ESPN Lunardi and his Bias on Bracketology | Page 2 | The Boneyard

ESPN Lunardi and his Bias on Bracketology

These bracket writers don't give a darn whether they are right or wrong. Their first and last goal is to create internet traffic and putting teams in disadvantageous positions is the easiest way to rile up fan bases. They win when you react.
 
Lunardi got his job because he was the only guy doing it for a while and he was doing it as a labor of love. I don't begrudge him getting the ESPN gig but I don't take him particularly seriously either. It's an educated guess at a moment in time. Nothing more, nothing less.

That said, this sure looks good to me:
Looks good to me too. Illinois as a four, and a two we've beaten already...
 
These bracket writers don't give a darn whether they are right or wrong. Their first and last goal is to create internet traffic and putting teams in disadvantageous positions is the easiest way to rile up fan bases. They win when you react.
You don't even need to put any teams in any wrong spots. The fanbases will get upset and make threads like this (case in point) anyways. He's not worried about doing anything intentionally spicy for the traffic in January.
 
Lunardi got his job because he was the only guy doing it for a while and he was doing it as a labor of love. I don't begrudge him getting the ESPN gig but I don't take him particularly seriously either. It's an educated guess at a moment in time. Nothing more, nothing less.

That said, this sure looks good to me:
View attachment 95372

These are tough 2 and 3 seeds, but UConn would never have to play both -- one will be knocked off. It's rather like last year's bracket where UCLA and Gonzaga were quality seeds on the other side of the bracket.
 
.-.
I like playing UNC, not the least bit concerned about RJ Davis or Bascot or Herbert Davis. If memory serves me correctly, we already pounded them this year.

And UK is our lucky charm come dance time. Wildcat fans don't want to see us in their bracket

PS: Assuming we're healthy and at full strength of course. Otherwise I want to see UCF, Vandy and PC
 
Why are we concerning ourselves with nicknaming a team we've played 3 times in history can we worry about our schedule the number 1 overall seed does not mater get brooklyn get boston see what happens
Purdonkulous
 
Considering the global conspiracy with AP voters against UConn was brought down this week, it's only natural someone else finds themselves in the cross hairs of anti UConn Internet media.
 
As long as we’re in the east it doesn’t really matter. Last year we got a bad draw with all the top Kenpom teams in our region but it didn’t matter.
 
I’m thinking Houston and Kansas will eventually drop after getting beaten up in the Big 12 and UNC and Duke will replace them as 1 seeds. If so, double barrel 1-16 upsets would be a fitting end to the 23-24 ACC dumpster fire.
 
Just for clarity, I am not worried about it in any way, shape or form. Clearly it is marketing material. Since it is rather easy to poke holes in his alleged theories on how he seeded teams. Yeah let’s put UConn, UNC and Kentucky in the same region. How ridiculous especially since it appears they are currently 3 of the 5 top teams in the country. I think both UNC and Kentucky are going to keep their high ranking because their conferences are not that strong so don’t know where the loses will come from. Just makes me wonder how these guys like Lunardi got their jobs.
Tennessee and Auburn could give Kentucky a loss…
 
.-.
I'm sorry for not giving credit to who were tipped me off earlier, but 2 Quad 1 road wins for UConn to zero for Purdue mitigates the SoS argument to me.
I'll never understand Lunardi's arguments that it's much more impressive to win Quad 3 games than Quad 4 games. At the top level why does Purdue's 87-57 win over Morehead St count for more than UConn's 80-67 win over Georgetown?

It's just absurd.
 
Want to see Clingan-Filipowski in semi's and Clingan-Edey in finals and Bueckers-VanLith in semi's and Bueckers-Clark in finals = 3rd dual championships.
Duke is severely flawed, might make sweet 16 if lucky
 
He is picking Purdue as overall #1 versus us based on strength of schedule. I don’t really have a problem with it. He did say us and Purdue were clearly the two best teams in the country.
My question would be who told him that?
 
I’m so sick of hearing about Purdue. I’d love to see them on a neutral court.
 
Tennessee and Auburn could give Kentucky a loss…
Yes agreed Tennessee is a very good team and Pearl is a very good coach. So Kentucky has a tougher road but I also think they have more upside than UNC.
 
.-.
Purdoody
Der poo
Purdoody
I’ve also called Purdue Purdon’t. It’s kinda catchy
All much better nicknames for the great team from the B1G than “Grow Up” . I find that interesting……wondering what the range is for another one of our favorite teams Duke…..Dook, Dookie and I know there are many other extremely mature handles that have been used to shuffle how their school name is pronounced.
 
now we're #1 in the East w/ #2 wisconsin and #3 dayton. sign me up for that right now. oh wait, it's only january...
 
now we're #1 in the East w/ #2 wisconsin and #3 dayton. sign me up for that right now. oh wait, it's only january...
There was no way I was going to post anything on this subject. I saw that improvement when the new brackets came out. UNC now a one seed. But it is only January but almost February.
 
Just looked at the 8/9 and 7/10 and there are few walk in the park 2nd games for the #1 and #2 seeds assuming they get there.

8/9 games
Texas A&M vs. Villanova
Texas Tech vs. Nebraska - UConn opponent; Neb. beat Purdue
St. Johns vs. New Mexico
Seton Hall vs. South Carolina

7/10 games
Memphis vs. Boise/Texas
Michigan State vs. Colorado
Utah vs. North Western
Clemson vs. Mississippi State

Seems like 8/9 teams could be tougher than 7/10. Like to see final four with #1 UConn and the Pips.
 
.-.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,225
Messages
4,558,121
Members
10,443
Latest member
StatsMan


Top Bottom