PDA

View Full Version : Is Duke Mathematically Alive for the 4th #1 Seed?



DukeTrinity11
02-23-2017, 03:09 PM
Joe Lunardi said during a West Virginia game a few nights ago that the winner of the ACC would get the last #1 seed regardless of the number of losses they had. Now, is he referring to the ACC Regular Season champ or the ACCT champ?

If Duke runs the table and wins @Miami, FSU, @ UNC, Miami/Wake, FSU/Louisville and UNC again, could we be the South Region #1 Seed?

We need Baylor and Oregon (darn it Cal!) to stumble a bit in that scenario but I don't see how the committee can deny us after beating UNC potentially 3 times.

I know this is all very unlikely but I'm wondering if its even possible at this point because if not, we should just rest Grayson and Amile the rest of the way.

freshmanjs
02-23-2017, 03:12 PM
Joe Lunardi said during a West Virginia game a few nights ago that the winner of the ACC would get the last #1 seed regardless of the number of losses they had. Now, is he referring to the ACC Regular Season champ or the ACCT champ?

If Duke runs the table and wins @Miami, FSU, @ UNC, Miami/Wake, FSU/Louisville and UNC again, could we be the South Region #1 Seed?

We need Baylor and Oregon (darn it Cal!) to stumble a bit in that scenario but I don't see how the committee can deny us after beating UNC potentially 3 times.

I know this is all very unlikely but I'm wondering if its even possible at this point because if not, we should just rest Grayson and Amile the rest of the way.

Not sure what you mean by "mathematically"...the #1 seeds aren't determined by math like standings. Is it possible to get one?...sure, but not likely.

kAzE
02-23-2017, 03:26 PM
I would be surprised if we won out, including the ACC tournament, and did not get a #1 seed. But that's pretty unlikely to happen.

Troublemaker
02-23-2017, 03:36 PM
Yes, if we win out from here, it's possible/probable. But:

(1) We're not going to win out with Grayson and Amile banged up.
(2) Even if we could, it's a better idea to rest them now if it improves their play down the line. Invest now, payoff later.
(3) The freshmen could rise to the occasion given the opportunity. We might actually play better with Grayson and Amile resting.
(4) It could happen. Seriously.
(5) lol at letting a sprained ankle linger and derail your preseason All-American. Actually, that's not funny at all.

CDu
02-23-2017, 03:38 PM
Yes, it is possible. No, it is not likely.

If we win out, and if there are enough other losses along the way, we still stand a not insignificant chance of getting a 1 seed. I would not count on it.

Had we won out including the Syracuse game, I'd probably have counted on it.

But at this point, while I'm keeping alive hope for an ACC regular season title and ACC championship, I'm more concerned with getting our defense fixed and hopefully getting Allen healthy enough to be effective again. He's been pretty wretched offensively since spraining his ankle against Clemson.

kAzE
02-23-2017, 03:39 PM
Seeding doesn't matter as much as health. I'd take a #8 seed with Grayson and Amile at 100% over a #1 seed with Grayson and Amile at 70%.

Fish80
02-23-2017, 03:41 PM
Mathematically, with generous help. Meaning others have to falter.

NYBri
02-23-2017, 03:45 PM
Just keep winning and all will be well. :cool:

dukelifer
02-23-2017, 03:50 PM
Joe Lunardi said during a West Virginia game a few nights ago that the winner of the ACC would get the last #1 seed regardless of the number of losses they had. Now, is he referring to the ACC Regular Season champ or the ACCT champ?

If Duke runs the table and wins @Miami, FSU, @ UNC, Miami/Wake, FSU/Louisville and UNC again, could we be the South Region #1 Seed?

We need Baylor and Oregon (darn it Cal!) to stumble a bit in that scenario but I don't see how the committee can deny us after beating UNC potentially 3 times.

I know this is all very unlikely but I'm wondering if its even possible at this point because if not, we should just rest Grayson and Amile the rest of the way.

There is a chance of course- Duke could blow through the next several games and the ACC tourney with an average margin of victory of 20 points- but it is highly unlikely. Duke is trying for a 2 or 3 seed and may end up being some poor number 1 seed's 4 in the second weekend. It is what it is. If Duke is healthy- they will be a dangerous team to play in the second weekend- regardless of how they end the season.

DukeTrinity11
02-23-2017, 03:55 PM
Seeding doesn't matter as much as health. I'd take a #8 seed with Grayson and Amile at 100% over a #1 seed with Grayson and Amile at 70%.
I don't know if I would go that far. I know UK was seeded #8 when they made the Championship game in 2014 but that sort of thing is more of an anomaly.

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

Just looking at Lunardi's bracket, if Duke lost out and somehow got an 8 seed, we would have to play Kansas, Nova or Gonzaga in the 2nd round. It's hard enough to win 6 games in a row in the tournament, it's that much harder when you have to play a 1 seed in the 2nd round.

It's a moot point because realistically speaking, even if Duke lost out the rest of the way, we would be no worse than a 5 seed. Our resume as it stands is simply too good to seed us any lower.

BandAlum83
02-23-2017, 05:23 PM
I don't know if I would go that far. I know UK was seeded #8 when they made the Championship game in 2014 but that sort of thing is more of an anomaly.

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

Just looking at Lunardi's bracket, if Duke lost out and somehow got an 8 seed, we would have to play Kansas, Nova or Gonzaga in the 2nd round. It's hard enough to win 6 games in a row in the tournament, it's that much harder when you have to play a 1 seed in the 2nd round.

It's a moot point because realistically speaking, even if Duke lost out the rest of the way, we would be no worse than a 5 seed. Our resume as it stands is simply too good to seed us any lower.

If that were to happen, if we win, we get the #1s path the rest of the way. We just need to beat the top seed in the region in the round of 32 instead of the elite 8. Sure, it makes it harder to go deep, but not necessarily any harder to reach a final 4 (other than having to play a #9 in the first round instead of a 14 or 15.

It's all how you look at it. If the goal is a final 4, not much different. If the goal is making it to the second weekend of play, much harder!

TexHawk
02-23-2017, 05:27 PM
I don't know if I would go that far. I know UK was seeded #8 when they made the Championship game in 2014 but that sort of thing is more of an anomaly.

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

Just looking at Lunardi's bracket, if Duke lost out and somehow got an 8 seed, we would have to play Kansas, Nova or Gonzaga in the 2nd round. It's hard enough to win 6 games in a row in the tournament, it's that much harder when you have to play a 1 seed in the 2nd round.

It's a moot point because realistically speaking, even if Duke lost out the rest of the way, we would be no worse than a 5 seed. Our resume as it stands is simply too good to seed us any lower.

This isn't your point, but that bracket is beyond ridiculous. Lunardi said last night that Nova's loss moves KU into the #1 overall seed slot, and gives them... #8 Wichita State, who is 12(!) in KP, #3 Kentucky (7 in KP), plus Arizona and Wisconsin. That's possibly the Big10, Pac12, SEC, B12, and MVC champs. And that's not mentioning Duke, arguably the most talented team in the tournament.

A theoretical KU (8 in KP) vs Wichita State second round game would probably be close to a pick em in Vegas. Especially if you include the "Big vs Little Brother" anxiety.

Wander
02-23-2017, 06:03 PM
Joe Lunardi said during a West Virginia game a few nights ago that the winner of the ACC would get the last #1 seed regardless of the number of losses they had.

That's a bit of a silly statement for Lunardi to make. There's nothing inconsistent about one conference being far superior to all the others, yet not having one of the 4 best teams or resumes. For example, it's not impossible to imagine the four 1 seeds going to Gonzaga, Kansas, Villanova, and Arizona.

Kedsy
02-23-2017, 06:09 PM
If that were to happen, if we win, we get the #1s path the rest of the way. We just need to beat the top seed in the region in the round of 32 instead of the elite 8. Sure, it makes it harder to go deep, but not necessarily any harder to reach a final 4 (other than having to play a #9 in the first round instead of a 14 or 15.

It's all how you look at it. If the goal is a final 4, not much different. If the goal is making it to the second weekend of play, much harder!

#1 seed road to Final Four: 16-8-4-2
#8 seed road to Final Four: 9-1-4-2

I understand that once the #8 reaches the Sweet 16 the paths are the same, but saying those two paths to the Final Four are "not much different" is ridiculous. Put another way, reaching the Sweet 16 is a major part of reaching the Final Four. You can't just separate them like you appear to be doing.

Put yet another way, let's assume we put a #1 caliber team in the #8 seed position and use historical percentages to determine the odds of winning four straight games against a chalk path (e.g., #1 has won 81.25% of its games against #8, 68.75% of its games against #4, etc.).

Using that analysis:
The chance of a #1 beating a #16, #8, #4, and #2 and thus reaching the Final Four is 26.14%.
The chance of a #1 beating a #9, #1, #4, and #2 and thus reaching the Final Four is 14.83%.

In other words, the chance of getting to the Final Four from the #1 slot is almost twice as likely as if the same team had to do it through the #8 slot. Which I'd say is a lot different.

CDu
02-23-2017, 06:12 PM
#1 seed road to Final Four: 16-8-4-2
#8 seed road to Final Four: 9-1-4-2

I understand that once the #8 reaches the Sweet 16 the paths are the same, but saying those two paths to the Final Four are "not much different" is ridiculous. Put another way, reaching the Sweet 16 is a major part of reaching the Final Four. You can't just separate them like you appear to be doing.

Put yet another way, let's assume we put a #1 caliber team in the #8 seed position and use historical percentages to determine the odds of winning four straight games against a chalk path (e.g., #1 has won 81.25% of its games against #8, 68.75% of its games against #4, etc.).

Using that analysis:
The chance of a #1 beating a #16, #8, #4, and #2 and thus reaching the Final Four is 26.14%.
The chance of a #1 beating a #9, #1, #4, and #2 and thus reaching the Final Four is 14.83%.

In other words, the chance of getting to the Final Four from the #1 slot is almost twice as likely as if the same team had to do it through the #8 slot. Which I'd say is a lot different.

Put another way, you are replacing a game against a 16 seed with a game against a 1 seed, and slightly reordering the games. That is an EXTREMELY big difference. It is essentially taking the typical 1 seed's path and tossing in an extra game against another 1 seed.

BandAlum83
02-23-2017, 09:36 PM
#1 seed road to Final Four: 16-8-4-2
#8 seed road to Final Four: 9-1-4-2

I understand that once the #8 reaches the Sweet 16 the paths are the same, but saying those two paths to the Final Four are "not much different" is ridiculous. Put another way, reaching the Sweet 16 is a major part of reaching the Final Four. You can't just separate them like you appear to be doing.

Put yet another way, let's assume we put a #1 caliber team in the #8 seed position and use historical percentages to determine the odds of winning four straight games against a chalk path (e.g., #1 has won 81.25% of its games against #8, 68.75% of its games against #4, etc.).

Using that analysis:
The chance of a #1 beating a #16, #8, #4, and #2 and thus reaching the Final Four is 26.14%.
The chance of a #1 beating a #9, #1, #4, and #2 and thus reaching the Final Four is 14.83%.

In other words, the chance of getting to the Final Four from the #1 slot is almost twice as likely as if the same team had to do it through the #8 slot. Which I'd say is a lot different.

I was comparing it to another non-top seed, like a #2 or #3. If we aren't getting the #1, what would a 2 or 3 three look like as opposed to an 8?

#2 road to final 4: 15 - 7 - 3 - 1
#3 road to final 4: 14 - 6 - 2 - 1
#4 road to final 4: 13 - 5 - 1 - 2
#8 road to final 4: 9 - 1 - 4 - 2

So it really lands on, if you aren't a 1, how much different is a 9 vs a 14 or 15? Because that's the biggest part of the different paths

Obviously, it does invert the difficulty, but how much different would change by year and by the drop off in quality of the seed lines.

Anyway, this is moot. We aren't getting an 8. So what are the differences in probabilities for a 1,2,3 & 4, which is the more likely the range of potential seedings for us this year?

UrinalCake
02-23-2017, 09:53 PM
If we were to win out, we would be a #1 seed not only because of our overall record but because of the recency effect of having won six in a row and 13 out of 14. But it's not going to happen. Our chances of winning the ACC Tournament with basically six and half players, two of whom are hobbled, is virtually nil. Even before that, Miami is going to be yet another jacked up "team that knows that beating Duke will get them into the tournament" that we will be playing on the road, FSU is a terrible matchup who goes 12 players deep, and UNC is rolling right now.

Ordinarily I think that seed matters a lot. In 2013 we choked in the first round of the ACCT against Maryland and that cost us a #1 seed. Instead we were a #2 and had to play eventual Champion Louisville in the Elite 8. Now some might say "in order to win a title you have to beat everyone no matter what" but I think there is a big difference between playing that game in the Elite 8 versus playing it in the Final 4.

This year, however, getting a 1 seed is probably less important than normal. The top 8 teams are pretty indistinguishable from each other; you could make a case for any of them being a #1 seed. Would there be much difference in being a #2 versus a #3? Probably not, and at that point geography probably matters more.

