Nate Silver'sNCAA Tournament Predictions

[UAZipster0305]

Nate Silver was unbelievably accurate with the presidential election. Let's see if he's just as good with the NCAA Tournament.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03..._r=1nytmm

Knock yourself out with this, DiG!

[Big Zip]

Would love to see what the numbers were on George Mason and VCU when they danced much longer than expected.

[meatwad]

Nate Silver was unbelievably accurate with the presidential election. Let's see if he's just as good with the NCAA Tournament.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03..._r=1nytmm

Knock yourself out with this, DiG!

I'm sure DiG has already seen Ken Pom's version of this same concept here.

Ken gives the Zips a better shot (34%) than Silver (29%).

Interesting the similarities and differences in their computer simulations.

[Dave in Green]

I've been following Silver and Pomeroy for years. They're a couple of brilliant numbers geeks. I'd probably trust Silver a little more on understanding the finer nuances of election numbers and Pomeroy for all of his experience with basketball. It's fun to compare what the emotionless numbers geeks predict versus the flamboyant, opinionated pundits.

[odhgibo]

I'm sure DiG has already seen Ken Pom's version of this same concept here.

Ken gives the Zips a better shot (34%) than Silver (29%).

Interesting the similarities and differences in their computer simulations.

In these summaries, the #12 seeds' percentages range from ~25% to ~40%. Given those odds (i.e., 4 x ~0.33), it makes sense that one #12 beats a #5 most years.

It's also interesting that the numbers crunch to about the same as the eye test: VCU probably would win 2 of 3 or 3 of 4 games against Akron on a neutral floor.

As we all know, however, this tournament is one game only, so toss it up and see what happens.