The RPI/SOS data just came in from CBS. So all I have left to provide you with the final stats sheet is the US Basketball Writers Association picks for All-Americans. That should come in this afternoon.
I don’t need that, however, to do the Pulse Check model. So that’s the next order of business. BTW – when you get the sheet, check out columns CV through DX. I decided to do my Pulse Check disqualifiers right in the same sheet. A little bonus for you Insiders. (Ignore CF and CG: those are my pass at assessing the value of coaching against KenPom efficiency. The factor isn’t .04296 in case you care; it’s .1289. Whatev.)
My plan is to clear the decks of the models–and yes, I’ll do a Keeper too–but not until I can breathe tomorrow or early Wednesday. Then I’ll get into some analysis of the trends, like comparing the Seed Quality Curve with the last nine dances…and identifying key trends. Here’s one: this is the lowest scoring tourney field since the dance expanded to 64 teams in 1985. These squads average just 71.8 points a game–a far cry from the 83ppg of 1989.
Peter Tiernan has been using stats to analyze March Madness for 22 years. He writes for 
great work yesterday pete. you’re a beast!
i’m working under the impression that this year is going to be an above upset tourney right? closer to 2011 than 2007? in terms of how crazy this year will be is there another year we can compare this one to. the reason i ask is i’d like to look back at that year and see what models did well. just for fun
Hey Paul. I’m going to put together a couple quality curves. Keep your eyes open.
Pete:
The last post I saw before tournament week was that 5 teams had Champ Credentials:
IU, Duke, Michigan, Kansas, Louisville
Did that change? Does the Final Four/Champ Model take that into account?
Thanks.
Also after looking at the first 5 models that came out, I saw a lot of chalk that probably won’t happen…. so how do we interpret these models and apply them to realistic situations that will actually happen?
BTW Sickest website for college bkb EVER
Quick answer, Jared: take with a grain of salt. Check out the upcoming Seed Quality Curve. The outcome matching bracket is the closest to trying to emulate actual results. That probably makes it the most volatile.
Hey Pete,
Great stuff! Quick question, if this is the lowest scoring tournament field in decades does that mean the “73ppg” criterion should be adjusted. It would seem to me like scoring relative to the average tournament team would be more important than the average value. (But then again, I’m not the expert, you are!)
I leave that for you to decide. Truth be told, I already adjusted it downward last year, as scoring slid lower and lower. The fact is, 26 of the last 28 champs have scored at least 75 points a game.