NCAA tournament changes coming

[fuse]

Notably, potential top seeds get to make their location preference known (ahead of bracket announcement selection Sunday).

Pretty interesting innovation.

[BD80]

Notably, potential top seeds get to make their location preference known (ahead of bracket announcement selection Sunday).

Pretty interesting innovation.

More for calipari to complain about

[devildeac]

Notably, potential top seeds get to make their location preference known (ahead of bracket announcement selection Sunday).

Pretty interesting innovation.

Hoping that means we'll be playing in Cameron...

;):o

[OldPhiKap]

K has been pretty open about his preferences in the past, rule or no rule.

[brevity]

Sorry to interrupt the wild speculation with a little information and structure. Oh hey, a link (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/basketball/2016/07/18/ncaa-tournament-top-overall-seed-pick-first-and-second-round-game-site/87268074/).


The top overall seed for the NCAA men's basketball tournament will choose where it plays its first two games, according to a statement from the NCAA.

So it's not every top seed, but the overall top seed, and it's just the first weekend site, not the region. Not sure how this changes much, unless the overall top seed finds itself roughly equidistant between two sites and would like their choice of venue. But carry on.

[madscavenger]

Sorry to interrupt the wild speculation with a little information and structure. Oh hey, a link (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/basketball/2016/07/18/ncaa-tournament-top-overall-seed-pick-first-and-second-round-game-site/87268074/).



So it's not every top seed, but the overall top seed, and it's just the first weekend site, not the region .............................

Well if that's they want, i say the Blue Devils should choose Lexington. Just because.

[UrinalCake]

So, do they get to choose which region/bracket they are in, or do they get to choose their pod? I have followed college ball as closely as anyone for the past twenty years, and I still don't understand the pod system.

This change is obviously a reaction to Kansas being sent to the South rather then staying in the Midwest this past season. But they played their first two games in Des Moines, Iowa so it's not like that really mattered. Your region only really affects the middle weekend games - the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 rounds - and under this new proposal it doesn't look like you get to choose those.

[weezie]

I really think I could run the entire NCAA shebang if given the barest of chances. Seriously.

[devildeac]

I really think I could run the entire NCAA shebang if given the barest of chances. Seriously.

You've got my vote-on one condition-and, as an esteemed fellow resident on the Mt, I'd wager you know exactly what that might be...

[gam7]

I see this having little to no practical impact whatsoever, given how they assign teams to sites nowadays. Seems to me that it is a solution in search of a problem that I am not aware of. Would be a much bigger deal if they let the top seed pick its site for the second weekend.

[weezie]

You've got my vote-on one condition-and, as an esteemed fellow resident on the Mt, I'd wager you know exactly what that might be...

Regular, unannounced, and officially licensed keg stands at half-time, I hear ya...

[gam7]

Regular, unannounced, and officially licensed keg stands at half-time, I hear ya...

I used to go to Colorado State football games when it was one of I think two schools whose home stadium allowed beers to be sold during games. Keg stands in the concourse during half time was a reality (though not officially sanctioned). It was incredible.

[UrinalCake]

I really think I could run the entire NCAA shebang if given the barest of chances. Seriously.

You wanna know what's really fun? When your eight year-old daughter asks you why there are 68 teams. And you have to try to explain it to her.

[Nugget]

I see this having little to no practical impact whatsoever, given how they assign teams to sites nowadays. Seems to me that it is a solution in search of a problem that I am not aware of. Would be a much bigger deal if they let the top seed pick its site for the second weekend.

I agree there is much less here than meets the eye -- to date there's been almost no question whatsoever as to which opening round pod the top seed would prefer to be assigned, as indicated by the last 10 years where there was always an obvious 1st/2nd round preferential location for the overall #1 seed:

2016: Kansas (Des Moines)
2015: Kentucky (Louisville)
2014: Florida (Orlando)/Wichita St. (St. Louis)
2013: Louisville (Lexington)/Gonzaga (Salt Lake City)
2012: Kentucky (Louisville)
2011: Ohio St. (Cleveland)
2010: Kansas (Oklahoma City)
2009: Louisville (Dayton)/N. Carolina (Greensboro)
2008: N. Carolina (Raleigh)
2007: Ohio St. (Lexington).

But, any movement towards having the NCAA/Committee move towards a bracketing structure that is less "rules" based and more actual preference-based is, I think, a hopeful step.

I'd like to see them move towards doing even more of that.

