March 17, 2012 - by Stat Geek Idol
Just as the NCAA Tournament Round of 64 came to a close Friday night, so has the first round of Stat Geek Idol, our analysis and blogging contest for aspiring stat geeks.
We received a ton of great entries — 64 to be exact, in a happy coincidence. And while the actual tournament begins play on Saturday to narrow the field to 16, we’ve already done that in Stat Geek Idol.
There was a 5-way tie for the final two spots in round two, and rather than send three of those deserving entrants home, we went ahead and advanced all 5 to round two, making this a Sweet 19.
We’ll be posting their winning first round articles on the site over the next few days. As we do so, we’ll update this list with links to each contestant’s article.
Without further ado, your Stat Geek Idol Sweet 16, along with the first round article from each:
Adrian Atkinson: North Carolina’s Late-Clock Offensive Efficiency Is A Weakness
Bill Bihn: More Than Meets The RPI: The RDW (RPI Doesn’t Work) Invitational
C.J. Moore: What’s Depth Got To Do With It? Many Thin Benches Among 2012 Favorites
Doug VanDerwerken: Does A Team That Comes Back To Force OT Tend To Win?
Gregory Matthews: Predicting The Sweet Sixteen Using A Classification Tree
Howard Hamilton: Performance-Based NCAA At-Large Bid Allocation
Jack Moore: Do Unbalanced Teams Perform Poorly In The NCAA Tournament?
Jay Cipoletti: Floor Percentage, Points Per Scoring Possession, and “Spurtability”
Jeff Haley: Play-By-Play Data Shows Why Wisconsin’s Defense Is So Successful
John Ezekowitz: Predicting 2012 NCAA Tournament Upsets
Jordan Sperber: Quantity Over Quality: Getting More Whacks At The Piñata
Kenneth Deakins: Predicting The NCAA Tournament Using Machine Learning Methods
Kevin Buikema: A Method To Their Madness (7 High, 7 Low, 7 Where We Just Don’t Know)
Kevin Myhre: Virginia’s Defense & Individual Defensive Points Per Possession
Martin Manley: The NCAA Tournament: Where Matchups Matter
Michael Lopez: And Albuquerque Is Where? The Effect Of Travel Distance On Tournament Play
Nathan Walker: Not All Points Are Created Equally
Travis Gerke: Bracket Genetics: Seeking The Winning Signature
Tyler Williams: Simulating The Round of 64 Using Efficiency Stats
We had other good submissions that didn’t quite make the cut, but have been posted on the site over the past few days. Here are the honorable mentions:
Brandon Riff: 12 Teams Whose Poor Shooting May Dash Their NCAA Tournament Hopes
Bryan Sloan (AKA The Commish): 2012 Will Be A Year Of Chalk
Holt Sherman: In Defense Of TV Cliches: Continuity And Three-Point Shooting
Joey Burkland: Cinderella’s Statistical Profile: 4 Sleepers Where The Slipper Fits
John Templon: Is Iona This Year’s VCU?
Marc Daley: Analysis Of NCAA Tournament Play-In Games
Mark Bashuk: BYU Makes Epic Comeback Despite Little Crunch Time Experience
Great work, guys!
The initial round judging was conducted by the TeamRankings.com Nerds, but this round our celebrity judges enter the mix. While we’re saving the big guns — Mark Cuban, Daryl Morey, Dean Oliver, Ken Pomeroy, Jeff Ma — for the Final Four, this round still has its fair share of geek cred … and even an actual ex-college basketball player or two.
Judges this round are scheduled to include:
Stay tuned all throughout the weekend and next week for tons of great college basketball analysis from these 19 aspiring Stat Geeks. There’s sure to be some great stuff to come!
Printed from TeamRankings.com - © 2005-2021 Team Rankings, LLC. All Rights Reserved.