PDA

View Full Version : AP Poll 2/24/2014



Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-24-2014, 10:53 AM
Florida is #1, then the Shockers, Arizona, Syracuse, Kansas, Duke (#6), then Louisville.

UNC debuts at #19.

FerryFor50
02-24-2014, 10:59 AM
Hard to argue with any of that.

Duke deserved to drop a spot, but not too far after going 2-1 this week and taking down Syracuse.

UNC definitely deserved to be in the top 25. 19 might be a bit high, but they are playing pretty well right now.

jv001
02-24-2014, 11:00 AM
Question is, who gave North Carolina Central that one vote? :cool: GoDuke

sduke1986
02-24-2014, 11:01 AM
Question is, who gave North Carolina Central that one vote? :cool: GoDuke

Mark Gottfried did :cool:

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-24-2014, 11:01 AM
We very much still control our own destiny. I think one additional loss last week would have knocked us out of contention for a 1 seed. But, with a game remaining against UNC, a few games we "ought" to win, and potential games against UNC, UVA (#12 by the way, my bad not mentioning it), and a rubber match with Syracuse - we could potentially build a nice resume to justify a #1.

sduke1986
02-24-2014, 11:06 AM
Florida is #1, then the Shockers, Arizona, Syracuse, Kansas, Duke (#6), then Louisville.

UNC debuts at #19.

Looks pretty solid to me. Louisville could be higher as they've really seemed to hit their stride, but it really doesn't matter either way.

After we smack UNC, that will be another win over a ranked team. LOL at UNC fans on IC who were talking up Roy as ACC COY. Wow, he managed to get a preseason #11 team back into the rankings with 3 Burger boys in the starting lineup, so impressive. I think we can all agree that Tony Bennett deserves ACC COY, right? Jimmy B lost any chance he had with how he acted the other night IMO.

nmduke2001
02-24-2014, 11:23 AM
We very much still control our own destiny. I think one additional loss last week would have knocked us out of contention for a 1 seed. But, with a game remaining against UNC, a few games we "ought" to win, and potential games against UNC, UVA (#12 by the way, my bad not mentioning it), and a rubber match with Syracuse - we could potentially build a nice resume to justify a #1.

I don't know. I think a 1-seed will be tough. I assume WSU goes undefeated. They get a number 1. Florida has a solid case. Arizona is likely a number 1. So, I believe that 3 of the 4 are taken. If Syracuse can get to the ACC tourney without a loss, I think they get the last 1-seed. If Syracuse loses a game before the tourney and then beats us in the tourney, Syracuse gets the last number 1. I think we need to win out and hope Syracuse loses before the tourney to have any chance at a number 1. Just my opinion.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-24-2014, 11:26 AM
I don't know. I think a 1-seed will be tough. I assume WSU goes undefeated. They get a number 1. Florida has a solid case. Arizona is likely a number 1. So, I believe that 3 of the 4 are taken. If Syracuse can get to the ACC tourney without a loss, I think they get the last 1-seed. If Syracuse loses a game before the tourney and then beats us in the tourney, Sracuse gets the last number 1. I think we need to win out and hope Syracuse loses before the tourney to have any chance at a number 1. Just my opinion.

Right, but my point is that we control our destiny. If we beat them two out of three with one loss in our last 12 games, I think we get "their" spot. Granted, it's a tall order to win out, but I'd rather be hoping for that than for a scenario that involves other teams collapsing.

Great to be in a spot this late in the season where we don't have to hope the dominoes fall a certain way.

FerryFor50
02-24-2014, 11:31 AM
I don't know. I think a 1-seed will be tough. I assume WSU goes undefeated. They get a number 1. Florida has a solid case. Arizona is likely a number 1. So, I believe that 3 of the 4 are taken. If Syracuse can get to the ACC tourney without a loss, I think they get the last 1-seed. If Syracuse loses a game before the tourney and then beats us in the tourney, Syracuse gets the last number 1. I think we need to win out and hope Syracuse loses before the tourney to have any chance at a number 1. Just my opinion.

I wouldn't be so sure about Arizona. They still have some tough games left (Cal, Stanford and Oregon). Zona struggled with Stanford before they lost Ashley, and already lost to Cal once. Oregon, they also struggled with. Zona was also fortunate enough not to have to play UCLA without Ashley. I could see Zona losing one, maybe 2 more games, and possibly not the conference tournament. That would knock them out of a #1, provided other teams step up.

Gthoma2a
02-24-2014, 11:33 AM
Hard to argue with any of that.

Duke deserved to drop a spot, but not too far after going 2-1 this week and taking down Syracuse.

UNC definitely deserved to be in the top 25. 19 might be a bit high, but they are playing pretty well right now.

To be fair, they did beat us by 8 points and are on a 9 game winning streak. They may be a bit underrated. I hate them, but we have consistently underrated them for the last month (I really miss those IC meltdowns right now; I used to laugh when they said they would split with us).

UrinalCake
02-24-2014, 12:22 PM
Hard to imagine getting a 1 seed with 6 losses. I'm sure it's happened before, but there are so many other teams with fewer. Our strength of schedule is good but not murderer's row either, and our biggest OOC win is Michigan at home. So even if we win out, meaning we beat UNC and then beat two of UVA, Syracuse, and UNC in the ACCT, I still think we're a 2.

Des Esseintes
02-24-2014, 12:29 PM
Hard to imagine getting a 1 seed with 6 losses. I'm sure it's happened before, but there are so many other teams with fewer. Our strength of schedule is good but not murderer's row either, and our biggest OOC win is Michigan at home. So even if we win out, meaning we beat UNC and then beat two of UVA, Syracuse, and UNC in the ACCT, I still think we're a 2.

It's happened the last two years.

tommy
02-24-2014, 12:35 PM
Hard to imagine getting a 1 seed with 6 losses. I'm sure it's happened before, but there are so many other teams with fewer. Our strength of schedule is good but not murderer's row either, and our biggest OOC win is Michigan at home. So even if we win out, meaning we beat UNC and then beat two of UVA, Syracuse, and UNC in the ACCT, I still think we're a 2.

In 2012, one of the #1 seeds (Michigan State) had seven losses.

Kedsy
02-24-2014, 12:37 PM
Hard to imagine getting a 1 seed with 6 losses. I'm sure it's happened before, but there are so many other teams with fewer. Our strength of schedule is good but not murderer's row either, and our biggest OOC win is Michigan at home. So even if we win out, meaning we beat UNC and then beat two of UVA, Syracuse, and UNC in the ACCT, I still think we're a 2.

In 6 of the past 7 seasons, there has been at least one team with 5 or more losses (10 altogether in 7 years), including Duke in 2010 (with 5 losses). Going back to 2001, there have been 16 teams with 5 or more losses in 13 years, including Duke in 2004 (5), 2005 (6), and 2010 (5). I didn't feel like going further back than that, but it seems pretty common for a team with 5 losses to get a #1 seed.

In the same 13 year period, 8 teams have received #1 seeds with 6 or more losses (two of the teams had 7 losses!): Indiana (6) last season; Michigan State (7) in 2012; UNC (6) in 2007; Duke (6) and Washington (6) in 2005; Oklahoma (6) and Texas (6) in 2003; and Illinois (7) in 2001.

So it's not commonplace, but it's not particularly unusual, either.

duketaylor
02-24-2014, 12:49 PM
I think right now we're either the 5th or 6th seed, overall, so a solid 2 seed. I highly doubt Wichita State would get a 1 seed based on SOS and quality wins. Sagarin has them 17th, overall, 1-0 against top 25 and 3-0 against top 50. I think the top 4 are Fla., Kansas, 'Zona and Syracuse if today was Selection Sunday. Two seeds likely Duke, Louisville, Creighton and I guess Wichita State.

UrinalCake
02-24-2014, 12:50 PM
Fair enough, but the only other team in the top 15 that has as many losses as us is Kansas, and they have the #1 SOS in the RPI (compared to our 5, which is actually pretty good and better than I expected). Anyways, I still think we're looking at a #2 even if we win out.

sduke1986
02-24-2014, 12:52 PM
Two seeds likely Duke, Louisville, Creighton and I guess Wichita State

Creighton is the toughest team to gauge in my opinion. They obviously seem to have Villanova's number, but man, they have looked pretty average against some bad teams.

jv001
02-24-2014, 12:55 PM
It's great to be positive about our chances with 6 losses. Usually around this time of year, we're worried about how we've reached our ceiling. This year most of us are excited about our chances of getting better and some of us think we can get much better. GoDuke!

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-24-2014, 12:55 PM
Strangely, Lunardi has #6 Louisville as a FIVE seed... (http://espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology)

There's a disconnect somewhere...

sduke1986
02-24-2014, 12:59 PM
Strangely, Lunardi has #6 Louisville as a FIVE seed... (http://espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology)

There's a disconnect somewhere...

Very odd indeed... How can he possibly justify that? I kind of get the feeling that when they do bracketology, that they often forget about certain teams and then just throw them in there somewhere lol.

luburch
02-24-2014, 01:00 PM
Strangely, Lunardi has #6 Louisville as a FIVE seed... (http://espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology)

There's a disconnect somewhere...

Louisville only has one win against the top 25, right?

flyingdutchdevil
02-24-2014, 01:03 PM
I think right now we're either the 5th or 6th seed, overall, so a solid 2 seed. I highly doubt Wichita State would get a 1 seed based on SOS and quality wins. Sagarin has them 17th, overall, 1-0 against top 25 and 3-0 against top 50. I think the top 4 are Fla., Kansas, 'Zona and Syracuse if today was Selection Sunday. Two seeds likely Duke, Louisville, Creighton and I guess Wichita State.

Wichita state is a guaranteed 1 seed. St Johns '04 is the perfect comparison. Plus, every team has at least 2 losses and Wichita has 0. I fully agree with you that they don't deserve a 1 seed, but they are going to get one.

Personally, I think a 1 seed is out of reach for Duke. I may be in the minority, but I think that Florida and Wichita are nearly guaranteed 1 seeds. 'Zona, KU, Cuse, and 'Nova have better resumes. Duke also has to compete with Wisconsin, Creighton, and Iowa State, all teams with really good resumes.

Also, I really don't like the geography factor. I'd rather go West with a #1 seed or go Midwest and be Wichita St.'s #2 seed than be the #2 seed in the South with Florida.

superdave
02-24-2014, 01:04 PM
Strangely, Lunardi has #6 Louisville as a FIVE seed... (http://espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology)

There's a disconnect somewhere...

Click on Louisville in Lunardi's bracket. Their best wins are vs. UConn and Cincinatti. So pretty good, but no real signature win.

Louisville's RPI is #27. So Lunardi is probably trying to think like the selection committee in over-weighting RPI. Additionally their strength of schedule is 101.

They are a team who could win out and play their way into a 2-seed pretty easily. But coming from a weaker conference and with no signature wins, it's tough to justify.

sduke1986
02-24-2014, 01:07 PM
Louisville only has one win against the top 25, right?

2 because SMU is ranked. Also, @UConn is a pretty slid win as wlel. They seem to be teetering back and forth in the top 25.

Kfanarmy
02-24-2014, 01:10 PM
Looks pretty solid to me. Louisville could be higher as they've really seemed to hit their stride, but it really doesn't matter either way.

After we smack UNC, that will be another win over a ranked team. LOL at UNC fans on IC who were talking up Roy as ACC COY. Wow, he managed to get a preseason #11 team back into the rankings with 3 Burger boys in the starting lineup, so impressive. I think we can all agree that Tony Bennett deserves ACC COY, right? Jimmy B lost any chance he had with how he acted the other night IMO. IDK. Boeheim's tantrum the other day sure seemed to take attention away from the fact that they lost two games last week and haven't been playing exceptionally a week or two more...his actions may have blunted a sharper drop in the polls

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-24-2014, 01:12 PM
Click on Louisville in Lunardi's bracket. Their best wins are vs. UConn and Cincinatti. So pretty good, but no real signature win.

Louisville's RPI is #27. So Lunardi is probably trying to think like the selection committee in over-weighting RPI. Additionally their strength of schedule is 101.

They are a team who could win out and play their way into a 2-seed pretty easily. But coming from a weaker conference and with no signature wins, it's tough to justify.

I get the rationale. It just seems like one heck of a disparity. I guess it's sort of calling out the pollsters for overrating them. Five seeds in theory are #21-#24 in the nation. If Duke rocks out and pulls a #1 seed and ends up with UL as their 5 seed, I'm not excited about that.

NashvilleDevil
02-24-2014, 01:13 PM
St Johns '04 is the perfect comparison.

Hate to be that guy but St. Joe's is the team from '04 unless St. John's fielded a basketball team in 1904

jv001
02-24-2014, 01:15 PM
I get the rationale. It just seems like one heck of a disparity. I guess it's sort of calling out the pollsters for overrating them. Five seeds in theory are #21-#24 in the nation. If Duke rocks out and pulls a #1 seed and ends up with UL as their 5 seed, I'm not excited about that.

This^. I want no part of Louisville. No matter what their seed or record. GoDuke!

Dev11
02-24-2014, 01:19 PM
Right, but my point is that we control our destiny. If we beat them two out of three with one loss in our last 12 games, I think we get "their" spot. Granted, it's a tall order to win out, but I'd rather be hoping for that than for a scenario that involves other teams collapsing.

Great to be in a spot this late in the season where we don't have to hope the dominoes fall a certain way.

I wouldn't call that Duke controlling its own destiny, though. Syracuse at least needs one other loss to somebody other than Duke (Maryland tonight would be a prime example) for Duke to leap Syracuse as 'ACC team most in the mix for a 1 seed.' Even then, as others have pointed out, there are B1G and AAC teams that have claims that are as good as Duke's.

I'd say at this point, we're probably a 2 seed. The interesting question is if Duke and UNC can both land in NC for the first weekend, as that outcome hurts some of the 'home court' aspect of playing close to home, that being that all of the fans in attendance will be rooting against us.

-bdbd
02-24-2014, 01:19 PM
I think right now we're either the 5th or 6th seed, overall, so a solid 2 seed. I highly doubt Wichita State would get a 1 seed based on SOS and quality wins. Sagarin has them 17th, overall, 1-0 against top 25 and 3-0 against top 50. I think the top 4 are Fla., Kansas, 'Zona and Syracuse if today was Selection Sunday. Two seeds likely Duke, Louisville, Creighton and I guess Wichita State.

I generally agree that the four best right now are FLA, Zona, KS, 'cuse. But, fairly or not, I see Wichita State as a serious threat to be given a 1-seed if they finish undefeated. And so maybe KS drops to a number 2 at 7 losses. I just think that there is, call it "Political Correctness," pressure on the committee to put a (undefeated) Mid-Major sort of school up there on the top line. It might not be all bad for us... If we are collectively resigned to the Devils getting a #2 seed, unless we can win out the next six games, then there are much worse fates than being the #2 seed in the Wichita State (#1) Region!!! :D

CajunDevil
02-24-2014, 01:20 PM
Personally, I think a 1 seed is out of reach for Duke. I may be in the minority, but I think that Florida and Wichita are nearly guaranteed 1 seeds. 'Zona, KU, Cuse, and 'Nova have better resumes. Duke also has to compete with Wisconsin, Creighton, and Iowa State, all teams with really good resumes.

I think Duke has a pretty solid shot at being a #1. If we win out - beating a surging UNC in reg season then potentially two of UNC, UVA or SU in the ACC Tourney, then that will be pretty strong relative to Creighton, Iowa St, and Nova. I think Florida, Wich St, Zona & KU are the only ones who can keep us from a one seed if we win out and they win out.

Des Esseintes
02-24-2014, 01:21 PM
Wichita state is a guaranteed 1 seed. St Johns '04 is the perfect comparison. Plus, every team has at least 2 losses and Wichita has 0. I fully agree with you that they don't deserve a 1 seed, but they are going to get one.

Personally, I think a 1 seed is out of reach for Duke. I may be in the minority, but I think that Florida and Wichita are nearly guaranteed 1 seeds. 'Zona, KU, Cuse, and 'Nova have better resumes. Duke also has to compete with Wisconsin, Creighton, and Iowa State, all teams with really good resumes.

Also, I really don't like the geography factor. I'd rather go West with a #1 seed or go Midwest and be Wichita St.'s #2 seed than be the #2 seed in the South with Florida.

Every year people say this, and every year it's wrong. Florida has four regular season games remaining, then the SEC tournament. Say they lose to Kentucky and one of their two remaining road games. Or say they lose one of those games and the first game of the SEC tournament. That's plenty possible. UF's most recent two games are a five-point home win over Auburn and a four-point road win over Ole Miss. They're a fantastic team, but fantastic teams get upset on the regular in college basketball. A four-loss Florida coming out of the very bad SEC is hardly a one-seed lock.

Same goes for Wichita State. What if they lose one of their remaining games and then fail to win their conference tourney? Could happen, happens all the time when a very good (but undefeated) team reverts to the mean a little late in the season. A two-loss Wichita State is not a one-seed. A one-loss Wichita State is not a one seed.

Wichita State and Florida control their own destinies for one-seeds and probably have the easiest roads to that seeding right now. Nothing wrong with saying that. But "guaranteed" is silly. History is waaaay too rife with "guaranteed" top seeds dropping a couple surprises late and falling a line.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-24-2014, 01:24 PM
I wouldn't call that Duke controlling its own destiny, though. Syracuse at least needs one other loss to somebody other than Duke (Maryland tonight would be a prime example) for Duke to leap Syracuse as 'ACC team most in the mix for a 1 seed.' Even then, as others have pointed out, there are B1G and AAC teams that have claims that are as good as Duke's.

I'd say at this point, we're probably a 2 seed. The interesting question is if Duke and UNC can both land in NC for the first weekend, as that outcome hurts some of the 'home court' aspect of playing close to home, that being that all of the fans in attendance will be rooting against us.

Really? You don't think that if Syracuse loses to Duke in the ACC Final, leaving Duke 2-1 against them, with the one loss on the road in OT, Syracuse takes the #1 over us? That would leave Syracuse with 3 losses in their last ten games versus one for Duke.

Also, I fully acknowledge that all these scenarios are a LONG way from reality at this point.

flyingdutchdevil
02-24-2014, 01:25 PM
I think Duke has a pretty solid shot at being a #1. If we win out - beating a surging UNC in reg season then potentially two of UNC, UVA or SU in the ACC Tourney, then that will be pretty strong relative to Creighton, Iowa St, and Nova. I think Florida, Wich St, Zona & KU are the only ones who can keep us from a one seed if we win out and they win out.

I would put Syracuse ahead of us right now in the pecking order. Now, a lot could change between then and now. Cuse has two really tough games and we have 2 cupcakes and UNC. But, as of right now, I feel that Cuse is more deserving than us for a 1 seed.

CajunDevil
02-24-2014, 01:28 PM
I would put Syracuse ahead of us right now in the pecking order. Now, a lot could change between then and now. Cuse has two really tough games and we have 2 cupcakes and UNC. But, as of right now, I feel that Cuse is more deserving than us for a 1 seed.

Right now, I agree with you. However, if we win the ACC Tourney I think we will be stronger. Thoughts?

flyingdutchdevil
02-24-2014, 01:35 PM
Every year people say this, and every year it's wrong. Florida has four regular season games remaining, then the SEC tournament. Say they lose to Kentucky and one of their two remaining road games. Or say they lose one of those games and the first game of the SEC tournament. That's plenty possible. UF's most recent two games are a five-point home win over Auburn and a four-point road win over Ole Miss. They're a fantastic team, but fantastic teams get upset on the regular in college basketball. A four-loss Florida coming out of the very bad SEC is hardly a one-seed lock.

Same goes for Wichita State. What if they lose one of their remaining games and then fail to win their conference tourney? Could happen, happens all the time when a very good (but undefeated) team reverts to the mean a little late in the season. A two-loss Wichita State is not a one-seed. A one-loss Wichita State is not a one seed.

Wichita State and Florida control their own destinies for one-seeds and probably have the easiest roads to that seeding right now. Nothing wrong with saying that. But "guaranteed" is silly. History is waaaay too rife with "guaranteed" top seeds dropping a couple surprises late and falling a line.

And that's why I said "nearly" guaranteed. Let's break down the remaining schedules. I'm using KenPom as how good these teams are:

FL: @Vandy (#93), LSU (#67), @SCAR (#147), UK (#16). Florida isn't losing at Vandy or South Carolina. Those two teams are really, really bad. LSU has had some good success, but it's at Florida. Kentucky is the most realistic loss, but Florida beat Kentucky at Kentucky. Now, if they lose one of these games and lose semi-finals or finals of the SEC tourney, their resume is still better than most potential 1 seeds. So, yes, I personally believe that FL is nearly guaranteed a 1 seed.

Wichita St: @Bradley (#205), Missouri State (#155). MOSU was the only team to bring Wichita St into overtime, but that was at MOSU. Bradley is just terrible. They aren't losing in the reg season. As for the tournament? Could definitely happen. If they do, you are right that they won't get a 1 seed. But Wichita St. is a good team. I'd be very surprised if they loss before the tournament. I hope I'm wrong, but Wichita St. is in such a terrible conference.

I stand by my wording. FL and Wichita St are nearly guaranteed a 1 seed.

flyingdutchdevil
02-24-2014, 01:52 PM
Right now, I agree with you. However, if we win the ACC Tourney I think we will be stronger. Thoughts?

Absolutely. Syracuse maybe in the middle of a free fall. And we have a strong chance of running the tables, although UVA is standing in the way.

Dev11
02-24-2014, 01:59 PM
Really? You don't think that if Syracuse loses to Duke in the ACC Final, leaving Duke 2-1 against them, with the one loss on the road in OT, Syracuse takes the #1 over us? That would leave Syracuse with 3 losses in their last ten games versus one for Duke.

Also, I fully acknowledge that all these scenarios are a LONG way from reality at this point.

