Cromarticus

What stats are these.

 

I also have my own championship model. Here's how the 2008 teams fare:

 

1. Kansas

2. Louisville

3. Texas

4. UCLA

5. Tennessee

6. Memphis

7. North Carolina

 

They are all good at basketball.

 

Stats are a poor way to judge college basketball teams due to the variety of opponents and different styles of play.

Well, Neifi Perez, you're my pal, so I'll tell you.

 

Note #1: All of these stats are from BEFORE the tournaments started.

Note #2: The only thing that this system intends to determine is the champion. Teams that meet the championship criteria can still lose in the first round or any other time.

 

[Remainder of post removed by Xavier Cromartie in order to prevent stealing of my system.]

I don't want to sound rude, but this just does not work with college basketball.

 

2 of the 4 stats are dependent on the type of offense and tempo a team runs. Therefore, eliminating Georgetown because they run the Princeton. And Wisconsin with Bo Ryan's awesome swing offense designed for men. Teams have been very successful playing this way.

 

You're also limiting the other end with FG%. Such as Tennessee and North Carolina, who will be worse in that category since they're running teams.

 

And Kansas has better opportunity to be pretty with the stats since they play 20 creampuffs at home every year.

 

But, Kansas is also my favorite to win the title, so yay. So, they'll lose. Hopefully to the Badgers or the Golden Flashes.

 

It's fine to criticize. I want a system that works.

 

Here's what I theorize. If you ran a simulation on this tournament many times, I think teams 1–5 would become the champion almost every time. That's it. Like, here's a theoretical breakdown (just making it up):

 

Kansas 29%

North Carolina 19%

Memphis 18%

Xavier 12%

Georgetown 8%

UCLA 3%

Duke 2%

Gonzaga 2%

Wisconsin 2%

Tennessee 2%

Texas 2%

All others combined 1%.

I ran a simulation of the 07-08 season on College Hoops 2K8, and Campbell was the National Champion. Unfortunately, Belmont cheats in real life, and thus the world will end soon.

 

There is no system for the NCAA Tournament. It's impossible to predict results with such a small margin as one 40-minute game with young boys who are experiencing the moment of their lives.

 

It's also impossible to predict horrible coaching and pathetic execution at times, like Kent State in the 1st half.

Campbell must have jammed its 7 inch camel cock down everyone's throat.

 

I agree that there's no magic spell that reveals who will win 6 games in a row, because teams do have bad games or go into berserker mode. But we can look at probability, can't we? It's more likely that Kansas will do it than Mississippi Valley State. And so we try to identify why it is that Kansas is more likely to win it.

I'm not saying you shouldn't. Preparation and planning can be a fruitful and educational exercise.

 

I've done the whole breaking every game down to every minute detail stuff before. I've used suggestions from stuff like this and this. And failed miserably.

 

The saying that the stupid girl who knows nothing about basketball always wins. It's true. I did so myself when I was 12. For no other reason than being a homer for shitty Northeast teams.

Yes, I like to experiment and theorize and systemize.

 

I agree that it's not a good idea to pick game-by-game with statistical breakdowns. Human judgment tells us that Gonzaga wouldn't even win in round 1. The goal here is only to find the champion, because it's almost impossible to win your pool if you pick the wrong champion.

 

People who don't know anything about college basketball can win, sure. But not 'always.'

Let's hope Kansas wins. I have them as the favorite at 22%.

Kansas vs. Memphis.

 

Ortonsault vs. The Czech Republic.

 

OMG.