PDA

View Full Version : Other People's Pretend NCAA Brackets



DavidBenAkiva
02-02-2015, 02:20 PM
Strange as it may seem, Duke is currently 5th in the ACC but has a good shot at a 1 seed in the NCAA Tournament. I checked out Joe Lunardi's ESPN bracket (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology) this morning and compared him against Michael Beeler from Sports Illustrated (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/02/02/bracket-watch-kentucky-virginia-gonzaga-duke) and Jerry Palm of CBS Sports (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology). I found it interesting that all three had Duke and Kansas in the South Region as #1 and #2, although the seeding was flipped for Palm. Here's the top 4 seeds from each:

Lunardi
Midwest: (1) Kentucky, (2) Wisconsin, (3) Notre Dame, (4) VCU
South: (1) Duke, (2) Kansas, (3) North Carolina, (4) Utah
East: (1) Virginia, (2) Villanova, (3) Iowa State, (4) Maryland
West: (1) Gonzaga, (2) Arizona, (3) Louisville, (4) West Virginia

Palm
Midwest: (1) Kentucky, (2) Villanova, (3) Louisville, (4) West Virginia
South: (1) Kansas, (2) Duke, (3) Maryland, (4) Butler
East: (1) Virginia, (2) Wisconsin, (3) Iowa State, (4) VCU
West: (1) Gonzaga, (2) Arizona, (3) Notre Dame, (4) North Carolina

Beeler
Midwest: (1) Kentucky, (2) Wisconsin, (3) North Carolina, (4) Oklahoma
South: (1) Duke, (2) Kansas, (3) Louisville, (4) Butler
East: (1) Virginia, (2) Villanova, (3) Iowa State, (4) Utah
West: (1) Gonzaga, (2) Arizona, (3) Notre Dame, (4) Maryland

What do you guys think about having Kansas as the 1 or 2 seed in the same bracket?

CDu
02-02-2015, 02:25 PM
I would prefer Villanova to Kansas, but Kansas would be a fine partner as a 1/2 seed combo.

Of course, I'm less concerned with who we'd theoretically face in the Elite-8. That is less critical to me than who we would face in the first three rounds. As long as we don't share a region with Kentucky, I'm fine with whomever we're paired with as long as our draw is reasonable otherwise.

Kedsy
02-02-2015, 02:39 PM
What do you guys think about having Kansas as the 1 or 2 seed in the same bracket?

I think Kansas is young, talented, and inconsistent. They seem very dangerous, but also seem possibly prone to the occasional clunker. Could be a Final Four team; could go out early. Definitely capable of beating Duke, and Duke is definitely capable of beating them.

Ultimately, pretty much any #1 or #2 seed will be a tough game for us. Of the #1s and #2s in the mocks you've presented, the only team I'd clearly rather face than Kansas is Villanova (Arizona seems similar to Kansas to me but maybe a little better; hard to say how good Gonzaga is).

Tripping William
02-02-2015, 02:43 PM
I would prefer Villanova to Kansas, but Kansas would be a fine partner as a 1/2 seed combo.

Of course, I'm less concerned with who we'd theoretically face in the Elite-8. That is less critical to me than who we would face in the first three rounds. As long as we don't share a region with Kentucky, I'm fine with whomever we're paired with as long as our draw is reasonable otherwise.

Generally agree. In the three mock brackets above, though, I would really rather not see a Carolina team (fresh of a win against KU, presumably) in the Elite 8, nor would I like to see Maryland in the Sweet 16, both for obvious reasons unrelated to the relative quality of the current teams. The potential for an Elite 8 rematch against Louisville doesn't bother me as much.

AIRFORCEDUKIE
02-02-2015, 02:50 PM
Generally agree. In the three mock brackets above, though, I would really rather not see a Carolina team (fresh of a win against KU, presumably) in the Elite 8, nor would I like to see Maryland in the Sweet 16, both for obvious reasons unrelated to the relative quality of the current teams. The potential for an Elite 8 rematch against Louisville doesn't bother me as much.

I highly doubt that the committee puts Duke and UNC in the same region. I am sure it has happened before, and maybe they will have no other options but I think that's a hypothetical they would prefer to see in the Final Four. Maryland however I fully expect to see as soon as humanly possible in our region.

gam7
02-02-2015, 02:53 PM
Strange as it may seem, Duke is currently 5th in the ACC but has a good shot at a 1 seed in the NCAA Tournament. I checked out Joe Lunardi's ESPN bracket (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology) this morning and compared him against Michael Beeler from Sports Illustrated (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/02/02/bracket-watch-kentucky-virginia-gonzaga-duke) and Jerry Palm of CBS Sports (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology). I found it interesting that all three had Duke and Kansas in the South Region as #1 and #2, although the seeding was flipped for Palm. Here's the top 4 seeds from each:

Lunardi
Midwest: (1) Kentucky, (2) Wisconsin, (3) Notre Dame, (4) VCU
South: (1) Duke, (2) Kansas, (3) North Carolina, (4) Utah
East: (1) Virginia, (2) Villanova, (3) Iowa State, (4) Maryland
West: (1) Gonzaga, (2) Arizona, (3) Louisville, (4) West Virginia

Palm[U/]
Midwest: (1) Kentucky, (2) Villanova, (3) Louisville, (4) West Virginia
South: (1) Kansas, (2) Duke, (3) Maryland, (4) Butler
East: (1) Virginia, (2) Wisconsin, (3) Iowa State, (4) VCU
West: (1) Gonzaga, (2) Arizona, (3) Notre Dame, (4) North Carolina

[U]Beeler
Midwest: (1) Kentucky, (2) Wisconsin, (3) North Carolina, (4) Oklahoma
South: (1) Duke, (2) Kansas, (3) Louisville, (4) Butler
East: (1) Virginia, (2) Villanova, (3) Iowa State, (4) Utah
West: (1) Gonzaga, (2) Arizona, (3) Notre Dame, (4) Maryland

What do you guys think about having Kansas as the 1 or 2 seed in the same bracket?

I'm OK with Kansas. Maryland as our 3 (with us as a 2) would scare me. Dez Wells has proven to be a real problem for Duke. I'd feel better about it with Duke as a 1 and MD as a 3.

jasoninchina
02-02-2015, 02:54 PM
Strange as it may seem, Duke is currently 5th in the ACC but has a good shot at a 1 seed in the NCAA Tournament. I checked out Joe Lunardi's ESPN bracket (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology) this morning and compared him against Michael Beeler from Sports Illustrated (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/02/02/bracket-watch-kentucky-virginia-gonzaga-duke) and Jerry Palm of CBS Sports (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology). I found it interesting that all three had Duke and Kansas in the South Region as #1 and #2, although the seeding was flipped for Palm. Here's the top 4 seeds from each:

Lunardi
Midwest: (1) Kentucky, (2) Wisconsin, (3) Notre Dame, (4) VCU
South: (1) Duke, (2) Kansas, (3) North Carolina, (4) Utah
East: (1) Virginia, (2) Villanova, (3) Iowa State, (4) Maryland
West: (1) Gonzaga, (2) Arizona, (3) Louisville, (4) West Virginia

Palm[U/]
Midwest: (1) Kentucky, (2) Villanova, (3) Louisville, (4) West Virginia
South: (1) Kansas, (2) Duke, (3) Maryland, (4) Butler
East: (1) Virginia, (2) Wisconsin, (3) Iowa State, (4) VCU
West: (1) Gonzaga, (2) Arizona, (3) Notre Dame, (4) North Carolina

[U]Beeler
Midwest: (1) Kentucky, (2) Wisconsin, (3) North Carolina, (4) Oklahoma
South: (1) Duke, (2) Kansas, (3) Louisville, (4) Butler
East: (1) Virginia, (2) Villanova, (3) Iowa State, (4) Utah
West: (1) Gonzaga, (2) Arizona, (3) Notre Dame, (4) Maryland

What do you guys think about having Kansas as the 1 or 2 seed in the same bracket?

I think Kansas would be a good matchup as a potential #2 seed for us this year. It was only one game, but I watched KU play UK and KU could not throw in the ocean from the side of the boat. Yes, UK's defense is good, but I would argue it is not THAT good. What do you guys think of Utah as a potential Sweet 16 opponent?

CDu
02-02-2015, 02:56 PM
I think Kansas is young, talented, and inconsistent. They seem very dangerous, but also seem possibly prone to the occasional clunker. Could be a Final Four team; could go out early. Definitely capable of beating Duke, and Duke is definitely capable of beating them.

Ultimately, pretty much any #1 or #2 seed will be a tough game for us. Of the #1s and #2s in the mocks you've presented, the only team I'd clearly rather face than Kansas is Villanova (Arizona seems similar to Kansas to me but maybe a little better; hard to say how good Gonzaga is).

I agree. I'll say this about Gonzaga:

1) they have an excellent PG. Kevin Pangos is a terrific player.
2) they can SHOOT! Kyle Wiltjer and Pangos shoot over 43% from 3pt range, and Gary Bell Jr shoots around 40%. Melson and (when healthy) Perkins can shoot really well, too. As a team, they are right at 40%.
3) they are big. Wiltjer and Sabonis are 6'10". Karnowski is 7'1", 290.
4) they have really benefited from the transfer market, adding Wiltjer from Kentucky and Wesley (a 17.8 ppg scorer as a junior at USC) from USC.

They lost a heartbreaker in OT at Arizona, and looked every bit the Wildcats' equal. They haven't played a TON of competition elsewhere, but they did beat SMU handily, won by double-digits at UCLA, and beat St John's in Madison Square Garden. So I think it would be fair to say that they are legit.

Troublemaker
02-02-2015, 03:02 PM
Strange as it may seem, Duke is currently 5th in the ACC but has a good shot at a 1 seed in the NCAA Tournament.

Yep, this is what I expected to see from mock brackets. This early in the conference season, the bracketologists aren't going to care about conference standings all that much. It's still about number of "quality wins" and number of "bad losses," and Duke stacks up well against just about any other team under those criteria.

But we can't remain 5th in the ACC at the end of the season and expect a 1 seed, obviously. For one thing, 5th place would mean that we've suffered some "bad losses" the rest of the way.

CDu
02-02-2015, 03:16 PM
Yep, this is what I expected to see from mock brackets. This early in the conference season, the bracketologists aren't going to care about conference standings all that much. It's still about number of "quality wins" and number of "bad losses," and Duke stacks up well against just about any other team under those criteria.

But we can't remain 5th in the ACC at the end of the season and expect a 1 seed, obviously. For one thing, 5th place would mean that we've suffered some "bad losses" the rest of the way.

Yeah, the conference standings are largely irrelevant this early in the season, especially in a conference as big as ours where so many teams haven't played each other at all yet. And it isn't like we're a distant 5th: we're one loss back from being essentially tied for 2nd. And (until this evening when UNC plays UVa) we've played the toughest schedule in the ACC so far, having played 3 of the top 4 already, and all 3 on the road.

As you say, if we're still in 5th by season's end (heck, we might well be in 2nd by Valentine's Day), then we will not be a #1 seed. These projections assume that we are the best or the second-best team in the ACC (and rightfully so), regardless of what the ACC standings say at the moment.

Duvall
02-02-2015, 03:20 PM
Yep, this is what I expected to see from mock brackets. This early in the conference season, the bracketologists aren't going to care about conference standings all that much. It's still about number of "quality wins" and number of "bad losses," and Duke stacks up well against just about any other team under those criteria.

But we can't remain 5th in the ACC at the end of the season and expect a 1 seed, obviously. For one thing, 5th place would mean that we've suffered some "bad losses" the rest of the way.

Technically the Selection Committee isn't supposed to look at conference standings at the end of the year either, but you're right that the rest of the season should work itself out. Though I guess Duke could finish the regular season a strong 27-4 (14-4) and still be behind three of UVa, UNC, Notre Dame and Louisville in the league standings. Not sure what the committee would do with that.

BigWayne
02-02-2015, 03:22 PM
I highly doubt that the committee puts Duke and UNC in the same region. I am sure it has happened before, and maybe they will have no other options but I think that's a hypothetical they would prefer to see in the Final Four. Maryland however I fully expect to see as soon as humanly possible in our region.

There are a lot of seeding rules for conferences that try to keep rematches to a minimum. The best way to avoid UNC or other strong ACC teams is to win the conference in the eyes of the seeders. The rules get implemented to the benefit of the top rated team or two. For example, right now Palm has 6 ACC teams projected. The seeding rules will want to split those teams into 4 regions in a 2-2-1-1 fashion if at all possible. The priority for the first region with only one ACC team will be to the top rated team. If they can manage it and satisfy all the other rules, then the 2nd rated team gets a region to itself also.

superdave
02-02-2015, 03:22 PM
After Villanova kicked out butts in 2009, I would love to have a chance to repay them.

We have a lot of basketball left to play during the regular season, but our road wins vs Wisconsin, Louisville and Virginia will make the selection committee love us.

CDu
02-02-2015, 03:28 PM
Technically the Selection Committee isn't supposed to look at conference standings at the end of the year either, but you're right that the rest of the season should work itself out. Though I guess Duke could finish the regular season a strong 27-4 (14-4) and still be behind three of UVa, UNC, Notre Dame and Louisville in the league standings. Not sure what the committee would do with that.

And actually, I'm not even sure it is possible for us to go 14-4 and finish 4th. There are enough common matchups that I think somebody would have to fall behind us. Given that we've already "swept" UVa and Louisville, and given that we'd either have to sweep UNC or split with UNC and Notre Dame to get to 14-4, there isn't a likely scenario where we'd lose a tiebreaker to multiple teams. And in any scenario, I think at least two of those four other teams will have 4 losses in conference.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-02-2015, 03:43 PM
Strange as it may seem, Duke is currently 5th in the ACC but has a good shot at a 1 seed in the NCAA Tournament. I checked out Joe Lunardi's ESPN bracket (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology) this morning and compared him against Michael Beeler from Sports Illustrated (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/02/02/bracket-watch-kentucky-virginia-gonzaga-duke) and Jerry Palm of CBS Sports (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology). I found it interesting that all three had Duke and Kansas in the South Region as #1 and #2, although the seeding was flipped for Palm. Here's the top 4 seeds from each:

Lunardi
Midwest: (1) Kentucky, (2) Wisconsin, (3) Notre Dame, (4) VCU
South: (1) Duke, (2) Kansas, (3) North Carolina, (4) Utah
East: (1) Virginia, (2) Villanova, (3) Iowa State, (4) Maryland
West: (1) Gonzaga, (2) Arizona, (3) Louisville, (4) West Virginia

Palm
Midwest: (1) Kentucky, (2) Villanova, (3) Louisville, (4) West Virginia
South: (1) Kansas, (2) Duke, (3) Maryland, (4) Butler
East: (1) Virginia, (2) Wisconsin, (3) Iowa State, (4) VCU
West: (1) Gonzaga, (2) Arizona, (3) Notre Dame, (4) North Carolina

Beeler
Midwest: (1) Kentucky, (2) Wisconsin, (3) North Carolina, (4) Oklahoma
South: (1) Duke, (2) Kansas, (3) Louisville, (4) Butler
East: (1) Virginia, (2) Villanova, (3) Iowa State, (4) Utah
West: (1) Gonzaga, (2) Arizona, (3) Notre Dame, (4) Maryland

What do you guys think about having Kansas as the 1 or 2 seed in the same bracket?

I think that if we are the final number 2 seed, we can't complain much about which #1 we are paired with.

Duvall
02-02-2015, 03:44 PM
I think that if we are the final number 2 seed, we can't complain much about which #1 we are paired with.

There's no such thing as a final number 2 seed. The S-curve is a lie.

Duvall
02-02-2015, 04:06 PM
And actually, I'm not even sure it is possible for us to go 14-4 and finish 4th. There are enough common matchups that I think somebody would have to fall behind us. Given that we've already "swept" UVa and Louisville, and given that we'd either have to sweep UNC or split with UNC and Notre Dame to get to 14-4, there isn't a likely scenario where we'd lose a tiebreaker to multiple teams. And in any scenario, I think at least two of those four other teams will have 4 losses in conference.

Duke is definitely well situated for tiebreakers with the UVa and UL wins and games in hand against UNC and Notre Dame, true. But I think UVa losses at @UNC and @Louisville, a UNC loss @Duke and a Notre Dame loss @Duke gets those teams in at 15-3 with Duke at 14-4 (assuming no other losses to the ten dwarves).

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-02-2015, 04:41 PM
There's no such thing as a final number 2 seed. The S-curve is a lie.

I know. But if we are clearly the last number one seed picked, I don't see how we can complain about our #1 seed matchup, regardless of S-Curve or not. If we were the overall #1, we could whine with or without the curve.

DavidBenAkiva
02-02-2015, 04:42 PM
Duke is definitely well situated for tiebreakers with the UVa and UL wins and games in hand against UNC and Notre Dame, true. But I think UVa losses at @UNC and @Louisville, a UNC loss @Duke and a Notre Dame loss @Duke gets those teams in at 15-3 with Duke at 14-4 (assuming no other losses to the ten dwarves).

Let's take a look at the top seeds's key games heading into the final stretch of the ACC.

UVA (7-1): @UNC 2/2, vs. UL 2/7, and @UL 3/7
Notre Dame (8-2): @Duke 2/7, and @UL 3/4 Somehow, ND only has to play UL, UNC, and UVA once each and Duke twice.
UNC (7-2): vs. UVA 2/2, @Duke 2/18, vs. and Duke 3/7
Louisville (6-2): @UVA 2/7, vs. ND 3/4, vs. UVA 3/7
Duke (5/3): vs. ND 2/7, vs. UNC 2/18, @UNC 3/7

For the sake of argument, let's say Duke runs the table and wins the remaining regular season games. That puts Notre Dame at 3 losses and tied with Duke in the conference standings and puts UNC at four losses behind Duke. If Louisville drops at least one of its road games, they fall behind Duke due to the head-to-head loss. Let's just say UL and UVA split the season series and each picks up a loss. In order for Duke to secure at worst a 2 seed in the ACC Tourney, they will have to win those two games vs. UNC and not drop any others. That also means we want Louisville to beat Notre Dame on March 4th. The outcome of that game might be the most important factor in Duke's seeding in the ACC Tournament the rest of the year.

I think Duke is a better team than its opponents the rest of the regular season and in good position to accomplish this feat. It'll also position Duke to get a 1 seed in the NCAA tourney, too.

Olympic Fan
02-02-2015, 04:55 PM
Let's take a look at the top seeds's key games heading into the final stretch of the ACC.

UVA (7-1): @UNC 2/2, vs. UL 2/7, and @UL 3/7
Notre Dame (8-2): @Duke 2/7, and @UL 3/4 Somehow, ND only has to play UL, UNC, and UVA once each and Duke twice.
UNC (7-2): vs. UVA 2/2, @Duke 2/18, vs. and Duke 3/7
Louisville (6-2): @UVA 2/7, vs. ND 3/4, vs. UVA 3/7
Duke (5/3): vs. ND 2/7, vs. UNC 2/18, @UNC 3/7

For the sake of argument, let's say Duke runs the table and wins the remaining regular season games. That puts Notre Dame at 3 losses and tied with Duke in the conference standings and puts UNC at four losses behind Duke. If Louisville drops at least one of its road games, they fall behind Duke due to the head-to-head loss. Let's just say UL and UVA split the season series and each picks up a loss. In order for Duke to secure at worst a 2 seed in the ACC Tourney, they will have to win those two games vs. UNC and not drop any others. That also means we want Louisville to beat Notre Dame on March 4th. The outcome of that game might be the most important factor in Duke's seeding in the ACC Tournament the rest of the year.

I think Duke is a better team than its opponents the rest of the regular season and in good position to accomplish this feat. It'll also position Duke to get a 1 seed in the NCAA tourney, too.

But under that scenario, Duke gets the No. 2 seed ahead of Notre Dame. The tiebreaker is that after the head-to-head matchup (which would be a split) you go to the next highest team in the standings. Duke is 1-0 against Virginia; Notre Dame is 0-1 -- hence Duke wins the tiebreaker. If Virginia somehow loses two more (@UNC? @ Louisville?) then Duke would win the three way tiebreaker.

So it's pretty likely that if Duke wins out, they get the No. 1 or No. 2 seed ... I know there are mathematical formulas that would put 14-4 Duke at the five seed, but I think that's very farfetched. I'd be willing to bet that 14-4 makes Duke a pretty safe two or three seed ... 13-5 might get hairy, but I think that will earn a bye into the ACC quarterfinals. Only at 12-6 would I expect to be playing a second round game on Wednesday.

CDu
02-02-2015, 05:21 PM
But under that scenario, Duke gets the No. 2 seed ahead of Notre Dame. The tiebreaker is that after the head-to-head matchup (which would be a split) you go to the next highest team in the standings. Duke is 1-0 against Virginia; Notre Dame is 0-1 -- hence Duke wins the tiebreaker. If Virginia somehow loses two more (@UNC? @ Louisville?) then Duke would win the three way tiebreaker.

So it's pretty likely that if Duke wins out, they get the No. 1 or No. 2 seed ... I know there are mathematical formulas that would put 14-4 Duke at the five seed, but I think that's very farfetched. I'd be willing to bet that 14-4 makes Duke a pretty safe two or three seed ... 13-5 might get hairy, but I think that will earn a bye into the ACC quarterfinals. Only at 12-6 would I expect to be playing a second round game on Wednesday.

Actually, I think 14-4 guarantees us to be top-4 thanks to the wins over UVa and Louisville. And there are inly a very few scenarios where that would put us at #4. As you say, in all likelihood 14-4 gets us the #3 seed or the 2.

bob blue devil
02-02-2015, 05:43 PM
well i think i learned something - kentucky wants midwest this year (vs. south) because of proximity cleveland vs. houston. whereas in other years they might prefer south (e.g. atlanta vs. st. louis in 2012). does that mean duke would also prefer midwest over south? heck it's just as close as the east.

Bluedog
02-02-2015, 06:15 PM
There's no such thing as a final number 2 seed. The S-curve is a lie.

Right, there's no s-curve, but there is a "final number 2 seed" because the committee ranks the entire field 1-68 (or however many there are now). So, the final 2 gets whatever region is left, by geographic preference. So, we'd get out West as the "last #2" unless AZ or Gonzaga (or Utah, etc.) is a 2. But, yes, I agree with you that being the "last 2" doesn't impact the quality of the 1 seed -- but it does usually impact the proximity of that school to the site of the game (unless they're also the "last 1" and also got whatever was left!).

I would think Cleveland/Syracuse/Houston would not be all that much different in Duke's eyes...but Cleveland is the closet, following closely by Syracuse with Houston being 500 miles farther. I personally think we'd have better fan turnout in Syracuse over Cleveland, and that's not even taking into consideration that UK very well may be there. Not really clear if the committee actually asks the schools their preference, though -- they just do what they think is the best "natural fit" (they spoke about that when placing UK in Atlanta over St. Louis despite the fact that St. Louis is a bit closer mile-wise).

Monmouth77
02-02-2015, 06:33 PM
Charlotte and Louisville

Now that we are officially speculating about far-off, unpredictable tournament draws, I figured I'd raise a looming matter concerning the location of the first and second round NCAA games.

At present (and in every iteration of his pretend Tournament bracket to date), Joe Lunardi has Duke playing its first round games in Charlotte along with fellow presumptive #1 seed UVA. He projected Duke to Charlotte even last week when he had us as a #2 seed.

At the same time, Lunardi has consistently projected UNC (as a #3 or #4 seed) to play in Louisville......alongside Kentucky.

As we all know, the value of "geographic advantage" in these early round games can be overstated, especially for Duke, whose fanbase is small and more geographically diffuse. We've played games in Raleigh and Charlotte where the crowd was a net negative because UNC fans outnumbered all others, and of course we've lost games in Raleigh as recently as last March.

All that being said, if the committee is inclined to send Duke to Louisville as a "next best" geographic location (as a #3 or #4 seed), there may be more reason than ever to hope we play our way into Charlotte. Because friends, let me tell you, UK will be in Louisville, their fans already have the tickets, they will be there in force, and oh man do they hate Duke. I was at the Yum! Center in 2012 for the first and second round, UK played a 16 seed and then Iowa State and still, every 4th or 5th fan had a "I Still Hate Laettner" shirt on.

Practically speaking, we might end up in Jacksonville or Pittsburgh or some place else. But this Louisville scenario is so unpleasant to contemplate that I despair of Duke falling below the #2 seed line (or below UNC's seed line, wherever that may be).

Now, Charlotte with UVA and Duke and no Tar Heels in sight? That would be dreamy!

BigWayne
02-02-2015, 06:58 PM
Practically speaking, we might end up in Jacksonville or Pittsburgh or some place else. But this Louisville scenario is so unpleasant to contemplate that I despair of Duke falling below the #2 seed line (or below UNC's seed line, wherever that may be).



Simple solution. Make sure we beat UNC each of the two or three times we play them before selection Sunday. Barring some bizarre developments outside of those games, we will be slotted ahead of them.

devildeac
02-02-2015, 10:37 PM
Obviously still early to speculate, but I'm thinking I'll be happy with a bracket that includes Villanova, Lehigh, Mercer, UK, murland and a rival to be named later. In no particular order, of course:rolleyes:.

TexHawk
02-03-2015, 12:03 AM
I think Kansas would be a good matchup as a potential #2 seed for us this year. It was only one game, but I watched KU play UK and KU could not throw in the ocean from the side of the boat. Yes, UK's defense is good, but I would argue it is not THAT good. What do you guys think of Utah as a potential Sweet 16 opponent?

I am not the last guy to ask about KU's team this year, but I am closer to that than being an expert. Not sure why, chalk it up to Royals hangover.

I am comfortable saying KU is "good". It's taken me a while, but I'm there now. "Good" is relative, of course, but I think 19-3 (8-1) in the best conference in basketball (depth, not necessarily top-end), halfway-through is pretty good. Definitely not what I expected after the UK game. There are several tough games left (@OSU, @KSU, WVU twice, @OU, Baylor, Texas) in the 2nd half of the schedule, so it could still turn south.

Just a warning, unless KU loses 3+ of those games (definitely possible), you should probably get comfortable being mentioned in the same sentence as KU for a top seed. KU's #1 SOS will do that. That UK game was eons ago. We would still lose to them if we played tomorrow, but not by 30+. (Kelly Oubre only played 12 minutes and scored 6 points, for example. He's gotten a bit more comfortable since then.)

jv001
02-03-2015, 08:00 AM
I am not the last guy to ask about KU's team this year, but I am closer to that than being an expert. Not sure why, chalk it up to Royals hangover.

I am comfortable saying KU is "good". It's taken me a while, but I'm there now. "Good" is relative, of course, but I think 19-3 (8-1) in the best conference in basketball (depth, not necessarily top-end), halfway-through is pretty good. Definitely not what I expected after the UK game. There are several tough games left (@OSU, @KSU, WVU twice, @OU, Baylor, Texas) in the 2nd half of the schedule, so it could still turn south.

Just a warning, unless KU loses 3+ of those games (definitely possible), you should probably get comfortable being mentioned in the same sentence as KU for a top seed. KU's #1 SOS will do that. That UK game was eons ago. We would still lose to them if we played tomorrow, but not by 30+. (Kelly Oubre only played 12 minutes and scored 6 points, for example. He's gotten a bit more comfortable since then.)

Thanks for the information on KU. How do you think the ACC and Big 12 compare top to bottom? I know a little about KU, OSU, Texas and Baylor. However I know nothing about the other teams. GoDuke!

CDu
02-03-2015, 09:02 AM
Thanks for the information on KU. How do you think the ACC and Big 12 compare top to bottom? I know a little about KU, OSU, Texas and Baylor. However I know nothing about the other teams. GoDuke!

I'm not TexHawk, but I'd agree with his assessment that the Big 12 is tougher than the ACC from top to bottom, but that the ACC is tougher at the top. 8 of their 10 teams are good teams with tourney hopes (Texas, at 14-7, is 8th), and only Texas Tech is awful. Conversely, the ACC has just 7 or 8 teams with a shot at the tournament, and the rest are mediocre to bad.

From a more quantitative perspective, 7 of the 10 Big 12 schools are in Ken Pomeroy's top-50, and 8 are in the kenpom top-75, and 9 are within the top-100. Conversely, the ACC has 5 teams in the top-15, but none others in the top-50. We then have 3 teams between 54 and 65, but 7 teams outside the top-75 and 5 teams outside the top-100.

So it seems pretty clear that the ACC is stronger overall at the top (5 top-15 teams versus 4 top-20 teams), but weaker in the next tier and MUCH weaker at the bottom.

Bluedog
02-03-2015, 09:49 AM
Thanks for the information on KU. How do you think the ACC and Big 12 compare top to bottom? I know a little about KU, OSU, Texas and Baylor. However I know nothing about the other teams. GoDuke!


I'm not TexHawk, but I'd agree with his assessment that the Big 12 is tougher than the ACC from top to bottom, but that the ACC is tougher at the top. 8 of their 10 teams are good teams with tourney hopes (Texas, at 14-7, is 8th), and only Texas Tech is awful. Conversely, the ACC has just 7 or 8 teams with a shot at the tournament, and the rest are mediocre to bad.

From a more quantitative perspective, 7 of the 10 Big 12 schools are in Ken Pomeroy's top-50, and 8 are in the kenpom top-75, and 9 are within the top-100. Conversely, the ACC has 5 teams in the top-15, but none others in the top-50. We then have 3 teams between 54 and 65, but 7 teams outside the top-75 and 5 teams outside the top-100.

So it seems pretty clear that the ACC is stronger overall at the top (5 top-15 teams versus 4 top-20 teams), but weaker in the next tier and MUCH weaker at the bottom.

Here's kenpom's take on the matter in a blog post from 1/28 (spoiler: he agrees with CDu):
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/determining_the_best_conference

There are many different ways to measure the quality of a conference, but just about any reasonable method is going to identify the Big 12 as the best in the land. Only if one ignores the size of each league and focuses exclusively on the very best teams in each conference can the ACC emerge as the nation’s top league.

Dukehky
02-03-2015, 10:42 AM
ESPN put up their power rankings for this week.

Somehow we came out #6, with a little insulting blurb right in the mix there. Ridiculous.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/powerrankings

AIRFORCEDUKIE
02-03-2015, 10:50 AM
ESPN put up their power rankings for this week.

Somehow we came out #6, with a little insulting blurb right in the mix there. Ridiculous.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/powerrankings

Apparently Duke beating VA is "Stunning" now a days for a program like Duke. We must have fallen so far and been such a bad team of late. Wait, we only have 3 loses, we should have beat ND and we were up by 9 against VA in the first half before getting down and coming back twice? Ok we are still DUKE!!! LETS GO!!!

jasoninchina
02-03-2015, 10:58 AM
I am not the last guy to ask about KU's team this year, but I am closer to that than being an expert. Not sure why, chalk it up to Royals hangover.

I am comfortable saying KU is "good". It's taken me a while, but I'm there now. "Good" is relative, of course, but I think 19-3 (8-1) in the best conference in basketball (depth, not necessarily top-end), halfway-through is pretty good. Definitely not what I expected after the UK game. There are several tough games left (@OSU, @KSU, WVU twice, @OU, Baylor, Texas) in the 2nd half of the schedule, so it could still turn south.

Just a warning, unless KU loses 3+ of those games (definitely possible), you should probably get comfortable being mentioned in the same sentence as KU for a top seed. KU's #1 SOS will do that. That UK game was eons ago. We would still lose to them if we played tomorrow, but not by 30+. (Kelly Oubre only played 12 minutes and scored 6 points, for example. He's gotten a bit more comfortable since then.)

TexHawk,
Admittedly, I have not gotten to watch Kansas play very much, but I was quite impressed with their blowout of Iowa State at Phog Allen. I certainly do not want to say anything unfair about KU since I like the program. In my statements about their performance against Kentucky, I was struck by how poorly they shot not that UK's defense was otherworldly that night (it was excellent, though).

Still, if Duke beats Notre Dame at CIS and goes no worse than 14-4 in the ACC with at least four Top Ten victories (three on the road) and Kansas loses three games total, I can't see the committee preferring Kansas to Duke for a #1 seed. Reasonable minds can disagree, however.

MCFinARL
02-03-2015, 11:04 AM
ESPN put up their power rankings for this week.

Somehow we came out #6, with a little insulting blurb right in the mix there. Ridiculous.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/powerrankings

So the snark is a little irritating, but the drop in power rankings isn't all that far--last week Duke was tied with Arizona at 5th; this week Duke, having lost to Notre Dame since the last rankings, is in 6th, exactly one point behind Arizona, which did not lose this week. Just sayin'.

brevity
02-03-2015, 12:10 PM
I feel like I say this every year, but Joe Lunardi does less to earn his keep than anyone I know. (Even Paris Hilton has to make public appearances.) No bracket, even a fake preliminary one, should put Duke and UNC in the same region. He might do this to stimulate conversation, so maybe we should all start talking about who ESPN can get to replace him.


ESPN put up their power rankings for this week.

Somehow we came out #6, with a little insulting blurb right in the mix there. Ridiculous.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/powerrankings


Apparently Duke beating VA is "Stunning" now a days for a program like Duke. We must have fallen so far and been such a bad team of late. Wait, we only have 3 loses, we should have beat ND and we were up by 9 against VA in the first half before getting down and coming back twice? Ok we are still DUKE!!! LETS GO!!!

So here are the Virginia and Duke blurbs:

"The Cavaliers proved there was nothing to worry about after that stunning loss against Duke. Virginia came back and handily defeated North Carolina."

"Still trying to figure out how Duke got that win last weekend at Virginia? You're not alone. But the Blue Devils' toughness showed in handing UVa its first loss."

If you need to create some locker room motivation, that's your right, but I don't find these comments insulting. UVA's loss was "stunning" because of how it happened; Duke's ability to take control and engineer that turnaround, without a scoring punch from Okafor, kind of came out of nowhere.

Duvall
02-03-2015, 12:12 PM
No bracket, even a fake preliminary one, should put Duke and UNC in the same region.

Why not? Subregional, sure, but as long as there are more than four ACC teams in the tournament, it's possible that Duke and UNC may end up in the same region.

TexHawk
02-03-2015, 03:05 PM
Still, if Duke beats Notre Dame at CIS and goes no worse than 14-4 in the ACC with at least four Top Ten victories (three on the road) and Kansas loses three games total, I can't see the committee preferring Kansas to Duke for a #1 seed. Reasonable minds can disagree, however.

Are you saying 3 MORE games? Or 3 games total? KU is 19-3 right now. If they finish with 3 total losses, they will have finished the Big12 season at 17-1, plus 3 conf tournament wins. That team would be 31-3, with 20ish of those games against Top 50 RPI opponents. In any other year, that's a slam dunk overall #1 seed.

If you are saying 3 more losses, finishing 28-6 (at best), I would probably agree with you. Those two 25+ point losses, even if they were before Xmas, are really hard to ignore.

TexHawk
02-03-2015, 03:10 PM
I'm not TexHawk, but I'd agree with his assessment that the Big 12 is tougher than the ACC from top to bottom, but that the ACC is tougher at the top. 8 of their 10 teams are good teams with tourney hopes (Texas, at 14-7, is 8th), and only Texas Tech is awful. Conversely, the ACC has just 7 or 8 teams with a shot at the tournament, and the rest are mediocre to bad.

From a more quantitative perspective, 7 of the 10 Big 12 schools are in Ken Pomeroy's top-50, and 8 are in the kenpom top-75, and 9 are within the top-100. Conversely, the ACC has 5 teams in the top-15, but none others in the top-50. We then have 3 teams between 54 and 65, but 7 teams outside the top-75 and 5 teams outside the top-100.

So it seems pretty clear that the ACC is stronger overall at the top (5 top-15 teams versus 4 top-20 teams), but weaker in the next tier and MUCH weaker at the bottom.

What he said.

The thing is, I hate it when people say "there are no nights off in conference XYZ", but that's pretty close to true in the Big12. The last game KU had where they could relax was on 1/10 against Texas Tech. They have Baylor, TCU, Texas, and WVU at home in the next month. They can't sleepwalk through any of those.

And that awful Tech team beat Iowa State two weekends ago. I am not excited for our game in Lubbock next week.

Duvall
02-03-2015, 03:21 PM
What he said.

The thing is, I hate it when people say "there are no nights off in conference XYZ", but that's pretty close to true in the Big12. The last game KU had where they could relax was on 1/10 against Texas Tech. They have Baylor, TCU, Texas, and WVU at home in the next month. They can't sleepwalk through any of those.

And that awful Tech team beat Iowa State two weekends ago. I am not excited for our game in Lubbock next week.

That's overselling 12-10 Kansas State (at home) a bit, though. And it's still hard to believe that TCU isn't a fraud on some level.

jasoninchina
02-03-2015, 09:52 PM
Are you saying 3 MORE games? Or 3 games total? KU is 19-3 right now. If they finish with 3 total losses, they will have finished the Big12 season at 17-1, plus 3 conf tournament wins. That team would be 31-3, with 20ish of those games against Top 50 RPI opponents. In any other year, that's a slam dunk overall #1 seed.

If you are saying 3 more losses, finishing 28-6 (at best), I would probably agree with you. Those two 25+ point losses, even if they were before Xmas, are really hard to ignore.

I was saying three losses total, but upon further reflection, that can't be right. Posting after midnight in China while everyone else has had a good night's rest is my excuse! I will modify my statement and say if KU loses three MORE games, Duke would get the #1 seed over the Jayhawks. Playing at OU, who is beating WVU by at least 10 at the moment in Norman, likely will be another loss and two other losses are certainly possible as well.

TexHawk
02-04-2015, 11:20 AM
I was saying three losses total, but upon further reflection, that can't be right. Posting after midnight in China while everyone else has had a good night's rest is my excuse! I will modify my statement and say if KU loses three MORE games, Duke would get the #1 seed over the Jayhawks. Playing at OU, who is beating WVU by at least 10 at the moment in Norman, likely will be another loss and two other losses are certainly possible as well.

Personally, I am assuming losses to OU and WVU on the road. The next four have me worried (@OSU, @Tech, Baylor, @WVU). Much better KU teams have lost at those 3 places recently.

toooskies
02-04-2015, 11:51 AM
If the season ended today, we're clearly a #1 seed. We have the top three road wins in the country over UVA, Wisconsin, and Louisville. (UK also won at Louisville, but we won by 11 and they only won by 8.) The selection committee loves overrating road wins almost as much as they love overrating non-conference strength of schedule (instead of regular SOS), and no one comes close to our road success this year.

Which is really odd to be saying about a Duke team.

Duvall
02-04-2015, 11:59 AM
If the season ended today, we're clearly a #1 seed. We have the top three road wins in the country over UVA, Wisconsin, and Louisville.

Well, three of the top four. (http://espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=400587917) Think that one goes ahead of Louisville.

Kedsy
02-04-2015, 12:00 PM
If the season ended today, we're clearly a #1 seed.

I don't think it's clear at all. We're 5th in the RPI and 7th in Pomeroy (4th in AP). We have a couple of "bad losses." So if the season ended today, we might be a #1 seed, but I think the outlook would be pretty muddy -- any four of UK, UVa, Gonzaga, Duke, Wisconsin, Arizona, Kansas, and Villanova could conceivably be current frontrunners for #1 seeds.

CDu
02-04-2015, 01:00 PM
I don't think it's clear at all. We're 5th in the RPI and 7th in Pomeroy (4th in AP). We have a couple of "bad losses." So if the season ended today, we might be a #1 seed, but I think the outlook would be pretty muddy -- any four of UK, UVa, Gonzaga, Duke, Wisconsin, Arizona, Kansas, and Villanova could conceivably be current frontrunners for #1 seeds.

I think it is much more clear than you think. While the committee is notorious for leaning on the RPI over other metrics in choosing teams, they don't follow it to the letter in their seeding. Who you played and who you beat very much matters. And nobody in the field has played and beaten more of the top teams than us so far. As for the losses: we have one road loss against a top-20 team (Notre Dame), a road loss against an RPI top-50 team (State), and a home loss against an RPI top-55 team (Miami). None of those are "bad" losses in the committee's eyes, as they don't consider margin of victory in their analysis (and it is the margin of loss that is what was bad about the State and Miami losses).

In the RPI, we are currently ahead of Wisconsin (#9) and Villanova (#6), and our top-quality wins dwarf those of Wisconsin, Villanova, and Arizona. We are the only team in the country with multiple wins over top-10 teams, and the only team in the country with 3 wins over top-15 teams (and all of them are on the road):

Duke: 18-3 (5-3), RPI #5, 2-0 vs RPI top-10, 3-0 vs RPI top-20, 8-2 against the RPI top-50 (with both losses on the road), 10-3 against the RPI top-100, 9-0 vs outside the top-100
Arizona: 20-2 (8-1), RPI #4, 1-0 vs RPI top-10, 2-0 vs RPI top-20, 4-0 vs RPI top-50, 11-1 vs RPI top-100, 9-1 vs outside the top-100
Villanova: 19-2 (6-2), RPI #6, 1-0 vs RPI top-10, 2-0 vs RPI top-20, 3-2 vs RPI top-50 (both losses on the road), 9-2 vs RPI top-100, 10-0 vs outside the top-100
Wisconsin: 19-2 (7-1), RPI #9, 0-1 vs RPI top-10, 1-1 vs RPI top-20, 3-1 vs RPI top-50, 10-1 vs RPI top-100, 9-1 vs outside the top-100

I think, based on this information, we could clearly eliminate Wisconsin relative to Duke based on worse RPI, worse record against top teams, fewer games against good teams, more bad losses, and the head-to-head victory for Duke.

I think we could eliminate Villanova relative to Duke based on having played just 5 games against the RPI top-50 (and going just 3-2 in those games) compared to Duke's 8-2 in games against the RPI top-50, and Duke's more impressive 3 road wins over the RPI top-15.

And I think we could eliminate Arizona based on their having played just 4 teams in the top-50 and having two worse losses than any of Duke's losses.

Basically, I think that Kentucky and UVa are the most clear #1s, with Duke and Kansas as clearly more deserving than Arizona and Villanova, who are in turn more deserving than Wisconsin.

Kedsy
02-04-2015, 01:09 PM
Basically, I think that Kentucky and UVa are the most clear #1s, with Duke and Kansas as clearly more deserving than Arizona and Villanova, who are in turn more deserving than Wisconsin.

I hope you're right. Do you think our not being regular season conference champion (all the other contenders are 1st in their conference, while we're currently 6th in ours) will play against us?

CDu
02-04-2015, 01:43 PM
I hope you're right. Do you think our not being regular season conference champion (all the other contenders are 1st in their conference, while we're currently 6th in ours) will play against us?

I don't, mainly because the regular season conference champion in the ACC will also be a #1 seed in this hypothetical scenario. No reason that two teams from one conference can't be #1 seeds. The other "contenders" for the 4th #1 seed either play in second-tier conferences (Arizona and Villanova) or have a decided disadvantage relative to Duke (Wisconsin).

Kedsy
02-04-2015, 02:29 PM
I don't, mainly because the regular season conference champion in the ACC will also be a #1 seed in this hypothetical scenario. No reason that two teams from one conference can't be #1 seeds. The other "contenders" for the 4th #1 seed either play in second-tier conferences (Arizona and Villanova) or have a decided disadvantage relative to Duke (Wisconsin).

You don't consider Gonzaga a legitimate contender for a #1 seed? I suppose even if you did they'd fall in the "second-tier conferences" bucket.

In any event, by season's end I think after UK any three of the next seven could end up with #1 seeds. And possibly a couple other teams could worm their way into the conversation by winning out (or coming close to winning out).

CDu
02-04-2015, 02:33 PM
You don't consider Gonzaga a legitimate contender for a #1 seed? I suppose even if you did they'd fall in the "second-tier conferences" bucket.

In any event, by season's end I think after UK any three of the next seven could end up with #1 seeds. And possibly a couple other teams could worm their way into the conversation by winning out (or coming close to winning out).

Gonzaga's resume is even less impressive than the others (aside from maybe Wisconsin). They have no top-20 wins at all. And I'd say their conference is a third-tier conference.

I agree with your next paragraph though. Obviously a lot can happen in the second half of the conference schedule to change the resumes. I don't think anyone will surpass our top-3 wins, but we could certainly add a bad loss or two (or just enough total losses) to offset our gains at the top. This is purely a hypothetical debate as there is no decision to be made right now.

English
02-04-2015, 03:13 PM
Gonzaga's resume is even less impressive than the others (aside from maybe Wisconsin). They have no top-20 wins at all. And I'd say their conference is a third-tier conference.

I agree with your next paragraph though. Obviously a lot can happen in the second half of the conference schedule to change the resumes. I don't think anyone will surpass our top-3 wins, but we could certainly add a bad loss or two (or just enough total losses) to offset our gains at the top. This is purely a hypothetical debate as there is no decision to be made right now.

I think it's with an asterisk that we mention Wisconsin's loss to Rutgers, since the Committee does discount outcomes based on injuries that course correct. In this case, Frank Kaminsky sat out with a concussion (and has since returned), and less black-and-white, Traveon Jackson sustained his lengthy foot injury at the beginning of the second half. If/when Jackson returns and Scon doesn't suffer another blip loss--and this was a road conf loss, albeit to a pretty brutal team--the Committee could write it off on the basis of injury.

As is customary in the B1G, I'm sure some more wacky losses will come down the stretch, just as they will in most conferences...the WCC and SEC possible exceptions.

El_Diablo
02-04-2015, 03:22 PM
we can't complain

You must be new here. Welcome to DBR! ;)

CDu
02-04-2015, 03:24 PM
I think it's with an asterisk that we mention Wisconsin's loss to Rutgers, since the Committee does discount outcomes based on injuries that course correct. In this case, Frank Kaminsky sat out with a concussion (and has since returned), and less black-and-white, Traveon Jackson sustained his lengthy foot injury at the beginning of the second half. If/when Jackson returns and Scon doesn't suffer another blip loss--and this was a road conf loss, albeit to a pretty brutal team--the Committee could write it off on the basis of injury.

As is customary in the B1G, I'm sure some more wacky losses will come down the stretch, just as they will in most conferences...the WCC and SEC possible exceptions.

That is a fair point. Lots could change with regard to how they view that loss.

fuse
02-04-2015, 05:06 PM
Lots of basketball yet to be played.
Kentucky, Duke -OR- UVa, Wisconsin, and Gonzaga -OR- Arizona seem to be the ones in the hunt for a number one seed.

I don't think the ACC gets enough respect to earn two number one seeds (deserved or not).

Where I think the discussion gets interesting is the ACC Tournament final.
How does the committee handle a Duke-UVa final for seeding? Or if neither are in the final?

The good news is we largely control our own seeding destiny.
Keep winning and the seeding will take care of itself.
Avoiding UVa, Kentucky, and Wisconsin prior to the NCAA tournament final would be nice if we can swing that.

sagegrouse
02-04-2015, 05:18 PM
"Still trying to figure out how Duke got that win last weekend at Virginia? You're not alone. But the Blue Devils' toughness showed in handing UVa its first loss."

If you need to create some locker room motivation, that's your right, but I don't find these comments insulting. UVA's loss was "stunning" because of how it happened; Duke's ability to take control and engineer that turnaround, without a scoring punch from Okafor, kind of came out of nowhere.

I'm with Lunardi: I have no idea how we won that game.

Kindly,
Sage

Kedsy
02-04-2015, 05:21 PM
I don't think the ACC gets enough respect to earn two number one seeds (deserved or not).

I don't necessarily agree. The committee has quite often put two teams from the same conference as #1 seeds, and the narrative in the national press/ESPN to date has been how great the ACC is with five top 15 teams. If Duke and Virginia both have 1-seed-worthy resumes, I think there's a decent chance they both get it.

Duvall
02-04-2015, 05:58 PM
Lots of basketball yet to be played.
Kentucky, Duke -OR- UVa, Wisconsin, and Gonzaga -OR- Arizona seem to be the ones in the hunt for a number one seed.

I don't think the ACC gets enough respect to earn two number one seeds (deserved or not).

Look, either conference reputation matters or it doesn't. If the committee is paying attention to conference strength, then Kentucky, Wisconsin, Gonzaga and Arizona will be penalized for winning glorified mid-major leagues.

sagegrouse
02-04-2015, 06:09 PM
I don't necessarily agree. The committee has quite often put two teams from the same conference as #1 seeds, and the narrative in the national press/ESPN to date has been how great the ACC is with five top 15 teams. If Duke and Virginia both have 1-seed-worthy resumes, I think there's a decent chance they both get it.

Not surprisingly, there is a lengthy #1 seed watch list now in early February. I include ten teams:

The leaders of the pack in five of the six major conferences (yep, I am including the Big East):

Villanova
Kansas
Wisconsin
Arizona
Kentucky

Four teams from the ACC:
Virginia
Notre Dame
Louisville
Duke

Plus one:
Gonzaga

I can imagine two ACC teams with #1 seeds, but it looks like Kentucky and Arizona have clear sailing, and if one of Wisconsin, Kansas and Villanova also emerges unscathed, then the ACC will likely not get two #1 seeds.

bob blue devil
02-04-2015, 06:27 PM
just my 2 cents, but if duke and uva play well from here and duke wins the acct, i'd bet serious money we both get a #1. conference tournies matter and winning the acct should be quite a feat (the semi's should be final 4 quality).

77devil
02-04-2015, 06:39 PM
I don't necessarily agree. The committee has quite often put two teams from the same conference as #1 seeds, and the narrative in the national press/ESPN to date has been how great the ACC is with five top 15 teams. If Duke and Virginia both have 1-seed-worthy resumes, I think there's a decent chance they both get it.

This is an exaggeration. Occasionally is accurate.

Kedsy
02-05-2015, 01:01 AM
This is an exaggeration. Occasionally is accurate.

It has happened 7 times in the last 15 years. I think "quite often" is quite accurate.

jasoninchina
02-05-2015, 01:24 AM
Personally, I am assuming losses to OU and WVU on the road. The next four have me worried (@OSU, @Tech, Baylor, @WVU). Much better KU teams have lost at those 3 places recently.

I want to encourage you to expect the worst but hope for the best. Oklahoma State will be tough and just beat Texas in Austin. I think KU will beat Tech in Mars-like Lubbock (seriously have you ever been to Lubbock?). I think they will also beat Baylor in Lawrence, but will take your word for it and expect a loss against WVU in Morgantown. I think realistically they will go 2-2 doing that stretch.

77devil
02-05-2015, 08:10 AM
It has happened 7 times in the last 15 years. I think "quite often" is quite accurate.

0 in the last 5, 3 in the last 10, and 11 out of the last 36, so except for an anomalous period from 2000-2006 when it occurred 6 out of 7, I think quite often is an overstatement. Regardless of how the data is parsed, the current and potential further expansion of the power conferences is making it more likely. I suspect we agree on that.

Duvall
02-06-2015, 12:57 AM
Gonzaga Bulldogs: We played one ranked team, and lost. One seed please?

Troublemaker
02-15-2015, 06:41 PM
Reminder that Bracket Matrix is a very good resource as we start to think more and more about seeding

http://bracketmatrix.com/

It looks like if the tournament started today, Duke would be the third #1 seed behind Kentucky and UVA, and Gonzaga would be the fourth #1 seed.

gurufrisbee
02-15-2015, 07:00 PM
#1 Seeds:

Kentucky. Even if they lose once before the end of the season.
Gonzaga - unless they lose another one before the end of the season, but that seems more unlikely than Kentucky losing.
Kansas - if they win the Big 12 (for the 11th straight time) and the Big 12 tourney, they are a lock.
Virginia - if they win the ACC and ACC tourney.

Those four control their destiny to the #1's.

Duke has a great chance to take the spot from UVA if they keep winning and then win the ACC tourney. However, if Duke doesn't win the ACC regular season OR tournament I don't see them getting a #1 seed because even if some of those four I already listed falter I think Arizona and Wisconsin and Villanova have good chances to win out and win their conferences and would jump ahead for #1 seeds.

Frankly none of these teams worry me. Kentucky we've seen has the potential to be great, but one third of the time this entire season they play like crap and nearly lose to crappy teams. We've shown when we are on our game we can beat anyone - anywhere. Frankly I would LOVE to get the 2 seed if the one seed is Arizona or Villanova.

freshmanjs
02-15-2015, 07:02 PM
#1 Seeds:

Kentucky. Even if they lose once before the end of the season.
Gonzaga - unless they lose another one before the end of the season, but that seems more unlikely than Kentucky losing.
Kansas - if they win the Big 12 (for the 11th straight time) and the Big 12 tourney, they are a lock.
Virginia - if they win the ACC and ACC tourney.

Those four control their destiny to the #1's.

Duke has a great chance to take the spot from UVA if they keep winning and then win the ACC tourney. However, if Duke doesn't win the ACC regular season OR tournament I don't see them getting a #1 seed because even if some of those four I already listed falter I think Arizona and Wisconsin and Villanova have good chances to win out and win their conferences and would jump ahead for #1 seeds.

Frankly none of these teams worry me. Kentucky we've seen has the potential to be great, but one third of the time this entire season they play like crap and nearly lose to crappy teams. We've shown when we are on our game we can beat anyone - anywhere. Frankly I would LOVE to get the 2 seed if the one seed is Arizona or Villanova.

i don't understand how Kansas controls their destiny but Duke doesn't. If Duke wins out, Duke is a lock for a #1 (not that I think that likely).

gurufrisbee
02-15-2015, 07:18 PM
i don't understand how Kansas controls their destiny but Duke doesn't. If Duke wins out, Duke is a lock for a #1 (not that I think that likely).

Duke winning out does not get them the regular season conference title (necessarily). Kansas would. I think it would be very close between those two, but I think the committee would give Kansas the edge because of that. Plus there is still a perception that the Big 12 is better than the ACC.

hurleyfor3
02-15-2015, 07:28 PM
#1 Seeds:

Kentucky. Even if they lose once before the end of the season.
Gonzaga - unless they lose another one before the end of the season, but that seems more unlikely than Kentucky losing.
Kansas - if they win the Big 12 (for the 11th straight time) and the Big 12 tourney, they are a lock.
Virginia - if they win the ACC and ACC tourney.

Those four control their destiny to the #1's.

Duke has a great chance to take the spot from UVA if they keep winning and then win the ACC tourney.

The 1 seeds have a good bit more leeway than that. Most obviously, either Duke or UVa will lose at least one more game, but it's very possible for both to be 1-seeds.

I'd say Ky can lose at least two more games and possibly three. UVa can probably lose twice; we can definitely lose once and maybe twice. Gonzo has the shakiest case, followed by Kansas.

CDu
02-15-2015, 07:29 PM
Duke winning out does not get them the regular season conference title (necessarily). Kansas would. I think it would be very close between those two, but I think the committee would give Kansas the edge because of that. Plus there is still a perception that the Big 12 is better than the ACC.

I disagree. If Duke wins out, we will be a #1 seed regardless of what Kansas or anyone else does. Our resume is better than theirs now, and winning out would mean at least two if not 4 more wins over top-20 teams. No way that a team that is 31-3 with an RPI in the top-3 or 4 and the ACC Championship gets a #2 seed.

tbyers11
02-15-2015, 07:30 PM
Duke winning out does not get them the regular season conference title (necessarily). Kansas would. I think it would be very close between those two, but I think the committee would give Kansas the edge because of that. Plus there is still a perception that the Big 12 is better than the ACC.

If Duke wins out (which I agree is not likely) they will be a #1 seed regardless of what anyone else does. Even if Kansas and Gonzaga win out. Regular season championships are a nice feather in the cap but just a part of the overall resume.

Duvall
02-15-2015, 07:31 PM
Duke winning out does not get them the regular season conference title (necessarily). Kansas would. I think it would be very close between those two, but I think the committee would give Kansas the edge because of that. Plus there is still a perception that the Big 12 is better than the ACC.

That's an argument for Virginia getting 1-seed over Duke, not Kansas. A 31-3 Duke team is not getting passed over for a team that lost to Temple by 25.

gurufrisbee
02-15-2015, 09:22 PM
I'd love it if you all were right, but I have a feeling that if Kansas wins the regular season and the conference tournament in the conference that most are saying is the best in the nation still that it will take an undefeated Kentucky for them not to be the #1 overall seed.

hurleyfor3
02-15-2015, 09:36 PM
I'd love it if you all were right, but I have a feeling that if Kansas wins the regular season and the conference tournament in the conference that most are saying is the best in the nation still that it will take an undefeated Kentucky for them not to be the #1 overall seed.

That doesn't invalidate anyone's arguments. The weak hand would then be Gonzaga's.

Kedsy
02-15-2015, 09:42 PM
I disagree. If Duke wins out, we will be a #1 seed regardless of what Kansas or anyone else does. Our resume is better than theirs now, and winning out would mean at least two if not 4 more wins over top-20 teams. No way that a team that is 31-3 with an RPI in the top-3 or 4 and the ACC Championship gets a #2 seed.

I agree with you, but it's worth noting Kansas currently is #1 in the RPI. As hurleyfor3 said, if everyone wins out (except let's say UVa loses one more) it's probably Gonzaga who drops to #2, not Duke or Kansas or Virginia.

TexHawk
02-15-2015, 09:56 PM
I disagree. If Duke wins out, we will be a #1 seed regardless of what Kansas or anyone else does. Our resume is better than theirs now, and winning out would mean at least two if not 4 more wins over top-20 teams. No way that a team that is 31-3 with an RPI in the top-3 or 4 and the ACC Championship gets a #2 seed.

I have admitted that this speculation is ridiculous, since a lot of stuff usually happens in the last month before the tournament. As I've said, I don't see KU winning out, or even close.

BUT, since this is a message board, and for the sake of argument... If KU wins out, they/we are 30-4, with one more Top 25 opponent in the regular season, plus another two or so in the tournament. (WVU is #28, and KU plays them twice in the next few weeks.) That KU team would have played at least 13 games against RPI top 25 teams, going 10-3. (Duke is currently 3-0.) KU's RPI is #1, SOS is #1. In this theoretical future world, they are also champion of the "best" conference regular season (16-2 record) + tournament championship. I would eat my shoe if that team doesn't get a #1 seed.

Of course, this doesn't have to be a Duke v KU thing. If both were to win out, the likely victims relegated to #2 seeds would be in the UVA/Zona/Nova/Wisconsin/Gonzaga club.

Duvall
02-16-2015, 11:09 PM
Whew. Sometimes this game can still be fun, when no one from the Wisconsin/Wisconsin-Green Bay axis is involved.

DavidBenAkiva
02-16-2015, 11:13 PM
Kansas just lost to West Virginia on one of the craziest ends to a game I've seen. With about 30 seconds to go and 24 seconds on the shot clock, WVU is down by 1 and elects to play defense. The Kansas shot misses and is knocked out of bounds by Perry Ellis of Kansas with 8.4 seconds left. WVU take the ball down the court and immediately scores on a drive to the basket. Kansas take the ball out of bounds and lobs it to half court where Perry Ellis goes to the rim. His finger rolls rims out and WVU wins the game. Wow.

This loss by Kansas puts Duke in the pole position for a #1 seed. Duke has to, you know, win out. Duke does that and they'll be a #1 seed. No biggie.

DukeDiva
02-16-2015, 11:15 PM
KU taken down by WVU. Perry Ellis last the buzzer beater.

mr. synellinden
02-16-2015, 11:16 PM
So much for the Kansas winning out discussion (http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=400585842). Although I don't think this loss will end up making a difference in whether they get a #1 seed or not.

CDu
02-16-2015, 11:40 PM
Kansas now has as many losses in conference as we do, a loss worse than any of ours, and two more total losses. And they lack the elite-tier wins we have (not to mention that our biggest wins are road wins). So I think the "regular season and conference champ" argument rings a bit hollow. Duke's resume is better. If both teams win out from here, Duke gets a 1 seed over Kansas.

Either way, if we win out, we are getting a 1 seed.

Olympic Fan
02-17-2015, 12:23 AM
I agree with you, but it's worth noting Kansas currently is #1 in the RPI. As hurleyfor3 said, if everyone wins out (except let's say UVa loses one more) it's probably Gonzaga who drops to #2, not Duke or Kansas or Virginia.

And Duke was No. 1 in the RPI in 2013 when Duke got a No. 2 seed -- in the same bracket as the best No. 1.

The fact is that Kansas doesn't have as strong as resume as Duke ... and that was before tonight's loss to West Virginia.

But that said, I'd rather see Kansas get a No. 1 seed than Gonzaga.

I don't know where the myth of Gonzaga has come from. They are overseeded every year because they play a handful of tough teams early (and usually lose), then beat up on a very weak mid-major conference.

You'd think that sooner or later their NCAA failures would puncture the myth -- they made an Elite Eight run in 1999 under Don Monson and reached the Sweet 16 in Mark Few's first two years. But since 2001, they've gotten out of the first weekend once -- that's one Sweet 16 in the last 13 years.

This year's team has actually played two ranked teams -- beating SMU at home and losing at Arizona. They have played the nation's No. 94 schedule. They have seven top 100 wins (Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, Arizona, Villanova, Virginia and Wisconsin all have at least 13 top 100 wins) ... one in the top 25 (SMU, which is barely in the top 25). They haven't played a top 50 team since December ... and don't have one remaining.

And THAT is the resume of a No. 1 seed?

AIRFORCEDUKIE
02-17-2015, 07:06 AM
I think the committee will punish Gonzaga a bit this season for their failures in recent years. By punish I mean leaving them out of the discussion for a 1 seed. I think they are a lock to be a two, unless they lose. So that leaves UK, VA, DUKE, Wisconsin, Villanova, and KU and Arizona as possible 1 seeds. Only two teams on that list have wins over other possible 1 seeds. I don't see how you put Gonzaga ahead of Arizona in the West since Arizona beat them. This will all change in the next few weeks as teams get desperate, and teams start maneuvering for seeding. Uk and UVA are the only locks right now.

TexHawk
02-17-2015, 06:24 PM
Kansas now has as many losses in conference as we do, a loss worse than any of ours, and two more total losses. And they lack the elite-tier wins we have (not to mention that our biggest wins are road wins). So I think the "regular season and conference champ" argument rings a bit hollow. Duke's resume is better. If both teams win out from here, Duke gets a 1 seed over Kansas.

Either way, if we win out, we are getting a 1 seed.

Certainly can't disagree now. My point was the theoretical, of which we will never know now.

Btw, anyone have a TV remote recommendation? I ruined mine after watching Juwan Staten take 4 steps on the winning layup, then watching Nathan Adrian legitimately tackle Wayne Selden on the easiest potential winning tip-in in the history of basketball.

gam7
02-17-2015, 06:55 PM
I think the committee will punish Gonzaga a bit this season for their failures in recent years. By punish I mean leaving them out of the discussion for a 1 seed. I think they are a lock to be a two, unless they lose. So that leaves UK, VA, DUKE, Wisconsin, Villanova, and KU and Arizona as possible 1 seeds. Only two teams on that list have wins over other possible 1 seeds. I don't see how you put Gonzaga ahead of Arizona in the West since Arizona beat them. This will all change in the next few weeks as teams get desperate, and teams start maneuvering for seeding. Uk and UVA are the only locks right now.

That win was an OT win @ Arizona - not exactly dispositive. Far different from the impact of a game like, say, Notre Dame @ Duke. Gonzaga has more wins against RPI top 50 teams. Arizona has three losses to unranked, non-tournament teams; Gonzaga has none. They are comparably ranked in RPI and kenpom. Arizona has no road wins of particular note - though they do play @Utah in a couple weeks. A one-loss Gonzaga is virtual lock for a one-seed in my mind (and even if not, I would think they are definitely ahead of Arizona at this point in time).

hurleyfor3
02-17-2015, 06:59 PM
That win was an OT win @ Arizona - not exactly dispositive. Far different from the impact of a game like, say, Notre Dame @ Duke. Gonzaga has more wins against RPI top 50 teams. Arizona has three losses to unranked, non-tournament teams; Gonzaga has none. They are comparably ranked in RPI and kenpom. Arizona has no road wins of particular note - though they do play @Utah in a couple weeks. A one-loss Gonzaga is virtual lock for a one-seed in my mind (and even if not, I would think they are definitely ahead of Arizona at this point in time).

You used "dispositive" but then blew it with "at this point in time". We need a "neither spork nor flame" neutral comment.

gurufrisbee
02-17-2015, 07:42 PM
To me, Gonzaga isn't much different than Kentucky. Gonzaga has one more loss - barely. They both play in very weak conferences with no good teams in them at all. Kentucky played three good non conference games. Gonzaga played two or three. On Gonzaga's side, they did usually thump the mediocre teams they are constantly playing, while Kentucky is regularly getting scared by them about every third game. I don't know what the brackets and matchups will be but at this stage I'm a lot more comfortably picking Gonzaga to go deeper this year than Kentucky.

Troublemaker
02-21-2015, 08:39 PM
The best opportunity for Gonzaga to lose again this season is tonight (ESPN2, 10pm ET) when they play at rival St. Mary's.

I don't usually root against the Zags, but I have to think if they lose tonight, they'd get bumped to the 2 seed line. Thus giving Duke a slightly bigger margin of error for a 1 seed.

Wahoo2000
02-21-2015, 09:00 PM
To me, Gonzaga isn't much different than Kentucky. Gonzaga has one more loss - barely. They both play in very weak conferences with no good teams in them at all. Kentucky played three good non conference games. Gonzaga played two or three. On Gonzaga's side, they did usually thump the mediocre teams they are constantly playing, while Kentucky is regularly getting scared by them about every third game. I don't know what the brackets and matchups will be but at this stage I'm a lot more comfortably picking Gonzaga to go deeper this year than Kentucky.

I dislike Kentucky as much as the next guy, but this is just wrong. I know the SEC isn't totally awesome this year, but to compare it with the WCC is crazy-talk. Kentucky is regularly playing teams in the 30-60 range on kenpom, where the VAST bulk of Gonzaga's games are in the 100s and 200s. It's not close. At all. Not even a little bit. I'd also say absolutely stomping on Kansas, and handling UNC, Texas, and Louisville (all top 25 kenpom) is significantly better than Gonzaga's signature OOC results (loss @Arizona, win vs SMU, no other top 25 kenpom games).

If the Zags run the table, I give them a 1 seed only if 3 or more of UVA, Duke, 'Zona, Kansas, Wisconsin, & Nova lose 3 or more games between now and selection Sunday. If Gonzaga loses even once before the tourney, .00000001% chance they get a 1.

gurufrisbee
02-21-2015, 09:09 PM
I dislike Kentucky as much as the next guy, but this is just wrong. I know the SEC isn't totally awesome this year, but to compare it with the WCC is crazy-talk. Kentucky is regularly playing teams in the 30-60 range on kenpom, where the VAST bulk of Gonzaga's games are in the 100s and 200s. It's not close. At all. Not even a little bit. I'd also say absolutely stomping on Kansas, and handling UNC, Texas, and Louisville (all top 25 kenpom) is significantly better than Gonzaga's signature OOC results (loss @Arizona, win vs SMU, no other top 25 kenpom games).

If the Zags run the table, I give them a 1 seed only if 3 or more of UVA, Duke, 'Zona, Kansas, Wisconsin, & Nova lose 3 or more games between now and selection Sunday. If Gonzaga loses even once before the tourney, .00000001% chance they get a 1.

I understand your position, but I will still disagree. I've watched many games in both the SEC and the WCC this year - no matter what some rankings say the eye test from first hand watching them shows there is very little difference at all. I would not be surprised at all if St Mary's or BYU was in the SEC this season if they finished 2nd. And Gonzaga blows them out. Almost all. Kentucky stinks and barely wins a third of the time.

I agree that if the Zags lose again they probably get a 2 seed. But I'll still be EASILY picking them to go as far or further than Kentucky.

Wahoo2000
02-21-2015, 09:13 PM
I understand your position, but I will still disagree. I've watched many games in both the SEC and the WCC this year - no matter what some rankings say the eye test from first hand watching them shows there is very little difference at all. I would not be surprised at all if St Mary's or BYU was in the SEC this season if they finished 2nd. And Gonzaga blows them out. Almost all. Kentucky stinks and barely wins a third of the time.

I agree that if the Zags lose again they probably get a 2 seed. But I'll still be EASILY picking them to go as far or further than Kentucky.


Ah, the eye test. That's a tough metric for me to dispute. I'll agree to disagree (and secretly hope you turn out to be right - as I'd be much happier with a KY early exit from the tourney.... I just think it's unlikely)

gurufrisbee
02-21-2015, 09:54 PM
Ah, the eye test. That's a tough metric for me to dispute. I'll agree to disagree (and secretly hope you turn out to be right - as I'd be much happier with a KY early exit from the tourney.... I just think it's unlikely)

True enough, but it's a lot more fun to actually watch the games and see real basketball than just to read someone else's charts and tables. :D

CDu
02-21-2015, 10:03 PM
True enough, but it's a lot more fun to actually watch the games and see real basketball than just to read someone else's charts and tables. :D

I wouldn't call watching SEC basketball "fun."

weezie
02-21-2015, 10:49 PM
Good grief this ucla @ AZ game is utterly awful. No way az deserves any 1seed.

gurufrisbee
02-21-2015, 11:07 PM
I wouldn't call watching SEC basketball "fun."

Good distinction. Watching college basketball is fun. But I do 95% of that on the computer without cable for the TV, so my choices to watch on the TV are limited - and unfortunately CBS still thinks SEC basketball is worth showing on there.

Kedsy
02-21-2015, 11:32 PM
I understand your position, but I will still disagree. I've watched many games in both the SEC and the WCC this year - no matter what some rankings say the eye test from first hand watching them shows there is very little difference at all. I would not be surprised at all if St Mary's or BYU was in the SEC this season if they finished 2nd. And Gonzaga blows them out. Almost all. Kentucky stinks and barely wins a third of the time.

First of all, let me ask -- please define "many," as in how many games have you watched of each SEC team and each WCC team?

Unfortunately for me, I don't have the benefit of using your eyes, but looking at Pomeroy your claim sounds fairly ludicrous. Not counting Kentucky, the SEC has seven top 50 teams (Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Florida, Texas A&M, Georgia, and Vanderbilt), and ten top 100 teams (the previous seven plus Alabama, South Carolina, and Tennessee). Not counting Gonzaga, the WCC has one top 50 team (BYU) and two top 100 teams (add St. Mary's).