I know the committee members have said in the past that the final games of conference tournaments on Saturday night or Sunday afternoon have little effect on the seeding, because they have less time to evaluate the results and the freshest data is a relatively small addition to the resumes of those teams, resumes that are already 30 games thick. Plus, I would look at both resumes and say that Duke has two pretty inexcusable losses whereas Syracuse only has one, albeit to a worse team at home at a later date. I say this also acknowledging that there are certainly scenarios where no ACC team gets a 1 seed.

But hey, let's beat Wake, VPI, and UNC before we get into this too deeply.

jv001
02-24-2014, 01:59 PM
Coaches Poll: Duke 7th with Louisville ranked 4th and the heels ranked 21st. RPI has Duke 6th and heels 2nd. GoDuke!

wilson
02-24-2014, 02:00 PM
Many have said that an undefeated Wichita State would be virtually guaranteed a #1 seed, and I agree. However, I don't agree with the assessment that it's due to some desire to appear "fair." Wichita State made the Final Four last year and has built upon that performance this season. It's not as if they came from nowhere. Say what you will about their conference (and I think comments about the overall weakness of this year's Missouri Valley Conference are perfectly legitimate), but Wichita State's inclusion among this year's #1 seeds would hardly be a grave injustice to the poor downtrodden power conferences, especially in a year when it's difficult to differentiate between the Kansases, Arizonas, and Michigan States of the world.

tbyers11
02-24-2014, 02:07 PM
Many have said that an undefeated Wichita State would be virtually guaranteed a #1 seed, and I agree. However, I don't agree with the assessment that it's due to some desire to appear "fair." Wichita State made the Final Four last year and has built upon that performance this season. It's not as if they came from nowhere. Say what you will about their conference (and I think comments about the overall weakness of this year's Missouri Valley Conference are perfectly legitimate), but Wichita State's inclusion among this year's #1 seeds would hardly be a grave injustice to the poor downtrodden power conferences, especially in a year when it's difficult to differentiate between the Kansases, Arizonas, and Michigan States of the world.

Wichita State's appearance in the Final Four last year does help their legitimacy but it should have no bearing whatsoever on their resume for a 1 seed THIS season. I agree that they are pretty legit and think they have a legit resume as a 2 or 3 seed right now based on all data. I guess I can see some value in taking on all comers and remaining undefeated. Not sure if it bumps from a 2/3 to a 1 but I can't really argue to strongly against it either.

Des Esseintes
02-24-2014, 02:07 PM
And that's why I said "nearly" guaranteed. Let's break down the remaining schedules. I'm using KenPom as how good these teams are:

FL: @Vandy (#93), LSU (#67), @SCAR (#147), UK (#16). Florida isn't losing at Vandy or South Carolina. Those two teams are really, really bad. LSU has had some good success, but it's at Florida. Kentucky is the most realistic loss, but Florida beat Kentucky at Kentucky. Now, if they lose one of these games and lose semi-finals or finals of the SEC tourney, their resume is still better than most potential 1 seeds. So, yes, I personally believe that FL is nearly guaranteed a 1 seed.

Wichita St: @Bradley (#205), Missouri State (#155). MOSU was the only team to bring Wichita St into overtime, but that was at MOSU. Bradley is just terrible. They aren't losing in the reg season. As for the tournament? Could definitely happen. If they do, you are right that they won't get a 1 seed. But Wichita St. is a good team. I'd be very surprised if they loss before the tournament. I hope I'm wrong, but Wichita St. is in such a terrible conference.

I stand by my wording. FL and Wichita St are nearly guaranteed a 1 seed.

No. At Vanderbilt is absolutely a game excellent teams lose all the time. NC State has been in that 93-ish range all season (they're #81 now), and they should have beaten Syracuse the other day. Notre Dame is #94, and they beat us. Is so infinitely better than Duke and Syracuse that they are immune to such a possibility? No.

Let's use math. I don't have a kenpom account, so my percentages will be off, but let's play percentages. Florida beats Vandy at Vandy, what, 90% of the time? LSU 90%? SC 95%? UK 75%? That seem fair? That gives Florida a 57% chance of running the table against those teams. 43% of the time, they pick up a loss. Then the conference tourney. Let's say they have 90%, 85%, and 60% of winning each of those games. 46% of winning the conference tourney. That would be another loss. I'm terrible at math, and there are all sorts of problems with this methodology, but my horseback calculation suggests a 23% chance Florida drops two games before the NCAAs. I suspect the percentage is actually a bit higher than that, too. In any case, hardly unthinkable nor even that unlikely.

Kedsy
02-24-2014, 02:16 PM
FL: @Vandy (#93), LSU (#67), @SCAR (#147), UK (#16). Florida isn't losing at Vandy or South Carolina. Those two teams are really, really bad. LSU has had some good success, but it's at Florida. Kentucky is the most realistic loss, but Florida beat Kentucky at Kentucky. Now, if they lose one of these games and lose semi-finals or finals of the SEC tourney, their resume is still better than most potential 1 seeds. So, yes, I personally believe that FL is nearly guaranteed a 1 seed.

Using Pomeroy's ratings, if all four of Florida's remaining regular season games were on neutral courts, the chance of them winning all four is only 41.3%, meaning it's somewhat likely they'll lose one of them. Since two are at home and two are on the road, my guess is the overall chance of sweeping is pretty close to that. Even taking Kentucky out, Florida would only have a two in three chance (around 67%) of sweeping the other three on neutral floors, and thus less than that since two of three are on the road. Assuming they lose one, if it's to Kentucky and then Florida loses again to Kentucky in the SEC championship I agree Florida still has a good chance to get a #1 seed (but I disagree that it's close to a lock).

If they lose to a non-UK team in the regular season and then lose in the SEC semi-final, or if they lose to Kentucky and then lose to a non-UK team in the SEC tournament, I totally disagree with you. In that case, depending on how the other contenders have performed, Florida's probably looking at a #2.

vick
02-24-2014, 02:19 PM
No. At Vanderbilt is absolutely a game excellent teams lose all the time. NC State has been in that 93-ish range all season (they're #81 now), and they should have beaten Syracuse the other day. Notre Dame is #94, and they beat us. Is so infinitely better than Duke and Syracuse that they are immune to such a possibility? No.

Let's use math. I don't have a kenpom account, so my percentages will be off, but let's play percentages. Florida beats Vandy at Vandy, what, 90% of the time? LSU 90%? SC 95%? UK 75%? That seem fair? That gives Florida a 57% chance of running the table against those teams. 43% of the time, they pick up a loss. Then the conference tourney. Let's say they have 90%, 85%, and 60% of winning each of those games. 46% of winning the conference tourney. That would be another loss. I'm terrible at math, and there are all sorts of problems with this methodology, but my horseback calculation suggests a 23% chance Florida drops two games before the NCAAs. I suspect the percentage is actually a bit higher than that, too. In any case, hardly unthinkable nor even that unlikely.

FWIW, Pomeroy has those four games at 79%, 90%, 86%, 75%, or 46% chance they win all four games.

Kedsy
02-24-2014, 02:20 PM
Coaches Poll: Duke 7th with Louisville ranked 4th and the heels ranked 21st. RPI has Duke 6th and heels 2nd. GoDuke!

UNC is 22nd in the RPI, NOT 2nd.

dukebluesincebirth
02-24-2014, 02:22 PM
I still have trouble buying into Wichita St. Has anyone on the board actually watched them play a live game? I've only seen few highlights. Maybe I'm missing something. Any star players? Great defense/offense? I don't care about undefeated. If Duke was to take the 1 seed, we will have played cuse 3 times (acct), unc at least twice, Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, and ucla! The best team they've played is Tennessee! How many other teams could realistically be undefeated with that schedule? IMO, no way they've earned a 1 seed or a top 5 ranking. Time will tell.

brevity
02-24-2014, 02:25 PM
Coaches Poll: Duke 7th with Louisville ranked 4th and the heels ranked 21st. RPI has Duke 6th and heels 2nd. GoDuke!


UNC is 22nd in the RPI, NOT 2nd.

That's not jv001's fault. Dean Smith pounded on the scorer's table and moved UNC up 20 places.

flyingdutchdevil
02-24-2014, 02:29 PM
Many have said that an undefeated Wichita State would be virtually guaranteed a #1 seed, and I agree. However, I don't agree with the assessment that it's due to some desire to appear "fair." Wichita State made the Final Four last year and has built upon that performance this season. It's not as if they came from nowhere. Say what you will about their conference (and I think comments about the overall weakness of this year's Missouri Valley Conference are perfectly legitimate), but Wichita State's inclusion among this year's #1 seeds would hardly be a grave injustice to the poor downtrodden power conferences, especially in a year when it's difficult to differentiate between the Kansases, Arizonas, and Michigan States of the world.

If you had told me that Wichita St. beat at least 2 ranked teams, I would give them more legitimacy. But they haven't faced a ranked team all season. Furthermore, the best team that they've beaten? Saint Louis, who's two losses are to the only ranked teams they played!

Wichita St. is a good team, but to put them in the same group as Florida, KU, Syracuse, 'Zona, and Duke really undermines the seasons of those teams.

There are 3 types of good teams: teams that play well no matter what the competition (Florida), teams that are highly inconsistent but can beat any team in the country (UNC), and teams that are good against inferior competition but not good against superior competition (Villanova). Wichita St. is obviously not the second type of team. And they haven't played anyone good to give them credit to be the first type of good team. However, given that they've lost a lot of their scoring and star power from last year's FF team, that they're coach refused to play anyone good this year in nonconference play, and that KenPom still only has them ranked 8th despite being undefeated, I'm not sure how good this Wichita St. team really is.

tommy
02-24-2014, 02:30 PM
I don't get why Michigan State is even in the conversation, and in particular why they're being discussed for anything above Michigan. I know, Dawson will come back. Fine. But right now, Michigan is ahead of the Spartans in the RPI, ahead of them in the Big 10, has a better overall strength of schedule, is 9-5 against the Top 50 as opposed to MSU's 6-5, and they swept Michigan State this year. How is MSU ahead of the Wolverines on anybody's board?

vick
02-24-2014, 02:34 PM
If you had told me that Wichita St. beat at least 2 ranked teams, I would give them more legitimacy. But they haven't faced a ranked team all season. Furthermore, the best team that they've beaten? Saint Louis, who's two losses are to the only ranked teams they played!

Wichita St. is a good team, but to put them in the same group as Florida, KU, Syracuse, 'Zona, and Duke really undermines the seasons of those teams.

There are 3 types of good teams: teams that play well no matter what the competition (Florida), teams that are highly inconsistent but can beat any team in the country (UNC), and teams that are good against inferior competition but not good against superior competition (Villanova). Wichita St. is obviously not the second type of team. And they haven't played anyone good to give them credit to be the first type of good team. However, given that they've lost a lot of their scoring and star power from last year's FF team, that they're coach refused to play anyone good this year in nonconference play, and that KenPom still only has them ranked 8th despite being undefeated, I'm not sure how good this Wichita St. team really is.

Winning at Saint Louis is arguably more impressive than any single win Florida has this season.

flyingdutchdevil
02-24-2014, 02:35 PM
Using Pomeroy's ratings, if all four of Florida's remaining regular season games were on neutral courts, the chance of them winning all four is only 41.3%, meaning it's somewhat likely they'll lose one of them. Since two are at home and two are on the road, my guess is the overall chance of sweeping is pretty close to that. Even taking Kentucky out, Florida would only have a two in three chance (around 67%) of sweeping the other three on neutral floors, and thus less than that since two of three are on the road. Assuming they lose one, if it's to Kentucky and then Florida loses again to Kentucky in the SEC championship I agree Florida still has a good chance to get a #1 seed (but I disagree that it's close to a lock).

If they lose to a non-UK team in the regular season and then lose in the SEC semi-final, or if they lose to Kentucky and then lose to a non-UK team in the SEC tournament, I totally disagree with you. In that case, depending on how the other contenders have performed, Florida's probably looking at a #2.

Thanks for the stats. I'd be surprised if any team had a better percentage of winning their final games than Florida. The SEC is fairly weak and Florida's home/away teams is highly favorable. I'll happily go on record and say that Florida will enter the NCAA as a 1 seed. I think it's the safest assumption to make (even safer than Wichita St). Florida has a little room to wiggle, unlike a lot of the other teams positioned for a 1 seed. Kentucky is the only real threat, and I'm not sure Kentucky can beat Florida on a neutral court, not to mention at Florida.

IMO, this is the best team in the country. I'm with you in that I don't want to face either Florida or KU before the FF. KU is probably a reach to be in the same bracket with, but Florida is highly likely. I hope FL loses and gets bumped, but I just don't see it.

Wander
02-24-2014, 02:36 PM
I still have trouble buying into Wichita St. Has anyone on the board actually watched them play a live game? I've only seen few highlights. Maybe I'm missing something. Any star players? Great defense/offense? I don't care about undefeated. If Duke was to take the 1 seed, we will have played cuse 3 times (acct), unc at least twice, Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, and ucla! The best team they've played is Tennessee! How many other teams could realistically be undefeated with that schedule? IMO, no way they've earned a 1 seed or a top 5 ranking. Time will tell.

Entering my increasingly frequent Wichita defender mode, they have beaten the 10th ranked team (that's in the AP poll - 8th in the Coaches, 19th in kenpom, 12th in RPI) on the road. I'm sure plenty of people are skeptical about St Louis too, but they're certainly far better than Tennessee, and I imagine the computer math would tell you this a better win than any win Duke has this season. For whatever it's worth, they do have a couple guys getting looks from NBA scouts, though neither is a lock to get drafted. Pretty good balance on offense and defense.

Des Esseintes
02-24-2014, 02:36 PM
FWIW, Pomeroy has those four games at 79%, 90%, 86%, 75%, or 46% chance they win all four games.

I'm pretty pleased I pegged two of those just by eyeballing. *runs around kitchen table waving to nonexistent crowd*

Kedsy
02-24-2014, 02:38 PM
But they haven't faced a ranked team all season.

St. Louis may not have been ranked when Wichita beat them, but St. Louis is #10 in the country now. It's a big disingenuous to say Wichita hasn't faced a ranked team.

flyingdutchdevil
02-24-2014, 02:38 PM
Winning at Saint Louis is arguably more impressive than any single win Florida has this season.

I'd argue that winning against Kansas (home) is comparable. Winning at Kentucky, a better team than Saint Louis by any measure and a more difficult arena, is definitely more impressive.

HaveFunExpectToWin
02-24-2014, 02:43 PM
And that's why I said "nearly" guaranteed. Let's break down the remaining schedules. I'm using KenPom as how good these teams are:

FL: @Vandy (#93), LSU (#67), @SCAR (#147), UK (#16). Florida isn't losing at Vandy or South Carolina. Those two teams are really, really bad.

Disagree about Vandy. With only 7 scholarship players, Stallings is putting in one of the better coaching jobs this season in all of the NCAA. Weird stuff happens in Memorial all the time. If Vandy can slow the game down and nail a high percentage of threes, I can see an upset in Nashville. Go Dores.

vick
02-24-2014, 02:43 PM
I'd argue that winning against Kansas (home) is comparable. Winning at Kentucky, a better team than Saint Louis by any measure and a more difficult arena, is definitely more impressive.

Saint Louis is ahead of Kentucky on most computer rankings (http://masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm). It's certainly close enough that a person could disagree with the computers and be on solid ground (that's part of why I said it was arguable), but it's just false to say that "any measure" favors Kentucky over Saint Louis.

flyingdutchdevil
02-24-2014, 02:43 PM
St. Louis may not have been ranked when Wichita beat them, but St. Louis is #10 in the country now. It's a big disingenuous to say Wichita hasn't faced a ranked team.

Actually, it's incredible accurate, not disingenuous. Wichita St hasn't beaten a ranked team when ranked, meaning they haven't beaten a ranked team. Interestingly enough, neither has Saint Louis.

Should we not give Duke credit for beating Pitt, a ranked team at the time but who has since fallen off the map (5 losses in the last 7 games)?

Wander
02-24-2014, 02:46 PM
Winning at Kentucky, a better team than Saint Louis by any measure and a more difficult arena, is definitely more impressive.

St Louis is 7 spots ahead of Kentucky in the AP poll, 7 spots ahead in the Coaches poll, 1 spot behind in the RPI, 3 spots behind in kenpom, and 1 seed ahead in most bracket projections. So no, it's not definite that Kentucky is better than St Louis by any measure.

flyingdutchdevil
02-24-2014, 02:55 PM
St Louis is 7 spots ahead of Kentucky in the AP poll, 7 spots ahead in the Coaches poll, 1 spot behind in the RPI, 3 spots behind in kenpom, and 1 seed ahead in most bracket projections. So now, it's not definite that Kentucky is better than St Louis by any measure.

In my head, Wander, in my head ;).

The point that I am trying to make on this thread (and clearly not doing a good job) is that Wichita St and Saint Louis aren't as credible threats as their rankings. Neither has beaten a ranked team all season. The Missouri Valley Conference is terrible and, while the Atlantic 10 conference is much better, their record is 3-11 against ranked teams in nonconference play.

I understand that many believe I am selling the mid majors short. And I probably am. But I'm really not convinced and consecutive wins really inflates the people polls. But I would rather face Wichita St or Saint Louis than Kentucky in the tournament.

flyingdutchdevil
02-24-2014, 03:00 PM
Lastly, for those who have ripped on Syracuse for believing that they are an overrated team because of all the close wins they have, check out the last 7 scores for Saint Louis:

GMU: 87-81 OT
JOES: 65-49
LAS: 65-63
VCU: 64-62
GMU: 89-85 OT
GW: 66-59

That's 4 of the last 6 games either in OT or decided by 2 points of less.

Wander
02-24-2014, 03:07 PM
In my head, Wander, in my head ;).

The point that I am trying to make on this thread (and clearly not doing a good job) is that Wichita St and Saint Louis aren't as credible threats as their rankings. Neither has beaten a ranked team all season. The Missouri Valley Conference is terrible and, while the Atlantic 10 conference is much better, their record is 3-11 against ranked teams in nonconference play.

I understand that many believe I am selling the mid majors short. And I probably am. But I'm really not convinced and consecutive wins really inflates the people polls. But I would rather face Wichita St or Saint Louis than Kentucky in the tournament.

I usually understand the skepticism about mid-majors even if I don't agree with it, but it just seems weird to me when it regards a team that made the Final Four the previous season and gave the national champion its hardest game of the tournament, especially on a message board whose team got blown out by that national champion in the game immediately prior. I understand Wichita isn't exactly the same team as last year, but I still would have imagined it would remove a lot of the skepticism. I don't feel as strongly about St Louis.

I also don't really understand why the same people who are skeptical of St Louis and Wichita are in love with Florida. Florida has a lesser version of the same issues. The SEC isn't that much better than the Atlantic 10. The strength of schedule arguments that apply to Florida vs Wichita State also apply to Duke vs Florida or Kansas vs Florida.

Kedsy
02-24-2014, 03:11 PM
Actually, it's incredible accurate, not disingenuous. Wichita St hasn't beaten a ranked team when ranked, meaning they haven't beaten a ranked team. Interestingly enough, neither has Saint Louis.

Should we not give Duke credit for beating Pitt, a ranked team at the time but who has since fallen off the map (5 losses in the last 7 games)?

Well, this could be splitting hairs but St. Louis is a ranked team. Your original statement didn't say "ranked at the time they played them," and if it did it would have seemed odd to me. Absent injury or some other major changed circumstances, I don't know why we'd want to look at some moment frozen in time instead of the full season to date.

Last season when we beat Kentucky, the Wildcats were #3 in the country. It turned out they weren't even an NCAA team and lost in the first round of the NIT. Why would you give Duke "credit" for beating a relatively bad team, just because the voters happened to grossly overrate that team? (And, yes, I realize that Kentucky did in fact have a major injury, but they were only ranked #25 before Noel's injury, and probably only ranked at all at that point because of the Kentucky name.)

So while I grant that reasonable minds can disagree, I think our win over Pitt should be discounted to a large extent because they now appear to have been overrated when we played them. If you asked me which was a better win, Wichita's at (now #10) St. Louis or Duke's at (now-unranked) Pitt, the only reason I wouldn't automatically go with Wichita/St. Louis is that Pitt's Pomeroy and Sagarin ratings are still a little (but not very much) better than St. Louis's.

77devil
02-24-2014, 03:13 PM
Strangely, Lunardi has #6 Louisville as a FIVE seed... (http://espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology)

There's a disconnect somewhere...

The coaches rank them even higher at # 4. I'm not sold on the Cardinals either though a 5 seed seems too low. Until the squeaker against Cinn. over the weekend, Louisville had lost to every ranked team it played, had a pathetically weak OOC schedule, and plays in a mediocre conference. Kenpom ranks its overall schedule 2nd weakest in the top 25 exceeded only by the Shockers with which I am shocked.

Lunardi is following the RPI which weights SOS heavily. The other dork polls rank Louisville in the top 10.

flyingdutchdevil
02-24-2014, 03:19 PM
I usually understand the skepticism about mid-majors even if I don't agree with it, but it just seems weird to me when it regards a team that made the Final Four the previous season and gave the national champion its hardest game of the tournament, especially on a message board whose team got blown out by that national champion in the game immediately prior. I understand Wichita isn't exactly the same team as last year, but I still would have imagined it would remove a lot of the skepticism. I don't feel as strongly about St Louis.

I also don't really understand why the same people who are skeptical of St Louis and Wichita are in love with Florida. Florida has a lesser version of the same issues. The SEC isn't that much better than the Atlantic 10. The strength of schedule arguments that apply to Florida vs Wichita State also apply to Duke vs Florida or Kansas vs Florida.

Fully agree that Florida's schedule isn't that impressive, but the way they are playing has been outstanding. Away, home, neutral - they are playing the best basketball right now. They're last two games have arguably been the worst: they only won by 4 and 5 points. Since SEC play started? They've won by an average of 12.2 points (including those two last games). I also love their balance: 4 players average above 10 points (with another at 9 points), 4 players average above 5 rebounds, and they start 4 seniors and 1 sophomore. Furthermore, they have great balance in offensive and defensive efficiency (ranked 9th in both).

The knock against this Florida team is that they aren't great at anything. Rather, they are really good at most things.

jv001
02-24-2014, 03:20 PM
UNC is 22nd in the RPI, NOT 2nd.

Thanks, oops, left off one of the 2s. GoDuke!

TexHawk
02-24-2014, 03:59 PM
I usually understand the skepticism about mid-majors even if I don't agree with it, but it just seems weird to me when it regards a team that made the Final Four the previous season and gave the national champion its hardest game of the tournament, especially on a message board whose team got blown out by that national champion in the game immediately prior. I understand Wichita isn't exactly the same team as last year, but I still would have imagined it would remove a lot of the skepticism. I don't feel as strongly about St Louis.

I also don't really understand why the same people who are skeptical of St Louis and Wichita are in love with Florida. Florida has a lesser version of the same issues. The SEC isn't that much better than the Atlantic 10. The strength of schedule arguments that apply to Florida vs Wichita State also apply to Duke vs Florida or Kansas vs Florida.

I think we've had this back-and-forth before, but the "they made the F4 last season" reasoning doesn't really fly with me for lots of reasons. One you already mentioned, but the other is that WSU lost 9 games in 12-13, and a couple were really bad losses. If we're going to bring back their good wins from their run as evidence, the bad losses should be relevant too. They played really well and deserve credit for that, I just don't think it's super meaningful to predict for this year.

That's not to say they aren't good or worthy, most of us just don't know because of their awful conference and lack of TV exposure. I think they deserve a 1 at this point, but I don't have confidence in them to make the S16. At least in comparison to some other top teams.

CDu
02-24-2014, 04:22 PM
Well, this could be splitting hairs but St. Louis is a ranked team. Your original statement didn't say "ranked at the time they played them," and if it did it would have seemed odd to me. Absent injury or some other major changed circumstances, I don't know why we'd want to look at some moment frozen in time instead of the full season to date.

Last season when we beat Kentucky, the Wildcats were #3 in the country. It turned out they weren't even an NCAA team and lost in the first round of the NIT. Why would you give Duke "credit" for beating a relatively bad team, just because the voters happened to grossly overrate that team? (And, yes, I realize that Kentucky did in fact have a major injury, but they were only ranked #25 before Noel's injury, and probably only ranked at all at that point because of the Kentucky name.)

So while I grant that reasonable minds can disagree, I think our win over Pitt should be discounted to a large extent because they now appear to have been overrated when we played them. If you asked me which was a better win, Wichita's at (now #10) St. Louis or Duke's at (now-unranked) Pitt, the only reason I wouldn't automatically go with Wichita/St. Louis is that Pitt's Pomeroy and Sagarin ratings are still a little (but not very much) better than St. Louis's.

For the reasons you have mentioned (and more), I think I would tend to ignore the rankings altogether. St Louis hasn't beaten anybody of note. So why should they be top-10? The rankings don't do a terribly good job of considering who you've played. I would trust Pomeroy/Sagarin over the rankings.

Wander
02-24-2014, 04:51 PM
For the reasons you have mentioned (and more), I think I would tend to ignore the rankings altogether. St Louis hasn't beaten anybody of note. So why should they be top-10? The rankings don't do a terribly good job of considering who you've played. I would trust Pomeroy/Sagarin over the rankings.

Fair, but if you're going to go by the computer numbers, beating St Louis on the road is still better than beating Duke, Syracuse, or Kansas at home. It's about equivalent to Duke or Florida's best win. Pomeroy would still have St Louis ranked, just not in the top 10. As a tangential point, you'd also have to consider St Louis' win against VCU as a top 25 win if you want to throw out the polls and just trust the computers (which is not a strategy I'd advocate).

ice-9
02-24-2014, 08:07 PM
I usually understand the skepticism about mid-majors even if I don't agree with it, but it just seems weird to me when it regards a team that made the Final Four the previous season and gave the national champion its hardest game of the tournament, especially on a message board whose team got blown out by that national champion in the game immediately prior. I understand Wichita isn't exactly the same team as last year, but I still would have imagined it would remove a lot of the skepticism. I don't feel as strongly about St Louis.

I also don't really understand why the same people who are skeptical of St Louis and Wichita are in love with Florida. Florida has a lesser version of the same issues. The SEC isn't that much better than the Atlantic 10. The strength of schedule arguments that apply to Florida vs Wichita State also apply to Duke vs Florida or Kansas vs Florida.


No one is arguing that Wichita St and St Louis are bad teams. Or that they aren't some of the best teams in the country. The issue here is Wichita St being deemed the SECOND best team in the country and deserving of a 1-seed, and St Louis being a top 10 team.

What would you rather be -- the 1-seed with Kansas as your 2, or the 2-seed with Wichita St as your 1? I predict most people would prefer the latter over the former in a tournament setting. I predict everyone would rather play Wichita St than Kansas in a one game setting.

St Louis hasn't beaten anyone noteworthy though they've beaten some solid teams and haven't had any bad losses. St Louis is Wichita St's only notable win.

I think a top 10 ranking for Wichita St is reasonable, and top 20 for St Louis. As their KenPom rankings would indicate.

But as it stands today in the polls and projected NCAA tournament seedings, both teams are overrated.

throatybeard
02-24-2014, 08:10 PM
That's not jv001's fault. Dean Smith pounded on the scorer's table and moved UNC up 20 places.

I can't give you any more positive sporks, apparently, but you just won the internet.

CDu
02-25-2014, 08:31 AM
Fair, but if you're going to go by the computer numbers, beating St Louis on the road is still better than beating Duke, Syracuse, or Kansas at home. It's about equivalent to Duke or Florida's best win. Pomeroy would still have St Louis ranked, just not in the top 10. As a tangential point, you'd also have to consider St Louis' win against VCU as a top 25 win if you want to throw out the polls and just trust the computers (which is not a strategy I'd advocate).

Yes, but Duke has four wins of similar or better quality to SLU's and WSU's only good win. And they have several more wins in between SLU's/WSU's best and second-best wins. And all but 2 of their losses are against teams of the quality (or better than) of SLU's/WSU's best win.

For perspective, Lunardi has SLU as a #4 seed. I actually think that's about right for them. They're consistently around the bottom of the top-20 in the rating systems, so I'd be okay with either a #4 or a #5 seed. I just don't think the difference between SLU and WSU is worth a #1 seed for WSU (and that's where they currently sit in Lunardi). I'd say they're a #2 seed in terms of quality, which is supported by their ratings in the bottom of the top-10.

I think if Duke beats UNC and wins the ACC tournament, their resume is going to blow Wichita State's resume out of the water, undefeated or not. That'll give Duke at least 6 and likely 7 wins against top-25 teams and likely 13 wins against the RPI top-100. By comparison, Wichita State would have just 2 wins against the top-25 and just 6 or 7 such wins against the top-100.

FerryFor50
02-25-2014, 08:42 AM
Lastly, for those who have ripped on Syracuse for believing that they are an overrated team because of all the close wins they have, check out the last 7 scores for Saint Louis:

GMU: 87-81 OT
JOES: 65-49
LAS: 65-63
VCU: 64-62
GMU: 89-85 OT
GW: 66-59

That's 4 of the last 6 games either in OT or decided by 2 points of less.

Yea I've said the same about St Louis. They've been barely escaping all year...

Wander
02-25-2014, 09:04 AM
Yes, but Duke has four wins of similar or better quality to SLU's and WSU's only good win. And they have several more wins in between SLU's/WSU's best and second-best wins. And all but 2 of their losses are against teams of the quality (or better than) of SLU's/WSU's best win.

For perspective, Lunardi has SLU as a #4 seed. I actually think that's about right for them. They're consistently around the bottom of the top-20 in the rating systems, so I'd be okay with either a #4 or a #5 seed. I just don't think the difference between SLU and WSU is worth a #1 seed for WSU (and that's where they currently sit in Lunardi). I'd say they're a #2 seed in terms of quality, which is supported by their ratings in the bottom of the top-10.

I think if Duke beats UNC and wins the ACC tournament, their resume is going to blow Wichita State's resume out of the water, undefeated or not. That'll give Duke at least 6 and likely 7 wins against top-25 teams and likely 13 wins against the RPI top-100. By comparison, Wichita State would have just 2 wins against the top-25 and just 6 or 7 such wins against the top-100.


Agreed about SLU. I don't feel as strongly about them and as long as no one is arguing something extreme like that they don't belong in the Top 25 at all right now, that sounds fine. A 4 or 5 seed seems right.

I don't think Duke will "blow Wichita's resume out of the water" in that scenario. I'd note that all of our wins against ranked teams have come at home (right now - that could change in the ACC tournament obviously, or if UCLA becomes ranked again or you count their computer ranking), and I'm pretty sure that Wichita is capable of beating Kansas or whoever if they'd play at their place. Still, that's hypothetical, and I completely agree that Duke would have better wins. But I find that lots of people make the error of focusing only on wins and not on losses. That's a mistake - doing so would probably have UNC as the runaway overall #1 seed, for example. Wichita had six games that, according to kenpom, were approximately as difficult as a road game against Notre Dame. The zero losses do matter. I'll concede that one could make an argument for Duke over Wichita (or, again, Florida for similar but less extreme reasons, I still don't understand why they're getting a free pass from everyone) in your scenario, but I don't think it's incredibly obvious.

CDu
02-25-2014, 09:47 AM
Agreed about SLU. I don't feel as strongly about them and as long as no one is arguing something extreme like that they don't belong in the Top 25 at all right now, that sounds fine. A 4 or 5 seed seems right.

I don't think Duke will "blow Wichita's resume out of the water" in that scenario. I'd note that all of our wins against ranked teams have come at home (right now - that could change in the ACC tournament obviously, or if UCLA becomes ranked again or you count their computer ranking), and I'm pretty sure that Wichita is capable of beating Kansas or whoever if they'd play at their place. Still, that's hypothetical, and I completely agree that Duke would have better wins. But I find that lots of people make the error of focusing only on wins and not on losses. That's a mistake - doing so would probably have UNC as the runaway overall #1 seed, for example. Wichita had six games that, according to kenpom, were approximately as difficult as a road game against Notre Dame. The zero losses do matter. I'll concede that one could make an argument for Duke over Wichita (or, again, Florida for similar but less extreme reasons, I still don't understand why they're getting a free pass from everyone) in your scenario, but I don't think it's incredibly obvious.

I didn't ignore the losses. But I don't think that a loss on the road at Clemson is a bad loss at all. And I don't think one bad loss to Notre Dame should outweigh the fact that Duke played a much tougher schedule and came out with some very high-quality wins.

And not all of our quality wins have come at home. The Pitt win (a top-25 win if you ignore the pollsters and look instead at the Pomeroy, Sagarin, or BPI computers) was at Pitt. The UCLA game was a neutral site game. Those wins are about as good a win as anything Wichita State can show, and we blew both of them out (which Wichita State did not do). And as you've noted, we'd have at least one if not two more neutral site wins over top-25 teams if we win the ACC.

In my opinion, the extra 3 road/neutral site wins over top-25 teams (along with the additional 3 extra home wins over top-25 teams) should way more than offset the extra 1 bad loss. So I stand by my argument that our resume (if we win out) would blow away Wichita State's resume.

flyingdutchdevil
02-25-2014, 09:52 AM
I didn't ignore the losses. But I don't think that a loss on the road at Clemson is a bad loss at all. And I don't think one bad loss to Notre Dame should outweigh the fact that Duke played a much tougher schedule and came out with some very high-quality wins.

And not all of our quality wins have come at home. The Pitt win (a top-25 win if you ignore the pollsters and look instead at the Pomeroy, Sagarin, or BPI computers) was at Pitt. The UCLA game was a neutral site game. Those wins are about as good a win as anything Wichita State can show, and we blew both of them out (which Wichita State did not do). And as you've noted, we'd have at least one if not two more neutral site wins over top-25 teams if we win the ACC.

In my opinion, the extra 3 road/neutral site wins and the over top-25 teams (along with the additional 3 extra home wins over top-25 teams) should way more than offset the extra 1 bad loss. So I stand by my argument that our resume (if we win out) would blow away Wichita State's resume.

I am in full agreement, but we know that the Selection Committee isn't. Wichita St, with a mediocre SOS and no losses, would be guaranteed a 1-seed. And I don't even think the Committee would blink twice. Also, the Selection Committee needs to take into consideration the media and public. Can you imagine the public outcry if an undefeated Wichita St didn't get a 1-seed and 6-loss Duke or Kansas did? Most people aren't college ball fans but rather March Madness fans; they live for the Davids vs Goliaths. And Wichita St is the ultimate David right now.

The Selection Committee isn't perfect, but it is an intelligent committee when it comes to public perception and $$$.

ChillinDuke
02-25-2014, 09:57 AM
...

It seems to me that a similar scenario plays out frequently re: NCAAT #1 seeds. For example, wasn't Gonzaga in this boat last year? My gut says their resume last year was better than WSU's this year, but doesn't the conversation follow a similar template? (I quoted you Kedsy b/c you probably have this pre-NCAAT info available - don't feel inclined to dig for me, though.)

It's also reminiscent of the Boise State debates in college football.

While I hear both sides of the argument (and probably fall on the side of WSU deserves a #2 seed), at some point you have to tip your cap to a team that has a schedule entering the season and has delivered on that schedule to the tune of not losing a single game. I mean, that's really impressive. And I don't need a metric to tell me that. They have not lost a single game; they have beaten every single team that they have played.

So while I think WSU is probably on a level of a #2 seed in my head, my heart says trot them out as a #1 and let 'em play. And unless any of you have statistics to the contrary (and we all know you do), that's exactly what I think the selection committee will do.

- Chillin

BlueDevilBrowns
02-25-2014, 09:58 AM
I don't think Duke will "blow Wichita's resume out of the water" in that scenario.

I'll concede that one could make an argument for Duke over Wichita (or, again, Florida for similar but less extreme reasons, I still don't understand why they're getting a free pass from everyone) in your scenario, but I don't think it's incredibly obvious.

I'm gonna jump in here and say that I agree, too, that this year's Duke team doesn't have the profile(yet) of a #1 seed.

We have 1 "bad" loss on our schedule(@ND), 1 mediocre loss(@Clem) without any real elite Neutral court/Road Wins(however, if Michigan can win out, that would help). This is different, than say in years past where we could have a few losses but have so many strong wins that it can give us an advantage over a "mid-major" team with only 1 or 2 losses.

At this point, our resume is of 2/3 seed, not a #1. Of course, if we beat UNC, then defeat Syracuse and UVA on a "neutral" court in Greensboro, then we're looking more like a #1, but, even then I don't think it would be a slam-dunk for us to be a #1.

If AZ, KU, FLA win out, they WILL be #1 seeds. That leaves us(assuming the above scenario plays out) vs. the Shockers vs. Villanova/Creighton for the last spot.

I give us a strong edge, but it's not clear-cut, to me anyways.

The other aspect to keep in mind is the sentimentality of "rewarding" Wichita State with a 1 Seed if they finish undefeated. There would be a media firestorm(save Bilas) if a 6 loss Duke team gets a 1 over the Shockers(ESPN would be drooling over that storyline).

I wonder if the committee would want to deal with that drama?

***EDIT*** I see FlyingDutch beat me to it :)

flyingdutchdevil
02-25-2014, 10:02 AM
It seems to me that a similar scenario plays out frequently re: NCAAT #1 seeds. For example, wasn't Gonzaga in this boat last year? My gut says their resume last year was better than WSU's this year, but doesn't the conversation follow a similar template?

It's also reminiscent of the Boise State debates in college football.

While I hear both sides of the argument (and probably fall on the side of WSU deserves a #2 seed), at some point you have to tip your cap to a team that has a schedule entering the season and has delivered on that schedule to the tune of not losing a single game. I mean, that's really impressive. And I don't need a metric to tell me that. They have not lost a single game; they have beaten every single team that they have played.

So while I think WSU is probably on a level of a #2 seed in my head, my heart says trot them out as a #1 and let 'em play. And unless any of you have statistics to the contrary (and we all know you do), that's exactly what I think the selection committee will do.

- Chillin

Is it really impressive? How many times do you hear about ACC teams coming into conference play with insanely good records and then just getting crushed by better ACC talent? This was Seth Greenberg's strategy year-after-year, and it always backfired. The difference between those VT teams and Wichita St is that Wichita St plays subpar talent during their conference as well.

Wichita St is good, and they will probably get a 1-seed, but they aren't 1-seed worthy in terms of talent. Kansas will probably catch a huge break as WSU's #2 seed.

killerleft
02-25-2014, 10:02 AM
Disagree about Vandy. With only 7 scholarship players, Stallings is putting in one of the better coaching jobs this season in all of the NCAA. Weird stuff happens in Memorial all the time. If Vandy can slow the game down and nail a high percentage of threes, I can see an upset in Nashville. Go Dores.

Things start off weird in that venue. All those corners, the raised court. Just a strange place to play. Seems like it would take some getting used to.

Udaman
02-25-2014, 10:04 AM
This is all (mostly) simple

If Wichita State wins out and Florida wins out, they are #1 seeds. Period.

If that happens, and Kansas and Arizona wins out, they are #1 seeds. Period. Their RPI's are too strong for that not to happen.

If any of those teams falter, and either Duke or Syracuse win out, they are the last #1 seed. If more than one of those teams falter, then it gets more interesting. Certainly Villanova could sneak in and get a #1 seed, but they play in a bad conference. The question would be what if Syracuse loses to Virginia, but then wins the ACC tournament, and Villanova wins out. That's a tougher call to make (but I don't see that happening either).

My guess is that you're going to have

1. Wichita State, Florida, Kansas, Duke or Syracuse or Arizona
2. Duke, Syracuse or Arizona (two of three), Villanova, someone else.

It would be best if we ended up as a #1 seed. Worst case would be a #2 seed in the same bracket as Kansas (because they are legit and playing better and better). I would love to be the #2 with Wichita State, and would take Florida or Arizona or Villanova as well. Just not Kansas.

TexHawk
02-25-2014, 10:08 AM
It seems to me that a similar scenario plays out frequently re: NCAAT #1 seeds. For example, wasn't Gonzaga in this boat last year? My gut says their resume last year was better than WSU's this year, but doesn't the conversation follow a similar template? (I quoted you Kedsy b/c you probably have this pre-NCAAT info available - don't feel inclined to dig for me, though.)

Gonzaga's SOS was 86 in 2013, non-con it was in the 50s. They had wins over tournament teams Oklahoma State (on the road), co-Big12 champ K-State (neutral), and Oklahoma (neutral). They lost to Illinois in Maui, and at Butler on that crazy buzzer beater. WSU is 137 SOS, 109 noncon.

I don't think it's a totally fair comparison, because Gonzaga has had 15 years of building up their perception, so a loss to them isn't considered "bad". WSU has only been to 3 of the last 26 NCAA tournaments, so their public perception isn't as high. I'm sure some power conference teams were/are wary of scheduling them. Throw in the fact that nobody seems to like Greg Marshall and don't want to do him any favors, WSU will have scheduling problems for the foreseeable future imo.

Des Esseintes
02-25-2014, 10:14 AM
Is it really impressive? How many times do you hear about ACC teams coming into conference play with insanely good records and then just getting crushed by better ACC talent? This was Seth Greenberg's strategy year-after-year, and it always backfired. The difference between those VT teams and Wichita St is that Wichita St plays subpar talent during their conference as well.

Wichita St is good, and they will probably get a 1-seed, but they aren't 1-seed worthy in terms of talent. Kansas will probably catch a huge break as WSU's #2 seed.

Yes, it's impressive. If it were easy, it would happen more often. When is the last time this scenario, if it comes to pass, has happened?

ChillinDuke
02-25-2014, 10:15 AM
Is it really impressive? How many times do you hear about ACC teams coming into conference play with insanely good records and then just getting crushed by better ACC talent? This was Seth Greenberg's strategy year-after-year, and it always backfired. The difference between those VT teams and Wichita St is that Wichita St plays subpar talent during their conference as well.

Wichita St is good, and they will probably get a 1-seed, but they aren't 1-seed worthy in terms of talent. Kansas will probably catch a huge break as WSU's #2 seed.

Yes, I think it is.

For all the parsing of statistics and in-depth analysis that many offer around here, there is a game to be played on the court that will result in a winner and a loser. Wichita St has never been a loser.

Some are talking about the probability that Florida goes undefeated across their last four regular season games (~46%). Well, what was WSU's chance before the season even started?

I get that they don't have a great resume compared to some of the blue bloods. And I get that in any given game, you (and many of us) would probably rather play WSU than these other blue bloods. But I still think the committee gives them a #1 if they win out, and I'm not going to be overly upset about it. Undefeated should go a long way as its own metric, IMO.

- Chillin

flyingdutchdevil
02-25-2014, 10:25 AM
Yes, I think it is.

For all the parsing of statistics and in-depth analysis that many offer around here, there is a game to be played on the court that will result in a winner and a loser. Wichita St has never been a loser.

Some are talking about the probability that Florida goes undefeated across their last four regular season games (~46%). Well, what was WSU's chance before the season even started?

I get that they don't have a great resume compared to some of the blue bloods. And I get that in any given game, you (and many of us) would probably rather play WSU than these other blue bloods. But I still think the committee gives them a #1 if they win out, and I'm not going to be overly upset about it. Undefeated should go a long way as its own metric, IMO.

- Chillin

I don't disagree that they will get a 1-seed. Actually, earlier in this thread, I said that they are nearly guaranteed a 1-seed (along with Florida). But they are a very weak 1-seed. Everyone wanted to be Gonzaga's 2-seed last year, just like KU, Duke, Mich St, 'Nova, Creighton and every other potential 2-seed wants to be WSU's 2-seed.

I agree that it's tough for any team to go undefeated, even against subpar talent. But if Florida goes undefeated in the SEC, which isn't all that great a conference, I would consider that a significantly more impressive feat than Wichita's undefeated season (given that the SEC will probably get 4 teams into the tourney and the Missu Valley only 1). I give WSU credit, but, IMO, it's a strategy that will backfire once WSU faces really talent in the NCAA.

Wander
02-25-2014, 10:33 AM
In my opinion, the extra 3 road/neutral site wins over top-25 teams (along with the additional 3 extra home wins over top-25 teams) should way more than offset the extra 1 bad loss. So I stand by my argument that our resume (if we win out) would blow away Wichita State's resume.

It's not just offsetting the one loss though. If Duke was 27-1 instead of 22-6 then of course I would agree. Duke has five additional losses. They are not bad losses, but they are losses that Wichita State does not have. Of course, if Wichita had played a road game at Syracuse and neutral games against Arizona and Kansas, they almost certainly would have some losses, but you can flip that around too - if they had played home games against Michigan and Virginia and UNC, they'd probably have better wins. All I'm saying is this, we have the following 3 teams:

29-0 against the 137th toughest schedule
25-2 against the 43rd toughest schedule
22-6 against the 5th toughest schedule

and it's not obvious how to order those three teams. Wichita State would almost certainly not be 28-0 against Duke's schedule. But they realistically could be 23-5. Or 21-7.

Kedsy
02-25-2014, 10:50 AM
It seems to me that a similar scenario plays out frequently re: NCAAT #1 seeds. For example, wasn't Gonzaga in this boat last year? My gut says their resume last year was better than WSU's this year, but doesn't the conversation follow a similar template? (I quoted you Kedsy b/c you probably have this pre-NCAAT info available - don't feel inclined to dig for me, though.)

I have pre-T Pomeroy for the last five years. Here are the resumes I could find that seem closest to Wichita State's:

2014 Wichita State:
Record: 28-0
Polls: #2 AP, #2 Coach's
Pomeroy: #8 (#137 SOS; #109 NCSOS)
Sagarin: #17
RPI: #8 (#105 SOS)
Seed: ???

2013 Gonzaga:
Record: 30-2
Polls: #1 AP, #1 Coach's
Pomeroy: #4 (#96 SOS; #48 NCSOS)
Sagarin: #6
RPI: #6 (#75 SOS)
Seed: #1

2011 San Diego State:
Record: 32-2
Polls: #7 AP, #6 Coach's
Pomeroy: #6 (#39 SOS; #60 NCSOS)
Sagarin: #4
RPI: #3 (#22 SOS)
Seed: #2

2009 Memphis:
Record: 31-3
Polls: #4 AP, #3 Coach's
Pomeroy: #1 (#69 SOS)
Sagarin: #2
RPI: #7 (#39 SOS)
Seed: #2

Seems to me, Wichita has the worst resume of the four teams, but not outrageously worse. Of course two of the three analogous teams got #2 seeds, but neither of them had a goose egg in the loss column.

flyingdutchdevil
02-25-2014, 10:53 AM
I have pre-T Pomeroy for the last five years. Here are the resumes I could find that seem closest to Wichita State's:

2014 Wichita State:
Record: 28-0
Polls: #2 AP, #2 Coach's
Pomeroy: #8 (#137 SOS; #109 NCSOS)
Sagarin: #17
RPI: #8 (#105 SOS)
Seed: ???

2013 Gonzaga:
Record: 30-2
Polls: #1 AP, #1 Coach's
Pomeroy: #4 (#96 SOS; #48 NCSOS)
Sagarin: #6
RPI: #6 (#75 SOS)
Seed: #1

2011 San Diego State:
Record: 32-2
Polls: #7 AP, #6 Coach's
Pomeroy: #6 (#39 SOS; #60 NCSOS)
Sagarin: #4
RPI: #3 (#22 SOS)
Seed: #2

2009 Memphis:
Record: 31-3
Polls: #4 AP, #3 Coach's
Pomeroy: #1 (#69 SOS)
Sagarin: #2
RPI: #7 (#39 SOS)
Seed: #2

Seems to me, Wichita has the worst resume of the four teams, but not outrageously worse. Of course two of the three analogous teams got #2 seeds, but neither of them had a goose egg in the loss column.

And none of those teams made it past the Sweet Sixteen...

CDu
02-25-2014, 11:22 AM
It's not just offsetting the one loss though. If Duke was 27-1 instead of 22-6 then of course I would agree. Duke has five additional losses. They are not bad losses, but they are losses that Wichita State does not have. Of course, if Wichita had played a road game at Syracuse and neutral games against Arizona and Kansas, they almost certainly would have some losses, but you can flip that around too - if they had played home games against Michigan and Virginia and UNC, they'd probably have better wins. All I'm saying is this, we have the following 3 teams:

29-0 against the 137th toughest schedule
25-2 against the 43rd toughest schedule
22-6 against the 5th toughest schedule

and it's not obvious how to order those three teams. Wichita State would almost certainly not be 28-0 against Duke's schedule. But they realistically could be 23-5. Or 21-7.

But that's the thing: you're essentially penalizing Duke for having played real opponents. Not only are those 4 losses not bad losses, they're 50/50 games for a #1 or #2 seed. Actually, the games at Syracuse and at UNC would have been upset wins even for a team with a #1 seed profile. Replace those four games against Kansas (N), Arizona (N), @Syracuse, and @UNC with 4 MVC schools and Duke is sitting at 26-2 against a still substantially tougher schedule than WSU.

And if the rest of the season plays out with both teams winning out, Duke would be 32-2 against probably a top-30 schedule, with 3 neutral site wins, 1 road win, and 4 home wins over top-25 teams. Compare that to Wichita State's 35-0 against a ~150 schedule (I'm assuming their SOS goes down the more they play in conference) and just two top-25 wins (just one away from home). Don't you think our resume would blow theirs out of the water? I would say unequivocally so. So why penalize Duke for playing tougher teams?

I'm not trying to discredit Wichita State. They are obviously a very good team. But I don't think their resume suggests that they should be a #1 seed. I think it is the resume of a #2 seed. Is it fair that teams don't want to play them? Probably not. But that's the reality of the situation. Keep winning enough tourney games for a long enough time (like Gonzaga and, briefly, Butler did) and more of the better teams will be willing to play you.

TexHawk
02-25-2014, 11:35 AM
Wichita St is good, and they will probably get a 1-seed, but they aren't 1-seed worthy in terms of talent. Kansas will probably catch a huge break as WSU's #2 seed.

Maybe. But a Sweet 16 game against a #3 seed Big10 team does not excite me at all. I think you can almost book MSU or Michigan as the 3 in the Midwest, and Indy is roughly 4 hours away from both campuses.

cato
02-25-2014, 11:40 AM
And none of those teams made it past the Sweet Sixteen...

SDSU was very good that year, and got much closer to the regional final than Duke. They had a very real shot at beating UConn -- probably better than anyone other than Arizone (I'll admit that I did not watch that game. It was too tough after watching Duke and SDSU lose in heartbreaking fashion on the same day in the same building).

The tourney is a crapshoot. If WSU is as good as SDSU was in 2011 (I don't know if they are -- Kawhi Leonard was and is the real deal), then they have a very good shot of reaching the Final Four.

tommy
02-25-2014, 12:13 PM
But that's the thing: you're essentially penalizing Duke for having played real opponents. Not only are those 4 losses not bad losses, they're 50/50 games for a #1 or #2 seed. Actually, the games at Syracuse and at UNC would have been upset wins even for a team with a #1 seed profile. Replace those four games against Kansas (N), Arizona (N), @Syracuse, and @UNC with 4 MVC schools and Duke is sitting at 26-2 against a still substantially tougher schedule than WSU.

And if the rest of the season plays out with both teams winning out, Duke would be 32-2 against probably a top-30 schedule, with 3 neutral site wins, 1 road win, and 4 home wins over top-25 teams. Compare that to Wichita State's 35-0 against a ~150 schedule (I'm assuming their SOS goes down the more they play in conference) and just two top-25 wins (just one away from home). Don't you think our resume would blow theirs out of the water? I would say unequivocally so. So why penalize Duke for playing tougher teams?

I'm not trying to discredit Wichita State. They are obviously a very good team. But I don't think their resume suggests that they should be a #1 seed. I think it is the resume of a #2 seed. Is it fair that teams don't want to play them? Probably not. But that's the reality of the situation. Keep winning enough tourney games for a long enough time (like Gonzaga and, briefly, Butler did) and more of the better teams will be willing to play you.

I think history shows that most upper level programs would probably become less likely to play WSU, not more.

But this is really a tough situation. I imagine that most folks do not believe that WSU is one of the top 4 teams in the country, not one of the four most likely to reach the FF, not one of the 4 who would be favored to beat anyone else on a neutral floor. I mean, who would bet real money on WSU beating, on a neutral floor, any of these teams right now: Florida, Arizona, Kansas, Syracuse, Duke, Michigan State, Michigan, Lousville? Maybe a few others. I wouldn't, and I don't think when it came time to reach into your wallet and place the money down, most people would do so either.

On the other hand, if they go undefeated and they're not a #1 seed, what the committee is essentially saying to Wichita is this: "It didn't matter what you did this season. There was no possibility, no matter what, of you getting a #1 seed in this tournament, no matter how well you played all season, from the opening tip-off to the end of the conference tournament. There was nothing you could do to earn it. The die was cast before the season opener. You're just not getting it, period." I know you can say that the same message was sent to the teams in the MEAC and the Patriot League, too, and that's true -- and you'd have to say rightfully so -- but it seems like a more difficult thing to say to a program as successful recently as WSU and playing in a mid-major conference.

CDu
02-25-2014, 12:28 PM
SDSU was very good that year, and got much closer to the regional final than Duke. They had a very real shot at beating UConn -- probably better than anyone other than Arizone (I'll admit that I did not watch that game. It was too tough after watching Duke and SDSU lose in heartbreaking fashion on the same day in the same building).

The tourney is a crapshoot. If WSU is as good as SDSU was in 2011 (I don't know if they are -- Kawhi Leonard was and is the real deal), then they have a very good shot of reaching the Final Four.

Yeah, that SDSU team was GOOD. The only reason they didn't make it to the elite-8 was because they lost to the eventual National Champion in the Sweet-16. They had Kawhi Leonard (future NBA starter) and Malcolm Thomas (future fringe NBAer) playing major minutes and Jamal Franklin (future NBAer) as a sub. They just happened to run into Kemba Walker and Jeremy Lamb on the wrong day.

Listen to Quants
02-25-2014, 12:33 PM
I think history shows that most upper level programs would probably become less likely to play WSU, not more.

But this is really a tough situation. I imagine that most folks do not believe that WSU is one of the top 4 teams in the country, not one of the four most likely to reach the FF, not one of the 4 who would be favored to beat anyone else on a neutral floor. I mean, who would bet real money on WSU beating, on a neutral floor, any of these teams right now: Florida, Arizona, Kansas, Syracuse, Duke, Michigan State, Michigan, Lousville? Maybe a few others. I wouldn't, and I don't think when it came time to reach into your wallet and place the money down, most people would do so either.

