Seeds for a few Big East teams in his projected field:
Georgetown: #3
Marquette: #9
Villanova: #2
Seton Hall: #11
There is something grossly wrong with all of these seeds. If Marquette is given a #9 seed, I will be furious. Seton Hall, really? Not happening. And how Nova and G-town have seeds that high, I'll never know.
Quote from: windyplayer on March 12, 2010, 09:06:50 AM
Seeds for a few Big East teams in his projected field:
Georgetown: #3
Marquette: #9
Villanova: #2
Seton Hall: #11
There is something grossly wrong with all of these seeds. If Marquette is given a #9 seed, I will be furious. Seton Hall, really? Not happening. And how Nova and G-town have seeds that high, I'll never know.
Incidentally, it's not just Palm that has MU at a 9. The consensus has us at a 9 by all the different prognosticators. See here. http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm
I was about to post this. Palm has nine teams getting in. I just don't see how Seton Hall will get in.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13044283/projecting-the-field-a-day-of-conference-implosion?tag=headlines;other (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13044283/projecting-the-field-a-day-of-conference-implosion?tag=headlines;other)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 12, 2010, 09:14:58 AM
Incidentally, it's not just Palm that has MU at a 9. The consensus has us at a 9 by all the different prognosticators. See here. http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm
I don't think a 9 is as ridiculous as the original poster, but Palm is the only one that's put us there since the Nova win - the consensus is based upon mock brackets as old as last Friday. I suspect by the end of today we'll have moved into the 8 range on there.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 12, 2010, 09:15:50 AM
I was about to post this. Palm has nine teams getting in. I just don't see how Seton Hall will get in.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13044283/projecting-the-field-a-day-of-conference-implosion?tag=headlines;other (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13044283/projecting-the-field-a-day-of-conference-implosion?tag=headlines;other)
they have no losses outside the top 75 in RPI.
Jerry is in love with the RPI and bases almost everything on it with his brackets.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 12, 2010, 09:14:58 AM
Incidentally, it's not just Palm that has MU at a 9. The consensus has us at a 9 by all the different prognosticators.
Sort of. If you look at the prognosticators with an update date of 3/12, the average is 7.
Quote from: Chili on March 12, 2010, 09:24:14 AM
they have no losses outside the top 75 in RPI.
Jerry is in love with the RPI and bases almost everything on it with his brackets.
That is correct, he is doing a pure RPI based calculation.
Well, by doing that, he's bound to be inaccurate. Isn't the point of his projected field to give readers an idea of what to expect come Selection Sunday?
That's why Lunardi's brackets are much better, because he actually thinks like a committee member.
Quote from: windyplayer on March 12, 2010, 09:46:43 AM
Well, by doing that, he's bound to be inaccurate. Isn't the point of his projected field to give readers an idea of what to expect come Selection Sunday?
That's why Lunardi's brackets are much better, because he actually thinks like a committee member.
Lunardi is terribly overrated.
He is good at picking who is getting in, but HORRIBLE at guessing seeds.
Every year there are a slew of head scratching seeds. I honestly believe that Lunardi does a better job with the seeds than the committee. Regardless, if we win tonight we should lock up at least a 7.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 12, 2010, 09:14:58 AM
Incidentally, it's not just Palm that has MU at a 9. The consensus has us at a 9 by all the different prognosticators. See here. http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm
Actually I don't think that bracket matrix is that up to date. I did some poking around and there are a lot of discrepancies between matrix results with the actual websites. I've seen a 10 on the matrix where we actually are 7 on their up to date blog. And a few 8/9s on the matrix where we are actually 6/7s. 7 being the most prominent seeding followed by 8 and then 6. Palm is an outlier compared to the rest of the matrix if you are looking at up to date numbers. I guess I am suprised considering that he follows the RPI so closely.
I don't care as long as were in. Just play them one at a time.
Quote from: windyplayer on March 12, 2010, 09:46:43 AM
Well, by doing that, he's bound to be inaccurate. Isn't the point of his projected field to give readers an idea of what to expect come Selection Sunday?
That's why Lunardi's brackets are much better, because he actually thinks like a committee member.
All of them struggle with seeding because all it takes is to be wrong on one from the same conference and it has a domino effect since you can't have a team from the same conference play each other in the first 2 rounds (at least if only 8 teams are coming).
So they're going to be off on seeds. Lunardi and Palm have been very good at nailing who the 34 at large teams are over the years. In some years, both get them all correct, in other years they miss by 1 or 2. I believe Jerry does apply a bit of an eyeball test in his final bracket projection but he's an RPI guy and that's what he uses as his main backbone of info. It's served him well in terms of determining who the 34 are.
Quote from: PJDunn on March 12, 2010, 10:17:06 AM
Every year there are a slew of head scratching seeds. I honestly believe that Lunardi does a better job with the seeds than the committee. Regardless, if we win tonight we should lock up at least a 7.
+1
Is it a high nine or a low nine?
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on March 12, 2010, 04:45:35 PM
Is it a high nine or a low nine?
I think its a soft 9 right now