• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2021-22 Men's College Basketball Season - UNC v. Kansas for the Natty

the committee is continually changing, so it is possible that Lunardi has had insider info in the past (my memory is that his first couple of brackets were very accurate)
 
I think that theory is nonsense — people are grasping at reasons why his bracket would change day to day. The way I see it he has 2 jobs — and it’s tough to thread the needle of doing #2 without looking too crazy on #1.

1) get the bracket as close to right as he can on selection Sunday;
2) stir debate and activity among the teams, and particularly those playing on ESPN.

As to how teams could move without playing — there are thousands of h2h comparisons you could do — and the strength of prior wins changes all the time based on what prior opponents do. Maybe he hadn’t compared 2 teams directly before and now they’re close, and it’s clear the team behind has the better resume. Maybe someone’s resume has crept to a better or worse state. Lots of reasons that don’t involve being fed info by the committee, which doesn’t make sense.

Also, if he was fed info, his results would be a lot better than they have been. He’s good and slightly above average over a long time. He does well enough in front of a camera with short sound bites, another important part of his job. I don’t think he has any magic secret sauce that can’t be replicated but he’s good enough at his job and lucky to get paid to do it.

Interesting. Always felt like Lunardi made late adjustments to his bracket/seeding because he had inside info. Thought there were times when teams inexplicably had abrupt movements up, down or out. There have been times went it just seemed suspicious, but i lack examples to confirm any such suspicions. That said, you have spent far more time working and studying brackets; so, if the late movement can be explained by the trickle-down impact of the outcome of opponents and opponents/opponents games and just deeper analysis. I will defer to you. Always bugged me the way Lunardi has touted how many teams he got right, when everyone agreed on about 95% of the field.
 
Syracuse probably my 4th most hated team in the ACC, they basically just replaced Maryland, same dumpster fire of a city-school-fanbase, and usually they are only good enough to play spoiler for the teams actually capable of accomplishing something.
 
Lunardi also is on a different schedule than the committee since he's updating his bracket regularly, as opposed to the committee who selects and seeds the majority of the at-large teams on just one occasion. Thus he may develop preconceived notions of teams, whereas taking a look at a team's resume with a fresh sight of eyes may yield a different opinion

The committee is doing much of what Lunardi is doing. It's just not public. I doubt they go in with a blank sheet of paper. I would assume they're influenced by Lunardi, other bracketologists, and public perception of teams and of course how they perform this week.
 
Syracuse probably my 4th most hated team in the ACC, they basically just replaced Maryland, same dumpster fire of a city-school-fanbase, and usually they are only good enough to play spoiler for the teams actually capable of accomplishing something.

Happy to see this guy go away:

Buddy Boeheim punches Florida State player; referees don’t see it (video)
https://www.syracuse.com/orangebasketball/2022/03/buddy-boeheim-throws-punch-to-florida-states-wyatt-wilkes-in-acc-tournament-game.html
 
Can the league look at that and suspend him for the next game if they advance?

Is your question whether or not the ACC will suspend cuse's best player in their next game against *checks notes* duke?
 
Buddy DBag will be suspended for tomorrow's game and potentially the Friday match up should they spring the upset.
 
Is your question whether or not the ACC will suspend cuse's best player in their next game against *checks notes* duke?
Just trying to get Alondes that scoring title!!! Buddy's not putting up huge numbers today, opens the window for Alondes.
 
Just trying to get Alondes that scoring title!!! Buddy's not putting up huge numbers today, opens the window for Alondes.

Just saying that the Atlantic Coast Conference needs far less motivation that this egregious video record to help k's legacy tour get back on track.
 
I don't know I've ever seen a team get embarrassed this badly in the ACCT, particularly in an 8-9 matchup.

ETA: and that's saying a lot given what we've put up the last dozen years
 
The at large process is pretty well defined on the NCAA site. I'm sure committee members don't just wake up this week and start figuring it out. But they also are looking at all teams. Is there bias when it's alphabetical?

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2021-01-15/how-field-68-teams-picked-march-madness

Initial Ballot

Prior to the selection meeting, each committee member receives an “initial ballot” comprised of two columns listing all eligible Division I teams in alphabetical order.

Each committee member will submit the ballot by a designated time on the first full day of selection meetings:


a. In the first column, each member shall identify not more than 37 teams that, in that member’s opinion, should be at-large selections (AL) in the tournament based upon play to date, regardless of whether the team could eventually represent its conference as the automatic qualifier.

b. In the second column, each member shall identify all teams that should receive consideration (C) for an at- large berth. There is no minimum or maximum limit in the second column; however, only teams meriting serious consideration should receive votes.

2. Any team receiving all but two of the eligible votes in Column 1 (AL) is moved into the tournament field as an at-large selection.

3. The committee will form an "under-consideration” board consisting of an alphabetical listing of teams that:

a. Received at least three votes in either of the columns of the initial ballot but did not receive enough votes to be an at-large team; or

b. Won or shared the regular-season conference championship, as determined by the conference’s tie-break policy where applicable. This does not include teams that won or shared a division title but were not the regular-season conference champion.

4. A team may be removed from the “under-consideration” board at any time if it receives all but two eligible votes.


5. A team may be added to the “under-consideration” board at any time provided it receives at least three eligible votes.

6. Verbal nominations are permitted.

Remaining Ballots

1. The committee then begins evaluating those teams on the “under consideration” board.

2. Each committee member will select the best eight teams from the “under consideration” board, in no particular order, to be added to the at-large field:

a. When 20 or more teams are under consideration in “list” ballots, each member shall select eight teams;

b. When 14 to 19 teams are under consideration, each member shall select six or fewer teams;

c. When 13 or fewer teams are under consideration, each member shall select four teams.

3. When 24 or fewer teams remain in the pool of teams (during the selection or seeding process), a member may not participate in “list X teams” votes if a team he or she represents as a commissioner or athletics director is included in the “pool.”

4. The eight teams receiving the most votes comprise the next at-large ballot.

5. Committee members then rank the eight teams, using a “ranking” scoring system (i.e., the best team is valued at one point).

6. The four teams receiving the fewest points shall be added to the at-large field. The other four teams will be held for the next ballot.

7. Each committee member then submits a list of the best eight teams remaining on the “under consideration” board to be added to the at-large field. The four teams with the highest vote totals are added to the teams carried over from No. 6 to comprise the next at-large ballot.

8. Steps No. 5, 6 and 7 will be repeated until all at-large berths are filled.

9. If a team fails to be included among the four teams receiving the fewest points (Step No. 6) for two consecutive ”rank” ballots, it shall be returned to the “under- consideration” board, without prejudice.

10. At any time during the process, the number of teams eligible to receive votes may be increased or decreased by the chair if circumstances warrant. Further, the chair has the option to revise the number of teams from four to fewer than four to be moved into at- large berths per No. 6.

11. A team may be removed from the at-large field by a vote of all but two of the eligible votes. Such a team would be returned to the “under consideration” board, without prejudice.

12. After the completion of three rounds of secret voting, if the voting results are still tied, the Chair shall break the tie.

13. At any time during the process of selecting the at-large teams, the committee may elect to begin seeding the teams (Section II). This allows the committee to proceed while allowing time for results of games played during selection weekend.
 
Buddy DBag will be suspended for tomorrow's game and potentially the Friday match up should they spring the upset.

Would be fitting if K's final ACCT kicked off with the best player on the other team literally fouling out before the game starts.
 
Syracuse is a weird team. Do you have a strong center that can dunk lobs over the top? Do you have some wing defenders with length? Have at least one guy who can shoot over a zone? If they answers are yes, you'll beat Syracuse by 20. If the answers are no, you will lose by 20 (unless they have an off night shooting).

They'll win by 40 today and lose to Duke by 20 tomorrow.
 
Back
Top