2017-18 Bracketology

[Rhodymob05]

I love Mo Bamba, and he would give us a fit, but Texas is a fringe tourney team.

[bigappleram]

Agree with Reef...not scared of any of the big east teams, incl Nova or X. Length/size and high level athleticism is what has bothered us, neither of those teams have that. We match up very well with both of them and I would love a chance to extend our BE winning streak. Would love to stay away from the Big 12 and ACC as long as possible.

[rjsuperfly66]

Wonder if that would change if we were a 4 seed?

It all depends on the seed lines ...

I.E - If the 4 seeds in order go Wichita St., Clemson, West Virginia, URI, URI is getting the last available option, the saving grace potentially being other bracket conflicts eliminating teams from being in certain regions (I.E - West Virginia would have to be in a separate region than Kansas and Texas Tech, Clemson would have to be in a separate region than Virginia, and Wichita St would have to be in a separate region from Cincinnati).

makes sense...so based on this logic, we may prefer to be the 1st team on a higher seed line than the last on a lower seed line? I need some advil.

You have to think of bracketing as one of those annoying SAT puzzles that has a bunch of different variables and you have to place them accordingly ... Like in 2016, your 4 seeds were Duke, Cal, Kentucky, and Iowa St playing in Philly, Louisville, Chicago, and Anaheim. Duke couldn't play in Philly or Chicago because UNC and Virginia were 1 seeds in those regionals. Cal couldn't play in Anaheim because Oregon was a 1 seed there, and they couldn't play in Chicago because Utah was a 3 seed there and that would be the 2nd and 3rd ranked Pac-12 teams in the same regional. Kentucky can't play in Anaheim because Texas A&M was a 3 seed there and they were the 1st and 2nd SEC teams. And Iowa St. can't play in Louisville because Kansas is the #1 seed there. Lastly, I would have to think the goal was to keep Kentucky out of Louisville, as that would be giving a 4-seed quasi-home games. So now with all of that knowledge, start trying to place them into their respective regionals.

Duke can only play in Anaheim or Louisville.
Cal can only play in Louisville or Philly.
Kentucky can only play in Philly or Chicago.
And Iowa St can play in Philly, Anaheim, or Chicago.

And so then you have to start piecing it together from there, while also trying to keep the regionals as balanced as possible (I.E. - If you put Iowa St in Anaheim, the west regional has the weakest 1, 3, and 4 seed). Good luck I say, interesting, but challenging.

[RhodyRam86]

It all depends on the seed lines ...

I.E - If the 4 seeds in order go Wichita St., Clemson, West Virginia, URI, URI is getting the last available option, the saving grace potentially being other bracket conflicts eliminating teams from being in certain regions (I.E - West Virginia would have to be in a separate region than Kansas and Texas Tech, Clemson would have to be in a separate region than Virginia, and Wichita St would have to be in a separate region from Cincinnati).

makes sense...so based on this logic, we may prefer to be the 1st team on a higher seed line than the last on a lower seed line? I need some advil.

You have to think of bracketing as one of those annoying SAT puzzles that has a bunch of different variables and you have to place them accordingly ... Like in 2016, your 4 seeds were Duke, Cal, Kentucky, and Iowa St playing in Philly, Louisville, Chicago, and Anaheim. Duke couldn't play in Philly or Chicago because UNC and Virginia were 1 seeds in those regionals. Cal couldn't play in Anaheim because Oregon was a 1 seed there, and they couldn't play in Chicago because Utah was a 3 seed there and that would be the 2nd and 3rd ranked Pac-12 teams in the same regional. Kentucky can't play in Anaheim because Texas A&M was a 3 seed there and they were the 1st and 2nd SEC teams. And Iowa St. can't play in Louisville because Kansas is the #1 seed there. Lastly, I would have to think the goal was to keep Kentucky out of Louisville, as that would be giving a 4-seed quasi-home games. So now with all of that knowledge, start trying to place them into their respective regionals.

Duke can only play in Anaheim or Louisville.
Cal can only play in Louisville or Philly.
Kentucky can only play in Philly or Chicago.
And Iowa St can play in Philly, Anaheim, or Chicago.

