Category Archives: descriptive

A Hybrid Solution to Seeding the NCAA Tournament – update

Last year, I proposed a hybrid solution to seeding the NCAA Tournament, combining the aspiration to both reward strong resumes and maintain the integrity of the bracket–that is, actually giving higher seeds the better draw. That post was lacking in … Continue reading

Posted in College Basketball, descriptive, March Madness, predictive, team evaluation | 2 Comments

A Hybrid Solution to Seeding the NCAA Tournament

I’m on record many times as being in favor of a purely objective selection criteria. However, when it comes to seeding, things are a bit trickier. While selection is a purely binary process–you’re either in or you’re out–all teams are … Continue reading

Posted in College Basketball, descriptive, March Madness, predictive, team evaluation | 4 Comments

The Case for Objective Selection

Every year around this time, the 350+ Division I basketball teams wrap up their regular seasons and–save for the 32 conference champions who receive automatic bids–leave their fates in the hands of the aptly-named Selection Committee. Later today, this committee … Continue reading

Posted in College Basketball, descriptive, March Madness, predictive, team evaluation | 5 Comments

Grading the Selection Committee’s In-Season Preview

Today, the NCAA Selection Committee put out their first ever in-season preview, releasing the current top 16 if the season were to end today. Let’s see how they did. First, here is their s-curve alongside my own Achievement Rankings, ESPN’s … Continue reading

Posted in College Basketball, descriptive, March Madness, review, team evaluation | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Silliness of Bracketology

We’re less than one month from Selection Sunday, which means the burgeoning field often called Bracketology is in full swing. Bracketology has taken on some broader meanings over the years, but it most often refers to predicting the selection and seeding of … Continue reading

Posted in College Basketball, descriptive, March Madness, review | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Achievement S-Curve – 2013 Final

Selection Sunday 2013 is in the books. Time to release the final Achievement S-Curve of 2013 and see how it compares to the actual bracket. The 2013 Achievement S-Curve (click twice to embiggen):

Posted in College Basketball, descriptive, March Madness, predictive, review, team evaluation | 3 Comments

What’s Wrong with the Hawkeyes?

Amazingly, the Achievement S-Curve matches up well with the traditional Bracketology projections out there such as the one at ESPN. The only current differences between my ASC and ESPN’s Bracketology occur at the very end of the bracket. All of … Continue reading

Posted in College Basketball, descriptive, March Madness, team evaluation | Leave a comment

Bid Stealers – 2013 Conference Tournament Edition

Earlier this season, I looked at those teams who could potentially shrink the at-large pool by getting upset in their conference tournament. These potential “Bid Stealers” are generally teams from mid-major conferences where they are the only viable at-large candidate. … Continue reading

Posted in College Basketball, descriptive, March Madness, simulation, team evaluation | 2 Comments

The Achievement S-Curve: 2/21/2013

It’s time to re-introduce the Achievement S-Curve for the 2013 season. For those of you that are new, I’ll give a quick recap in this post but check out previous posts that go into more detail about the system (try … Continue reading

Posted in College Basketball, descriptive, March Madness, simulation, team evaluation | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Evaluating QBs: Peyton Manning is a Better Playoff Quarterback than Tom Brady

Based on their respective records this might sound crazy. Brady has three rings, five total Super Bowl appearances, and a record 17 playoff victories. Manning on the other hand: a below .500 playoff record, just one Super Bowl ring, and … Continue reading

Posted in descriptive, Evaluating QBs Series, Football, offense versus defense, player evaluation, talent distribution, team evaluation | Tagged , | 29 Comments