Final Bracket

On the top line, a consensus seems to have emerged that UNC and Gonzaga will get the nod over Michigan State. I’m not sure why, other than the infamous “eye test”. I’m going to go against the grain and say that the Spartans will get a #1 seed over UNC.

On the bubble watch, Oregon stole another bid, so in my mind it came down to 5 teams (Belmont, NC State, TCU, St. John’s, UNCG) for 2 spots. I’ve talked myself into and out of each team several times, but my final answer is going to be St. John’s and TCU. I think there is a good argument to be made for (and against) each team, and I won’t be surprised at any combination of those teams making it. I think UNCG would be the most surprising, but it’s possible.

St. John’s I don’t think is deserving; but ultimately I think the committee will give them the edge because of their 5 quadrant 1 wins.

There are others who think that Minnesota, Ohio St, Temple, and Arizona St are in danger, and I can’t completely rule that out, but I think they will make it.

Without further ado, here it is (automatic bids in bold):

#1 seeds: Duke, Virginia, Gonzaga, Michigan St

#2 seeds: UNC, Tennessee, Kentucky, Michigan

#3 seeds: Houston, LSU, Florida St, Texas Tech

#4 seeds: Kansas, Wisconsin, Purdue, Auburn

#5 seeds: Kansas St, Cincinnati, Iowa St, Virginia Tech

#6 seeds: Mississippi St, Buffalo, Marquette, Villanova

#7 seeds: Wofford, Maryland, Nevada, Louisville

#8 seeds: Oklahoma, Utah St, Florida, Seton Hall

#9 seeds: Washington, UCF, Baylor, VCU

#10 seeds: Syracuse, Iowa, Ole Miss, Arizona St

#11 seeds: Minnesota, Ohio St, Oregon, Temple, St. John’s, TCU

#12 seeds: New Mexico St, St, Mary’s, UC Irvine, Murray St

#13 seeds: Liberty, Vermont, Northeastern, Yale

#14 seeds: Old Dominion, St. Louis, Georgia State, Montana

#15 seeds: Northern Kentucky, Colgate, Abilene Christian, Gardner Webb

#16 seeds: Bradley, Prairie View A&M, Fairleigh Dickinson, Iona, North Dakota St, NC Central

Last Four In: Ohio St, Temple, St. John’s, TCU

First Four Out: Belmont, NC State, UNCG, Alabama

Full Bracket 3/15

There are a couple of games still to play today out west, but I can’t stay up that late.

The #1 seed situation is fascinating. I think Virginia and now Duke are locks. I think the SEC champion, if it’s Kentucky or Tennessee, will get one. And then you have Gonzaga, UNC, and Michigan State if they win the Big 10. That’s a tough call. Most of the experts seem to think the Zags will get the nod, but I’m not convinced.

Here’s the bracket. Assumed automatic bids in bold; tickets punched in bold italics.

#1 seeds: Virginia, Duke, Kentucky, Gonzaga

#2 seeds: Michigan St, UNC, Tennessee, Michigan

#3 seeds: LSU, Houston, Texas Tech, Florida State

#4 seeds: Wisconsin, Kansas, Purdue, Kansas St

#5 seeds: Mississippi St, Virginia Tech, Marquette, Iowa St

#6 seeds: Villanova, Auburn, Buffalo, Cincinnati

#7 seeds: Nevada, Wofford, Maryland, Washington

#8 seeds: Louisville, Oklahoma, Florida, Utah St

#9 seeds: Central Florida, Iowa, Baylor, Seton Hall

#10 seeds: Arizona St, VCU, Ole Miss, Syracuse

#11 seeds: Minnesota, Temple, TCU, Ohio St, St. Mary’s

#12 seeds: Belmont, NC State, New Mexico St, UC Irvine, Liberty

#13 seeds: Davidson, Murray St, Old Dominion, Northeastern

#14 seeds: Vermont, Harvard, Georgia State, Northern Kentucky

#15 seeds: Montana, Colgate, Gardner Webb, Bradley

#16 seeds: Prairie View A&M, Fairleigh Dickinson, Abilene Christian, Iona, North Dakota St, Norfolk St

Last Four Byes: Ole Miss, Syracuse, Minnesota, Temple

Last Four In: TCU, Ohio St, Belmont, NC State

First Four Out: Alabama, St. John’s, UNCG, Creighton

Next Four Out: Texas, Indiana, Lipscomb, Clemson

Bubble Watch 3/15

On Wednesday, I said that 29 teams were locks for the 36 at-large slots. To that list I am now adding Florida, Arizona State, and VCU, which was the victim of a bid-stealer which knocked someone out of the bracket. (I feel a little nervous calling Temple a lock, but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.)

