NCAAT: West Region Discussion Thread (The 'O' States)

[JBDuke]

This is the collector thread for the West Regional contests for the first two weekends of the NCAA Men's Tournament. Note that Duke games will have their own discussion thread; this one is for discussing the rest of the games in the West. It's also for picking who you think will win the region.

[Pghdukie]

I'm taking the opposite whom ever Gottlieb says to take.

[dukebluesincebirth]

When will we know the dates/times of games?

[gurufrisbee]

I'm obviously pulling for Duke and I think A&M is a very solid team, but Oklahoma for a solid chunk of the season looked like the best team in the nation.

[JBDuke]

When will we know the dates/times of games?

IIRC, they make those decisions tonight and post the times for all of the games before morning.

[fuse]

Of course I want Duke to win it all.
Beat UNC-W and the winner of Baylor/Yale and we are then playing with house money.

[DukieInKansas]

ESPN shows us as 12:15et on Thursday. Not seeing the network channel yet.

[Bob Green]

Not seeing the network channel yet.

CBS.

[tbyers11]

We play 12:15 TH on CBS

https://twitter.com/stevewisemanNC/status/709161005989756928

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Baylor presents a REALLY tough second round match up. If we could get to the second weekend, I will be pleased and like our chances.

[jipops]

I like our bracket a lot. Obviously getting by UNCW is no given, especially with the way we have been playing as of late. Losing the first game would not be remotely shocking but I think we've got a good shot.

UNCW:
I know nothing about them.

Baylor:
They Are comparable to us in terms of off and def efficiencies on the season. And like us they have had issues scoring lately. This could potentially be an interesting matchup and a very ugly one.

Oregon:
If we somehow manage through that then I like our chances against Oregon more than any of the other #1's.

Oklahoma:
I think Matt Jones on a healthy, well rested ankle could be very effective in defending Buddy Hield. I think I'd rather play them than A&M.

I know it's unlikely any of this will play out this way. But I do think Duke got a favorable draw here. And it is all moot if we can't even get past the first game.

[Saratoga2]

While I would love Duke to go all the way, I don't think it is in the cards this year. Oregon is a very good team as is Oklahoma, however, I feel Texas A&M is most likely to come out of the region. I think St Joseph's is a surprise team and will give Oregon a tough game. Baylor is big physical and deep. Not the kind of team Duke has done well against of late so I have Duke going out in the second round. To avoid that, all three of our scorers would need to click together and we would need to keep turnovers low while avoiding foul trouble for our bigs. I hope so but think we need luck there.

I think Texas Tech and Oklahoma come out of the first week. I expect Texas Tech to take Oklahoma and Oregon to reach the final 4. No compelling argument to support these ideas but some higher seeds typically lose out.

[Dukehky]

While I would love Duke to go all the way, I don't think it is in the cards this year. Oregon is a very good team as is Oklahoma, however, I feel Texas A&M is most likely to come out of the region. I think St Joseph's is a surprise team and will give Oregon a tough game. Baylor is big physical and deep. Not the kind of team Duke has done well against of late so I have Duke going out in the second round. To avoid that, all three of our scorers would need to click together and we would need to keep turnovers low while avoiding foul trouble for our bigs. I hope so but think we need luck there.

I think Texas Tech and Oklahoma come out of the first week. I expect Texas Tech to take Oklahoma and Oregon to reach the final 4. No compelling argument to support these ideas but some higher seeds typically lose out.

Baylor is going to lose to Yale. Mark it zero, Dude.

[Henderson]

Baylor is going to lose to Yale. Mark it zero, Dude.

It's not a league game.

[GGLC]

You guys are really underrating Oregon.

[MaxAMillion]

I actually won't be surprised if Duke loses in round 1. The team looks to be out of gas. If Plumlee doesn't play any better with the mask next week, Duke will get beat. This feels like Lehigh/Mercer to me.

[CDu]

You guys are really underrating Oregon.

I don't know. Both Pomeroy and Sagarin have Oregon as easily the worst #1 seed. Sagarin's ratings suggest the Ducks are only slightly above Duke. I would suggest that Oklahoma is better than Oregon.

[moonpie23]

checking the roster......yep, coach K still on there...

I'm going with DUKE

[Newton_14]

Baylor presents a REALLY tough second round match up. If we could get to the second weekend, I will be pleased and like our chances.
Yale forfeited then? :)


One game at a time, one opponent at a time. I just hope our guys can get rested up and somewhat healed up. They can beat anyone in the Country on proper rest, and they can get beat by just about anyone. Small margin of error.

They don't necessarily have to hit an abnormal amount of 3's to win, as they showed in Battle Of The Blues Rd 1 when they only hit 7 I believe, but they have to get to the line a lot, and they have to shoot well from the line and overall. And play good defense of course, be it zone or m2m.

There's little to no pressure/expectations, so go out there, give it all you got and see what happens.

[Troublemaker]

Baylor is going to lose to Yale. Mark it zero, Dude.

I remember when Duke played Yale earlier in the season, I was impressed enough to make a mental note back then to pick Yale as a 1st-round upset winner if they ended up making the tournament.

That said, Baylor's zone could be a bad matchup for them. Duke's 1-3-1 certainly made the difference in that game in November.

[duke4ever19]

I thought this year might be the best chance in a while, but the 16-seeds look pretty bad, even for 16-seeds.

[moonpie23]

if there was a place to swipe your credit card over and over to make it where you could see unc upset by a 16, how close to maxing out your card would you go?

additionally, how many OTHER cards do you have?


just curious....i suppose you could call this place "vegas"....

[BoiseDevil]

1- great Duke draw
2- I'd rather play Oregon than Baylor (watched BSU beat them, albeit without Dorsey)
3- OK is best team in my opinion
4- UNI is my pick for upset in this bracket

LET'S GO DUKE!!!

[eddiehaskell]

Utah beat a healthy Duke team....Oregon crushed Utah 3 times. Not sure if that means anything. I would think we have a 50/50 shot at beating them if we get that far. I only watched them play once but I doubt they're any better than Indiana, UNC, Virginia or Louisville. We beat Yale by 19 so I'm definitely pulling for them.

[juise]

Utah beat a healthy Duke team...Oregon crushed Utah 3 times. Not sure if that means anything.

I get your overall point, but Grayson was far from healthy in the Utah game. He was ill and had a really rough game.

[Bluedog]

Yale just had their captain expelled from the school a few games ago (and the team wore warm ups in his honor, which they received backlash for; he was expelled for a sexual assault allegation supposedly). Not sure if that completely changes their game -- he was their fourth leading scorer, I believe. I'll certainly be cheering for them,

[eddiehaskell]

I get your overall point, but Grayson was far from healthy in the Utah game. He was ill and had a really rough game.That does make a world of difference - I was just thinking about Amile still being in the lineup.

[bleedingblue88]

Probably will lose to Baylor in the 2nd round. Our last 7 games, we've lost to every single above average team. This team is definitely not playing well.

IF, for some reason we get past the 2nd round, I think there's a decent chance we can pull off the upset against Oregon in Sweet 16 and then lose to Oklahoma in the Elite Eight, but I doubt we get that far.

[subzero02]

That does make a world of difference - I was just thinking about Amile still being in the lineup.

Amite didn't play against Utah... his last game was on December 5th; we played Utah on the 19th.

[eddiehaskell]

Amite didn't play against Utah... his last game was on December 5th; we played Utah on the 19th.wow, my memory of anything that didn't happen last week is terrible.

[lotusland]

Where will the Duke v UNCW be played ?

[dukelifer]

I actually won't be surprised if Duke loses in round 1. The team looks to be out of gas. If Plumlee doesn't play any better with the mask next week, Duke will get beat. This feels like Lehigh/Mercer to me.

They have a week to rest and no distractions this week as Duke is in break. I doubt tiredness will be the issue for this game. I know nothing of UNCW. Do they have a future NBA lottery pick on their roster like Lehigh or a team of seniors?

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

They have a week to rest and no distractions this week as Duke is in break. I doubt tiredness will be the issue for this game. I know nothing of UNCW. Do they have a future NBA lottery pick on their roster like Lehigh or a team of seniors?
Their top five scorers in order of PPG are junior, junior, senior, freshman, sophomore. All are guards ranging 6-0 to 6-5. As a few have said, they will likely play small and fast.

[dukelifer]

Their top five scorers in order of PPG are junior, junior, senior, freshman, sophomore. All are guards ranging 6-0 to 6-5. As a few have said, they will likely play small and fast.

A little more worried about teams that can outbound Duke. Duke can go smallish with a ridiculous match up problem with Ingram. Fouls can be an issue so we shall see.

[fgb]

I get your overall point, but Grayson was far from healthy in the Utah game. He was ill and had a really rough game.

add to that the fact that we had only just lost amile, and were just beginning to learn how to play without him.

[BeachBlueDevil]

I actually won't be surprised if Duke loses in round 1. The team looks to be out of gas. If Plumlee doesn't play any better with the mask next week, Duke will get beat. This feels like Lehigh/Mercer to me.

Every first round game is a cause for concern after losses to VCU/Lehigh/Mercer...... But I think almost a week of solid rest will have this team rejuvenated and Plumlee has had a whole week to practice with the mask on. I think he might change the mask up and go with a clear one for these game or might go completely without a mask. I think Duke wins against UNCW, but the second round game might be a little more iffy.

As far who comes out of this region, I have my money on Oklahoma. They are a solid team and Buddy Hield can score in bunches and single handily take a game over with his ability.

[rsvman]

Baylor is a match-up nightmare for us, given they are an athletic and aggressive rebounding team, which plays into one of our principal weaknesses. I hope Marshall is not too hampered by the injury; we need him to be playing at full capacity for all our games, including the opener.

I am tempering my hopes about this team, although I think we can beat anybody in the field on any given day. A trip to the Sweet Sixteen would be an accomplishment.

[whereinthehellami]

I don't know if it is because a lot of the teams are from out west and I'm not that familiar with most of the teams but I'm underwhelmed with a lot of the teams and the west seems wide open.

Agree that I just don't see if for Duke this year, too inconsistent. I got Duke getting bounced by Baylor.

I'll take OK to get to the final 4.

[luburch]

I think Yale takes out Baylor and Duke advances to the Sweet 16. I think making it to the Sweet 16 would largely be considered a success for this season.

[TexHawk]

Yale just had their captain expelled from the school a few games ago (and the team wore warm ups in his honor, which they received backlash for; he was expelled for a sexual assault allegation supposedly). Not sure if that completely changes their game -- he was their fourth leading scorer, I believe. I'll certainly be cheering for them,

Yale's captain was expelled in early February. They have been without him for the last 9 games (going 8-1).

[NYBri]

I actually won't be surprised if Duke loses in round 1. The team looks to be out of gas. If Plumlee doesn't play any better with the mask next week, Duke will get beat. This feels like Lehigh/Mercer to me.

All is lost!

[TexHawk]

Baylor is a match-up nightmare for us, given they are an athletic and aggressive rebounding team, which plays into one of our principal weaknesses. I hope Marshall is not too hampered by the injury; we need him to be playing at full capacity for all our games, including the opener.

I am tempering my hopes about this team, although I think we can beat anybody in the field on any given day. A trip to the Sweet Sixteen would be an accomplishment.

This is true, but Duke's shooting is a match-up nightmare for Baylor on the other side. They have had success in the NCAA tournament a couple times because their zone is not something most teams see a lot. But it can be torn apart by good perimeter shooting.

Bill Self has always had success posting Perry Ellis/Thomas Robinson/Morris (x2) at the free throw line against them.

[Troublemaker]

Baylor is a match-up nightmare for us, given they are an athletic and aggressive rebounding team, which plays into one of our principal weaknesses. I hope Marshall is not too hampered by the injury; we need him to be playing at full capacity for all our games, including the opener. .

Perhaps. I've not seen Baylor play so can't comment specifically on the matchup, but I also find it hard to believe we would trade places with any other 4 or 5 seed in the bracket. (There's probably a 3-seed we would trade places with, but that's asking lot since going into Selection Sunday, most of us were thinking we'd be a 4-seed at best but more likely a 5.)

Good point about Marshall. Hopefully the extra days off helped him adjust to the mask so he can play better while wearing it. We need the strong-rebounding, decent-FT-shooting MP3 to show up.

[Kfanarmy]

Duke has been mighty inconsistent lately, but if you were any team in the bracket, would you want to play them in a single elimination game, rested?

[captmojo]

Ye of little faith,
I expect a complete surprise to those that would take Duke and Coach K a bit too lightly.

Scenes I'd like to see,
a line-up shake-up. Something akin to the shape the line-up looked like when Amile was still on the floor. A twin big-man situation, you could call it.

Other than Duke, I hope well for Stoneybrook.

[DukeTrinity11]

The doom and gloom mentality on this thread is sickening.

We're going to lose to UNCW who has a team of five 6"0-6"5 players when we have the length of Brandon Ingram and the size of Marshall Plumlee down low...REALLY???

Like Dino Gaudio said on CBS, the best thing to happen to Duke was losing in the ACC Quarterfinals not only from a motivational standpoint but because we have a week to rest up.

Don't buy into the tired old memes being spewed by the media about how Duke is exhausted and shorthanded...we"ll be ready to go on Thursday and Saturday.

As for Baylor, we are a matchup nightmare for them if they choose to zone us due to our perimeter shooting. Remember how easily Wisconsin throttled them with perimeter shooting 2 years ago? I wouldn't be shocked if Yale upset Baylor either.

