Replies: 20
| visibility 1
|
CU Guru [1095]
TigerPulse: 55%
Posts: 3051
Joined: 9/13/13
|
Clemson has 6 teams to jump for an NCAA Tourney bid
Feb 12, 2015, 11:15 AM
|
|
as of today.
http://www.unf.edu/~jcoleman/dance.htm
Need a hyped home crowd Saturday to keep us in the mix for when the wolfies come to town.
|
|
|
|
Starter [368]
TigerPulse: 75%
Posts: 512
Joined: 3/7/10
|
Re: I think that probably its
Feb 12, 2015, 11:31 AM
|
|
another Not Invited to Tourney year.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2609]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6653
Joined: 9/1/11
|
Re: I think that probably its
Feb 12, 2015, 12:01 PM
|
|
Do they have a N.E.I.T.D tourney for Not Even In The Discussion so scar can play?
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64589]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88994
Joined: 3/27/01
|
Clemson still needs some more quality wins....
Feb 12, 2015, 11:32 AM
|
|
(i.e., Duke and Notre Dame) to off-set some of the bad losses from earlier in the season.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4095]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 5217
Joined: 10/23/10
|
Looks very doable ....
Feb 12, 2015, 11:53 AM
|
|
Just Win ... score more points then the other team from now on
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3288]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6509
Joined: 1/13/04
|
Re: Looks very doable ....
Feb 12, 2015, 12:03 PM
|
|
and remember it is a 40 minute game not a 37 minute game. We would have at least 3 more victories if the games only lasted 37 minutes this year.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [67817]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115457
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16902]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10768
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Is this your website? Because they are as stupid as you are
Feb 12, 2015, 2:05 PM
|
|
Clemson's RPI is 89th.http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-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®
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10402]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 17413
Joined: 8/9/10
|
Re: Is this your website? Because they are as stupid as you are
Feb 12, 2015, 2:27 PM
|
|
I hate to say it because we had a real chance this season but about the only way is win out in reg season or win the ACC. Neither is happening so let's finish strong and play well in the NIT.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1095]
TigerPulse: 55%
Posts: 3051
Joined: 9/13/13
|
Better let Time Magazine know they goofed on the Dancecard
Feb 12, 2015, 5:25 PM
[ in reply to Is this your website? Because they are as stupid as you are ] |
|
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®
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16902]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10768
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Better let Time Magazine know they goofed on the Dancecard
Feb 12, 2015, 6:53 PM
|
|
I'm sorry, which of the other projectors I cited didn't achieve similar results therefore making me wrong as you propose? And the fact that you believe that keepingscore.blogs.time is the same as "Time Magazine" highlights your inability to think critically. Dont get too worried about my TDs - you were a solid 40%er long before I ever noticed you.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1095]
TigerPulse: 55%
Posts: 3051
Joined: 9/13/13
|
There's no way you can possibly be this dumb.
Feb 12, 2015, 9:43 PM
|
|
> I'm sorry, which of the other projectors I cited > didn't achieve similar results therefore making me > wrong as you propose? And the fact that you believe > that keepingscore.blogs.time is the same as "Time > Magazine" highlights your inability to think > critically. Dont get too worried about my TDs - you > were a solid 40%er long before I ever noticed you
Do you recognise this author at all, or no?
http://newsfeed.time.com/author/jsanburn/page/7/
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1146]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 2295
Joined: 11/27/14
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16902]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10768
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.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1146]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 2295
Joined: 11/27/14
|
Re: Better let Time Magazine know they goofed on the Dancecard
Feb 13, 2015, 7:56 AM
|
|
I don't follow him or you, or anyone else on here. I don't even know what that means.
It just seemed as though the hate was pretty over the top, but I appreciate the explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55398]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58402
Joined: 7/18/07
|
Re: Better let Time Magazine know they goofed on the Dancecard
Feb 15, 2015, 3:21 PM
[ in reply to Re: Better let Time Magazine know they goofed on the Dancecard ] |
|
Wish I could point your post again. My point exactly, oneder equals blundermouth that sets up his negativity to preach against against all Clemson sports....
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1095]
TigerPulse: 55%
Posts: 3051
Joined: 9/13/13
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2533]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 4161
Joined: 10/10/08
|
we're gonna have to hang on
Feb 12, 2015, 10:05 PM
|
|
or not even make the NIT.
We won't make the NCAA's.
When the glue and core and go-to guy of your team is a 6-1 non-shooting point guard, you've got challenges.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1095]
TigerPulse: 55%
Posts: 3051
Joined: 9/13/13
|
So.. what you're saying is it's unthinkable if you don't think it?
Feb 12, 2015, 10:16 PM
|
|
George Mason sends its best.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4095]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 5217
Joined: 10/23/10
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8866]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5339
Joined: 11/17/14
|
Re: Clemson has 6 teams to jump for an NCAA Tourney bid
Feb 13, 2015, 12:08 AM
|
|
If we could stay engaged the entire game we very well may could pull this out
|
|
|
|
Replies: 20
| visibility 1
|
|
|