Kedsy
02-23-2017, 09:58 PM
If we aren't getting the #1, what would a 2 or 3 three look like as opposed to an 8?

It's still a huge difference. Not so much #9 vs. #14 or #15 (#1 seeds have beaten #9 seeds 92.2% of the time; #2 seeds have beaten #15 seeds 93.8% of the time; #3 seeds have beaten #14 seeds 83.6% of the time), but playing a #1 in the 2nd round instead of a 7/10 or 6/11 would be the biggest difference.


Anyway, this is moot. We aren't getting an 8. So what are the differences in probabilities for a 1,2,3 & 4, which is the more likely the range of potential seedings for us this year?

Since the tournament went to 64 teams in 1985, here's the percentage that each "high" seed has made the Final Four:

#1 seeds: 40.6%
#2 seeds: 21.9%
#3 seeds: 10.9%
#4 seeds: 10.2%

So, not that much difference between #3 and #4, but a very big difference between #1 and #2, and also between #2 and #3. 1-seeds get to the Final Four almost 4x more than 3-seeds. How much of that has to do with the fact that 1-seeds are better basketball teams than 3-seeds and how much has to do with the much easier path through the bracket, it's not so easy to tell. What is easy to tell is those people who say seeding doesn't matter are probably not correct. You want to be a #1, or at least a #2, if you want a decent chance to get to the Final Four.

bob blue devil
02-23-2017, 10:03 PM
interesting question (putting aside the awkward use of "mathematically" :confused:).

right now, gonzaga, kansas, whoever comes out of the pac12 looking best, unc, and then villanova have to feel good about controlling their own destinies. duke... tricky. we could certainly get the top seed for acc if we win out. i guess if 'nova or gonzaga drop one from here, we'd have a outside shot at leapfrogging them. kansas would probably have to drop 2 before that's a conversation. pac12, chances are someone comes out of oregon, ucla, and arizona winning the pac12 tourney and looking really good - that would be tough for us to jump. and you also have florida and kentucky lurking, but they're more of a long shot in this, because they won't have many games to impress.

grabs number from air, i'd give us a 40% shot a #1 seed if we win out. i think it may be too late for us to completely change our profile, particularly given that our virginia win has been devalued a bit.

DukeandMdFan
02-24-2017, 02:55 AM
I was comparing it to another non-top seed, like a #2 or #3. If we aren't getting the #1, what would a 2 or 3 three look like as opposed to an 8?

#2 road to final 4: 15 - 7 - 3 - 1
#3 road to final 4: 14 - 6 - 2 - 1
#4 road to final 4: 13 - 5 - 1 - 2
#8 road to final 4: 9 - 1 - 4 - 2

So it really lands on, if you aren't a 1, how much different is a 9 vs a 14 or 15? Because that's the biggest part of the different paths

Obviously, it does invert the difficulty, but how much different would change by year and by the drop off in quality of the seed lines.

Anyway, this is moot. We aren't getting an 8. So what are the differences in probabilities for a 1,2,3 & 4, which is the more likely the range of potential seedings for us this year?

Another moot question, would you rather be a #6 or #8, assuming that you don't have tickets to Sweet 16 games...
#6 road to final 4: 11-3-2-1
#8 road to final 4: 9-1-4-2

I think I would rather have the #8 seed, especially if it could come with Amile and Grayson being healthy.



It's still a huge difference. Not so much #9 vs. #14 or #15 (#1 seeds have beaten #9 seeds 92.2% of the time; #2 seeds have beaten #15 seeds 93.8% of the time; #3 seeds have beaten #14 seeds 83.6% of the time), but playing a #1 in the 2nd round instead of a 7/10 or 6/11 would be the biggest difference.



Since the tournament went to 64 teams in 1985, here's the percentage that each "high" seed has made the Final Four:

#1 seeds: 40.6%
#2 seeds: 21.9%
#3 seeds: 10.9%
#4 seeds: 10.2%

So, not that much difference between #3 and #4, but a very big difference between #1 and #2, and also between #2 and #3. 1-seeds get to the Final Four almost 4x more than 3-seeds. How much of that has to do with the fact that 1-seeds are better basketball teams than 3-seeds and how much has to do with the much easier path through the bracket, it's not so easy to tell. What is easy to tell is those people who say seeding doesn't matter are probably not correct. You want to be a #1, or at least a #2, if you want a decent chance to get to the Final Four.
Great info - I think it would be interesting to see a breakdown of the #1 seeds; how often the "overall #1" advances compared to the "last #1".

UrinalCake
02-24-2017, 08:55 AM
#1 seeds: 40.6%
#2 seeds: 21.9%
#3 seeds: 10.9%
#4 seeds: 10.2%

Perfect example of the drop off between a #1 and a #2 seeding was Michigan State last year. I thought they absolutely deserved to be a #1, but the Selection Committee put them as a #2 in the region with #1 Virginia (presumably the last #1 and the first #2). Instead of a first round "bye" they had to play a very tough and very underrated Middle TN State team that sprung the upset. If they had been flipped with UVA they likely make the Final 4.

For us though, we're not getting a #1 so I think it's more about being healthy and seeing what matchups we get.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-24-2017, 09:26 AM
Perfect example of the drop off between a #1 and a #2 seeding was Michigan State last year. I thought they absolutely deserved to be a #1, but the Selection Committee put them as a #2 in the region with #1 Virginia (presumably the last #1 and the first #2). Instead of a first round "bye" they had to play a very tough and very underrated Middle TN State team that sprung the upset. If they had been flipped with UVA they likely make the Final 4.

For us though, we're not getting a #1 so I think it's more about being healthy and seeing what matchups we get.

...or... you could argue that their loss to MTSU shows they definitely didn't deserve a #1.

Hindsight and all that jazz.

OldPhiKap
02-24-2017, 09:44 AM
Right now, my main concern is finishing in the top four of the ACC and getting the automatic double-bye.

I am confident we will do it, but it's not assured at this point.

As far as the NCAA is concerned, there are no super-teams out there and my guess is that the top four seeds in all four regions have a reasonable chance to get to the Final Four. And once you get there, all bets are off. It also seems that the lower seeds are likely to be mainly major-conference teams with fewer mid-majors (i.e. senior-laden hot teams) than usual. So while I understand that being a #1 seed has a statistical advantage over being a #2 or #3, I'm not so sure it will be as pronounced this year as in some past years.

Long/short: maybe I should be more concerned about this, but I'm not really. With the pods we are likely on the East Coast for the first game(s). Advance, survive, worry about the next weekend if you get there. Given what this team has gone through all season, a top-three seed is an accomplishment.

jv001
02-24-2017, 10:36 AM
Right now, my main concern is finishing in the top four of the ACC and getting the automatic double-bye.

I am confident we will do it, but it's not assured at this point.

As far as the NCAA is concerned, there are no super-teams out there and my guess is that the top four seeds in all four regions have a reasonable chance to get to the Final Four. And once you get there, all bets are off. It also seems that the lower seeds are likely to be mainly major-conference teams with fewer mid-majors (i.e. senior-laden hot teams) than usual. So while I understand that being a #1 seed has a statistical advantage over being a #2 or #3, I'm not so sure it will be as pronounced this year as in some past years.

Long/short: maybe I should be more concerned about this, but I'm not really. With the pods we are likely on the East Coast for the first game(s). Advance, survive, worry about the next weekend if you get there. Given what this team has gone through all season, a top-three seed is an accomplishment.

My concern with the NCAAT, is don't play anywhere that put's us with the Uncheats. Our fans will be outnumbered no matter where we play, well maybe not in NY. Not having any games in Charlotte and Greensboro, may be a blessing. Charlotte is Chapel Hell #2 and Greensboro is not that fan friendly either. But above all, I want Duke to be pretty close to 100% healthy. A banged up Grayson hurts our chances more than anything. GoDuke!

DukeandMdFan
02-24-2017, 12:22 PM
Right now, my main concern is finishing in the top four of the ACC and getting the automatic double-bye.


Life is good.

rsvman
02-24-2017, 12:33 PM
...

Since the tournament went to 64 teams in 1985, here's the percentage that each "high" seed has made the Final Four:

#1 seeds: 40.6%
#2 seeds: 21.9%
#3 seeds: 10.9%
#4 seeds: 10.2%

.......

This is meaningless in terms of assaying the difficulty of "the road." It stands to reason that a 1-seed would get there more often anyway, because they are a 1-seed because they're good. Chalk doesn't always hold, either, so you can't even evaluate the difficulty of your own team's "road" in a single tournament until play begins and the chips fall.

