I'm currently the resident bracketologist for SB Nation and I've been attempting to accurately project the NCAA Tournament field since 2006. My goal is not only to be correct in picking at-large teams and the seeding of all 68 teams, but to inform the public about the process and how the sometimes bashed college basketball regular season does really have importance. I'd be glad to answer your questions on how the field of 68 is put together, but I won't be much help with your bracket picks.
The Committee really needs to stop pushing the RPI so much, since it's not a basketball-specific metric (the NCAA uses it for various sports to compare teams). It also creates an issue when evaluating schedules, particularly since everyone's RPI and SOS pull into one another and it creates a feedback loop.
On the schedule front, I think the numbers get too much emphasis over the intent. Take Virginia, for example. While there were several teams on the Cavaliers schedule who probably weren't going to be very good, they did schedule a few CAA teams that in most years would have been an RPI boost. Plus, they played two of them away from Charlottesville (at George Mason and Old Dominion on a neutral court). They got burned by those good intentions when the CAA turned out to be historically bad this season. In short, the Committee should recognize that not all "bad games" are created equal.
I have more of a writing background than a statistical one, though I did a fair amount of statistical analysis in grad school. My focus was on judicial politics -- attempting to predict Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals decisions. Trying to predict the Selection Committee's behavior is actually rather similar.
Not at all, since injuries can, and do, happen in practice and less important games.
In my case, I'm a college basketball fan first. So my goal is to primarily show that there is worth in the journey not just the destination. Otherwise, there are two different skill sets at play here. Mine examines the big picture body of work. Picking the bracket focuses more on the small picture. Given that the tournament is a crapshoot and unpredictable things can happen, I stick with what I know and can explain fairly well.
Federal Lobbyist
What was the strangest lobbying request you've ever received?TV Meteorologist
Do most meteorologists believe global warming exists?Sushi Chef
How do sushi chefs tell when a fish has gone bad? Is it just the smell?
One of my friends challenged me to put together a bracket when I was in grad school, in 2002. I put it aside for a few years and decided that I could probably do a good job if I did it more frequently.
Any fan could probably do it, but most probably don't have the interest in rules, procedures and organizational minutiae that I do. It's not the simplest thing in the world to do, even if it looks like it.
Mike Muscala. He didn't have a good game at all and that really cost the Bison. Plus, I watch Butler a lot and wasn't really impressed with how they were playing late in the season.
In terms of selection, I got all (then) 34 at-larges right in 2008. In terms of seeding, which is more important since it's more difficult, I've done the best this season and last.
Considering that I'm trying to predict the behavior of a group of 10 on my own, I wouldn't think so. Plus, the "picking 68 teams" is an exaggeration. In any given season, a maximum of four or five spots is really up for grabs at the end, and usually (like this season) it's a few less.
I enjoyed Nate Silver's success as a person with two poli sci degrees. However this is a little bit different because I don't rely as much on computers as he does. Much of what I do relies more on history and anecdotal evidence.
I only play one. And again, I'm not the best person to ask about bracket pools, since my focus is more on getting there as opposed to what happens after Selection Sunday. While I do a picks post, my track record on that front is very mixed.
No one really. Tennessee was the team I missed, and they came closest, but they also got swept by Ole Miss and Georgia, lost to Alabama in the SEC quarterfinals, and failed to crack 40 against Virginia and Georgetown. If that's the team that's the most screwed this season, I'd say the Committee did a terrific job.
Not much actually. I've found that I usually did better with my picks back when I was in high school and college, when I didn't build a bracket every few days over three months. Now, I feel like I overanalyze it.
FGCU making the Sweet 16, particularly in such a dominating manner, is at the top of the list for me. VCU reaching the Final Four after winning five games is a close second, however.
You wouldn't think so, but consider this. Often the 16s are at a disadvantage because there's a good shot they're unexpected winners from weaker leagues. This season, that description applies to all four teams that were placed in Dayton this season and Western Kentucky. A 15, on the other hand, typically comes from a conference that's a bit more competitive and often these teams also play a slightly stronger non-conference schedule that gives a bit of a boost, especially when it comes to experience when facing a top 8 team.
I think this happens to conferences more than teams, with certain leagues being viewed as tougher and their teams getting a boost in seeding (or selection) as a result. This season, the Big East falls in this boat (as I think Villanova and Cincinnati may be seeded a bit too highly), while the Pac-12 didn't get enough respect (see what Oregon and Cal did yesterday, though both did get a geography boost).
It's only annoying when they decide to bash the regular season as being meaningless, especially if they spend their time following pro sports with a less restrictive postseason (by percentage of qualifiers). It does get tiresome to hear someone to say the regular season doesn't matter in a sport where 68 of 347 teams play 30 or so games to make the postseason when they follow a sport that has 30 teams playing 82 games for a spot in a 16-team bracket.
This is one of the toughest questions I've been asked here, so it's taken me awhile to come up with a decent answer. I'm going to say the inconsistency between the Committee's stated emphasis on placing the top four seed lines in true seed order (which appears in the Principles and Procedures document) and their actual, demonstrated emphasis on geography. Duke, in particular, suffered because of this incongruence this past season.
I wish the field was a little bigger and that there was more of a potential for mid-majors to get a chance at the championship. To me, it seems like the new system will probably be similar to the current one with the only difference being two more teams are invited. The small step is significant though.
The numbers (RPI and strength of schedule) are important, but delving into those numbers is even moreso. I tend to study quality wins (against teams in the Top 100 in the RPI, with those in the Top 50 carrying more weight), bad losses (outside of the Top 100, with far more emphasis placed on losses against teams ranked 150th or worse ... and yes, I'm looking at you, Virginia Cavaliers). Non-conference scheduling and performance away from home is also a significant factor, since the Committee chair says something to this effect every season.
Finally, I look at whether a team has won its regular season league title, the tournament title, or both ... for seeding purposes at least. The Committee has historically given seeding bumps to teams who have claimed both (see Kansas and Louisville this season) while punishing teams that win neither (Duke).
Intangibles are tricky. The eye test is helpful, but mostly for seeding and not selection. More often than not, the numbers win out over what happens on the court, especially for teams outside of the power conferences. Middle Tennessee's selection this time around gives me hope on that front.
I'd say no..projecting the field has little to nothing to do with forecasting results. What I do is more backward-looking than forward-looking.
I've been with SB Nation since 2009, since even before SBNation.com started. Previously, I just had my own Blogspot and Blogger sites. Our college blogs manager found me on twitter and the tech team got Blogging the Bracket up in time for March 2009.
I think it should go back to 64 to be honest because I like the symmetry of it. However, the performances of the at-large opening round winners so far has me seriously re-thinking this.
This isn't even my full-time job during basketball season, so no. I've thought about doing other NCAA sports, particularly baseball, but don't know the procedures (which are quite different) as well.
Honestly, I really don't get cracking until January, when conference play starts. It's really silly to do it any earlier than that. You could argue that March would be the appropriate time, but really, going throughout the conference season helps me to better compare teams and to adjust for fluctuations in performance.
Through the offseason, my primary focus is tracking the various early season tournaments. I found it difficult to figure out which teams were playing where in November and December and figured many fans probably had the same issue. So, I took matters into my own hands.
I don't think researching the bracket is necessarily the best strategy, as in my experience that leads to overthinking things. But if you insist, check out SB Nation's coverage (naturally) and KenPom.com (which requires a subscription) for advanced statistical analysis.
Again, I'm a terrible person to ask for getting advice since that's not really what bracketology is. However, I feel strongly about Bucknell making a run. I also think Davidson and Belmont can win a game.
-OR-
Login with Facebook(max 20 characters - letters, numbers, and underscores only. Note that your username is private, and you have the option to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)
(A valid e-mail address is required. Your e-mail will not be shared with anyone.)
(min 5 characters)
By checking this box, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to Jobstr.com’s Terms and Privacy Policy.
-OR-
Register with Facebook(Don't worry: you'll be able to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)