PDA

View Full Version : Lunardi's Bracketology



throatybeard
12-09-2007, 06:53 PM
Lunardi has us #2 in the South.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology

prefan21
12-09-2007, 07:22 PM
Congratulations to the ACC for earning 7 bids in the fantasy world in Joe Lunardi's head.

dukie8
12-09-2007, 07:23 PM
Lunardi has us #2 in the South.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology

that was from 11/26 so we only are higher on the s-curve with more wins. i think that he updates it in 8 days. if seedings were put out today, i think that we would be a 2 and very close to a 1. if we split with unc, both unc and duke could get 1s this year.

phaedrus
12-09-2007, 07:54 PM
if we split with unc, both unc and duke could get 1s this year.

I agree. Too bad we're going to beat them twice (or more).

Lavabe
12-09-2007, 08:09 PM
if we split with unc, both unc and duke could get 1s this year.

That should have read: "when we take the series with unc, duke will get a #1 and unc will get a #2."

9F!!

Cheers,
Lavabe

dukie8
12-09-2007, 08:18 PM
That should have read: "when we take the series with unc, duke will get a #1 and unc will get a #2."

9F!!

Cheers,
Lavabe

i don't think any sane person thought that that was possible before the season started but it now looks very possible.

Duke09
12-09-2007, 11:25 PM
I'd salivate over that bracket with Kansas as the number 1, a team we already beat at 3 (Marquette) a revenge game against Florida, and a Lute-less Zona team. Sometimes it matters more who is in your bracket then where you are in the bracket. That being said, its way too early to care about this. Just kind of fun.

Troublemaker
12-09-2007, 11:34 PM
i don't think any sane person thought that that was possible before the season started but it now looks very possible.

There was actually a small number of sane people who thought Duke would be this good before the season.

Anyway, on another note, let's not turn this thread into repeated disclaimers that it's too early for Bracketology to matter. We know that, but if you're a bball nerd, you probably still like looking at anyway.

SilkyJ
12-09-2007, 11:44 PM
Sometimes it matters more who is in your bracket then where you are in the bracket. That being said, its way too early to care about this. Just kind of fun.

agreed. for most teams the two issues are of equal importance, but in our case we are usually a top 3 seed so I think who is in our bracket is more important than whether we were jipped out of a 2 seed or something.

that said, I think its really hard to speculate, even on selection sunday, what the committee is going to do on the bottom half of the s-curve. I find I can usually rate the top 8 teams in order so in years when we are a 1 or 2 seed I'll speculate on who we might face before the bracket comes out, but other than that its a complete crapshoot.

devildeac
12-10-2007, 08:43 AM
Congratulations to the ACC for earning 7 bids in the fantasy world in Joe Lunardi's head.

Yea, but you know we'll be placed at Rupp and have to get by AZ, IU, TTech and Harvard in the process to get to the FF;) I would have listed UK also but I know they can't be placed at Rupp(are they even going to get a bid?)

JasonEvans
12-10-2007, 01:47 PM
Congratulations to the ACC for earning 7 bids in the fantasy world in Joe Lunardi's head.

For some reason, this post made me think of...

http://tvmegasite.net/images/primetime/hh/mainlogo2.jpg

--Jason

Jaymf7
12-10-2007, 02:28 PM
I'd salivate over that bracket with Kansas as the number 1, a team we already beat at 3 (Marquette) a revenge game against Florida, and a Lute-less Zona team. Sometimes it matters more who is in your bracket then where you are in the bracket. That being said, its way too early to care about this. Just kind of fun.

I have absolutely no interest in a rematch with a team like that. I hate to see any potential rematches in the NCAAs. It is just too tough to repeat a big win in that environment. I know we have been knocked out by several such rematches over the past several years (MSU comes to mind but I think there are more examples of this).

For some odd reason, during our great ACC tourney run over the past decade, I would often prefer a macth-up with a tough team we split with than a weaker (on paper) team we swept during the regular season. Sweeps over solid teams are just too hard to get.

Jarhead
12-10-2007, 03:07 PM
Why is it that brackets last updated by Lunardi on November 26, 2007, are getting so much attention? That was before our Marquette game, folks. It's like he just threw out a bunch of dominoes on a table.

hurleyfor3
12-10-2007, 03:36 PM
Personally I'm waiting for all the dork polls (Sagarin, Pomeroy, etc.) to become connected. That's when serious time-wasting analysis can begin :D

monkey
12-10-2007, 05:13 PM
i don't think any sane person thought that that was possible before the season started but it now looks very possible.

Possible. But Carolina's still really good. Let's not get too giddy just yet.

BTW, Jason, thanks for the Herman's head reference. That show used to make me laugh and I hadn't thought about it in a long time.

3rdgenDukie
12-10-2007, 05:30 PM
I have absolutely no interest in a rematch with a team like that. I hate to see any potential rematches in the NCAAs. It is just too tough to repeat a big win in that environment. I know we have been knocked out by several such rematches over the past several years (MSU comes to mind but I think there are more examples of this).

For some odd reason, during our great ACC tourney run over the past decade, I would often prefer a macth-up with a tough team we split with than a weaker (on paper) team we swept during the regular season. Sweeps over solid teams are just too hard to get.

While I don't want a re-match with Marquette either, I think the MSU game was the only time we got beat in that situation. MSU in the '99 and Kansas in the '86 FF were slugfest rematches with teams we had beaten earlier in the year, and I do think it cost us the NC both times as our finals opponents had much easier semifinal games. Also, MD took us to the brink in the 4th matchup of the year in '01. Of course, we crushed Michigan in just such a 'scary' rematch in '92, so who the hell knows.

kydevil
12-10-2007, 07:49 PM
There was actually a small number of sane people who thought Duke would be this good before the season.



Yes, I would have to say I was one of them :D

dukie8
12-10-2007, 08:28 PM
There was actually a small number of sane people who thought Duke would be this good before the season.

Anyway, on another note, let's not turn this thread into repeated disclaimers that it's too early for Bracketology to matter. We know that, but if you're a bball nerd, you probably still like looking at anyway.

they were the same people predicting that the football team would win 5 games this year. very few people who knew what was going on predicted that every player returning would be much improved, that all of the frosh would be better than advertised and that the sum would be greater than the parts (ie, chemistry).

Sir Stealth
12-10-2007, 08:55 PM
they were the same people predicting that the football team would win 5 games this year. very few people who knew what was going on predicted that every player returning would be much improved, that all of the frosh would be better than advertised and that the sum would be greater than the parts (ie, chemistry).

I was one of the "insane" people who thought we'd be good. Why wouldn't every returning player be much improved? Isn't that how it usually works, especially when one went from having a broken foot to not having a broken foot and most of the other key players were only freshman last year? Weren't all our freshman very heralded coming in, especially Singler? Why would you not think that chemistry would be improved given that we lost a player who yelled at everybody all the time and never really unpacked his bags at Duke? And wasn't Coach K still going to be our coach? I didn't think it was too crazy to think he wouldn't have a team unravel two years in a row.

The thing about it is, this team really hasn't proven THAT much yet. The only player who has really been much better than I ever could have expected is Taylor King. Everyone else is pretty much at a level that could reasonably have been expected of them (you might also argue that Lance and Zoub have been somewhat below expectations to this point). Duke has looked good and beaten some good teams, but there aren't really that many great teams out there in college bball anymore. Not to mention the fact that the team started fairly strong record-wise last year too, although they didn't look as good. The team still hasn't beaten UNC (I think both/all games will be very, very close), and who knows if they actually will, but I'm baffled by thinking that that would be insane in any year, much less one in which we are loaded with talent and UNC lost 2 key players (while gaining nada).

dukie8
12-10-2007, 09:11 PM
I was one of the "insane" people who thought we'd be good. Why wouldn't every returning player be much improved? Isn't that how it usually works, especially when one went from having a broken foot to not having a broken foot and most of the other key players were only freshman last year? Weren't all our freshman very heralded coming in, especially Singler? Why would you not think that chemistry would be improved given that we lost a player who yelled at everybody all the time and never really unpacked his bags at Duke? And wasn't Coach K still going to be our coach? I didn't think it was too crazy to think he wouldn't have a team unravel two years in a row.

The thing about it is, this team really hasn't proven THAT much yet. The only player who has really been much better than I ever could have expected is Taylor King. Everyone else is pretty much at a level that could reasonably have been expected of them (you might also argue that Lance and Zoub have been somewhat below expectations to this point). Duke has looked good and beaten some good teams, but there aren't really that many great teams out there in college bball anymore. Not to mention the fact that the team started fairly strong record-wise last year too, although they didn't look as good. The team still hasn't beaten UNC (I think both/all games will be very, very close), and who knows if they actually will, but I'm baffled by thinking that that would be insane in any year, much less one in which we are loaded with talent and UNC lost 2 key players (while gaining nada).

see last year. mcroberts, nelson and paulus were either the same or worse than the prior year. the freshmen last year, although good, were very highly rated but nowhere close to the level of singler and king (their preseason awards this year were few and far between). singler will be getting postseason awards THIS year and next year is going to be on everyone's acc and national lists. why would you think that by removing 1 player (mcbob) and adding 3 unknown players, you would necessarily go from a team with terrible chemistry to 1 with great chemistry?

last year's team may have been winning games in nov and dec but those wins were very very ugly and, it turned out, against teams that were very over-rated (except gtown). air force, gmu and kent state didn't even make the tournament and marquette (8), indiana (7) and gonzaga (10) all barely slid in. this team already has bludgeoned multiple teams (a rarity last year) and some of those poundings were against legit teams like wisconsin. i agree that this season is very young and there is a lot of ball left to play but this year's team has looked pretty damn good so far.

Sir Stealth
12-10-2007, 09:25 PM
see last year. mcroberts, nelson and paulus were either the same or worse than the prior year. the freshmen last year, although good, were very highly rated but nowhere close to the level of singler and king (their preseason awards this year were few and far between). singler will be getting postseason awards THIS year and next year is going to be on everyone's acc and national lists. why would you think that by removing 1 player (mcbob) and adding 3 unknown players, you would necessarily go from a team with terrible chemistry to 1 with great chemistry?

last year's team may have been winning games in nov and dec but those wins were very very ugly and, it turned out, against teams that were very over-rated (except gtown). air force, gmu and kent state didn't even make the tournament and marquette (8), indiana (7) and gonzaga (10) all barely slid in. this team already has bludgeoned multiple teams (a rarity last year) and some of those poundings were against legit teams like wisconsin. i agree that this season is very young and there is a lot of ball left to play but this year's team has looked pretty damn good so far.

Hey, that's why last year was so frustrating - never seemed like we should have struggled as much as we did. This year feels much better. And I agree with what you said about the beginning of last season, we look much better this year for sure. With the chemistry thing, I guess part of my optimism comes from being one of the people who really wasn't sorry to see McRoberts go, that being one big reason, despite his talents. I am completely shocked by how much King has contributed so far - no way did I think he would contribute anywhere near what he has so far this early. I actually had lower expectations for Smith than many seemed to - only because it seemed like everyone was ready for him to jump in immediately as a freshman and be both our starting pg and our number 1 lock down defender. I think most people did hope that Singler would immediately look great. Most of all, I agree that this team has looked pretty damn good so far. I think that the sky's the limit.

Bob Green
12-11-2007, 04:47 AM
There was actually a small number of sane people who thought Duke would be this good before the season.


they were the same people predicting that the football team would win 5 games this year.

Hey, I resemble that remark :D Optimism is contagious.

wilson
12-12-2007, 10:57 PM
Another field projection, this time from Gary Parrish of CBS Sportsline:

http://www.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/story/10526190

Parrish has Duke at a 2 seed (behind Texas) and 7 ACC squads in. He also has Kentucky out, and not even listed among his "last four out."
"If your favorite school isn't included," he says, "it means your favorite school has either not beaten enough good teams or lost to too many bad ones. Or both. And such simply is not the recipe for recognition round these parts, and I would like to send my condolences to the Kentucky fans who are learning this one humbling loss at a time."
Ouch.:)

allenmurray
12-17-2007, 05:18 PM
The bracketology that was released today was one of the worst ever

1. Joe Lunardi had Duke as a 2, which is good but a Texas team who has 1 good win vs. UCLA and that is it.

2. Texas A&M has 0 good wins yet and has no reason to be at a 3 seed.

3. Indiana who I believe will contend for a National Title with DJ White and Eric Gordon, is a 4 seed which i think i a little low for a very good team.

4. NC State who has lost some easy games is left out of the bracket is just dumb. That team will be in as a 6 or 7 seed. Once the big men start playing together that team will be very good and a big threat to anyone in the ACC.

jacone21
12-17-2007, 05:25 PM
It's not real. It's fairyland.

houstondukie
12-17-2007, 05:27 PM
I think you're forgetting that Texas also beat a top ten Tennessee team by 19 points. In fact Texas probably has the most impressive resume thus far. Beating UCLA at Pauley is not easy to say the least.

allenmurray
12-17-2007, 05:30 PM
I think you're forgetting that Texas also beat a top ten Tennessee team by 19 points. In fact Texas probably has the most impressive resume thus far. Beating UCLA at Pauley is not easy to say the least.

yeah tennesse is a good team, but there not a deep team, i dont think they would do well against a team like unc

a good game to watch is Texas at MSU on satruday

dukie8
12-18-2007, 12:04 AM
The bracketology that was released today was one of the worst ever

1. Joe Lunardi had Duke as a 2, which is good but a Texas team who has 1 good win vs. UCLA and that is it.

2. Texas A&M has 0 good wins yet and has no reason to be at a 3 seed.

3. Indiana who I believe will contend for a National Title with DJ White and Eric Gordon, is a 4 seed which i think i a little low for a very good team.

4. NC State who has lost some easy games is left out of the bracket is just dumb. That team will be in as a 6 or 7 seed. Once the big men start playing together that team will be very good and a big threat to anyone in the ACC.

you clearly have no idea what lunardi is trying to do with bracketology. he says all over the place that it is supposed to reflect what the brackets would look like if the season ended TODAY -- NOT what he thinks it will look like in march. there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that nc st would make it today and, quite realistically, they have dug a tremendous hole to try and dig out of.

you also made a ridiculous observation that texas "only" has 1 good win. it was pointed out that that 1 win actually was a tremendous win (probably the best win by ANY team this year) and that texas also has another great win (a blow-out against tennessee, which is 8-1 and has most of its team back from a sweet 16 team last year) and, rather than a mea culpa, you come back with that tennesse isn't deep and won't do well against unc (whatever that means?)

a much fairer criticism would have been why is gtown a 2? it has slept walked against a horrible schedule and not looked good in the process. certainly duke's resume is a lot more impressive than gtown's so far. i would take his bracketology more seriously if he slotted gtown in a 4 or 5 and then slowly start moving them up as they beat real teams (if that happens).

in any event, there isn't enough data to really make a good prediction at this point but things will slowly come together. i particularly enjoy watching lunardi miss a few teams on selection sunday and then listen to him brag about how he got 63/65 when most monkeys could have gotten that many right.

DUKIECB
01-29-2008, 09:17 AM
I know, I know, it's still forever and a day away but Lunardi now has us as a #1 seed in the Charlotte region with carowhina #1 in the west bracket.

Olympic Fan
01-29-2008, 12:40 PM
While I don't want a re-match with Marquette either, I think the MSU game was the only time we got beat in that situation. MSU in the '99 and Kansas in the '86 FF were slugfest rematches with teams we had beaten earlier in the year, and I do think it cost us the NC both times as our finals opponents had much easier semifinal games. Also, MD took us to the brink in the 4th matchup of the year in '01. Of course, we crushed Michigan in just such a 'scary' rematch in '92, so who the hell knows.

Actually, Kansas in the 1988 NCAA semifinals is another example of Duke losing in a rematch game. The Devils went to Allen Fieldhouse in February that year and knocked off Danny the Miracles in overtime on their home court. In the FF rematch -- which was essentially on their home court in Kansas City -- Kansas prevailed.

I also think there was a payback aura in 2003 when Duke met Kansas. The core of that Kansas team -- Collison and Hinrich and company -- were holdovers that had lost a bitter second-round game in Winston-Salem in 2000 (the game where K and Roy got into the shouting match).

