Lunardi's new bracketology

[Olympic Fan]

ESPN's Joe Lunardi just posted his updated (after the NBA draft deadline) bracketology. He's moved Duke up from a No. 2 to a No. 1 seed (replacing Texas, which dropped to a No. 8 seed after losing Hamilton, Thompson and Josph).

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

Personally, I think that's too high, but I understand Joe's problem. After UNC, Kentucky and Ohio State, there's not another clearcut No. 1. Duke makes as much sense as Pitt, Syracuse or a bunch of other solid, but flawed teams.

My real problem is the way he ranks the rest of the ACC. I don't mind Miami so high, although I still have them behind FSU. But I can't understand his love for Clemson and Virginia Tech -- Virginia Tech couldn't make the field with Delaney, Allen and Bell ... how are they going to be a No. 7 seed with their three best players gone? I know they get Hudson and Thompson back, plus add a good-but-not-great recruiting class (ranked about where Wake's 2010 class were .. how did that work out?).

[uh_no]

ESPN's Joe Lunardi just posted his updated (after the NBA draft deadline) bracketology. He's moved Duke up from a No. 2 to a No. 1 seed (replacing Texas, which dropped to a No. 8 seed after losing Hamilton, Thompson and Josph).

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

Personally, I think that's too high, but I understand Joe's problem. After UNC, Kentucky and Ohio State, there's not another clearcut No. 1. Duke makes as much sense as Pitt, Syracuse or a bunch of other solid, but flawed teams.

My real problem is the way he ranks the rest of the ACC. I don't mind Miami so high, although I still have them behind FSU. But I can't understand his love for Clemson and Virginia Tech -- Virginia Tech couldn't make the field with Delaney, Allen and Bell ... how are they going to be a No. 7 seed with their three best players gone? I know they get Hudson and Thompson back, plus add a good-but-not-great recruiting class (ranked about where Wake's 2010 class were .. how did that work out?).

I think we have to take all these predictions with a grain of salt. Last year MSU and Purdue were supposed to be two of the best teams in the country, and we were supposed to be unbeatable (given we were very good....but we would have been better). I would guess that Joe probably doesn't put too much thought into the seeding of the lower parts of the bracket, as I think its hard enough to guess who's gonna be in the bracket.

[ChillinDuke]

I think we have to take all these predictions with a grain of salt.

As far as I'm concerned, I'll take it with an entire salt farm.

Joe is more a mathematician than a talent evaluator.

It's a great trait to have when picking a bracket a few weeks in the future based on months of past performance. Not so great for predicting future performance that dictates a bracket 9+ months from now.

[Rich]

Joe is more a mathematician than a talent evaluator. It's a great trait to have when picking a bracket a few weeks in the future based on months of past performance.

He's not that good at picking games either. Just for the hell of it, one of my pools in this years tourny had all of Joe Lunardi's picks and I got reamed. I did much better picking the games without his help. I agree his expertise lies in predicting what the committee will do based on statistics.

[loldevilz]

He's not that good at picking games either. Just for the hell of it, one of my pools in this years tourny had all of Joe Lunardi's picks and I got reamed. I did much better picking the games without his help. I agree his expertise lies in predicting what the committee will do based on statistics.

And he's not even that great at that. He's missed on Duke's placement the last two years.

The fact is that no one should even remotely care what Lunardi thinks, especially at the beginning of the year. (By the way, Lunardi must be one of the ugliest dudes in the world. I'm surprised they even put his face on espn. )

[dukeballboy88]

I think Duke wins the ACC and is ranked ahead of unc on selection Sunday. Im not just saying this because im a Duke fan but I think Duke will be better in the back court and down low I call it a draw. HB is the only edge I give them and I think that becomes a wash when you compare coaches. Duke has the edge in the back court and the sidelines and that will win them the ACC and make Lunardi right on at least 1 of his picks for #1 seed!

[LSanders]

However, it is funny he pits Duke against AZ ... That would make for an interesting match-up.

[roywhite]

As far as I'm concerned, I'll take it with an entire salt farm.

Joe is more a mathematician than a talent evaluator.

It's a great trait to have when picking a bracket a few weeks in the future based on months of past performance. Not so great for predicting future performance that dictates a bracket 9+ months from now.

I'm not sure how he's managed to make a career out of this bracketology stuff. Doesn't seem very relevant in the off-season. More power to him, I guess.

[4decadedukie]

. . . so much “salt” required, my cardiologist would have a heart attack!

