Are you suggesting Kansas lied?That's a pretty big change in his status in basically 48 hours.
Are you suggesting Kansas lied?That's a pretty big change in his status in basically 48 hours.
Nor will New Mexico beat Baylor and Arizona back to back.Would be awesome. Although, seems to work more like a random generation than an actual likely possibility. No way Northwestern beats UCONN without Ty Berry.
Change that 6 to a 5 and we have a chance; otherwise, …I'll go with 9-6.
0% chance?Nor will New Mexico beat Baylor and Arizona back to back.
I assumed it had probability built into the model. Maybe even incorporating some of Evan Maya’s secret formula.
Try kentucky, Purdue, Baylor and illini...for a final 4 simulationWas running bracket simulations on EvanMiya just for fun, and this was the 4th or 5th one I ran. I'd take it...
View attachment 32397
Try kentucky, Purdue, Baylor and illini...for a final 4 simulation
First round will be decent, but the second round will be a blood bath. There are a lot of 8 and 9 seeds in there.I'm putting my beach house on 16-15 and Kenpom #293 Wagner. It just feels right.
Anyone want to predict the BIG record for the tournament?
To extend my thoughts, I plotted MasseyComposite rank (an average of 50+ ranking systems, mostly computer-based) against NCAA champion betting odds. This isn't a completely fair comparison, since betting odds now take into account the actual draw rather than just each team's ability.Yeah, once again "advanced metrics" (specifically the NET rankings) display their weakness.
It would be a good test to go back and apply the same analysis with data from the beginning of previous seasons' tournaments to see how closely the data matches real world tournament outcome . . . .To extend my thoughts, I plotted MasseyComposite rank (an average of 50+ ranking systems, mostly computer-based) against NCAA champion betting odds. This isn't a completely fair comparison, since betting odds now take into account the actual draw rather than just each team's ability.
The computer rankings think more highly of Houston (have them essentially tied for #1 while bettors give UConn an 18% chance vs 12% for Houston, which is the 2nd highest odds but close to #3), Auburn (4th vs 7th), Iowa St (5 vs 8), Illinois (9 vs 13), and Gonzaga (15 vs 18).
Computer rankings think less highly of UConn (tied for 1st vs clear favorite), Arizona (6th vs 4th), Kentucky (16 vs 11), Florida (23 vs 19) and NC State (57 vs 34).
There are others with sizable differences in rank, but they occur further down where teams are really bunched together anyway. There really aren't any major outliers other than the limitation in quantifying how far apart the top few teams are. So either the computers are doing a pretty good job or the betting market is mistakenly relying on them. If it's the latter, then smart money should have an easy time with this, and I doubt that's the case.
Yeah, that would be interesting. If I get some time, I might look into that if it's easy enough to find/process the data.It would be a good test to go back and apply the same analysis with data from the beginning of previous seasons' tournaments to see how closely the data matches real world tournament outcome . . . .
100%, I would argue the committee isn’t leaning into the analytics enough.From ESPN's story today: "Izzo said Wednesday that he agrees with St. John's coach Rick Pitino, who argued the NCAA tournament selection committee needs more input from former players and coaches rather than relying so heavily on athletic directors dissecting analytics."
The irony is that the committee chose Virginia (#54 NET) over Indiana St (#28) and St John's (#32), and that Michigan St was close to the bubble (#24). So while I think there are better approaches than the NET, the committee would have done better with more input from analytics and less from ADs/commissioners disregarding analytics.
Yeah, Pitino and Izzo have huge "old man yells at cloud" energy here. The analytics didn't matter enough.100%, I would argue the committee isn’t leaning into the analytics enough.
If they leaned into the analytics more, St John’s or Indiana St would’ve gotten in over Virgina.
They wouldn’t have seeded 4 top 10 KenPom teams in the same quadrant.
And they wouldn’t have given Loyola a 9 seed as the #8 team in KenPom or Houston a 5 seed as the #4 team in KenPom.
They've basically had three Loyolas in a row. There would be nothing left of this board but a steaming crater if this had been us.I had no idea it was so bad
Frank Schwab: Ah, the Purdue conundrum. The Boilermakers have lost to No. 13, 15 and 16 seeds the past three NCAA tournaments. It’s hard to ignore that. But this Purdue team has an unstoppable force in Zach Edey and is also a great 3-point shooting team (40.8%, second in the nation). If you ignored the previous tournament disasters, there’s no reason to not trust Purdue to make the Final Four. But it’s a little scary given the ghosts of Fairleigh Dickinson.
March Madness: Last-minute men's bracket tips to help your title chances
Time is running out to submit your tourney bracket. Scott Pianowski has some final words of wisdom to guide your picks.sports.yahoo.com
Last year, as a No. 1 seed, they lost to 16th-seeded Fairleigh Dickinson. The year before, as a No. 2 seed, they lost to 15th-seeded Saint Peter’s in the Sweet 16....
Roundtable: Which top team is the most susceptible to losing early in the 2024 NCAA Tournament?
The most exciting time of the year is here for college basketball fans: March Madness.dailycampus.com
In 2021, Purdue lost in its backyard (Indianapolis) to No. 13 seed North Texas in the first round
Purdue’s meltdown vs. Fairleigh Dickinson was an utter disaster - Sports Illustrated
The Boilermakers’ disastrous loss to Fairleigh Dickinson is the worst of a trifecta of NCAA tournament catastrophes.www.si.com
And yes, it's no coincidence that there's one particular team who is in based on every metric but got left out of the actual field.Yeah, Pitino and Izzo have huge "old man yells at cloud" energy here. The analytics didn't matter enough.
Really, what the committee is doing right now is too arbitrary, and having past players weigh in is just more arbitrary and would lead to teams getting in based on team history rather than team performance.
What I think they should do is one of two things:
1. Allow teams into the bracket based on resume, then seed based on metrics: If the team's resume should matter, then fine, make it matter. Two solid resume analytics are Wins Above Bubble (WAB) and Strength of Record (SOR).
Based on WAB, these teams would be included that weren't: Indiana State, Princeton, Oklahoma.
Based on WAB, these teams would be excluded that made it: Mississippi State, Michigan State, Texas A&M
Based on SOR, these teams would be included that weren't: Oklahoma, Indiana State, Seton Hall, Princeton
Based on SOR, these teams would be excluded that made it: Texas A&M, Michigan State, Colorado State, Boise State
2. Allow teams into the bracket based on metrics: Just go all in on metrics if you want. Use an assortment of NET, KP, T-Rank, EvanMiya, BPI, ELO, whatever you like. Put the best teams in the tournament, and use a metrics that is difficult to game if you prefer.
By KP, teams would be included but aren't: St. John's, Wake Forest, Villanova, Cincinnati, Pitt, Indiana State
By KP, teams would be excluded but made it: Texas A&M, Northwestern, Utah State, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington State
By NET, teams would be included but aren't: Indiana State, Villanova, Pitt, Cincinnati, St. John's
By NET, teams would be excluded but made it: Washington State, Texas A&M, South Carolina, Northwestern, Virginia
So, Pitino and Izzo, don't blame the metrics, they have you in the tournament. Blame the committee that were inconsistent in their application of the metrics.
That's not true, Loyola was good that year.They've basically had three Loyolas in a row. There would be nothing left of this board but a steaming crater if this had been us.
A tragedy we had to suffer through the disaster that is UVA instead of giving this guy his One Shining Moment...And yes, it's no coincidence that there's one particular team who is in based on every metric but got left out of the actual field.