"Someone asked me the other day if I'd trade all of my runs over 15 years for one Final Four," Few said recently. "Absolutely not. Are you kidding me? These seasons are six months long. We usually feel great for six months. One loss shouldn't ruin that. ... The tournament is a crapshoot. It shouldn't be everything. It's such a shallow thing to pin everything on"
-Mark Few
March 15, 2015
What runs? Beating up on a bunch of low majors then winning 2 games max in the Tourney before losing to a higher seed? Okay, then. I don't agree with him but that's just me.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 16, 2015, 01:23:29 AM
"Someone asked me the other day if I'd trade all of my runs over 15 years for one Final Four," Few said recently. "Absolutely not. Are you kidding me? These seasons are six months long. We usually feel great for six months. One loss shouldn't ruin that. ... The tournament is a crapshoot. It shouldn't be everything. It's such a shallow thing to pin everything on"
-Mark Few
March 15, 2015
A predictable position for a Crean apologist
Quote from: wadesworld on March 16, 2015, 06:20:57 AM
What runs? Beating up on a bunch of low majors then winning 2 games max in the Tourney before losing to a higher seed? Okay, then. I don't agree with him but that's just me.
Perhaps you've forgotten that we were one of those teams they beat up on in the 2010-2011 season.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 16, 2015, 01:23:29 AM
"Someone asked me the other day if I'd trade all of my runs over 15 years for one Final Four," Few said recently. "Absolutely not. Are you kidding me? These seasons are six months long. We usually feel great for six months. One loss shouldn't ruin that. ... The tournament is a crapshoot. It shouldn't be everything. It's such a shallow thing to pin everything on"
-Mark Few
March 15, 2015
hilarious...i know the year for MU that stands out the most for me is their final four run.
anything that is win or go home is a crapshoot, but only to a certain degree when many years are put into the equation...or guys like tom izzo are just the lucky bastards in the game.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 16, 2015, 01:23:29 AM
"Someone asked me the other day if I'd trade all of my runs over 15 years for one Final Four," Few said recently. "Absolutely not. Are you kidding me? These seasons are six months long. We usually feel great for six months. One loss shouldn't ruin that. ... The tournament is a crapshoot. It shouldn't be everything. It's such a shallow thing to pin everything on"
-Mark Few
March 15, 2015
Exact type of quote you'd expect from a head coach who's never made it past the Sweet 16.
Why not just start a "Why the Tournament is a crapshoot waste of time" thread and bump it every year? Yeesht...give it a rest. ::) ::) ::)
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 16, 2015, 07:33:01 AM
Exact type of quote you'd expect from a head coach who's never made it past the Sweet 16.
+1
Few is smart. Apparently, doesn't aspire to climb higher mountains, is makin' good money, and is treated like royalty in Spokane.
Few likes being a big fish in a small pond. See several of their games each year and couldn't believe people actually were speculating them as a one seed for a while
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 16, 2015, 07:33:01 AM
Exact type of quote you'd expect from a head coach who's never made it past the Sweet 16.
Yeah, the old "I'm great cause I win in the regular season and I'm unlucky because I can't win in the tournament" is as self serving as it gets. No wonder Chico loves the guy. Mark Few is like the golfer who has made a lot of money and maybe even won the John Deere Classic a couple of times but crapped the bed in the majors. Tell John Wooden, Bob Knight, Coach K. etc., that the tournament is all luck, a roll of the dice. And that it doesn't help define a career. It will give them a good laugh.
I'd be with Few (and Chicos) if that "run" included one Final Four or maybe even a couple of Elite Eights.
Gonzaga obviously is a well-run program that is at the top of the mid-major heap. But anytime it gets to nut-crunchin' time, it can't hang with the big boys.
It's a crapshoot, of course ... and shoot, Gonzaga always craps the bed.
It is simple statistical ignorance to say the NCAA is a "crapshoot." Here is the percentage of wins per seed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament#/media/File:NCAA_Wins-rank.png
Furthermore, here are the seeds to reach the Final Four.
#1 - 43 appearances (44.7%)
#2 - 20 appearances (20.8%)
#3 - 12 appearances (12.5%)
#4 - 9 appearances (9.4%)
#5 - 4 appearances (4.1%)
#6 - 3 appearances (3.1%)
#7 - 0 appearances (0%)
#8 - 3 appearances (3.1%)
#9 - 0 appearances (0%)
#10 - 0 appearances (0%)
#11 - 2 appearances (2.1%)
Seeds to win the championship:
#1 - 15 championships (62.5%)
#2 - 3 championships (12.5%)
#3 - 3 championships (12.5%)
#4 - 1 championships (4.2%)
#5 - 0 championships (0%)
#6 - 1 championships (4.2%)
#7 - 0 championships (0%)
#8 - 1 championships (4.2%)
If it were more random, as a "crapshoot" implies, these figures would be much more level than they are.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on March 16, 2015, 08:48:32 AM
Few is smart. Apparently, doesn't aspire to climb higher mountains, is makin' good money, and is treated like royalty in Spokane.
Yep. Making tons of money, treated like royalty, seems to enjoy his job. Sounds pretty darn smart to me....
Its the line Badger fans used to spout about Bo until last year. I doubt they say it now.
As for Gonzaga, they looked REALLY good early in the year. Beat down SMU, beat SJU and Georgia who are tourney teams, took Zona to OT on the road, and won 22 in a row after that. I think this may be the best team Few has had.
Quote from: Eckhart Tolle on March 16, 2015, 06:52:37 AM
A predictable position for a Crean apologist
Mark Few is a Crean apologist?
Quote from: GooooMarquette on March 16, 2015, 09:26:32 AM
Yep. Making tons of money, treated like royalty, seems to enjoy his job. Sounds pretty darn smart to me....
That's not the quote Chicos was calling him smart for though...
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 16, 2015, 07:33:01 AM
Exact type of quote you'd expect from a head coach who's never made it past the Sweet 16.
I guess when Coach K and Al McGuire said it, that nullifies your point...entirely. LOL
Tom Izzo is totally lucky.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on March 16, 2015, 09:25:01 AM
It is simple statistical ignorance to say the NCAA is a "crapshoot." Here is the percentage of wins per seed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament#/media/File:NCAA_Wins-rank.png
Furthermore, here are the seeds to reach the Final Four.
#1 - 43 appearances (44.7%)
#2 - 20 appearances (20.8%)
#3 - 12 appearances (12.5%)
#4 - 9 appearances (9.4%)
#5 - 4 appearances (4.1%)
#6 - 3 appearances (3.1%)
#7 - 0 appearances (0%)
#8 - 3 appearances (3.1%)
#9 - 0 appearances (0%)
#10 - 0 appearances (0%)
#11 - 2 appearances (2.1%)
Seeds to win the championship:
#1 - 15 championships (62.5%)
#2 - 3 championships (12.5%)
#3 - 3 championships (12.5%)
#4 - 1 championships (4.2%)
#5 - 0 championships (0%)
#6 - 1 championships (4.2%)
#7 - 0 championships (0%)
#8 - 1 championships (4.2%)
If it were more random, as a "crapshoot" implies, these figures would be much more level than they are.
And in comparison to the NBA and their best of 7, it isn't even close. That's why the term is used.
So in your mathematcial statistical prowess, exactly what do those figures have to be to be a crapshoot....how much more "level"? You do realize the term crapshoot is an analogy, yes? An analogy in terms of how the sports world functions in the playoff space, which is normally amazingly predictable year after year.
Let's also not forget there are FOUR #1 seeds, not just one #1 seed. Yet despite the multiple distribution set, they still can't even get there half the time. We're not talking a #1 seed from the west and one from the east, we're talking four #1 seeds.
One and done. Anything can happen.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 16, 2015, 09:42:35 AM
That's not the quote Chicos was calling him smart for though...
Actually I think his entire quote is smart. Go back to my days on Prodigy with MU as some of us have been posting for nearly 20 years about MU hoops. I've always divided the season up into different sections. Preseason, conference, post-season. You can be great for 6 months and have one bad day, it doesn't ruin a season in my opinion. People disagree, that's fine, but in the nature of college hoops where one two hour session can end 6 months of great work, I believe it is important to understand the true accomplishments throughout.
The same is true on the flip side where a team has been so so, Florida Gulf Coast, but gets hot for 3 weeks. So-so season, great post season. Two different things.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 16, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
And in comparison to the NBA and their best of 7, it isn't even close. That's why the term is used.
So in your mathematcial statistical prowess, exactly what do those figures have to be to be a crapshoot....how much more "level"? You do realize the term crapshoot is an analogy, yes? An analogy in terms of how the sports world functions in the playoff space, which is normally amazingly predictable year after year.
Let's also not forget there are FOUR #1 seeds, not just one #1 seed. Yet despite the multiple distribution set, they still can't even get there half the time. We're not talking a #1 seed from the west and one from the east, we're talking four #1 seeds.
One and done. Anything can happen.
There are also 4 2 seeds, 4 3 seeds, 4 4 seeds, 4 5 seeds, 4 6 seeds, 4 7 seeds, 4 8 seeds, 4 9 seeds, 4 10 seeds, 6 11 seeds, 4 12 seeds, 4 13 seeds, 4 14 seeds, 4 15 seeds, and 6 16 seeds. If the tournament were a crapshoot you would see a slightly higher percentage of 11 and 16 seeds making the Final Four and winning the title and the other seeds all having equal winning percentages. So you're just simply wrong.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 16, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
And in comparison to the NBA and their best of 7, it isn't even close. That's why the term is used.
So in your mathematcial statistical prowess, exactly what do those figures have to be to be a crapshoot....how much more "level"? You do realize the term crapshoot is an analogy, yes? An analogy in terms of how the sports world functions in the playoff space, which is normally amazingly predictable year after year.
