Some early season context: How are the top teams' resumes looking?

[kshepinthehouse]

Don't want to turn this thread into a college football playoff discussion, but I think that if LSU loses to Georgia (particularly if the game is reasonably close) then LSU's resume of wins over Texas, Florida, Auburn, and Alabama will easily trump the best wins of any of the other 1-loss teams. Plus, a loss to a playoff bound Georgia would be the best loss of any 1-loss team. Best wins and best loss makes it a very easy decision for the committee.

-Jason "Scott is correct that the Big Ten-ACC challenge will help us a lot in terms of basketball and the top teams... 6 top 3 seeds playing each other will provide some good guidance" Evans

I agree. LSU has to be in no matter what. They have the resume and pass the all important eye test as well.

[Dukehky]

Worst college basketball landscape that I can ever remember. Top is relative in the truest sense of the word.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I agree. LSU has to be in no matter what. They have the resume and pass the all important eye test as well.

Wait, what sport are we talking about here? Wrong thread maybe?

[fuse]

Looking forward, if Duke performs well the rest of the season, as Selection Sunday approaches, the narrative will be what about that SFA loss?
Is one bad loss in November enough to drop a seed or two?

It will be a wedge in comparing teams of similar resumes.

Holding serve at home, no bad road losses, and a strong ACC tournament won’t stop the pundits talking. I’d hope it would be enough for a favorable seed come March.

[scottdude8]

Looking forward, if Duke performs well the rest of the season, as Selection Sunday approaches, the narrative will be what about that SFA loss?
Is one bad loss in November enough to drop a seed or two?

It will be a wedge in comparing teams of similar resumes.

Holding serve at home, no bad road losses, and a strong ACC tournament won’t stop the pundits talking. I’d hope it would be enough for a favorable seed come March.

I would have agreed, if not for the past couple years in which it’s been clear that the committee regards good wins as more important than bad losses. I believe I did a whole analysis of ranking top teams with regard to their bad losses either last year or the year before, and these didn’t end up hurting teams like you’d expect. I’ll have to search back and see if I can find that thread.

[fuse]

I would have agreed, if not for the past couple years in which it’s been clear that the committee regards good wins as more important than bad losses. I believe I did a whole analysis of ranking top teams with regard to their bad losses either last year or the year before, and these didn’t end up hurting teams like you’d expect. I’ll have to search back and see if I can find that thread.

This could test the impact of a Q4 loss.
I wonder if any top 4 seed since the quadrant system was introduced had a Q4 loss.
Would it make a difference in conference or out of conference?

SFA was ranked 222 (iirc) by KenPom when we lost. I don’t know when quadrant details are determined (time of game play, or end of season). If its time of game play, there’s nothing to be done. Best outcome for Duke would be for SFA to go undefeated the rest of the season through their conference tournament.

Fate, destiny, the best thing to come out of the loss was the big gofundme surge. I’m content with a Duke loss that had a net positive impact on the world.

[scottdude8]

This could test the impact of a Q4 loss.
I wonder if any top 4 seed since the quadrant system was introduced had a Q4 loss.
Would it make a difference in conference or out of conference?

SFA was ranked 222 (iirc) by KenPom when we lost. I don’t know when quadrant details are determined (time of game play, or end of season). If its time of game play, there’s nothing to be done. Best outcome for Duke would be for SFA to go undefeated the rest of the season through their conference tournament.

Fate, destiny, the best thing to come out of the loss was the big gofundme surge. I’m content with a Duke loss that had a net positive impact on the world.

Quadrants are by end of season, that much I know.

[Bluedog]

sigh. it's silly. if you lose your conference championship, you should be last to get in...and then only if there's nobody close to reasonable to take your place. You lose your league championship, you only have yourself to blame.

Virginia didn't win the ACC tourney last year yet won the national championship. Same with UNCheats latest national championship and ours too. Yes, I recognize we're talking different sports, but same argument could apply (and did when the ACC used to only get to send one team to the big dance).

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Virginia didn't win the ACC tourney last year yet won the national championship. Same with UNCheats latest national championship and ours too. Yes, I recognize we're talking different sports, but same argument could apply (and did when the ACC used to only get to send one team to the big dance).

Sports that are so so different that there's no analogy there at all...no same argument to be had.

[BandAlum83]

Dayton is a team I already want to avoid if we are fortunate enough to make the NCAA. Flyers are for real.

Aren't there always sub-regionals in Dayton? The will have home games to the sweet 16?

[BandAlum83]

Looking forward, if Duke performs well the rest of the season, as Selection Sunday approaches, the narrative will be what about that SFA loss?
Is one bad loss in November enough to drop a seed or two?

It will be a wedge in comparing teams of similar resumes.

Holding serve at home, no bad road losses, and a strong ACC tournament won’t stop the pundits talking. I’d hope it would be enough for a favorable seed come March.

I GUARANTEE that if we are 33-1 on selection Sunday, we WILL be THE #1 seed despite the SFA loss. It won't drop us to the 2 or 3 line.

The narrative may change at 32-2, 31-3, 30-4, etc.

[Kedsy]

Aren't there always sub-regionals in Dayton? The will have home games to the sweet 16?

No, that's where they have the "First Four." It's possible they'll have home games all the way to the Round of 64.

[sagegrouse]

I GUARANTEE that if we are 33-1 on selection Sunday, we WILL be THE #1 seed despite the SFA loss. It won't drop us to the 2 or 3 line.

The narrative may change at 32-2, 31-3, 30-4, etc.

Agreed to your first point and offer some data for your second, Duke has been #1 seed 14 times since 1986 and those teams had lost 50 games prior to the NCAA's -- an average of 3.6 losses before Selection Sunday.

One loss: 1999
Two losses: 1986, 1992
Three losses: 1998, 2002, 2006
Four losses, 2000, 2001, 2011, 2015
Five losses: 2004, 2005, 2010, 2019

If Duke is in the top two in the ACC and wins the ACC Tournament, then I feel confident we will be a #1 seed. If we are tops in the regular season and lose in the tournament, there is a fair chance we are #1. In both cases it could be argued that we would be ahead of other ACC contenders like Louisville, UNC and Virginia for a #1 and join non-ACC contenders for a #1 like Kentucky and Kansas.

[jv001]

Agreed to your first point and offer some data for your second, Duke has been #1 seed 14 times since 1986 and those teams had lost 50 games prior to the NCAA's -- an average of 3.6 losses before Selection Sunday.

One loss: 1999
Two losses: 1986, 1992
Three losses: 1998, 2002, 2006
Four losses, 2000, 2001, 2011, 2015
Five losses: 2004, 2005, 2010, 2019

If Duke is in the top two in the ACC and wins the ACC Tournament, then I feel confident we will be a #1 seed. If we are tops in the regular season and lose in the tournament, there is a fair chance we are #1. In both cases it could be argued that we would be ahead of other ACC contenders like Louisville, UNC and Virginia for a #1 and join non-ACC contenders for a #1 like Kentucky and Kansas.

We need to avoid the one and three loss season and we'll be pretty good shape.
GoDuke!

[JasonEvans]

As I said this past week on the podcast, this is a down season for the top teams. There is much less of a gap between the best and the teams that are merely good. As a result, I suspect we will see something this year that we have only seen very rarely in the past... multiple teams with 6+ losses becoming #1 seeds.

Here are the number of losses of the #1 seeds in previous seasons (6+ loss teams are bolded):

2019 - Virginia 3, Gonzaga 3, Duke 5, UNC 6
2018 - Virginia 2, Villanova 4, Xavier 5, Kansas 7
2017 - Gonzaga 1, Villanova 3, Kansas 4, UNC 7
2016 - Kansas 4, Oregon 6, UNC 6, Virginia 7
2015 - Kentucky 0, Villanova 2, Wisconsin 3, Duke 4
2014 - Wichita St 0, Florida 2, Arizona 4, Virginia 6
2013 - Gonzaga 2, Kansas 5, Louisville 5, Indiana 6
2012 - Kentucky 2, Syracuse 2, UNC 5, Michigan St 7
2011 - Ohio St 2, Kansas 2, Duke 4, Pittsburgh 5
2010 - Kentucky 2, Kansas 2, Syracuse 4, Duke 5

So, only 9 out of the 40 past #1 seeds have had 6 or more losses. I think we will see at least 50% like that this year.

The year that comes the closest to approximating what I think we will see this year is 2016... and even though I think the small gap between great and good will cause this to be a wild NCAA tourney, that 2016 season saw a #1, two #2s, and a #10** to make the Final Four... so maybe I should just be quiet now

-Jason "**- it took a bit of a miracle for that #10 to make it, as the Hoo fans around here no doubt recall" Evans

[gep]

As I said this past week on the podcast, this is a down season for the top teams. There is much less of a gap between the best and the teams that are merely good. As a result, I suspect we will see something this year that we have only seen very rarely in the past... multiple teams with 6+ losses becoming #1 seeds.

Here are the number of losses of the #1 seeds in previous seasons (6+ loss teams are bolded):

2019 - Virginia 3, Gonzaga 3, Duke 5, UNC 6
2018 - Virginia 2, Villanova 4, Xavier 5, Kansas 7
2017 - Gonzaga 1, Villanova 3, Kansas 4, UNC 7
2016 - Kansas 4, Oregon 6, UNC 6, Virginia 7
2015 - Kentucky 0, Villanova 2, Wisconsin 3, Duke 4
2014 - Wichita St 0, Florida 2, Arizona 4, Virginia 6
2013 - Gonzaga 2, Kansas 5, Louisville 5, Indiana 6
2012 - Kentucky 2, Syracuse 2, UNC 5, Michigan St 7
2011 - Ohio St 2, Kansas 2, Duke 4, Pittsburgh 5
2010 - Kentucky 2, Kansas 2, Syracuse 4, Duke 5

So, only 9 out of the 40 past #1 seeds have had 6 or more losses. I think we will see at least 50% like that this year.

The year that comes the closest to approximating what I think we will see this year is 2016... and even though I think the small gap between great and good will cause this to be a wild NCAA tourney, that 2016 season saw a #1, two #2s, and a #10** to make the Final Four... so maybe I should just be quiet now

-Jason "**- it took a bit of a miracle for that #10 to make it, as the Hoo fans around here no doubt recall" Evans

So my feeble memory... I thought Duke was a #1 seed in more than "only" 4 years...

[BandAlum83]

So my feeble memory... I thought Duke was a #1 seed in more than "only" 4 years...

Or... over the past 10 years Duke has won the national championship in 50% of the years they were a number one seed.

[JasonEvans]

Or... over the past 10 years Duke has won the national championship in 50% of the years they were a number one seed.

And yet I picked them to win 100% of the time... hmmm, damn new math keeps on getting in the way of my happiness.