Bracketology- Joe Lunardi

[LivntheCyLife]

Looking at bracketmatrix:

I think there's a difference right now between bracket predictions that are evaluating current resumes versus making predictions about the rest of the season. Lunardi seems to be very much a ranking current resume guy. Which is about half non-con and half conference games. By the end of the year it will be 2/3 conference games. Iowa State's resume should hopefully be more impressive by the end of the year.

 

[Cynonymous]

I don't see ISU as a 3 seed yet. 5 seed yes trending upward.

 

[FinalFourCy]

I've followed him and Lunardi for years and honestly, I can't remember him putting out a bracket this bad. He's always been pretty bullish on Iowa State and the Big 12 but this is just ignorant. LOL, Iowa State is closer to a 3 than they are a 6. It's going to be fun seeing us in the top 16 tomorrow and watching all of these "experts" resetting their seeds on Monday.

He’s pretty bad, but in his defense, as of earlier this week didn’t we have the least amount of Q1 and Q2 wins of the top 25, and the second worst winning percentage in those games? If it’s a current bracket rather than predicted bracket, it’s not that bad.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

He’s pretty bad, but in his defense, as of earlier this week didn’t we have the least amount of Q1 and Q2 wins of the top 25, and the second worst winning percentage in those games? If it’s a current bracket rather than predicted bracket, it’s not that bad.

No clue. If that's the case how is Iowa State the #14 NET team?

 

[FinalFourCy]

No clue. If that's the case how is Iowa State the #14 NET team?

No truly bad losses, some decent wins, and high efficiency numbers goes a long ways in NET.

“The most important thing about the NET is that if you beat good teams, don’t lose to bad teams and have quality wins away from home on a road or neutral court, you’re going to have a solid net ranking.

The primary component of the NET is the TVI, a results-based factor that considers the strength of the opponent and the location of the game. If you beat a team that you’re expected to beat, then it doesn’t do as much for your ranking. Losing to teams that you were expected to beat will hurt your ranking.”

 

[Cy$]

Lunardi is an idiot, Palm is a bigger idiot, 95% of posters on this board could put together a bracket similar to what they do. It's not rocket science.

Me, 500, and CoKane have beaten both the past two years. It’s not very hard.

 

[Daserop]

Me, 500, and CoKane have beaten both the past two years. It’s not very hard.

This. Palm & Lunardi are still are horrible at it.

 

[MartyFine]

 

[Cycsk]

https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...-about-the-net-and-how-bracket-will-be-built/

Here are a few excerpts with comments.

Muir: We will use it [NET] in all facets of our work in selection and seeding, but at the same token, each committee member has the opportunity to weight different things. I should also underscore observation is going to be really critical.

Cycsk: "Observation?" How on earth can someone pick up important subtle differences through observation? You can't watch enough games. You can see enough of the floor of the games you are watching. If anything, observation will tend to play toward their preconceived notions. I'm more interested in members of the committee calling BS on the preconceived notions of other members.


Muir: I think what we've provided in terms of the overall formula — not knowing the inner workings, because of some of it, I just don't know how'd you'd explain with the machine-learning component tied into it.

Cycsk: "Machine-learning?" Interesting how he avoids the term artificial intelligence. But he trusts the "machines," even though he admits that he doesn't know how they work.

 

[Cycsk]

KU has the #1 SOS according to KenPom. As much as I hate it KU as a three is probably right.

And KU's SOS is likely to go up by the end of the season (because they played us twice). Same reason that ours will go down (because we played them twice).

 

[Cycsk]

Palm's ranking of 82 in the Bracket Project barely lands him in the NIT of bracketology!

 

[cyclones500]

KU would be RPI #1. Big 12 kind of getting screwed in that regard.

I read an article a few days ago -- can't remember the source so I can't link it immediately -- regarding teams that are faring better with NET vs. RPI and vice-versa.

KU was an example of a team whose ranking is significantly lower than it would be w/ RPI. At the time of the article I think Kanas was 17th in NET, but would've been No. 1 RPI.

The focus of that summary was pure ranking order and didn't include a fuller view of performance vs. the field, With RPI system, prior to Quads, it was how teams did vs. 1-26, 26-50, etc. Now with Quad 1-4 and site of games, the equation is slightly different. Not necessarily better or worse, but different.

I'd like to find the link to see which other teams were included, and if other Big 12 teams were in either category.

To your main point, having in-league teams ranked could erode the overall perception or quality of Big 12 wins.

 

[cymonw1980]

Sorry if already posted/discussed, but wanna hear what some of ya'll think of this.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

I normally really enjoy following Joe Lunardi's Bracketology on ESPN throughout the season and generally agree with his placement of Iowa State over the past 6-7 years as the seasons have progressed, but this year I'm not quite sure I understand why he seems to be undervaluing the Clones pretty consistently.

