NET/KenPom/BPI/Sagarin vs Bracketologists

[dahliaclone]

Small sample of ISU and Iowa but wanted to compare the big rankings like NET/KP/BPI/Sagarin against where the supposed 'big' Bracketologists have Iowa State and Iowa. As I suspected, Jerry Palm is off his ******* rocker.

Iowa State:

• NET: 13 (4 seed)
• KenPom: 12 (3 seed)
• BPI: 13 (4 seed)
• Sagarin: 12 (3 seed)
  • Average: 12.5 or last 3 seed or first 4 seed
• Bracketology:
  • Lunardi: 4 seed
  • Palm: 5 seed (but listed as #20 team so one spot away from 6 seed)
  • USAToday: 4 seed

Can't complain with ESPN or USAToday on 4 seed for ISU at all. But we are an average of the 12th team in the major ranking sites and Palm has us a full 8 spots or basically two full seeds lines below those averages. Makes absolutely zero sense.

Iowa:

• NET: 28 (7 seed)
• KenPom: 25 (7 seed)
• BPI: 30 (8 seed)
• Sagarin: 31 (8 seed)
  • Average: 28.5 or 8 seed line
• Bracketology:
  • Lunardi: 6 seed
  • Palm: 4 seed (but listed as #15 team)
  • USAToday: 6 seed

Despite an average of around 28th in the major rankings, bracketologists have Iowa hovering around the 6 seed line and I think that's fair at this point despite the rankings saying they should be an 8 seed. But Palm, yet again is laughable. Iowa's average ranking is 28th, but he has them THREE full seeds lines above that average at a 4 seed.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Palm may be on the Big Ten payroll. He always does this.

 

[dahliaclone]

Palm may be on the Big Ten payroll. He always does this.

If I have time I will try and do the Big 12 vs Big 10 for Palm/Lunardi/USAToday. Would be interesting.

 

[mj4cy]

I love how those guys act like they're so important and busy this time of year....yet their job really means nothing other than clicks for a website.

 

[NoCreativity]

If I have time I will try and do the Big 12 vs Big 10 for Palm/Lunardi/USAToday. Would be interesting.

Lunardi and Palm are nothing more than click bait to get view on their sites leading up to the tournament. Any of us on this board who follow college basketball closely could put up a similar bracket, its not rocket science.

 

[alarson]

I love how those guys act like they're so important and busy this time of year....yet their job really means nothing other than clicks for a website.

And they brag up their record of getting the field right strictly by how many teams made the field that they said would, when really 95% of 'whos in' is agreed upon by everyone.

 

[Sigmapolis]

And they brag up their record of getting the field right strictly by how many teams made the field that they said would, when really 95% of 'whos in' is agreed upon by everyone.

Sounds like political pollsters.

Give a monkey the same state polls the day before the election that Nate Silver has and they would probably hit on about the same % as 538 does.

The computers love us this year. That bodes well for the rest of the season.

It basically means we are due to regress to the mean... upwards.

 

[Cyclones_R_GR8]

I love how those guys act like they're so important and busy this time of year....yet their job really means nothing other than clicks for a website.

I have to admit it would be great to get paid to just sit and put out an imaginary bracket on a weekly basis for less than half a year

 

[Daserop]

I love how those guys act like they're so important and busy this time of year....yet their job really means nothing other than clicks for a website.

I've never understood why people pay attention to any of these people. These people don't make the final decision. A lot can still happen to change things. The only logical time to start guessing on where teams will end up is after the end of the regular season, and end of their conference tournaments.

 

[DurangoCy]

Maybe he doesn't know the difference between Iowa State and Iowa?

 

[cycloner29]

Small sample of ISU and Iowa but wanted to compare the big rankings like NET/KP/BPI/Sagarin against where the supposed 'big' Bracketologists have Iowa State and Iowa. As I suspected, Jerry Palm is off his ******* rocker.

Iowa State:

• NET: 13 (4 seed)
• KenPom: 12 (3 seed)
• BPI: 13 (4 seed)
• Sagarin: 12 (3 seed)
  • Average: 12.5 or last 3 seed or first 4 seed
• Bracketology:
  • Lunardi: 4 seed
  • Palm: 5 seed (but listed as #20 team so one spot away from 6 seed)
  • USAToday: 4 seed

Can't complain with ESPN or USAToday on 4 seed for ISU at all. But we are an average of the 12th team in the major ranking sites and Palm has us a full 8 spots or basically two full seeds lines below those averages. Makes absolutely zero sense.

Iowa:

• NET: 28 (7 seed)
• KenPom: 25 (7 seed)
• BPI: 30 (8 seed)
• Sagarin: 31 (8 seed)
  • Average: 28.5 or 8 seed line
• Bracketology:
  • Lunardi: 6 seed
  • Palm: 4 seed (but listed as #15 team)
  • USAToday: 6 seed

Despite an average of around 28th in the major rankings, bracketologists have Iowa hovering around the 6 seed line and I think that's fair at this point despite the rankings saying they should be an 8 seed. But Palm, yet again is laughable. Iowa's average ranking is 28th, but he has them THREE full seeds lines above that average at a 4 seed.

Better get a trademark filed on this right now otherwise Jon Miller will steal this!!

 

[NorthCyd]

Palm got a name for himself by being one of the first to figure out the RPI back in the 90s and making predictions before anyone else was really doing it. Now everybody and their brother is a "bracketologist", and Palm does not stack up. He is ranked 81st out of 126 bracketologists tracked on bracket matrix. Any of us could do that. He is living off of reputation and being one of the firsts to do this. That's all.

 

[cyfan92]

Bracket matrix is the only site you should use

 

[ZB4CY]

http://www.bracketmatrix.com/

Iowa State- Average seed 4.39.

-Highest Seed -3
-Lowest Seed -7

Plenty of 4 and 5 seed projections.

 

[EnkAMania]

Bracket matrix is the only site you should use

Agreed. In the 5 year rankings, Lunardi is 68 and Palm 82.

 

[Bigman38]

Palm got a name for himself by being one of the first to figure out the RPI back in the 90s and making predictions before anyone else was really doing it. Now everybody and their brother is a "bracketologist", and Palm does not stack up. He is ranked 81st out of 126 bracketologists tracked on bracket matrix. Any of us could do that. He is living off of reputation and being one of the firsts to do this. That's all.

Living off that and I bet there are a lot of Big 10 fans following him for some confirmation bias. The hawk fans here cite him regularly.

 

[VeloClone]

Palm may be on the Big Ten payroll. He always does this.

He was ragging incessantly about the prospect of the Big 12 getting 8 in the tourney the other day. "No team with a losing record should get in." He said losing record but in context he was clearly stating losing conference record. Beyond the auto-bids it should be the best remaining teams. There are a ton of teams with winning records in crap conferences that deserve to be left out over some teams in the middle of the best conference in the nation. If you don't like teams with losing conference records in push the NCAA toward contracting the tournament to 48 teams. An arbitrary rule saying a team must have a winning conference record will only dilute the tournament by gifting berths to teams with no business in the dance. Teams 65-68 are bad enough.

He also admitted that NET was indicating 8 Big 12 teams will be in despite confirming that NET was hurting the Big 12 much more than any other conference.

 

[dahliaclone]

Texas Tech:

• NET: 10 (3 seed)
• KenPom: 9 (3 seed)
• BPI: 10 (3 seed)
• Sagarin: 11 (3 seed)
  • Average: 10th or solid 3 seed
• Bracketology:
  • Lunardi: 4 seed
  • Palm: 4 seed
  • USAToday: 5 seed

The numbers say Texas Tech is a solid 3 seed. None of the three backetologists have them that high.

Kansas State:

• NET: 29 (8 seed)
• KenPom: 29 (8 seed)
• BPI: 34 (9 seed)
• Sagarin: 24 (6 seed)
  • Average: 29th or 8 seed
• Bracketology:
  • Lunardi: 6 seed
  • Palm: 5 seed
  • USAToday: 5 seed

Surprised by this. Numbers say they are solidly hovering around 30th. Bracketologists say otherwise and put them two to three full seed lines above that average.

Kansas:

• NET: 18 (5 seed)
• KenPom: 15 (4 seed)
• BPI: 16 (4 seed)
• Sagarin: 10 (3 seed)
  • Average: 15th or low 4 seed
• Bracketology:
  • Lunardi: 3 seed
  • Palm: 3 seed
  • USAToday: 3 seed

Not too shocked at this. KU's brand get them a boost by these bracketologists to the 3 line despite all the rankings suggesting they are closer to the 5 line.

Texas:

• NET: 35 (9 seed)
• KenPom: 27 (7 seed)
• BPI: 29 (8 seed)
• Sagarin: 27 (7 seed)
  • Average: 29th or 8 seed
• Bracketology:
  • Lunardi: 9 seed
  • Palm: 10 seed
  • USAToday: 10 seed

Despite the rankings saying Texas is more or less an 8 seed, none of the bracket guys have them above a 9. With an average ranking of 29th, Palm actually has them ranked 40th on his bracket, or nearly three full seed lines below the average. He has them as the last 10 seed team.

