Hi User! I totally agree. Chalk makes KenPom look good. But KenPom did get 2 of 3 upsets correct though. Cheers! ❌(11) New Mexico over (6) Clemson ✅(10) Colorado over (7) Florida ✅(5) Gonzaga over (4) Kansas
@@ryanhemesath6686 Hi Ryan! Good point. When it comes to predictive models, when the stats used are much better for one team (Auburn) versus another team (Yale), the model will definitely pick the better team. But in a single elimination tournament, wild upsets will happen, for sure. Cheers!
Good job stats updated . The eyeball test can detect occasionally a chalk mismatch or a hotness factor. ( though I know stats people deny the later exist ) the eyeball may also be reflecting a jaundiced recency bias so check your self . 😊 Clemson shouldn't have beaten baylor by chalk but they did -defense and late game composure prevailed.
Hey Terence! I absolutely agree with you. While I present the data and the stats in my videos, I also look at experience, head coach, and recent wins against other tournament teams before making final decisions. Experience is huge! Cheers!
@@bigmombo3989 sorry I didn't see it but tigers from portal played more composed than bears from portal . Wildcats will be tested for a half but data says its a 10 plus win.
Hi Aragorn! You are correct when it comes to the picks in this video (for the Sweet 16). However, in the first two rounds, KenPom predicted 5 lower seeds to win. It got 3 out of those 5 picks correct. I think this also points to how closely the selection committee aligns with the KenPom stats. Where the KenPom stats were different, KenPom got 3 of 5 correct. Cheers!
Hi Sack! Check out my new video titled "A KenPom Betting Model". It shows how to get the spreads, the totals, and the team totals using KenPom stats. Cheers!
