Lunardi Insider Article

[ervins84]

Pretty much says what a lot of us on here are worried about. Im not even sure that 10-8 gets them in pending on who they beat/who they lose to and if they win a game in the BET or not.

C.M. Newton, one of the wisest men to steer the NCAA selection and seeding process, put it very concisely about a dozen years ago: "Teams have no control over their conference schedule, so we look very closely at who you choose to play."

Last week, our own Andy Katz reported the five factors most crucial to the selection committee -- among them is nonconference strength of schedule.

To this day, many misinterpret the committee's weighing nonconference SOS so heavily. It's not a macho thing, as in, "My team has more courage than yours because we play anybody, anywhere." It's actually a much simpler consideration.

Nonconference schedules -- along with obscenely unbalanced home-road ratios in major conferences -- skew win-loss records. And not just a little bit. If the path to a 20-win season includes 10 victories against teams under the 250 mark in the RPI, are we really looking at a 20-win team?

Of course not, which is why nonconference scheduling is so critical to the hard math of the RPI and the perceived value of a team in the eyes of the selection committee. Almost every year we see one or more potential at-large teams kicked to the curb for this reason. And you can bet it will happen again this season.

Last year, it was Colorado (nonconference SOS rank: 325, record: 20-13) and Alabama (nonconference SOS rank: 284, record: 21-11). In 2010, it was Virginia Tech (nonconference SOS rank: 339, record: 23-8). Other examples off the top of my head include Penn State in 2009 (nonconference SOS rank: 307, record: 22-11) and New Mexico in 2008 (nonconference SOS rank: 269, record: 24-8).

In the past five seasons, just five teams have been awarded an at-large bid with nonconference schedules ranked below 275. The list is even shorter than I would have thought:


275 have received an at-large berth.

So it's pretty clear you need to be very, very good in a major conference to overcome an invisible nonleague schedule. Which leads to the obvious question: Who will have the "I can't believe it, but should have known better" face on Selection Sunday this season?

The leading candidate is a familiar one: Cincinnati. The Bearcats, who rode the 11-bid coattails of the Big East in 2011, may come up just short in March. Cincy (nonconference SOS rank: 331, 5-4 Big East) has lost three in a row and is right smack in the danger zone. I still have UC in the projected NCAA field as a "Last Four In" member, but the warning signs can't be ignored.

Take away wins against sub-250 foes Alabama State, Jacksonville State, Miami (Ohio), Radford, Arkansas-Pine Bluff and Chicago, and the Bearcats' 15-7 overall record is a much more pedestrian 9-7. And that's not including a sub-250 home loss to Presbyterian (No. 280). Bottom line: If Cincinnati is anywhere near the at-large cut line in March, this will end badly.

We'll close with a few more teams that could very well sit on the Selection Sunday bubble. Given the data above, you wouldn't want to bet a mortgage payment on any of their at-large chances:

George Mason: The Patriots (18-5, 10-1, nonconference SOS rank: 245) lead the CAA but, after earning one of two at-large bids in the Colonial last season, really have no shot to repeat that feat should it be necessary. In fact, none of the CAA contenders has distinguished itself outside the league, with VCU (No. 207) and especially Drexel (No. 271) boasting little or nothing in their nonconference profiles.

Stanford: This is not the season for a short résumé in the Pac-12. The Cardinal (15-6, 5-4, nonconference SOS rank: 263) don't have much within the conference or outside it. Home wins against Colorado State and NC State are decent but not enough to overcome too many others over the likes of Central Arkansas, UC Davis, Pacific, Seattle and Bethune-Cookman.

Wyoming: A few national types are beating the drum for the Cowboys (15-4, 3-2, nonconference SOS rank: 312), but without a huge six weeks in the Mountain West, this is a non-starter. Toss in double-digit home losses to San Diego State and New Mexico, and Wyoming is more likely an NIT bubble team.

Others: It's probably automatic qualification or bust for Central Florida (14-6, 5-3, nonconference SOS rank: 210), Ohio (16-2, 5-2, nonconference SOS rank: 256) and La Salle (16-6, 5-2, nonconference SOS rank: 246). Don't say we didn't warn you.