Throw in Florida in 2000. The year before (Dec, of 1998), Duke absolutely destroyed the Gators in Cameron as Avery set a 3-point record. It was almost the same Florida team -- Nelson, Miller, Haslem -- that beat Duke in the 2000 Sweet 16.

You're right to point out that it can be overcome -- Duke did do it against Michigan in 1992. But even some of those that did turn into wins -- like Kansas in 1986 and Michigan State in 1999 were brutal games that took a lot out of us.

Rematches in NCAA play are TOUGH. Ask Dean Smith, who used to whine about it all the time -- never more loudly than in 1989, when he had to play Michigan for the fourth time in six NCAAs. After winning three straight (including in the 1988 Sweet 16), he finally lost as Glen Rice went nuts.

I was in Austin in 2005, and it's hard to describe the mental edge that Duke's long string of success over Tom Izzo's teams gave MSU. They were determined to finally beat the Devils. It eventually catches up to you.

So, no, I don't want to see Marquette or Wisconsin in our bracket this year. Give me Pitt ... give me LSU (although they won't be in the field) ... heck, give me VCU! Give me UConn!

PS Jerry Palm at collegerpi.com has his early bracket up and it also has Duke as the No. 1 seed in the South (it's a pay site so I can't link). Standard disclaimer -- it's way too early for such projections to mean anything, but it's still fun. If Duke beats UNC in Chapel Hill next week, THEN we can have some confidence about getting that spot.

RockyMtDevil
01-29-2008, 01:24 PM
Does anyone else configure their own brackets? My wife thinks I am absolutely nuts that on Saturday nights, I put down my 1-10 seeds by region each week. I really have either too much time or am too absorbed in this stuff!

Hey, it's mindless fun. Lunardi has nothing on my bracketology. Right now, I've got the following

East South Midwest West
UNC Duke Memphis Kansas
G'town TEnn Texas UCLA
Mich St. Indiana Wash St. Wisconsin
Xavier Stanford Butler Pitt
Florida Drake Arizona Gonzaga
Uconn So. Cal Purdue BYU
St. Mary L'ville KState Clemson

crimsonandblue
01-29-2008, 03:06 PM
Does anyone else configure their own brackets? My wife thinks I am absolutely nuts that on Saturday nights, I put down my 1-10 seeds by region each week. I really have either too much time or am too absorbed in this stuff!

Hey, it's mindless fun. Lunardi has nothing on my bracketology. Right now, I've got the following

East South Midwest West
UNC Duke Memphis Kansas
G'town TEnn Texas UCLA
Mich St. Indiana Wash St. Wisconsin
Xavier Stanford Butler Pitt
Florida Drake Arizona Gonzaga
Uconn So. Cal Purdue BYU
St. Mary L'ville KState Clemson


Well, yes, you're nuts. But if Kansas again ends up out west with UCLA again as our two seed, I will flip out. Kansas should be either split up from UCLA, or more likely, either in the Midwest (Detroit) or South (Houston), with Duke or UNC sent out west. I'm assuming your bracket is based on current sit-iations, not a projection of things at year end...

RockyMtDevil
01-29-2008, 03:34 PM
Right now, I think you have to rate the top flight like this

#1 Memphis, Kansas, UNC, Duke in that order with the following two seeds
#2 Texas, Mich St., Wash st., UCLA

I think we would get UCLA as the toughest #2 seed if we are the fourth #1.

heath_harshman4
02-11-2008, 10:15 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology

Duke again #1 in the east...

Pretty tough bracket. Oklahoma, and Florida in a possible 2nd round matchup. Then WSU and Purdue are the likely favorites to get to the Sweet 16.

On the other half of the Bracket is #2 G-Town, who looked super-beatable tonight, and #3 Xavier...
Not to mention #10 Maryland....Wouldn't that be fun... :)

dbd4ever
02-11-2008, 10:29 PM
But overall, if it did end like this, it's really not a bad draw. Considering we get the weaker of the 4 seeds and a Wash St. team that has looked really shakey lately. And I know it's the tournament, but Florida and Oklahoma just aren't on the same level as Duke right now. At worst we get an Elite eight matchup with Georgetown who in my opinion is the weaker of the 2 seeds. They are very unimpressive lately. And the bracket UNC is in is probably the toughest from top to bottom. Just a thought.

dynastydefender
02-12-2008, 09:43 AM
Kentucky is 12 and 9 with wins against 2 ranked teams this year to recover from the nightmarish results from the non conference schedule. They are 1 and 1/2 games back in the SEC Still no love from the new Bracketology. I still believe the best is yet to come for the Cats this year.

CDu
02-12-2008, 10:05 AM
Kentucky is 12 and 9 with wins against 2 ranked teams this year to recover from the nightmarish results from the non conference schedule. They are 1 and 1/2 games back in the SEC Still no love from the new Bracketology. I still believe the best is yet to come for the Cats this year.

Still no love because Bracketology doesn't project out for future games. Lunardi simply rates teams on their body of work at this point in time. And right now, 12-9 isn't going to get it done, especially with an RPI of #87. The nice wins over Vanderbilt and Tennessee have been more than offset to this point by losses to Gardner-Webb (RPI #231) and San Diego (#114). Other than that, they just don't have any nice wins.

If Kentucky keeps playing well in the SEC and gets to 11 or 12 wins in conference, they have a shot at the tournament. They've got their opportunities coming up (@Vandy, Ole Miss, Arkansas, and Florida). If they win two of those and don't faceplant against UGa, LSU, or Auburn, they'll probably be in. But if they're 16-13, with an RPI in the 70s or 80s and only those two wins against Tennessee and Vanderbilt to rest their hat on, they aren't likely to be in the dance. Even with a 10-6 SEC record. Eight conference wins against teams outside the RPI top-90 just wouldn't be enough probably.

dynastydefender
02-13-2008, 09:31 AM
Well they sure faceplanted last night!! Maybe I can watch the NCAA's from Lexington KY like the rest of the Wildcats will do? Still keeping my fingers crossed and still believing that the best is yet to come for them if not this year or next.


Still no love because Bracketology doesn't project out for future games. Lunardi simply rates teams on their body of work at this point in time. And right now, 12-9 isn't going to get it done, especially with an RPI of #87. The nice wins over Vanderbilt and Tennessee have been more than offset to this point by losses to Gardner-Webb (RPI #231) and San Diego (#114). Other than that, they just don't have any nice wins.

If Kentucky keeps playing well in the SEC and gets to 11 or 12 wins in conference, they have a shot at the tournament. They've got their opportunities coming up (@Vandy, Ole Miss, Arkansas, and Florida). If they win two of those and don't faceplant against UGa, LSU, or Auburn, they'll probably be in. But if they're 16-13, with an RPI in the 70s or 80s and only those two wins against Tennessee and Vanderbilt to rest their hat on, they aren't likely to be in the dance. Even with a 10-6 SEC record. Eight conference wins against teams outside the RPI top-90 just wouldn't be enough probably.

CDu
02-13-2008, 09:53 AM
Well they sure faceplanted last night!! Maybe I can watch the NCAA's from Lexington KY like the rest of the Wildcats will do? Still keeping my fingers crossed and still believing that the best is yet to come for them if not this year or next.

There's still a chance, but your Cats will have to play MUCH better obviously. They need to steal two of the three against Ole Miss, Arkansas, or Florida, or make a REALLY deep run in the SEC tournament. 11-5 with 2+ wins in the SEC tournament and at least three wins against top-30 teams might be enough to offset that horrendous out-of-conference performance. 12-4 with a win or two in the SEC tournament would probably be enough too.

That said, they'll have to play a lot better than what they did last night, and they can't afford to lose to any of the lower-ranked teams in the SEC. They have their work cut out for them.

pamtar
02-13-2008, 09:57 AM
I'd love to see the holes go against a healthy Pitt team in the second round.

dynastydefender
02-13-2008, 09:58 AM
They have to win the SEC Tourney outright. I've seen that happen with other conferences sending teams with losing records to the NCAA just because the losing team won the conference tourney. Still Hoping!!!



There's still a chance, but your Cats will have to play MUCH better obviously. They need to steal two of the three against Ole Miss, Arkansas, or Florida, or make a REALLY deep run in the SEC tournament. 11-5 with 2+ wins in the SEC tournament and at least three wins against top-30 teams might be enough to offset that horrendous out-of-conference performance. 12-4 with a win or two in the SEC tournament would probably be enough too.

That said, they'll have to play a lot better than what they did last night, and they can't afford to lose to any of the lower-ranked teams in the SEC. They have their work cut out for them.

TwoDukeTattoos
02-22-2008, 04:37 PM
ESPN's Lunardi just updated his bracketology, and interestingly, he still lists Duke as a 1-seed with their stock holding steady. Futhermore, he still lists UNC as a 2-seed with their stock holding steady (and not rising despite a convincing win over with weekend).

I know these projections don't mean much, especially with much more hoops left to be played, but it's still fun to track!

Bluedog
02-22-2008, 04:52 PM
ESPN's Lunardi just updated his bracketology, and interestingly, he still lists Duke as a 1-seed with their stock holding steady. Futhermore, he still lists UNC as a 2-seed with their stock holding steady (and not rising despite a convincing win over with weekend).

I know these projections don't mean much, especially with much more hoops left to be played, but it's still fun to track!

It's also interesting that he has Miami in over Wake. And Wake isn't even in the next 8 out, while Miami isn't in the last four in.

chris13
02-22-2008, 05:01 PM
yes, but he's moved UNC to the 2 seed in the East and Duke to the 1 seed in the West...so UNC would have the Raleigh/Charlotte path and Duke would (if seeds held) have to play UCLA in Phoenix...BTW, wouldn't that be like the 3rd year in a row that UCLA, as a 2 seed, has been closer to the regional final site than the 1 seed?

The1Bluedevil
02-22-2008, 05:11 PM
When 2 seeds are getting advantages over 1 seeds their is something terribly wrong. The ACC winner I believe will still get the Charlotte Region.

What I don't understand is that Lunardi has Xavier as 6th overall and UNC 7th. If Carolina is a 2 in Charlotte based on location then that is a big mistake. That is an issue that needs to be addressed.

pamtar
02-22-2008, 05:11 PM
I don't care so much if we don't get the East, but all the holes in the state will back them in Raleigh and Charlotte.

I guess right now it has to either be us or them. That is until March 8;)

barjwr
02-22-2008, 05:17 PM
. . . Duke would (if seeds held) have to play UCLA in Phoenix...BTW, wouldn't that be like the 3rd year in a row that UCLA, as a 2 seed, has been closer to the regional final site than the 1 seed?

It would be at least the second year in a row like that: last year, they played #1 seed Kansas somewhere in California.

CDu
02-22-2008, 05:22 PM
It's also interesting that he has Miami in over Wake. And Wake isn't even in the next 8 out, while Miami isn't in the last four in.

That shouldn't be all that surprising. Miami has a better overall record, much better RPI, more impressive wins, and fewer bad losses. And they're only one game behind Wake in ACC record. The head-to-head game was @Wake, and it was very close, so that game shouldn't penalize Miami that much. Miami actually has a decent resume overall.

The1Bluedevil
02-22-2008, 05:25 PM
Joe Lunardi: The committee wouldn't view it that way. They would not project out to a regional final and a possible disadvantage to Tennessee (I happen to agree with you, however). The Vols are also No. 2 overall and Carolina No. 5 overall, making the pairing even more unbalanced. But the committee would go by geography and try to weaken the top four in the region on lines three and four.

crimsonandblue
02-22-2008, 05:49 PM
It would be at least the second year in a row like that: last year, they played #1 seed Kansas somewhere in California.

Right. At least this year it's Phoenix. Last year it was in San Jose. Still 293 miles from LA, but somewhat closer than Lawrence, Kansas.

Personally, I'll take a 2 seed in my geographic region over a 1 seed in the 2's backyard (or at least back alley).

Classof06
03-09-2008, 06:45 PM
I thought Duke's chances for a #1 seed vanished after last night but they may not have. Joe Lunardi from ESPN.com just said he now has UNC as his #1 overall seed in the tourament but still maintained that should Duke beat UNC in the ACC tournament, we would probably get a 1 seed and probably get it in the East as a reward for taking 2 out of 3 from the Tar Heels. Lunardi also said that UNC would more than likely stay as a 1 seed even if they did lose to Duke.

That seems pretty idealistic but it's straight from the horse's mouth. Obviously what Joe says isn't exactly what's going to happen next Sunday but it's good to know there's a possibility.

hondoheel
03-09-2008, 06:51 PM
I think the brackets are pretty much set before the Sunday games. The selection committee MIGHT leave themselves some wiggle room in case of upsets in conference tourneys, but I wouldn't count on it. Unless one of the current projected 1 seeds loses before Sunday, I don't think Duke would move up to a 1.

happydays1949
03-09-2008, 06:58 PM
Well, that settles it. Hondoheel knows!

Bluedog
03-09-2008, 07:18 PM
I think the brackets are pretty much set before the Sunday games. The selection committee MIGHT leave themselves some wiggle room in case of upsets in conference tourneys, but I wouldn't count on it. Unless one of the current projected 1 seeds loses before Sunday, I don't think Duke would move up to a 1.

I believe you're right that some of the games Sunday do not affect the committee's decisions (unless of course a non-tournament team suddenly wins their conference tourny). As I recall, the committee admitted that they do not have time to take afternoon games on Sunday into consideration and they had notified the conferences about this. But some conferences choose to do so anyways due to the increased TV exposure and revenue. But the committee also said they usually do have contigency plans based on the results of the early Sunday games. I believe the ACC finals is early enough to be taken into consideration for seeding purposes. I think many things will have to go Duke's way to grab a 1 seed, and I don't think it's likely. But who knows...anything is possible and crazier things have happened.

dukie8
03-09-2008, 08:19 PM
I believe you're right that some of the games Sunday do not affect the committee's decisions (unless of course a non-tournament team suddenly wins their conference tourny). As I recall, the committee admitted that they do not have time to take afternoon games on Sunday into consideration and they had notified the conferences about this. But some conferences choose to do so anyways due to the increased TV exposure and revenue. But the committee also said they usually do have contigency plans based on the results of the early Sunday games. I believe the ACC finals is early enough to be taken into consideration for seeding purposes. I think many things will have to go Duke's way to grab a 1 seed, and I don't think it's likely. But who knows...anything is possible and crazier things have happened.

the committee has said several times in the past that the sunday games -- the b12, acc and b10 finals -- are irrelevant unless an upstart wins one of the leagues because the "don't have enough time to account for the results." i think that that is complete [fill in the blank with an explicative]. how hard is it for them to have an either or for each conference? i could do it by myself and i will not have spent the better part of the prior week working on the brackets.

i agree that unc is the overall #1 at this point with the road win last night. #1 in the rpi #1 conference with only 2 losses and now a top 5 road win. even if they lose their first game in the acct, they still only will have 3 losses and just will drop a couple of slots on the s-curve and will maintain a 1 seed. i think that ucla basically has the 1 seed out west. #1 in what actually is the best conference (oregon st and its O-fer kills the pac-10 in the rpi), clearly the best team out west (the committee needs to placate all of the west coasters who think their is an east coast bias) and only 3 losses. i think that the other 2 1s are more fluid. right now tennessee and memphis have them and will keep them if they win out. if one losses, then they will drop to a 2. kansas/texas gets first dibs if that happens. i think that the only way we could get a 1 is if we win the acct and either (1) both memphis and tenn lose or (2) memphis or tenn loses and neither kansas nor texas wins the b12.

if unc, ucla, memphis and tenn win out and either texas or kansas wins the b12, i don't think the big12 winner will get a 1 and they will be pretty pissed. has there ever been a year with so little difference between the 1 seeds? it seems like the difference between the top 5 teams is so minimal.

barjwr
03-09-2008, 08:38 PM
The Big XII is kind of a mess. Texas beat KU head-to-head, but they also just lost to a Texas Tech team that KU destroyed by a record margin (they actually won by more points than Tech scored). Granted, Texas has good wins, but they've also got horrible losses. I don't see them unseating one of the other #1 seed candidates--unless Tennessee lays an egg in their first SEC tourney game or Memphis doesn't make the Conference DOA finals--even if they win the Big XII. Just too many hiccups.

