NCAA top 16 revealed on Sat

[dukelifer]

The selection committee will reveal the top 16 on Saturday. A new twist. Will Duke make the top 16? I say yes.

[flyingdutchdevil]

The selection committee will reveal the top 16 on Saturday. A new twist. Will Duke make the top 16? I say yes.

Most definitely. I think we're a solid 4 seed now. Beat Clemson, let others lose, and Duke becomes a 3 seed really quickly. 2-seed? That's the goal. It's a challenging goal, but it's definitely doable. 1-seed? Nearly impossible. We need to win out and win the ACC Tournament. Nearly impossible.

[CDu]

Will we be in the top-16 this week? I don't know. And ultimately at this point I don't care. We have road games coming against UNC and UVa, a home game against FSU, and the ACC tournament. If we win most/all of those games, we'll be where we want to be come NCAA seed time.

[dukelifer]

Will we be in the top-16 this week? I don't know. And ultimately at this point I don't care. We have road games coming against UNC and UVa, a home game against FSU, and the ACC tournament. If we win most/all of those games, we'll be where we want to be come NCAA seed time.

Clearly it does not matter- too much basketball left to play. It is attempting to bring a little more official attention to the tourney and more fuel for sports radio.

[Reilly]

So if we let Kenpom pick it:

1: Gonzaga, UVA, L'ville, WVU
2: 'Nova, FLA, UK, Baylor
3: KU, UNC, Purdue, Wisc
4: FSU, Duke, SMU, St. Mary's

If we let SRS pick it (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/seasons/2017-ratings.html)

1: WVU, Gonzaga, L'ville, UK
2: UVA, UNC, FLA, 'Nova
3: KU, Duke, Purdue, FSU
4: UCLA, Wisc, Baylor, Oregon

[Turk]

Lunardi does not have Duke in his top 16. Also, he went back and looked at his bracket from Feb 11 last year, just for giggles, and compared to the actual bracket. Three teams fell out of the top 16: Maryland - lost 4 of 6 to close out the regular season; Iowa - lost 5 of 6; Dayton lost 2 of 3 and ended up in a 3 way tie for the A-10 regular season title.

However, all this is just nonsense - the top 16 are probably the easiest to pick / guess. There will be a couple teams that fade down the stretch or are the last couple #4 seeds with no margin for error. Big deal.

In Duke's case, there are 7 games left. Win the three home games (Clem, WF, and F$U Senior Night). Split the four road games (UVa, Syr, Miami, UNCheat) to finish 5-2. That should remove all doubt for a #3. If the Devils win 3 of 4 road games and a couple games in the ACCT, that should put them in the mix for a #2.

[DavidBenAkiva]

So if we let Kenpom pick it:

1: Gonzaga, UVA, L'ville, WVU
2: 'Nova, FLA, UK, Baylor
3: KU, UNC, Purdue, Wisc
4: FSU, Duke, SMU, St. Mary's

If we let SRS pick it (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/seasons/2017-ratings.html)

1: WVU, Gonzaga, L'ville, UK
2: UVA, UNC, FLA, 'Nova
3: KU, Duke, Purdue, FSU
4: UCLA, Wisc, Baylor, Oregon

And if we let Sagarin pick it (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/sagarin/):

1: Gonzaga, WVU, UVA, Louisville
2: Villanova, UK, KU, UNC
3: Florida, Duke, Wisconsin, Purdue
4: Baylor, UCLA, Oregon, FSU

And if we let BPI pick it (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi):

1: UVA, Villanova, WVU, Louisville
2: Florida, Gonzaga, Duke, UNC
3: Purdue, KU, UK, UCLA
4: Oregon, Wisconsin, Baylor, Saint Mary's

I think we'll be a 3 seed on Saturday, all things being equal. If I had to guess it based on the combination of these rating systems and my hunches about how the committee will see it, here's what I would go with (teams sorted by alphabetical order within seed):

1: Gonzaga, Louisville, Villanova, WVU
2: Baylor, KU, UNC, UVA
3: Duke, Purdue, Oregon, Wisconsin
4: Florida, FSU, UCLA, UK

I also anticipate that UK fans will I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. and moan about being a 4 seed while Duke is a 3 seed until you point out that our record against this field (2-3) is better than theirs (1-4) and against many of the same teams.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Lunardi does not have Duke in his top 16. Also, he went back and looked at his bracket from Feb 11 last year, just for giggles, and compared to the actual bracket. Three teams fell out of the top 16: Maryland - lost 4 of 6 to close out the regular season; Iowa - lost 5 of 6; Dayton lost 2 of 3 and ended up in a 3 way tie for the A-10 regular season title.

However, all this is just nonsense - the top 16 are probably the easiest to pick / guess. There will be a couple teams that fade down the stretch or are the last couple #4 seeds with no margin for error. Big deal.

In Duke's case, there are 7 games left. Win the three home games (Clem, WF, and F$U Senior Night). Split the four road games (UVa, Syr, Miami, UNCheat) to finish 5-2. That should remove all doubt for a #3. If the Devils win 3 of 4 road games and a couple games in the ACCT, that should put them in the mix for a #2.

I don't see how Lunardi has Duke as a 5 seed below Cincinnati (4), Florida (4), Kentucky (3), or Wisconsin (3). How do any of those teams have a better resume than Duke? Ultimately, it matters not. Duke has opportunities each of the next three weeks to win against teams currently seeded 2 (UNC), 3 (Florida State and Virginia), and 11 (Syracuse), and more during the ACC Tournament. If Duke does well, losing no more than once, against the remaining schedule, then the team will have earned as high as a 2 seed. I can live with that. Heck, if we win out and win the ACC Tournament, which is unlikely but possible, Duke could have a strong case as a 1 seed.

[jv001]

And if we let Sagarin pick it (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/sagarin/):

1: Gonzaga, WVU, UVA, Louisville
2: Villanova, UK, KU, UNC
3: Florida, Duke, Wisconsin, Purdue
4: Baylor, UCLA, Oregon, FSU

And if we let BPI pick it (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi):

1: UVA, Villanova, WVU, Louisville
2: Florida, Gonzaga, Duke, UNC
3: Purdue, KU, UK, UCLA
4: Oregon, Wisconsin, Baylor, Saint Mary's

I think we'll be a 3 seed on Saturday, all things being equal. If I had to guess it based on the combination of these rating systems and my hunches about how the committee will see it, here's what I would go with (teams sorted by alphabetical order within seed):

1: Gonzaga, Louisville, Villanova, WVU
2: Baylor, KU, UNC, UVA
3: Duke, Purdue, Oregon, Wisconsin
4: Florida, FSU, UCLA, UK

I also anticipate that UK fans will I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. and moan about being a 4 seed while Duke is a 3 seed until you point out that our record against this field (2-3) is better than theirs (1-4) and against many of the same teams.

Why are all the media types raving about Arizona? I have not seen them play this year and honestly don't know much about them. GoDuke!

[OldPhiKap]

I don't begrudge anyone for not having us in their top 16 before the UNC game.

*Assuming* we take care of business against the Tigers, I don't see how anyone would have us out of that group.

No worries, so long as we just keep taking care of business. TCB, Baby.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Why are all the media types raving about Arizona? I have not seen them play this year and honestly don't know much about them. GoDuke!

I have not seem them play too much, but the games I have seen make them look pretty good. They have some unique and talented players. The most intriguing is Lauri Markkanen from Finland. The Big Fin is a 7 foot scorer putting up 15.6 pts and 7.3 rebs on 47.5% shooting from 3 and 50.0% overall. He's a surprisingly talented offensive force, although his block rate is surprisingly low for a guy his size and reasonable level of athleticism. He looks very much like the next Dirk Nowitzki. They also have a trio of high quality guards/wings in (until recently suspended) Allonzo Trier, Rawle Alkins, and Kobi Simmons. Trier is a Sophomore while Alkins and Simmons are freshmen. I think a lot of their appeal comes from having nearly as much high quality young talent as almost anyone in the country. But they lack a true point guard (sound familiar?) and have good but not great efficiency stats (25th in both offensive and defensive efficiency using KenPom). They had a big win against UCLA not too long ago when Allonzo Trier made his season debut. They were subsequently blown out by Oregon but don't have any bad losses on their schedule, losing close games against Gonzaga and Butler. They had a close victory against Michigan State but haven't really had more than that one signature victory against UCLA. I think their appeal comes from the unknown of that young talent.

[CDu]

I don't see how Lunardi has Duke as a 5 seed below Cincinnati (4), Florida (4), Kentucky (3), or Wisconsin (3). How do any of those teams have a better resume than Duke? Ultimately, it matters not. Duke has opportunities each of the next three weeks to win against teams currently seeded 2 (UNC), 3 (Florida State and Virginia), and 11 (Syracuse), and more during the ACC Tournament. If Duke does well, losing no more than once, against the remaining schedule, then the team will have earned as high as a 2 seed. I can live with that. Heck, if we win out and win the ACC Tournament, which is unlikely but possible, Duke could have a strong case as a 1 seed.

If we win out (including the ACC tourney), I think there is no way we are anything but the #1 seed in either the East or South region.

Not to be lost, but two of our losses were without Jefferson. The committee should be taking that into account.

[Philadukie]

If we win out (including the ACC tourney), I think there is no way we are anything but the #1 seed in either the East or South region.

Not to be lost, but two of our losses were without Jefferson. The committee should be taking that into account.

They will also discount the losses without K if we win out.

[CDu]

They will also discount the losses without K if we win out.

Excellent point. Between finishing the season 29-5, on a 14-game winning streak, winning one of the two toughest conferences in basketball (and the toughest at the top), likely finishing in the top-5 in RPI and other metrics (we'd almost have to end up there if we keep winning against this conference), and having the potential to have three of our losses heavily discounted due to a missing player and/or coach, there is just no way we'd end up as anything but a 1 seed.

Now, I don't think that's a likely scenario at all. But if we did run the table, there is no way we aren't a 1 seed.

ETA: the loss to Va Tech was without Allen too. And the Kansas loss was without Tatum (and Giles and Bolden, though those guys are backups). So all five of our ACC losses came without one of our All-ACC caliber starters. And three of the losses came without our head coach.

[jv001]

Excellent point. Between finishing the season 29-5, on a 14-game winning streak, winning one of the two toughest conferences in basketball (and the toughest at the top), likely finishing in the top-5 in RPI and other metrics (we'd almost have to end up there if we keep winning against this conference), and having the potential to have three of our losses heavily discounted due to a missing player and/or coach, there is just no way we'd end up as anything but a 1 seed.

Now, I don't think that's a likely scenario at all. But if we did run the table, there is no way we aren't a 1 seed.

ETA: the loss to Va Tech was without Allen too. And the Kansas loss was without Tatum (and Giles and Bolden, though those guys are backups). So all five of our ACC losses came without one of our All-ACC caliber starters. And three of the losses came without our head coach.

Not that the committee would take it into consideration, all the practice time missed by all of our rotation players with the exception of Luke. When you take everything into account, we're blessed to be in a situation that the team can get a 1-4 seed. GoDuke!

[mgtr]

I went to a high school in the Midwest which was always competitive in basketball (this was well before schools were put in brackets by size, everybody competed for the same prize). One year our coach was criticized for the team not being ranked higher than it was. His answer -- do you want a team to peak in midseason or at the end of the season? This has always made sense to me.

[wilko]

So by having a lower seed we play earlier, right? Im ok with an afternoon game and not the nightcap for a change...

[Troublemaker]

I'll take a stab at this using the latest Bracket Matrix released today at 6:06pm



East
MidWest
West
South


1. Villanova
1. Kansas
1. Gonzaga
1. Baylor


2. UNC
2. Louisville
2. Arizona
2. Florida St


3. Wisconsin
3. Oregon
3. UVA
3. UCLA


4. Duke
4. Butler
4. Florida
4. Kentucky

[devildeac]

I'll take a stab at this using the latest Bracket Matrix released today at 6:06pm



East
MidWest
West
South


1. Villanova
1. Kansas
1. Gonzaga
1. Baylor


2. UNC
2. Louisville
2. Arizona
2. Florida St


3. Wisconsin
3. Oregon
3. UVA
3. UCLA


4. Duke
4. Butler
4. Florida
4. Kentucky



Cleanest post I've read this evening. :o

[subzero02]

The staged sixteen will be announced at 1230pm on CBS... the result of the game vs. Clemson will not be factored in.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2017-02-10/march-madness-top-16-seeds-time-tv-listings-and-everything

[Turk]

Cleanest post I've read this evening. :o

If I can miss the letter between I and P when I type, even UNC fans can't call me a wanker, never mind DBR text checking...

Did we get hacked? I think the Russians must have better targets in their list than us....

[Turk]

Lunardi does not have Duke in his top 16. Also, he went back and looked at his bracket from Feb 11 last year, just for giggles, and compared to the actual bracket. Three teams fell out of the top 16: Maryland - lost 4 of 6 to close out the regular season; Iowa - lost 5 of 6; Dayton lost 2 of 3 and ended up in a 3 way tie for the A-10 regular season title.

However, all this is just nonsense - the top 16 are probably the easiest to pick / guess. There will be a couple teams that fade down the stretch or are the last couple #4 seeds with no margin for error. Big deal.

In Duke's case, there are 7 games left. Win the three home games (Clem, WF, and F$U Senior Night). Split the four road games (UVa, Syr, Miami, UNCheat) to finish 5-2. That should remove all doubt for a #3. If the Devils win 3 of 4 road games and a couple games in the ACCT, that should put them in the mix for a #2.

= = = = = = = = = =
Fixed my post. Evidently we were not allowed to use the letter O for some reason. "MS Word: All done. We made 58 replacements."
(Nobody calls me a wanker except Mrs. Turk, and then only when I deserve it...)

[Clay Feet POF]

Clearly it does not matter- too much basketball left to play. It is attempting to bring a little more official attention to the tourney and more fuel for sports radio.

Ain't that the truth.

[budwom]

I have not seem them play too much, but the games I have seen make them look pretty good. They have some unique and talented players. The most intriguing is Lauri Markkanen from Finland. The Big Fin is a 7 foot scorer putting up 15.6 pts and 7.3 rebs on 47.5% shooting from 3 and 50.0% overall. He's a surprisingly talented offensive force, although his block rate is surprisingly low for a guy his size and reasonable level of athleticism. He looks very much like the next Dirk Nowitzki. They also have a trio of high quality guards/wings in (until recently suspended) Allonzo Trier, Rawle Alkins, and Kobi Simmons. Trier is a Sophomore while Alkins and Simmons are freshmen. I think a lot of their appeal comes from having nearly as much high quality young talent as almost anyone in the country. But they lack a true point guard (sound familiar?) and have good but not great efficiency stats (25th in both offensive and defensive efficiency using KenPom). They had a big win against UCLA not too long ago when Allonzo Trier made his season debut. They were subsequently blown out by Oregon but don't have any bad losses on their schedule, losing close games against Gonzaga and Butler. They had a close victory against Michigan State but haven't really had more than that one signature victory against UCLA. I think their appeal comes from the unknown of that young talent.

Markkanen is terrific....Ol' Roy made a big push for him last year, and I'm thrilled he didn't get him.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

All the talk over Joe Lunardi's talent or lack their of, and ESPN's manufacturered drama... I did want to mention one ESPN commentator who DOES possess a unique and impressive skillset.

Mel Kiper and his breadth of knowledge about college football players and NFL team needs. Holy smokes, that guy must have some sort of condition.

Lunardi's ability to take several different metrics and parse 72 teams down to 68 doesn't impress me one whit. Kiper's encyclopedic knowledge of players, teams, combine stats, etc is fascinating.

[BandAlum83]

Cleanest post I've read this evening. :o

Is it true that Duke and UNC have never met in the NCAAT? Is it also true that the selection committee has never bracketed them in a way that would have them meet before the final (or at least the Final 4)?

If true, I'm thinking your bracket wouldn't work, Troublemaker, with Duke and UNC both in the east.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Is it true that Duke and UNC have never met in the NCAAT? Is it also true that the selection committee has never bracketed them in a way that would have them meet before the final (or at least the Final 4)?

If true, I'm thinking your bracket wouldn't work, Troublemaker, with Duke and UNC both in the east.

They definitely haven't met (so close, 1991!) but I would be very surprised if they've not been in the same side of a bracket.

[devildeac]

Is it true that Duke and UNC have never met in the NCAAT? Is it also true that the selection committee has never bracketed them in a way that would have them meet before the final (or at least the Final 4)?

If true, I'm thinking your bracket wouldn't work, Troublemaker, with Duke and UNC both in the east.

I think you are correct that Duke and unc have never met in the NCAAT but did play once in the NIT, in the 70s perhaps. I think also the committee tries/plans to avoid any conference teams from playing each other before the regional finals. I also think that someone may have betterer more correcterer answers than mine, too :o . My wife always does :p.

[subzero02]

They definitely haven't met (so close, 1991!) but I would be very surprised if they've not been in the same side of a bracket.

They've been on the same side of the bracket before but I am fairly certain that they haven't been placed in the same region. The committee doesn't want them to meet until the final four.

[duke2x]

Duke and UNC were both in the Atlanta regional in 2004. UNC lost to Texas in the 2nd round. Duke went to the Final 4.

I had Duke as a 4 seed (W) in my version. I don't think Duke has done enough to ignore January yet. All the other top ACC teams have 4-5 losses and are 1-3 seeds. There's a difference there that should not exist.

[BandAlum83]

Hah! The show led with the dagger to the heart by Villanova in last year's final.

LOVE IT!

[Reilly]

Is it true that Duke and UNC have never met in the NCAAT? ...

In considering possible meetings, it's important to remember that in 2002, 2003, and 2010, a tournament meeting was not possible -- well, not after UNC had completed its resume and learned basketball minds decided who was worthy of invitation.

[subzero02]

ACC getting respect... #5 unc, #6 FSU, #7 Louisville... bottom 8 after the break. Villanova # 1 overall seed and Gonzaga #4.

[DavidBenAkiva]

No. 1 Seeds Revealed: Villanova, Kansas, Baylor, Gonzaga (https://twitter.com/BrianHamiltonSI/status/830469957418876928)

That seems about right for this point in the year.

EDIT: 2 Seeds: UNC, FSU, Louisville, Oregon

Duke is 1-2 versus this group with a chance to go 3-2 before the regular season is over.

[Ballboy1998]

ACC getting respect... #5 unc, #6 FSU, #7 Louisville... bottom 8 after the break. Villanova # 1 overall seed and Gonzaga #4.

Good to see, if you look at FSU's resume and metrics they seem wildly under ranked in the polls, glad the selection committee realizes that.

[Troublemaker]

I'll take a stab at this using the latest Bracket Matrix released today at 6:06pm



East
MidWest
West
South


1. Villanova
1. Kansas
1. Gonzaga
1. Baylor


2. UNC
2. Louisville
2. Arizona
2. Florida St


3. Wisconsin
3. Oregon
3. UVA
3. UCLA


4. Duke
4. Butler
4. Florida
4. Kentucky




Here is what the committee did:



East
MidWest
West
South


1. Villanova
1. Kansas
1. Gonzaga
1. Baylor


2. Louisville
2. Florida St
2. Oregon
2. UNC


3. Kentucky
3. Arizona
3. UVA
3. Florida


4. UCLA
4. Duke
4. WVU
4. Butler



Got 15 out of 16 teams -- WVU is in instead of Big Ten #1 Wiscy.

Not bad, Bracket Matrix, not bad at all. The power of crowdsourcing.

[subzero02]

We're #16 (#4 in the midwest)... I must admit, that I'd be angry if we had been left out.

[DavidBenAkiva]

1 Seeds: Villanova, Kansas, Baylor, Gonzaga
2 Seeds: UNC, Florida State, Louisville, Oregon
3 Seeds: Arizona, Virginia, Florida, Kentucky
4 Seeds: Butler, West Virginia, UCLA, Duke

No B1G teams in the top lines, which is amazing.

I'm not surprised Duke is a 4 seed, but c'mon! How does UNC have a 2 seed in this right now? They are 1-2 versus the 16 teams above while Duke is 2-3. FSU, by comparison, is 4-1, and somehow UNC is ahead of them. If head-to-head matchups matter so much...

[BandAlum83]

I must admit I am annoyed that the Big 12 has 2 #1 seeds.

The strength of the ACC deserves a #1 seed. But who? The cannabilization makes it hard to decide which (right now). In the final analysis, I believe there will be an ACC team in the #1 slot.


So surprising that Villanova, with the losses from last year's squad, is still a number 1.

[scottdude8]

Wait, Wisconsin isn't even one of the top SIXTEEN? I know it's a down year for the B1G but that seems like a major oversight considering they've been the clear leader in the conference. And, they look damn good... Ethan Happ is the next iteration of the Jon Leuer/Frank Kaminsky fundamental big man that never seems to graduate.

If they end up a 3 seed or below that's an easy upset pick depending on the matchups come tourney time.

[Olympic Fan]

Duke and UNC were both in the Atlanta regional in 2004. UNC lost to Texas in the 2nd round. Duke went to the Final 4.

I had Duke as a 4 seed (W) in my version. I don't think Duke has done enough to ignore January yet. All the other top ACC teams have 4-5 losses and are 1-3 seeds. There's a difference there that should not exist.

When it comes to Duke and UNC meeting in the NCAA, remember two factors:

Until 1975, just one team per conference could play in the NCAA.

Between 1975-79, a league could have two teams. Duke and UNC were both in the East in 1979 -- they could have met in the regional finals, but both were beaten in the second round (Black Sunday)

In 1980, when modern seeding rules were adopted, NCAA guidelines dictated that the top three teams from the same conference have to be in different regions. Duke and UNC have almost always been among the top three ACC seeds.

As duke2x notes, Duke and UNC were in the same region in 2004, but UNC lost in the second round and didn't even make the regional. And, of course, there was 1991, when they could have met in the title game, except UNC lost to Kansas in the semifinals.

The current rules dictate that the top four conference teams have to be in different regionals. That's one reason Duke needs to beat Virginia Wednesday night -- I'd MUCH rather be No. 3 in the West (Virginia's current seed) than No. 4 in the Midwest (which a potential Sweet 16 matchup with Kansas in Kansas City).

[CDu]

We should just plan on continuing to win. Win out the regular season and ACC tourney and we will be a 1 seed. We have the talent to do so. We are getting healthier too. Time to shine down the stretch.

[WVDUKEFAN]

We should just plan on continuing to win. Win out the regular season and ACC tourney and we will be a 1 seed. We have the talent to do so. We are getting healthier too. Time to shine down the stretch.

Absolutely correct.

[Bob Green]

I do not understand UNC (21-5) being a 2 Seed and Duke (20-5) a 4 Seed:

1. Both teams have five losses.
2. Duke beat UNC head-to-head.
3. Duke has two questionable losses: Virginia Tech and NCSU. The other three losses are against teams currently ranked: Kansas (#3), Louisville (#4) and FSU (#14).
4. UNC has three questionable losses: Indiana*, Georgia Tech and Miami. The other two losses are against teams currently ranked: Kentucky (#15) and Duke (#18).

While I'm certain I am oversimplifying the comparison due to viewing it from a Duke Blue perspective, it appears to me Duke should be seeded higher than UNC.

* I acknowledge Indiana was ranked #13 when they beat UNC. But Indiana currently has 10 losses with a losing record in the Big Ten.

[CDu]

I do not understand UNC (21-5) being a 2 Seed and Duke (20-5) a 4 Seed:

1. Both teams have five losses.
2. Duke beat UNC head-to-head.
3. Duke has two questionable losses: Virginia Tech and NCSU. The other three losses are against teams currently ranked: Kansas (#3), Louisville (#4) and FSU (#14).
4. UNC has three questionable losses: Indiana*, Georgia Tech and Miami. The other two losses are against teams currently ranked: Kentucky (#15) and Duke (#18).

While I'm certain I am oversimplifying the comparison due to viewing it from a Duke Blue perspective, it appears to me Duke should be seeded higher than UNC.

* I acknowledge Indiana was ranked #13 when they beat UNC. But Indiana currently has 10 losses with a losing record in the Big Ten.

UNC is #5 in RPI (we are #17) and #10 in KenPom (we are #14). They played a much tougher out-of-conference schedule and are currently leading the ACC. I think it makes sense that they are ahead of us. Now, there is plenty of time for that to change. If we beat them in March, we will likely overtake them. And they have a bunch of losable games left.

Also, the Indiana game was back when Indiana was healthy. They lost a key player and have plummeted since.

[Bob Green]

UNC is #5 in RPI (we are #17) and #10 in KenPom (we are #14). They played a much tougher out-of-conference schedule and are currently leading the ACC.

Thanks. I appreciate your reasoned approach to comparing the two teams.

[CDu]

Thanks. I appreciate your reasoned approach to comparing the two teams.

For the record though, I agree with you. I feel like we should be at least on the same line (given our injuries which contributed to losses). I just think that the "committee" will be swayed by the RPI at the moment.

Hopefully, we make it moot with a huge finish to the season!

[Duke79UNLV77]

Same number of losses as UNC, Florida, and Kentucky. 2-0 against those schools. In a much better conference than 2, and tougher ACC schedule draw than UNC. Not at full-strength for any of our losses. We seem underseeded to me, but a very tough schedule to go.

RPI can be gamed, as the Big 12 has shown recently.

[HK Dukie]

It is clear RPI was used to separate teams.

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

The top ACC teams are all within 1 loss of each other in the conference and overall record. However RPI was used to determine seeds. UNC, Florida State, Louisville all are 2 seeds and this approximately matches the RPI. Virginia is a 3, again matching RPI. Duke is #16 in RPI, matching their seed.

Gonzaga is undefeated and ranked #1 in polls but only got the #4 overall seed. Why? They are #13 in the RPI. There would be too much pressure on them to not have the Zags as a #1 seed but there is room to drop if they take a loss and the justification is RPI.

To be clear RPI is terrible. Kenpom is so much better. But RPI is clearly how the committee is making these in-season and probably end of season decisions as well.

[Olympic Fan]

I do not understand UNC (21-5) being a 2 Seed and Duke (20-5) a 4 Seed:

1. Both teams have five losses.
2. Duke beat UNC head-to-head.
3. Duke has two questionable losses: Virginia Tech and NCSU. The other three losses are against teams currently ranked: Kansas (#3), Louisville (#4) and FSU (#14).
4. UNC has three questionable losses: Indiana*, Georgia Tech and Miami. The other two losses are against teams currently ranked: Kentucky (#15) and Duke (#18).

While I'm certain I am oversimplifying the comparison due to viewing it from a Duke Blue perspective, it appears to me Duke should be seeded higher than UNC.

* I acknowledge Indiana was ranked #13 when they beat UNC. But Indiana currently has 10 losses with a losing record in the Big Ten.

I can see the seeding. Remember, this was done as of Saturday morning, so our win over Clemson doesn't factor in.

UNC Duke

Record 21-5 19-5
RPI 4 16
SOS 20 31
Vs. Top 25 2-2 2-3
Vs. Top 50 7-3 7-4
Vs. Top 100 13-5 10-5

It's not a huge difference, but I think that by the most important measurements, UNC has a slight edge (despite Duke's head-to-head win).

Now, Florida and Butler being ranked ahead of us ... don't get me started there.

I'd be more upset if the rankings meant anything, but with a month to go before the real selection, everything can and will change.

[davekay1971]

By the end of the conference tournaments, if there is any sense to this thing at all, Duke will be very heavily judged on the latter parts of our season. With all the youth and injuries, any realistic estimate of how good Duke is, is a moving target, more so than for other teams. We have extremely talented Freshmen, who are simultaneously recovering from injuries, delayed in the "learning college basketball" process, and an entire team, between multiple injuries and even coach absence, that is delayed in learning to play as a group. Even for a young team, we're younger than we should be this time of year. Given just a little luck and health, this team could make more strides between mid-Feb and mid-March than you would normally expect. Not a guarantee that this will happen, but the Committee, in seeding, would be mistaken to put much weight on January Duke in judging March Duke

[BandAlum83]

By the end of the conference tournaments, if there is any sense to this thing at all, Duke will be very heavily judged on the latter parts of our season. With all the youth and injuries, any realistic estimate of how good Duke is, is a moving target, more so than for other teams. We have extremely talented Freshmen, who are simultaneously recovering from injuries, delayed in the "learning college basketball" process, and an entire team, between multiple injuries and even coach absence, that is delayed in learning to play as a group. Even for a young team, we're younger than we should be this time of year. Given just a little luck and health, this team could make more strides between mid-Feb and mid-March than you would normally expect. Not a guarantee that this will happen, but the Committee, in seeding, would be mistaken to put much weight on January Duke in judging March Duke

Here is a prediction that I hope we will be able to verify:

If a team that is part of the tie breaker to determine who gets the number 1 seed in the ACCT plays another #1 tie breaker team it the ACCT final, the ACCT winner will get a #1 seed in the NCAAT, and the runner-up will get a #2 seed.

A corollary is that if a #1 tie breaker team wins the ACCT, it will get a #1 NCAA seed, even if it plays a non-tie-breaker team to do it, and;

if a #1 tie breaker team is runner-up in the ACCT, it will get a #2 NCAA seed, even if it plays a non-tie-breaker team in the ACCT final.

[BandAlum83]

There was an ACC tournament seeding simulator last year that was pretty cool (it even excluded Louisville).

Does anyone know is there is a similar site up yet this year?

[TexHawk]

RPI can be gamed, as the Big 12 has shown recently.

As flawed as the RPI is (and it is flawed), how can one conference "game it" over another?

It's a numbers game. The 7/10 Big12 teams are in the Top 50, and each team plays a double round robin. There are 9 ACC teams in the top 50, but has 6 teams NOT in the top 50. With the unbalanced schedule, some may have to play the lower ranked teams twice, while missing out on a return game with one of the top teams.

That certainly isn't the Big12 being devious or anything. If you want to throw us 3-4 high quality teams to strengthen the conference to even the playing field, we would take them in a heartbeat.

[Duke79UNLV77]

As flawed as the RPI is (and it is flawed), how can one conference "game it" over another?

It's a numbers game. The 7/10 Big12 teams are in the Top 50, and each team plays a double round robin. There are 9 ACC teams in the top 50, but has 6 teams NOT in the top 50. With the unbalanced schedule, some may have to play the lower ranked teams twice, while missing out on a return game with one of the top teams.

That certainly isn't the Big12 being devious or anything. If you want to throw us 3-4 high quality teams to strengthen the conference to even the playing field, we would take them in a heartbeat.

The MVC was pretty conscious and open about scheduling as a conference for good RPI ratings a few years ago, and was rewarded with a ridiculous number of seeds, that largely flopped. The SEC is trying to push for that now. The key is not to schedule truly terrible teams, although there's not a significant real world difference between an elite team playing #200 and #300. As I believe Summer has chronicled, the ACC had significantly more truly big non-conference wins than the Big 12 the past 2 years, yet the Big 12 had the better RPI ranking going into the tournament, where the ACC outperformed it. That's what I mean by gaming the RPI system.

[weezie]

Mid-season seeding reveal....BORING.

Just slightly more compelling than the NFL Pro-Bowl.

[Indoor66]

Mid-season seeding reveal...BORING.

Just slightly more compelling than the NFL Pro-Bowl.

Actually less compelling than the Pro-Bowl. At least in that one there's a pretense of a real outcome.👹😈😎

[OldPhiKap]

I'm not sure how this is supposed to be an improvement over the traditional Selection Sunday, and in fact it seems to just invite controversy.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I'm not sure how this is supposed to be an improvement over the traditional Selection Sunday, and in fact it seems to just invite controversy.

That is what it is designed to do. Controversy means minutes on air, talking points, and clicks.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Now, Florida and Butler being ranked ahead of us ... don't get me started there.

I'd be more upset if the rankings meant anything, but with a month to go before the real selection, everything can and will change.

Yeah, the seeding was a little questionable, which why you had two regions(East and MW) absolutely stacked and the other two regions(West and South) quite weak by comparison.

Having said that, I think they got the group of 16 teams largely correct, with Butler and Florida being questionable choices, imo.

I would have included Wisconsin and Purdue and left out the aforementioned teams instead.

