College hoops fans – if you wanted another reason to hate A-Fraud, how about this?
Anyway, a more appropriate title for this column might be “Why Our Bracket is the Best”, but that would be a little bit self-serving, even for us.
As always, things are subject to change as the rest of the season and conference tourneys play out, but let’s take a look at the tourney teams from the Big Ten, in the most popular bracket out there (Joe Lunardi from ESPN) and the soon-to-be-not-quite-as-unpopular-as-it-is-now bracket over at RPIBracket.com.
No mud slinging here – I love Lunardi and the service he provides. In fact, the only problem I have with Joe, and all bracketologists for that matter, is that they are judged by how well they predict the actions of the selection committee, a body that is under express orders to generate as much revenue for the NCAA and its member schools as possible.
So, let’s just take a look at one of the major conferences in Lunardi’s bracket and my bracket, just to see what makes the selection committee (and therefore all bracketologists) tick. First, the overall stats for the conference as a whole.
| DATA POINT | LUNARDI | RPIBracket.com |
| Total Bids | 5 | 4 |
| Highest Seed | 2 | 2 |
| Lowest Seed | 10 | 9 |
| Average Seed | 5 | 5 |
I am not sure if there is anything telling there or not, except for the fact that Lunardi has one too many teams in the tournament. Forget that the team I am about to describe is from a BCS conference for one second, and tell me – does the team described below look like it should be treated as one of the 34 most deserving and at-large-bid–worthy teams in the country?
Record: 18-12
RPI: 73
SOS: 47
Wins Against RPI Top 50: 4
Losses Against RPI Top 51-100: 2
Losses Against RPI Top 101-200: 3
Obviously, the answer is a resounding NO. Does anyone out there really think that a team with 3 losses against teams that are not in the Top 100 RPI deserves an at-large bid? Well, I have news for you, my friends – there are going to be at least 2 or 3 teams that meet that criteria in the field of 65 this year, and every single one of them is going to be from a BCS conference.
So, what should we tackle next? I guess we can start with the team we just discussed briefly above – Illinois. An absolutely atrocious resume to be getting an at-large bid, and Lunardi has them as a 10 seed. I am not saying he is wrong, I am just saying that the data does not support the worthiness of Illinois to participate this year.
Not sure how this will play out, but let’s take a look at the 4 teams we share in common. I think we will find that the only thing that should REALLY matter, the STATS, are on the side of our bracket. But, the STATS do not line the pockets of the NCAA – the only things that do that are TV revenue and conference bias and east coast bias and juicy matchups and fans travelling to see their teams and spending all kinds of cash – something that the fans of BCS conference teams do very well. So, without further ado, here we go.
Purdue. I am shocked by this one, but our bracket actually matches Lunardi here…although I suspect it is because the stats have not caught up with the Boilermakers yet. If they lose the season finale and do not make enough noise in the Big Ten tourney, I think their drop will be much more precipitous in our bracket than the ones designed around bracketology, or parroting the selection committee, or making money above all else – however you want to look at it.
Ohio State. First of all, let’s start by saying that it is absolutely hilarious that Ohio State is ranked in the top 10 in both polls. They have 3 losses against teams with an RPI over 50, one of those against a team with an RPI over 100. Top 10 teams in the country should not ever lose to a team with an RPI over 100, whether Evan Turner is hurt or not. We have them right where they belong in our bracket, as a 6 seed, not a 3 seed like they are in everyone else’s bracket. Then again, we do not subscribe to the moronic practice of running an amateur basketball tournament based on making the largest amount of money possible.
Suffice it to say, we have 100% confidence that as soon as Ohio State plays a team in the bracket with a seed number lower than 6, Thad Matta will be sitting on his yearly long plane ride…right where he belongs. Speaking of things about this team that are hilarious – Thad Matta makes $2.5 million per year and his contract does not expire until 2016. Really, we looked it up. Besides, the dude looks like this. 
While we are making fun of A.D.s that give all this money to coaches who almost ALWAYS get bounced out of the tournament by a team inferior to their team, did you know that Rick Barnes also makes over $2 million per year? It’s true.
Michigan State. This is the most egregious error by Lunardi and presumably the selection committee. But the real travesty is that Tom Izzo will make the selection committee look like they know what the hell they are talking about…which they do not. MSU will end up with a 4 seed, just like they have right now, and they will win their pod and then take the #1 seed in their bracket right to the wire before dropping out of the tournament. That is all fine and dandy, except for the fact that Michigan State has 3 losses against teams with an RPI > 50, and their own RPI is only 26.
Based on our algorithm, we have them as a 9 seed. That would have them (assuming a first-round win) playing the #1 seed in their region 1 game earlier than if they were to receive a 4 seed. I hope the university enjoys the gift from the selection committee of providing them with whatever revenue they can take from that extra game.
Wisconsin. Go figure that the team with the second-best RPI in the conference, and the best SOS in the conference, is the team with the fourth-worst seed in the mainstream brackets. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the three teams with better seeds have vastly more revenue generating potential for the NCAA. Well, over at RPIBracket.com, where we let the data do the talking, Wisconsin is indeed the Big Ten team with the second-best seed. Kind of funny how that works out, huh?
Anyway, that’s just a very quick and dirty breakdown of what our current bracket looks like for the Big Ten and how it differs from the mainstream brackets and how it will differ from what the selection committee does this year. But we absolutely refuse to waver from our promise that we will continue to reward teams with higher seeds in our bracket based strictly on the data and nothing else.
Please feel free to check out our site. Not only do we have our current bracket out there at any given time, we also have some more information about our process and how it works. Some of the reading is a little tough, as there is a technical geeky section, but it is pretty easy to see that our bracket, though inaccurate from the standpoint of being able to predict what will happen with the selection committee, is almost certainly a much better approach.
Besides, why would you want to pattern your analysis after a group of people whose sole mission is to squeeze every dime they can out of an amateur basketball tournament?
Popularity: 1% [?]