Let's also not forget there are FOUR #1 seeds, not just one #1 seed. Yet despite the multiple distribution set, they still can't even get there half the time. We're not talking a #1 seed from the west and one from the east, we're talking four #1 seeds.
One and done. Anything can happen.
Anything can happen in a best of 7 as well. You are correct that the likelihood decreases with the one-off nature of the NCAA tournament. But the likelihood is that a top seed will win the tournament again this year.
And now the crapshoot is an "analogy." After years of repeating the same line over and over and over again, all of the sudden it becomes an "analogy."
OK...
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on March 16, 2015, 09:25:01 AM
It is simple statistical ignorance to say the NCAA is a "crapshoot." Here is the percentage of wins per seed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament#/media/File:NCAA_Wins-rank.png
Furthermore, here are the seeds to reach the Final Four.
#1 - 43 appearances (44.7%)
#2 - 20 appearances (20.8%)
#3 - 12 appearances (12.5%)
#4 - 9 appearances (9.4%)
#5 - 4 appearances (4.1%)
#6 - 3 appearances (3.1%)
#7 - 0 appearances (0%)
#8 - 3 appearances (3.1%)
#9 - 0 appearances (0%)
#10 - 0 appearances (0%)
#11 - 2 appearances (2.1%)
Seeds to win the championship:
#1 - 15 championships (62.5%)
#2 - 3 championships (12.5%)
#3 - 3 championships (12.5%)
#4 - 1 championships (4.2%)
#5 - 0 championships (0%)
#6 - 1 championships (4.2%)
#7 - 0 championships (0%)
#8 - 1 championships (4.2%)
If it were more random, as a "crapshoot" implies, these figures would be much more level than they are.
I think your data is a little old. UConn was a 7 seed last season.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on March 16, 2015, 09:53:45 AM
Anything can happen in a best of 7 as well. You are correct that the likelihood decreases with the one-off nature of the NCAA tournament. But the likelihood is that a top seed will win the tournament again this year.
And now the crapshoot is an "analogy." After years of repeating the same line over and over and over again, all of the sudden it becomes an "analogy."
OK...
The NCAA tournament is more of a crapshoot than the NBA playoffs and less of a crapshoot than many other playoffs (NFL, MLB, NHL, etc.). This can be proven to anyone with an understanding of very basic (think 3rd grade, nothing more complex than long division) math. Either it's over Chico's head or he's too stubborn to admit he's wrong but he clings to the provably false "biggest crapshoot in sports" narrative. All the facts in the world won't change that.
So some people would rather have 1 Final 4 run and miss the NCAA tournament for the other 14 years?
I guess Few's comments could be taken a number of ways but if that is the choice I'll take 15 years of fun over 14 years of pain and 1 year of joy.
Quote from: MuMark on March 16, 2015, 11:00:04 AM
So some people would rather have 1 Final 4 run and miss the NCAA tournament for the other 14 years?
I guess Few's comments could be taken a number of ways but if that is the choice I'll take 15 years of fun over 14 years of pain and 1 year of joy.
I agree with this. I mean a final four is great but would any of you trade the 8 years we had of the big 3 and the zar, then jimmy then DJO/Crowder then vander teams for just one final four?
The final 4 was magic, but by chico's definition doesn't matter. I enjoyed the sustained excellence every bit as much.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 16, 2015, 01:23:29 AM
"Someone asked me the other day if I'd trade all of my runs over 15 years for one Final Four," Few said recently. "Absolutely not. Are you kidding me? These seasons are six months long. We usually feel great for six months. One loss shouldn't ruin that. ... The tournament is a crapshoot. It shouldn't be everything. It's such a shallow thing to pin everything on"
-Mark Few
March 15, 2015
Guy who's never made it to the Final Four says making it to the Final Four is overrated.
Shocking.
Of course another way to look at it is if the Tourney is indeed a "crapshoot" then Few should have been able to make a longer run then the sweet 16 in at least 1 of those 15 years.
His teams were certainly good enough....he is defying the odds by having high seeded teams go out early year after year......
Maybe this is finally the season.....
Quote from: MuMark on March 16, 2015, 11:33:50 AM
Of course another way to look at it is if the Tourney is indeed a "crapshoot" then Few should have been able to make a longer run then the sweet 16 in at least 1 of those 15 years.
His teams were certainly good enough....he is defying the odds by having high seeded teams go out early year after year......
Maybe this is finally the season.....
This feels like one of the more complete teams he's had. Wiltjer has been a great find for them.
Now if someone were to say that Mark Few is a smart man because he has found a job he likes at a place he likes and has chosen to turn down offers for more money and exposure because he is content where he is... I would 100% agree with that.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on March 16, 2015, 09:53:45 AM
Anything can happen in a best of 7 as well. You are correct that the likelihood decreases with the one-off nature of the NCAA tournament. But the likelihood is that a top seed will win the tournament again this year.
And now the crapshoot is an "analogy." After years of repeating the same line over and over and over again, all of the sudden it becomes an "analogy."
OK...
I'll make sure to let Coach K, Mark Few, Jay Bilas, Jeff Goodman, etc, and others know....
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 16, 2015, 12:02:11 PM
I'll make sure to let Coach K, Mark Few, Jay Bilas, Jeff Goodman, etc, and others know....
I'm sure you've had dinner with all of them.
Quote from: The Lens on March 16, 2015, 09:45:58 AM
Tom Izzo is totally lucky.
Totally? Nah. Somewhat...yes.
Maybe his "skill" escaped him with his four exits in the first weekend.
It's a little bit of both....you gotta have the right matchups, a bit of luck, a lot of skill to get there.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 16, 2015, 12:03:28 PM
Totally? Nah. Somewhat...yes.
Maybe his "skill" escaped him with his four exits in the first weekend.
It's a little bit of both....you gotta have the right matchups, a bit of luck, a lot of skill to get there.
This....you incite reaction with your chosen terminology, but this statement here is reality. To insinuate the tournament is some sort of a random walk is disingenuous.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 16, 2015, 11:31:20 AM
Guy who's never made it to the Final Four says making it to the Final Four is overrated.
Shocking.
Coach K said it, he's made it to multiple ones.
SHOCKING
Quote from: MuMark on March 16, 2015, 11:33:50 AM
Of course another way to look at it is if the Tourney is indeed a "crapshoot" then Few should have been able to make a longer run then the sweet 16 in at least 1 of those 15 years.
His teams were certainly good enough....he is defying the odds by having high seeded teams go out early year after year......
Maybe this is finally the season.....
Same was said of Bo Ryan if I recall.....is anyone questioning Bo Ryan's coaching ability?
Quote from: wadesworld on March 16, 2015, 09:52:52 AM
There are also 4 2 seeds, 4 3 seeds, 4 4 seeds, 4 5 seeds, 4 6 seeds, 4 7 seeds, 4 8 seeds, 4 9 seeds, 4 10 seeds, 6 11 seeds, 4 12 seeds, 4 13 seeds, 4 14 seeds, 4 15 seeds, and 6 16 seeds. If the tournament were a crapshoot you would see a slightly higher percentage of 11 and 16 seeds making the Final Four and winning the title and the other seeds all having equal winning percentages. So you're just simply wrong.
That is correct, there are four of each.
Your definition is different than mine or that of the dictionary.
"something (as a business venture) that has an unpredictable outcome"
"An enterprise whose outcome is determined by chance."
"an unpredictable venture; gamble"
In the NBA, we can predict to 80%+ who is going to win the Finals. In the NCAA, it is less than 50%. It's less than a 50-50 call DESPITE the seeding. That's the biggest thing you need to remember. The 16 seed is never going to win the tournament because of how they are seeded. Yet despite the almost impossibility of a 16 or 15 or 14 seed winning it all, the top seeds still can't even win it 50% of the time.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 16, 2015, 12:09:50 PM
Coach K said it, he's made it to multiple ones.
SHOCKING
Coach K said making it to the Final Four is overrated?
Source? Link?
Quote from: MuMark on March 16, 2015, 11:33:50 AM
Of course another way to look at it is if the Tourney is indeed a "crapshoot" then Few should have been able to make a longer run then the sweet 16 in at least 1 of those 15 years.
His teams were certainly good enough....he is defying the odds by having high seeded teams go out early year after year......
Maybe this is finally the season.....
He just been unlucky, the dice haven't fallen his way. Only difference between Few and Wooden was John was luckier with the dice. And if you believe that....
Theyre gonna get rolled by Iowa St. in the sweet 16 this year
Quote from: Pakuni on March 16, 2015, 11:31:20 AM
Guy who's never made it to the Final Four says making it to the Final Four is overrated.
Shocking.
I know Few says he was just answering the question about whether he would trade 15 years of success for one Final Four appearance, but let's be realistic ... it is not a mutually exclusive situation.
I mean, how many teams in college basketball history have made a Final Four during their only appearance in the NCAA tournament over a 15-year span?
I'm guessing what we have here is a classic strawman: "Either it's 15 years of NCAA tourney appearances OR one Final Four and 14 years out of the tournament. Can't possibly have both at Gonzaga!"
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 16, 2015, 09:06:32 AM
Yeah, the old "I'm great cause I win in the regular season and I'm unlucky because I can't win in the tournament" is as self serving as it gets. No wonder Chico loves the guy. Mark Few is like the golfer who has made a lot of money and maybe even won the John Deere Classic a couple of times but crapped the bed in the majors. Tell John Wooden, Bob Knight, Coach K. etc., that the tournament is all luck, a roll of the dice. And that it doesn't help define a career. It will give them a good laugh.
So Mark Few is Steve Stricker?
Bo is legendary, ai na?
Quote from: tower912 on March 16, 2015, 11:36:09 AM
Now if someone were to say that Mark Few is a smart man because he has found a job he likes at a place he likes and has chosen to turn down offers for more money and exposure because he is content where he is... I would 100% agree with that.
Mark Few is not messing with happy.
Quote from: Eckhart Tolle on March 16, 2015, 06:52:37 AM
A predictable position for a Crean apologist
Doesn't matter what they did in those other "runs".
It's all about the power of now.
Look at it this way. Kevin Ollie one title and who knows, if he will ever make the tournament again vs Few who makes the tournament every year. Who would you rather be?
Quote from: bilsu on March 16, 2015, 01:49:40 PM
Look at it this way. Kevin Ollie one title and who knows, if he will ever make the tournament again vs Few who makes the tournament every year. Who would you rather be?
Well so far every other year Ollie wins it all and then misses the tournament. I'd take a title every other year if it meant missing the tournament the opposite year.
Quote from: bilsu on March 16, 2015, 01:49:40 PM
Look at it this way. Kevin Ollie one title and who knows, if he will ever make the tournament again vs Few who makes the tournament every year. Who would you rather be?
Ollie.
For earning potential, it's a no-brainer.
Just interviewed Dr. Bergen on NCAA and crapshoot. Will have it on CrackedSidewalks later tonight.
All comes down to the definition of crapshoot, not surprising....enjoyed the exchange. :D
https://www.youtube.com/v/O6Smkv11Mj4
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 16, 2015, 02:10:41 PM
Just interviewed Dr. Bergen on NCAA and crapshoot. Will have it on CrackedSidewalks later tonight.
All comes down to the definition of crapshoot, not surprising....enjoyed the exchange. :D
https://www.youtube.com/v/O6Smkv11Mj4
Exactly. That's why I originally asked you what you meant by "crapshoot." I think it's a decent analogy. In a roll of dice, the number 7 is going to come up more than any other number (think of this as the analog to higher seeds beating the low seeds). However, there is still a chance, and a nontrivial one at that, that the number 2 gets rolled (think of this as the analog to a 15 beating a 2, 14 beating a 3).
Look, this entire debate is kind of silly. I mean if we take this to the extreme, then sure the Spurs beat the Heat four games to two, but how can we be sure that if the teams played 100 times that the Spurs wouldn't lose the other 96 times? We can't be sure, of course; so we make the assumption that the probability of observing the truly better team converges to 1 by the 7th draw/sample. In NCABB and NFL, it is one draw, not seven, and so this convergence assumption is less likely to hold. I think that is Chico's overarching point.
nm
Quote from: Eldon on March 16, 2015, 04:15:52 PM
Exactly. That's why I originally asked you what you meant by "crapshoot." I think it's a decent analogy. In a roll of dice, the number 7 is going to come up more than any other number (think of this as the analog to higher seeds beating the low seeds). However, there is still a chance, and a nontrivial one at that, that the number 2 gets rolled (think of this as the analog to a 15 beating a 2, 14 beating a 3).
Look, this entire debate is kind of silly. I mean if we take this to the extreme, then sure the Spurs beat the Heat four games to two, but how can we be sure that if the teams played 100 times that the Spurs wouldn't lose the other 96 times? We can't be sure, of course; so we make the assumption that the probability of observing the truly better team converges to 1 by the 7th draw/sample. In NCABB and NFL, it is one draw, not seven, and so this convergence assumption is less likely to hold. I think that is Chico's overarching point.
Number 1 seeds win the tournament 62.5% of the time. The other 15 seeds COMBINED win it 37.5%. Upsets occur in every sport and in every tournament. But saying the NCAA tournament is the BIGGEST crapshoot in all of sport is just wrong.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 16, 2015, 04:24:57 PM
Number 1 seeds win the tournament 62.5% of the time. The other 15 seeds COMBINED win it 37.5%. Upsets occur in every sport and in every tournament. But saying the NCAA tournament is the BIGGEST crapshoot in all of sport is just wrong.
Yeah, I'm definitely on the side that thinks it's a crapshoot, and the worth of a coach or program should not be determined by whether they've ever won 4-6 games in a row during a certain time period, but I would never agree that it's the biggest crapshoot. Probably something in football would have to take that title, since they also have one and done playoffs and are played in much more diverse conditions.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 16, 2015, 04:24:57 PM
Number 1 seeds win the tournament 62.5% of the time. The other 15 seeds COMBINED win it 37.5%. Upsets occur in every sport and in every tournament. But saying the NCAA tournament is the BIGGEST crapshoot in all of sport is just wrong.
Comparative percentages from other sports?
As a coach, ya gotta win in March. Ai na?
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on March 16, 2015, 09:25:01 AM
It is simple statistical ignorance to say the NCAA is a "crapshoot." Here is the percentage of wins per seed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament#/media/File:NCAA_Wins-rank.png
Furthermore, here are the seeds to reach the Final Four.
