Computerized Brackets?

[FlyingArrow]

Interesting article:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...urnament-field

The reason why you shouldn't let KenPom and Sagarin decide the brackets is twofold. First, they are trying to determine the best teams. To do so, they take into account margin of victory. An NCAA berth should go to the most deserving teams... where margin of victory is ignored. Second, another part of being 'deserving' is doing what the selection committee asks... which is scheduling tough outside conference and winning on the road. Those things don't get any extra bonus as far as KenPom and Sagarin are concerned.

Honestly, using Dance Card would probably work just fine. They looked at what the committee "wants" (based on who they took in previous years) and formalized it. After a decade or more of subjective decisions, we can objectively say what those subjective decisions should be if they remain consistent. So why not just do that?

[Whacker]

I wouldn't want a computer selecting teams, but I would love to see them seeded that way.

[FlyingArrow]

Originally Posted by Whacker I wouldn't want a computer selecting teams, but I would love to see them seeded that way.

That's interesting, because I would go just the opposite way. Bids themselves should be earned based on an objective criteria, and I think a computer could do that just fine. (Although I don't like KenPom or Sagarin for that purpose.)

But I think the seeding should try to determine the 'best' teams and ensure that they don't meet until the Final 4. Likewise, the next strongest teams should be seeded 2, and so on. Perhaps KemPom or Sagarin's numbers would be okay for that, but seeding is where I would trust a human more.

[Glen Clark]

Originally Posted by FlyingArrow That's interesting, because I would go just the opposite way. Bids themselves should be earned based on an objective criteria, and I think a computer could do that just fine. (Although I don't like KenPom or Sagarin for that purpose.) But I think the seeding should try to determine the 'best' teams and ensure that they don't meet until the Final 4. Likewise, the next strongest teams should be seeded 2, and so on. Perhaps KemPom or Sagarin's numbers would be okay for that, but seeding is where I would trust a human more.

Seeding is not only balance, it is also about travel, timing, proximity to a school's fan base, and avoiding re-matches in the early rounds.
It would be a very elaborate computer model to consider all the nuances of seeding the field of 68.

___________________
Whether your glass is half empty or half full, you still have more to drink.

[FlyingArrow]

Originally Posted by Glen Clark Seeding is not only balance, it is also about travel, timing, proximity to a school's fan base, and avoiding re-matches in the early rounds. It would be a very elaborate computer model to consider all the nuances of seeding the field of 68. ___________________ Whether your glass is half empty or half full, you still have more to drink.

That, too. It would need to be elaborate, but most of that could be incorporated into a model - distance is easily quantified and optimized. (The actual optimal may be elusive, but you wouldn't get that with humans, either.)

The committee says they don't try to 'play games' by setting up match-ups. Not sure I believe them, but if they don't I think they should. Putting 'drama' into the games is good (like UD vs OSU... coach versus his mentor along with a transfer plus the schools are an hour away - wow). That's something that would be near impossible with a computer model.