[teejers1]

And that's why the WBB loss to Harvard is really not that bothersome.  Stanford was missing its 2 best players, and Harvard had a tremendous baller in Feaster.  Actually, the outcome was not that surprising, n/w/s the 1 v 16 seeding matchup.

By and large, the sickening losses to lower seeds under Tara are pretty far and few between.  MBB had an arguable run of "underperformance to seed" under Montgomery, but I suspect most here yearn for a return to those days of "underperformance."  I always thought Monty's teams maxed out on-court play earlier in the season than did rest of college basketball; thus, the "upsets" weren't all that shocking. 

The main disappointments on men's side from yesteryear:  loss to Alabama in NCAAs (just brutal); having a certain player take way too many minutes from Julius Barnes at the point (which often included the package deal of relegating Childress to the bench).  But other than those, most of the other tough/memorable losses - to Gonzaga in Seattle, to UNC in Birmingham, to Maryland at The Pond - aren't that surprising. 

[teejers1]

And that's why the WBB loss to Harvard is really not that bothersome.  Stanford was missing its 2 best players, and Harvard had a tremendous baller in Feaster.  Actually, the outcome was not that surprising, n/w/s the 1 v 16 seeding matchup.

By and large, the sickening losses to lower seeds under Tara are pretty far and few between.  MBB had an arguable run of "underperformance to seed" under Montgomery, but I suspect most here yearn for a return to those days of "underperformance."  I always thought Monty's teams maxed out on-court play earlier in the season than did rest of college basketball; thus, the "upsets" weren't all that shocking. 

The main disappointments on men's side from yesteryear:  loss to Alabama in NCAAs (just brutal); having a certain player take way too many minutes from Julius Barnes at the point (which often included the package deal of relegating Childress to the bench).  But other than those, most of the other tough/memorable losses - to Gonzaga in Seattle, to UNC in Birmingham, to Maryland at The Pond - aren't that surprising. 

[BostonCard]

Well, Harvard did lose in the next round to the 8 seed (Arkansas?), so they weren't that good.

BC

[BostonCard]

Well, Harvard did lose in the next round to the 8 seed (Arkansas?), so they weren't that good.

BC

[Jskass]

i just saw the road episode of their going to Voodoo donuts. If they visited the one in Eugene BEFORE playing Oregon, then I understand the loss. Key is to not go to this place again. Look at their website. That could weigh you down big time.

[Jskass]

i just saw the road episode of their going to Voodoo donuts. If they visited the one in Eugene BEFORE playing Oregon, then I understand the loss. Key is to not go to this place again. Look at their website. That could weigh you down big time.

[BobK]

Oh Jsk.  You just have to go to voodo sometime

[BobK]

Oh Jsk.  You just have to go to voodo sometime

[TheFarm07]

UCLA beat Arizona, so no rematch to avenge the terrible loss.  Hopefully, UCLA hasn't figured us out and we can win without Karlie.

[TheFarm07]

UCLA beat Arizona, so no rematch to avenge the terrible loss.  Hopefully, UCLA hasn't figured us out and we can win without Karlie.

[Jskass]

BTW, the Pac-12 announcers tonight could not stop praising UW when the game was tight with Utah and referred to Utah as a bad rash that sticks around. Sounded mighty unprofessional and biased.

[Jskass]

BTW, the Pac-12 announcers tonight could not stop praising UW when the game was tight with Utah and referred to Utah as a bad rash that sticks around. Sounded mighty unprofessional and biased.

[81alum]

I just noticed this in a Charlie Creme piece on Princeton:

The final piece of irony could turn out to be good news for Tigers fans. In this week's Bracketology, Princeton is playing at home in the opening two rounds. Even if the Tigers don't earn a top-four seed, they still could end up with home games to begin the NCAA tournament. Although some schools, such as Arizona State, Louisville, Ohio State, Michigan and Syracuse, among some likely tournament participants, could not bid on hosting games because of scheduling conflicts, Princeton did.

http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basket...ament-seed

What I take this to mean is that if Arizona State, Louisville, Ohio State, Michigan or Syracuse wind up seeded in the top 16, the privilege of hosting will move further down the ladder to teams seeded 17 or 18 etc.  That affects Louisville and cedes the hosting to Princeton, according to Creme.  As for ASU, Charlie does have them in Tempe, so I'm not sure what he was talking about.  But it looks like an overall 17 seed will guarantee hosting.

[81alum]

I just noticed this in a Charlie Creme piece on Princeton:

The final piece of irony could turn out to be good news for Tigers fans. In this week's Bracketology, Princeton is playing at home in the opening two rounds. Even if the Tigers don't earn a top-four seed, they still could end up with home games to begin the NCAA tournament. Although some schools, such as Arizona State, Louisville, Ohio State, Michigan and Syracuse, among some likely tournament participants, could not bid on hosting games because of scheduling conflicts, Princeton did.

http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basket...ament-seed

What I take this to mean is that if Arizona State, Louisville, Ohio State, Michigan or Syracuse wind up seeded in the top 16, the privilege of hosting will move further down the ladder to teams seeded 17 or 18 etc.  That affects Louisville and cedes the hosting to Princeton, according to Creme.  As for ASU, Charlie does have them in Tempe, so I'm not sure what he was talking about.  But it looks like an overall 17 seed will guarantee hosting.

[CompSci87]

I saw a piece a while ago saying that the Pac-12 moved another event that ASU had been scheduled to host, to clear the way for them to host a WBB subregional if they qualify. I think it was a gymnastics tournament moving to Utah. Seems Charlie missed or forgot that.

[CompSci87]

I saw a piece a while ago saying that the Pac-12 moved another event that ASU had been scheduled to host, to clear the way for them to host a WBB subregional if they qualify. I think it was a gymnastics tournament moving to Utah. Seems Charlie missed or forgot that.

[81alum]

Here is the latest:

Currently:
^ AP 14
  Coaches 17
^ Sagarin 14
^ Bracketology: 4 seed (vs. Wichita State and then the Princeton/Miami winner.)
v RPI 19

While this looks promising, I am disappointed that our RPI is still lagging well below where it needs to be.  If we had defeated Oregon State instead of C.al in the title game I think we would have moved up.  As it stands, the tournament moved us from 20 to 19 in RPI.  That just seems incredible that winning three hard fought games, including one over ASU, should have made so little difference to RPI.

Arizona State falls to 16 and Oregon state to 18.  C.al is at 23 and Washington at 31.

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-...etball-rpi

By the way, did you notice that Charlie Creme is unwilling to give Princeton a 4 seed despite its undefeated record and that instead he sends them to play us if we both get to the second round?  This conjures up memories of bracket seeders sending Harvard to face Stanford because the match up seemed irresistible.  However, Princeton would be a five seed, not a 16, and we are a 4, not a 1.

[81alum]

Here is the latest:

Currently:
^ AP 14
  Coaches 17
^ Sagarin 14
^ Bracketology: 4 seed (vs. Wichita State and then the Princeton/Miami winner.)
v RPI 19

While this looks promising, I am disappointed that our RPI is still lagging well below where it needs to be.  If we had defeated Oregon State instead of C.al in the title game I think we would have moved up.  As it stands, the tournament moved us from 20 to 19 in RPI.  That just seems incredible that winning three hard fought games, including one over ASU, should have made so little difference to RPI.

Arizona State falls to 16 and Oregon state to 18.  C.al is at 23 and Washington at 31.

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-...etball-rpi

By the way, did you notice that Charlie Creme is unwilling to give Princeton a 4 seed despite its undefeated record and that instead he sends them to play us if we both get to the second round?  This conjures up memories of bracket seeders sending Harvard to face Stanford because the match up seemed irresistible.  However, Princeton would be a five seed, not a 16, and we are a 4, not a 1.

[BobK]

Come on down Milena

http://www.goprincetontigers.com/ViewArt...LID=925126

[BobK]

Come on down Milena

http://www.goprincetontigers.com/ViewArt...LID=925126

[81alum]

The Coaches poll has us at 17 (up from 20) and is not nearly as kind to us as the AP poll.  It has Duke (21-10) ranked higher despite their terrible season finish.  It also has North Carolina and Iowa ranked higher as compared with the AP.  Hard to argue with North Carolina given that they beat us rather convincingly and have one less loss.  Iowa I'm not sure about--they have a better record but we have only one common opponent--Colorado, which they beat by 15 and we beat by 7.  I guess that decision could be justifiable.  But Duke?

Both polls have Princeton and Mississippi State ranked higher.

All those schools do have a higher RPI than us except for Mississippi State.

Frankly, if the committee goes by RPI and the consensus rankings we could wind up just barely left out.  For us to get home court in the NCAAs then at least two and maybe three of these teams would not get to host:  North Carolina, Iowa, Duke, Princeton, Mississippi State. 

Duke is cruising along to the umpteenth overrated seeding.  It nearly always does more poorly than its seeding.  Creme has Duke as a 3, after losing 4 of its last 6 games.  Iowa Creme has at a 3.  No way are we moving past either of them in seeding.

Creme has Stanford 4 and Princeton 5 but why?  Why not Princeton 4 and Stanford 5?  Princeton is undefeated and has an RPI better than ours and poll rankings better than us.  Yes, its competition was weaker but the RPI is still the RPI.

Creme also has North Carolina as a 5.  Why?  They beat us, their record is better, and their RPI is better.

Creme also has Mississippi State as a 5.  I agree with that.  They have a worse RPI than us, and they have lost to almost every ranked team they have played.

In short, I'm preparing to be disappointed, but then I will celebrate I am am proved wrong.  Princeton and North Carolina are the teams most apt to knock us down to a 5.

[81alum]

The Coaches poll has us at 17 (up from 20) and is not nearly as kind to us as the AP poll.  It has Duke (21-10) ranked higher despite their terrible season finish.  It also has North Carolina and Iowa ranked higher as compared with the AP.  Hard to argue with North Carolina given that they beat us rather convincingly and have one less loss.  Iowa I'm not sure about--they have a better record but we have only one common opponent--Colorado, which they beat by 15 and we beat by 7.  I guess that decision could be justifiable.  But Duke?

Both polls have Princeton and Mississippi State ranked higher.

All those schools do have a higher RPI than us except for Mississippi State.

Frankly, if the committee goes by RPI and the consensus rankings we could wind up just barely left out.  For us to get home court in the NCAAs then at least two and maybe three of these teams would not get to host:  North Carolina, Iowa, Duke, Princeton, Mississippi State. 

Duke is cruising along to the umpteenth overrated seeding.  It nearly always does more poorly than its seeding.  Creme has Duke as a 3, after losing 4 of its last 6 games.  Iowa Creme has at a 3.  No way are we moving past either of them in seeding.

Creme has Stanford 4 and Princeton 5 but why?  Why not Princeton 4 and Stanford 5?  Princeton is undefeated and has an RPI better than ours and poll rankings better than us.  Yes, its competition was weaker but the RPI is still the RPI.

Creme also has North Carolina as a 5.  Why?  They beat us, their record is better, and their RPI is better.

Creme also has Mississippi State as a 5.  I agree with that.  They have a worse RPI than us, and they have lost to almost every ranked team they have played.

In short, I'm preparing to be disappointed, but then I will celebrate I am am proved wrong.  Princeton and North Carolina are the teams most apt to knock us down to a 5.

[chimera]

Looking at the NCAA RPI I feel pretty good about things.  There are teams with better RPIs who will not get seeded above us because they won't have enough top wins.  Dayton and Florida Gulf Coast?  Not gonna host.  Princeton has some decent wins but but they will get treated like the mid-majors usually are, probably.  The key might be the list of 20 teams who could get to host.  We are on it.  Princeton is not.  Neither is Mississippi State.  Cal is on it but if only one of us gets to host, it will be us.  No way Cal gets to host and we do not, not after the conference tournament.  We have better wins.  Unless I am forgetting someone, Cal beat nobody all that great in non-conference, beat ASU in conference and us once.  We beat UConn, ASU, OSU, and beat them twice.  The UA and UO losses hurt but winning the conference title matters.  UW was also on that list and they clearly will not host.  George Washington is on the list too.  Better record than we have but they do not have the same quality of wins.  Texas A&M is also on that list and they now have an RPI of 34.  They won't host over us.  Oklahoma is also on that list and they too have an RPI lower than ours, did not win their conference tournament, and though they beat Baylor, we do have more top wins.  So out of the 20 teams on the possible host list, I count Cal, OK, aTm, UW and George Washington as less likely to host than we are.  I do not know how final that list was meant to be.  Can teams be added?  One would think so.  But even if so, I think we have a good chance to host.  Winning the conference tourney and beating OSU and Cal to do it probably sealed the deal. 

[chimera]

Looking at the NCAA RPI I feel pretty good about things.  There are teams with better RPIs who will not get seeded above us because they won't have enough top wins.  Dayton and Florida Gulf Coast?  Not gonna host.  Princeton has some decent wins but but they will get treated like the mid-majors usually are, probably.  The key might be the list of 20 teams who could get to host.  We are on it.  Princeton is not.  Neither is Mississippi State.  Cal is on it but if only one of us gets to host, it will be us.  No way Cal gets to host and we do not, not after the conference tournament.  We have better wins.  Unless I am forgetting someone, Cal beat nobody all that great in non-conference, beat ASU in conference and us once.  We beat UConn, ASU, OSU, and beat them twice.  The UA and UO losses hurt but winning the conference title matters.  UW was also on that list and they clearly will not host.  George Washington is on the list too.  Better record than we have but they do not have the same quality of wins.  Texas A&M is also on that list and they now have an RPI of 34.  They won't host over us.  Oklahoma is also on that list and they too have an RPI lower than ours, did not win their conference tournament, and though they beat Baylor, we do have more top wins.  So out of the 20 teams on the possible host list, I count Cal, OK, aTm, UW and George Washington as less likely to host than we are.  I do not know how final that list was meant to be.  Can teams be added?  One would think so.  But even if so, I think we have a good chance to host.  Winning the conference tourney and beating OSU and Cal to do it probably sealed the deal. 

[CTcard]

Creme has Stanford 4 and Princeton 5 but why?  Why not Princeton 4 and Stanford 5?  Princeton is undefeated and has an RPI better than ours and poll rankings better than us.  Yes, its competition was weaker but the RPI is still the RPI.

Creme also has North Carolina as a 5.  Why?  They beat us, their record is better, and their RPI is better.

Creme also has Mississippi State as a 5.  I agree with that.  They have a worse RPI than us, and they have lost to almost every ranked team they have played.

In short, I'm preparing to be disappointed, then I will celebrate I am am proved wrong.  Princeton and North Carolina are the teams most apt to knock us down to a 5.

I don't know the trends on the women's selections, but for the men the trend has been to pay less attention to the RPI (which is a terrible power rating) and pay more attention to quality wins.

Stanford has some quality wins: UConn (Creme 1 seed), ASU (Creme 3 seed), c.a.l. x 2 (Creme 4 seed), OSU (Creme 3 seed), UW x 2 (Creme 6 seed). [7 vs 6 seed or better]
Princeton doesn't really have any - I think they have one win over a Creme-projected tournament team - Pittsburgh a 12 seed.
UNC has quality wins over FSU (Creme 2 seed), Stanford (Creme 4 seed), Rutgers (Creme 7 seed) and Ok State (Creme 10 seed). [4 vs 10 seed or better]
[Not sure I didn't miss something]

Another issue that factors in is where Stanford stands among the four seeds. My rough guess would be second or third.
In Creme's bracketololgy, the 4 seeds are Stanford, C.a.l., GW, and Kentucky.
Hard to think that c.a.l. is overall ahead of Stanford - having fewer good wins [4 vs Creme tournament teams] and losing two of three head to head. Their overall record is one win shy of Stanford's - same losses.
GW has a great record and weak schedule, like Princeton but less extreme. I think their only tournament team wins were 3 vs Dayton (Creme 8 seed).
Kentucky has a record similar to Stanford's (matches c.a.l.'s), and good wins over S. Car (Creme 1 seed), Miss St x 2 (Creme 5 seed), Arkansas (11 seed), Louisville (2 seed), Oklahoma (6 seed), USF (6 seed), Baylor (2 seed). [8 tournament teams, 7 vs 6 seed or better]. That's pretty good - though really quite close to Stanford's. It may be that their overall SOS was tougher than Stanford as the SEC is probably still stronger than the Pac 12 and their OOC had 5 tough teams.


So with the caveat that I am not quite sure what the women's seeding committee has shown to value the most, it would seem most likely (but far from a lock) that Stanford sneaks in with a top four seed.

[CTcard]

Creme has Stanford 4 and Princeton 5 but why?  Why not Princeton 4 and Stanford 5?  Princeton is undefeated and has an RPI better than ours and poll rankings better than us.  Yes, its competition was weaker but the RPI is still the RPI.

Creme also has North Carolina as a 5.  Why?  They beat us, their record is better, and their RPI is better.

Creme also has Mississippi State as a 5.  I agree with that.  They have a worse RPI than us, and they have lost to almost every ranked team they have played.

In short, I'm preparing to be disappointed, then I will celebrate I am am proved wrong.  Princeton and North Carolina are the teams most apt to knock us down to a 5.

I don't know the trends on the women's selections, but for the men the trend has been to pay less attention to the RPI (which is a terrible power rating) and pay more attention to quality wins.

Stanford has some quality wins: UConn (Creme 1 seed), ASU (Creme 3 seed), c.a.l. x 2 (Creme 4 seed), OSU (Creme 3 seed), UW x 2 (Creme 6 seed). [7 vs 6 seed or better]
Princeton doesn't really have any - I think they have one win over a Creme-projected tournament team - Pittsburgh a 12 seed.
UNC has quality wins over FSU (Creme 2 seed), Stanford (Creme 4 seed), Rutgers (Creme 7 seed) and Ok State (Creme 10 seed). [4 vs 10 seed or better]
[Not sure I didn't miss something]

Another issue that factors in is where Stanford stands among the four seeds. My rough guess would be second or third.
In Creme's bracketololgy, the 4 seeds are Stanford, C.a.l., GW, and Kentucky.
Hard to think that c.a.l. is overall ahead of Stanford - having fewer good wins [4 vs Creme tournament teams] and losing two of three head to head. Their overall record is one win shy of Stanford's - same losses.
GW has a great record and weak schedule, like Princeton but less extreme. I think their only tournament team wins were 3 vs Dayton (Creme 8 seed).
Kentucky has a record similar to Stanford's (matches c.a.l.'s), and good wins over S. Car (Creme 1 seed), Miss St x 2 (Creme 5 seed), Arkansas (11 seed), Louisville (2 seed), Oklahoma (6 seed), USF (6 seed), Baylor (2 seed). [8 tournament teams, 7 vs 6 seed or better]. That's pretty good - though really quite close to Stanford's. It may be that their overall SOS was tougher than Stanford as the SEC is probably still stronger than the Pac 12 and their OOC had 5 tough teams.


So with the caveat that I am not quite sure what the women's seeding committee has shown to value the most, it would seem most likely (but far from a lock) that Stanford sneaks in with a top four seed.

[BobK]

Great analysis by you two.  I think we host and we bought our tix

[BobK]

Great analysis by you two.  I think we host and we bought our tix

[Spiny_Norman]

Evaluate these teams:

Team 1 has a record of 21-10.  In the regular season they were 11-5 in conference and tied for 4th.  They lost in the semifinals of their conference tournament.  Their schedule was ranked #4 in the country.  They played only 17 games against top 100 teams, going 8-9 (7-7 vs. top 50 and 1-2 vs. 51-100). 

Team 2 has a record of 24-9.  In the regular season they were 13-5 in conference and tied for 3rd.  They won their conference tournament.  Their schedule was ranked #12 in the country.  They played 23 games against top 100 teams, going 16-7 (7-7 vs. top 50 and 9-0 vs. 51-100).  However they are the only team in the top 20 to have lost to a team whose RPI is > 200.

Team 3 has a record of 23-9.  in the regular season they were 13-5 in conference and tied for 3rd.  They lost in the finals of their conference tournament.  Their schedule was ranked #19 in the country.  They played 22 games against top 100 teams going 14-8 (4-6 vs top 50 and 10-2 vs 51-100).

Which one is a slam dunk #3 seed and which ones are struggling to get consideration as a #4?

Btw, all data taken from Warren Nolan's Nitty Gritty report.

[Spiny_Norman]

Evaluate these teams:

Team 1 has a record of 21-10.  In the regular season they were 11-5 in conference and tied for 4th.  They lost in the semifinals of their conference tournament.  Their schedule was ranked #4 in the country.  They played only 17 games against top 100 teams, going 8-9 (7-7 vs. top 50 and 1-2 vs. 51-100). 

Team 2 has a record of 24-9.  In the regular season they were 13-5 in conference and tied for 3rd.  They won their conference tournament.  Their schedule was ranked #12 in the country.  They played 23 games against top 100 teams, going 16-7 (7-7 vs. top 50 and 9-0 vs. 51-100).  However they are the only team in the top 20 to have lost to a team whose RPI is > 200.

Team 3 has a record of 23-9.  in the regular season they were 13-5 in conference and tied for 3rd.  They lost in the finals of their conference tournament.  Their schedule was ranked #19 in the country.  They played 22 games against top 100 teams going 14-8 (4-6 vs top 50 and 10-2 vs 51-100).

Which one is a slam dunk #3 seed and which ones are struggling to get consideration as a #4?

Btw, all data taken from Warren Nolan's Nitty Gritty report.

[chimera]

Evaluate these teams:

Team 1 has a record of 21-10.  In the regular season they were 11-5 in conference and tied for 4th.  They lost in the semifinals of their conference tournament.  Their schedule was ranked #4 in the country.  They played only 17 games against top 100 teams, going 8-9 (7-7 vs. top 50 and 1-2 vs. 51-100). 

Team 2 has a record of 24-9.  In the regular season they were 13-5 in conference and tied for 3rd.  They won their conference tournament.  Their schedule was ranked #12 in the country.  They played 23 games against top 100 teams, going 16-7 (7-7 vs. top 50 and 9-0 vs. 51-100).  However they are the only team in the top 20 to have lost to a team whose RPI is > 200.

Team 3 has a record of 23-9.  in the regular season they were 13-5 in conference and tied for 3rd.  They lost in the finals of their conference tournament.  Their schedule was ranked #19 in the country.  They played 22 games against top 100 teams going 14-8 (4-6 vs top 50 and 10-2 vs 51-100).

Which one is a slam dunk #3 seed and which ones are struggling to get consideration as a #4?

Btw, all data taken from Warren Nolan's Nitty Gritty report.

I have not tried to look anything up so this is based on memory.  I think team #2 is Stanford and team #3 is Cal.  I don't know who team #1 is, but my guess is Duke, only because I saw they lost 10 games and was surprised it was that many.  If it is Duke I have a hard time figuring out how they played fewer top 100 teams than the other two because the ACC has a lot of good teams.  My questions when evaluation these three teams would be how many top 25 and how many top 10 wins do these teams have?

[chimera]

Evaluate these teams:

Team 1 has a record of 21-10.  In the regular season they were 11-5 in conference and tied for 4th.  They lost in the semifinals of their conference tournament.  Their schedule was ranked #4 in the country.  They played only 17 games against top 100 teams, going 8-9 (7-7 vs. top 50 and 1-2 vs. 51-100). 

Team 2 has a record of 24-9.  In the regular season they were 13-5 in conference and tied for 3rd.  They won their conference tournament.  Their schedule was ranked #12 in the country.  They played 23 games against top 100 teams, going 16-7 (7-7 vs. top 50 and 9-0 vs. 51-100).  However they are the only team in the top 20 to have lost to a team whose RPI is > 200.

Team 3 has a record of 23-9.  in the regular season they were 13-5 in conference and tied for 3rd.  They lost in the finals of their conference tournament.  Their schedule was ranked #19 in the country.  They played 22 games against top 100 teams going 14-8 (4-6 vs top 50 and 10-2 vs 51-100).

Which one is a slam dunk #3 seed and which ones are struggling to get consideration as a #4?

Btw, all data taken from Warren Nolan's Nitty Gritty report.

I have not tried to look anything up so this is based on memory.  I think team #2 is Stanford and team #3 is Cal.  I don't know who team #1 is, but my guess is Duke, only because I saw they lost 10 games and was surprised it was that many.  If it is Duke I have a hard time figuring out how they played fewer top 100 teams than the other two because the ACC has a lot of good teams.  My questions when evaluation these three teams would be how many top 25 and how many top 10 wins do these teams have?

[81alum]

Yes, Duke is 21-10, is 4-5 against top 25, 8-7 against top 50.  Duke is 2 of its last 6--it played Notre Dame twice in that stretch. 

We are 24-9, are 3-5 against top 25, and 7-7 against top 50.  We are 4 of our last 6--we played Oregon State and Arizona State and Cal during that stretch.

We have two common opponents:  UConn which crushed Duke, and Boston College which beat Duke.  Needless to say, we won both those games.  Our strength of schedule was almost identical numerically, but theirs is ranked 14th while ours is ranked 20th.

[81alum]

Yes, Duke is 21-10, is 4-5 against top 25, 8-7 against top 50.  Duke is 2 of its last 6--it played Notre Dame twice in that stretch. 

We are 24-9, are 3-5 against top 25, and 7-7 against top 50.  We are 4 of our last 6--we played Oregon State and Arizona State and Cal during that stretch.

We have two common opponents:  UConn which crushed Duke, and Boston College which beat Duke.  Needless to say, we won both those games.  Our strength of schedule was almost identical numerically, but theirs is ranked 14th while ours is ranked 20th.