Eminent scientists cannot unfailingly predict what the weather in – say – Durham will be next Tuesday (and that’s a scientific phenomenon, with predictions based upon statistical analyses, modeling and detailed physical measurements) and Lunardi is selecting 2012 Final four participants. I hope he remembers that MSU (along with Duke and Purdue) were the consensus, pre-October selections last season.

[brevity]

I agree his expertise lies in predicting what the committee will do based on statistics.

One of the funniest things about Selection Sunday -- that unfortunately got lost in the shuffle thanks to Jay Bilas' odd decision to play Billy Packer and antagonize VCU -- was Joe Lunardi's apoplectic reaction to the Selection Committee's field.

Lunardi serves one purpose to ESPN -- figure out who makes the tournament and who doesn't. He failed this year, and his ensuing complaints could not conceal his desperation. He came across as if his field was right and theirs was wrong.

You could argue that the Selection Committee did what they did because they hate bracketologists trying to micro-analyze and predict their NCAA-given right to make nebulous decisions. Put in UAB over Colorado, just to be contrarian. They may hate Lunardi as much as they hate Seth Greenberg.

[AtlDuke72]

You must have absolutely nothing else to do to pay any attention to what this guy predicts. He did not come close to getting it right this year five minutes before the brackets were announced. How do you get a job like his?

[Olympic Fan]

Guys, lighten up.

Obviously, Lunardi is no Nostradomus ... anybody that's been on this message board for years knows that I've disputed and even ridiculed his picks for years.

But it's an off-season message board and we do talk about things like the national perception of how teams are going to stack up next year. We had a recent thread about Andy Katz's top 25 ... Lunardi has a huge a soapbox. He reflects what a lot of national writers are thinking.

I merely posted the link as a starting point for our debate. Understand that I believe my views -- and yours -- are equally valid as Lunardi's.

It's supposed to be fun. Is Lunardi gospel? No -- but neither are those of you who endlessly speculate and debate about next year's starting lineup ... or what DeAndre Daniels had for breakfast.

It's a message board ...

[Rich]

You must have absolutely nothing else to do to pay any attention to what this guy predicts. He did not come close to getting it right this year five minutes before the brackets were announced. How do you get a job like his?

Same way as every meteorologist in America!

[sagegrouse]

What would be useful to the fan is for Joe to document his picks.

For example, it would be really useful to get a gauge on the one-bid conferences, which few of us have time to follow, especially if there is a Butler or other strong team lying in the grass.

For the major conferences he could do a "change analysis:" last year's seed vs. predicted seed for 2012 and his reasons therefor. It would help summarize comings and goings on one piece of paper.

For those dropping out, he could give his reasons.And f or new entrants to the NCAA he could also give his reasons. E.g., Virginia Tech??? Is this just an effort to put Seth on the bubble one more time? Miami is more plausible, but I'll have to see it to believe.

FWIW I would put this whole shooting match out of business (meaning the Tournament Selection Committee) by taking the top half of each of the power conferences -- and let the conferences decide who goes -- by emphasizing conference results. In truth, these are the only meaningful results to select teams. The inter-conference games are too spotty, too early in the season (most in Nov and Dec), and too weird (Hawaii and PR with leg cramps, e.g.) to mean very much. I am doing some research on the subject and hope to show some results later.

sagegrouse

[Jeff Frosh]

I agree that we MIGHT be overrated as a #1 seed, but at least Lunardi didn't fall into the same trap that most have fallen into over the years, which is to underestimate Duke in years where we lose great players by focusing on what we lost, rather than what we will have. I also like that fact that, despite the loss of 3 of the top 10(?) players in the country, one "expert" still views us as a #1 seed. Pretty good statement about the ongoing greatness of the program.

[Rich]

I agree that we MIGHT be overrated as a #1 seed, but at least Lunardi didn't fall into the same trap that most have fallen into over the years, which is to underestimate Duke in years where we lose great players by focusing on what we lost, rather than what we will have. I also like that fact that, despite the loss of 3 of the top 10(?) players in the country, one "expert" still views us as a #1 seed. Pretty good statement about the ongoing greatness of the program.

It's a double edged sword. Oftentimes the prediction for our team is way too high based on our name more than anything else, e.g., if we have a young team with talent that hasn't learned Coach K's system yet. I'd say our name alone inflates our ranking most years and creates expectations that are higher than warranted.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I agree that we MIGHT be overrated as a #1 seed, but at least Lunardi didn't fall into the same trap that most have fallen into over the years, which is to underestimate Duke in years where we lose great players by focusing on what we lost, rather than what we will have. I also like that fact that, despite the loss of 3 of the top 10(?) players in the country, one "expert" still views us as a #1 seed. Pretty good statement about the ongoing greatness of the program.

I feel that during preseason, Duke either gets overrated or underrated. Rarely do they get rated appropriately (although this year we were rated appropriately. Damn the toes!). In 2009-2010, we were underrated. Year before: overrated. Year before that: overrated. The Duke name usually gets us a ranking, just like the UNC, Kansas, or Kentucky names. In all honesty, overrating blue blood teams helps to sell NCAA basketball as these are the most familiar teams to common, not diehard, fans.

[Jeff Frosh]

Is it just my bias, or are the tarheels almost always overrated? Perhaps this is a result of having talented players but a coach who doesn't get the most out of his TEAM? I await Kong's response.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Is it just my bias, or are the tarheels almost always overrated? Perhaps this is a result of having talented players but a coach who doesn't get the most out of his TEAM? I await Kong's response.

I would say that most blue blood programs are overrated in the rankings. Rarely do you see a blue blood perform better than their ranking indicates (Duke in 2009-2010 withstanding, of course!). But yes - completely agree. UNC is always overrated or rated accordingly (like the juggernaut they had in 2008-2009), never underrated.

[OldPhiKap]

Carolina is going to be very good next year if they stay healthy.

Hard to overrate them, unfortunately.

Of course, that's why I'll enjoy the first weekend flame-out even more.

[sagegrouse]

I would say that most blue blood programs are overrated in the rankings. Rarely do you see a blue blood perform better than their ranking indicates (Duke in 2009-2010 withstanding, of course!). But yes - completely agree. UNC is always overrated or rated accordingly (like the juggernaut they had in 2008-2009), never underrated.

I think you are right about blueblood programs being emphasized in the rankings. I think that is especially true of the preseason polls, which I think are largely devoid of intellectual content -- I mean, who wants to do the hard work of constructing a future record for teams that have yet to play a game.

But if you asked me to compare a top 30 team returning absolutely everyone and a top-five Duke team (for example) that lost half its scoring, I might still pick Duke (or Kansas or Kentucky). The guys on the bench there were probably all bluechip recruits and may do extremely well if given more of a chance to play and score. And the recruits are pretty darned good as well.

Blue Ribbon report seems to do a thorough job of the preseason, although I haven't gone backe and scored its predictions vs. the preseason ESPN and AP polls. Lunardi's seedings? Heck, I dunno, it is just a list of 68 schools with some cardinal numbers next to them. Who knows how he arrives at his rankings?

sagegrouse

[Kedsy]

Blue Ribbon report seems to do a thorough job of the preseason, although I haven't gone backe and scored its predictions vs. the preseason ESPN and AP polls. Lunardi's seedings? Heck, I dunno, it is just a list of 68 schools with some cardinal numbers next to them. Who knows how he arrives at his rankings?

I don't always agree with Lunardi, but we should all give him a break. He's not clueless. He used to be one of the primary guys at the Blue Ribbon guide, for example. The whole bracketology thing has gotten way out of control, but Lundardi knows college basketball pretty well.

[gofurman]

I would say that most blue blood programs are overrated in the rankings. Rarely do you see a blue blood perform better than their ranking indicates (Duke in 2009-2010 withstanding, of course!). But yes - completely agree. UNC is always overrated or rated accordingly (like the juggernaut they had in 2008-2009), never underrated.

unfortunately, I don't think they are overrated by any means this year - the team we saw come an edge from making the final four is the team we will see next year... but probably muh improved with a summer to work on k marshall's team. Think how much they changed. Clearly top 5 by end of year. Barnes changed. Marshall changed the team. I thik Vtown has them as the overwhelming fav to win it all next year and I agree.

Marshall is the one they can't lose. They could honestly lose one of Barnes, Henson or Zeller and be durn good ...

[loldevilz]

unfortunately, I don't think they are overrated by any means this year - the team we saw come an edge from making the final four is the team we will see next year... but probably muh improved with a summer to work on k marshall's team. Think how much they changed. Clearly top 5 by end of year. Barnes changed. Marshall changed the team. I thik Vtown has them as the overwhelming fav to win it all next year and I agree.

Marshall is the one they can't lose. They could honestly lose one of Barnes, Henson or Zeller and be durn good ...

Personally I think Kentucky has to be the favorite. I just can't help but picture UNC as the team that Duke crushed in the ACC championship game. I know they made an Elite Eight, but they were not even close to a dominant team last year. They were a good defensive team with a decent offense. Duke was a much better team even without Irving.

