Lunardi impact
- Thread starter SpiderTrap
- Start date
Comparing Buck to Woj wouldn’t a more relevant discussion be between starting Woj vs Sherod
designed may carry the wrong implication. But there will naturally be more Q1 & Q2 teams in the P6 conferences giving more chances At least with the RPI the committee said they didn't punish the smaller conferences for their conference partners.
Joey buckets had what I thought was a good idea, that you have to have at least a .500 record in conference to receive an at large bid. Would eliminate some of the middling P6 programs and give more successful mid majors a shot. His quote “all those P6 teams have done is to show us how they can lose”.
I've always thought 500 or above in conference, or win your automatic to get an at-large, or invite. Not a high standard for a team to be considered one of the top 20% and get an NCAA bid.
I will say it seems more difficult to have a good NET with a bad Kenpom. Whereas it was easier to have a good RPI with a bad Kenpom.
The schedule squeeze the big boys are putting on the non-power 6 "bubble-ish" teams has way more to do with it than any ranking system.
The NCAA makes teams be .500 or better to be bowl eligible in football, with uneven schedules and conferences.
And I think the unevenness of conferences is fine, as the stronger conferences also have more chances to have good wins that will let a .500 conference record make the tourney. It’s not like a .500 conference record in the A10 is ever getting someone into the tourney.
He said .500 or better IC was a pretty high standard for Mooney, but 9 of the last 12 years we have been .500 or better IC. So, correct, you are not seeing the facts I am seeing.
I'm seeing a mediocre coach with a record to match it....that what the facts show. Rooting for him and the team, but he should have been gone by now if UR was truly serious about the program.
Lunardi has advocated for that tho not his original idea been put forth before by others. But I do agree w him. Normally I wouldn’t for some reasons stated & bc it used to be a rarity but now becoming much more commonplace. U could absolutely kill it OOC and if u were a game under IC & not make it u would have great argument. But that is the rare exception.
Why no longer rarity? Bc of going to the large league schedules. Minimizing the OOC influence. Rigging the system for the big conferences. Total bs. Prior to last 4-5 years and especially last couple it was rare. Go to pre 2010 & it happened like once maybe every couple years. In last 2 years I think there were 4 teams each year w losing IC records. Joke.
And guess what these teams don’t perform well in the dance. A rarity to win a few games. So picking them it is biggest issue. If the committee had integrity I’d say leave alone but sometimes u have to force things when integrity is lacking. The only sub .500 conf records come from the power conferences. Everything slanted to them so yeah I’d get behind that rule bc we r going to continue to see many of these mediocre power teams make it over worthy mid majors if there is no rule.
That's fine, but I was responding to the poster saying a .500 or better record in conference was a high standard for Mooney. Not saying .500 is great, but just pointing out that's not a high standard for him when he has done this 9 of the last 12 years. For you to reply like you did shows how quick people on here are to criticize, even when the subject does not warrant any criticism.
I was not replying to a competing for championships comment. You know this. The previous poster knows this. Why start this? Why is there a problem when I replied to a poster who inaccurately stated a .500 or better record in conference is a pretty high standard for Mooney?
Clearly there are some on here that constantly post anti-Mooney, most have understood and read their posts in that manner; but why do you challenge almost any post as anti-Mooney? Personally I think you do more to amp up the negativity than to challenge the unfounded negative posts.
Actually, 6 A-10 teams have only played one conference game, and they will only get one one week break during the season.
Seriously, we have no control over when our bye weeks are. I would argue that a bye week this early is actually not optimal considering we've just gotten through the holiday season and only have been playing one game a week for several weeks.
But again, we don't control that the league does.
Our first bye is 1/8. How many A-10 teams will not have had a bye by 1/16? Maybe 2?
Actually haven't those 6 already had a bye?
Or do I have that backwards?
Another way to look at it, which teams won't have played exactly 4 A-10 games by 1/16?
Philosophically speaking a team must compete for championships before it can win championships. Another closet Mooney truther? The future is bright.
Some leagues, like the SEC do not even give their teams a week off. If there is a layoff of more than 3 days they call it a break in the schedule.
Oh I'm very philosophical about the situation. I've come to accept the constant failures, without anger.
Competing for Championships...well that's more fantastical.
You'd be surprised how low I've set the bar, and Mooney still can't get over it.
Programatically. Not philosophically. Jabba the Hardt has requested we only use Programatically.
It's out. Only 4 days after the last one. Joey such a busy bee.
Where are the Spiders? Not even in his top 8 OUT. 4 days ago VCU was the 8th team out. Now they are the 2nd to last team with a bye, 5 teams below them. They moved up 13 spots with a win over the Goo Moos!
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/191
Unfortunately for some reason only known to Joey and ESPN his brackets don't keep history of who was listed as last 4 byes, last 4 in, first 4 out, next 4 out. So if you look up any old bracket it will list the exact same teams, the teams from his most current bracket. Granted ESPN is the worst with stats so not surprised but I mean wtf why not update those?? I think b/c it's easy to spot on the website and he doesn't want to look dumb on old updates.
Lunardi the guy with ethics we're told right. I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him. Which is quite far as a wizard of oz munchkin.
Palm has us as 11 seed and Lunardi on our f'ing payroll not even in his first 8 out. & Big hat no cattle Hardt shared a very nice red meat meal with him on Tuesday too. This was no vegan low carb light lunch. They had a real Nooner! Their own philly special.
I guess our Radford loss is holding us down. Without that, our resume certainly is better than VCU's. I'm not really sure why they would be a 10-seed at this point anyway, considering that they only have one good win all year.
Interesting Comparison
Team/Lunardi/Palm
UVA/7 seed/ 11 seed
Texas /Not first 8 out/11 seed
VCU/10 seed/ 11 seed
UR/Not first 8 out/ 11 seed
NCSU/11 seed/11 seed
BYU/9 seed/first 4 out
SMC/9 seed/first 4 out
Similar threads
