ESPN - Lunardi

[Hale Fieldhouse]

The NET is useful but it should be used in tandem with the RPI.

One is strictly results-based (RPI) and one is more performance-based (NET).

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

"Last 4 byes" isn't a ringing endorsement. That's why it's a category. Everyone in the thread seems to understand it just fine.

Exactly!

In the words of this thread's antagonist: "I mean it's all right there!"

Exactly it’s all right there.

Last 4 byes means there’s another category underneath which is last. It doesn’t have to be a ringing endorsement, it means comfortably in. How can you not understand that?

It means you’re in and you get a bye. If we were theoretically bracketed in the last four in, before we played BC then I would have been worried.

Once we became a 22 win team when beat a desperate-at-home Syracuse in our last game, in a double Boeheim senior night, and adding the fact that we were already in the ACC quarterfinals automatically, we were already in the NCAA tourney. You were inventing a concern where thete didn’t need to be one.

If we lost to Boston College, we may have been a 13 -15 seed, likely no lower. Don’t be dense. We were in before we played Boston College.

 

[NC_Canes_11]

The NET ranking, by itself, is garbage. Any metric that factors in “luck” is flawed. How you win doesn’t matter, it’s that you win.

Is eye test a factor in basketball? Bc there’s a handful of teams around us in the seedings that don’t seem to have a resume that compares. But I wouldn’t bet on Miami beating them head to head either. Our resume is good enough for a 9 seed IMO. But this team isnt as good as the results they’ve gotten would indicate.

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

The NET ranking, by itself, is garbage. Any metric that factors in “luck” is flawed. How you win doesn’t matter, it’s that you win.

Is eye test a factor in basketball? Bc there’s a handful of teams around us in the seedings that don’t seem to have a resume that compares. But I wouldn’t bet on Miami beating them head to head either. Our resume is good enough for a 9 seed IMO. But this team isnt as good as the results they’ve gotten would indicate.

Because the talent just isn’t there. I love the players we have, and I love their effort. I don’t always love the errors obviously. But this looked like a 15 loss team, at best, before the season started. Right around a 500 team. Best case scenario: an NIT bid. I had no idea how they would even get up to the middle of the ACC pack, even in a supposedly weaker ACC this year.

They have absolutely overperformed. How often have we seen that in Miami sports?

 

[NC_Canes_11]

Because the talent just isn’t there. I love the players we have, and I love their effort. I don’t always love the errors obviously. But this looked like a 15 loss team, at best, before the season started. Right around a 500 team. Best case scenario: an NIT bid. I had no idea how they would even get up to the middle of the ACC pack, even in a supposedly weaker ACC this year.

They have absolutely overperformed. How often have we seen that in Miami sports?

I agree on that completely. That’s why I’m asking if eye test is involved in tourney selection and seeding. We have the resume of a team that should have no doubts about being in. But I’m of the opinion that the team isn’t good enough for that either.

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

I agree on that completely. That’s why I’m asking if eye test is involved in tourney selection and seeding. We have the resume of a team that should have no doubts about being in. But I’m of the opinion that the team isn’t good enough for that either.

Yeah but the eye test should also include the games we won. This team although not as talented as any of us would like, over achieves. And, most importantly, they play like demons on the road.

I think the eye test favors us of in the sense of - Miami deserves it. But it doesn’t matter we were in anyway after we beat Syracuse, right now the only question now is seeding. Obviously beating Duke will help with that but my worst case scenario I think is a 10seed if we lose to Duke.

 

[ALLoverCANE]

You should never double down when you’re wrong.

Miami is not even in the last four in. They’re in the group above that according to the premise of Lunardi’s bracketology. So your numbers are all wrong.

They literally don’t have to win any other games to get in there at worst as a ten seed. It would be a 10,000 shot to one or greater for them not to make it in. It would have to be some kind of weird combination of circumstances. They have a 99.9999% chance of being at 10 seed, or worst case scenario is they’re a lower than 10. Like a 12. So what?

What the **** are you talking about? Are you just terrible at math? If "last 4 in" means you are one of the last 4 teams in the field, "last 4 byes" means you are one of the last 8 teams in the field. How do you not see this? What part of this is disputable?

