Page 4 of 50 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 998
  1. #61
    scottdude8's Avatar
    scottdude8 is online now Contributor, Zoubek disciple, and resident Wolverine
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Quote Originally Posted by pcal6vb View Post
    I'd advocate that the play-ins should include NO conference champions. Make the 16s all automatically in, and have the play-ins be all 11- and/or 12-seeds that were on the bubble. Winning one's conference, even in a low-major, should be rewarded more than finishing 7th thru 9th in a major conference.

    Of course, I also think that a 4-team college football playoff should include ONLY conference champions, even if consensus is that the second strongest (second most talented? second most likely to win?) team finished second in its own conference. If you don't win your conference, you don't get in. A 6-team playoff (or 12-team, as we're now headed toward), on the other hand, opens the door for at-large teams, after the conference champions of the strongest 5 or 6 conferences are all granted slots. I think 8 teams is the ideal: champions of the Power 5 conferences, plus 3 at large.
    There are many who agree with you as it pertains to the NCAA Tournament... every once and a while someone floats the idea that you should have to finish above .500 in your conference to be eligible for the NCAA Tourney, or something like that. While such a change would place a further importance on regular season conference games, which would be a plus, it might also keep bigger name schools out of the Big Dance, which would impact TV ratings. So it's no secret why proposals like that haven't gone anywhere.

    I do think that basketball is a little different than football in that each conference has it's own tournament to determine it's automatic qualifier. There have been years in the CFP where two strong SEC teams haven't played each other because they're in opposing conferences, which slightly undermines the argument that the conference champion is inherently the best team in the conference. Had things gone differently in the SEC this year, Georgia could have won the conference while never facing a one-loss Alabama team, so Alabama would've had a very strong case to make the tourney. I agree with you that "rematches" in the CFP make little sense except in outlier situations, which is why I think many are peeved that Ohio State finds itself in the playoff after such a definitive (home!) loss to a fellow CFP team.

    So many hypotheticals, so little time...
    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!

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Southgate0809 View Post
    I don't understand why anyone would have to play a play-in game except for the 16 seeds. That's never made sense to me. Whether they're automatic bids or not, they are the lowest ranked teams. They should have to play the extra game. Further reward the 1 seeds by letting them play someone who just played 2 days before.
    It could persuasively be argued that teams that finish under .500 in their conference (like 2022 Indiana, 9-11 Big Ten; 2021 Michigan State, 9-11 Big Ten) or teams the computer rates in the 50s (like 2021 Michigan State, #56 KenPom; 2022 Notre Dame, #52 KenPom) didn't actually do enough to earn their bids. The Power 6 conferences whined that they weren't getting enough bids, so the NCAA expanded from 64 to 68 teams. The price was that these substandard Power 6 teams had to play an extra game, along with half the 16-seeds, rather than punishing all the 16-seeds, who after all won their conference tournament (unlike the last four in).

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Southgate0809 View Post
    I don't understand why anyone would have to play a play-in game except for the 16 seeds. That's never made sense to me. Whether they're automatic bids or not, they are the lowest ranked teams. They should have to play the extra game. Further reward the 1 seeds by letting them play someone who just played 2 days before.
    I don't even understand the exception. The correct solution is to have a 64-team field. Period. You make the tourney, you are seeded, you play according to your seed. Done. I know, that ju$t can't happen.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Phredd3 View Post
    I don't even understand the exception. The correct solution is to have a 64-team field. Period. You make the tourney, you are seeded, you play according to your seed. Done. I know, that ju$t can't happen.
    Agreed. There was nothing wrong with the tourney at 64 teams. It doesn't matter how many teams you expand it to, there's always going to be room to argue and complain about the last 4 who got in and who got left out. Unless you go to the crazy solution that I think Coach K mentioned not too long ago? To allow every division 1 team into the tournament. No thanks.
    Trinity 2012

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2022
    Location
    Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by scottdude8 View Post
    There are many who agree with you as it pertains to the NCAA Tournament... every once and a while someone floats the idea that you should have to finish above .500 in your conference to be eligible for the NCAA Tourney, or something like that. While such a change would place a further importance on regular season conference games, which would be a plus, it might also keep bigger name schools out of the Big Dance, which would impact TV ratings. So it's no secret why proposals like that haven't gone anywhere.

    I do think that basketball is a little different than football in that each conference has it's own tournament to determine it's automatic qualifier. There have been years in the CFP where two strong SEC teams haven't played each other because they're in opposing conferences, which slightly undermines the argument that the conference champion is inherently the best team in the conference. Had things gone differently in the SEC this year, Georgia could have won the conference while never facing a one-loss Alabama team, so Alabama would've had a very strong case to make the tourney. I agree with you that "rematches" in the CFP make little sense except in outlier situations, which is why I think many are peeved that Ohio State finds itself in the playoff after such a definitive (home!) loss to a fellow CFP team.

