Lunardi's argument for KU over Syracuse 12-7 vs. 7-2 on RPI top 50 wins

[Alsacs]

http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-col...ed-rundown-tournament-odds-college-basketball

Excerpt,

"For now, Syracuse's loss is Kansas' gain. Even though I can't remember the last time, if ever, a team has been elevated to the top line coming off a loss, the Jayhawks would be the obvious choice. Tops in the RPI and in Non-Conference SOS, KU has 13 victories over teams already projected or under consideration for the NCAA field.

A whopping seven of those wins are against RPI Top 25 opponents, part of a dozen against the Top 50 overall, and these totals are better than the combined quality wins of any two of the next three teams on the current seed list (Syracuse, Duke and Villanova). The final No. 2 seed at this point is Wisconsin, which compares favorably to Kansas in RPI, SOS and quality win totals, but has the misfortune of sitting two games off the pace in its own conference."

I don't think KU finishes above us unless they win the Big XII tournament and we lose the ACC tournament.
The Big XII had a good non-conference season, but playing each other twice has gamed the RPI to keep all of their power numbers up Kansas State is #35 at 20-9, Baylor is #42 at 17-10 and Oklahoma State is #45 at 19-10 which has given the Big XII the old Big East effect and elevates these teams higher. The true robin helps the Big XII a lot.

 

[Cusefan0307]

If we win the last two, I think we need to beat Duke or UVA in the ACCT to get a one.

 

[NineOneSeven]

I would be shocked if we won the ACC tournament. Of course, the last two games and how we play may change my thoughts about it (and our injury situation).

 

[AZOrange]

If we win the last two, I think we need to beat Duke or UVA in the ACCT to get a one.

We might just have to outlast them not beat them. Unc and md could help us a lot too. Just take it one day at a time. Gtech first.

 

[shandeezy7]

So because they have had more opportunities to get Top 50 RPI wins, they get the nod. Not saying Kansas doesn't have an impressive resume, but a 63% winning percentage verse a 77% winning percentage vs. Top 50 teams is not as impressive as the raw record. If we end up losing out on a one seed, we can probably place that blame squarely on the god-awful BC loss at home, assuming we take care of business in the next two games. If we win the next two and then win 1 or 2 in the ACC tournament, I don't see how a 7-loss or more Kansas team should get a 1 seed over a 4-loss Syracuse team.

 

[UnderHisOwnPower]

http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-col...ed-rundown-tournament-odds-college-basketball

Excerpt,

"For now, Syracuse's loss is Kansas' gain. Even though I can't remember the last time, if ever, a team has been elevated to the top line coming off a loss, the Jayhawks would be the obvious choice. Tops in the RPI and in Non-Conference SOS, KU has 13 victories over teams already projected or under consideration for the NCAA field.

A whopping seven of those wins are against RPI Top 25 opponents, part of a dozen against the Top 50 overall, and these totals are better than the combined quality wins of any two of the next three teams on the current seed list (Syracuse, Duke and Villanova). The final No. 2 seed at this point is Wisconsin, which compares favorably to Kansas in RPI, SOS and quality win totals, but has the misfortune of sitting two games off the pace in its own conference."

I don't think KU finishes above us unless they win the Big XII tournament and we lose the ACC tournament.
The Big XII had a good non-conference season, but playing each other twice has gamed the RPI to keep all of their power numbers up Kansas State is #35 at 20-9, Baylor is #42 at 17-10 and Oklahoma State is #45 at 19-10 which has given the Big XII the old Big East effect and elevates these teams higher. The true robin helps the Big XII a lot.

that last 1 seed could very well be riding on the backs of either Embiid or Grant, literally. Both teams are very different when either is out for any length of time.

 

[Alsacs]

The 1 seeds should be Florida, Arizona locks then Syracuse, Kansas, Duke, Wisconsin, Villanova for the other two 1 seeds and Wichita State as a 2 seed.

PLAY ANGRY Wichita State has played 8 games of 31 games(a whopping 25.8% of their games) AGAINST RPI top 100 teams. Including 1 game against the RPI top 25 and 2 games against the top 50.

Syracuse has played 16 games of 29 games(55.1% of their games) against the RPI top 100. 5 versus RPI top 25, another 4 versus top 50

Kansas has played 23 games of 29 games(79.3% of their games) against the RPI top 100. 11 games versus RPI top 25, another 8 games versus top 50.

Wichita State is getting SUCH A PASS it makes me want to find the Seth Davis's of the world and go Ron Artest on his smug uninformed face for talking with their heads suck in their asses.

Wichita State is SO UNQUALIFIED for a 1 seed using the logic Lunardi uses for Kansas versus Syracuse. All I want is consistency. I can see the argument for KU over Syracuse even if I don't like it.

 

[RF2044]

So because they have had more opportunities to get Top 50 RPI wins, they get the nod. Not saying Kansas doesn't have an impressive resume, but a 63% winning percentage verse a 77% winning percentage vs. Top 50 teams is not as impressive as the raw record. If we end up losing out on a one seed, we can probably place that blame squarely on the god-awful BC loss at home, assuming we take care of business in the next two games. If we win the next two and then win 1 or 2 in the ACC tournament, I don't see how a 7-loss or more Kansas team should get a 1 seed over a 4-loss Syracuse team.

It's such a dopey argument. Getting more credit for losing than winning.

 

[jncuse]

http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-col...ed-rundown-tournament-odds-college-basketball

Excerpt,

"For now, Syracuse's loss is Kansas' gain. Even though I can't remember the last time, if ever, a team has been elevated to the top line coming off a loss, the Jayhawks would be the obvious choice. Tops in the RPI and in Non-Conference SOS, KU has 13 victories over teams already projected or under consideration for the NCAA field.

A whopping seven of those wins are against RPI Top 25 opponents, part of a dozen against the Top 50 overall, and these totals are better than the combined quality wins of any two of the next three teams on the current seed list (Syracuse, Duke and Villanova). The final No. 2 seed at this point is Wisconsin, which compares favorably to Kansas in RPI, SOS and quality win totals, but has the misfortune of sitting two games off the pace in its own conference."

I don't think KU finishes above us unless they win the Big XII tournament and we lose the ACC tournament.
The Big XII had a good non-conference season, but playing each other twice has gamed the RPI to keep all of their power numbers up Kansas State is #35 at 20-9, Baylor is #42 at 17-10 and Oklahoma State is #45 at 19-10 which has given the Big XII the old Big East effect and elevates these teams higher. The true robin helps the Big XII a lot.

It's interesting that he notes Wisconsin has the misfortune of sitting two games off the pace in its own conference (a similar position we will be in). It is not supposed to be a factor in evaluating the complete resume, but I am not convinced all the committee will do the job properly in this regard.

If certain scenarios play themselves out, we will be able to determine if conference titles which should not matter, matter because of bias. Not a bias against a single team per se, but a bias for a factor such as titles that should not matter.

Like Alsacs, I can't see Kansas getting a #1 unless they win their tourney, and getting some help from us. But Syracuse is the team that control's its own destiny. This is why I find Lunardi's current rankings absurd. If Syracuse and Kansas both run the table, according to Lunardi Kansas would be above us. Silly.

Heck, even if Kansas and Wisconsin run the table, I actually prefer Wisconsin's resume over Kansas. So Kansas would have 13 top 50 wins vs 11 for Wisconsin... so what.

Is 13-7 that much better than 11-3? Both with 6 or 7 top 25 victories? Of course Wisconsin has the losses to Northwestern and Indiana.. is that enough to totally swing it around?


Teams need to play an acceptable level of top 50 games. But after a certain threshold, win% has to be as important as pure wins.

 

[SBU72]

The 1 seeds should be Florida, Arizona locks then Syracuse, Kansas, Duke, Wisconsin, Villanova for the other two 1 seeds and Wichita State as a 2 seed.

PLAY ANGRY Wichita State has played 8 games of 31 games(a whopping 25.8% of their games) AGAINST RPI top 100 teams. Including 1 game against the RPI top 25 and 2 games against the top 50.

Syracuse has played 16 games of 29 games(55.1% of their games) against the RPI top 100. 5 versus RPI top 25, another 4 versus top 50

Kansas has played 23 games of 29 games(79.3% of their games) against the RPI top 100. 11 games versus RPI top 25, another 8 games versus top 50.

Wichita State is getting SUCH A PASS it makes me want to find the Seth Davis's of the world and go Ron Artest on his smug uninformed face for talking with their heads suck in their asses.

Wichita State is SO UNQUALIFIED for a 1 seed using the logic Lunardi uses for Kansas versus Syracuse. All I want is consistency. I can see the argument for KU over Syracuse even if I don't like it.

Unlike football, any undefeated team should get a #1 seed. It could be #1A or #1D but still a number one. Why? because unlike football, a basketball team still has to prove its worthiness of #1 seed on the court! And do it 6 times to win the NC. IMHO, a #1 who loses before the sweet 16 got a highly questionable seed. Anything from Elite 8 justifies the #1.

 

[Alsacs]

It's interesting that he notes Wisconsin has the misfortune of sitting two games off the pace in its own conference (a similar position we will be in). It is not supposed to be a factor in evaluating the complete resume, but I am not convinced all the committee will do the job properly in this regard.

If certain scenarios play themselves out, we will be able to determine if conference titles which should not matter, matter because of bias. Not a bias against a single team per se, but a bias for a factor such as titles that should not matter.

Like Alsacs, I can't see Kansas getting a #1 unless they win their tourney, and getting some help from us. But Syracuse is the team that control's its own destiny. This is why I find Lunardi's current rankings absurd. If Syracuse and Kansas both run the table, according to Lunardi Kansas would be above us. Silly.

Heck, even if Kansas and Wisconsin run the table, I actually prefer Wisconsin's resume over Kansas. So Kansas would have 13 top 50 wins vs 11 for Wisconsin... so what.

Is 13-7 that much better than 11-3? Both with 6 or 7 top 25 victories? Of course Wisconsin has the losses to Northwestern and Indiana.. is that enough to totally swing it around?


Teams need to play an acceptable level of top 50 games. But after a certain threshold, win% has to be as important as pure wins.

I don't get the KU over SU logic then have Wichita State on the 1 line. They have played 3 top 50 teams and his logic for KU over SU is top 50 wins and games, You have to be consistent and then I don't take you seriously. Lunardi isn't consistent in that he uses top 50 wins for KU, but doesn't punish Wichita State for their obvious flaws.

 

[jncuse]

Wichita State is SO UNQUALIFIED for a 1 seed using the logic Lunardi uses for Kansas versus Syracuse. All I want is consistency. I can see the argument for KU over Syracuse even if I don't like it.

I think the "inconsistency" is one of the reasons that Kansas and Wichita St will not both be #1 seeds.

It could be one or the other, but whatever rationalization they use to accept one as a #1 seed, it eliminates the other. I think the commitee will be perfectly content with placing them in the same region.

 

[AZOrange]

Unlike football, any undefeated team should get a #1 seed. It could be #1A or #1D but still a number one. Why? because unlike football, a basketball team still has to prove its worthiness of #1 seed on the court! And do it 6 times to win the NC. IMHO, a #1 who loses before the sweet 16 got a highly questionable seed. Anything from Elite 8 justifies the #1.

Eh I don't think u can do the hindsight thing if the 1 loses an 8/9 game. There's not enough differentiation on cbb anymore for that. They get the number 1s right almost every year.

 

[Alsacs]

Unlike football, any undefeated team should get a #1 seed. It could be #1A or #1D but still a number one. Why? because unlike football, a basketball team still has to prove its worthiness of #1 seed on the court! And do it 6 times to win the NC. IMHO, a #1 who loses before the sweet 16 got a highly questionable seed. Anything from Elite 8 justifies the #1.

So then 2 years ago Murray State went 30-1 in the regular season and won the OVC and was given a 6 seed. That 1 loss dropped them from a 1 seed in your mind down all the way to the 6 line? I don't care about undefeated or not its all about whom you have played and who have you beaten. Wichita State has 1 WIN against an NCAA Tournament right now and people are killing us for beating all our teams back in November, December when Wichita State beat St. Louis back in November/December as well.

 

[Knicks411]

Teams need to play an acceptable level of top 50 games. But after a certain threshold, win% has to be as important as pure wins.

I agree with this in general, but also, all top 50 wins aren't created equal.

This is more of a general point that specifically KC vs SU. Because Kansas basically has a ton of 20-40 or so wins. They have 11 wins against teams from 20-42 at Ken Pom. One win inside the top 20. But like I said, in general, one team winning say 65% of their top 50 games and the other winning 75% doesn't mean much to me either way unless I know who those top 50 games were against.

 

[jncuse]

We spend alot of time discussing #1 seeds right now, but it's possible the committee will not spend much time debating it.

The bubble picture is as messy as I ever remember it. They are going to be spending alot of time on it next weekend.

 

[Garbs]

he should use the same logic for Wichita St then

 

[jncuse]

I agree with this in general, but also, all top 50 wins aren't created equal.

This is more of a general point that specifically KC vs SU. Because Kansas basically has a ton of 20-40 or so wins. They have 11 wins against teams from 20-42 at Ken Pom. One win inside the top 20. But like I said, in general, one team winning say 65% of their top 50 games and the other winning 75% doesn't mean much to me either way unless I know who those top 50 games were against.

Absolutely, that is why they also separate top 25, from top 50. It would be nice if the top 25 wasn't based on RPI but its not that far off in aggregate.

 

[BuffOrange]

Has he addressed why the change since Saturday morning? I'd at least respect him if he said "I really didn't do enough homework last week".

 

[SBU72]

So then 2 years ago Murray State went 30-1 in the regular season and won the OVC and was given a 6 seed. That 1 loss dropped them from a 1 seed in your mind down all the way to the 6 line? I don't care about undefeated or not its all about whom you have played and who have you beaten. Wichita State has 1 WIN against an NCAA Tournament right now and people are killing us for beating all our teams back in November, December when Wichita State beat St. Louis back in November/December as well.

Because the tourny is 6 games, being a #1 or 2 (or maybe even 3 or 4) doesn't make a lot of difference. How long has it been since all 4 #1 made the elite 8 much less the final 4? You still have to beat quality teams. The drop from #1 to 6 was probably a little much. I do not recall how they finished the toruny. Can you remind me.

 

[Knicks411]

Absolutely, that is why they also separate top 25, from top 50. It would be nice if the top 25 wasn't based on RPI but its not that far off in aggregate.

Even top 25 though; a home win against the 24th best team isn't close to a road win against a top 5 or whatever. I get that you have to draw a line somewhere, but it's probably easier to just go down the line and compare best wins.

 

[Alsacs]

Because the tourny is 6 games, being a #1 or 2 (or maybe even 3 or 4) doesn't make a lot of difference. How long has it been since all 4 #1 made the elite 8 much less the final 4? You still have to beat quality teams. The drop from #1 to 6 was probably a little much. I do not recall how they finished the toruny. Can you remind me.

They won their first game over Colorado State pretty comfortably and then lost to #3 seed Marquette by 2 or 3 points in the 2nd round and IMO showed they were underseeded. If Wichita State loses in the MVC, by the precedent set for Murray State they should fall down to the 4 line. Murray State had more top 25 RPI wins than Wichita State does now.
All I want is consistency from the committee and Wichita State's resume is NOT WORTHY of a 1 seed.

 

[Madbiker]

http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-col...ed-rundown-tournament-odds-college-basketball

Excerpt,

"For now, Syracuse's loss is Kansas' gain. Even though I can't remember the last time, if ever, a team has been elevated to the top line coming off a loss, the Jayhawks would be the obvious choice. Tops in the RPI and in Non-Conference SOS, KU has 13 victories over teams already projected or under consideration for the NCAA field.

A whopping seven of those wins are against RPI Top 25 opponents, part of a dozen against the Top 50 overall, and these totals are better than the combined quality wins of any two of the next three teams on the current seed list (Syracuse, Duke and Villanova). The final No. 2 seed at this point is Wisconsin, which compares favorably to Kansas in RPI, SOS and quality win totals, but has the misfortune of sitting two games off the pace in its own conference."

I don't think KU finishes above us unless they win the Big XII tournament and we lose the ACC tournament.
The Big XII had a good non-conference season, but playing each other twice has gamed the RPI to keep all of their power numbers up Kansas State is #35 at 20-9, Baylor is #42 at 17-10 and Oklahoma State is #45 at 19-10 which has given the Big XII the old Big East effect and elevates these teams higher. The true robin helps the Big XII a lot.

Lunardi's so-called reasoning is ridiculous. If he's so enthralled with KU's schedule then he should have had them on the #1 line weeks ago. Nothing changed over the weekend to elevate them. In fact by elevating Kansas AFTER a loss to an unranked team what he is really saying is that merely playing top 50 teams is what is important not getting wins. Foolish. Lastly, if Lunardi is so hung up on SOS and number of games played vs the RPI top 50, how in the world does he justify a #1 seed for Wichita St? Totally inconsistent logic. The NCAA selection committee has been equally inconsistent over the last few years. There is no objective criteria for selection and seeding. Some members only care about # top 50/100 wins and overlook losses. Others care more about winning % against top 100. Some consider the entire season body of work counting early and late season games equally. Others give lots of weight to the last 10 games...even though they are not supposed to do that. The NCAAT is great every year...but it's amazing given the convoluted inconsistent manner in which they make decisions.

 

[SBU72]

They won their first game over Colorado State pretty comfortably and then lost to #3 seed Marquette by 2 or 3 points in the 2nd round and IMO showed they were underseeded. If Wichita State loses in the MVC, by the precedent set for Murray State they should fall down to the 4 line. Murray State had more top 25 RPI wins than Wichita State does now.
All I want is consistency from the committee and Wichita State's resume is NOT WORTHY of a 1 seed.

But I think you have sort of proven my point. Murry state go a "bad" seed despite their record but almost proved their worth anyways. Giving Wichita a #1 instead of a #2 is not going to make a difference. They play a #16 or #15 seed first and should easily win. then its either a 7 or and 8 (if things go according to chalk) Again, is that so tough. A loss to either more less means they didn't deserve the 1 or 2. The way things are stated above, the #1 seeds should only go to the major conferences because the mid-level conferences don't get a chance to play against the top 50 or 100 teams.

 

[Alsacs]

But I think you have sort of proven my point. Murry state go a "bad" seed despite their record but almost proved their worth anyways. Giving Wichita a #1 instead of a #2 is not going to make a difference. They play a #16 or #15 seed first and should easily win. then its either a 7 or and 8 (if things go according to chalk) Again, is that so tough. A loss to either more less means they didn't deserve the 1 or 2. The way things are stated above, the #1 seeds should only go to the major conferences because the mid-level conferences don't get a chance to play against the top 50 or 100 teams.

I didn't prove your point Murray State should have been a 4 or 5 seed not a 6 seed was my point. Its one thing to underseed a team by 1 or 2 lines its another thing to make 1 loss worth 5 lines which is what your point is. You said being undefeated should get you a 1 seed. Wichita State doesn't deserve a 1 seed or 6 seed I would split the difference and make them a 3 seed.