Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 51 of 51
  1. #41

    the four play-in games

    Just want to clear up the confusion about the four play-in games.

    As Dev11 noted, two of the games will feature the four lowest seeded teams in the tyournament and two of the games will feature the four lowest at-large teams.

    This setup was a political compromise when the NCAA expanded from 65 to 68 teams. The single play-in game for the 65-team field always featured the two lowest seeded teams.

    But those teams always came from a small handful of conferences. When the big boys (the major conferences) pushed to expand the tournament, the little guys fought back, knowing that they would be the ones stuck in the play-in games. They argued that every automatic qualifier should be seeded in the 64-team portion of the field and that the extra teams -- which would all be at large teams from major conferences (or at least mid-majors) should have to be the ones to endure the play-in game.

    The current setup is a compromise between the two views -- four play-in games ... two filled with auomatic qualifiers from the weakest conferences ... two from borderline teams from the big conferences.

    I'm sure Jason is right that Liberty will be one of the four teams in the play-in games to determine two of the No. 16 seeds. Virginia, if they get in, has a good chance to be in a play-in game for a 12 or 13 seed.

    In fact, Virginia vs. Kentucky in Dayton could easily be one of the play-in games (okay, officially, they are first round games ... what used to be first-round games are now second round games. It's stupid -- but technically, Duke didn't lose a first-round game to Lehigh last year ... it was in the second round!)

  2. #42
    A. Can we all agree the play-in games are an abomination and should be disowned post haste? OK. Moving on...
    B. It took a while for it to click for me that two of the #1 seeds actually had more difficult games, against what used to be #15 seeds; so if it's helpful for anyone else still struggling with it, just think of it this way: the four new teams in the expanded tournament are coming from big conferences and the two winners of their games end up slotted in at 12 or wherever. They just push everyone else downward in the S-curve. It's not that we've added 4 #17's from lower conferences and are making them play it off against the #16's.
    C. The two #16's that get killed off are most likely to be two teams that had no business winning their weak conference tournament, and never would have had a chance against a #1. So we're strengthening the field of 64 that way, too. It's the surprise winners of the Sun Belt or CAA that used to populate two or three of the bottom seeds, leaving only one semi-legitimate 16 playing a 1. Now, we're most likely eliminating those guys before they even get to Thursday. Note that the winners of those play-in games are the two ultimate 16's that play the two 1's that don't get what used to be 15's. So, it's quite likely that in the average tournament, each of the #1 seeds has a tougher game than it would have under the old format, despite the fact that only two new teams are being added to the 64 team field out of the better conferences and displacing two bottom dwellers.
    D. The reason this article was written, and the reason we're all reacting so harshly to it, is the simple fact that we, Duke, lost as a 2 seed to a 15 seed last year. It's still fresh in my memory, I can guarantee you that. But if it had just been Missouri last year suffering through that ignominious fate, no one would have turned their attention to "When will a 1 seed fall?"

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    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.
    This is correct. A-Tex may not be aware of it, but Norfolk State is in...Norfolk, and Nicholls State is in southern Louisiana. Maybe an hour past Baton Rouge--I was there once in 2004. The schools are over 1000 miles apart.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by toooskies View Post
    A telling quote from the article on the ESPN home page's linked article:


    Any system that proposes that an 18-12 team from the MAAC conference has a 40% chance of beating a 26-4 team from the ACC is worthless. Except not literally worthless; it's designed to sell ads.

    Do not be mistaken, writers don't always write to tell the truth; some write to get a reaction. This is mostly the second. (It may have a nugget of truth in it; but that truth is simply, Duke is a "Giant" nearly every year, and we have similar statistical profiles every year. If we lose early, it significantly affects the data.)
    Shucks, Canisius lost. I wonder who else has a 40% chance to beat us that can't beat Iona.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Really cool discussion. I had not thought of the expanded field as increasing the strength of the 16 seeds (and initially disagreed with JE's comments as well, but then realized that he was right)).

    But that said....I wouldn't be surprised if twenty years from now no #1 seed has lost to a 16 seed. While it is certainly possible, it's highly, highly unlikely. Why? Becaues the talent differential is just too great. The 16's are still mediocre teams at best and the #1's are typically the top 4 teams in the tournament. As far as I can see there are really only 3 scenarios where a #1 seed loses.

    1) A star player on the #1 seed gets hurt early in the game. If Duke lost Plumlee or Kelly, or Indiana lost Zeller, for instance. It would have to happen early. It would cause the #1 seed to be emotionally stunned and give the lower seed confidence. Plus it takes one of the super talented players off the #1 seed, which makes the playing field more level.