I like Duke's chances against Oregon and Oklahoma this year too. The PAC 12 and Big 12 are perennially overrated.

Oregon lost to Boise State (#101 in KenPom), Oregon State (#60 in KenPom) and Stanford (#103 in KenPom). Duke's worst loss was to Clemson (#53 in KenPom) on the road.

OU is a good team but they are a perfect matchup for us since they are heavily reliant on the 3 ball and don't dominate down low.

In short, I expect Duke to roll to the Final Four this year with this godsend bracket.

Who shares my enthusiasm? :cool:

Go Blue Devils!!

[Troublemaker]

...I also find it hard to believe we would trade places with any other 4 or 5 seed in the bracket.

Needlessly expanding on the above statement since I just kind of dig bracket analysis:

In the South, you have 4-seed Cal and 5-seed Maryland. We wouldn't trade with Cal because that means being bracketed with Maryland. If the concern with Baylor is size, the Terps produce the same problem AND we'd have the emotional aspect of playing Rasheed. No thanks. Would we trade places with Maryland? Probably not. Cal is considered to be one of the most talented teams in the country -- uber athletic and can play with lots of size if they choose to. Both Cal and Maryland would be bracketed with overall #1 seed Kansas. No thanks.

In the MidWest, you have 4-seed Iowa St and 5-seed Purdue. We wouldn't trade with ISU because Purdue causes even more size problems than Baylor. They're a monstrously large team across the board and underseeded as the #10 Kenpom team. ISU is a team full of upperclassmen that spread you out and drive; that's not a cup of tea for Duke to deal with. Both ISU and Purdue are bracketed with UVA instead of Oregon. No thanks.

In the East, you have 4-seed Kentucky and 5-seed Indiana. Does anyone want to play Kentucky again, especially now that they're hot? Me neither. I suppose we could trade places UK in order to be bracketed with Indiana, but that is putting a lot of stock in a Big-10 Challenge game months ago. Indiana has improved greatly since then. Both are bracketed with UNC as the 1 seed, and although Duke has been very competitive with the Heels, I'd still prefer Oregon over them. The downside of losing to UNC in the tournament eclipses the upside of beating them. At least to me.

[Troublemaker]

In short, I expect Duke to roll to the Final Four this year with this godsend bracket.

Who shares my enthusiasm? :cool:

Go Blue Devils!!

I had Duke to the Final Four in all three brackets I filled out this morning. I felt good that it was an equal mix of head and heart in the analysis. Some years, I know I'm picking only with heart. But not this year.

[GGLC]

If you get the chance to watch the Oregon State game and haven't seen them yet, do so: Gary Payton II is a very entertaining player.

This season (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/gary-payton-2.html) he's averaging 15.9 points, 7.9 rebounds, 5.1 assists, 2.5 steals, and 0.5 blocks per game...the rebounds are especially impressive for a 6'3" guard. Both the steals and blocks are down from last year, where he averaged 3.1 and 1.2 respectively.

He's fairly sui generis among college players.

[TexHawk]

If you get the chance to watch the Oregon State game and haven't seen them yet, do so: Gary Payton II is a very entertaining player.

This season (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/gary-payton-2.html) he's averaging 15.9 points, 7.9 rebounds, 5.1 assists, 2.5 steals, and 0.5 blocks per game...the rebounds are especially impressive for a 6'3" guard. Both the steals and blocks are down from last year, where he averaged 3.1 and 1.2 respectively.

He's fairly sui generis among college players.

I'm stoked for the possible individual matchup between Payton and Buddy Hield.

[swood1000]

I remember when Duke played Yale earlier in the season, I was impressed enough to make a mental note back then to pick Yale as a 1st-round upset winner if they ended up making the tournament.

That said, Baylor's zone could be a bad matchup for them. Duke's 1-3-1 certainly made the difference in that game in November.
Yale will be playing without former basketball captain Jack Montague, who was expelled as a result of a sexual encounter. The particulars have not been disclosed but his father seems to categorize it as the result of a presumption of guilt in cases of this kind on campuses (http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2016/03/accused-expelled-and-smeared-as-a-rapist-at-yale/).

[gurufrisbee]

Perhaps. I've not seen Baylor play so can't comment specifically on the matchup, but I also find it hard to believe we would trade places with any other 4 or 5 seed in the bracket. (There's probably a 3-seed we would trade places with, but that's asking lot since going into Selection Sunday, most of us were thinking we'd be a 4-seed at best but more likely a 5.)
.

I'd trade with Kentucky in a heartbeat. At least for the first weekend, for sure.

[superdave]

Has anyone seen tournament team's records since February 1st compiled in one place?

[GGLC]

I'm stoked for the possible individual matchup between Payton and Buddy Hield.

Yes, definitely.

Side note: holy crap, I didn't realize what a ridiculous season (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/buddy-hield-1.html) Hield was having from beyond the arc.

Averaging four made three-pointers per game at a .464 clip...that's insane.

[Kedsy]

I had Duke to the Final Four in all three brackets I filled out this morning. I felt good that it was an equal mix of head and heart in the analysis. Some years, I know I'm picking only with heart. But not this year.

Here's something else to consider when analyzing Duke's Final Four chances this season: the potential path through the bracket. And I don't mean Baylor and Oregon and Oklahoma, I mean where are the likely upsets that would enable Duke to play an easier-than-expected path.

Only 13 4-seeds have made the Final Four in the 31 seasons since the tournament expanded to 64 teams. Of those 13, just two of them did it through "chalk paths" (i.e., 13-5-1-2) -- 2011 Kentucky (a team that was probably underseeded as the #7 Pomeroy team going into the tournament) and 1995 Oklahoma State. And only one other of the remaining 11 teams was even close to a chalk path (2013 Michigan went through 13-5-1-3). Here are all 13 4-seed Final Four teams and their paths:

1990 Arkansas: 13-12-8-10
1990 Georgia Tech: 13-5-1-6
1992 Cincinnati: 13-5-9-6
1995 Oklahoma State: 13-5-1-2
1996 Syracuse: 13-12-8-2
1997 Arizona: 13-12-1-10
1999 Ohio State: 13-12-1-3
2005 Louisville: 13-5-1-7
2006 LSU: 13-12-1-2
2011 Kentucky: 13-5-1-2
2012 Louisville: 13-5-1-7
2013 Syracuse: 13-12-1-3
2013 Michigan: 13-5-1-3

So, assuming history happens for a reason, where are the upsets going to happen in the West? Yale over Baylor? St. Joseph's over Oregon? Oregon State or VCU or Texas or Texas A&M over Oklahoma? If you think Duke can make the Final Four, you kind of have to believe in at least one of those upsets.

For what it's worth, every one of Duke's non-#1-seeded Final Four teams had similar luck:

1988 (2-seed): 15-7-11-1
1989 (2-seed): 15-7-11-1
1990 (3-seed): 14-6-7-1
1991 (2-seed): 15-7-11-4
1994 (2-seed): 15-7-6-1

Most of our #1 seeds have avoided a chalk path as well. And it's not just Duke. Over the 31 years of the modern tournament, only 21 of the 124 Final Four teams have gone through a chalk path (16.9%). And the percentage goes down as the seed gets bigger.

Just a thought.

[WV_Iron_Duke]

Me and a knowledgeable friend looked up Baylor after we watched WVU beat them twice in not really close games. Not much there except beating other BIG-12 teams. They get boosted by the conference RPI. They are a distant 4th in the BIG-12. Yes they have good rebounders but so do UVA and UNC. Rather play them than any of the other 5's except possibly a rematch with Indiana.

[sammy3469]

So, assuming history happens for a reason, where are the upsets going to happen in the West? Yale over Baylor? St. Joseph's over Oregon? Oregon State or VCU or Texas or Texas A&M over Oklahoma? If you think Duke can make the Final Four, you kind of have to believe in at least one of those upsets.



It wouldn't shock me if Cincy's defense could shut down Oregon. They really haven't played a top tier defense all year (closest is Cal where they went 1-1), so it would be something new for them to see.

On the other side I don't think Texas has enough to make the elite 8, but VCU could make it interesting in the Sweet 16 and Texas A&M certainly could in the Sweet 16.

[Troublemaker]

So, assuming history happens for a reason, where are the upsets going to happen in the West? Yale over Baylor? St. Joseph's over Oregon? Oregon State or VCU or Texas or Texas A&M over Oklahoma? If you think Duke can make the Final Four, you kind of have to believe in at least one of those upsets.

In all my brackets so far, I've had Oklahoma getting knocked out before the Elite 8. They've been an average offense for about a month now. Earlier in the season, they were so explosive.

[BandAlum83]

Here's something else to consider when analyzing Duke's Final Four chances this season: the potential path through the bracket. And I don't mean Baylor and Oregon and Oklahoma, I mean where are the likely upsets that would enable Duke to play an easier-than-expected path.

Only 13 4-seeds have made the Final Four in the 31 seasons since the tournament expanded to 64 teams. Of those 13, just two of them did it through "chalk paths" (i.e., 13-5-1-2) -- 2011 Kentucky (a team that was probably underseeded as the #7 Pomeroy team going into the tournament) and 1995 Oklahoma State. And only one other of the remaining 11 teams was even close to a chalk path (2013 Michigan went through 13-5-1-3). Here are all 13 4-seed Final Four teams and their paths:

1990 Arkansas: 13-12-8-10
1990 Georgia Tech: 13-5-1-6
1992 Cincinnati: 13-5-9-6
1995 Oklahoma State: 13-5-1-2
1996 Syracuse: 13-12-8-2
1997 Arizona: 13-12-1-10
1999 Ohio State: 13-12-1-3
2005 Louisville: 13-5-1-7
2006 LSU: 13-12-1-2
2011 Kentucky: 13-5-1-2
2012 Louisville: 13-5-1-7
2013 Syracuse: 13-12-1-3
2013 Michigan: 13-5-1-3

So, assuming history happens for a reason, where are the upsets going to happen in the West? Yale over Baylor? St. Joseph's over Oregon? Oregon State or VCU or Texas or Texas A&M over Oklahoma? If you think Duke can make the Final Four, you kind of have to believe in at least one of those upsets.

For what it's worth, every one of Duke's non-#1-seeded Final Four teams had similar luck:

1988 (2-seed): 15-7-11-1
1989 (2-seed): 15-7-11-1
1990 (3-seed): 14-6-7-1
1991 (2-seed): 15-7-11-4
1994 (2-seed): 15-7-6-1

Most of our #1 seeds have avoided a chalk path as well. And it's not just Duke. Over the 31 years of the modern tournament, only 21 of the 124 Final Four teams have gone through a chalk path (16.9%). And the percentage goes down as the seed gets bigger.

Just a thought.


You obviously have access to data. I was going to try do do this myself, but maybe it's something you can easily run.

There has bee so much talk of parity and this being a crazy year, I was wondering what the average, high and low total addition of seedings have been over the past 30 years. For example, chalk gets us 16 games in the second round of teams that add up to 9 (1v8, 2v7, etc). So the lowest total for round 2 is 9*16=144

So what is the high low and average? It would be interesting to track this through this year's tourney to see if the field is really as wide open as it would seem. If so, we would be well above the average, and maybe hit New highs along the way.

Any takers, if you have the data readily available?

[BD80]

Yale will be playing without former basketball captain Jack Montague, who was expelled as a result of a sexual encounter. The particulars have not been disclosed but his father seems to categorize it as the result of a presumption of guilt in cases of this kind on campuses (http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2016/03/accused-expelled-and-smeared-as-a-rapist-at-yale/).

He is suing the school over the school's action:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/former-yale-captain-says-hell-sue-school-over-expulsion/ar-AAgLxIv?li=BBnba9I&ocid=spartanntp

His side of the story is that the events were consensual, that it was the fourth time they had been intimate and that she stayed the night after the alleged non-consensual conduct.

Mere preponderance of the evidence is the standard that was applied. Montague had the misfortune of being "tried" after the Association of American Universities released a report suggesting that 25% of Yale students had experienced an incident that did not meet Yale's definition of "consent" and estimating that 18% had experienced an incident involving force or incapacitation.

No criminal action is pending

[Kedsy]

You obviously have access to data. I was going to try do do this myself, but maybe it's something you can easily run.

There has bee so much talk of parity and this being a crazy year, I was wondering what the average, high and low total addition of seedings have been over the past 30 years. For example, chalk gets us 16 games in the second round of teams that add up to 9 (1v8, 2v7, etc). So the lowest total for round 2 is 9*16=144

So what is the high low and average? It would be interesting to track this through this year's tourney to see if the field is really as wide open as it would seem. If so, we would be well above the average, and maybe hit New highs along the way.

Any takers, if you have the data readily available?

I only assembled path data for all top four seeds, plus any non-top-four seeds that made the Elite Eight. I have total win/loss results in the first and second rounds for (I think) all seeds. I have full bracket data since 1996. (I also have pre-Tournament Pomeroy ratings since 2009.) So I don't really have exactly what you're looking for.

But I do have the last 20 years, and for those 20 years, here are the round 2 totals:



Year SumSeeds
2000 155
2007 157
2004 162
2003 174
2011 179
2015 179
1996 181
2005 182
1997 183
2008 186
2002 187
2009 190
2014 190
1998 191
2010 192
1999 194
2006 195
2013 208
2001 209
2012 210


So, for the past 20 years, the high was 210 in 2012; the low was 155 in 2000; and the average was 185.

Hope that helps.

