Started By
Message
1
Posted on 3/6/23 at 3:02 pm to STLhog
quote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's only us that gets this kind of treatment. It's pretty much every school that isn't traditionally good at basketball. It's not much different than how the the football playoff committee behaves. If two schools are close they will pick the one that has the bigger tradition of winning 9/10 times.
Oh yea
If Texas A&M is North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, Michigan State, UCLA, hell even a team like a Wisconsin there's probably TV talking heads working themselves into delirium about how they're a Final Four lock
Posted on 3/6/23 at 3:05 pm to JayAg
quote:
Lunardi hates A&M
Posted on 3/6/23 at 3:05 pm to Wallacewade04
quote:
North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, Michigan State, UCLA
None of these have a sweaty thumb for a head coach that still wears a cheap 3 piece suit every game and hacks on nicotine gum like an animal. Seriously, who still smokes?
He also whined to the committee last year incessantly and then proceeded to schedule the same garbage non con, and lose 4 times this year.
How did he/they think that was going to go?
This post was edited on 3/6/23 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 3/6/23 at 3:07 pm to STLhog
I think Texas A&M is floating right around where they need to be based on the year's results
but if they were one of the traditional basketball powers they'd be getting that blue blood bump
but if they were one of the traditional basketball powers they'd be getting that blue blood bump
Posted on 3/6/23 at 3:08 pm to Wallacewade04
Agreed. Just sayin it is what it is and tired of hearing them whine.
Just keep winning games and fix your non conference schedule.
Just keep winning games and fix your non conference schedule.
Posted on 3/6/23 at 3:28 pm to STLhog
okay Karen lmao
Posted on 3/6/23 at 3:30 pm to Gastrogastro99
quote:
Arkansas always loves to dog on a&m yet they just keep losing to a&m
Man, you're spot on with your facts.
Arkansas all-time vs. A&M:
106 wins 60 losses
11-9 in SEC play
Posted on 3/6/23 at 3:44 pm to woodhog14
Okay so only 2 hogs (not others), believe A&M deserves to be an 7/8 seed. Got it. But you guys keep going and going bitching in this thread that you guys are upset. Sorry you feel that way, I hope you and stlhog get better.
Like add to the discussion. It just sounds like y’all don’t follow bball.
Like add to the discussion. It just sounds like y’all don’t follow bball.
This post was edited on 3/6/23 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 3/6/23 at 4:20 pm to JayAg
quote:
Okay so only 2 hogs (not others), believe A&M deserves to be an 7/8 seed. Got it. But you guys keep going and going bitching in this thread that you guys are upset. Sorry you feel that way, I hope you and stlhog get better.
Like add to the discussion. It just sounds like y’all don’t follow bball.
Get out of here with your bull shite. I follow college basketball closely and watch most of the other SEC games other than Arkansas all season, as well as other conferences.
I believe A&M should be no lower than a 6 seed. I really believe they should be a 5 because they played so well in SEC play.
I was responding to your wrong fact about A&M just keeps beating Arkansas.
This post was edited on 3/6/23 at 4:21 pm
Posted on 3/6/23 at 6:37 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
A&M should be a 5 or 6 at worst. A 7 is ridiculous.
Agree. With how they've been playing the last month I wouldn't have an issue with them being a 5. Maybe a 4 depending on how the various tournaments go.
Posted on 3/6/23 at 6:47 pm to ljhog
It’s really just STLhog stirring the pot saying for A&M to shut up and we deserve a crap seed. The other hogs aren’t partaking but adding to the discussion.
Posted on 3/7/23 at 5:28 am to JayAg
I do follow college basketball and I’m saying your shitty non conference record matters. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it false.
I didn’t say anywhere y’all aren’t a good team. Just that the rules and committee look at full body of work and bad losses, however early, will penalize you.
And your coach does look like a sweaty sausage.
My bad for stating facts.
I didn’t say anywhere y’all aren’t a good team. Just that the rules and committee look at full body of work and bad losses, however early, will penalize you.
And your coach does look like a sweaty sausage.
My bad for stating facts.
Posted on 3/7/23 at 8:44 am to STLhog
These facts are known. If these non con losses didn’t exist, we would clearly be looking at a 3 or 4 seed. The overall record would also reflect this, and would be more impressive considering the performance in conference.
The issue is whether other teams are held to the same scrutiny. What our coach looks like is irrelevant.
The issue is whether other teams are held to the same scrutiny. What our coach looks like is irrelevant.
Posted on 3/7/23 at 9:29 am to JayAg
This is exactly why you don't let a teacher who has never played the game be the go to person for March Madness brackets lol..
Posted on 3/7/23 at 10:20 am to AGGIES
quote:
The issue is whether other teams are held to the same scrutiny.
If you're only arguing that Lunardi has A&M too low, it seems like almost everyone agrees, even most bracket prognosticators. A&M is a 6 seed in the Bracket Matrix average.
These are some teams A&M would need to pass to get to the 5 seed line. I'd probably put A&M above most of these as a 5 seed but it's pretty close because Q3-4 losses these teams may have are not anywhere near Wofford on their home court except TCU (and I'd drop TCU down a line for that loss too).
Miami 11-4 in Quad 1-2 games. 15-5 ACC. 2 bad losses to Ga Tech and FSU.
Iowa St 11-12 in Q1-2. 0 bad losses.
TCU 12-10 in Q1-2. 1 very bad Q4 loss.
Creighton 14-6 in Big East. 9-10 in Q1-2. No Q4 losses.
Duke 15-5 ACC. 10-8 Q1-Q2. (8-2 in last 10 and on 6 game winning streak for those arguing late season should be weighed heavier) No Q3 or 4 losses.
SD State 9-6 in Q1-2. No bad losses.
Texas A&M 10-6 Q1-2. 15-3 SEC. 2 bad Q4 losses. one of them very bad.
Now if you're talking about getting any higher, these are the next teams to jump:
UCONN 12-6 Q1-2 13-7 Big East. no Q4 losses.
Xavier 13-5 Q1-2. 15-5 Big East. 2 Q3 losses. no Q4 losses
Virginia 15-5 ACC. 10-5 Q1-2. 1 Q3 loss.
Indiana 11-9 Q1-2 with sweep of Purdue and Ooc over Xavier. 12-8 Big10. No bad losses.
I wouldn't have A&M over these right now since the resumes are pretty close except the 2 Q4 losses.
Posted on 3/7/23 at 10:38 am to wm72
Appreciate the analysis. I’m thinking that 5 seed is a legit slot, and that 6 a seed is too low.
Not a big fan of combining Q1-2. The committee should weight Q1 record more than Q2 record - especially if we are also looking at bad losses to Q4.
Not a big fan of combining Q1-2. The committee should weight Q1 record more than Q2 record - especially if we are also looking at bad losses to Q4.
Posted on 3/7/23 at 11:30 am to AGGIES
quote:
Not a big fan of combining Q1-2. The committee should weight Q1 record more than Q2 record - especially if we are also looking at bad losses to Q4.
I agree with you about combining Q1-2 or Q3-4 for that matter. Pretty sure the committee looks at the resume spread sheet broken down by NET rank and divided into 8 octaves. (This is one area Tennessee pops out a bit since 3 of their 7 Q1 wins are the three toughest games they played all season: Alabama, Kansas, Texas.)
I just combined them above to not make my post too unwieldy and most of the teams I listed were fairly similar with the exception of Duke with only 3 Q1 wins.
This post was edited on 3/7/23 at 11:38 am
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News