b.hayes Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 this Sunday will have a Christmas morning feel for me Amen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 We got the Lunardi update but here is a more general one (luckily Lunardi is a below average forecaster), of the 50 bracketologists who have updated SLU is an average 8.8 seed. 7 seed -- 2 8 seed -- 17 9 seed -- 21 10 seed -- 8 11 seed -- 2 If you want to follow ONE bracketologist that has a decent record and is getting paid by a major media organization I would suggest Bracketville (http://bracketville.wordpress.com/bracketology/ )but unfortunately he is also one of the people who has SLU at 10 right now. Bracket Matrix: http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NextYearBill Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I would be happy with that 11 seed. Get past the first round and we are set up better facing a potential 3 seed instead of 1,2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiseAndGrind Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I would be happy with that 11 seed. Get past the first round and we are set up better facing a potential 3 seed instead of 1,2 +1. I'd gladly take an 11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NextYearBill Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'm under the impression that we can beat anybody. Facing a 6 seed first round does not worry me all that much. Get that W and I'll face any 3 seed with confidence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 The non-BCS teams don't get the TV ratings that BCS teams get. And that's a fact. Wrong. The worst ratings in the last 10 were all in years when 2 BCS teams were in the final. http://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-sports-network/releases/view?id=27957 And even looking at the final four of the worst 4 years shows nearly all BCS in final four. 2003 -- ALL BCS in final four. 2004 -- ALL BCS inf final four. 2006 -- ALL BCS but George Mason(Geo Mason v. UConn though had great ratings in the Elite 8) 2009 -- ALL BCS in final four CBS knows all this; there were definitely fears two yeas ago when Butler made it the first time but they turned out to be unfounded). The last two years ratings were ABOVE trend with Butler and VCU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SShoe Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 this Sunday will have a Christmas morning feel for meGreat way to put it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 For the record, BMI is a new ESPN ranking tool developed by a "basement" type guy. It uses a lot of good things and time will tell if it is a worthy system. Thanks for setting me straight - makes sense since it was on ESPN that kept showing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 All you need to know to know there is a bias, is how many BCS teams get in that don't win their tourneys. According to Lunardi's picks it's 28 BCS teams. So, according to Broy, whose numbers I trust, there a 31 auto bids for conf winners, add the 28 BCS non winners and you have 57 just about guaranteed spots every year. That means, if we don't win the A-10, we're trying to secure one of only 11 open dance cards. The point here is not that we're in trouble this year, we should be a lock by now, but it's gonna be tough to do it year after year after year. And those 28 BCS spots are down somewhat due to the ACC and Pac 12 both having below average years. There's definitely a BCS bias. I think it's time to go to a 96 team tourney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I think they ought to have set bids per the strength of the conference. For example the number 1 ranked conference gets 7 slots down to lower conferences getting 1. Hell for all I care they could pre seed them. I would like to see mid major winners get better seeds though. Let the final schools in from majors have to play the 1 and 2 seeds every year. Let the mid major champs play 8-9 seed games. You always hear podunk conference schools never win, well of course not they have to play Duke and UNC every year in round 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NextYearBill Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I think they ought to have set bids per the strength of the conference. For example the number 1 ranked conference gets 7 slots down to lower conferences getting 1. Hell for all I care they could pre seed them. I would like to see mid major winners get better seeds though. Let the final schools in from majors have to play the 1 and 2 seeds every year. Let the mid major champs play 8-9 seed games. You always hear podunk conference schools never win, well of course not they have to play Duke and UNC every year in round 1. temple would get our 1 bid. we would be out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo027 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 If we go to a 96 team tournament, a team with an 8-10 record in the Big East will be a lock to get in. Big Ten teams with sub-100 RPIs would get in. I don't believe there is a conspiracy to get as many "power conference" teams in as possible. I won't say "BCS conferences" because that is a football-only term. Last year Colorado and Virginia Tech were snubbed in favor of UAB and VCU. VCU got really hot and had a nice run, but based on their pre-tournament resume, they should not have been in. RPI and top 50 wins are major criteria for getting in the Dance, and it favors power conference teams because they have many more opportunities for top 50 wins than lesser conferences. But I don't believe the committee is sitting in a room saying "Let's put as many Big East teams in as we can, so we can make as much money as we possibly can." I'm interested to see what they do with the Pac 12, a traditional "power conference" which is currently #10 in the RPI, below the A-10, Mountain West, C-USA, and the Missouri Valley. Cal and Washington are the only ones with any chance at an at-large. I think Cal needs to get to the semis and Washington needs to get to the finals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I think they ought to have set bids per the strength of the conference. For example the number 1 ranked conference gets 7 slots down to lower conferences getting 1. Hmm. I wonder where you got that idea? You need to credit the Champions League if you are going to steal their idea. Actually, when I have been asked to explain the European professional soccer league structure, tournaments, and champions league, the best analogy I can come up with is D1 basketball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 temple would get our 1 bid. we would be out Who said the A10 would get 1? Wasn't the A10 the 7th ranked league? 7th ranked should probably get 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Hmm. I wonder where you got that idea? You need to credit the Champions League if you are going to steal their idea. Actually, when I have been asked to explain the European professional soccer league structure, tournaments, and champions league, the best analogy I can come up with is D1 basketball. I actually didn't know that. I watch European games, but really don't have a team I follow so I don't pay any attention to standings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deutschkind Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I actually didn't know that. I watch European games, but really don't have a team I follow so I don't pay any attention to standings. Ya each country's league is ranked against the others based on how well their teams do. So the top three leagues right now are England, Spain and Germany and each gets 3 automatic qualifiers for the Champions League. As you go down, the leagues get less auto-bids until the bottom bunch of leagues have to qualify just to play in the tournament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I actually didn't know that. I watch European games, but really don't have a team I follow so I don't pay any attention to standings. The Champions league uses a a coefficient system to determine how many teams are invited from each league. The English, Spanish, and German leagues will gets 4 teams this year, while leagues like the Polish League get only 1 team, Rankings within the leagues also determines whether certain teams go to the group stage or not (effectively, seeding and a bye). The system also allocates teams to the European League (akin to the NIT). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_coefficients#League_coefficient Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Thanks for the info. I also think that would put less of an emphasis on non conf games. It'd be more like you were using them to get ready for your conference season which would determine your NCAA fate. Maybe BCS schools wouldn't have to use the "we have nothing to gain and everything to lose" argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I think they ought to have set bids per the strength of the conference. For example the number 1 ranked conference gets 7 slots down to lower conferences getting 1. Hell for all I care they could pre seed them. I would like to see mid major winners get better seeds though. Let the final schools in from majors have to play the 1 and 2 seeds every year. Let the mid major champs play 8-9 seed games. You always hear podunk conference schools never win, well of course not they have to play Duke and UNC every year in round 1. my problem with all this stuff is who really decides who has the tougher schedule, conference etc. bottom line there is still some subjectivity to all of it. the whole bcs conference thing infuriates me. the big ten will likely get teams in that do not even have a winning conference record but my gosh they are big ten. i still say open this mother up even more. i personally would let em all in. but let's just say you have to have a positive record both conference and overall and then pitch the 128 teams. by the time you get to 128 you definitely would cover the teams that have a chance in hell of winning the thing. but at 68 i am still not sure that covers a team that has the potential to get hot enough to win em all. another thought i had long ago was to use one leg of the final four for the nit. run the entire 32 team nit through that one leg and the nit champ gets a final four berth. the other three legs are the auto qualifiers and the 17 best at large teams. those nit teams have to play more games in a shorter period of time, but they should have to work harder to make it to the final four. this ideal would expand the tourney to 80 teams. i dont care how they do it, but i think they need to expand even more however expand without letting in an illinois team that is 6-12 in conference play as well. make it so the expansion brings in more of the non-bcs teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
showthebill Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I disagree. DO NOT allow more teams into the tournament. I understand some of the last few teams might not get a bid who deserved one, but the entire reason for this tournament is to find the best team in the country and not who's ranked #60 in the country. The tournament might be favored toward BCS teams, but it is my personal belief that you have the chance to prove you are the best team in the country all season. If you can't even make a field of 68 then you don't deserve the chance to prove you are the number 1 team. Northwestern, Xavier, etc. Sorry you're not number one in the country so the NCAA shouldn't expand the field just so you guys can get a bid and hopefully get lucky and knock off a more deserving team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I disagree. DO NOT allow more teams into the tournament. I understand some of the last few teams might not get a bid who deserved one, but the entire reason for this tournament is to find the best team in the country and not who's ranked #60 in the country. The tournament might be favored toward BCS teams, but it is my personal belief that you have the chance to prove you are the best team in the country all season. If you can't even make a field of 68 then you don't deserve the chance to prove you are the number 1 team. Northwestern, Xavier, etc. Sorry you're not number one in the country so the NCAA shouldn't expand the field just so you guys can get a bid and hopefully get lucky and knock off a more deserving team. so you knew that the likes of butler, vmi, or george mason a few years back were deserved of final four prior to the tourney? you dont think there is a chance another late blooming butler looms out in mid major land right around the year end 40-60 rpi mark? i do. and right now there is a very good chance that team gets left out while the likes of 8-10 conference northwestern gets a spot. well the ncaa is never going to do the right thing and leave the mediocre bcs team out. they've proven that corruption story out year after year. the bcs conferences are all going to average 6-7 teams in. hell last year didnt like 42 big east teams get invites? that b.s. so the way you fix it is to let more teams in. at 128 you are really only talking about one more game. and we do that one night of games now on tuesday night. so no big deal at all. the more mid majors let in the better the tourney is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billboy1 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The NCAA looks at it like almost everybody has a chance because of the conference tournaments (exception Ivy League). That is a joke. Agree getting more mid majors in would make it better. Perhaps a rule where any at large invitation cannot go to a team with less than a .500 league record would help a little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 -i would take it back to 64 teams and go from there, expanding has the chance of taking a lot of luster off the event and this first four is crap to me -plus the tv contract is for 8 or 9 more years so i can't see much, if any, movement, but contracts don't matter to everyone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 If we get an 8/9 seed, we gotta hope that the 1 seed has to play UNC-Asheville. I have full confidence that Matt Dickey would pull the upset for us and then throw the game for his true team when they play us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlumniFan Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Lunardi has updated his bracketology. Apparently beating Duquesne by 15 knocked us down 2 seeds to 10th (I know other teams could have leap-frogged us, but come on man). He's got us playing Mizzou in the 2nd round. http://espn.go.com/m...ll/bracketology I'm getting a little pissed that basically every "bracketologist" has us well below where we would be if the computers did the picking. Our RPI is 28 and its far and away the lowest of all our computer rankings. Goddam eye test b.s. The LAST team I want to play in the tourney is "Missourah". That said, I think we match up very well with them. EDIT: Let me be clear - I think we would win that game because of the match up, but I have such a dislike for the way certain "Missourah" fans behave I just don't even want to be in the same room with them. Funny, I hear the same thing from KU fans, Illini fans, OK fans, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.