MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: 5DollarPitcher on March 26, 2023, 02:05:18 PM
-
Definitions will not be provided. Answer the question as presented.
-
You must be bored today.
-
Chicos thought it was a crapshoot. Therefore it is not a crapshoot
-
Are you ordering a KFC double down after all those 5 dollar pitchers?
-
Look at the Elite Eight and Final Four. There is 0 chance these are the 8 and 4 best teams in the country.
The format is the most entertaining format. It is not the way to determine the best team.
And I wouldn’t change the format.
-
This poll will decide the matter, once and for all!
-
This poll will decide the matter, once and for all!
"The poll format is the most entertaining format. It is not the way to determine the best team if it is a crapshoot.
And I wouldn’t change the format."
-
Yessir - the poll is a crapshoot!
-
It mostly is. It’s not a all or nothing type question
-
It’s a hybrid crapshoot.
As a high seed, the first two rounds are not a crapshoot. You are a better team and should win.
Who you might play in the sweet 16 and elite 8 are a crapshoot due to the upsets and the loser high seeds that do not perform in round one and two.
-
When Marquette loses, it definitely resembles a crap chute.
-
We should be voting on things that really matter - like whether or not sultan is a badger fan
-
I voted yes, because there are some things you cannot control.
-
When Marquette loses, it definitely resembles a crap chute.
There is certainly some crap being shot.
-
The poll results certainly do define things
-
Just got to roll the dice and hope you don’t get eye balls.
-
The poll results certainly do define things
Seems about the right percentage of cole mopes on the board.
-
I voted yes, because there are some things you cannot control.
Every situation involves elements we can’t control. There’s randomness in everything. If that’s your definition, literally every encounter, situation or contest is a crapshoot.
-
All Scoop polls must contain the option "Arby's".
-
All Scoop polls must contain the option "Arby's".
Ten minutes after folks eat Arby's, they have to shoot over to the crapper.
-
Topper, stay outta da knew Arby's in da Quon, hey?
-
The second highest final 4 seed total in the seeded tournament era.
Much like the only constant is change, the only predictable thing about the tourney is that it can't be predicted.
-
To some extent it is a "crapshoot"...,meaning that a school & coach could build a very talented team, get a top seed (1-4), and still get upset in the 1st or 2nd game of the tourney (see Purdue, Kansas, Arizona, MU, etc this year).
I did hear a great thought on this & quote the other day on one of the college basketball podcasts (might have been Field of 68) where they talked about Billy Donovan having his highly seeded Florida teams get upset in multiple tournaments in a row. Donovan supposedly said to himself "if I just keep recruiting at a high level and building talented teams, eventually one or more of them will have a breakthrough in the tournament."
That's what I hope for Shaka and MUBB....just keep building the culture....bringing in players that buy into the culture and the system....having successful seasons in a tough Big East....making the tournament year after year....and we should break through then for multiple deep runs in March
-
To some extent it is a "crapshoot"...,meaning that a school & coach could build a very talented team, get a top seed (1-4), and still get upset in the 1st or 2nd game of the tourney (see Purdue, Kansas, Arizona, MU, etc this year).
I did hear a great thought on this & quote the other day on one of the college basketball podcasts (might have been Field of 68) where they talked about Billy Donovan having his highly seeded Florida teams get upset in multiple tournaments in a row. Donovan supposedly said to himself "if I just keep recruiting at a high level and building talented teams, eventually one or more of them will have a breakthrough in the tournament."
That's what I hope for Shaka and MUBB....just keep building the culture....bringing in players that buy into the culture and the system....having successful seasons in a tough Big East....making the tournament year after year....and we should break through then for multiple deep runs in March
With a rational take like this, you have no right to visit Scoop!
-
I did hear a great thought on this & quote the other day on one of the college basketball podcasts (might have been Field of 68) where they talked about Billy Donovan having his highly seeded Florida teams get upset in multiple tournaments in a row. Donovan supposedly said to himself "if I just keep recruiting at a high level and building talented teams, eventually one or more of them will have a breakthrough in the tournament."
Loved those comments.
It's a crapshoot in the sense that even in a normal year, there are 5-10 teams that could legitimately win it all, and in a year like this there are closer to 20 that could pull it off.
But the more often you have high level teams, the more likely you're one of those 5-10. Just keep giving yourself chances.
-
The numbers over the years prove it is not a classic crapshoot, but as mentioned before it is far from a guaranty that the best team will win every game. I can't think of any other tournament / playoff in any sport that is any different.
Are the World Cup, NFL Playoffs and The Masters a crapshoot?
-
Because it's a crapshoot is why we could've won this. Because no team in the country was decidedly better than us.
-
The numbers over the years prove it is not a classic crapshoot, but as mentioned before it is far from a guaranty that the best team will win every game. I can't think of any other tournament / playoff in any sport that is any different.
The NBA playoffs haven't really been crapshooty over the years, as the 3-4 teams generally considered the "best" tend to be represented in the NBA Finals. All series are best-of-7, so even if a really good team slips up a time or two and loses to a lesser team, the format favors the better team. It's been many years since the NBA champion wasn't regarded as truly one of the league's top teams going into the playoffs.
Even though the NHL playoffs are best-of-7, a hot goalie can produce a string of upsets - enough to be crapshooty in nature.
Baseball's not quite as much, though again a hot pitcher and/or couple of hot batters can carry an underdog. The way pitching goes now, it's not as easy to have a hot-pitcher scenario, though. There are more postseason games now, and pitchers only rarely work more often than every 5th day. Once upon a time, guys like Gibson, Koufax and even Viola, Morris and Randy Johnson would pitch three times in a 7-game series and work deep into games. Of course, if the stud pitcher like those named were on the best team, I guess one could hypothesize that makes things even more crapshooty now.
-
Take a look at the tourney winners ya ding dongs. A single-game elimination tournament with 68/64 teams will necessarily produce outliers. But this list forecloses any argument it’s “crapshoot”:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_champions
-
The numbers over the years prove it is not a classic crapshoot, but as mentioned before it is far from a guaranty that the best team will win every game. I can't think of any other tournament / playoff in any sport that is any different.
Are the World Cup, NFL Playoffs and The Masters a crapshoot?
Correct
-
Take a look at the tourney winners ya ding dongs. A single-game elimination tournament with 68/64 teams will necessarily produce outliers. But this list forecloses any argument it’s “crapshoot”:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_champions
Correct
-
It is more of a crapshoot than ever. All you can do is put yourself in position for success on a regular basis. The more at bats a program gets, the better the chance for success.
-
Correct
Incorrect
-
Okay, so since kenpom started in 2002, we have pre-tourney champion rankings of...
- 2002: #4 Maryland
- 2003: #20 Syracuse
- 2004: #5 Connecticut
- 2005: #2 North Carolina
- 2006: #6 Florida
- 2007: #3 Florida
- 2008: #1 Kansas
- 2009: #3 North Carolina
- 2010: #2 Duke
- 2011: #15 Connecticut
- 2012: #1 Kentucky
- 2013: #2 Louisville
- 2014: #25 Connecticut
- 2015: #6 Duke
- 2016: #5 Villanova
- 2017: #3 North Carolina
- 2018: #2 Villanova
- 2019: #1 Virginia
- 2021: #4 Baylor
- 2022: #6 Kansas
- 2023: #4 UConn* (at best)
So the average kenpom rank to win the title was 5.71 with teams ranging from 1-25. The #1 overall team won the title 3 times (14.2% of the time), which is just as often as teams ranked 15th or lower won it. So I would stand by that in any given year, there are 5-10 teams that can win it, and in years like this one, that number balloons to 20-30 teams that could win it. If you are trying to crown your best team champion, this is the definition of a crapshoot.
-
And here are the pre-tourney ranks this year:
#4 UConn
#14 San Diego State
#25 Florida Atlantic
#39 Miami
If UConn doesn't win it, that only further reinforces the crapshoot argument.
-
Incorrect
He was actually correct
-
He was actually correct
No, the tournament is a crapshoot. I admire your dedication to always being wrong
-
Okay, so since kenpom started in 2002, we have pre-tourney champion rankings of...
- 2002: #4 Maryland
- 2003: #20 Syracuse
- 2004: #5 Connecticut
- 2005: #2 North Carolina
- 2006: #6 Florida
- 2007: #3 Florida
- 2008: #1 Kansas
- 2009: #3 North Carolina
- 2010: #2 Duke
- 2011: #15 Connecticut
- 2012: #1 Kentucky
- 2013: #2 Louisville
- 2014: #25 Connecticut
- 2015: #6 Duke
- 2016: #5 Villanova
- 2017: #3 North Carolina
- 2018: #2 Villanova
- 2019: #1 Virginia
- 2021: #4 Baylor
- 2022: #6 Kansas
- 2023: #4 UConn* (at best)
So the average kenpom rank to win the title was 5.71 with teams ranging from 1-25. The #1 overall team won the title 3 times (14.2% of the time), which is just as often as teams ranked 15th or lower won it. So I would stand by that in any given year, there are 5-10 teams that can win it, and in years like this one, that number balloons to 20-30 teams that could win it. If you are trying to crown your best team champion, this is the definition of a crapshoot.
Looks like a hell of a lot of top 10 teams and a couple anomalies still in the top 25.
That’s not a crapshoot.
-
No, the tournament is a crapshoot. I admire your dedication to always being wrong
Actually you’re wrong bub
-
Actually you’re wrong bub
No, I’m right. Sorry this poll didn’t work out like you thought it would.
-
In craps the odds of rolling a 7 (most probable outcome in a field of 12 outcomes) is 16.67%.
If we convert that, using basic math, to a field of 68 teams. The pool of most probable outcomes would be approximately the top 5.7 (call it 6) teams. (Math is 1/12 times field of 68).
Using Brew’s own chart - that field of most probable outcomes occurs approximately 86% of the time (if UConn wins this year).
The tournament is factually, statistically, mathematically NOT a crapshoot. Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble on that. You’ve been defeated.
-
In craps the odds of rolling a 7 (most probable outcome in a field of 12 outcomes) is 16.67%.
If we convert that, using basic math, to a field of 68 teams. The pool of most probable outcomes would be approximately the top 5.7 (call it 6) teams. (Math is 1/12 times field of 68).
Using Brew’s own chart - that field of most probable outcomes occurs approximately 86% of the team (if UConn wins this year).
The tournament is factually, statistically, mathematically NOT a crapshoot. Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble on that. You’ve been defeated.
No, you’re wrong. The tournament is a crapshoot.
-
No, I’m right. Sorry this poll didn’t work out like you thought it would.
So wrong
-
No, you’re wrong. The tournament is a crapshoot.
Math is wrong!! Agh! 😂😂
-
So wrong
No, I’m quite right.
-
No, I’m quite right.
Math is wrong and “Uncle Rico” (cringe movie btw) is right? I’ll bet!
-
Math is wrong and “Uncle Rico” (cringe movie btw) is right? I’ll bet!
You should. You’d win if you did.
-
You should. You’d win if you did.
I don’t bet against basic math
-
How are you getting trolled this bad by Rico jfc
-
I don’t bet against basic math
The tournament is a crapshoot. Ask the two Final Four teams who avoided playing a 1 or 2 seed on their way there.
I admire your conviction of being wrong. I do appreciate you making this poll, too. It’s been quite amusing
-
The tournament is a crapshoot. Ask the two Final Four teams who avoided playing a 1 or 2 seed on their way there.
I admire your conviction of being wrong. I do appreciate you making this poll, too. It’s been quite amusing
I just showed my work on how the tournament is mathematically not a crapshoot.
Your (or anyone else’s) cope opinion doesn’t change basic math.
-
I just showed my work on how the tournament is mathematically not a crapshoot.
Your (or anyone else’s) cope opinion doesn’t change basic math.
It is a crapshoot. Avoiding 1 and 2 seeds. Crapshoot.
I love how you think it’s coping. You’re funny.
-
It is a crapshoot. Avoiding 1 and 2 seeds. Crapshoot.
I love how you think it’s coping. You’re funny.
Why don’t you run the numbers through a calculator.
-
Why don’t you run the numbers through a calculator.
Numbers? Like avoiding a 1 or 2-seed? Playing a team underseeded, overseeded? Playing a team that’s a bad matchup? Injuries? Team getting healthy?
Crapshoot
-
Numbers? Like avoiding a 1 or 2-seed? Playing a team underseeded, overseeded? Playing a team that’s a bad matchup? Injuries? Team getting healthy?
Crapshoot
Crapshoot most probable outcome: 16.67%
NCAA tournament most probable outcome: 86%
L
-
Crapshoot most probable outcome: 16.67%
NCAA tournament most probable outcome: 86%
L
Crapshoot. W. Your math just proved it.
-
Crapshoot. W. Your math just proved it.
Keep reaching kiddo!
-
Keep reaching kiddo!
I don’t have to reach. The tournament has been and always will be a crapshoot. That’s just facts. The math proves it. If it wasn’t a crapshoot, the number one overall seed would win it every year. Why play it? Because it’s a crapshoot, that’s why.
-
I don’t have to reach. The tournament has been and always will be a crapshoot. That’s just facts. The math proves it. If it wasn’t a crapshoot, the number one overall seed would win it every year. Why play it? Because it’s a crapshoot, that’s why.
But one scenario has 12 mathematically possible outcomes and the other has 68 mathematically possible outcomes.
You following yet?
-
But one scenario has 12 mathematically possible outcomes and the other has 68 mathematically possible outcomes.
You following yet?
Yes. It’s a crapshoot. If it wasn’t, the top 4 seeds would reach the Final 4 every year.
You follow yet?
-
Yes. It’s a crapshoot. If it wasn’t, the top 4 seeds would reach the Final 4 every year.
You follow yet?
You’re still lost!
Let’s just agree on one fact at a time.
86% > 16.67%
Agree?
-
You’re still lost!
Let’s just agree on one fact at a time.
86% > 16.67%
Agree?
You’re still lost. The tournament is a crapshoot. That’s a fact.
-
Yes. It’s a crapshoot. If it wasn’t, the top 4 seeds would reach the Final 4 every year.
You follow yet?
Anything with even 0.0000001% variability is now a crapshoot!
If the top 4 seeds reached every Final 4 for 99 years and then one year it was the top 3 seed and the 5th seed, it’s now a crapshoot!
That’s the logical box you’ve just painted around yourself!
-
Anything with even 0.0000001% variability is now a crapshoot!
If the top 4 seeds reached every Final 4 for 99 years and then one year it was the top 3 seed and the 5th seed, it’s now a crapshoot!
That’s the logical box you’ve just painted around yourself!
None of those things have happened, because the tournament is a crapshoot.
-
None of those things have happened, because the tournament is a crapshoot.
Uh oh! Got caught - better grab those goalposts! 😂😂
You’re too fun.
-
Uh oh! Got caught - better grab those goalposts! 😂😂
You’re too fun.
Reminder the tourney is a crapshoot.
-
Uh oh! Got caught - better grab those goalposts! 😂😂
You’re too fun.
Grab what goalposts? I haven’t moved a single goal post. The tournament is a crapshoot.
-
Reminder the tourney is a crapshoot.
Indeed, it is.
-
Grab what goalposts? I haven’t moved a single goal post. The tournament is a crapshoot.
You: “If the tournament wasn’t a crapshoot all top 4 seeds would go to the Final Four every single year”
Me: proceeds to logically and mathematically explain how what you said is not the inverse of a crapshoot.
You: “doesn’t matter it’s never happened!”
-
You: “If the tournament wasn’t a crapshoot all top 4 seeds would go to the Final Four every single year”
Me: proceeds to logically and mathematically explain how what you said is not the inverse of a crapshoot.
You: “doesn’t matter it’s never happened!”
The tournament is a crapshoot. This has been proven over and over. Math and logic prove it
-
The tournament is a crapshoot. This has been proven over and over. Math and logic prove it
Math and logic actually disprove it. You saying those words without showing any work doesn’t make it true.
-
Math and logic actually disprove it. You saying those words without showing any work doesn’t make it true.
Math and logic actually prove it. The numbers you’ve provided prove it. History proves it. This years tournament proves it. This poll proves it. Crapshoot
-
Math and logic actually prove it. The numbers you’ve provided prove it. History proves it. This years tournament proves it. This poll proves it. Crapshoot
86>17
Mathematically not a crapshoot.
-
86>17
Mathematically not a crapshoot.
Yes, it is.
-
Seriously guys. I'll allow you each one more reply to each other if you choose. After that, I've got the banhammer ready.
-
Seriously guys. I'll allow you each one more reply to each other if you choose. After that, I've got the banhammer ready.
The tournament is a crapshoot. Ball knowers know it
-
Those are pretty good odds. I wish I could find those odds in a game at poto
-
The tournament is a crapshoot. Ball knowers know it
No
(My 1 reply token)
-
No
(My 1 reply token)
Incorrect
-
This is boring. Nobody has even defined what the parameters of “crapshoot” is. It might mean different things to different people. This is a giant waste of time
-
This is boring. Nobody has even defined what the parameters of “crapshoot” is. It might mean different things to different people. This is a giant waste of time
Farty for the win!
-
Some would argue it’s crapcrap
-
This is boring. Nobody has even defined what the parameters of “crapshoot” is. It might mean different things to different people. This is a giant waste of time
Agreed, but this got my thinking and I did some math.
Scenario:
Team #1 - head and shoulders the best
Teams #2 thru #64 - equally crummy
Head-to-head, Team #1 will takes 9 of 10 games against any of #2 thru #64.
With 6 rounds:
Single-Elimination tourney: Team #1 wins 53% (upset every other year)
Best of 3: Team #1 wins 84.3% (upset once every 6 years)
Best of 7: Team #1 wins 99.2% (upset once a century)
Team #1 is far and away the favorite - Teams 2 thru 64 each have well under a 1% shot - but it's basically a toss up versus the field with lose and go home. If I change the scenario to Team #1 wins 19 of 20 instead of 9 out of 10, it's still under 75% likely to win it all.
-
Agreed, but this got my thinking and I did some math.
Scenario:
Team #1 - head and shoulders the best
Teams #2 thru #64 - equally crummy
Head-to-head, Team #1 will takes 9 of 10 games against any of #2 thru #64.
With 6 rounds:
Single-Elimination tourney: Team #1 wins 53% (upset every other year)
Best of 3: Team #1 wins 84.3% (upset once every 6 years)
Best of 7: Team #1 wins 99.2% (upset once a century)
Team #1 is far and away the favorite - Teams 2 thru 64 each have well under a 1% shot - but it's basically a toss up versus the field with lose and go home. If I change the scenario to Team #1 wins 19 of 20 instead of 9 out of 10, it's still under 75% likely to win it all.
Even in this ridiculous scenario, the most probable outcome out of 64 mathematically possible outcomes happens 53% of the time in a single-elimination format.
Now compare this with the most probable outcome out of 12 mathematically possible outcomes happening only 16.67% of the time in a literal crapshoot.
Mathematically, you cannot argue that this tournament is a crapshoot.
You can certainly emotionally call it that if that feels right. Math and facts can't really stop anyone from doing that.
-
Definite crapshoot or the best team would win every year.
-
Definite crapshoot or the best team would win every year.
You need to compare apples to apples.
In craps you have 12 possible outcomes. You need to pool teams by ranking into 12 tiers to create an honest comparison.
Statistically, the champion comes from the top tier (of 12) 86% of the time.
-
You need to compare apples to apples.
In craps you have 12 possible outcomes. You need to pool teams by ranking into 12 tiers to create an honest comparison.
Statistically, the champion comes from the top tier (of 12) 86% of the time.
Ruh roh... I think you have exceeded your post quota in this thread.
-
Ruh roh... I think you have exceeded your post quota in this thread.
I was told we get one more reply *to each other*
Haven’t replied to Rico as far as I know
-
Chicos would have loved this thread 10 yrs ago when everyone called him out for saying it was a crapshoot. P.S. I believe there is no way in hell your odds for ANY team to win is synonymous with a “crapshoot” of two dice.
-
My favorite part is that the original post says definitions will not be provided, answer as you wish. Then when the poll doesn’t go his way he tries to give definitions. Lol.
-
You need to compare apples to apples.
In craps you have 12 possible outcomes. You need to pool teams by ranking into 12 tiers to create an honest comparison.
Statistically, the champion comes from the top tier (of 12) 86% of the time.
Okay...but effectively, the 12-16 seeds are the equivalent of rolling a 1 or 13 in craps. It never happens. And as I said earlier, you basically have the top-25 as your potential Championship tier. Because the number of permutations in craps are not equal, you need to break those 25 teams into 11 tiers (not 12, there are only 11 different numeric totals you can roll in craps).
7 - #1 team
6/8 - #2-3 teams
5/9 - #4-7 teams
4/10 - #8-13 teams
3/11 - #14-21 teams
2/12 - #22+ teams
Next are the combinations.
7 - 6 combinations
6/8 - 10 combinations
5/9 - 8 combinations
4/10 - 6 combinations
3/11 - 4 combinations
2/12 - 2 combinations
So comparing the permutations to the ratio, here's what we get expectation vs reality (considering that 21 tournaments for 11 outcomes is a very small sample size):
#1 - 14.3% actual vs 16.7% expected
#2-3 - 33.3% actual vs 27.8% expected
#4-7 - 38.1% actual vs 22.2% expected
#8-13 - 0.0% actual vs 16.7% expected
#14-21 - 9.5% actual vs 11.1% expected
#22+ - 4.8% actual vs 5.6% expected
The disparities for 4-13 are stark, but everything else is almost exact. In terms of crapshoot, with the idea that your actual contenders are the top 25 or so teams, with some margin for error given in the 2/12 roll range for the outliers like 2021 UCLA or 2023 Miami or the hypothetical 12-16 winning it all, it sure feels like crapshoot is a pretty accurate depiction. And this is factoring UConn in as the 2023 winners already, so the 4-7 number would come down while the 14-21 or 22+ range would go up if it's anyone but UConn.
But ultimately...it doesn't really matter. It's just a mathematically apropos statement to make.
-
Okay...but effectively, the 12-16 seeds are the equivalent of rolling a 1 or 13 in craps. It never happens. And as I said earlier, you basically have the top-25 as your potential Championship tier. Because the number of permutations in craps are not equal, you need to break those 25 teams into 11 tiers (not 12, there are only 11 different numeric totals you can roll in craps).
7 - #1 team
6/8 - #2-3 teams
5/9 - #4-7 teams
4/10 - #8-13 teams
3/11 - #14-21 teams
2/12 - #22+ teams
Next are the combinations.
7 - 6 combinations
6/8 - 10 combinations
5/9 - 8 combinations
4/10 - 6 combinations
3/11 - 4 combinations
2/12 - 2 combinations
So comparing the permutations to the ratio, here's what we get expectation vs reality (considering that 21 tournaments for 11 outcomes is a very small sample size):
#1 - 14.3% actual vs 16.7% expected
#2-3 - 33.3% actual vs 27.8% expected
#4-7 - 38.1% actual vs 22.2% expected
#8-13 - 0.0% actual vs 16.7% expected
#14-21 - 9.5% actual vs 11.1% expected
#22+ - 4.8% actual vs 5.6% expected
The disparities for 4-13 are stark, but everything else is almost exact. In terms of crapshoot, with the idea that your actual contenders are the top 25 or so teams, with some margin for error given in the 2/12 roll range for the outliers like 2021 UCLA or 2023 Miami or the hypothetical 12-16 winning it all, it sure feels like crapshoot is a pretty accurate depiction. And this is factoring UConn in as the 2023 winners already, so the 4-7 number would come down while the 14-21 or 22+ range would go up if it's anyone but UConn.
But ultimately...it doesn't really matter. It's just a mathematically apropos statement to make.
Yup, it’s a crapshoot
-
You need to compare apples to apples.
In craps you have 12 possible outcomes. You need to pool teams by ranking into 12 tiers to create an honest comparison.
Statistically, the champion comes from the top tier (of 12) 86% of the time.
As already stated in the previous thread, you're taking the definition of crapshoot too literally.
-
As already stated in the previous thread, you're taking the definition of crapshoot too literally.
So what you’re saying is it’s not a crapshoot
-
Okay...but effectively, the 12-16 seeds are the equivalent of rolling a 1 or 13 in craps. It never happens. And as I said earlier, you basically have the top-25 as your potential Championship tier. Because the number of permutations in craps are not equal, you need to break those 25 teams into 11 tiers (not 12, there are only 11 different numeric totals you can roll in craps).
7 - #1 team
6/8 - #2-3 teams
5/9 - #4-7 teams
4/10 - #8-13 teams
3/11 - #14-21 teams
2/12 - #22+ teams
Next are the combinations.
7 - 6 combinations
6/8 - 10 combinations
5/9 - 8 combinations
4/10 - 6 combinations
3/11 - 4 combinations
2/12 - 2 combinations
So comparing the permutations to the ratio, here's what we get expectation vs reality (considering that 21 tournaments for 11 outcomes is a very small sample size):
#1 - 14.3% actual vs 16.7% expected
#2-3 - 33.3% actual vs 27.8% expected
#4-7 - 38.1% actual vs 22.2% expected
#8-13 - 0.0% actual vs 16.7% expected
#14-21 - 9.5% actual vs 11.1% expected
#22+ - 4.8% actual vs 5.6% expected
The disparities for 4-13 are stark, but everything else is almost exact. In terms of crapshoot, with the idea that your actual contenders are the top 25 or so teams, with some margin for error given in the 2/12 roll range for the outliers like 2021 UCLA or 2023 Miami or the hypothetical 12-16 winning it all, it sure feels like crapshoot is a pretty accurate depiction. And this is factoring UConn in as the 2023 winners already, so the 4-7 number would come down while the 14-21 or 22+ range would go up if it's anyone but UConn.
But ultimately...it doesn't really matter. It's just a mathematically apropos statement to make.
What you’re doing here is weighting the dice in the NCAA tournament field to reflect the fact that better teams are much more likely to go far than worse teams. And worse teams have a virtual 0% chance to go far.
This would be equivalent to acknowledging the tournament not a crapshoot, but rather a large field with a very focused group that actually has a chance to win.
If the argument is that the tournament is a crapshoot ONLY amongst the top 20-25 teams - I would actually agree with that. But that’s not the argument people are making. People are saying the NCAA tournament, on the whole, is a crapshoot. Which is neither mathematically or logically true.
-
As already stated in the previous thread, you're taking the definition of crapshoot too literally.
It’s a crapshoot
-
Jay Wright on if the tournament is a crapshoot:
https://www.inquirer.com/philly/sports/colleges/villanova/villanova-march-madness-2018-ncaa-tournament-east-region-20180311.html?outputType=amp
-
Bill Self crapshooting:
https://247sports.com/college/kansas/Article/KU-basketballs-Bill-Self-talks-unpredictability-of-NCAA-Tournament-145489019/
-
I don't give a crap. Just enjoy the tourney.
-
I don't give a crap. Just enjoy the tourney.
Precisely. The charm of a single-elimination tournament is the volatility. It sucks when that volatility hits your team.
Personally, I’d prefer a Final 4 with the 4 best teams. Upsets opening weekend are fine but I’d rather see UConn with Houston, Bama, Texas, UCLA, Creighton, Marquette or Kansas but March surprises abound like 2011
-
As already stated in the previous thread, you're taking the definition of crapshoot too literally.
