Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 51
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    All of us know that if Duke wins at UNC and wins the ACC tourney then gets a 1 seed every talking head will say another team was more deserving of the seed.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern VA
    Quote Originally Posted by SilkyJ View Post
    Maybe I'm so numb to all the Duke hate at this point that I'm seeing things upside down, but I don't think this is a fair example of the typical duke hate/no respect card. I'm an insider and read the article, and as others pointed out they ran a quant/statistics model and the computer said we are the most vulnerable "giant" i.e. potential 1 seed. Each year after the brackets come out, ESPN runs this model (or at least something very similar) and lists out their most likely upsets. This is the same thing, except run a few weeks early. No biggie.

    And the computer clearly does not have a high enough WRC (white raven coefficient). We are undefeated with Ryan Kelly. I don't expect that to change any time soon--as in this year
    Question: Do they always, after running these calculations, then publish them with the big headline in their for-pay section, highlighting the supposed second-most vulnerable potential 1-seed? If not, then that would make this inconsistent with prior practices and, thus, disrespectful to the Duke BB team. But as was said above, anything to sell ad space...

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by -bdbd View Post
    Question: Do they always, after running these calculations, then publish them with the big headline in their for-pay section, highlighting the supposed second-most vulnerable potential 1-seed? If not, then that would make this inconsistent with prior practices and, thus, disrespectful to the Duke BB team. But as was said above, anything to sell ad space...
    Yes, they have done this every year for the past half decade plus. It is their "Giant Killers" article that is quite frequently highly touted on the site. Despite the joking belief that Digger and/or Gottleib play some part in it, I believe they always use fairly advanced analytics and stats to come up with the teams that they think are potential "giant killers" and the ones they think are potential upset victims. It is not some "lets figure out a way to make Duke look bad" kind of thing.

    Folks, when we show angst over stuff like this, it only makes us look paranoid and lame. Duke will prove this wrong on their own... or they won't and we can all go compliment the author of the article on his prescience.

    -Jason "that said, yes, ESPN is in the business of selling ads" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    I moved. Now 12 miles from Heaven, 13 from Hell
    Am I correct in saying that the four play-in game automatic bids are determined by conference, rather than by team? I seem to remember reading that. If there's a surprising team in a bad conference, then it's likely to be a little higher ranked. (Please correct if I'm wrong.)

    Also, having a win under your belt helps a lot. Look at the tournament results, with lower seeded teams (seemingly) winning a bit more often. Some of the coaches comment that it makes a difference (probably because they're trying to explain an upset loss that they just suffered.)

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by -jk View Post
    I was there for Mississippi Valley State. Whew!

    It almost happened to us. It will happen to someone someday.
    There have been eight #1 vs. #16 matchups as close or closer as 1986 Duke/Mississippi Valley State. Four of those were one possession games (1989 Georgetown 50, Princeton 49; 1989 Oklahoma 72, ETSU 71; 1990 Michigan State 75, Murray State 71 (OT); and 1996 Purdue 73, Western Carolina 71). Two more were two possession games (1985 Michigan 59, Fairleigh Dickinson 55; 1989 Illinois 77, McNeese State 71). As recently as 2012, #1 Syracuse beat #16 UNCA by just 7 points.

    Games that close obviously could have gone either way, so the 112 to 0 stat is misleading if people try to read into it that it's impossible for a #16 to beat a #1. It's really just random chance that has kept it from happening one or more times already.

    That said, and I've said this before in this thread, I can't imagine any legitimate number crunching that would give a #16 seed a 15% chance of beating a #1, much less a 40% chance. That seems absurd to me.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by DU82 View Post
    Am I correct in saying that the four play-in game automatic bids are determined by conference, rather than by team? I seem to remember reading that. If there's a surprising team in a bad conference, then it's likely to be a little higher ranked. (Please correct if I'm wrong.)
    I've never heard this and would be shocked if it were the case. Every so often a team from a lousy conference will rise up and show itself to be really good. For example, the Ivy league was a perennial #16 seed conference for a long time, but then Princeton and then Penn and then Cornell and now Harvard have shown that Ivies can compete with the big boys. I can't think of any reason why you would predetermine the #16 seeds any more than saying the Big East, Big Ten, ACC, and Big 12 winners automatically got #1 seeds. Judge a team based on their body of work, not on the conference's past performance in the tourney.