And so then you have to start piecing it together from there, while also trying to keep the regionals as balanced as possible (I.E. - If you put Iowa St in Anaheim, the west regional has the weakest 1, 3, and 4 seed). Good luck I say, interesting, but challenging.

rj...you seem to have a good grasp on this. with no A10 teams above us, it sounds like we are the easy team for the committee. they just put us where they can't put anyone else...but by doing that we could get screwed out of the east region and with a quick look and without pulling out a tape measure, NOVA is the only team from 1-6 seed that is remotely within shouting distance of boston.

[ATPTourFan]

The way we lost severely impacted our KenPom rating like I've never seen before. We entered the game at 27th and dropped 21 spots to 48th.

[rhodysurf]

The way we lost severely impacted our KenPom rating like I've never seen before. We entered the game at 27th and dropped 21 spots to 48th.

This is exactly a problem I have with kenpom. Thats an insane impact for one out of 28 games.

[ATPTourFan]

Not really, there are 351 teams and the margins in efficiency between the top 50 are miniscule. Most other teams have had bad games this year and that is already blended into their adjusted efficiency. The fact that we played so bad on both ends against an average opponents means the damage is larger than if we lost that bad to a good team.

[ElmCityRhody]

wow .. lay one egg in a very long season on the last day of february.. APOLOGIES

if they stick us in the 8/9 game i will be extremely pissed

WTF you want us to do ?

we play a good schedule that has yielded us a top 15 RPI

apologies if we cant get many top teams to come play us

but we did all that we could w/ our OOC schedule and did pretty darn well

so, consider me w/ officially having a chip on my shoulder if all of a sudden anyone wants to diminish our season based on 1 bad egg

pa-lease

chip on my shoulder the rest of the games and tourney

"the eye" is now back for me and hopefully our players and coach

EFF THEM ALL

[rhodysurf]

On a positive note... historically URI likes being in the 8/9 spot? lol

[gorhody89]

Lunardi updated his bracket this morning...now has us as a 6 seed...I know Lunardi is not the best but first updated bracket i saw

[Billyboy78]

I think if we win Friday and win the A10 tourney, we could be a 6.

[wpbrown8267]

Lunardi updated his bracket this morning...now has us as a 6 seed...I know Lunardi is not the best but first updated bracket i saw

Bracketville also has us as a #6 vs Middle Tennessee @ Dallas as of today https://bracketville.wordpress.com/bracketology/

Jerry Palm still has us as a #5 vs South Dakota State in Boise (updated this morning as well)
https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... cketology/

I think Palm's bracket is off honestly, after that horrific loss i figure most bracketologists will have us as a 6 or 7. Interesting to see where bracketmatrix is once its updated.

If the guys can clear their minds from last night and I'm sure DH will get them more prepared then yesterday and we can win @ davidson and win the A10 then we are a 6. If we beat davidson and get to the A10 final but lose think it would be tough for a 6, more likely a 7 IMHO

[gorhody89]

Yeah I agree another loss before the tournament and we are likely looking at 7-9 seed...win out and 5-7 seed

Hopefully for a "we are on to Cincinnati" type of performance Friday

[rjsuperfly66]

Forecasting using RJ math:
0 wins - 10 seed
1 win - 8 seed
2-3 wins - 7 seed
3 wins (loss at Davidson, A10T Championship win vs. St. B) - 6 seed
4 wins (no St. B in A10T Championship) - 6 seed
4 wins (St. B in A10T Championship) - 5 seed

[RhodyRam86]

Forecasting using RJ math:
0 wins - 10 seed
1 win - 8 seed
2-3 wins - 7 seed
3 wins (loss at Davidson, A10T Championship win vs. St. B) - 6 seed
4 wins (no St. B in A10T Championship) - 6 seed
4 wins (St. B in A10T Championship) - 5 seed

I think this is realistic. Per the post game last night Lunardi said the loss would cost us a seed line. He thought going in that the NCAA had us as a 5, but closer to a 6 than a 4. He thought if we won out a 5 was likely. Prior to the game he thought if we won out we would be a 4. He also thought SJU had absolutely no chance last night, but admitted eerie things happen on Sr. night.

