If this is your first visit, feel free to
check out the Frequently Asked Questions by clicking this
LINK.
You are welcome as a guest, but you will have to REGISTER
before you can post messages.
To register, click the link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions.
If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.
For each conference, Lunardi simply selects the conference leader to represent the autobid, thereby removing opinion and personal bias from the process. If there's a tie at the top, Lunardi uses RPI as the tiebreaker.
Bradley is the one team tied for the lead that has the best RPI. That's why we're in the bracket. Not because of what he thinks about us. That is the ONLY reason we're in that bracket.
How do you explain Morehead State out of the Ohio Valley then? They are tied with Austin Peay. AP has a better RPI than Morehead State by about 45 spots.
*looks up*
Austin Peay lost to Morehead St. I guess he does include a head-to-head factor before the RPI. My bad.
Bradley would still be in because the tri leaders haven't played each other yet.
so you mean he puts absolutely NO actual thought into this?
He just has a formula to pick theteams from the league standings?
Then why does anyone give him any credibility?
Just for the autobids. For the at-large bids, he selects them based on resume. That's where his expertise comes in. For the autobids, he has that system in place to simulate the unpredicability of conference tournaments in March (since a few unexpected winners always come through).
And if you want to argue that Lunardi should study all the teams and select the best team resume without looking at the actual conference standings......I wouldn't argue with it. I can see it working either way, really.
The bottom line is that Bradley isn't good enough to warrant at-large selection, and not to be deceived by the appearance in the bracket.
but the resumes change every game and Lunardi updates his "Bracketology" about as often, so since he changes it dozens of times through the season then how valid is some list of teams in January that he's going to change and revise a dozen or more times?
It's like picking horse races when one guy gives his picks before the race and the other guy gives his 0.1 second before the finish line...
Just about anyone can be pretty accurate if they wait 'til the end of the season to give their Bracketology.
In fact, the guy on collegehoopsnet pointed out and bragged how his Bracketology was superior to Lunardi's every single one of the past 5 years, but not any of those predictions during the season, he is only talking about the final one when most all the NCAA teams are already confidently known.
I won't deny what you said. However, I think people miss out on the true value of what these early brackets actually mean.
These brackets are snapshots. Of where you currently stand. Of course it won't be steady. What these snapshots will tell you is who to root for or against if you're competing for a high seed, or a spot in the tournament, or otherwise.
If I'm an ISU fan, I'm not looking at "Yes, we're an 11 right now". I'm looking at, "Dayton, Boston College, Arkansas, OK St, Miami", and so on and so forth. The teams around ISU. The teams to root against. That's the value of January brackets - knowing your relative position and informing fans. Bracketology isn't supposed to be a predictor - and many people seem to believe that's its intent. But it's not.
Tweet
Comment