PDA

View Full Version : Bracketology



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

JasonEvans
12-15-2017, 03:56 PM
Might as well start this absurd thread absurdly early...

Joe Lunatic Lunardi's latest bracketology has 11... 11!... ACC teams making the dance. And, get this, NC State (which has an upset of Arizona and only has good losses to Tennessee and N. Iowa) isn't even one of the 11 teams making it. In order, he has the following ACC teams in:


Duke - 1 seed
UNC - 2
Miami - 4
Virginia - 4
Fla St. - 5
Notre Dame - 5
Louisville - 7
Syracuse - 9
Va Tech - 10
Clemson - 11
BC - 12

I may be wrong, but I think he has BC in as the ACC champion because his play-in games are among #11 seeds and BC is a #12. So, it would seem that BC's placement is artificial. Still, 11 teams is quite impressive no matter what strange technicality you needed to make that happen.

-Jason "no way we get 11... but 9 or possibly even 10 seems quite doable at this point" Evans

Bob Green
12-15-2017, 04:11 PM
NC State isn't even one of the 11 teams making it.

If this actually happens, heads will explode in Raleigh! The totally delusional Wolfpack fan base will self destruct.

arnie
12-15-2017, 04:23 PM
If this actually happens, heads will explode in Raleigh! The totally delusional Wolfpack fan base will self destruct.

They always do. Gotta blame the refs or the conference bias against them after every loss (and they have a lot of experience). Kind of fun to watch.

OldPhiKap
12-15-2017, 04:26 PM
Although Virginia Tech may get in, Seth Greenberg is on the bubble as to whether he will be an in-studio analyst or not.

Doria
12-15-2017, 04:40 PM
Although Virginia Tech may get in, Seth Greenberg is on the bubble as to whether he will be an in-studio analyst or not.

Think the bubble has burst for that one...

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
12-15-2017, 04:42 PM
Bracketology - my least favorite subject in school.

I will wait a few more weeks before I embark on my yearly tirade about Joey Brackets and this farce. Need to build up more ire.

budwom
12-15-2017, 04:50 PM
Bracketology - my least favorite subject in school.

I will wait a few more weeks before I embark on my yearly tirade about Joey Brackets and this farce. Need to build up more ire.

The ONLY good thing I can say about Loonardi's nonsense is that it reduces ESPN's focus on the NFL draft from 97% all the way down to 96.685%.
I'm thinking more mockage than ire at this point...

duke4ever19
12-15-2017, 05:37 PM
Hey, I'd happily do Bracketology as a sweet side gig if ESPN came calling.

Lunardi stumbled upon a job that gives him a small bit of fame and a paycheck, which supplements his main source of income, working St. Joseph's University.

bullettoothtony
12-15-2017, 07:26 PM
I'm less concerned with Lunardi... my concern is how the selection committee makes its decisions.

I'm not gonna lie... I'm still pissed off about last year. There is NO WAY the Cheats deserved a #1 seed over us. No effing way. And then to put us in a position to have to play a home game against South Carolina in the 2nd round...

Still makes my blood boil when I think about it.

Neals384
12-15-2017, 07:38 PM
In a nutshell, Jason...did you have to do this to us?:o

OldPhiKap
12-15-2017, 07:55 PM
In a nutshell, Jason...did you have to do this to us?:o

Could be worse. It could be “The Way Too Early 2020 Election” thread.

Pghdukie
12-15-2017, 08:53 PM
As earlier said. Joey Brackets got a good gig going. More power to him and his bank account.

JasonEvans
12-15-2017, 09:28 PM
In a nutshell, Jason...did you have to do this to us?:o

I am sorry... but 11 ACC teams. That would be a record (I think) and I thought it was worth noting for the brief moment in time it existed.

English
12-15-2017, 11:50 PM
I am sorry... but 11 ACC teams. That would be a record (I think) and I thought it was worth noting for the brief moment in time it existed.

Agreed. And for the less inclined, fear not, despite popular belief you do NOT have to read and contribute to every thread to be an upstanding member of the community.
/wink emoji

PackMan97
12-16-2017, 06:09 AM
If this actually happens, heads will explode in Raleigh! The totally delusional Wolfpack fan base will self destruct.

What are we delusional about? That we should have winning ACC records? That our basketball teams should win an ACC title more than once every 30 years? That up until 25 years ago we were historically more significant than Duke and Carolinas equal? Oh wait I know...that we actually thought Carolina would get punished for their cheating ways.

As for getting into the NCAAT, I'm pretty sure we'll be adding some bad losses to our record during ACC play. I wouldn't be surprised if we made the dance, but I wouldn't make a bet in it.

As for ACC conspiracies...Swofford, nuff said...and you aren't paranoid if the refs really are always out to get you!

arnie
12-16-2017, 07:01 AM
As for ACC conspiracies...Swofford, nuff said...and you aren't paranoid if the refs really are always out to get you!

I can’t tell if you’re kidding, but many of your brethren truly believe when State takes the court or field, the refs are against them. If that’s what you believe, why pay attention to a game that’s already “fixed”? The UNC cheating is an entirely different discussion that we agree on.

weezie
12-16-2017, 08:38 AM
All this will add up to is how can the NCAA get Hurley's sun devil into K's bracket?

The promos will be blared from the highest peaks in the land.

JasonEvans
12-16-2017, 09:52 AM
What are we delusional about? That we should have winning ACC records? That our basketball teams should win an ACC title more than once every 30 years?

Part of why I somewhat buy in to the NC State delusional storyline is because of how Herb Sendek was treated. Yeah, I know he could not beat Duke or UNC (8-38 record against them), but the guy was run out of town after making 5 consecutive NCAA tourneys and had a winning record in ACC play in 4 of his final 5 season. The one year he didn't have a winning record in that span, his team still made the NCAA Sweet 16.

I get that there was a perception that his NC State teams were doomed to be good but never great and that merely making the Big Dance and never dancing for very long can really grate on a fan base, but he sure seemed like he was doing a better job than the respect that he got from fans. I'll say this, you would probably LOVE to have that level of failure back again, wouldn't you?

-Jason "it should also be noted that Herb's teams never felt all that interesting or exciting... still, winning counts for something" Evans

duke2x
12-17-2017, 10:33 PM
Let me add one more piece to the puzzle why BC was a bad loss.

I assume we figured on being the #1 overall seed and choosing Boston over ATL as the regional. Both would be reasonable Duke crowds, but we would avoid UK in a quasi-home game in ATL. It's going to be really tough to get Boston as a #1 unless Villanova goes on a slide. We could repeat last year and be a #2 in the East, and we won't get the only other road P5 NCAA road game in history after last year. We could also lose the ACC top draw and give the ATL spot to UVA or (less likely) UNC.

We may draw Hurley's ASU squad as the Pac-12 champion out west. Be careful what you wish. I don't want to party like it's 2011 again where we are the unlucky East/Midwest #1 that gets shipped out.

Kedsy
12-17-2017, 10:54 PM
Let me add one more piece to the puzzle why BC was a bad loss.

I assume we figured on being the #1 overall seed and choosing Boston over ATL as the regional. Both would be reasonable Duke crowds, but we would avoid UK in a quasi-home game in ATL. It's going to be really tough to get Boston as a #1 unless Villanova goes on a slide. We could repeat last year and be a #2 in the East, and we won't get the only other road P5 NCAA road game in history after last year. We could also lose the ACC top draw and give the ATL spot to UVA or (less likely) UNC.

We may draw Hurley's ASU squad as the Pac-12 champion out west. Be careful what you wish. I don't want to party like it's 2011 again where we are the unlucky East/Midwest #1 that gets shipped out.

It is waaaaaay too early to say what will or won't be difficult when it comes to seeding. I remember in mid-January, 2010, after Duke lost to NC State, many DBR posters said with conviction that it was then impossible for us to get a #1 seed, because Kansas, Texas, Kentucky, and (I think) Villanova were locked in. As it happened, Texas (#1 at the time) ended up an 8-seed. Villanova ended up the #2 in Duke's region.

Nothing is etched in stone at this point.

Wahoo2000
12-18-2017, 12:56 AM
It is waaaaaay too early to say what will or won't be difficult when it comes to seeding. I remember in mid-January, 2010, after Duke lost to NC State, many DBR posters said with conviction that it was then impossible for us to get a #1 seed, because Kansas, Texas, Kentucky, and (I think) Villanova were locked in. As it happened, Texas (#1 at the time) ended up an 8-seed. Villanova ended up the #2 in Duke's region.

Nothing is etched in stone at this point.

It can get way later than that to not be "etched in stone". In 2015 we were 28-1 going into the last game of the regular season. We had been #2 for over half of the year (KY was undefeated and #1 all regular season), and I was just CERTAIN we had a 1 seed pretty much locked up. Mangok Mathiang, one of the worst shooters in the history of ACC basketball, hit what amounted to a buzzer beater from a step beyond the elbow to beat us at Louisville in a game played where we'd already locked the ACC regular season and #1 seed for the conference tournament. We still won a game in the ACC tourney, and didn't have a bad loss (to UNC in the semis). Finished 29-3. Somehow we ended up a 2 seed (don't think I've EVER seen a team with our resume get a 2 seed, though many people say that there were more elite teams in 2015 than any other year in the last 20-30 seasons - Kenpom metrics actually bear that out), and it COST us - getting matched up with MSU in the second round, who took us out. Not that I'm still bitter about it or anything....... :-D

wobatus
12-19-2017, 02:10 PM
I'm less concerned with Lunardi... my concern is how the selection committee makes its decisions.

I'm not gonna lie... I'm still pissed off about last year. There is NO WAY the Cheats deserved a #1 seed over us. No effing way. And then to put us in a position to have to play a home game against South Carolina in the 2nd round...

Still makes my blood boil when I think about it.

I think it's because you lost the ACC regular season by 3 games to UNC. Even with an unbalanced schedule, a bit much. Loss at home to last year's NC State team almost counts as 2 (kiding, no offense Packfan, but you weren't too good last year as you'd acknowledge; Keatts will get'em right). And somewhat moots the unbalanced schedule argument. OK, 2-1 head to head. And 15-7 against ACC teams versus 15-5 for UNC if you count the ACC tournament. So quite close with the unbalanced schedule, but again the NC State loss hurts. Georgia Tech wasn't a great loss for UNC but they played a bit better than thought in the league (blow-out loss to you guys excepted), and that was a road loss. Anyway, the 2-1 head to head, so against everyone else in the ACC Duke went 13-6, UNC 14-3. Close. I can see the argument. But it wasn't a "no way no how" thing I think.

As for South Carolina, very tough to play them in SC as 7 seed, no doubt. Although Arkansas, 8th seed in UNC's bracket, was 12-6 SEC, 25-9 pre-tournament. South Carolina was 12-6, 22-10. And had gone 2-5 its last 7 pre-NCAA's. Arkansas had gone 8-3 its last 11 pre-tournament. Including a win at South Carolina, true road game. And almost beat UNC.

Given how it played out hard to say the choice was all that wrong. Even if it may have had some bearing on how things played out. I get your blood boiling. And that you think there's no way UNC should have had the number 1 seed over Duke. It's hard for me to be objective but to me it's a very close call and not necessarily the wrong one.

wobatus
12-19-2017, 02:33 PM
Part of why I somewhat buy in to the NC State delusional storyline is because of how Herb Sendek was treated. Yeah, I know he could not beat Duke or UNC (8-38 record against them), but the guy was run out of town after making 5 consecutive NCAA tourneys and had a winning record in ACC play in 4 of his final 5 season. The one year he didn't have a winning record in that span, his team still made the NCAA Sweet 16.

I get that there was a perception that his NC State teams were doomed to be good but never great and that merely making the Big Dance and never dancing for very long can really grate on a fan base, but he sure seemed like he was doing a better job than the respect that he got from fans. I'll say this, you would probably LOVE to have that level of failure back again, wouldn't you?

-Jason "it should also be noted that Herb's teams never felt all that interesting or exciting... still, winning counts for something" Evans

It's early yet but I think Keatts will get them past the Herb level. Heck even Gott got them to 2 Sweet 16s. After 2015 he'd just knocked off a number 1 seed in Villanova and everyone was saying Jay Wright couldn't win the big game. Time flies. Anyway, I think Keatts will be really good. You can already see the philosophy. NC St is 22nd in opponent turnovers per possession, 25th in OR%, thus 23rd in extra scoring chances per game. They are 25th in effective possession ratio. They are just ok at 64th in turnovers per possession on offense. Johnson suspended but they only had 9 TOs against UNC-Greensboro (Wes Miller also doing a good job) with him out. Still, last year Wilmington had the lowest turnover per possession rate in the country (right ahead of Notre Dame). And 3rd in extra scoring chances per game at 7.3 (right behind West Virginia and UNC). But last year they didn't really turn people over that much, contrary to Keatts' rep (71st in opponent TO%). Different ways to get to the same result. UNC pounded the offensive boards. West Virginia turned you over and pounded the boards. UNC-Wilmington did a little of that but protected the ball like gold.

So Keatts seems to know what he is doing. Gott had his moments and recruited well, but was more roll-the-ball-out-there.

Sendek to me is kind of like Dixon at Pitt. You don't know what you got 'til it's gone. And Dixon had even more success, a regular in the upper echelon of Kenpom until recently. But similar lack of tourney success. He seems to have turned TCU right around.

bullettoothtony
12-19-2017, 04:58 PM
I think it's because you lost the ACC regular season by 3 games to UNC. Even with an unbalanced schedule, a bit much. Loss at home to last year's NC State team almost counts as 2 (kiding, no offense Packfan, but you weren't too good last year as you'd acknowledge; Keatts will get'em right). And somewhat moots the unbalanced schedule argument. OK, 2-1 head to head. And 15-7 against ACC teams versus 15-5 for UNC if you count the ACC tournament. So quite close with the unbalanced schedule, but again the NC State loss hurts. Georgia Tech wasn't a great loss for UNC but they played a bit better than thought in the league (blow-out loss to you guys excepted), and that was a road loss. Anyway, the 2-1 head to head, so against everyone else in the ACC Duke went 13-6, UNC 14-3. Close. I can see the argument. But it wasn't a "no way no how" thing I think.

As for South Carolina, very tough to play them in SC as 7 seed, no doubt. Although Arkansas, 8th seed in UNC's bracket, was 12-6 SEC, 25-9 pre-tournament. South Carolina was 12-6, 22-10. And had gone 2-5 its last 7 pre-NCAA's. Arkansas had gone 8-3 its last 11 pre-tournament. Including a win at South Carolina, true road game. And almost beat UNC.

Given how it played out hard to say the choice was all that wrong. Even if it may have had some bearing on how things played out. I get your blood boiling. And that you think there's no way UNC should have had the number 1 seed over Duke. It's hard for me to be objective but to me it's a very close call and not necessarily the wrong one.



I can't remember all the details but I'll say a couple of things.

The unbalanced schedule was a huge factor in the standings. Duke played almost every team in the top 7 or 8 of the standings twice I think. Carolina played something like 4 or 5 road games against teams in the top ten or eleven of the standings and lost all of them or all but one of them. And going into the NCAA Tournament, Duke had more RPI Top 25 wins, and more RPI Top 50 wins.

Again, all of this is from memory... I just can't remember every damn detail but I do remember that the only thing in Carolina's favor was fewer conference losses (and I think the committee has said repeatedly over the years that conference standings aren't factored in because of unbalanced schedules). Factor in the head-to-head, injury issues,the ACC Tournament Championship, and more RPI wins and it was a slam dunk. And every talking head (i.e. people who cover/analyze the sport for a living and probably knew more about it than both of us) I can recall on Selection Sunday agreed with me.

My apologies for the thread hijack but I had to respond. I'll say no more on the matter.

UrinalCake
12-19-2017, 06:27 PM
Yeah Duke had more top 25 wins by far, something like 12 compared to 7 or 8 for UNC (i’m doing this all from memory). And UNC’s were all at home. We had more top-25 wins away from home just in the ACC tournament than UNC had all year. Basically we had more good wins and also more bad losses, whereas UNC was more even keel. They had no bad losses except for GT but also no good wins except the one win over us. And really, NC State was our only BAD loss (sub-75 RPI).

Keep in mind that our team had injuries all season long, which the selection committee decided to completely ignore even though they factor it in for every other team. The Kansas loss came without three freshmen, VT was without Grayson (that was a suspension, so maybe ignore that one), Louisville and FSU were without Amile, etc.

We played a final four team in what was essentially a true road game in the round of 32. If UNC has gotten that draw, and played the way they did against Arkansas, I am certain they would have been the ones going gone.

pfrduke
12-19-2017, 06:44 PM
I recall one of the issues being that they didn't ever do a head-to-head comparison between Duke and UNC. They concluded that we were 7th and our resume was not better than 5 (Kentucky) or 6 (Arizona) and they concluded that UNC at 4 was better than Kentucky at 5, so Duke/UNC head-to-head never happened. Weirdly, it was a little bit harder to make the case that we deserved a 1 over UK or UA than it was over UNC, yet UK and UA couldn't get ahead of UNC.

BandAlum83
12-20-2017, 10:42 AM
I recall one of the issues being that they didn't ever do a head-to-head comparison between Duke and UNC. They concluded that we were 7th and our resume was not better than 5 (Kentucky) or 6 (Arizona) and they concluded that UNC at 4 was better than Kentucky at 5, so Duke/UNC head-to-head never happened. Weirdly, it was a little bit harder to make the case that we deserved a 1 over UK or UA than it was over UNC, yet UK and UA couldn't get ahead of UNC.

The transitive property as applied to Bracketology. It will get you every time!

wobatus
12-20-2017, 10:58 AM
Yeah Duke had more top 25 wins by far, something like 12 compared to 7 or 8 for UNC (i’m doing this all from memory). And UNC’s were all at home. We had more top-25 wins away from home just in the ACC tournament than UNC had all year. Basically we had more good wins and also more bad losses, whereas UNC was more even keel. They had no bad losses except for GT but also no good wins except the one win over us. And really, NC State was our only BAD loss (sub-75 RPI).

Keep in mind that our team had injuries all season long, which the selection committee decided to completely ignore even though they factor it in for every other team. The Kansas loss came without three freshmen, VT was without Grayson (that was a suspension, so maybe ignore that one), Louisville and FSU were without Amile, etc.

We played a final four team in what was essentially a true road game in the round of 32. If UNC has gotten that draw, and played the way they did against Arkansas, I am certain they would have been the ones going gone.



I don't think you can say "no good wins". Holding serve at home against good teams counts.

Whatever alchemy goes into selections (and they don't just rely on RPI, but also look at kenpom, etc), it is likely the NC State loss did you in. It's simply a worse loss than at Georgia Tech. A home loss to a team that ended up RPI 140 versus a road loss to RPI 78 (at least that's how Teamranking has it). The kenpom ranks were 109 and 77.

Either way you play the games in front of you. UNC beat Arkansas (KP #35), Butler (KP #25), Kentucky (KP #4), Oregon (KP #10), Gonzaga (KP #1). That's all of course hindsight, but they didn't have a cakewalk. RPI actually had it at season's end as Arkansas 28, Butler 12, Kentucky 2, Oregon 7, Gonzaga 6.

A lot of luck in that run. As there often is.

Duke had a lot of injury woes. Not sure how important you view Theo Pinson to UNC's team last year, but he missed their first 4 losses. Isaiah Hicks missed the loss in Cameron. Kenny Williams missed the last 2 losses. I know, cry me a river.

If the schedules were reversed the regular season would have looked different and I assume Duke would have had a 1 seed. It was pretty close as is. This year the schedule is reversed somewhat. UNC goes to Virginia, Notre Dame, Florida State, Louisville and Syracuse this year. Syracuse in February. Maybe I'll make that trek. Did you know Syracuse gets more annual snowfall than Buffalo?

Like UNC last year, Duke has opened with a road loss. But hold serve at home against good teams and the regular season title runs through Durham.

Oh my, just checked RPI and it's Duke # 1, UNC #2. That's at ESPN and NCAA. Teamrankings has it reversed. Early season wonkiness, but still kinda funny.

wobatus
12-20-2017, 11:05 AM
I don't think you can say "no good wins". Holding serve at home against good teams counts.

Whatever alchemy goes into selections (and they don't just rely on RPI, but also look at kenpom, etc), it is likely the NC State loss did you in. It's simply a worse loss than at Georgia Tech. A home loss to a team that ended up RPI 140 versus a road loss to RPI 78 (at least that's how Teamranking has it). The kenpom ranks were 109 and 77.

Either way you play the games in front of you. UNC beat Arkansas (KP #35), Butler (KP #25), Kentucky (KP #4), Oregon (KP #10), Gonzaga (KP #1). That's all of course hindsight, but they didn't have a cakewalk. RPI actually had it at season's end as Arkansas 28, Butler 12, Kentucky 2, Oregon 7, Gonzaga 6.

A lot of luck in that run. As there often is.

Duke had a lot of injury woes. Not sure how important you view Theo Pinson to UNC's team last year, but he missed their first 4 losses. Isaiah Hicks missed the loss in Cameron. Kenny Williams missed the last 2 losses. I know, cry me a river.

If the schedules were reversed the regular season would have looked different and I assume Duke would have had a 1 seed. It was pretty close as is. This year the schedule is reversed somewhat. UNC goes to Virginia, Notre Dame, Florida State, Louisville and Syracuse this year. Syracuse in February. Maybe I'll make that trek. Did you know Syracuse gets more annual snowfall than Buffalo?

Like UNC last year, Duke has opened with a road loss. But hold serve at home against good teams and the regular season title runs through Durham.

Oh my, just checked RPI and it's Duke # 1, UNC #2. That's at ESPN and NCAA. Teamrankings has it reversed. Early season wonkiness, but still kinda funny.

Damn, Duke did have it rough last year. @ Louisville, Virginia, Notre Dame, Florida State (plus at home), @ UNC (+ at home), @ Virginia Tech, @ Syracuse (always tough in mid-winter).

By the way, Syracuse usually wins the Golden Snowball (don't eat it):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Snowball_Award

wobatus
12-20-2017, 11:07 AM
The transitive property as applied to Bracketology. It will get you every time!


Kentucky must have loved that since they beat UNC on a neutral court during the OOC.

brevity
01-21-2018, 12:54 PM
17 years later, NCAA Selection Committee enters the 21st century. (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22144913/ncaa-says-year-test-run-new-evaluation-system)


For the first time, committee members will see rankings from ESPN's BPI and Strength of Record, KPI, Jeff Sagarin Ratings and KenPom.com next to the RPI on the official team sheets used to assess each program.

They'll also see the average score of the six advanced metrics for each team, which could be repackaged as a new, official tool that replaces the RPI next season, said David Worlock, media coordinator for the NCAA tournament.

"Fans of the University of North Carolina need not worry," Worlock added. "Roy Williams will always be our favorite tool."

duke4ever19
01-25-2018, 12:10 PM
Lunardi's latest bracket has us as a 1-seed, but the rest of our bracket is hella scary:

2-seed: Michigan St.

3-seed: Oklahoma

4-seed:Arizona

5-seed: Kentucky

6-seed: Gonzaga

9-seed: Texas

I know it's all make-believe -- especially in January -- but just pretending for a second that this was the bracket we were given . . . that would be insane.

moonpie23
01-25-2018, 12:14 PM
that is DEFINITELY made up purposely for clickbait and fear/joy mongering.

Kedsy
01-25-2018, 12:34 PM
I know it's all make-believe -- especially in January -- but just pretending for a second that this was the bracket we were given . . . that would be insane.


that is DEFINITELY made up purposely for clickbait and fear/joy mongering.

If you really look at it, why is that bracket insane?

#1 seed expected to be #1 to #4: Duke is #4 in KenPom; #1 in RPI; #4 in AP rankings
#2 seed expected to be #5 to #8: Michigan State is #5 in KenPom; #26 in RPI; #6 in AP (the #26 implies they may not deserve a #2, but supposedly reliance on RPI will be lessened this year...)
#3 seed expected to be #9 to #12: Oklahoma is #19 in KenPom; #8 in RPI; #12 in AP (here, KenPom implies they may not deserve a #3 and the average would suggest a #4, but it's pretty close)
#4 seed expected to be #13 to #16: Arizona is #22 in KenPom; #17 in RPI; #11 in AP (based on these, probably ought to be a #5)
#5 seed expected to be #17 to #20: Kentucky is #33 in KenPom; #18 in RPI; #29 in AP (based on these, probably ought to be a #7)
#6 seed expected to be #21 to #24: Gonzaga is #7 in KenPom; #57 in RPI; #15 in AP (so much variance it's hard to call this one, average would make them a #7)
#9 seed expected to be #33 to #36: Texas is #40 in KenPom; #42 in RPI; worse than #38 in AP (based on these looks more like a #10 or #11)

So, other than Duke, you could make a decent argument that every single team in this bracket is seeded too high. In other words, this bracket is probably too easy, not too hard.

Bluedog
01-25-2018, 12:50 PM
If you really look at it, why is that bracket insane?

#1 seed expected to be #1 to #4: Duke is #4 in KenPom; #1 in RPI; #4 in AP rankings
#2 seed expected to be #5 to #8: Michigan State is #5 in KenPom; #26 in RPI; #6 in AP (the #26 implies they may not deserve a #2, but supposedly reliance on RPI will be lessened this year...)
#3 seed expected to be #9 to #12: Oklahoma is #19 in KenPom; #8 in RPI; #12 in AP (here, KenPom implies they may not deserve a #3 and the average would suggest a #4, but it's pretty close)
#4 seed expected to be #13 to #16: Arizona is #22 in KenPom; #17 in RPI; #11 in AP (based on these, probably ought to be a #5)
#5 seed expected to be #17 to #20: Kentucky is #33 in KenPom; #18 in RPI; #29 in AP (based on these, probably ought to be a #7)
#6 seed expected to be #21 to #24: Gonzaga is #7 in KenPom; #57 in RPI; #15 in AP (so much variance it's hard to call this one, average would make them a #7)
#9 seed expected to be #33 to #36: Texas is #40 in KenPom; #42 in RPI; worse than #38 in AP (based on these looks more like a #10 or #11)

So, other than Duke, you could make a decent argument that every single team in this bracket is seeded too high. In other words, this bracket is probably too easy, not too hard.

I think the reason one might view it as a "bracket of death" is because many believe Oklahoma, Arizona, Kentucky and Gonzaga have a lot talent on their teams and have the POTENTIAL to beat top quality opponents -- but just haven't always consistently done so throughout the season. Basically, pre-season expectations are high for those teams, which are a decent indicator of NCAA success shockingly. That's why 538 uses pre-season rankings in their projections and why an 8-seed Kentucky who made the Final Four wasn't THAT huge of a shock/upset compared to what one would typically expect of an 8-seed. So, I'd agree that that would be a killer bracket with Duke, MSU, and Zona being within the top 4 pre-season all in the same bracket with other slalwarts such as Gonzaga and Kentucky as lower seeds.

Nugget
01-25-2018, 01:14 PM
I think the reason one might view it as a "bracket of death" is because many believe Oklahoma, Arizona, Kentucky and Gonzaga have a lot talent on their teams and have the POTENTIAL to beat top quality opponents -- but just haven't always consistently done so throughout the season. Basically, pre-season expectations are high for those teams, which are a decent indicator of NCAA success shockingly. That's why 538 uses pre-season rankings in their projections and why an 8-seed Kentucky who made the Final Four wasn't THAT huge of a shock/upset compared to what one would typically expect of an 8-seed. So, I'd agree that that would be a killer bracket with Duke, MSU, and Zona being within the top 4 pre-season all in the same bracket with other slalwarts such as Gonzaga and Kentucky as lower seeds.

Certainly one couldn't suggest anything odd about Mich St. being the #2 to our #1 under the circumstances. And, Oklahoma and Gonzaga do not strike me as objectively scary teams to have in your bracket.

The obvious outliers there to me are Arizona and Kentucky -- I'd want no part of either of them as #4/5 seeds in our region. It would be an open invitation for panic about a Sweet 16 flameout to a highly talented team that had underachieved in the regular season a la 2005, 2006 or 2011.

As a practical matter, this won't happen -- the Pac 12 is so weak that Arizona will win out (maybe they could lose 1 at ASU or Oregon) and probably end up around a 2 seed or 3 at worst.

Kedsy
01-25-2018, 01:16 PM
I think the reason one might view it as a "bracket of death" is because many believe Oklahoma, Arizona, Kentucky and Gonzaga have a lot talent on their teams and have the POTENTIAL to beat top quality opponents -- but just haven't always consistently done so throughout the season. Basically, pre-season expectations are high for those teams, which are a decent indicator of NCAA success shockingly. That's why 538 uses pre-season rankings in their projections and why an 8-seed Kentucky who made the Final Four wasn't THAT huge of a shock/upset compared to what one would typically expect of an 8-seed. So, I'd agree that that would be a killer bracket with Duke, MSU, and Zona being within the top 4 pre-season all in the same bracket with other slalwarts such as Gonzaga and Kentucky as lower seeds.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on this. Putting four of the top five pre-season teams in one bracket (in addition to Duke, MSU, and AZ being #1, #2, and #3 in the pre-season AP poll, UK was #5) would be pretty wild. Personally, as a Duke fan, I wouldn't be so happy with this bracket.

However, it should also be noted that (a) Oklahoma was unranked in the pre-season, which could be seen as at least partially balancing the crazy pre-season expectations of the other four teams; (b) Duke would have to play at most one of Arizona/Kentucky and at most one of Michigan State/Oklahoma/Gonzaga -- if you removed, e.g., Arizona, Oklahoma, and Gonzaga from this bracket, would it still appear unusually tough?; and (c) I highly doubt the committee makes its decisions based on pre-season ranking. If Lunardi is attempting to recreate the committee's thinking (and he is), this bracket isn't particularly unreasonable.

DavidBenAkiva
01-25-2018, 01:57 PM
I still think we're a month out from really looking at bracket projections with any reasonable sense of how they'll end up. Any of Duke, UVA, Purdue, and Villanova (least likely) could run into a stretch of 3-4 bad games.

Even if Duke wins on Saturday over UVA, there are still two games against UNC, a game at Clemson, at VA Tech, and a game at home against Louisville.

UVA has to play at Miami, Louisville and Florida State. They have a fairly easy schedule ahead of them, all things considered.

Purdue hosts Michigan tonight, Ohio State in a couple of weeks, and has to travel to Michigan State on February 10th.

Villanova has to go to Xavier, Providence and they host Butler (who has already defeated them once this year).

There's a fairly big gap between these top 4 teams today and the next group of schools. That being said, any of Michigan State, Kansas, Cincinnati, Oklahoma, or others could jump into a top seed if one of the current top teams falters. If the B1G teams all lose to each other, it's possible they could drop each other out of contention for a #1 seed. I could see a scenario where Kansas wins the Big 12 again, Duke beats UVA but Virginia wins the regular season ACC while MSU, Ohio State, and Purdue all get #2 seeds. That would be a very interesting and possibly controversial result. There are just too many moving parts to know what will happen from here.

W&LHoo
01-25-2018, 02:04 PM
I still think we're a month out from really looking at bracket projections with any reasonable sense of how they'll end up. Any of Duke, UVA, Purdue, and Villanova (least likely) could run into a stretch of 3-4 bad games.

Even if Duke wins on Saturday over UVA, there are still two games against UNC, a game at Clemson, at VA Tech, and a game at home against Louisville.

UVA has to play at Miami, Louisville and Florida State. They have a fairly easy schedule ahead of them, all things considered.

Purdue hosts Michigan tonight, Ohio State in a couple of weeks, and has to travel to Michigan State on February 10th.

Villanova has to go to Xavier, Providence and they host Butler (who has already defeated them once this year).

There's a fairly big gap between these top 4 teams today and the next group of schools. That being said, any of Michigan State, Kansas, Cincinnati, Oklahoma, or others could jump into a top seed if one of the current top teams falters. If the B1G teams all lose to each other, it's possible they could drop each other out of contention for a #1 seed. I could see a scenario where Kansas wins the Big 12 again, Duke beats UVA but Virginia wins the regular season ACC while MSU, Ohio State, and Purdue all get #2 seeds. That would be a very interesting and possibly controversial result. There are just too many moving parts to know what will happen from here.

I think relatively few UVA fans are even looking at our schedule past this Saturday, which pretty dramatically alters the degree of difficulty of our road schedule. I honestly can't think of a place I'd like to see us play LESS than in Cameron.

JasonEvans
01-25-2018, 02:12 PM
ESPN analytics tweeted the following this morning (along with a tweet giving Duke a 60% chance of winning the game with UVA, which sounds about right to me... maybe a little low):


Chance to earn a No. 1 seed in NCAA tournament, based on result of Saturday's game:
Virginia w/ win: 96%
Virginia w/ loss: 87%
Duke w/ win: 65%
Duke w/ loss: 38%

-Jason "the above percentages demonstrate that it is still really, really early to be talking about this stuff" Evans

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
01-25-2018, 03:48 PM
Certainly one couldn't suggest anything odd about Mich St. being the #2 to our #1 under the circumstances. And, Oklahoma and Gonzaga do not strike me as objectively scary teams to have in your bracket.

*insert my obligatory caveat about HATING "bracketology," "Joey Brackets," or anything else on the mothership which exists only for clicks*

Oklahoma is precisely the sort of team that terrifies me in a bracket, given Duke's propensity to be shredded by talented guards in March, given our defensive lapses this season, and given the insanity that is Trae Young.

Troublemaker
01-25-2018, 04:06 PM
ESPN analytics tweeted the following this morning (along with a tweet giving Duke a 60% chance of winning the game with UVA, which sounds about right to me... maybe a little low):

Chance to earn a No. 1 seed in NCAA tournament, based on result of Saturday's game:
Virginia w/ win: 96%
Virginia w/ loss: 87%
Duke w/ win: 65%
Duke w/ loss: 38%

-Jason "the above percentages demonstrate that it is still really, really early to be talking about this stuff" Evans

I'm quite skeptical that UVA has a significantly better chance at a 1 seed even if Duke wins on Saturday. If UVA wins, yes. But, c'mon, 87% to 65% even if Duke wins?

DavidBenAkiva
01-25-2018, 04:11 PM
I'm quite skeptical that UVA has a significantly better chance at a 1 seed even if Duke wins on Saturday. If UVA wins, yes. But, c'mon, 87% to 65% even if Duke wins?

That probably has something to do with their schedule. UVA's last ranked team on the schedule is this Saturday. After that, no opponent at home or on the road is currently in the Top 25. Of the current Top 25 teams, their schedule only features 5 matchups against ranked teams.

Duke still has to play at UNC, at Clemson, and at home against UNC after Saturday.

CDu
01-25-2018, 04:50 PM
That probably has something to do with their schedule. UVA's last ranked team on the schedule is this Saturday. After that, no opponent at home or on the road is currently in the Top 25. Of the current Top 25 teams, their schedule only features 5 matchups against ranked teams.

Duke still has to play at UNC, at Clemson, and at home against UNC after Saturday.

Almost certainly due to a combination of their easier schedule (it's significantly easier) and their better current position in the hierarchy (higher-ranked, better record, and higher-rated by everyone except RPI).

Truth&Justise
01-25-2018, 04:53 PM
That probably has something to do with their schedule. UVA's last ranked team on the schedule is this Saturday. After that, no opponent at home or on the road is currently in the Top 25. Of the current Top 25 teams, their schedule only features 5 matchups against ranked teams.

Duke still has to play at UNC, at Clemson, and at home against UNC after Saturday.

True, but there's a good chance Clemson won't be ranked when we face them in three weeks.

Which is another data point showing that long-term seed prognosticating is a bit of a fool's errand.

brevity
01-25-2018, 04:57 PM
Oklahoma is precisely the sort of team that terrifies me in a bracket, given Duke's propensity to be shredded by talented guards in March, given our defensive lapses this season, and given the insanity that is Trae Young.

Agreed. I wasn’t going to point this out until next month, but there is a close to 100 percent chance that either Oklahoma (Trae Young) or Alabama (Collin Sexton) are placed in the same region as Duke. Maybe both, if Alabama stays in the 8-9 range and Oklahoma in the 4-5 range. At that point even the most die hard DBR statisticians may wish for a 2 seed instead of a 1.

duke4ever19
01-25-2018, 05:50 PM
If you really look at it, why is that bracket insane?

#1 seed expected to be #1 to #4: Duke is #4 in KenPom; #1 in RPI; #4 in AP rankings
#2 seed expected to be #5 to #8: Michigan State is #5 in KenPom; #26 in RPI; #6 in AP (the #26 implies they may not deserve a #2, but supposedly reliance on RPI will be lessened this year...)
#3 seed expected to be #9 to #12: Oklahoma is #19 in KenPom; #8 in RPI; #12 in AP (here, KenPom implies they may not deserve a #3 and the average would suggest a #4, but it's pretty close)
#4 seed expected to be #13 to #16: Arizona is #22 in KenPom; #17 in RPI; #11 in AP (based on these, probably ought to be a #5)
#5 seed expected to be #17 to #20: Kentucky is #33 in KenPom; #18 in RPI; #29 in AP (based on these, probably ought to be a #7)
#6 seed expected to be #21 to #24: Gonzaga is #7 in KenPom; #57 in RPI; #15 in AP (so much variance it's hard to call this one, average would make them a #7)
#9 seed expected to be #33 to #36: Texas is #40 in KenPom; #42 in RPI; worse than #38 in AP (based on these looks more like a #10 or #11)

So, other than Duke, you could make a decent argument that every single team in this bracket is seeded too high. In other words, this bracket is probably too easy, not too hard.

You lose me with the "expected to be" and "ought to be" statements.

My post was more intended to juxtapose the current bracket with the reputation of these teams going into the season. Still, I wouldn't want anything to do with this bracket, I don't care what Pomeroy's data says "should" or "ought" to be the case on January 25th.

DavidBenAkiva
01-29-2018, 09:02 AM
Using Joe Lunardi's (who is ok but not perfect) seed list from Saturday night, here are the top 4 seeds as of this moment:

1 Seeds: Villanova, Virginia, Purdue, Duke
2 Seeds: Kansas, Michigan State, Xavier, West Virginia
3 Seeds: Oklahoma, UNC, Cincinnati, Arizona
4 Seeds: Ohio State, Clemson, Auburn, Texas Tech

Let's focus on the 1-seeds first.

Villanova has 1 remaining game against a Top 25 team, a road game at Xavier on February 17th. They host Butler the week before, which defeated Villanova in Indianapolis earlier this season. But it's a pretty easy road to the 1 Seed in the East for 'Nova.

Virginia doesn't face a team that is currently ranked in the Top 25 the rest of the season, up until the ACC Tournament. They do have an interesting two games at the end of the year, playing at Louisville and then hosting Notre Dame, who could be fully healthy, to close out the end of the season. Even with a loss or two, it's hard to see them losing the 1 Seed in the South. It would probably take 2 losses and Duke running the table to do it.

The B1G scheduling is a joke. The top 3 teams in the conference only play each other once. How is that possible? Purdue hosts Ohio State on February 7th and then travels to Michigan State on the 10th.Other than that, it's a cakewalk of a schedule. It's possible Purdue drops one or two games. Winning one of the two games against tOSU and MSU and then winning the B1G Tournament locks up the 1 Seed in the Midwest.

Duke has a manageable schedule the rest of the season. There are the 2 games against UNC, 2 against Virginia Tech, road games against Georgia Tech (2/11), home games against Louisville and Syracuse, and the out-of-conference game against St. John's this Saturday at Madison Square Garden (my first trip to MSG!). That's a manageable schedule given the injury to Clemson's Donte Grantham and UNC's struggles this year. It's not inconceivable that Duke runs the table to end the year on a 10-game winning streak. Getting to the ACC Tournament Finals at that point would probably seal a 1 Seed, most likely in the West (ugh).

Fortunately for Duke, the contenders for 1 Seeds do not face an easy road.

Kansas plays at Kansas State (who lost to KU by 1 in Lawrence earlier this year) tonight and has tough stretch in mid-February hosting West Virginia and Oklahoma before traveling to Texas Tech.

Michigan State does have a favorable schedule. The only Top 25 team they face is Purdue at home on February 10th. The rest of their games look very, very winnable in a down year in the B1G. It's possible they will have to face Ohio State and then Purdue in the conference tournament.

Xavier would have to defeat Villanova on February 17th to have a chance at a 1 Seed. They don't have any other ranked opponents but do have road games at Butler on February 6th and at Creighton on February 10th.

West Virginia, who lost at home to Kentucky on Saturday night, is sliding and faces a couple of tough tests at Oklahoma on February 5th and at Kansas on the 17th. Having lost 3 of their last 4, it's hard to see them climbing over the group above.

I think Duke is in a good spot for the NCAA Tournament. They have a few challenges ahead but should be favored in every game for the rest of the regular season. If Purdue can close out the B1G, in particular by defeating Michigan State while Kansas picks up a loss or two, Duke should be in a good spot for a 1 Seed out West.

CDu
01-29-2018, 09:57 AM
Agree with your analysis DavidBenAkiva, but I'm not sure I would be thrilled with being the 1 seed out west. I might actually prefer a 2 seed in the East or Midwest to a 1 seed out West. But, c'est la vie. I'll be cheering hard against Nova and Purdue the rest of the way. We'd probably need to run the table the rest of the way to have a strong chance to knock either off the 1 line in their respective regions. But if we do win out, I think there is a better than awful chance we bump one of them. And I'd MUCH prefer to be in any region other than the West.

Natty_B
01-29-2018, 10:12 AM
It was somebody on these boards a few years back who tipped me off to Bracket Matrix http://www.bracketmatrix.com/. I've found it really useful as it not only aggregates all the projections but weighs the projections based on past performance (Lundardi ranks 40th lol). Anyway great site.

flyingdutchdevil
01-29-2018, 02:39 PM
Using Joe Lunardi's (who is ok but not perfect) seed list from Saturday night, here are the top 4 seeds as of this moment:

1 Seeds: Villanova, Virginia, Purdue, Duke
2 Seeds: Kansas, Michigan State, Xavier, West Virginia
3 Seeds: Oklahoma, UNC, Cincinnati, Arizona
4 Seeds: Ohio State, Clemson, Auburn, Texas Tech

Let's focus on the 1-seeds first.

Villanova has 1 remaining game against a Top 25 team, a road game at Xavier on February 17th. They host Butler the week before, which defeated Villanova in Indianapolis earlier this season. But it's a pretty easy road to the 1 Seed in the East for 'Nova.

Virginia doesn't face a team that is currently ranked in the Top 25 the rest of the season, up until the ACC Tournament. They do have an interesting two games at the end of the year, playing at Louisville and then hosting Notre Dame, who could be fully healthy, to close out the end of the season. Even with a loss or two, it's hard to see them losing the 1 Seed in the South. It would probably take 2 losses and Duke running the table to do it.

The B1G scheduling is a joke. The top 3 teams in the conference only play each other once. How is that possible? Purdue hosts Ohio State on February 7th and then travels to Michigan State on the 10th.Other than that, it's a cakewalk of a schedule. It's possible Purdue drops one or two games. Winning one of the two games against tOSU and MSU and then winning the B1G Tournament locks up the 1 Seed in the Midwest.

Duke has a manageable schedule the rest of the season. There are the 2 games against UNC, 2 against Virginia Tech, road games against Georgia Tech (2/11), home games against Louisville and Syracuse, and the out-of-conference game against St. John's this Saturday at Madison Square Garden (my first trip to MSG!). That's a manageable schedule given the injury to Clemson's Donte Grantham and UNC's struggles this year. It's not inconceivable that Duke runs the table to end the year on a 10-game winning streak. Getting to the ACC Tournament Finals at that point would probably seal a 1 Seed, most likely in the West (ugh).

Fortunately for Duke, the contenders for 1 Seeds do not face an easy road.

Kansas plays at Kansas State (who lost to KU by 1 in Lawrence earlier this year) tonight and has tough stretch in mid-February hosting West Virginia and Oklahoma before traveling to Texas Tech.

Michigan State does have a favorable schedule. The only Top 25 team they face is Purdue at home on February 10th. The rest of their games look very, very winnable in a down year in the B1G. It's possible they will have to face Ohio State and then Purdue in the conference tournament.

Xavier would have to defeat Villanova on February 17th to have a chance at a 1 Seed. They don't have any other ranked opponents but do have road games at Butler on February 6th and at Creighton on February 10th.

West Virginia, who lost at home to Kentucky on Saturday night, is sliding and faces a couple of tough tests at Oklahoma on February 5th and at Kansas on the 17th. Having lost 3 of their last 4, it's hard to see them climbing over the group above.

I think Duke is in a good spot for the NCAA Tournament. They have a few challenges ahead but should be favored in every game for the rest of the regular season. If Purdue can close out the B1G, in particular by defeating Michigan State while Kansas picks up a loss or two, Duke should be in a good spot for a 1 Seed out West.

Really nice analysis. 'Nova and UVa are pretty much surefire 1-seeds. Nova was always going to get a 1-seed. They played really well in non-conference (hey - it's not their fault Zona was horrible in that tournament) and are in an easy conference. Great non-conference + easy conference is a surefire way to get a 1-seed. Countless examples of this (Wichita St, St. Joes back in the day, Gonzaga every other year, etc). And given how everyone not named UVa and Purdue is beating up on each other, they are in a position where you cannot argue their 1-seed in either the East or the South.

UVa did what Duke should have done: win games they should have won. If Duke and UVa were undefeated in ACC play going into Saturday's game, Duke would have the upper hand on the 1-seed South (or East, even). If Duke losses that game, then I think it's a toss up between UVa and Duke for that 1-seed in the South/East. Hell, maybe Duke and UVa get 2 1-seeds and Nova gets shipped West.

Bottomline - Duke would still be in a good position if they beat NCSU and BC. Those losses are tough and are the main reason Duke will not be a 1-seed in the East or the South, ie the most desirable locations. Even with 1 loss in the reg season and a loss in the ACC Tournament, UVa should still be a in a position to get the 1-seed in the South/East (and rightly so).

PackMan97
01-29-2018, 03:02 PM
I was looking at State's chances of making the tournament. I think any 5 wins (10-8 ACC) makes State a lock. 4 more wins (9-9 in the ACC), regardless of the opponent and we are probably in as well.

Remaining opponents (in order of RPI)
#10 UNC
#20 Louisville
#29 @ Syracuse
#30 FSU
#67 @VT
#69 BC
#74 ND
#115 @Wake
#135 @GT

As much as road losses to Wake and GT would be bad...four more wins would have to come from teams in the top 75 and at least one in the top 30. Five wins, even if we lost to the worst four teams, means we beat the best 5. Lose to the best four, means we beat all middling teams. State doesn't need any marquee wins, they just need wins.

Given how State has played against Duke, Carolina, Arizona and Clemson, every game on the schedule is winnable. Given how State has played against UNI, UNC-G and Pitt, every game on the schedule is loseable.

English
01-29-2018, 03:54 PM
I was looking at State's chances of making the tournament. I think any 5 wins (10-8 ACC) makes State a lock. 4 more wins (9-9 in the ACC), regardless of the opponent and we are probably in as well.

Remaining opponents (in order of RPI)
#10 UNC
#20 Louisville
#29 @ Syracuse
#30 FSU
#67 @VT
#69 BC
#74 ND
#115 @Wake
#135 @GT

As much as road losses to Wake and GT would be bad...four more wins would have to come from teams in the top 75 and at least one in the top 30. Five wins, even if we lost to the worst four teams, means we beat the best 5. Lose to the best four, means we beat all middling teams. State doesn't need any marquee wins, they just need wins.

Given how State has played against Duke, Carolina, Arizona and Clemson, every game on the schedule is winnable. Given how State has played against UNI, UNC-G and Pitt, every game on the schedule is loseable.

Without wandering down the mid-season rabbit hole of State's NCAAT chances on a Duke hoops site, there's quite a maelstrom on the Twitter machine today about this very topic (I follow a lot of national, ACC, and NC beat writers). It seems that NCSU's OOC SOS is just so bad (as are a couple of their losses) that there's actually a debate about their resume right now. Of course, the emphasis is on "right now," as in, if the Selection Cmte were to create the field and seeding today, would NCSU be in or out. This could all be a moot point if they don't fumble and limp down the stretch. Pundit Patrick Stevens points out, again on Twitter, that there are plenty of examples of teams in the ACC having 0.500+ conference records and not making the field, especially when their OOC strength of schedule is lousy.

flyingdutchdevil
01-29-2018, 03:54 PM
I was looking at State's chances of making the tournament. I think any 5 wins (10-8 ACC) makes State a lock. 4 more wins (9-9 in the ACC), regardless of the opponent and we are probably in as well.

