Having trouble getting registered or subscribing? Email us at info@kysportsreport.com or Private Message CitizenBBN and we'll get you set up!

  • Joe Lunardi on Cats

    by
    LarryVaught1
    Published on 03-12-2014 01:57 PM
    3 Comments Comments
    By: LARRY VAUGHT



    ESPN bracketologist Joe Lunardi thinks Kentucky is more likely to hurt its NCAA tournament seeding than help it during the Southeastern Conference Tournament.

    Kentucky (22-9) plays either LSU or Alabama in Friday’s quarterfinals and if UK won twice it likely would meet No. 1 Florida, which was unbeaten in SEC play, in the conference title game Sunday.

    “Kentucky could best help itself by starting the season over,” said Lunardi Wednesday. “I don’t mean to be snarky, but last time I looked they were 1-7 against the top 50. They could only play one team that can help (NCAA seeding) in Florida and they have not shown an ability to compete with Florida.

    “They are in the 6-7 (seed) range at the moment. Short of beating Florida, that’s where they are going to stay. The real risk is a loss to a team below them and falling to the 7-8 range which is more what their profile would suggest. I don’t think they are more likely to help themselves than hurt themselves.”

    Lunardi irritated Kentucky fans a few weeks ago when he said UK had been “ordinary” this season — and that was before UK lost to Arkansas and South Carolina.

    “I am used to taking heat from fans, particularly in places where the sport is taken seriously,” Lunardi said. “Take the name off the jersey and this team is very ordinary by Kentucky standards. They are allowed to be border-line good instead of a NBA team.

    “My lesson from this is what happened two years ago (when UK started three freshmen and won the national title) was the exception and the last two years are maybe more likely when you try to make a high level Division I team out of some incredibly talented but non fit-together pieces that are highly rated and have never been a team.

    “I respect Cal (John Calipari) for what he is trying to do that and doing it two years ago but he had a No. 1 draft pick (Anthony Davis) and Olympian and a lottery pick (Michael Kidd-Gilchrist). Maybe building a whole new team every year with all-stars is harder than we thought.”
    1. Categories:
    2. Basketball
    Comments 33 Comments
    1. anderwt's Avatar
      anderwt - 03-12-2014, 12:10 PM
      5 seed if they get to Sunday and guys like him will go nuts
    1. kingcat's Avatar
      kingcat - 03-12-2014, 12:11 PM
      Thanks Larry.

      Regardless of how correct he is about seeding, Luniticardi is wearing his emotion on his sleave this season as it pertains to the Wildcats. He certainly means to sound snarky imho.
    1. Philly Cat's Avatar
      Philly Cat - 03-12-2014, 12:17 PM
      The seeds will be locked by the time we played Florida on Sunday, if we got that far. No way can we affect our seeding, IMHO, except negatively.

      And Lunardi is 100% spot-on in his comments, by the way. Not sure how anyone can argue with it.
    1. UKHistory's Avatar
      UKHistory - 03-12-2014, 12:26 PM
      We made him and others look bad projecting us to be #1 or certainly a top 5 team. 1-7 against the top 50 is horrible. What is that record over the past two years.

      Yuck. We deserve it. The season does start over Friday. We have another chance to be great. Don't know we will. But we have a chance.

      Quote Originally Posted by kingcat View Post
      Thanks Larry.

      Regardless of how correct he is about seeding, Luniticardi is wearing his emotion on his sleave this season as it pertains to the Wildcats. He certainly means to sound snarky imho.
    1. Darrell KSR's Avatar
      Darrell KSR - 03-12-2014, 12:47 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by LarryVaught1 View Post
      “I don’t mean to be snarky, but last time I looked they were 1-7 against the top 50.
      Puzzling how he would bungle this. Lunardi's own site has Kentucky 2-5 against the top 50.

      http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rpi

      Kentucky has defeated # 43 Tennessee and # 24 Louisville. Kentucky has lost to # 2 Florida, # 2 Florida, # 20 North Carolina, # 25 Michigan State and # 34 Baylor.
    1. Darrell KSR's Avatar
      Darrell KSR - 03-12-2014, 12:50 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by Philly Cat View Post

      And Lunardi is 100% spot-on in his comments, by the way. Not sure how anyone can argue with it.
      Can I argue with his error?
    1. cattails's Avatar
      cattails - 03-12-2014, 01:19 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by Philly Cat View Post
      The seeds will be locked by the time we played Florida on Sunday, if we got that far. No way can we affect our seeding, IMHO, except negatively.

      And Lunardi is 100% spot-on in his comments, by the way. Not sure how anyone can argue with it.
      100% agree, we are what we are.
    1. Edward100's Avatar
      Edward100 - 03-12-2014, 01:21 PM
      Lunardi said. “Take the name off the jersey and this team is very ordinary by Kentucky standards.” If they had a mid-conference name on their jersey instead of Kentucky would they even be in this conversation?
    1. anderwt's Avatar
      anderwt - 03-12-2014, 01:27 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by Edward100 View Post
      Lunardi said. “Take the name off the jersey and this team is very ordinary by Kentucky standards.” If they had a mid-conference name on their jersey instead of Kentucky would they even be in this conversation?
      I would argue that a team with 22-9 record, RP1 10 and SOS at 19, they would be a lock for a 4 or 5 seed..Instead UK has not lived up to the hype and its Armageddon and we get a 6-8 seed
    1. Darrell KSR's Avatar
      Darrell KSR - 03-12-2014, 01:56 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by anderwt View Post
      I would argue that a team with 22-9 record, RP1 10 and SOS at 19, they would be a lock for a 4 or 5 seed..Instead UK has not lived up to the hype and its Armageddon and we get a 6-8 seed
      Lunardi's site shows them with RPI of # 18, SOS of # 4, but I agree with you. The funny thing is--he says "take the name off the jersey," and then says, "very ordinary BY KENTUCKY STANDARDS."

      Isn't that wholly inconsistent with his point?

      I think a team that is RPI # 18, AP # 31 (also receiving votes), SOS # 4, 2-5 (including 2 losses vs # 2/AP # 1) vs RPI top 50, 12-8 vs RPI top 100 is certainly not overseeded at # 7, and arguably could be higher.

      I'm actually fine with # 7 as being reasonable and in the ballpark, however. I think what will happen with Kentucky is what should happen with Kentucky. We weren't that far off from garnering a better seed--we beat Baylor, we beat Arkansas, we don't lose to S. Carolina, and it looks different. We don't have to beat all of Baylor-N Carolina-Florida-Michigan State-Louisville, but beating 2 of the 5 would've helped, and 3 of the 5 and we're talking a whole 'nother ball of wax.

      So ....not that far, but yet fair to be where we are (IMHO).

      Funny thing is, I'm quibbling with Lunardi left and right over what he said, but I don't have a problem with the conclusion he reached, which is in the ballpark.
    1. KSRBEvans's Avatar
      KSRBEvans - 03-12-2014, 02:25 PM
      ander and Darrell took my point about Lunardi's comment. Is that the criteria the committee's supposed to apply in determining seeding? I thought every team got judged against every other 2014 team in the context of the 2014 season. Apparently, other teams get evaluated that way, but UK gets judged on a different standard (how it measures up to other UK teams of the past).

      I think we all kind of knew they don't judge UK the way they judge other teams. Just interesting to hear it stated that blatantly.
    1. anderwt's Avatar
      anderwt - 03-12-2014, 02:34 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by Darrell KSR View Post
      Lunardi's site shows them with RPI of # 18, SOS of # 4, but I agree with you. The funny thing is--he says "take the name off the jersey," and then says, "very ordinary BY KENTUCKY STANDARDS."

      Isn't that wholly inconsistent with his point?

      I think a team that is RPI # 18, AP # 31 (also receiving votes), SOS # 4, 2-5 (including 2 losses vs # 2/AP # 1) vs RPI top 50, 12-8 vs RPI top 100 is certainly not overseeded at # 7, and arguably could be higher.

      I'm actually fine with # 7 as being reasonable and in the ballpark, however. I think what will happen with Kentucky is what should happen with Kentucky. We weren't that far off from garnering a better seed--we beat Baylor, we beat Arkansas, we don't lose to S. Carolina, and it looks different. We don't have to beat all of Baylor-N Carolina-Florida-Michigan State-Louisville, but beating 2 of the 5 would've helped, and 3 of the 5 and we're talking a whole 'nother ball of wax.

      So ....not that far, but yet fair to be where we are (IMHO).

      Funny thing is, I'm quibbling with Lunardi left and right over what he said, but I don't have a problem with the conclusion he reached, which is in the ballpark.


