We are NOT an 8 seed

[BlueDogs]

Lunardi has us as a 9, which is utterly ridiculous. Palm projects us at 7. I’d like to see us at get to a 6. In any event, some these B1G teams are trash and I’m not buying it.

 

[Waquoit]

I’m fine as long as we get off the 8-9 line.

Us on the 8-9 line reminds me of this scene:

 

[Waquoit]

Have you looked at some of the schedules of the teams with better NET rankings than us? Winning games = better NET rating for the most part.

No, because NET rankings isn't even part of the Top 9 selections factors. It's described as "not nothing, but not very important." I'm going to 2nd guess the team over something so piddely?

​

 

[ScuderiaDiU]

There is no associative property in basketball.

Yes, there is. It just isn't 100%. There are lots of factors that introduce uncertainty. But there absolutely is an underlying associative property.

 

[Martin]

One thing that would have hurt our resume is more losses. One way to get more losses is to play more games.

U guys sound like Congress ???

 

[HuskyHawk]

I don't know what anybody is worried about it. Aside from the three teams at the top, with a combined 4 losses, everybody else has lost 4-9 games. UConn lost 6. Some have more wins, because they played more games. Forget wins. Losses matter. I don't think there is a whole lot of difference between any of those teams. It will be matchups and who gets hot at the right time, same as always. OU sits at #16 with 9 losses, TT not far behind also with 9. Wisconsin is ranked with 11 losses. Look at their resumes, nobody stands out. Iowa at least played Gonazaga. Wisconsin lost to Marquette. Few of these resumes look much better than ours. Seeding is going to be a complete crap shoot.

 

[navery12]

I don't know what anybody is worried about it. Aside from the three teams at the top, with a combined 4 losses, everybody else has lost 4-9 games. UConn lost 6. Some have more wins, because they played more games. Forget wins. Losses matter. I don't think there is a whole lot of difference between any of those teams. It will be matchups and who gets hot at the right time, same as always. OU sits at #16 with 9 losses, TT not far behind also with 9. Wisconsin is ranked with 11 losses. Look at their resumes, nobody stands out. Iowa at least played Gonazaga. Wisconsin lost to Marquette. Few of these resumes look much better than ours. Seeding is going to be a complete crap shoot.

I think that's exactly why there is the concern from most here, because if you're an 8/9 seed you have a 75% chance of matching up with one of those 3 teams you mention in round 2

 

[superjohn]

I think that's exactly why there is the concern from most here, because if you're an 8/9 seed you have a 75% chance of matching up with one of those 3 teams you mention in round 2

We aren't an 8/9 seed though, don't know why people keep saying we are.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I think that's exactly why there is the concern from most here, because if you're an 8/9 seed you have a 75% chance of matching up with one of those 3 teams you mention in round 2

Win two more games and we won't be an 8/9. It's on the team to take care of that.

 

[navery12]

We aren't an 8/9 seed though, don't know why people keep saying we are.

Yeah I was gonna add that part but I've given up on that fight. I don't get how anyone looks at this team and thinks it's an 8

 

[nelsonmuntz]

No, because NET rankings isn't even part of the Top 9 selections factors. It's described as "not nothing, but not very important." I'm going to 2nd guess the team over something so piddely?

​

The first 4 items under "Most Important" are:

• Games by quadrant, listing results and upcoming games
• Records by quadrant, away and neutral
• Non-Conference Strength of Schedule (SOS)
• Overall SOS

Where do you think the data for that analysis comes from? Magic, or the NET rating?

Would having some teams around 100 NET help or hurt our SOS since 2 of our 3 OOC games are Hartford and Central?

 

[navery12]

Win two more games and we won't be an 8/9. It's on the team to take care of that.

I agree, it's not something I'm concerned with because I think we're already safely above the 8 line even if we lose Thursday

 

[auror]

Yeah I was gonna add that part but I've given up on that fight. I don't get how anyone looks at this team and thinks it's an 8

We'll be an 8/9 unless we beat Providence and Creighton.

I hope we will. But we gotta take care of business on the court. Creighton is getting lumped into left for dead status with Villanova, but there's a decent chance they get back their coach today and even if they don't, they've spent all weekend listening to everybody say "UConn is the favorite". They've wanted to dethrone Nova the last few years and they finally get their shot. They've never won the BET. They're going to be hungry.

 

[VAHuskyFan]

Lunardi has us as a 9, which is utterly ridiculous. Palm projects us at 7. I’d like to see us at get to a 6. In any event, some these B1G teams are trash and I’m not buying it.

Lunardi is lazy and slow to recognize large movements by teams (up or down).

Case in point, he still has Oklahoma (which has lost its last 4 games) as a 6-seed.

Oklahoma is down to a .609 winning percentage on a 46 SOS. (UConn is .700 on a 45 SOS).

Oklahoma is 33 NET, 37 Kenpom, 28 BPI (all worse than UConn). The Sooners are also under .500 in Q1/Q2 games with a Q3 loss thrown in.

A week ago, Oklahoma had a better resume than us. Now they’re worse on literally every metric - but Lunardi still has them as a 6 and us as a 9. Lunardi is not keeping up with things.

 

[aburks41]

Lunardi is lazy and slow to recognize large movements by teams (up or down).

Case in point, he still has Oklahoma (which has lost its last 4 games) as a 6-seed.

Oklahoma is down to a .609 winning percentage on a 46 SOS. (UConn is .700 on a 45 SOS).

Oklahoma is 33 NET, 37 Kenpom, 28 BPI (all worse than UConn). The Sooners are also under .500 in Q1/Q2 games with a Q3 loss thrown in.

A week ago, Oklahoma had a better resume than us. Now they’re worse on literally every metric - but Lunardi still has them as a 6 and us as a 9. Lunardi is not keeping up with things.

Lunardi doesn't even know who James Bouknight is. Dude is a clown

 

[superjohn]

NCAA Bracket Projections 2021

NCAA Bracket Projections 2024

Bracket projections for the 2024 NCAA basketball tournament. See where we expect every team to land in the 2024 NCAA tournament bracket.

www.teamrankings.com

 

[ZenConn]

"We got a royal ass-kicking” - Patrick Ewing

We're not talking about the women's team here. Leading by 30 and closing out to win by 16 is an annihilation. There used to a time where we used to be on the other side. We'd lose by 12-15 and never be in it.

 

[pepband99]

The first 4 items under "Most Important" are:

• Games by quadrant, listing results and upcoming games
• Records by quadrant, away and neutral
• Non-Conference Strength of Schedule (SOS)
• Overall SOS

Where do you think the data for that analysis comes from? Magic, or the NET rating?

Would having some teams around 100 NET help or hurt our SOS since 2 of our 3 OOC games are Hartford and Central?

Interestingly, the SOS only started coming from the NET this year , which tells me that they saw issues with the underlying data, given the unusual year.

From the Athletic:

• Important new bullet point alert: Thanks to those of you who have reached out about the strength-of-schedule numbers seeming off. Turns out, the NCAA (somewhat quietly, or at least we missed it) changed its strength-of-schedule formula this year, now employing a version that isn’t based on the old RPI. You can find those numbers at the NCAA’s stats site here, which is about as visually interesting as you might expect. Unfortunately, the schedule numbers we’ve been using from Warren Nolan’s (much more visually interesting) NET nitty gritty page were the old ones. For many teams, the differences are negligible, and we haven’t been leaning on schedules, particularly nonconference schedules, much this season anyway — it feels like a bit of a null issue in a year when teams had so many games canceled. But we will be using the new NCAA schedule numbers from here on out, and some fans may notice the difference from what they’ve been seeing to date. Just a heads up. Apologies for the confusion, and thanks again to everyone for helping us figure this out.

 

[AllAbout5]

I don't think we're an 8 or 9 seed, but we also haven't defeated a ranked team this season.

 

[navery12]

 

[billybud]

Maybe more Quality Losses are needed.

Oklahoma has Quality Losses...

To current NET ranked numbers...2...14...17...17...24...30...30

and beat current NET...7...14...23...23...24

 

[Deadrody]

Not to worry. As the BET 3 seed, UConn will get the opportunity - unless someone beats them to it - to go through both Creighton and Nova on the way to a Big East Tournament championship and far better than an 8 seed

 

[Deadrody]

If Dyson doesn't blow out his knee in late February we would have 5 titles. We were the best team in the country before that happened and I don't think it was really even that close.

FACT

 

[Deadrody]

I find it difficult to say even at full strength we were better than UNC that year; to me, 09 UNC is one of the top teams of the last 20 years.

That said, there’s little doubt we’d have given them a better game than Sparty, with or without Dyson, and would definitely have been capable of winning. We were much closer to UNC than any other team in the country, including UL and Pitt (let alone Memphis, lol), was to either the Heels or us.

Except they absolutely were. Go rewatch the Louisville game. UConn won that game - ON THE ROAD - by 18. The team that was ranked #5 at the time and was the tournament's overall top seed.

 

[BlueDogs]

Lunardi is lazy and slow to recognize large movements by teams (up or down).

Case in point, he still has Oklahoma (which has lost its last 4 games) as a 6-seed.

Oklahoma is down to a .609 winning percentage on a 46 SOS. (UConn is .700 on a 45 SOS).

Oklahoma is 33 NET, 37 Kenpom, 28 BPI (all worse than UConn). The Sooners are also under .500 in Q1/Q2 games with a Q3 loss thrown in.

A week ago, Oklahoma had a better resume than us. Now they’re worse on literally every metric - but Lunardi still has them as a 6 and us as a 9. Lunardi is not keeping up with things.

Yeah, OU, Wisconsin and Rutgers are just the epitome of conference overeating bias.