a decade (not counting those fake 16 vs 16 games). There are a lot of casual fans who have the impression that everything below the BCS leagues are about equal, which is a little silly.

Wander
02-18-2014, 09:44 AM
I agree. Even within conferences. Isn't UNC a low major?

Well, they are the 350th best 3-point shooting team in the country :)

Saratoga2
02-18-2014, 10:08 AM
Syracuse is #1...so say the voters in the newly released polls. Florida moves up to 2, followed by WSU, Arizona and some team named Duke is back in the top 5. (Duke is 6th in the coaches poll behind Louisville)

Personally, I think Florida should be #1 based on their talent and recent efforts. I find Syracuse to be very good but they have struggled in several games in a row, despite racking up wins.

TexHawk
02-18-2014, 10:41 AM
I guess it is just academic, but I think it's useful to not have classifications that lump the Missouri Valley, which semi-regularly sends different teams to the Sweet 16, with conferences that haven't even won a tournament game in over a decade (not counting those fake 16 vs 16 games). There are a lot of casual fans who have the impression that everything below the BCS leagues are about equal, which is a little silly.

The MVC is tough to fit somewhere easily, considering the number of teams that have left**. But this kind of categorization needs to be fluid, because while WSU and UNI (grrr) have made S16s lately, no school currently in the conference has a particularly strong and consistent hoops background. (WSU has been to 3 of the last 25 NCAA tournaments.) Creighton made that history slightly better, but they haven't been to a S16 since 1974.

But I agree overall, the MVC, Mountain West, and probably the MAC deserve better public perception, given some of their success. They certainly are not in the same position as the Southern, Northeast, Southland, etc.

** Seriously, the list of former MVC members is crazy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Valley_Conference#Former_members), you've got KU, Louisville, Missouri, Butler, Houston, Iowa, Memphis, OU/OSU, SLU, Nebraska, and many more. Granted, several of those schools left before 1950, but it's a little jarring to look at.

OldPhiKap
02-18-2014, 10:50 AM
Personally, I think Florida should be #1 based on their talent and recent efforts. I find Syracuse to be very good but they have struggled in several games in a row, despite racking up wins.

I don't necessarily disagree, but the flip side is that the best teams find ways to win even when they shouldn't. Syracuse has lived a charmed life in that regard.

tommy
02-18-2014, 11:55 AM
I think one legitimate way to decide who's #1 at a given moment in time is to determine (guess?) who would be favored over anyone else on a neutral floor. Or, better, who Las Vegas would favor in any game played at such a site. I believe that, right now, Florida would be favored to beat any team in the nation on a neutral floor, and they should be.

uh_no
02-18-2014, 11:57 AM
I agree. Even within conferences. Isn't UNC a low major?

i was under the impression they were a "No-major".....which they cleverly aliased to "AFAM Studies"

Kedsy
02-18-2014, 12:05 PM
** Seriously, the list of former MVC members is crazy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Valley_Conference#Former_members), you've got KU, Louisville, Missouri, Butler, Houston, Iowa, Memphis, OU/OSU, SLU, Nebraska, and many more. Granted, several of those schools left before 1950, but it's a little jarring to look at.

Check out the list of former Southern Conference members. Includes most of the ACC and SEC.

Troublemaker
02-18-2014, 12:27 PM
I think one legitimate way to decide who's #1 at a given moment in time is to determine (guess?) who would be favored over anyone else on a neutral floor. Or, better, who Las Vegas would favor in any game played at such a site. I believe that, right now, Florida would be favored to beat any team in the nation on a neutral floor, and they should be.

You are correct. Florida is listed as the favorite for the national championship by almost all Vegas and Offshore books right now.