BAMA is too streaky on offense, much like Auburn.Got to remember Bama getting shelled by 24 at 12-9 Oklahoma a week ago. Bama is definitely a good team, but maybe a bit more flawed than some of the other models recognize.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
BAMA is too streaky on offense, much like Auburn.Got to remember Bama getting shelled by 24 at 12-9 Oklahoma a week ago. Bama is definitely a good team, but maybe a bit more flawed than some of the other models recognize.
So you’re saying that every team that massacres a decent team during the regular season couldn’t possibly have statistical flaws that would undermine them in a single elimination tournament? Like UK smoking KU last year and then losing to a 15 seed?Totally get it but 16 considering who they've beat and how bad they've massacred some decent and bad teams? Again, there may be nothing wrong with your mathematics but it looks like you are focusing on the wrong metrics.
Really surprised at Tennessee being one, they barely escaped Auburn at home and Florida handled them down there. Also surprised Purdue down the list. I appreciate you sharing this...enjoyed looking at it.
On Bama…they are still in line for a 1 seed. So they will almost definitely be favorites the first 2 games and maybe the 3rd. Maybe a coin flip in that Sweet 16 game.
So even though they don’t model great, they should still be in line for an Elite Eight run because they’ve performed well against their schedule. They’ve earned their way up the latter.
If you're not saying 15 other teams would beat Bama in the tournament and instead 15 teams have had better seasons, how does that predict tournament success?
Which is asinine. Arkansas would not be favored to perform better than the field over Bama in any data model grounded in logic. Which, again, why his model needs tweaking.He’s saying his model shows there are 15 other teams racking up statistical indicators that in general they’re likely to do better against the field than Alabama would.
@Aike ‘s right. You really are that guy.
So UK will be bounced in the round of 32 most likely, with a ceiling of a sweet 16 based on the metrics? Sounds about right if that’s the case.
So you’re saying that every team that massacres a decent team during the regular season couldn’t possibly have statistical flaws that would undermine them in a single elimination tournament? Like UK smoking KU last year and then losing to a 15 seed?
You do realize that no team in this model has a score of 6.0 because the NCAA tournament is about as chaotic as predicting weather, right?
Is your point that mathematical models don’t perfectly predict real world events? Talk about a Captain Obvious take.
Because the good old eye test is shit and this season, above probably any I can remember in the last 40 years, has shown that to be true. And the only “stat” you’re offering is eye test.No, I'm saying in no real world model would 15 teams, including Arkansas, be predicted to fair better than Bama in the tournament.
Not sure why that captain obvious take is so hard for a few of you knuckleheads to comprehend?
Because the good old eye test is shit and this season, above probably any I can remember in the last 40 years, has shown that to be true. And the only “stat” you’re offering is eye test.
I’m curious what you think the best mathematical predictor of tournament success is? I’m trying hard not to be a knucklehead and wanted to finally find the foolproof predictive model.
I just find it odd that you think a Bama upset in the Sweet Sixteen of the NCAA tournament (which is equivalent to what the model predicts) is so out of the realm of possibility that you’re willing to continuously shit on it for an entire thread to prove the point that no one is arguing.Dorks who solely base their decisions on data, without a smell test, fail miserably. Metrics have their place but you have to quantify those metrics vs common sense and life experiences. Those that can do that are extremely successful.
As far as best predictor - its random, which is why you can typically narrow it down to a handful of teams but rarely the favorite wins.
But in no universe is Bama 16 on that list this year at this moment in time. Data isn't needed to call that one. Eye test for the win.
There's a major flaw in his data or his method if that's what he has.
I haven’t followed your posts or model and I’m not much on analytics.Got to remember Bama getting shelled by 24 at 12-9 Oklahoma a week ago. Bama is definitely a good team, but maybe a bit more flawed than some of the other models recognize.
I just find it odd that you think a Bama upset in the Sweet Sixteen of the NCAA tournament (which is equivalent to what the model predicts) is so out of the realm of possibility that you’re willing to continuously shit on it for an entire thread to prove the point that no one is arguing.
The tournament is random. Especially this year. If there were a mathematical model that was vastly superior to all others, everyone would use it and make millions. Aike’s model is just another model that one of our board members shares for conversation. You’ve made it clear you think it’s flawed. We get it.