I thought every smart hoops fan knew Lunardi is below average bracketologist.

[MorningCoffee13]

So why is this board and Pitt twitter so concerned with a guy who routinely receives a C-minus grade and clearly has no influence with the committee?

 

[Tiger Paul Lives]

For the record, I really don't care what Lunardi or whatever bracketologist says. The only opinions that matter are the actual people picking and seeding the teams. But with that being said, I thought Joe's strength is getting the right teams for the field of 68, just not very good at the seedings. I may be wrong, it is what I seem to remember people saying.

 

[Pittisit4me]

Nobody would even know who the little pudgy guy was if espn didn't let him blow his smoke as the calendar approaches March each year.

 

[AllegeneeGenacGenac]

For the record, I really don't care what Lunardi or whatever bracketologist says. The only opinions that matter are the actual people picking and seeding the teams. But with that being said, I thought Joe's strength is getting the right teams for the field of 68, just not very good at the seedings. I may be wrong, it is what I seem to remember people saying.

He performs about the same as everyone else on that metric. It's very easy to get 66-67 teams right and very difficult to get all 68 right, so nearly every remotely competent bracketologist gets either 66 or 67 right (with many coming in at 67), while a few get 68.

In short, he would have to get all 68 right consistently to outperform his peers, and he's not doing that.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

He performs about the same as everyone else on that metric. It's very easy to get 66-67 teams right and very difficult to get all 68 right, so nearly every remotely competent bracketologist gets either 66 or 67 right (with many coming in at 67), while a few get 68.

In short, he would have to get all 68 right consistently to outperform his peers, and he's not doing that.

You are really only selecting around 8 teams. 60 are given to you through auto bids and obvious at-larges. If you go 5-8 or 6-8, that is pretty bad

 

[MorningCoffee13]

He performs about the same as everyone else on that metric. It's very easy to get 66-67 teams right and very difficult to get all 68 right, so nearly every remotely competent bracketologist gets either 66 or 67 right (with many coming in at 67), while a few get 68.

In short, he would have to get all 68 right consistently to outperform his peers, and he's not doing that.

No. He literally finishes well below average of the other guys.

 

[Pitt2006]

No. He literally finishes well below average of the other guys.

Where is an actual study. Right now we are all just spewing opinions, but is there an actual site that lists accuracies with standard deviations.

 

[buckage]

I posted this in another thread, he's awful.

The Bracket Project - Ranking the Bracketologists

 

[upj87]

So why is this board and Pitt twitter so concerned with a guy who routinely receives a C-minus grade and clearly has no influence with the committee?

Am I the only one who does not give two schits about any of these February speculations and formulas and just enjoys watching the games play out? Nothing really to argue about with six games still left to be played...

 

[Pitt2006]

I posted this in another thread, he's awful.

The Bracket Project - Ranking the Bracketologists

It actually suggests Lunardi is quite good at what he does. He was off in 2022, but 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2023 he was above average. Palm is below average in that data set. He is also one of the few with national tv prominence on a day to day basis. You want to be included among his projections.

 

[Pitt2009]

Am I the only one who does not give two schits about any of these February speculations and formulas and just enjoys watching the games play out? Nothing really to argue about with six games still left to be played...

To me, they’re like the top 25 polls. They’re meaningless from a postseason prospective but good for marketing and fun for fans.

 

[AllegeneeGenacGenac]

No. He literally finishes well below average of the other guys.

He doesn't? I mean I'm not a Lunardi apologist, but look at the results on BracketMatrix:
66 correct in 2018, and 67 in all the other years.

Like I said, there's nothing impressive about getting nearly every team right, but that's not "well below average" compared to the other guys.

 

[wbrpanther]

So why is this board and Pitt twitter so concerned with a guy who routinely receives a C-minus grade and clearly has no influence with the committee?

Pitt's current struggle to get on and over the bubble is not the fault of Lunardi. It is the fault of a stretch of piss poor play in January. Period.

 

[buckage]

It actually suggests Lunardi is quite good at what he does. He was off in 2022, but 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2023 he was above average. Palm is below average in that data set. He is also one of the few with national tv prominence on a day to day basis. You want to be included among his projections.

He's 98th. There are bloggers doing it as a side gig better than him.

 

[MorningCoffee13]

It actually suggests Lunardi is quite good at what he does. He was off in 2022, but 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2023 he was above average. Palm is below average in that data set. He is also one of the few with national tv prominence on a day to day basis. You want to be included among his projections.

97 guys better than him. Lol.