Actually if you weren't busy trolling you would see that the post of mine you replied to was asking about North Carolina.

 

You may want to go back and look instead of trolling.

Your thread originated comparing Duke to UK and unranked teams.....then it "evolved" to Carolina. Duke has shown to be superior to all parties that you mentioned. Go ahead and pick another, and we'll start back up...... Let's start another thread tomorrow, as to why Duke is ahead of UVA, oops Duke beat them head to head.....oh well, we'll pick another.

It's not rhetorical at all. It's a legitimate question you tried to

Answer with a very flawed

Logic but thank

You for actually answering it finally.

 

Now to comment on this post. It is a very flawed

Logic when you say if they are ranked too high then they will get bounced earlier. That is wrong wrong and wrong. Don't you realize the higher you are ranked you get an easier draw? Surely you understand that. If you are a 2 seed you will play a 15 seed first. Last I checked a 15 seed team is worse than say a 10 or 12 seed for example.

 

A few people have said the same thing you said and are all wrong. Do you really think a team if given a choice would rather be a 15 seed than a 2 seed?

15 and a 2? Are you kidding me? That's apples and pianos, again......IN YOUR OPINION, what should Duke be? A 6? That's laughable with their resume.....I think at worst they're a 3, and there's very little difference between the lowest 2, and a 3.

Your thread originated comparing Duke to UK and unranked teams.....then it "evolved" to Carolina. Duke has shown to be superior to all parties that you mentioned. Go ahead and pick another, and we'll start back up...... Let's start another thread tomorrow, as to why Duke is ahead of UVA, oops Duke beat them head to head.....oh well, we'll pick another.

 

I was using UK as a comparison but could of been any school.

 

Never in here did I ever say UK should be ranked in the top 10. I would have had them where they have been and will be tomorrow.

 

My question was why is Duke ranked so high and to make my point more clear I then left UK out because all the duke fans and UK haters turned it I to a UK vs Duke thing which it wasn't meant to be.

 

You even admitted Duke moved up a lot after a loss and again didn't move at all after another loss which shows the bias I talked about.

 

Duke moves up after losing while UNC is at #14 and they BEAT duke. So wouldn't last nights loss be considered a good loss by UNC and shouldn't they move up at least 6 spots

Like duke did after a loss to a team ranked higher?

 

That is my point and questions I've been asking. Why does Duke always seem to get preferential treatment in the rankings?

Edited March 10, 201412 yr by PurplePride92
Edited Suke to Duke

15 and a 2? Are you kidding me? That's apples and pianos, again......IN YOUR OPINION, what should Duke be? A 6? That's laughable with their resume.....I think at worst they're a 3, and there's very little difference between the lowest 2, and a 3.

 

Especially in an extreme parity year like this one. Duke is just like a lot of teams in that they could get knocked out in the second round or win it all.

15 and a 2? Are you kidding me? That's apples and pianos, again......IN YOUR OPINION, what should Duke be? A 6? That's laughable with their resume.....I think at worst they're a 3, and there's very little difference between the lowest 2, and a 3.

The seedlings haven't come out yet so it's silly to talk about what they are now. If it was me they should be no higher than a 4 seed, maybe stretch for a 3 but no way a 2 seed.

 

You are the one who said if they are ranked too high then they will

Lose early I was only educating you what advantages a higher seed has which clearly you didn't understand because you make it sound that a 10 seed has an e asker path than a 2 seed for example

A conveniently overlooked factor when bringing UNC into this as a point of comparison is the fact that they've been paying for bad losses in the rankings all season. The losses to Belmont and UAB early kept UNC behind the 8-ball all year in terms of climbing the rankings. The three-game swoon to start January ACC play didn't help either (Wake, Miami).

Before you ask I will give you some

Schools that should be higher seed than Duke.

Florida

Wichita state

Arizona

Virginia

Syracuse

Louisville

Cincinnati

To just name a few

 

Am I saying Duke would lose to all

Of them? No not at all. I'm saying those schools deserve to be seeded higher than duke and probably even more out there.

I was using UK as a comparison but could of been any school.

 

My question was why is Duke ranked so high and to make my point more clear I then left UK out because all the Duke fans and UK haters turned it I to a UK vs Duke thing which it wasn't meant to be.

Do you see the thread title?

You even admitted Duke moved up a lot after a loss and again didn't move at all after another loss which shows the bias I talked about.

I clarified my opinion as to WHY they didn't move....the jump after the loss was much more than I anticipated, but I did expect a jump.

 

Duke moves up after losing while UNC is at #14 and they BEAT duke. So wouldn't last nights loss be considered a good loss by UNC and shouldn't they move up at least 6 spots

Like duke did after a loss to a team ranked higher?

This is the worst, by far, of your points as you are choosing not to look, with a sound mind, of the results of both games. Syracuse was undefeated, at home, and Duke was in drastic foul trouble, and put Syracuse into OT, and almost, almost won. Carolina got throttled last night.

 

That is my point and questions I've been asking. Why does Duke always seem to get preferential treatment in the rankings?

I think almost all top programs are given more of a "pass" then non-traditional powers. Can you explain how UK stayed ranked last week? I sure can't, nor do I care. I just wonder why you care so much about Duke?

A conveniently overlooked factor when bringing UNC into this as a point of comparison is the fact that they've been paying for bad losses in the rankings all season. The losses to Belmont and UAB early kept UNC behind the 8-ball all year in terms of climbing the rankings. The three-game swoon to start January ACC play didn't help either (Wake, Miami).

This sort of plays into it also. UNC has had a bad a stretch as you said yet they beat Duke. What does that say about Duke?

The seedlings haven't come out yet so it's silly to talk about what they are now. If it was me they should be no higher than a 4 seed, maybe stretch for a 3 but no way a 2 seed.

 

You are the one who said if they are ranked too high then they will

Lose early I was only educating you what advantages a higher seed has which clearly you didn't understand because you make it sound that a 10 seed has an easier path than a 2 seed for example

No I didn't.....don't put your words in my typing, as it's a slap in the face.

realtimerpi has them as #8, before today.

kenpom has them as #7, right now.

The rankings have them where they are, may drop a line or two tomorrow. There is ZERO justification as to having them AT BEST a 4.

This sort of plays into it also. UNC has had a bad a stretch as you said yet they beat Duke. What does that say about Duke?

 

That Duke doesn't have as many bad losses as UNC, and that the losses they did have came at better times in terms of preserving their rankings, and that this is a year when anybody can beat anybody?

Before you ask I will give you some

Schools that should be higher seed than Duke.

Florida

Wichita state

Arizona

Virginia

Syracuse

Louisville

Cincinnati

To just name a few

 

Am I saying Duke would lose to all

Of them? No not at all. I'm saying those schools deserve to be seeded higher than duke and probably even more out there.

Syracuse has lost 4 of the last 6 games, and has lost more recently to Duke.

UVA lost to Duke, and just lost (though they will have a 2 seed, and I'm good with that)

Florida, WSU, and 'Zona, I agree they should be ranked higher.

and that leaves Cincy and Louisville.......they both may end up a 2.....but I highly doubt it. You named 7 teams....that leaves one more 2 seed.....I guess Duke should have that one.

This sort of plays into it also. UNC has had a bad a stretch as you said yet they beat Duke. What does that say about Duke?

It says Duke got cold in the last 3:00 of that game, which it sounds like you clearly didn't watch.

That Duke doesn't have as many bad losses as UNC, and that the losses they did have came at better times in terms of preserving their rankings, and that this is a year when anybody can beat anybody?

What most of us have been saying......it's who, when, how the losses take place....and your surroundings. In a sport that IS actually settled by a tournament, this just doesn't matter. It has been spoken that the national rankings aren't a true indicator of seeding, why does anyone really care?

Do you see the thread title?

 

I clarified my opinion as to WHY they didn't move....the jump after the loss was much more than I anticipated, but I did expect a jump.

 

 

This is the worst, by far, of your points as you are choosing not to look, with a sound mind, of the results of both games. Syracuse was undefeated, at home, and Duke was in drastic foul trouble, and put Syracuse into OT, and almost, almost won. Carolina got throttled last night.

 

I think almost all top programs are given more of a "pass" then non-traditional powers. Can you explain how UK stayed ranked last week? I sure can't, nor do I care. I just wonder why you care so much about Duke?

 

I think UK stayed in the top 25 only because of their losses this year all but one until yesterday being in single digits and that includes teams like Mich State and Florida etc. But UK did drop after the losses.

 

To give you an example, UK lost to #2 team in the country at the time and dropped 3 spots. While Duke lost to a team behind them in the rankings the same week and only dropped 2 spots.

That is just 1 example that makes no sense. It was like that all year and just using UK as an exams again. 1 week after both had losses UK drops 7 spots and Duke drops 2. Just as an example. After UK loses 3rd game they drop to 19 while Duke is still in top 10 with 2 losses. 3 losses UK dropped 16 spots while Duke loses its 3rd and moves up 1 spot.

 

So after 3 losses for both teams Duke only drops 3 spots from week 1 while UK dropped 17 spots.

 

You can talk about teams they ayes all you want, there is no reasonable explanation why 2 teams who start in the top 4 at week 1 after the same amount of losses have such a disparity in the rankings. In top of that you look at UKs loss to Mich St who was #2 week1 while Dukes "good loss"

Was against a team ranked #8 week1.

 

No exam action other than true bias can explain the difference