Over Analyzed
Posted at 8:27 am on Thursday, March 19, 2009, in Uncategorized, and tagged ncaa, syracuse.
What can I say, I have a tendency to over analyze my brackets. After reading this ultra-important dissection of Obama’s tournament picks, I realized something about my own biases in making picks (outside of always choosing Big East teams).
Following a thorough look through my bracket, I’ve realized that I am biased towards 3- and 6-seeds going deep, and 9- and 10-seeds to win in the first round. I have all 9-seeds and three 10-seeds winning the opening-round game. (I did not pick 10th-seeded Maryland who plays my alma mater Cal.) I have two 3-seeds and two 6-seeds making the Elite 8 (meaning that I either have a 3- or 6-seed filling that hole in all four regions). Also, I am apparently biased against 2-seeds, of whom I predict only one to make it to the Sweet 16 (and no further).
I am not sure at what point these biases originated in my picks. Has this always occurred (I have a hunch that I usually bounce 2-seeds early), or is this just a random coincidence, independent of the numbers at play? Three is the magic number.
UPDATE — I created a wildcard bracket — to tickle my fancy for upsets (Minnesota over Duke, etc.) — but with the same result: Syracuse over UConn. Surprise.
- Marching I’m biased, what can I say. I’m predicting — boldly — a rematch of Syracuse and UConn in the final...
- Amsterdam I foolishly, but honestly, confided in my wife while vacationing in Amsterdam recently. I told her that if — and...
- Related The algorithm must be messed up, or maybe my definition of “related” needs rethinking… Image: CBS Chicago ...
- Sharks I’m going to give it a chance tonight. That is, western hockey. Growing up in Buffalo and going to school...