Bracketology Updated Nov 19 | Syracusefan.com

Bracketology Updated Nov 19

Vorony said:
I think we’re much better than a 9 seed this year. Andy Katz and others tend to agree. But Lunardi’s gonna Lunardi.
Expand...
He had to add us to his bracket because he got lost again in his fantasy land where Syracuse always misses the tournament and no one knows about his toupee.

Poor guy.
 
Hate Lunardi. Also would hate being a 9 seed. Hope we can make it to a 6 or 7. Think we can if we take care of business if the nonconference.
 
OrangeXtreme said:

(9) Syracuse vs (8) Indiana in South region
(1) Kansas
Expand...
I wonder how many games Lunardi has watched. I bet that number is quite small. And, if he has watched games, he can’t evaluate a team, because he knows nothing about the sport. It’s comical that he puts out a braketology before he has enough data to make one that means anything. Why does ESPN continue to employ somebody who provides nothing? BTW, I didn’t click on it, because that is why he is still with ESPN.
 
Would take this draw in a heartbeat. Cakewalk to the regional final then maybe 1 trap game there and figure a tough matchup in the championship game111!1
 
1. For all of you a tad upset about our 9 seed (which I think is reasonable by the way -- the seed that is), remember that being in the ACC will likely do us no favours come Selection Sunday. The conference looks quite weak, and inherently the resumes of a middle / top ACC will be worse because of it.

2. As for a 9 seed. It's reasonable
- We are 39 in KP (an unbiased data source which of course has its early season limitations)
- Around 30, IIRC, in the AP Poll. (not all experts voting, but a fair amount know what they are doing and that will generally skew out those that do not).

3. I have no issue with Lunardi publishing these. They draw eyeballs. He is not the only one. Similar to running polls. They draw eyeballs. They draw interest, but you just have to understand their limitations and not get triggered by them.

4. Lunardi has been accurate in forecasting us as a bubble team over and over. It's an accurate projection over the years -- its our home!. He does get a little whiny (OK, whinier then a 7 year old child) when deciding whether we are just above the line or just below the line and he ends up wrong -- that is the issue I see with him. But placing us around those seed lines is reasonable.

5. As for whether Lunardi has watched us play this year. I would actually have an issue with any pollster / bracketer that make a big deal of cupcake games.
 
jncuse said:
1. For all of you a tad upset about our 9 seed (which I think is reasonable by the way -- the seed that is), remember that being in the ACC will likely do us no favours come Selection Sunday. The conference looks quite weak, and inherently the resumes of a middle / top ACC will be worse because of it.

2. As for a 9 seed. It's reasonable
- We are 39 in KP (an unbiased data source which of course has its early season limitations)
- Around 30, IIRC, in the AP Poll. (not all experts voting, but a fair amount know what they are doing and that will generally skew out those that do not).

3. I have no issue with Lunardi publishing these. They draw eyeballs. He is not the only one. Similar to running polls. They draw eyeballs. They draw interest, but you just have to understand their limitations and not get triggered by them.

4. Lunardi has been accurate in forecasting us as a bubble team over and over. It's an accurate projection over the years -- its our home!. He does get a little whiny (OK, whinier then a 7 year old child) when deciding whether we are just above the line or just below the line and he ends up wrong -- that is the issue I see with him. But placing us around those seed lines is reasonable.

5. As for whether Lunardi has watched us play this year. I would actually have an issue with any pollster / bracketer that make a big deal of cupcake games.
Expand...
The fact that he has us playing in the first round a team we’ve played in the regular season is a lazy mistake. My point about him watching games is that he is not a basketball guy. He is a numbers guy. He has us on the bubble when our resume dictates that we deserve to be on the bubble. That is no great skill.
 
orangefog said:
The fact that he has us playing in the first round a team we’ve played in the regular season is a lazy mistake. My point about him watching games is that he is not a basketball guy. He is a numbers guy. He has us on the bubble when our resume dictates that we deserve to be on the bubble. That is no great skill.
Expand...

Putting together brackets is purely about numbers.
Due to the effort I have put in over the years, I am much better than most at doing them only because of that factor. Its certainly not from watching games and assessing from that -- because I am not good at all in that regards and many on this board do that better than me. In the end it is not a "I watched this team" exercise.

As for Syracuse playing Indiana. If you expect a guy to go through every possible permutation early in the year, I think you have unfair expectations. The exercise is more about showing where teams are tracking seed wise not making sure the bracket rules are 100% correct.

Just not sure why you are expecting him to have us seeded so much different than where we are on key computer rankings or polls.

Finally I'm no fan of Lunardi.
 
Last edited:
jncuse said:
Putting together brackets is purely about numbers.
Due to the effort I have put in over the years, I am much better than most at doing it because of that factor.

It is not a "I watched this team" exercise. Because if it was based on observations from watching games, I suspect I would be very low on the totem pole for this board. Certainly not a strength of mine.

As for Syracuse playing Indiana. If you expect a guy to go through every possible permutation early in the year, I think you have unfair expectations. The exercise is more about showing where teams are tracking seed wise not making sure the bracket rules are 100% correct.
Expand...
Without numbers to work with, I would expect someone getting paid to do this job to put in a little work and watch a few games. Also, yes, I expect it isn’t too difficult to prepare your S curve and then research their schedules and make adjustments as needed. Otherwise he is just mailing it in.
 
orangefog said:
Without numbers to work with, I would expect someone getting paid to do this job to put in a little work and watch a few games. Also, yes, I expect it isn’t too difficult to prepare your S curve and then research their schedules and make adjustments as needed. Otherwise he is just mailing it in.
Expand...

So you expect him to change the view on this team based on making observations vs a low caliber team like Lafayette or Drexel?

I'm just not sure how scouting a team playing cupcakes (not only Syracuse) but most teams should skew your early season view. And to be fair I'm not sure if there is one person living in America that has watched games of every team in that bracket (above the 11 seed line) this year

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
Vorony said:
I think we’re much better than a 9 seed this year. Andy Katz and others tend to agree. But Lunardi’s gonna Lunardi.
Expand...
The potential is there, but there is a lot of work to do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sutomcat
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Basketball
Replies
7
Views
775
Oakland
Oakland
sutomcat
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Thursday for Basketball
Replies
5
Views
682
Ozone!
Ozone!

Forum statistics

Threads
170,147
Messages
4,873,816
Members
5,989
Latest member
OttosShoes

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
278
Guests online
1,513
Total visitors
1,791
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom