Bracketology 2019

[adamw]

Playoffstatus currently has us at 70% to make the Show.  3% to win it all.

In the ECAC, 45% for the Cleary, 19% for the Whitelaw.

In addition to the already-discussed issues with this prediction model, it also assumes top-14 is the cut-off for making the tournament. That's probably generous.

The model should take into account the results of the conference tournaments to determine what the cut-off is. That's what we do on CHN. So for each simulation, they each have their own cutoff, and thus the final odds is based on that.

That said, 14 isn't a terrible guess. I'd say 13 has a plurality - but 14 isn't bad.

[Trotsky]

In addition to the already-discussed issues with this prediction model

I haven't read any discussion of the issues with the model other than you don't understand it.

[adamw]

In addition to the already-discussed issues with this prediction model

I haven't read any discussion of the issues with the model other than you don't understand it.

Some salient points were made last year. I saved the thread, and, over the past year, have had discussions with a few people on improving things. But since I lack the math insight to do it, I've been waiting on some to help me. So far, nothing is finalized.

[BearLover]

In addition to the already-discussed issues with this prediction model

I haven't read any discussion of the issues with the model other than you don't understand it.

lmao. Go back and read the thread.

And thank you, AdamW.

[Jim Hyla]

Adam's first take on the NCAA seeding difficulties.

And Adam takes his annual(?) swipe about bracket talk before it really matters.

While everyone else has been pondering their "bracketology" — explaining in fine-point detail the architecture of brackets that will never actually happen — we'll just calmly remind everyone of what to be looking for as we approach selection day.

Adam, don't you think having fun is important? Isn't that why we go to games?

So why is it so hard to understand that having fun with brackets is okay?

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

[marty]

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

I agree with the educational aspect.  I was pretty close to predicting the result last year because I had run a few simulations the week or so before. And for some of us it is FUN.

[redice]

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

I agree with the educational aspect.  I was pretty close to predicting the result last year because I had run a few simulations the week or so before. And for some of us it is FUN.

I don't run any simulations.  But, I enjoy reading the comments of those who do.  Accuracy is not important to me.

[ursusminor]

I assume that Adam didn't major in math or another scientific or engineering field, not that it is necessary to be a scientist to have interest in bracketology and how PWR works.

This link is relevant to this thread. I linked it earlier on the ASU thread, but it is of more general bracketology interest.

Has anyone checked how Union's performance has affected the ratings of the other ECAC schools? I would think that an ECAC team that has a great OOC record and a pretty average ECAC record benefits the entire league.

[BearLover]

Adam's first take on the NCAA seeding difficulties.

And Adam takes his annual(?) swipe about bracket talk before it really matters.

While everyone else has been pondering their "bracketology" — explaining in fine-point detail the architecture of brackets that will never actually happen — we'll just calmly remind everyone of what to be looking for as we approach selection day.

Adam, don't you think having fun is important? Isn't that why we go to games?

So why is it so hard to understand that having fun with brackets is okay?

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

Seems a little strange to not call us a bubble team given we'd likely be out if we lost our first playoff series (or even possibly if we won in three games and then lost in the semis). Especially given, as the article states, the likelihood of there being at least two, and probably more, conference winners outside the top-16. And the article even mentions Union as a potential ECAC dark horse outside the top-16--who would be, if the higher seeds win in the first round, our second-round opponent.

It appears that, as usual, the "pairwise probability matrix" overrates the likelihood of us (and everyone else) beating a lower-seeded opponent in the ECAC second-round, which might have colored the above analysis. (How much the model overrates our chances I can't say off the top of my head--but based on some of the tests people on this forum ran last year, it overrates our chances at least marginally.)

[Beeeej]

Adam's first take on the NCAA seeding difficulties.

And Adam takes his annual(?) swipe about bracket talk before it really matters.

While everyone else has been pondering their "bracketology" — explaining in fine-point detail the architecture of brackets that will never actually happen — we'll just calmly remind everyone of what to be looking for as we approach selection day.

Adam, don't you think having fun is important? Isn't that why we go to games?

So why is it so hard to understand that having fun with brackets is okay?

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

Seems a little strange to not call us a bubble team given we'd likely be out if we lost our first playoff series (or even possibly if we won in three games and then lost in the semis). Especially given, as the article states, the likelihood of there being at least two, and probably more, conference winners outside the top-16. And the article even mentions Union as a potential ECAC dark horse outside the top-16--who would be, if the higher seeds win in the first round, our second-round opponent.

Since he spends the rest of that paragraph, and the next several paragraphs, explaining his reasoning, it doesn't seem that strange to me at all. I'm not counting chickens or prepaying a hotel room in Providence or anything, but I'd certainly rather be #12 right now in this scenario than #13.

[BearLover]

Adam's first take on the NCAA seeding difficulties.

And Adam takes his annual(?) swipe about bracket talk before it really matters.

While everyone else has been pondering their "bracketology" — explaining in fine-point detail the architecture of brackets that will never actually happen — we'll just calmly remind everyone of what to be looking for as we approach selection day.

Adam, don't you think having fun is important? Isn't that why we go to games?

So why is it so hard to understand that having fun with brackets is okay?

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

Seems a little strange to not call us a bubble team given we'd likely be out if we lost our first playoff series (or even possibly if we won in three games and then lost in the semis). Especially given, as the article states, the likelihood of there being at least two, and probably more, conference winners outside the top-16. And the article even mentions Union as a potential ECAC dark horse outside the top-16--who would be, if the higher seeds win in the first round, our second-round opponent.

Since he spends the rest of that paragraph, and the next several paragraphs, explaining his reasoning, it doesn't seem that strange to me at all. I'm not counting chickens or prepaying a hotel room in Providence or anything, but I'd certainly rather be #12 right now in this scenario than #13.

I don't think the reasoning why we (and those teams right above us) aren't bubble teams is adequately explained. It seems to rely on the (at least somewhat) flawed parwise probability model that gives us an 86% shot of making the tournament, or else relies just on our RPI, which is materially higher than those teams below us, but not high enough to take us safely out of bubble range. It is absolutely true that teams 13-18 are in a considerably more perilous position than we are--but that doesn't mean our position isn't perilous. I think most of the rest of the piece actually points to us being a bubble team, as adamw emphasizes the high likelihood of 2+ conference winners from outside the top-16.

[Beeeej]

Adam's first take on the NCAA seeding difficulties.

And Adam takes his annual(?) swipe about bracket talk before it really matters.

While everyone else has been pondering their "bracketology" — explaining in fine-point detail the architecture of brackets that will never actually happen — we'll just calmly remind everyone of what to be looking for as we approach selection day.

Adam, don't you think having fun is important? Isn't that why we go to games?

So why is it so hard to understand that having fun with brackets is okay?

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

Seems a little strange to not call us a bubble team given we'd likely be out if we lost our first playoff series (or even possibly if we won in three games and then lost in the semis). Especially given, as the article states, the likelihood of there being at least two, and probably more, conference winners outside the top-16. And the article even mentions Union as a potential ECAC dark horse outside the top-16--who would be, if the higher seeds win in the first round, our second-round opponent.

Since he spends the rest of that paragraph, and the next several paragraphs, explaining his reasoning, it doesn't seem that strange to me at all. I'm not counting chickens or prepaying a hotel room in Providence or anything, but I'd certainly rather be #12 right now in this scenario than #13.

I don't think the reasoning why we (and those teams right above us) aren't bubble teams is adequately explained. It seems to rely on the (at least somewhat) flawed parwise probability model that gives us an 86% shot of making the tournament, or else relies just on our RPI, which is materially higher than those teams below us, but not high enough to take us safely out of bubble range. It is absolutely true that teams 13-18 are in a considerably more perilous position than we are--but that doesn't mean our position isn't perilous. I think most of the rest of the piece actually points to us being a bubble team, as adamw emphasizes the high likelihood of 2+ conference winners from outside the top-16.

Yes, he emphasizes the relatively high likelihood of up to three conference winners from outside the top 16, which would still leave the top 13 in the tournament. Notwithstanding the possibility for individual sub-18 teams to have surprising runs, at a certain point when you're projecting a tournament field at the end of a few-dozen-games-long season, you have to assume the teams in the top 12 belong there and will perform more or less according to their ranking. The point of the bubble teams' peril is that they could perform more or less according to their top 16 ranking and yet still not make it. If you're going to go by the mere possibility of Cinderella runs combined with the mere possibility of top teams underperforming, we should be talking about #8-16 as "the bubble" pretty much every year.

[BearLover]

Adam's first take on the NCAA seeding difficulties.

And Adam takes his annual(?) swipe about bracket talk before it really matters.

While everyone else has been pondering their "bracketology" — explaining in fine-point detail the architecture of brackets that will never actually happen — we'll just calmly remind everyone of what to be looking for as we approach selection day.

Adam, don't you think having fun is important? Isn't that why we go to games?

So why is it so hard to understand that having fun with brackets is okay?

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

Seems a little strange to not call us a bubble team given we'd likely be out if we lost our first playoff series (or even possibly if we won in three games and then lost in the semis). Especially given, as the article states, the likelihood of there being at least two, and probably more, conference winners outside the top-16. And the article even mentions Union as a potential ECAC dark horse outside the top-16--who would be, if the higher seeds win in the first round, our second-round opponent.

Since he spends the rest of that paragraph, and the next several paragraphs, explaining his reasoning, it doesn't seem that strange to me at all. I'm not counting chickens or prepaying a hotel room in Providence or anything, but I'd certainly rather be #12 right now in this scenario than #13.

I don't think the reasoning why we (and those teams right above us) aren't bubble teams is adequately explained. It seems to rely on the (at least somewhat) flawed parwise probability model that gives us an 86% shot of making the tournament, or else relies just on our RPI, which is materially higher than those teams below us, but not high enough to take us safely out of bubble range. It is absolutely true that teams 13-18 are in a considerably more perilous position than we are--but that doesn't mean our position isn't perilous. I think most of the rest of the piece actually points to us being a bubble team, as adamw emphasizes the high likelihood of 2+ conference winners from outside the top-16.

Yes, he emphasizes the relatively high likelihood of up to three conference winners from outside the top 16, which would still leave the top 13 in the tournament. Notwithstanding the possibility for individual sub-18 teams to have surprising runs, at a certain point when you're projecting a tournament field at the end of a few-dozen-games-long season, you have to assume the teams in the top 12 belong there and will perform more or less according to their ranking. The point of the bubble teams' peril is that they could perform more or less according to their top 16 ranking and yet still not make it. If you're going to go by the mere possibility of Cinderella runs combined with the mere possibility of top teams underperforming, we should be talking about #8-16 as "the bubble" pretty much every year.

I think "you're out of the NCAA if you lose your next playoff series" is grounds for being a bubble team.

[Beeeej]

Adam's first take on the NCAA seeding difficulties.

And Adam takes his annual(?) swipe about bracket talk before it really matters.

While everyone else has been pondering their "bracketology" — explaining in fine-point detail the architecture of brackets that will never actually happen — we'll just calmly remind everyone of what to be looking for as we approach selection day.

Adam, don't you think having fun is important? Isn't that why we go to games?

So why is it so hard to understand that having fun with brackets is okay?

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

Seems a little strange to not call us a bubble team given we'd likely be out if we lost our first playoff series (or even possibly if we won in three games and then lost in the semis). Especially given, as the article states, the likelihood of there being at least two, and probably more, conference winners outside the top-16. And the article even mentions Union as a potential ECAC dark horse outside the top-16--who would be, if the higher seeds win in the first round, our second-round opponent.

Since he spends the rest of that paragraph, and the next several paragraphs, explaining his reasoning, it doesn't seem that strange to me at all. I'm not counting chickens or prepaying a hotel room in Providence or anything, but I'd certainly rather be #12 right now in this scenario than #13.

I don't think the reasoning why we (and those teams right above us) aren't bubble teams is adequately explained. It seems to rely on the (at least somewhat) flawed parwise probability model that gives us an 86% shot of making the tournament, or else relies just on our RPI, which is materially higher than those teams below us, but not high enough to take us safely out of bubble range. It is absolutely true that teams 13-18 are in a considerably more perilous position than we are--but that doesn't mean our position isn't perilous. I think most of the rest of the piece actually points to us being a bubble team, as adamw emphasizes the high likelihood of 2+ conference winners from outside the top-16.

Yes, he emphasizes the relatively high likelihood of up to three conference winners from outside the top 16, which would still leave the top 13 in the tournament. Notwithstanding the possibility for individual sub-18 teams to have surprising runs, at a certain point when you're projecting a tournament field at the end of a few-dozen-games-long season, you have to assume the teams in the top 12 belong there and will perform more or less according to their ranking. The point of the bubble teams' peril is that they could perform more or less according to their top 16 ranking and yet still not make it. If you're going to go by the mere possibility of Cinderella runs combined with the mere possibility of top teams underperforming, we should be talking about #8-16 as "the bubble" pretty much every year.

I think "you're out of the NCAA if you lose your next playoff series" is grounds for being a bubble team.

It is certainly your prerogative to think that. But then you're limiting the universe of non-bubble teams to those that are already mathematically impervious to the effects of a late collapse plus sub-16 Cinderella runs. That's pretty damn narrow, not to mention nearly impossible to nail down at the moment because of what's left on the schedule. My speculation is that the bubble would have to start at #8, maybe even #7.

[upprdeck]

we could also lose the next 2 and still get in. but its clear we are on the bubble

the Bubble also has some variables.

Minn getting swept by mich takes them off the bubble since they will be under .500
mich getting swpt the following week the same
NDak losing to omaha would put them below .500
MSu beating ND helps us too

other than winning the league there are only 4-5 teams that can catch us and some things can help us too root for

WMU losing to Miami
LSU to bemidji
bowling green to mich tech
mass lowell to vermont