BC CLEM. DUKE FSU GT MD MIAMI NC ST. UNC UVA VT WAKE
1-Seed 0% 0% 85% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Top-4 Seed 50% 0% 95% 0% 0% 10% 15% 50% 45% 0% 0% 0%
NCAAs 90% 20% 100% 40% 5% 60% 55% 85% 80% 35% 10% 5%
NIT 10% 65% 0% 50% 30% 30% 40% 15% 20% 55% 60% 70%
None 0% 15% 0% 10% 65% 10% 5% 0% 0% 10% 30% 25%

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/insider/news/story?page=bracketologygrid

piece of shit kept none of my spacing

[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 9:31 AM. Reason : *]

2/8/2006 9:30:51 AM

That's what you get for stealing

[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 9:32 AM. Reason : try [code] tags]

2/8/2006 9:32:09 AM

team	BC  	CLEM.  	DUKE  	FSU  	GT  	MD  	MIAMI  	NC ST. 	UNC  	UVA  	VT  	WAKE
1-Seed 	0% 	0% 	85% 	0% 	0% 	0% 	0% 	0% 	0% 	0% 	0% 	0%
2-4 Seed 50% 	0% 	95% 	0% 	0% 	10% 	15% 	50% 	45% 	0% 	0% 	0%
NCAAs 	90% 	20% 	100% 	40% 	5% 	60% 	55% 	85% 	80% 	35% 	10% 	5%
NIT 	10% 	65% 	0% 	50% 	30% 	30% 	40% 	15% 	20% 	55% 	60% 	70%
None 	0% 	15% 	0% 	10% 	65% 	10% 	5% 	0% 	0% 	10% 	30% 	25%

2/8/2006 9:33:11 AM

^thx

2/8/2006 9:34:33 AM

How does BC have a higher % of NCAA berth than us? I also have a hard time getting my mind around the fact that we have only 5% higher chance of making a 2-4 seed than UNC does

[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 9:46 AM. Reason : notes]

2/8/2006 9:44:31 AM

how does UNC have nearly identical numbers to us is the question

2/8/2006 9:45:29 AM

how does Wake have a 70% chance of making the NIT??? Their 2nd half will have to be alot better

2/8/2006 9:47:27 AM

^^^ It's bracketology. It is done PURELY on statistics and numbers. I haven't looked at the numbers but my guess is UNC has a better SOS or OOC SOS and similar RPI to us.

There is no conspiracy or media bias possible in this.

2/8/2006 9:49:03 AM

dont believe i mentioned anything about a conspiracy there chief

2/8/2006 9:58:40 AM

the point being that if this is based on statistics, then the formulas are not statistically significant in predicting these things. I am looking more to Wake numbers when I say this

2/8/2006 9:59:17 AM

^^ Don't believe I was even responding to your post there hero..

^ well what is Wakes overall record? 12-10 I believe. So they have 7 regular season games + 1 ACC tourney game left. I guess given the other teams SOS and RPI Lunardi figured Wake has a 70% chance to go 4-6 in them. I can see that given their schedule and the fact they haven't been blown out of the building like a typical 1-8 team would in conference..

[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 10:06 AM. Reason : f]

2/8/2006 10:04:17 AM

So Wake is 12-10 and the odds of them staying at or above .500 is 70%?


They still have:
Boston College L
Charlotte W
@ Duke L
North Carolina L
Clemson W
@ Georgia Tech L
@ Boston College L
NC State L

So... 14-16 going into the ACC Tournament




[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 10:22 AM. Reason : []

2/8/2006 10:05:10 AM

They SHOULD beat G. Tech and I wouldn't put them past an upset along the way..

V yea.. i didn't see the OOC game on the schedule vs Charlotte so they have NINE left..

[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 10:18 AM. Reason : f]

2/8/2006 10:14:42 AM

wait dont we play wake again?

2/8/2006 10:16:36 AM

If wake can't handle VT or FSU at home, how are they going to beat Gerogia Tech in ATL?

2/8/2006 10:23:45 AM

They could probably ask Ill-Chicago how to.

They whomped Tech in ATL.

Notice also how tech has lost 7 striaght games since our game with them. 8 if you count our game.

They are not a very good team at all this year, wake should be able to handle Tech.

but alas, wake should have been able to handle quite a few of the teams they lost to this year.

[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 10:57 AM. Reason : e]

2/8/2006 10:56:18 AM

GT won that game at VT, I don't care what the final score was.

2/8/2006 11:11:21 AM

^^^^ no

jk

[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 12:58 PM. Reason : -]

2/8/2006 12:39:12 PM

then ESPN needs to update our schedule because it has at Wake Forest on there

same with gopack.

[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 12:51 PM. Reason : *]

2/8/2006 12:50:31 PM

our last regular season game is wake. march 4th, 4PM

2/8/2006 12:53:19 PM

That's right, my bad.

2/8/2006 12:58:04 PM

pi master changed it from top for to 2-4 which is wrong.

2/8/2006 2:51:30 PM