NCAA Tournament – Quantitative Reference Thread

The home for Big East hoops

Re: NCAA Tournament – Quantitative Reference Thread

Postby herodotus » Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:30 pm

Going back to the top of this thread, it really shows that 10, 11, and 12 seeds are all pretty much the same, with the same thing applying to 5, 6, 7 seeds. In fact, the entire group from 5 up to 12 is very competitive. 5 is where teams begin to have major flaws, making them vulnerable. 12 is where you have the best of the auto bids that would have landed on the wrong side of the bubble. Unlike the 16 and 15 seeds, these 12s are actually good teams, and are quite capable of beating anything below the 4 seeds, including football 5 schools, and BE schools as well. It gets shaky at 13. These teams aren't usually too good, although you will occasionally get a mis-seeded team on the 13 line. Above 13 is usually crap. When they pull an upset, it's usually because the 2 or 3 seed they beat has been vastly overrated.
Sometimes you get a team from one of the stronger mid major leagues like the MVC, or the CAA before the A10 gutted it, that has a really good record, but didn't play enough good teams to really prove themselves, and end up being underseeded. The Loyola, George Mason, Wichita, and VCU teams that reached the Final Four fit this description. It's tough for teams like that to have good schedules, because why risk playing a team that actually might beat you, but whom beating really doesn't benefit you. The BE offers enough tough games for it's members. Sure, a game against Duke or Kentucky is a no brainer, as it carries no risk, but a high reward, but a game vs Loyola offers mild risk, with little reward, and let's not even talk about the insanity of playing them on the road. Is it fair that those teams can't get good ooc schedules, sure, but you can't blame the teams above them for protecting their positions.
herodotus
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 8:43 pm

Re: NCAA Tournament – Quantitative Reference Thread

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: NCAA Tournament – Quantitative Reference Thread

Postby stever20 » Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:20 pm

herodotus wrote:Going back to the top of this thread, it really shows that 10, 11, and 12 seeds are all pretty much the same, with the same thing applying to 5, 6, 7 seeds. In fact, the entire group from 5 up to 12 is very competitive. 5 is where teams begin to have major flaws, making them vulnerable. 12 is where you have the best of the auto bids that would have landed on the wrong side of the bubble. Unlike the 16 and 15 seeds, these 12s are actually good teams, and are quite capable of beating anything below the 4 seeds, including football 5 schools, and BE schools as well. It gets shaky at 13. These teams aren't usually too good, although you will occasionally get a mis-seeded team on the 13 line. Above 13 is usually crap. When they pull an upset, it's usually because the 2 or 3 seed they beat has been vastly overrated.
Sometimes you get a team from one of the stronger mid major leagues like the MVC, or the CAA before the A10 gutted it, that has a really good record, but didn't play enough good teams to really prove themselves, and end up being underseeded. The Loyola, George Mason, Wichita, and VCU teams that reached the Final Four fit this description. It's tough for teams like that to have good schedules, because why risk playing a team that actually might beat you, but whom beating really doesn't benefit you. The BE offers enough tough games for it's members. Sure, a game against Duke or Kentucky is a no brainer, as it carries no risk, but a high reward, but a game vs Loyola offers mild risk, with little reward, and let's not even talk about the insanity of playing them on the road. Is it fair that those teams can't get good ooc schedules, sure, but you can't blame the teams above them for protecting their positions.

1st round you are right that 5-7 are pretty much the same.

However 2nd round, no where near as much....
5 seeds 47 times to sweet 16
6 seeds 42 times to sweet 16
7 seeds 27 times to sweet 16
8 seeds 13 times to sweet 16
9 seeds 7 times to sweet 16
10 seeds 23 times to sweet 16
11 seeds 22 times to sweet 16
12 seeds 21 times to sweet 16

huge difference between being 5/6 seed and then a 7 seed.
stever20
 
Posts: 13488
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:43 pm

Re: NCAA Tournament – Quantitative Reference Thread

Postby GumbyDamnit! » Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:28 am

Good data Stever.
Go Nova!
User avatar
GumbyDamnit!
 
Posts: 3149
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: NCAA Tournament – Quantitative Reference Thread

Postby handdownmandown » Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:36 am

GumbyDamnit! wrote:Good data Stever.


That’s two hours of Billyjack fact checking at work tomorrow though.
handdownmandown
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 2:12 pm

Re: NCAA Tournament – Quantitative Reference Thread

Postby stever20 » Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:44 am

GumbyDamnit! wrote:Good data Stever.

yeah. There's a reason why I call the 7-10 seed lines the pit of misery. Really it's 8-9 but there is a huge gulf between 6 and 7. Top 2 seeds in each region a lot of times get de facto home games. Look at what Lunardi has for top 2 seeds right now....
1 Baylor- Omaha
2 Dayton- Cleveland
1 Gonzaga- Spokane
2 Florida St- Tampa
1 San Diego St- Sacramento
2 Duke- Greensboro
1 Kansas- Omaha
2 Michigan St- Cleveland

only one who doesn't have a huge advantage there is Baylor.
stever20
 
Posts: 13488
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:43 pm

Re: NCAA Tournament – Quantitative Reference Thread

Postby Westbrook#36 » Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:51 am

stever20 wrote:1st round you are right that 5-7 are pretty much the same.

However 2nd round, no where near as much....
5 seeds 47 times to sweet 16
6 seeds 42 times to sweet 16
7 seeds 27 times to sweet 16
8 seeds 13 times to sweet 16
9 seeds 7 times to sweet 16
10 seeds 23 times to sweet 16
11 seeds 22 times to sweet 16
12 seeds 21 times to sweet 16

huge difference between being 5/6 seed and then a 7 seed.


And not much difference between a 7 seed and a 10/11/12 seed in actually getting to the S16. This shows and it's much better off being a 10/11/12 seed than a 8/9 seed.
User avatar
Westbrook#36
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:40 pm

Re: NCAA Tournament – Quantitative Reference Thread

Postby stever20 » Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:56 am

Westbrook#36 wrote:
stever20 wrote:1st round you are right that 5-7 are pretty much the same.

However 2nd round, no where near as much....
5 seeds 47 times to sweet 16
6 seeds 42 times to sweet 16
7 seeds 27 times to sweet 16
8 seeds 13 times to sweet 16
9 seeds 7 times to sweet 16
10 seeds 23 times to sweet 16
11 seeds 22 times to sweet 16
12 seeds 21 times to sweet 16

huge difference between being 5/6 seed and then a 7 seed.


And not much difference between a 7 seed and a 10/11/12 seed in actually getting to the S16. This shows and it's much better off being a 10/11/12 seed than a 8/9 seed.

Yup. Heck you want to get to the sweet 16, you're almost better being a 13 seed(6 times) than a 9 seed(7 times).

I think the sweet spot if you will is being 11 seed, not in first four. Similar to what Xavier got a few years ago.

The 8/9 seeds aren't totally, but close to a kiss of death.
stever20
 
Posts: 13488
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:43 pm

Re: NCAA Tournament – Quantitative Reference Thread

Postby Fieldhouse Flyer » Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:25 pm

.
Selection Sunday 2019: Comparing the Final Bracket Matrix to NCAA Tournament Seeding

Further to my previous post, we’ll take a look at another comparison. In 2019, Bracket Matrix had an exceptionally good year, finishing in sole possession of 7th place in a field of 195 sets of bracket predictions.

2016 Final Bracket Matrix with Predictors’ Rankings
47T. Bracket Matrix (329)
53T. CBS / Jerry Palm (326)
70T. ESPN / Joe Lunardi (323)

2017 Final Bracket Matrix with Predictors’ Rankings
63T. Bracket Matrix (341)
131T. CBS / Jerry Palm (330)
134T. ESPN / Joe Lunardi (329)

2018 Final Bracket Matrix with Predictors’ Rankings
54T. Bracket Matrix (347)
70T. ESPN / Joe Lunardi (344)
78T. CBS / Jerry Palm (343)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2019 Final Bracket Matrix with Predictors’ Rankings
7. Bracket Matrix (361)
12T. ESPN / Joe Lunardi (357)
99T. CBS / Jerry Palm (344)


Final Bracket Matrix Seed No. • Team • (W-L) • NET Ranking • (NCAA Tournament Seed No.)

1. Duke (29-5) NET Ranking: 3 (#1 Seed)
1. Virginia (29-3) NET Ranking: 1 (#1 Seed)
1. North Carolina (27-6) NET Ranking: 7 (#1 Seed)
1. Gonzaga (30-3) NET Ranking: 2 (#1 Seed)

2. Tennessee (29-4) NET Ranking: 5 (#2 Seed
2. Michigan State (28-6) NET Ranking: 8 (#2 Seed)
2. Kentucky (27-6) NET Ranking: 6 (#2 Seed)
2. Michigan (28-6) NET Ranking: 9 (#2 Seed)

3. Houston (31-3) NET Ranking: 4 (#3 Seed)
3. Texas Tech (26-6) NET Ranking: 10 (#3 Seed)
3. LSU (26-6) NET Ranking: 14 (#3 Seed)
3. Florida State (27-7) NET Ranking: 16 ==> (#4 Seed)

4. Purdue (23-9) NET Ranking: 12 ==> (#3 Seed)
4. Kansas (25-9) NET Ranking: 20 (#4 Seed)
4. Kansas State (25-8) NET Ranking: 24 (#4 Seed)
4. Wisconsin (23-10) NET Ranking: 17 ==> (#5 Seed)

5. Virginia Tech (24-8) NET Ranking: 11 ==> (#4 Seed)
5. Auburn (25-9) NET Ranking: 18 (#5 Seed)
5. Villanova (25-9) NET Ranking: 26 ==> (#6 Seed)
5. Iowa State (23-11) NET Ranking: 21 ==> (#6 Seed)

6. Marquette (24-9) NET Ranking: 28 ==> (#5 Seed)
6. Mississippi State (23-10) NET Ranking: 19 ==> (#5 Seed)
6. Buffalo (31-3) NET Ranking: 15 (#6 Seed)
6. Maryland (22-10) NET Ranking: 27 (#6 Seed)

7. Louisville (20-13) NET Ranking: 22 (#7 Seed)
7. Nevada (29-4) NET Ranking: 23 (#7 Seed)
7. Cincinnati (28-6) NET Ranking: 25 (#7 Seed)
7. Wofford (29-4) NET Ranking: 13 (#7 Seed)

8. Utah State (28-6) NET Ranking: 29 (#8 Seed)
8. Central Florida (23-8) NET Ranking: 30 ==> (#9 Seed)
8. Iowa (22-11) NET Ranking: 43 ==> (#10 Seed)
8. Seton Hall (20-13) NET Ranking: 57 ==> (#10 Seed)

9. Ole Miss (20-12) NET Ranking: 36 ==> (#8 Seed)
9. Syracuse (20-13) NET Ranking: 42 ==> (#8 Seed)
9. Baylor (19-13) NET Ranking: 39 (#9 Seed)
9. Minnesota (21-13) NET Ranking: 61 ==> (#10 Seed)

10. VCU (25-7) NET Ranking: 34 ==> (#8 Seed)
10. Oklahoma (19-13) NET Ranking: 37 ==> (#9 Seed)
10. Washington (26-8) NET Ranking: 45 ==> (#9 Seed)
10. Florida (19-15) NET Ranking: 31 (#10 Seed)

11. Ohio State (19-14) NET Ranking: 55 (#11 Seed)
11. Arizona State (22-10) NET Ranking: 63 (#11 Seed*)
11. Temple (23-9) NET Ranking: 56 (#11 Seed*)
11. St. John's (21-12) NET Ranking: 73 (#11 Seed*)
---- Belmont (26-5) NET Ranking: 47 (#11 Seed*)
11. Saint Mary's (22-11) NET Ranking: 32 (#11 Seed)

12. Oregon (23-12) NET Ranking: 51 (#12 Seed)
12. Murray State (27-4) NET Ranking: 44 (#12 Seed)
12. New Mexico State (30-4) NET Ranking: 40 (#12 Seed)
12. Liberty (28-6) NET Ranking: 58 (#12 Seed)

13. UC Irvine (30-5) NET Ranking: 68 (#13 Seed)
13. Northeastern (23-10) NET Ranking: 78 (#13 Seed)
13. Vermont (27-6) NET Ranking: 71 (#13 Seed)
13. Old Dominion (26-8) NET Ranking: 100 ==> (#14 Seed)

14. Saint Louis (22-12) NET Ranking: 103 ==> (#13 Seed)
14. Yale (21-7) NET Ranking: 86 (#14 Seed)
14. Georgia State (23-9) NET Ranking: 121 (#14 Seed)
14. Northern Kentucky (26-8) NET Ranking: 115 (#14 Seed)

15. Montana (26-8) NET Ranking: 124 (#15 Seed)
15. Colgate (24-10) NET Ranking: 132 (#15 Seed)
15. Bradley (20-14) NET Ranking: 176 (#15 Seed)
15. Abilene Christian (27-6) NET Ranking: 154 (#15 Seed)

16. Gardner-Webb (23-11) NET Ranking: 173 (#16 Seed)
16. Iona (17-15) NET Ranking: 202 (#16 Seed)
16. Prairie View (22-12) NET Ranking: 205 (#16 Seed*)
16. Fairleigh Dickinson (20-13) NET Ranking: 203 (#16 Seed*)
16. North Dakota State (18-15) NET Ranking: 222 (#16 Seed*)
16. N.C. Central (18-15) NET Ranking: 301 (#16 Seed*)

* Assigned to First Four Play-in game at UD Arena.
User avatar
Fieldhouse Flyer
 
Posts: 1389
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 5:11 am

Re: NCAA Tournament – Quantitative Reference Thread

Postby Fieldhouse Flyer » Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:26 pm

.
WHO IS THE BEST COLLEGE BASKETBALL TEAM? THE BETTING LINES, COMBINED WITH POLLS, HELP SORT OUT THIS STRANGE SEASON – Newsweek – January 20, 2020
Here is the current Associated Press Top 20: [list]

Here are the top 20 teams with the best odds of winning the men's basketball championship by VegasInsider.com:
[list]

There are 17 teams that are in both the top 20 of the AP poll and the Las Vegas odds.


The three ranked teams not in the top 20 odds are Texas Tech, Iowa, and Memphis. The three teams in the top 20 of odds, but the top 20 poll, are Arizona, Ohio State, and Wichita State.

The next rankings are the top 17 teams (a Sweet 16 plus 1?) that are in both top 20s. The teams have points added for a total.
User avatar
Fieldhouse Flyer
 
Posts: 1389
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 5:11 am

Re: NCAA Tournament – Quantitative Reference Thread

Postby Fieldhouse Flyer » Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:18 am

.
Further to my previous post: ODDS TO WIN 2020 NCAA MEN'S TOURNAMENT - vegasinsider.com (updated periodically)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's how the last unbeatens fell and how they did in the NCAA Tournament - Matt Norlander – CBS Sports – January 24, 2020
Nearly three decades of data suggests big things could happen in March

Being the last undefeated team in college basketball doesn't guarantee you a national championship. It also doesn't prevent it from happening. In fact, holding the only bagel in the loss column is normally a positive omen for March. How do we know? I've done the research to prove it.

Let's get to the evidence. These are the fates of every team that was the last to lose on a given day since 1992. If more than one team lost on the same day, they are accounted for.

YEAR • TEAM • FIRST LOSS • (RECORD BEFORE LOSS) • LOST TO • FINAL RECORD • NCAAT OUTCOME

2017-18 • VILLANOVA • Dec. 30 • (13-0) • @ Butler • 36-4 • Won title

2017–18 Villanova Wildcats Men's Basketball Team - Wikipedia . . . . . 2017-18 Villanova Wildcats Schedule & Results - ESPN
User avatar
Fieldhouse Flyer
 
Posts: 1389
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 5:11 am

PreviousNext

Return to Big East basketball message board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests