In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 216
Online now 554 Record: 6210 (3/13/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Just about worst case scenario at the moment. If I'm not mistaken, Joe has us as the overall #1 currently and we by FAR have the toughest bracket. Makes sense, right?
Not to mention we'd get K-state or Purdue in round 2.
Welcome the new generation of domination.
Murray St. is also in at the 6. It's as if Joe was reading my previous threads about worst case scenarios LOL.
Maybe I should start saying Duke is our worst case. Speaking of them, they have the easiest road, yet again, to the Elite 8.
Why put two teams UK has already faced in the same region? Makes little sense. And, all three KY programs in the same region? Stupid!!
"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm." ~ Emerson
Keep Calm & Stoops On..
Not much way to get around having a region without teams we've already faced. It's likely that 8-10 teams that we've played this year will make the tournament.
Lunardi does a good job of predicting who will make the tourney and who and where the 1's will be. Other than that his predictions usually suck. I like looking at his potential matchups but check his last bracketology and compare it to the actual bracket when it comes out.
Lunardi has a tough job, and it's fun to look at his predictions but I don't think his predictions "suck." The seeds below the one-line are where everything changes between now and Selection Sunday. The only time I think it's fair to compare his bracket to that of the selection committee is on Selection Sunday when he puts out his last predictions once all the games have been played.
His job sucks, because he has to assume that each team will play exactly the way it's been playing from now until Selection Sunday. Otherwise, his predictions would be bogus. And obviously, if he were able to predict how each team is going to play, he'd be a lot richer and probably retired young at this point.
I don't envy his job one bit.
He does seem to have a pretty good idea as to what the selection committee looks for, but he has to apply it what seems like a billion times a year instead of just once like the actual selection committee does.
he does do a great job...he predicts it as if the season were to end today...it would be stupid to look at his bracket from today and compare it to selection sundays bracket...makes no sense...he does a grerat job...i bet u on selection sunady when his last bracket comes out he will have at the very minimum 60 out 68 correct...there seedings wont be exact but how can someone kno that...the only seeds ppl kno be4 the committee puts it out is the ones and twos
I believe I referenced looking at his last prediction in comparison to the actual bracket. I'm not saying it isn't fun or that he's dumb. Suck was probably a bad choice of words. How about inaccurate instead.
Works for me. It definitely doesn't look anything like the bracket will look in two weeks.
I also wasn't referring to who he picks to actually make the bracket. Was obviously unclear there. What I meant is he off base in regards to where those teams will be place, what seed they'll get, etc.
Bracketology is purely for entertainment value. The only real value it has is that it is reasonably accurate in predicting which teams actually make the dance. The seeding is usually pretty off.
The good thing about all this is that Lunardi is just guessing & practically all of his so called projections never come to fruition. Just enjoy the ride. We'll see how things shake out on the 11th.
I can only imagine Cal's reaction to seeing those teams in our bracket. He was pretty perturbed when WVU was the #2 in our bracket two years ago.
The bad part is that it's almost a lock that UNC is the 2 seed in our bracket unless they move up or down to a 1 or 3. Since I don't see that happening unless Mich St. and Kansas bow out early in their conference tournies, I would almost bet money we get UNC as a 2. And naturally, we'd least want to see a Baylor or a OSU as our 3, but we'll get that too. It's how things work.
Meanwhile, Duke will face the Ohio County School for the Blind in the second round, and in the third, the Tri-County school for Non-Basketball Athletes.
No you where right the first time. He sucks!
If NC beats Duke this week and wins the ACC tournament, they will be a 1 seed.
Louisville is terrible and Baylor is a total farce. Carolina would beat them by 20.
K-State/Purdue = Yawn. Doesn't really strike any fear into me.
But I've been on the record for about a week now: UNC, provided they don't slide up to the 1-line, will be our 2-seed. Mark it down.
UNC will be a 1 seed in my opinion. We probably get Duke as the 2.
I appreciate that mindset, and most of that comes from the sheer-unbeatable nature of this UK team right now. We don't really have to fear anyone because, as you said, there's only one MAYBE two teams in the whole country who can contend with us if we are playing at a high level.
But with that being said, I think the bigger point is not whether we think K-St can beat us, but whether we think they are the toughest of the 8/9 seeds. Right now, I think they probably are. Or at least, they have enough talent to make things interesting. The other possibilities are California and UVA, but I think K-St probably has more ability at their peak than either of those two.
So the bigger issue is who has the "toughest" lower seeds in their bracket. I think if you compare 2-9 in each round, the current ATL bracket is by far the toughest.
Which line would you rather see:
2-UNC, 3- Baylor, 4-Louisville, 5-Wichita St, 6-Murray St, 7-San Diego St, 8-Purdue, 9-K. St
2-Duke, 3-Michigan, 4-Indiana, 5-UNLV, 6-Vandy, 7-Gonzaga, 8-Virginia, 9-St. Louis
Is that really even a comparison? lol
Agree. People take it a bit too seriously IMO. All things considered, I think it's amazing that anyone can pick the field as close as Lunardi does.
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/JDrumUK
what I don't get is you all think the selection committee's picks are impeccable. Who's to say that it's not the selection committee that sucks (which we hear every year), and Lunardi is spot on?
But, I don't think he is choosing who he thinks the teams should be but rather who he thinks the selection committee will pick. IOW, no one is saying the selection committee is impeccable but are rather appraising others' ability to figure out who/how the selection committee will do their job. If one wants to look for an opinion on the 25 (or 64 or 66) best teams, there are countless polls, both human and machine. If one is looking for an advance guide as to who the teams will be in the tournament, how closely a guru matches those teams year in and year out is pretty important.
Lunardi gets the #1 seeds and the field of 65 or 68 whatever it is. He is good about that. However, the other seedings is where it gets dicey because it relies on human judgement and the committee puts people where they want with little to no reasoning. Can't fault Joe for that. It is purely entertainment.
8) and 9) seeds tend to be talented teams that are fatally flawed.
Think about how scary that Wake Forest/Texas 8/9 matchup was in 2010? At one point in the season, Texas was No. 1 in the country.
Not only did Wake beat Texas, UK blasted Wake by 30.
This post was edited by Chris Fisher 2 years ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports