March 17, 200818 yr You can believe me or you can't, I don't really care.... But I'm telling ya, if I would have picked 'em, I had 64 of 65, with the only mistake being I had VA Tech over 'Nova....
March 17, 200818 yr You can believe me or you can't, I don't really care.... But I'm telling ya, if I would have picked 'em, I had 64 of 65, with the only mistake being I had VA Tech over 'Nova.... Yea, but you stole your picks from Lunardi
March 17, 200818 yr Yea, but you stole your picks from Lunardi The only thing I am going to steal from Lunardi is his JOB!!! JK... That would be awesome though... And actually I don't really visit bracketology page much anymore... A couple years ago I was on it all the time around this time but now I understand a lot of what they are looking for in teams... I really am pretty good at this stuff if I do say so myself, not to sound arrogant or anything...:lol:
March 17, 200818 yr The only thing I am going to steal from Lunardi is his JOB!!! JK... That would be awesome though... And actually I don't really visit bracketology page much anymore... A couple years ago I was on it all the time around this time but now I understand a lot of what they are looking for in teams... I really am pretty good at this stuff if I do say so myself, not to sound arrogant or anything...:lol: Sounds like a pretty cool thing to try and do. I may attempt it next year.
March 17, 200818 yr Sounds like a pretty cool thing to try and do. I may attempt it next year. Yeah I have been trying it for awhile, progressively with less help. You want to gain some respect for the committee? Try doing the entire selection process, selecting the teams, seeding, locations, staying within the tourney rules about who can play who where etc. I started to try that a couple years ago with a lot of "help" and gave up after 4 or 5 hours and the 3rd or 4th bracket. What can I say... I used to have a lot of time on my hands...:lol:
March 17, 200818 yr Stu is on point. If you know what they tend to look for, it's not a tough nut to crack. There is some variation at the end of the field on what specific factors are used, but that's the nature of a subjective process...
March 17, 200818 yr Stu is on point. If you know what they tend to look for, it's not a tough nut to crack. There is some variation at the end of the field on what specific factors are used, but that's the nature of a subjective process... :thumb: Some make him out like a prophet, but I guarantee I could come within 4 or 5 every time. It really ends up being a small amount you are working with. There are 34 at-large spots, and 29 of them are normally no brainers.
March 17, 200818 yr Last minute he moved someone out I can't remember who and put Villanova in. The two anylists were questioning him pretty hard; turns out he was right.
March 17, 200818 yr :thumb: Some make him out like a prophet, but I guarantee I could come within 4 or 5 every time. It really ends up being a small amount you are working with. There are 34 at-large spots, and 29 of them are normally no brainers. That's what I was thinking...you take out the automatic bids and the obvious ones and you're down to only picking a handful of teams correctly. I give him credit for doing it, but his job his to analyze college hoops. Considering that and the fact that he does this every year, he's bound to hit those handful of teams right at some point. Now, if he'd nailed like three quarters of the seeds correctly or got a bunch of matchups exactly right...
March 17, 200818 yr I predicted all the teams this year too, but i don't get a banner or a cake or anything for it. The only thing special about Lunardi is that he used to be a Super Mario Brother.
March 17, 200818 yr Last minute he moved someone out I can't remember who and put Villanova in. The two anylists were questioning him pretty hard; turns out he was right. Probably VPI...
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.