R-E-L-A-X

[Floorslapper]

Well I guess one way someone could argue with it is they saw the (actual) #1 team in the country actually play Duke in a basketball game without their 2nd best player and beat Duke.  That could be one way?

Still feel Duke isn't a lock for the Sweet 16?

[skianth16]

Well I guess one way someone could argue with it is they saw the (actual) #1 team in the country actually play Duke in a basketball game without their 2nd best player and beat Duke.  That could be one way?

He acknowledged that Gonzaga would win 4 of 10. And we saw them win the one they played. The point that Duke would win more of these matchups is pretty straightforward. You can't think that because Gonzaga won 1 game than they would win 100% of the time if they played multiple games per year.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Still feel Duke isn't a lock for the Sweet 16?

No one is a lock for the Sweet 16. Just ask Virginia, Xavier, Cincinnati, North Carolina, Tennessee, Michigan State, Arizona, Wichita State, and Auburn. 9/16 of the teams that by seed were favored to go to the Sweet 16 didn't make it last season.

Now if the question is do you think Duke is a lock to get a 4 seed or better? I would say yes barring catastrophic injuries. Hell, I might even say they are a lock for a 1 seed barring catastrophic injuries.

[Floorslapper]

No one is a lock for the Sweet 16. Just ask Virginia, Xavier, Cincinnati, North Carolina, Tennessee, Michigan State, Arizona, Wichita State, and Auburn. 9/16 of the teams that by seed were favored to go to the Sweet 16 didn't make it last season.

Now if the question is do you think Duke is a lock to get a 4 seed or better? I would say yes barring catastrophic injuries. Hell, I might even say they are a lock for a 1 seed barring catastrophic injuries.

Friendly wager of $100 that Duke makes the Sweet 16?  Yes - I'm offering this right now despite all of the time left for your hypotheticals to play out - injuries, unknown seed, bracket, etc.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Friendly wager of $100 that Duke makes the Sweet 16?  Yes - I'm offering this right now despite all of the time left for your hypotheticals to play out - injuries, unknown seed, bracket, etc.

I'm a state employee, there's nothing friendly about $100 for me

[brewcity77]

I would have given them a #2 because their record demanded it.

Then who gets the 1 over the 28-5 Big East Champs that had zero losses to non-tournament teams? A 7-loss Duke team that didn't win their conference regular season or tournament with two losses (BC & St. John's) to non-tourney teams? A Cincinnati team that was double-champs of a notably worse conference, lost head-to-head to Xavier, & had two top-50 wins to Xavier's eight? A 28-6 Purdue team that didn't win their conference regular season or tournament, also with two losses (Western Kentucky & Wisconsin) to non-tourney teams? Or a UNC team with a 25-10 record, including non-tournament Wofford?

I don't disagree that the advanced metrics didn't scream 1-seed, but Xavier's resume absolutely did. All the 2-seeds behind them had significant holes in their resumes that Xavier simply didn't have. Had Providence or Arizona State missed the tournament, had Villanova gone 16-2 to edge Xavier for the conference regular season title, or had X not been so lucky (10-1 in games decided by 2 possessions or fewer) then maybe you could make a case for someone else, but when you stack them up resume against resume, Xavier was clearly the fourth 1-seed. I really don't think there's any disputing it.

[BM1090]

Go ahead and use the writers or the coaches. I'll stick with Pomeroy - they saw what I saw last year and knew Xavier was a fraud as a #1 seed. Some here couldn't see past the almighty polls. LOL.

If Xavier was a fraud then what was UNC? Cincinnati?

Upsets happen. Xavier blew that game. If they don't then they probably go to the E8 or F4

[Lennys Tap]

Fair enough.  If we can ignore actual results and talk about a hypothetical 9 other games two teams will never play, I think we'd beat Indiana 9 out of 10 times and Kansas 9 out of 10 times, so to me Marquette is really the #2 in the country right now.

Impossible to argue with stupid. You win.

[Lennys Tap]

I'm surprised anyone would argue with this. Watching Duke play, it's hard to imagine anyone being able to hang with them by March, even if they have some hiccups along the way.

