This Week in the ACC: 3/4-3/10

[pfrduke]

Let's take a look at the week ahead:

Monday

[32]Syracuse (10-6) (+8) hosts [1]Virginia (14-2) (7:00, ESPN)

Tuesday

[3]Duke (13-3) (-29) hosts [189]Wake Forest (4-12) (7:00, ESPN)
[17]Florida State (11-5) (-1) hosts [11]Virginia Tech (11-5) (7:00, ESPNU)
[99]Boston College (5-11) (+12) hosts [5]North Carolina (14-2) (8:00, ACCNE)
[72]Miami (4-12) (-5) hosts [95]Pittsburgh (2-14) (8:00, ACCNE)

Wednesday

[85]Notre Dame (3-13) (+2) hosts [30]Clemson (7-9) (9:00, ESPNU)
[34]NC State (8-8) (-12) hosts [111]Georgia Tech (5-12) (9:00, ACCNE)

Thursday is dark

Friday

[11]Virginia Tech (11-5) (-14) hosts [72]Miami (4-12) (7:00, ESPN2)

Saturday

[189]Wake Forest (4-12) (+12) hosts [17]Florida State (11-5) (12:00, ACCNE)
[30]Clemson (7-9) (-3) hosts [32]Syracuse (10-6) (12:00)
[95]Pittsburgh (2-14) (-3) hosts [85]Notre Dame (3-13) (12:00, ACCNE)
[99]Boston College (5-11) (+3) hosts [34]NC State (8-8) (2:00, ACCNE)
[1]Virginia (14-2) (-13) hosts [23]Louisville (10-7) (4:00, ESPN)
[5]North Carolina (14-2) (+1) hosts [3]Duke (13-3) (6:00, ESPN)

Sunday the regular season is over!

ACC Non-Conference: 149-41
ACC vs. Power 5: 30-26

Efficiency margin (unadjusted) in conference play only:

Virginia - +22.3
North Carolina - +14.6
Duke - +14.2
Louisville - +7.7
Florida State - +7.0
Virginia Tech - +6.3
Syracuse - +3.4
Clemson - +3.0
NC State - -1.4
Miami - -8.3
Boston College - -8.6
Notre Dame - -11.9
Pittsburgh - -13.3
Georgia Tech - -13.8
Wake Forest - -21.4

[fuse]

Figured it was certainly not my place to start it.
No Wake pre-game thread yet?

[NSDukeFan]

Looks lovely like a pretty big week for Clemson’s tournament chances?

[duke2x]

Tonight is a big night. 3 of Duke's 4 ACC losses to Syracuse have come on Monday nights. I will continue this discussion in the appropriate thread. ;)

[PackMan97]

Tonight is a big night. 3 of Duke's 4 ACC losses to Syracuse have come on Monday nights. I will continue this discussion in the appropriate thread. ;)

...and NC State's chances. I think State is in right now, but winning both games this week would allow me to sleep much better ;)

Wish we had gotten a decent win or two more, but that is offset by the fact we only have Wake (without our starting PG injured) as our only lose outside of the Top 24 NET teams.

[Wahoo2000]

Tonight is a big night. 3 of Duke's 4 ACC losses to Syracuse have come on Monday nights. I will continue this discussion in the appropriate thread. ;)

Massive game. Whoever gets the 1 seed for the conference tourney will have a nice advantage in avoiding any of the other "big 3" until the championship game, as well as those extra few hours of precious rest.*

We (UVA) have had some struggles with Cuse in the past (some better documented than others) and there will definitely be a ton of pressure to get the W and hang on to our position w/r/t conference and NCAA tourney seeding. Hopefully Guy and Jerome are bombing away from deeeeep and Hunter is working the zone nicely from the FT area, though I won't be comfortable until the final horn sounds in this one regardless of any kind of lead built (thanks, 2016 E8 game... ugh).

-Wahoo "I hate it when a regular season game has me breaking out the TUMS 6 hours prior to tip" 2000



*Though maybe rest isn't all it's cracked up to be after the display Duke put on in 2017 with Tatum/Kennard/et.al. winning the title while playing 90+% of available minutes in 4 games over 4 days. I still can't believe those guys could even stand up by the last 10 min of the title game.

[akg4y]

Well that was fun. Probably the most fun half for us Hoos all season.. Guy, Hunter, and Jerome were all simultaneously unconscious from 3, after shooting 67% from 3 in the first half... we shot even better in the second and ended at 72% for the game (18-25), tying a school record for most 3s in a game. Felt bad for the 'Cuse seniors.

[ncexnyc]

That was a fun game for about 25 minutes. UVA picked a good night to wear their shooting shoes.

[Rich]

Well that was fun. Probably the most fun half for us Hoos all season.. Guy, Hunter, and Jerome were all simultaneously unconscious from 3, after shooting 67% from 3 in the first half... we shot even better in the second and ended at 72% for the game (18-25), tying a school record for most 3s in a game. Felt bad for the 'Cuse seniors.

Regression to the mean will bite you in the bottom. Just sayin'.

[duketaylor]

Thought tonight could be tough for UVA (although I picked them in the Degen Challenge). Saw they were down 2 at half. Come out of class and they're up a boatload, awesome win for the 'Hoos. They are such a likeable team (ooh, did I just say that, sorry). Should be a much tougher out this year (call me Capt. Obvious) and many will have them to the finals (NCAA), maybe against a Durham squad.

March Madness should be amazing this year; no huge fave, anything can happen.

[Wahoo2000]

That game was super tight and then at about the 16 min mark of the second half, Bennett put in his entire 2016 recruiting class (technically Diakite reclassified to 2015 and left HS a year early to RS at UVA, but those guys were all recruited together). Here's that squad and since the 3pt shooting was the story of the night I'll include those guys' season stats here:

Player-made-att-%
Guy 94-206 46%
Jerome 57-133 43%
Hunter 34-70 49%
Diakite 5-12 42%
Huff 9-20 45%

Shooting ability aside, Diakite and Huff have made REAL strides over the last 10 games or so. Diakite is (IMO) our 4th best overall player by far and has become a full blown shot blocking monster (25th nationally in block %) in addition to solid all around offensive player. The only facet of his game I'm not totally pleased with right now (besides the simon phoenix hairdo) is his rebounding, which is still pretty decent. Huff is clearly behind Diakite on the developmental curve, but definitely has a higher ceiling in almost every way except for bounce/springiness. He's still just showing *flashes* of the player he could become, but those flashes are slowly becoming more frequent and his lapses becoming fewer as well. If those two both have good offseasons, we won't slip too far back next year even if we DO lose both Hunter and Jerome.