    So many hypotheticals, so little time...
    I acknowledge that imbalanced schedules dilute the argument for placing more weight on conference championships; more so in football (where most teams don't play everyone in their conference), but also in basketball (where, for example, a team may play some tougher conference opponents only once, and some weaker opponents twice - or vice versa). There's no perfect method. But rewarding conference champions above others is the cleanest method, and does NOT reward teams quite *as* much just for being in a stronger conference.

    And, specifically on the play-in/bubble discussion of the NCAAT - my perspective has always been that bubble teams that get left out can't really gripe. If you were ~.500 in your conference and not even sniffing a conference championship, you don't really have much ground to stand on when you get left out of the tournament.

    Of course, my thinking suppresses the incentive to put more marquis teams in the CFP or NCAA tournament, and therefore probably isn't as profitable a line of thinking. Which I'm fine with; this is college sports, after all

  6. #66
    scottdude8's Avatar
    scottdude8 is online now Contributor, Zoubek disciple, and resident Wolverine
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Toronto

    December 19th Update

    I was a bit disappointed to see us drop two spots in the AP Poll after an off week, so I went to check something that matters more come March, the NET. We've held steady there at #12, keeping us in prime position for a Top 4 seed and in competition for something more ambitious come Selection Sunday.

    Of note:
    - Our 3 Q1 wins are behind only Kansas (5), Arizona (4), UConn (4) and Purdue (4). Other teams with 3 include just Houston and Va Tech. With non-conference play nearing its conclusion, it's safe to say that we performed solidly during this period by the metrics the Selection Committee is most interested in, despite some disappointments and the injury challenges we've had to overcome.
    - The ACC now has 4 teams in the NET Top 25: us, Virginia at #16 (the computer rankings must be really down on the Hoos), Va Tech at #19, and UNC at #25. That will provide us some opportunities for top-tier wins during conference play that were lacking last year.
    - Other ACC teams will provide Q1 opportunities in all likelihood, including NC State (#49), Miami (#60), Pitt (#75... great job Coach Capel!) and maybe Clemson (#93) and Wake (#100) if they get hot. Unfortunately, after that things look bad, so we're going to have to avoid a lot of potential black-mark losses against the bottom of the conference.
    - Of our Q1 wins, Iowa is the most secure since the Hawkeyes are #30 and we played them on a neutral site. The Xavier win is looking better and better, though, as they've ascended to #36. Despite blowing it against UNC, Ohio State actually rose in the rankings to #26 (despite interestingly being 0-3 in Q1 games), so we may be stuck half-rooting for the Buckeyes all year (blech!).
    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. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Our win over Iowa is not gonna age well. They’re getting blown out of the building by Nebraska right now. Oy.

  8. #68
    scottdude8's Avatar
    scottdude8 is online now Contributor, Zoubek disciple, and resident Wolverine
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Toronto

    New Year's NET Update

    Happy New Year's everyone! With the conference season starting in earnest, it's a good time to check in on the NET rankings and how they pertain to Duke:

    • We're currently #17 in the NET, with a 2-2 Q1 record and a 1-1 Q2 record. There are a few likely outlier teams still ahead of us (Florida Atlantic and Saint Mary's), so we're right where we want to be in terms of positioning ourselves to be in the discussion for Top 4 seeds.
    • Our win against Ohio State is looking better than we likely could've hoped for, as they've ascended to #10 in the NET. Barring a collapse, that means we'll likely get a nice Q1 home win out of the last B1G-ACC Challenge. The win against Xavier is also looking better and better, and safely in Q1, as they're now #21. However, Iowa has been in free fall, and are down to #66. They could certainly get back into the Top 50 which we need to make the neutral site win a Q1 victory, but the Hawkeyes will have to turn things around on the court before we can start thinking about that.
    • The pecking order in the ACC is starting to clarify. Virginia is just above us at #15, so we'll have a marquee opportunity against them when we face the Wahoos on the road. UNC is at #29, meaning we could get a home Q1 opportunity against them. Miami has also climbed up to #34, meaning we could get another home Q1 chance against them (and our road game in Miami will certainly be Q1). Va Tech is at #39, so things are similar for them. There's then a big drop until NC State at #64, Pitt at #71, Clemson at #76, and Wake at #80. We avoid playing Pitt on the road, but @Clemson and @NC State could both be road Q1 opportunities, and our loss to at Wake could end up in Q1 by season's end.
    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!

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    On January 5 no one expected Clemson and Pitt to be undefeated in the ACC and tied for first.

    There are now 8 ACC teams in the top 68 of the NET rankings with Clemson at 68 and Pitt at 65 with 4 Q1 wins.

    Crazy stuff...

  10. #70
    scottdude8's Avatar
    scottdude8 is online now Contributor, Zoubek disciple, and resident Wolverine
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Toronto

    Jan 11 NET Update

    Decided to check in on the NET after a bunch of good games last night. After a tough week, we're at #23. Interestingly, only two fellow four loss teams are above us at the moment: Saint Mary's (still sticking around as a bit of an outlier up at #9) and Marquette (#22, one spot ahead of us). Only three five loss teams are ahead of us: Ohio State (#15), West Virginia (#20) and Rutgers (#21). That seems to indicate to me that the behind-the-scenes numbers and analytics still like our profile beyond our simple W/L record, but I could be reading too much into things.

    I mentioned Ohio State, which is still firmly in the Top 30 at #15. It's looking more and more like our home win against them is going to look quite good come Selection Sunday. Xavier is also well-liked by the NET at #19, so that's another potential top-tier win come March. Meanwhile, Iowa is playing better of late and is back up to #42, pushing our neutral site victory over them back into Q1.

    In the ACC, there's been a bit of a shakeup below Virginia (#17) and us. NC State is now the third ranked ACC team at #28, notably above UNC at #32 (this would notably take the home UNC game off the board as a Q1 opportunity). Despite a 13-2 record, the NET is not high on Miami at all, with them currently at #40. This is especially odd given they are 5-1 in Q1... while quadrant wins don't directly affect NET rating, they're typically someone correlated as different metrics of team quality. I would think Miami would rise as some of the smaller conference schools ahead of them start to drift down the rankings. After that there's three teams that would represent a road Q1 opportunity: Va Tech (#51), Clemson (#54) and Pitt (#64).

    All this points to the fact that we're facing a HUGE stretch as it pertains to our tournament resume. Our next games are against Pitt, @Clemson, Miami, @Va Tech, @GT, Wake, UNC, @Miami, @Virginia. Of those nine matchups, 6 have the potential to be Q1 games, and even the easiest matchup on paper (Georgia Tech) is still on the road. It's going to be a bit of a gauntlet.
    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!

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Since Bracketology is permitted on this thread, I wanted to bring this up for discussion. We all know these are click fodder, but is anybody else irritated by the thought of a possible 2-7 game between TN and UNC in Greensboro after 2017? (I disagree we would be in Greensboro over UVA, but I would take the corresponding Albany site over 50% of the venues.)

    Lunardi Link: https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/st...ld-predictions

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    I can't really take seedings seriously at this point in the season....the range of possibilities is ridiculously large.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    From Duke’s perspective, Ohio State losing last night to Big 10 bottom feeder Minnesota was not helpful.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    From Duke’s perspective, Ohio State losing last night to Big 10 bottom feeder Minnesota was not helpful.
    But Iowa took out Michigan. A wash I hope.

  15. #75
    Just keep winning and the brackets take care of themselves.

  16. #76

    Conference Resumes

    I thought this would be a good time to post what the resumes of the top conference teams (no, I don't know why I am including Syracuse in this list) looked like at this point in the season.
    Don't expect these numbers to be exact, as rankings change from day to day, and there are some inconsistencies in using both the Net and KenPom as sources.

    To misquote Mark Twain, "Reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated."
    I should also point out that spin moves and lowered shoulders are not criteria the committee uses in determining the tournament field.


    Team Net KenPom Quad 1 Quad 2 Good Wins (Top 25) Bad Losses (Quad 3 & 4) ACC Projection
    UVA 15 12 3-3 2-0 Baylor (19 N), Illinois (23 N) None 15-5
    Duke 25 29 3-4 1-1 Xavier (17 N), Ohio State (22 H) None 12-8
    NC State 29 36 1-3 5-1 None None 12-8
    UNC 33 22 1-6 1-0 Ohio State (22 N) None 13-7
    Miami 39 39 4-2 2-1 Rutgers (16 H), Virginia (15 H) Georgia Tech (155 A) 13-7
    Clemson 49 54 2-1 4-0 None South Carolina (272 A), Loyola Chicago (283 N) 15-5
    VA Tech 55 45 2-1 2-4 None Boston College (226 A) 9-11
    Pitt 58 62 3-1 3-5 Virginia (15 H) None 14-6
    Wake 76 74 1-3 2-1 None Loyola Marymount (99 N) 11-9
    Syracuse 114 86 0-2 3-2 None Colgate (122 H), Bryant (160 H) 11-9

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by dlmzzz View Post
    I thought this would be a good time to post what the resumes of the top conference teams (no, I don't know why I am including Syracuse in this list) looked like at this point in the season.
    Don't expect these numbers to be exact, as rankings change from day to day, and there are some inconsistencies in using both the Net and KenPom as sources.