Remaining opponents (in order of RPI)
#10 UNC
#20 Louisville
#29 @ Syracuse
#30 FSU
#67 @VT
#69 BC
#74 ND
#115 @Wake
#135 @GT

As much as road losses to Wake and GT would be bad...four more wins would have to come from teams in the top 75 and at least one in the top 30. Five wins, even if we lost to the worst four teams, means we beat the best 5. Lose to the best four, means we beat all middling teams. State doesn't need any marquee wins, they just need wins.

Given how State has played against Duke, Carolina, Arizona and Clemson, every game on the schedule is winnable. Given how State has played against UNI, UNC-G and Pitt, every game on the schedule is loseable.

With 2 wins against the top 10 and another against a team usually in the top 15 (Kerlina), State would need an epic collapse to not get in. Keats has done some great things there in his first year.

Kedsy
01-29-2018, 03:57 PM
I was looking at State's chances of making the tournament. I think any 5 wins (10-8 ACC) makes State a lock. 4 more wins (9-9 in the ACC), regardless of the opponent and we are probably in as well.

Remaining opponents (in order of RPI)
#10 UNC
#20 Louisville
#29 @ Syracuse
#30 FSU
#67 @VT
#69 BC
#74 ND
#115 @Wake
#135 @GT

As much as road losses to Wake and GT would be bad...four more wins would have to come from teams in the top 75 and at least one in the top 30. Five wins, even if we lost to the worst four teams, means we beat the best 5. Lose to the best four, means we beat all middling teams. State doesn't need any marquee wins, they just need wins.

Given how State has played against Duke, Carolina, Arizona and Clemson, every game on the schedule is winnable. Given how State has played against UNI, UNC-G and Pitt, every game on the schedule is loseable.

Currently, State is #63 RPI and #65 Pomeroy. Pomeroy ranks State's non-conference schedule #344 (out of 351 teams). Obviously wins will help the ratings numbers (though not the poor schedule strength). I think it's hard to say what number of wins gets State in, but I'm not sure it's 9 or 10. At 10-8, with several good wins, several bad losses, and a really bad NCSOS, I think you're in a position like Virginia Tech was several times under Seth Greenberg, bubble to the end.

FWIW, I'll be rooting for you.

kAzE
01-29-2018, 04:10 PM
With 2 wins against the top 10 and another against a team usually in the top 15 (Kerlina), State would need an epic collapse to not get in. Keats has done some great things there in his first year.

Totally agree. This guy is going to make NC State a solid program going forward. They got a good one.

PackMan97
01-29-2018, 04:24 PM
Currently, State is #63 RPI and #65 Pomeroy. Pomeroy ranks State's non-conference schedule #344 (out of 351 teams). Obviously wins will help the ratings numbers (though not the poor schedule strength). I think it's hard to say what number of wins gets State in, but I'm not sure it's 9 or 10. At 10-8, with several good wins, several bad losses, and a really bad NCSOS, I think you're in a position like Virginia Tech was several times under Seth Greenberg, bubble to the end.

FWIW, I'll be rooting for you.

I think the biggest difference is that in the next 9 games, State can't but help add at least strong win or three assuming it gets to 9-9. I

VT in 2009-10 was 4-4 vs the top 50,
Wins:
#48 Penn State
#42 FSU
#4 Duke
#42 FSU
Losses:
#22 Kansas State
#29 UNLV
#14 Purdue
#7 UNC

That is only one "top tier" win on their resume.

Compare that to State's current 4-4 vs the top 50.
Wins:
#14 Arizona
#4 Duke
#6 Clemson
#10 UNC
Losses:
#13 Tennesse
#6 Clemson
#1 UVa
#16 Miami

There is a distinct difference between the two resumes, especially if you add another decent win or two. I definitely understand that SOS argument and it has me worried (just a little), but winning will cure all SoS issues.

pfrduke
01-29-2018, 04:32 PM
Currently, State is #63 RPI and #65 Pomeroy. Pomeroy ranks State's non-conference schedule #344 (out of 351 teams). Obviously wins will help the ratings numbers (though not the poor schedule strength). I think it's hard to say what number of wins gets State in, but I'm not sure it's 9 or 10. At 10-8, with several good wins, several bad losses, and a really bad NCSOS, I think you're in a position like Virginia Tech was several times under Seth Greenberg, bubble to the end.

FWIW, I'll be rooting for you.

The ultimate bottom line (bubble to the end) is probably right, but it's worth noting that Seth's Hokie teams that fell short of the NCAA did not have three wins as good as State's takedowns of Arizona (N), Duke, and @UNC. 2011, VT beat Duke at home but had no other top 25 wins and their best OOC win was over Penn State (an NCAA 10-seed). 2010, VT had a single top 25 win (Clemson, at home) and their best OOC win was over Georgia (no postseason). I'm not sure how bubble-worthy they were in 2009, but that team had two top 25 wins (but no top 20 wins) and their best OOC win was over Mt. St. Mary's. 2008 they didn't have a single top 50 win until beating #37 Miami in the ACC tournament.

In other words, State this season has three wins that are favorably comparable to the best win Virginia Tech had in the entire 4-year stretch of VT sitting on the bubble and indisputably better than whatever you want to pick as VT's second-best win over that stretch.

This year's State team seems, so far, pretty similar to the 2015 version of NC State where it made the field as an 8-seed. I think that shows the committee's appreciation for quality wins - Duke, @UNC, @Louisville - although that State team had a much less weak non-conference schedule.

PackMan97
01-29-2018, 04:36 PM
This year's State team seems, so far, pretty similar to the 2015 version of NC State where it made the field as an 8-seed. I think that shows the committee's appreciation for quality wins - Duke, @UNC, @Louisville - although that State team had a much less weak non-conference schedule.

Gottfried was fantastic at scheduling the top 100-200 teams OOC that really boost your RPI while still being cupcakes. This is why he always fell on the other side of the bubble. His SoS and non-conf SOS would always be up there.

pfrduke
01-29-2018, 04:41 PM
Gottfried was fantastic at scheduling the top 100-200 teams OOC that really boost your RPI while still being cupcakes. This is why he always fell on the other side of the bubble. His SoS and non-conf SOS would always be up there.

Not sure what it was by RPI, but the Pomeroy non-conference schedule was only 179. Better than 344, sure, but nothing really to write home about.

CDu
01-29-2018, 04:42 PM
I suspect that 10-8 in conference will get it done. Mainly because I suspect that the RPI and Pomeroy will follow suit into the 40s if they get to 10-8. And an RPI/Pomeroy in the 40s with the wins they have, they'll be in the field.

9-9 gets a little more dicey and probably then relies on to whom those 5 remaining losses come against.

Kedsy
01-29-2018, 04:47 PM
The ultimate bottom line (bubble to the end) is probably right, but it's worth noting that Seth's Hokie teams that fell short of the NCAA did not have three wins as good as State's takedowns of Arizona (N), Duke, and @UNC. 2011, VT beat Duke at home but had no other top 25 wins and their best OOC win was over Penn State (an NCAA 10-seed). 2010, VT had a single top 25 win (Clemson, at home) and their best OOC win was over Georgia (no postseason). I'm not sure how bubble-worthy they were in 2009, but that team had two top 25 wins (but no top 20 wins) and their best OOC win was over Mt. St. Mary's. 2008 they didn't have a single top 50 win until beating #37 Miami in the ACC tournament.

In other words, State this season has three wins that are favorably comparable to the best win Virginia Tech had in the entire 4-year stretch of VT sitting on the bubble and indisputably better than whatever you want to pick as VT's second-best win over that stretch.

This year's State team seems, so far, pretty similar to the 2015 version of NC State where it made the field as an 8-seed. I think that shows the committee's appreciation for quality wins - Duke, @UNC, @Louisville - although that State team had a much less weak non-conference schedule.

If all the committee cares about is good wins, then I agree with you and PackMan. But I'm not sure that's true. I don't have time to do the comprehensive research right now, but my recollection is that teams with an RPI in the 60s have a difficult time securing at-large bids. This year, supposedly, they're also consulting other ratings systems (e.g., Pomeroy) but, right now at least, State's in the 60s in those as well.

I guess what I'm saying is if the future wins they get push them into the 40s in the rating systems, then a 10-8 record plus their good wins should get them in. If they're still hovering in the 60s, with that terrible NCSOS, then I don't think 10-8 plus the good wins does it, or if it does it would be as a "last four in."

Kedsy
01-29-2018, 04:53 PM
Not sure what it was by RPI, but the Pomeroy non-conference schedule was only 179. Better than 344, sure, but nothing really to write home about.

I don't know State's RPI NCSOS was in 2015, but their overall RPI SOS was #6 (pre-Tourney; overall SOS was #23 in KenPom).

pfrduke
01-29-2018, 05:08 PM
I don't know State's RPI NCSOS was in 2015, but their overall RPI SOS was #6 (pre-Tourney; overall SOS was #23 in KenPom).

This season's will continue to go in that direction as they play ACC teams (although it probably won't reach top 25).

JasonEvans
01-29-2018, 07:43 PM
FWIW, at the moment Bracket Matrix has State in as the best of the 11-seeds, meaning they just barely miss the play-in game. Though a conference tournament upset could be problematic for State... if the season actually was ending this weekend ;)

Nugget
01-31-2018, 01:52 PM
The answer to that is Duke. Few if any of those teams will win out. If Duke wins out and doesn't get a one seed, I will make you a dozen pies.

For sure this is true. Even with the loss to U.Va. we remained a #1 seed (seemingly slightly ahead of Kansas and Michigan St.) in the main bracket projections. As you note it's more likely that everyone takes losses than that anyone wins out, but if we do I'd bet we would retain our edge on Kansas (whose home loss to Arizona St. and home-ish loss to Washington won't look that much better than our losses at BC and at NC St. by the end of the season) and Michigan St. (who we had the head-to-head edge on and who can't rack up many good wins in a down Big 10).

Of our main competitors for the last one seed (it does seem unlikely that Nova, Purdue or Virginia will fall off enough not to get 3 of them) all have a bunch of potential losses on their schedules:

Kansas: @ Baylor, West Va., Okla, @ Texas Tech, @ Okla St.
Mich St.: @ Indiana, @ Iowa, Purdue, @ Minnesota, @ Northwestern, @ Wisconsin
Xavier: @ Butler, @ Creighton, Seton Hall, Villanova, Providence
Cinn: @ SMU, @ Houston, Wichita St. twice
Arizona: @ Washington, UCLA, USC, @ Ariz St., @ Oregon
Auburn: Texas A&M, @ Georgia, Kentucky, @ S. Carolina, Bama, @ Florida, @ Arkansas
Texas Tech: @ TCU, @ Kansas St., Oklahoma, @ Baylor, @ Okla St., Kansas, @ West Va.
Oklahoma: @ Texas, West Virginia, @ Texas Tech, Texas, @ Kansas.

Of those, I think the realistic most serious contenders to come through unscathed (or maybe with just 1 more loss) are Kansas (which has its toughest remaining games at home, except for @ Texas Tech), Michigan St. (who has a lot of road games but against crappy/seriously under-achieving teams, so ought to win out if it can beat Purdue at home) and Arizona, given the weakness of the Pac 12.

I think Arizona's overall schedule won't be good enough to justify a #1 seed even if it wins out. Given the relative weakness of the Big 10 and the historic strength of the Big 12, Kansas seems to me the strongest contender besides us for the last #1 seed.

But, it really is absurd to be talking about winning out for anyone at this point - even us; to do that we would need to sweep Carolina, win at Clemson and at Va Tech (not trip up against Louisville or Va Tech at home or at Georgia Tech two days after playing at Carolina), and then beat Virginia in the ACC Tournament.

I don't see anyone "winning out" - certainly not in this crazy year.

Channing
01-31-2018, 02:17 PM
Nothing to do with UVA’s defense, but would we rather be a 1 in the West or a 2 in the east?

Kedsy
01-31-2018, 02:20 PM
(it does seem unlikely that Nova, Purdue or Virginia will fall off enough not to get 3 of them)

I don't know. To me, Purdue seems to be exactly the sort of team that everyone says is a #1 "lock" in January but ends up a #3 or #4. After they lose two or three in a row in mid-February, those early losses to Tennessee and (especially) Western Kentucky will make everyone look at them in a different light.

Nugget
01-31-2018, 02:57 PM
I don't know. To me, Purdue seems to be exactly the sort of team that everyone says is a #1 "lock" in January but ends up a #3 or #4. After they lose two or three in a row in mid-February, those early losses to Tennessee and (especially) Western Kentucky will make everyone look at them in a different light.

True, but the Big 10 is so bad this year I don't see much jeopardy for Purdue -- perhaps this is because I'm significantly underrating Ohio St., which I still think is doing it with smoke and mirrors, but other than @ Michigan St., where would the losses come from for Purdue?

This is all they've got left: Maryland, @ Rutgers, Ohio St., @ Michigan St., Penn St., @ Wisc, @ Illinois, Minn.

CDu
01-31-2018, 03:06 PM
I don't know. To me, Purdue seems to be exactly the sort of team that everyone says is a #1 "lock" in January but ends up a #3 or #4. After they lose two or three in a row in mid-February, those early losses to Tennessee and (especially) Western Kentucky will make everyone look at them in a different light.

I don't think Tennessee's loss is going to look bad period. They are #10 in Pomeroy and #14 in RPI. And it was at a neutral site. That's a perfectly fine loss.

To a lesser degree, the same is true of Western Kentucky. They are #48 in Pomeroy and #40 in RPI. And it was at a neutral site. Not a great loss, but not abysmal either. Arguably no worse than our losses to BC or NC State based on the math. And it will be a better loss than all but two teams remaining on their schedule.

They do also have neutral-site wins over Arizona and Butler, with a home win over Louisville that is probably going to look better than it really was by season's end.

But most importantly, their remaining schedule is pretty darn soft. They host Ohio State and go to Michigan State, and their only other RPI top-100 opponent is hosting Maryland.

Could they lose? Sure. And if they lose a couple, it certainly opens the door for us to move ahead of them. But I'd say they are pretty comfortably in the driver's seat for a 1 seed at the moment.

I'd say we have a reasonable case for a 1 seed as well, although we have more potential speed bumps left on our schedule than they do.

English
01-31-2018, 03:24 PM
I don't think Tennessee's loss is going to look bad period. They are #10 in Pomeroy and #14 in RPI. And it was at a neutral site. That's a perfectly fine loss.

To a lesser degree, the same is true of Western Kentucky. They are #48 in Pomeroy and #40 in RPI. And it was at a neutral site. Not a great loss, but not abysmal either. Arguably no worse than our losses to BC or NC State based on the math. And it will be a better loss than all but two teams remaining on their schedule.

They do also have neutral-site wins over Arizona and Butler, with a home win over Louisville that is probably going to look better than it really was by season's end.

But most importantly, their remaining schedule is pretty darn soft. They host Ohio State and go to Michigan State, and their only other RPI top-100 opponent is hosting Maryland.

Could they lose? Sure. And if they lose a couple, it certainly opens the door for us to move ahead of them. But I'd say they are pretty comfortably in the driver's seat for a 1 seed at the moment.

I'd say we have a reasonable case for a 1 seed as well, although we have more potential speed bumps left on our schedule than they do.


Well, Purdue did almost lose @IU the other night, who is 91 (KenPom) and 113 (RPI). Taking a conference loss to a team you're expected to beat--sometimes, easily so--isn't really that far-fetched in a long season.

MChambers
01-31-2018, 03:27 PM
Well, Purdue did almost lose @IU the other night, who is 91 (KenPom) and 113 (RPI). Taking a conference loss to a team you're expected to beat--sometimes, easily so--isn't really that far-fetched in a long season.

Purdue almost lost to Northwestern, too, at Purdue. Only the refs swallowing their whistles in the closing minutes kept the Boilermakers from losing.

Now, how about Virginia’s defense? Was it nearly this effective when Tony ‘s dad used it? Why is it so effective today?

Tom B.
01-31-2018, 03:33 PM
I hate to break it to you, but that's what happens as you advance in the tournament, you face better and better competition. :D

Reminds me of a stat folks used to throw around in the early/mid-1990s -- during the nine-season stretch from 1985-86 to 1993-94, Duke either won the national title or was knocked out by the eventual national champion or runner-up in eight of those nine seasons.

Of course, Duke was in the Final Four in seven of those nine seasons, so by definition it would either win the whole thing, or lose to either the eventual national champion or runner-up.

The one season Duke was knocked out by the eventual national champion or runner-up before the Final Four was 1986-87, when Duke lost to eventual national champion Indiana in the Sweet 16.

Duke had another similar streak from 1997-98 to 2005-06 -- nine seasons in which it either won the national championship, or lost to a team that made it at least as far as the Final Four:

1997-98 -- lost in regional final to eventual champ Kentucky
1998-99 -- lost in championship game to UConn
1999-2000 -- lost in Sweet 16 to eventual runner-up Florida
2000-01 -- won national championship
2001-02 -- lost in Sweet 16 to eventual runner-up Indiana
2002-03 -- lost in Sweet 16 to eventual runner-up Kansas
2003-04 -- lost in national semifinal to eventual champ UConn
2004-05 -- lost in Sweet 16 to eventual semifinalist Michigan State
2005-06 -- lost in Sweet 16 to eventual semifinalist LSU

CDu
01-31-2018, 03:36 PM
Well, Purdue did almost lose @IU the other night, who is 91 (KenPom) and 113 (RPI). Taking a conference loss to a team you're expected to beat--sometimes, easily so--isn't really that far-fetched in a long season.

Oh it's definitely possible that they could lose another game or two down the stretch that they are supposed to win. It probably should be expect. Of course, we're probably in the same boat.

DarkstarWahoo
01-31-2018, 03:54 PM
Re: Purdue losing to Western KY: Shouts to Darius Thompson! I once compared him to Justin Anderson on this here message board. That was...overzealous.

Troublemaker
01-31-2018, 04:03 PM
Nothing to do with UVA’s defense, but would we rather be a 1 in the West or a 2 in the east?

What we should be rooting for is for Michigan St to beat Purdue twice, once @MSU and once in the Big 10 tourney. That should send Purdue down to the 2-seed line and Michigan St back up to the 1-seed line but out West since Duke would have the head-to-head win on MSU. (Now, obviously, Duke has to take care of business ourselves, which probably includes winning the ACC tourney, in order to be a 1 seed.)



East (Boston)
South (Atlanta)
Midwest (Omaha)
West (L.A.)


1. Villanova
1. Virginia
1. Duke
1. MSU




2. Purdue






x. Arizona



4. Kentucky





Others have mentioned this before, but preseason rankings should be respected when filling out your brackets. Nate Silver wrote an article about that here (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/in-n-c-a-a-tournament-overachievers-often-disappoint/). Overachievers like Purdue (preseason #20) tend to regress to the mean in the NCAA tournament. Although it's more a mixed bag, underachievers like Arizona or Kentucky also tend to regress to the mean.

If you had told me before the season started that our two preseason co-favorites, MSU and Arizona, would be stuck in the same bracket out West, all the way across the overall bracket from Duke; that Duke would be a #1 seed with Purdue our #2 seed; that the #1 seed we'd be paired with would be unranked UVA (even though I knew they were underrated); I would have taken that in a heartbeat. Note: we also avoid the Kentucky landmine here; the Wildcats (preseason #5) are bound to be a much better team at the end of the season than they were at the beginning.

So, that's what I'm rooting for. Nothing too specific or anything ;-) (Gawd, I love talking bracketology. It's so stupid in many ways, but I can't help it).

CDu
01-31-2018, 04:09 PM
What we should be rooting for is for Michigan St to beat Purdue twice, once @MSU and once in the Big 10 tourney. That should send Purdue down to the 2-seed line and Michigan St back up to the 1-seed line but out West since Duke would have the head-to-head win on MSU. (Now, obviously, Duke has to take care of business ourselves, which probably includes winning the ACC tourney, in order to be a 1 seed.)



East (Boston)
South (Atlanta)
Midwest (Omaha)
West (L.A.)


1. Villanova
1. Virginia
1. Duke
1. MSU




2. Purdue






x. Arizona



4. Kentucky





Others have mentioned this before, but preseason rankings should be respected when filling out your brackets. Nate Silver wrote an article about that here (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/in-n-c-a-a-tournament-overachievers-often-disappoint/). Overachievers like Purdue (preseason #20) tend to regress to the mean in the NCAA tournament. Although it's more a mixed bag, underachievers like Arizona or Kentucky also tend to regress to the mean.

If you had told me before the season started that our two preseason co-favorites, MSU and Arizona, would be stuck in the same bracket out West, all the way across the overall bracket from Duke; that Duke would be a #1 seed with Purdue our #2 seed; that the #1 seed we'd be paired with would be unranked UVA (even though I knew they were underrated); I would have taken that in a heartbeat. Note: we also avoid the Kentucky landmine here; the Wildcats (preseason #5) are bound to be a much better team at the end of the season than they were at the beginning.

So, that's what I'm rooting for. Nothing too specific or anything ;-) (Gawd, I love talking bracketology. It's so stupid in many ways, but I can't help it).

What we should be also hoping for is that UVa loses a conference game, and we win out and win the ACC tournament. If that happens, we may very well jump them to be the #1 seed in the South. Both teams would have 3 losses, we would have the long win streak and an ACC title, and certainly the better overall resume due to a much stronger OOC resume. Of course, that's if we win out.

But there are multiple ways to get a 1 seed not out West.

subzero02
01-31-2018, 04:14 PM
Nothing to do with UVA’s defense, but would we rather be a 1 in the West or a 2 in the east?

It all depends on potential regional matchups. Villanova is the current favorite to be the 1 seed in the EAST. If that turns out to be the case, I'd much rather be the 1 seed in the WESTthan a 2 seed in the EAST.

brevity
01-31-2018, 04:21 PM
Nothing to do with UVA’s defense, but would we rather be a 1 in the West or a 2 in the east?

Didn't we ask the same question around this time last year? Duke ended up a 2 seed in the East, losing in Greenville to 7-seed South Carolina. Even if Duke had somehow ascended to the top seed line -- which, based on the Selection Committee chairman's own words, would have been almost impossible -- they would probably lose in Greenville to 8-seed South Carolina.

Kedsy
01-31-2018, 04:21 PM
True, but the Big 10 is so bad this year I don't see much jeopardy for Purdue -- perhaps this is because I'm significantly underrating Ohio St., which I still think is doing it with smoke and mirrors, but other than @ Michigan St., where would the losses come from for Purdue?

This is all they've got left: Maryland, @ Rutgers, Ohio St., @ Michigan St., Penn St., @ Wisc, @ Illinois, Minn.

Where will the losses come from? I don't know. But I do know that in major conference play, losses often come from unexpected places. I went back and examined Duke's conference losses, going back to 2009-10. In that time (including this season), Duke has lost 38 conference games, and over 60% of those losses (23) came at the hands of unranked teams.

My guess is @Wisconsin (always a tough place to play) and @Illinois won't be cakewalks -- they're both approximately as good as BC, for example. According to KenPom, Penn State is a top 60 team (about the same as NC State), Maryland is top 45, Ohio State is top 15, and Michigan State is top 5. For a team like Purdue, that has little experience being the big favorite, I could easily see three losses in that aggregate, maybe four. Though, sure, it could also be only one or two.

It's funny that Duke fans seem to look at our schedule and see losses lurking around every corner, but when they look at other good teams' schedules all they see are wins. Except it almost never works that way.

Rich
01-31-2018, 04:24 PM
What we should be rooting for is for Michigan St to beat Purdue twice, once @MSU and once in the Big 10 tourney. That should send Purdue down to the 2-seed line and Michigan St back up to the 1-seed line but out West since Duke would have the head-to-head win on MSU. (Now, obviously, Duke has to take care of business ourselves, which probably includes winning the ACC tourney, in order to be a 1 seed.)



East (Boston)
South (Atlanta)
Midwest (Omaha)
West (L.A.)


1. Villanova
1. Virginia
1. Duke
1. MSU




2. Purdue






x. Arizona



4. Kentucky





Others have mentioned this before, but preseason rankings should be respected when filling out your brackets. Nate Silver wrote an article about that here (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/in-n-c-a-a-tournament-overachievers-often-disappoint/). Overachievers like Purdue (preseason #20) tend to regress to the mean in the NCAA tournament. Although it's more a mixed bag, underachievers like Arizona or Kentucky also tend to regress to the mean.

If you had told me before the season started that our two preseason co-favorites, MSU and Arizona, would be stuck in the same bracket out West, all the way across the overall bracket from Duke; that Duke would be a #1 seed with Purdue our #2 seed; that the #1 seed we'd be paired with would be unranked UVA (even though I knew they were underrated); I would have taken that in a heartbeat. Note: we also avoid the Kentucky landmine here; the Wildcats (preseason #5) are bound to be a much better team at the end of the season than they were at the beginning.

So, that's what I'm rooting for. Nothing too specific or anything ;-) (Gawd, I love talking bracketology. It's so stupid in many ways, but I can't help it).

Arizona scares me more than most. They had a few early losses, got called out by their coach for not playing hard, and now seem back on track. They've won 6 in a row, 15 of the last 16, and are now 18-4. They are talented and finally playing up to pre-season expectations.

duke4ever19
01-31-2018, 08:24 PM
What we should be also hoping for is that UVa loses a conference game, and we win out and win the ACC tournament. If that happens, we may very well jump them to be the #1 seed in the South. Both teams would have 3 losses, we would have the long win streak and an ACC title, and certainly the better overall resume due to a much stronger OOC resume. Of course, that's if we win out.

But there are multiple ways to get a 1 seed not out West.

Do you think that Duke needs to both meet and then beat UVA in the ACC Tournament to leapfrog them (provided they get the one regular season loss you mentioned), or simply that they lose, no matter the opponent? Obviously, a head-to-head win would be great, but I'm not sure if you are even thinking that additional detail needs to happen.

JasonEvans
02-01-2018, 10:41 AM
Note: we also avoid the Kentucky landmine here; the Wildcats (preseason #5) are bound to be a much better team at the end of the season than they were at the beginning.

One small nit to pick about Kentucky. While you are correct that teams who underperform relative to preseason expectations tend to "revert to the mean" once we hit March, I'm not so sure we should automatically dump Kentucky into that box because their preseason expectations were almost exclusively based on the quality of their freshmen. MSU and AZ, two others who have underperformed a bit, had much more established players in their rotation. But, Kentucky's struggles have been because their freshmen are having trouble playing together and that may not be a "revert to the mean" kind of thing.

-Jason "FWIW, I am very aware that the same could be said about Duke... but our freshmen are performing up to expectations quite nicely" Evans

flyingdutchdevil
02-01-2018, 10:47 AM
One small nit to pick about Kentucky. While you are correct that teams who underperform relative to preseason expectations tend to "revert to the mean" once we hit March, I'm not so sure we should automatically dump Kentucky into that box because their preseason expectations were almost exclusively based on the quality of their freshmen. MSU and AZ, two others who have underperformed a bit, had much more established players in their rotation. But, Kentucky's struggles have been because their freshmen are having trouble playing together and that may not be a "revert to the mean" kind of thing.

-Jason "FWIW, I am very aware that the same could be said about Duke... but our freshmen are performing up to expectations quite nicely" Evans

They are also a lot less talented than Duke's teams. I forget if it's Goodman who said it, but someone said, "Duke is 10 points better than UK right now" in the pre-season. I don't think that's changed.

Anywho, gimme UK before UVa, 'Nova, or MSU. Those last three teams are the most worrisome to me.

CameronBornAndBred
02-01-2018, 10:49 AM
Trying to follow Lunardi's logic with the Tarheels.
He has them as a 4 seed. The following are seeded lower.
Miami (6), Lousiville (6), NCSU (11), FSU (9), VT (12)

Each of those lower seeds are at a higher standing in the ACC than the Tarheels. What am I missing?

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

flyingdutchdevil
02-01-2018, 10:50 AM
Trying to follow Lunardi's logic with the Tarheels.
He has them as a 4 seed. The following are seeded lower.
Miami (6), Lousiville (6), NCSU (11), FSU (9), VT (12)

Each of those lower seeds are at a higher standing in the ACC than the Tarheels. What am I missing?

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

Lunardi didn't go to class, either. That's why he's doing "bracketology", whatever the hell that is.

CDu
02-01-2018, 10:51 AM
Trying to follow Lunardi's logic with the Tarheels.
He has them as a 4 seed. The following are seeded lower.
Miami (6), Lousiville (6), NCSU (11), FSU (9), VT (12)

Each of those lower seeds are at a higher standing in the ACC than the Tarheels. What am I missing?

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

Conference standings in the presence of an unbalanced schedule are not terribly relevant. UNC is higher in RPI and Pomeroy standings than any of those programs.

COYS
02-01-2018, 10:52 AM
One small nit to pick about Kentucky. While you are correct that teams who underperform relative to preseason expectations tend to "revert to the mean" once we hit March, I'm not so sure we should automatically dump Kentucky into that box because their preseason expectations were almost exclusively based on the quality of their freshmen. MSU and AZ, two others who have underperformed a bit, had much more established players in their rotation. But, Kentucky's struggles have been because their freshmen are having trouble playing together and that may not be a "revert to the mean" kind of thing.

-Jason "FWIW, I am very aware that the same could be said about Duke... but our freshmen are performing up to expectations quite nicely" Evans

On the other hand, there is precedent for a talented but inexperienced bunch of UK freshmen figuring it out in March. In 2014, UK looked more or less mediocre, at least by their standards, throughout the season. However, they still made a run to the Final Four as an 8 seed. I'm not saying I'd rather face Nova, Purdue, or MSU over UK, but there is still a lot of talent in Lexington, even if it's not quite as much as some years of the recent past.

Ian
02-01-2018, 11:05 AM
I have a hard time seeing MSU as a #1 seed right now. I know we don't look at RPI much but the Selection Commitee still do, and MSU is 23 on the RPI, with just 1 win against the RPI top 50 (U of No Class), contrast their resume to Auburn and Rhode Island, and both have comparable records, better SOS, and each has 4 top 50 RPI wins.

Kedsy
02-01-2018, 11:21 AM
One small nit to pick about Kentucky. While you are correct that teams who underperform relative to preseason expectations tend to "revert to the mean" once we hit March, I'm not so sure we should automatically dump Kentucky into that box because their preseason expectations were almost exclusively based on the quality of their freshmen. MSU and AZ, two others who have underperformed a bit, had much more established players in their rotation. But, Kentucky's struggles have been because their freshmen are having trouble playing together and that may not be a "revert to the mean" kind of thing.

-Jason "FWIW, I am very aware that the same could be said about Duke... but our freshmen are performing up to expectations quite nicely" Evans

Looking at their roster, Kentucky was overrated pre-season. UK's rotation is 6 freshmen and 2 sophomores, and of those eight, only one was RSCI top 10 (and he (Knox) was 10th; if Diallo had been ranked by all services, he might have been 9th or 10th, but then Knox would have been 11th, so still only one RSCI top 10 freshman).

Duke, on the other hand, has a senior and three top 10 freshman (all ranked better than Kentucky's top recruit). So, the two teams have similar youth (though due to Grayson Allen, Duke is the more experienced team between the two -- UK doesn't have any non-walk-ons older than sophomore), but really shouldn't be lumped in the same bucket, talent-wise or expectation-wise.


On the other hand, there is precedent for a talented but inexperienced bunch of UK freshmen figuring it out in March. In 2014, UK looked more or less mediocre, at least by their standards, throughout the season. However, they still made a run to the Final Four as an 8 seed. I'm not saying I'd rather face Nova, Purdue, or MSU over UK, but there is still a lot of talent in Lexington, even if it's not quite as much as some years of the recent past.

That UK team had five (!) top 10 freshman, plus a sophomore who had been top 10. The talent difference between the 2014 Kentucky team and this year's team is immense.

OldPhiKap
02-01-2018, 11:32 AM
Nothing to do with UVA’s defense, but would we rather be a 1 in the West or a 2 in the east?

I just want to avoid being in the same pod with UNC. I don't care about the rest personally, we've gotta run the gamut no matter where we start.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-01-2018, 11:32 AM
Lunardi didn't go to class, either. That's why he's doing "bracketology", whatever the hell that is.

My general disdain for Lunardi and all things Bracketological is a matter of record on this board.

Give me 15 minutes and the AP, ESPN, RPI, Pomeroy, etc., and I could put together something just as compelling.

OldPhiKap
02-01-2018, 11:34 AM
My general disdain for Lunardi and all things Bracketological is a matter of record on this board.

Give me 15 minutes and the AP, ESPN, RPI, Pomeroy, etc., and I could put together something more compelling and more logical.

FIFY, because you are a humble soul.

JasonEvans
02-01-2018, 11:37 AM
I just want to avoid being in the same pod with UNC.

I cannot say this for certain, but I don't think Duke and UNC have ever been in the same quadrants of the bracket. The NCAA attempts to spread out conference opponents anyway and really protects top tier teams from having to play someone from their conference. The odds they would put Duke and Carolina in the same bracket are very, very small.

mr. synellinden
02-01-2018, 11:39 AM
I cannot say this for certain, but I don't think Duke and UNC have ever been in the same quadrants of the bracket. The NCAA attempts to spread out conference opponents anyway and really protects top tier teams from having to play someone from their conference. The odds they would put Duke and Carolina in the same bracket are very, very small.

I think the post means the first two round “pod” by locations - so we don’t have to deal with UNC fans.

JasonEvans
02-01-2018, 11:41 AM
I cannot say this for certain, but I don't think Duke and UNC have ever been in the same quadrants of the bracket. The NCAA attempts to spread out conference opponents anyway and really protects top tier teams from having to play someone from their conference. The odds they would put Duke and Carolina in the same bracket are very, very small.

#!@Y!~%! I just realized you are talking about pods, not brackets. You don't want the Heels getting placed in the same 1st/2nd round sites as Duke. Duke will likely be placed in Charlotte. I wonder if that would be Virginia's pod of preference as well. Pittsburgh and Nashville would seem to be the only other places remotely close to UVA. I need to consult google maps...

OldPhiKap
02-01-2018, 11:42 AM
I think the post means the first two round “pod” by locations - so we don’t have to deal with UNC fans.

Correct.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-01-2018, 11:44 AM
#!@Y!~%! I just realized you are talking about pods, not brackets. You don't want the Heels getting placed in the same 1st/2nd round sites as Duke. Duke will likely be placed in Charlotte. I wonder if that would be Virginia's pod of preference as well. Pittsburgh and Nashville would seem to be the only other places remotely close to UVA. I need to consult google maps...

Without looking at a map (honor system) I'd wager Pitt might be closer to Charlottesville geographically, but Charlotte definitely is closer to Charlottesville phonetically.

Troublemaker
02-01-2018, 11:46 AM
Looking at their roster, Kentucky was overrated pre-season. UK's rotation is 6 freshmen and 2 sophomores, and of those eight, only one was RSCI top 10 (and he (Knox) was 10th; if Diallo had been ranked by all services, he might have been 9th or 10th, but then Knox would have been 11th, so still only one RSCI top 10 freshman).

Duke, on the other hand, has a senior and three top 10 freshman (all ranked better than Kentucky's top recruit). So, the two teams have similar youth (though due to Grayson Allen, Duke is the more experienced team between the two -- UK doesn't have any non-walk-ons older than sophomore), but really shouldn't be lumped in the same bucket, talent-wise or expectation-wise.



That UK team had five (!) top 10 freshman, plus a sophomore who had been top 10. The talent difference between the 2014 Kentucky team and this year's team is immense.

All good points, but UK is still good enough to win at WVU and to blowout Louisville 90-61. Those games don't represent their average outing, of course, but they're still not a team I'd like to see in the Sweet 16 (or earlier). They still had the #2 class behind us in 2017 (including six 5-stars) (https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Basketball/CompositeTeamRankings) and they still have one of the 5 most talented rosters in the country in terms of raw talent. (The way I think about that is if everybody on every roster in college basketball were a senior, who would be the 5 best teams? [Of course, they're obviously not seniors, and there's a limit to how much they can learn in one season as freshmen, so it's tricky, but I err on the side of respecting the talent.])

JasonEvans
02-01-2018, 11:46 AM
#!@Y!~%! I just realized you are talking about pods, not brackets. You don't want the Heels getting placed in the same 1st/2nd round sites as Duke. Duke will likely be placed in Charlotte. I wonder if that would be Virginia's pod of preference as well. Pittsburgh and Nashville would seem to be the only other places remotely close to UVA. I need to consult google maps...

Charlottesville to Charlotte - 233 miles
Charlottesville to Pittsburgh - 185 miles
Charlottesville to Nashville - 475

But, it is worth noting that there are no good direct car routes from CVille to Pittsburgh, so Charlotte is closer in driving distance (270 miles versus 285 miles). Will be interesting to see what the committee does in terms of sending the Cavs to a friendly locale.

-Jason "of course, none of this matters unless Carolina is a #4 seed or higher... which is certainly not a given at this point" Evans

English
02-01-2018, 11:48 AM
Without looking at a map (honor system) I'd wager Pitt might be closer to Charlottesville geographically, but Charlotte definitely is closer to Charlottesville phonetically.

Gotta spread the love, but this was too good to go unmentioned. Phonetically. I get it. Very clever.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-01-2018, 11:51 AM
Gotta spread the love, but this was too good to go unmentioned. Phonetically. I get it. Very clever.

Thanks. Was going to go for "etymologically," but I could barely pronounce it. So I went phonetically instead.

I guess that's ironic?

sagegrouse
02-01-2018, 12:06 PM
Without looking at a map (honor system) I'd wager Pitt might be closer to Charlottesville geographically, but Charlotte definitely is closer to Charlottesville phonetically.


Gotta spread the love, but this was too good to go unmentioned. Phonetically. I get it. Very clever.

Actually, Charlottesville is Greater Charlotte.

Kedsy
02-01-2018, 12:21 PM
All good points, but UK is still good enough to win at WVU and to blowout Louisville 90-61. Those games don't represent their average outing, of course, but they're still not a team I'd like to see in the Sweet 16 (or earlier).

And NC State beat Arizona, Duke, UNC, and Clemson. Doesn't mean they at any time deserved a #5 in the country ranking.

I agree that UK is a team you don't want to face early in a tournament. But the issue to which I was responding was whether we should look at them like a highly-ranked pre-season team that could "revert to the mean" in the post-season, or instead as a team overated in the pre-season. Based on their combination of talent and experience, I say the latter.

As to whether UK is one of the five most talented teams in the country, basically its 2018 roster is 9 guys ranked (out of high school) between 10 and 30. So if they were all seniors, sure, that would be a very talented and dangerous team. But freshmen (and even sophomores) in that range are basically hit-and-miss. You can generally count on top 10 freshmen to live up to their talent but not freshmen ranked outside the top 10 (some do and some don't). Guys in the 10 to 30 (or beyond) range need to be evaluated by their performance; they're not especially likely to suddenly "get it" during the season, they usually need off-season development to advance. That's why I think UK was overrated pre-season and is much less likely to perform to pre-season expectations than 2018 Duke or 2014 Kentucky.

House P
02-01-2018, 01:26 PM
Without looking at a map (honor system) I'd wager Pitt might be closer to Charlottesville geographically, but Charlotte definitely is closer to Charlottesville phonetically.

Hopefully the committee isn't making decisions based on phonetic similarities. Otherwise, Duke might one day end up having to fly 8000+ miles to play its opening round games in the yet-to-be-announced Durban pod.

tbyers11
02-01-2018, 01:32 PM
Hopefully the committee isn't making decisions based on phonetic similarities. Otherwise, Duke might one day end up having to fly 8000+ miles to play its opening round games in the yet-to-be-announced Durban pod.

Can't spork you but love this comment.

Bad news - insane travel
Good news - the "local" first and second round opponents placed in that pod so they don't have to travel much probably aren't very good :D

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-01-2018, 01:35 PM
Can't spork you but love this comment.

Bad news - insane travel
Good news - the "local" first and second round opponents placed in that pod so they don't have to travel much probably aren't very good :D

Hopefully very few fans in ugly light blue.

duke2x
02-01-2018, 02:03 PM
I don't think you have to worry much about UNC being in Charlotte. They are 5-5 and projected to finish 10-8 in conference with the following games: Duke, @Duke, @NCSU, @Louisville, @Syracuse. I have a hard time seeing them going at least 2-3 against that bunch, avoiding all home upsets like ND and Miami, and winning the ACC tournament. I think we'll find they are more appropriately seeded this year when all is said and done. They feel like this year's team in the #7-10 range that will be the big CBS ratings game v. KU or Villanova right now.

The location of EST venues (Pittsburgh, Detroit, Charlotte) + Nashville also probably puts UVA in Charlotte over Pittsburgh to minimize geography on the #3 line. A strong run could put Clemson in Charlotte or 5-6(?) losses by Duke could get us shipped out west for the 1st 2 rounds. This isn't 2000 or 2001 where I felt we had the #1 seed in the East all but wrapped up by February 1. We still have a lot of work to do to get out of the West regional.

JasonEvans
02-01-2018, 02:56 PM
Can't spork you but love this comment.

Don't worry... I took care of the sporking.

English
02-01-2018, 03:11 PM
And NC State beat Arizona, Duke, UNC, and Clemson. Doesn't mean they at any time deserved a #5 in the country ranking.

I agree that UK is a team you don't want to face early in a tournament. But the issue to which I was responding was whether we should look at them like a highly-ranked pre-season team that could "revert to the mean" in the post-season, or instead as a team overated in the pre-season. Based on their combination of talent and experience, I say the latter.

As to whether UK is one of the five most talented teams in the country, basically its 2018 roster is 9 guys ranked (out of high school) between 10 and 30. So if they were all seniors, sure, that would be a very talented and dangerous team. But freshmen (and even sophomores) in that range are basically hit-and-miss. You can generally count on top 10 freshmen to live up to their talent but not freshmen ranked outside the top 10 (some do and some don't). Guys in the 10 to 30 (or beyond) range need to be evaluated by their performance; they're not especially likely to suddenly "get it" during the season, they usually need off-season development to advance. That's why I think UK was overrated pre-season and is much less likely to perform to pre-season expectations than 2018 Duke or 2014 Kentucky.

I tend to agree with Kedsy here--UK this year might be unfortunate to face in the first or second round for a top-4 seed, but if you see them in the S16, that'd be completely fine with me. That is, relative to who else we might face in the 4-5 seed range.

WVDUKEFAN
02-01-2018, 09:10 PM
Bash me if you will, but I can't see Villanova as a 1 seed. Absolutely zero SOS.

godins
02-01-2018, 09:21 PM
Bash me if you will, but I can't see Villanova as a 1 seed. Absolutely zero SOS.

Hot take alert! You might find yourself on an island with that opinion. RPI agrees with you — Villanova’s SOS of 51 certainly patches over some of their weaknesses. But KenPom rates their SOS at 18 — ahead of us (24). Even with SOS concerns, Villanova is just torching teams on offense. Their offensive efficiency rivals 2014-15 Wisconsin for the best since 2002.

duke4ever19
02-01-2018, 09:32 PM
Bash me if you will, but I can't see Villanova as a 1 seed. Absolutely zero SOS.

Perusing their conference games, they've had some rather comfortable wins, or at least the final scores speak to that.

They still have a re-match with Butler to go (Butler was their lone loss), and they play Xavier on the road, but they had zero problem with them in their first meeting.

I live in Philly but I don't pay Nova any attention. I'll have to watch a few games to form an opinion.

cato
02-01-2018, 09:41 PM
I guess that's ironic?

Not if you said what you meant.

cato
02-01-2018, 09:47 PM
Villanova is just torching teams on offense. Their offensive efficiency rivals 2014-15 Wisconsin for the best since 2002.

Who was best in 2002?

godins
02-01-2018, 10:19 PM
Who was best in 2002?

A small, private university from Durban.

El_Diablo
02-01-2018, 10:23 PM
Who was best in 2002?

That's just as far back as KenPom goes.

But it was indeed Duke that year, which finished #1 in both offense and defense. Sigh.

English
02-02-2018, 10:21 AM
Perusing their conference games, they've had some rather comfortable wins, or at least the final scores speak to that.

They still have a re-match with Butler to go (Butler was their lone loss), and they play Xavier on the road, but they had zero problem with them in their first meeting.

I live in Philly but I don't pay Nova any attention. I'll have to watch a few games to form an opinion.

Nova has been cruising. Aside from their lone loss to Butler, in which Butler was hot fuego from 3pt, and their latest matchup @Marquette, Nova hasn't won a game by less than 7pts. They're a formidable squad, although slightly less so without Phil Booth. His replacements are a couple of developing frosh, and he's expected back around the BET, from my recollection. Nova's OE outpaces our own mostly on the merit of their 3pt shooting and FT shooting. Like Duke, they're not a deep team, and they're especially thin in the frontcourt.

Troublemaker
02-02-2018, 10:53 AM
And NC State beat Arizona, Duke, UNC, and Clemson. Doesn't mean they at any time deserved a #5 in the country ranking.

I agree that UK is a team you don't want to face early in a tournament. But the issue to which I was responding was whether we should look at them like a highly-ranked pre-season team that could "revert to the mean" in the post-season, or instead as a team overated in the pre-season. Based on their combination of talent and experience, I say the latter.

As to whether UK is one of the five most talented teams in the country, basically its 2018 roster is 9 guys ranked (out of high school) between 10 and 30. So if they were all seniors, sure, that would be a very talented and dangerous team. But freshmen (and even sophomores) in that range are basically hit-and-miss. You can generally count on top 10 freshmen to live up to their talent but not freshmen ranked outside the top 10 (some do and some don't). Guys in the 10 to 30 (or beyond) range need to be evaluated by their performance; they're not especially likely to suddenly "get it" during the season, they usually need off-season development to advance. That's why I think UK was overrated pre-season and is much less likely to perform to pre-season expectations than 2018 Duke or 2014 Kentucky.

I agree with direction but maybe not magnitude. Yes, Kentucky was overrated at preseason 5 and probably won't ever perform consistently like the #5 team in the country. But I think they probably should've been ranked around 10. I mean, signing the #10, #11, #12, #15, #18, #26, and #31 recruits in what appears to be a strong high school class does count for something.

Other factors I'm considering:
* Calipari's history of making deep tournament runs
* The fact that the #12 recruit, Jarred Vanderbilt, had been out injured until recently. Upon his return, Vanderbilt's been putting up ridiculous rebounding rates so far in limited minutes. I'm talking 30% OReb, 30% DReb. DReb has been a UK weakness.
* The fact that the #31 recruit, Shae Gilgeous-Alexander, has been a surprise and been one of their best performers so far.

I guess, in the end -- until proven otherwise -- I'm expecting Kentucky to perform like a 2-3 seed in March and wouldn't want to face them in the S16 or earlier.

Your mileage may vary.

English
02-02-2018, 11:31 AM
I agree with direction but maybe not magnitude. Yes, Kentucky was overrated at preseason 5 and probably won't ever perform consistently like the #5 team in the country. But I think they probably should've been ranked around 10. I mean, signing the #10, #11, #12, #15, #18, #26, and #31 recruits in what appears to be a strong high school class does count for something.

Other factors I'm considering:
* Calipari's history of making deep tournament runs
* The fact that the #12 recruit, Jarred Vanderbilt, had been out injured until recently. Upon his return, Vanderbilt's been putting up ridiculous rebounding rates so far in limited minutes. I'm talking 30% OReb, 30% DReb. DReb has been a UK weakness.
* The fact that the #31 recruit, Shae Gilgeous-Alexander, has been a surprise and been one of their best performers so far.

I guess, in the end -- until proven otherwise -- I'm expecting Kentucky to perform like a 2-3 seed in March and wouldn't want to face them in the S16 or earlier.

Your mileage may vary.

Discussing whether UK is any good seems to be en vogue right now...here's Mark Titus, of The Ringer, waxing about that very topic:

https://www.theringer.com/2018/2/2/16961918/kentucky-wildcats-basketball-john-calipari-kevin-knox

Money Quote:

Right now this Kentucky team is decidedly not good, and that will remain the case until someone provides an identity beyond just “long and athletic.”

ETA: There's some discussion of Duke peppered in the analysis because, well, it's tough to discuss the type of team UK has without making some reference to the type of team Duke has and has had recently.

JasonEvans
02-02-2018, 11:43 AM
I guess, in the end -- until proven otherwise -- I'm expecting Kentucky to perform like a 2-3 seed in March and wouldn't want to face them in the S16 or earlier.

I'm wondering if we have the makings of a wager...

If, as you expect, they perform like a 2 or 3 seed, then reaching the final 8 would be not unreasonable. So, what about this:


If they lose before the Sweet 16, I win the bet.
If they lose in the Sweet 16, it is a push.
If they make the Final 8 or beyond, you win.

What say you? Pie stakes?

-Jason "I'm not super down on Kentucky, but I think the odds they get beyond the SW16 are fairly slim" Evans

Troublemaker
02-02-2018, 12:06 PM
I'm wondering if we have the makings of a wager...

If, as you expect, they perform like a 2 or 3 seed, then reaching the final 8 would be not unreasonable. So, what about this:

If they lose before the Sweet 16, I win the bet.
If they lose in the Sweet 16, it is a push.
If they make the Final 8 or beyond, you win.

What say you? Pie stakes?

-Jason "I'm not super down on Kentucky, but I think the odds they get beyond the SW16 are fairly slim" Evans

Thanks for the offer, Jason, but pass. I'm not super confident in it or anything, and others have made good points. Moreover, the scenario where Duke and UK are in the same bracket would stink, as I'd have to root against my bet.

UrinalCake
02-02-2018, 01:14 PM
Front page article poses the question of whether UVA would choose to be in a pod other than Charlotte in the scenario where it is the overall #1. I don't know if there are more UVA fans in Charlotte or in Pittsburgh (which as the author points out, are about the same distance away) but there is one consideration I haven't heard mentioned before. Let's say the Charlotte pod plays its games on Thursday and Saturday, while Pittsburgh plays on Friday and Sunday. Then maybe a team would choose the extra day of rest, and decide that that is more important than the preferred city or venue.

But anyways, it's looking like UVA and Duke will be in Charlotte as the great Al Featherston said

Wahoo2000
02-02-2018, 02:18 PM
Front page article poses the question of whether UVA would choose to be in a pod other than Charlotte in the scenario where it is the overall #1. I don't know if there are more UVA fans in Charlotte or in Pittsburgh (which as the author points out, are about the same distance away) but there is one consideration I haven't heard mentioned before. Let's say the Charlotte pod plays its games on Thursday and Saturday, while Pittsburgh plays on Friday and Sunday. Then maybe a team would choose the extra day of rest, and decide that that is more important than the preferred city or venue.

But anyways, it's looking like UVA and Duke will be in Charlotte as the great Al Featherston said

Way better fanbase in CLT. And like someone else had mentioned, though Pitt is closer as the crow flies, CLT is actually a shorter drive from Cville (and almost anywhere else UVA fans in VA would drive from (except DC, but I'd imagine they could fly easily/cheaply from that area, plus not sure if DC fanbase outweighs the rest of the state). Last, we've had pretty good results in NC in 1st and 2nd (or 2nd and 3rd if you're less "traditional" than I) round games. From 14-16 we went 5-1, with the lone loss to a good MSU team.

Given the choice, I think UVA takes CLT over Pitt 10 out of 10 times.

fisheyes
02-02-2018, 02:22 PM
Front page article poses the question of whether UVA would choose to be in a pod other than Charlotte in the scenario where it is the overall #1. I don't know if there are more UVA fans in Charlotte or in Pittsburgh (which as the author points out, are about the same distance away) but there is one consideration I haven't heard mentioned before. Let's say the Charlotte pod plays its games on Thursday and Saturday, while Pittsburgh plays on Friday and Sunday. Then maybe a team would choose the extra day of rest, and decide that that is more important than the preferred city or venue.

But anyways, it's looking like UVA and Duke will be in Charlotte as the great Al Featherston said

I believe that the Charlotte games are already slated as Fri-Sun games.

UrinalCake
02-02-2018, 02:22 PM
Well said. I also wonder if any UNC fans in the area would cheer for UVA in those first two rounds. As a Duke fan I know I would.

El_Diablo
02-02-2018, 02:24 PM
Way better fanbase in CLT. And like someone else had mentioned, though Pitt is closer as the crow flies, CLT is actually a shorter drive from Cville (and almost anywhere else UVA fans in VA would drive from (except DC, but I'd imagine they could fly easily/cheaply from that area, plus not sure if DC fanbase outweighs the rest of the state). Last, we've had pretty good results in NC in 1st and 2nd (or 2nd and 3rd if you're less "traditional" than I) round games. From 14-16 we went 5-1, with the lone loss to a good MSU team.

Given the choice, I think UVA takes CLT over Pitt 10 out of 10 times.

The NCAA changed it back to "first" and "second" round games in 2016 because they realized the prior change was confusing.

Wahoo2000
02-02-2018, 02:27 PM
That's just as far back as KenPom goes.

But it was indeed Duke that year, which finished #1 in both offense and defense. Sigh.

This is probably a topic for another thread, but that is BEYOND absurd. Given the way the KenPom rankings are trending over the last 7-8 years (less and less teams being "elite" on both sides of the ball - and those that are seem more likely to be maaaybe top 5 or top 7 on both sides, not close to #1), I doubt this feat is EVER matched.

As an aside, I still think Indiana ruined the potential for what could have been an all time great title game w/ Duke and Md. Would have loved to see that matchup with a national title on the line.

Wahoo2000
02-02-2018, 02:29 PM
Well said. I also wonder if any UNC fans in the area would cheer for UVA in those first two rounds. As a Duke fan I know I would.

Maybe. Sadly, I doubt many UVA fans would reciprocate that friendly endorsement. (Maybe I would, but most? definitely not)

But you should probably feel good about that, since it just means you've been on top for a reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally long time.

UrinalCake
02-02-2018, 02:33 PM
The NCAA changed it back to "first" and "second" round games in 2016 because they realized the prior change was confusing nobody cares about the First Four games.

Fixed it for you.

rasputin
02-02-2018, 02:46 PM
Fixed it for you.

I think the First Four games are interesting, and I tune in. I agree that it doesn't have the same feel to it as the "real" Tourney games, but watching the 11's battle each other, and the 16's battling each other, for the chance to advance is worthy of my attention.

duke4ever19
02-02-2018, 02:47 PM
This is probably a topic for another thread, but that is BEYOND absurd. Given the way the KenPom rankings are trending over the last 7-8 years (less and less teams being "elite" on both sides of the ball - and those that are seem more likely to be maaaybe top 5 or top 7 on both sides, not close to #1), I doubt this feat is EVER matched.

As an aside, I still think Indiana ruined the potential for what could have been an all time great title game w/ Duke and Md. Would have loved to see that matchup with a national title on the line.

Boozer was fouled!

Back on topic (sorta, kinda, not): How long before UVA starts reaping the rewards of their success under Bennett by getting some top-100 recruits? They don't have any this past season or for the 2018 class. Does Bennett's system necessitate avoiding potential one-and-done talent because the defense won't be thoroughly absorbed, or perhaps valued in the same way by a one-and done-level player? I could see Bennett needing to avoid one-and-dones so his system can be at its best with players with multiple years in the system, but I don't know if that's his opinion as well.

CDu
02-02-2018, 03:06 PM
Boozer was fouled!

Back on topic (sorta, kinda, not): How long before UVA starts reaping the rewards of their success under Bennett by getting some top-100 recruits? They don't have any this past season or for the 2018 class. Does Bennett's system necessitate avoiding potential one-and-done talent because the defense won't be thoroughly absorbed, or perhaps valued in the same way by a one-and done-level player? I could see Bennett needing to avoid one-and-dones so his system can be at its best with players with multiple years in the system, but I don't know if that's his opinion as well.

Kyle Guy was a top-40 recruit, and Ty Jerome was top-50. Jay Huff was top-60. And they've had a few others along the way (Anderson was top-50). But I suspect that top-20 recruits aren't likely to be interested in going to UVa because they don't tend to have impact players as freshmen. Those top-20 guys tend to be looking for a shot to be one-and-done. At UVa, you are almost as likely to be redshirted as you are to not, let alone be an impact player as a freshman.

Wahoo2000
02-02-2018, 03:28 PM
Kyle Guy was a top-40 recruit, and Ty Jerome was top-50. Jay Huff was top-60. And they've had a few others along the way (Anderson was top-50). But I suspect that top-20 recruits aren't likely to be interested in going to UVa because they don't tend to have impact players as freshmen. Those top-20 guys tend to be looking for a shot to be one-and-done. At UVa, you are almost as likely to be redshirted as you are to not, let alone be an impact player as a freshman.

All 100% correct. Bennett will still chase top 20 guys (or has in the past, though maybe seeing what ended up happening with Jahvon Quinerly could change his mind). Still, I'm not sure the returns will be worth the effort. It will be a rare, RARE player in the top 20 who views his education/social development/etc on par with his chances to get to the NBA as quickly as possible. The top, TOP guys we get would have to be that way - placing MUCH lower importance on the SPEED of which they can get to the league. Bennett HAS 100% proven that he can develop player above their projected "ceiling". Brogdon/Harris (and Anderson to a lesser extent) being drafted and becoming solid rotation players, Perrantes and Tobey getting some run, etc. Chances are that playing in the Virginia (if you can earn a large role) program will have your draft/professional stock much higher than expected leaving high school.

I think the sweet spot for us will be guys in the 30-100 range who are a fit personality/mindset wise. You hope to fill a roster about 75% with players on that level - hoping that the few lower rated guys you mix in are happy developing into role-specific specialists, and that a few of the 30-100 guys end up playing more like top 20 guys. That, combined with the system, should keep us top 10ish relevant at worst.

As for the redshirting, NOBODY (players) like it. However, Bennett always leaves the choice ultimately up to the player, but is honest in letting them know their prospects for getting on the court as a true frosh are probably low. Doesn't hurt that he can sit guys like Hunter and Huff down with a guy like Devon Hall, who is absolutely REAPING the benefits of playing this year over the 2-3mpg/end of bench role he would have had as a true frosh. To boot, Hall got his undergrad degree in 3 years and is now finishing up his masters..... all on scholarship. That's a pretty nice card to have in your pocket when you realize that even IF you make the pros, careers are short, and you need SOMETHING to occupy yourself with after age 30/35.

JasonEvans
02-02-2018, 04:48 PM
I think the sweet spot for us will be guys in the 30-100 range who are a fit personality/mindset wise. You hope to fill a roster about 75% with players on that level - hoping that the few lower rated guys you mix in are happy developing into role-specific specialists, and that a few of the 30-100 guys end up playing more like top 20 guys. That, combined with the system, should keep us top 10ish relevant at worst.

As for the redshirting, NOBODY (players) like it. However, Bennett always leaves the choice ultimately up to the player, but is honest in letting them know their prospects for getting on the court as a true frosh are probably low. Doesn't hurt that he can sit guys like Hunter and Huff down with a guy like Devon Hall, who is absolutely REAPING the benefits of playing this year over the 2-3mpg/end of bench role he would have had as a true frosh. To boot, Hall got his undergrad degree in 3 years and is now finishing up his masters... all on scholarship. That's a pretty nice card to have in your pocket when you realize that even IF you make the pros, careers are short, and you need SOMETHING to occupy yourself with after age 30/35.

Shhhhh... don't tell anyone but if it was not for the fact that I am a Duke fan, I would really, really, really love the way Bennett is running his program and I would be thrilled if I was a Hoos fan. Like I said, just keep that between us.

English
02-02-2018, 04:56 PM
Shhhhh... don't tell anyone but if it was not for the fact that I am a Duke fan, I would really, really, really love the way Bennett is running his program and I would be thrilled if I was a Hoos fan. Like I said, just keep that between us.

What's not to like...thirty 58-52 games a season.

I'm a big fan of Bennett's and think he's running a terrific program, but count me among those that would not enjoy watching my team play the slow, grinding brand of ball that UVa plays. Of course, that's a personal preference, and certainly YMMV.

subzero02
02-02-2018, 06:01 PM
I think the First Four games are interesting, and I tune in. I agree that it doesn't have the same feel to it as the "real" Tourney games, but watching the 11's battle each other, and the 16's battling each other, for the chance to advance is worthy of my attention.

In 2011 VCU had a tournament that started in the first four and ended in the final four. I thoroughly enjoy having those games at the start of march madness.

duke4ever19
02-02-2018, 09:09 PM
In 2011 VCU had a tournament that started in the first four and ended in the final four. I thoroughly enjoy having those games at the start of march madness.

By analogy, I consider it a bit like college basketball's version of purgatory. Purgatory is technically considered a part of heaven (the NCAA Tournament), but you need to pass through the fires of soul purification to get to the pearly gates (the big bracket).

The analogy breaks down after that because (1) it's a rather stupid analogy, and (2) because in purgatory you are guaranteed to eventually make it to the pearly gates, while in the First Four, the losers are sent to the place of everlasting boredom . . . the offseason.

duketaylor
02-02-2018, 10:41 PM
I think UVA and Bennett are a perfect fit. I know plenty of UVA fans/grads who are very into their program and they are quite content. Clean program, not worrying about (many) guys leaving early and represent the university very well. I respect the program and coach as much as I possibly could (which is a lot). Style of basketball fits well, even if not considered "exciting", much like Wisconsin. Just seems to work-though much less so this year for Wisky. Cav fans are rabid in a Duke fashion (some may disagree with that), but they do represent well. After last Saturday I caught some grief, but not in an insanely brutal way, just good-natured ribbing.

Our sports radio in Richmond spends a fair amount of time on UVA hoops and is interesting to listen to. I think this Cavs team is really good. I also think they're beatable if a team, which is also a good D team, moves the ball on offense quickly on the perimeter and deflates the packline D to find open shooters/drivers. They are somewhat vulnerable inside. That being said, they are one very well-coached and disciplined team.

MarkD83
02-03-2018, 02:54 AM
What's not to like...thirty 58-52 games a season.

I'm a big fan of Bennett's and think he's running a terrific program, but count me among those that would not enjoy watching my team play the slow, grinding brand of ball that UVa plays. Of course, that's a personal preference, and certainly YMMV.

However. I would love to have a team that is 10-0 in the acc.

richardjackson199
02-05-2018, 05:13 PM
OK this ESPN Analytics stuff is just weird. I'm sure it's not, and maybe some of the stats experts on the board will feel it makes perfect sense. But this was tweeted out yesterday by the ESPN Analytics Stats guy:
"Surprise losses by Duke and Kansas yesterday opened up the race for the fourth No. 1 seed (with Villanova, Virginia and Purdue near-locks). Behind them, chance to earn a No. 1 seed, per BPI:

Tennessee: 24%
Duke: 22%
Auburn: 13%
Xavier: 13%
Michigan State: 11%
Kansas: 10%"

Um, Tennessee? Really? The #14 or #15 team in the nation is currently most likely to grab 4th #1 seed? More than two times more likely than Michigan State?
I'm not buying it.
It's nice to see Duke's chances as high as 22%. It's possible for Duke, but we would have to win out (IMO), and that seems unlikely. It sure seems less likely than 22% with our remaining schedule to selection Sunday, but I'd sure love to see it happen. But it's fun to see these ridiculous percentages. Or maybe they're not ridiculous, what do I know. I'll become a believer when Tennessee gets that 1, because it ain't gonna happen.

ps - Lunardi likes Xavier, for now:

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

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-05-2018, 06:11 PM
OK this ESPN Analytics stuff is just weird. I'm sure it's not, and maybe some of the stats experts on the board will feel it makes perfect sense. But this was tweeted out yesterday by the ESPN Analytics Stats guy:
"Surprise losses by Duke and Kansas yesterday opened up the race for the fourth No. 1 seed (with Villanova, Virginia and Purdue near-locks). Behind them, chance to earn a No. 1 seed, per BPI:

Tennessee: 24%
Duke: 22%
Auburn: 13%
Xavier: 13%
Michigan State: 11%
Kansas: 10%"

Um, Tennessee? Really? The #14 or #15 team in the nation is currently most likely to grab 4th #1 seed? More than two times more likely than Michigan State?
I'm not buying it.
It's nice to see Duke's chances as high as 22%. It's possible for Duke, but we would have to win out (IMO), and that seems unlikely. It sure seems less likely than 22% with our remaining schedule to selection Sunday, but I'd sure love to see it happen. But it's fun to see these ridiculous percentages. Or maybe they're not ridiculous, what do I know. I'll become a believer when Tennessee gets that 1, because it ain't gonna happen.

ps - Lunardi likes Xavier, for now:

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

Weird. So, do I understand Lunardi to be predicting which teams will get bids and where they will be seeded come March? That is very different than creating a bracket based on where teams are right now.

In other words, it is more reasonable to say "based on what I have seen and the schedule ahead of them, I predict Duke will be a one seed in March" as opposed to "if I built brackets today, I would put Duke as a #1."

Kedsy
02-05-2018, 06:22 PM
So, do I understand Lunardi to be predicting which teams will get bids and where they will be seeded come March? That is very different than creating a bracket based on where teams are right now.

I'm pretty sure I've read that Lunardi is attempting to predict based on where teams are right now, not necessarily come March.

richardjackson199
02-05-2018, 06:22 PM
Weird. So, do I understand Lunardi to be predicting which teams will get bids and where they will be seeded come March? That is very different than creating a bracket based on where teams are right now.

In other words, it is more reasonable to say "based on what I have seen and the schedule ahead of them, I predict Duke will be a one seed in March" as opposed to "if I built brackets today, I would put Duke as a #1."

Good point. I think Lunardi does his bracketology basically saying - "if the brackets were drawn today this is what they would be..."

Wheras the first guy with the percentages was (maybe erroneously) giving percentages of each team to earn a #1 seed on selection Sunday based on remaining schedule, current record, and God knows what.

I could be wrong about that, but that is my understanding

Nugget
02-05-2018, 06:31 PM
I'm pretty sure I've read that Lunardi is attempting to predict based on where teams are right now, not necessarily come March.

Yes, that's what he's trying to do - not predict how future games will go (which is what the ESPN BPI analytics guy was doing).

Jerry Palm at CBS also has Xavier getting the last #1 seed for now. Just shows how fickle/in flux things are for other than Villanova, Virginia and Purdue. If Blueitt doesn't draw a ridiculous 4 point play with 25 seconds to go, Xavier loses at home to Georgetown and might have fallen down to a 3 seed.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-06-2018, 06:49 AM
Good point. I think Lunardi does his bracketology basically saying - "if the brackets were drawn today this is what they would be..."

Wheras the first guy with the percentages was (maybe erroneously) giving percentages of each team to earn a #1 seed on selection Sunday based on remaining schedule, current record, and God knows what.

I could be wrong about that, but that is my understanding

Thanks for clarifying. I generally have disdain for the entire practice of "bracketology," but I admit that at least trying to predict which teams will be seeded/selected has a measurable metric. The whole "if the season ended today" bracket is nothing more than mental, um, calisthenics.

Of course hedging your bets by saying "there is a 22% chance of Duke being a one seed in March" is inherently not testable without running the simulation over and over. A single result neither proves nor disproves the probability.

Stupid bracketology pseudoscience.

UrinalCake
02-06-2018, 07:21 AM
My guess is that the BPI guy is using the probability of each team winning each of their remaining games, then estimating their chances at a #1 seed based on that projected final record. Tennessee must have a relatively easy schedule remaining, with a good chance of winning the SEC championship.

CDu
02-06-2018, 07:58 AM
Thanks for clarifying. I generally have disdain for the entire practice of "bracketology," but I admit that at least trying to predict which teams will be seeded/selected has a measurable metric. The whole "if the season ended today" bracket is nothing more than mental, um, calisthenics.

Of course hedging your bets by saying "there is a 22% chance of Duke being a one seed in March" is inherently not testable without running the simulation over and over. A single result neither proves nor disproves the probability.

Stupid bracketology pseudoscience.

They are two different things altogether, on two different pages at ESPN. Bracketology done by Lunardi, % chance of getting a 1 seed by the BPI. Nobody is hedging bets.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-06-2018, 08:28 AM
They are two different things altogether, on two different pages at ESPN. Bracketology done by Lunardi, % chance of getting a 1 seed by the BPI. Nobody is hedging bets.

Sorry if my language offended. I just think the exercises are the original "clickbait" and I don't have much respect for someone who can take RPI/poll data and break it into groups of four.

CDu
02-06-2018, 09:12 AM
Sorry if my language offended. I just think the exercises are the original "clickbait" and I don't have much respect for someone who can take RPI/poll data and break it into groups of four.

Not offended at all. I agree that Lunardi isn't impressive. Just noting that Bracketology and the BPI-based seed probabilities are not related to each other.

budwom
02-06-2018, 09:21 AM
someone needs to buy Lunardi one of those six foot by six foot jigsaw puzzles to keep him busy until early March. Guy has too much time on his hands and too little to do.

W&LHoo
02-06-2018, 10:27 AM
Thanks for clarifying. I generally have disdain for the entire practice of "bracketology," but I admit that at least trying to predict which teams will be seeded/selected has a measurable metric. The whole "if the season ended today" bracket is nothing more than mental, um, calisthenics.

Of course hedging your bets by saying "there is a 22% chance of Duke being a one seed in March" is inherently not testable without running the simulation over and over. A single result neither proves nor disproves the probability.

Stupid bracketology pseudoscience.

Maybe they're building a metric they hope will have strong predictive value after something like 100 seasons?

Honestly, it's all just the sports version of clickbait.

JasonEvans
02-06-2018, 10:29 AM
Can we sign up to be the #2 seed in the bracket that has Xavier as the #1 right now? Please?!?!

Actually, I've often thought that allowing teams to pick their bracket could be really fun. The committee should seed everyone 1-68, and then let teams fill in the bracket in order. If you want to skip being a #2 so you can be a #3 or #4 in region you prefer, that is fine. When it is your turn, you place yourself wherever you want on the bracket. I'd watch a 2+ hour televised show of that for sure!!

freshmanjs
02-06-2018, 11:09 AM
Can we sign up to be the #2 seed in the bracket that has Xavier as the #1 right now? Please?!?!

Actually, I've often thought that allowing teams to pick their bracket could be really fun. The committee should seed everyone 1-68, and then let teams fill in the bracket in order. If you want to skip being a #2 so you can be a #3 or #4 in region you prefer, that is fine. When it is your turn, you place yourself wherever you want on the bracket. I'd watch a 2+ hour televised show of that for sure!!

That would be fun, but I think it would create an unfair advantage for lower (worse) seeded teams. They would be able to choose favorable matchups with the big boys.

scottdude8
02-06-2018, 11:22 AM
Given the up and down nature of this team I've tried to ignore the week-to-week Bracketology, even though I typically follow it fairly closely... I may be alone in this, but I think the various Bracketologists provide an interesting debate regarding not only what aspects of a team's resume are most important, but also how silly and inconsistent the NCAA process is.

This year, though, I've basically come to the following conclusion: if we win the ACC Tournament, we'll get a No. 1 seed. Otherwise, we'll be no lower than a 3 seed, with a 2 seed much more likely. I say this given the following:
1) Given our success in the non-conference, Duke has a top-5 RPI and barring a complete collapse won't fall out of the top-10 given the strength of the ACC.
2) Even though it was at the beginning of the season, and based on recent history leads to it being a bit devalued by the committee, our neutral site victory over Michigan State is one of the best "resume wins" of the year (you could make the argument that the only better win is another victory over MSU, this being Michigan beating MSU in the Breslin Center).
3) Winning the ACC Tourney would in all likelihood include a victory over Virginia.
4) IMHO the Big 12 is out of the running for a No. 1 seed given Oklahoma and West Virginia's recent struggles combined with Kansas' three home losses (I've always felt, and I think the data would support me on this, that home losses tend to be the single biggest blight on a tournament resume).
5) Similarly, given Arizona's struggles and recent loss the Pac-12 isn't going to get a No. 1 seed.
6) The B1G should only get 1 No. 1 seed, in all likelihood Purdue, given that MSU and Purdue have yet to face each other. Plus, even if MSU beats Purdue, they have had perhaps the easiest B1G regular season schedule which prevents them from accumulating any additional solid resume wins.
7) Despite all the talk about how deep the SEC is this year, they also don't have any top-tier teams, meaning they'll have a lot of mid-range seeded teams but are unlikely to get a top-seed.

So, barring some major upheaval that leaves Villanova, Virginia, and Purdue with No. 1 seeds, with Xavier, MSU, Duke and Kansas (probably in that order at this exact moment) competing for the last top seed. The difference between Duke and those other squads is that we have more opportunity for solid resume wins, and given the strength of the ACC any additional losses we may accumulate won't be too devastating, especially if they are on the road.

Just my (long and detailed) two-cents on where Duke stands. Curious to continue to read the debate about this!

thedukelamere
02-06-2018, 11:31 AM
That would be fun, but I think it would create an unfair advantage for lower (worse) seeded teams. They would be able to choose favorable matchups with the big boys.

Sure, but think of the hypothetical story lines, plot twists, and "strategery" this would offer... Think Duke is vulnerable? Take that #16 or #15 seed and let's dance.

Troublemaker
02-06-2018, 11:40 AM
That would be fun, but I think it would create an unfair advantage for lower (worse) seeded teams. They would be able to choose favorable matchups with the big boys.

I'd support something like this where you rank everyone 1 thru 68 and give them a seed accordingly, the higher-seeded teams get to pick last, but within a seed line, they get to pick first.

