Joe Lunardi Seeding

[Rhoadhoused]

I see a lot of people confidently predicting things like "ISU has no chance a 2 seed even if they win out" and "ISU is solidly locked into a 3 seed right now" and "There is no way ISU jumpes Michigan or Wisconsin for a spot in Milwaukee"

Well I grabbed his prediction from March 14th and compared it to the real bracket.

Last year Lunardi had us as a 12 seed and we ended up a 10 seed.

He had Duke a 1 and they ended up a 2.

Had Oregon a 9, they ended up a 12.

Had OSU a 4 and they ended a 5.

Had Michigan a 3 and they ended up a 4.

Had Marquette a 4 and the ended up a 3.


He only got one of his predicted 4 seeds right.

There is an absolutely legit possibility, if we win out, that Lunardi and others simply overrate some of the teams on the two line and three line. Especially with how murky it is this year. Nova, Michigan, Lville, Creighton, KU, Duke, and Wisconsin are all muddled up with no clear leader. And if Michigan is and we win out, it's very possible we could jump them in the actual bracket IMO. It could go the other way too, who knows.

But just know all of your preconceived notions are based on something that can't and hasn't been accurately predicted.

 

[mattyice]

I see a lot of people confidently predicting things like "ISU has no chance a 2 seed even if they win out" and "ISU is solidly locked into a 3 seed right now" and "There is no way ISU jumpes Michigan or Wisconsin for a spot in Milwaukee"

Well I grabbed his prediction from March 14th and compared it to the real bracket.

Last year Lunardi had us as a 12 seed and we ended up a 10 seed.

He had Duke a 1 and they ended up a 2.

Had Oregon a 9, they ended up a 12.

Had OSU a 4 and they ended a 5.

Had Michigan a 3 and they ended up a 4.

Had Marquette a 4 and the ended up a 3.


He only got one of his predicted 4 seeds right.

There is an absolutely legit possibility, if we win out, that Lunardi and others simply overrate some of the teams on the two line and three line. And if Michigan is and we win out, it's very possible we could jump them in the actual bracket IMO. It could go the other way too, who knows.

But just know all of your preconceived notions are based on something that can't and hasn't been
accurately predicted.

I put it in a different thread....but hes only about 40% accurate the last 4 years seeding teams correctly.

Why people listen or put stock in what he says baffles me every year.

 

[awd4cy]

Hard to argue we jump Wisconsin or Michigan though.

 

[acgclone]

I don't disagree. A 2-seed is still out there if we win out and some other stuff goes down for teams competing for a 2.

With that said, I'd say our odds today are:

65%- 3 seed
25%- 4 seed
10%- 2 seed

 

[Rhoadhoused]

I put it in a different thread....but hes only about 40% accurate the last 4 years seeding teams correctly.

Why people listen or put stock in what he says baffles me every year.

I get it's very hard to do and pretty much impossible. I just get tired of people seeing him rank MSU and Wisconsin as 2 seeds and us as a 4, and then say it is impossible for us to jump them. Of course it is if Joe was picking, but the committee often has different views.

 

[Rhoadhoused]

BTW Illinois is up 2 with 2 minutes left on Michigan.

 

[DFWClone]

So the OP is saying Lunardi has been wrong before? Shocking.

 

[501Clone]

Joe Lunardi is very good at predicting the bubble teams to make the tourney correctly.

Seeding wise he's clueless.

 

[mattyice]

I get it's very hard to do and pretty much impossible. I just get tired of people seeing him rank MSU and Wisconsin as 2 seeds and us as a 4, and then say it is impossible for us to jump them. Of course it is if Joe was picking, but the committee often has different views.

Oh definitley....so many factors and theres no clear cut standard to what warrants exactly what seed. But....that does make it more exciting leading up to selection sunday.

 

[Cyclonetrombone]

Heck, if the basketball NCAA selection committee is anything like the one for wrestling, Iowa will be a 1 seed and ISU will be be in the play in (round one for those who like to feel it is an accomplishment). After all... the Big 10 is the only conference that matters in sports.

 

[MNCyGuy]

I put it in a different thread....but hes only about 40% accurate the last 4 years seeding teams correctly.

