Lunardi's latest Brack and Diane two American kids growin' up in the heartland

[JeremyCuse]

That's a truism. "Without Grant" is significant for a team that has limited depth. I don't think many fully appreciate that this team has a razor thin margin for performance--especially scoring, rebounding, and interior defense--if any of the principals can't play. Not only is he the second leading scorer [without looking] on a scoring challenged team, he's also the top rebounder. That's not easy to overcome. It has been in recent years past, when we had the luxury to slide effective bench guys with scoring prowess like Kris, Scoop, CJ, Southerland, and Dion into the lineup situationally. This year, we had Roberson who performed terribly trying to fill Grant's shoes that day.

That was also our worst performance of the year, and we still almost won, BTW. I'm not excusing the team for the loss, but I think some of the criticism is over the top. And it reflects in some bracketology projections.

Razor thin margin for scoring is spot on. Depending on who might leave after the season we could be in the same boat next year as well. Critical that BJ and Roberson develop an offensive game over the summer, we need to get some offensive punch off the bench.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I think the BC loss was worse, but point taken.

Our performance on Sunday made me feel a lot better and I am more likely to agree with your point re: thin margin for error.
If you put stock in Lunardi's bracket (which maybe you shouldn't) but you gotta figure 2 wins this week passes us past Duke, no? Only questionw ould then be if we lost to UVA if they'd pass us on the pecking order.

That's the thing though. Look at the resumes - how are we not passed Duke right now?

 

[Alsacs]

Lunardi does a terrible job at seeding then on Selection Sunday he looks at Jerry Palm's bracket and adjusts the teams seeding. Until Sunday he trolls his opinion and doesn't change it.

 

[JeremyCuse]

I think the BC loss was worse, but point taken.

Our performance on Sunday made me feel a lot better and I am more likely to agree with your point re: thin margin for error.
If you put stock in Lunardi's bracket (which maybe you shouldn't) but you gotta figure 2 wins this week passes us past Duke, no? Only questionw ould then be if we lost to UVA if they'd pass us on the pecking order.

BC loss is way worse, take that game off the W/L record and this team is probably the first 2 seed at worst. That loss is going to haunt them come Selection Sunday unless we beat Duke Saturday. Edit and assuming we beat either Miami or NC State Friday. Either team is far from a gimme.

 

[Alsacs]

Duke has What losses to Notre Dame, Wake Forest, and a loss they shouldn't have to Clemson.

They have wins over Virginia, UCLA, Syracuse, North Carolina, Michigan. We have wins over Baylor, St. John's, Villanova, California, Duke, North Carolina.

We have 4 losses they have 7 losses. We have the better resume if your objective. Lunardi isn't objective and thinks Duke has a better resume. Not many people agree with Lunardi, but he is entitled to his wrong opinion.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Our bad losses are way worse than Dukes. Not even close.

 

[Knicks411]

That's the thing though. Look at the resumes - how are we not passed Duke right now?

Yeah I can't say I agree with it. But even accepting it.

But you look at the resumes, yeah, you have to really dock those 2 bad losses, which I get, but still. We have 7 top 50 wins, they have 6. They maybe have one more high level win, since they have Michigan/UVA/SU compared to Duke/Nova (all at home) but we also have neutrals against Minnesota/Baylor, and a Pitt sweep compared to their win @ Pitt. We also have 3 wins against 50-60 (2 road and a neutral) vs one win against a 50-60 team (home for FSU, who we beat on the road)

We have 15 wins against the RPI top 100, they have 10. Their top 100 wins away from home are UCLA at MSG, and @Pitt. Our top 100 wins away from home are Minnesota/Baylor/Cal at Maui, plus @Pitt, @St. Johns, @Maryland, and @FSU. We have 7 top 100 wins away from home, they have 2. And we each share @pitt, so throw that out, and we have 6 vs their one. UCLA on a neutral is a nice win, sure, but we have 6 wins in the top 100 that more than wipe that out.

The two bad losses we have are really bad; no one at this level has 2 close to them. But I think you need to really overweight them to have Duke ahead of us right now.

Also I need the caveat of take the RPI for what it's worth, but this is how the committee sorts teams.

 

[BuffOrange]

Lunardi does a terrible job at seeding then on Selection Sunday he looks at Jerry Palm's bracket and adjusts the teams seeding. Until Sunday he trolls his opinion and doesn't change it.

