This is a pretty snippy thread, agreed. I would argue that the answer to "Will We Be #1 Next Week" has been a resounding "no."
Let's just win games and let everything else take care of itself. We have somewhere between 2 and 9 games left.
In closing... isn't it also quite likely that winning a national championship frequently propels players into the NBA draft, not just the other way around?
Go Duke!
Gonzaga almost certainly won't win the national championship, and it won't be because they do or do not have X number of players that will/won't play in the NBA some day. It'll be because there are 68 teams in the tournament and 67 of them will lose before it's over, including almost all of the very best ones.
And therein lies the fact that flies over so many people's head and the reason it is borderline insane for fans who take the "Nation Title or bust, anything less is total failure" approach to their fandom.
That's why the ACC Tourney means so much to me. It is a great accomplishment and the odds of winning it are far more realistic. Getting to the Sweet Sixteen is the next milestone to reach, but I would rank that slightly below winning the ACC Tourney. The next biggest prize is winning the Regional Championship to win a spot in the Final Four which I do rank over the ACC Tourney.
Winning the big prize is awesome. Just not a reasonably acheivable goal year in and year out no matter how good the team is. Too many chances to either have one bad game or run into a matchup that is geared to give your particular team trouble. It is just the nature of the beast that is the NCAA Tourney.
I think that it is pretty obvious that we will be a #1 seed next week. I don't think it is guaranteed that we will be the East #1 yet, or that we will be the top #1 yet (and that has a lot of value, b/c I want to see a #2 in our bracket like New Mexico rather than a #2 like Georgetown or Kansas.
Now we just need to win the ACCT to ensure a #1 overall status...
Again, #1 overall does NOT get the weakest 2 seed. The #1 and #2 seeds are placed on geographic preference ONLY. That's why I'm cheering heavily for Louisville to win the Big East tournament as I don't want them to be our 2 seed (assuming we get the East, although they could theoretically move past us as the #1 for the East). Last year, Kentucky was the top 1 and Duke was the top 2 (at least according to the S-curve the committee released) and they both got placed in the same region because it was the closest. The committee tries to somewhat balance it out with 3 and 4 seed, but as long as the sum of the S-curve is within a certain amount (I forget the exact range), it's fine. So, a region can't reasonable have the highest ranked 1, 2, 3, and 4 seeds, but can definitely have the highest ranked 1 and 2 seeds, fourth highest 3 seed, and second highest 4 seed without running afoul of any rules. So, a a 1 seed, you'd be placed in a bracket with the toughest 2 and second toughest 4 if that's how the geography ends up falling. All the #1 overall really does for us is ensure we get the East. Louisville and Miami are the only other reasonable #1 seeds (that I can think of) that also has the East as the closest location (Georgetown can't play on its home floor), so as long as finish ahead of them, we'll be in the East.
Not a huge fan of Bleacher, but this is a reasonable effort at averaging a handful off seeding projections. The nice thing is that they have Duke as the strongest of the number ones. I think that the numbers are so strong in here for Indiana, Duke and Gonzaga that it is very unlikely that any of them drop from the #1 line, even with uncharacteristic early departures from conference tournaments. They have L'ville and Georgetown right behind them, vying for the 4th #1 slot. I think iot is pretty obvious that, should either of those two win in NYC, then that'll be the 4th #1 seed. Next in line appears to be Kansas.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...caa-tournament
Blue, thanks for the write-up on your understanding of the NCAAT "modified" S-curve. I was aware that they didn't have to stick STRICTLY to the precise S-curve but was under the impression that the curve carried moire weight - especially since a Midwestern school could be seeded, for example, in the Eastern regional, and still play their first two games near home. But obviously you are under the impression that the Committee has a lot more leeway in terms of whether they stick to the S-curve, or emphasize geographic proximity instead for the 2-seed and beyond. Interesting. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out. Fair point, though, to want to see L'ville win the BE and get the South #1. Even if they lose in the BET, I'd think the MW Regional is closer for them... If that happens, with L'ville winning the BET, who do you think gets the East #2? (can't be Miami or G'town... so maybe FLA or Mich or MSU or OSU? Not like Mich/OSU is going to be #2 in the MW behind a #1 Indiana...) That leads me to think L'ville isn't likely to be the East #2 anyway, b/c they're needed in the MW to pair with #1 IND. :)
True, Indy is much closer to Louisville than DC, so they'll get placed there if they're ahead of Michigan, OSU, and Kansas. Seems like Florida/Mich/MSU/OSU are the most likely candidates for a 2 seed in the East as you say, but could be a school like Kansas or even New Mexico if other schools disappoint in their conference tourneys. I'd actually like to see Kansas - while Withey would be a tough matchup, when I've watched them, they've been underwhelming compared to years past IMO.
I always thought the MOST sacred of the NCAAT pairings rules was to prevent schools from the same conference from meeting any earlier than could be avoided. So, even if MSU and Mich and OSU were ahead of L'ville, it would seem unlikely that they get seeded #2 behind an almost certain MW #1 - Indiana. Our biggest threat might be KA getting that MW #2, thus freeing up L'ville to come be our #2 in DC. Who really knows???
In the meantime, for the next three days, I'm all about "Go Cardinals!" and "Go Jayhawks!"