What Grade Does Lunardi Get?

[Fk_Pitt]

He got 65 of 68 teams into the tourney. That's good right? No, it's not. I do not even think it's respectable. Maybe for someone like us it is, but not for the expert and innovator that he supposedly is. Consider this:

65 of 68=95.6%. Sounds like an A grade, but let's dig deeper.

There are 36 at large teams. Those are the teams that he has to get right. The other 32 are automatic and similar to putting you name on your SAT and automatically getting X amount on your score. So what he got was:

33 of 36=91.7%. That's an A- for the so-called expert. But that is not really what he got. Let's dig further.

We cannot evaluate him on his 91.7% score because most of those at large bids are a given and easy to project for anyone who pays attention. So what we are looking at is the bubble. How many teams were bubble teams? I guess that could be debated based on who you talk to. At the end of the day, you are probably looking at the last 6 at-large bids in which the rubber hits the road for any bracketologist. He missed on 3 of them. Even WVU grads can figure out the following:

3 of 6= 50%

In my eyes, the smug expert Lunardi gets an F

Now, there are other things to consider. He got 59 of 68 within 1 seed correct. Someone can dig deeper to support or refute whether that is acceptable. He also seeded 34 of 68 exactly, which in my eyes is also an "F" for a grade. Someone may evaluate things differently, but for someone like him, he should do better.

Finally, what I wrote above is a bit elementary and common sense for most Lair members. But I thought it would be a bit of a fun exercise to perform. I feel better now.

What grade do you give him??

 

[bobfree]

I think he was more "right" than the committee.

Cuse and Vanderbilt had no business getting in imo.

 

[UPitt129]

I'll give him an F too. I know that many were saying that he just moves teams around to drive ratings, but honestly, in the last week before the tourney, there is enough movement that he doesn't have to move a team artificially like he did with Pitt. You can give accurate projections based on the time with all the bubble teams that will win and lose the last week of the year.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

I think he was more "right" than the committee.

Cuse and Vanderbilt had no business getting in imo.

You are right Bob. I just want to take shots at him because he pi$$ed me off this year. In his defense, Syracuse should not be in. They had an RPI of 71. How does that happen? That has to be the lowest RPI to ever make the tourney. If it were Pitt, no way we get in with that number.

 

[UPitt '89]

I think he was more "right" than the committee.

Cuse and Vanderbilt had no business getting in imo.

His job is to predict what the committee will do, not what he wishes it did.

As stated in my other thread, I was more accurate than him.

We both got 65/68.... but I got 60 teams within one of their actual seed, and he got 59.

I am an unpaid schlub who is just a fan... and i did better than him.

Lunardi sucks at this, and is only watched because he has a job at ESPN.

Me, whirlybird and SMF all did better than him. What's that say about him?

 

[bobfree]

His job is to predict what the committee will do, not what he wishes it did.

As stated in my other thread, I was more accurate than him.

We both got 65/68.... but I got 60 teams within one of their actual seed, and he got 59.

I am an unpaid schlub who is just a fan... and i did better than him.

Lunardi sucks at this, and is only watched because he has a job at ESPN.

Me, whirlybird and SMF all did better than him. What's that say about him?

I know what his job is.

I am just glad Pitt is in and don't see the point in crushing people over this.

If you do though, I'm in!

All right great.

Let's kill him!!

 

[Fk_Pitt]

Hard to "project the field" when Syracuse and Tulsa inexplicably get in.

I'm just being objective.

 

[levance2]

Hard to "project the field" when Syracuse and Tulsa inexplicably get in.

I'm just being objective.

The committee is unpredictable in certain ways, as there is no single criterion that is favored above all else. It is just random opinions espoused by random people.

Someone beating their chest because they picked Tulsa is like if a fan picks a 2-over-15 upset in their bracket and acts like a genius. All factual evidence was counter to your decision.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

Here I am every year using an RPI of <40 and .500 in the ACC as an indicator of not having to take heart meds on selection Sunday. I just have this complex that if Pitt were to have an RPI somewhere around 50, the committee would make an example of us and have us on the wrong side of the bubble. This year, if you were in the power 5 and got in, you had an RPI of 54 or better. In years past, P5 teams have been left out with similar RPI's. Yet they dropped all the way into the 70's to take Syracuse. If Pitt had a RPI that low, I wouldnt even watch the selection show.

 

[Harve74]

The committee is unpredictable in certain ways, as there is no single criterion that is favored above all else. It is just random opinions espoused by random people.

Someone beating their chest because they picked Tulsa is like if a fan picks a 2-over-15 upset in their bracket and acts like a genius. All factual evidence was counter to your decision.

You can't really expect year to year consistency from the Selection Committee. Membership changes every year and every one brings their own opinions and biases. As I said in the other thread, a fixed formula shoud be established to remove the subjectivity.

