Not bad. Oklahoma City.I'll predict 10, WAB is in 10 range and think that's going to be most important Metric this year.
10 seed vs 7 St Mary's
Houston as the 2 in same pod.
Not bad. Oklahoma City.I'll predict 10, WAB is in 10 range and think that's going to be most important Metric this year.
10 seed vs 7 St Mary's
Houston as the 2 in same pod.
While I would love to see Iowa as a 7, I will suffer heart palpitations due to shock if Iowa is on that line.Seems like everyone is saying 8 or 9 seed. That may very well end up being the landing spot. However, given our high metrics and the strong conference we play in, perhaps the committee will seed us higher than expected? (like 7?)
I don't know how much weight is given to close losses against top ten teams (especially on the road), but I think NET factors that in -I just don't know how much weight is given to this. If NET ranking is a big factor then I think we may all be pleasantly surprised. We'll find out soon enough!
I hope you are right!Seems like everyone is saying 8 or 9 seed. That may very well end up being the landing spot. However, given our high metrics and the strong conference we play in, perhaps the committee will seed us higher than expected? (like 7?)
I don't know how much weight is given to close losses against top ten teams (especially on the road), but I think NET factors that in -I just don't know how much weight is given to this. If NET ranking is a big factor then I think we may all be pleasantly surprised. We'll find out soon enough!
Lunardi is notoriously literally one of the worst predictors at this stuff. As in out of like 150 'experts' he's near the bottom of accuracy every year.As of 10 minutes ago, we are still a 9 seed playing Utah St. out west. (Lunardi)
Won't argue that.Lunardi is notoriously literally one of the worst predictors at this stuff. As in out of like 150 'experts' he's near the bottom of accuracy every year.
While I have no doubt that's true, the aggregate of those 150 bracketologists has Iowa as a 9.Lunardi is notoriously literally one of the worst predictors at this stuff. As in out of like 150 'experts' he's near the bottom of accuracy every year.
Hope this continues.Lunardi is notoriously literally one of the worst predictors at this stuff. As in out of like 150 'experts' he's near the bottom of accuracy every year.
LOL. He got all 68 teams correct this year, and only a handful of teams were more than 1 seed off from his prediction.Lunardi is notoriously literally one of the worst predictors at this stuff. As in out of like 150 'experts' he's near the bottom of accuracy every year.
Is 125th good?LOL. He got all 68 teams correct this year, and only a handful of teams were more than 1 seed off from his prediction.
Would love to see links showing his notoriously literally poor history.
Cool. I guess you had a good reason to be butt-hurt. Sorry.