resume or potential?

[ericd7633]

Do you think the committee should consider Duke for a #1 seed? I have no quarrel with what Duke HAS DONE, but I don't think their record, which includes 7 losses in their own conference, should be discounted because they had injuries and their coach had surgery. I want the committee to treat them the same way they treat other teams who have had injuries and other problems during the season and stop their favoritism of Duke, which has been so obvious over the years. Let the chips fall where they may.

Yes, of course, they will be at worst the #5 overall seed IMO. Not trying to discount their record because of injury, but it's happened in the past. The committee takes it into account, whether that's right or wrong they do.

 

[umichgradfan]

Yes, of course, they will be at worst the #5 overall seed IMO. Not trying to discount their record because of injury, but it's happened in the past. The committee takes it into account, whether that's right or wrong they do.

I think Duke could legitimately be a #2 or #3 seed. That's it.

 

[umichgradfan]

I think Duke could legitimately be a #2 or #3 seed. That's it.

Well, Duke is not even the top #2 seed. They will be lucky to get out of the East region. My faith in the committee is renewed.

 

[Ottermatic]

Duke is exactly where I've been predicting they would be since yesterday morning

 

[umichgradfan]

Duke is exactly where I've been predicting they would be since yesterday morning

It's where I thought they should be, too.

 

[redseat]

first of all, i'm a big Duke fan (Duke alum actually), and I wouldnt put us on the 1 line. I think a 2 is fine for us.

but the argument to put us on the 1 line is not spurious or blatant favoritism, and it has nothing (or very little) to do with "ignore our losses because of injuries and our coach getting back surgery." That's just a rebuttal for when others argue "there's no way we should consider an 8 loss team for a 1 seed."

The argument for Duke on the 1 line has to do primarily with quality wins. no team in the country has more wins against the top 50 than we do. Add that to the championship of the toughest, deepest conference in the country, and there's an argument.

Where would you want to put Duke? 3? 4? Imagine we were a 4 seed. Would it be fair to the #1 seed in that region to put a team that looks like it might be playing the best basketball in the country as a sweet sixteen matchup?

remember last time a team went 4 wins in 4 days to win a major conference championship. Connecticut was given a 7 seed in 2014, and went all the way to the NCAA Championship.

As I said, I think a 2 is perfectly fine and appropriate for Duke given everything, but we will get discussion for a 1 seed, even though i don't think we'll get it. And we should be in that discussion.

This!!! ^^^^

I will add Duke did beat UNC TWICE this year as well. But honestly it's all about teams that get hot at the right time for the Big Dance.. (knocking on wood), Duke appears to be this team... You can easily make a case for Duke being a # 1 seed, just as much as making them a # 2 seed. Either way, you still have to win games regardless of rank or seeding, that doesn't get you wins!

 

[rmilia1]

So. . . ? Duke should receive no more consideration for injuries to players or their coach during the season than any other team. They went 11 - 7 in their own conference. Not a #1 seed. Bilas has been pushing this agenda for weeks. He can't help himself.

Duke went 15-7 in the ACC

 

[douggie]

Duke went 15-7 in the ACC

No, they were just 11-7 in ACC play. That's why there cannot be a "regular season champion". There are 15 teams. No way for a round robin home and away. Therefore the Champion is settled after seeding and a tourney. This year Duke was ACC Champions after four grueling days of high octane opponents. I guess that's where you're getting 15-7.

 

[rmilia1]

No, they were just 11-7 in ACC play. That's why there cannot be a "regular season champion". There are 15 teams. No way for a round robin home and away. Therefore the Champion is settled after seeding and a tourney. This year Duke was ACC Champions after four grueling days of high octane opponents. I guess that's where you're getting 15-7.

Yep. The tournament counts. That's why they play it. It's also why Michigan is a 7 seed instead of a 10 seed. I thinl it's strange how the committee seems to value SOME conference tourney results but not others. Kentucky basically got nothing for winning the SEC, same with Zona and the P12. Kansas and UNC weren't penalized at all. Wisconsin got squat fir,reaching the B10 finals, Iowa St didn't get really anything for the B12 but somehow Michigan bumped up 2 or 3 lines for winning the B10. I don't get it. Happens every year

 

[eaglesnut]

If Duke shoulda/coulda/woulda been a #1 then why did Nova get matched up against the best #2?

 

[CatsTopPac]

Yep. The tournament counts. That's why they play it. It's also why Michigan is a 7 seed instead of a 10 seed. I thinl it's strange how the committee seems to value SOME conference tourney results but not others. Kentucky basically got nothing for winning the SEC, same with Zona and the P12. Kansas and UNC weren't penalized at all. Wisconsin got squat fir,reaching the B10 finals, Iowa St didn't get really anything for the B12 but somehow Michigan bumped up 2 or 3 lines for winning the B10. I don't get it. Happens every year

I honestly believe that the committee is intentionally inconsistent for self-preservation. If they had an airtight system for picking seeds, there would be no need for the committee, or Selection Sunday. So I don't think they want a system that takes it out of their hands or they'd be obsolete.

When it comes to potential or resume, it's both, mostly resume (because of RPI). The metrics are predictions for the most part. The problem with resume is that is always puts the first game as important as the last game, and so there is no sense of a team's growth or decline. They also obviously don't take into consideration personnel issues or how the games are actually played. The metrics go deep on some stats for predictions, but don't count for other factors. They don't take into consideration that a player returning from injury might take a while to get back to form, or that a team might be less efficient if they have a tough stretch of games one after the other. All of that means that it takes humans to make the final decision which gives the committee a job. Add to that the fact that they also fuck things up with biases and it is what it is.

Props to ESPN for trying to replicate the committee's toolset for deciding seeding with BPI, but that's intentionally impossible. Therefore, BPI is a waste of time. I used to give it more stock, just because its first few years were pretty accurate for calling the eventual champ. But the last few years it has been ridiculously off and I look at it less and less. All we have really known is that the committee loves RPI, even though they say they don't rely on it as much as they do, and say they consider much more. Now they are talking about revamping their reliance on the RPI as much as they do, and who knows what that even means.

One final opinion on tourneys, is that not all tourneys are the same. When you have a conference like the ACC, they base their champion off the tournament, which they should. There are 37 teams in the conference and so there can't be even scheduling. The tourney helps balance the playing field more than the season schedule. But looking at the P12 or the B12, the regular season is the indicator of the champion more than the tourney. The reg season is either a round robin or close, and so the tourney isn't as leveling as the reg season.

But to your point @rmilia1 the committee rates tourneys differently, and it's not even based on the size of the conferences. That's where the biases come in. They'll weigh tourney's differently, injuries differently, and switch back and forth between RPI and metrics when they want.

 

[umichgradfan]

Duke went 15-7 in the ACC

Mea culpa.

 

[douggie]

Mea culpa.

But you have no problem with uNC's 7 loss record? You did the math that Duke only had one more total loss, but beat uNC TWICE. That one loss difference was Kansas at the buzzer, and Duke was short Tatum, Giles, and Bolden.

 

[bksballer89]

If Duke shoulda/coulda/woulda been a #1 then why did Nova get matched up against the best #2?

The committee is stupid. They had Duke as the 3rd best 2 seed from what I believe. Instead of following the true S Curve, I believe they chose to have Duke in the East instead of the midwest with Kansas from what I heard.

 

[eaglesnut]

The committee is stupid. They had Duke as the 3rd best 2 seed from what I believe. Instead of following the true S Curve, I believe they chose to have Duke in the East instead of the midwest with Kansas from what I heard.

In the end it only hurts Duke. Nova balls up in the garden.

 

[bksballer89]

In the end it only hurts Duke. Nova balls up in the garden.

So does Duke

 

[Ickey Shuffle]

Resume.

Anyone has potential. You can't schedule cupcakes all the time and expect to get in nor improve. That was one of the gripes I had with UC over the years. But we're starting to beef up our schedule. Glad we had those back-to-back series with Iowa State and Butler.