Even the full blown "bracket draft" idea where the Committee would focus only on the selection and seeding (1 through 68) of teams and then the afternoon/evening of Selection Sunday could be made into a 3-4 hour televised "draft" of bracket positions described by John Gasaway, Jordan Brenner and Andy Glocker would be intriguing:

https://johngasaway.com/2015/03/16/why-im-declaring-for-the-draft/

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/12454502/proposing-ncaa-tournament-draft-college-basketball.

[JasonEvans]

Even the full blown "bracket draft" idea where the Committee would focus only on the selection and seeding (1 through 68) of teams and then the afternoon/evening of Selection Sunday could be made into a 3-4 hour televised "draft" of bracket positions described by John Gasaway, Jordan Brenner and Andy Glocker would be intriguing:

https://johngasaway.com/2015/03/16/why-im-declaring-for-the-draft/

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/12454502/proposing-ncaa-tournament-draft-college-basketball.

Any day that Nugget posts to the DBR is a good day. Far too infrequent...

The tournament draft idea, which was really eloquently explained by Jordan Brenner (Nugget's second link above), would generate huge ratings for ESPN! I'd watch that sucker for hours!

-Jason "it will never happen, but college hoops fans would adore it!" Evans

[rsvman]

You wanna know what's really fun? When your eight year-old daughter asks you why there are 68 teams. And you have to try to explain it to her.

Exactly. Even an 8-year-old is smart enough to know that the number 68 appears nowhere in the sequence of "2 to the nth power."

[Pghdukie]

Regular, unannounced, and officially licensed keg stands at half-time, I hear ya...

Count me in if the keg is cold and says "Miller Lite" !

[MartyClark]

I used to go to Colorado State football games when it was one of I think two schools whose home stadium allowed beers to be sold during games. Keg stands in the concourse during half time was a reality (though not officially sanctioned). It was incredible.

University of Colorado also allowed beer sales at football games for much longer than the competition. Those afternoon games in September were great.

University of Colorado still sells beer at basketball games. You need to know which stairway to go down to go underground to the basketball offices and practice gym. Anyone attending the game can do it, although it is not widely known. The practice gym is set up with chairs, big screen t.v.s, food stands and beer, even good beer, not just Coors.

[Olympic Fan]

I see this having little to no practical impact whatsoever, given how they assign teams to sites nowadays. Seems to me that it is a solution in search of a problem that I am not aware of. Would be a much bigger deal if they let the top seed pick its site for the second weekend.

I just read the ESPN story about this:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/17101308/division-men-basketball-committee-says-no-1-overall-seed-able-choose-site

I was flabbergasted as to what a non-story it is. All they are saying is that the overall No. 1 seed gets to pick its first/second round site.

But -- as Nugget pointed out -- the top seed always gets the most favorable 1st/second round site anyway.

Put it this way ... if Duke has the 2017 season we all expect, the Devils should enter the NCAA Tournament as the overall No. 1 seed. K would get to pick his NCAA starting point. Don't you think he'd prefer to start in Greensboro? And without this new rule, the No. 1 seeded Duke would start in ... Greensboro!

The last time Duke was the overall No. 1 seed was, I believe, 2006 ... we got to start in Greensboro. We were No. 1 seeds (but not the overall No. 1) in 2010, 2011 and 2015. In 2011 and 2015, we started our NCAA runs in Charlotte, which was the closest site. In 2010, we started our run in Jacksonville, Fla. -- but there was not a NC site that year -- Jacksonville or Rhode Island were our two closest choices.

Duke has been a No. 1 seed 10 times since 1999 -- and we've started eight times with a site in North Carolina ... and one in Greenville, SC. The Jacksonville start is the only non-local site we've had to start with as a No. 1 seed -- and that was still the closest site. You have to go back to 1998 to find a No. 1 seed Duke team that got a bad first/second round seed -- and that was before the pod system (and the result of being the second No. 1 seed from the ACC ... UNC, the No. 1 seed in the entire tournament, got the favorable seeding that year).

In fact, if Duke is a top 4 seed, the Devils almost always get to start closest to home -- the only chance that doesn't happen would be if there are two higher seeds in the same geographical area. And that would still be the case under the "new" rules.

Unless I'm missing something, this "new" rule is NOTHING.

[BD80]

Count me in if the keg is cold and says "Miller Lite" !

Of course, you mean "IC Light"

Go Steelers!

[SilkyJ]

I see this having little to no practical impact whatsoever, given how they assign teams to sites nowadays. Seems to me that it is a solution in search of a problem that I am not aware of. Would be a much bigger deal if they let the top seed pick its site for the second weekend.



