If anything that this season of college basketball has shown me is to expect the unexpected. Everybody sucks.

These two statements contradict themselves.

 

To an extent yes but finishing 5th in the conference standings at the end of the season will and should play a part in their seeding regardless of winning the tournament. Duke will not be a #1 seed.

Yet you think UK deserves the same seed as Duke? How?

 

They've won 10 in a row, SEC regular season champs and in the SEC Tournament championship game. Only one bad loss this season. One loss total after January and that was a true road game vs. a ranked team.

If anything that this season of college basketball has shown me is to expect the unexpected. Everybody sucks.

 

I will agree that the tournament is wide open and seeding really doesn't matter. It's fun to talk about though (with people I like) :lol2:

They've won 10 in a row, SEC regular season champs and in the SEC Tournament championship game. Only one bad loss this season. One loss total after January and that was a true road game vs. a ranked team.

 

10 in a row means little to nothing in the SEC.

 

How many quality wins does each team have?

I will agree that the tournament is wide open and seeding really doesn't matter. It's fun to talk about though (with people I like) :lol2:

 

Talking with people on here vs people on social media is a completely difference experience :lol2:

To an extent yes but finishing 5th in the conference standings at the end of the season will and should play a part in their seeding regardless of winning the tournament. Duke will not be a #1 seed.

 

Agreed. Duke will not be a one seed!

If anything that this season of college basketball has shown me is to expect the unexpected. Everybody sucks.

 

Especially the bubble teams.

No case can be made for UNC over Duke IMO. 1 less loss and 2 losses to Duke.

 

This and Gonzaga being Gonzaga is why I feel it is possible we could see Duke with a 1 seed tomorrow.

Especially the bubble teams.

 

I know Butler isn't a bubble team but they have absolutely driven me nuts this season. I'll probably still have them going to the Final Four on my bracket but they have some awesome wins and some stupid losses. That's really the story of everyone's season this year. My 1 seeds would be Villanova, Duke, Kansas and UK and my reasoning is because I said so.

No case can be made for UNC over Duke IMO. 1 less loss and 2 losses to Duke.

 

Before the ACC Tournament, there was no doubt that UNC had a better case. If Duke had lost even one of these games, I think it would have still been iffy. To my eyes, in the comparison, this is what UNC has:

 

Better RPI, better record against extremely similar SOS, better conference record in the best conference, far better record on the road, almost same record in last 12.

 

But, Duke has won 2 of 3, including the neutral court matchup, now has more wins against the RPI top 25 and top 50, and a better record in neutral court games. I posed the question at the beginning of the thread, but hadn't really looked at it. Now, I think it seems clear they'll elevate over UNC, if either does.

 

To me, Villanova and Kansas are locks. I expect that if Arizona wins the Pac-12 that they may have played themselves into the West 1. If not Arizona, then I really do believe they'll give it to Gonzaga. I just don't see them giving four teams east of the Rockies all the 1 seeds when they have some comparable western teams. At that point, I believe it'll come down to UNC, Gonzaga (assuming Arizona wins), Duke, and Kentucky. Oregon will drop based on injury and a loss to Arizona (my belief), and no one else is close. Maybe the only dark horse wild card would be UCLA, which has the most atrocious SOS among anyone near contention.

 

If Duke gets a 1 seed, they'll have the most regular season losses of any team ever to be elevated to the 1 line.

Duke has played (and beaten) more ranked teams since the beginning of February than UK has played all year.

Duke has played (and beaten) more ranked teams since the beginning of February than UK has played all year.

 

Damn. Is that true?

Before the ACC Tournament, there was no doubt that UNC had a better case. If Duke had lost even one of these games, I think it would have still been iffy. To my eyes, in the comparison, this is what UNC has:

 

Better RPI, better record against extremely similar SOS, better conference record in the best conference, far better record on the road, almost same record in last 12.

 

But, Duke has won 2 of 3, including the neutral court matchup, now has more wins against the RPI top 25 and top 50, and a better record in neutral court games. I posed the question at the beginning of the thread, but hadn't really looked at it. Now, I think it seems clear they'll elevate over UNC, if either does.

 

To me, Villanova and Kansas are locks. I expect that if Arizona wins the Pac-12 that they may have played themselves into the West 1. If not Arizona, then I really do believe they'll give it to Gonzaga. I just don't see them giving four teams east of the Rockies all the 1 seeds when they have some comparable western teams. At that point, I believe it'll come down to UNC, Gonzaga (assuming Arizona wins), Duke, and Kentucky. Oregon will drop based on injury and a loss to Arizona (my belief), and no one else is close. Maybe the only dark horse wild card would be UCLA, which has the most atrocious SOS among anyone near contention.

 

If Duke gets a 1 seed, they'll have the most regular season losses of any team ever to be elevated to the 1 line.

 

I'm right there with you.

10 in a row means little to nothing in the SEC.

 

How many quality wins does each team have?

 

Duke has four more over the RPI top 25 and two more over the top 50 (but also two more losses in that group). Kentucky has the better record against the top 100, a better RPI, a better record against a SOS in shouting distance (13 for Duke, 24 for UK), a perfect record on neutral courts (but at current three less wins), and a much better road record. Both the losses to NC State and Syracuse are considered worse than Kentucky's loss to Tennessee ('Cuse just barely - NC State is the only sub 100 loss for either). All of Kentucky's other losses came against the top 15 in RPI, with four of the same for Duke (two in the 40s for Duke).

 

To my eyes, their resumes are pretty similar, with Duke having some more wins at the top, but also having some poor losses at the bottom. They've got stronger momentum going in, and they sure as heck are passing the eye test better given the strength of these recent wins (Kentucky's aren't anything to scoff at based on RPI, but Duke's are top tier). I personally think Duke would have a better case, but I do think they're very, very comparable.