Monday, December 15, 2014

December 15 Update

Now in:
Long Beach State (Had a big lead against Cal and almost lost it, but "the Beach" persevered in overtime)

Oklahoma (A second half comeback against Arkansas-Little Rock came up short, yet the Sooners backed into the rankings this week due to RPI enhancement)

Now out:
UC Riverside
Colorado

Conferences with multiple bids:
Big Ten: 8
SEC: 7
ACC: 7
PAC 12: 6
Big 12: 5
American: 3
Big East: 2
Conference USA: 2 

Friday, December 12, 2014

December 12 Update

Now in:
Purdue
Kansas State
Colorado
Minnesota
Western Kentucky

Now out:
Oklahoma
Boston College
Rutgers
Kansas
Fresno State

Conferences with multiple bids:
Big Ten: 8
SEC: 7
PAC 12: 7
ACC: 7
Big 12: 4
American: 3
Big East: 2
Conference USA: 2 

Monday, December 8, 2014

December 8 Update: The First Monday Update of the Year

Today is the inaugural S-Factor run of the 2014-2015 season! And boy does it look weird!

Most of this is due to the fact that it is still so very early in the women's hoops season that RPI hasn't sorted itself out yet.  This induces a lot of error in not only the RPI part of the S-Factor's algorithm, but also in the top 50 or top 25 win factors.  Right now wins over UC Riverside, Fresno State and Cal State Bakersfield (to pick on California teams) will count towards the wins-against-top-25-opponents category.

It will be interesting to see if the S-Factor's new algorithm evolves to a higher plane of understanding about UConn as the season progresses, or if it will continue being mired in derp by ranking nineteen other teams ahead of the Huskies.

Conferences with multiple bids:
ACC: 8
SEC: 7
Big Ten: 7
PAC 12: 6
Big 12: 5
American: 3
Big East: 2
Mountain West: 2 


Saturday, December 6, 2014

The New Algorithm

After an unusually poor performance for the College Women's Hoops' S-Factor last year, I decided to reevaluate the methodology that went into the rankings published here. I started off by sorting out which teams the old S-Factor predicted fairly closely to the actual seed, and which teams the S-Factor had a problem with. The chart below shows the teams where the S-Factor's prediction and the actual tournament selection differed by two seeds or more.

Real seed
Predicted seed
Diff.
Bowling Green
not picked
9
+∞
Rutgers
not picked
11
+∞
Southern Miss
not picked
8
+∞
BYU
12
7
+5
Gonzaga
6
4
+2
Iowa
6
4
+2
MTSU
8
6
+2
Oregon State
9
7
+2
James Madison
11
9
+2
Oklahoma State
5
7
-2
LSU
7
9
-2
Georgia
8
10
-2
Vanderbilt
8
10
-2
St. Joseph's
9
11
-2
UT-Martin
13
15
-2
Texas
5
8
-3
Iowa State
7
11
-4
Oklahoma
10
not picked
- ∞
Florida State
10
not picked
-∞
Florida
11
not picked
-∞



The teams on the top half of this chart are teams that the S-Factor was too bullish on, while those on the bottom half were teams the S-Factor was too harsh on.

Generally speaking, the teams that S-Factor missed high on were teams from mid-major conferences, while the teams that the S-Factor missed low on teams from the major conferences. Eight of the eleven teams that S-Factor underpredicted by two seeds or more came from either the Big 12 or the SEC.


I realized I needed to give greater weight to the teams from elite conferences, but then the question would be what constitutes an "elite conference". Does the new American Athletic Conference count, just because it has Connecticut in it? Would I have to give the same weight to the PAC-12 that I would to the SEC? More concerning to me was the fact that any definition of an "elite conference" would be subjective, not defined by wins and losses within a single season, which would shackle teams to historic expectations rather than let them define their own destinies on the basketball court.

