Brent Vs. ESPN experts: Round 2 - NCAA Bracket
Once again, I will fill out my NCAA Men's basketball tournament, and compete against thousands across the country. Like usual, my bracket will be missing one key ingredient that the masses have: any knowledge of men's basketball*. Also, like in times pass, I have an additional key ingredient that the masses do not: a random number generator. I have more important things to do in my life than read what Dick Vitale has to say about Wright State.
(*I lied. I have minor knowledge of UT. I'd tune in to the end of a handful of games waiting for the talk show that comes on afterward.)
Just like last year, I treat all teams like numbers and not names. Here's how I did last year. (To summarize: I had the eventual winner lose in the first round AND I did better than 2/3 of America.) I don't expect to win the million dollar sweepstakes, I just want bragging rights over the annoying loudmouth at work, not that I have anyone in mind.
Thanks to a suggestion from Eric made after I published my results last year, I have made a slight modification to my formula. It factors in historical data on how certain seeds have done in the past, such as the #1 seed has never lost to a #16, #9's do slightly better than #8s, and #12's have an uncanny ability to do better than they oughta.
And, ESPN lets me fill out five brackets. That lets me play with my calculator longer, and post more in this space. Then at some point in April when I am tired of packing boxes during an upcoming move, I hope to post the good, the bad, and the ugly results here sometime in April.
EDIT 3/14/2007 at 2:45 am:
I've let the random number generator do its thing and here is what I notice after running the ESPN max of 5 brackets. #1 seeds seldomly reach the final 4 using this year's method. Also, by chance using my numbers, Butler reaches the final 4 three times.
maybe my problem was using the same website to generate all my random numbers. Like they say, That's the problem with randomness, you can never be really sure that it's random.
(*I lied. I have minor knowledge of UT. I'd tune in to the end of a handful of games waiting for the talk show that comes on afterward.)
Just like last year, I treat all teams like numbers and not names. Here's how I did last year. (To summarize: I had the eventual winner lose in the first round AND I did better than 2/3 of America.) I don't expect to win the million dollar sweepstakes, I just want bragging rights over the annoying loudmouth at work, not that I have anyone in mind.
Thanks to a suggestion from Eric made after I published my results last year, I have made a slight modification to my formula. It factors in historical data on how certain seeds have done in the past, such as the #1 seed has never lost to a #16, #9's do slightly better than #8s, and #12's have an uncanny ability to do better than they oughta.
And, ESPN lets me fill out five brackets. That lets me play with my calculator longer, and post more in this space. Then at some point in April when I am tired of packing boxes during an upcoming move, I hope to post the good, the bad, and the ugly results here sometime in April.
EDIT 3/14/2007 at 2:45 am:
I've let the random number generator do its thing and here is what I notice after running the ESPN max of 5 brackets. #1 seeds seldomly reach the final 4 using this year's method. Also, by chance using my numbers, Butler reaches the final 4 three times.
maybe my problem was using the same website to generate all my random numbers. Like they say, That's the problem with randomness, you can never be really sure that it's random.
1835
posted by BrentKMoore | 3:38 AM
2 Comments:
Wow! You have a random number generator? All I can ever manage to muster is a pseudo-random number generator. Since I've known you for a long time, I will trust you on this one, but it's going to be hard to prove it to the experts - especially the NCAA. Take care.
Yes, I keep it in the basement between the Tesla Coil and the fission-powered flying carpet.
Post a Comment
<< Home