Live Q&As

Here are the Sagarin ratings.

Sagarin's "predictor" ratings (last column), which are the best for guessing future outcomes, have OSU about 1.5 points better than KU.  So this means his best guess is that OSU would be KU by 1 or 2 points, were they to meet on a neutral court

Big assumption both top seeds make it through. But I'd tip OSU, say 78-72....

According to the Massey model, 75-72 Ohio St.

Great question. This is a prime example of data you can use that the selection committee hasn't necessarily accounted for. You have more creativity and more time than the suits on the committee. Use it to your advantage....

Yes I quite agree; the poologic site wants me to take BYU to the regional semi... but didn't they just suspend a key player who was most of their inside game?  The computer ratings all assume that the same team that played during the regular season is going to show up in the tourney.  Injuries and suspensions obviously change this reality.  If you have knowledge of these things, using it will give you a small edge on your competition  :)

Again Richmond over Vandy is the hot pick....Utah State over Kansas State intrigues, too....These are the games that really help your pool score

Yes I agree re: Richmond and USU; both are just 2-point dogs despite being 12 seeds.  Clemson is just a 1 point dog and they just won big in the play-in game.  The only 5 that looks secure to me is Arizona, which is favored by 6 but many ratings I've seen indicate the spread is maybe closer to 9 there.

Definitely the soft quadrant. I don;t trust BYU, not with one player so responsible for the overall output. I don't trust Pitt either. Inasmuch as there's a George Masonesque  total Cinderella reaching the FF, it's coming from here....

I like Kansas State as a sleeper.  Nobody is giving them much chance, and don't forget, they have tons of talent and were preseason top 10.  They started the season poorly, but have been improving.

***

This is Brad:  can you really pick KSU when they're favored by just 2 in Round 1?  I'd hate to be relying on a coin toss type outcome in the very first game!

Totally agree that region is a wreck; I have Fla coming out of there but not much confidence in that pick

UNC has a 54% chance of making it to the sweet 16.

See http://www.masseyratings.com/rate/cb2011.htm

for all such probabilities.

ken I'm playing 2 sheets this year, and I'm a contrarian so I'm playing two 4 seeds:  Texas and Kentucky.  Both are in the top 10 for Sagarin predictor so seemed like "bargains" from a contrarian view.  I hesitate to add that my pool has an "insurance" feature, and I have insured both of these teams, so if they lose prior to the FF I get the team that beat them instead (which might well be Duke and OSU/UNC, of course).

Anyway, looks like your ratings are not as enamored of UT or Ken?

They can't beat Duke, but they may get to the elite 8.  I think Temple is a possible upset pick vs SDSU

I don't see them beating Duke. Can they live up to their exalted seeding? Perhaps....Call it East Coast bias but, boy, do a lot of people have them losing early.

Buy the book! No, seriously, thanks for the interest.  I posted a few Scorecasting-y tips here:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/scorecasting/03/14/ncaa-tournament-picks/index.html

Don't exaggerate momentum. Also a prior poster asked about accounting for injuries v/v RPI. This is precisely the kind of data a creative fan can access that eludes the selection committee.....

Very little data to suggest that jet lag affects road teams. (The home winning percentage doesn't budge when teams play nearby - Ravens/Redskins - versus when they fly across country. .... I've always wanted to study arena optics: that is, when a team accustomed to a small gym has to shoot in, say, the massive old RCA Dome, does that impact percentages - controlling for defense? Something to consider perhaps...

Watch out - they may not get past UGA

Huskies (Washington, not my UConn guys) are favored by just 5.5 over Georgia, so about a 2/3 chance to win (ie 1/3 chance to lose)

Not an injury, but Purdue suspended a player (Kelsey Barlow) yesterday. Not only a loss of personnel but potential chemistry disruption. A good example of why you may as well wait as long as possible before submitting your picks. Folks who filed Monday were unable to take advantage of this additional info...

I think there is room in the statistical modeling of these games to account for things like autocorrelation -- e.g., a team like KSU that started poorly but is playing better lately (UConn might be another example).  A lot of the current methods probably assume the games are all independent, but that's probably an oversimplification.  Time series methods could be used to account for the 'streakiness' in some teams' performance and thus do a better job of predicting who's going to persist in the tourney.

Ken, have you tried to model autocorrelation in this way?  I think there are a few JASA articles on this subject in NFL football...

Have a hard time seeing it. But your question provides an excuse to plug this piece by Sean Gregory:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,2059230,00.html

and this companion piece by Zach Kwartler:

http://blogs.princeton.edu/paw/2011/03/princeton_43_uc.html

Great halftime reads...

oops put this answer in the wrong spot.  Kentucky is favored by 13 so :

> spr(13)
 P(favorite wins) = 0.871 ;  underdog has 1 chance in 7.74

Yes, according to the computer models, they are a good pick.  However, from personally watching them, I do not feel comfortable with Pitt.

I concur.  I often advise taking "the weakest #1" as a fairly safe yet contrarian pick for the top of your sheet. But with Pitt's struggles down the stretch it's hard to feel great about them.

Keep in mind that how "contrarian" you want to be depends on the size of your pool.  If you're only playing against 10-15 other guys, you can play it safer and just take OSU or KU or Duke.  But if you're playing against 200 other guys (as I am), now you need to get away from the pack a little more and reach down into the 2-3-4 seeds for your champ, I would say.

Belmont has played only three top-100 teams, losing them all.  But they've dominated everybody else.  So there's not much good info to evaluate this team. 

How about a 256 team monster tournament, where the first weekend is a 4-team tournament at home sites of the top 64 seeds?

Fair point.

so is the NIT totally dead?  I thought NIT games were what we used to watch on Tues and Wed nights before the Big Dance?

I'm vaguely aware that CU was in the NIT (as they were snubbed by the Big Dance) and that my undergrad alma mater Huskers were promptly shucked, but that's about it.  ;)

I frankly don't understand the logic in having play-in games with non-16 seeds.  Why is it fair to require Clemson to beat a good opponent (UAB) just to get into the tourney proper, where as other similar teams (also seeded 12) just got in without a play-in?

I think the women's tourney made the right call by NOT expanding beyond 64.  If you're going to expand again, you can't use these ludicrous piecemeal solutions.

Plus, even President Obama didn't make finalize his picks until after the play-in games were over  ;)