BandAlum83
02-24-2017, 12:39 PM
Perfect example of the drop off between a #1 and a #2 seeding was Michigan State last year. I thought they absolutely deserved to be a #1, but the Selection Committee put them as a #2 in the region with #1 Virginia (presumably the last #1 and the first #2). Instead of a first round "bye" they had to play a very tough and very underrated Middle TN State team that sprung the upset. If they had been flipped with UVA they likely make the Final 4.

For us though, we're not getting a #1 so I think it's more about being healthy and seeing what matchups we get.

Based on the in-season glimpse we recently got into the top 16, your assumption "presumably the last #1 and the first #2" is explicitly not the case. The placement in regions follows a geographical / conference construct, not an S curve based on overall seeding. That was really the big reveal from what otherwise seemed a pointless exercise.

Jeffrey
02-24-2017, 12:49 PM
Perfect example of the drop off between a #1 and a #2 seeding was Michigan State last year. I thought they absolutely deserved to be a #1, but the Selection Committee put them as a #2 in the region with #1 Virginia (presumably the last #1 and the first #2). Instead of a first round "bye" they had to play a very tough and very underrated Middle TN State team that sprung the upset. If they had been flipped with UVA they likely make the Final 4.


Do Kedsy's statistics show 59.4% of #1 seeds do not make the Final Four? If so, regardless of seeding, it was likely Mich. St. would not have made the Final Four.

OldPhiKap
02-24-2017, 12:51 PM
My concern with the NCAAT, is don't play anywhere that put's us with the Uncheats. Our fans will be outnumbered no matter where we play, well maybe not in NY. Not having any games in Charlotte and Greensboro, may be a blessing. Charlotte is Chapel Hell #2 and Greensboro is not that fan friendly either. But above all, I want Duke to be pretty close to 100% healthy. A banged up Grayson hurts our chances more than anything. GoDuke!

Agreed.


Life is good.

Exactly.

BandAlum83
02-24-2017, 01:04 PM
Right now, my main concern is finishing in the top four of the ACC and getting the automatic double-bye.

I am confident we will do it, but it's not assured at this point.



#FirstWorldProblems

brevity
02-24-2017, 01:15 PM
With the pods we are likely on the East Coast for the first game(s).

It's still Greenville, mostly because of Virginia's slide. The NCAA predicted well/got lucky with the 8 sites for the tournament's first weekend. Almost every 1-4 seed would lead a pod in the site that is closest to their campus. Using the top 16 teams from Bracket Matrix (http://bracketmatrix.com/)...

Villanova: Buffalo (closest)
Gonzaga: Salt Lake City (closest)
Kansas: Tulsa (closest)
North Carolina: Greenville (closest)

Baylor: Tulsa (closest)
Louisville: Indianapolis (closest)
Oregon: Sacramento (closest)
Arizona: Salt Lake City (closest)

Florida: Orlando (closest)
Kentucky: Indianapolis (closest)
Duke: Greenville (closest)
Florida State: Orlando (closest)

UCLA: Sacramento (closest)
Butler: Milwaukee (2nd closest)
Purdue: Milwaukee (2nd closest)
West Virginia: Buffalo (closest)

So, geographically, not much drama. The collapse of Wisconsin and the Michigan teams made Milwaukee the dumping ground for 4 seeds, but in this case, it's no great sacrifice for Butler and Purdue. Those 2 teams certainly would rather play in Indianapolis*, but getting in front of Louisville and Kentucky will be difficult. Down at the 5 seed level, you have Virginia, which could take Greenville away from Duke; Wisconsin, which wants Milwaukee; and Cincinnati and Notre Dame, which probably won't sniff Indianapolis but could steal slots in Milwaukee.

*If you're wondering, Butler is not the host of the Indianapolis site, so I believe they could play games there.

Olympic Fan
02-24-2017, 03:45 PM
My concern with the NCAAT, is don't play anywhere that put's us with the Uncheats. Our fans will be outnumbered no matter where we play, well maybe not in NY. Not having any games in Charlotte and Greensboro, may be a blessing. Charlotte is Chapel Hell #2 and Greensboro is not that fan friendly either. But above all, I want Duke to be pretty close to 100% healthy. A banged up Grayson hurts our chances more than anything. GoDuke!

I totally disagree with this sentiment. I think some of you continue to be haunted by the ugly atmosphere in 2005, which was an anomaly, not the rule.

I very much want to be in Greenville for the first two games -- I don't care if the Cheats are there or not.

FWIW, we are pretty certain of being in the Greenville pod unless we really collapse. Virginia is just about the only threat to us -- if they climb ahead of us in the seeding, they may get Greenville (along with UNC). But there is really no other top seed that could move us out. Greenville is great because it's a Friday-Sunday site ... and that's what Coach K prefers.