[rjsuperfly66]

In BM's 2/28 morning update, URI has fallen from the last 5th seed to the 2nd 6th seed.
However, that does include 38 brackets that did not update from yesterday.
Of the brackets with an update of 2/28, URI's average bracket seed is 7.3 of those updated 32 brackets.

5 seed - 2
6 seed - 9
7 seed - 7
8 seed - 7
9 seed - 5
10 seed - 2

If you look at the 38 non-updated brackets, URI had an average seed of 5.4.

3 seed - 1
4 seed - 2
5 seed - 22
6 seed - 9
7 seed - 4

Somewhat surprising that many of these updated brackets included a 2+ seed line drop -- quite the overreaction.

[PeterRamTime]

The worst thing is we've played ourselves out of having an easier game (4/13)

5-7's are more or less the same kinda thing. We will be playing teams just as big and athletic as us. With a 6 you at least avoid a one or two seed. They're interchangeable this year.

It's just how confident we are and the matchups we get

I would be very happy with where Lunardi has us.
In Nashville (yay no hotel or me)
Against a play in team (USC/Louisville)
Probably playing Auburn if we win. Bruce Pearl aside, Auburns players have never danced and they aren't that big of a team.

That would be better than having to play Kentucky, Arizona or West Virginia in the second round.

Besides all that speculative crap.

We need a win Friday.

[Rhody83]

In BM's 2/28 morning update, URI has fallen from the last 5th seed to the 2nd 6th seed.
However, that does include 38 brackets that did not update from yesterday.
Of the brackets with an update of 2/28, URI's average bracket seed is 7.3 of those updated 32 brackets.

5 seed - 2
6 seed - 9
7 seed - 7
8 seed - 7
9 seed - 5
10 seed - 2

If you look at the 38 non-updated brackets, URI had an average seed of 5.4.

3 seed - 1
4 seed - 2
5 seed - 22
6 seed - 9
7 seed - 4

Somewhat surprising that many of these updated brackets included a 2+ seed line drop -- quite the overreaction.

Good info thanks. The seeding process has changed to the Q system and the NCAA has share how it will work for the most part. I am not sure all of the bracketologist have completely factored that into their process. The Chairperson stated on TV that the margin of victory or loss is not taken into consideration at all. I think the brackets that dropped Rhody 2 spots let the 30 points sway them. I agree with RJ’s scenarios in his previous post. Rhody has a lot of work to do to end up at a 5 or 6. It is doable.

[Rhodymob05]

This forum is Agita central. The boys will bounce back.

[adam914]

Good info thanks. The seeding process has changed to the Q system and the NCAA has share how it will work for the most part. I am not sure all of the bracketologist have completely factored that into their process. The Chairperson stated on TV that the margin of victory or loss is not taken into consideration at all. I think the brackets that dropped Rhody 2 spots let the 30 points sway them. I agree with RJ’s scenarios in his previous post. Rhody has a lot of work to do to end up at a 5 or 6. It is doable.

I think this comment by the chairperson is slightly misleading though. They may not personally look at margin of victory for each game in their process, but they do look at metrics such as Kenpom where margin of victory is factored in. So indirectly they are looking at it in that sense.

[rjsuperfly66]

The seeding process has changed to the Q system and the NCAA has share how it will work for the most part. I am not sure all of the bracketologist have completely factored that into their process.

I think the new quadrant system will turn out to be about as big a crock as the old system used to be -- They are already setting up for it with statements like "a team with an RPI of 30 is technically Q1 but isn't any different than a team with an RPI of 31 so we'll keep that in mind when looking at the quadrants." If that is the case, what is the point of the quadrants? I get that mathematically there really isn't a difference, but all it's doing is continuing to allow the committee to move games around in advantageous ways to fit the story they want to tell -- "Oh well Team X was 1-5 in Q1 games, but against teams with RPI's between 31-40, they were 4-0, so they were basically 5-5 in Q1 games" or conversely, "Team X was 3-1 in Q1 games but 2 of those games were against teams 29 and 30 so those are practically Q2 games." I guess we'll find out in a few weeks if these changes really had any effect.

