Predictions vs. Reality

by **pafan** » February 25th, 2012, 5:31 pm

I've compiled the predictions that we, the users of MVCFans made back in September and October, as well as the picks from Media Day. They are compared with the actual seedings for Arch Madness.

Not terrible predictions except for the ISUs ... but ISU Blue could have finished third easily enough, and ISU Red was just surprising.

**Sponsor**

by **Kyle** » February 25th, 2012, 8:00 pm

5 teams are going to be claiming a 3rd place finish because tiebreakers only apply to seeding and not league standings. This means 7 teams finished in the top half this year!!!

by **getreal4** » February 25th, 2012, 8:17 pm

Kyle wrote:5 teams are going to be claiming a 3rd place finish because tiebreakers only apply to seeding and not league standings. This means 7 teams finished in the top half this year!!!

The 5 teams should acknowledge their own mediocrity and lost opportunities this season. Only WSU & CU deserve kudos.

by **pafan** » February 25th, 2012, 9:04 pm

Kyle wrote:5 teams are going to be claiming a 3rd place finish because tiebreakers only apply to seeding and not league standings. This means 7 teams finished in the top half this year!!!

So Baller was right back in October? Talk about a prediction:

"So, we'll have about 9 teams finishing in the Top 6 this year." (Link)

by **Aces44** » February 25th, 2012, 9:28 pm

tiebreakers only apply to seeding and not league standings

uuhhh, What???

The league standings determine the seeding order.

by **MSUBear42** » February 25th, 2012, 9:33 pm

Aces44 wrote:
tiebreakers only apply to seeding and not league standings

uuhhh, What???

The league standings determine the seeding order.

Yes, but the seeds are not the standings.

Not like I care, we don't deserve to claim finishing 3rd the way we collapsed to end the season.

by **Aces44** » February 25th, 2012, 9:39 pm

Correct, everyone can claim that the were the 3rd place team in the Valley this year, but the seedings reflect the standings based on tiebreakers set by the conference.
To your point, I'll give 100-1 odds that there are 5 media guides next year that say their team finished 3rd this year. :Cheers:

by **valleychamp** » February 25th, 2012, 9:51 pm

Aces44 wrote:Correct, everyone can claim that the were the 3rd place team in the Valley this year, but the seedings reflect the standings based on tiebreakers set by the conference.
To your point, I'll give 100-1 odds that there are 5 media guides next year that say their team finished 3rd this year.

Its not that they "can claim" that they finished 3rd. Its that they "did" finish 3rd. Plain and simple.

The tie-breakers are for tournament seeding along. You can't have five #3 seeds.

by **Aces44** » February 25th, 2012, 10:01 pm

It really is plain and simple.
The great/tragic thing about sports is that there are no ties! (soccer doesn't count).
3rd place plays at 8:30 on friday night, 4th place plays at 2:35 on friday.

by **Wufan** » February 25th, 2012, 10:09 pm

Nope. 3rd seed plays at that time. There was a five way tie for third. Congrats to most of the Valley!