Joe Lunardi’s Updated Bracketology
- Thread starter preacher_tom
- Start date
Hard to say. Supposedly, they are going to do the ones this year by geography, then use the S-Curve for the 2 seeds.
If that strategy holds up, then us getting Louisville is little more than a 25% chance. Possibly we would be better off as a 3, if they go back to geography for the 3 seeds.
So the best team out of those 3 (KU) doesn't scare you? But the two lesser teams do?
Honestly, I think the "experts" are a little hesitant to bump us up further because our losses are so bad.
Other teams are losing, but we have multiple terrible loses to UCLA, Ohio State, Auburn (really, really bad) and UT.
Other teams are losing, but we have multiple terrible loses to UCLA, Ohio State, Auburn (really, really bad) and UT.
Just don't understand the point of "Bracketology" when it completely changes every 2 days. Entertainment, I guess. But very strange entertainment.
NCAA uses ridiculous things like RPI, compounds it by things like Top 50 RPI wins, and projection sites try to emulate the NCAA. It's the NCAA's shoddy methodology that's the issue.
Don't really like the top half...
That's the best #1 in Kansas (even though I think we can beat them), two teams that know us well in ND and Wisconsin (not that they are anywhere near as good as last year), a Texas Tech team that's surging.
Although can't be upset about the bottom half.
That's the best #1 in Kansas (even though I think we can beat them), two teams that know us well in ND and Wisconsin (not that they are anywhere near as good as last year), a Texas Tech team that's surging.
Although can't be upset about the bottom half.
They tend to use whatever they feel like to justify whatever position they wish to take.
In years like 2010, 2012 and last year it doesn't really matter because we win so many games but the reason we got under seeded in 2011 and 2014 and probably again this season is the lack of big time wins compared to other teams.
It's sorta unfair because some teams have more big wins simply because they have more opportunities against teams.
Our big wins were Duke and UL. We really only had three chances tho to make big statement wins (KU was the other game)
It's always gonna be the case when the SEC is down.
IIWI. I think we are top 12........I think we are a 3 seed. But 4 isn't really all that unreasonable. Plus he has the best 4 as we were put in Oklahoma City while the others had to travel to Denver and Spokane. So we aren't even talking about a difference of seeding......we are talking one line on the entire seed list.
It's sorta unfair because some teams have more big wins simply because they have more opportunities against teams.
Our big wins were Duke and UL. We really only had three chances tho to make big statement wins (KU was the other game)
It's always gonna be the case when the SEC is down.
IIWI. I think we are top 12........I think we are a 3 seed. But 4 isn't really all that unreasonable. Plus he has the best 4 as we were put in Oklahoma City while the others had to travel to Denver and Spokane. So we aren't even talking about a difference of seeding......we are talking one line on the entire seed list.
That's why you can't lose to bad SEC teams. The SEC winner almost always has to have a better conference record than most other conference champions.
I'll probably complain less this year about our seed (unless it's outrageous) because of those losses. You can't lose to Auburn. Just cannot do it.
I think you miss the point. None of this has any relevancy. We've got to keep winning, that's all that matters. Win out, we're a two. Lose out, well, bad stuff. Lunardi is bumping his gums. You get wound up if you like. I'm just bringing perspective. Its pointless to worry about what he says.
I didn't miss any point. This is a thread about Lunardi's bracket. I am discussing my opinion of it. You know, the thread topic.
You are discussing your opinion of my opinion. And why I shouldn't have an opinion.
I realize this is cliché, but you are that poster who clicks on a topic you don't care about to enlighten the masses about why they shouldn't care either.
I get it. We all do. We happen to want to talk about it. Stop baiting and trolling. If you don't find it interesting or relevant, then stay out of it.
Or do you want to take another stab at how you are the only one who understands the concept of mock brackets?
Actually, I think we've compiled a pretty good resume for big wins. Our problem is that we lost to pond scum. Auburn, Ohio St., etc. There's where the 4 comes from.
Well, you were whining about us always being seeded below our stats. Thought you might want to talk about that. Why that is. What Lunardi has against the cats. Why the big conspiracy. Apparently not. You just wanted to whine about it.
I think Lunardi is about dead on the money actually. Auburn et al is going to be a dead weight on our neck till the "REAL" seeding is done by the selection committee. Pretty easy to understand for most folks I think.
You so smart we so dumb so glad we have you to splain things yep
Don't know Jeff.. They'll put us in there to play all the teams we've destroyed in the past 5 years.. Revenge games I guess you could say..
You don't think Lunardi should factor in those horrible losses we had? His job is to predict what the selection committee would do under current stats. You said so yourself. Those kinds of losses are boat anchors. If we keep winning, the weight of those losses will diminish. Maybe a 2 or a 3 is possible. If the top 8 crash and burn maybe even better.
Just sayin.
I won't be surprised to be in KU's bracket and Duke's. Media appeal. Unless we get dropped into NCs bracket, thinking we'll be an easy out for them at a higher seed along with the TV interest.
They have a surprise coming, if so.
One of the biggest issues I have with his brackets is putting us in as a 4 seed while Oregon is a 3. There's NO way we should be seeded lower than Oregon at this point.
Lunardi's a hack,
And with us at #9 in the RPI and 5-1 against the top 50 (only loss OT @KU), we look good in the formula the NCAA uses. I think a lot of the "bracketology" is based on subjective feelings of teams, and tend to more mirror the polls. Based on the most recent AP poll we're a 4-seed. Based on the RPI we're a 3 knocking on the door of a 2.
And with us at #9 in the RPI and 5-1 against the top 50 (only loss OT @KU), we look good in the formula the NCAA uses. I think a lot of the "bracketology" is based on subjective feelings of teams, and tend to more mirror the polls. Based on the most recent AP poll we're a 4-seed. Based on the RPI we're a 3 knocking on the door of a 2.
I think the whole picture for what we've done is a 3. I think without those Auburn and UT losses, we would probably be a 1.
I think the appropriate weight is those losses pulling us from a 1 to a 3. I base that on us having the metrics of a strong 3.
I don't believe those losses are "extra bad" and are cause to pull us down farther.
The consensus during the mock selection was that "bad" losses were sub-200 RPI on the road. UT and Auburn are in the 125-130 range.
Isn't Lunardi the one who is near perfect on who actually makes the tourney, but can't figure out seeding to save his life?
That's pretty fair assessment. Really though he isn't even the best at predicting who makes it. He just has the biggest soapbox.
The narrative of the young team that's growing up will help us.
Oregon is #1 in SOS
Oregon is #1 in SOS
I think those bad losses were more an albatross than you think. They were BAD. The other losses, say UCLA and LSU were sufficiently bad to pull us down to a 2 or 3. I think you are anticipating the trajectory we're currently on. If we continue that, then the weight of those really ugly losses will diminish, but never to give us a 1. For that we gotta have help.
But again for those arguing 3 vs 4............I mean he has us overall #13. Is there really that much difference between #12 (3 seed) and #13 (4 seed)
While I agree with you it's not just Lunardi that has Oregon ahead
http://www.bracketmatrix.com/
The consensus is that right now Oregon should be seeded higher.
Honestly tho the Auburn (182) and UT (99) ones are the worst
I don't really classify @ LSU (61), @ UCLA (53) and on a neutral court vs OSU (66) to be all that bad
I don't really classify @ LSU (61), @ UCLA (53) and on a neutral court vs OSU (66) to be all that bad
I don't think we can get a 1 seed. The 1 seeds will be:
Big 12 Champ
Big 10 Champ
ACC Champ
Villinova
Big 12, Big 10, & ACC teams may beat each other up down the stretch, but those conferences are perceived as good, so it won't matter. Their losses > than our wins.
Big 12 Champ
Big 10 Champ
ACC Champ
Villinova
Big 12, Big 10, & ACC teams may beat each other up down the stretch, but those conferences are perceived as good, so it won't matter. Their losses > than our wins.
You're not wrong.
But they're #1 in SOS
They're #3 in the RPI
They're gonna get a good listing unless they continue to falter.
Hopefully the selection committee looks deeper.
They're #20 on Kenpom
BPI has them at #24, but I have no idea how legit BPI is.
Another thing of note.........while UK was 13th overall and got first round games in OK City (compared to Denver or Spokane) we didn't get the South region
This is why it matters not just where you are on the seed line but also who else is on that line.
The top 4 teams from each conference on the first four lines MUST go to difference regions. So what happened was you have:
Kansas = Midwest
which kicked Oklahoma (the last 1 seed) = West
WVU = had to go East (Philadelphia is closer to Morgantown than Louisville but also because I B10 team had to go South on that line)
Leaving Iowa St going South.
So even tho we finished ahead of Iowa St on the seed list (Iowa St was 14th I believe, UK 13th) we got blocked from Louisville cause the Big 12 team needed to go there.
This is why it matters not just where you are on the seed line but also who else is on that line.
The top 4 teams from each conference on the first four lines MUST go to difference regions. So what happened was you have:
Kansas = Midwest
which kicked Oklahoma (the last 1 seed) = West
WVU = had to go East (Philadelphia is closer to Morgantown than Louisville but also because I B10 team had to go South on that line)
Leaving Iowa St going South.
So even tho we finished ahead of Iowa St on the seed list (Iowa St was 14th I believe, UK 13th) we got blocked from Louisville cause the Big 12 team needed to go there.
So thinking about it we kinda don't want Oklahoma being the last 1. we'd rather them (or another b12 team) ahead of us to be in the South. That way if there is another B12 team that's on our line, they couldn't go there thus increasing our odds of being there.
Similar threads
