There is a reason that these guys meet for 4 days and not 4 hours.
Wachtel said he believes the conmittee has and does consider recency bias in previous selections even though they are not supposed to.
I don't believe it...plenty of examples where they've passed over "hot teams" (aka Texas A&M last year) or rewarded "cold teams" for their early season results (aka Oklahoma avoiding Dayton when Trae Young was playing for them).
he is bent out of shape because his uconn prediction in the first reveal didnt come true,...big deal get over it.
if recency bias was true,, Texas A&M would have easily made it over Notre Dame last season.
recency shows up in your profile because it drags it down over time.
Off topic a little bit, but is anyone else sick of self-proclaimed bracketologists. I mean what school do you go to for this? I'm personallly sick of hearing what Brad Wachtel thinks. LOL
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
Well, considering there are sites that track their accuracy, his opinion holds weight and is credible. Hes a top 10 most accurate bracketologist
He is a solid bracketologist. There isnt any science behind it though. You have to really study on what the committee wants and because they are human you can get it wrong often. There will always always always be a wrinkle thrown in.
I'm sick of the bracketmatrix becoming the self proclaimed leader in deciding who the most accurate bracketologists are...like, who determined that their methodology was the best way to make that determination?
(I'm joking...well, at least somewhat joking)
Are there sites that track the accuracy of the sights that track the accuracy? Just kidding.
I mean, I appreciate everything that they do, and no one else is stepping up, so I won't knock them. But I feel like picking correct teams should be worth way more than getting a seed right.
And if people are doing actual brackets and following the Procedures of the NCAA, there are spots where you'll need to bump a team up/down a seed line to make it work. It's a 50/50% chance in some ways if you're right in which way they bumped it, but that can't be reflected in the scoring.
I've just always had a problem with the "he's 100th on Bracketmatrix so he sucks" or "he's 10th, so he's really good". Though since I have no better way to judge, I usually try to stay quiet.
I mean, I appreciate everything that they do, and no one else is stepping up, so I won't knock them. But I feel like picking correct teams should be worth way more than getting a seed right.
And if people are doing actual brackets and following the Procedures of the NCAA, there are spots where you'll need to bump a team up/down a seed line to make it work. It's a 50/50% chance in some ways if you're right in which way they bumped it, but that can't be reflected in the scoring.
I've just always had a problem with the "he's 100th on Bracketmatrix so he sucks" or "he's 10th, so he's really good". Though since I have no better way to judge, I usually try to stay quiet.
exactly...the matrix is heavily about seeding moreso than getting the field correct. I realize that in the last few years its becoming easier at getting it right or getting one wrong but if you get one wrong, you actually should be severely penalized in matrix rankings and be behind all those who got it right.
as you said seed lines can be shifted to avoid matchups and balance the bracket. I also think getting the last 4 in selected should weigh heavily.
I submitted last year and didnt do so well...because of seeding...got one wrong overall...Texas A&M for Notre Dame. This year they changed the rules so someone like me can only submit on the last day as you had to meet criteria to send in the bracket every week this year
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
Makes sense to have to send it in every week otherwise u can just submit a copied version of someone elses
My bad. You are correct. Link describes some of the process
Bracketology: What's actually on NCAA tournament resume come Selection Sunday