Here is an itemized list of the model results.  Obviously picking all these upsets in the first round is not a smart strategy.  Utah State has failed in this model for 3 years.  Clemson you have to question playing late Tuesday and then early on Thursday.

We wanted to get these out there so we can discuss them after the games.

Our First Round Statistical Upsets:

(12) Utah State over Kansas State

(12) Clemson over West Virginia

(11) Gonzaga over St. John’s

(11) Marquette over Xavier

(10) Michigan State over UCLA

(10) Florida State over Texas A&M

(9) Illinois over UNLV

(9) ODU over Butler

Our Conditional First Round Upsets:

(12) Richmond over Vanderbilt

(11) Gonzaga over St. John’s

(11) Missouri over Cincinnati

(10) Michigan State over UCLA

(9) Tennessee over Michigan

Note:  Conditions nullify the Illinois-UNLV upset

Our Second Round Statistical Upsets

NONE

 

Our Second Round Conditional Upsets

       (5) K State over Wisconsin

       Need 2 double digit seeds from Gonzaga, Marquette, Missouri, Clemson, and Michigan State

 

Our Third Round Statistical Upsets

(3) Syracuse over (2) North Carolina

(3) BYU over (2) Florida

Our Third Round Conditional Upsets

(3) UConn over San Diego State

(4) Wisconsin over (1) Pitt – realize this doesn’t correspond with 2^nd round conditional

 

Our Fourth Round Statistical Upsets

NONE

 

Our Fourth Round Conditional Upsets

(1)    Select at least 3 teams that have been to a Final 4 since 1985

(2)    Pick no team that gets more than 30.5% of their points from 3 (Louisville, ND, Wisconsin)

(3)    Pick Duke or two teams from one conference

(4)    Make sure the seeds add up to between 7 and 13

 

The model likes Ohio State over Kansas, but the Irving coming back to Duke, all of this could change.  Also, be aware of Purdue having some issues on their team.

Good luck!

 

 

 

What isn’t a rule in our models, but could be with one more year of data?

BracketAnalytics.com is constantly re-evaluating our rules and with each tournament, we get new data to evaluate our rules. Right now there are two rules that are close to being added: Road Record and 3 point dependency.

You have probably heard me talk a lot about three point dependency. It is an excellent indicator of cumulative advancement, but it is not a good indicator in the early rounds because teams get hot (think Cornell last year).

The bottom line is that these rules are not yet statistically significant and passing our tests, so they don’t go in the model.

Here is a miniature version of what teams may be vulnerable because of these almost rules.

 

Clemson over UAB

Clemson was in the tournament last year, UAB was not.  Clemson has a higher Points Per Possession (PPP) ratio than UAB.  UAB relies way too heavily on the three-point FG.  Clemson has a stronger Strength of Schedule.

 

Southern Cal over VCU

Souther Cal has a higher PPP ratio than UAB.  VCU relies way too heavily on the three-point FG.  USC has a stronger Strength of Schedule.

 

UTSA over Alabama State

UTSA has a better PPP ratio.  They have a better Strength of Schedule.  Alabama State is dreadful on the free throw line.

 

UNC-Ashville over Arkansas-Little Rock

This game will be dreadful and I am the least confident in this one.  UNC-A has a higher PPP ratio, but there are no other indicators hitting on model.

Commentary on the Model and the Bracket

First thing first.  We have an ethical responsibility to disclose any conflicts of interest.  We are in Richmond, Virginia, and one of the co-founders went to two of the schools in the tournament and a spouse went to two of the schools so we want to reveal those schools to you.  Those schools are Virginia Commonwealth University, University of Richmond, Old Dominion, Connecticut, Pitt, and Penn State.

Now on to the brackets.  We feel the committee did a great job SEEDING the teams, but could have done better SELECTING the teams.  Simply picking Virginia Tech over Georgia would have improved the brackets exponentially.  Last year, 24 teams were mis-seeded according to our models, this year it is considerably less (more later on this).

Utah State.  Utah State has our models fooled.  The models like them, but the eyeball test does not.  They were in a similar position last year with Texas A&M and just didn’t compete.

