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

[HOFCeluck]

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"

Sorry, it's just that your whole post reeked of excuses for why we lost to one of the worst major conference teams in America. My bad.

 

[HOFCeluck]

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.

It was at tcu. And it was one loss. We have two like that.

Kansas also won the regular seasons and conference tournament.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

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

And that's why... HE GONE!

I kid.

 

[longislandcuse]

As long as we get further in the ACC Tourney than Duke and UVA, I think we get MSG.

 

[Cusefan0307]

It was at tcu. And it was one loss. We have two like that.

Kansas also won the regular seasons and conference tournament.

you miss the point. we have a thread on one of the most inaccurate bracketologists out there, and Georgia Tech is a lot better than TCU was. And yes our body of work is better than Dukes right now. You're focusing to much on certain games, something the committee doesn't do.

 

[GardenOrange]

He wasn't going to change our seeding because we didn't play. He is only going to do updates based on wins and losses right now.

Beat Duke on Saturday and even Latardo will have us as a #2

I say victories over NC State, Duke and Virgina has got to get Cuse some consideration for a 1 again. Even if Villanova keeps winning. That would be 2 more top 15 wins on neutral court.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Your focusing to much on certain games, something the committee doesn't do,

I'm banking on the committee being different from the bracketologists in that regard. A loss is a singular event. It can't count more than one time. Look at our resume vs other teams and it's clear that the only way we're not lumped with the teams said to be in contention for the 1 seeds by the bracketologists is because they're weighting our losses heavier than that.

 

[jncuse]

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.

Kansas deserved that number one seed last year. Syracuse does not deserve that #1 seed (YET - that could change). It was not a case of a committee ignoring something for Kansas and not ignoring something for Syracuse.

As for the point of Lunardi (which may well be correct), isn't that separate from Kansas being a #1 last year?

(I get a sense I may be misreading your post based on where the conversation was in earlier posts)

 

[Cusefan0307]

Kansas deserved that number one seed last year. Syracuse does not deserve that #1 seed (YET - that could change). It was not a case of a committee ignoring something for Kansas and not ignoring something for Syracuse.

As for the point of Lunardi (which may well be correct), isn't that separate from Kansas being a #1 last year?

(I get a sense I may be misreading your post based on where the conversation was in earlier posts)

Oh I don't think we deserve a 1 seed right now. Just pointing out you can't focus on a certain game or games when it comes to seeding teams, because the committee doesnt do that.

 

[NKR1978]

At this point is seems to be a forgone conclusion that we will play PUconn in the second round. Seems like nearly every bracket I've seen has this matchup.

UConn wont win their first round game. But I'm sure the committee would love to set that up.

 

[BuffOrange]

I knew TCU was bad, but didn't know how bad. 264th in Kenpom, wow. That's significantly worse than BC/GT this year.

 

[HOFCeluck]

you miss the point. we have a thread on one of the most inaccurate bracketologists out there, and Georgia Tech is a lot better than TCU was. And yes our body of work is better than Dukes right now. You're focusing to much on certain games, something the committee doesn't do.

I think dismissing the loss to G Tech because were SO DIFFERENT without Grant is rediculous. They SUCK. It doesn't matter who we plug in there we should win that game. Comparing it to Kansas last year is silly because they accomplished things that easily outweighed that loss ie winning the big 12.

 

[shandeezy7]

I think dismissing the loss to G Tech because were SO DIFFERENT without Grant is rediculous. They SUCK. It doesn't matter who we plug in there we should win that game. Comparing it to Kansas last year is silly because they accomplished things that easily outweighed that loss ie winning the big 12.

They might have won the Big 12, but they had the exact same conference record that we had this year (14-4). I don't think anybody is disagreeing with you that we shouldn't have lost that game, but Kansas wasn't some all-time great team last year that just happened to lose one game against an absolutely pathetic team. There are still games left to be played this week though, so anything we are debating right now could be proven moot in a very short period.

 

[Cusefan0307]

I think dismissing the loss to G Tech because were SO DIFFERENT without Grant is rediculous. They SUCK. It doesn't matter who we plug in there we should win that game. Comparing it to Kansas last year is silly because they accomplished things that easily outweighed that loss ie winning the big 12.

Read the article posted on the WCC commish who is on the committee. He tell's you what they focus on. Yes they do consider injuries and when people play. They don't cherry pick losses or wins. That is my point.

 

[HOFCeluck]

They might have won the Big 12, but they had the exact same conference record that we had this year (14-4). I don't think anybody is disagreeing with you that we shouldn't have lost that game, but Kansas wasn't some all-time great team last year that just happened to lose one game against an absolutely pathetic team. There are still games left to be played this week though, so anything we are debating right now could be proven moot in a very short period.

Does having the same record mean anything at all in a different year, Ina different conference?

 

[jncuse]

A bad loss is not simply a regular loss.

Let's say we had lost to FSU and Clemson instead of BC/GT. Our resume would be a lot better even if we were 27-4 under both circumstances

Some people will view that as the exact same accomplishment. And really it is - the same record against the same schedule strength.

But I don't think the committee will because of what they emphasize. Bad losses is a specific metric for them, and it is specifically sub 100 losses. Like elite top 25 wins which have more meaning, sub 100 bad losses will have more meaning. The committee loves to value outliers more.

Let's play the reverse with quality wins: You play team's with RPI 9, 64, and 78. You go 2-1. But the committee will view that 2-1 a whole lot better if one of the victories includes a victory over RPI #9

The metrics are specifically done to punish or reward outliers... even if you sometimes end up with the exact same record.

A bad loss can be overcome, but they will be punished more than a regular loss, due to the outlier focus of the committee.

 

[Alsacs]

I can say I am objective. The BC loss if their was a scarlet letter that should be used against us. However, Georgia Tech loss wasn't as bad. The BC loss is a 10 out of 10 bad loss, the Georgia Tech loss without Grant was an 8 out of 10. 8 out of 10 losses can be forgiven by the committee if you have great wins, but 10 out of 10 bad losses aren't forgotten.

 

[jncuse]

Oh I don't think we deserve a 1 seed right now. Just pointing out you can't focus on a certain game or games when it comes to seeding teams, because the committee doesnt do that.

But the committee certainly does focus more on top 25 / top 50 wins and sub 100 losses. They don't focus on one game entirely, but their metrics are meant to highlight and give more importance to outlier games.

 

[shandeezy7]

Does having the same record mean anything at all in a different year, Ina different conference?

Does winning a different conference in a different year mean anything at all?

 

[jncuse]

I can say I am objective. The BC loss if their was a scarlet letter that should be used against us. However, Georgia Tech loss wasn't as bad. The BC loss is a 10 out of 10 bad loss, the Georgia Tech loss without Grant was an 8 out of 10. 8 out of 10 losses can be forgiven by the committee if you have great wins, but 10 out of 10 bad losses aren't forgotten.

I don't think the committee plays the what if injury game as much as we think it will sometimes do. Although that is purely speculation on my part.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Does winning a different conference in a different year mean anything at all?

Teams that win major conferences tend to be rewarded with number one seeds, so yes.

 

[Knicks411]

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.

Ha, thanks. I'm glad I did, I didn't really realize how thin that Duke resume was on top 100 wins.

The Kansas loss to TCU has been brought up; even though it was a road game I gotta say that's worse than either of our 2 losses. TCU is/was truly awful.

 

[rrlbees]

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

Our bad losses are worse than theirs. But way worse only applies to 1 game, BC. Still, ours are worse. But the flip side is that they had 3 more losses than us including 1 more in conference. I think 1 way worse loss is more than covered by them having 3 more.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Straight from the WCC Commish below on an article someone posted in another thread:

We look at individual teams on the team sheets. We recognized individual games. We know what conference teams are in, but we never think, 'Oh, are we going to put six or seven in from that conference and three from another?' That really never comes up."

He also thinks fans lean too hard on individual games -- seemingly big wins or big losses -- taking on huge meaning, particularly late in the season.

"This notion that any one win or loss is somehow definitive related to tournament selection is pretty overblown," he said

 

[Knicks411]

Our bad losses are worse than theirs. But way worse only applies to 1 game, BC. Still, ours are worse. But the flip side is that they had 3 more losses than us including 1 more in conference. I think 1 way worse loss is more than covered by them having 3 more.

Which would be where the quality of wins then comes into play, and I don't see it favoring Duke.