Joe Lunardi needs fired for sure

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

I don't get it. Some are complaining that UNC is a 5 seed, arguing they should be (perhaps much) lower, then those same are complaining because they think UK's bracket is more difficult than anyone else, using (in addition to the higher seeds in their bracket) UNC as the 5 seed to support their argument. UNC shouldn't be a 5 seed, that is too high, and at the same time, UNC at the 5 seed contributes to UK's bracket being much more difficult than anyone else???


This post was edited on 3/9 11:12 PM by BobbyG_tickle_swerv

 

[GermantownDawg]

Originally posted by CatPhight:

Originally posted by GermantownDawg:
I think Georgia ends up being a 10 seed, which I'm okay with. He has us at a 9 seed and had us as an 8 seed up until last week.

Depending on what happens elsewhere, if the Dawgs are in the championship game Sunday, I think they could possibly make it as high as an 8. But remember, an 8 and 9 are bascially the same thing.

Yeah, it really wouldn't matter to me if we were an 8 or 9. Just glad to be in the tournament.

 

[fuzz77]

Originally posted by kyisinmyblood:

Originally posted by bthaunert:
Joe is there for ratings and he obviously gets good ratings because people talk about it constantly. As others have said, Joe is good at picking the right teams, but not as good at picking the right seed. I've met Joe quite a few times, and he's a guy who found a niche and he gets good ratings. Over a 4 years period, Joe got 261 out of 266 teams right, but only got the seed correct about 44% of the time.

Its fairly easy to get good ratings when you have a stranglehold on the market, as ESPN does with sport news/media.

I also know Joe had a team a couple years back (I think Wright State if i'm not mistaken) in one of his early mock brackets. That team was ineligible for post season play. If thats your only job, you'd think you know the small list of teams ineligible for the post season. Especially one thats good enough to win its conference in a "one-bid league".

This post was edited on 3/9 2:10 PM by kyisinmyblood

So a couple of years ago Lunardi had a team in a mock bracket that wasn't eligible...and that's all you got?
Dude, you're really reaching for something about which to criticize the guy. What are the chances that you measure up in your job to the level you hold Lunardi?
Slim or none.

 

[kyjeff1]

yabbadabbadoo: "He's a douche bag who tries to sway the committee to bracket like he does. That's a fact. He's been visibly aggravated in the past when the committee did different than he did."


So you think the committee, that works for CBS, is going to be influenced by Joe Lunardi, who works for ESPN??? Look, Lunardi is good at getting teams in but if the trend continues then the brackets that come out this Sunday will look nothing like what Joe has posted.
Like I said, chill out.

BTW, where is your bracket? Where's all your research?

 

[kyjeff1]

kyisinmyblood: "If were honest with ourselves theres only a handful of a teams legitimately on the bubble.. All of us on this board could do just as good a job at picking between the small handful of teams on the bubble."

Are you doing your own research though? Are you studying all 300+ programs out there to decide who the bubble teams are or are you just taking the information that Joe has compiled? It's pretty easy when you know who the teams are and you just have to pick which ones have the best reseme's.

 

[Blueaz]

girls, girls...you are arguing over MOCK brackets

 

[kyisinmyblood]

Fuzz
I didnt do any research. If you look through my post history youll notice this isnt the first time ive brought this up. The only reason I remember is because twitter blew up, I checked his bracketology and there the ineligible team was, only to be takin off his mock bracket minutes after twitter got on him. This should give one the right to question his credibility. You have to admit if ones only job is to get brackets right you should know who isn't eligible for the tournament.

I don't have anything against Lunardi, he seems like a nice and personable guy, that doesn't have anything to do with his job performance though.

To answer your question, if my job was to come up with a mock bracket, I would not have a team who is ineligible in my field. Thats a huuuge mistake, especially when your job is to be knowledgeable of the entire landscape of College Basketball. Makes sense as to why teams from conferences such as the A10 or MountainWest "sneak in", when Lunardi doesn't have them on his radar.




This post was edited on 3/9 5:03 PM by kyisinmyblood

 

[kyisinmyblood]

Originally posted by kyjeff1:

kyisinmyblood: "If were honest with ourselves theres only a handful of a teams legitimately on the bubble.. All of us on this board could do just as good a job at picking between the small handful of teams on the bubble."

Are you doing your own research though? Are you studying all 300+ programs out there to decide who the bubble teams are or are you just taking the information that Joe has compiled? It's pretty easy when you know who the teams are and you just have to pick which ones have the best reseme's.

Thats a fair point. As of now yes, I would take the small handful that outlets (including Lunardis) have on the bubble and pick from there. Still think there are only about 6-8 teams every year that are actually on the bubble.

My point is, if that were my only job, and I spent 40+ hours a week over a long period of time, which were strictly dedicated to Bracketology. I and others could come up with pretty accurate fields as well. For the record I do watch a lot of college basketball and from conferences that aren't just the power 5.