[FadedTackyShirt]

Are there any restrictions on conference schools playing in sub-regional pods? Greenville looks like it would be the most convenient travel for Duke, UNC, and UVa. Realize they'd be in different regions, but could all three play in Greenville the first weekend?

[tbyers11]

Are there any restrictions on conference schools playing in sub-regional pods? Greenville looks like it would be the most convenient travel for Duke, UNC, and UVa. Realize they'd be in different regions, but could all three play in Greenville the first weekend?

Only 2 top 4 seeds per subregional. You need all the teams from the second round matchups at the same site as well

[TexHawk]

The MVC was pretty conscious and open about scheduling as a conference for good RPI ratings a few years ago, and was rewarded with a ridiculous number of seeds, that largely flopped. The SEC is trying to push for that now. The key is not to schedule truly terrible teams, although there's not a significant real world difference between an elite team playing #200 and #300. As I believe Summer has chronicled, the ACC had significantly more truly big non-conference wins than the Big 12 the past 2 years, yet the Big 12 had the better RPI ranking going into the tournament, where the ACC outperformed it. That's what I mean by gaming the RPI system.

Wait, the ACC has more noncon wins than the Big12, plays a tougher (or at least equal) conference schedule as the Big12, but the Big12 teams have a higher "gamed" RPI because they do a better job scheduling nonconference teams that are closer to #200 than #300? (And those 200-300 teams are actually really close to each other in terms of quality?) That's "gaming"? Sorry, I hope my school thinks that way. Why aren't ACC schools thinking that way?

IMO, if that is true, I would chalk it up to (a) an obscene amount of luck in the Big12 scheduling, or (b) Bill Self/Scott Drew/Bob Huggins must share an amazing crystal ball. I mean, Texas Southern is somehow a top 100 RPI team, but they went 18-15 last season, when Scott Drew put them on Baylor's 2016-17 noncon schedule.


Btw, please don't take this as a "Big12 > ACC" post, not my intention at all. There is really no leg to stand on there, at least when it comes to the postseason. When it comes to actual merit, I would guess that the ACC teams are seeded 1-2 slots too low in this thing, and the Big12 teams are 1-2 slots too high. But if the committee is going to go through this exercise, and they continue to use metrics like the RPI, the results cannot be surprising or upsetting.

[jv001]

Pretty much it's Kansas #1 and then the rest of the conference. There are some years that other teams may challenge Kansas but in the end and when the smoke clears, it's the JayHawks on top. The ACC has seen Duke, Virginia, Louisville, Miami, ND and the Uncheats as ACC Champions or NCAAT Elite 8. I think the ACC is the best conference this season. GoDuke!

[Duke79UNLV77]

Wait, the ACC has more noncon wins than the Big12, plays a tougher (or at least equal) conference schedule as the Big12, but the Big12 teams have a higher "gamed" RPI because they do a better job scheduling nonconference teams that are closer to #200 than #300? (And those 200-300 teams are actually really close to each other in terms of quality?) That's "gaming"? Sorry, I hope my school thinks that way. Why aren't ACC schools thinking that way?

IMO, if that is true, I would chalk it up to (a) an obscene amount of luck in the Big12 scheduling, or (b) Bill Self/Scott Drew/Bob Huggins must share an amazing crystal ball. I mean, Texas Southern is somehow a top 100 RPI team, but they went 18-15 last season, when Scott Drew put them on Baylor's 2016-17 noncon schedule.


Btw, please don't take this as a "Big12 > ACC" post, not my intention at all. There is really no leg to stand on there, at least when it comes to the postseason. When it comes to actual merit, I would guess that the ACC teams are seeded 1-2 slots too low in this thing, and the Big12 teams are 1-2 slots too high. But if the committee is going to go through this exercise, and they continue to use metrics like the RPI, the results cannot be surprising or upsetting.

I've heard conference commissioners and coaches talk openly about scheduling with the RPI in mind, much like schools focusing on SAT preparation, whether the SAT is a good measure of actual education or not. I didn't say it was unethical or not smart. I also didn't say it was an exact science, but it is definitely possible to do. I care more about who in the top 25 or top 50 you've actually beat. I think it was the brilliant Jim Sumner, or perhaps the brilliant Al Featherston, who detailed the last couple of years that the ACC had significantly more victories over such teams heading into the NCAA tournament, despite the Big 12's higher RPI ranking.

Perhaps, the reliance on RPI rankings will decrease in coming years:

“The impetus for the stats summit comes after years and years of haranguing the NCAA due to its stubborn default reliance on the RPI, an uncomplicated and easily manipulable metric,” Matt Norlander of CBSSports.com wrote.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/sports/college/wichita-state/article127523749.html#storylink=cpy

By the way, I think Kansas deserves a 1 seed currently.