One more on the Lunardi thing

[BanditVol]

https://www.rockytopinsider.com/2022/03/15/joe-lunardi-takes-a-shot-at-tennessee-fans-advances-vols-to-final-four/

He states very clearly that his opinion that Sunday games don't matter in clear English. He has been doing this for 20 years. Barnes agrees or seems to agree that's why not happens.

I don't think Lunardi needed any inside information.

[JeffCountyVolFan]

https://www.rockytopinsider.com/2022/03/15/joe-lunardi-takes-a-shot-at-tennessee-fans-advances-vols-to-final-four/

He states very clearly that his opinion that Sunday games don't matter in clear English. He has been doing this for 20 years. Barnes agrees or seems to agree that's why not happens.

I don't think Lunardi needed any inside information.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Lunardi was getting info from the committee in exchange for being a sounding board. I don't know that is happening, but it wouldn't shock me to learn that it does.

I will say this: I 100% believe that had UK beaten us and made the championship game, they would have very likely been a #1 seed (regardless of the championship game outcome).

That's my biggest issue with the committee and seeding: what are the flipping criteria? State the criteria, don't change it, and then actually use it.

[BanditVol]

That's my biggest issue with the committee and seeding: what are the flipping criteria? State the criteria, don't change it, and then actually use it.

Yeah.  It seems very arbitrary.  Likely because it is!   

If in place of the word "rigged" people would say "biased" then I would totally agree.

They clearly slant towards the brand names. My impression is that it is generally true, but I haven't systematically studied it.

I think it's very evident that in our particular case, the "brand" of UK and Duke helped them but in Duke's case the bias was even great due to Coach Special K retiring.

[BanditVol]

Someone actually wrote an academic journal paper on it, though its from 2010.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40958971

Shocker.  They found bias! 

[Creek Walker]

#1) I don't care Lunardi is at his "job," he's far from the only intelligent and experienced college basketball analyst in the country. You think that he was the ONLY one of them who thought Tennessee should've been a 3-seed, and not just thought Tennessee was a 3-seed but emphatically insisted over and over, without question, that Tennessee WOULD be a 3-seed, and that was simply because he's good at figuring it out? I don't.

#2) Why is Lunardi still acting butt-hurt that Tennessee fans were whizzed off? He isn't "the committee." He's not even the committee's messenger (supposedly). If he's simply a journalist -- as he claims to be -- and not a water-carrier for the committee, why would he care that Tennessee fans are ticked off?

#3) I'm not sure how you read Rick Barnes' comments and come across as he agrees. In fact, Barnes said he believes the committee should have to face the press after the brackets are released and explain themselves.

#4) If bias causes it to be pre-determined that certain teams (i.e. UK and Duke) will be no lower than a certain seed, and winning a conference tournament won't help another team move up in the seedings, then the process is rigged. Remember, Lunardi said at one point Sunday that the committee "certainly isn't going to move Duke down from a 2-seed." Based on what? There was certainly no rationale, no metric, that suggested Duke should be seeded ahead of Tennessee. How else did Lunardi know that Duke "certainly" wasn't going to be moved down unless he was being told by someone who matters that Duke wouldn't be moved down?

[JeffCountyVolFan]

#1) I don't care Lunardi is at his "job," he's far from the only intelligent and experienced college basketball analyst in the country. You think that he was the ONLY one of them who thought Tennessee should've been a 3-seed, and not just thought Tennessee was a 3-seed but emphatically insisted over and over, without question, that Tennessee WOULD be a 3-seed, and that was simply because he's good at figuring it out? I don't.

#2) Why is Lunardi still acting butt-hurt that Tennessee fans were whizzed off? He isn't "the committee." He's not even the committee's messenger (supposedly). If he's simply a journalist -- as he claims to be -- and not a water-carrier for the committee, why would he care that Tennessee fans are ticked off?

#3) I'm not sure how you read Rick Barnes' comments and come across as he agrees. In fact, Barnes said he believes the committee should have to face the press after the brackets are released and explain themselves.

