|
Post by labonniesfan on Mar 4, 2016 10:46:56 GMT -5
ESPN - 12th Seed - Playing Michigan for the right to get the 12th seed...
CBS - 10th Seed to play Colorado....
Winning two games (sweet sixteen) is hard enough especially for a team that isn't big and deep.. that is why it is imperative to win on Saturday and at least one game in the tournament.
I hope we don't get a playin game..... Obviously I would take it rather than not getting in at all...
GO BONNIES!
|
|
|
Post by B02 on Mar 4, 2016 10:49:33 GMT -5
Lunardi saying Bonas is a #12 seed and Joes is a #8 seed has to be a joke right?
|
|
|
Post by labonniesfan on Mar 4, 2016 11:22:06 GMT -5
Lunardi saying Bonas is a #12 seed and Joes is a #8 seed has to be a joke right? St. Joes should be a higher seed than us, but not an 8th seed. I think they should be a 9th seed.
|
|
|
Post by localfan on Mar 4, 2016 11:36:43 GMT -5
Lunardi saying Bonas is a #12 seed and Joes is a #8 seed has to be a joke right? Seeds are always based on total body of work. I understand we swept them and therefore the argument that we should be a closer or higher seed seems relevant, but at the end of the day it's total body of work. How many RPI Top 25 wins, SOS and non-conf SOS, etc. There's a reason they're still firmly in and we're last four in right now. We still have some work to do.
|
|
|
Post by class70 on Mar 4, 2016 11:41:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jive36 on Mar 4, 2016 11:42:34 GMT -5
Selecting the teams this year is only going to be the first hurdle for the selection committee this year. Seeding teams is going to be near impossible. Not much difference between 3 to 8 lines and same can be said from 8 down to the bubble. They have to be hoping some teams distinguish themselves in the conference tourneys and there is nothing saying that cant be the Bonnies!
|
|
|
Post by tomgleason on Mar 4, 2016 11:42:37 GMT -5
TeamRankings.com 8 seed, along with SJU...VCU a 7 seed and UD a 6 seed
|
|
|
Post by Dunga on Mar 4, 2016 11:53:50 GMT -5
Lunardi saying Bonas is a #12 seed and Joes is a #8 seed has to be a joke right? Seeds are always based on total body of work. I understand we swept them and therefore the argument that we should be a closer or higher seed seems relevant, but at the end of the day it's total body of work. How many RPI Top 25 wins, SOS and non-conf SOS, etc. There's a reason they're still firmly in and we're last four in right now. We still have some work to do. RPI 25. St. Joseph's (PA) 28. St. Bonaventure SOS 82 St. Joseph's (PA) 75 St. Bonaventure vs Top-25 1-1 St. Joseph's (PA) 3-1 St. Bonaventure vs Top-50 2-4 St. Joseph's (PA) 3-2 St. Bonaventure vs Top-100 5-6 St. Joseph's (PA) 6-5 St. Bonaventure www.udpride.com/images/rpi.htm
|
|
|
Post by bigdobber on Mar 4, 2016 12:02:45 GMT -5
The out of conference SOS must be a lot better than ours because we beat them hands down in metrics within the league. Of course Joe Lunardi is biased but I won't hold it against him. I think we are both in.
|
|
|
Post by localfan on Mar 4, 2016 12:45:55 GMT -5
Seeds are always based on total body of work. I understand we swept them and therefore the argument that we should be a closer or higher seed seems relevant, but at the end of the day it's total body of work. How many RPI Top 25 wins, SOS and non-conf SOS, etc. There's a reason they're still firmly in and we're last four in right now. We still have some work to do. RPI 25. St. Joseph's (PA) 28. St. Bonaventure SOS 82 St. Joseph's (PA) 75 St. Bonaventure vs Top-25 1-1 St. Joseph's (PA) 3-1 St. Bonaventure vs Top-50 2-4 St. Joseph's (PA) 3-2 St. Bonaventure vs Top-100 5-6 St. Joseph's (PA) 6-5 St. Bonaventure www.udpride.com/images/rpi.htmBelieve me, I'm on your side, but the non-conference SOS (SJU 42, SBU 123) and the lack of any real bad losses on their part will certainly be considered.
|
|
JC
Junior Member
Posts: 383
|
Post by JC on Mar 4, 2016 13:16:30 GMT -5
The sinister Lunardi conspiracy rears its ugly head yet again. Not only does his pro St. Joes bias show in putting the Hawks as a higher seed than the Bonnies, he has convinced all of the other bracketologists worldwide to do the same. We all know he is working behind the scenes to influence the selection committee to think that the Hawks are better. Rise up, and take to twitter to denounce this evildoer.
|
|
|
Post by homersbu on Mar 4, 2016 13:52:33 GMT -5
Well played, JC. Well played. If you people continue to act like the whiny little kid who never gets any attention, we'll end up being the whiny little kid who never gets any attention. If we genuinely get &*^%$#! on Selection Sunday, then go nuts. But it will have nothing to do with anything Lunardi has said.
|
|
|
Post by Dunga on Mar 4, 2016 13:53:20 GMT -5
I passed no judgement on Lunardi. I just put up the numbers for everyone to see because localfan referenced them. St. Joes has a slight edge in nonconference with wins over Princeton and Temple. Our best win is Ohio. We also have two "bad" losses at Duq and LaSalle. St. Joes has avoided bad losses. We have the edge in top 25/50/100 wins, and head to head. realtimerpi.com/rpi_118_Men.htmlrealtimerpi.com/rpi_119_Men.htmlThe fact is Lunardi is the 36th ranked bracketologist historically. His affiliation with ESPN influences his picks. Leagues with big ESPN contracts tend to get special treatment and hype. He has always underseeded A10 teams in past years (even St. Joes). My guess is if he were affiliated with another network, he'd pick more like the majority of bracketologists ranked ahead of him. www.bracketmatrix.com/www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.htmlwww.rpiforecast.com/live-rpi.htmlwww.udpride.com/images/rpi.htmThe average seed for St. Bona is currently around 10 among bracketologists who submitted picks March 3.
|
|
|
Post by demourse on Mar 4, 2016 14:57:38 GMT -5
Bracketologist or proctologist- the Bonnies didn't just beat St. Joe's, they rectum. TWICE!
|
|
|
Post by homersbu on Mar 4, 2016 16:02:04 GMT -5
Not talking about you, Dunga. Much respect for all your efforts and fact-based arguments. I'm just talking about the Twitter whiners among some members of out insecure fan base.
|
|