Duke a 1 Seed? Seriously?
- Thread starter rsquare
- Start date
I wouldn't mind Duke as a #1 seed if North Carolina were the #2 seed, Louisville the #3-seed and Notre Dame the #4 seed all in the same bracket.
Well, it's very unlikely that they would put Purdue in the 4/5 bracket as they played earlier in the season. Sometimes "re-matches" are not avoidable, but they usually try to do so particularly in those first 2 rounds.
Edit: 4/5 bracket with Notre Dame
I could possibly see that if they win today, although I think they try to set the seeding before the BTT final.....still think a 7.
That's one of the things about Lunardi's projections....he doesn't follow all of the committee protocol with his seeding and bracket sites.
We always talk about this, but the seeding is not "set" before the BTT final. They discuss whether the outcome of the BTT would have a difference in the bracket - and plan brackets accordingly (i.e. one bracket if Michigan wins, one if they lose - if necessary).
Most of the time, 1 game will not change the bracket. That doesn't mean the BTT final is not accounted for, it just typically will not change it. But it's not as if the committee just ignores the game (which is implied by your wording).
Well, that's not what a former committee member said this morning Ibodel.....I didn't mean to imply they simply ignore it....they "try" to set it.
Maybe I should have written "nearly set"....or a better choice of words is it's just not factored in as much possibly as earlier tournaments......maybe in some years, it makes a difference, but I bet more times than not, it didn't change the overall seeding. If it affects an AQ/at-large bid, sure. Just speculation, but I don't think they have a bunch of alternate brackets for Michigan as a 6 or 7 or Wisconsin as a 5 or 6 depending upon the outcome.....maybe they do. You'd have to ask the committee directly if the outcome would have affected the seedings if the game had gone another way. IIRC, they said last year it wouldn't have mattered if Purdue had beaten MSU....I could be wrong on that.
Totally agree. No way should Duke be a #1. For that matter NC shouldn't be either. If anything KY and AZ should be a #1 in front of both.
Last edited:
I mean I don't think you need a bunch of brackets. Would they need to consider today's outcome? Probably not. There's very few instances I can think of where the actual OUTCOME in the BTT would change seeding. I mean, if there was a team in the BTT Championship game that wouldn't get an at-large bid unless they won - they have to have an alternative bracket.
They way they are playing now they deserve a one seed. I would take them in a neutral site game over all the other potential 1 seed teams except for Kansas and maybe Villanova. They are playing great ball right now and they have a massive amount of talent that is finally healthy and playing cohesively. Also have the most wins over the RPI top 50 of anyone in the nation. Look past your bias of hatred toward them and just focus on how they are playing now.
They've been playing great in the ACC Tournament, don't get me wrong. However, they also lost 3 of their last 4 regular season games. They played 4 games in 4 days - 3 of them were battles. If they get past their first couple games, yes they could be very dangerous.
I hear you. Obviously if it affects an at-large availability...I think we just disagree to the extent of the meaning of the game on seeding....the other nuance is it depends upon what seed line is in play....4/5 is on the same side of the bracket 5/6 is not......that can affect more teams if you're switching sides of the bracket, IMO.
Candidly, I would like to know from the committee if the outcome would have changed any of the seeding.
Just heard Lunardi (so take that with a grain of salt) say he doesn't even think the SEC championship game outcome will change any seeding....only thing really in play potentially is if Rhode Island might change an AQ/at-large bid.
Next year....no issue as the BTT is a week early.
Good discussion nonetheless.
As much as I wouldn't want to admit it, if I had to pick a projected non-#1 seed for the FF, I'd take Duke over just about anyone....they can be beat, however, but they can win just about any style of game right now. A team like Louisville, Kentucky, and North Carolina.....maybe Kansas can beat them. I don't see them losing in the first two rounds, assuming they are a #2.
If the Duke that played during the ACC Tournament continues to show up, absolutely. However, they also recently lost to Miami - not a bad team, but a #7 seed, which is the caliber of team they'd meet in the second round.
Oh....all these teams can get beat......just playing the house odds for a change....and they don't seem to be playing tight at all unlike some of the better teams recently (Kansas and North Carolina, IMO).
Guarantee you UNC, Nova, and Kansas would all rather be 2 seeds with Gonzaga as the 1 in their region, than to be 1 seeds with Duke as the 2 seed in their region.
They don't deserve a 1 based on the entire seasons body of work. However, they just played the best stretch of basketball of any team this season in the ACC tournament.
Do they deserve a 1 seed? No, but they are playing like one right now. Unfortunately they are peaking at the right time.
7 loss Illinois received a 1 seed in 2001. No 8 loss team has ever been a 1 seed. https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/99083082/
If there were ever a year for it, I guess this would be the year. North Carolina has 7 losses.
My theory: Wisconsin was a 7 seed and Michigan was an 8th seed. Michigan played so well in BTT that committee switched them - Wisc to 8th, Michi to 7.
They said they were a 4 seed going into the ACC Tournament. So they jumped 2 full seeds just from that. That's pretty generous, not sure they deserved a 1.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Purdue recruiting Updates on two other Purdue commits that could flip
- Latest: NashvilleBoiler
-
