Bracketology

[Mavric]

So for all the bashing on Lunardi, I think he got 66/68.  Am I looking at that right?

 

Had USC and St. Mary's in and Arizona State and Syracuse out.

[HS_Coach_C]

7 hours ago, Mavric said:

So for all the bashing on Lunardi, I think he got 66/68.  Am I looking at that right?

 

Had USC and St. Mary's in and Arizona State and Syracuse out.

Yeah, but by the end it's not that hard to get almost all of them.  I mean I got 65/68 and I don't do it for a living.

 

I had USC, St Mary's, and Middle Tennessee in and Arizona State, Syracuse, and Texas out.

 

I didn't understand people bashing him for his bracketology. Now if they were bashing him for making fun of teams or acting like a jerk, I don't have a problem with that.

[Cdog923]

8 hours ago, Mavric said:

So for all the bashing on Lunardi, I think he got 66/68.  Am I looking at that right?

 

Had USC and St. Mary's in and Arizona State and Syracuse out.

 

51 minutes ago, HS_Coach_C said:

Yeah, but by the end it's not that hard to get almost all of them.  I mean I got 65/68 and I don't do it for a living.

 

I had USC, St Mary's, and Middle Tennessee in and Arizona State, Syracuse, and Texas out.

 

I didn't understand people bashing him for his bracketology. Now if they were bashing him for making fun of teams or acting like a jerk, I don't have a problem with that.

 

If you use Bracket Matrix as a metric for judging Bracketologists, the biggest mode of comparison is seeding. There's virtually no difference in #1 and #60 in terms of the number of teams they get correctly in the field. For instance, Lunardi got 66 teams correct, but only 41 seeded correctly. 

[desertshox]

29 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

 

If you use Bracket Matrix as a metric for judging Bracketologists, the biggest mode of comparison is seeding. There's virtually no difference in #1 and #60 in terms of the number of teams they get correctly in the field. For instance, Lunardi got 66 teams correct, but only 41 seeded correctly. 

 

and palm is worse for seeding.

[Mavric]

1 hour ago, Cdog923 said:

If you use Bracket Matrix as a metric for judging Bracketologists, the biggest mode of comparison is seeding. There's virtually no difference in #1 and #60 in terms of the number of teams they get correctly in the field. For instance, Lunardi got 66 teams correct, but only 41 seeded correctly. 

 

I don't think the people who were ripping on his here were talking about where the teams were seeded.

 

And - if I'm looking at that right - the overall Bracket Matrix had 42 teams seeded correctly.  So that would mean that Lunardi was basically right on the average, right?  Not great but definitely not terrible.

[Cdog923]

3 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

I don't think the people who were ripping on his here were talking about where the teams were seeded.

 

And - if I'm looking at that right - the overall Bracket Matrix had 42 teams seeded correctly.  So that would mean that Lunardi was basically right on the average, right?  Not great but definitely not terrible.

 

No, not terrible, just average. Far from the "Joey Brackets" personification he and ESPN like to promote, though. 

 

He stoked a lot of the fire of Nebraska fans who were ripping him on Twitter; probably rightly so, too, to build up more profile hits/page clicks. 

[Mavric]

9 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

No, not terrible, just average. Far from the "Joey Brackets" personification he and ESPN like to promote, though. 

 

He stoked a lot of the fire of Nebraska fans who were ripping him on Twitter; probably rightly so, too, to build up more profile hits/page clicks. 

 

Eh, if that's the way you want to frame it, I guess you can.  If a bunch of people were ripping on me and I was pretty sure I was right - and proved to be right - I'd probably give them something back.

[Minnesota_husker]

2 hours ago, HS_Coach_C said:

Yeah, but by the end it's not that hard to get almost all of them.  I mean I got 65/68 and I don't do it for a living.

 

I had USC, St Mary's, and Middle Tennessee in and Arizona State, Syracuse, and Texas out.

 

I didn't understand people bashing him for his bracketology. Now if they were bashing him for making fun of teams or acting like a jerk, I don't have a problem with that.

Exactly. I think Lunardi was a bit combative to those calling him out. It is stupid to call him out because he even made it clear he didnt agree with some of the decisions but he said these were his predictions of how he thought the committee would do it, not his thoughts.

 

He just came off like a bit of a jerk.. however with how many people were tweeting at him and calling him this or that, I guess I get it.

