Jump to content

Nevada Convert

Members
  • Posts

    39,152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Profile Information

  • Team
    Nevada

Recent Profile Visitors

35,926 profile views
  1. LOL, no it’s not if it’s used with a few other things.
  2. No shit. But better seeding spots makes winning a higher %, especially the 5 and 6 spots where we should’ve had at least another one.
  3. Every game is a credit accept the final.
  4. Who averages NET, KP and Massey? Nobody. You ignored Q1 wins, also. Not a good analysis.
  5. My guess is 1 of the 2 win the play in, then 2 or 3 win out of the next 5, then 1 goes to the Sweet 16. 6+1+2.5+1 = 10 or 11 tournament credits.
  6. They’re doing their best to make bracketology into worthless mush. What will be the point of tracking Q1 and NET rankings from now on? They’re ruining the journey up to selection Sunday.
  7. Sure, human ego, dysfunctional bias and unethical agendas can screw up everything when someone is tasked with objective analysis. A computer doesn’t care about anything but objective data. What you highlight is exactly the weakness of too much of the human element being involved.
  8. Just because we got lucky that they over-seeded Dayton and we got a close destination doesn’t mean we’ll get lucky every time. If you get a 6, you likely get a team that had to do an 11 a play-in game in Dayton, then immediately travel again to another destination to play you. And they don’t have any time to prep for you like we would for them. And it’s an 11 seed. Sure upsets happen, but the 6 will definitely win a lot more often.
  9. You guys should start putting up “Too Good For CBI” banners for all the years you rejected those poor people that just wanted to play some games. You need to get some accomplishments up there to show you did something in recent times.
  10. The committee did a shitty job. Go look at the updated bracket matrix and see for yourself.
  11. If seeding wasn’t important to win and advance in the tournament, then we wouldn’t care about bracketology all season long. When the hard work is put in to earn that good seeding according to everyone but 12 people doing their thing on a committee, that’s a big problem. There needs to be consistency with analytics during season that jive with the committee.
  12. But that is just bullshit. Let’s say UNLV didn’t lose 3 Q4’s. Should UNLV not get credit for destroying 3 seed Creighton this year to count towards getting a decent seed just because “they don’t have a recent past reputation in the tourney”? Fvck no. Past journey reputation is bullshit. You build your reputation for each tournament year by who you beat during that tournament year. That’s the reputation that should matter, not what happened in the past with different players and even coaches. Just like it’s easier to make money if you have money, it’s easier to win in the tournament if your have high seeds. We earned higher seeds, but getting lower seeds makes it harder to win “to get that reputation”. So it’s bullshit going full circle. Nevada was about a 6.5 seed average in bracket matrix. A 6 is a lot better than a 10.
  13. Rick Pitino gets the quote of the day: "First off, I think we should all probably never mention that word (NET) again because I think it's fraudulent. I think the NET is something that shouldn't even be mentioned anymore.” Pitino is so disgusted that St. John’s will not be accepting a bid to the NIT.
×
×
  • Create New...