Pete, will each model have past accuracy rate or just where it placed in the ESPN tourney challange (not sure what the scoring is per round for the ESPN pool and if it compares to the scoring I will use in my pool)? I am looking for your most accurate models that have high results on a yearly basis(around 80% the past three years have won the pool I am in based on correct picks over the years). Some of your models have a wide range of success over the years. Looking for the best of bread models. Thanks, Michael ... more » « less

Pete, will each model have past accuracy rate or just where it placed in the ESPN tourney challange (not sure what the scoring is per round for the ESPN pool and if it compares to the scoring I will use in my pool)? I am looking for your most accurate models that have high results on a yearly basis(around 80% the past three years have won the pool I am in based on correct picks over the years). Some of your models have a wide range of success over the years. Looking for the best of bread models. Thanks, Michael

Pete,

As always great stuff... I am enjoying the updates for this year very much. The percentages for an average pool win got me thinking... I went back and looked at the material for the last 25 brackets... I was amazed at the average first round only had something like 4.3 upsets (lower seed winning over a higher...) Would've thought it would've been higher, wouldn't you?

I know your bread and butter comes in the later rounds for most pools, but I've always tended to pick a few more in the earlier rounds and always finished just behind the eventual leaders/winners... thanks for getting the brain working and trying to improve that overall percentage picked correctly. ;)

Looking forward to the rest of the models!
- - Nick

P.S. - Not that kids stay a full four years, but for those that do... Ever thought of doing a bracket based on last 4 years average tourney success? With the standard seed tiebreakers used to break ties/virtual ties?
... more » « less

Pete, As always great stuff... I am enjoying the updates for this year very much. The percentages for an average pool win got me thinking... I went back and looked at the material for the last 25 brackets... I was amazed at the average first round only had something like 4.3 upsets (lower seed winning over a higher...) Would've thought it would've been higher, wouldn't you? I know your bread and butter comes in the later rounds for most pools, but I've always tended to pick a few more in the earlier rounds and always finished just behind the eventual leaders/winners... thanks for getting the brain working and trying to improve that overall percentage picked correctly. ;) Looking forward to the rest of the models! - - Nick P.S. - Not that kids stay a full four years, but for those that do... Ever thought of doing a bracket based on last 4 years average tourney success? With the standard seed tiebreakers used to break ties/virtual ties?

actually disregard my last post, because you already answered it in your last post.

actually disregard my last post, because you already answered it in your last post.

Pete,
This is off- topic, but how do you define an All- American? How would you go about finding who is an all- american?
More specifically, does Duke or Syracuse have an all- american on its roster?
Thanks,
gnrdodger

Pete, This is off- topic, but how do you define an All- American? How would you go about finding who is an all- american? More specifically, does Duke or Syracuse have an all- american on its roster? Thanks, gnrdodger

Michael...the records will be listed in each of the models. Coming soon.

Michael...the records will be listed in each of the models. Coming soon.

Pete,
Where would you go to determine the best models over the years by accuracy? Twelve is a lot of models especially when I might submit 3 in a pool that rewards accuracy (1,2,3,4,5 and 6 pts per correct pick per round). Which models works best for this type of pool?
Thanks,
MTO

Pete, Where would you go to determine the best models over the years by accuracy? Twelve is a lot of models especially when I might submit 3 in a pool that rewards accuracy (1,2,3,4,5 and 6 pts per correct pick per round). Which models works best for this type of pool? Thanks, MTO

Pete means that there are 88/100 teams that were seeded 1,2,3 or 4. Not the top 4 overall seeds.

Pete means that there are 88/100 teams that were seeded 1,2,3 or 4. Not the top 4 overall seeds.

How could there be only 12 (100- 88) non- top seed final four teams in 25 years, where only once in those 25 years had all four top seeds reached the final four?

How could there be only 12 (100- 88) non- top seed final four teams in 25 years, where only once in those 25 years had all four top seeds reached the final four?

What is the average:

Believe it or not, most bracket pools are won by someone who gets between 48 and 54 correct picks out of the 63 tourney games, depending on the size of the pool. This works out to a 76 to 85 percent accuracy rate. If that seems lower than you expected, remember that inaccurate picks in early rounds reduce the number of later- round games in which you even have a chance to be right. So three out of four ain’t too bad.

If 48 out of 63 is the benchmark of winning bracket performance, what constitutes average tourney prediction success? When you consider that even the most clueless bracketeer could adopt a strategy of advancing the higher seed in all matchups, then that should stand as the baseline for tourney prognostication. In this case, every top seed would reach the Final Four. To determine winners in the semis and finals, it would be reasonable to advance the team with the higher victory margin, since PASE stats show that this is the best tourney performance indicator.

I went back over the last 25 tourneys of the 64- team era and figured out how well the “higher seed/bigger margin” strategy would do. Here’s the year- by- year breakdown:

<IMG SRC=/blog/10baseline.gif>

The numbers show that you should be able to predict 41 or 42 out of the 63 tourney games correctly without even thinking about it. In fact, the baseline bracket picking strategy would’ve correctly identified eight of the 25 champions in the modern tourney era, including North Carolina last year, Kansas in 2009, Florida in 2007 and North Carolina in 2005. Heck, if you had used the higher seed/bigger margin strategy in 2008, you would’ve correctly pegged the Final Four, called both the finalists—and picked the winner.

Of course, this kind of late- round accuracy is an anomaly. Before 2008, all four top seeds had never reached the Final Four. And let’s face it: picking your bracket solely by seeding isn’t exactly a winning strategy. Using this approach would likely put you in contention for smaller pools in only two of the 25 years—in 2007 (49 correct answers) and in 1993 (48 correct answers).

There’s no denying that seeding is the single best determinant of a team’s tourney fate. It doesn’t take a bracket scientist to figure out that the four highest seeds have accounted for 88 of the 100 Final Four teams and won 23 of 25 tourneys in the 64- team era. The real the question is: which factors beyond seeding help improve your ability to predict tourney outcomes above the baseline accuracy of 66 percent? That will be my goal with the 12 bracket models I unveil late Sunday night and throughout Monday.
... more » « less

What is the average: Believe it or not, most bracket pools are won by someone who gets between 48 and 54 correct picks out of the 63 tourney games, depending on the size of the pool. This works out to a 76 to 85 percent accuracy rate. If that seems lower than you expected, remember that inaccurate picks in early rounds reduce the number of later- round games in which you even have a chance to be right. So three out of four ain’t too bad. If 48 out of 63 is the benchmark of winning bracket performance, what constitutes average tourney prediction success? When you consider that even the most clueless bracketeer could adopt a strategy of advancing the higher seed in all matchups, then that should stand as the baseline for tourney prognostication. In this case, every top seed would reach the Final Four. To determine winners in the semis and finals, it would be reasonable to advance the team with the higher victory margin, since PASE stats show that this is the best tourney performance indicator. I went back over the last 25 tourneys of the 64- team era and figured out how well the “higher seed/bigger margin” strategy would do. Here’s the year- by- year breakdown: <IMG SRC=/blog/10baseline.gif> The numbers show that you should be able to predict 41 or 42 out of the 63 tourney games correctly without even thinking about it. In fact, the baseline bracket picking strategy would’ve correctly identified eight of the 25 champions in the modern tourney era, including North Carolina last year, Kansas in 2009, Florida in 2007 and North Carolina in 2005. Heck, if you had used the higher seed/bigger margin strategy in 2008, you would’ve correctly pegged the Final Four, called both the finalists—and picked the winner. Of course, this kind of late- round accuracy is an anomaly. Before 2008, all four top seeds had never reached the Final Four. And let’s face it: picking your bracket solely by seeding isn’t exactly a winning strategy. Using this approach would likely put you in contention for smaller pools in only two of the 25 years—in 2007 (49 correct answers) and in 1993 (48 correct answers). There’s no denying that seeding is the single best determinant of a team’s tourney fate. It doesn’t take a bracket scientist to figure out that the four highest seeds have accounted for 88 of the 100 Final Four teams and won 23 of 25 tourneys in the 64- team era. The real the question is: which factors beyond seeding help improve your ability to predict tourney outcomes above the baseline accuracy of 66 percent? That will be my goal with the 12 bracket models I unveil late Sunday night and throughout Monday.