if we have a great season from here on in, the Kennesaw loss will not be as big a factor. But right now when you look at our resume, two tough losses in Las Vegas and a loss to Kennesaw is not the resume of a tournament team. Not to mention the fact that we were barely able to beat Notre Dame on a neutral court.
Lunardi? Or, am I going blind?
- Thread starter zebnatto
- Start date
One thing that I will say that works in our favor.... if Rutgers is anywhere near the bubble, they will find themselves in the tournament because the NCAA is no fool. They will not miss the opportunity to market two NBA lottery picks on the same team. If the team has any case to make it to the field, they will. Just win baby!
Funny, despite losing to KS, both Jerry Palm (CBSSPORTS) and On3 have us as 9 seeds. They must be REALLY dumb.
Palm hasn’t updated his bracket since that game. I guarantee we wouldn’t be in his bracket if he updated it right now. Your argument is just silly.
yes ON3 is really dumb...do you realize you are touting the guys who finished 212 and 213 in the brackets
no he wants to die on this hill repeating the same thing instead of moving on.
Point taken. My initial post indicated my aurprise that we weren't in the first eight out, which I considered too precipitous a drop--not that we weren't in the tournament. But as I said, On3 has us in as a 9 and MSN as an 11. Big big drop to outside 68 + 8.
A lot of tourney teams will end up having wtf losses. Depending on how good or bad Bama and TaM end up, those losses may not be bad . I'm guessing RU will gel and get in the tourney. For a guy like Lunardi to take us out of the tourney after only 5 games means he thinks we will fail during conference play. The good news is that much like the fanbase, the media changes direction with whichever way the wind might be blowing depending on game to game results.
What? No it doesn’t. We lost to Kennesaw. That took us out of the bracket. It would’ve taken any team out of the bracket. What are you talking about?
Then it's fvcking stupid to put out brackets after only a 5 game resume. The real art would be to be able to project forward rather than just report out game to game like some silly power ranking.
Point being that while some can continue to focus and hand-wring about a wtf loss to Kennesaw..... published brackets after 8 games are fairly worthless. IMO it's pretty irresponsible for any supposedly credible sports writer to put them out at this point knowing they will change drastically even on a weekly basis as new inputs/results will have significant impact on the projections given the relative minimal # of games (dataset). Bracketology is at its core essentially a statistical exercise and there is not nearly enough data at this point to create an accurate 68 team tourney field.
But clicks!!!
I said the same about the CFP Rankings (and really the AP/Coaches rankings as well).
They are all meaningless and just for clicks.
But I've been told "arguing over the rankings" is an integral part of college atheltcis so they must stay.
Well thats a bit different. Playoff brackets are meaningless the first half of the year but with only 12 schools making it there is a narrowing down of schools halfway through the season
I dont think year round bracketology became a thing until maybe 6-7 years ago but Lunardi was responsible for it
FWIW, in the latest bracket matrix update, 5 of the 31 posted brackets have Rutgers still in the field.
Lunardi is not only basing his bracketology this early on resumes.
If you think bracketology this early is stupid, don't look at it, don't comment on it. Others think it's fun.
Lunardi is not only basing his bracketology this early on resumes.
If you think bracketology this early is stupid, don't look at it, don't comment on it. Others think it's fun.
