Latest bracketology

[BCEagles25]

The college basketball professor known as Joe Lunardi has us as a 12th seed come March.

[BC923]

I can't wait to see him have to correct this when he like other media people realize that we are just as just as good if not better without tyrese rice.

[pick6pedro]

P6P's bracketology has BC as a 6 seed. Team rated too high? Possible Paradise Jam finals opponent Tennessee.

[bcbcbcbcbc4444]

we were a 6 seed a few months ago. nothing has changed since then except other "experts" have come out with their rankings. now we are a 12 seed. How does that make any sense?

[1981Eagle]

P6P's bracketology has BC as a 6 seed. Team rated too high? Possible Paradise Jam finals opponent Tennessee.

Tenn. would be fun playing against Pearl, a former BC mascot.

[pick6pedro]

a 12 seed would be a "last team in" sort of treatment.

much like football, bc will never be a "last team in" as proven with our track record of being underseeded and sent packing to horrible locations

I think it can be argued that BC was one of the last teams in for the 2002 Tourney and one of the last teams out in 2003.

[Eagledom]

a 12 seed would be a "last team in" sort of treatment.

much like football, bc will never be a "last team in" as proven with our track record of being underseeded and sent packing to horrible locations

BC could very easily be a last team in...and has been before. Basketball and football are totally different animals, for one just due to the fact that ACC is highly respected in hoops so a 8-8 or 7-9 ACC team, regardless of who it is, is going to get a lot of consideration for the tournament.

[Chilltown]

Yes BC was underseeded and shipped out west during the Sweet 16 run with Smith and Dudley (Teddy Serandis' "1000 tons of adversity"), but last year, BC was actually dramatically overseeded. We in no way deserved a 7 seed with our resume last year.

[twballgame9]

BC's seed was just about right last year. Could have been a 6.

[Eagledom]

I think we were a 6 last year, no? Didn't matter. We were playing against a team that should have had BC's seed and BC should have had theirs.

[twballgame9]

I think we were a 6 last year, no? Didn't matter. We were playing against a team that should have had BC's seed and BC should have had theirs.

Umm, no. Seeding shouldn't be based on how the teams match up head to head. USC was lucky to make the tourney - they were gross underachievers all season, while BC beat the eventual national champs and Duke. But then, Al hates Ravenel and Elmore.

[Eagledom]

I think we were a 6 last year, no? Didn't matter. We were playing against a team that should have had BC's seed and BC should have had theirs.

Umm, no. Seeding shouldn't be based on how the teams match up head to head. USC was lucky to make the tourney - they were gross underachievers all season, while BC beat the eventual national champs and Duke. But then, Al hates Ravenel and Elmore.

And tuggle and haden will be all-acc.

[Cadillac90]

I think we were a 6 last year, no? Didn't matter. We were playing against a team that should have had BC's seed and BC should have had theirs.

Umm, no. Seeding shouldn't be based on how the teams match up head to head. USC was lucky to make the tourney - they were gross underachievers all season, while BC beat the eventual national champs and Duke. But then, Al hates Ravenel and Elmore.

And tuggle and haden will be all-acc.

[pick6pedro]

BC's seed was just about right last year. Could have been a 6.

Team #1 = SOS of 56, Sagarin ranking of 61, RPI of 60. Team #2 = SOS of 9, Sagarin of 23, and RPI of 38. Identical records. You tell me who should have the higher seed.

[twballgame9]

Pedro bringing Sabremetrics to college sports is really awful.

[commavegarage]

BC's seed was just about right last year. Could have been a 6.

Team #1 = SOS of 56, Sagarin ranking of 61, RPI of 60. Team #2 = SOS of 9, Sagarin of 23, and RPI of 38. Identical records. You tell me who should have the higher seed.

I sure hope Team 1 got the higher seed.

[pick6pedro]

Pedro bringing Sabremetrics to college sports is really awful.

Gee, why would anyone want to use objective evidence and numbers to evaluate a sport to compare two teams that have not met? Stupid me!

What is your justification for thinking BC should have been a 6 seed. Your gut? Two thumbs down.

[twballgame9]

Pedro bringing Sabremetrics to college sports is really awful.

Gee, why would anyone want to use objective evidence and numbers to evaluate a sport to compare two teams that have not met? Stupid me!

What is your justification for thinking BC should have been a 6 seed. Your gut? Two thumbs down.

College basketball is rife with examples of teams with higher RPIs getting smoked in an actual gym by actual players.

Keith Olberman once said, "good thing games aren't played on paper." Good thing they aren't played in computers either.

[pick6pedro]

Pedro bringing Sabremetrics to college sports is really awful.

Gee, why would anyone want to use objective evidence and numbers to evaluate a sport to compare two teams that have not met? Stupid me!

What is your justification for thinking BC should have been a 6 seed. Your gut? Two thumbs down.

College basketball is rife with examples of teams with higher RPIs getting smoked in an actual gym by actual players.

Keith Olberman once said, "good thing games aren't played on paper." Good thing they aren't played in computers either.

Jesus, any sport is rife with "lesser" teams beating "better" teams, and anyone who needs Keith Olberman to tell them that should be shot. The point of the selection committee is choose the teams that play for the NC and to fairly seed them based on the season they have had compared to the rest of the field while factoring in locations, etc.

I notice you've yet to answer the question about why BC should have been given a 6. Possibly because you realize you have no way to justify proclaiming it.

[buconvict]

The very fact that you are citing Keith Olbermann in your argument proves Pedro's point. Clearly, team B deserved the higher seed. Hence the blowout victory over team A.

[Eagledom]

This is entertaining to watch. Pedro proves the point with objective evidence.....and "never wrong" TWB counters with..........the wisdom of KEITH OLBERMAN!

[totheights]

No one is going to argue BC was a better team then USC last year (or atleast I hope not) but to think BC didn't have the better overall year then them is also ridiculous. USC was horrendous for 3/4ths of their year and turned it on at the end and won the Pac-10 tourny. They deserved their 10 seed, BC deserved their 7 seed. That said USC was a team with much more talent then BC at that point, and the score proved it.

Talent, has nothing to do with seeding. If that was the case BC would make the tournament about three times a decade. Its about performance on the court throughout the whole year.

[pick6pedro]

No one is going to argue BC was a better team then USC last year (or atleast I hope not) but to think BC didn't have the better overall year then them is also ridiculous. USC was horrendous for 3/4ths of their year and turned it on at the end and won the Pac-10 tourny. They deserved their 10 seed, BC deserved their 7 seed. That said USC was a team with much more talent then BC at that point, and the score proved it.

Right. My first question was why was BC deserving of a 6 seed. Unanswered to this point.

My second point was in regards to the resumes of BC and USC compared to the seeding of each. USC had the exact same record as BC yet "a horrible 3/4 of a season" while BC had an better "overall year"? How so? BC also played horrendous at points and played a weaker schedule. Harvard, St. Louis, Clemson, Wake, GT (close win), barely beating UMass and Iowa were all not good games at all. Losing to Miami twice. So far there hasn't been anything except opinion tossed around in comparing USC and BC's 2008-2009 seasons. Oh, except for the numbers I presented. Those were not opinions.

Its about performance on the court throughout the whole year

Did you even look at USC's record/resume? How did USC have a "horrendous 3/4 of the year"? Even if they did, why is that any different than BC's struggles throughout when looking at the season AS A WHOLE? All of USC's losses in 2008-2009 were to either Big East (Seton Hall), Big XII (Mizzou/OU), Pac-10 (9 losses), or the national runner-up (MSU). That is - to major conferences teams. Yep: horrendous.