dukie8
03-09-2008, 08:49 PM
The Big XII is kind of a mess. Texas beat KU head-to-head, but they also just lost to a Texas Tech team that KU destroyed by a record margin (they actually won by more points than Tech scored). Granted, Texas has good wins, but they've also got horrible losses. I don't see them unseating one of the other #1 seed candidates--unless Tennessee lays an egg in their first SEC tourney game or Memphis doesn't make the Conference DOA finals--even if they win the Big XII. Just too many hiccups.

texas's losses aren't horrible. they have 5 -- at mich st (rpi 14), wisconsin (rpi 12), at texas a&m (rpi 47), at missouri (back when missouri was 11-5 and pre clubbing/fighting night) and at texas tech (rpi 58). the missouri one looks bad now but the team is a shell of what it was when texas lost to them and it was a road conference loss to a bubble type team. the texas tech one was a road conference loss, which everyone except for unc and memphis have. to give some perspective, wake is rpi 88 and nobody calls that road loss by duke horrible.

the wins at ucla and neutral tennessee are enormous. toss in the kansas win and they have the 3 best wins out of anyone in the country. i agree that they have a lot to overcome (mainly tennessee and memphis going down) but they nonetheless have a pretty impressive resume and certainly aren't going to be intimidated by any top team.

Deslok
03-09-2008, 11:07 PM
It's played out kind of oddly this year, and I think the #1 seeds are basically already set, and 3 of the #2s as well.

I don't see any way that Memphis, UNC, Tennessee, and UCLA don't get #1 seeds(even if they lose in the Pac-10 tourney, UCLA has road wins that Kansas just doesn't have).
And then Texas, Kansas, and Duke are locked in at the #2s. Who slots in with them is a tough call, that I don't think I'll try and pick just yet. But I don't see any of the 2 seeds jumping up or down from where they are. In Texas and Duke's case, its too many losses, in Kansas's case, its SOS and lack of bigtime road/neutral wins(its not that A&M/USC etc aren't nice road wins for a tourney team, but they aren't a great statement for a #1, given that UCLA has 2 road/neutral that are better and matches with USC).

Just my take on things anyway. Odd that conference tourney finals might just then be for pride, not for seedings(except for overall #1, etc).

Olympic Fan
03-09-2008, 11:29 PM
the committee has said several times in the past that the sunday games -- the b12, acc and b10 finals -- are irrelevant unless an upstart wins one of the leagues because the "don't have enough time to account for the results."

You are mis-interpreting what various committee spokesmen have said. The do have problems with Sunday results, but they've NEVER said such games are irrelevant. In fact, when you have two teams from the same conference vying for a top seed that are playing in a Sunday final, it's very easy to plug the winner in as a No. 1 and the loser as a No. 2. All of the complications arise when you start switching teams from various conferences. It's easy to flip-flop two teams from the same league.

The committee clearly did that in 1998 when Duke beat UNC in the final regular season game, then lost to UNC in the tourney finals. Both teams got No. 1s, but UNC got the favorable East Regional spot in Greensboro, while Duke was sent to the Southeast regional in St. Pete. They did that in 2001, when Duke earned the No. 1 seed in the East and UNC was sent to the Southeast as a No. 2 (after both tied for the regular season title). Clearly if UNC had won the title game Sunday in Atlanta, Duke would have gone to New Orleans as a No. 2 seed that year. Duke flipflopped with Wake Forest in 2005 after winning the tourney in Washington (after trailing the Deacons in the standings and polls all year).

This year we could see two No. 1s decided on Sunday -- if, for instance, Duke-UNC meet for the ACC title and Kansas-Texas (they tied for the Big 12 regular season title and Texas has the head-to-head win) meet for the Big 12 title. The problem is that Tennessee, Memphis and UCLA also have claims on a number one seed, so unless one of those teams gets beat in their conference tourney somebody is going to get squeezed out.

The question about who gets to play in Charlotte comes down to which is the higher-seeded No. 1 seed -- Tennessee or the Duke/UNC winner? Geographically, the Vols would like to play in Charlotte (as opposed to Houston, Detroit and Phoenix) and if they are seeded higher on the S-curve, then they win that right. In that case, the ACC No. 2 could very well go to Charlotte while the ACC No. 1 goes to Detroit.

That's where the Sunday title game could be a mess -- UNC is No. 1 in the polls (and the polls have been a better indicator of seeding than the RPI), so if the committee expects UNC to win the title, they would seem to get Charlotte as the No. 1 ... but if Duke pulls the upset, the committee can't just switch Tennessee into Charlotte and send Duke to whereever Tennessee was going.

That's where the time crunch could lead to some bizarre results.

dukie8
03-09-2008, 11:33 PM
It's played out kind of oddly this year, and I think the #1 seeds are basically already set, and 3 of the #2s as well.

I don't see any way that Memphis, UNC, Tennessee, and UCLA don't get #1 seeds(even if they lose in the Pac-10 tourney, UCLA has road wins that Kansas just doesn't have).
And then Texas, Kansas, and Duke are locked in at the #2s. Who slots in with them is a tough call, that I don't think I'll try and pick just yet. But I don't see any of the 2 seeds jumping up or down from where they are. In Texas and Duke's case, its too many losses, in Kansas's case, its SOS and lack of bigtime road/neutral wins(its not that A&M/USC etc aren't nice road wins for a tourney team, but they aren't a great statement for a #1, given that UCLA has 2 road/neutral that are better and matches with USC).

Just my take on things anyway. Odd that conference tourney finals might just then be for pride, not for seedings(except for overall #1, etc).

i agree. i also think that getting the overall 1 is a big plus because you then get the worst 2, which is a big drop off. it's going to be some much weaker team like wisconsin, xavier or gtown.

hondoheel
03-10-2008, 12:43 AM
Another factor I hate to bring up is injury. Cincy went from being a 1 seed to a 2 after losing Kenyon Martin to a broken leg (and losing in their conference tourney) in 2000. They were projected as the top #1 seed before his injury.

I bring this up because UNC has to play the Wake/FSU winner in the first round. I am pulling hard for the Deacs, needless to say. Don't want any part of Reid and the other FSU thugs.

BCGroup
03-10-2008, 06:14 AM
"The question about who gets to play in Charlotte comes down to which is the higher-seeded No. 1 seed -- Tennessee or the Duke/UNC winner? Geographically, the Vols would like to play in Charlotte (as opposed to Houston, Detroit and Phoenix) and if they are seeded higher on the S-curve, then they win that right. In that case, the ACC No. 2 could very well go to Charlotte while the ACC No. 1 goes to Detroit."

How much does it hurt us in these scenarios that there is noone from the ACC on the selection committee? Or does that really matter?

devildeac
03-10-2008, 08:36 AM
Another factor I hate to bring up is injury. Cincy went from being a 1 seed to a 2 after losing Kenyon Martin to a broken leg (and losing in their conference tourney) in 2000. They were projected as the top #1 seed before his injury.

I bring this up because UNC has to play the Wake/FSU winner in the first round. I am pulling hard for the Deacs, needless to say. Don't want any part of Reid and the other FSU thugs.

Reid and the other f$u thugs? coming from a heel? and I thought it was just Duke fans who 'whined' about the thuggery in the new and improved expansion acc?:rolleyes:

Duvall
03-10-2008, 10:07 AM
I am pulling hard for the Deacs, needless to say. Don't want any part of Reid and the other FSU thugs.

Wouldn't expect much better from Wake, though.

sagegrouse
03-10-2008, 10:25 AM
How much does it hurt us in these scenarios that there is no one from the ACC on the selection committee? Or does that really matter?

None at all in terms of who is the number one seed. Where it does matter is in who gets in the tournament.

Two years ago when the Missouri Valley conference got four or five teams -- IIRC -- the evidence was based on play against teams from the power conferences. (The Mo. Valley teams were fairly even because they beat each other.) I believe that the fulcrum that brought these teams into the tournament was a single road win against LSU by No. Iowa and and at-home win against U. of Iowa. There were few other games against top teams.

Here's my post from that time (prior to selection Sunday):


"What is the MVC smoking? What is the NCAA smoking?

"The MVC, which has six teams in the top 42 of the RPI, is hoping to get five or six bids to the NCAA Tournament. When you look at their out-of-conference results, these six MVC teams are 4-5 against the power conferences. The two best results are No. Iowa’s win at LSU and at home against Iowa. Are these two wins (by only one team) enough to pull five MVC teams into the tourney?

"In comparison, teams 5 through 8 of the ACC also have a 4-5 record against teams in the power conferences. So why should FSU, Miami, UMd and UVa take a backseat to anyone in the MVC?"

That's it! Two games! Enough to get several teams into the NCAA tournament. Any statistician would have demolished the logic. However, again IIRC, the smaller conferences were well-represented on the selection committee.

sagegrouse

UrinalCake
03-10-2008, 02:10 PM
I'm curious, why doesn't the selection committee just release the brackets on monday morning? Then they'd have sufficient time to account for all of the late sunday games. Is it because the teams need to make travel arrangements? Is it that tournament games have gradually been scheduled later and later in the day, while the announcement time has not? Or is because the committee members all want to watch the Simpsons?

wisteria
03-11-2008, 11:16 PM
In Lunardi's latest bracket, we may play Wisconsin again in sweet-16.

After our blow-out victory over WM, I never gave them a thought. And now they are No.8 in AP, No.6 in ESPN poll ! Our win looks extremely good now.

Did wisconsin improve dramatically over the season? If we were to play them again, how's our chance?

dukemsu
03-11-2008, 11:55 PM
Being in Big 10 country as the second half of my screen name suggests, I've seen way too much of the Badgers.

Their primary danger to Duke is their legion of skilled big men, led by Butch. he is smart, uses both hands, and had good range on his J. He also has the extremely annoying moniker "Polar Bear".

They have one strong defensive guard in Flowers. Wisconsin, like most Big Ten teams, is susceptible to tournament officiating, where the grabbing and clawing that is basically encouraged in the Big 10 is not allowed. Occasionally, a Big 10 school has enough talent to overcome this (OSU last year, Illinois in 05, some of the better MSU teams), but too often they get in foul trouble against a team that knows how to take advantage of this and closes them out. I wish some enterprising national media outlet (ahem, ESPN) would take a look at this and call the Big 10 on it. Big 10 basketball has become painful to watch as a result.

Duke's legion of dribble penetrators and drive-and-kick style would likely be too much for the Badgers, unless Duke has a bad shooting night, where Wisconsin could kill them on the boards. Duke does have strong guards who rebound well (Jon, Markie) that could negate this.

I'm a lot more worried about a potential Sweet 16 matchup against Louisville.

grc5
03-12-2008, 09:39 AM
"The question about who gets to play in Charlotte comes down to which is the higher-seeded No. 1 seed -- Tennessee or the Duke/UNC winner? Geographically, the Vols would like to play in Charlotte (as opposed to Houston, Detroit and Phoenix) and if they are seeded higher on the S-curve, then they win that right. In that case, the ACC No. 2 could very well go to Charlotte while the ACC No. 1 goes to Detroit."

It would be HILARIOUS if this happened. Everyone has been saying that a #1 seed from the ACC would get the Charlotte regional as if it were a fait accompli. In hindsight, it looks like that was a pretty arrogant position to take. Apparently, it's easy to forget that they play college basketball outside of the ACC.

I would LOVE for this to happen. UNC fans would be pretty pissed off if they got sent to Houston, Detroit and Phoenix, while we slipped into the Charlotte regional as a #2 seed. It looks like this could situation could be pretty likely, if UNC falls in the tournament, and Tennessee wins the SEC championship :D

Bluedog
03-12-2008, 10:22 AM
I'm curious, why doesn't the selection committee just release the brackets on monday morning? Then they'd have sufficient time to account for all of the late sunday games. Is it because the teams need to make travel arrangements? Is it that tournament games have gradually been scheduled later and later in the day, while the announcement time has not? Or is because the committee members all want to watch the Simpsons?

My guess is it has to do with money and promoting the tournament. A lot more people will watch a Sunday night 6 PM primetime selection show than a Monday morning one. Additionally, this drives up interest in the tournament itself to increase viewership and ad revenue for the selection show itself. Monday night is probably too late since play-in game is on Tuesday (right?), and, again, typically not as big of a TV viewing night as Sunday night. I could be wrong, though, but that's my guess.

Devil07
03-12-2008, 10:42 AM
My guess is it has to do with money and promoting the tournament. A lot more people will watch a Sunday night 6 PM primetime selection show than a Monday morning one. Additionally, this drives up interest in the tournament itself to increase viewership and ad revenue for the selection show itself. Monday night is probably too late since play-in game is on Tuesday (right?), and, again, typically not as big of a TV viewing night as Sunday night. I could be wrong, though, but that's my guess.

Not to mention that everything related to the tourney has to have that nice alliteration thing going. Selection Sunday, Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, Final Four. What are you going to do with a Monday?

Indoor66
03-12-2008, 10:55 AM
Not to mention that everything related to the tourney has to have that nice alliteration thing going. Selection Sunday, Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, Final Four. What are you going to do with a Monday?

Moaning Monday....?

EarlJam
03-12-2008, 11:13 AM
Moaning Monday....?

Madness Monday
Manic Monday
March Monday
Monday Mayhem
Marvelous Monday
Mmmmmmmmmmm Monday!
Mother Mucking Monday
Monday's with Marv (if Mr. Albert does the show)
Maudlin Monday
Melancholy Monday
Masticating on March Madness Monday
Mast..@#$ on March Madness Monday
Mass Madness Monday
Monday
Case of the Mondays Monday

-EarlJam

sagegrouse
03-12-2008, 12:12 PM
I'm curious, why doesn't the selection committee just release the brackets on monday morning? Then they'd have sufficient time to account for all of the late sunday games. Is it because the teams need to make travel arrangements? Is it that tournament games have gradually been scheduled later and later in the day, while the announcement time has not? Or is because the committee members all want to watch the Simpsons?

Then some enterprising conferences, with the assistance of ESPN, would schedule their championship games Sunday night.

sagegrouse

UrinalCake
03-12-2008, 12:24 PM
Here's a conspiracy idea that came to me: maybe some conferences intentionally schedule their final for late in the day so that the result won't be factored into the selection committee's decision. My thinking is that the lasting impression by the committee is that both teams made it to the final, rather than that one team lost, so neither team is "penalized." At least as far as the polls go, a team will generally drop if they lose, even if it's to a higher-ranked team. But if they don't play, then their ranking will stay the same. So it helps the conference as a whole to have two teams that made it that far but didn't lose.

Let's say Maryland makes it to the ACC tournament final. The committee might go ahead and put them in the field just for making it that far. But if they know that Maryland lost, then maybe they decide not to. Of course, if they win then they get the automatic bid anyways.

Just a thought.

Bob Green
03-12-2008, 04:13 PM
A lot more people will watch a Sunday night 6 PM primetime selection show than a Monday morning one.

While I agree with your point, I must point out that the selection show is pretty popular at 7 AM Monday morning where I live.

hurleyfor3
03-12-2008, 07:15 PM
I'm curious, why doesn't the selection committee just release the brackets on monday morning? Then they'd have sufficient time to account for all of the late sunday games. Is it because the teams need to make travel arrangements? Is it that tournament games have gradually been scheduled later and later in the day, while the announcement time has not? Or is because the committee members all want to watch the Simpsons?

Usually the selection show is on during The Simpsons. Damn tournament committee.

I recall when a couple conferences used to hold their championships late on Sunday, and the committee would have to make some of the slots "either/or" contingent on who eventually won. I think this ended around 1991.

