Page 3 of 52 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 1038
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Let's say this year's Duke had lost close games to Kentucky, Gonzaga, and Ohio St in the preseason but then went, for example, 17-3 in the ACC. Duke would still get a pretty good seed out of that scenario. The same is not true of Gonzaga. If they had dropped 1 or 2 more of those non-conference games (and the others had been close and not blow-outs) then even if they ran the table in their conference, I suspect they would struggle to get higher than about a 4 seed.
    Yes, that is true. Despite the ACC not being stellar this year, domination of the league would likely lead to quite a good seed which Gonzaga would not be able to do. Although this year that impact is muted compared to prior years to an extent because of ACC weakness. But you're right that we're still better situated in that regard than Gonzaga even this year certainly and the Zags must perform well OOC to secure high seeds.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    If Duke struggles in their significant non-conference games, there is a chance for the Blue Devils to improve their seeding situation during ACC play. Gonzaga gets no such benefit. Their games in the WCC can do nothing but hurt them in terms of their seeding status.
    The top four teams in the WCC are rated (by KenPom): #1, #21, #35, and #36.

    The top four teams in the ACC are rated (by KenPom): #10, #24, #31, and #50.

    The difference is only one other WCC team is in the top 100 (#87) and the ACC has seven additional teams in the top 100, but this year Gonzaga has several in-league opportunities to help its resume.

  3. #43
    scottdude8's Avatar
    scottdude8 is offline Moderator, Contributor, Zoubek disciple, and resident Wolverine
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Storrs, CT
    Quote Originally Posted by Dukehk View Post
    Getting annoyed that every year the zags get a top seed (and #1 - #2 ranking) by virtue of playing in one of the weakest conferences in America.

    Every other conference out there is beating each other to death with the level of competition amassed (admittedly the ACC is having a down year but the holes and canes are borderline top 25).

    Then you look at the west coast conference and with all due respect, its an absolute joke.

    But with the way the system works, even if the zags lose one game against their inferior league competition, it still might be enough to get them the top spot by virtue of everyone else beating each other. It seems "not losing" is worth more than say beating a ranked opponent?

    I think to be taken seriously they need to move to the Pac-10 immediately. They've been given cakewalk after cakewalk in the big dance and have proved many times they didn't deserve the lofty seeding.

    Just a random rant.
    While this has certainly been the case in the recent past, you could make a strong argument that the WCC is stronger than the ACC this season, at least at the top.

    Right now there are four WCC in teams in the NET Top 40: Gonzaga, BYU (No. 27), San Francisco (No. 35) and Saint Mary's (No. 37), all of which are projected as NCAA Tournament teams by many prognosticators. Then there's a big gap to the next highest team, No. 88 Santa Clara. While the ACC has more depth, right now the only other team in the NET Top 40 is UNC at No. 32 (Va Tech is down to No. 42).

    Long story short, by the metric the Selection Committee uses, the WCC is certainly in the same broad caliber as the ACC this year, as a function both of it being an up year for them and a down year for us.
    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!

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by Dukehk View Post
    Exactly my point.

    They've wilted numerous times as a #1 seed to supposedly inferior teams. Even as the "betting" favorites. They've been exposed every year when they play tougher competition in the tournament.

    In some way they have gamed the system and given themselves a surefire easy path to the final four each and every year, without necessarily deserving it.

    Not saying they aren't a great team, but would like to see what their record would look like if they played in a conference like the Pac-10. Im almost certain they wouldn't be getting a top seed each and every year.
    Sorry, but this is just not true. Since Mark Few became the Head Coach at Gonzaga for the 1999-2000 season, Gonzaga has only lost twice, when a #1 seed, to a team seeded #3 or below. Those were a 2019 Elite Eight loss to #3 Texas Tech, and a 2013 loss to #9 seed Wichita State. The Wichita loss was the only one to a team ranked #5 or below, which is the other level of "inferior teams" (as you termed it) that I looked at. Here are the "leaders" since 1999-2000 in number of times a team has lost, when seeded #1, to a team seeded #3 or below, and the number of times they've lost to a team seeded #5 or below:

