For the past eight years, I have been an SAT tutor. Impressive, I guess, for someone with the professional attention span of a dead flea. But for the past 21 years, I've been a NCAA tournament fanatic. Ever since Mr. Blair, my sixth grad math teacher, had each of us fill out a bracket and I WON the informal pool at Chestnut Hill Elementary School back in 1984, I've been somewhat obsessed with repeating the feat. Over the years I've tried several approaches, studying stats, players, win-loss records. I have never done so well as I did that fortuitous year when Patrick and the Hoyas defeated Hakeem and Houston in the finals.
But eight years ago, sick of throwing money away on two equally over-considered brackets, I decided to try a new approach: SAT scores. The school with the higher combined mean SAT score advanced. (Schools who publish ACT scores are converted to corresponding SAT scores according to data provided by The College Board, purveyors of the SAT.) Now some years this has resulted in ridiculous Final Fours. But last year, for example, I had Stanford vs. Georgia Tech. Clearly Stanford bit the weenie in the second round, but I mean, Georgia Tech in the finals? Who else in my pool had that? I think only the roommate of my brother's best friend's secretary who picked according to uniform color AND WON THE WHOLE THING.
Picking my bracket according to SAT score is not really as foolish an investment as you might think. Mercifully, all choice has been removed from my hands.There IS some science to this. It's pure numbers. But it is based on a solid theory. Look at traditionally and recently resurgently strong programs. Duke. Stanford. Michigan. UNC. Boston College. Georgetown. Wake Forest. Georgia Tech. Illinois. These are all schools whose students post roughly a 1300 or higher average SAT. Smart kids make smart alum. Smart alum make successful alum. Successful alum make big donations. Big donations make strong programs. They can afford great coaches, new facilities and oh yeah, scholarships.
Of course there are exceptions: The Ivy League. Prevented by conference rules from offering athletic scholarships, Penn or Princeton every year offers a solid, fundamentals-strong team to the tournament. The League's automatic bid annoys many bubble teams. But they're just bitter that not only will they not make the Dance that year, but that they're unlikely to run a Fortune 100 company someday. Bottom line, the Ivy bid is more deserved than other automatic bids because they've posted 20-8 records without a single athletic scholarship. Go Quakers.
Last year I started strong, picking 22 of 32 first round match-ups correctly. The year before I think it was 20. Not bad when you consider my regular picks either matched or outperformed those stats by only a game or two in the first round. I don't want to rehash every year, but only once or twice did my SAT-based bracket truly suck. Most of the time it finishes in the middle of the pack. But this year I have a good feeling. I compared the picks with those of several basketball-savvy friends and several regions' first few rounds are remarkably similar to their serious picks...
| 1)
|
Illinois (1300) |
| | | | | | | | | | | North Carolina (1290) | (1 | | 16)
| Fairleigh Dickinson (1015) | Illinois | | | | | | | | | | UNC | Oakland/Alabama A/M (N/A) | (16 | | 8)
| Texas (1230) | | Illinois | | | | | | | | UNC | | Minnesota (1200) | (8 | | 9)
| Nevada (1055) | Texas | | | | | | | | | | Minnesota | Iowa State (1125) | (9 | | 5)
