Blind Resumes

checking these out. Good work.

Wow Paps this was FUNtastic!  Great, great work and you are absolutely right that in each one the team I picked was a "wtf you're kidding me"when I saw who it was.  Thanks for putting this together and taking the time to assemble it.

Thanks for doing this. I'm rather concerned about my focus in life as I was able to guess almost all of the teams.

I accurately picked 13 of the 18 team resumes.  I am the definition of a college basketball junkie.

Could you do one of these after the weekend with the teams being considered for 1, 2, and 3 seeds? I think Michigan's resume is better than people think.

Also, a suggestion: make the quality wins/bad losses blind as well by referring to them by Kenpom or RPI rankings. It's pretty easy to guess who is who, defeating the whole purpose of the exercise.

This is a lot of fun, though. Thanks for putting the effort in to do it!

The object really isn't to see how many teams you can correctly identify.  There are several schools though that are quite obvious by the criteria- when your good wins and bad losses are a bunch of teams from the same conference, it's easier to pick out who that team might be.  Thank you for the positive feedback- this was my first diary on mgoblog and I'm just happy I didn't make a horrible mistake.  

Will you please do the same (with the blind quality win/bad loss suggestion) for teams fighting for #1 seeds?

Yes, make one for the top 16 seeds or so - that would be fantastic.

However, the intended goal isn't realy to see if you can guess the team, it is to see who deserves to be in the tournament and/or what seed - right? (though admitedly, you can do with this whatever makes you happy).

I had a very hard time giving any value to conference record without knowing the conference.  a 7-9 Big Ten record is far superior to a 10-6 SEC record imo.

I'm really proud of UVA's resume.  It takes a special team and a lot of work to assemble something that confounding.  I presume the committee will enjoy it.

1) Team B... UK, yuck!

2 ) Team B... LaSalle

3) Team A... Temple

4) Team A... Nova

5) Team C... Cal

6) Team B... St Mary's

Thanks for all of the feedback.  For the next edition I will make this for the top 15 teams that could be in consideration for a 1 seed.  Instead of putting the actual teams in for the "good wins" and "bad losses" section, I will instead do Good Wins: RPI #3, RPI #19, etc. Bad Losses: RPI #256, etc. 

Also, because the conference records can be a bit misleading (Saint Mary's 14-2 non conference record just means gonzaga is the only good team in that conference), I will include a conference RPI, which is pretty much just an average RPI for all of the teams that the team played in their conference.  That will put a little more justification to the conference record.  As it stands now, Michigan's is 75.2

This will hopefully make the blind resumes 100% blind becasue you can't figure out who the teams are.  Thanks for the feedback, and if there's anything else I should include, just tell me. 

Yes:

• Arizona State
• Virginia
• LaSalle
• Temple
• Villanova
• California
• St. Mary's (I guess, gun to head)

No:

• Kentucky
• Boise State
• Southern Mississippi
• Mississippi
• Maryland
• Indiana State
• Tennessee
• Iowa State
• Massachusetts
• Alabama
• Baylor

In the Bracket Matrix, about 8 of these teams make the field, and that's with no "spot stealers:" teams that win their conference's autobid who would not have made the field otherwise, and their conference's best team is good enough to get an at-large berth.  So, I'm taking 7 teams, and if it goes down to 6, b-bye St. Mary's.

I like the neutral team concept....     I always flow towards their win loss records vs Top 50 for my picks....

The RPI is broken.

Exhibit A: #2 New Mexico

The end.