#4) If bias causes it to be pre-determined that certain teams (i.e. UK and Duke) will be no lower than a certain seed, and winning a conference tournament won't help another team move up in the seedings, then the process is rigged. Remember, Lunardi said at one point Sunday that the committee "certainly isn't going to move Duke down from a 2-seed." Based on what? There was certainly no rationale, no metric, that suggested Duke should be seeded ahead of Tennessee. How else did Lunardi know that Duke "certainly" wasn't going to be moved down unless he was being told by someone who matters that Duke wouldn't be moved down?

1) I can't disagree with any of this.

2) That's a very good question.

3) I personally took CRB's statements as a direct criticism of the current process.

4) A turd by any other name....... Rigged, biased, whatever you wish to call it doesn't make it smell any sweeter from my viewpoint.

[BanditVol]

#1) I don't care Lunardi is at his "job," he's far from the only intelligent and experienced college basketball analyst in the country. You think that he was the ONLY one of them who thought Tennessee should've been a 3-seed, and not just thought Tennessee was a 3-seed but emphatically insisted over and over, without question, that Tennessee WOULD be a 3-seed, and that was simply because he's good at figuring it out? I don't.

He certainly is not the only "intelligent and experienced" (I somewhat question the intelligent part actually!  ), but he is THE MOST EXPERIENCED bracket picker in the world.  Period dot.  Here is the exact quote:

These Sunday games, year after year after year, don’t matter,” Lunardi said during the Selection Show..

Intelligent?  I have my doubts, but maybe lol.  Experienced?  More than anyone, but if I wanted to say why I buy it one word, its CREDIBILITY.  No one else can make a statement like that and have his credibility.  Who else has his level of insight?

#2) Why is Lunardi still acting butt-hurt that Tennessee fans were whizzed off? He isn't "the committee." He's not even the committee's messenger (supposedly). If he's simply a journalist -- as he claims to be -- and not a water-carrier for the committee, why would he care that Tennessee fans are ticked off?  

Butt hurt?  He doesn't sound angry to me. More like some light-hearted jokes just having fun with it, and/or trying to get more clicks (most likely the latter!).  I think he demonstrably DOESN'T care that Tennessee fans are ticked off, but I'm not sure it matters if he does or not . The topic is whether Sunday games actually count or not.  They don't.  That may not be right,but that certainly is how it is.

#3) I'm not sure how you read Rick Barnes' comments and come across as he agrees. In fact, Barnes said he believes the committee should have to face the press after the brackets are released and explain themselves.

This.  “When you look at it, to answer your question, everybody said that we were a 3-seed going into the SEC Tournament, so it certainly doesn’t look like the tournament helped us,” Tennessee head coach Barnes said on Monday.

He obviously doesn't like it, and he wants something done about, and he is definitely complaining about it (all later in the article). But in the sentence he is definitely accepting the explanation.  I'm not sure how else to interpret the bold part. Acknowledgement of why it happened is what I mean, not that he approves of it or finds it acceptable.

#4) If bias causes it to be per-determined that certain teams (i.e. UK and Duke) will be no lower than a certain seed, and winning a conference tournament won't help another team move up in the seedings, then the process is rigged. Remember, Lunardi said at one point Sunday that the committee "certainly isn't going to move Duke down from a 2-seed." Based on what? There was certainly no rationale, no metric, that suggested Duke should be seeded ahead of Tennessee. How else did Lunardi know that Duke "certainly" wasn't going to be moved down unless he was being told by someone who matters that Duke wouldn't be moved down?

This is exactly at the root of our disagreement. I wasn't implying, not at all, that Duke and UK had to be "a certain level". I mean that in general teams like UK and Duke will be a bit higher than they should be, year in and year out.  "Rigged" implies a definite intent, and actions, to achieve a definite end result. What I am talking about is a subconscious bias.  

Let me put it this way.  If it's down to Bama and another team in the football playoffs, and on paper another team is  favored over them, (in football of course), but has no brand name, don't you think Bama gets in?  Same thing.

I didn't say it was right or it should be that way, just that it is.  Or seems likely.