When you are using the Interactive Bracket Builder, I would start by picking all the low risk teams in the first round, and then team’s without the “Lower Expected Point Production Risk”, then hit the Seed Evaluator button.   If your distributions show up as yellow or red, investigate the “Not in Last Year’s Tournament” risk, and then hit the Seed Evaluator again.  If you still have some red or yellow, here is our prioritized list of upsets by seed.  * represents schools that our teams has a relationship with (disclosure above, BOLD INDICATES THE MODEL PICKS AN UPSET WITHOUT CONDITIONAL FILTERS

9 Seeds

1.    Old Dominion*
2.    Illinois
3.    Tennessee
4.    Villanova

 

10 Seeds

1.      Michigan State
2.      Florida State
3.      Penn State*
4.      Georgia

 

11 Seeds

1.     Gonzaga
2.     Marquette
3.     Missouri

 

12 Seeds

1.     Richmond*
2.     Utah State

 

 

13 Seeds

1.     Belmont
2.     Oakland
3.     Morehead State

 

14 Seeds

1.       Wofford

The Seed Performance Table – Dazzle Your Friends

Tags: Bracketology, March Madness, 2011 Bracket

Here is a table of data on how each seed has done in the NCAA Tournament individually and collectively. I have also added the last time that all of the seeds won in the same year.



We have automated all of this in our Seed Evaluator, so all you have to do is point and click. Some of you may want to refer to this or dazzle your office colleagues with this information. It’s pretty interesting stuff.

This, to us, really highlights where and how often mis-seedings and team mis-behavior occurs.

A couple things that catch our eye. First, six seeds out performing five seeds. It makes sense that many teams would be mis-seeded in these games so they can avoid bracketing constraints. Really challenge the seed that each team gets and rationalize if the team was moved due to these constraints. Another thing that catches our eye is that 9 seeds are twice as likely to all win as 8 seeds, and 3 seven seeds is three times as likely to happen as 3 10’s. You can expect 2 10 seeds and 2 9 seeds to win, but if you have to adjust, take a third 9 and only one 10. Again, it really depends on the seeding.

We will be giving updates on Twitter and Facebook all day on Monday so please follow us (twitter @bracketanalytix).

Strategies for your NCAA Tournament Survivor Pool

A new popular pool format is a spin-off of the NFL survivor pool. Pick a team to win. You get points based on seed and round, you can’t pick that team again in a future round. Person with the most points wins.

The key is to pick the right seed at the right time. This article is designed to help you determine that.

We have looked at (1) The performance of each seed in each round, (2) adjusted the points based on that performance, and (3) provided you with the safety factor based on how many seeds have multiple winners in any given round. Finally, we give you a road map to the Final 4 so you have the best chance to win. Of course, you will need to subscribe to www.bracketanalytics.com to see who we recommend to pick specifically.

Once you get to the Final 4, you will be constrained on who you can pick, and we will blog about it during the tournament. Just remember that the champion has been a one seed, 16 out of 26 years. Two seeds have won four times and three seeds have won three times.

Round 1:



In the first round, the 12 seed provides the best risk-reward profile, but take caution this year. The 68 team format could adversely impact selecting a winner. The fact that a 13 seed has such a high probability of winning, it’s hard to ignore that, especially since 13 seeds perform so poorly going forward.

If you submit multiple entries, you may want to consider getting a 13, a 12, and possibly another 12.

Round 2:



In round 2, you should be eyeing a 12 seed, especially if two of them won. The next best return on investment is the 10 seed, and given that 42% of the time 2 or more 6 seeds advance to the Sweet 16, it is hard to ignore that safety factor.

Recommendation: Go with a 12 seed if you can, but have a 10 seed and 6 seed ready to go.

Round 3:



After the first weekend, you should have a good idea where you stand in the rankings and who your competition is or isn’t eligible to pick. The 10 seed and 6 seed remain viable options, with the 3 seed standing out as a good alternative.

Round 4:





If a four seed has upset a one seed to get to the Elite 8, this may be a good opportunity to select them, especially if they have some intangibles going for them (playing in their home state, etc.). With that in mind, this is a good time to pick a two seed as well. You probably don’t want to dip your toe into the one seeds yet as you will likely need them for insurance in the Final 4.

Making your picks in a survival pool face several constraints. You have to be just as concerned about when your team will lose the further you get through the journey. The second round pick, when so many double digit seeds are still alive is probably the most important pick in the tournament. One thing to keep in mind as well is that the more upsets there are in the first round, the fewer there are in the second round. Also, be cautious of any team that is too dependent on the three point shot, as they tend to exit sooner. Lastly, make sure your first round pick was in the tournament last year as the winning percentage for these teams is significantly higher.

We will be monitoring all of this at www.bracketanalytics.com so join today so that you have all the tools at your disposal to make your best possible pick.