So here are the bubble teams competing for those last 4 slots:

TCU
NC State
Texas
St. John’s
Ohio State
Indiana
Georgetown
Belmont
UNC Greensboro
Alabama
Creighton
Clemson
Lipscomb

None of these teams is still playing, so there is no danger of their relative rank changing.

I’m going to narrow the list by guaranteeing that these teams will not make it:

Texas
Indiana
Georgetown
Creighton
Clemson
Lipscomb

So in my view, that leaves 7 teams competing for the last 4 spots:

TCU
NC State
St. John’s
Ohio State
Belmont
UNC Greensboro
Alabama

I would not be surprised to see any of these teams in, or any of them out. Actually I would be a little surprised to see UNCG in, but I cannot quite bring myself to take them off the list. Of these seven, here is how I would rank their chances:

1) TCU (IN)
2) Ohio State (IN)
3) Belmont (IN)
4) NC State (IN)
5) Alabama (OUT)
6) St. John’s (OUT)
7) UNCG (OUT)

But these teams are very, very close and these rankings get very subjective. I have St. John’s out, and a lot of sites have them in. What they have going for them is 5 Quadrant 1 wins. What they have going against them is… well, everything else. Their non-conference SOS is 216. They lost 5 games against Quadrants 2 and 3. Their NET is 72, which is by far the lowest of all teams we are considering here.

Of course, the thing to keep in mind is the possibility of additional bid stealers. There are still a few possibilities out there.

That’s how I see it right now.

NC State’s Chances

Once again, it seems that NC State is one of the most hotly debated of the bubble teams. So let’s do an in depth analysis of their chances.

There are a total of 36 at large teams in the field. I am going to say at this point that there are 29 locks or near-locks for those 36 spots. They are (with assumptions about who is going to win their conference tournaments):

Duke
North Carolina
Kentucky
LSU
Michigan
Purdue
Wisconsin
Kansas
Florida State
Gonzaga
Kansas State
Marquette
Virginia Tech
Mississippi State
Maryland
Iowa State
Auburn
Cincinnati
Louisville
Iowa
Oklahoma
Central Florida
Seton Hall
Mississippi
Temple
Baylor
Syracuse
Utah State
Minnesota

That leaves 7 spots available. Here are the teams which could conceivably get those spots:

TCU
Florida
NC State
Texas
St. John’s
Ohio State
Arizona State
Indiana
Georgetown
Belmont
UNC Greensboro
Alabama
Creighton
Clemson
Toledo
Lipscomb

So, in order for NC State NOT to make the tournament, 7 of those teams have to get in ahead of them. Let’s think about how that could happen.

I’m going to go ahead and concede a few teams that I think have a good case and will likely make it: TCU, St. John’s (although getting beat by 32 tonight can’t help), Ohio State, and Arizona State (playing right now – if they lose, maybe they drop). That leaves 3 spots. Who is going to get them?

First let’s talk about who is not going to get them.

  • Lipscomb: Strength of schedule #215. A total of 4 wins against Quadrants 1 & 2. Not happening.
  • Toledo: Just lost to Northern Illinois. They’re done.
  • Clemson: 1-10 against Quadrant 1.
  • UNCG: Very similar to Lipscomb, but their best win is against Furman. I don’t think you can get an at large bid without beating a team that makes the tournament (and Furman isn’t making it – Jerry Palm is delusional).
  • Indiana: 17-15. Surely you can’t make the tournament 2 games over .500, can you? Also, they lost 12 out of 13. I’m willing to wager that no team has ever received an at large bid that lost 12 out of 13 games during the season.
  • Texas: 16-15. Ditto. Maybe if they beat Kansas tonight we can talk.

So that leaves Florida, NC State, Georgetown, Belmont, Alabama, and Creighton for those final 3 spots.

Creighton lost to Xavier today and finished 18-14. Their best win, at Marquette, is definitely better than State’s best win. But the way I compare them is: Creighton went 3-10 against Quadrant 1; State went 3-9. Call it even. Creighton went 6-4 against Quadrant 2; State went 6-0. Advantage NC State. So I don’t see 18-14 Creighton making it over the Wolfpack.

Florida and Alabama I think are bigger threats. Alabama just beat Ole Miss, which gives them an identical 3-9 record to the Wolfpack against Quadrant 1. Alabama’s best win is over Kentucky, definitely better than State’s best win. So advantage Alabama. However, State went 6-0 against Quadrant 2, to Alabama’s 7-3. Advantage State. Alabama played a much, much tougher non-conference schedule, and we know what a hot button that is for the committee. I don’t think it’s open and shut, but I can see a scenario where the Tide gets in over the Pack, not to mention the fact that Alabama is still playing.

Florida has a similar profile. 3-11 against Quadrant 1, but with a better win (at LSU) than anything State has. 4-1 against Quadrant 2; 2 losses against Quadrant 3, just like State. They did not play a great non-conference schedule, but better than State’s. Again, I don’t think it’s clear cut, but let’s concede that Florida could get in over the Pack.

So now we’re down to one spot, and we have Belmont, Georgetown, and State.

Georgetown is almost universally acknowledged to have work to do. They sit at #78 in the NET (State is #32), by far the lowest of any of the teams in consideration. They played a crummy non-conference schedule. They went 11-10 against Quadrants 1 and 2; State went 9-9. Not much difference there. But overall, they lost 6 games below Quadrant 1, and that hurts them. Now they’re still playing, so we can’t rule out that they could play their way in. Let’s see how they do against Seton Hall tonight. If they lose, I think they’re done. If they win, we might have something.

Then there’s Belmont. Their resume is similar to UNCG and Lipscomb, but slightly better I think. They went 5-3 against Quadrants 1 & 2. Their best win is at Murray State, so they did at least beat someone in the tournament, and on the road. They swept Lipscomb. They played a decent non-conference schedule.

But honestly it’s so difficult to compare a team like Belmont with a team like State. It really comes down to a subjective judgment – what kind of team do you want in?

So while I still think State will get in, I can see the scenario where they don’t. Florida and Alabama get in on the basis of schedule strength and/or a conference tournament run; and then either Belmont gets in, because the committee decides to punish State for the non-conference SOS, or Georgetown wins a couple of games and plays their way in.

For State fans, watch Georgetown closely. If they lose tonight, I think you can write them off. Pull against Florida and Alabama; if either of them wins tomorrow, you can probably call them locks. And then, on Sunday, hope you don’t see Belmont in the bracket. If you do, it could be bad news.

Bracketology 3/13

The plot continues to thicken as we get closer and closer to Selection Sunday.

NC State managed to nip Clemson at the wire today in what was likely an elimination game. I’m not completely convinced the Tigers would have made it even with a win, but they’re definitely done with a loss. You heard it here.

Gonzaga’s loss in the final to St. Mary’s is interesting as well. Could the Zags fall to a #2 seed? I think they SHOULD, but somehow they seem to be bulletproof in the eyes of the talking heads. Don’t get me wrong, I think Gonzaga is really good, good enough to win it all, but they have one really good win this year. That’s it. That should not be enough to get a #1 seed ahead of the SEC champ or Big 10 champ.

So far we’ve only had one definite bid stealer, and that was St. Mary’s. Belmont losing the OVC is a possible bid stealer; Belmont is right on the cut line.

Back to the Wolfpack. Lunardi and Palm are still thinking they are right on the cut line. I don’t buy it. I think with today’s win they are looking at a 10 seed or an 11 at worst. And I swear that’s not bias talking – that’s what my spreadsheet tells me.

Here’s my current bracket. For the most part, it is through yesterday’s games, although I am factoring in the NC State win today (assumed automatic bids in bold; tickets already punched in bold italics):

#1 seeds: Virginia, UNC, Gonzaga, Kentucky

#2 seeds: Duke, Michigan State, Tennessee, LSU

#3 seeds: Michigan, Texas Tech, Houston, Purdue

#4 seeds: Kansas, Wisconsin, Kansas St, Florida St

#5 seeds: Virginia Tech, Mississippi St, Marquette, Maryland

#6 seeds: Auburn, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Villanova

#7 seeds: Wofford, Iowa St, Nevada, Louisville

#8 seeds: Oklahoma, Washington, UCF, Iowa

#9 seeds: Baylor, Ole Miss, Temple, Seton Hall

#10 seeds: VCU, Minnesota, Arizona St, St. John’s

#11 seeds: NC State, Indiana, Syracuse, St. Mary’s

#12 seeds: Florida, TCU, Utah St, Ohio St, New Mexico St, UC Irvine

#13 seeds: Liberty, Murray St, Old Dominion, Northeastern

#14 seeds: Vermont, Georgia State, Yale, Northern Kentucky

#15 seeds: Montana, Colgate, Gardner Webb, Bradley

#16 seeds: Sam Houston State, Prairie View A&M, Fairleigh Dickinson, Iona, North Dakota St, Norfolk St

Last Four Byes: St. John’s, NC State, Indiana, Syracuse

Last Four In: Florida, TCU, Utah St, Ohio St

First Four Out: Texas, Georgetown, Belmont, UNC Greensboro

Next Four Out: Creighton, Clemson, Alabama, Toledo

Bracketology 3/10

It has been a really busy weekend and I’m excited to get the updated bracket out there.

Four teams have punched their tickets: Murray St. in the Ohio Valley, Gardner Webb in the Big South, Bradley in the Missouri Valley, and Liberty in the Atlantic Sun. And this does bring into play a couple of possible bid stealing scenarios as Belmont in the Ohio Valley and Lipscomb in the Atlantic Sun are legitimate at-large bid candidates.

On the top end, the situation for #1 seeds is an interesting one. My take is that Virginia has one locked up no matter what, and Gonzaga probably does too (although things would get interesting if they happen to lose in their conference tourney). I think the winner of Duke-UNC round 3, assuming that happens on Friday, will get one, and the loser will not. And that leaves the fourth for the SEC champion or Big 10 champion.

Without further ado, here’s the current bracket (assumed automatic bids in bold; tickets punched in bold italics):

#1 seeds: Virginia, UNC, Gonzaga, Kentucky

#2 seeds: Duke, Michigan State, Tennessee, Michigan

#3 seeds: LSU, Texas Tech, Purdue, Houston

#4 seeds: Wisconsin, Kansas, Virginia Tech, Florida State

#5 seeds: Buffalo, Kansas State, Mississippi State, Nevada

#6 seeds: Maryland, Auburn, Cincinnati, Marquette

#7 seeds: Villanova, Wofford, Iowa State, Louisvile

#8 seeds: Oklahoma, Washington, Iowa, Baylor

#9 seeds: Ole Miss, UCF, VCU, Syracuse

#10 seeds: Minnesota, Utah State, Seton Hall, Temple

#11 seeds: NC State, Clemson, Indiana, Arizona State

#12 seeds: New Mexico State, UC Irvine, Ohio State, Florida, TCU, Belmont

#13 seeds: Liberty, Murray State, Hofstra, Vermont

#14 seeds: Old Dominion, Georgia State, Yale, Northern Kentucky

#15 seeds: Montana, Colgate, Omaha, Bradley

#16 seeds: Gardner Webb, Sam Houston State, Prairie View A&M, Fairleigh Dickinson, Iona, Norfolk State

Last Four Byes: NC State, Clemson, Indiana, Arizona State

Last Four In: Ohio State, Florida, TCU, Belmont

First Four Out: Texas, St. John’s, Toledo, Creighton

Next Four Out: Lipscomb, Furman, Alabama, Nebraska

Bracketology 3/7

I’ve added a new post on my method which, if you have the patience to read it, will help shed some light on how I arrived at the lists below.  To clarify, the list on the left is what my model says the committee SHOULD do; the list on the right is what my adjusted model says the committee WILL do.

Should Be:

#1 seeds: Virginia, Duke, UNC, Michigan

#2 seeds: Tennessee, Michigan State, Gonzaga, Kentucky

#3 seeds: LSU, Kansas, Texas Tech, Purdue

#4 seeds: Houston, Florida State, Kansas State, Buffalo

#5 seeds: Virginia Tech, Nevada, Wisconsin, Cincinnati

#6 seeds: Wofford, Maryland, Marquette, Washington

#7 seeds: Iowa, Mississippi State, Villanova, Auburn

#8 seeds: Oklahoma, VCU, Belmont, UCF

#9 seeds: Iowa State, Utah State, Louisville, New Mexico State

#10 seeds: Minnesota, UC Irvine, Toledo, NC State

#11 seeds: Furman, Murray State, Ohio State, Lipscomb

#12 seeds: Temple, Syracuse, St. John’s, Baylor, Clemson, Ole Miss

#13 seeds: Arizona State, Vermont, Liberty, Hofstra

#14 seeds: Old Dominion, Drake, Georgia State, Harvard

#15 seeds: Montana, South Dakota State, Northern Kentucky, Radford

#16 seeds: Colgate, Sam Houston State, Prairie View A&M,
Norfolk State, Fairleigh Dickinson, Iona

Last Four Byes: Temple, Syracuse, St. John’s, Baylor

Last Four In: Clemson, Ole Miss, Arizona State, Liberty

First Four Out: Florida, Seton Hall, East Tennessee State, Indiana

Next Four Out: TCU, Davidson, Texas, Alabama

Will Be:

#1 seeds: Virginia, Duke, UNC, Michigan St.

#2 seeds: Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, LSU

#3 seeds: Gonzaga, Kansas, Purdue, Kansas St.

#4 seeds: Texas Tech, Florida State, Wisconsin, Houston

#5 seeds: Buffalo, Virginia Tech, Marquette, Nevada

#6 seeds: Maryland, Cincinnati, Mississippi State, Iowa

#7 seeds: Washington, Villanova, Oklahoma, Wofford

#8 seeds: Iowa State, Auburn, Louisville, VCU

#9 seeds: Minnesota, UCF, Utah State, Baylor

#10 seeds: Syracuse, Ohio State, Belmont, New Mexico State

#11 seeds: St. John’s, Toledo, Arizona State, Ole Miss

#12 seeds: NC State, Seton Hall, Temple, Clemson, Florida, Texas

#13 seeds: UC Irvine, Lipscomb, Vermont, Old Dominion

#14 seeds: Georgia State, Drake, Hofstra, Harvard

#15 seeds: Radford, Montana, South Dakota State, Northern Kentucky

#16 seeds: Colgate, Sam Houston State, Prairie View A&M,
Norfolk State, Fairleigh Dickinson, Iona

Last Four Byes: Arizona State, Ole Miss, NC State, Seton Hall

Last Four In: Temple, Clemson, Florida, Texas

First Four Out: Furman, Indiana, Alabama, TCU

Next Four Out: Creighton, Murray State, Davidson, Liberty

Bracketology – More on Method

I started on this Bracketology project last year. My initial goal, and the goal that still interests me most, was to come up with a purely quantitative, objective model for selecting at-large teams that completely removes subjectivity from the process. Such a model would be based on the following principles that are (to me, at least) self-evident:

  1. The goal is not to select the “best” teams; the goal is to select the teams that have earned spots in the tournament based on their record of wins and losses
  2. Wins always help, and losses always hurt
  3. Wins against good teams help more than wins against bad teams, and losses against bad teams hurt more than losses against good teams
  4. Wins and losses are all that matter (margin of victory is irrelevant)
  5. Timing of games is irrelevant (the first game of the season is just as important as the last)

If these principles are not self-evident to you, it’s probably because you’re not understanding or agreeing with #1 above. To illustrate what I mean, let’s take an example. I think Penn State is a better team than Seton Hall this year. If they were to play tomorrow on a neutral court, I would pick Penn State to win. Penn State is ranked #41 at kenpom.com, while Seton Hall is ranked #60. But Penn State is 13-17. They haven’t earned a spot in the tournament by winning enough games. Now, you might say, if they’re so good, why are they 13-17? Good question. For one thing, they played the second toughest schedule in the country. On top of that, they had some bad luck. In games decided by 5 points or less or in overtime, they went 2-8. Perhaps it’s more than bad luck; I’m sure Penn State fans have their theories. But whatever the reason, the bottom line is that they didn’t win enough games to make the tournament, regardless of how “good” they are.

So, building on that foundation, I created a model with the following characteristics:

  • Every game yields a score from 0-100. Wins always yield positive scores, while losses always yield negative scores.
  • Wins against really good teams yield scores close to 100. Wins against really bad teams yield scores close to 0.
  • Losses against really good teams yield negative scores close to 0. Losses against really bad teams yield negative scores close to -100.
  • A team then becomes the sum of its game scores.

