Interesting take from Joe Lunardi...underachievers are Big XII & ACC...SMU got screwed and the BIG EAST has issues:

• The SEC deserved only the three NCAA bids it received (Kentucky, Tennessee and Florida). Any more bids and the exceptional seed score the conference achieved would have fallen significantly.

• The AAC got the short end of the stick on Selection Sunday in terms of both bids and seeding. Also, nonconference strength of schedule notwithstanding, SMU was still one of the 32 best available at-large teams. Nothing from the postseason convinced me the Mustangs shouldn't have gone ahead of at least Xavier, BYU and even NC State.

• The ACC and especially Big 12 were massive underachievers in the tournament. From my season-long observation, this was quite surprising in the case of the Big 12 but far less so in the case of the ACC. In particular, we'll never know what would have happened with Iowa State had not big man Georges Niang gone down. Maybe nothing different, as UConn was in the Cyclones' path, or maybe we have a different champion altogether.

• The Atlantic 10 also underachieved given its record six bids and despite Dayton's exceptional triumphs in reaching the Elite Eight. However, the league's negative seed score wouldn't be quite so glaring if teams such as VCU and UMass had been seeded properly.

• The new Big East should take a long, hard look at itself after failing to advance either of its marquee teams to the second weekend. The bottom line is that the drop-off from losing NCAA powers Louisville, Syracuse, Cincinnati, Connecticut and Pitt to other conferences was even worse than originally thought. When the number of former league members in the tournament exceeds that of those left behind, you've got a problem.

http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-...basketball

Lunardindoesn't take kindly to having been wrong.

(04-19-2014 03:15 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Lunardindoesn't take kindly to having been wrong.

By the seeds it was awful...Kentucky and UConn as 7 and 8 seeds...Creighton and Nova as 2 and 3 seeds were laughable...the miss seeding of Kentucky which had a Top 16 RPI really screwed Wichita State...

(04-19-2014 03:28 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 03:15 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Lunardindoesn't take kindly to having been wrong.

By the seeds it was awful...Kentucky and UConn as 7 and 8 seeds...Creighton and Nova as 2 and 3 seeds were laughable...the miss seeding of Kentucky which had a Top 16 RPI really screwed Wichita State...

Come on, Maize. Misseeding of Kentucky screwed Wichita State? How was that. Going strictly by RPI (LiveRPI.com had them at 17 at the end of the season), they were a 4-5 seed. Regardless of whether they were that or an 8 seed, WSU was going to have to beat them if they were in the same region - if not in the round of 32, then in the Sweet 16. How can a 1-seed complain that they were screwed by having to play a "lesser" team regardless of which round it's in. If Wichita was truly a 1-seed in terms of quality, they should have won that game regardless of what round it was played in.

The fact is that Kentucky was a 10-loss team. Regardless of RPI, that's a lot of losses. Apparently that meant a lot to the committee. With in the month before the tournament, they had 3 shots at Florida and lost all 3 times. I know that Floirda was #1, but it's hard to lose to the same time 3 times within a month. Only one of the games was even close. The other two were by 10 and by 19.

Two weeks before selection Sunday, Kentucky suffered back-to-back losses first to #77 RPI Arkansas at Home and the to #140 RPI South Carolina. Those were 2 bad losses right before the tournament. They suffered 5 of their 10 losses in their last 10 games. They looked nothing like a team that was peaking and getting ready for a deep run in the tournament.

UConn was an 8 loss team whose schedule was littered with opponents whose RPI was above 200 - 9 of them. They had 2 more at 192 and 2 more at 175. almost half their schedule at the end of the season (16 of 34) had an RPI of 143 or worse. The committee has been pretty clear about what the criteria are for selection and seeding decisions.

It's not the job of the committee to pick the "best" teams, but to pick the teams who have accomplished the most. They gave it an honest shot. It's easy to say they made mistakes in retrospect, but who could have known that those teams would go on the runs they did?

You complain about Kentucky's seed based on its RPI, but then you turn around and call Villanova's and Creighton's seedings laughable despite the fact that their respective RPI were 6 and 10, meaning that they got seeded right where there RPI said they should. Did you want RPI to be followed or didn't you?

Wichita should not have seen them at the earliest until the round of 16....not the Round of 32...but if you think Kentucky was an 8 Seed....ok...whatever you say.....

OK if Kentucky is a 4 or 5 seed, first off, they have to beat a 4 or 5 seed for Wichita to even see them in the tourney. Kentucky was grossly underseeded. Also you say that they were 5-5 in last 10 games.. OK- that's fine, but then you can't screw Louisville. It was absolute bull**** that Wichita would have to beat BOTH Kentucky and Louisville.... No other 1 seed has EVER had such a bush league draw..

The committee was terribly inconsistent this year seeding and everyone knows it. They used certain criteria for some teams, but not others. One of the worst seeding jobs we've ever seen.

(04-19-2014 04:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  OK if Kentucky is a 4 or 5 seed, first off, they have to beat a 4 or 5 seed for Wichita to even see them in the tourney. Kentucky was grossly underseeded. Also you say that they were 5-5 in last 10 games.. OK- that's fine, but then you can't screw Louisville. It was absolute bull**** that Wichita would have to beat BOTH Kentucky and Louisville.... No other 1 seed has EVER had such a bush league draw..

The committee was terribly inconsistent this year seeding and everyone knows it. They used certain criteria for some teams, but not others. One of the worst seeding jobs we've ever seen.

No, Kentucky didn't have to beat both Kentucky and Louisville. They had to beat Kentucky and they lost. They never played Louisville. So, what difference did it make? They'd still have to beat one of them in the Sweet 16 and they couldn't do it.

You're only getting away with calling it bush league because Kentucky went to the finals. They needed a series of last second shots to get there. It's not like they were running over the opposition. Had they lost to Louisville or Michigan as easily could have happened in either of those games, no one would be talking about them now.

Now Louisville got screwed? How was that? By having to play a 10 loss team?

The problem is that Wichita state was ridiculously overrated. They played almost no one all year long. That presented the committee with a dilemma - an undefeated team that wasn't as good as its record. They handled it as best they could.

(04-19-2014 04:27 PM)Maize Wrote:  Wichita should not have seen them at the earliest until the round of 16....not the Round of 32...but if you think Kentucky was an 8 Seed....ok...whatever you say.....

I didn't say that Kentucky should have been an 8-seed. The committee said that. But what difference would it made if Wichita State had seen them in the Sweet 16? It was still a loss.

Lunardi is just putting out sour grapes. He claims to be able to predict the seeds, not to do the seeds. His track record isn't that good in the first place, but now he's claiming that it's the committee's fault that his predictions were off. He's supposed to be able to take the committee's thinking into account. That's his shtick, to be able to predict what they will decide. Too bad he got it wrong.

(04-19-2014 04:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  OK if Kentucky is a 4 or 5 seed, first off, they have to beat a 4 or 5 seed for Wichita to even see them in the tourney. Kentucky was grossly underseeded. Also you say that they were 5-5 in last 10 games.. OK- that's fine, but then you can't screw Louisville. It was absolute bull**** that Wichita would have to beat BOTH Kentucky and Louisville.... No other 1 seed has EVER had such a bush league draw..

Agreed. It's not the first time the tournament committee has manipulated the seeds to suit their own agenda, and it won't be the last, but it's the most egregious example that I can remember.

Well it's over and was a very exciting as far as Tournaments go. I hated the seedlings going in but higher seeds lost early on. And UConn stands atop the world. Great for Them and the underrated AAC.

(04-19-2014 05:23 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Well it's over and was a very exciting as far as Tournaments go. I hated the seedlings going in but higher seeds lost early on. And UConn stands atop the world. Great for Them and the underrated AAC.

Exactly...This...just pointing out the Seeding for this year Tournament was really odd...hell even UConn as a #7 was....

(04-19-2014 03:28 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 03:15 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Lunardindoesn't take kindly to having been wrong.

By the seeds it was awful...Kentucky and UConn as 7 and 8 seeds...Creighton and Nova as 2 and 3 seeds were laughable...the miss seeding of Kentucky which had a Top 16 RPI really screwed Wichita State...

As usual Maize, it appears someone's been spiking your coffee with a little too much whiskey. You're truly brilliant with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight about telling us where everyone should have been seeded. Creighton and Villanova were laughable in your wisdom, despite both being top 10 RPI and both did win a game, with Nova bowing out to eventual champion UCONN. On the other hand Duke didn't win one game, losing to a 13 seed no less. Why no mention of them? Maybe because in your relentless kiss up on the ACC board, you're worried about stepping on any of their toes. It's both predictable and entertaining when Melky points out the contradictions in your own post, you choose to ignore the points he made, and just dismiss him. Next year, tell us how the seedings are so horrible BEFORE the games are played, instead of waiting for the results. Then we'll see how brilliant you are.

(04-19-2014 06:13 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 05:23 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Well it's over and was a very exciting as far as Tournaments go. I hated the seedlings going in but higher seeds lost early on. And UConn stands atop the world. Great for Them and the underrated AAC.

Exactly...This...just pointing out the Seeding for this year Tournament was really odd...hell even UConn as a #7 was....

Yup, and set up as bait for a Big 5 game. Unfair that they had to play two Philly teams when, technically, SJU was closer to its home in that opener than UConn was. Protect the higher seeds...this tournament totally pissed on that one, including UConn getting a major break at MSG...but UConn did what it had to.

(04-19-2014 03:05 PM)Maize Wrote:  Interesting take from Joe Lunardi...underachievers are Big XII & ACC...SMU got screwed and the BIG EAST has issues:

• The SEC deserved only the three NCAA bids it received (Kentucky, Tennessee and Florida). Any more bids and the exceptional seed score the conference achieved would have fallen significantly.

• The AAC got the short end of the stick on Selection Sunday in terms of both bids and seeding. Also, nonconference strength of schedule notwithstanding, SMU was still one of the 32 best available at-large teams. Nothing from the postseason convinced me the Mustangs shouldn't have gone ahead of at least Xavier, BYU and even NC State.

• The ACC and especially Big 12 were massive underachievers in the tournament. From my season-long observation, this was quite surprising in the case of the Big 12 but far less so in the case of the ACC. In particular, we'll never know what would have happened with Iowa State had not big man Georges Niang gone down. Maybe nothing different, as UConn was in the Cyclones' path, or maybe we have a different champion altogether.

• The Atlantic 10 also underachieved given its record six bids and despite Dayton's exceptional triumphs in reaching the Elite Eight. However, the league's negative seed score wouldn't be quite so glaring if teams such as VCU and UMass had been seeded properly.

• The new Big East should take a long, hard look at itself after failing to advance either of its marquee teams to the second weekend. The bottom line is that the drop-off from losing NCAA powers Louisville, Syracuse, Cincinnati, Connecticut and Pitt to other conferences was even worse than originally thought. When the number of former league members in the tournament exceeds that of those left behind, you've got a problem.

http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-...basketball

The A-10, per its seeding, should have won 2 games. We won 4.

You beat whoever is your opponent. If you lose, tough... How about a team six games under .500, That's a real problem for me. Totally cost another good school an invite...

(04-19-2014 11:05 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  You beat whoever is your opponent. If you lose, tough... How about a team six games under .500, That's a real problem for me. Totally cost another good school an invite...

Not Cal Poly's fault they got hot at the right time

(04-19-2014 11:11 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 11:05 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  You beat whoever is your opponent. If you lose, tough... How about a team six games under .500, That's a real problem for me. Totally cost another good school an invite...

Not Cal Poly's fault they got hot at the right time

It's their fault they are 14-20 going into the tourney...

(04-19-2014 04:27 PM)Maize Wrote:  Wichita should not have seen them at the earliest until the round of 16....not the Round of 32...but if you think Kentucky was an 8 Seed....ok...whatever you say.....

Kentucky absolutely sucked balls towards the end of the season only to find themselves in the SEC tourney. Talent wise UK wasn't an 8-seed; the way they played down the stretch I definitely didn't think they deserve higher than an 7 or 8 seed.

The committee absolutely screwed Wichita St regardless of the seeding of UK.

(04-19-2014 10:19 PM)hoops22 Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 03:28 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 03:15 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Lunardindoesn't take kindly to having been wrong.

By the seeds it was awful...Kentucky and UConn as 7 and 8 seeds...Creighton and Nova as 2 and 3 seeds were laughable...the miss seeding of Kentucky which had a Top 16 RPI really screwed Wichita State...

As usual Maize, it appears someone's been spiking your coffee with a little too much whiskey. You're truly brilliant with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight about telling us where everyone should have been seeded. Creighton and Villanova were laughable in your wisdom, despite both being top 10 RPI and both did win a game, with Nova bowing out to eventual champion UCONN. On the other hand Duke didn't win one game, losing to a 13 seed no less. Why no mention of them? Maybe because in your relentless kiss up on the ACC board, you're worried about stepping on any of their toes. It's both predictable and entertaining when Melky points out the contradictions in your own post, you choose to ignore the points he made, and just dismiss him. Next year, tell us how the seedings are so horrible BEFORE the games are played, instead of waiting for the results. Then we'll see how brilliant you are.

This. I think Maize hit the bottle hard before posting the stuff he posted.

(04-19-2014 05:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 04:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  OK if Kentucky is a 4 or 5 seed, first off, they have to beat a 4 or 5 seed for Wichita to even see them in the tourney. Kentucky was grossly underseeded. Also you say that they were 5-5 in last 10 games.. OK- that's fine, but then you can't screw Louisville. It was absolute bull**** that Wichita would have to beat BOTH Kentucky and Louisville.... No other 1 seed has EVER had such a bush league draw..

Agreed. It's not the first time the tournament committee has manipulated the seeds to suit their own agenda, and it won't be the last, but it's the most egregious example that I can remember.

Its the worst I remember in the men's tourney. They didn't want Wichita St. to advance.