This is what you have to remember

[615dawg]

1. Lunardi is good, but he ALWAYS misses two at-large teams and has missed as many as four. He averages missing 2.6 teams over the last five years.

2. There is always at least one team that is a "lock" that is left out when its all said and done. Here's looking at Utah State, UTEP, Illinois, Minnesota, Virginia Tech. I think at least two of those teams do not make it.

3. I am going ahead and posting that I do not think we get in. However, I think Florida makes it. I hope I am wrong.

 

[BoDawg.sixpack]

if he misses his avg this time we could be in</p>

 

[ckDOG]

1. Lunardi is good, but he ALWAYS misses two at-large teams and has missed as many as four. He averages missing 2.6 teams over the last five years.

Of the 2.6 teams that he misses every year, how many were there that really were "on the bubble"? Most people with a listing of the current Top 25 and conference tourney tie ins can slap together a field of 50 pretty quick.

If you are getting 2.6 teams wrong from about 5 or 6 possible true bubble teams that are out there, then how good is that? Not good in my opinion.

 

[kired]

But regardless - with as much information as there is today, can't just any random idiot pick at least 60 teams that should get in? Then you randomly select 4-5 out of about 8-10 bubble teams and you would probably do just as good as Lunardi.

I would think the real trick is correctly picking the seeding, which I have no idea how accurate he is.

 

[615dawg]

The S-curve was saying Florida in over Mississippi State.

 

[MSUCostanza]

You have no clue what you're talking about. The selection process puts teams on the S-curve. We weren't on an S-curve because we weren't selected.

Though the brackets only feature the seed numbers 1-16 in each region,
the committee assembles an S-curve of teams seeded from 1-64. In theory,
the teams 1-4 on the seed list will all be #1 seeds (the #1 "seed
line"), 5-8 will be #2 seeds (the #2 seed line), and so on; however,
bracketing rules often lead to some deviation from this. The S-curve is
most important for keeping each region balanced; ideally, each region
will be equally strong. For example, the committee will try to ensure
that the number 1 team on the seed list, the national #1 seed, will be
in the same region as the weakest #2 seed. The committee tries to ensure
that the top four seeds in each region are comparable to the top four
teams in every other region. For example, if one region has the best #1
seed (#1 overall), the weakest #2 seed (#8 overall), the best #3 seed
(#9 overall), and the weakest #4 seed (#16 overall), its seeds add up to
34, the ideal number. But if a region has the best team for every given
seed, its seeds would add up to 28, and a region with the weakest team
in every seed would add up to 40, making the two regions very
unbalanced. It is extremely unusual that an at-large bid can be lower
than a #12 seed, but it has occurred, most recently with Bradley and Air
Force being 13 seeds in the 2006 Tournament. While the seeds are
almost never perfectly balanced throughout the four regions, the
committee strives to ensure that they differ from each other by only a
few points. The process is identical for the women's tournament, with
the exception that seeding occurs to 64.

 

[mstateglfr]

1. Lunardi is good, but he ALWAYS misses two at-large teams and has missed as many as four. He averages missing 2.6 teams over the last five years.

Of the 2.6 teams that he misses every year, how many were there that really were "on the bubble"? Most people with a listing of the current Top 25 and conference tourney tie ins can slap together a field of 50 pretty quick.

If you are getting 2.6 teams wrong from about 5 or 6 possible true bubble teams that are out there, then how good is that? Not good in my opinion.

College friends and ipick the field each year and it iscommon to miss only 1 or 2. Sometimes more anda couple times perfect.
Lunardi is as impressive as a friggin chimp witha dart.

I have no idea why he seeds every team and also places them in brackets, yet isnt 'graded' on those predictions. He would suckhuge ifhewere,and rightly so, since itd be absurdly tough to get right. But since he does it, why isnt hejudged on it?