An interesting hypothetical if you're worried about the tournament

[budwom]

I'm not as worried about Duke getting into the tournament as I am about them exiting it very quickly.

Which is kind of why I'm not worrying about them getting into the tournament. If they deserve to get in, they almost certainly will. That's a major "if."

[duke2x]

I'm not as worried about Duke getting into the tournament as I am about them exiting it very quickly.

This is a good year for a high seed in the NCAA Tournament. I'm not sure Duke has or can put the pieces together to take advantage of it.

[Southgate0809]

This is a good year for a high seed in the NCAA Tournament. I'm not sure Duke has or can put the pieces together to take advantage of it.

Seems like it's one of those years where there will be tons of upsets.

[tommy]

This is a good year for a high seed in the NCAA Tournament. I'm not sure Duke has or can put the pieces together to take advantage of it.

Isn't every year a good year to be a high seed, as the higher seed you are the lower seeded your opponents are? Why is this year any different?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

It's certainly a year without a lot of really dominant teams.

[duke2x]

Isn't every year a good year to be a high seed, as the higher seed you are the lower seeded your opponents are? Why is this year any different?

I need to clarify. This is a good year to be 6/7/8/9/10/11 seeds because a lot of the 1/2/3 seeds look very overrated right now. You usually have 2-3 really good teams at the top instead of 0-1.

[Southgate0809]

I need to clarify. This is a good year to be 6/7/8/9/10/11 seeds because a lot of the 1/2/3 seeds look very overrated right now. You usually have 2-3 really good teams at the top instead of 0-1.

haha I was going to sarcastically ask if by "high" seed you meant ranked highly (like a 1) or a high number (like a 16). I thought I was just being a jerk and that you meant a #1 seed or close to it, so I chose not to submit my post.

[gep]

Thanks CDu, this is the point I was trying to make... if you agree with my premise that we won't be in danger until our resume starts to look worse than Notre Dame's last year (considering the conference is significantly better this year), then what I tried to show (with some admittedly incomplete analysis, but I wasn't writing a peer-reviewed paper, haha) is that the road to get there is pretty narrow. As an example, I outlined a particular scenario that Torvik's analysis says would be the most likely way we get to 5 losses: considering how unlikely that is, it serves just as a proof of concept. If the most straightforward path to 5 losses had a 15-20% chance in Torvik's analysis, then I think we'd be sweating a lot more.

One of these days I'm going to put aside my neuroscience research and direct my time to putting those skills to full use on my DBR posts... if someone can figure out how I can make money from that, that is

maybe look for some NIL ???