Put it this way ... if Duke has the 2017 season we all expect, the Devils should enter the NCAA Tournament as the overall No. 1 seed. K would get to pick his NCAA starting point. Don't you think he'd prefer to start in Greensboro? And without this new rule, the No. 1 seeded Duke would start in ... Greensboro!

Unless I'm missing something, this "new" rule is NOTHING.

My thoughts exactly--we basically always play in G-boro or Charlotte so not sure how this affects anything. Not to mention, this rule is only for ONE team, so this will never, ever apply to the vast majority of schools. Way to go NCAA, some real progress. Glad we got this hammered out while the UNC scandal drags on for another couple decades...

[Owen Meany]

Since this only involves the overall number 1 seed it will obviously have a very limited impact. But if it were to impact anyone, I would think it would be Duke. In the past, it has come up several times that Duke has actually been hurt by being placed in its "home" venue, because Duke often ends up being treated as an away team by fans in North Carolina (particularly Charlotte) who have purchased tickets in advance (often anticipating UNC to be a top seed playing there). I cannot think of a similar team who is placed at such a disadvantage when playing close to home.

When I first heard this I wondered if the anti-Duke crowd would complain that this was done to benefit Duke. But again, since it only applies to the top overall seed it will rarely come in to play (although Duke has a pretty good chance of being the top 1 seed this year).

[revmel53]

Since this only involves the overall number 1 seed it will obviously have a very limited impact. But if it were to impact anyone, I would think it would be Duke. In the past, it has come up several times that Duke has actually been hurt by being placed in its "home" venue, because Duke often ends up being treated as an away team by fans in North Carolina (particularly Charlotte) who have purchased tickets in advance (often anticipating UNC to be a top seed playing there). I cannot think of a similar team who is placed at such a disadvantage when playing close to home.

When I first heard this I wondered if the anti-Duke crowd would complain that this was done to benefit Duke. But again, since it only applies to the top overall seed it will rarely come in to play (although Duke has a pretty good chance of being the top 1 seed this year).

I'm in agreement. I don't think it would hurt as much in first weekend as the second, though, with anti-Duke sentiment from the UNCheat crowd.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Since this only involves the overall number 1 seed it will obviously have a very limited impact. But if it were to impact anyone, I would think it would be Duke. In the past, it has come up several times that Duke has actually been hurt by being placed in its "home" venue, because Duke often ends up being treated as an away team by fans in North Carolina (particularly Charlotte) who have purchased tickets in advance (often anticipating UNC to be a top seed playing there). I cannot think of a similar team who is placed at such a disadvantage when playing close to home.

When I first heard this I wondered if the anti-Duke crowd would complain that this was done to benefit Duke. But again, since it only applies to the top overall seed it will rarely come in to play (although Duke has a pretty good chance of being the top 1 seed this year).

You beat me to it - good point. This could be the case particularly if UNC was a very high seed and there was a high likelihood that they would end up in the same building as Duke. If there were another first weekend site that was only marginally further away (say DC or Atlanta) we might choose to go there to get away from the hostile crowd. Also, I could see Coach K choosing to be slightly further away in a dome (such as in Atlanta) to prepare for future round games that are played in domes (since we frequently hear that the background for shooting in a dome is much different), though as far as I know, currently there aren't dome games until the second weekend. I would also like to think that we might be willing to travel a bit more if the first weekend was during break, so that missing classes due to travel wouldn't be an issue.

Also, a team that might be on the fence between two locations might express a preference for a Friday/Sunday vs. a Thursday/Saturday or vice versa.

[ChillinDuke]

I just read the ESPN story about this:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/17101308/division-men-basketball-committee-says-no-1-overall-seed-able-choose-site

I was flabbergasted as to what a non-story it is. All they are saying is that the overall No. 1 seed gets to pick its first/second round site.

But -- as Nugget pointed out -- the top seed always gets the most favorable 1st/second round site anyway.

Put it this way ... if Duke has the 2017 season we all expect, the Devils should enter the NCAA Tournament as the overall No. 1 seed. K would get to pick his NCAA starting point. Don't you think he'd prefer to start in Greensboro? And without this new rule, the No. 1 seeded Duke would start in ... Greensboro!

The last time Duke was the overall No. 1 seed was, I believe, 2006 ... we got to start in Greensboro. We were No. 1 seeds (but not the overall No. 1) in 2010, 2011 and 2015. In 2011 and 2015, we started our NCAA runs in Charlotte, which was the closest site. In 2010, we started our run in Jacksonville, Fla. -- but there was not a NC site that year -- Jacksonville or Rhode Island were our two closest choices.

Duke has been a No. 1 seed 10 times since 1999 -- and we've started eight times with a site in North Carolina ... and one in Greenville, SC. The Jacksonville start is the only non-local site we've had to start with as a No. 1 seed -- and that was still the closest site. You have to go back to 1998 to find a No. 1 seed Duke team that got a bad first/second round seed -- and that was before the pod system (and the result of being the second No. 1 seed from the ACC ... UNC, the No. 1 seed in the entire tournament, got the favorable seeding that year).

In fact, if Duke is a top 4 seed, the Devils almost always get to start closest to home -- the only chance that doesn't happen would be if there are two higher seeds in the same geographical area. And that would still be the case under the "new" rules.

Unless I'm missing something, this "new" rule is NOTHING.

At first blush, I agreed with this line of thinking. However, you allude to a scenario I hadn't considered and now am. If Duke is the #1 seed in a season that does not have a NC site in the first round (nor DC, e.g.), would we not potentially implement this new rule? The example you listed is 2010 which had Jacksonville or Rhode Island as our closest choices. If you tweak that example to, say, Jacksonville and Brooklyn, would Duke absolutely want Jacksonville as opposed to Brooklyn? I am assuming we'd default to Jacksonville under the "old" rule and I'd think it at least possible that we'd prefer Brooklyn under the "new" rule.

Maybe I'm missing something? And granted, it's a pretty low likelihood event I'm describing.

- Chillin

[gam7]

At first blush, I agreed with this line of thinking. However, you allude to a scenario I hadn't considered and now am. If Duke is the #1 seed in a season that does not have a NC site in the first round (nor DC, e.g.), would we not potentially implement this new rule? The example you listed is 2010 which had Jacksonville or Rhode Island as our closest choices. If you tweak that example to, say, Jacksonville and Brooklyn, would Duke absolutely want Jacksonville as opposed to Brooklyn? I am assuming we'd default to Jacksonville under the "old" rule and I'd think it at least possible that we'd prefer Brooklyn under the "new" rule.

Maybe I'm missing something? And granted, it's a pretty low likelihood event I'm describing.

- Chillin

Your scenario is a situation where it could come into play I think.

There are other scenarios where, in theory, the #1 seeded team could get cheeky and have a preference other than being at the closest site, but they will never actually happen. One such scenario might be where the top seed wants to try to take advantage of the pod seeding rules to drive another team from its conference away from a site where the other team would prefer to play (e.g., Duke is overall #1, UNC a #2, BC a #3 and Syracuse a #4; pod sites in DC, Brooklyn, Boston and Lexington, KY; Duke thinks Syracuse is dangerous and wants to make their path more difficult; so, Duke picks Brooklyn. UNC gets DC, BC gets Boston, and Syracuse has to play in Lexington, KY). The problems are that (a) it's very risky to try to game it that way; and (b) the site preference has to be submitted before tourney seeds are determined.

[ChillinDuke]

Your scenario is a situation where it could come into play I think.

There are other scenarios where, in theory, the #1 seeded team could get cheeky and have a preference other than being at the closest site, but they will never actually happen. One such scenario might be where the top seed wants to try to take advantage of the pod seeding rules to drive another team from its conference away from a site where the other team would prefer to play (e.g., Duke is overall #1, UNC a #2, BC a #3 and Syracuse a #4; pod sites in DC, Brooklyn, Boston and Lexington, KY; Duke thinks Syracuse is dangerous and wants to make their path more difficult; so, Duke picks Brooklyn. UNC gets DC, BC gets Boston, and Syracuse has to play in Lexington, KY). The problems are that (a) it's very risky to try to game it that way; and (b) the site preference has to be submitted before tourney seeds are determined.

Agree on your theoretical example. Also agree it's too risky and problematic for a coach/team to legitimately implement.

- Chillin

[SCMatt33]

Your scenario is a situation where it could come into play I think.

