“It Really Comes Down to Who Commits First”

[BlueDevilish4857]

Selectively reading my posts again, eh? I actually pointed out that a good team has to be clicking in March (Villanova) and/or have a handful of legit future pros that can make up the difference (the reality is closer to having NBA talent that comes together at the same time, but that isn't always the case, as noted in some of your examples). It wasn't a mutually exclusive position that I offered, and was meant to construct a framework form which to present Duke as having an easier road to the Final Four in '10 and '15. Also, read my post again for clarity sake and also notice the word "typically" when referring to what types of teams win titles.

Once you aim to clearly respond to my actual points, and not simply to part of my thesis, I'll happily engage further with you on all counts. Also, your usage of a strawman argument is not appreciated. Take the whole of my argument, or leave it alone entirely. I do not wish to debate in terms of positions your create for me. I'm sure you would agree that that's only fair.

Your thesis if I'm understanding correctly is that "You guys have yet to have a "how did they put Duke there?" moment in years. I'm not sure how you can intelligently deny this. Even your bracket this year was comical when the NCAA gift-wrapped you a path to the Sweet Sixteen where one of the weakest #1 seeds in years awaited you."

My rebuttal to that is simply that the world did have "how did they put Duke there?" moments in both 2013 and 2014.

In 2014, Duke would have had to face #7 Tennessee in the 2nd Round, #10 Michigan in the Sweet 16 and either #1 Louisville or #5 Wichita State before the Final Four. These are all these team's Ken Pomeroy rankings.

Luckily Duke lost to Mercer so none of that materialized.

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

Your thesis if I'm understanding correctly is that "You guys have yet to have a "how did they put Duke there?" moment in years. I'm not sure how you can intelligently deny this. Even your bracket this year was comical when the NCAA gift-wrapped you a path to the Sweet Sixteen where one of the weakest #1 seeds in years awaited you."

My rebuttal to that is simply that the world did have "how did they put Duke there?" moments in both 2013 and 2014.

In 2014, Duke would have had to face #7 Tennessee in the 2nd Round, #10 Michigan in the Sweet 16 and either #1 Louisville or #5 Wichita State before the Final Four. These are all these team's Ken Pomeroy rankings.

Luckily Duke lost to Mercer so none of that materialized.

Deeper than that, I'm wondering if your fan base, and you on a specific level, believe that your coach and program receive preferential treatment - by and large - on selection Sunday.

Do you?

 

[2001Dukechamps]

Deeper than that, I'm wondering if your fan base, and you on a specific level, believe that your coach and program receive preferential treatment - by and large - on selection Sunday.

Do you?

No.

In fact, even if I were to undertake the task of putting forth a comparative analysis using advanced metrics to compare the teams both Kentucky and Duke has faced during our recent title runs, you'd likely somehow still cling to your biased conjecture.

See that's the great thing about advanced analytics and statistics in general for that matter - they're intrinsically unbiased and actually represent reality rather than subjective thoughts influenced by a hatred of Duke or Kentucky.

 

[Clive Gollings]

The last scoreboard has rustled some Duke jimmies.

 

[floatingyou]

Duke was the best team in the country in 2009-2010, only a fool would deny that.

We won the ACC Regular Season, won the ACC Tournament and were ranked #1 by Ken Pomeroy and #1 by Jeff Sagarin.

UK would have been underdogs vs. Duke had you guys just taken care of business and played us in the Final Four.

http://kenpom.com/index.php?y=2010

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/sagarin/2010/teams/

You for one should know anything can happen in any given day. ****in Lehigh and Mercer are on the phone for you

Would've could've should've . "If you guys had just taken care of business"...ha don't talk about our short comings in the tourney lately. And you haven't a clue about '10 if you Duke > UK

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

No.

In fact, even if I were to undertake the task of putting forth a comparative analysis using advanced metrics to compare the teams both Kentucky and Duke has faced during our recent title runs, you'd likely somehow still cling to your biased conjecture.

See that's the great thing about advanced analytics and statistics in general for that matter - they're intrinsically unbiased and actually represent reality rather than subjective thoughts influenced by a hatred of Duke or Kentucky.

Hilarious. So you created an account just to tell me that even if you presented objective data supporting your claim that Coach K doesn't receive a advantageous hand in the selection process, you'd still presume that I wouldn't take an honest look at it and change my view one bit.

Two things: 1. you're presuming to understand the totality of my response potential 2. that your data is going to lead you to a certain objectivity before you even start your research process. Those are two massive assumptions on your part, but given the rate at how quickly you started an account just to show me the way to enlightenment, it's not too surprising either.

Can you provide that data? Let's have it...

 

[KYtotheCore]

 

[TrustinCal]

NERD FIGHT!

 

[lakercat]

Only losers rely on KenPom to determine who is better than who. If you play a bunch of good teams, win one good game at home, and get your ass whipped in nine others, you are not a top ten team. Texas A&M had ten losses at the number 10 spot in KenPom's 2010 poll. Was A&M really better than Michigan State who was ranked 21? Getting punked by Kansas multiple times doesn't make you a top team. Besides, I love how Bluedevilish4857 created his handle a week ago. Was 2010 the first time he followed basketball?

 

[Cowtown Cat]

All I know is that in 2015, four of the five power five conference champions were on one side of the bracket. Those teams were Kentucky, Wisconsin, Arizona and Kansas, with Kansas being in Kentucky's region. Not only that, but ACC tournament champion, Notre Dame, was in Kentucky's region as well. A depleted Virginia team was the lone conference champion on Duke's side of the bracket. There wasn't even a power five conference champion in Duke's region whatsoever. You can throw out all the bullshit numbers you want, but those are the facts, Dukie.

 

[KnowsAllTellsAll]

A Duke fan really arguing that the committee doesn't give Duke a favorable bracket year after year? Now that is comedy (or denial).

 

[bnewt]

A Duke fan really arguing that the committee doesn't give Duke a favorable bracket year after year? Now that is comedy (or denial).

really is since both Duke & UNC get to play their early round games at home

 

[bucsrule8872]

I would have taken a draw of SDSU, Utah, Gonzaga, and Michigan St. to make the title game everyday and twice on Sunday (didn't include the first round opponent, as 16 seeds are all pretty equally weak).

UK ended up with Cincy, WVU, ND, and UW and that's as the top overall seed.

Then what about UW facing Oregon, UNC, Zona, and UK? Ouch!

The side opposite of Duke was just plain brutal compared to their side.

You can use stats and computer ratings blah, blah, blah. Bottom line is if you watch college bball you know the truth.

That year was a blatant example of the selection committee's incompetence, IMHO. That or corruption.

I don't necessarily buy into the "Duke conspiracy" thing.

My theory is that the committee tries to manipulate the brackets to create matchups for TV. Putting WVU in our region all the time (Cal vs. Huggins is good tv), IU and UofL often in our paths as well.

The committee knows what they are doing there.

In 2015, they wanted a UW/Zona rematch in the West regional. They wanted a UW/UK rematch in the Final Four. They wanted a UK/Duke final. They put UW on our side of the bracket to try to guarantee that. It didn't work, at our expense.

I don't necessarily think they wanted Duke to win it all, but they wanted that UK/Duke finals ratings bonanza.

The love of money corrupts, and it's no different in sports.