Why did Duke receive favorable seed?-Whitlock

Home ▸ Archive ▸ College Sports ▸ Why did Duke receive favorable seed?-Whitlock
R

rock_knutne

Mar 15, 2010 8:42 PM
superman wrote: Without reading the article, I'm guessing race plays a factor in whitlock's mind.
That's also the first thing that came to mind.
Mar 15, 2010 8:42pm
M

mattinctown

Mar 15, 2010 8:50 PM
Basically what it comes down to for us Duke fans: if they lose early, we'll get the "they suck and didn't deserve a one seed". If they make the Final Four, it's "they had a cakewalk bracket."
Mar 15, 2010 8:50pm
G

georgemc80

Senior Member

983 posts
Mar 15, 2010 9:30 PM
Prescott wrote: if they choke now, they have nobody to blame but themselves.
Just curious....who can they blame for their past tournament issues? If not themselves.
Mar 15, 2010 9:30pm
Little Danny's avatar

Little Danny

Senior Member

4,288 posts
Mar 15, 2010 9:56 PM
Based on Whitlock's logic, wouldn't BYU have gotten a higher seed as well? I mean, that is probably the "whitest" school out there.
Mar 15, 2010 9:56pm
M

mattinctown

Mar 15, 2010 10:42 PM
What about Cornell, I mean come on, the committee LOVES them and gave them a 12 seed because they are white ;)
Mar 15, 2010 10:42pm
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Mar 16, 2010 12:04 AM
"they suck and didn't deserve a one seed"
WRONG!! Duke was probably just as deserving of the #1 seed as WVU was, although it is debatable. The problem with the bracket is that it has a #2 seed that has lost 5 of 7, a #3 seed that hasn't won an NCAA tournament game since 1956, and a #4 seed that isn't a true 4 because their best player is out. Would you rather play WVU or Nova? Would you rather Baylor or Georgetown? Would you rather play Wisconsin, Maryland, Vanderbilt, or Purdue??

The whole bracket is a joke.
Just curious....who can they blame for their past tournament issues? If not themselves.


C'mon you read the message boards. Redick was held all night. WVU played like a bunch of thugs. VCU was a bad matchup.
Mar 16, 2010 12:04am
Heretic's avatar

Heretic

Son of the Sun

18,820 posts
Mar 16, 2010 12:06 AM
I was totally with this article until the race bit came into play, because that's a totally subjective thing that can be GUESSED to play a role, but can't be proven. You can prove that Duke draws ratings, you can prove that the networks who pay big $$$ to air the NCAA love Duke, you can prove that the most well-known college basketball commentator masturbates feverishly over pictures of Duke players (and fans...watch out rec and others, Vitale has sprayed babies over pictures of you in Duke garb). You can't prove that Duke is super-popular because they tend to always have white star players.

That was just a stupid comment that, in my eyes, demeaned what was a very interesting look at how the teams fell as they did. When I looked at the brackets, the first thing I thought was that Duke seemed to have the weakest high seeds of any of the #1s. They've been shaky in the NCAA tournament recently and just got hidden from the best upper-tier teams. I think their toughest match-up is the 8-9 winner (at least if it's Louisville). This region is loaded with potential upsets with the recent play of Purdue and Villanova and with how Baylor is so new to this sort of situation. Compared to other brackets and particularly the Midwest, this set-up just has the feel of the people in charge saying, "We're going to line Duke up perfectly for a big postseason run — if they can't handle this line-up, so be it, but I think they can!"

There's a lot of ammunition out there (regardless of how "conspiracy-theorist" it comes off as). Bring up race not only is "conspiracy-theorist", but also is, by far, the weakest ammo one could bring to the table.
Mar 16, 2010 12:06am
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Mar 16, 2010 12:11 AM
Duke really does have an extraordinarily easy path to the Final Four, even if they might have to face a tough 9 seed (lol). Unless Purdue can figure shit out fast, the only team that has the talent to challenge Duke in the whole bracket is Baylor, who I have beating Duke, but Baylor's kids have never been in that spot before, playing an Elite 8 game in a raucous arena against Duke where they better be careful to keep their hands to themselves at all times or the fouls will pile up in a hurry.
Mar 16, 2010 12:11am
M

mattinctown

Mar 16, 2010 12:15 AM
I agree they deserve a one seed, I'm just guessing what all the haters will say depending on how they do :)
Mar 16, 2010 12:15am
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Mar 16, 2010 12:18 AM
Also, Whitlock is and has always been an imbecile. And Duke didn't really deserve the #1 seed over WVU, but it's not a tragedy or anything that they got it.
Mar 16, 2010 12:18am
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Mar 16, 2010 12:25 AM
I'm just guessing what all the haters will say depending on how they do
It isn't about THE HATERS. It is about looking at the brackets and realizing, without much thought, that the committee wants duke in the Final Four. There is no other explanation. Rank the #2's, the #3's, and the #4's and see which brackets they are in.
Mar 16, 2010 12:25am
F

friendfromlowry

Senior Member

6,239 posts
Mar 16, 2010 1:10 AM
Prescott wrote:
I'm just guessing what all the haters will say depending on how they do
It isn't about THE HATERS. It is about looking at the brackets and realizing, without much thought, that the committee wants duke in the Final Four. There is no other explanation. Rank the #2's, the #3's, and the #4's and see which brackets they are in.
You are hating the system and not the player, right? Just making sure...
Mar 16, 2010 1:10am
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Mar 16, 2010 1:19 AM
You are hating the system and not the player, right? Just making sure...
I am not hating anything. I'm just making a few statements.

Why don't you answer a few questions?

Would you rather duke play WVU, K-State, OSU, or Nova?

Would you rather duke play Baylor, Georgetown,Pitt, or New Mecico?

Would you rather duke play Purdue, Wisconsin,Maryland, or Vandy??

Your answers, if you are honest, will answer your question.
Mar 16, 2010 1:19am
M

mattinctown

Mar 16, 2010 1:28 AM
1) I would rather Duke play K-State because of the experience factor, plus Nova beat Duke last year pretty handily.
2) I would rather Duke play New Mexico because I believe NM would piss down their legs
3) I would rather Duke play Purdue because Hummel is out or Vandy because I believe they were overseeded.

Those are my HONEST feelings on the subject, so out of the #2, 3, and 4 seeds, Purdue is the only one I would want and that Duke has in their bracket.
Mar 16, 2010 1:28am
F

friendfromlowry

Senior Member

6,239 posts
Mar 16, 2010 1:36 AM
Can't answer fairly because I really haven't seen many of those teams in action. It's been a busy few months, and to be honest I'd rather watch the Cavs play most nights.

I'll answer to the best of my knowledge, though.

1. I'd like an OSU-Duke match-up; think that'd be really entertaining. The Buckeyes DID win the Big10, but they had a hell of a time doing it, and nearly lost the first game if it wasn't for Turner's miraculous shot.
I think 'Nova's experienced and tested backcourt will give ANY team a challenge, especially Duke. I actually have them beating Duke in the elite eight.

2. This is tricky because I haven't seen Baylor play at all, or Pitt, or New Mexico. I'm glad they avoided Monroe and GTown, though. Usually it's big men that give them struggles (Big Baby/Thomas and LSU back in 2006, Joe Alexander and WVU back in 2008, etc)

3. This is obvious: Purdue. They are completely overrated without Hummel, and I wish the committee would have realized this and looked at where they're going from here on out, not what they did before he got hurt. However, I wouldn't mind a Wisconsin or Maryland match-up. They both handed Duke losses this season with Maryland getting the last laugh - I wouldn't mind some revenge, and I think Duke could handle them.
Mar 16, 2010 1:36am
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Mar 16, 2010 1:41 AM
1) I would rather Duke play K-State because of the experience factor, plus Nova beat Duke last year pretty handily.
Have you seen K-State play? Do you know that K-State's starting guards and the leaders of the team are a senior and a junior and they start two other juniors and a sophomore

Do you know that Nova no longer has Dantae Cunningham(NBA player) or Shane Clark and they lost 5 of 7 down the stretch?
2) I would rather Duke play New Mexico because I believe NM would piss down their legs
Why wouldn't Baylor piss down their legs? The last tournament game they won was in 1956.
Mar 16, 2010 1:41am
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Mar 16, 2010 1:48 AM
LOL. Those are honest answers.
Mar 16, 2010 1:48am
M

mattinctown

Mar 16, 2010 1:50 AM
You asked for my opinion and you got it. Yes, I HAVE seen K-State play, and that is why I choose them. Don't ask for someone's HONEST opinion and then bash them on it. I would also prefer a Duke/OSU matchup over Villanova because I think Duke matches up well with OSU and would win the game. I have seen ALL of the above teams play, including Baylor, New Mexico, OSU, etc.....

