My impression is Lunardi is hijacking the selection process. It seems that many view his brackets as "the brackets" and seem to forget it's just one person's guess.
Here is a proposal, what do you see as the problem with it?
Starting Feb 1, the official NCAA should publish weekly brackets. This would be the official brackets if the season ended at that point. So everyone knows where they stand. Further, starting with conference tourney week (which would be this week), they should publish daily brackets.
The NCAA makes over a billion dollars, they can afford to put together a committee that can do this. Lunardi does it for a tiny fraction of the cost all by himself.
This would spark controversy and discussion about NCAA basketball and only serve to heighten interest in the sport.
Thoughts?
Because establishing the bracket is a lengthy process that involves a committee getting together.
Quote from: marqptm on March 12, 2010, 12:26:57 PM
Because establishing the bracket is a lengthy process that involves a committee getting together.
It is simply a WAY more complicated process than we all want to recognize it as. Dealing with positioning and geographical implications that they consider for placements, etc. and the NCAA would not want to get pigeonholed by having said something one week then it changing the next... too much of an opportunity for unnecessary criticism
- It could be perceived as being biased.
- There is so much buzz regarding brackets for other markets that do it for the NCAA for free. Fantastic advertising for free.
Also, this would devalue the NCAA selection show on CBS.
Furthermore, why would you say that Lunardi is "hijacking" the process? Maybe from a fan's point of view, but I doubt the committee spends two seconds listening to what he has to say.
The NCAA isn't getting shown up by one guy's imagination just because he has a big network as his acting publicist. As Buzz says, it's all a fairy tale. There have been thousands of brackets and a hundred potential opponents over the last couple of months. Why should the NCAA essentially tell us which teams are in or out, where they may or may not play, and who they may or may not play at any moment before 6:00 PM EST on Selection Sunday?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 12, 2010, 01:43:23 PM
Furthermore, why would you say that Lunardi is "hijacking" the process? Maybe from a fan's point of view, but I doubt the committee spends two seconds listening to what he has to say.
When one of Lunardi's "in" gets left off or visa versa, the committee is going to be asked to explain itself. Hence, he has hijacked the process. Even though the committee probably doesn't look at Lunardi's work, they are being compared to it.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 12, 2010, 07:07:41 PM
When one of Lunardi's "in" gets left off or visa versa, the committee is going to be asked to explain itself. Hence, he has hijacked the process. Even though the committee probably doesn't look at Lunardi's work, they are being compared to it.
Who cares? Questioning the selection committee has existed long before Joe Lunardi came around. He has no influence on the process.
Because the selection committee members all have day jobs.
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on March 12, 2010, 11:46:16 PM
Because the selection committee members all have day jobs.
As I said before, the tourney makes over $1 billion. It is not big business, it is HUGE business. This is not an excuse.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 13, 2010, 04:23:37 PM
As I said before, the tourney makes over $1 billion. It is not big business, it is HUGE business. This is not an excuse.
So they should employ the selection committee full time just so they can put out weekly brackets???
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 13, 2010, 05:43:08 PM
So they should employ the selection committee full time just so they can put out weekly brackets???
The pay them full-time now to work one weekend.
They could get guys that have available time, like ex-coaches (Bobby Knight). I picked Knight because he has been highly critical of the selection committee. According to Knight, only 4 of the 10 have "basketball experience." Knight implies the other six spots are "payoffs" by the NCAA to their "friends."
I'm sure they would not have trouble finding 10 qualified people willing to do this. The question is do they want to.
Isn't the RPI's popularity because the selection committee said they use it? Go all the way, publish brackets the first week of February and adjust it every week. Conference tourney week publish it everyday.
The committee has been meeting all week and they have a board right now. They adjust it everyday during conference tourney week based on that day's results. Why not make it public. What's wrong with a little transparency? Does transparency make it hard for the NCAA to reward the undeserving (like they do when a bubble team has a retiring coach)?
This is from Rosiak's latest. If you're concerned about paying 10 people. Here are a bunch that would do it, and are qualified.
•ESPN.com's Joe Lunardi - 9 seed vs. Texas (1 seed - Duke)
•CBSSports.com's Jerry Palm - 9 seed vs. Richmond (1 seed - Duke)
•The Sporting News' Ryan Fagan - 7 seed. Listed as 10 seeds - Georgia Tech, Florida, Wake Forest, Old Dominion
•The Bracket Project - 8 seed vs. St. Mary's (Calif.) (1 seed - Kansas)
•Yahoo Sports' Brad Evans - 7 seed. MU is the last 7 seed listed; the top 10 seed is Missouri
•NBCSports.com's Mike Miller - 7 seed vs. Utah State
•Rivals.com's Mike Huguenin - 7 seed. Listed as 10 seeds - Louisville, St. Mary's, Georgia Tech, Old Dominion
•MySanAntonio.com's Stephen Fontenot - 8 seed. Listed as 9 seeds - St. Mary's, Florida State, Missouri, Louisville
•Bracketology 101 (which FoxSports.com uses) - 9 seed. Listed as 8 seeds - Northern Iowa, Oklahoma State, Clemson, Notre Dame
•The Columbus Dispatch's Bob Baptist - 8 seed. Listed as 9 seeds - Wake Forest, Oklahoma State, Florida State, UNLV
•Bracketville - 7 seed vs. Utah State
•Collegehoops.net's Shawn Siegel - 9 seed. Listed as 8 seeds - Gonzaga, Texas, Notre Dame, Florida State
•RealtimeRPI.com - 10 seed vs. Gonzaga
•The Hoops Report - 6 seed vs. San Diego State
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 13, 2010, 06:06:39 PM
. The committee has been meeting all week and they have a board right now. They adjust it everyday during conference tourney week based on that day's results. Why not make it public. What's wrong with a little transparency? Does transparency make it hard for the NCAA to reward the undeserving (like they do when a bubble team has a retiring coach)?
It would suck the fun and suspense out of the selection process. Would we need to know going into the Nova game that they thought we were a 9 seed? So we lose and try to make it a 10? Then again, who knows with all the other matchups. It's a fairy tale, just as Buzz says it is. People get all worked up over the matchup that one of these people with a network publicist, who may or may not even do half the work writes on their website. There have been 30 or 40 potential opponents in the last two weeks, and NONE of them matter, it's always changing. You don't need to know what the jury is saying in their deliberations just because you're nosy. If you want to play fairy tale, turn on college basketball's Nancy Grace, Mr. Joe Lunardi and enjoy.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 13, 2010, 06:06:39 PM
The pay them full-time now to work one weekend.
Um, no.
The chair of the committee this year, Dan Guerrero, is the AD at UCLA. He was on CBS at halftime of one of the games yesterday and joked about how they get paid the big bucks to do this - $75 per diem.