He's taking one definition of crapshoot too literally (after saying definitions would not be provided meaning people are free to use whatever definition they want).
something (such as a business venture) that has an unpredictable outcome
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crapshoot
Informal. anything unpredictable, risky, or problematical; gamble.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/crapshoot
a risky and uncertain venture
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/crapshoot
a situation in which you do not know what will happen
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/crapshoot
something that could produce a good or bad result — usually singular
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/crapshoot
The funny thing is that I think he and most others agree on the actual meat and potatoes of the argument. They are just squabbling over vocabulary.
-
He's taking one definition of crapshoot too literally (after saying definitions would not be provided meaning people are free to use whatever definition they want).
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crapshoot
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/crapshoot
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/crapshoot
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/crapshoot
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/crapshoot
The funny thing is that I think he and most others agree on the actual meat and potatoes of the argument. They are just squabbling over vocabulary.
Think about the 1976 tournament from a Marquette standpoint. Number 2 team in the nation gets stuck in the Mideast against an undefeated juggernaut in Indiana and has to play the regional final in South Bend.
A year later, they get UNC-Charlotte in the Final 4. Very good team but they avoid playing the team that was number 1 entering the tournament, Michigan, who Marquette had closed the season losing to by a point. The Final 4 that year included the 4th, 5th, 7th and 17th ranked teams.
-
It’s a crapshoot
Sew, ur Chicos, aina?
-
Think about the 1976 tournament from a Marquette standpoint. Number 2 team in the nation gets stuck in the Mideast against an undefeated juggernaut in Indiana and has to play the regional final in South Bend.
A year later, they get UNC-Charlotte in the Final 4. Very good team but they avoid playing the team that was number 1 entering the tournament, Michigan, who Marquette had closed the season losing to by a point. The Final 4 that year included the 4th, 5th, 7th and 17th ranked teams.
Wrong, that Mideast regional was played in Baton Rouge. Eye wuz der, hey?
-
Asking for a friend…
Do pompous ass fans of a team running the vibe of the tourney make it more or less of a crapshoot?
-
Wrong, that Mideast regional was played in Tuscaloosa. Eye wuz der, hey?
I stand corrected. Was it Tuscaloosa? Records say it was Baton Rouge
-
Ruh roh... I think you have exceeded your post quota in this thread.
Yeah, I didn't think anyone else would get involved to take over for Rico. Apparently I underestimated our users desire to see more replies from five$.
I can only try to help you all out - the rest is up to you.
-
I stand corrected. Was it Tuscaloosa? Records say it was Baton Rouge
76 was Baton Rouge - I was there. Don’t know about 77.
-
76 was Baton Rouge - I was there. Don’t know about 77.
Believe OKC
-
The funny thing is that I think he and most others agree on the actual meat and potatoes of the argument. They are just squabbling over vocabulary.
Wait ... so you're saying that Scoopers would have a multiple-page argument based on interpretations of semantics?
That's ridiculous! (Or not. Depends on how one defines ridiculous.)
-
Wait ... so you're saying that Scoopers would have a multiple-page argument based on interpretations of semantics?
That's ridiculous! (Or not. Depends on how one defines ridiculous.)
And how one defines semantics.
-
I stand corrected. Was it Tuscaloosa? Records say it was Baton Rouge
Ur wright, Petrocelli, after ya got it rong ta begin wit. Nundaless, eye wuz at boat, hey?
-
Ur wright, Petrocelli, after ya got it rong ta begin wit. Nundaless, eye wuz at boat, hey?
Cool. Would have been awesome to be at
-
What you’re doing here is weighting the dice in the NCAA tournament field to reflect the fact that better teams are much more likely to go far than worse teams. And worse teams have a virtual 0% chance to go far.
This would be equivalent to acknowledging the tournament not a crapshoot, but rather a large field with a very focused group that actually has a chance to win.
If the argument is that the tournament is a crapshoot ONLY amongst the top 20-25 teams - I would actually agree with that. But that’s not the argument people are making. People are saying the NCAA tournament, on the whole, is a crapshoot. Which is neither mathematically or logically true.
The dice are weighted toward the better teams just like the dice in craps are effectively weighted toward the most likely results (rolling something in the 5-9 range). Here's the argument I made earlier in the thread:
So I would stand by that in any given year, there are 5-10 teams that can win it, and in years like this one, that number balloons to 20-30 teams that could win it.
If the #1 team always won it, or even usually won it, then it wouldn't be a crapshoot. But typically there's a number of teams that could win it, many of whom aren't that consensus "best" team going in, and sometimes there are major outliers that win it. There's a limit to how far out that range goes (I don't think we'll ever see a 13-16 seed win, and think it's highly unlikely for double-digit seeds in general) but when you play one-off scenarios, it becomes random enough that teams like FAU or Miami could win it, even though they are well into the "crapshoot" range.
-
If the #1 team always won it, or even usually won it, then it wouldn't be a crapshoot.
Except this is not the logical inverse of a crapshoot, regardless of the definition you use.
-
The dice are weighted toward the better teams just like the dice in craps are effectively weighted toward the most likely results (rolling something in the 5-9 range).
The dice in craps are not “effectively weighted”. There are more combinations of outcomes that make a 7 in a field of 12 than any other result. That’s not “effectively” the same thing as weighting the dice.
The probability of the national champion coming from tier 1 in a field of 12 tiers is 86% - not close to a crapshoot.
-
The dice are weighted toward the better teams just like the dice in craps are effectively weighted toward the most likely results (rolling something in the 5-9 range). Here's the argument I made earlier in the thread:
If the #1 team always won it, or even usually won it, then it wouldn't be a crapshoot. But typically there's a number of teams that could win it, many of whom aren't that consensus "best" team going in, and sometimes there are major outliers that win it. There's a limit to how far out that range goes (I don't think we'll ever see a 13-16 seed win, and think it's highly unlikely for double-digit seeds in general) but when you play one-off scenarios, it becomes random enough that teams like FAU or Miami could win it, even though they are well into the "crapshoot" range.
Precisely, the tournament has been and always will be a crapshoot. Some people need coping mechanisms to handle other fans not being as mad as they are their team lost. It’s weird but at the end of the day, the tournament is a crapshoot just like coaches say it is
-
The dice are weighted toward the better teams just like the dice in craps are effectively weighted toward the most likely results (rolling something in the 5-9 range). Here's the argument I made earlier in the thread:
If the #1 team always won it, or even usually won it, then it wouldn't be a crapshoot. But typically there's a number of teams that could win it, many of whom aren't that consensus "best" team going in, and sometimes there are major outliers that win it. There's a limit to how far out that range goes (I don't think we'll ever see a 13-16 seed win, and think it's highly unlikely for double-digit seeds in general) but when you play one-off scenarios, it becomes random enough that teams like FAU or Miami could win it, even though they are well into the "crapshoot" range.
Yep. And double-digit seeds don't need to win it to turn the tournament on its head. When they win in the first round -- which happens several times every year -- it changes the dynamic of the event. Suddenly, for example, 5 seeds that might not really be among the best teams in the field get better roads to advancing because the 13 beat the 4 in their region.
Even if one doesn't want to admit that the tournament is always a crapshoot, can one seriously look at what happened in 2023 and deny that this year was the ultimate crapshoot? Or would they argue that the cream rose to the top because San Diego State, Miami, Florida Atlantic and UConn really are the nation's 4 best teams?
-
I’d say they are the 4 best teams, for the past two weeks. They’re the only teams that are undefeated the past couple of weeks.
-
I’d say they are the 4 best teams, for the past two weeks. They’re the only teams that are undefeated the past couple of weeks.
And the Badgers
-
And the Badgers
further qualification: the only teams that are undefeated the past couple of weeks against good competition
-
further qualification: the only teams that are undefeated the past couple of weeks against good competition
Qualification wasn’t really necessary.
Only reason to include the Badgers would be if you also try to collect money from the craps table when you’re dealt a 7 in Blackjack.
-
further qualification: the only teams that are undefeated the past couple of weeks against good competition
The NIT is a crapshoot, too.
-
And the Badgers
When Wiscy won at Oregon recently Oregon played without their starting PG, SG and Center.
-
When Wiscy won at Oregon recently Oregon played without their starting PG, SG and Center.
Exactly. Crapshoot
-
When Wiscy won at Oregon recently Oregon played without their starting PG, SG and Center.
It is difficult to win 2 on 5, but that's what the NIT tournament committee decided would be a fair handicap to make the sides even.
-
I’d say they are the 4 best teams, for the past two weeks. They’re the only teams that are undefeated the past couple of weeks.
Metrically, though, they aren't. Per Torvik, here are the rankings since Selection Sunday:
1) UConn
4) Miami
9) San Diego State
27) FAU
They also aren't the only undefeated teams the past couple of weeks. North Texas, Utah Valley, UAB, Wisconsin, and Charlotte are also all undefeated. Four of the five rate higher than FAU.
-
Four of the five rate higher than FAU.
Even you can’t be this married to advanced stats
-
Metrically, though, they aren't. Per Torvik, here are the rankings since Selection Sunday:
1) UConn
4) Miami
9) San Diego State
27) FAU
They also aren't the only undefeated teams the past couple of weeks. North Texas, Utah Valley, UAB, Wisconsin, and Charlotte are also all undefeated. Four of the five rate higher than FAU.
Further proof the tournament is a crapshoot. As decisive as this poll
-
Even you can’t be this married to advanced stats
I have to agree.
-
Even you can’t be this married to advanced stats
Do you really think FAU is one of the four best teams in the country? Or remotely close to that? They aren't, and they haven't played like it this tournament. They escaped a 50/50 game they honestly should've lost, got the easiest second round game in the history of the NCAA Tournament, and got out of a relatively weak four-team pod at MSG.
They've had a fun run and I've greatly enjoyed it (and made a lot of money on it) but even though they could feasibly win a national championship, they are not one of the four best, nor one of the ten best teams in the country and haven't played like it at any point this season. Including the past two weeks.
-
Do you really think FAU is one of the four best teams in the country? Or remotely close to that? They aren't, and they haven't played like it this tournament. They escaped a 50/50 game they honestly should've lost, got the easiest second round game in the history of the NCAA Tournament, and got out of a relatively weak four-team pod at MSG.
They've had a fun run and I've greatly enjoyed it (and made a lot of money on it) but even though they could feasibly win a national championship, they are not one of the four best, nor one of the ten best teams in the country and haven't played like it at any point this season. Including the past two weeks.
They won the 4 basketball games on their schedule in a region setup exactly the way as everyone else’s. It’s not any deeper than that.
I am a big stats / analytics guy but there comes a point where you have to close the spreadsheet and look at the results.
-
I’d have to imagine that 4/5 just turned to 3/5.
If not the model is seriously flawed.
-
NIT proving single elimination tournaments are crapshoots
-
Shouldn’t we just have the NCAA tourney decided all by analytics - the the most fair and accurate way to do it.
-
Shouldn’t we just have the NCAA tourney decided all by analytics - the the most fair and accurate way to do it.
Why would you do that? Tournament wouldn’t be a crapshoot then
-
They won the 4 basketball games on their schedule in a region setup exactly the way as everyone else’s. It’s not any deeper than that.
I am a big stats / analytics guy but there comes a point where you have to close the spreadsheet and look at the results.
If you really think FAU is one of the four best teams in the country, I have some lovely development property in South Florida you might also be interested in west of Boca Raton.
-
NCAA tourney - single elimination and 64+ teams - is this most statistically random outcome of all the major sporting event championships.
Therefore, crapshoot
-
If you really think FAU is one of the four best teams in the country, I have some lovely development property in South Florida you might also be interested in west of Boca Raton.
If you think 4 teams not in the NCAA tournament are better than FAU right now I have some lovely oceanfront property in North Texas you might be interested in.
-
NCAA tourney - single elimination and 64+ teams - is this most statistically random outcome of all the major sporting event championships.
Therefore, crapshoot
Except it’s not at all statistically random because a top 6 statistically ranked team wins it 86% of the time.
-
NCAA tourney - single elimination and 64+ teams - is this most statistically random outcome of all the major sporting event championships.
Therefore, crapshoot
Yup. I’m glad over 70% of scoop knows ball
-
If you think 4 teams not in the NCAA tournament are better than FAU right now I have some lovely oceanfront property in North Texas you might be interested in.
I think at least a dozen teams not in the NCAA Tournament are better than FAU right now, including one right here in Milwaukee.
Teams that aren't among the four best teams make the Final Four all the time. It happens pretty much every year. And that's okay. It's that random unpredictability that allows less competent teams to reach the sport's biggest stage that makes it so compelling.
-
I think at least a dozen teams not in the NCAA Tournament are better than FAU right now, including one right here in Milwaukee.
Teams that aren't among the four best teams make the Final Four all the time. It happens pretty much every year. And that's okay. It's that random unpredictability that allows less competent teams to reach the sport's biggest stage that makes it so compelling.
I’d take a bakers dozen and then some over Miami, too.
-
No way dude. I picked Miami for the Final Four. Don’t try to take that from me.
-
No way dude. I picked Miami for the Final Four. Don’t try to take that from me.
They’ve been very impressive in the tournament.
-
Well they won the ACC tournament too so I had to roll with them. They found the right dice for the crapshoot.
-
Well they won the ACC tournament too so I had to roll with them. They found the right dice for the crapshoot.
They have and they haven’t had the luck of FAU. They’ve knocked out two very good teams
-
They’ve been very impressive in the tournament.
Because of the one-off nature, a team like Miami can break through despite there being many better teams in the field. Miami played two such teams this past week in Houston and Texas. If those teams play a 7-game series, Miami loses 4-1 or 4-2 against either, but because it was just the single result, they survived and advanced.