[Da_Process_Survivor]

The seeding process has changed to the Q system and the NCAA has share how it will work for the most part. I am not sure all of the bracketologist have completely factored that into their process.

I think the new quadrant system will turn out to be about as big a crock as the old system used to be -- They are already setting up for it with statements like "a team with an RPI of 30 is technically Q1 but isn't any different than a team with an RPI of 31 so we'll keep that in mind when looking at the quadrants." If that is the case, what is the point of the quadrants? I get that mathematically there really isn't a difference, but all it's doing is continuing to allow the committee to move games around in advantageous ways to fit the story they want to tell -- "Oh well Team X was 1-5 in Q1 games, but against teams with RPI's between 31-40, they were 4-0, so they were basically 5-5 in Q1 games" or conversely, "Team X was 3-1 in Q1 games but 2 of those games were against teams 29 and 30 so those are practically Q2 games." I guess we'll find out in a few weeks if these changes really had any effect.

definitely, its a blatant way to give the P5 even more credit for losing conference games.

now they can either get forgiven for a road loss to a non t-50 team because its still a Q1 or if they win they get t-50 win credit without having to beat one.

the difference between a road game and home game is not 40 RPI spots.

[URI2006_Andy]

The RPI already factors in SOS using the objective criteria of your opponents’ record and their opponents’ record. So, if you look at quadrant records for purposes of “Who did you play?”, then you’re essentially giving additional subjective weight to SOS.

Quadrant 1 record should be one tool used to weed out teams that have a good RPI but have failed to demonstrate they are competitive against the elite teams (Vermont). However, once you determine a team is competitive against other top teams, it becomes duplicative to then examine a team’s record by quadrants since the quadrants are determined by RPI rankings and RPI already factors in SOS .

[Roz]

Usa today has uri an 8 seed after having them a 5 before

[Rhodymob05]

Usa today has uri an 8 seed after having them a 5 before

I’m sorry that’s a disgrace.

[Seawrightspostgame]

At least all paths are tough. Getting a Creighton reduced by injury was a gift last year.

Nice thing about having to play a higher seed early is that you get to walk in their shoes if you beat them.

I keep trying to balance the Bama game. The UVA loss. Against the A10 win streak and now the recent two weeks (because people were saying that the A10 schedule for URI was easier up front in January).

To figure out. What exactly is our ceiling?????? Last year Martin/KI added to our team made the equation entirely different.

[Blue Man]

What if they used a point system for wins where beating the #1 team is worth 351 points, #2 is worth 350, and so on...

Use the an RPI-like multiplier where you multiply that number by .75 at home, 1 neutral, and 1.25 on the road.

Go with the inverse for losses to take away points; losing to the number 1 team is -1 x the multiplier. Losing to the number 2 team is -2 x the multiplier.

Sure it “utilizes” rpi to determine the rankings...but this way you don’t get 1 spot deciding if you’re Q1 or q2.

Instead of arbitrary brackets with hard stops at certain numbers....this is an overall blend.

[RhodyRam86]

What if they used a point system for wins where beating the #1 team is worth 351 points, #2 is worth 350, and so on...

Use the an RPI-like multiplier where you multiply that number by .75 at home, 1 neutral, and 1.25 on the road.

Go with the inverse for losses to take away points; losing to the number 1 team is -1 x the multiplier. Losing to the number 2 team is -2 x the multiplier.

Sure it “utilizes” rpi to determine the rankings...but this way you don’t get 1 spot deciding if you’re Q1 or q2.

Instead of arbitrary brackets with hard stops at certain numbers....this is an overall blend.

I like this idea. Maybe it doesn't have to be an end all be all, but why not use something like this in accord with RPI, BPI, Kenpom, etc...?

[rhodysurf]

What if they used a point system for wins where beating the #1 team is worth 351 points, #2 is worth 350, and so on...

Use the an RPI-like multiplier where you multiply that number by .75 at home, 1 neutral, and 1.25 on the road.

