3-6 standings

Satchmore

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Aug 30, 2001
14,267
35
48
JM CJ BRS Tunk TBL Standings
**WICH 8 ucla 15 N.Car 11 Ohio St 15 Nev 14 1.Peegs 114
Ore 11 Md 10 sd st 10 Was 8 **ODU 16 1.TBL 112
lsu 5 **MRST 15 Marq 10 Akron 13 Tex 12 3.CJ 107
bc 10 Hou 10 gw 11 Ut St 9 Clem 7 4.HB 103
Ok St 6 **TOW 9 Tenn 10 Mass 13 Syr 10 4.Tunk 103
Prov 8 Ohio 9 **E.KY 16 L'vlle 12 Ms St 8 6.BRS 102
Col St 6 Fdm 10 Mich 8 Va 11 Stan 10 7.Rum 97
**SAM 12 Wright 14 S.Miss 9 utep 6 **DAV 20 7.Terry 97
Nwstn 2 DePaul 9 Wa St 13 Utah 6 Iowa 9 9.Glor 96
**GA ST 6 Ia St 6 Bay 4 **RIDER 10 **IND ST 6 10.Satch 95
74 107 102 103 112 11.Stun 88
T&T Glor Terry Peegs Rolo 12.Ash 85
**GONZ 13 Fla 13 **CRTN 16 x 13 Pitt 12 13.T&T 81
Ill 9 **W.KY 13 Duke 8 Wis 13 Mo 7 14.JM 74
Fresno 10 Nova 9 **G.MSN 12 **S.ILL 17 Ark 7 14.Rolo 74
Tulsa 9 Va Tch 10 Ind 10 **DREX 14 Ga Tch 8
Miss 8 ucf 11 Ky 9 nm st 11 **WIN 17
**E'VLLE 6 unlv 12 usc 11 W.Mch 9 Pn St 2
N.Ill 4 Temp 6 Okla 6 uab 7 **IL ST 6
Wyo 7 **YTWN 8 W.Va 9 **WI-GB 9 **CLE 3
Kan St 10 Buf 4 Jack St 12 **BEL 17 **AZ ST 2
Wake 5 **NESTN 10 Rich 4 **S.HALL 4 ri 10
81 96 97 114 74
Ash Stun Rum HB Satch
But 14 Mem 16 Ala 7 **HOF 14 Kansas 14
Kent 12 Air F 10 TxA&M 13 Az 11 **MO ST 13
Mch St 8 Conn 6 **LOY 11 **IL-CHI 8 **VCU 19
nm 4 **BRAD 11 Stl 8 Tol 14 Day 8
nd 11 Cal 6 G'twn 13 Rice 8 Mia-O 10
Haw 8 Pur 9 byu 13 **N.IOWA 9 smu 3
Ga 8 Fla St 7 *NC-Wil 4 Tx Tch 9 Boise 8
Neb 6 St.Joe 9 Ball 5 Char 7 **WI-MIL 6
**R.MOR 9 **DET 6 **DRAKE 7 **APP ST 16 Nw St 10
NC St 5 **E.WAS 8 Del St 16 Aub 7 S.Car 4
85 88 97 103 95

This post was edited on 3/6 5:25 AM by Satchmoreif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

AshtonWho

Junior
Nov 8, 2005
1,442
4
38
Hey, so how am I doing?

Ah... right.

Satch, your first three picks, especially VCU obviously, were great. That's 46 wins! I don't get over 40 wins until the 5th round. SMU is not a historically bad 6th round pick, since Rolo picked Penn State in that round as well. I speak with authority on 'historically bad', since New Mexico (4th round) is absolutely the worst pick I've made in two years of this thing. They would have been a disappointing 10th round pick, and as it is I'm losing about 7 games in that round alone to the average Roto player.

