Or, I could just publish it consistently as I have since 2019, and let people judge for themselves.
Not that it matters. No matter how well it does, people come back every winter to tell me how terrible it is.
*Update - NCAA Tourney Predictive Model 01/30/22*
- Thread starter Aike
- Start date
Not that it matters. No matter how well it does, people come back every winter to tell me how terrible it is.
Then why don't you wait until the tournament field is decided. Seems pointless to post it during the season if you're not intending to rank teams.Or, I could just publish it consistently as I have since 2019, and let people judge for themselves.
Not that it matters. No matter how well it does, people come back every winter to tell me how terrible it is.
I’m not trying to rank who I think are the best teams or who has had the best season. It’s an algorithm making a prediction of future results.
Hopefully that adds to your understanding and enjoyment.
Because a lot of people have told me that they like to see it. And apparently a lot of people who don’t care also like to look at it just to have something to argue about.
Incredible that people want to see it? Sure got your attention today.
Ok. Just went back and looked at your 68 team ranking of the tournament field last year. Who did you have that outperformed their seeding so much according to those rankings? Am i missing something? You had UCLA 42 which was about their seeding. You had Baylor, Gonzaga and Houston ranked high. But that’s 2 1 seeds and a 2. I’m not trying to be a smartass. But what did you predict that I couldn’t have just looking at seedings?Or, I could just publish it consistently as I have since 2019, and let people judge for themselves.
Not that it matters. No matter how well it does, people come back every winter to tell me how terrible it is.
Published all info last year and in 2019. Filled out brackets based on the model as did many others. Not going to take the time to dig up all that info a year later. Feel free to use it or not use it. If you think you can do better just guessing or looking at the seeds, go for it. You might just be right. It’s done pretty well but I’ve yet to get every game right. Kind of doubt I ever will.
Love the model and a lot of it lines up with my gut feel about how some teams would do in the tournament. Without seeing the bracket, I can already tell you I’ll pick Wisconsin to be an early out as a 2 or 3 seed. Tennessee seems like a team that could go on a run.
Question for you @Aike :
If someone has last year’s model, and last year’s bracket, do they have the ability to evaluate last year’s results themself, or would they need you to do it for them?
My masters degree is not in mathematics, so I am not 100% certain.
Lol. You’re more defensive about this than Aike. I’m sorry for questioning anything. Carry on.
And now you are vulgar.
That’s the direction people tend to pivot when they are embarrassed.
Good lord. Why would I be embarrassed? I looked at his model going into the tournament last year. I did evaluate it. It gave me nothing that the seedings wouldn’t have. I was trying to be polite. And so was Aike. But you apparently feel the need to jump to his defense full bore. You insulted others intelligence more than once in this thread. I don’t think I insulted anyone. I was just questioning some of his rankings.
That’s fascinating.
The model gave you nothing that the seedings wouldn’t have.
You should post all of those results and show everyone exactly how poorly his model performed.
You would be doing everyone a favor, including Aike.
And as you said, you don’t want to be a “smart ***.”
It’s a little odd, though, that you asked that question above. But then come back later and say you have already done it.
Please post it. I look forward to reading it.
I didn’t say he did bad. I asked if I was missing something. Because maybe I was. He had Gonzaga 1, Baylor 3, Houston 6, UCLA 42. He had USC 24, Oregon State 46, I think Arkansas 8 or 9 and I can’t remember the other one of the elite 8. That is all pretty much in line with their seeding. His rankings did fine. About the same as the seedings did.
Your quote above is that the model “gave you nothing the seedings wouldn’t have.”
It was a pretty chalky tournament, but my recollection is that his model even outperformed seeding last year (in said “chalky” tournament), and outperformed it even more in ‘19.
So, the model did provide more than the seedings in last year’s tournament.
Quick note to let you guys know that my model was included in this week’s Massey Composite Index. Check it out below (and scroll all the way to the right).
Massey Index
Massey Index
Just for this week?
Are you a “guest celebrity” (like on “The Love Boat”) or have you been added permanently?
It is as if @Aike is not aware that his model projections will differ from human polls, or computer models designed to reflect current rankings.
I think if he understood this, he would not keep posting his model week after week, and allowing all the experts on here to point out the obvious flaws in his model that has historically performed so well.
I think if he understood this, he would not keep posting his model week after week, and allowing all the experts on here to point out the obvious flaws in his model that has historically performed so well.
He's not ranking the teams, just putting them in order with numbers beside their names.
Latest
-
01
KSR Basketball
Kentucky vs. Manhattan: Preview, Odds & How to Watch
-
02
KSR Women's Basketball
Kentucky WBB's trio of McDonald's All-American freshman looked the part in college debut
-
03
KSR Women's Basketball
WATCH: Rapid Reaction from Kentucky WBB's blowout win over Morehead State
-
04
KSR
How Kentucky has Fared in Season Openers
-
05
KSR Women's Basketball
FINAL: No. 14 Kentucky WBB passes season-opening test with 43-point win over Morehead State