Sunday night just makes for better teevee. Also, enough of that workweek is rendered unproductive already by the tournament, and releasing the brackets on Monday would only make things worse.

pfrduke
03-13-2008, 12:14 PM
Lunardi is at it again as far as discounting the ACC. Virginia Tech and Maryland are not even in the "next four out" - behind such stalwarts as Mississippi (7-9 in the SEC West), UAB (best win is at Kentucky back when they still stunk), Dayton (7th place in the A-10), and Illinois State (seriously?). That doesn't even include Oregon, who Lunardi doesn't even put on the bubble, despite losses to Nebraska and Oakland and a sub-.500 record in Pac-10 play against teams not named Oregon State (admittedly, Oregon beat K-State, Stanford, and Arizona at Arizona). I'm not saying Virginia Tech and Maryland should be locks. But I can't understand how their resumes are worse than Mississippi, UAB, Illinois State, Dayton, and Oregon. Dayton is the one that really cheeses me off - they lost four games by double figures in A-10 play, and finished behind 6! other teams in the conference - but they have a better tournament pedigree than the Hokies or the Terps? argh.

dukie8
03-13-2008, 09:43 PM
Lunardi is at it again as far as discounting the ACC. Virginia Tech and Maryland are not even in the "next four out" - behind such stalwarts as Mississippi (7-9 in the SEC West), UAB (best win is at Kentucky back when they still stunk), Dayton (7th place in the A-10), and Illinois State (seriously?). That doesn't even include Oregon, who Lunardi doesn't even put on the bubble, despite losses to Nebraska and Oakland and a sub-.500 record in Pac-10 play against teams not named Oregon State (admittedly, Oregon beat K-State, Stanford, and Arizona at Arizona). I'm not saying Virginia Tech and Maryland should be locks. But I can't understand how their resumes are worse than Mississippi, UAB, Illinois State, Dayton, and Oregon. Dayton is the one that really cheeses me off - they lost four games by double figures in A-10 play, and finished behind 6! other teams in the conference - but they have a better tournament pedigree than the Hokies or the Terps? argh.

why would va tech even be close to the bubble? they have ZERO rpi top 50 wins, have losses to sub 100 heavyweights penn st, richmond and odu, have zero wins against potential at large teams and have an rpi of 58. they aren't even close.

maryland has a grand total of 1 top 50 win (thankfully they did win that game), an rpi of 69 and home losses to ohio, american and bc. they aren't even close either.

dayton isn't going to get in after losing today but they did beat louisville AT louisville and beat pitt (something we couldn't do) and their rpi is 29 (it will drop after today). their candidacy is moot after today anyway but as of this morning it was a lot better than va tech's and maryland's.

MulletMan
03-13-2008, 11:55 PM
The question about Dayton is, in effect, moot, however to merely look at thier record is to ignore a good portion of the story. Dayton was 15-1 and ranked 16th in the country when thier best post player, freshman Chris Wright, broke his leg. Coupled with another key injury and a lung infection for arguably the best senior guard at the mid-major level, Brian Roberts, and the Flyers went on a significant slide. There was a possibilty that Wright would make it back for post season play, and that, my friends, is arguably why they still had a shot at the tourney. An RPI of 29, two huge non-conference wins (@ Louisville and Pitt by 25(!) at home), coupled with a significant injury (compare it to if Duke lost Singler and went on a significant slide) is probably why people are still giving them the respect that they earned earlier in the year.

But by all means, go ahead and be cheesed off that UMd and VaTech, who, BTW, had thier chances to earn thier way into the tourney... maybe by playing someone OOC... are on the outside looking in while Dayton actually got consideration.

Fact is that Dayton and Maryland both are finished because they lost today.

pfrduke
03-14-2008, 12:33 AM
The question about Dayton is, in effect, moot, however to merely look at thier record is to ignore a good portion of the story. Dayton was 15-1 and ranked 16th in the country when thier best post player, freshman Chris Wright, broke his leg. Coupled with another key injury and a lung infection for arguably the best senior guard at the mid-major level, Brian Roberts, and the Flyers went on a significant slide. There was a possibilty that Wright would make it back for post season play, and that, my friends, is arguably why they still had a shot at the tourney. An RPI of 29, two huge non-conference wins (@ Louisville and Pitt by 25(!) at home), coupled with a significant injury (compare it to if Duke lost Singler and went on a significant slide) is probably why people are still giving them the respect that they earned earlier in the year.

But by all means, go ahead and be cheesed off that UMd and VaTech, who, BTW, had thier chances to earn thier way into the tourney... maybe by playing someone OOC... are on the outside looking in while Dayton actually got consideration.

Fact is that Dayton and Maryland both are finished because they lost today.

admittedly, I didn't know about Dayton's injury. And the Pitt and Louisville wins are certainly to their credit (although it was the game that Pitt lost Fields, and Louisville was without Padgett). Nonetheless, they finished 7th in the A-10. 7th. Maryland was 6th in the ACC. Virginia Tech was 4th. I know the A-10 has an unbalanced schedule, but 7th place is 7th place.

Maryland absolutely played themselves out over the last 3 weeks. They lost 5 of 6 to finish. But they had as many conference wins as Dayton did, and they did it in the ACC (and it included a win against UNC at the Dean Dome). Why do a couple wins in December against depleted Big East teams give Dayton an edge? (also, was the injured Flyer back? or were they still without him? that makes a big difference.)

Virginia Tech was a couple of free throws away from 10-6 in the ACC. They finished the season winning 4 of 5. They get their chance against Miami tomorrow. I think if they win, they should be in, particularly with the way the other bubble teams have performed. And their chance of getting in should have been considered equal to Oregon, Dayton, Mississippi, and Illinois State.

dukie8
03-14-2008, 07:40 AM
admittedly, I didn't know about Dayton's injury. And the Pitt and Louisville wins are certainly to their credit (although it was the game that Pitt lost Fields, and Louisville was without Padgett). Nonetheless, they finished 7th in the A-10. 7th. Maryland was 6th in the ACC. Virginia Tech was 4th. I know the A-10 has an unbalanced schedule, but 7th place is 7th place.

Maryland absolutely played themselves out over the last 3 weeks. They lost 5 of 6 to finish. But they had as many conference wins as Dayton did, and they did it in the ACC (and it included a win against UNC at the Dean Dome). Why do a couple wins in December against depleted Big East teams give Dayton an edge? (also, was the injured Flyer back? or were they still without him? that makes a big difference.)

Virginia Tech was a couple of free throws away from 10-6 in the ACC. They finished the season winning 4 of 5. They get their chance against Miami tomorrow. I think if they win, they should be in, particularly with the way the other bubble teams have performed. And their chance of getting in should have been considered equal to Oregon, Dayton, Mississippi, and Illinois State.

why are you so hung up on conference records? are you aware that the committee doesn't look at them and that they are completely irrelevant? they look at your entire season. they also don't factor in close losses. they are analyzing about 100 teams and don't have time to go back and look at the play-by-play of each team's games.

maryland and dayton are gone so it doesn't matter at this point.

JasonEvans
03-14-2008, 09:13 AM
I'm curious, why doesn't the selection committee just release the brackets on monday morning? Then they'd have sufficient time to account for all of the late sunday games. Is it because the teams need to make travel arrangements? Is it that tournament games have gradually been scheduled later and later in the day, while the announcement time has not? Or is because the committee members all want to watch the Simpsons?

The bracket must be announced as soon as possible to allow teams and fans to make proper travel plans. It is as simple as that.

It would be interesting for the committee to mandate that all conference championship games start no later than 1:30pm or something like that. They could also probably afford to push the bracket announcement back by 30 minutes -- maybe. Alternately, they could even mandate that all games be completed by Saturday night, though that would make all big conferences start play on Wednesdays which would make travel to the tournaments more difficult and would pull kids out of class for even more time (ha! Like the NCAA cares about class time).

Anyway, a Monday bracket announcement would be a real travel nightmare.

--Jason "if they did it Monday, it would have to be called Madness Monday... no other name comes close" Evans

pfrduke
03-14-2008, 11:09 AM
why are you so hung up on conference records? are you aware that the committee doesn't look at them and that they are completely irrelevant?

I don't think this is right, and if it is right, it's news to me. Think about Clemson last year (or Mississippi this year) - the Tigers went 21-9, I believe, over the course of the whole season (including some good non-conference wins). They were 7-9 in the ACC. Hindsight is always 20/20, but I believe if they had the same record, but were 9-7 in the ACC and lost two games in non-conference play to balance it out, they would have been in the tourney.

Also, why are you so dismissive of conference records? Do you think that there's no significant difference between 8-8 in the ACC and 8-8 in the A-10? Here are Dayton's conference wins: Rhode Island, St. Louis, St. Louis, Charlotte, Temple, Fordham, St. Bonaventure, St. Joseph's.
Here are Maryland's: Wake Forest, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Boston College, NC State, Florida State, Wake Forest.

I know I'm not 100% objective here, but the latter is better. Those are also the most recent 8 wins for each team, which is a better indicator of how the team is playing now, and how the team might play in the tournament.

I don't mean to slam Dayton. They're a good team, not a bad team. It sounds like they had injury problems which derailed a promising season, which is unfortunate. I just don't see how a team that finished 7th in the A-10 is being given more consideration than teams that finished 4th and 6th in the ACC, and finished with equal or better records against a more difficult conference.

And I agree - thanks to both teams losing yesterday, we're arguing about a completely moot point.

Indoor66
03-14-2008, 11:18 AM
I found this site looking at ESPN.com. It has historic info on the tourney and brackets. Interesting.

http://bracketscience.com/

Bluedog
03-14-2008, 02:15 PM
I really hope Lunardi is right and Wisconsin is our 3 seed. Not that he can be that accurate, but....that would be perfect. Wisconsin just beat Michigan 51-34 in an extraordinarily UGLY game. The Big Ten is almost painful to watch. Although some of the ACC games yesterday weren't so thrilling either, but for a team to shoot 36% and win by 17 is hard to believe.

This pic epitomizes the Wisc-Umich game... http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/photo;_ylt=AoWIednGoImpY9cLr.RWIs0OvbYF?slug=d0675 71900804bffb9c993ab31f83d15.b10_michigan_wisconsin _basketball_inks108&prov=ap

feldspar
03-14-2008, 02:58 PM
Tennessee only up four right now over South Carolina. This could bode well for us.

Bluedog
03-14-2008, 03:14 PM
Tennessee only up four right now over South Carolina. This could bode well for us.

You can watch the game for free at www.sports.yahoo.com/ncaab

juise
03-14-2008, 03:15 PM
You can watch the game for free at www.sports.yahoo.com/ncaab

Sweet, thanks.


Lofton... ouch. After watching the end of this and the UCLA game on Saturday, I'm getting a little tired of the officials letting blatant contact go in the final seconds because they don't want to "decide the game."

CDu
03-14-2008, 05:47 PM
"The dirty little secret here is that Duke has been very ordinary since winning at Chapel Hill."

We've definitely not looked like the same team since beating UNC. Since then, we've had:

10-point win over BC at home
12-point win over Maryland at home
13-point loss at Wake
1-point loss (thanks to a frantic comeback against a team that mentally choked) at Miami
30-point win over St John's at home
13-point win over Ga Tech at home
1-point win at NC State (another frantic comeback)
16-point win at UVa
8-point loss against UNC at home

Thankfully, we built that strong resume early, because since the UNC game we haven't exactly had the look of a #1 or #2 seed. 5-3 in conference is solid and easily tourney-worthy, but essentially that's Clemson territory, not top-10 territory.

This is why I think the ACC tournament is important for us this year. We to show that we're still a top-5 quality team. I know that we could just as easily show that quality in the NCAA tourney with or without the ACC, but I'd feel a lot better if I see it again, and soon.

EarlJam
03-14-2008, 06:02 PM
"The dirty little secret here is that Duke has been very ordinary since winning at Chapel Hill."

We've definitely not looked like the same team since beating UNC. Since then, we've had:

10-point win over BC at home
12-point win over Maryland at home
13-point loss at Wake
1-point loss (thanks to a frantic comeback against a team that mentally choked) at Miami
30-point win over St John's at home
13-point win over Ga Tech at home
1-point win at NC State (another frantic comeback)
16-point win at UVa
8-point loss against UNC at home

Thankfully, we built that strong resume early, because since the UNC game we haven't exactly had the look of a #1 or #2 seed. 5-3 in conference is solid and easily tourney-worthy, but essentially that's Clemson territory, not top-10 territory.

This is why I think the ACC tournament is important for us this year. We to show that we're still a top-5 quality team. I know that we could just as easily show that quality in the NCAA tourney with or without the ACC, but I'd feel a lot better if I see it again, and soon.

I totally agree. Earlier in the week, I mentioned how again Duke is "stumbling" into the NCAA Tournament and that drew some debate. Okay, maybe "stumbling" is a bit harsh, but there for a long while this team was looking like a juggernaut (sp), a legitimate #1 seed and Final Four contender.

Now, like you said, we look to be more in Clemson territory and look quite ordinary respectively.

Win the ACC and perhaps we get the real Mojo back. Afterall, this team IS undefeated in tournament play this year to date!

-EJ

rockymtn devil
03-14-2008, 06:45 PM
I don't think this is right, and if it is right, it's news to me. Think about Clemson last year (or Mississippi this year) - the Tigers went 21-9, I believe, over the course of the whole season (including some good non-conference wins). They were 7-9 in the ACC. Hindsight is always 20/20, but I believe if they had the same record, but were 9-7 in the ACC and lost two games in non-conference play to balance it out, they would have been in the tourney.

Also, why are you so dismissive of conference records? Do you think that there's no significant difference between 8-8 in the ACC and 8-8 in the A-10? Here are Dayton's conference wins: Rhode Island, St. Louis, St. Louis, Charlotte, Temple, Fordham, St. Bonaventure, St. Joseph's.
Here are Maryland's: Wake Forest, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Boston College, NC State, Florida State, Wake Forest.

I know I'm not 100% objective here, but the latter is better. Those are also the most recent 8 wins for each team, which is a better indicator of how the team is playing now, and how the team might play in the tournament.

I don't mean to slam Dayton. They're a good team, not a bad team. It sounds like they had injury problems which derailed a promising season, which is unfortunate. I just don't see how a team that finished 7th in the A-10 is being given more consideration than teams that finished 4th and 6th in the ACC, and finished with equal or better records against a more difficult conference.

And I agree - thanks to both teams losing yesterday, we're arguing about a completely moot point.

I'll start by saying that I don't think Dayton should get in. But I'm not so sure VT should either. They went 9-7 in the ACC in a year in which they only had to play Carolina, Duke, and Clemson once each. And, of course, they lost each of those three games. 4 of their 9 conference wins were against bottom dwellers Virginia and BC. Out of conference they lost to Penn State, Old Dominion and Richmond (of the A10). Their most impressive wins on the year were both against Maryland--who lost to Ohio (not State) and American at home.

pfrduke
03-14-2008, 10:12 PM
I'll start by saying that I don't think Dayton should get in. But I'm not so sure VT should either. They went 9-7 in the ACC in a year in which they only had to play Carolina, Duke, and Clemson once each. And, of course, they lost each of those three games. 4 of their 9 conference wins were against bottom dwellers Virginia and BC. Out of conference they lost to Penn State, Old Dominion and Richmond (of the A10). Their most impressive wins on the year were both against Maryland--who lost to Ohio (not State) and American at home.

I pretty much agree with this too. My point was more that Virginia Tech and Maryland (back when I wrote the original diatribe) belonged in the last four out/next four out discussion at least as much as, if not more so, than the other teams Lunardi was including.

superdave
03-15-2008, 06:26 PM
I was hoping to get a few threads started on likely #1, 2, 3 seeds to see what perceptions were.

I am very skiddish about Kansas after all that talent fell apart last year. I just dont trust Bill Self in spite of how loaded they are.

Watching the Texas A&M game now, I wont to see if Kansas can get tough buckets and make big stops. It doesnt seem like they can put it away. They can run and hit the three, but dont seem to be able to gut one out.

I'll pick KU to lose in the Elite 8 again.

RockyMtDevil
03-15-2008, 07:22 PM
#1 UNC, UCLA, Memphis, TENN (if they win sec)
#2 Kansas, Texas, G'town, Wisconsin
#3 Stanford, Duke, L'ville, Pitt (?)

superdave
03-15-2008, 11:23 PM
1-Memphis, UNC, UCLA, Tx/Ks
2-Tennessee, Duke, Tx/Ks, Wisco
3-Pitt, Louisville,Gtown, Clemson