Bracetology 2012

[gohawks71]

Great post Mr. Deace.... Your right, if he is paid at all (which we know he is) it is too much thus he is definitely over paid.

Hey, I just wanted to know how Stevie was privy to the contracts of employees at ESPN? Could you tell me what Cowherd and Van Pelt make? I think those two guys know great radio.

 

[hoffahawk]

Acting, and caring, like it's anything other than that is a waste of time.

ESPN's talking heads spittle all over themselves saying what a genius he is, etc, etc...and its a joke. I almost think ESPN went out and created the computer program to emulate the RPI, then went out and hired the nerdiest person they could find to cast as their geek bracketologist.

Just like their new and improved more accurate QB rating, whatever it is called.

 

[GhostofBTT]

It's true, most can.

And, as I have proven with the empirical, date-stamped evidence of my own predictions, it's really not that hard. You figure out who is pretty much locked in. Some people, in the past, disagreed with my locks, but I stuck with them - and was only burned once (Syracuse). Then you go for the teams that are playing the best, beat the best opponents throughout the season, have the best L10, and then use RPI to finalize.

The point that you make is that it's REALLY, REALLY EASY to predict these teams if you follow college basketball. I would agree. Yet Steve is trying to demonstrate how easy this is by providing information that he got 79% of the entries correct. 79%. A C+ in school, if you will. That basically means he got all the "locks" correct and missed on every single bubble team available. That's not impressive, nor does it prove Lunardi is overpaid. It just shows that Steve isn't very good at predicting which teams will make The Dance.

I'm not trying to call out Steve on this one - I think he is very, very, very knowledgeable about sports, specifically college football, but to create a thread boasting that it's an easy thing to do, then failing at the aforementioned subject matter seems, well, setting yourself up.

Maybe I follow college basketball closer than Steve, I don't know. But if you were to take my results and show that Lunardi is overpaid fine, you can probably do that. But with Steve's results, it just proves that maybe Lunardi knows what he's talking about, or that Deace isn't good at predicting the field.

Just my two cents.

Damn. Spankie's stackin' bodies!

 

[TecmoSuperHawk]

Wow. Marshall in the field?? That is worse than when the committee put Air Force in about 5-6 years ago because "they are a tough team to prepare for". Marshall's resume is incredibly weak. They have 1 top 50 win and that was against Iona, not exactly like beating Michigan State.

On paper, Marshall's resume looks surprisingly strong. You break it down and there's no substance. And they are not even your last 4 in. It seemed like you were serious about this whole thing until you put Marshall in.

 

[hoffahawk]

Also depends on when you make the predictions. Doing it before the conference tourneys is going to give you a much bigger chance to make errors. Doing after or updating after makes it much easier.

 

[hawkeyeguy85]

Take a look at Lunardi's bracket yesterday, and snapshot it...that's two weeks out. That is what Steve is saying. Lunardi claims genius on the bracket he submits about 15 minutes before the tournament field is announced...most can do that good

You are right...it is not hard to get 98-99% correct on a final bracket after the conference tourneys.

I would submit to you and Steve that it is also not hard to understand that Lunardi's brackets through the season are a snapshot of the RIGHT NOW. If the tourney were today, these are in, these have more work to do. Nowhere is it stated he tried to predict how a team will finish the season. In fact, I think the opposite is stated.

So I don't think Steve really has a point here, as what he is trying to argue, doesn't match up with the purpose of the in season brackets. They're just for fun.

I also agree that it is not hard to understand ESPN is going to shamelessly self promote everything they do, impressive or not.

 

[hawkeyeguy85]

The point that you make is that it's REALLY, REALLY EASY to predict these teams if you follow college basketball. I would agree. Yet Steve is trying to demonstrate how easy this is by providing information that he got 79% of the entries correct. 79%. A C+ in school, if you will. That basically means he got all the "locks" correct and missed on every single bubble team available. That's not impressive, nor does it prove Lunardi is overpaid. It just shows that Steve isn't very good at predicting which teams will make The Dance.

I'm not trying to call out Steve on this one - I think he is very, very, very knowledgeable about sports, specifically college football, but to create a thread boasting that it's an easy thing to do, then failing at the aforementioned subject matter seems, well, setting yourself up.

Maybe I follow college basketball closer than Steve, I don't know. But if you were to take my results and show that Lunardi is overpaid fine, you can probably do that. But with Steve's results, it just proves that maybe Lunardi knows what he's talking about, or that Deace isn't good at predicting the field.

Just my two cents.

Agree...in fact, I'd say it is less than C+ work.

Correctly naming 80% of the field is only 54 of 68 teams. That means he whiffed on 14 bubble teams.

With 31 auto bids and we'll go with Deace's number of 21 at-large locks, that means every should start with 52 of 68 correct.

So he went 2 of 16 on bubble teams. Ouch.

Even if you give him a few "locks" as going on a limb, he's what 6 out of 20 or so.

 

[DaBears]

what is "Bracetology"?

 

[StatelineHawk]

Lunardi is extremely overrated. His job really isn't that hard. They will say he got 62/64 teams right. But really 31 of those are at-large teams that you can't get wrong. At least 28 of the remaining spots are no brainers. So he got 4/6 correct, big whoop.

Heres a good link if you want to follow better bracketologists.

The Bracket Project - Ranking the Bracketologists

I agree! Deace actually had a pretty good article. Lunardi is overrated.

 

[DuffMan]

I intend to prove that Deace is dramatically over-fed.

like

 

[StatelineHawk]

Take a look at Lunardi's bracket yesterday, and snapshot it...that's two weeks out. That is what Steve is saying. Lunardi claims genius on the bracket he submits about 15 minutes before the tournament field is announced...most can do that good

I agree! I can't figure the credit the guy gets for knowing so much. Most of us could do as good, and we have fulltime jobs.

 

[ColumbusHawk]

ESPN's talking heads spittle all over themselves saying what a genius he is, etc, etc...and its a joke. I almost think ESPN went out and created the computer program to emulate the RPI, then went out and hired the nerdiest person they could find to cast as their geek bracketologist.

Actually, it isn't that hard to create a spreadsheet for two of the RPI criteria. I spent part of a Saturday afternoon developing one. It's the opponents' opponents' adjusted winning percentage & rankings that is a *****. That would take some serious work & you would have to put in some time every day entering data. You would have to develop a spreadsheet including all 344 teams.

 

[hawkfan33]

ESPN's talking heads spittle all over themselves saying what a genius he is, etc, etc...and its a joke. I almost think ESPN went out and created the computer program to emulate the RPI, then went out and hired the nerdiest person they could find to cast as their geek bracketologist.

Well someone's a little jealous that ESPN passed them over for their bracketologist position.

 

[storminspank]

Actually, it isn't that hard to create a spreadsheet for two of the RPI criteria. I spent part of a Saturday afternoon developing one. It's the opponents' opponents' adjusted winning percentage & rankings that is a *****. That would take some serious work & you would have to put in some time every day entering data. You would have to develop a spreadsheet including all 344 teams.

Database.
Done.

 

[storminspank]

Agree...in fact, I'd say it is less than C+ work.

Correctly naming 80% of the field is only 54 of 68 teams. That means he whiffed on 14 bubble teams.

With 31 auto bids and we'll go with Deace's number of 21 at-large locks, that means every should start with 52 of 68 correct.

So he went 2 of 16 on bubble teams. Ouch.

Even if you give him a few "locks" as going on a limb, he's what 6 out of 20 or so.

This makes sense, as well.

 

[busabus114]

Tough to get a lot right when you dont count ties as wins