Bracketology
- Thread starter seaofred92
- Start date
HS_Coach_C
New member
Yeah, but by the end it's not that hard to get almost all of them. I mean I got 65/68 and I don't do it for a living.
I had USC, St Mary's, and Middle Tennessee in and Arizona State, Syracuse, and Texas out.
I didn't understand people bashing him for his bracketology. Now if they were bashing him for making fun of teams or acting like a jerk, I don't have a problem with that.
Cdog923
New member
If you use Bracket Matrix as a metric for judging Bracketologists, the biggest mode of comparison is seeding. There's virtually no difference in #1 and #60 in terms of the number of teams they get correctly in the field. For instance, Lunardi got 66 teams correct, but only 41 seeded correctly.
desertshox
New member
Mavric
Yoda
I don't think the people who were ripping on his here were talking about where the teams were seeded.
And - if I'm looking at that right - the overall Bracket Matrix had 42 teams seeded correctly. So that would mean that Lunardi was basically right on the average, right? Not great but definitely not terrible.
Cdog923
New member
No, not terrible, just average. Far from the "Joey Brackets" personification he and ESPN like to promote, though.
He stoked a lot of the fire of Nebraska fans who were ripping him on Twitter; probably rightly so, too, to build up more profile hits/page clicks.
Mavric
Yoda
Eh, if that's the way you want to frame it, I guess you can. If a bunch of people were ripping on me and I was pretty sure I was right - and proved to be right - I'd probably give them something back.
Minnesota_husker
New member
Exactly. I think Lunardi was a bit combative to those calling him out. It is stupid to call him out because he even made it clear he didnt agree with some of the decisions but he said these were his predictions of how he thought the committee would do it, not his thoughts.
He just came off like a bit of a jerk.. however with how many people were tweeting at him and calling him this or that, I guess I get it.
Cdog923
New member
Lunardi is nothing if not a salesman, and one way to sell is based on emotion. He stoked Nebrasketball fans' emotions for a solid month, and is probably laughing at his page views.
Mavric
Yoda
Like I said, you can choose to believe that if you want. I don't think he was actively going after Nebraska fans. They were getting after him because they thought the Huskers should be in and he didn't have them in. And when that many people are going after you, I don't blame him for responding how he did, like @Minnesota_husker said. And it turned out he was right.
pearljammer
New member
After last night it makes you wonder if the metrics of RPI, Quad 1 wins etc weren't right after all. We didn't look like a tourney team and we have only beaten 1 tournament team all year. All I know is I'm planning my lunch break around being able to cheer against the Sooners today. If we aren't in the tourney might as well hate cheer against the teams we don't think should be in there either. Oh the life of a Husker Hoops fan.... :bang
seaofred92
New member
People like to complain about/try to devalue the metrics but they're used for a reason. RPI isn't perfect but it does a pretty good job of describing who you beat and how good both you and that team are relative to everyone else. As with any system that is set up, there are ways to "game" it. The disappointing part of the committee using the metrics like they do in my opinion is that they don't seem to care about the number of opportunities for Q1 wins versus the total number of Q1 wins. Its obvious to me that a team like Syracuse, that gets to play 15+ Q1/Q2 games a year, has more chances to get those "wins". And the committee has acknowledged these wins are easier to get at home.
A team like MTSU had a top 15 non-conference schedule rating and was 2-3 in Q1 games and was left out. This is where my problem comes in with the metrics. They have 2 Q1 wins but people say "who are their Q1 wins over" and when you name two teams that aren't from a Major 7 conference the assumption is that those teams automatically suck. Then they get left out for a team like Syracuse or Arizona State who get 4 or 5 of these types of wins but go 4-12 or whatever against good competition.
If you get a chance to read it, read the article I posted yesterday from Yahoo about little schools outside the Major 7 conferences and the difficulties they now face getting at large bids because of the quadrant system. Its a really interesting read and echoes a lot of what I outlined above
Minnesota_husker
New member
The Nebraska team that played up till Illinois and the one we saw against Illinois, Michigan(in B10 tourney) and Miss State were two very different teams.
I think the blue print is out that we are inconsistent shooters and just pack the paint, dont let us drive.
We looked like a Tourney team for a while but not in our last two games. We looked tired.
This team is night and day different when on the road and at home. All the NIT home teams won... being at home is a considerable advantage and I honestly think we should have gotten a home game... which I believe we would have won.
Sadly this is probably the best we will do under Miles. He was outcoached again last night and it is proven that when our shots arent falling, our offense shows how basic it is. If Palmer/Copeland dont have the stroke, we are fairly easy to stop.
I like Miles. And I dont put the blame on him like others(See in this thread) but it is clear that while he is our coach, the blueprint is there to stop us and he hasnt been able to adapt.
I think the blue print is out that we are inconsistent shooters and just pack the paint, dont let us drive.
We looked like a Tourney team for a while but not in our last two games. We looked tired.
This team is night and day different when on the road and at home. All the NIT home teams won... being at home is a considerable advantage and I honestly think we should have gotten a home game... which I believe we would have won.
Sadly this is probably the best we will do under Miles. He was outcoached again last night and it is proven that when our shots arent falling, our offense shows how basic it is. If Palmer/Copeland dont have the stroke, we are fairly easy to stop.
I like Miles. And I dont put the blame on him like others(See in this thread) but it is clear that while he is our coach, the blueprint is there to stop us and he hasnt been able to adapt.