Joe Lunardi

[The Mad Hatter]

Here is the statistical proof of Lunardi's mediocrity:

http://bracketproject.50webs.com/rankings.html

Ranked #36 out of 65 bracketologists who have contributed at least 3 years, and most of his competition in these rankings are amateurs.

[Shockeriffic]

This year was probably one of the easiest to get all the teams right. The problem is that ESPN doesn't care if their bracketology guy is accurate. They only care if he gets the most page views. If everyone sought out and only looked at the most accurate guys then ESPN would care about accuracy. Basically, Lunardi gets to keep doing an average job because we're too lazy to seek out the more accurate bracketologists.

[ShockerFever]

Seeding is kind of a big deal when doing the whole bracketology thing. The easiest thing of all might be selecting the correct 68 teams or being 1 or 2 off. It's the seeding that shows how good or bad you are at it.

When Joe Lunardi had WSU teetering on the edge of the play-in games 48 hours ago, and they winded up getting a No.9 seed, that tells me all I need to know how good he is at his "job".

[ShockRef]

Lunardi is part of the ESPN promo machine. Their whole M.O. is to convince the sports watching nation they are Gawd-like when it comes to their domain and pay no attention to anyone else.

'Joey Brackets', as Digger the Dope labeled him one day, garbled on last night that WSU would not beat Pitt because they "had overachieved all year, after losing 4 Seniors from the year before."

What the heck does that have to do with this years team?

It was obvious he hasn't seen WSU play and just picked up an info sheet on them, reviewed who had graduated and who was left.

Yea, that certainly qualifies you as an expert in the field. What a tool.

That is all.

[SubGod22]

I'm not sure how many guys ESPN employs that I'd listen to on any subject about college sports. A few I kinda like but most think nothing exists beyond the top 5 or 6 conferences.

[RomeoCrennel's Belly]

Ugh, please, it's just a projection. Lunardi's picks stand up very well I'd say to most. He's on ESPN, so it just seems like he's a bigger deal than he is.

[SubGod22]

Nobody is saying Lunardi sucks. Just saying he's not "the man" like ESPN portrays him. When it comes to those that do this thing, he's average. Why is that so hard for some to understand? Hell, we had two that post on this board who did better than him. And JH4P has so for a few years and he's not paid to do it. When Lunardi and Palm sandwhich the BleacherReport morons, I think that speaks for itself.

[Shockeriffic]

Lunardi is part of the ESPN promo machine. Their whole M.O. is to convince the sports watching nation they are Gawd-like when it comes to their domain and pay no attention to anyone else.

'Joey Brackets', as Digger the Dope labeled him one day, garbled on last night that WSU would not beat Pitt because they "had overachieved all year, after losing 4 Seniors from the year before."

What the heck does that have to do with this years team?

It was obvious he hasn't seen WSU play and just picked up an info sheet on them, reviewed who had graduated and who was left.

Yea, that certainly qualifies you as an expert in the field. What a tool.

That is all.

There is some validity to the idea that a team that overachieved will lose early in the tournament. This article is 2 years old but the idea still holds true. The preseason polls are more accurate than the postseason polls in deciding who will win. The example Nate Silver picked was Notre Dame. They overachieved and got a two seed but they lost to 10 seed Florida St. that year in the second round. A team he had labeled as an underachiever that year, Butler, went on to the championship game.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/in-n-c-a-a-tournament-overachievers-often-disappoint/

[jocoshock]

There is some validity to the idea that a team that overachieved will lose early in the tournament. This article is 2 years old but the idea still holds true. The preseason polls are more accurate than the postseason polls in deciding who will win. The example Nate Silver picked was Notre Dame. They overachieved and got a two seed but they lost to 10 seed Florida St. that year in the second round. A team he had labeled as an underachiever that year, Butler, went on to the championship game.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...en-disappoint/

Very interesting article. May be absolutely true about the Shox, if we are honest with ourselves. But Pitt has been something of an underachiever in the big dance for years. So I would wonder if they are a conistentl overachiever during the regular season year after year.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Here's another way of looking at it. Did we overachieve the first half of the season, and the second half is more indicative of our true potential, or did we underachieve the last half of the season and the first half is the real team?

I wonder if this team didn't underachieve a little down the stretch. If that's the case, watch out.

[shox2k2]

I saw on espn they showed he was. 68 for 68 when looking at his final bracket. And hasn't missed many teams the last few years. He's fine. Picking seeding is tough. You have no idea how much one person weighs criteria compared to another. Espn bpi seems like a big deal to them but everywhere else seems to think its crap. He's definitely better than Jerry palm. That guys a loser.

[SubGod22]

I saw on espn they showed he was. 68 for 68 when looking at his final bracket. And hasn't missed many teams the last few years. He's fine. Picking seeding is tough. You have no idea how much one person weighs criteria compared to another. Espn bpi seems like a big deal to them but everywhere else seems to think its crap. He's definitely better than Jerry palm. That guys a loser.

He was only two spots ahead of Palm. One above BleacherReport. That's not good company. Just about everyone gets the field right. Seeding is a part of it though and that's where he shows his weakness.

I do find it a little funny that you call Palm a loser and say Lunardi is fine when they were right next to each other in the final ranking of the brackets. Both are average.

[shockmonster]

Maybe some of the other teams on our schedule overachieved the last part of the season and underachieved the first part of the season. JUst playing devils advocate.

[Shockeriffic]

Digger could have looked like a genius if he would have applied his own logic correctly. The real overachievers in this tournament (preseason unranked but earned a top three seed) were Marquette, New Mexico, Georgetown and Miami.