65, 66, 67, 68
61, 62, 63, 64
57, 58, 59, 60
...
...
9, 10, 11, 12
5, 6, 7, 8
1, 2, 3, 4

So the overall #1 gets to see the full picture of the 4 regions and selects one of them to play in. And the overall #4 (the last 1 seed) just has to take what's left over.

All that said, there are problems with this, and I'm not sure there really is a completely fair way to do the draft order.

CDu
02-06-2018, 11:51 AM
This year, though, I've basically come to the following conclusion: if we win the ACC Tournament, we'll get a No. 1 seed. Otherwise, we'll be no lower than a 3 seed, with a 2 seed much more likely. I say this given the following:
1) Given our success in the non-conference, Duke has a top-5 RPI and barring a complete collapse won't fall out of the top-10 given the strength of the ACC.

I think it isn't quite that simple. First, we've already fallen out of the top-5 in RPI (currently #7). What if we lose 3 more regular season games? Let's say, at Clemson, at UNC, and one other one? Neither a Clemson loss nor a UNC loss (especially not at the Dean Dome) would be considered falling apart. And I don't think that a 7-loss team with an ACC tourney championship would be likely to get a 1 seed. It would be sort of like last year, actually. If we win out, we'll almost certainly get a 1 seed. But it gets dicier with each additional loss.


2) Even though it was at the beginning of the season, and based on recent history leads to it being a bit devalued by the committee, our neutral site victory over Michigan State is one of the best "resume wins" of the year (you could make the argument that the only better win is another victory over MSU, this being Michigan beating MSU in the Breslin Center).

It is a potentially nice win, though the degree of value it provides depends upon which metric the committee favors. If they stick to their historical preference (RPI), it isn't all that impressive. MSU is #21 in RPI. Our road win over #18 Miami currently looks better. But even still, that is just 2 wins against RPI top-25 teams. The RPI likes the Villanova, Xavier, and UVa wins much more than our MSU win.


3) Winning the ACC Tourney would in all likelihood include a victory over Virginia.

Possibly.


4) IMHO the Big 12 is out of the running for a No. 1 seed given Oklahoma and West Virginia's recent struggles combined with Kansas' three home losses (I've always felt, and I think the data would support me on this, that home losses tend to be the single biggest blight on a tournament resume).

As of right now, Kansas would not get a 1 seed. But they have plenty of opportunities to right the ship and get one. They are sitting a 18-5, with wins @WV and @TCU, and @Texas. And they'll have multiple more changes against top-25 teams over the course of their season and tournament. If they win out, they will absolutely be in the discussion for a 1 seed.


5) Similarly, given Arizona's struggles and recent loss the Pac-12 isn't going to get a No. 1 seed.

I agree, it is very hard to see Arizona getting a 1 seed.


6) The B1G should only get 1 No. 1 seed, in all likelihood Purdue, given that MSU and Purdue have yet to face each other. Plus, even if MSU beats Purdue, they have had perhaps the easiest B1G regular season schedule which prevents them from accumulating any additional solid resume wins.

I agree, there is likely only one 1 seed coming from the Big 10.


7) Despite all the talk about how deep the SEC is this year, they also don't have any top-tier teams, meaning they'll have a lot of mid-range seeded teams but are unlikely to get a top-seed.

The SEC has Tennessee (17-5, top-15 in RPI and top-10 in KenPom) and Auburn (21-2, top-10 in RPI and KenPom). If Auburn keeps winning, they will absolutely be in the running for a 1 seed.

Basically, it's going to be really unlikely to knock Villanova or UVa off the 1 line. Each would have to slip up multiple times down the stretch. Both are undefeated against the RPI top-25 and are 7-1 against the RPI top-50. It's possible that they could slide, but really unlikely.

Purdue and Auburn have nice records (just 2 losses each) but weak non-con profiles. If they keep winning though, it'll be hard to keep them off the 1 line. Purdue is in better position than Auburn right now, and has an easier schedule going in. And, in all fairness, is probably a better team than Auburn. But if Auburn gets by Kentucky and Texas A&M at home, they should be favored the rest of the way. Purdue just has Ohio State at home and @MSU.

After that, though, it's wide open. Kansas, Duke, Xavier, Texas Tech, and Tennessee could all make cases down the stretch.

cato
02-06-2018, 12:44 PM
someone needs to buy Lunardi one of those six foot by six foot jigsaw puzzles to keep him busy until early March. Guy has too much time on his hands and too little to do.

I do not pay attention to what he does, but it is pretty impressive that he has a paid gig doing it.

CDu
02-06-2018, 12:51 PM
I do not pay attention to what he does, but it is pretty impressive that he has a paid gig doing it.

Yeah, I'll give Lunardi credit for being a clever marketer. He got his name out there relatively early in the "bracketology" game, and pounced on an opportunity at ESPN. Good for him for playing his cards right.

El_Diablo
02-06-2018, 01:57 PM
someone needs to buy Lunardi one of those six foot by six foot jigsaw puzzles to keep him busy until early March. Guy has too much time on his hands and too little to do.

That's why it's only a part-time gig. He also works for St. Joe's.

Kedsy
02-06-2018, 02:03 PM
And I don't think that a 7-loss team with an ACC tourney championship would be likely to get a 1 seed.

I know every year's different, but last season UNC was a 7-loss team that didn't even have an ACC tourney championship, and they got a #1.

Nugget
02-06-2018, 02:23 PM
I'd support something like this where you rank everyone 1 thru 68 and give them a seed accordingly, the higher-seeded teams get to pick last, but within a seed line, they get to pick first.

65, 66, 67, 68
61, 62, 63, 64
57, 58, 59, 60
...
...
9, 10, 11, 12
5, 6, 7, 8
1, 2, 3, 4

So the overall #1 gets to see the full picture of the 4 regions and selects one of them to play in. And the overall #4 (the last 1 seed) just has to take what's left over.

All that said, there are problems with this, and I'm not sure there really is a completely fair way to do the draft order.

I've seen various proposals for a "draft" style system to replace the Committee's doing of the bracketing and I think pretty much all of them would be improvements on how it's done now even though as you note there is some form of complaint that renders each of them not "completely fair."

To me the main advantage of the draft systems -- in addition to, as Jason notes, making the tournament reveal show a phenomenally better 2-3 hour television spectacle -- is that they would largely change the focus of the conversation over the first 24-36 hours after the bracket comes out away from "the Committee overseeded x" or "the Committee gave Duke the easiest region" or "gee what a coincidence that the Committee matched up Kentucky and Wichita St. again, and put Virginia and Michigan St. and Carolina and Kansas in the same regions again" to some much more fun second-guessing of the schools and coaches for their decisions about where to go/who to play.

It seems to me that over the past 5 years or so, particularly with the adoption of the "First Four" and allowing 68 team in vs. just 64 and the fact that many of the historically dangerous mid-major teams have moved up to bigger leagues (e.g., Butler, Davidson, Wichita St., Creighton, Valpo, etc.), that the bottom of the bubble has been generally very weak and the Committee has taken much less heat than it used for not picking the right teams for the tournament. Other than maybe Monmouth getting left out last year, no one is going to the barricades for Vandy being left out in favor of USC or SMU being left out in favor of Iowa, etc. So, substantially all of the complaining has shifted to the Committee's seeding/bracketing. The Draft would do away with that and replace it much more fun stuff like "Self is ducking Wichita" or "Coach K chose to go to Nashville to avoid 15,000 Carolina fans in Charlotte," or whatever.

CDu
02-06-2018, 02:23 PM
I know every year's different, but last season UNC was a 7-loss team that didn't even have an ACC tourney championship, and they got a #1.

True, although they did have a championship ("just" the regular season one, but the committee doesn't read DBR and DOES value regular season titles). And UNC probably shouldn't have been a 1 seed anyway. But yeah, last year doesn't really look like this year. There was only one major conference team with 3 or fewer losses (Villanova).

This year, I think we're going to have at least 2 major conference teams with 3 or fewer losses, and I think we'll see another few major conference teams with 4 or 5 losses. So I highly doubt a 7-loss team is getting a 1 seed this year. Even if it is the ACC tourney champ. Especially because if we DO get to 7 losses, it will mean we either didn't get many nice wins down the stretch or lost more games that we shouldn't have.

Now, it could be that the teams at the top lose a bunch down the stretch, such that this year winds up mimicking last year. But I find that highly unlikely.

TexHawk
02-06-2018, 07:07 PM
I do not pay attention to what he does, but it is pretty impressive that he has a paid gig doing it.

Bracketology & Lunardi bashing always tickles me, because it is transparent that ESPN does it to get clicks (and subsequent forum arguments that lead to more clicks, like this one). If I have learned anything in my career with various online properties and advertising, anything that's been running for 15+ years is doing so because it makes money. If the idea was dumb and everybody hated it, it would have been trashed years ago. "Hate" is good for ESPN in this context. "Hate" means arguments. What's bad is "ambivalence". As Bracketology stands, the idea is certainly dumb, but not enough people ignore it.

I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN had an algorithm that just spits this stuff out from November to late February, then asks Lunardi to justify the movements every once in a while. As the conference tournaments ramp up, he becomes more involved, but even then, if he misses on something, nobody really remembers. ESPN smartly stuffs his old ones in the garbage after the real brackets are announced. Lunardi deserves some credit for aligning his brand with Bracketology, but ESPN would be using someone else doing the same thing if he wasn't around.

To be clear, I am one of the biggest culprits. When the Super Bowl clock ticks to zero, I start vacuuming up fake brackets like a cocaine addict. I've been arguing with you all about why KU deserves a #1 seed over Duke for like 8 years running.


P.S. KU does not deserve a #1 seed this year, I don't care if they win out. Fair chance they'd be the first #1 to lose to a #16.

kmspeaks
02-07-2018, 11:47 AM
I've seen various proposals for a "draft" style system to replace the Committee's doing of the bracketing and I think pretty much all of them would be improvements on how it's done now even though as you note there is some form of complaint that renders each of them not "completely fair."

To me the main advantage of the draft systems -- in addition to, as Jason notes, making the tournament reveal show a phenomenally better 2-3 hour television spectacle -- is that they would largely change the focus of the conversation over the first 24-36 hours after the bracket comes out away from "the Committee overseeded x" or "the Committee gave Duke the easiest region" or "gee what a coincidence that the Committee matched up Kentucky and Wichita St. again, and put Virginia and Michigan St. and Carolina and Kansas in the same regions again" to some much more fun second-guessing of the schools and coaches for their decisions about where to go/who to play.

It seems to me that over the past 5 years or so, particularly with the adoption of the "First Four" and allowing 68 team in vs. just 64 and the fact that many of the historically dangerous mid-major teams have moved up to bigger leagues (e.g., Butler, Davidson, Wichita St., Creighton, Valpo, etc.), that the bottom of the bubble has been generally very weak and the Committee has taken much less heat than it used for not picking the right teams for the tournament. Other than maybe Monmouth getting left out last year, no one is going to the barricades for Vandy being left out in favor of USC or SMU being left out in favor of Iowa, etc. So, substantially all of the complaining has shifted to the Committee's seeding/bracketing. The Draft would do away with that and replace it much more fun stuff like "Self is ducking Wichita" or "Coach K chose to go to Nashville to avoid 15,000 Carolina fans in Charlotte," or whatever.

Now this I would watch. Schools would probably hire people just to pour over the numbers and identify favorable matchups. Would you take a slightly tougher 2nd round matchup in exchange for an easier 2nd weekend? What sites do schools actually favor instead of using straight geography? The possibilities are endless. Can you imagine the pages and pages of discussion we'd have here? the tables and graphs? the additions to the Handy Pocket Reference?

English
02-07-2018, 12:11 PM
Now this I would watch. Schools would probably hire people just to pour over the numbers and identify favorable matchups. Would you take a slightly tougher 2nd round matchup in exchange for an easier 2nd weekend? What sites do schools actually favor instead of using straight geography? The possibilities are endless. Can you imagine the pages and pages of discussion we'd have here? the tables and graphs? the additions to the Handy Pocket Reference?

To me, and I'd guess many here, this concept is a lot of fun. Maybe we could have a DBR "mock selection draft" along the vein of the DBR mock NBA draft, where posters volunteer or are assigned a team, and we conduct our own selection process come March. That could be a telling exercise, in parallel to actual bracket unveiling--we could compare the teams that posters generally hope to avoid to the teams that actually find themselves in our bracket (note: I hope no one takes umbrage that I'm presuming that Duke makes the NCAAT at this point).

I'd participate.

JasonEvans
02-07-2018, 02:22 PM
I recall first talking about the notion of "picking the bracket" back in 2015 when the whole world assumed Kentucky was unbeatable. The thought was that it was better to be a #3 or #4 in another bracket than it was to be the #2 seed in Kentucky's bracket. Heck, there was talk that it was better to be a #2 or #3 on the half of the bracket opposite Kentucky than it was to be a #1 seed in the bracket that had to face Kentucky in the Final Four.

I'm sure the same thoughts were running through college hoops when 1999 Duke was taking souls as well as in 1991 when UNLV.'s amoeba defense was impossible to pierce. Hmmm, what do those 3 unbeatable juggernauts have in common?

--Jason "Like many great ideas, sadly I fear this will never come to pass. Bummer... " Evans

Bluedog
02-07-2018, 02:51 PM
While it's a cool idea to have teams pick their place in the bracket, it would fundamentally shift how teams scout as they would HAVE to prioritize scouting the ENTIRE field througout the year. That requires a lot of time and manpower. So, while I think the concept is awesome in theory, I'm not sure we want Coach K and his staff spending hours upon hours researching Wichita State's sets unless we have them as a potential opponent. If you get to choose your potential opponents, though, you'd have to do the research on EVERYBODY to make the most informed decision. So, there are drawbacks and one could argue that it puts the small schools at a disadvantage who can't hire dedicated staff to scout the entire field.

Kedsy
02-08-2018, 12:41 AM
So, two of the three #1-seed "locks" lost tonight. And the third team won by 4 points over an unranked team.

Just sayin'.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-08-2018, 06:06 AM
So, two of the three #1-seed "locks" lost tonight. And the third team won by 4 points over an unranked team.

Just sayin'.

It's over.

CDu
02-08-2018, 07:49 AM
So, two of the three #1-seed "locks" lost tonight. And the third team won by 4 points over an unranked team.

Just sayin'.

And they all three still have fewer losses than Duke. And they all three have easier remaining schedules than Duke. Just sayin.

UVa is as close to a lock as anyone can be as of early February. And last night was their toughest remaining regular season game. Just one loss, undefeated in conference, #1 in every rating system. They are getting a 1 seed. I can’t imagine four teams jumping them.

Villanova has just two losses. And they are favored (in most cases comfortably) to win the rest of their games. It is very hard to see three teams jumping them.

And I don’t know that anyone said Purdue was a lock. Just that they were in extremely good position for a 1 seed. Easy remaining schedule, no bad losses at all, still only 3 total losses. They were the team that folks were targetting to try to push out west after the UVa loss. But it is hard to see two teams bumping them out. And one of the most likely ways they would get bumped is by losing to MSU (which has just 3 losses) twice. Which likely would put MSU as a 1 seed.

English
02-08-2018, 09:32 AM
And they all three still have fewer losses than Duke. And they all three have easier remaining schedules than Duke. Just sayin.

UVa is as close to a lock as anyone can be as of early February. And last night was their toughest remaining regular season game. Just one loss, undefeated in conference, #1 in every rating system. They are getting a 1 seed. I can’t imagine four teams jumping them.

Villanova has just two losses. And they are favored (in most cases comfortably) to win the rest of their games. It is very hard to see three teams jumping them.

And I don’t know that anyone said Purdue was a lock. Just that they were in extremely good position for a 1 seed. Easy remaining schedule, no bad losses at all, still only 3 total losses. They were the team that folks were targetting to try to push out west after the UVa loss. But it is hard to see two teams bumping them out. And one of the most likely ways they would get bumped is by losing to MSU (which has just 3 losses) twice. Which likely would put MSU as a 1 seed.

Your snark aside, the fact that the other contenders all have easier schedules than the good guys means, if Duke gets itself right, we would have a much more impressive resume down the stretch, which would go a long way on Selection Sunday. Not that I expect it, but should Duke TCOB, the fellas still very much control their own destiny. That's all anyone could want at this point in the season--not relying on others to stumble down the stretch.

I follow Nova closely since my wife is an alumna--with their injury situation, they're not looking like the same team they were a month ago. Booth is a key piece, Paschall is a major contributor and one of their top-2 athletes and defenders, and the young guys they've had to plug in aren't showing they're ready. They squeaked by Marquette and dropped the StJ's game at home. They still have Xavier coming, and face Butler again. Yeah, perhaps they run the table, but let's pump the brakes on slotting them just yet. Now, the Selection Committee may grant them a pass for some stumbles should Booth return and they look the part again. We'll see. We were missing Bolden and Delaurier for a stretch, too.

I don't have much to add about the B1G teams, just to say their conference is lousy this season and they're welcome to fight for that #1 out west. If MSU puts it together, like Duke, they're certainly a formidable team that any No. 1 would hate to see as its bracket's No. 2. Of course, I have about as much faith in them putting it together than I do our own guys. Probably less, actually, given the relative youth of both squads. Why would it be less conceivable for a team of mostly frosh to improve and figure it out than a more experienced squad? I disagree. Anyway, as someone mentioned a few days ago, sign me up for the No. 2 in a bracket that has Purdue as its No. 1, please and thank you.

CDu
02-08-2018, 09:47 AM
Your snark aside, the fact that the other contenders all have easier schedules than the good guys means, if Duke gets itself right, we would have a much more impressive resume down the stretch, which would go a long way on Selection Sunday. Not that I expect it, but should Duke TCOB, the fellas still very much control their own destiny. That's all anyone could want at this point in the season--not relying on others to stumble down the stretch.

First, my snark was in response to snark. If one can make a snarky post, it seems only fair that a snarky post be in response.

And yes, if we win out, our remaining schedule is more impressive than the others' remaining schedules. But we are starting from a deficit. They are sitting comfortably in the 1 seeds. So we would need to do more than just win out. We would need to win out and have them trip up more. Yesterday helped with two of those teams for sure. But they are still very much in the drivers' seats.

That being said, I fully expect that if we win out, we'll get a 1 seed. I just don't think we'd get a 1 seed over Nova or UVa, unless they stumble multiple more times (in UVa's case, it would likely take 3 more stumbles; they are in REALLY good shape).


I follow Nova closely since my wife is an alumna--with their injury situation, they're not looking like the same team they were a month ago. Booth is a key piece, Paschall is a major contributor and one of their top-2 athletes and defenders, and the young guys they've had to plug in aren't showing they're ready. They squeaked by Marquette and dropped the StJ's game at home. They still have Xavier coming, and face Butler again. Yeah, perhaps they run the table, but let's pump the brakes on slotting them just yet. Now, the Selection Committee may grant them a pass for some stumbles should Booth return and they look the part again. We'll see. We were missing Bolden and Delaurier for a stretch, too.

I think Nova is still in very comfortable shape. Booth will come back, and they'll look past this loss as a result.

And yeah, when folks were saying Nova was a lock, it was prior to Booth getting hurt or Paschall missing the St John's game with injury. No doubt that point will be made that two key players were missing from this game. And Paschall should be back soon.

If we want to harp that teams can lose because of multiple injuries to key starters, then yeah. Great point: anything can happen with respect to injuries (see 2017 Duke). But I expect Villanova will be just fine, and the absence of two key starters will be noted come selection time. If they aren't on the 1 line in March, I'll be quite surprised.


I don't have much to add about the B1G teams, just to say their conference is lousy this season and they're welcome to fight for that #1 out west. If MSU puts it together, like Duke, they're certainly a formidable team that any No. 1 would hate to see as its bracket's No. 2. Of course, I have about as much faith in them putting it together than I do our own guys. Probably less, actually, given the relative youth of both squads. Why would it be less conceivable for a team of mostly frosh to improve and figure it out than a more experienced squad? I disagree. Anyway, as someone mentioned a few days ago, sign me up for the No. 2 in a bracket that has Purdue as its No. 1, please and thank you.

I have no disagreement with any of this.

English
02-08-2018, 10:46 AM
...And yes, if we win out, our remaining schedule is more impressive than the others' remaining schedules. But we are starting from a deficit. They are sitting comfortably in the 1 seeds. So we would need to do more than just win out. We would need to win out and have them trip up more. Yesterday helped with two of those teams for sure. But they are still very much in the drivers' seats.

That being said, I fully expect that if we win out, we'll get a 1 seed. I just don't think we'd get a 1 seed over Nova or UVa, unless they stumble multiple more times (in UVa's case, it would likely take 3 more stumbles; they are in REALLY good shape).

I don't really disagree with any of this, only to echo I don't think we'd need anyone to stumble to get a 1-seed if we win out (again, likely a moot point with how unlikely this is). I think we agree on this. Further, I agree that if UVa, Nova, & Duke all win out (impossible, since we'd play UVa in the ACCT in that instance), that we're all 1-seeds with UVa & Nova ahead of Duke. It'd be a fun exercise to see what the Selection Committee did should all three win out and Duke beat UVa in the ACCT finals. Like years past, they'd probably marginalize that outcome and keep UVa ahead of Duke, rightly or wrongly (probably rightly).


I think Nova is still in very comfortable shape. Booth will come back, and they'll look past this loss as a result.

And yeah, when folks were saying Nova was a lock, it was prior to Booth getting hurt or Paschall missing the St John's game with injury. No doubt that point will be made that two key players were missing from this game. And Paschall should be back soon.

If we want to harp that teams can lose because of multiple injuries to key starters, then yeah. Great point: anything can happen with respect to injuries (see 2017 Duke). But I expect Villanova will be just fine, and the absence of two key starters will be noted come selection time. If they aren't on the 1 line in March, I'll be quite surprised.

I don't want to harp on injuries--my point WRT Nova is simply, with the way they're currently playing, I see them dropping at least a game or two down the stretch. Not really a novel point, of course, but they're not playing like the two-way machine that they were a few weeks ago. In my view, they're vulnerable to being overtaken for their No. 1 in the East (or South, whichever UVa doesn't want), if Duke handles its business. That's all.

CDu
02-08-2018, 10:53 AM
I don't really disagree with any of this, only to echo I don't think we'd need anyone to stumble to get a 1-seed if we win out (again, likely a moot point with how unlikely this is). I think we agree on this. Further, I agree that if UVa, Nova, & Duke all win out (impossible, since we'd play UVa in the ACCT in that instance), that we're all 1-seeds with UVa & Nova ahead of Duke. It'd be a fun exercise to see what the Selection Committee did should all three win out and Duke beat UVa in the ACCT finals. Like years past, they'd probably marginalize that outcome and keep UVa ahead of Duke, rightly or wrongly (probably rightly).

I don't disagree. If we win out, we'll almost certainly be a 1 seed. And I still think it's fair to say that UVa and Nova are quite comfortably 1 seeds too. UVa is as much a lock for a 1 seed as you can be at this point in the season. Us having a path to a 1 seed and UVa/Nova being comfortable 1 seeds aren't mutually exclusive concepts.



If UVa finishes the season with only 2 losses, they will be the #1 overall seed in the tournament. No question. Their resume is just too good, and would still be better than ours, comfortably so. A neutral-site win by us would not trump a road win by them.



I don't want to harp on injuries--my point WRT Nova is simply, with the way they're currently playing, I see them dropping at least a game or two down the stretch. Not really a novel point, of course, but they're not playing like the two-way machine that they were a few weeks ago. In my view, they're vulnerable to being overtaken for their No. 1 in the East (or South, whichever UVa doesn't want), if Duke handles its business. That's all.

I don't doubt that Nova could lose another game or two. My point is that the injuries will be taken into account in their seeding. And if they go into the tournament with 3 losses, at least one of which came without two starters that will be back by tourney time, they'll be a 1 seed.

If the injuries do them in (though Paschall will likely be back very soon, his injury was a concussion) and they lose several more games, the story changes of course. But I still see them as quite comfortably a 1 seed. They have to fall a good bit to move off the 1 line.

duke2x
02-08-2018, 12:42 PM
FWIW, St. John's win last night bumped Duke up to 2MW from a 3 on ESPN. I don't think they will ship Kansas out west for Duke, however.

scottdude8
02-08-2018, 12:53 PM
With Purdue losing there's now a realistic chance they fall to a No. 2 seed, especially if they lose to MSU, given that the B1G is down (although they aren't as down as some people like to say, IMHO, being a guy who watches a ton of B1G basketball through the lens of a Michigan fan). If Purdue is a No. 2 seed, I think a lot of teams would rather be a 2 seed than be the 1 in their bracket. The loss last night was tough, but you have to remember not only were they on a crazy win streak before that, they were annihilating everyone they played. The only real close games they had played with both to my Wolverines.

Purdue has two seven-footers, each with a unique skill set (Haas is a beast of a human being that has a refined, old-school post game and shoots 70% from the line; Haarms is 7-foot-3 and protects the rim incredibly well and brings a ton of energy off the bench), a stud in Carsen Edwards who, despite being undersized, could make a living in the NBA, and then a wealth of experienced guards/wings that can all nail the open three. Yes, the B1G is down, but don't let that color your opinion of Purdue. They're still right up there with Virginia as the best team's in the nation right now, IMHO, and they play just beautiful basketball.

CDu
02-08-2018, 12:55 PM
With Purdue losing there's now a realistic chance they fall to a No. 2 seed, especially if they lose to MSU, given that the B1G is down (although they aren't as down as some people like to say, IMHO, being a guy who watches a ton of B1G basketball through the lens of a Michigan fan). If Purdue is a No. 2 seed, I think a lot of teams would rather be a 2 seed than be the 1 in their bracket. The loss last night was tough, but you have to remember not only were they on a crazy win streak before that, they were annihilating everyone they played. The only real close games they had played with both to my Wolverines.

Purdue has two seven-footers, each with a unique skill set (Haas is a beast of a human being that has a refined, old-school post game and shoots 70% from the line; Haarms is 7-foot-3 and protects the rim incredibly well and brings a ton of energy off the bench), a stud in Carsen Edwards who, despite being undersized, could make a living in the NBA, and then a wealth of experienced guards/wings that can all nail the open three. Yes, the B1G is down, but don't let that color your opinion of Purdue. They're still right up there with Virginia as the best team's in the nation right now, IMHO, and they play just beautiful basketball.

Yeah, if Purdue loses to MSU and then again in the Big-10 tournament, they probably won't get a 1 seed. If they lose to MSU or in the Big-10 tournament, they might wind up out west as a 1 seed (or potentially still fall to a 2, probably depending on what Duke and MSU do).

English
02-08-2018, 02:36 PM
With Purdue losing there's now a realistic chance they fall to a No. 2 seed, especially if they lose to MSU, given that the B1G is down (although they aren't as down as some people like to say, IMHO, being a guy who watches a ton of B1G basketball through the lens of a Michigan fan). If Purdue is a No. 2 seed, I think a lot of teams would rather be a 2 seed than be the 1 in their bracket. The loss last night was tough, but you have to remember not only were they on a crazy win streak before that, they were annihilating everyone they played. The only real close games they had played with both to my Wolverines.

Purdue has two seven-footers, each with a unique skill set (Haas is a beast of a human being that has a refined, old-school post game and shoots 70% from the line; Haarms is 7-foot-3 and protects the rim incredibly well and brings a ton of energy off the bench), a stud in Carsen Edwards who, despite being undersized, could make a living in the NBA, and then a wealth of experienced guards/wings that can all nail the open three. Yes, the B1G is down, but don't let that color your opinion of Purdue. They're still right up there with Virginia as the best team's in the nation right now, IMHO, and they play just beautiful basketball.

Purdue barely beat IU, too.

Wow, I knew about Haas, but their other 7-footer is named Haarms? Is that a joke? Haas & Haarms? That sounds like a German comedy duo.

scottdude8
02-08-2018, 02:48 PM
Purdue barely beat IU, too.

Wow, I knew about Haas, but their other 7-footer is named Haarms? Is that a joke? Haas & Haarms? That sounds like a German comedy duo.

Haarms is from Amsterdam, actually. He redshirted last year, presumably to learn more about the game considering the Netherlands aren't quite a hoops hotbed. And Haas is from Alabama. So despite the name similarities, they couldn't have more different backgrounds, hahaha.

W&LHoo
02-08-2018, 03:00 PM
Haarms is from Amsterdam, actually. He redshirted last year, presumably to learn more about the game considering the Netherlands aren't quite a hoops hotbed. And Haas is from Alabama. So despite the name similarities, they couldn't have more different backgrounds, hahaha.

Turns out, Dutch people are the tallest on the planet, on average, so that makes a certain sense.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36888541

CDu
02-08-2018, 10:02 PM
So, two of the three #1-seed "locks" lost tonight. And the third team won by 4 points over an unranked team.

Just sayin'.

You were saying?

We can talk about how other teams (especially ones missing two starters) ahead of us might lose games between now and the end. And that is true. Well, so can we. And we have multiple tough ones left. Can’t expect them to lose and us to win them all.

Kedsy
02-09-2018, 12:38 AM
You were saying?

We can talk about how other teams (especially ones missing two starters) ahead of us might lose games between now and the end. And that is true. Well, so can we. And we have multiple tough ones left. Can’t expect them to lose and us to win them all.

My point was not at all what you're implying. I was simply saying nobody's a lock at this point.

CDu
02-09-2018, 09:26 AM
My point was not at all what you're implying. I was simply saying nobody's a lock at this point.

Okay, but:

1. UVa won, and even if they lost they'd still be realistically a lock for a 1. They've created that much separation, and their remaining schedule (especially now that Brown is out for Miami) is just not that tough. That FSU win was the toughest opponent that they have left on their schedule, they played as poorly as they have all season in the first half... and they still won on the road.
2. The main reason Nova lost is because they were missing two starters with injury, meaning that loss will ultimately be ignored on their resume.
3. Purdue was never a lock to begin with.

I mean, we can nitpick over the word "lock", but I think you get the idea of what people are talking about when discussing these things. It will take a minor miracle for UVa not to be a 1 seed. It took Nova two injuries to starters for them to lose to a hot team.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-09-2018, 10:37 AM
Okay, but:

1. UVa won, and even if they lost they'd still be realistically a lock for a 1. They've created that much separation, and their remaining schedule (especially now that Brown is out for Miami) is just not that tough. That FSU win was the toughest opponent that they have left on their schedule, they played as poorly as they have all season in the first half... and they still won on the road.
2. The main reason Nova lost is because they were missing two starters with injury, meaning that loss will ultimately be ignored on their resume.
3. Purdue was never a lock to begin with.

I mean, we can nitpick over the word "lock", but I think you get the idea of what people are talking about when discussing these things. It will take a minor miracle for UVa not to be a 1 seed. It took Nova two injuries to starters for them to lose to a hot team.

I don't think that it's nitpicking when the word is "lock." The definition ought to be self explanatory, not a post that begins "Okay, but..." or explain that a loss was due to injuries.

UVa is pretty damn close to a lock. It's wildly unlikely that they "lose out," and I'd bet that a 50/50 remainder of the season might be enough to keep them a one seed.

The reason I see value in debating the definition of "lock" is the reciprocal implication: that Duke is somehow "locked out" of a one seed. If you go all the way back to the BC loss, there were posters saying that we had no chance at a one seed. That's completely ludicrous. We've had several set backs since then, and while we are certainly on the outside looking in at the moment, there's multiple scenarios in which we could find ourselves on a top line come bracket time. Most if not all those scenarios involve us not taking any more Ls.

CDu
02-09-2018, 10:45 AM
I don't think that it's nitpicking when the word is "lock." The definition ought to be self explanatory, not a post that begins "Okay, but..." or explain that a loss was due to injuries.

UVa is pretty damn close to a lock. It's wildly unlikely that they "lose out," and I'd bet that a 50/50 remainder of the season might be enough to keep them a one seed.

The reason I see value in debating the definition of "lock" is the reciprocal implication: that Duke is somehow "locked out" of a one seed. If you go all the way back to the BC loss, there were posters saying that we had no chance at a one seed. That's completely ludicrous. We've had several set backs since then, and while we are certainly on the outside looking in at the moment, there's multiple scenarios in which we could find ourselves on a top line come bracket time. Most if not all those scenarios involve us not taking any more Ls.

I don't think Duke is locked out of a 1 seed (though we're pretty darn close now, and it almost certainly would only be a 1 seed out West), and they certainly weren't locked out of a 1 seed as of the BC loss. Had we won last night, I think we'd arguably be sitting on the 1 line today.

Which was my point. Realistically speaking, UVa and Nova are locks for 1 seeds. Yes, anything can happen, and nothing is officially a lock until it happens. But that's arguing semantics. You get the idea, which was my point. People can be lazy with words. "Lock" is easier to say than "all but certainly". Because given Nova's and UVa's schedules, it would take something crazy like several wildly-improbable losses or multiple injuries to knock them out of the 1 line. And even that would require multiple teams consolidating the rest of their schedule in basically unbeaten fashion to create enough teams to push them down.

I don't think that you, or Kedsy, or I actually disagree on the probabilities here. But I don't see the need to nitpick on the word "lock." Obviously, you are free to disagree.

flyingdutchdevil
02-09-2018, 10:52 AM
I don't think Duke is locked out of a 1 seed (though we're pretty darn close now, and it almost certainly would only be a 1 seed out West), and they certainly weren't locked out of a 1 seed as of the BC loss. Had we won last night, I think we'd arguably be sitting on the 1 line today.

Which was my point. Realistically speaking, UVa and Nova are locks for 1 seeds. Yes, anything can happen, and nothing is officially a lock until it happens. But that's arguing semantics. You get the idea, which was my point. People can be lazy with words. "Lock" is easier to say than "all but certainly". Because given Nova's and UVa's schedules, it would take something crazy like several wildly-improbable losses or multiple injuries to knock them out of the 1 line. And even that would require multiple teams consolidating the rest of their schedule in basically unbeaten fashion to create enough teams to push them down.

I don't think that you, or Kedsy, or I actually disagree on the probabilities here. But I don't see the need to nitpick on the word "lock." Obviously, you are free to disagree.

Is a 16-seed a lock to not win the NCAA tournament? Probability-wise, the answer is no, they can win it. But realistically?

I'm with CDu on this. UVa and Nova are essentially "locks". Duke is a lock to not get the #1 East or #1 South and will take a near-undefeated remaining schedule (including the ACC Tournament) and some luck to get a #1 in the Midwest or the West. But I think a 2-seed, or maybe a 3-seed, is much more likely

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-09-2018, 10:52 AM
I don't think Duke is locked out of a 1 seed (though we're pretty darn close now, and it almost certainly would only be a 1 seed out West), and they certainly weren't locked out of a 1 seed as of the BC loss. Had we won last night, I think we'd arguably be sitting on the 1 line today.

Which was my point. Realistically speaking, UVa and Nova are locks for 1 seeds. Yes, anything can happen, and nothing is officially a lock until it happens. But that's arguing semantics. You get the idea, which was my point. People can be lazy with words. "Lock" is easier to say than "all but certainly". Because given Nova's and UVa's schedules, it would take something crazy like several wildly-improbable losses or multiple injuries to knock them out of the 1 line. And even that would require multiple teams consolidating the rest of their schedule in basically unbeaten fashion to create enough teams to push them down.

I don't think that you, or Kedsy, or I actually disagree on the probabilities here. But I don't see the need to nitpick on the word "lock." Obviously, you are free to disagree.

*sigh*

Yes, I disagree. I say that if we, as a board, are going to have lengthy arguments/discussions of who is or is not locked or locked out of seed (I'm on the record with my thoughts on the inanity of "Bracketology" as a whole) we should agree on what those terms mean. If we are using different working definitions of the word, then heck, there's no way to have a meaningful discussion.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-09-2018, 10:56 AM
Is a 16-seed a lock to not win the NCAA tournament? Probability-wise, the answer is no, they can win it. But realistically?

I'm with CDu on this. UVa and Nova are essentially "locks". Duke is a lock to not get the #1 East or #1 South and will take a near-undefeated remaining schedule (including the ACC Tournament) and some luck to get a #1 in the Midwest or the West. But I think a 2-seed, or maybe a 3-seed, is much more likely

Right, a 16 seed will one day win a game, and we all look forward to that day (with an obvious caveat). Also correct, odds are quite good that a 16 seed will never win a tournament, unless you want to go down the infinite permutations of monkeys with typewriters. But no, I would not call them a "lock" to not win.

Perhaps I'm just yet another DBR poster who is unnecessarily pedantic, but I see words like "lock" to have a pretty clear definition. If Lunardi tells me Villanova is a lock for a one seed a week ago, and the St. John's loss is just the beginning of a five game skid and they fall to a three seed, Lundari has undermined his credibility AND his meaning of the word "lock." As in, next year, if he states that a sharp Duke team is a "lock" for a one seed at the end of January, many of us will say "yeah, but remember last year when he said 'Nova was a 'lock?' He botched that one.

And don't get me started on "literally."

flyingdutchdevil
02-09-2018, 11:08 AM
Right, a 16 seed will one day win a game, and we all look forward to that day (with an obvious caveat). Also correct, odds are quite good that a 16 seed will never win a tournament, unless you want to go down the infinite permutations of monkeys with typewriters. But no, I would not call them a "lock" to not win.

Perhaps I'm just yet another DBR poster who is unnecessarily pedantic, but I see words like "lock" to have a pretty clear definition. If Lunardi tells me Villanova is a lock for a one seed a week ago, and the St. John's loss is just the beginning of a five game skid and they fall to a three seed, Lundari has undermined his credibility AND his meaning of the word "lock." As in, next year, if he states that a sharp Duke team is a "lock" for a one seed at the end of January, many of us will say "yeah, but remember last year when he said 'Nova was a 'lock?' He botched that one.

And don't get me started on "literally."

I guess I literally don't have the vocabulary gene. 99.9% sure I don't, so I guess it's a lock.

:D Sorry, I had so

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-09-2018, 11:10 AM
I guess I literally don't have the vocabulary gene. 99.9% sure I don't, so I guess it's a lock.

:D Sorry, I had so

Touche. My mother in law was an English professor. I come by it honestly. It is literally in my genes.

(joke intended)

CDu
02-09-2018, 11:12 AM
Touche. My mother in law was an English professor. I come by it honestly. It is literally in my genes.

(joke intended)

Ironically (given my stance on this topic), my father was an English teacher and my mother a French/Spanish teacher. So I'm usually in your camp (don't get me started on "begging the question"). But this is one of those times where I've come to the conclusion that there are bigger fish to fry, and folks can get the point even if the literal use of the word isn't correct.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-09-2018, 11:16 AM
Ironically (given my stance on this topic), my father was an English teacher and my mother a French/Spanish teacher. So I'm usually in your camp (don't get me started on "begging the question"). But this is one of those times where I've come to the conclusion that there are bigger fish to fry, and folks can get the point even if the literal use of the word isn't correct.

I would usually agree, except that we are (literally!) arguing exactly the definition of the word. Meaning, how on earth can we have a sensible discussion of whether UVa/Nova is a "lock" to be a one seed, or if Duke has no chance of being a one seed, when we aren't using the words the same way? It isn't a questions of "getting the gist" of what we are talking about if people are claiming after each loss that Duke has no shot at a one seed and the top four seeds are locks.

Sincerely,

Mtn "I use punctuation in my text messages, so take my statements with a grain of salt" Devil

brevity
02-09-2018, 01:17 PM
If we are using different working definitions of the word, then heck, there's no way to have a meaningful discussion.

You just described every discussion of athleticism, and not just on the Internet.

By the way, you are all wrong. The NCAA Selection Committee has already said that there is only one lock for a 1 seed: The Mighty, Infallible, Do-No-Wrong University of North Carolina*. Even if they lose out. Especially if they lose out.

*They were protected from direct comparisons to Kentucky, Duke, and others by Gonzaga last year -- the chairman admitted as much.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-09-2018, 01:23 PM
You just described every discussion of athleticism, and not just on the Internet.

By the way, you are all wrong. The NCAA Selection Committee has already said that there is only one lock for a 1 seed: The Mighty, Infallible, Do-No-Wrong University of North Carolina*. Even if they lose out. Especially if they lose out.

*They were protected from direct comparisons to Kentucky, Duke, and others by Gonzaga last year -- the chairman admitted as much.

Not just athleticism... how about "cerebral players..." anyone want to dissect what that word means?

CDu
02-09-2018, 01:37 PM
Not just athleticism... how about "cerebral players..." anyone want to dissect what that word means?

Tyler Thornton.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-10-2018, 08:17 AM
Opportunity knocks for Bubble Watch teams this weekend http://es.pn/2C7bVTE
via

First two paragraphs explain that Cincinnati is now a "lock" and that there are "no unlocks, ever."

JasonEvans
02-10-2018, 02:00 PM
Purdue - MSU today is a huge game for the #1 seed line. I think a win by Purdue comes darn close to locking up a #1 seed for them. A win by MSU and Purdue starts to look more and more like a #2 seed.

devildeac
02-10-2018, 02:07 PM
Purdue barely beat IU, too.

Wow, I knew about Haas, but their other 7-footer is named Haarms? Is that a joke? Haas & Haarms? That sounds like a German comedy duo.

Kinda/sorta right:




http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/pumping-up-with-hans-and-franz/n10121?snl=1

CDu
02-10-2018, 02:08 PM
Purdue - MSU today is a huge game for the #1 seed line. I think a win by Purdue comes darn close to locking up a #1 seed for them. A win by MSU and Purdue starts to look more and more like a #2 seed.

I don’t know that a road loss to a top-5 team puts Purdue on the 2 line. But it does open the discussion. Conversely, a win by MSU probably DOES put them back in the discussion for a 1.

UrinalCake
02-10-2018, 08:28 PM
With UVA's loss, does Villanova stay #1 in the polls despite the earlier loss to St. John's? If not, who does? Maybe MSU after their win over Purdue?

Troublemaker
02-10-2018, 08:32 PM
With UVA's loss, does Villanova stay #1 in the polls despite the earlier loss to St. John's? If not, who does? Maybe MSU after their win over Purdue?

I would think Nova stays #1 because they weren't healthy when they lost. MSU could also move into that slot, too.

dukelifer
02-10-2018, 08:49 PM
I don’t know that a road loss to a top-5 team puts Purdue on the 2 line. But it does open the discussion. Conversely, a win by MSU probably DOES put them back in the discussion for a 1.

I think MSU takes the spot but it really doesn’t matter - MSU, UVA and Nova all seem to be heading to 1 seeds

UrinalCake
02-10-2018, 09:22 PM
Is it time redraw the bracket regions? Every year there are like five #1 seed contenders from the eastern half of the country and maybe one from the western half (usually Gonzaga or UCLA). I think the four regions should be Northeast, East, Southeast, and WestOfTheAppalachians.

richardjackson199
02-10-2018, 09:36 PM
OK this ESPN Analytics stuff is just weird. I'm sure it's not, and maybe some of the stats experts on the board will feel it makes perfect sense. But this was tweeted out yesterday by the ESPN Analytics Stats guy:
"Surprise losses by Duke and Kansas yesterday opened up the race for the fourth No. 1 seed (with Villanova, Virginia and Purdue near-locks). Behind them, chance to earn a No. 1 seed, per BPI:

Tennessee: 24%
Duke: 22%
Auburn: 13%
Xavier: 13%
Michigan State: 11%
Kansas: 10%"

Um, Tennessee? Really? The #14 or #15 team in the nation is currently most likely to grab 4th #1 seed? More than two times more likely than Michigan State?
I'm not buying it...

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

So what are Tennessee's chances at #1 seed now per BPI after getting blown out by Bama? Saw that ship sailing.

I think Nova stays #1. Mich State #2, UVA #3, Xavier #4 ... (for now)

JasonEvans
02-10-2018, 09:56 PM
So what are Tennessee's chances at #1 seed now per BPI after getting blown out by Bama? Saw that ship sailing.

BPI really wanted to reward Tennessee (or Auburn) for playing in a mediocre conference. I don't think anyone from the SEC is getting a #1 or #2 seed. That conference sucks.

Today showed us that all this talk about lock-this and lock-that is just too premature. There are absolutely still scenarios where anyone you think is a lock to get a #1 doesn't. Want to hear them?

Villanova - still has road games at Xavier, Providence, Creighton, and Seton Hall... odds say they will lose at least one of those, maybe 2. If they then fell in the tough BEast tournament, I think they would be off the #1 line.

Virginia - @ Miami, @ Louisville... lose one of those and then fall in the ACC tourney and your #1 seed could be in danger.

Purdue - They have an easy end to the B!g schedule, thought part of that is the B!g sucks this year. I don't think there is room for 2 B!g teams on the #1 seed line and right now, Mich St is ahead of them.

MSU - The unspoken story in the B!g is that Ohio State seem like they are going to win the regular season title. Let's say OSU also wins the B!g tourney. How do MSU or Purdue get seeded higher than OSU in that scenario?

-Jason "bottom line... there is still a #1 seed possibility for pretty much everyone in the top 10 if they get hot... Duke, I am talking to you!" Evans

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-10-2018, 10:06 PM
BPI really wanted to reward Tennessee (or Auburn) for playing in a mediocre conference. I don't think anyone from the SEC is getting a #1 or #2 seed. That conference sucks.

Today showed us that all this talk about lock-this and lock-that is just too premature. There are absolutely still scenarios where anyone you think is a lock to get a #1 doesn't. Want to hear them?

Villanova - still has road games at Xavier, Providence, Creighton, and Seton Hall... odds say they will lose at least one of those, maybe 2. If they then fell in the tough BEast tournament, I think they would be off the #1 line.

Virginia - @ Miami, @ Louisville... lose one of those and then fall in the ACC tourney and your #1 seed could be in danger.

Purdue - They have an easy end to the B!g schedule, thought part of that is the B!g sucks this year. I don't think there is room for 2 B!g teams on the #1 seed line and right now, Mich St is ahead of them.

MSU - The unspoken story in the B!g is that Ohio State seem like they are going to win the regular season title. Let's say OSU also wins the B!g tourney. How do MSU or Purdue get seeded higher than OSU in that scenario?

-Jason "bottom line... there is still a #1 seed possibility for pretty much everyone in the top 10 if they get hot... Duke, I am talking to you!" Evans

Yes! Exactly! Today is an excellent example of the difference between "likely" and "lock."

Troublemaker
02-10-2018, 10:13 PM
So what are Tennessee's chances at #1 seed now per BPI after getting blown out by Bama? Saw that ship sailing.

I think Nova stays #1. Mich State #2, UVA #3, Xavier #4 ... (for now)

Tomorrow, the selection committee will reveal the Top 16 teams as of tomorrow (https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-02-06/ncaas-top-16-bracket-reveal-sunday-will-take-look-big-picture), just like they did last year (https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/bracket-beat/2017-02-11/march-madness-top-16-seeds-revealed-first-ever-season). Here's my stab at it:



East
South
Midwest
West


1. Villanova
2. Virginia
3. Xavier
4. Purdue


7. Kansas
5. Auburn
6. Texas Tech
8. Michigan St


11. Duke
12. Tennessee
10. Cincinnati
9. Clemson


14. Ohio St
15. WVU
13. UNC
16. Oklahoma



Let's see how close I come.

Note: I had to move Clemson out West because the regions were becoming too unbalanced (by seed rank, not eye test).

brevity
02-10-2018, 10:32 PM
Tomorrow, the selection committee will reveal the Top 16 teams as of tomorrow (https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-02-06/ncaas-top-16-bracket-reveal-sunday-will-take-look-big-picture), just like they did last year (https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/bracket-beat/2017-02-11/march-madness-top-16-seeds-revealed-first-ever-season). Here's my stab at it:



East
South
Midwest
West


1. Villanova
2. Virginia
3. Xavier
4. Purdue


7. Kansas
5. Auburn
6. Texas Tech
8. Michigan St


11. Duke
12. Tennessee
10. Cincinnati
9. Clemson


14. Ohio St
15. WVU
13. UNC
16. Oklahoma



Let's see how close I come.

Well, you have 2 Big Ten teams (Purdue and Michigan State) atop the West. But you also put UNC in a region with the weakest 1 seed, 2 seed, and 3 seed, which is exactly what the Selection Committee would do.

Troublemaker
02-10-2018, 10:44 PM
Well, you have 2 Big Ten teams (Purdue and Michigan State) atop the West. But you also put UNC in a region with the weakest 1 seed, 2 seed, and 3 seed, which is exactly what the Selection Committee would do.

Yikes, how did I miss that? Redo:




East
South
Midwest
West


1. Villanova
2. Virginia
3. Xavier
4. Purdue


8. Michigan St
5. Auburn
6. Texas Tech
7. Kansas


12. Tennessee
10. Cincinnati
11. Duke
9. Clemson


13. UNC
15. WVU
14. Ohio St
16. Oklahoma



I also previously had Auburn and Tennessee, two SEC teams, meeting in the S16, which the committee probably would avoid if possible. After fixing that, Duke has a more palatable region, and UNC's region is tougher.

Stray Gator
02-10-2018, 10:45 PM
Tomorrow, the selection committee will reveal the Top 16 teams as of tomorrow (https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-02-06/ncaas-top-16-bracket-reveal-sunday-will-take-look-big-picture), just like they did last year (https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/bracket-beat/2017-02-11/march-madness-top-16-seeds-revealed-first-ever-season). Here's my stab at it:



East
South
Midwest
West


1. Villanova
2. Virginia
3. Xavier
4. Purdue


7. Kansas
5. Auburn
6. Texas Tech
8. Michigan St


11. Duke
12. Tennessee
10. Cincinnati
9. Clemson


14. Ohio St
15. WVU
13. UNC
16. Oklahoma



Let's see how close I come.

Note: I had to move Clemson out West because the regions were becoming too unbalanced (by seed rank, not eye test).

I don't see how Purdue, which lost two games this week, can still be on the top line, while Michigan State, which beat Purdue today and has a better overall record, is in the #8 slot. Also, Kansas lost again today, which is their second loss to an unranked team in the last three games, so I'd be surprised if they're awarded the best #2 seed.

Troublemaker
02-10-2018, 11:00 PM
I don't see how Purdue, which lost two games this week, can still be on the top line, while Michigan State, which beat Purdue today and has a better overall record, is in the #8 slot. Also, Kansas lost again today, which is their second loss to an unranked team in the last three games, so I'd be surprised if they're awarded the best #2 seed.

I'm using Bracket Matrix (http://bracketmatrix.com/) as a guide, and it just seem like MSU would have too far to climb to get to the top line. Purdue is lucky that the 2-seeds have either lost this week or are undeserving of a 1-seed. That's how I have Purdue surviving as a 1-seed, but we'll see how the committee decides tomorrow. As for Kansas, I actually have them #7 overall (so the third-best 2-seed).

Troublemaker
02-10-2018, 11:11 PM
Yikes, how did I miss that? Redo:




East
South
Midwest
West


1. Villanova
2. Virginia
3. Xavier
4. Purdue


8. Michigan St
5. Auburn
6. Texas Tech
7. Kansas


12. Tennessee
10. Cincinnati
11. Duke
9. Clemson


13. UNC
15. WVU
14. Ohio St
16. Oklahoma



I also previously had Auburn and Tennessee, two SEC teams, meeting in the S16, which the committee probably would avoid if possible. After fixing that, Duke has a more palatable region, and UNC's region is tougher.

Ah, what the heck. Final Four picks for my silly fake bracket prediction for the silly top 16 reveal tomorrow:

Michigan St, Auburn, Duke, Oklahoma. No 1-seeds.

Stray Gator
02-10-2018, 11:19 PM
I'm using Bracket Matrix (http://bracketmatrix.com/) as a guide, and it just seem like MSU would have too far to climb to get to the top line. Purdue is lucky that the 2-seeds have either lost this week or are undeserving of a 1-seed. That's how I have Purdue surviving as a 1-seed, but we'll see how the committee decides tomorrow. As for Kansas, I actually have them #7 overall (so the third-best 2-seed).

It appears to me that the Bracket Matrix to which you linked was last updated at 9:30 this morning, so it doesn't reflect the results of today's games, in which I believe 8 ranked teams (including Purdue and Kansas and Tennessee) have already lost.

devildeac
02-11-2018, 10:19 AM
Yikes, how did I miss that? Redo:




East
South
Midwest
West


1. Villanova
2. Virginia
3. Xavier
4. Purdue


8. Michigan St
5. Auburn
6. Texas Tech
7. Kansas


12. Tennessee
10. Cincinnati
11. Duke
9. Clemson


13. UNC
15. WVU
14. Ohio St
16. Oklahoma



I also previously had Auburn and Tennessee, two SEC teams, meeting in the S16, which the committee probably would avoid if possible. After fixing that, Duke has a more palatable region, and UNC's region is tougher.

As you (or someone else) mentioned already, not likely to happen. I never say never (but just did-twice if anyone's counting :o) because I don't like pie that much and they're expensive to buy and ship.

duke4ever19
02-11-2018, 01:12 PM
So the committee has us as a 2-Seed in Villanova's bracket. East region.

Texas Tech is the 3-seed and Ohio St. the 4-seed.


https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/2018-ncaa-tournament-selection-committee-has-virginia-as-no-1-overall-seed/

Wahoo2000
02-11-2018, 01:24 PM
It appears to me that the Bracket Matrix to which you linked was last updated at 9:30 this morning, so it doesn't reflect the results of today's games, in which I believe 8 ranked teams (including Purdue and Kansas and Tennessee) have already lost.

Echoing this, and adding in the following - even IF msu wins out AND wins the B1G tournament, they STILL might not get a 1. Their nonconference schedule was TERRIBLE, and the B1G was down this year. I think their ONLY chance at a 1 is if they win out. Sadly, I feel like this means the committee will do EVERYTHING in their power to put them in UVa's region again just for the storyline. Plus people can say we "underperformed" again - even though MSU would probably be favored in that matchup.

UrinalCake
02-11-2018, 01:26 PM
Michigan State could potentially take over the top spot in the AP poll, yet they are a 3 seed (#11 overall). What am I missing here?

UrinalCake
02-11-2018, 01:29 PM
So the committee has us as a 2-Seed in Villanova's bracket. East region.

Texas Tech is the 3-seed and Ohio St. the 4-seed.

That seems fair. I think we would be happy to get that kind of draw; Villanova is tough but there’s no way we’d get to stay in the east without having them. OSU is sneaky good too.

BlueDevilBrowns
02-11-2018, 01:31 PM
Michigan State could potentially take over the top spot in the AP poll, yet they are a 3 seed (#11 overall). What am I missing here?

Mediocre non-conference schedule and the B1G is down overall as a conference this year.

MSU likely won’t win the regular season conference title and will need to win the B1GT to have even a shot at a 1 seed.

tbyers11
02-11-2018, 01:36 PM
Mediocre non-conference schedule and the B1G is down overall as a conference this year.

MSU likely won’t win the regular season conference title and will need to win the B1GT to have even a shot at a 1 seed.

Agreed on MSU's shot at a 1 seed.

What I don't get is that after losing to MSU yesterday Purdue has pretty much the same profile, even slightly worse than MSU IMO, and they are still a 1 seed/#4 overall.

Seems to me like this projection did not account for yesterday's results.

Troublemaker
02-11-2018, 01:52 PM
Not too shabby on my part. I put in WVU as a 4 seed instead of Arizona, but I included 15 out of the 16 (not terribly hard, understood) and I did well sticking to my guns and leaving Purdue in as a 1-seed. Michigan St didn't even make it to a 2-seed.






East
South
Midwest
West


1. Villanova
2. Virginia
3. Xavier
4. Purdue


8. Michigan St
5. Auburn
6. Texas Tech
7. Kansas


12. Tennessee
10. Cincinnati
11. Duke
9. Clemson


13. UNC
15. WVU
14. Ohio St
16. Oklahoma





https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVxa_XFX0AMO5Qu.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/gkLSwsN.png

Troublemaker
02-11-2018, 01:56 PM
As #7 overall, Duke is still in good position to get a 1-seed.

The problem is we have to start playing great basketball. That's pretty much always the limiting reagent / bottleneck when we have these 1-seed discussions. Other teams ahead of us will lose, but it's the lack of taking care of our own business that prevents us from getting a 1-seed.

Wahoo2000
02-11-2018, 02:39 PM
Michigan State could potentially take over the top spot in the AP poll, yet they are a 3 seed (#11 overall). What am I missing here?

Maybe that polls have a strong recency bias component, committee does not (or if so, it's WAAAAY less of a factor). Committee also skips the "eye test". It's about:
a) your record
b) your SOS (with some emphasis on noncon)
c) WHERE you won your big games (road/neutral performance)

MSU certainly LOOKS the part of a 1-seed, but the resume isn't even all that close.

Wahoo2000
02-11-2018, 02:42 PM
Agreed on MSU's shot at a 1 seed.

What I don't get is that after losing to MSU yesterday Purdue has pretty much the same profile, even slightly worse than MSU IMO, and they are still a 1 seed/#4 overall.

Seems to me like this projection did not account for yesterday's results.

Purdue's noncon schedule was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better then MSU's (which per kenpom is 312 out of 351...... HORRID). As a result, Purdue's overal SOS, despite being in the same conference is literally TWICE as good as MSU's.

brevity
02-11-2018, 02:44 PM
Michigan State could potentially take over the top spot in the AP poll, yet they are a 3 seed (#11 overall). What am I missing here?

That Michigan State can't be put in Virginia's region if they're both top seeds? It's, like, an unwritten Selection Committee rule to keep those two together.

Why a 3 seed instead of a 2 seed? Because Tom Izzo is creating bad PR right now.

WVDUKEFAN
02-11-2018, 02:46 PM
I absolutely cannot agree with Villanova or Xavier as a 1 seed. Purdue (on the line-could go either way), while Michigan State and Virginia are all legitimate. I watched the WVU vs Ok State pre game show yesterday. The quality wins posted by Xavier and Villanova are laughable.

SenatorClayDavis
02-11-2018, 03:37 PM
Ranking Cincinnati ahead of Mich St is puzzling. Cincinnati has just as putrid of a nonconf SOS and their American schedule is back loaded so they haven't played any of the "tough" games yet. I see the knocks on Mich St regarding schedule, but why not apply the same standard to Cincinnati? Cinci's best wins are at UCLA, at Temple, vs Houston and vs Miss St. Cincinnati has 0 wins over teams that are sure bets to make the field in 4 weeks.

Xavier looks very solid to get a 1 seed. Their schedule down the stretch is favorable as they just picked up 2 huge road wins. They have 3 losses against a tough schedule. They might be able to take 2 losses and still get a 1. They would be a soft 1 in terms of efficiency rankings, but will be tough to pass for the teams sitting on the 2 and 3 lines today.

devildeac
02-11-2018, 03:41 PM
Not too shabby on my part. I put in WVU as a 4 seed instead of Arizona, but I included 15 out of the 16 (not terribly hard, understood) and I did well sticking to my guns and leaving Purdue in as a 1-seed. Michigan St didn't even make it to a 2-seed.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVxa_XFX0AMO5Qu.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/gkLSwsN.png

We can only hope our #15 seed is not Lehigh. :rolleyes:

(too soon?)

tbyers11
02-11-2018, 04:16 PM
Purdue's noncon schedule was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better then MSU's (which per kenpom is 312 out of 351... HORRID). As a result, Purdue's overal SOS, despite being in the same conference is literally TWICE as good as MSU's.

Yeah when you look at the non-con SOS in totality MSU was a lot worse than Purdue. So if you are going primarily by overall SOS, which was probably done here, I agree.

However, if you dig deeper and look at the team sheets (https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/SitePages/Home.aspx) that the committee uses Purdue has gone 5-3 (3-1 non con) in quadrant 1 games and and 6-1 (1-1) in quadrant 2 games. MSU has 3-2 (1-1) in Q1 games and 5-1 (2-0) in Q2 games. A little bit more volume here for Purdue (non-con and overall) but MSU has actually fared a bit better.

Purdue went 7-0 in non-con (schedule you can control) matchups against Q3 and Q4 teams while MSU went 9-0. So MSU scheduled a few more non-con super cream puffs while Purdue had more regular creampuffs.

There are a hundred ways to parse all this info but if I were a committee member I wouldn't care about anything in those Q3 and Q4 matchups (what drags down MSU SOS compared to Purdue) unless there was a loss. I'd see how you did in Q1 and Q2 matchups and I'd say that's pretty even right now. Which was why I was surprised Purdue was 4 and MSU was 11. I'd put them both about 6-8 range.

Duke79UNLV77
02-12-2018, 09:33 AM
There are a hundred ways to parse all this info but if I were a committee member I wouldn't care about anything in those Q3 and Q4 matchups (what drags down MSU SOS compared to Purdue) unless there was a loss. I'd see how you did in Q1 and Q2 matchups and I'd say that's pretty even right now. Which was why I was surprised Purdue was 4 and MSU was 11. I'd put them both about 6-8 range.

I totally agree. RPI places too much weight on whether a strong team played an utterly crappy, or just crappy, opponent. It really doesn't matter. I want to know how they did against other strong opponents. Conferences (MVC some years ago, Big 12 regularly in recent years) have figured out how to game the RPI system. The Big 12 (while very deep this year) has been overrated as a conference in RPI in recent years, even though Jim Sumner and others have pointed out that the ACC had many more actual quality non-conference wins.

To me, Kansas is overrated, and MSU definitely underrated in the initial seeds.

CDu
02-12-2018, 09:44 AM
However, if you dig deeper and look at the team sheets (https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/SitePages/Home.aspx) that the committee uses Purdue has gone 5-3 (3-1 non con) in quadrant 1 games and and 6-1 (1-1) in quadrant 2 games. MSU has 3-2 (1-1) in Q1 games and 5-1 (2-0) in Q2 games. A little bit more volume here for Purdue (non-con and overall) but MSU has actually fared a bit better.

Well, 5-3 (.625 win percentage) is better than 3-2 (.600). And 6-1 is better than 5-1. So Purdue has the slight edge, actually. And of course they have played a tougher schedule (3 more games against quadrant 1, 1 more against quadrant 2. So it seems pretty clear that Purdue should be seeded higher: slightly better record against "like" teams, and played more games against tough competition. Though I agree - 11 seems a bit too low for MSU.

TexHawk
02-12-2018, 12:54 PM
I totally agree. RPI places too much weight on whether a strong team played an utterly crappy, or just crappy, opponent. It really doesn't matter. I want to know how they did against other strong opponents. Conferences (MVC some years ago, Big 12 regularly in recent years) have figured out how to game the RPI system. The Big 12 (while very deep this year) has been overrated as a conference in RPI in recent years, even though Jim Sumner and others have pointed out that the ACC had many more actual quality non-conference wins.

To me, Kansas is overrated, and MSU definitely underrated in the initial seeds.

KU is definitely overrated, unsure on MSU. The Big12 will shake itself out. KU still has 6 regular season games left, and none are pushovers. @Iowa State and @Oklahoma State are probably the "easy" games, and KU has already lost to one of those, at home. On the flip side, wins against Tech, WVU, OU would be resume builders, entrenching us in this spot. I'd guess at least two more losses and a Big12 Tournament loss, eventually putting us closer to a 4 than a 2. Nothing happens in a vacuum though, and Texas Tech still has to play @WVU, @Baylor, and @Oklahoma State (along with home vs KU). Both teams could lose 3+ more games in the next month, then who knows? And who is the competition to jump up and take those spots? Clemson, Gonzaga, UNC, Arizona? There are few exciting options.

Michigan State has a risky couple of weeks. The rest of their schedule is putrid, but 3 of the 4 are on the road, where they have barely beaten Iowa and Indiana recently. Then they'll get one of the Big10 basement teams in the tournament before (probably) playing Purdue again. Pretty easy path for them to make it up to a #2, and maybe a #1 if other games fall correctly, but they can't afford a bad loss.

atoomer0881
02-12-2018, 01:17 PM
Interesting that Lunardi is actually predicting Duke to finish in March as the 4th No. 1 seed (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22396698/top-16-seeds-ncaa-tournament-be) (which I presume would be out West). So the question is, would you guys rather be No. 1 out West (where we historically don't play well) and have to potentially face a team such as Arizona in the Sweet 16, or be the No. 2 seed in the East with Nova as our No. 1. I think I'd lean towards the latter. Thoughts?

Kedsy
02-12-2018, 01:42 PM
Interesting that Lunardi is actually predicting Duke to finish in March as the 4th No. 1 seed (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22396698/top-16-seeds-ncaa-tournament-be) (which I presume would be out West). So the question is, would you guys rather be No. 1 out West (where we historically don't play well) and have to potentially face a team such as Arizona in the Sweet 16, or be the No. 2 seed in the East with Nova as our No. 1. I think I'd lean towards the latter. Thoughts?

I'd always rather be a #1. The math is too compelling to ignore.

duke2x
02-12-2018, 01:42 PM
Interesting that Lunardi is actually predicting Duke to finish in March as the 4th No. 1 seed (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22396698/top-16-seeds-ncaa-tournament-be) (which I presume would be out West). So the question is, would you guys rather be No. 1 out West (where we historically don't play well) and have to potentially face a team such as Arizona in the Sweet 16, or be the No. 2 seed in the East with Nova as our No. 1. I think I'd lean towards the latter. Thoughts?

I agreed with you two weeks ago. :) Based on the quality of our road losses, @Clemson and @VT look like losses right now. That would probably keep us off the 1 line without defending our ACC title. 2E is still my best case scenario.

I don't understand the love for Xavier and Cincinnati. I see Purdue/MSU/Duke/OSU replacing them pretty easily.

Troublemaker
02-12-2018, 01:44 PM
Interesting that Lunardi is actually predicting Duke to finish in March as the 4th No. 1 seed (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22396698/top-16-seeds-ncaa-tournament-be) (which I presume would be out West). So the question is, would you guys rather be No. 1 out West (where we historically don't play well) and have to potentially face a team such as Arizona in the Sweet 16, or be the No. 2 seed in the East with Nova as our No. 1. I think I'd lean towards the latter. Thoughts?

I don't like it but I'll choose 1-seed in the West.

Villanova is so obviously a bad matchup for us. Statistically the greatest offense ever vs... our defense. A 5-out, smallball team that bombs threes at a high rate and high efficiency vs... our defense. Jalen Brunson vs... our defense.

As for Arizona, I don't like being bracketed with a preseason top-3 team, but at least they play two centers at the same time. It's theoretically a good matchup for us.

The sample size of us not playing well out West is pretty low (I think 3 tournaments total), and I would have to hope it's just a fluke.

freshmanjs
02-12-2018, 01:52 PM
I'd always rather be a #1. The math is too compelling to ignore.

The evidence on time zone disadvantage is very compelling as well. Also, it is very hard to separate the impact of being a #1 seed from the impact of being good enough to be a #1 seed within that math.

Wahoo2000
02-12-2018, 01:59 PM
I don't like it but I'll choose 1-seed in the West.

Villanova is so obviously a bad matchup for us. Statistically the greatest offense ever vs... our defense. A 5-out, smallball team that bombs threes at a high rate and high efficiency vs... our defense. Jalen Brunson vs... our defense.

As for Arizona, I don't like being bracketed with a preseason top-3 team, but at least they play two centers at the same time. It's theoretically a good matchup for us.

The sample size of us not playing well out West is pretty low (I think 3 tournaments total), and I would have to hope it's just a fluke.

Gotta say, I would pay BIG bucks to see a Duke/Zona tourney matchup. It would be like watching an NBA game. Might set a record for # of scouts in attendance.

CDu
02-12-2018, 02:04 PM
I'd always rather be a #1. The math is too compelling to ignore.

How do our results look as a 1 out West relative to a 2 in the East or South? I realize we are dealing with tiny sample sizes in that case. Just wanted an idea.

atoomer0881
02-12-2018, 02:11 PM
I'd always rather be a #1. The math is too compelling to ignore.


I agreed with you two weeks ago. :) Based on the quality of our road losses, @Clemson and @VT look like losses right now. That would probably keep us off the 1 line without defending our ACC title. 2E is still my best case scenario.

I don't understand the love for Xavier and Cincinnati. I see Purdue/MSU/Duke/OSU replacing them pretty easily.

Just went back and saw that post from 2 weeks ago! Like minds :-) haha


I don't like it but I'll choose 1-seed in the West.

Villanova is so obviously a bad matchup for us. Statistically the greatest offense ever vs... our defense. A 5-out, smallball team that bombs threes at a high rate and high efficiency vs... our defense. Jalen Brunson vs... our defense.

As for Arizona, I don't like being bracketed with a preseason top-3 team, but at least they play two centers at the same time. It's theoretically a good matchup for us.

The sample size of us not playing well out West is pretty low (I think 3 tournaments total), and I would have to hope it's just a fluke.


The evidence on time zone disadvantage is very compelling as well. Also, it is very hard to separate the impact of being a #1 seed from the impact of being good enough to be a #1 seed within that math.

You all make very good arguments -- one of the reasons I love the debate that takes place on this forum. Not sure how much I like that our potential match-ups could mirror 2009 or 2011 though...

Troublemaker
02-12-2018, 02:15 PM
Interesting that Lunardi is actually predicting Duke to finish in March as the 4th No. 1 seed (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22396698/top-16-seeds-ncaa-tournament-be) (which I presume would be out West). So the question is, would you guys rather be No. 1 out West (where we historically don't play well) and have to potentially face a team such as Arizona in the Sweet 16, or be the No. 2 seed in the East with Nova as our No. 1. I think I'd lean towards the latter. Thoughts?


I don't like it but I'll choose 1-seed in the West.

Villanova is so obviously a bad matchup for us. Statistically the greatest offense ever vs... our defense. A 5-out, smallball team that bombs threes at a high rate and high efficiency vs... our defense. Jalen Brunson vs... our defense.

As for Arizona, I don't like being bracketed with a preseason top-3 team, but at least they play two centers at the same time. It's theoretically a good matchup for us.

The sample size of us not playing well out West is pretty low (I think 3 tournaments total), and I would have to hope it's just a fluke.

I should add that realistically, though, I would pick our region based on the 15/16 seeds and the 7/8/9/10 seeds.

If we could know THOSE matchups beforehand, and if I determined that being 2East would be easier to get out of the first weekend than being 1West, I would choose 2East despite Villanova possibly looming on the horizon.

Kedsy
02-12-2018, 02:27 PM
How do our results look as a 1 out West relative to a 2 in the East or South? I realize we are dealing with tiny sample sizes in that case. Just wanted an idea.

Far as I can tell, we've been a #1 in the West twice:

2011: loss in Sweet 16
1986: Final game

We've been a #2 in the East three times:

2009: loss in Sweet 16
1989: Final Four
1988: Final Four

We've been a #2 in the South four times:

2017: loss in R32
2012: loss in R64
1997: loss in R32
1994: Final game

But even though we made the Final Four two out of three times as a #2 in the East (though none since 1989), the overall math still says you absolutely want a #1.

Troublemaker
02-12-2018, 02:34 PM
Far as I can tell, we've been a #1 in the West twice:

2011: loss in Sweet 16
1986: Final game


Nah, you misread whatever source book you were looking at. We were out West in '84 and got upset by Washington. '86 we were in the East.

We were out West one more time and lost early. I'm trying really hard to remember.

thedukelamere
02-12-2018, 02:44 PM
Nah, you misread whatever source book you were looking at. We were out West in '84 and got upset by Washington. '86 we were in the East.

We were out West one more time and lost early. I'm trying really hard to remember.

Ugh. I blocked this game from memory but the scab has been ripped off...

It was the 2011 team and the 'Zona game. :mad:

CDu
02-12-2018, 02:44 PM
Nah, you misread whatever source book you were looking at. We were out West in '84 and got upset by Washington. '86 we were in the East.

We were out West one more time and lost early. I'm trying really hard to remember.

So basically we have just the 1 data point (one game, as our first two games were in local pods) as a 1 travelling out West. Not really useful I guess. But certainly not exciting.

I would also like to look at 1s’ performance in games where had to travel across multiple time zones versus 2s staying in their own geographic region. I don’t know how much difference it makes, but I have heard that the effects of playing across multiple time zones is a pronounced one. Most noteworthy in football. But I do wonder if it carries over to bball.

CDu
02-12-2018, 02:45 PM
Ugh. I blocked this game from memory but the scab has been ripped off...

It was the 2011 team and the 'Zona game. :mad:

No, Troublemaker was saying there was another game. 1984, 2011, and one more.

thedukelamere
02-12-2018, 02:47 PM
No, Troublemaker was saying there was another game. 1984, 2011, and one more.

My blind hatred for Derrick Williams made me miss TM's original post. My apologies.

tbyers11
02-12-2018, 02:48 PM
Nah, you misread whatever source book you were looking at. We were out West in '84 and got upset by Washington. '86 we were in the East.

We were out West one more time and lost early. I'm trying really hard to remember.

We were also out West as a #3 seed in 2003. Lost to Kansas #2 in the Sweet 16. Not exactly a bad result. I don't recall if the crowd in Anaheim was particularly for or against us. Since we were playing another blue blood in Kansas the Arizona fans (#1 seed) were probably rooting against both of us ;)