UNC had a gaudy record because they beat a bunch of teams by a point or two including Washington, Miami, FSU, Clemson. Not only that I really think there talent is immensely overrated. I'm not even sure that they have a good NBA player on their roster. Sure Barnes is decent, but I think he will be a role player in the NBA whereas Lawson and Hansbrough were studs.

[gumbomoop]

Marshall is the one they can't lose. They could honestly lose one of Barnes, Henson or Zeller and be durn good ...

Yep, agree with this.

Now, Barnes is the one Duke will have trouble matching up with; but overall, season long, KM is their key, both because he's such a marvelous passer and de facto leader, and because their 2 backups - Strickland and White- can't get the job done.

In tight games - assuming UNC will have some of these - KM has to play 35 minutes.

[roywhite]

Yep, agree with this.

Now, Barnes is the one Duke will have trouble matching up with; but overall, season long, KM is their key, both because he's such a marvelous passer and de facto leader, and because their 2 backups - Strickland and White- can't get the job done.

In tight games - assuming UNC will have some of these - KM has to play 35 minutes.

Agree with that, and it also presents the following opportunity for a good opponent:
Marshall could be a weak link defensively....he is a step slow, and this would be magnified if he is playing that kind of minutes.

I'll concede that UNC is a natural favorite in the ACC and nationally going into 2011-12, but they have some vulnerabilities. Who best to exploit those weaknesses? A team with good shooters all around, especially from 3-pt land. Like, say, Duke.

[gumbomoop]

Marshall could be a weak link defensively....he is a step slow....

I realize we'll have a jillion chances to dissect UNC before and during next season, but any prospect of a UNC flaw is worth a glance even now.

KM does indeed seem a bit slow on D; he makes up for it, IMO, by being so smart, knows how to use his body. But he's not superb at positioning on D, so he's got to be careful not to foul, for the Heels are much less effective if he has to sit extended minutes for chancy fouls.

We - well, I, certainly - get crazy here on DBR boards at silly fouls by MPs. But KM cannot get silly in any tough game.

[JStuart]

Personally I think Kentucky has to be the favorite. I just can't help but picture UNC as the team that Duke crushed in the ACC championship game. I know they made an Elite Eight, but they were not even close to a dominant team last year. They were a good defensive team with a decent offense. Duke was a much better team even without Irving.

UNC had a gaudy record because they beat a bunch of teams by a point or two including Washington, Miami, FSU, Clemson. Not only that I really think there talent is immensely overrated. I'm not even sure that they have a good NBA player on their roster. Sure Barnes is decent, but I think he will be a role player in the NBA whereas Lawson and Hansbrough were studs.

I wonder also why more folks don't think this way; after all, didn't the core of this team play 3 games in the ACC tournament leading for only 2-3 seconds at the end of the first, only leading in the OT against Clemson, and never leading in the championship game? Don't know if those are juggernaut stats one could build on...

[gumbomoop]

I wonder also why more folks don't think this way; after all, didn't the core of this team play 3 games in the ACC tournament leading for only 2-3 seconds at the end of the first, only leading in the OT against Clemson, and never leading in the championship game? Don't know if those are juggernaut stats one could build on...

It's an interesting point that several of you have made, namely, that UNC should not automatically be seen as preseason #1, much less as an overwhelming team. I admit to thinking they're real talented, but the counterargument that several skeptics have made is worth pondering.

How to explain the assumptions about how great UNC will probably be next year? It must have something to do - speaking now as a devil's-advocate-skeptic - with focusing overwhelmingly on their good play and forgetting their mediocre play. Right?

Thus, we remember how well they played in the first half in CIS, how well they played in the win over Duke in CH, how, after an inexplicable [except to skeptics] stumble in the ACC, they got to the E8, with a cruise over Marquette and a near-win over UK. That is, they came within a whisker of the F4, pretty impressive for a team that lost by 20 to GT, and was on the verge of a second consecutive bad season. They righted the ship, and "played great" once Drew took his ball and went home and KM took the helm.

Except, skeptics rightly point out, they didn't even play consistently well, much less great. They didn't dominate LIU, were [perhaps] saved by Washington's poor decisions at the end of their 2d NCAAT game, and actually made some poor decisions of their own in the waning moments of the UK game.

I'd put them preseason #1. I'm really impressed with McAdoo, acknowledge HB's multiple talents, see that KM is a superb passer and that Zeller and Henson have big-time potential, and think the Heels could be good defensively.

But I'm happy to be reminded by skeptics that talent, experience, and depth are perhaps necessary to becoming a dominant team, but are not sufficient. Gotta have consistency [including on D], and 2010-'11 UNC didn't display much of that.

They looked great, when they looked great. They didn't look so good, when they didn't look so good.