I'm off to Vegas to take in the madness and hang out with the cool kids in school, Swindle, P Bizzle, Miss Holly, and whoever else rolls through. Should be interesting, as I have been sick all week, and Vegas wears you down to a raw nub in about 48 hours when you go there at 100%; it's about the worst place I can think of in the {first} world to be sick. Oh well, I'll just have to man up.
No updates, but we're all Twitter dorks so the sidebar on the left should be happening {if you click on the header you get me and them, not just me}.
Oh, and Happy Easter to those who are so inclined to celebrate, whether it be by giving thanks and praise or racing down Lombard Street on a bigwheel with all your friends, which sadly is having to move away from Lombard after 7 years there because it has gotten too big.
2007 Bring Your Own Big Wheel race down Lombard St.
Have a great weekend, whatever you get into.
Showing posts with label March Madness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label March Madness. Show all posts
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Using The Past To Submit A Sensical Bracket
I posted this last year- here is the same info updated to include the 2007 tournament.
As most folks know, a 16 has never beaten a 1 seed. A 2 seed has only lost 4 times in the last 17 years, and never 2 in the same year, so for example if you have three different 2 seeds losing to 15 seeds, then you might want to adjust your picks and play the percentages. The 5/12 games get alot of publicity, but don't forget that a 13 seed beats a 4 seed more years than not, and the 11 seeds do pretty well against the 6 seeds. The 8v9 games are not listed because to me a 9 seed beating and 8 seed isn't really an upset. Again, just be sure that you are somewhere in the ballpark, or even on the edge or just a little out of bounds, but if you have all four 11 seeds beating the 6 seeds you may want to adjust. Hell it may happen this year, but if I was in an office pool I would want to maximize my percentages against the others and save the totally wacky-ass bullshit for talk at the sportsbar.
I typically compare my filled out bracket to these historical numbers to make sure that I am in/near the realm of what has happened on each matchup column.
SECOND ROUND
#1 Seed Losing In The Second Round
All four 1 seeds get through to the 2nd weekend more often than not, so if you have this then there is no need to worry. But if you have one, or even have the stones to pick two #1 seeds to lose to the winner of the 8v9 game then the data says you are not crazy and to rock on with your bad self. If you have 3 or all 4 #1 seeds going out in the 2nd round, you may want to think about adjusting your picks.
#2 Seed Losing In The Second Round
As you can see, the #2 seeds fare much worse than the #1 seeds. I won't get into why I think this is so, but you may want to think about having a 2 seed eat it in the second round, as all four haven't made it through to the Sweet Sixteen in over a decade.
THE SWEET SIXTEEN
Seeds Below 5 In the Sweet 16
Look at your brackets and count up the number of seeds below #5 seeds that you have in the Sweet Sixteen. Last year was extremely chalky with top seeds advancing, and only 2 seeds below 5 made it to the 2nd weekend. In the 16 years before last year this number has always been between 3 and 8, so ideally you would want to be in this range, but if you have 2 or 9 then I wouldn't worry too much. I also have listed the breakdown of the seeds that advanced each year in addition to the number of teams that made it this far.
The main trend to notice in this set of data is how well the 6 seeds do, as well as the winner of the 7v10 game {more on that in the next section though}. Historically 6 seeds have had success in the 2nd round against the winner of the 3v14 game, which by and large boils down to the fact that 6 seeds often upset 3 seeds in the 2nd round. In fact, every single year since 1991 at least one 6 seed makes it to the Sweet Sixteen, and often more than one do- the vast majority of their 2nd round wins come over 3 seeds. If I didn't have any 6 seeds in the Sweet Sixteen I would strongly consider going back and picking at least one of them to make it to the second weekend. The trick, of course, is picking the right one...
Bottom line at this point you don't want your bracket to be too chalky {you have all the top seeds advancing}, nor do you want it to be such an upset-o-rama that it is way outside the norm.
Double Digit Seeds In The Sweet 16
Look again at your Sweet 16: do you have any double digit seeds {10 seed or lower} in there? Again, last year was an anomaly but even including it, in 15 of the last 17 years at least 1 double digit seed has made it to the 2nd weekend.
Notice the trend here of how well the 10 seeds are represented. What does this mean? It means that if a 10 seed beats a 7 seed and matches up with a 2 seed in the 2nd round, that 2 seed should be on upset alert, because in 10 of the last 17 years at least one such 10 seed has gone through to the Sweet 16. For all the hype that the 12 seeds get in beating the 5 seed in the first round {the media always point out the the "classic 12 over 5 upset"}, the 10 seeds do even better than the 12 seeds in the 2nd round. Also, if you look back up at the data set before this one, and look at all of the 7 and 10 seeds, that tells you that the winner of the 7v10 game has a great shot of getting past the 2 seed and onto the Sweet Sixteen. I always pick what I think the weakest 2 seed is to lose {or if I think a 7/10 winner is especially strong, or if a 2 seed is a team that I hate and really would love to see go out}.
ELITE EIGHT
Seeds Below #3 In Elite Eight
Many beginners get to this point and have all #1 and #2 seeds. This is starting to sound like a broken record, but last year was an anomaly as it was the first time in 17 years that no team below a 3 seed made the Elite 8. Check your bracket for the number of teams seeded 4 or below in your final eight. You probably should have at least one, and if the data is an accurate predictor, not more than 5. Personally, I would be comfortable with between 1-3.
FINAL FOUR
Seeds Below #2 In Final Four
Once again, last year was rare, and in 15 of the last 17 years, at least one of the Final Four participants has been lower than a 2 seed. Also in 3 of the last 5 years at least 2 of the spots have gone to 3 seeds or lower. I would just make sure that you didn't have zero here {all four spots being either a 1 or a 2 seed} or a four{all 4 slots being 3 seeds or worse}
The Seeds Of The Final Four Participants
If you have all four of the #1 seeds in your Final Four, then you are brave, for it has never happened. On the other hand, 2006 was the first time ever that none of the #1 seeds made it, so you never know.
I have seen the final four seeds wonked thusly: add up the seed #s of your final four members. In 15 of the last 17 years the number would be between 6 and 13, with wacky year 2000 having a high number of 15 and 2006's wackiness being an extreme outlier with at total of 20.
THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME
Seeds Of The Championship Game Participants
Basically, the data says that you should have at least one #1 or #2 seed in the title game. If you have a 4 seed against a 6 seed here, then I applaud you for your moxie but the numbers say you won't win your office pool. In fact, then numbers say anything 3 v 3 or lower will not happen even though that sounds pretty feasible.
Seed Of The NCAA Champion
The outlier here is one of my favorite teams ever, the 1997 Arizona Wildcats, who amazingly beat three different #1 seeds en route to their championship, making them the only team to ever accomplish that feat and establishing a record that can only be equaled but never surpassed. Every other year the champion has been a 1, 2, or 3 seed, with a 1 seed winning it all in 11 of the last 17 years.
So there it is, by the numbers. Again, I am not saying to fill out your brackets to meet these requirements, but to fill out your brackets and then cross check them against this data, which should not be viewed as requirements but as a guideline or baseline or whatever you like.
I like this information because I find that it helps to know basically the number of upsets that likely will happen in each round. The trick, of course, is choosing where to pick your upsets and where to have the favorites advance. That, my friends, is what separates the office pool contributors from the office pool collectors.
Happy Brackets and best of luck. Unless you have Dook winning the national title that is - then I hope that you fail miserably.