Currently on the 5 seed line and I think we've been there the last handful of brackets he's released. I would guess right now Iowa State should probably be closer to being right on the border of a 3/4, especially considering their NCAA Net ranking currently- #13. More curious than anything.

Honestly, kinda see it both ways... the Big 12 is strange this year... we have some great non-conference wins, then some head scratching losses... look at Baylor and KSU...

Baylor has two ugly losses (tx southern, sfa), and then beats ISU, TT, and is 3rd in conf..
Kansas has best non-con wins (MSU, Tenn) but is obviously a different team now, and is tied for 4th in conference.
KSU lays an egg vs. ta&m and also lost to tulsa.. hard to explain those losses, but in conference have been good..

So, it is strange this year, and seeding the conference is hard given the resume's + the trajectory of the teams...

Look only at how we expect the teams to finish? I would guess Lunardi would have us a 3+ and Kansas a 4/5.

Look only at the wins / losses to date without considering what teams have lost/gained? I can see Kansas a 3/4, ISU a 4/5...

Bottom line, not too concerned about this... keep taking care of business they will be a 3+ seed, lose key games down the stretch, could stay in 4/5 territory.

 

[Cydkar]

My favorite is when the halftime studio analysts have to throw it over to him in the "Bracket Bunker" and pretend they are completely clueless on which teams will make the tourney. Yeah, cuz professional analysts who follow college BB everyday generally don't keep track of which teams are good.

They have to act like they have no idea and Joe will set the record straight on whether Duke deserves a #1 seed or not.

I love Basketball but I haven’t seen Lunardi once this year. Why? Because I know how to avoid stupid people on ESPN. I should teach a course on it.

 

[Cydkar]

This. Palm & Lunardi are still are horrible at it.

I think there’s some sort of goofy looking man coalition that guarantees they have jobs.

 

[Cydkar]

What is the rest of the equation?

mc^2

 

[Sigmapolis]

#11 in Barttovik

#13 by SRS

#14 in adjusted net rating per 100

#14 on Sagarin

#14 on Massey composite index

 

[MartyFine]

Honestly, kinda see it both ways... the Big 12 is strange this year... we have some great non-conference wins, then some head scratching losses... look at Baylor and KSU...

Baylor has two ugly losses (tx southern, sfa), and then beats ISU, TT, and is 3rd in conf..
Kansas has best non-con wins (MSU, Tenn) but is obviously a different team now, and is tied for 4th in conference.
KSU lays an egg vs. ta&m and also lost to tulsa.. hard to explain those losses, but in conference have been good..

So, it is strange this year, and seeding the conference is hard given the resume's + the trajectory of the teams...

Look only at how we expect the teams to finish? I would guess Lunardi would have us a 3/4 and Kansas a 4/5.

Look only at the wins / losses to date without considering what teams have lost/gained? I can see Kansas a 3/4, ISU a 4/5...

Bottom line, not too concerned about this... keep taking care of business they will be a 3+ seed, lose key games down the stretch, could stay in 4/5 territory.

OU has wins over Florida, ND, Wichita St, USC, and Creighton.

Texas has wins over North Carolina and Purdue. Tech has wins over Nebraska and Memphis and played Duke tight in NYC.

We can find four bad losses in every conference out there...

 

[cymonw1980]

OU has wins over Florida, ND, Wichita St, USC, and Creighton.

Texas has wins over North Carolina and Purdue. Tech has wins over Nebraska and Memphis and played Duke tight in NYC.

We can find four bad losses in every conference out there...

Agree... not saying the B12 is not good... just saying it's hard to seed. was pointing out a subset of examples. I would argue that texas is another great example of what I was trying to highlight... texas beats UNC, Kan, Purdue, but is 13-10 overall...

lots of good, not great. Would argue ISU might be trending toward great, but obviously got off to slow start given we were playing without two key players early.

Not that I am rooting for this (obviously), but If Tex or Kan were in the top two in the conf standings with 2 or fewer losses each in league play, and both had won their SEC challenge games, the B12 would be getting more love in terms of high seeds (most ppl have 8 B12 teams in already, so already recognized as a very deep league).

 

[Cydkar]

Looking at bracketmatrix:

I think there's a difference right now between bracket predictions that are evaluating current resumes versus making predictions about the rest of the season. Lunardi seems to be very much a ranking current resume guy. Which is about half non-con and half conference games. By the end of the year it will be 2/3 conference games. Iowa State's resume should hopefully be more impressive by the end of the year.

Bracketology is supposed to be a snapshot and not a prediction. Unless it is specifically called a prediction. I’m actually not even aware of any that are predictive.