|
tomegun
1. You speak of failing to win the entire championship with talent as though that should determine a 1 seed. Fab Five went to two consecutive NCAA finals with arguably the most talent ever on one team. They lost to . . . Duke and UNC. Hmmmm - is that a pattern?
2. How many times do I have to agree that Duke could be lower than a 1 seed because of both the 6-4 finish and the conference final loss? I could go with OSU or UCONN as a sub for Duke. With that in mind, Duke still is #1 in the RPI, which is a very strong determining factor, and should mean a 2 seed at a minimum (remember 1 up, 1 down as a rule of thumb). and Duke played a stretch run schedule that was far stronger than any othe contender for the #1 seed, something the committee must have considered.
3. Past performance. You say Duke is overrated traditionally. I say there are 4 #1 seeds every year, and Final Four appearance is the sole factor to consider when validating a 1 seed. All 1 seeds should arguably make the Final Four every year. GUESS WHAT - Duke has more consistently made the Final Four under K than any other team in the entire history of NCAA basketball with one exception - John Wooden's UCLA teams. Not just current teams, we are talking about all teams for all time. I wasn't a UCLA fan when they were at the end of their run, but I wouldn't think of arguing that they were overrated. Similarly, I am not a Duke fan, but they clearly are not overrated - they are consistently better than any other team currently playing, and better than any other team in history other than UCLA. How a team with that track record can be overrated is beyond me.
As for UNC this year, they are Top 20 RPI (which justifies a 5 seed), they are a 6 seed, which again can be defended from the 1 up, 1 down theory - but should be defended in terms of why they are lower than their RPI justifies, not why they are too high.
|