Bracketology 2011: Reviewing Our Predictions For The NCAA Tournament Bracket

Correctly Selected At-Large Teams: 34 of 37 (missed VCU, Clemson, UAB)
I can't really complain about this number considering how little there was separating the last 10 teams in play for four to five spots. As I joked numerous times over the past few weeks, the committee could have come up with reasonable options by drawing names out of a hat. Each team had its flaws, but since the new system calls for 37 at-large teams, someone has to get them. I just didn't anticipate it would have been this trio.

Past Performance
33 of 34: 2009 and 2010
34 of 34: 2008
32 of 34: 2006 and 2007

Correctly Seeded: 37 of 68
Even though the middle lines were fairly muddled, I did well on this metric, though I missed a few in between lines 5 and 12, where I also had issues last season.

Past Performance
24 of 65: 2010
31 of 65: 2009
36 of 65: 2008
23 of 65: 2007
28 of 65: 2006

Off By One Line: 17 of 68
The committee has the flexibility to move teams up and down a seed line to balance out the bracket, so this is a key statistic.

Past Performance
32 of 65: 2010
22 of 65: 2009 and 2008
25 of 65: 2007
19 of 65: 2006

Off By Two Lines: 8 of 68
The selection committee's biggest mistake here was slotting Texas, a team with eight wins against the RPI Top 50 as a four instead of a two, even if the Longhorns did struggle down the stretch.

Past Performance
7 of 65: 2010
9 of 65: 2009
4 of 65: 2008
12 of 65:2007
13 of 65: 2006

Off By Three Or More Lines: 3 of 68
These are the biggest whiffs. Utah State being slotted as a 12 instead of a 9 isn't much of a surprise, as I tend to overvalue the Aggies, but Missouri's place as one of the last four to escape the First Four and UCLA's high position came as shocks.

Past Performance
1 of 65: 2010
2 of 65: 2009
3 of 65: 2008
4 of 65: 2007
6 of 65: 2006