MBB: NCAA Seeding, Bubble Talk, Bracketing, etc Collector Thread

[Troublemaker]

Yesterday and today, the NCAA held its Mock Selection where media members gathered in Indianapolis to simulate creating an NCAA bracket in the manner the actual Selection Committee will do it (http://newsok.com/article/5478456).

Here's the final Seed List they created (Duke #23 overall):

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbCX7ChWwAMQLDl.jpg


Here's the final Bracket they created (Duke 6 seed in the East):

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbCRtNiUcAAl_co.jpg

[Troublemaker]

8 ACC teams were selected:

2-seed UVA in East
2-seed UNC in South
4-seed Miami in Midwest
6-seed Notre Dame in West
6-seed Duke in East
7-seed Pittsburgh in Midwest
9-seed Syracuse in Midwest
9-seed FSU in West

No Clemson.

Also:

Jon RothsteinVerified account ‏@JonRothstein (https://twitter.com/JonRothstein) 23h23 hours ago (https://twitter.com/JonRothstein/status/697881812840747008)
Syracuse will be evaluated for the NCAA Tournament based on what it will have shown under Jim Boeheim, per the NCAA. #MockSelection (https://twitter.com/hashtag/MockSelection?src=hash)

That's huge for Syracuse, who struggled without their coach.

[Troublemaker]

Here's what that final bracket looks like when actually bracketed:

East

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbCVQy8WIAAfllD.jpg

South:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbCVkOOWcAQgEn7.jpg

Midwest:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbCUnA-WEAAG6vj.jpg

West:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbCVAI1WIAAk8pY.jpg

[CDu]

8 ACC teams were selected:

2-seed UVA in East
2-seed UNC in South
4-seed Miami in Midwest
6-seed Notre Dame in West
6-seed Duke in East
7-seed Pittsburgh in Midwest
9-seed Syracuse in Midwest
9-seed FSU in West

No Clemson.

Also:

Jon RothsteinVerified account ‏@JonRothstein (https://twitter.com/JonRothstein) 23h23 hours ago (https://twitter.com/JonRothstein/status/697881812840747008)
Syracuse will be evaluated for the NCAA Tournament based on what it will have shown under Jim Boeheim, per the NCAA. #MockSelection (https://twitter.com/hashtag/MockSelection?src=hash)

That's huge for Syracuse, who struggled without their coach.

I have a feeling that FSU will find their way out of the tourney field when all is said and done. They have a tough back end of the schedule. @Miami, @Duke, and vs Syracuse and Notre Dame at home could very well put them at 10 losses in the ACC. And then they still have to go Va Tech and play Ga Tech at home. For a team that is 2-6 against the top-50 (just 5-8 against the top-100), that's not a promising situation.

I'm also not sure I buy Pitt as a 7-seed. They haven't done much yet (1-3 vs top-25, 3-4 vs top-50) and they finish with four likely losses (Duke, @UNC, @Syracuse, Louisville) in their last 7. And their other 3 games (@both Techs, Wake) aren't gimmes. They could easily end up under .500 in conference.

Clemson has a nice end of their schedule, but they've gone just 6-7 against the top-100 and they have 3 losses outside the top-100 (two outside the top-150). That's awful. yes, they have a 6-6 record against the top-50 (2-3 against the top-25), but that is a LOT to overcome. And they have really struggled away from "home", going just 3-7. They very much fit the mold of a team that could miss the tourney at 11-7, and 11-7 is almost a best-case scenario for them right now (it assumes only one loss among the games against Ga Tech (home and away) and at State).

My guess is we get 6 or 7 teams in (would be 7 or 8 with Louisville), with one of Clemson, FSU, and Pitt getting in. I just can't see rewarding those teams' awful out of conference schedules.

[JasonEvans]

Jon RothsteinVerified account ‏@JonRothstein (https://twitter.com/JonRothstein) 23h23 hours ago (https://twitter.com/JonRothstein/status/697881812840747008)
Syracuse will be evaluated for the NCAA Tournament based on what it will have shown under Jim Boeheim, per the NCAA. #MockSelection (https://twitter.com/hashtag/MockSelection?src=hash)

That's huge for Syracuse, who struggled without their coach.

I am really torn about this. On the one hand, I am very troubled that the NCAA selection committee is going to ignore sanctions put in place by the NCAA Committee on Infractions. Syracuse screwed up and Boeheim screwed up. They were penalized for it. For the selection committee to ignore it seems ridiculous.

But... if you ended up knocking Syr down a couple seeds (or more) for the team going 4-5 without Jimmy B, how fair is that to the teams they play in the tourney? If they were an 6 seed with JB and are instead given an 8 seed, isn't that really unfair to the 9 and the 1 who have to play a much better than expected #8 seed?

Does this mean that Syracuse is nowhere near the bubble? Take away that 4-5 stretch, which included a bad loss to St John, and Syracuse is a pretty darn impressive 13-3 with only losses to Wisconsin, UNC, and Virginia.

-Jason "I find this decision very confusing" Evans

[Olympic Fan]

That's not a bad snapshot -- as of today.

Obviously, a lot can change in the next month.

Duke's resume is pretty good at the moment (Feb. 12), despite its problems -- No. 19 in the RPI with a No. 26 SOS (that's going to climb as Duke finishes up with UNC twice, Virginia, Louisville an FSU).

Duke is actually weak on top-end wins -- 0-4 vs. the top 25, 2-5 vs. the top 50 and 7-6 vs. the top 100 (Duke has five wins against teams ranked 102 to 106, so that could change).

On the other hand, Duke has nothing like bad loss (losing at No. 83 Clemson is the worst). Very little chance to get a bad loss going forward -- BC is the only ACC team not in the top 150 and only a very small chance that Duke and Wake could meet in the early rounds of the ACC Tournament.

Still, Duke has seven games left in the ACC regular season -- two are likely wins (FSU and Wake at home) ... two are likely losses (at UNC and at Louisville) ... and three are real tossups (at Pitt and UNC, Virginia at home). The outcome of those seven games -- plus whatever happens in the ACC Tournament -- will have a huge impact on Duke's ultimate seed.

In addition, Jefferson will factor in. If he does not return by Selection Sunday, Duke will be judged on how the team has played without him. If he does return and play near his pre-injury level, to some degree Duke's struggles without him will be discounted.

That's why I think there is still a huge difference between Duke's possible best seed and possible worst seed.

PS I think the mock committee got Clemson and FSU right -- as of today. Both are close enough to the line to flipflop ... or to both end in the field ... or both end up missing the field.

PPS I apologize for using RPI. I know there are better measures (Pomeroy for one). But RPI is the tool the committee uses -- not so much to rank the teams but to measure their wins and losses.

[budwom]

a couple more wins and I think we're fine, then the NCAA can tell us where we're playing Maryland because I think that's inevitable. (not first round, of course).

[Troublemaker]

I am really torn about this. On the one hand, I am very troubled that the NCAA selection committee is going to ignore sanctions put in place by the NCAA Committee on Infractions. Syracuse screwed up and Boeheim screwed up. They were penalized for it. For the selection committee to ignore it seems ridiculous.

But... if you ended up knocking Syr down a couple seeds (or more) for the team going 4-5 without Jimmy B, how fair is that to the teams they play in the tourney? If they were an 6 seed with JB and are instead given an 8 seed, isn't that really unfair to the 9 and the 1 who have to play a much better than expected #8 seed?

Does this mean that Syracuse is nowhere near the bubble? Take away that 4-5 stretch, which included a bad loss to St John, and Syracuse is a pretty darn impressive 13-3 with only losses to Wisconsin, UNC, and Virginia.

This one's an easy call to me; the Selection Committee did the right thing. When you consider that Syracuse was punished in many different ways -- vacating of wins, loss of scholarships, fines, return of revenues earned, etc -- and that the biggest punishment of all is, imo, loss of reputation, then ignoring Syracuse's struggles this season when playing without Boeheim isn't a big deal. The committee is basically ignoring ~1% of Syracuse's overall punishment to ensure that no team in the NCAA field is "punished" by having to face an underseeded Cuse team. That seems sensible and fair to me.

[Troublemaker]

Still, Duke has seven games left in the ACC regular season -- two are likely wins (FSU and Wake at home) ... two are likely losses (at UNC and at Louisville) ... and three are real tossups (at Pitt and UNC, Virginia at home). The outcome of those seven games -- plus whatever happens in the ACC Tournament -- will have a huge impact on Duke's ultimate seed.

In addition, Jefferson will factor in. If he does not return by Selection Sunday, Duke will be judged on how the team has played without him. If he does return and play near his pre-injury level, to some degree Duke's struggles without him will be discounted.

That's why I think there is still a huge difference between Duke's possible best seed and possible worst seed.

Looking at Duke's path in that mock bracket, or the path of any of the 6 seeds really, I'm definitely hoping Duke can finish strong to get a higher seed.


a couple more wins and I think we're fine, then the NCAA can tell us where we're playing Maryland because I think that's inevitable. (not first round, of course).

I can definitely envision Duke improving to a 3 seed and being bracketed with Maryland as a 2 seed in any of the non-West regions.

[BandAlum83]

Am I wrong and totally in denial to think we will get Amile back soon, win out, get #1 seed in ACC tourney, win it and be on the bubble for a #1 seed in the NCAA tourney?

Sending positive thoughts out to the blogosphere...

[Troublemaker]

Am I wrong and totally in denial to think we will get Amile back soon, win out, get #1 seed in ACC tourney, win it and be on the bubble for a #1 seed in the NCAA tourney?

Sending positive thoughts out to the blogosphere...

If Duke wins out, we would likely challenge for the overall #1 seed, considering the slate of opponents we'd have to conquer to win out and how the committee would HAVE to ignore all the non-Amile games.

You're not crazy. I've thought about it.

But settle down, my friend. Let's see if our team can beat a very good UVA team at home tomorrow first.

[BandAlum83]

It's a thought I take one game at a time!

And auto correct got me, I was actually sending positive thoughts to the HOOPOSPHERE. :)

[Troublemaker]

Duke is up to a 4 seed now in the latest Bracket Matrix (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/) (2/22/16, 9:07am) as of the time of this post, with a few giving us a 3 seed and a few giving us a 5 seed as well.

If Duke manages to win the last four games of the regular season, I think we'll be contending for a 2 seed at that point. Note that UNC is a 2 seed right now, and Duke has a chance to sweep them.

The ACC has 7 teams in, with Cuse and Pitt being seeded the lowest as 9 seeds. FSU has "Next 4 out" status and Clemson doesn't even have that as of now.

[moonpie23]

unc is 3.9 secs away from the 1-line if uva loses...

[Olympic Fan]

unc is 3.9 secs away from the 1-line if uva loses...

Lunardi said that if Virginia were to lose (and they did) then UNC is back on the one line.

But to stay there, the Cheats have to win Sunday in Charlottesville.

Don't worry about it ... it's all in flux.

[BD80]

Kind of interesting: looks like this regular season, Duke will have played the regular season champions of:

The ACC (W)
The BIG 10/11/14/whatever (W)
The SEC (L)
The Pac 12 (L)
The Ivy League (W)
The Atlantic 10 (W)

and Buffalo still has a shot in the Mid-American

[SCMatt33]

So is Georgia tech a bubble team all of a sudden? I saw a Tech fan post online asking this and laughed, but the numbers seem to support it. They're quietly on a 4 game win streak and can still get to 9-9 in the league. That would take a huge effort, as they have to win at Louisville plus home against Pitt to do it, but if they somehow make that happen, plus avoid a bad Wednesday loss in the ACCT, they'll enter selection Sunday with good wins against UVA, ND, and Louisville. They'd have bubble wins over FSU, Pitt, and VCU. They're only awful loss is to ETSU, plus meh losses against Georgia and Va Tech. They're computer number have them in the low 70's for rpi at the moment and low 60's for KenPom, but if they're winning out like they need to, those numbers should get a 10 spot bump at least into a more palatable range for the committee. They'd also be at only 13 total losses, which is well within at large range (14 is quite rare for a bid, but has been done). I fully expect them to lose on Tuesday and that will be the end of that, but I'm shocked that I'm writing a not ridiculous post about GTech and the bubble at all. At the very least, avoiding 3 straight losses could get them to the NIT.