I'll give one last shout out to Bennett for a superior halftime adjustment. Chukwu had obviously been coached to aggressively close on the player (usually Hunter) catching the ball in the FT area. Bennett switched it up so that Jerome was receiving that pass with Guy and Hunter fanning out forcing the top 2 guards of the zone to go with them. Then, Jerome was backing out towards the 3pt line forcing Chukwu to extend all the way to the top of the key. Cuse kept trying to rotate to get Chukwu back down low, but inevitably Jerome always found the open guy - either for a 3 or a dump to one of the bigs in a VERY advantageous position. Jerome had 11 assists (I think) in the second half alone, most coming out of that one play. There wasn't really an available adjustment for Cuse to counter with except to maybe go man-to-man, which Boehim (unsurprisingly) never did.

I will say that's one of the things that always has impressed me about K - his ability to adapt and just go to a totally different strategy is something isn't working. I'll add that I'm also impressed that he realized so far back (in January) that the key to disrupting our offense is to totally take away the 3ball at almost any cost. We were still pretty darn efficient in that first game @Duke by forcing Bolden to switch onto guards then going 1-on-1, but somehow K knew even then it was better than to take your chances with Guy/Jerome/Hunter potentially getting hot, which really opens everything else up.

I'd love to see one more game against a fully healthy Duke in the conference tourney final. I'd still probably favor Duke in that matchup, and it might cost us a shot at getting the DC regional, but I don't care. I think that'd be an *awesome* game. (I will say if you DO beat us again there, I prob won't be clamoring for a 4th matchup in a FF or title scenario..... prob a little too "in our heads" at that point!)

[flyingdutchdevil]

That game was super tight and then at about the 16 min mark of the second half, Bennett put in his entire 2016 recruiting class (technically Diakite reclassified to 2015 and left HS a year early to RS at UVA, but those guys were all recruited together). Here's that squad and since the 3pt shooting was the story of the night I'll include those guys' season stats here:

Player-made-att-%
Guy 94-206 46%
Jerome 57-133 43%
Hunter 34-70 49%
Diakite 5-12 42%
Huff 9-20 45%

Shooting ability aside, Diakite and Huff have made REAL strides over the last 10 games or so. Diakite is (IMO) our 4th best overall player by far and has become a full blown shot blocking monster (25th nationally in block %) in addition to solid all around offensive player. The only facet of his game I'm not totally pleased with right now (besides the simon phoenix hairdo) is his rebounding, which is still pretty decent. Huff is clearly behind Diakite on the developmental curve, but definitely has a higher ceiling in almost every way except for bounce/springiness. He's still just showing *flashes* of the player he could become, but those flashes are slowly becoming more frequent and his lapses becoming fewer as well. If those two both have good offseasons, we won't slip too far back next year even if we DO lose both Hunter and Jerome.

I'll give one last shout out to Bennett for a superior halftime adjustment. Chukwu had obviously been coached to aggressively close on the player (usually Hunter) catching the ball in the FT area. Bennett switched it up so that Jerome was receiving that pass with Guy and Hunter fanning out forcing the top 2 guards of the zone to go with them. Then, Jerome was backing out towards the 3pt line forcing Chukwu to extend all the way to the top of the key. Cuse kept trying to rotate to get Chukwu back down low, but inevitably Jerome always found the open guy - either for a 3 or a dump to one of the bigs in a VERY advantageous position. Jerome had 11 assists (I think) in the second half alone, most coming out of that one play. There wasn't really an available adjustment for Cuse to counter with except to maybe go man-to-man, which Boehim (unsurprisingly) never did.

I will say that's one of the things that always has impressed me about K - his ability to adapt and just go to a totally different strategy is something isn't working. I'll add that I'm also impressed that he realized so far back (in January) that the key to disrupting our offense is to totally take away the 3ball at almost any cost. We were still pretty darn efficient in that first game @Duke by forcing Bolden to switch onto guards then going 1-on-1, but somehow K knew even then it was better than to take your chances with Guy/Jerome/Hunter potentially getting hot, which really opens everything else up.

I'd love to see one more game against a fully healthy Duke in the conference tourney final. I'd still probably favor Duke in that matchup, and it might cost us a shot at getting the DC regional, but I don't care. I think that'd be an *awesome* game. (I will say if you DO beat us again there, I prob won't be clamoring for a 4th matchup in a FF or title scenario.... prob a little too "in our heads" at that point!)

My goodness - when did the ACC go the route of copying Coach K's 3pt trigger happy strategy and when did Duke deviate from that strategy?

Kyle Guy had an absolutely Redick-like night last night: 8-10 FG, 8-10 3FG, 25 points. Really unbelievable.

[akg4y]

Regression to the mean will bite you in the bottom. Just sayin'.

Ty and Kyle were a combined 0-11 from three the other night, this WAS the regression to the mean.

[Troublemaker]

Can someone provide a link to that site that's been posted before that allows us to pick the remaining ACC games to create the projected ACC tournament bracket if those picks are correct? (So, it operates similar to ESPN's NFL Playoff Machine.)

Thanks.

First one to link it will receive sporks.

[BandAlum83]

Can someone provide a link to that site that's been posted before that allows us to pick the remaining ACC games to create the projected ACC tournament bracket if those picks are correct? (So, it operates similar to ESPN's NFL Playoff Machine.)

Thanks.

First one to link it will receive sporks.

http://bball.notnothing.net/acc.php?sport=mbb

[Troublemaker]

http://bball.notnothing.net/acc.php?sport=mbb

That's the one! I'll have to spread the love unfortunately before sporking you, but hopefully someone else can get you, too. That's a useful link!

[devildeac]

That's the one! I'll have to spread the love unfortunately before sporking you, but hopefully someone else can get you, too. That's a useful link!

You're covered. :D

[CDu]

The two bubble teams in the ACC are struggling against bottom feeders tonight. Both Clemson and State May rue the evening if they don’t pull these games out, especially State at home.

[robed deity]

Clemson ekes it out. NC State doesn't.

[duke2x]

It's hard to say with this bubble what is going to happen. State lost in excruciating fashion, Clemson survived. Both are 8-9 in the ACC.

[Stray Gator]

Based on the Georgia Tech at N.C State and the Clemson at Notre Dame games tonight, and the Wake at Duke and Va Tech at FSU games last night, the folks staffing the ACC Tourney had better consider bringing in some additional defibrillators. For fans who love seeing games go down to the final possession, there may be a feast awaiting . . .

[DarkstarWahoo]

NC State has to be sweating now, right?

[arnie]

NC State has to be sweating now, right?

I think good chance winner of Clemson-State next week is in; loser is out.

[gofurman]

I think good chance winner of Clemson-State next week is in; loser is out.

maybe - but what if Clemson beat Syracuse this weekend? That makes them 9-9 in ACC with wins over VT and Syracuse ... could they lose to State and get it? whats odd is Clemson is about nmbr 29 in KenPom. The best 30 in KenPom almost always get in the ncaa - you can look back over the years. where Clemson is rated always gets invited but I guess the NET puts this in doubt?

https://kenpom.com/index.php

According to that historically Clemson is in easy - that's whats odd . Pick any year and look - 2010.. only one top 40 team didn't get in. 2015 only 3 top 40 teams didn't get in.

Is Kenpom still used?

heck - to that point why is Syracuse such a lock? if the NET is the metric the cuse are below Clemson and State

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings

(prior to yesterday)

- I would be interested in your thoughts ! It's odd. It's like once the 'bracket' guys put Cuse in the field everyone just assumes they are in.... but the NET says they are way below NC State.
Which metrics are being used this year? Kenpom? NET? others?

[CDu]

- I would be interested in your thoughts ! It's odd. It's like once the 'bracket' guys put Cuse in the field everyone just assumes they are in... but the NET says they are way below NC State.
Which metrics are being used this year? Kenpom? NET? others?

The team sheets will be ordered based on NET. So, much like RPI in the past, that will likely have the most heavy influence of any of them. KenPom rating will be on the sheets, so that will theoretically get considered.

The problem Clemson has is twofold:
1. They've played a brutal schedule (11 Q1 games); and
2. They've lost almost every meaningful game they've played (1-10 in Q1 games)

Yes, they lost close a bunch of times (they have heartbreaking road losses to State, Louisville, UNC, and Miami by a combined 6 points). If they had one just a game or two of those, they'd be in the same spot as Syracuse. But Syracuse is 3-7 so far in Q1 games, including beating Duke at Duke (yes, that game was marred by Duke's injury/illness, but the committee has never downgraded a team's win at selection time to my knowledge) and a trouncing of Louisville.

Basically, Clemson is the victim of extremely bad end of game luck. But, that's the difference between being a bubble team and being somewhat comfortably in.

Now, if Clemson wins at home this weekend, I'd expect them to be in.

For State, the issue is basically similar to Clemson's issue. They are 1-8 in Q1 games. Add to that the two Q3 losses (Wake and Ga Tech) and you begin to see their problem. They just don't have much to suggest they clearly deserve to be in, and they have the two glaring losses staring them down.

If State had beaten Wake at Wake and had beaten Ga Tech at home, they'd probably be comfortably in with a 22-8 record and a 10-7 conference mark. But now they're like Clemson, sitting at an (at best) .500 ACC mark with very few quality wins to boost their resume.

[gofurman]

I guess my question is are the Q1 wins a part of the NET? Because if the net includes all that then State and Clemson are both ahead of Syracuse. Or is NET separate from Q1 metrics?

[CDu]

I guess my question is are the Q1 wins a part of the NET? Because if the net includes all that then State and Clemson are both ahead of Syracuse. Or is NET separate from Q1 metrics?

Well, NET is a measure of overall performance. So, in some ways, yes, NET takes into account Q1 games. But no moreso than it takes into account other games. It doesn't factor in your specific results in Q1 games as part of the calculation as far as I know. I think it's more like KenPom or TRank in that it is purely an aggregated measure of efficiency, somewhat agnostic to results.

So the committee will have the NET ranks, the KenPom ranks, some other ranks that are composite measures. And they will also have the actual game results. The idea being that they still want to factor in "who you played and who you beat".

So I would expect they will not use any one particular metric exclusively, and they'll look at NET independently of results in Q1 games.

All that said, NET is brand new, and there is really no clear idea exactly how they will use all of the information this year.

[sagegrouse]

The team sheets will be ordered based on NET. So, much like RPI in the past, that will likely have the most heavy influence of any of them. KenPom rating will be on the sheets, so that will theoretically get considered.

The problem Clemson has is twofold:
1. They've played a brutal schedule (11 Q1 games); and
2. They've lost almost every meaningful game they've played (1-10 in Q1 games)

Yes, they lost close a bunch of times (they have heartbreaking road losses to State, Louisville, UNC, and Miami by a combined 6 points). If they had one just a game or two of those, they'd be in the same spot as Syracuse. But Syracuse is 3-7 so far in Q1 games, including beating Duke at Duke (yes, that game was marred by Duke's injury/illness, but the committee has never downgraded a team's win at selection time to my knowledge) and a trouncing of Louisville.

Basically, Clemson is the victim of extremely bad end of game luck. But, that's the difference between being a bubble team and being somewhat comfortably in.

Now, if Clemson wins at home this weekend, I'd expect them to be in.

For State, the issue is basically similar to Clemson's issue. They are 1-8 in Q1 games. Add to that the two Q3 losses (Wake and Ga Tech) and you begin to see their problem. They just don't have much to suggest they clearly deserve to be in, and they have the two glaring losses staring them down.

If State had beaten Wake at Wake and had beaten Ga Tech at home, they'd probably be comfortably in with a 22-8 record and a 10-7 conference mark. But now they're like Clemson, sitting at an (at best) .500 ACC mark with very few quality wins to boost their resume.

I've addressed this subject before --

"The Tournament Selection Committee is on a fool's errand." How can the TSC reasonably determine how the sixth place team in conference A compares with the fifth place team in conference B? There is almost no data* on inter-conference games after January 1 -- so deciding at-large teams is just a guess anyway. Give each of the Power Five plus Big East conferences a set number of bids, and let them decide who's in the tournament.

Moreover, why, for heavens' sakes is the NCAA TSC deciding which ACC teams get in the tournament over which other ACC teams? With a set number of bids, the conferences should be tossed the problem.

The TSC would select the other at-large teams and continue to handle the seeding (until I can think of a better way to do seeding).

Here's an example with 36 at-large bids and each of the P-6 getting 50 percent of their teams (automatic plus at-large) in the NCAA-T:

ACC - 6.5 (alternate years)
Big 12 - 4
Big East - 6
Big Ten - 6
Pac 12 - 5
SEC - 6

Left over for other conference at-large -- 2.5 -- which is not many, but the smaller conferences might wish to re-think how they assign their automatic bids.

Oh, yeah -- it is grossly unfair to give the PAC 12 so many at-large bids this year, but we could have (a) a relegation system that would allow other conferences with better NCAA-T records to move into the top five or, less controversially, (b) a sliding scale of bids based on previous-year's NCAA-T results.

The main point is that the TSC has no good basis for comparing teams across conferences, given the measly number of inter-conference games in the second half of the season and no business deciding which conference teams get into the tournament given a certain number of conference bids.

Now, given this unlikely turn of events, how would the conferences decide how to fill their quotas of teams? Beats me, although I would expect many to use solely conference records -- regular season plus some credit for conference tournament results. What could be better? You advance by winning your conference games. Others might use a combination of factors, including analytics. Over time, the methods can evolve to some consensus method.

Just some thoughts for the day --

Kindly,
Sage Grouse
*Thankfully, the SEC and Big 12 play an inter-conference match-up in February. Kudos to them.

[jv001]

I've addressed this subject before --

"The Tournament Selection Committee is on a fool's errand." How can the TSC reasonably determine how the sixth place team in conference A compares with the fifth place team in conference B? There is almost no data* on inter-conference games after January 1 -- so deciding at-large teams is just a guess anyway. Give each of the Power Five plus Big East conferences a set number of bids, and let them decide who's in the tournament.

Moreover, why, for heavens' sakes is the NCAA TSC deciding which ACC teams get in the tournament over which other ACC teams? With a set number of bids, the conferences should be tossed the problem.

The TSC would select the other at-large teams and continue to handle the seeding (until I can think of a better way to do seeding).

Here's an example with 36 at-large bids and each of the P-6 getting 50 percent of their teams (automatic plus at-large) in the NCAA-T:

ACC - 6.5 (alternate years)
Big 12 - 4
Big East - 6
Big Ten - 6
Pac 12 - 5
SEC - 6

Left over for other conference at-large -- 2.5 -- which is not many, but the smaller conferences might wish to re-think how they assign their automatic bids.

Oh, yeah -- it is grossly unfair to give the PAC 12 so many at-large bids this year, but we could have (a) a relegation system that would allow other conferences with better NCAA-T records to move into the top five or, less controversially, (b) a sliding scale of bids based on previous-year's NCAA-T results.

The main point is that the TSC has no good basis for comparing teams across conferences, given the measly number of inter-conference games in the second half of the season and no business deciding which conference teams get into the tournament given a certain number of conference bids.

Now, given this unlikely turn of events, how would the conferences decide how to fill their quotas of teams? Beats me, although I would expect many to use solely conference records -- regular season plus some credit for conference tournament results. What could be better? You advance by winning your conference games. Others might use a combination of factors, including analytics. Over time, the methods can evolve to some consensus method.

Just some thoughts for the day --

Kindly,
Sage Grouse
*Thankfully, the SEC and Big 12 play an inter-conference match-up in February. Kudos to them.

For heavens sake, don't let the cheat's Swofford make that decision for the ACC. Duke will never go to the NCAAT again, even if they win the ACC regular season and the ACCT. :cool: GoDuke!

[dukie’s_daughter]

For heavens sake, don't let the cheat's Swofford make that decision for the ACC. Duke will never go to the NCAAT again, even if they win the ACC regular season and the ACCT. :cool: GoDuke!

That was my first thought too!

[JasonEvans]

Here's an example with 36 at-large bids and each of the P-6 getting 50 percent of their teams (automatic plus at-large) in the NCAA-T:

ACC - 6.5 (alternate years)
Big 12 - 4
Big East - 6
Big Ten - 6
Pac 12 - 5
SEC - 6

Left over for other conference at-large -- 2.5 -- which is not many, but the smaller conferences might wish to re-think how they assign their automatic bids.

While I applaud anyone who comes up with creative ideas for making the NCAA seeding process better, this idea makes it a lot, lot worse.

Your formula would mandate the Kenpom #57 (Oregon), #64 (ASU), #65 (St John), #76 (Colorado), and #81 (Oreg St) teams go to the dance while leaving the #26 (Texas), #29 (Clemson), #33 (Ok), #36 (Syrac), #37 (Baylor), #40 (NCSU), and #43 (Mississippi) teams at home. That's just silly. Isn't the goal of the committee to create a tournament with the best field as possible?

Now, I would love for the committee to instruct leagues to take a week in early February to play more non-conference games as a way of judging the conferences even better at a later date. That would make a lot more sense than arbitrarily including or excluding teams merely because of some pre-ordained quota of conference teams.

-Jason "there are simply too many years where a conference is randomly really good or really bad to make something like this work" Evans

[sagegrouse]

While I applaud anyone who comes up with creative ideas for making the NCAA seeding process better, this idea makes it a lot, lot worse.

Your formula would mandate the Kenpom #57 (Oregon), #64 (ASU), #65 (St John), #76 (Colorado), and #81 (Oreg St) teams go to the dance while leaving the #26 (Texas), #29 (Clemson), #33 (Ok), #36 (Syrac), #37 (Baylor), #40 (NCSU), and #43 (Mississippi) teams at home. That's just silly. Isn't the goal of the committee to create a tournament with the best field as possible?

Now, I would love for the committee to instruct leagues to take a week in early February to play more non-conference games as a way of judging the conferences even better at a later date. That would make a lot more sense than arbitrarily including or excluding teams merely because of some pre-ordained quota of conference teams.

-Jason "there are simply too many years where a conference is randomly really good or really bad to make something like this work" Evans

Sure. That was an example, and the PAC 12 this year hardly deserves the term "Power Conference." Under the adaptive formula for number of spots per conference (based on past results) the PAC 12 would sink like a rock. The "Tournament Selection Committee" is basically a seance masquerading as a scientific endeavor. It's a really dumb idea that's somewhere between a cottage industry (Joe Lunardi, etc.) and a subject for a zillion opinion columns. It should devolve into selections by conference, based on some previously agreed-upon distribution of spots.

And, of course, the "Big Dance" is there to produce a champion, not just guarantee a head coach a contract extension. (Actually, that's the fault of a 68-team field, not the method of selection.) Do you think, Texas, Clemson, Oklahoma, etc., etc. have any chance at winning a championship? Yeah -- I know -- ninth-seeded UConn in 2011 and eighth-seeded Kansas in 1998 -- but really the teams listed have very little chance of a Final Four berth, much less a championship..

I agree that more inter-conference games in January and February would help the assessment of the teams, but it is probably easier to change the selection method than to change the scheduling practices of the power conferences.

Anyway, I'll have more later (a promise, not a threat) and thanks for your go-for-the-jugular response, Jason At least no metaphors were killed in the production of these posts.

[JasonEvans]

Do you think, Texas, Clemson, Oklahoma, etc., etc. have any chance at winning a championship? Yeah -- I know -- ninth-seeded UConn in 2011 and eighth-seeded Kansas in 1998 -- but really the teams listed have very little chance of a Final Four berth, much less a championship..

Strange argument. Who would you suggest take their place in the field that has a better chance to win the tourney? The teams you cite probably have about as much of a chance of a title as teams ranked in the 20s and 30s do in KenPom every year, which is quite small. I know this, they have a far, far better chance than the Big East and Pac 12 teams ranked in the 60s and 70s that your method would include.

My bottom line -- the job of the committee is to find the 68 best teams (including the auto bids who make up the bottom 16 teams or so). Period. Flat stop.

So, any proposed change makes no sense unless it serves that purpose. Does limiting the bids of a very strong ACC or B12 and expanding the bids of an exceptionally weak P12 or BEast serve that goal? I have not seen anything to suggest it does. Your formula keeps the better teams out and puts worse teams in... please explain why that is a good thing? I'm at a loss.

-Jason "I could certainly see some mandate about a minimum number of at large bids for a pool of smaller/mid conference teams" Evans

[PackMan97]

Personally, I'll put my money on NC State winning it all.

I always think State will win our next game. Therefore we should go undefeated the rest of the season. Only hiccup I see is if we stumble in the ACCT and have to rely on an at-large bid....but we aren't going to lose our next game, so it's all good.

[gofurman]

Can’t find my post. Lol. Is it true that the 1 and 2 seeds in a region have to be from different conferences ?

[Troublemaker]

Can’t find my post. Lol. Is it true that the 1 and 2 seeds in a region have to be from different conferences ?

Yes. You'll never find in the same region Duke as the #1 seed and UNC as the #2 seed, for example.

[gofurman]

Thanks !

[English]

I guess my question is are the Q1 wins a part of the NET? Because if the net includes all that then State and Clemson are both ahead of Syracuse. Or is NET separate from Q1 metrics?

I think you may be confusing the quadrant system as a separate rankings system or, more likely, a component within a rankings system. That's not how the concept of the quadrant system works. Rather, the Committee uses the NET rankings to determine which games/opponents fall into a particular quadrant. The quadrants are broken down as such--at the time of the tournament selection, in a week or so:

Quadrant 1: Home 1-30, Neutral 1-50, Away 1-75
Quadrant 2: Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135
Quadrant 3: Home 76-160, Neutral 101-200, Away 135-240
Quadrant 4: Home 161-353, Neutral 201-353, Away 241-353

On the team sheets, each team's record will be displayed to show how they performed in games involving each quadrant. The team sheets will also include the overall NET ranking, as well as KenPom ranking, Massey, KPI, etc. The committee members will be left to his/her own devices to determine how they use all of the information on the team sheets to decide on the field and seedings.

In the past, the Committee used a similar quadrant breakdown with the RPI as its standard. I think we can mostly agree (I would say 'we can all agree,' but DBR) that the move from the RPI to the NET has been an improvement, and because of that, using a quad system with the NET instead of the RPI as its foundation, is equally an improvement. I will reserve my judgment of the concept of using quadrants in general for another day.

ETA: A confounding factor, that other posters have alluded to here, is that this is the first year the NET has existed. With that comes uncertainty about how the Selection Committee will use it--will they rely more heavily on NET rankings as a means of boosting its legitimacy? Will they rely more heavily on other rankings because of an initial skepticism for the new NET? Will they use it exactly as they've used the RPI in the past? Who knows.

[wgl1228]

Can y'all imagine if UVA loses moments before tip off? That would be something.

[CDu]

Yes. You'll never find in the same region Duke as the #1 seed and UNC as the #2 seed, for example.

To me, this raises an interesting, though highly unlikely, hypothetical. Let's say that the committee finds that 5 of the top 8 teams in the country come from the same conference, making it impossible to avoid a region's 1 and 2 being from the same conference if seeds are given by rank. What would they do then? Bump one of them down to a 3 so as to avoid having the 1/2 problem? Or would they discard the rule?

And to the first option (bumping a team down) how is having a 1 and 3 from the same conference meaningfully different from having a 1 and 2 from the same conference?

Again, this is all hypothetical, as it's highly unlikely a conference will have 5 of the top 8 teams. Though I suppose it is entirely possible for a conference to have 5 of the top 12, which brings the 3 vs 2 question back to the forefront.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

To me, this raises an interesting, though highly unlikely, hypothetical. Let's say that the committee finds that 5 of the top 8 teams in the country come from the same conference, making it impossible to avoid a region's 1 and 2 being from the same conference if seeds are given by rank. What would they do then? Bump one of them down to a 3 so as to avoid having the 1/2 problem? Or would they discard the rule?

And to the first option (bumping a team down) how is having a 1 and 3 from the same conference meaningfully different from having a 1 and 2 from the same conference?

Again, this is all hypothetical, as it's highly unlikely a conference will have 5 of the top 8 teams. Though I suppose it is entirely possible for a conference to have 5 of the top 12, which brings the 3 vs 2 question back to the forefront.

I imagine these are guidelines not rules. I cannot see the committee bumping a team down a line.

[UVa1981]

Inasmuch as this link is unlikely to have come to the attention of many on this board, I thought I would post it here: https://www.wralsportsfan.com/brownlow-s-gifs-sequels-seed-deciders-and-more-in-the-final-weekend-of-acction/18238093/

Brownlow's analysis and prediction for the Duke v. UNC game comes at the end of the article. It may not be the most insightful analysis, but it does give a view of what some of the rest of the world is seeing. She also predicts a Duke win. ;-)

Here is a more insightful post-mortem of the first Duke v. UNC game from Jordan Sperber, who does an excellent job (IMO) of analyzing who, how, and why of a basketball game: https://twitter.com/hoopvision68/status/1098955251758100486. Sperber is very good with the analytics.

Personally, I'm predicting a Duke win as well. This is for a variety of reasons, led by two. I think the match-ups favor Duke at the PG and forwards, though Maye probably gets the nod in the middle. Advantage, Duke.

I also think Krzyzewski will do a better job than Williams of cleaning up first game problems. Particularly, I suspect UNC will have a lot harder time in this iteration of milking the slip screens and pin-down screens that they did to such effect in the first game. If, on top of that, Duke can reduce the UNC run-outs and secondary breaks (I think Duke will, but I'm very uncertain by how much), I really like Duke's chances.

My guess is Duke by 6-8.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Inasmuch as this link is unlikely to have come to the attention of many on this board, I thought I would post it here: https://www.wralsportsfan.com/brownlow-s-gifs-sequels-seed-deciders-and-more-in-the-final-weekend-of-acction/18238093/

Brownlow's analysis and prediction for the Duke v. UNC game comes at the end of the article. It may not be the most insightful analysis, but it does give a view of what some of the rest of the world is seeing. She also predicts a Duke win. ;-)

Here is a more insightful post-mortem of the first Duke v. UNC game from Jordan Sperber, who does an excellent job (IMO) of analyzing who, how, and why of a basketball game: https://twitter.com/hoopvision68/status/1098955251758100486. Sperber is very good with the analytics.

Personally, I'm predicting a Duke win as well. This is for a variety of reasons, led by two. I think the match-ups favor Duke at the PG and forwards, though Maye probably gets the nod in the middle. Advantage, Duke.

I also think Krzyzewski will do a better job than Williams of cleaning up first game problems. Particularly, I suspect UNC will have a lot harder time in this iteration of milking the slip screens and pin-down screens that they did to such effect in the first game. If, on top of that, Duke can reduce the UNC run-outs and secondary breaks (I think Duke will, but I'm very uncertain by how much), I really like Duke's chances.

My guess is Duke by 6-8.

Great breakdown, but why is that hyphen there?

[JasonEvans]

Great breakdown, but why is that hyphen there?

Dear lord, someone please spork Mtn for me!!!

[UVa1981]

Great breakdown, but why is that hyphen there?

Vacillation is part of my modus operandi when it comes to making predictions for the future.

I do think Duke is more likely to win by 8 than by 6, in any event taking home a relatively comfortable road win.

Having given this game some more thought, in addition to match-ups and PG and forward and second-game adjustments being key, I think Reddish is a wild card. If he can have a good night from beyond the 3-point line and keep Johnson in check, Duke should spend the game running down hill.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Vacillation is part of my modus operandi when it comes to making predictions for the future.

I do think Duke is more likely to win by 8 than by 6, in any event taking home a relatively comfortable road win.

Having given this game some more thought, in addition to match-ups and PG and forward and second-game adjustments being key, I think Reddish is a wild card. If he can have a good night from beyond the 3-point line and keep Johnson in check, Duke should spend the game running down hill.

Aw, buddy, you missed my joke! You get sporks for your earnestness.

[Indoor66]

Vacillation is part of my modus operandi when it comes to making predictions for the future.

I do think Duke is more likely to win by 8 than by 6, in any event taking home a relatively comfortable road win.

Having given this game some more thought, in addition to match-ups and PG and forward and second-game adjustments being key, I think Reddish is a wild card. If he can have a good night from beyond the 3-point line and keep Johnson in check, Duke should spend the game running down hill.

Isn't Vacillation a little town east of Lizard Lick?

[English]

Dear lord, someone please spork Mtn for me!!!

All over it.

[PackMan97]

Ok Duke, the gauntlet has been thrown. 68 or bust!

[UVa1981]

Aw, buddy, you missed my joke! You get sporks for your earnestness.

Oh no, I think I got it, and I give you many sporks for cleverness (which is a trait I associate with Devils) plus humor.

Would I like to see Duke beat UNC by 68 points (that's it, no?)? That would be amusing, probably in ALL parts of the ACC not located in Chapel Hill.

You're right about the earnestness though. UVa1981's rules for posting on other teams' fansites (including the Hokies'):
1. if you're going to post anything, make sure it's constructive.
2. don't leave too many tracks on their board.
3. talk about your team only if it comes up in the colloquy or you're posting a pre-game breakdown of your team/players. See rule #1.
4. be respectful.
5. make sure you identify your school affiliation, so as to give the natives some context.

and, of course,
6. be earnest; lacking tonal, facial, and similar cues, it's easy to be misunderstood on another team's board if you try to be too nuanced.

I will admit that I sometimes break rule #6 if something occurs to me that I find irresistable.

Anyway, best of luck on Saturday. Here's hoping a healthy Williamson can return for that game. It would give the game a particularly interesting intrigue.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Oh no, I think I got it, and I give you many sporks for cleverness (which is a trait I associate with Devils) plus humor.

Would I like to see Duke beat UNC by 68 points (that's it, no?)? That would be amusing, probably in ALL parts of the ACC not located in Chapel Hill.

You're right about the earnestness though. UVa1981's rules for posting on other teams' fansites (including the Hokies'):
1. if you're going to post anything, make sure it's constructive.
2. don't leave too many tracks on their board.
3. talk about your team only if it comes up in the colloquy or you're posting a pre-game breakdown of your team/players. See rule #1.
4. be respectful.
5. make sure you identify your school affiliation, so as to give the natives some context.

and, of course,
6. be earnest; lacking tonal, facial, and similar cues, it's easy to be misunderstood on another team's board if you try to be too nuanced.

I will admit that I sometimes break rule #6 if something occurs to me that I find irresistable.

Anyway, best of luck on Saturday. Here's hoping a healthy Williamson can return for that game. It would give the game a particularly interesting intrigue.

Simply another great tribute to how classy Cavs fans on this board are.

I can't wish you good luck tomorrow, but I suspect you have a bright March ahead of you and will exorcise some demons.

[DallasDevil]

To me, this raises an interesting, though highly unlikely, hypothetical. Let's say that the committee finds that 5 of the top 8 teams in the country come from the same conference, making it impossible to avoid a region's 1 and 2 being from the same conference if seeds are given by rank. What would they do then? Bump one of them down to a 3 so as to avoid having the 1/2 problem? Or would they discard the rule?

And to the first option (bumping a team down) how is having a 1 and 3 from the same conference meaningfully different from having a 1 and 2 from the same conference?

Again, this is all hypothetical, as it's highly unlikely a conference will have 5 of the top 8 teams. Though I suppose it is entirely possible for a conference to have 5 of the top 12, which brings the 3 vs 2 question back to the forefront.

It's generally true that two teams from the same conference are not given the 1 and 2 seeds in the same region based on the committee's bracketing principles, but that's because I don't believe the hypothetical you presented has ever actually happened. In your scenario, 2 teams from the same conference could be placed in the same region. The key bracketing principles as it relates to teams from the same conference are as follows:

"Each of the first four teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded on the first four lines.

Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional final if they played each other three or more times during the regular season and conference tournament.

Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional semifinals if they played each other twice during the regular season and conference tournament.

Teams from the same conference may play each other as early as the second round if they played no more than once during the regular season and conference tournament.

Any principle can be relaxed if two or more teams from the same conference are among the last four at-large seeded teams participating in the First Four."

So, the top four teams from the conference would be placed in separate regions, but the fifth team could be placed in the same region as any of the other top four teams.

Link: https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-10-19/how-field-68-teams-picked-march-madness

[Bob Green]

Saturday

[189]Wake Forest (4-12) (+12) hosts [17]Florida State (11-5) (12:00, ACCNE)
[30]Clemson (7-9) (-3) hosts [32]Syracuse (10-6) (12:00)
[95]Pittsburgh (2-14) (-3) hosts [85]Notre Dame (3-13) (12:00, ACCNE)
[99]Boston College (5-11) (+3) hosts [34]NC State (8-8) (2:00, ACCNE)
[1]Virginia (14-2) (-13) hosts [23]Louisville (10-7) (4:00, ESPN)
[5]North Carolina (14-2) (+1) hosts [3]Duke (13-3) (6:00, ESPN)



A few good games on this final day of the regular season.

Clemson and N.C. State both need wins to finish at .500 in league play and check that block on their NCAAT resume. They have winnable games but this is Clemson and N.C. State so I wouldn't count any chickens.

Virginia should easily beat Louisville to sew up the #1 seed in the ACCT. Louisville appears to be a broken team who will roll over and die against Virginia's defensive pressure.

And in the regular season finale, I'm predicting a Duke victory. Shocking! This will set up the rubber match in the ACCT semi-finals.

[UVa1981]

Virginia should easily beat Louisville to sew up the #1 seed in the ACCT. Louisville appears to be a broken team who will roll over and die against Virginia's defensive pressure.

I'm not as sanguine about this outcome. We've beaten Louisville something like 8 consecutive times; sooner or later, the odds will catch up with us. We needed a miracle comeback to beat them at Louisville last year, when we trailed by double digits at the 5 minute mark and by 4 with .9 seconds left. We were down to them by double digits this year, but methodically came back to win in the second half. Louisville has beaten UNC and Virginia Tech on the road, plus they have a win over Michigan State. Chris Mack is a pretty good coach, and Jordan Nwora All-ACC forward (whether 1st, 2d, or 3d team I dunno, but he belongs in there somewhere).

Ain't counting this chicken yet.

[jv001]

I'm not as sanguine about this outcome. We've beaten Louisville something like 8 consecutive times; sooner or later, the odds will catch up with us. We needed a miracle comeback to beat them at Louisville last year, when we trailed by double digits at the 5 minute mark and by 4 with .9 seconds left. We were down to them by double digits this year, but methodically came back to win in the second half. Louisville has beaten UNC and Virginia Tech on the road, plus they have a win over Michigan State. Chris Mack is a pretty good coach, and Jordan Nwora All-ACC forward (whether 1st, 2d, or 3d team I dunno, but he belongs in there somewhere).

Ain't counting this chicken yet.

I bet Wake Forest fans would love to have Chris. Matter of fact, all my Wake golfing buddies want him. On your Cavs losing to Louisville, it ain't happening. The Cavs are on a magical ride for the egg they laid in last years NCAAT. GoDuke beat the CHEATS!

[BandAlum83]

I'm not as sanguine about this outcome. We've beaten Louisville something like 8 consecutive times; sooner or later, the odds will catch up with us. We needed a miracle comeback to beat them at Louisville last year, when we trailed by double digits at the 5 minute mark and by 4 with .9 seconds left. We were down to them by double digits this year, but methodically came back to win in the second half. Louisville has beaten UNC and Virginia Tech on the road, plus they have a win over Michigan State. Chris Mack is a pretty good coach, and Jordan Nwora All-ACC forward (whether 1st, 2d, or 3d team I dunno, but he belongs in there somewhere).

Ain't counting this chicken yet.

I'm definitely callig you out for your blatant attempt at a reverse jinx!

You guys will win by 22!

[DarkstarWahoo]

And I’m counter-calling out all the jinxing you-know-whats populating these parts! I can’t abide this. I won’t do it!

[jv001]

And I’m counter-calling out all the jinxing you-know-whats populating these parts! I can’t abide this. I won’t do it!

I'm rooting for you guys. I'm not rooting for anything that helps the CHEATING SCUM BAGS FROM CHAPEL HELL. Well maybe root for them to go un know where. GoDuke!

[Troublemaker]

I'm rooting for you guys. I'm not rooting for anything that helps the CHEATING SCUM BAGS FROM CHAPEL HELL. Well maybe root for them to go un know where. GoDuke!

I'm rooting for Duke to be the 1-seed in the ACC tourney. Two things have to happen, one of which is UVA losing.

[jv001]

I'm rooting for Duke to be the 1-seed in the ACC tourney. Two things have to happen, one of which is UVA losing.

If Duke beats the CHEATS tonight without Zion, I think we'll win the ACCT regardless of the seed. I just like the bird in a hand when it comes to those cheats. GoDuke!

[UVa1981]

I'm rooting for Duke to be the 1-seed in the ACC tourney. Two things have to happen, one of which is UVA losing.

But what happens if both UVa and Duke lose today???? Ugh.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

But what happens if both UVa and Duke lose today???? Ugh.

Looks like the Hoos are steadying the ship....dammit......up 6 now.

[devildeac]

Looks like the Hoos are steadying the ship...dammit...up 6 now.

Yep, just not in the cards today. The bluff was working for a while.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Yep, just not in the cards today. The bluff was working for a while.

Louisville could never Ty the game after falling behind - they just didn't have the right Guy.....

[-jk]

Louisville could never Ty the game after falling behind - they just didn't have the right Guy....

C’mon - L’ville is broken. Maybe before us.

-jk

[DavidBenAkiva]

I don't know where to put this and thought about creating a new thread. At any rate, looking at the final ACC standings, UNC played 2 road games against the top 7 seeds in the ACC Tournament, and in one of those road games, the probable National Player of the Year played all of 34 seconds.

UNC didn't play at Virginia, Virginia Tech, Florida State, or Syracuse.

What a joke of a "share of a regular season title."

Virginia, to their credit, played all of the top 8 seeds in the ACC Tournament on the road with the exception of Florida State.

Duke played all of the other top 7 seeds on the road, 3 1/2 of those without Zion and still only lost 2 road games in the conference.

[UVa1981]

Yep, just not in the cards today.