#1 - 43 appearances (44.7%)
#2 - 20 appearances (20.8%)
#3 - 12 appearances (12.5%)
#4 - 9 appearances (9.4%)
#5 - 4 appearances (4.1%)
#6 - 3 appearances (3.1%)
#7 - 0 appearances (0%)
#8 - 3 appearances (3.1%)
#9 - 0 appearances (0%)
#10 - 0 appearances (0%)
#11 - 2 appearances (2.1%)
Seeds to win the championship:
#1 - 15 championships (62.5%)
#2 - 3 championships (12.5%)
#3 - 3 championships (12.5%)
#4 - 1 championships (4.2%)
#5 - 0 championships (0%)
#6 - 1 championships (4.2%)
#7 - 0 championships (0%)
#8 - 1 championships (4.2%)
If it were more random, as a "crapshoot" implies, these figures would be much more level than they are.
This clearly is not up to date as UConn was the 7th seed last season.
There you go again, Sultan, getting all factsy and truthy and not letting your agenda dictate things.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 16, 2015, 12:12:03 PM
That is correct, there are four of each.
Your definition is different than mine or that of the dictionary.
"something (as a business venture) that has an unpredictable outcome"
"An enterprise whose outcome is determined by chance."
"an unpredictable venture; gamble"
In the NBA, we can predict to 80%+ who is going to win the Finals. In the NCAA, it is less than 50%. It's less than a 50-50 call DESPITE the seeding. That's the biggest thing you need to remember. The 16 seed is never going to win the tournament because of how they are seeded. Yet despite the almost impossibility of a 16 or 15 or 14 seed winning it all, the top seeds still can't even win it 50% of the time.
So one would expect that 80% of the time the NBA championship involves the 1 seed in the east and west correct? When was the last time that occurred (I'll save you the trouble 2008). The same year the last time the NCAA involved two No. 1 seeds.
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Quote from: jesmu84 on March 16, 2015, 05:08:42 PM
Comparative percentages from other sports?
NCAA has 4 #1 seeds out of 64 (actually 68, but whatever), 6.25%. #1s have won the title 62.5% since seeding began in 1979.
MLB - since 1995 (when the league went to 8 playoff teams) - 2 #1s out of 8 teams (10 now but #1s seeded to final 8) = 25%. A #1 has won 7 of 20 times, 35%.
NFL - 2 #1s seeded into the final 8 = 25%. A #1 has won 21 times since 1975 =51%.
NHL - 16 team format since 1994, 4 #1 seeds = 25%. #1 has won 7 times in 21 Cups = 33%.
Summary: the NCAA tournament has a much lower % of participating teams as #1 seeds, yet a much higher % of their playoffs result in a #1 seeded champion.
Conclusion: anyone who calls the NCAA basketball tournament "the biggest crapshoot in sports" is wrong.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 16, 2015, 08:20:12 PM
NCAA has 4 #1 seeds out of 64 (actually 68, but whatever), 6.25%. #1s have won the title 62.5% since seeding began in 1979.
MLB - since 1995 (when the league went to 8 playoff teams) - 2 #1s out of 8 teams (10 now but #1s seeded to final 8) = 25%. A #1 has won 7 of 20 times, 35%.
NFL - 2 #1s seeded into the final 8 = 25%. A #1 has won 21 times since 1975 =51%.
NHL - 16 team format since 1994, 4 #1 seeds = 25%. #1 has won 7 times in 21 Cups = 33%.
Summary: the NCAA tournament has a much lower % of participating teams as #1 seeds, yet a much higher % of their playoffs result in a #1 seeded champion.
Conclusion: anyone who calls the NCAA basketball tournament "the biggest crapshoot in sports" is wrong.
Thank you for the numbers
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 16, 2015, 08:20:12 PM
NCAA has 4 #1 seeds out of 64 (actually 68, but whatever), 6.25%. #1s have won the title 62.5% since seeding began in 1979.
MLB - since 1995 (when the league went to 8 playoff teams) - 2 #1s out of 8 teams (10 now but #1s seeded to final 8) = 25%. A #1 has won 7 of 20 times, 35%.
NFL - 2 #1s seeded into the final 8 = 25%. A #1 has won 21 times since 1975 =51%.
NHL - 16 team format since 1994, 4 #1 seeds = 25%. #1 has won 7 times in 21 Cups = 33%.
Summary: the NCAA tournament has a much lower % of participating teams as #1 seeds, yet a much higher % of their playoffs result in a #1 seeded champion.
Conclusion: anyone who calls the NCAA basketball tournament "the biggest crapshoot in sports" is wrong.
Impressive numbers. TY.
Quote from: forgetful on March 16, 2015, 09:43:53 PM
Impressive numbers. TY.