As for your last sentence on Duke...come on CW.  It's Coach K's last year!  Someone with little to no basketball knowledge at all could have been "certain" that Duke would be over-seeded this year!  Is it right?  No!

And for the record I can't stand Coach K or Duke.  I  have never really liked Duke.  I used to like Coach K, but for an unusual reason (compared to why most like him).  I liked him because early in his career he was called a "Bobby Knight disciple" and I was a huge Knight fan, and he was making Knight look good.    I seem to recall a presser sometime in the 90s when he told them to stop doing that, he was his own man now.  Roughly around 2000, IMO, Coach K turned into a pompous self-righteous ass and I have intensely disliked him ever since.  

So should he get a higher seed?  Hell no!  But am I surprised he did? Absolutely not.  The only way that would surprise me is if I had zero insight into how humans actually behave.

[PirateVOL]

Buzz spent 7+ minutes telling what he thought of the process, and passed out the math and is extended remarks as an extra added bonus

[Tnphil]

https://sports.yahoo.com/after-nit-win-buzz-williams-blasts-ncaa-selection-committee-for-texas-a-ms-big-dance-snub-063500347.html

[tshadow]

Here is my opinion... If they can't do the job... if they are tired... if they have previous engagements which prohibit them from making cogent equitable choices in framing a bracket... Step the frick off and let someone who wants to get it right in there to do the job. The NCAA needs to put a stop check on them (if that's where the money comes from). The minute they say conference championships don't matter... they suffer from a credibility issue.

[JeffCountyVolFan]

Imo, the process should be so transparent that practically everyone who wanted to bother with the numbers, rankings, records, facts, etc should be able to predict with very high accuracy the teams that will complete the field. It should not be a process that needs to be completed behind closed doors.

[BanditVol]

Imo, the process should be so transparent that practically everyone who wanted to bother with the numbers, rankings, records, facts, etc should be able to predict with very high accuracy the teams that will complete the field. It should not be a process that needs to be completed behind closed doors.

Agree 100%.  It should be fixed.  But most likely it won't.  They tried a transparent process in football with the BCS and there was endless whining that it gave bad results and wasn't flexible enough. So they basically went back to a "smoke-filled room" approach.

What you suggest could be done for sure, and should. I'm just not holding my breath. Unfortunately.

[Cobbvol]

Lunardi did not like Buzz's comments. He responded with a bunch of crap and a hashtag of #NotMyFirstBracket. He must be 12 years old.

[Creek Walker]

Lunardi did not like Buzz's comments. He responded with a bunch of crap and a hashtag of #NotMyFirstBracket. He must be 12 years old.

And once again... Why is Lunardi getting upset by someone criticizing the committee?

Did I miss something? I didn't listen to all of Buzz's statement, but he didn't mention Lunardi did he? So why on earth would Lunardi tweet that hashtag? Is he just so full of himself now that he's trying to make it all about him, or is he more intricately involved in the selection process than we previously thought?

[BanditVol]

And once again... Why is Lunardi getting upset by someone criticizing the committee?

Did I miss something? I didn't listen to all of Buzz's statement, but he didn't mention Lunardi did he? So why on earth would Lunardi tweet that hashtag? Is he just so full of himself now that he's trying to make it all about him, or is he more intricately involved in the selection process than we previously thought?

Maybe Lunardi is a thin-skinned prick.  It truly ISN'T his first bracket though, and Tamu is not the only deserving or seemingly deserving team left out of the tourney.  Every year multiple teams get screwed.

But again, as we both have noted, Lunardi is NOT the selection committee.  He is just the best known and most experienced bracket picker in the world (notice I did not say "best"  ).

I really don't know him or follow him that much, but I do accept that he has more experience with the bracket seedings than...well, anyone. 

[PirateVOL]

Maybe Lunardi is a thin-skinned prick.  It truly ISN'T his first bracket though, and Tamu is not the only deserving or seemingly deserving team left out of the tourney.  Every year multiple teams get screwed.

But again, as we both have noted, Lunardi is NOT the selection committee.  He is just the best known and most experienced bracket picker in the world (notice I did not say "best"  ).

