• Contact
Posted by Huckleberry on March 17th, 2009 under Basketball
Using my college basketball ratings, I ran an analysis on the NCAA tournament. I only used the power and standard deviation numbers, not the ones that account for wins and losses, so teams that make a habit of winning close games will not be adjusted in this run. This is the first time I’ve run such a look at the tourney, and the extent to which favorites are favored surprised me somewhat, but we’ll have to see how it goes. First things first, here’s the table (HTML Gods willing it will look decent):
| Reg | Team | 1R | 2R | S16 | E8 | F4 | NC | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M I D W E S T |
Louisville | 100.00% | 99.84% | 87.27% | 64.51% | 40.42% | 21.20% | 9.66% |
| Alabama St. | 40.75% | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Morehead St. | 59.25% | 0.12% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Ohio St. | 100.00% | 78.00% | 11.73% | 4.20% | 1.03% | 0.14% | 0.02% | |
| Siena | 100.00% | 22.00% | 1.00% | 0.14% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Utah | 100.00% | 54.85% | 20.42% | 4.70% | 1.34% | 0.23% | 0.03% | |
| Arizona | 100.00% | 45.15% | 15.20% | 3.13% | 0.80% | 0.12% | 0.02% | |
| Wake Forest | 100.00% | 92.19% | 63.10% | 23.25% | 10.29% | 3.33% | 0.90% | |
| Cleveland St. | 100.00% | 7.81% | 1.29% | 0.07% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| West Virginia | 100.00% | 93.98% | 52.60% | 34.62% | 17.95% | 8.04% | 3.08% | |
| Dayton | 100.00% | 6.02% | 0.60% | 0.08% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Kansas | 100.00% | 93.65% | 46.30% | 29.00% | 14.12% | 5.84% | 2.06% | |
| North Dakota St. | 100.00% | 6.35% | 0.50% | 0.06% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Boston College | 100.00% | 29.16% | 6.56% | 1.00% | 0.16% | 0.02% | 0.00% | |
| Southern Cal | 100.00% | 70.84% | 26.00% | 7.02% | 1.98% | 0.37% | 0.06% | |
| Michigan St. | 100.00% | 98.06% | 67.36% | 28.22% | 11.89% | 4.10% | 1.19% | |
| Robert Morris | 100.00% | 1.94% | 0.07% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| W E S T |
Connecticut | 100.00% | 99.99% | 80.10% | 58.75% | 30.71% | 18.40% | 8.30% |
| Chattanooga | 100.00% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| BYU | 100.00% | 79.82% | 18.85% | 8.84% | 2.54% | 0.93% | 0.22% | |
| Texas A&M | 100.00% | 20.18% | 1.06% | 0.20% | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Purdue | 100.00% | 93.89% | 49.68% | 16.04% | 5.06% | 1.99% | 0.52% | |
| Northern Iowa | 100.00% | 6.11% | 0.53% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Washington | 100.00% | 85.66% | 47.00% | 15.95% | 5.27% | 2.17% | 0.59% | |
| Mississippi St. | 100.00% | 14.34% | 2.79% | 0.22% | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Marquette | 100.00% | 78.60% | 26.01% | 6.95% | 2.24% | 0.79% | 0.18% | |
| Utah St. | 100.00% | 21.40% | 2.60% | 0.19% | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Missouri | 100.00% | 96.66% | 71.05% | 32.75% | 17.47% | 9.48% | 3.91% | |
| Cornell | 100.00% | 3.34% | 0.34% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| California | 100.00% | 66.01% | 9.65% | 2.88% | 0.68% | 0.19% | 0.03% | |
| Maryland | 100.00% | 33.99% | 2.95% | 0.58% | 0.08% | 0.01% | 0.00% | |
| Memphis | 100.00% | 99.30% | 87.33% | 56.64% | 35.89% | 22.63% | 11.12% | |
| Cal St.-Northridge | 100.00% | 0.70% | 0.07% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| E A S T |
Pittsburgh | 100.00% | 99.69% | 86.37% | 77.60% | 46.58% | 23.73% | 13.95% |
| East Tennessee St. | 100.00% | 0.31% | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Oklahoma St. | 100.00% | 49.47% | 5.74% | 3.13% | 0.66% | 0.11% | 0.02% | |
| Tennessee | 100.00% | 50.53% | 7.87% | 4.28% | 1.04% | 0.21% | 0.05% | |
| Florida St. | 100.00% | 42.94% | 16.65% | 1.69% | 0.22% | 0.02% | 0.00% | |
| Wisconsin | 100.00% | 57.06% | 25.84% | 3.41% | 0.58% | 0.08% | 0.01% | |
| Xavier | 100.00% | 94.85% | 57.11% | 9.88% | 2.16% | 0.38% | 0.08% | |
| Portland St. | 100.00% | 5.15% | 0.40% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| UCLA | 100.00% | 94.94% | 65.44% | 32.97% | 16.28% | 6.98% | 3.45% | |
| Virginia Commonwealth | 100.00% | 5.06% | 0.51% | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Villanova | 100.00% | 99.53% | 34.05% | 10.96% | 3.37% | 0.88% | 0.27% | |
| American | 100.00% | 0.47% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Texas | 100.00% | 65.28% | 12.61% | 3.74% | 0.89% | 0.18% | 0.04% | |
| Minnesota | 100.00% | 34.72% | 4.13% | 0.79% | 0.12% | 0.02% | 0.00% | |
| Duke | 100.00% | 99.93% | 83.27% | 51.50% | 28.10% | 13.37% | 7.30% | |
| Binghamton | 100.00% | 0.07% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| S O U T H |
North Carolina | 100.00% | 99.96% | 93.75% | 69.73% | 56.32% | 37.78% | 26.17% |
| Radford | 100.00% | 0.04% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| LSU | 100.00% | 60.12% | 4.97% | 1.17% | 0.32% | 0.05% | 0.01% | |
| Butler | 100.00% | 39.88% | 1.28% | 0.18% | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Illinois | 100.00% | 91.14% | 26.01% | 4.26% | 1.63% | 0.38% | 0.10% | |
