Lunardi impact
- Thread starter SpiderTrap
- Start date
With all these bubble teams having several games with 200+ NET teams, I think this looks pretty good when you consider only 1 of the 6 games is above 200. Also, we got a quad 1 game against a very average a 16-15 team, a neutral game which if you win looks better than a home win, and the only 200+ team is a road game, which if you win that it helps your road record. Then, you look at Vandy and Charleston. Both finished top 150 and kept us out of the quad 4, weak looking team range. And, both teams look way better to a committee than a bunch of irrelevant automatic win 200+ teams from bottom conferences. St. Francis went 21-9 and has an rpi of 109. How are you possibly supposed to know they would have a NET of 173 when scheduling them? But, even with that, a 21-9 NET 173 team is a heck of a lot better than some of these 250+ NET and even 300+ NET teams with losing records other bubble teams played.
You have been complaining all year about how our schedule will keep us out, yet here we are showing up in the dance and on 60 brackets in bracket matrix as we head into our conference tourney. I'll ask again. What is there to complain about?
Holy shit you don't get those many questions. You get 1 at a time. Calm down with the diarrhea questions. I've answered those plenty of times anyway.
Also I never said promotion, special treatment etc. was formally part of it. Agree u don't draw it up in a contract. What I've said is that is a side effect of hiring him. And why you can't hire him with an unknown side effect, but most likely a negative side effect.
Again this guy is bad mouthing our resume for something he helped create! and some are ok with this? LOL.
btw 7-6? I never considered 7-6. Stop being negative. We had ncaa expectations. It's most relevant because we are bubble.
SPOILER: Contrarian viewpoint follows—
Didn’t we already have obligations to Hampton, St Francis, and Radford prior to Lunardi? I’m pretty sure that those games were obligatory completions of home-and-home contracts inked before last season.
Vandy, Auburn, and Bama are the teams for which I had thought Lunardi responsible. Pretty good adds, IMO. We needed to beat two of them or not lose to Radford to now be a lock. Though that didn’t happen, I’d say that in adding them we enhanced our SOS considerably over 2019.
Many others on the board disagree that Lunardi did a good job, but I don’t recall seeing any facts posted to support the general notion that he did a bad job or that Hardt did a bad job by bringing him onboard, if in fact it was Hardt who brought him onboard. That we may now be in a position where we may not get in the tournament seems to me to be more of a situation related to our performance than scheduling.
That said, I believe we are going to make the tournament for which I am very excited, especially in view of how much the team has improved over last year, and particularly taking into account that at the start of the season I would have thought that the NIT was surely the best we could do.
Didn’t we already have obligations to Hampton, St Francis, and Radford prior to Lunardi? I’m pretty sure that those games were obligatory completions of home-and-home contracts inked before last season.
Vandy, Auburn, and Bama are the teams for which I had thought Lunardi responsible. Pretty good adds, IMO. We needed to beat two of them or not lose to Radford to now be a lock. Though that didn’t happen, I’d say that in adding them we enhanced our SOS considerably over 2019.
Many others on the board disagree that Lunardi did a good job, but I don’t recall seeing any facts posted to support the general notion that he did a bad job or that Hardt did a bad job by bringing him onboard, if in fact it was Hardt who brought him onboard. That we may now be in a position where we may not get in the tournament seems to me to be more of a situation related to our performance than scheduling.
That said, I believe we are going to make the tournament for which I am very excited, especially in view of how much the team has improved over last year, and particularly taking into account that at the start of the season I would have thought that the NIT was surely the best we could do.
He did not create our resume. That is ridiculous to say. Our resume is 31 games. He maybe helped schedule 6. Maybe. Because we really don't know who he helped get for us. Even just focusing on those 6 games, he didn't create the resume from those 6 games. How could he? Wins and losses create a resume. He did not play the games. He helped schedule them. Do you not see the difference? We went 4-2 in those 6 games. That is the resume. If we went 6-0 and he bad mouthed it, that would be different. But, you are getting on how weak the 6 games are, then we only go 4-2 against them, and you blame Lunardi for it? I just can't make this make sense. I am trying to see your point. I really am, but I can't see it.
GK,
You're just going to be hitting your head against a wall.
Why Lunardi? Our AD was in full crisis management mode - we had to make a PR move...to "do something."
I'm no Joe fan-boy, but I have to give him credit for basically creating a 7-figure job for himself.
Scheduling consultant? Is that even a thing, or did he invent that too?
You're just going to be hitting your head against a wall.
Why Lunardi? Our AD was in full crisis management mode - we had to make a PR move...to "do something."
I'm no Joe fan-boy, but I have to give him credit for basically creating a 7-figure job for himself.
Scheduling consultant? Is that even a thing, or did he invent that too?
Auburn was part of the tourney we were in and Lunardi had nothing to do with that. Radford was added late, so he could have helped with that one. Bama, Charleston, and Vandy seem possible because of when we added them. All good games IMO. Not sure about the others, and not sure why people say things like they are fact when we have no way of knowing.
Little i, welcome to the Sports section of the forum!
Lunardi had nothing to do with Auburn. Zip.
No, we did not have obligations to any of the three teams you listed prior to the Lunardi hire. Radford's a neutral game - not home or away. We may have a H&H with the other two now (I hope not) - which would pre-set our 2020-21 schedule with two bad games (though St. Francis might be Quad 3 away).
Bama was a good get. No doubt.
I actually wish this was last time but I know it won't be. The Lunardi thing is an epic fail on many levels. I think we deserve to get in for sure. The fact that we might not, the scheduling bs will be major reason why imo. Thin margins, we cant have our own AD making a mistake that could cost a deserving group like our players.
I realize just missing on NCAAs after you've missed for 8 straight years is not as big of a deal to you. It is to me and many others. I'm enjoying it but end result matters.
It's likely easier for guys like you who didn't have the belief that I did to say what's the big deal isn't this great, wow the little ol Spiders are doing so well maybe they even get in that would be neato. Easy to do that when you set low expectations. I was convinced we had a really good team and I was fearful this nonsense would cost us.
Go Spiders. NCAA or bust.
24-7 (14-4) A-10 should be a lock. Bottom line.
Only one way it couldn't be.
Only one way it couldn't be.
I think you’re making assumptions. Very few people had us as a realistic bubble prospect coming off two 20 loss seasons. So if you ask me, he wasn’t hired to put us in position for the tourney, he was probably hired to help us put together a winnable OOC that wasn’t a total pillow fest.
Just my opinion though.
First of all, if you want this to be the last time you respond, why can't it be? You don't have to respond if you don't want to. Secondly, I very much want to make the dance. More than you can imagine.
Thirdly, why are you saying I did not have the belief? "Guys like me"? Many on here got on me for being too optimistic for this year, saying no way could we have at least an 8 win improvement and be on the bubble. I said I expected us to be on the bubble and here we are. Also, when we lost a few games and many on here said the bubble had burst and our season was over, I never once agreed with that and kept saying we are very much still alive for a bid. So, please stop saying things about me that are wrong. Just like all your previous digging around to try to find out who I was while posting all these false things about me. Just stop doing that, okay?
I am with you GK, why should he bad mouth of resume when he primarily responsible for creating this position we are in. Thank goodness he is just one of the bracketologists to determine where we stand as an at-large team. I am not ok with this (him)!!!
Very possible. And, looking at who most of the home and homes might be with, it makes sense to get them home this year and away next year. A good OOC record was huge this year after the last 2 seasons. The last thing we wanted to do was schedule a bunch of tough road games. We needed confidence with our OOC schedule and got it.
But, I also think we were considering an at large, and I think that is why we kept a bunch of 200+ cupcakes off the schedule, which kept our OOC schedule number very respectable. I am hoping OOC numbers for teams like Texas Tech 187, UCLA 198, and Stanford 206 end up helping us and biting them because OOC SOS schedule is listed as part of the criteria and we hear it every year: "this team did not challenge themselves OOC".
False. Just my opinion though
. Good lord we don't drop minimum 10-20k large on a guy to try for NIT. Of course it was with NCAA in mind otherwise there is absolutely no point. True most outsiders and most on this board did not have realistic NCAA expectations but inside the program we did.
Not entirely sure about this.
Once their OOC SOS gets to about 275, the committee starts questioning it.
But yes, very different from our situation.
I still think Dayton's OOC breakdown is optimal 3x Quad 1,2,3 4 Quad 4...
Don't worry. He is not one of the 10 people on the committee. He has no say where we end up. I think the committee is a lot smarter than him and some of these others. I think we are a lot safer now than people think.
I stand with our team, I had never given up the belief that we could possibly make the dance. I am very proud of what our team has accomplished this year.
It specifically says non-conference strength-of-schedule on the list of things they look at.
U were more optimistic than the majority I give u that but you hedged quite a bit & you were not a full bore NCAA guy.
What false things have I posted about you? I believe people were banned that posted things about you. I read a few but it definitely was not me or I'm sure I would have been in trouble with admins too.
I did post some things about how you were exclusively on VA Tech board before you even found this board. Yeah I found that quite strange but there is nothing false about it.
Yes, it does.
And over the years what are the OOC SOS of P5 bubble teams that did and didn't get in?
OOC SOS seems to be on a sliding scale based on Total SOS, but many use P5 as shorthand for high Total SOS.
Well maybe not all, but to your point yes there is different barometer with non P6 teams in the ooc sos and we all know that, or should know it, because those P6 get pulled up way more by their conference games.
I was not 100% NCAA, because we really can't control that. I mean, we can by winning every game or winning their conference tourney, but I think before the season started I said we could win 23 games and still be on the bubble, so it is what it is. This doesn't mean I don't want to go to the dance as much as anyone.
I said we could be 27-7...
I did have a shadow of a doubt that we would be an at large with that record.
Now I am certain we won't be an at large with that record.
Last edited:
I think the committee is smarter too. I've said I think we're stronger than getting credit for. But you can't dismiss the chance they are not smarter. As I've mentioned these athletic admin types are not the brightest bulbs out there. Just look at Hardt. If he can stupidly hire a guy like Lunardi he could easily screw up tourney selections. Sure you'd always still take your own AD on committee, and we have A10 commish instead, but who knows on these other 9. Again if they're anything like Hardt I'm wary of their judgement. It's not like the committee hasn't made mistakes in past.
No question they have made mistakes. So, you are right. No guarantees at all. I would feel a lot better with a win Friday. And, then, even better with a win Saturday. And, then, why not win Sunday as well.
This isn't directly related to Lunardi, but it's pretty eye-opening seeing how big of an effect the unbalanced A-10 schedules have on overall SOS.
Our non-conference SOS ranking was 85 according to the NET, while VCU's was 144. But our overall SOS was also 85, while VCU's was 57.
That's what happens when VCU gets to double up with Dayton and Rhode Island while we're getting La Salle and GW.
Of course, you also need to win those tougher games.
Our non-conference SOS ranking was 85 according to the NET, while VCU's was 144. But our overall SOS was also 85, while VCU's was 57.
That's what happens when VCU gets to double up with Dayton and Rhode Island while we're getting La Salle and GW.
Of course, you also need to win those tougher games.
VCU also played us twice, while we had to play them twice.This isn't directly related to Lunardi, but it's pretty eye-opening seeing how big of an effect the unbalanced A-10 schedules have on overall SOS.
Our non-conference SOS ranking was 85 according to the NET, while VCU's was 144. But our overall SOS was also 85, while VCU's was 57.
That's what happens when VCU gets to double up with Dayton and Rhode Island while we're getting La Salle and GW.
Of course, you also need to win those tougher games.
You're right; I got a little overzealous. That's why I used "(almost)" in my previous post.
VT's revisionist BS has reached epic proportions in this thread, so I got frustrated and posted too quickly. Sorry.
I think most P6 teams actually do schedule some challenging OOC games, but the fact that they have more leeway to buy some cupcakes is irrefutable.
Last edited:
This isn't directly related to Lunardi, but it's pretty eye-opening seeing how big of an effect the unbalanced A-10 schedules have on overall SOS.
Our non-conference SOS ranking was 85 according to the NET, while VCU's was 144. But our overall SOS was also 85, while VCU's was 57.
That's what happens when VCU gets to double up with Dayton and Rhode Island while we're getting La Salle and GW.
Of course, you also need to win those tougher games.
Yep, the double up with Dayton is huge from a SOS standpoint. And, 2 with us and 2 with URI is a big factor as well. What I don't like is when a team plays a bunch of terrible OOC games, but then they have a team like Kansas on there and it makes their OOC number look much better. Hopefully, the committee looks more into detail at stuff like that. They can look at a number, but they also need to break down that number.
I'm in tight with the athletic department? That was always a good one. There have been others. I think you know what you have said and done. Like I have always said when you kept on and on about the VT board, you have no clue why I would have been on that. There are numerous reasons why that could be possible, and I have no idea why this amazes you so much, but you seemed to be having a lot of fun playing detective. No worries. I'm over it. I like our debates. It's all good.
I do know what i've said you're right and it's nothing like you suggest. What specifically do u think I've said? Think you would have some examples. Yes I've brought up your strange VA Tech board history and I do think you parrot the UR athletic company line. Neither false I don't think anyone would dispute those.
What era of Richmond are you from, when did you graduate? Number of people on here know who I am, I've met them at games or we went to school at same time, etc.
Maybe we have a connection. Do you plan to go to A10 or NCAA if we make it? U like a debate and I respect that. I'll buy you a beer and we can talk our respective UR grad histories.
Last edited:
I actually think 2 games against Dayton wouldn't have helped us. Anyone think we could go TO Dayton and win there this year. Yeah, it would have helped our SOS, but it would have just added another loss to the resume.
Whoever was responsible for the Radford game on a neutral court should bear the most responsibility. Yeah, we should have taken care of business and won that game, but why in hell are you scheduling a Big South team on a neutral court in the first place.
Whoever was responsible for the Radford game on a neutral court should bear the most responsibility. Yeah, we should have taken care of business and won that game, but why in hell are you scheduling a Big South team on a neutral court in the first place.
Yes very important to analyze it against what was set, that's a big part of it.
Lunardi game. It was also designed as a Xmas getaway game that for some reason we talked about publicly giving Radford extra motivation.
GK, love you bro, but I think you may have been the only one who was a true believer on our NCAA at chances entering this year, other than CM who kind of backtracked his comment after making it. And if we're being honest, I think some of us saw through the thin veneer of self-determination you had in taking that position.False. Just my opinion though
True most outsiders and most on this board did not have realistic NCAA expectations but inside the program we did.
Again, I don't like the decision to get Lunardi on here. But as you've noted yourself, bringing in Poo-nardi was at least in part a PR stunt to deflect attention from last year's stinkfest. Way more the reason than because we were trying to perfectly schedule to make an at-large run.
At any rate, you're getting apoplectic like Moondog on the sideline. Take off your tie, put on brown shoes, and drink the world's tiniest cup of water to re-center yourself.
Similar threads
