Search results

Yes of course he’s an outside guy guessing. But that’s most people’s perspective on the entirety of his career almost. You hear most about Lunardi except around this time. And the whole thread is based on him. So if you’re going to have a thread based on him, and on the premise that being the...

They didn’t. Because they were using our position at the top of last four byes as a basis for a weak position, when it actually isn’t. They were talking like last four byes was actually last four in.

Numerical seeding wasn’t the basis of my argument. I should have said 10-12. In any event, my argument was in or out, and using being projected as the first of the four last byes as a basis for my argument. That’s a red herring.

Tell me what I’m wrong about hot shot. You're the king of bad takes. And it looks like you’re still hurt because I called you out on your IPF nonsense.

We will never know, because after all it’s a hypothetical, but I’m 100% convinced that when we beat Syracuse, even though they’re not a great team, that punched our ticket. We wouldn’t have been most likely a 10 seed, but so what.

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. I just said that the parlance of last eight in is not used. I’m just looking at it from a possibility of inclusion. We’re in the four bracket of last 4 byes. There’s a cushion underneath of last four in. What I know the S-curve, that’s how they...

So just as stated, last 4 byes, with the last four in, underneath, and maybe we stay in the last 4 byes, or move to the last four in, as worst case scenario if we had lost to BC. No chance we were out - I’d like to see a scenario where that would happen. Maybe 10-12 seed, not 13-15. The actual...

There are 36 at large bids. Assuming Miami doesn’t win the ACC, which it likely won’t. Tell me where they land if they had lost to BC? Tell me where they would have been seeded.

Nobody ever uses the parlance of last eight in. LOL. You’re making shlt up now. We were 100% in even if we lost to BC. But OK, I’ll give you that we were 99.9999% in even if we lost to BC. You happy now? So…NO! It’s called last FOUR byes, per the subject of this thread, I’ve never seen anybody...

Yeah but the eye test should also include the games we won. This team although not as talented as any of us would like, over achieves. And, most importantly, they play like demons on the road. I think the eye test favors us of in the sense of - Miami deserves it. But it doesn’t matter we were...

Because the talent just isn’t there. I love the players we have, and I love their effort. I don’t always love the errors obviously. But this looked like a 15 loss team, at best, before the season started. Right around a 500 team. Best case scenario: an NIT bid. I had no idea how they would even...

Exactly it’s all right there. Last 4 byes means there’s another category underneath which is last. It doesn’t have to be a ringing endorsement, it means comfortably in. How can you not understand that? It means you’re in and you get a bye. If we were theoretically bracketed in the last four...

Another post indicating you don’t understand the brackets. Your first sentence proves you don’t know what you’re talking about. Don’t post anymore you’re embarrassing yourself.

OK. Literally every post in this thread proves that no one that’s posted here actually understands the brackets. I mean it’s all right here.

You should never double down when you’re wrong. Miami is not even in the last four in. They’re in the group above that according to the premise of Lunardi’s bracketology. So your numbers are all wrong. They literally don’t have to win any other games to get in there at worst as a ten seed. It...

Do you even understand what he said? Do you know what one the last four byes means? I don’t think you do. From the remarks to the OP, I don’t think any of the people posting in this thread do. Everyone posting in this thread so far doesn’t even understand the brackets. This is kind of sad.