MBB: Bracketology 2019-20

[Troublemaker]

http://bracketmatrix.com/

As of the 12/15 update on Bracket Matrix (which is the most current update at the time of this post), Duke is the third #1 seed right now, if you believe in the "wisdom of the crowds" approach the Matrix uses to simulate what the Selection Committee does.

I bet us being a 1-seed surprises some people on here, but remember, the win over Kansas (currently a #1 seed) and the road win over Michigan St (currently a #4 seed but should improve as Izzo's teams get better as the season progresses) are terrific wins to have on the resume.

[Troublemaker]

From wikipedia, here are the sites for the first and second-round games of the NCAA tournament:

https://i.imgur.com/IXM3MoV.png



And here are the regionals:

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


The goal quite obviously should be to take a cushy Greensboro --> NYC (MSG) --> Atlanta path to the Final Four.

Since Ohio St would probably go to Indianapolis and Kansas would probably go to Houston, that path I mentioned should be Duke's path as of right now based on the Bracket Matrix seeds.

Let's continue playing well this season.

[ChillinDuke]

Thanks, TM.

While it's obviously tough to pick the field and seeding at this stage, the preferred path seems clear. My second choice for the opening rounds would probably be Albany under the thesis that it's a second tier location with less reason for the huge "hater" fanbases of big-time teams to travel there and pick up their pitchforks against us. That said, we will get that anywhere we go - but maybe (just maybe) less so in Albany.

Unfortunately, I doubt the Duke staff would pick that location for us if someone leapfrogged into Greensboro. Likewise, I doubt we'd be put there by the Committee unless we drop out of the Top 16 and it just happens to fall out that way.

- Chillin

[PackMan97]

Heels are currently a #6 seed, but the forward thinking teamrankings.com site has them as an 11! Christmas is coming early this year!

NC State is in the first four out...so clearly the Grinch came early as well.

[Troublemaker]

Haha, fyi, it was a moderator that wrote/added "way too early" in the thread title. As long-time readers will know, I love talking bracketology and can do it any time of the season.

Let me say this. We have a thread dedicated to discussing the weekly polls, and I don't see much of a difference between that and checking once a week to see where the bracketologists currently have Duke seeded. As more games are played, both the polls and the brackets will change to accomodate the latest results. It's just that one of those two things is more relevant to everyone's end goal of doing well in the NCAA tournament. So, at least for me, I care more that Duke currently has the resume of a 1 seed than that Duke is currently #4 in the AP poll or whatever.

As always, your mileage could vary.

[Rickshaw]

That assumes we make the tournament.

[Troublemaker]

That assumes we make the tournament.

Nope, if our resume declines as we play more games, we'll start to slide down the Matrix and if we play really bad, we'll slide out of the projected field into "First Four Out" / "Next Four Out" territory and then eventually we'll slide off the bubble, too.

But if the tournament started today, Duke would likely be a 1 seed.

[OldPhiKap]

Current CBS bracket. Sure, they have us at a 2. But the real interesting part — Kentucky in the first four out, and UNC not even that high.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/bracketology/

They explain: https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/bracketology-why-kentucky-and-north-carolina-are-out-of-the-updated-ncaa-tournament-bracket-projection/

[BlueDevil16]

Current CBS bracket. Sure, they have us at a 2. But the real interesting part — Kentucky in the first four out, and UNC not even that high.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/bracketology/

Would be a fun NIT. They explain: https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/bracketology-why-kentucky-and-north-carolina-are-out-of-the-updated-ncaa-tournament-bracket-projection/

That’s frankly stupid clickbait for Kentucky

[mgtr]

With the churning in the top teams, I think the tournament this year will be one of the most interesting in recent years. Instead of a favorite or two, there could be 10 teams with a legitimate shot at the title. As long as Duke is in the mix, I will be happy.

[DavidBenAkiva]

That’s frankly stupid clickbait for Kentucky

I agree that Kentucky should be in the Field of 64. That being said, their resume is looking pretty weak at the moment and they will not have many more opportunities to rack up signature wins in conference. The SEC looked like it was going to be a tough league after last season and the addition of Kerry Blackshear to the roster at Florida. Now the conference looks like it might struggle to get more than 4 bids. UK plays Louisville on Saturday. After that, they have a non-conference matchup at Texas Tech in late January. They need to win one of those games to get a 5 seed or better in the NCAA Tournament. As it is right now, T-Rank projects them to be somewhere near an 9 seed. Another way of thinking about it is that they are closer to the bubble than they are of being favored to reach the Sweet 16.

[Troublemaker]

Looking at the latest Matrix released on 1/1/2020: http://bracketmatrix.com/

One interesting thing is that the 2-seeds all have an "average seed" of 2.x, meaning they are closer to being a 3 seed than a 1 seed. Often, you will see a 2 seed that has an "average seed" of 1.7 or 1.8, for example, meaning they are between a 1 seed and a 2 seed.

What this means is that as of today, the four #1 seeds -- Kansas, Duke, Gonzaga, Ohio St -- are the four obvious #1 seeds based on current resumes according to the collective wisdom of a bunch of bracketologists. (Obviously resumes will change and things will shift around as more games are played).

[devildeac]

Looking at the latest Matrix released on 1/1/2020: http://bracketmatrix.com/

One interesting thing is that the 2-seeds all have an "average seed" of 2.x, meaning they are closer to being a 3 seed than a 1 seed. Often, you will see a 2 seed that has an "average seed" of 1.7 or 1.8, for example, meaning they are between a 1 seed and a 2 seed.

What this means is that as of today, the four #1 seeds -- Kansas, Duke, Gonzaga, Ohio St -- are the four obvious #1 seeds based on current resumes according to the collective wisdom of a bunch of bracketologists. (Obviously resumes will change and things will shift around as more games are played).

Thanks!

Damn shame the cheats are still even on the board. Hope their stock continues to plummet.

[scottdude8]

Looking at the latest Matrix released on 1/1/2020: http://bracketmatrix.com/

One interesting thing is that the 2-seeds all have an "average seed" of 2.x, meaning they are closer to being a 3 seed than a 1 seed. Often, you will see a 2 seed that has an "average seed" of 1.7 or 1.8, for example, meaning they are between a 1 seed and a 2 seed.

What this means is that as of today, the four #1 seeds -- Kansas, Duke, Gonzaga, Ohio St -- are the four obvious #1 seeds based on current resumes according to the collective wisdom of a bunch of bracketologists. (Obviously resumes will change and things will shift around as more games are played).

That's quite an interesting, albeit VERY early, development. If I were a betting man, I'd put money on three things regarding the top-line right now:
1) Gonzaga will be there.
2) The top ACC team will be there.
3) The top B1G team will be there.

Right now, obviously we're the top ACC team by resume, and Ohio State is the top B1G team, so this projection makes sense. But I wouldn't think the gap between us and Louisville, and Ohio State and (right now) Maryland, would be quite that vast. I would imagine that chasm will start to narrow as the NET rankings get more useful data from conference play.

Side-note: if my three assumptions end up holding (which I think is reasonable considering the B1G is the consensus top conference in the league, and either us or Louisville are likely to claim a No. 1 seed as things look), the race for the fourth No. 1 seed could be interesting. Does a Kansas team that lost its two biggest non-conference tests (us and Villanova) and plays in a good, but not great, conference get that spot if they hold serve and win the conference with 5-6 total losses? Or does it go to the Big East winner, likely Villanova or Butler, if they dominate conference play? What about Oregon, who has a solid resume but (as shown by their loss last night) was probably ranked a bit too highly? Or, if none of those conferences yield a dominant champion, might the B1G or ACC get a second No. 1 seed?

With the "flatness" of the field this year, Selection Sunday could be the wildest in recent memory.

[Troublemaker]

With the "flatness" of the field this year, Selection Sunday could be the wildest in recent memory.

Well, that's the interesting thing I alluded to. While I'm a believer in the parity of this season -- i.e. if Duke is a 1 seed, I won't feel like we're much better than our 4/5 seed or necessarily even our 8/9 seed -- that doesn't mean that parity of resumes will occur. Because, for example...


But I wouldn't think the gap between us and Louisville, and Ohio State and (right now) Maryland, would be quite that vast. I would imagine that chasm will start to narrow as the NET rankings get more useful data from conference play.

... in the case of Duke, none of those teams you listed has any wins that are on the level of beating Kansas neutral and Michigan St on the road.

They are teams that might very well be just as good (maybe better) than Duke, but our resume is superior. I'm wondering if despite the parity in quality of teams, we won't have parity in resumes in March. Too early to project that, of course. Still, as of today, there are 4 teams that stand out for the #1 seeds apparently.


That's quite an interesting, albeit VERY early, development. If I were a betting man, I'd put money on three things regarding the top-line right now:
1) Gonzaga will be there.
2) The top ACC team will be there.
3) The top B1G team will be there.


It could be shaky if MSU wins the Big 10 (which kenpom projects them to do). Not sure if they can overcome the 3 early season losses. If Ohio St wins the Big 10, I'd agree with you.

[scottdude8]

Well, with Ohio State about to blow it at home to a down Wisconsin team, we may already have to throw all this out the window... wow.

Obviously I’m partisan, but it’ll be interesting to see what happens if Michigan wins the B1G. If they win the “best conference” and have a non-conference win against Gonzaga, possibly the NET No. 1, that could be hard to deny. Could be a situation like a few years back when Kansas had 6-7 losses, but the Big 12 was held in such high esteem that they still got to the top line.

Things are gonna be interesting.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Well, with Ohio State about to blow it at home to a down Wisconsin team, we may already have to throw all this out the window... wow.

Obviously I’m partisan, but it’ll be interesting to see what happens if Michigan wins the B1G. If they win the “best conference” and have a non-conference win against Gonzaga, possibly the NET No. 1, that could be hard to deny. Could be a situation like a few years back when Kansas had 6-7 losses, but the Big 12 was held in such high esteem that they still got to the top line.

Things are gonna be interesting.

Y'know, if Duke just wins every game for the rest of the season, I think the seeding will take care of itself. Totally practical.

[OldPhiKap]

Y'know, if Duke just wins every game for the rest of the season, I think the seeding will take care of itself. Totally practical.

Make it so. I’m okay with this.

[brevity]

But I wouldn't think the gap between us and Louisville, and Ohio State and (right now) Maryland, would be quite that vast.


...none of those teams you listed has any wins that are on the level of beating Kansas neutral and Michigan St on the road.

Admittedly, it would be very difficult to beat Duke's pair of wins over the #2 and #4 KenPom teams. Kentucky has wins over #4 and #5.

Ohio State has two straight losses and plays at Maryland next, but their best wins are at home (by 25) over Villanova and a neutral win (by 6) over Kentucky. That's probably the third best pair of wins in the country. Unfortunately for them, their big road win in Chapel Hill (also by 25) has become increasingly irrelevant.

Maryland has no road wins (losing at Penn State and Seton Hall), and their best win is against Marquette (KenPom #33) in the Orlando Invitational.

Louisville's home win vs. Michigan is still their best, though I should also praise their win at Miami, at least for the next 24 hours.

[YmoBeThere]

And here are the regionals:

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


The goal quite obviously should be to take a cushy Greensboro --> NYC (MSG) --> Atlanta path to the Final Four.

We did just fine going through Houston in 2015. That was also the last time I was able to attend a game(before that was the Final Four in Indy when I lived in Cincinnati). Having been an undergrad for '91 and '92, what I'm saying is that you want me at those games, you need me at those games.

*I did attend the 2005-06 ACC Tournament(a win) and the 2009 shellacking by Vilanova, so I'm not 100% successful.

[Indoor66]

Y'know, if Duke just wins every game for the rest of the season, I think the seeding will take care of itself. Totally practical.

You speak simple truth but are a buzz killer for some around here who like to talk it to death.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

You speak simple truth but are a buzz killer for some around here who like to talk it to death.

Each to their own. I sporked him for it. Remind me to check in on brackets in March. Til then, enjoy the utterly meaningless banter.

In reality, I will probably check in every so often to verify that UNC is out of the field. Or, one of the "First Four.". I would accept that humiliating outcome as well.

[DavidBenAkiva]

You speak simple truth but are a buzz killer for some around here who like to talk it to death.

I was feeling a little too funny when I posted the comment. It wasn't meant as a shot at anyone. Now that it's January, I am checking the Massey Index and Bracket Matrix pretty much every day. If I was taking a shot at anyone, it was myself.

[Hingeknocker]

10070

Well, I saw the attached 2020 NIT Futures odds on Reddit, and they appear to be real based on a tweet (https://twitter.com/CircaSports/status/1214699576633856001) from the @CircaSports sportsbook. Some eye-catching names here of teams who almost certainly won't make the NIT (Kentucky and Virginia, for two) but check out the favorites!

FIELD +500
North Carolina +1200
Illinois +1500
Rutgers +1500

All normal bracketology caveats apply (which is why I'm posting this here) but I think we can all express a little satisfaction that a team as "not gifted" as UNC is still right there in the hunt for a post-season title this year!

[robed deity]

It warms my heart to see the Cheats under "others receiving votes" in the latest Bracket Matrix.

[House P]

It warms my heart to see the Cheats under "others receiving votes" in the latest Bracket Matrix.

Keeping in mind all the caveats about the "way too early" nature of Bracket predictions at this time of the year, T-Rank has a methodology which I find to be a bit more useful than other bracket predictions which are based on what might happen "if the season ended today". Using the current power rankings, T-Rank simulates every remaining game (including conference tournaments, I think) and then projects a bracket based on everyone's record at the end of the season.

The full report can be found here: http://barttorvik.com/tranketology.php

A couple of takeaways:

- T-Rank currently predicts that 5 ACC teams will make the tourney.

- Duke, FSU, and Louisville are relatively safe bets with a 99.9% or better chance of making the tournament.

- NC State is listed as one of the last 4 byes, UVA is listed as one of the last four in.

- Virginia Tech is listed as on of the first 4 out.

- Notre Dame, with a 3.8% chance of making the tournament, is the only other ACC team with more than a 1% chance of making the tourney.

- North Carolina is currently listed as having a 0.4% chance of making the tournament. Of course, that could improve if Cole Anthony returns and performs well. T-Rank currently predicts that Carolina will finish the regular season at 14-17, so an NIT bid may be a bit of a stretch if things don't change.

[OldPhiKap]

- North Carolina is currently listed as having a 0.4% chance of making the tournament. Of course, that could improve if Cole Anthony returns and performs well. T-Rank currently predicts that Carolina will finish the regular season at 14-17, so an NIT bid may be a bit of a stretch if things don't change.

That therefore predicts UNC finishing the season from here 6-11, with a final conference record of 7-13.

Okay.

[uh_no]

That therefore predicts UNC finishing the season from here 6-11, with a final conference record of 7-13.

Okay.

DEAL.

Where do I sign?

[CDu]

That therefore predicts UNC finishing the season from here 6-11, with a final conference record of 7-13.

Okay.

Not an unreasonable expectation honestly. They have the following games remaining:

Unlikely to win:
Duke twice
at Louisville
at FSU
at Va Tech
at Notre Dame
at Syracuse

Toss-ups:
vs UVa
State twice
Pitt twice
vs Miami
vs Clemson

Good chance:
Wake twice
vs BC

There are a lot of losses on that schedule unless things change dramatically.

[OldPhiKap]

Not an unreasonable expectation honestly. They have the following games remaining:

Unlikely to win:
Duke twice
at Louisville
at FSU
at Va Tech
at Notre Dame
at Syracuse

Toss-ups:
vs UVa
State twice
Pitt twice
vs Miami
vs Clemson

Good chance:
Wake twice
vs BC

There are a lot of losses on that schedule unless things change dramatically.

Agree, although Clemson @ UNC should be moved to the "mortal lock" category for a win.

And I gotta still think that UVA > UNC by a somewhat comfortable bit even with the Cav's recent offensive struggles.

UNC @ Syracuse is what they make folks watch in prison to make them pay for their societal sins.

[scottdude8]

Agree, although Clemson @ UNC should be moved to the "mortal lock" category for a win.

And I gotta still think that UVA > UNC by a somewhat comfortable bit even with the Cav's recent offensive struggles.

UNC @ Syracuse is what they make folks watch in prison to make them pay for their societal sins.

The next UVA v. UNC game could be the first to 40 wins.

[Pghdukie]

Pitt and UNC playing tonight in the NIT play-in game. Loser plays the Washington Generals.

[JasonEvans]

The next UVA v. UNC game could be the first to 40 wins.

There is a non-zero chance that neither team makes it to 40.

[OldPhiKap]

There is a non-zero chance that neither team makes it to 40.

Viewers may hope that the ACCN switches over to women's volleyball at the half.

[Acymetric]

There is a non-zero chance that neither team makes it to 40.

Wasn't there already a game like that?

[Nugget]

ESPN's John Gasaway has a piece up on his blog -- https://johngasaway.com/ -- advocating replacing the Committee for purposes of selection/seeding with some form of wins-based statistical ranking method; he proposes either Torvik's Wins-Above-Bubble ("WAB") or Strength of Record.

If the NCAA didn't want to pick just one such method, presumably they could (like with the NET, but better) create some kind of composite formulated from several different of such methodologies, that could have the benefit of being (1) transparent and (2) remove the vagaries and conspiracy theories surrounding the Committee and (3) no less "accurate" in its rankings than the Committee's choices.

Here's the crux of his argument for the benefits of such a change (beyond just "this isn't something we should be doing by a Committee"):

“[Replacing selection/seeding by a committee with WAB or SOR-type method] would make its impact felt on every aspect of the season … . Selection would become real-time, and each game’s true impact on the bubble or on the race for the four No. 1 seeds would be known day by day. Conference tournaments in particular would be turbo-charged as we’d know the exact stakes in play and as bids change hands hour by hour.

Then, with the field already selected, Selection Sunday could transcend the mere reading of a static list and instead be as entertaining and unpredictable as an NBA draft. The bracket could build itself before our eyes according to choices made in real time by 68 programs. Is it better for No. 3 seed Michigan to play in a bracket of death close to home or to head out West for a more favorable No. 6 seed? Why is a third party making this calculation? Let Juwan Howard decide, and let him do so live on CBS and on the clock.”

I know we've debated over the years the plusses and minuses of having the bracketing done via the kind of "draft" Gasaway proposes. Personally, I'd love it -- as it would greatly increase the drama and theatre of the the Selection Sunday process and provide much better debate fodder over the dozens of decisions the schools/coaches make about matchups and placement vs. carping about, e.g., the Committee hosing Duke by putting Michigan St. in our region, etc.

But, his point about the effect his proposed approach would have on the last couple of weeks of the regular season and conference tournament play is pretty legit too -- people would be able to see in real time and based on real data (not merely what Joe Lunardi or Jerry Palm or the Bracket Matrix predicts the Committee will do) of every win and loss by every team on the composition of the NCAA tournament field.

[sagegrouse]

That therefore predicts UNC finishing the season from here 6-11, with a final conference record of 7-13.

Okay.

Yeah, but. Yeah, but. UNC almost always has a "swoon" in December and early January -- both under Roy and under Dean (and in 19987-1998 under Gut IIRC). I wouldn't be so quick to write off the Tar Heels as an NCAA team. Roy's recent screed, while ostensibly disgraceful, will no doubt serve the purpose of motivating an under-performing, disorganized team.

[-jk]

ESPN's John Gasaway has a piece up on his blog -- https://johngasaway.com/ -- advocating replacing the Committee for purposes of selection/seeding with some form of wins-based statistical ranking method; he proposes either Torvik's Wins-Above-Bubble ("WAB") or Strength of Record.

If the NCAA didn't want to pick just one such method, presumably they could (like with the NET, but better) create some kind of composite formulated from several different of such methodologies, that could have the benefit of being (1) transparent and (2) remove the vagaries and conspiracy theories surrounding the Committee and (3) no less "accurate" in its rankings than the Committee's choices.

Here's the crux of his argument for the benefits of such a change (beyond just "this isn't something we should be doing by a Committee"):

“[Replacing selection/seeding by a committee with WAB or SOR-type method] would make its impact felt on every aspect of the season … . Selection would become real-time, and each game’s true impact on the bubble or on the race for the four No. 1 seeds would be known day by day. Conference tournaments in particular would be turbo-charged as we’d know the exact stakes in play and as bids change hands hour by hour.

Then, with the field already selected, Selection Sunday could transcend the mere reading of a static list and instead be as entertaining and unpredictable as an NBA draft. The bracket could build itself before our eyes according to choices made in real time by 68 programs. Is it better for No. 3 seed Michigan to play in a bracket of death close to home or to head out West for a more favorable No. 6 seed? Why is a third party making this calculation? Let Juwan Howard decide, and let him do so live on CBS and on the clock.”

I know we've debated over the years the plusses and minuses of having the bracketing done via the kind of "draft" Gasaway proposes. Personally, I'd love it -- as it would greatly increase the drama and theatre of the the Selection Sunday process and provide much better debate fodder over the dozens of decisions the schools/coaches make about matchups and placement vs. carping about, e.g., the Committee hosing Duke by putting Michigan St. in our region, etc.

But, his point about the effect his proposed approach would have on the last couple of weeks of the regular season and conference tournament play is pretty legit too -- people would be able to see in real time and based on real data (not merely what Joe Lunardi or Jerry Palm or the Bracket Matrix predicts the Committee will do) of every win and loss by every team on the composition of the NCAA tournament field.

I have read that the NCAA wants a system that doesn't reward aggressively running up the score. The computer models generally reward that sort of behavior, but NET doesn't.

-jk

[OldPhiKap]

Yeah, but. Yeah, but. UNC almost always has a "swoon" in December and early January -- both under Roy and under Dean (and in 19987-1998 under Gut IIRC). I wouldn't be so quick to write off the Tar Heels as an NCAA team. Roy's recent screed, while ostensibly disgraceful, will no doubt serve the purpose of motivating an under-performing, disorganized team.

Agreed, I have seen the Lazarus act in Chapel Hill plenty of times unfortunately. My default remains that they make the tourney.

[Nugget]

I have read that the NCAA wants a system that doesn't reward aggressively running up the score. The computer models generally reward that sort of behavior, but NET doesn't.

-jk

Yep (and I think they designed the NET to cut off the impact of margin of victory at something like 12 points). They could incorporate that type of adjustment to a WAB/SOR ratings-based system, though all it would really do is make them less accurate.

It's also sort of a ridiculous stance for them to take given that the human Committee members themselves undoubtedly do pay attention to margin of victory on the margins of their selection decisions. It's hard to point to obvious examples given the larger sample size of games for the Basketball tournament, but the football playoff committee (I know, technically not "the NCAA") certainly paid a great deal of attention to margin of victory the year they jumped Ohio St. over TCU/Baylor for blasting Wisconsin 59-0 in the Big Ten title game, when they likely wouldn't have if it had won 31-28.

[NYBri]

Pitt and UNC playing tonight in the NIT play-in game. Loser plays the Washington Generals.

Cheats v. The Generals

[OldPhiKap]

Cheats v. The Generals

Cheats < The Generals. Take the G’s and give the points.

[Bluedog]

ESPN's John Gasaway has a piece up on his blog -- https://johngasaway.com/ -- advocating replacing the Committee for purposes of selection/seeding with some form of wins-based statistical ranking method; he proposes either Torvik's Wins-Above-Bubble ("WAB") or Strength of Record.

If the NCAA didn't want to pick just one such method, presumably they could (like with the NET, but better) create some kind of composite formulated from several different of such methodologies, that could have the benefit of being (1) transparent and (2) remove the vagaries and conspiracy theories surrounding the Committee and (3) no less "accurate" in its rankings than the Committee's choices.

Here's the crux of his argument for the benefits of such a change (beyond just "this isn't something we should be doing by a Committee"):

“[Replacing selection/seeding by a committee with WAB or SOR-type method] would make its impact felt on every aspect of the season … . Selection would become real-time, and each game’s true impact on the bubble or on the race for the four No. 1 seeds would be known day by day. Conference tournaments in particular would be turbo-charged as we’d know the exact stakes in play and as bids change hands hour by hour.

Then, with the field already selected, Selection Sunday could transcend the mere reading of a static list and instead be as entertaining and unpredictable as an NBA draft. The bracket could build itself before our eyes according to choices made in real time by 68 programs. Is it better for No. 3 seed Michigan to play in a bracket of death close to home or to head out West for a more favorable No. 6 seed? Why is a third party making this calculation? Let Juwan Howard decide, and let him do so live on CBS and on the clock.”

I know we've debated over the years the plusses and minuses of having the bracketing done via the kind of "draft" Gasaway proposes. Personally, I'd love it -- as it would greatly increase the drama and theatre of the the Selection Sunday process and provide much better debate fodder over the dozens of decisions the schools/coaches make about matchups and placement vs. carping about, e.g., the Committee hosing Duke by putting Michigan St. in our region, etc.

But, his point about the effect his proposed approach would have on the last couple of weeks of the regular season and conference tournament play is pretty legit too -- people would be able to see in real time and based on real data (not merely what Joe Lunardi or Jerry Palm or the Bracket Matrix predicts the Committee will do) of every win and loss by every team on the composition of the NCAA tournament field.

From an entertainment perspective, it'd be great. The major downside is basically teams would then be required to scout the rest of the NCAA teams to make those decisions as to where they want to be placed. Do we really want dedicated "scout coaches" across the country and schools dedicating that much time, effort, and money to figuring out the most favorable matchups? That sort of expertise is probably not something that should be at play in determining a champion even though it sounds like a lot of fun.

[Acymetric]

I have read that the NCAA wants a system that doesn't reward aggressively running up the score. The computer models generally reward that sort of behavior, but NET doesn't.

-jk

I thought at least some of the advanced stats sites capped things at a certain point for blowout losses, but maybe I'm mistaken. Certainly, that could be done. I've also never been entirely sure why this is such a problem anyway.

[tbyers11]

I thought at least some of the advanced stats sites capped things at a certain point for blowout losses, but maybe I'm mistaken. Certainly, that could be done. I've also never been entirely sure why this is such a problem anyway.

I think Ken Pom does cap margin of victory. But I think it is around 25 pts and it was because he didn’t see increased predictive value in a 35 pt win vs a 25 pt win.

I agree that I have no idea why the NET would want a cap around 10. To me, there is a big difference between winning by 20 vs 10. It’s not “running up the score” at that level.

[OldPhiKap]

I thought at least some of the advanced stats sites capped things at a certain point for blowout losses, but maybe I'm mistaken. Certainly, that could be done. I've also never been entirely sure why this is such a problem anyway.

When Steve Spurrier was at Florida, they ran up the score against UGA. The Georgia coach at the time (Ray Goff) was furious, and after the game Goff confronted Spurrier at mid-field and demanded to know why Steve had run up the score.

"Damn, Ray," responded Spurrier, "I didn't see in the rule book where it was my job to stop my team from scoring."

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

From an entertainment perspective, it'd be great. The major downside is basically teams would then be required to scout the rest of the NCAA teams to make those decisions as to where they want to be placed. Do we really want dedicated "scout coaches" across the country and schools dedicating that much time, effort, and money to figuring out the most favorable matchups? That sort of expertise is probably not something that should be at play in determining a champion even though it sounds like a lot of fun.

I don't want tournament brackets dictated by "what system is most dramatic or entertaining."

No thank you.

[SCMatt33]

I think Ken Pom does cap margin of victory. But I think it is around 25 pts and it was because he didn’t see increased predictive value in a 35 pt win vs a 25 pt win.

I agree that I have no idea why the NET would want a cap around 10. To me, there is a big difference between winning by 20 vs 10. It’s not “running up the score” at that level.

Also remember that while the MOV component of NET is capped at 10 points per game, there is an entirely separate net efficiency component. This is based on raw efficiency (not adjusted for opponent strength) and there’s no cap on efficiency margin, so this is essentially an uncapped margin component, just adjusted for tempo.

[tbyers11]

Also remember that while the MOV component of NET is capped at 10 points per game, there is an entirely separate net efficiency component. This is based on raw efficiency (not adjusted for opponent strength) and there’s no cap on efficiency margin, so this is essentially an uncapped margin component, just adjusted for tempo.

Thanks for the info. I haven't dived that deeply into the NET. If I understand you correctly though, the MOV component is partially double-counting the some of the same data from the raw efficiency component. That is odd

[devildeac]

That therefore predicts UNC finishing the season from here 6-11, with a final conference record of 7-13.

Okay.

Still too many W for me.

9F.

[AGDukesky]

It is hard to believe the ACC is only a 4-5 bid conference after the preseason expectations. Unfortunately the middle/bottom of the conference has really earned it. Honestly there might only be three deserving teams in the league, but Virginia’s coaching and experience combined with how awful the rest of the teams look should be enough to get enough wins. Hopefully 1-2 teams can take advantage like State and maybe BC to make good resumes...

[Hingeknocker]

I don't want tournament brackets dictated by "what system is most dramatic or entertaining."

No thank you.

I totally agree. And one of the *problems* right now with the tournament bracketing process is that the committee *does* care about being more entertaining. Once they opened Pandora's Box and started geographically placing teams past the 1-line, they tainted the whole thing.

I would be in favor of continuing to have a committee that selects the teams, but seeding should be done via a straight 1-68 ranking of the teams selected, based on whatever your favorite metric/s would be. (And not NET.)

[SCMatt33]

Thanks for the info. I haven't dived that deeply into the NET. If I understand you correctly though, the MOV component is partially double-counting the some of the same data from the raw efficiency component. That is odd

It’s not that odd. There’s a lot of cross pollination between categories incorporated into the NET, especially on the results based side. The reality is that the NCAA is not very transparent on the exact calculation, so it’s hard to know how much each factor is weighted. Of the five categories they list, 3 are more about “did you win?” and the other two are about “How much did you win or lose by?”. Within that, each individual factor favors certain things over others. So having one that caps and one that doesn’t isn’t necessarily better or worse, but because one of the categories is specifically called “margin of victory” and that category is capped, it can lead to confusion that winning by more than the cap can’t help your NET, which isn’t true because it factors into another category. The link below is a primer article the NCAA released last year with some basic details.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-11-26/net-explained-ncaa-adopts-new-college-basketball-ranking

[CameronBornAndBred]

While I don't disagree with Lunardi having only 5 ACC teams in the bracket, what's up him cramming them all into one region?
Duke is in the East, FSU in the South, and everyone else is plucked into the Mid-West, including play-in NCSU. I can't see the selection committee doing that. Two teams, sure, but not three and leaving one region ACC free.
Also, Lunardi has set up a potential Duke - SFA rematch.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

[Nugget]

I totally agree. And one of the *problems* right now with the tournament bracketing process is that the committee *does* care about being more entertaining. Once they opened Pandora's Box and started geographically placing teams past the 1-line, they tainted the whole thing.

I would be in favor of continuing to have a committee that selects the teams, but seeding should be done via a straight 1-68 ranking of the teams selected, based on whatever your favorite metric/s would be. (And not NET.)

While that would be, objectively, fairer than the way they do it now, I seriously doubt it could happen because it would basically render moot the "selection show."

So, if the choice is between the current system of the bracketing being done by a committee of ADs -- who (non-transparently) sort of do it by the 1-68 rankings, but sort of do it by geography (and their guess as to which region would be perceived to be better for team x or y other than the overall #1 seed who gets to choose) and sort of do it by their rules about trying to avoid rematches (but not always) since the only rules they really have to adhere to are about keeping teams from the same conference out of the same region in seeds 1-4 and separated for a certain number of rounds depending on how often they played -- and one where each school, in the order of the straight 1-68 rankings, picks its spot in the bracket (presumably subject to the same rules about conference teams not being bracketed together), then I don't see any way it ends up worse than what we have now.

And to respond to the poster above about that somehow being undesirable because it would require coaches to spend time planning for which spot to pick, I don't see that as much of a downside. As with scouting generally, there would be some variance -- some would approach it analytically/methodically, others might apply some short of emotional decision (aiming for a particular matchup, like Wichita choosing to be an 8 seed in the Midwest to get a shot at Kansas rather than a 7 someplace else, or to avoid a particular matchup); but, I'm sure most coaches would simply pick based on the highest bracket spot they can get + geography, so wouldn't spend much time on the issue at all on the premise of "I don't care who we play, I'm worried about my team."

But, I'd much rather be debating the handful of interesting decisions that would occur -- "did Izzo choose to avoid Duke or be bracketed with Duke" than the current tiresome debate over who the Committee screwed.

[Acymetric]

While I don't disagree with Lunardi having only 5 ACC teams in the bracket, what's up him cramming them all into one region?
Duke is in the East, FSU in the South, and everyone else is plucked into the Mid-West, including play-in NCSU. I can't see the selection committee doing that. Two teams, sure, but not three and leaving one region ACC free.
Also, Lunardi has set up a potential Duke - SFA rematch.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

They may not actually do it, but it falls within the rules about how early conference teams can meet based on how many times they played in the regular season/tournament (it happens to work out that it wouldn't matter if any of those teams met in the ACC tournament the way they're seeded).

[DavidBenAkiva]

With Kansas and now Michigan State losing this weekend, there's a new pecking order for 1 seeds.

Baylor, Duke, and Gonzaga appear to be clear-cut favorites as of now for 1 seeds in the South, East, and West, respectively. I would argue that Butler is in a pretty good spot for a 1 seed in the Midwest at the moment with San Diego State and Auburn worth considering as well. I guess the important factor here is that none of these teams are in a position to unseat Duke in the East region for the 1 seed.

Looking at the teams contending for a top 4 seed, Duke is in a really good position should the Blue Devils finish the season with the best record in the ACC. There just isn't another team in the northeast or Mid Atlantic that is there to challenge for the New York City regional. Maryland is the closest contender, but they would have to do a lot to truly contend. The same is true for Louisville.

A lot can and will change over the next 6 weeks, but I feel pretty good about how things look for Duke at the moment.

[duke2x]

Looking at the teams contending for a top 4 seed, Duke is in a really good position should the Blue Devils finish the season with the best record in the ACC. There just isn't another team in the northeast or Mid Atlantic that is there to challenge for the New York City regional. Maryland is the closest contender, but they would have to do a lot to truly contend. The same is true for Louisville. A lot can and will change over the next 6 weeks, but I feel pretty good about how things look for Duke at the moment.

Louisville would prefer Indianapolis by a large margin. It's the equivalent of UNC drawing Greensboro. The under the radar schools that would want NYC are Seton Hall and Villanova. Both are capable of winning the Big East and making a claim for a #1 seed at this point.

Winning this ACC isn't going to guarantee you a #1 seed, particularly if KS and MSU continue to struggle. I would not complain too much if we were the #2 seed in NYC.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Louisville would prefer Indianapolis by a large margin. It's the equivalent of UNC drawing Greensboro. The under the radar schools that would want NYC are Seton Hall and Villanova. Both are capable of winning the Big East and making a claim for a #1 seed at this point.

Winning this ACC isn't going to guarantee you a #1 seed, particularly if KS and MSU continue to struggle. I would not complain too much if we were the #2 seed in NYC.

I think you are right about Villanova and Seton Hall being options for the #1 seed in NYC, although that would require a lot of things to happen, such as Butler collapsing. Speaking of Butler, the reason I don't see Louisville being competitive for the Indy region #1 is that there are so many teams in the Midwest that have an inside track to that Midwest #1 Seed, including Butler, Michigan State, Kansas, and others. I think being in the Midwest region is an option for Louisville, but not as the #1 seed.

[budwom]

When Steve Spurrier was at Florida, they ran up the score against UGA. The Georgia coach at the time (Ray Goff) was furious, and after the game Goff confronted Spurrier at mid-field and demanded to know why Steve had run up the score.

"Damn, Ray," responded Spurrier, "I didn't see in the rule book where it was my job to stop my team from scoring."

Reminiscent of a Duke - UVA football game in which (IIRC which is perilous) Duke trailed 28-0 in the first quarter and lost by a huge margin. Crusty (but competent) UVA coach George Welsh continued to pour it on, and after the game said "I can't help it if they can't tackle." He was right, of course.

[SCMatt33]

I think you are right about Villanova and Seton Hall being options for the #1 seed in NYC, although that would require a lot of things to happen, such as Butler collapsing. Speaking of Butler, the reason I don't see Louisville being competitive for the Indy region #1 is that there are so many teams in the Midwest that have an inside track to that Midwest #1 Seed, including Butler, Michigan State, Kansas, and others. I think being in the Midwest region is an option for Louisville, but not as the #1 seed.

This highlights the main way that Duke could wind up a 1 seed somewhere besides NYC. Obviously there’s still a long way to go, so exactly who is going to be in the running by March (including Duke) is a huge question mark, but there’s several teams in the running that prefer the midwest. If two of those teams get a 1 seed, the second one could take NYC if they’re higher on the seed list than Duke. For the sake of illustration let’s assume that exactly 1 team out of Oregon, Gonzaga and San Diego State get a 1 seed (another wrench if either 2 or 0 of those teams get one). Furthermore, a plausible scenario could have Duke, Kansas and Butler as 1 seeds in some order. If the order is Butler, KU, Duke, Butler takes Indy and Kansas moves to its second choice of Houston leaving NYC for Duke. If the order is KU, Butler, Duke, then KU gets its first choice of Indy, and Butler would take NYC as it’s second choice, leaving Houston as the last region for Duke (with a high probability of Baylor as the 2 or 3 there).

Suffice it to say that given who’s in the top 20 as of today, the seed race is more friendly to east coast teams that it has been in the past. The large number of Midwest and West coast teams in the running means that Duke would still have a theoretical chance to get NYC as number 3 or even 4 overall, when in most years, number 4 overall was a lock to be kicked out west and number 3 likely had to travel as well. It’s way too early to get into the minutiae of exactly which teams prefer which regions because there’s simply too many teams in the running and very small changes at the top can impact where teams down the line go because of differences in 2nd and 3rd choice destinations.

EDIT: It has come to my attention that the title of this thread already acknowledges that it’s way too early, but I stand by my point!

[BlueDevil16]

2 or a 3 seed now? Terrible week

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

2 or a 3 seed now? Terrible week

Yes, but everyone lost.

[WVDUKEFAN]

2 or a 3 seed now? Terrible week

Way too much basketball remaining to speculate.

[BlueDevil16]

Way too much basketball remaining to speculate.

Yet journalists make hundreds of thousand dollars a year speculating

[richardjackson199]

2 or a 3 seed now? Terrible week

2 Seed at Worst. Loong way to go. It's Mid-January and so much basketball for us and others to play.

We'll learn from this and this team could easily earn a 1 if we stay healthy and come Together. And we will.

[BlueDevil16]

2 Seed at Worst. Loong way to go. It's Mid-January and so much basketball for us and others to play.

We'll learn from this and this team could easily earn a 1 if we stay healthy and come Together. And we will.

Hopefully. Gonzaga are probably locks for a 1. Baylor looking pretty strong as well. Guessing the ACC and Big East winners get the other 2, but time will tell.

[gofurman]

NET RANKINGS still to be updated on 1/19: AGAIN, not updated per Saturdy...

Key to me is that the NET is different than the AP poll etc. *How much does the NET count??? I am asking
1 1 Baylor Big 12 14-1 3-0 3-1 8-0 0-0
2 2 Kansas Big 12 12-3 3-1 2-1 7-1 1-0
3 3 San Diego St. Mountain West 17-0 6-0 3-0 8-0 1-0
4 4 Gonzaga WCC 19-1 6-0 2-1 11-0 0-0
5 6 Dayton Atlantic 10 16-2 3-0 3-2 10-0 0-0
6 5 Duke ACC 15-2 4-1 3-0 8-1 0-0 xxxxxxxxxx LOST to 14th Louisville at home
7 7 Butler Big East 15-2 3-1 3-0 9-1 0-0 xxxxxxxxxxxx LOST to unranked DePaul on road
8 8 West Virginia Big 12 14-2 3-2 3-0 8-0 0-0 xxxxxxxxxxx LOST to unranked K State on road
9 9 Stanford Pac-12 15-2 2-0 2-1 11-1 0-0
10 10 Michigan St. Big Ten 14-4 2-1 3-2 9-1 0-0
11 12 Seton Hall Big East 13-4 4-2 2-1 7-1 0-0
12 11 Auburn SEC 15-1 2-1 4-0 9-0 0-0 xxxxxxxxxxxxx LOST to Florida on road by 20
13 14 Florida St. ACC 15-2 3-2 3-0 9-0 0-0
14 13 Louisville ACC 14-3 3-1 1-1 10-1 0-0 BEAT 5th Duke on road
15 15 Arizona Pac-12 12-5 0-3 3-1 9-1 0-0
16 17 Wichita St. AAC 15-2 2-1 1-1 12-0 0-0 xxxxxxxxxxxx LOST to unranked Houston at home
17 16 Maryland Big Ten 13-4 0-4 3-0 10-0 0-0
18 18 Ohio St. Big Ten 12-5 1-3 1-1 10-1 0-0 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx LOST to Penn State on road
19 19 Colorado Pac-12 14-3 2-1 4-0 8-2 0-0 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx LOST to 15th Arizona on road
20 20 Villanova Big East 13-3 2-2 3-1 8-0 0-0
21 21 Oregon Pac-12 14-4 2-2 2-2 10-0 0-0
22 22 Rutgers Big Ten 12-4 1-3 0-1 11-0 1-0
23 23 Arkansas SEC 14-2 3-2 0-0 11-0 0-0 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx LOST to UK at home
24 24 Liberty ASUN 16-1 4-1 6-0 6-0 2-0
25 26 Memphis AAC 14-3 3-1 1-1 10-1 0-0


FSU and these are top 50 ..
32 34 Virginia Tech ACC 13-4 3-1 1-2 9-1 0-0
43 43 NC State ACC 12-5 2-3 0-1 10-1 0-0

[gofurman]

NEW NET - Duke still at 6 -color me surprised
1 1 Baylor Big 12 15-1 4-0 3-1 8-0 0-0
2 3 San Diego St. Mountain West 18-0 6-0 3-0 9-0 1-0
3 4 Gonzaga WCC 20-1 6-0 2-1 12-0 0-0
4 2 Kansas Big 12 13-3 4-1 2-1 7-1 1-0
5 5 Dayton Atlantic 10 16-2 3-0 3-2 10-0 0-0
6 6 Duke ACC 15-3 4-1 3-0 8-2 0-0
7 7 Butler Big East 15-3 3-2 3-0 9-1 0-0
8 10 Michigan St. Big Ten 14-4 2-1 3-2 9-1 0-0
9 8 West Virginia Big 12 14-3 3-3 3-0 8-0 0-0
10 14 Louisville ACC 15-3 4-1 1-1 10-1 0-0
11 15 Arizona Pac-12 13-5 0-3 3-1 10-1 0-0
12 11 Seton Hall Big East 14-4 5-2 2-1 7-1 0-0
13 13 Florida St. ACC 16-2 4-2 3-0 9-0 0-0
14 9 Stanford Pac-12 15-3 2-1 2-1 11-1 0-0
15 17 Maryland Big Ten 14-4 0-4 3-0 11-0 0-0
16 21 Oregon Pac-12 15-4 3-2 2-2 10-0 0-0
17 20 Villanova Big East 14-3 2-2 3-1 9-0 0-0
18 22 Rutgers Big Ten 12-4 1-3 0-1 11-0 1-0
19 18 Ohio St. Big Ten 12-6 1-4 1-1 10-1 0-0
20 12 Auburn SEC 15-2 2-2 4-0 9-0 0-0
21 19 Colorado Pac-12 14-4 2-2 4-0 8-2 0-0
22 27 Wisconsin Big Ten 11-7 3-3 0-3 8-1 0-0
23 26 LSU SEC 13-4 3-1 1-2 9-1 0-0
24 24 Liberty ASUN 17-1 4-1 6-0 7-0 2-0
25 31 Texas Tech Big 12 12-5 1-2 2-2 9-1 0-0

ACC has 5 in top 50 - Duke / Louiville / FSU / VT / NC State.. and UVA is close at 60- Duke has games still against FSU VT State

[duke2x]

I think you have to put the Big 10 winner before the ACC and Big East in the #1 seed conversation. You also have to put San Diego State there if you put Gonzaga. SDSU has a very good chance to run the table before the NCAAs, but they have the same problem as Gonzaga with conference schedule.

[devildeac]

NET RANKINGS still to be updated on 1/19: AGAIN, not updated per Saturdy...

Key to me is that the NET is different than the AP poll etc. *How much does the NET count??? I am asking
1 1 Baylor Big 12 14-1 3-0 3-1 8-0 0-0
2 2 Kansas Big 12 12-3 3-1 2-1 7-1 1-0
3 3 San Diego St. Mountain West 17-0 6-0 3-0 8-0 1-0
4 4 Gonzaga WCC 19-1 6-0 2-1 11-0 0-0
5 6 Dayton Atlantic 10 16-2 3-0 3-2 10-0 0-0
6 5 Duke ACC 15-2 4-1 3-0 8-1 0-0 xxxxxxxxxx LOST to 14th Louisville at home
7 7 Butler Big East 15-2 3-1 3-0 9-1 0-0 xxxxxxxxxxxx LOST to unranked DePaul on road
8 8 West Virginia Big 12 14-2 3-2 3-0 8-0 0-0 xxxxxxxxxxx LOST to unranked K State on road
9 9 Stanford Pac-12 15-2 2-0 2-1 11-1 0-0
10 10 Michigan St. Big Ten 14-4 2-1 3-2 9-1 0-0
11 12 Seton Hall Big East 13-4 4-2 2-1 7-1 0-0
12 11 Auburn SEC 15-1 2-1 4-0 9-0 0-0 xxxxxxxxxxxxx LOST to Florida on road by 20
13 14 Florida St. ACC 15-2 3-2 3-0 9-0 0-0
14 13 Louisville ACC 14-3 3-1 1-1 10-1 0-0 BEAT 5th Duke on road
15 15 Arizona Pac-12 12-5 0-3 3-1 9-1 0-0
16 17 Wichita St. AAC 15-2 2-1 1-1 12-0 0-0 xxxxxxxxxxxx LOST to unranked Houston at home
17 16 Maryland Big Ten 13-4 0-4 3-0 10-0 0-0
18 18 Ohio St. Big Ten 12-5 1-3 1-1 10-1 0-0 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx LOST to Penn State on road
19 19 Colorado Pac-12 14-3 2-1 4-0 8-2 0-0 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx LOST to 15th Arizona on road
20 20 Villanova Big East 13-3 2-2 3-1 8-0 0-0
21 21 Oregon Pac-12 14-4 2-2 2-2 10-0 0-0
22 22 Rutgers Big Ten 12-4 1-3 0-1 11-0 1-0
23 23 Arkansas SEC 14-2 3-2 0-0 11-0 0-0 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx LOST to UK at home
24 24 Liberty ASUN 16-1 4-1 6-0 6-0 2-0
25 26 Memphis AAC 14-3 3-1 1-1 10-1 0-0


FSU and these are top 50 ..
32 34 Virginia Tech ACC 13-4 3-1 1-2 9-1 0-0
43 43 NC State ACC 12-5 2-3 0-1 10-1 0-0

Are the cheats at triple digits yet? :cool:

[House P]

Are the cheats at triple digits yet? :cool:

Carolina is currently ranked 121 in the NET. That’s one spot behind UT-Arlington, a 6-12 team from the Sun Belt.

[devildeac]

Carolina is currently ranked 121 in the NET. That’s one spot behind UT-Arlington, a 6-12 team from the Sun Belt.

Banner worthy yet? :rolleyes:

[duke2x]

Are the cheats at triple digits yet? :cool:

14 losses is the worst record I can remember for an at-large bid with injuries or overscheduling. The Cheaters are 8-9 with Duke (2), NCSU (2), @FSU, @VT, @Syracuse, @Louisville, and UVA to go. They will be better once Anthony comes back, but that means 10-4 against the remaining schedule (+ ACC Tournament loss).

[JasonEvans]

After two losses in one week, the most recent Bracketmatrix has Duke... still as a #1 seed.

Here are the seeds and the average of all brackets in the matrix (this shows that Baylor is a #1 on virtually every bracket and that Butler and SDSU are getting placed as #1s on a fair number of brackets):

1 Baylor 1.09
1 Kansas 1.24
1 Duke 1.35
1 Gonzaga 1.44
2 Butler 1.91
2 San Diego State 1.97
2 West Virginia 2.3
2 Florida State 2.77
3 Michigan State 2.81
3 Dayton 3.11
3 Oregon 3.13
3 Auburn 3.16
4 Seton Hall 3.32
4 Louisville 3.57
4 Maryland 4.14
4 Villanova 4.27

-Jason "Auburn as a #3 is mystifying to me, this past week really showed they might be a fraud" Evans

[devildeac]

After two losses in one week, the most recent Bracketmatrix has Duke... still as a #1 seed.

Here are the seeds and the average of all brackets in the matrix (this shows that Baylor is a #1 on virtually every bracket and that Butler and SDSU are getting placed as #1s on a fair number of brackets):

1 Baylor 1.09
1 Kansas 1.24
1 Duke 1.35
1 Gonzaga 1.44
2 Butler 1.91
2 San Diego State 1.97
2 West Virginia 2.3
2 Florida State 2.77
3 Michigan State 2.81
3 Dayton 3.11
3 Oregon 3.13
3 Auburn 3.16
4 Seton Hall 3.32
4 Louisville 3.57
4 Maryland 4.14
4 Villanova 4.27

-Jason "Auburn as a #3 is mystifying to me, this past week really showed they might be a fraud" Evans


Auburn? Fraud? Never forget:

Auburn 97
cheats 80

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/game?gameId=401123392

;):D

[TruBlu]

Auburn? Fraud? Never forget:

Auburn 97
cheats 80

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/game?gameId=401123392

;):D

When two frauds play, one of them has to win. This time, the correct one won.;)

[Hartford Dukie]

Bracket matrix now has us as the first 2 seed, just behind San Diego State.

Baylor . 1.04
Kansas . 1.09
Gonzaga 1.29
San Diego State . 1.64
Duke 1.71
FSU 2.50
West Virginia . 2.54
Butler 2.57

[scottdude8]

Bracket matrix now has us as the first 2 seed, just behind San Diego State.

Baylor . 1.04
Kansas . 1.09
Gonzaga 1.29
San Diego State . 1.64
Duke 1.71
FSU 2.50
West Virginia . 2.54
Butler 2.57

If this were to hold form (and note IN ALL LIKELIHOOD IT WONT), geographical considerations would likely mean SDSU would be the No. 1 seed in the East, and then Duke would get top geographical considerations amongst the 2 seeds and likely end up in the East as well. If we don’t get a No. 1 seed, the fact that at the moment this is the most likely backup scenario is pretty darn nice.

In reality, I highly doubt both SDSU and Gonzaga end the season with 1 seeds, if nothing else just for an optical perspective... I don’t think the NCAA would want mid-majors from the West Coast headlining two of the four brackets. IMHO any stumble from SDSU will likely send them to the 2 line at max.

Probabilistically one of the most likely scenarios at the moment I think is Gonzaga and SDSU as the top seeds in the West. That could be super interesting... and if that happens, I’d bet Michigan State lucks out and gets that 3 seed and an optimal path to the final four because Tom Izzo has a horseshoe up his behind ;)

[duke2x]

Probabilistically one of the most likely scenarios at the moment I think is Gonzaga and SDSU as the top seeds in the West. That could be super interesting... and if that happens, I’d bet Michigan State lucks out and gets that 3 seed and an optimal path to the final four because Tom Izzo has a horseshoe up his behind ;)

I don't see this scenario happening either. It makes the West unbalanced to the casual and some serious viewers. Shipping SDSU or Gonzaga East or South is more logical so you have at least 1 P5/BE team in the top 2 spots of each bracket.

[JasonEvans]

I don't see this scenario happening either. It makes the West unbalanced to the casual and some serious viewers. Shipping SDSU or Gonzaga East or South is more logical so you have at least 1 P5/BE team in the top 2 spots of each bracket.

As of a couple years ago, the NCAA is no longer interested in balance. They strive to keep teams in their natural region as much as they can. It is really only conference matchup rules and other seeds taking priority that move teams out of their natural region.

I think Gonzaga and SDSU are extremely likely to be #1 and #2 in the West at this point.

[scottdude8]

There's a new article up on ESPN (https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/28538905/bpi-vs-bracketology-which-college-basketball-teams-leagues-buy-sell) highlighting the differences between the current Bracketology brackets, which they emphasize is based off of a team's current resume, and the BPI predictions, which predict the likely outcomes come selection sunday.

Of particular interest to us:


Since we noted several advanced metrics' fondness for Duke last week, the Blue Devils lost to Louisville at home, trailing nearly the entire game. Duke followed that up by taking care of Miami. While Lunardi dropped the Blue Devils to a No. 2 seed, BPI's love for them remains unshaken. The race for a 1-seed is wide open this season, with 11 teams having a greater than 10% chance to get a No. 1 seed, per the BPI Bracket Predictor. The most likely of those 11? Duke.

BPI prediction: 75% chance Duke lands a No. 1 seed.

I think coming into this season we ALL would've taken being in the hunt for a No. 1 seed come January 23, let alone being one of the favorites for one, even with the disappointments that have been a part of this season.

The (simulated) future is still bright!

[jv001]

There's a new article up on ESPN (https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/28538905/bpi-vs-bracketology-which-college-basketball-teams-leagues-buy-sell) highlighting the differences between the current Bracketology brackets, which they emphasize is based off of a team's current resume, and the BPI predictions, which predict the likely outcomes come selection sunday.

Of particular interest to us:



I think coming into this season we ALL would've taken being in the hunt for a No. 1 seed come January 23, let alone being one of the favorites for one, even with the disappointments that have been a part of this season.

The (simulated) future is still bright!

Good stuff. I don't put much faith in these ESPN guys early seeding prediction. I like our chances and I really like this Duke team.

GoDuke!

[rsvman]

There's a new article up on ESPN (https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/28538905/bpi-vs-bracketology-which-college-basketball-teams-leagues-buy-sell) highlighting the differences between the current Bracketology brackets, which they emphasize is based off of a team's current resume, and the BPI predictions, which predict the likely outcomes come selection sunday.

Of particular interest to us:



I think coming into this season we ALL would've taken being in the hunt for a No. 1 seed come January 23, let alone being one of the favorites for one, even with the disappointments that have been a part of this season.

The (simulated) future is still bright!

The simulated future is so bright I gotta wear simulated shades!

[brevity]

Let's talk geographical preference.

I was looking at what Joe Lunardi threw on the wall this week and noticed a real lack of interest in the Greensboro site. He has Duke (2 seed in the East) and West Virginia (3 seed in the West) as the two pod hosts. But if the Mountaineers had a choice, they would prefer Cleveland, which is about 150 miles closer. This made me wonder which first weekend sites are in the highest demand.

Only the top 16 overall seeds on Selection Sunday would be assigned a pod, but to get a better picture I went with the top 20 in today's Bracket Matrix (http://bracketmatrix.com/). Here the closest sites per team (from home court to site arena, according to Google Maps).

1 Kansas: Omaha (190 mi), St. Louis (290 mi)
1 Baylor: St. Louis (724 mi), Omaha (740 mi)
1 Gonzaga: Spokane (2 mi), Sacramento (817 mi)
1 San Diego State: Sacramento (512 mi), Spokane (1,293 mi)

2 Duke: Greensboro (55 mi), Cleveland (544 mi); then Albany (625 mi) and Tampa (678 mi)
2 Florida State: Tampa (275 mi), Greensboro (537 mi)
2 Michigan State: Cleveland (232 mi), St. Louis (489 mi)
2 West Virginia: Cleveland (199 mi), Greensboro (356 mi)

3 Louisville: St. Louis (260 mi), Cleveland (348 mi)
3 Seton Hall: Albany (146 mi), Cleveland (452 mi)
3 Dayton: Cleveland (214 mi), St. Louis (361 mi)
3 Butler: St. Louis (250 mi), Cleveland (320 mi)

4 Oregon: Spokane (462 mi), Sacramento (471 mi)
4 Villanova: Albany (241 mi), Cleveland (418 mi)
4 Maryland: Greensboro (329 mi), Albany (357 mi)
4 Auburn: Tampa (438 mi), Greensboro (439 mi)

5 Kentucky: Cleveland (331 mi), St. Louis (337 mi)
5 Colorado: Omaha (555 mi), St. Louis (868 mi)
5 Iowa: Omaha (247 mi), St. Louis (261 mi)
5 Arizona: Sacramento (869 mi), St. Louis (1,488 mi)

Then, if you went strictly by closest destination, here is where each team wants to go.

Albany: 3 Seton Hall, 4 Villanova
Cleveland: 2 Michigan State, 2 West Virginia, 3 Dayton, 5 Kentucky
Greensboro: 2 Duke, 4 Maryland
Omaha: 1 Kansas, 5 Colorado, 5 Iowa
Sacramento: 1 San Diego State, 5 Arizona
Spokane: 1 Gonzaga, 4 Oregon
St. Louis: 1 Baylor, 3 Louisville, 3 Butler
Tampa: 2 Florida State, 4 Auburn

Thoughts:

* Obviously, the geographical distances will not change between now and Selection Sunday, but the seeds and order will.

* St. Louis is a desirable destination (one of the two closest) for 10 of these 20 teams. Cleveland is a preference for 9 of them.

* It is insane to see 6 teams (Baylor, Oregon, Maryland, Auburn, Kentucky, and Iowa) be roughly equidistant from 2 predetermined sites.

* A Midwest school is probably going to be shipped out. Even if you send Baylor to less-in-demand Omaha (no given, if they are the overall top seed and have a choice in the matter), that leaves Dayton locked out of Cleveland and vying for St. Louis alongside Louisville and Butler. Someone's heading to Sacramento.

* Duke and Gonzaga benefit from being close to sites that are not in heavy demand, which means the only way they won't play there is if (1) either falls to a 5 seed or worse, so that they no longer host a pod at all, or (2) the Selection Committee screws up. FSU is not as close to Tampa, but the same applies to them.

* And if you're wondering, the Spokane site is not Gonzaga's home arena.

[Kedsy]

Let's talk geographical preference.

I was looking at what Joe Lunardi threw on the wall this week and noticed a real lack of interest in the Greensboro site. He has Duke (2 seed in the East) and West Virginia (3 seed in the West) as the two pod hosts. But if the Mountaineers had a choice, they would prefer Cleveland, which is about 150 miles closer. This made me wonder which first weekend sites are in the highest demand.

Only the top 16 overall seeds on Selection Sunday would be assigned a pod, but to get a better picture I went with the top 20 in today's Bracket Matrix (http://bracketmatrix.com/). Here the closest sites per team (from home court to site arena, according to Google Maps).

1 Kansas: Omaha (190 mi), St. Louis (290 mi)
1 Baylor: St. Louis (724 mi), Omaha (740 mi)
1 Gonzaga: Spokane (2 mi), Sacramento (817 mi)
1 San Diego State: Sacramento (512 mi), Spokane (1,293 mi)

2 Duke: Greensboro (55 mi), Cleveland (544 mi); then Albany (625 mi) and Tampa (678 mi)
2 Florida State: Tampa (275 mi), Greensboro (537 mi)
2 Michigan State: Cleveland (232 mi), St. Louis (489 mi)
2 West Virginia: Cleveland (199 mi), Greensboro (356 mi)

3 Louisville: St. Louis (260 mi), Cleveland (348 mi)
3 Seton Hall: Albany (146 mi), Cleveland (452 mi)
3 Dayton: Cleveland (214 mi), St. Louis (361 mi)
3 Butler: St. Louis (250 mi), Cleveland (320 mi)

4 Oregon: Spokane (462 mi), Sacramento (471 mi)
4 Villanova: Albany (241 mi), Cleveland (418 mi)
4 Maryland: Greensboro (329 mi), Albany (357 mi)
4 Auburn: Tampa (438 mi), Greensboro (439 mi)

5 Kentucky: Cleveland (331 mi), St. Louis (337 mi)
5 Colorado: Omaha (555 mi), St. Louis (868 mi)
5 Iowa: Omaha (247 mi), St. Louis (261 mi)
5 Arizona: Sacramento (869 mi), St. Louis (1,488 mi)

Then, if you went strictly by closest destination, here is where each team wants to go.

Albany: 3 Seton Hall, 4 Villanova
Cleveland: 2 Michigan State, 2 West Virginia, 3 Dayton, 5 Kentucky
Greensboro: 2 Duke, 4 Maryland
Omaha: 1 Kansas, 5 Colorado, 5 Iowa
Sacramento: 1 San Diego State, 5 Arizona
Spokane: 1 Gonzaga, 4 Oregon
St. Louis: 1 Baylor, 3 Louisville, 3 Butler
Tampa: 2 Florida State, 4 Auburn

Thoughts:

* Obviously, the geographical distances will not change between now and Selection Sunday, but the seeds and order will.

* St. Louis is a desirable destination (one of the two closest) for 10 of these 20 teams. Cleveland is a preference for 9 of them.

* It is insane to see 6 teams (Baylor, Oregon, Maryland, Auburn, Kentucky, and Iowa) be roughly equidistant from 2 predetermined sites.

* A Midwest school is probably going to be shipped out. Even if you send Baylor to less-in-demand Omaha (no given, if they are the overall top seed and have a choice in the matter), that leaves Dayton locked out of Cleveland and vying for St. Louis alongside Louisville and Butler. Someone's heading to Sacramento.

* Duke and Gonzaga benefit from being close to sites that are not in heavy demand, which means the only way they won't play there is if (1) either falls to a 5 seed or worse, so that they no longer host a pod at all, or (2) the Selection Committee screws up. FSU is not as close to Tampa, but the same applies to them.

* And if you're wondering, the Spokane site is not Gonzaga's home arena.

Only three sites within 150 miles of anyone.

[jv001]

Let's talk geographical preference.

I was looking at what Joe Lunardi threw on the wall this week and noticed a real lack of interest in the Greensboro site. He has Duke (2 seed in the East) and West Virginia (3 seed in the West) as the two pod hosts. But if the Mountaineers had a choice, they would prefer Cleveland, which is about 150 miles closer. This made me wonder which first weekend sites are in the highest demand.

Only the top 16 overall seeds on Selection Sunday would be assigned a pod, but to get a better picture I went with the top 20 in today's Bracket Matrix (http://bracketmatrix.com/). Here the closest sites per team (from home court to site arena, according to Google Maps).

1 Kansas: Omaha (190 mi), St. Louis (290 mi)
1 Baylor: St. Louis (724 mi), Omaha (740 mi)
1 Gonzaga: Spokane (2 mi), Sacramento (817 mi)
1 San Diego State: Sacramento (512 mi), Spokane (1,293 mi)

2 Duke: Greensboro (55 mi), Cleveland (544 mi); then Albany (625 mi) and Tampa (678 mi)
2 Florida State: Tampa (275 mi), Greensboro (537 mi)
2 Michigan State: Cleveland (232 mi), St. Louis (489 mi)
2 West Virginia: Cleveland (199 mi), Greensboro (356 mi)

3 Louisville: St. Louis (260 mi), Cleveland (348 mi)
3 Seton Hall: Albany (146 mi), Cleveland (452 mi)
3 Dayton: Cleveland (214 mi), St. Louis (361 mi)
3 Butler: St. Louis (250 mi), Cleveland (320 mi)

4 Oregon: Spokane (462 mi), Sacramento (471 mi)
4 Villanova: Albany (241 mi), Cleveland (418 mi)
4 Maryland: Greensboro (329 mi), Albany (357 mi)
4 Auburn: Tampa (438 mi), Greensboro (439 mi)

5 Kentucky: Cleveland (331 mi), St. Louis (337 mi)
5 Colorado: Omaha (555 mi), St. Louis (868 mi)
5 Iowa: Omaha (247 mi), St. Louis (261 mi)
5 Arizona: Sacramento (869 mi), St. Louis (1,488 mi)

Then, if you went strictly by closest destination, here is where each team wants to go.

Albany: 3 Seton Hall, 4 Villanova
Cleveland: 2 Michigan State, 2 West Virginia, 3 Dayton, 5 Kentucky
Greensboro: 2 Duke, 4 Maryland
Omaha: 1 Kansas, 5 Colorado, 5 Iowa
Sacramento: 1 San Diego State, 5 Arizona
Spokane: 1 Gonzaga, 4 Oregon
St. Louis: 1 Baylor, 3 Louisville, 3 Butler
Tampa: 2 Florida State, 4 Auburn

Thoughts:

* Obviously, the geographical distances will not change between now and Selection Sunday, but the seeds and order will.

* St. Louis is a desirable destination (one of the two closest) for 10 of these 20 teams. Cleveland is a preference for 9 of them.

* It is insane to see 6 teams (Baylor, Oregon, Maryland, Auburn, Kentucky, and Iowa) be roughly equidistant from 2 predetermined sites.

* A Midwest school is probably going to be shipped out. Even if you send Baylor to less-in-demand Omaha (no given, if they are the overall top seed and have a choice in the matter), that leaves Dayton locked out of Cleveland and vying for St. Louis alongside Louisville and Butler. Someone's heading to Sacramento.

* Duke and Gonzaga benefit from being close to sites that are not in heavy demand, which means the only way they won't play there is if (1) either falls to a 5 seed or worse, so that they no longer host a pod at all, or (2) the Selection Committee screws up. FSU is not as close to Tampa, but the same applies to them.

* And if you're wondering, the Spokane site is not Gonzaga's home arena.

I wonder if Maryland fans would bring their batteries? :cool:

GoDuke!

[duke2x]

As of a couple years ago, the NCAA is no longer interested in balance. They strive to keep teams in their natural region as much as they can. It is really only conference matchup rules and other seeds taking priority that move teams out of their natural region.

I think Gonzaga and SDSU are extremely likely to be #1 and #2 in the West at this point.

2018 is a recent exception, but we don't need to rehash that argument this year. I fully expect the NCAA to do something to surprise everybody, bracketologists included, on Selection Sunday that inconsistently applies one of their guidelines.

There's a lot of basketball to be played.

[duke2x]

I wonder if Maryland fans would bring their batteries? :cool:

Thanks to brevity for taking the time to look this up for the pods. It's also pertinent to note that Waco to Tampa across the Gulf is 900+ miles. (Yes, it was worth looking up since it solves the log jam in part.)

Today's bracketology would put Dayton, Butler, or Louisville over MD there given the log jams in St. Louis and Cleveland. This gives me reason to cheer for Dayton and Butler. KY, Louisville, and MD would make Greensboro about as bad as UNC being there. Dayton is a tiny school that won't travel 10 hours for the game. Same with Butler.

[Bluedog]

As of a couple years ago, the NCAA is no longer interested in balance. They strive to keep teams in their natural region as much as they can. It is really only conference matchup rules and other seeds taking priority that move teams out of their natural region.

I think Gonzaga and SDSU are extremely likely to be #1 and #2 in the West at this point.

I could be wrong, but I believe the NCAA did say that they'd no longer put the "best" 1 seed with the best 2 a few years back. So, yes, generally it's all about the natural region but I believe it's a rule to avoid putting the #1 and #5 teams on the rank sheet in the same region.

[duke2x]

I could be wrong, but I believe the NCAA did say that they'd no longer put the "best" 1 seed with the best 2 a few years back. So, yes, generally it's all about the natural region but I believe it's a rule to avoid putting the #1 and #5 teams on the rank sheet in the same region.