I really don't know him or follow him that much, but I do accept that he has more experience with the bracket seedings than...well, anyone. 

He IS a (paper) thin skinned arrogant PRICK!

[Creek Walker]

Maybe Lunardi is a thin-skinned prick.  It truly ISN'T his first bracket though, and Tamu is not the only deserving or seemingly deserving team left out of the tourney.  Every year multiple teams get screwed.

But again, as we both have noted, Lunardi is NOT the selection committee.  He is just the best known and most experienced bracket picker in the world (notice I did not say "best"  ).

I really don't know him or follow him that much, but I do accept that he has more experience with the bracket seedings than...well, anyone. 

How good he is or isn't, and how experienced he is, those aren't the points. The point is that Buzz was venting about the Selection Committee. Why did Lunardi get so offended that he had to respond? Why the #NotMyFirstBracket hashtag, as if he was the reason TAMU did or didn't get into the tournament?

Those are rhetorical questions, of course. The answer is that Lunardi is so sensitive to it because he's the committee's water-carrier and gets fed inside info to share with the public in exchange for trying to shape public opinion of the process. Not unlike John Currie using Dan Wolken for much the same reasons on Schiano Sunday (and Wolken similarly getting offended at Tennessee fans who criticized the potential hire of Schiano.)

[Cobbvol]

How good he is or isn't, and how experienced he is, those aren't the points. The point is that Buzz was venting about the Selection Committee. Why did Lunardi get so offended that he had to respond? Why the #NotMyFirstBracket hashtag, as if he was the reason TAMU did or didn't get into the tournament?

Those are rhetorical questions, of course. The answer is that Lunardi is so sensitive to it because he's the committee's water-carrier and gets fed inside info to share with the public in exchange for trying to shape public opinion of the process. Not unlike John Currie using Dan Wolken for much the same reasons on Schiano Sunday (and Wolken similarly getting offended at Tennessee fans who criticized the potential hire of Schiano.)

[BanditVol]

How good he is or isn't, and how experienced he is, those aren't the points. The point is that Buzz was venting about the Selection Committee. Why did Lunardi get so offended that he had to respond? Why the #NotMyFirstBracket hashtag, as if he was the reason TAMU did or didn't get into the tournament?

Those are rhetorical questions, of course. The answer is that Lunardi is so sensitive to it because he's the committee's water-carrier and gets fed inside info to share with the public in exchange for trying to shape public opinion of the process. Not unlike John Currie using Dan Wolken for much the same reasons on Schiano Sunday (and Wolken similarly getting offended at Tennessee fans who criticized the potential hire of Schiano.)

Why do I care if Lunardi is offended or not? Why should I GAS? I have better things to worry about!  For sure. 

As for Lunardi "getting fed inside information" that's just an assumption you are making.  Maybe its true, maybe its not.  Can you prove it?

I can definitely point to Lunardi's many years of experience and say he definitely understands it better than you or I, or pretty much anyone else on the planet.

I am not saying I am convinced he ISN"T getting inside information. He may well be.

But I know for a fact that in the past he has been wrong on a number of projections, so at best they are feeding him partial information.

I won't, and can't say it isn't happening.  But I am also pretty sure you have zero evidence and are just assuming that. 

If you have any solid evidence, post it. I am definitely capable of changing my mind.

Having said that I don't rule out that Lunardi might have some inside information. But when it comes to him offering an opinion based on 20 years of being, literaly, the foremost expert in the world on bracket forecasting, he doesn't need it.

[Creek Walker]

Why do I care if Lunardi is offended or not? Why should I GAS? I have better things to worry about!  For sure. 

Yet here you are arguing about it. 

[BanditVol]

Yet here you are arguing about it. 

lol

well, it definitely is time to move on

I hate to agree with Lunardi one more time, but he wasn't wrong when he said UT would probably do fine as a 3

He didn't really comment on how UK would do as a 2

But I am sure he will have plenty of chances to now! 

[FLVOL]

that's the best reply I've seen in a decade 

[PirateVOL]

that's the best reply I've seen in a decade 

Which Century there old fart??

[FLVOL]

Which Century there old fart??

ass