Matt's Bracket Challenge
Presented by: Perf-Turf Lawn Service 
PREVIOUS YEARS   FINAL STANDINGS   PLAYER BRACKETS   TOURNAMENT RESULTS

 

Matt's NCAA Tournament 2004

CURRENT STANDINGS
As of 3/3/2013 at 4:51 PM (Final Results)

Place Mover/
Loser		 Name Last,First Total
Points		 Possible
Points		 Predicted
Champion		 Pick
Pct.		 Tie
Break		 Final Picked
Champion
32 16 8 4 2
1   Marsh, Dick 175 175 Connecticut 71% 130 24 9 5 4 2 YES!
2   Lozoya Juan 141 141 Connecticut 71% 162 26 10 4 3 1 YES!
3   Norris, Alicia 135 135 Connecticut 68% 132 25 10 4 2 1 YES!
4   tucker chris 123 123 Connecticut 67% 152 27 7 4 2 1 YES!
5   Morge, Shelby 122 122 Kentucky 71% 147 27 9 5 3 1 NO
6   Marcuson,Jason 121 121 Connecticut 59% 151 22 8 3 2 1 YES!
7   Langston,Wyn 113 113 Oklahoma St 63% 163 23 8 5 3 1 NO
8   Shoffner, Justin 100 100 Connecticut 56% 140 25 6 1 1 1 YES!
9   Carter, Jeff 93 93 Kansas 67% 189 24 10 6 2 0 NO
10   patton,matt 92 92 Stanford 65% 148 26 9 3 2 1 NO
11   McClellan, Robert 91 91 Maryland 65% 155 25 8 5 3 0 NO
12   Jeffries,Chad 90 90 Gonzaga 62% 172 24 9 3 2 1 NO
13   Fox Dave 87 87 Duke 63% 142 25 10 2 2 1 NO
14   Clark, Chad 87 87 Duke 63% 170 24 9 4 3 0 NO
15   Brosman, Scott 86 86 Oklahoma St 67% 153 27 8 4 3 0 NO
16   cook,terry 84 84 Duke 67% 126 25 11 4 2 0 NO
17   WHEELER,JASON 83 83 Oklahoma St 62% 144 24 8 4 3 0 NO
18   galan, juan 83 83 Texas 67% 134 27 10 3 2 0 NO
19   Lloyd, David 81 81 Duke 60% 151 23 9 3 3 0 NO
20   cook, jan 79 79 Oklahoma St 67% 135 28 8 4 2 0 NO
21   YEAGY,ROGER 78 78 Duke 62% 156 26 7 3 3 0 NO
22   Eckerle, Kathy 78 78 Kentucky 63% 169 26 8 3 3 0 NO
23   Heidel, Kevin 77 77 Duke 63% 143 25 9 4 2 0 NO
24   Beasley, Gary 77 77 Oklahoma St 63% 126 26 8 4 2 0 NO
25   Peterson, Ryan 76 76 Duke 60% 125 25 7 4 2 0 NO
26   Jones, Kyleigh 76 76 Duke 62% 124 24 10 3 2 0 NO
27   Beasley, Amber 76 76 Kentucky 60% 85 25 7 3 3 0 NO
28   Engle, Alix 75 75 Oklahoma St 52% 147 23 4 3 2 1 NO
29   Whitted, Terry 75 75 Texas 62% 130 25 9 3 2 0 NO
30   Cassetty, Jennifer 74 74 Oklahoma St 54% 154 19 8 5 2 0 NO
31   Shugart, Steve 74 74 Pittsburgh 63% 137 26 9 3 2 0 NO
32   Giselbach, Shawn 74 74 Kentucky 56% 128 22 9 2 1 1 NO
33   Belokopitsky, Steve 73 73 Stanford 60% 117 24 8 4 2 0 NO
34   Weaver, Larry A 71 71 Stanford 67% 150 28 10 3 1 0 NO
35   Lynch,Chris 70 70 Pittsburgh 62% 152 26 9 3 1 0 NO
36   Weaver, Larry R. 69 69 Xavier 59% 157 24 9 4 0 0 NO
37   Elledge, Jerry 69 69 Oklahoma St 62% 135 25 9 4 1 0 NO
38   Elliott Tom 68 68 Duke 60% 137 25 10 2 1 0 NO
39   Polen, Derek 68 68 Duke 56% 133 23 8 2 2 0 NO
40   Weaver, Donna R. 67 67 Duke 60% 147 26 8 3 1 0 NO
41t   Gleason,Ben 67 67 Duke 57% 137 24 7 3 2 0 NO
41t   Gleason, Ben 67 67 Duke 57% 137 24 7 3 2 0 NO
43   Sanson, Kevin 66 66 Miss. St 62% 132 25 9 5 0 0 NO
44   Patton, Jen 65 65 Kentucky 63% 155 28 9 3 0 0 NO
45   Norris,Cheryl 65 65 Kentucky 60% 175 25 10 2 1 0 NO
46   Jones, Paul 64 64 Duke 57% 143 23 8 4 1 0 NO
47   Davis, Andy 63 63 Stanford 54% 167 23 7 3 1 0 NO
48   Porter, Nathan 62 62 Duke 51% 160 20 8 2 2 0 NO
49   Northcutt, Mike 62 62 Stanford 54% 163 23 7 2 2 0 NO
50   Butler Trevin 62 62 St. Josephs 62% 104 27 9 3 0 0 NO
51   Jeffries, Ryan 59 59 St. Josephs 56% 111 23 9 3 0 0 NO
52   Morge, David 56 56 Kentucky 54% 149 25 6 2 1 0 NO
53   Woodsmall, Phil 56 56 Texas 51% 137 21 8 2 1 0 NO
54   Norris, Linda 56 56 Kentucky 56% 125 23 10 2 0 0 NO
55   Wilcoxson, Scott 54 54 Kentucky 52% 132 24 6 2 1 0 NO
56   Beasley, Peggy 54 54 Gonzaga 52% 120 24 6 2 1 0 NO
57   Shelby, Summer 54 54 Illinois 56% 118 24 9 2 0 0 NO
58   Jones, Garrett 50 50 Gonzaga 51% 136 23 7 2 0 0 NO
59   Jones, Nathaniel 50 50 Duke 48% 123 22 5 2 1 0 NO
60   Jeffries, Darlene 49 49 St. Josephs 48% 180 21 6 3 0 0 NO
61   Mundy, Mark 48 48 Kentucky 51% 137 23 8 1 0 0 NO
62   Borum, Ashley 45 45 Kentucky 40% 127 16 6 2 1 0 NO
63   Norris, Dan 39 39 Cincinnati 48% 138 22 8 0 0 0 NO
64   Norris, Matt 30 30 Wake Forest 35% 120 17 4 1 0 0 NO

Page: 1 of 1:    [1]

 
Untitled Document

Copyright Matt Norris 2001-2012

This is not intended to be used as a gambling device. It is strictly for entertainment purposes only. The NCAA does not promote, endorse, or condone gambling or sports wagering of any kind.