Duke a one and uva a two and duke won nothing-horrible
- Thread starter noelr
- Start date
Didn't duke also have a higher RPI? It isn't like UVA was head and shoulders better than Duke. Duke beat them on their own court and they had one more loss than UVA with a tougher schedule. The committee has made it pretty clear over the years that winning a conference tournament isn't worth anything more than beating the same teams in the regular season. I think fans over value conference championships in relation to NCAA tournament seeding.
?
if anything regular season titles are more indicitive of who is the better team; neither Duke or UVA did much in the conference tournament.
I wasn't watching CBS so I didn't hear their explanation; whatever it was it was B.S. Duke should forced to play Belmont again instead of UVA
This post was edited on 3/15 6:58 PM by pittman71
Pitt got a 1 seed in 2008-2009 w/o winning conf or tourney...
There's precedent. I think UConn was a 1 seed that same year w/o winning either.
With unbalanced schedules, I don't think the committee cares about conference titles.
There's precedent. I think UConn was a 1 seed that same year w/o winning either.
With unbalanced schedules, I don't think the committee cares about conference titles.
Duke has the two best wins in the country this year. At Wisconsin and at Virginia. Winning on the road is the most valued thing in the eyes of the committee and winning on the road against two teams ranked number two in the country at the time of game is something that is looked at favorably. Duke's wins are better than Virginia's wins that is what it comes down to.
in 2009 Louisville was also a 1 seed, along with UCONN and Pitt. Louisville was the regular season conference champion, they weren't dropped to a 2 seed and Pitt wasn't elevated above them.
What the NCAA did was outrageous if this team wasn't named Duke it NEVER would have happened
What the NCAA did was outrageous if this team wasn't named Duke it NEVER would have happened
They also won the tournament title, UVA did not. Had UVA won the ACCT, I'm sure they would have been a 1.
With unbalanced ACC schedules, and the fact that Duke beat them, I don't think the committee cares at all about conference titles from an unbalanced league.
With unbalanced ACC schedules, and the fact that Duke beat them, I don't think the committee cares at all about conference titles from an unbalanced league.
The case I think would be the eye test, and also a realization that UVA with Anderson playing like he is, is not the same team.
Duke has wins @UVA, @Wisconsin. Wins on the road over a 1 seed and a 2 seed. UVA's best win away from home are 4 seeds in UNC and Md, but Duke also has the UNC road win. Duke also has a better RPI, better OOC RPI.
Duke has wins @UVA, @Wisconsin. Wins on the road over a 1 seed and a 2 seed. UVA's best win away from home are 4 seeds in UNC and Md, but Duke also has the UNC road win. Duke also has a better RPI, better OOC RPI.
I agree that UVA should be a one but instead of Wisconsin or Nova not Duke. Wisconsin got smoked on their home court by Duke and lost to freaking Rutgers (to their defense it was without Kaminski but that is still terrible). UVA having an RPI of seven killed them.
I would have picked UVA as a #1 seed, but the case for Duke ...
... is clear. Truthfully, I think UVA, Duke and Arizona may have all made a slightly better case than Villanova.
I don't have a problem with the committee's selections, with the exception of UCLA. I can't begin to wonder what they were thinking there.
... is clear. Truthfully, I think UVA, Duke and Arizona may have all made a slightly better case than Villanova.
I don't have a problem with the committee's selections, with the exception of UCLA. I can't begin to wonder what they were thinking there.
Similar threads
