PDA

View Full Version : Latest from Joey brackets



RRZagFan
01-30-2014, 08:06 AM
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

zags a 7 seed

primal23
01-30-2014, 08:19 AM
I'd take Colorado, but wouldn't want to see Michigan in the 2nd round(refuse to call it the third round)

Reborn
01-30-2014, 08:39 AM
The worst work I have ever seen out of Joe Lunardi. How does he put 7 teams from the Pac 12 into the tournament, and 6 from the ACC, or six from the Big 10. But like I have said before, there seems to be a big push by ESPN toward the BIG SIX CONFERENCES. This is not a year that ESPN recoginzes the mid-majors very much. I know that St. Mary's and BYU is better then some of the teams in the conferences that I just mentioned. Lunardi is just NOT going to give the WCC three teams this year. As far as Joe is concerned if you lose a game in the WCC you're out. Last week BYI was in and St. Mary's was out. St Mary's gets in this week because BYU loses to a team ranked in the top 25 in the RPI and BPI and USA coaches poll. I suppose if some of the teams from those conferences that I just mentioned that Joe has in, were actually good, then I could see his point. You can not tell me there are 7 PAC 12 teams who belong in that tournament. And I say the same thing for those other teams who are IN from those conferences. I do hope that the Committee will not follow Joe's line of thinking.

You can not CONVINCE me that Oaklahoma is a 4 seed and Gonzaga is a 7. Sorry. And I feel the same for Oklahoma St. I've watched both of these teams, and yes, Oklahoma is doing well, but they are not THAT good. Oklahoma St has been playing terrible basketball lately. IMO Joe Lunardi, however he gets his information, is NOT watching games live. There is something that is called the eye test, and imo, many of his picks DO NOT pass my eye test. But who am I to say. It's just my opinion.

MTZag03
01-30-2014, 08:47 AM
Meh. It has no bearing on what the committee does and the only thing GU can do is win its games. I generally ignore these articles.

titopoet
01-30-2014, 09:03 AM
The worst work I have ever seen out of Joe Lunardi. How does he put 7 teams from the Pac 12 into the tournament, and 6 from the ACC, or six from the Big 10. But like I have said before, there seems to be a big push by ESPN toward the BIG SIX CONFERENCES. This is not a year that ESPN recoginzes the mid-majors very much. I know that St. Mary's and BYU is better then some of the teams in the conferences that I just mentioned. Lunardi is just NOT going to give the WCC three teams this year. As far as Joe is concerned if you lose a game in the WCC you're out. Last week BYI was in and St. Mary's was out. St Mary's gets in this week because BYU loses to a team ranked in the top 25 in the RPI and BPI and USA coaches poll. I suppose if some of the teams from those conferences that I just mentioned that Joe has in, were actually good, then I could see his point. You can not tell me there are 7 PAC 12 teams who belong in that tournament. And I say the same thing for those other teams who are IN from those conferences. I do hope that the Committee will not follow Joe's line of thinking.

You can not CONVINCE me that Oaklahoma is a 4 seed and Gonzaga is a 7. Sorry. And I feel the same for Oklahoma St. I've watched both of these teams, and yes, Oklahoma is doing well, but they are not THAT good. Oklahoma St has been playing terrible basketball lately. IMO Joe Lunardi, however he gets his information, is NOT watching games live. There is something that is called the eye test, and imo, many of his picks DO NOT pass my eye test. But who am I to say. It's just my opinion.

I tend not really care about Joey Brackets. His brackets have a history of not being right that his nickname should be Joey "not even close" Brackets. He gets the support of Espn, but beyond that not much. (in Bracket Matrix he ranks 35 in actual predictive accuracy. http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html)

hooter73
01-30-2014, 09:36 AM
The WCC NEEDS two teams to get in, for the sake of the conference. Hope somebody steps up but at this point, considering the non conference schedules and losses, a team besides GU would have to win the conference tourny to get in and I dont like that plan.

gonzagafan62
01-30-2014, 09:42 AM
The WCC NEEDS two teams to get in, for the sake of the conference. Hope somebody steps up but at this point, considering the non conference schedules and losses, a team besides GU would have to win the conference tourny to get in and I dont like that plan.

You know, I think its pretty funny for the Gaels that their best win is North Dakota State. I don't feel sorry for them at all. They never have a good non-conference schedule. Its pathetic.

Zagsker
01-30-2014, 09:49 AM
The worst work I have ever seen out of Joe Lunardi. How does he put 7 teams from the Pac 12 into the tournament, and 6 from the ACC, or six from the Big 10. But like I have said before, there seems to be a big push by ESPN toward the BIG SIX CONFERENCES. This is not a year that ESPN recoginzes the mid-majors very much. I know that St. Mary's and BYU is better then some of the teams in the conferences that I just mentioned. Lunardi is just NOT going to give the WCC three teams this year. As far as Joe is concerned if you lose a game in the WCC you're out. Last week BYI was in and St. Mary's was out. St Mary's gets in this week because BYU loses to a team ranked in the top 25 in the RPI and BPI and USA coaches poll. I suppose if some of the teams from those conferences that I just mentioned that Joe has in, were actually good, then I could see his point. You can not tell me there are 7 PAC 12 teams who belong in that tournament. And I say the same thing for those other teams who are IN from those conferences. I do hope that the Committee will not follow Joe's line of thinking.

You can not CONVINCE me that Oaklahoma is a 4 seed and Gonzaga is a 7. Sorry. And I feel the same for Oklahoma St. I've watched both of these teams, and yes, Oklahoma is doing well, but they are not THAT good. Oklahoma St has been playing terrible basketball lately. IMO Joe Lunardi, however he gets his information, is NOT watching games live. There is something that is called the eye test, and imo, many of his picks DO NOT pass my eye test. But who am I to say. It's just my opinion.

BYU did lose to Portland as well

The WCC is not that strong (nationally) than it has been

gonzagafan62
01-30-2014, 09:50 AM
BYU did lose to Portland as well

The WCC is not that strong (nationally) than it has been

Yeah, Nationally is a good word. This team is as strong in the middle than its ever been. Lots of really good players, and lots of upsets. BYU and Saint Mary's could've really helped this league out with those non-conference wins, and well so could've the Zags.

Ekrub
01-30-2014, 10:06 AM
We have a good record but who have we beat? Arkansas, BYU and SMC? If we beat k-state I could see an argument to be higher. 7 seeds theoretically should be the 25th-28th best teams. Right about where Kenpom, Sagarin, RPI and the rankings say we are.

titopoet
01-30-2014, 10:09 AM
BYU did lose to Portland as well

The WCC is not that strong (nationally) than it has been

Actually it is the strongest it has been in quite a long time. It ranks 9 best conference in Ken Pom better the Mountain West. Only the big 7 and A-10 are better. The strength comes from top to bottom and does not have the bottom feeders that MWC has. It is also a relatively young league, so it will be tougher for the next years.

Zagsker
01-30-2014, 10:24 AM
Actually it is the strongest it has been in quite a long time. It ranks 9 best conference in Ken Pom better the Mountain West. Only the big 7 and A-10 are better. The strength comes from top to bottom and does not have the bottom feeders that MWC has. It is also a relatively young league, so it will be tougher for the next years.

The bottom has improved the top has taken a step back

kitzbuel
01-30-2014, 10:42 AM
Actually it is the strongest it has been in quite a long time. It ranks 9 best conference in Ken Pom better the Mountain West. Only the big 7 and A-10 are better. The strength comes from top to bottom and does not have the bottom feeders that MWC has. It is also a relatively young league, so it will be tougher for the next years.

MWC, Missouri Valley and Conf USA have all been consistently in front of the WCC in the past. As I mentioned in another thread, it is remarkable that the WCC has moved up a position over its average (from 10 to 9) despite that fact that another major conference (American Athletic) was added.

zagfan24
01-30-2014, 11:26 AM
The bottom has improved the top has taken a step back

Unfortunately, I'd say the top is what matters, at least on a national scale. It takes WCC teams beating some big OOC opponents to get recognition. For one, the games are on too late and not typically nationally televised. Further, while we as Zags fans pay close attention to the improvement of USF, Portland, etc. -- I can personally also say I know very little about St. Bonaventure, or Drake, or a host of other mid-level teams in decent conferences.