| Western Kentucky | 100.00% | 8.86% | 0.34% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Gonzaga | 100.00% | 98.05% | 73.43% | 24.65% | 15.54% | 7.17% | 3.52% | |
| Akron | 100.00% | 1.95% | 0.21% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Arizona St. | 100.00% | 86.50% | 44.05% | 22.99% | 6.35% | 2.17% | 0.81% | |
| Temple | 100.00% | 13.50% | 1.79% | 0.24% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Syracuse | 100.00% | 98.33% | 54.09% | 28.20% | 7.49% | 2.49% | 0.90% | |
| Stephen F. Austin | 100.00% | 1.67% | 0.07% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Clemson | 100.00% | 72.06% | 30.46% | 13.70% | 3.23% | 0.95% | 0.30% | |
| Michigan | 100.00% | 27.94% | 5.45% | 1.27% | 0.13% | 0.02% | 0.00% | |
| Oklahoma | 100.00% | 99.86% | 64.09% | 33.60% | 8.96% | 3.02% | 1.12% | |
| Morgan St. | 100.00% | 0.14% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
As expected, North Carolina is the favorite heading in and is expected to win the tournament a quarter of the time. That they are nearly twice as likely to win as the next most likely team, Pittsburgh, was very surprising to me.
And, of course, the draw affects a team’s outlook. Louisville is 6th in the power ratings but the #1 seed moves them to 4th most likely to win the tournament. Pittsburgh is calculated as the most likely team to reach the regional final as the other half of their 8-team subregion is weaker than North Carolina’s (mostly due to the Zags being in the South).
The good news for Texas fans is that the odds of the Longhorns winning the tournament are roughly the same as the odds of a PGA tour golfer making a hole-in-one on any given Par 3 hole. So it could happen.
Scipio Tex said:
March 17th, 2009 at 11:16 am
This is awesome, Huck. Thanks.
The weakness of the Midwest is notable. I really like Louisville to walk out of there easily.
UConn almost as likely to win as…Duke? Wow.
HenryJames said:
March 17th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Your ratings suck. This dude’s will be better.
http://dehn.slu.edu/sports/tournament/index.html
Even though he can’t spell ‘coming.’
Ag_in_TX said:
March 17th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
You could probably go ahead and round those numbers to integer percentages – I think presenting two significant digits lends a level of accuracy that can most kindly be described as hopeful.
Art Vandelay said:
March 17th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Except for Memphis why is there such a large discrepancy between #1 and #2 seeds? For example: Pittsburgh has a 12.8% better chance of winning it all than Michigan St.?
Fuzzy said:
March 17th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
HenryJames – that Leschner dude is all wrong. The percentage of ESPN voters who pick a given team to reach the final four is not a “perceived probability.” That’s a cross-level inference error. I could perceive that Team A has only a 25-30% chance of making the final four, but when I have to make an actual pick, the odds ratio for that team might be 2-1 over the next best competitor, so it makes sense that people pick them 2/3 of the time.
HenryJames said:
March 17th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
I pay attention to these things not at all. I just like to mock Huckleberry’s statistical faggotry.
statistical faggotry said:
March 17th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Did I hear my name called?
Bob in Houston said:
March 17th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
So you’re sayin’ there’s a chance…
Longhorn in Canada said:
March 17th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
HJ – while I might listen to a math geek who can’t spell “coming”, I am less inclined to believe one who can’t spell “two”.
Huckleberry said:
March 17th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Ag -
Actually, they were rounded once upon a time, but that got lost when I copy-and-pasted into notepad so I could format the table. And there’s no way I’m going through it to erase all the decimal places.
Ag_in_TX said:
March 18th, 2009 at 5:23 am
No problem – in my line of work, the number of significant digits presented in data has meaning.
Hence, while some denizens of the Intrawebs are “Grammar Nazis”, I am a “Significant Digit Nazi” – a small and detestable lot to which I belong.
Huckleberry said:
March 18th, 2009 at 5:57 am
Well, to be fair, my ratings are accurate to at least the millionths digit, so I think I’m okay anyway. Excel’s calculation precision is the only possible limiter on the number of significant digits I am able to display.
The very notion that I may introduce some sort of error into the process is nothing short of preposterous!!!
Texoz said:
March 18th, 2009 at 9:10 am
This guy at SI likes Texas to go long.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/joe_posnanski/03/18/ncaatourney/index.html?bcnn=yes
The General said:
March 18th, 2009 at 9:18 am
“Significant Digit Nazi”
This is one of those things that sounds a whole lot dirtier than it really is.