NCAA Basketball Forum and Discussion Board: March Madness : Baseline pool scoring
Use this forum to post questions or discuss topics with other NCAA Basketball fans.

Welcome to the new BracketScience Fan Forum
NCAA Basketball Forum » March Madness »

Baseline pool scoring
Login/Register to Post a New Comment

[ Most Recent First | Oldest First ]
    Viewing Comments 1-25    

ptiernan
Pete Tiernan
Ann Arbor, MI
Editor (Nov 2006)
567 comments posted


  Posted: 3 years ago   (2/27/11 12:06 pm)   
Edited:  18 months ago   (2/10/13 10:29 pm)
 
Baseline bracket picking performance is 63.5%, but pool winners need at least 76.2 accuracy:

I just posted my analysis on <A HREF=http:/ / www.bracketscience.com/ articles.asp?i=116>strategies for picking your Final Four and champion</ A>. In it, I pointed out that the odds of building a perfect bracket are one in nine quintillion, ... more »

rtittmann
Ray
Concord, CA
Member (Mar 2008)
9 comments posted


  3 years ago   (2/28/11 9:49 pm)   
 
You state that "There's no denying that seeding is the single best determinant of a team's tourney fate."

Is the seeding a better predictor than the pythag ratings?

It sounds like your comments about picking by seed are based on the 1- 64 "s- curve" seeding rather than simply the 1- 16 seeding. I've never been able to find the Committee's 1- 64 seeding on the web before. Is that published?

ptiernan
Pete Tiernan
Ann Arbor, MI
Editor (Nov 2006)
567 comments posted


  3 years ago   (3/1/11 2:39 pm)   
 
Hi Ray,

I think seeding is a better determinant than Pythag because a top seed always plays a 16 seed, while the best Pythag team may not. That's a bad example, but you get the point. Wisconsin was the third best Pythag team one year, but only nabbed a four seed (if memory serves). So they were saddled with a 13 then 5 seed path, ... more »

rtittmann
Ray
Concord, CA
Member (Mar 2008)
9 comments posted


  3 years ago   (3/1/11 6:33 pm)   
 
Thank you Pete. It would be interesting to compare Pythag with seedings in terms of predicting tournament success. I can't think of a good way to isolate those factors separate from the opposition they have to face.

Can you also answer the question about the S- curve? I've never been able to find the Committee's final 1- 64 rankings. Where is that published?

ptiernan
Pete Tiernan
Ann Arbor, MI
Editor (Nov 2006)
567 comments posted


  3 years ago   (3/1/11 7:49 pm)   
 
Ray, I haven't investigated the S- curve information. Lunardi talks about it a lot. But it's one stat I don't track...got enough to keep me occupied.

gjd4

Madison, WI
Member (Mar 2010)
45 comments posted


  3 years ago   (3/7/11 11:07 am)   
 
I think the "s- curve" is able to hold for the top seeds...maybe the top 4 seeds in each region. After that it gets pretty muddled with conference temas not potentially playing each other until the Elite 8 (if at all possible) and various pod system locations, travel, etc. I think the intent is that the overall top team (best ... more »

jdurham

Elmwood, IL
Member (Mar 2011)
14 comments posted


  3 years ago   (3/14/11 2:51 pm)   
 
I'm unhappy with bracketscience.com. I paid for the site, yet it says I am still in active. Does anyone know how long this usually take?

    Viewing Comments 1-25    

 



  ·  
Rules of Conduct

2014 Bracket Science LLC
ActiveFan Sports Network