http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=6898

D1 Duke in Allen.

14-13, 5-11 in conference play

28th RPI and 5th SOS, thanks to a BRUTAL conf schedule with 2 games vs. RPI 1-3, plus 8 noncon rd games.

11

5-11 in conference... doesnt matter how strong the conference is. 12-13 seed and you are lucky to be in post season..

Yeah, personally I don't know how I feel about a team that finished with the worst record in their division and lost in the first round of the CT making the NT at all. 

SOS is important, but 2-8 in their last 10?

Posted by kannc6 on 10/3/2010 4:29:00 PM (view original):
5-11 in conference... doesnt matter how strong the conference is. 12-13 seed and you are lucky to be in post season..

This is not real life.  It absolutely matters how tough the conference is.  The ACC in Allen is significantly better than any conference in the history of college basketball.  There are plenty of NT teams who wouldn't win five games in that conference.

Frankly, there are some bad losses on that schedule, but take away the six losses to the top three teams in the country - teams no one outside of the ACC could beat - and they are 5-5 against a pretty tough conference schedule.

I really think we need to stop using our "real life" feelings to judge HD.  I'd say this team is clearly one of the best 64 teams in the country, probably an 11 or 12 seed.

might be a top 64 team and I agree sometimes HD conferences get skewed, but 5-11 in conf is 5-11... some bad losses in there... they are lucky to be in postseason..a half dozen losses to the top 3 teams helped them out RPI wise

Posted by kannc6 on 10/4/2010 1:28:00 AM (view original):
might be a top 64 team and I agree sometimes HD conferences get skewed, but 5-11 in conf is 5-11... some bad losses in there... they are lucky to be in postseason..a half dozen losses to the top 3 teams helped them out RPI wise

"a half dozen losses to the top 3 teams helped them out RPI wise"

I don't think that going 0-6 ever helps you RPI-wise.  One or two losses probably helps the SOS enough to balance the loss, but not six.  Sure, it didn't hurt them much, but it's not helping them. 

And again, 5-11 in HD isn't just 5-11 means you don't get in, the way it is in real life.  Would you say they aren't an NT team because they went 4-6 in the non-conference with those six losses coming to the top six teams in the country?  I don't think so.  Because of how unbalanced it is, conference season shouldn't be any different in HD. 

If there's something to be concerned about, it's the few bad losses, but those are balanced out with some very nice wins.

Well we find out tomorrow, up to 27th rpi now.

But as far as the computer is concerned, they also lost to #166, #115, #110, #73.  Aren't those, at least to the computer, going to sort of negate four of the 'good' wins?  I think, at least among the general population of users, if 14 - `13 teams that are 5 - 11 in conference start being high seeds you would get quite a bit of grumbling from , especially, people who don't take a close look at the schedule.  I mean, even as is, there is some significant disagreement from people who HAVE looked at the schedule.
 

 

 

Posted by a_in_the_b on 10/4/2010 9:31:00 PM (view original):

But as far as the computer is concerned, they also lost to #166, #115, #110, #73.  Aren't those, at least to the computer, going to sort of negate four of the 'good' wins?  I think, at least among the general population of users, if 14 - `13 teams that are 5 - 11 in conference start being high seeds you would get quite a bit of grumbling from , especially, people who don't take a close look at the schedule.  I mean, even as is, there is some significant disagreement from people who HAVE looked at the schedule.
 

 

 

We're talking about arguably the most dominant conference in the history of "modern" HD (yes, I know everything wrong with that sentence - the gist, however, is not wrong).

This is a very narrow set of circumstances.

But if you have a formula determine it, you have to build the formula off of the 99.5% of circumstances, not around the 0.5% set of circumstances, and unless you have a group of people making the decisions, you can't really have exceptions set up for truly abnormal cases.

Sure, I understand that, but so long as the formula doesn't automatically disqualify 5-11 in-conference teams, then it doesn't matter.  Fact is, almost no 5-11 in-conference teams will get in. 

Actually, if they don't make it, it will probably have more to do with that first round CT loss that they probably should have won.

Ended up with a 11, glad I don't have to play them.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 10/4/2010 9:31:00 PM (view original):

But as far as the computer is concerned, they also lost to #166, #115, #110, #73.  Aren't those, at least to the computer, going to sort of negate four of the 'good' wins?  I think, at least among the general population of users, if 14 - `13 teams that are 5 - 11 in conference start being high seeds you would get quite a bit of grumbling from , especially, people who don't take a close look at the schedule.  I mean, even as is, there is some significant disagreement from people who HAVE looked at the schedule.
 

 

 

Unless something changed with the new rollout earlier this year (and I don't believe it did, but not 100% sure), "bad" losses are not a criteria. Committee looks at them in real life and should here, but I had a conversation about it w. Admin and it was not part of the HD process.

And there is no question that Duke is one of the top 64 teams.