Can we officially dump this "Bracketology" crap forever?

#1
Vercingetorix

Vercingetorix

Fluidmaster
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
31,177
Likes
2,728
#1
Because it is clearly meaningless.

I'm not sure that I've ever seen so much TV and discussion time devoted to something that ends up having so little correlation with reality. Lunardi has no idea what the committee is going to do; nobody has any idea what they're going to do. You really might as well have Jimbo down at the Weigel's on Weisgarber give you his predicted bracket, because it's going to be just as good as Lunardi's.

So next year. How about no "Updated Bracketology!" threads every week, okay?
 
#3
#3
Its just speculation which is pretty much half of anything people post on here
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#4
#4
I think Lunardi does the best job he can, and actually, his final bracket was probably better than the one the selection committee released.
 
#5
#5
utman47 said:
Its just speculation which is pretty much half of anything people post on here
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Of course it's just speculation. But speculation by GoVolzzz985 doesn't get a new thread every week on this board. What we've learned today is that despite getting incessant airtime on the Worldwide Leader, Lunardi doesn't know anymore than GoVolzzz985, and so we really never need to see any of these Bracketology threads again. There is no point speculating about a process which is apparently completely inscrutable.
 
#6
#6
I agree. What makes me so mad is how they promote the next interview with Lunardi as him somehow providing inside information on what will happen. They promote it as being so matter-of-fact when it is nothing but pure speculation.

They should make them call it Fantasy and Wishing Well Bracket Guesses by Joe Lunardi.

It is such a scam and then I gag when I hear ESPN reporters interviewing coaches on the final day only to hear the coach say "according to Lunardi, we are in."

Sham.
 
#7
#7
That's why I have never looked at any mock bracketology nonsense. It's a waste of energy.
 
#8
#8
nickknx865 said:
I think Lunardi does the best job he can, and actually, his final bracket was probably better than the one the selection committee released.
Click to expand...

Who cares if it's "better" in some disembodied, Platonic sense? Either it's useful as a predictive tool or it's not. It is not.
 
#9
#9
Vercingetorix said:
Who cares if it's "better" in some disembodied, Platonic sense? Either it's useful as a predictive tool or it's not. It is not.
Click to expand...

Peruse a couple of those threads about bracketology. Couple things will pop out to you.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#12
#12
Lunardi went 9/64 in his pre-selection show, meaning he only placed 9 teams in their correct region and seed. Of course, it can be difficult when you have chimpanzees running the selection committee.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#13
#13
bam15 said:
Lunardi went 9/64 in his pre-selection show, meaning he only placed 9 teams in their correct region and seed. Of course, it can be difficult when you have chimpanzees running the selection committee.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

That's an insult to chimps everywhere.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#14
#14
I would rather a computer generate a bracket based on the RPI then the crap the selection committe put out.

Duke hasn't beat a seed higher then #5 in twelve years, so they reward them by giving them the easiest rode to the final four? They are the weakest #1 seed, how do you not put WV in their bracket as the 2 seed?

It's obviously biased.
 
#15
#15
BigPapaVol said:
Peruse a couple of those threads about bracketology. Couple things will pop out to you.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Uh, of all the things I can think of do do with my time at 11:30 on a Sunday night, going back and reading through some old bracketology threads is way down the list. What wisdom is there to be gleaned?
 
#16
#16
oklavol said:
I would rather a computer generate a bracket based on the RPI then the crap the selection committe put out.

Duke hasn't beat a seed higher then #5 in twelve years, so they reward them by giving them the easiest rode to the final four? They are the weakest #1 seed, how do you not put WV in their bracket as the 2 seed?

It's obviously biased.
Click to expand...
The bracket was really garbage this year, but the history argument is nonsensical.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#18
#18
While things are getting dumped, the RPI should be too. It is obviously completely ignored by the Duke Selection Committee.
 
#20
#20
bam15 said:
Lunardi went 9/64 in his pre-selection show, meaning he only placed 9 teams in their correct region and seed. Of course, it can be difficult when you have chimpanzees running the selection committee.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I'm not really blaming Lunardi. It is tough for a rational person to predict what a committee will do. But if his predictions end up having almost no correlation with what the bracket ends up looking like, then why all the incessant ESPN face time? Why bother with it? Mel Kiper Jr gets as much right as Lunardi does, and that's saying someting.
 
#21
#21
Vercingetorix said:
I'm not really blaming Lunardi. It is tough for a rational person to predict what a committee will do. But if his predictions end up having almost no correlation with what the bracket ends up looking like, then why all the incessant ESPN face time? Why bother with it? Mel Kiper Jr gets as much right as Lunardi does, and that's saying someting.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

If he removed any sense whatsoever of quality basketball, he'd be better at predicting.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#23
#23
oklavol said:
I would rather a computer generate a bracket based on the RPI then the crap the selection committe put out.

Duke hasn't beat a seed higher then #5 in twelve years, so they reward them by giving them the easiest rode to the final four? They are the weakest #1 seed, how do you not put WV in their bracket as the 2 seed?

It's obviously biased.
Click to expand...

The RPI is a flawed metric. All metrics are flawed to a certain extent, but the RPI is really flawed. I certainly wouldn't support the RPI as the sole determining factor.
 
#24
#24
kidbourbon said:
The RPI is a flawed metric. All metrics are flawed to a certain extent, but the RPI is really flawed. I certainly wouldn't support the RPI as the sole determining factor.
Click to expand...

It'd basically become the BCS of college basketball; almost universally reviled by college basketball fans.

But then again, at least with basketball, the champions are determined on the court.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top