Chris Mack on Xavier's NCAA chances and BE vs A10

[XUFan09]

#4 Jeff Borzello http://www.syracuse.com/patrick-stevens ... ets_w.html

Villanova 2 seed, Creighton 3 seed, Xavier and Georgetown 11 seeds, Providence 12 seed (Last 4 In)
St. John's in the Next 4 Out

EDIT: Patrick Stevens' bracket was updated this morning, but Borzello's was last updated on 3/7. That's before Georgetown and Providence lost at Villanova and Creighton, respectively, which were very understandable losses but still losses. It's also before St. John's won at Marquette, a really nice win.

[xsteve1]

Hopefully the committee will reference sites like http://kenpom.com/
which is IMO a much better indicator than the RPI.

[XUFan09]

Hopefully the committee will reference sites like http://kenpom.com/
which is IMO a much better indicator than the RPI.

I wish they would go to some sort efficiency statistic entirely for judging teams. A lot of times the metrics are in line, but if a team wins or loses a lot of close games, it skews the RPI and makes it a poorer descriptor of a team.

[Bill Marsh]

Hopefully the committee will reference sites like http://kenpom.com/
which is IMO a much better indicator than the RPI.

I wish they would go to some sort efficiency statistic entirely for judging teams. A lot of times the metrics are in line, but if a team wins or loses a lot of close games, it skews the RPI and makes it a poorer descriptor of a team.

The RPI is designed to do just that because that's the way the NCAA wants. Their concern about the alternative was that teams would run up scores to improve their ranking - which they probably would.

Even attempting to do what the NCAA wants, there are better ways to do it in the modern world of counters, to the RPI ought to be canned.

[ta111]

oh,and the guy who was #3 in this list- from USA today- has us with 3.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc ... y/6228743/

St John's and Providence with 2 of the 1st 5 out and Georgetown 1 of 3 others considered...

This was before the Nebraska win(he had them in a PIG) and the St Joe's loss(he had them as a 10 seed)

The #3 guy is actually Patrick Stevens, who no longer writes for USA Today but is actually with Syracuse.com

http://www.syracuse.com/patrick-stevens ... ets_w.html

Villanova 1 seed, Creighton 3 seed, Xavier 11 seed
Georgetown, Providence, and St. John's all in the next four out

Stevens is a very sharp guy who really studies this stuff closely. I heard him recently on a podcast explain what the committee really concentrates on. I would take his picks and seeds pretty seriously.

[PMThor]

FYI, during the BE conference call today, Mack said that Matt Stainbrook is done until at least Saturday. That's a big hit on this X team for the conference tourney.

[XUFan09]

oh,and the guy who was #3 in this list- from USA today- has us with 3.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc ... y/6228743/

St John's and Providence with 2 of the 1st 5 out and Georgetown 1 of 3 others considered...

This was before the Nebraska win(he had them in a PIG) and the St Joe's loss(he had them as a 10 seed)

The #3 guy is actually Patrick Stevens, who no longer writes for USA Today but is actually with Syracuse.com

http://www.syracuse.com/patrick-stevens ... ets_w.html

Villanova 1 seed, Creighton 3 seed, Xavier 11 seed
Georgetown, Providence, and St. John's all in the next four out

Stevens is a very sharp guy who really studies this stuff closely. I heard him recently on a podcast explain what the committee really concentrates on. I would take his picks and seeds pretty seriously.

Yup. I have a lot of respect for him and Borzello. And on a related note:

JERRY PALM AND JOE LUNARDI ARE MEDIOCRE BRACKETOLOGISTS. THERE ARE MUCH BETTER PEOPLE TO TURN TO THAN THEM.

Sorry for the caps...just wanted to make sure that was seen lol

[stever20]

Palm yes I'd agree... Lunardi, especially the last 2 years, has done really well. Also, all the bracketologiests have gotten much better the last 2 years as the committee has gotten more consistent. He was in the 330's last year and I think #18 of about 100. That's not bad. What you are seeing with the average over the 9 years, he was awful the 1st couple years.

[XUFan09]

Palm yes I'd agree... Lunardi, especially the last 2 years, has done really well. Also, all the bracketologiests have gotten much better the last 2 years as the committee has gotten more consistent. He was in the 330's last year and I think #18 of about 100. That's not bad. What you are seeing with the average over the 9 years, he was awful the 1st couple years.

Where do you see Lunardi that high? Bracket Matrix, using the Paymon Score, has him ranked 37th last year and 40th the year before.

[stever20]

Palm yes I'd agree... Lunardi, especially the last 2 years, has done really well. Also, all the bracketologiests have gotten much better the last 2 years as the committee has gotten more consistent. He was in the 330's last year and I think #18 of about 100. That's not bad. What you are seeing with the average over the 9 years, he was awful the 1st couple years.

Where do you see Lunardi that high? Bracket Matrix, using the Paymon Score, has him ranked 37th last year and 40th the year before.

Just looking at the scores, he's at a tie for 34th. (think I was going off of guys that had done it more than 2 years)....

but look at the scores:
#1 344
#2 343
#3 342- 3 folks tied
#6 341
#7 339- 2 folks tied
#9 338- 2 folks tied
#11 337- 2 folks tied
#13 336- 3 folks tied
#16 335- 2 folks tied
#18 334- 3 folks tied
#21 333- 4 folks tied
#25 332- 2 folks tied
#27 331 7 folks tied
#34 330 7 folks tied

out of 120 bracketologiests to be tied for 34th isn't bad at all.

He may not be the top dog, but in the top 70% isn't bad.

Also would say that the Matrix as a whole has been very successful normally. Last year as a whole, they got a 346- the highest ever.