Go with the inverse for losses to take away points; losing to the number 1 team is -1 x the multiplier. Losing to the number 2 team is -2 x the multiplier.

Sure it “utilizes” rpi to determine the rankings...but this way you don’t get 1 spot deciding if you’re Q1 or q2.

Instead of arbitrary brackets with hard stops at certain numbers....this is an overall blend.

That sounds like a cool calculation to run haha maybe Ill try it later

[Blue Man]

What if they used a point system for wins where beating the #1 team is worth 351 points, #2 is worth 350, and so on...

Use the an RPI-like multiplier where you multiply that number by .75 at home, 1 neutral, and 1.25 on the road.

Go with the inverse for losses to take away points; losing to the number 1 team is -1 x the multiplier. Losing to the number 2 team is -2 x the multiplier.

Sure it “utilizes” rpi to determine the rankings...but this way you don’t get 1 spot deciding if you’re Q1 or q2.

Instead of arbitrary brackets with hard stops at certain numbers....this is an overall blend.

That sounds like a cool calculation to run haha maybe Ill try it later

I was gonna try it too if I get a minute today. I would also think the multiplier would invert for losses - x1.25 at Home, .75 road.

For example the St Joe’s loss would’ve cost us 196.25 points (157 rpi ranking x 1.25 for Home loss).

[Da_Process_Survivor]

What if they used a point system for wins where beating the #1 team is worth 351 points, #2 is worth 350, and so on...

Use the an RPI-like multiplier where you multiply that number by .75 at home, 1 neutral, and 1.25 on the road.

Go with the inverse for losses to take away points; losing to the number 1 team is -1 x the multiplier. Losing to the number 2 team is -2 x the multiplier.

Sure it “utilizes” rpi to determine the rankings...but this way you don’t get 1 spot deciding if you’re Q1 or q2.

Instead of arbitrary brackets with hard stops at certain numbers....this is an overall blend.

That sounds like a cool calculation to run haha maybe Ill try it later

I was gonna try it too if I get a minute today. I would also think the multiplier would invert for losses - x1.25 at Home, .75 road.

For example the St Joe’s loss would’ve cost us 196.25 points (157 rpi ranking x 1.25 for Home loss).

taking a rough stab at it, i get 3,480 points for us and 2,866.25 for PC

for comparison, Gonzaga comes in at 4,320

method summarized:

win = (352 - RPI rank) * factor (.75 at home, 1 neutral, 1.25 road)
loss = RPI rank * factor (-1.25 at home, -1 neutral, -.75 road)

[Rhodymob05]

ESPN- 6 seed in Nashville
CBS-5 seed in Boise

[BleedBlue87]

ESPN- 6 seed in Nashville
CBS-5 seed in Boise

Expected a bigger drop. Very happy with this (even if it doesn't mean much).

[hrstrat57]

I believe firmly if we win out (as we should)we can still get a 5.

Tuesday night debacle would be viewed as a fluke.

4 seed is out.

[rjsuperfly66]

What if they used a point system for wins where beating the #1 team is worth 351 points, #2 is worth 350, and so on...

Use the an RPI-like multiplier where you multiply that number by .75 at home, 1 neutral, and 1.25 on the road.

Go with the inverse for losses to take away points; losing to the number 1 team is -1 x the multiplier. Losing to the number 2 team is -2 x the multiplier.

Sure it “utilizes” rpi to determine the rankings...but this way you don’t get 1 spot deciding if you’re Q1 or q2.

Instead of arbitrary brackets with hard stops at certain numbers....this is an overall blend.

It's essentially what college hockey does.
They use a system called the "Pairwise."
It's easier in college hockey since there are only 60 teams, but the description of the system is:
"The PairWise Ranking is a system which attempts to mimic the method used by the NCAA Selection Committee to determine participants for the NCAA Division I men's hockey tournament. The PWR compares all teams by these criteria: record against common opponents, head-to-head competition, and the RPI.
For each comparison won, a team receives one point. The final PWR ranking is based on the number of points (comparisons) won. Ties are settled by the RPI."
Pairwise does all the seeding, with the committee only putting focusing on the geography.
The BCS was also a computer-based system, and although people had problems with it, I think a big piece was because it was deciding 1 game, 1 v 2.

[TruePoint]

I don't think that in the end the St Joe's game will have so much impact. Being moved down to the 8 line by some "bracketologists" in the last couple days is absurd. Certainly if they lose Friday and then don't win the A10T, an 8 seed is in play, but if they do win tomorrow and then win the A10T they'll probably wind up as a 5, which seems like where they were headed anyways. If they win tomorrow and lose in DC, then they'll like be a 6 or 7, depending on who they lose to and when.

[Blue Man]

That sounds like a cool calculation to run haha maybe Ill try it later

I was gonna try it too if I get a minute today. I would also think the multiplier would invert for losses - x1.25 at Home, .75 road.

For example the St Joe’s loss would’ve cost us 196.25 points (157 rpi ranking x 1.25 for Home loss).

taking a rough stab at it, i get 3,480 points for us and 2,866.25 for PC

for comparison, Gonzaga comes in at 4,320

method summarized:

win = (352 - RPI rank) * factor (.75 at home, 1 neutral, 1.25 road)
loss = RPI rank * factor (-1.25 at home, -1 neutral, -.75 road)

That seems about right compared to us/PC - Zags benefit in that scenario from having played 31 games to our (eventual) 29.

I guess the downfall here is that you'd get rewarded for playing more games even if they're against crap opponents, but nothing is perfect.

I think I like this method better than "quadrants" though, because it doesn't simply reward P5 teams for playing in a P5 conference.

EDIT

Did the math and got 3446.50 for us.

(2623 win points at home x .75 = 1967.25, + 325 neutral win points + 1137 road win points x 1.25) = 1421.25 - 267 (69.75 loss points road + 1 neutral + 196.25 home) = 3446.50

I came into this post thinking I had a lot more energy to do more teams but I don't, and I graduated with a 2.38 and had to take some math courses post-grad to get into business school so take that for what it's worth lol.

Point is I think there's merit to this method.

[rhodysurf]

I was gonna try it too if I get a minute today. I would also think the multiplier would invert for losses - x1.25 at Home, .75 road.

For example the St Joe’s loss would’ve cost us 196.25 points (157 rpi ranking x 1.25 for Home loss).

taking a rough stab at it, i get 3,480 points for us and 2,866.25 for PC

for comparison, Gonzaga comes in at 4,320

method summarized:

win = (352 - RPI rank) * factor (.75 at home, 1 neutral, 1.25 road)
loss = RPI rank * factor (-1.25 at home, -1 neutral, -.75 road)

That seems about right compared to us/PC - Zags benefit in that scenario from having played 31 games to our (eventual) 29.

I guess the downfall here is that you'd get rewarded for playing more games even if they're against crap opponents, but nothing is perfect.

I think I like this method better than "quadrants" though, because it doesn't simply reward P5 teams for playing in a P5 conference.

You could prob just average it in that case... so its points per game

[TruePoint]

Right, seems like just doing it on a per game basis would be the way to go. Overall I like the concept though.

[Billyboy78]

Maybe the voters should do it like they did in the old days....watch some games.

[Rhody83]

I do think some of these bracketologist are pretty weak. How do you put URI at a 10 seed at this point.
Average from bracketmatrix is the second 6 seed.

http://bracketmatrix.com/

[URI2006_Andy]

URI is 47 in Kenpom which some people think is the best ranking system. Dropped about 20 spots. That’s the equivalent of 5 seed lines. But the fact URI dropped 20 spots based on 1 game that meant nothing in terms of conference seeding highlights the limitations of Kenpom. Also shows that if committee members give significant weight to Kenpom, which I think some do, then there’s a basis for teams to run up the score whenever possible.

[rambone 78]

We're a 6+ or 7 on average right now.....lose tomorrow and we're in the dreaded 8-9 seed lines. Lose tomorrow and either Friday or Saturday and we're a 10.

