The Best and Worst of the Bubble/Bracketology Sites

[pimpinthebox]

Big bubble analysis fan here. For what it's worth, I think X is safely in and we can stop worrying about it. And I'm a worrier, but I honestly think we're just jockeying for seed and location at this point. The topic here is more or less a breakdown of the sites to best judge the bubble. Here's my quick breakdown of some of the most popular/best sites out there. By no means do I consider this a comprehensive list, but should get the conversation going a bit.

- ESPN's Bubble Watch (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bubblewatch) is okay. As many have alluded to, they often don't know what the hell they're talking about in their analysis, but their IN, OUT, LOCK, WORK TO DO statuses are pretty accurate.

- CBS' Bubble Watch (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/bubble-watch) is a bit better than ESPN's. I just think CBS has more knowledgeable guys working on it and that naturally nets better results.

- Joe Lundardi's Bracketology (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology) - Tough to argue with the guy when he consistently gets every team but one or two right every year. Not that it's all that difficult once you know what the committee looks for, but still. Nice timing on the haircut by the way, Joe. Can you imagine Mel Kiper getting a buzz-cut the last week of April?

- Jerry Palm's Bracketology (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology) - Pretty much the same as Lunardi. It really depends on personal preference/which dork, I mean, guy you like better.

- Bracket Matrix (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/) - I think this one is a little overrated. I like the concept - an aggregate of 80+ mock brackets from everywhere - but therein lies the problem. Maybe they toss the outliers (didn't read that in-depth on their formula), but I guess I have a real problem with them including just anyone who can throw off the metrics one way or another. For instance, some slapdick outfit called bafanabafana123.blogspot.com has X as a 12. Really?

- Dance Card (http://www.unf.edu/~jcoleman/dance.htm) - First and foremost, hats off to their squad, North Florida, for making their first dance. They deserve it just on the merits of this guy's work. That said, I like the site a lot. It's simple, the "bubble bursts here" line is cool, and you can argue with their success in the past (98% over the last three years), but I have a tough time believing Miami is in and Dayton (as beautiful as that sounds) is out as of now.

- Team Rankings (http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-tournament/bracketology/) - This is a good one. Anytime they self-proclaim themselves as "nerds" and "run thousands of computer simulations" daily, that's good enough for me. Seems on point and passes the proverbial eye test.

I welcome your thoughts and opinions.

[xubrew]

I think they're all pretty much the same. They're all just guessing, and all of them pretty much guess with relatively the same level of accuracy. There isn't any secret or complicated formula that's going to tell you what a committee full of athletic directors and conference commissioners (and one deputy commissioner) is going to do.

[X-Fan]

Just when I thought I might get something done at work today...you post this. ;-)

I love this time of year. I'm such a BBall junkie. Naturally it's WAY better when X is in the thick of it. All Hail March Madness!!!!

[xubrew]

Jerry Palm is the guy who does the CBS Bubble Watch.

[pimpinthebox]

I think they're all pretty much the same. They're all just guessing, and all of them pretty much guess with relatively the same level of accuracy. There isn't any secret or complicated formula that's going to tell you what a committee full of athletic directors and conference commissioners (and one deputy commissioner) is going to do.

I agree with your final point (about there being some right answer to decide what an arbitrary group of folks will decide), but beg to differ about your first few comments. They are not the same and that's really what interests me - how they get there. Sure, in the end, they're mostly the same level of accuracy, because as I noted in my post, it's not all that difficult at the very end. But with one, two, three weeks left in the season (which is when most of us start looking), it's fun to check out.


Just when I thought I might get something done at work today...you post this. ;-) I love this time of year. I'm such a BBall junkie. Naturally it's WAY better when X is in the thick of it. All Hail March Madness!!!!

AMEN.

[THRILLHOUSE]

I agree with the criticism of Bracket Matrix. However, they do have rankings of how accurate the various "bracketologists" are - http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html So that can be pretty helpful in figuring out which brackets to look at and which ones you can pretty much ignore.

