In past years, I have done simulated NCAA Tournament brackets using a much more complex system than the simpler system I have used in my preceding posts this year. I will continue reporting what the bracket looks like using the simpler system, as it emphasizes the two key factors related to the NCAA Tournament: RPI Rank and Top 50 Results rank, which I combine together into a single factor with each weighted 50 percent.
In addition, however, starting this week I will report on the results using the more complex system. It looks at a total of 92 factors and, based on how team data compares to those factors, identifies teams that historically always have gotten a positive decision or a negative decision for each Committee decision category: #1 through #4 seeds and at large selections. If the applying the factors leaves more open positions to fill, the system also identifies candidate (bubble) teams that might fill those positions. In the past, I have made my own educated guesses as to whom the Committee would select from the bubble teams, based on the data. Last summer, however, I did a study that identified the most successful factor at picking from the bubble teams for each Committee decision.
Thus, when there are bubble teams as to a decision, here is the factor that best matches the Committee decision for each decision category:
Teams to get a seed: ARPI Rank and Common Opponent Score Rank, a combined factor with each element weighted at 50 percent. With this factor, applied to the RPI top 26 teams, I identify the 16 teams to be seeded. Over the years from 2007 through 2019, this factor correctly identifies all but 14 teams getting seeds, thus missing about 1 per year. (Since 2007, no team ranked poorer than 26 has been seeded.)
#1 seeds: Adjusted Non-Conference RPI. I first apply the 92 factor system to the RPI top 7 teams, to identify teams that history says must get #1 seeds and must not get them. To the remaining top 7 teams, I apply the Adjusted Non-Conference RPI to identify the ones to fill any remaining #1 seed positions. Over time, this system correctly identifies all but 1 team getting #1 seeds, thus correctly identifying virtually all of them. (No team ranked poorer than 7 has gotten a #1 seed.)
#2 seeds: ARPI Rating and Conference Rank, a combined factor with each element weighted at 50 percent. I first apply the 92 factor system to the RPI top 14 teams (those to which I have not already assigned #1 seeds), to identify teams that history says must get #2 seeds and must not get them. To the remaining top 14 teams, I apply this combined factor to identify the ones to fill any remaining #2 seed positions. Over time, these steps for the #1 and 2 seeds correctly identify all but 4 teams getting #1 and 2 seeds combined, thus missing one about every three years. (No team ranked poorer than 14 has gotten a #2 seed.)
#3 seeds: ARPI Rank and Conference Rank, a combined factor with each element weighted at 50 percent. I first apply the 92 factor system to the RPI top 23 teams (those to which I have not already assigned #1 or #2 seeds), to identify teams that history says must get #3 seeds and must not get them. To the remaining top 23 teams, I apply this combined factor to identify the ones to fill any remaining #3 seed positions. Over time, these steps for the #1 through #3 seeds correctly identify all but 15 teams getting #1 through 3 seeds, thus missing a little over one per year. (No team ranked poorer than 23 has gotten a #3 seed.)
#4 seeds: Since I identify the 16 teams to be seeded in the first step above and have just seeded 12 of them, the remaining 4 get the #4 seeds. Over time, these steps for the #1 through #4 seeds correctly identify all but 11 teams getting #1 through 4 seeds, thus missing a little under one per year.
At large selections: ARPI Rank and Top 50 Results Rank, a combined factor with each element weighted at 50 percent. I first apply the 92 factor system to the RPI top 57 teams (those to which I have not already assigned seeds and that are not Automatic Qualifiers), to identify teams that history says must get at large selections and must not get them. To the remaining top 57 teams, I apply this combined factor to identify the ones to fill the still open unseeded at large positions. Over time, these steps for the at large selections correctly identify all but 14 teams getting at large positions, thus missing a little over one per year. (No team ranked poorer than 57 has gotten an at large selection.)
Using my simulated end of year results based on actual results of games played through September 26 and simulated results of games not yet played, including simulated conference tournaments, with the simulated results based on team actual current RPI ratings, this system produces the following simulated NCAA Tournament bracket. The four #1 through #4 seed pods are identified in the left-hand column as 1 through 4. The unseeded Automatic Qualifiers are 5. The unseeded at large selections are 6. (The teams not getting at large selections but next in line are Georgia and Stanford.)
No comments:
Post a Comment