Bracketology 2019

[adamw]

You say, and let me say that I totally believe you when you say it, that "those remarks are never aimed at you, by the way, or fans in general."

But criticizing the subject is indirectly criticizing the people who enjoy it.

It's entirely up to you how to react to learning that someone thinks something you like is silly.

I'm not reacting to thinking that bracketology discussion in mid-season is silly, it is, but that not discussing it implies that you're somehow better.

The people writing articles about it, are doing a disservice to readers (IMO), most of whom, unlike yourself, actually don't know better. That is my issue in a nutshell. So if that makes me sound like I'm "better" for my position on it, then so be it.

[Beeeej]

You say, and let me say that I totally believe you when you say it, that "those remarks are never aimed at you, by the way, or fans in general."

But criticizing the subject is indirectly criticizing the people who enjoy it.

It's entirely up to you how to react to learning that someone thinks something you like is silly.

I'm not reacting to thinking that bracketology discussion in mid-season is silly, it is, but that not discussing it implies that you're somehow better.

The people writing articles about it, are doing a disservice to readers (IMO), most of whom, unlike yourself, actually don't know better. That is my issue in a nutshell. So if that makes me sound like I'm "better" for my position on it, then so be it.

Waitasec... is it part of your feelings on the subject that you think a lot of less-well-informed readers believe the weekly bracketology articles are somehow indicative or predictive of how the tournament will actually be seeded despite several weeks' worth of games left in the season to affect the outcomes? If not, what's the "disservice to readers"?

[Jim Hyla]

Better late than never?

Was this the Adam effect?:-D

Code Select Expand

I don't mind playing ASU, but does it have to be in Fargo?

This week's brackets

[b]West Regional (Fargo):[/b]
16 American International vs. 1 St. Cloud State
[b][u]12 Cornell[/u][/b] vs. 8 Arizona State

[b][u]Midwest Regional (Allentown):[/u][/b]
15 Notre Dame vs. 3 Minnesota Duluth
[b][u]10 Clarkson[/u][/b] vs. 7 Ohio State

[b]East Regional (Providence):[/b]
[b][u]13 Harvard[/u][/b] vs. 4 Minnesota State
9 Providence vs. [b][u]5 Quinnipiac[/u][/b]

[b]Northeast Regional (Manchester):[/b]
14 Western Michigan vs. 2 Massachusetts
11 Northeastern vs. 6 Denver
Conference breakdowns

[b][u]ECAC Hockey — 4[/u][/b]
NCHC — 4
Hockey East — 3
Big Ten – 2
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Independent – 1
WCHA — 1


[Trotsky]

I don't mind playing ASU, but does it have to be in Fargo?

"I have some good news and some bad news."

[Beeeej]

I don't mind playing ASU, but does it have to be in Fargo?

"I have some good news and some bad news."

As the #12, playing #8 instead of #5 seems like a gift, except of course that #8 getting to play #12 instead of #9 also seems like a gift. Either way, you then (probably) have to get through #1 for a spot in the Frozen Four.

But of course as soon as last night's BC @ PC game got played, this prediction was completely moot regardless of the outcome. Now that seems like a pointless exercise.

[Trotsky]

But of course as soon as last night's BC @ PC game got played, this prediction was completely moot regardless of the outcome.

That particular game appears to have changed nothing, but sure things continue to evolve.

I wouldn't call these things predictions.  I'd call them training to show people how to understand and create a bracket in preparation for the real one.  They're like math problems -- nobody thinks you're going to get the identical problem set at work someday, but they teach you how to perform the algorithm.

[ugarte]

Either way, you then (probably) have to get through #1 for a spot in the Frozen Four.

Shout out to RIT.

[Trotsky]

Ruminating on #1ness, is there a continental shelf in NC$$ talent this year, or is it a fairly gentle incline?  Seems to me the NC$$ has been getting flatter, and there are no more Super Teams (RPI 85, Maine 93, etc).

[Beeeej]

But of course as soon as last night's BC @ PC game got played, this prediction was completely moot regardless of the outcome.

That particular game appears to have changed nothing, but sure things continue to evolve.

I wouldn't call these things predictions.  I'd call them training to show people how to understand and create a bracket in preparation for the real one.  They're like math problems -- nobody thinks you're going to get the identical problem set at work someday, but they teach you how to perform the algorithm.

That game resulted in #8 ASU and #9 Providence swapping places (and #37 BC dropping to #39, but that surely didn't affect much else). I don't know that this would've had earth-shattering effects on Jayson's results, but it still seems bizarre to me to publish the column late on Thursday but before a Thursday night game involving a top-16 team, when there otherwise haven't been any games since Saturday night.

I agree with you on prediction vs. training, but it still seems silly to me to publish such a training based on current information when the information won't be current in a half hour.

[Trotsky]

I agree with you on prediction vs. training, but it still seems silly to me to publish such a training based on current information when the information won't be current in a half hour.

I can dig it.

[adamw]

You say, and let me say that I totally believe you when you say it, that "those remarks are never aimed at you, by the way, or fans in general."

But criticizing the subject is indirectly criticizing the people who enjoy it.

It's entirely up to you how to react to learning that someone thinks something you like is silly.

I'm not reacting to thinking that bracketology discussion in mid-season is silly, it is, but that not discussing it implies that you're somehow better.

The people writing articles about it, are doing a disservice to readers (IMO), most of whom, unlike yourself, actually don't know better. That is my issue in a nutshell. So if that makes me sound like I'm "better" for my position on it, then so be it.

Waitasec... is it part of your feelings on the subject that you think a lot of less-well-informed readers believe the weekly bracketology articles are somehow indicative or predictive of how the tournament will actually be seeded despite several weeks' worth of games left in the season to affect the outcomes? If not, what's the "disservice to readers"?

Yes - that is exactly what I believe. And some other more nuanced points. And some other "inside baseball" points. Which all add up to me feeling it's a disservice. The vast majority of readers are not you, or anyone here on this board. The vast majority are clueless ... or, to be more kind, they are casual readers, who don't really understand what they're reading. When you combine the fact that the articles really don't make these points clear, well ....

[adamw]

But of course as soon as last night's BC @ PC game got played, this prediction was completely moot regardless of the outcome.

That particular game appears to have changed nothing, but sure things continue to evolve.

I wouldn't call these things predictions.  I'd call them training to show people how to understand and create a bracket in preparation for the real one.  They're like math problems -- nobody thinks you're going to get the identical problem set at work someday, but they teach you how to perform the algorithm.

You understand them to be that way. The vast majority do not.

[Beeeej]

But of course as soon as last night's BC @ PC game got played, this prediction was completely moot regardless of the outcome.

That particular game appears to have changed nothing, but sure things continue to evolve.

I wouldn't call these things predictions.  I'd call them training to show people how to understand and create a bracket in preparation for the real one.  They're like math problems -- nobody thinks you're going to get the identical problem set at work someday, but they teach you how to perform the algorithm.

You understand them to be that way. The vast majority do not.

Responding both to this and your other reply to me... can I ask, on what basis are you making that assertion? I'm genuinely curious, not just shit-stirring.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Better late than never?

Was this the Adam effect?:-D

Code Select Expand

I don't mind playing ASU, but does it have to be in Fargo?

This week's brackets

[b]West Regional (Fargo):[/b]
16 American International vs. 1 St. Cloud State
[b][u]12 Cornell[/u][/b] vs. 8 Arizona State

[b][u]Midwest Regional (Allentown):[/u][/b]
15 Notre Dame vs. 3 Minnesota Duluth
[b][u]10 Clarkson[/u][/b] vs. 7 Ohio State

[b]East Regional (Providence):[/b]
[b][u]13 Harvard[/u][/b] vs. 4 Minnesota State
9 Providence vs. [b][u]5 Quinnipiac[/u][/b]

[b]Northeast Regional (Manchester):[/b]
14 Western Michigan vs. 2 Massachusetts
11 Northeastern vs. 6 Denver
Conference breakdowns

[b][u]ECAC Hockey — 4[/u][/b]
NCHC — 4
Hockey East — 3
Big Ten – 2
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Independent – 1
WCHA — 1


I ran a Bracketology myself earlier in the week and came to the same conclusion:  Cornell being the low seed in the 3-band would get screwed in order to give Providence a home game.  

It would be nice if Providence's #8 position holds up, but my guess is they need to do pretty well in the HE tourney to stay up there.

[adamw]

But of course as soon as last night's BC @ PC game got played, this prediction was completely moot regardless of the outcome.

That particular game appears to have changed nothing, but sure things continue to evolve.

I wouldn't call these things predictions.  I'd call them training to show people how to understand and create a bracket in preparation for the real one.  They're like math problems -- nobody thinks you're going to get the identical problem set at work someday, but they teach you how to perform the algorithm.

You understand them to be that way. The vast majority do not.

Responding both to this and your other reply to me... can I ask, on what basis are you making that assertion? I'm genuinely curious, not just shit-stirring.

Based upon the deluge of dumb tweets and emails I receive on a regular basis, particularly around this time of year. Also based upon - anecdotally speaking - the traffic numbers we see for these things, compared to my assumptions of how many "in the know" people there actually are. For example, how many people, in hard numbers, actually post on this message board on a regular basis? 20? The readership of each article is upwards of 10,000 - probably more when you combine USCHO/CHN/NCAA sites. The vast majority of people who read the sites are not active, long-time college hockey die hards - let alone ones with institutional knowledge, so to speak, of these things.