Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

2025 Bracketologies

dahliaclone said:
Jon was a top 10 bracketer last year and this is updated for today. It seems like a trend is forming. LOTS of brackets have us as a 3 in the east.

hoopshd.com

Hoops HD

College Basketball Analysis in High Def
hoopshd.com hoopshd.com
Click to expand...
That'd be my least-favorite 14 to face, but overall I'd be cool with it.

He swapped BYU from a 6 to 7 due most likely to Friday/Sunday /// Thursday/Saturday, but has it facing WVU. Unless it's unavoidable, that violates a bracketing principle (he could swap placement w/ Gonzaga, perhaps). No biggie, just something I noticed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dahliaclone
I don't understand the hate for UNC as an at-large. OOC, they played @ Kansas (L 89-92), Auburn (L 72-85), Michigan State (L 91-94 in OT), Alabama (L 79-94), Florida (L 84-90) and UCLA (W 76-74). For damn! OKay, so they wouldn't win the SEC, but those are six high quality OOC games (1-5). They won one and three of them were close. Only Auburn and Alabama beat them by more than two possessions.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: CloneIce
AlaCyclone said:
I don't understand the hate for UNC as an at-large. OOC, they played @ Kansas (L 89-92), Auburn (L 72-85), Michigan State (L 91-94 in OT), Alabama (L 79-94), Florida (L 84-90) and UCLA (W 76-74). For damn! OKay, so they wouldn't win the SEC, but those are six high quality OOC games (1-5). They won one and three of them were close. Only Auburn and Alabama beat them by more than two possessions.
Click to expand...
But they didn’t win any of those games. Gotta win games. And the ACC sucks so their wins are inflated by **** teams. Pretty easy why they shouldn’t be in.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: RezClone and NENick
The hottest teams the last month of the season:

1742144985404.png

Id like to avoid BYU, Colorado St, and Gonzaga the first two games.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: CloneIce
AlaCyclone said:
I don't understand the hate for UNC as an at-large. OOC, they played @ Kansas (L 89-92), Auburn (L 72-85), Michigan State (L 91-94 in OT), Alabama (L 79-94), Florida (L 84-90) and UCLA (W 76-74). For damn! OKay, so they wouldn't win the SEC, but those are six high quality OOC games (1-5). They won one and three of them were close. Only Auburn and Alabama beat them by more than two possessions.
Click to expand...
I agree. On top of that, they were red hot to end the season. To me they look like a tourney team.

It’s weird to see how much the ACC is currently looked down on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlaCyclone
CloneIce said:
I agree. On top of that, they were red hot to end the season. To me they look like a tourney team.

It’s weird to see how much the ACC is currently looked down on.
Click to expand...
They haven't beaten anybody with a pulse. Since Feb 1st, they have beaten bad teams, and lost 3 times to Duke by 17, 13 and 3 (when they were down by 20, and no Flagg) and once to Clemson by 20. They have ONE quad 1 win.
Similar to their non con, great they played good teams, but they have no wins.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: NENick and cyclones500
dahliaclone said:
But they didn’t win any of those games. Gotta win games. And the ACC sucks so their wins are inflated by **** teams. Pretty easy why they shouldn’t be in.
Click to expand...
I get that (winning is better than losing), but they did beat UCLA and three of the losses (@ KU, MSU and Florida) were close. If UNC scheduled middle of the road for those games and finished 4-1 instead of 1-4, they would be a shoe-In IMO. Just giving them therir props for scheduling @ Kansas, Michigan State, UCLA, Alabama, Auburn and Florida OOC. I wonder how ISU would have done against that schedule? (1-2) as it is - with the loss to Auburn and split with KU. Plus, I don't think the ACC is as aweful as projected. I just think UNC should receive some bonus points for playing six really tough OOC games with @ Kansas or UCLA being the easiest of the six.
 
AlaCyclone said:
I get that (winning is better than losing), but they did beat UCLA and three of the losses (@ KU, MSU and Florida) were close. If UNC scheduled middle of the road for those games and finished 4-1 instead of 1-4, they would be a shoe-In IMO. Just giving them therir props for scheduling @ Kansas, Michigan State, UCLA, Alabama, Auburn and Florida OOC. I wonder how ISU would have done against that schedule? (1-2) as it is - with the loss to Auburn and split with KU. Plus, I don't think the ACC is as aweful as projected. I just think UNC should receive some bonus points for playing six really tough OOC games with @ Kansas or UCLA being the easiest of the six.
Click to expand...
The acc is truly as bad as the look. Truly.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: WastedTalent
AlaCyclone said:
I get that (winning is better than losing), but they did beat UCLA and three of the losses (@ KU, MSU and Florida) were close. If UNC scheduled middle of the road for those games and finished 4-1 instead of 1-4, they would be a shoe-In IMO. Just giving them therir props for scheduling @ Kansas, Michigan State, UCLA, Alabama, Auburn and Florida OOC. I wonder how ISU would have done against that schedule? (1-2) as it is - with the loss to Auburn and split with KU. Plus, I don't think the ACC is as aweful as projected. I just think UNC should receive some bonus points for playing six really tough OOC games with @ Kansas or UCLA being the easiest of the six.
Click to expand...
Highly doubt the whole committee is looking at margin of defeat or victory, especially from games in November. IF they are, then are they also looking at how they got blown out by Duke and Clemson (only teams they played with a pulse) in February and March
 
WastedTalent said:
Highly doubt the whole committee is looking at margin of defeat or victory, especially from games in November. IF they are, then are they also looking at how they got blown out by Duke and Clemson (only teams they played with a pulse) in February and March
Click to expand...
That's fine. I truly don't care if they are in or out, but I think playing an OOC schedule of @ Kansas, Michigan State, UCLA, Alabama, Auburn and Florida is GREAT!
 
WastedTalent said:
They haven't beaten anybody with a pulse. Since Feb 1st, they have beaten bad teams, and lost 3 times to Duke by 17, 13 and 3 (when they were down by 20, and no Flagg) and once to Clemson by 20. They have ONE quad 1 win.
Similar to their non con, great they played good teams, but they have no wins.
Click to expand...
Yep. At some point, wins have to matter. A program with UNC's tradition can schedule as many of those type of non-cons as they want (and get high-level MTEs), and yes it's a positive they could maximize. But NC didn't maximize opportunities.

No requirement to win ALL of those, or even a majority of Q1s, but ... show us something.
 
An X factor is how ISU's injury/illness enters the assessment. It's considered by the committee, but I continue to wonder how it's "quantifiable." So many variables (speaking of it generally, not specific to ISU this season).

There could "simpler" cases, say a team's leading scorer is out for a month (say, January) and that's the only time there's a dip in team performance. But even that could depend on quality of opponents during the stretch. No way to guess, maybe the team would've lost as many or almost as many at full strength.

We know the missed games affected ISU's ability and to an extend its rotation/chemistry, but that's partly because we are hyper-focused on it and followed it game by game.
 
CloneIce said:
I agree. On top of that, they were red hot to end the season. To me they look like a tourney team.

It’s weird to see how much the ACC is currently looked down on.
Click to expand...

The ACC is ranked far below the other power conferences by a long ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom