looked everywhere for this, hopefully it hasn't already been posted.

Lunardi thinks our weak out of conference schedule will hurt us come seeding time....

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=lunardi_joe&id=2322253

2/7/2006 6:25:59 PM

I still don't get this. Playing GW (#12) at home and absolutely smashing them, playing what WAS a #18 Alabama team in their house and winning against horrible refs, and and playing practically at Notre Dame and winning hasta count for something.

I mean I realize we "Durrrrd" up at Iowa and got handled by Seton Hall, but still...

I know we're not Gonzaga or somebody having an insane OOC schedule, but it's a bit rediculous. It's not like we've been consistently overranked *coughGeorgeWashingtoncough* or anything either.

2/7/2006 6:28:38 PM

yea i agree, we've definitely played some hard OOC games, its odd that our "large" handful of sissy games will hurt us like that

2/7/2006 6:30:27 PM

Iowa is #1 in the big 10 right now too.

2/7/2006 6:30:45 PM

it's the stetsons, UNC-A, app states, delewares, citadels that are hurting us.

I don't think the Setton Hall lose matters that much, since Setton Hall is now playing quality basketball.

2/7/2006 6:34:35 PM

seton

2/7/2006 6:37:38 PM

I don't care

2/7/2006 6:39:03 PM

We just need to take care of business from here on out and the ACC tourney and that will hush all of that.

2/7/2006 6:40:21 PM

^ Agreed. Out of conference ranking only matters on the margin.

2/7/2006 6:48:13 PM

I'm hoping for 4 or fewer losses in the ACC. Thats good enough for me.

2/7/2006 6:50:45 PM

seton hall will beat uconn and storm the court.

2/7/2006 6:57:12 PM

Quote :

"playing what WAS a #18 Alabama team in their house and winning against horrible refs,"

i guess pple outside tww still havnt noticed how refs have it out for ncstate

2/7/2006 7:33:06 PM

are you still talking?

2/7/2006 7:35:12 PM

Strong OOC schedules are for schools in weak conferences.

2/7/2006 7:38:13 PM

finish the regular season 2nd and dont choke it up in the tourny and everything will take care of itself...

2/7/2006 7:38:48 PM

the article is saying that regardless of our hard conference, we will be adversely affected by the 7 "weak" games we played.

just like pitt in 2004, they were 29-3, #6 in the nation, but got the lowest 3 seed. (they are the main example because they had TWELVE weak games, and obviously we aren't that lame with 7....)

If we manage to hold onto second in the ACC and do well in the conf tourney I don't see how we can't be a 3 seed. Anyone with an "expert" take on this?

2/7/2006 7:39:32 PM

then what about Carolina's OOC they beat a weak Kentucky and Arizona team, but I guess they are Carolina. Carolina played weak teams too.

2/7/2006 8:12:39 PM

Ive been saying this for years about our schedule.

Believe me, I understand what Herb is doing. He wants to schedule lightly and pile up wins because he knows a round fo 32 appearance every couple of years is enough to satisfy NC state fans.

But the way you do that is to schedule teams ranked ~150 who are easy wins and then take care of business.

We play WAY too many ~#250 type teams and that kills our RPI ranking and in most years lands us on the bubble...

It's totally illogical. It doesnt benefit our program, or his job security.

It's crazy that a guy with a 4.0 GPA cant figure out that 75% of the RPI formula is based on strength of schedule.

Clearly, math is not Herb's strong suit...

2/7/2006 8:15:23 PM

we aren't a bubble team this year

2/7/2006 8:19:55 PM

^ yay

2/7/2006 8:23:58 PM

^first mistake-listening to joe lunardi...he's saying the number 1 team in the country (uconn) might not get a #1 seed?

2/7/2006 8:37:21 PM

at least he backed up his point with evidence though, he could be right

2/7/2006 8:42:37 PM

Well, GW's OCC is like 300ish so that hurts us. Alabama isn't as good as they were supposed to be. The RPI doesn't have any human component to say "this was a good win when..."

2/7/2006 8:43:35 PM

unc gets a number 1 seed based on the "media sucks their dick" factor

2/7/2006 8:45:59 PM

Quote :

"just like pitt in 2004, they were 29-3, #6 in the nation, but got the lowest 3 seed. (they are the main example because they had TWELVE weak games, and obviously we aren't that lame with 7....)"

One of those was also DivII. It dropped them one seed, which is about right. Our OOC schedule can't drop us any more than that.

Quote :

"It's crazy that a guy with a 4.0 GPA cant figure out that 75% of the RPI formula is based on strength of schedule."

25% is also wins, and conference games make up a good portion of the strength of schedule. It doesn't make any sense to go into very important conference play after making a hellacious OOC run.

Herd also does a good job of scheduling teams that turn out to be good (Seton Hall, Bama).

Quote :

"If we manage to hold onto second in the ACC and do well in the conf tourney I don't see how we can't be a 3 seed. Anyone with an "expert" take on this?"

I'm no expect, but I'd say if we don't make a 3 seed, it will because of our inability to step up against good opponents like Clemson, Maryland, and Virginia.

2/7/2006 9:47:30 PM

well, they were Wins...

2/7/2006 11:34:17 PM

Quote :

"unc duke gets a number 1 seed based on the "media sucks their dick" factor"

2/7/2006 11:46:53 PM

^

that makes no sense bc duke has only lost one game and has beat texas and memphis and is undefeated in conference

2/8/2006 2:09:49 AM

OOC SOS shouldn't play such an important role in determining seeds, especially for teams who have a good SOS but bad OOC SOS.

I can see it for say, Utah, who racks up 19 of their wins each year against >150 RPI teams.

It shouldn't hurt us this year, but it will cost us 1-1.5 seed I think.

2/8/2006 10:35:56 AM

would we get a 1 seed if we won out (and won the acc tournament?)

[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 11:21 AM. Reason : say maybe beating duke in the finale? is it at all possible?]

2/8/2006 11:19:55 AM

[no]

2/8/2006 11:21:21 AM

^I think so. That would be what 28-4? And we should move ahead of Duke for that seed.

2/8/2006 11:21:48 AM

^ depends on what else is going on at the top of the food chain. I dont think that would guarantee anything

2/8/2006 11:23:55 AM

i think we have too many questionable losses to break past a 2 seed, but i'm wondering if its feasible at all

2/8/2006 11:24:50 AM

^ we have one questionable loss

2/8/2006 11:26:46 AM

If we won out the season, and won the ACC championship, we would get a two seed

2/8/2006 11:26:53 AM

wtf double post

[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 11:29 AM. Reason : damn]

2/8/2006 11:27:26 AM

Quote :

"We play WAY too many ~#250 type teams and that kills our RPI ranking and in most years lands us on the bubble... It's totally illogical. It doesnt benefit our program, or his job security."

It's also totally illogical the way the formula is. There is NO reason Team A should get MORE credit for beating a 200-250 team then Team B does for beating a 250-317 team. They are both cupcake gimmee games no matter what their stupid RPI is.

Quote :

"at least he backed up his point with evidence though, he could be right "

No he hasn't. He is falsely relying on PURELY RPI numbers when the selection committee looks at both numbers AND quality wins. While Duke and Texas have scheduled cupcakes with a bit higher RPI, UConn stayed in state and played cupcakes with a bit lower RPI. It's stupid to weight the 'easier gimmee' games and use it as a reason to not seed a team higher.

There was an article about this in a paper in New York a few days ago. I'll try to find the link. Basically he is saying a team who has the most Top 25 and most Top 50 RPI wins (tied w/ Duke with 11 Top 50 I believe) is penalized because the crap games were shittier crap games then another teams crap games. While either way the team will blow out the crappy team by 30-50 points.

Lunardi is a brilliant guy but he is missing the boat with this one.

[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 11:28 AM. Reason : If you can follow this post you get a medal]

2/8/2006 11:27:26 AM

I don't think I get a medal then.

2/8/2006 11:30:36 AM

where's my medal ho

2/8/2006 11:32:42 AM

thats a good point nym, hadn't thought about that

2/8/2006 11:33:23 AM

Ok think of it this way. You have three teams: Team A is 20-1, Team B is 21-1, and Team C is 17-4.

Team A is 11-0 against RPI Top 50 teams and 6-0 vs RPI Top 25 teams. Their average cupcake RPI is 250.
** only loss against a Top 50-100 RPI team.
Team B is 11-1 against RPI Top 50 teams and 6-1 vs RPI Top 25 teams. Their average cupcake RPI is 200.
Team C is 9-3 against RPI Top 50 teams and 4-1 vs RPI Top 25 teams. Their average cupcake RPI is 195.
** other loss against a Top 50-100 RPI team.

(you have to remember all crappy OOC teams are not going to give any of these three teams any sort of game REGARDLESS of their RPI ranking)

What Lunardi is saying is that Team C is going to have a better seed then Team A simply based on their OOC cupcake schedule having a better overall RPI, when in reality those teams that comprise the OOC cupcake schedule for Team C suck just as much as the ones Team A played.

He is missing the 'whole body of work' and 'quality wins' boat with this.. of course all in my opinion

Team A is UConn
Team B is Duke
Team B is [anyone would potentially get a better seed given his article]

[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 11:40 AM. Reason : ^^^ for packboozie.. yes i'm bored at work today]

2/8/2006 11:38:15 AM

Quote :

"(you have to remember all crappy OOC teams are not going to give any of these three teams any sort of game REGARDLESS of their RPI ranking)"

Ok. I got it. Yeah that makes no since really. There is little difference between someone like the Citadel who is like 300 and App State who is like 200.

^Thanks for clearing all that up.

[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 11:41 AM. Reason : ^]

2/8/2006 11:40:40 AM

lol nice

2/8/2006 11:40:42 AM

The selection committee should just disregard any wins not from the top 100 or 150 RPI and not worry about OOC SOS.

Overall SOS is much more important than OOC.

2/8/2006 11:43:22 AM

^ No they should look at the body of work

2/8/2006 11:44:58 AM

that would probably hurt teams like gonzaga ^^

2/8/2006 11:45:47 AM

No problem. Yea and it affects State in the same way but it was easier to illustrate using Top 5 teams..

The selection committee, by and large, won't differentiate as Lunardi is, teams like Stetson and Citadel that we played from teams like Boston University and Davidson..

I'd say b/t 150-175 is a legit cutoff point. After you get out of there all the teams are roughly equal IMO..

[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 11:47 AM. Reason : f]

2/8/2006 11:46:35 AM

Quote :

"it's the stetsons, UNC-A, app states, delewares, citadels that are hurting us."

So basically we shouldn't have had that Hispanic tournament or whatever even though we won 3 games. That's not really fair. We would be better off not playing it.

2/8/2006 11:46:59 AM

it's retarded that that is how it is run

2/8/2006 11:48:50 AM