Some people are stubborn. Good news? If they'll gamble, stubborn people can make you a lot of money.

[GGGG]

Then who gets the 1 over the 28-5 Big East Champs that had zero losses to non-tournament teams? A 7-loss Duke team that didn't win their conference regular season or tournament with two losses (BC & St. John's) to non-tourney teams? A Cincinnati team that was double-champs of a notably worse conference, lost head-to-head to Xavier, & had two top-50 wins to Xavier's eight? A 28-6 Purdue team that didn't win their conference regular season or tournament, also with two losses (Western Kentucky & Wisconsin) to non-tourney teams? Or a UNC team with a 25-10 record, including non-tournament Wofford?

I don't disagree that the advanced metrics didn't scream 1-seed, but Xavier's resume absolutely did. All the 2-seeds behind them had significant holes in their resumes that Xavier simply didn't have. Had Providence or Arizona State missed the tournament, had Villanova gone 16-2 to edge Xavier for the conference regular season title, or had X not been so lucky (10-1 in games decided by 2 possessions or fewer) then maybe you could make a case for someone else, but when you stack them up resume against resume, Xavier was clearly the fourth 1-seed. I really don't think there's any disputing it.

Especially since three of the #2 seeds lost prior to the Elite 8.

Arguing that Xavier shouldn't have received a #1 seed last year is pretty dumb. 

[StillWarriors]

If Xavier was a fraud then what was UNC? Cincinnati?

Upsets happen. Xavier blew that game. If they don't then they probably go to the E8 or F4

Mack's impending departure likely had a lot to do with X stumbling last year in the tourney. From what I've heard that team and the coaches were very tight at tourney time last year because many knew (or at least strongly suspected) it was the last chance with Mack at X to get to the Final Four. It makes sense, because they played very uncharacteristically-panic set in early for a very experienced and typically clutch team.

[wadesworld]

Impossible to argue with stupid. You win.

I just did argue with stupid.  Stupid argues that the undefeated team that controlled a game without their second best player and took a win on a neutral court does not deserve to be ranked #1 over the team they just beat.

Who's your 1 seed over Xavier last year?

[jesmu84]

Friendly wager of $100 that Duke makes the Sweet 16?  Yes - I'm offering this right now despite all of the time left for your hypotheticals to play out - injuries, unknown seed, bracket, etc.

Your obsession with polls/bets on a one-and-done tournament result is baffling.

[BM1090]

I'm curious as to whether Ners would prefer Marquette finish the year 26-5, get a 2 seed, and lose to  7 seed in the 2nd round. Or finish 20-11 but win 2 games, make the S16 and come up one possession short of the elite 8.

[GGGG]

I'm curious as to whether Ners would prefer Marquette finish the year 26-5, get a 2 seed, and lose to  7 seed in the 2nd round. Or finish 20-11 but win 2 games, make the S16 and come up one possession short of the elite 8.

He would complain regardless

[Lennys Tap]

If Xavier was a fraud then what was UNC? Cincinnati?

Upsets happen. Xavier blew that game. If they don't then they probably go to the E8 or F4

Xavier was a good team with incredible luck - luckiest team in any of the power conferences per Pomeroy. Going into the tournament Pomeroy had them as the 15th best team, Sagerin had them 16th. Their luck was due to run out and it did vs Providence in the Big East semis and vs FSU in round 2 of the tournament.

What seed did they deserve? I guess their record says a #1 or a #2 behind Duke. But they weren't that good.

[BM1090]

Xavier was a good team with incredible luck - luckiest team in any of the power conferences per Pomeroy. Going into the tournament Pomeroy had them as the 15th best team, Sagerin had them 16th. Their luck was due to run out and it did vs Providence in the Big East semis and vs FSU in round 2 of the tournament.

What seed did they deserve? I guess their record says a #1 or a #2 behind Duke. But they weren't that good.

I agree with this. I just don't think that them losing to FSU validates your opinion when teams like UNC, Cincy, UVA all lost in the first two rounds and teams like Purdue and Michigan were one shot away from doing the same.

And I don't think Xavier winning 4 straight close games to reach the F4 would have invalidated your opinion, either. Judging a year based on NCAA performance is typically not a great idea either way.

[brewcity77]

What seed did they deserve? I guess their record says a #1 or a #2 behind Duke. But they weren't that good.

I think Duke is the only possible argument, but against very similar overall schedules (Pomeroy had Duke #30 SOS & Xavier #35) the Blue Devils lost two more games, and had two losses to non-tournament teams.

Saying Xavier was overrated is fine, and the luck difference in two possession games definitely pushed them over the top (10-1 for XU, 2-6 for Duke) but at the end of the day, resumes are built on results, and Xavier had better results than Duke by an obvious margin & than any other 2-seed by a wide margin.

It's possible for Xavier to both deserve their 1-seed and have been overrated. I think it's perfectly fair to say with the clarity of hindsight that both were true.

[Lennys Tap]

It's possible for Xavier to both deserve their 1-seed and have been overrated. I think it's perfectly fair to say with the clarity of hindsight that both were true.

Fair.

But last year (without hindsight) when I pointed out X was overrated, Wades said no way no how.

[wadesworld]

Fair.

But last year (without hindsight) when I pointed out X was overrated, Wades said no way no how.

They weren't. And the season proved that out as you shifted your goalposts. They deserved to be ranked in the top 4 and they were.

Unless you think Loyola Chicago should've been ranked somewhere in the top 4?

[jesmu84]

I'm curious as to whether Ners would prefer Marquette finish the year 26-5, get a 2 seed, and lose to  7 seed in the 2nd round. Or finish 20-11 but win 2 games, make the S16 and come up one possession short of the elite 8.

I actually think he'd prefer us to go 5-26. That way wojo (who he and others disliked before the hire was even announced) will be fired and Ners can gloat about his opinion being fulfilled.

[Lennys Tap]

They weren't. And the season proved that out as you shifted your goalposts. They deserved to be ranked in the top 4 and they were.

Unless you think Loyola Chicago should've been ranked somewhere in the top 4?

Are you a flat earther? Every advanced stat there is screams overrated. Sheesh. You are one thick, stubborn guy.

What advanced stats say Loyola was a top 4 team? None of course. But keep shifting. LOL.

[wadesworld]

Are you a flat earther? Every advanced stat there is screams overrated. Sheesh. You are one thick, stubborn guy.

What advanced stats say Loyola was a top 4 team? None of course. But keep shifting. LOL.

Says the guy who went from "we'll see what they're seeded come March!" To "they were overrated and that's why they didn't make the FF."

You can claim they didn't deserve a one seed or they didn't deserve to be ranked in the top five. You're wrong. But you can keep telling yourself that a 1 and done tournament is proof. Because Loyola was top 5 team in the country.

And you can claim Duke deserves to be ranked 1 by the "almighty polls" despite losing to an undefeated team on a neutral court that was missing their second best player. Again, you are wrong. But it's pretty clear nobody is going to stop you from making a fool of yourself. I'm glad you trust in an algorithm more than you trust in the result of a real live basketball game though.

[Lennys Tap]

Says the guy who went from "we'll see what they're seeded come March!" To "they were overrated and that's why they didn't make the FF."

You can claim they didn't deserve a one seed or they didn't deserve to be ranked in the top five. You're wrong. But you can keep telling yourself that a 1 and done tournament is proof. Because Loyola was top 5 team in the country.

And you can claim Duke deserves to be ranked 1 by the "almighty polls" despite losing to an undefeated team on a neutral court that was missing their second best player. Again, you are wrong. But it's pretty clear nobody is going to stop you from making a fool of yourself. I'm glad you trust in an algorithm more than you trust in the result of a real live basketball game though.

1960 just called to say thanks.

[tower912]

It is fair to say that Xavier was not a strong #1 seed.    However, it is also fair to say there weren't any other teams that could make a more compelling argument.     So, IMO, it is fair to say that Xavier was a #1 seed by default.