NCAA Basketball Forum and Discussion Board: March Madness : Four models done
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 »

Four models done
Login/Register to Post a New Comment

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

ryan_tressler
Ryan Tressler
West Chester, PA
Member (Feb 2009)
103 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 11:07 pm)   
 
@bobseg . . . for the Final Four/ Champ Model, you start by deciding the contenders and the progress from there to picking the final four and finally a winner . . . that is why Baylor comes out of the region over Kentucky

bobseg

Delafield, WI
Member (Mar 2009)
3 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 10:07 pm)   
 
OK... my personal favorite model is the final four/ champ model. I was previously under the assumption that this model gave precedence to the pick a winner rules over the final four rules. However, it looks like the Pick a Winner rules say Kentucky wins it all on the fewest consecutive tourney years tie- breaker (over Kansas). Of course, in ... more »

pwakefield77

Littleton, CO
Member (Mar 2010)
67 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 5:05 pm)   
 
looks like louisville/ davidson and michigan/ ohio meet criteria for an upset as well. anyone else get the same?

pwakefield77

Littleton, CO
Member (Mar 2010)
67 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 4:54 pm)   
 
i won't pick a 14 to beat a 3 but it looks like the baylor south dakota st and belmont georgetown match all criteria for an upset

pwakefield77

Littleton, CO
Member (Mar 2010)
67 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 4:33 pm)   
 
3vs14 matchups
does anyone know how to calculate "three seeds that score less than 17% more than their opponents"

pwakefield77

Littleton, CO
Member (Mar 2010)
67 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 4:26 pm)   
 
ryan you're right. lehigh fits the bill for possibly winning first game

ryan_tressler
Ryan Tressler
West Chester, PA
Member (Feb 2009)
103 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 4:09 pm)   
 
Havent had a chance to yet, was going to sit down tonight after making the family dinner and go through them more

pwakefield77

Littleton, CO
Member (Mar 2010)
67 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 3:53 pm)   
 
4 seeds i got
indiana 1
louisville 1
wisconsin 0
michigan 0

pwakefield77

Littleton, CO
Member (Mar 2010)
67 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 3:43 pm)   
 
ryan have you ran the 3 seeds?
i'm coming up with
baylor 0
marquette 0
florida st 1
g town 0

ryan_tressler
Ryan Tressler
West Chester, PA
Member (Feb 2009)
103 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 3:32 pm)   
 
yea, i meant henson, sorry, haha

pwakefield77

Littleton, CO
Member (Mar 2010)
67 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 3:19 pm)   
 
ryan, what's wrong with zeller? did you mean henson? if you meant henson, i read this morning that he should be good to go.

i think i'm sticking with north carolina. they fit both the new and old champs list model.

i have a few other "non pete" factors i use. i've found a relationship with past champion teams ... more »

ryan_tressler
Ryan Tressler
West Chester, PA
Member (Feb 2009)
103 comments posted


  Posted: 2 years ago   (3/12/12 3:09 pm)   
Edited:  22 months ago   (7/2/12 10:06 pm)
 
@pwakefield . . . I don't know yet, I don't really like Duke this year and UNC scares me until I know more about Zeller, so I will probably pick one off the new model . . . I am liking Kansas, Ohio State, and Kentucky at the moment, those 3 are pretty much my list at the moment . . . I have no idea which one I will choose though . . . how about yourself?

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


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 2:58 pm)   
 
@s2hwu - I realize the problem now. Should've pointed it out sooner. While the ties are part of the problem, the big issue is that I'm ranking against the field. Ken is ranking against all 325+ D- 1 schools. Some of the teams that didn't make the dance rank higher in some areas.

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


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 2:52 pm)   
 
@s2hwu - It has to do with the fact that I used an Excel ranking on the numbers and many of them were ties at one decimal point. I would go with the Kenpom.com rankings if you want to be dead on. We takes those numbers out four decimals. I'll update the stats sheet with the raw rankings shortly.

s2hwu

Richmond, VA
Member (Dec 2007)
1 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 12:57 pm)   
 
Not sure if this has been mentioned previously, but is there a reason for some of the discrepancies between the Pythag rankings on Pete's stat sheet and the rankings on kenpom.com? Pete has Xavier ranked 50th and VCU 44th, whereas kenpom has Xavier 59th and VCU 46th. Also, California's Offense Efficiency Rank is listed as 39th on Pete's ... more »

pwakefield77

Littleton, CO
Member (Mar 2010)
67 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 12:28 pm)   
 
wow interesting. so kentucky OUT with the old model.
which model you using ryan?

ryan_tressler
Ryan Tressler
West Chester, PA
Member (Feb 2009)
103 comments posted


  Posted: 2 years ago   (3/12/12 12:26 pm)   
Edited:  2 years ago   (3/12/12 12:27 pm)
 
Kentucky would be out in the old model due to their points per game dropping below 77, leaving just Duke and North Carolina. It appears all 6 teams would still be on the champ list with the new model.

pwakefield77

Littleton, CO
Member (Mar 2010)
67 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 12:15 pm)   
 
has anything changed on our "champs list" since this last week
are the 6 teams still on the champs list north carolina, kentucky, ohio st, syracuse, duke, and kansas? and that's the new way pete is doing is this year. by the old criteria of the champs list is the list still north carolina, kentucky and syracuse?

i'd like ... more »

ryan_tressler
Ryan Tressler
West Chester, PA
Member (Feb 2009)
103 comments posted


  Posted: 2 years ago   (3/12/12 11:50 am)   
Edited:  2 years ago   (3/12/12 11:52 am)
 
In a way, it is because they are a two seed, because those are the disqualifiers they had to avoid . . . they were the only team in the region to pass their criteria in the model (actually all 4 regions only had one team pass as a contender) and then they were able to win all the tiebreakers from there on out . . . Michigan State was actually ... more »

pwakefield77

Littleton, CO
Member (Mar 2010)
67 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 11:46 am)   
 
did i hear that kansas came out as the champ in the final four/ champ model? is that cause they're a 2 seed this year when they maybe should have been a 1 seed? maybe i'm just bitter cause i like the tar heels better

pwakefield77

Littleton, CO
Member (Mar 2010)
67 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 11:37 am)   
 
agreed ryan on your michigan st observations. meeting 0 of the SOAR criteria. haha the "izzo factor"

ryan_tressler
Ryan Tressler
West Chester, PA
Member (Feb 2009)
103 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 11:37 am)   
 
@cborchwis . . . that criteria is a 2 for 2, meaning they need to meet both criteria for it to be a negative mark against them. Baylor did not go to the tourny last year, however, Scott Drew is not a rookie coach. Therefor, because of Coach Drew, they do not match this disqualifier.

cborchwis

Cottage Grove, WI
Member (Mar 2010)
5 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 11:33 am)   
 
Regarding to Baylor being in the Final 4 in Final 4/ Champion model-
The three seeds that have the best chance to reach the Final Four are free of any of these 15 disqualifiers:
• A rookie tourney coach leading a team that didn’t go to the last dance

Baylor did not go to dance last year. I think Baylor would be disqualified unless I misunderstanding something.

ryan_tressler
Ryan Tressler
West Chester, PA
Member (Feb 2009)
103 comments posted


  Posted: 2 years ago   (3/12/12 11:27 am)   
Edited:  2 years ago   (3/12/12 11:39 am)
 
Also, according to the efficiency ratings, Michigan State could have a brutal run to the final four. Their 8- 9 matchup is between Memphis (9th overall in the efficiency ratings) and Saint Louis (15th overall). Add in Louisville (20th) and New Mexico (13th) as the 4 and 5. Missouri and Marquette are also appropriated ... more »

ryan_tressler
Ryan Tressler
West Chester, PA
Member (Feb 2009)
103 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 11:22 am)   
 
the 3 seeds appear to be all over- seeded (except for Georgetown), probably making them even weaker in the process. I could see one or two of the 3 seeds going out in the first round (though Pete would not endorse this, haha) Outside of Temple, the 5 seeds might actually be stronger than the 3 seeds in you go by the efficiency ratings, ... more »

pwakefield77

Littleton, CO
Member (Mar 2010)
67 comments posted


  2 years ago   (3/12/12 11:16 am)   
 
i like how pete's noticed a relationship between how crazy the dance is going to be and the top 20 efficiency ratings. now that we have the seeds. is the top 20 efficiency still weak especially seeds 3,4,5? i'm assuming not much has changed and this year is going to be crazy like 2006, 2010 and 2011?

    Viewing Comments 1-25     Next ››

 



  ·  
Rules of Conduct

©2014 Bracket Science LLC
ActiveFan Sports Network