      Gotcha..I get the fact that we have underachieved, but if you UK enters the tourney with that RPI and SOS at 24-10, Most would have us in that 5 seed range..I'm good with seeds 4-7..
    1. UKFlounder's Avatar
      UKFlounder - 03-12-2014, 02:40 PM
      But this is Lunardi, not the committee. Is his way of thinking the same as theirs?

      He brags every year about getting a cerrain # of teams in the tourney, but usually misses on most of the actual seeding.


      Quote Originally Posted by KSRBEvans View Post
      ander and Darrell took my point about Lunardi's comment. Is that the criteria the committee's supposed to apply in determining seeding? I thought every team got judged against every other 2014 team in the context of the 2014 season. Apparently, other teams get evaluated that way, but UK gets judged on a different standard (how it measures up to other UK teams of the past).

      I think we all kind of knew they don't judge UK the way they judge other teams. Just interesting to hear it stated that blatantly.
    1. blueboss's Avatar
      blueboss - 03-12-2014, 02:50 PM
      Anytime someone says they don't mean to be like something (snarky in this case) it is more of a statement that they are about to be exactly that(snarky).

      Just win and it's all moot.....he obviously has not heard about the triple secret offensive tweak.....
    1. StuBleedsBlue2's Avatar
      StuBleedsBlue2 - 03-12-2014, 02:58 PM
      Our RPI and SOS is barely going to be in play. The committee says every year that it's about who you play AND beat, and where do you do it. They will reward teams that win away from home.

      That is a category we fall way short. In fact, it's a big fat ZERO wins vs RPI top 50, against 9 overall losses, including a sub 100 RPI.

      Last year, when the brackets came out, people were surprised to see Oregon on the 12 line. If we lose on Friday, I wouldn't be surprised to see us fall a few seeds below where we think.
    1. Jeeepcat's Avatar
      Jeeepcat - 03-12-2014, 03:07 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by anderwt View Post
      I would argue that a team with 22-9 record, RP1 10 and SOS at 19, they would be a lock for a 4 or 5 seed..Instead UK has not lived up to the hype and its Armageddon and we get a 6-8 seed
      yup. Not saying we'll produce but I agree
    1. anderwt's Avatar
      anderwt - 03-12-2014, 03:16 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2 View Post
      Our RPI and SOS is barely going to be in play. The committee says every year that it's about who you play AND beat, and where do you do it. They will reward teams that win away from home.

      That is a category we fall way short. In fact, it's a big fat ZERO wins vs RPI top 50, against 9 overall losses, including a sub 100 RPI.

      Last year, when the brackets came out, people were surprised to see Oregon on the 12 line. If we lose on Friday, I wouldn't be surprised to see us fall a few seeds below where we think.

      I'm actually good with a 10-12 seed...really don't want a 8-9 seed, unless we get Wichita state, which would be an intriguing matchup for the national media
    1. Darrell KSR's Avatar
      Darrell KSR - 03-12-2014, 03:25 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2 View Post
      That is a category we fall way short. In fact, it's a big fat ZERO wins vs RPI top 50, against 9 overall losses, including a sub 100 RPI.
      Oh, I see...away. Nevermind.
    1. CitizenBBN's Avatar
      CitizenBBN - 03-12-2014, 03:54 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by Philly Cat View Post
      And Lunardi is 100% spot-on in his comments, by the way. Not sure how anyone can argue with it.
      He's accurate on several points, but his bias is clear in the tone and wording of his statements IMO. Like I said this summer the talking heads were going to use this year a litmus test on Cal's methodology, and more than one basketball "purist" (in their view) is very skeptical of it if not outright hateful of it. If this went like last year it would be pointed to as the proof that 2012 was a fluke (see his comments about having Davis and MKG) and this is the norm.

      I'm not saying he's wrong, but I read in there that he's far from unhappy with that conclusion. He most definitely means to be snarky, and was. That was a Brooklyn "he's a lowlife pig, but I don't mean that in a bad way" comment IMO.

      I do think if this was just some really young team from some school like UF or Duke and it was young b/c 6 seniors just graduated he'd be far less snarky about their season and about judging this team versus other schools on the records.
    1. CitizenBBN's Avatar
      CitizenBBN - 03-12-2014, 03:58 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by Darrell KSR View Post
      Oh, I see...away. Nevermind.
      In this model somehow wins at home over RPI 50 teams don't count, but losses to top 50 teams anywhere do. I don't disagree that's the way many seem to look at it, but I'm not at all convinced it's an accurate portrayal of a team.
    Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

  • KSR Twitter Feed