Does anyone have a scorecard on how Looney Lunardi stacked up against the committee? I’m not smart enough to do the research. Seem like as the end he starts to throw a lot of schools in the mix so he can never be wrong >
Lunardi scorecard
- Thread starter USAF Phantom
- Start date
Not sure what that means. Compared to National Acadamy of Bracketology members? I believe he picked all but one or two teams correctly. Seeds might be a tad off but that's not what pisses people off about the goof but he is not wrong on who makes it and who does not. He's just knows the system so I don't get the hate.
Do you realize how easy it is to do to get all the teams in there? He is actually very mediocre compared to many other guys
Well, basically, yes. He missed 2 and although this was the most difficult year in recent memory, missing 2 out of like 7 or 8 (its not 66/68 as some say as he doesn't get credit for picking an AQ Duquesne team or an at-large Purdue team) isnt good. I missed 2 also and I dont do it for a living.
I’m just glad we won’t have to look at his teeth for another 10- 11 months.
Then why do all you guys bitch about who he leaves out? Like he's the reason Pitt did not make the field. Why not whine a out those other 166 guys. He's just a messenger.
Last edited:
He gets the biggest bully pulpit. Imagine if at your job a guy whose performance is 150 spots below you gets the ear of the President of the company and you don’t?
He is definitely a reason Pitt didnt make it. A big reason? No, probably not but he is very influential.
This is a great point and its why I think ESPN needs to relieve him and go with a southern ACC/SEC type guy who is favorable towards their business partners. They allow an anti-ACC guy rail against their business partner for a month straight. Its like Fox News employing a host to bash Trump or vice versa on the other 2 networks. It makes no business sense.
Not sure how you get a good “score”. In other words, how do you factor in the % of teams they got right with how they predicted the exact seed line? So if Lunardi was 166, he likely just missed more of the finer nuances.
But that doesn’t mean that his loud mouth didn’t influence the committee. And to me, that’s why it matters.
Perfect world - they have people that spend the year watching basketball as a job, AND can process which metrics could be a little off. For example - we KNEW Pitt played an imbalanced conference schedule in a good conference. They didn’t.
But if the ultimate goal is decide a champion, they likely don’t think there is a problem. Rarely would a contender ever get left out. And the mis-seeding actually lends itself to more “madness” which is what they want. Upsets aren’t always upsets, but appear to be if a lower seed wins.
But that doesn’t mean that his loud mouth didn’t influence the committee. And to me, that’s why it matters.
Perfect world - they have people that spend the year watching basketball as a job, AND can process which metrics could be a little off. For example - we KNEW Pitt played an imbalanced conference schedule in a good conference. They didn’t.
But if the ultimate goal is decide a champion, they likely don’t think there is a problem. Rarely would a contender ever get left out. And the mis-seeding actually lends itself to more “madness” which is what they want. Upsets aren’t always upsets, but appear to be if a lower seed wins.
Last edited:
If these conference tournies went as expected (UNC, Dayton, FAU, Zona), Pitt would have been 5th ACC team in instead of NCST. I don’t see how Lunardi could argue for Vt, Cuse, NCST against the strength of this years bubble. The reason they only got 5 teams was because that is how many truly qualified tourney teams the ACC had. NCST run aside.
Similar threads