[Cdog923]

48 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Eh, if that's the way you want to frame it, I guess you can.  If a bunch of people were ripping on me and I was pretty sure I was right - and proved to be right - I'd probably give them something back.

 

Lunardi is nothing if not a salesman, and one way to sell is based on emotion. He stoked Nebrasketball fans' emotions for a solid month, and is probably laughing at his page views. 

[Mavric]

37 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

Lunardi is nothing if not a salesman, and one way to sell is based on emotion. He stoked Nebrasketball fans' emotions for a solid month, and is probably laughing at his page views. 

 

Like I said, you can choose to believe that if you want.  I don't think he was actively going after Nebraska fans.  They were getting after him because they thought the Huskers should be in and he didn't have them in.  And when that many people are going after you, I don't blame him for responding how he did, like @Minnesota_husker said.  And it turned out he was right.

[Moiraine]

I haven't stayed caught up with the whole topic.

Did Collier screw us over?

[pearljammer]

On ‎3‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 4:01 PM, seaofred92 said:

Oklahoma has 6 top 50 wins including 5 against the top 25 in RPI. It sucks they're still in- I didn't want them to make it because I don't think they're one of the best 68 teams- but you can't argue with the logic behind why they're in. 

 

After last night it makes you wonder if the metrics of RPI, Quad 1 wins etc weren't right after all. We didn't look like a tourney team and we have only beaten 1 tournament team all  year. All I know is I'm planning my lunch break around being able to cheer against the Sooners today. If we aren't in the tourney might as well hate cheer against the teams we don't think should be in there either. Oh the life of a Husker Hoops fan....

[seaofred92]

2 hours ago, pearljammer said:

 

After last night it makes you wonder if the metrics of RPI, Quad 1 wins etc weren't right after all. We didn't look like a tourney team and we have only beaten 1 tournament team all  year. All I know is I'm planning my lunch break around being able to cheer against the Sooners today. If we aren't in the tourney might as well hate cheer against the teams we don't think should be in there either. Oh the life of a Husker Hoops fan....

People like to complain about/try to devalue the metrics but they're used for a reason. RPI isn't perfect but it does a pretty good job of describing who you beat and how good both you and that team are relative to everyone else. As with any system that is set up, there are ways to "game" it. The disappointing part of the committee using the metrics like they do in my opinion is that they don't seem to care about the number of opportunities for Q1 wins versus the total number of Q1 wins. Its obvious to me that a team like Syracuse, that gets to play 15+ Q1/Q2 games a year, has more chances to get those "wins". And the committee has acknowledged these wins are easier to get at home. 

 

A team like MTSU had a top 15 non-conference schedule rating and was 2-3 in Q1 games and was left out. This is where my problem comes in with the metrics. They have 2 Q1 wins but people say "who are their Q1 wins over" and when you name two teams that aren't from a Major 7 conference the assumption is that those teams automatically suck. Then they get left out for a team like Syracuse or Arizona State who get 4 or 5 of these types of wins but go 4-12 or whatever against good competition.

 

If you get a chance to read it, read the article I posted yesterday from Yahoo about little schools outside the Major 7 conferences and the difficulties they now face getting at large bids because of the quadrant system. Its a really interesting read and echoes a lot of what I outlined above

[Minnesota_husker]

The Nebraska team that played up till Illinois and the one we saw against Illinois, Michigan(in B10 tourney) and Miss State were two very different teams.

 

I think the blue print is out that we are inconsistent shooters and just pack the paint, dont let us drive. 

 

We looked like a Tourney team for a while but not in our last two games. We looked tired.

 

This team is night and day different when on the road and at home. All the NIT home teams won... being at home is a considerable advantage and I honestly think we should have gotten a home game... which I believe we would have won. 

 

Sadly this is probably the best we will do under Miles. He was outcoached again last night and it is proven that when our shots arent falling, our offense shows how basic it is. If Palmer/Copeland dont have the stroke, we are fairly easy to stop.

 

I like Miles. And I dont put the blame on him like others(See in this thread) but it is clear that while he is our coach, the blueprint is there to stop us and he hasnt been able to adapt.

[pearljammer]

I really wish our offense would develop some kind of identity. It seems like all we do is pick and roll, drive the lane or shoot outside shots. If our outside shots aren't falling it becomes pretty easy to shut down everything else. I just keep hoping and praying every year we will turn the corner. This year we kind of did, but not all the way. Losses like Illinois, St. Johns, Penn St. and Miss St keep us wondering if we will ever turn the corner.