Baylor:

• NET: 36 (9 seed)
• KenPom: 37 (10 seed)
• BPI: 38 (10 seed)
• Sagarin: 36 (9 seed)
  • Average: 37th or 10 seed
• Bracketology:
  • Lunardi: 8 seed
  • Palm: 8 seed
  • USAToday: 9 seed

This is a bit of a surprise. But also shows how weak the bubble is. Rankings say Baylor is a 10 seed. Bracket guys have them a full seed line or two above that. I personally think they'll end up a 10 seed when it's all said and done.

TCU:

• NET: 43 (11 seed)
• KenPom: 42 (11 seed)
• BPI: 43 (11 seed)
• Sagarin: 38 (11 seed)
  • Average: 41st or 11 seed
• Bracketology:
  • Lunardi: 10 seed
  • Palm: 8 seed
  • USAToday: 10 seed

Like Baylor, bit surprised here. Showing bubble weakness?

Oklahoma:

• NET: 39 (10 seed)
• KenPom: 36 (9 seed)
• BPI: 36 (9 seed)
• Sagarin: 30 (8 seed)
  • Average: 35th or 9 seed
• Bracketology:
  • Lunardi: 10 seed
  • Palm: 11 seed
  • USAToday: 10 seed

As bad as OU is, their rankings aren't bad. They say they are a 9 seed on average...none of the bracket guys have them that high (not sure i would either) but they have the Sooners a full seed line or two lower than the ranking's average.

Michigan State:

• NET: 7 (2 seed)
• KenPom: 4 (1 seed)
• BPI: 4 (1 seed)
• Sagarin: 4 (1 seed)
  • Average: 4th or 1 seed
• Bracketology:
  • Lunardi: 2 seed
  • Palm: 2 seed
  • USAToday: 2 seed

Michigan:

• NET: 8 (2 seed)
• KenPom: 6 (2 seed)
• BPI: 9 (3 seed)
• Sagarin: 8 (2 seed)
  • Average: 7th or 2 seed
• Bracketology:
  • Lunardi: 2 seed
  • Palm: 2 seed
  • USAToday: 2 seed

Purdue:

• NET: 12 (3 seed)
• KenPom: 10 (3 seed)
• BPI: 11 (3 seed)
• Sagarin: 9 (3 seed)
  • Average: 10th or solid 3 seed
• Bracketology:
  • Lunardi: 3 seed
  • Palm: 4 seed
  • USAToday: 4 seed

Wisconsin:

• NET: 15 (4 seed)
• KenPom: 11 (3 seed)
• BPI: 14 (4 seed)
• Sagarin: 15 (4 seed)
  • Average: 14th or 4 seed
• Bracketology:
  • Lunardi: 5 seed
  • Palm: 4 seed
  • USAToday: 5 seed

Maryland:

• NET: 23 (6 seed)
• KenPom: 19 (5 seed)
• BPI: 23 (6 seed)
• Sagarin: 23 (6 seed)
  • Average: 22nd or 6 eed
• Bracketology:
  • Lunardi: 6 seed
  • Palm: 6 seed
  • USAToday: 6 seed

Minnesota:

• NET: 51 (13 seed)
• KenPom: 46 (12 seed)
• BPI: 62 (16 seed)
• Sagarin: 48 (12 seed)
  • Average: 52nd or 13th seed
• Bracketology:
  • Lunardi: 11 seed
  • Palm: 9 seed
  • USAToday: 10 seed

It appears the bracket guys are pushing the Big 10 low-hangers pretty hard when the rankings say they shouldn't be close. Also part of the crap bubble? But Minnesota's average ranking is 52nd! And Palm has them as a NINE seed?! That is FOUR full seed lines above their average ranking.

Ohio State:

• NET: 45 (12 seed)
• KenPom: 38 (10 seed)
• BPI: 35 (9 seed)
• Sagarin: 35 (10 seed)
  • Average: 38th or 10 seed
• Bracketology:
  • Lunardi: 9 seed
  • Palm: 9 seed
  • USAToday: 9 seed

Numbers say Buckeyes are a 10 seed. All the bracket guys have them a full seed above that average.

Overall not as bad as I was expecting...but Palm is heads and shoulders worse than the others. The outliers for the Big 12 are hands down Iowa State and for the Big Ten, Iowa.

Rankings suggest Big Ten really should only get 7 teams in but the Big 12 should get 8.

 

[Cy$]

Agreed. In the 5 year rankings, Lunardi is 68 and Palm 82.

My gang is 42nd

 

[isufbcurt]

Playing devils advocate - Maybe the bracketology guys are projecting what they think the seeds will be come selection Sunday and not what they would be today?