NCAA Tournament Bracket
- Status
Nor will New Mexico beat Baylor and Arizona back to back.
Change that 6 to a 5 and we have a chance; otherwise, …
0% chance?
danielb927
Orange Krush Class of 2013
- Rochester, MN
It absolutely does! But that doesn't mean it isn't also random. Think of it like flipping a bunch of weighted coins instead of 50/50 ones - same as the real tourney, where underdogs win all the time, but not all games have the same odds.
Try kentucky, Purdue, Baylor and illini...for a final 4 simulation
danielb927
Orange Krush Class of 2013
- Rochester, MN
I would love that Final 4, but that's just picks, not a simulation...
On EvanMiya's site, bracket simulation is just a button you click to generate a random tournament outcome using the estimated win probabilities for each game.
First round will be decent, but the second round will be a blood bath. There are a lot of 8 and 9 seeds in there.
To extend my thoughts, I plotted MasseyComposite rank (an average of 50+ ranking systems, mostly computer-based) against NCAA champion betting odds. This isn't a completely fair comparison, since betting odds now take into account the actual draw rather than just each team's ability.
The computer rankings think more highly of Houston (have them essentially tied for #1 while bettors give UConn an 18% chance vs 12% for Houston, which is the 2nd highest odds but close to #3), Auburn (4th vs 7th), Iowa St (5 vs 8), Illinois (9 vs 13), and Gonzaga (15 vs 18).
Computer rankings think less highly of UConn (tied for 1st vs clear favorite), Arizona (6th vs 4th), Kentucky (16 vs 11), Florida (23 vs 19) and NC State (57 vs 34).
There are others with sizable differences in rank, but they occur further down where teams are really bunched together anyway. There really aren't any major outliers other than the limitation in quantifying how far apart the top few teams are. So either the computers are doing a pretty good job or the betting market is mistakenly relying on them. If it's the latter, then smart money should have an easy time with this, and I doubt that's the case.
It would be a good test to go back and apply the same analysis with data from the beginning of previous seasons' tournaments to see how closely the data matches real world tournament outcome . . . .
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Most probably won't think this is that relevant, but I always remember a quote by Dee Brown ... "If it weren't for the crowd, we never would have made it out of [the Elite Eight in] Chicago." So, I at least always try to look at which teams will have a crowd advantage. Anyway, here is the list for anyone interested of teams I feel will have a significant "home court" advantage that might pull them through an off game ... limiting this to teams who would be playing essential home games (e.g., like the Illini in Chicago), not just teams playing in a favorable location (e.g., like the Illini in Milwaukee).
FIRST WEEKEND
#1 UConn (Brooklyn, NY): UConn always has a huge crowd at MSG, and Brooklyn is just as easy to get to. While I do expect a large contingent of your garden-variety-bandwagon Duke fans to be at this location, as well, UConn should have a nice crowd advantage. However, I really don't expect them to have much trouble in either of their first two games anyway.
#1 Purdue (Indianapolis, IN): Historically Purdue's crowds in Indy have been shockingly disappointing (I have regularly seen BTTs there where there were more Illini fans, for example), but they packed the house this year vs. Arizona, so their fan base is energized. I don't see a huge crowd from the other teams, including #2 Marquette, so Purdue will be playing in friendly confines.
#1 North Carolina (Charlotte, NC): They obviously should win their first game, but the they will have either #8 Mississippi State or #9 Michigan State waiting for them in the Second Round.
#2 Iowa State (Omaha, NE): Omaha is barely 2.5 hours from Ames, so while I am sure there will be a good Illini following ... I expect the crowd to be very friendly to Iowa State in their first two games. They face #15 South Dakota State (who will have a non-negligible contingent for a smaller school), but it's the next matchup that could be interesting! If #10 Drake beats #7 Washington State, that ISU/Drake game could be a slightly more even crowd than people think ... plus all other fan bases in that location (Illinois, BYU, etc.) would be pulling for Drake.
East = Boston, West = LA, South = Dallas, Midwest = Detroit
F4 = Glendale
SECOND WEEKEND
#6 Texas Tech (Dallas, TX): If you have TTU going on a run past #11 NC State and #3 Kentucky, it might be worth taking them to knock off #2 Marquette in the Sweet Sixteen, as they will be playing in front of a very friendly crowd in Dallas. While Lubbock is a long way away, Texas Tech has a TON of alumni in the DFW area, and this crowd would be very red. I think TTU would easily have more fans in that arena than #1 Houston in the same region.
FINAL FOUR
#2 Arizona (Glendale, AZ): If you already have Arizona in your Final Four, they are clearly playing extremely well ... and I wouldn't bet against them playing in front of such a partisan crowd, personally. In other words, I think if 'Zona makes it to the Final Four, they are winning it all.
For a fun bonus, that Arizona got me thinking about the teams who have played in that "dream location" for a Final Four where it was more or less a home game in the last 35 years. The list is pretty short, but we were lucky enough to be on it!
2015: Kentucky in Indianapolis, IN
2010: Butler in Indianapolis, IN
2009: Michigan State in Detroit, MI
2005: Illinois in St. Louis, MO
1997: Kentucky in Indianapolis, IN
1996: Syracuse in East Rutherford, NJ
1994: Duke in Charlotte, NC
1988: Kansas in Kansas City, MO
1980: Purdue and Louisville in Indianapolis, IN
FIRST WEEKEND
#1 UConn (Brooklyn, NY): UConn always has a huge crowd at MSG, and Brooklyn is just as easy to get to. While I do expect a large contingent of your garden-variety-bandwagon Duke fans to be at this location, as well, UConn should have a nice crowd advantage. However, I really don't expect them to have much trouble in either of their first two games anyway.
#1 Purdue (Indianapolis, IN): Historically Purdue's crowds in Indy have been shockingly disappointing (I have regularly seen BTTs there where there were more Illini fans, for example), but they packed the house this year vs. Arizona, so their fan base is energized. I don't see a huge crowd from the other teams, including #2 Marquette, so Purdue will be playing in friendly confines.
#1 North Carolina (Charlotte, NC): They obviously should win their first game, but the they will have either #8 Mississippi State or #9 Michigan State waiting for them in the Second Round.
#2 Iowa State (Omaha, NE): Omaha is barely 2.5 hours from Ames, so while I am sure there will be a good Illini following ... I expect the crowd to be very friendly to Iowa State in their first two games. They face #15 South Dakota State (who will have a non-negligible contingent for a smaller school), but it's the next matchup that could be interesting! If #10 Drake beats #7 Washington State, that ISU/Drake game could be a slightly more even crowd than people think ... plus all other fan bases in that location (Illinois, BYU, etc.) would be pulling for Drake.
East = Boston, West = LA, South = Dallas, Midwest = Detroit
F4 = Glendale
SECOND WEEKEND
#6 Texas Tech (Dallas, TX): If you have TTU going on a run past #11 NC State and #3 Kentucky, it might be worth taking them to knock off #2 Marquette in the Sweet Sixteen, as they will be playing in front of a very friendly crowd in Dallas. While Lubbock is a long way away, Texas Tech has a TON of alumni in the DFW area, and this crowd would be very red. I think TTU would easily have more fans in that arena than #1 Houston in the same region.
FINAL FOUR
#2 Arizona (Glendale, AZ): If you already have Arizona in your Final Four, they are clearly playing extremely well ... and I wouldn't bet against them playing in front of such a partisan crowd, personally. In other words, I think if 'Zona makes it to the Final Four, they are winning it all.
For a fun bonus, that Arizona got me thinking about the teams who have played in that "dream location" for a Final Four where it was more or less a home game in the last 35 years. The list is pretty short, but we were lucky enough to be on it!
2015: Kentucky in Indianapolis, IN
2010: Butler in Indianapolis, IN
2009: Michigan State in Detroit, MI
2005: Illinois in St. Louis, MO
1997: Kentucky in Indianapolis, IN
1996: Syracuse in East Rutherford, NJ
1994: Duke in Charlotte, NC
1988: Kansas in Kansas City, MO
1980: Purdue and Louisville in Indianapolis, IN
OrangeBlue98
- Des Moines, IA
UConn also has to be on the 2nd weekend list. It’s 85 miles from Gampel Pavilion to TD Garden, and I’m sure UConn has a significant alumni base in Boston.
Yeah, that would be interesting. If I get some time, I might look into that if it's easy enough to find/process the data.
Until then, here's a site (link) that compares season-to-date predictions of various computer systems (and their average) and betting lines to actual results. The opening/final line and an average of the computer predictions all predicted the winner just over 70% of the time and the margin of victory within about 9 points on average. Any one computer prediction is likely just a bit worse, but not much (even SevenOvertimes, which takes an unusual approach that produces very strange rankings like Dayton at #4 in the country, correctly predicted 68% of winners and 49% against the spread, with an average error of 10 points). The average computer prediction is essentially tied (or possibly just better than) the final line- both straight up and against the spread.
I suppose one's interpretation of these results depends on whether one thinks they can do better than the final line or an average of the computer predictions. Personally, I'm skeptical of anyone who thinks they can do better unless they've demonstrated themselves to be smart money.
From ESPN's story today: "Izzo said Wednesday that he agrees with St. John's coach Rick Pitino, who argued the NCAA tournament selection committee needs more input from former players and coaches rather than relying so heavily on athletic directors dissecting analytics."
The irony is that the committee chose Virginia (#54 NET) over Indiana St (#28) and St John's (#32), and that Michigan St was close to the bubble (#24). So while I think there are better approaches than the NET, the committee would have done better with more input from analytics and less from ADs/commissioners disregarding analytics.
The irony is that the committee chose Virginia (#54 NET) over Indiana St (#28) and St John's (#32), and that Michigan St was close to the bubble (#24). So while I think there are better approaches than the NET, the committee would have done better with more input from analytics and less from ADs/commissioners disregarding analytics.
lstewart53x3
- Scottsdale, Arizona
100%, I would argue the committee isn’t leaning into the analytics enough.
If they leaned into the analytics more, St John’s or Indiana St would’ve gotten in over Virgina.
They wouldn’t have seeded 4 top 10 KenPom teams in the same quadrant.
And they wouldn’t have given Loyola a 9 seed as the #8 team in KenPom or Houston a 5 seed as the #4 team in KenPom.
OrangeBlue98
- Des Moines, IA
It would not surprise me in the least to see a major home court advantage for Drake in their game. There isn’t anywhere close to the animosity between ISU and Drake like there is between ISU and Iowa. I’d guess that for a lot of Cyclone fans with Des Moines ties they have Drake as a second favorite team of sorts.
Washington State cannot be thrilled about that.
Washington State cannot be thrilled about that.
I had no idea it was so bad
Frank Schwab: Ah, the Purdue conundrum. The Boilermakers have lost to No. 13, 15 and 16 seeds the past three NCAA tournaments. It’s hard to ignore that. But this Purdue team has an unstoppable force in Zach Edey and is also a great 3-point shooting team (40.8%, second in the nation). If you ignored the previous tournament disasters, there’s no reason to not trust Purdue to make the Final Four. But it’s a little scary given the ghosts of Fairleigh Dickinson.
sports.yahoo.com
Last year, as a No. 1 seed, they lost to 16th-seeded Fairleigh Dickinson. The year before, as a No. 2 seed, they lost to 15th-seeded Saint Peter’s in the Sweet 16....
dailycampus.com
In 2021, Purdue lost in its backyard (Indianapolis) to No. 13 seed North Texas in the first round
www.si.com
Frank Schwab: Ah, the Purdue conundrum. The Boilermakers have lost to No. 13, 15 and 16 seeds the past three NCAA tournaments. It’s hard to ignore that. But this Purdue team has an unstoppable force in Zach Edey and is also a great 3-point shooting team (40.8%, second in the nation). If you ignored the previous tournament disasters, there’s no reason to not trust Purdue to make the Final Four. But it’s a little scary given the ghosts of Fairleigh Dickinson.
March Madness: Last-minute men's bracket tips to help your title chances
Time is running out to submit your tourney bracket. Scott Pianowski has some final words of wisdom to guide your picks.
sports.yahoo.com
Last year, as a No. 1 seed, they lost to 16th-seeded Fairleigh Dickinson. The year before, as a No. 2 seed, they lost to 15th-seeded Saint Peter’s in the Sweet 16....
Roundtable: Which top team is the most susceptible to losing early in the 2024 NCAA Tournament?
The most exciting time of the year is here for college basketball fans: March Madness.
dailycampus.com
In 2021, Purdue lost in its backyard (Indianapolis) to No. 13 seed North Texas in the first round
Purdue’s meltdown vs. Fairleigh Dickinson was an utter disaster - Sports Illustrated
The Boilermakers’ disastrous loss to Fairleigh Dickinson is the worst of a trifecta of NCAA tournament catastrophes.
www.si.com
Yeah, Pitino and Izzo have huge "old man yells at cloud" energy here. The analytics didn't matter enough.
Really, what the committee is doing right now is too arbitrary, and having past players weigh in is just more arbitrary and would lead to teams getting in based on team history rather than team performance.
What I think they should do is one of two things:
1. Allow teams into the bracket based on resume, then seed based on metrics: If the team's resume should matter, then fine, make it matter. Two solid resume analytics are Wins Above Bubble (WAB) and Strength of Record (SOR).
Based on WAB, these teams would be included that weren't: Indiana State, Princeton, Oklahoma.
Based on WAB, these teams would be excluded that made it: Mississippi State, Michigan State, Texas A&M
Based on SOR, these teams would be included that weren't: Oklahoma, Indiana State, Seton Hall, Princeton
Based on SOR, these teams would be excluded that made it: Texas A&M, Michigan State, Colorado State, Boise State
2. Allow teams into the bracket based on metrics: Just go all in on metrics if you want. Use an assortment of NET, KP, T-Rank, EvanMiya, BPI, ELO, whatever you like. Put the best teams in the tournament, and use a metrics that is difficult to game if you prefer.
By KP, teams would be included but aren't: St. John's, Wake Forest, Villanova, Cincinnati, Pitt, Indiana State
By KP, teams would be excluded but made it: Texas A&M, Northwestern, Utah State, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington State
By NET, teams would be included but aren't: Indiana State, Villanova, Pitt, Cincinnati, St. John's
By NET, teams would be excluded but made it: Washington State, Texas A&M, South Carolina, Northwestern, Virginia
So, Pitino and Izzo, don't blame the metrics, they have you in the tournament. Blame the committee that were inconsistent in their application of the metrics.
Basically Izzo and Pittino are saying even if we finish at .500 we should get in over a 25 game G6 team. An unbiased mathematical ranking should be over-ruled by retired coaches who put their friends in instead. Old boys club at its worse. You don't like letting in conference tournament champions because you got eliminated first or second round in your tournament.
SuperMetroid
- Evanston
They've basically had three Loyolas in a row. There would be nothing left of this board but a steaming crater if this had been us.I had no idea it was so bad
Frank Schwab: Ah, the Purdue conundrum. The Boilermakers have lost to No. 13, 15 and 16 seeds the past three NCAA tournaments. It’s hard to ignore that. But this Purdue team has an unstoppable force in Zach Edey and is also a great 3-point shooting team (40.8%, second in the nation). If you ignored the previous tournament disasters, there’s no reason to not trust Purdue to make the Final Four. But it’s a little scary given the ghosts of Fairleigh Dickinson.
March Madness: Last-minute men's bracket tips to help your title chances
Time is running out to submit your tourney bracket. Scott Pianowski has some final words of wisdom to guide your picks.
Last year, as a No. 1 seed, they lost to 16th-seeded Fairleigh Dickinson. The year before, as a No. 2 seed, they lost to 15th-seeded Saint Peter’s in the Sweet 16....
Roundtable: Which top team is the most susceptible to losing early in the 2024 NCAA Tournament?
The most exciting time of the year is here for college basketball fans: March Madness.
In 2021, Purdue lost in its backyard (Indianapolis) to No. 13 seed North Texas in the first round
Purdue’s meltdown vs. Fairleigh Dickinson was an utter disaster - Sports Illustrated
The Boilermakers’ disastrous loss to Fairleigh Dickinson is the worst of a trifecta of NCAA tournament catastrophes.
And yes, it's no coincidence that there's one particular team who is in based on every metric but got left out of the actual field.
That's not true, Loyola was good that year.They've basically had three Loyolas in a row. There would be nothing left of this board but a steaming crater if this had been us.
The Galloping Ghost
- Washington, DC
A tragedy we had to suffer through the disaster that is UVA instead of giving this guy his One Shining Moment...
- Status