This is a little extremely wonky, so some of you will be interested and some will not, but what the hell. As a former hard core college basketball junkie and wonk, I figured the best I can offer this year is to share some of this info with you, as it may help you tweak your bracket before you submit it.
Disclaimer 1: this data should never be used to fill out a bracket; the bracket should always be filled out first using whatever methodology you use. This data can be helpful in perhaps going back and tweaking a few picks here and there to ensure that what you picked falls with the normal range over time of what has actually occurred, so that you don't submit something whose odds of happening are minuscule, thus reducing your chances of taking your co-workers money.
Disclaimer 2: As you will see when we get into the numbers below, 2007 was quite an anomaly; what in horse racing handicapping might be referred to as a "throw away" race because its result was such an outlier compared to the rest of the data. Anyhow, it can be looked at two ways: (1) that it makes all the rest of the data null and void and shows that truly anything can happen, or (2) that it was an anomaly and that over time the trends of the rest of the historical data will largely hold true.
Now then...
FIRST ROUND
First Round Upsets
| Year | 15v2 | 14v3 | 13v4 | 12v5 | 11v6 | 10v7 |
| 2007 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| 2006 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 2005 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2004 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| 2003 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 2002 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 2001 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 2000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 1999 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| 1998 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 1997 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 1996 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 1995 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 1994 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 1993 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 1992 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 1991 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
Now look over your brackets and just compare the numbers that you have with this historical data. There is no need to adjust anything unless what you have is waaaaay out of range. I just try to make sure that I'm not way out of bounds. Last year was very unusual in that it was only the 2nd time that all of the 2, 3, 4 and 5 seeds advanced to the 2nd round since the field expanded to 64 teams in 1985, so in 21 of the past 23 years there have been upsets over 5, 4, 3, and 2 seeds and we should expect them in any given year.
As most folks know, a 16 has never beaten a 1 seed. A 2 seed has only lost 4 times in the last 17 years, and never 2 in the same year, so for example if you have three different 2 seeds losing to 15 seeds, then you might want to adjust your picks and play the percentages. The 5/12 games get alot of publicity, but don't forget that a 13 seed beats a 4 seed more years than not, and the 11 seeds do pretty well against the 6 seeds. The 8v9 games are not listed because to me a 9 seed beating and 8 seed isn't really an upset. Again, just be sure that you are somewhere in the ballpark, or even on the edge or just a little out of bounds, but if you have all four 11 seeds beating the 6 seeds you may want to adjust. Hell it may happen this year, but if I was in an office pool I would want to maximize my percentages against the others and save the totally wacky-ass bullshit for talk at the sportsbar.
I typically compare my filled out bracket to these historical numbers to make sure that I am in/near the realm of what has happened on each matchup column.
SECOND ROUND
#1 Seed Losing In The Second Round
| Year | Number |
| 2007 | 0 |
| 2006 | 0 |
| 2005 | 0 |
| 2004 | 2 |
| 2003 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 2 |
| 1999 | 0 |
| 1998 | 1 |
| 1997 | 0 |
| 1996 | 1 |
| 1995 | 0 |
| 1994 | 0 |
| 1993 | 0 |
| 1992 | 1 |
| 1991 | 0 |
All four 1 seeds get through to the 2nd weekend more often than not, so if you have this then there is no need to worry. But if you have one, or even have the stones to pick two #1 seeds to lose to the winner of the 8v9 game then the data says you are not crazy and to rock on with your bad self. If you have 3 or all 4 #1 seeds going out in the 2nd round, you may want to think about adjusting your picks.
#2 Seed Losing In The Second Round
| Year | Number |
| 2007 | 1 |
| 2006 | 2 |
| 2005 | 2 |
| 2004 | 2 |
| 2003 | 2 |
| 2002 | 1 |
| 2001 | 2 |
| 2000 | 3 |
| 1999 | 3 |
| 1998 | 1 |
| 1997 | 2 |
| 1996 | 0 |
| 1995 | 0 |
| 1994 | 1 |
| 1993 | 2 |
| 1992 | 1 |
| 1991 | 1 |
As you can see, the #2 seeds fare much worse than the #1 seeds. I won't get into why I think this is so, but you may want to think about having a 2 seed eat it in the second round, as all four haven't made it through to the Sweet Sixteen in over a decade.
THE SWEET SIXTEEN
Seeds Below 5 In the Sweet 16
| Year | Number | Seeds |
| 2007 | 2 | 6, 7 |
| 2006 | 5 | 6,7,7,11,13 |
| 2005 | 6 | 6,6,6,7,10,12 |
| 2004 | 5 | 6,7,8,9,10 |
| 2003 | 4 | 6,7,10,12 |
| 2002 | 5 | 6,8,10,11,12 |
| 2001 | 6 | 5,6,7,10,11,12 |
| 2000 | 8 | 6,6,6,7,8,8,10,10 |
| 1999 | 7 | 6,6,10,10,10,12,13 |
| 1998 | 5 | 6,6,8,10,13 |
| 1997 | 6 | 6,6,6,10,10,14 |
| 1996 | 3 | 6,8,12 |
| 1995 | 3 | 6,6,6 |
| 1994 | 4 | 6,9,10,12 |
| 1993 | 5 | 6,6,7,7,12 |
| 1992 | 5 | 6,6,7,9,12 |
| 1991 | 3 | 10,11,12 |
Look at your brackets and count up the number of seeds below #5 seeds that you have in the Sweet Sixteen. Last year was extremely chalky with top seeds advancing, and only 2 seeds below 5 made it to the 2nd weekend. In the 16 years before last year this number has always been between 3 and 8, so ideally you would want to be in this range, but if you have 2 or 9 then I wouldn't worry too much. I also have listed the breakdown of the seeds that advanced each year in addition to the number of teams that made it this far.
The main trend to notice in this set of data is how well the 6 seeds do, as well as the winner of the 7v10 game {more on that in the next section though}. Historically 6 seeds have had success in the 2nd round against the winner of the 3v14 game, which by and large boils down to the fact that 6 seeds often upset 3 seeds in the 2nd round. In fact, every single year since 1991 at least one 6 seed makes it to the Sweet Sixteen, and often more than one do- the vast majority of their 2nd round wins come over 3 seeds. If I didn't have any 6 seeds in the Sweet Sixteen I would strongly consider going back and picking at least one of them to make it to the second weekend. The trick, of course, is picking the right one...
Bottom line at this point you don't want your bracket to be too chalky {you have all the top seeds advancing}, nor do you want it to be such an upset-o-rama that it is way outside the norm.
Double Digit Seeds In The Sweet 16
| Year | Number | Seeds |
| 2007 | 0 | n/a |
| 2006 | 2 | 11, 13 |
| 2005 | 2 | 10,12 |
| 2004 | 1 | 10 |
| 2003 | 2 | 10,12 |
| 2002 | 3 | 10,11,12 |
| 2001 | 3 | 10,11,12 |
| 2000 | 2 | 10,10 |
| 1999 | 5 | 10,10,10,12,13 |
| 1998 | 2 | 10,13 |
| 1997 | 3 | 10,10,14 |
| 1996 | 1 | 12 |
| 1995 | 0 | n/a |
| 1994 | 2 | 10,12 |
| 1993 | 1 | 12 |
| 1992 | 1 | 12 |
| 1991 | 3 | 10,11,12 |
Look again at your Sweet 16: do you have any double digit seeds {10 seed or lower} in there? Again, last year was an anomaly but even including it, in 15 of the last 17 years at least 1 double digit seed has made it to the 2nd weekend.
