I can’t remember how many times Talking Heads talked about how strong the SEC was going into the tournament of 64. And then half of them would lose in the first round, and most of the rest of them would lose in the second round.
I know this isn't earth shattering news but Duke will be in for a rude awakening come tournament time.
- Thread starter Creed Bratton
- Start date
Yes this is my point. They haven't been tested in close games playing a horrible conference where they have stacked up on the weak competition. Relying on a lot of freshmen in those situations that haven't been exposed to that kind of pressure can be too much. We of all people should know that.
Agreed. But we also don't know how any individual team will react to playing their toughest opponents in a while. Based on their Illinois game, probably won't be an issue for them.
Of course 1-seeds have earned the privilege of playing sub-top-25 teams for two rounds anyway. And then who knows if the 4 or 5 will still be in it, etc.
I don't see why that's necessarily true. A&M or Mizzou could end up on the 4-line. At present you seem to have an equal shot at a 3. And we don't know how the teams around any of you will move.
Clemson made the polls by beating them, right? Regardless, polls are kind of pointless. Clemson's top 25 in efficiency and Louisville is borderline. But top to bottom the ACC is pretty lousy for a supposed high-major league.
I read that Clemson was 33rd when they beat Duke . But I agree, that wasn’t a bad loss . But it also wasn’t a good win for Duke . There’s no doubt that Duke is good. But they haven’t beaten many good teams. They’ve lost to 3 teams that were ranked when they played them . Wonder how many they’ve beaten? So they have a .500 record against ranked teams? I honestly don’t know. Or really care .
True. Your team is really high-variance and seems to mirror the level of competition. If you're a 4 or 5, you could easily lose in the first round or make the last 8.
For us quant geeks that's really interesting. KP has them 2 points/100 ahead of Auburn, which is a pretty solid margin. But Torvik has Houston ahead by a bit. I'm curious how their models are diverging here.
Oooh, a Talking Heads reunion! Oh wait....
That's true and tournaments are small samples of games. It's actually kind of silly to try to infer anything from, say, a dozen games. However this year's SEC is completely beyond anything that may have happened in the past. Per capita maybe the 1992 Big 8 was close, but otherwise this is far and away the best conference in modern history.
I'd be genuinely curious if anyone can state a true weakness this Duke team has other than "the ACC is garbage." Because the data states that the quality of your conference doesn't matter come tournament time. And the data also states that this Duke team is one of the best college teams of the past 20 years.
In addition, Duke has had brutal tournament draws the last 3 years.
2024: 4 seed (was a 3 or a 4) Kentucky ended up getting the 3. Duke was the 4 in Houston's bracket, cannot say that was a good draw.
2023: 5 seed (after winning the ACC tournament) with Tennessee as the 4 seed and Purdue as the 1 seed, again, Duke was projected anywhere from a 3-5 and got a 5, ACC being bad didn't help.
2022: 2 seed in the West with Gonzaga (the overall #1 seed and tournament favorite) in the bracket.
Or we can go back to 2019 (Zion year) when Duke got the #1 overall seed but due to regionalization got put with the #5 overall team (top 2 seed) MSU as the 2 seed in their bracket.
Duke getting an easy draw is a lazy excuse.
Now getting a 6 seed and having Kansas State be the 3 seed in your bracket (and being favored in that game as a 6) is an excellent draw!
In addition, Duke has had brutal tournament draws the last 3 years.
2024: 4 seed (was a 3 or a 4) Kentucky ended up getting the 3. Duke was the 4 in Houston's bracket, cannot say that was a good draw.
2023: 5 seed (after winning the ACC tournament) with Tennessee as the 4 seed and Purdue as the 1 seed, again, Duke was projected anywhere from a 3-5 and got a 5, ACC being bad didn't help.
2022: 2 seed in the West with Gonzaga (the overall #1 seed and tournament favorite) in the bracket.
Or we can go back to 2019 (Zion year) when Duke got the #1 overall seed but due to regionalization got put with the #5 overall team (top 2 seed) MSU as the 2 seed in their bracket.
Duke getting an easy draw is a lazy excuse.
Now getting a 6 seed and having Kansas State be the 3 seed in your bracket (and being favored in that game as a 6) is an excellent draw!
Last edited:
One of the things I see tho is people tend to throw around conference records in the tournament as some kind of sign the conference is bad or good. A couple things about that
1) this is an extremely short sample. The SEC could sh*t the bed here. It doesn’t make what they did in the non conference this season any less impressive.
2) not all conference teams make the tournament. But conference strength should always be based on ALL teams in a conference. This is why using tournament is bad
3) a lot of this is seed based right. There’s a difference between a conference having 5 teams towards the bottom of the seeding compared to say a conference with 5 towards the top. Using record is just lazy and poor. It should be based on whether or not a conference exceeded or didn’t their expected number of wins based on what seed they got.
All of this being said it’s all overblown. Being “battle tested” is frankly BS. Playing in a tough conference doesn’t make you any more or less likely to do well in the tournament.
1) this is an extremely short sample. The SEC could sh*t the bed here. It doesn’t make what they did in the non conference this season any less impressive.
2) not all conference teams make the tournament. But conference strength should always be based on ALL teams in a conference. This is why using tournament is bad
3) a lot of this is seed based right. There’s a difference between a conference having 5 teams towards the bottom of the seeding compared to say a conference with 5 towards the top. Using record is just lazy and poor. It should be based on whether or not a conference exceeded or didn’t their expected number of wins based on what seed they got.
All of this being said it’s all overblown. Being “battle tested” is frankly BS. Playing in a tough conference doesn’t make you any more or less likely to do well in the tournament.
While I agree conference strength doesn’t matter I would question whether they are in fact one of the best teams in the past 20 years.
If you’re coming to that conclusion by looking at Kenpom and concluding it by looking at the EM I think it’s a bit faulty. I don’t think you can compare EM across years. The EM for the current year is just based on how far you are from the average in that particular year.
Obviously the data shows they are very good. Obviously one of those teams in the bucket that can win it all. One of the best teams in the past 20 years? I’m not sure about that.
