Some early season context: How are the top teams' resumes looking?

[scottdude8]

I thought this post was necessary considering how much overreaction there is to early season results, especially considering we often have no idea who is good and who isn't entering the season, and at this point in the season teams have not faced anywhere near the same level of competition. Case and point: On November 22 (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/145) Joe Lunardi had Michigan as essentially a bubble team at an 8 seed. Less than two weeks later the Wolverines are a No. 1 seed (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/155).

So obviously I think we all need some context when it comes to how Duke compares to some of the other top teams at this point in the season, and how that might affect things come March. For lack of a better ranking system I'll use Lunardi's new Bracketology from today. With that in mind, here are the resumes. Note that at this point I'm considering any win over a "power conference" team as a "good win" given how early things are.

No. 1 Seeds
-Louisville: 7-0. Good wins: @Miami.
-Kansas: 6-1. Good wins: Dayton. Loss: Duke.
-Virginia: 7-0. Good wins: @Syracuse, Arizona State.
-Michigan: 7-0. Good wins: Creighton, Iowa State, North Carolina, Gonzaga.

No. 2 Seeds
-Duke: 7-1. Good wins: Kansas, Cal, Georgetown. Loss: SFreakinA
-Michigan State: 5-2. Good wins: Seton Hall, Georgia, UCLA. Losses: Kentucky, Virginia Tech.
-Ohio State: 7-0. Good wins: Cincinnati, Villanova.
-Maryland: 8-0. Good wins: Temple, Marquette.

No. 3 Seeds
-Auburn: 7-0. Good wins: Richmond.
-Gonzaga: 8-1. Good wins: @Texas A&M, Oregon. Loss: Michigan.
-North Carolina: 6-1. Good wins: Notre Dame, Alabama, Oregon. Loss: Michigan.
-Kentucky: 6-1. Good wins: Michigan State. Loss: Evansville.

Notice a trend? No one has played a proven schedule yet! Outside of Michigan, the three projected top-seeds have a combined two victories against "power conference" (I'm including Dayton and the A-10 in that this year) non-conference opponents (with the early-season ACC game for Virginia and Lousiville a weird outlier). The three B1G teams on the 2 line have a combined two victories against teams that are anywhere near the Top 25 (and honestly, at this point Nova is there more on reputation than anything else). Auburn is somehow on the three line probably just given the 0 in the loss column, as the best team they've played is a Richmond squad that will probably be an A-10 bubble team. Kentucky hasn't played anyone else besides MSU. At least Gonzaga and UNC played some quality opponents in Atlantis.

Every year there are teams that are in the Top 10 during non-conference play who fall into bubble territory, with that early ranking inflated by poor non-conference opponents. The reverse is also true, with teams who struggle in the non-conference often "getting it together" in the conference season, buoyed by the learning experience of playing a tough schedule and the losses that entailed. We have few useful data points on the vast majority of "top" teams! Obviously we'll learn a lot more after the B1G-ACC Challenge this week, to be sure.

But regardless of what happens, the context is worth keeping in mind. Most of our understanding of who is "good" and who isn't right now is based off of reputation and not performance. It is just now December, after all.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I thought this post was necessary considering how much overreaction there is to early season results, especially considering we often have no idea who is good and who isn't entering the season, and at this point in the season teams have not faced anywhere near the same level of competition. Case and point: On November 22 (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/145) Joe Lunardi had Michigan as essentially a bubble team at an 8 seed. Less than two weeks later the Wolverines are a No. 1 seed (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/155).

So obviously I think we all need some context when it comes to how Duke compares to some of the other top teams at this point in the season, and how that might affect things come March. For lack of a better ranking system I'll use Lunardi's new Bracketology from today. With that in mind, here are the resumes. Note that at this point I'm considering any win over a "power conference" team as a "good win" given how early things are.

No. 1 Seeds
-Louisville: 7-0. Good wins: @Miami.
-Kansas: 6-1. Good wins: Dayton. Loss: Duke.
-Virginia: 7-0. Good wins: @Syracuse, Arizona State.
-Michigan: 7-0. Good wins: Creighton, Iowa State, North Carolina, Gonzaga.

No. 2 Seeds
-Duke: 7-1. Good wins: Kansas, Cal, Georgetown. Loss: SFreakinA
-Michigan State: 5-2. Good wins: Seton Hall, Georgia, UCLA. Losses: Kentucky, Virginia Tech.
-Ohio State: 7-0. Good wins: Cincinnati, Villanova.
-Maryland: 8-0. Good wins: Temple, Marquette.

No. 3 Seeds
-Auburn: 7-0. Good wins: Richmond.
-Gonzaga: 8-1. Good wins: @Texas A&M, Oregon. Loss: Michigan.
-North Carolina: 6-1. Good wins: Notre Dame, Alabama, Oregon. Loss: Michigan.
-Kentucky: 6-1. Good wins: Michigan State. Loss: Evansville.

Notice a trend? No one has played a proven schedule yet! Outside of Michigan, the three projected top-seeds have a combined two victories against "power conference" (I'm including Dayton and the A-10 in that this year) non-conference opponents (with the early-season ACC game for Virginia and Lousiville a weird outlier). The three B1G teams on the 2 line have a combined two victories against teams that are anywhere near the Top 25 (and honestly, at this point Nova is there more on reputation than anything else). Auburn is somehow on the three line probably just given the 0 in the loss column, as the best team they've played is a Richmond squad that will probably be an A-10 bubble team. Kentucky hasn't played anyone else besides MSU. At least Gonzaga and UNC played some quality opponents in Atlantis.

Every year there are teams that are in the Top 10 during non-conference play who fall into bubble territory, with that early ranking inflated by poor non-conference opponents. The reverse is also true, with teams who struggle in the non-conference often "getting it together" in the conference season, buoyed by the learning experience of playing a tough schedule and the losses that entailed. We have few useful data points on the vast majority of "top" teams! Obviously we'll learn a lot more after the B1G-ACC Challenge this week, to be sure.

But regardless of what happens, the context is worth keeping in mind. Most of our understanding of who is "good" and who isn't right now is based off of reputation and not performance. It is just now December, after all.

Thanks for this perspective. This isn't college football (thank goodness) where early polls actually have repercussions downstream. Duke will have **plenty** of opportunities to work their way back to a top seed.

[uh_no]

Thanks for this perspective. This isn't college football (thank goodness) where early polls actually have repercussions downstream. Duke will have **plenty** of opportunities to work their way back to a top seed.

fortunately this year it seems like college football will sort itself out. It ought to almost assuredly be SEC champ, OSU, Clemson, and B12 champ.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

And we all know why ScottDude started this thread........:cool:

After the week Michigan had, who can blame him?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

And we all know why ScottDude started this thread....:cool:

After the week Michigan had, who can blame him?

They/he earned it.

[907bluedevils]

Early returns so far this season as a whole point to it being wide open. I wouldn't be surprised to see a mid-major win it all this year.

[scottdude8]

And we all know why ScottDude started this thread....:cool:

After the week Michigan had, who can blame him?

I mean, it was one of the greatest weeks in Michigan athletics’ history. Because nothing else happened to Michigan sports. Nothing. Because it’s basketball season, and only basketball season.

Must... maintain... cognitive... dissonance...

[scottdude8]

fortunately this year it seems like college football will sort itself out. It ought to almost assuredly be SEC champ, OSU, Clemson, and B12 champ.

I don't know, if Georgia beats LSU then there's going to be some who say a 1-loss LSU team should get in. And I don't think it's clear cut that a 1 loss B12 champ beats out a 1 loss Utah that wins the Pac-12, especially if Baylor upsets Oklahoma. Especially if LSU loses there is still gonna be plenty of drama.

[uh_no]

I don't know, if Georgia beats LSU then there's going to be some who say a 1-loss LSU team should get in. And I don't think it's clear cut that a 1 loss B12 champ beats out a 1 loss Utah that wins the Pac-12, especially if Baylor upsets Oklahoma. Especially if LSU loses there is still gonna be plenty of drama.

sigh. it's silly. if you lose your conference championship, you should be last to get in....and then only if there's nobody close to reasonable to take your place. You lose your league championship, you only have yourself to blame.

[JasonEvans]

I don't know, if Georgia beats LSU then there's going to be some who say a 1-loss LSU team should get in. And I don't think it's clear cut that a 1 loss B12 champ beats out a 1 loss Utah that wins the Pac-12, especially if Baylor upsets Oklahoma. Especially if LSU loses there is still gonna be plenty of drama.

Don't want to turn this thread into a college football playoff discussion, but I think that if LSU loses to Georgia (particularly if the game is reasonably close) then LSU's resume of wins over Texas, Florida, Auburn, and Alabama will easily trump the best wins of any of the other 1-loss teams. Plus, a loss to a playoff bound Georgia would be the best loss of any 1-loss team. Best wins and best loss makes it a very easy decision for the committee.

-Jason "Scott is correct that the Big Ten-ACC challenge will help us a lot in terms of basketball and the top teams... 6 top 3 seeds playing each other will provide some good guidance" Evans

[scottdude8]

sigh. it's silly. if you lose your conference championship, you should be last to get in...and then only if there's nobody close to reasonable to take your place. You lose your league championship, you only have yourself to blame.

I wholeheartedly agree... but recent history shows the CFP committee might not. If by 2030 the playoff hasn't expanded such that winning a Power 5 conference is an auto-bid to the playoff I'd be shocked.

[Kedsy]

I wouldn't be surprised to see a mid-major win it all this year.

The last time a mid-major team won the NCAA tournament, the term “mid-major” had not yet been invented. So I would be very surprised.

[Tripping William]

The last time a mid-major team won the NCAA tournament, the term “mid-major” had not yet been invented. So I would be very surprised.

Only thanks to whoever flipped the switch on the A/C unit just as Gordon Heyward let that half-courter fly . . . . . .

[uh_no]

The last time a mid-major team won the NCAA tournament, the term “mid-major” had not yet been invented. So I would be very surprised.

depends on if you count BE/AAC.

Memphis and butler came close enough even before that shakeup for me to not think it impossible.

[JasonEvans]

Anyone who thinks Gonzaga and Dayton don't have a shot to win it all is simply not paying attention this season.

[907bluedevils]

Anyone who thinks Gonzaga and Dayton don't have a shot to win it all is simply not paying attention this season.

Dayton is the real deal this year.

[jv001]

Only thanks to whoever flipped the switch on the A/C unit just as Gordon Heyward let that half-courter fly . . . . . .

Was that you, Tripping William? If so, you deserve lifetime sporkzzzzzzzzzz. :cool::cool:

GoDuke!

[Tripping William]

Was that you, Tripping William? If so, you deserve lifetime sporkzzzzzzzzzz. :cool::cool:

GoDuke!

I've been sworn to secrecy.

[JasonEvans]

Only thanks to whoever flipped the switch on the A/C unit just as Gordon Heyward let that half-courter fly . . . . . .

A/C? I thought a butterfly flapped its wings in Terre Haute.

[OldPhiKap]

Anyone who thinks Gonzaga and Dayton don't have a shot to win it all is simply not paying attention this season.

Dayton is a team I already want to avoid if we are fortunate enough to make the NCAA. Flyers are for real.

[kshepinthehouse]

Don't want to turn this thread into a college football playoff discussion, but I think that if LSU loses to Georgia (particularly if the game is reasonably close) then LSU's resume of wins over Texas, Florida, Auburn, and Alabama will easily trump the best wins of any of the other 1-loss teams. Plus, a loss to a playoff bound Georgia would be the best loss of any 1-loss team. Best wins and best loss makes it a very easy decision for the committee.

-Jason "Scott is correct that the Big Ten-ACC challenge will help us a lot in terms of basketball and the top teams... 6 top 3 seeds playing each other will provide some good guidance" Evans

I agree. LSU has to be in no matter what. They have the resume and pass the all important eye test as well.

[Dukehky]

Worst college basketball landscape that I can ever remember. Top is relative in the truest sense of the word.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I agree. LSU has to be in no matter what. They have the resume and pass the all important eye test as well.

Wait, what sport are we talking about here? Wrong thread maybe?

[fuse]

Looking forward, if Duke performs well the rest of the season, as Selection Sunday approaches, the narrative will be what about that SFA loss?
Is one bad loss in November enough to drop a seed or two?

It will be a wedge in comparing teams of similar resumes.

Holding serve at home, no bad road losses, and a strong ACC tournament won’t stop the pundits talking. I’d hope it would be enough for a favorable seed come March.

[scottdude8]

Looking forward, if Duke performs well the rest of the season, as Selection Sunday approaches, the narrative will be what about that SFA loss?
Is one bad loss in November enough to drop a seed or two?

It will be a wedge in comparing teams of similar resumes.

Holding serve at home, no bad road losses, and a strong ACC tournament won’t stop the pundits talking. I’d hope it would be enough for a favorable seed come March.

I would have agreed, if not for the past couple years in which it’s been clear that the committee regards good wins as more important than bad losses. I believe I did a whole analysis of ranking top teams with regard to their bad losses either last year or the year before, and these didn’t end up hurting teams like you’d expect. I’ll have to search back and see if I can find that thread.

[fuse]

I would have agreed, if not for the past couple years in which it’s been clear that the committee regards good wins as more important than bad losses. I believe I did a whole analysis of ranking top teams with regard to their bad losses either last year or the year before, and these didn’t end up hurting teams like you’d expect. I’ll have to search back and see if I can find that thread.

This could test the impact of a Q4 loss.
I wonder if any top 4 seed since the quadrant system was introduced had a Q4 loss.
Would it make a difference in conference or out of conference?

SFA was ranked 222 (iirc) by KenPom when we lost. I don’t know when quadrant details are determined (time of game play, or end of season). If its time of game play, there’s nothing to be done. Best outcome for Duke would be for SFA to go undefeated the rest of the season through their conference tournament.

Fate, destiny, the best thing to come out of the loss was the big gofundme surge. I’m content with a Duke loss that had a net positive impact on the world.

[scottdude8]

This could test the impact of a Q4 loss.
I wonder if any top 4 seed since the quadrant system was introduced had a Q4 loss.
Would it make a difference in conference or out of conference?

SFA was ranked 222 (iirc) by KenPom when we lost. I don’t know when quadrant details are determined (time of game play, or end of season). If its time of game play, there’s nothing to be done. Best outcome for Duke would be for SFA to go undefeated the rest of the season through their conference tournament.

Fate, destiny, the best thing to come out of the loss was the big gofundme surge. I’m content with a Duke loss that had a net positive impact on the world.

Quadrants are by end of season, that much I know.

[Bluedog]

sigh. it's silly. if you lose your conference championship, you should be last to get in...and then only if there's nobody close to reasonable to take your place. You lose your league championship, you only have yourself to blame.

Virginia didn't win the ACC tourney last year yet won the national championship. Same with UNCheats latest national championship and ours too. Yes, I recognize we're talking different sports, but same argument could apply (and did when the ACC used to only get to send one team to the big dance).

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Virginia didn't win the ACC tourney last year yet won the national championship. Same with UNCheats latest national championship and ours too. Yes, I recognize we're talking different sports, but same argument could apply (and did when the ACC used to only get to send one team to the big dance).

Sports that are so so different that there's no analogy there at all....no same argument to be had.

[BandAlum83]

Dayton is a team I already want to avoid if we are fortunate enough to make the NCAA. Flyers are for real.

Aren't there always sub-regionals in Dayton? The will have home games to the sweet 16?

[BandAlum83]

Looking forward, if Duke performs well the rest of the season, as Selection Sunday approaches, the narrative will be what about that SFA loss?
Is one bad loss in November enough to drop a seed or two?

It will be a wedge in comparing teams of similar resumes.

Holding serve at home, no bad road losses, and a strong ACC tournament won’t stop the pundits talking. I’d hope it would be enough for a favorable seed come March.

I GUARANTEE that if we are 33-1 on selection Sunday, we WILL be THE #1 seed despite the SFA loss. It won't drop us to the 2 or 3 line.

The narrative may change at 32-2, 31-3, 30-4, etc.

[Kedsy]

Aren't there always sub-regionals in Dayton? The will have home games to the sweet 16?

No, that's where they have the "First Four." It's possible they'll have home games all the way to the Round of 64.

[sagegrouse]

I GUARANTEE that if we are 33-1 on selection Sunday, we WILL be THE #1 seed despite the SFA loss. It won't drop us to the 2 or 3 line.

The narrative may change at 32-2, 31-3, 30-4, etc.

Agreed to your first point and offer some data for your second, Duke has been #1 seed 14 times since 1986 and those teams had lost 50 games prior to the NCAA's -- an average of 3.6 losses before Selection Sunday.

One loss: 1999
Two losses: 1986, 1992
Three losses: 1998, 2002, 2006
Four losses, 2000, 2001, 2011, 2015
Five losses: 2004, 2005, 2010, 2019

If Duke is in the top two in the ACC and wins the ACC Tournament, then I feel confident we will be a #1 seed. If we are tops in the regular season and lose in the tournament, there is a fair chance we are #1. In both cases it could be argued that we would be ahead of other ACC contenders like Louisville, UNC and Virginia for a #1 and join non-ACC contenders for a #1 like Kentucky and Kansas.

[jv001]

Agreed to your first point and offer some data for your second, Duke has been #1 seed 14 times since 1986 and those teams had lost 50 games prior to the NCAA's -- an average of 3.6 losses before Selection Sunday.

One loss: 1999
Two losses: 1986, 1992
Three losses: 1998, 2002, 2006
Four losses, 2000, 2001, 2011, 2015
Five losses: 2004, 2005, 2010, 2019

If Duke is in the top two in the ACC and wins the ACC Tournament, then I feel confident we will be a #1 seed. If we are tops in the regular season and lose in the tournament, there is a fair chance we are #1. In both cases it could be argued that we would be ahead of other ACC contenders like Louisville, UNC and Virginia for a #1 and join non-ACC contenders for a #1 like Kentucky and Kansas.

We need to avoid the one and three loss season and we'll be pretty good shape. :cool:
GoDuke!

[JasonEvans]

As I said this past week on the podcast, this is a down season for the top teams. There is much less of a gap between the best and the teams that are merely good. As a result, I suspect we will see something this year that we have only seen very rarely in the past... multiple teams with 6+ losses becoming #1 seeds.

Here are the number of losses of the #1 seeds in previous seasons (6+ loss teams are bolded):

2019 - Virginia 3, Gonzaga 3, Duke 5, UNC 6
2018 - Virginia 2, Villanova 4, Xavier 5, Kansas 7
2017 - Gonzaga 1, Villanova 3, Kansas 4, UNC 7
2016 - Kansas 4, Oregon 6, UNC 6, Virginia 7
2015 - Kentucky 0, Villanova 2, Wisconsin 3, Duke 4
2014 - Wichita St 0, Florida 2, Arizona 4, Virginia 6
2013 - Gonzaga 2, Kansas 5, Louisville 5, Indiana 6
2012 - Kentucky 2, Syracuse 2, UNC 5, Michigan St 7
2011 - Ohio St 2, Kansas 2, Duke 4, Pittsburgh 5
2010 - Kentucky 2, Kansas 2, Syracuse 4, Duke 5

So, only 9 out of the 40 past #1 seeds have had 6 or more losses. I think we will see at least 50% like that this year.

The year that comes the closest to approximating what I think we will see this year is 2016... and even though I think the small gap between great and good will cause this to be a wild NCAA tourney, that 2016 season saw a #1, two #2s, and a #10** to make the Final Four... so maybe I should just be quiet now ;)

-Jason "**- it took a bit of a miracle for that #10 to make it, as the Hoo fans around here no doubt recall" Evans

[gep]

As I said this past week on the podcast, this is a down season for the top teams. There is much less of a gap between the best and the teams that are merely good. As a result, I suspect we will see something this year that we have only seen very rarely in the past... multiple teams with 6+ losses becoming #1 seeds.

Here are the number of losses of the #1 seeds in previous seasons (6+ loss teams are bolded):

2019 - Virginia 3, Gonzaga 3, Duke 5, UNC 6
2018 - Virginia 2, Villanova 4, Xavier 5, Kansas 7
2017 - Gonzaga 1, Villanova 3, Kansas 4, UNC 7
2016 - Kansas 4, Oregon 6, UNC 6, Virginia 7
2015 - Kentucky 0, Villanova 2, Wisconsin 3, Duke 4
2014 - Wichita St 0, Florida 2, Arizona 4, Virginia 6
2013 - Gonzaga 2, Kansas 5, Louisville 5, Indiana 6
2012 - Kentucky 2, Syracuse 2, UNC 5, Michigan St 7
2011 - Ohio St 2, Kansas 2, Duke 4, Pittsburgh 5
2010 - Kentucky 2, Kansas 2, Syracuse 4, Duke 5

So, only 9 out of the 40 past #1 seeds have had 6 or more losses. I think we will see at least 50% like that this year.

The year that comes the closest to approximating what I think we will see this year is 2016... and even though I think the small gap between great and good will cause this to be a wild NCAA tourney, that 2016 season saw a #1, two #2s, and a #10** to make the Final Four... so maybe I should just be quiet now ;)

-Jason "**- it took a bit of a miracle for that #10 to make it, as the Hoo fans around here no doubt recall" Evans

So my feeble memory... I thought Duke was a #1 seed in more than "only" 4 years...:confused:

[BandAlum83]

So my feeble memory... I thought Duke was a #1 seed in more than "only" 4 years...:confused:

Or... over the past 10 years Duke has won the national championship in 50% of the years they were a number one seed.

[JasonEvans]

Or... over the past 10 years Duke has won the national championship in 50% of the years they were a number one seed.

And yet I picked them to win 100% of the time... hmmm, damn new math keeps on getting in the way of my happiness.