    #1 seed lost to a #3 or below:

    Duke 5
    Kansas 4
    Villanova 3
    Stanford 3
    Virginia 3
    Gonzaga 2
    Pittsburgh 2
    Kentucky 2
    Michigan State 1
    UNC 1
    Arizona 1
    Oklahoma 1
    Syracuse 1
    UConn 1
    Cincinnati 1
    Michigan 1
    Texas 1
    Washington 1
    Illinois 1
    Ohio State 1
    Xavier 1
    Indiana 1
    Wichita St. 1
    Florida 1

    The list of #1 seed losses to teams seeded #5 or below:

    Duke 4
    Kansas 2
    Villanova 2
    Stanford 2
    Virginia 2
    Gonzaga 1
    Pittsburgh 1
    Kentucky 1
    UNC 1
    Arizona 1
    Syracuse 1
    UConn 1
    Cincinnati 1
    Michigan 1
    Illinois 1
    Xavier 1
    Wichita St 1
    Florida 1


    I also don't think it's fair to characterize their success as "gaming" the system. That implies something untoward has been done. They can't join the Pac-12 because they are a small school that doesn't play Division 1 football. So that is not an option. What is Mark Few to do to challenge his team against top competition other than play as strong a nonconference schedule as he can? And that's exactly what he does.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by scottdude8 View Post
    Long story short, by the metric the Selection Committee uses, the WCC is certainly in the same broad caliber as the ACC this year, as a function both of it being an up year for them and a down year for us.
    Well... I dunno if I would go quite that far. Yes, the WCC has more top level teams than usual, but I dunno if playing a WCC schedule is quite like playing an ACC schedule.

    Let's look at the quadrants, seeing as that is a major, major part of the seeding profile for each team. I'm only gonna look at home and away as there are no neutral games during the conference regular season. All the numbers below reflect NET rankings, not KenPom or other metrics.

    Home
    Q1 - teams ranked 1-30: ACC - 1 (Duke), WCC - 2 (Gonzaga, BYU)
    Q2 - teams ranked 31-75: ACC - 5 (UNC, VT, Wake, FSU, ND) , WCC - 2 (San Fran, St Mary's)
    Q3 - teams ranked 76 - 160: ACC - 8 (Clem, Miami, VA, Syrac, Lou, NCSU, GT, BC), WCC - 2 (LMU, Santa Clara)
    Q4 - teams ranked 161 or lower: ACC - 1 (Pitt), WCC - 4 (SD, Port, Pepperdine, Pacific)

    Road
    Q1 - teams ranked 1-75: ACC - 6 (Duke, UNC, VT, Wake, FSU, ND), WCC - 4 (Gonzaga, BYU, San Fran, St Mary's)
    Q2 - teams ranked 76-135: ACC - 5 (Clem, Miami, VA, Syrac, Lou, NCSU) , WCC - 1 (Santa Clara)
    Q3 - teams ranked 135 - 240: ACC - 3 (, GT, BC, Pitt), WCC - 3 (LMU, SD, Portland)
    Q4 - teams ranked 241 or lower: ACC - 0, WCC - 2 (Pepperdine, Pacific)

    As you can see, the middle of the ACC is miles... miles ahead of the WCC. Fully half the road games in the WCC present a chance at a Q3 or Q4 loss. The ACC doesn't even have a Q4 team on the road and only 3 out of 15 road games are in Q3.

    There are many, many more opportunities for good wins (Q1 and Q2) in the ACC than in the WCC. Despite Gonzaga playing a daunting pre-conference schedule with 5 top quality teams, Duke is going to end up with several more Q1 games than Gonazga will this season. That matters and that is because our conference slate is significantly better than theirs's.

    Now, it also means there are more opportunities for Duke to take a loss playing a decent team, far more games where the outcome is in doubt, but you take the good with the bad. Bottom line, playing in the ACC and playing in the WCC remain very different animals... even in this year of nearly unprecedented strength in the WCC and weakness in the ACC.
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  6. #46
    scottdude8's Avatar
    scottdude8 is offline Moderator, Contributor, Zoubek disciple, and resident Wolverine
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Storrs, CT
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Well... I dunno if I would go quite that far. Yes, the WCC has more top level teams than usual, but I dunno if playing a WCC schedule is quite like playing an ACC schedule.

    Let's look at the quadrants, seeing as that is a major, major part of the seeding profile for each team. I'm only gonna look at home and away as there are no neutral games during the conference regular season. All the numbers below reflect NET rankings, not KenPom or other metrics.

    Home
    Q1 - teams ranked 1-30: ACC - 1 (Duke), WCC - 2 (Gonzaga, BYU)
    Q2 - teams ranked 31-75: ACC - 5 (UNC, VT, Wake, FSU, ND) , WCC - 2 (San Fran, St Mary's)
    Q3 - teams ranked 76 - 160: ACC - 8 (Clem, Miami, VA, Syrac, Lou, NCSU, GT, BC), WCC - 2 (LMU, Santa Clara)
    Q4 - teams ranked 161 or lower: ACC - 1 (Pitt), WCC - 4 (SD, Port, Pepperdine, Pacific)

    Road
    Q1 - teams ranked 1-75: ACC - 6 (Duke, UNC, VT, Wake, FSU, ND), WCC - 4 (Gonzaga, BYU, San Fran, St Mary's)
    Q2 - teams ranked 76-135: ACC - 5 (Clem, Miami, VA, Syrac, Lou, NCSU) , WCC - 1 (Santa Clara)
    Q3 - teams ranked 135 - 240: ACC - 3 (, GT, BC, Pitt), WCC - 3 (LMU, SD, Portland)
    Q4 - teams ranked 241 or lower: ACC - 0, WCC - 2 (Pepperdine, Pacific)

    As you can see, the middle of the ACC is miles... miles ahead of the WCC. Fully half the road games in the WCC present a chance at a Q3 or Q4 loss. The ACC doesn't even have a Q4 team on the road and only 3 out of 15 road games are in Q3.

    There are many, many more opportunities for good wins (Q1 and Q2) in the ACC than in the WCC. Despite Gonzaga playing a daunting pre-conference schedule with 5 top quality teams, Duke is going to end up with several more Q1 games than Gonazga will this season. That matters and that is because our conference slate is significantly better than theirs's.

    Now, it also means there are more opportunities for Duke to take a loss playing a decent team, far more games where the outcome is in doubt, but you take the good with the bad. Bottom line, playing in the ACC and playing in the WCC remain very different animals... even in this year of nearly unprecedented strength in the WCC and weakness in the ACC.
    Very fair... I definitely exaggerated things a bit there. The important question for us given this becomes how the committee rates "overall" strength of record versus "top-line" strength of record. If it comes down to comparison us to, say, Gonzaga (ignoring the head-to-head victory for argument's sake) and Villanova, we might have a better overall quality of record given a middling ACC, but they'll likely have more Q1 wins given more opportunities in the WCC (combined with the Zags non-con schedule) and Big East. I'll have to dig back into the past few years to see whether there's a pattern in how the committee weighs those things, if any.
    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!

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by scottdude8 View Post
    Very fair... I definitely exaggerated things a bit there. The important question for us given this becomes how the committee rates "overall" strength of record versus "top-line" strength of record. If it comes down to comparison us to, say, Gonzaga (ignoring the head-to-head victory for argument's sake) and Villanova, we might have a better overall quality of record given a middling ACC, but they'll likely have more Q1 wins given more opportunities in the WCC (combined with the Zags non-con schedule) and Big East. I'll have to dig back into the past few years to see whether there's a pattern in how the committee weighs those things, if any.
    No denying the Big East, with 4 teams in the top 30 in the NET and 3 others in the top 70, will give Nova more chances at Q1 wins...

    But lets look at Duke and Gonzaga to see where they will stand on Q1 opportunities.

    Gonzaga - currently 4-2 in Q1. 3 Q1 games remaining -- @BYU, @San Fran, @St. Mary's. They could get 2 more Q1 opportunities if San Fran or St. Mary's can rise into the top 30 in the NET (currently 35 & 37) which would make home games against them Q1 opps.

    Duke - currently 3-1 in Q1. 2 Q1 games remaining -- @UNC, @ Fla St. They could get an extra Q1 if UNC (#32) rises into the top 30, making the home game with Carolina a Q1 opp. Also, @ND (#74) could turn into a Q1 opp if they rise in the rankings.

    The fact that Duke does not get @Va Tech or @Clemson (still unscheduled) really hinders our chances for additional Q1 games. Also hurts that road games at traditional powers Virginia, Syracuse, and Louisville will be Q2 games this year due to their poor performance thus far on the season.

    Ugh... it is gonna be really hard to make our resume look good. Thanks goodness we beat Gonzaga or we might be looking at like a #4 seed. Sheesh!

    -Jason "shows you how important tonight's game in Tally is" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    No denying the Big East, with 4 teams in the top 30 in the NET and 3 others in the top 70, will give Nova more chances at Q1 wins...

    But lets look at Duke and Gonzaga to see where they will stand on Q1 opportunities.

    Gonzaga - currently 4-2 in Q1. 3 Q1 games remaining -- @BYU, @San Fran, @St. Mary's. They could get 2 more Q1 opportunities if San Fran or St. Mary's can rise into the top 30 in the NET (currently 35 & 37) which would make home games against them Q1 opps.

    Duke - currently 3-1 in Q1. 2 Q1 games remaining -- @UNC, @ Fla St. They could get an extra Q1 if UNC (#32) rises into the top 30, making the home game with Carolina a Q1 opp. Also, @ND (#74) could turn into a Q1 opp if they rise in the rankings.

    The fact that Duke does not get @Va Tech or @Clemson (still unscheduled) really hinders our chances for additional Q1 games. Also hurts that road games at traditional powers Virginia, Syracuse, and Louisville will be Q2 games this year due to their poor performance thus far on the season.

    Ugh... it is gonna be really hard to make our resume look good. Thanks goodness we beat Gonzaga or we might be looking at like a #4 seed. Sheesh!

    -Jason "shows you how important tonight's game in Tally is" Evans
    Technically, Notre Dame is a Q1 game for us so long as they stay top-75. But no guarantee that they do, nor is there a guarantee that FSU (#70) remains in the Q1 category either. Of course, Clemson (#78) could get to a Q1 as well.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Technically, Notre Dame is a Q1 game for us so long as they stay top-75. But no guarantee that they do, nor is there a guarantee that FSU (#70) remains in the Q1 category either. Of course, Clemson (#78) could get to a Q1 as well.
    isn't Q1 top-25?
    1200. DDMF.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    isn't Q1 top-25?
    Depends on home vs road vs neutral. Q1 road games are top-75. Q1 home games are top-30. Q1 neutral are top-50.

    To be clear, I was talking about the road game against Notre Dame and the road game against Clemson (if that one gets rescheduled) and the road game against FSU.

    Both UNC games become Q1 if UNC gets into the top-30. Otherwise, just the road game would be Q1.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Depends on home vs road vs neutral. Q1 road games are top-75. Q1 home games are top-30. Q1 neutral are top-50.

    To be clear, I was talking about the road game against Notre Dame and the road game against Clemson (if that one gets rescheduled) and the road game against FSU.

    Both UNC games become Q1 if UNC gets into the top-30. Otherwise, just the road game would be Q1.
    got it. it's a ridiculous bucketing scheme of which I wish I could remain willfully ignorant...but such is life.
    1200. DDMF.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    got it. it's a ridiculous bucketing scheme of which I wish I could remain willfully ignorant...but such is life.
    Yeah, it's totally arbitrary. Stupid that they use these categories this instead of the actual metrics. But, what can you do?

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Yeah, it's totally arbitrary. Stupid that they use these categories this instead of the actual metrics. But, what can you do?
    To be fair, on the team sheets they DO have exact ranks and the committee states that they don't view all Q1 wins/losses the same. They even further delineate it in Q1 at least, AFAIK, with smaller ranges. But I guess they have to have cutoffs somewhere to make it more digestible...at least it's not RPI anymore and I think it's good that they view road wins as harder.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    To be fair, on the team sheets they DO have exact ranks and the committee states that they don't view all Q1 wins/losses the same. They even further delineate it in Q1 at least, AFAIK, with smaller ranges. But I guess they have to have cutoffs somewhere to make it more digestible...at least it's not RPI anymore and I think it's good that they view road wins as harder.
    They do have exact ranks, but the committee specifically says they don't use them. They just use the ranks to determine whether a game falls in Q1-A/Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4.

    It's a definite step up from RPI. But only barely. And it's silly when they could just use the actual ranks.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    They do have exact ranks, but the committee specifically says they don't use them. They just use the ranks to determine whether a game falls in Q1-A/Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4.

    It's a definite step up from RPI. But only barely. And it's silly when they could just use the actual ranks.
    Why? Do you somehow think beating the #1 team on the road deserves more credit than beating #75 on the road?? Silly man.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    Sorry, but this is just not true. Since Mark Few became the Head Coach at Gonzaga for the 1999-2000 season, Gonzaga has only lost twice, when a #1 seed, to a team seeded #3 or below. Those were a 2019 Elite Eight loss to #3 Texas Tech, and a 2013 loss to #9 seed Wichita State. The Wichita loss was the only one to a team ranked #5 or below, which is the other level of "inferior teams" (as you termed it) that I looked at. Here are the "leaders" since 1999-2000 in number of times a team has lost, when seeded #1, to a team seeded #3 or below, and the number of times they've lost to a team seeded #5 or below:

    #1 seed lost to a #3 or below:

    Duke 5
    Kansas 4
    Villanova 3
    Stanford 3
    Virginia 3
    Gonzaga 2
    Pittsburgh 2
    Kentucky 2
    Michigan State 1
    UNC 1
    Arizona 1
    Oklahoma 1
    Syracuse 1
    UConn 1
    Cincinnati 1
    Michigan 1
    Texas 1
    Washington 1
    Illinois 1
    Ohio State 1
    Xavier 1
    Indiana 1
    Wichita St. 1
    Florida 1

    The list of #1 seed losses to teams seeded #5 or below:

    Duke 4
    Kansas 2
    Villanova 2
    Stanford 2
    Virginia 2
    Gonzaga 1
    Pittsburgh 1
    Kentucky 1
    UNC 1
    Arizona 1
    Syracuse 1
    UConn 1
    Cincinnati 1
    Michigan 1
    Illinois 1
    Xavier 1
    Wichita St 1
    Florida 1


    I also don't think it's fair to characterize their success as "gaming" the system. That implies something untoward has been done. They can't join the Pac-12 because they are a small school that doesn't play Division 1 football. So that is not an option. What is Mark Few to do to challenge his team against top competition other than play as strong a nonconference schedule as he can? And that's exactly what he does.
    Kudos for digging into this but I have a couple of methodological issues (as usual, these involve denominators).

    Losses as a #1 seed really depend on "exposure" -- how many times a school was a #1 seed. In this case (2000-2021): Duke was #1 ten times; Gonzaga #1 four times, Kansas eight; Villanova four and UNC eight. So, Gonzaga losing twice to a three seed or below as a #1 seed is one half the time, as is Duke's losing five times out of ten.

    Whether losses as a #1 seed are bad depends on your point of view. One might say Jerry West under-performed more than any other NBA player by reaching the NBA finals ten times and winning only once. But NBA finals is a heck of an accomplishment, as is getting a #1 seed.

    Then there is the ultimate objective of winning championships. Gonzaga has never won a championship, compared to Duke and UNC winning three each since 2000.
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  17. #57
    scottdude8's Avatar
    scottdude8 is offline Moderator, Contributor, Zoubek disciple, and resident Wolverine
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Storrs, CT
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    To be fair, on the team sheets they DO have exact ranks and the committee states that they don't view all Q1 wins/losses the same. They even further delineate it in Q1 at least, AFAIK, with smaller ranges. But I guess they have to have cutoffs somewhere to make it more digestible...at least it's not RPI anymore and I think it's good that they view road wins as harder.
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    They do have exact ranks, but the committee specifically says they don't use them. They just use the ranks to determine whether a game falls in Q1-A/Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4.

    It's a definite step up from RPI. But only barely. And it's silly when they could just use the actual ranks.
    For what it's worth, the NCAA puts out a half-decent explainer of the process the selection committee supposedly uses.

    Admittedly that page is more useful when it comes to questions about how the brackets are made (i.e. how they determine locations, how they put teams into brackets since they don't use the S-curve, etc.), but some interesting nuggets related to this discussion:

    Committee members have a wide-range of observation, consultation and data resources available to them throughout the season and during selection week. These resources provide the foundation for a thorough and educated process that is reinforced by the committee member’s discussion and deliberation. Among the resources available to the committee are an extensive season-long evaluation of teams through watching games, conference monitoring calls and NABC regional advisory rankings; complete box scores and results, head-to-head results, results versus common opponents, imbalanced conference schedules and results, overall and non-conference strength of schedule, the quality of wins and losses, road record, player and coach availability and various computer metrics. Each of the 10 committee members uses these various resources to form their own opinions, resulting in the committee’s consensus position on teams’ selection and seeding.
    The NET is one of many resources/tools available to the committee in the selection, seeding and bracketing process. Computer models cannot accurately evaluate qualitative factors such as games missed by key players or coaches, travel difficulties and other effects of specific games.

    Each committee member independently evaluates a vast amount of information during the process to make individual decisions. It is these qualitative, quantitative and subjective opinions -- developed after hours of personal observations, discussion with coaches, directors of athletics and commissioners, and review and comparison of various data -- that each individual ultimately will determine their vote on all issues related to selections, seeding and bracketing.

    The NET has two components: the Team Value Index, which is based on game results and factors the result, the game location and outcome. The other component is net efficiency (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency), which is adjusted to account for the strength of the opponent and the location of the game.
    My understanding from past interviews with the committee chair after selection (which is typically a part of the Selection Show and ESPN's after-coverage) is that the broad metrics, like quadrant victories, are typically used to put teams into a general "caliber". Then the more subjective things, plus more detailed metrics (i.e., was that Q1 win against #1 on a neutral site or against No. 75 on the road), differentiate teams within a particular caliber.

    If I'm correct in that understanding, I think the steps to becoming a No. 1 seed are: 1) Have a "resume" that is among the top tier as determined by these rough metrics; 2) Be chosen as one of the Top 4 teams within that group based on more precise discussions. It's sort of like how people say that your SAT scores won't get you in to Duke on their own, but they can knock you out of consideration if they're too low. So if we end up with 4-5 less Q1 wins than a handful of other teams with a similar number of losses, it may knock us out of the conversation... but if we get into the conversation by either keeping the Q1 number close and/or having a better raw W/L record, then our top-tier wins and the "extenuating circumstances" surrounding the Miami loss could enter the conversation.

    All that said it's still a loooong way until March, and the next step on this process is winning in Tallahassee tonight!
    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!

  18. #58
    scottdude8's Avatar
    scottdude8 is offline Moderator, Contributor, Zoubek disciple, and resident Wolverine
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Storrs, CT

    Post-FSU

    Another close, disappointing loss last night, but one that doesn't seem to have affected our NET ranking much: we dropped from 11 to 12. FSU's win moved them up to 58 from 70, putting the loss relatively safely in the Q1 range for now.

    As for the other major result of interest to us last night, Miami's blowout win over UNC moved them up to 66 from 82, while UNC dropped to 42 from 32. That moves our loss to Miami into Q2 (something many were hoping for), while UNC is moving farther away from the Top 30 that would make our home game against them a Q1 game.

