How did Lunardi do this yr?
- Thread starter Pittnerski
- Start date
His bracket on Sunday morning which I believe was his last had UCLA not making it as well as Indiana not making it. He got those wrong
He might have had Temple in. That's all I can remember
Maybe one of our experts knows better
He might have had Temple in. That's all I can remember
Maybe one of our experts knows better
Lunardi was 66 for 68.
But really.... that's not as impressive as it sounds.
Just about anybody would get 64... with the 33 automatic bids and picking the obvious no-brainers that are clearly in.
Lunardi is really not that good compared to others.
But really.... that's not as impressive as it sounds.
Just about anybody would get 64... with the 33 automatic bids and picking the obvious no-brainers that are clearly in.
Lunardi is really not that good compared to others.
Probably anyone who follows the sport did about the same.
Great point about how these guys aren't really picking 68 teams; after the automatics and the very obvious it's about 8-10 at the most.
At my former workplace a bunch of us used to toss $20 each in the pot and see who could get the most teams correct. Most years it took 64 out of 65 (that was the field then) to win.
Great point about how these guys aren't really picking 68 teams; after the automatics and the very obvious it's about 8-10 at the most.
At my former workplace a bunch of us used to toss $20 each in the pot and see who could get the most teams correct. Most years it took 64 out of 65 (that was the field then) to win.
Yea, I cant stand when I hear people say his accuracy rate is like 99% (not sure its that high but whatever). They give you 32, you don't "pick" those. The first 25-30 at-large spots, anybody can select. Should he get "credit" for being correct on predicting UVa and Duke were going to get at-large spots? As you said, his job is to pick the last 5-10 teams and even in doing that, he got 2 wrong which he normally does. And he is terrible at predicting seeding. Bottom line, he sucks.
Lombardi is a good coach. He's done really good things at IUP and one of the most underrated assistants we've ever had here. I'll agree that he's not very entertaining though.
Its unbelievable that he spouts off all year, and the ESPN commentators slobber all over him talking about how smart he is, when anyone following the game can do what he does. And he never gets held accountable at the end. He's always right.
Wish I had his gig.
Wish I had his gig.
