? About ESPN bracketology

[maccca3232]

Here are his results from last year. Less accurate than I expected.

• He only missed 1 team. (Rutgers instead of Oklahoma selected). I would expect 0-1.
• He got 56% team's seed correct and 88% within 1 seed. So only 8 teams missed by >1 seed.
• Though only 17 of 64 perfect (27%) i.e. Seed + Regional.

I find them an interesting read but not worthy of FOMO.

 

[Plebe]

Here are his results from last year. Less accurate than I expected.

• He only missed 1 team. (Rutgers instead of Oklahoma selected). I would expect 0-1.
• He got 56% team's seed correct and 88% within 1 seed. So only 8 teams missed by >1 seed.
• Though only 17 of 64 perfect (27%) i.e. Seed + Regional.

I find them an interesting read but not worthy of FOMO.

View attachment 40119

This is actually pretty darn good, if you ask me. To predict 97% of the at-large field correctly and to get 88% of the field within one seed line is quite good. Let's recall that the committee can move teams up or down a seed line in order to achieve a "better" bracket (in its estimation). Regional placement is inherently unpredictable because it can be impacted in a domino effect by widely varying permutations of decisions.

 

[Centerstream]

And everything you just outlined can be written into a program and weighted by whatever priority you choose.

And every program ever written (possibly with the exception of NASA) will have bugs in it, guaranteed. The more conditions/variables in it, the bigger the chances.

 

[oldude]

And every program ever written (possibly with the exception of NASA) will have bugs in it, guaranteed. The more conditions/variables in it, the bigger the chances.

Just to be clear. I’m playing devils advocate by suggesting a completely computerized selection process in answer to those who want to trash the work of the committee or Charlie Creme’s projected brackets.

There is, of course, no perfect system. As Geno suggests, teams need to take care of what they can control and not worry about where they’re sent and who they play.

 

[Centerstream]

Just to be clear. I’m playing devils advocate by suggesting a completely computerized selection process in answer to those who want to trash the work of the committee or Charlie Creme’s projected brackets.

There is, of course, no perfect system. As Geno suggests, teams need to take care of what they can control and not worry about where they’re sent and who they play.

No problem and I understand you being devil's advocate.
I was basing my post on the fact that I was a software tester for the final 25 years of my working life. No matter how many times some program has been tested, once placed into production, an issue will come up.
I am a Charlie basher but only because the Committee puts out a couple Top 16s during the season and the only bracket that matters is the Committee's final decision.

 

[maccca3232]

This is actually pretty darn good, if you ask me. To predict 97% of the at-large field correctly and to get 88% of the field within one seed line is quite good. Let's recall that the committee can move teams up or down a seed line in order to achieve a "better" bracket (in its estimation). Regional placement is inherently unpredictable because it can be impacted in a domino effect by widely varying permutations of decisions.

Well after completing the 2017 data I might have to agree with you.

Here are the results from 2016-17 season.

• He only missed 2 teams. (Michigan and Virginia instead of UNI and California selected).
• He got 47% team's seed correct and 80% within 1 seed. So only 13 teams missed by >1 seed.
• 8 of 64 perfect (13%) i.e. Seed + Regional.

If anyone knows a source I can get final Bracketology from prior season I can post those.

 

[SVCBeercats]

How often is Creme’s final bracket the same as the actual one? Anyone ever do an analysis?

I noticed your post again. Perhaps Charlie is not trying to match the NCAA committee's bracket selections. Perhaps he is trying to contrast his view of the brackets with the NCAA's version and explain why he is correct and where and why they are wrong. I actually believe this is his goal.

 

[Plebe]

I noticed your post again. Perhaps Charlie is not trying to match the NCAA committee's bracket selections. Perhaps he is trying to contrast his view of the brackets with the NCAA's version and explain why he is correct and where and why they are wrong. I actually believe this is his goal.

No, this is not the case. He has repeatedly stressed that his role is to predict the committee's decisions, not promote his own views. When the committee's midseason reveals have differed from his predictions, he has adjusted his subsequent brackets to conform to the reveals.

 

[SVCBeercats]

No, this is not the case. He has repeatedly stressed that his role is to predict the committee's decisions, not promote his own views. When the committee's midseason reveals have differed from his predictions, he has adjusted his subsequent brackets to conform to the reveals.

Disagree. His actions say otherwise. He was on halftime for one of UCONN games and he was railing about how the NCAA don't half the top 16 right and used his model as an example.

 

[Plebe]

Disagree. His actions say otherwise. He was on halftime for one of UCONN games and he was railing about how the NCAA don't half the top 16 right and used his model as an example.

What you're talking about is something different. He's often criticized the committee's decisions when he feels they've departed from their usual criteria or practices. In this latest case he criticized not the top 16 per se but the competitive imbalance across regions.

But that didn't stop him from changing his subsequent brackets based on what the committee had revealed. This is why he currently has overall #6 Mississippi State going to Greensboro to potentially face #1 Baylor.

 

[DefenseBB]

I am reminded of the exchange in the bar in Good Will Hunting when Matt Damen interjects on Ben Affleck's behalf against the Michael Bolton look alike and they debate history and the "modalities of southern economies" and at the end Casey Affleck says "My boy's wicked smaht"...
That's the way I feel about my main man @Plebe when it comes to his NCAAT debate...

 

[SVCBeercats]

What you're talking about is something different. He's often criticized the committee's decisions when he feels they've departed from their usual criteria or practices. In this latest case he criticized not the top 16 per se but the competitive imbalance across regions.

But that didn't stop him from changing his subsequent brackets based on what the committee had revealed. This is why he currently has overall #6 Mississippi State going to Greensboro to potentially face #1 Baylor.

You are wrong! No way is he trying to match the committee's selections. No wonder you are plebe.

 

[SVCBeercats]

I am reminded of the exchange in the bar in Good Will Hunting when Matt Damen interjects on Ben Affleck's behalf against the Michael Bolton look alike and they debate history and the "modalities of southern economies" and at the end Casey Affleck says "My boy's wicked smaht"...
That's the way I feel about my main man @Plebe when it comes to his NCAAT debate...

New word for you to learn - sycophant.

 

[maccca3232]

Here is a link to the "2018-19 Creme Bracketology" data I created for year-to-date.

Tabs are:

• Data
• Regions
• Seeds
• Teams
• Conferences

I prefer Excel but you can't upload, so I have transferred to Google docs.