Joe Lunardi needs to study up

B

Bob in Houston

2,500+ Posts
Everyone on here that cares knows I am among those who like Joe Lunardi's bracketology. He works hard, has a reason for all his opinions, and, in the end, it's just his thoughts, and he knows that.

Last night on the college hoops wrapup show, Tom Brennan and Doug Gottlieb agreed that Texas deserved a No. 1 seed. Lunardi, on the set with them, moved out Kansas and moved up UNC.

OK, no big deal. As I say, everyone's got a right to his opinion.

But about a half-hour ago, I heard JL on ESPN radio. He had Texas ranked fifth. He told the host (I'm summarizing), 'Everyone knows I'm not a big fan of the polls, but Texas was 11th last week. They should move up to 8th or 9th. That's a reach for the committee to make them a No. 1 seed.'

Joe, dude, that was last week's poll. They're seventh now, with a bullet.

If they win tomorrow, there is no reason to hold back. If they win the B12 outright, they're a legitimate No. 1, even if they lose in the tournament (although it would depend on how others did, too).

I have to say, at this point I'm a little tired of people talking about their good wins as a preface for a "....but...."
 
RPI = 5
SOS = 3
9-1 in our last 10
9 wins vs. Top 50. Tennessee also has 9, but no one else has more than 6.

We're every bit deserving of a 1 seed (as of now).
 
I didn't realize Lunardi uses Dick Vitale's Power 16 poll as his frame of reference. He had UT 12th!

So Lunardi has both Duke and UNC as top seeds. Once again, it comes down to Joe picking what he thinks is the "best" team instead of the "most deserving". That's the criteria the committee will use. I hate it. In fairness, so does Lunardi. Plus the ACC is the top-rated RPI league. But how interesting that how a team looks and conference RPI have become more important than a team's own profile plus what it actually does on the court.

Duke:
RPI #4, SOS #8, NC SOS #74, 5 Top 50 wins, best win at UNC, second-best win Marquette in Hawaii, worst loss at Wake

Texas:
RPI #5, SOS #3, NC SOS #22, 9 Top 50 wins, best win at UCLA, second best win over overall top seed Tennessee neutral, worst loss at Missouri

UNC:
RPI #3, SOS #4, NC SOS #33, 6 Top 50 wins, best win at Clemson, second-best win vs. BYU neutral, worst loss home to Maryland

But if you at the actual data, there is no good argument for keeping UT below Duke or maybe even UNC. Unfortunately, the committee probably won't see it that way. Not yet anyway. But if that means a 2 seed in Houston, cool.
 
You could easily make a case for Texas as the overall #1 right now. Anyone who doesn't give them strong consideration for a #1 seed has no clue about college basketball.
 
Like I said on another thread, UNC and Duke play each other in the regular season again and, hypothetically, in the ACC Tourney. Unless they split AND we lose another game before the Big 12 Semis, it's almost a moot point.
 
I'd go as far as saying even if we lost tomorrow at KSU, we would still be more deserving of a 1 seed than KU or UNC.

Neither team has a win over a team currently in the AP Top 25. They don't even deserve consideration right now as far as i'm concerned. Tennessee, Memphis, Duke(they have some quality wins), Texas and UCLA are teams I feel should be in consideration for the 1 seeds.

You can't reward teams who don't get quality wins.
 
this thread made me spend 15 minutes signing up for that ESPN "conversation"...just to regurgitate this thread underneath his "bracketology"

I hope he sleeps well tonight.
 
Not everyone believes Texas *looks like* an elite team - it's as simple as that. There's Lunardi. There's also Seth Davis, who on Fox Sports Radio today listed teams he had as title contenders - Tennessee, Duke, UCLA, Memphis. I just read a Fox Sports online article that mentioned that Memphis is still among the nation's elite despite their loss last night and then mentioned Tennessee, Duke, UNC and UCLA as the other major teams in the hunt for elite status.

Why the trouble getting into the national spotlight? I'd guess three things. One, UT hasn't been ranked in the top five lately, and too many of these college basketball pundits really aren't experts and don't pay close enough attention to everyone. Two, UT doesn't have near the tradition as UNC, Duke and UCLA have. And among Memphis, Tennessee and Texas, the Horns don't have the head coach with a national personal persona. Yes folks, ego goes a long way towards getting noticed. But I'll take Rick Barnes anyway.

In the end, all UT needs to do is keep winning. Keep winning and they can't be ignored, whether by bracketologists or ignorant mediatypes who among other things put Butler at #8 but barely have Louisville in the Top 20.
 
Biggest things hurting Texas is losing to Wisconsin and Missouri. At the end of the day, we have four losses, and the other teams have 1 to 2 losses.

However, if we continue to play defense like we are right now, I say bring it on. A #2 seed is still great. We would be playing a 15 instead of a 16, a 7 instead of an 8, a 3 instead of a 4 assuming the bracket plays to expectations (which it won't). Not really a big difference in each case.
 
I would think the biggest problem for Texas in claiming it deserves a #1 seed now is having suffered two *** kickings at the hands of teams that aren't currently positioned to make the tournament--Missouri and A&M. No other team in the discussion for a #1 seed has that against them. UCLA's losses to UW and USC (at home) are pretty bad, but the scores weren't as bad as Texas's losses, and USC is probably ahead of A&M for tournament consideration. Duke had two one point losses to tournament bubble teams (Pittsburgh and Miami) and one big loss (13 points) to Wake Forest, but they were within 6 with two minutes to go, couldn't hit the 3s down the stretch and Wake hit all its free throws.

Yes, there are reasons to say the Texas losses aren't indicative of how the team is playing now, but it isn't irrational to judge them on the whole season, which also included a home loss to a team without its leading scorer, and the only reason the MSU game was close was because Abrams hit 4 threes in 36 seconds at the end of the game.

I don't think it's fair for some of the posters here to complain that Lunardi doesn't seriously consider Texas for a #1 seed when he says he has them fifth overall. Nor is it irrational to have Texas as a #2 at present. I would have Texas as the fourth #1, alongside Tennessee, Memphis and UNC, but it isn't crazy to have them behind UCLA or even (alas) Duke, but things will shift around in the next three weeks.

I see Texas's biggest problem for getting the top seed in Houston being the fact that Tennessee beat Memphis in a close game. Those teams are now pretty much locked into 1 seeds. Memphis probably won't lose again, and Tennessee now has to drop two games to lose a 1 seed. That leaves Texas fighting UCLA, the two ACC schools and possibly Kansas for the last two 1 seeds. The only way I see Texas getting Houston as a 1 seed is for UCLA to pass both ACC schools. Otherwise, I would expect the top ACC school to get Charlotte, Tennessee and Memphis split Detroit and Houston, and Texas goes to Phoenix.

Here's to NC State and BC pulling upsets.

But before we forget what is the most important thing--

FOCUSNESS!
 
Good post, bierce. Keep in mind Duke was down big almost the whole time to Miami until the very end.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think the point of Bob's initial post was the shock of someone using old data to prove a current point. One man's opinion (Lunardi's) or not, I think it's not irrational for a fan to want the so-called experts to be solid in their reasoning. It's no big deal, and I don't think Bob was trying to make a huge deal out if anyway besides just stating something he was shocked to hear (much like my thread on Pat Forde). As for the *** kickings UT had earlier, this is impossible to answer but when should wins over UCLA, Tennessee and Kansas count more? And shouldn't Tennessee's *** kicking at the hands of Texas hurt them, especially with it being on a neutral court?

Anyway, I'm not trying to get into a long conversation that has no concrete final answer. We can all have our different opinions and hopefully some logic is used to reach those points. bierce, you have as much logic as anyone in your posts, which I enjoy reading. As I said in my last post, I was more surprised than anything to hear how Texas is being ignored in much of the conversation for a 1 seed, period. Not everyone is ignoring them, mind you, but many are. And I think that's because Rick Barnes doesn't have the national spotlight Bruce Pearl and John Calipari have. If Buzz Petersen was the coach of Tennessee and they were doing the same thing this season, I really don't think they'd get as much love. Pearl is a great coach, that's for sure, but the media loving his persona, which is much more outgoing (on camera) than Barnes, can make a small difference in the teams some of the media list as the top ones, IMO. It's strictly because due to exposure. If Bobby Knight didn't yell at refs or the media all the time, he wouldn't be as high-profile, either.

Hope I made a little bit of sense there. Not sure I did. I personally don't care if UT gets a 2 in Houston, but I'd much prefer a 1 seed there, and I think it's still possible though not likely with Tennessee winning Saturday and with an ACC team probably getting a top seed, too. As long as UCLA keeps winning so they get the top seed in Phoenix, that'd keep UT as the 2 in Houston, more than likely if Tennessee, Memphis and Duke or UNC keep doing well.
 
I agree with pretty much all you have to say there, KosherHorn. I only get irritated when people try to argue that there's no argument for Texas to be a #2 seed right now.

Lunardi has been downplaying the Horns for most of the year. I remember him posting the Power 16 comments right after Texas beat UCLA. He said basically that no one in the country thought Texas was better than UCLA, even though most of the guys voting on that list had Texas above UCLA.

Yeah, I saw Duke falling behind by 20 against Miami. I even commented on the oddity of a team going 6 1/2 minutes without scoring but managing to get 59 points in that half. Still, the point of my post is that while Texas has lofty peaks that match or better anyone else's, they have the uglier stretches, too.

Now, let's crush KSU. For once.

FOCUSNESS!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top