Lunardi

[moqui]

everyone here should be sophisticated enough to know that there is a lot more that goes into your RPI than the results of your own game. Your opponents and your opponents' opponents matter, too.

I don't know about Kentucky, but I do know that several of Syracuse's most highly ranked opponents suffered very bad losses this weekend. Florida (also a Kentucky opponent, so should be a wash) lost to Georgia; NC State lost to Clemson; Seton Hall lost to Rutgers; Notre Dame lost to St. John's. Those were all sub-100 ranked opponents and they have a ripple effect through the RPI. But the worst was Stanford, which had climbed back into the RPI top 100 (and into KenPom's top 50) only to lose to a terrible Utah team which is ranked in the lower regions of the 200s.

Again, I don't know about Kentucky, but this was not a strong weekend for former Syracuse opponents. When you are talking about differences measured in hundredths or thousandths of points, those things can have a big impact.

 

[Knicks411]

Both SU and UK have 85% odds of retaining their #1 seed. The algo seems them as basically the same. Lunardi thinks that UK would get the #1 overall seed if the field was seeded today.

 

[Upstate]

I'm really not sold on MSU definitely being a #1. If the winner of the Duke/UNC game also wins the ACC tourney, that team will be a #1, if KU wins the B12, they're a #1. you can even make a case that the loser of the UNC/Duke game, if they win the ACCT, they could be a 1. If tOSU beats a few ranked teams and MSU, they have a chance to be a #1. Those last two spots are up in the air more so than I can ever remember. Don't forget about Mizzou, too. Teams have a chance to really up their resumes next week.

 

[CorduroyG]

This was from a lunardi chat 2 weeks ago. Has Kentucky's schedule really been that difficult the last 2 weeks to warrant them jumping over us?

Eddie (Lexington)​

Why do you have Syracuse as the overall Number 1 seed and not UK?

Joe Lunardi​

(4:17 PM)


Currently, Syracuse has played a much better schedule and has double the number of wins against teams under consideration. UK's schedule is about to improve dramatically, however, so these positions could easily flip-flop. In the meantime, the only reason Kentucky is No. 1 in the polls is the timing of its one loss vs. the timing of Cuse's loss, and seeds are rarely awarded that way.

 

[Marsh01]

I'm really not sold on MSU definitely being a #1. If the winner of the Duke/UNC game also wins the ACC tourney, that team will be a #1, if KU wins the B12, they're a #1. you can even make a case that the loser of the UNC/Duke game, if they win the ACCT, they could be a 1. If tOSU beats a few ranked teams and MSU, they have a chance to be a #1. Those last two spots are up in the air more so than I can ever remember. Don't forget about Mizzou, too. Teams have a chance to really up their resumes next week.

If Michigan State wins the regular season and makes it to the finals of the Big 10 tourney they most certainly will get a #1 seed without question. The Big 10 has been the best conference all year and #1 in the RPI all year. No way that Duke AND Carolina get a #1. I still think both will be 2 seeds. The ACC has been terrible this season and that will play a huge factor into this equation.

 

[omniorange]

Lunardi's #1 seeds are indeed - UK, SU, KU, MSU. The nitty gritty shows them in 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 order.

If you look at the nitty gritty you will see what I mentioned earlier in this thread - UK is 7-1 against the Top 25 and we are 4-0. Until this past Thursday's games, Vandy was not in the Top 25 and UConn was. And on Saturday, UConn dropped out of the Top 25, Vandy remained in the Top 25 and Alabama joined them in the Top 25.

So on Wednesday evening, UK was 4-1 against the Top 25 and we were 5-0
On Thursday evening, UK was 5-1 against the Top 25 and we were 5-0
After Saturday's game, UK was 7-1 against the Top 25 and we went down to 4-0

To me, this is why UK took over the overall #1 seed from us.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[reedny]

This was from a lunardi chat 2 weeks ago. Has Kentucky's schedule really been that difficult the last 2 weeks to warrant them jumping over us?

Eddie (Lexington)​

Why do you have Syracuse as the overall Number 1 seed and not UK?

Joe Lunardi​

(4:17 PM)


Currently, Syracuse has played a much better schedule and has double the number of wins against teams under consideration. UK's schedule is about to improve dramatically, however, so these positions could easily flip-flop. In the meantime, the only reason Kentucky is No. 1 in the polls is the timing of its one loss vs. the timing of Cuse's loss, and seeds are rarely awarded that way.

I don't have ESPN insider, and therefore am not privy to the link (article) -- it may explain more about what's afoot here. As Moqui and Knicks have indicated, it could be the performances of SU past opponents. Although SU's RPI remains #1 this week as it was last, Lunardi's formula probably has more variables. Be nice to know his reasoning, rather than a 'feeling'.

 

[Knicks411]

Lunardi's #1 seeds are indeed - UK, SU, KU, MSU. The nitty gritty shows them in 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 order.

If you look at the nitty gritty you will see what I mentioned earlier in this thread - UK is 7-1 against the Top 25 and we are 4-0. Until this past Thursday's games, Vandy was not in the Top 25 and UConn was. And on Saturday, UConn dropped out of the Top 25, Vandy remained in the Top 25 and Alabama joined them in the Top 25.

So on Wednesday evening, UK was 4-1 against the Top 25 and we were 5-0
On Thursday evening, UK was 5-1 against the Top 25 and we were 5-0
After Saturday's game, UK was 7-1 against the Top 25 and we went down to 4-0

To me, this is why UK took over the overall #1 seed from us.

Cheers,
Neil

Yeah, which kind of gets to what Moqui was saying. In the last 2 weeks, Kentucky has added 3 top 25 wins and we lost one. It's not really quite that simple; it's not like there is a huge difference between beating RPi #25 and RPI#27 or whatever, but that is probably a lot of what it is.

 

[LennX6]

I want #1 seed in East and Duke as a #2 seed.

I would actually prefer Ohio St as a 2 seed, that is if they don't drop to a 3.

 

[LennX6]

I don't have ESPN insider, and therefore am not privy to the link to the article -- that may explain more about what's afoot here. As Moqui and Knicks have indicated, it could be the performances of SU past opponents (although SU's RPI remains #1 this week as it was last).

So he is hinting UK could lose a couple and we have clear sailing. That is a rare viewpoint.

 

[CorduroyG]

I would actually prefer Ohio St as a 2 seed, that is if they don't drop to a 3.

absofreakinlutely. but i doubt we'll get that lucky, i think we're getting carolina as the 2 in the east.

 

[reedny]

So he is hinting UK could lose a couple and we have clear sailing. That is a rare viewpoint.

X6 .. BMW driver? Anyway, if you were referring to me, I wasn't hinting that Ky is going to loose a couple. I doubt it in the SEC -- the only risky game is against UF this weekend. The gators will be at home and they have a bone to pick with Ky. The way the Wildcats handled them last time, however, redemption may not be enough to keep it close.

As to the thread, I'm not necessarily criticizing Lunardi. If his formula tells him that Ky deserves the top seed, so be it. Just tell us what the factors were (what changed?)... other than a premonition about the committee that he had at breakfast. Maybe his rationale is in ESPN insider.

 

[midloviking]

I remember we won it all in 2003. I don't remember what number seed we were. Just sayin'

 

[Knicks411]

The seemingly inevitable move of Kentucky to No. 1 overall has occurred on our board. It's still not how I would vote, but my primary responsibility is to forecast what the selection committee would do in a given situation (as opposed to forcing my own opinions upon you).


Kentucky and Syracuse are clearly the two best teams in the country. The Wildcats have been a bit better lately, however, and that tips the scales in their favor. If both win out, there's little doubt in my mind the committee would make the consensus No. 1 team the top overall seed in the tournament. If one or both lose, well, we'll worry about that then.

Here is what he said in his insider piece. (I hope it was ok to just post that, if not, please take down).

Like I said, I am not sure he has a formula that he follows to the letter of the law in putting teams on the S-Curve anyway.

 

[reedny]

Here is what he said in his insider piece. (I hope it was ok to just post that, if not, please take down).

Like I said, I am not sure he has a formula that he follows to the letter of the law in putting teams on the S-Curve anyway.

Hmm, ok. Still somewhat opaque ... "[Kentucky has] been a little better lately"). "Better" sounds like a reflection of team performance (as opposed to performances of past opponents). "Lately" could mean the past several weeks -- it doesn't necessarily describe this past weekend (where it seemed that SU had a more impressive showing on the road). So without more, we'll have to take Lunardi's word for what "better" and "lately" mean.

 

[jncuse]

Ok, but no matter how it's calculated, I'm left with the same question, which is, other than the Vandy/Uconn games, what has changed "objectively" from last week to this one?

Beyond any recent changes, to me the big difference between the two resumes is that Kentucky beat North Carolina and Kansas. Syracuse has not beaten any top 2 seed teams. Could Syracuse do it? Sure - but advantage should go to the team that actually does it.

Both teams have great records against top 50 and top 100 schools, and on the road/neutral against such teams. But should the number one overall seed (bwtween two one loss teams) be determined based on one team having one or two more top 50/100 wins -- after all those teams should be exoected to win all those games against teams outside the four line (each has slipped once). To me elite wins, at the top two seed lines and then the top 4 seed lines (assuming the 50/100 records are similar), should be the seperator.

I think the only SU opponent that has a chance at the top 2 seed line is Georgetown and Marquette and that is only if they win the BET -- which of course means that SU loses again, which would hurt their case for one overall.

If Kentucky wins out, they will get the one seed overall, and I think they absolutely deserve it over Syracuse. Not because they are any better, but because of the elite wins.

The interpretation of the body of work should not be the exact same for identifying and separating one seeds as it is for identifying and separating bubble teams. Nor should it be. Beating UCF or Seton Hall or Miss St is quite meaningful for determining which bubble team gets in - beating UCF or Seton Hall or Miss St should add little or novalue to a team fighting for the number one overall seed. I am not biased - I have observed what the committee has done for a while, and I am not going to fit the data to make a case for Syracuse if it doesn't merit it,

Its also amusing how the same people that want to use objective criteria such as overall RPI (which in itself never dictates the S-Curve) and a few more top 50 losses, will ignore objective criteria in stating that the Big East is way better then the SEC. The Big East RPI is .5699, the SEC's is .5679. Very little difference. Perhaps you didn't notice that USF, Cincy, and Notre Dame who all had success in conference stank it up OOC.

So basically:
1) SU is better then UK, based on objective criteria. Ignore any subjective analysis.

2) Big East is way better then the SEC based on subjective analysis. Ignore the objective criteria,

Sorry for the rant, but homer bias andinsecurity annoys me.

 

[reedny]

Beyond any recent changes, to me the big difference between the two resumes is that Kentucky beat North Carolina and Kansas. Syracuse has not beaten any top 2 seed teams. Could Syracuse do it? Sure - but advantage should go to the team that actually does it.

Both teams have great records against top 50 and top 100 schools, and on the road/neutral against such teams. But should the number one overall seed (bwtween two one loss teams) be determined based on one team having one or two more top 50/100 wins -- after all those teams should be exoected to win all those games against teams outside the four line (each has slipped once). To me elite wins, at the top two seed lines and then the top 4 seed lines (assuming the 50/100 records are similar), should be the seperator.

I think the only SU opponent that has a chance at the top 2 seed line is Georgetown and Marquette and that is only if they win the BET -- which of course means that SU loses again, which would hurt their case for one overall.

If Kentucky wins out, they will get the one seed overall, and I think they absolutely deserve it over Syracuse. Not because they are any better, but because of the elite wins.

The interpretation of the body of work should not be the exact same for identifying and separating one seeds as it is for identifying and separating bubble teams. Nor should it be. Beating UCF or Seton Hall or Miss St is quite meaningful for determining which bubble team gets in - beating UCF or Seton Hall or Miss St should add little or novalue to a team fighting for the number one overall seed. I am not biased - I have observed what the committee has done for a while, and I am not going to fit the data to make a case for Syracuse if it doesn't merit it,

Its also amusing how the same people that want to use objective criteria such as overall RPI (which in itself never dictates the S-Curve) and a few more top 50 losses, will ignore objective criteria in stating that the Big East is way better then the SEC. The Big East RPI is .5699, the SEC's is .5679. Very little difference. Perhaps you didn't notice that USF, Cincy, and Notre Dame who all had success in conference stank it up OOC.

So basically:
1) SU is better then UK, based on objective criteria. Ignore any subjective analysis.

2) Big East is way better then the SEC based on subjective analysis. Ignore the objective criteria,

Sorry for the rant, but homer bias andinsecurity annoys me.

Good points about the RPI, and the difference in criteria when determining overall top seeds versus admission into the tournament.

I think Ky has a good case (as you point out) for the top seed if it wins out. Even though it has lower RPI and SOS ratings than SU, its earlier wins against UNC/KU stand out, as does its throttling of UF at Rupp.

But this is a broader issue than I was focusing on ... my point was/is, Lunardi should be able to tell us why SU is an overall #1 last week, and this week they arn't. Simple as that. From his opaque comments (Ky has been a "little better lately") it doesn't appear that (past) opponents performances were the reason, and there wasn't much over the weekend to justify a change (if anything SU looked better with its win at UConn). Maybe I'm just drilling in too far, but Lunardi hasn't given us a good reason that I'm aware of.

GT's seed is another interesting point. They looked really good last night shutting down ND. Currently, Palm (CBS) has GT a 3 seed in the South. http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology

Lunardi has them as a 3 in the West. http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

Their RPI is 10, AP ranking is 11. So they're probably correctly seeded as a 3 for now (despite their What loss to Seton Hall). But if they beat Marquette (ranked 8th and also a 3 seed) this weekend on the road, I can see them moving up.

 

[orangecuse]

I remember we won it all in 2003. I don't remember what number seed we were. Just sayin'

3 seed.

 

[Garbs]

I don't see how the committee doesn't give it to us if we both win out, seeing as how our starting center missed the only game we lost and has been playing 30+ minutes a game the last few weeks

to me having zero losses at full strength trumps beating UNC and KU(who both were not what they are now then) in december

 

[CorduroyG]

I don't see how the committee doesn't give it to us if we both win out, seeing as how our starting center missed the only game we lost and has been playing 30+ minutes a game the last few weeks

to me having zero losses at full strength trumps beating UNC and KU(who both were not what they are now then) in december

great point. committee is supposed to take stuff like that (injuries, suspensions, etc) into consideration.

 

[jncuse]

I don't see how the committee doesn't give it to us if we both win out, seeing as how our starting center missed the only game we lost and has been playing 30+ minutes a game the last few weeks

to me having zero losses at full strength trumps beating UNC and KU(who both were not what they are now then) in december

Fair point, but two things to consider:
1) It wasn't really close against Notre Dame. If it was a close game maybe they throw the result out the window.
2) I suspect the committee would be more prone to disregard games that were due to injury rather then suspension.

 

[Knicks411]

2) I suspect the committee would be more prone to disregard games that were due to injury rather then suspension.

I thought this too, but I can't remember where I read it, but apparently they are at least "supposed" to treat them the same.

 

[Garbs]

Fair point, but two things to consider:
1) It wasn't really close against Notre Dame. If it was a close game maybe they throw the result out the window.
2) I suspect the committee would be more prone to disregard games that were due to injury rather then suspension.

If they take it into consideration I doubt the outcome matters all that matters is they say hey they lost this game without their starting center, but your second point is valid, since it was an academic suspension they may not take it into consideration

 

[CorduroyG]

Fair point, but two things to consider:
1) It wasn't really close against Notre Dame. If it was a close game maybe they throw the result out the window.
2) I suspect the committee would be more prone to disregard games that were due to injury rather then suspension.

Margin of victory shouldnt come into play, this aint college football. We were not mentally ready for that game, its the ONLY game all year we werent, you dont think missing fab had anything to do with that?

Both teams are deserving, its too close to call right now, but i GUARANTEE if the tables were reversed and anthony davis was out for the indiana game and kentucky got blown out, that game would get thrown out the window.

 

[Marsh01]

Bottom line is whoever advances farther in their conference tourney (assuming we both win our final game) will be the #1 overall seed. If we both run the table then its a coin flip.