LUNARDI 68 FOR 68

[JarHeadJim]

Guy is a tool but he nailed it.

 

[CorduroyG]

and he nailed our seed and region, 4/east

 

[pfister1]

Guy is a tool but he nailed it.

If it is that simple that a geek can do it with a formula, why do we do they even bother with a Committee that supposedly spends lots of time comparing resumes and sorting through stats...what a joke.

 

[Jasoncuse]

Pop the champagne!

 

[stuckinbig11]

In a quick look, I thought his placement of teams was way off.

 

[rstone7727]

The committee plays cards and smokes cigars between beers then just write down whatever Lunardi says.

 

[SWC75]

Guy is a tool but he nailed it.

Did he have all the seeds and match-ups right?

 

[AZOrange]

Am I the only one that finds fake bracket picking very dumb? I mean this guy does this stuff all year. As his job. For money.

 

[HarrisonJBounel]

Am I the only one that finds fake bracket picking very dumb? I mean this guy does this stuff all year. As his job. For money.

Hey, my hat's off to him. He knows his stuff pretty well, generates a lot of hits and interest. He's developed it over the years into what it is. Nice gig if you can get it. I wish I'd thought of it first.

 

[Dmcnabbrules]

Am I the only one that finds fake bracket picking very dumb? I mean this guy does this stuff all year. As his job. For money.

Yes, except that it infuriates my wife that bracketology is a word now, so that part amuses me.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Between the auto bids and obvious at large teams there are only maybe 8 spots to try and decipher. So he really went 8 for 8 vs 68 for 68 and of those 8 spots there are only maybe 15 teams to look at. If it was my job, I'd like to think I could go 8 for 15 most years. :noidea:

 

[jncuse]

Seeds were 100% consistent with consensus. I suspect many people on the bracket matrix hit every one as well.

Usually the committee sneaks in one team that only a few predicted but not those year. The most disputed going in was probably Middle Tennessee St who was on about 60% of the submitted brackets.

 

[jncuse]

Am I the only one that finds fake bracket picking very dumb? I mean this guy does this stuff all year. As his job. For money.

I do it because I enjoy doing it, although I did not do any fake brackets this year like I have in the past. More or less relied on the bracket matrix to stay on top of where teams were trending in relation to the tournament (which to me is the real value of doing it during the year)

Many people are bitter with Lunardi because he gets all the praise and gets paid. But he was a frontrunner, was able to get and in with ESPN, and created a brand for himself that extends to casusl fans. He was one of the first, and I always find it odd when copycat schmucks get upset. Its the same thing with many things -- the person who does something first gets the rewards

 

[Knicks411]

Seeds were 100% consistent with consensus. I suspect many people on the bracket matrix hit every one as well.

Usually the committee sneaks in one team that only a few predicted but not those year. The most disputed going in was probably Middle Tennessee St who was on about 60% of the submitted brackets.

'The seeds or the selections? I don't think many people had Oregon as an 11 bumped to a 12

 

[jncuse]

'The seeds or the selections? I don't think many people had Oregon as an 11 bumped to a 12

Sorry - I meant selections.

Seeds granted by the committee for most part were overall reasonable, with a few notable exceptions:

Marquette as a 3 seed?

Pitt as an 8 seed?

Oregon as a 12 seed?

UNLV-California rematch, which is 100% illegal procedure.

Montana as a 13 seed was way overseeded. It would have seemed to be a perfect to have Montana as a 14 playing New Mexico in Salt Lake City (maybe they already played this year?)

 

[Knicks411]

Sorry - I meant selections.

Yeah, agreed on that. This seemed like a really benign year bubble wise.

 

[jgeorge322]

wouldnt say 68 for 68. i believe 31 automatic bids. so downgrade that to 37 for 37. then it really comes down to 10 teams or so for the last 5 or so at large bids. lunardi is good, but i think most can do his job fairly well if they just took the time and had the key stats readily available.

 

[NKR1978]

Yeah, agreed on that. This seemed like a really benign year bubble wise.

Ever since the move to 68 it's hard to find fault with the committee. Those last couple teams aren't really ever worthy of being in, so there's no crazy uproar when someone is left out. No one is crying for Virginia and Maryland.

 

[jncuse]

Ever since the move to 68 it's hard to find fault with the committee. Those last couple teams aren't really ever worthy of being in, so there's no crazy uproar when someone is left out. No one is crying for Virginia and Maryland.

Agreed.

Although there was alot of uproar 2 years ago when VCU received one of the final at large. BCS folk were pissed (I think Colorado, Virginia Tech). VCU made the final 4.

 

[jncuse]

wouldnt say 68 for 68. i believe 31 automatic bids. so downgrade that to 37 for 37. then it really comes down to 10 teams or so for the last 5 or so at large bids. lunardi is good, but i think most can do his job fairly well if they just took the time and had the key stats readily available.

Yep many can.

But as I sad before Lunardi and ESPN created the bracketology brand and interest in it. So they deserve the rewards.

 

[Knicks411]

Agreed.

Although there was alot of uproar 2 years ago when VCU received one of the final at large. BCS folk were pissed (I think Colorado, Virginia Tech). VCU made the final 4.

Yeah, there was VCU and I also think USC that same year. Iona last year was pretty surprising as well, I believe

 

[jgeorge322]

Yep many can.

But as I sad before Lunardi and ESPN created the bracketology brand and interest in it. So they deserve the rewards.

not arguing w you, although we probably differ on the "value add" of lunardi. i don't really care what he says unless cuse is on the bubble.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Agreed.

Although there was alot of uproar 2 years ago when VCU received one of the final at large. BCS folk were pissed (I think Colorado, Virginia Tech). VCU made the final 4.

Watching Va Tech narrowly miss the tourney every year was becoming one of my favorite things about selection sunday.

 

[JoeSU]

not arguing w you, although we probably differ on the "value add" of lunardi. i don't really care what he says unless cuse is on the bubble.

Except when we received one of the all-time greatest snubs in 2007, and Lundari had us as a 9 seed.

 

[jncuse]

Watching Va Tech narrowly miss the tourney every year was becoming one of my favorite things about selection sunday.

It was great. Greenberg would whine, Vitale would whine. Was it 4 years in a row?

I think in the last year they were snubbed I went read the VTech message boards. I remember a bunch of fans saing they would start a lawsuit against the NCAA.