This is a housekeeping blog post:
- I’ll be gone tonight from 6:30 to about 10:00. I’m doing a special “Bracket Science Night” at the Wolverine Brew Pub in Ann Arbor.
- Some people are having trouble finding the models. They’re under the Tips+ section, called “2013 Models.” The link breaks across two lines.
- If you’re having any technical difficulties, email help@bracketscience.com
- The bracket forums are blowing up. Dive in! When I’m back, I’ll try to keep up, but there are so many comments.
- I’ll be in all day tomorrow–and I’ve got a few more models coming.
That is all.
Peter Tiernan has been using stats to analyze March Madness for 22 years. He writes for 
Where on the site is the link for entering the Great 8 Contest? I can’t find it anywhere…Thanks!
Sorry Lucas. We’re not doing it this year. Just too much else to get through.
Where can I find an updated Pulse Check (Tracking Key Tourney Disqualifiers)? I got the one from 3/16 that had Favorites, Challengers, Contenders, Scappers, Sleepers, etc…
This chart was crucial in helping me win last year! Thanks and I love the information overload!
If you download the latest Excel sheet off the Tips+ section, scroll all the way to CZ column (or around there). I tabulate the disqualifiers there.
Hi Pete,
I see on column DI that it has the Disqualifier #s listed.
Is this based on the Final Four/Champ Rules?
Thanks!
It’s based on the Pulse check stats–more than Champ Check, which is only seven.
So what is the % of champions that have had 0 DQ’s?
Sorry, I haven’t gone back and calculated that.
I’m just trying to get a sense of the value of these 12 disqualifiers.
Is there any trends that support having a disqualifier vs not having any?
The disqualifiers are there because they’ve historically signaled underachievement. Now…whether a combination of those disqualifiers leads to greater underachievement isn’t necessarily true. That’s for your to decide.
Thanks Pete!
I think I may have just convinced myself that Kansas is a sneaky champion pick.
Louisville is trendy. Indiana is my gut but the PASE of Crean now has me worried.
When I first started analyzing I was considering UNC to topple Kansas. Now I’m thinking Kansas National Champion..I think the madness is setting in.
The one thing that makes the Kansas pick entriguing to me is that everyone seems to try and pick someone other than Kansas in the region. Bilas likes VCU, you have Pomeroy liking Florida. Some have Georgetown others like the possiblity of Michigan…..Kansas may have a bigger chip on their shoulder than we realize.
Is anyone else seeing VCU as a FInal Four candidate? Meeting all the criteria…
What criteria? In Final Four/Champ they have three disqualifiers (SOS, Scoring defense, and no starting freshman) to make the FInal Four as a 5 seed, and in pulse check they have four disqualifiers, right?
I agree with Nate, I’m not sure which criteria you are talking about???
Maybe I am looking at it wrong but arent the 5-seed disqualifiers:
• A coach who’s never been to the tourney before or a snake-bitten coach with more than three bids and no Elite Eight run
• A team that didn’t go to the previous dance
• A winning percentage worse than .750 or better than .875
• A losing streak of two or worse heading into the dance
• A scoring average of lower than 70 points per game
• A scoring defense allowing fewer than 60—or no less than 69 points per game
• A scoring margin of 4.5 points per game or fewer
• An RPI ranked worse than 28th among the tourney field
• Fewer than 35 percent—or no less than 70 percent of points from guards
• Two or more starting freshman
• A strength of schedule ranked among the 30 hardest—or easier than 90
Their SOS is 41 which places them easier than the 30 hardest but harder than the 90 easiest (which would mean they are not disqualified for this)
Their scoring defense gives up 64.8 point/game which is more than the 60 and less than the 69 to be a disqualifer.
and they have no starting freshman.
Sorry to confuse anyone, but where am I wrong?
Their guard scoring is too high at 75.8%, which is a dis-qualifier
I will say they don’t have 3 dis-qualifiers, it is only the one
Ryan beat me to it. The syntax of that disqualifier is twisty. But it basically means only fives above 35 percent and up to 70 percent qualify.
Does anyone else remember an article earlier on here this year about the top conference in the nation being an underachiever in the tournament? Why is everyone all over Indiana and Ohio St then?
We could all be very wrong.
I do remember that article, and it has been chewing in the back of my mind all week, haha
Last night, at Bracket Science night in Ann Arbor, someone asked about the chances of an all-Big Ten FF. I said, “I assume you’re talking MSU, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Illinois, eh? Not good.” Kidding aside, MSU, OSU, Michigan and Indiana is a reasonable–if highly unlikely–Final Four. I keep looking for reasons to pick against OSU and Indiana.
I just keep eluding to 2011 when the Big East was the best conference and UConn won it all. Trying to find some connection there between the crazy tourney in 2011 and this years to match it with the strongest conference performing well.
How about the fact that Notre Dame qualifies as a Cinderella in round two in both historical upset rules and KenPom efficiency?
But can they get past ISU?
Wasn’t the top conference per the RPI the Mountain West? Doesn’t that mean that the Mountain West is the underachiever, not the Big Ten? Or are we using the “everyone in the country says we’re the best conference” criteria? I tend to think both the Mountain West and the Big Ten will have some underachievers and some overachievers.
The other night on ESPN they were discussing why the Mtn West had the best RPI and it is because quite a few of their games were against DIV 2 teams; I think it was a couple games per team. Not low level DIV 1 that lowers your RPI, but DIV 2 teams which neither help nor hurt your RPI. But, they do count as wins in your record. So, while Big Ten teams play low level DIV 1 guys early in the year which hurts (just like BIg East and ACC), Mtn West was playing DIV 2 teams.