What's really going on here between bobinator, reineraggie and milkman? It seems as though both reineraggie and milkman have been logged on to bobinator's account in the past 3 hours or so. Could it be that bobinator is not actually one person, but instead is a collaboration amongst many, thus accounting for the ungodly number of posts? Just a thought.

All I know is that if someone I knew left themselves logged in, there would be some serious embarrassment posted.

It's the unwritten rule here at the office. There's been some crazy sh*t coming from the unlocked computer of an unsuspecting restroom goer.

These bracketology things at this point are as boring as a mock NFL draft. (Well, almost since few things compare with NFL mock drafts.)
It's nice to see the Aggies as high as possible. It will all come out on wash-day. And wash-day is after the regular season and conference tournaments end. I have no idea where this thing will end up--just hoping high.

quote:

---

So we are not "falling." That arrow indicates that our current slot is LOWER than the last time he put out the bracket. All this means is someone leapfrogged us in the bracket.

---

Ok, that helps. It still doesn't make sense us with a lower seed than last time when our ranking has gone up from the week before (leaped teams over the week) and we got another solid road win in the process. Not to mention our ranking as of today is more like 15 rather than 18 based off teams that lost mid-week.

So in summary assuming we take care of business as I'm sure he expects, he took a team aprox ranked 15th overall as of next Sunday(4th seed) and gave it a ranking of 25-28 in his bracket (7th seed). Of course rankings do not translate directly to seeding at the end, but that's a pretty big discrepancy.


[This message has been edited by Aston04 (edited 2/15/2008 4:24p).]

Never mind the dumb stuff re. people logging in under more than one handle.
1. What I want to know is who on this board is stupid enough to believe ANYTHING that is said on ESPN, especially when it's one of their "experts" opinions?

2. These pre-tournament brackets don't count for squat! The only bracket that counts is the real thing!

3. After the way the conference season started, I will be happy to see them make the tournament period! Anyone in the tournament has a chance of going to the final four. All you have to do is look at past years and the number of upsets.


It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog!

[This message has been edited by FlyingAg (edited 2/15/2008 3:27p).]

quote:

---

When you have a guy who has been publishing has brackets for about a decade, I don't think you can say that he doesn't know much.

---

I do some freelance, and am an ex coach. Most "sports-journalists" I come across could not sit down and actually evaluate a game. They merely regurgitate what coaches, players, sports information directors and other commentators say.

I have no problem giving somebody with experience the benefit of the doubt, but his brackets consistently tend to clash with mainstream analysis systems: the ap poll, sagarin ratings, pomeroy systems.

We are 18th in the AP, 17th in Sagarin and 12th in pomeroy. We are 24th in rpi. We are 86th in sos, but that should change with 7 more games against big 12 opponents, while the teams in lesser conferences drop off.


Its not that Lunardi was questionable 1 time, but that he has been consistently questionable.

And I stand by what I said about sports writers not knowing enough to analyze. If you ever want to test this theory, find a sportswriter and ask what kind of defensive scheme each team was running, and how often they varied from it. Then ask them what type of offense the teams were running and how often they switched it up.

If its a football game, ask him about what was the breakdown in run/pass plays. Ask him what routes the recievers were running (this is the best one because most dont have a clue).

If you know enough to ask these questions, you will probably conclude the same as I have.

[This message has been edited by HannibalSnake (edited 2/15/2008 5:08p).]

what a fuuking joke

[This message has been edited by texasaggies987 (edited 2/15/2008 4:35p).]

quote:

---

It still doesn't make sense us with a lower seed than last time when our ranking has gone up from the week before

---

It's based on the RPI. Interestingly, the NCAA publishes the formula THEY use for all to see but when 6 different websites apply the formula, you get 6 different results.

Anyway, the nature of the RPI is such that even though the Ags win 5 in a row, we can actually go down in the RPI. I think someone in the Big XII went UP after a loss.

So when you wonder why we bounce up and down in the bracket, a good run by some some good teams boosts their RPI, and some teams (like us) can sit back for a week and watch teams we beat go and win tough games, making OUR RPI better by not doing a damn thing.

Can anyone tell me what Lunardi came up with for his LAST bracket of EACH year compared to what the selection committee released? It would be interesting to see how close he got. . .heck, it might even earn him a bit of credibility.

Yeah, thats just it, all Lunardi appears to look at are RPI, big wins/losses and trend.

The selection committee goes by:

The selection process and tournament seedings are based on several factors, including team rankings, win-loss records and RPI data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Championship


Thus, Lunardi is not very profecient at his job, even if he has been doing it for 10 years.

quote:

---

think you misremember that being an actual word

---

I see what you did there. But believe it or not, misremember IS a word.

quote:

---

Thus, Lunardi is not very profecient at his job, even if he has been doing it for 10 years.

---

Not saying I agree with Lunardi's placement of us in the latest bracketology, because I feel that we are not receiving any credit for tough blow-out road wins in conference, at places where KSU lost recently and where tu lost and struggled to win in overtime.

