Dated for 3/12, so has to include the games from yesterday. We are 11 seed, next to last team in, playing Vandy in Dayton.
St Bonny's still solidly in last 4 byes, despite loss. Still has Cincy ahead of us. Vanderbilt is ahead of us. It should be noted that those 3 teams, that all lost yesterday, did not move down at all on his lines for the most part, while we seemed to drop significantly after losing to one of his number one seeds, and dropped after winning a game against a team that is only two spots from being in. He also has Wich St, and Butler on the 8 line, which is inconceivable to me, to be honest.
Once again, some comparisons.
Pitt- 20-11, RPI 54, SOS 28, 2-7 top 50, 7-2 51-100, 2 losses 100-150
First Butler. 21-10 overall, RPI 56, SOS 67, 4-8 vs teams 1-50, 2-1 vs 51-100, and one loss 100-150
Ok, so I will give them a slight edge based on one less bad loss, and 2 more top 50 wins, but Pitt also has against the top 100 3 more wins. I don't get how they can be 3 seed lines ahead of us based on this?
Wich St- 24-8, RPI 46, SOS 106, 1-4 vs top 50, 3-3 vs 51-100, 19 101+ wins, and one loss outside of top 100.
This one I really don't get. Their one top 50 win is really good..Utah. Beyond that though, I don't get how they are even really considered a tourney team. This would be like if Pitt swapped out their losses to Louisville twice, and UNC twice, and replaced them with 4 wins against Boston College. Even then, Pitt would still have two fewer 201 plus wins than WSU. IMO, this team should not be in the tournament...at best, they should be the last team in but I think even that would be generous.
St Bonaventure- 22-8, RPI 30, SOS 78, 3-2 vs top 50, 3-2 vs 51-100, 16 wins 101+, 3 losses outside top 100.
I see people on here talking about how Jamie games the RPI system...well, apparently the best way to game it is to be in a conference like the A10, where you can get a bunch of built in 101-200 wins. That is what the Bonnies did, as they had 9 in that range, with 7 of them over A 10 teams, plus 2 over St Louis who was over 200 . Pitt had one conference win outside the top 100, BC, who is really high, but think about that. We also can discuss common opponents as they played Cuse and Duquesne. They lost by 13 at syracuse, and split with Duquesne, who Pitt best by 21. Their aggregate score with Duquesne was a tie. This shows the extreme flaws of RPI.
Cincinnati- 22-10, RPI 47, SOS 69, 3-4 vs top 50, 4-4 vs 51-100, one loss outside top 100, 11-0 200 plus.
Again, people rip on Jamie's scheduling. 11 wins vs 200 plus RPI teams. Again, we can replace a couple of games on Pitt's schedule with Robert Morris level teams, and Pitt could have 25 wins for sure. It seems to be a pattern that playing in a weak conference artificially inflates your RPI when you break down the schedule objectively. I'm also not really sure how Lunardi still has them ahead of Uconn?
Vanderbilt- 19-13, RPI 63, SOS 36, 2-7 vs top 50, 5-3 vs 51-100, 3 losses vs 101+
I really don't know what to say about Vandy and how they are slotted above us. Honestly, their resume and Pitt's are actually somewhat similar, though based on 2 more top 100 wins, and one fewer bad loss, I would give Pitt a decent edge. However, somehow Lunardi has them slotted above us. It makes literally 0 sense. Sure, they played #1 Kansas OOC. That was their only top ten game. We played #2 Virginia, #7 Miami, and #8 UNC twice. The committee doesn't even take into consideration conference records, so again, how on earth does Vanderbilt get an edge here per Lunardi?
I guess my overall point is that those that are taking Lunardi as gospel really shouldn't...he is really out to lunch with his numbers IMO. Pitt will likely be solidly in as a 9 or 10 seed. I would be surprised if they are in Dayton, and would be stunned if they missed the tournament.
St Bonny's still solidly in last 4 byes, despite loss. Still has Cincy ahead of us. Vanderbilt is ahead of us. It should be noted that those 3 teams, that all lost yesterday, did not move down at all on his lines for the most part, while we seemed to drop significantly after losing to one of his number one seeds, and dropped after winning a game against a team that is only two spots from being in. He also has Wich St, and Butler on the 8 line, which is inconceivable to me, to be honest.
Once again, some comparisons.
Pitt- 20-11, RPI 54, SOS 28, 2-7 top 50, 7-2 51-100, 2 losses 100-150
First Butler. 21-10 overall, RPI 56, SOS 67, 4-8 vs teams 1-50, 2-1 vs 51-100, and one loss 100-150
Ok, so I will give them a slight edge based on one less bad loss, and 2 more top 50 wins, but Pitt also has against the top 100 3 more wins. I don't get how they can be 3 seed lines ahead of us based on this?
Wich St- 24-8, RPI 46, SOS 106, 1-4 vs top 50, 3-3 vs 51-100, 19 101+ wins, and one loss outside of top 100.
This one I really don't get. Their one top 50 win is really good..Utah. Beyond that though, I don't get how they are even really considered a tourney team. This would be like if Pitt swapped out their losses to Louisville twice, and UNC twice, and replaced them with 4 wins against Boston College. Even then, Pitt would still have two fewer 201 plus wins than WSU. IMO, this team should not be in the tournament...at best, they should be the last team in but I think even that would be generous.
St Bonaventure- 22-8, RPI 30, SOS 78, 3-2 vs top 50, 3-2 vs 51-100, 16 wins 101+, 3 losses outside top 100.
I see people on here talking about how Jamie games the RPI system...well, apparently the best way to game it is to be in a conference like the A10, where you can get a bunch of built in 101-200 wins. That is what the Bonnies did, as they had 9 in that range, with 7 of them over A 10 teams, plus 2 over St Louis who was over 200 . Pitt had one conference win outside the top 100, BC, who is really high, but think about that. We also can discuss common opponents as they played Cuse and Duquesne. They lost by 13 at syracuse, and split with Duquesne, who Pitt best by 21. Their aggregate score with Duquesne was a tie. This shows the extreme flaws of RPI.
Cincinnati- 22-10, RPI 47, SOS 69, 3-4 vs top 50, 4-4 vs 51-100, one loss outside top 100, 11-0 200 plus.
Again, people rip on Jamie's scheduling. 11 wins vs 200 plus RPI teams. Again, we can replace a couple of games on Pitt's schedule with Robert Morris level teams, and Pitt could have 25 wins for sure. It seems to be a pattern that playing in a weak conference artificially inflates your RPI when you break down the schedule objectively. I'm also not really sure how Lunardi still has them ahead of Uconn?
Vanderbilt- 19-13, RPI 63, SOS 36, 2-7 vs top 50, 5-3 vs 51-100, 3 losses vs 101+
I really don't know what to say about Vandy and how they are slotted above us. Honestly, their resume and Pitt's are actually somewhat similar, though based on 2 more top 100 wins, and one fewer bad loss, I would give Pitt a decent edge. However, somehow Lunardi has them slotted above us. It makes literally 0 sense. Sure, they played #1 Kansas OOC. That was their only top ten game. We played #2 Virginia, #7 Miami, and #8 UNC twice. The committee doesn't even take into consideration conference records, so again, how on earth does Vanderbilt get an edge here per Lunardi?
I guess my overall point is that those that are taking Lunardi as gospel really shouldn't...he is really out to lunch with his numbers IMO. Pitt will likely be solidly in as a 9 or 10 seed. I would be surprised if they are in Dayton, and would be stunned if they missed the tournament.