I get that you don't believe in ratings, but to say the two conferences are anywhere close to equal from a strength-of-schedule viewpoint is beyond ridiculous.

bob blue devil
02-22-2015, 08:45 AM
in my mind this is getting close to locked in, but i think that should be a controversial view (and dependent on how you define close - i'm not saying 100%, but definitely > 50%)
i see 2 most likely outcomes (getting us to the > 50% threshold, particularly if you add undefeated scenario)
- a bit disappointing finish - they lose 2 games (1-2 reg season and 0-1 acct); in this scenario which 4 teams realistically get 1's ahead of them? kentucky of course, duke if we win out (maybe if lose 1), wisconsin if they win out (maybe if they lose 1), gonzaga probably if they win out, villanova probably if they win out, arizona only possible if they win out, kansas only if possible they win out. i guess i give uva a coin flip in this scenario, but i really should run the math...
- very good finish - they lose 1 game (0-1 reg season and 0-1 acct); in this scenario which 4 teams realistically get 1's ahead of them? kentucky, maybe duke if we win out, and that's it.

this was sparked by the view uva and duke won't both get 1's. with uva getting close to locked in, this statement more becomes duke won't get a 1.

Kedsy
02-22-2015, 10:17 AM
this was sparked by the view uva and duke won't both get 1's. with uva getting close to locked in, this statement more becomes duke won't get a 1.

However, I think it's very possible both Duke and Virginia both get 1-seeds. Why do you feel it's not possible?

davekay1971
02-22-2015, 10:32 AM
I understand your position, but I will still disagree. I've watched many games in both the SEC and the WCC this year - no matter what some rankings say the eye test from first hand watching them shows there is very little difference at all. I would not be surprised at all if St Mary's or BYU was in the SEC this season if they finished 2nd. And Gonzaga blows them out. Almost all. Kentucky stinks and barely wins a third of the time.

I agree that if the Zags lose again they probably get a 2 seed. But I'll still be EASILY picking them to go as far or further than Kentucky.

I'd go so far as to say the SEC is truly lousy outside of KY. I can't make a comparison to the WCC, having seen very little WCC ball this year. KY is a clear number 1 seed, obviously (their pre-conference wins against Kansas, Louisville, and UNC are all very respectable), but ESPN's breathless enthusiasm about each win in that lousy conference is pretty ridiculous.

Duke should be a 1 seed unless we lose at UNC...AND we lose in the ACC tournament to a team not named Virginia. Obviously those are both real possibilities, but I don't think there's a reasonable argument for Duke being anything other than a 1 seed if we (1) win out; or (2) lose only to UNC in the regular season finale or to UVa in the ACCT.

bob blue devil
02-22-2015, 10:56 AM
However, I think it's very possible both Duke and Virginia both get 1-seeds. Why do you feel it's not possible?

sorry - i was unclear. we are in agreement. i should've said, "this was sparked by the view put forward by others". i've heard it on this board and by commentators (including one calling one of the games yesterday; i forget who it was, though).

Dr. Rosenrosen
02-23-2015, 11:23 PM
Has anyone watched many big12 games? Why is the narrative around the KState win... "See how good this conference is?" But upsets and close games between top and bottom teams in the ACC don't seem to evoke the same storyline? The "Big12 is best" mantra feels like one of those opinions that gets shared by a few during the course of the season and just keeps picking up steam. Every close game becomes more evidence. But the same is not said of the ACC. Is the big12 really that much better?

DavidBenAkiva
02-23-2015, 11:27 PM
Kansas just dropped a road game to Kansas State, which puts them at 4-4 in road games in conference. There's no way they are getting a 1 seed at this point and they will have to fight to keep hold of a 2 seed.

Their recent loss to West Virginia has slid them to the 2 seed in the Midwest in the mind of Joe Lunardi. Before the loss to KSU, Jerry Palm of CBS Sports had Kansas as the 2 seed in the South with Duke as the 1 seed. Putting Wisconsin with Kentucky would be a tough sell for the selection committee, in my opinion. I know they favor geography, but still. Everyone seems to be in agreement that Gonzaga and Arizona are the top 2 seeds out West with Duke, UVA, Wisconsin, and Villanova battling for the 1 seeds in the East and South. I just can't see the committee putting one of those four teams as the 2 seed in the Midwest with Kentucky.

The way things are breaking, the Wisconsin-Maryland on Tuesday night game is pretty big. Wisconsin doesn't have the signature wins to compete with Duke for a 1 seed at the moment. Their best win right now is over Oklahoma way back in November 28th and have only beaten one team that was ranked at the time (Iowa at home on January 20th). This will be their first road game against a ranked opponent. Pretty amazing when you think about it. If Duke gets through the regular season without a loss (tall task), I can't see them not being a #1 seed.

Duvall
02-23-2015, 11:27 PM
Has anyone watched many big12 games? Why is the narrative around the KState win... "See how good this conference is?" But upsets and close games between top and bottom teams in the ACC don't seem to evoke the same storyline? The "Big12 is best" mantra feels like one of those opinions that gets shared by a few during the course of the season and just keeps picking up steam. Every close game becomes more evidence. But the same is not said of the ACC. Is the big12 really that much better?

Yes.

The bottom half in the ACC is pretty terrible.

hurleyfor3
02-23-2015, 11:28 PM
Has anyone watched many big12 games? Why is the narrative around the KState win... "See how good this conference is?"

Once in a very long while -- 2002 and 03 come to mind -- the Big XII is actually pretty good and manages to do well in the postseason.

This year is not one of those times.

I'll take the ACC's top five over the XII's and it's not close. Despite last year's championship game, no one below an NCAA 5 seed or so really matters.

Olympic Fan
02-24-2015, 02:33 AM
Once in a very long while -- 2002 and 03 come to mind -- the Big XII is actually pretty good and manages to do well in the postseason.

This year is not one of those times.

I'll take the ACC's top five over the XII's and it's not close. Despite last year's championship game, no one below an NCAA 5 seed or so really matters.

The Big 12 vs. ACC debate is a replay of the old ACC vs. the Big East 5-6 years agp. The ACC has more good teams at the top than the Big 12, but the Big 12 is a smaller league and doesn't have the weakness at the bottom.

It's difficult to compare 15 ACC teams with 10 Big 12 teams. But allow me to try.

Using Pomeroy, the ACC has two teams better than anybody in the Big 12.

Overall, the ACC has five teams in the top 20 (2,8,15, 16, 19) ... the Big 12 has four (9, 10, 12, 14)

The top 10 ACC teams range from No. 2 to No. 74 ... the Big 12's top 10 include two teams worse than the ACC's top 10 -- No. 85 and No. 168.

It's similar using the RPI -- both have four teams in the top 20 and seven in the top 50. But the 10th best ACC team is No. 83 ... the Big 12 has three teams below that (at No. 103, No. 119 and No. 169).

Yes, the extra ACC teams are fairly weak. But not only are the ACC's top teams better than the Big 12 ... The ACC is stronger through 10 teams than the 10-team Big 12.

gurufrisbee
02-24-2015, 07:58 AM
I've been thinking a lot about the ACC-Big 12 comparison lately too. I think the issue is that the top five in the ACC are TOO good. They put such a big gap between them and the second six that the average person looks and thinks that second six is just a bunch of a bubble teams. In the Big 12, the top teams all play at the same basic level as what should be their second tier. Ok St and K St really aren't any better than the ACC's second group, but they are .500 or worse teams in their conference, yet they are considered tournament locks because they are closer to the top teams in the conference. And instead of having four weak teams, they only have two in the Big 12. I believe if you combined all 25 teams into one conference Kansas and maybe Iowa St would hang in the top seven with the five ACC powerhouses and that middle group would have about a dozen all battling - half from each side. To me, that still makes the ACC tougher.

freshmanjs
02-24-2015, 08:19 AM
The Big 12 vs. ACC debate is a replay of the old ACC vs. the Big East 5-6 years agp. The ACC has more good teams at the top than the Big 12, but the Big 12 is a smaller league and doesn't have the weakness at the bottom.

It's difficult to compare 15 ACC teams with 10 Big 12 teams. But allow me to try.

Using Pomeroy, the ACC has two teams better than anybody in the Big 12.

Overall, the ACC has five teams in the top 20 (2,8,15, 16, 19) ... the Big 12 has four (9, 10, 12, 14)

The top 10 ACC teams range from No. 2 to No. 74 ... the Big 12's top 10 include two teams worse than the ACC's top 10 -- No. 85 and No. 168.

It's similar using the RPI -- both have four teams in the top 20 and seven in the top 50. But the 10th best ACC team is No. 83 ... the Big 12 has three teams below that (at No. 103, No. 119 and No. 169).

Yes, the extra ACC teams are fairly weak. But not only are the ACC's top teams better than the Big 12 ... The ACC is stronger through 10 teams than the 10-team Big 12.

i don't know why the right comparison is the top 2/3 of the ACC against the entire big 12. i would prorate it. so compare the top 2/3 of the ACC to the top 2/3 of the big 12. or compare the top to the top and the bottom to the bottom. it's not at all surprising that the middle of the acc is stronger than the bottom of the big 12.

DavidBenAkiva
02-24-2015, 09:44 AM
Despite last year's championship game, no one below an NCAA 5 seed or so really matters.

Except that time way back in 2013 when Wichita State, a 9 seed, made it to the Final Four. Or there was 2011 with VCU (11) and Butler (8), or 2006 with George Mason (11), or even in 2000 with those scrappy mid-majors North Carolina (8) and Wisconsin (8). I believe these outliers can be thrown out of mind with ease.

hurleyfor3
02-24-2015, 09:52 AM
Except that time way back in 2013 when Wichita State, a 9 seed, made it to the Final Four. Or there was 2011 with VCU (11) and Butler (8), or 2006 with George Mason (11), or even in 2000 with those scrappy mid-majors North Carolina (8) and Wisconsin (8). I believe these outliers can be thrown out of mind with ease.

You got trolled :p

Kedsy
02-24-2015, 11:18 AM
The Big 12 vs. ACC debate is a replay of the old ACC vs. the Big East 5-6 years agp. The ACC has more good teams at the top than the Big 12, but the Big 12 is a smaller league and doesn't have the weakness at the bottom.

Agreed.


It's difficult to compare 15 ACC teams with 10 Big 12 teams.

Also agree. It depend on how much you value topheaviness, or how far down you think the "top" goes.


Overall, the ACC has five teams in the top 20 (2,8,15, 16, 19) ... the Big 12 has four (9, 10, 12, 14)

This is disingenuous. The Big 12 has #21 and #23 -- why would you pick top 20 except to make the ACC look stronger?

Fact is, using Pomeroy the Big 12 has more top 15 teams (4 to 3), more top 25 teams (6 to 5), more top 30 teams (7 to 5), more top 40 teams (7 to 6), more top 50 teams (7 to 6), and more top 60 teams (8 to 6). And despite the ACC having "two teams better than anybody in the Big 12," the two leagues have the same number of top 10 teams (2 each). So pretty much the only measures in which the ACC "beats" the Big 12 are top 5 (1 to 0) and top 20 (which you chose to illustrate).


The top 10 ACC teams range from No. 2 to No. 74 ... the Big 12's top 10 include two teams worse than the ACC's top 10 -- No. 85 and No. 168.

Actually the ACC's top ten teams range from 2 to 79. The ACC's top nine teams range from 2 to 74, and the Big 12's top nine range from 9 to 85. The "average" Pomeroy rating of the ACC's top nine teams is 32.6 while the "average" Pomeroy rating of the Big 12's top nine teams is 28.5. "Win" for the Big 12.

And the ACC's top seven range from 2 to 62, while the Big 12's top seven range from 9 to 30. Big win for the Big 12.



Yes, the extra ACC teams are fairly weak. But not only are the ACC's top teams better than the Big 12 ...

The ACC's top team is better, because Virginia (#2) is rated better than Oklahoma (#9). After that, the next four go:

ACC: 8, 15, 16, 19
B12: 10, 12, 14, 21

Pretty much exactly even (teensy edge to Big 12). The next four teams, however, go:

ACC: 40, 57, 62, 74
B12: 23, 30, 53, 85

Huge edge for the Big 12.



Yes, the extra ACC teams are fairly weak. But ... The ACC is stronger through 10 teams than the 10-team Big 12.

The ACC is clearly weaker through nine teams. Only reason you could say with a straight face that the ACC is stronger through ten teams is because you're counting dreadful Texas Tech (a team still rated higher than Virginia Tech) while ignoring the bottom five ACC teams. In other words, you're saying the ACC is stronger because the 10th place ACC team is better than the last place Big 12 team. This seems like an odd position given that you simply dismiss the "extra ACC teams."

Bottom line is the two leagues are fairly close at the top, with the ACC getting a fairly small edge in that Virginia is rated better than Oklahoma (or Kansas, which was rated higher than Oklahoma until the Jayhawks' most recent game). If that's your measure of which league is better, I don't necessarily agree but I won't argue.

However, with 70% of its teams among the top 30 teams in the country, and only one really bad team out of ten, any team playing in the Big 12 has a much tougher conference schedule than any team playing in the ACC. To me, that makes the Big 12 a much stronger conference.

CDu
02-24-2015, 11:32 AM
The ACC is clearly weaker through nine teams.

I think we need to be careful in saying that anything is "clearly" one way or the other. First of all, here are the Pomeroy pythagorean numbers for the top 9 teams in the ACC:

1. UVa (0.9615)
2. Duke (0.9387)
3. UNC (0.9045)
4. Notre Dame (0.8916)
5. Louisville (0.8813)
6. NC State (0.8104)
7. Miami (0.7699)
8. Syracuse (0.7595)
9. Clemson (0.6908)

The average pythagorean for our top-9 is 0.8454. That is roughly the pythagorean for Arkansas (#29 overall).

For the Big-12:
1. Oklahoma (0.9189)
2. Kansas (0.9155)
3. Baylor (0.9103)
4. Iowa State (0.9053)
5. Texas (0.8746)
6. West Virginia (0.8644)
7. Oklahoma St (0.8386)
8. TCU (0.7836)
9. Kansas State (0.6950)

The average pythagorean for the Big-12's top-9 is 0.8562. That is roughly the pythagorean for VCU (#28 overall).

I would argue strongly that our top-9 is essentially equivalent to the Big-12's top-9. We may be slightly stronger in the top 5 and slightly weaker from 6 to 9. But I don't think the difference between VCU and Arkansas is enough to say that one side is clearly better/worse than the other.

rsvman
02-24-2015, 03:01 PM
... It depends on how much you value topheaviness, .....


We're still talking about basketball here, right? :)




..and how far down that top goes.

And there you go, bringing aging into the picture. :p

akg4y
02-24-2015, 09:31 PM
My projected top 2 seeds/regions:

Midwest
1. KY
2. Wisconsin (3rd #2 seed)

East
1. Virginia
2. Villanova (top #2 seed)

South
1. Duke
2. ? - Kansas/ND/Iowa/MD

West
1. Gonzaga
2. Arizona (second #2 seed)

AIRFORCEDUKIE
02-25-2015, 10:26 AM
Lunardi just updated, still has us as a 1 seed with Kansas as our 2. 8/9 game features Ohio State

NC State is listed as a 9 seed on the rise

UNC and Notre Dame are now 4 seeds and dropping

Maryland is the three in UVA's brackett with Villinova as the 2

Wisconsin is Kentucky 2 seed now

The west is still set as it has been and forever shall be.

jv001
02-25-2015, 10:32 AM
Lunardi just updated, still has us as a 1 seed with Kansas as our 2. 8/9 game features Ohio State

NC State is listed as a 9 seed on the rise

UNC and Notre Dame are now 4 seeds and dropping

Maryland is the three in UVA's brackett with Villinova as the 2

Wisconsin is Kentucky 2 seed now

The west is still set as it has been and forever shall be.

I like these regionals. My number one wish is we don't end up a 2 in Kentucky's region and number two is we don't play at the same venue as the Cheats. GoDuke!

howardlander
02-25-2015, 10:36 AM
Lunardi just updated, still has us as a 1 seed with Kansas as our 2. 8/9 game features Ohio State

NC State is listed as a 9 seed on the rise

UNC and Notre Dame are now 4 seeds and dropping

Maryland is the three in UVA's brackett with Villinova as the 2

Wisconsin is Kentucky 2 seed now

The west is still set as it has been and forever shall be.

How is UNC, with 9 loses and losers of 5 of their last 7 games still a 4 seed? I suppose the computers still like them, but at some point don't the actual results on the court matter?

Howard

AIRFORCEDUKIE
02-25-2015, 11:21 AM
How is UNC, with 9 loses and losers of 5 of their last 7 games still a 4 seed? I suppose the computers still like them, but at some point don't the actual results on the court matter?

Howard

After the top 3 seeds in each region it is a really weak field. If you look at Lunardis Current projections 3 of the four 3 seeds are mid majors. So I am guessing this has a lot to do with them still being a 4 seed. Also they have a really good SOS.

flyingdutchdevil
02-25-2015, 11:44 AM
http://espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology

I would take Duke's bracket in a heartbeat: 1- Duke, 2- Kansas, 3- Utah, 4- Northern Iowa. 8- Ohio St is a tough 8, but I like our chances.

Olympic Fan
02-25-2015, 12:58 PM
I like these regionals. My number one wish is we don't end up a 2 in Kentucky's region and number two is we don't play at the same venue as the Cheats. GoDuke!

That's looking very good at the moment ... the way the pods work, the TWO top-seeded regional teams will be in Charlotte ... and that's almost certainly Virginia and Duke. UNC is the only other team in the region that could have made it interesting, but with Virginia being sop strong, it was always a question of UNC OR Duke -- and that seems to be settled by UNC's recent slide.

Now, technically it's possible that UNC could drop far enough to be sent to Charlotte as an 8-9 seed (assuming Duke and/or Virginia are a one; or a 7-10 seed, assuming one of them is a No. 2 seed). But the guidelines also protect a league's top three seeds, so that's unlikely to happen (even if UNC does drop to a 7 or an 8).

It's possible that Duke and UNC could be in the same regional site, provided they get that far (heck, provided WE get that far). But it won't be anywhere close where the venue can be overrun by the light-blue yokels.

jv001
02-25-2015, 03:34 PM
That's looking very good at the moment ... the way the pods work, the TWO top-seeded regional teams will be in Charlotte ... and that's almost certainly Virginia and Duke. UNC is the only other team in the region that could have made it interesting, but with Virginia being sop strong, it was always a question of UNC OR Duke -- and that seems to be settled by UNC's recent slide.

Now, technically it's possible that UNC could drop far enough to be sent to Charlotte as an 8-9 seed (assuming Duke and/or Virginia are a one; or a 7-10 seed, assuming one of them is a No. 2 seed). But the guidelines also protect a league's top three seeds, so that's unlikely to happen (even if UNC does drop to a 7 or an 8).

It's possible that Duke and UNC could be in the same regional site, provided they get that far (heck, provided WE get that far). But it won't be anywhere close where the venue can be overrun by the light-blue yokels.

I hate to say it, but I'd have to root for those cheats to win enough games to not be a 7 or 8 seed in our region. GoDuke!

Henderson
02-25-2015, 03:42 PM
UNC and Notre Dame are now 4 seeds and dropping


My first visual image of that was of enormous sink holes swallowing both schools into the magma of middle earth.

Then I thought, "I hope someone rescues Notre Dame."

devildeac
02-25-2015, 03:42 PM
I hate to say it, but I'd have to root for those cheats to win enough games to not be a 7 or 8 seed in our region. GoDuke!

Never! I'll root for them to lose enough games (unlikely) to fall to a 10-11 seed out west somewhere;).

AIRFORCEDUKIE
02-25-2015, 05:38 PM
My first visual image of that was of enormous sink holes swallowing both schools into the magma of middle earth.

Then I thought, "I hope someone rescues Notre Dame."

I'm sure Touchdown Jesus will help them out, as for UNC...

akg4y
02-26-2015, 07:09 AM
How is UNC, with 9 loses and losers of 5 of their last 7 games still a 4 seed? I suppose the computers still like them, but at some point don't the actual results on the court matter?

Howard

My guess is because the losses are all for the most part to good if not great teams.

Elite teams: Kentucky, UVA, Duke, Notre Dame.
Good teams: Butler, Louisville, NCST, Pitt
Worst loss: Iowa (still a tourney team)

Based on that Id say they should probably be around a 6 seed but in reality watching them they do deserve a 4 seed just because the competition is not that great this year after the big drop off from the top few lines.

howardlander
02-26-2015, 07:49 AM
My guess is because the losses are all for the most part to good if not great teams.

Elite teams: Kentucky, UVA, Duke, Notre Dame.
Good teams: Butler, Louisville, NCST, Pitt
Worst loss: Iowa (still a tourney team)

Based on that Id say they should probably be around a 6 seed but in reality watching them they do deserve a 4 seed just because the competition is not that great this year after the big drop off from the top few lines.

Yeah, I see all that, but who exactly have they beaten? Louisville at home and NC State on the road. UCLA and Florida are pretty meaningless at this point in the season. though Lunardi does have UCLA in his last 4 in. Well, they did beat Ohio State, who Lunardi currently has as an 8 seed. Pretty much, they have lost to every good team they played. They are 5 and 8 against the top 50 RPI and their wins are against:

39 Davidson
48 UCLA
43 Ohio State
19 Louisville (by 1 at home)
35 NC State (by 2 on the road)

There's just not much there.

Howard

AIRFORCEDUKIE
02-26-2015, 08:42 AM
There are some strange predictions going on in other peoples pretend brackets.

First is Jerry Palm over at CBS who has Duke as #1 in the south, with a possible rematch with St. Johns looming in the 8/9 game if they can get by LSU. He also has Maryland as our 3 with Kansas as our 2 seed. He currently has UNC as a 6 seed out West which would send them to Seattle (that would be amazing). Another oddity in his Brackets is Louisville as a 5 seed in UVA's bracket, is that even allowed? Also he has NC State in Dayton playing in the first 4, and Miami first four out.

He also has a neat RPI tool



Duke Blue Devils
Overall 25-3 Atlantic Coast 12-3
Rank
5
RPI
0.6641
Next Game: vs. CUSE 02/28 7:00 PM
How the Blue Devils Can Boost
Their RPI Today
Temple needs to beat Houston
Game Info: 7:00 PM | TV: CBS Sports Network
Michigan State needs to beat Minnesota
Game Info: 7:00 PM | TV: BTN
Presbyterian needs to beat Coastal Carolina
Game Info: 7:00 PM
Elon needs to beat Northeastern
Game Info: 7:00 PM
Furman needs to beat Western Carolina
Game Info: 7:00 PM | TV: ESP3
Wofford needs to beat Mercer
Game Info: 7:00 PM | TV: ESP3
Stanford needs to beat Oregon State
Game Info: 11:00 PM | TV: PACN

See Neat

Finally, Shelby Mast at USA Today has some fun predictions up

My favorite is the West Regional, where he has NC State as an 8 seed with UNC as the 5 in the same region. Could you imagine the possible meltdowns in Raleigh or Chapel Hell!!! He also has Villanova instead of Gonzaga as the 1 seed out west.
He has us in the South region with Ok St and Colorado St as our 8/9. He also has Louisville as our 5 seed, with Arizona as our 2 seed. 3 and 4 seeds are Oklahoma and Northern Iowa I think I would take this region in a heart beat, but seems very unrealistic.

Kedsy
02-26-2015, 06:01 PM
OK, I realize a lot of people around here think Lunardi doesn't know what he's doing, but I was looking at his most recent bracketology and I can't figure out his rationale for the following (RPI #s are today's, from ESPN's website):

IN
---
Purdue, RPI #58 (SOS=81)
Cincinnati , RPI #52 (SOS=59)
Iowa, RPI #51 (SOS=27)
LSU, RPI #49 (SOS=103)
UCLA, RPI #48 (SOS=14)

OUT
----
Pitt, RPI #38 (SOS=35)
Tulsa, RPI #42 (SOS=121)
Boise St, RPI #44 (SOS=112)
Buffalo, RPI #44 (SOS=67)
Old Dominion, RPI #47 (SOS=129)

So the five "out" all have better RPIs than the five "in." And, sure, I can see UCLA instead of Old Dominion, they're basically tied and UCLA has a much better schedule strength. But especially considering that schedule strength is already factored into the RPI (making up half of it), what possible rationale could put Purdue in ahead of any of the five "out" teams, or keep Pitt out behind any of the five "in" teams? At the very least Pitt, Buffalo, and Tulsa or Boise ought to replace Purdue, LSU, and Cincinnati, right?

