Lunardi Projecting the Cajuns to be in Big Dance

[CajunVic]

But our RPI was not really all that good. We were not as good as MTSU, St. Mary's, Syracuse, USC, WKU, Louisville and so on. We didn't have any good wins which still would have put us on the outside looking in had we finished with a more competitive RPI to those other schools.

Make that analysis against the field in the NIT - 6th seed!!!!!!

[zephyr]

The 209 SOS is included in the RPI.

Don't double dip.

It's a component. Do you have anything valuable to add to this or will you just keep stating the same thing? Our SOS was over 200 but our RPI was 63. Its part of the RPI but it obviously only plays a part. As I've mentioned before, the RPI was not the only factor to be looked into. The committee looked at Q1 wins and overall strength of teams you beat and OOC schedule. Arizona State got in with an RPI worse than ours but they had some really nice wins and were #1 in the country for a while. They started hot and the committee took that into consideration. The committee used to really value what you've done in your past 10 games. This year, they really looked at what you did prior to conference play. These are the reasons that RPI was NOT a sole factor in selection.

[zephyr]

Make that analysis against the field in the NIT - 6th seed!!!!!!

I don't know what the selection process is for the NIT, however, if you compare us to the other 6 seeds in the field, all of our RPI's are literally next to one another. I have no idea if they looked at that and went with it. I find it hard to believe they did it just like that since LSU's is lower but again, LSU also had better wins. I don't doubt there is more subjectivity in the NIT selection process as Notre Dame's RPI is worse than ours but they are a 1 seed.

[CajunVic]

It's a component. Do you have anything valuable to add to this or will you just keep stating the same thing? Our SOS was over 200 but our RPI was 63. Its part of the RPI but it obviously only plays a part. As I've mentioned before, the RPI was not the only factor to be looked into. The committee looked at Q1 wins and overall strength of teams you beat and OOC schedule. Arizona State got in with an RPI worse than ours but they had some really nice wins and were #1 in the country for a while. They started hot and the committee took that into consideration. The committee used to really value what you've done in your past 10 games. This year, they really looked at what you did prior to conference play. These are the reasons that RPI was NOT a sole factor in selection.

Let's face the truth. The committee decided which P5 teams they wanted in and as to each respective team focused upon that teams high quality attributes and ignored their low quality ones. Each team had a different set of focus attributes. The system is rigged and there are now enough given evaluation areas in play to put who the committee wants into the dance. Their is no longer a selective criteria that all are judged upon. ThAt is what everyone is complaining about.

[zephyr]

Let's face the truth. The committee decided which P5 teams they wanted in and as to each respective team focused upon that teams high quality attributes and ignored their low quality ones. Each team had a different set of focus attributes. The system is rigged and there are now enough given evaluation areas in play to put who the committee wants into the dance. Their is no longer a selective criteria that all are judged upon. ThAt is what everyone is complaining about.

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.

[CajunVic]

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'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.

[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.