I'll give my lock of the year prediction:
If we run the table and don't lose another game, we get the overall #1 seed.
Lock it in!
I agree, but in general, we didn't "fall" to a number 2 seed so much as we rose to one with the ACCT title...a four day run that clearly was the peaking, and exhausting, of that team, a team that played one mediocre and one poor game in SC. We'd have been much better off winning a couple ACCT games, then resting and landing as an overlooked 3 or 4 somewhere else.
Last edited by HereBeforeCoachK; 01-22-2019 at 03:06 PM.
I'll give my lock of the year prediction:
If we run the table and don't lose another game, we get the overall #1 seed.
Lock it in!
You're right that our seeding shifted dramatically thanks to our ACCT run. However, when I say we "fell" to a 2-seed, I'm referring more to winnable games that we lost earlier that season. The away games at 'Cuse and Miami come to mind. If that team enters the tournament with a 6-loss record, an ACCT title, and a 2-1 advantage over fellow 1-seed rival UNC, that team probably gets a number one seed. Who knows how that might have changed things? It might not have made any difference. It might have made all the difference.
But history is on the side of 1-seeds. The idea that it is better to be a well-rested 3 or 4 seed instead of a 2-seed or a 1-seed that wins a conference tournament doesn't really have any historical backing, even if it makes some intuitive sense. Having easier opponents in the first round plus allowing for the chance that tougher teams will be upset prior to the sweet 16 and beyond are far more valuable than a day of rest the week before the tournament. Heck, even 2-seeds have a much tougher time winning the whole tournament than 1-seeds. 1-seeds are (usually) the best teams AND have the easiest path. There's no downside to being a 1 seed as far as I'm concerned, even if we play some hard-fought games in the ACCT tournament to get one.
Who needs a moral victory when you can have a real one?
A good piece of evidence to support your point might be the weirdness that resulted with the B1G Tournament being a week early last year. All of the B1G teams were certainly well rested come tourney time, yet all (except my Wolverines!) underperformed in the tourney itself, especially everyone's dark-horse favorite Michigan State. And there was a lot of speculation (no solid evidence, but speculation nonetheless) that having the tourney early might have taken the B1G out of the forefront of the committee's mind and led to some slightly lower seeds. I think MSU would have definitely traded less rest for a higher seed that would've ensured they avoided a solid ACC foe in Syracuse in the second round... Purdue similarly would've loved to be a No. 1 seed and avoid Texas Tech (although losing Haas was the biggest factor for them). Obviously this is anecdotal evidence which must always be taken with a grain of salt, but it is an interesting case study for how much being "well-rested" really helps in the tournament.
Scott Rich on the front page
Trinity BS 2012; University of Michigan PhD 2018
Duke Chronicle, Sports Online Editor: 2010-2012
K-Ville Blue Tenting 2009-2012
Unofficial Brian Zoubek Biographer
If you have questions about Michigan Basketball/Football, I'm your man!
Not to mention the USC game was a 8 days after the ACC final. No doubt they would have been toast near the end of the tournament, but the following week in which they just had to beat troy by 22 ought to have been plenty of time to be almost 100%.
If there was any question to the rested-ness of the players, then I doubt K would have played tatum and the bunch 30+ minutes in a game that was over with 12 minutes to go.
The USC team was a good team that had every right to beat us, and the defense that we played was exactly the kind of poor performance we precedented in several earlier, presumably more rested, games. (UNC, syracuse, FSU, VT)
1200. DDMF.
My point is, things could not have worked out any worse for that team...4 straight games....then having to play AT the 7 seed in virtually a home game. Historical precedent or not, that was the worst possible seeding and location for that Duke team. Sure it's better to be a 1 than anything else, but it's better to be a 3 and not have a pure ROAD game in the first two rounds than it is to be a 2 and face that specific situation.
Thanks for this anecdote. I had forgotten about the quirky scheduling for the B1G tourney last season.
I will fully admit that rest might be important if it means a key player comes back healthy AND the team doesn't drop down a seed-line (Ty Lawson and Cheaters in '09 come to mind). Also, Duke might have benefited from extra rest in 2015 after losing to The Irish in the ACCT quarters but that team had also locked up a number one seed. If Duke is fortunate enough to win out (unlikely . . . but we can dream, can't we?) during the regular season and Tre has had enough time to return and reintegrate with the team, I probably wouldn't care as much as usual if we did what the 2015 team did and lost in the ACCT quarters. With two total losses plus a regular season sweep against UVA and UNC, we'd almost certainly have a number one seed in the bag. So the extra rest wouldn't hurt.
But that would probably be the only way I'd be ok with getting extra rest for the team. Even then, I'd still prefer that Duke win the ACCT.
Who needs a moral victory when you can have a real one?
This thread demonstrates monstrous time consuming research. And to think I was able to read it in well under a minute.
Allow me to make a quick plug for the latest Jordan Sperber pod “Solving Basketball,” as he and his guest Bart Torvik get into a discussion about halfway through of their impressions of the NET. Among the ancillary topics: the relative merits of the NET over the egregious RPI, the “NCSU has gamed the system scheduling and clobbering awful teams” theory (spoiler alert: they refute it), the NET/KenPom comparison, and their general satisfaction of the NET.
Special bonus—they open with a fun conversation about the relative value of individual players in projecting game results, with a discussion (pre-UVa game, this was taped Friday) of the impact of missing Tre Jones. If you’re into hoops analytics, check out Sperber’s pod.
Do you really believe that having 5ish vs. 6ish days rest is really what made the difference? I can understand there is a difference between 2 and 3 days rest as a quick turnaround, but beyond that, I doubt it matters, unless there’s an injury, for 18-22 year olds. I want to see a banner for an ACCT and if the team only has 5 or 6 days to recover, instead of 6 or 7, until they play a 14, 15 or 16 seed, I think they will be okay. I am pretty sure that Duke teams historically have done better in the NCAAT when they have won the ACCT, in part because those tend to be better teams.