But the reason last year's champ (I cling to that) is mired in 12th place is largely because of consistently mediocre selections, not because of that one spectacularly awful selection. I'd guess that with the exception of the 5th round (ND, 11 wins) none of my picks won more than about the average number of games per round, and most did a game or two worse than that. I won last year by being consistently better in almost every round, rather than having a couple of superstar winners boosting my totals.

Peegs and TBL, who are leading today, have done very well throughout their slates and have also gotten incredible win totals out of their at-larges. That seems like the key.
 

Satchmore

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Aug 30, 2001
14,267
35
48
New Mexico, Robert Morris & Michigan St were pretty much...

...your undoing. And I'd put them in that order. None of your other picks look that bad. You had some teams like Hawaii and I forget who else who rallied from slow starts.

The a-ls were important. The contenders (top 3) all did well with them. I still don't like the strategy CJ employed, but he made up for it with his usual late round magic. But I think he'll even admit he got real lucky with that Wright pick.

I still like picking the a-l late, but I think I got a research those leagues better to make sure I get a good team.

One thing that did kind of screw with me on the a-ls was picking last in the 9th round. A lot of people picked their a-ls ahead of me in the 9th round. Jackson St, Belmont and Robert Morris got picked off my chart pretty soon before it was my turn. As it turned out, Belmont was the only stellar one of those 3 so maybe it didn't matter that much.
 

BigRedSpec

Hall of Famer
Aug 28, 2001
19,778
0
36
I feel like my major flaw was in not valuing the high-game-count

leagues. In the past I feel like I overvalued having picks in high-game-count leagues and as a result I ended up with some sub-par picks. This time, I picked up UNC first and have (so far) only earned 11 wins with them. Meanwhile, my at-large came from a 20 game league and got me 15 wins.

If it weren't for Washington State playing above expectations and E. Ky. playing 20 regular season games + winning their tourney, I'd be an even bigger slacker than I am already.

Regards.
 

rolo tomasi

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
11,687
0
36
Me too. If only Winthrop had 60 conference games I'd be in the mix

for the title. Sigh.

You know your season has been a complete farce when Satch has AZ State marked as eliminated prior to their tourney starting. I mean...he's probably right but...
 

Satchmore

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Aug 30, 2001
14,267
35
48
Only 8 get to play in the PAC 10 tourney

I've been there and had a PAC 10 team eliminated before their tourney before.

Winthrop was a great pick! How many other teams won more than 17? Off the top of my head I can only think of Davidson and VCU.

Belmont matched Winthrop's 17 and there might be a couple others who can still get there, but Winthrop was an elite pick.
 

rolo tomasi

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
11,687
0
36
They play Washington tomorrow-

in the 7-10 game. Unless i've gone completely loco which is entirely possible.

I was really surprised Winthrop was still around that late in the draft. 2 good picks out of 10.
 

HoosierBacker

All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Sep 25, 2001
4,703
5
38
Fishers, IN
I'll say it again

I'm the only one who got at least 7 wins from every team on their roster. Yet I'm destined for no better than a 4th place finish. Even if UIC and Arizona, my two biggest underachievers, had performed as expected I'd still be a distant third. Pretty amazing.
 

Satchmore

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Aug 30, 2001
14,267
35
48
You're right. The PAC 10 changed their tourney format.

This is the first time the 9th and 10th place teams have been allowed in. The PAC 10 has been resistant to change, so I just assumed they kept it the same. The PAC 10 was even later than the Big Ten for even having a postseason league tourney.

Actually the PAC 10 had a tourney for a year or 2 about 15 years ago, then discontinued it. Then they brought it back a few years after the Big Ten started theirs.
 

Satchmore

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Aug 30, 2001
14,267
35
48
That was probably a good move to draft them in the 8th

That was just before the big run started with JM picking an a-l with the last pick in the 8th. That allowed you not have to go deep into your a-l list like I did, and possibly screw it up.

What could have hurt is that you could have been left with crap for that 9th round pick. But Iowa had an unexpectedly good conference season compared to their wickedly bad pre-league.

If you win, it's in large part to your 8th and 9th round picks.