NET rankings
- Thread starter ADORAZ
- Start date
Using Joe Lunardi's bracket as a guide I can see how a 12 seed is an advantage over an 8 or 9 seed in getting to the second week of the tournament. Four of the six 12 seeds have to play an extra game but it vs a team ranked out of the top 50.
The two survivors and the other two 12 seeds then play
Iowa st / Md or
Nev/ LSU or
Fl St / Wisconsin or
Va Tech / Kan
If there are no upsets to advance to week two. The eight or nine seed will play a top seed in game two in order to advance. I'd prefer a 12 seed to an 8 or 9.
The two survivors and the other two 12 seeds then play
Iowa st / Md or
Nev/ LSU or
Fl St / Wisconsin or
Va Tech / Kan
If there are no upsets to advance to week two. The eight or nine seed will play a top seed in game two in order to advance. I'd prefer a 12 seed to an 8 or 9.
[quote="Enright" post=325721]Using Joe Lunardi's bracket as a guide I can see how a 12 seed is an advantage over an 8 or 9 seed in getting to the second week of the tournament. Four of the six 12 seeds have to play an extra game but it vs a team ranked out of the top 50.
The two survivors and the other two 12 seeds then play
Iowa st / Md or
Nev/ LSU or
Fl St / Wisconsin or
Va Tech / Kan
If there are no upsets to advance to week two. The eight or nine seed will play a top seed in game two in order to advance. I'd prefer a 12 seed to an 8 or 9.[/quote]
It’s always been that way. An 8-9 is one of the worst games you can be in. Cause the first game is a toss up and even if you get by you have an incredibly tough game 2 days later. Unless UMBC is your 16 seed.
Ever since I was a kid and picking brackets before I even knew anything about college basketball, my dad always told me the same line every year “a 12 always beats a 5”. You can’t escape it. The funny thing is a 12 didn’t beat a 5 last year. But a 16 beat a 1. March madness is crazy
The two survivors and the other two 12 seeds then play
Iowa st / Md or
Nev/ LSU or
Fl St / Wisconsin or
Va Tech / Kan
If there are no upsets to advance to week two. The eight or nine seed will play a top seed in game two in order to advance. I'd prefer a 12 seed to an 8 or 9.[/quote]
It’s always been that way. An 8-9 is one of the worst games you can be in. Cause the first game is a toss up and even if you get by you have an incredibly tough game 2 days later. Unless UMBC is your 16 seed.
Ever since I was a kid and picking brackets before I even knew anything about college basketball, my dad always told me the same line every year “a 12 always beats a 5”. You can’t escape it. The funny thing is a 12 didn’t beat a 5 last year. But a 16 beat a 1. March madness is crazy
JohnnyFever
Active member
We need to hope that there's a huge upset in our region. If we can tough out a win in the 8-9 matchup then face a double-digit seed mid major in the 2nd round that's how teams get to the Sweet 16 or beyond. Imagine Bucknell beating Kentucky. That would have us having to beat Wofford and Bucknell to reach the Sweet 16. Insane.
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=325728]We need to hope that there's a huge upset in our region. If we can tough out a win in the 8-9 matchup then face a double-digit seed mid major in the 2nd round that's how teams get to the Sweet 16 or beyond. Imagine Bucknell beating Kentucky. That would have us having to beat Wofford and Bucknell to reach the Sweet 16. Insane.[/quote]
We’re putting the cart before the horse here. We haven’t won a tournament game in 18 years! Let’s take care of that first.
We’re putting the cart before the horse here. We haven’t won a tournament game in 18 years! Let’s take care of that first.
Last edited:
[quote="Jack Williams" post=325723][quote="Enright" post=325721]Using Joe Lunardi's bracket as a guide I can see how a 12 seed is an advantage over an 8 or 9 seed in getting to the second week of the tournament. Four of the six 12 seeds have to play an extra game but it vs a team ranked out of the top 50.
The two survivors and the other two 12 seeds then play
Iowa st / Md or
Nev/ LSU or
Fl St / Wisconsin or
Va Tech / Kan
If there are no upsets to advance to week two. The eight or nine seed will play a top seed in game two in order to advance. I'd prefer a 12 seed to an 8 or 9.[/quote]
It’s always been that way. An 8-9 is one of the worst games you can be in. Cause the first game is a toss up and even if you get by you have an incredibly tough game 2 days later. Unless UMBC is your 16 seed.