That’s it. Total up the game scores for each team, and select and seed the teams according to their scores. The only tricky part is, how exactly to come up with the game score. After thinking about it for a while, the solution hit me: the game score should be the probability that an NCAA Tournament team would win (or lose) that game.

For an illustration, let’s take Alabama. On November 6, they beat Southern at home. Southern is ranked #341 in kenpom. NCAA tournament teams beat #341 at home 99.9% of the time. Therefore, Alabama gets only (100-99.9)=0.1 points for that win.

On December 4, Alabama lost to Georgia State at home. Georgia State is ranked #131 in kenpom. NCAA Tournament teams beat #131 at home 90.3% of the time. So for losing that game, Alabama gets -90.3 points.

Moving to the good side of the ledger, Alabama won at Missouri on January 16. Missouri is ranked #88 in kenpom. NCAA Tournament teams, playing on the road at #88, win 54.1% of the time. Therefore Alabama gets (100-54.1) = 45.9 points for that win.

So using a probabilistic model solves the problem of rewarding teams more for beating good teams, and punishing them more for losing to bad teams. It also provides a way to adjust for home vs. away games – a factor which, incidentally, is not considered enough in evaluating teams’ resumes.

So I built this whole spreadsheet-based model to do exactly what I’ve just explained for all the teams worthy of tournament consideration last year. And once I finished it, it was immediately clear that the logic used by my model is not the logic used by the selection committee. While the model does an fine job of selecting the top seeds in the tournament, when it comes to the bubble, it consistently selects small conference teams with good records over big conference teams with relatively poor records. Is that a flaw in my logic, or a flaw in the selection committee’s criteria? That’s for you to decide; but it did lead me to a few conclusions about the committee’s thinking that seem evident from comparing my model to their actual selection.

  1. Wins help more than losses hurt.
  2. Teams are given very little credit for winning games, especially road games, against teams ranked 75-150.

To elaborate on #1. According to my model, if you lose to #92 on a neutral court (-70 points) and then beat #27 on the road (70 points), those 2 games basically cancel each other out, and would have the same net effect as if you beat #349 and #350 (each of which would yield ~0 points). But I think in the committee’s eyes, the first team has more merit. There is some credit given for playing better teams, even when you lose.

To elaborate on #2. This hurts a few small conference teams every year. Let’s take Toledo this year. They’re not even being talked about for an at-large bid by Lunardi or Palm, presumably because they “didn’t beat anybody”. But actually, they beat #122, #123, #104, #147, #135, and #179 on the road, and #91 on a neutral court. Are those gimme games? Hardly. The win probabilities for those games for NCAA Tournament teams are 63%, 64%, 59%, 69%, 67%, 76%, and 70%. Those teams are basically Georgia Tech this year. Is it easy to go win at Georgia Tech? 7 times?

So, I’ve started trying to tweak my model to account for the biases of the selection committee. I want to see if I can adjust the model over time to get closer and closer to the committee’s logic, but still in a purely quantitative model with no subjectivity. The current version of the model weights wins twice as heavily as losses. I found that by doing this, I come much closer to the actual selections in past years.

So in my future updates, I’m going to give you 2 lists. One is what I think the committee should do, based on the guiding principles described above; the other is what my adjusted model says they will do. I hope to learn enough to continue improving my model to conform more to the committee’s method.

Bracketology Intro

I’ve decided to try my hand at Bracketology – my way.

I’ve been interested in the subject for years. Last year, I created an Excel-driven method for figuring out what the committee should do, not what they would do. And I still have that formula, but I’ve tweaked it a bit to account for the committee’s actual demonstrated behavior, and I think I’ve created a pretty good formula-driven replica of how they assess the teams. Now it’s time to put her in the water and see if she floats.

What’s unique, I guess, about my approach is that no human judgment is applied to my picks. It’s purely formula-driven. Of course it’s risky to try to replicate human behavior with a formula, because it assumes that human beings behave predictably and rationally, which is demonstrably false. But I still am curious as to how close I can come to replicating the logic of the committee.

I’ll try to post an update every day and provide some commentary on what changed and why, and explain some of my more idiosyncratic picks.

When all is said and done, I’ll compare my results to Joe Lunardi and Jerry Palm, and we’ll see who wins when spreadsheet faces human. Although for all I know, those guys are using a spreadsheet too.