Bracketology

Status
Not open for further replies.
#101      

FreshlySqueezed

FreshlySqueezed
FreshlySqueezed
This is my last comment on this since I am just repeating myself. They haven't actually beaten anyone. Beating the crap out of mediocre teams is one way to improve efficiency numbers. But to be a top 10 team, you have to actually beat good teams.

The computers' data is incomplete. They have less quad 1 wins than approximately 80 other teams. Saying they are a top 10 team would require ignoring a large amount of data.
 
#102      

grue2

G
grue2
OrangeBlue98 said:
I’ll continue to say this. As a person who makes his living in financial analysis, blindly following stats and data is a bad approach. At some point, humans have to provide the context that computers cannot provide.

Blindly following data is like the scene in The Office where they drive into the lake because GPS told them to drive in that direction.
Click to expand...
I'll argue that the "context" mentioned above is missing data that should have been fed to the algorithm.
 
#103      

OrangeBlue98

OrangeBlue98
Des Moines, IA
OrangeBlue98
NoRival said:
I don't miss the Groce years of hoping we will sneak into the NCAA tournament.

Debating over how good our seed will be is such a blessing.
Click to expand...
How ironic is it right now that some projections are pointing toward an Illinois-Akron (Groce) matchup.

Of course the NCAA wants to have that type of first-round matchup.
 
#104      

FreshlySqueezed

FreshlySqueezed
FreshlySqueezed
That's assuming that computers are capable of capturing and analyzing *all* data. And I think that's a very faulty assumption.
 
#105      

Navy_illini

N
Navy_illini
ever said:
Auburn at #4 in KenPom is an outlier even among computers, so I'm not looking at that either. Avg of various computer ranks is more like 8/9, and Vegas has them around #7. To go against that consensus (i e. not even a 3 seed) to me would require some very unusual "contextual" information or a different motivation, otherwise it sounds like cherry picking to make a narrative.
Click to expand...
Look at their resume and you see why they are #4. Lots of blow out wins. They seem to have South Carolina number

A team like Auburn is why the quad system is used. They are 1-7 in quad 1 games. Best win is at home against Bama. They didn’t beat UK Tennessee Florida and split games with Bama.

They are good enough to be a 3 seed but they don’t have the conference or non conference wins. They probably will be an under seeded team
 
#106      

Illini2010-11

I
Sugar Grove
Illini2010-11
grue2 said:
I'll argue that the "context" mentioned above is missing data that should have been fed to the algorithm.
Click to expand...
100% disagree. There will always be some sorts of elements that will not be able to be fully accounted for in data algorithms alone. An example being key injuries, garbage minutes with backups in from some teams while other teams run score up with starters, sickness running through team, etc.

The key is that those analyzing data are subject matter experts in the topic, which committee members are. Some of you act like these committee members are random guys picked up at the local sports bar. These members understand the game of college basketball.

I guess I don't understand such resistance to the blended approach we have. Sure, there are some puzzing seeds/teams selected by the committee, but algorithms without analysts are also prone to mistakes.
 
#107      

grue2

G
grue2
Illini2010-11 said:
100% disagree. There will always be some sorts of elements that will not be able to be fully accounted for in data algorithms alone. An example being key injuries, garbage minutes with backups in from some teams while other teams run score up with starters, sickness running through team, etc.

The key is that those analyzing data are subject matter experts in the topic, which committee members are. Some of you act like these committee members are random guys picked up at the local sports bar. These members understand the game of college basketball.

I guess I don't understand such resistance to the blended approach we have. Sure, there are some puzzing seeds/teams selected by the committee, but algorithms without analysts are also prone to mistakes.
Click to expand...
I've not claimed the algorithms are ready yet. Much of what you mentioned can fairly easily be added to AI algorithms. E.g. recognizing garbage time play, and accounting of injuries and sickness (if told of the injury/sickness).
 
#108      

ever

E
ever
Illini2010-11 said:
100% disagree. There will always be some sorts of elements that will not be able to be fully accounted for in data algorithms alone. An example being key injuries, garbage minutes with backups in from some teams while other teams run score up with starters, sickness running through team, etc.

The key is that those analyzing data are subject matter experts in the topic, which committee members are. Some of you act like these committee members are random guys picked up at the local sports bar. These members understand the game of college basketball.

I guess I don't understand such resistance to the blended approach we have. Sure, there are some puzzing seeds/teams selected by the committee, but algorithms without analysts are also prone to mistakes.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're correctly understanding what's being said by those you disagree with. Vegas is equipped to add context, and in the case of Auburn, they don't think there's reason to disagree with the avg of the computers.

The way things have gone this year, there simply aren't enough teams without blemishes to fill the top 10. So whatever someone can come up with to argue against Auburn (i.e. no big wins), there's just as good (if not better) reason why the other teams don't belong (i.e. some bad losses).

Perhaps it's human nature to think a team is better represented by its ceiling than it's floor, but it isn't that simple.

Edit: so I agree computers don't currently have all the possible information (but come very close in most situations), but the supposed arguments against Auburn don't include such types of information, nor do betting lines suggest there is much.
 
#110      

Illini2010-11

I
Sugar Grove
Illini2010-11
In other news, the path to Houston being #1 overall is clear as day now. I think most of us assumed Purdue would be playing on Sunday. #1 overall will now either be Houston or UCONN (unless both lose today).
 
#111      

grue2

G
grue2
ever said:
I don't think you're correctly understanding what's being said by those you disagree with. Vegas is equipped to add context, and in the case of Auburn, they don't think there's reason to disagree with the avg of the computers.

The way things have gone this year, there simply aren't enough teams without blemishes to fill the top 10. So whatever someone can come up with to argue against Auburn (i.e. no big wins), there's just as good (if not better) reason why the other teams don't belong (i.e. some bad losses).

Perhaps it's human nature to think a team is better represented by its ceiling than it's floor, but it isn't that simple.

Edit: so I agree computers don't currently have all the possible information (but come very close in most situations), but the supposed arguments against Auburn don't include such types of information, nor do betting lines suggest there is much.
Click to expand...
I'll agree that I'm clearly not understanding some things. I'll start with this note. What was the argument being made? I missed it.

This seems to mention two types of seeding: 1) Who do we think are the best teams and will win, and 2) Who do we want to reward/punish for playing good/bad schedules? Both can be done by a computer if they are told that both are part of the algorithm. What extra piece was being claimed? Algorithms throw out bad data points all the time, e.g. the one Q3 loss by an otherwise top 10 team.

Confused
 
#112      

FreshlySqueezed

FreshlySqueezed
FreshlySqueezed
Individual player statistics are far from perfect. Any evaluation that takes individual statistics into account immediately loses a ton of credibility.
 
#114      

Illini2010-11

I
Sugar Grove
Illini2010-11
IndyILL said:
Dan Gavitt senior NCAA official just said on CBS interview that ALL conference championships will be taken into account in seeding the teams...
Click to expand...
I hope so. With so little separating teams ranked between 4-16, even one game can make a difference.

If they actually do, a lot of brackets will be drawn up tonight to account for Sunday games.
 
#115      

ever

E
ever
The Purdue #1 overall argument just got a bit weaker.

I jumped into the discussion about whether Auburn should be viewed higher than the bracket projections anticipate (or to a lesser degree Houston relative to Purdue, which is moot now).

I think that since an average of various computer rankings and Vegas both have Auburn substantially higher (i.e. 7-9) than their anticipated seed (4), there has to be a unique argument to justify that. You'd be saying that the computers are wrong and betting markets are skewed by dumb money. That could happen, but there's some burden of proof to suggest that, and pointing to their lack of premier wins doesn't seem sufficient since that's the sort of information algorithms are good at incorporating, and all the other teams have blemishes too, so you can't just look at the worst part of Auburn's record.

In a general sense, I'm arguing that an aggregate of computer ranking systems and Vegas together form a pretty strong representation of team ranking, and when the committee goes significantly against that, they're likely to be "wrong" or, as you say, motivated by different things than past record or expected performance.
 
Last edited:
#122      

Piotyr

P
Piotyr
2qtslow said:
Is a 3 seed locked up?

Is a 2 seed possible?
Click to expand...
A 3 seed should be locked up now, but who knows exactly how the committee thinks. A 2 seed would be a tough ask without a win against Purdue. Especially with Marquette and Iowa State playing in championships tonight against guaranteed 1 seeds.

Here's how I see things now:

Top 3 1 seeds (locked): Houston, Purdue, UConn
Fourth 1 seed (seemingly locked now): North Carolina
Top 2 2 seeds (locked): Tennessee, Arizona
Latter 2 2 seeds: Marquette, Iowa State
3 seeds: Creighton, Baylor, Illinois
Last 3 seed, 4 seeds: Auburn, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, Alabama

So I'd say Illinois is definitely 11th at worst right now. Even if they lose tomorrow, they won't fall below 11th. If you have them 9th now, to get to 8th they'd have to pass Marquette or Iowa State, and Illinois would need a much better resume to get ahead of Marquette since they had a head to head home loss to them early.

Maybe you could talk yourself into it with a win tomorrow and a big Iowa State loss today, but it's a slim chance.
 
#123      

OrangeBlue98

OrangeBlue98
Des Moines, IA
OrangeBlue98
ever said:
I don't think you're correctly understanding what's being said by those you disagree with. Vegas is equipped to add context, and in the case of Auburn, they don't think there's reason to disagree with the avg of the computers.

The way things have gone this year, there simply aren't enough teams without blemishes to fill the top 10. So whatever someone can come up with to argue against Auburn (i.e. no big wins), there's just as good (if not better) reason why the other teams don't belong (i.e. some bad losses).

Perhaps it's human nature to think a team is better represented by its ceiling than it's floor, but it isn't that simple.

Edit: so I agree computers don't currently have all the possible information (but come very close in most situations), but the supposed arguments against Auburn don't include such types of information, nor do betting lines suggest there is much.
Click to expand...
Why would we even consider data used by gamblers? It’s called “gambling” for a reason.
 
#124      

CleverHandle1

C
CleverHandle1
2qtslow said:
Is a 3 seed locked up?

Is a 2 seed possible?
Click to expand...
I posited earlier in the week a possible #2, but realistically, there is no chance at this point. I definitely think by winning yesterday, Illinois secured a #3 seed. Today and possibly tomorrow going well, the Illini can improve to a better #3 seed, I think.
 
#125      

Piotyr

P
Piotyr
Put similarly, this is how T-Rank live bracketology update sees things:
1710628366930.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.