[Masterofreality]

Look at Pimp bringing the heavy lumber to the board!

Dude lurks all year long, then comes out swinging! Nice job!

[xubrew]

I agree with your final point (about there being some right answer to decide what an arbitrary group of folks will decide), but beg to differ about your first few comments. They are not the same and that's really what interests me - how they get there. Sure, in the end, they're mostly the same level of accuracy, because as I noted in my post, it's not all that difficult at the very end. But with one, two, three weeks left in the season (which is when most of us start looking), it's fun to check out.

Pimp, the reason I say they're all the same is that, at least to me, they're all crunching the same data, and although there are some differences, they basically have the same 76 or so teams all within one or two seed lines of each other. The bubbles are largely the same. It isn't as if Jerry Palm has Texas A&M on the #6 line, and Joe Lunardi doesn't even think they're a bubble team.

I don't think any of them are getting any actual input from the people who are on the committee. I wonder if they even know who is on the committee. That's fine, and even if they interviewed all the committee members they probably still wouldn't be any more accurate than what they're currently doing, but they're basically using the same sort of quantitative process and coming up with very similar results.

[pimpinthebox]

Look at Pimp bringing the heavy lumber to the board!

Dude lurks all year long, then comes out swinging! Nice job!

It's all about quality (not quantity) when I post, MOR. It's a well thought-out 700+ posts. Having said that, it's a personal goal of mine to get into the 1000+ club by the end of 2015.

[goldiewilson]

Lunardi has Xavier playing Davidson in the first round in his latest bracketology.

If I were an X fan I would pray to the basketball gods that doesn't happen.

The way the Musketeers defend the three, along with the way Davidson shoots the three, and that one would get ugly real quick-like

[Masterofreality]

It's all about quality (not quantity) when I post, MOR. It's a well thought-out 700+ posts. Having said that, it's a personal goal of mine to get into the 1000+ club by the end of 2015.

Wait. Are you saying that my 12,849 prior posts are of no quality? :laugh:

[ArizonaXUGrad]

They are definitely a live/die by the three team. Those work both ways. Regardless, I would be happy for this team to first make it past the play-in game status.

[xavierj]

Lunardi has Xavier playing Davidson in the first round in his latest bracketology.

If I were an X fan I would pray to the basketball gods that doesn't happen.

The way the Musketeers defend the three, along with the way Davidson shoots the three, and that one would get ugly real quick-like

Goldie, Davidson plays in a run of the mill weak conference, Xavier is not concerned with them because of how weak they are on the inside. Even if they hit 12 3's Xavier would score at will on the inside. To be honest are they projected to go to the tournament because they beat Dayton at home and a depleted VCU team at home? That's all they have. They beat absolutely no one else this year. In the non conference, their best win was NC Wilmington who has an RPI of 135. I say they have an NIT resume at best.

[Milhouse]

Davidson has a great coach too. I wouldn't want to draw them.

[D-West & PO-Z]

They are definitely a live/die by the three team. Those work both ways. Regardless, I would be happy for this team to first make it past the play-in game status.

Dont worry, already past it.

[BandAid]

Lunardi has Xavier playing Davidson in the first round in his latest bracketology.

If I were an X fan I would pray to the basketball gods that doesn't happen.

The way the Musketeers defend the three, along with the way Davidson shoots the three, and that one would get ugly real quick-like

Am I the only one here who is disappointed your name isn't Mayor Goldie Wilson?

[pimpinthebox]

Let's try to stay on topic here, everyone.

[nuts4xu]

FWIW, the NCAA have updated their latest RPI, and we check in at #37.

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-rpi

[Xville]

Goldie, Davidson plays in a run of the mill weak conference, Xavier is not concerned with them because of how weak they are on the inside. Even if they hit 12 3's Xavier would score at will on the inside. To be honest are they projected to go to the tournament because they beat Dayton at home and a depleted VCU team at home? That's all they have. They beat absolutely no one else this year. In the non conference, their best win was NC Wilmington who has an RPI of 135. I say they have an NIT resume at best.