It is clear that Joe doesn't study 300+ teams though, as I stated something to that effect earlier in this thread. In his defense, a big chunck of that 300+ come from one bid leagues so I can see why not as much time is dedicated to those leagues, and thats understandable. Still doesn't defend having him having an ineligible team in a mock bracket.

 

[MychalG]

Joey Brackets is already working on his "Bracketology" for next season and the following season. His brackets and opinions are about as useless as NBA mock drafts..

 

[JBHolmesfan]

It all depends on the year. No two years are the same in college basketball. Sometimes there's a lot of good teams whereas other years, like this one, there is a lack of a high number of really good teams. Also, the schedule goes into play. UNC has had a pretty tough schedule. Regardless, it shouldn't really matter where Lunardi has UNC seeded. It's not his call to make come selection. If the committee puts UNC has a 5 seed then maybe we can complain but even then I'm not going to get too worried about the seeds of other teams.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Originally posted by kyjeff1:

kyisinmyblood: "If were honest with ourselves theres only a handful of a teams legitimately on the bubble.. All of us on this board could do just as good a job at picking between the small handful of teams on the bubble."

Are you doing your own research though? Are you studying all 300+ programs out there to decide who the bubble teams are or are you just taking the information that Joe has compiled? It's pretty easy when you know who the teams are and you just have to pick which ones have the best reseme's.

Yup. Easy to claim you can do a better job when you're just piggybacking on the work of others.

Also, Joe Lunardi was prognosticating the NCAA Tournament before the bracket was released long before ESPN scooped him up. They scooped him up because he was good at it. And he did it at a time (mid 1990s) when data was not as readily available, when the committee did not give media members their criteria and a chance to participate in their own mock selections in Indy, and when others were not doing it (thus less data points to rely upon).

 

[kyjeff1]

kyisinmyblood: "I didnt do any research. If you look through my post history youll notice this isnt the first time ive brought this up. The only reason I remember is because twitter blew up, I checked his bracketology and there the ineligible team was, only to be takin off his mock bracket minutes after twitter got on him. This should give one the right to question his credibility. You have to admit if ones only job is to get brackets right you should know who isn't eligible for the tournament.

I don't have anything against Lunardi, he seems like a nice and personable guy, that doesn't have anything to do with his job performance though.

To answer your question, if my job was to come up with a mock bracket, I would not have a team who is ineligible in my field. Thats a huuuge mistake, especially when your job is to be knowledgeable of the entire landscape of College Basketball. Makes sense as to why teams from conferences such as the A10 or MountainWest "sneak in", when Lunardi doesn't have them on his radar."

 

[kyisinmyblood]

kyjeff
Again, I dont think thats a minor mistake. I don't claim to be perfect, nor do I expect anyone else to be. idc if he gets seeding wrong or bubble teams wrong, but some things I can't let go.

Lunardis job is in a very specific field, I would think knowing teams that are ineligible should be at the very top of his priority list and with all of the resources he has at his disposal I think its inexcusable. This mistake makes me question his knowledge of the entire field, so therefore I think his credibility is lacking. Don't think its the most difficult of jobs, you get to watch college basketball all day and night, dissect past brackets to see committees criteria, crunch numbers, and its in a field your passionate about. People who don't get paid to know who the ineligible teams are, took to social media to correct him. IMO thats someone far from an "expert".

I don't dislike him or have an agenda or any of that, just stating I put zero stock into his mock brackets, or anyone elses for that matter. I know for a fact well be the Overall 1 outside of that Idk what the committee is thinking, I know what I think, but that doesnt matter much.

 

[kyjeff1]

kyisinmyblood: "kyjeff
Again, I dont think thats a minor mistake. I don't claim to be perfect, nor do I expect anyone else to be. idc if he gets seeding wrong or bubble teams wrong, but some things I can't let go."

Yeah, we can definitely see that you can't let things go and I disagree with you, it is a minor mistake, you're blowing it way out of proportion. So you say "I don't claim to be perfect, nor do I expect anyone else to be." But you are, you want Joe to be perfect and he's not.
Hey, you're not an English teacher or someone that teaches grammar are you?

 

[kyisinmyblood]

Kyjeff
We can agree to disagree. Negligence may be something you accept, but its not something im particularly fond of from an "expert".

I was being cordial, no reason in taking shots not pertaining to the debate itself. Guess you dont like people disagreeing with you.. If thats the case Idk why youre even on a forum. My grammar sucks, not something I sweat very much on here. If you want to discuss grammar, I'll meet you over on the grammar forum.

 

[kyjeff1]

So what's your profession? Can we see your work? I assume you're an expert in your field but by your account you shouldn't ever make a mistake.
Belittle what Joe does all you want, it just goes to show there are people on this board that have no clue what he has to do to be as accurate as he is. It was an oversight on his part, nothing to grill the guy over.
Now, I'll be over on the grammar board waiting on you.

 

[marshalfan]

Originally posted by BobbyG_tickle_swerv:
I don't get it. Some are complaining that UNC is a 5 seed, arguing they should be (perhaps much) higher, then those same are complaining because they think UK's bracket is more difficult than anyone else, using (in addition to the higher seeds in their bracket) UNC as the 5 seed to support their argument. UNC shouldn't be a 5 seed, that is too high, and at the same time, UNC at the 5 seed contributes to UK's bracket being much more difficult than anyone else???

The posters that are complaining their seed is too high will be the same ones complaining if we get them as the 5 seed. For some is whatever makes us a vicitm or reflects some sort of anti uk bias.

 

[bthaunert]

Originally posted by Big_Blue79:

Originally posted by kyjeff1:

kyisinmyblood: "If were honest with ourselves theres only a handful of a teams legitimately on the bubble.. All of us on this board could do just as good a job at picking between the small handful of teams on the bubble."

Are you doing your own research though? Are you studying all 300+ programs out there to decide who the bubble teams are or are you just taking the information that Joe has compiled? It's pretty easy when you know who the teams are and you just have to pick which ones have the best reseme's.

Yup. Easy to claim you can do a better job when you're just piggybacking on the work of others.

Also, Joe Lunardi was prognosticating the NCAA Tournament before the bracket was released long before ESPN scooped him up. They scooped him up because he was good at it. And he did it at a time (mid 1990s) when data was not as readily available, when the committee did not give media members their criteria and a chance to participate in their own mock selections in Indy, and when others were not doing it (thus less data points to rely upon).

This ^

People always say how easy it is. If there was no one else talking about this, or no other brackets coming out and we asked you to pick the 68 teams, it wouldn't be that easy. We know teams are on the bubble because we are told they are on the bubble.

 

[anon_013cn8yrfncx2]

I like Lunardi. Did some emailing with him when he was still working at St. Johns and before Bracketology made it to the big-time. Always responsive and very courteous. He's made himself into a huge success and all the grousing is basically pe*is envy.

But his bracket matchups (not really his schtick) usually suck.

Take the current one. Just considering his current top 4 seeds in each region. In theory the top ranked 16 teams would total 136 ranking points or 34 points per region if equally balanced.

Midwest (UK) 28 - well above average
South (Duke) 34 - right on average
East (UVA) 35 - slightly below average
West (Nova) 38 - well below average

So UK would have higher ranked teams than all others especially the West which would easily be the weakest region. The bracket shows the top 4 seeds in UK's region all ranked in the top 11. In a perfectly balanced bracket you'd only have 3 top 12 teams in any region.

 

[kyisinmyblood]

Do you guys really think it would be that difficult to...

-keep a close eye on College Hoops from start to finish
-wait till the reg season is over (given mock brackets are not close to accurate till the end of February)
-look at the top half of the RPI/BPI,and Conference standings
-look at schedules.. Decipher good wins and bad losses, and who tries to play good teams out of conference
-then weed out a top 60 or so... then figure out the bubble from there?
(Obviously there's more to it than that, but you guys are acting like its difficult to figure out who the good teams are, who is clearly deserving of an at large bid)

you know 32 teams are a given right? Half the field is handed to you right there, with the majority of those being one bid leagues, which doesn't effect the big picture. Then if teams steal bids out of the major conferences it makes Bracketologists job even easier (one less bubble team) .. Here are 61 of 68 teams with the AQs added in and assuming the favorites win their conference ships

B12 - 4 (Baylor, ISU, Oklahoma, and WVA)
Acc - 5 (Duke, ND, Ville, UNC, and NCST)
BE - 5 (Xavier, St. Johns, Gtown, Providence, and Butler)
B10 - 4 (Maryland, Iowa, MSU, and tOSU)
SEC - 4 (Arkansas, Georgia, LSU, and Ole Miss)
P12 - 2 (Utah and Oregon)
A10 - 1 (Dayton)
MVC - 1 (WichitaSt)
MW - 2 (Colorado St and Boise St)
AAC - 1 (Cincy)


Most should agree all of those teams are locks to get in and we dont need Lunardi to figure these out.. Like I said before, there aren't many more spots to fill after this, he's only picking a small handful
This post was edited on 3/9 11:22 PM by kyisinmyblood

 

[Bluebloodbud]

Anybody could do what Joe does. Go to Dancecard, that site is about 98% correct over the last many years. Combine that with the many other rankings makes it pretty easy to pick teams getting in. As mentioned Joe is all over the place at seeding those teams and placing in the correct region. There is only one bracketology that matters and it ISN"T JOE's, it comes out Sunday.