Notice the trend here of how well the 10 seeds are represented. What does this mean? It means that if a 10 seed beats a 7 seed and matches up with a 2 seed in the 2nd round, that 2 seed should be on upset alert, because in 10 of the last 17 years at least one such 10 seed has gone through to the Sweet 16. For all the hype that the 12 seeds get in beating the 5 seed in the first round {the media always point out the the "classic 12 over 5 upset"}, the 10 seeds do even better than the 12 seeds in the 2nd round. Also, if you look back up at the data set before this one, and look at all of the 7 and 10 seeds, that tells you that the winner of the 7v10 game has a great shot of getting past the 2 seed and onto the Sweet Sixteen. I always pick what I think the weakest 2 seed is to lose {or if I think a 7/10 winner is especially strong, or if a 2 seed is a team that I hate and really would love to see go out}.
ELITE EIGHT
Seeds Below #3 In Elite Eight
| Year | Number | Seeds |
| 2007 | 0 | n/a |
| 2006 | 2 | 4, 11 |
| 2005 | 4 | 4, 5, 6, 7 |
| 2004 | 2 | 7, 8 |
| 2003 | 1 | 7 |
| 2002 | 3 | 5, 10, 12 |
| 2001 | 2 | 6, 11 |
| 2000 | 5 | 5, 6, 7, 8, 8 |
| 1999 | 3 | 4, 6, 10 |
| 1998 | 1 | 8 |
| 1997 | 2 | 6, 10 |
| 1996 | 2 | 4, 5 |
| 1995 | 2 | 4, 4 |
| 1994 | 1 | 9 |
| 1993 | 1 | 7 |
| 1992 | 3 | 4, 6, 6 |
| 1991 | 2 | 4, 10 |
Many beginners get to this point and have all #1 and #2 seeds. This is starting to sound like a broken record, but last year was an anomaly as it was the first time in 17 years that no team below a 3 seed made the Elite 8. Check your bracket for the number of teams seeded 4 or below in your final eight. You probably should have at least one, and if the data is an accurate predictor, not more than 5. Personally, I would be comfortable with between 1-3.
FINAL FOUR
Seeds Below #2 In Final Four
| Year | Number | Seeds |
| 2007 | 0 | n/a |
| 2006 | 3 | 3, 4, 11 |
| 2005 | 2 | 4, 5 |
| 2004 | 1 | 3 |
| 2003 | 2 | 3, 3 |
| 2002 | 1 | 5 |
| 2001 | 1 | 3 |
| 2000 | 3 | 5, 5, 8 |
| 1999 | 1 | 4 |
| 1998 | 2 | 3, 3 |
| 1997 | 1 | 4 |
| 1996 | 2 | 4, 5 |
| 1995 | 1 | 4 |
| 1994 | 1 | 3 |
| 1993 | 0 | n/a |
| 1992 | 2 | 4, 6 |
| 1991 | 1 | 3 |
Once again, last year was rare, and in 15 of the last 17 years, at least one of the Final Four participants has been lower than a 2 seed. Also in 3 of the last 5 years at least 2 of the spots have gone to 3 seeds or lower. I would just make sure that you didn't have zero here {all four spots being either a 1 or a 2 seed} or a four{all 4 slots being 3 seeds or worse}
The Seeds Of The Final Four Participants
| Year | Seeds | Total of Seed #s |
| 2007 | 1, 1, 2, 2 | 6 |
| 2006 | 2, 3, 4, 11 | 20 |
| 2005 | 1, 1, 4, 5 | 11 |
| 2004 | 1, 2, 2, 3 | 8 |
| 2003 | 1, 2, 3, 3 | 9 |
| 2002 | 1, 1, 2, 5 | 9 |
| 2001 | 1, 1, 2, 3 | 7 |
| 2000 | 1, 1, 5, 8 | 15 |
| 1999 | 1, 1, 1, 4 | 7 |
| 1998 | 1, 2, 3, 3 | 9 |
| 1997 | 1, 1, 1, 4 | 7 |
| 1996 | 1, 1, 4, 5 | 11 |
| 1995 | 1, 2, 2, 4 | 9 |
| 1994 | 1, 2, 2, 3 | 8 |
| 1993 | 1, 1, 1, 2 | 5 |
| 1992 | 1, 2, 4, 6 | 13 |
| 1991 | 1, 1, 2, 3 | 7 |
If you have all four of the #1 seeds in your Final Four, then you are brave, for it has never happened. On the other hand, 2006 was the first time ever that none of the #1 seeds made it, so you never know.
I have seen the final four seeds wonked thusly: add up the seed #s of your final four members. In 15 of the last 17 years the number would be between 6 and 13, with wacky year 2000 having a high number of 15 and 2006's wackiness being an extreme outlier with at total of 20.
THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME
Seeds Of The Championship Game Participants
| Year | Seeds |
| 2007 | 1, 1 |
| 2006 | 2, 3 |
| 2005 | 1, 1 |
| 2004 | 2, 3 |
| 2003 | 2, 3 |
| 2002 | 1, 5 |
| 2001 | 1, 2 |
| 2000 | 1, 5 |
| 1999 | 1, 1 |
| 1998 | 2, 3 |
| 1997 | 1, 4 |
| 1996 | 1, 4 |
| 1995 | 1, 2 |
| 1994 | 1, 2 |
| 1993 | 1, 1 |
| 1992 | 1, 6 |
| 1991 | 2, 3 |
Basically, the data says that you should have at least one #1 or #2 seed in the title game. If you have a 4 seed against a 6 seed here, then I applaud you for your moxie but the numbers say you won't win your office pool. In fact, then numbers say anything 3 v 3 or lower will not happen even though that sounds pretty feasible.
Seed Of The NCAA Champion
| Year | Seed |
| 2007 | 1 |
| 2006 | 3 |
| 2005 | 1 |
| 2004 | 2 |
| 2003 | 3 |
| 2002 | 1 |
| 2001 | 1 |
| 2000 | 1 |
| 1999 | 1 |
| 1998 | 2 |
| 1997 | 4 |
| 1996 | 1 |
| 1995 | 1 |
| 1994 | 1 |
| 1993 | 1 |
| 1992 | 1 |
| 1991 | 2 |
The outlier here is one of my favorite teams ever, the 1997 Arizona Wildcats, who amazingly beat three different #1 seeds en route to their championship, making them the only team to ever accomplish that feat and establishing a record that can only be equaled but never surpassed. Every other year the champion has been a 1, 2, or 3 seed, with a 1 seed winning it all in 11 of the last 17 years.
So there it is, by the numbers. Again, I am not saying to fill out your brackets to meet these requirements, but to fill out your brackets and then cross check them against this data, which should not be viewed as requirements but as a guideline or baseline or whatever you like.
I like this information because I find that it helps to know basically the number of upsets that likely will happen in each round. The trick, of course, is choosing where to pick your upsets and where to have the favorites advance. That, my friends, is what separates the office pool contributors from the office pool collectors.
Happy Brackets and best of luck. Unless you have Dook winning the national title that is - then I hope that you fail miserably.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Chalkier Than A Mouthful Of Tums
This is the chalkiest {read: favored teams winning} NCAA Tournament I can ever remember.
My records only go back to 1991, and I don't have time to check it, but I am guessing that this is the chalkiest state of affairs at this point in the tournament since the introduction of the 3 point line in 1987. Before tonight I noticed that this is the first time since 1995 that not a single double digit seed made it to the Sweet 16. We are also staring at potentially the first year without anything below a 3 seed in the Elite Eight since, well, shit - I don't know, my stats only go back to 1991 so at least before that.
March Madness 07: chalky as hell
Tonight I thought some lower seeds had a chance, but A&M totally bottled it at the end, and 5 seed Tennessee managed to somehow squander a 20 point lead with their opponents best player by a mile having 3 fouls in the first half - amazing.
1v2 and 1v2 on one half, and we may very well end up with 1v2 and 1v3 in the other half tomorrow. Can USC, UNLV, Butler or Vandy actually upset a top seed, or is this the year of the chalk?
My records only go back to 1991, and I don't have time to check it, but I am guessing that this is the chalkiest state of affairs at this point in the tournament since the introduction of the 3 point line in 1987. Before tonight I noticed that this is the first time since 1995 that not a single double digit seed made it to the Sweet 16. We are also staring at potentially the first year without anything below a 3 seed in the Elite Eight since, well, shit - I don't know, my stats only go back to 1991 so at least before that.
March Madness 07: chalky as hell
Tonight I thought some lower seeds had a chance, but A&M totally bottled it at the end, and 5 seed Tennessee managed to somehow squander a 20 point lead with their opponents best player by a mile having 3 fouls in the first half - amazing.
1v2 and 1v2 on one half, and we may very well end up with 1v2 and 1v3 in the other half tomorrow. Can USC, UNLV, Butler or Vandy actually upset a top seed, or is this the year of the chalk?
Friday, March 16, 2007
Two Down, One To Go...
Dook is out.
Georgia Tech is out.
All I ask is that Florida to not repeat as champions. But if they were to also go out sometime this weekend, and I could have peace in my college basketball soul that was never achieved last year, then that would be almost too wonderful for words.
Here's hoping supreme pimp Lute Olson can get his Cats past Purdue and then shock the Gators on Sunday.
Also, be sure to keep up with the tournament over at Burnt Orange Nation: Peter Bean and Co. are all over it with great coverage and analysis.
Arsenal are away to Everton on Sunday morning in their less than exciting quest to ensure Champions League 2007-08 qualification. A goal that isn't a crazy deflection or own goal would be welcome and nice. I'll be taping the game and watching it later, as FC Red Stripes play a double-header: first taking on Team Swarm and then Cold Play. The weather here is supposed to be mid 70s and sunny, so no matter what it will just be great to be outside all day instead of in cubicle world.
Speaking of cubicle world, we got job offers from our new contractual overlords today, so going on the dole and traveling the West will have to wait a few months until they dump us after completing the transition from old contract to new. Corporate America = fun.
Finally, OMAA attended the ACC Tournament last weekend in Tampa, and he reported to me that Virginia Tech has a female student manager who is uber hott. So that is something for all of us to look for tonight.
I'm off to a sportsbar/footy pub called The Final Final to meet up with A10 and his crew to take in the games and imbibe the Friday Happy Hour goodness. I hope that VT student manager is as advertised...
A Happy Weekend To All, wherever you are and whatever you get into.
Georgia Tech is out.
All I ask is that Florida to not repeat as champions. But if they were to also go out sometime this weekend, and I could have peace in my college basketball soul that was never achieved last year, then that would be almost too wonderful for words.
Here's hoping supreme pimp Lute Olson can get his Cats past Purdue and then shock the Gators on Sunday.
Also, be sure to keep up with the tournament over at Burnt Orange Nation: Peter Bean and Co. are all over it with great coverage and analysis.
Arsenal are away to Everton on Sunday morning in their less than exciting quest to ensure Champions League 2007-08 qualification. A goal that isn't a crazy deflection or own goal would be welcome and nice. I'll be taping the game and watching it later, as FC Red Stripes play a double-header: first taking on Team Swarm and then Cold Play. The weather here is supposed to be mid 70s and sunny, so no matter what it will just be great to be outside all day instead of in cubicle world.
Speaking of cubicle world, we got job offers from our new contractual overlords today, so going on the dole and traveling the West will have to wait a few months until they dump us after completing the transition from old contract to new. Corporate America = fun.
Finally, OMAA attended the ACC Tournament last weekend in Tampa, and he reported to me that Virginia Tech has a female student manager who is uber hott. So that is something for all of us to look for tonight.
I'm off to a sportsbar/footy pub called The Final Final to meet up with A10 and his crew to take in the games and imbibe the Friday Happy Hour goodness. I hope that VT student manager is as advertised...
A Happy Weekend To All, wherever you are and whatever you get into.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
The Bad, The Ugly, and The Good
My day today was very similar to Dawg2K, otherwise known as The Outback Bowl game between Georgia & Purdue that I attended on January 1, 2000, where Georgia went down 0-22 before coming all the way back to win 25-22.
The Bad
The contractor that I work for lost the contract for the services that we provide to the customer 2 weeks ago, so uncertainty has definitely been rampant and morale low at the office. After not hearing a single word about what was going to happen from either our current employers or the new contract holders for 2 weeks, today at 10 the new contractors called, said that they were in the building, and would be interviewing us all starting in 45 minutes. Verrrrrry professional and lots of fun. It was Office Space times 20. My 'interview' lasted 10 minutes: who are you, what do you do here, give us your resume, give us your a paystub, how much do they pay you, what is your salary request, we'll decide whether to make a job offer by tomorrow morning, thanks for your time, have a nice day. No kissing, no AstroGlide, nothing. Hard, fast, cold, calculated, and distant.
Whatever - worst case scenario is we get thrown out on our asses, I go to the unemployment office, go on the dole for a month, and take a month or so off to detox and do some fun road-ruling down to Grand Canyon, up to Seattle, Yosemite, whatever, then go out and get another gig working for another man. So not the end of the world but it was just shitty the way the whole thing went down. A stressful, soul-sapping at the hands of the dark underbelly of corporate America, and uber-shitty day nonetheless.
But I decided in the afternoon that I wasn't going to let it ruin my day. Hell, it was mid 70s sunny and beautiful for the 7th day in a row - it's as if San Diego and the weather in San Diego got into a big fight, and the weather in San Diego moved out and came up to SF to clear her head for a while and figure out her next move. So I walked home and went up on the roof to chill out and let the stress of the day float away as I looked at the bay.
The Ugly
So I come downstairs and fire up the ol' PC, and I browse some of the sites on my daily look-at list. And it was surreal, bizarre, and straight up weird to click over to Dawg Sports and see a giant-ass picture of myself staring at me. Holy shit - I didn't even know there was a picture that big of my goofy ass out there on these internets. At least it was the one taken in the Georgia Dome parking lot after Georgia beat the living shit out of LSU in the 2005 SEC Championship game, so good memories all around - a true Kodak moment. Crazy, but it was so surreal that it made me laugh my ass off which was just what I needed.
The Good
Check that, the Greater Than Great: VCU 79-77 Dook. America rejoice - the most hated team in the land is out, and in the first round no less. Duke down, Gators & Jackets to go.
The games today were pretty weak, but this one was outstanding and I got to chill on the couch and savor it. And mad props to VCU for their penultimate possession, for their point guard did what most teams & coaches fail to do in the situation they were in {or maybe he just heard me yelling to him through the TV}. When your team is tied and you have the ball with about 45-50 seconds left, the smartest thing you can do is run your offense quickly {without rashly rushing} and get a good shot off around the 40 second mark, so that no matter what happens on your possession you do not give the ball to the other team where they will have the final possession {ncaa basketball = 35 seconds shot clock}. The concept is called "2 for 1", meaning with a tie game and 1 minute left, you do what I described so that you get 2 possessions and the other team only gets one- it certainly maximizes your chances to win, or at least maximizes your chances not to lose.