[Troublemaker]

I agree with you. If GaTech wins out and finishes 19-12 (9-9), they will be on the bubble. Winning at Louisville would serve as the signature win on the NCAA resume. Let's see if they can do it.

[budwom]

watching the Hole game on DVR last night, I got a kick out of ESPN several times showing the standings of the ACC top four...they showed
UVA in fourth place at 10-5, but Duke (same record, and a win over UVA) no place to be found....they excel at this kind of stuff.

[gurufrisbee]

If Cuse is being judged on just their Boeheim games, does Duke get judged on just our games with Amile and Matt healthy if they both are healthy in the next two weeks? There is a very legitimate case to be made that fully healthy we would have, at most, 2 losses - which would have us ranked #1 in the nation.

[CDu]

If Cuse is being judged on just their Boeheim games, does Duke get judged on just our games with Amile and Matt healthy if they both are healthy in the next two weeks? There is a very legitimate case to be made that fully healthy we would have, at most, 2 losses - which would have us ranked #1 in the nation.

At this point, I am no longer convinced that Jefferson is coming back. But even if he does, I am not sure we will get much bump in seeding. Our resume with Jefferson isn't at all impressive. The committee doesn't give credit for hypotheticals.

[CDu]

Pitt stamping their ticket in this disappointing game.

[gurufrisbee]

At this point, I am no longer convinced that Jefferson is coming back. But even if he does, I am not sure we will get much bump in seeding. Our resume with Jefferson isn't at all impressive. The committee doesn't give credit for hypotheticals.

I've heard them say before that they have given credit for hypotheticals with injuries. But now Duke is at three games we've lost where it didn't matter who we had.

[CDu]

I've heard them say before that they have given credit for hypotheticals with injuries. But now Duke is at three games we've lost where it didn't matter who we had.

They are willing to throw out games played without a key player and only consider the resume with said player. They don't make any assumptions about what might have happened with said player.

Unfortunately, our resume with Jefferson just isn't that impressive.

[Olympic Fan]

Just to make it clear -- it's not cut and dried.

First, to get credit with the committee, the injured play must return and offer evidence that he's back in form before Selection Sunday. Duke got credit for Kelly in 2013 because he came back and played well .. same for Elton in 1998. No credit for Kyrie in 2011 ...

If Jefferson came back and played well before the selection were made -- even if it was just a game or two in the ACC Tournament, that would help, but they wouldn't say "throw out all the games without him" They would discount the losses without him to some degree ... but only to a degree.

So while his return could help bump our expected seeding up a line or so, it's not going to transform a No. 4 or 5 NCAA seed to a No. 1 or 2 seed.

[Troublemaker]

The latest Bracket Matrix (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/) was from yesterday morning, pre-Pitt game, timestamped 2/28/16 10:53am.

Duke was a solid 3 seed in the Matrix. The vast majority of the bracketeers had Duke as a 3 seed with a few disagreeing and giving us a 4 seed.

I think after the Pitt loss, we're now a high 4 seed. Clearly it's very important to beat Wake and then UNC on Senior Night. Beating UNC is its own reward, of course, especially when it completes a season sweep. However, if we DO manage to pull it off, I think we'll be in the high 3 seed, low 2 seed area for the NCAA tournament. Not bad, considering what we were thinking when Duke lost 3 consecutive games to fall to 3-3 in conference.

[CDu]

Just to make it clear -- it's not cut and dried.

First, to get credit with the committee, the injured play must return and offer evidence that he's back in form before Selection Sunday. Duke got credit for Kelly in 2013 because he came back and played well .. same for Elton in 1998. No credit for Kyrie in 2011 ...

If Jefferson came back and played well before the selection were made -- even if it was just a game or two in the ACC Tournament, that would help, but they wouldn't say "throw out all the games without him" They would discount the losses without him to some degree ... but only to a degree.

So while his return could help bump our expected seeding up a line or so, it's not going to transform a No. 4 or 5 NCAA seed to a No. 1 or 2 seed.

To add to what you said, the sooner Jefferson returns, the more likely his presence is to influence our seeding. If he returns before the UNC game and we win out (with what would likely be 4 wins against solid tourney teams) we could certainly sell the argument that our resume is that of a 2 seed with Jefferson. If he'd returned in time for the run of success we had prior to the Pitt debacle, that case would have been even stronger (and perhaps even an argument for a 1 seed). But the longer he's out, the less resume we'll have with Jefferson to support a higher seed.

So if, as Olympic presents, he's only back for a game or two in the ACCs, then there's very little resume to look at with Jefferson, so the argument to discount the games without Jefferson is more abstract and will gain less traction.

Basically, the committee will only discount so much. They won't discount well over half the season for a sample of 7-10 games, especially when those 7-10 games are mostly pre-season type games against nobodies.

[AIRFORCEDUKIE]

The latest Bracket Matrix (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/) was from yesterday morning, pre-Pitt game, timestamped 2/28/16 10:53am.

Duke was a solid 3 seed in the Matrix. The vast majority of the bracketeers had Duke as a 3 seed with a few disagreeing and giving us a 4 seed.

I think after the Pitt loss, we're now a high 4 seed. Clearly it's very important to beat Wake and then UNC on Senior Night. Beating UNC is its own reward, of course, especially when it completes a season sweep. However, if we DO manage to pull it off, I think we'll be in the high 3 seed, low 2 seed area for the NCAA tournament. Not bad, considering what we were thinking when Duke lost 3 consecutive games to fall to 3-3 in conference.

Being a 3 seed would be awesome, if we win out and perform well in the ACC Tourney I imagine thats not out of reach. Heck win the ACC Tourney and a 2 seed isn't out of reach. Its a pretty weak field this year anything can happen, snagging a 3 seed would make it that much easier.

[CDu]

Being a 3 seed would be awesome, if we win out and perform well in the ACC Tourney I imagine thats not out of reach. Heck win the ACC Tourney and a 2 seed isn't out of reach. Its a pretty weak field this year anything can happen, snagging a 3 seed would make it that much easier.

Having the tourney title game on Saturday should help (if we get there and win of course). The committee will then have all day Sunday with that championship on their minds. So if we win all the rest of our games, I think we would indeed be a 2 seed. We would in that scenario likely have the slight edge over all the other ACC teams (because that puts another loss or more on the ledgers of Miami and UVa, and it puts at least 2 more losses on UNC-CH's resume). I can't imagine the #1 team from the ACC not getting at least a 2 seed.

[Wander]

To add to what you said, the sooner Jefferson returns, the more likely his presence is to influence our seeding.

In theory yes, but I think we're past the point where it matters. We're favored to beat Wake and UNC even without Jefferson, so I don't know how the committee could justify giving us a bump if he returns for those two wins. And if we win the ACC tournament, like you just argued we could be a 2 seed anyway. No way to go higher than that regardless of what happens with Amile.

[CDu]

In theory yes, but I think we're past the point where it matters. We're favored to beat Wake and UNC even without Jefferson, so I don't know how the committee could justify giving us a bump if he returns for those two wins. And if we win the ACC tournament, like you just argued we could be a 2 seed anyway. No way to go higher than that regardless of what happens with Amile.

Yes, if we assume we'd win out with or without Jefferson, then his return won't matter for seeding.

[Olympic Fan]

Interesting dueling Bracketologists today (Feb. 29)

Joe Lunardi has UNC back on his one line, 48 hours after dropping them to a No. 2 seed after their loss to Virginia.

Jerry Palm has UNC as a No. 3 seed on his bracket:

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

FWIW, both guys have Duke as a No. 4 seed.

Not sure, since they keep changing guidelines, but I think Palm has a mistake -- he has No. 4 Duke lined up to play No. 5 Iowa in Des Moines.

My understanding is that in the first two rounds, the committee strives to prevent giving a worst-seeded team a homecourt advantage. I think it's a guideline (at least in my 2012 handbook), not a rule.

[brevity]

It's March and the media have informed me that I should start caring about college basketball now. Silly them; I've been caring for months now. I was just writing about Virginia's NCAA seeding in the ACC thread (along with their nemesis, Michigan State) and thought I might look at the bigger picture.

Today's Bracket Matrix (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/), combined with some common sense and geographic sensitivity, might place the 16 highest rated teams (as in the top 4 seeds for the Anaheim, Chicago, Louisville, and Philadelphia regions) as follows.

The first question is whether Kansas, currently the overall top seed, would rather go to Chicago (555 miles, arena to arena) or Louisville (548 miles). I try to picture a competent Selection Committee, which is a myth, looking at the other top seeded teams: Villanova, Virginia, and Oklahoma. Seems like Kansas would go to Chicago so that Villanova and Virginia get Philadelphia and Louisville.

Second: can Villanova play in Philadelphia? Wikipedia lists the host team as LaSalle, so... yes? Apparently. (http://www.vuhoops.com/2015/10/13/9520845/2016-ncaa-tournament-philly-regional-tickets-on-sale-now)

MIDWEST (Chicago)

1. Kansas
2. Michigan State
3. Utah
4. Duke

EAST (Philadelphia)

1. Villanova
2. Miami
3. West Virginia
4. Kentucky

SOUTH (Louisville)

1. Virginia
2. Xavier
3. Maryland
4. Iowa State

WEST (Anaheim)

1. Oklahoma
2. UNC
3. Oregon
4. Purdue

That was pretty easy. Each region gets an ACC team and a Big 12 team. The only problem I found was the 3/4 pairings of West Virginia/Kentucky and Maryland/Iowa State, and whether they should be assigned to Philadelphia or Louisville. It could go either way, but I went with the above because West Virginia rated slightly higher than Maryland, and I didn't see how Kentucky, as a 4 seed, automatically deserved to play in Louisville.

[TexHawk]

It's March and the media have informed me that I should start caring about college basketball now. Silly them; I've been caring for months now. I was just writing about Virginia's NCAA seeding in the ACC thread (along with their nemesis, Michigan State) and thought I might look at the bigger picture.

Today's Bracket Matrix (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/), combined with some common sense and geographic sensitivity, might place the 16 highest rated teams (as in the top 4 seeds for the Anaheim, Chicago, Louisville, and Philadelphia regions) as follows.

The first question is whether Kansas, currently the overall top seed, would rather go to Chicago (555 miles, arena to arena) or Louisville (548 miles). I try to picture a competent Selection Committee, which is a myth, looking at the other top seeded teams: Villanova, Virginia, and Oklahoma. Seems like Kansas would go to Chicago so that Villanova and Virginia get Philadelphia and Louisville.


In a vacuum, KU wants Chicago, no question. Very large alumni base there. But MSU is sitting out there as the possible #2, and despite the KU alumni, Sparty would have a fanbase advantage in Chicago (or at least nearing a push). Plus, they are really effing good, arguably the best #2 available (as of today). It's not playing #2 UCLA in California like KU had to do in 2007, but it's in the same ballpark.

May be moot, because MSU could win the Big10 Tournament and likely make it onto the #1 line.

[Wander]

In a vacuum, KU wants Chicago, no question. Very large alumni base there. But MSU is sitting out there as the possible #2, and despite the KU alumni, Sparty would have a fanbase advantage in Chicago (or at least nearing a push). Plus, they are really effing good, arguably the best #2 available (as of today). It's not playing #2 UCLA in California like KU had to do in 2007, but it's in the same ballpark.


Huh. I never realized this was such a strong possibility, but it would really be too bad to have them in the same region, as I think Kansas and Michigan State are the two best teams right now.

[jv001]

It's March and the media have informed me that I should start caring about college basketball now. Silly them; I've been caring for months now. I was just writing about Virginia's NCAA seeding in the ACC thread (along with their nemesis, Michigan State) and thought I might look at the bigger picture.

Today's Bracket Matrix (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/), combined with some common sense and geographic sensitivity, might place the 16 highest rated teams (as in the top 4 seeds for the Anaheim, Chicago, Louisville, and Philadelphia regions) as follows.

The first question is whether Kansas, currently the overall top seed, would rather go to Chicago (555 miles, arena to arena) or Louisville (548 miles). I try to picture a competent Selection Committee, which is a myth, looking at the other top seeded teams: Villanova, Virginia, and Oklahoma. Seems like Kansas would go to Chicago so that Villanova and Virginia get Philadelphia and Louisville.

Second: can Villanova play in Philadelphia? Wikipedia lists the host team as LaSalle, so... yes? Apparently. (http://www.vuhoops.com/2015/10/13/9520845/2016-ncaa-tournament-philly-regional-tickets-on-sale-now)

MIDWEST (Chicago)

1. Kansas
2. Michigan State
3. Utah
4. Duke

EAST (Philadelphia)

1. Villanova
2. Miami
3. West Virginia
4. Kentucky

SOUTH (Louisville)

1. Virginia
2. Xavier
3. Maryland
4. Iowa State

WEST (Anaheim)

1. Oklahoma
2. UNC
3. Oregon
4. Purdue

That was pretty easy. Each region gets an ACC team and a Big 12 team. The only problem I found was the 3/4 pairings of West Virginia/Kentucky and Maryland/Iowa State, and whether they should be assigned to Philadelphia or Louisville. It could go either way, but I went with the above because West Virginia rated slightly higher than Maryland, and I didn't see how Kentucky, as a 4 seed, automatically deserved to play in Louisville.

Wow, that Midwest region is loaded. I hope Duke lands elsewhere, maybe even the South region with Maryland. GoDuke!

[AIRFORCEDUKIE]

It's March and the media have informed me that I should start caring about college basketball now. Silly them; I've been caring for months now. I was just writing about Virginia's NCAA seeding in the ACC thread (along with their nemesis, Michigan State) and thought I might look at the bigger picture.

Today's Bracket Matrix (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/), combined with some common sense and geographic sensitivity, might place the 16 highest rated teams (as in the top 4 seeds for the Anaheim, Chicago, Louisville, and Philadelphia regions) as follows.

The first question is whether Kansas, currently the overall top seed, would rather go to Chicago (555 miles, arena to arena) or Louisville (548 miles). I try to picture a competent Selection Committee, which is a myth, looking at the other top seeded teams: Villanova, Virginia, and Oklahoma. Seems like Kansas would go to Chicago so that Villanova and Virginia get Philadelphia and Louisville.

Second: can Villanova play in Philadelphia? Wikipedia lists the host team as LaSalle, so... yes? Apparently. (http://www.vuhoops.com/2015/10/13/9520845/2016-ncaa-tournament-philly-regional-tickets-on-sale-now)

MIDWEST (Chicago)

1. Kansas
2. Michigan State
3. Utah
4. Duke

EAST (Philadelphia)

1. Villanova
2. Miami
3. West Virginia
4. Kentucky

SOUTH (Louisville)

1. Virginia
2. Xavier
3. Maryland
4. Iowa State

WEST (Anaheim)

1. Oklahoma
2. UNC
3. Oregon
4. Purdue

That was pretty easy. Each region gets an ACC team and a Big 12 team. The only problem I found was the 3/4 pairings of West Virginia/Kentucky and Maryland/Iowa State, and whether they should be assigned to Philadelphia or Louisville. It could go either way, but I went with the above because West Virginia rated slightly higher than Maryland, and I didn't see how Kentucky, as a 4 seed, automatically deserved to play in Louisville.


Miami would win that region, and UNCh would probably win theirs. That midwest region though is sick. And a Maryland vs Virginia matchup would be nuts.

[Indoor66]

Miami would win that region, and UNCh would probably win theirs.

Nah, unCheat can't put four together at that level of competition. :p:cool:

[SCMatt33]

Second: can Villanova play in Philadelphia? Wikipedia lists the host team as LaSalle, so... yes? Apparently. (http://www.vuhoops.com/2015/10/13/9520845/2016-ncaa-tournament-philly-regional-tickets-on-sale-now)

Since I didn't see this addressed already, I thought I'd confirm. The article you linked plus your instincts are correct. There are two ways to disqualify a team from playing at a particular location. First, a host school cannot play at a site where it is host, unless it's the first four or final four (i.e. Dayton last year or Butler in 2010). Second, a school cannot play at a venue in which it played more than three home games during the year. Villanova would normally play more than 3 home games at the Wells Fargo Center, but any time the NCAA tournament comes to town, they will purposefully play more games at their smaller on campus venue in order to qualify. Also note that the home game designator is an important qualification. Hypothetically, Duke could play a road game at UNCG, then three ACCT games Greensboro, and still be eligible to play NCAAT games there in the same year. They would have played more than three games there, but none were "home games"

[Olympic Fan]

Since I didn't see this addressed already, I thought I'd confirm. The article you linked plus your instincts are correct. There are two ways to disqualify a team from playing at a particular location. First, a host school cannot play at a site where it is host, unless it's the first four or final four (i.e. Dayton last year or Butler in 2010). Second, a school cannot play at a venue in which it played more than three home games during the year. Villanova would normally play more than 3 home games at the Wells Fargo Center, but any time the NCAA tournament comes to town, they will purposefully play more games at their smaller on campus venue in order to qualify. Also note that the home game designator is an important qualification. Hypothetically, Duke could play a road game at UNCG, then three ACCT games Greensboro, and still be eligible to play NCAAT games there in the same year. They would have played more than three games there, but none were "home games"

Good points, but a small quibble about Butler in 2010.

Pretty sure they NEVER play three games in the Lucas Oil facility (they play at Hinkle, one of the great on-campus facilities in college basketball ... as any fan of the film Hoosiers will confirm)

[BandAlum83]

Since I didn't see this addressed already, I thought I'd confirm. The article you linked plus your instincts are correct. There are two ways to disqualify a team from playing at a particular location. First, a host school cannot play at a site where it is host, unless it's the first four or final four (i.e. Dayton last year or Butler in 2010). Second, a school cannot play at a venue in which it played more than three home games during the year. Villanova would normally play more than 3 home games at the Wells Fargo Center, but any time the NCAA tournament comes to town, they will purposefully play more games at their smaller on campus venue in order to qualify. Also note that the home game designator is an important qualification. Hypothetically, Duke could play a road game at UNCG, then three ACCT games Greensboro, and still be eligible to play NCAAT games there in the same year. They would have played more than three games there, but none were "home games"

Is this true, even though the ACCT is also affectionately known as the Duke Invitational? ;)

[freshmanjs]

Good points, but a small quibble about Butler in 2010.

Pretty sure they NEVER play three games in the Lucas Oil facility (they play at Hinkle, one of the great on-campus facilities in college basketball ... as any fan of the film Hoosiers will confirm)

Butler WAS the host

[SCMatt33]

Butler WAS the host

Butler was technically co-host along with the horizon league, but yes, it was the host factor and not the home games factor that would have disqualified them had it been a regional. Bringing that up did remind me that often times, a conference is listed as the host, but all member teams ARE eligible to play there in that case (unless there is a school co-hosting). Going back to Greensboro, the ACC is often the host of these games, but it has clearly not affected Duke or UNC's ability to play there.

[Troublemaker]

Second: can Villanova play in Philadelphia? Wikipedia lists the host team as LaSalle, so... yes? Apparently. (http://www.vuhoops.com/2015/10/13/9520845/2016-ncaa-tournament-philly-regional-tickets-on-sale-now)


Since I didn't see this addressed already, I thought I'd confirm. The article you linked plus your instincts are correct. There are two ways to disqualify a team from playing at a particular location. First, a host school cannot play at a site where it is host, unless it's the first four or final four (i.e. Dayton last year or Butler in 2010). Second, a school cannot play at a venue in which it played more than three home games during the year.

Thanks for asking and answering, guys. The question had been bugging me for awhile but I'd been too lazy to research it. I knew that Nova played home games there every year but didn't realize that 3 games was the cutoff to qualify. Excellent info.

I'm going to still root for Duke to win out and get a 2 seed in the East. But man, that is quite a homecourt advantage for Villanova. It's not just that the crowd will be stacked for them, but that they'll have familiarity with shooting in the arena, may have practiced there several times a season along with playing several games a season there, know the game day routines of getting to the arena, know what the facilities offer, and they can sleep in their own bed, etc. -- basically all the other parts of homecourt advantage that don't get talked about.

Oh well, maybe they'll lose in the Round of 32 again.

[luburch]

Good points, but a small quibble about Butler in 2010.

Pretty sure they NEVER play three games in the Lucas Oil facility (they play at Hinkle, one of the great on-campus facilities in college basketball ... as any fan of the film Hoosiers will confirm)

This is correct. All of their home games are in Hinkle (which is very nice now that is has been renovated). They play one game in Bankers Life Fieldhouse (Pacers) each season as part of the Crossroads Classic.

[moonpie23]

ESPN calling for our early demise.... (http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/14888153/duke-blue-devils-teams-fade-tourney-espn-chalk)

[mo.st.dukie]

It's not that crazy. I think we'll definitely win the first game but with our short rotation that 2nd Round game off the quick turn around will be tough especially if it's against a bruising, physical team. We'll need the right matchup in that round to make it to the Sweet 16

[AIRFORCEDUKIE]

ESPN calling for our early demise... (http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/14888153/duke-blue-devils-teams-fade-tourney-espn-chalk)

I guess its a fair assessment, can't really argue with the Logic. Just have to hope we can prove it wrong. I am just looking forward to how ever far these guys can go. Its been a fun year watching them grow and adjust to adversity.

[Tripping William]

Over: Duke plays its first NCAAT game in Raleigh.

Under: Jim Carrey's chances in Dumb and Dumber (http://youtu.be/wGdhc9k07Ms).

Where does your money go?

[brevity]

Over: Duke plays its first NCAAT game in Raleigh.

Under: Jim Carrey's chances in Dumb and Dumber (http://youtu.be/wGdhc9k07Ms).

Where does your money go?

Stays in my pocket.

The opening weekend sites are Raleigh, Brooklyn, Providence, St. Louis, Des Moines, Oklahoma City, Denver, and Spokane. Good for the Big XII, bad for the ACC. Only six high seeded teams can lead pods in East Coast cities, and Bracket Matrix puts Duke 7th, behind Villanova, Virginia, Miami, UNC, West Virginia, and Maryland.

The top 16 teams I posted above might spend their first weekends as follows.

Brooklyn: Villanova, UNC
Denver: Utah, Purdue
Des Moines: Kansas, Iowa State
Oklahoma City: Oklahoma, Duke
Providence: West Virginia, Maryland
Raleigh: Virginia, Miami
Spokane: Oregon, Kentucky
St. Louis: Michigan State, Xavier

A lot can change, except Oregon in Spokane.

[TexHawk]

Des Moines: Kansas, Iowa State


I have to think that Indiana, as Big10 champ, gets into Des Moines over an Iowa State team that already has 9 losses (could have 11 before tournament starts). BracketMatrix has them both on the 4/5 fringe, but unless ISU goes on a run beating KU, and one of OU/WVU next weekend, not sure I see them being rewarded with a virtual home first weekend.

[Henderson]

I have to think that Indiana, as Big10 champ, gets into Des Moines over an Iowa State team that already has 9 losses (could have 11 before tournament starts). BracketMatrix has them both on the 4/5 fringe, but unless ISU goes on a run beating KU, and one of OU/WVU next weekend, not sure I see them being rewarded with a virtual home first weekend.

But if Indiana is to be rewarded for winning the Big 10 regular season, wouldn't St. Louis be the favored location for them? STL is only 225 miles from Bloomington; Des Moines is twice as far.

[brevity]

I have to think that Indiana, as Big10 champ, gets into Des Moines over an Iowa State team that already has 9 losses (could have 11 before tournament starts). BracketMatrix has them both on the 4/5 fringe, but unless ISU goes on a run beating KU, and one of OU/WVU next weekend, not sure I see them being rewarded with a virtual home first weekend.


But if Indiana is to be rewarded for winning the Big 10 regular season, wouldn't St. Louis be the favored location for them? STL is only 225 miles from Bloomington; Des Moines is twice as far.

At the time I posted those 16 teams from Bracket Matrix, Indiana was not among them. They are now, having swapped places with Purdue as a 4 seed.