I know that one. That's the "Duke-Louisville rule" from 2013. :D

[English]

Thanks to brevity for taking the time to look this up for the pods. It's also pertinent to note that Waco to Tampa across the Gulf is 900+ miles. (Yes, it was worth looking up since it solves the log jam in part.)

Today's bracketology would put Dayton, Butler, or Louisville over MD there given the log jams in St. Louis and Cleveland. This gives me reason to cheer for Dayton and Butler. KY, Louisville, and MD would make Greensboro about as bad as UNC being there. Dayton is a tiny school that won't travel 10 hours for the game. Same with Butler.

Not so fast--the reasons that Duke sharing a pod with unx is such a bummer far exceed the simple animus that their shameless fanbase has for Duke. An equally annoying reason is because that pod is almost always in NC (or within a couple hour's drive), and their vile fans (of which there are many in the area) eat up the tickets on the secondary market like a plaque of locusts. They're extremely well-represented and their rooting interests are evenly divided between their own team and NOT-DUKE. So, I suspect that sharing a pod with UK would be similar, but I don't believe that UL or UMd could match that cocktail of desolation despite both bringing some fairly strong anti-Duke sentiment.

[Acymetric]

Yeah, none of those would be near as bad as sharing a pod with unc. Not even a comparison.

In other news, I am shocked that bracketmatrix still shows NC State and​ VT in the tournament as 11 seeds.

[scottdude8]

I could be wrong, but I believe the NCAA did say that they'd no longer put the "best" 1 seed with the best 2 a few years back. So, yes, generally it's all about the natural region but I believe it's a rule to avoid putting the #1 and #5 teams on the rank sheet in the same region.

This is correct. Recently (I forget what year) they added a stipulation that top ranked 2 seed (i.e. the #5 team) would not be put in the region of the overall No. 1 seed, even if that made geographic sense. That does not extend down the line, however. Last year even though MSU was a "better" No. 2 seed than Michigan, they ended up in our bracket because, as a higher ranked No. 2 seed, they got geographic preference. Hence Michigan was sent out West.

[arnie]

Not so fast--the reasons that Duke sharing a pod with unx is such a bummer far exceed the simple animus that their shameless fanbase has for Duke. An equally annoying reason is because that pod is almost always in NC (or within a couple hour's drive), and their vile fans (of which there are many in the area) eat up the tickets on the secondary market like a plaque of locusts. They're extremely well-represented and their rooting interests are evenly divided between their own team and NOT-DUKE. So, I suspect that sharing a pod with UK would be similar, but I don't believe that UL or UMd could match that cocktail of desolation despite both bringing some fairly strong anti-Duke sentiment.

Yea, too bad NCAA ticket outlets are only found in WalMarts.

[OldPhiKap]

FWIW, Lunardi only has four ACC teams in with UVa just scraping in and State on the outside:

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

I guess by mid-February it is no longer “too early” to get serious about the brackets.

[Troublemaker]

The Louisville loss was also good for Duke in the chase for the 1 seed. In the most recent Bracket Matrix (as of the time of this post), Louisville had been creeping up on Duke for the 5th overall spot. We want to remain *the* team that would move up to a 1 seed in the event that any of the 1 seeds falter.

The win at WVU was unfortunately big for Kansas.


https://i.imgur.com/a7tEML9.png

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The Louisville loss was also good for Duke in the chase for the 1 seed. In the most recent Bracket Matrix (as of the time of this post), Louisville had been creeping up on Duke for the 5th overall spot. We want to remain *the* team that would move up to a 1 seed in the event that any of the 1 seeds falter.

The win at WVU was unfortunately big for Kansas.


https://i.imgur.com/a7tEML9.png

I guarantee you someone will falter. Probably many.

[CDu]

I guarantee you someone will falter. Probably many.

Well, there are at least two more losses on the schedules of Baylor and Kansas. So presumably one of them stands to drop off the 1 line if we can win out. I'd especially root for Kansas to lose at Baylor and again in the Big 12 tourney. It would be hard to argue for a 5-loss Kansas team that lost to us in a neutral site game if we win out the regular season and make a deep ACC tourney run.

Of course, that still leaves four teams in discussion - would they really put 3 mid/low-major conference teams on the 1 line?

Either way, if we can get the 1 or 2 seed in the East, I'll be pretty okay with things.

[OldPhiKap]

I guarantee you someone will falter. Probably many.

Certainly so. I would be shocked if we do not drop a game or two (at least) between now and the end of the ACCT.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Certainly so. I would be shocked if we do not drop a game or two (at least) between now and the end of the ACCT.

This is true. Duke can ill afford to lose another game during the regular season and still earn a 1 seed. I am less convinced that Duke has to win the regular season AND the ACCT. The committee has shown that it is willing to set its brackets before the conference tournaments are over.

I do think Duke is in a good spot at the moment. Kansas and Baylor have to play each other at least once more and Baylor has a game at West Virginia to close out the regular season. If Duke does manage to secure the regular season ACC record and Kansas is behind Baylor, I don't see how the committee will give a 1 seed to Kansas over Duke in that scenario. That could break well for Duke as it would put Kansas as the top 2 seed and most likely in the Midwest bracket with either Gonzaga or Dayton as the 1 seed. Depending upon how the season plays out, Louisville would be pushed to the South or West bracket while Maryland or Dayton (if they don't get a 1 seed) is sitting there as a potential 2 seed in the East.

[jv001]

This is true. Duke can ill afford to lose another game during the regular season and still earn a 1 seed. I am less convinced that Duke has to win the regular season AND the ACCT. The committee has shown that it is willing to set its brackets before the conference tournaments are over.

I do think Duke is in a good spot at the moment. Kansas and Baylor have to play each other at least once more and Baylor has a game at West Virginia to close out the regular season. If Duke does manage to secure the regular season ACC record and Kansas is behind Baylor, I don't see how the committee will give a 1 seed to Kansas over Duke in that scenario. That could break well for Duke as it would put Kansas as the top 2 seed and most likely in the Midwest bracket with either Gonzaga or Dayton as the 1 seed. Depending upon how the season plays out, Louisville would be pushed to the South or West bracket while Maryland or Dayton (if they don't get a 1 seed) is sitting there as a potential 2 seed in the East.

In your scenario it looks like you think or hope, Baylor will get the overall #1 seed. Am I right in thinking they(Baylor) would then get the worst #2 seed in their bracket? If Duke is the worst #1 seed would they then get the best #2 seed? Will the committee try to separate say, Duke-L'Ville and Baylor-Kansas?

GoDuke!

[OldPhiKap]

In your scenario it looks like you think or hope, Baylor will get the overall #1 seed. Am I right in thinking they(Baylor) would then get the worst #2 seed in their bracket? If Duke is the worst #1 seed would they then get the best #2 seed? Will the committee try to separate say, Duke-L'Ville and Baylor-Kansas?

GoDuke!

I thought they got rid of the S curve, and that it was set up more regionally. Is that wrong? (Not that rhyme or reason governs such things anyway)

[DavidBenAkiva]

I thought they got rid of the S curve, and that it was set up more regionally. Is that wrong? (Not that rhyme or reason governs such things anyway)

As I understand it, the committee goes down the top seeds and puts them closest to their home. In my expected/hoped-for scenario, Kansas would get preference for location as the top 2 seed. They would not be able to be in the South as Baylor, a B12 team, would be there. So KU would prefer to be as close to home as possible, and that would be the Midwest in Indianapolis.

If, and this is a big if, Duke is the 1 seed, Louisville would probably a 2 seed and be forced into to choose from what's left over. They can't go to the East because Duke is there and Kansas is higher than UoL and can pick their spot. The East is no-go and Kansas has picked the Midwest, so they can go to the South if another team hasn't already gotten it or out West.

That leaves behind Maryland and Dayton for the other two 2-seeds (assuming they are the 2 seeds when the dust settles). I assume Dayton wins out and gets to pick ahead of Louisville in the 2 seed line and would prefer the East over the South anyway. Maryland or Louisville then are picking between the other two brackets.

In this scenario, I think it would look like this:

East: 1 Duke, 2 Dayton
Midwest: 1 Gonzaga, 2 Kansas
South: 1 Baylor, 2 Maryland
West: 1 SDSU, 2 Louisville

[scottdude8]

I thought they got rid of the S curve, and that it was set up more regionally. Is that wrong? (Not that rhyme or reason governs such things anyway)

The answer is they've adopted a weird hybrid of the two. When it comes to No. 1 and No. 2 seeds (and I think No. 3 and No. 4 as well), the committee ranks each of the teams within their seed group (i.e. 1-4, 5-8, etc.). By this ordering they are then assigned to a region based on closeness (which is why a No. 3 overall seed Gonzaga will likely be in the West region, while a No. 4 overall seed San Diego State will likely be in the East). However, the recently (sometime in the past couple years I believe) instituted a caveat, which is that the committee will not place the top No. 2 seed in the same bracket as the top No. 1 seed. So, let's say hypothetically that Kansas drops to the 2-line, but is the top No. 2 seed. The committee WOULD NOT place them in the same bracket as Baylor if Baylor is the No. 1 overall seed, even if geographically it would make the most sense for Kansas to go to Houston.

Now, this likely won't affect us since I can't see any scenario in which the No. 1 overall seed (unless it ends up being us!) is in the East region. But projections placing us as the No. 2 in the East are based on location preference, and not the S-curve, even though it just happens to work out that way this year since there isn't a real contender for a No. 1 seed from the East besides us at the moment.

[ice-9]

SDSU and Dayton...licking my chops if either of them were our region's 1 or 2 seed.

[SCMatt33]

I thought they got rid of the S curve, and that it was set up more regionally. Is that wrong? (Not that rhyme or reason governs such things anyway)

There has never been anything that is a true “s-curve” in the NCAAT. Never has, likely never will. People just tend to refer to the “seed list” as an “s-curve” and often times you see bracketogists organize a seed list prediction in an s-curve format. But they can’t get rid of something they never had. The NCAA committee has three separate and distinct processes. They will first select the at large teams. They will then organize the at large and automatic qualifying teams into a 1-68 seed list, and they will build the brackets based off that list. Those are all separate processes. They can jump back and forth between those processes as conference tournament results come in and potentially force changes, but they are all separate. The only s-curvy type rules are that if feasible, 1 and 5 overall will not go to the same region (but other rules, like keeping conference members apart will Trump this) and they want some general balance between regions, but this is determined by the sum of the overall seedings of the 1-4 seeds in each region (so a region with 1, 6, 11, and 14 overall would have a sum of 32). They try to keep those sums from getting too far apart, but nothing that wouldn’t prevent 3 of the 4 top seeds in a region from being on the strong end.

[scottdude8]

As I understand it, the committee goes down the top seeds and puts them closest to their home. In my expected/hoped-for scenario, Kansas would get preference for location as the top 2 seed. They would not be able to be in the South as Baylor, a B12 team, would be there. So KU would prefer to be as close to home as possible, and that would be the Midwest in Indianapolis.

If, and this is a big if, Duke is the 1 seed, Louisville would probably a 2 seed and be forced into to choose from what's left over. They can't go to the East because Duke is there and Kansas is higher than UoL and can pick their spot. The East is no-go and Kansas has picked the Midwest, so they can go to the South if another team hasn't already gotten it or out West.

That leaves behind Maryland and Dayton for the other two 2-seeds (assuming they are the 2 seeds when the dust settles). I assume Dayton wins out and gets to pick ahead of Louisville in the 2 seed line and would prefer the East over the South anyway. Maryland or Louisville then are picking between the other two brackets.

In this scenario, I think it would look like this:

East: 1 Duke, 2 Dayton
Midwest: 1 Gonzaga, 2 Kansas
South: 1 Baylor, 2 Maryland
West: 1 SDSU, 2 Louisville

Ahh, I forgot to include the conference element too. Here are the exact details on that from NCAA.com (https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-10-19/how-field-68-teams-picked-march-madness):

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.


So, long story short is that, barring some weirdness in higher priority seeding issues, we would not find ourselves in the same bracket as Louisville or Florida State.

[scottdude8]

Ahh, I forgot to include the conference element too. Here are the exact details on that from NCAA.com (https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-10-19/how-field-68-teams-picked-march-madness):


So, long story short is that, barring some weirdness in higher priority seeding issues, we would not find ourselves in the same bracket as Louisville or Florida State.

One more piece of direct quote from NCAA.com (https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-10-19/how-field-68-teams-picked-march-madness) that may be of interest:


2. The committee will then place the No. 2 seeds in each region in true seed list order. The committee may relax the principle of keeping teams as close to their area of natural interest for seeding teams on the No. 2 line to avoid, for example, the overall No. 5 seed being sent to the same region as the overall No. 1 seed. The committee will not compromise the principle of keeping teams from the same conference in separate regions.

[jv001]

Thanks to all for that information. Now let's win the rest of our games.
GoDuke!

[ndkjr70]

This is true. Duke can ill afford to lose another game during the regular season and still earn a 1 seed. I am less convinced that Duke has to win the regular season AND the ACCT. The committee has shown that it is willing to set its brackets before the conference tournaments are over.

I do think Duke is in a good spot at the moment. Kansas and Baylor have to play each other at least once more and Baylor has a game at West Virginia to close out the regular season. If Duke does manage to secure the regular season ACC record and Kansas is behind Baylor, I don't see how the committee will give a 1 seed to Kansas over Duke in that scenario. That could break well for Duke as it would put Kansas as the top 2 seed and most likely in the Midwest bracket with either Gonzaga or Dayton as the 1 seed. Depending upon how the season plays out, Louisville would be pushed to the South or West bracket while Maryland or Dayton (if they don't get a 1 seed) is sitting there as a potential 2 seed in the East.

For what it's worth, I played around with Duke losing another regular season game (I picked @UVA) and then winning the ACCT as a 2-seed (wins over Syracuse, Florida State, Louisville) and that scenario has Duke as a clear 1-seed. #2 NET, #1 ELO, #4 resume and the fourth best 1-seed (next to SDSU, Baylor, and Gonzaga).

Of course that means we get the best 2-seed, Kansas, and I'd like a huge no-thank-you in response to that.

[ndkjr70]

"2. The committee will then place the No. 2 seeds in each region in true seed list order. The committee may relax the principle of keeping teams as close to their area of natural interest for seeding teams on the No. 2 line to avoid, for example, the overall No. 5 seed being sent to the same region as the overall No. 1 seed. The committee will not compromise the principle of keeping teams from the same conference in separate regions."

Didn't this literally happen last year? From my memory, the overall number 5 seed (MSU) faced the number 1 overall seed (Duke)?

[scottdude8]

"2. The committee will then place the No. 2 seeds in each region in true seed list order. The committee may relax the principle of keeping teams as close to their area of natural interest for seeding teams on the No. 2 line to avoid, for example, the overall No. 5 seed being sent to the same region as the overall No. 1 seed. The committee will not compromise the principle of keeping teams from the same conference in separate regions."

Didn't this literally happen last year? From my memory, the overall number 5 seed (MSU) faced the number 1 overall seed (Duke)?

MSU was the No. 6 overall seed, and Tennessee was the No. 5 overall seed. So even though it violated the "S-curve", putting MSU with us satisfied the NCAA seeding principles, since MSU got put in the best region based on geographical preference for them (after Tennessee).

[scottdude8]

For what it's worth, I played around with Duke losing another regular season game (I picked @UVA) and then winning the ACCT as a 2-seed (wins over Syracuse, Florida State, Louisville) and that scenario has Duke as a clear 1-seed. #2 NET, #1 ELO, #4 resume and the fourth best 1-seed (next to SDSU, Baylor, and Gonzaga).

Of course that means we get the best 2-seed, Kansas, and I'd like a huge no-thank-you in response to that.

I'm curious, where did you "play around with" these things? Not doubting you, just wondering where that tool would be, as it would be fun to play around with.

I still maintain that we "control our own destiny" when it comes to a No. 1 overall seed. Strictly speaking, "control your own destiny" means win out, which most of us agree is a very high bar to clear. But if we drop one, but win the ACC Tourney (especially if that involves beating both Louisville and Florida State), and Kansas drops one or two more games (especially if that means they lose in the Big 12 tourney), I think the committee would have a very hard time seeding Kansas over us, not only based on conference titles (which explicitly is part of a team's final resume, per the committee in recent years), but given that we have a head-to-head victory over the Jayhawks. Kansas losing last night would've been VERY nice, but they still have to play at Baylor and at Texas Tech. They aren't going to skate through the rest of their schedule just like we aren't.

[English]

For what it's worth, I played around with Duke losing another regular season game (I picked @UVA) and then winning the ACCT as a 2-seed (wins over Syracuse, Florida State, Louisville) and that scenario has Duke as a clear 1-seed. #2 NET, #1 ELO, #4 resume and the fourth best 1-seed (next to SDSU, Baylor, and Gonzaga).

Of course that means we get the best 2-seed, Kansas, and I'd like a huge no-thank-you in response to that.

Again, as described in earlier posts, one doesn't necessitate the other. Being the fourth 1-seed does NOT mean you're bracketed with the top 2-seed. It just doesn't. Period. It may happen, it seems intuitively fair for it to happen, but that's not the way the Committee does it. If we're the fourth 1-seed and Kansas is the top 2-seed, that almost certainly means we're in the East and they're in the Midwest*. Gimme that all day long.

*ETA: Unless, by some craziness, another team in the eastern US (e.g., Seton Hall, UMd) goes HAM and wins out, and gets a higher 1-seed than us.

[SCMatt33]

MSU was the No. 6 overall seed, and Tennessee was the No. 5 overall seed. So even though it violated the "S-curve", putting MSU with us satisfied the NCAA seeding principles, since MSU got put in the best region based on geographical preference for them (after Tennessee).

I’ll just repeat what’s have gotten buried from an earlier post, but it’s worth reiterating that there is no such thing as the “s-curve”. There never has been, and there more than likely never will be. The committee added the rule about keeping 1 and 5 apart (though notably this can be trumped by things like keeping conference teams separate). The only other rule about region strength is that the sum of the overall seeds of the top four seeds in each region shouldn’t differ by more than 5. For example a region of 1, 6, 9 and 13 (29 added up) and a region of 4, 8, 11, 15 (38 added up) shouldn’t exist together, but this rule is not a hard rule. It is rather a general guideline and can be relaxed.

There has never been any effort by the committee to place number 1 overall with number 8 overall or number 4 overall with number 5 overall. If it coincidentally happens because of region preferences, great, if not, they don’t care so long as teams all on the high end of their seed in one region and teams in the low end of their seed all in one region.

While the s-curve has never been a thing, the true seed list is absolutely real and goes back long before they started revealing it publicly in 2012. This is the actual 1-68 ranking of every team and determines the order in which teams are placed into the bracket. If you’re number 5 overall, you’ll go to the closest region (unless another rule prevents it, such as the 1 seed there is in your conference or if other rules don’t prevent movement elsewhere, the number 1 overall is already there). This is generally held even if it messes up other teams below. For example, sometimes if the number 5 overall seed moved slightly farther away, it would allow the other 3 teams below to stay somewhat close as opposed to sending them all far away. This change wont be made at the expense of 5 overall unless there’s other rules in play.

For Duke this year, aside from not being as the same region as FSU and Louisville, it would mean that NY is more likely to have teams like Maryland or Seton Hall or Villanova rather than a team like Kentucky or Dayton, but it all depends on the exact seed order and what conferences get what teams where. For example West Virginia is a team to watch. It’s likely that Baylor and Kansas will both be ahead of WVU, but WVU is still on track for a top 4 seed, even after two straight losses. That means WVU by rule will have to go to a separate region from Baylor and Kansas, regardless of anything else. This is where all those other caveats could come into play. Let’s hypothetically say Baylor and Kansas hold 1 seeds in the south and Midwest and WVU somehow climbs up to 5 overall and Duke is 6 overall (I know this scenario is unlikely but it’s illustrative). In this situation WVU will get the east and Duke sent to the next closest region (likely the south, but this would be up to the committee, Duke’s “preference” would not come into play). They won’t ship WVU all the way out west just for a team behind them in the seed list to stay closer to home.

[scottdude8]

Again, as described in earlier posts, one doesn't necessitate the other. Being the fourth 1-seed does NOT mean you're bracketed with the top 2-seed. It just doesn't. Period. It may happen, it seems intuitively fair for it to happen, but that's not the way the Committee does it. If we're the fourth 1-seed and Kansas is the top 2-seed, that almost certainly means we're in the East and they're in the Midwest*. Gimme that all day long.

*ETA: Unless, by some craziness, another team in the eastern US (e.g., Seton Hall, UMd) goes HAM and wins out, and gets a higher 1-seed than us.

Yup yup yup! If we claim the last No. 1 seed, which would in all likelihood mean Kansas has dropped down (operating under the reasonable assumption that Gonzaga and SDSU both win out), Kansas would have first "geographic choice" of region amongst the No. 2 seeds as the top such seed. The only restriction would be that, as the top 2 seed, they could not be placed in the same bracket as Baylor (a common conference opponent). Assuming Baylor is in Houston, that puts Kansas in Indianapolis, regardless of which No. 1 seed is there.

Now, ironically (if we're playing this scenario out), the No. 1 seed in Indianapolis would likely be SDSU (since, as the No. 3 overall top seed, they'd want to be as close to home as possible, i.e. not all the way on the east coast in NYC). So Kansas would still luck out and get the consensus "worst" No. 1 seed in a place where they have a geographic advantage.

This thought experiment is just to say the following: if things hold to form, whoever doesn't get on the top line between us and Kansas is probably going to end up pretty happy with their location and No. 1 seed. In fact, even if Duke and Kansas swap seed lines, we'll both probably end up in the same location as we're projected now. The biggest difference between that No. 1 and No. 2 seed will be in the quality of the second round and Sweet 16 opponents, most likely.

[scottdude8]

P.S. The likelihood of Seton Hall getting a No. 1 seed plummeted after their loss at home to Creighton yesterday. Maryland would have an argument if they sweep the B1G Regular Season and Tourney titles, but as I mentioned in a previous thread their record has been inflated a bit by a relatively easy first half of the conference season (they still have two games against MSU to play, plus hard road games at OSU, Minnesota, and Rutgers). I'd give them small odds to finish with five or less losses (which would probably be needed to be in the No. 1 seed argument).

[brevity]

"2. The committee will then place the No. 2 seeds in each region in true seed list order. The committee may relax the principle of keeping teams as close to their area of natural interest for seeding teams on the No. 2 line to avoid, for example, the overall No. 5 seed being sent to the same region as the overall No. 1 seed. The committee will not compromise the principle of keeping teams from the same conference in separate regions."

Didn't this literally happen last year? From my memory, the overall number 5 seed (MSU) faced the number 1 overall seed (Duke)?


MSU was the No. 6 overall seed, and Tennessee was the No. 5 overall seed.

Some fudging of the numbers by the Selection Committee. (Not as blatant as in 2017, when South Carolina went from being a 5 seed to a 7 seed as Duke advanced in the ACC Tournament.)

Most people forget this, but of the Top 16 seeds in the 2019 NCAA Tournament (the Top 4 of each region), a whopping 14 of them were at-large bids. The only two that won their conference tournaments? Duke and Michigan State. Other conference tournaments were won by Auburn (5 seed), Iowa State (6 seed), Villanova (6 seed), Cincinnati (7 seed), and St. Mary's (11 seed). It's almost as if the lazy Selection Committee set the bracket before any of the tournaments were completed, and then talked on TV about how hard it was.

[Kedsy]

Now, ironically (if we're playing this scenario out), the No. 1 seed in Indianapolis would likely be SDSU (since, as the No. 3 overall top seed, they'd want to be as close to home as possible, i.e. not all the way on the east coast in NYC).

I'm not doubting that this is the way they do it, but does anybody really think there's a practical difference for SDSU between Indianapolis and New York? Both places involve very long plane trips, they're in the same time zone, and neither place is convenient for their fans. In fact, if you take a commercial plane trip, it takes a little less time to get to New York because all the planes from San Diego to Indianapolis involve a stopover.

[tbyers11]

I'm curious, where did you "play around with" these things? Not doubting you, just wondering where that tool would be, as it would be fun to play around with.



The TeamCast link on the Duke team page at Barttorvik,com. Direct link here (http://barttorvik.com/teamcast.php?&team=Duke&year=2020).

Choose your results for remaining games and push the Add Conf Tourney Sim button

[Bluedog]

I'm not doubting that this is the way they do it, but does anybody really think there's a practical difference for SDSU between Indianapolis and New York? Both places involve very long plane trips, they're in the same time zone, and neither place is convenient for their fans. In fact, if you take a commercial plane trip, it takes a little less time to get to New York because all the planes from San Diego to Indianapolis involve a stopover.

Nope, very little practical difference. Except the players I'm sure fly charter. :D

[Kedsy]

Nope, very little practical difference. Except the players I'm sure fly charter. :D

I'm sure a lot of teams do. Not sure how big San Diego State's budget is for things like that.

[DU82]

I'm sure a lot of teams do. Not sure how big San Diego State's budget is for things like that.

NCAA pays the travel costs in the tournament.

[Kedsy]

NCAA pays the travel costs in the tournament.

And they fly the teams in private planes?

[Bluedog]

And they fly the teams in private planes?

Hmmm good point and question. Only thing I can find is the NCAA pays $4k per student for travel expenses for Final Four and $3k for each student's family travel (as of 2015). I'd guess the university or student/family would have to cover fees in excess of that and that's just for F4 weekend. Don't know what the policy is for earlier rounds. I assume a private charter jet is more than $4k/person alone for a cross country flight but I honestly have no idea given I've never taken one.

[SCMatt33]

Hmmm good point and question. Only thing I can find is the NCAA pays $4k per student for travel expenses for Final Four and $3k for each student's family travel (as of 2015). I'd guess the university or student/family would have to cover fees in excess of that and that's just for F4 weekend. Don't know what the policy is for earlier rounds. I assume a private charter jet is more than $4k/person alone for a cross country flight but I honestly have no idea given I've never taken one.

At least as of 2009 when I graduated, Duke (both men and women) was traveling to NCAAT games that needed a flight by a chartered 737 (the band and cheerleaders get to hitch a ride on the back of the plane). I know anecdotally from in game commentary they have charters waiting for first four teams to take them to their next destination so I always assumed this was standard tournament travel. From googling, a 737 charter runs about 20k per hour, and after band, cheerleaders and support staff are included, I’d imagine most of these flights have around 100 people, if not more on board, so unless it Hawai’i traveling to the east coast (which I’m sure would get an exemption) you won’t hit 3k per person on these trips.

[DU82]

And they fly the teams in private planes?

Charter flights for the most part.

Flew on one back in 1980 to West Lafayette and Lexington.

[sagegrouse]

Charter flights for the most part.

Flew on one back in 1980 to West Lafayette and Lexington.

Herb the Crazy Towel Guy is taking some hits on this Board. Hey guys! He is who he is.

He once told me that for the 1980 regionals in Lexington, Ky. he went to the airport trying to get a plane ticket to Louisville. None were available. He appealed to a male flight attendant, telling him the reason he "had to" get on the flight. The guy let him on the plane, and he rode in a jump seat. Different era of civil aviation, to be sure.

[WiJoe]

Herb the Crazy Towel Guy is taking some hits on this Board. Hey guys! He is who he is.



Pretty sure Herb shows up for ALL the games ... unlike the students

[uh_no]

Pretty sure Herb shows up for ALL the games ... unlike the students

pretty sure he publicly bailed on the football team a few years back.

And if the students had the amount of commitments as a retired man, and could walk into a game at tip and sit in a seat the whole time, they would show up more often, too.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Pretty sure Herb shows up for ALL the games ... unlike the students


pretty sure he publicly bailed on the football team a few years back.

And if the students had the amount of commitments as a retired man, and could walk into a game at tip and sit in a seat the whole time, they would show up more often, too.

Yep. He totally did. I appreciate his attendance to the basketball games, but that is apples to oranges. He tented next to us on Blue Devil Alley and made a big deal of himself being the ultimate supporter of all Duke athletes, and then he bailed. Silver lining for us was that it brought our current tent neighbors one over to where they currently are, and thus the best tailgate on campus was born.
The irony of him bailing when he did, for me, is that I remember sitting next to or behind him in the bleachers during games because those seats were available. We'd just walk down empty bleachers and pop a squat. He was one of the other 200 fans in the stands. Boggles my mind that he showed up through THOSE years of Duke FB, and then skipped out on the last 8 or 9. I don't know if he's been back, but I hope so.

[duke2x]

At least as of 2009 when I graduated, Duke (both men and women) was traveling to NCAAT games that needed a flight by a chartered 737 (the band and cheerleaders get to hitch a ride on the back of the plane). I know anecdotally from in game commentary they have charters waiting for first four teams to take them to their next destination so I always assumed this was standard tournament travel. From googling, a 737 charter runs about 20k per hour, and after band, cheerleaders and support staff are included, I’d imagine most of these flights have around 100 people, if not more on board, so unless it Hawai’i traveling to the east coast (which I’m sure would get an exemption) you won’t hit 3k per person on these trips.

While that policy postdates me, it depends on demand for the charter and the cost. A trip to Ohio might only have demand for the players and coaches to fly while the support takes a bus. A trip to Florida might have enough Iron Duke demand to fill a charter.

In 2001 as a student, I had enough frequent flyer miles to book in advance on Delta the summer before. There was a labor dispute at the last minute that made getting back a little iffy. I looked into the private travel company the Iron Dukes used as a backup. Their charter price was about $1000 when RT commercial on Northwest was going for $600 at the last minute. I was fortunate I got back on my Delta flight a few hours late.

[Phredd3]

Pretty sure Herb shows up for ALL the games ... unlike the students

Only if the games are played by men. He publicly bailed on the women's team several years ago. Let's just say that my respect for him has been...damaged.

[Acymetric]

At least as of 2009 when I graduated, Duke (both men and women) was traveling to NCAAT games that needed a flight by a chartered 737 (the band and cheerleaders get to hitch a ride on the back of the plane). I know anecdotally from in game commentary they have charters waiting for first four teams to take them to their next destination so I always assumed this was standard tournament travel. From googling, a 737 charter runs about 20k per hour, and after band, cheerleaders and support staff are included, I’d imagine most of these flights have around 100 people, if not more on board, so unless it Hawai’i traveling to the east coast (which I’m sure would get an exemption) you won’t hit 3k per person on these trips.

I doubt the NCAA is giving $4k per person for the band and whatnot. I would expect it is just the players and (maybe) coaches.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I doubt the NCAA is giving $4k per person for the band and whatnot. I would expect it is just the players and (maybe) coaches.

If I had to guess, and God knows I'm not one to think like your typical NCAA bureaucrat....but I would imagine the NCAA has a formula for how much they pay, and leave it to the school to spend it how they want. LIke I said, that's just a flier, a guess....

[sagegrouse]

If I had to guess, and God knows I'm not one to think like your typical NCAA bureaucrat...but I would imagine the NCAA has a formula for how much they pay, and leave it to the school to spend it how they want. LIke I said, that's just a flier, a guess...

When it comes to hotel rooms, I suspect the Association pre-contracts for a given number of rooms at four hotels at each of the 14 or so sites and covers the costs. There would. I expect, be another hotel or two for NCAA officialdom and yet another for CBS.

When it comes to the Final Four, there is also some allocation of high-end and medium quality hotels to each school for their fans. I dunno about high end, since -- in six FF's, I have never stayed in one, although I did stay, by accident, in the same Marriott as the Georgia Tech team at the 1990 Final Four in Denver.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Just to further muddle the waters and take this discussion well off the rails, what role do conferences play in funding team travel? Conferences get money from the NCAA for their teams. When a bunch of ACC teams go deep into the NCAA Tournament, the conference gets a huge payday. Does the ACC fund part of the travel for bands, teams, etc.

[camion]

Just to further muddle the waters and take this discussion well off the rails, what role do conferences play in funding team travel? Conferences get money from the NCAA for their teams. When a bunch of ACC teams go deep into the NCAA Tournament, the conference gets a huge payday. Does the ACC fund part of the travel for bands, teams, etc.

Let me try to put my self in the shoes of an official in a random conference.

The NCAA gives me a pot of money. Do I:
1. Give some of it to people playing musical instruments that you will see for maybe 5 seconds during a game.
2. Keep it.

Tough choice.

[DU82]

Official hotels with X number of rooms are contracted/reserved for each of the eight teams at each sub regional site. These arrangements are done by the host school/conference. The teams select the hotels in order of seed. (Same number of rooms for each school, and they are obligated to pay for them, even if, say, we’re playing in Raleigh and stay on campus. (The NCAA provides funds for the travel.)

You may remember a 15/16th seed playing us one year got a crappy hotel, and their motto was “you’ll pay for it because of our hotel.”

Back in the late ‘80s, Navy was sent to Boise, I believe, and got the Flying J Truck Plaza as their hotel. And they were the seventh seed. No word on where the eighth team stayed.

Same thing happens at the regionals and Final Four (although only four hotels, of course.)

[uh_no]

Let me try to put my self in the shoes of an official in a random conference.

The NCAA gives me a pot of money. Do I:
1. Give some of it to people playing musical instruments that you will see for maybe 5 seconds during a game.
2. Keep it.

Tough choice.

the ACC represents the schools, and the schools pay for the bands to travel. The ACC makes a payment for tournament winnings to the schools. So it doesn't really matter as it all comes from the same pot in the end anyway.

[Troublemaker]

This is unrelated to anything that came before, but for reference, here is our history as a 2-seed since the mid-90s. (Note: During our '86-'94 run, we killed as a 2-seed.)

1997: lost to Providence in the Round of 32
2008: lost to West Virginia in the Round of 32
2009: lost to Villanova in the Round of 32
2012: lost to Lehigh in the Round of 64
2013: lost to Louisville in the Elite 8
2017: lost to South Carolina in the Round of 32
2018: lost to Kansas in the Elite 8

7 times total: 5 times losing in the first weekend, 2 times losing in the Elite 8, and 0 Final Fours.

[Kedsy]

2009: lost to Villanova in the Round of 32

Nitpick: In 2009, we lost to Villanova in the Sweet 16.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Not to look ahead too much, because Duke has to take care of business for this to matter, but Saturday is shaping up to be a significant one for determining the 1-seeds.

Baylor has a test tonight in Oklahoma, a game where they are still favored by a somewhat narrow margin (-3.5). On Saturday, the Bears return home to host Kansas.

Also on Saturday, Gonzaga travels to BYU to face its toughest remaining opponent. T-Rank has that one as a potential upset with Gonzaga favored by a narrow 2.6 point margin. Gonzaga already played BYU in Spokane, WA. It was not a close game. However, the Cougars were not playing with 6'8" SR F Yoeli Childs, one of their top players. Childs is a prolific scorer, hitting on better than 60% from inside the arc and 50% from beyond it on limited attempts. BYU is the best 3-point shooting team in the country. Gonzaga is also a great shooting team and has one of the most potent offenses in the nation. It should be a great matchup.

Should Gonzaga lose to BYU, two of the current projected 1 seeds will take an L on Saturday. It's possible that Baylor could also lose tonight in Norman, Oklahoma. Even if Baylor leaves Oklahoma with a win tonight and Gonzaga holds on in Utah this weekend, one of Kansas and Baylor will take a loss this Saturday. And Duke is right there, waiting to move up.

Comparing resumes, Baylor would have to drop at least 2 games the rest of the season for Duke to pass them for a 1 seed in my opinion. There's no shame in losing to Kansas. But they would have to lose one to West Virginia or Texas Tech or someone else for Duke to jump them. For Kansas, though, a loss at Baylor would almost guarantee a second-place finish in the B12 regular season. if Duke does end up winning out and clinching the best record in the ACC, I don't see how the committee would have KU ahead of Duke. They have similar resumes. KU's best win all year was an overtime victory over Dayton in Maui. They have a ton of Q1 victories, but a good number of them are against B12 teams on the bubble. NET seems to love a 7-loss West Virginia team that has dropped 4 of its last 6 games. And Colorado, a 6-loss PAC-12 team is inexplicably 9th in NET despite having the tourney resume of a 5 seed (top 20). If KU loses to Baylor and Duke holds serve this week, I don't see how Duke doesn't jump the Jayhawks for a 1 seed. They have similar resumes and Duke has that head-to-head victory.

First things first, though, got to take care of business.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Nitpick: In 2009, we lost to Villanova in the Sweet 16.

Was that the game they beat us, by, like a thousand?

[Troublemaker]

Nitpick: In 2009, we lost to Villanova in the Sweet 16.

Thanks. Still (and I think you may agree), I'll probably feel better if we get that 1-seed.

[rsvman]

Was that the game they beat us, by, like a thousand?

No, it was the game in which they led us by 10-16 points or so pretty much all the way through the second half, and in which I kept believing that we would close the gap and win but then we didn't. It was definitely a frustrating game, and it probably felt like we lost by a thousand, though.

[npdevil27]

No, it was the game in which they led us by 10-16 points or so pretty much all the way through the second half, and in which I kept believing that we would close the gap and win but then we didn't. It was definitely a frustrating game, and it probably felt like we lost by a thousand, though.
I was at that game. I remember being down only a couple at halftime and thinking, well, we couldn't make a single shot in the first half and we're only down a few, I like our chances... then Villanova ran away with it in the second half.

Edit: I just looked it up. Down 26-23. Scheyer and Gerald combined to shoot 4 of 32 (!!). Overall Duke was 16 of 60. Yowza.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

No, it was the game in which they led us by 10-16 points or so pretty much all the way through the second half, and in which I kept believing that we would close the gap and win but then we didn't. It was definitely a frustrating game, and it probably felt like we lost by a thousand, though.

I think the game I'm thinking about was earlier than 2009...I'll have to research it. For some reason, I'm remembering like a 34 point beat down....

EDIT, I was thinking about 2009...it was 77-54 and we shot less than 30%. I think something like 27%. That's why it felt like a thousand. And to get beat by 23 when you only score 54 is pretty significant percentage beat down.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Was that the game they beat us, by, like a thousand?

We may not have actually lost by a thousand, but their guards definitely blew by our defense to the rim a thousand times.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

We may not have actually lost by a thousand, but their guards definitely blew by our defense to the rim a thousand times.

And we clanked EVERYTHING......

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

And we clanked EVERYTHING...

Glad we remember it the same way. Just one of those day you ain't gonna win.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Glad we remember it the same way. Just one of those day you ain't gonna win.

Duke: 18.5% from 3 and....overall......26.7%. TWENTY SIX POINT SEVEN! Yuk.

[Kedsy]

Thanks. Still (and I think you may agree), I'll probably feel better if we get that 1-seed.

Totally agree. I've been saying it for years. Even beyond Duke's success at each seed, 1-seeds get to the Final Four twice as often as 2-seeds.

[SCMatt33]

Totally agree. I've been saying it for years. Even beyond Duke's success at each seed, 1-seeds get to the Final Four twice as often as 2-seeds.

Yeah, but it’s impossible to quantify how much of that is due to 1 seeds having an easier path (which is all that matters when you’re talking about the same team getting a 1 vs a 2 seed) and how much is due to 1 seeds generally being better teams than 2 seeds, which is why they got a 1 in the first place.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Yeah, but it’s impossible to quantify how much of that is due to 1 seeds having an easier path (which is all that matters when you’re talking about the same team getting a 1 vs a 2 seed) and how much is due to 1 seeds generally being better teams than 2 seeds, which is why they got a 1 in the first place.

I can't spork you, but I agree 100%. You could look at it the other way around and say how much better it is to be a 15 seed than a 16 seed because (sorry UVA) 16 seeds almost never win. Well, they are also playing better competition.

Yes, the path for a one seed is a bit easier than a two seed, but there's more at play than just pulling the easier draw.

[gofurman]

I can't spork you, but I agree 100%. You could look at it the other way around and say how much better it is to be a 15 seed than a 16 seed because (sorry UVA) 16 seeds almost never win. Well, they are also playing better competition.

Yes, the path for a one seed is a bit easier than a two seed, but there's more at play than just pulling the easier draw.

Right , Or how about the 8/9 winner vs a 7/10 winner - heck matchups matter more than that a lot of times. It's how good YOU are that made you a 1 seed. jay Williams etc were one seed quality teams

[Kedsy]

Yeah, but it’s impossible to quantify how much of that is due to 1 seeds having an easier path (which is all that matters when you’re talking about the same team getting a 1 vs a 2 seed) and how much is due to 1 seeds generally being better teams than 2 seeds, which is why they got a 1 in the first place.

True, it's impossible to quantify how much is due to having an easier path, but it's pretty likely that it's some significant percentage.

I'm not willing to do more complicated math right now, but looking at the last three years of pre-tournament Pomeroy data, the average 1-seed had a rating of 29.66 while the average 2-seed had a rating of 27.07. Adjusting for tempo, that suggests the average 1-seed over the past three seasons is 1.76 points better than the average 2-seed. Which doesn't seem like much, and yet in that three-year period five #1s made the Final Four and only one #2. Small sample, of course. But as I said earlier, in the entire history of the 64+ team NCAA tournament, #1s have made the Final Four twice as often as #2s. My guess is over that 36-year period the average mathematical difference between the seeds is a similar 1.5 to 2 points per team, which I don't think would come close to explaining a two-to-one difference in Final Four teams.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

True, it's impossible to quantify how much is due to having an easier path, but it's pretty likely that it's some significant percentage.

I'm not willing to do more complicated math right now, but looking at the last three years of pre-tournament Pomeroy data, the average 1-seed had a rating of 29.66 while the average 2-seed had a rating of 27.07. Adjusting for tempo, that suggests the average 1-seed over the past three seasons is 1.76 points better than the average 2-seed. Which doesn't seem like much, and yet in that three-year period five #1s made the Final Four and only one #2. Small sample, of course. But as I said earlier, in the entire history of the 64+ team NCAA tournament, #1s have made the Final Four twice as often as #2s. My guess is over that 36-year period the average mathematical difference between the seeds is a similar 1.5 to 2 points per team, which I don't think would come close to explaining a two-to-one difference in Final Four teams.

But... One seeds are better teams and are expected to advance regardless of their path. If two seeds were beating one seeds regularly in the Elite Eight, it would be very surprising.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

True, it's impossible to quantify how much is due to having an easier path, but it's pretty likely that it's some significant percentage.

I'm not willing to do more complicated math right now, but looking at the last three years of pre-tournament Pomeroy data, the average 1-seed had a rating of 29.66 while the average 2-seed had a rating of 27.07. Adjusting for tempo, that suggests the average 1-seed over the past three seasons is 1.76 points better than the average 2-seed. Which doesn't seem like much, and yet in that three-year period five #1s made the Final Four and only one #2. Small sample, of course. But as I said earlier, in the entire history of the 64+ team NCAA tournament, #1s have made the Final Four twice as often as #2s. My guess is over that 36-year period the average mathematical difference between the seeds is a similar 1.5 to 2 points per team, which I don't think would come close to explaining a two-to-one difference in Final Four teams.

...and then those figures get skewed when the NCAA committee puts the number one team in the country in the same bracket as the top 2 seed in the country.....

[Kedsy]

But... One seeds are better teams and are expected to advance regardless of their path. If two seeds were beating one seeds regularly in the Elite Eight, it would be very surprising.

Since 1985, 1-seeds have played 2-seeds 47 times. The #1 has won 23 and lost 24 of those games. So perhaps not regularly, but we're certainly not seeing #1s clobber #2s if they're so much better (in fact we're not even seeing them win more than they lose).

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Since 1985, 1-seeds have played 2-seeds 47 times. The #1 has won 23 and lost 24 of those games. So perhaps not regularly, but we're certainly not seeing #1s clobber #2s if they're so much better (in fact we're not even seeing them win more than they lose).

That's interesting that it's that close.....and of course, in one region, when a 1 and a 2 play, theoretically - that's national #4 versus national #5 - so that's virtually the same seed.

[npdevil27]

Since 1985, 1-seeds have played 2-seeds 47 times. The #1 has won 23 and lost 24 of those games. So perhaps not regularly, but we're certainly not seeing #1s clobber #2s if they're so much better (in fact we're not even seeing them win more than they lose).

How many of those 1 vs 2 games were in the same region, and what is the record in those games? In other words, how much of the 2 to 1 difference of 1 seeds making it vs. 2 seeds is explained (or not explained) by this data point?

[uh_no]

Yeah, but it’s impossible to quantify how much of that is due to 1 seeds having an easier path (which is all that matters when you’re talking about the same team getting a 1 vs a 2 seed) and how much is due to 1 seeds generally being better teams than 2 seeds, which is why they got a 1 in the first place.

i disagree that it's impossible to quantify. There are plenty of models and at least 20 years worth of objective data that would allow you to make relatively accurate estimations about probability of reaching the final four were 1 and 2 seed paths swapped.

It's something I've wanted to do for some time, but unlikely to have time to do in the near future.

In the end it's probably some of both, though I suspect given that there will be a tail on a distribution, your average 3 and 4 seed, and 7 and 8 seed will be closer in ability than your average 1 and 2 seed....then of course the 2 seed would be expected to lose to the 1 seed anyway....so you would want to look at the probability of reaching the elite 8.

https://sports.cbsimg.net/images/collegebasketball/tiernan2011seedguide.pdf

There is a huge amount of data incorporated here, the most important points:

* support for my above argument that there is a long tail at the top of the distribution
* 1v2 is 18-18, which is weak evidence that the two are equivalent, but it is not the only explanation. IF, for instance, we accept that there are 2 seeds which are equivalent to 1 seeds in quality, than those 2 seeds will be disproportionately expected to reach the E8 vs an average 2 seed, and also would be expected to perform better than an average 2 seed. The 2 seeds, oddly enough, perform WORSE than expected against all other seeds, which is somewhat contradictory.

In any case, I saw Kedsy's response, even though I started typing this before he committed it, and I think my "alternate scenario" in the second bullet point points out one of the flaws of using JUST rudimentary aggregated data, as there are clearly confounding variables that lead to seemingly contradictory data.

That being the case, short of actually simulating tournaments swapping 1 and 2 seeds and observing potential of reaching the elite 8, I'll be unconvinced of arguments that say much more than "the actual ability of the 1/2 seed and the average difficult of the path both likely play some role in determining likelihood to reach the elite 8," which I think is hardly a controversial statement.

[Phredd3]

That being the case, short of actually simulating tournaments swapping 1 and 2 seeds and observing potential of reaching the elite 8, I'll be unconvinced of arguments that say much more than "the actual ability of the 1/2 seed and the average difficult of the path both likely play some role in determining likelihood to reach the elite 8," which I think is hardly a controversial statement.

A lot of words there, but in the end I've got you down for, "It's theoretically possible to quantify, but nobody has actually successfully quantified it." Is that about right?

[SCMatt33]

i disagree that it's impossible to quantify. There are plenty of models and at least 20 years worth of objective data that would allow you to make relatively accurate estimations about probability of reaching the final four were 1 and 2 seed paths swapped.

It's something I've wanted to do for some time, but unlikely to have time to do in the near future.

In the end it's probably some of both, though I suspect given that there will be a tail on a distribution, your average 3 and 4 seed, and 7 and 8 seed will be closer in ability than your average 1 and 2 seed...then of course the 2 seed would be expected to lose to the 1 seed anyway...so you would want to look at the probability of reaching the elite 8.

https://sports.cbsimg.net/images/collegebasketball/tiernan2011seedguide.pdf

There is a huge amount of data incorporated here, the most important points:

* support for my above argument that there is a long tail at the top of the distribution
* 1v2 is 18-18, which is weak evidence that the two are equivalent, but it is not the only explanation. IF, for instance, we accept that there are 2 seeds which are equivalent to 1 seeds in quality, than those 2 seeds will be disproportionately expected to reach the E8 vs an average 2 seed, and also would be expected to perform better than an average 2 seed. The 2 seeds, oddly enough, perform WORSE than expected against all other seeds, which is somewhat contradictory.

In any case, I saw Kedsy's response, even though I started typing this before he committed it, and I think my "alternate scenario" in the second bullet point points out one of the flaws of using JUST rudimentary aggregated data, as there are clearly confounding variables that lead to seemingly contradictory data.

That being the case, short of actually simulating tournaments swapping 1 and 2 seeds and observing potential of reaching the elite 8, I'll be unconvinced of arguments that say much more than "the actual ability of the 1/2 seed and the average difficult of the path both likely play some role in determining likelihood to reach the elite 8," which I think is hardly a controversial statement.

You can come up with lots of models. KenPom has a very good log5 analysis that he runs every year that give predictions on a percentage basis for each round. Swapping a team from a 1 to a 2 seed would give you a good idea of how much it would theoretically help or hurt to move up or down. Those things don’t and can never factor in specific circumstances like how well you match up with a certain style of play, or what upsets happen to help or hurt your path to get there. There’s some amount of advantage in general to being a 1 seed for the same team than if they got a 2 seed.

What you can’t quantify with any reasonable accuracy is how much this particular group of players in this particular year will be helped or hurt by getting a 1 or a 2 seed. If you could, there’d be someone making crap tons of money every year on their brackets, but factors that aren’t known on selection Sunday play a huge role in the actual outcomes. Something like KenPom gives you a good rough estimate and would be much more accurate than simply citing the difference in how many 1 seeds vs 2 seeds have made the FF, but it’s not and can’t be perfect, as a future game of basketball played by 18-22 year old kids is not a deterministic event.

It’s silly to see people argue that you aren’t better off getting a 1 seed. You absolutely are, and every single time I’ve commented over the years I’ve always been on the side of 1 seed in a less preferred location. But it’s just as silly when year in and year out, the percentage of one seed/ making the final four vs the percentage of two seeds gets thrown out there as evidence of how much of an advantage it is whe Duke is bringing the same roster either way.

[uh_no]

A lot of words there, but in the end I've got you down for, "It's theoretically possible to quantify, but nobody has actually successfully quantified it." Is that about right?

I would say "The kind of people who are interested in quantifying it haven't done so."

[uh_no]

You can come up with lots of models. KenPom has a very good log5 analysis that he runs every year that give predictions on a percentage basis for each round. Swapping a team from a 1 to a 2 seed would give you a good idea of how much it would theoretically help or hurt to move up or down. Those things don’t and can never factor in specific circumstances like how well you match up with a certain style of play, or what upsets happen to help or hurt your path to get there. There’s some amount of advantage in general to being a 1 seed for the same team than if they got a 2 seed.

What you can’t quantify with any reasonable accuracy is how much this particular group of players in this particular year will be helped or hurt by getting a 1 or a 2 seed. If you could, there’d be someone making crap tons of money every year on their brackets, but factors that aren’t known on selection Sunday play a huge role in the actual outcomes. Something like KenPom gives you a good rough estimate and would be much more accurate than simply citing the difference in how many 1 seeds vs 2 seeds have made the FF, but it’s not and can’t be perfect, as a future game of basketball played by 18-22 year old kids is not a deterministic event.

It’s silly to see people argue that you aren’t better off getting a 1 seed. You absolutely are, and every single time I’ve commented over the years I’ve always been on the side of 1 seed in a less preferred location. But it’s just as silly when year in and year out, the percentage of one seed/ making the final four vs the percentage of two seeds gets thrown out there as evidence of how much of an advantage it is whe Duke is bringing the same roster either way.

I largely agree with all that.

I can't imagine arguing in general that one would prefer a 2 seed to a 1 seed. There may be specific years and specific brackets where you look at it and say that being a 1 vs 2 might be a wash, or preferable to a 2. But the degree to which I see it referred to as a death knell is far overstated when you consider the factors that have often lead to duke ending up with a 2 seed. We can go back looking:

2018: we made it to the elite 8, where we lost to kansas, who we presumably would have lost to anyway were we the 1 and they the 2. Kansas had a far harder road anyway, with #26 SHU, and #14 clemson, vs #52 URI and #41 syracuse.
2017: duke deserved every bit of the 2 seed, and lost to a USC team that went to the final four, to whom duke would have presumably lost to as the 1 seed 2 rounds later
2013: Duke lost in the elite 8 to #1 seed louisville, whom we would have presumably lost to anyway as the 1 seed. I would buy the argument that perhaps UL is more rested, and I'm sure more than a few of you would make that case, but it doesn't change the fact that the two seed didn't materially impact our making the elite 8, where we had our chance to beat a team we would have played anyway, and didn't.
2012: duke didn't play in the tournament as the 2 seed
2009: duke was a 2 seed that lost to a final-four villanova team
2008: UCLA played #21 TX A&M in the second round, and we played #18 UWV. There was ~1 point difference between the two, but certainly not enough for me to believe we would have been any more or less successful against the former vs the latter, especially given our performance against belmont. Sure it's not the 300+ rank that UCLA faced, but you're going to have a tough time convincing me that if a team has trouble beating a 100+ team in the first round that they have the 2 seed to blame for not making the final 4.


So of the 6 times we've had a 2 seed:
4 times we lost to the team that went to the final four from that bracket.
1 Of those times the more difficult road of reaching that team may have affected our chances (though i'm not sure that an easier path would have made quinn more able to beat the press, or us more able to defend the PNR...and we lost by 22)
2 times the team was not good enough for the matchup they ended up with, and could have reasonably gotten on the other side of the bracket.

So out of 6 times, only once is there a case that getting a 2 instead of a 1 might be something we could blame...and even that is tenuous at best.

[House P]

i disagree that it's impossible to quantify. There are plenty of models and at least 20 years worth of objective data that would allow you to make relatively accurate estimations about probability of reaching the final four were 1 and 2 seed paths swapped.

It's something I've wanted to do for some time, but unlikely to have time to do in the near future.

In the end it's probably some of both, though I suspect given that there will be a tail on a distribution, your average 3 and 4 seed, and 7 and 8 seed will be closer in ability than your average 1 and 2 seed...then of course the 2 seed would be expected to lose to the 1 seed anyway...so you would want to look at the probability of reaching the elite 8.


One way of looking at the benefit of getting a 1 seed vs a 2 seed is to use KenPom ratings to estimate a the likelihood of a team making the Final 4 based on the seed a team receives within a particular bracket.

To get a sense for this, I estimated the likelihood of a team with an Adjusted Efficiency Margin (AdjEM) of 27.64 making the Final 4 against an "average" bracket based on their seed. I chose an AdjEM of 27.64 because that is Duke's current KemPom rating.

First of all, here is the average pre-tourney AdjEM by seed for the past 10 years.





Seed
Avg AdjEM


1
29.2


2
26.0


3
23.0


4
22.4


5
20.4


6
18.2


7
17.8


8
16.9


9
15.7


10
15.6


11
14.9


12
13.0


13
9.1


14
7.2


15
3.0


16
-3.1





If you put a team with Duke's current AdjEM into this "average" bracket, their likelihood of making the Final 4 would drop would drop from 33.3% as a 1 seed to 28.0% as a 2 seed and 24.2% as a 3 seed. Further details regarding the likelihood of advancing to a particular round according to seed are provided in the table below.






Seed
Advance to R32
Advance to R16
Advance to R8
Advance to Final4


1
97.9%
76.7%
52.9%
33.3%


2
94.8%
72.2%
49.8%
28.0%


3
91.2%
69.5%
43.1%
24.2%


4
88.9%
65.2%
34.4%
21.7%


5
83.3%
57.3%
30.2%
19.1%


6
80.1%
53.4%
33.1%
18.6%


7
78.7%
45.2%
31.2%
17.5%


8
78.5%
36.8%
25.4%
16.0%




Of course, as others have pointed out, Duke isn't going to face an "average" bracket. The actual probabilities will vary a fair amount depending on the actual bracket. For example, there are certainly scenarios where it may be better to be a 2 seed in a bracket with relatively weak 1 and 3 seeds, than to be a 1 seed in a bracket with strong 2, 4, and/or 5 seeds. But, on average, it is better to be a 1 seed that a 2 seed.

[sagegrouse]

Since 1985, 1-seeds have played 2-seeds 47 times. The #1 has won 23 and lost 24 of those games. So perhaps not regularly, but we're certainly not seeing #1s clobber #2s if they're so much better (in fact we're not even seeing them win more than they lose).

Kedsy: I think I am coming into the middle of a discussion and may have missed some of the argument, but, even so, don't #1 seeds have a far higher probability of reaching the Final Four?

In 35 years, according to NCAA.com, 57 of 140 #1 seeds (41 percent) have reached the Final Four as compared to 29 #2 seeds (21).

Of the champions, 22 have been #1 seeds (63 percent), or 15.7 percent sample probability for each #1 of 140 seed. Five #2 seeds have become NCAA champs, including Duke in 1991.

Perhaps a supporting point to your argument could be -- Any team that wins three NCAA games and makes the Elite Eight is pretty darned good, so the #2's, although fewer making the Elite Eight, are pretty formidable.

[uh_no]

If you put a team with Duke's current AdjEM into this "average" bracket, their likelihood of making the Final 4 would drop would drop from 33.3% as a 1 seed to 28.0% as a 2 seed and 24.2% as a 3 seed.


I would have guessed slightly more than that, but it validates the thesis that it's not a death-knell and the intrinsic ability of the team is far more impactful.

[Kedsy]

Kedsy: I think I am coming into the middle of a discussion and may have missed some of the argument, but, even so, don't #1 seeds have a far higher probability of reaching the Final Four?

In 35 years, according to NCAA.com, 57 of 140 #1 seeds (41 percent) have reached the Final Four as compared to 29 #2 seeds (21).

Of the champions, 22 have been #1 seeds (63 percent), or 15.7 percent sample probability for each #1 of 140 seed. Five #2 seeds have become NCAA champs, including Duke in 1991.

Perhaps a supporting point to your argument could be -- Any team that wins three NCAA games and makes the Elite Eight is pretty darned good, so the #2's, although fewer making the Elite Eight, are pretty formidable.

Yes, you're coming into the middle. This conversation started with me saying #1 seeds make the Final Four twice as much as #2 seeds. Other people said that was largely because #1 seeds are better than #2 seeds and one person said, "If two seeds were beating one seeds regularly in the Elite Eight, it would be very surprising." And I responded with the post you quoted, saying that #2 seeds do in fact win about 50% (a little better) of their games with #1 seeds.


I largely agree with all that.

I can't imagine arguing in general that one would prefer a 2 seed to a 1 seed. There may be specific years and specific brackets where you look at it and say that being a 1 vs 2 might be a wash, or preferable to a 2. But the degree to which I see it referred to as a death knell is far overstated when you consider the factors that have often lead to duke ending up with a 2 seed. We can go back looking:

2018: we made it to the elite 8, where we lost to kansas, who we presumably would have lost to anyway were we the 1 and they the 2. Kansas had a far harder road anyway, with #26 SHU, and #14 clemson, vs #52 URI and #41 syracuse.
2017: duke deserved every bit of the 2 seed, and lost to a USC team that went to the final four, to whom duke would have presumably lost to as the 1 seed 2 rounds later
2013: Duke lost in the elite 8 to #1 seed louisville, whom we would have presumably lost to anyway as the 1 seed. I would buy the argument that perhaps UL is more rested, and I'm sure more than a few of you would make that case, but it doesn't change the fact that the two seed didn't materially impact our making the elite 8, where we had our chance to beat a team we would have played anyway, and didn't.
2012: duke didn't play in the tournament as the 2 seed
2009: duke was a 2 seed that lost to a final-four villanova team
2008: UCLA played #21 TX A&M in the second round, and we played #18 UWV. There was ~1 point difference between the two, but certainly not enough for me to believe we would have been any more or less successful against the former vs the latter, especially given our performance against belmont. Sure it's not the 300+ rank that UCLA faced, but you're going to have a tough time convincing me that if a team has trouble beating a 100+ team in the first round that they have the 2 seed to blame for not making the final 4.


So of the 6 times we've had a 2 seed:
4 times we lost to the team that went to the final four from that bracket.
1 Of those times the more difficult road of reaching that team may have affected our chances (though i'm not sure that an easier path would have made quinn more able to beat the press, or us more able to defend the PNR...and we lost by 22)
2 times the team was not good enough for the matchup they ended up with, and could have reasonably gotten on the other side of the bracket.

So out of 6 times, only once is there a case that getting a 2 instead of a 1 might be something we could blame...and even that is tenuous at best.

I mostly disagree with your logic here, though I disagree more or disagree less depending on the year:

2018: Here, I think you're probably right. If we were a #1 we probably would have flipped with Kansas and played the same Elite Eight game.

2017: It's possible you're right, but I think it's more likely that if Duke and South Carolina had met in the Elite Eight it would have been an entirely different game. For one thing, the game wouldn't have been played in South Carolina. For another, if Duke was in the Elite Eight, the team may have been less tired and more confident (and perhaps less overconfident) than they played in their Round of 32 game with South Carolina. Duke had just won the ACC tournament by winning four games in four days. We were winning by 7 at halftime against USC. Then we just ran out of gas. I guess it's possible the same thing happens in the Elite Eight, but more likely it would have been an entirely different game. Even likelier, South Carolina wouldn't have made the Elite Eight if not for the burst of confidence they felt after beating Duke.

2013: Totally disagree with you here. There was no way Louisville would have been a #2 that year. If Duke were a #1, it would have been at Kansas's expense. Kansas's #2 in 2013 was Georgetown, which lost in the 1st round. Kansas lost to #4 Michigan, which Duke may have also lost to, but there's no evidence that we would have lost to Michigan, so I think your logic falls apart for 2013.

2012: I don't know what you mean that we didn't play in the tournament as a 2-seed. We were a #2 and lost to a tough #15. If we were a #1 that season, it's very, very unlikely we lose to a #16. The issue then becomes how far the admittedly flawed team would have gone after that.

2009: This one's a tossup. Like 2017, if Duke was a #1 and reached the Elite Eight, there's no telling whether Villanova would have also been in the Elite Eight or whether Duke would have played such a flat game with the Final Four on the line. Obviously, no telling whether Duke would have come out equally flat in the Sweet 16 against #4 Xavier or #12 Arizona (teams that #1 Pittsburgh and #1 Louisville played in the Sweet 16 that year), or if Duke had replaced Louisville whether we could have beaten Michigan State (as Louisville didn't).


Overall, I don't agree you can say, "we lost to a team that went to the Final Four so we would have lost anyway." The tournament is just way more complicated than that.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

2017: It's possible you're right, but I think it's more likely that if Duke and South Carolina had met in the Elite Eight it would have been an entirely different game. For one thing, the game wouldn't have been played in South Carolina. For another, if Duke was in the Elite Eight, the team may have been less tired and more confident (and perhaps less overconfident) than they played in their Round of 32 game with South Carolina. Duke had just won the ACC tournament by winning four games in four days. We were winning by 7 at halftime against USC. Then we just ran out of gas. I guess it's possible the same thing happens in the Elite Eight, but more likely it would have been an entirely different game. Even likelier, South Carolina wouldn't have made the Elite Eight if not for the burst of confidence they felt after beating Duke.


Overall, I don't agree you can say, "we lost to a team that went to the Final Four so we would have lost anyway." The tournament is just way more complicated than that.

Everything in bold is so so so on the money.

[brevity]

Since 1985, 1-seeds have played 2-seeds 47 times. The #1 has won 23 and lost 24 of those games. So perhaps not regularly, but we're certainly not seeing #1s clobber #2s if they're so much better (in fact we're not even seeing them win more than they lose).

I got bored and went through all 35 tournament years (1985-2019) to see how often #1 seeds and #2 seeds made the Elite Eight.

Out of 140 Elite Eights:

47 times were a chalk 1 vs. 2 matchup
49 times the 1 seed made it but the 2 seed did not (1 vs. 3/6/7/10/11)
17 times the 2 seed made it but the 1 seed did not (2 vs. 4/5/8/9/12)
27 times neither the 1 seed nor 2 seed made it

Seems like 1 seeds make the Final Four a lot more than 2 seeds not because they beat them head-to-head, but because they get to the Elite Eight games a lot more.

[camion]

I got bored and went through all 35 tournament years (1985-2019) to see how often #1 seeds and #2 seeds made the Elite Eight.

Out of 140 Elite Eights:

47 times were a chalk 1 vs. 2 matchup
49 times the 1 seed made it but the 2 seed did not (1 vs. 3/6/7/10/11)
17 times the 2 seed made it but the 1 seed did not (2 vs. 4/5/8/9/12)
27 times neither the 1 seed nor 2 seed made it

Seems like 1 seeds make the Final Four a lot more than 2 seeds not because they beat them head-to-head, but because they get to the Elite Eight games a lot more.

Not all that surprising I guess. The 1 seeds are slightly stronger and play slightly weaker teams (in general) than 2 seeds in each round. In any one game or round that is isn't much, but over several rounds one would expect 2 seeds to be upset more than 1 seeds.

[npdevil27]

Specific to this year, a 2 in the East seems preferable to a 1 anywhere else, given that the 1 in the East will likely be SDSU. Would anyone disagree with that? Again, this is specific to this year - playing in MSG against a west coast, non major 1 seed.

[Steven43]

Specific to this year, a 2 in the East seems preferable to a 1 anywhere else, given that the 1 in the East will likely be SDSU. Would anyone disagree with that? Again, this is specific to this year - playing in MSG against a west coast, non major 1 seed.

Sign me up for that! Why not?

[MarkD83]

A lot of words there, but in the end I've got you down for, "It's theoretically possible to quantify, but nobody has actually successfully quantified it." Is that about right?

After some deep thinking about this the answer is 42

[Troublemaker]

Since 1985, 1-seeds have played 2-seeds 47 times. The #1 has won 23 and lost 24 of those games. So perhaps not regularly, but we're certainly not seeing #1s clobber #2s if they're so much better (in fact we're not even seeing them win more than they lose).


I got bored and went through all 35 tournament years (1985-2019) to see how often #1 seeds and #2 seeds made the Elite Eight.

Out of 140 Elite Eights:

47 times were a chalk 1 vs. 2 matchup
49 times the 1 seed made it but the 2 seed did not (1 vs. 3/6/7/10/11)
17 times the 2 seed made it but the 1 seed did not (2 vs. 4/5/8/9/12)
27 times neither the 1 seed nor 2 seed made it

Seems like 1 seeds make the Final Four a lot more than 2 seeds not because they beat them head-to-head, but because they get to the Elite Eight games a lot more.

Yeah, if the 1-seed vs 2-seed contests are virtually a tossup (with 2 seeds slightly ahead even), that heavily suggests path is very important and the main difference.

[npdevil27]

Yeah, if the 1-seed vs 2-seed contests are virtually a tossup (with 2 seeds slightly ahead even), that heavily suggests path is very important and the main difference.

Still too much noise in the data. It could just as easily suggest that the 2 seeds that didn’t make the Elite 8 were inferior teams. You’d have to look at each individual team to come to conclusions (using kenpom would be a good start).

[Bluedog]

Specific to this year, a 2 in the East seems preferable to a 1 anywhere else, given that the 1 in the East will likely be SDSU. Would anyone disagree with that? Again, this is specific to this year - playing in MSG against a west coast, non major 1 seed.

You could argue being a 2 in the East has a more favorable Elite 8 matchup than a 1 seed anywhere else would have in the Elite 8 this year assuming what you said comes to fruition. However, you can not totally ignore and discount rounds before that. So, perhaps a 2 seed in the East for Duke is more likely to make the F4 than a 1 seed elsewhere, but you'd also have to acknowledge that 2 seed in that region is LESS likely to make the E8.

[npdevil27]

You could argue being a 2 in the East has a more favorable Elite 8 matchup than a 1 seed anywhere else would have in the Elite 8 this year assuming what you said comes to fruition. However, you can not totally ignore and discount rounds before that. So, perhaps a 2 seed in the East for Duke is more likely to make the F4 than a 1 seed elsewhere, but you'd also have to acknowledge that 2 seed in that region is LESS likely to make the E8.

It’s a fair point. And if day Seton Hall is the 3 seed, while they aren’t the strongest 3 seed, they could have a huge home court advantage.

[-jk]

Still too much noise in the data. It could just as easily suggest that the 2 seeds that didn’t make the Elite 8 were inferior teams. You’d have to look at each individual team to come to conclusions (using kenpom would be a good start).

Aren't Kenpom numbers only comparable within any given season, and not useful year to year?

-jk

[npdevil27]

Aren't Kenpom numbers only comparable within any given season, and not useful year to year?

-jk

Unsure. There has to be a way to compare teams across years though.

[ice-9]

Specific to this year, a 2 in the East seems preferable to a 1 anywhere else, given that the 1 in the East will likely be SDSU. Would anyone disagree with that? Again, this is specific to this year - playing in MSG against a west coast, non major 1 seed.

It's not a given that SDSU would be the 1 seed in the East.

[npdevil27]

It's not a given that SDSU would be the 1 seed in the East.

Nothing is a given. Seems highly likely they and Gonzaga will both win out though. In which case they will be. If the Zags lose though they’d probably flip.

[uh_no]

Unsure. There has to be a way to compare teams across years though.

std deviations above the mean.

[duke2x]

Nothing is a given. Seems highly likely they and Gonzaga will both win out though. In which case they will be. If the Zags lose though they’d probably flip.

Baylor could be #1 in the East and SDSU #1 in the South if Baylor loses to KS Saturday and one TBD (@WVA, Big XII tournament). I'm not entirely sold on any of the possible #1 seeds except KS. I'm not entirely sold on Duke either, but I'll sure cheer for them. ;)

[scottdude8]

It's not a given that SDSU would be the 1 seed in the East.

Considering that the committee had Gonzaga ahead of SDSU in their mid-season rankings, assuming both win out it would be unfathomable for them to suddenly swap. If anything, Gonzaga’s resume will be better at the end of the year given the relative superiority of their conference to SDSU’s this year.

[uh_no]

2017: It's possible you're right, but I think it's more likely that if Duke and South Carolina had met in the Elite Eight it would have been an entirely different game. For one thing, the game wouldn't have been played in South Carolina. For another, if Duke was in the Elite Eight, the team may have been less tired and more confident (and perhaps less overconfident) than they played in their Round of 32 game with South Carolina. Duke had just won the ACC tournament by winning four games in four days. We were winning by 7 at halftime against USC. Then we just ran out of gas. I guess it's possible the same thing happens in the Elite Eight, but more likely it would have been an entirely different game. Even likelier, South Carolina wouldn't have made the Elite Eight if not for the burst of confidence they felt after beating Duke. DOn't get me wrong, I don't think duke didn't get screwed by that, but that's also not inherently a 2 seed problem. a 1 seed could just as well play a location far more conducive to the 8 seed. Only the first round game is given special privilege, and then, it is equally applied to the top 4 seeds:


To recognize the demonstrated quality of such teams, the committee shall not place teams seeded on the first four lines at a potential “home-crowd disadvantage” in the first round.

Coming in, USC was ranked 31 KP, so they were a weak 7, and could have just as well been an 8, hosing the 1 seed, as they did the 2. And of course, Duke would have been just as tired. Further, having to have played 4 nights in a row is their own fault.



2012: I don't know what you mean that we didn't play in the tournament as a 2-seed. We were a #2 and lost to a tough #15. If we were a #1 that season, it's very, very unlikely we lose to a #16. The issue then becomes how far the admittedly flawed team would have gone after that.

Oh we were a 2 seed, and had a scheduled game, but we sure as heck didn't play. Either way, Duke was a 4 seed by the "numbers" and is not the kind of team I'm concerned about here, which are teams straddling the 1-2 line. If the difference between a 15 and a 16 is what does a team in, they don't really get to complain.



2009: This one's a tossup. Like 2017, if Duke was a #1 and reached the Elite Eight, there's no telling whether Villanova would have also been in the Elite Eight or whether Duke would have played such a flat game with the Final Four on the line. Obviously, no telling whether Duke would have come out equally flat in the Sweet 16 against #4 Xavier or #12 Arizona (teams that #1 Pittsburgh and #1 Louisville played in the Sweet 16 that year), or if Duke had replaced Louisville whether we could have beaten Michigan State (as Louisville didn't).
Nothing about that was 2 seed specific. Villanova could have just as easily been a 4 or 5 seed playing duke as the 1 in the third round.



Overall, I don't agree you can say, "we lost to a team that went to the Final Four so we would have lost anyway." The tournament is just way more complicated than that.

I'm well aware of how the tournament works.

But this is how Bayesian confidence works. You start with some probability, and adjust it by any data you have. In a hypothetical 2009 world, you guess duke has some odds X to make the final four as a 1 seed. We have an observation that they lost to villanova. That significantly decreases their probability of making it as a 1 seed if villanova is in the same bracket. You throw out a bunch of conditions about how they would have played under various conditions...but that's the beauty of bayesian confidence...you simply don't care since you can't possibly know. You only adjust for the data you do know, which is that there is at least one circumstance under which Duke loses to villanova.

So yes, duke got some bad rolls of the dice as a 2 seed. It's possible to get bad rolls of the dice as a 1 seed as well, as I pointed out...but 1 seeds are generally better equipped to handle them then are 2s...and it's really only 2013 where one could argue that our final four chances were substantially decreased (as you point out, by forcing us into ULs bracket) by a factor that IS specific to 2 seeds.

As someone ran some data on above (though imperfectly), JUST based on the potential paths, the ability to reach the elite 8 seems to differ between 1 and 2 seeds by ~5%. Heck, I'll give it 10%. Once in 10 tries. I'll buy that. 2013 is that. The rest of the observation that 1 seeds reach more often? 1 seeds are better than 2 seeds on average. Why are the numbers in the lite 8 even? because good 2 seeds get there more often than bad ones.

[Troublemaker]

Still too much noise in the data. It could just as easily suggest that the 2 seeds that didn’t make the Elite 8 were inferior teams.

At first blush, I don't find that too persuasive since there were also times the 1 seed didn't make it to the E8. I think I'd be more persuaded that it's just a fluke stat. For example, maybe the 2 seeds won a higher percentage of close games than one would expect.


Specific to this year, a 2 in the East seems preferable to a 1 anywhere else, given that the 1 in the East will likely be SDSU. Would anyone disagree with that? Again, this is specific to this year - playing in MSG against a west coast, non major 1 seed.


Baylor could be #1 in the East and SDSU #1 in the South if Baylor loses to KS Saturday and one TBD (@WVA, Big XII tournament). I'm not entirely sold on any of the possible #1 seeds except KS. I'm not entirely sold on Duke either, but I'll sure cheer for them. ;)

Yeah, and Kansas could be #1 in the East, too. I'd like to avoid being the 2-seed to either Eye Test #1 Baylor or Dominant Computer #1 Kansas.

I definitely wouldn't say it's "likely" (> 50%) that SDSU will be #1 in the East.


Yeah, but it’s impossible to quantify how much of that is due to 1 seeds having an easier path (which is all that matters when you’re talking about the same team getting a 1 vs a 2 seed) and how much is due to 1 seeds generally being better teams than 2 seeds, which is why they got a 1 in the first place.

Some (minor) pushback here. I'm still trying to figure out just how good Duke is, so part of the reason why I want the 1-seed is that it will likely mean Duke is a really good team playing well heading into the tournament.

Whether Duke as a 2-seed fails (since the mid-90s) because of path or because there was some major flaw in 2-seeded Duke, both possibilities are still in play this season. (Statistical randomness might also explain the Duke 2-seed failures).

[npdevil27]

I don't see how KU could be 1 in the East. The committee tries to get all of the top 16 teams as close to home as possible, right?

If SDSU loses even a single game, they would likely fall off the 1 line. Kansas and Baylor would stay in the midwest/south even if they pick up a loss or two. Duke would be 1 in the East.

If Gonzaga loses a game, they likely remain a 1. If SDSU is undefeated, then Gonzaga likely comes East, and SDSU gets the 1 out west.

In the event SDSU and Gonzaga both lose, then I think Gonzaga still ends up in the west, and Duke would be 1 in the east.

I suppose the one possible scenario where Kansas comes east would be if Dayton replaces SDSU as a 1 seed, along with Gonzaga, Kansas, and Baylor, and somehow Dayton passes Kansas on the S curve, so that Dayton would end up in Indy, Baylor in the South, Gonzaga in the West, and Kansas in the East. That seems really unlikely to me.

So yeah, if SDSU wins out I think they are 1 in the East. If they lose they are off the top line.

[blUDAYvil]

I'm still trying to figure out just how good Duke is, so part of the reason why I want the 1-seed is that it will likely mean Duke is a really good team playing well heading into the tournament.


I think this is an important point. Duke earning a 1 seed is in of itself a factor revealing Duke's strength relative to the field and therefore has a bearing on Duke's odds in the tournament, above and beyond earning a more favorable path.

[jv001]

I think this is an important point. Duke earning a 1 seed is in of itself a factor revealing Duke's strength relative to the field and therefore has a bearing on Duke's odds in the tournament, above and beyond earning a more favorable path.

I'm with you and TM. Win the rest of our games in the regular season and then win the ACCT. Then everything will take care of itself. I guess I'll root for Baylor to beat KU because we've beaten KU earlier this season. However if we do lose one or two games before the NCAAT, I'm hoping for SDSU to go undefeated and they are the #1 in the East and we get the #2 seed. I just don't want Duke to get worse than a #2 seed.


GoDuke!

[npdevil27]

I'm with you and TM. Win the rest of our games in the regular season and then win the ACCT. Then everything will take care of itself. I guess I'll root for Baylor to beat KU because we've beaten KU earlier this season. However if we do lose one or two games before the NCAAT, I'm hoping for SDSU to go undefeated and they are the #1 in the East and we get the #2 seed. I just don't want Duke to get worse than a #2 seed.


GoDuke!
Do you guys really want Duke heading into the tournament on such a long winning streak? I wouldn't mind one loss thrown in the mix, although I do realize that will hamper our chances at a 1 seed

[sagegrouse]

Do you guys really want Duke heading into the tournament on such a long winning streak? I wouldn't mind one loss thrown in the mix, although I do realize that will hamper our chances at a 1 seed

Just me, but I'll take the wins. We've learned a goodly amount of lessons from losses this year.

[jv001]

Do you guys really want Duke heading into the tournament on such a long winning streak? I wouldn't mind one loss thrown in the mix, although I do realize that will hamper our chances at a 1 seed

Yes, I do. Right now Baylor looks to be the best team in college basketball and I see no reason Duke shouldn't be right up there with them. I know what you're saying and it does make me think about being on a long winning streak going into the NCAAs but I want Duke to be improving right up through the taking home of the NCAAT championship. Call me greedy.

GoDuke!

[npdevil27]

Don't get me wrong, I want them to win every individual game. If they win out from now until the ACC Championship game it's not like I'll be rooting for them to lose that game just to avoid the long win streak. If we win out that means 16 straight wins heading in. Wow.

[jv001]

Don't get me wrong, I want them to win every individual game. If they win out from now until the ACC Championship game it's not like I'll be rooting for them to lose that game just to avoid the long win streak. If we win out that means 16 straight wins heading in. Wow.

Just win baby! :cool:

GoDuke!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Do you guys really want Duke heading into the tournament on such a long winning streak? I wouldn't mind one loss thrown in the mix, although I do realize that will hamper our chances at a 1 seed

Yes please and thank you. I think that would leave Duke as a favorite to win it all, regardless of how the seeds shake out.

[-jk]

Do you guys really want Duke heading into the tournament on such a long winning streak? I wouldn't mind one loss thrown in the mix, although I do realize that will hamper our chances at a 1 seed

I’d be content not losing another game this season.

-jk

[scottdude8]

Again, as described in earlier posts, one doesn't necessitate the other. Being the fourth 1-seed does NOT mean you're bracketed with the top 2-seed. It just doesn't. Period. It may happen, it seems intuitively fair for it to happen, but that's not the way the Committee does it. If we're the fourth 1-seed and Kansas is the top 2-seed, that almost certainly means we're in the East and they're in the Midwest*. Gimme that all day long.

*ETA: Unless, by some craziness, another team in the eastern US (e.g., Seton Hall, UMd) goes HAM and wins out, and gets a higher 1-seed than us.


I’d be content not losing another game this season.

-jk

No more losses in the regular season=a double banner (ACC regular and tourney champs). Yup, I'd take that no matter what happens in the tourney.

[Troublemaker]

I don't see how KU could be 1 in the East. The committee tries to get all of the top 16 teams as close to home as possible, right?

If KU is the fourth #1 seed, they could be the East #1. In fact, if KU loses at Baylor on Saturday (and Gonzaga beats BYU), you'll probably start to see some bracketologists put KU #1 Duke #2 in the East. (Others will have Duke leapfrogging KU for the 1-seed provided Duke wins).


So yeah, if SDSU wins out I think they are 1 in the East. If they lose they are off the top line.

I would love to bet against this but need you to have a longer posting history and higher spork score.

[npdevil27]

If KU is the fourth #1 seed, they could be the East #1. In fact, if KU loses at Baylor on Saturday (and Gonzaga beats BYU), you'll probably start to see some bracketologists put KU #1 Duke #2 in the East. (Others will have Duke leapfrogging KU for the 1-seed provided Duke wins).



I would love to bet against this but need you to have a longer posting history and higher spork score.

So in this scenario... it would be 1 Baylor (South), 2 Gonzaga (West), 3 SDSU (Midwest), and 4 Kansas (East)? I suppose that is possible. Not sure how the committee would handle putting both SDSU and Kansas far away from their homes, as opposed to keeping Kansas closer to home but putting SDSU even further away.

[Indoor66]

So in this scenario... it would be 1 Baylor (South), 2 Gonzaga (West), 3 SDSU (Midwest), and 4 Kansas (East)? I suppose that is possible. Not sure how the committee would handle putting both SDSU and Kansas far away from their homes, as opposed to keeping Kansas closer to home but putting SDSU even further away.

Once you are in the air there is not a great deal of difference.

[Acymetric]

So in this scenario... it would be 1 Baylor (South), 2 Gonzaga (West), 3 SDSU (Midwest), and 4 Kansas (East)? I suppose that is possible. Not sure how the committee would handle putting both SDSU and Kansas far away from their homes, as opposed to keeping Kansas closer to home but putting SDSU even further away.

I have to be honest. With all due respect to high-achieving teams from mid-major conferences, that is the most uninspiring list of 1 seeds I have ever seen.

[Acymetric]

Once you are in the air there is not a great deal of difference.

I always assumed fan attendance was at least one part of wanting to keep teams close to home.

I'll also just disagree generally. Huge difference between a 1-2 hour flight and a 3-6 hour flight, both physically and mentally.

[SCMatt33]

So in this scenario... it would be 1 Baylor (South), 2 Gonzaga (West), 3 SDSU (Midwest), and 4 Kansas (East)? I suppose that is possible. Not sure how the committee would handle putting both SDSU and Kansas far away from their homes, as opposed to keeping Kansas closer to home but putting SDSU even further away.

They’d send both teams away. As the 3 seed in this scenario, SDSU gets to take the closest available region after 1 and 2 are placed, regardless of who’s behind them. They would have earned that by being 3 overall. Further down, you can sometimes see 2, 3 and 4 seeds shuffled a bit because of conference issues or competitive balance issues (like if SDSU and Zags are both 1 seeds, they won’t just send 8, 12 and 16 overall out west, even if there are no other west coast top 4 seeds and it means the 12 overall seed gets to stay closer to home than 11 or 10 or whoever gets sent out there).

[DU82]

I bet the NCAA hopes one of the teams loses and drops out of the one line so one of them can be the 1 seed in the west, and the other the 2.

[OldPhiKap]

I always assumed fan attendance was at least one part of wanting to keep teams close to home.

I'll also just disagree generally. Huge difference between a 1-2 hour flight and a 3-6 hour flight, both physically and mentally.

True, although this only is an issue in the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 because of regional pods. I am not sure that the problem is having your fans there, so much as being in someone else's back yard and having them pack the arena. (Duke v. Baylor in Houston in 2015, for example, IIRC even though we were the higher seed).

[npdevil27]

They’d send both teams away. As the 3 seed in this scenario, SDSU gets to take the closest available region after 1 and 2 are placed, regardless of who’s behind them. They would have earned that by being 3 overall. Further down, you can sometimes see 2, 3 and 4 seeds shuffled a bit because of conference issues or competitive balance issues (like if SDSU and Zags are both 1 seeds, they won’t just send 8, 12 and 16 overall out west, even if there are no other west coast top 4 seeds and it means the 12 overall seed gets to stay closer to home than 11 or 10 or whoever gets sent out there).

Got it, thanks

[sagegrouse]

I have to be honest. With all due respect to high-achieving teams from mid-major conferences, that is the most uninspiring list of 1 seeds I have ever seen.

If I were on the TSC, I would never give a #1 seed to a team that had played only three teams in the Power Six conferences -- Creighton, Iowa and Utah. Iowa and Creighton are currently ranked 15 and 20 -- but were unranked at the time they playerd. SDSU is 0-0 against the Top 25 -- Baylor is 6-0, Kansas is 3-3, Duke is 3-1, Gonzaga is 3/4-0.

There is a body of work argument -- it ain't there and a #3 seed would be just fine.

[mattyoung18]

I hope Duke can get the East/Ny spot as a 2 seed or 1.

[OldPhiKap]

If I were on the TSC, I would never give a #1 seed to a team that had played only three teams in the Power Six conferences -- Creighton, Iowa and Utah. Iowa and Creighton are currently ranked 15 and 20 -- but were unranked at the time they playerd. SDSU is 0-0 against the Top 25 -- Baylor is 6-0, Kansas is 3-3, Duke is 3-1, Gonzaga is 3/4-0.

There is a body of work argument -- it ain't there and a #3 seed would be just fine.

SDSU has the same problem that UCF had in football a few years ago -- undefeated, but didn't play anyone.

The selection committee left them out of the top four. I think that was right.

So, same for SDSU in my book. A two or three seed is plenty generous for a team that has not played a top 25 team.

[Acymetric]

SDSU has the same problem that UCF had in football a few years ago -- undefeated, but didn't play anyone.

The selection committee left them out of the top four. I think that was right.

So, same for SDSU in my book. A two or three seed is plenty generous for a team that has not played a top 25 team.

My opinion, and this applies for the past several years not just this one, is that we went from massively undervaluing good mid-major teams compared to middling major conference teams in the 90s and 2000s to significantly overvaluing mid-major teams, and this applies from the top seeds down to bubble teams. Kind of an over-correction.

[npdevil27]

My opinion, and this applies for the past several years not just this one, is that we went from massively undervaluing good mid-major teams compared to middling major conference teams in the 90s and 2000s to significantly overvaluing mid-major teams, and this applies from the top seeds down to bubble teams. Kind of an over-correction.

I'm not sure that applies to SDSU though. They are undefeated. That simply does not happen too often. I remember when St. Joe's was undefeated for a while, ended up losing a game, and got a 1 seed - different circumstances though, since they had a couple future NBA players.

If SDSU goes undefeated I have no problem with them as a one seed, given the resumes of the other contenders, including Duke. But if they lose even a single game, dropping them to the 2 or even the 3 line seems justified.

This isn't really about overrating mid-majors, so much as giving them a deserved seed. Maybe a distinction without difference, but I see it as a separate issue.

[OldPhiKap]

My opinion, and this applies for the past several years not just this one, is that we went from massively undervaluing good mid-major teams compared to middling major conference teams in the 90s and 2000s to significantly overvaluing mid-major teams, and this applies from the top seeds down to bubble teams. Kind of an over-correction.

"Must spread comments, yada yada yada" but, this.

[DallasDevil]

SDSU has the same problem that UCF had in football a few years ago -- undefeated, but didn't play anyone.

The selection committee left them out of the top four. I think that was right.

So, same for SDSU in my book. A two or three seed is plenty generous for a team that has not played a top 25 team.

SDSU actually has more wins (3)* over teams currently ranked in the top 25 than Duke does (2)*. SDSU also has 2 wins against a Utah State team that has a higher KenPom ranking than all but 3 ACC teams. So while they do play in a weaker conference, they have had some good wins and also are ranked #1 by the NET Rankings. There is no way they do not got a 1 seed if they are still undefeated on Selection Sunday, and rightly so.

ETA: Using the AP poll. It is flipped if using the coaches poll since the coaches still have MSU ranked and not BYU.

[uh_no]

"Must spread comments, yada yada yada" but, this.

i'm not sure I'd make the blanket statement. We've had 3 mid-majors in the title game in the past 10 years, and a few more have made the final four (VCU, loyola, wichita state, if you want to count them).

On average, I don't think they justify the amount of top seeds they get (and almost as a rule, I just pick someone else to reach the sweet 16 from those pods...).

So what gives? I think perhaps most correctly, the error-bars on the evaluation of mid-majors is just huge. we don't have enough data points. So do you put a team that has the potential to be really good or really crappy over a team that is more well known? That's for someone else to figure out. Obviously, I have a vested interest in that answer being "no."

One of those three teams might end up making a run, but who knows which one.

[wilson]

I'm not sure that applies to SDSU though. They are undefeated. That simply does not happen too often. I remember when St. Joe's was undefeated for a while, ended up losing a game, and got a 1 seed - different circumstances though, since they had a couple future NBA players...Quibble: St. Joe's finished that regular season (2003-04) undefeated, though they did lose the A-10 conference tournament final to Xavier (a strong team who made it to the Elite 8 before falling to our Devils). I agree, though, that there are clear parallels to this year's SDSU squad; in fact, I came here to post about that team.

[npdevil27]

SDSU is #5 in KenPom, but with a virtually indistinguishable 27.24 rating from Duke (27.60), Baylor (27.40), and Gonzaga (27.35). Then there is a clear gap to the next group of teams.

So yeah, they are definitely deserving of a 1 seed if they finish undefeated. Possibly even deserving the #2 or #1 overall seed if all of Baylor, Gonzaga, Kansas, and Duke lose another game.

[Acymetric]

SDSU is #5 in KenPom, but with a virtually indistinguishable 27.24 rating from Duke (27.60), Baylor (27.40), and Gonzaga (27.35). Then there is a clear gap to the next group of teams.

So yeah, they are definitely deserving of a 1 seed if they finish undefeated. Possibly even deserving the #2 or #1 overall seed if all of Baylor, Gonzaga, Kansas, and Duke lose another game.

Flat out no way. A team outside the top 100 in SoS should absolutely not get the #1 overall seed, ever (sorry Gonzaga). I find it dubious to give them a #1 seed at all, but the overall #1? No way, no how.

[npdevil27]

Flat out no way. A team outside the top 100 in SoS should absolutely not get the #1 overall seed, ever (sorry Gonzaga). I find it dubious to give them a #1 seed at all, but the overall #1? No way, no how.

What if all of Duke, Kansas, Baylor, and Gonzaga lose again? (e.g., Baylor and KU play twice more and split, Gonzaga loses in the WCC tourney, Duke loses to State or Louisville or FSU). Then what?

[Acymetric]

What if all of Duke, Kansas, Baylor, and Gonzaga lose again? (e.g., Baylor and KU play twice more and split, Gonzaga loses in the WCC tourney, Duke loses to State or Louisville or FSU). Then what?

Still no. Maybe if all of those teams lose twice. Maybe.

They would have to be far and away the best team in basically every single metric to warrant the #1 overall seed with what is likely one of the worst SoS ratings in the field of 68.

[JasonEvans]

After some deep thinking about this the answer is 42

Yeah, but what is the question?

-Jason "I too will have to put some Deep Thought into this" Evans

[Acymetric]

San Diego State has played 6 games against the top 100 since November (out of 18 games played). 8 games against the top 150. 11 games against the top 200.

SDSU 100% deserves their chance to prove it on the court, just like UCF did when they went undefeated. And since this is basketball, SDSU will get that chance unlike UCF. But who you played matters, and you just can't get the #1 overall seed with that kind of resume (I would argue they shouldn't get a #1 seed at all, but if they finish undefeated they almost certainly will).

[npdevil27]

San Diego State has played 6 games against the top 100 since November (out of 18 games played). 8 games against the top 150. 11 games against the top 200.

SDSU 100% deserves their chance to prove it on the court, just like UCF did when they went undefeated. And since this is basketball, SDSU will get that chance unlike UCF. But who you played matters, and you just can't get the #1 overall seed with that kind of resume (I would argue they shouldn't get a #1 seed at all, but if they finish undefeated they almost certainly will).

FWIW, Gonzaga got a 1 seed with the #75 schedule in 2019 (with 3 losses), with the #89 schedule in 2017 (1 loss), and with the #87 schedule in 2013 (2 losses). Wichita State got a 1 with the #125 schedule in 2014. So SDSU isn't far off from those marks. Very similar to Wichita State in 2014, with a schedule in the 100s and undefeated.

[Acymetric]

FWIW, Gonzaga got a 1 seed with the #75 schedule in 2019 (with 3 losses), with the #89 schedule in 2017 (1 loss), and with the #87 schedule in 2013 (2 losses). Wichita State got a 1 with the #125 schedule in 2014. So SDSU isn't far off from those marks. Very similar to Wichita State in 2014, with a schedule in the 100s and undefeated.

I strongly disagreed with that Wichita St. seeding, and correctly picked them to lose to Kentucky.

The Gonzaga seeds from the years you mentioned are borderline.

I'm also not suggesting it would be unprecedented, I'm just saying it is wrong​.

[npdevil27]

I strongly disagreed with that Wichita St. seeding, and correctly picked them to lose to Kentucky.

The Gonzaga seeds from the years you mentioned are borderline.

I'm also not suggesting it would be unprecedented, I'm just saying it is wrong​.

That's fair. Again FWIW, final rankings per kenpom:

2019 Gonzaga - #2
2017 Gonzaga - #1
2014 Wichita St - #6
2013 Gonzaga - #5

So it's debatable. Clearly these are very good teams we are talking about. I'm honestly not sure what the criteria should be.

[House P]

If the difference between a 15 and a 16 is what does a team in, they don't really get to complain.

It is hard to argue that a 2 seed which couldn't beat a 15 seed would have had much of a chance of making the Final 4 if they had the path of a 1 seed. That being said, it may be a bit surprising that the difficultly of the average path to the Elite 8 for a 1 seed vs 2 seed doesn't seem to be much different beyond the opening game.

If you build a bracket using the average KenPom rating by seed for the past 10 years, a team with Duke's current KemPom rating would be favored by about 22 points vs a 16 seed compared to 17.5 points vs a 15 seed. That translates to Duke having about a 2% chance of losing to an average 16 seed vs a 5% chance of losing to an average 15 seed. That is a relatively small difference, but it is bigger than what you will see in the next 2 rounds. In both cases, the potential of playing a slightly more difficult game against a higher seed (7 vs 8/9 in the Round of 32 or 3 vs 4/5 in the Sweet 16) is pretty much offset by the potential of playing an easier seed due to an upset (10 vs 8/9 or 6 vs 4/5).

Put another way, which of the following paths is more difficult?

Path A
53% chance of playing an 8 seed (8 point favorite)
47% chance of playing an 9 seed (8.5 point favorite)

Path B
56% chance of playing a 7 seed (7 point favorite)
44% chance of playing a 10 seed (9 point favorite)

Based on KenPom ratings, these paths have essentially the same level of difficulty. KenPom would predict a 77% win percentage for Duke 2020 vs Path A compared to 76% vs Path B. The difference appears to be even less for the set of potential Sweet 16 matchups, though the combinations are a bit more complex so I won't show them unless someone asks.




The chart below summaries the weighted average seed which would be expected in a particular round, the average strength of the opponent, the point spread which would be expected vs Duke 2020, and Duke's expected win % in the round.






Duke 2020 path as a 1 seed vs "average" bracket

Duke 2020 path as a 2 seed vs "average" bracket


Round
Avg
Opponent
Seed
Avg
AdjEM
Avg
Point
Spread
Expected
Win %
for Duke

Round
Avg
Opponent
Seed
Avg
AdjEM
Avg
Point
Spread
Expected
Win %
for Duke


R64
16
-3.1
-22.0
98%

R64
15
3.0
-17.5
95%


R32
8.5
16.3
-8.5
77%

R32
8.3
16.8
-8.0
76%


R16
5.8
19.8
-5.5
69%

R16
5.5
19.8
-5.5
69%


R8
4.1
22.4
-4.0
63%

R8
3.2
25.0
-2.0
56%



​

As for the path to the Final Four, the biggest difference probably occurs with respect to the potential Elite 8 matchups. The influence Elite 8 matchup gets even bigger when a team happens to get placed in a region with a dominant 1 seed, but that is another post for another time.

[scottdude8]

FWIW, Gonzaga got a 1 seed with the #75 schedule in 2019 (with 3 losses), with the #89 schedule in 2017 (1 loss), and with the #87 schedule in 2013 (2 losses). Wichita State got a 1 with the #125 schedule in 2014. So SDSU isn't far off from those marks. Very similar to Wichita State in 2014, with a schedule in the 100s and undefeated.

This is the key here. Whether or not we all think and SDSU deserves a No. 1 seed, the facts are that the committee has precedent supporting this decision, with Wichita State being the most obvious example. If it were to come down to SDSU and us or Kansas for the final No. 1 seed, the committee would really have to have a strong argument for that decision if they wanted to avoid getting hammered by the sports media (they want the discussion on ESPN the Monday-Wednesday after Selection Sunday hyping up the tournament to get good ratings, not the bracket mistakes, after all!). If SDSU remains undefeated they can point to the precedent of Wichita State (and I believe, in the more distant past, St. Joes) as clear justification for the decision, saying how remarkable an undefeated season is at any level of D1 basketball, etc. etc. If SDSU even has one loss, the argument becomes questionable at best, at which point I'd be highly surprised if the committee didn't feel justified in going with the "bigger name" at the 1 line instead.

[scottdude8]

It is hard to argue that a 2 seed which couldn't beat a 15 seed would have had much of a chance of making the Final 4 if they had the path of a 1 seed. That being said, it may be a bit surprising that the difficultly of the average path to the Elite 8 for a 1 seed vs 2 seed doesn't seem to be much different beyond the opening game.

If you build a bracket using the average KenPom rating by seed for the past 10 years, a team with Duke's current KemPom rating would be favored by about 22 points vs a 16 seed compared to 17.5 points vs a 15 seed. That translates to Duke having about a 2% chance of losing to an average 16 seed vs a 5% chance of losing to an average 15 seed. That is a relatively small difference, but it is bigger than what you will see in the next 2 rounds. In both cases, the potential of playing a slightly more difficult game against a higher seed (7 vs 8/9 in the Round of 32 or 3 vs 4/5 in the Sweet 16) is pretty much offset by the potential of playing an easier seed due to an upset (10 vs 8/9 or 6 vs 4/5).

Put another way, which of the following paths is more difficult?

Path A
53% chance of playing an 8 seed (8 point favorite)
47% chance of playing an 9 seed (8.5 point favorite)

Path B
56% chance of playing a 7 seed (7 point favorite)
44% chance of playing a 10 seed (9 point favorite)

Based on KenPom ratings, these paths have essentially the same level of difficulty. KenPom would predict a 77% win percentage for Duke 2020 vs Path A compared to 76% vs Path B. The difference appears to be even less for the set of potential Sweet 16 matchups, though the combinations are a bit more complex so I won't show them unless someone asks.




The chart below summaries the weighted average seed which would be expected in a particular round, the average strength of the opponent, the point spread which would be expected vs Duke 2020, and Duke's expected win % in the round.






Duke 2020 path as a 1 seed vs "average" bracket

Duke 2020 path as a 2 seed vs "average" bracket


Round
Avg
Opponent
Seed
Avg
AdjEM
Avg
Point
Spread
Expected
Win %
for Duke

Round
Avg
Opponent
Seed
Avg
AdjEM
Avg
Point
Spread
Expected
Win %
for Duke


R64
16
-3.1
-22.0
98%

R64
15
3.0
-17.5
95%


R32
8.5
16.3
-8.5
77%

R32
8.3
16.8
-8.0
76%


R16
5.8
19.8
-5.5
69%

R16
5.5
19.8
-5.5
69%


R8
4.1
22.4
-4.0
63%

R8
3.2
25.0
-2.0
56%



​

As for the path to the Final Four, the biggest difference probably occurs with respect to the potential Elite 8 matchups. The influence Elite 8 matchup gets even bigger when a team happens to get placed in a region with a dominant 1 seed, but that is another post for another time.

This is great analysis! I would say that while this analysis shows not much difference in getting to the Sweet 16, that Sweet 16 game and the potential difference between a 3 seed and a 4/5 seed is shown to be reasonably significant. Even if we end up the No. 2 seed with SDSU our No. 1 seed, the path to potentially reach SDSU in the Elite 8 is harder than if we were a No. 1 seed.

[House P]

This is great analysis! I would say that while this analysis shows not much difference in getting to the Sweet 16, that Sweet 16 game and the potential difference between a 3 seed and a 4/5 seed is shown to be reasonably significant.

I would have also expected the 3/6 opponent to be more difficult, on average, than the 4/5 opponent. However, this hasn't really proven out over the past 10 years.

Since 2010, the average 3 seed had a KenPom rating of 23.0 while the average 4 seed had a KenPom rating of 22.4. If you add in the fact that the average rating of a 6 seed 18.2 is a bit lower than the average rating of a 5 seed (20.4), the Sweet 16 matchup ends up being a bit of a wash. It also helps that a 2 seed is a bit more likely to face an 11/14 seed than a 1 seed is to face a 12/13 seed.

This year, the difference between the 3 seeds and the 6 seeds might be even less. Based on the current projections at BracketMatrix, here is the current average KenPom rating by seed.

3 seeds = 20.3 (Louisville, Seton Hall, Penn St., Villanova)
4 seeds = 19.8 (Auburn, WVU, Creigton, Oregon)
5 seeds = 19.4 (UK, Colorado, Butler, Michigan St.)
6 seeds = 20.2 (Marquette, Arizona, Ohio St., Iowa)

Now some of this is due to the committee under- and over-seeding teams compared to their KenPom ratings. If the committee went by KenPom alone, I would expect to see a bigger difference between the 3 seed and the 5 seed, for example.

[uh_no]

It is hard to argue that a 2 seed which couldn't beat a 15 seed would have had much of a chance of making the Final 4 if they had the path of a 1 seed. That being said, it may be a bit surprising that the difficultly of the average path to the Elite 8 for a 1 seed vs 2 seed doesn't seem to be much different beyond the opening game.

If you build a bracket using the average KenPom rating by seed for the past 10 years, a team with Duke's current KemPom rating would be favored by about 22 points vs a 16 seed compared to 17.5 points vs a 15 seed. That translates to Duke having about a 2% chance of losing to an average 16 seed vs a 5% chance of losing to an average 15 seed. That is a relatively small difference, but it is bigger than what you will see in the next 2 rounds. In both cases, the potential of playing a slightly more difficult game against a higher seed (7 vs 8/9 in the Round of 32 or 3 vs 4/5 in the Sweet 16) is pretty much offset by the potential of playing an easier seed due to an upset (10 vs 8/9 or 6 vs 4/5).

Put another way, which of the following paths is more difficult?

Path A
53% chance of playing an 8 seed (8 point favorite)
47% chance of playing an 9 seed (8.5 point favorite)

Path B
56% chance of playing a 7 seed (7 point favorite)
44% chance of playing a 10 seed (9 point favorite)

Based on KenPom ratings, these paths have essentially the same level of difficulty. KenPom would predict a 77% win percentage for Duke 2020 vs Path A compared to 76% vs Path B. The difference appears to be even less for the set of potential Sweet 16 matchups, though the combinations are a bit more complex so I won't show them unless someone asks.




The chart below summaries the weighted average seed which would be expected in a particular round, the average strength of the opponent, the point spread which would be expected vs Duke 2020, and Duke's expected win % in the round.






Duke 2020 path as a 1 seed vs "average" bracket

Duke 2020 path as a 2 seed vs "average" bracket


Round
Avg
Opponent
Seed
Avg
AdjEM
Avg
Point
Spread
Expected
Win %
for Duke

Round
Avg
Opponent
Seed
Avg
AdjEM
Avg
Point
Spread
Expected
Win %
for Duke


R64
16
-3.1
-22.0
98%

R64
15
3.0
-17.5
95%


R32
8.5
16.3
-8.5
77%

R32
8.3
16.8
-8.0
76%


R16
5.8
19.8
-5.5
69%

R16
5.5
19.8
-5.5
69%


R8
4.1
22.4
-4.0
63%

R8
3.2
25.0
-2.0
56%



​

As for the path to the Final Four, the biggest difference probably occurs with respect to the potential Elite 8 matchups. The influence Elite 8 matchup gets even bigger when a team happens to get placed in a region with a dominant 1 seed, but that is another post for another time.
Fantastic work.

[-jk]

I’d be content not losing another game this season.

-jk


No more losses in the regular season=a double banner (ACC regular and tourney champs). Yup, I'd take that no matter what happens in the tourney.

Who said anything about my limiting it to the regular season?

-jk

[npdevil27]

This is the key here. Whether or not we all think and SDSU deserves a No. 1 seed, the facts are that the committee has precedent supporting this decision, with Wichita State being the most obvious example. If it were to come down to SDSU and us or Kansas for the final No. 1 seed, the committee would really have to have a strong argument for that decision if they wanted to avoid getting hammered by the sports media (they want the discussion on ESPN the Monday-Wednesday after Selection Sunday hyping up the tournament to get good ratings, not the bracket mistakes, after all!). If SDSU remains undefeated they can point to the precedent of Wichita State (and I believe, in the more distant past, St. Joes) as clear justification for the decision, saying how remarkable an undefeated season is at any level of D1 basketball, etc. etc. If SDSU even has one loss, the argument becomes questionable at best, at which point I'd be highly surprised if the committee didn't feel justified in going with the "bigger name" at the 1 line instead.

Completely agree. SDSU has no margin for error, a single loss drops them to the 2 line no matter what else happens with the top teams. But there is no way the committee would slide them to the 2 line if they go undefeated.

[Kedsy]

Do you guys really want Duke heading into the tournament on such a long winning streak? I wouldn't mind one loss thrown in the mix, although I do realize that will hamper our chances at a 1 seed

I agree with everyone that I'd like to win all the games. But your question got me thinking how it usually worked, so I looked at the last 20 years of NCAA tournament winners and how many games in a row they'd won coming into the tournament:



Year Team Winning Streak
2019 UVa 0
2018 V'Nova 5
2017 UNC 0
2016 V'Nova 0
2015 Duke 0
2014 UConn 0
2013 L'Ville 10
2012 UK 0
2011 UConn 5
2010 Duke 4
2009 UNC 0
2008 Kansas 7
2007 Florida 4
2006 Florida 5
2005 UNC 0
2004 UConn 3
2003 Syr 0
2002 Md 0
2001 Duke 4
2000 Mich St 5


Personally, I don't think this has any predictive value, but it's interesting that only two out of 20 had more than a five game winning streak coming into the NCAAT, and fully half (ten of 20, including five of the last six) lost their last game before the tourney.

[npdevil27]

I agree with everyone that I'd like to win all the games. But your question got me thinking how it usually worked, so I looked at the last 20 years of NCAA tournament winners and how many games in a row they'd won coming into the tournament:



Year Team Winning Streak
2019 UVa 0
2018 V'Nova 5
2017 UNC 0
2016 V'Nova 0
2015 Duke 0
2014 UConn 0
2013 L'Ville 10
2012 UK 0
2011 UConn 5
2010 Duke 4
2009 UNC 0
2008 Kansas 7
2007 Florida 4
2006 Florida 5
2005 UNC 0
2004 UConn 3
2003 Syr 0
2002 Md 0
2001 Duke 4
2000 Mich St 5


Personally, I don't think this has any predictive value, but it's interesting that only two out of 20 had more than a five game winning streak coming into the NCAAT, and fully half (ten of 20, including five of the last six) lost their last game before the tourney.

Thanks for this. If nothing else it shows that it doesn’t matter if you go in “hot”.

[Steven43]

I agree with everyone that I'd like to win all the games. But your question got me thinking how it usually worked, so I looked at the last 20 years of NCAA tournament winners and how many games in a row they'd won coming into the tournament:

[CODE]
Year Team Winning Streak
2019 UVa 0
2018 V'Nova 5
2017 UNC 0
2016 V'Nova 0
2015 Duke 0
2014 UConn 0
2013 L'Ville 10
2012 UK 0
2011 UConn 5
2010 Duke 4
2009 UNC 0
2008 Kansas 7
2007 Florida 4
2006 Florida 5
2005 UNC 0
2004 UConn 3
2003 Syr 0
2002 Md 0
2001 Duke 4
2000 Mich St 5

Nice seeing Duke on there three times. Hate seeing UNC and UConn on there at all, much less three times each.

[npdevil27]

The other point that data might be making is that teams that head into the tournament on really long winning streaks may not be very battle tested. It’s always better to win than lose but when you play quality teams in conference you are bound to lose a few. And that makes you better in the long run. Not the losses, but the constant quality competition.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

The other point that data might be making is that teams that head into the tournament on really long winning streaks may not be very battle tested. It’s always better to win than lose but when you play quality teams in conference you are bound to lose a few. And that makes you better in the long run. Not the losses, but the constant quality competition.

That's a great point..and then there's this...what if a team that IS battle tested gets on a long streak. Are they tempting the law of averages, regression to the mean, the hoops gods, with say a 12 game streak against good competition coming into the 6 game crap shoot that is the NCAAT? So many possibilities...so many cross current dynamics....what makes the NCAA the most impractical, yet wonderful, way to choose a champ.

[scottdude8]

Who said anything about my limiting it to the regular season?

-jk

I’m good with that too.

[scottdude8]

I agree with everyone that I'd like to win all the games. But your question got me thinking how it usually worked, so I looked at the last 20 years of NCAA tournament winners and how many games in a row they'd won coming into the tournament:



Year Team Winning Streak
2019 UVa 0
2018 V'Nova 5
2017 UNC 0
2016 V'Nova 0
2015 Duke 0
2014 UConn 0
2013 L'Ville 10
2012 UK 0
2011 UConn 5
2010 Duke 4
2009 UNC 0
2008 Kansas 7
2007 Florida 4
2006 Florida 5
2005 UNC 0
2004 UConn 3
2003 Syr 0
2002 Md 0
2001 Duke 4
2000 Mich St 5


Personally, I don't think this has any predictive value, but it's interesting that only two out of 20 had more than a five game winning streak coming into the NCAAT, and fully half (ten of 20, including five of the last six) lost their last game before the tourney.

Nice work. Although I’m not sure if this shows as much about the value of going into the tourney “hot” as it does that only 4 of the past 10 national title winners have won their conference tourney. I wonder what it would look like to go back two losses...

[npdevil27]

That's a great point..and then there's this...what if a team that IS battle tested gets on a long streak. Are they tempting the law of averages, regression to the mean, the hoops gods, with say a 12 game streak against good competition coming into the 6 game crap shoot that is the NCAAT? So many possibilities...so many cross current dynamics...what makes the NCAA the most impractical, yet wonderful, way to choose a champ.

Who knows, which is why even with 35 years worth of data in the 64 team era it is still really, really hard to figure out. Each team is unique. It’s hard to remember that narratives are written after the fact. UVA is a prime example - they could have lost to a 16 seed in back to back years.

[OldPhiKap]

Yeah, but what is the question?

-Jason "I too will have to put some Deep Thought into this" Evans

How many roads must a man walk down?

[Indoor66]

That answer is blowing in the wind.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Nice work. Although I’m not sure if this shows as much about the value of going into the tourney “hot” as it does that only 4 of the past 10 national title winners have won their conference tourney. I wonder what it would look like to go back two losses...

I think it also shows how meaningless conference tournaments are now...for teams who have already established a high seeding.

[gofurman]

I’m fine with Duke as a 2 seed. Rather have a team playing well (like v MSU n’ ND) than get a 1 seed and play like we did v State! Esp if we could draw San Diego State- thoughts ??

[devildeac]

I’m fine with Duke as a 2 seed. Rather have a team playing well (like v MSU n’ ND) than get a 1 seed and play like we did v State! Esp if we could draw San Diego State- thoughts ??

As long as our 15 seed isn't...

...nope, not gonna finish that one...

[HereBeforeCoachK]

As long as our 15 seed isn't...

...nope, not gonna finish that one...

....like the old saying...Lord have Mercer......