Yes, I know exactly who Villanova lost, and I still would NOT take them over the other #2 seeds, including Ohio State. Yes, I know Villanova has lost five of seven, I'm not morbidly retarded.
Mar 16, 2010 1:50am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Mar 16, 2010 8:30 AM
"Why wouldn't Baylor piss down their legs? The last tournament game they won was in 1956. "

Sophistry, do you think anyone playing for Baylor now cares, the NCAA game is completely different than it was in 1956, or 1996 for that matter. Do you expect Kentucky to all of a sudden find tournament experience for their entire team just because they are Kentucky? Note, Wall, Cousins, Bledsoe and Orton are still freshman. Dodson is still a transfer. The rest of the team was in the NIT last year. I'm convinced a LOT of people haven't watched Baylor play all year. They beat Texas 3 times and gave Kansas a good game in Allen. If they didn't piss themselves then why start now?
Mar 16, 2010 8:30am
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Mar 16, 2010 8:40 AM
Baylor coach = piss down leg

Kentucky coach = not so much

That's the point being made, I tend to agree that Calipari certainly has the edge tournament experience wise.
Mar 16, 2010 8:40am
Heretic's avatar

Heretic

Son of the Sun

18,820 posts
Mar 16, 2010 10:00 AM
I think the only slam-dunk "who would you rather face" decision is with the #4 seed. With Hummel, Purdue likely could have gotten a #1 seed (they did only have three losses when he went down and had recently beaten OSU in Columbus...if they beat Michigan State and won the conference tournament, I think they could have only been behind Kansas and Kentucky). Without him, they're more of an #8-10 level team.

Due to their late-season slump, Villanova is a great pick to make as the #2 of choice, but I think Kansas State also would be a logical pick. Something about them screams to me that they're one of those very good teams that doesn't have what it takes to beat the elites. I don't feel them as having as high of a ceiling as many other high seeds.

#3 is a real cluster to pick. There's a mid-major, two good (if inconsistent, hell, Georgetown has double-digit losses) teams from the best conference and Baylor, who's new to this sort of prestige situation. I might go with Pitt. They're a young team that really overachieved (picked 9th in the Big East in the preseason) to get where they're at. Or Georgetown, as they're so up-and-down, it's easier to see them falling LONG before potentially meeting up with my #1 seed.
Mar 16, 2010 10:00am
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Mar 16, 2010 10:06 AM
You asked for my opinion and you got it. Yes, I HAVE seen K-State play, and that is why I choose them.
I am not bashing your opinion. You gave EXPERIENCE as a reason and K-State is experienced.
They beat Texas 3 times and gave Kansas a good game in Allen. If they didn't piss themselves then why start now?
I like Baylor. I don't see why any top 3 seeded team would piss down their leg.


BTW, Colin Cowherd agrees in part with Whitlock. Duke was given the easiest path because the NCAA and CBS are business partners. Duke gets ratings numbers, so the committee needs them to stay in the field. A contract is on the line.
Mar 16, 2010 10:06am
reclegend22's avatar

reclegend22

Cool Hand Luke

8,772 posts
Mar 16, 2010 9:44 PM
1. You can believe whatever you want to.

2. If Duke reaches Indianapolis, no one will remember Jason Whitlock's opinion, let alone who he is. And those who already do, don't care anyhow.

3. I hope CBS keeps its contract and signs a bigger one.
Mar 16, 2010 9:44pm
swamisez's avatar

swamisez

Senior Member

1,990 posts
Mar 16, 2010 10:13 PM
go figure Colin Cowherd endorsing a controversial POV to pull ratings.
Mar 16, 2010 10:13pm
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Mar 17, 2010 9:17 AM
no one will remember Jason Whitlock's opinion, let alone who he is.
Sure the will. Fans across the country are talking about the absurdity of the South region ans sports writers and commentators are using it in their columns and on the radio shows..

From New York Daily News.

Which, apparently, is well worth the magic carpet the selection committee has equipped Duke with.


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/2010/03/16/2010-03-16_duke_a_no_1_seed_the_eye_is_on_the_ratings.html
Mar 17, 2010 9:17am