The answer for me until this season had been to use conference RPI as the only method to distinguish teams in competitive conferences from teams in lagging conferences. Conference record, conference tournament record, and overall record are adjusted by conference RPI such that teams in the #1-RPI conference (SEC in 2014) get the full allotment of points in these categories, while teams in the #32-RPI conference (SWAC in 2014) get no points for these categories.

But many mid major conferences have relatively decent conference RPIs. For instance, all throughout last year the old S-Factor was ranking West Coast Conference teams higher than most other bracket processes. WCC's conference RPI was just a smidge lower than the Big East's, good for eighth in the country, because the WCC had a strong middle and bottom tier compared to many other mid major conferences. But they only had one team in the top 30 in RPI (Gonzaga). A strong bottom half of the conference didn't mean anything to the selection committee, so both BYU and Gonzaga got screwed. (BYU later avenged their poor seeding by becoming only the third 12-seed in tournament history to make it to the Sweet Sixteen.)

I decided I needed another way to quantify goodness of conference.

I defined an "elite" conference as one that had a certain percentage of their teams being good teams. I played around with this idea, and I came up with an "elite conference factor" that worked reasonably well, defined by the percentage of conference teams in the top 100 RPI (25%), the top 30 (50%), and the top 10 RPI (25%). Top 30 RPI teams are almost always tournament-bound teams, and top 10 RPI teams are where superstars play, but I also wanted to include information about teams in the 30-100 range, the "challenging, but not tournament bound" range.

This "elite conference factor" ranks conferences in roughly the same order as conference RPI, but falls off much faster as one progresses from the best to the worst conferences. With the "elite conference factor", the difference between, say, the Ohio Valley Conference and the MAC is less pronounced than with conference RPI even though the MAC was 12th and the OVC was 29th last year. This better reflects the way the selection committee treats all mid-major conferences as single-bid conferences even though there is a marked difference in competition level between conferences like the MAC and conferences like the OVC.

Unlike the oblique way Conference RPI is considered in my formula, I wanted to use this "elite conference factor" directly in the S-Factor formula, as a way to put the thumb on the scales in favor of teams from major conferences. But this ran the risk of favoring obviously-not-tournament-bound teams from major conferences (Alabama, say) over legitimately strong teams from mid-major conferences (BYU, say). I decided to further restrict the "elite conference factor" to teams that could legitimately be selected to the tournament. The tournament has never selected a team with a losing record to an at-large bid. Nor have they ever selected a team with an RPI above 100 or a conference record more than 2 games below .500 (that I know of). For teams that pass these requirements, the "elite conference factor" kicks in gradually for teams above RPI of 100, until the RPI 40 team, above which the full allotment of the "elite conference factor" points is granted. (There is also a small discount for teams that are one game below .500 in conference play.)

The elite conference factor is multiplied by the correction factor and weighted to 15% of the S-Factor algorithm. This produced results that favored major conference bubble teams over mid-major bubble teams, which more closely resembles the Selection Committee's selections over the past two years (the SEC's Florida getting in, but the MAC's Bowling Green being bounced, etc.). Under the new algorithm, the S-Factor would have predicted 64 out of 64 teams in the 2014 field, and 63 out of 64 in the 2013 field. The new S-Factor algorithm would have missed on Creighton in their last year of membership in the Missouri Valley Conference, but it would have been the only bracket model to have correctly predicted the inclusion of the Big 12's Kansas, which was Charlie Creme's only miss from that year.

The new S-Factor algorithm stays true to the values it has always had: that tournament selection is based ultimately and exclusively on wins and losses, and various ways to gauge the quality of each win and loss, just like the information the Selection Committee uses when they sculpt the field of 64.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Metabracketology 2014

This is my annual metabracketology post, also known as my show-how-much-better-Charlie-Creme-is-at-this-than-me-and-everyone-else,-with-data! post. Creme, ESPN's women's basketball bracketologist, was unusually clairvoyant in 2014, correctly predicting all 64 teams to make the field.

1. Selection of the teams in the field of 64.

Rank

No.

Pct.

Borda count pts.

Paymon pts.