But amazingly and frustratingly, so many teams in this situation do not do this. They run the clock down and shoot with say 25 seconds, giving the other team one possession to tie, lead, or beat you. This places way more importance on that possession that just happened - your ass better score, and then you are much more often behind the 8ball.
So anyways, I'm yelling "2 for 1" at the TV, and damn if the dude from the little school, the cinderella on the big stage, doesn't keep his composure and do the heady smart thing and push the ball and take the shot with something like 39 seconds left. Up two and guaranteed to get the ball back - brilliant. Dook equalized but then they had 10 seconds to win it, and win it they did with 1.9 seconds left. If they hadn't done the smart thing then Dook's equalizer would have much more likely forced OT, and then VCU had a great chance of losing.
Anyhow, it was great to see VCU do the correct thing because so many times teams do not.
That, and Duke being sent out, basically made my day.
And now I'm going out with some friends to have some fun, so it's all good.
Hopefully better games tomorrow.
Oh, and that Comfort Inn commercial with the family that sings their personal version of the "I've Been Everywhere, Man" song is easily the most irritating commercial this year. So, yeah, I'm pretty excited that I will see that fucking thing 32, 786 times in the next 3 weeks.
The Bad
The contractor that I work for lost the contract for the services that we provide to the customer 2 weeks ago, so uncertainty has definitely been rampant and morale low at the office. After not hearing a single word about what was going to happen from either our current employers or the new contract holders for 2 weeks, today at 10 the new contractors called, said that they were in the building, and would be interviewing us all starting in 45 minutes. Verrrrrry professional and lots of fun. It was Office Space times 20. My 'interview' lasted 10 minutes: who are you, what do you do here, give us your resume, give us your a paystub, how much do they pay you, what is your salary request, we'll decide whether to make a job offer by tomorrow morning, thanks for your time, have a nice day. No kissing, no AstroGlide, nothing. Hard, fast, cold, calculated, and distant.
Whatever - worst case scenario is we get thrown out on our asses, I go to the unemployment office, go on the dole for a month, and take a month or so off to detox and do some fun road-ruling down to Grand Canyon, up to Seattle, Yosemite, whatever, then go out and get another gig working for another man. So not the end of the world but it was just shitty the way the whole thing went down. A stressful, soul-sapping at the hands of the dark underbelly of corporate America, and uber-shitty day nonetheless.
But I decided in the afternoon that I wasn't going to let it ruin my day. Hell, it was mid 70s sunny and beautiful for the 7th day in a row - it's as if San Diego and the weather in San Diego got into a big fight, and the weather in San Diego moved out and came up to SF to clear her head for a while and figure out her next move. So I walked home and went up on the roof to chill out and let the stress of the day float away as I looked at the bay.
The Ugly
So I come downstairs and fire up the ol' PC, and I browse some of the sites on my daily look-at list. And it was surreal, bizarre, and straight up weird to click over to Dawg Sports and see a giant-ass picture of myself staring at me. Holy shit - I didn't even know there was a picture that big of my goofy ass out there on these internets. At least it was the one taken in the Georgia Dome parking lot after Georgia beat the living shit out of LSU in the 2005 SEC Championship game, so good memories all around - a true Kodak moment. Crazy, but it was so surreal that it made me laugh my ass off which was just what I needed.
The Good
Check that, the Greater Than Great: VCU 79-77 Dook. America rejoice - the most hated team in the land is out, and in the first round no less. Duke down, Gators & Jackets to go.
The games today were pretty weak, but this one was outstanding and I got to chill on the couch and savor it. And mad props to VCU for their penultimate possession, for their point guard did what most teams & coaches fail to do in the situation they were in {or maybe he just heard me yelling to him through the TV}. When your team is tied and you have the ball with about 45-50 seconds left, the smartest thing you can do is run your offense quickly {without rashly rushing} and get a good shot off around the 40 second mark, so that no matter what happens on your possession you do not give the ball to the other team where they will have the final possession {ncaa basketball = 35 seconds shot clock}. The concept is called "2 for 1", meaning with a tie game and 1 minute left, you do what I described so that you get 2 possessions and the other team only gets one- it certainly maximizes your chances to win, or at least maximizes your chances not to lose.
But amazingly and frustratingly, so many teams in this situation do not do this. They run the clock down and shoot with say 25 seconds, giving the other team one possession to tie, lead, or beat you. This places way more importance on that possession that just happened - your ass better score, and then you are much more often behind the 8ball.
So anyways, I'm yelling "2 for 1" at the TV, and damn if the dude from the little school, the cinderella on the big stage, doesn't keep his composure and do the heady smart thing and push the ball and take the shot with something like 39 seconds left. Up two and guaranteed to get the ball back - brilliant. Dook equalized but then they had 10 seconds to win it, and win it they did with 1.9 seconds left. If they hadn't done the smart thing then Dook's equalizer would have much more likely forced OT, and then VCU had a great chance of losing.
Anyhow, it was great to see VCU do the correct thing because so many times teams do not.
That, and Duke being sent out, basically made my day.
And now I'm going out with some friends to have some fun, so it's all good.
Hopefully better games tomorrow.
Oh, and that Comfort Inn commercial with the family that sings their personal version of the "I've Been Everywhere, Man" song is easily the most irritating commercial this year. So, yeah, I'm pretty excited that I will see that fucking thing 32, 786 times in the next 3 weeks.
Et Tu, Kanu?
Sorry- today is 15 March: couldn't resist. I guess that makes me Brutus to March Madness's Caesar. It felt damn weird to walk to work today instead of down to the sportsbar, where right now I would be ordering breakfast rather than typing this. Sidenote - for a lifelong East Coaster, that in and of itself is weird, surreal, and bizarre: going to a sportsbar and ordering and eating breakfast while watching the first round of the tourney. Thankfully I have the Slingbox working for me so I'll be able to follow the action, if only one game at a time.
So I have done some cramming and reached out to a few people for some information. Specific & special thanks go out to Big East Ken for breaking down the Big East teams for me. This tiny amount of information plus all that I know from last year as well as trends and tendencies that I have observed over the years has led me to these sure to be wrong picks:
Florida survives Wisconsin to go to the Final Four
UCLA beats Kansas in an epic battle to go the Final Four
Georgetown frustrates Texas to go to the Final Four
Louisville shocks Ohio State to go to the Final Four
UCLA exacts revenge on the Mighty Gators for last year's title game beat down
Georgetown ends Louisville's Cinderella run by turning Pitino into a pumpkin
I'm picking UCLA to beat Georgetown in the title game mostly because there is a history of teams making it to the Final Four and losing one year, and then the next year getting back to the Final Four and winning it all thanks to their experience. As far as just the matchup, I would think Georgetown would actually win the game. They are basically "The Princeton Offense On Steroids" to use Big East Ken's words, and their style will be so difficult for any team to prepare for and play against. But unlike Princeton in the past, this team plays that style but also has a boatload of talent, so I wouldn't be surprised if they won the whole thing. But for some reason I am going with the 'been there and been close last year, return all of our talent, and this year we will get back and do the damn thing'.
So there it is.
The most important thing to root for, though, is what I first & foremost root for every year: the assurance that three teams that I despise cannot win it all. Every year I am not at peace and do not sleep well until Duke, Florida, and Georgia Tech have all been eliminated. Then I stand up from wherever I am sitting, dance a little jig, drink a beer, and move on with a glowing smile in my face and warm fuzzies in my soul. Sadly this moment never came to pass last year, so it is absolutely imperative that it does occur this year. Another damn Florida Gator National Title would really be unbearable.
Enjoy the Madness, have fun, and Happy Brackets.
So I have done some cramming and reached out to a few people for some information. Specific & special thanks go out to Big East Ken for breaking down the Big East teams for me. This tiny amount of information plus all that I know from last year as well as trends and tendencies that I have observed over the years has led me to these sure to be wrong picks:
Florida survives Wisconsin to go to the Final Four
UCLA beats Kansas in an epic battle to go the Final Four
Georgetown frustrates Texas to go to the Final Four
Louisville shocks Ohio State to go to the Final Four
UCLA exacts revenge on the Mighty Gators for last year's title game beat down
Georgetown ends Louisville's Cinderella run by turning Pitino into a pumpkin
I'm picking UCLA to beat Georgetown in the title game mostly because there is a history of teams making it to the Final Four and losing one year, and then the next year getting back to the Final Four and winning it all thanks to their experience. As far as just the matchup, I would think Georgetown would actually win the game. They are basically "The Princeton Offense On Steroids" to use Big East Ken's words, and their style will be so difficult for any team to prepare for and play against. But unlike Princeton in the past, this team plays that style but also has a boatload of talent, so I wouldn't be surprised if they won the whole thing. But for some reason I am going with the 'been there and been close last year, return all of our talent, and this year we will get back and do the damn thing'.
So there it is.
The most important thing to root for, though, is what I first & foremost root for every year: the assurance that three teams that I despise cannot win it all. Every year I am not at peace and do not sleep well until Duke, Florida, and Georgia Tech have all been eliminated. Then I stand up from wherever I am sitting, dance a little jig, drink a beer, and move on with a glowing smile in my face and warm fuzzies in my soul. Sadly this moment never came to pass last year, so it is absolutely imperative that it does occur this year. Another damn Florida Gator National Title would really be unbearable.
Enjoy the Madness, have fun, and Happy Brackets.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
That Being Said, I Still May Be Able To Help You With Your Brackets
This is a little wonky, so some of you will be interested and some will not, but what the hell.
If case you didn't quite understand what a college basketball dork I am/was from that last post, on my computer is an Excel spreadsheet titled "NCAA Braket Analysis, 1991-2006.xls". I figured the best I can offer this year is to share some of this info with you, as it may help you tweak your bracket before you submit it.
Disclaimer: this data should never be used to fill out a bracket; the bracket should always be filled out first using whatever methodology you use. This data can be helpful in perhaps going back and tweaking a few picks here and there to ensure that what you picked falls with the normal range over time of what has actually occurred, so that you don't submit something whose odds of happening are miniscule, thus reducing your chances of taking your co-workers money. Now then...
FIRST ROUND
First Round Upsets
Now look over your brackets and just compare the numbers that you have with this historical data. There is no need to adjust anything unless what you have is waaaaay out of range. I just try to make sure that I'm not way out of bounds. As most folks know, a 16 has never beaten a 1 seed. A 2 seed has only lost 4 times in the last 16 years, and never 2 in the same year, so for example if you have three different 2 seeds losing to 15 seeds, then you might want to adjust your picks and play the percentages. The 5/12 games get alot of publicity, but don't forget that a 13 seed beats a 4 seed more years than not, and the 11 seeds do pretty well against the 6 seeds. The 8v9 games are not listed because to me a 9 seed beating and 8 seed isn't really an upset. Again, just be sure that you are somewhere in the ballpark, or even on the edge or just a little out of bounds, but if you have all four 11 seeds beating the 6 seeds you may want to adjust. Hell it may happen this year, but if I was in an office pool I would want to maximize my percentages against the others and save the totally wacky-ass bullshit for talk at the sportsbar.
SECOND ROUND
#1 Seed Losing In The Second Round
All four 1 seeds get through to the 2nd weekend more often than not, so if you have this then there is no need to worry. But if you have one, or even have the stones to pick two #1 seeds to lose to the winner of the 8v9 game then the data says you are not crazy and to rock on with your bad self. If you have 3 or all 4 #1 seeds going out in the 2nd round, you may want to think about adjusting your picks.
#2 Seed Losing In The Second Round
As you can see, the #2 seeds fare much worse than the #1 seeds. I won't get into why I think this is so, but you may want to think about having a 2 seed eat it in the second round, as all four haven't made it through to the Sweet Sixteen in a decade.
THE SWEET SIXTEEN
Seeds Below 5 In the Sweet 16
Look at your brackets and count up the number of seeds below #5 seeds that you have in the Sweet Sixteen. In the last 16 years this number has always been between 3 and 8, so ideally you would want to be in this range, but if you have 2 or 9 then I wouldn't worry too much. I also have listed the breakdown of the seeds that advanced each year in addition to the number of teams that made it this far.
The main trend to notice in this set of data is how well the 6 seeds do, as well as the winner of the 7v10 game {more on that in the next section though}. Historically 6 seeds have had success in the 2nd round against the winner of the 3v14 game, which by and large boils down to the fact that 6 seeds often upset 3 seeds in the 2nd round. In fact, every single year sine 1992 at least one 6 seed makes it to the Sweet Sixteen, and often more than one do- the vast majority of their 2nd round wins come over 3 seeds. If I didn't have any 6 seeds in the Sweet Sixteen I would strongly consider going back and picking at least one of them to make it to the second weekend. The trick, of course, is picking the right one...
Bottom line at this point you don't want your bracket to be too chalky {you have all the top seeds advancing}, nor do you want it to be such an upset-o-rama that it is way outside the norm.
Double Digit Seeds In The Sweet 16
Look again at your Sweet 16: do you have any double digit seeds {10 seed or lower} in there? Every year except 1 of the last 16 at least 1 has made it.
Notice the trend here of how well the 10 seeds are represented. What does this mean? It means that if a 10 seed beats a 7 seed and matches up with a 2 seed in the 2nd round, that 2 seed should be on upset alert, because in 10 of the last 16 years at least one such 10 seed has gone through to the Sweet 16. For all the hype that the 12 seeds get in beating the 5 seed in the first round {the media always point out the the "classic 12 over 5 upset"}, the 10 seeds do even better than the 12 seeds in the 2nd round. Last year was the first year in almost a decade that all four 2 seeds made it to the 2nd weekend. Also, if you look back up at the data set before this one, and look at all of the 7 and 10 seeds, that tells you that the winner of the 7v10 game has a great shot of getting past the 2 seed and onto the Sweet Sixteen. I always pick what I think the weakest 2 seed is to lose {or if I think a 7/10 winner is especially strong, or if a 2 seed is a team that I hate and really would love to see go out, like Dook, Florida, or Georgia Tech}.
ELITE EIGHT
Seeds Below #3 In Elite Eight
Many beginners get to this point and have all #1 and #2 seeds. Check your bracket for the number of teams seeded 4 or below in your final eight. You definitely should have at least one, and if the data is an accurate predictor, not more than 5. Personally, I would be comfortable with between 1-3.
FINAL FOUR
Seeds Below #2 In Final Four
In each of the last 13 years and in 15 of the last 16 years, at least one of the Final Four participants has been lower than a 2 seed. Also in 3 of the last 4 years at least 2 of the spots have gone to 3 seeds or lower. I would just make sure that you didn't have zero here {all four spots being either a 1 or a 2 seed} or a four{all 4 slots being 3 seeds or worse}
The Seeds Of The Final Four Participants
If you have all four of the #1 seeds in your Final Four, then you are brave, for it has never happened. On the other hand, last year was the first time ever that none of the #1 seeds made it, so you never know.
I have seen the final four seeds wonked thusly: add up the seed #s of your final four members. In 14 of the last 16 years the number would be between 7 and 13, with wacky year 2000 having a high number of 15 and last years wackiness being an extreme outlier with at total of 20.
THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME
Seeds Of The Championship Game Participants
Basically, the data says that you should have at least one #1 or #2 seed in the title game. If you have a 4 seed against a 6 seed here, then I applaud you for your moxie but the numbers say you won't win your office pool. In fact, then numbers say anything 3 v 3 or lower will not happen even though that sounds pretty feasible.
Seed Of The NCAA Champion
The outlier here is one of my favorite teams ever, the 1997 Arizona Wildcats, who amazingly beat three different #1 seeds en route to their championship, making them the only team to ever accomplish that feat and establishing a record that can only be equaled but never surpassed.
So there it is, by the numbers. Again, I am not saying to fill out your brackets to meet these requirements, but to fill out your brackets and then cross check them against this data, which should not be viewed as requirements but as a guideline or baseline or whatever you like.
I like this information because I find that it helps to know basically the number of upsets that likely will happen in each round. The trick, of course, is choosing where to pick your upsets and where to have the favorites advance. That, my friends, is what separates the office pool contributors from the office pool collectors.
Happy Brackets and best of luck. Unless you have Florida or Dook winning the national title that is - then I hope that you fail miserably.
If case you didn't quite understand what a college basketball dork I am/was from that last post, on my computer is an Excel spreadsheet titled "NCAA Braket Analysis, 1991-2006.xls". I figured the best I can offer this year is to share some of this info with you, as it may help you tweak your bracket before you submit it.
Disclaimer: this data should never be used to fill out a bracket; the bracket should always be filled out first using whatever methodology you use. This data can be helpful in perhaps going back and tweaking a few picks here and there to ensure that what you picked falls with the normal range over time of what has actually occurred, so that you don't submit something whose odds of happening are miniscule, thus reducing your chances of taking your co-workers money. Now then...
FIRST ROUND
First Round Upsets
| Year | 15v2 | 14v3 | 13v4 | 12v5 | 11v6 | 10v7 |
| 2006 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 2005 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2004 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| 2003 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 2002 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 2001 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 2000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 1999 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| 1998 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 1997 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 1996 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 1995 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 1994 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 1993 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 1992 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 1991 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
Now look over your brackets and just compare the numbers that you have with this historical data. There is no need to adjust anything unless what you have is waaaaay out of range. I just try to make sure that I'm not way out of bounds. As most folks know, a 16 has never beaten a 1 seed. A 2 seed has only lost 4 times in the last 16 years, and never 2 in the same year, so for example if you have three different 2 seeds losing to 15 seeds, then you might want to adjust your picks and play the percentages. The 5/12 games get alot of publicity, but don't forget that a 13 seed beats a 4 seed more years than not, and the 11 seeds do pretty well against the 6 seeds. The 8v9 games are not listed because to me a 9 seed beating and 8 seed isn't really an upset. Again, just be sure that you are somewhere in the ballpark, or even on the edge or just a little out of bounds, but if you have all four 11 seeds beating the 6 seeds you may want to adjust. Hell it may happen this year, but if I was in an office pool I would want to maximize my percentages against the others and save the totally wacky-ass bullshit for talk at the sportsbar.
SECOND ROUND
#1 Seed Losing In The Second Round
| Year | Number |
| 2006 | 0 |
| 2005 | 0 |
| 2004 | 2 |
| 2003 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 2 |
| 1999 | 0 |
| 1998 | 1 |
| 1997 | 0 |
| 1996 | 1 |
| 1995 | 0 |
| 1994 | 0 |
| 1993 | 0 |
| 1992 | 1 |
| 1991 | 0 |
All four 1 seeds get through to the 2nd weekend more often than not, so if you have this then there is no need to worry. But if you have one, or even have the stones to pick two #1 seeds to lose to the winner of the 8v9 game then the data says you are not crazy and to rock on with your bad self. If you have 3 or all 4 #1 seeds going out in the 2nd round, you may want to think about adjusting your picks.
#2 Seed Losing In The Second Round
| Year | Number |
| 2006 | 2 |
| 2005 | 2 |
| 2004 | 2 |
| 2003 | 2 |
| 2002 | 1 |
| 2001 | 2 |
| 2000 | 3 |
| 1999 | 3 |
| 1998 | 1 |
| 1997 | 2 |
| 1996 | 0 |
| 1995 | 0 |
| 1994 | 1 |
| 1993 | 2 |
| 1992 | 1 |
| 1991 | 1 |
As you can see, the #2 seeds fare much worse than the #1 seeds. I won't get into why I think this is so, but you may want to think about having a 2 seed eat it in the second round, as all four haven't made it through to the Sweet Sixteen in a decade.
THE SWEET SIXTEEN
Seeds Below 5 In the Sweet 16
| Year | Number | Seeds | |
| 2006: | 5 | 6,7,7,11,13 | |
| 2005 | 6 | 6,6,6,7,10,12 | |
| 2004 | 5 | 6,7,8,9,10 | |
| 2003 | 4 | 6,7,10,12 | |
| 2002 | 5 | 6,8,10,11,12 | |
| 2001 | 6 | 5,6,7,10,11,12 | |
| 2000 | 8 | 6,6,6,7,8,8,10,10 | |
| 1999 | 7 | 6,6,10,10,10,12,13 | |
| 1998 | 5 | 6,6,8,10,13 | |
| 1997 | 6 | 6,6,6,10,10,14 | |
| 1996 | 3 | 6,8,12 | |
| 1995 | 3 | 6,6,6 | |
| 1994 | 4 | 6,9,10,12 | |
| 1993 | 5 | 6,6,7,7,12 | |
| 1992 | 5 | 6,6,7,9,12 | |
| 1991 | 3 | 10,11,12 |
Look at your brackets and count up the number of seeds below #5 seeds that you have in the Sweet Sixteen. In the last 16 years this number has always been between 3 and 8, so ideally you would want to be in this range, but if you have 2 or 9 then I wouldn't worry too much. I also have listed the breakdown of the seeds that advanced each year in addition to the number of teams that made it this far.
The main trend to notice in this set of data is how well the 6 seeds do, as well as the winner of the 7v10 game {more on that in the next section though}. Historically 6 seeds have had success in the 2nd round against the winner of the 3v14 game, which by and large boils down to the fact that 6 seeds often upset 3 seeds in the 2nd round. In fact, every single year sine 1992 at least one 6 seed makes it to the Sweet Sixteen, and often more than one do- the vast majority of their 2nd round wins come over 3 seeds. If I didn't have any 6 seeds in the Sweet Sixteen I would strongly consider going back and picking at least one of them to make it to the second weekend. The trick, of course, is picking the right one...
Bottom line at this point you don't want your bracket to be too chalky {you have all the top seeds advancing}, nor do you want it to be such an upset-o-rama that it is way outside the norm.
Double Digit Seeds In The Sweet 16
| Year | Number | Seeds |
| 2006 | 2 | 11, 13 |
| 2005 | 2 | 10,12 |
| 2004 | 1 | 10 |
| 2003 | 2 | 10,12 |
| 2002 | 3 | 10,11,12 |
| 2001 | 3 | 10,11,12 |
| 2000 | 2 | 10,10 |
| 1999 | 5 | 10,10,10,12,13 |
| 1998 | 2 | 10,13 |
| 1997 | 3 | 10,10,14 |
| 1996 | 1 | 12 |
| 1995 | 0 | n/a |
| 1994 | 2 | 10,12 |
| 1993 | 1 | 12 |
| 1992 | 1 | 12 |
| 1991 | 3 | 10,11,12 |
Look again at your Sweet 16: do you have any double digit seeds {10 seed or lower} in there? Every year except 1 of the last 16 at least 1 has made it.
Notice the trend here of how well the 10 seeds are represented. What does this mean? It means that if a 10 seed beats a 7 seed and matches up with a 2 seed in the 2nd round, that 2 seed should be on upset alert, because in 10 of the last 16 years at least one such 10 seed has gone through to the Sweet 16. For all the hype that the 12 seeds get in beating the 5 seed in the first round {the media always point out the the "classic 12 over 5 upset"}, the 10 seeds do even better than the 12 seeds in the 2nd round. Last year was the first year in almost a decade that all four 2 seeds made it to the 2nd weekend. Also, if you look back up at the data set before this one, and look at all of the 7 and 10 seeds, that tells you that the winner of the 7v10 game has a great shot of getting past the 2 seed and onto the Sweet Sixteen. I always pick what I think the weakest 2 seed is to lose {or if I think a 7/10 winner is especially strong, or if a 2 seed is a team that I hate and really would love to see go out, like Dook, Florida, or Georgia Tech}.
ELITE EIGHT
Seeds Below #3 In Elite Eight
| Year | Number | Seeds |
| 2006 | 2 | 4, 11 |
| 2005 | 4 | 4, 5, 6, 7 |
| 2004 | 2 | 7, 8 |
| 2003 | 1 | 7 |
| 2002 | 3 | 5, 10, 12 |
| 2001 | 2 | 6, 11 |
| 2000 | 5 | 5, 6, 7, 8, 8 |
| 1999 | 3 | 4, 6, 10 |
| 1998 | 1 | 8 |
| 1997 | 2 | 6, 10 |
| 1996 | 2 | 4, 5 |
| 1995 | 2 | 4, 4 |
| 1994 | 1 | 9 |
| 1993 | 1 | 7 |
| 1992 | 3 | 4, 6, 6 |
| 1991 | 2 | 4, 10 |
Many beginners get to this point and have all #1 and #2 seeds. Check your bracket for the number of teams seeded 4 or below in your final eight. You definitely should have at least one, and if the data is an accurate predictor, not more than 5. Personally, I would be comfortable with between 1-3.
FINAL FOUR
Seeds Below #2 In Final Four
| Year | Number | Seeds |
| 2006 | 3 | 3, 4, 11 |
| 2005 | 2 | 4, 5 |
| 2004 | 1 | 3 |
| 2003 | 2 | 3, 3 |
| 2002 | 1 | 5 |
| 2001 | 1 | 3 |
| 2000 | 3 | 5, 5, 8 |
| 1999 | 1 | 4 |
| 1998 | 2 | 3, 3 |
| 1997 | 1 | 4 |
| 1996 | 2 | 4, 5 |
| 1995 | 1 | 4 |
| 1994 | 1 | 3 |
| 1993 | 0 | n/a |
| 1992 | 2 | 4, 6 |
| 1991 | 1 | 3 |
In each of the last 13 years and in 15 of the last 16 years, at least one of the Final Four participants has been lower than a 2 seed. Also in 3 of the last 4 years at least 2 of the spots have gone to 3 seeds or lower. I would just make sure that you didn't have zero here {all four spots being either a 1 or a 2 seed} or a four{all 4 slots being 3 seeds or worse}
The Seeds Of The Final Four Participants
| Year | Seeds |
| 2006 | 2, 3, 4, 11 |
| 2005 | 1, 1, 4, 5 |
| 2004 | 1, 2, 2, 3 |
| 2003 | 1, 2, 3, 3 |
| 2002 | 1, 1, 2, 5 |
| 2001 | 1, 1, 2, 3 |
| 2000 | 1, 1, 5, 8 |
| 1999 | 1, 1, 1, 4 |
| 1998 | 1, 2, 3, 3 |
| 1997 | 1, 1, 1, 4 |
| 1996 | 1, 1, 4, 5 |
| 1995 | 1, 2, 2, 4 |
| 1994 | 1, 2, 2, 3 |
| 1993 | 1, 1, 1, 2 |
| 1992 | 1, 2, 4, 6 |
| 1991 | 1, 1, 2, 3 |
If you have all four of the #1 seeds in your Final Four, then you are brave, for it has never happened. On the other hand, last year was the first time ever that none of the #1 seeds made it, so you never know.
I have seen the final four seeds wonked thusly: add up the seed #s of your final four members. In 14 of the last 16 years the number would be between 7 and 13, with wacky year 2000 having a high number of 15 and last years wackiness being an extreme outlier with at total of 20.
THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME
Seeds Of The Championship Game Participants
| Year | Seeds |
| 2006 | 2, 3 |
| 2005 | 1, 1 |
| 2004 | 2, 3 |
| 2003 | 2, 3 |
| 2002 | 1, 5 |
| 2001 | 1, 2 |
| 2000 | 1, 5 |
| 1999 | 1, 1 |
| 1998 | 2, 3 |
| 1997 | 1, 4 |
| 1996 | 1, 4 |
| 1995 | 1, 2 |
| 1994 | 1, 2 |
| 1993 | 1, 1 |
| 1992 | 1, 6 |
| 1991 | 2, 3 |
Basically, the data says that you should have at least one #1 or #2 seed in the title game. If you have a 4 seed against a 6 seed here, then I applaud you for your moxie but the numbers say you won't win your office pool. In fact, then numbers say anything 3 v 3 or lower will not happen even though that sounds pretty feasible.
Seed Of The NCAA Champion
| Year | Seed |
| 2006 | 3 |
| 2005 | 1 |
| 2004 | 2 |
| 2003 | 3 |
| 2002 | 1 |
| 2001 | 1 |
| 2000 | 1 |
| 1999 | 1 |
| 1998 | 2 |
| 1997 | 4 |
| 1996 | 1 |
| 1995 | 1 |
| 1994 | 1 |
| 1993 | 1 |
| 1992 | 1 |
| 1991 | 2 |
The outlier here is one of my favorite teams ever, the 1997 Arizona Wildcats, who amazingly beat three different #1 seeds en route to their championship, making them the only team to ever accomplish that feat and establishing a record that can only be equaled but never surpassed.
So there it is, by the numbers. Again, I am not saying to fill out your brackets to meet these requirements, but to fill out your brackets and then cross check them against this data, which should not be viewed as requirements but as a guideline or baseline or whatever you like.
I like this information because I find that it helps to know basically the number of upsets that likely will happen in each round. The trick, of course, is choosing where to pick your upsets and where to have the favorites advance. That, my friends, is what separates the office pool contributors from the office pool collectors.
Happy Brackets and best of luck. Unless you have Florida or Dook winning the national title that is - then I hope that you fail miserably.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)