 

[PittMan 72]

You can't really expect year to year consistency from the Selection Committee. Membership changes every year and every one brings their own opinions and biases. As I said in the other thread, a fixed formula shoud be established to remove the subjectivity.

While I certainly agree with that, it's hard to imagine them doing it since the wiggle room and flexibility afforded by the current subjective process is exactly what the ultimate decision-making power want.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

You can't really expect year to year consistency from the Selection Committee. Membership changes every year and every one brings their own opinions and biases. As I said in the other thread, a fixed formula shoud be established to remove the subjectivity.

And they should eliminate the RPI. It is as antiquated as the AP poll. When everyone has figured out how to game it, it's run its course.

 

[Harve74]

Here I am every year using an RPI of <40 and .500 in the ACC as an indicator of not having to take heart meds on selection Sunday. I just have this complex that if Pitt were to have an RPI somewhere around 50, the committee would make an example of us and have us on the wrong side of the bubble. This year, if you were in the power 5 and got in, you had an RPI of 54 or better. In years past, P5 teams have been left out with similar RPI's. Yet they dropped all the way into the 70's to take Syracuse. If Pitt had a RPI that low, I wouldnt even watch the selection show.

Basically, somebody decided to give Syracuse a free pass BECAUSE they lost games while Boeheim was on suspension.

Arguably, the Committee completely ignored the fact Cuse and Boeheim were sanctioned for VIOLATIONS and rewarded them. For ACADEMIC violations at that, one thing the NCAA has traditionally been pretty consistently against.

Presumably the ACC rep was instrumental here, although traditionally guys are supposed to recuse themselves from issues that close to home.

Still, what message does that send?

At the very least, it certainly looks like UNC will not get much in terms of punishment from a decade-long academic scandal.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

Basically, somebody decided to give Syracuse a free pass BECAUSE they lost games while Boeheim was on suspension.

Arguably, the Committee completely ignored the fact Cuse and Boeheim were sanctioned for VIOLATIONS and rewarded them. For ACADEMIC violations at that, one thing the NCAA has traditionally been pretty consistently against.

Presumably the ACC rep was instrumental here, although traditionally guys are supposed to recuse themselves from issues that closeto home.

Still, what message does that send?

At the very least, it certainly looks like UNC will not get much in terms of punishment from a decade-long academic scandal.

Exactly right. There was some back room dealing that went on that might rival that of Obamacare passage years ago. If Boeheim was sick and missed games, that's one thing. I wouldn't agree with it, but I could see the argument. But he cheated. And he cheated big time. This one is very disturbing.

 

[Harve74]

While I certainly agree with that, it's hard to imagine them doing it since the wiggle room and flexibility afforded by the current subjective process is exactly what the ultimate decision-making power want.

The subjectivity and back-room dealing is just another reason the whole tournament is losing credibility with me as a valid way to determine a champion. It's a entertaining spectacle, bread and circuses for the masses, little more.

To which crucial, monumentally important game should we give credence? A late season game determinig the conference championship? A conference tournament game which "eliminates" the loser? Or any of 6 or possibly 7 single elimination NCAAT games?

Every layer added to this devalues every previous game. And makes me wonder why I bother watching.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I am better than Lunardi but that doesn't say a lot because Lunardi is pretty terrible. Its not all his fault though, ESPN makes him give almost hourly updates when he doesnt have the chance to fully comprehend what a win or loss means. You cant be updating this stuff hourly. Yea, Syracuse lost a "play-in" game but look who they beat. A&M, at Duke, UConn, ND, St. Bonaventure. They were a no-brainer and I had them in fairly safely.

I beat Lunardi as usual. I missed 2 teams. Had SMC and SBU instead of Vandy and Tulsa. So, I missed 2 Dayton teams. Lunardi missed teams that ended up with 1st Round byes. He sucks.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Here I am every year using an RPI of <40 and .500 in the ACC as an indicator of not having to take heart meds on selection Sunday. I just have this complex that if Pitt were to have an RPI somewhere around 50, the committee would make an example of us and have us on the wrong side of the bubble. This year, if you were in the power 5 and got in, you had an RPI of 54 or better. In years past, P5 teams have been left out with similar RPI's. Yet they dropped all the way into the 70's to take Syracuse. If Pitt had a RPI that low, I wouldnt even watch the selection show.

Exactly right. There was some back room dealing that went on that might rival that of Obamacare passage years ago. If Boeheim was sick and missed games, that's one thing. I wouldn't agree with it, but I could see the argument. But he cheated. And he cheated big time. This one is very disturbing.

You cant just look at RPI. Syracuse had more quality wins than anybody on the bubble. You couldn't leave them out. They beat a 3 seed, 4 seed, 6 seed, and 9 seed, only 1 of them at home. Its very rare to see a bubble team with that many quality wins. The committee got that absolutely right and even though I didnt pick Tulsa, they had 5 Top 50 wins, I understand them getting in for that. RPI is important but the committee wants to see who you beat. Syr and Tulsa beat a lot of quality teams. SMC, Monmouth, SDSU, etc simply didn't

 

[Fk_Pitt]

You cant just look at RPI. Syracuse had more quality wins than anybody on the bubble. You couldn't leave them out. They beat a 3 seed, 4 seed, 6 seed, and 9 seed, only 1 of them at home. Its very rare to see a bubble team with that many quality wins. The committee got that absolutely right and even though I didnt pick Tulsa, they had 5 Top 50 wins, I understand them getting in for that. RPI is important but the committee wants to see who you beat. Syr and Tulsa beat a lot of quality teams. SMC, Monmouth, SDSU, etc simply didn't

For them to have 5 top 50 wins, go .500 in conference, and then have an RPI in the 70's, they had to have some really bad losses. Those losses should be evaluated just as much as the good wins, and I have a hard time accepting that a cheating and corrupt program was placed in the tourney. If it were PSU and not Cuse, this board would be pretty upset with it. At the end of the day, the RPI, albeit flawed, is a better indicator of the overall performance than Syracuse's 5 quality wins.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2013/schedule/KentuckyCompare Syracuse this year to Kentucky a couple years ago. Kentucky was 21-11 on selection Sunday, RPI in the 50's, 12-6 in conference, had 3 top 50 wins and 0 losses outside the top 200.

Syracuse didn't get to 20 wins, was 9-9 in ACC, had an RPI in the 70's, and had a loss vs the #245 team. My only explanation is that maybe Boeheim didn't coach in that loss and the committee made that exception..which is a travesty. He wasn't sick...he was suspended for corruption. http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2013/schedule/Kentucky

 

[pitt-girl]

It seems like Lunardi starts his bracketology earlier and earlier. If he could accurately predict the tournament say, in January, then I would be impressed. Basically anyone with an interest and basic knowledge of the tournament can pick the majority of the field a day before. He's not special, folks, he's just given the air time.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

It seems like Lunardi starts his bracketology earlier and earlier. If he could accurately predict the tournament say, in January, then I would be impressed. Basically anyone with an interest and basic knowledge of the tournament can pick the majority of the field a day before. He's not special, folks, he's just given the air time.

We all want his job!!!

 

[BigZeke]

Basically, somebody decided to give Syracuse a free pass BECAUSE they lost games while Boeheim was on suspension.

Arguably, the Committee completely ignored the fact Cuse and Boeheim were sanctioned for VIOLATIONS and rewarded them. For ACADEMIC violations at that, one thing the NCAA has traditionally been pretty consistently against.

Presumably the ACC rep was instrumental here, although traditionally guys are supposed to recuse themselves from issues that close to home.

Still, what message does that send?

At the very least, it certainly looks like UNC will not get much in terms of punishment from a decade-long academic scandal.

Helps to have Aw Shucks Roy at the helm denying he doesn't see the $200,000 sports cars his players routinely show up in or the grades that are changed, papers that are written, etc. What a joke the NCAA is. Another antiquated institution with Fat Cats, Cronies & Back Alley Bullies taking payoffs, playing favorites and sacrificing the little guy up as cannon fodder to show how tough they are. Still enjoy ole Jimmy "Paychex" Calhoun being canonized on ESPN from time to time. One of the sleaziest crooks to ever stalk a sideline yet UConn proudly displays their hardware won by bought and paid for players year after year.

 

[Ski11585]

Yeah Lunardi may not be a legend at bracketology but I bet he's a legend at the bank.

 

[MajorMajors]

--St. Joe's coach Phil Martelli was interviewed by Filiponi on CBS radio after the selection show and Coach Phil was fuming over the Bonnies being left out. Coach said the committee again favored the P5 football schools....

--Loved PSU's statement that they have decided "...not to pursue post-season opportunities..."

--Duquesne is going to play in the CBI. They will host Omaha on March 16th. It's OMAHA, so maybe Peyton Manning will show up.

Go Pitt.

 

[raleighpanther]

Actually, there is NO POINT in evaluating how well Lunardi does in the end. As others have said, any idiot can get 64 teams right while drunk. Who cares if he got 65, 66, or all 68 right in the end? It really doesn't matter.

If there is any value in what he does, I'd say its helping fans understand where their team is positioned vs. the field as the season goes along. When he estimates that your team is a 6 seed, or they are the first 4 out in mid-February, he's probably REASONABLY accurate, and you get a sense of what your team needs to do going forward.

Evaluating his final prediction moments before the selections are made would be like evaluating someone's prediction that Trump will win the Florida primary... tomorrow. Now, if they'd predicted that four months ago, OK, I'd say they are good at predicting elections.

 

[Atch]

I know what his job is.

I am just glad Pitt is in and don't see the point in crushing people over this.

If you do though, I'm in!

All right great.

Let's kill him!!

What is his job?