2/26 AP Poll

[FireballZ]

ACC and Wake still getting no respect. Smacked Pitt around and beat Duke last week with a NET in the top 25 and it's still not enough. Yet, 15-13 Washington received 4 votes?

 

[TheSpecialSauce]

ACC and Wake still getting no respect. Smacked Pitt around and beat Duke last week with a NET in the top 25 and it's still not enough. Yet, 15-13 Washington received 4 votes?

It’s ridiculous. WF should be a 6/7 seed in the tournament at this point.

 

[JohnnyGossamer]

Huh? Wake is #30 in the latest which would be a 5 to 7 seed if they used the AP Poll to seed.

 

[Pittnerski]

Im glad Wake is getting disrespected. Their fans are grade A a$$holes

 

[Franb]

Huh? Wake is #30 in the latest which would be a 5 to 7 seed if they used the AP Poll to seed.

And Clemson is #29.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

It’s ridiculous. WF should be a 6/7 seed in the tournament at this point.

Wake's 25 NET translates to a 7 seed. Their seed will be +/- 2. So a 9 seed. Lets knock them down to a 10 just to be safe. But they are very very safely in right now. The NET is just too good. There's never been a team lower than 37 thats been left out. You cant count as a Q1 win (top 30) and not make the NCAAT.

 

[Ski11585]

Wake's 25 NET translates to a 7 seed. Their seed will be +/- 2. So a 9 seed. Lets knock them down to a 10 just to be safe. But they are very very safely in right now. The NET is just too good. There's never been a team lower than 37 thats been left out. You cant count as a Q1 win (top 30) and not make the NCAAT.

I love that you are so confident in your Net +/- 2 seed lines but A) can discount huge swathes of teams who don't fit your model and B) just randomly change a seed line more for funsies. I'll give you this, you're very effective at obfuscating so much that you can always claim to be right.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I love that you are so confident in your Net +/- 2 seed lines but A) can discount huge swathes of teams who don't fit your model and B) just randomly change a seed line more for funsies. I'll give you this, you're very effective at obfuscating so much that you can always claim to be right.

You sound like Joe. It doesnt apply to non-P6s because their resumes are so different and hard to plot. And it doesn't apply to teams who are very close to, at, or below .500 who we all know arent getting in. Like one year, didnt PSU have a below .500 record but a NET in the 30s? Yea....I dont count them.

 

[Ski11585]

You sound like Joe. It doesnt apply to non-P6s because their resumes are so different and hard to plot. And it doesn't apply to teams who are very close to, at, or below .500 who we all know arent getting in. Like one year, didnt PSU have a below .500 record but a NET in the 30s? Yea....I dont count them.

So basically it doesn't apply to over half the teams. Which means your silly little metric means absolutely nothing.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

So basically it doesn't apply to over half the teams. Which means your silly little metric means absolutely nothing.

Its only good for P6's, who make up most of seeds 1-11. If you are a mid-major fan or a fan of P6 teams who go 17-15 or 15-17, I am sorry but my metric isnt for you.