Laley23 wrote: Here is a really cool graph showing the ACTUAL percentage of times seeds have advanced to the Final Four versus the PROBABILITY it will happen. Maybe the committee does know what they are doing. These numbers are really close.

ccrunner609 wrote: that is what it should look like.

LTrain23 wrote: The committee does know what they're doing.

SQ_Crazies wrote: I don't understand exactly how you can be confused with this graph...

Al Bundy wrote:

SQ_Crazies wrote: I don't understand exactly how you can be confused with this graph...

I'm not confused on the graph, but they aren't saying how the probabilities were calculated. It is very easy to back and make up probabilities the correspond with what has already happened in the past.

SQ_Crazies wrote: It's a theory dude.

The green line is all that you could have a problem is, and it's just a theory--that's why there are seeds in the first place. Theoretically the line makes total sense--theoretically that's why they seed teams where they do. If you don't think the theoretical line makes sense then you clearly must have another theory than most people. I mean there is no way to prove that the theory on how the seeds will do is true--it's pure speculation, assuming that the best teams are usually one seeds so they win more often and so on. That would have to be assumed true, otherwise the seeds shouldn't be based on what the team did over the course of the year--they might as well be random.

SQ_Crazies wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

SQ_Crazies wrote: I don't understand exactly how you can be confused with this graph...

I'm not confused on the graph, but they aren't saying how the probabilities were calculated. It is very easy to back and make up probabilities the correspond with what has already happened in the past.

It's assuming that the committee gets the seeding right based on who the best teams are. You think they do the VAST majority of the time don't you? It's no exact science, it's sports--anything can happen, that's why they play the games. But I'd say almost everybody agrees with that theoretical line. If they didn't then there wouldn't even be a committee to select seeds.

SQ_Crazies wrote: Did you read the article? It's simple statistics, it makes perfect sense to me. That's the thing about statistics though--you can't read too far into a lot of models like this, you have to take them for face value. Believe it or don't believe it, it doesn't matter--that's another think about statistics, there are always outliers.

Very, very low. We can do a good job of modelling a team's probability of making the Final Four by using a logistic regression model based on the square root of its seeding

SQ_Crazies wrote: You're sure you read the article?

Very, very low. We can do a good job of modelling a team's probability of making the Final Four by using a logistic regression model based on the square root of its seeding

The words logistic regression model are even a link, and therefore a different color.

SQ_Crazies wrote: And like I said, take it for face value. Even when something is based on past results it guarantees nothing for the future. Like I said, if that line doesn't make sense to you then you must think that seeding is pointless.

SQ_Crazies wrote: Jesus Christ you can't just accept the word line for the point of conversation? Technically it is a fucking line, a curve is a line. Sort of like a square is a rectangle--that's probably first grade math you dick. I'm done with this argument, you'd rather try to question my intelligence and try to be a hardass than read, comprehend, understand and try to have an adult level discussion.