I get that it's just Lunardi's opinion and it's not really happening, blah, blah, blah. But I don't have Insider and I'm just wondering what his rationale could possibly be? Does anybody have an idea?

Dr. Rosenrosen
02-26-2015, 06:05 PM
OK, I realize a lot of people around here think Lunardi doesn't know what he's doing, but I was looking at his most recent bracketology and I can't figure out his rationale for the following (RPI #s are today's, from ESPN's website):

IN
---
Purdue, RPI #58 (SOS=81)
Cincinnati , RPI #52 (SOS=59)
Iowa, RPI #51 (SOS=27)
LSU, RPI #49 (SOS=103)
UCLA, RPI #48 (SOS=14)

OUT
----
Pitt, RPI #38 (SOS=35)
Tulsa, RPI #42 (SOS=121)
Boise St, RPI #44 (SOS=112)
Buffalo, RPI #44 (SOS=67)
Old Dominion, RPI #47 (SOS=129)

So the five "out" all have better RPIs than the five "in." And, sure, I can see UCLA instead of Old Dominion, they're basically tied and UCLA has a much better schedule strength. But especially considering that schedule strength is already factored into the RPI (making up half of it), what possible rationale could put Purdue in ahead of any of the five "out" teams, or keep Pitt out behind any of the five "in" teams? At the very least Pitt, Buffalo, and Tulsa or Boise ought to replace Purdue, LSU, and Cincinnati, right?

I get that it's just Lunardi's opinion and it's not really happening, blah, blah, blah. But I don't have Insider and I'm just wondering what his rationale could possibly be? Does anybody have an idea?
Maybe he's being purposefully controversial to drive clicks and views right up until selection sunday.

Kedsy
02-26-2015, 06:06 PM
Maybe he's being purposefully controversial to drive clicks and views right up until selection sunday.

Possibly. I don't get that impression, but clicks = $$$, so I guess you never know.

But Buffalo and Old Dominion aren't even in his "last four out" or even "next four out." If he was trying to drive controversy, you'd think he'd have mentioned them somewhere.

SCMatt33
02-26-2015, 06:33 PM
OK, I realize a lot of people around here think Lunardi doesn't know what he's doing, but I was looking at his most recent bracketology and I can't figure out his rationale for the following (RPI #s are today's, from ESPN's website):

IN
---
Purdue, RPI #58 (SOS=81)
Cincinnati , RPI #52 (SOS=59)
Iowa, RPI #51 (SOS=27)
LSU, RPI #49 (SOS=103)
UCLA, RPI #48 (SOS=14)

OUT
----
Pitt, RPI #38 (SOS=35)
Tulsa, RPI #42 (SOS=121)
Boise St, RPI #44 (SOS=112)
Buffalo, RPI #44 (SOS=67)
Old Dominion, RPI #47 (SOS=129)

So the five "out" all have better RPIs than the five "in." And, sure, I can see UCLA instead of Old Dominion, they're basically tied and UCLA has a much better schedule strength. But especially considering that schedule strength is already factored into the RPI (making up half of it), what possible rationale could put Purdue in ahead of any of the five "out" teams, or keep Pitt out behind any of the five "in" teams? At the very least Pitt, Buffalo, and Tulsa or Boise ought to replace Purdue, LSU, and Cincinnati, right?

I get that it's just Lunardi's opinion and it's not really happening, blah, blah, blah. But I don't have Insider and I'm just wondering what his rationale could possibly be? Does anybody have an idea?

I think what's happening has more to do with how the committee has used RPI and SOS over the years. The first thing that any bracketologist tells you is that he's guessing what the committee will do, not expressing his own opinion. Second, they will tell you that the RPI and SOS are almost never used to compare teams directly. Teams with RPI's as night as the mid 20's have been left out before, and teams with an RPI near 70 have made it as an at large. No one mentioned falls into the category that would indicate a guaranteed "in" or "out".

Instead, the RPI is used to categorize games that a team has played. Here are the official team sheets for today (https://rpiarchive.ncaa.org/Stats%20Library/Team%20Sheets%20-%20Feb.%2026,%202015%20-%202014-15%20MBB.pdf) these are exactly what the committee members will stare at when they make their decisions. Notice a few things that stand out. It's real easy to pick out how many games a team is playing against good competition with the games split into columns for top 50, 50-100, 101-200, and 200+. Losses being red makes it easy to spot those bad losses to the right, and the turquoise games show how tough a teams non conference schedule was. The actual RPI number is fairly hard to find as its small and buried in the middle of the page. You look at a team like Buffalo or Tulsa, and you immediately see that they haven't played a lot of good teams. You look at Pitt and see that they haven't beaten many of them and have some bad losses bringing them down.

If you're Buffalo, you might say "but no one will come here to play me." To that I say "sorry." You have to earn the scheduling respect that Gonzaga or Wichita State get by winning on the road or making noise in the tourney as an auto bid. No charity here. For Pitt, I say, beat someone good away from home. They'll get their chance in Greensboro as long as they don't screw up Wednesday.

FYI, the NCAA is updating these official team sheets every day, and they're cool to look at and understand what the committee sees.

Kedsy
02-26-2015, 06:59 PM
I think what's happening has more to do with how the committee has used RPI and SOS over the years. The first thing that any bracketologist tells you is that he's guessing what the committee will do, not expressing his own opinion. Second, they will tell you that the RPI and SOS are almost never used to compare teams directly. Teams with RPI's as night as the mid 20's have been left out before, and teams with an RPI near 70 have made it as an at large. No one mentioned falls into the category that would indicate a guaranteed "in" or "out".

Instead, the RPI is used to categorize games that a team has played. Here are the official team sheets for today (https://rpiarchive.ncaa.org/Stats%20Library/Team%20Sheets%20-%20Feb.%2026,%202015%20-%202014-15%20MBB.pdf) these are exactly what the committee members will stare at when they make their decisions. Notice a few things that stand out. It's real easy to pick out how many games a team is playing against good competition with the games split into columns for top 50, 50-100, 101-200, and 200+. Losses being red makes it easy to spot those bad losses to the right, and the turquoise games show how tough a teams non conference schedule was. The actual RPI number is fairly hard to find as its small and buried in the middle of the page. You look at a team like Buffalo or Tulsa, and you immediately see that they haven't played a lot of good teams. You look at Pitt and see that they haven't beaten many of them and have some bad losses bringing them down.

If you're Buffalo, you might say "but no one will come here to play me." To that I say "sorry." You have to earn the scheduling respect that Gonzaga or Wichita State get by winning on the road or making noise in the tourney as an auto bid. No charity here. For Pitt, I say, beat someone good away from home. They'll get their chance in Greensboro as long as they don't screw up Wednesday.

FYI, the NCAA is updating these official team sheets every day, and they're cool to look at and understand what the committee sees.

Thanks, that's informative. But after reviewing Purdue's and Pitt's sheets, is the rationale that Purdue has the edge because they owned Indiana (beating them twice, making Purdue's record against the top 50 better than Pitt's) and the fact that their only top 100 road win (again, against Indiana) is a better win than Pitt's only top 100 road win (against Syracuse), even though Purdue's rating is significantly worse than Pitt's and their overall schedule is significantly worse than Pitt's (and Pitt also has a better record against common opponents)? That sounds weird to me, but I'll take your word for it.

brevity
02-26-2015, 07:35 PM
OK, I realize a lot of people around here think Lunardi doesn't know what he's doing, but I was looking at his most recent bracketology and I can't figure out his rationale for the following (RPI #s are today's, from ESPN's website):

IN
---
Purdue, RPI #58 (SOS=81)
Cincinnati , RPI #52 (SOS=59)
Iowa, RPI #51 (SOS=27)
LSU, RPI #49 (SOS=103)
UCLA, RPI #48 (SOS=14)

OUT
----
Pitt, RPI #38 (SOS=35)
Tulsa, RPI #42 (SOS=121)
Boise St, RPI #44 (SOS=112)
Buffalo, RPI #44 (SOS=67)
Old Dominion, RPI #47 (SOS=129)

So the five "out" all have better RPIs than the five "in." And, sure, I can see UCLA instead of Old Dominion, they're basically tied and UCLA has a much better schedule strength. But especially considering that schedule strength is already factored into the RPI (making up half of it), what possible rationale could put Purdue in ahead of any of the five "out" teams, or keep Pitt out behind any of the five "in" teams? At the very least Pitt, Buffalo, and Tulsa or Boise ought to replace Purdue, LSU, and Cincinnati, right?

I get that it's just Lunardi's opinion and it's not really happening, blah, blah, blah. But I don't have Insider and I'm just wondering what his rationale could possibly be? Does anybody have an idea?

I can't believe I have an answer to a Kedsy question.

I have a gift, and it is cynicism. Lunardi is a company man, creating drama for the benefit of his employer. Take a look at the remaining schedules of those 10 teams. ("ESPN" means the ESPN family of networks, including the SEC Network and ESPN3.)

Purdue: 1 on ESPN, 2 on BTN, 1 untelevised.
Cincinnati: 1 on ESPN, 2 on CBS.
Iowa: 2 on ESPN, 1 on BTN.
LSU: 2 on ESPN, 1 on Fox.
UCLA: 1 on ESPN, 1 on Fox, Tony Parker press conference continues on YouTube live feed.

Pittsburgh: 3 on ESPN.
Tulsa: 2 on ESPN, 1 on CBS (against Cincinnati, above)
Boise State: 2 on ESPN, 1 untelevised.
Buffalo: 2 ESPN, 1 untelevised.
Old Dominion: 4 untelevised.

That's 9-7 in favor of teams outside the field. Why does this matter? The bottom line is the Bottom Line. If it hasn't already, each ESPN network will Lunardize the basketball schedule to showcase those teams considered "First Four Out" or whatever, promoting these ESPN games more than they otherwise would. Maybe they promote the "Last Four In" teams as well, and both sides are fixed to promote all 16 ESPN games. Clicks are good, viewers are better.

I can't explain Old Dominion, but I notice that they are not mentioned at all in Lunardi's Bracketology page. He lists the following.

Last Four Byes: Dayton, Temple, Cincinnati, Oregon
Last Four In: Purdue, Texas, Davidson, UCLA
First Four Out: Stanford, Illinois, Tulsa, Boise State
Next Four Out: Pittsburgh, Miami, BYU, Rhode Island

Someone else can determine whether this list is even more pro-ESPN than the teams Kedsy singled out. (The Longhorn Network is part of ESPN.)

SCMatt33
02-26-2015, 09:40 PM
Thanks, that's informative. But after reviewing Purdue's and Pitt's sheets, is the rationale that Purdue has the edge because they owned Indiana (beating them twice, making Purdue's record against the top 50 better than Pitt's) and the fact that their only top 100 road win (again, against Indiana) is a better win than Pitt's only top 100 road win (against Syracuse), even though Purdue's rating is significantly worse than Pitt's and their overall schedule is significantly worse than Pitt's (and Pitt also has a better record against common opponents)? That sounds weird to me, but I'll take your word for it.

It sounds weird, but even the committee knows that the RPI on its own is a garbage rating system, but they are also. Playing the politics of sticking to a system where margin of victory is meaningless. The way that SOSis calculated based on opponents records and to a lesser extent the records of your opponents' opponents, it become very easy to "game the system" by avoiding the worst of the worst. In the minds of the committee, a wind against team 150 isn't much more valuable than a win against team 350, but in terms of RPI, there's a huge difference. The committee is more interested how you do against tourney caliber competition and how you've done away from home because that's what the tournament is made of. Top 50 is a rough approximation of tournament quality and top 100 is a rough estimate of "good" teams. The fact that Purdue is 4-3 vs the top 50 vs. 2-8 for Pitt is a really significant difference. That being said, both teams are very much on the bubble and things can change for either in a just a game or two. You can take everyone from the last four byes, to the next four out and throw them in a hat, because they're all really close. To really get yourself separated, you have to something like State did by winning consecutive road games against ranked teams. That kind of thing moves the needle for sure.

Either way, I wouldn't put too much stock into who's "in" or "out" on a daily basis and just root for the teams you want to see make it, because winning takes care of everything in the bubble game.

hurleyfor3
02-26-2015, 11:21 PM
I have a gift, and it is cynicism.

I thought that was mine too, but it turned out to be bombing job interviews.

Kedsy
02-27-2015, 12:02 AM
It sounds weird, but even the committee knows that the RPI on its own is a garbage rating system

If that's true, why don't they use a different one? There are plenty of good ones out there.

SCMatt33
02-27-2015, 12:33 AM
If that's true, why don't they use a different one? There are plenty of good ones out there.

There's some serious politics about not including margin of victory, which nearly all of the other systems do. Mainly, the NCAA does not want to appear to create an incentive to running up the score. Its the same reason that the BCS computers for years were not allowed to incorporate MOV on the football side. Not that it's a good argument, just the one they will always make.

bedeviled
02-27-2015, 02:55 AM
....after reviewing Purdue's and Pitt's sheets, is the rationale that Purdue has the edge because they owned Indiana....At first look, it did seem like Purdue got a boost from wins in the lower part of the top-50 segment (no wins against top-25) while Pitt faced some tougher competition. But, when I separated it out, I don't see much argument for Pitt in terms of quality competition as they still had a losing record against the lower part of the top-50.

If anything with regard to the "significant wins" view, I'd consider keeping an eye on the prospects of an ACC team replacing UCLA. While UCLA had a much better SOS overall, their results in top games fare unfavorably for them.



Purdue
Cincinnati
Iowa
LSU
UCLA
Miami
Pittsburgh


Record
19-9
19-9
18-10
20-8
17-12
18-10
19-10


Conference record
11-4
10-5
9-6
9-6
9-7
8-7
8-7


RPI rank
58
52
51
49
48
65
38


RPI SOS
81
59
27
103
14
79
35


vs RPI 1-10
0-2
0-0
1-2
0-1
1-4
1-1
0-2


vs RPI 11-25
0-0
3-1
1-2
1-0
0-2
0-3
1-3


vs RPI 26-50
4-1
2-3
2-2
2-3
1-1
1-1
1-2


vs RPI 51-100
4-3
1-2
3-3
6-1
4-3
4-1
3-1


vs RPI sub-100
11-5
13-3
11-1
11-3
11-2
12-4
14-2

akg4y
02-27-2015, 06:53 AM
At first look, it did seem like Purdue got a boost from wins in the lower part of the top-50 segment (no wins against top-25) while Pitt faced some tougher competition. But, when I separated it out, I don't see much argument for Pitt in terms of quality competition as they still had a losing record against the lower part of the top-50.

If anything with regard to the "significant wins" view, I'd consider keeping an eye on the prospects of an ACC team replacing UCLA. While UCLA had a much better SOS overall, their results in top games fare unfavorably for them.



Purdue
Cincinnati
Iowa
LSU
UCLA
Miami
Pittsburgh


Record
19-9
19-9
18-10
20-8
17-12
18-10
19-10


Conference record
11-4
10-5
9-6
9-6
9-7
8-7
8-7


RPI rank
58
52
51
49
48
65
38


RPI SOS
81
59
27
103
14
79
35


vs RPI 1-10
0-2
0-0
1-2
0-1
1-4
1-1
0-2


vs RPI 11-25
0-0
3-1
1-2
1-0
0-2
0-3
1-3


vs RPI 26-50
4-1
2-3
2-2
2-3
1-1
1-1
1-2


vs RPI 51-100
4-3
1-2
3-3
6-1
4-3
4-1
3-1


vs RPI sub-100
11-5
13-3
11-1
11-3
11-2
12-4
14-2



The one thing that gets lost in all of this sometimes is recent performance. Pitt has been playing much better of late and has 2 of their biggest wins in the past couple weeks.

Kedsy
02-27-2015, 11:06 AM
At first look, it did seem like Purdue got a boost from wins in the lower part of the top-50 segment (no wins against top-25) while Pitt faced some tougher competition. But, when I separated it out, I don't see much argument for Pitt in terms of quality competition as they still had a losing record against the lower part of the top-50.

If anything with regard to the "significant wins" view, I'd consider keeping an eye on the prospects of an ACC team replacing UCLA. While UCLA had a much better SOS overall, their results in top games fare unfavorably for them.

Thank you. I hear what you (and SCMatt33) are saying, and I suspect you're both right on the money.

But I also think if that's what the committee is doing then I'm going to join sagegrouse's "fools errand" club and sit there for awhile. What's the point in having a rating system if you're going to trump it with schedule strength? Especially since schedule strength makes up half the rating! Beyond that, what's the point in keeping a schedule strength number if you're going to trump it by looking at a tiny sample of games that make up a small fraction of the overall schedule? Pitt's "schedule strength" is #35. UCLA's is #14. But somehow Purdue's #81 schedule strength is better because they beat their arch-rival a couple of times? Or Cincinnati's #59 schedule is better because they beat five top 50 teams but lost to five teams worst than 50?

Also, if the RPI is such a flawed rating system that they don't want to rely on it, why are they relying on it to determine how many "top 50" teams you've beaten. Anyone who beat Pitt, or Old Dominion, or Buffalo got a "top 50 win," except if the committee doesn't really think those are top 50 teams then why give credit for beating them?

I get that RPI is an easy system to "game," but the bottom line is, if the rating system is poor, get a new one. If the schedule strength calculation is flawed, fix it. But don't say these are the metrics we use and then ignore them.

[/rant]

freshmanjs
02-27-2015, 05:05 PM
I get that RPI is an easy system to "game," but the bottom line is, if the rating system is poor, get a new one. If the schedule strength calculation is flawed, fix it. But don't say these are the metrics we use and then ignore them.

[/rant]

i don't think they ever said they choose the field by rpi

SCMatt33
02-27-2015, 05:25 PM
i don't think they ever said they choose the field by rpi

That's kind of Kedsy's point. Why are you going to spend the time coming up with a metric if you're only going to loosely use it. It's a good question. I know that Jay Bilas has asked that same question for years now without a good answer. In reality, everyone wants that perfect mix of qualitative and quantitative that is hard to produce. We've kind of now reached the point where you start asking the philosophical questions that come up in the "fool's errand" thread, so I won't get too far down that road here.

rasputin
02-27-2015, 05:25 PM
i don't think they ever said they choose the field by rpi

No, but they say that they do use it as a factor, which is silly, given that there are other metrics which are clearly superior. Until just recently (the loss at Storm-the-Court State), Kansas was ahead of Kentucky in the RPI.

SCMatt33
03-01-2015, 12:23 AM
Well the Zags losing definitely helps Dukes margin for error on the one line. All in all though, it was a terrible day for the ACC bubble. Not only did State and Miami lose, but some other teams, notably BYU and Boise State picked up huge wins.

Wahoo2000
03-01-2015, 12:52 AM
With Zags dropping one tonight, gotta think they're permanently out of the 1-seed mix. If I had to guess (at how it'll end up, not where we are now), I think it'll shake out like this:

Midwest:
1 - KY
2 - WISC
East:
1 - UVA or Duke (ACC tourney champ)
2 - Nova
South:
1 - UVA or Duke (ACC tourney champ)
2 - Kansas
West:
1 - AZ
2 - Gonzaga

If any of UVA, Duke, or AZ lose even once (aside from to each other vis a vis UVA-Duke) Nova sneaks in there. If 2 of those 3 lose games, WISC has a great shot at creeping up by winning out.

I'm assuming that if either of us (UVA/DUKE) fall off the 1-line, we'll stay in the east or south. I'd prefer avoiding KY for as long as possible.

SCMatt33
03-01-2015, 01:03 AM
West:
1 - AZ
2 - Gonzaga


I don't think Arizona is a one seed right now, even with that win tonight. All three of their losses are to teams not even close to the bubble. That's really going to hurt them in the committee room. I think that it will be interesting to compare the Zags with Arizona the rest of the way because if neither can climb up to a one seed, one of them is getting sent somewhere else. For Gonzaga, it would probably be a trip to the Midwest and a date with UK. For Zona, probably a trip to the South. Not having them on the one line also means that someone is having to travel west as a 1 seed.

Wahoo2000
03-01-2015, 01:08 AM
I don't think Arizona is a one seed right now, even with that win tonight. All three of their losses are to teams not even close to the bubble. That's really going to hurt them in the committee room. I think that it will be interesting to compare the Zags with Arizona the rest of the way because if neither can climb up to a one seed, one of them is getting sent somewhere else. For Gonzaga, it would probably be a trip to the Midwest and a date with UK. For Zona, probably a trip to the South. Not having them on the one line also means that someone is having to travel west as a 1 seed.

You're probably right. Nova's resume should clearly put them ahead of 'Zona, I just remember a handful of year when a west-coast based team got a 1 seed due seemingly mostly to geography. To put it differently, I don't think 'Zona DESERVES the 1 out west, but I think there's a strong chance they get it.

akg4y
03-01-2015, 01:11 AM
I don't think Arizona is a one seed right now, even with that win tonight. All three of their losses are to teams not even close to the bubble. That's really going to hurt them in the committee room. I think that it will be interesting to compare the Zags with Arizona the rest of the way because if neither can climb up to a one seed, one of them is getting sent somewhere else. For Gonzaga, it would probably be a trip to the Midwest and a date with UK. For Zona, probably a trip to the South. Not having them on the one line also means that someone is having to travel west as a 1 seed.

Counter argument to that is Arizona's best wins are against Gonzaga & Utah at home, and Utah on the road. Nova's best wins are against fringe top 25 teams, mostly at home.

I agree with the poster above, committee will look at Nova/Arizona as VERY similar and likely give Zona the nod as a #1 so they can play near their fans, and so Nova can play near their fans. Otherwise both will be playing far from home.

akg4y
03-01-2015, 01:13 AM
You're probably right. Nova's resume should clearly put them ahead of 'Zona, I just remember a handful of year when a west-coast based team got a 1 seed due seemingly mostly to geography. To put it differently, I don't think 'Zona DESERVES the 1 out west, but I think there's a strong chance they get it.

Personally, I think Zona deserves it. Big wins are more important than a few bad losses. 2 bad losses vs 3 is not a big deal.

For AZ the losses were a rivalry game vs AZ St, essentially a rivalry game against a decent UNLV team, and to a pretty good Ore St team.
Nova's losses were to a decent Seton Hall and good Gtown.

howardlander
03-01-2015, 11:39 AM
I'm assuming that if either of us (UVA/DUKE) fall off the 1-line, we'll stay in the east or south. I'd prefer avoiding KY for as long as possible.

I agree with not wanting to see UK. I think if Duke doesn't win out, they will be in the region with Kentucky. Of course, that depends on what other teams do, but I'm pretty convinced that the selection committee is going to want to see Duke/UK.

Howard

Kedsy
03-01-2015, 12:07 PM
I agree with not wanting to see UK. I think if Duke doesn't win out, they will be in the region with Kentucky. Of course, that depends on what other teams do, but I'm pretty convinced that the selection committee is going to want to see Duke/UK.


Somebody tell them they can see it in the Final Four. :p

Troublemaker
03-01-2015, 12:14 PM
I agree with not wanting to see UK. I think if Duke doesn't win out, they will be in the region with Kentucky. Of course, that depends on what other teams do, but I'm pretty convinced that the selection committee is going to want to see Duke/UK.

We have slightly more margin for error than that, I think.

Duke retains the 1 seed if we do either of these:

Beat Wake and UNC and make ACC Final
Beat Wake, lose to UNC, and win ACC Tournament


But yes, we need to keep it to 4 losses total. 5 losses and we'll be Kentucky's 2 seed, unless Villanova can pass UVA in the overall bracket rankings, in which case Villanova will be the East 1 seed and Duke will be their 2 seed. That's why even though I'm rooting against other 1 seed contenders, I'm ambivalent about rooting against Nova.

mr. synellinden
03-01-2015, 12:17 PM
Somebody tell them they can see it in the Final Four. :p

Yeah, I think the committee wants to see Duke - Kentucky in the final four or on Monday night. After kind of screwing number 5 Duke in 2013 by putting as as the number two with Louisville, I don't think that happens again unless we lose to Wake or in the first round of the ACC tournament. In that case, I think we will be a 1 seed (or at worst a two seed not in Kentucky's region) if we beat UNC and/or make it to the finals of the ACC tournament.

OldPhiKap
03-01-2015, 12:30 PM
We have slightly more margin for error than that, I think.

Duke retains the 1 seed if we do either of these:

Beat Wake and UNC and make ACC Final
Beat Wake, lose to UNC, and win ACC Tournament


But yes, we need to keep it to 4 losses total. 5 losses and we'll be Kentucky's 2 seed, unless Villanova can pass UVA in the overall bracket rankings, in which case Villanova will be the East 1 seed and Duke will be their 2 seed. That's why even though I'm rooting against other 1 seed contenders, I'm ambivalent about rooting against Nova.

If we beat Wake and then win at CH, I could see us being a #1 seed regardless of how far we go in the ACCT. Assuming UNC is still ranked next week, a win on the road there would make our case pretty strong when combined with the other road and neutral-site games. Plus we're probably opening the ACCT with a bubble team that won the day before, so even a loss there is not catastrophic. Could well be Miami or State as we sit here today.

Gotta beat Wake first, though.

Bluedog
03-01-2015, 12:34 PM
Yeah, I think the committee wants to see Duke - Kentucky in the final four or on Monday night. After kind of screwing number 5 Duke in 2013 by putting as as the number two with Louisville, I don't think that happens again unless we lose to Wake or in the first round of the ACC tournament. In that case, I think we will be a 1 seed (or at worst a two seed not in Kentucky's region) if we beat UNC and/or make it to the finals of the ACC tournament.

It's not about the committee wanting to (harm/help) Duke with a (tough/reasonable) Elite 8 matchup, it's simply based on GEOGRAPHY. Unfortunately, if UVa is #1 in the East and we're a 2, the closest location for us is the Midwest so that would be seen as our #1 preference despite it being with UK. (I think Cleveland is actually closer to Durham than Syracuse, so the "#1 and #2 seeds in a region can't be from the same conference" caveat would not theoretically even come into play if Duke is #5 overall to be placed).

So, really if we drop to a 2, we'd want Wisconsin to leapfrog us so they can get the pleasure of playing "close to home." (But that would mean we've picked up a loss or two that we shouldn't have, so obviously I'm not hoping for that). In this day and age, not much difference in travel time getting to Cleveland vs. Houston anyways... Seems stupid in my mind, but that's how they do it.

Wahoo2000
03-01-2015, 02:22 PM
Really looking at it again this morning - these things all seem SUPER-likely (as close to "locks" as it gets).

-KY will be #1 in the midwest

-Kansas, Wisc, and Gonzaga are nearly locked as 2s

-'Nova and UVA or Duke will be in the east.

-Zona/Zags will be 1/2 in the west - seems that Arizona's resume is CLOSE enough to Nova's (or Duke/UVA should they lose again) that the committee will place AZ 1 and Nova 2 to keep the teams MUCH closer to their respective fanbases.

-One of Duke/UVA will be #1 in the south (if Nova/Duke/Uva all have similar resumes, Nova #1 in east, best ACC team #1 in south, remaining ACC team #2 in east..... OR ACC could get East & South #1 seeds with Nova #2 in east)


So of the top 8 overall seeds, the spots "open" seem to be:

EAST - none (Nova and 1 ACC)
Midwest - 1 (KY is 1 seed)
South - 1 (ACC is 1 seed)
West - none (AZ 1, Zags 2) Minor miracle needed for Wisc or Nova/ACC to displace AZ, as I REALLY think with REMOTELY close resumes, they'll keep the west teams west, and the east teams east. Az a good bet to drop 1 more game max

Got to think those spots go to WISC and Kansas. I don't see either of those teams getting back to the 1-line. MAYBE Wisc if they win out and ALL of UVA/Duke/Nova greatly disappoint. Very unlikely though. If it shakes out that way, got to think Kan in the south, and Wisc in the midwest.


Summation:

Best guess says
East - Nova/ACC (order tbd)
South - #1 ACC, #2 Kansas
Midwest - #1 KY #2 Wisconsin
West - #1 Az #2 Zags

Kedsy
03-01-2015, 02:24 PM
It's not about the committee wanting to (harm/help) Duke with a (tough/reasonable) Elite 8 matchup, it's simply based on GEOGRAPHY.

If this is true, then why in 2012 was Kentucky placed in Atlanta when St. Louis was closer? Why in 2011 was Duke shipped out to Anaheim instead of to closer New Orleans, when Duke was ranked better than Pitt (who actually went to New Orleans) in RPI, AP poll, Pomeroy, and every other objective measure I'm aware of? Why in 2012 was Michigan State (slightly better RPI and slightly worse AP rank than UNC) sent to Phoenix while UNC got St. Louis, BUT Kansas (same exact situation: better RPI but worse AP rank than Missouri) got St. Louis while Missouri got sent to Phoenix?

Certainly geography plays a large role in this process, but it can't be the sole determining factor. In other words, I don't believe it's as black-and-white as some people make it out to be.

Wahoo2000
03-01-2015, 03:19 PM
If this is true, then why in 2012 was Kentucky placed in Atlanta when St. Louis was closer? Why in 2011 was Duke shipped out to Anaheim instead of to closer New Orleans, when Duke was ranked better than Pitt (who actually went to New Orleans) in RPI, AP poll, Pomeroy, and every other objective measure I'm aware of? Why in 2012 was Michigan State (slightly better RPI and slightly worse AP rank than UNC) sent to Phoenix while UNC got St. Louis, BUT Kansas (same exact situation: better RPI but worse AP rank than Missouri) got St. Louis while Missouri got sent to Phoenix?

Certainly geography plays a large role in this process, but it can't be the sole determining factor. In other words, I don't believe it's as black-and-white as some people make it out to be.

The difference there is negligible (St. Louis is only about 35 miles closer), so at first I assumed it was to make for a better "fit" among the other 1 seeds. But UNC was sent to St. Louis that year, which is a REAL head-scratcher because Chapel Hill is SO much closer to Atlanta. I don't actually believe the regions are assigned capriciously, so there's got to be some kind of reason. There's something we're missing here.... but I have NO idea what it is.

SCMatt33
03-01-2015, 03:54 PM
The difference there is negligible (St. Louis is only about 35 miles closer), so at first I assumed it was to make for a better "fit" among the other 1 seeds. But UNC was sent to St. Louis that year, which is a REAL head-scratcher because Chapel Hill is SO much closer to Atlanta. I don't actually believe the regions are assigned capriciously, so there's got to be some kind of reason. There's something we're missing here.... but I have NO idea what it is.

The placement is done strictly by the S-curve. So when the placed UK in 2012, it was done without any thought as to what would be better for the team's below. They felt that UK was better off in Atlanta so that's where they went. The same thing with Duke in 2011, Duke was the number 4 overall seed, and was thus placed in the last region available. Especially now that the entire S-curve is released, the committee is unlikely to change the bracket just to get Zona and Gonzaga out west. If both fall into the 5-8 range on the official seed list (which is finalized before placing anyone into the bracket), only one goes out west, and the last number one seed will be sent there. The same thing will happen with the sub regionals. Technically, Pittsburgh is a little closer to Charlottesville than Charlotte, but Charlotte is seen as a more natural fit and therefore most are predicting them to go there.

jhmoss1812
03-01-2015, 04:05 PM
The placement is done strictly by the S-curve. So when the placed UK in 2012, it was done without any thought as to what would be better for the team's below. They felt that UK was better off in Atlanta so that's where they went. The same thing with Duke in 2011, Duke was the number 4 overall seed, and was thus placed in the last region available. Especially now that the entire S-curve is released, the committee is unlikely to change the bracket just to get Zona and Gonzaga out west. If both fall into the 5-8 range on the official seed list (which is finalized before placing anyone into the bracket), only one goes out west, and the last number one seed will be sent there. The same thing will happen with the sub regionals. Technically, Pittsburgh is a little closer to Charlottesville than Charlotte, but Charlotte is seen as a more natural fit and therefore most are predicting them to go there.

I'm pretty sure it's done by driving distance. Charlotte is 273 miles from Charlottesville. Pittsburgh is 317.

Wahoo2000
03-01-2015, 04:11 PM
The placement is done strictly by the S-curve. So when the placed UK in 2012, it was done without any thought as to what would be better for the team's below. They felt that UK was better off in Atlanta so that's where they went. The same thing with Duke in 2011, Duke was the number 4 overall seed, and was thus placed in the last region available. Especially now that the entire S-curve is released, the committee is unlikely to change the bracket just to get Zona and Gonzaga out west. If both fall into the 5-8 range on the official seed list (which is finalized before placing anyone into the bracket), only one goes out west, and the last number one seed will be sent there. The same thing will happen with the sub regionals. Technically, Pittsburgh is a little closer to Charlottesville than Charlotte, but Charlotte is seen as a more natural fit and therefore most are predicting them to go there.


I guess this is what I'm trying to figure out then. What could be the reasoning for this?

BlueDevilBrowns
03-01-2015, 04:23 PM
I guess this is what I'm trying to figure out then. What could be the reasoning for this?

"Reasoning" and the Selection Committee very rarely go together.

That's the problem.

gurufrisbee
03-01-2015, 04:27 PM
Everyone who has been willing to be honest about the committee's process says geography is a huge factor. Gotta believe nothing short of both Arizona and the zags losing again will keep those two being the top two in the west. Kentucky is locked as their one and Kansas is a two. If nova wins out they get a one. The other one is duke or Virginia if one of them wins the ACC tourney and Wisconsin if neither does and the badgers win out. There actually is not a lot of mystery with the top eight so well defined already.

Bigger question is how much is the ACC gonna get screwed on the bubble. Best conference in america where going 8-8 is tougher than going 10-6 in any other conference except the big 12 but it looks like all five bubble teams will possibly get shut out.

howardlander
03-01-2015, 05:20 PM
The placement is done strictly by the S-curve. So when the placed UK in 2012, it was done without any thought as to what would be better for the team's below. They felt that UK was better off in Atlanta so that's where they went. The same thing with Duke in 2011, Duke was the number 4 overall seed, and was thus placed in the last region available. Especially now that the entire S-curve is released, the committee is unlikely to change the bracket just to get Zona and Gonzaga out west. If both fall into the 5-8 range on the official seed list (which is finalized before placing anyone into the bracket), only one goes out west, and the last number one seed will be sent there. The same thing will happen with the sub regionals. Technically, Pittsburgh is a little closer to Charlottesville than Charlotte, but Charlotte is seen as a more natural fit and therefore most are predicting them to go there.

If the seeding is strictly by S-curve why was Duke in Louisville's region 2 years ago? As others have noted, geography is also very important.

Howard

freshmanjs
03-01-2015, 05:23 PM
If the seeding is strictly by S-curve why was Duke in Louisville's region 2 years ago? As others have noted, geography is also very important.

Howard

it's not done on an S curve. it's done in rank order by geography (at least that's what they say). so duke as #5, was placed in the closest regional site as the #2.

subzero02
03-01-2015, 05:34 PM
it's not done on an S curve. it's done in rank order by geography (at least that's what they say). so duke as #5, was placed in the closest regional site as the #2.



According to this seeding list from 2013, we should've been placed in the same region as Kansas if they strictly followed the S-curve.

http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/17/the-2013-ncaa-tournament-official-seed-list/

freshmanjs
03-01-2015, 05:36 PM
According to this seeding list from 2013, we should've been placed in the same region as Kansas if they strictly followed the S-curve.


http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/17/the-2013-ncaa-tournament-official-seed-list/

like i said, they don't seed on an s-curve. they seed in rank order by geography. we were placed in the closest regional available when they got to us.

Bluedog
03-01-2015, 05:39 PM
I guess this is what I'm trying to figure out then. What could be the reasoning for this?

The committee was asked this exact question when they placed UK in Atlanta and they said Atlanta was a clear geographic fit over St. Louis with the mileage difference being negligible. My googling is coming up blank coming up with the exact quote from the committee chair, but I remember him being asked right after the reveal. A mock selection ahead of time came to the same conclusion:
"During bracketing, we slotted Kentucky to the South Region because the mileage between difference between Lexington and St. Louis was minimal (STL was a little closer), and Atlanta is a natural region for UK. Those things are all taken into account."
http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/17/theres-no-perfect-bracket-but-its-not-for-lack-of-effort-on-ncaa-tournament-selection-committees-part/

As stated above, they place the teams one at a time without regard to the implications that may have to the next team. So, if it's only slightly better for the first #1 but that means the second #1 gets shipped much farther away, so be it. It's not trying to minimize the aggregate total travel, but give preference in order.

SCMatt33 was using the term "S-curve," but really just meant "rank list" to determine placements. Everything he said sounded right to me, but saying S-curve now is confusing because that implies that the strongest 1 gets the weakest 2. "Rank list" seems like a more appropriate term for what is done (note that the 3 and 4 seeds are used to "balance" the strength of a region, and a certain region could never get the "top" 1, 2, 3, AND 4 at the same time. The sum of those teams ranks must be within a certain threshold).

bob blue devil
03-01-2015, 05:45 PM
it's this time of year when people mistakenly take conference tournaments for granted for the better teams - among kentucky, uva, duke, villanova, arizona, wisconsin, gonzaga, and kansas we will see more than a couple of losses in the next two weeks! but there are too many permutations to really consider what happens if we get a typical level of chaos in the major conference tournaments.

my opinion on current order:
kentucky (1mw), uva (1e), duke (1s), arizona (1w), villanova (2e), wisconsin (2mw), kansas (2s), gonzaga (2w)

kentucky is locked, and i think uva is too - probably even if they lose 2 (3 loss uva is better than 2 loss 'nova, or 3 loss wisconsin, imo). duke is getting closer - 1 loss and very likely a 1 seed, 2 losses and things get squirrely. if duke loses 2, and two of 'nova, 'zona and wisconsin drop a game (which i see as probable) that 4th number one gets very interesting...

SCMatt33
03-01-2015, 05:47 PM
I'm pretty sure it's done by driving distance. Charlotte is 273 miles from Charlottesville. Pittsburgh is 317.

Those are pretty close overall, and I still imagine that UVA is flying to either location which has to come into play. They wouldn't do driving distance if the regions were 500 and 550 miles away right?


If the seeding is strictly by S-curve why was Duke in Louisville's region 2 years ago? As others have noted, geography is also very important.

Howard

So bracketing and seeding are two completely separate processes. I should probably say "seed list" instead of S-curve. The committee first chooses the 68 teams in the field. They then rank the teams in order from 1-68. This is the official seed list. Teams 1-4 get 1 seeds, 5-8 get 2-seeds and so on. At this point no one has been put into a bracket and geography has not yet been considered. The last thing the committee does, is put those teams into a bracket. They take the best one seed and place them in their most desired location. The second best one seed then get put in it's desired location among those still available, and so on. Once they get to lower seeds, conference affiliation comes into play as well. So if they rank both Gonzaga and Arizona between 5 and 8, they will both get 2 seeds and one will be shipped east. That ranking decision is made before geography is taken into account.

When their placing teams in the bracket, geography is then the only thing that matters. So if Wisconsin is the best two seed, they'll end up in the Midwest with UK, because it's their preferred geographic region. In the case of Duke in 2013, Indianapolis was the second closest region. Duke was 6 overall, and Miami already occupied the closest region. Duke was then placed in the closest available region, which unfortunately for Duke, had the best one seed. The only rule for competitive balance is that the sum of the top 4 seeds must be within 5 for all regions. In other words, the best one seed gets a value of 1, the worst gets a 4. The best 2 seed gets a 5, the worst and 8. This continues through the worst 4 seed getting a 16. If you add those numbers together for each region, the difference between the best and the worst must be within 5. This really doesn't prevent one region from being much harder or much easier than the rest. Takes these theoretical regions

1+5+12+13=31
2+6+11+16=35
3+7+10+15=35
4+8+9+14=35

Those regions meet the committee criteria, but the number one overall seed gets screwed with the best 2 seed in the elite 8 and the best 4 seed in the sweet 16.

So at the end of the day, geography has no affect on who will be a one or a two seed, but it will be everything for where those teams get sent.

bob blue devil
03-01-2015, 06:04 PM
structurally it distorts things - assume for the majority of teams, the west is the farthest region. so, the west is then likely to have a weaker than average #1 seed AND a weaker than average #2 seed. so, you are structurally advantaging weaker teams AND you are structurally favoring elite west region-based teams (who are more likely to end up in the west region).

the argument for geographic seeding is to favor the #2's with less travel, while the likelihood of a #1 meeting a #2 is not all that high... i suspect the analysis of the likelihood of a #1 meeting a #2 wasn't all that sophisticated (i mean, this comes from a group that uses the rpi to assess team quality) AND there is a trickle down that i bet they ignored altogether (yes, a #1 might not meet a #2 in the regional final, but a weaker #2 is less prone to making it to the regional final to begin with, which is another advantage for their #1). also, i wonder if they did any analysis of the benefit of the reduced travel (i.e. how do teams perform relative to expectations in the ncaa tourney based on geographic location)... i doubt they did much.

at any rate, it feels wrong and this season is likely to provide us another example of the bias at play (this year kentucky and uva are likely to be hurt, while 'zona and gonzaga have a good shot at being helped).

Kedsy
03-01-2015, 07:11 PM
The committee was asked this exact question when they placed UK in Atlanta and they said Atlanta was a clear geographic fit over St. Louis with the mileage difference being negligible. My googling is coming up blank coming up with the exact quote from the committee chair, but I remember him being asked right after the reveal. A mock selection ahead of time came to the same conclusion:
"During bracketing, we slotted Kentucky to the South Region because the mileage between difference between Lexington and St. Louis was minimal (STL was a little closer), and Atlanta is a natural region for UK. Those things are all taken into account."
http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/17/theres-no-perfect-bracket-but-its-not-for-lack-of-effort-on-ncaa-tournament-selection-committees-part/


When their placing teams in the bracket, geography is then the only thing that matters.

Aren't the committee public statement quoted by Bluedog and the statement by SCMatt33 inconsistent? Or, if not, then based on the quote can we fairly assume that "geography" and "number of miles" aren't equivalent? Isn't it possible then, that if when Duke's turn rolls around both Cleveland and Syracuse are available, the committee might send Duke to Syracuse because it's a more "natural" region and because the distance difference is only 75 miles, which is negligible if you're in an airplane?

Ultimately, doesn't it really mean the committee can do whatever it wants, so long as it can rationalize its decision?

Bluedog
03-01-2015, 08:24 PM
Aren't the committee public statement quoted by Bluedog and the statement by SCMatt33 inconsistent? Or, if not, then based on the quote can we fairly assume that "geography" and "number of miles" aren't equivalent? That's how I understand it. Miles is a factor, but if it's close and the committee sees one location being more "natural," then they can do what they want.


Isn't it possible then, that if when Duke's turn rolls around both Cleveland and Syracuse are available, the committee might send Duke to Syracuse because it's a more "natural" region and because the distance difference is only 75 miles, which is negligible if you're in an airplane? Yes, that's what I argued earlier in the thread, but I think it'd be a tougher argument than Atlanta is for Kentucky. Plus, it's likely UVa will be placed there ahead of us, so we wouldn't be able to be there too. Your point is valid, though -- it's subjective and the committee can do whatever it wants as long as they don't run afoul of any of the set rules. There are rules and then there are GUIDELINES.




Ultimately, doesn't it really mean the committee can do whatever it wants, so long as it can rationalize its decision?

Yep, as long as they don't break any of the set rules (e.g. teams meeting from same conference too early, the sum math of the top 4 seeds SCMatt33 outlined above, cannot move a team up/down more than 2 (3?) seed spots based on where it fell on the rank list, etc.)

SCMatt33
03-01-2015, 08:40 PM
In other bracket news, the ACC bubble has officially retuned to form, with all three teams losing this weekend barring a late miracle for Pitt. That Pitt-Miami game is starting to feel more like an elimination game now, and I still think the winner will need to make the ACC semis to feel safe. State has enough good wins that it just needs to avoid another bad loss before the Quarters. In Duke news, not that it will make a huge difference, but that plethora of top 50 wins is fading away. Both Stanford and Wofford have now dropped out of the top 50 and Pitt could potentially join them with a loss. Stanford is locked in a close battle with Oregon right now, and a win could jump them back in. If all three are out, Duke would be down to 8 top 50 wins after maxing out at 11. That's actually 2 fewer than Villanova. Like I said, it won't be a huge deal because the 8 remaining wins are really good with 4 or 5 of them being better than anything Nova has period. Still wish everyone wouldn't just implode like this.

Kedsy
03-01-2015, 08:57 PM
In Duke news, not that it will make a huge difference, but that plethora of top 50 wins is fading away. Both Stanford and Wofford have now dropped out of the top 50 and Pitt could potentially join them with a loss. Stanford is locked in a close battle with Oregon right now, and a win could jump them back in. If all three are out, Duke would be down to 8 top 50 wins after maxing out at 11. That's actually 2 fewer than Villanova. Like I said, it won't be a huge deal because the 8 remaining wins are really good with 4 or 5 of them being better than anything Nova has period. Still wish everyone wouldn't just implode like this.

I will beat my dead horse again and ask how anyone could justify using the RPI for determining top 50 wins but ignore the RPI for actually rating and comparing teams?

Wahoo2000
03-01-2015, 09:05 PM
After even MORE reading and research today, it looks like when the mileage is very close (i.e. Kentucky for St. Louis or Atlanta, and Virginia for Pittsburgh or Charlotte) they'll pick the better "fit". What does "fit" mean? That's what I've been working on figuring out. And the answer is relatively simple - the better "fit" is wherever the team's conference has a bigger footprint - For Kentucky, Atlanta is "SEC country", St. Louis not so much. For UVA - Charlotte is the heart of the ACC, and while Pitt has recently joined the conference, nobody is going to argue for Pittsburgh being an "ACC" town.

Still think this means seeding will end up like this:

EAST - ACC/Nova in some order
MIDWEST - KY 1, Wisc/Kansas (whichever is ranked higher among the 2s)
WEST - AZ 1, Zags 2
SOUTH - ACC 1, Lower rated of Kansas/Wisc 2

bob blue devil
03-01-2015, 09:15 PM
After even MORE reading and research today, it looks like when the mileage is very close (i.e. Kentucky for St. Louis or Atlanta, and Virginia for Pittsburgh or Charlotte) they'll pick the better "fit". What does "fit" mean? That's what I've been working on figuring out. And the answer is relatively simple - the better "fit" is wherever the team's conference has a bigger footprint - For Kentucky, Atlanta is "SEC country", St. Louis not so much. For UVA - Charlotte is the heart of the ACC, and while Pitt has recently joined the conference, nobody is going to argue for Pittsburgh being an "ACC" town.

Still think this means seeding will end up like this:

EAST - ACC/Nova in some order
MIDWEST - KY 1, Wisc/Kansas (whichever is ranked higher among the 2s)
WEST - AZ 1, Zags 2
SOUTH - ACC 1, Lower rated of Kansas/Wisc 2

i think the relevant locations for determining the regional selections are los angeles (west), houston (south), syracuse (east) and cleveland (midwest). so we get a lot of teams fighting for cleveland - too bad for kentucky that probably means they get a good #2.

SCMatt33
03-01-2015, 09:21 PM
EAST - ACC/Nova in some order
MIDWEST - KY 1, Wisc/Kansas (whichever is ranked higher among the 2s)
WEST - AZ 1, Zags 2
SOUTH - ACC 1, Lower rated of Kansas/Wisc 2

I still don't see Arizona as a 1 seed right now. They have 3 losses to teams not even on the bubble. No one else in the conversation has more than one. I personally think it's pretty clear that they won't get that one seed unless they are in the top 4 overall. In the past 5 tournaments (the only ones in which any current committee members have served) there has never been a year with 2 west coast teams (west of the Big 10/Big XII) occupying the top 2 seeds in the west. Twice, there were no west coast teams in that spot. They've been pretty consistent about sending them there, but only if it's earned. I just don't see good justification for Zona ahead of both Wisconson and Villanova right now. That obviously could change if Zona wins out and others slip, but I don't see how it's the default.

bob blue devil
03-01-2015, 09:32 PM
I still don't see Arizona as a 1 seed right now. They have 3 losses to teams not even on the bubble. No one else in the conversation has more than one. I personally think it's pretty clear that they won't get that one seed unless they are in the top 4 overall. In the past 5 tournaments (the only ones in which any current committee members have served) there has never been a year with 2 west coast teams (west of the Big 10/Big XII) occupying the top 2 seeds in the west. Twice, there were no west coast teams in that spot. They've been pretty consistent about sending them there, but only if it's earned. I just don't see good justification for Zona ahead of both Wisconson and Villanova right now. That obviously could change if Zona wins out and others slip, but I don't see how it's the default.

i agree it's debatable, but arizona has a few strong wins that wisconsin lacks (you've only commented on the losses), having beat gonzaga and utah twice. wisconsin's only top 25 level win was oklahoma in november. and there's a good chance arizona is going to be ranked #5 ahead of wisconsin this week. similar for villanova - only top 25 wins are vs. borderline butler (once providence and vcu leave top 25 this week).

TexHawk
03-01-2015, 10:28 PM
For Kentucky, Atlanta is "SEC country", St. Louis not so much.

I'm going to go ahead and LOL at this, since the SEC has a school within 100 miles of St. Louis. It's ok, I don't acknowledge them either. ;)

Back on topic, I believe UK went to the committee directly and told them they preferred Atlanta. I don't know how they accomplished that (carrier pigeon?), but they made their preference widely known.

Wahoo2000
03-02-2015, 08:38 AM
I'm going to go ahead and LOL at this, since the SEC has a school within 100 miles of St. Louis. It's ok, I don't acknowledge them either. ;)

Back on topic, I believe UK went to the committee directly and told them they preferred Atlanta. I don't know how they accomplished that (carrier pigeon?), but they made their preference widely known.

Disagree with this. Atlanta is at the HEART of the SEC country.

St Louis(SEC) is to Pittsburgh(ACC) as Atlants(SEC) is to Charlotte(ACC). Nobody would have ANY question about which between Charlotte and Pitt is more of an "ACC venue". I think the exact same could be said for STL/ATL for the SEC.

TexHawk
03-02-2015, 11:15 AM
Disagree with this. Atlanta is at the HEART of the SEC country.

St Louis(SEC) is to Pittsburgh(ACC) as Atlants(SEC) is to Charlotte(ACC). Nobody would have ANY question about which between Charlotte and Pitt is more of an "ACC venue". I think the exact same could be said for STL/ATL for the SEC.

It was a joke. I would run/swim/crawl 1000 miles to make fun of Missouri.

El_Diablo
03-02-2015, 04:10 PM
I'm going to go ahead and LOL at this, since the SEC has a school within 100 miles of St. Louis. It's ok, I don't acknowledge them either. ;)

Back on topic, I believe UK went to the committee directly and told them they preferred Atlanta. I don't know how they accomplished that (carrier pigeon?), but they made their preference widely known.

Missouri had not yet joined the SEC when this happened.

TexHawk
03-02-2015, 04:35 PM
Missouri had not yet joined the SEC when this happened.

Technically true, but they had accepted the invitation, just not soon enough to alter the 2012-13 hoops season. Those silly kids even held up "SEC" signs when they won the Big12 tournament that year. Very classy.

DukeinDC
03-02-2015, 06:38 PM
Apologies if this has been already covered - but with all caveats of having to beat them at some point - is anyone worried about the following scenario playing out given this geography/history matrix the committee seems to apply at all costs?

East: Syracuse
#1 UVA/Wisconsin
#2 Nova to Syracuse (long big east ties there)

West: LA
#1 Zona
#2 Zags to LA (regional)

South: Houston
#1 UVA/Wisconsin
#2 Kansas (big 12 ties to Texas)

Midwest: Cleveland
#1 Kentucky
#2 Duke (because everyone else on the #2 line has a stronger claim to a particular region)

Not to mention, as much as the committee claims not to look for story lines, a Duke-UK regional final is always an opportunity that will jump out.

freshmanjs
03-02-2015, 06:40 PM
Apologies if this has been already covered - but with all caveats of having to beat them at some point - is anyone worried about the following scenario playing out given this geography/history matrix the committee seems to apply at all costs?

East: Syracuse
#1 UVA/Wisconsin
#2 Nova to Syracuse (long big east ties there)

West: LA
#1 Zona
#2 Zags to LA (regional)

South: Houston
#1 UVA/Wisconsin
#2 Kansas (big 12 ties to Texas)

Midwest: Cleveland
#1 Kentucky
#2 Duke (because everyone else on the #2 line has a stronger claim to a particular region)

Not to mention, as much as the committee claims not to look for story lines, a Duke-UK regional final is always an opportunity that will jump out.

they do the placement in order without regard to impact on teams below. so, the only way duke ends up in midwest because it's better for everyone else is if we are #8. i think it's very unlikely that we end up #8.

we could end up in the midwest if the committee thinks that is the best geographical spot for us when our turn comes up. hopefully, they will realize that the east and south would be better geo fits. unfortunately, "because we want to avoid kentucky," will not be a reason the committee puts us somewhere other than midwest.

NYBri
03-02-2015, 06:47 PM
Apologies if this has been already covered - but with all caveats of having to beat them at some point - is anyone worried about the following scenario playing out given this geography/history matrix the committee seems to apply at all costs?

East: Syracuse
#1 UVA/Wisconsin
#2 Nova to Syracuse (long big east ties there)

West: LA
#1 Zona
#2 Zags to LA (regional)

South: Houston
#1 UVA/Wisconsin
#2 Kansas (big 12 ties to Texas)

Midwest: Cleveland
#1 Kentucky
#2 Duke (because everyone else on the #2 line has a stronger claim to a particular region)

Not to mention, as much as the committee claims not to look for story lines, a Duke-UK regional final is always an opportunity that will jump out.

What makes you think we aren't going to be a 1 seed?

bob blue devil
03-02-2015, 10:09 PM
they do the placement in order without regard to impact on teams below. so, the only way duke ends up in midwest because it's better for everyone else is if we are #8. i think it's very unlikely that we end up #8.

we could end up in the midwest if the committee thinks that is the best geographical spot for us when our turn comes up. hopefully, they will realize that the east and south would be better geo fits. unfortunately, "because we want to avoid kentucky," will not be a reason the committee puts us somewhere other than midwest.

does anyone know what the committee is likely to view as our geographic preference? cleveland is actually the closest, meaning we could end up with kentucky as a #5 seed (or 6). but east is our more natural (and historically our preferred region). i'd put south next, but houston is far from durham... this year is all wacky with the east in northern bfe and eastish cleveland claiming the midwest. i mean washington dc is equidistant between the east site and the midwest site - how messed up is that?

Wahoo2000
03-02-2015, 10:22 PM
does anyone know what the committee is likely to view as our geographic preference? cleveland is actually the closest, meaning we could end up with kentucky as a #5 seed (or 6). but east is our more natural (and historically our preferred region). i'd put south next, but houston is far from durham... this year is all wacky with the east in northern bfe and eastish cleveland claiming the midwest. i mean washington dc is equidistant between the east site and the midwest site - how messed up is that?

If I had to guess, I'd bet the committee would say best regions for Duke geographically in order would be:
1) East (Syracuse slightly farther than Cleveland, but big Duke fanbase in NY)
2) Midwest (MUCH, MUCH closer to Durham than Houston)
3) South (It's far, but not Anaheim-far)
4) West

I think you guys only get Kentucky and the midwest if you lose to UNC and again in the tourney, combined with AZ winning out, 'Nova losing in the BE title game, and Wisc dropping 1-2 more. This would put Duke on the 2 line behind Nova (who would take the East spot) and ahead of Wisc (only other 2 who would be placed by preference in the midwest).

I think ALL of those things happening are relatively remote. I could see you guys POSSIBLY falling to a 2, but to also have Nova slip PLUS Wisc slip AND the committee rank you between those two........ seems unlikely.

BlueDevilBrowns
03-04-2015, 10:35 PM
So with our win against Wake Forest tonight, I have to believe Duke has locked up at least a #2 seed even if we lose to UNC and also lose our Quarterfinal game in the ACCT.

I'd say our "magic number" is 3 at this point to secure a #1 seed - either lose to UNC but win the ACCT or defeat UNC and lose in the ACCT Final.

freshmanjs
03-04-2015, 10:42 PM
So with our win against Wake Forest tonight, I have to believe Duke has locked up at least a #2 seed even if we lose to UNC and also lose our Quarterfinal game in the ACCT.

I'd say our "magic number" is 3 at this point to secure a #1 seed - either lose to UNC but win the ACCT or defeat UNC and lose in the ACCT Final.

we have way more leeway than that. locked up a 2 seed before tonight. will be a #1 wih 4 losses, no matter who the 4th loss is too. have a chance to be a #1 with 5 losses.

BlueDevilBrowns
03-04-2015, 10:54 PM
we have way more leeway than that. locked up a 2 seed before tonight. will be a #1 wih 4 losses, no matter who the 4th loss is too. have a chance to be a #1 with 5 losses.

I agree partially.

What I meant to say was if we win 3 out of the 4 possible games remaining we'll secure a #1 seed, whatever combination that ends up being.

However, if we close the season losing 2 games in a row (i.e. @UNC and the first game in the ACCT) we would need massive help to still be a 1 seed, IMO.

SCMatt33
03-04-2015, 11:00 PM
we have way more leeway than that. locked up a 2 seed before tonight. will be a #1 wih 4 losses, no matter who the 4th loss is too. have a chance to be a #1 with 5 losses.

I'm not sure we have quite that much leeway, depending on what others do. I'm not sure what the committee will do, but I think there's a chance that a 2-loss Nova is seeded ahead of a 4 loss Duke, no matter where the 4th loss come. A three loss Wiscy or three loss Zona could also pass a 4 loss Duke, but I think that the loss would have to be in the ACC quarters. So there's a very good chance that a 4 loss Duke still gets a one seed, but I think that an ACC quarters loss makes it possible to drop to number 5 or 6 overall with only 4 losses.

As for 5 losses, I think that it would take at least 1 more loss from two out of Nova, Wiscy, and Zona. A 5th loss in the ACC quarters might also bring Kansas or even Gonzaga back into play for passing us should they win out.

Beating Carolina on Saturday in my mind would lock up a top 6 overall seed and that should be enough to keep Duke out of the Midwest as none of the teams that would be 5th overall would go to the South (Zona West, Wisconsin Midwest, and Nova East)

freshmanjs
03-04-2015, 11:01 PM
I'm not sure we have quite that much leeway, depending on what others do. I'm not sure what the committee will do, but I think there's a chance that a 2-loss Nova is seeded ahead of a 4 loss Duke, no matter where the 4th loss come. A three loss Wiscy or three loss Zona could also pass a 4 loss Duke, but I think that the loss would have to be in the ACC quarters. So there's a very good chance that a 4 loss Duke still gets a one seed, but I think that an ACC quarters loss makes it possible to drop to number 5 or 6 overall with only 4 losses.

As for 5 losses, I think that it would take at least 1 more loss from two out of Nova, Wiscy, and Zona. A 5th loss in the ACC quarters might also bring Kansas or even Gonzaga back into play for passing us should they win out.

Beating Carolina on Saturday in my mind would lock up a top 6 overall seed and that should be enough to keep Duke out of the Midwest as none of the teams that would be 5th overall would go to the South (Zona West, Wisconsin Midwest, and Nova East)

other teams will lose

NYBri
03-04-2015, 11:05 PM
Solution?

Keep winning.

yancem
03-10-2015, 11:35 PM
I think that I would take this bracket: http://espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology Of the likely 2 seeds I would prefer Gonzaga or Kansas and I would like to see KY have to play either Wisconsin or Arizona. Check and Check. I'm also fine with Utah and Iowa St. as the 3 and 4 seeds.

neemizzle
03-10-2015, 11:50 PM
I think that I would take this bracket: http://espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology Of the likely 2 seeds I would prefer Gonzaga or Kansas and I would like to see KY have to play either Wisconsin or Arizona. Check and Check. I'm also fine with Utah and Iowa St. as the 3 and 4 seeds.

I like this bracket. That Coastal Carolina/Gonzaga matchup would be interesting. If I remember correctly, they played UVa tough last year? At least a close 1st half I believe.

EDIT: I remember now. Coastal couldn't finish. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2001938-uva-vs-coastal-carolina-score-and-twitter-reaction-from-march-madness-2014

gurufrisbee
03-11-2015, 08:32 AM
I don't like Davidson as the 8 there. No #1 would want to see them in the 2nd round.

tux
03-11-2015, 09:00 AM
I think that I would take this bracket: http://espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology Of the likely 2 seeds I would prefer Gonzaga or Kansas and I would like to see KY have to play either Wisconsin or Arizona. Check and Check. I'm also fine with Utah and Iowa St. as the 3 and 4 seeds.


I actually think Kansas is a dangerous team. They've played the toughest schedule in the country and have a nice offense/defense balance, looking at the kenpom numbers. Of course, the only game I've seen Kansas play was against Kentucky... so, yeah...

(BTW: I enjoy thinking about kenpom's luck metric, which I take is a measure of the error in the model whereby a team with good "luck" performs better in games than their rating would suggest. I like to think of teams with good "luck" as having some intangibles (chemistry, leadership, etc.) that the model doesn't capture. Last year's Duke team finished with a luck rank of 255 (-0.35); right now, this year's squad is at 24 (+0.82).)

DukeinDC
03-11-2015, 10:13 AM
I don't like Davidson as the 8 there. No #1 would want to see them in the 2nd round.

Agreed. Between Charlotte location and their offensive oriented team with strong guard play and three point shooting ability, this would be a bit of a nightmare match up. And unfortunately, if we're in Charlotte with UVA in the first ("second") round, they'd definitely be our 8 seed since they played UVA (in a pretty close game no less) already. Too soon to stress over this though!

subzero02
03-11-2015, 11:20 AM
I don't mind that proposed region at all. I think a potential matchup with Davidson is preferable to one against St. John's, Ohio State or Georgia.

slower
03-13-2015, 09:51 PM
http://espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology has:

Wisconsin as Kentucky's #2, Kansas as Virginia's #2, Arizona as Villanova's #2, Gonzaga as Duke's #2 and UNC as our #4

gumbomoop
03-14-2015, 12:07 AM
Issue for Duke now is NCAAT seed. Selection Committee has difficult decision, especially if all 3 of Arizona, Villanova, and Wisconsin win their respective tourneys.

Body of work criteria strongly favors UVa and Duke. I think UVa is safely a 1, as they finished first in regular season. Duke's body of work argument depends principally on road wins at Wisconsin and UVa. Duke is less safe than UVa.

The bracketologists seem to have been in consensus before tonight's game that Duke was Houston 1-seed to Gonzaga's 2. I'm now convinced that if Wisconsin wins Big14 tourney, that they and Duke will be in Houston region; and it doesn't make a lot of difference who's 1, who's 2. Would set up a rematch. But if Wisconsin loses in its tourney, I'll guess they do wind up 2-seed in UK's bracket, which, too, sets up rematch from last season.

Troublemaker
03-14-2015, 12:34 AM
I just did some google mapping. (In truth, I had done this awhile ago, as I'm sure most of you have. Just double-checking, really.)

CIS to Quicken Loans Arena is 543 miles

CIS to Carrier Dome is 628 miles

I'm very nervous. Hopefully, if we drop to a 2 seed, the committee will consider the East to be Duke's natural region. I mean, we play in the Carrier Dome as part of conference play, afterall.

Wahoo2000
03-14-2015, 12:52 AM
I just did some google mapping. (In truth, I had done this awhile ago, as I'm sure most of you have. Just double-checking, really.)

CIS to Quicken Loans Arena is 543 miles

CIS to Carrier Dome is 628 miles

I'm very nervous. Hopefully, if we drop to a 2 seed, the committee will consider the East to be Duke's natural region. I mean, we play in the Carrier Dome as part of conference play, afterall.

I still think there's a shot that we end up on top of the 2-line as well. I'd say both UVa & Duke fans would hope to be placed in the east ahead of the midwest (I think Nova is a near lock for #1 in the east at this point).

freshmanjs
03-14-2015, 12:54 AM
I still think there's a shot that we end up on top of the 2-line as well. I'd say both UVa & Duke fans would hope to be placed in the east ahead of the midwest (I think Nova is a near lock for #1 in the east at this point).

how are they a near lock? if they lose tomorrow, i don't think they have any chance at a #1.

FerryFor50
03-14-2015, 01:00 AM
how are they a near lock? if they lose tomorrow, i don't think they have any chance at a #1.

Agreed. Big East is pretty much a mid-major conference these days.

People keep overlooking how many good wins Duke has. ND in ACC tourney was not ideal, but not a bad loss on paper. Plus Duke beat Wisc and UVA, who are their competition for last 2 #1 seeds. Only one more loss for Duke than Wisc and UVA so far.

Maybe Maryland does us a favor and takes out the Badgers? They owe us one after being such poop heads for so many years.

CoachJ10
03-14-2015, 01:03 AM
Issue for Duke now is NCAAT seed. Selection Committee has difficult decision, especially if all 3 of Arizona, Villanova, and Wisconsin win their respective tourneys.

Body of work criteria strongly favors UVa and Duke. I think UVa is safely a 1, as they finished first in regular season. Duke's body of work argument depends principally on road wins at Wisconsin and UVa. Duke is less safe than UVa.

The bracketologists seem to have been in consensus before tonight's game that Duke was Houston 1-seed to Gonzaga's 2. I'm now convinced that if Wisconsin wins Big14 tourney, that they and Duke will be in Houston region; and it doesn't make a lot of difference who's 1, who's 2. Would set up a rematch. But if Wisconsin loses in its tourney, I'll guess they do wind up 2-seed in UK's bracket, which, too, sets up rematch from last season.

Given how weak the PAC 10 was this year (and Arizona's bad losses), I don't think we should worry too much about them jumping us. Or UVA. Wisconsin looks good...but the Big Ten was down this year and Wisconsin beat no one of note out of conference. I think we might be sensitive due to tonight's tough loss. Our body of work is better than those two teams, regardless what happens tomorrow or Sunday.

Wahoo2000
03-14-2015, 01:04 AM
how are they a near lock? if they lose tomorrow, i don't think they have any chance at a #1.

Apologies - "lock" as in, I don't think they're losing to any other BE teams in a game that matters. I don't know what the "real" odds are, but I'd out them at about 95% to win the BE title.

AZ also VERY likely to win their title, and Wisc probably about a coinflip. (just my gut feelings, nothing concrete)

But hey, my "gut" had Duke as a very likely winner tonight, so WTF do I know? ummmm..... Go Maryland?

Troublemaker
03-14-2015, 01:07 AM
I still think there's a shot that we end up on top of the 2-line as well. I'd say both UVa & Duke fans would hope to be placed in the east ahead of the midwest (I think Nova is a near lock for #1 in the east at this point).

Oh, I think you guys are safe. 29-3, with one of those losses probably outright ignored by the committee because Anderson wasn't playing. They may even slightly discount the UNC loss because Anderson wasn't 100% yet.

gofurman
03-14-2015, 01:09 AM
Does UVA losing today help us now? Or w us losing tonight is UVA losing irrelevant? I think that UVA losing matters bc we still beat UVA (and Wisconsin and UNC etc on the road). So I think our semifinal loss still leaves us ahead of UVA. We have so many great wins (even crushing a good state team last night)

IE, I think UNC winning helped us as much as I hate to say it. It knicked our UVA competition. Agree?

Lunardi noted (before we played) that he had Duke as the second best team and UVA below us in ranking 1 seeds. Not sure what our loss did. But I don't think losing to Notre dame in a bad loss. They are top,12 or so

Troublemaker
03-14-2015, 01:14 AM
Tomorrow's Bracket Matrix will be very interesting to see.

We'll get a better sense of just how likely Nova, Wiscy, and Zona are to leapfrog the two ACC teams.

My guesses:

Nova can leapfrog both by winning out.
Wiscy - ditto.
Zona - nope.

So, if they all win out -- which one would think is unlikely -- the overall order could look like this:

1. UK, 2. Nova, 3. Wiscy, 4. UVA, 5. Duke, 6. Zona, 7. Kansas, 8. Gonzaga

Midwest - 1. UK, 2. Zaga
East - 1. Nova, 2. Duke
South - 1. Wiscy, 2. Kansas
West - 1. UVA, 2. Zona

That would be the best-case scenario if Duke falls to a 2 seed.

Troublemaker
03-14-2015, 01:16 AM
Does UVA losing today help us now? Or w us losing tonight is UVA losing irrelevant? I think that UVA losing matters bc we still beat UVA (and Wisconsin and UNC etc on the road). So I think our semifinal loss still leaves us ahead of UVA. We have so many great wins (even crushing a good state team last night)

IE, I think UNC winning helped us as much as I hate to say it. It knicked our UVA competition. Agree?

Lunardi noted (before we played) that he had Duke as the second best team and UVA below us in ranking 1 seeds. Not sure what our loss did. But I don't think losing to Notre dame in a bad loss. They are top,12 or so

UVA is ahead of Duke now. Lunardi has always had UVA ahead of Duke until UVA lost to UNC. Well, that lasted like 2.5 hrs. After Duke lost to ND, UVA is back to being ahead of Duke.

gumbomoop
03-14-2015, 02:02 AM
Nova can leapfrog both [UVa and Duke] by winning out.
Wiscy - ditto.
Zona - nope.

So, if they all win out -- which one would think is unlikely -- the overall order could look like this:

1. UK, 2. Nova, 3. Wiscy, 4. UVA, 5. Duke, 6. Zona, 7. Kansas, 8. Gonzaga

Midwest - 1. UK, 2. Zaga
East - 1. Nova, 2. Duke
South - 1. Wiscy, 2. Kansas
West - 1. UVA, 2. Zona

That would be the best-case scenario if Duke falls to a 2 seed.

I like the way you've set this up, but my guesses are different from yours.

I agree that your seedings would be the best for Duke if we fall to the 2-line. But I don't predict we'll get those seedlings if Nova and Wisconsin win out. If that happens, I'll guess:

MW -- 1. UK 2. Zags
E -- 1. UVA 2. Kansas
S -- 1. Wisconsin 2. Duke
W -- 1. Nova 2. Zona

Having said all this, it's possible that UVa might fall to the 2, while Duke stays a 1. It's also possible that no matter what happens Sat and Sun, that both Duke and UVa stay on the 1-line, because of body of work.

And I am absolutely convinced that UVa and Duke will each be placed in either East or South, and opposite UK's FF bracket. I think either the Zags or the Badgers, if on UK's side of bracket, can keep UK out of the NC.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-14-2015, 04:28 AM
http://espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology has:

Wisconsin as Kentucky's #2, Kansas as Virginia's #2, Arizona as Villanova's #2, Gonzaga as Duke's #2 and UNC as our #4

I'd be shocked.

neemizzle
03-14-2015, 05:42 AM
I like the way you've set this up, but my guesses are different from yours.

