February 28th, 2018 at 1:27 PM ^
I was being sarcastic.
February 28th, 2018 at 1:37 PM ^
February 28th, 2018 at 3:18 PM ^
A 97.9% rate means getting about 66.5 teams right per year - or missing two in one year and one the next. When you consider that he continually revises his predictions, right up to the final day, and that there are only a handful of genuine bubble teams (teams that really seem like a coinflip), it's really not that remarkable.
February 28th, 2018 at 1:24 PM ^
Lunardi is slightly better than middle of the pack (40/113) when it comes to those who have been submitting brackets for at least five years. He's not great but he isn't awful, either.
February 28th, 2018 at 1:05 PM ^
I think he's pretty accurate in terms of his "First 4 In" and "First 4 out" but hasn't been that accurate in recent years with seeding projections. Although I don't blame him with since it seems seeding has been spuratic and unpredictable in recent years.
February 28th, 2018 at 2:45 PM ^
People need to understand that each of these threads involves more discussion than the actual tournament does about seeding. I don't mean this as hyperbole; I'm serious.
Reports consistently state that they spend an hour or two on seeding. The entire rest of the meeting is spent determining the field. Basically, the thought is that you can play yourself out of a bad seed, but you can't play yourself into the tournament if you get left out.
Michigan is a prime example of this last year -- the consensus (from Bracket Matrix) was that Michigan was about a 7 seed entering the BTT. Most people on this board, myself included, thought they'd played their way up to a 5 or so. They were a 6 on the final Bracket Matrix. And it turns out that they would have been an 8 (!) if they'd lost to Wisconsin in the final.
And, of course, we all know what happened from there -- about an inch and a half from the Elite 8.
It's fun to discuss potential seeding, but whie I think many of you are overly optimistic, the truth is that it's almost an afterthought as far as the committee is concerned.
February 28th, 2018 at 6:20 PM ^
I don't know how you define % correctness, but bracketmatrix does track his historical performance in terms of something called a "paymon" score. Over the past five years he's averaged an 332.8 / 408 Paymon score. It's hard to say just how accurate he is at seeding based on that score, but it's a safe bet that he will mis-seed at least 10% of the bracket.
February 28th, 2018 at 12:52 PM ^
are pretty bad losses. No way they deserve to be a 3.
Lost by 14 to Temple (16-12)
Lost by 5 to Bama (17-13)
Lost 81-80 to A&M (18-11)
Lost 84-75 to S. Carolina (15-14)
Lost 72-66 to Florida (19-11)
Arkansas is the only team they've lost to that does not have double digit losses this year.
February 28th, 2018 at 12:56 PM ^
Lunardi has a strong SEC bias, not sure if it's because of RPI or what, if you look at the various SEC teams. Kentucky's resume is weaker than ours but also a 5 seed.
February 28th, 2018 at 1:00 PM ^
and two other things:
1) Their best win is Tennessee. No wins over elites.
2) Check out the rest of their non-conference schedule - no Top 25 teams (not even close). No decent tourneys entered whatsoever. Cakewalk...
This teams belongs at the 7-8 seed level...
February 28th, 2018 at 1:23 PM ^
Using the NCAA's Quandrant system those are all Quandrant 1 losses. Temple is 41st in RPI and it was a neutral floor loss. Bama is 57th in RPI and it was an away loss. Florida is 45th in RPI and it was an away loss. South Carolina is 75th in RPI and it was an away loss. A&M is 28th in RPI and it was a home loss.
February 28th, 2018 at 1:25 PM ^
February 28th, 2018 at 1:34 PM ^
I'll give you good.
Very good? That's a bit too far.
They have way too many head-scratching losses and are not even in the top 25.
February 28th, 2018 at 1:38 PM ^
and a 7 seed on the Matrix. Michigan has 2 wins over teams better than that.
February 28th, 2018 at 1:47 PM ^
Call 7 seeds "very good?"
I have no dog in the fight, so I won't go to war about this. But they have some shit losses (Georgia twice, Vandy, South Carolina, Ole Miss, getting blown at home by Alabama), and from seeing them multiple times on TV viewing, the adjectives "very" and "good" never combined themselves when watching.
February 28th, 2018 at 2:24 PM ^
Wins against Gonzaga, Cincy, and the best teams in their conference (Auburn, UK). 7-5 against the top RPI fifty now (the ground keeps shifting on this). I have only caught a couple of their games. Jalen Hudson can ball, and they are athletic and fast. They just look like one of those teams that come in the tournament unranked and make the Elite 8.
February 28th, 2018 at 2:35 PM ^
They can beat a lot of teams, like they have proven.
They also look like they can lose to damn near anyone, like they have proven also.
Hence, why they are a good team at this point in time. I just don't think they have earned the "very good" language when they are currently sitting on the 7 seed line. You don't call teams on the 7 seed very good.
February 28th, 2018 at 1:28 PM ^
It also cares about good wins.
People around here consistently overestimate the quality of Michigan's wins. They only really have 4 to write home about (at MSU, OSU, at Texas, at Maryland). By contrast, Oklahoma, a 17-12 team that's increasingly in danger of missing the whole damn tournament, has 8 quality wins (USC on a neutral court, at Wichita State, sweep of TCU, Texas Tech, Kansas, Baylor, Kansas State).
