Joe Lunardi Video: Bracketology on Wyoming

[WestWYOPoke]

I would go ape if CSU gets an at-large bid and we don't. How in the hell could they put them in before us after we just swept them? No reasonable human could do that

+1

You guys make it sound like it comes down to between us and CSU, which isn't the case. It comes down to a list of about 6-10 teams, of which csu is near the top and we are near the bottom. Now if it came down to just UW and csu, then yes I think we get the nod at this point, but that's not the case.

 

[LanderPoke]

I would go ape if CSU gets an at-large bid and we don't. How in the hell could they put them in before us after we just swept them? No reasonable human could do that

+1

You guys make it sound like it comes down to between us and CSU, which isn't the case. It comes down to a list of about 6-10 teams, of which csu is near the top and we are near the bottom. Now if it came down to just UW and csu, then yes I think we get the nod at this point, but that's not the case.

You're saying if head to head we would get in over CSU, but because 6-10 other teams are mixed in with us and CSU, CSU would then be chosen over us? That makes no sense.

 

[BeaverPoke]

I would go ape if CSU gets an at-large bid and we don't. How in the hell could they put them in before us after we just swept them? No reasonable human could do that

+1

You guys make it sound like it comes down to between us and CSU, which isn't the case. It comes down to a list of about 6-10 teams, of which csu is near the top and we are near the bottom. Now if it came down to just UW and csu, then yes I think we get the nod at this point, but that's not the case.

You're saying if head to head we would get in over CSU, but because 6-10 other teams are mixed in with us and CSU, CSU would then be chosen over us? That makes no sense.

Sure it does.
Remember the year Texas beat Oklahoma, Oklahoma beat Texas Tech, and Texas Tech beat Texas?

If it was just head to head for Texas and Oklahoma, Texas would have got the invite to the BCS Bowl. But it wasn't just those two in the discussion. At the end of the day, the Sooners got the invite.

Head to head works for 2 teams. When you have 10, you gotta consider everything else. And it's a cumulative thing. So our wins over the sheep are all good for mwc tie breakers but when we have other metrics and teams involved, I don't wanna say our wins don't matter but their value isn't as important.

 

[seattlecowboy]

I would go ape if CSU gets an at-large bid and we don't. How in the hell could they put them in before us after we just swept them? No reasonable human could do that

+1

You guys make it sound like it comes down to between us and CSU, which isn't the case. It comes down to a list of about 6-10 teams, of which csu is near the top and we are near the bottom. Now if it came down to just UW and csu, then yes I think we get the nod at this point, but that's not the case.

You're saying if head to head we would get in over CSU, but because 6-10 other teams are mixed in with us and CSU, CSU would then be chosen over us? That makes no sense.

Yeah it doesn't have to make sense but that is how things are done with the selection committee. They will start by looking at those 6 to 10 teams over all body of work which is very heavily weighted on non conference schedules and how many road wins you have. Also rpi top 25, top 50 and top 100 wins and losses.

Only way they would look heavily at the head to head would be if they decided out of those 6 to 10 teams that Wyoming and CSU were going to be the last 2 best teams and have to pick one of them. SInce that isn't likely to occur they will be comparing CSU's overall profile against 6 to 9 other teams and Wyoming's overall profile against 6 to 9 other teams and take who they thinks profile over all looks the best.

Since Wyoming's overall profile doesn't look good because of the non conference schedule rating so low and the rpi not high enough we will be kicked out of the conversation quicker than CSU would when compared against other teams. It isn't always fair but that is the way it works.

 

[joshvanklomp]

One fault in the SMU comparison Lunardi made: SMU lost their last two regular season games and their only AAC tournament game, meaning they went into the tournament on a 3-game losing streak. Obviously that hurt their chances greatly.

They were going into Selection Sunday with 9 losses on the season. We only have 4 at this point of the season. If we lose five more games, we wouldn't have missed the tournament because of our weak OOC.

 

[kansasCowboy]

Another reason why we should've quit messing around with CSU last night and beat them by 30. 59-48 just doesn't cut it, but 72-45 would have been a statement and likely gotten us into the big dance. Just winning isn't enough. The FINAL score needs to look good. The selection committee didn't watch last nights game, all they do is look at the FINAL SCORE.

Really? You have to come into another thread with the same arguement you already wasted a thread on, and wouldn't even come back to?

Come on Buckaroo! You're better than this.

 

[seattlecowboy]

One fault in the SMU comparison Lunardi made: SMU lost their last two regular season games and their only AAC tournament game, meaning they went into the tournament on a 3-game losing streak. Obviously that hurt their chances greatly.

They were going into Selection Sunday with 9 losses on the season. We only have 4 at this point of the season. If we lose five more games, we wouldn't have missed the tournament because of our weak OOC.

Very good points. I think Lunardi was trying to show our non conference sos compared to theirs but you do have a good points.

