Tweet
I haven’t seen this mentioned in any threads, and no search results for either “Gottlieb” or “Lunardi” recently. I found an exchange between the two of them very illuminating.
I downloaded ESPNU’s weekly college basketball podcast yesterday (it was recorded Tuesday) and was listening to it today. Doug Gottlieb is the commentator; he had a nice little segment on Northern Iowa and how dangerous they are/will be come tournament time… hopefully the Shocks will get their segment next week.
About halfway through the podcast, he has Joe Lunardi on to talk about at-large bids. I won’t get the dialogue word-for-word, but here’s what was said:
--------------------------------------------
Gottlieb: So you think Louisville’s in, but I don’t think they’ve beaten anybody. OK, who’s your first team out?
Lunardi: Richmond, then a group of about a half dozen others.
Gottlieb: OK, this is what I’m talking about – Richmond has beaten[lists 2 or 3 games]. Those wins are better than anything on Louisville’s schedule. They’ve got the better resume, why not them instead of Louisville?
Lunardi (tentatively): But who would be favored if they played each other today?
--------------------------------------------
I think I had a look on my face similar to Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men after he gets Colonel Jessup to admit that he ordered the Code Red – i.e. not surprised that it was true, but shocked that he actually came out and said it.
Lunardi then says something about how he doesn’t necessarily think it’s right, but that it’s the way it works and that his job is to predict what the selection committee will do.
Gottlieb then comes back over the top of him and says that he thought what Lunardi was supposed to be doing was applying the methodology as it SHOULD be applied, not guessing how the committee would apply it. Lunardi then fumbled around and rambled about how “well, you hope there’s a lot of overlap…” and “I’m the last guy to want to put one of the big schools in over a deserving smaller school”. Even for him, it sounded pretty disingenuous.
I had to stop listening at that point and get back to work, but I thought the exchange was illuminating on a couple of surprising fronts – (1) Gottlieb was clearly sticking up for a smaller school with a better resume over a “name” team, when he’s shown a decent amount of BCS bias in the past, and (2) that Lunardi ADMITTED that his analysis is more about predicting the committee than it is about predicting the field, and which way he is going to tilt when those two paradigms conflict. Like I said, it’s one thing to do it, it’s another to admit it, and when the only guy in the country getting a full-time paycheck to apply resume methodology admits that he lapses into the “what’s the line if they played today” fantasyland… pretty disappointing, even for Lunardi.
Anyway, I don’t want to start another “anti-mid major bias” thread – the Shocks need to take control of their own destiny and not leave it to the committee.
I just thought it was pretty interesting for those who don’t do the iPod thing. For those who do, it’s a free download – ESPNU College Basketball weekly update.
I downloaded ESPNU’s weekly college basketball podcast yesterday (it was recorded Tuesday) and was listening to it today. Doug Gottlieb is the commentator; he had a nice little segment on Northern Iowa and how dangerous they are/will be come tournament time… hopefully the Shocks will get their segment next week.
About halfway through the podcast, he has Joe Lunardi on to talk about at-large bids. I won’t get the dialogue word-for-word, but here’s what was said:
--------------------------------------------
Gottlieb: So you think Louisville’s in, but I don’t think they’ve beaten anybody. OK, who’s your first team out?
Lunardi: Richmond, then a group of about a half dozen others.
Gottlieb: OK, this is what I’m talking about – Richmond has beaten[lists 2 or 3 games]. Those wins are better than anything on Louisville’s schedule. They’ve got the better resume, why not them instead of Louisville?
Lunardi (tentatively): But who would be favored if they played each other today?
--------------------------------------------
I think I had a look on my face similar to Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men after he gets Colonel Jessup to admit that he ordered the Code Red – i.e. not surprised that it was true, but shocked that he actually came out and said it.
Lunardi then says something about how he doesn’t necessarily think it’s right, but that it’s the way it works and that his job is to predict what the selection committee will do.
Gottlieb then comes back over the top of him and says that he thought what Lunardi was supposed to be doing was applying the methodology as it SHOULD be applied, not guessing how the committee would apply it. Lunardi then fumbled around and rambled about how “well, you hope there’s a lot of overlap…” and “I’m the last guy to want to put one of the big schools in over a deserving smaller school”. Even for him, it sounded pretty disingenuous.
I had to stop listening at that point and get back to work, but I thought the exchange was illuminating on a couple of surprising fronts – (1) Gottlieb was clearly sticking up for a smaller school with a better resume over a “name” team, when he’s shown a decent amount of BCS bias in the past, and (2) that Lunardi ADMITTED that his analysis is more about predicting the committee than it is about predicting the field, and which way he is going to tilt when those two paradigms conflict. Like I said, it’s one thing to do it, it’s another to admit it, and when the only guy in the country getting a full-time paycheck to apply resume methodology admits that he lapses into the “what’s the line if they played today” fantasyland… pretty disappointing, even for Lunardi.
Anyway, I don’t want to start another “anti-mid major bias” thread – the Shocks need to take control of their own destiny and not leave it to the committee.
I just thought it was pretty interesting for those who don’t do the iPod thing. For those who do, it’s a free download – ESPNU College Basketball weekly update.
Comment