The (actual) easiest roads ever to the Final Four

[cockydevil06]

I’m not going back and redrawing the 2010 bracket. I would have seeded them lower, but they were seeded exactly where I expected them to be. I’m sure they were exactly where you Duke fans expected as well.

If you want to dig through the archives and read the discussion about this from 8 years ago, be my guest.

and again, they were a 4 seed, top 15 on kenpom, WHO MADE IT TO THE SWEET 16.
If they were as week as you claim, they would not have made it past texas a&m, or even their 13 seed. I really don't take what a bunch of irrational UK fans think as an objective analysis of anything. I also remember duke fans being worried about purdue as a wounded beast. they were no longer a title contender, but still had 2 upperclassman stars in moore and johnson. but, just as all national champions do, duke won by proving it on the court. they beat purdue, beat baylor, beat wvu (which uk would have also done if they really deserved it) and beat butler.

 

[EliteBlue]

duke fan here. that purdue team had 5 losses entering the tournament, and would have been at worst a 3 seed had hummel not been injured. yes, they were without hummel, but it's not like they were a 2 or 3 seed, they were the 4th seed. they also beat their 13 and 5 seed to make it to the sweet 16, and finished the season at 15 on kenpom. Where do you think they should have been seeded?

It isn't that they hadn't earned their seed, it's that everyone knew they were on borrowed time and not a real threat once Hummel went down; to nobodies surprise the crippled team popped up in Ks regional.

 

[cockydevil06]

No, but they should have been paired with one of the teams that was clearly higher on the 1 seed line, meaning Kansas or UK, especially considering the fact that Duke, which should have been the last 1 seed at best (even though the selection committee decided to crap on a Syracuse team that had a much superior regular season to Duke), was also paired with what was CLEARLY the weakest 2 seed.

Duke did nothing to earn an easier path than UK in 10, 15, or 16, yet that is what they got each time.

so, you are saying that purdue deserved to be a 4 seed, but because the tournament committee had them as the 3rd or 4th best 4 seed, rather than the 1st or second best, that means that the committee gave duke a huge gift? am i interpreting that correctly?

 

[cockydevil06]

It isn't that they hadn't earned their seed, it's that everyone knew they were on borrowed time and not a real threat once Hummel went down; to nobodies surprise the crippled team popped up in Ks regional.

what do you mean by not a real threat? not a real threat to win the title? I would agree. Less of a threat to advance in the tournament than your average 4 seed? then of course i would disagree.

 

[Aike]

and again, they were a 4 seed, top 15 on kenpom, WHO MADE IT TO THE SWEET 16.
If they were as week as you claim, they would not have made it past texas a&m, or even their 13 seed. I really don't take what a bunch of irrational UK fans think as an objective analysis of anything. I also remember duke fans being worried about purdue as a wounded beast. they were no longer a title contender, but still had 2 upperclassman stars in moore and johnson. but, just as all national champions do, duke won by proving it on the court. they beat purdue, beat baylor, beat wvu (which uk would have also done if they really deserved it) and beat butler.

Right. Just like Loyola didn’t make it to the Sweet Sixteen. Winning 2 games equals mathematical proof.

 

[EliteBlue]

We benefited by playing a 7 seed for the title in 2014 (albeit as an 8) but didn’t take advantage. In 2010 yes duke had to beat a 5 for the title but also had to beat West Virginia (2) in the final four who had taken us out and beat Baylor (3) in the state of Texas just to get to the final four.

You're working really hard to act as somehow we were given a gift in 2014. It isn't like we had to beat an undefeated WSU, our instate rival (UofL(defending champ***)/when was the last time Duke and UNC were even on the same side of the bracket?), a very hot Michigan(2013 runner up) team that returned much of their title game team from the previous year, and Wisconsin to even get to the title game.

Ever heard of cumulative effect? Luckily this is the first year in a ling time were we should have the cumulative nature of having to play at your highest level for an extended time work in our favor and against other teams..

 

[mj2k10]

so, you are saying that purdue deserved to be a 4 seed, but because the tournament committee had them as the 3rd or 4th best 4 seed, rather than the 1st or second best, that means that the committee gave duke a huge gift? am i interpreting that correctly?

Absolutely.

You act like all teams on the same seed line are always pretty much equal, and that's total BS. They're not, and anyone who pays attention knows that. Purdue was incredibly sketchy going into the tournament that year, and the 2 seed in the same region (Duke's) had absolutely no business being seeded that high.

Just like this year. It's a surprise to most that Arizona got their ass kicked. It's no shock at all that Auburn did. Pretty much any year you care to mention, there are teams that at least appear much stronger or weaker who are seeded very close to each other at the top of the bracket. Sometimes people are wrong about their perceptions of that, but usually not.

 

[mj2k10]

You're working really hard to act as somehow we were given a gift in 2014. It isn't like we had to beat an undefeated WSU, our instate rival (UofL(defending champ***)/when was the last time Duke and UNC were even on the same side of the bracket?), a very hot Michigan(2013 runner up) team that returned much of their title game team from the previous year, and Wisconsin to even get to the title game.

Ever heard of cumulative effect? Luckily this is the first year in a ling time were we should have the cumulative nature of having to play at your highest level for an extended time work in our favor and against other teams..

Not to mention ignoring the fact that the 7 seed "gift' UK received in the final had, in its 4 previous games, taken out a 2 and 3 seed, then 4 seed Michigan State, then #1 overall seed Florida.

 

[stoneycat_20]

Everyone is talking about the Cats path..Well, Duke has a #15,#7,#11

 

[SomeDudeCRO]

Hah, that’s another thing entirely.... put Syracuse in 5e tournament questionably and do not place them against someone like Davidson who would annihilate that zone with 3 pointer after 3 pointer.

Picking them to make their sweet sixteen as an 11 seed was in no way unreasonable. Picking them to beat Duke who always has shooters on the other hand.

 

[EliteBlue]

Everyone is talking about the Cats path..Well, Duke has a #15,#7,#11

common place so nobody notices.

 

[cockydevil06]

Absolutely.

You act like all teams on the same seed line are pretty much equal, and that's total BS. They're not, and anyone who pays attention knows that. Purdue was incredibly sketchy going into the tournament that year, and the 2 seed in the same region (Duke's) had absolutely no business being seeded that high.

Just like this year. It's a surprise to most that Arizona got their ass kicked. It's no shock at all that Auburn did. Pretty much any year you care to mention, there are teams that at least appear much stronger or weaker who are seeded very close to each other at the top of the bracket. Sometimes people are wrong about their perceptions of that, but usually not.

That's a strange take, but okay. I think most people would believe that a team deserving of the national championship should be able to beat any of teams 13-16. that's what i personally believe. I thought duke deserved its seed last year, but didn't deserve a sweet 16 because it couldn't beat south carolina. Similarly, i thought Kentucky was reallly good in 2010, and probably the best team, but that they didn't deserve the national championship because they couldn't beat wvu. any game where one thinks the refs made their team lose is, imo, a game where their team left itself too slim of a margin for error.

 

[mj2k10]

That's a strange take, but okay. I think most people would believe that a team deserving of the national championship should be able to beat any of teams 13-16. that's what i personally believe. I thought duke deserved its seed last year, but didn't deserve a sweet 16 because it couldn't beat south carolina. Similarly, i thought Kentucky was reallly good in 2010, and probably the best team, but that they didn't deserve the national championship because they couldn't beat wvu. any game where one thinks the refs made their team lose is, imo, a game where their team left itself too slim of a margin for error.

Strange how, because you can't understand logic? It doesn't matter if you think any team worthy of a national championship should be able to beat any 4 seed (which is probably true). That has nothing to do with being angry when a lower rated Duke team gets (potentially much) worse 2 and 4 seeds than UK, or any other 1 seed that year.

