Clemson has 6 teams to jump for an NCAA Tourney bid

article, hot shot.

Almost seems as if you'd rather us not make the Dance, Viztiz. Hath you fetched your shoe shine, yet? Would you like me to mail you some, if not? The dance will be an absolute blast. Would hate for you not to look your best.

http://keepingscore.blogs.time.com/2013/03/15/predicting-the-ncaa-mens-basketball-field-and-discovering-the-selection-committees-biases/

> Clemson's RPI is
> 89th.http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/nc
> aa-mens-basketball-rpi. That's the official NCAA RPI
> updated through the same day as your garbage. Please
> explain how the NCAA official RPI is wrong and those
> geniuses have it right. We are nowhere near "the
> bubble." The website you so desperately cling to is
> showing us as a 64 RPI. And just about every website
> that forecasts the tournament boasts 95%+ accuracy
> because there are never more than 3-4 of 64 seeds
> remotely in question. Turning ignore feature back
> on. It was a pleasure not seeing your stupidity for
> a couple of days.
>
> Yes, I know they use the old RPI system - that just
> means their numbers are completely irrelevant to the
> current process. Joe Lunardi, Bracketograohy, Jerry
> Palm and a host of others all claim at large success
> around 98%. Not impressive.
>
>
> Message was edited by: viztiz®

viztiz®

Legend [16900]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 10763

Joined: 1/25/07

Re: Better let Time Magazine know they goofed on the Dancecard

Feb 13, 2015, 7:44 AM

Because, on a thread that he was previously uninvolved in, devoid of any of this vitriol, he jumped in immediately throwing around words like moron and idiot. He is a clear and obvious troll. The kind that starts threads about us being a lock for the tournament then rushes to a site like FGF to mock it. Then turns around starting threads about "we're" putting too much pressure on the team - when he is nearly the only one posting anything about the team still having the remotest chance. He never addresses any kind of facts presented in a rebuttable - just calls names then posts some unrelated fact. The above is a perfect case. I asked him to refute the actual NCAA RPI rating or the fact that his preferred NCAA tournament projector isn't really anymore impressive than a list of other sources. He ignores both then posts the Time.com bio to the Time.com writer that wrote a story supporting his position. I pointed out that the source article he quoted was not actual published in Time Magazine as he clearly intended to represent. Despite calling me stupid and providing a link that was supposed to validate that, it actually only reinforces my argument. A) Time magazine is not a sports magazine, so a premier sports writer is not writing for time magazine B) the article he linked remains a blog post no matter the credentials of the writer in question. C) Josh Sanburn is not a "known" sports writer. Google his name and you get his time.com bio followed by his twitter page and his linked in page. This is not John Feinstein, an author I doubt this tool has ever heard of, much less read.

I also find it curious that you have twice felt the need to come to his defense. I'm clearly not the first person to flame this guy. If you're following his posts you know that and your reply is disingenuous at best. If you are following me, you would know that in my many years on this website I have almost never taken this tone with another user.

As a final aside, I get annoyed by all these "what do we do to make the tournament" threads because as a long-suffering die-hard Clemson basketball fan they are incredibly stupid and written by Clemson fans who clearly have not followed Clemson basketball. One of oneder's earliest arguments in a thread with me is that Clemson will get an "ACC benefit of the doubt" come selection Sunday. Clemson has never -EVER gotten any benefit of the doubt from a NCAA selection committee. We got completely screwed in Brownell's first season. We were over .500 in the new expanded ACC last year and didn't get in. In the first year of the newly expanded ACC, the ACC got its lowest percentage of teams into the tournament since the field was expanded to 64. That does not bode well for the team that has often been treated as the cutoff in ACC rankings for making the tournament. Except, of course, in years like last years where a team below us makes the field.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Re: I think that probably its

Re: I think that probably its

Clemson still needs some more quality wins....

Looks very doable ....

Re: Looks very doable ....

Re: Looks very doable ....misspelled doubtful

Is this your website? Because they are as stupid as you are

Re: Is this your website? Because they are as stupid as you are

Better let Time Magazine know they goofed on the Dancecard

Re: Better let Time Magazine know they goofed on the Dancecard

There's no way you can possibly be this dumb.

Re: Better let Time Magazine know they goofed on the Dancecard

Re: Better let Time Magazine know they goofed on the Dancecard

Re: Better let Time Magazine know they goofed on the Dancecard

Re: Better let Time Magazine know they goofed on the Dancecard

and calm down with the TDs bud. Being wrong shouldn't be

we're gonna have to hang on

So.. what you're saying is it's unthinkable if you don't think it?

There we go with the Negative Waves Again Moriarty !

Re: Clemson has 6 teams to jump for an NCAA Tourney bid

TigerBoard POTD