OT: Lunardi's Bracketology

[orangeinohio]

Has anyone (on this board or elsewhere) ever checked to see how Joe Lunardi's annual bracketology matches up versus the actual brackets?

Accurately predicting the seedings it tough but predicting regions and matchups correctly has got to be hard as hell.

I wouldn't mind if his current predictions hold - first round vs. Boston University; second round vs the winner of Ohio State/Xavier - but it doesn't seem very likely.

 

[Frozen]

From http://theclassical.org/articles/the-lunardi-problem

Does it bug me that Lunardi makes a big fuss about his success rate picking the teams that get into the NCAA tournament, even though it’s not that hard? There are 31 automatic bids, easily another 30 that can be plucked from the various rankings, another 30 that enjoy overwhelming odds of getting in, and maybe three or four remaining wild cards. In essence, Joey Buckets is spotted 64 teams with four slots to fill. In 2012, he missed one, in 2011 he missed three, but in 2008, as we’ve been told, he nailed the entire field. It's up to you what the statute of forcastication is and whether access to it is worth your hard-earned dollars.

 

[Madbiker]

He always puts out a final about an hour before the selection show. By then anyone can call it. He measures himself on:
1. how many of the 68 teams did he have selected (by then its not difficult)
2. how many were within 1 seed line variance of what he predicted (also not that tough)
3. he does not measure geographic placement accuracy.