1

Creme's bracket

64

100%

32

192

1

2015 S-Factor

64

100%

32

192

3

My bracket

62

97%

30

186

3

CSM Bracket

62

97%

30

186

5

S-Factor blend

61

95%

28

183

5

S-Factor conf w heavy

61

95%

28

183

5

Massey Rating

61

95%

28

183

5

S-Factor RPI heavy

61

95%

28

183

5

Pilight's Field of 64

61

95%

28

183

5

CJBratings.com composite

61

95%

28

183

5

RealtimeRPI RPI

61

95%

28

183

5

Sagarin ELO_SCORE

61

95%

28

183

5

NCAA RPI

61

95%

28

183

5

Warren Nolan RPI

61

95%

28

183

5

Charlie Burrus

61

95%

28

183

16

SporTheory

60

94%

17

180

17

RealtimeRPI's bracket

59

92%

16

177

17

Omni bracket

59

92%

16

177

17

Sagarin Rating

59

92%

16

177

17

Massey Power Rating

59

92%

16

177

17

Omni Rankings

59

92%

16

177

17

CJBratings.com Win rating

59

92%

16

177

17

RealtimeRPI Power

59

92%

16

177

17

Sagarin GOLDEN_ MEAN

59

92%

16

177

25

Sagarin PURE_POINTS

58

91%

8

174

25

Sonny Moore

58

91%

8

174

27

Stats TPI

57

89%

6

171

28

Warren Nolan NPI

52

81%

5

156

29

WBBState's The State

50

78%

4

150

30

NCAA W-L %

49

77%

3

147

31

Coaches poll

38

59%

2

114

32

AP poll

32

50%

1

96

 

2. Exact seeds: entire field

Rank

No.

Pct.

Borda count pts.

Paymon pts.

1

Creme's bracket

39

60.9%

32

78

2

2015 S-Factor

29

45.3%

31

58

2

NCAA RPI

29

45.3%

31

58

2

Warren Nolan RPI

29

45.3%

31

58

5

CSM Bracket

26

40.6%

28

52

5

S-Factor blend

26

40.6%

28

52

5

Sagarin ELO_SCORE

26

40.6%

28

52

8

S-Factor conf w heavy

25

39.1%

25

50

8

RealtimeRPI RPI

25

39.1%

25

50

8

RealtimeRPI's bracket

25

39.1%

25

50

11

My bracket

23

35.9%

22

46

12

S-Factor RPI heavy

22

34.4%

21

44

12

CJBratings.com composite

22

34.4%

21

44

12

RealtimeRPI Power

22

34.4%

21

44

15

Massey Rating

21

32.8%

18

42

15

Massey Power Rating

21

32.8%

18

42

17

Pilight's Field of 64

20

31.3%

16

40

17

Charlie Burrus

20

31.3%

16

40

17

CJBratings.com Win rating

20

31.3%

16

40

17

Sonny Moore

20

31.3%

16

40

21

SporTheory

19

29.7%

12

38

21

Omni bracket

19

29.7%

12

38

23

Sagarin Rating

17

26.6%

10

34

24

Omni Rankings

15

23.4%

9

30

24

Sagarin GOLDEN_ MEAN

15

23.4%

9

30

24

Sagarin PURE_POINTS

15

23.4%

9

30

27

Coaches poll

13

20.3%

6

26

28

WBBState's The State

11

17.2%

5

22

29

AP poll

10

15.6%

4

20

30

Warren Nolan NPI

8

12.5%

3

16

31

Stats TPI

7

10.9%

2

14

31

NCAA W-L %

7

10.9%

2

14

 

3. Seeds within 1: entire field

Rank

 

No.

Pct.

Borda count pts.

