Lunardi Doubling Down

[CJsE]

Hey guys, he wasn't wrong. Just ask him.

No. 3: Allow me a word -- several, actually -- on the ACC. Fans of the conference consistently -- and correctly -- countered my season-long description of its decline by insisting the league would be just fine when it mattered most. And, once again, a conference ranking fifth, fifth, seventh and fifth since the pandemic has been more than fine in the NCAA tournament. An 8-1 record through the first weekend can only be commended. Going forward, it remains to be seen if the conference will make the necessary scheduling adjustments to counter the continued weakening that's coming in the form of Stanford, Cal and SMU. Further, the league's four Sweet 16 entries have no connection to the pre-tourney résumés of Pittsburgh or Wake Forest. By that logic, Pitt and Wake should be double-dinged by Virginia. Thankfully, it doesn't work that way.

Joe Lunardi: Sweet 16 thoughts, and the awful taste Kentucky left us with

The selection committee appears to have gotten the top 10 teams in the tournament exactly right. That's how far you have to go down to get to Kentucky.

www.espn.com

 

[TheSpecialSauce]

Hey guys, he wasn't wrong. Just ask him.

Joe Lunardi: Sweet 16 thoughts, and the awful taste Kentucky left us with

The selection committee appears to have gotten the top 10 teams in the tournament exactly right. That's how far you have to go down to get to Kentucky.

www.espn.com

What is this loser babbling on about? The ACC was the 4th best conference according to NET this year and were 11-3 head to head versus the perceived best conference (B12). If he wants to bring recent history into the conversation, then the ACC has won 3 of the last 8 national championships that have been played.

 

[WillyDavis33]

His job is to increase clicks! PERIOD!

 

[Vader_Storm]

This is whatever, the season is almost over.


If Bub comes back its time for Pitt to load up the non conference schedule like a contending team should do next year.

Load it up with quality neutral site games and 1 big road game with no return game, preferably Uconn.

 

[MorningCoffee13]

He doesn’t watch games. He only looks at numbers. And importantly if the numbers are initiated in error then it follows through. There is no way to adjust for an incorrect starting assumption.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Lundardi doesn't sit on the selection committee and he, and every other "bracketologist," were correct about Pitt not getting in.

The problem is with how the committee selects at-large teams, not with how people predict the results of the committees' long telegraphed selection criteria.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

Lundardi doesn't sit on the selection committee and he, and every other "bracketologist," were correct about Pitt not getting in.

The problem is with how the committee selects at-large teams, not with how people predict the results of the committees' long telegraphed selection criteria.

Yeah, it's amazing how many people still think he was wrong about Pitt. No, he was right about Pitt, and it was settled nine days ago. Not that he isn't annoying about it.

 

[wbrpanther]

Hey guys, he wasn't wrong. Just ask him.

Joe Lunardi: Sweet 16 thoughts, and the awful taste Kentucky left us with

The selection committee appears to have gotten the top 10 teams in the tournament exactly right. That's how far you have to go down to get to Kentucky.

www.espn.com

Selection Sunday was 9 days ago. Why are we still talking about this parasite.

 

[Pittnerski]

The only doubling down should be my fists to his cocky smirk

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Hey guys, he wasn't wrong. Just ask him.

Joe Lunardi: Sweet 16 thoughts, and the awful taste Kentucky left us with

The selection committee appears to have gotten the top 10 teams in the tournament exactly right. That's how far you have to go down to get to Kentucky.

www.espn.com

Stanford is going to be really good really fast but Lunardi doesnt follow college basketball so he wouldn't know who they just hired.

I hate when I hear that a conference is top heavy and that the performance of the better teams doesn't mean more teams shouldn't have gotten in. If we are talking about Syracuse and VT, sure I agree they didnt have the resume. But, Wake lost 3 games before Efton Reid became eligible and had wins over Duke, Pitt, Florida, Clemson, and NC State. Pitt's resume we know. You dont think that Pitt and Wake's losses to UNC, Duke, and Clemson couldn't have been sexy Quad 1 wins if those teams were replaced with SDSU, Boise, and Nevada? The top ACC teams are harder to beat.