Nonetheless, Lunardi is usually accurate on his predictions and should not be discredited. I believe a statistic was published awhile back that said in a recent year Lunardi had accurately predicted something like 85% of the seeds.

would love another shot at asu in bham

would love another shot at asu in bham

A couple of years ago when Lunardi projected us in the big dance (which was questionable) we all thought he was Gods gift to prognosticating. Expecially after he was correct. Lunardi's probably got us near where we would be seeded today. Lets hope that the team keeps winning, earns a higher seed, and then keeps winning in the tourney.

asu= arizona state
uofa=arizona

Who Cares? The only one that matters is the NCAA seeding after the season has ended.

quote:

---

Ok, that helps. It still doesn't make sense us with a lower seed than last time when our ranking has gone up from the week before (leaped teams over the week) and we got another solid road win in the process. Not to mention our ranking as of today is more like 15 rather than 18 based off teams that lost mid-week.

So in summary assuming we take care of business as I'm sure he expects, he took a team aprox ranked 15th overall as of next Sunday(4th seed) and gave it a ranking of 25-28 in his bracket (7th seed). Of course rankings do not translate directly to seeding at the end, but that's a pretty big discrepancy.

---

You don't really get the concept of RPI and the influence it has on the selection committee, do you.


As one guy said, you are 24 in RPI, which makes you a 6, but considering your poor road record and SOS, dropping you to a 7 isn't as ridiculous as most on here are contending.

This isn't football, it doesn't matter how many you have won in a row....if other teams have more impressive victories, or even "showings" you can lose ground.

In the end, you have to be peaking in March for any of this to matter, just focus on that and get into the tournament, which you have.

It is unrealistic for you all to play the schedule that you have and to be angered at not getting "respect" when it comes to this.

quote:

---

As one guy said, you are 24 in RPI, which makes you a 6, but considering your poor road record and SOS, dropping you to a 7 isn't as ridiculous as most on here are contending.

---

Not that I am disagreeing with Lunardi's seeding of us, but I would hardly consider a 3-3 record on the road (5-3 if you include neutral games), with two blow-outs against teams that have either beaten or played other top-tier tourney teams close at home, a "poor road record."


[This message has been edited by rosco511 (edited 2/15/2008 11:27p).]

You played one quality road game using his main criteria (RPI) and lost it.

That is what I mean.


Like I say, I really think that most of you all still have a college football mind set as it pertains to this.

First off all, "rankings" from coaches or media mean almost nothing to the selection committee, I don't care what "Wikipedia says", second, just get in to the dance.

You need to get hot at the end and you need to beat tough team no matter where you are in the bracket.

quote:

---

You don't really get the concept of RPI and the influence it has on the selection committee, do you.

---

First I don't appreciate your tone. Yes I'm an avid college basketball fan, but just disagree on this one particular mock bracket. Big deal. I'd appreciate it if you were not condescending in your response.

Missouri St. in 2006 didn't get in the tournament with an RPI of 20. Care explain that? Obviously a multitude of factors are considered, including but not solely RPI.

The bottom line is it doesn't make much sense that our team is rising in the rankings (how we compare to other tournament teams) and "falling" in Lunardi's bracket. I've haven't seen any other bracket showing this. I wonder why??!

Also, how far exactly did our RPI drop from last week to this? I don't think it did, but what be happy to see evidence to the contrary. Also on an RPI website says we have an up arrow. True it's not official, but I doubt we dropped.
http://realtimerpi.com/rpi_Men.html

In fact, at least based off that website our RPI went up and our ranking went up, but we "fell" in Lunardi's bracket.

Finally, RPI shouldn't be as relied on as heavy at this point in the year in making projections because it strongly skewed towards mid-major schools that front-load their schedule (because conference play is easier) and disfavors big conference schools that have multiple tough games of their conference schedule ahead like A&M.

[This message has been edited by Aston04 (edited 2/16/2008 10:27a).]

Besides, if the RPI means as much as some of you think, then committee chairmen have been lying through their teeth for years.

The RPI, when used, is a tiebreaker among many factors and nothing more... so they say.

The thing that fans seem to take note of -- how many teams each league gets in -- appears to be of no matter when the actual selection and seeding are done.

If this were not so, at some point, somehow, a former committee member already would have come forward to say, you know what? We didn't do it like we said we did. But, to the best of my knowledge, that never has happened.

I don't understand...ESPN.com shows we are 20-4 and it shows a win for Ouachita Baptist in the schedule. So...where does it say 19-4 anywhere, and that they didn't count the Ouachita Baptist game?

The Tournament Committee doesn't count wins against D-2 or lower schools.

RPI isn't the "onl" thing.

Road wins and some times road losses vs. other tournament teams.

How you have played your last 10 games

SOS

Believe it or not, injuries.

But RPI is over riding "poll" of any sort that they use as criteria - not how you are ranked by any media group.

Didn't mean to come across as "pompous", but re-read my post and see how that could be interpreted that way.

I apologize for that.

[This message has been edited by morethanthreeyards (edited 2/16/2008 10:01a).]

ttt for some of you idiots.

so you ttt this thread because you want to prove a point. Except it doesnt prove a point. We should be falling.. NOW.. not last week.

i think the down arrow is a prediction of future. Lunardi was correct.