| Alabama (1100) | | | Penn | | | | | | UNC | | | Villanova (1255) | (5 | | 12) | Wisconsin-Milwaukee (1050) | Alabama | | | | | | | | | | Villanova | New Mexico (1060) | (12 | | 4)
|
Boston College (1340) |
| Penn | | | | | | | | Villanova | | Florida (1240) | (4 | | 13)
| Pennsylvania (1440) | Penn | | | | | | | | | | Florida | Ohio (1090) | (13 | | 3)
|
Arizona (1115) |
| | |
Penn |
| | |
Bucknell |
| | |
Kansas (1105) |
(3 | | 14)
| Utah State (900) |
Arizona |
| | | | | | | | |
Bucknell |
Bucknell (1300) |
(14 | | 6)
|
Louisiana State (1100) |
|
Arizona |
| | | | | | |
Bucknell |
|
Wisconsin (1260) |
(6 | | 11)
|
Alabama-Birmingham (1030) |
LSU |
| | | | | | | | |
Wisco |
Northern Iowa (N/A) |
(11 | | 7)
|
Southern Illinois (930) |
| |
Arizona |
| | | | |
Bucknell |
| |
Charlotte (1040) |
(7 | | 10)
|
St. Mary's (CA) (1100) |
St. Mary's |
| | | | | | | | |
NC State |
NC State (1200) |
(10 | | 2)
|
Oklahoma State (1020) |
|
St. Mary's |
| | | | | | |
NC State |
|
Connecticut (1160) |
(2 | | 15)
|
SE Louisiana (N/A) |
OK State |
| | | | | | | | |
UConn |
Central Florida (1150) |
(15 | | | | | |
|
Penn |
|
Stanford |
| | | | | | | 1)
|
Washington (1240) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Duke (1430) |
(1 | | 16)
|
Montana (1100) |
UW |
| | | | STANFORD | | | | |
Duke |
Delaware St. (N/A) |
(16 | | 8)
|
Pacific (1180) |
|
UW |
| | | | | | |
Stanford |
|
Stanford (1450 ) |
(8 | | 9)
|
Pittsburgh (1215) |
Pitt |
| | | | | | | | |
Stanford |
Mississippi St (1070) |
(9 | | 5)
|
Georgia Tech (1340) |
| |
Ga Tech |
| | | | |
Stanford |
| |
Michigan State (1125) |
(5 | | 12) |
George Washington University (1270) |
Ga Tech |
| | | | | | | | |
Michigan State |
Old Dominion (1050) |
(12 | | 4)
|
Louisville (1080) |
|
Ga Tech |
| | | | |
Stanford |
|
Syracuse |
|
Syracuse (1230) |
(4 | | 13)
|
Louisiana-Lafayette (1060) |
Louisville |
| |
| | | | | | |
Syracuse |
Vermont (1180) |
(13 | | 3)
|
Gonzaga (1170) |
| | |
Ga Tech |
| | |
|
| | |
Oklahoma (1200) |
(3 | | 14)
|
Winthrop (1070) |
Gonzaga |
| | | | | | | | |
OK |
Niagra (1040) |
(14 | | 6)
|
Texas Tech (1130) |
|
UCLA |
| | | | | | |
OK |
|
Utah (1150) |
(6 | | 11)
|
UCLA (1290) |
UCLA |
| | | | | | | | |
Utah |
Texas-El Paso (920) |
(11 | | 7)
|
West Virginia (1060) |
| |
Wake |
| | | | |
OK |
| |
Cincinnati (1060) |
(7 | | 10)
|
Creighton (1155) |
Creighton |
| | | | | | | | |
Iowa |
Iowa (1125) |
(10 | | 2)
|
Wake Forest (1315) |
|
Wake |
| | | | | | |
Kentucky |
|
Kentucky (1180) |
(2 | | 15)
|
Chattanooga (1020) |
Wake |
| | | | | | | | |
Kentucky |
E. Kentucky (920) |
(15 |
|
Certainly there are ridiculous picks I'm forced to swallow. Bucknell in the Final Four??? Criminy. If I swallowed a pail of crack I couldn't fathom picking them. Penn over Arizona in the Elite Eight? Pienso que no! But the tragedy of the theory is that it can never truly be tested because the seeding isn't based on SAT scores. I mean, seriously, how can Duke (1425, 3rd highest scores in the tourney) meet overall #1 Stanford (1450) in the second round? That's two number one seeds meeting up early. Not cool. Likewise overall #2 University of Pennsylvania (1440) and tied for overall #4 tournament SAT ranking Boston College (1340) in the first round? That's abusrd. But it's the luck of the draw. And I have no say in the matter. It's just by the numbers.
Now I've got to finish picking my real draw. I knew that old #2 pencil would come in handy for something else.
Flip to The College Board
|
