What do you want to know about it? I'm getting ready to leave for school but I get out of class at 11:20 and will give you any of the updates you want from it if you haven't found out what you want by then man.

Right now he has UK in the East Region playing the winner of the play-in game. WVU is the 2 seed, Michigan State is the 3 seed with BYU being the 4. UK would play the winner of Oklahoma State and Notre Dame in the 2nd round.

 

The other 1's are Kansas (with OSU #2) in the Midwest, Duke (#2 Purdue) in the West, Syracuse (#2 Kansas State) in the South. U of L is an 8 seed playing Northern Iowa in the West. Murray State is a 13 in the South playing against Wisconsin. Is there anything else you'd want from there?

Who did St. mary's knock out of tourny? I know gonzaga was a lock, but now that loss puts 2 teams from that Conf in.

Who did St. Mary's knock out of tourny? I know Gonzaga was a lock, but now that loss puts 2 teams from that Conf in.

Lunardi is a hack.

 

That's my line... :irked: :lol:

Who did St. Mary's knock out of tourny? I know Gonzaga was a lock, but now that loss puts 2 teams from that Conf in.

Not sure if they knocked out anyone. St. Mary's was already in according to many predictions.

I saw Lunardi introduced on Sportscenter last week as correctly predicting 94% of the NCAA tournament teams. My first impression was to be impressed, then the bull alarm went off and I got out my handy dandy calculator.

OK 94% of 65 is 61 correct predictions. That's impressive until you consider automatic bids, locks and probables. That adds up to about 58 teams any idiot with a computer and a brain could get right.

That leaves 7 slots that are really up for grabs. I'll be generous and say 20 teams have a shot. Most years it's more like 14 or 15. If the teams were randomly selected each one would have a 7 in 20, or 35%, chance of getting in. Of the last 7 slots, our prognosticating guru is correctly predicting 3. Thats 43%. Yes, he is better than random chance, by about 1 prediction every other year. Bottom line: he is a product of marketing (ESPN) not performance.

I saw Lunardi introduced on Sportscenter last week as correctly predicting 94% of the NCAA tournament teams. My first impression was to be impressed, then the bull alarm went off and I got out my handy dandy calculator.

OK 94% of 65 is 61 correct predictions. That's impressive until you consider automatic bids, locks and probables. That adds up to about 58 teams any idiot with a computer and a brain could get right.

That leaves 7 slots that are really up for grabs. I'll be generous and say 20 teams have a shot. Most years it's more like 14 or 15. If the teams were randomly selected each one would have a 7 in 20, or 35%, chance of getting in. Of the last 7 slots, our prognosticating guru is correctly predicting 3. Thats 43%. Yes, he is better than random chance, by about 1 prediction every other year. Bottom line: he is a product of marketing (ESPN) not performance.

Of course he is and it is something I have been saying for years. When it comes down to it, there are about 10 teams we are left curious about going in to the selections for the last 5 bids. It does not a brain surgeon to widdle it down as he does. If he misses them all, the % is still good.

 

The tournament is popular because it attracts the office pool people that never watch an ounce of hoops. ESPN is trying to reach those people.

I saw Lunardi introduced on Sportscenter last week as correctly predicting 94% of the NCAA tournament teams. My first impression was to be impressed, then the bull alarm went off and I got out my handy dandy calculator.

OK 94% of 65 is 61 correct predictions. That's impressive until you consider automatic bids, locks and probables. That adds up to about 58 teams any idiot with a computer and a brain could get right.

That leaves 7 slots that are really up for grabs. I'll be generous and say 20 teams have a shot. Most years it's more like 14 or 15. If the teams were randomly selected each one would have a 7 in 20, or 35%, chance of getting in. Of the last 7 slots, our prognosticating guru is correctly predicting 3. Thats 43%. Yes, he is better than random chance, by about 1 prediction every other year. Bottom line: he is a product of marketing (ESPN) not performance.

I try to explain this to people all the time. It's not that hard really.

I can't see any way the NCAA would pair UK and UofL in the opening weekend. You mentioned money. It would be a bad idea to put two of the biggest fanbases in the tourney at the same opening venue. Some of these (non-UK/UofL) venues have trouble selling tickets etc. The NCAA knows UK and UofL (to a lesser degree) travel better than just about anyone, it would be smarter to split them up to help fan support in two cities.

 

Plus, they don't like to pair you with teams you played in the regular season early in the tournament.

 

I see your point, but just disagree with it. Remember UK, UC, & Eastern Ky. being in the same bracket in 2005? Playing at Indy? In my opinion, that had everything to do with selling tickets--and they accomplished just that.

I see your point, but just disagree with it. Remember UK, UC, & Eastern Ky. being in the same bracket in 2005? Playing at Indy? In my opinion, that had everything to do with selling tickets--and they accomplished just that.

 

Yeah, but EKU and Cincy don't travel near as well as UK/UofL. Plus, like I previously mentioned, they don't like for teams to paired against teams they previously faced on the first weekend.

Yeah, but EKU and Cincy don't travel near as well as UK/UofL. Plus, like I previously mentioned, they don't like for teams to paired against teams they previously faced on the first weekend.

 

Agree on the traveling of the EKU/UC fan base, but they knew exactly what they were doing when they paired UK & UC in Indianapolis. They were hoping/forcing a much-anticipated matchup between the two in a fairly close location for both schools/fans.

 

You may well be right about them not wanting to match teams up the first weekend who saw each other in the regular season, but that 2005 deal had dollar signs all over it IMO.

Agree on the traveling of the EKU/UC fan base, but they knew exactly what they were doing when they paired UK & UC in Indianapolis. They were hoping/forcing a much-anticipated matchup between the two in a fairly close location for both schools/fans.

 

You may well be right about them not wanting to match teams up the first weekend who saw each other in the regular season, but that 2005 deal had dollar signs all over it IMO.

 

No doubt it did, but honestly UC and EKU combined don't travel as well as UofL. And you know as well as I do, UK sells out any arena they play at.

That's my line... :irked: :lol:

Does it help that your the reason I know think that? :clap:

I saw Lunardi introduced on Sportscenter last week as correctly predicting 94% of the NCAA tournament teams. My first impression was to be impressed, then the bull alarm went off and I got out my handy dandy calculator.

OK 94% of 65 is 61 correct predictions. That's impressive until you consider automatic bids, locks and probables. That adds up to about 58 teams any idiot with a computer and a brain could get right.

That leaves 7 slots that are really up for grabs. I'll be generous and say 20 teams have a shot. Most years it's more like 14 or 15. If the teams were randomly selected each one would have a 7 in 20, or 35%, chance of getting in. Of the last 7 slots, our prognosticating guru is correctly predicting 3. Thats 43%. Yes, he is better than random chance, by about 1 prediction every other year. Bottom line: he is a product of marketing (ESPN) not performance.

 

It isn't that hard to pick the teams to get in. I would like to see the seeds he got right.