Lunardi said he would have made TN a 2 seed

[Houstonvol1]

He said that if he had a vote he would have made the vols a 2 seed but didn’t have a problem with seeding them behind Villanova because of the head to head.

The way he stammered over why he thought the committee would make them a 3 shows there is not transparency on seeding priorities and he clearly didn’t want to explain what he knows. I don’t have a problem with an emphasis on the whole season but it appears that tourneys are undercounted.

I do agree with Lunardi’s point that the 2’s play the 3’s in the end. Unless you get a 1 (which is paired with 4’s) it’s not as big of a factor. A bigger factor IMO is ending up in a bracket with teams that have gotten hot at the end of the year. Virginia tech, Iowa and TN are good examples.

Hits, misses from Joe Lunardi and the selection committee

 

[cncchris33]

Lunardi is talking out of both sides of his mouth to appeal to every possible audience. He defended Tennessee as a 3, and now says they deserve a 2 and that is where he'd have them if he had a vote.

 

[Houstonvol1]

Lunardi is talking out of both sides of his mouth to appeal to every possible audience. He defended Tennessee as a 3, and now says they deserve a 2 and that is where he'd have them if he had a vote.

I find him annoying to listen to but in the end his job is to predict what the committee will do and he is pretty accurate. The argument with seeding is really with the committee.

 

[volinSmyrna]

Lunardi is talking out of both sides of his mouth to appeal to every possible audience. He defended Tennessee as a 3, and now says they deserve a 2 and that is where he'd have them if he had a vote.

Yeah, that makes no sense. He said very clearly that according to "his metrics" we were behind both AU and UK, and that the committee would "certainly" not put us over Duke. It's such a sham. Nothing to do now, but play with a chip on our shoulder. I would rather be where we are as a 3 seed than where Duke is as a 2.

 

[volbound1700]

The problem is that I think the Committee just looks at media research by people like Lunardi and use that to make their picks. I don't see any logic in how they pick unless you find that as the reasoning.

He might as well be on the committee because I think they use his research/opinion.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Lunardi is talking out of both sides of his mouth to appeal to every possible audience. He defended Tennessee as a 3, and now says they deserve a 2 and that is where he'd have them if he had a vote.

Villanova over Tennessee - "Legit because of head to head."

Auburn, UK over Tennessee - "Head to head doesn't matter."

He's too chickens*** to really take a side. He should have just said the committee decided a week ago (maybe even a month ago) that a 3 was our ceiling and it sucks but that's the truth. Him trying to justify it made it worse because you can tell he KNOWS what there isn't anything logical to say to defend it and it gets down to special treatment/committee made up their minds before the SECT.

 

[cncchris33]

Villanova over Tennessee - "Legit because of head to head."

Auburn, UK over Tennessee - "Head to head doesn't matter."

He's too chickens*** too really take a side. He should have just said the committee decided a week ago (maybe even a month ago) that a 3 was our ceiling and it sucks but that's the truth. Him trying to justify it made it worse because you can tell he KNOWS what there isn't anything logical to say to defend it and it gets down to special treatment/committee made up their minds before the SECT.

Yep, he only dug himself deeper into a hole trying to defend it. Props to Rece Davis for pushing him for an answer.

 

[JohnWardForever]

He said that out of WHICH side of his mouth? LOONARDI obviously has some connections. Somebody's azzwipe.

 

[Sudden Impact]

The problem is that I think the Committee just looks at media research by people like Lunardi and use that to make their picks. I don't see any logic in how they pick unless you find that as the reasoning.

He might as well be on the committee because I think they use his research/opinion.

I agree, but it raises the question of why we need a committee
2nd the committee is made up of ADs and Commissioners who know little about seeding and metrics.
LurnadooDoo has an inside connection to the committee?
It appears that the committee used zero analytics in their analysis.
I am pissed at the season.
A bunch of idiots have tried to fine tune this crap and it has gotten to be a lazy process evidently. Sitting around drinking coffee and waiting for the conference tournaments to end without consideration.
This process is flaw and should be done the day after all results are in if the conference tournaments are done
This is a rush job process and haste makes for piss poor performance

Can Someone please Tell Me this -20% BS that Lunardooo was talking about when comparing us to Kentucy and Auburn.....

 

[TMvol10]

By him not having any data to support KY and Duke being seeded over us, and his only real explanation being "I just knew the committee wouldn't do that", it proves what we've known for a very long time...the committee is corrupt. They give the blue bloods preferential treatment with seeding and where they play their first 2 games. Its always been like that but now that they go by resumes, its become even more obvious. I mean what kind of reasoning is "I just knew the committee wouldn't do that". LOL. Oh well. Lets go beat some azz.

 

[Sugaray13]

He said that if he had a vote he would have made the vols a 2 seed but didn’t have a problem with seeding them behind Villanova because of the head to head.

The way he stammered over why he thought the committee would make them a 3 shows there is not transparency on seeding priorities and he clearly didn’t want to explain what he knows. I don’t have a problem with an emphasis on the whole season but it appears that tourneys are undercounted.

I do agree with Lunardi’s point that the 2’s play the 3’s in the end. Unless you get a 1 (which is paired with 4’s) it’s not as big of a factor. A bigger factor IMO is ending up in a bracket with teams that have gotten hot at the end of the year. Virginia tech, Iowa and TN are good examples.

Hits, misses from Joe Lunardi and the selection committee

So head to head means something when it works against Tennessee, but when we beat Kentucky twice it means NOTHING?

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Yep, he only dug himself deeper into a hole trying to defend it. Props to Rece Davis for pushing him for an answer.

Also context matters. Yeah we lost head to head to Villanova....before Thanksgiving. Our head to head against UK/Auburn happened much more recently and the 3 wins in the past month. In most years what you did early in the season doesn't carry a whole lot of weight and I'd bet he would downplay our win over Arizona.

 

[volfan1954]

He said that if he had a vote he would have made the vols a 2 seed but didn’t have a problem with seeding them behind Villanova because of the head to head.

The way he stammered over why he thought the committee would make them a 3 shows there is not transparency on seeding priorities and he clearly didn’t want to explain what he knows. I don’t have a problem with an emphasis on the whole season but it appears that tourneys are undercounted.

I do agree with Lunardi’s point that the 2’s play the 3’s in the end. Unless you get a 1 (which is paired with 4’s) it’s not as big of a factor. A bigger factor IMO is ending up in a bracket with teams that have gotten hot at the end of the year. Virginia tech, Iowa and TN are good examples.

Hits, misses from Joe Lunardi and the selection committee

he said also that h to head is not a factor for mtn with auburn and ken. because tn was ranked below ken and aub all year hypocrical.

 

[SouthKnoxVol70]

Lunardi was just worried about getting the next cheeseburger yesterday and not the seedlings .

 

[volfan1954]

I agree, but it raises the question of why we need a committee
2nd the committee is made up of ADs and Commissioners who know little about seeding and metrics.
LurnadooDoo has an inside connection to the committee?
It appears that the committee used zero analytics in their analysis.
I am pissed at the season.
A bunch of idiots have tried to fine tune this crap and it has gotten to be a lazy process evidently. Sitting around drinking coffee and waiting for the conference tournaments to end without consideration.
This process is flaw and should be done the day after all results are in if the conference tournaments are done
This is a rush job process and haste makes for piss poor performance

Can Someone please Tell Me this -20% BS that Lunardooo was talking about when comparing us to Kentucy and Auburn.....

This is not frair to all the players that worked there buts off to ge a high seed this commity should be ashamed

 

[cardvolfan]

I love the ammunition this debate gives us. Vols will use this as a show of disrespect because that’s exactly what it is. The head of the committee flagrantly lying as to the parameters used in the selection process. What we deserved and what we got are two different things, but the resolve will push this team even harder. On a side note, go Blue Hens.

 

[VolBricks]

two weeks ago we were talking about whether we would be a 3 or 4, now we know we are a 3. It makes no difference the biggest issue is that we are in the bracket we are in. We are more than likely have to play 2 teams we already played to advance.

 

[DC_Vol]

If I’m looking on the bright side of this, the whole episode has been great PR for Tennessee basketball. No normal person would have gone comparing our metrics to a Duke program without the seeding controversy.

Now all my friends who follow college basketball have seen it on Twitter or elsewhere and are saying, “wow, Tennessee has quietly had a phenomenal season. I’m pulling for you guys.”

 

[chuckiepoo]

If I’m looking on the bright side of this, the whole episode has been great PR for Tennessee basketball. No normal person would have gone comparing our metrics to a Duke program without the seeding controversy.

Now all my friends who follow college basketball have seen it on Twitter or elsewhere and are saying, “wow, Tennessee has quietly had a phenomenal season. I’m pulling for you guys.”

Hopefully that sentiment is rampant in Indy.

 

[volroadwarrior]

They talked about it on Fox News this morning. They usually don't cover sports much. They discussed the snub and the real UT. Got good kudos from that discussion. I believe this will ultimately work in our favor because the draw is favorable. Everyone will remember how a team performs and not about the seedings from a bunch of biased SEC haters. BTW Texas A&M got screwed also. Duke is there because they want to kiss coach K's bu++ for the last time. It's sickening but if we win we will get vindication.

 

[Delmar]

I find him annoying to listen to but in the end his job is to predict what the committee will do and he is pretty accurate. The argument with seeding is really with the committee.

He is “pretty accurate” because he is fed information from his cronies on the committee so that the ESPN monster gets fed. He’s not predicting, he’s just parroting what he’s told.

 

[cncchris33]

Also context matters. Yeah we lost head to head to Villanova....before Thanksgiving. Our head to head against UK/Auburn happened much more recently and the 3 wins in the past month. In most years what you did early in the season doesn't carry a whole lot of weight and I'd bet he would downplay our win over Arizona.

Yeah, judging a team on March 13th, 2022 and pretending they're the same team they were on November 20th, 2021, is foolish. And he's a fool to believe we'd accept that as legitimate commentary. If he can't look at this team over the last two months and understand how much better they are, then quit your job. This team is playing like one of the best 5 teams in the country. Anyone without bias can see that. I've heard from numerous Kentucky fans about how much we deserve that 2 more than they do, let alone Duke or Auburn. They are as outraged about our seeding as Tennessee fans are, and same goes for aTm.

 

[ptgrbn]

Lunardi is talking out of both sides of his mouth to appeal to every possible audience. He defended Tennessee as a 3, and now says they deserve a 2 and that is where he'd have them if he had a vote.

You’re right but he’s actually talking out of the other end

 

[wmcovol]

He said that if he had a vote he would have made the vols a 2 seed but didn’t have a problem with seeding them behind Villanova because of the head to head.

The way he stammered over why he thought the committee would make them a 3 shows there is not transparency on seeding priorities and he clearly didn’t want to explain what he knows. I don’t have a problem with an emphasis on the whole season but it appears that tourneys are undercounted.

I do agree with Lunardi’s point that the 2’s play the 3’s in the end. Unless you get a 1 (which is paired with 4’s) it’s not as big of a factor. A bigger factor IMO is ending up in a bracket with teams that have gotten hot at the end of the year. Virginia tech, Iowa and TN are good examples.

Hits, misses from Joe Lunardi and the selection committee

Notice how they keep comparing to Villanova but never compare to Auburn, Ky or Duke? That’s ********.

 

[TNBV]

We have a legit argument for a 2 seed but lets also be honest and not make up crap. In this article, Lunardi did not say the head to head with Villanova was the deciding factor. He said he had no problem with us being the spot right behind Villanova who beat us head to head. Villanova is one spot behind us in NET rankings and has a solid resume. I think he is right. If we were one spot above Villanova they would have a much stronger complaint than we do. That does not explain Duke being ahead of us. The other issue is that, yes, we are playing great at the end of the year. The selection committee has stated flat out that they do not look at trends, right or wrong, meaning winning early is just as relevant as winning late. My biggest issue with Duke is they have not beaten anyone in the top 20 since before Thanksgiving, but that is irrelevant in the stated criteria. The biggest issue should be the vast difference in NET rating between us and Duke, which I thought was a stated factor in selection. Either way, the truth is a high 3 is not really different than a low 2. The worst scenario is we cry about it and get put out early. We are in a better spot than Duke. And Villanova got screwed with us as there 3. Hard to beat any team twice, especially one as hot as we are, and who played one of their worst games of the year against you the first time with multiple freshmen early in their first year.