Lunardi has PItt ‘off’ the bubble
- Thread starter PittMBA
- Start date
I would hope. Our resume is that of a 5 or 6 seed and not terribly far off from current 4 seed Marquette
I saw the link I gave was updated minutes ago when I originally posted it. It's confusing. No wonder I don't pay much attention to these things. Lunardi is wrong 90% of the time.
I'm not sure how Penn State drops from one of the last four in all the way down to the next four out by losing a game on the road against the obvious number one team in the country. That's a game that literally every team in the country would have been favored to lose.
The fact that they are just evil might have something to do with it.
Lol what? He gets like 95% of the teams right
Plot twist- he dropped us out altogether.
Yes, he dropped us all the way off the bubble.
Because we are in a much better position than that right now.
They were already in a precarious spot before the Purdue game. The fact that they got blown out looks really bad so I'm not surprised Penn State fell that far.
But Purdue has blown out a lot of teams. West Virginia is still on the bubble and Purdue beat them by 12 on a neutral court, and then followed that up with an 18 point neutral court win over Gonzaga and a 19 point neutral court win over Duke.
There is no way that losing that game on the road should have affected their spot that much. Just like last week after we beat Wake Forest when he had Wake on the bubble he dropped us by six lines on his overall seed list. He does things that simply don't make any sense. With the daily stuff he's doing he's become just like the person who votes in the polls who thinks, well, that team lost a game so I need to drop them down five or six spots, irregardless of who the loss was to or where the game was played.
Yeah I mean you definitely have some good points. I'll just say he probably is doing so many things right now he isn't 100% focused on getting every team exactly right on where they project. He puts out something daily so he probably isn't putting that much time in it.
As it gets closer to Selection Sunday my guess is he will be much more accurate on every team.
Yeah, the day before Selection Sunday. And he seldom gets the seedings right, just lucks out on the teams getting in. And this is his full time job!
Actually it not only is not his full time job, it's not even his second job.
His first job is that he works for St. Joe's in some sort of marketing capacity. His second job is that he is St. Joe's basketball radio color commentator. Bracketology is actually his third gig.
Everybody gets 95% of the teams right.
For one thing.... 33 of the teams are automatic qualifiers by winning the conference. Literally everyone is 33-for-33 on picking those.
And of the 35 at-larges... A blind monkey will get the first 31 or 32 of them correct. They are obvious choices.
The way to gauge the accuracy of a bracketologists is two ways:
A. Did they go at least 67-for-68 in guessing the field? Any more than 1 miss, and they weren't very good. Like I said, even a moron will get 63 or 64 out of 68 right.
B. How close were they on the seed lines? They should be within 2 seed lines ... give or take.... for 90% of the teams. If they're saying a team is in as a 4-seed and they get an 8-seed, then they weren't very accurate.
Lunardi has actually been one of the LEAST accurate bracketologists in recent years.
Too big a risk to include them in March Madness. Despite the NCAA's effort to keep kids away by playing half the 1st Round games when they are in school, many kids do skip and attend those afternoon games. Cant have the Pedos be part of this.
I think its just a correction. PSU resumes blows hard. 2-4 Quad 1. 2-4 Quad 2. 1 true road win. They shouldn't be anywhere near the bubble
That's life on the last four in/out line..luck of the draw to have to play Purdue while on it..last time I checked you are not rewarded for losing..win a couple against some lesser teams and you are back on the in side of it.
Bracketology, Meteorology...neither is accurate and no accountability
220, 221...whatever it takes
220, 221...whatever it takes
Most guys get 95% of the teams right. There are bracket guys far, far better than Lunardi.
An absolute idiot with an IQ of 50 would get 62 of the 68 right (90%). They're already given the first 33.... and if you look at records and standings and can't figure out at least 29 of the the remaining 35 - then you're a certifiable idiot.
95% is nothing to brag about. 95% - which means missing on 3 of the 35 at-larges.... is actually pretty bad.
Last edited:
I thought he usually only misses 1 school or maybe 2 every year and it usually is when some surprise school gets in that nobody had in their bracket.
According to bracketmatrix.com ..... out of the 148 most popular bracketologists..... Lunardi is ranked 88th in accuracy over the past 5 seasons.
He has the most eyeballs, because he works for ESPN. But he has been actually pretty bad at it in recent years.
Also by the way... the most accurate one over the past 5 years is a guy called "Crazy Sports Dude". But he only updates once per month.
Among those near the top of the rankings who have updated within the past 24 hours:
3. Bauertology - Pitt as 11-seed
6. 1-3-1 sports - Pitt as 11-seed
10. Facts and Bracks - Pitt as 11-seed
The average seed right now among those that have updated in the past 24 hours: 10.76
But that is all "as of today". I predict Pitt moves up in coming weeks.
Among those near the top of the rankings who have updated within the past 24 hours:
3. Bauertology - Pitt as 11-seed
6. 1-3-1 sports - Pitt as 11-seed
10. Facts and Bracks - Pitt as 11-seed
The average seed right now among those that have updated in the past 24 hours: 10.76
But that is all "as of today". I predict Pitt moves up in coming weeks.
I guess it's fun to talk about now. But none of this matters until at least the end of February.
Pitt has to beat the teams they're supposed to beat, which is everyone remaining on their schedule. We know that probably won't happen. If they can get 6 more wins, including at least 1 in the ACCT, the rest will take care of itself.
Pitt has to beat the teams they're supposed to beat, which is everyone remaining on their schedule. We know that probably won't happen. If they can get 6 more wins, including at least 1 in the ACCT, the rest will take care of itself.
So to make it, they need to go 14-6, get the double bye and also beat the 5, 6, or 7 seed (who will also be NCAAT teams) in the ACC Quarterfinal? Otherwise, its NIT?
No one is saying they should be rewarded. But they shouldn't be punished for losing a game that literally every team in the country would have been an underdog it.
And to be fair, they probably weren't actually "punished". The committee is not going to ding them for losing that game. This is just another example that shows why Lunardi isn't actually that good at this.