 

[ralph1950]

I agree with this. Unfortunately, the OOC SOS is going to bite the Cats. I completely understand why the OOC was what it was, with 7 freshmen Mick did not want to destroy their confidence by over scheduling the OOC, he wanted to use the OOC as practice for the Big East schedule.

I doubt if even 11-7 in the Big East will get the Cats into the NCAA unless they make a run to the Big East Tourney final game. It used to be that an RPI over 60 meant NIT. In the last couple years the selection committee has de-emphasized the RPI allowing teams with RPI's in the 70's to get in. I cannot see getting an at large with an RPI in the 80's.

I think going 7-2 for a 12-6 Big East record and a semi-final berth in the Big East Tourney is necessary for an at large for the Cats.

 

[Eternal E]

12 wins (if 3 come over tournament teams) with nothing in MSG and UC will probably get in. Any other scenario is going to require work at MSG and some praying.

 

[ucdave]

I agree with this. Unfortunately, the OOC SOS is going to bite the Cats. I completely understand why the OOC was what it was, with 7 freshmen Mick did not want to destroy their confidence by over scheduling the OOC, he wanted to use the OOC as practice for the Big East schedule.

I doubt if even 11-7 in the Big East will get the Cats into the NCAA unless they make a run to the Big East Tourney final game. It used to be that an RPI over 60 meant NIT. In the last couple years the selection committee has de-emphasized the RPI allowing teams with RPI's in the 70's to get in. I cannot see getting an at large with an RPI in the 80's.

I think going 7-2 for a 12-6 Big East record and a semi-final berth in the Big East Tourney is necessary for an at large for the Cats.

First, i don't think it is appropriate to post insider articles. But that might be another topic by itself.

Ralph - i agree the non-conf could come back to bite us, that wouldn't be as big a problem if we won all those games. I think losing to Presby & Marshall hurt more than just the schedule. Also, i think having all the Freshman had nothing to with the schedule. UC just doesn't have the money to pay the 100-200 rpi schools. Hopefully that will change under the current AD.

Lastly, i think most of you are over-estimating the rest of the field. I think the field as a whole this year is pretty weak. I think we will be in good shape at 11-7, but I think it is still too early to tell so who knows? Regardless, the 'cats still some work to do.

 

[ervins84]

First, i don't think it is appropriate to post insider articles. But that might be another topic by itself.

sue me.

 

[Kingsley Court]

First, i don't think it is appropriate to post insider articles. But that might be another topic by itself.

Ralph - i agree the non-conf could come back to bite us, that wouldn't be as big a problem if we won all those games. I think losing to Presby & Marshall hurt more than just the schedule. Also, i think having all the Freshman had nothing to with the schedule. UC just doesn't have the money to pay the 100-200 rpi schools. Hopefully that will change under the current AD.

Lastly, i think most of you are over-estimating the rest of the field. I think the field as a whole this year is pretty weak. I think we will be in good shape at 11-7, but I think it is still too early to tell so who knows? Regardless, the 'cats still some work to do.

Two points here, the first one is an honest question. What's the excuse for "not having the money" to play top 100-200 RPI teams? If it is a money issue, couldn't they just play those teams away from home? I assume it's the expenses for traveling to those games? I thought, in most cases teams payed other teams to play road games. Either way, not too sure if that is a legit argument for a weak schedule.

Second point, this is kind of a joke, but I feel like the "the field as a whole this year is pretty weak" line has been said for the past decade.

Lastly, I know I said two points, but I agree, insider information should not be posted on here. I'm pretty sure Bearcattalk could get into some trouble if they allow it to be posted.

 

[Eternal E]

Two points here, the first one is an honest question. What's the excuse for "not having the money" to play top 100-200 RPI teams? If it is a money issue, couldn't they just play those teams away from home? I assume it's the expenses for traveling to those games? I thought, in most cases teams payed other teams to play road games. Either way, not too sure if that is a legit argument for a weak schedule.

Second point, this is kind of a joke, but I feel like the "the field as a whole this year is pretty weak" line has been said for the past decade.

Lastly, I know I said two points, but I agree, insider information should not be posted on here. I'm pretty sure Bearcattalk could get into some trouble if they allow it to be posted.

There is a significant difference in the amount of money required to get a "buyout" game with a team like lets say Kent State rather than Alcorn State, UC doesn't have the funds and doesn't generate the revenue (see 4k attendance) to make a game like that profitable without the help of ESPN (like a made for TV non conference game). However scheduling home-and-homes limits the number of home games and makes season ticket packages more expensive per game, as well as forfeits the revenue gained from a home game.

 

[ralph1950]

There is a significant difference in the amount of money required to get a "buyout" game with a team like lets say Kent State rather than Alcorn State, UC doesn't have the funds and doesn't generate the revenue (see 4k attendance) to make a game like that profitable without the help of ESPN (like a made for TV non conference game). However scheduling home-and-homes limits the number of home games and makes season ticket packages more expensive per game, as well as forfeits the revenue gained from a home game.

Very correct.

 

[Bearcat04]

12-6 - In
11-7 - ?
10-8 - Out

If they go 11-7 it's going to depend on how everyone else finishes up. For instance, Lunardi has 5 A10 teams in his current bracket. Temple is the highest seeded team at 9. A number of those teams could play their way out. UD took a big step in that direction on Saturday night by losing at home to a 3 win Rhode Island team.

Last year we sat at 6-6 and finished 5-1, so this team is more than capable of playing their way in again.

 

[JasonS]

12-6 - In
11-7 - ?
10-8 - Out

If they go 11-7 it's going to depend on how everyone else finishes up. For instance, Lunardi has 5 A10 teams in his current bracket. Temple is the highest seeded team at 9. A number of those teams could play their way out. UD took a big step in that direction on Saturday night by losing at home to a 3 win Rhode Island team.

Last year we sat at 6-6 and finished 5-1, so this team is more than capable of playing their way in again.

Lunardi also has 9 Big East teams in with UC and ND in play in games.

 

[Who Dey Time]

12-6 - In
11-7 - ?
10-8 - Out

If they go 11-7 it's going to depend on how everyone else finishes up. For instance, Lunardi has 5 A10 teams in his current bracket. Temple is the highest seeded team at 9. A number of those teams could play their way out. UD took a big step in that direction on Saturday night by losing at home to a 3 win Rhode Island team.

Last year we sat at 6-6 and finished 5-1, so this team is more than capable of playing their way in again.

11-7 is the magic number here. Six more wins and UC is a lock to make the tournament. At 11-7 you will at bare minimum have:

-4 top 50 wins (currently have 2)
-6 top 100 wins (currently have 4)
-6 true road wins (currenty have 5)

Not many, if any of the so-called bubble teams will be able to show those types of numbers. 11-7, IMO, is a lock.

 

[Eternal E]

11-7 is the magic number here. Six more wins and UC is a lock to make the tournament. At 11-7 you will at bare minimum have:

-4 top 50 wins (currently have 2)
-6 top 100 wins (currently have 4)
-6 true road wins (currenty have 5)

Not many, if any of the so-called bubble teams will be able to show those types of numbers. 11-7, IMO, is a lock.

Cincinnati already has 6 top 100 wins

 

[Who Dey Time]

Cincinnati already has 6 top 100 wins

Correct. Should have clarified. Currently have 2 against top 50 with the potential for more and currently have 4 against 51-100.

 

[ralph1950]

Correct. Should have clarified. Currently have 2 against top 50 with the potential for more and currently have 4 against 51-100.

However, I cannot see any team with an RPI above 80 getting an at large berth, I do not believe it has ever happened. Currently UC's RPI is 101.

 

[ucdave]

However, I cannot see any team with an RPI above 80 getting an at large berth, I do not believe it has ever happened. Currently UC's RPI is 101.

What also has never happened is a team from the Big East with 11 wins not get in the tournament. So I guess something's gotta give this year. RPI is something the committee does not look at as much as they used to.