    To misquote Mark Twain, "Reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated."
    I should also point out that spin moves and lowered shoulders are not criteria the committee uses in determining the tournament field.
    Thanks for this great table!

    As one of the Worried Willies (but not a Nattering Nabob of Negativism), I am somewhat reassured by this. We still gotta get to the projected 12 wins in my view - no worse than 2-4 on the road and 6-1 at home, with one of the Ls not being at #114 Syracuse.

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by dlmzzz View Post
    I thought this would be a good time to post what the resumes of the top conference teams (no, I don't know why I am including Syracuse in this list) looked like at this point in the season.
    Don't expect these numbers to be exact, as rankings change from day to day, and there are some inconsistencies in using both the Net and KenPom as sources.

    To misquote Mark Twain, "Reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated."
    I should also point out that spin moves and lowered shoulders are not criteria the committee uses in determining the tournament field.


    Team Net KenPom Quad 1 Quad 2 Good Wins (Top 25) Bad Losses (Quad 3 & 4) ACC Projection
    UVA 15 12 3-3 2-0 Baylor (19 N), Illinois (23 N) None 15-5
    Duke 25 29 3-4 1-1 Xavier (17 N), Ohio State (22 H) None 12-8
    NC State 29 36 1-3 5-1 None None 12-8
    UNC 33 22 1-6 1-0 Ohio State (22 N) None 13-7
    Miami 39 39 4-2 2-1 Rutgers (16 H), Virginia (15 H) Georgia Tech (155 A) 13-7
    Clemson 49 54 2-1 4-0 None South Carolina (272 A), Loyola Chicago (283 N) 15-5
    VA Tech 55 45 2-1 2-4 None Boston College (226 A) 9-11
    Pitt 58 62 3-1 3-5 Virginia (15 H) None 14-6
    Wake 76 74 1-3 2-1 None Loyola Marymount (99 N) 11-9
    Syracuse 114 86 0-2 3-2 None Colgate (122 H), Bryant (160 H) 11-9





















    Thanks. Interesting that we're considered "better" than Clemson according to the ranks, yet our projected ACC record is so much worse (15-5 vs. 12-8). Is that because Clemson's upcoming schedule is projected to be that much easier? Also, I suppose it's because they are currently undefeated while we are not (in conference). There HAS been a huge shift away in recent years in caring about conference standings and more about WHO you beat and lost to. So, a difficult schedule actually seems to be better for those making the tournament/trying to get a high seed (but of course, makes it harder to win the ACC regular season title). I think it was Nebraska in recent years that had a gaudy B1G record when they were considered the top conference and yet didn't even make the NCAAs because their schedule was totally unbalanced on the bottom feeders.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    Thanks. Interesting that we're considered "better" than Clemson according to the ranks, yet our projected ACC record is so much worse (15-5 vs. 12-8). Is that because Clemson's upcoming schedule is projected to be that much easier? Also, I suppose it's because they are currently undefeated while we are not (in conference).
    The difference of 3 games in hand means a lot. We are expected to match their conference record the rest of the way: 8-5 each. We’re we to have the same schedule the rest of the way, we would be favored to win 1 or 2 more games, but still fall behind them in final ACC record. So it is mostly due to the current difference in the standings, with a small amount due to the difference in remaining schedule.

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by dlmzzz View Post
    I thought this would be a good time to post what the resumes of the top conference teams (no, I don't know why I am including Syracuse in this list) looked like at this point in the season.
    Don't expect these numbers to be exact, as rankings change from day to day, and there are some inconsistencies in using both the Net and KenPom as sources.

    To misquote Mark Twain, "Reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated."
    I should also point out that spin moves and lowered shoulders are not criteria the committee uses in determining the tournament field.
    If Duke is #25 in the net, shouldn't Duke be considered a "good win" for Clemson and also for Wake Forest?

Similar Threads

  1. ACC Basketball Discussion: 2022-23 Season
    By DavidBenAkiva in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 11-16-2022, 11:31 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-24-2022, 11:14 AM
  3. 2022 MBB ACC Awards Discussion Thread
    By CDu in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 03-13-2022, 07:28 PM
  4. 2022 ACC Tournament Discussion
    By Bob Green in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 585
    Last Post: 03-13-2022, 11:41 AM

Posting Permissions

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