2022-23 NET/Bracketology Discussion

[scottdude8]

First, an important disclaimer:

In this thread, we will be discussing the NET rankings and projections of the NCAA Tournament field, and speculating about their potential impact on Duke's resume and seeding come March. Many find this a fun topic to debate and discuss. Others find it silly project things so far in advance. (Some fall in both of the previous camps.) Many on this board feel quite strongly that such discussions are unnecessary distractions. Some are quite loud about this latter opinion, but are completely justified in their feelings.

All that said, this is a thread to discuss the NET/Bracketology, not to discuss the value of such discussions. No one is making you read or participate in this thread. Perhaps we can make another thread where we hate on Joe Lunardi and the silliness of the quadrant system, but the (perhaps unfortunate) reality is that they are major parts of the college basketball landscape as it currently stands, so there should certainly be a place on this board to have fun discussing and speculating on these topics.

Second, a reminder about the quadrant system:

The committee splits a team's resume into games falling into four quadrants to facilitate comparison. Games at home against NET 1-30, at a neutral site against NET 1-50, and away against NET 1-75 are "Quadrant 1 (Q1)" games. "Quadrant 2 (Q2)" games are home 31-75, neutral 51-100, and away 76-135. Q3 and Q4 go farther down the rankings.

Generally speaking, a team's Q1 record has been very relevant when it comes to selecting the top seeds in the tournament. Avoiding "bad" losses in Q3 and 4 has been another seemingly important factor. That said, we know the whims of the committee change year to year, so take that all with a grain of salt.

With that out of the way, I started the thread today because the first edition of the NET rankings are out. These should be read with a MAJOR grain of salt, as historically there tend to be major outliers in the NET rankings early on. This year is no exception: while the Top 4 are quite reasonable, No's 5 and 7 (Mississippi State and Sam Houston, respectively) are way off from the consensus. Duke comes in at No. 17, which seems quite reasonable given where we stand in the polls.

Some interesting things to note as it pertains to our resume moving forward (here's our Team Sheet):
-Xavier starts out at No. 48 in the NET, meaning our neutral site win over them just squeaks into Q1 territory. I imagine we'll be rooting fairly hard for Xavier in the Big East.
-Similarly, Ohio State is NET No. 28... our home victory over them will be Q1 if they stay in the Top 30.
-Jacksonville is a nice surprise at No. 103 in the NET, making one of our "cupcake" games a Q3 rather than Q4. Not a big deal by any means, but it does help our SOS. Unfortunately, Oregon State is down at NET #224... since we played them on a neutral site, they'd need to get inside No. 200 for that to move to Q3.
-Both of our losses are firmly in Q1: Purdue is NET No. 3, and Kansas is NET No. 18.
-The ACC is down, but at first glance perhaps not quite as bad as last year. Our ACC schedule currently provides us 5 fairly secure Q1 opportunities: @UVA, @UNC, @Va Tech, @Miami, and @NC State. Our home games against UNC, Va Tech, and Miami have the potential to become Q1 (UNC is No. 39, Va Tech No. 41, Miami No. 47). Road contests at Wake (No. 86) and Clemson (No. 88) also could make it to Q1.
-Iowa is Net No. 20, meaning our game on Tuesday provides the opportunity for a solid Q1 win that should stand up barring a collapse from the Hawkeyes in Big Ten play.

Let the discussion begin!

[Duke79UNLV77]

Can uncheat play its way onto the bubbLLLLe???

[scottdude8]

Can uncheat play its way onto the bubbLLLLe???

We joke, but UNC does not have a tourney worthy resume right now... even though one's resume in December means nothing. Their best wins are all in Q2 and against teams whose current NET rankings are likely a bit inflated (JMU, Charleston). Meanwhile, they have no Q1 wins, although they have an opportunity for one on a neutral site against Ohio State (and another marquee non-conference matchup against a Michigan team that's currently ranked at NET 114, but very likely will end up much higher than that). They also have already squandered one of their conference Q1 opportunities against Virginia Tech, and their schedule is such that four of their remaining 5 current ACC Q1 games are against us and Virginia (they avoid Miami and NC State on the road). While their ACC schedule appears much easier than ours based on the home/road split, it also gives them less opportunities for impactful wins.

