Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Orangemen, post: 209676, member: 106"]
Every year there seem to be a few big disconnects between the committee and the bracketologists, where all the bracketologists are up in arms about some terrible committee oversight.  And it got me thinking about the difference between the 2 groups.
 
Bracketologists spend 6 months a year focused no less than 50% of their time on who will make the tourney based on statistical and historical data.  They spend the other 6 months thinking about the new information they got from the most recent tourney.  They also do this every single year.
 
Committee members have real jobs (save Jeff Hathaway, I guess), and focus maybe (total guess) 20% of their time on who will make the tourney, and they base it on whatever judgements they deem relevant.  They also do this for a period of a few years before rotating off the committee.
 
I think it's clear that we've reached a point where the committee members know less about the teams and their relative strengths than the bracketologists do. 
 
I'm not sure that there is a real point here, but it's something worth remembering when considering bubble teams and their potential fates.  Bracketologists have taken what is basically an art, and essentially tried to turn it into a science.  In large measure, that can be done pretty accurately, but on the fringes, where all the bubble teams live, the science is not going to be accurate.
 
I think it would be interesting, and maybe smart, to take 5 of these bracketologists have them be the committee, instead of all of the college sports executives who they currently have on the committee.  At least we'd have a clearly defined criteria.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?