    2) A great matchup for the #16 seed. Princeton v. Georgetown was the best example of this. The Princeton team was the kind of offense that gave a (mostly) undisciplined Georgetown team fits). If you had a 16 seed that ran a zone defense, against a #1 seed with mostly outside shooters, then they could get cold, and get frustrated, and open the door for an upset. Or if a 16 seed had a lot of size and the 1 seed didn't. Something like that.

    3) The #1 seed takes a win for granted. I'll say this and I think barring point #1 above...IF a 16 seed ever wins people will say, "We never saw that coming." It won't be when the media is talking up the potential upset. This is because a 1 seed can have a mental letdown against a 16 seed that they fully expect to beat. But if before the game everyone is talking up this as "the one time it could happen" then I think that massively lowers the chance. For instance, this year people will likely be dissing Gonzaga. They'll say that a 16 seed can beat a mid-major 1 seed. Gonzaga's coach will use that for motivation. There is ZERO chance of Gonzaga losing that game (in fact, I bet they easily cover the spread). Duke will also get talk, because they lost last year as the 15 seed and because of the ESPN article. Again, that will motivate them. No way will we lose. The game won't be close. We'll blow them out. So it will be Indiana, or Louisville (or the other #1 seed) that has the best chance of losing. And both of those teams have a ton of talent.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Udaman View Post
    Really cool discussion. I had not thought of the expanded field as increasing the strength of the 16 seeds (and initially disagreed with JE's comments as well, but then realized that he was right)).

    But that said....I wouldn't be surprised if twenty years from now no #1 seed has lost to a 16 seed. While it is certainly possible, it's highly, highly unlikely. Why? Becaues the talent differential is just too great. The 16's are still mediocre teams at best and the #1's are typically the top 4 teams in the tournament. As far as I can see there are really only 3 scenarios where a #1 seed loses.

    1) A star player on the #1 seed gets hurt early in the game. If Duke lost Plumlee or Kelly, or Indiana lost Zeller, for instance. It would have to happen early. It would cause the #1 seed to be emotionally stunned and give the lower seed confidence. Plus it takes one of the super talented players off the #1 seed, which makes the playing field more level.

    2) A great matchup for the #16 seed. Princeton v. Georgetown was the best example of this. The Princeton team was the kind of offense that gave a (mostly) undisciplined Georgetown team fits). If you had a 16 seed that ran a zone defense, against a #1 seed with mostly outside shooters, then they could get cold, and get frustrated, and open the door for an upset. Or if a 16 seed had a lot of size and the 1 seed didn't. Something like that.

    3) The #1 seed takes a win for granted. I'll say this and I think barring point #1 above...IF a 16 seed ever wins people will say, "We never saw that coming." It won't be when the media is talking up the potential upset. This is because a 1 seed can have a mental letdown against a 16 seed that they fully expect to beat. But if before the game everyone is talking up this as "the one time it could happen" then I think that massively lowers the chance. For instance, this year people will likely be dissing Gonzaga. They'll say that a 16 seed can beat a mid-major 1 seed. Gonzaga's coach will use that for motivation. There is ZERO chance of Gonzaga losing that game (in fact, I bet they easily cover the spread). Duke will also get talk, because they lost last year as the 15 seed and because of the ESPN article. Again, that will motivate them. No way will we lose. The game won't be close. We'll blow them out. So it will be Indiana, or Louisville (or the other #1 seed) that has the best chance of losing. And both of those teams have a ton of talent.
    I'd add a couple of scenarios:
    4) a team is greatly underseeded at #16. Think Lehigh last year - #82 in Pomeroy yet got a 15 seed. A team in the 90-110 range getting a 16 seed could conceivably catch a #1 seed napping.
    5) a good-shooting team just catching fire from 3 point range, jumping out to an early lead and causing the #1 seed to press too much and make mistakes.

    That being said, I also wouldn't be shocked if we don't see a #1 lose to a #16 for a while longer.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    4) a team is greatly underseeded at #16. Think Lehigh last year - #82 in Pomeroy yet got a 15 seed. A team in the 90-110 range getting a 16 seed could conceivably catch a #1 seed napping.
    I wasn't aware of this, but it meshes with my general sense during the game last year, which was "These guys are a 15? Really?"

    Out of curiosity, where are the last 6-8 teams usually sitting in RPI or Pomeroy when the tournament starts? At first glance, 82 is, of course, a lot weaker than 64, but presumably the bulk of autobid winners from non-power conferences are well below the 64th best team, too. Where were the other 15's last year? Perhaps we were a victim of what's been described above, which is that we were playing what previously would have been a 14, but got slid downward because of the play-in winners at 12. (None of this, by the way, excuses the loss in my mind, of course)

    I guess our best shot at a No. 1 seed losing would be a year in which the weakest conference's tournaments are all won by their regular season winners, so you have no Liberty and similar teams sneaking in there and being fed to the lions. That's the only scenario in which I could see a 16 going to an underseeded team (like Steven F. Austin coming in with their third Southland Conference title in a row, or something, leading to NCAA experience and less fear of the big dogs). When there are a bunch of upset conference tourney winners coming in from the America East or MEAC and places, there's less room for someone to be underseeded as a 16. If those conferences went the Ivy League route and dispensed with their tournaments, or just gave the invitation to their regular season champs, that might change things.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    I wasn't aware of this, but it meshes with my general sense during the game last year, which was "These guys are a 15? Really?"

    Out of curiosity, where are the last 6-8 teams usually sitting in RPI or Pomeroy when the tournament starts? At first glance, 82 is, of course, a lot weaker than 64, but presumably the bulk of autobid winners from non-power conferences are well below the 64th best team, too. Where were the other 15's last year? Perhaps we were a victim of what's been described above, which is that we were playing what previously would have been a 14, but got slid downward because of the play-in winners at 12. (None of this, by the way, excuses the loss in my mind, of course)

    I guess our best shot at a No. 1 seed losing would be a year in which the weakest conference's tournaments are all won by their regular season winners, so you have no Liberty and similar teams sneaking in there and being fed to the lions. That's the only scenario in which I could see a 16 going to an underseeded team (like Steven F. Austin coming in with their third Southland Conference title in a row, or something, leading to NCAA experience and less fear of the big dogs). When there are a bunch of upset conference tourney winners coming in from the America East or MEAC and places, there's less room for someone to be underseeded as a 16. If those conferences went the Ivy League route and dispensed with their tournaments, or just gave the invitation to their regular season champs, that might change things.
    It's a bit tough to gauge using Pomeroy, as I can only see end of season numbers. But Lehigh was a good 40 spots ahead of the next #15 seeds (#120 Detroit and #126 Loyola Md) and even further ahead of the last #15 (#201 Norfolk St). They were also ahead of one of the #11s (Colorado St) and one of the #13s (Montana). And at #82 in Pomeroy, they were closer to a #9 (#75 Southern Miss), a #11 (#74 Colorado), and even a #6 (#69 San Diego St).

    Lehigh was really more like a #13 or #14 in most years (though that year all of the #14s were in the top-70 oddly enough). For comparison, in 2011, Memphis was a 12 with a Pomeroy rank of 87. The nearest 15 was #117 in Pomeroy (Akron). In 2010, the top #15 seed was #158 (Morgan St).

  9. #49

    duke vs. LIU

    I see that Long Island U is projected as a 16 seed -- not sure if they would be one of the two 16s forced into a play-in game, but since they are an Eastern team and are a likely No. 16, I think it's very possible they could be Duke's first opponent, assuming Duke ends up No. 1 in the East.

    I mention this because it would be such a neat thing if Duke and LIU were matched against one another.

    LIU used to be a great power, coached by Clair Bee. They were the superpower when Duke and LIU met on New Year's Day, 1944 in Madison Square Garden. It was a terrific game, won by the Blackbirds 59-57 in overtime. LIU was such a power than even the narrow loss was perceived as one of the game's that marked Duke's coming of age as a basketball power -- before that, Duke got such little respect that even Eddie Cameron's 22-2 Southern Conference champs in 1942 were passed over for both an NCAA and NIT bid.

    I was also Duke's first ever game in the Garden ...

    That's the only time Duke and LIU have ever met.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    It's a bit tough to gauge using Pomeroy, as I can only see end of season numbers. But Lehigh was a good 40 spots ahead of the next #15 seeds (#120 Detroit and #126 Loyola Md) and even further ahead of the last #15 (#201 Norfolk St). They were also ahead of one of the #11s (Colorado St) and one of the #13s (Montana). And at #82 in Pomeroy, they were closer to a #9 (#75 Southern Miss), a #11 (#74 Colorado), and even a #6 (#69 San Diego St).

    Lehigh was really more like a #13 or #14 in most years (though that year all of the #14s were in the top-70 oddly enough). For comparison, in 2011, Memphis was a 12 with a Pomeroy rank of 87. The nearest 15 was #117 in Pomeroy (Akron). In 2010, the top #15 seed was #158 (Morgan St).
    I remember thinking last year that Lehigh was either a strong 14 or a low 13 seed based on KenPom before the game. After seeing how we looked without Ryan Kelly, Duke was more like a weak #3 or a strong #4. So the committee had a well matched set of teams just had them on the wrong seed line

    Looking back at last year's fan match data, which is a snapshot of the ratings on the day the game took place, he had Duke as an 82% favorite over Lehigh while the other #2-#15 matchups: Missouri/Norfolk St, Ohio St/Loyola (Md) and Kansas/Detroit were 96%, 95%, and 92%, respectively, in favor of the 2 seed. We still should have beaten Lehigh about 4 out of 5 times but the upset wasn't as huge as many made it seem.
    Coach K on Kyle Singler - "What position does he play? ... He plays winner."

    "Duke is never the underdog" - Quinn Cook

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    I wasn't aware of this, but it meshes with my general sense during the game last year, which was "These guys are a 15? Really?"

    Out of curiosity, where are the last 6-8 teams usually sitting in RPI or Pomeroy when the tournament starts? At first glance, 82 is, of course, a lot weaker than 64, but presumably the bulk of autobid winners from non-power conferences are well below the 64th best team, too. Where were the other 15's last year? Perhaps we were a victim of what's been described above, which is that we were playing what previously would have been a 14, but got slid downward because of the play-in winners at 12. (None of this, by the way, excuses the loss in my mind, of course)
    Below is the entire field from last year, with PRE-tournament rankings from RPI, Sagarin, and Pomeroy. Lehigh, for example was #86 in Pomeroy (rather than #82), and was by far the best of the 15s. That said, based on Pomeroy there were a whole bunch of odd seeding decisions, like Memphis (#9 in the country) as a #8 seed or Wisconsin (#6 in country) as a #4 seed. How about Belmont (#23) as a #14 seed and Florida State (#21) as a #3 seed? Interestingly, if you go by RPI instead of Pomeroy (which is probably what the committee did), the best #16 seed (Long Island, RPI of 80) was better than Lehigh (RPI 92).

    Code:
    Region	Seed	Team		RPI	Sagarin	Pomeroy
    E	1	Syracuse	1	6	7
    E	2	Ohio St.	7	1	2
    E	3	Florida St.	11	21	21
    E	4	Wisconsin	23	8	6
    E	5	Vanderbilt	19	20	16
    E	6	Cincinnati	42	36	31
    E	7	Gonzaga		25	32	32
    E	8	Kansas St.	48	22	22
    E	9	Southern Miss	21	67	71
    E	10	West Virginia	57	35	42
    E	11	Texas		50	23	27
    E	12	Harvard		35	45	39
    E	13	Montana		74	98	94
    E	14	St. Bonaventure	72	62	51
    E	15	Loyola-Maryland	78	139	128
    E	16	UNC Asheville	104	121	121
    M	1	North Carolina	4	5	5
    M	2	Kansas		6	4	4
    M	3	Georgetown	15	13	12
    M	4	Michigan	13	30	25
    M	5	Temple		20	37	36
    M	6	San Diego St.	26	53	52
    M	7	St. Mary's	28	38	43
    M	8	Creighton	24	31	34
    M	9	Alabama		36	27	29
    M	10	Purdue		47	29	24
    M	11	N.C. St.	49	42	44
    M	12	California	37	25	28
    M	12	South Florida	52	73	66
    M	13	Ohio		46	74	72
    M	14	Belmont		58	24	23
    M	15	Detroit		125	123	115
    M	16	Lamar		108	110	102
    M	16	Vermont		135	140	120
    S	1	Kentucky	2	2	1
    S	2	Duke		5	12	17
    S	3	Baylor		8	14	14
    S	4	Indiana		17	9	11
    S	5	Wichita St.	12	10	10
    S	6	UNLV		18	28	33
    S	7	Notre Dame	39	43	40
    S	8	Iowa St.	33	33	30
    S	9	Connecticut	32	34	35
    S	10	Xavier		41	55	59
    S	11	Colorado	62	84	75
    S	12	VCU		38	54	46
    S	13	New Mexico St.	59	61	63
    S	14	S. Dakota St.	43	59	55
    S	15	Lehigh		91	93	86
    S	16	Miss. Val.	144	249	258
    S	16	W. Kentucky	189	208	189
    W	1	Michigan St.	3	3	3
    W	2	Missouri	10	7	8
    W	3	Marquette	9	16	18
    W	4	Louisville	14	19	20
    W	5	New Mexico	27	17	13
    W	6	Murray St.	22	47	45
    W	7	Florida		30	15	19
    W	8	Memphis		16	11	9
    W	9	Saint Louis	31	18	15
    W	10	Virginia	53	26	26
    W	11	Colorado St.	29	83	76
    W	12	Long Beach St.	34	40	37
    W	13	Davidson	64	69	68
    W	14	Iona		40	49	57
    W	14	BYU		45	39	50
    W	15	Norfolk St.	128	198	213
    W	16	Long Island	80	167	165

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
  •