Where some level of concern might come in is that...and you might want to take a seat for this one...Lunardi is not the NCAA tournament committee. Shocking, I know. He makes incorrect calls every year, especially regarding the order of teams. Although he has us as the 8th team in right now, it's possible he is wrong and the committee would have us as, say, the 5th team in. (A larger error than that is highly unlikely.)

But also, that's the situation today. There are teams currently behind us or not in the field at all that could still make noise, and we know there will be bid stealers. It's not inconceivable to think we will drop another 2-3 spots if we don't win today, as other teams currently seeded behind us keep winning.

The good news is that even in that scenario, we'd still be in. The only way we get left out at this point is if there are an outrageous amount of stolen bids. The odds of that are very low.

Had we lost to BC though...it'd be a different story. We'd have dropped a couple of spots from where we are today. Maybe we'd be among the last 3-6 teams in. Again, we'd still have a decent chance on Selection Sunday, but we'd be more exposed to a run of stolen bids.

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

What the **** are you talking about? Are you just terrible at math? If "last 4 in" means you are one of the last 4 teams in the field, "last 4 byes" means you are one of the last 8 teams in the field. How do you not see this? What part of this is disputable?

Where some level of concern might come in is that...and you might want to take a seat for this one...Lunardi is not the NCAA tournament committee. Shocking, I know. He makes incorrect calls every year, especially regarding the order of teams. Although he has us as the 8th team in right now, it's possible he is wrong and the committee would have us as, say, the 5th team in. (A larger error than that is highly unlikely.)

But also, that's the situation today. There are teams currently behind us or not in the field at all that could still make noise, and we know there will be bid stealers. It's not inconceivable to think we will drop another 2-3 spots if we don't win today, as other teams currently seeded behind us keep winning.

The good news is that even in that scenario, we'd still be in. The only way we get left out at this point is if there are an outrageous amount of stolen bids. The odds of that are very low.

Had we lost to BC though...it'd be a different story. We'd have dropped a couple of spots from where we are today. Maybe we'd be among the last 3-6 teams in. Again, we'd still have a decent chance on Selection Sunday, but we'd be more exposed to a run of stolen bids.

Nobody ever uses the parlance of last eight in. LOL. You’re making shlt up now. We were 100% in even if we lost to BC. But OK, I’ll give you that we were 99.9999% in even if we lost to BC. You happy now?

So…NO! It’s called last FOUR byes, per the subject of this thread,

I’ve never seen anybody get so twisted up in a pretzel to argue a point that they’re wrong about.

The whole basis of this thread was the Lunardi Bracketology, was it not? It’s in the fūcking title.

I mean I’ve never seen anybody want to die on a hill so badly, so go ahead and die on it. I’ll send flowers.

 

[WanderFranco]

Exactly it’s all right there.

Last 4 byes means there’s another category underneath which is last. It doesn’t have to be a ringing endorsement, it means comfortably in. How can you not understand that?

If it meant that those teams are comfortably in, they wouldn't have a specific listing of the last four byes. The fact that bracketologists point out the last four byes should be a hint that it means something.

If we lost to Boston College, we may have been a 13 -15 seed, likely no lower. Don’t be dense. We were in before we played Boston College.

Talk about not understanding brackets. At-large selections don't get seeded 13-15. Ever. Those are only automatic qualifiers. That's a really big mistake for someone who claimed that no one in the thread understands how brackets work.

 

[WanderFranco]

Nobody ever uses the parlance of last eight in.

Right. They use last four in and last four byes. It doesn't take too much effort to figure out that 4+4=8.

 

[WanderFranco]

Everyone posting in this thread so far doesn’t even understand the brackets.

If we lost to Boston College, we may have been a 13 -15 seed, likely no lower.

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

If it meant that those teams are comfortably in, they wouldn't have a specific listing of the last four byes. The fact that bracketologists point out the last four byes should be a hint that it means something.

Talk about not understanding brackets. At-large selections don't get seeded 13-15. Ever. Those are only automatic qualifiers. That's a really big mistake for someone who claimed that no one in the thread understands how brackets work.

There are 36 at large bids. Assuming Miami doesn’t win the ACC, which it likely won’t. Tell me where they land if they had lost to BC? Tell me where they would have been seeded.

 

[Hale Fieldhouse]

If we fell to the last 4 in then we'd be a #12 seed in First Four play-in games.

That's the lowest seed an at-large can be.

 

[WanderFranco]

There are 36 at large bids. Assuming Miami doesn’t win the ACC, which it likely won’t. Tell me where they land if they had lost to BC? Tell me where they would have been seeded.

A 12-seed at the absolute worst, and even that rarely happens. Usually, the lowest at-large seeds fall in at #11. So the answer to your question is easy. If we're a #10 after beating BC, we would have been an 11, 12, or completely out with a loss.

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

A 12-seed at the absolute worst, and even that rarely happens. Usually, the lowest at-large seeds fall in at #11. So the answer to your question is easy. If we're a #10 after beating BC, we would have been an 11, 12, or completely out with a loss.

So just as stated, last 4 byes, with the last four in, underneath, and maybe we stay in the last 4 byes, or move to the last four in, as worst case scenario if we had lost to BC. No chance we were out - I’d like to see a scenario where that would happen. Maybe 10-12 seed, not 13-15. The actual seeding is irrelevant we were discussing whether in or not.

 

[hotshot]

We've played, I think I heard, 22 games with the final result in single digits. That a negative? If you win most of them, why? And, by the same token, our FSU and VT loss shouldn't have hurt us much.

 

[ALLoverCANE]

Nobody ever uses the parlance of last eight in. LOL. You’re making shlt up now. We were 100% in even if we lost to BC. But OK, I’ll give you that we were 99.9999% in even if we lost to BC. You happy now?

So…NO! It’s called last FOUR byes, per the subject of this thread,

I’ve never seen anybody get so twisted up in a pretzel to argue a point that they’re wrong about.

The whole basis of this thread was the Lunardi Bracketology, was it not? It’s in the fūcking title.

I mean I’ve never seen anybody want to die on a hill so badly, so go ahead and die on it. I’ll send flowers.

Hold on...you can't even do the math that last 4 in + last 4 byes = last 8 in? LOL

That's how the bracket math works. Check out this graphic he posted last week: . He posted similar graphics like that throughout the course of the season. I bet he posts one more before the selection show.

The committee ranks all of the teams. It's called the S-curve. As results become final, teams will move up and down. So as of now, he thinks we are the 8th team in. My guess is he would have us ranked around 40 today, given his recent bracketology. That's not set in stone. We could drop a few spots (or rise, with a win tonight).

I think after yesterday's win, we have enough of a buffer between where we are now and the cut line to be safely in, although stranger things have happened.

If you don't understand the basic concept of the committee ranking teams in order...I'm wondering what you think the alternative is? lol. Like do you think they look at each team's resume in a vacuum and conclude, "this is an 8 seed!" or "this is a 10 seed!" or "this team is out!"? If they did that, they'd up with like 7 8-seeds and 2 10-seeds, etc. It's an ordered ranking, and you can move up and down. And all that matters is how far above the cut line you are.

 

[WanderFranco]

Maybe 10-12 seed, not 13-15. The actual seeding is irrelevant we were discussing whether in or not.

At least you learned something today.

 

[jmandel9]

The key bullet point in there is there are only 3 real at large spots up for grabs: Wake, Xavier and Indiana. Everybody else is safely in.

 

[ALLoverCANE]

We've played, I think I heard, 22 games with the final result in single digits. That a negative? If you win most of them, why? And, by the same token, our FSU and VT loss shouldn't have hurt us much.

There is a huge element of luck in close games. Margin of victory has been proven to be much more predictive of future W-L than current W-L. If you don't believe me, take it up with Vegas. (Actually, if you really don't believe me, what you should do is become a full-time sports gambler.)

In my opinion, none of this should be part of the tournament decision criteria. The metrics that penalize you for close wins are forward-looking, while invitations for the tournament should be based on past accomplishments. Otherwise the results of games pre-tournament are meaningless.