scottdude8
12-16-2018, 01:30 PM
The non-conference schedule plays two crucial roles in dictating a team's NCAA Tournament seeding potential, one obvious and one less so: it obviously helps a team create its "resume", but also helps determine both the qualitative and quantitative strength of the conferences. One could argue when the committee makes decisions on teams with similar resumes, the strength of their conference schedule is often the deciding factor.
The chatter from the talking heads thus far has centered on the ACC and B1G being the top two conferences, and the SEC being the only conference in a clear "second-tier". But that also leads to a side effect that hasn't been discussed nearly as much, which is that some of the other major conferences (Big 12, Pac-12, and Big East) are having significant down years. How big is this divide? Using the NET rankings through December 14 (we can debate their merit elsewhere, but since that's the NCAA's primary tool for NCAA tournament decisions I'll follow their lead), consider the following:
The ACC has 8 teams in the NET top 30
The B1G has 7 teams in the NET top 30 and 10 in the top 50
The SEC has 3 teams in the NET top 30 and 6 in the top 50
The Big 12 has 3 teams in the NET top 30 and 5 in the top 50
The Pac 12 has 1 team in the NET top 30 and 6 in the top 50
The Big East has 2 teams in the NET top 30 and 4 in the top 50
Conclusion: There's a VERY big difference in conference strength, using the NCAA's own metric, between the ACC and B1G and everyone else. This probably won't change significantly with only a few marquee non-conference games (us playing Texas Tech among them) remaining.
What does this mean for Duke? In my mind, this team's goal (NCAA tournament wise... obviously at the moment our primary goal should be ACC titles) has to be earning a No. 1 seed. Let's make the assumption that, given the extreme weakness of the Pac 12, the No. 1 seed in the West will end up going to Gonzaga or Nevada (assuming at least one of these schools win out or maybe even just have one hiccup, this seems likely considering the way the NCAA has dealt with these types of teams in the past). That leaves three No. 1 seeds up for grabs.
So here's the big question in my mind as we enter conference play: will the committee reward ACC and B1G schools for playing in the clear top-tier conferences, even if that means they have more losses than the top teams in weaker conferences like the Big 12 and SEC? I can foresee a situation where Kansas wins the Big 12 with 3-4 losses and the top ACC team (i.e. us!) or B1G team (i.e. Michigan!) win the conference with 5-6 losses against superior competition, but Kansas gets the benefit of the doubt they always seem to as a brand name and still gets priority. This could also happen with the SEC champion, but given Kentucky's weak non-conference performance is less likely. This may also come into play down the bracket when it comes to bubble teams. In my opinion this would be a grave miscarriage of justice given how overrated I think Kansas is (I could right a missive defending this point, and I'm sure I will sometime, but I'll leave that for a later date), and unfortunately I think this is only going to continue as they inflate their record against a down Big 12.
There's also this secondary question: does the board think that the relative "ordering" of the conferences, as done via my analysis using the NET rankings, agrees with our qualitative view of the conferences? If so, that could be a point in favor of the NET even given all the flak it has taken thus far.
Disclaimer: I'm obviously going way into speculation mode, but it's a boring Sunday afternoon during the dark period (i.e. exams) of the season, so I hope I can be forgiven for wanting to come up with something to think/debate about, haha. Obviously priority No. 1 is for Duke to take this decision out of the hands of the committee and just blow through the ACC :)
The chatter from the talking heads thus far has centered on the ACC and B1G being the top two conferences, and the SEC being the only conference in a clear "second-tier". But that also leads to a side effect that hasn't been discussed nearly as much, which is that some of the other major conferences (Big 12, Pac-12, and Big East) are having significant down years. How big is this divide? Using the NET rankings through December 14 (we can debate their merit elsewhere, but since that's the NCAA's primary tool for NCAA tournament decisions I'll follow their lead), consider the following:
The ACC has 8 teams in the NET top 30
The B1G has 7 teams in the NET top 30 and 10 in the top 50
The SEC has 3 teams in the NET top 30 and 6 in the top 50
The Big 12 has 3 teams in the NET top 30 and 5 in the top 50
The Pac 12 has 1 team in the NET top 30 and 6 in the top 50
The Big East has 2 teams in the NET top 30 and 4 in the top 50
Conclusion: There's a VERY big difference in conference strength, using the NCAA's own metric, between the ACC and B1G and everyone else. This probably won't change significantly with only a few marquee non-conference games (us playing Texas Tech among them) remaining.
What does this mean for Duke? In my mind, this team's goal (NCAA tournament wise... obviously at the moment our primary goal should be ACC titles) has to be earning a No. 1 seed. Let's make the assumption that, given the extreme weakness of the Pac 12, the No. 1 seed in the West will end up going to Gonzaga or Nevada (assuming at least one of these schools win out or maybe even just have one hiccup, this seems likely considering the way the NCAA has dealt with these types of teams in the past). That leaves three No. 1 seeds up for grabs.
So here's the big question in my mind as we enter conference play: will the committee reward ACC and B1G schools for playing in the clear top-tier conferences, even if that means they have more losses than the top teams in weaker conferences like the Big 12 and SEC? I can foresee a situation where Kansas wins the Big 12 with 3-4 losses and the top ACC team (i.e. us!) or B1G team (i.e. Michigan!) win the conference with 5-6 losses against superior competition, but Kansas gets the benefit of the doubt they always seem to as a brand name and still gets priority. This could also happen with the SEC champion, but given Kentucky's weak non-conference performance is less likely. This may also come into play down the bracket when it comes to bubble teams. In my opinion this would be a grave miscarriage of justice given how overrated I think Kansas is (I could right a missive defending this point, and I'm sure I will sometime, but I'll leave that for a later date), and unfortunately I think this is only going to continue as they inflate their record against a down Big 12.
There's also this secondary question: does the board think that the relative "ordering" of the conferences, as done via my analysis using the NET rankings, agrees with our qualitative view of the conferences? If so, that could be a point in favor of the NET even given all the flak it has taken thus far.
Disclaimer: I'm obviously going way into speculation mode, but it's a boring Sunday afternoon during the dark period (i.e. exams) of the season, so I hope I can be forgiven for wanting to come up with something to think/debate about, haha. Obviously priority No. 1 is for Duke to take this decision out of the hands of the committee and just blow through the ACC :)