I was a big fan of the way Sports
Illustrated presented its predictions for this years NCAA tournament. They divided their coverage into the four
different regions and gave each the time it deserved. If you click on the link above, you’ll find
that I selected the West Region for this blog.
This is because my beloved hometown North Carolina Tar Heels (born and
bred), are the 4 seed. I was interested
in what SI had to say.
To be hoenst I was not a huge fan of the
website layout. It seemed a little
clunky and did not flow well. I wanted
to be able to see all the components at once. In fairness however, the website
contained a lot. There was an article
that highlighted the expert’s main predictions about the region, a video that
expanded on his viewpoints, and then an info graphic at the bottom of the page
that compared the #1 seeds across all four regions.
As a fan of North Carolina I was naturally
interested in what the expert, Seth Davis, had to say. I tended to agree with his analysis of the
situation. Arizona and Wisconsin are
good this year. Very good. In my own bracket I did pick them to Elite
Eight. However, I do hold out hope for
my Tar Heels. He says that there is an
outside chance that they along with Virginia Commonwealth University and Baylor
could come out of the region and into the Final Four.
The info graphic was also of note. I would have liked to see it be of the 16
teams in the west, or at least the top four seeds. However, it does provide a strong statistical
comparison of Duke, Kentucky, Wisconsin, and Villanova. It compared their records at home, away, in
conference, and overall. Additionally it
presented side-by-side analysis of their points per games, points allowed per
game, assists per game, etc… Accompanying the stats were circles that varied in
completeness depending on how the team’s statistics stood up against the
competition. I understood the concept
but I think it could have been done better.
Perhaps a basketball pie graph for the percentages? At the bottom of the info graphic was a link
to an expanded comparison of the four number one seeds. Here the info graphics accompanying the
statistics made more sense. They were
triangles that denoted the relative position of the team statistically compared
to others in that category. Accompanying
the statistics was information on past championships, home venues, Final Four
appearances, and a roster. Additionally
one could take out and replace any team.
So for instance I naturally replaced Kentucky with my Tar Heels to see
how they stacked up against Duke. Despite
knowing most of the information, I found re-reading quite enjoyable.
In regards to the video, I thought it did a
decent job of expanding upon the text.
As a little bit of a sports junky I would have liked the video to have
run longer and go more in-depth. Oh
well.