Why people listen or put stock in what he says baffles me every year.

Because it's easier to look at his bracket to get an idea of the range in which team's might land than to try and place a 68-team bracket yourself? Lunardi and other bracketologists are fine if you don't take it as gospel.

 

[cyclones500]

I see a lot of people confidently predicting things like "ISU has no chance a 2 seed even if they win out" and "ISU is solidly locked into a 3 seed right now" and "There is no way ISU jumpes Michigan or Wisconsin for a spot in Milwaukee"

Well I grabbed his prediction from March 14th and compared it to the real bracket.

Last year Lunardi had us as a 12 seed and we ended up a 10 seed.

He had Duke a 1 and they ended up a 2.

Had Oregon a 9, they ended up a 12.

Had OSU a 4 and they ended a 5.

Had Michigan a 3 and they ended up a 4.

Had Marquette a 4 and the ended up a 3.


He only got one of his predicted 4 seeds right.

There is an absolutely legit possibility, if we win out, that Lunardi and others simply overrate some of the teams on the two line and three line. Especially with how murky it is this year. Nova, Michigan, Lville, Creighton, KU, Duke, and Wisconsin are all muddled up with no clear leader. And if Michigan is and we win out, it's very possible we could jump them in the actual bracket IMO. It could go the other way too, who knows.

But just know all of your preconceived notions are based on something that can't and hasn't been accurately predicted.

Valid point.

As an ISU fan, I'm probably playing this game conservatively, perhaps too skeptical about chances for 2 seed. I outlined several things yesterday (can't recall the thread) that it'd take win over KU and probably UT/OU, then several teams in that range losing early. It may not prove to be quite so stringent.

I will say, I'm not able to see strong arguments for Iowa State as a 4 instead of 3 — especially last-4 on the S-curve, which apparently is Lunardi's take. It could end up on the 4 line, but it'd require some good wins by MSU, UNC, Louisville (and that can all still happen) even if ISU falls to Kansas.

 

[Blandboy]

So, Michigan escapes a 14- loss Illinois team. For the sake of argument, let's say both ISU and Michigan win out, finishing with 26-win seasons. We won the head-to-head. Why wouldn't we get the two seed?

 

[Rhoadhoused]

So, Michigan escapes a 14- loss Illinois team. For the sake of argument, let's say both ISU and Michigan win out, finishing with 26-win seasons. We won the head-to-head. Why wouldn't we get the two seed?

They have better wins. Especially in conference. Maybe we jump them if we had beat KU one time in the regular season or swept UT, OU, KSU, or something like that.

Michigan swept MSU and won a lot of conference road games.

But it is close. If we could've won out with them losing to Illinois I think we would've jumped them.

 

[BoxsterCy]

I hear there is a selection show on Sunday that will shed some light on all of this. :wideeyed:

 

[Iastfan112]

Hard to argue we jump Wisconsin or Michigan though.

Not hard to argue with Michigan at all. Both have same number of losses, Michigan more relatively bad losses compared to ISU. The Big 12 is a better, deeper league. That said, Michigan has a stronger road record. There's a reason why RPI ranks ISU and Michigan very closely together, they have resumes of very similar strength. Had Michigan lost today I don't think there would have been a good argument at all to put them above ISU.

 

[oldman]

He is good at predicting who will make the Dance and who won't. The rest is speculation. I'd say we are a solid 4 with a chance to get to a 3 seed.

 

[Rhoadhoused]

He is good at predicting who will make the Dance and who won't. The rest is speculation. I'd say we are a solid 4 with a chance to get to a 3 seed.

I'd like to see the logic of us at a 4 and who you would put ahead of us. I think we are at worst a 3.

 

[cycloneG]

He is good at predicting who will make the Dance and who won't. The rest is speculation. I'd say we are a solid 4 with a chance to get to a 3 seed.

After yesterday's win we're a 3 seed. Arizona and Kansas are the only teams with more top 50 RPI wins.

 

[cyclones500]

I hear there is a selection show on Sunday that will shed some light on all of this. :wideeyed:

We don't have time to wait for that.:smile: