Going to chime in here. Many people associate Lunardi with a lot of other on-air people who are just talking out of their you know what and trying to shout hot takes. However, I can tell you from after meeting and chatting with him for about fifteen minutes he is so not what most of you think. He is really just a big geek, and he admits it. He loves doing what he does, and the guy just loves basketball. He knows it's an entertainment thing, and he loves how much people are into data and the bracketing part of the tournament. No joke the guy is like a nerdy teddy bear. Super nice and super down to earth.
ESPN's Joe Lunardi: ISU's seed line for NCAAs unlikely to change much
- Thread starter The Rob Gray
- Start date
The Lunardi hate is so bizarre. He's just some dork that was the first person to really go in-depth with his analysis before the committee releases the bracket. I don't understand how anyone could call him a "blowhard". Seems like he has fun with it and doesn't take it nearly as serious as some people.
It's good for discussion.
So, when did the committee go by what Joe Lunardi thinks? I'd guess they would move up if they won a couple of games in KC. I'm guessing they'll end up a 7 if they lose to Baylor. A 6 if they go 1-1. A 5 if they win the Big 12 or lose in the finals.
That's almost exactly what Lunardi said.
He's just giving his opinion, not speaking for the committee.
For the record, I'm not saying he doesn't work hard at his job or isn't knowledgeable, and the same for Mel Kiper, et al.
But after all they do, they can be completely wrong often and not have to worry about job security.
I'm sure he is forced into using those metrics, and he cares more about what ESPN wants than what's actually correct.
There are people that think he is one of the better people at this job because he happens to be on TV. He’s not
If I am making money being average, at best, I would do what my boss told me as well.
Good win today! Hopefully playing themselves into a 6 seed.
Win the Tournament and move up to a 5... The way they played today that is definitely doable....
As a looking at the bright side kind of guy I'm thinking one and done in KC gives everyone (but especially Mason) a full week between games, and if a couple of others do well in their tournaments, maybe BU drops to a 10 and gets off the 8-9 line....
As a looking at the bright side kind of guy I'm thinking one and done in KC gives everyone (but especially Mason) a full week between games, and if a couple of others do well in their tournaments, maybe BU drops to a 10 and gets off the 8-9 line....
I'd like to see you guys play Iowa in a 8-9 and dunk all over them.
I said this in another thread as well, but I would rather be a 6 seed than a 5 seed. For one, I believe the committee tries to make that those 12/5 games more competitive as 'everyone' loves that annual 'upset', and most now bet them in their pools. Second, I just think the road is generally more favorable to go 11, 3, 2 vs. 12, 4, 1.
Thus, count me as one who thinks the 6 seed would be perfect. Below a 5 and above the 8 and I am pretty content. Keeps us from facing a 1 for as long as possible.
I think my problem is that so many people consider him the Bracket expert when he consistently ranks out as a middle of the pack bracketologist. However, he's not Jerry Palm.
To me it's just funny how he and Palm act like they're so busy/exhausted and tired this time of year as if their job actually affects anything. However, I will say they do a good job at generating page clicks so obviously that's why we see they 24/7.
Why can't the play-in games just be all 16 seeds?
I had a discussion about this last night. It wouldn’t be fair to all these teams that won their conference bid. I would ask why aren’t all bubble teams play in games.
And that’s his fault? The “I’m mad at this guy cuz I can’t be wrong at my job” guy needs to lay off of bracket guys.
When we don't get our a$$ kissed by a national figure, we'll turn against them very quickly...
I'm being somewhat facetious here, but I think there's some truth to it as well.
For the record, it's one thing to disagree with his projections, but I don't understand the level of vitriol some have against him either.
