|
|
Post by ghostofdylan on Mar 6, 2011 22:35:33 GMT -6
Here's Missouri State's problem:
It's 0-1 against the RPI top 50.
Whatever your preference, I just don't see the Bears getting a bid.
Harvard, meanwhile, should go as an at-large ahead of BC if it doesn't get the Ivy's auto berth, given its 78-69 victory over the Eagles (at Chestnut Hill, of course) on Jan. 5.
|
|
|
|
Post by GoPanthers33 on Mar 6, 2011 22:38:55 GMT -6
Well a few #1 seeds went down tonight so if we win on Tuesday it is looking better for us to move up in seeding. Here are some #1's who lost that were near or ahead of us in most bracketologies.
#1 Vermont lost 69-47 to #5 Stony Brook
#1 Fairfield lost 62-48 to #4 St. Peters
#1 Missouri St lost 60-56 to #3 Indiana St.
In Lunardi's bracket Vermont was a 15 along with us, Fairfield was a 14, and Missouri St. was a 12 but with them gone and unlikely to get an at large I think we would be seeded ahead of Indiana St.
Meanwhile #1 Florida Atlantic lost in the Sun belt but they were a 16 in Lunardi's bracket so I wasn't worried about us getting higher then them.
With these losses and likely a couple more coming this week it looks like we will at least be a 14 should we win on Tuesday! Hopefully a 13 though!
|
|
|
|
Post by Super King on Mar 6, 2011 22:40:13 GMT -6
The RPI boost that comes with beating Butler will help our seed, in addition to our other competitors losing.
|
|
damasa
Sophomore
KFC: Kick From Chuck. What else do you need?
|
Post by damasa on Mar 6, 2011 23:19:57 GMT -6
Assuming Milwaukee beats Bulter...
|
|
|
|
Post by GoPanthers33 on Mar 6, 2011 23:24:14 GMT -6
Assuming Milwaukee beats Bulter... Hence why I said "should Milwaukee win Tuesday"  I don't wanna put the cart in front of the horse but dang is it nice to be talking NCAA Tourney this late in the season again! |
|
damasa
Sophomore
KFC: Kick From Chuck. What else do you need?
|
Post by damasa on Mar 6, 2011 23:51:44 GMT -6
Sorry, Jerm, that wasn't in reference to your post, it was a response to Super King's. I think we all agree that Milwaukee needs to get business done on Tuesday!
|
|
|
|
Post by milwsport on Mar 6, 2011 23:56:34 GMT -6
I don't put much stock in all the bracketology predictions. Outside of the obvious number 1 seeds, they are wrong far more often than they are right.
Let's just kick the bejeebers outta Butler and then worry about it later. After all no matter where we are seeded, we still have to beat them all to win the national title.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwmplanner on Mar 7, 2011 10:08:17 GMT -6
I don't put much stock in all the bracketology predictions. Outside of the obvious number 1 seeds, they are wrong far more often than they are right. Let's just kick the bejeebers outta Butler and then worry about it later. After all no matter where we are seeded, we still have to beat them all to win the national title. He may be wrong with seeding but Lunardi has gotten 97% of the at large bids right since 2000 or something like that. So he is pretty accurate for picking the teams. FYI he shows us as a 15 seed. Now lets go kick some bulldog a$$. espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology |
|
|
|
Post by ricestillfumbled on Mar 7, 2011 10:32:59 GMT -6
i know looking at these matchups is really dumb...and I dont want to count the chickens. But playing notre dame in chicago would get me pumped!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pounce Needs Pals on Mar 7, 2011 11:08:43 GMT -6
I don't put much stock in all the bracketology predictions. Outside of the obvious number 1 seeds, they are wrong far more often than they are right. ESPN's Joe Lunardi is 98% correct every year. |
|
|
|
Post by BBFran on Mar 7, 2011 11:25:40 GMT -6
The only thing these guys are right about, mostly, is what teams will be in the tournament. Their seed and placement projections are reliably terrible.
These "bracketology" projections don't have a microdot of relevance to Milwaukee. There's only one way for us to get in and we all know what it is. And getting in is about 10,000 times more important than the seed line and the location.
|
|
|
|
Post by PantherU on Mar 7, 2011 11:45:06 GMT -6
I don't put much stock in all the bracketology predictions. Outside of the obvious number 1 seeds, they are wrong far more often than they are right. ESPN's Joe Lunardi is 98% correct every year. With the teams in the field, not in seeding. |
|
|
|
Post by PantherU on Mar 7, 2011 12:15:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Pounce Needs Pals on Mar 7, 2011 12:45:24 GMT -6
ESPN's Joe Lunardi is 98% correct every year. With the teams in the field, not in seeding. correct |
|
|
|
Post by GoPanthers33 on Mar 7, 2011 12:52:45 GMT -6
With the teams in the field, not in seeding. correct It is correct however guys like Palm or Lunardi are generally within 1 seed on most of the teams in their brackets. |
|