Should that "c" be capitalized? j/k

Really sorry to see your guys lose to UNC, and not just because a Duke win would have given Virginia an uncontested regular season championship. (Yeah, that would be nice.) As much as anything, it's irritating to see them get to play Duke twice without Williamson. Particularly, when we played Duke twice with Williamson.

My short-sighted sour grapes to the side, I believe Virginia is better for having had to play Duke with Williamson in the line-up. Just like we're better for the UMBC loss. They both make you mindful that you better tighten your game down as far as you can ratchet it. Everybody wants the win, and even moreso now that we're in single elimination season.

Good luck the rest of the way except if our teams meet. To be specific about it, really good luck when you meet UNC in the ACCT. Which you will. I'll be rooting for Duke really hard.

[devildeac]

Should that "c" be capitalized? j/k

Really sorry to see your guys lose to UNC, and not just because a Duke win would have given Virginia an uncontested regular season championship. (Yeah, that would be nice.) As much as anything, it's irritating to see them get to play Duke twice without Williamson. Particularly, when we played Duke twice with Williamson.

My short-sighted sour grapes to the side, I believe Virginia is better for having had to play Duke with Williamson in the line-up. Just like we're better for the UMBC loss. They both make you mindful that you better tighten your game down as far as you can ratchet it. Everybody wants the win, and even moreso now that we're in single elimination season.

Good luck the rest of the way except if our teams meet. To be specific about it, really good luck when you meet UNC in the ACCT. Which you will. I'll be rooting for Duke really hard.

For loovil? Never! ;)

[UVa1981]

For loovil? Never! ;)

Touche. Nicely done.

[UrinalCake]

Good luck the rest of the way except if our teams meet. To be specific about it, really good luck when you meet UNC in the ACCT. Which you will. I'll be rooting for Duke really hard.

Thanks for the kind words. I have to ask - do you think most UVA fans would rather play UNC rather than Duke? You beat them on the road on short rest, whereas you lost to us twice. So at least on paper it seems like you have a better chance of beating them.

[UVa1981]

I have to ask - do you think most UVA fans would rather play UNC rather than Duke?

To be plain about it, I think most UVa fans would prefer to play Duke without Williamson but, barring that, UNC. This is because they want the best chance of winning the ACCT. This is not my thinking, as you will see below.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not at all sold on UNC. If Williamson had played, I think Duke would have beaten UNC both times. Handily. But you didn't have him (any more than we had Hunter against UMBC) and that's college sports. I came away from your second game with them scratching my head a bit: I expected less of White and more of Barrett and Reddish.

As far as the match-up analysis goes (I think that's part of what you were trying to get at), we match up against UNC well. That all starts at PG. Duke has an excellent defensive PG who can neutralize ours to some extent. UNC doesn't, though they do have a good offensive PG. Here's what happens when you don't have a good defensive PG (at least if you're playing a zone). https://twitter.com/hoopvision68/status/1102957230306066432 Notice how Jerome takes the ball in the high post then, rather than trying to go to the rack, dribbles back out, drawing Chukwu with him, forcing the Syracuse bigs to decide whether to help cover our perimeter shooters, the wings to decide whether to help Chukwu with Jerome, and leading to lots of open 3s and shots by our bigs at the basket. Jerome ended up with 14 assists. Frankly, I think that's why our first game at your place was tight (Tre Jones was missing for that game) and why the game at our place wasn't as tight, even though there were additional factors I could point to.

Going down the line on match-ups, I don't see anything about UNC that gives me as much concern as your guys. It comes down to a couple of things. On the UNC side of things, no one is going to have a great deal of offensive success against Virginia just trying to run a UNC fast break, a secondary break, some simple box sets, and slip screens. We practice to defeat that sort of stuff; we're built for it. On the Duke side of things, no doubt Krzyzewski does offer up a number of different offensive looks, but the truth is Duke's talent (thinking mostly about Barrett and some about Reddish) has a lot of latitude to be creative, which is more difficult to plan for than simple box sets. Continuing with the talent theme, we've had great success at shutting Maye and Johnson down, and nobody else other than Williams has done much to hurt us.

The biggest joker in the deck would be the changes that have occurred since our last meeting, and this is about personnel. You're down Williamson (which is a damn shame), and we've had Diakite and Huff emerge more and more. In our game against Louisville, Huff went 3 of 3 for 3-pointers with 2 blocked shots in 13 minutes of PT.

Again speaking for myself only, I would prefer to play Duke with Williamson. This is because, for at least this year, I view the ACCT as a dress rehearsal for the NCAAs in which, sooner or later, you're going to get into a rock fight that tests your metal. The UMBC dismissal last year hurt my guys' feelings. No doubt UMBC was a NCAA tournament team (which is never to be sniffed at) that played lights out hard. But also no doubt they played harder than Virginia and Virginia failed to get to their close-outs timely. All credit to UMBC, but that stung and the players worked harder off-season than they ever have. UMBC was a part of the, if not the, reason for that. I want my guys to get a deep, deep NCAA run to salve the UMBC wound. Fathom what the media would make of Virginia being in the finals. Oh, boy.

Bottom line: I want to see Virginia play Duke in the finals with a healthy Williamson. That way, with a loss, they can go into the NCAAs with even more resolve or, with a win, they can go with greater confidence.

[Wahoo2000]

Thanks for the kind words. I have to ask - do you think most UVA fans would rather play UNC rather than Duke? You beat them on the road on short rest, whereas you lost to us twice. So at least on paper it seems like you have a better chance of beating them.

I think *most* UVa fans would prefer to play UNC. Less talented overall, and we have a much better history against them over the last 5 or so seasons.

Personally- I hope we get to face Duke at 100% (ok, without Bolden, but pretty close). I'd be incredibly interested to see if Bennett sticks to the gameplan from the game at JPJ and dares Duke to shoot 50%+ on open 3s. Plus, I think that would just be an amazing game to watch, even if it's MUCH less helpful to our chances of winning another ACC tourney and getting the East/DC #1.

[fuse]

Likely deserves its own thread, wasn’t sure where to put this link:

https://www.slamonline.com/college-hs/college/cam-reddish-story/

In a season full of magic, we should recognize Cam has been just as much a part of the story as anyone.

[NSDukeFan]

Likely deserves its own thread, wasn’t sure where to put this link:

https://www.slamonline.com/college-hs/college/cam-reddish-story/

In a season full of magic, we should recognize Cam has been just as much a part of the story as anyone.

Until a few years ago, a freshman averaging over 14ppg would be very impressive.