1

Creme's bracket

58

90.6%

32

2

My bracket

54

84.4%

31

2

2015 S-Factor

54

84.4%

31

4

RealtimeRPI's bracket

52

81.3%

29

5

CSM Bracket

50

78.1%

28

6

NCAA RPI

49

76.6%

27

6

Warren Nolan RPI

49

76.6%

27

6

RealtimeRPI RPI

49

76.6%

27

6

CJBratings.com composite

49

76.6%

27

6

Charlie Burrus

49

76.6%

27

6

SporTheory

49

76.6%

27

12

S-Factor blend

47

73.4%

21

12

Sagarin ELO_SCORE

47

73.4%

21

12

S-Factor conf w heavy

47

73.4%

21

12

S-Factor RPI heavy

47

73.4%

21

12

Massey Power Rating

47

73.4%

21

17

Pilight's Field of 64

46

71.9%

16

17

CJBratings.com Win rating

46

71.9%

16

19

Massey Rating

45

70.3%

14

19

Sagarin Rating

45

70.3%

14

21

RealtimeRPI Power

44

68.8%

12

22

Sagarin PURE_POINTS

42

65.6%

11

23

Omni Rankings

41

64.1%

10

24

Sonny Moore

39

60.9%

9

24

Omni bracket

39

60.9%

9

24

Sagarin GOLDEN_MEAN

39

60.9%

9

27

Stats TPI

31

48.4%

6

28

Coaches poll

28

43.8%

5

29

AP poll

24

37.5%

4

29

Warren Nolan NPI

24

37.5%

4

31

WBBState's The State

21

32.8%

2

32

NCAA W-L %

13

20.3%

1

 

4. Exact seeds: Top 12 seeds
To focus on at-large bid placement

Rank

 

No.

Pct.

Borda count pts.

1

Creme's bracket

26

54.2%

32

2

2015 S-Factor

22

45.8%

31

3

Sagarin ELO_SCORE

19

39.6%

30

4

S-Factor blend

18

37.5%

29

4

S-Factor conf w heavy

18

37.5%

29

6

My bracket

17

35.4%

27

6

NCAA RPI

17

35.4%

27

6

Warren Nolan RPI

17

35.4%

27

6

CSM Bracket

17

35.4%

27

10

Massey Rating

16

33.3%

23

11

RealtimeRPI RPI

15

31.3%

22

12

RealtimeRPI's bracket

14

29.2%

21

12

S-Factor RPI heavy

14

29.2%

21

12

RealtimeRPI Power

14

29.2%

21

12

Massey Power Rating

14

29.2%

21

12

Pilight's Field of 64

14

29.2%

21

12

Charlie Burrus

14

29.2%

21

18

CJBratings.com composite

13

27.1%

15

18

CJBratings.com Win rating

13

27.1%

15

18

Sonny Moore

13

27.1%

15

18

SporTheory

13

27.1%

15

18

Omni bracket

13

27.1%

15

18

Coaches poll

13

27.1%

15

24

Sagarin Rating

10

20.8%

9

24

AP poll

10

20.8%

9

26

Omni Rankings

9

18.8%

7

27

Sagarin GOLDEN_MEAN

8

16.7%

6

27

Sagarin PURE_POINTS

8

16.7%

6

29

WBBState's The State

5

10.4%

4

29

Warren Nolan NPI

5

10.4%

4

29

Stats TPI

5

10.4%

4

32

NCAA W-L %

4

8.3%

1

 

5. Seeds within 1: top 12 seeds
To focus on at-large bid placement

Rank

 

No.

Pct.

Borda count pts.