I'm like 98% sure he flip-flopped Uconn & Memphis the year they were both in play for the last 1seed - '09 probably, just before the Selection Show when nothing had changed from the night before. Anyone else remember that?

 

[shandeezy7]

Our bad losses are way worse than Dukes. Not even close.

Notre Dame and Georgia Tech are a wash. I will grant you that the loss to BC is not comparable to any of Duke's losses.

 

[jncuse]

We should be ahead of Duke right now. The gap is not huge, but its clear.

But really it doesn't matter. The teams are close enough (including Virginia), that it will likely all be determined on the floor this weekend.

But being the top team of the 3 entering the tourney means we have the highest upside seed wise from winning the ACC.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Notre Dame and Georgia Tech are a wash. I will grant you that the loss to BC is not comparable to any of Duke's losses.

They're not a wash. The finished tied in the conference. One was at home, the other was on the road.

 

[HOFCeluck]

We should be ahead of Duke right now.

But really it doesn't matter. The teams are close enough, that it will be determined on the floor this weekend.

Yep.

 

[shandeezy7]

They're not a wash. The finished tied in the conference. One was at home, the other was on the road.

They are two terrible teams, that Duke or Syracuse should not lose to at home or on the road.

 

[Alsacs]

The Georgia Tech loss without Grant isn't a TERRIBLE loss its a bad loss I agree, and we should win that game 9 out of 10 times anyway, but its not a killer loss.

The BC loss is the ugly red stain on our resume. However, if the committee looks at the numbers of the game its not hard to comprehend if a team goes 11 for 22 from 3 pt range and PLAYS the absolute most dreadful kind of stall ball any team can play that could pull of a shocker if the better team plays horribly.

The BC game should be shown to the rules committee in the offseason as exhibit A why the shot clock needs to go down from 35 to the women's college basketball rule of 30 seconds. BC DID NOTHING on offense for the first 25 seconds of the shot clock because they knew their 1% chance to win was to shorten the game.

 

[RandygoCuse]

If Pitt loses today, do they lose the first round bye?

 

[HOFCeluck]

They are two terrible teams, that Duke or Syracuse should not lose to at home or on the road.

I agree. But that doesn't make them equally bad.

 

[HOFCeluck]

The Georgia Tech loss without Grant isn't a TERRIBLE loss its a bad loss I agree, and we should win that game 9 out of 10 times anyway, but its not a killer loss.

The BC loss is the ugly red stain on our resume. However, if the committee looks at the numbers of the game its not hard to comprehend if a team goes 11 for 22 from 3 pt range and PLAYS the absolute most dreadful kind of stall ball any team can play that could pull of a shocker if the better team plays horribly.

The BC game should be shown to the rules committee in the offseason as exhibit A why the shot clock needs to go down from 35 to the women's college basketball rule of 30 seconds. BC DID NOTHING on offense for the first 25 seconds of the shot clock because they knew their 1% chance to win was to shorten the game.

LOL. Syracuse lost. CHANGE THE RULES.

 

[Garbs]

They won @Utah without Ashley, which other than Oregon, was also the only really close win in that 7-3 "squeaking by" stretch.

did you watch any of the games?

 

[Cusefan0307]

Dukes Road/Neutral record STINKS. 7 losses compared to two! If you switched our resume with theirs we would be a four or 5 seed by Lunardi in my estimation. I think he's just trolling us. I do think we shouldn't be penailized based upon the Virginia and GT losses because we aren't the same team without Grant. If Kansas can still be a two seed without Embiid, I don't see how we aren't a two seed. The good part about this is Lunardi's accuracy stinks, so I'm not that worried. Heck for all we know Clemson could beat Duke tomorrow. People love to drink the Duke cool aid. Thats why everyone hates them.

 

[jncuse]

I'm like 98% sure he flip-flopped Uconn & Memphis the year they were both in play for the last 1seed - '09 probably, just before the Selection Show when nothing had changed from the night before. Anyone else remember that?

I always flip flop my seeds a bit as I think about close races... hear the arguments of other's. It's not my job. But a paid "authority" like Lunardi should be consistent.

I do remember Bilas calling him out on ESPN about 5 years ago. Here is what happened

- When we went to sleep on Friday night of tourney week, Lunardi had team A,B,C,D in his last four in. Teams E,,G,H were last 4 out.
- By 12:00 Saturday afternoon, Lunardi now had team A,B,E,and I in his last four in.
a) One of the team's that was not even the last 4 out the night before was all of a sudden in his last 4 in.
b) No teams had played the past 12 hours. So why did 2 teams move in, and 2 out?

- So Bilas explicity asked him what happened to change things when the teams did not even play since last night. Especially that team was that not even in his last 4 out last night. He further said that all that happened was Lunardi received insider info from the committee, and that is the only reason he changed things. He pressed Lunardi to admit it, and he would not. But Lunardi could not give a reason for his change... under then body of work and crap like that.

I am sure ESPN management had a nice little chat with Bilas afterwards.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Dukes Road/Neutral record STINKS. 7 losses compared to two! If you switched our resume with theirs we would be a four or 5 seed by Lunardi in my estimation. I think he's just trolling us. I do think we shouldn't be penailized based upon the Virginia and GT losses because we aren't the same team without Grant. If Kansas can still be a two seed without Embiid, I don't see how we aren't a two seed. The good part about this is Lunardi's accuracy stinks, so I'm not that worried. Heck for all we know Clemson could beat Duke tomorrow. People love to drink the Duke cool aid. Thats why everyone hates them.

So without Grant we go from potential one seed to worse than a 16-16 team. That's quite a swing.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Yeah I can't say I agree with it. But even accepting it.

But you look at the resumes, yeah, you have to really dock those 2 bad losses, which I get, but still. We have 7 top 50 wins, they have 6. They maybe have one more high level win, since they have Michigan/UVA/SU compared to Duke/Nova (all at home) but we also have neutrals against Minnesota/Baylor, and a Pitt sweep compared to their win @ Pitt. We also have 3 wins against 50-60 (2 road and a neutral) vs one win against a 50-60 team (home for FSU, who we beat on the road)

We have 15 wins against the RPI top 100, they have 10. Their top 100 wins away from home are UCLA at MSG, and @Pitt. Our top 100 wins away from home are Minnesota/Baylor/Cal at Maui, plus @Pitt, @St. Johns, @Maryland, and @FSU. We have 7 top 100 wins away from home, they have 2. And we each share @pitt, so throw that out, and we have 6 vs their one. UCLA on a neutral is a nice win, sure, but we have 6 wins in the top 100 that more than wipe that out.

The two bad losses we have are really bad; no one at this level has 2 close to them. But I think you need to really overweight them to have Duke ahead of us right now.

Also I need the caveat of take the RPI for what it's worth, but this is how the committee sorts teams.

HOF post. I didn't actually mean for you to look at the resumes in depth, and yet you did it, and knocked it out of the park.

 

[Alsacs]

LOL. Syracuse lost. CHANGE THE RULES.

Hi, thanks for playing TRYING TO GOTCHA ME without knowing what your talking about.

I have been saying change the shot clock to 30 SINCE BEFORE THE BC game. I only said that game should be exhibit A.

http://syracusefan.com/threads/if-y...basketball-rules-what-would-you-change.66298/

To quote Kaiser "now go home and get your shine box"

 

[jncuse]

If Pitt loses today, do they lose the first round bye?

Maybe.

Pitt has a really unique resume amongst the bubble teams.
a) A few less Top 50 wins
b) Very Strong in 51-100 for a bubble team
c) No bad losses (which almost all bubble teams are going to have at least a few)
d) Poor OOC SOS which is sometimes punished on the bubble.

It's hard to read what the committee will do with them If they lose today, I think it's hard to conclude anything definitive. For Pitt it will all come down to what the committee decides to stress. B) and C) above are important for bubble teams as well.

Although, I think one of their big advantage (no bad losses) would be compromised with a loss today. Even if they win today, they still have the major holes.

My best guess is that if they lose today they will be playing in Dayton. But I can see them avoiding the first round or NIT as well if they lose. Its an unpredictable resume in my view.

 

[Cusefan0307]

So without Grant we go from potential one seed to worse than a 16-16 team. That's quite a swing.

No we played bad, but Kansas lost to TCU at FULL strength last year, got a 1 seed and TCU might of been the WORST major conference team in the country last year. We're not the first team with bad losses. I am Just trying to point out that the name on the front of the jersey means something to lunardi more than any other bracketologist, and the facts are facts. He is inaccurate every year.