...does ESPN waste hours of programming on Lunardi's BS? He's pretty close for the most part with the folks who make it/don't make it, but it's a grand waste of time for him to project the entire bracket and then have all their analysts go through it and analyze it. The final bracket likely won't look anything like what he has.
why....
- Thread starter Frances Drebin
- Start date
...does ESPN waste hours of programming on Lunardi's BS? He's pretty close for the most part with the folks who make it/don't make it, but it's a grand waste of time for him to project the entire bracket and then have all their analysts go through it and analyze it. The final bracket likely won't look anything like what he has.
Could get 33 or 34 of the 37 at-large teams correct. The rest are automatic. So his "accuracy" is a joke. If he nailed most of the seeds and matchups, then I'd probably pay more attention to him. But he was way way off on some of those last year. What kills me is that CBS and ESPN have 10,000 analysts that all say basically the same thing. It's incredible how poor sports broadcasting has become.
....I guess my accuracy rate would be terrible if I predicted the bracket, because I'd have Georgia and UAB in the tournament. Lunardi's "last four in" (USC, Virginia Tech, Clemson, St. Mary's) all have worse RPI than Georgia (45) and UAB (31).
And out of those 37 at-large spots, there are usually 30 or so no-brainers. Out of the teams that are not automatic qualifiers or no-brainer at-large picks, there are usually only about 10 or 12 that have even a remote chance to make the tourney. So it comes down to putting 12 teams in 7 spots and he only has to get 5 of the seven right and he is proclaimed a genius. What jackpot did he win to land this gig?
Lunardi has already missed two of his bubble teams. If Georgia is in, you would definately think Bama is in as well. Looks like that 97% will be shot to hell this year.
Mr. Expert whiffs again. And has been way off on seeding, as usual. UGA and Penn State were 10's and he had them as bubble teams.
...he nailed Memphis's seed at 12. I am really suprised because they have a 28 RPI. I kinda expected them to get at least a 10 seed.
Maybe Alabama can win some games in the NIT.
They didn't deserve it, period. The selection committee relies heavily on RPI, but they also weigh conference strength heavily too. Both criteria didn't help Bama.
They didn't deserve it, period. The selection committee relies heavily on RPI, but they also weigh conference strength heavily too. Both criteria didn't help Bama.
So winning the SEC West and going 12-4 in league don't mean ****!
Edited to say, If I was Bama, I'd file suit.
Also,DS Ya'll do realize that there was a time change
Edited to say, If I was Bama, I'd file suit.
Also,DS Ya'll do realize that there was a time change
First of all, the SEC West sucked this year. Secondly, Alabama had an RPI of 80. That's pretty much a disqualifier. They needed a tougher nonconference schedule.
Back in college a group of us would pick the teams on Sunday before the brackets were released. We would get a couple wrong to maybe 4, depending on the person and year.
It is nowhere near as impressive or tough as many think...especially when you live it and it's your damn job.
Like you said, if he could pick the seeds or matchups etc, then that would be impressive.
I loathe hearing how often his picks are mentioned during broadcasts.
It is nowhere near as impressive or tough as many think...especially when you live it and it's your damn job.
Like you said, if he could pick the seeds or matchups etc, then that would be impressive.
I loathe hearing how often his picks are mentioned during broadcasts.
...the highest RPI to ever get an at large bid in tourney history was 74. Alabama had an 80. It's not rocket science.