LOL....except they are wrong. Not sure where he got 62.5% for the NCAA tournament...that is flat wrong. Maybe he forgot how to count. He's also not calculating the #1's that didn't win it...in other words, the overall historical numbers of number one seeds that won it all means you include all four #1s....when a #1 wins it, three #1's don't. That is totally missing from his examination....thank you Dr. Bergen for pointing that out today. ;)
We've already gone through the rest of his nonsense the last few years as have others..... assuming the best teams in the NFL is due to the best record is faulty, it is not seeded by experts. The same is true in the NHL, NBA, etc. You can have the number one seed because you play in a terrible division, or conference, etc. That doesn't make you the number one team, unlike the NCAA where experts are chosen to evalute more than just record (and yes, they can be wrong). Example, Vancouver would get the #1 seed in the NHL because they played in a piss poor division and racked up wins, but they were power rated as the 4th best team in their OWN conference, and 7th best out of 16 teams in the playoffs. If a true committee was used, they would not be the one of the top teams. Just one example. MLB is filled with examples like this.
Quote from: SERocks on March 16, 2015, 07:03:52 PM
This clearly is not up to date as UConn was the 7th seed last season.
Not only not up to date, the data is wrong. Imagine that...wikipedia being wrong. LOL.
Quote from: forgetful on March 16, 2015, 08:05:23 PM
So one would expect that 80% of the time the NBA championship involves the 1 seed in the east and west correct? When was the last time that occurred (I'll save you the trouble 2008). The same year the last time the NCAA involved two No. 1 seeds.
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
No, one would not make that assumption. Because some conferences are stacked and the top 5 teams might all be in one conference. Sorry, poor assumption or expectation on your part.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 16, 2015, 11:12:58 PM
LOL....except they are wrong. Not sure where he got 62.5% for the NCAA tournament...that is flat wrong. Maybe he forgot how to count. He's also not calculating the #1's that didn't win it...in other words, the overall historical numbers of number one seeds that won it all means you include all four #1s....when a #1 wins it, three #1's don't. That is totally missing from his examination....thank you Dr. Bergen for pointing that out today. ;)
We've already gone through the rest of his nonsense the last few years as have others..... assuming the best teams in the NFL is due to the best record is faulty, it is not seeded by experts. The same is true in the NHL, NBA, etc. You can have the number one seed because you play in a terrible division, or conference, etc. That doesn't make you the number one team, unlike the NCAA where experts are chosen to evalute more than just record (and yes, they can be wrong). Example, Vancouver would get the #1 seed in the NHL because they played in a piss poor division and racked up wins, but they were power rated as the 4th best team in their OWN conference, and 7th best out of 16 teams in the playoffs. If a true committee was used, they would not be the one of the top teams. Just one example. MLB is filled with examples like this.
Jay Bee is right. Simple math is over your head.
John Thompson weighs in......good job John
http://www.csnwashington.com/ncaa/georgetown-facing-big-sky-champion-south-region-opener
Article about regular season and post season with Coach K and Bill Self and some weird mention of crappy shooting or maybe it was crapshoot
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/02/coach-k-not-best-coach-rick-pitino-bill-self-records-ncaa-tournament-losses-1000
I'm confused by the premise of this. Should we disregard the tournament because good teams can be upset? Should we marvel that sometimes a playoff format has unexpected results and thus discount its validity?
I love the NCAA Tournament because it's incredibly fun. While the 7-game series of the NBA, MLB, and NHL may give a better shot to the favorites, all of those playoffs pale in comparison in terms of excitement to the NCAAs. Taking 2 months to sort through 16 teams is way too long to hold my interest.
Could the "best" team be upset? Sure. Which proves that on that day, they weren't the best team. Why keep throwing a bucket of ice water on the best annual tournament in sports?
Because it's a crapshoot I tell ya, a crapshooooot!
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 16, 2015, 11:16:33 PM
No, one would not make that assumption. Because some conferences are stacked and the top 5 teams might all be in one conference. Sorry, poor assumption or expectation on your part.
So in other sports the far more significant deviations from the expected statistics are because it is an in exact science of seeding.
But in the NCAA, seeding should be exact. Do you see how that makes no sense whatsoever.
Let's look at this year even. Arizona and Virginia could just as easily been 1 seeds. Most of the season Gonzaga was a possible 1-seed. Kansas played in the toughest conference, Notre Dame has an impressive resume. All of those teams are damn near equivalent to a 1 seed. They can't be evaluated perfectly because of a limited schedule and differences in teams schedules.
If Kentucky had to play in the ACC, would they be undefeated? Almost assuredly no. Would they have won the conference?
Not to mention, the mid-majors who can't get evaluated properly, because of bias against playing them.
The professional leagues with fewer teams and more games actually provide a far greater basis set to evaluate seed/rank.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 17, 2015, 02:05:48 AM
John Thompson weighs in......good job John
http://www.csnwashington.com/ncaa/georgetown-facing-big-sky-champion-south-region-opener
JTIII should weigh in daily, hey?
If someone wants to sip their tea and proclaim success or failure of a season based on a body of work, or a conference championship or an unanswerable question of 'best' -- more power to them.
I would rather binge drink and scream my way through a month of glory.
Here is hoping a reporter isn't able to ask Wojo the same question as Mark Few in 8-10 years!
The NCAA tournament IS a crapshoot.
And the team that wins it IS the best team.
There. Bases covered.
In ANY sport that features a season ending tournament or playoffs, the purpose of the tournament is NOT to unequivocally determine the best team. It is to determine a champion. Singling out the NCAA tournament in this regard is pointless and silly.
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 17, 2015, 08:35:12 AM
In ANY sport that features a season ending tournament or playoffs, the purpose of the tournament is NOT to unequivocally determine the best team. It is to determine a champion. Singling out the NCAA tournament in this regard is pointless and silly.
Excellent point, and exactly why I don't get the point of the thread. Unless you want all American sports to go to an EPL style format where the champion is based on regular season results only...
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 17, 2015, 08:40:59 AM
Excellent point, and exactly why I don't get the point of the thread. Unless you want all American sports to go to an EPL style format where the champion is based on regular season results only...
The point of the thread is obvious. "The tournament is a crapshoot" is Chico's favorite meme. And starting this thread every year (and/or hijacking other threads that have little or nothing to do with it) -- augmented by coaches/experts/pundits who agree with him -- is his way of telling us all how absolutely, wonderfully correct he is.
Chicos also doesn't understand why coaches use that phrase. Because no coach who is trying to motivate an underdog is going to say "well the top seeds almost always win, but let's try anyway."
The Ncaa tourney is what pits banners in gyms and sets legacys, not beating praire am in the opener by 50.
Quote from: bilsu on March 16, 2015, 01:49:40 PM
Look at it this way. Kevin Ollie one title and who knows, if he will ever make the tournament again vs Few who makes the tournament every year. Who would you rather be?
Throw in the excitement of winning as a number 7 seed vs winning as 1 or 2 seed and you get bonus points. Plus, you get labeled a genius for winning with a lower seed.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on March 16, 2015, 05:32:35 PM
As a coach, ya gotta win in March. Ai na?
Napoleon was once asked, "What kind of generals do you want?"
"I want lucky ones", was his reply.
Chicos is correct that the format of the NCAA tournament makes it the biggest statistical crapshoot of any sporting tournament, other than maybe some tennis tournaments...honestly not familiar with all the rules and regulations there.
Lenny is also correct that despite the format, the NCAA has crowned a higher percentage of top seeds champion than several other playoffs.
Chicos is right in theory.
Lenny is right in practice.
Settled?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 17, 2015, 11:41:38 PM
Chicos is correct that the format of the NCAA tournament makes it the biggest statistical crapshoot of any sporting tournament, other than maybe some tennis tournaments...honestly not familiar with all the rules and regulations there.
Lenny is also correct that despite the format, the NCAA has crowned a higher percentage of top seeds champion than several other playoffs.
Chicos is right in theory.
Lenny is right in practice.
Settled?
Actually Lenny is wrong. He isn't calculating those that don't make is, as Dr. Bergen points out. In other words, he is not stating a fully correct premise the way he is currently stating it. Plus, he assumes the 1 seed in the pros are truly the best teams, when in actuality they have the best record which can come from weak schedules due to weak divisions.
Chicos...have you ever heard the phrase "pissing into the wind"?
He is familiar with the phrase 'peeing down the leg'. Is that the same thing?
Quote from: rocky_warrior on March 19, 2015, 11:24:25 PM
Chicos...have you ever heard the phrase "pissing into the wind"?
Yup....not done yet Rock....just wait until I get around to publishing my interview with Dr. Bergen from DePaul....then I'll really be pissing into it. Tower is right, I've seen us pee down our leg on multiple occasions...so glad Buzz coined that term so we can all use it.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on March 19, 2015, 11:24:25 PM
Chicos...have you ever heard the phrase "pissing into the wind"?
That would be known as a pissshoot
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 20, 2015, 12:51:09 AM
Yup....not done yet Rock....just wait until I get around to publishing my interview with Dr. Bergen from DePaul....then I'll really be pissing into it. Tower is right, I've seen us pee down our leg on multiple occasions...so glad Buzz coined that term so we can all use it.
Buzz didn't coin the term. It's been around for years.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on March 20, 2015, 07:23:20 AM
Buzz didn't coin the term. It's been around for years.
Yes, but Chicos did invent "crapshoot."
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 20, 2015, 12:51:09 AM
Yup....not done yet Rock....just wait until I get around to publishing my interview with Dr. Bergen from DePaul....then I'll really be pissing into it. Tower is right, I've seen us pee down our leg on multiple occasions...so glad Buzz coined that term so we can all use it.
Your cheap shot (and a lie at that - you called the the players and coach you allegedly loved "choking dogs who peed Themselves" long before Buzz mentioned, let alone coined, the phrase) and promise to "publish" some wacky study reminded me of another wacky study you promised to publish several years ago. You were going to "prove" that the vast majority of posts about Buzz weren't negative. Five years later we're still waiting. LOL