I agree that your seedings would be the best for Duke if we fall to the 2-line. But I don't predict we'll get those seedlings if Nova and Wisconsin win out. If that happens, I'll guess:

MW -- 1. UK 2. Zags
E -- 1. UVA 2. Kansas
S -- 1. Wisconsin 2. Duke
W -- 1. Nova 2. Zona

Having said all this, it's possible that UVa might fall to the 2, while Duke stays a 1. It's also possible that no matter what happens Sat and Sun, that both Duke and UVa stay on the 1-line, because of body of work.

And I am absolutely convinced that UVa and Duke will each be placed in either East or South, and opposite UK's FF bracket. I think either the Zags or the Badgers, if on UK's side of bracket, can keep UK out of the NC.

I agree with you completely. I'm on the side of the fence though that thinks that if UK gets a tough 8/9 seed, they'll get upset by that team. I have that gut feeling about them.

Troublemaker
03-14-2015, 10:08 AM
UVA is ahead of Duke now. Lunardi has always had UVA ahead of Duke until UVA lost to UNC. Well, that lasted like 2.5 hrs. After Duke lost to ND, UVA is back to being ahead of Duke.

I am wrong about this. Lunardi, to my surprise, has Duke as third #1 seed right now and UVA as the fourth #1 seed.

1 24 90
03-14-2015, 10:14 AM
Duke has the #1 Road/Neutral site RPI right now and I'm hoping that translates to a #1 seed. UVA #3, Villanova #6, Arizona #7, Wisconsin #10.

Duke's resume' is very impressive and I hope one loss to a quality team doesn't knock us off the 1 line.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rpi

JasonEvans
03-14-2015, 11:14 AM
A few comments...

I don't believe we blew a #1 seed. I can't imagine how we could be ranked behind Virginia given the poor way they have played of late and the uncertainty about what Anderson will be for them in the tourney. So, unless you think both Duke and Virginia are getting #2 seeds, then we are getting a #1.

Even if we are a #2, there is about a zero percent chance we end up as Kentucky's #2. Not gonna happen due to geographic preference. If we get a #2, we are going to be the top rated #2 seed. So, they will give us our preferred region -- the East or the South -- not send us to the MW with Kentucky. We only get sent to the MW with Kentucky if there are other #2 seeds ranked ahead of us who take the East and South first. Name who those teams would be.

I also think that Wisconsin, providing they can take care of business and win the Big Ten, will get a #1 seed. Why them instead of Villanova? Because doing that allows the committee to avoid putting a top #2 seed into Kentucky's bracket. If Wisconsin is a #2, geography will put them in the MW with Kentucky. But, if Wiscy is a #1 (shipped out West) then the #2 seeds naturally fall with Villanova getting the East (along with Virginia as a #1) and Arizona getting the West. Then, it is easy to put Gonzaga and Kansas into the MW with Kentucky and the South with Duke. No one complains and you don't have a stacked MW. Heck, I bet if you ask Nova if they would rather be out West as a #1 with Arizona as their #2 or East as a #2 with Virginia as their #1, they'd take the East in a heartbeat.

Alt scenario, Virginia falls to a #2, making Villanova #1 in the East, but I hardly see that as mattering much at all. The key to all this is giving Wisconsin a #1 so they avoid the MW with Kentucky. The rest of it just falls naturally at that point.

-Jason "Now, if Wisconsin loses the Big Ten tourney then this is all moot and the Badgers are all but assured of being Kentucky's #2 seed. But then it is their fault, not the committee's" Evans

gumbomoop
03-14-2015, 11:33 AM
Greg Shaheen, NCAA guy who knows how the Selection Committee works, just said on GameDay that last night's results opened up several different possible scenarios for the 1-2 seeds. I assume this means Wisconsin is moving toward a 1-seed. Lunardi continues to insist that Villanova is and will be a 1-seed. No one suggests Arizona will nip in to the 1-line. But the vibes are that Duke and UVa are now vying for the final 1-seed.

Which seems to mean:

W -- Wisconsin, Arizona
MW -- UK, Gonzaga
S -- UVa or Duke, Kansas
E -- Villanova, UVa or Duke [and probably Terps #3......]

ETA: Another edition of GameDay is on ESPN at noon. Don't know whether it's a continuation or a repeat.

Turk
03-14-2015, 01:11 PM
I think that once you get past the first round (or rounds), losses in the conference semis or finals don't matter that much because they aren't bad losses, and the teams are pretty settled here. So of the top 8 teams that can still move (excluding Kentucky, they aren't going anywhere):

Villanova - won't matter. Losing to Xavier, they'll still be a #1.
Arizona - won't matter. Win or lose vs. Oregon, they're still a #2.
Kansas - won't matter. Win or lose vs. Iowa St, they're still a #2.

To me, I don't see any bad losses to move off the current seed line. The only question is if Wisky beats Purdue and Maryland to get to 31-3, does that give them enough to be the fourth #1. If that happens, Duke could slip to the top #2 seed in the East region; that's the worst case. UVa would get credit for still winning (however ugly) without Anderson, and remain the 2nd or 3rd #1 seed; the unc loss doesn't hurt them. If UVa gets bumped to #2, then Duke gets the #1 seed in Houston.

But all this is worrying about one game out of about 35; it's just the most recent. My call is that Wisky can get no better than the top #2 even if they win out (and especially if they beat Michigan St, not Maryland), and no matter what happens, the #1s will be Kentucky, Villanova, and a coinflip for Duke and UVa as the third and fourth #1's.

CoachJ10
03-14-2015, 02:38 PM
Wisconsin was called for 5 fouls yesterday...and have 7 with 8 minutes to go today.

Its a lot easier to play defense when the refs dont put you in foul trouble. Ever.

If we were a #2, I'd rather play Wisconsin over Kansas or Gonzaga.

gumbomoop
03-15-2015, 11:24 AM
Ok, this is a Bracketology thread. Here are some of my own Bracketology preferences. I'd be interested in yours, not necessarily in response to mine [but feel free to question my sanity], but just to get a sense of how others are thinking about dangerous teams, non-Duke favorites, etc.

Preferences, not predictions:

1. 1-seed for Duke, preferably East, South ok, definitely not West
2. Duke on opposite side of FF bracket from UK
3. ND bracket other than UK, Duke, UVa - because I really like their play, would like to be able to root for them to go far, don't prefer to see them matched against Duke or UK before FF
4. Heels as 4-5-seed in UK's bracket - not so Heels can beat UK, but so UK can dump Heels
5. Davidson, Buffalo, Harvard not in Duke's region - like to see some of these 3 make second weekend
6. Wouldn't mind seeing Dayton or VCU as Duke's possible Sunday opponent - am interested in others' thoughts on possible Sunday opponents, who matches up well, not so well against Duke. Yes, I realize we shouldn't look past our very first game, but Bracketology is a game.
7. Gonzaga as UK's 2-seed - I think Zags are solid, with experience, height, shooters, smarts
8. Terps as 3-seed in UVa's region.
9. FF of Duke, ND, Gonzaga, winner of UVa/State in Elite 8

1 24 90
03-15-2015, 11:43 AM
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

This is too funny. Look at the 9 seed in Duke's bracket. Somebody messed up.

Because they will probably correct it - right now it says St. Francis of PA.

Also, I do not want Ohio State in Duke's 8/9 game if Duke is a 1 seed. Just don't want the stress.

NYBri
03-15-2015, 12:11 PM
Also, I do not want Ohio State in Duke's 8/9 game if Duke is a 1 seed. Just don't want the stress.

No such thing as a stress-free Big Dance.

freshmanjs
03-15-2015, 12:13 PM
No such thing as a stress-free Big Dance.

agree. any 8/9 will be capable of beating Duke, but none if we play our A game.

1 24 90
03-15-2015, 12:24 PM
No such thing as a stress-free Big Dance.

I should have said additional stress since I live in Columbus. Just let them concentrate on football.

Troublemaker
03-15-2015, 12:37 PM
Ok, this is a Bracketology thread. Here are some of my own Bracketology preferences. I'd be interested in yours, not necessarily in response to mine , but just to get a sense of how others are thinking about dangerous teams, non-Duke favorites, etc.

Preferences, not predictions:

1. 1-seed for Duke, preferably East, South ok, definitely not West
2. Duke on opposite side of FF bracket from UK
3. ND bracket other than UK, Duke, UVa - because I really like their play, would like to be able to root for them to go far, don't prefer to see them matched against Duke or UK before FF
4. Heels as 4-5-seed in UK's bracket - not so Heels can beat UK, but so UK can dump Heels
5. Davidson, Buffalo, Harvard not in Duke's region - like to see some of these 3 make second weekend
6. Wouldn't mind seeing Dayton or VCU as Duke's possible Sunday opponent - [B]am interested in others' thoughts on possible Sunday opponents, who matches up well, not so well against Duke. Yes, I realize we shouldn't look past our very first game, but Bracketology is a game.
7. Gonzaga as UK's 2-seed - I think Zags are solid, with experience, height, shooters, smarts
8. Terps as 3-seed in UVa's region.
9. FF of Duke, ND, Gonzaga, winner of UVa/State in Elite 8

I agree with most of your preferences, gumbo.

As far as possible Sunday opponents, I'd like to avoid Iowa as an 8/9 seed. Just a gut feeling on them. They're very experienced, they're sneaky athletic and can drive, and they have a stretch 4. They beat UNC in Chapel Hill earlier this season, and I just think they would give us a good game.

I'm mostly okay with other 8/9 possibilities. I'm just hoping to miss Iowa.

Oh, I should mention that they would be under-seeded as well. #24 KenPom translates to a 6-7 seed, not an 8-9 seed.

NSDukeFan
03-15-2015, 12:56 PM
Ok, this is a Bracketology thread. Here are some of my own Bracketology preferences. I'd be interested in yours, not necessarily in response to mine [but feel free to question my sanity], but just to get a sense of how others are thinking about dangerous teams, non-Duke favorites, etc.

Preferences, not predictions:

1. 1-seed for Duke, preferably East, South ok, definitely not West
2. Duke on opposite side of FF bracket from UK
3. ND bracket other than UK, Duke, UVa - because I really like their play, would like to be able to root for them to go far, don't prefer to see them matched against Duke or UK before FF
4. Heels as 4-5-seed in UK's bracket - not so Heels can beat UK, but so UK can dump Heels
5. Davidson, Buffalo, Harvard not in Duke's region - like to see some of these 3 make second weekend
6. Wouldn't mind seeing Dayton or VCU as Duke's possible Sunday opponent - am interested in others' thoughts on possible Sunday opponents, who matches up well, not so well against Duke. Yes, I realize we shouldn't look past our very first game, but Bracketology is a game.
7. Gonzaga as UK's 2-seed - I think Zags are solid, with experience, height, shooters, smarts
8. Terps as 3-seed in UVa's region.
9. FF of Duke, ND, Gonzaga, winner of UVa/State in Elite 8

Good list and things to discuss. I agree with #1, but don't feel strongly about #2. I certainly don't want to be in UK's region, and don't expect to. If Duke were to win a regional championship, I would be very happy and whether Duke had to play UK in the semis or the final would not be a huge deal. Also, there is so much basketball to be played before that point and it is unlikely enough that it wouldn't bother me in the least today, selection Sunday. I would prefer not to have Wisconsin, Virginia, UK, or Arizona in our bracket for down the road and hope that the Duke's first and second round matchups are not particularly underseeded or bad matchups. (I agree that if Duke plays well, it won't matter, but I would rather the team still advance, even if they don't play great.)

BlueDevilBrowns
03-15-2015, 12:59 PM
This year's Duke team isn't as dependent upon favorable matchups as some previous Duke teams.

Honestly, I believe we can defeat anyone as long as we bring our "A" game every night.

Our games vs. State and ND showed me that.

Having said that, I want Duke in the East or South as a 1 seed.

If we have to be a 2 seed, the East with Villanova would be ideal, as I believe Villanova is a ritch man's Davidson.

They're good, but not Elite 8 good.

Olympic Fan
03-15-2015, 01:08 PM
just a few points:

-- Virginia is NOT a No. 1 seed without a healthy, effective Justin Anderson. And while he did return to the lineup for the ACC Tournament, he was not effective -- in fact, he hurt the team by being out there (I'm convinced they beat UNC if he doesn't play down the stretch and kill them with his awful shooting). Maybe another week of practice makes him better, but can the committee count on that?

-- Even ignoring the Anderson situation, Duke's resume is better than Virginia. Duke has a better RPI, a better SOS, more top 25 wins, more top 50 wins and more top 100 wins. Plus, there's a head-to-head win in Charlottesville. There's no team in the country with the number of quality road wins as Duke has.

-- Several of you want to be in the opposite bracket to Kentucky. That's South or West. The Midwest (where Kentucky will certainly be) pays the East champion in the NCAA semifinals.

-- I'm predicting that Duke will be a No. 1 (probably in the South), Virginia will be No. 2 in the East (behind Villanova), Notre Dame will be a No. 3, UNC a No. 4 and Louisville a No. 6. I think NC State will be a No. 9 or No. 10. I don't think Miami makes it, but I'm holding out hope -- nobody thought NC State would make it a year ago. if the 'Canes do get in, they'll play in Dayton.

-- I think the battle for the last No,. 1 seed comes down to Arizona or Wisconsin (assuming Wisconsin wins today). It's a tough call -- they have a very similar profile, considering wins ... the difference is losses. All three Arizona losses were to teams outside the top 100. Wisconsin has two top 25 losses and one outside the top 100. Since the last no. 1 is in the West, it might make sense to give it to Arizona .... but I wouldn't be surprised if Wisky gets it. BTW, if Arizona does get a No. 1, then Gonzaga can stay in the West as a No. 2 -- I'd love to be the No. 3 in that region ... maybe Notre Dame?

Kedsy
03-15-2015, 01:09 PM
This year's Duke team isn't as dependent upon favorable matchups as some previous Duke teams.

Honestly, I believe we can defeat anyone as long as we bring our "A" game every night.

Our games vs. State and ND showed me that.

Having said that, I want Duke in the East or South as a 1 seed.

If we have to be a 2 seed, the East with Villanova would be ideal, as I believe Villanova is a ritch man's Davidson.

They're good, but not Elite 8 good.

I agree with all of this. My hope is that all of our opponents are good enough for the players to take them seriously and don't come out flat like we have in three of our four losses.

I also agree about Villanova. Would much rather play them than Arizona, Wisconsin, Virginia, or even Kansas. Probably Gonzaga too, because I'd be afraid Duke wouldn't take Gonzaga seriously enough.

Troublemaker
03-15-2015, 01:16 PM
-- Several of you want to be in the opposite bracket to Kentucky. That's South or West. The Midwest (where Kentucky will certainly be) pays the East champion in the NCAA semifinals.

They don't pre-determine Regional matchups anymore.

If Kentucky is overall #1 in the Midwest and Duke is overall #3 in the South, the two teams will be on opposite sides of the bracket.

Troublemaker
03-15-2015, 01:24 PM
They don't pre-determine Regional matchups anymore.

If Kentucky is overall #1 in the Midwest and Duke is overall #3 in the South, the two teams will be on opposite sides of the bracket.

Whoops, I gave a bad example that doesn't illustrate anything.

If Kentucky is overall #1 in the Midwest and Duke is overall #4 in the West, the two teams will be on the SAME side of the bracket, not on opposite.

The Midwest is not pre-paired with the East. They don't do that anymore.

jhmoss1812
03-15-2015, 01:48 PM
just a few points:

-- Virginia is NOT a No. 1 seed without a healthy, effective Justin Anderson. And while he did return to the lineup for the ACC Tournament, he was not effective -- in fact, he hurt the team by being out there (I'm convinced they beat UNC if he doesn't play down the stretch and kill them with his awful shooting). Maybe another week of practice makes him better, but can the committee count on that?

-- Even ignoring the Anderson situation, Duke's resume is better than Virginia. Duke has a better RPI, a better SOS, more top 25 wins, more top 50 wins and more top 100 wins. Plus, there's a head-to-head win in Charlottesville. There's no team in the country with the number of quality road wins as Duke has.

-- Several of you want to be in the opposite bracket to Kentucky. That's South or West. The Midwest (where Kentucky will certainly be) pays the East champion in the NCAA semifinals.

-- I'm predicting that Duke will be a No. 1 (probably in the South), Virginia will be No. 2 in the East (behind Villanova), Notre Dame will be a No. 3, UNC a No. 4 and Louisville a No. 6. I think NC State will be a No. 9 or No. 10. I don't think Miami makes it, but I'm holding out hope -- nobody thought NC State would make it a year ago. if the 'Canes do get in, they'll play in Dayton.

-- I think the battle for the last No,. 1 seed comes down to Arizona or Wisconsin (assuming Wisconsin wins today). It's a tough call -- they have a very similar profile, considering wins ... the difference is losses. All three Arizona losses were to teams outside the top 100. Wisconsin has two top 25 losses and one outside the top 100. Since the last no. 1 is in the West, it might make sense to give it to Arizona .... but I wouldn't be surprised if Wisky gets it. BTW, if Arizona does get a No. 1, then Gonzaga can stay in the West as a No. 2 -- I'd love to be the No. 3 in that region ... maybe Notre Dame?

UVA may not have a better resume than Duke but they still have a top 3 resume. Only UK and Duke have better wins and nobody but Kentucky has better losses. The reason UVA will get a 2 seed is because of Justin Anderson not because we don't have a 1-seed resume. We're 29-3 with our 3 losses to Duke, UNC and Louisville by a combined 12 points. We have 5 top 20 RPI wins, 4 on the road. Wisconsin doesn't have a single top 25 win on the road. They've only beaten 1 top 25 team period. However, Wisconsin will both get a 1-seed by virtue of winning both their regular season and tournament. UVA's resume is better than Wisconsin's in almost every facet you listed for Duke's resume being better than UVAs. The reality is that UVA is just not the same team as it has been earlier in the year and will get dropped to the 2-line because of it. But you can't convince me that Wisconsin has a better resume than UVA. IF you want to argue that they're playing better than UVA right now, that's fine.

Bob Green
03-15-2015, 01:49 PM
East plays South and West plays Midwest.

gumbomoop
03-15-2015, 02:23 PM
East plays South and West plays Midwest.

Probably, not yet definitely. As MakingTrouble said ^, region FF brackets no longer predetermined. UK (MW) will be paired with #4 1-seed. Right now, that appears to be Wisconsin in West. So, yes, right now it appears that it'll be E v. S and MW v. W, but that still assumes stuff we don't 100% know until Selection Show.

freshmanjs
03-15-2015, 02:43 PM
Ok, this is a Bracketology thread. Here are some of my own Bracketology preferences. I'd be interested in yours, not necessarily in response to mine [but feel free to question my sanity], but just to get a sense of how others are thinking about dangerous teams, non-Duke favorites, etc.

Preferences, not predictions:

1. 1-seed for Duke, preferably East, South ok, definitely not West
2. Duke on opposite side of FF bracket from UK
3. ND bracket other than UK, Duke, UVa - because I really like their play, would like to be able to root for them to go far, don't prefer to see them matched against Duke or UK before FF
4. Heels as 4-5-seed in UK's bracket - not so Heels can beat UK, but so UK can dump Heels
5. Davidson, Buffalo, Harvard not in Duke's region - like to see some of these 3 make second weekend
6. Wouldn't mind seeing Dayton or VCU as Duke's possible Sunday opponent - am interested in others' thoughts on possible Sunday opponents, who matches up well, not so well against Duke. Yes, I realize we shouldn't look past our very first game, but Bracketology is a game.
7. Gonzaga as UK's 2-seed - I think Zags are solid, with experience, height, shooters, smarts
8. Terps as 3-seed in UVa's region.
9. FF of Duke, ND, Gonzaga, winner of UVa/State in Elite 8

if we do get a #1, I think I'd prefer Kansas as the #2 over Gonzaga. Think there is a risk that our team's tendency to overlook certain opponents might surface vs. Gonzaga. Not so vs. Kansas, especially with the relationship Jah and Tyus built with Coach Self and the marquis status of the program. Both would be tough opponents obviously.

Troublemaker
03-15-2015, 02:55 PM
if we do get a #1, I think I'd prefer Kansas as the #2 over Gonzaga. Think there is a risk that our team's tendency to overlook certain opponents might surface vs. Gonzaga. Not so vs. Kansas, especially with the relationship Jah and Tyus built with Coach Self and the marquis status of the program. Both would be tough opponents obviously.

I agree. Additionally, Gonzaga as Duke's 2-seed very likely means Iowa St as Duke's 3-seed. Kansas would serve as a block on ISU if the Jayhawks were our 2-seed. (While theoretically possible to have KU as 2 and ISU as 3, it's unlikely.)

ISU is obviously a very dangerous spread-and-drive team that I'd hope to avoid as a 3.

Then again, Notre Dame would be a tricky 3 and so would Maryland for largely the same reasons.

I think a tricky 3 in Duke's bracket is very likely this season. And maybe that's a good omen. Baylor in 2010.

gumbomoop
03-15-2015, 03:30 PM
I agree. Additionally, Gonzaga as Duke's 2-seed very likely means Iowa St as Duke's 3-seed. Kansas would serve as a block on ISU if the Jayhawks were our 2-seed. (While theoretically possible to have KU as 2 and ISU as 3, it's unlikely.)

ISU is obviously a very dangerous spread-and-drive team that I'd hope to avoid as a 3.

Then again, Notre Dame would be a tricky 3 and so would Maryland for largely the same reasons.

I think a tricky 3 in Duke's bracket is very likely this season. And maybe that's a good omen. Baylor in 2010.

These are good points, Inside Bracketology stuff. Assuming Duke is 1-seed, I, too, prefer not to see Gonzaga as our 2, just because I think they're good. But I hadn't gone deep enough to think about the Kansas-ISU stuff. But if we get our "preferred" #2 in Kansas, that would also mean we couldn't get Baylor or Oklahoma in our region as our #3.

As I think about this aloud, the plethora of Big 12 teams around the 3-line makes the 3-seed to Kansas's 2 seem likely to be ND or Terps. I have been assuming the Terps are near-certain to be East 3-seed. But if so, and if Duke is South 1-seed, doesn't that portend ND as South 3-seed? Ugh.

So, still playing Bracketology Preference, do we prefer ND as our 3 or Gonzaga as our 2?

Help.

gumbomoop
03-15-2015, 03:38 PM
Obekpa suspended for 2 weeks.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-03-15/chris-obekpa-st-johns-ncaa-tournament-2015-suspended-suspension

St J now a "preferred" 8-9 seed in our region?

Troublemaker
03-15-2015, 03:39 PM
These are good points, Inside Bracketology stuff. Assuming Duke is 1-seed, I, too, prefer not to see Gonzaga as our 2, just because I think they're good. But I hadn't gone deep enough to think about the Kansas-ISU stuff. But if we get our "preferred" #2 in Kansas, that would also mean we couldn't get Baylor or Oklahoma in our region as our #3.

As I think about this aloud, the plethora of Big 12 teams around the 3-line makes the 3-seed to Kansas's 2 seem likely to be ND or Terps. I have been assuming the Terps are near-certain to be East 3-seed. But if so, and if Duke is South 1-seed, doesn't that portend ND as South 3-seed? Ugh.

So, still playing Bracketology Preference, do we prefer ND as our 3 or Gonzaga as our 2?

Help.

I'm hoping for Kansas / Maryland as the 2 / 3. But I think it'll be Gonzaga / ISU.

Basically, to me, it's about 3-seed preference. I dislike having any of ISU, ND, or Maryland as the 3-seed, but if forced to choose, I would choose Terps, then ND, then ISU last.

Unfortunately, like I said, I think it'll be Gonzaga / ISU.

hurleyfor3
03-15-2015, 05:52 PM
Vanity of vanities, all things are vanity --Ecclesiastes