    -Jason "I think certain conferences do often fall into the play-in game, but that is because they are usually the worst conference, not because it is predetermined" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    The thing is, last year I think one of the play-in winners ended up with a 12 seed rather than a 16. What's up with that?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Partly Orlando, FL partly heard Sandpoint, ID
    I believe the play in teams were originally selected based upon the (lack of) strength of their conference in RPI numbers. But that isn't the case now. Here is the guideline for the bracket, and it just talks about ranking the teams 1-68.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by toooskies View Post
    I think the confusion lies in referencing them as 16 seeds. Instead, think of the four worst automatic-bid conference winners.
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    The automatic qualifiers, by definition, are the bottom of the field.
    I fully admit I was wrong about one aspect of this earlier in the thread, but nevertheless, I don't think this is correct. Of course, let me know if I'm wrong. But I don't believe that there's anything by way of rule that says that the four worst automatic bid conference winners are automatically 16 seeds. I know it always works out that way, but theoretically, it could happen that the auto bid winners from lesser conferences just happen to be better than those last few at-large teams from the larger conferences or mid-majors or wherever they come from, and the committee recognizes this and seeds accordingly. I know it's not happening this year, but just to use this year as an example, what if the committee felt that Hi Point, NC Central, Norfolk State and Mercer were actually better than Virginia, Tennessee, Villanova, or Kentucky or whoever else is the last at-large team invited. In that situation, I don't think there's anything preventing Virginia, Tennessee, Villanova, and Kentucky from being 16 seeds and Mercer and Hi Point from being 15's or higher -- wherever the committee believes they should be seeded.

  10. #30
    Dev11's Avatar
    Dev11 is offline Commissioner of Statistics, DBR Podcast
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Quote Originally Posted by shereec View Post
    The thing is, last year I think one of the play-in winners ended up with a 12 seed rather than a 16. What's up with that?
    There are 4 play-in games, two featuring the four worst auto bids, and two featuring the four worst at-large bids. The worst at-large bids generally fall on a 12 or 13 seed.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    I fully admit I was wrong about one aspect of this earlier in the thread, but nevertheless, I don't think this is correct. Of course, let me know if I'm wrong. But I don't believe that there's anything by way of rule that says that the four worst automatic bid conference winners are automatically 16 seeds. I know it always works out that way, but theoretically, it could happen that the auto bid winners from lesser conferences just happen to be better than those last few at-large teams from the larger conferences or mid-majors or wherever they come from, and the committee recognizes this and seeds accordingly. I know it's not happening this year, but just to use this year as an example, what if the committee felt that Hi Point, NC Central, Norfolk State and Mercer were actually better than Virginia, Tennessee, Villanova, or Kentucky or whoever else is the last at-large team invited. In that situation, I don't think there's anything preventing Virginia, Tennessee, Villanova, and Kentucky from being 16 seeds and Mercer and Hi Point from being 15's or higher -- wherever the committee believes they should be seeded.
    You are correct in theory but there has never been an at-large team seeded lower than #13, I think. Auto-qualifiers always make up the bottom 12 or so teams in the dance... every year. We are not close to having an at-large team be at that level. If we were, then your notion of the "top 68 teams" as opposed to my description of "the bottom 6" would be more appropriate. But, as previously mentioned, we are not even close to having that conversation yet. When you consider that teams with RPI/Pom rankings in the 50s often do not get at-large bids but we generally end up with multiple auto-qualifiers who rank lower than 100, some lower than 150, you see how far we have to go to get to at-large teams being considered on par with the lowest of the auto-qualifiers.

    -Jason "the odds are excellent that ACC cellar-dweller Va Tech will be ranked much higher in the computer rankings than some teams that auto-qualify this year" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    You are correct in theory but there has never been an at-large team seeded lower than #13, I think. Auto-qualifiers always make up the bottom 12 or so teams in the dance... every year. We are not close to having an at-large team be at that level. If we were, then your notion of the "top 68 teams" as opposed to my description of "the bottom 6" would be more appropriate. But, as previously mentioned, we are not even close to having that conversation yet. When you consider that teams with RPI/Pom rankings in the 50s often do not get at-large bids but we generally end up with multiple auto-qualifiers who rank lower than 100, some lower than 150, you see how far we have to go to get to at-large teams being considered on par with the lowest of the auto-qualifiers.

    -Jason "the odds are excellent that ACC cellar-dweller Va Tech will be ranked much higher in the computer rankings than some teams that auto-qualify this year" Evans
    Right. I checked the rules actually, and there is nothing prohibiting the scenario I have set forth, but it hasn't happened in real life. And it will be awhile before it happens in a big way.

    I will say, though, that as the level of play in those lower level conferences improves, and as the qualifications of the bubble teams get weaker and weaker, as they seem to do each year (much lamenting on the internets about the "soft bubble" getting softer every year -- meaning 'these teams just aren't that good. They don't belong.') I do think more of those lower level conference champs may challenge the seeding levels of the bottom at-large invitees.

    For example, the following teams from conferences generally considered to be lower tier, have the following RPI's:

    Bucknell 53
    Stephen F. Austin 61
    South Dakota State 68
    Stony Brook 69

    I know there are some other conferences (8 or 9 of them by my quick count) that no matter who wins the conference tournament, they'll be a lot lower than that, and they'll be the 16's and 15's this year as usual. But why couldn't those four I named, if they make it, be seeded above (assuming they make it) teams like:

    Virginia 73
    Iowa 75
    Charlotte 80
    Xavier 81
    Arkansas 84
    Maryland 86

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    I do think more of those lower level conference champs may challenge the seeding levels of the bottom at-large invitees.

    For example, the following teams from conferences generally considered to be lower tier, have the following RPI's:

    Bucknell 53
    Stephen F. Austin 61
    South Dakota State 68
    Stony Brook 69

    I know there are some other conferences (8 or 9 of them by my quick count) that no matter who wins the conference tournament, they'll be a lot lower than that, and they'll be the 16's and 15's this year as usual. But why couldn't those four I named, if they make it, be seeded above (assuming they make it) teams like:

    Virginia 73
    Iowa 75
    Charlotte 80
    Xavier 81
    Arkansas 84
    Maryland 86
    Yeah, but those particular conference winners generally don't get 15 or 16 seeds. Last year, teams with similar resumes were Long Beach (#34 RPI, #12 seed); Harvard (#35 RPI, #12 seed); South Dakota State (#43 RPI, #14 seed); Ohio U (#46 RPI, #13 seed); Belmont (#58 RPI, #14 seed); New Mexico State (#59 RPI, #13 seed); Davidson (#64 RPI, #13 seed); and Montana (#74 RPI, #13 seed).

    On the other hand, Loyola MD (#78 RPI) got a #15 seed and Long Island (#80 RPI) got a #16, so if teams like Charlotte, Xavier, Arkansas, or Maryland made the tournament, maybe your point would have some legs. I'll be shocked if any of those teams get selected at-large, however, so maybe not.

    The rest of the #15 seeds last year were #91 RPI (Lehigh), #125 (Detroit), and #128 Norfolk State. The remaining #16 seeds had RPIs of #104, #108, #135, #144, and #189.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by A-Tex Devil View Post
    Wasn't there a statistic last year that Nicholls St beating Mizzou was as big as any 16 over 1 seed upset would have been? Or maybe it was less statistically probable than any of the 16s beating any of the 1s last year. Don't remember.

    But that was essentially as close to a 16-1 (statistically) as we've seen.
    I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'm pretty sure it was Norfolk State rather than Nichols State that pulled the upset over Missouri last year.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    I guarantee that most of you who posted on this thread have put more thought into the bottom teams of the bracket than the Selection Committee does. The first and last thing you need to know about them is this: they are lazy, and for the most part, they don't care.