Lose tomorrow but win the A10 tourney and we stay a 7. Win tomorrow but don't win the A10 tourney, depends on what day we lose....anywhere from a 7 to a 9.

No more losses and we're a 6. I think the 5 ship has sailed....deserved or not.

That's my view on things.

[rhodysurf]

URI is 47 in Kenpom which some people think is the best ranking system. Dropped about 20 spots. That’s the equivalent of 5 seed lines. But the fact URI dropped 20 spots based on 1 game that meant nothing in terms of conference seeding highlights the limitations of Kenpom. Also shows that if committee members give significant weight to Kenpom, which I think some do, then there’s a basis for teams to run up the score whenever possible.

KenPom only is acurrate if it operates in a vacuum where every team tries to score and defend the best they can for the entirety of every game.

Blowouts of any kind Bork the output either through teams taking the foot off the pedal or running up the score.

It frustrates me so much how many CBB fans tout it as the best ranking out there

[theblueram]

URI is 47 in Kenpom which some people think is the best ranking system. Dropped about 20 spots. That’s the equivalent of 5 seed lines. But the fact URI dropped 20 spots based on 1 game that meant nothing in terms of conference seeding highlights the limitations of Kenpom. Also shows that if committee members give significant weight to Kenpom, which I think some do, then there’s a basis for teams to run up the score whenever possible.

KenPom only is acurrate if it operates in a vacuum where every team tries to score and defend the best they can for the entirety of every game.

Blowouts of any kind Bork the output either through teams taking the foot off the pedal or running up the score.

It frustrates me so much how many CBB fans tout it as the best ranking out there

If Kenpom is the new metric, walkons will never see game play again.

[rambone 78]

We can't do that next weekend....playing 3 games in 3 days [hopefully] we will need to sub late if we have a sizeable lead....

[collegehoopsjunky]

Hi Everyone,

I wanted to apologize for my nutso prediction of URI being in the Final4 or winning the National Championship. It just goes to show you can be a college hoops junkie like me and have it all wrong on who the best teams in the country are. I obviously failed to take into account some of the mental aspects of URI from a team and coaching perspective.

Definitely a punch in the gut to my ego! Sorry for being so unrealistic.

[NYGFan_Section208]

Hi Everyone,

I wanted to apologize for my nutso prediction of URI being in the Final4 or winning the National Championship. It just goes to show you can be a college hoops junkie like me and have it all wrong on who the best teams in the country are. I obviously failed to take into account some of the mental aspects of URI from a team and coaching perspective.

Definitely a punch in the gut to my ego! Sorry for being so unrealistic.

It's good to have high predictions and low...a nice wide range
Anything is (still) possible!

[collegehoopsjunky]

Hi Everyone,

I wanted to apologize for my nutso prediction of URI being in the Final4 or winning the National Championship. It just goes to show you can be a college hoops junkie like me and have it all wrong on who the best teams in the country are. I obviously failed to take into account some of the mental aspects of URI from a team and coaching perspective.

Definitely a punch in the gut to my ego! Sorry for being so unrealistic.

It's good to have high predictions and low...a nice wide range
Anything is (still) possible!

Haha I deserve to be laughed at! Sad thing is The College Hoops Junky believed it. I suck! LOL

I still love college hoops but will stop with predictions which was fun while it lasted.

[spar]

Hi Everyone,

I wanted to apologize for my nutso prediction of URI being in the Final4 or winning the National Championship. It just goes to show you can be a college hoops junkie like me and have it all wrong on who the best teams in the country are. I obviously failed to take into account some of the mental aspects of URI from a team and coaching perspective.

Definitely a punch in the gut to my ego! Sorry for being so unrealistic.

This is just strange to me. Why are you on here apologizing for a prediction? Are you trying to "save face", because you think our team is not very good now after the Joe's game? Are you concerned your Internet ego is going to take a beating if URI makes an early exit in the tourney? I just don't get this post. Kind of irks me to be honest. Sounds like you are pretty confident in your new prediction of us not doing well in the tourney. This makes me want for this team to do well that much more now, so that people like you who have now written the team off after one bad game can go stick it.