Favorable schedule moving forward (2-3 seed?)

#30
#30
cardvolfan said:
It's funny what a money making business "Bracketology" has become. It's as if these bracketologists have some kind of special insight into the matchups and seedings. By the way Border, this is not a personal hit on you, whatsoever. I just don't pay attention to this stuff personally, because no one can see what the committee members are going to do at any point in the future, not even the members themselves.
Click to expand...

LOL. Yeah, it's water cooler fodder. I love how in early Feb we have a seed # and an actual matchup. As accurate as a horoscope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cardvolfan and Border Vol
#35
#35
I've often wandered why there's even a committee when all they do is plagerize Lunardi. If he was that great at "predicting" seeding, wouldn't he make a bit more $$$ living/working full time in vegas?
 
#36
#36
keenobserver said:
I've often wandered why there's even a committee when all they do is plagerize Lunardi. If he was that great at "predicting" seeding, wouldn't he make a bit more $$$ living/working full time in vegas?
Click to expand...
Why would he do that when he gets a cushy job making lots of money for ESPN? He usually goes like 67/68 or so, he's pretty good
 
#37
#37
Vol49er said:
Why would he do that when he gets a cushy job making lots of money for ESPN? He usually goes like 67/68 or so, he's pretty good
Click to expand...

I agree. My point was that I believe the committee relies soley on his picks. If they didn't that would make Lunardi as close to Nostradamus as any person living.
 
#38
#38
keenobserver said:
I agree. My point was that I believe the committee relies soley on his picks. If they didn't that would make Lunardi as close to Nostradamus as any person living.
Click to expand...
Ah I see now, I misread your original post. Maybe. He probably has some algorithm he can put a bunch of different factors into would be my guess
 
  • Like
Reactions: keenobserver
#39
#39
Vol49er said:
Ah I see now, I misread your original post. Maybe. He probably has some algorithm he can put a bunch of different factors into would be my guess
Click to expand...

I'd say your right about how he generates them. It's pretty obvious that whoever is on the committee value his picks over ever other criteria. Even when there's general consensus head scratchers with seeding in the past, Lunardi has been spot on with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol49er
#41
#41
The best case scenario is drop no more than one-more game in the regular season and then win the SEC tournament. That most likely gets you a 2-seed, especially if you beat Mizzou and/or Alabama in route to the tournament victory. Still, I think the 2-seed is a long shot. We have some rough losses in a conference that is unfairly seen as weak. I think 3-seed is probably the most likely scenario. There is almost zero room for error to get a 2-seed. I think you have to win the SEC tournament to get there.
 
#44
#44
TheMookieMonster said:
The best case scenario is drop no more than one-more game in the regular season and then win the SEC tournament. That most likely gets you a 2-seed, especially if you beat Mizzou and/or Alabama in route to the tournament victory. Still, I think the 2-seed is a long shot. We have some rough losses in a conference that is unfairly seen as weak. I think 3-seed is probably the most likely scenario. There is almost zero room for error to get a 2-seed. I think you have to win the SEC tournament to get there.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t the best case mean not losing any?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thunder Good-Oil
#45
#45
keenobserver said:
I agree. My point was that I believe the committee relies soley on his picks. If they didn't that would make Lunardi as close to Nostradamus as any person living.
Click to expand...
Lunardi ranks 55th out of 133 bracketologists on the bracket matrix that have done it at least 5 years. Back when I had time (pre-kids) I would crank out my own bracketology stuff. Most years, it's fairly simple to get at least 65 of the 68, and I'd usually get 67. That's actually the easy part. Predicting the seed is daunting, because you're splitting hairs and you don't know what that particular committee will place more value on. Some go way overboard in saying Lunardi sucks and all that. He clearly doesn't suck, but as far as bracketologists go, he's not even close to the top in most years, and I'd wager he has an army of analysts feeding him all the data, which can be extremely time consuming.
 
#46
#46
wtmvol said:
Lunardi ranks 55th out of 133 bracketologists on the bracket matrix that have done it at least 5 years. Back when I had time (pre-kids) I would crank out my own bracketology stuff. Most years, it's fairly simple to get at least 65 of the 68, and I'd usually get 67. That's actually the easy part. Predicting the seed is daunting, because you're splitting hairs and you don't know what that particular committee will place more value on. Some go way overboard in saying Lunardi sucks and all that. He clearly doesn't suck, but as far as bracketologists go, he's not even close to the top in most years, and I'd wager he has an army of analysts feeding him all the data, which can be extremely time consuming.
Click to expand...
Joe has Tennessee as a #3 Seed opening with #14 Seed Grand Canyon. Here's their opening bracket according to Joe Lunardi.;)

The varying states of NCAA tournament Bracketology

#6 Virginia Tech
#11 St Bonaventure


#3 Tennessee
#14 Grand Canyon

I love reading different Bracketologies just like i enjoy reading Bowl Projections in the Summer-Fall.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TrumpedUpVol, vol94 and cardvolfan
#48
#48
bleedingTNorange said:
Not sure why you think that, he’s not even close to being the most accurate.
Click to expand...

How so? Isnt he known for his pinpoint accuracy? Correctly predicting 66/68 seeds is pretty good (or sketchy) if you ask me. And not just that, but doing it year after year after year.

Not sure why you dont believe Lunardi has an enormous impact on the bracket that you fill out.
 
Last edited:
#49
#49
wtmvol said:
Lunardi ranks 55th out of 133 bracketologists on the bracket matrix that have done it at least 5 years. Back when I had time (pre-kids) I would crank out my own bracketology stuff. Most years, it's fairly simple to get at least 65 of the 68, and I'd usually get 67. That's actually the easy part. Predicting the seed is daunting, because you're splitting hairs and you don't know what that particular committee will place more value on. Some go way overboard in saying Lunardi sucks and all that. He clearly doesn't suck, but as far as bracketologists go, he's not even close to the top in most years, and I'd wager he has an army of analysts feeding him all the data, which can be extremely time consuming.
Click to expand...

What data were you using for your bracketology? Lunardi's picks?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top