    An interesting development from our Team Sheet: as of today, we only have one more Q1 game on our schedule (@UNC). Home vs UNC, Wake, and FSU, plus @ND, Clemson, Virginia, 'Cuse, and Louisville are all Q2 games at the moment. So it's likely we'll have to make our case for a top seed based on the marquee wins on our resume (vs NET No. 1 and No. 10 on neutral sites) and the potential depth of the remainder of our resume in Q2.
    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!

  19. #59
    scottdude8's Avatar
    scottdude8 is offline Moderator, Contributor, Zoubek disciple, and resident Wolverine
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Storrs, CT

    Nova, LSU go down

    A couple upsets that are good news for us yesterday, with Nova going down at home to Marquette and LSU falling at Alabama.

    The former is interesting, because the NET just seems to love Nova: they fell from 3 to 6 with the loss, and are a somewhat significant outlier in the rankings now. They have 5 losses, while the rest of the Top 10 has 3 or less, and the next 5 loss team is Tennessee at No. 13. I would imagine this is a scenario where the committee might diverge from the raw NET Rankings come selection Sunday: I find it very unlikely that a 6 or 7 loss Nova would be seeded higher than a 4 or 5 loss Duke team, if things pan out that way.

    Meanwhile, as it pertains to the SEC everyone seems to be beating each other up in the middle of the conference, as we'd like. Auburn has separated itself from the pack, with Kentucky just behind. Now we just need Auburn to start stumbling, or perhaps (although we likely couldn't stomach this in practice) hope for Kentucky to overtake them and our head-to-head victory over the Wildcats to help us come Selection Sunday. FWIW, Auburn seems to have gotten lucky with their SEC schedule: they only play Kentucky once at home, have already played their one game against LSU (also at home), and get Tennessee only once (albeit on the road). Despite a week non-conference resume, it would be very hard to deny a team with <5 losses and an SEC title a top seed, so unless things change drastically we may have to cede one slot on the top line to the Tigers.
    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!

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by scottdude8 View Post
    A couple upsets that are good news for us yesterday, with Nova going down at home to Marquette and LSU falling at Alabama.

    The former is interesting, because the NET just seems to love Nova: they fell from 3 to 6 with the loss, and are a somewhat significant outlier in the rankings now. They have 5 losses, while the rest of the Top 10 has 3 or less, and the next 5 loss team is Tennessee at No. 13. I would imagine this is a scenario where the committee might diverge from the raw NET Rankings come selection Sunday: I find it very unlikely that a 6 or 7 loss Nova would be seeded higher than a 4 or 5 loss Duke team, if things pan out that way.

    Meanwhile, as it pertains to the SEC everyone seems to be beating each other up in the middle of the conference, as we'd like. Auburn has separated itself from the pack, with Kentucky just behind. Now we just need Auburn to start stumbling, or perhaps (although we likely couldn't stomach this in practice) hope for Kentucky to overtake them and our head-to-head victory over the Wildcats to help us come Selection Sunday. FWIW, Auburn seems to have gotten lucky with their SEC schedule: they only play Kentucky once at home, have already played their one game against LSU (also at home), and get Tennessee only once (albeit on the road). Despite a week non-conference resume, it would be very hard to deny a team with <5 losses and an SEC title a top seed, so unless things change drastically we may have to cede one slot on the top line to the Tigers.
    Thanks Scott, good callouts. I'll mention again that based on everything I've seen from the committee, the Win/Loss against quadrants is much more impactful than "raw rank", so the fact that the NET "loves" Nova at the moment doesn't even mean they're guaranteed a top seed. The W/L vs. quadrants is what they look at. Of course, there's usually very high correlation between those two, but not always.

Similar Threads

  1. Keeping up With The K
    By Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-27-2011, 10:20 AM
  2. Keeping track of Dukies who transferred
    By FireOgilvie in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: 03-11-2010, 07:56 PM
  3. Keeping track of the conferences
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 12:58 AM
  4. Keeping snow, ice off the driveway
    By EarlJam in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-05-2008, 01:33 PM
  5. Keeping a lid on it.
    By Ima Facultiwyfe in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-09-2007, 03:03 PM

Posting Permissions

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