Michigan scores very well by advanced metrics and has no truly bad losses. But the lack of wins absolutely limits its ceiling, and the people saying they can get up to a 4 just by beating Nebraska are not being realistic.
February 28th, 2018 at 1:44 PM ^
February 28th, 2018 at 1:52 PM ^
is that every year, the Committee insists it doesn't look solely at RPI, that this time it really is going to consider Kenpom and Sagarin and BPI and various other things.
And then pretty much every year, their unexpectedly high seeds and unexpectedly low seeds line up almost exactly with pure RPI (including last year where Maryland got a ridiculously high seed because of it).
I'll believe the Committee aren't just a bunch of RPI-bots when they actually show it in practice.
February 28th, 2018 at 1:59 PM ^
OU isn't going to even finish .500 in their conference and they've lost 10 of 12. They have so many wins because they had so many opportunities. Clearly people figured out how to guard a 1 man team, and they aren't as good as they appeared to be in non-conference.
For our wins, you're leaving out @ PSU and neutral Nebraska, if we are to win that. Our wins are not a plus for our resume, but they aren't a negative either. Plus the committee usually values playing well at the end of the season. I expect a 4 seed with a win Friday.
February 28th, 2018 at 12:54 PM ^
Would love a 5 seed in that bracket but as you stated, Lunardi's a moron so highly unlikely that occurs.
Unrelated to this topic ESPN is driving me crazy with their "Cleveland Browns will take Josh Allen #1 bullshit". The ONLY person who thinks this is Mel Kiper (and he said for clicks) but now all the ESPN "experts" are repeating it as gospel fact because all the other idiots keep repeating it. It's an infinite loop of stupidity.
Josh Allen might not even go in the first round.
Sorry - back to basketball......I agree with your take and Dr. Mantis. We might sneak onto the 3 line if we win the BTT, win three games and we're a four, win two games and we're a 5, win one or none and we're a 5/6 depending on what happens elsewhere.
I love this time of year!
February 28th, 2018 at 1:18 PM ^
February 28th, 2018 at 4:59 PM ^
February 28th, 2018 at 1:37 PM ^
February 28th, 2018 at 1:42 PM ^
They have us picking Sam Darnold accross the board. Which I like. I'm good with either Darnold or Rosen and even Mayfield (if the FA likes him enough) but no Allen.
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2018/mock-drafts
February 28th, 2018 at 1:39 PM ^
My poor Browns-loving heart will fucking explode if Cleveland drafts Josh Allen 1 overall.
February 28th, 2018 at 1:00 PM ^
We can do this!
February 28th, 2018 at 1:11 PM ^
So, who should we be rooting against? I imagine we want Ohio State to lose in their first game on Friday of the BTT?
I also don't think we move up just with a win over Illinois/Iowa and Nebraska. We're the lowest 5 right now, if anything that would just secure us a 5.
I think if we lose to Nebraska it's 50/50 between 5 and 6, and we definitely will be a 6 if we lose to Illinois/Iowa. I still believe the only way we move above a 5 is a win in the BTT semis against MSU; winning the BTT would give us 50/50 between a 3 and a 4 in my opinion.
EDIT-Upon looking into it further...
Root Against
- Ohio State
- Kentucky
- Clemson
- Arizona
- Gonzaga
- Texas Tech
- West Virginia
- Wichita State
- Tennessee
February 28th, 2018 at 1:46 PM ^
some real lumps of coal in that group.
February 28th, 2018 at 1:16 PM ^
February 28th, 2018 at 1:22 PM ^
February 28th, 2018 at 6:03 PM ^
February 28th, 2018 at 1:43 PM ^
I know the locations are irrelevant for Bracketology. As an LA guy, though, please send UM to San Diego. Put them in the West region, though, so they can win the Los Angeles regional, too.
February 28th, 2018 at 1:48 PM ^
Nicely. Let's eat!!
GO BLUE!!
February 28th, 2018 at 2:12 PM ^
Going into a bracket with easily the weakest 1 seed, and a 2 seed that we''ve already shown we can beat? I'll take it. Have to imagine that a bunch of West Coast UM fans would be flooding into San Diego for the game(s).
Also, the idea of sending OSU all the way to bumfuck Boise, ID just sounds right.
February 28th, 2018 at 3:51 PM ^
Just play whomever the Committee and the March Madness gremlins put in front of you. Right now I am extremely stoked for the B1G and NCAA Tournaments because the team is clearly playing its best basketball of the season. It's fun to watch, and win or lose as long as the good guys give it their best game, I'm satisfied.
February 28th, 2018 at 4:41 PM ^
at 22-8 possibly 22-9 aftere Duke this wknd a #2 seed?????? its like their losses dont count and everybody elses do
February 28th, 2018 at 5:37 PM ^
Because the deck is stacked, just like college football. Largely based on politics IMO.
Well.. the 11 seed might not be realistic.
But if we don't win the B1G tournament and get a 3 seed, I'd rather lose the 1st game and get a 6 seed than win one or two games and get a 4 or a 5 seed.
Speaking from NCAA tourney matchup perspective anyway.