There are other scenarios where, in theory, the #1 seeded team could get cheeky and have a preference other than being at the closest site, but they will never actually happen. One such scenario might be where the top seed wants to try to take advantage of the pod seeding rules to drive another team from its conference away from a site where the other team would prefer to play (e.g., Duke is overall #1, UNC a #2, BC a #3 and Syracuse a #4; pod sites in DC, Brooklyn, Boston and Lexington, KY; Duke thinks Syracuse is dangerous and wants to make their path more difficult; so, Duke picks Brooklyn. UNC gets DC, BC gets Boston, and Syracuse has to play in Lexington, KY). The problems are that (a) it's very risky to try to game it that way; and (b) the site preference has to be submitted before tourney seeds are determined.

I don't see why Syracuse is forced out in this scenario. The only rules regarding conference teams concern when they can play each other, not who plays at what site. What would prevent Syracuse from getting the 2nd pod in Brooklyn in your scenario. Now if say, St. John's were a 2 seed, then Duke picking Brooklyn would force Syarcuse out because Duke and St. John's would lead the two pods in Brooklyn, where it might otherwise be St. John's and Syracuse.

[Olympic Fan]

Since this only involves the overall number 1 seed it will obviously have a very limited impact. But if it were to impact anyone, I would think it would be Duke. In the past, it has come up several times that Duke has actually been hurt by being placed in its "home" venue, because Duke often ends up being treated as an away team by fans in North Carolina (particularly Charlotte) who have purchased tickets in advance (often anticipating UNC to be a top seed playing there). I cannot think of a similar team who is placed at such a disadvantage when playing close to home.

I know this a much-cheished myth this board, but it's happened exactly ONE time -- in 2005.

Charlotte was a very hostile place for Duke on '05 because of strange circumstances.

But it's never happened again -- and Duke and UNC have shared the same arena in 2009 (Greensboro), 2011 (Charlotte) and 2012 (Greensboro). We shared our opening site with Virginia in 2014 (Raleigh) and 2015 (Charlotte). There was never any problem with their crowd at any of those sites -- in every case, it was a MUCH more pro-Duke crowd than at any non-North Carolina site where Duke has played, including Jacksonville in 2010 and Philadelphia in 2013. Duke has run into hostile crowds at a number of sites over the years -- Houston in 2010, Lexington in 1998 (even though Kentucky wasn't there).

The Charlotte '05 situation was a fluke because that was a year when UNC spent most of the year at 1-2-3 nationally and was long assured of playing in Charlotte. Wake Forest was also ahead of Duke all year and expected to be in the Charlotte pod. Wake's collapse in the ACC Tourney and Duke's ACC championship changed things and Duke landed in Charlotte where UNC (and Wake) fans had all the tickets.

Could something like that happen again? Yes-- but the new NCAA rule won't change that. Remember, it only impacts the No. 1 seed in the entire tourney and a team like that is not going to sneak into a favorable seed at the last minute.

I guarantee you that Coach K will always choose the same location as the NCAA would have chosen anyway.

I repeat, this rule changes NOTHING.

PS The scenario that Chillin Duke laid out is so far fetched as to be laughable. As SCMatt pointed out Duke choosing a site would not necessarily bump another ACC team from that site. There are two pods at every site. It would require a bizarre series of events to implement your situation ... besides, you really think Coach K -- with the No. 1 seed -- would be so afraid of a No. 4 seeded team (which would be in another regional and couldn't face Duke until the Final Four) that he would opt for a less favorable site for Duke in order to screw that No.4 seed (note - without the new rule, the NCA would have almost certainly sent the No. 1 seed to he most favorable location)?

[DU82]

I know this a much-cheished myth this board, but it's happened exactly ONE time -- in 2005.

Charlotte was a very hostile place for Duke on '05 because of strange circumstances.

But it's never happened again -- and Duke and UNC have shared the same arena in 2009 (Greensboro), 2011 (Charlotte) and 2012 (Greensboro). We shared our opening site with Virginia in 2014 (Raleigh) and 2015 (Charlotte). There was never any problem with their crowd at any of those sites -- in every case, it was a MUCH more pro-Duke crowd than at any non-North Carolina site where Duke has played, including Jacksonville in 2010 and Philadelphia in 2013. Duke has run into hostile crowds at a number of sites over the years -- Houston in 2010, Lexington in 1998 (even though Kentucky wasn't there).



Newton14 would disagree with you regarding the hostile Cheater crowd in Greensboro in 2012.

[CameronBlue]

You wanna know what's really fun? When your eight year-old daughter asks you why there are 68 teams. And you have to try to explain it to her.

I had a similar problem. My daughter asked me why so many teams always complain about the tournament, whether it's seeding, being left out etc. I dread these conversations which I always find a little embarrassing, I guess it's a father-daughter thing. So I chickened out and told her about the birds and the bees instead. "Oh, I get it, they think they're getting screwed." That's my little abstract thinker.

[SilkyJ]

PS The scenario that Chillin Duke laid out is so far fetched as to be laughable.

Look, I largely agree that this changes nothing, but i'm not sure what's so far fetched about Chillin's example (I assume you're talking about the one below). Didn't this take place a few years ago? i.e. no NC based Pod and we have to choose from two pods a few hundred miles away? To call it laughable seems way over the top, especially in light of this (http://www.wbtv.com/story/32508688/ncaa-championship-host-cities-must-submit-non-discrimination-details) new mandate from the NCAA. The NBA just removed Charlotte from hosting the all-star game and the NCAA is showing its hand a bit:

Cities hoping to be the host of future National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) championships are being asked to specifically outline how they will protect participants and spectators from discrimination.

Now I don't know if that only counts for the final four/championship site, or if regionals/pods, etc. are also counted. What about bowl games? What about olympic sports? Its not clear to me what exactly the impact will be, but its clear that the odds of there being an NC-based pod/region are certainly lower due to HB2. Heck, we already had to replace an opponent this year--one that usually would be thrilled to play us! Given it a) happened in 2010 and b) the new mandate from the NCAA, I think Chillin's example is quite plausible.


At first blush, I agreed with this line of thinking. However, you allude to a scenario I hadn't considered and now am. If Duke is the #1 seed in a season that does not have a NC site in the first round (nor DC, e.g.), would we not potentially implement this new rule? The example you listed is 2010 which had Jacksonville or Rhode Island as our closest choices. If you tweak that example to, say, Jacksonville and Brooklyn, would Duke absolutely want Jacksonville as opposed to Brooklyn? I am assuming we'd default to Jacksonville under the "old" rule and I'd think it at least possible that we'd prefer Brooklyn under the "new" rule.

Maybe I'm missing something? And granted, it's a pretty low likelihood event I'm describing.

- Chillin

[Tripping William]

Newton14 would disagree with you regarding the hostile Cheater crowd in Greensboro in 2012.

Newton14 wouldn't be alone. I attended both 2005 in Charlotte and 2012 in Greensboro, and (to my observation) the crowds were pretty similar to one another in their anti-Dukeness. I had a completely "neutral" client with me in 2012. He had grown up in Philly, so well aware of Lehigh. At one point he turned to me and said, "I'm amazed there are so many Lehigh fans in the building." I had to remind him they were all wearing baby blue.

[Turk]

I am going to channel my inner Bilastrator and ask, "Is this really the most important thing the NCAA should be working on right now?" Seems pretty trivial to me...

[devildeac]

I am going to channel my inner Bilastrator and ask, "Is this really the most important thing the NCAA should be working on right now?" Seems pretty trivial to me...

Sure! 25 years of academic and athletic fraud by a member institution? Nah, not important.

[Olympic Fan]

Newton14 wouldn't be alone. I attended both 2005 in Charlotte and 2012 in Greensboro, and (to my observation) the crowds were pretty similar to one another in their anti-Dukeness. I had a completely "neutral" client with me in 2012. He had grown up in Philly, so well aware of Lehigh. At one point he turned to me and said, "I'm amazed there are so many Lehigh fans in the building." I had to remind him they were all wearing baby blue.

I was also at Greensboro in 2012 and there was no problem until the final minutes, when it looked like Lehigh might upset Duke.

But I submit, this happens anytime and anywhere a top seed is on the verge of being upset ... all the unaffiliated fans end up pulling for the underdog. UNC fans had nothing to so with it.

In fact, there were very few UNC fans left in the building at that point. The UNC- Vermont game was during the afternoon session. Then the Coliseum was cleared. Duke played in the evening session at 7:15. The crowd was overwhelmingly Duke oriented ... it was only late in the game that the unaffiliated fans -- a lot from Notre Dame and Xavier, which also played that night -- joining the Lehigh fans to cheer against Duke.

The great, great majority of fans are there for their team. Yes, if Duke and UNC had played in the same session, there might have been a problem (although that happened in the second round in Charlotte in 2011 and there was no problem ... UNC fans won the first game over Washington, then basically cleared out before the Duke-Michigan game). Few UNC fans -- and Duke fans -- are going to buy tickets for another session and stay just to cheer against their rivals.

It didn't happen in 2012, it didn't happen in 2011 ... and it didn't happen with Virginia fans in 2014 or 2015.