1

Creme's bracket

43

89.6%

32

2

My bracket

40

83.3%

31

2

2015 S-Factor

40

83.3%

31

4

CSM Bracket

37

77.1%

29

5

RealtimeRPI's bracket

36

75.0%

28

5

Charlie Burrus

36

75.0%

28

7

SporTheory

35

72.9%

26

8

NCAA RPI

34

70.8%

25

8

Warren Nolan RPI

34

70.8%

25

8

RealtimeRPI RPI

34

70.8%

25

8

S-Factor RPI heavy

34

70.8%

25

8

CJBratings.com composite

34

70.8%

25

13

S-Factor conf w heavy

33

68.8%

20

13

Pilight's Field of 64

33

68.8%

20

15

S-Factor blend

32

66.7%

18

15

Sagarin ELO_SCORE

32

66.7%

18

15

Massey Power Rating

32

66.7%

18

18

CJBratings.com Win rating

31

64.6%

15

19

RealtimeRPI Power

30

62.5%

14

19

Massey Rating

30

62.5%

14

19

Sagarin Rating

30

62.5%

14

22

Sagarin PURE_POINTS

28

58.3%

11

22

Coaches poll

28

58.3%

11

24

Omni Rankings

27

56.3%

9

25

Sonny Moore

26

54.2%

8

25

Omni bracket

26

54.2%

8

27

Sagarin GOLDEN_MEAN

25

52.1%

6

28

AP poll

24

50.0%

5

29

Stats TPI

20

41.7%

4

30

Warren Nolan NPI

14

29.2%

3

31

WBBState's The State

11

22.9%

2

32

NCAA W-L %

6

12.5%

1

 

6. Exact seeds: top 6 seeds
To focus on the best teams, which generally get the most attention, and to provide an accurate comparison with the AP and Coaches polls.

Rank

 

No.

Pct.

Borda count pts.

1

Creme's bracket

14

58.3%

32

2

S-Factor blend

12

50.0%

31

2

Sagarin ELO_SCORE

12

50.0%

31

2

S-Factor conf w heavy

12

50.0%

31

5

My bracket

11

45.8%

28

5

2015 S-Factor

11

45.8%

28

7

CSM Bracket

10

41.7%

26

7

RealtimeRPI's bracket

10

41.7%

26

7

RealtimeRPI Power

10

41.7%

26

7

Pilight's Field of 64

10

41.7%

26

7

Coaches poll

10

41.7%

26

12

Massey Rating

9

37.5%

21

12

S-Factor RPI heavy

9

37.5%

21

12

Sonny Moore

9

37.5%

21

12

AP poll

9

37.5%

21

16

Charlie Burrus

8

33.3%

17

16

CJBratings.com Win rating

8

33.3%

17

18

Massey Power Rating

7

29.2%

15

18

Omni Rankings

7

29.2%

15

20

NCAA RPI

6

25.0%

13

20

Warren Nolan RPI

6

25.0%

13

20

RealtimeRPI RPI

6

25.0%

13

20

CJBratings.com composite

6

25.0%

13

20

Omni bracket

6

25.0%

13

25

Sagarin Rating

5

20.8%

8

25

WBBState's The State

5

20.8%

8

25

Stats TPI

5

20.8%

8

28

SporTheory

4

16.7%

5

28

Sagarin PURE_POINTS

4

16.7%

5

28

Warren Nolan NPI

4

16.7%

5

28

NCAA W-L %

4

16.7%

5

32

Sagarin GOLDEN_MEAN

3

12.5%

1

 

7. Seeds within 1: top 6 seeds
To focus on the best teams, which generally get the most attention, and to provide an accurate comparison with the AP and Coaches polls.

Rank

 

No.

Pct.

Borda count pts.

1

Creme's bracket

24

100.0%

32

2

My bracket

23

95.8%

31

3

2015 S-Factor

22

91.7%

30

4

CSM Bracket

21

87.5%

29

4

RealtimeRPI's bracket

21

87.5%

29

4

Pilight's Field of 64

21

87.5%

29

4

Charlie Burrus

21

87.5%

29

8

S-Factor blend

20

83.3%

25

8

Sagarin ELO_SCORE

20

83.3%

25

8

S-Factor conf w heavy

20

83.3%

25

8

S-Factor RPI heavy

20

83.3%

25

8

RealtimeRPI Power

20

83.3%

25

8

CJBratings.com Win rating

20

83.3%

25

8

SporTheory

20

83.3%

25

8

Coaches poll

20

83.3%

25

8

AP poll

20

83.3%

25

17

NCAA RPI

19

79.2%

16

17

Warren Nolan RPI

19

79.2%

16

17

RealtimeRPI RPI

19

79.2%

16

17

CJBratings.com composite

19

79.2%

16

17

Massey Power Rating

19

79.2%

16

22

Sonny Moore

18

75.0%

11

22

Sagarin Rating

18

75.0%

11

22

Omni Rankings

18

75.0%

11

25

Massey Rating

17

70.8%

8

25

Sagarin PURE_POINTS

17

70.8%

8

27

Sagarin GOLDEN_MEAN

16

66.7%

6

28

Omni bracket

15

62.5%

5

29

Stats TPI

14

58.3%

4

30

Warren Nolan NPI

12

50.0%

3

31

WBBState's The State

9

37.5%

2

32

NCAA W-L %

6

25.0%

1

 

Charlie Creme was the best in all seven categories that I have used as evaluation metrics, and his excellent predictions gave him a perfect score. This is the first perfect score I've seen since I started evaluating bracket predictions and ranking methods in 2010 (though Creme came close in 2010, when he was second place in only one category, seeds within 1: top 12).

Borda count points

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Sum

1

Creme's bracket

32

32

32

32

32

32

32

224

2

2015 S-Factor

32

31

31

31

31

28

30

214

3

My bracket

30

22

31

27

31

28

31

200

4

CSM Bracket

30

28

28

27

29

26

29

197

5

Sagarin ELO_SCORE

28

28

21

30

18

31

25

181

6

S-Factor blend

28

28

21

29

18

31

25

180

7

S-Factor conf w heavy

28

25

21

29

20

31

25

179

8

RealtimeRPI's bracket

16

25

29

21

28

26

29

174

9

NCAA RPI

28

31

27

27

25

13

16

167

9

Warren Nolan RPI

28

31

27

27

25

13

16

167

11

Charlie Burrus

28

16

27

21

28

17

29

166

12

S-Factor RPI heavy

28

21

21

21

25

21

25

162

13

Pilight's Field of 64

28

16

16

21

20

26

29

156

13

RealtimeRPI RPI

28

25

27

22

25

13

16

156

15

CJBratings.com composite

28

21

27

15

25

13

16

145

16

RealtimeRPI Power

16

21

12

21

14

26

25

135

17

SporTheory

17

12

27

15

26

5

25

127

18

Massey Rating

28

18

14

23

14

21

8

126

19

Massey Power Rating

16

18

21

21

18

15

16

125

20

CJBratings.com Win rating

16

16

16

15

15

17

25

120

21

Coaches poll

2

6

5

15

11

26

25

90

22

Sonny Moore

8

16

9

15

8

21

11

88

23

Sagarin Rating

16

10

14

9

14

8

11

82

24

Omni bracket

16

12

9

15

8

13

5

78

25

Omni Rankings

16

9

10

7

9

15

11

77

26

AP poll

1

4

4

9

5

21

25

69

27

Sagarin PURE_POINTS

8

9

11

6

11

5

8

58

28

Sagarin GOLDEN_ MEAN

16

9

9

6

6

1

6

53

29

Stats TPI

6

2

6

4

4

8

4

34

30

WBBState's The State

4

5

2

4

2

8

2

27

30

Warren Nolan NPI

5

3

4

4

3

5

3

27

32

NCAA W-L %

3

2

1

1

1

5

1

14

 

This is a table that sums the number of correct teams under each of the seven criteria above. It shows basically the same thing: Charlie Creme was miles better than anyone else at bracket prediction in 2014.

Sum of points

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Sum

1

Creme's bracket

64

39

58

26

43

14

24

268

2

2015 S-Factor

64

29

54

22

40

11

22

242

3

My bracket

62

23

54

17

40

11

23

230

4

CSM Bracket

62

26

50

17

37

10

21

223

5

Sagarin ELO_SCORE

61

26

47

19

32

12

20

217

5

RealtimeRPI's bracket

59

25

52

14

36

10

21

217

7

S-Factor blend

61

26

47

18

32

12

20

216

7

S-Factor conf w heavy

61

25

47

18

33

12

20

216

9

NCAA RPI

61

29

49

17

34

6

19

215

9

Warren Nolan RPI

61

29

49

17

34

6

19

215

11

Charlie Burrus

61

20

49

14

36

8

21

209

11

RealtimeRPI RPI

61

25

49

15

34

6

19

209

13

S-Factor RPI heavy

61

22

47

14

34

9

20

207

14

Pilight's Field of 64

61

20

46

14

33

10

21

205

15

CJBratings.com composite

61

22

49

13

34

6

19

204

16

SporTheory

60

19

49

13

35

4

20

200

17

RealtimeRPI Power

59

22

44

14

30

10

20

199

17

Massey Rating

61

21

45

16

30

9

17

199

17

Massey Power Rating

59

21

47

14

32

7

19

199

20

CJBratings.com Win rating

59

20

46

13

31

8

20

197

21

Sagarin Rating

59

17

45

10

30

5

18

184

22

Sonny Moore

58

20

39

13

26

9

18

183

23

Omni bracket

59

19

39

13

26

6

15

177

24

Omni Rankings

59

15

41

9

27

7

18

176

25

Sagarin PURE_POINTS

58

15

42

8

28

4

17

172

26

Sagarin GOLDEN_MEAN

59

15

39

8

25

3

16

165

27

Coaches poll

38

13

28

13

28

10

20

150

28

Stats TPI

57

7

31

5

20

5

14

139

29

AP poll

32

10

24

10

24

9

20

129

30

Warren Nolan NPI

52

8

24

5

14

4

12

119

31

WBBState's The State

50

11

21

5

11

5

9

112

32

NCAA W-L %

49

7

13

4

6

4

6

89

 

Finally, this table uses the Paymon method to evaluate the brackets and ranking systems. This is the method used by The Bracket Project to evaluate men's basketball tournament predictions. Once again, Charlie Creme blew every other prediction away.

Paymon method

1

2

3

Sum

1

Creme's bracket

192

78

58

328

2

2015 S-Factor

192

58

54

304

3

NCAA RPI

183

58

49

290

3

Warren Nolan RPI

183

58

49

290

5

CSM Bracket

186

52

50

288

6

My bracket

186

46

54

286

7

Sagarin ELO_SCORE

183

52

47

282

7

S-Factor blend

183

52

47

282

7

RealtimeRPI RPI

183

50

49

282

10

S-Factor conf w heavy

183

50

47

280

11

RealtimeRPI's bracket

177

50

52

279

12

CJBratings.com composite

183

44

49

276

13

S-Factor RPI heavy

183

44

47

274

14

Charlie Burrus

183

40

49

272

15

Massey Rating

183

42

45

270

16

Pilight's Field of 64

183

40

46

269

17

SporTheory

180

38

49

267

18

Massey Power Rating

177

42

47

266

19

RealtimeRPI Power

177

44

44

265

20

CJBratings.com Win rating

177

40

46

263

21

Sagarin Rating

177

34

45

256

22

Omni bracket

177

38

39

254

23

Sonny Moore

174

40

39

253

24

Omni Rankings

177

30

41

248

25

Sagarin PURE_POINTS

174

30

42

246

25

Sagarin GOLDEN_ MEAN

177

30

39

246

27

Stats TPI

171

14

31

216

28

Warren Nolan NPI

156

16

24

196

29

WBBState's The State

150

22

21

193

30

NCAA W-L %

147

14

13

174

31

Coaches poll

114

26

28

168

32

AP poll

96

20

24

140

 

A note on the terminology used in the tables above. There are four different S-Factors used in those tables.

"S-Factor blend" was the ranking I published on this site throughout the season last year, using an algorithm last modified in 2012.
"S-Factor conf w heavy" was an unpublished tweak of that algorithm that weighted conference win-loss record and conference strength more heavily.
"S-Factor RPI heavy" was an unpublished tweak of that algorithm that weighted RPI more heavily.
"2015 S-Factor" is the new algorithm I will be using this year. I will explain more in a future post.

"My bracket" is the bracket prediction I published on my bracket prediction page.