FWIW: While Lunardi continues to project Duke as a No. 4 in the Midwest (which would mean a Sweet 16 matchup with Kansas in Kansas City); Jerry Palm of CBS (who has a much better track record than Lunardi) has Duke at No. 3 in the West, which means a Sweet 16 rematch with Oregon.

Both are just guesses, but of the two, I much prefer Palm's projection.

freshmanjs
02-24-2017, 03:47 PM
I totally disagree with this sentiment. I think some of you continue to be haunted by the ugly atmosphere in 2005, which was an anomaly, not the rule.

I very much want to be in Greenville for the first two games -- I don't care if the Cheats are there or not.

FWIW, we are pretty certain of being in the Greenville pod unless we really collapse. Virginia is just about the only threat to us -- if they climb ahead of us in the seeding, they may get Greenville (along with UNC). But there is really no other top seed that could move us out. Greenville is great because it's a Friday-Sunday site ... and that's what Coach K prefers.

FWIW: While Lunardi continues to project Duke as a No. 4 in the Midwest (which would mean a Sweet 16 matchup with Kansas in Kansas City); Jerry Palm of CBS (who has a much better track record than Lunardi) has Duke at No. 3 in the West, which means a Sweet 16 rematch with Oregon.

Both are just guesses, but of the two, I much prefer Palm's projection.

Going West would be very bad for us, especially for the sweet16 game. West coast teams consistently outperform east coast teams in night games (regardless of where the game is played) because of time zone issues. It's a very significant, but often overlooked, factor.

Kedsy
02-24-2017, 03:51 PM
So while I understand that being a #1 seed has a statistical advantage over being a #2 or #3, I'm not so sure it will be as pronounced this year as in some past years.

Every year, some people around here say something like this, but it's never really true.


As far as the NCAA is concerned, there are no super-teams out there and my guess is that the top four seeds in all four regions have a reasonable chance to get to the Final Four.

This might be true once the hypothetical top four seed gets to the Elite Eight, where only another "non-super-team" would be blocking its way to reaching the Final Four. But where it's nowhere near true is the top four seed's chances of reaching the Elite Eight and getting that opportunity:

Historical chance of reaching Elite Eight (1985 to 2016):
#1: 69.53%
#2: 46.88%
#3: 24.22%
#4: 15.63%


It also seems that the lower seeds are likely to be mainly major-conference teams with fewer mid-majors (i.e. senior-laden hot teams) than usual.

In the last ten tournaments, seeds 10 through 12 have pulled off 51 first-round upsets. Of those upsets, 26 were by major conference teams and 25 were by mid- or low-major teams. (I don't have data for how many of those 51 teams pulled off second-round upsets, but I would strongly doubt that mid-majors have a disproportionate advantage.) So, even if what you're saying is true (I haven't looked at it that closely), I don't see why it should matter when it comes to whether we see upsets, early on.

Olympic Fan
02-24-2017, 04:26 PM
Going West would be very bad for us, especially for the sweet16 game. West coast teams consistently outperform east coast teams in night games (regardless of where the game is played) because of time zone issues. It's a very significant, but often overlooked, factor.

Could you please cite a source for this?

I found this report of NBA travel:

https://jeremiahstanghini.com/2015/06/25/travel-and-sports-timezones-used-to-have-an-effect-on-winning-percentage-in-the-nba/

Which specifically states that teams traveling West are at a disadvantage, that ONLY applies to day games, not night games. (And, of course, Sweet 16 matchups are all at night). Further, it argues that evidence of impact on day games is totally based on results from the 1990s and since the turn of the century, location of games has NO impact on outcome -- either day or night. Maybe teams have learned how to cope with the Time zone change?

In the NFL, teams traveling East are at a big disadvantage -- 61-111 since 2003.

I can't find any evidence that East Coast teams are at a disadvantage on the West Coast. That doesn't mean that there isn't such evidence, but I can't find it. That's why I ask for the course of your statement.

freshmanjs
02-24-2017, 06:35 PM
Could you please cite a source for this?

I found this report of NBA travel:

https://jeremiahstanghini.com/2015/06/25/travel-and-sports-timezones-used-to-have-an-effect-on-winning-percentage-in-the-nba/

Which specifically states that teams traveling West are at a disadvantage, that ONLY applies to day games, not night games. (And, of course, Sweet 16 matchups are all at night). Further, it argues that evidence of impact on day games is totally based on results from the 1990s and since the turn of the century, location of games has NO impact on outcome -- either day or night. Maybe teams have learned how to cope with the Time zone change?

