Thursday, March 31, 2011

Only A Librarian From Oregon Would Use This "Strategy" to Pick The Correct Final Four

School librarian who know jack shit about college basketball but still picked the right final four.- Before the final buzzer sounded last Sunday, 99.9 percent of amateur bracketologists across the globe had already torched their brackets. For the first time in the history of the Big Dance no No. 1 or No. 2 seeds had advanced to the Final Four. The rash of unpredictable upsets made many entries appear slashed and bloodied, leaving a bitter taste in mouths of optimistic prognosticators who two weeks earlier were supremely confident they had submitted a winner. However, one, out of nearly three million Yahoo! Tourney Pick 'Em submissions, unbelievably basked in glory. … Unbeknown to many of the approximately 300 students at Jefferson High School outside Salem, Ore. is a humble librarian with unmatched basketball foresight. Not only a master of the Dewey Decimal System and moves on the pitch — she also coaches girls soccer — Diana Inch is the only person in the entire Yahoo! universe to accurately predict all four Final Four teams, an almost impossible task this year. Consider these astonishing facts:
Only 0.1 percent of entries had VCU in the Final Four.
Last season's national runner-up, Butler, was advanced to Houston on just 0.6 percent of submissions.
A mere 4.8 percent of brackets have their champion pick still alive.
No one forecasted all Sweet 16 teams correctly, though one person drilled 15.
Not a single person projected the Elite Eight right. And only 38 had seven of the eight.
An infinitesimal 0.023 percent of entries have both championship participants un-slashed.
Over 80 percent of entries failed to correctly project a single Final Four team.
Of the roughly 300,000 people who entered Yahoo!'s second chance game (Projecting the Sweet 16 on), only seven currently remain unblemished.
Diana is the only person to experience perfection in any round...

The rest of the story is an interview where she talks about her "strategy". This is the most convoluted  rational I have ever tried to understand. She uses about 5 different criteria and methods at the same time. They are (summed up)
1. She picked 7's and 11's because "[She] like[s] the numbers 7 and 11"
2. She also likes the letters X and V (and Q but apparently it didn't make the cut). Who the fuck has favorite letters, let alone X and V?
3. The states play a factor i.e. "The folks I meet from Michigan have usually been fun-loving"
4. If there wasn't a 7 or 11 in said matchup she would pick which was closest.
5. If non of the above helped she would go with "a team that had an AP ranking that might indicate an edge."
6. Of course she is a female and knows nothing of the sport and had to somewhere take into account their mascots and team colors. No big shock here. I would be more surprised if she didn't take into account the perennial favorite criteria of all women. But of course even "Mascot" couldn't be that simple. It was how far away it was from a dog/cat i.e. number of legs closer to 4.

According to this VCU is in her top four because they were an 11 seed, have V in their abbreviation, and their mascot has 4 legs.

Now, I was shocked to see #5. It actually has to do with basketball and skill. How this stumbled into her worst criteria checklist is beyond me.

Granted she had 3 16-seed teams beating #1 seed teams (never happened in NCAA history). Because 2 of them are dogs and (brace yourself here, worst rational for any choice ever made) UTSA def. OHIO STATE because "Roadrunners (UTSA) would eat seeds/buckeyes"

P.S. She would name her dogs "Z" (short for Z39.50 the International Standard of Operation for Libraries) and "LC" (short for Library of Congress).

1 comment:

  1. Lmao, I love her. "Ohio State because 'roadrunners would eat seeds/buckeyes'"? Genius.

    The postscript is my favorite. Sounds like something I would do but with chemistry. Unless I get a puggle. Then his name would be Anwar Sadat, of course.