HIT: Beyond the seeding, the committee got the teams right, too. I spent an hour in the late afternoon deciphering Texas A&M and Wyoming, reluctantly settling on the Aggies on account of their late run. But Wyoming had a better season-long rsum and was more than deserving. I should have stuck to my gut and the original plan to drop A&M if Richmond stole a bid. Instead, it's another 67 out of 68 year for yours truly, and I honestly don't have another team to bump in favor of the Aggies (although Notre Dame cut it unexpectedly close).
Joe Lunardi on A&M
9,645 Views |
87 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by txag72
How anyone could look at Notre Dame and favor them over us is baffling.
who the hell did wyoming beat?Hungry Ojos said:
HIT: Beyond the seeding, the committee got the teams right, too. I spent an hour in the late afternoon deciphering Texas A&M and Wyoming, reluctantly settling on the Aggies on account of their late run. But Wyoming had a better season-long rsum and was more than deserving. I should have stuck to my gut and the original plan to drop A&M if Richmond stole a bid. Instead, it's another 67 out of 68 year for yours truly, and I honestly don't have another team to bump in favor of the Aggies (although Notre Dame cut it unexpectedly close).
lost to zone by 30
lost to stanford by 3
lost to boise state by 3 and 7
they beat fellow question marks colorado st and san diego state once each
seriously wtf else am i missing?
and dont even start on ND
Pretty sure Wyoming won all of their games at home. They have a significant home court advantage due to location and altitude.
Lunardi has no answers or explanations, just claims. Its obvious to me now that his brackets are put together mainly through committee leaks. He added A&M to his bracket only because the rest of the basketball world was doing that and he second guessed his source (and likely doesnt have perfect info from them, just general)
Apparently, wins in conference tournaments mean absolutely nothing. That's BS.
And to think, Lunardi thought more of us than the committee.
You can't defend Wyoming. It's unprofessional. They were 10-0 against Q4. They were 14-1 at home, at 7000 feet. They haven't beaten a single ranked team.
At the end of the day, ND wasn't very good, but 15-6 in the ACC will get you a bid. You just have to accept that.
Other than the AQ's, I'm at a loss to see how any tournament mattered...at all...a single bit. Can anybody point me to any conference tournament that affected anything for a non-AQ?
Finally, I know the committee and the media are dominated by liberal arts majors who probably haven't had a math course since middle school, but still, even a tiny functioning knowledge of math would seem to still be lurking. Yet, not one person - anywhere - seems to understand the concept of a denominator. They talk about the strength this year of the SEC, but 6/14 (43%) isn't that great compared to the Big 12 (6/10, 60%) or the Big 10 (9/14, 64%).
At the end of the day, ND wasn't very good, but 15-6 in the ACC will get you a bid. You just have to accept that.
Other than the AQ's, I'm at a loss to see how any tournament mattered...at all...a single bit. Can anybody point me to any conference tournament that affected anything for a non-AQ?
Finally, I know the committee and the media are dominated by liberal arts majors who probably haven't had a math course since middle school, but still, even a tiny functioning knowledge of math would seem to still be lurking. Yet, not one person - anywhere - seems to understand the concept of a denominator. They talk about the strength this year of the SEC, but 6/14 (43%) isn't that great compared to the Big 12 (6/10, 60%) or the Big 10 (9/14, 64%).
It's all politics. Politics run the world. Satanic bs.
I have a different "B" word in mind24601 said:
How anyone could look at Notre Dame and favor them over us is baffling.
Hungry Ojos said:
HIT: Beyond the seeding, the committee got the teams right, too. I spent an hour in the late afternoon deciphering Texas A&M and Wyoming, reluctantly settling on the Aggies on account of their late run. But Wyoming had a better season-long rsum and was more than deserving. I should have stuck to my gut and the original plan to drop A&M if Richmond stole a bid. Instead, it's another 67 out of 68 year for yours truly, and I honestly don't have another team to bump in favor of the Aggies (although Notre Dame cut it unexpectedly close).
This right here is 100% evidence that the conference tournaments mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. After Sunday, A&M had a better resume than Wyoming - same amount of Q1 wins, no Q2 losses, WAY more Q1 games, much higher NET, much higher KenPom rating. We are better than Wyoming in EVERY SINGLE WAY.
But that is after the conference tournament.
Do that same comparison after the end of the regular season and he is right - Wyoming had the better resume. Basically, most of the teams that we are pissed off about had a better resume than us before the conference tournament, and thats why they got in and we didnt.
Its utter bull***.
Hungry Ojos said:
HIT: Beyond the seeding, the committee got the teams right, too. I spent an hour in the late afternoon deciphering Texas A&M and Wyoming, reluctantly settling on the Aggies on account of their late run.
The word "reluctantly" really stands out here.
Why would any independent analyst doing something as non-essential as predicting brackets do anything "reluctantly"? Predict and make a case for your prediction, but why do anything reluctantly?
because much like tu, they are a media darling who always gets the benefit of the doubt, no matter the sport. We beat them in every conceivable metric but we had to jump through a few more hoops, pass go and collect $200, and hope for the best. ND just needs to be mediocre and they're in.24601 said:
How anyone could look at Notre Dame and favor them over us is baffling.
Because he knew in his heart that the committee didn't pay attention to what happens in conference tournaments, but we were getting so much public love and had just beaten Arky by 20 points that he wanted to pander to that.
Thats exactly what happened. Once the regular season ended, the only shot we had was to win the conference tournament, plain and simple. We were not in the group of "bubble teams" that the committee was looking at during that period, so we had no shot. They weren't going to consider us, plain and simple.
Thats exactly what happened. Once the regular season ended, the only shot we had was to win the conference tournament, plain and simple. We were not in the group of "bubble teams" that the committee was looking at during that period, so we had no shot. They weren't going to consider us, plain and simple.
only team I can think of is Indiana.
i believe they were on the outside looking in when the week began but moved up based on their tourney run. and guess what conference they play in?
come to think of it, OU did too. they didnt make the tourney but jumped from off the radar to second team out.
i believe they were on the outside looking in when the week began but moved up based on their tourney run. and guess what conference they play in?
come to think of it, OU did too. they didnt make the tourney but jumped from off the radar to second team out.
His interview with Reese Davis was interesting in regards to Tennessee being a 3. He could not give an answer as to why he had Tennessee as a 3 and agreed with the committee's decision other than looking at his "secret sauce." I interpret that as he either did have someone inside feeding him info or he was well aware that conference tournaments were not being considered.JJxvi said:
Lunardi has no answers or explanations, just claims. Its obvious to me now that his brackets are put together mainly through committee leaks. He added A&M to his bracket only because the rest of the basketball world was doing that and he second guessed his source (and likely doesnt have perfect info from them, just general)
I'm one who has not in the past believed the committee leaks info to him or these other guys, but how safe he had ND/Rutgers, how skeptical he was of us and his oddly high opinion of Dayton compared to literally hundreds of other bracketologists comes across as very interesting.
ill say this about Lunardi, he could be the worlds greatest con artist. gets paid to "predict" while all his "predictions" could be based on leaked info. so he really could be getting paid for nothing other than writing down what he is told lol
I dunno. Maybe the same reason Fran Fraschilla goes on the radio 5 minutes before the selection show and says "UNFORTUNATELY I think A&M makes it in based on recency bias". Which we now realize is total BS bc conference tournaments are not even considered…….but what exactly is "unfortunate" about us potentially making it in?Gap said:Hungry Ojos said:
HIT: Beyond the seeding, the committee got the teams right, too. I spent an hour in the late afternoon deciphering Texas A&M and Wyoming, reluctantly settling on the Aggies on account of their late run.
The word "reluctantly" really stands out here.
Why would any independent analyst doing something as non-essential as predicting brackets do anything "reluctantly"? Predict and make a case for your prediction, but why do anything reluctantly?
Committee viewed us as too streaky and not consistent enough. Didn't realize that we were broken during the 8 game losing streak and permanently fixed thereafter. All of our metrics pointed to us being in a play-in game at least. It's BS. Wyoming gets points for being more consistent season long with a much easier schedule and having better optics appearing on SportsCenter with SVP constantly & the Maldonado/Ike kids being viewed as a star pairing.
Overall we should've been in but they wrote us off earlier in the season and determined we had to win the SEC tourney to get in. They screwed up with evaluating the team we had become and erroneously assumed we were just streaky and would probably flame out again after the SEC tourney run. Again, they didn't realize we had evolved into a different team. Our case was a bit odd in terms of the transformation we underwent- most teams with a losing streak like that could never even get close to building an at large case.
Overall we should've been in but they wrote us off earlier in the season and determined we had to win the SEC tourney to get in. They screwed up with evaluating the team we had become and erroneously assumed we were just streaky and would probably flame out again after the SEC tourney run. Again, they didn't realize we had evolved into a different team. Our case was a bit odd in terms of the transformation we underwent- most teams with a losing streak like that could never even get close to building an at large case.
I like Fran, but is he all about the Big 12. He must be mad at us for leaving.dixichkn said:
I dunno. Maybe the same reason Fran Fraschilla goes on the radio 5 minutes before the selection show and says "UNFORTUNATELY I think A&M makes it in based on recency bias". Which we now realize is total BS bc conference tournaments are not even considered…….but what exactly is "unfortunate" about us potentially making it in?
Also I am baffled at Miami. They have the resume of an NIT team. Mediocre metrics and not a single good non-con win. Not one. They lost to Dayton by 16 and Alabama by 32! I keep looking at their schedule and wondering what I'm missing. Their only really good win is at Duke. That's it. It's an NIT resume and they're not even last 4 in for a play-in game? It makes absolutely no sense. And everyone is acting like they were a lock... Why? 14-6 in ACC? I get reluctantly including Notre Dame because they finished 2nd in the league but Miami was 3rd. That shouldn't have made them an auto lock for the tourney when the ACC was so down this year. They're going to get smoked by USC on Friday I'd bet.
had a second and decided to go look up San Francisco.... and shocker, another wtf!
key wins:
davidson at home by 5
uab neutral by 2
at arizona state by 1
losses
Saint Mary's x2
Gonzaga x3
loyola chicago
portland
byu
grand canyon
key wins:
davidson at home by 5
uab neutral by 2
at arizona state by 1
losses
Saint Mary's x2
Gonzaga x3
loyola chicago
portland
byu
grand canyon
San Francisco was Top 25 in the NET and KenPom, which is really good. Thats why they got in.
I can't tell you how either of those rankings work, but they are used by the tournament, especially the NET.
I can't tell you how either of those rankings work, but they are used by the tournament, especially the NET.
San Fran was always getting in. Their computer #s are very very good and they pass the eye test if you watch them play. Only two teams with resumes similar to theirs have ever been left out.
I'm more mad they they're matched up against another mid-major power in Murray St. Both teams deserved a shot at power conference teams.
I'm more mad they they're matched up against another mid-major power in Murray St. Both teams deserved a shot at power conference teams.
I get their net and ken Pom are high but why? What in their schedule actually says they are good. We are getting railed bc our non con was weak but why are they not?
this year, it could change next year if that is the reasoning they need to justify their selectionsWabs said:
Apparently, wins in conference tournaments mean absolutely nothing. That's BS.
It depends on how the Big 10 resume's look.
The NET matters arbitrarily.
Seems like everything this year was based of analytics, you put in a 9-9 LSU & Alabama who get bounced first two games of the SEC tournament over a 9-9 Aggies who went to the chip. If they are going to stop taking into considerations it ruins the magic of March.
*consideration tournament runs, it ruins the magicWdeans12 said:
Seems like everything this year was based of analytics, you put in a 9-9 LSU & Alabama who get bounced first two games of the SEC tournament over a 9-9 Aggies who went to the chip. If they are going to stop taking into considerations it ruins the magic of March.
Actually, I would say analytics were largely discarded. Look at Rutgers and Miami, which were viewed as "safe".Wdeans12 said:
Seems like everything this year was based of analytics, you put in a 9-9 LSU & Alabama who get bounced first two games of the SEC tournament over a 9-9 Aggies who went to the chip. If they are going to stop taking into considerations it ruins the magic of March.
That's the thing here. If you choose any one specific metric, the Ags get in. Doesn't matter which one. That's the part that's infuriating.
About the only metric that we don't get in on is we aren't in the Big 10 or ACC.
I've lost all respect for this tournament selection process to ignore a team that won 8 of it's last 10 in the SEC and beat a 2, 4 and 6 seeded team in that stretch is ludicrous. The tournament committee now reeks of stupid politics with a complete lack of effort to research the teams on the bubble.
I still think a LOT of this is the basketball establishment not wanting the SE to become a dominant force in basketball too
Limiting the SEC to 6 bids was a foregone conclusion unless we forced our way in with a AQ so the northern/coastal establishment schools could maintain the majority share of bids
Limiting the SEC to 6 bids was a foregone conclusion unless we forced our way in with a AQ so the northern/coastal establishment schools could maintain the majority share of bids
This is what is so so maddening. They claim to use the metrics when it works for their argument, but clearly didn't use the metrics for teams like Rutgers, ND and Miami. There is no consistent argument to be made for leaving us out.jaxisback said:Actually, I would say analytics were largely discarded. Look at Rutgers and Miami, which were viewed as "safe".Wdeans12 said:
Seems like everything this year was based of analytics, you put in a 9-9 LSU & Alabama who get bounced first two games of the SEC tournament over a 9-9 Aggies who went to the chip. If they are going to stop taking into considerations it ruins the magic of March.
That's the thing here. If you choose any one specific metric, the Ags get in. Doesn't matter which one. That's the part that's infuriating.
About the only metric that we don't get in on is we aren't in the Big 10 or ACC.
The only explanation is they did not update their metrics after Monday. If you look at what the numbers were on Monday, you can justify leaving us out. If you look at the numbers on Saturday night, there is no reasonable explanation.
They used to physically go to meetings in Indianapolis on Wednesday and work face to face until it was over on Sunday. Do they still do that or did they meet last weekend on Zoom or some **** with everybody also spending time with their kids and doing their normal job with half their attention on basketball?
Featured Stories
See All
15:24
23h ago
6.3k
Storylines abound with Texas A&M basketball's 2025 SEC slate
by David Sandhop
5:51
23h ago
2.0k
AgCzar
A&M hasn't had a QB finish Top 25 in QBR since Kenny Hill
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
38
rca21978
In memory of Clarence Sasser - Aggie Medal of Honor winner
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
29
Swammy56
A&M hasn't had a QB finish Top 25 in QBR since Kenny Hill
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
24
GigEmJake17
A&M hasn't had a QB finish Top 25 in QBR since Kenny Hill
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
23