So, since there is a lot of time until Saturday, and I need to hide the fact that the pool is unofficially already won, it is time to bury the lead in blogs.
And the most obvious place is to catch up on the fact that the Lunatic did excellent predicting what the Selection Committee would do in who would make the tournament. Now, if I can only get better at actually predicting the games vs. what the committee would do……I did great on both my bracketology and handicapping – all the stuff that is imaginary and not worth anything more than the amusement for your reading pleasure.
But the Lunatic managed to predict 67 of the 68 teams. As many of you know, that is a meaningless number. 18 of the top 25 teams needed at large bids, and it is a rarity that a top 25 team in the polls does not get a bid. So, I already knew half the at large teams simply by looking at what the polls were. At the end, it really comes down to making 6-10 hard choices, and apparently, I was right on all but one of them.
And I was never going to get a perfect 68 of 68. I thought Rutgers was in the tournament. Rutgers was 40th in the NET rankings and had victories against Purdue, Indiana, Maryland, Northwestern, Michigan State, and 2 against Penn State. They lost enough games to be in the bubble conversation, but when you looked at the bubble, they had 7 wins against teams that eventually made the tournament.
The team I got wrong was Nevada. Their NET was 37th, but they only had victories against San Diego State, Boise State and Utah State. I figured the lack of victories against a tournament level team outside of the Mountain West would cost them. To be fair, I didn’t want that – I like the non-power conferences getting in. But regardless, I thought Nevada was in much worse condition than Rutgers – sure the Scarlet Knights might have had more opportunities playing in the Big 10, but they came through in 7 of them…. And if I compare them against a team like NC State (NET = 45, victories against Duke and Miami of teams in the field), I still wouldn’t have knocked out Rutgers to let Nevada in.
The amazing part is that I got 66 of the teams seed within 1 spot. That never happens. I normally get the teams right, but they are wildly placed into the bracket nowhere close to the true bracket. But that actually made me competitive against the media experts as well. I will use the Bracket Matrix entries and scoring.
I should mention – that the media does worse than a ton of the bracketologists on the Bracket Matrix – but lets face it, the people notice are the Joe Lunardi’s and Jerry Palm’s of the world. My standing would have been tied for 120th of the 229 brackets. But my imaginary competition is against the media.
Here is how I did – you get 3 points for getting a team correctly in the field, 2 points for getting a team correctly seeded, and 1 point for getting a team within 1 seed level.
- Jerry Palm (CBS) – 361 (67,47,66)
- Andy Katz (NCAA) – 360 (67,47,65)
- THE LUNATIC – 359 (67,46,66)
- Joe Lunardi (ESPN) – 359 (67,46,66)
- Paul Myerberg, Erick Smith, and Eddie Timanus (USA Today) – 355 (67,46,62)
- Kevin Sweeney (Sports Illustrated) – 354 (67,43,67)
- Mike Decourcy (FOX) – 349 (67,41,66)
- Bill Bender (The Sporting News) – 349 (67,41,66)
- Michael Lazurus (Yahoo) – 344 (67,39,65)
So, I tied for 3rd, only behind the CBS writer and NCAA.com writer. And I tied the great Joe Lunardi from ESPN.
Not bad for a short amount of time of pouring through schedules and statistics. Now, if that work could just pick the games better…..