Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

BlueDevil

College Bball Thread

Recommended Posts

UConn about to take down Houston. This should help us in a couple ways. Houston is the near the same seed line as us and makes our win vs UConn look a little better. Let’s see if it helps with our NET.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

Purdue will move up 5 lol.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone needs to ask Lunardi on twitter if IU beats Wisky on Saturday will IU fall to the first 4 out


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

Over the years he has risked his credibility by just trying to become another personality in sports media. He more or less is just trying to entertain and has now made his projections based on his views with a little shock value, as opposed to trying to truly guess how the committee will pick the field.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:


How long of a time period? 2 years? 15 years? 20 years? And I’ll figure it out for you. Want me to do at large mid majors who are 9 seeds and lower? Teams from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, AAC, Pac12, SEC with what? 12, 13, 14 or 15 losses?


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Let’s go from the turn of the century. The other parameters seem fair. Those 7 conferences you listed with 12 or more losses vs everyone else 9 seeds and up. Should we set a minimum win number on those teams? My original post was referencing Lunardi saying a low major stacking wins against bad competition. Obviously going to have to go off of winning % either way, but I’d hope we can agree that some random 15-win low major that stumbled into a conference tourney title isn’t better than a 13-loss high major. That’s why I ask about a minimum number of wins. 
 

I really am curious to see how it shakes out. 
 

*For the record, I’d rather watch a high major team in the dance regardless of how this goes, but that’s strictly my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the years he has risked his credibility by just trying to become another personality in sports media. He more or less is just trying to entertain and has now made his projections based on his views with a little shock value, as opposed to trying to truly guess how the committee will pick the field.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

It gets people talking and clicks on their site. He has IU close because we have a massive following. It’s doo doo.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let’s go from the turn of the century. The other parameters seem fair. Those 7 conferences you listed with 12 or more losses vs everyone else 9 seeds and up. Should we set a minimum win number on those teams? My original post was referencing Lunardi saying a low major stacking wins against bad competition. Obviously going to have to go off of winning % either way, but I’d hope we can agree that some random 15-win low major that stumbled into a conference tourney title isn’t better than a 13-loss high major. That’s why I ask about a minimum number of wins. 
 
I really am curious to see how it shakes out. 
 
*For the record, I’d rather watch a high major team in the dance regardless of how this goes, but that’s strictly my opinion. 

I think most of your low major teams who got at larges as a 9 seed or lower will probably be around 20+ wins. I won’t look at any conference tourney champs since it would be teams getting at large bids vs the low major teams he would rather get bids over them.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, mdn82 said:


Student athletes getting paid though with court testimony. Their whole reasoning was the UNC thing was an academic issue. I will be happy to see how this turns out for certain schools.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Well the key was the classes weren’t just for athletes too. Wonder if adidas wants to give out 6 figures to a few random students to make this all go away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let’s go from the turn of the century. The other parameters seem fair. Those 7 conferences you listed with 12 or more losses vs everyone else 9 seeds and up. Should we set a minimum win number on those teams? My original post was referencing Lunardi saying a low major stacking wins against bad competition. Obviously going to have to go off of winning % either way, but I’d hope we can agree that some random 15-win low major that stumbled into a conference tourney title isn’t better than a 13-loss high major. That’s why I ask about a minimum number of wins. 
 
I really am curious to see how it shakes out. 
 
*For the record, I’d rather watch a high major team in the dance regardless of how this goes, but that’s strictly my opinion. 

I think most of the at large low majors who have gotten at large bids as a 9 seed and lower have had 20+ wins, but VCU may have had like 19 going in before their Fjnal Four Run.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:


I think most of the at large low majors who have gotten at large bids as a 9 seed and lower have had 20+ wins, but VCU may have had like 19 going in before their Fjnal Four Run.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

True. Any mid/low-major at-large should make it fair then. Although I do think a conference like the A-10 will sway it because I’m not sure I’d consider it a true mid-major. His specific example of ETSU, which I’d definitely consider a low major, is what sparked this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True. Any mid/low-major at-large should make it fair then. Although I do think a conference like the A-10 will sway it because I’m not sure I’d consider it a true mid-major. His specific example of ETSU, which I’d definitely consider a low major, is what sparked this. 

I’ve looked into it before. Most of those really good A-10 teams are higher seeded. There are some but most are higher seeded.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the key was the classes weren’t just for athletes too. Wonder if adidas wants to give out 6 figures to a few random students to make this all go away. 

Honestly nothing at this point would surprise me. Either way they move it will even the playing field. If they do nothing? It’s open season. If they put the hammer down? 50 consultants are brain storming the next way to play in the gray. These teams are just the sacrificial lamb until the next one.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×