The Selection Committee can do what they want, as they are allowed to live and breathe unchecked for some reason, but they should not be compelled to send a 4 seed (Indiana) to STL when a pair of 2 seeds (Michigan State and Xavier) would also want to go there. If winning the Big Ten regular season is such a big deal, then they should give Indiana a higher seed.

I shipped Duke to Oklahoma City for the same reason. Cold mathematics would not allow a place for them in Raleigh, Brooklyn, or Providence just yet. The 4 seeds at the time (Duke, Kentucky, Iowa State, Purdue) aren't really supposed to get what they want, but I put Iowa State in Des Moines because geographic sense seemed like a bigger priority than some loose hierarchy among teams on the same seed line. Also, I sent Kentucky to Spokane because it was funny.

[TexHawk]

At the time I posted those 16 teams from Bracket Matrix, Indiana was not among them. They are now, having swapped places with Purdue as a 4 seed.

The Selection Committee can do what they want, as they are allowed to live and breathe unchecked for some reason, but they should not be compelled to send a 4 seed (Indiana) to STL when a pair of 2 seeds (Michigan State and Xavier) would also want to go there. If winning the Big Ten regular season is such a big deal, then they should give Indiana a higher seed.

I shipped Duke to Oklahoma City for the same reason. Cold mathematics would not allow a place for them in Raleigh, Brooklyn, or Providence just yet. The 4 seeds at the time (Duke, Kentucky, Iowa State, Purdue) aren't really supposed to get what they want, but I put Iowa State in Des Moines because geographic sense seemed like a bigger priority than some loose hierarchy among teams on the same seed line. Also, I sent Kentucky to Spokane because it was funny.

1- I don't really think winning the Big10 should get you anything special, but it should get you ahead of the 5th (or 6th) place Big12 team. And I say that as a Big12 fan. As far as STL goes, Indiana is behind MSU/Xavier in just every metric outside of that conference title, including head-to-head with Sparty.
2- It's within the realm of possibility that Kentucky gets the #4 seed lined up to play in Louisville, correct? Would not want to be that #1.

[Olympic Fan]

Stays in my pocket.

The opening weekend sites are Raleigh, Brooklyn, Providence, St. Louis, Des Moines, Oklahoma City, Denver, and Spokane. Good for the Big XII, bad for the ACC. Only six high seeded teams can lead pods in East Coast cities, and Bracket Matrix puts Duke 7th, behind Villanova, Virginia, Miami, UNC, West Virginia, and Maryland.

The top 16 teams I posted above might spend their first weekends as follows.

Brooklyn: Villanova, UNCDenver: Utah, Purdue
Des Moines: Kansas, Iowa State
Oklahoma City: Oklahoma, Duke
Providence: West Virginia, Maryland
Raleigh: Virginia, MiamiSpokane: Oregon, Kentucky
St. Louis: Michigan State, Xavier

A lot can change, except Oregon in Spokane.

Very strange projection ... do you really think both Virginia and Miami are ahead of UNC in the bracket? That's what it would take to bump UNC out of Raleigh. It's possible, of course, but at the moment UNC has to be ahead of Miami in every metric except RPI (Miami is three spots higher) -- rankings (the best predictor of top seeds), Pomeroy, head-to-head.

Miami does present the committee with an interesting problem, since there are no sites near Miami. Raleigh is the closest geographically, but it is a VERY distant close. Guidelines for seeding suggest that the top seeds get the closest sites possible, but that's a guideline, not a rule. Does it really make much difference if Miami is in Raleigh of Brooklyn? It's not like a lot of their fans are going to make the drive to either place (and they can get cheaper flights to New York than RDU).

I would be very surprised if UNC and Virginia don't end up as the two top-seeded teams in Raleigh. Can Duke slip in? Maybe, but only by beating UNC Saturday then winning the ACC Tournament (or at the very, very least, bating UNC a third time in the semifinals). In other words -- not likely. But after our meltdowns in Greensboro in 2012 and Raleigh in 2014, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

[brevity]

Very strange projection ... do you really think both Virginia and Miami are ahead of UNC in the bracket? That's what it would take to bump UNC out of Raleigh. It's possible, of course, but at the moment UNC has to be ahead of Miami in every metric except RPI (Miami is three spots higher) -- rankings (the best predictor of top seeds), Pomeroy, head-to-head.

Miami does present the committee with an interesting problem, since there are no sites near Miami. Raleigh is the closest geographically, but it is a VERY distant close. Guidelines for seeding suggest that the top seeds get the closest sites possible, but that's a guideline, not a rule. Does it really make much difference if Miami is in Raleigh of Brooklyn? It's not like a lot of their fans are going to make the drive to either place (and they can get cheaper flights to New York than RDU).

I would be very surprised if UNC and Virginia don't end up as the two top-seeded teams in Raleigh. Can Duke slip in? Maybe, but only by beating UNC Saturday then winning the ACC Tournament (or at the very, very least, bating UNC a third time in the semifinals). In other words -- not likely. But after our meltdowns in Greensboro in 2012 and Raleigh in 2014, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

Bracket Matrix has Miami ahead of UNC among 2 seeds. In the absence of any definitive measure, it works. Was it hypocritical of me to prioritize Iowa State over Kentucky for Des Moines, but then not prioritize UNC over Miami for Raleigh? Yes, but the adjective I would use is hilarious.

Also, you started to voice the complaint I've been hinting at in this thread: the NCAA did a terrible job picking those 8 sites. Kansas has a general advantage of being centrally located, but check out their distance to 4 of those sites (arena to arena).

Des Moines (235 miles, about a 3.5 hour drive)
St. Louis (290 mi, 4.5 hr)
Oklahoma City (317 mi, 4.5 hr)
Denver (567 mi, 7.5 hr)

Compare to Michigan State:

St. Louis (489 mi, 7 hr)
Des Moines (538 mi, 7.5 hr)
Brooklyn (681 mi, 10 hr)
Raleigh (731 mi, 11.5 hr)

And Miami:

Raleigh (814 mi, 11.5 hr)
St. Louis (1223 mi, 17.5 hr)
Brooklyn (1290 mi, 18.5 hr)
Providence (1468 mi, 21 hr)

If you're wondering, Arizona would in theory be more screwed than Miami if they ascend to a 4 seed or better. Their closest site is Denver (896 mi, 12.5 hr). But I would point out that, in practice, Arizona has no competition for Denver, while Miami has quite a bit of competition for Raleigh.

If I had to guess what the Selection Committee would do? UNC gets Raleigh. Miami is going to Brooklyn or Providence, and it would still be a vastly better Selection Sunday than they got last year. (They found out their bubble had officially burst before the bracket was fully announced, when someone on the broadcast casually mentioned that North Florida was the field's only Sunshine State representative.)

[Troublemaker]

According to last night's Matrix (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/) (3/8/16 8:10pm), Syracuse is the last at-large team in the field right now.

I'll be rooting for them to beat Pitt today, mostly because I bet on them in the Wagering thread, but also because I didn't realize how on the bubble they are.

As an aside, it's really annoying that the Kenpom #11 team Wichita St is going to end up being a 10 seed. For non-power conference teams, the committee really needs to emphasize the computer ratings to seed them rather than the usual SOS methods, imo.

[Henderson]

1- I don't really think winning the Big10 should get you anything special ****

If there's a guy hanging out in front of your house, it might be Bob Knight.

[devildeac]

According to last night's Matrix (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/) (3/8/16 8:10pm), Syracuse is the last at-large team in the field right now.

I'll be rooting for them to beat Pitt today, mostly because I bet on them in the Wagering thread, but also because I didn't realize how on the bubble they are.

As an aside, it's really annoying that the Kenpom #11 team Wichita St is going to end up being a 10 seed. For non-power conference teams, the committee really needs to emphasize the computer ratings to seed them rather than the usual SOS methods, imo.

"We beat Duke, why shouldn't we get a bid?"

(spoken in my best Seethe Greenburg voice :o )

:rolleyes:

[Kedsy]

As an aside, it's really annoying that the Kenpom #11 team Wichita St is going to end up being a 10 seed. For non-power conference teams, the committee really needs to emphasize the computer ratings to seed them rather than the usual SOS methods, imo.

Maybe yes, maybe no. I have Pre-Tournament Pomeroy going back to 2009. Here are the top 10 (really 11) "underseeded" teams:



Year Team Seed Pomeroy "Pom seed" Underseeded by Results
2011 Utah State 12 16 4 8 64
2010 Utah State 12 20 5 7 64
2014 Tennessee 11 13 4 7 16
2011 Clemson 12 24 6 6 64
2013 Pittsburgh 8 7 2 6 64
2015 Texas 11 20 5 6 64
2010 BYU 7 7 2 5 32
2012 Memphis 8 9 3 5 64
2012 St. Louis 9 15 4 5 32
2013 St. Mary's 11 22 6 5 64
2013 Minnesota 11 23 6 5 32


Only 3 of the 11 exceeded seed expectation (2014 Tennessee, a #11 which beat a #6 and a #14, so really only one upset; 2012 St. Louis, a #9 which beat a #8 before losing in the next round; and Minnesota, a #11 which beat a #6 before losing in the next round). Seven of the 11 (64%) got knocked out in the first round.

So either these grossly underseeded teams represent some sort of Pomeroy anomaly, or seeding is so important that an underseeded team cannot generally overcome the hardship.

[gam7]

Joe Lunardi must be going to the Hair Club for Men during the off-season. I don't think it's a toupee. I miss trying to figure out what was happening with his hair from last year. He could stand to do a better job of shaving his stray ear hairs though.

[Wander]

This idea floating around of giving Syracuse extra credit for some of their losses coming without Boeheim is one of the dumbest ideas in many years. It would incredibly disappointing to see the committee cite that as a reason for including Syracuse.

[royalblue]

This idea floating around of giving Syracuse extra credit for some of their losses coming without Boeheim is one of the dumbest ideas in many years. It would incredibly disappointing to see the committee cite that as a reason for including Syracuse.

Yes if they do it could be argued it was an advantage not a punishment

[Troublemaker]

This idea floating around of giving Syracuse extra credit for some of their losses coming without Boeheim is one of the dumbest ideas in many years. It would incredibly disappointing to see the committee cite that as a reason for including Syracuse.

I'm of two minds about this.

For selection purposes, I agree that the Boheim-less games should NOT be discounted. If Syracuse misses the NCAAT because they struggled in non-Boeheim games, so be it; that's the price they pay for their misdeeds.

However, for seeding purposes -- that is, if it is decided that Cuse is in -- I think they should take Boeheim's suspension into account. Because, at that point, the thing that matters the most is for the committee to seed the teams as accurately as possible, given ALL available information about the 68 teams.

[Doria]

I totally agree with Troublemaker. It's ridiculous if they don't consider the full record for inclusion purposes, given that the games were missed due to sanctions. But it'd be, conversely, overly punitive to any early prospective tourney matchups if they were massively under seeded. (This isn't to say I necessarily think they will be--or even want them to be--not included in the field.)

[Wander]

I'm of two minds about this.

For selection purposes, I agree that the Boheim-less games should NOT be discounted. If Syracuse misses the NCAAT because they struggled in non-Boeheim games, so be it; that's the price they pay for their misdeeds.

However, for seeding purposes -- that is, if it is decided that Cuse is in -- I think they should take Boeheim's suspension into account. Because, at that point, the thing that matters the most is for the committee to seed the teams as accurately as possible, given ALL available information about the 68 teams.

I'm on board with this, Troublemaker. The only thing I'll add is that I'm not convinced at all Syracuse's losses had anything to do with Boeheim not being there. But theoretically if it did, I'm OK with it being considered for seeding and not selection.

[Edouble]

I wanted to ask the general consensus on when Duke might be playing in the NCAA first and (hopefully) second rounds.

Joe Lunardi currently has us as a 4 seed in the Midwest, and as a top 4 seed, I assume we would be rewarded with placement in the Raleigh pod, with games on March 17th and (hopefully) March 19th.

Does this appear to be sound reasoning? I ask for a very specific reason. I am freelancer and have a very nice paying job opportunity on the 18th, from about 12:00 until 5:00. I would love to take the job, as it will fully pay for the new HD television that I am planning on buying to watch the entire tournament. The only issue, of course, is the risk I take in missing my beloved Blue Devils play in the round of 64.

Does anyone think that if we slip to a 5 seed that we might be sent to St. Louis or New York for opening round games on the 18th?

Help!

[Eakane]

UNCheaters are going to be in Raleigh regardless of what they do today, as will either UVa or Miami. It's not possible, or at least avoided as much as possible, for there to be more than two teams from one league in a pod. Therefore, the only way for Duke to get to Raleigh is to run the table. That bumps us up to a two, and gives us a spot there.

IMO, a win today bumps us up to a 3, while a loss keeps us at 4. Personally, I've never liked sharing the arena with the Cheaters in the opening week. Aside from the stench, you can count on 3/4 of the crowd rooting hard against Duke. Feels more like a road game than a neutral site game.

[BigWayne]

If you are not a 1 or 2 seed, it's pretty much impossible to predict where you go for the first weekend.

[devildeac]

uncheaters are going to be in raleigh regardless of what they do today, as will either uva or miami. It's not possible, or at least avoided as much as possible, for there to be more than two teams from one league in a pod. Therefore, the only way for duke to get to raleigh is to run the table. That bumps us up to a two, and gives us a spot there.

Imo, a win today bumps us up to a 3, while a loss keeps us at 4. Personally, i've never liked sharing the arena with the cheaters in the opening week. Aside from the stench, you can count on 7/8 of the crowd rooting hard against duke. Feels more like a road game than a neutral site game.

fify. ;)

[sagegrouse]

I'm pulling for Denver, which is Thu-Sat plus it's St. Patrick's Day on Thu.

[BigWayne]

As Eakane stated, ACC teams seeded above us drive our destination. As it stands now, UVA and UNC are likely to get the two slots in Raleigh. If we beat ND today, we have a better than average chance of ending up in either Brooklyn or Providence. For the OP, this doesn't help as one is a Thu/Sat and the other a Fri/Sun.

[BandAlum83]

I'm on board with this, Troublemaker. The only thing I'll add is that I'm not convinced at all Syracuse's losses had anything to do with Boeheim not being there. But theoretically if it did, I'm OK with it being considered for seeding and not selection.


Let's not lose sight of the fact that Syracuse is 1-5 in their last 6 games WITH Boeheim. So just perhaps, there really isn't a clear Boeheim affect anyway.

[BandAlum83]

I wanted to ask the general consensus on when Duke might be playing in the NCAA first and (hopefully) second rounds.

Joe Lunardi currently has us as a 4 seed in the Midwest, and as a top 4 seed, I assume we would be rewarded with placement in the Raleigh pod, with games on March 17th and (hopefully) March 19th.

Does this appear to be sound reasoning? I ask for a very specific reason. I am freelancer and have a very nice paying job opportunity on the 18th, from about 12:00 until 5:00. I would love to take the job, as it will fully pay for the new HD television that I am planning on buying to watch the entire tournament. The only issue, of course, is the risk I take in missing my beloved Blue Devils play in the round of 64.

Does anyone think that if we slip to a 5 seed that we might be sent to St. Louis or New York for opening round games on the 18th?

Help!

Take the job, regardless, and if you don't have a DVD get one! It's easy to think work is easy to come by, but as a free lancer, every opportunity is precious.

[Wander]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that Syracuse is 1-5 in their last 6 games WITH Boeheim. So just perhaps, there really isn't a clear Boeheim affect anyway.

Out of the 9 games without Boeheim, 4 were wins against terrible teams at home, and 4 were losses against teams about as good as teams Syracuse lost to WITH Boeheim (for example, they lost to Pitt on the road without Boeheim, but also lost to them at home AND on a neutral court with him... how can any reasonable person possibly argue for "discounting" that loss?!). Basically the loss to St. John's is the only outlier, but it's only one game and sometimes teams get upset by bad teams. So in short I completely agree that there might be zero Boeheim effect.

[brevity]

It's not possible, or at least avoided as much as possible, for there to be more than two teams from one league in a pod. Therefore, the only way for Duke to get to Raleigh is to run the table.

What? There is truth in your first statement and I agree that Duke needs to win out to get to Raleigh, but those statements are not logically connected.

To be clear, there are 16 pods (of 4 teams, like 1-8-9-16) and 8 first weekend sites, so 2 pods per site. You're right that each POD of 4 teams will not have two teams in the same league, but each SITE can and should feature teams from the same league if geographically sensible. It didn't happen in the 2015 tournament, but it did in previous years.

2014

Raleigh: (1) Virginia, (3) Duke
Milwaukee: (2) Michigan, (2) Wisconsin
San Diego: (1) Arizona, (4) UCLA

2013

Auburn Hills: (3) Michigan State, (4) Michigan
Dayton: (1) Indiana, (2) Ohio State
Kansas City: (1) Kansas, (4) Kansas State
Lexington: (1) Louisville*, (3) Marquette
* Louisville was still in the Big East.

2012

Greensboro: (1) North Carolina, (2) Duke
Omaha: (2) Kansas, (2) Missouri**
** Missouri was still in the Big 12.

2011

Charlotte: (1) Duke, (2) North Carolina
Tampa: (2) Florida, (4) Kentucky
Tulsa: (1) Kansas, (4) Texas
Washington DC: (1) Pittsburgh***, (3) Connecticut***
*** Pittsburgh and Connecticut were still in the Big East.

2010

Oklahoma City: (1) Kansas, (2) Kansas State
Providence: (2) Villanova, (3) Georgetown
Buffalo: (1) Syracuse****, (2) West Virginia
**** Syracuse was still in the Big East.

So Duke can (in theory) share Raleigh this year with another ACC team, but I am skeptical that it would happen if Duke does not win the ACC Tournament. I am not convinced that Duke making the ACC final is enough. I'm not even convinced that beating UNC in the semifinals eliminates UNC from Raleigh.

[SCMatt33]

What? There is truth in your first statement and I agree that Duke needs to win out to get to Raleigh, but those statements are not logically connected.

To be clear, there are 16 pods (of 4 teams, like 1-8-9-16) and 8 first weekend sites, so 2 pods per site. You're right that each POD of 4 teams will not have two teams in the same league, but each SITE can and should feature teams from the same league if geographically sensible.

This is why the original post said "more" than two teams from the same league. For Duke to even think about Raleigh, they'd have to pass 2 out of UVA, UNC, and Miami. I just don't see that happening, even if we win out. Maybe if UVA and Miami, both lose today, but then that would undermine a potential too win for Duke on Saturday. I just don't see it.

[brevity]

This is why the original post said "more" than two teams from the same league. For Duke to even think about Raleigh, they'd have to pass 2 out of UVA, UNC, and Miami. I just don't see that happening, even if we win out. Maybe if UVA and Miami, both lose today, but then that would undermine a potential too win for Duke on Saturday. I just don't see it.

Ah, missed that. Concentrated on the language and not the math. Thanks.

[DUKIE V(A)]

Anyone else expecting the Committee to set up a potential Duke/Maryland second round match up? Both teams are about 4 or 5 seeds. We have better wins but more losses.

[burnspbesq]

Anyone else expecting the Committee to set up a potential Duke/Maryland second round match up? Both teams are about 4 or 5 seeds. We have better wins but more losses.

FWIW, Lunardi currently has us as the four seed in the Midwest, playing in OKC against Stephen F. Austin. Potential second round opponent is Zona, which has a tendency to kill us when we run into them in the tournament (I had the distinct displeasure of being in the Honda Center the last time it happened). I might rather see us with the Turtles as our potential second round opponent.

Also of note: Lunardi the Jokester currently has Cocks vs. Trojans in the first round.

[freshmanjs]

FWIW, Lunardi currently has us as the four seed in the Midwest, playing in OKC against Stephen F. Austin. Potential second round opponent is Zona, which has a tendency to kill us when we run into them in the tournament (I had the distinct displeasure of being in the Honda Center the last time it happened). I might rather see us with the Turtles as our potential second round opponent.

Duke has played Arizona in the tournament exactly twice. One of those had us winning the National Championship game. How does that translate to "a tendency to kill us" ?

[burnspbesq]

Duke has played Arizona in the tournament exactly twice. One of those had us winning the National Championship game. How does that translate to "a tendency to kill us" ?

Watch a replay of the 2012 beat-down. It will erase every good memory you have of the previous encounter.

[freshmanjs]

Watch a replay of the 2012 beat-down. It will erase every good memory you have of the previous encounter.

No it won't.

[duke2x]

Anyone else expecting the Committee to set up a potential Duke/Maryland second round match up? Both teams are about 4 or 5 seeds. We have better wins but more losses.

No to Maryland. It's going to be hard for the other members in the selection room to look Dr. White in the face if that happens. I am aware that Dr. White won't say anything about Duke, but he doesn't have to with that matchup (and UNC). Seeing Joe Alleva and Kevin White in the same room would also be interesting, BTW.

No to Raleigh as well. We haven't earned it with 10 losses. As a probable 4/5 seed, the chances you are going to be out west are very high. We will be very lucky to get Oklahoma City, Des Moines, or Providence (the other spots that might fall to a 4/5). I'm thinking #5 Duke v. #4 Arizona in Denver right now. There's still a lot of basketball to be played to prove me wrong.

Yes to Greensboro next year unless I'm really overestimating what we have coming in and returning.

[Kedsy]

Watch a replay of the 2012 beat-down.

You mean 2011?

[subzero02]

You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs...

[royalblue]

Watch a replay of the 2012 beat-down. It will erase every good memory you have of the previous encounter.

I drove 19 hrs and had to sit in the Maryland section for the 2001 final four Sat games when Duke was down 22 in the first half. Duke comes back and wins that game and then beats Az on Monday for K's 3rd title. So no losing a round of 16 game in 2011 (not 2012) the year AFTER getting the 2010 title will not overshadow a national title game for me. You are a year off maybe it's not as vivid as you claim it to be for you either.

[DUKIE V(A)]

FWIW, Lunardi currently has us as the four seed in the Midwest, playing in OKC against Stephen F. Austin. Potential second round opponent is Zona, which has a tendency to kill us when we run into them in the tournament (I had the distinct displeasure of being in the Honda Center the last time it happened). I might rather see us with the Turtles as our potential second round opponent.

Also of note: Lunardi the Jokester currently has Cocks vs. Trojans in the first round.

I too would prefer to avoid Arizona in the second round in Denver (or wherever). I have a feeling the Cats may end up winning the PAC 12 Tournament and earning 3 seed.

[gumbomoop]

I'd like to avoid Duke being sent to Denver, in case the adjustment to altitude might make it more difficult for our short rotation. Also, the Denver subregion is Thurs-Sat, and it looks like our guys could use a little more rest, especially if we go deep into the ACCT.


I'm pulling for Denver, which is Thu-Sat plus it's St. Patrick's Day on Thu.


I am predicting 2 things from the NCAA tourney committee.
Duke to Denver If you think tired now that would be bad. After they send Duke to Denver then IF Duke can win one game I assume they will be playing a team like West Virginia in the round of 32 at a mile high location.

Although I have no idea whether the Selection Committee will deliberately disadvantage Duke by sending us to Denver, I have assumed that it might in fact be a disadvantage, given our short rotation.

As we did not go deep into the ACCT, my original preference for Fri-Sun is less of an issue, but Denver ...

Is Denver a disadvantage for us this year, or not really?

[sagegrouse]

Duke has played Arizona in the tournament exactly twice. One of those had us winning the National Championship game. How does that translate to "a tendency to kill us" ?


Watch a replay of the 2012 beat-down. It will erase every good memory you have of the previous encounter.

I also remember the loss in Tucson in 1991, when Greg Koubek's made jumper from the frigging sideline was counted as two points rather than three. The blatant missed call led to a Duke loss in double overtime. K stopped scheduling Arizona afterwards.

[SenatorClayDavis]

I will echo the sentiment expressed earlier in the thread. The idea that Syracuse's bid for an at-large would get a bump due to Boeheim's absence is ludicrous.

I am a teacher. If a student cheats on something, they get a 0. At the end of the semester, will I give that student's grade a bump because the 0 really hurt them? Sheeeeeeit. Hell no.

Well done, NCAA. You bungle investigations and punishments. Keep it up and Roger Goodell might have a job offer for you.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

A few thoughts:

I think Denver is the worst possible outcome for us. As noted above, the altitude will just make our limited depth even more of a problem, though I assume that since I think this week is spring break, Coach K would get the team out there as quickly as possible to begin to acclimate. Also, not that it has any impact on this years team as none of them were born at the time (yes, now I feel very old), but Denver brings back horrible memories of 1990 and UNLV.

It doesn't make a big difference, but all things being equal, I would prefer to be in a Thursday/Saturday bracket vs. Friday/Sunday. Either way, we have a week, with the extra day to Friday not having much impact. However, if things go right and we win both games this weekend, I would rather the team not be playing Sunday, traveling back from somewhere that might be far away, then potentially having to turn around and travel quickly to play a Thursday Sweet 16 game. Again, there are a ton of ifs included there, but just a thought.

Finally, I am tired of hearing Lunardi's projections, particularly regarding who will play who. I think that if most of the posters on this board had 24 hours a day to devote to "Bracketology" we could do just as well as him. And his educated guesses have absolutely no impact on the actual outcome so are completely worthless to me. As of 6:01 PM on Sunday, his opinions become absolutely meaningless and I wonder whether anyone actually checks to see how he did. The guy has had his 15 minutes of fame - let's move on.

[luburch]

A few thoughts:

I think Denver is the worst possible outcome for us. As noted above, the altitude will just make our limited depth even more of a problem, though I assume that since I think this week is spring break, Coach K would get the team out there as quickly as possible to begin to acclimate. Also, not that it has any impact on this years team as none of them were born at the time (yes, now I feel very old), but Denver brings back horrible memories of 1990 and UNLV.

It doesn't make a big difference, but all things being equal, I would prefer to be in a Thursday/Saturday bracket vs. Friday/Sunday. Either way, we have a week, with the extra day to Friday not having much impact. However, if things go right and we win both games this weekend, I would rather the team not be playing Sunday, traveling back from somewhere that might be far away, then potentially having to turn around and travel quickly to play a Thursday Sweet 16 game. Again, there are a ton of ifs included there, but just a thought.

Finally, I am tired of hearing Lunardi's projections, particularly regarding who will play who. I think that if most of the posters on this board had 24 hours a day to devote to "Bracketology" we could do just as well as him. And his educated guesses have absolutely no impact on the actual outcome so are completely worthless to me. As of 6:01 PM on Sunday, his opinions become absolutely meaningless and I wonder whether anyone actually checks to see how he did. The guy has had his 15 minutes of fame - let's move on.

You can actually find bracketologist (no, I am not kidding) rankings here: http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html

Lunardi is 36th, so largely mediocre.

[CDu]

A few thoughts:

I think Denver is the worst possible outcome for us. As noted above, the altitude will just make our limited depth even more of a problem, though I assume that since I think this week is spring break, Coach K would get the team out there as quickly as possible to begin to acclimate. Also, not that it has any impact on this years team as none of them were born at the time (yes, now I feel very old), but Denver brings back horrible memories of 1990 and UNLV.

It doesn't make a big difference, but all things being equal, I would prefer to be in a Thursday/Saturday bracket vs. Friday/Sunday. Either way, we have a week, with the extra day to Friday not having much impact. However, if things go right and we win both games this weekend, I would rather the team not be playing Sunday, traveling back from somewhere that might be far away, then potentially having to turn around and travel quickly to play a Thursday Sweet 16 game. Again, there are a ton of ifs included there, but just a thought.

Finally, I am tired of hearing Lunardi's projections, particularly regarding who will play who. I think that if most of the posters on this board had 24 hours a day to devote to "Bracketology" we could do just as well as him. And his educated guesses have absolutely no impact on the actual outcome so are completely worthless to me. As of 6:01 PM on Sunday, his opinions become absolutely meaningless and I wonder whether anyone actually checks to see how he did. The guy has had his 15 minutes of fame - let's move on.

Yeah, Lunardi has never actually been very good at predicting actual seeds. His entire claim to fame was that he would correctly predict almost all of the teams that would be in the tournament (not all; he would regularly miss one). But that's not really all that impressive, since you are given about 40 via conference champions and you are given another 20 via ranked (ish) teams that don't win their conference. So that left (when he became famous) 5-6 teams he had to get right. That's not all that difficult, and he only got 4-5 of them right (~80%).

The field is a bit more substantial now (3-4 more teams), but he's also regularly missing 2 to 3 of those teams. So he's really not terribly good at it. And that's again ignoring the fact that he's really not at all impressive in terms of actually seeding the teams in the field.

Lunardi was good at marketing himself. He was one of the first and one of the most outspoken in promoting Bracketology, so (sort of like Vitale with color commentary) he became the most famous.

[TexHawk]

Finally, I am tired of hearing Lunardi's projections, particularly regarding who will play who. I think that if most of the posters on this board had 24 hours a day to devote to "Bracketology" we could do just as well as him. And his educated guesses have absolutely no impact on the actual outcome so are completely worthless to me. As of 6:01 PM on Sunday, his opinions become absolutely meaningless and I wonder whether anyone actually checks to see how he did. The guy has had his 15 minutes of fame - let's move on.

A lot of the spew towards Lunardi is because (a) he's making money off of something that many others could do, and (b) he's got the ESPN machine behind him. He used to annoy me quite a bit, but just like a lot of things at the worldwide leader, I keep tuning in to listen to him, or give him page views.

It's my own damn fault. If anything, he deserves a pat on the back for marketing himself well.

[Matches]

Lunardi has become one of my biggest pet peeves in basketball. The whole notion that there is some sort of evolving bracket that changes daily based on the results of each game is a complete fiction. It's like listening to someone talk about their fantasy team like it's a real team.

YMMV of course, and that's fine, but it's now gotten to the point that you can't watch a game on ESPN anytime after the first of January without having some sort of Lunardi discussion, sometimes with cut-ins to him during game action. Ugh.

[devildeac]

I also remember the loss in Tucson in 1991, when Greg Koubek's made jumper from the frigging sideline was counted as two points rather than three. The blatant missed call led to a Duke loss in double overtime. K stopped scheduling Arizona afterwards.

That, along with Danny Ferry (reportedly) several years earlier yelling at Lute, "we're getting homered," and Lute yelling something back at him, then K yelling something at Lute. And, IIRC, the 3 to 2 change on Koubek occurred well after the shot.

[Henderson]

I also remember the loss in Tucson in 1991, when Greg Koubek's made jumper from the frigging sideline was counted as two points rather than three. The blatant missed call led to a Duke loss in double overtime. K stopped scheduling Arizona afterwards.


That, along with Danny Ferry (reportedly) several years earlier yelling at Lute, "we're getting homered," and Lute yelling something back at him, then K yelling something at Lute. And, IIRC, the 3 to 2 change on Koubek occurred well after the shot.

I think in that game, Duke went on to lose in single overtime by 8. But it's certainly true that Koubek's shot (in OT) should have been a three. Here's the end-game video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8GWK-C68vU Koubek's shot is at about 5:10. In the end, the Koubek 3 didn't matter.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Lunardi has become one of my biggest pet peeves in basketball. The whole notion that there is some sort of evolving bracket that changes daily based on the results of each game is a complete fiction. It's like listening to someone talk about their fantasy team like it's a real team.

YMMV of course, and that's fine, but it's now gotten to the point that you can't watch a game on ESPN anytime after the first of January without having some sort of Lunardi discussion, sometimes with cut-ins to him during game action. Ugh.

The only thing I find more obnoxious is the constant NCAA football playoff discuss about which four teams would be "in" with that caveat "if the season ended today." Well, guess what? It doesn't. Therefore it's all nothing but mental... um... "stimulation," so to speak.

I feel the same way about "Bracketology." The concept of taking a snapshot of the season in January and putting teams "out" and "in" is just dumb. All it does is create more angst and conversation at the ESPN roundtables where people can agree and disagree. Fodder for the masses.

"Bracketology" has even less relevance than polls, and I've made my opinion known here many times in regards to polls.

[Henderson]

The only thing I find more obnoxious is the constant NCAA football playoff discuss about which four teams would be "in" with that caveat "if the season ended today." Well, guess what? It doesn't. Therefore it's all nothing but mental... um... "stimulation," so to speak.

I feel the same way about "Bracketology." The concept of taking a snapshot of the season in January and putting teams "out" and "in" is just dumb. All it does is create more angst and conversation at the ESPN roundtables where people can agree and disagree. Fodder for the masses.

"Bracketology" has even less relevance than polls, and I've made my opinion known here many times in regards to polls.

I agree. I've never understood the interest in early "bracketology" for the reasons Mtn.Devil. states. I assumed it was somehow tied to fantasy sports, which I've never seen the point of either.

[English]

The only thing I find more obnoxious is the constant NCAA football playoff discuss about which four teams would be "in" with that caveat "if the season ended today." Well, guess what? It doesn't. Therefore it's all nothing but mental... um... "stimulation," so to speak.

I feel the same way about "Bracketology." The concept of taking a snapshot of the season in January and putting teams "out" and "in" is just dumb. All it does is create more angst and conversation at the ESPN roundtables where people can agree and disagree. Fodder for the masses.

"Bracketology" has even less relevance than polls, and I've made my opinion known here many times in regards to polls.

Seems to me that the same people who complain about Bracketology and/or FBS Playoff snapshots with games/weeks to go in the season are those same fine folks who harp on the uselessness and absurdity of the CBB rankings. Hey, we get it, they don't matter for anything other than conversation/debate fodder. You know what, some people enjoy talking about, arguing over, paying attention to competition in sport whether real or manufactured. I love watching the games and breaking down the analysis as much as most. I also enjoy following the AP and Coaches Polls too, despite their very explicit meaninglessness. It's part of following college basketball. Duke winning games in consecutive weeks and finding themselves FALLING in the polls, while utterly devoid of any impact to the team or its eventual place in the ACCT or NCAAT field, was interesting to me. Duke losing some games and clinging to a spot in the top-25 was a compelling storyline for me, again, despite any real significance. Bracketology gives fans something to talk about while the season is shaping up. It also generally gives fans an idea of what their team "needs to do" to find themselves in the NCAAT/NIT, and what to expect should their team see itself in one outcome or another.

Now, the ludicrous frequency with which we find Lunardi on our TVs for the latter 3/5ths of the basketball season is absolutely regrettable, and I wholly agree there. But the concept of Bracketology is a part of following CBB, in my opinion, and contributes to the conversation (or, "noise" for those of you who only like to talk Xs & Os). But hey, I also play fantasy football, so you can call me a dreamer who wastes his time on trivial, childish things.

[jmck214]

Seems to me that the same people who complain about Bracketology and/or FBS Playoff snapshots with games/weeks to go in the season are those same fine folks who harp on the uselessness and absurdity of the CBB rankings. Hey, we get it, they don't matter for anything other than conversation/debate fodder. You know what, some people enjoy talking about, arguing over, paying attention to competition in sport whether real or manufactured. I love watching the games and breaking down the analysis as much as most. I also enjoy following the AP and Coaches Polls too, despite their very explicit meaninglessness. It's part of following college basketball. Duke winning games in consecutive weeks and finding themselves FALLING in the polls, while utterly devoid of any impact to the team or its eventual place in the ACCT or NCAAT field, was interesting to me. Duke losing some games and clinging to a spot in the top-25 was a compelling storyline for me, again, despite any real significance. Bracketology gives fans something to talk about while the season is shaping up. It also generally gives fans an idea of what their team "needs to do" to find themselves in the NCAAT/NIT, and what to expect should their team see itself in one outcome or another.

Now, the ludicrous frequency with which we find Lunardi on our TVs for the latter 3/5ths of the basketball season is absolutely regrettable, and I wholly agree there. But the concept of Bracketology is a part of following CBB, in my opinion, and contributes to the conversation (or, "noise" for those of you who only like to talk Xs & Os). But hey, I also play fantasy football, so you can call me a dreamer who wastes his time on trivial, childish things.

I am a Rhode Island grad and they are my second favorite team so I have always enjoyed following bracketology since they are perennially on the bubble and it gives a mid major like them some national attention. I had never really cared for it as a Duke fan until this year since this was the first year in a long time where there was a lot of uncertainty as to where Duke would be seeded since we weren't in the usual 1 or 2 seed discussion.

I also live in Providence and have tickets to both rounds next week so it's been fun to follow who lunardi has projected to play here

[Matches]

Seems to me that the same people who complain about Bracketology and/or FBS Playoff snapshots with games/weeks to go in the season are those same fine folks who harp on the uselessness and absurdity of the CBB rankings. Hey, we get it, they don't matter for anything other than conversation/debate fodder. You know what, some people enjoy talking about, arguing over, paying attention to competition in sport whether real or manufactured. I love watching the games and breaking down the analysis as much as most. I also enjoy following the AP and Coaches Polls too, despite their very explicit meaninglessness. It's part of following college basketball. Duke winning games in consecutive weeks and finding themselves FALLING in the polls, while utterly devoid of any impact to the team or its eventual place in the ACCT or NCAAT field, was interesting to me. Duke losing some games and clinging to a spot in the top-25 was a compelling storyline for me, again, despite any real significance. Bracketology gives fans something to talk about while the season is shaping up. It also generally gives fans an idea of what their team "needs to do" to find themselves in the NCAAT/NIT, and what to expect should their team see itself in one outcome or another.

Now, the ludicrous frequency with which we find Lunardi on our TVs for the latter 3/5ths of the basketball season is absolutely regrettable, and I wholly agree there. But the concept of Bracketology is a part of following CBB, in my opinion, and contributes to the conversation (or, "noise" for those of you who only like to talk Xs & Os). But hey, I also play fantasy football, so you can call me a dreamer who wastes his time on trivial, childish things.

I don't begrudge anyone their enjoyment of Bracketology or anything thing they enjoy discussing. I just lament its omnipresence during ESPN broadcasts. I feel the same way about the endless discussion of the NBA draft. More power to anyone who is interested in that, but for me it's made ESPN college bball broadcasts almost unwatchable.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Seems to me that the same people who complain about Bracketology and/or FBS Playoff snapshots with games/weeks to go in the season are those same fine folks who harp on the uselessness and absurdity of the CBB rankings. Hey, we get it, they don't matter for anything other than conversation/debate fodder. You know what, some people enjoy talking about, arguing over, paying attention to competition in sport whether real or manufactured. I love watching the games and breaking down the analysis as much as most. I also enjoy following the AP and Coaches Polls too, despite their very explicit meaninglessness. It's part of following college basketball. Duke winning games in consecutive weeks and finding themselves FALLING in the polls, while utterly devoid of any impact to the team or its eventual place in the ACCT or NCAAT field, was interesting to me. Duke losing some games and clinging to a spot in the top-25 was a compelling storyline for me, again, despite any real significance. Bracketology gives fans something to talk about while the season is shaping up. It also generally gives fans an idea of what their team "needs to do" to find themselves in the NCAAT/NIT, and what to expect should their team see itself in one outcome or another.

Now, the ludicrous frequency with which we find Lunardi on our TVs for the latter 3/5ths of the basketball season is absolutely regrettable, and I wholly agree there. But the concept of Bracketology is a part of following CBB, in my opinion, and contributes to the conversation (or, "noise" for those of you who only like to talk Xs & Os). But hey, I also play fantasy football, so you can call me a dreamer who wastes his time on trivial, childish things.

Well, perhaps I articulated myself poorly. People can engage in whatever they like in their free time. I prefer not to consider the brackets until Selection Sunday comes, and I can see who Duke is matched up with.

Having said that, the second bolded statement is what drives me nuts. I don't need 3 hours of Bracketology from Lunardi in every danged ESPN segment followed by another two hours of analysis. I'd MUCH rather have the commentators discuss the game that is on, the game that's about to be on, or the game that just ended. That sort of hypothetical chatter just seems like mindless filling of the void and certainly reflects most of what passes for programming on ESPN these days.

Point being - I feel that discussion of actual basketball gets sacrificed for discussion of hypothetical brackets before the season is over, which just seems idiotic to me. Perhaps I'm spoiled by not being a fan of a bubble team and not hanging on Lunardi's updated brackets to see if we are "out" or "in," but even then it still DOESN'T MATTER until the season is over.

[BandAlum83]

Seems to me that the same people who complain about Bracketology and/or FBS Playoff snapshots with games/weeks to go in the season are those same fine folks who harp on the uselessness and absurdity of the CBB rankings. Hey, we get it, they don't matter for anything other than conversation/debate fodder. You know what, some people enjoy talking about, arguing over, paying attention to competition in sport whether real or manufactured. I love watching the games and breaking down the analysis as much as most. I also enjoy following the AP and Coaches Polls too, despite their very explicit meaninglessness. It's part of following college basketball. Duke winning games in consecutive weeks and finding themselves FALLING in the polls, while utterly devoid of any impact to the team or its eventual place in the ACCT or NCAAT field, was interesting to me. Duke losing some games and clinging to a spot in the top-25 was a compelling storyline for me, again, despite any real significance. Bracketology gives fans something to talk about while the season is shaping up. It also generally gives fans an idea of what their team "needs to do" to find themselves in the NCAAT/NIT, and what to expect should their team see itself in one outcome or another.

Now, the ludicrous frequency with which we find Lunardi on our TVs for the latter 3/5ths of the basketball season is absolutely regrettable, and I wholly agree there. But the concept of Bracketology is a part of following CBB, in my opinion, and contributes to the conversation (or, "noise" for those of you who only like to talk Xs & Os). But hey, I also play fantasy football, so you can call me a dreamer who wastes his time on trivial, childish things.

I suppose polls are meaningless when it comes to determining the eventual champion, at first blush. But I would contend the polls probably have a significant impact on seeding in the tournament. Can you imagine a team not ranked in the top 6 or 7 even having a shot at a number 1 seed? The polls should (roughly) mirror the metrics-based ratings services, but there are a whole lot of teams out there with low BPIs or KenPoms, but high rankings (and visa versa).

Now bracketology? Totally annoying to me. And meaningless when they start in January. But, I am spoiled, my team hardly ever has to worry about a bubble.

Am I missing something here? Please correct me if I am.

[Doria]

Well, during Championship Week, I am interested in the effect the mid-major tournaments has on, for example, the bubble teams. And insofar as that goes, I don't really mind Bracketology. But that interest doesn't really extend to seeding talk, especially when the prognostication involves tournament results that haven't happened yet.

And I definitely agree with it seems like most everyone that no one really needs to have a game interrupted by seemingly endless Bracketology segments. With all the games going on now, I'm pretty sure there's plenty to talk about, even omitting those; or they could even talk about the two teams that are playing...

[English]

But I would contend the polls probably have a significant impact on seeding in the tournament. Can you imagine a team not ranked in the top 6 or 7 even having a shot at a number 1 seed? The polls should (roughly) mirror the metrics-based ratings services, but there are a whole lot of teams out there with low BPIs or KenPoms, but high rankings (and visa versa).

Can you imagine a team not in the Lunardi Bracketology top 6 or 7 having a shot at a number 1 seed? Maybe that has an effect on the Committee's seedings.

Hint: it doesn't, and as far as the documented criteria for tournament selection/seeding, nor do the AP and/or Coaches poll rankings. Now, you might argue that the Committee members see the rankings and unofficially consider that in their "eye test" consideration of teams, but you could probably use the same nebulous argument for the Bracketology business having a similar effect.

[brevity]

I prefer not to consider the brackets until Selection Sunday comes, and I can see who Duke is matched up with.


Now bracketology? Totally annoying to me. And meaningless when they start in January. But, I am spoiled, my team hardly ever has to worry about a bubble.

Am I missing something here? Please correct me if I am.

Neither of you are the target audience of Bracketology. So who is?

1) Fantasy sports fans;
2) General sports fans who would otherwise not pay attention to college basketball until March.

As a seller of the college basketball product, ESPN has a great financial interest in making way-too-early snapshots of the NCAA Tournament so that viewers can start to care ahead of schedule. ESPN is not concerned about die-hard college basketball fans, who will keep coming just to watch the games. This gives Joe Lunardi a great deal of freedom to infect all of ESPN with his not-so-special thoughts. (I've complained in the past that ESPN goes too far by using Lunardi bubble and seed predictions in their Bottom Line when they show scores and game times.)

So what can we do? Nothing. If Lunardi is smart -- and the self-promotional part of him is -- he will have that job forever. I would be surprised if he did anything to jeopardize his gig, including committing a crime or overreaching in contract negotiations. And even if ESPN has financial problems, they will always broadcast college basketball.

[Atlanta Duke]

Neither of you are the target audience of Bracketology. So who is?

1) Fantasy sports fans;
2) General sports fans who would otherwise not pay attention to college basketball until March.

As a seller of the college basketball product, ESPN has a great financial interest in making way-too-early snapshots of the NCAA Tournament so that viewers can start to care ahead of schedule. ESPN is not concerned about die-hard college basketball fans, who will keep coming just to watch the games. This gives Joe Lunardi a great deal of freedom to infect all of ESPN with his not-so-special thoughts. (I've complained in the past that ESPN goes too far by using Lunardi bubble and seed predictions in their Bottom Line when they show scores and game times.)

So what can we do? Nothing. If Lunardi is smart -- and the self-promotional part of him is -- he will have that job forever. I would be surprised if he did anything to jeopardize his gig, including committing a crime or overreaching in contract negotiations. And even if ESPN has financial problems, they will always broadcast college basketball.

Pete Thamel on SI.com has a pretty grim assessment of this season going into the tournament, including this comment about ESPN

While long overdue rule changes like shortening the shot clock have increased the quality of play and increased scoring by eight percent, ratings didn't respond. ESPN regular season ratings still dipped by 11% across the network and were down across TV networks.

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=867545

A question is whether ESPN's approach is generating interest for what it is paying to broadcast. When your regular season broadcasts focus on seeding for the tournament carried by another network and who on the court might make it to the green room on draft day perhaps it is no surprise viewers who are not die hards are tuning out the regular season.

[brevity]

The picture of the top 16 teams in the NCAA Tournament is mostly done. The winner of the SEC Tournament (Kentucky or Texas A&M) gets a 3 seed and a closer site, while the loser gets the 4 seed and whatever is left. From the Big Ten, Michigan State might get a 1 seed win or lose. Purdue, if they win, might jump to a 3 seed at Indiana's expense.

While the Selection Committee could certainly punish Virginia again with Michigan State, I've chosen to spare them. Instead it could look something like this:

SOUTH (Louisville)

1. Kansas
2. Virginia
3. Kentucky
4. Purdue

MIDWEST (Chicago)

1. Michigan State
2. West Virginia
3. Xavier
4. Utah

EAST (Philadelphia)

1. UNC
2. Villanova
3. Indiana
4. Texas A&M

WEST (Anaheim)

1. Oregon
2. Oklahoma
3. Miami
4. Maryland

And the 8 first weekend sites might be assigned as follows:

Brooklyn: Villanova, West Virginia
Denver: Utah, Texas A&M
Des Moines: Kansas, Indiana
Oklahoma City: Oklahoma, Kentucky
Providence: Miami, Maryland
Raleigh: UNC, Virginia
Spokane: Oregon, Purdue
St. Louis: Michigan State, Xavier

Duke is probably a 5 seed, and I would imagine they would be placed in whatever region doesn't have UNC, Virginia, or Miami. Here it's the Midwest.

[Troublemaker]

brev - would you say that UVA or Oregon for the #1 seed in the West could go either way? Or do you feel pretty solid about Oregon?

[Doria]

Duke is probably a 5 seed, and I would imagine they would be placed in whatever region doesn't have UNC, Virginia, or Miami. Here it's the Midwest.

Where do you think Notre Dame would be put in that scenario (for the sake of argument)?

Obviously, this is all just educated speculation, but aside from the South in your example, I'd be pretty okay with any of those other regions (but I'd really rather not share one with Notre Dame right now--in a couple weeks, I'd be overjoyed to have to worry about that matchup, though).

I could certainly make an argument for UVA over Oregon, but I don't know as that the committee will; I hope so, though. Unfortunately, living where I do, there's been a steady stream of (mostly) terrible PAC-10 games this season. I'm sure PAC-10 experts would argue that it's because the league has extreme parity or whatever, but I just think it's because they're generally not very good.

[brevity]

brev - would you say that UVA or Oregon for the #1 seed in the West could go either way? Or do you feel pretty solid about Oregon?

It's all guesswork. Oregon is likely the West 1 or 2. If anyone bumped Oregon, I would pick Villanova (but is a 1 seed in Anaheim better than a 2 seed near home?). Kansas, UNC, and Oregon won their conference's regular season and tournament. Michigan State, despite an RPI of 14, is ranked #2 and can still win its tournament. Villanova won its regular season. Virginia won neither.


Where do you think Notre Dame would be put in that scenario (for the sake of argument)?

Bracket Matrix has them as a 6 seed, which would put them in a region where a higher seeded ACC team is on the 1-4-5-8 side of the bracket. I would guess UNC, then.

[jhmoss1812]

The picture of the top 16 teams in the NCAA Tournament is mostly done. The winner of the SEC Tournament (Kentucky or Texas A&M) gets a 3 seed and a closer site, while the loser gets the 4 seed and whatever is left. From the Big Ten, Michigan State might get a 1 seed win or lose. Purdue, if they win, might jump to a 3 seed at Indiana's expense.

While the Selection Committee could certainly punish Virginia again with Michigan State, I've chosen to spare them. Instead it could look something like this:

SOUTH (Louisville)

1. Kansas
2. Virginia
3. Kentucky
4. Purdue

MIDWEST (Chicago)

1. Michigan State
2. West Virginia
3. Xavier
4. Utah

EAST (Philadelphia)

1. UNC
2. Villanova
3. Indiana
4. Texas A&M

WEST (Anaheim)

1. Oregon
2. Oklahoma
3. Miami
4. Maryland

And the 8 first weekend sites might be assigned as follows:

Brooklyn: Villanova, West Virginia
Denver: Utah, Texas A&M
Des Moines: Kansas, Indiana
Oklahoma City: Oklahoma, Kentucky
Providence: Miami, Maryland
Raleigh: UNC, Virginia
Spokane: Oregon, Purdue
St. Louis: Michigan State, Xavier

Duke is probably a 5 seed, and I would imagine they would be placed in whatever region doesn't have UNC, Virginia, or Miami. Here it's the Midwest.

Yeah because having UVA play Kentucky in Louisville is really sparing us lol

[arnie]

Lunardi puts us in the East as a 5-seed, potentially against 4-seed Terps and 1-seed Holes. That bracket would explode this board, IC and others.

[Saratoga2]

Lunardi puts us in the East as a 5-seed, potentially against 4-seed Terps and 1-seed Holes. That bracket would explode this board, IC and others.

Only have to wait until tonight to find out. The good news is that we recently beat both a 1 and a 2 seed so if we get our best effort we can survive and advance.

[NM Duke Fan]

The latest CBS bracketology report has Duke as a 4 in the West, starting out in Providence:

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

[TexHawk]

Yeah because having UVA play Kentucky in Louisville is really sparing us lol

Also, KU gets that "reward" in this bracket, which ain't happenin. Chicago is the preferred destination.

Edit: Also rewarding UNC with #2 Villanova playing in their hometown. Don't see that either.

[Henderson]

Seems to me that the same people who complain about Bracketology and/or FBS Playoff snapshots with games/weeks to go in the season are those same fine folks who harp on the uselessness and absurdity of the CBB rankings. Hey, we get it, they don't matter for anything other than conversation/debate fodder. You know what, some people enjoy talking about, arguing over, paying attention to competition in sport whether real or manufactured.

I find Bracketology not only useless, but mind-numbingly dull. Like someone is blogging the weather in Helsinki. Good for you. Some say 21 below; others say 18 below. Let's hash that out on the internet.

Same with fantasy sports.

But as Jeremy Bentham observed, pushpin is as good as poetry. So y'all do what you want. Chase goldfish around in your toilet bowl, go to cock-fights, get into jai-alai, play your neighborhood numbers game, bet on fantasy sports, live for Joe Lunardi or some other bracketologist. I have no good reason why you shouldn't be enthralled by that stupid crap. All amusements are equal in the end.

[MarkD83]

Lunardi puts us in the East as a 5-seed, potentially against 4-seed Terps and 1-seed Holes. That bracket would explode this board, IC and others.

Isn't that a guarantee that this won't happen. Like most prognosticators we never check how they did. Lunardi usually gets a high percent right but not in the right places

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

UNC and UVa have earned one seeds. Four seed for us feels a bit high, five seed feels a bit low. Will be interesting to see how we do in the "spoiler" role.

It's been a fun season. Would be great to see it last a few more weekends.

[Bob Green]

...go to cock-fights...

Watching cock-fights in the Philippines is one of the most exciting live sports event I have ever witnessed. The only guy in the arena more excited than me was the old Filipino sitting next to me who won all my money.

[Kedsy]

Four seed for us feels a bit high, five seed feels a bit low.

Since #5 seeds win their first game 65% of the time and #4 seeds win their first game 80% of the time, I'm rooting hard for a #4.

[JPtheGame]

Lunardi puts us in the East as a 5-seed, potentially against 4-seed Terps and 1-seed Holes. That bracket would explode this board, IC and others.

The committee loves to generate interesting match ups despite their claims they they just focus on appropriate seeding. When Roy left KU it seemed like unc and ku were placed on a collision course several times. I think that is going to happen with Duke and the twerps. Its just irresistible given the history around md and the acc and duke in particular. Throw in a revenge motive with rasheed and it almost feels inevitable.

Its a shame really because MD is a really bad match up for duke this year in more than one way.

[budwom]

^ yup, I've taken it as a given for some time we'll be matched with the twerps.

[Kedsy]

When Roy left KU it seemed like unc and ku were placed on a collision course several times.

It may have seemed like it, but it wasn't really true. From 2004 (Roy's first year at UNC) through 2011, UNC and Kansas were only in the same region once (in 2005), and that year UNC was a #1 and Kansas was a #3, which I don't think can fairly be characterized as a "collision course."

The two teams were also in the same region in 2012 and 2013, but those were Roy's 9th and 10th seasons at UNC, and there are only so many combinations. If the committee were really conspiring to pit Roy against his old team, it would have happened long before that.

[subzero02]

Lunardi puts us in the East as a 5-seed, potentially against 4-seed Terps and 1-seed Holes. That bracket would explode this board, IC and others.

When is the last time Duke and unc were placed in the same region.

[SCMatt33]

When is the last time Duke and unc were placed in the same region.

It's definitely been awhile. A situation like '79 where they are a 1 and 2 in the same region is almost impossible under modern rules as the first three teams from a conference now must go to separate regions. It would take 4 1's and 2's for that to happen. Given that in many years Duke and UNC are among the top 3, that prevents it. I'm sure it's happened once or twice since 79, but I couldn't pinpoint a year off the top of my head.

Second, I would be shocked if lunarardi's exact scenario happened. Generally, when they pair teams up for an S16 or earlier meeting from the same conference, they generally try to make two thing happen. They try to pick teams that only met once, and they try to make it where at least one of the teams would need a significant upset to make it that far. Think NC State and Lousiville last year. State needed a big upset and they had only met once before. Neither of those things are true for Duke and UNC.

[Kedsy]

When is the last time Duke and unc were placed in the same region.

2004: Duke was the #1 in the South and UNC was the #6.

[Troublemaker]

I suppose during the Selection Show, I'll be rooting for Duke to pop onto the screen as a 4 seed in the West with Oregon as the 1 seed, with Duke across from an unthreatening 13 seed and 5 seed (although that will be subjective.)

I suppose that's the best case scenario at this point.

[SCMatt33]

I suppose during the Selection Show, I'll be rooting for Duke to pop onto the screen as a 4 seed in the West with Oregon as the 1 seed, with Duke across from an unthreatening 13 seed and 5 seed (although that will be subjective.)

I suppose that's the best case scenario at this point.

I'd prefer 4 in the east with nova as the 1 and UVA as the 2 (this would presume UNC is #4 overall behind nova and Michigan state). I don't think it's a likely scenario, as many think nova blew their one seed yesterday, but not outside the realm of possibility.

[dukelifer]

I'd prefer 4 in the east with nova as the 1 and UVA as the 2 (this would presume UNC is #4 overall behind nova and Michigan state). I don't think it's a likely scenario, as many think nova blew their one seed yesterday, but not outside the realm of possibility.

Nova is not a 1- UNC is likely the 2 or 3 top seed. Duke may be in Mich States bracket given that Mich State has had their challenges with Duke.

[subzero02]

Nova is not a 1- UNC is likely the 2 or 3 top seed. Duke may be in Mich States bracket given that Mich State has had their challenges with Duke.

I could see this happening... I think I'd rather have Oregon as a 1 seed though.

[SCMatt33]

Nova is not a 1- UNC is likely the 2 or 3 top seed. Duke may be in Mich States bracket given that Mich State has had their challenges with Duke.

I agree, I don't think it's likely, but I think there is about a 5% chance they let nova keep a 1 seed for some stupid reason. Anyway, like I said, this is what I'm rooting form not predicting.

[DUKIE V(A)]

I could see this happening... I think I'd rather have Oregon as a 1 seed though.

Me too. I am not a big believer in the Pac 12 this year. I actually believe that Arizona is the best and most dangerous Pac 12 team -- though they haven't proven it to this point. Duke does well against Michigan State but MSU looks better than usual this year. Kansas looks strong too. We won't be paired with UNC so if we are indeed a 4 or 5, please send us West.

The 2 or 3 seeds look a lot weaker than the 1 seeds this year (other than Oregon if they are a 1). May be not terrible to be a 6 seed.

[gocanes0506]

Great thing is UNX will get Nova as their number 2 in the East. Hopefully Nova will make it through the bracket this year.

[duke4ever19]

Great thing is UNX will get Nova as their number 2 in the East. Hopefully Nova will make it through the bracket this year.

Of course they won't. I predict a graceful exit in the Sweet 16.

[SCMatt33]

Great thing is UNX will get Nova as their number 2 in the East. Hopefully Nova will make it through the bracket this year.

Normally, I'd rather just have them go up against whoever the three seed is, but there's a decent chance that it could be Kentucky. Ugh.

[freshmanjs]

The committee loves to generate interesting match ups despite their claims they they just focus on appropriate seeding. When Roy left KU it seemed like unc and ku were placed on a collision course several times. I think that is going to happen with Duke and the twerps. Its just irresistible given the history around md and the acc and duke in particular. Throw in a revenge motive with rasheed and it almost feels inevitable.

Its a shame really because MD is a really bad match up for duke this year in more than one way.

Nah, people just look for patterns even where they don't exist. Duke and Maryland are both likely to be pretty good and placed often in the East or South. Thus, it would not require any big conspiracy for them to be in the same region. Obviously, even if totally random (including the West as equally likely), it would happen every four years.

[SCMatt33]

Nah, people just look for patterns even where they don't exist. Duke and Maryland are both likely to be pretty good and placed often in the East or South. Thus, it would not require any big conspiracy for them to be in the same region. Obviously, even if totally random (including the West as equally likely), it would happen every four years.

I always feel this is like the same birthday thing where if you have only twenty something people in a room, it's more likely than not that two of them will share a birthday. With 68 teams placed in a bracket, it's more likely than not that some of them will have past connections. I feel like the committee would have to try extremely hard to make a bracket without any games that look like a conspiracy.

[duke4ever19]

Does anybody know if the selection show will also be aired online?

Edit: Nevermind. It's on CBS' website

[weezie]

Wish we could have a tiny chat closet

[Troublemaker]

This is horrible stalling by CBS.

Just reveal the brackets.

[terrih]

Yes, I wish I could fast forward.

[jwillfan]

Just check it on line later. No way I'm sitting through all the ads and "analysis" . gerz.

[duke4ever19]

This is horrible stalling by CBS.

Just reveal the brackets.

I hope they don't use the entire 2 hours to reveal the brackets.

[SCMatt33]

I wonder if they're stalling cuz they don't have it yet/have everything up and ready to go production-wise. Remember, this thing started at 6 every other year.