virginia got boned

[Garbs]

There's just too many teams to make for even schedules. Thus I think the only solution is to put less emphasis on who won the regular season ACC when doing seeding...Or at the very least, look at record against common opponents.

I could be wrong but I don't think they look at conference record anymore

 

[RandygoCuse]

I could be wrong but I don't think they look at conference record anymore

I'm sure you're right. I just meant if the committee was trying to figure out which team was better, they may want to look at how they did against the same opponents - not necessarily who did better in conference.

 

[CorduroyG]

I'm sure you're right. I just meant if the committee was trying to figure out which team was better, they may want to look at how they did against the same opponents - not necessarily who did better in conference.

in the regular season against common opponents virginia went 17-2 and duke went 15-4. that doesnt include duke's win over uva. but virginia would still have a better record if you give duke another win and uva another loss.

 

[HOFCeluck]

in the regular season against common opponents virginia went 17-2 and duke went 15-4. that doesnt include duke's win over uva. but virginia would still have a better record if you give duke another win and uva another loss.

Duke had better wins, including a win AT Uva which for some reason holds no weight wight you.

You're basically just cerry picking the stats that fit your agenda and disregarding everything else as irrelevant.

 

[CorduroyG]

Duke had better wins, including a win AT Uva which for some reason holds no weight wight you.

You're basically just cerry picking the stats that fit your agenda and disregarding everything else as irrelevant.

how am i cherry picking?? he asked for record against common opponents, i gave it to him. virginia had a better record against common opponents even if you include duke's head to head win over them. to me that wipes out the unbalanced schedule excuse. again, uva went 4-0 against the teams duke lost to. that tells me that virginia wouldnt have done any worse playing duke's acc schedule.

a team that doesnt win their conference regular season and doesnt even get to their conference championship game doesnt deserve a 1 seed. find me another 1 seed that did that. yea duke won at wisconsin and at uva, tremendous wins. dont get blown out at home to an nit team and dont lose before the championship game of your tourny. to me you have to accomplish something to earn a 1 seed, not just beat wisconsin in november.

 

[HOFCeluck]

how am i cherry picking?? he asked for record against common opponents, i gave it to him. virginia had a better record against common opponents even if you include duke's head to head win over them. to me that wipes out the unbalanced schedule excuse. again, uva went 4-0 against the teams duke lost to. that tells me that virginia wouldnt have done any worse playing duke's acc schedule.

a team that doesnt win their conference regular season and doesnt even get to their conference championship game doesnt deserve a 1 seed. find me another 1 seed that did that. yea duke won at wisconsin and at uva, tremendous wins. dont get blown out at home to an nit team and dont lose before the championship game of your tourny. to me you have to accomplish something to earn a 1 seed, not just beat wisconsin in november.

You're cherry picking the 4-0 mark as if it's the end all be all (never mind traditional metrics such as RPI, SOS, and quality wins, all of which favor Duke). BTW...Duke went 4-0 against teams Uva lost to as well...INCLUDING a win over Uva in their own barn.

And to answer your question, Pitt and UConn neither won the conference or made the BECG in 2009 (Louisville did both.) Texas was a one seed in 2003, and also did neither.

 

[El Jefe Syr]

they win the acc regular season which is obvious from the tourny results the best conference in the country. duke gets the 1 seed over them even though they didnt win the acc and got as far as virginia in the conference tourny. they get a 2 seed and their reward is a 2nd round matchup with a team that gets to the 2nd weekend just about every year and has 1 of the best coaches of all time. and not only that, but the team that knocked them out of the tourny last year. and a team that was playing more like a 2 seed the last month or so than a 10 seed.

imagine if we won the acc but didnt get a 1 seed and see freakin michigan st staring at us in the 2nd round? meanwhile duke's road is another cakewalk. so typical.

I definitely hear what you're saying in terms of seeding and fairness, but if UVA can't beat a decent, but far from outstanding, MSU team, then there isn't reason to quibble too much. Winning in March requires something extra and you can't just rest on your laurels for the first weekend and expect to make it out. I like UVA a lot and was dissappointed to see them lose early, but in the tournament, hungry teams tend to put their offense into another gear and take chances they ordinarily wouldn't in the regular season. So if you're a defense-minded team you either have to shut it down or boost your own scoring too. (As others have said, the 2000-2010-era Pitt teams wrote the book on this phenomenon.)

TB is a great coach and I think he'll figure this out in the years to come.

 

[Garbs]

I'm sure you're right. I just meant if the committee was trying to figure out which team was better, they may want to look at how they did against the same opponents - not necessarily who did better in conference.

I think that is exactly what they do. They moved away from conference record because most conferences do not have balanced schedules, but absolutely focus on common opponents.