Outside the Hashes

Those following along (those that have not, start here, here, and here) know that the goal of the Achievement S-Curve is to reward teams for what they have accomplished on the court. Wins and losses count. Strength of schedule counts. Scoring margin, the eye test, true team strength…they don’t count.

There are good arguments against simply selecting and seeding teams based on who is the most deserving as opposed to just the best teams. For one, some people simply prefer to select the best teams and see them go at it in the tournament. Secondly, while seeding teams based on achievement rewards the top teams with good seeds and likely easier paths in the tournament, you may sometimes inadvertently hurt some of these teams who draw teams that underachieved during the season. Take Washington as an example from last season–they were a top 10 team by some rankings of the best teams but underachieved and drew a 7-seed. A team that earned a 2-seed would actually be better off as a 3-seed drawing an easier 6-seed as opposed to being slotted across from the Huskies.

So, this week, I offer two alternative S-Curve systems: (more…)

I will try to update this every week, though I won’t provide nearly as much commentary. For an introduction and explanation, try these three posts.

This week, I’ll get right to it with the chart. As always, the full S-Curve with additional information can be found here.

This week, I’ll tie in some comments about this week’s ASC as examples for what are the main differences between my ratings and ESPN’s Bracketology by Joe Lunardi (and other similar “bracketology” predictions). (more…)

Last year, I introduced the Achievement S-Curve. The idea behind it was that teams should be rewarded for their season based on their wins and losses and the strength of their schedule. This is in opposition to the other camp of evaluating and seeding teams for the tournament, where teams are judged based on who is the “best” regardless of record. I discuss this dichotomy in further detail in this post from last year.

Methodology

The result was my Achievement S-Curve, and I’m bringing it back for a second go-round this year. I explained the methodology last year, but I’ll give a quick summary here: (more…)

As a Colts fan since the Harbaugh days, I remember the last time the Colts had the number 1 pick. The decision then, however, was much different. Indianapolis was definitely drafting and keeping a QB, it was just a matter of who: Peyton Manning or Ryan Leaf. Bill Polian made the right choice and the Colts have benefited with one of the best sustained runs of excellence in NFL history.

Now, the Polian era has ended and his replacement will decide if the Manning era has ended as well. It’s a much different decision than the one 14 years ago. Let’s lay out the particulars of this Colts decision:

1. Peyton Manning–arguably the best QB in NFL history–has missed the season after his 2nd and 3rd neck surgeries in 2 years and will be 36 next season.
2. Manning is due a large bonus before next season, so the Colts have a decision to make this offseason about cutting or keeping him.
3. The Colts have the #1 pick, and this year’s draft features Andrew Luck who many consider the best QB prospect since Peyton Manning himself or John Elway.
4. The NFL instituted a slotting system for the draft starting last year. Cam Newton, the 2011 top overall pick, made less than half of 2010 #1 pick Sam Bradford. This makes the #1 pick even more valuable.

As I see it, the Colts have three choices: (1) keep Peyton Manning and trade the pick, (2) draft Andrew Luck and trade or cut Peyton Manning, or (3) keep both Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck. Let’s start with #3: (more…)