Long story short, if UNC loses both their remaining marquee non-conference games against Ohio State and Michigan, you could make the argument they'd be on the wrong side of the bubble. Conceivably they'd be on the going 1-1 in those games.

[azzefkram]

... a Michigan team that's currently ranked at NET 114, but very likely will end up much higher than that...

Are you sure about that?
1g1odm.jpg

[scottdude8]

Are you sure about that?
1g1odm.jpg

Haha... I stayed very purposely vague there. I think history shows that a middle of the pack Big Ten team likely won't end up ranked below 100 in the NET. I think it's reasonable to assume that's the floor for Michigan based off of Hunter Dickinson alone. I will refrain from poking the bear myself and leave it at that

[scottdude8]

Our eyes told us last night was a great win. The computers, via the NET, agree: we moved up from #18 to #12 with the victory, primarily jumping idle teams (rather than teams that themselves lost). Iowa remains firmly in the NET Top 50 (#33), so this should be a Q1 win come March, and has the potential to be an especially impressive Q1 win if Iowa does well in the B1G.

Very interesting to note that, as of now, we are tied for the lead in Q1 victories with, of all teams, Purdue. 3 Q1 non-conference wins could end up being an important factor come selection time.

Also, an interesting data point about how the NET might be influenced by less-than-impressive victories: despite pulling it out against UNC-G, Arkansas fell nine spots, from #21 to #30, after a very competitive game against subpar competition at home. The inner workings of the NET remain somewhat mysterious in terms of how various "dork polls" influence things, but this is anecdotal evidence for style points playing a factor, especially against subpar competition.

[DavidBenAkiva]

As far as an early season schedule goes, you have to like where Duke stands. Duke is currently tied with Purdue for most Q1 wins with 3. The schedule gets a little easier for the next few weeks. Duke won't play another KenPom top 50 team until the home game against Miami on 1/21. The Xavier, Ohio State, and Iowa wins are all likely going to hold up very well by the end of the season. If Duke is a top 2 finisher in the ACC without any embarrassing losses, they should be rewarded with at least a 4 seed or higher in the NCAAT.

[MarkD83]

In attempt to discuss the Net rankings and not "the value of the discussion" my next comments are right on the edge.

The 20-game schedule in the ACC means that right now ACC teams are being judged against other conferences. There are no opportunities for head-to-head comparisons in late January or February. Therefore, how ACC teams do against the other conferences right now is critical.

*Duke is in great shape as discussed by scottdude in his initial post and the wins vs OSU and Iowa help the entire conference.
*UVA is in great shape but a near loss to JMU last night would have hurt the conference.
*Miami's 18 pt loss to Md does not help but the win against Rutgers does help.
*VT's wins against Penn State and Minnesota help and critical games against Dayton and OK state are coming up.
*Clemson's close losses to USC and Iowa may have minimal impact once March arrives.
*Pitt's win at Northwestern is on the plus side but bad losses to WVa and Michigan could hurt the conference.
*Syracuse has been a disaster for the ACC. A 29 point loss to Illinois followed by a win at Notre Dame makes ND look bad.
*GT has bad losses to Marquette and Iowa but a win against UGA that helps.
*NCSU has a 6-point loss to Kansas that is not too bad but no real good non-conference wins.
*Wake has wins against UGA and Wisconsin and a not so bad 2-point loss to LMU.
*ND has a big win against MSU and critical games against Marquette and UGA on the horizon.
*UNC needs a win or two against OSU or Michigan otherwise when seeding takes place the comparisons will be between UNC and other ACC teams rather than between UNC and teams in other leagues.
*And lets just leave BC, FSU and Louisville out of the conversation

So, the story about how the ACC compares to other conferences is almost completed for this season and will affect bids and seedings.

[scottdude8]

In attempt to discuss the Net rankings and not "the value of the discussion" my next comments are right on the edge.

The 20-game schedule in the ACC means that right now ACC teams are being judged against other conferences. There are no opportunities for head-to-head comparisons in late January or February. Therefore, how ACC teams do against the other conferences right now is critical.

*Duke is in great shape as discussed by scottdude in his initial post and the wins vs OSU and Iowa help the entire conference.
*UVA is in great shape but a near loss to JMU last night would have hurt the conference.
*Miami's 18 pt loss to Md does not help but the win against Rutgers does help.
*VT's wins against Penn State and Minnesota help and critical games against Dayton and OK state are coming up.
*Clemson's close losses to USC and Iowa may have minimal impact once March arrives.
*Pitt's win at Northwestern is on the plus side but bad losses to WVa and Michigan could hurt the conference.
*Syracuse has been a disaster for the ACC. A 29 point loss to Illinois followed by a win at Notre Dame makes ND look bad.
*GT has bad losses to Marquette and Iowa but a win against UGA that helps.
*NCSU has a 6-point loss to Kansas that is not too bad but no real good non-conference wins.
*Wake has wins against UGA and Wisconsin and a not so bad 2-point loss to LMU.
*ND has a big win against MSU and critical games against Marquette and UGA on the horizon.
*UNC needs a win or two against OSU or Michigan otherwise when seeding takes place the comparisons will be between UNC and other ACC teams rather than between UNC and teams in other leagues.
*And lets just leave BC, FSU and Louisville out of the conversation

So, the story about how the ACC compares to other conferences is almost completed for this season and will affect bids and seedings.

Yeah the ACC's non-conference is definitely a mixed bag... but it at least feels like it's in better shape than last season. The fact that there's another top team besides us (UVA) is a big difference, and gives us the opportunity for a top-of-resume win (maybe two if we play in the tourney). Hopefully UNC implodes, but if they don't they should be another Top 25 caliber team. I also think Va Tech is right on that edge, especially if they can end their non-conference strong with Dayton and OK State. Considering we were not only the only ranked ACC team, but the only ACC team even sniffing the rankings for most of last year, that's a non-trivial improvement.

In terms of the NET, every ACC team other than BC, FSU, Louisville, and Syracuse is in the Top 150. Somehow Georgia Tech lost ground after beating Georgia last night, but that may be because the Bulldogs aren't much to write home about. Notre Dame is currently NET 140 despite being 6-2... I have to think that will equilibrate and they'll sniff the Top 75. The remaining 9 ACC teams (including us) are all ranked at least 91, meaning they're well within shouting distance of representing a road Q1 opportunity. That's not great, but not horrendous.

Given the weirdness of early season NET rankings, to compare apples to apples you need to look at where the ACC stood at this time last year to get a real comparison. At this point last year, we had only 8 teams amongst the Top 92, and only 4 teams in the Top 50. As mentioned above, this year we have 9 teams in the Top 91, and also 5 in the Top 50 (including No. 6 Virginia). So while we're a far cry from the other major conferences according to the NET, the ACC does seem to be better positioned than last year, and there's still time for some of the teams to improve their non-conference stock, as you alluded to.

[dlmzzz]

In attempt to discuss the Net rankings and not "the value of the discussion" my next comments are right on the edge.

The 20-game schedule in the ACC means that right now ACC teams are being judged against other conferences. There are no opportunities for head-to-head comparisons in late January or February. Therefore, how ACC teams do against the other conferences right now is critical.

*Duke is in great shape as discussed by scottdude in his initial post and the wins vs OSU and Iowa help the entire conference.
*UVA is in great shape but a near loss to JMU last night would have hurt the conference.
*Miami's 18 pt loss to Md does not help but the win against Rutgers does help.
*VT's wins against Penn State and Minnesota help and critical games against Dayton and OK state are coming up.
*Clemson's close losses to USC and Iowa may have minimal impact once March arrives.
*Pitt's win at Northwestern is on the plus side but bad losses to WVa and Michigan could hurt the conference.
*Syracuse has been a disaster for the ACC. A 29 point loss to Illinois followed by a win at Notre Dame makes ND look bad.
*GT has bad losses to Marquette and Iowa but a win against UGA that helps.
*NCSU has a 6-point loss to Kansas that is not too bad but no real good non-conference wins.
*Wake has wins against UGA and Wisconsin and a not so bad 2-point loss to LMU.
*ND has a big win against MSU and critical games against Marquette and UGA on the horizon.
*UNC needs a win or two against OSU or Michigan otherwise when seeding takes place the comparisons will be between UNC and other ACC teams rather than between UNC and teams in other leagues.
*And lets just leave BC, FSU and Louisville out of the conversation

So, the story about how the ACC compares to other conferences is almost completed for this season and will affect bids and seedings.