In the NFL, teams traveling East are at a big disadvantage -- 61-111 since 2003.

I can't find any evidence that East Coast teams are at a disadvantage on the West Coast. That doesn't mean that there isn't such evidence, but I can't find it. That's why I ask for the course of your statement.

Here are a few links...they aren't completely consistent regarding day vs night games though.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8423745

http://repository.brynmawr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=econ_pubs

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2012/08/travel-and-athletic-performance

Kedsy
02-24-2017, 08:58 PM
How much of that has to do with the fact that 1-seeds are better basketball teams than 3-seeds and how much has to do with the much easier path through the bracket, it's not so easy to tell.


Chalk doesn't always hold, either, so you can't even evaluate the difficulty of your own team's "road" in a single tournament until play begins and the chips fall.

This is true. Clearly a team's chance of making the Final Four is determined by a combination of your seed and your path. Let's start with seed performance against chalk, using historical performance to determine likelihood:

1-seed vs. 16/8/4/2: 26.66%*
2-seed vs. 15/7/3/1: 22.62%
3-seed vs. 14/6/2/1: 6.58%
4-seed vs. 13/5/1/2: 4.46%

* - I made a slight miscalculation in my earlier post in which I said 26.14% (I didn't take the last three tournaments into account when I made that calculation)

So, if you play straight chalk, not so much difference between a #1 and a #2, but a huuuuuge difference between either #1 or #2 and #3 or #4.

But perhaps an even bigger reason why so many #1 seeds make the Final Four is what happens if the path goes "off-chalk." For example, 9-seeds beat 8-seeds 50% of the time, and 5-seeds beat 4-seeds 46.27% of the time, so a 16/9/5/2 path wouldn't be considered unusual, but when the 1-seed's path is 16/9/5/2, the odds go up to 36.1%. If you make it 16/9/5/3, the odds go up to 46.82%. Here are various permutations for all four seeds:

1-seed vs. 16/8/4/2: 26.66%
1-seed vs. 16/9/5/2: 36.10%
1-seed vs. 16/9/5/3: 46.82%
1-seed vs. 16/8/12/2: 41.64%
1-seed vs. 16/9/12/2: 44.00%
1-seed vs. 16/9/5/6 (UNC's path in 2016): 55.01%
1-seed vs. 16/9/12/3: 57.07%
etc.

2-seed vs. 15/7/3/1: 22.62%
2-seed vs. 15/10/6/1: 23.32%
2-seed vs. 15/7/11/1: 32.57%

3-seed vs. 14/6/2/1: 6.58%
3-seed vs. 14/11/2/1: 7.53%
3-seed vs. 14/11/7/1: 12.24%

4-seed vs. 13/5/1/2: 4.46%
4-seed vs. 13/12/1/2: 5.22%
4-seed vs. 13/12/8/2: 7.16%

The #1 seed has a lot more paths with a 40+% or even 50+%, while the others cap out much lower (note that there weren't enough data points to give reasonable percentages with #2, #3, or #4 playing anyone other than #1 or #2 (for #4) in the Elite Eight; what few data points there were suggest the overall percentage wouldn't rise very much). In other words, if you want a good chance at the Final Four, you really want to be a 1-seed, or at least a 2-seed.

I understand that past is not always prologue, but anyone who says a 3-seed or 4-seed has almost as good a chance as a 1-seed or 2-seed to get to the Final Four, simply isn't paying attention to history.

CDu
02-24-2017, 09:08 PM
To add to Kedsy's point, the other nice thing about a 1 seed is that you have more games before playing a team of comparable strength. Which means more chances for that team of comparable strength to get upset.

A 4 seed would be expected to play a comparable team (5 seed) in their second game. A 1 seed gets a near-guaranteed win in the opener and a tougher but still inferior opponent in round 2. They don't risk facing a top-20 team until the sweet-16 at the earliest. The work of the 3, 4, and 5 seeds are tougher because they don't get a walkover in round 1 (especially the 5s), AND they are very likely to have a toss-up in round 2. That means more realistic chances to be upset. So the 1 seeds largely get to escape first-weekend carnage and often reap the benefits of a weakened path in the second weekend.

The same is true but to a lesser extent for the 2 seeds.