Losing your first round game in your conference tournament is never a good thing and of course losing your final 3 games will hurt a lot also. We just need to play well overall the last 10 games and then win in the first round of the conference tournament and see what happens.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

I would go ape if CSU gets an at-large bid and we don't. How in the hell could they put them in before us after we just swept them? No reasonable human could do that

+1

You guys make it sound like it comes down to between us and CSU, which isn't the case. It comes down to a list of about 6-10 teams, of which csu is near the top and we are near the bottom. Now if it came down to just UW and csu, then yes I think we get the nod at this point, but that's not the case.

You're saying if head to head we would get in over CSU, but because 6-10 other teams are mixed in with us and CSU, CSU would then be chosen over us? That makes no sense.

Yeah it doesn't have to make sense but that is how things are done with the selection committee. They will start by looking at those 6 to 10 teams over all body of work which is very heavily weighted on non conference schedules and how many road wins you have. Also rpi top 25, top 50 and top 100 wins and losses.

Only way they would look heavily at the head to head would be if they decided out of those 6 to 10 teams that Wyoming and CSU were going to be the last 2 best teams and have to pick one of them. SInce that isn't likely to occur they will be comparing CSU's overall profile against 6 to 9 other teams and Wyoming's overall profile against 6 to 9 other teams and take who they thinks profile over all looks the best.

Since Wyoming's overall profile doesn't look good because of the non conference schedule rating so low and the rpi not high enough we will be kicked out of the conversation quicker than CSU would when compared against other teams. It isn't always fair but that is the way it works.

Exactly! This and Beav's post were what I'm talking about, they just did a better job describing it than I did.

 

[Cowboy Junky]

There's many a slip twixt a cup and a lip Joe.

I like Wyoming's chances of making the dance. Call me crazy.

 

[WilyWapiti]

If you look at the RPI forecast calculator, we are still in great shape and control our own destiny.
I just ran the number for the rest of the regular season.

If we win out: RPI is 38 and we should be a lock.
Lose to SDSU only: RPI is 44 and we should still be a lock.
Lose to SDSU & NM: RPI is 53 and we are probably in, but looking for some help.
Any losses beyond that, and we need to win the tourney.

We are totally in control here. Win the games we should, and steal a win where we might be a slight underdog, and we should be Ok. Similar to SMU last year, though, we can't afford any bad slip-ups. We must win out at home, first and foremost!

WW

 

[JimmyDimes]

If you look at the RPI forecast calculator, we are still in great shape and control our own destiny.
I just ran the number for the rest of the regular season.

If we win out: RPI is 38 and we should be a lock.
Lose to SDSU only: RPI is 44 and we should still be a lock.
Lose to SDSU NM: RPI is 53 and we are probably in, but looking for some help.
Any losses beyond that, and we need to win the tourney.

We are totally in control here. Win the games we should, and steal a win where we might be a slight underdog, and we should be Ok. Similar to SMU last year, though, we can't afford any bad slip-ups. We must win out at home, first and foremost!

WW

Right now, Realtime RPI has us in the 60's. Continue to do what is necessary will put the Pokes in good shape. Our SOS is now under 200. And if the selection committee was to pick between CSU and Wyoming, the head to head would be huge. They will also look at quality wins and bad losses....Wyoming is looking decent in this department. Then they will look at who is hot entering the tournament...Wyoming not only needs to finish strong, but win a game or two in the MWC tournament. Hell, win the whole thing and non of this matters.

Right now I'm feeling pretty good about Wyoming's chances.

 

[NowherePoke]

If you look at the RPI forecast calculator, we are still in great shape and control our own destiny.
I just ran the number for the rest of the regular season.

If we win out: RPI is 38 and we should be a lock.
Lose to SDSU only: RPI is 44 and we should still be a lock.
Lose to SDSU & NM: RPI is 53 and we are probably in, but looking for some help.
Any losses beyond that, and we need to win the tourney.

We are totally in control here. Win the games we should, and steal a win where we might be a slight underdog, and we should be Ok. Similar to SMU last year, though, we can't afford any bad slip-ups. We must win out at home, first and foremost!

WW

I am not sure I am ever comfortable saying we are a lock (I will explain why in a moment), but I think if we can win 16 total (14-4 and reach MWCT final or 15-3 and reach MWCT 2nd round) we will be in the mix.

The biggest issue is our SOS. I know that has been talked about, but the degree of it is quite amazing. RPIForecast forecasts our final SOS as 192. Obviously that could move a little bit, but it is going to be in that range. Consider:

1. Since the NCAA Tournament went to 68 teams (which should make it easier as an at-large), the lowest SOS by an at-large team is 145. Nobody has received an at-large with a SOS over 150. Last year, the lowest SOS that received an at-large was 86 (SDSU).

2. If you look at some of the highest RPI's that have been left out in recent years, you definitely see a theme:

13-14: USM (RPI = 34, SOS = 132), Toledo (RPI = 38, SOS = 146), SMU (RPI = 55, SOS = 113), Louisiana Tech (RPI = 58, SOS = 183)

12-13: USM (RPI = 31, SOS = 74), Louisiana Tech (RPI = 53, SOS = 191)

11-12: Oral Roberts (RPI = 48, SOS = 188), MTSU (RPI = 56, SOS = 182)