Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

bracketology (charlie creme)......

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bracketology (charlie creme)......

    espn: has jacks as 15th seed playing #2 seed kentucky. in norman, ok.

  • #2
    Re: bracketology (charlie creme)......

    And four of Jacks 6 OOC losses are also included. MTSU, Marist, K St, Neb. Unfortunately, the one quality win, Wazzou, isn't showing up.

    Both MTSU/Marist are the "leaders" (auto-bid only) for a league. Like Jacks, don't win conference, don't make NCAA.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: bracketology (charlie creme)......

      Originally posted by krak-r-jacks View Post
      espn: has jacks as 15th seed playing #2 seed kentucky. in norman, ok.
      Both Kentucky teams are #2? Wow! I thought it was just the men?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: bracketology (charlie creme)......

        Originally posted by Roy View Post
        Both Kentucky teams are #2? Wow! I thought it was just the men?
        Whats more impressive is both Baylor teams are unbeaten.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: bracketology (charlie creme)......

          Originally posted by krak-r-jacks View Post
          espn: has jacks as 15th seed playing #2 seed kentucky. in norman, ok.
          Might this belong in the Men's thread?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: bracketology (charlie creme)......

            Originally posted by Roy View Post
            Might this belong in the Men's thread?
            Nope, I double checked and it appears Kentucky women are a projected #2 seed! They do have a UConn transfer from last year who is now eligible.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: bracketology (charlie creme)......

              Originally posted by SDHoops View Post
              Nope, I double checked and it appears Kentucky women are a projected #2 seed! They do have a UConn transfer from last year who is now eligible.
              Charlie always does the womens projections,that other guy does the mens.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: bracketology (charlie creme)......

                watched some of the kentucky/tennessee game the other night. well, it's still tennessee, but, kentucky is awful athletic and can run and play defense. would not be good match up---course if your a 14-15 seed, odds are you aren't gonna have a good match up period. especially in women's game.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: bracketology (charlie creme)......

                  Originally posted by Roy View Post
                  Both Kentucky teams are #2? Wow! I thought it was just the men?
                  #2 SEED; Different from second-ranked. Kentucky men will be Number 1 seed, most likely.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: bracketology (charlie creme)......

                    In his 2/6/12 projection, Charlie has Jacks as a #14, matched vs Ohio St @ Chicago (DePaul hosting)

                    http://espn.go.com/womens-college-ba...l/bracketology

                    Interesting to note that the "other" SDSU is also projected at 14, while leading the Mountain West.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: bracketology (charlie creme)......

                      Has Charlie been right at any point since we've been eligible for the tourney?
                      "The purpose of life is not to be happy - but to matter, to be productive, to be useful, to have it make some difference that you have lived at all."
                      -Leo Rosten

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: bracketology (charlie creme)......

                        well, if nothin' else, makes for fun discussion.

                        i see the "updated" bracket has #13 sdsu playing #4 green bay.

                        at first i kinda cringed, but, then thought this probably could be the best draw of all the other 4 seeds---they included penn st, delaware, and georgia.
                        i actually think an sdsu-gb matchup could prove favorable.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: bracketology (charlie creme)......

                          Originally posted by krak-r-jacks View Post
                          well, if nothin' else, makes for fun discussion.

                          i see the "updated" bracket has #13 sdsu playing #4 green bay.

                          at first i kinda cringed, but, then thought this probably could be the best draw of all the other 4 seeds---they included penn st, delaware, and georgia.
                          i actually think an sdsu-gb matchup could prove favorable.
                          I don't think we'll keep the #13 seed,with the loss to USD,unless that loss was already factored in .....plus ,the NCAA selection committee doesn't ever mirror Charlie,s seeds.Nice if it were to come about that way though.It,s just my feeling that Charlie favors mid-majors more than the NCAA selection committee does,for the most part.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: bracketology (charlie creme)......

                            Originally posted by EQguy View Post
                            Has Charlie been right at any point since we've been eligible for the tourney?
                            nope.
                            With fans like this who needs enemas.....

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: bracketology (charlie creme)......

                              Originally posted by EQguy View Post
                              Has Charlie been right at any point since we've been eligible for the tourney?
                              Never even close.
                              We are here to add what we can to life, not get what we can from life. -Sir William Osler

                              We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X