• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
LMRC NCAA Tournament Comparison
 

LMRC NCAA Tournament Comparison

on

  • 5,454 views

The LRMC Tool for NCAA Tournament Selection and Seeding by Dr. Joel Sokel & Dr. George Nemhauser of Georgia Tech

The LRMC Tool for NCAA Tournament Selection and Seeding by Dr. Joel Sokel & Dr. George Nemhauser of Georgia Tech

Statistics

Views

Total Views
5,454
Views on SlideShare
3,953
Embed Views
1,501

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
2
Comments
1

5 Embeds 1,501

http://blog.weatherby.net 1490
http://www.agglom.com 3
http://www.google.com 3
http://www.linkedin.com 3
https://www.linkedin.com 2

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Sorry. If you go to http://bit.ly/LMRCpredictions you will see a full complete bracket.

    The Final Four is Louisville, Memphis, Pittsburgh, and North Carolina. LMRC puts Memphis and North Carolina in the final with the Tar Heels prevailing.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    LMRC NCAA Tournament Comparison LMRC NCAA Tournament Comparison Presentation Transcript

    • The LRMC Tool for NCAA Tournament Selection and Seeding Contacts: Dr. Joel Sokol: joel.sokol@isye.gatech.edu Dr. George Nemhauser: george.nemhauser@isye.gatech.edu
    • LRMC predicts more winners 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ESPN RPI AP LRMC LRMC LRMC LRMC LRMC LRMC Sagarin Seeds Massey Head-to-head prediction results (LRMC vs. others) in games where predictions disagree.
    • LRMC picks good bubble teams .420 .400 .380 .360 .340 .320 .300 LRMC Seeds RPI AP ESPN Massey Sagarin Winning percentage of teams ranked 37-48 (equivalent to 10, 11, and 12 seeds) in NCAA tournament, 2000-06
    • LRMC sorts out the top teams 90% 80% 70% LRMC 60% Seeds RPI 50% AP 40% ESPN Massey 30% Sagarin 20% 10% 0% Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Percentage of correct predictions in each round, 2000-06. LRMC is highest in 5 of the 6 rounds, with large advantages in rounds 4-6.
    • Example: Ranking Gonzaga Year LRMC Seeds RPI AP ESPN Massey Sagarin Actual 2000 9 10th 35 39 32 29 26 Sweet 16 (9-16) 2001 16 12th 75 29 32 39 47 Sweet 16 (9-16) 2002 45 6th 21 6 6 6 10 First round (33-64) 2003 44 9th 43 NR 38 48 39 Second round (17-32) 2004 17 2nd 9 3 2 2 3 Second round (17-32) 2005 30 3rd 13 10 11 12 21 Second round (17-32) 2006 34 3rd 10 5 5 5 18 Sweet 16 (9-16) Table 1. Seeds, rankings, and tournament performance of Gonzaga Gonzaga has been one of the toughest teams to accurately assess, advancing to the Sweet 16 as a low-ranked team (`00,`01) and losing early as a high-ranked team (`02,`04,`05). Only LRMC has been successful at assessing Gonzaga.
    • Example: Final Four Surprises Year Team LRMC Seeds RPI AP ESPN Massey Sagarin Actual 2000 Florida 5 5th 18 13 11 17 10 Final Four 2001 Maryland 3 3rd 22 11 11 14 10 Final Four 2002 Indiana 10 5th 20 26 27 26 21 Final Four 2004 Georgia Tech 4 3rd 16 14 15 10 8 Final Four 2005 Michigan State 8 5th 22 15 15 10 11 Final Four Table 2. Seeds and rankings of “surprise” Final Four teams correctly identified by LRMC LRMC has correctly identified a “surprise” Final Four team in 5 of the last 7 years. Of course, some surprises (George Mason `06, North Carolina and Wisconsin `00) aren’t predicted by anyone.
    • Example: Double-digit Sweet 16 9 8 7 LRMC 6 Seeds RPI 5 AP 4 ESPN Massey 3 Sagarin 2 1 0 Top 20 Top 32 Number of double-digit Sweet 16 teams ranked highly by each method. Of the 15 double-digit seeds in the Sweet 16 from 2000-06, LRMC has ranked more than 25% in its pre-tournament Top 20. (The most recent was N.C. State `05.)
    • How does LRMC work? • Basic input data (location, winner, score) • Same components as RPI (team performance, schedule strength) – Deeper schedule analysis – Ties together outcome and opponent strength (not separate as in RPI) • Close games give less-definitive information than non-close games
    • Summary of LRMC • Picks good bubble teams – Teams ranked 37-48 (equivalent to 10- 12 seeds) have higher win % • Good at sorting out top teams – More correct predictions in 5 of 6 rounds – Large advantages in rounds 4, 5, 6 • Specific LRMC examples – Final Four surprises correctly predicted in 5 of last 7 years – 25% of double-digit Sweet 16 teams ranked in LRMC Top 20 – Correctly assesses “hard” teams like Gonzaga
    • Recommendation • LRMC can be a helpful tool – Recommend “bubble” teams with good potential for success – Suggest seedings for tournament teams that are likely to do well – Assesses the potential of “hard” teams (like Gonzaga has been)