    If they care about anything, it's the bubble. They know that their spokesperson will get grilled (or at least receive some precooked grill marks) about who did and did not get in. They may get a question or two about the 1 seeds, which are usually a strange mix of teams that are good on Selection Sunday and teams that were good a week earlier. They will not be asked about the 15 or 16 seeds.

    Someone more enterprising than I can look at the conferences that are represented by the 16 seeds. At best, I would suspect that each year they come from 6-8 conferences that are perenially at the bottom of the Conference RPI. An exception would be made for a team from a better non-BCS conference that has a losing or .500 record.

    As for the original topic, it is inevitable that a 16 seed will beat a 1 seed. You can argue that, over time, the 16 seeds are getting better and the 1 seeds are getting worse. The abomination that is the 16a/16b play-in game means that the 16 seed is no longer winless, and has a tiny bit more momentum going into their Friday game. Add to that the general expansion of the field, which means that a couple of 16 seeds of today are comparable to the 15 seeds of yore. You know: Hampton, Coppin State, Richmond...

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Actually, it's got to be WAY more complex than that. First of all, the rest of the team's performance (without Ryan) shouldn't be 100% discounted, second of all, most good ratings systems connect every game to every other game in myriad ways. How can you adjust the ratings for competition if you simply eradicate 13 games from the system? And even if you have an answer for that, my guess is most computer models won't have an easy way to remove games like that anyway. Finally, if you take away those 13 games, you take away almost all of Duke's conference schedule, and you'd be comparing apples-to-oranges with Duke's mostly non-conference schedule against most teams full schedule including conference games, and the overall reliability of the ratings would go down.

    As far as what chance Duke has to be upset by an yet-to-be-determined #16 compared to other #1 seeds, it would seem to hinge on their computer ranking compared to the other #1s. Duke is currently #1 in RPI and #2 in BPI (behind Louisville, who most people aren't talking about as a #1 seed anyway). In Pomeroy and in Sagarin, Duke is #6, behind Indiana, Gonzaga, and Kansas, so if that was the system used than you'd think the odds would be highest on Duke losing to a yet-to-be-named opponent. Seems weird that ESPN would use Pomeroy rather than its own rating system, but that must be what they're doing, right? Even then, without seeing the analysis, 85% sounds off.

    I think this 85% stat is getting mis-interpreted by some here... perhaps because BlueDevilBrowns (probably) mis-stated the meaning of the 85% figure in his post above (after he read the article which most of the rest of us have not done)-- he actually said that "Duke has an 85% chance of beating a number-one seed"... I think he meant to say "of being the number-one seed that is beaten"...

    Here is where I think many are mis-interpreting: ESPN is not saying that Duke has an 85% chance of getting beaten by a #16 seed this year-- they are most likely saying that, of the four #1 seeds that are likely to be named this year, Duke has the highest probability of those four likely #1 seeds of being beaten by a #16 seed-- and that it is an 85% chance that, if one of the four #1 seeds is beaten (admittedly a very unlikely possibility), that it will be Duke and not one of the other three #1 seeds... so essentially, ESPN is (probably) saying that a #16 beating a #1 seed is very unlikely, but, IF IT HAPPENS, it will most likely happen to Duke... I still think this is poor logic (i.e.- agreeing with Kedsy here), as Duke has shown less propensity than most of the other likely #1 seeds to lose games to much lower-ranked teams (all of Duke's losses are to relatively good teams this year, while some of the other potential #1 seeds have baaaad losses-- as noted elsewhere in this thread)... but I don't think even ESPN is saying there is an 85% chance of any #1 seed being beaten, let alone an 85% chance of Duke being beaten, by a #16 seed.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!

    We know one of the #16 seeds...

    Well, I am quite confident that we now know one of the teams that will be playing in the play-in games.

    Liberty won the Big South conference tournament today. Ordinarily, the Big South produces a very low-seeded team, but Liberty is special. During the regular season, they were one of the worst teams in the conference. Their conference record was 6-10. Yet, somehow, they managed to win the conference tournament.

    Liberty will enter the NCAAs with an eye-popping 20 losses, only the second team in NCAA history to do that. They were 15-20 on the season, and that is after winning 4 in a row to take the Big South tourney. Prior to the conference tourney, their best win was a victory over RPI #245 Western Carolina. They pulled off wins over RPI #191 Gardner Webb and #180 Coastal Carolina to win the BSouth tourney, giving them exactly 2 Top 200 RPI victories on the season.

    Let me repeat that, they are going to the dance and they have not beaten a single team in the RPI top 175!! WOW!

    Liberty checks in at #299 in the RPI. That a team like that could make the dance is almost unfathomable. It is beyond stunning.

    But, congrats to the Flames! I'll be pulling for them to win their play-in game because incredibly unlikely stuff like this deserves a shot at a #1 seed.

    -Jason "I am sure Seth is proud of his former teammates... even if none of them are still there" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    Jason, either I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, or else I think you may be misunderstanding, or more likely inadvertently misstating the way this works.

    The expansion to a 68 team tournament means this: Teams 65 through 68 play each other, and the two winners advance to face #1 seeds. So those two #1 seeds play teams that wouldn't have made the top 64, meaning they're the equivalent of #17 seeds. Yes, because those teams would've received automatic bids anyway, they would've acutually been #16 seeds in the old days, but nevertheless they are teams not considered by the committee to be in the Top 64 (i.e. the "real" top 16 seeds) in this tournament.

    The other two #1 seeds play teams designated as #16 seeds as well, so they're teams 63 and 64. Basically, there are six #16 seeds, and the bottom four of them play off to get into the field. But no #1 seeds have to play a #15 seed, or any team rated by the committee as being overall #s 59 through 62, which correlates to a 15 seed. Note: normally, the #15 seeds would be overall #s 57 through 60, but everyone gets bumped down two spots because of the peculiar way this tournament is structured, with six #12 seeds instead of four.

    For the same reason, when the tournament had a 65 team field, none of the #1's played a team that would've been a #15. They all played a 16, or perhaps the lone true #17 seed (the #65 overall team).

    All that being said, I do agree that the chances of a #1 losing its opener are rising, but I think it's because the small conference teams who are those #16s are becoming better and better, while the elite teams (the #1's) are not as good as they were in years past. Or even close.
    Jason's analysis is correct. What makes yours slightly off is the fact that 16 seeds were not the 61st, 62nd, 63rd, and 64th best teams in america. They were the 61st - 64th best teams in the tournament, or put differently, the worst 4 teams in the tournament. Their RPI could be anywhere from 90 to 200 (or, as sometimes happens, even higher).

    Now, those awful terrible teams, which you have labeled as the 17 seeds, are no longer likely to play the 1 seeds, but make no mistake, they are the EXACT SAME TEAMS that were the 16 seeds 5 years ago. Just as the teams now seeded 16 are THE TEAMS that were seeded at the 15 line in that time frame - and so on and so on. It's one of the reasons we had TWO 15 seeds win last year. Yes, Mizzou and Duke weren't at 100%, but the truth is that those weren't traditional 15's either.

    Want proof that an expanded tournament makes harder games earlier? Look no further than the Big East Tournament. The 2 seed could reasonably be playing the 10 seed in the quarters, only to have the 10 seed be 10-8 during the regular season. Not what you expect from a 10.

    And you end up with UConn running the table (I believe they were the 11 seed in the Big East Tournament).

    So just like Richmond beat Syracuse and Santa Clara beat Arizona back when a 2-15 was essentially a slaughter game, I have no doubt that one of these 75 RPI teams that end up on the 16 line will topple a 1 seed.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by cf-62 View Post
    Jason's analysis is correct. What makes yours slightly off is the fact that 16 seeds were not the 61st, 62nd, 63rd, and 64th best teams in america. They were the 61st - 64th best teams in the tournament, or put differently, the worst 4 teams in the tournament. Their RPI could be anywhere from 90 to 200 (or, as sometimes happens, even higher).