That's why there's such a thing as an S Curve, exactly to avoid those type of things happening. Right around 2010, they started to ignore the S Curve (for geography taken to idiot level), and voila, the instant beneficiary is Duke, in a way that the selection committee seemed to go out of its way to make happen (put Duke at 4 overall, where EVERYONE had them- at best, because some had them at 5- and it doesn't happen).

 

[SomeDudeCRO]

Here duke fans’ posts are really making me wonder are 5ey really that stupid or are they being willfully ignorant.

Bias can only make you so obtuse.

 

[cockydevil06]

Strange how, because you can't understand logic? It doesn't matter if you think any team worthy of a national championship should be able to beat any 4 seed (which is probably true). That has nothing to do with being angry when a lower rated Duke team gets (potentially much) worse 2 and 4 seeds UK, or any other 1 seed that year.

That's why there's such a thing as an S Curve, exactly to avoid those type of things happening. Right around 2010, they started to ignore the S Curve (for geography taken to idiot level), and voila, the instant beneficiary is Duke, in a way that the selection committee seemed to go out of its way to make happen (put Duke at 4 overall, where EVERYONE had them- at best, because some had them at 5- and it doesn't happen).

I understand your logic, i just don't think there is any way to objectively agree on how to rank all 68 teams in the tournament, or that the vast majority of complaints about tough brackets are anything more than paranoia or built-in excuses.

Funnily enough, one of the very, very few times I thought teams had a legit gripe was when Wichita state drew UK as its 8/9 in 2014. i thought uk clearly deserved a much better seed. the deal screwed both teams equally, but i felt worse for wsu given how rarely they have a team that's capable of a deep run. At the end of the day, i still don't buy any excuses from wsu, though. if they really deserved a final four or national title, they should have been able to beat a uk team that imo deserved a 4/5 seed.

 

[mackwhiting]

I understand your logic, i just don't think there is any way to objectively agree on how to rank all 68 teams in the tournament, or that the vast majority of complaints about tough brackets are anything more than paranoia or built-in excuses.

Funnily enough, one of the very, very few times I thought teams had a legit gripe was when Wichita state drew UK as its 8/9 in 2014. i thought uk clearly deserved a much better seed. the deal screwed both teams equally, but i felt worse for wsu given how rarely they have a team that's capable of a deep run. At the end of the day, i still don't buy any excuses from wsu, though. if they really deserved a final four or national title, they should have been able to beat a uk team that imo deserved a 4/5 seed.

If it's paranoia you're looking for you have definitely come to the right place.

 

[Aike]

If it's paranoia you're looking for you have definitely come to the right place.

Fine contribution you’re making.

 

[coach-2]

We benefited by playing a 7 seed for the title in 2014 (albeit as an 8) but didn’t take advantage. In 2010 yes duke had to beat a 5 for the title but also had to beat West Virginia (2) in the final four who had taken us out and beat Baylor (3) in the state of Texas just to get to the final four.

Why don’t go slob their nob on their board? We getting sick of it over here.

 

[cats2010]

I think playing a Baylor team that had never accomplished anything was much easier than playing the Big East tourney champs at a Big East venue. Yes.

I’m just going to go ahead and mark you down as “Duke fan” and move along. You are working way too hard on this.

So we got screwed by having to play Marquette in Wisconsin during the tubby day’s but having to play Baylor 2 hours from their campus several years later would have been ok. We both know that had UK been put in that bracket and ended up losing to Baylor that would have been the battle cry in how we got screwed again. We already seen that with the Marquette game.

Hardly a duke fan, in fact I despise them, but don’t care for made up facts either to support an agenda.

 

[Aike]

So we got screwed by having to play Marquette in Wisconsin during the tubby day’s but having to play Baylor 2 hours from their campus several years later would have been ok. We both know that had UK been put in that bracket and ended up losing to Baylor that would have been the battle cry in how we got screwed again. We already seen that with the Marquette game.

Hardly a duke fan, in fact I despise them, but don’t care for made up facts either to support an agenda.

All of your posts are pretty much this same theme. So which team are you a fan of? On second thought, never mind. This is boring and I don’t really care.

 

[cats2010]

Why don’t go slob their nob on their board? We getting sick of it over here.

And I’m getting sick of some UK fans on this board crying about every damn thing under the sun. As a UK fan myself it is quite embarrassing.

 

[cats2010]

All of your posts are pretty much this same theme. So which team are you a fan of? On second thought, never mind. This is boring and I don’t really care.

So when you don’t have an answer just flee...those pesky facts again!!!!

 

[Aike]

Gotta love the angry trolls who get extra bent out of shape when UK starts sniffing a Final Four.

 

[mj2k10]

So we got screwed by having to play Marquette in Wisconsin during the tubby day’s but having to play Baylor 2 hours from their campus several years later would have been ok. We both know that had UK been put in that bracket and ended up losing to Baylor that would have been the battle cry in how we got screwed again. We already seen that with the Marquette game.

Hardly a duke fan, in fact I despise them, but don’t care for made up facts either to support an agenda.

Was Duke the #1 overall seed in 2010. You know, like UK was in 2003?

No one is "making up facts" here at all. You just don't have any facts, so you don't like the ones that are presented.

 

[IbnSaran]

And I’m getting sick of some UK fans on this board crying about every damn thing under the sun. As a UK fan myself it is quite embarrassing.

You need to move to the Duke board. Don't bother replying to me because you are on ignore going forward.

 

[cats2010]

Was Duke the #1 overall seed in 2010. You know, like UK was in 2003?

No one is "making up facts" here at all. You just don't have any facts, so you don't like the ones that are presented.

Sorry but the premise of my whole entire first post was that Duke had to beat Baylor in Houston to get to the final four (fact 1). UK fans would have cried foul had that happened to us like in 2003 (fact 2). No one has given me a fact at all other than to try and throw me off as being a Duke fan which is laughable. I’m all for a good debate and open to anything that is presented. 2015 Duke absolutely got a better draw than UK which they did not deserve (already stated that too). Don’t tow the company line, never have, never will.

 

[Aike]

Sorry but the premise of my whole entire first post was that Duke had to beat Baylor in Houston to get to the final four (fact 1). UK fans would have cried foul had that happened to us like in 2003 (fact 2). No one has given me a fact at all other than to try and throw me off as being a Duke fan which is laughable. I’m all for a good debate and open to anything that is presented. 2015 Duke absolutely got a better draw than UK which they did not deserve (already stated that too). Don’t tow the company line, never have, never will.

This is the last thing I’ll say on the subject. Really hate to repeat myself.

Every single UK fan I know would have rather played that weak Baylor team anywhere, than West Virginia in Syracuse.

If you want to pretend like that isn’t true, or act like you’re the one “UK fan” who liked our draw better than Duke’s, knock yourself out.

This goalpost moving about playing Baylor in Texas is ridiculous. Nobody was scared of that Baylor team. Not in the slightest. Everyone knew playing WVU in Syracuse was going to be a brutal challenge.

But whatever. Keep up with your nonsense if it makes you happy. Just don’t expect any takers among actual UK fans.

 

[mrbud]

Bottom line we should have beat west Virginia and wisconsin ,duke beat them . I would rather have tougher road in the tourney, makes your team stronger.

 

[FtCampbellCat]

Here duke fans’ posts are really making me wonder are 5ey really that stupid or are they being willfully ignorant.

Bias can only make you so obtuse.

Exactly....for all involved

 

[cats2010]

This is the last thing I’ll say on the subject. Really hate to repeat myself.

Every single UK fan I know would have rather played that weak Baylor team anywhere, than West Virginia in Syracuse.

If you want to pretend like that isn’t true, or act like you’re the one “UK fan” who liked our draw better than Duke’s, knock yourself out.

This goalpost moving about playing Baylor in Texas is ridiculous. Nobody was scared of that Baylor team. Not in the slightest. Everyone knew playing WVU in Syracuse was going to be a brutal challenge.

But whatever. Keep up with your nonsense if it makes you happy. Just don’t expect any takers among actual UK fans.

Our draw was perfectly fine and we should have beaten WV rather easily just like Duke did a game later. Cal coached a very poor game and it got us beat. You get to the EE you have to have all hands on deck to win regardless who you are playing. Maybe cal would have coached a better game against Baylor and we would have won, who knows. He certainly could not coach any worse than he gave us that game. Probably the poorest coached game we have gotten from him IMO.

 

[Indyadolph]

Never mind the seedings at the time......but 1980 sure set-up well for The Cats. If only.....
First Round game in Bowling Green. (Cats beat Florida State, I think).......(at work, doing this from memory).
Next two games in Rupp.
We lost to Duke by a point. Mike Giminski and Company. Fred Cowan carried us that game. We trailed double-digits at certain points during the game. Kyle Macy only had 6 points. He takes a shot at the buzzer for the win.....nope! No go. Cats lose.
However, if we win that Duke game, Purdue was waiting. We beat them earlier that season (in Rupp.....the UKIT) by 2 pts, I think. Woulda been a tough game playing them again, for sure. Would not have been as much a pro-UK crowd, as Purdue had a nice following (I attended both games).
Okay, so let's say Cats beat Purdue. Then.....a bus ride to Indy for the Final Four.
Woulda played 22-9 (or something like that) UCLA.....Larry Brown's second - and final - year as coach.
Win that.....and The Cats play louavul for the all the marbles.

Again, never mind the seeds......just the travel (or lack-there-of) played so nicely into the situation for The Cats in 1980. Just didn't happen.

 

[coach-2]

And I’m getting sick of some UK fans on this board crying about every damn thing under the sun. As a UK fan myself it is quite embarrassing.

I'm sick of "UK fans on this board" who bash other UK fans and defend Duke. As a UK fan myself it is quite embarrassing.

 

[UKat51]

We've heard a lot from the haters about how ridiculously easy our setup is. As if we actually have control over it.

But here are the easiest roads since the 1985 tournament expansion, by total seed numbers (eventual champions in bold):

1991 #1 UNC - 47 (16, 9, 12, 10)

1990 #1 UNLV - 47 (16, 8, 12, 11)

2008 #1 Kansas - 46 (16, 8, 12, 10)

1993 #1 Michigan - 44 (16, 9, 12, 7)

1999 #1 Duke - 43 (16, 9, 12, 6)

1990 #4 Arkansas - 43 (13, 12, 8, 10)

1986 #1 Duke - 43 (16, 8, 12, 7)

1999 #1 Michigan State - 41 (16, 9, 13, 3)

2014 #1 Florida - 40 (16, 9, 4, 11)

2008 #1 UCLA - 40 (16, 9, 12, 3)

2005 #1 Illinois - 40 (16, 9, 12, 3)

1999 #1 UConn - 40 (16, 9, 5, 10)

1994 #1 Arkansas - 40 (16, 9, 12, 3)

If we make it, our total will either be 45 (playing Loyola) or 41 (playing Nevada). So yes, we'll make the list. But it's about time we got some luck.

Look at how chalk-lined our road to EVERY Final Four since 1985 has been:

1993 #1 UK = 32 (lowest possible for a 1 seed = 30)

1996 #1 UK = 31 (lowest possible = 30)

1997 #1 UK = 30 (lowest possible = 30)

1998 #2 UK = 32 (lowest possible for a 2 seed = 26)

2011 #4 UK = 21 (lowest possible for a 4 seed = 21)

2012 #1 UK = 31 (lowest possible = 30)

2014 #8 UK = 16 (lowest possible for an 8 seed = 16)

2015 #1 UK = 32 (lowest possible = 30)

Even in 1998, UK just faced a 10 (instead of a 7) and a 6 (instead of a 3) to account for the difference.

So we're due for this. I hope we take advantage and that everyone else keeps crying the whole way!

Please send this to Paul Finebaum. Good research

 

[SomeDudeCRO]

These duke fans complain of fans being fanatical... ofcourse fans will be over the top, irrational and sensationalize things.

But that's way better than sticking your head in the sand and not opening your eyes to the very clear reality the OP data suggests.

Instead you make lame arguments with respect to teams like WVU like you don't even understand basic kids' games like paper rock scissors or have never actually played sports even as kids with the understanding other things matter and obviously the best team doesn't always win. This applies to Duke basketball as well; they were clearly the best team in the nation multiple times that they didn't win at all the same way they clearly weren't the best team in the nation the last two times they did.

 

[Jakarii]

If you look at the teams that were those seeds you will see that those weren’t easy roads. Especially when you factor in how top players stayed in college. How come some feel that they have to explain or make it seem like something is harder than it is??? This may be the easiest road every to the final four (I think it is) and you know what.....SO FU*%ING WHAT!!!!

In the end if you get to the final four or win a title in the tournament it doesn’t matter who you played to get there was a fan does it? If UK wins the title will it be diminished to you if people say the road was easy to get there? Will you say “ I like this title but I would like it even more if the road to get there was harder” lol. This is in the same category of Duke fans who used to say “ I rather win a title with non OAD talent then with how UK is doing it”

I know for some fans it’s a no win situation where they will say the road to get there is harder than it really is or if it’s easy they will try to make it harder than it is, they will always have the me against the world complex over reality. That’s great as a coach or player though to keep you motivated, crying as a fan

We've heard a lot from the haters about how ridiculously easy our setup is. As if we actually have control over it.

But here are the easiest roads since the 1985 tournament expansion, by total seed numbers (eventual champions in bold):

1991 #1 UNC - 47 (16, 9, 12, 10)

1990 #1 UNLV - 47 (16, 8, 12, 11)

2008 #1 Kansas - 46 (16, 8, 12, 10)

1993 #1 Michigan - 44 (16, 9, 12, 7)

1999 #1 Duke - 43 (16, 9, 12, 6)

1990 #4 Arkansas - 43 (13, 12, 8, 10)

1986 #1 Duke - 43 (16, 8, 12, 7)

1999 #1 Michigan State - 41 (16, 9, 13, 3)

2014 #1 Florida - 40 (16, 9, 4, 11)

2008 #1 UCLA - 40 (16, 9, 12, 3)

2005 #1 Illinois - 40 (16, 9, 12, 3)

1999 #1 UConn - 40 (16, 9, 5, 10)

1994 #1 Arkansas - 40 (16, 9, 12, 3)

If we make it, our total will either be 45 (playing Loyola) or 41 (playing Nevada). So yes, we'll make the list. But it's about time we got some luck.

Look at how chalk-lined our road to EVERY Final Four since 1985 has been:

1993 #1 UK = 32 (lowest possible for a 1 seed = 30)

1996 #1 UK = 31 (lowest possible = 30)

1997 #1 UK = 30 (lowest possible = 30)

1998 #2 UK = 32 (lowest possible for a 2 seed = 26)

2011 #4 UK = 21 (lowest possible for a 4 seed = 21)

2012 #1 UK = 31 (lowest possible = 30)

2014 #8 UK = 16 (lowest possible for an 8 seed = 16)

2015 #1 UK = 32 (lowest possible = 30)

Even in 1998, UK just faced a 10 (instead of a 7) and a 6 (instead of a 3) to account for the difference.

So we're due for this. I hope we take advantage and that everyone else keeps crying the whole way!

 

[83Cat]

Crazy...the conspiracy is no longer such...it’s FACT!