Evaluating Bracketology Prognostications

[YKCornelius]

Like every year, a lot of folks take issue with Charlie Crème’s bracketology. Rather than simply criticizing his projections, I thought it would be interesting to come up with a scoring methodology to evaluate bracketology prognostications. My premise is that most WBB fans can identify approximately 90% of the 36 at-large teams that will be selected. The tricky part that separates the knowledgeable fan from the amateur bracketologist, is (a) identifying the last 3-4 at-large teams, and (b) seeding the Top 16. Taking it one step further, what separates the amateur from the professional bracketologist should be the degree to which the prognostications are correct.

So, just for fun, I came up with the following scoring to assess the efficacy of any bracketology projections:

Category A. Correctly identifying the seeding of each of the Top 16 teams. 1 point for identifying each Top 16 team, 1 additional point for placing it on the correct seed line, and 2 more points for placing it into the correct region bracket. Maximum points in this category: 64. An outstanding score for this category: 56 points;

Category B. Correctly identifying the “Last Four In” teams (as evidenced by the two at-large play-in match-ups; bracket placement doesn’t matter): 2 points for each team correctly identified, and 2 points for each correct play-in match-up. Maximum points in this category: 12. Outstanding score for this category: 8 points;

Category C. Correctly identifying the “Last Four Byes” teams (as evidenced by the at-large seeding, separate from the four at-large teams playing-in; bracket placement doesn’t matter): 2 points for each team correctly identified. Maximum points in this category: 8. Outstanding score for this category: 6 points;

Category D. Correctly identifying the four teams on seed lines 5 through 8 (not according to region bracket – just who they are). 1 point for each team. Maximum points in this category: 16. Outstanding score for this category: 12 points;

Total maximum points from all four categories: 100. Although the sum of all of the outstanding scores for the above categories is 82 points, I would submit anything above an 80 should be worthy of admiration.

How do you think you would score? Along the same lines, what do you think would be a "passing grade" as opposed to an "outstanding" one?

After Selection Sunday ends, I will provide Charlie Creme’s overall grade using this scoring methodology, in case anyone wants to compare their bracketology acumen against that of the renown Mr. Creme. Not

Finally, please don’t take this post as an indictment of Charlie’s bracketology projections. It is not. Although he undoubtedly makes good money (for doing what I would gladly do for half the pay ), outside of his broader ESPN family he is probably criticized more than he is applauded. A tough assignment, to say the least.

 

[Bama fan]

Like every year, a lot of folks take issue with Charlie Crème’s bracketology. Rather than simply criticizing his projections, I thought it would be interesting to come up with a scoring methodology to evaluate bracketology prognostications. My premise is that most WBB fans can identify approximately 90% of the 36 at-large teams that will be selected. The tricky part that separates the knowledgeable fan from the amateur bracketologist, is (a) identifying the last 3-4 at-large teams, and (b) seeding the Top 16. Taking it one step further, what separates the amateur from the professional bracketologist should be the degree to which the prognostications are correct.

So, just for fun, I came up with the following scoring to assess the efficacy of any bracketology projections:

Category A. Correctly identifying the seeding of each of the Top 16 teams. 1 point for identifying each Top 16 team, 1 additional point for placing it on the correct seed line, and 2 more points for placing it into the correct region bracket. Maximum points in this category: 64. An outstanding score for this category: 56 points;

Category B. Correctly identifying the “Last Four In” teams (as evidenced by the two at-large play-in match-ups; bracket placement doesn’t matter): 2 points for each team correctly identified, and 2 points for each correct play-in match-up. Maximum points in this category: 12. Outstanding score for this category: 8 points;

Category C. Correctly identifying the “Last Four Byes” teams (as evidenced by the at-large seeding, separate from the four at-large teams playing-in; bracket placement doesn’t matter): 2 points for each team correctly identified. Maximum points in this category: 8. Outstanding score for this category: 6 points;

Category D. Correctly identifying the four teams on seed lines 5 through 8 (not according to region bracket – just who they are). 1 point for each team. Maximum points in this category: 16. Outstanding score for this category: 12 points;

Total maximum points from all four categories: 100. Although the sum of all of the outstanding scores for the above categories is 82 points, I would submit anything above an 80 should be worthy of admiration.

How do you think you would score? Along the same lines, what do you think would be a "passing grade" as opposed to an "outstanding" one?

After Selection Sunday ends, I will provide Charlie Creme’s overall grade using this scoring methodology, in case anyone wants to compare their bracketology acumen against that of the renown Mr. Creme. Not

Finally, please don’t take this post as an indictment of Charlie’s bracketology projections. It is not. Although he undoubtedly makes good money (for doing what I would gladly do for half the pay ), outside of his broader ESPN family he is probably criticized more than he is applauded. A tough assignment, to say the least.

Nice effort. Thanks. And what does your axe taste like today?

 

[ConnMotors]

It’s time to expand the field. We need 96 teams in the tournament. All conference winners and then their conference tournament winner. Had enough of this last four in first four out crap. Other than Charlie does anyone even understand it? Plus this two site regional thing. Another unnecessary item in trying to keep things simple. Does Greenville One play Greenville Two or Seattle Three or Four. Whatever happened to East; Southeast; Midwest and West. Maybe that was just a men’s thing. They should just make things easier for everyone. Play your Regional Finals in Charlotte (East); Minneapolis (North); San Antonio (South) and Sacramento (West) that’s about halfway up the coast. Finals take place in St. Louis or Kansas City. Those cities are midway from everywhere last time I checked. The Mississippi River would be glowing. You can take steamboat rides. Eat BBQ and visit the Arch. No one would bitch about traveling so much. Just for fun….

 

[BRS24]

It’s time to expand the field. We need 96 teams in the tournament. All conference winners and then their conference tournament winner. Had enough of this last four in first four out crap. Other than Charlie does anyone even understand it? Plus this two site regional thing. Another unnecessary item in trying to keep things simple. Does Greenville One play Greenville Two or Seattle Three or Four. Whatever happened to East; Southeast; Midwest and West. Maybe that was just a men’s thing. They should just make things easier for everyone. Play your Regional Finals in Charlotte (East); Minneapolis (North); San Antonio (South) and Sacramento (West) that’s about halfway up the coast. Finals take place in St. Louis or Kansas City. Those cities are midway from everywhere last time I checked. The Mississippi River would be glowing. You can take steamboat rides. Eat BBQ and visit the Arch. No one would bitch about traveling so much. Just for fun….

The bracket on ESPN shows Greenville 2 vs Seattle 3, and Greenville 1 vs. Seattle 2. I wouldn't put too much faith into it, as I've seen E/SE/MW/W brackets changed from before and after selection sunday.

 

[MSGRET]

The only thing that should matter is that the teams that play Fri-Sun or Sat-Mon schedule in the Sweet Sixteen/Elite Eight, play against each other in the Final Four. That way no team has an extra days rest like the last 4 Final Fours.

 

[HopJim]

What a cop out. In the pregame show, Creme mentioned "6 teams are worthy of being a #1 seed." After weeks of saying UConn should be a #3, then over the past few days, saying #2, he covered all his bases.

 

[CTinLA]

What a cop out. In the pregame show, Creme mentioned "6 teams are worthy of being a #1 seed." After weeks of saying UConn should be a #3, then over the past few days, saying #2, he covered all his bases.

And then he picked UCONN to get to the Final Four! Way to be consistent, Charlie.

 

[stamfordhusky]

It’s time to expand the field. We need 96 teams in the tournament. All conference winners and then their conference tournament winner. Had enough of this last four in first four out crap. Other than Charlie does anyone even understand it?

If the field were 96, you will still hear just as much about last four in, last four out, etc. The only way to eliminate it is to have a 360 team field.

Fwiw, I think most people understand last four in, last four out, etc.

 

[stamfordhusky]

And then he picked UCONN to get to the Final Four! Way to be consistent, Charlie.

That has absolutely nothing to do with consistency. When he does his brackets, he is trying to predict what the NCAA committee will do. When he predicts who will get to a Final four, that is his own opinion. Two totally different things.

 

[Tonyc]

IN our bracket were going to the FF Everybody else has their work cut out for them. SC can be beat by a team that can slow down the game and hit treys. I like Nova and Creighton because they can knock down shots and can control the game. It should be a fun tournament. I like UConns chances.

 

[darkstar1]

What a cop out. In the pregame show, Creme mentioned "6 teams are worthy of being a #1 seed." After weeks of saying UConn should be a #3, then over the past few days, saying #2, he covered all his bases.

And he now picks UConn to make the final 4!

 

[SVCBeercats]

What a cop out.

And then he picked UCONN to get to the Final Four! Way to be consistent, Charlie.

Not a cop out. Quite consistent same as the AP, coaches, and the NCAA.
They all watched UCONN play their final 10 regular season games and reacted appropriately. Then they all watched the three tourney games along with Azzi returning and reacted appropriately.
UCONN went from eau de toilette to eau de parfum.

 

[YKCornelius]

Charlie's overall efficacy score, based on the point values assigned above, was a 68 out of 100. From my perspective, not too shabby. If I was grading him, I probably would give him a "B".

By category, he scored as follows:

Category A (Top 16): 50 out of 64 possible points. His Top 16 had North Carolina, whereas the committee had Tennessee. He missed on only two seeds (Stanford and Iowa) and was incorrect on five region assignments (Stanford, UConn, Iowa, UCLA and Villanova; I gave him 2 points for Tennessee's region placement).
Category B (At-large, play-in teams): 6 out of 12 possible points. He had one match-up correct (Purdue vs St John's). Missed on Illinois vs Miss St).
Category C (Last four byes): 4 out of possible 8 points. Gave him credit for Alabama and Miami, but he missed on Georgia and West Virginia.
Category D (seeding lines for 5 through 8): 8 out of 16 points. Correctly seeded Iowa State, Louisville, Michigan, NC State, Florida St, USC, Ole Miss and Oklahoma St. Missed on Tennessee, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arizona, Washington State, South Florida, Creighton and Baylor.

FWIW, I only tried to predict categories A and D. By comparison, I scored 56 points in Cat A, but only 10 in Cat D. I'm giving myself a "B" also.

 

[msf22b]

And then he picked UCONN to get to the Final Four! Way to be consistent, Charlie.

Well we do have a reasonable path, don't we?
Can't blame him for that.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

Not a cop out. Quite consistent same as the AP, coaches, and the NCAA.
They all watched UCONN play their final 10 regular season games and reacted appropriately. Then they all watched the three tourney games along with Azzi returning and reacted appropriately.
UCONN went from eau de toilette to eau de parfum.

We didn’t move in the polls or in the selection committee form Azzi returning or out Big East run though. It had no impact.

 

[martyn]

UConn's #2 seeding seemed to surprise the panel when it was announced. "UConn is a two!?", one of the panelists blurted. Wondered at first if she had missed the end of season blowouts and thought team should have been a three. However, the overall surprise was we weren't a 1. A selection guest who appeared at end of the show was asked about this and gave a nothing answer. Unfortunate we're going west but I like the bracket we're in.

 

[MSGRET]

UConn's #2 seeding seemed to surprise the panel when it was announced. "UConn is a two!?", one of the panelists blurted. Wondered at first if she had missed the end of season blowouts and thought team should have been a three. However, the overall surprise was we weren't a 1. A selection guest who appeared at end of the show was asked about this and gave a nothing answer. Unfortunate we're going west but I like the bracket we're in.

Peck thought that UConn should have been the 4th 1 seed, she stated it in the second hour, so did the other 3. She or Lobo stated that UConn's body of work was better than Stanford's across the board and all 5 losses were when UConn had a team that was depleted due to injuries. They showed themselves over the 3 day Big East Tournament that they are a different team with Azzi and CD on the floor. Lobo also chimed in that Stanford lost to unranked Washington and didn't make it to the Championship game with a healthy team.

 

[martyn]

Peck thought that UConn should have been the 4th 1 seed, she stated it in the second hour, so did the other 3. She or Lobo stated that UConn's body of work was better than Stanford's across the board and all 5 losses were when UConn had a team that was depleted due to injuries. They showed themselves over the 3 day Big East Tournament that they are a different team with Azzi and CD on the floor. Lobo also chimed in that Stanford lost to unranked Washington and didn't make it to the Championship game with a healthy team.

Some hard feelings at work there, I suspect.

 

[MSGRET]

Some hard feelings at work there, I suspect.

Actually I think it was just a true analysis by the commentators to include Lobo. I read somewhere later on that the NCAA might have just made it easier for UConn to make it to the Final Four by placing them in as a 2 in Seattle Regional #3 rather than a 1 in Seattle Regional #4.

 

[Jokerman619]

Uconn will definitely take control of thier region. You have to think that the rest are not happy with uconn at a 2. Even SC will not escape.

 

[Tngamecock]

Uconn will definitely take control of thier region. You have to think that the rest are not happy with uconn at a 2. Even SC will not escape.

Now let’s not get crazy here

 

[Jokerman619]

Now let’s not get crazy here

Why say that. Who in that region can take out uconn.

 

[Tngamecock]

Why say that. Who in that region can take out uconn.

No one……I truly believe UConn will make the Championship game. You said “even SC will not escape.“ I feel it will be SC and UConn for the title and of course I think SC will win. Not sure what you’re asking?

 

[Tonyc]

UConn has too many weapons and now with Azzi and Caroline back they can spread the floor. Teams will have to guard UConn one on one and Im not sure opponents have enough good defenders to stop UConn. By having Azzi and Caroline back we have two more better ballhandlers and by that I mean Dorka and Edwards wont have to spend alot of time handling the ball. I am so looking forward to seeing Lou Azzi and Caroline firing up shots. I do not believe any team including SC can slow UConns scoring down and we have already seen how good UConns defense is. Foul trouble could slow us down but we have so many players who can create score and shoot.