Lunardi should have his credentials revoked if this was put together after Michigan was blown out at home.
They get rewarded with the easier bracket and play in the Midwest.
Sure. The Big 10 is overrated.
NCAA Tournament seeding
- Thread starter gman
- Start date
They get rewarded with the easier bracket and play in the Midwest.
Sure. The Big 10 is overrated.
MugCostanza
Well-known member
I don't think Lunardi is putting that amount of thought into the handful of updates he's doing daily at this point.
Also, I don't think the actual committee formats the bracket that way either. They'll try to put the strongest 2 seed with the weakest 1 if it makes sense but that's about it. After that the 1-4 seeds are grouped by mixing up the conferences as best they can.
Lunardi had his run, got a nickname and fading fast.
MugCostanza
Well-known member
Not a big fan of his but I wasn't even trashing him there really. At this point ESPN just needs him to update his bracket every day and sometimes multiple times a day for clicks and engagement and what not. It would be impossible for him to build the brackets perfectly according to the seed list every time especially when that's just one of several considerations at play in terms of who gets placed in which region. The actual committee won't place teams that way either.
Did not think you trashed him Mug.
Allow me to explain and also question some of his decisions. Once I move on to the next seed we will assume the previous seeds are set.
First four seeds are set based on geographic preferences
Two seeds have the other 2 SEC teams in the Duke and Houston brackets to avoid SEC v SEC Elite 8 matchups. The first disconnect is why doesn't Auburn get the 8/Iowa State? Cant' be geography since they're further south and west than Michigan State.
The highest 3 seed is Wisconsin, but again if Mi State is in that quadrant he want's to avoid a B1G matchup in the Sweet Sixteen so he puts the next lowest of this teams, STJ, in that spot. Wisconsin can't go there either nor can Texas Tech be matched up with Iowa St.
Also, these brackets were posted before yesterday's results. Wisconsin and Michigan hurt themselves yeterday, especially Michigan. But strangely the bracket this morning doesn't look that different (see below where again KY now can't e in Auburn's bracket). But he bases it on his rankings which I don't accept - In my mind there is an obvious top 8, then Iowa State if they have all their players, and then a big drop to Texas Tech.
The thought I will leave you with, however, is that this doesn't freaking matter anyway. Survive and advance. That's 10 minutes of my lunch two hours that I'll never get back.
Huh? "You said the first four seeds are set based on geographic preferences." Then explain to me why Houston is in the midwest and Tennessee is in the west. It should be the other way around. Also Texas Tech and St. John's should be flipped. As a current #6 in the two major polls (formally #7), St. John's shouldn't be placed in Auburn's bracket. My point is these two corrections make more sense than Lunardi's projected brackets. I'm sorry this discussion screwed up your lunch break.
I think he does these tweets daily but only will update the full bracketology 2x per week.
I guess I should have said based on geographic preference based on seeding. Houston as the 3 gets to lay claim to the midwest and Tennessee as the 4 gets shoved to the last spot remaining. That's how it works, thought it was understood.
I did say that I was only critiquing Lunardi based on his incorrect rankings so your point about Texas Tech and St John's, while technically correct, is moot.
The Johnnies are a 2 Seed per Fox....
Check out this story from Fox Sports
foxsports.onelink.me
Check out this story from Fox Sports
2025 NCAA Tournament projections: Bracketology and March Madness predictions | FOX Sports
FOX Sports bracket forecaster Mike DeCourcy offers up his latest NCAA Tournament projections, with St. John's jumping up to a No. 2 seed and Michigan falling to the 4-line.
foxsports.onelink.me
Finally. An accurate opinion on this.The Johnnies are a 2 Seed per Fox....
Check out this story from Fox Sports
2025 NCAA Tournament projections: Bracketology and March Madness predictions | FOX Sports
FOX Sports bracket forecaster Mike DeCourcy offers up his latest NCAA Tournament projections, with St. John's jumping up to a No. 2 seed and Michigan falling to the 4-line.
How does everyone think the committee will treat the Baylor game? It’s pretty clear that the shot didn’t get off in time. If I remember correctly, back in 2019 the committee looked at our loss to Seton Hall as a win due to the timing issues as well. However, we then did pick up a win vs UVA. Would that go away and a loss or non factor be made against Tennesssee? Overall, I would like the Baylor game to flip to a win in their eyes. Could be the difference between a 3 and a high 2 seed.
For Mean Gene:
Can someone please explain to me what this all means?
I have yet to make sense of the +/- in basketball, and now this. Ooof.
Was thinking the same!!
If you're serious (so hard to tell with you!):
1. KPI is one of the metrics the NCAA uses for tournament bids/seeding.
2. It was created by a Michigan State guy.
3. It produces some weird outcomes, and has in prior years.
4. According to the tweet, if you compare KPI outcomes to two of the other metrics the NCAA uses:
...... a. Virtually every Big 10 team has a higher KPI ranking than it does under the other two metrics
...... b. Virtually every Big East team has a lower KPI ranking than it does under the other two metrics
5. The conclusion is that KPI is designed in a way that favors the Big 10 and disadvantages the Big East
6. But the methodology has not been explained so there's no way to know where the bug/feature is.
I would be interested in seeing the same outline for KPI vs the other metrics for the rest of the P5 and non-P5 conferences.
My guess (and it's just a guess) is that there is some element of the metric that either directly or indirectly adds weight to schools that happen to be P5 schools and takes it away from those that are not.
In other words, I would expect to see a similar positive divergence under KPI vs the other metrics for the SEC, ACC and Big 12 and a similar downward divergence for the A-10, AAC, MWC, etc.
But I have a day job so.