[Troublemaker]

In all my brackets so far, I've had Oklahoma getting knocked out before the Elite 8. They've been an average offense for about a month now. Earlier in the season, they were so explosive.

I should mention, btw, that it's not just Oklahoma for me. I've been unrestrained picking top seeds to lose early throughout my brackets. If people buy into the conventional wisdom that the top teams this season aren't as good as previous seasons' top teams, which I do buy, then I think internal consistency dictates that we should pick lots of upsets to occur.

I would set the over/under for number of 1-seeds OR 2-seeds OR 3-seeds making the Final Four to be 1.5.

[swood1000]

He is suing the school over the school's action:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/former-yale-captain-says-hell-sue-school-over-expulsion/ar-AAgLxIv?li=BBnba9I&ocid=spartanntp

His side of the story is that the events were consensual, that it was the fourth time they had been intimate and that she stayed the night after the alleged non-consensual conduct.

Mere preponderance of the evidence is the standard that was applied. Montague had the misfortune of being "tried" after the Association of American Universities released a report suggesting that 25% of Yale students had experienced an incident that did not meet Yale's definition of "consent" and estimating that 18% had experienced an incident involving force or incapacitation.

No criminal action is pending
Some say that a weakening of protection for accused males, both in other cases at Yale (http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2014/08/how-yale-brands-innocent-males-as-rapists/) as well as elsewhere has been caused by misguided Title IX enforcement (http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2014/10/how-the-education-department-warped-title-ix/) by the Dept. of Education. The withdrawal of federal funding or a public accusation that a university is coddling rapists could easily end some University careers. It's hard to get to the bottom of these cases based just on the statements from one side but they are troubling. I wouldn't be surprised if a male student who claims he was railroaded without any evidence filed his own Title IX case, claiming that the procedures in these cases are gender-biased.

[Wander]

Only 13 4-seeds have made the Final Four in the 31 seasons since the tournament expanded to 64 teams. Of those 13, just two of them did it through "chalk paths" (i.e., 13-5-1-2) -- 2011 Kentucky (a team that was probably underseeded as the #7 Pomeroy team going into the tournament) and 1995 Oklahoma State. And only one other of the remaining 11 teams was even close to a chalk path (2013 Michigan went through 13-5-1-3). Here are all 13 4-seed Final Four teams and their paths:

1990 Arkansas: 13-12-8-10
1990 Georgia Tech: 13-5-1-6
1992 Cincinnati: 13-5-9-6
1995 Oklahoma State: 13-5-1-2
1996 Syracuse: 13-12-8-2
1997 Arizona: 13-12-1-10
1999 Ohio State: 13-12-1-3
2005 Louisville: 13-5-1-7
2006 LSU: 13-12-1-2
2011 Kentucky: 13-5-1-2
2012 Louisville: 13-5-1-7
2013 Syracuse: 13-12-1-3
2013 Michigan: 13-5-1-3


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I think everyone here would already agree that the likelihood of exact chalk happening in a given region is very low, and that it's generally easier to face lower seeds. Just because people don't feel confident about identifying the exact upsets that will happen doesn't mean they can't be confident that upsets will happen somewhere, and a Duke path of Baylor-Oregon-Oklahoma is unlikely.

[throatybeard]

Where will the Duke v UNCW be played ?

In some sort of Donut center in Rhode Island.

[Kedsy]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I think everyone here would already agree that the likelihood of exact chalk happening in a given region is very low, and that it's generally easier to face lower seeds. Just because people don't feel confident about identifying the exact upsets that will happen doesn't mean they can't be confident that upsets will happen somewhere, and a Duke path of Baylor-Oregon-Oklahoma is unlikely.

I believe there's more to it than it's "generally easier to face lower seeds." For example, I think that if the #4 plays a #12 in the second round, that #4 is more likely to beat the #1 in the third round (assuming the #4 faces the #1 in the third round). The data, while not a huge amount of data points, would appear to back this up:

Success in third round of #4 seeds that play a 13-5-1 path: 8 wins, 21 losses (27.6%)
Success in third round of #4 seeds that play a 13-12-1 path: 7 wins, 11 losses (38.9%)

You're better at statistics than I am, but intuitively I'd expect more than 17% of Final Four teams to have played a chalk path. Wouldn't you? If not, I'd love to hear why (this is not sarcastic or a rhetorical question, it's something that's been on my mind for awhile).

[pfrduke]

I believe there's more to it than it's "generally easier to face lower seeds." For example, I think that if the #4 plays a #12 in the second round, that #4 is more likely to beat the #1 in the third round (assuming the #4 faces the #1 in the third round). The data, while not a huge amount of data points, would appear to back this up:

Success in third round of #4 seeds that play a 13-5-1 path: 8 wins, 21 losses (27.6%)
Success in third round of #4 seeds that play a 13-12-1 path: 7 wins, 11 losses (38.9%)

You're better at statistics than I am, but intuitively I'd expect more than 17% of Final Four teams to have played a chalk path. Wouldn't you? If not, I'd love to hear why (this is not sarcastic or a rhetorical question, it's something that's been on my mind for awhile).

No, because any six games going exactly the right way is unlikely. Merely for sake of example, let's say Iowa State goes to the final four this year, playing a chalk path. The chance of its opponents lining up that way (using Pomeroy's log5 probabilities for the tournament) is 31%. But the lower your seed, the higher your probability of a chalk path is because the odds of upsets at the top are lower. So Virginia, for example, has just a 10% chance of facing a chalk bracket. So 17% doesn't seem crazy to me - only 1 in 6 times do all the other games break with the chalk seed winning sounds about right.

[gurufrisbee]

Sports Illustrated had their ten college basketball "experts" post their brackets (including the leading Duke hater Seth Davis). Seven of them have Baylor beating Duke. Everyone is in love with that pick.

The other three do NOT have Duke beating Baylor.

One has Yale beating Duke - and then Duke beating Yale AND Oregon.

The last two have UNC-Wilmington beating Duke.

[Wander]

I believe there's more to it than it's "generally easier to face lower seeds." For example, I think that if the #4 plays a #12 in the second round, that #4 is more likely to beat the #1 in the third round (assuming the #4 faces the #1 in the third round). The data, while not a huge amount of data points, would appear to back this up:

Success in third round of #4 seeds that play a 13-5-1 path: 8 wins, 21 losses (27.6%)
Success in third round of #4 seeds that play a 13-12-1 path: 7 wins, 11 losses (38.9%)

You're better at statistics than I am, but intuitively I'd expect more than 17% of Final Four teams to have played a chalk path. Wouldn't you? If not, I'd love to hear why (this is not sarcastic or a rhetorical question, it's something that's been on my mind for awhile).

Honestly, I don't find 17% to be an unrealistic number. For example, just as a rough estimate, assuming 8 vs 9 games are 50/50, and that 4 vs 5 games are 50/50, and that the chance of a 2 seed making the Elite 8 is 50% puts a chalk path for a 1 seed at 12.5%.

But the first point - that's it's not just easier to face a lower seed, but makes your NEXT game easier due to rest or whatever - is a really interesting one that I never really considered. I'm open to it.

If that's true, maybe the nature of the S-curve has something to do with it too. The top overall seed is paired with the worst 2 seed and best 3 seed. So the 3 seed is more likely to upset the 2 and ruin the chalk path. Same principle for 4 vs 5 for the Sweet 16 game and even 8 vs 9. You could say "yeah, but isn't that canceled out by the worst 1 seed having the best 2 seed and therefore is more likely to encounter them as chalk in the Elite 8?" But I assume the overall 1 seed has a better chance of making the Final Four than the other 1 seeds in the first place.

[uh_no]

Some say that a weakening of protection for accused males, both in other cases at Yale (http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2014/08/how-yale-brands-innocent-males-as-rapists/) as well as elsewhere has been caused by misguided Title IX enforcement (http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2014/10/how-the-education-department-warped-title-ix/) by the Dept. of Education. The withdrawal of federal funding or a public accusation that a university is coddling rapists could easily end some University careers. It's hard to get to the bottom of these cases based just on the statements from one side but they are troubling. I wouldn't be surprised if a male student who claims he was railroaded without any evidence filed his own Title IX case, claiming that the procedures in these cases are gender-biased.

or more interesetingly, by claiming that the government coercing rules by tying them to funds makes the university a state actor in that matter, and by extension must guarantee that the students constitutional rights are not violated by said rules.

It would be a very interesting case.
On the one side, the wrongly accused student clearly has rights per the constitution, but on the other side, does the student have a right to attend THAT university? Any university? Can the rules the state is demanding prevent a student from attending a certain university (as they seem to be doing in this case), or perhaps all universities (as you end up black balled)? Is there a difference between public and private universities in this matter?

I suspect the student would win if scalia were still around...i'm not sure it would go past a push with the current bench. The relations to other rights are clear, IMO, however...

* Could the government tie funds to universities denying student's rights to free speech? I highly doubt it.
* Could the government tie funds to universities only supporting a certain religion? Almost certainly not.

Maybe a real lawyer can chime in...but it doesn't seem the government should be able to coerce rules which violate rights.

EDIT: wow...okay...i thought this was the 30 for 30 thread.....oops...wayyyy off topic

[Kedsy]

No, because any six games going exactly the right way is unlikely. Merely for sake of example, let's say Iowa State goes to the final four this year, playing a chalk path. The chance of its opponents lining up that way (using Pomeroy's log5 probabilities for the tournament) is 31%. But the lower your seed, the higher your probability of a chalk path is because the odds of upsets at the top are lower. So Virginia, for example, has just a 10% chance of facing a chalk bracket. So 17% doesn't seem crazy to me - only 1 in 6 times do all the other games break with the chalk seed winning sounds about right.

The 17% number is for Final Four teams, so it's only four games, not six. And as far as teams that have made the Final Four, of the 51 #1 seeds that made it, 9 of them (17.6%) played chalk paths. For #2 seeds it's 4 of 26 (15.4%), for #3 seeds it's 3 of 14 (21.4%), for #4 seeds it's 2 of 13 (15.4%), and for seeds larger than 4 it's 3 of 20 (15.0%).


Honestly, I don't find 17% to be an unrealistic number. For example, just as a rough estimate, assuming 8 vs 9 games are 50/50, and that 4 vs 5 games are 50/50, and that the chance of a 2 seed making the Elite 8 is 50% puts a chalk path for a 1 seed at 12.5%.

In 31 years, 8-seeds have won 63 and lost 61 against 9-seeds (50.8%). 4-seeds have won 36 and lost 30 against 5-seeds (54.5%). The historical frequency of 2-seeds making the Elite Eight is 46.8%. I have no idea if any of that changes your calculation, though. For what it's worth, of the 85 #1 seeds that have made the Elite Eight, 13 of them played a chalk path, which is 15.3%.

But whether or not 8-seeds and 9-seeds are even, or 4-seeds and 5-seeds are even (when playing each other), 1-seeds have performed much better against 9-seeds (56-5, 91.8%) than against 8-seeds (51-12, 81.0%), and 1-seeds have performed much better against 5-seeds (30-7, 81.1%) than against 4-seeds (32-15, 68.1%). So, historically, a chalk path is significantly harder even in the early rounds. So how do you treat the #1s that lost to a #8 (12 times) or lost to a #4 after playing the #8 (8 times). They played a chalk path too, they just didn't survive it.

If you count those early-exit chalk #1s, then "chalk path" 1-seeds made the Final Four in 9 of 33 chances (27.3%), while "non-chalk-path" 1-seeds made the Final Four in 42 of 91 chances (46.2%). I don't know if that's legitimate analysis, but if it is, it's eye-opening.


But the first point - that's it's not just easier to face a lower seed, but makes your NEXT game easier due to rest or whatever - is a really interesting one that I never really considered. I'm open to it.

If that's true, maybe the nature of the S-curve has something to do with it too. The top overall seed is paired with the worst 2 seed and best 3 seed. So the 3 seed is more likely to upset the 2 and ruin the chalk path. Same principle for 4 vs 5 for the Sweet 16 game and even 8 vs 9. You could say "yeah, but isn't that canceled out by the worst 1 seed having the best 2 seed and therefore is more likely to encounter them as chalk in the Elite 8?" But I assume the overall 1 seed has a better chance of making the Final Four than the other 1 seeds in the first place.

Does the committee actually use an S-curve, or is it a myth? I've heard it both ways.

Your point that I bolded is a good one. I think the part that's hardest to factor into this analysis is how much of a team's performance is due to how good the team is vs. how much of that same team's performance is due to the seed given to it by the committee. If you look at teams that have been grossly underseeded, based on Pomeroy (like this year's Wichita State or, e.g., 2013 Pittsburgh, rated #7 by Pomeroy but given an 8-seed by the committee), the vast majority of them do not overperform against their seed, which would imply that either Pomeroy was wrong or the disadvantageous seeding was too much to overcome. But who can say which? Or looking at it from the other side, if a team is gifted a 1-seed it doesn't deserve, will it's performance be a self-fulfilling prophecy because it got an easier path, or will that team be more likely to get upset because it was improperly seeded?

If the best team in the country is accidentally given a #6 seed, how much has it's chance of making the Final Four been diminished? If this year's Duke team had inexplicably been given a #1 seed, how much greater would our chance of success have been?

[Kedsy]

I should mention, btw, that it's not just Oklahoma for me. I've been unrestrained picking top seeds to lose early throughout my brackets. If people buy into the conventional wisdom that the top teams this season aren't as good as previous seasons' top teams, which I do buy, then I think internal consistency dictates that we should pick lots of upsets to occur.

I would set the over/under for number of 1-seeds OR 2-seeds OR 3-seeds making the Final Four to be 1.5.

I used Pomeroy's log5 formula to determine the odds of each seed, #1 through #8, winning its first game, then I averaged the four teams with each seed, and compared those probabilities to the same class of team in last year's tournament. Here's what I came up with:



Seed 2015 2016 diff
1 0.9652 0.9590 0.62%
2 0.9260 0.8806 4.54%
3 0.8509 0.7890 6.19%
4 0.7583 0.7488 0.95%
5 0.7369 0.7164 2.05%
6 0.5591 0.5582 0.09%
7 0.5603 0.5684 -0.81%
8 0.5473 0.5332 1.41%


So, the only seeds that seem significantly weaker (compared to their first round opponents) were #2 and #3 seeds (although they're still overwhelming favorites against the #15 and #14 seeds). Maybe #5, but to a much lesser extent. The others are nearly identical to last year. No idea what it means, but it's possible you're right that we shouldn't be picking too many #2 or #3 seeds to go too far. Not sure I'd bet against #1 seeds, though, unless you bet against them last year too.

[pfrduke]

The 17% number is for Final Four teams, so it's only four games, not six. And as far as teams that have made the Final Four, of the 51 #1 seeds that made it, 9 of them (17.6%) played chalk paths. For #2 seeds it's 4 of 26 (15.4%), for #3 seeds it's 3 of 14 (21.4%), for #4 seeds it's 2 of 13 (15.4%), and for seeds larger than 4 it's 3 of 20 (15.0%).

It's six games. To make the final four playing the chalk path, your round of 32 opponent has to win 1 game, your sweet 16 opponent has to win 2 games, and your elite 8 opponent has to win 3 games. If any of those six games goes wrong, you don't play a chalk path.

[subzero02]

I only assembled path data for all top four seeds, plus any non-top-four seeds that made the Elite Eight. I have total win/loss results in the first and second rounds for (I think) all seeds. I have full bracket data since 1996. (I also have pre-Tournament Pomeroy ratings since 2009.) So I don't really have exactly what you're looking for.

But I do have the last 20 years, and for those 20 years, here are the round 2 totals:



Year SumSeeds
2000 155
2007 157
2004 162
2003 174
2011 179
2015 179
1996 181
2005 182
1997 183
2008 186
2002 187
2009 190
2014 190
1998 191
2010 192
1999 194
2006 195
2013 208
2001 209
2012 210


So, for the past 20 years, the high was 210 in 2012; the low was 155 in 2000; and the average was 185.

Hope that helps.

2012 saw 2 15 seeds win in the first round. Those 2 wins increased the 2nd round seed total by 26. I don't see that happening this year but we will see. I wouldn't mind seeing an ivy league squad take down a 5 seed... that'd be a nice +7 for the second round total.

[rsvman]

Sports Illustrated had their ten college basketball "experts" post their brackets (including the leading Duke hater Seth Davis). Seven of them have Baylor beating Duke. Everyone is in love with that pick.

The other three do NOT have Duke beating Baylor.

One has Yale beating Duke - and then Duke beating Yale AND Oregon.

The last two have UNC-Wilmington beating Duke.

What?

Pretty sure you meant Yale beating Baylor, and then Duke beating Yale AND Oregon.

Anyway, I find it interesting and probably predictable that some people think we can beat the one seed, and several think we can't even get past the 13 seed. Such is the unpredictability of college basketball this year, and perhaps of Duke's team, too. One day we improbably beat a future 1 seed on their own home court; a week or so later, we get drubbed by a team that ends up being a 9 seed or a 10 seed, and the game isn't even close.

Bottom line? I could see us losing the first-round game, and I could also see us beating Oregon to get to the Elite Eight. No way of knowing what will happen until they toss the ball up and play the games.

[Wander]

Does the committee actually use an S-curve, or is it a myth? I've heard it both ways.

Your point that I bolded is a good one. I think the part that's hardest to factor into this analysis is how much of a team's performance is due to how good the team is vs. how much of that same team's performance is due to the seed given to it by the committee. If you look at teams that have been grossly underseeded, based on Pomeroy (like this year's Wichita State or, e.g., 2013 Pittsburgh, rated #7 by Pomeroy but given an 8-seed by the committee), the vast majority of them do not overperform against their seed, which would imply that either Pomeroy was wrong or the disadvantageous seeding was too much to overcome. But who can say which? Or looking at it from the other side, if a team is gifted a 1-seed it doesn't deserve, will it's performance be a self-fulfilling prophecy because it got an easier path, or will that team be more likely to get upset because it was improperly seeded?

If the best team in the country is accidentally given a #6 seed, how much has it's chance of making the Final Four been diminished? If this year's Duke team had inexplicably been given a #1 seed, how much greater would our chance of success have been?

Good questions. I don't have answers, but I will add to some of the Pomeroy skepticism by noting that it gives 1 seeds a 97% chance to beat the 16 seeds. If this is representative of most years, the fact that we haven't seen a 16 over a 1 yet is a very unlikely event (something like 1% chance). Maybe it really is the case that it's super odd that we haven't seen it yet, but maybe Pomeroy's percentage chances are a little off.

[sagegrouse]

Good questions. I don't have answers, but I will add to some of the Pomeroy skepticism by noting that it gives 1 seeds a 97% chance to beat the 16 seeds. If this is representative of most years, the fact that we haven't seen a 16 over a 1 yet is a very unlikely event (something like 1% chance). Maybe it really is the case that it's super odd that we haven't seen it yet, but maybe Pomeroy's percentage chances are a little off.

Reasopnable question. I would guess that a 1 vs. 16 upset is wa-a-a-y out on the tail of the probability distribution (density function). KenPom measures central tendencies -- the adjusted offenses and adjusted defenses are, in some sense, averages. The probabilities out at the tail of the distribution are governed more by the shape of the curves than the data points. The "thickness" of the tails of the distribution isn't what he is concentrated on.

Here's another way of saying it: Although KenPom is providing a valuable service and useful insights, he is distilling all of a team's season into two numbers. Those two numbers, and those of the opponent, can't be "all things to all basketball games."

[Bluedog]

If that's true, maybe the nature of the S-curve has something to do with it too. The top overall seed is paired with the worst 2 seed and best 3 seed. So the 3 seed is more likely to upset the 2 and ruin the chalk path. Same principle for 4 vs 5 for the Sweet 16 game and even 8 vs 9.


Does the committee actually use an S-curve, or is it a myth? I've heard it both ways.

Well, luckily for us, they release the full seed list (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/25515927/ncaa-bracket-tournament-committees-official-1-68-seed-list) so we can actually examine this this.

1. Kansas (South)
2. North Carolina (East)
3. Virginia (Midwest)
4. Oregon (West)
----
5. Michigan State (Midwest)
6. Oklahoma (West)
7. Villanova (South)
8. Xavier (East)
----
9. West Virginia (East)
10. Miami (South)
11. Utah (Midwest)
12. Texas A&M (West)
---
13. Duke (West)
14. California (South)
15. Kentucky (East)
16. Iowa State (Midwest)

Bolded teams follow s-curve logic starting with the 1 seed (i.e. top 1 seed gets bottom 2, second 1 seed gets third 2):

South: Top #1 seed, third #2 seed, second #3 seed, second #4 seed
East: Second #1 seed, bottom #2 seed, top #3 seed, third #4 seed
Midwest: Third #1 seed, top #2 seed, third #3 seed, bottom #4 seed
West: Bottom #1 seed, second #2 seed, bottom #3 seed, top #4 seed

So, you can see that the s-curve is a myth and is clearly NOT followed. Geography and other bracketing principles take precendence over it. The rule is that a bracket simply cannot be ovewhelmingly strong or weak (all the top 1-4 seeds couldn't be in the same region) by summing their official seed number. I forget the exact acceptable range, but it's fairly wide. A region could most certainly have the top 1 and 2, which would have to be balanced by a "weaker" 3 and/or 4, but not necessarily the "worst" 3 and 4.

[CDu]

Reasopnable question. I would guess that a 1 vs. 16 upset is wa-a-a-y out on the tail of the probability distribution (density function). KenPom measures central tendencies -- the adjusted offenses and adjusted defenses are, in some sense, averages. The probabilities out at the tail of the distribution are governed more by the shape of the curves than the data points. The "thickness" of the tails of the distribution isn't what he is concentrated on.

Here's another way of saying it: Although KenPom is providing a valuable service and useful insights, he is distilling all of a team's season into two numbers. Those two numbers, and those of the opponent, can't be "all things to all basketball games."

This is sort of my take on it as well. And it's sort of why I don't care for most "strength of schedule" estimates. Mathematically, when using averaged data, you may find that there is a difference in probability of victory in facing the #200 team versus the #300 team. And that is certainly true if you are the #199 team. It may likely even be true if you are the #100 team. But if you are a top-25 (maybe even top-50 team), I would argue that the talent disparity is so large compared with either the #200 or the #300 team that it shouldn't register as a difference in probability of a loss by the top-25 team. But when you're taking averages across the entire population of teams, you're going to lose some of the tail of the effect. And as such, you're probably overestimating the true schedule strength difference between that #200 and #300 team.

Thus, there is a strong likelihood in my opinion that Pomeroy's models fail to capture the extreme matchups very well. It's also why I think they fail to handle the outlier teams in a terrible conference (the Vermont example is one that comes to mind where a team that was clearly way better than their conference got overrated by Pomeroy's math), because games like that (with one team so clearly better than the rest of the conference) distort the math that doesn't do well in extreme matchups. And similarly, it probably does a poor job of estimating the 1/16 matchups.

[Kedsy]

It's six games. To make the final four playing the chalk path, your round of 32 opponent has to win 1 game, your sweet 16 opponent has to win 2 games, and your elite 8 opponent has to win 3 games. If any of those six games goes wrong, you don't play a chalk path.

Ah, I see. Sorry I misunderstood.


I used Pomeroy's log5 formula to determine the odds of each seed, #1 through #8, winning its first game, then I averaged the four teams with each seed, and compared those probabilities to the same class of team in last year's tournament. Here's what I came up with:

I expanded the table to show the average Pomeroy predicted chance of each seed (on average) winning their first game, going back to 2009:



Seed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2016 95.90% 88.06% 78.90% 74.88% 71.64% 55.82% 56.84% 53.32%
2015 96.52% 92.60% 85.09% 75.83% 73.69% 55.91% 56.03% 54.73%
2014 95.66% 88.46% 82.10% 79.34% 61.48% 53.94% 58.19% 48.49%
2013 96.69% 90.12% 81.40% 79.11% 64.89% 49.93% 57.31% 60.54%
2012 93.87% 90.17% 66.92% 76.59% 67.92% 55.13% 51.63% 57.90%
2011 97.44% 91.29% 88.55% 81.82% 56.51% 56.69% 54.76% 51.24%
2010 96.45% 94.93% 85.50% 77.42% 65.93% 50.71% 54.02% 52.28%
2009 96.56% 93.73% 86.00% 82.36% 67.57% 78.46% 55.67% 58.37%


Now, here's a table of first round seed-upsets:



Seed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2015 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0
2014 0 0 1 0 3 2 1 1
2013 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 2
2012 0 2 0 1 2 2 2 1
2011 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 1
2010 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 2
2009 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 2


Finally, here's a table showing the top four seeds aggregate progress to the Sweet 16, Elite 8, and Final 4:



16 8 4
2015-1 3 3 3
2015-2 2 2 0
2015-3 2 1 0
2015-4 2 1 0
2014-1 2 2 1
2014-2 2 2 1
2014-3 1 0 0
2014-4 4 1 0
2013-1 3 1 1
2013-2 3 2 0
2013-3 3 2 0
2013-4 2 2 2
2012-1 4 3 1
2012-2 2 2 2
2012-3 2 1 0
2012-4 3 1 1
2011-1 3 1 0
2011-2 3 2 0
2011-3 1 1 1
2011-4 2 1 1
2010-1 3 2 1
2010-2 3 2 1
2010-3 1 1 0
2010-4 1 0 0
2009-1 4 4 2
2009-2 4 2 1
2009-3 4 2 1
2009-4 2 0 0


Sadly, the second and third tables don't seem to correlate to the first table. For example, in 2013, when the average 6-seed had only a 49.9% chance to win, the 6-seeds' aggregate performance was exactly the same as in 2009, when the average 6-seed had a 78.5% chance to win. In 2014, when the 2-seeds' predicted strength was similar to this year, two #2s made the Elite Eight and one made the Final Four, as good a 2-seed performance in that regard as any year except 2012 (the third-worst percentage year in the first table). On the other hand, in 2015, 5-seeds had their best percentage chance to win (73.7%), and it was the only year in the period that #5s won all four games. But on the other-other hand, in 2011, when 5-seeds only sported a 56.5% chance of winning, the 5-seeds also had one of their best performances (3-1).


I should mention, btw, that it's not just Oklahoma for me. I've been unrestrained picking top seeds to lose early throughout my brackets. If people buy into the conventional wisdom that the top teams this season aren't as good as previous seasons' top teams, which I do buy, then I think internal consistency dictates that we should pick lots of upsets to occur.

I would set the over/under for number of 1-seeds OR 2-seeds OR 3-seeds making the Final Four to be 1.5.

