Lunardi Bracketology June 1st

[Hall2012]

How are they measured? Is it just % of teams in they got correct? Is correct seeding taken into account? I imagine correct matchups/region placement isn't considered because that seems impossible...am I wrong?

[XUFan09]

I wouldn't worry about any of this. Lunarsi has a hard time being right when he has a seasons worth of info in front of him let alone 6 months before the season even starts.

Lunardi just had his worst season in recent years, but he is still ranked 22 out of 88 "veteran bracketologists." Pretty solid job (though some years back, he wasn't that great). Patrick Stevens, Warren Nolan, and Jeff Borzello are the other big media guys that stand out.

http://bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html

Being ranked 22nd is pretty poor when you're the featured bracketologist on the worldwide leader. Most of those 88 are guys just working out of their basements and are more apt to make wild predictions to get attention.

It's not ground-breaking, but remember what I said: He just had a really bad year. Despite that pulling down his average score, he still finished on the edge of the top quartile. Before that, he was one of the top 5-10 bracketologists. Plus, since I am not going to use the predictions of some random guy (since they often rise and fall quickly from season to season, probably due to varying levels of interest year to year), Lunardi is one of the better choices out there. I would still choose Stevens or Borzello before him, but still, he's a pretty reliable predictor in most years.

I mean, if you're complaining because he's really well-known for bracketology but isn't absolutely awesome at it, you're setting your standards pretty damn high. It should be no shocker than a major media figure is over-promoted. As media figures go, though, the gap between perception and reality for Lunardi is much closer than it is for a lot of others.

[XUFan09]

How are they measured? Is it just % of teams in they got correct? Is correct seeding taken into account? I imagine correct matchups/region placement isn't considered because that seems impossible...am I wrong?

Right, nothing with matchups or region. It's based off seeding and selection. I think on the site somewhere they explain the scoring method.

[NJRedman]

How are they measured? Is it just % of teams in they got correct? Is correct seeding taken into account? I imagine correct matchups/region placement isn't considered because that seems impossible...am I wrong?

[paulxu]

In recent years the Selection Committee has indicated it is starting to take some other metrics into consideration besides RPI.
They have noted Sagarin, Pomeroy and a newer guy who does KPI who is out of Michigan I think. Here's is his recap of last year's seedings and some of those indexes. He uses ESPN"s BPI as one of them, but I don't think that corresponds directly to Lunardi's picks.

http://www.kpisports.net/2016/03/15/def ... 6-edition/

[Wizard of Westroads]

I mean, if you're complaining because he's really well-known for bracketology but isn't absolutely awesome at it, you're setting your standards pretty damn high. It should be no shocker than a major media figure is over-promoted. As media figures go, though, the gap between perception and reality for Lunardi is much closer than it is for a lot of others.

Yeah, that's what I'm complaining: He gets a national platform but he's really not very good. So if the standard is that his perception/reality gap is better than some others, then maybe he's fine. And since the whole point is to draw attention to ESPN, then mission accomplished. Fwiw, I think he's one of the few BE supportive people on ESPN, so my criticism isn't about bias.

[XUFan09]

I mean, if you're complaining because he's really well-known for bracketology but isn't absolutely awesome at it, you're setting your standards pretty damn high. It should be no shocker than a major media figure is over-promoted. As media figures go, though, the gap between perception and reality for Lunardi is much closer than it is for a lot of others.

Yeah, that's what I'm complaining: He gets a national platform but he's really not very good. So if the standard is that his perception/reality gap is better than some others, then maybe he's fine. And since the whole point is to draw attention to ESPN, then mission accomplished. Fwiw, I think he's one of the few BE supportive people on ESPN, so my criticism isn't about bias.

I get that but I'd still say he's pretty good at it, as big media figures go. My pet peeve with him isn't that he gets a national platform while being pretty good; it's that a lot of the times his projections are given as fact, not just as an informed opinion. That presentation as fact is annoying, and it occurs frequently as the tournament looms near, whether it's Lunardi directly appearing on a show or an announcer discussing teams as games are playing out. The other good media figures like Borzello and Stevens will present their deliberations and will make clear that their predictions are only an informed opinion. I guess ESPN is more to blame for this than Lunardi, though. For example, a team is about to win a game against an okay opponent, and the announcer will say something like, "Team X was one of the Last Four In, but now they have solidified their spot in the field." No, they haven't.

[gtmoBlue]

The assorted clump of "sports journalists/writers", "Bracketologists", even "blog/messageboard" types (some of which like to think they are journalists) - regardless of their location, status, platform - are a gift from the basketball gods. The sole reason for their ilk is to spew forth nonsense so the unwashed masses will know what to think, in the few isolated moments the masses have away from their jobs. Without their sage proclamations sports fans would be lost, as they (Fans) would then have to think for themselves - always a troubling notion.

God bless the whole slew of 'em, even universal favorites...Dana O'Neil, Doub Gottlieb. And my fav...Gary Parrish.

[stever20]

Lunardi is much better than a lot of the major bracketologists though- and in the top quarter overall. Hear a lot of folks pimping Jerry Palm on here thru the years. Well guess what, he's #61. Means only 27 guys are worse than he is.

Long time no see stever, how you enjoying the off-season?

Dude- this is actually my really busy season for basketball.... Coaching girls AAU. So to say the off-season is kind of comical for me.... But I know what you mean....

I think the biggest thing that's happened this off season so far is how badly things ended for top 10 recruits at LSU and Miss St. To me, that's GREAT news for the Big East. The fewer "other" P5 schools that are getting top recruits, the better it's going to be for the Big East. The other thing is the # of transfers that are choosing Big East schools. To me, and I've said it on another thread- THAT is where being basketball-centric makes a huge difference.

I think if I was going to put a number 1-10 on this offseason for the Big East, it would have to be like a 8- maybe even a 9. The big negatives of course losing Ellenson, Whitehead and Bentil- but I think really for all- it can't be seen as a huge surprise. No coaches moving on this off season which is a plus. Going to be a really interesting season next year.

[Trifecta]

I wouldn't worry about any of this. Lunarsi has a hard time being right when he has a seasons worth of info in front of him let alone 6 months before the season even starts.

Lunardi just had his worst season in recent years, but he is still ranked 22 out of 88 "veteran bracketologists." Pretty solid job (though some years back, he wasn't that great). Patrick Stevens, Warren Nolan, and Jeff Borzello are the other big media guys that stand out.

http://bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html

Being ranked 22nd is pretty poor when you're the featured bracketologist on the worldwide leader. Most of those 88 are guys just working out of their basements and are more apt to make wild predictions to get attention.

Funny enough, the Creighton Rivals guys are ranked #19. Tim is just a regular guy that decided one day to start his own radio show, and grew that into buying out the Rivals site. And White and Blue review (another fan site) is #22 on the Newbie's list.

I do think it's a little ridiculous for the Mothership to pimp Lunardi as the foremost expert when he can't even place in the top 10.