Here are our final numbers for this year's bracket:
Teams correct: 64/65
Exact seeds: 40/65
Seeds within one of seed line: 60/65
Joe Lunardi's final stats:
Teams correct: 65/65
Exact seeds: 32/65
Seeds within one of seed line: 54/65
Jerry Palm's final stats (CSTV and CollegeRPI.com):
Teams correct: 65/65
Exact seeds: 31/65
Seeds within one of seed line: 57/65
David Mihm's final stats (Bracketography.com):
Teams correct: 64/65
Exact seeds: 34/65
Seeds within one of seed line: 58/65
For a complete breakdown of how every bracketologist did in predicting the field, click here:
http://bracketproject.atspace.com/comparison.htm
Overall, we are very pleased with how we fared. We set career highs in all three of the above statistics, and cracked the 60 mark in terms of seeding teams within one line. When all of the bracketologists tally up their statistics, we think we might have the best overall bracket.
We are obviously disappointed that Illinois State was left out and that Oregon got in. The Ducks' seeding at a 9 is ridiculous; they should have been one of the last four teams in at best. What ended up killing Illinois State's chances was probably the fact that other mid-majors like Western Kentucky and San Diego stole bids. The committee only gave six at-large bids to mid-majors and unfortunately (and we think unfairly), that list did not include the Redbirds.
In the next couple of days, we will post our Final Four picks and our complete brackets. We will also set up the annual Bracketology 101 Tournament Challenge group on ESPN.com.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Bracketology 101's Final Bracket Stats
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (RSS)
8 comments:
I think Lunardi had another one of his shady last-minute changes. Since last night, he took out ISU and Va Tech, and put in Georgia and Nova. Now, obviously Georgia winning the SEC changes things, but there was no reason for him to put Nova in the field at the last second with all those teams not playing.
Ditto on Nova. Shady.
I think NCAA is stuck on the number 6 for non BCS Conference at large bids.
Ill STATE should be in. mvc has multiple sweet 16 placings over the years. Their teams are not stiffs.
Georgia messed a lot of things up.
'nova inclusion is a money issue.
As Far as Lunardi. Disney/Abc/Espn pay the ncaa lots of money. If he had Georgia in last night then its a Spygate issue. Hoping that isn't the case.
Anonymous said...
"As Far as Lunardi. Disney/Abc/Espn pay the ncaa lots of money. If he had Georgia in last night then its a Spygate issue. Hoping that isn't the case."
I actually read Joe's bracket this morning. Georgia was nowhere to be found in it. And I hate to defend Joe on including Villanova, but Pitt and Temple helped the Wildcats chances by winning last night.
Oh, Chris and Craig, I went 64/65 on selection, 54/65 on seeding within one line and 29/65 on exact seeds. You may include them in your post. Put it under Howard Salwasser's Bracket Watch.
Lunardi said on ESPNews that he put Nova in late Saturday night after Temple and Pittsburgh won their tournaments. Villanova beaten "conference winners." He added Georgia in once Georgia won the SEC.
Lunardi always seems to do good with his within 24 hour changes. This year's change wasn't as surprising and suspicious as last year's Arkansas inclusion. We try to ignore other bracketologists as much as possible leading up to Selection Sunday but maybe we should start copying Lunardi and his late changes.
We just wonder if we would of had every team right if Georgia had not won. We won't know for sure but based on Tom O'Connor's comments it was probably Ohio State or Illinois State that got taken out after Georgia's win. Unfortunately we removed Oregon to include Georgia.
Gentlemen:
Congratulations. Great job.
Nice job on the selections...
Regarding Lunardi...
The year Mason made their run, he had them out until a couple hours before the Selection Show. Fairly sure they weren't even in the "Last Four Out".
They made it in...and then in the pairings he railed about how they didn't deserve inclusion and that the Spartans would bounce them in the first round.
Picking 62/64 and ranking them as close to the line as he does is far better than I could do. But his last-minute corrections will always seem bogus.
Post a Comment