On the other hand, if they go undefeated and they're not a #1 seed, what the committee is essentially saying to Wichita is this: "It didn't matter what you did this season. There was no possibility, no matter what, of you getting a #1 seed in this tournament, no matter how well you played all season, from the opening tip-off to the end of the conference tournament. There was nothing you could do to earn it. The die was cast before the season opener. You're just not getting it, period." I know you can say that the same message was sent to the teams in the MEAC and the Patriot League, too, and that's true -- and you'd have to say rightfully so -- but it seems like a more difficult thing to say to a program as successful recently as WSU and playing in a mid-major conference.


You are right in saying "the die was cast before the season opener" but the die was rolling around when they made their schedule. Play good teams.

CDu
02-25-2014, 12:34 PM
I think history shows that most upper level programs would probably become less likely to play WSU, not more.

Initially, yes. And that's what has happened this year. Wichita State is a "scary mid-major", so the big boys are afraid to play them right now because it is a no-win situation. The same was true of Gonzaga a while back. But Gonzaga kept doing well on a national stage and got to the point where a loss to them wouldn't look bad on the resume. Same thing with Butler before Stevens left them for the NBA. Would Duke ever have scheduled a neutral site game with Butler had they not made the championship game?


But this is really a tough situation. I imagine that most folks do not believe that WSU is one of the top 4 teams in the country, not one of the four most likely to reach the FF, not one of the 4 who would be favored to beat anyone else on a neutral floor. I mean, who would bet real money on WSU beating, on a neutral floor, any of these teams right now: Florida, Arizona, Kansas, Syracuse, Duke, Michigan State, Michigan, Lousville? Maybe a few others. I wouldn't, and I don't think when it came time to reach into your wallet and place the money down, most people would do so either.

On the other hand, if they go undefeated and they're not a #1 seed, what the committee is essentially saying to Wichita is this: "It didn't matter what you did this season. There was no possibility, no matter what, of you getting a #1 seed in this tournament, no matter how well you played all season, from the opening tip-off to the end of the conference tournament. There was nothing you could do to earn it. The die was cast before the season opener. You're just not getting it, period." I know you can say that the same message was sent to the teams in the MEAC and the Patriot League, too, and that's true -- and you'd have to say rightfully so -- but it seems like a more difficult thing to say to a program as successful recently as WSU and playing in a mid-major conference.

And that's the thing. Their schedule coming into the season was one that should not merit them a #1 seed. Eventually, they'll be able to get some games against teams that can prove them worthy (or unworthy) of a #1 seed. But they weren't able to do it this year. Actually, that's not even true. They probably could have played some big boys. But they would have had to go on the road to do so, and they chose not to do that without getting a home-and-home guarantee.

As a mid-major, you have to accept your lot as a team that won't get home games against the big boys until you consistently prove yourself as an exceptional mid-major. Until that happens, you are either going to have to prove it on the road or you aren't going to be worthy of a #1 seed. Wichita State chose not to go on the road against the big boys this year. And their punishment for that should be that they can't earn a #1 seed.

Wander
02-25-2014, 12:38 PM
But that's the thing: you're essentially penalizing Duke for having played real opponents. Not only are those 4 losses not bad losses, they're 50/50 games for a #1 or #2 seed. Actually, the games at Syracuse and at UNC would have been upset wins even for a team with a #1 seed profile. Replace those four games against Kansas (N), Arizona (N), @Syracuse, and @UNC with 4 MVC schools and Duke is sitting at 26-2 against a still substantially tougher schedule than WSU.


I'm penalizing (only extremely slightly, and only in a relative sense) Duke for losing to good opponents, not playing them. I agree that Duke would likely go 4-0 against four non-Wichita MVC schools. But again, consider the flip question: if you replaced 4 of Wichita's MVC opponents with Kansas, Arizona, @Syracuse, and @UNC, are you sure they would go 0-4? It's not outside the realm of possibility, but I'm not sure, and I think they're realistically capable of winning or losing any of those games. I'm happy to agree to disagree at this point.

TexHawk
02-25-2014, 12:55 PM
Maybe. But a Sweet 16 game against a #3 seed Big10 team does not excite me at all. I think you can almost book MSU or Michigan as the 3 in the Midwest, and Indy is roughly 4 hours away from both campuses.

Apologize for quoting my own post here, but I feel like I need to qualify something else before the woof gods smite me (or is it weauf? I can never remember).

KU has a game against OSU in Stillwater this Saturday night, with Gameday on site. And the pokes are a little salty right now, so that's not a guaranteed win. (Kenpom has it as a one point win for KU, with 53% probability. OSU only lost @KU by 2 last month.) Then there is Texas Tech at home, this is probably a win, and the outright conference title. The regular season ends in Morgantown, with a possible/maybe bubble Mountaineer team, though they may be way off that with games @ISU and @OU before this. After THAT, if all goes as expected, the first round Big12 tournament game for top seeded KU will likely be against... Yep, you guessed it, Marcus Smart and the Cowboys again.

I say all of that because I expect AT LEAST one more KU loss before the tournament. Which probably makes this whole #1 seed or favorable #2 talk kinda meaningless. And if other things fall right (or wrong in my case), a #2 isn't guaranteed either.

CDu
02-25-2014, 01:07 PM
I'm penalizing (only extremely slightly, and only in a relative sense) Duke for losing to good opponents, not playing them. I agree that Duke would likely go 4-0 against four non-Wichita MVC schools. But again, consider the flip question: if you replaced 4 of Wichita's MVC opponents with Kansas, Arizona, @Syracuse, and @UNC, are you sure they would go 0-4? It's not outside the realm of possibility, but I'm not sure, and I think they're realistically capable of winning or losing any of those games. I'm happy to agree to disagree at this point.

I do think they'd go 0-4 against that schedule. But I'm happy to agree to disagree, as it's obviously hypothetical.

wk2109
02-25-2014, 01:24 PM
I do think they'd go 0-4 against that schedule. But I'm happy to agree to disagree, as it's obviously hypothetical.

I don't know if WSU would go 0-4 against that schedule, but I'll pose another hypothetical. Let's say this year's Duke team played every game EXCEPT those four games and the results were exactly the same (meaning Duke would be 22-2). Based on what you'd seen from Duke, would you guess that Duke would go 0-4 against that schedule? I wouldn't.

I guess what I'm saying is that there's no way to know, and you have to go by what's actually happened.

CDu
02-25-2014, 01:41 PM
I don't know if WSU would go 0-4 against that schedule, but I'll pose another hypothetical. Let's say this year's Duke team played every game EXCEPT those four games and the results were exactly the same (meaning Duke would be 22-2). Based on what you'd seen from Duke, would you guess that Duke would go 0-4 against that schedule? I wouldn't.

I guess what I'm saying is that there's no way to know, and you have to go by what's actually happened.

Well, the main reason that I'd not have expected Duke to go 0-4 against that schedule is because they've played several other games against top-25 teams and won. Wichita State has a much smaller sample size of such games.

wk2109
02-25-2014, 02:22 PM
Well, the main reason that I'd not have expected Duke to go 0-4 against that schedule is because they've played several other games against top-25 teams and won. Wichita State has a much smaller sample size of such games.

Yea I agree. That's also why I wouldn't guess that Duke would go 0-4. I'd also guess that WSU would have a greater chance than Duke to go 0-4 against that schedule. But of course, Duke actually did go 0-4, so these hypotheticals don't really mean much.

I think if four out of the group of Florida, Arizona, Kansas, Syracuse, Duke and MAYBE Villanova run the table, WSU could potentially be knocked down to the 2 line (even assuming WSU runs the table). Otherwise, I think it's very likely that WSU will get a 1 seed.

CDu
02-25-2014, 02:44 PM
Yea I agree. That's also why I wouldn't guess that Duke would go 0-4. I'd also guess that WSU would have a greater chance than Duke to go 0-4 against that schedule. But of course, Duke actually did go 0-4, so these hypotheticals don't really mean much.

I think if four out of the group of Florida, Arizona, Kansas, Syracuse, Duke and MAYBE Villanova run the table, WSU could potentially be knocked down to the 2 line (even assuming WSU runs the table). Otherwise, I think it's very likely that WSU will get a 1 seed.

Oh I agree that WSU has a good chance to get a #1 seed. I'm just saying that I don't think they've earned a #1 seed.

Barring something crazy, I think Florida and Arizona will get the South and West #1s. If Kansas wins out, I think they make a VERY strong case over WSU for the Midwest #1. They have a 7-4 record against the top-25 (with opportunities to boost that to 8 or 9), and they have no losses to teams outside the top-50. Their resume is already REALLY impressive. If they close it out, I think they are the Midwest #1.

That leaves the East, which will come down to WSU, Duke, Wisconsin, and Syracuse (Villanova is out of it: 1-3 against the top-25 and blown out in those three losses).

If four of Florida, Arizona, Kansas, Syracuse, Duke, and Wisconsin run the table, I think they get the four #1s. There's a reasonable chance that only 3 of them do so. If that happens, WSU will sneak in as the fourth #1 (either in the East or Midwest, depending upon which 3 make it unscathed).

GGLC
02-25-2014, 03:08 PM
If Wichita State is undefeated at tournament time, it will be a #1 seed no matter what happens with any of the other top teams.

ice-9
02-25-2014, 05:59 PM
On the other hand, if they go undefeated and they're not a #1 seed, what the committee is essentially saying to Wichita is this: "It didn't matter what you did this season. There was no possibility, no matter what, of you getting a #1 seed in this tournament, no matter how well you played all season, from the opening tip-off to the end of the conference tournament. There was nothing you could do to earn it. The die was cast before the season opener. You're just not getting it, period." I know you can say that the same message was sent to the teams in the MEAC and the Patriot League, too, and that's true -- and you'd have to say rightfully so -- but it seems like a more difficult thing to say to a program as successful recently as WSU and playing in a mid-major conference.

There's no possibility of getting a #1 seed sure but there's always the possibility of getting a #2 seed which is pretty great, and of course the opportunity to win a national championship.

That's what the tournament is all about -- to give ALL teams a chance to win the national championship. A #1 seed on the other hand carries no such burden; teams should build a resume worthy of it. And if your schedule doesn't permit that, well too bad show everyone they're wrong by winning as a #2 seed. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Allowing the opposite on the other hand just punishes teams for playing a difficult schedule.

crimsonandblue
02-25-2014, 10:12 PM
And none of those teams made it past the Sweet Sixteen...

To be fair, Gonzaga didn't make it because WSU took them out on their Final Four run; a run that included wins over Pitt, the zags, and Ohio State before succumbing by four to a Louisville club that beat Duke by 22. Most of that Shocker team is back. Early, Baker, Van Vleet, Cotton? These guys are really, really good. They take care of the ball, play really solid team D and know what they're doing.

I don't know for sure that they're a top four club, but then that's true across the board other than Florida. There's certainly no injustice in an undefeated WSU getting a one seed.