Raymond's highly scientific predictions for the 2007 NCAA men's basketball tournament

Raymond’s highly scientific predictions for the 2007 NCAA men’s basketball tournament

Date:	March 12, 2007 / year-entry #89
Tags:	highly-scientific;non-computer
Orig Link:	https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20070312-01/?p=27663
Comments:	17
Summary:	Every year, when it comes time to fill out my NCAA bracket, I choose an arbitrary criterion. You'd think this would take less work, but it actually takes more. My original plan was to rank teams based on how much they pay their head coaches, but it turns out that the salaries (and bonuses and...

Every year, when it comes time to fill out my NCAA bracket, I choose an arbitrary criterion. You'd think this would take less work, but it actually takes more. My original plan was to rank teams based on how much they pay their head coaches, but it turns out that the salaries (and bonuses and perks) of the head coaches of school basketball programs is hard to find! Instead, I went with something much easier to find but which is still somewhat indicative (in an indirect sense) of the strength of the program: The seating capacity of the home arena.

Update:

Correct predictions are in green.
Incorrect predictions are in red.
(!) marks upsets correctly predicted.
(*) marks upsets predicted but did not take place.
(x) marks actual upsets not predicted.

Opening Round Game
	Florida A&M	(3,365)	Florida A&M (3,365)
	Niagara	(2,400)	Florida A&M (3,365)
Midwest bracket
1	Florida	(12,000)	Florida (12,000)	Arizona (14,545)	Maryland (17,950)	UNLV (18,500)
16	Jackson St.	(8,000)	Florida (12,000)

8	Arizona	(14,545)	Arizona (x) (14,545)
9	Purdue	(14,123)	Arizona (x) (14,545)

5	Butler	(11,043)	Butler (11,043)	Maryland (x) (17,950)
12	Old Dominion	(8,600)	Butler (11,043)

4	Maryland	(17,950)	Maryland (17,950)
13	Davidson	(5,700)	Maryland (17,950)

6	Notre Dame	(11,418)	Notre Dame (x) (11,418)	Notre Dame (11,418)	UNLV (18,500)
11	Winthrop	(6,100)	Notre Dame (x) (11,418)

3	Oregon	(9,087)	Miami (Ohio) (x) (9,200)
14	Miami (Ohio)	(9,200)	Miami (Ohio) (x) (9,200)

7	UNLV	(18,500)	UNLV (18,500)	UNLV (18,500)
10	Georgia Tech	(9,191)	UNLV (18,500)

2	Wisconsin	(17,142)	Wisconsin (17,142)
15	Texas A&M CC	(8,000)	Wisconsin (17,142)
West bracket
1	Kansas	(16,300)	Kansas (16,300)	Kentucky (*) (23,000)	Kentucky (23,000)	Kentucky (23,000)
16	Florida A&M	(3,365)	Kansas (16,300)

8	Kentucky	(23,000)	Kentucky (23,000)
9	Villanova	(6,500)	Kentucky (23,000)

5	Virginia Tech	(10,052)	Illinois (x) (16,500)	Illinois (16,500)
12	Illinois	(16,500)	Illinois (x) (16,500)

4	Southern Ill.	(9,628)	Southern Ill. (9,628)
13	Holy Cross	(3,600)	Southern Ill. (9,628)

6	Duke	(9,314)	Duke (x) (9,314)	Pittsburgh (12,504)	Indiana (17,456)
11	VCU	(7,500)	Duke (x) (9,314)

3	Pittsburgh	(12,504)	Pittsburgh (12,504)
14	Wright St.	(11,019)	Pittsburgh (12,504)

7	Indiana	(17,456)	Indiana (17,456)	Indiana (*) (17,456)
10	Gonzaga	(6,000)	Indiana (17,456)

2	UCLA	(12,819)	UCLA (12,819)
15	Weber St.	(12,000)	UCLA (12,819)
East bracket
1	N. Carolina	(21,800)	N. Carolina (21,800)	N. Carolina (21,800)	N. Carolina (21,800)	N. Carolina (x) (21,800)
16	Eastern Ky.	(6,500)	N. Carolina (21,800)

8	Marquette	(18,866)	Marquette (*) (18,866)
9	Michigan St.	(14,759)	Marquette (*) (18,866)

5	Southern Cal	(10,258)	Arkansas (*) (19,200)	Arkansas (19,200)
12	Arkansas	(19,200)	Arkansas (*) (19,200)

4	Texas	(16,755)	Texas (16,755)
13	New Mexico St.	(13,071)	Texas (16,755)

6	Vanderbilt	(14,316)	Vanderbilt (14,316)	Vanderbilt (!) (14,316)	Georgetown (20,600)
11	G. Washington	(5,000)	Vanderbilt (14,316)

3	Washington St.	(11,566)	Washington St. (11,566)
14	Oral Roberts	(10,575)	Washington St. (11,566)

7	Boston College	(8,606)	Texas Tech (*) (15,098)	Georgetown (20,600)
10	Texas Tech	(15,098)	Texas Tech (*) (15,098)

2	Georgetown	(20,600)	Georgetown (20,600)
15	Belmont	(5,000)	Georgetown (20,600)
South bracket
1	Ohio St.	(19,200)	Ohio St. (19,200)	BYU (22,700)	Tennessee (24,535)	Tennessee (24,535)
16	C. Conn. St.	(3,200)	Ohio St. (19,200)

8	BYU	(22,700)	BYU (x) (22,700)
9	Xavier	(10,250)	BYU (x) (22,700)

5	Tennessee	(24,535)	Tennessee (24,535)	Tennessee (!) (24,535)
12	Long Beach	(5,000)	Tennessee (24,535)

4	Virginia	(16,000)	Virginia (16,000)
13	Albany	(5,000)	Virginia (16,000)

6	Louisville	(18,865)	Louisville (18,865)	Louisville (*) (18,865)	Louisville (18,865)
11	Stanford	(7,391)	Louisville (18,865)

3	Texas A&M	(12,500)	Texas A&M (12,500)
14	Penn	(8,700)	Texas A&M (12,500)

7	Nevada	(11,200)	Creighton (*) (17,272)	Memphis (18,400)
10	Creighton	(17,272)	Creighton (*) (17,272)

2	Memphis	(18,400)	Memphis (18,400)
15	North Texas	(10,032)	Memphis (18,400)
Finals
	UNLV	(18,500)	Kentucky (23,000)	Tennessee (24,535)
	Kentucky	(23,000)	Kentucky (23,000)

	N. Carolina	(21,800)	Tennessee (24,535)
	Tennessee	(24,535)	Tennessee (24,535)

The first full round is the crucial one. Not only are half of the games are first-round games, but your choices in the first round heavily influence your choices in subsequent rounds. I don't know if anybody has ever submitted a bracket that was internally inconsistent. For example, having a team that lost in the first round magically reappear in the third round. It's technically legal but highly unorthodox.

Comments (17)

John says:

March 12, 2007 at 11:10 am

So, all we have to do is build a bigger stadium and we will win the tournament? Sweet!
Scott says:

March 12, 2007 at 12:07 pm

This method can be a bit misled by schools that share NBA arenas but never fill them. Not sure how many of those there are. At least Seton Hall at Continental Arena, and St. Johns at MSG.

Average attendance could work better. But more work.
Phil Scott says:

March 12, 2007 at 12:15 pm

My mom once submitted a bracket where she had teams making reappearances to her office pool after losing in the first or second round. I’m not sure how or why she did it, but I do remember that the team she picked (and won) the national championship that year she had getting upset in the first round, but they were among the team she gave "second chances" to. This was, of course, during the days of paper done entries and adding up the scores day by day.

So when it came time to add up the scores at her work, the guy running the bracket merely went down the rounds column by column adding up how many "winning teams" you got correct. And despite not doing well in the first two rounds, her teams that she gave reprieves to showed up strong in the elite eight and the final four. I think she ended up coming in second place in her bracket.
Andrew says:

March 12, 2007 at 12:29 pm

This will be an interesting bracket to track. It would seem like there would be a lot of things that could derail it. For instance Gonzaga recently chose to build a smaller stadium than they knew the market could support to ensure it would always be 100% full and thus have a better ‘atmosphere’ for the players, the intent being to win games rather than generate revenue.

(Currently reading your book and am really enjoying it – thanks for writing it!)
Nathan says:

March 12, 2007 at 12:57 pm

I can’t find the links, but a few weeks ago Washington Post had an article about home stadiums being ‘stacked’. Various things like architecture to funnel noise (more NFL), but for college basketball: seating the students in close-to-court areas (and giving cheap rates to rabid noisy students for front row seats), putting in specifically noisy bleachers (for stomping on), to making bleachers uncomfortable to sit on (to make fans stand). My google-foo failed to find the link..
Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] says:

March 12, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Sorry, but you are out of your gourd if you think that Albany isn’t going to kick Virginia’s ass =) Ok, so Im an Albany alum, but that’s not influencing my decision, honest.
RussN says:

March 12, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Additionally, I think it’s funny that the reason Tennessee is going to win the men’s tournament is that their women’s team has been ridiculously successful enough to merit the large arena.

But that could just be me. I don’t actually know anything about the Tennessee arena, that just seems the most likely scenario to me.
Eric Swanson says:

March 12, 2007 at 7:45 pm

Raymond, I thought I’d actually stop by the author’s blog of the book I reviewed earlier this year. Great work putting it together and getting it out the door! I really appreciated some of the insight you provided. –Eric S.
Jeff says:

March 12, 2007 at 10:50 pm

I wonder how long the building/planning cycle for a college basketball arena is… It might be that the size of the arena correlates better with success 10-15 years ago (rather than this year). Looking forward to seeing how it works out!
julie:) says:

March 13, 2007 at 12:17 am

Illinois all the way! Although I have a moment of unease with your Illinois v. Southern Illinois (my hometown) game… I hope I don’t have to frankenstein shirts together – maroon and orange just aren’t the height of fashion color combos.
Rob says:

March 13, 2007 at 9:46 pm

I don’t follow basketball and needed to submit my choices at the office. Thanks for helping me not look foolish.
Jay says:

March 13, 2007 at 11:04 pm

If you use this as your sole resource for NCAA wagering than your a fool (Rob). I have a better idea, enter my pool or better yet, just send me your money and save yourself the time.
Muñeca Brava says:

March 14, 2007 at 12:11 am

"your a fool"

Oh the irony.
Jason says:

March 14, 2007 at 6:19 am

Why is Oregon in the midwest bracket?

[The brackets are named after where the games are played, not where the schools come from. Confusing I agree. -Raymond]
RT says:

March 14, 2007 at 10:42 am

Thanks… I don’t follow college ball, but I am in a office pool.

I am taking your predictions with minor modifications.

Thanks

RT
A regular viewer says:

March 14, 2007 at 2:13 pm

I know bra and I know ket, but I know absolutely nothing about this "bracket". Came across this today. Thought of you. http://www.madduxsports.com/ncaa-brackets.html
Friend of Bob says:

March 16, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Bob thought it was really cool how you did this, I told him not to make any bets using this system.

Comments are closed.

*DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT OWN THIS CONTENT. If you are the owner and would like it removed, please contact me. The content herein is an archived reproduction of entries from Raymond Chen's "Old New Thing" Blog (most recent link is here). It may have slight formatting modifications for consistency and to improve readability.

WHY DID I DUPLICATE THIS CONTENT HERE? Let me first say this site has never had anything to sell and has never shown ads of any kind. I have nothing monetarily to gain by duplicating content here. Because I had made my own local copy of this content throughout the years, for ease of using tools like grep, I decided to put it online after I discovered some of the original content previously and publicly available, had disappeared approximately early to mid 2019. At the same time, I present the content in an easily accessible theme-agnostic way.

The information provided by Raymond's blog is, for all practical purposes, more authoritative on Windows Development than Microsoft's own MSDN documentation and should be considered supplemental reading to that documentation. The wealth of missing details provided by this blog that Microsoft could not or did not document about Windows over the years is vital enough, many would agree an online "backup" of these details is a necessary endeavor. Specifics include:

A "redesign" after 2019 erased thousands of user's comments from previous years. As many have stated, the comments are nearly as important as the postings themselves. The archived copies of the postings contained here retain the original comments.
The blog has changed domains many times and the urls have otherwise been under constant change since 2003. Even when proper redirection has been set up for those links, redirection only works for a limited period of time. For example, all of the internal blog links that were valid in early 2019, were broken by 2020 without proper redirection.
The blog has been under constant re-design and re-theming since its inception. It is downright irritating to deal with a bogged-down site experience as the result of the latest visual themes designed for cell-phone browsers. As of this writing, it is cumbersome to navigate titles with only 10 entries per page. While it is nice that the official site has a search feature, searching using this index (with all titles on a single page) is much quicker (CTRL-F in most browsers).

<-- Back to Old New Thing Archive Index

Raymond’s highly scientific predictions for the 2007 NCAA men’s basketball tournament

Opening Round Game

Midwest bracket

West bracket

East bracket

South bracket

Finals