Did ESPN bracketology expert Joe Lunardi reveal that he has inside information?
Lunardi correctly 'predicted' Tennessee as a 3-seed despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary
As Selection Sunday played out, most sports commentators predicted that Tennessee would be at least a two-seed when the NCAA Selection Committee released its tournament brackets. Some speculated that the Vols might even make a push for a one-seed if they defeated Texas A&M in the SEC Tournament championship game.
Tennessee did defeat the Aggies, 65-50 to capture the program’s first SEC Tournament title since 1979, which only served to increase the speculation that the Vols would be at least a two-seed in the brackets.
ESPN’s bracketology expert, Joe Lunardi, wasn’t buying it.
Lunardi predicted that Tennessee would be a 3-seed even after the Vols defeated potential 1-seed Kentucky in the tournament semifinal on Saturday. And he continued to steadfastly predict the Vols as a 3-seed on Sunday, as Tennessee was wrapping up the SEC championship, despite projected 2-seed Duke — which had an inferior resume to Tennessee — losing to Virginia Tech in the ACC Tournament championship game.
He was, of course, correct. Tennessee is the 3-seed in the South Region and will face 14-seed Longwood at 2:45 pm on Thursday. The winner will face the winner of No. 6 Colorado State and No. 11 Michigan on Saturday.
Tennessee fans were, predictably, irate. Irate that Kentucky drew a No. 2 seed and a very favorable path to a potential Final Four appearance. Irate that Auburn drew a No. 2 seed. But perhaps most irate that Duke was handed a No. 2 seed, despite being crushed by the Vols in almost every metric.
From Dick Vitale to Barrett Sallee, sports commentators were mind-boggled that Tennessee slipped to a 3-seed despite what was by any measure an impressive tournament resume.
On ESPN, Rece Davis grilled Lunardi as to why Tennessee was a 3-seed rather than a 2-seed. Lunardi sounded defensive.
“I absolutely knew it was going to shake out this way,” Lunardi said.
“Why?” Davis asked.
“Because these Sunday games, year after year after year, don’t matter,” Lunardi said.
“What about the Saturday game with Tennessee and Kentucky?” Davis asked.
“We’re looking at a Tennessee team that tied for second in the SEC, okay?” Lunardi said. “And I - I - I just believed the committee was not going to put them ahead of the Big East champion in Villanova. And they weren’t going to put them ahead of Duke, certainly, even though you could argue resume from now til next season.”
Lunardi went on to say “everything on my board said (Tennessee) was a three. And I kept listening to you guys all day, and I kept thinking ‘That’s not gonna happen, that’s not gonna happen.’”
But why was the committee “certainly” going to put Duke ahead of Tennessee, despite the Vols’ superior resume? Was it the name on the front of the jersey? The fact that this is the last NCAA Tournament for Mike Krzyzewski? Davis wasn’t buying the “my board said Tennessee was a three” argument from Lunardi and continued to press him on the matter.
“You said everything on your board. What was it on your board that had them ahead of Tennessee?” Davis asked.
Lunardi didn’t have an answer.
“Well, I’ve been aggragating metrics long before there was such a thing and long before there was the ‘net,” Lunardi said. “It’s all classified, of course.”
So the answer is that Lunardi has a secret algorithm that predicted Tennessee behind Duke despite overwhelming evidence that the Vols are a better team than the Blue Devils?
It was a nonsensical non-answer, and predictably enough, Lunardi was ridiculed on social media.
Many have correctly pointed out in defense of Lunardi that his job isn’t to explain the committee’s stance; his job is to predict the committee’s decisions, and he obviously got it right.
But as ridicule of the Selection Committee ratcheted up, Lunardi didn’t act like someone who is unaffiliated with the committee. In fact, he doubled down when CBS senior basketball analyst Matt Norlander called the Vols’ seeding “damning as hell for the committee.”
Norlander tweeted a comparison of Tennessee’s resume to Duke’s and said, “The more I see, the more I think Tennessee is one of the worst mis-seedings in tournament history.”
Lunardi didn’t have to respond. Norlander’s tweet was about the Selection Committee — not him. But he couldn’t resist.
“All due respect, and I’ll likely have the Vols in my Final Four, but it’s not in the top 50 of bad seeds in my 25+ years,” Lunardi said. "Further, it’s telling that no one mentions the last No. 2 seed (Villanova) beat Tennessee by 18 on a neutral court.”
Yes, that’s the same Lunardi who told us that Tennessee’s late-season head-to-head wins over Arkansas, Auburn and Kentucky didn’t matter also telling us that an early-season head-to-head loss to Villanova does matter.
Lunardi has always been respected as a bracketology expert, and he’s certainly got a good track record. But after the way Sunday unfolded, it’s crystal clear that Lunardi is right at least part of the time because he’s being fed information from the inside. There’s no way anyone could have predicted Duke a 2-seed and Tennessee a 3-seed based on all the metrics that supposedly matter. But Lunardi predicted it, and when grilled about it, he couldn’t give an answer based on the data, but instead defaulted to his super-secret formula.
Lunardi knew what was coming down because he has friends on the committee. Which also explains why he’s so defensive about the committee’s decision and is using Twitter to carry the committee’s water.