forums

ESPN - Lunardi

OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Maybe 10-12 seed, not 13-15. The actual seeding is irrelevant we were discussing whether in or not.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is relevant, because you thought there were several spots we could fall to. Now you know that the floor is #12. That left us with very little wiggle room. Ask the 2017 UM baseball team how bad a couple of upsets in obscure conferences can hurt you.
 
Advertisement
ALLoverCANE said:
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.
Click to expand...


I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. I just said that the parlance of last eight in is not used. I’m just looking at it from a possibility of inclusion. We’re in the four bracket of last 4 byes. There’s a cushion underneath of last four in. What I know the S-curve, that’s how they manage the matchups, best vs worst, and inward, in each geographic location etc..

Now had we lost to BC, I’m 100% convinced we’re still in the tourney. Whether that’s in the last four byes, or the last four in, is irrelevant. In is in.

During tournament time the talk is always of the last four in and last four out. Nobody ever talks about last eight in, last eight out. That’s where all the eyes are. Before selection on Sunday all the talk will be about last for in and last four out. At least for some, the rest is *****ing about seeding position. Assuming there are no surprises.

EDIT: also note that according to Lunardi’s own data we were 90+ percent in last week. I don’t see any possible way we were out if we lost to BC.
 
Last edited:
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. I just said that the parlance of last eight in is not used. I’m just looking at it from a possibility of inclusion. We’re in the four bracket of last 4 byes. There’s a cushion underneath of last four in. What I know the S-curve, that’s how they manage the matchups, best vs worst, and inward, in each geographic location etc..

Now had we lost to BC, I’m 100% convinced we’re still in the tourney. Whether that’s in the last four byes, or the last four in, is irrelevant. In is in.

During tournament time the talk is always of the last four in and last four out. Nobody ever talks about last eight in, last eight out. That’s where all the eyes are. Before selection on Sunday all the talk will be about last for in and last four out. At least for some, the rest is *****ing about seeding position. Assuming there are no surprises.

EDIT: also note that according to Lunardi’s own data we were 90+ percent in last week. I don’t see any possible way we were out if we lost to BC.
Click to expand...
Part of the reason we were 90% is that we were unlikely to take another bad L. That changed when Wake lost to BC, and become more of a possibility when the game came down to the last possession. I'd imagine when we were down 47-41 our tournament odds were more like 70%.

In any case, I hope you're right. There are still bid stealers out there but we should be OK.
 
ALLoverCANE said:
Part of the reason we were 90% is that we were unlikely to take another bad L. That changed when Wake lost to BC, and become more of a possibility when the game came down to the last possession. I'd imagine when we were down 47-41 our tournament odds were more like 70%.

In any case, I hope you're right. There are still bid stealers out there but we should be OK.
Click to expand...

We will never know, because after all it’s a hypothetical, but I’m 100% convinced that when we beat Syracuse, even though they’re not a great team, that punched our ticket. We wouldn’t have been most likely a 10 seed, but so what.
 
Advertisement
WanderFranco said:
"If we lost to Boston College, we may have been a 13 -15 seed, likely no lower."
Click to expand...

Numerical seeding wasn’t the basis of my argument. I should have said 10-12. In any event, my argument was in or out, and using being projected as the first of the four last byes as a basis for my argument.

That’s a red herring.
 
Advertisement
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Tell me what I’m wrong about hot shot. You're the king of bad takes. And it looks like you’re still hurt because I called you out on your IPF nonsense.
Click to expand...
Lmao you’ve been wrong numerous times in this thread. And you’re the one having a meltdown left and right “hot shot”.

The first post of this thread. They know nothing about brackets? Wake lost to BC and now might not make the tourney. Please tell me how the first poster knows nothing about brackets based on his post, mr 13-15.

And I don’t recall who disagreed with my ipf take. I don’t care.
 
jhtheking said:
Lmao you’ve been wrong numerous times in this thread. And you’re the one having a meltdown left and right “hot shot”.

The first post of this thread. They know nothing about brackets? Wake lost to BC and now might not make the tourney. Please tell me how the first poster knows nothing about brackets based on his post, mr 13-15.

And I don’t recall who disagreed with my ipf take. I don’t care.
Click to expand...

They didn’t. Because they were using our position at the top of last four byes as a basis for a weak position, when it actually isn’t. They were talking like last four byes was actually last four in.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
They didn’t. Because they were using our position at the top of last four byes as a basis for a weak position, when it actually isn’t. They were talking like last four byes was actually last four in.
Click to expand...
Lunardi is far from perfect. If Lunardi had us listed as last 4 bye's, the committee might actually view us as last 4 in. That's why OP was concerned.
 
Gables Canes said:
Lunardi is far from perfect. If Lunardi had us listed as last 4 bye's, the committee might actually view us as last 4 in. That's why OP was concerned.
Click to expand...

Yes of course he’s an outside guy guessing. But that’s most people’s perspective on the entirety of his career almost. You hear most about Lunardi except around this time. And the whole thread is based on him. So if you’re going to have a thread based on him, and on the premise that being the first of the four group of last four byes was tenuous, I have to use that as the basis for my argument.
 
Advertisement
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Numerical seeding wasn’t the basis of my argument. I should have said 10-12. In any event, my argument was in or out, and using being projected as the first of the four last byes as a basis for my argument.

That’s a red herring.
Click to expand...

Except that it showed that you don't know much about the NCAA Tournament despite lecturing people on not knowing how brackets work. At large teams are never in the bottom quartile of the tournament.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
They didn’t. Because they were using our position at the top of last four byes as a basis for a weak position, when it actually isn’t. They were talking like last four byes was actually last four in.
Click to expand...
A loss to BC would have had us lower than we are now. Wake lost and is supposedly one of the 3 teams who might not make it in. It is reasonable to think we might have been one of those teams if we had lost to BC, especially as others have said, Lunardi isn't perfect. I don't how you can reasonably say the first poster knows nothing about brackets given that info, unless you're you know, doubling down when you're wrong.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
They didn’t. Because they were using our position at the top of last four byes as a basis for a weak position, when it actually isn’t. They were talking like last four byes was actually last four in.
Click to expand...

Hold up....after all this you still don't know that being in the bottom 8 after a win means we were in a precarious position before the game?
 
Advertisement
We are in… the only question is whether winning today actually helps our seeding. It would suck to beat duke only to get rewarded with an 8 seed.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top