DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
March Madness 2016
HTML https://marchmadness2016.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 119--------------------------------------------------
2016 so far: 10 upsets, only about half predictable...how much
do we know?
DIR By: will
Date: March 20, 2016, 9:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The top two regions still look obvious - Kansas/Villanova and
UNC/Indiana winners will be your Final Four representatives. But
these bottom two regions continue to boggle me, and we'll need
to find better formulas this time next year to see if this
tournament that seems to rapidly increase in unpredictability
(thanks to a hand-selected committee with zero interest in
placing the best teams in the right places) can still be
predicted - none of the models we've used could have told you
MTSU had any chance whatsoever, Wisconsin (EDIT: formerly UNI -
MY GOD) would be in the Sweet 16, or that Kentucky would lose to
Indiana (seriously!). I have no clue how to create something
like the BracketMaster page Pete had on the old side...if we
have any programmers or developers on the site, that would be
nice. Or if Pete were willing to donate his old tool. We'll have
to make a lot of updates for next year and find new trends.
#Post#: 120--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2016 so far: 10 upsets, only about half predictable...how
much do we know?
DIR By: Trashthunderbolt
Date: March 21, 2016, 5:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I actually found the bottom two region not as mind boggling as
the upper left region (pathetic Kansas). On my bottom left, I
have almost all right (except Baylor) and on my bottom right, I
have Gonzaga to the elite eight (and yes, they CAN beat Michigan
State). Back-to-back, is your answer. Under seed is your answer.
Here's the detail:
1. Back-to-back: We see little conference winning back-to-back
first round game. I already explained that on a difference
forum.
2. Under seed. Clearly, Michigan State deserve a one seed, but
not only were they a two seed, they were NOT the best two seed.
And then there is Middle Tennessee of Conference USA. Why would
a C-USA team be seeded 15 when they have a Division I football
program? They were suppose to be seeded 14 at worse (somehow
Green Bay was given a 14 seed). That's one way explaining it (or
Michigan State bad negative turnover margin, or my favorite:
$$$$$ to take the fall).
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1