Author Topic: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.  (Read 5118 times)

Offline Matthew Webb

  • Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2017, 08:31:55 pm »
 Episode II

It's like a queen sacrifice that sets up an endgame so subtly crushing no one can yet see it.
"It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere" - Voltaire

Offline PeterLangella

  • Second-stringer
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2017, 07:44:30 am »
Looks like Utica still has a very good chance if the favorites win. Also, have you done an Augsburg SOS simulation for them losing in the MIAC final? Would they get to .500?

Offline Matthew Webb

  • Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2017, 04:05:57 pm »
Looks like Utica still has a very good chance if the favorites win. Also, have you done an Augsburg SOS simulation for them losing in the MIAC final? Would they get to .500?

No but I'll take a look in about 90 minutes once I'm back at the estate. I'll run Endicott's also. I never did last week though my off the cuff estimation was pretty close. Speaking of SOS, another one to keep an eye on is Stevens Point. It's going to take a hit this weekend with two games against Superior. Would have been much better for Point if Stout had won the QF series. Hobart might have a crack at Pool B next week, provided it doesn't lose. Heck, how about I take a look at all of these!

A reminder, though: it's an estimation and not exact. I've not been ambitious enough to make it exact since it involves way more coding, but it's close enough that it gets the job done well enough. Obviously it can't be perfect as everyone's SOS slides somewhat based on further results, which in turn will affect the SOS in question, and so on...
"It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere" - Voltaire

Offline Matthew Webb

  • Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2017, 04:06:20 pm »
And I really do hate this week's bracket. But left it that way for a reason...
"It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere" - Voltaire

Offline Matthew Webb

  • Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2017, 04:08:50 pm »
Pair it up with those NC games, and you've got yourself a .5380. So it makes sense, but you're right...it's going to come down from here on out. I bet it's down around .5250 next week.

Oh wait, it was exactly right.

Sorry, had to :p
"It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere" - Voltaire

Offline Matthew Webb

  • Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #20 on: February 24, 2017, 02:27:02 pm »
Rough SOS estimations after this weekend (obviously don't account for influence of other results on existing OWP and OOWP, nor the rounding of current numbers done by NCAA).

Endicott: .520 (down from .525)
Stevens Point: .510 (down from .521)
Hobart: .521 (down from .522)
"It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere" - Voltaire

Offline ITH radio

  • All-Conference
  • ****
  • Posts: 988
  • Karma: +66/-12
  • Join us each Sunday at 7:30 PM
    • View Profile
    • Season VI of ITH
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2017, 12:40:19 pm »
Did I read correctly that it seems like the ECACW title will basically eliminate the loser from playoff contention?

Follow us on twitter @ITHuddLLe

Offline PeterLangella

  • Second-stringer
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2017, 11:51:29 am »
If Hobart wins, that's probably true, but if Utica wins, it's possible they both get in. We'll be able to make better guesses about that after tomorrow's set of rankings.

Offline Matthew Webb

  • Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2017, 02:21:47 pm »
If Hobart wins, that's probably true, but if Utica wins, it's possible they both get in. We'll be able to make better guesses about that after tomorrow's set of rankings.

I'd wager Hobart is pretty safe regardless and will likely even pull Pool B with a win and a Point loss. Should still be fine with a loss. Utica is a far more interesting case. Obviously a win would be huge, but there's a lot going on in Pool C at the moment and I'll have to see what things look like once I walk through it all. TBD...
"It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere" - Voltaire

Offline elbojpb

  • Junior Varsity
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2017, 05:46:49 pm »
Webb - The article for today's release states that " this week's rankings are the second of four sets"  but it is actually the third.

Offline OldAuggie

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 704
  • Karma: +247/-21
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2017, 12:04:08 am »
So how can you hand the MIAC tourney to UST when both polls have Augsburg moving up one spot and the Auggies ranked in the west region and UST unranked? I don't see the logic unless you think UST has the experience factor in thier favor.   

Offline Matthew Webb

  • Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #26 on: March 01, 2017, 12:05:22 am »
Webb - The article for today's release states that " this week's rankings are the second of four sets"  but it is actually the third.

Crap. Fixed. Thank you.
"It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere" - Voltaire

Offline Matthew Webb

  • Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #27 on: March 01, 2017, 12:10:41 am »
So how can you hand the MIAC tourney to UST when both polls have Augsburg moving up one spot and the Auggies ranked in the west region and UST unranked? I don't see the logic unless you think UST has the experience factor in thier favor.

For the purpose of the exercise we have to assume Pool A teams based on...something. Thus we defer to whichever team is leading the conference at the time, was regular season champ, etc. In this case that's St. Thomas. There is no perfect way but that's the most (and perhaps only) consistent way to do it. Things like that are why though bracketology can be (hopefully) educational and interesting to analyze, nothing much really matters until this Sunday.

That said, I concede that I believe Augsburg has been the best team in the MIAC this year and would consider it a slight favorite on Saturday despite the fact St. Thomas is hosting.

"It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere" - Voltaire

Offline Matthew Webb

  • Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #28 on: March 01, 2017, 12:13:27 am »
I'd wager Hobart is pretty safe regardless and will likely even pull Pool B with a win and a Point loss. Should still be fine with a loss. Utica is a far more interesting case. Obviously a win would be huge, but there's a lot going on in Pool C at the moment and I'll have to see what things look like once I walk through it all. TBD...

I'm modifying this: Hobart should be fine with a loss...unless Utica hops it in the final East rankings. That would change some things.
"It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere" - Voltaire

Offline Matthew Webb

  • Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #29 on: March 01, 2017, 02:50:03 am »
 Episode III

I hope people understand the simplified SOS point I'm trying to prove. The point isn't to wrangle about explaining OOWP while pointing out that if you really played the same team 25 times in a year you'd both have an SOS of zero.

The point is, simply, that gaps in SOS that have been historically deemed large often don't actually tell us anything meaningful about the quality of the teams in question.

Which puts me in a tough spot when we end up with something like this morning's final Pool C comparison. There always comes a point where I'm forced to guess or make assumptions, and when that time comes do I do what I think is "right" or do I hedge a bit and try to mimic the committee based on historical precedent, some other things I know, nudges we've received, etc? It's a tough call and it's something I've been weighing and haggling over for years. Which route actually represents the process better: my best interpretation thereof or my best interpretation of the committee's interpretation thereof? That is a very difficult question to answer. The former might be more true to the word, the latter more true to observed reality.

Regardless, the goal is to illustrate the process, and that's a goal I take seriously. The goal is not try to predict the bracket on a wing and a prayer so when it's right I can go home, take off my socks and smell them while thinking about how awesome I am. That sort of behavior might pass muster for some fanboys at RIT who have nothing better to do with their lives, but I prefer to live in the real world.

The great irony here is that a lot of the confusion exists thanks to former committee members themselves who bastardized the process for their own self-gain. Trying to beat down the (at the time warranted) belief that nonsense goes on takes time. A lot of time. The committee members over the past 4-5 years have done a great job of rectifying this and I like to think our shift to being illustrative as opposed to predictive has helped as well. While some discussions elsewhere continue to leave me bewildered, I do know that our columns get read more than ever and the complaints about them have gone from fairly routine/expected to almost zero.

That tells me that while a few people who like hearing themselves talk for the sake of talking seem unwilling (which is infinitely worse than incapable) to comprehend some basic things, that there a lot more people out there who are probably getting it. As usual the vocal minority does not represent all.

And that, is a wonderful thing.


« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 02:57:41 am by Matthew Webb »
"It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere" - Voltaire