yes plz
Historical Performance of NCAA seeds
Filed under:
[Ed-M: Bumped anyway!]
I was going to put all this into a diary and make it totally clever and informative and interesting before the tournament really kicks off, but I'm not going to have the time to do that so, in lieu of that, some unanalyzed charts for your pleasure.
I got all this information by compiling data from running searches at this database: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/ncaa/mens-basketball/search/.
First I recorded the winning percentage of all 16 seeds in each round of the tournament:
|
|
Win % in Rounds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seed |
First |
Second |
Sweet 16 |
Elite Eight |
Final Four |
Championship |
|
1 |
100% |
88% |
82% |
60% |
56% |
64% |
|
2 |
96% |
67% |
72% |
48% |
48% |
36% |
|
3 |
85% |
60% |
49% |
50% |
62% |
38% |
|
4 |
79% |
54% |
32% |
64% |
22% |
50% |
|
5 |
66% |
55% |
18% |
86% |
50% |
0% |
|
6 |
68% |
52% |
35% |
23% |
67% |
50% |
|
7 |
60% |
29% |
33% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
8 |
46% |
19% |
67% |
50% |
33% |
100% |
|
9 |
54% |
7% |
25% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
10 |
40% |
45% |
37% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
11 |
32% |
36% |
33% |
50% |
0% |
0% |
|
12 |
34% |
51% |
6% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
13 |
21% |
18% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
14 |
15% |
13% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
15 |
4% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
16 |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
Then using this I calculated the percentage of chance a given seed had to get to each level of the tournament:
|
|
% Chance to make round |
|
|
|
||
|
Seed |
Second |
Sweet 16 |
Elite Eight |
Final Four |
Championship |
To win it all |
|
1 |
100.00% |
88.00% |
72.16% |
43.30% |
24.25% |
15.52% |
|
2 |
96.00% |
64.32% |
46.31% |
22.23% |
10.67% |
3.84% |
|
3 |
85.00% |
51.00% |
24.99% |
12.50% |
7.75% |
2.94% |
|
4 |
79.00% |
42.66% |
13.65% |
8.74% |
1.92% |
0.96% |
|
5 |
66.00% |
36.30% |
6.53% |
5.62% |
2.81% |
0.00% |
|
6 |
68.00% |
35.36% |
12.38% |
2.85% |
1.91% |
0.95% |
|
7 |
60.00% |
17.40% |
5.74% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
8 |
46.00% |
8.74% |
5.86% |
2.93% |
0.97% |
0.97% |
|
9 |
54.00% |
3.78% |
0.95% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
10 |
40.00% |
18.00% |
6.66% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
11 |
32.00% |
11.52% |
3.80% |
1.90% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
12 |
34.00% |
17.34% |
1.04% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
13 |
21.00% |
3.78% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
14 |
15.00% |
1.95% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
15 |
4.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
16 |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
Using this I calculated the expected wins for a team at each seed:
|
Seed |
Total wins Exp |
|
1 |
3.43 |
|
2 |
2.43 |
|
3 |
1.84 |
|
4 |
1.47 |
|
5 |
1.17 |
|
6 |
1.21 |
|
7 |
0.83 |
|
8 |
0.65 |
|
9 |
0.59 |
|
10 |
0.65 |
|
11 |
0.49 |
|
12 |
0.52 |
|
13 |
0.25 |
|
14 |
0.17 |
|
15 |
0.04 |
|
16 |
0 |
And using this I calculated the expected wins that each conference should get in this year's tournament:
|
|
Big East |
|
Big Ten |
|
PAC-10 |
|
Big 12 |
|
SEC |
|
ACC |
|
|
Seed |
# |
Ex.W |
# |
Ex.W |
# |
Ex.W |
# |
Ex.W |
# |
Ex.W |
# |
ExW. |
|
1 |
1 |
3.43 |
1 |
3.43 |
|
0 |
1 |
3.43 |
|
0 |
1 |
3.43 |
|
2 |
1 |
2.43 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
2.43 |
1 |
2.43 |
|
3 |
2 |
3.68 |
1 |
1.84 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
4 |
1 |
1.47 |
1 |
1.47 |
|
0 |
1 |
1.47 |
1 |
1.47 |
|
0 |
|
5 |
1 |
1.17 |
|
0 |
1 |
1.17 |
1 |
1.17 |
1 |
1.17 |
|
0 |
|
6 |
3 |
3.63 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
7 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
2 |
1.66 |
1 |
0.83 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
8 |
|
0 |
1 |
0.65 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
9 |
1 |
0.59 |
1 |
0.59 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0.59 |
|
0 |
|
10 |
|
0 |
2 |
1.3 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0.65 |
1 |
0.65 |
|
11 |
1 |
0.49 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0.49 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
12 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0.52 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
1 |
0.52 |
|
13 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
14 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
15 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
16 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
11 |
16.89 |
7 |
9.28 |
4 |
3.35 |
5 |
7.39 |
5 |
6.31 |
4 |
7.03 |
So, the B1G's 7 teams should total 9.28 wins based on seeding to meet historical expectations. Since Michigan is going to win six, I don't see this as being a problem at all.
March 16th, 2011 at 10:45 AM | 
8 9 game
8 9 game
March 16th, 2011 at 10:47 AM |
That one was surprising
That one was surprising
Especially given that 8 seeds are almost three times as successful in the second round.
This has nothing to do with Michigan football.
March 16th, 2011 at 11:14 AM |
Could be that 8th seeds get
Could be that 8th seeds get
Could be that 8th seeds get caught looking ahead to the next round compared to 9th seeds. Just a hypothesis though.
The Michigan Difference. Oh yea, it is real.
March 16th, 2011 at 11:59 AM |
It could also be the difference
It could also be the difference
between mediocre power-conference teams at 8 and strong mid-majors at 9.
My hypothesis looks decent when reading the list of 8/9 teams who've advanced to the Sweet 16. The only 8 seed not from a power conference to do so was Rhode Island in 1998 against Kansas; the only 9 seed from a power conference was Boston College in 1994 against North Carolina. (Kansas was victimized three times, North Carolina twice, Stanford twice - once by North Carolina - and then a bunch of schools once, including (sigh) Purdue and Michigan. Also, DePaul lost twice as a 1 between 1979 and 1985, when teams were seeded but the bracket wasn't 64 teams.)
March 19th, 2011 at 1:27 PM |
Yep
Yep
zLionsfan nailed it. For some reason 8 seeds tend to be mediocre power-conference teams while 9 seeds tend to be strong mid-majors. I think that matchup tends to favor the strong mid-major team.
March 16th, 2011 at 3:18 PM |
I had almost the opposite
I had almost the opposite
I had almost the opposite thought. I was thinking that because the eight seed is somewhat expected to win, there is more pressure on them. I think that a lot of teams "freak out" in the tournament with all the added attention, and maybe being a nine seed underdog takes away some of that pressure.
March 16th, 2011 at 11:01 AM |
So based on your first graph,
So based on your first graph,
So based on your first graph, Michigan is 100% guaranteed to win it all !!
I like it !!
Robinson also packed snow into a plastic bag for his return flight.
"Melted on the plane," he said.
March 16th, 2011 at 11:03 AM |
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
This has nothing to do with Michigan football.
March 16th, 2011 at 11:14 AM |
So just get to the finals...
So just get to the finals...
And then guaranteed to cut the nets down? Done.
March 16th, 2011 at 12:00 PM |
posted from iPhone
posted from iPhone
It will be fun to see Duke fail again. I hope Jalen is in the crowd for that game.
March 16th, 2011 at 5:48 PM |
Hey
Hey
At least we know if we make it to the championship we have a 100% to win!! GO BLUE!!!
It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.
March 16th, 2011 at 6:14 PM |
High risk high reward. Makes
High risk high reward. Makes
High risk high reward. Makes sense that historically M is highly unlikely to win second round game, but if they do, they have a legitimate shot at the Final Four
March 16th, 2011 at 7:05 PM |
I like it
I like it
#8 seed's chances look good to me
March 16th, 2011 at 8:12 PM |
How many years was this?
How many years was this?
March 16th, 2011 at 8:21 PM |
This includes all the data
This includes all the data
This includes all the data since the tournament went to 64 teams in '85.
This has nothing to do with Michigan football.
March 16th, 2011 at 9:39 PM |
I have been saying this all along
I have been saying this all along
The committee usually gets it right. If you aren't a one seed, or one of the best four teams, you don't have much of a chance to win. If you aren't at least a three, you pretty much have no chance, at least the last twenty years. That's why I don't think any bubble teams really have a reason to bitch. They weren't going to win, anyway.
March 19th, 2011 at 1:27 PM |
<Comment Deleted>
I was a little surprised to see the 46% to 54% in favor of the 9 seed. I know its a toss up but I would still expect for the slight lead all time to be in favor of the higher seed.
go blue!