# Joe Lunardi: The Idiot



## GTFan513 (Dec 4, 2003)

On the 2005 pre-pre-season edition of bracketology on ESPN Joe Lunardi has Georgia Tech getting a 5th seed (WAY Under ranked), Florida getting a 4th seed (WAY over ranked), and Stanford getting a #1 seed (Over ranked once more), what do you think about this, cuz this looks and smells like total B.S. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology


----------



## tdizzle (Apr 12, 2003)

I don't think you can call Joe Lunardi an "idiot" because he is as good as it gets at what he does. He has missed something like 1 pick out of the 65 in the last four yars or so.

Of course there are going to be some questions this early in the process, the 2003-2004 season just ended this past week. He is proably taking into consideration that some players might leave from certain teams and so forth. 

I have as much respect for Lunardi as any writer out there just because of his track record at predicting the brackets year in and year out.


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Gosh that would be great if my Illini could get a #1 Seed (It's very possible as we return everyone except Jerrance Howard).. 

Imagine this.. 

1st Rd - Illinois in Indianapolis
2nd Rd - Illinois in Indianapolis
Sweet 16 - Illinois in Chicago
Elite 8 - Illinois in Chicago
Final Four - Illinois in St. Louis
Championship - Illinois in St. Louis

I know I'm probably off but my freakin god that would be tough for our opponents


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Lunardi is as good as anybody at projecting the field once March hits.

But once it comes to long-term projections and predictions he is just not that good. There are many more reliable sources for that information out there, imo.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

This would be my Final Four in that scenario

Duke 
vs 
North Carolina

Illinois
vs
Kansas

North Carolina 
vs
Kansas

Winner: North Carolina


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

*L*

L is a stat guru. Stats are all fine and dandy when you have a large sample size. When trying to forecast a teams ability to win next year based on skewed stats from this year, its very difficult. Therefore, L isn't the best at forecasting. At the end of the year, when he has stats on every team and every player playing within that team, his deviations from the actual outcomes becomes smaller and smaller.


----------



## ill subliminal (Apr 3, 2003)

When it comes to forecasting, give me Seth Davis! Gonzaga all the way!


I'd much rather listen to someone like Lunardi who has a relatively proven system than some tool like Seth Davis or Tom Tolbert. They're basically all idiots. The only ones who don't make fools of themselves are the ones who simply ride everyone's dick so hard that they never actually call who the winner should be, ie everyone on ESPN.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 4, 2002)

xubrew> Lunardi


----------



## tr_west (Dec 15, 2003)

I would agree with having tech at 5 and florida at 4 but stanford at 1 is an awful pick.


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>tr_west</b>!
> I would agree with having tech at 5 and florida at 4 but stanford at 1 is an awful pick.


Why would you agree with Tech at 5? They were a 3 this year, and the team will be even better next year, so how will they slip? I guess that 1 seed for Stanford was considering Josh Childress returns, but that won't happen.


----------



## Ghost (Jun 21, 2002)

(6) Wisconsin (25-7)
(11) Gonzaga (28-3) 


Both of these teams are way underranked.


----------



## Stevie B (May 15, 2003)

Lunardi missing one team in March really isnt that impressive. I missed two this year and felt like a did a real poor job. Having GTech where they are seems pretty irresponsible and I dont even like them too much.


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

remember this is ONLY POST-PRE- SEASON rankings. They are projections base of what he would rank them at this time. Remember this is also a YEAR in advance. It will all change. Espically for player going and comming that he can predict in a crystal ball.


----------



## Tigerfan_2002 (Nov 29, 2003)

Can't believe he has Tennessee even in the tourney, they will be back in the NIT again next year.


----------



## xubrew (Dec 17, 2002)

let it be known that most of our users were more accurate than lunardi this past season.

we had 62 out of 65 teams right to his 64 out of 65 teams, which isn't very good. in fact, most of the users beat me in the projections. however, out of those 62 teams, we had 55 seeded exactly correct or within one of it, which is more than lunardi had. 

it depends on how you're keeping score. lunardi is pretty good. i thought he did a better job this year than he has ever done. i thought i did a poorer job this year than i've ever done.

BUT, as a whole, our bracketology forum (mostly in thanks to all those that posted on it) was more accurate than espn. THAT IS A FACT!!

props to all of those that posted brackets. nearly ALL of you had as many teams as lunardi and had more correctly seeded. take a bow.


----------



## ucdawg12 (Jun 3, 2003)

Lunardi is an idiot, his seeds are completely biased, he may have just missed 1 which is no feat itself, but his picks arent accurate, anyone can figure out who will make it but its more difficult to determine where they will actually be seeded which is supposed to be his job. There are plenty of analysts who are already good at determining which bubble teams will make it.


----------



## GTFan513 (Dec 4, 2003)

My real problem is having Georgia Tech as a number 5 seed when they are only losing 2 players that get a lot of playing time and both are being replace by 3 consensus top 100 players + 1 non-consensus but still really good and in some polls top 100 player plus if we get Randolph Morris, which right now I think is leaning towards Ga Tech, we will be at least a #3 seed at the lowest...

And also Florida is losing some of their players and dont think they can get a #4 seed, they can get a #7 at the best...


----------

