<p>Oh no, the Dookies lose again. Did someone say OVERRATED??</p>
<p>How can say a team with a 27-3 record, with the number 1 RPI in the nation and the toughest schedule in the nation, is overrated?</p>
<p>kklicker - Don't you have a bridge to go lurk under? Bye bye now.</p>
<p>dang nab it.... lost to UNC......... o man Duke got it within 3 on Nelson's three.... then blew it...</p>
<h1>$%*! Duke was awesome the first 3 minutes of the game, but it went downhill from there. :( I actually thought we might win in the last couple seconds...it looked like a come back... :( Tyler Hansbrough was on a roll tonight. :mad:</h1>
<p>duke probably shouldn't be classified as overrated, since that requires ranking a team based on predictions on how they would do against competition, as oppossed to the results of the games they played. Because duke played the hardest schedule in the nation(as ranked by AP) and beat number 2 texas to remain number one, eventually losing to georgetown but still maintaining the best record while playing the hardest schedule, they probably weren't overrated. Their ranking will now drop, deservedly so, but I hardly think it was due to a flawed ranking system. IT was more than their best player sucked the last three games and it showed.</p>
<p>its better this way anyways. The loss gives them more of a motivation to win in the playoffs. It's just like how teams can't go undefeated all throughout the regular and post season. They must lose a game to see their weaknesses so they can be better in the playoffs. I still have Duke all the way</p>
<p>Another bad game for Redick, thats 4 in a row. I don't like the way we're ending the season. If we lose the first game of the ACC tourney, we might find ourselves out of a #1 seed. Come Monday when new polls come out, we'll probably be #3 behind UConn and Villanova, and deservingly so.</p>
<p>The last time Duke lost on Senior Night, they went on to win a National Championship.</p>
<p>A few points:
Florida State is always a tough place to play. Not the best of road teams but lots of teams have trouble going in there.
To say that Duke is guaranteed a 1 seed is ridiculous. UConn is pretty much a lock, Memphis if they win C-USA tourney (and maybe even if they don't), then Nova, Duke, and Gonzaga are all dependent on conference tourney results.
When a team that's trying to finish off a perfect 16-0 conference schedule, and gets beat in game 15 by a team that was 7-7 at the time (and that win all but punches their ticket to the Dance), those fans should tell the #1 ranked team in the land that they're overrated.
The Big East is much stronger than the ACC. You've been watching too much ESPN if you think the ACC is still the best conference in the nation.
UConn is 7-2 against top 25 RPI teams. That's 9 games against teams in the RPI top 25. They have one of the toughest schedules around.
JJ is not only not the best college basketball player in the past 10 years, he's not even the best this year. Adam Morrison deserves POY.</p>
<p>Duke IS a lock for a number one seed. You do not know how the slection commitee works. They use RPI and SOS as a very large determing factor in seeding and wheather or not they get in. Duke has the top slot in both of those. Duke has a lot of quality wins, as much as any other team. Duke BEAT both Memphis and Texas, a number 1 and a number 2 seed.</p>
<p>JJ needs some time to rest and so does the entire team. I'd give them nothing to do until Wed, give them a three day break. Then I would do the same the next week gearing up for the NCAA tournament. 6 days of break in two weeks cant be nothing but beneficial for this team, and its not like being a little rusty will hurt them, as they play a high finish ACC team and a 16 seed team as warmups.</p>
<p>Duke isn't a lock for a number one seed. It's going to depend on how we do in the ACC tourney.</p>
<p>RPI...........
[quote]
** What is the RPI?</p>
<p>The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) has been used by the NCAA men's basketball committee since 1981 and officially by the women's basketball committee since 1984 as supplemental data to help select at-large teams and seed all teams for the men's and women's NCAA basketball tournaments. The NCAA does not make the RPI available to member institutions in-season because the data are kept confidential within the committees. Collegiate Basketball News duplicates the adjusted RPI that is generated by the NCAA to four decimal places using available formulas without input from the NCAA. The four component factors which make up the RPI are as follows:</p>
<p>Factor I is the team's Division I winning percentage and is 25 percent of the RPI. Games against non-Division I opponents are not included in the normal RPI. For the men, beginning in 2004-05, home wins are weighted 0.6, neutral wins 1.0, and road wins count 1.4, with similar weights given to losses.</p>
<p>Factor II is the team's opponents' Division I winning percentage, or the team's schedule strength, excluding results against the team in question. It is 50 percent of the RPI.</p>
<p>Factor III is the team's opponents' opponents' Division I winning percentage, or the team's opponents' strength of schedule, excluding results against the team in question. Factor III is 25 percent of the RPI.</p>
<p>Factor IV is the bonus/penalty portion of the RPI and when used in conjunction with Factors I, II, and III is called the Adjusted RPI. It is used only for the women's RPI at this time. Factor IV first starts with the "normal" RPI as described by Factors I, II and III listed above, and bonus and penalty points are then awarded in two different categories. The first is based on the team's non-conference schedule using the normal RPI ranking of the team's opponents. Bonus and penalty points in the second category are based upon winning games against top 50 teams in the RPI, and on losing to teams ranked lower than 150 in the RPI. Bonus and penalty points in the second category vary based upon the location of the game and are cumulative. A loss to a non-Division I team results in penalty points. The Adjusted RPI was first published in The RPI Report and The Women's RPI Report during the 1998-99 season (it is no longer used for the men beginning in 2004-05).
[/quote]
**</p>
<p>The RPI is very flawed. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a human who thinks that Wichita State, Northern Iowa, and Bradley are all better teams than Boston College, but the RPI seems to think so. RPI is used as one of many blunt tools, primarily to separate the teams on the bubble, NOT to determine who gets the #1 seed. There are plenty more important factors than the RPI once you get near the top.</p>
<p>Duke beat Memphis and Texas over 3 months before Selection Sunday, those wins are a distant memory in the minds of the selection committee. If you don't think that Last 10 has a fair amount of weight among the top seeds in the minds of the selection committee, you are wrong. You can't tell me a team that has lost 3 games in a row (which Duke could conceivably do) is a lock for a #1 seed.</p>
<p>They haven't lost 3 in a row. I don't think its so much that Duke is way better (at least not now) that its a lock for a number 1 seed, but who else should get it over Duke, there is no one. Also remember a few years back Duke lost 4 out of their last 7 and was still a number one seed. They have been 7 out of the last 8 years, 8 out of the last 9, b/c they got it this year.</p>
<p>................
[quote]
** Procedures for Seeding the Teams</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Each committee member lists the best eight teams, not ranked in order, from teams that are in the tournament as automatic quali¬fiers and at-large selections.</p></li>
<li><p>Committee members rank the top eight vote-getters from Step No. 1, using a cross-country scoring system.</p></li>
<li><p>The four institutions receiving the fewest points from the cross-country scoring are moved into the seed list in order.</p></li>
<li><p>The remaining four teams are held for the next cross-country ballot.</p></li>
<li><p>Each committee member lists four additional teams from the automatic qualification and/or at-large group. The top four vote-getters will join the four remaining teams on the next cross-country ballot.</p></li>
<li><p>Committee members rank the eight teams from Steps No. 4 and No. 5, using a cross-country scoring system.</p></li>
<li><p>The four teams receiving the fewest points are moved into the seed list in order.</p></li>
<li><p>Steps No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are repeated until all the teams are seeded, 1 through 65, for the seed list.</p></li>
<li><p>After a team has been voted into the seed list, it may be moved to a different position by a vote of all but two of the eligible voters.</p></li>
<li><p>The committee is not obligated to seed the lines in chronological order. For example, any time during this process, the committee may use the procedures to determine the fourth quadrant of teams in the seed list.**
[/quote]
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]
**What is the formula?
The basic formula is 25% team winning percentage (WP), 50% opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), and 25% opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP).</p>
<p>For the 2004-05 season, the formula was changed to give more weight to road wins vs home wins. A team's win total for RPI purposes is 1.4 * road wins + neutral site wins + 0.6 * home wins. A team's losses is calculated as 0.6 * road losses + neutral site losses + 1.4 * home losses.</p>
<p>For example, a team that is 4-0 at home and 2-7 on the road has a RPI record of 5.2 wins (1.4 * 2 + 0.6 * 4) and 4.2 losses (0.6 * 7). That means that even though it is 6-7, for RPI purposes, it is above .500 (5.2-4.2).</p>
<p>This "weighted" record is only used for the 25% of the formula that is each team's winning percentage. The regular team records are used to calculate OWP and OOWP.</p>
<p>As always, only games against Division I opponents count in the RPI.**
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that Duke will need to at least advance to the ACC conference finals to be guaranteed a #1 seed.
And what is wrong with Redick? He was horrific last night! When Redick is cold, he is really cold. </p>
<p>
[quote]
JJ is not only not the best college basketball player in the past 10 years, he's not even the best this year. Adam Morrison deserves POY.
[/quote]
Finally somebody who agrees with me. Adam Morrison has made so much more out of nothing than Redick. To take this further, I don't even think that Redick is the best player on his team. Williams is. His play is much more consistent.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Tyler Hansbrough was on a roll tonight.
[/quote]
Have you seen Hansborough play at all this year? Sure it was a great game for TH, but some of his other ones were even more spetacular.</p>
<p>I must confess that no, I don't keep up with UNC basketball. Shame on me. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I know you just said what it is hazmat, JWilliam was saying that RPI was a determining factor in seeding when up at the top it really doesn't mean that much.</p>