The Thrill Is Gone

As you can tell by the lack of textual characters over the last few days, the thrill is gone for TBB. When the bracket is whittled down to the big-money teams (Xavier and Gonzaga are slightly less big money, but still...), as a fan, I care less. I am MUCH more into the stories and trials of teams like Morehead State, WKU, and Siena than I am who has enough future NBA players to cut down the nets. Heck, even comeback stories like Michigan intrigue me more than another year of Pitino, Coach K, UNC, and the usual suspects. I still enjoy the high-level basketball, but I'm not sure what I can add to the cacaphony at this stage.

That said, it is still the national championship! And, there are only two weekends left. Soak it in, for high humidity, BBQs, and unrelenting Yankee/Sawks storylines are coming. Well, not for me. I'll be busy trying to drum up support for Project Mockingbird, counting down the days til hoops practice and Blue Ribbon Yearbook, and whipping myself into a frenzy over WKU's stacked team next season.

NOT an Upset

WKU beat Illinois. I was not surprised. Most die-hard hoops fans probably were not surprised, either. They won the way they have won 16 of their last 18: sticky D, winning the boards, and grit. All five starters scored in double figures and all played massive roles in the win. It's what they do. Zags are up next in a much tougher match up for this Topper team.

TONS of stories out there. You can read some them here, here, here, and here. Go to nearly any sports sight and see a Hilltopper on the front page.

Game Day

No more bracketizing or lockboxing. No more One-Stopping. No more throwing dishes against the wall while listening to that hated (enter your most hated TV talking head or radio host). It's time for the national championship.

It's game day, and it starts at 11.20 AM CST with an 8/9 doozy in LSU/Butler: Power Conference regular season champ versus Mid-Major Powerhouse in a game the committee seeded as a virtual draw. Fifteen other games follow.

My team, the WKU Hilltoppers, meet Illinois in the night cap at 8.55 PM CST. The Illini will be without G Chester Frazier, their defensive engine.

I don't post my picks publically. Only my family (and maybe my students) sees those, as they will not judge me for picking WKU all the way or picking them to lose. I have made bracket picks for 24 straight years or so and it's a rite of Spring for me. But, it is usually done with my family on the couch in good fun. Nowadays, with the distance from the couch too great for all of us to meet easily, we use the newfangled World Wide Web (the internet, they call it) to have a family bracket group.

Enjoy the day. Storylines, overtimes, glory and heartbreak await.

On "Bracketology"

Technically, I guess the term "bracketology" is accurate, as "-ology" means "study of a branch of knowledge." "Bracketologists" do study the bracket, its history, its patterns, and its rules and regs (more accurately, its principles and precedures). But, in our culture, it also connotes "science" or a an academic discipline, and this is certainly not what "bracketology" is or does. Major media types build up their in-house bracketologists to be some sort of mathematics guru with access to formulas and complex equations that mere mortals cannot comprehend. It's just not true. Truth be told, "bracketology" is more art than science. It's more like picking the right job candidate from resumes/interviews than solving algebraic equations or using the scientific method to discover which teams are best.

Even the RPI is basic math. No one has to "solve" anything. It's a simple formula: win % x .25 [road wins weighted value is 1.4, home wins are 0.6], opponents' win % x .50, opponents' opponents' win % x .25. Add those three values. That's it. Beyond that, there is no math to be done. And the RPI is available in umpteen (technical math term) different forms online and is updated by the minute, or at least every day. Bracketologists do not even have to do the math that is involved.

When Joe Fan asks me, "How do you get the teams right?" my answer is this: 1) I've been doing this awhile, 2) I read the selection critieria, and 3) I've done the committee process five times. I understand what the committee aims to do. But, scientific it's not. Individual bracketologists are much more about trying to guess what a group of ten humans will do and there are always unknowns and quirks. Each committee differs a little in where it places its emphasis. Some years, finishing strong seems to matter more than in other years. This year, committee chair Mike Slive's magic phrase was "full body of work." This helps explain how Arizona got in (good early wins). It also explains how they were picked over Creighton and San Diego State, who were red hot teams before losing in their conference tourneys. Every committee is different. Knowing this also allows me to stay calm on Selection Sunday when the committee does not do what I think it "should."

If we must stick with the term "bracketology," then we must at least understand that this "science" is more like a TV meteorologist or economics columnist than chemist or mathemetician. Meteorology studies the "rules" of weather, and can get decent results predicting it, but it's far from exact. There is too much variation in natural weather patterns. Economics can use past and current trends and history to forecast the rise and fall of economic markets, but it is nowhere near exact in its prognostications. "Bracketology" is like that. We can study history and patterns of past committees and there are some constants, but projections and predictions are attempting to speak for a long, complex process performed by ten humans. I do think it's valuable because it helps me keep up with all conferences and the more I participate in the process, the better I understand it.

But, I have never mistaken myself for a scientist. Bracketology is a lot more about learning the process than it is "getting the bracket right." That's a fun game, but it's not the primary reason for doing it. The primary reason should be to better understand how our national championship bracket is birthed.

Project Mockingbird

I would like to take the next couple of days to talk about "bracketology", it's purpose, and it's usefulness (?). Today, I want to focus on the mock committee experience and urge you to get out of the Lunardi Bubble and do the process.

My bracket projections are largely based on my mock committee experiences. I have been doing bracket projections since 1998, but 2002 was the real "Hallelujah Moment for" me. Jerry Palm of CollegeRPI.com asked for volunteers/resumes to participate in a mock selection committee for the 01-02 season. I applied as the WKU "AD" and was selected to participate. We did all votes by email and all discussions on Yahoo! chat. No amount reading what I write or listening to "experts" is ever going to teach you as much as participating the process. It changed everything for me and for the folks on the SCKySSiP.

After that experience, I saw the formerly pseudo-evil, biased, mid-major-hating committee for what they are: a group of humans charged with a difficult task and destined to disappoint some teams and their fan bases. There is no such thing as a "perfect" bracket. Creighton, St. Mary's, Auburn, Providence, and San Diego State are bummin' today. But, it could have just as easily been Dayton, Maryland, or Arizona's fans. And swapping out any of those teams would not have made the bracket any more perfect or just.

The reason for this is because the committee does not choose teams in talks over brandy and cigars. It is done through a relentless series of votes based on what teams have done in their "full body of work" (phrase copyright Mike Slive, 2009). In fact, it's ENTIRELY possible that no committee member had Arizona "in" on their personal S-curve (list of 65 teams) and yet have the Wildcats get into the final bracket. How?

Let's say the committee is voting to add two teams to the bracket and it turns out that these are the last two teams IN (not that they would necessarily know this at the time--SCKySSiP certainly did not know that Dayton would be bumped by Miss State when we voted them IN). And, let's say three of the members ballots look like this:

Dayton, San Diego State, Arizona, Creighton, St. Mary's
Dayton, Creighton, Arizona, San Diego State, St. Mary's
Dayton, St. Mary's, Arizona, San Diego State, Creighton

In these lists of five (assigned point values of 1-5), Dayton has 3 points, SD State has 10, Arizona has 9, St. Mary's 12, and Creighton has 11. So, even though none of the three members have Arizona technically "IN" on their individual S-curve, Dayton and Arizona have the lowest vote totals and would go IN. Collectively, Arizona is #2 on this list.

Understanding this helps debunk the idea that some single member with an agenda can skew things disproportionately (nevermind the fact that they cannot participate in votes involving their own school). If there is any perceived unfairness or injustice toward "mid-majors," it's more the result of imbalanced budgets and scheduling than committee bias.

So, next season on TBB, let us start "Project Mockingbird." Let's get as many people as possible to replicate this process, not by guessing what the committee will do (which is fun, but amounts to guesswork, especially at the bottom), but by DOING the process with a group of people just like the actual committtee does and seeing what results. It is an exercise in tedium, voting, argumentation, voting, evaluation, voting, tedium, discussion, fun, voting, and numbers. You must read complex rules and regs, and orchestrate smooth voting procedures. You will need people who will commit to watching lots of games and join you in this mad process which has nothing to do with a beautiful pick-n-roll, intense full-court defense, an oily-smooth shooting stroke, or boxing out. It has everything to do with RPI, bracketing rules, pod assignments, and lower-level math. It can still be fun, but when it's over, you will be glad. I think I can speak for the SCKySSiP in that regard. We have a blast doing it, but by the 4,593rd vote, you are ready for it to be over. And you still have to assign pods!

I am not a champion of "bracketology" or the selection process. But, it is the system we have and it does birth The Bracket--the greatest championship in sports. For all it's flaws and soul-stripping resume evaluation, it is OUR process. So, I immerse myself in it not because it is perfect or righteous, but because it is the process used to create the championship tournament and should be understood by fans who care about it.

This is a call to do it. Anyone can slap together 65 teams and make a guess. It's good fun and it keeps me in touch with all 31 conferences. I love that about the Lockbox and bracket projections. But, next season, go the distance, put together a committee, and do the process. I guarantee that you will learn a lot and gain a new appreciation for the actual committee. I warn you that unless you keep the proper perspective, it can darken your soul. But, for me, engaging in the tedium only bright lines the goodness of the game bewteen the lines on the court. "Bracketology" is fun--but it's not basketball. Immersing myself in the selection process only heightens my appreciation for the sights, sounds, smells, and energy of watching my Hilltoppers in Diddle Arena and for a well-executed backdoor cut.

"Bracketology" should not be about how many teams you can "get right." Again, that's a fun game that I play pretty well, but it does not do much in the way of helping me or anyone else understand the committee process. Like just about anything else, the best way to learn and understand is to do it. So, here is a link the selection criteria. Read it (it's best in small chunks lest you lose your soul), find some other insane fans, and plan on doing it next season with the goal being understanding, NOT guesswork.

Rant-Free

If this committee had taken St. Mary's or Creighton or San Diego State instead of Arizona, I would have practically no qualms. While Zona was pretty far away in my mind (5th or 6th OUT), they did beat San Diego State, Gonzaga, and Kansas in the non-conference (all at home, though). However, their best roadie was Oregon State and they played ONE true road game in the non-conference (a loss at Texas A&M). They ended with 5/6 losses, too.

That said, all teams vying for those last few slots were flawed, so no rant here. The committee is made up of 10 humans who take this very seriously and did a good job following the criteria otherwise. They obviously saw something in Arizona that most of us did not.

Beyond that, I was a little suprised that Wisconsin was a 12. Selection committee chair Mike Slive noted that the Badgers had to be moved due to "P&P" (principles and procedures), but even an 11 seems low for Wiscy.

Otherwise, no realm beef from me. I think Michigan State's resume is underappreciated, but I understand why they are a 2. They don't look as good as UConn.

Tomorrow: a fleshing out of the SCKySSiP Mock Committee process.

Wednesday: an essay on "bracketology."

Snap Reaction

A pretty good job by the committee given the criteria. Arizona IN is a puzzler to me, but the committee obviously valued heavy-hitting wins and Zona had some of those. That was my only miss. I had San Diego State in for them.

I missed Wisconsin by 3 seed lines. I missed 9 others by two. That means I had 55/65 exact or within one line if my quick count is accurate.

More tomorrow. I am taking tonight to savor WKU's 12-seed and draw against a team I think they match up pretty well with in Illinois.

Full SCKySSiP report tomorrow, too.

Final Bracket

Here is my final bracket.

1. I am in the tiny minority of folks who believe Michigan State will get that last one seed. Here's why. The Spartans won the #2 RPI league by FOUR full games. FOUR. Yes, they lost in their conference quarters. So did UConn. They are #5 RPI (UConn #8). They have 13 top 50 wins (UConn 8). OOC, they beat Kansas at home and Oklahoma State and Texas on neutral courts. UConn beat Gonzaga, Michigan and Wisconsin. Pretty similar there. UConn won neither their regular season or conference titles; Sparty won the Big Televen convincingly. It's very close in mind. I considered Memphis, but they just don't have the juice in their wins. Not enough good ones.

2. Mississippi State forced me to cut Creighton. SD State and Maryland have a much more positive aura from their conference tourneys. The Jays were blasted by 24 by Illinois State.

3. Last Four IN: Minnesota, Maryland, Dayton, San Diego State. First Four OUT: Creighton, St. Mary's, Penn State, Auburn

SCKySSiP Mock Selection Committee
Final Results
1. Three one seeds from the Big East. I obviously didn't vote that way, but that was the way the collective voting shook out.
2. Mississippi State's win cut Dayton here.
3. Last Four IN: San Diego State, Wisconsin, Maryland, Creighton. Next Two OUT: Dayton, St. Mary's. That's really as far as our voting got us. After that, it was a hodge-podge of the usual suspects with a smattering of votes (Auburn, Florida, Virginia Tech, Penn State...).

Once more, the SCKySSiP is a replication of the process, not a prediction of what the committee will do (what "bracketologists" do). We didn't give a flip about what the committee will do. This was DOING, not guessing. We simply followed their rules in an effort to understand how this bracket is created. Essay coming later this week on "bracketology."

40 mins away. This is my last update before it comes out.

(Semi) Final Bracket

Here is my (semi) final bracket. There is of course a contingency in case Mississippi State wins today. And, I'm not totally settled on a couple of seeds. I currently have Michigan State as the last 1-seed with UNC, Pitt, and Louisville. It may be UConn before the day is done. The Spartans won the #1 RPI league by two full games and have more top 50 wins than UConn. They both lost early than they had hoped in the conference tourney.

Here is the final SCKySSiP Mock Committee results. This is what our 9-person committee came up with by replicating the process.

More later on that.