Saturday, January 19, 2008

Scoring Recommendations for Consideration by the Bracketology Community

Scoring Recommendations for Consideration by the Bracketology Community

Thanks to Brian at the Bracket Project, we have the Bracket Matrix. This bracket clearinghouse not only updates bracket projections on a regular basis and lists links and names of bracketologists ranging from experts like Joe Lunardi (who finished 30th … out of 30 in 2007) to your slightly better Joe with considerably less pub, but it also averages the projected seed. At the end of the season, the final bracket projections are evaluated based on three metrics:

* Teams picked correctly
* Teams seeded correctly
* Teams seeded within one of NCAA seed

Last year, Gary Parrish from CBS Sportsline informally suggested giving one point for each accomplished metric. Nevertheless, at present, there is no gold standard for scoring bracket projections.

With that said, here are my scoring recommendations.

  1. Teams picked correctly – Among the three metrics, this is the most important. Additionally, all bracketologists should know the 31 automatic bids by 5pm Eastern Time. Given this premise, I recommend that we give three points for each of the 34 at-large bids that are picked correctly.
  2. Teams seeded correctly – Right beneath selecting the correct at-large teams is picking the exact seeds of those teams. Therefore, let’s give two points for picking the exact seeds.
  3. Teams seeded within one seed of NCAA seed – Though important, this is the least important of the metrics and is largely present to accommodate the near-misses of bracketologists. You see the trend … one point for accurately placing teams within one NCAA seed.


Evilmonkeycma said...

I really think the lack of system at present is just fine. Look at who is suggesting we need a system. Do you really want to be associated with a guy who spends half his mailbag columns making fun of people, rather than searching for those intelligent emails that he can actually discuss?

But, if you want to go on with this, I'd suggest making that first part "-3 for each team incorrectly selected". It'll make the math a lot easier.

Paymon said...

Most of my comments were littered with anonymous comments not coming from me that were largely based on unadulterated opinion.

Thanks for the -3 idea.

Anonymous said...

Good timely topic.. The author points to a number of factors that very important.
If you are interested in balanced scorecard, KPI and metrics in business, check this web-site to learn more about Metrics and development metrics.

Bracketology 101 said...

Seems like a good scoring system to us. Parrish's system seems a little too symplistic.