commavegarage {l Wrote}:At quick eyeball looks like Lunardi blew at least 3 teams.
SJeagle09 {l Wrote}:oh yea and the ACC was down but a 10 and a play-in is ridiculous
claver2010 {l Wrote}:Bilas going nuts, as I said via the twitter machine, he's been leading the anti-BC crusade for months.
BCEagle74 {l Wrote}:cvilleagle {l Wrote}:ACC got hosed - Big Ten gets 7, and we have 4?
The ACC sucked and barely deserves 4 bids. I mean where have you been???
Is it every subject and sport that you can't read the thread or see how bad the ACC was?
This was a weak NCAA field and the ACC was not just weak....the ACC and BC and VT were poor teams and were poor late.
Is that much better?
BCEagle74 {l Wrote}:claver2010 {l Wrote}:Bilas going nuts, as I said via the twitter machine, he's been leading the anti-BC crusade for months.
Bilas was right, I had BC out like many others and he went a little overboard, but no matter, BC is NIT material and so was VT.
bluefishskip {l Wrote}:Of all the years to go to 68 teams, this wasn't the best of years with the lack of quality teams at the bottom of the barrel.
Penn State got hot at the end when they needed to. Battle is one of the better guards nobody knows about. 5 Top 50 wins, 10 top 100 wins, again better than most of the teams in the discussion at the end of the bracket.
Eagledom {l Wrote}:i keep thinking of Reggie's missed 3 pointer against UNC. If that one shot goes in, BC is dancing.
bluefishskip {l Wrote}:When comparing like teams on the bubble, the top 50 wins signifies which one of these bubble teams have actually beat someone this year.
BC's SOS is 38 right now (respectful), yet who did they beat? Can't say you know what, you played a nice schedule you ought to be in the dance regardless. Andy Katz said it last night, BC's best win was in November and they never book-ended that win with another quality win. All those ACC wins at the end were against poor teams. Any/all opportunities to add another good win were thrown out the window. BC had 2 wins vs. teams in the field of 68...........Texas A&M and Bucknell. That's it.
bluefishskip {l Wrote}:so should Wisconsin not be in the tournament for being even more pathetic with 33 points? Moot point on the Penn State 36 point comment, because they won that game. Equaled as many quality wins than BC had all season, and it was during Championship Week, when teams are further in the spotlight.
bluefishskip {l Wrote}:When comparing like teams on the bubble, the top 50 wins signifies which one of these bubble teams have actually beat someone this year.
BC's SOS is 38 right now (respectful), yet who did they beat? Can't say you know what, you played a nice schedule you ought to be in the dance regardless. Andy Katz said it last night, BC's best win was in November and they never book-ended that win with another quality win. All those ACC wins at the end were against poor teams. Any/all opportunities to add another good win were thrown out the window. BC had 2 wins vs. teams in the field of 68...........Texas A&M and Bucknell. That's it.
bluefishskip {l Wrote}:When comparing like teams on the bubble, the top 50 wins signifies which one of these bubble teams have actually beat someone this year.
BC's SOS is 38 right now (respectful), yet who did they beat? Can't say you know what, you played a nice schedule you ought to be in the dance regardless. Andy Katz said it last night, BC's best win was in November and they never book-ended that win with another quality win. All those ACC wins at the end were against poor teams. Any/all opportunities to add another good win were thrown out the window. BC had 2 wins vs. teams in the field of 68...........Texas A&M and Bucknell. That's it.
bluefishskip {l Wrote}:then tell me at what point does any measurement or evaluation of numbers makes sense?
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:bluefishskip {l Wrote}:When comparing like teams on the bubble, the top 50 wins signifies which one of these bubble teams have actually beat someone this year.
BC's SOS is 38 right now (respectful), yet who did they beat? Can't say you know what, you played a nice schedule you ought to be in the dance regardless. Andy Katz said it last night, BC's best win was in November and they never book-ended that win with another quality win. All those ACC wins at the end were against poor teams. Any/all opportunities to add another good win were thrown out the window. BC had 2 wins vs. teams in the field of 68...........Texas A&M and Bucknell. That's it.
All of that assumes that the top 50 are "someone." It is a retarded measurable, period. I get the idea of trying to determine whether you can beat someone in the second round of the tourney, but trying to measure it when BYU and SDSU are in the top 10 of the RPI is shittastic Moneyball nonsense.
DallasEire {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:bluefishskip {l Wrote}:When comparing like teams on the bubble, the top 50 wins signifies which one of these bubble teams have actually beat someone this year.
BC's SOS is 38 right now (respectful), yet who did they beat? Can't say you know what, you played a nice schedule you ought to be in the dance regardless. Andy Katz said it last night, BC's best win was in November and they never book-ended that win with another quality win. All those ACC wins at the end were against poor teams. Any/all opportunities to add another good win were thrown out the window. BC had 2 wins vs. teams in the field of 68...........Texas A&M and Bucknell. That's it.
All of that assumes that the top 50 are "someone." It is a retarded measurable, period. I get the idea of trying to determine whether you can beat someone in the second round of the tourney, but trying to measure it when BYU and SDSU are in the top 10 of the RPI is shittastic Moneyball nonsense.
Agreed.
Top 50 is an asinine measureable with no real definition. As much as I believe the ACC to be significantly down this year there is NO WAY a win AT College Park and a win AT Blacksburg are not top fifty quality wins. Just fucking stupid and the measureable is a self perpetuation of whatever myth is built early enough in the season.
In this case, I believe the Big East is the strongest conference but Cincy as a six ? Really ? That won't work too well as Mizzou will give them a quick ball-washing.
In any case, I don't really believe BC was anything much beyond a one and done participant but that is no matter when we're simply comparison one shitty team against another. To see USC in on the back of the top fifty quality wins is a complete negation of the early part of the schedule. Same with PSU. If you are so fucking bad to start the season you should have to win your fucking conference tourney to push your way in.... especially if you're going to finish 19-15... Fucking joke.
By this logic wonder if Rutgers was a bad call away from sending a twelfth team out of that conference ?
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:DallasEire {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:bluefishskip {l Wrote}:When comparing like teams on the bubble, the top 50 wins signifies which one of these bubble teams have actually beat someone this year.
BC's SOS is 38 right now (respectful), yet who did they beat? Can't say you know what, you played a nice schedule you ought to be in the dance regardless. Andy Katz said it last night, BC's best win was in November and they never book-ended that win with another quality win. All those ACC wins at the end were against poor teams. Any/all opportunities to add another good win were thrown out the window. BC had 2 wins vs. teams in the field of 68...........Texas A&M and Bucknell. That's it.
All of that assumes that the top 50 are "someone." It is a retarded measurable, period. I get the idea of trying to determine whether you can beat someone in the second round of the tourney, but trying to measure it when BYU and SDSU are in the top 10 of the RPI is shittastic Moneyball nonsense.
Agreed.
Top 50 is an asinine measureable with no real definition. As much as I believe the ACC to be significantly down this year there is NO WAY a win AT College Park and a win AT Blacksburg are not top fifty quality wins. Just fucking stupid and the measureable is a self perpetuation of whatever myth is built early enough in the season.
In this case, I believe the Big East is the strongest conference but Cincy as a six ? Really ? That won't work too well as Mizzou will give them a quick ball-washing.
In any case, I don't really believe BC was anything much beyond a one and done participant but that is no matter when we're simply comparison one shitty team against another. To see USC in on the back of the top fifty quality wins is a complete negation of the early part of the schedule. Same with PSU. If you are so fucking bad to start the season you should have to win your fucking conference tourney to push your way in.... especially if you're going to finish 19-15... Fucking joke.
By this logic wonder if Rutgers was a bad call away from sending a twelfth team out of that conference ?
The BE is the deepest conference. I don't believe they have a single title contender. I will frankly be shocked to see any of them in the Final Four. But they may have 7-8 in the S16.
DallasEire {l Wrote}:
May be the case. I think Pitt and Louisville could break through but Notre Dame has a tough draw, Syr is too young ( but dangerous ), UConn is also too young and worn out, Georgetown is obviously contingent upon Chris Wright not having any issues playing with his broken wrist, Villanova is typical Jay Wright team that is burned out and going in reverse. They will not beat Mason. WVA is a junk team that hopefully gets beat by Clemson, St. John's has an interesting draw that could propel them toward the 16 but then they're a team that is ecstatic to just be there and I tend to think early melt-down for them.
Right now, on a quick glance:
SW: Purdue
SE: Pitt
EAST: Syracuse
West: Tennessee
I like the draw FSU received.
Will not be suprised to see Louisville, Temple, Old Dominion, or Clemson prove to be dangerous outs... And even though I hate how they have played throughout the entire season i am hard-pressed to bet against Mich State in the tourney also.
BCEagle74 {l Wrote}:DallasEire {l Wrote}:
May be the case. I think Pitt and Louisville could break through but Notre Dame has a tough draw, Syr is too young ( but dangerous ), UConn is also too young and worn out, Georgetown is obviously contingent upon Chris Wright not having any issues playing with his broken wrist, Villanova is typical Jay Wright team that is burned out and going in reverse. They will not beat Mason. WVA is a junk team that hopefully gets beat by Clemson, St. John's has an interesting draw that could propel them toward the 16 but then they're a team that is ecstatic to just be there and I tend to think early melt-down for them.
Right now, on a quick glance:
SW: Purdue
SE: Pitt
EAST: Syracuse
West: Tennessee
I like the draw FSU received.
Will not be suprised to see Louisville, Temple, Old Dominion, or Clemson prove to be dangerous outs... And even though I hate how they have played throughout the entire season i am hard-pressed to bet against Mich State in the tourney also.
St. John's is in deep with a crippler injury to Kennedy, they might now be upset or one and done, but your analysis will be used in 74 's March for $3 million!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests