Wolvie3758

March 13th, 2016 at 9:50 AM ^

nerve racking day...Im at Playa del Carmen working for a few weeks and of course nobody down here cares about NCAA basketball except the Hoosier and Boilemaker in our group so I got to gloat for one day with the Hoosier and then get it from the Boilermaker...They are both in so Im the only one sweating...Thank God there are no Sparties in the group...

Joined: 12/12/2010

MGoPoints: 6338

M-Dog

March 13th, 2016 at 12:58 PM ^

I love Playa del Carmen.  It has special memories.  I was there for Trey Burke's shot against Kansas.

I was watching at a sports bar with a few other Amercian fans.  It all seemed pretty low key.  But when he hit the shot, there was a cheer all up and down the street.  A lot more people were paying attention than I thought.

 

 

Joined: 07/06/2008

MGoPoints: 257573

MAZandBLUE

March 13th, 2016 at 10:43 AM ^

I'm pretty sure you just proved Wolvie's point.

The whole objective of putting together a bracket that early is to predict the best teams and who will play in the tournament. Judging them against a bracket with more games to be played is a better test of how accurate they were, rather than waiting until all of the games have been played out and 95% of the field is determined/obvious. If they're not going to be judged against them, then why even put them out that early?

It's like pre-season and early season rankings. End of season rankings should be compared against those if you want to get a real picture of how accurate these people are. Unfortunately, of course, they don't.

Now, some people will say "but more data is better than less," which I totally agree with, and which is why the selection committee should wait until all the games have been played to make their choices. So called experts, whose job it is to assess teams and predict brackets/bowls/rankings/etc., shouldn't be afforded that luxury--that's why they're "experts."

Joined: 10/26/2011

MGoPoints: 3834

snarling wolverine

March 13th, 2016 at 1:02 PM ^

I understand that it's all a snapshot in time.   I just don't find his "success rate" of predicting all that remarkable.   By Selection Sunday the field has whittled itself down and he only has to make a couple of coinflip calls.  (This is assuming that he's actually making the predictions without any tips from the committee.)

 

 

Joined: 12/14/2011

MGoPoints: 98526

HarmonHowardWoodson

March 13th, 2016 at 4:56 PM ^

I agree that the only thing his predictions are good for is to know who will get in an hour before the actual selection show. I don't understand the people who complain and say his "predictions" from 2 weeks ago suck when he isn't in the prediction business in the first place. Reminds me of a saying... "don't judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will fail"

Joined: 02/25/2012

MGoPoints: 3487

MAZandBLUE

March 13th, 2016 at 10:30 AM ^

Not only this, but judging Lunardi based on X of 64 or 68 picks correct is totally inflated. The only teams in question to get in are the 8-10 teams on the bubble (hence, the name "the bubble"). He shouldn't be measured against the full bracket, but instead those 8-10 teams. Historically missing 1-2 picks a year makes 20% of your true picks wrong, not 2.9%--and missing 20% of your picks when this is your job and what you're known for is nothing to write home about.

Joined: 10/26/2011

MGoPoints: 3834

mistersuits

March 13th, 2016 at 9:58 AM ^

Lunardi's picks all year long are all over the map and never make much sense. Then selection Sunday he moves things to align with reality so that he (along with 90% of bracket prognosticators with a brain) will correctly guess 66+ of the teams in the field.

Joined: 01/27/2010

MGoPoints: 4522

Wolvie3758

March 13th, 2016 at 10:22 AM ^

Thats what I was saying up above...I mean I could prob be just as accurate TODAY....I dont put as much stock in Lunardi as I used to....Just the other day b4 the Indiana game he said we didnt belong in because we had to many losses..(11) at the same time he had Vandy and SYR above us even though they had 13 losses...I mean WTF? which is it?

Joined: 12/12/2010

MGoPoints: 6338

snarling wolverine

March 13th, 2016 at 1:06 PM ^

Yeah, his job really isn't that difficult.  Even if he's doing it purely honestly, without sources on the committee (which I doubt), at this point it's really not that tough to guess most of the field.  Most people here could probably get at least 64 of the 68 right.

 

Joined: 12/14/2011

MGoPoints: 98526

k.o.k.Law

March 13th, 2016 at 10:07 AM ^

this is still under his Bubble Watch column on ESPN site:

Michigan has work to do. There is no more work to do. (We realize we need another category for Champ Week Bubble Watch updates, something to distinguish teams in this rather unfortunate position. We hope the High Bubble Council will approve this measure in advance of the 2017 tournament. You have 11 months to send suggestions.)

Michigan [22-12 (10-8), RPI: 55, SOS: 54] Every season, there is at least one mediocre high-major bubble team that grabs a big win or two in its conference tournament and becomes a cause celbre in the hours before the selection show. When these arguments deign to designate another team that must, mathematically, accommodate this cause, a mid-major is typically sent to the slaughter. This philosophical movement has a name: "Packerism." In the past 24 hours, Michigan has been the primary recipient of Packerist-tinged support. Arguments like "but, the Big Ten!" and "but, the eye test!" have been used a lot to explain why the Wolverines -- who beat Big Ten champ Indiana (in Indianapolis) on Friday and lost 76-59 to Purdue on Saturday -- should be in the 2016 tournament. These are not particularly persuasive arguments. The Wolverines had two months to take advantage of playing in a league like the Big Ten. They beat three top-100 opponents (plus Texas in the nonconference) in that span. After Saturday, they are 4-11 against the top 50 and 4-12 against the top 100. At some point, you should take those chances. Eye test? This was the Big Ten's fifth-best offensive team and its ninth-best per-possession defense. A day before the Indiana win, Michigan barely survived Northwestern, and hardly looked good doing it. A day later, Purdue ran them off the floor. This is not a sleeping giant whose resume conceals its true nature. It's a mediocre team. Not bad, not good. Just mediocre. It deserves to be on the bubble with a 50-50 chance of getting in the field. That's how it should be. Just don't pretend otherwise.

Joined: 08/12/2011

MGoPoints: 5810

MAZandBLUE

March 13th, 2016 at 1:14 PM ^

Because he's saying all of the Michigan supporters are saying that we pass the eye test and that's why we should be in, and then he proceeds to tell us why Michigan doesn't pass the eye test.

Well, I haven't heard a single Michigan fan say the reason we should be in is *because* of the eye test (I haven't heard anyone talk about the eye test period). So, for him to put words in our mouth and then talk about why "we're" wrong because of those words is totally bogus (i.e. a straw man).

Joined: 10/26/2011

MGoPoints: 3834

aiglick

March 13th, 2016 at 10:15 AM ^

That is Eammon Brennon (sp?) who does Bubble Watch. Any Tourney experience will be good for this team. Get them prepared for future appearances. Also, who the heck knows what will happen. It's highly unlikely they make a run but maybe we start making shots. Any Tourney exposure is better than the NIT though a long NIT run is better than a short NIT run.

Joined: 11/27/2010

MGoPoints: 21563

grumbler

March 13th, 2016 at 10:50 AM ^

Except that he is not com[aring them TO anyone; the NCAA tournament isn't about who "deserves" to be in, but rather who has one of the 64 best resumes.  You simply cannot logically talk about one team in isolation and decide that, completely independently of all other teams, they deserve a 50-50 chance of making the field.  This is lazy writing.

Joined: 08/17/2011

MGoPoints: 14153

Muttley

March 13th, 2016 at 12:10 PM ^

Find another team for an 11 seed that went 4-11 against tournament teams, most in the higher seeds.  It's what you'd expect from an 11 seed.

Oh, and in the whole remainder of the season, we only dropped one game on an away court to a team that was sniffing the bubble.

Joined: 07/07/2009

MGoPoints: -73245

grumbler

March 13th, 2016 at 10:52 AM ^

He wrote about Michigan as though it was not being compared to other teams competing for those spots, but rather was competing against his model of what a tournament team should be like.  What he wrote was all about his subjective feelings and has nothing to do with the 64 best teams, which is what the selection committee will be looking at.

Joined: 08/17/2011

MGoPoints: 14153

Wolvie3758

March 13th, 2016 at 10:26 AM ^

saw Michigan BEAT the undisputd Big Ten Champions Friday...the Big Ten is one of the best leagues in the country...Eye test!...How many other bubble teams have played 16 or 17 games against the tourny field?...how many bubble teams have losses against teams 100-250?..I know ONE that doesnt...MICHIGAN

Joined: 12/12/2010

MGoPoints: 6338

PurpleStuff

March 13th, 2016 at 10:56 AM ^

He uses these numbers completely out of context with respect to the rest of the bubble.  St. Mary's has two top-50 wins, both against #44 Gonzaga.  Valparaiso has one.  Wichita State has one.  Florida, Pitt, Vanderbilt, and Monmouth all have two.  Monmouth has one.

Our fourth best win is against #27 in the RPI.  Our second worst loss is on the road against #42 WIsconsin.  As for "barely surviving" against Northwestern, they lost one game in the non-conference (to North Carolina) and beat #89 Virginia Tech on the road (a team that has been knocking off a bunch of these bubble ACC teams in recent weeks).  If the B1G wasn't such a beast this year, they would be a potential bubble team.

No league has seniors like Valentine, Ferrell, Hammons, Uthoff, etc. across the board.  This is a very special year for this conference, and Michigan played a bunch of elite teams.  Punishing them for not winning them all when everybody else on the bubble has fewer great wins and far more terrible losses would be ridiculous. 

Joined: 04/21/2009

MGoPoints: 15969

PurpleStuff

March 13th, 2016 at 12:37 PM ^

You don't seem to know what words like "mediocre", "50/50 shot", or "fact" mean.  No one is arguing about UM's chances to win it all.  The comparison is between us and other teams on the bubble (ones you would also probably call mediocre, especially if they were playing Purdue yesterday, a team that also smoked Florida, Pitt, and Vanderbilt by double digits). 

Michigan has a better resume than basically everybody on the bubble in terms of high quality wins (4 against the top-27 in RPI) and bad losses (one loss outside top-42, and that on the road against an OSU team loaded with 4+ star talent that went 11-7 in B1G and beat Kentucky).

You just want to keep bitching about this team like you've been doing all year.  The butthurt cry-baby shit is getting old.

Joined: 04/21/2009

MGoPoints: 15969

JCV16

March 13th, 2016 at 10:39 AM ^

St. Joes over vcu. 1230 pm.. Slight chance we could be seeded over vcu. Ark little rock over Louisiana Monroe. 1 pm. Avoid bid thief (although we should be ahead of little rock anyway) Purdue over msu. 3pm . Sos boost plus obviously. Uconn over Memphis 315 pm.. Sos boost and avoid bid stealer

Joined: 06/29/2011

MGoPoints: -96953

bronxblue

March 13th, 2016 at 10:40 AM ^

I called it yesterday. Lunardi always flips at the end when he hears something about how the committee is feeling. Literally nothing of note that would affect UM happened, but Joe heard from his sources that UM was no longer in danger so he "reevaluated" his picks.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171899