    Now, those awful terrible teams, which you have labeled as the 17 seeds, are no longer likely to play the 1 seeds, but make no mistake, they are the EXACT SAME TEAMS that were the 16 seeds 5 years ago. Just as the teams now seeded 16 are THE TEAMS that were seeded at the 15 line in that time frame - and so on and so on. It's one of the reasons we had TWO 15 seeds win last year. Yes, Mizzou and Duke weren't at 100%, but the truth is that those weren't traditional 15's either.
    Thanks. Pretty sure I acknowledged upthread that Jason was right about this and I was wrong. One thing that I think you may have overlooked in your analysis, though, that I realized upon looking not only at Jason's post and the reasoning therein, but also in making the chart below: The teams labeled as "17" seeds, which I assume to mean teams 65 through 68, will in fact play #1 seeds if they win their "play-in" games. But so will teams 64 and 63 play #1 seeds in their first games -- they just don't have to play-in to get to that game against a #1. Now those teams, #s 64 and 63, are teams that would've been 15 seeds instead of 16's in the old system, because they are the 5th and 6th "worst" teams in the field. (nobody get offended - I don't mean anything by that term; they're still good teams). So the reality is that two of the #1 seeds now will play teams that would've been 15's under the old system but are 16's now. The other two #1's still will get to play teams that would've been 16's even under the old system; they just have to play in now to get there.

    As a result of the expansion, then, two teams of each of the higher seed levels play teams that would've been one seed higher under the old system, and two teams of each higher seed level still play teams seeded exactly where they would've been under the old system. For instance, of the, say, #4 seeds, two of them still play #13's just as they always have, but two of them now play teams that would've been 12's under the old system.

    Hopefully, if anyone cares, the chart below will illustrate this better than my words. The first column -- W1, W2, W3 etc. , and again, I apologize for the "W" designation, stands for "worst 1" (meaning lowest ranked team in the field) W2 is the team second from the bottom, W3 is the team third from the bottom, etc. The chart shows what seed each of those teams would've been facing in the 64 team era, and who they face now in the 68 team era.

    As you see (hopefully) for example, two #1 seeds now play W5 and W6. Under the old system, W5 and W6 would've been 15's, not 16's. Two 5's are now playing W21 and W22, which under the old system would've been 11's instead of 12's. And so on.


    Seed from Bottom Seed in 64 team tourn. Opponent in 64 team tourn. Seed in 68 team tourn. Opponent in 68 team tourn.
    W1 16 1 16 1
    W2 16 1 16 1
    W3 16 1 16 1
    W4 16 1 16 1
    W5 15 2 16 1
    W6 15 2 16 1
    W7 15 2 15 2
    W8 15 2 15 2
    W9 14 3 15 2
    W10 14 3 15 2
    W11 14 3 14 3
    W12 14 3 14 3
    W13 13 4 14 3
    W14 13 4 14 3
    W15 13 4 13 4
    W16 13 4 13 4
    W17 12 5 13 4
    W18 12 5 13 4
    W19 12 5 12 5
    W20 12 5 12 5
    W21 11 6 12 5
    W22 11 6 12 5
    W23 11 6 11 6
    W24 11 6 11 6
    W25 10 7 11 6
    W26 10 7 11 6
    W27 10 7 10 7
    W28 10 7 10 7
    W29 9 8 10 7
    W30 9 8 10 7
    W31 9 8 9 8
    W32 9 8 9 8


    Boy, I hope I didn't screw this up!

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Tommy, your analysis is correct that 2 of the #1s are playing what used to be #15s while two are playing what used to be #16s... but, even the #16s are #16s who have already beaten another #16. I see that as a sign that they are slightly better than the usual #16 seed. They are a bit more "proven" so to speak.

    I may be wrong about that, but I see the present situation as #1 seeds playing two "traditional" #15s and two "better than usual" #16s. Does that make sense?

    -Jason "I still doubt we see a #1 get upset in the first round this year" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

Similar Threads

  1. #1 vs. #2 seeds -- does it matter?
    By Kedsy in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-13-2011, 04:20 PM
  2. Seth Davis re #1 seeds
    By TNDukeFan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 02-28-2011, 08:13 AM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-08-2010, 09:30 AM
  4. Who are the #1 seeds now?!?!
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-28-2007, 09:33 PM
  5. ACC Tourney seeds.
    By geeveebee in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-28-2007, 10:42 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •