Iowa State would definitely have a great chance to get to the second weekend. But don't discount New Mexico, they are tough.
Joe Lunardi Seeding
- Thread starter Rhoadhoused
- Start date
Iowa State would definitely have a great chance to get to the second weekend. But don't discount New Mexico, they are tough.
I don't understand how a Michigan team with 7 losses would get a 1 seed playing in the little 10 when ISU would get a 3 seed with 7 losses playing in a better conference and with a win over Michigan?
The arguments I have heard...
They don't have any bad losses... oh wait, indiana and Charlotte
They have better road wins... Wisconsin and Michigan State are the only two that count here. The others are artificial, If they get to count Nebraska and Minnesota we get to count BYU and Oklahoma State so really they are only +3 on that. But I suppose they have a slight edge here, except we beat them so there is that
They have a better RPI... nope again
They have a better SOS... This one they get
Several experts are pretty close to 100% in predicting the 68 teams. It's the seeds that are the real problem.
I don't get why people get so bent out of shape because Lunardi is wrong on a seed here or there by just 1 spot. He's trying to predict what a large panel of people will decide objectively/subjectively when coming to a conclusion about the season which has many, many different moving parts.
I think bracketology for the most part is GD waste of time until the last 2 weeks, but I applaud their efforts this time of year as they try to paint a pretty decent picture.
I think bracketology for the most part is GD waste of time until the last 2 weeks, but I applaud their efforts this time of year as they try to paint a pretty decent picture.
CBS had Dave Gavitt from the selection committee on at halftime of one of the early games and he said one thing they are trying to get away from is having some rigid formula that they put names into and out comes a field/bracket.
They want to be able to be "subjective" about picking teams.
Someone tell me if this is good or bad for the local teams.
They want to be able to be "subjective" about picking teams.
Someone tell me if this is good or bad for the local teams.
I'm thinking it goes this way,
"Hey Iowa State's profile spits out as a 3 seed?!? Let's see, I like North Carolina because they're a blue blood and the public won't question us putting them as the 3. Move Iowa State down to a 4."
Wisconsin getting destroyed by MSU, they are a 2 seed. If we win tonight, do you see Wisconsin dropping to a 3 and us taking their place as a 2?
This, it's really not that hard to predict the teams in the tournament.
32 teams are automatic bids. Of the remaining 36 at-large bids, about 28 of those are pretty much locks. The remaining 8 spots are the true bubble teams. And those 8 spots, you can pretty much guess or throw darts at the teams and get 4 of the 8 right. So, technically, if a so called "expert" misses more than 5 or so teams, it should be considered horrible.
The seeding is what's really tough to predict, especially seeds 3-12 or so.
If that's true....then Iowa is screwed. Because Lunardi's "body of work" formula means ****. It would mean what 32 at large teams being considered are playing the best ball...right now. Not Feb. 8th.
So tired of certain people's "wearing their nut cup over their brain" style paranoia... :no:
If Michigan wins the regular season and tournament in the Big 10 I have no problem with them getting a #1 seed. Who else deserves it more? My position has been Michigan or KU should get that 4th 1 seed if they win the conference tournament.
This sounds reasonable to me, but still expect it won't happen.
