Comments on: March Madness, By the Numbers

By: mrparker

mrparker — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:12:43 +0000

I noticed it because Im a UNC fan. That game reminds me of the sweet 16 matchup UNC had with Nova in 05' on their way to their last championship.

By: Duff Soviet Union

Duff Soviet Union — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:53:53 +0000

Did anyone else notice that UNC vs Gonzaga is projected to be a dead heat?

By: Eddy

Eddy — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:09:32 +0000

I was like you, Neil. Years ago, I just used to fill out my bracket strictly with my gut and intuition. But now for the past couple years, I've sworn to fill out my bracket strictly via a scientific and statistical approach. Obviously kenpom is a great resource to use, but surprisingly ESPN Insider has a number of stat heads that punch out probabilities and trends (using advanced metrics), with regards to the history of the NCAA Tournament since the field expanded to 64 teams in 1985. I have a few spread sheets, which track nothing but "prerequisites" and trends by how a seed (and the type of team that is a certain seed) fair. It's real fascinating actually. For example, some people have been touting VCU as possibly upsetting UCLA, but looking closer into the numbers, VCU has, literally, almost no chance of beating UCLA. This statement is made with the data and historical trends I have accumulated the past year or two.

By: antone

antone — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:36:55 +0000

I still think UCLA can make the Elite 8, but that second round matchup against Villanova in Philly scares me. I'm not as worried about VCU as everyone else is. I think they got screwed just as much having to play UCLA as a 6 seed.

By: mrparker

mrparker — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:31:35 +0000

Yep, IMO that UCLA got screwed worse than anyone. I think they were a final four team if they were on the other side of the bracket. Instead, they'll have to take solace in having the chance to knock off dick U. Something about having a bunch of teams in your conference in the tourney meant screwing around with the seeds to meet the rules. Im pretty sure this is why the seeds seem so funky.

By: antone

antone — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:23:33 +0000

I think Clemson will get things done against Michigan and then knock off Oklahoma. I don't think Texas is that good and they would have to get by some combination of Duke, Villanova/UCLA, and then possibly Pitt. I don't see that happening. Utah and Xavier could both possibly lose in the 1st round and I agree that neither one can probably knock off a 1 seed. I think BYU and Oklahoma State could be dangerous 8 seeds that present matchup problems. I think BYU, UCLA, Arizona State, West Virginia, and Clemson got screwed on their seeds the most.

By: mrparker

mrparker — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:14:36 +0000

Agree with every thing you just said. We do have Xavier and Utah ranked in the mid 20s but they are a 4 and a 5 seed respectively which means they would have to beat a 1 to make noise and I just don't see that happening. Looking at 6,7,10,and 11 seeds we could hear some noise from Clemson, southern cal, or Texas. I can't decide if Clemson's going to lose in the first road or make a run. Gotta love this week.

By: antone

antone — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:02:58 +0000

Yes, George Mason was under seeded but they were not a top 4 team by Pomeroy rankings. I think they are the only non top 10 team to make the final four going back to 04. -------------------- Yeah, they are the only non Top 10 team since '04....but still not as big of a long shot as some people who don't look at Pomroy ratings might think. They are definitely an outlier though...even LSU was an outlier that season based on their offensive efficiency. LSU was 50 and G Mason was 49, the next highest offensive efficiency since '04 was also in 2006 and it was UCLA at 28. There aren't any mid-majors that are as good this year as George Mason was that year. I do think a lower rated big conference team could make a run to the Final 4 though.

By: mrparker

mrparker — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:46:01 +0000

Yes, George Mason was under seeded but they were not a top 4 team by Pomeroy rankings. I think they are the only non top 10 team to make the final four going back to 04. IMO that those top teams were weak. This year is a little different because the 1 seeds all do something(off or def) very well. That wasn't the case in 06. I think the Pomeroy rankings would prove true in a round robin, double elimination type tournament. The ratings are great but they don't explain "streakiness" of teams. I've been going back and looking at how teams played after a win and vs a team coming off of a win and some teams fall down the ratings when I adjust for that.

By: antone

antone — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:34:45 +0000

This season is very similar to 2006 though...even the depth of teams is similar...usually there are 40+ teams with overall pomroy rating of .900 or higher...this year there are only 27 and in 2006 there were only 25. This season is a little stronger at the top, but unless Memphis is legit there is no clear cut team right now. The chances of a team like George Mason making a run to the Final 4 is probably not likely though...I think it's more likely that a team rated in the 'teens or twenties like Syracuse, Arizona State, Villanova, Wake Forest, Clemson, USC, Marquette makes an unexpected run to the Final 4. Also, the committee gave us some nice Final 4 high seed sleepers with West Virginia, UCLA, Arizona State all being 6 seeds but ranking in the Top 15 in Pomroy ratings. Also, Gonzaga as a 4 seed is ranked 5th in the ratings. I would love to see them matchup with UNC.