did we wrap up a 5 seed today?

[Marsh01]

As I've said before I think you're placing too much emphasis on this week.

I don't know much about UNM and I think the rpi is stupid but they have been in the top 5 for rpi for a long time now. If the Committee plays any attention to that then it's hard to see how we could jump them. OSU fits into the vision test scenario. If the Committee has watched OSU and SU play there is NFW on earth they seed us on the same line with them. Marquette's resume is not that impressive so I think there is a scenario where maybe we get on the same line with them but I don't see us jumping them no matter what happens.

We went from out of the tourney to a 5 seed in 2006. Louisville went from an 8 seed to a 4 seed last year based on what they did in NY. went from an 8/9 seed to a 3 seed because of the BET. Beating 2 potential #1 seeds back to back days will certainly trump anything that New Mexico has done trust me. If OSU loses in their first round game that will also make a difference.

 

[jncuse]

I looked at this 9 ways to Sunday last night and here is how I think its playing out.

Heading into the game last night we were a 5 1/2 seed. Could be a 5 or a 6. Winning got us off that half line and we are now a 5 seed and probably the first 5 seed on the curve. Each game we win will get us another 1/2 seed. Win today and we are in the 4 1/2 seed range. Could be a 4 or a 5. Win tomorrow and we are clearly on the 4 line (and probably will stay there with a loss). Win Saturday night and we would be on the 3 1/2 line. Could sneak into the 3 seed line but could also be a 4.

I stopped looking at jumping from a 5-4 or a 6-5 and took the half of a seed approach which is what I think you need to start doing.

Bottom line is we should stay ahead of teams like St. Louis and will absolutely stay ahead of teams like VCU, UCLA, Butler and UNLV. No chance they jump over us. Wisconsin probably doesnt either unless they rattle off 3 wins in a row.

We are in good shape for no worse than a 5 seed with a 4 and possibly a 3 a slight reach. Keep winning games and we can look at it day by day.

I need to start doing that? As opposed to what -- looking at the entire body of work, or giving more weight to certain victories,,, or what the committee actually looks at?

It is complete nonsense to assume that a win over Seton Hall does anything to improve our resume, It only hurts your resume if you lose.

Now the games going forward - top 50 or top 25 wins on neutral court are worth alot. Which is why we can easily get caught if we lose today -- and why we can move up easily. All of the 6 seeds have multiple opportunties at such wins. To claim they would not climb does not make sense

All wins are not alike. A Win = .5 seed theory does not make any sense, If we lose to Pitt, and UNLV beats New MExico and Colorado St, it could make a huge difference.

Sorry for being defensive, - your a great posteer and a great guy. But you have told me a number of times that I am wrong on something, and that your call is a certainty.

Just last week -- Middle Tennessee St. You said they were safely in no matter what, when I said no they were not. Or a month ago you said Louisville and Kansas had no shots at #1 seed, when i said they still did.


The other consideration is if we think we are a 5 seed, and are consensus 5 seeds, the committee is not always going to see things the same way. 5 may be most likely, but its hardly a lock.

 

[jncuse]

First of all, I kinda think we did lock up a 5.

Then again, let's be honest, the committee makes some really interesting seeding choices every year. So while I hear the reasoned argument that we are probably no worse than a 5, it's impossible to figure out what these guys are doing to do. They pretty much cop to spending a lot more time selecting the teams as opposed to seeding and bracketing them.

And that is a very key point.

 

[jncuse]

4 or 5, what's the difference really? We will play a top mid major or second tier BCS school. It's all about match-ups. 2 years ago we were the #3 in the east and got a terrible draw in getting Marquette in the second round. The tourney is 30% luck of the draw with match-ups and 70% having a solid team.

Typically the 12 seed is the final at large's, and the best teams from the mid major conferences -- teams that could have been at larges. The drop off at 13 is usally quite a bit -- it becomes teams that would have had little shot as at larges.

With parity, the 12-13 may not be as big a difference this year, but it is still typically of some substance.

 

[bpo57]

yeah I don't get this view that we nailed something done because we beat SHU. Really?

That said, I have a feeling we are going to beat Pitt today. But too much damage has been done over the last month to contemplate anything better than a 4 seed no matter what happens this week.

 

[jncuse]

Although we certainly helped ourselves yesterday I just don't see SU as being a lock for a 5 seed. First, if those in our vicinity have a good week then that will obviously hurt the cause. Maybe more importantly it depends on how we play today. If we revert to form, can't throw the ball in the ocean and lose to Pitt 68-51 in an ugly game then we're heading to six-ville.

One other point. I see a few folks say SU's computer #s are good. I'm having a hard time understanding that. We have two top 40 rpi wins this season and one was on an aircraft carrier four months ago. Our OOC schedule was rather weak. How does that all translate to good computer #s?

1. We didn't really help ourselves yesterday. We held constant rather than moving back.

2. You can't jump rapidly in tourney week even keeping the entire body of work concept. A top 50 win is valuable. A top 50 win on road or neutral court is even more valuable. Not many of those this year. So being able to accumulate 2 or 3of those wins is huge, Its not over-valuing the conference tourney, Its inherently that the conference tourney provides you with "single" games that are more valuable on your resume.

3. RPI by itself is not going to put you over anybody. Its merely a "take at look at me" number. Usually if you have a good RPI, you will have many good things going on. They key from the RPI is that it ranks your opponents and gives a gauge how to measure you against top competition.

 

[Marsh01]

I need to start doing that? As opposed to what -- looking at the entire body of work, or giving more weight to certain victories,,, or what the committee actually looks at?

It is complete nonsense to assume that a win over Seton Hall does anything to improve our resume, It only hurts your resume if you lose.

Now the games going forward - top 50 or top 25 wins on neutral court are worth alot. Which is why we can easily get caught if we lose today -- and why we can move up easily. All of the 6 seeds have multiple opportunties at such wins. To claim they would not climb does not make sense

All wins are not alike. A Win = .5 seed theory does not make any sense, If we lose to Pitt, and UNLV beats New MExico and Colorado St, it could make a huge difference.

Sorry for being defensive, - your a great posteer and a great guy. But you have told me a number of times that I am wrong on something, and that your call is a certainty.

Just last week -- Middle Tennessee St. You said they were safely in no matter what, when I said no they were not. Or a month ago you said Louisville and Kansas had no shots at #1 seed, when i said they still did.


The other consideration is if we think we are a 5 seed, and are consensus 5 seeds, the committee is not always going to see things the same way. 5 may be most likely, but its hardly a lock.

I wasnt signaling you out. I was speaking to everyone when I used the term you.

My half a seed example was strictly based on us winning and our seed improving. There is no doubt in my mind that if we lose that wont be the case. No argument here. My point was that if we win today we are not jumping from a 5 seed to a 4 seed and so on with each possible win. My point was that we will inch towards a better seed as opposed to just jumping over teams ahead of us.

As far as the other teams you mentioned MTSU was on the assumption they would make it to the finals of their conference tourney which they obviously did not. Kansas really should have been eliminated after losing to TCU.

Opinions differ and I certainly dont take what I say as gold. God knows I have been wrong many times.

 

[jncuse]

Opinions differ and I certainly dont take what I say as gold. God knows I have been wrong many times.

Fair enough Marsh. I have something up my ass this morning.

That being said, I do think we still need to watch that 6 line behind us. It may only take one. The same reason I think we likely jump to #3 winning the BET (opportunity for big neutral court wins), is why I watch those 6 seeds.

 

[Marsh01]

Fair enough Marsh. I have something up my ass this morning.

That being said, I do think we still need to watch that 6 line behind us. It may only take one. The same reason I think we likely jump to #3 winning the BET (opportunity for big neutral court wins), is why I watch those 6 seeds.

I hear ya dude. I am certainly keeping my eye on those teams behind us if we were to lose today.

 

[bpo57]

1. We didn't really help ourselves yesterday. We held constant rather than moving back.

2. You can't jump rapidly in tourney week even keeping the entire body of work concept. A top 50 win is valuable. A top 50 win on road or neutral court is even more valuable. Not many of those this year. So being able to accumulate 2 or 3of those wins is huge, Its not over-valuing the conference tourney, Its inherently that the conference tourney provides you with "single" games that are more valuable on your resume.

3. RPI by itself is not going to put you over anybody. Its merely a "take at look at me" number. Usually if you have a good RPI, you will have many good things going on. They key from the RPI is that it ranks your opponents and gives a gauge how to measure you against top competition.

1. We helped ourselves yesterday only in the sense that we stopped the bleeding. That's worth something.

2. I get that but when you've played like sheet for the last month it's not so easy to completely erase the past with a couple of neutral court wins.

3. That's why I said "if the committee pays any attention to the rpi..". I don't care for the rpi myself but it would seem odd that a team ranked #2 in the rpi would be sliding below #17 just because of a postseason tourney. If that's the case then they paid zero attention to the rpi, which is fine by me but not likely given their history.

 

[Orangemen]

First of all, I kinda think we did lock up a 5.

Then again, let's be honest, the committee makes some really interesting seeding choices every year. So while I hear the reasoned argument that we are probably no worse than a 5, it's impossible to figure out what these guys are doing to do. They pretty much cop to spending a lot more time selecting the teams as opposed to seeding and bracketing them.

Yeah, especially with their rule about bumping up or down a seed line to align with bracketing rules.

We have thread after thread on this board arguing between 4, 5, or 6 seed, with people stating we'll never be a 4 or 5 or 6, or whatever it may be. Then come Selection Sunday, our 5 seed could become a 4 or 6, or our 4 seed could become a 3 or 5, simply because they had to move someone else somewhere and we get caught in a chain reaction.

We're in 4-5-6 territory right now, and when it all breaks down, we could literally be any one of them.

 

[strumpfasaurus]

For anyone into stats.

1. The #4 seed is 88–24 against the #13 seed (78.57%).
2. The #5 seed is 74–38 against the #12 seed (66.07%).
3. The #6 seed is 74–38 against the #11 seed (66.07%).

 

[pearl31]

Some folks posting in this thread, with their clairvoyance and supreme knowledge, ought to take their gig to Bristol and become Lunardi's apprentices.
What are you doing here, wasting your time with the ignorant pollyanas??

 

[bpo57]

You have to be impressed with Lunardi's ability to have people pay him for what he does. He has no more special insight into the NCAAs than tons of other college hoop junkies.

 

[jncuse]

Yeah, especially with their rule about bumping up or down a seed line to align with bracketing rules.

We have thread after thread on this board arguing between 4, 5, or 6 seed, with people stating we'll never be a 4 or 5 or 6, or whatever it may be. Then come Selection Sunday, our 5 seed could become a 4 or 6, or our 4 seed could become a 3 or 5, simply because they had to move someone else somewhere and we get caught in a chain reaction.

We're in 4-5-6 territory right now, and when it all breaks down, we could literally be any one of them.

A pod team (1-4 seed) will never be moved up or down a seed, and a 5 would never be moved up to a 4. They always fit the pod teams first, and will not run into bracketing issues wit them, (In order to have an issue you would have to 5 teams from one conference on the 1 and 4 line, or the 2 and 3 line).

 

[jncuse]

Some folks posting in this thread, with their clairvoyance and supreme knowledge, ought to take their gig to Bristol and become Lunardi's apprentices.
What are you doing here, wasting your time with the ignorant pollyanas??

Its not really that difficult a process to understand if you are interested in the process and spend some time understanding it each year and keeping up with updates. And its understood by many beyond Lunardi.. All it requires is not having a life,