Lunardi has us an 11th seed today

**CTTB78** · 02-19-2013, 01:59 PM

Along with Baylor. He has Oklahoma as a 9, MN and Creighton as 8 seeds.

**WDMCyclone** · 02-19-2013, 02:02 PM

Win four of six with a win at either OU or BU.

**acgclone** · 02-19-2013, 02:03 PM

I'd sign on for that today if I could. 6 seeds don't scare me.

**Daserop** · 02-19-2013, 02:05 PM

Can someone please enlighten me on why so many people seem to care about what the Lunardi / Palm's of the world say about our seed in the tourney. Do they both have a say in the NCAA's selection process? If yes, then it makes sense, but if not then why give a ****.

**Cycl1** · 02-19-2013, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Daserop

Can someone please enlighten me on why so many people seem to care about what the Lunardi / Palm's of the world say about our seed in the tourney. Do they both have a say in the NCAA's selection process? If yes, then it makes sense, but if not then why give a ****.

because we are bored at work and want to look at anything

**tjh1984** · 02-19-2013, 02:07 PM

I would love that draw with the winner most likely playing the Lobos for sweet sixteen!!

**SWCy13** · 02-19-2013, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Daserop

Can someone please enlighten me on why so many people seem to care about what the Lunardi / Palm's of the world say about our seed in the tourney. Do they both have a say in the NCAA's selection process? If yes, then it makes sense, but if not then why give a ****.

You are correct, they have no say in if we get in or not. But in Lunardi's case, he's usually pretty accurate on who would be in as of right now. Similar to a top 25 poll or whatever, just a conversation piece at the moment.

**SWCy13** · 02-19-2013, 02:33 PM

I also would love that draw. Oregon started hot but is 3-3 their last 6 games and got gifted a win Saturday night by a horrible Washington St. team. I think New Mexico is a good team, but Alford's their coach so you never know.

**Wesley** · 02-19-2013, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by SWCy13

I also would love that draw. Oregon started hot but is 3-3 their last 6 games and got gifted a win Saturday night by a horrible Washington St. team. I think New Mexico is a good team, but Alford's their coach so you never know.

Zags are the best team out West. West Regional would be a good one to go to.

**Cyclonestate78** · 02-19-2013, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by SWCy13

You are correct, they have no say in if we get in or not. But in Lunardi's case, he's usually pretty accurate on who would be in as of right now. Similar to a top 25 poll or whatever, just a conversation piece at the moment.

Last year Lunardi picked 67 of the 68 teams making the field. As for his seedings... they were pretty damn accurate. He missed the seeds by 2 spots for 6 teams and any of the other seeds he didn't hit on the money were only off by 1 spot.

Overseeded by 2: Florida, Memphis, Harvard, BYU
Overseeded by 1: Michigan, Murray State, Notre Dame, Creighton, UConn, Virginia, VCU, California, South Dakota State, St. Bonaventure, LIU-Brooklyn
Underseeded by 2: Cincinnati, NC State
Underseeded by 1: Florida State, Temple, New Mexico, UNLV, San Diego State, Gonzaga, Iowa State, Southern Miss, Xavier, Colorado, Colorado State, New Mexico State, Davidson, Montana, Norfolk State

**Cydkar** · 02-19-2013, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Daserop

Can someone please enlighten me on why so many people seem to care about what the Lunardi / Palm's of the world say about our seed in the tourney. Do they both have a say in the NCAA's selection process? If yes, then it makes sense, but if not then why give a ****.

Good question. We know what we have to do more or less.

**CTTB78** · 02-19-2013, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclonestate78

Last year Lunardi picked 67 of the 68 teams making the field. As for his seedings... they were pretty damn accurate. He missed the seeds by 2 spots for 6 teams and any of the other seeds he didn't hit on the money were only off by 1 spot.....

Even though I was already enlightened, the above is a good reason to see where Lunardi is at with his picks.

**Illiniclone** · 02-19-2013, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclonestate78

Last year Lunardi picked 67 of the 68 teams making the field. As for his seedings... they were pretty damn accurate. He missed the seeds by 2 spots for 6 teams and any of the other seeds he didn't hit on the money were only off by 1 spot.

Overseeded by 2: Florida, Memphis, Harvard, BYU
Overseeded by 1: Michigan, Murray State, Notre Dame, Creighton, UConn, Virginia, VCU, California, South Dakota State, St. Bonaventure, LIU-Brooklyn
Underseeded by 2: Cincinnati, NC State
Underseeded by 1: Florida State, Temple, New Mexico, UNLV, San Diego State, Gonzaga, Iowa State, Southern Miss, Xavier, Colorado, Colorado State, New Mexico State, Davidson, Montana, Norfolk State

He also updates his list about 400 times throughout the year. If the toupee wearing twerp is so good, why can't he get 67/68 correct from his list a month away from the tourney?

**CY88CE11** · 02-19-2013, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Illiniclone

He also updates his list about 400 times throughout the year. If the toupee wearing twerp is so good, why can't he get 67/68 correct from his list a month away from the tourney?

Seriously? Who can guess who's going to get hot in a month or two? Bracketology isn't about predicting who's going to hit a hot streak. It's about showing the fans where their team is at that moment in time, allowing them to see what the team needs to do going forward. Like everything, it's a prediction. But Lundardi has been excellent at it for a while now.

**Cyclonestate78** · 02-19-2013, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Illiniclone

He also updates his list about 400 times throughout the year. If the toupee wearing twerp is so good, why can't he get 67/68 correct from his list a month away from the tourney?

It isn't just about what teams will or won't get into the field... it is also about seedings. He got the seeds correct for over half of the the teams in the entire field and the ones he missed he wasn't off by much. That is pretty solid and a very strong indicator that his predictions heading into the Tourney are very accurate.