Back on topic, I see the Zags seeding as follows:
Win out (including Memphis): 5-6
Win out (except Memphis): 7-8
One loss + Memphis or Two Losses/Beat Memphis: 8-9

Anything else becomes a crapshoot. Just not enough big wins, and too many close calls in conference, to get much higher than a 5. Just my opinion though...

gonstu
01-30-2014, 12:11 PM
Unfortunately, I'd say the top is what matters, at least on a national scale. It takes WCC teams beating some big OOC opponents to get recognition. For one, the games are on too late and not typically nationally televised. Further, while we as Zags fans pay close attention to the improvement of USF, Portland, etc. -- I can personally also say I know very little about St. Bonaventure, or Drake, or a host of other mid-level teams in decent conferences.

Back on topic, I see the Zags seeding as follows:
Win out (including Memphis): 5-6
Win out (except Memphis): 7-8
One loss + Memphis or Two Losses/Beat Memphis: 8-9

Anything else becomes a crapshoot. Just not enough big wins, and too many close calls in conference, to get much higher than a 5. Just my opinion though...

The win out scenario is highly unlikely but IF they did win out it would put them at 31-3 on a 17 game win streak. The Portland loss is not good but it was on the road and we did not have Bell (or dower? don't remember). It would put us w/ wins over SMC (x2 or 3), BYU (x2or3), and AT Memphis. No way that's a 6 seed. That's a solid 4 seed.

Hoping to just win all the games we are "supposed to", then losses at SMC, BYU, MEmph should still not keep us out of big dance. Not a lock yet, some work to be done still - depending on how the rest of the season shakes out, dower's shot could very well be a big difference come selection sunday. here's hoping to winning the "supposed to" games, everything else gravy!

Mr Vulture
01-30-2014, 01:03 PM
I would disagree this year...I don't feel that BYU or St Marys are all that good this year. I don't have any issue with the teams he has in from those conferences and he did have a 2nd team from the WCC in anyway.

zagfan24
01-30-2014, 01:36 PM
The win out scenario is highly unlikely but IF they did win out it would put them at 31-3 on a 17 game win streak. The Portland loss is not good but it was on the road and we did not have Bell (or dower? don't remember). It would put us w/ wins over SMC (x2 or 3), BYU (x2or3), and AT Memphis. No way that's a 6 seed. That's a solid 4 seed.

I hope you're right, and agree that our injuries and illnesses should be taken into account (though they are easily overlooked come tourney time). That said, a 4 seed is essentially putting us in the top 16 teams, and I don't know if the competition we have left is strong enough to get us there; even if the Zags would happen to win out (which, like you said, is far from guaranteed). I am admittedly cynical about these things, but I can't help but believe there won't be some backlash after last year's early exit.

maynard g krebs
01-30-2014, 04:14 PM
How does he put 7 teams from the Pac 12 into the tournament, and 6 from the ACC, or six from the Big 10.

As I understand it, each team is looked at on an individual basis, and conference affiliation/number of teams per conference isn't a factor. I think the Big East got 10 or 11 one year. He rates teams based on their individual resumes. It's true that BCS teams have a big advantage. They play almost all their games against mid majors at home or in neutral tourneys, so the mids have very few chances for resume building wins. That's the issue imo, not some prejudice on the part of Lunardi, who is from St Joe's and if anything would have a personal bias in favor of the mids.

But it's all business and it's true that the bcs leagues are where the big money is. Still, Lunardi is just looking at each team's wins and losses, and game locations, as well as rpi, bpi etc when he ranks teams on the S curve, and a subjective eye test isn't part of the formula.

Lunardi's stuff is just for entertainment at this point; bubble teams move in or out. It just happens that the Pac's 5 bubble teams are all in at the moment; 2 are in playin games as of now. A week or 2 ago they had 5 teams in, and they'll probably be back to 5 again in the near future.

And BYU lost to Pac 12 bubble teams Oregon and Stanford. Lunardi has BYU as the first team out right now, with a 13-9 record and 4th place in the WCC. That sounds pretty fair to me.

DixieZag
01-30-2014, 04:27 PM
Unless SMC goes hot (and they could), the only way I see WCC getting two in is if someone beats GU in the tourney (provided we win the league). If we win the league, I doubt we'll have trouble getting in - though our seed might be bad if we lose more than 2 on the way in - - but, just too few decent victories by BYU and SMC to get an auto bid at this point - one over us would help, and one of those will likely get one.

Last night re-enforced just how tenous our bid might be, if we keep coughing up hairballs on the road, without a single decent non-conf victory yet? Well, keep winning, Saturday is a BIG game considering USF seems to be pretty good this year and we always play brutal, and get some brutal calls? In that building. We need some hot shooting.

RenoZag
01-30-2014, 05:32 PM
The WCC NEEDS two teams to get in, for the sake of the conference. Hope somebody steps up but at this point, considering the non conference schedules and losses, a team besides GU would have to win the conference tourny to get in and I dont like that plan.

Indeed, that plan is worrisome.

I have a hard time worrying about the "sake of the conference" when a corporate jack wagon like Jamie Z is running things. All the proof I need is found in the cranial rectal inversion we know as the 2013-2014 WCC Basketball schedule.

zagamatic
01-30-2014, 05:37 PM
One rule I wish the selection committee would apply is that no team, regardless of how "tough" their conference is, gets into the dance unless they are at LEAST two games over .500 within their own league unless they EARN the automatic bid by winning their tournament.

willandi
01-31-2014, 06:13 AM
I was reading theESPN, Brennan article on 'Mid-Majors', how the name came about etc., then read on into the comments. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was pointed out that the traditional BIG conferences had roughly 360 tournament wins while the MM conferences had 67-70. Sounds like a huge discrepancy until you factor in the BIG conferences regularily getting 6-10 teams in every year, while the MM conferences rejoice when they get 2-3 in. When the old rules of seeding are factored in, it meant that the Big conferences routinely received better seeding, better regional placement against MM teams from farther away. It makes what the MM's have done even MORE impressive in my eyes, not less.
Agree about the 2 games over .500 in conference unless they win the conference tourney. Would like to see an auto bid to the regular season and the conference tourney winner in ALL conferences (when the are the same team the 2nd best team in that conference gets a bid) but know the big conferences would never allow such equal treatment with the smaller conferences/schools.

VinnyZag
01-31-2014, 06:25 AM
Lunardi certainly makes mistakes in predicting seeds. But I think his prediction here is closer to the truth than many of the more extreme points of view of fans on our board.

GU is about a 7 right now, maybe even a 6. The Zags are not in serious danger of missing the tournament, as some have predicted. Nor are they particularly close to winning a predicted seed and playing in Spokane, as others seem to think.

Ekrub
01-31-2014, 06:25 AM
One rule I wish the selection committee would apply is that no team, regardless of how "tough" their conference is, gets into the dance unless they are at LEAST two games over .500 within their own league unless they EARN the automatic bid by winning their tournament.

I disagree. SOS and overall record should be taken into account regardless of what their conference affiliation is. A Team going .500 in the b10 last year should not be punished because there conference schedule was so tough.

LongIslandZagFan
01-31-2014, 06:30 AM
I disagree. SOS and overall record should be taken into account regardless of what their conference affiliation is. A Team going .500 in the b10 last year should not be punished because there conference schedule was so tough.

But they should not be rewarded for NOT winning games. Yes, they had a tougher schedule, but they also lost. Win your games. Plain and simple. Losing more league games than winning says you cannot play with the upper level teams in general.

LongIslandZagFan
01-31-2014, 06:31 AM
Lunardi certainly makes mistakes in predicting seeds. But I think his prediction here is closer to the truth than many of the more extreme points of view of fans on our board.

GU is about a 7 right now, maybe even a 6. The Zags are not in serious danger of missing the tournament, as some have predicted. Nor are they particularly close to winning a predicted seed and playing in Spokane, as others seem to think.

I am OK with a 7 seed. I'd be OK with a 10 seed. Heck, I'd be OK with ANY seed. Just prefer the bottom of a bracket rather than the top.

Reborn
01-31-2014, 06:49 AM
Some really good blogs. I enjoyed reading them. Some very good ideas to think about as we move forward.

titopoet
01-31-2014, 08:13 AM
Lunardi certainly makes mistakes in predicting seeds. But I think his prediction here is closer to the truth than many of the more extreme points of view of fans on our board.

GU is about a 7 right now, maybe even a 6. The Zags are not in serious danger of missing the tournament, as some have predicted. Nor are they particularly close to winning a predicted seed and playing in Spokane, as others seem to think.

If Joey Brackets success was measured as if he were a college b-team, he would like a Virgina Tech, or in the best conference but never performs enough to be a consistent NCAA team, but more NIT with the occasional NCAA bid, but never a real threat. In other words, okay, but nothing special and more hype than result.

cbbfanatic
01-31-2014, 03:13 PM
I disagree. SOS and overall record should be taken into account regardless of what their conference affiliation is. A Team going .500 in the b10 last year should not be punished because there conference schedule was so tough.

absolutely. plus, wasnt uconn's recent championship team hovering right around .500 in conference?

putting those types of limitations on bids would be ridiculous. there are good, tournament worthy teams in the big conferences that would get left out for the likes of some of those weak st marys type 25 wins, no meat, resumes. is that really what we want? a bunch of teams with pretty good records but no other accomplishments of note?

cbbfanatic
01-31-2014, 03:17 PM
But they should not be rewarded for NOT winning games. Yes, they had a tougher schedule, but they also lost. Win your games. Plain and simple. Losing more league games than winning says you cannot play with the upper level teams in general.

no it doesnt. look at uconn a couple years back. there are also sweet 16s and elite 8s left and right for teams that hovered around .500 in conference. if GU was in a major, you would change your tune very, very quickly.

i believe that you shouldnt be rewarded for beating crappy teams over and over and over. i'd rather reward 8-8 where 3-4 of those wins and 6 or so losses are against ranked caliber teams than a resume full of wins against nobodies. seriously, what good is a 25 win team when 24 of those wins are over nobodies?

webspinnre
01-31-2014, 03:18 PM
One rule I wish the selection committee would apply is that no team, regardless of how "tough" their conference is, gets into the dance unless they are at LEAST two games over .500 within their own league unless they EARN the automatic bid by winning their tournament.

I wouldn't be this strict. I'd just require that they not finish below .500.

CDC84
01-31-2014, 03:37 PM
The problem with making it a rule that every team must be .500 in league play to make the dance is that it ignores what takes place during the non-league sked. Not every BCS school chooses to play a cupcake sked. It's quite possible for a BCS team to have an outstanding non-league resume but finish below .500 in league if the league is really tough. Also, with the uneven schedules that take place in the new mega-conferences, not every team's league sked is the same in terms of its difficulty. Some teams get stuck with a tougher deal than other teams.

That being said, the teams who make the "but my league is tough" argument when they finish below .500 usually do not possess non-league resumes that are good enough to make up for their mistakes within league play. But I wouldn't make it a rule because you have to allow for exceptions to the norm.


GU is about a 7 right now, maybe even a 6. The Zags are not in serious danger of missing the tournament, as some have predicted. Nor are they particularly close to winning a predicted seed and playing in Spokane, as others seem to think.

I think this is spot on in terms of where Gonzaga stands at this moment. Things can change obviously. I think the great unknown right now is how the committee will take into account the injuries to Dower and GBJ if Gonzaga were to go on a tear and win out or maybe drop the game at BYU but go unblemished otherwise. There is simply no doubt that those injuries played a part in the losses to KSU and Portland. But if Gonzaga goes on and loses to USF tomorrow and to LMU at home with their full deck, the committee is not going to care.

VinnyZag
01-31-2014, 06:42 PM
In other words, okay, but nothing special and more hype than result.

This describes much of what ESPN does, but I can't ... stop ... watching.