Bracketology update
- Thread starter Gospiders06
- Start date
Yes. The Sun Belt does it, too. It's almost a "ladder" format.
#5 and #6 get a bye.
#4 and #3 get a double-bye.
#1 and #2 get a triple-bye.
Would be nice if we could get a quintuple bye right into the ncaa tournament
Yes, the average seed is just a mean, but as far as the pecking order of seed and who is in/out, it's a weighting of both number of brackets and average seed. As I mentioned, we're in a few more brackets than Texas, but they have a better average seed and the matrix has them ahead of us.
The are other examples higher up...you've got teams like St. Mary's, Florida, and USC that are in 98 out of the 99 tracked brackets, but are ahead of some other at-larges like Rutgers and Oklahoma that are in all 99 brackets, due to their better average seeds.
It seems like if you're in the vast majority of brackets, it's your average seed that determines where you fall, but once you get down into bubble and below, the number of brackets carries more weight.
Regardless, it's all very close right now at the cutline. Cincinnati in 49 brackets, UCLA in 52, Texas in 53, and us in 60. All with very similar average seeds.
Not really worried about this, but...
If you took all the teams listed on bracket matrix sort by most number of brackets
Delete the 69th most and fewer
Resort by Average seed
Is there any difference from their site?
That could be it...that's certainly consistent with their list right now. It would mean their cutline is currently razor thin between Texas in 53 brackets and UCLA in 52.
Correct. Thanks. And they played Wake at home. So, NC St. is struggling down the stretch, beats above 100 NET Wake at home, and passes us in Lunardi's bracket after we beat below 100 NET Duquesne on the road. And, unlike NC St., we have not been struggling down the stretch.
NC St. has wins over UVA and Duke, but lost to GT twice, UNC twice, BC, Clem, and VT. They have no business being anywhere near the bubble.
I totally agree VT. All of this is coming from Lunardi. The more I think about it, he is still upset with us for the beat down we put of St. Joe and they didn't get a chance for a rematch. Our AD got hoodwinked and taken advantage of by him.
I don't think he has any agenda. It's not just us that he's struggling with. His bracket seems strange everyday. I just don't think he's very good at doing this.
I agree. Why blame bias when incompetence will do the trick!
I've always understood the only time these guys are rated/graded is at the last list before the announcement. So if JL is paid by the number of readers/clicks/etc maybe he makes more money by being different form the others.
Well then he definitely has an agenda and logically not a reach to say he could have other agendas.
Also his grades still suck at the end too.
Why would Jabba the Hardt think he knows scheduling then? It is related. Picking is the easy part if he can’t do that well how can he determine the right scheduling to getting picked which isn’t rocket science but at least harder than the former.
Have u seen all our Philly influence in & around our AD dept? Got a philly connection it’s like welcome aboard. Some of these guys care more about the Eagles than the Spiders if u look at social media where we have little promotion by our own employees.
Bracket Matrix morning update. We're now in 66/95 brackets, and we're ahead of Cincinnati in average seed. Texas dropped back to first 4 out.
http://www.bracketmatrix.com
http://www.bracketmatrix.com
We didn't really gain on Wichita and Stanford but may be distancing from UCLA
73 of 104
http://www.bracketmatrix.com/
update: 83 of 115
http://www.bracketmatrix.com/
Last edited:
ESPN's Bubble Watch graph on Richmond strikes a much more optimistic tone:
Since they've been saying we still need to win the A10 tournament since Friday night's win (I told y'all to take screenshots), I wonder what has changed? We must have done something special over the weekend. Really good practices?
Or maybe they noticed they were part of a shrinking minority and would rather follow the herd.
Since they've been saying we still need to win the A10 tournament since Friday night's win (I told y'all to take screenshots), I wonder what has changed? We must have done something special over the weekend. Really good practices?
Or maybe they noticed they were part of a shrinking minority and would rather follow the herd.
So now they are trying to delegitimize our win over Wisconsin. Are they also going to look into every other Q1 win for other teams to see if maybe there was a change in the lineup or an injury. Is any win over Providence before Jan. 15 now bogus?
Just the mention of that in this piece is disgusting. They are trying to drop seeds. Pathetic. F off ESPN.
So they mention that Potter wasn't available (averaging 10.1 ppg so far this year).
But they fail to mention that this was before Kobe King left the team (averaged 10.0 ppg before announcing transfer).
But they fail to mention that this was before Kobe King left the team (averaged 10.0 ppg before announcing transfer).
I thought it was pretty shocking how negative they were on our chances. The previous updates essentially called the A-10 a one bid league, since we obviously had the best chance outside of Dayton at an at-large, and they said we had to win the tourney to get a bid. Seems that common sense (and math) has finally prevailed.
Great Scot!
88 Brackets of 122! We've gone back in time to March of 1988!
http://www.bracketmatrix.com/
92 brackets added today
82% Stanford
74% UR
67% Wichita
67% Cincinnati
38% UCLA
33% Texas
33% NC State
10% UNI
88 Brackets of 122! We've gone back in time to March of 1988!
http://www.bracketmatrix.com/
92 brackets added today
82% Stanford
74% UR
67% Wichita
67% Cincinnati
38% UCLA
33% Texas
33% NC State
10% UNI
Last edited:
There was a lot of bubble teams losing this week. I was shocked with the bigs one like Lunardi not moving us up, but it seems the rest of the field of bracketologists caught up today.
Yes, but there were only 3 brackets...including the committee's...They had bracketmatrix in 1988?
That's a good point.
I was going to ask about this issue. Can the committee, if they feel like a couple of AQs are worthy of better seeds than the last four in (Utah State and ETSU, for example), can they move a First Four game to a 12-vs-12? Most mock brackets have both games between the last four in at 11-vs-11.
I'm pretty sure the answer is yes, but they haven't done it in several years. They've all been 11 v 11 recently.
I was going to ask about this issue. Can the committee, if they feel like a couple of AQs are worthy of better seeds than the last four in (Utah State and ETSU, for example), can they move a First Four game to a 12-vs-12? Most mock brackets have both games between the last four in at 11-vs-11.
I'm pretty sure the answer is yes, but they haven't done it in several years. They've all been 11 v 11 recently.
Last edited:
I know you asked for answers not questions but...
Was their 14 v 14 in 2012? 13 v 13 in 2013?
I wonder if the committee will ever do what the CFP committee does and release their rankings earlier on in the season so teams know where they stand. Would be awful interesting seeing the committee seed what the tournament would look like today so teams know what they need to do going into conference tournaments...also would be wildly interesting and create all sorts of content and revenue for sports channels and websites.
I don’t think it will happen but damn that would be interesting as hell.
I don’t think it will happen but damn that would be interesting as hell.
Yes, that's what prompted my question. But it's been all 11 vs 11 for at least 5 years.
I thought they released their Top 16 earlier this year, and it was met with a collective yawn.
Similar threads
