Lunardi Projecting the Cajuns to be in Big Dance

[zephyr]

I'm pretty sure most of the discussions on this board about how the Cajuns were treated were solely aimed at that evaluation insofar as it pertained to giving us a 6 seed in the NIT and forcing us to travel. We were definitely under seeded as compared to the field.

So let me turn this around on you, what tells you we were underseeded? How are you comparing us to other schools?

[VObserver]

I'm pretty sure most of the discussions on this board about how the Cajuns were treated were solely aimed at that evaluation insofar as it pertained to giving us a 6 seed in the NIT and forcing us to travel. We were definitely under seeded as compared to the field.

We only played one "quadrant 1" game, which we lost by 30.
We were 1-2 in "quadrant 2" games.

That is it. A total of 4 games the folks who do seeding consider "quality" games to some degree, and we were 1-3. Not much there to hang your hat on.

I am no fan of the committee, nor of the SEC nor of LSU, but the tigers were 6-5 in "quadrant 1" games. Even if you don't count conference games, LSU was 2-0 in "quadrant 1".

[Turbine]

So let me turn this around on you, what tells you we were underseeded? How are you comparing us to other schools?

Start a ranking that totally includes Strength of Schedule and go from there.

Let's call it the Reality Performance Index. RPI for short.

[Turbine]

We only played one "quadrant 1" game, which we lost by 30.
We were 1-2 in "quadrant 2" games.

That is it. A total of 4 games the folks who do seeding consider "quality" games to some degree, and we were 1-3. Not much there to hang your hat on.

I am no fan of the committee, nor of the SEC nor of LSU, but the tigers were 6-5 in "quadrant 1" games. Even if you don't count conference games, LSU was 2-0 in "quadrant 1".

When you play the same quadrant teams twice a year every year, you learn their tendencies strengths and weaknesses. This make exploiting them less of an exploit and more of a byproduct.

[anhil8tor]

Every year has teams people feel were left out. Its part of the process. My only part is that we were not in that group. I don't know why so many people were ____ed about the process for us as it had no bearing on where we are now. Everyone knew we weren't going to get an at large bid. At least I thought everyone knew.

I knew we wouldn't get in when we didn't win our tournament.... but my question is this:

If you were to take out Oklahoma and Syracuse, then put Louisiana vs Middle Tenn as the play in game, wouldn't that look better than what they did? Now granted... the 1 seed that has to play the winner may not be happy but then you get a happy medium where most will argue the "better teams" made it.

[CajunVic]

We only played one "quadrant 1" game, which we lost by 30.
We were 1-2 in "quadrant 2" games.

That is it. A total of 4 games the folks who do seeding consider "quality" games to some degree, and we were 1-3. Not much there to hang your hat on.

I am no fan of the committee, nor of the SEC nor of LSU, but the tigers were 6-5 in "quadrant 1" games. Even if you don't count conference games, LSU was 2-0 in "quadrant 1".

All supposed to start with RPI which takes into account all of the above generally. Cajuns second highest in field.

Cajuns have second best record in field.

Cajuns won their conference.

They have a great remodeled facility to play in.

With these four criteria where they are mounds above most of the field, they are seeded in the bottom 1/3 of the field. All of the G5 schools that got an automatic bid for winning their conference but not their conference tourney were likely treated save 1. They were all just dropped in the bottom seeds.

I say no more and no more needs to be said.

[VObserver]

I knew we wouldn't get in when we didn't win our tournament.... but my question is this:

If you were to take out Oklahoma and Syracuse, then put Louisiana vs Middle Tenn as the play in game, wouldn't that look better than what they did? Now granted... the 1 seed that has to play the winner may not be happy but then you get a happy medium where most will argue the "better teams" made it.

Two fallacies here. That game is an 11 seed play in, not 16. Also, were Syracuse and Oklahoma replaced, we still would not be in; it would be Middle Tennessee and St. Mary's.

[VObserver]

All supposed to start with RPI which takes into account all of the above generally. Cajuns second highest in field.

Cajuns have second best record in field.

Cajuns won their conference.

They have a great remodeled facility to play in.

With these four criteria where they are mounds above most of the field, they are seeded in the bottom 1/3 of the field. All of the G5 schools that got an automatic bid for winning their conference but not their conference tourney were likely treated save 1. They were all just dropped in the bottom seeds.

I say no more and no more needs to be said.

Vic, more than anyone else I know, I want the NCAA to establish an objective criteria for both deciding who gets in and how they are seeded. Whether that is RPI or BPI or some yet to be invented PI, I don't care. Just have a known and objective way to get in the tournament that is both fair to all and attainable by all who choose to pursue the Dance.

Say it is set that the 32 D1 Conference Champions get in, plus the 32 highest non champions in whatever that criteria is. Everyone knows going in what they need to do, and those that do it best get in. The day the last conference championship is decided, every school will know immediately if they are in or out, and if they are top 32 in whatever PI is used, they will know beforehand. Not only that, they will know their seeding.

The problem with an objective standard is twofold: Finding one that is both objective and fair is not an easy task. And, most importantly, the money interests will never let that happen because Oklahoma-Syracuse is perceived as being a more valuable media game than St. Mary's-MTSU.

[CajunVic]

Vic, more than anyone else I know, I want the NCAA to establish an objective criteria for both deciding who gets in and how they are seeded. Whether that is RPI or BPI or some yet to be invented PI, I don't care. Just have a known and objective way to get in the tournament that is both fair to all and attainable by all who choose to pursue the Dance.

Say it is set that the 32 D1 Conference Champions get in, plus the 32 highest non champions in whatever that criteria is. Everyone knows going in what they need to do, and those that do it best get in. The day the last conference championship is decided, every school will know immediately if they are in or out, and if they are top 32 in whatever PI is used, they will know beforehand. Not only that, they will know their seeding.

The problem with an objective standard is twofold: Finding one that is both objective and fair is not an easy task. And, most importantly, the money interests will never let that happen because Oklahoma-Syracuse is perceived as being a more valuable media game than St. Mary's-MTSU.

I have absolutely no problem with the Cajuns not being in the big dance. They did not do what they need to do to qualify for that tournament. What I have a huge problem with this year is where they were seeded in the NIT, period. I believe we were underseeded as compared to the field taken.

[CajunNation]

It's obvious where the committee is going.

Wins by themselves mean nothing. It's all about context.

If the SBC and it's member institutions are not going to schedule as tough as possible in non-conference, the conference will always be a 1 bid league, and it's representative will be locked into 15 or 16 seeds going forward.

Is this acceptable to us?

[cajundiehard]

Two fallacies here. That game is an 11 seed play in, not 16. Also, were Syracuse and Oklahoma replaced, we still would not be in; it would be Middle Tennessee and St. Mary's.

Yes and No.

Yes, it would not be us.

No, it would not be MT and SM. It would be 2 other Power conference schools.

[VObserver]

I should have been more clear: if it were two mid majors, it would be St. Mary's and MTSU.