ADVERTISEMENT

5 Seed in NIT

So now KPI is your fall back? Damn dude you should be on the committee. RPI/BPI/SOR/Kenpom don't matter in the NIT, but KPI is the deciding factor? Even there Stanford isn't a 3 seed!

It is laughable you call yourself a Nebraska basketball fan

I might call Jerry Palm and let him know here on this board we have a great sidekick for him
 
Last I saw neither Louisville or Oregon had

So now KPI is your fall back? Damn dude you should be on the committee. RPI/BPI/SOR/Kenpom don't matter in the NIT, but KPI is the deciding factor? Even there Stanford isn't a 3 seed!

It is laughable you call yourself a Nebraska basketball fan

I might call Jerry Palm and let him know here on this board we have a great sidekick for him

You have a comprehension problem. I never said it was mine. I said that appears to be what they used. Look further up in the thread. They mentioned it on 1620 this morning.

You appear to be so butt hurt at being wrong that you have no ability to be objective. Oh, yes since I can I am a bad fan.
 
You have a comprehension problem. I never said it was mine. I said that appears to be what they used. Look further up in the thread. They mentioned it on 1620 this morning.

You appear to be so butt hurt at being wrong that you have no ability to be objective. Oh, yes since I can I am a bad fan.
Okay so they used the KPI... Where in the KPI is Stanford ahead of Nebraska... Talk about comprehension

Do you know how to find averages and count?
 
Okay so they used the KPI... Where in the KPI is Stanford ahead of Nebraska... Talk about comprehension

Do you know how to find averages and count?

Don't ask me genius, ask them. I told you how they came to the rankings. It apparently isn't the matrix they talked about on 1620 this morning. Go listen to the podcast from 7-8 and find out which one they used.
 
You have a comprehension problem. I never said it was mine. I said that appears to be what they used. Look further up in the thread. They mentioned it on 1620 this morning.

You appear to be so butt hurt at being wrong that you have no ability to be objective. Oh, yes since I can I am a bad fan.
You want to pull this card

KPI shows Penn State as a 6 Seed... They are a 4
KPI shows Baylor as a 3 Seed... They are a 1
KPI shows St. Mary's as a 3 Seed .. They are a 1
KPI shows Washington as a 3 Seed... They are a 5
ect...

They obviously didn't go exactly by KPI.

So is 1620 in the NIT committee. I have had too many people say to me today "I didn't know Lunardi was on the Committee"
 
Last edited:
You want to pull this card

KPI shows Penn State as a 6 Seed... They are a 4
KPI shows Baylor as a 3 Seed... They are a 1
KPI shows St. Mary's as a 3 Seed .. They are a 1
KPI shows Washington as a 3 Seed... They are a 5
ect...

They obviously didn't go exactly by KPI.

So is 1620 is the NIT committee. I have had too many people say to me today "I didn't know Lunardi was on the Committee"

Pull what card? I told you the NIT committee used a certain rating metrix, and they talked about it on the radio. Why in the hell you are mad at me about it is beyond my understanding. Get over yourself. I guess you can't get over the fact that I was right and you were wrong.
 
Pull what card? I told you the NIT committee used a certain rating metrix, and they talked about it on the radio. Why in the hell you are mad at me about it is beyond my understanding. Get over yourself. I guess you can't get over the fact that I was right and you were wrong.
I can get over that, but you trying to justify them being a 5 seed is beyond frustrating. I get it they didn't make the dance. As Chicolby and I pointed out to you we didn't think they were a shoe in.

The fact that you can sit here with a straight face justifying how teams like Stanford got a seed higher than Nebraska is absolutely ridiculous and goes beyond "I was right and you were wrong"
 
  • Like
Reactions: huskerfan1414
I can get over that, but you trying to justify them being a 5 seed is beyond frustrating. I get it they didn't make the dance. As Chicolby and I pointed out to you we didn't think they were a shoe in.

The fact that you can sit here with a straight face justifying how teams like Stanford got a seed higher than Nebraska is absolutely ridiculous and goes beyond "I was right and you were wrong"

Apparently you can't get over it. I am not trying to justify anything to you, and I certainly don't have to justify anything to you, and won't try, because it is pointless, because you can't handle it when something doesn't fit your opinion.

For the final time. I heard on 1620 this morning, that the NIT field was based on a metrix rating. I don't know which one. I was not listening that closely when they were talking about it. Maybe I'm mistaken and they were just talking about who was chosen as the NIT field and not seeds? I saw that Nebraska was listed as a 5 and didn't look closer.

I can't speak to what the NIT decided to do. All I can say is Nebraska's RPI 1-50 record and SOS is not stellar against the rest of the field, just as this matrix shows. The NIT always has played with the seeding numbers for whatever reason.

You are losing your mind about Stanford? A team that played 14 top 50 teams, and won 4 (according to this matrix), vs Nebraska who played 7, and won 1? Stanford's SOS is 38 and Nebraska was 81? Maybe that had something to do with it?

You assumed I am trying to justify the NIT's seeding. I am was not. I was trying to understand if there was a rhyme or reason to their seeding (and it appears I might have heard what they said on the radio wrong). It appears the NIT did what they always do, put teams wherever they want. If you expected a completely fair seeding, you haven't paid much attention to the NIT in the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scarletred
Apparently you can't get over it. I am not trying to justify anything to you, and I certainly don't have to justify anything to you, and won't try, because it is pointless, because you can't handle it when something doesn't fit your opinion.

For the final time. I heard on 1620 this morning, that the NIT field was based on a metrix rating. I don't know which one. I was not listening that closely when they were talking about it. Maybe I'm mistaken and they were just talking about who was chosen as the NIT field and not seeds? I saw that Nebraska was listed as a 5 and didn't look closer.

I can't speak to what the NIT decided to do. All I can say is Nebraska's RPI 1-50 record and SOS is not stellar against the rest of the field, just as this matrix shows. The NIT always has played with the seeding numbers for whatever reason.

You are losing your mind about Stanford? A team that played 14 top 50 teams, and won 4 (according to this matrix), vs Nebraska who played 7, and won 1? Stanford's SOS is 38 and Nebraska was 81? Maybe that had something to do with it?

You assumed I am trying to justify the NIT's seeding. I am was not. I was trying to understand if there was a rhyme or reason to their seeding (and it appears I might have heard what they said on the radio wrong). It appears the NIT did what they always do, put teams wherever they want. If you expected a completely fair seeding, you haven't paid much attention to the NIT in the past.
You are correct on two things here...

"I am not trying to justify anything to you" --- Ditto

You are correct, I haven't paid much attention to the NIT seeding in the past.

Congrats on being correct, and I hope that you being correct feels real good
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT