Bracketology Updates - 2021-22

[Hall2012]

Lunardi 2/4:

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/bracketology/ncaa-bracketology-projecting-2022-march-madness-men-field

4 Providence
4 Marquette
5 Nova
5 Xavier
6 UCONN
11 Seton Hall
11 Creighton

Would I be thrilled with an 11 seed? No, but playing in Pittsburgh then Philly, with a 1 seed who lost to Rutgers? It could be a lot worse.

[Xudash]

Lunardi 2/4:

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/bracketology/ncaa-bracketology-projecting-2022-march-madness-men-field

4 Providence
4 Marquette
5 Nova
5 Xavier
6 UCONN
11 Seton Hall
11 Creighton

Would I be thrilled with an 11 seed? No, but playing in Pittsburgh then Philly, with a 1 seed who lost to Rutgers? It could be a lot worse.

Not only that, but think about it: you could go from Primanti Brothers' sandwiches on the left side of the state to Philly cheesesteaks on the right side. A culinary and caloric delight while cheering on the Pirates.

[stever20]

So I asked Dave Ommen- the guy from Bracketville- about Providence and what the committee is going to do with them in his opinion.
how is the committee going to view Providence? Their SOR and KPI are top 4, but the predictive measures have them 34-51 with the NET at 29. Which will win out?
His response
Every Committee is a little different. We'll get a sneak peak in a couple of weeks when their annual Top 16 reveal is complete. Experience would tell me they end up splitting the difference. We'll find out together.

[stever20]

Bracketville:
12 Providence 3 seed
15 Marquette 4 seed
17 Villanova 5 seed
21 Xavier 6 seed
28 UConn 7 seed
30 Seton Hall 8 seed
44 Creighton 11 seed

Also saw NIT Bracketology and they had St John's as a 7 seed. That of course would be extremely precarious with all the NIT bid thieves for the conference champions who lose in their conference tournaments. Always get about 10 or so of those each year.

[Hall2012]

So I asked Dave Ommen- the guy from Bracketville- about Providence and what the committee is going to do with them in his opinion.
how is the committee going to view Providence? Their SOR and KPI are top 4, but the predictive measures have them 34-51 with the NET at 29. Which will win out?
His response
Every Committee is a little different. We'll get a sneak peak in a couple of weeks when their annual Top 16 reveal is complete. Experience would tell me they end up splitting the difference. We'll find out together.

Personally, I find the inclusion of a team's predictive metrics in its tournament resume to be ridiculous. And that's coming from someone with a career in data. I have a little more sympathy for considering it in the case of low/mid majors who have strong metrics without the opportunity for resume-building results, but all high majors have enough opportunities that their tournament resumes need not concern anything other than wins and losses - that's what matters after all. The teams that advance in the tournament are the ones that win, there's no sympathy for playing really well but losing. What matters is wins and losses, no matter how you get there.

I think it's a good tool for evaluating strength of schedule and can be incorporated that way - judging the quality of wins and losses based on the opponent's predictive measures, but an individual team's KenPom rating or similar should not be part of its resume. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

[stever20]

So I asked Dave Ommen- the guy from Bracketville- about Providence and what the committee is going to do with them in his opinion.
how is the committee going to view Providence? Their SOR and KPI are top 4, but the predictive measures have them 34-51 with the NET at 29. Which will win out?
His response
Every Committee is a little different. We'll get a sneak peak in a couple of weeks when their annual Top 16 reveal is complete. Experience would tell me they end up splitting the difference. We'll find out together.

Personally, I find the inclusion of a team's predictive metrics in its tournament resume to be ridiculous. And that's coming from someone with a career in data. I have a little more sympathy for considering it in the case of low/mid majors who have strong metrics without the opportunity for resume-building results, but all high majors have enough opportunities that their tournament resumes need not concern anything other than wins and losses - that's what matters after all. The teams that advance in the tournament are the ones that win, there's no sympathy for playing really well but losing. What matters is wins and losses, no matter how you get there.

I think it's a good tool for evaluating strength of schedule and can be incorporated that way - judging the quality of wins and losses based on the opponent's predictive measures, but an individual team's KenPom rating or similar should not be part of its resume. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

I think the thing is the charge of the committee isn't to determine the most deserving teams. No, they are looking for the best teams. That's a distinction that can be very different at times.

It will be fascinating to see what the committee does with Providence. Kind of wish the reveal were this Saturday where it'd be before the Villanova game.

[Hall2012]

So I asked Dave Ommen- the guy from Bracketville- about Providence and what the committee is going to do with them in his opinion.
how is the committee going to view Providence? Their SOR and KPI are top 4, but the predictive measures have them 34-51 with the NET at 29. Which will win out?
His response
Every Committee is a little different. We'll get a sneak peak in a couple of weeks when their annual Top 16 reveal is complete. Experience would tell me they end up splitting the difference. We'll find out together.

Personally, I find the inclusion of a team's predictive metrics in its tournament resume to be ridiculous. And that's coming from someone with a career in data. I have a little more sympathy for considering it in the case of low/mid majors who have strong metrics without the opportunity for resume-building results, but all high majors have enough opportunities that their tournament resumes need not concern anything other than wins and losses - that's what matters after all. The teams that advance in the tournament are the ones that win, there's no sympathy for playing really well but losing. What matters is wins and losses, no matter how you get there.

I think it's a good tool for evaluating strength of schedule and can be incorporated that way - judging the quality of wins and losses based on the opponent's predictive measures, but an individual team's KenPom rating or similar should not be part of its resume. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

I think the thing is the charge of the committee isn't to determine the most deserving teams. No, they are looking for the best teams. That's a distinction that can be very different at times.

It will be fascinating to see what the committee does with Providence. Kind of wish the reveal were this Saturday where it'd be before the Villanova game.

That may be true, but I still don't agree with it.

[stever20]

Lunardi from today:
3 Providence
5 Villanova
5 Marquette
6 Xavier
6 UConn
8 Seton Hall

Creighton the dreaded 1st team out designation.

[stever20]

I don't really get the DeCourcey bracket from today-
DeCourcey-
3 Providence
4 Marquette
4 Villanova
6 Xavier
7 UConn
9 Creighton!
12 Seton Hall!(not even in 1st 4)

He seems like an outlier on both Creighton and Seton Hall.

[kayako]

bracketville 2/8:

https://bracketville.wordpress.com/seed-list/

3 Providence (12)
4 Marquette (15)
5 Nova (17)
6 Xavier (21)
7 UCONN (28)
8 Seton Hall (30)
11 Creighton (44)