Latest bracketology

[Eagledom]

Pedro bringing Sabremetrics to college sports is really awful.

Gee, why would anyone want to use objective evidence and numbers to evaluate a sport to compare two teams that have not met? Stupid me!

What is your justification for thinking BC should have been a 6 seed. Your gut? Two thumbs down.

College basketball is rife with examples of teams with higher RPIs getting smoked in an actual gym by actual players.

Keith Olberman once said, "good thing games aren't played on paper." Good thing they aren't played in computers either.

Jesus, any sport is rife with "lesser" teams beating "better" teams, and anyone who needs Keith Olberman to tell them that should be shot. The point of the selection committee is choose the teams that play for the NC and to fairly seed them based on the season they have had compared to the rest of the field while factoring in locations, etc.

I notice you've yet to answer the question about why BC should have been given a 6. Possibly because you realize you have no way to justify proclaiming it.

Because they were one of the top 25 teams in the country. Period. Oh, and the beat the eventual national champions on their home court.

I guess Harvard got screwed since they beat one of the top 25 teams "on their home court"

[Cadillac90]

Pedro bringing Sabremetrics to college sports is really awful.

Gee, why would anyone want to use objective evidence and numbers to evaluate a sport to compare two teams that have not met? Stupid me!

What is your justification for thinking BC should have been a 6 seed. Your gut? Two thumbs down.

College basketball is rife with examples of teams with higher RPIs getting smoked in an actual gym by actual players.

Keith Olberman once said, "good thing games aren't played on paper." Good thing they aren't played in computers either.

Jesus, any sport is rife with "lesser" teams beating "better" teams, and anyone who needs Keith Olberman to tell them that should be shot. The point of the selection committee is choose the teams that play for the NC and to fairly seed them based on the season they have had compared to the rest of the field while factoring in locations, etc.

I notice you've yet to answer the question about why BC should have been given a 6. Possibly because you realize you have no way to justify proclaiming it.

Because they were one of the top 25 teams in the country. Period. Oh, and the beat the eventual national champions on their home court.

I guess Harvard got screwed since they beat one of the top 25 teams "on their home court"

You really are a retard.

[BCEagles25]

Pedro bringing Sabremetrics to college sports is really awful.

Gee, why would anyone want to use objective evidence and numbers to evaluate a sport to compare two teams that have not met? Stupid me!

What is your justification for thinking BC should have been a 6 seed. Your gut? Two thumbs down.

College basketball is rife with examples of teams with higher RPIs getting smoked in an actual gym by actual players.

Keith Olberman once said, "good thing games aren't played on paper." Good thing they aren't played in computers either.

As bad as Olberman is, there is a hell of a lot of truth to this quote.

[Eagledom]

Pedro bringing Sabremetrics to college sports is really awful.

Gee, why would anyone want to use objective evidence and numbers to evaluate a sport to compare two teams that have not met? Stupid me!

What is your justification for thinking BC should have been a 6 seed. Your gut? Two thumbs down.

College basketball is rife with examples of teams with higher RPIs getting smoked in an actual gym by actual players.

Keith Olberman once said, "good thing games aren't played on paper." Good thing they aren't played in computers either.

Jesus, any sport is rife with "lesser" teams beating "better" teams, and anyone who needs Keith Olberman to tell them that should be shot. The point of the selection committee is choose the teams that play for the NC and to fairly seed them based on the season they have had compared to the rest of the field while factoring in locations, etc.

I notice you've yet to answer the question about why BC should have been given a 6. Possibly because you realize you have no way to justify proclaiming it.

Because they were one of the top 25 teams in the country. Period. Oh, and the beat the eventual national champions on their home court.

I guess Harvard got screwed since they beat one of the top 25 teams "on their home court"

You really are a retard.

call twb a retard - it was his logic.

[Cadillac90]

Pedro bringing Sabremetrics to college sports is really awful.

Gee, why would anyone want to use objective evidence and numbers to evaluate a sport to compare two teams that have not met? Stupid me!

What is your justification for thinking BC should have been a 6 seed. Your gut? Two thumbs down.

College basketball is rife with examples of teams with higher RPIs getting smoked in an actual gym by actual players.

Keith Olberman once said, "good thing games aren't played on paper." Good thing they aren't played in computers either.

Jesus, any sport is rife with "lesser" teams beating "better" teams, and anyone who needs Keith Olberman to tell them that should be shot. The point of the selection committee is choose the teams that play for the NC and to fairly seed them based on the season they have had compared to the rest of the field while factoring in locations, etc.

I notice you've yet to answer the question about why BC should have been given a 6. Possibly because you realize you have no way to justify proclaiming it.

Because they were one of the top 25 teams in the country. Period. Oh, and the beat the eventual national champions on their home court.

I guess Harvard got screwed since they beat one of the top 25 teams "on their home court"

You really are a retard.

call twb a retard - it was his logic.

It wasn't even close to what he was saying. You have severe reading comprehension issues (see your butchering of the Andy Katz article and your inability to understand Skinner's comments).

[Eagledom]

Pedro bringing Sabremetrics to college sports is really awful.

Gee, why would anyone want to use objective evidence and numbers to evaluate a sport to compare two teams that have not met? Stupid me!

What is your justification for thinking BC should have been a 6 seed. Your gut? Two thumbs down.

College basketball is rife with examples of teams with higher RPIs getting smoked in an actual gym by actual players.

Keith Olberman once said, "good thing games aren't played on paper." Good thing they aren't played in computers either.

Jesus, any sport is rife with "lesser" teams beating "better" teams, and anyone who needs Keith Olberman to tell them that should be shot. The point of the selection committee is choose the teams that play for the NC and to fairly seed them based on the season they have had compared to the rest of the field while factoring in locations, etc.

I notice you've yet to answer the question about why BC should have been given a 6. Possibly because you realize you have no way to justify proclaiming it.

Because they were one of the top 25 teams in the country. Period. Oh, and the beat the eventual national champions on their home court.

I guess Harvard got screwed since they beat one of the top 25 teams "on their home court"

You really are a retard.

call twb a retard - it was his logic.

It wasn't even close to what he was saying. You have severe reading comprehension issues (see your butchering of the Andy Katz article and your inability to understand Skinner's comments).

He used one game to justify BC's seeding. It was dumb, and my example showed why.

[MilitantEagle]

BC had one tremendous victory last year - UNC. But basically, UNC was asleep and lost to BC. BC did the same thing three days later. Duke was overrated as they proved in the NCAAs, but I will call it a pretty good victory. The rest of the season was absolute junk. They did not deserve the seven seed and a majority of the EagleInsider regulars were pleasantly surprised by that seed. Most people here and on ESPN were saying that BC needed a win over UVA in the ACC tourney to get off the bubble. BC should have been around a 9 or a 10. Certainly not a 7. I guess they were making up for the stupid 4 seed in 2006.

The ACC stunk last year. It was horrible. Wake got handled easily by Cleveland St. in the first round. Outside of UNC, the ACC did nothing in the tourney. And with the unbalanced league schedule, BC had an easy road in ACC play.

twballgame doesn't go to the games and doesn't realize how painfully mediocre the team was last year.

[twballgame9]

BC had one tremendous victory last year - UNC. But basically, UNC was asleep and lost to BC. BC did the same thing three days later. Duke was overrated as they proved in the NCAAs, but I will call it a pretty good victory. The rest of the season was absolute junk. They did not deserve the seven seed and a majority of the EagleInsider regulars were pleasantly surprised by that seed. Most people here and on ESPN were saying that BC needed a win over UVA in the ACC tourney to get off the bubble. BC should have been around a 9 or a 10. Certainly not a 7. I guess they were making up for the stupid 4 seed in 2006.

The ACC stunk last year. It was horrible. Wake got handled easily by Cleveland St. in the first round. Outside of UNC, the ACC did nothing in the tourney. And with the unbalanced league schedule, BC had an easy road in ACC play.

twballgame doesn't go to the games and doesn't realize how painfully mediocre the team was last year.

twballgame went to 6 games last year and watched another 15 or so. Basketball sucks for me - tough to get out of work early to get to games. I actually like the 9:00 games.

They were a 7 seed, maybe deserved a 6. And the PAC10 sucked, with USC grossly underachieving and needing to win the conference to get in. They were rightly a 10.

Fact is, the premise presented here that BC was not a 7 is largely based on the fact that they lost to a 10. The logical person says "bad day, bad matchup." The retard says, "well they couldn't have really been a 7 then, the seeds should have been switched."

Right, the committee completely forgot to look at RPI and SOS. They do that a lot.

[Eagledom]

BC had one tremendous victory last year - UNC. But basically, UNC was asleep and lost to BC. BC did the same thing three days later. Duke was overrated as they proved in the NCAAs, but I will call it a pretty good victory. The rest of the season was absolute junk. They did not deserve the seven seed and a majority of the EagleInsider regulars were pleasantly surprised by that seed. Most people here and on ESPN were saying that BC needed a win over UVA in the ACC tourney to get off the bubble. BC should have been around a 9 or a 10. Certainly not a 7. I guess they were making up for the stupid 4 seed in 2006.

The ACC stunk last year. It was horrible. Wake got handled easily by Cleveland St. in the first round. Outside of UNC, the ACC did nothing in the tourney. And with the unbalanced league schedule, BC had an easy road in ACC play.

twballgame doesn't go to the games and doesn't realize how painfully mediocre the team was last year.

twballgame went to 6 games last year and watched another 15 or so. Basketball sucks for me - tough to get out of work early to get to games. I actually like the 9:00 games.

They were a 7 seed, maybe deserved a 6. And the PAC10 sucked, with USC grossly underachieving and needing to win the conference to get in. They were rightly a 10.

Fact is, the premise presented here that BC was not a 7 is largely based on the fact that they lost to a 10. The logical person says "bad day, bad matchup." The retard says, "well they couldn't have really been a 7 then, the seeds should have been switched."

Right, the committee completely forgot to look at RPI and SOS. They do that a lot.

Gee, that would be a really good argument if that were remotely close to the premise presented here. I knew they were over-seeded on Selection Sunday.

[twballgame9]

BC had one tremendous victory last year - UNC. But basically, UNC was asleep and lost to BC. BC did the same thing three days later. Duke was overrated as they proved in the NCAAs, but I will call it a pretty good victory. The rest of the season was absolute junk. They did not deserve the seven seed and a majority of the EagleInsider regulars were pleasantly surprised by that seed. Most people here and on ESPN were saying that BC needed a win over UVA in the ACC tourney to get off the bubble. BC should have been around a 9 or a 10. Certainly not a 7. I guess they were making up for the stupid 4 seed in 2006.

The ACC stunk last year. It was horrible. Wake got handled easily by Cleveland St. in the first round. Outside of UNC, the ACC did nothing in the tourney. And with the unbalanced league schedule, BC had an easy road in ACC play.

twballgame doesn't go to the games and doesn't realize how painfully mediocre the team was last year.

twballgame went to 6 games last year and watched another 15 or so. Basketball sucks for me - tough to get out of work early to get to games. I actually like the 9:00 games.

They were a 7 seed, maybe deserved a 6. And the PAC10 sucked, with USC grossly underachieving and needing to win the conference to get in. They were rightly a 10.

Fact is, the premise presented here that BC was not a 7 is largely based on the fact that they lost to a 10. The logical person says "bad day, bad matchup." The retard says, "well they couldn't have really been a 7 then, the seeds should have been switched."

Right, the committee completely forgot to look at RPI and SOS. They do that a lot.

Gee, that would be a really good argument if that were remotely close to the premise presented here. I knew they were over-seeded on Selection Sunday.

You are too fucking easy OJ. Remote this:


Eagledom
Carney Hall

Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:40 pm

* Private message
* Report this post
* Reply with quote

Re: Latest bracketology

Postby Eagledom on Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:17 pm
I think we were a 6 last year, no? Didn't matter. We were playing against a team that should have had BC's seed and BC should have had theirs.

[Eagledom]

BC had one tremendous victory last year - UNC. But basically, UNC was asleep and lost to BC. BC did the same thing three days later. Duke was overrated as they proved in the NCAAs, but I will call it a pretty good victory. The rest of the season was absolute junk. They did not deserve the seven seed and a majority of the EagleInsider regulars were pleasantly surprised by that seed. Most people here and on ESPN were saying that BC needed a win over UVA in the ACC tourney to get off the bubble. BC should have been around a 9 or a 10. Certainly not a 7. I guess they were making up for the stupid 4 seed in 2006.

The ACC stunk last year. It was horrible. Wake got handled easily by Cleveland St. in the first round. Outside of UNC, the ACC did nothing in the tourney. And with the unbalanced league schedule, BC had an easy road in ACC play.

twballgame doesn't go to the games and doesn't realize how painfully mediocre the team was last year.

twballgame went to 6 games last year and watched another 15 or so. Basketball sucks for me - tough to get out of work early to get to games. I actually like the 9:00 games.

They were a 7 seed, maybe deserved a 6. And the PAC10 sucked, with USC grossly underachieving and needing to win the conference to get in. They were rightly a 10.

Fact is, the premise presented here that BC was not a 7 is largely based on the fact that they lost to a 10. The logical person says "bad day, bad matchup." The retard says, "well they couldn't have really been a 7 then, the seeds should have been switched."

Right, the committee completely forgot to look at RPI and SOS. They do that a lot.

Gee, that would be a really good argument if that were remotely close to the premise presented here. I knew they were over-seeded on Selection Sunday.

You are too fucking easy OJ. Remote this:


Eagledom
Carney Hall

Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:40 pm

* Private message
* Report this post
* Reply with quote

Re: Latest bracketology

Postby Eagledom on Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:17 pm
I think we were a 6 last year, no? Didn't matter. We were playing against a team that should have had BC's seed and BC should have had theirs.

Moron - I din't say that BECAUSE we lost to USC....I thought that BEFORE we lost to them. See the difference? (probably not).

[twballgame9]

BC had one tremendous victory last year - UNC. But basically, UNC was asleep and lost to BC. BC did the same thing three days later. Duke was overrated as they proved in the NCAAs, but I will call it a pretty good victory. The rest of the season was absolute junk. They did not deserve the seven seed and a majority of the EagleInsider regulars were pleasantly surprised by that seed. Most people here and on ESPN were saying that BC needed a win over UVA in the ACC tourney to get off the bubble. BC should have been around a 9 or a 10. Certainly not a 7. I guess they were making up for the stupid 4 seed in 2006.

The ACC stunk last year. It was horrible. Wake got handled easily by Cleveland St. in the first round. Outside of UNC, the ACC did nothing in the tourney. And with the unbalanced league schedule, BC had an easy road in ACC play.

twballgame doesn't go to the games and doesn't realize how painfully mediocre the team was last year.

twballgame went to 6 games last year and watched another 15 or so. Basketball sucks for me - tough to get out of work early to get to games. I actually like the 9:00 games.

They were a 7 seed, maybe deserved a 6. And the PAC10 sucked, with USC grossly underachieving and needing to win the conference to get in. They were rightly a 10.

Fact is, the premise presented here that BC was not a 7 is largely based on the fact that they lost to a 10. The logical person says "bad day, bad matchup." The retard says, "well they couldn't have really been a 7 then, the seeds should have been switched."

Right, the committee completely forgot to look at RPI and SOS. They do that a lot.

Gee, that would be a really good argument if that were remotely close to the premise presented here. I knew they were over-seeded on Selection Sunday.

You are too fucking easy OJ. Remote this:


Eagledom
Carney Hall

Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:40 pm

* Private message
* Report this post
* Reply with quote

Re: Latest bracketology

Postby Eagledom on Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:17 pm
I think we were a 6 last year, no? Didn't matter. We were playing against a team that should have had BC's seed and BC should have had theirs.

Moron - I din't say that BECAUSE we lost to USC....I thought that BEFORE we lost to them. See the difference? (probably not).

OJ!

[BCEagle74]

I look at the bracketology on the Sunday night in March....

[Eagledom]

BC had one tremendous victory last year - UNC. But basically, UNC was asleep and lost to BC. BC did the same thing three days later. Duke was overrated as they proved in the NCAAs, but I will call it a pretty good victory. The rest of the season was absolute junk. They did not deserve the seven seed and a majority of the EagleInsider regulars were pleasantly surprised by that seed. Most people here and on ESPN were saying that BC needed a win over UVA in the ACC tourney to get off the bubble. BC should have been around a 9 or a 10. Certainly not a 7. I guess they were making up for the stupid 4 seed in 2006.

The ACC stunk last year. It was horrible. Wake got handled easily by Cleveland St. in the first round. Outside of UNC, the ACC did nothing in the tourney. And with the unbalanced league schedule, BC had an easy road in ACC play.

twballgame doesn't go to the games and doesn't realize how painfully mediocre the team was last year.

twballgame went to 6 games last year and watched another 15 or so. Basketball sucks for me - tough to get out of work early to get to games. I actually like the 9:00 games.

They were a 7 seed, maybe deserved a 6. And the PAC10 sucked, with USC grossly underachieving and needing to win the conference to get in. They were rightly a 10.

Fact is, the premise presented here that BC was not a 7 is largely based on the fact that they lost to a 10. The logical person says "bad day, bad matchup." The retard says, "well they couldn't have really been a 7 then, the seeds should have been switched."

Right, the committee completely forgot to look at RPI and SOS. They do that a lot.

Gee, that would be a really good argument if that were remotely close to the premise presented here. I knew they were over-seeded on Selection Sunday.

You are too fucking easy OJ. Remote this:


Eagledom
Carney Hall

Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:40 pm

* Private message
* Report this post
* Reply with quote

Re: Latest bracketology

Postby Eagledom on Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:17 pm
I think we were a 6 last year, no? Didn't matter. We were playing against a team that should have had BC's seed and BC should have had theirs.

Moron - I din't say that BECAUSE we lost to USC....I thought that BEFORE we lost to them. See the difference? (probably not).

OJ!

you are too easy (and boring). Sorry those tuggle expectations didn't work out for ya. Hey everyone I'm oJ!!!!!!!! YAWN.

[twballgame9]

BC had one tremendous victory last year - UNC. But basically, UNC was asleep and lost to BC. BC did the same thing three days later. Duke was overrated as they proved in the NCAAs, but I will call it a pretty good victory. The rest of the season was absolute junk. They did not deserve the seven seed and a majority of the EagleInsider regulars were pleasantly surprised by that seed. Most people here and on ESPN were saying that BC needed a win over UVA in the ACC tourney to get off the bubble. BC should have been around a 9 or a 10. Certainly not a 7. I guess they were making up for the stupid 4 seed in 2006.

The ACC stunk last year. It was horrible. Wake got handled easily by Cleveland St. in the first round. Outside of UNC, the ACC did nothing in the tourney. And with the unbalanced league schedule, BC had an easy road in ACC play.

twballgame doesn't go to the games and doesn't realize how painfully mediocre the team was last year.

twballgame went to 6 games last year and watched another 15 or so. Basketball sucks for me - tough to get out of work early to get to games. I actually like the 9:00 games.

They were a 7 seed, maybe deserved a 6. And the PAC10 sucked, with USC grossly underachieving and needing to win the conference to get in. They were rightly a 10.

Fact is, the premise presented here that BC was not a 7 is largely based on the fact that they lost to a 10. The logical person says "bad day, bad matchup." The retard says, "well they couldn't have really been a 7 then, the seeds should have been switched."

Right, the committee completely forgot to look at RPI and SOS. They do that a lot.

Gee, that would be a really good argument if that were remotely close to the premise presented here. I knew they were over-seeded on Selection Sunday.

You are too fucking easy OJ. Remote this:


Eagledom
Carney Hall

Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:40 pm

* Private message
* Report this post
* Reply with quote

Re: Latest bracketology

Postby Eagledom on Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:17 pm
I think we were a 6 last year, no? Didn't matter. We were playing against a team that should have had BC's seed and BC should have had theirs.

Moron - I din't say that BECAUSE we lost to USC....I thought that BEFORE we lost to them. See the difference? (probably not).

OJ!

you are too easy (and boring). Sorry those tuggle expectations didn't work out for ya. Hey everyone I'm oJ!!!!!!!! YAWN.

I got bored of you two weeks ago OJ. Glad you caught up.

[Cadillac90]

BC had one tremendous victory last year - UNC. But basically, UNC was asleep and lost to BC. BC did the same thing three days later. Duke was overrated as they proved in the NCAAs, but I will call it a pretty good victory. The rest of the season was absolute junk. They did not deserve the seven seed and a majority of the EagleInsider regulars were pleasantly surprised by that seed. Most people here and on ESPN were saying that BC needed a win over UVA in the ACC tourney to get off the bubble. BC should have been around a 9 or a 10. Certainly not a 7. I guess they were making up for the stupid 4 seed in 2006.

The ACC stunk last year. It was horrible. Wake got handled easily by Cleveland St. in the first round. Outside of UNC, the ACC did nothing in the tourney. And with the unbalanced league schedule, BC had an easy road in ACC play.

twballgame doesn't go to the games and doesn't realize how painfully mediocre the team was last year.

twballgame went to 6 games last year and watched another 15 or so. Basketball sucks for me - tough to get out of work early to get to games. I actually like the 9:00 games.

They were a 7 seed, maybe deserved a 6. And the PAC10 sucked, with USC grossly underachieving and needing to win the conference to get in. They were rightly a 10.

Fact is, the premise presented here that BC was not a 7 is largely based on the fact that they lost to a 10. The logical person says "bad day, bad matchup." The retard says, "well they couldn't have really been a 7 then, the seeds should have been switched."

Right, the committee completely forgot to look at RPI and SOS. They do that a lot.

Gee, that would be a really good argument if that were remotely close to the premise presented here. I knew they were over-seeded on Selection Sunday.

You are too fucking easy OJ. Remote this:


Eagledom
Carney Hall

Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:40 pm

* Private message
* Report this post
* Reply with quote

Re: Latest bracketology

Postby Eagledom on Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:17 pm
I think we were a 6 last year, no? Didn't matter. We were playing against a team that should have had BC's seed and BC should have had theirs.

Moron - I din't say that BECAUSE we lost to USC....I thought that BEFORE we lost to them. See the difference? (probably not).

OJ!

you are too easy (and boring). Sorry those tuggle expectations didn't work out for ya. Hey everyone I'm oJ!!!!!!!! YAWN.

I got bored of you two weeks ago OJ. Glad you caught up.

The more the cocksucker Eagledumbass complains about Skinner and makes fun of Haden and Tuggle the more I am convinced that he truly is the David Duke loving OJ.

[RyanBC]

fuck keith olbermann

[pick6pedro]

They were a 7 seed, maybe deserved a 6.

Still yet to present a single shred of evidence to back this up except for saying it over and over again. Do you ever get sick of being the most stubborn person to roam this board?

[twballgame9]

They were a 7 seed, maybe deserved a 6.

Still yet to present a single shred of evidence to back this up except for saying it over and over again. Do you ever get sick of being the most stubborn person to roam this board?

They were one of the best teams in one of the best conferences for an entire season. They beat two top 10 teams (one of the biggest factors for seeding). I love you RPI dorks, it is funny.

[pick6pedro]

They were a 7 seed, maybe deserved a 6.

Still yet to present a single shred of evidence to back this up except for saying it over and over again. Do you ever get sick of being the most stubborn person to roam this board?

They were one of the best teams in one of the best conferences for an entire season. They beat two top 10 teams (one of the biggest factors for seeding). I love you RPI dorks, it is funny.

"One of the best"? 6 out of 12 is "one of the best"? That's a pretty broad definition ya got there. They did beat two top 10 teams. No shit that is important for seeding. But you know what else is? The other 30 games! You gotta look at the whole body of work instead of just picking out the highlights. And yes that includes, but does not solely mean, using RPI, SOS, etc. Far more effective than your completely subjective reasons and placing more emphasis on 2 games than 30 others.

[BCMcG]

Is there a way I can give this entire, worthless thread a thumbs down?