Perhaps other people can get more out of these tables than I do, but I'm not sure I buy into the conventional wisdom. In 2011, for example, the #1, #2, and #3 seeds seemed quite separated from the rest of the pack, but only managed one Final Four team among them. The next year, 2012, it appeared to have the least separation between #1, #2, #3 and the pack in the entire period, but the top three seeds provided three of the Final Four teams.

Basically, the NCAA Tournament is a crap shoot. Any conventional wisdom is dangerous.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I don't necessarily love our path to the FF, but I love our bracket. According to Kenpom, we have:

1) the worst 1-seed
2) the second worst 2-seed
3) the second worst 3-seed
4) the worst 5-seed
5) the second worst 6-seed

Subsequently, Duke is also the worst 4-seed. But I'll take this bracket as a 4-seed than any other bracket as a 3-seed (including our own. I find Oklahoma a tougher opponent than Oregon).

[CDu]

I don't necessarily love our path to the FF, but I love our bracket. According to Kenpom, we have:

1) the worst 1-seed
2) the second worst 2-seed
3) the second worst 3-seed
4) the worst 5-seed
5) the second worst 6-seed

Subsequently, Duke is also the worst 4-seed. But I'll take this bracket as a 4-seed than any other bracket as a 3-seed (including our own. I find Oklahoma a tougher opponent than Oregon).

I think an argument could be made that Oregon is the third-best team in the region. I'd certainly suggest that Oklahoma is the top team in the region. But I think the #1 seed, the #3 seed, and the #4 seed in this region are largely interchangeable.

Obviously, though, we still have 3 other top-20 teams in our bracket, and one sure-fire top-10 team. So getting out would be difficult even in spite of our struggles of late. But it's definitely the easiest potential path to a Final Four that we've been given in recent memory.

[Bluedog]

The other thing that is huge in my mind is, if we get that far, the regional semis and championship are not being played close to any of the other teams and in a region of the country that won't be THAT anti-Duke. Oregon, Oklahoma and A&M all have large followings, but it's not like they're going to have an overwhelming presence in Anaheim. In fact, Duke has a decently sized alumni base in the LA area. If Duke had to play MSU in Chicago, for example, that's a road game (which counts for 6-7 points according to kenpom). Kentucky anywhere would be basically a road game too. I think in domed stadiums it matters less, but this year there are no domes in the Sweet Sixteen/Elite 8 as I recall.

[Wander]

I don't necessarily love our path to the FF, but I love our bracket. According to Kenpom, we have:

1) the worst 1-seed
2) the second worst 2-seed
3) the second worst 3-seed
4) the worst 5-seed
5) the second worst 6-seed

Subsequently, Duke is also the worst 4-seed. But I'll take this bracket as a 4-seed than any other bracket as a 3-seed (including our own. I find Oklahoma a tougher opponent than Oregon).

More importantly to me, is I think we have the worst 13 seed, or at least the best matchup. Hawaii and Iona I'd say are just better, and Stony Brook's best player is a power forward who dropped 40 and 10 or something like that in his conference championship game. I shudder to think of the Brice Johnsonesque numbers he'd put up against us. Throw in the fact that we're across from the 5 seed that is the most popular upset pick, and we're in I think as good a spot as we could hope for during the early two rounds.

[superdave]

Here are the wins for each of the top teams in our bracket vs the top 20, which ought to tell you something about how well each team could potentially play. Seeds are at the time of the game. Granted, this ignores some keys wins like Duke's over Indiana who was not ranked at the time. But Indiana was stinking up the joint at the time.

Oregon - #20 Baylor, #21 USC, #18 Zona, #15 Zona, #12 Utah

Oklahoma - 9 Nova, 11 ISU, 11 WVU, 13, Baylor, 10, WVU, 19 Baylor

A&M - 10 Gonzaga, 16 Baylor, 14 ISU, 14 UK

Duke - 13 Louisvilla, 7 Virginia, 5 Unc

Baylor - 16 Vandy, 13 ISU, 13 ISU


Duke has the two best wins on the list here. They also do not have great momentum the last few weeks.

[cato]

The other thing that is huge in my mind is, if we get that far, the regional semis and championship are not being played close to any of the other teams and in a region of the country that won't be THAT anti-Duke. Oregon, Oklahoma and A&M all have large followings, but it's not like they're going to have an overwhelming presence in Anaheim. In fact, Duke has a decently sized alumni base in the LA area. If Duke had to play MSU in Chicago, for example, that's a road game (which counts for 6-7 points according to kenpom). Kentucky anywhere would be basically a road game too. I think in domed stadiums it matters less, but this year there are no domes in the Sweet Sixteen/Elite 8 as I recall.

Anaheim is easily accessible from everywhere on the west coast. If Oregon and Duke both advance beyond this weekend, I will be very interested to see what the make up of the crowd will be. I anticipate lots of Oregon fans.

ETA: not to disagree with you, Bluedog. I would much rather have Oregon fans traveling in, than say, face Butler in Indianapolis.

[Kfanarmy]

Sports Illustrated had their ten college basketball "experts" post their brackets (including the leading Duke hater Seth Davis). Seven of them have Baylor beating Duke. Everyone is in love with that pick.

The other three do NOT have Duke beating Baylor.

One has Yale beating Duke - and then Duke beating Yale AND Oregon.

The last two have UNC-Wilmington beating Duke.

Run that by me again?

[El_Diablo]

Does the committee actually use an S-curve, or is it a myth? I've heard it both ways.

The committee does not use an s-curve. Rather, it develops an overall seed list and then slots the teams into the bracket one at a time, based primarily on geographic preference among the top seeds, but it will make an adjustment here and there as needed to comply with other seeding principles (e.g. if the running s-totals starts to get too unbalanced among regions, to avoid conference matchups before the regional finals, etc.).

If it were using a pure s-curve, Michigan State (the highest #2) would have been out west with Oregon (the lowest #1), not in the midwest with Virginia.

EDIT: Also, what bluedog said.

[flyingdutchdevil]

If it were using a pure s-curve, Michigan State (the highest #2) would have been out west with Oregon (the lowest #1), not in the midwest with Virginia.

Didn't the CBS announcers say that Virginia was the weakest #1 in the eyes of the committee and hence got matched with MSU? Or am I mishearing things.

[Kfanarmy]

538 has some pretty cool tourney tools up....if you haven't seen

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-march-madness-predictions/

[El_Diablo]

Didn't the CBS announcers say that Virginia was the weakest #1 in the eyes of the committee and hence got matched with MSU? Or am I mishearing things.

They very well might have said it (I am not sure), but if so they were just following standard operating procedure in talking out of their you-know-whats. Here is the top of the committee's official seed list:

1. Kansas
2. North Carolina
3. Virginia
4. Oregon
5. Michigan St.
6. Oklahoma
7. Villanova
8. Xavier
9. West Virginia
10. Miami (FL)
11. Utah
12. Texas A&M
13. Duke
14. California
15. Kentucky
16. Iowa St.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/bracket-beat/2016-03-14/march-madness-every-team-ranked-ncaas-complete-seed-list

[Kedsy]

They very well might have said it (I am not sure), but if so they were just following standard operating procedure in talking out of their you-know-whats. Here is the top of the committee's official seed list:

1. Kansas
2. North Carolina
3. Virginia
4. Oregon
5. Michigan St.
6. Oklahoma
7. Villanova
8. Xavier
9. West Virginia
10. Miami (FL)
11. Utah
12. Texas A&M
13. Duke
14. California
15. Kentucky
16. Iowa St.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/bracket-beat/2016-03-14/march-madness-every-team-ranked-ncaas-complete-seed-list

Wow, to think we were just one spot away from being a #3 seed.

[TexHawk]

The other thing that is huge in my mind is, if we get that far, the regional semis and championship are not being played close to any of the other teams and in a region of the country that won't be THAT anti-Duke. Oregon, Oklahoma and A&M all have large followings, but it's not like they're going to have an overwhelming presence in Anaheim. In fact, Duke has a decently sized alumni base in the LA area. If Duke had to play MSU in Chicago, for example, that's a road game (which counts for 6-7 points according to kenpom). Kentucky anywhere would be basically a road game too. I think in domed stadiums it matters less, but this year there are no domes in the Sweet Sixteen/Elite 8 as I recall.

Jim Calhoun made this exact point on ESPN over the weekend. He said he always hoped for the West region, because you generally only have to worry about UCLA or maybe Arizona having a pseudo home court advantage. At least compared to the Midwest and East which always had a load of good teams close to the venues. Also he was able to sell it to his team as more of a "road trip", so the players/coaches don't have to worry about family, tickets, or other obligations.

Which makes sense if you look at the last few winners of the regions: Wisconsin, Wisconsin, Wichita State, Louisville, UCONN, Butler, UCONN.

[bedeviled]

538 has some pretty cool tourney tools up...if you haven't seen
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-march-madness-predictions/
Last year, I wrote a post (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?35914-Lies-Damned-Lies-and-Statistics&p=805879#post805879) lauding FiveThirtyEight's pre-tournament predictions as evaluated using Brier Scores. According to this criterium, chosen by FiveThirtyEight (and which I think is appropriate), it edged out Pomeroy and Seed History as the best bracket predictor over the past few years.

Besides Brier Scores, the other way FiveThirtyEight evaluated the results of its model is by Calibration (https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-ncaa-bracket-checking-our-work/) ("when we say a team is a 75 percent favorite, is it really winning about 75 percent of the time?"). Note that Calibration uses the "Chance of Winning' predictions done on a game-by-game basis. That is, 'Chance of Winning' is determined after the two teams in the matchup have been determined (as opposed to an a priori full bracket prediction). In the link, FiveThirtyEight bins its Predicted Chance of Winning probabilities in 10% groups (50-59% chance of winning, 60-69% chance, etc) and looks at how well it did. FiveThirtyEight argues that the discrepancies found in calibration are within a 95% confidence interval for their predictions.

Caveat: I hesitate to post the following info because I abandoned the project when the thread was closed last year. As far as I recall, though, the data was complete and correct - I was just trying to figure out the basis of fivethirtyeight's use of a confidence interval.

Anyway, looking at FiveThirtyEight's published predictions from 2011 through 2015, I found that the 10% groupings helped to mask some less than stellar patterns in its predictions.
6104

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 400, align: left"]

Prediction Bin
Percent Won
# of Games


>0.499 to 0.55
0.641026
39


> 0.55 to 0.6
0.641026
39


> 0.6 to 0.65
0.486486
37


> 0.65 to 0.7
0.647059
34


> 0.7 to 0.75
0.763158
38


> 0.75 to 0.8
0.655172
29


> 0.8 to 0.85
0.894737
19


> 0.85 to 0.9
0.83871
31


> 0.9 to 0.95
0.923077
26


> 0.95 to 1
0.956522
23



I'm not enthused about a model in which there is no difference in outcome for games predicted as 50-55% chance of winning versus a 75-80% chance of winning.

However, I don't know if this is due to the Tournament being unpredictable by nature or models simply not being good at predicting a set of individual games. (Note: I didn't run the data for Pomeroy because 1) House P had aleady performed calibration for Pomeroy's 2015 predictions (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?35914-Lies-Damned-Lies-and-Statistics&p=804868#post804868) and 2) I didn't have Pomeroy's historical predictions.)

Personally, as I've posted in the past, I think using the models to declare that "Team A has an X chance of beating Team B" is a farcical interpretation of the data, though it is certainly a useful interpretation for sports-entertainment operations! Actually, I started this project after being irked by seeing ESPN use the ploy in soccer, for which I'm not aware of a solid "Four Factors" analysis. Even more ridiculous to me, in the fall, ESPN was using the tactic to say, "There's an X chance that Clemson will be chosen as one of the Football Playoff teams." Really? We accumulated enough data in the 2014 playoff decisions to build a predictive model with specific percentages?" Pffft.

I'd be happy if the model-makers started saying, "We choose Team A to win. Our model is correct an estimated X percent of the time when choosing a team with properties like A to win against a team with properties like team B. See our link for a list of the properties that our model thinks are important." That's not too much for the public to process, is it? That way, people realize that the prediction is based on the model, not on the actual chances that Team A has of winning. And, if people think factors such as number of seniors, times coach has been to Final Four, pre-season rankings are of high importance, then they can choose the model which they think is best for that particular game/round.

[uh_no]

Personally, as I've posted in the past, I think using the models to declare that "Team A has an X chance of beating Team B" is a farcical interpretation of the data, though it is certainly a useful interpretation for sports-entertainment operations! Actually, I started this project after being irked by seeing ESPN use the ploy in soccer, for which I'm not aware of a solid "Four Factors" analysis. Even more ridiculous to me, in the fall, ESPN was using the tactic to say, "There's an X chance that Clemson will be chosen as one of the Football Playoff teams." Really? We accumulated enough data in the 2014 playoff decisions to build a predictive model with specific percentages?" Pffft.

I'd be happy if the model-makers started saying, "We choose Team A to win. Our model is correct an estimated X percent of the time when choosing a team with properties like A to win against a team with properties like team B. See our link for a list of the properties that our model thinks are important." That's not too much for the public to process, is it? That way, people realize that the prediction is based on the model, not on the actual chances that Team A has of winning. And, if people think factors such as number of seniors, times coach has been to Final Four, pre-season rankings are of high importance, then they can choose the model which they think is best for that particular game/round.

Uh oh....be careful...you might rouse the bayesians out of their slumber!

[fuse]

Gut feel only, shoot me later...looking for a big first round win and a coin flip second game.

Let's Go Duke!!!!!

[bedeviled]

According to this criterium, chosen by FiveThirtyEight (and which I think is appropriate), it edged out Pomeroy and Seed History as the best bracket predictor over the past few yearsOh dear. Criterion, not criterium, lol. Too late to edit, but it was imperative that I correct that before the puns start.

[Atlanta Duke]

President Obama has Duke going to the Elite Eight and losing there to Texas A&M after beating UNC-W, Baylor & Oregon.

His Final Four is A&M, Michigan State, Kansas and Carolina, with Kansas over UNC in the national championship gam

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/03/15/see-president-obamas-2016-ncaa-basketball-tournament-brackets

Obama admitted he's not as knowledgeable on the lower-profile teams to feel comfortable selecting "Cinderellas'' to advance deep in the tournament.

"I have a tendency to pick the coach as much as anything, because typically these days, with one and done, what you see is continuity with the program,'' said Obama. "Coach K [Mike Krzyzewski] or Coach [Tom] Izzo or Coach Self, Coach [John] Calipari, they know how to take even their blue-chip freshmen and mold them, so that by the time the tournament comes around they're ready. I haven't always picked the right top four teams, but typically it's been one of the top teams that's ended up winning the tournament.''

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/14984934/president-barack-obama-chooses-kansas-jayhawks-win-tournament

[uh_no]

Oh dear. Criterion, not criterium, lol. Too late to edit, but it was imperative that I correct that before the puns start.

yeah....them we'd just be going around in circles

[Kfanarmy]

...Personally, as I've posted in the past, I think using the models to declare that "Team A has an X chance of beating Team B" is a farcical interpretation of the data, though it is certainly a useful interpretation for sports-entertainment operations! Actually, I started this project after being irked by seeing ESPN use the ploy in soccer, for which I'm not aware of a solid "Four Factors" analysis. Even more ridiculous to me, in the fall, ESPN was using the tactic to say, "There's an X chance that Clemson will be chosen as one of the Football Playoff teams." Really? We accumulated enough data in the 2014 playoff decisions to build a predictive model with specific percentages?" Pffft.

I'd be happy if the model-makers started saying, "We choose Team A to win. Our model is correct an estimated X percent of the time when choosing a team with properties like A to win against a team with properties like team B. See our link for a list of the properties that our model thinks are important." That's not too much for the public to process, is it? That way, people realize that the prediction is based on the model, not on the actual chances that Team A has of winning. And, if people think factors such as number of seniors, times coach has been to Final Four, pre-season rankings are of high importance, then they can choose the model which they think is best for that particular game/round.

Great post. Thanks much. I remember the discussion on Brier Scores from last year.

1) I think most of the actual model makers probably do describe their work along those lines...because they understand what went into the model, they normally understand what their model delivers in output and its limitations.
2) Unfortunately, most of the folks on ESPN and elsewhere who quote the results, are reading off "cue cards" someone else wrote and have no idea (and probably could care less) about the model. and
3) Most of the audience is only going to see the number and probably won't hear the explanation beyond "Team A has an X chance of beating Team B."

[Indoor66]

Great post. Thanks much. I remember the discussion on Brier Scores from last year.

1) I think most of the actual model makers probably do describe their work along those lines...because they understand what went into the model, they normally understand what their model delivers in output and its limitations.
2) Unfortunately, most of the folks on ESPN and elsewhere who quote the results, are reading off "cue cards" someone else wrote and have no idea (and probably could care less) about the model. and
3) Most of the audience is only going to see the number and probably won't hear the explanation beyond "Team A has an X chance of beating Team B."

I always sat that either A or B will win - take that to the bank!

[coot]

Does anyone know the potential game time for Duke Saturday if we win Thursday ? Not looking ahead , just need to plan some things. Thanks

[tbyers11]

Does anyone know the potential game time for Duke Saturday if we win Thursday ? Not looking ahead , just need to plan some things. Thanks

Saturday game times aren't announced until late Thursday night. Should we win on TH, I'd speculate that our early tip on TH makes it a bit more likely we would have an early tip on SAT around 1 or 2. But nothing is decided yet.

[DukieInKansas]

I always sat that either A or B will win - take that to the bank!

I'll go one step further - the one that scores the most points will win.


Let's Go, Duke!

And a 9F for good measure!

[Indoor66]

I'll go one step further - the one that scores the most points will win.

Faaaaarrrrrrrrr more profound than my comment. ;):cool:

[elvis14]

As I look at our bracket and the opponents we may get to play one thing keeps popping into my head: this Duke team has a high ceiling. I admit that they have not approached that ceiling as often as some of us would prefer but we have the ability to play at a very high level. In fact, as Jeter and maybe even Obi have improved our ceiling has gone up. So I look at our bracket and all I can think is "we really can beat any of these teams if we play well". Not every team can truly say that. At the same time, is there another team in the tournament that's beaten 2 of 4 #1 seeds.

Of course we could run into the situation where a team is just super Hot (think Arizona when Kyrie came back) but for the most part I feel like we control our own destiny because our ceiling is at least as high if not higher than the other teams in our bracket.

Move this to the optimist thread if you must. I can't wait!

[NM Duke Fan]

As I look at our bracket and the opponents we may get to play one thing keeps popping into my head: this Duke team has a high ceiling. I admit that they have not approached that ceiling as often as some of us would prefer but we have the ability to play at a very high level. In fact, as Jeter and maybe even Obi have improved our ceiling has gone up. So I look at our bracket and all I can think is "we really can beat any of these teams if we play well". Not every team can truly say that. At the same time, is there another team in the tournament that's beaten 2 of 4 #1 seeds.

Of course we could run into the situation where a team is just super Hot (think Arizona when Kyrie came back) but for the most part I feel like we control our own destiny because our ceiling is at least as high if not higher than the other teams in our bracket.

Move this to the optimist thread if you must. I can't wait!

IF the team plays to its capacities, where all 3 leading offensive players including Kennard play well at the same time, this team has a realistic fighting chance against not only every team in this bracket, but across all brackets. There are no "super teams" this year, and it is more wide open than usual.

[uh_no]

IF the team plays to its capacities, where all 3 leading offensive players including Kennard play well at the same time, this team has a realistic fighting chance against not only every team in this bracket, but across all brackets. There are no "super teams" this year, and it is more wide open than usual.

i don't know how you can argue different... wins over Indiana uva and unc....

[CDu]

i don't know how you can argue different... wins over Indiana uva and unc...

And a win over what would have been another top-4 seed in Louisville.

[elvis14]

IF the team plays to its capacities, where all 3 leading offensive players including Kennard play well at the same time, this team has a realistic fighting chance against not only every team in this bracket, but across all brackets. There are no "super teams" this year, and it is more wide open than usual.

I agree but about our 3 offensive players and about us having a chance in any bracket. I know everyone says "if we play well we can go far" but in the case of this Duke team we really can beat ANY other team in the tournament when we play well (and as uh no anc CDu point out we have already beat very good teams). At one point we lost a bunch of games as we adjusted to the loss of Amile (and waited for our freshman to come up to speed). Since then we have played really well and this format (play twice and rest) is pretty decent for our team (unlike the play every day format of the ACC tournament). As much as I wanted to win the ACCT, once we lost I recognized the fact that the extra rest would be good for the NCAAT.

Is it game time yet? How does that kid Allen do in NCAAT play? Has he every done anything of note in the NCAAT? :)

[Doria]

Man, I'm so ready for the games to start already! I love the first weekend of the tourney, though it's kind of a bummer that I've got a ton of work to do Thursday and Friday. Don't know how I'm gonna motivate through it. Never has Yu-gi-oh! seemed so meaningless! ::shakes fist::

As for the discussion above, yeah 3 offensive players playing well certainly has the potential to beat anyone, but I can't bank on our ability to do that six games in a row. I loved that game (maybe it was GT?) when all our players who got on the court had 5+ points, but that won't be a rule for us, most likely. Three players with good games is totally possible, and I hope it happens!

Go Duke! (And a 9F for good measure!)

[eddiehaskell]

6 games sounds impossible. I wanna look at it like K...2 games at a time. Finish this week with 2 wins (not easy) and then focus on the next set of games. If we get through this week, we are good enough to maybe, possibly, fingers crossed win two more against anyone. I'm willing to let the chips fall where they may if we get into the FF.

[Doria]

Ah, yeah, I am thinking of it just one game ahead (not even two). But looking one game at a time, the odds of three offensive players having good games rises significantly. Also, depending on matchups/other stuff, we may not even need three. We've won games this season with fewer, but I wouldn't want to see us making a habit of that in the tourney; I don't think I can take that much excitement!

Sorry, though, for letting my overall nerves dictate that comment; I'd just filled out my bracket for my family pool and was feeling pessimistic. Certainly, though, I've really enjoyed this season. I'd love to see them play a few more games. Go Duke!

[kAzE]

I'm pretty confident that we can get to the final four if we play the way we did over that brutal 4 game stretch in conference play.

The extra rest afforded to us via losing early in the ACC tournament should give us a chance to get about as healthy as we've been since before the UNC game at Chapel Hill (Matt's ankles, Derryck's shoulder, Brandon's ankle, Grayson's entire body), and HOPEFULLY we can get through this first game with a W and no new injuries.

Since the Louisville game @ Louisville, and with the exception of the NC State game in the first round of the ACC tourney, Brandon has looked tired to me. He looks like a freshman big man who has played way, way too many minutes, and shouldered way too much of a burden on both ends of the floor. I really hope this week of rest has given him the legs that he needs to play at the high, high level that we saw from him in some of his best games this year. When he and Grayson are both doing their thing on offense, we are capable of beating anyone.

It may have happened against one of our cupcakes early on, but I don't believe we've seen Luke, Brandon, and Grayson all go off in the same game. If all 3 of those guys are playing confidently, we're as good as Kansas or Michigan State. It's a big if, but with the rest afforded by the way the NCAA tournament schedule is set up, we've got a chance. The key will be staying healthy and getting proper rest and treatment on the 2 day turnaround games, if we are lucky enough to make it that far.

GO DUKE! LET'S GET #6!!

[subzero02]

Go Bulldogs!!!

[GGLC]

Is there going to be a post-game thread for the UNCW game, or do we discuss it here?

[Troublemaker]

live postgame presser here, if work doesn't block youtube


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9wB1kLPHyY

[duke4ever19]

Go Bulldogs!!!

Are we cheering for Yale because it's a better matchup for us? There's a lot of Yale love here, and I'm confused as to why.

I have nothing against Yale and will be cheering for them, but I really don't have a reason besides having picked them in my bracket.

[CDu]

Are we cheering for Yale because it's a better matchup for us? There's a lot of Yale love here, and I'm confused as to why.

I have nothing against Yale and will be cheering for them, but I really don't have a reason besides having picked them in my bracket.

Yes, that's the reason. Baylor is a big, physical, aggressive team that could cause problems for our defense (especially on the glass). Yale is the friendlier matchup, both in terms of style and quality of opponent.

[subzero02]

Wow...mason is a flat out baller... I can't wait to hear Charles at the half

[duke4ever19]

Baylor is wearing the same color as school crossing guard vests.

The Fighting Baptists vs. the ex-Congregationalists.

[subzero02]

Yale is frustrating Baylor right now... I like our chances against either team.

[TruBlu]

Yale is frustrating Baylor right now... I like our chances against either team.

So frustrating that two Baylor players got into a shoving/shouting match with each other.

[uh_no]

So frustrating that two Baylor players got into a shoving/shouting match with each other.

they're all around terrible. they look terrible in their attitudes, their play, and their uniforms.

[theschwartz]

The Whiffenpoofs are really singing in tune right now...I like their sound!

[Channing]

Yale with some textbook boxing out

...as I start typing Elmore makes the same point

[Troublemaker]

Baylor is going to lose to Yale. Mark it zero, Dude.


I remember when Duke played Yale earlier in the season, I was impressed enough to make a mental note back then to pick Yale as a 1st-round upset winner if they ended up making the tournament.

That said, Baylor's zone could be a bad matchup for them. Duke's 1-3-1 certainly made the difference in that game in November.

Looking good, Dukehky.

Baylor's zone sucks and they've had to abandon it, anyway.

If Yale hangs on, I don't think we dodged a bullet. Yale could certainly beat us. (And there's a chance Yale could rank higher than Baylor in Kenpom after this game, if you care about that stuff.)

Incidentally, Yale is beating Baylor comfortably on the boards.

[robed deity]

Looking good, Dukehky.

Baylor's zone sucks and they've had to abandon it, anyway.

If Yale hangs on, I don't think we dodged a bullet. Yale could certainly beat us.

Incidentally, Yale is beating Baylor comfortably on the boards.

Totally agreed. This Yale team is legit. Thought that when they played Duke earlier this year, and definitely think that now. Sears and Sherrod are no joke.

[gumbomoop]

I don't remember much about our game with Yale way back. But they are so efficient on O, sound on D and boards. They play right.

[AIRFORCEDUKIE]

I was hoping to play Baylor, they have always been big and athletic but also erratic and poorly coached. They seem to make mental mistakes that cost them games in the big dance more often than not. Also, when they get frustrated they show it and its easy to keep laying it on them.

Yale is more disciplined and focused than Baylor, and I'd venture to say the better team. Should be interesting down the stretch.

[pfrduke]

I don't remember much about our game with Yale way back. But they are so efficient on O, sound on D and boards. They play right.

They started on a 9-0 or 11-0 run against us. We fixed things from there.

[whereinthehellami]

Go Yale. They have been taking it to Baylor.

[jwillfan]

Not liking what I see from Baylor - as someone tweeted, very undisciplined. Fighting on the bench during a timeout. Mugging after a dunk...go Yale!

[mapei]

Baylor has raised their intensity - game is getting tense. Go Yale!

[subzero02]

Yale is making some mental errors... they could've put this away

[MChambers]

Incidentally, Yale is beating Baylor comfortably on the boards.
Minor point: that's largely because Baylor has missed a ton of shots, but it is safe to say Yale is holding its own on the boards.

[Doria]

Exciting game coming down to the wire. Hope that Yale can hang on and make me regret second-guessing my pick in that matchup.

[Channing]

gotta be honest ... they may not be the most polished basketball team, but I shudder to think what BU would do to us on the offensive glass. It may be a new NCAA record.

[jacone21]

Lgy! Lgy!

[gumbomoop]

Must get it to Mason. Must.

[DukieInKansas]

They didn't need to let it get this close. Let's Go, Yale!

[gumbomoop]

Great play, but why have the long release guy be a 54% FT-shooter?

[DukieInKansas]

woosh!

[DukieInKansas]

Wow!

[mapei]

Boola boola!

[dukelifer]

Boola boola!

Big win for Yale! Definitely did not expect that.

[mattman91]

Yale yeah!

[devildeac]

Funny stuff-Yale fan wearing a "Harvard Sucks" hat.

[A-Tex Devil]

Scott Drew is a horrible coach and his talented team deserves better. He recruits with the best of them though. Who cares. Great for Duke! That is all.

[Channing]

I don't know much about Baylor, and I certainly didn't like what I saw from Prince on the court (shoving in the huddle, etc.). BUT, this may be one of the all time great responses to a stupid/provocative question by a reporter trying to get a rise out a student athlete who is obviously dejected. Kudos!

http://www.businessinsider.com/baylor-rebounding-answer-ncaa-tournament-2016-3

[TNDukeFan]

The front-page Pointless Predictions skipped this one - anybody see a chance of a 10-7 upset?

[Troublemaker]

The front-page Pointless Predictions skipped this one - anybody see a chance of a 10-7 upset?

Northern Iowa over Texas would be an 11-6 upset, actually.

I would think it's possible, as Northern Iowa beat Wichita St twice recently. And the Shockers are a top-10 team.

[JetpackJesus]

I don't know much about Baylor, and I certainly didn't like what I saw from Prince on the court (shoving in the huddle, etc.). BUT, this may be one of the all time great responses to a stupid/provocative question by a reporter trying to get a rise out a student athlete who is obviously dejected. Kudos!

http://www.businessinsider.com/baylor-rebounding-answer-ncaa-tournament-2016-3

Thanks for sharing that. It was a fantastic answer.

[BandAlum83]

I only assembled path data for all top four seeds, plus any non-top-four seeds that made the Elite Eight. I have total win/loss results in the first and second rounds for (I think) all seeds. I have full bracket data since 1996. (I also have pre-Tournament Pomeroy ratings since 2009.) So I don't really have exactly what you're looking for.

But I do have the last 20 years, and for those 20 years, here are the round 2 totals:



Year SumSeeds
2000 155
2007 157
2004 162
2003 174
2011 179
2015 179
1996 181
2005 182
1997 183
2008 186
2002 187
2009 190
2014 190
1998 191
2010 192
1999 194
2006 195
2013 208
2001 209
2012 210


So, for the past 20 years, the high was 210 in 2012; the low was 155 in 2000; and the average was 185.

Hope that helps.


so...

The results are in. This year was thought to be potentially the most wide open tournament we've seen.

In the past 20 years, the sum of the seeds for the round of 32 averaged 185 and the high was 210.

This year? A new high, really shattering the old record. The sum of the seeds this year is:


215!

Don't know if it's conclusive, but it is interesting!

[TNDukeFan]

Northern Iowa over Texas would be an 11-6 upset, actually.

I would think it's possible, as Northern Iowa beat Wichita St twice recently. And the Shockers are a top-10 team.

You're a genius!:)

I didn't get MTSU (located an hour down the road from me), but thanks to you I picked UNI!

[jv001]

Duke is currently a 6 point favorite over Yale. I believe the game will be closely contested and the outcome probably will not be decided until late in the game. I had rather see Duke winning more easily for my mental well being. GoDuke!

[Henderson]

You're a genius!:)

I didn't get MTSU (located an hour down the road from me), but thanks to you I picked UNI!

I picked UNI to win the West Region (check the poll at the beginning of this thread). Neener neener neener. :rolleyes:

[Atlanta Duke]

Scott Drew is a horrible coach and his talented team deserves better. He recruits with the best of them though. Who cares. Great for Duke! That is all.

This from Mark Bradley of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

If it's one game for the fate of the world and Scott Drew is coaching ... well, we're all speaking Klingon.

https://twitter.com/MarkBradleyAJC/status/710579966371561472

[Troublemaker]

You're a genius!:)

I didn't get MTSU (located an hour down the road from me), but thanks to you I picked UNI!

Haha, thanks, but I'm certainly no genius for saying it's possible a 3.5-pt underdog could win. I didn't even pick UNI; I just said it was possible they could win. But I'm certainly glad something about my answer moved you to pick a winner in your brackets.

[OldPhiKap]

Let's go St. Joe!!!

[weezie]

Wonder if GMan is tempted to pound gottlieb on the top of his pointy little empty dome.

[Indoor66]

Wonder if GMan is tempted to pound gottlieb on the top of his pointy little empty dome.

Couldn't spork you, but I imagine he knows, as do you and I, that it is not worth the effort. :cool: (I tried for as many commas as possible;))

[Pghdukie]

Gottlieb, what a jerk. Everytime I hear him,I think - Is CBS that hard up ?

[dukelifer]

Northern Iowa with two huge mistakes in the last 20 seconds.

[duke4ever19]

Northern Iowa with two huge mistakes in the last 20 seconds.

What an implosion.

[dukelifer]

What an implosion.

Wow. Up 8 with 25 seconds and now tied. Twice they tried to throw it off the legs of a defender and twice they gave up a layup.

[hudlow]

What an implosion.

Absolutely

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

So many brain farts in a row. Wow.

Gonna be tough for UNI to regroup.

[arnie]

Northern Iowa with two huge mistakes in the last 20 seconds.

And maybe worst handling of end of game by officials. Phantom call against Northern Iowa on A&M drive and obvious hacking/moving pivot foot 3-4 times after that. Those guys don't need to call another game.

[duke4ever19]

Wow. Up 10 with 25 seconds and now tied.

I can honestly say I've never seen this kind of turnaround on any level of hoops, high school, college bball, NBA. Not in that amount of time.

[El_Diablo]

14-2 run in last 34 seconds...unbelievable. TAMU will probably win by 10 now.

[Stray Gator]

I thought this game was over when UNI had a 12-point lead with only 38 seconds left. Just goes to show once again that you can never let up in a game that's either win or go home.

[dukelifer]

I thought this game was over when UNI had a 12-point lead with only 38 seconds left. Just goes to show once again that you can never let up in a game that's either win or go home.

Northern Iowa is not going to win this. The Aggies may be that team that died and came back to life and will storm through the tourney now. Amazing.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

UNI up 3 with a minute to go

[subzero02]

"What a choke job"- Gary Williams circa January 2001

I was expecting UNI to rollover in OT.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

These monitor reviews are absurd. Kills the flow of a great game and gives de facto timeouts.

Hate it.

[dukelifer]

UNI up 3 with a minute to go

tied

[hudlow]

Lohaus with the nerve.

[91devil]

I guess A&M has UNI right where they want them - in bounding the ball under the basket.

[dukelifer]

tied

UNI up 1 with 21 seconds. What a gutty 3 that kid hit.

[arnie]

These monitor reviews are absurd. Kills the flow of a great game and gives de facto timeouts.

Hate it.

Shows lack of confidence by the crew. The 3 by A@m clearly a 3, but crew reviews anyway.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Shows lack of confidence by the crew. The 3 by A@m clearly a 3, but crew reviews anyway.

I have seen a ton of them all over the tournament, but it is exhausting and makes the games take forever.

[El_Diablo]

Shows lack of confidence by the crew. The 3 by A@m clearly a 3, but crew reviews anyway.

Hey, it's Jamey Luckie...what do you expect?

[dukelifer]

Shows lack of confidence by the crew. The 3 by A@m clearly a 3, but crew reviews anyway.

Double over time

[arnie]

Double over time

Wrong region but TNT game tied with 2 secs. Go X

[gocanes0506]

WTH, 5 seconds and the guy take 3 dribbles and jacks it up from half court? I'm no UNI fan but I haven't yelled at the tv during a game in a long time. Too many brain farts for them to win this game.

[arnie]

Wrong region but TNT game tied with 2 secs. Go X

Sh--

[duke4ever19]

Meanwhile Wiscy just nailed the buzzer beater to beat Xavier. WOW

[gocanes0506]

This game is over. UNI players are fouling out. Can't believe they lost this game.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

This game is insane.

[91devil]

This will be a tough offseason for UNI.

[dukelifer]

This game is insane.

Heartbreaking loss. They have been one lucky team up until now - but still that one will hurt for a long long time.

[Newton_14]

Wow. UNI up 12 points with 44 seconds left in Regulation and loses in Double OT. Ouch. That hurts.

[Newton_14]

And peeps were questioning why Nova put their starters back in today, when up 16 with 1:15 left. Cause stuff happens, that's why. Wow. Crazy!

[subzero02]

Wow. UNI up 12 points with 44 seconds left in Regulation and loses in Double OT. Ouch. That hurts.

Some of the players and coaches will never get over this...

[dukelifer]

Wow. UNI up 12 points with 44 seconds left in Regulation and loses in Double OT. Ouch. That hurts.

I posted that they were moving on with 22 seconds to go and then had to edit after giving up 5 pts in 2 seconds. That was unreal.

[duke4ever19]

Go St. Joseph's!

[bleedingblue88]

I have never seen a worse choke in sports than what Northern Iowa just had happen to them. That's rough.

[jipops]

Kenny Smith is the last person that should be giving that "psa". But his point is valid.

[Duke79UNLV77]

These games tonight are a reminder of why college hoops is the best sport there is.

[burnspbesq]

St. Joe's isn't ready to go on the cart.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

St. Joe's isn't ready to go on the cart.

Clearly... quite impressed with their composure.

[arydolphin]

NCAA just released the tip times for the entire Sweet 16. Duke is playing in the second game of the night in Anaheim on Thursday night on TBS. The first game tips at 7:37 PM, so the start of Duke's game will be 10 PM at the earliest, and likely a little later than that.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

And... let's go to the monitors... again

[subzero02]

Bring on the ducks... let's drown them in pond.

[NashvilleDevil]

It's late and I'm lazy at the moment so without looking is the West region the only one that had the top 4 seeds advance to the Sweet 16?

[duke4ever19]

And... let's go to the monitors... again

I know, right? The commercials and halftime are long enough without twenty trips to the computer to decide to put 0.3 seconds on the clock . . . midway through the first half.

[Mabdul Doobakus]

Certainly glad I'm off work Thursday and Friday.

It's hard to take much credit for this since I've never taken less time to pick a bracket...I mean, I probably did the whole thing in about 7 minutes...but I somehow managed to pick 42 out of 48 games correctly. Before the Oregon win (which I picked correctly), I was tied for 35th nationally with I'm sure a ton of people on the Yahoo! pick'em site. Too bad I picked Michigan State to win it all.

[burnspbesq]

Bring on the ducks... let's drown them in pond.

Hasn't been the Pond for a while. But if you want to run over a duck with your Honda ...

[Olympic Fan]

Just got the gametimes ...

Oklahoma-Texas A&M will be the first game from Anaheim Thursday night at 7:37

Duke-Oregon will be the second game, at approximately 10:10 or so.

The game will be on TBS and will feature Vern Lundquist and Jim Spanarkel. Good omen -- Lundquist did the Duke-Kentucky classic in '92, while Spanarkel is, of course, the first Duke great.

[royalblue]

It's late and I'm lazy at the moment so without looking is the West region the only one that had the top 4 seeds advance to the Sweet 16?

Yes and just to expand
Duke's half of the bracket
South and West has
2 1seeds 2 2seeds 2 3seeds 1 4seed and a 5seed

Uncch's half
East and Midwest
2 1seeds 1 4seed 1 5seed 1 6seed 1 7 seed
1 10seed 1 11seed

[pfrduke]

It's late and I'm lazy at the moment so without looking is the West region the only one that had the top 4 seeds advance to the Sweet 16?

Yes. South (Kansas) has 1,2,3,5; East (UNC) has 1,5,6,7; MW (UVA) has 1,4,10,11

[eddiehaskell]

GOOD LAWD - with 48 seconds up 12 UNI could've repeatedly launched the ball down court like a football play. Or hell, just simply hand the ball back to the ref and set up your defense. I seriously doubt A&M could've scored 12 in 48 seconds with UNI's defense set up. Unbelievable. This will probably haunt their thoughts for the rest of their lives.

[gurufrisbee]

Stop me when this sounds familiar: The media/haters all fall all over themselves to whine and complain that Duke is supposedly in the easiest region. Then they actually play the games and it turns out the top teams actually are top teams and come through and the second weekend Duke has nothing but great seeds ahead of them, while the other top seeds in all the other three regions that supposedly made those regions stronger have falled and gone away.

[subzero02]

I still haven't found an early spread for the game. I have been able to find at least spread for the other 7 sweet 16 match ups

[OldPhiKap]

The game will be on TBS and will feature Vern Lundquist and Jim Spanarkel. Good omen -- Lundquist did the Duke-Kentucky classic in '92, while Spanarkel is, of course, the first Duke great.

Dick Groat and Art Heyman say hello. But yeah, I like that broadcast duo.

[BD80]

Dick Groat and Art Heyman say hello. But yeah, I like that broadcast duo.

He meant once they cut the bottom out of the peach basket.

[COYS]

Stop me when this sounds familiar: The media/haters all fall all over themselves to whine and complain that Duke is supposedly in the easiest region. Then they actually play the games and it turns out the top teams actually are top teams and come through and the second weekend Duke has nothing but great seeds ahead of them, while the other top seeds in all the other three regions that supposedly made those regions stronger have falled and gone away.

To be fair, if you have to play a 1 seed (and 4 seeds who make it to the sweet 16 usually do), Oregon is the best choice. We're still the underdog, but in the KenPom era, Oregon is either the second worst or third worst 1 seed ever (going off of post tournament numbers so I guess if we beat them badly they could slip). I'd still rather play Oregon in the next game over UVA, UNC, or Kansas. So our unlucky bracket really only becomes "unlucky" if we manage to beat Oregon. But you could make a convincing argument that, as a four seed in a tournament in which all the 1 seeds made it to the Sweet Sixteen, we are lucky to be playing the weakest 1 seed by far.

[Channing]

...sorry J-Wil. Gone in 54 seconds is no longer the standard bearer. If there is a word better than E-P-I-C, I'm not sure what it is, so I'll just say that was an E-P-I-C collapse by UNI. Credit the Aggies, though. That is why you play to the final whistle.

[kmspeaks]

Stop me when this sounds familiar: The media/haters all fall all over themselves to whine and complain that Duke is supposedly in the easiest region. Then they actually play the games and it turns out the top teams actually are top teams and come through and the second weekend Duke has nothing but great seeds ahead of them, while the other top seeds in all the other three regions that supposedly made those regions stronger have falled and gone away.


To be fair, if you have to play a 1 seed (and 4 seeds who make it to the sweet 16 usually do), Oregon is the best choice. We're still the underdog, but in the KenPom era, Oregon is either the second worst or third worst 1 seed ever (going off of post tournament numbers so I guess if we beat them badly they could slip). I'd still rather play Oregon in the next game over UVA, UNC, or Kansas. So our unlucky bracket really only becomes "unlucky" if we manage to beat Oregon. But you could make a convincing argument that, as a four seed in a tournament in which all the 1 seeds made it to the Sweet Sixteen, we are lucky to be playing the weakest 1 seed by far.

This is all true but there was a little piece of me that was cheering for St. Joe's last night, not because I know anything about matchups or which would be a better game for Duke, but because I kind of wanted to hear IC and the media whine about how the selection committee once again gift wrapped Duke the easiest path through the tournament. Nevermind the facts, that would have been the narrative and it would have made me chuckle for the next 5 days. ICMeltdown on twitter had some good stuff this weekend from Carolina fans ticked off about Duke getting Yale if you're on Twitter I suggest giving them a follow. You get some of the most absurd funny stuff without having to wade into the depths over there.

[Troublemaker]

This is all true but there was a little piece of me that was cheering for St. Joe's last night, not because I know anything about matchups or which would be a better game for Duke, but because I kind of wanted to hear IC and the media whine about how the selection committee once again gift wrapped Duke the easiest path through the tournament. Nevermind the facts, that would have been the narrative and it would have made me chuckle for the next 5 days. ICMeltdown on twitter had some good stuff this weekend from Carolina fans ticked off about Duke getting Yale if you're on Twitter I suggest giving them a follow. You get some of the most absurd funny stuff without having to wade into the depths over there.

Love it. We have to embrace the hate. In a perfect world, we would win the title with a path of 13-12-9-15-16-16

[arnie]

Love it. We have to embrace the hate. In a perfect world, we would win the title with a path of 13-12-9-15-16-16

New set of idiots on local mid morning sports radio - said Duke would be in Final 4 cause they're in the JV bracket as usual with no good teams left to play. The irony of that statement considering Heels remaining path was not apparent to these guys. Playing to the audience I guess.

[wsb3]

Dick Groat and Art Heyman say hello. But yeah, I like that broadcast duo.

Jeff Mullins, Jack Marin, Bob Verga;).......................as well

[heyman25]

Mike Lewis, Steve Vacendak,Randy Denton,Dick DeVenzio, Gary Melchionni and Tate Armstrong deserve mention as former Duke greats before Jim Spanarkel.

[Indoor66]

Mike Lewis, Steve Vacendak,Randy Denton,Dick DeVenzio, Gary Melchionni and Tate Armstrong deserve mention as former Duke greats before Jim Spanarkel.

Joe Kennedy, Doug Kistler, Jay Buckley, Hack Tison, Tim Kilodzeij - played a little ball for the Devils as well.

[Newton_14]

Joe Kennedy, Doug Kistler, Jay Buckley, Hack Tison, Tim Kilodzeij - played a little ball for the Devils as well.

Due to my age, Tate Armstrong was my first Duke Hero. I don't remember watching anyone before him. I'm sure I did because I started watching as soon as I was old enough to sit in front of a tv for longer than 5 minutes. :)

[Newton_14]

GOOD LAWD - with 48 seconds up 12 UNI could've repeatedly launched the ball down court like a football play. Or hell, just simply hand the ball back to the ref and set up your defense. I seriously doubt A&M could've scored 12 in 48 seconds with UNI's defense set up. Unbelievable. This will probably haunt their thoughts for the rest of their lives.

It was actually 44 seconds but your idea of just giving them the ball back and setting your defense had me laughing. But you are right. Even if they let A&M inbound from under the UNI basket everytime, they would have been hard pressed to make up 12 points in 44 seconds. It was very reminiscent of our losing an 8 point lead in 17 seconds against the Cheats with no 3point line. Just hard to do even if you are trying!

[jv001]

It was actually 44 seconds but your idea of just giving them the ball back and setting your defense had me laughing. But you are right. Even if they let A&M inbound from under the UNI basket everytime, they would have been hard pressed to make up 12 points in 44 seconds. It was very reminiscent of our losing an 8 point lead in 17 seconds against the Cheats with no 3point line. Just hard to do even if you are trying!

Two times on the inbounds play, a player was double teamed and tried to bounce it off an A&M player. Both times an A&M player takes the ball to the basket for an easy layup. But what the heck, it was a great assist :cool:They showed a close up of the UNI coach telling the player he should have just thrown it down court. But it was too late then. What an EPIC collapse. GoDuke!

[-jk]

Joe Kennedy, Doug Kistler, Jay Buckley, Hack Tison, Tim Kilodzeij - played a little ball for the Devils as well.

I always like to remind folks that in his 30-some years, K has taken Duke all the way from 5th all time winningest program to 4th...

We do have some solid history pre-K, albeit without NCAA championships (which were tougher back then, too).

-jk

[devildeac]

I always like to remind folks that in his 30-some years, K has taken Duke all the way from 5th all time winningest program to 4th...

We do have some solid history pre-K, albeit without NCAA championships (which were tougher back then, too).

-jk

And, if the NCAA COI does one of their jobs correctly (and painfully), we'll move into 3rd place ;) .

[-jk]

And, if the NCAA COI does one of their jobs correctly (and painfully), we'll move into 3rd place ;) .

As they say: Your mouth to God's ears!

(But I'm not holding my breath. I still think they skate.)

-jk

[BandAlum83]

I always like to remind folks that in his 30-some years, K has taken Duke all the way from 5th all time winningest program to 4th...

We do have some solid history pre-K, albeit without NCAA championships (which were tougher back then, too).

-jk

Definite history pre-k! We've been to the final 4 in every decade since the 60s. What other schools can say that?

I'd look it up, but really don't feel like it right now. Sporks to anyone who does! :)

[Pghdukie]

IIRC, Didn't UCLA win their 1st natty by beating Duke. John Wooden's start to coaching immortality.

[BandAlum83]

IIRC, Didn't UCLA win their 1st natty by beating Duke. John Wooden's start to coaching immortality.

Yes. 1964. Duke lost 98-83. High scoring game with no 3 or shot or shot clock

Box score:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/boxscores/1964-03-21-duke.html

[throatybeard]

Cue Twitter avalanche on Thursday, thousands of tweets, approximately like "Oregon's unis are so [expletive] ugly I'm rooting for DUKE! LOLOLOLOL!"

[budwom]

Mike Lewis, Steve Vacendak,Randy Denton,Dick DeVenzio, Gary Melchionni and Tate Armstrong deserve mention as former Duke greats before Jim Spanarkel.

not sure I'd call DeVenzio a "Duke great." Good but not great player, never fulfilled his high school hype. But yes, plenty of Duke greats pre Spanarkel...

[wsb3]

IIRC, Didn't UCLA win their 1st natty by beating Duke. John Wooden's start to coaching immortality.

You just had to bring up the first Final Four Loss that sent a young lad to bed in tears. Jeff Mullins was my first favorite Duke player...

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Two times on the inbounds play, a player was double teamed and tried to bounce it off an A&M player. Both times an A&M player takes the ball to the basket for an easy layup. But what the heck, it was a great assist :cool:They showed a close up of the UNI coach telling the player he should have just thrown it down court. But it was too late then. What an EPIC collapse. GoDuke!

Running to the corner to receieve the inbound killed them. Basically begs for a trap.

That last corner trap and ensuing intercepted pass for a bucket should have been a travel, not that it really matters.

[throatybeard]

Also, Bill Werber served the beer.

[jv001]

Running to the corner to receieve the inbound killed them. Basically begs for a trap.

That last corner trap and ensuing intercepted pass for a bucket should have been a travel, not that it really matters.

I thought the player that was trapped was fouled but no way were the refs going to call it. GoDuke!

[opossum]

Definite history pre-k! We've been to the final 4 in every decade since the 60s. What other schools can say that?

I'd look it up, but really don't feel like it right now. Sporks to anyone who does! :)

I looked it up. Currently no other school can say that. The only 1960's final 4 school that has gone to the final 4 in every decade* from January 1, 1960 up to January 31, 2010 is UNC-CHeat.

Go Hoosiers!

*I know there are people who quibble about when decades begin and end, but it doesn't seem to matter in this case.

[Indoor66]

*I know there are people who quibble about when decades begin and end, but it doesn't seem to matter in this case.

There is nothing to quibble about. The Arabic number system is quite clear: 1 - 10; 11 - 20; etc. The Decade begins with 1 and ends with 10. What is the problem other than Clinton wanting to be present for the turn into the 21st Century?

[sagegrouse]

There is nothing to quibble about. The Arabic number system is quite clear: 1 - 10; 11 - 20; etc. The Decade begins with 1 and ends with 10. What is the problem other than Clinton wanting to be present for the turn into the 21st Century?

Common usage, my friend. When one or more of the first three numbers in the year change, we celebrate a new decade, century or millennium. And please don't blame Bill Clinton. He was President on both January 1, 2000 and January 1, 2001.

Kindly,
Sage

[opossum]

There is nothing to quibble about. The Arabic number system is quite clear: 1 - 10; 11 - 20; etc. The Decade begins with 1 and ends with 10. What is the problem other than Clinton wanting to be present for the turn into the 21st Century?

Yes, that's the kind of quibbling about which I was referring. :)

Whether you consider 1960 part of the 60's or the 50's, and whether you consider 2010 part pf the 00's or the 10's, Duke is currently the only school that can claim to have made the Final Four in every decade since the 1960's.

If UNC-CH wins two games in the next round, then Duke and UNC-CH will be the only two schools to have gone to the Final Four in every decade since the 1960's, however defined (beginning 1/1/60 or 1/1/61). If that happens, they will also be able to claim the 1950's and 1940's as well (having gone to the Final Four in 1957 and 1946). Like I said, go Hoosiers!

Bill Clinton was President in the 21st Century by either definition too: President GW Bush took office on January 20, 2001.

ETA: sage beat me to that last point.

[Troublemaker]

TAMU likes to use zone but it hasn't appeared at all today yet due to Oklahoma's shooters. And TAMU can't seem to guard them in m2m.

Duke, if we're good enough and lucky enough to win tonight, would perhaps face similar issues on Saturday.

[duke4ever19]

I get that some of the tickets are bought by Duke and Oregon fans, but the large sections of empty seats for the OU and AM game is not a good look for the sweet 16.

If I was a Duke or Oregon fan, I'd be at both games.

[dukelifer]

TAMU likes to use zone but it hasn't appeared at all today yet due to Oklahoma's shooters. And TAMU can't seem to guard them in m2m.

Duke, if we're good enough and lucky enough to win tonight, would perhaps face similar issues on Saturday.

Oklahoma dominated that half. Wow

[Doria]

Oklahoma dominated that half. Wow

Yeah, when I tuned in just now, that was not what I wanted to see from either team.

[dukelifer]

Yeah, when I tuned in just now, that was not what I wanted to see from either team.

Nova is also playing well

[Lulu]

Huge boo to the moderators. Everyone saw tonight's loss coming and there's no way there's any need for a "cool down". Let everyone discuss Duke's LAST game of the season on the night it ended. I won't be back tomorrow...