So, many of these games are in the rear view mirror now. I guess the idea of holiday tournaments faded away years ago and I never noticed.

If the conference results line up with the non league play, I'd have to say that the ACC is looking like a 5 bid league:
Virginia, Duke, Virginia Tech, Miami, and UNC
Except for UNC, if these teams don't damage themselves in conference play, they should be in the tourney.
UNC is weird. Their KenPom rank is fine, but they have lost to every decent team they have played, and their best win is a neutral(?) court win against Portland. They do still have Ohio State and Michigan coming up.

The next tier looks something like:
NC State, Clemson, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest. Maybe also Syracuse and Notre Dame.
None of these teams were good outside the conference, but none of them were horrible, so there is some chance that a really strong conference record could play them onto the bubble.
OK, well, Syracuse was kind of bad. They have a similar KenPom rank, but some of their their losses are fugly.
Notre Dame's record and losses aren't BAD, but they sure didn't do anything to help themselves stand out.

The rest of the conference is just glad that you can't face relegation in college basketball.
Well, there is conference realignment, but that's all about football.

[scottdude8]

So, many of these games are in the rear view mirror now. I guess the idea of holiday tournaments faded away years ago and I never noticed.

If the conference results line up with the non league play, I'd have to say that the ACC is looking like a 5 bid league:
Virginia, Duke, Virginia Tech, Miami, and UNC
Except for UNC, if these teams don't damage themselves in conference play, they should be in the tourney.
UNC is weird. Their KenPom rank is fine, but they have lost to every decent team they have played, and their best win is a neutral(?) court win against Portland. They do still have Ohio State and Michigan coming up.

The next tier looks something like:
NC State, Clemson, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest. Maybe also Syracuse and Notre Dame.
None of these teams were good outside the conference, but none of them were horrible, so there is some chance that a really strong conference record could play them onto the bubble.
OK, well, Syracuse was kind of bad. They have a similar KenPom rank, but some of their their losses are fugly.
Notre Dame's record and losses aren't BAD, but they sure didn't do anything to help themselves stand out.

The rest of the conference is just glad that you can't face relegation in college basketball.
Well, there is conference realignment, but that's all about football.

FWIW, the NET seems to roughly agree with these tiers. Right now UVA and Duke have separated themselves from the rest of the ACC pack at #9 and #13 respectively, and both have 2 Q1 wins (our home win against OSU has fallen just outside Q1 territory for the time being).

The next tier is Virginia Tech at #27 (if they stay in the Top 30 that's a big boost for the rest of the ACC in terms of a potential resume-boosting game), and UNC at #37... teams in this range typically would be on the right side of the bubble.

Then there's the bubbly ACC teams: Miami at #55 and NC State at #58. If these teams stay in this range, a road victory would be Q1.

Then there's the "outside chance" squads, who also have an outside chance of eventually representing a Q1 opportunity for us: Pitt at #83 and Wake at #86.

There's then a big drop to Clemson at #121 (they've really fallen off the map after looking promising early), Georgia Tech at 143, Syracuse at #158, and Notre Dame at #164. There's an even bigger drop to the bottom 4 of the conference (starting with BC at #242).

As the rankings start to equilibrate and outlier teams from mid/low majors descend down the rankings, most of these teams will get a bit of a bump. If UNC keeps stinking, though, they might equilibrate in the other direction as any pre-season skew dissipates. So to my eye, I see three teams that should make the tournament, three around the bubble, and two more with an outside shot of making it. If that ends up with us getting 6 teams in, that wouldn't be horrible, especially since we should have at least two (and potentially 3 if Va Tech continues to impress) top seeds.

It is December though.

[sagegrouse]

It is December though.

"Busted, disgusted, the ratings can't be trusted."

[House P]

For what it is worth, here are the chances Torvik's model currently gives each ACC team of making the tourney.

TEAM	Current Rank	Projected Record	Chance of Making Tourney	Chance of Autobid	Proj. Seed
Duke	12	24-7 (15-5)	99.8%	27.9%	3.4
Virginia	20	23-6 (15-5)	99.7%	19.7%	3.6
Virginia Tech	18	25-6 (15-5)	95.4%	18.8%	7
North Carolina	30	20-11 (13-7)	85.2%	12.6%	7.3
Miami FL	49	22-9 (12-8)	76.0%	6.4%	8.7
NC St.	41	20-11 (11-9)	50.8%	7.2%	9.5
Wake Forest	69	18-13 (10-10)	9.7%	2.6%	10.6
Pittsburgh	89	17-14 (11-9)	3.3%	1.4%	10.9
Clemson	88	17-14 (10-10)	1.6%	1.3%	11.6
Notre Dame	93	17-14 (9-11)	0.9%	0.9%	12.4
Syracuse	100	16-15 (9-11)	0.7%	0.7%	12.1
Georgia Tech	106	16-15 (8-12)	0.7%	0.7%	13.1
Florida St.	167	8-23 (6-14)	0.1%	0.1%	15.8
Boston College	198	10-21 (4-16)	0.0%	0.0%	0
Louisville	282	4-27 (2-18)	0.0%	0.0%	0

A couple things stand out to me.

- Torvik's model agrees with those in this thread who suggest that 5 ACC teams are currently "on track" to make the tourney, with a 6th team (NC State) on track for the bubble.

- Torvik's model doesn't give the ACC teams projected to win 17-18 games much chance of making the tourney. Therefore, the middle of the pack ACC teams (Wake, Pitt, Clemson, ND, Syracuse, Ga Tech) are probably going to have to exceed expectations by 2-3 wins to have a realistic chance of making the tourney. I haven't run the probabilities, but my gut tells me that at least one of these teams is likely to end up with 19-20 wins, putting themselves in the conversation.

- The projected seed for Va Tech seems odd to me. Torvik projects Va Tech to finish the regular season at 25-6, yet he projects them with a 7 seed. It is hard to imagine a 25 win ACC team (with wins vs the Big 10 and Big 12) ending up with a 7 seed.

[dlmzzz]

For what it is worth, here are the chances Torvik's model currently gives each ACC team of making the tourney.

TEAM	Current Rank	Projected Record	Chance of Making Tourney	Chance of Autobid	Proj. Seed
Duke	12	24-7 (15-5)	99.8%	27.9%	3.4
Virginia	20	23-6 (15-5)	99.7%	19.7%	3.6
Virginia Tech	18	25-6 (15-5)	95.4%	18.8%	7
North Carolina	30	20-11 (13-7)	85.2%	12.6%	7.3
Miami FL	49	22-9 (12-8)	76.0%	6.4%	8.7
NC St.	41	20-11 (11-9)	50.8%	7.2%	9.5
Wake Forest	69	18-13 (10-10)	9.7%	2.6%	10.6
Pittsburgh	89	17-14 (11-9)	3.3%	1.4%	10.9
Clemson	88	17-14 (10-10)	1.6%	1.3%	11.6
Notre Dame	93	17-14 (9-11)	0.9%	0.9%	12.4
Syracuse	100	16-15 (9-11)	0.7%	0.7%	12.1
Georgia Tech	106	16-15 (8-12)	0.7%	0.7%	13.1
Florida St.	167	8-23 (6-14)	0.1%	0.1%	15.8
Boston College	198	10-21 (4-16)	0.0%	0.0%	0
Louisville	282	4-27 (2-18)	0.0%	0.0%	0

A couple things stand out to me.

- Torvik's model agrees with those in this thread who suggest that 5 ACC teams are currently "on track" to make the tourney, with a 6th team (NC State) on track for the bubble.

- Torvik's model doesn't give the ACC teams projected to win 17-18 games much chance of making the tourney. Therefore, the middle of the pack ACC teams (Wake, Pitt, Clemson, ND, Syracuse, Ga Tech) are probably going to have to exceed expectations by 2-3 wins to have a realistic chance of making the tourney. I haven't run the probabilities, but my gut tells me that at least one of these teams is likely to end up with 19-20 wins, putting themselves in the conversation.

- The projected seed for Va Tech seems odd to me. Torvik projects Va Tech to finish the regular season at 25-6, yet he projects them with a 7 seed. It is hard to imagine a 25 win ACC team (with wins vs the Big 10 and Big 12) ending up with a 7 seed.

Interesting. I was looking at KenPom's info, which is fairly similar :
UVA 9
Duke 13
UNC 25
VA Tech 28
Miami 43
NC State 56
Clemson 72
Syracuse 77
Pittsburgh 78
Wake 79
ND 90

I was focused more on resume up to this point in the season.
Bad loss = anything not Tier 1 or 2
Non-con opportunities = a potential tier 1 or tier 2 win
Away and Neutral court matter in all of these

Team	Tier 1 Record	Tier 2 Record	Bad Losses	Non-con opportunities
Virginia	3-0	0-0	<none>	Houston (2)
Duke	3-2	0-0	<none>	<none>
uNC	0-4	1-0	<none>	Ohio State(20), Michigan(44)
VA Tech	3-0	0-1	<none>	<none>
Miami	1-1	3-0	<none>	<none>
NC State	0-2	2-0	<none>	Vanderbilt (99)
Clemson	0-1	1-0	South Carolina(168), Loyola Chicago(124)	<none>
Syracuse	0-2	2-0	Colgate(113), Bryant(170)	<none>
Pittsburgh	2-2	0-1	VCU (125)	<none>
Wake Forest	1-1	0-1	Loyola Marymount(121)	Rutgers (32)
Notre Dame	0-0	1-1	St Bonaventure(127)	Georgia (109)

Looking at it this way, Syracuse and Clemson would have the most ground to make up in conference play to get onto the bubble. But really, all of these look like typical bubble resumes if they don't hurt themselves in conference.
Miami and NC State are actually in decent shape if they can get things done in conference.
As for UNC, it doesn't help to play a strong schedule if you don't win any of them. We are all BIG fans for the rest of this month, Scott!

[scottdude8]

"Busted, disgusted, the ratings can't be trusted."

Everyone should just assume any analysis/post/rant I make in this thread comes with the "It's just December" caveat from here on out, haha. Not gonna stop me from doing it though... sometimes I need to clear my brain from work by staring at a different set of crazy numbers for a few minutes

[uh_no]

Everyone should just assume any analysis/post/rant I make in this thread comes with the "It's just December" caveat from here on out, haha. Not gonna stop me from doing it though... sometimes I need to clear my brain from work by staring at a different set of crazy numbers for a few minutes

when does the next joey bracket come out???? THEN we'll have something to talk about!

[Southgate0809]

when does the next joey bracket come out???? THEN we'll have something to talk about!

That guy's job security is as good as a weatherman. No one expects them to be right at this point. Especially with his bracketology predictions before the season even starts and before conference play starts.

[Bluedog]

FWIW, the NET seems to roughly agree with these tiers. Right now UVA and Duke have separated themselves from the rest of the ACC pack at #9 and #13 respectively, and both have 2 Q1 wins (our home win against OSU has fallen just outside Q1 territory for the time being).

The next tier is Virginia Tech at #27 (if they stay in the Top 30 that's a big boost for the rest of the ACC in terms of a potential resume-boosting game), and UNC at #37... teams in this range typically would be on the right side of the bubble.

Then there's the bubbly ACC teams: Miami at #55 and NC State at #58. If these teams stay in this range, a road victory would be Q1.

Then there's the "outside chance" squads, who also have an outside chance of eventually representing a Q1 opportunity for us: Pitt at #83 and Wake at #86.

There's then a big drop to Clemson at #121 (they've really fallen off the map after looking promising early), Georgia Tech at 143, Syracuse at #158, and Notre Dame at #164. There's an even bigger drop to the bottom 4 of the conference (starting with BC at #242).

As the rankings start to equilibrate and outlier teams from mid/low majors descend down the rankings, most of these teams will get a bit of a bump. If UNC keeps stinking, though, they might equilibrate in the other direction as any pre-season skew dissipates. So to my eye, I see three teams that should make the tournament, three around the bubble, and two more with an outside shot of making it. If that ends up with us getting 6 teams in, that wouldn't be horrible, especially since we should have at least two (and potentially 3 if Va Tech continues to impress) top seeds.

It is December though.

I'm surprised ND is that low. I'd expect them to be top 100. They aren't great, but have had some good games are are dangerous as a team ranked #164. Of course, if they continue to be "dangerous", their rank will move up.

Seems, to me, the ACC is really lopsided this year with a few elite teams, a good chunk of middling teams, and a horrible set of 4 teams. In the past, I feel like it's more evenly distributed with one truly awful team, not 4. Not sure if this helps the others or not (i.e. racking up wins against bad teams) -- probably doesn't help.

And, I recognize you know this, but our own NET ranking is basically meaningless as it relates to seeding (as the mentioning of us being #13 puts us in the 3/4 seed range on another post - not sure if it was you/someone else). Our rank is only impactful insomuch it impacts OTHER team wins/losses. So, it's a bit funny that we use NET to assess the quality of a team's OPPONENT (and then see the WINS/LOSSES against that set of opponents) and NOT to assess the quality of the team we're judging itself. Of course, if a team has a lot of wins against top opponents, their rank should reflect that. But not always, you sometimes see some anomalies. In an extreme case, a team that has several 1-point losses to top 50 teams but destroys everyone else would NOT be viewed favorably from a seeding perspective but would probably have a very high "raw" NET rank.

[scottdude8]

And, I recognize you know this, but our own NET ranking is basically meaningless as it relates to seeding (as the mentioning of us being #13 puts us in the 3/4 seed range on another post - not sure if it was you/someone else). Our rank is only impactful insomuch it impacts OTHER team wins/losses. So, it's a bit funny that we use NET to assess the quality of a team's OPPONENT (and then see the WINS/LOSSES against that set of opponents) and NOT to assess the quality of the team we're judging itself. Of course, if a team has a lot of wins against top opponents, their rank should reflect that. But not always, you sometimes see some anomalies. In an extreme case, a team that has several 1-point losses to top 50 teams but destroys everyone else would NOT be viewed favorably from a seeding perspective but would probably have a very high "raw" NET rank.

100% true. That said, the NET ranking has been a fairly good rough predictor of the approximate "range" you can expect to be seeded, at least at the top of the bracket where we expect to be. The four #1 seeds were in the Top 5 of the final NET rankings, the #2 seeds were all in the Top 13, 3 of the 4 #3 seeds were in the Top 12 (Wisconsin was a major outlier at #25), and the #4 seeds were all in the Top 24. If I recall, this trend was similar in previous years as well. So while by no means should we assume that we're safely on the 2 line if we're in the NET Top 8 (for example), if we're in that approximate range it's a good indicator that we should be in that conversation.

[scottdude8]

Since we are talking about ACC W/L for Duke I took a stab at the rest of Duke's schedule and rated the games from most likely to least likely to lose.
This is based only on my opinion (and some conversation on this board).
The games in bold are the critical ones to keep the win total > 15.

at 3 Virginia
at North Carolina
North Carolina
at Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech
at Miami
at Wake Forest
Miami
at Clemson
Wake Forest
at NC State
Pittsburgh
NC State
at Syracuse
Notre Dame
at Georgia Tech
Florida State
at Boston College
Louisville

I largely agree with this ranking, perhaps with the caveat that I think the Va Tech games could end up looking more challenging on paper than the UNC games (although we know that won't be true given the rivalry). The key will be those Top 7 road games in your list (@NC State is probably low for me, since Raleigh seems to always be a trap for us). If we can go 3-4 in those 7, which I'd argue is pretty conservative, we beat the 5 win mark if we hold serve at home... and I think that's very doable given the makeup of this team. I'm much more confident that our defense will travel well on the road, as opposed to the past where we've needed our offense/shooting to carry us. Obviously we need to improve offensively and see how the young guys respond on the road, but this year we can win games if we score 60-65 points, whereas in the past we'd get blown our more often than not if we shot that poorly.