Ever since I was a kid and picking brackets before I even knew anything about college basketball, my dad always told me the same line every year “a 12 always beats a 5”. You can’t escape it. The funny thing is a 12 didn’t beat a 5 last year. But a 16 beat a 1. March madness is crazy[/quote]
12 over 5 used to have an insane upset rate, but that's cooled down in recent years (regression to the mean, probably).
11 over 6 has spiked up in recent years, thanks to the First Four Games. Many people believe (myself included) that, if you win the First Four Game, you are at an advantage in the Round of 64, since you are playing a team that is not much better then you, and you've already experience the one-game and eliminated format. You're at ease, while the pressure is on your opponent, the so-called "better" team, and they have yet to play in the tournament, so they're tight.
This does not apply to the 16 seeds that win first four games, since the talent difference between them, and a 1 seed, is too great.
This year, the seed lines on the first four games are projected to be lower (I've seen 12s on those lines, and even a game between 13s), so maybe you get more 5-12 upsets this year.
The two survivors and the other two 12 seeds then play
Iowa st / Md or
Nev/ LSU or
Fl St / Wisconsin or
Va Tech / Kan
If there are no upsets to advance to week two. The eight or nine seed will play a top seed in game two in order to advance. I'd prefer a 12 seed to an 8 or 9.[/quote]
It’s always been that way. An 8-9 is one of the worst games you can be in. Cause the first game is a toss up and even if you get by you have an incredibly tough game 2 days later. Unless UMBC is your 16 seed.
Ever since I was a kid and picking brackets before I even knew anything about college basketball, my dad always told me the same line every year “a 12 always beats a 5”. You can’t escape it. The funny thing is a 12 didn’t beat a 5 last year. But a 16 beat a 1. March madness is crazy[/quote]
12 over 5 used to have an insane upset rate, but that's cooled down in recent years (regression to the mean, probably).
11 over 6 has spiked up in recent years, thanks to the First Four Games. Many people believe (myself included) that, if you win the First Four Game, you are at an advantage in the Round of 64, since you are playing a team that is not much better then you, and you've already experience the one-game and eliminated format. You're at ease, while the pressure is on your opponent, the so-called "better" team, and they have yet to play in the tournament, so they're tight.
This does not apply to the 16 seeds that win first four games, since the talent difference between them, and a 1 seed, is too great.
This year, the seed lines on the first four games are projected to be lower (I've seen 12s on those lines, and even a game between 13s), so maybe you get more 5-12 upsets this year.
[quote="Marillac" post=325729][quote="Mike Zaun" post=325728]We need to hope that there's a huge upset in our region. If we can tough out a win in the 8-9 matchup then face a double-digit seed mid major in the 2nd round that's how teams get to the Sweet 16 or beyond. Imagine Bucknell beating Kentucky. That would have us having to beat Wofford and Bucknell to reach the Sweet 16. Insane.[/quote]
We’re putting the cart before the horse here. We haven’t won a tournament game in 18 years! Let’s take care of that first.[/quote]
Let's get in the Tournament first!! It is not at all beyond the realm of possibility that we don't. Xavier is a tough team, their record is a hair-breadth away from ours, and they are clearly gelling as a unit as their last 4 games have shown. DePaul we've already lost to, and they've beaten Xavier and Providence and swept the Hall.
Not trying to being pessimistic and obviously hoping for our first bid under the new regime...but with this team, it can be hazardous to look ahead more 24 hours.
We’re putting the cart before the horse here. We haven’t won a tournament game in 18 years! Let’s take care of that first.[/quote]
Let's get in the Tournament first!! It is not at all beyond the realm of possibility that we don't. Xavier is a tough team, their record is a hair-breadth away from ours, and they are clearly gelling as a unit as their last 4 games have shown. DePaul we've already lost to, and they've beaten Xavier and Providence and swept the Hall.
Not trying to being pessimistic and obviously hoping for our first bid under the new regime...but with this team, it can be hazardous to look ahead more 24 hours.
Redmen88
Well-known member
We really need to play well enough to get into a seed of at least 7. I think we could win a few games with that seed. As previous posters pointed out 8 or 9 is terrible. I know we still have to get in but we are in an excellent position with 3 games left. Lets aim for the fences and hope we don't go out whiffing!!
[quote="Eric" post=325705]For us right now these seeds mean nothing except we most likely are in the tourney at this point barring losing our last 3. .[/quote]
But even with them being that meaningless they mean infinitely more than who these guys have STJ in the bracket with or who they have them facing in the first round. Lunardi makes his claim by adjusting his brackets to the last minute and getting the field of 64 closer to correct than anyone. That's what Palm and Howie are trying to do as well. No one compares the field as predicted on Feb 22 to the final field to assess Lunardi's performance and no one grades them on how many seeds or matchups they get correct.
That means the primary thing they need to figure out from probably a group of 6-10 teams on conference tourney Saturday and Sunday are which are the last 4 in and which are the last 4 out. The balance of their predictions are, as you say, meaningless. As long as you're not coming up in those conversations you're good and should just wait until selection Sunday to see who you are playing and where you are going.
But even with them being that meaningless they mean infinitely more than who these guys have STJ in the bracket with or who they have them facing in the first round. Lunardi makes his claim by adjusting his brackets to the last minute and getting the field of 64 closer to correct than anyone. That's what Palm and Howie are trying to do as well. No one compares the field as predicted on Feb 22 to the final field to assess Lunardi's performance and no one grades them on how many seeds or matchups they get correct.
That means the primary thing they need to figure out from probably a group of 6-10 teams on conference tourney Saturday and Sunday are which are the last 4 in and which are the last 4 out. The balance of their predictions are, as you say, meaningless. As long as you're not coming up in those conversations you're good and should just wait until selection Sunday to see who you are playing and where you are going.
SeattleJohnny
Well-known member
[quote="capmaker" post=325734][URL]https://www.betfirm.com/seeds-national-championship-odds/[/URL][/quote]
This is fascinating.
If we could somehow sneak into a 6 seed, our chances increase a TON.
This is fascinating.
If we could somehow sneak into a 6 seed, our chances increase a TON.
[quote="SeattleJohnny" post=325751][quote="capmaker" post=325734][URL]https://www.betfirm.com/seeds-national-championship-odds/[/URL][/quote]
This is fascinating.
If we could somehow sneak into a 6 seed, our chances increase a TON.[/quote]
Agree, I'd rather see them as an 11 than a 7-10 honestly. 6 of course is best.
This is fascinating.
If we could somehow sneak into a 6 seed, our chances increase a TON.[/quote]
Agree, I'd rather see them as an 11 than a 7-10 honestly. 6 of course is best.
Last edited:
Austour wrote: Agree, I'd rather see them as an 11 than a 7-10 honestly. 6 of course is best.
Everyone has their own perspective on this, but while I'd love a 5 or 6 seed, I'd much rather a 7 or 8 than a 10 or 12 because that means we will have won a game or two more before the tourney which to me is more important as the NCAA is a real crapshoot. I'd consider 22-9, a Big East final and one win in the NCAAs a very successful season. .
Everyone has their own perspective on this, but while I'd love a 5 or 6 seed, I'd much rather a 7 or 8 than a 10 or 12 because that means we will have won a game or two more before the tourney which to me is more important as the NCAA is a real crapshoot. I'd consider 22-9, a Big East final and one win in the NCAAs a very successful season. .
[quote="NCJohnnie" post=325755]Austour wrote: Agree, I'd rather see them as an 11 than a 7-10 honestly. 6 of course is best.
Everyone has their own perspective on this, but while I'd love a 5 or 6 seed, I'd much rather a 7 or 8 than a 10 or 12 because that means we will have won a game or two more before the tourney which to me is more important as the NCAA is a real crapshoot. I'd consider 22-9, a Big East final and one win in the NCAAs a very successful season. .[/quote]
Don't disagree with the how you get there point, but would love to see them win 2 in dance and that will be tough as a 7-10. There's no one on Lunardi's 3 or 6 line right now that I would say they have no chance to beat. No one on the 1 or 2 line besides maybe UVA that I would give them much of a chance against. Even better let's go 3-0 to finish, 2-1 in the BET, get to 25-9 and hope for a 6!
Everyone has their own perspective on this, but while I'd love a 5 or 6 seed, I'd much rather a 7 or 8 than a 10 or 12 because that means we will have won a game or two more before the tourney which to me is more important as the NCAA is a real crapshoot. I'd consider 22-9, a Big East final and one win in the NCAAs a very successful season. .[/quote]
Don't disagree with the how you get there point, but would love to see them win 2 in dance and that will be tough as a 7-10. There's no one on Lunardi's 3 or 6 line right now that I would say they have no chance to beat. No one on the 1 or 2 line besides maybe UVA that I would give them much of a chance against. Even better let's go 3-0 to finish, 2-1 in the BET, get to 25-9 and hope for a 6!
They will have opportunities to improve seeding in the next 3 weeks.
If they get the 3 seed in BE Tourney and say Marquette is no. 1 and Nova is no. 2. I mean assuming the dominoes fall that way and they win the 3/6 and get Nova and Marquette in in the semi's and final and of course WIN those games they could be up to a 6 or even 5 seed. I would think they would need to go 2-1 to finish regular season in addition to that run in the BE Tourney...
If they get the 3 seed in BE Tourney and say Marquette is no. 1 and Nova is no. 2. I mean assuming the dominoes fall that way and they win the 3/6 and get Nova and Marquette in in the semi's and final and of course WIN those games they could be up to a 6 or even 5 seed. I would think they would need to go 2-1 to finish regular season in addition to that run in the BE Tourney...
[quote="austour" post=325750][quote="Eric" post=325705]For us right now these seeds mean nothing except we most likely are in the tourney at this point barring losing our last 3. .[/quote]
But even with them being that meaningless they mean infinitely more than who these guys have STJ in the bracket with or who they have them facing in the first round. Lunardi makes his claim by adjusting his brackets to the last minute and getting the field of 64 closer to correct than anyone. That's what Palm and Howie are trying to do as well. No one compares the field as predicted on Feb 22 to the final field to assess Lunardi's performance and no one grades them on how many seeds or matchups they get correct.
That means the primary thing they need to figure out from probably a group of 6-10 teams on conference tourney Saturday and Sunday are which are the last 4 in and which are the last 4 out. The balance of their predictions are, as you say, meaningless. As long as you're not coming up in those conversations you're good and should just wait until selection Sunday to see who you are playing and where you are going.[/quote]
Agree 100%.
But even with them being that meaningless they mean infinitely more than who these guys have STJ in the bracket with or who they have them facing in the first round. Lunardi makes his claim by adjusting his brackets to the last minute and getting the field of 64 closer to correct than anyone. That's what Palm and Howie are trying to do as well. No one compares the field as predicted on Feb 22 to the final field to assess Lunardi's performance and no one grades them on how many seeds or matchups they get correct.
That means the primary thing they need to figure out from probably a group of 6-10 teams on conference tourney Saturday and Sunday are which are the last 4 in and which are the last 4 out. The balance of their predictions are, as you say, meaningless. As long as you're not coming up in those conversations you're good and should just wait until selection Sunday to see who you are playing and where you are going.[/quote]
Agree 100%.
[quote="capmaker" post=325734][URL]https://www.betfirm.com/seeds-national-championship-odds/[/URL][/quote]
Thanks for posting this. Syracuse making the Final Four as a play in 11 shows that anything possible.
Thanks for posting this. Syracuse making the Final Four as a play in 11 shows that anything possible.
[quote="fordham96" post=325760]They will have opportunities to improve seeding in the next 3 weeks.
If they get the 3 seed in BE Tourney and say Marquette is no. 1 and Nova is no. 2. I mean assuming the dominoes fall that way and they win the 3/6 and get Nova and Marquette in in the semi's and final and of course WIN those games they could be up to a 6 or even 5 seed. I would think they would need to go 2-1 to finish regular season in addition to that run in the BE Tourney...[/quote]
Agree, I’m shooting for a 3-seed in the BET, which is likely 2-1 at least these next 3 games, to have a great shot to get to the BET Championship Game and win the thing.
To be 25-9 on Selection Sunday would be very sweet and probably translate to a 6 seed and open the road for a couple of Ws in the Dance.
Sweet Sixteen would be that.
If they get the 3 seed in BE Tourney and say Marquette is no. 1 and Nova is no. 2. I mean assuming the dominoes fall that way and they win the 3/6 and get Nova and Marquette in in the semi's and final and of course WIN those games they could be up to a 6 or even 5 seed. I would think they would need to go 2-1 to finish regular season in addition to that run in the BE Tourney...[/quote]
Agree, I’m shooting for a 3-seed in the BET, which is likely 2-1 at least these next 3 games, to have a great shot to get to the BET Championship Game and win the thing.
To be 25-9 on Selection Sunday would be very sweet and probably translate to a 6 seed and open the road for a couple of Ws in the Dance.
Sweet Sixteen would be that.
Lunardi dropped SJU 2 spots on the seed line, now has them as an 11 after loss last night.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology
[quote="fordham96" post=326499]Lunardi dropped SJU 2 spots on the seed line, now has them as an 11 after loss last night.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology[/quote]
Some of this could be Heron's uncertainty, which I understand.
If he comes back strong, that might give us a boost in the brackets, even if we only win 1 more game.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology[/quote]
Some of this could be Heron's uncertainty, which I understand.
If he comes back strong, that might give us a boost in the brackets, even if we only win 1 more game.