 

[NCPitt]

Hey guys, he wasn't wrong. Just ask him.

Joe Lunardi: Sweet 16 thoughts, and the awful taste Kentucky left us with

The selection committee appears to have gotten the top 10 teams in the tournament exactly right. That's how far you have to go down to get to Kentucky.

www.espn.com

This is funny. He talks about adjusting the schedule. He doesn't seem to care about results, only about who is played. I recognize this aligns with NET. That doesn't make it less funny.

 

[pittguy81]

The play of the conference teams in the Tournament speaks for itself, not withstanding that an undeserving UVA team that struggled down the stretch got worked in the play-in round. Pitt deserved to be in the field, metrics and analytics be damned.

 

[upj87]

Hey guys, he wasn't wrong. Just ask him.

Joe Lunardi: Sweet 16 thoughts, and the awful taste Kentucky left us with

The selection committee appears to have gotten the top 10 teams in the tournament exactly right. That's how far you have to go down to get to Kentucky.

www.espn.com

in the age of the Squatter, he is living rent free in the minds of most of you in these parts...

 

[FireballZ]

in the age of the Squatter, he is living rent free in the minds of most of you in these parts...

Yet here you are, trolling a Pitt board for years....ironic much?

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

And importantly if the numbers are initiated in error then it follows through. There is no way to adjust for an incorrect starting assumption.

This is, of course, not correct about any of the major basketball computer rankings, but it especially shows a complete misunderstanding the NET rankings. The reason that the NCAA does not release the NET rankings right from day one is that in the NET rankings there are no numbers from last year included, even at the beginning of the season. So if they released the NET rankings a week into the season, you'd see too many dumb things like UConn ranked 200 and Quinnipiac ranked 10 or some such.

In short, there are NO starting assumptions in the NET rankings.

 

[MorningCoffee13]

There absolutely are starting assumptions. The quality of opponent is a key element of the NET and that is created right away.

 

[upj87]

Yet here you are, trolling a Pitt board for years....ironic much?

Maybe, but am I wrong? Grown men whining over this goof for weeks.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

There absolutely are starting assumptions. The quality of opponent is a key element of the NET and that is created right away.

No it isn't. And all you are showing is that you have no idea, literally, no idea, how the NET is calculated.

 

[NCPitt]

No it isn't. And all you are showing is that you have no idea, literally, no idea, how the NET is calculated.

Actually, neither do you. The NCAA has kept the algorithm a total secret.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Actually, neither do you. The NCAA has kept the algorithm a total secret.

They have kept the exact algorithm a secret, but they have absolutely given the broad strokes of what they are measuring and how they are measuring it.

And there is literally a zero percent chance that they are using any information at all from previous seasons in the starting rankings for the season, because literally everyone starts at zero every year.

 

[NCPitt]

They have kept the exact algorithm a secret, but they have absolutely given the broad strokes of what they are measuring and how they are measuring it.

And there is literally a zero percent chance that they are using any information at all from previous seasons in the starting rankings for the season, because literally everyone starts at zero every year.

That much is correct. But there is no proof that some subjectivity is not included in the Team Value Index.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

That much is correct. But there is no proof that some subjectivity is not included in the Team Value Index.

I heard they ask Joe Lunardi and he gives some teams a bump and other teams get some points taken away. And we know which one we were!

 

[MorningCoffee13]

No it isn't. And all you are showing is that you have no idea, literally, no idea, how the NET is calculated.

Of course I don’t. I just read the NCAA website and quote their information. How are you so obtuse?

 

[MorningCoffee13]

It

They have kept the exact algorithm a secret, but they have absolutely given the broad strokes of what they are measuring and how they are measuring it.

And there is literally a zero percent chance that they are using any information at all from previous seasons in the starting rankings for the season, because literally everyone starts at zero every year

It is IMPOSSIBLE to start from zero. Absolutely impossible. Why can’t you grasp that? There is no ranking system on earth that does not come with a preliminary ranking based on perceived expectation. And the framework of the NET absolutely has preconceived expectation.

 

[CJsE]

It is IMPOSSIBLE to start from zero. Absolutely impossible. Why can’t you grasp that? There is no ranking system on earth that does not come with a preliminary ranking based on perceived expectation. And the framework of the NET absolutely has preconceived expectation.

I'm always amazed when a person is so confidently incorrect. It's ok to not know some things on the internet.

For the simplest example. Pitt finished the season ranked 4th the ACC, they started the season at 0-0. This ranking system took place on earth.

 

[MorningCoffee13]

I'm always amazed when a person is so confidently incorrect. It's ok to not know some things on the internet.

For the simplest example. Pitt finished the season ranked 4th the ACC, they started the season at 0-0. This ranking system took place on earth.

Oh my god. You clearly are describing yourself. I have watched posts on this board all season identifying that when we are or were playing Team X the expected win margin was 17 points or whatever. And when we exceeded that margin or went under that margin our net ranking changed accordingly.

How on earth do you think they are coming up with expected margin or any their expectEd data point in the first game of the season? They have to base that on an initial ranking and expećtation.

NET explained. Jesus please read the explanation from the NCAA and you will realize that there is a predetermined structure too initiate any season.

Sigh.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Oh my god. You clearly are describing yourself. I have watched posts on this board all season identifying that when we are or were playing Team X the expected win margin was 17 points or whatever. And when we exceeded that margin or went under that margin our net ranking changed accordingly.

How on earth do you think they are coming up with expected margin or any their expectEd data point in the first game of the season? They have to base that on an initial ranking and expećtation.

NET explained. Jesus please read the explanation from the NCAA and you will realize that there is a predetermined structure too initiate any season.

Sigh.

Hate to say it because I hate NET but you are wrong here. The NET starts at 0. All the data is input and it spits out a number. There is no "expected win margin." We just use the Vegas spread as that because it correlates to the NET algorithm.

 

[PittPharm2002]

The talk about our ooc sos is stupid
Because we scheduled 2 p5 schools who were ingrate dancd last year -
Who sucked , one we lost to early
It’s literally the only difference between our schedule and anyone else .

But the full schedule and body of work is what is supposed to matter .

Not simply the ooc

 

[CJsE]

Oh my god. You clearly are describing yourself. I have watched posts on this board all season identifying that when we are or were playing Team X the expected win margin was 17 points or whatever. And when we exceeded that margin or went under that margin our net ranking changed accordingly.

How on earth do you think they are coming up with expected margin or any their expectEd data point in the first game of the season? They have to base that on an initial ranking and expećtation.

NET explained. Jesus please read the explanation from the NCAA and you will realize that there is a predetermined structure too initiate any season.

Sigh.

There is no NET ranking for the first game of the season.

College basketball starts the first week of November, but the first NET rankings don't come out until the first week of December. So they have an entire month of data before their first ranking, which is usually 6-8 games per team. It's also why you will see teams jump or drop 100+ spots from the final 2022 rankings to the first 2023 ranking. it's also why it's so inaccurate until February.

wait...am I getting trolled? I can never tell anymore.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

The talk about our ooc sos is stupid
Because we scheduled 2 p5 schools who were ingrate dancd last year -
Who sucked , one we lost to early
It’s literally the only difference between our schedule and anyone else .

But the full schedule and body of work is what is supposed to matter .

Not simply the ooc

The intent was there but that didnt count for anything. WVU was viewed as a NC contendor before the Huggy dismissal. One computer site even ranked them #1. And Mizzou was in the Round of 32, returned 3 starters, picked 9th in SEC (8 made it this year) and in Lunardi's preseason bracketology. I cant believe that's what kept us out. Its so unfair. Had we lost to Vanderbilt instead of Missouri or lost to a really good WVU team instead of beating a bad one, we probably make it.

Makes me wonder if the best way to make the tournament is:

- schedule 3 Top 10ish teams and lose
- schedule 2 7-8-9-10 seed type teams and win 1
- play cupcakes for the rest

That's a crazy good OOC rating and maybe enough to get us in.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

They have kept the exact algorithm a secret, but they have absolutely given the broad strokes of what they are measuring and how they are measuring it.

And there is literally a zero percent chance that they are using any information at all from previous seasons in the starting rankings for the season, because literally everyone starts at zero every year.

Yeah, gamblers reply on people like Pomeroy who do have pre-season bias, which he has explained in detail on a podcast (roughly just adding statistics of returning players, adjusted for opponent for transfers, and a very crude formula for top 300 or so recruits.) Pomeroy's pre-season data hurt Pitt last year because Pitt had been bad for a while, and he has said that on the same podcast; he is looking at trends, and that isn't always going to be "fair".

But the NCAA has confirmed many times that they don't use preseason data for men or women:

NCAA releases first NET rankings for 2021 men's college basketball season

The first NET rankings for the 2020-21 men's basketball season were released on Jan. 4.

www.ncaa.com

NET returns: How the selection committee's main metric has fared, and what's ahead

The algorithm has its critics, but NCAA administrators are pleased with its effectiveness. Will it still work in the superconference era?

theathletic.com

Frequently asked questions about the DI women's basketball NET

Here's the information for all DI women's basketball NET questions, including what the NET measures.

www.ncaa.com

 

[CJsE]

Yeah, gamblers reply on people like Pomeroy who do have pre-season bias, which he has explained in detail on a podcast (roughly just adding statistics of returning players, adjusted for opponent for transfers, and a very crude formula for top 300 or so recruits.) Pomeroy's pre-season data hurt Pitt last year because Pitt had been bad for a while, and he has said that on the same podcast; he is looking at trends, and that isn't always going to be "fair".

Pomeroy phases out any pre-season bias throughout January, I'm pretty sure by February 1 it's entirely eliminated.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

Pomeroy phases out any pre-season bias throughout January, I'm pretty sure by February 1 it's entirely eliminated.

Yes I don't recall the exact date but that's right

 

[DT_PITT]

Yeah, it's amazing how many people still think he was wrong about Pitt. No, he was right about Pitt, and it was settled nine days ago. Not that he isn't annoying about it.

Bingo.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

It



It is IMPOSSIBLE to start from zero. Absolutely impossible. Why can’t you grasp that? There is no ranking system on earth that does not come with a preliminary ranking based on perceived expectation. And the framework of the NET absolutely has preconceived expectation.

I can't imagine how someone could know so little about the way that computer systems work, but at the same time is so sure that they know how they work.

It certainly is POSSIBLE for a system like this to have starting data entered. Many of them do. But it is just as surely POSSIBLE for a system to start everything from zero. The NET is one of those systems. Because the NCAA absolutely does not want previous year's data including in this season's results.

And it is also possible for a system to use starting rankings at the beginning of the year, and then phase the starting rankings out as the year goes on, so that by the end of the year the starting data is no longer a part of the calculation. For example, Pomeroy and Torvik both do that.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Hate to say it because I hate NET but you are wrong here. The NET starts at 0. All the data is input and it spits out a number. There is no "expected win margin." We just use the Vegas spread as that because it correlates to the NET algorithm.

The "expected win" comes in from the fact that the NET rankings are based on offensive and defensive efficiencies. Which is also what systems like Pomeroy and Torvik base their systems on. And your offensive and defensive efficiencies compared to your opponents efficiencies imply point spreads. As you have mentioned before, it's not all that different than what the people in Las Vegas have been using for years to help with the starting point spreads they put out.

We can't say exactly what the NET "expects" the margin of victory to be in any particular game, because they keep the actual ratings secret. But if they didn't, if they told everyone what the ratings (rather than just the rankings) were, it would be pretty easy to figure out. But instead, using what the point spread starts out at or what Pomeroy or Torvik (or others) says is a pretty good approximation.

 

[CJsE]

Yeah, it's amazing how many people still think he was wrong about Pitt. No, he was right about Pitt, and it was settled nine days ago. Not that he isn't annoying about it.

It's not about if he was right or wrong about Pitt getting into the tournament. It's that one of the most prominent mouthpieces for the most powerful sports media company is constantly talking about the declining competitiveness of the ACC for the past 5 years at every opportunity.

If you don't think public perception and media coverage play a part in the selection and seeding of teams among a committee filled with AD's with zero basketball experience then I guess we'll never see eye-to-eye on the subject.