[BC923]

I agree with BC not deserving a six, I thought 8 or 9 was about right. But Pedro, You shouldn't have mentioned the loss to SHU, they aren't really big east caliber

[pick6pedro]

I agree with BC not deserving a six, I thought 8 or 9 was about right. But Pedro, You shouldn't have mentioned the loss to SHU, they aren't really big east caliber

SHU >>>>> St. Louis>>>>>>>Rutgers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harvard>Harvard Pilgrim pickup games

Besides, I don't conveniently leave out truths just because they don't fit my argument.

[twballgame9]

Pedro bringing Sabremetrics to college sports is really awful.

Gee, why would anyone want to use objective evidence and numbers to evaluate a sport to compare two teams that have not met? Stupid me!

What is your justification for thinking BC should have been a 6 seed. Your gut? Two thumbs down.

College basketball is rife with examples of teams with higher RPIs getting smoked in an actual gym by actual players.

Keith Olberman once said, "good thing games aren't played on paper." Good thing they aren't played in computers either.

Jesus, any sport is rife with "lesser" teams beating "better" teams, and anyone who needs Keith Olberman to tell them that should be shot. The point of the selection committee is choose the teams that play for the NC and to fairly seed them based on the season they have had compared to the rest of the field while factoring in locations, etc.

I notice you've yet to answer the question about why BC should have been given a 6. Possibly because you realize you have no way to justify proclaiming it.

Because they were one of the top 25 teams in the country. Period. Oh, and the beat the eventual national champions on their home court.

[twballgame9]

:popcorn

This is entertaining to watch. Pedro proves the point with objective evidence.....and "never wrong" TWB counters with..........the wisdom of KEITH OLBERMAN!

Objective evidence of ranking teams. Funny stuff, OJ

[BCEagle74]

Some freaking former Jersey catholci Boy ends up at UT today who was a Top 10 in 2010.

Woulda been nice at BC.

[pick6pedro]

Pedro bringing Sabremetrics to college sports is really awful.

Gee, why would anyone want to use objective evidence and numbers to evaluate a sport to compare two teams that have not met? Stupid me!

What is your justification for thinking BC should have been a 6 seed. Your gut? Two thumbs down.

College basketball is rife with examples of teams with higher RPIs getting smoked in an actual gym by actual players.

Keith Olberman once said, "good thing games aren't played on paper." Good thing they aren't played in computers either.

Jesus, any sport is rife with "lesser" teams beating "better" teams, and anyone who needs Keith Olberman to tell them that should be shot. The point of the selection committee is choose the teams that play for the NC and to fairly seed them based on the season they have had compared to the rest of the field while factoring in locations, etc.

I notice you've yet to answer the question about why BC should have been given a 6. Possibly because you realize you have no way to justify proclaiming it.

Because they were one of the top 25 teams in the country. Period. Oh, and the beat the eventual national champions on their home court.

No votes in either poll on selection Sunday. I'm glad one game out of 34 is all is takes to get yourself into the tourney these days. Why did you bother responding?

[Eagledom]

Pedro bringing Sabremetrics to college sports is really awful.

Gee, why would anyone want to use objective evidence and numbers to evaluate a sport to compare two teams that have not met? Stupid me!

What is your justification for thinking BC should have been a 6 seed. Your gut? Two thumbs down.

College basketball is rife with examples of teams with higher RPIs getting smoked in an actual gym by actual players.

Keith Olberman once said, "good thing games aren't played on paper." Good thing they aren't played in computers either.

Jesus, any sport is rife with "lesser" teams beating "better" teams, and anyone who needs Keith Olberman to tell them that should be shot. The point of the selection committee is choose the teams that play for the NC and to fairly seed them based on the season they have had compared to the rest of the field while factoring in locations, etc.


I notice you've yet to answer the question about why BC should have been given a 6. Possibly because you realize you have no way to justify proclaiming it.

Because they were one of the top 25 teams in the country. Period. Oh, and the beat the eventual national champions on their home court.

No votes in either poll on selection Sunday. I'm glad one game out of 34 is all is takes to get yourself into the tourney these days. Why did you bother responding?

don't bother pedro...he's not going to admit he was wrong....but why should he? His Olbermann argument was pretty compelling