Meh.
Everyone feels the need to pick a 5/12. I'll take the hbbiq'ers and my own eyes (lbbiq) over espn's experts.
Plenty of people have us winning this game as well.
I don't disagree. I was just surprised that it was such a landslide.
Finally, after three snooze-inducing dances, the 2010 tournament put the insanity...
back in March Madness. Last year's 11 upsets didn't quite match the record 13-upset
tourneys (1985, 1986, 1990 and 2002). But following the stretch of predictable
tournaments, 2010 was downright out of control by comparison. Remember what
came before last year:
• 2009 marked the only tourney of the 26-year 64-team era in which all 12 one
through three seeds made it to the Sweet 16.
• 2008 was the only tournament in which all top seeds reached the Final Four.
• And the 2007 tournament was by far the chalkiest dance of the modern era,
with only three upsets.
So what kind of tourney can we expect in 2011 -- another upset-laden affair like
2010 or a return to the sanity of the previous three? In the past four seasons, I've
predicted that the tournament would get crazy, but this was based more on my own
mischievous wishes than hard numbers. Before last year's tourney, however, I
discovered a connection between efficiency statistics and tourney unpredictability.
If you're not familiar with Ken Pomeroy's possession-based stats, they are very
helpful (kenpom.com). Last year, those numbers revealed that the top 10 teams in
the tourney had significantly lower efficiency numbers than their counterparts the
previous six years. As it turned out, those top teams posted the worst winning
percentage in the tourney of any year I studied. This year's top 10 teams have even
lower efficiency numbers than 2010. To examine the numbers, check out my blog on
bracketscience.com. My guess: we're in for another wacky, upset-heavy tourney.
Regardless of how crazy the 2011 tournament gets, it's likely that your bracket pool
will be won by the person who can identify the right favorites to fall. Last year, the
few who picked Butler over Syracuse had a big advantage.
Of course, Cinderella-spotting is tricky. Settle on the wrong high-seed victim and
your bracket collapses the first weekend. However, picking the right underdogs and
paper tigers isn't all guesswork. Upset victors and victims share common attributes.
When you know what they are, it's easier to sniff out the upsets. Let's examine the
factors that correlate with upsets and identify the 2011 tourney dark horses and
vulnerable powerhouses. If you only want to cut to the chase and see how these
rules impact the 2011 tourney, just search on "2011 impact."
When is a win an upset?
Not every game in which a lower-seeded team knocks off a higher seed is an upset.
Nobody's going to fit a glass slipper on a nine seed that beats an eight seed in Round
1. It's only when you get a gap of at least four seed positions between opponents
that a game has upset potential.
Surprisingly, two-thirds of tourney games meet this condition. Of the 1,638 games
that have been played in the last 26 years, 1,088 of them have pitted longshots
against favorites -- and the underdog has won 20 percent of the time. That's an
average of 8.4 upsets per tourney, or roughly two in every 15 games. This chart
shows the round-by-round results of upset games in the 64-team era.
Because of the way the bracket is set up, most upset match-ups occur in the first
three rounds. Of the 1,456 games played in these rounds, 1,046, or 72 percent,
have been upset match-ups. Picking these upsets correctly -- or at least minimizing
the number of victims you advance -- is essential to building a winning bracket.
While first-round upsets grab most of the attention, the upsets in the second and
third rounds do the most damage to your bracket. Only 20 of the 110 opening-round
upset victims are teams seeded one, two or three. The top three seeds are a
dominating 292-20 (.936) against first-round dark horses. Only about one in 16 top-
three seeded teams will fall victim to an upset in Round 1. To put it another way,
less than one top-three seed will lose per tourney. That's why third-seeded
Georgetown's loss last year to 14 seed Ohio was such a big deal.
It's a different story in Round 2, where the top three seeds are just 179-55 against
Cinderellas. That's a solid .765 winning rate, but nowhere near the lockdown .936
rate of the frist round. Instead of only one in 16 teams losing, the top three seeds
lose one in every four games -- and more than two per year. They also comprise 77
percent (55 of 71) of the upsets. Last year, three top-three seeds got slayed in
Round 2. Kansas lost to Northern Iowa (compliments of Ali Farokhmanesh) [tee hee!] , two seed
Villanova lost to St.Mary's and three seed New Mexico lost to Washington.
The Sweet 16 isn't as treacherous for the top three seeds as Round 2, but it isn't a
first-round cakewalk, either. Of the 29 third-round upsets of the modern era, 19 (or
66 percent) have involved teams seeded one, two or three. But they do have a .824
winning rate against long shots (89-19). Not surprisingly, top seeds have the least
trouble with Cinderellas (48-6, .889), followed by two seeds (27-7, .794), then three
seeds (14-6, .700)
Upsets among the top three seeds are so rare in the Sweet 16 that less than one
occurs per tourney, on average. But don't tell that to Syracuse and Ohio State. Both
high seeds got upset in round three -- the Orange to five seed Butler and the
second-seeded Buckeyes to six seed Tennessee.
Upset Prediction Value: Balancing forecasting accuracy with frequency
Before we dive into the anatomy of upsets, you need to ask yourself: What kind of
an upset oracle do you want to be -- accurate or prolific? You could create an
elaborate rule that has never failed to predict an upset. But the rule would certainly
apply to just a handful of games. By the same token, you could pick every upset -- if
you're willing to be wrong 80 percent of the time -- and finish last in your pool.
In determining which factors influence upset prediction, you have to balance how
much the rule increases the odds of picking an upset (accuracy) with how many
upsets it describes (frequency). Here's an example: Long shots have won 17.6
percent of the games in which an upset could happen in Round 1. These giant killers
are rarely 15 or 16 seeds; 15 seeds are 4-100 against two seeds, and 16 seeds are
0-104 against top seeds. By eliminating these teams from consideration, you
improve your odds of picking an upset by 44.5 percent, with a 25.5 percent winning
rate (106-310). Just as important, 106 of 110 Cinderellas satisfy this rule. By
multiplying the increase (44.5 percent) above the typical upset rate by the percent of
upsets described (96.4 percent) we arrive at the upset prediction value (UPV), for
the "15/16-seed exclusion" rule: 42.9. When you evaluate rules by their UPV, you
can compare their relative worth in predicting upsets.
Three basic guidelines for Cinderella spotting
If the deadline for finishing your bracket is approaching, you may not have time to
dig into the nitty-gritty of upset probabilities. Still, it's worth knowing a few general
guidelines to boost your odds of picking an upset. Remember these three rules and
you'll dramatically improve your odds of spotting an upset.
1. Don't pick any long shots lower than a 13 seed. Sure, the bottom dwelling
seeds do spring an occasional upset, but it's at a much lower rate than higher-
seeded teams. These longshots are 22-309 (.066) against opponents with a seed
position at least four rungs higher than them -- hardly worth risking your bracket on.
2. Never pick a top seed to be an upset victim in the first three rounds. You
don't have to look any further back than the Kansas and Syracuse flame-outs last
year to know that top seeds can be toppled before the Elite Eight. But it's not worth
predicting. In the 262 games they've played against prospective Cinderellas, one
seeds have shattered the slipper 243 times. That's a 92.7 percent success rate --
much too strong to bet against.
3. Don't pick any Cinderellas in the first two rounds that score less than 65
points and have a scoring margin less than 3.5 points per game. These
squads are only 17-63 (.212), while their higher-scoring, more comfortable-winning
counterparts are 129-274 (.320).
2011 impact: Cinderellas satisfying these three simple guidelines are 152-325
(.319). Long shots typically win at just a 20.1 percent rate (210-836) in the first
three rounds. So the three guidelines above improve your upset accuracy by 58.7
percent. And they describe 72.4 percent of the upsets. Putting the accuracy and
frequency improvements together, our three guidelines lead to a 42.5 UPV.
Upset rules for matchups in the first three rounds
If you're willing to examine potential upset squads more carefully, you can boost
your upset-spotting success rate to the point where you're right more often than
you're wrong. Here's what you need to do in each round:
Round 1: Take high-scoring 11 seeds, frontcourt-dominant 12 seeds with
tourney-tested coaches, and 13 seeds with experienced coaches that
soundly beat opponents. Even if you're going to examine the opening round more
closely, it doesn't pay to pick a Cinderella lower than a 13 seed. That restricts your
choices to 4 vs. 13, 5 vs. 12 and 6 vs. 11 match-ups. In those games, look more
favorably on underdogs with these attributes:
...
Take 12 seeds that have been to the previous dance and get more than 48
percent of their points from the frontcourt. These 12 seeds are 16-8; others
are 19-61.
2011 impact: Utah State, Clemson and Richmond all have the numbers to
spring a surprise
...
From the Elite Eight to the finals: Pick solid-scoring Big Six teams with
experienced coaches. Upset games in the final three rounds of the tourney are few
and far between. Of the 182 games from the Elite Eight to the finals, only 42 (23.1
percent) have involved match-ups with upset potential, and the favorite is 33-9 in
those games. How do you sort out the Cinderellas? Concentrate on teams from the
Big Six conferences that score at least 71.5, beat opponents by 4.7 or more points a
game and have coaches who've been to the dance more than twice. These teams are
7-7, while all others are just 2-26.
2011 impact: At this point in your bracket, you're talking five through 11 seeds.
And depending on what picks you've made up to this point, many of these teams
already will be out of your bracket. But if you get a wild hair, here are the only
teams that satisfy these conditions: Arizona, Kansas State, Washington, Michigan,
Villanova and Missouri.
...
The value of identifying high-seeded upset victims
While it might be a nice ego boost to be an expert Cinderella spotter, it's probably
not going to help you build a winning bracket. If your main goal is to climb to the top
of your pool, it's more important to know the upset victims to avoid than the
perpetrators to advance. Just as Cinderellas possess common traits, there are
definite qualities that first- through sixth-seeded victims possess. The following
guidance will help you identify high-seeded squads that are most likely to perform
below seed expectations and suffer a shocking defeat.
...
Five seeds that lose to 12 seeds in Round 1 -- Five seeds have won nearly two-
thirds of their first-round match-ups with 12 seeds (69-35, .663). But five seeds with
a certain make-up lose more often than they win. Beware of favorites with any of
these seven qualities:
• They didn't go to the previous tourney. [We did]
• They have a pre-dance losing streak of two or more games. [Not us]
• They've won fewer than five of their last 10 pre-tourney games. [Not us]
• Their strength of schedule is ranked weaker than 90. [Not us]
• They score fewer than 66 points a game. [We score 73]
• They don't have any junior or senior starters. [Jake, Curt, JamSam]
• Their combined rebounding/turnover margin is lower than two possessions. [38/15 - so not us]
Five seeds possessing any of these attributes are only 20 for 24 (45.4 percent) in
avoiding first-round upsets. Meanwhile, all other five seeds are 81.7 percent
proficient (49 for 60) in dispatching 12 seeds.
2011 impact: Arizona is the only potential victim here.
I'm guaranteeing a victory. Utah State is a team that matches up poorly with us.
I'm sure Jake was watching is like :bracketmouse:
They have 30 wins and are Top 20 in both polls. Of course people are going to pick them. But I highly doubt any of those guys has a) seen more than the ESPN highlights of any of their games or b) has taken serious look at their schedule and who they've beaten.
Again, I'm not guaranteeing a victory or anything like that, but Utah State is a team that matches up poorly with us. We've played plenty of grinder teams and grinder games, and more often than not we've won them. Against much more talented grinder teams than Utah State. If anything, we've become a pretty decent grinder team ourselves, but we do want a 65 possession grinder.
Not a big fan of moonwalking bracketmice, FWIW. Kinda looks like we're doing our best to run away from a shitstorm but are being pulled helplessly into the death pit. :dunno::bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse:
makes me think of the best-selling album of all-time. we're on top of the world, bro.Not a big fan of moonwalking bracketmice, FWIW. Kinda looks like we're doing our best to run away from a cacstorm but are being pulled helplessly into the death pit. :dunno::bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse:
Not a big fan of moonwalking bracketmice, FWIW. Kinda looks like we're doing our best to run away from a cacstorm but are being pulled helplessly into the death pit. :dunno::bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse:
They have 30 wins and are Top 20 in both polls. Of course people are going to pick them. But I highly doubt any of those guys has a) seen more than the ESPN highlights of any of their games or b) has taken serious look at their schedule and who they've beaten.
Again, I'm not guaranteeing a victory or anything like that, but Utah State is a team that matches up poorly with us. We've played plenty of grinder teams and grinder games, and more often than not we've won them. Against much more talented grinder teams than Utah State. If anything, we've become a pretty decent grinder team ourselves, but we do want a 65 possession grinder.
:bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse:
there's one for every win we're going to get in the tournamentNot a big fan of moonwalking bracketmice, FWIW. Kinda looks like we're doing our best to run away from a cacstorm but are being pulled helplessly into the death pit. :dunno::bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse: :bracketmouse:
That's a pretty great moonwalking group of mice.
seems like the experts believe we will either a) lose this game or b)make the final four :dunno:
grinder, grinding, grinderson, grinder, grinder, GUARANTEE, grinder, grinder
5-1????maybe that will stir up some anger??put a little junk in the yard...we seem to be a better team when our backs are against the wall, but seriously, I don't think we would have ten losses if we played their schedule.
Yeah. I'm pissed I waiting around through all of that USU love, just to watch them go 5-1 for the aggies. Whatevs.You sound like a squawk. Validate Me, jfc get a hold of yourself. go cats
My 5/12 upset this year is Richmond over Vandysamesies
Me TooMy 5/12 upset this year is Richmond over Vandysamesies
3 of USU's Top 7 are JC transfers(Pane, Green, and Bendall). Pane is in 1st yr from Midland JC, is 2nd on team in scoring and leads team in assists. Green is an absolute knock down shooter similar to Keiton Page(although
So what's my point? My point is that JC transfers, while slow to integrate into the lineup and often unpredictable, can still serve a purpose in mid-major college basketball.
3 of USU's Top 7 are JC transfers(Pane, Green, and Bendall). Pane is in 1st yr from Midland JC, is 2nd on team in scoring and leads team in assists. Green is an absolute knock down shooter similar to Keiton Page(although
So what's my point? My point is that JC transfers, while slow to integrate into the lineup and often unpredictable, can still serve a purpose in mid-major college basketball.
Purpose: Doberman Q@ food
3 of USU's Top 7 are JC transfers(Pane, Green, and Bendall). Pane is in 1st yr from Midland JC, is 2nd on team in scoring and leads team in assists. Green is an absolute knock down shooter similar to Keiton Page(although
So what's my point? My point is that JC transfers, while slow to integrate into the lineup and often unpredictable, can still serve a purpose in mid-major college basketball.
Purpose: Doberman Q@ food
I'm hoping your right, but Dwight Hardy, Gary Flowers, Darius Johnson-Odom, and Jimmy Butler are telling us to shut the hell up and recognize talent for talent, regardless of what route it may take to DI ball.
SOUTHEAST REGION
Best Bets
No. 12 Utah State (28.1 Giant Killer score, on a 100-point scale) vs. No. 5 Kansas State (42.6 Vulnerability score)
UPSET CHANCE: 40.2 percent
Utah State's case to be a Killer is pretty straightforward: By limiting its own turnovers (TOs on just 18.3 percent of possessions) and strangling opponents on the defensive boards (allowing opponents offensive rebounds on just 25 percent of misses, No. 2 in the country), Utah State minimizes the number of possessions opponents get. And by stopping shots inside and out (allowing an effective field goal percentage of just 43.3 percent, sixth-lowest in the NCAA), the Aggies minimize the value of opponent possessions, too. As a bonus, they hit 3s, shooting 35.8 percent from downtown. Meanwhile, Kansas State has two, uh, Giant problems: the Wildcats don't shoot well from inside (46.5 percent on 2-point attempts, 227th in the NCAA) and they throw the ball away (turnovers on 21.8 percent of possessions, ranking 265th). Switching to a smaller lineup and spread-out system in the second half of the season has seemed to help the Wildcats -- the triangle offense emphasizes the talents of G Jacob Pullen -- but then again, Kansas State went back to bad habits and lost to Colorado in the Big 12 quarterfinals. K-State is actually much better at the kind of play that characterizes Killers: The Wildcats are outstanding offensive rebounders and 3-point shooters. But those ingredients won't help them much at cooking up the kind of efficient, low-risk play that Giants need to stay safe early in the tournament.
If anything, our model underrates the chances of the absurdly-low-seeded Aggies, who are getting just 1 or 2 points in Vegas and who actually rank higher than Kansas State in the best advanced-metric systems. We're checking to see if our spreadsheets were intimidated by Frank Martin. In the meantime, watch this dog hunt.
Looked on the USU board and they had a thread asking how tall our players were. Like they thought height was the thing that makes our bigs good. :dunno:
They simply don't comprehend the shitstorm that is about to be released on their sorry assed 30 win team.
BITB says the Cats are not happy about all of this upset talk.