They are the exact kind of team that I don't want X to play in the first round...they are 4th in the entire country in scoring, 3rd in assists and 28th in fg%. They can fill it up...you really want Xavier to play a team that shoots the 3 well?

[Masterofreality]

Anybody think that Buffalo or Old Dominion get at large bids if they stumble in their Conference Tournament?

[XUFan09]

- Bracket Matrix (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/) - I think this one is a little overrated. I like the concept - an aggregate of 80+ mock brackets from everywhere - but therein lies the problem. Maybe they toss the outliers (didn't read that in-depth on their formula), but I guess I have a real problem with them including just anyone who can throw off the metrics one way or another. For instance, some slapdick outfit called bafanabafana123.blogspot.com has X as a 12. Really?

- Dance Card (http://www.unf.edu/~jcoleman/dance.htm) - First and foremost, hats off to their squad, North Florida, for making their first dance. They deserve it just on the merits of this guy's work. That said, I like the site a lot. It's simple, the "bubble bursts here" line is cool, and you can argue with their success in the past (98% over the last three years), but I have a tough time believing Miami is in and Dayton (as beautiful as that sounds) is out as of now.

- Team Rankings (http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-tournament/bracketology/) - This is a good one. Anytime they self-proclaim themselves as "nerds" and "run thousands of computer simulations" daily, that's good enough for me. Seems on point and passes the proverbial eye test.

I welcome your thoughts and opinions.

The thing about outliers is that if you have a large enough sample size, they tend to cancel each other out. Bracket Matrix's composite actually has the 7th best score over the past 9 years out of 76 brackets. FYI Pat Stevens at Syracuse.com and Jeff Borzello at Busting the Bracket are the two best mainstream bracketologists over the years.

I'm a big fan of Dance Card and their success rate. Maybe Dayton will make the tournament, but honestly where they are located is a lot closer to the truth than where most people have them IMO.

I like Team Rankings and think their site is really cool. Over the past nine years, though, they are ranked 64th out of 76 brackets. Not good. The fact that they still give Xavier a 12% chance of a 2-5 seed should also make them suspect.

[THRILLHOUSE]

Anybody think that Buffalo or Old Dominion get at large bids if they stumble in their Conference Tournament?

You could make a case for Old Dominion, but don't see it for Buffalo despite their good RPI rank.

[bleedXblue]

10 at worst.

Win 1 we're a 9

Win 2 we're an 8

Win 3 we're a 7....possibly move down to a 6 as our win total would be 22 and our RPI would easily be low 20's.

[pimpinthebox]

The thing about outliers is that if you have a large enough sample size, they tend to cancel each other out. Bracket Matrix's composite actually has the 7th best score over the past 9 years out of 76 brackets. FYI Pat Stevens at Syracuse.com and Jeff Borzello at Busting the Bracket are the two best mainstream bracketologists over the years.

I'm a big fan of Dance Card and their success rate. Maybe Dayton will make the tournament, but honestly where they are located is a lot closer to the truth than where most people have them IMO.

I like Team Rankings and think their site is really cool. Over the past nine years, though, they are ranked 64th out of 76 brackets. Not good. The fact that they still give Xavier a 12% chance of a 2-5 seed should also make them suspect.

Great points. This is what I was after. I'll check out those others. By the way, where do you get this? "Over the past nine years, though, they are ranked 64th out of 76 brackets."

[THRILLHOUSE]

Great points. This is what I was after. I'll check out those others. By the way, where do you get this? "Over the past nine years, though, they are ranked 64th out of 76 brackets."

From the Bracket Matrix page I linked earlier in the thread - http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html

[XUFan09]

I really wish those guys were more accurate, because they are easily my favorite site lol.

[xukeith]

I really wish those guys were more accurate, because they are easily my favorite site lol.

My favorite site:

http://bracketmatrix.com/