Is there anything more entertaining then the NCAA tournament, where the possibilities feel infinite and nothing is certain? It feels nice to know that nobody has any control over the situation, no strings are being pulled. Complete transparency. Who's to say that this year a 16 seed won't finally beat a 1 seed? It's drama that the sports fan and laypeople alike can enjoy.
Many people complain about the lack of efficiency displayed by so-called "experts", but, as someone who has spent a good chunk of his life absorbing the laws of probability via poker, I understand what they mean. Picking a clear winner of each game is insufficient. The correct way to do it would be to imagine that the two teams played each other 100 times, and to then guess how many times each team would win. If you think a team would win 70 times, pick them. If you think it's 50:50, flip a coin. If you think it's 51-49, you pick the team that you believe will win 51 times out of 100. This is why the ordinary guesser thinks the experts are full of poo. Since there is only 1 reality, it's very difficult to understand all the alternate realities that could have existed. Consternating? I know, but it's honestly how the people who dedicate their lives to understanding college basketball look at it.
People want definitive answers or predictions from experts, which brings about what I want to call "the expert's conundrum". Here's what it means: Experts have 2 choices. They can either explain their predictions using probability and have people assume they are equivocating, or make a prediction and get paid for saying what people want to hear. For example, guessers always want to hear who the experts pick for upsets, and are disappointed when the experts are wrong. But the expert is only picking the team with the GREATEST chance of pulling the upset, and that team may win only 30 games out of every 100 in their opinion. But it's the best upset pick available, so they go for it. If they are right, they are acclaimed, if they are wrong, publicly scrutinized. Not that public scrutiny is all that terrible. I would wager that picking an upset winner correctly is more memorable than picking an upset winner incorrectly. Although it's not the most academic alternative, it doesn't seem like too bad a situation.
I can't help but root for the underdogs in the first round of the NCAA tournament. They are so pure, so eager, so nervous. Not many of the players on these teams have ever been in the national spotlight, and it's fun to watch them get hyped up as they keep the game close. They are basketball players, not the freaks of nature that employ the upper echelons of division 1 (the Kentucky's, Syracuse's, and UCLA's of the world.) I can relate more to these teams because they are often less physically imposing, like myself. There is less individualism in these teams' brands of basketball, and I appreciate that. It's also a little bit of a win-win for my self-esteem: Win, and it's a huge upset, lose, and it's expected. And everyone can enjoy when the small guy takes down the big guy. Maybe it's a universal appeal.
Can't wait for tomorrow's opening round. New York City. Open bar tab. Chicken wings. A young man's heaven.
Let's do it.