There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that the unpredictability of Tournament results can lead to lesser teams reaching the biggest stage. It's simply a recognition of reality. We've seen it with teams like VCU, George Mason, Butler, UConn, UCLA, we've seen plenty of teams that aren't elite get to the Final Four or beyond because of lucky breaks or playing great games. Even 2003 Marquette, which was one of the sports highlights of my life, probably lose to Kentucky in a 7-game series. But we got the greatest single game performance from the greatest player in program history and ended up beating them comfortably.
The ability for the underdog to win is what makes the tournament so magical. The reason it's awesome is BECAUSE it's a crapshoot. If the top algorithmic team won every year, it wouldn't be compelling. But that's not what happens, and that's why we love it.
-
You’re still running with the logic that anything other than the algorithmically 4 best teams pre-tournament in the Final Four means it’s a crapshoot.
I need to understand that.
-
You’re still running with the logic that anything other than the algorithmically 4 best teams pre-tournament in the Final Four means it’s a crapshoot.
I need to understand that.
Was Wisconsin decidedly better than Marquette this year?
I'm not talking about for one game in December, I'm talking about the whole season. Is it your contention that Wisconsin was a superior team to Marquette?
-
Was Wisconsin decidedly better than Marquette this year?
I'm not talking about for one game in December, I'm talking about the whole season. Is it your contention that Wisconsin was a superior team to Marquette?
No. Never was.
My contention is teams from an extremely focused top group out of a field of 68 generally make it to the Final Four and win the thing at a statistically significantly higher rate. That fact in and of itself makes the tournament not a crapshoot.
-
No. Never was.
My contention is teams from an extremely focused top group out of a field of 68 generally make it to the Final Four and win the thing at a statistically significantly higher rate. That fact in and of itself makes the tournament not a crapshoot.
6, 7, and 8 come up on a roll of a pair of dice at a statistically higher rate. Duh.
-
“I won’t give you definitions…but I didn’t get the results I expected, once again ended up with egg on my face, so now I am going to tell you you’re wrong because of the definition of a crapshoot!”
And you don’t even have the actual definition right. Sad.
-
6, 7, and 8 come up on a roll of a pair of dice at a statistically higher rate. Duh.
Those numbers represent 3 possible outcomes in a field of 12 possible outcomes. So 1/4th of the field.
The odds of rolling one of those numbers on any given crapshoot are mathematically 44.3%.
The top 1/4th of the field of 68 (17 teams) wins the tournament 90%+ of the time.
Now explain to me how the tournament is a crapshoot.
-
No. Never was.
My contention is teams from an extremely focused top group out of a field of 68 generally make it to the Final Four and win the thing at a statistically significantly higher rate. That fact in and of itself makes the tournament not a crapshoot.
And yet you said this:
I am a big stats / analytics guy but there comes a point where you have to close the spreadsheet and look at the results.
In order to "look at the results" you have to look at a large sample size, not just a one-off incident. FAU beating FDU, the weakest Round of 32 team in the history of the NCAA Tournament, is not indicative of their superiority. It's looking at all the results from the entire season that tells you that.
It isn't how we crown the champion, but the best team only occasionally wins the Championship. And that's okay. That's what makes it fun.
However anyone with an iota of logic can clearly see Marquette was better than Wisconsin this year, even though Wisconsin won at Fiserv. Because one-off results don't determine the best team, only the best team on that day. Which is why the NCAA Tournament is a product of weighted randomness.
-
6, 7, and 8 come up on a roll of a pair of dice at a statistically higher rate. Duh.
You may be on to something here. I’ll have to think about that the next time I fill out my bracket.
-
Those numbers represent 3 possible outcomes in a field of 12 possible outcomes. So 1/4th of the field.
There aren't 12 possible outcomes.
-
There aren't 12 possible outcomes.
If you are referring to rolling a specific number, which the original poster of this was, there are only 12 possible outcomes.
-
If you are referring to rolling a specific number, which the original poster of this was, there are only 12 possible outcomes.
No, there are not. There are not 12 outcomes when you are rolling two six-sided dice. There are 11.
-
No, there are not. There are not 12 outcomes when you are rolling two six-sided dice. There are 11.
You are correct.
Actually makes my math more compelling as my denominator to split the field of 68 is now lower, meaning I get bigger groups when I compare apples to apples.
Thanks!
-
Actually makes my math more compelling as my denominator to split the field of 68 is now lower, meaning I get bigger groups when I compare apples to apples.
It really does not. And honestly, saying there are 11 equally possible outcomes is simply not true. In reality, there are 36 outcomes because there is not an equal likelihood to rolling 2 as there is to rolling 7. You keep trying to define crapshoot in the sense that it is completely random. That's not what it is. It's unpredictable, it's a gamble, but it's not purely random. Just like the NCAA Tournament. It's a mix of unpredictable results that still favor certain outcomes over others. Just like shooting craps.
-
It really does not. And honestly, saying there are 11 equally possible outcomes is simply not true. In reality, there are 36 outcomes because there is not an equal likelihood to rolling 2 as there is to rolling 7. You keep trying to define crapshoot in the sense that it is completely random. That's not what it is. It's unpredictable, it's a gamble, but it's not purely random. Just like the NCAA Tournament. It's a mix of unpredictable results that still favor certain outcomes over others. Just like shooting craps.
But it’s not *just like shooting craps* because the most UNLIKELY outcomes in the field of craps outcomes is far more likely to occur than the most unlikely outcome in the field of possible NCAA tournament outcomes.
It’s analogous to shooting craps in that both have risks, uncertainties, probabilities, etc. But it’s far more predictable than rolling dice at the end of the day.
I won’t perpetuate with you anymore. I actually respect your opinions and your logic. You present arguments in a logically sound manner and don’t sink to personal insults immediately. And I usually agree with your takes, to be quite honest! Cheers!
-
And considering your preferred result got absolutely pasted in the poll you created, maybe just time to take the loss on this one.
You refused to provide a definition, so it was defined for you in the replies. The arguments made led to a decisive result that went against you, indicating that while you may not like it, Scoop on the whole agrees with the crapshoot terminology. Better luck next time.
-
I agree: “But it’s not *just like shooting craps* because the most UNLIKELY outcomes in the field of craps outcomes is far more likely to occur than the most unlikely outcome in the field of possible NCAA tournament outcomes.”
-
"Guys, guys--the standard deviation of the normal distribution in craps is greater than the standard deviation of the tournament outcomes--so your analogy is wrong!"
-
Can’t win them all
-
Except it’s not at all statistically random because a top 6 statistically ranked team wins it 86% of the time.
Try to take my whole statement in context when responding
-
I answered yes, and I think so because it's a single elimination format, as many have said. Thus, specific matchups are very important, and there is the luck factor (see KenPom). If Purdue and FDU play 100 times, Purdue probably wins 98-99 of those.
-
Is the tournament a crapshoot or are analytics wrongly evaluating certain teams?
-
The butterfly effect cannot be ignored too at the micro level.
-
Is the tournament a crapshoot or are analytics wrongly evaluating certain teams?
Analytics are never wrong, at least on Scoop.
-
Is the tournament a crapshoot or are analytics wrongly evaluating certain teams?
If these are the two choices, then "crapshoot" is the easy answer.
The metrics evaluate teams based on their performances over several games and project scores and probabilities of winning based on those metrics. The metrics might tell us that Team A has an 80% chance of beating Team B (which would reflect a pretty large point spread). But, if Team B wins, that doesn't mean the metrics were wrong, it's just that the lower probability resulted. I'd compare it to saying that the probability of rolling a 5 or higher on a pair of dice is 83.3%. If I proceed to roll a 4, that doesn't mean the probability was wrong.
-
To get the definitive answer, I asked ChatGPT:
Open sidebar
NCAA Tournament: Random or Not?
Dr. Blackheart
Is the NCAA basketball tournament a crapshoot?
There is certainly an element of unpredictability in the NCAA basketball tournament, also known as March Madness. The tournament features 68 teams from across the United States, many of whom have not played against each other during the regular season. Additionally, the tournament is single-elimination, meaning that one loss can knock a team out of the competition.
With so many teams and so many games, it is difficult to predict with certainty which team will win the tournament. Upsets are not uncommon, and lower-seeded teams have been known to knock off higher-seeded teams.
That being said, the NCAA basketball tournament is not a complete crapshoot. The teams that make the tournament are typically the best teams in the country, and they have earned their spots through their performance during the regular season and conference tournaments. Additionally, teams that perform well in the tournament often have strong coaching, experienced players, and a cohesive team dynamic.
In summary, while there is an element of unpredictability in the NCAA basketball tournament, it is not completely random. The best teams still have a better chance of winning, but upsets and unexpected outcomes are always a possibility.
ChatGPT Mar 14 Version. Free Research Preview. Our goal is to make AI systems more natural and safe to interact with. Your feedback will help us improve.
-
The robots are getting smarter. I’m not totally convinced 5dollar wasn’t a bot.
-
I don’t think anyone has come close to suggesting that the NCAA tournament is completely random.
But saying that upsets and unexpected results are a “”possibility” is the understatement of the year.
There are always upsets and unexpected results, even when high seeds end up in the Final Four. Part of the crapshoot is that you never know where those upsets are going to strike.
And when you get to games involving two teams in the top 32 seeds in this age of parity, there are not many true upsets, even though they are described that way when a lower seed wins. Results like that are quite common during the regular season, but they don’t eliminate the losers from competition.
-
I don’t think anyone has come close to suggesting that the NCAA tournament is completely random.
But saying that upsets and unexpected results are a “”possibility” is the understatement of the year.
There are always upsets and unexpected results, even when high seeds end up in the Final Four. Part of the crapshoot is that you never know where those upsets are going to strike.
And when you get to games involving two teams in the top 32 seeds in this age of parity, there are not many true upsets, even though they are described that way when a lower seed wins. Results like that are quite common during the regular season, but they don’t eliminate the losers from competition.
I am typically surprised that in spite of the many millions of brackets completed and submitted, nobody gets particularly close to a perfect bracket. Often everyone is eliminated by the end of the first round. This speaks to the element of unpredictability in the tournament.
-
I am typically surprised that in spite of the many millions of brackets completed and submitted, nobody gets particularly close to a perfect bracket. Often everyone is eliminated by the end of the first round. This speaks to the element of unpredictability in the tournament.
IIRC (and I might not be), the year George Mason went to the Final Four (2006) somebody in one of the big national contests did have a perfect bracket (or at least perfect through that point). The kicker was that he actually thought he was picking George Washington but accidentally picked George Mason. It was something dopey like that.
-
IIRC (and I might not be), the year George Mason went to the Final Four (2006) somebody in one of the big national contests did have a perfect bracket (or at least perfect through that point). The kicker was that he actually thought he was picking George Washington but accidentally picked George Mason. It was something dopey like that.
Well, that got me curious...
The NCAA says (https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/bracketiq/2023-03-17/longest-ncaa-bracket-has-ever-stayed-perfect#:~:text=The%20longest%20(verifiable)%20streak%20of,that%20was%20established%20in%202019.) the record was set in 2019 when some guy from Columbus had a perfect bracket through 49 games (i.e., just into the S16). They claim he was the first person documented to make it out of the second round with a perfect sheet which broke the prior record of 38 games (i.e., halfway through the second round).
-
Well, that got me curious...
The NCAA says (https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/bracketiq/2023-03-17/longest-ncaa-bracket-has-ever-stayed-perfect#:~:text=The%20longest%20(verifiable)%20streak%20of,that%20was%20established%20in%202019.) the record was set in 2019 when some guy from Columbus had a perfect bracket through 49 games (i.e., just into the S16). They claim he was the first person documented to make it out of the second round with a perfect sheet which broke the prior record of 38 games (i.e., halfway through the second round).
Well, as I said, I might not have remembered correctly ... and it appears I was right about that!
Just did some googling and I found this from the 3/28/06 NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/sports/college-basketball-oops-a-few-end-up-afloat-in-the-pool.html
Know anyone who has the Final Four intact in the office pool? No way.
After all, not one top-seeded team made it. The last time that happened was 1980. Who could have picked the Patriots -- not Tom Brady & Company, but the ones from George Mason?
Was there a secret to making sense of possibly the most unpredictable N.C.A.A. tournament? For Russell Pleasant, a 46-year-old software engineer from Omaha, it took a lucky mistake.
When he filled out his bracket earlier this month, he thought George Washington would reach this weekend's Final Four. Instead, he ended up picking George Mason, round after round after round, all the way to Indianapolis.
Now, he finds himself a rare survivor among millions of broken hearts with busted brackets across the nation. In ESPN.com's 2006 Men's College Basketball Tournament Challenge, Pleasant had one of the four entries among three million with U.C.L.A., Louisiana State, Florida and George Mason in the Final Four.
Last season, 4,172 people picked all four teams in ESPN.com's pool. But last year's Final Four featured a more predictable lineup: two top-seeded teams, North Carolina and Illinois; a fourth-seeded team, Louisville; and a fifth-seeded team, Michigan State.
At cbs.sportsline.com, none of the two million brackets submitted this year had all four teams. In the Yahoo Sports pool, just one of more than a million entered had all four. That entry was submitted by a contestant named Tim McKenna.
"One night I was watching some of the games, and I saw George Washington," Pleasant said last night in a telephone interview. "I said that team is good; I like them."
Same first name, different last name. Oh, well.
"Man, all those Georges." he said. "I knew they were all from D.C. I like Georgetown, too."
In November, Pleasant watched George Mason take on Creighton on television. Even though Creighton won, 72-52, Pleasant said he remembered thinking that George Mason was pretty good.
"I thought I had George Mason in the Sweet 16," he said.
But it was the other way around: he had eighth-seeded George Washington in the Round of 16 and 11th-seeded George Mason in the Final Four. George Washington lost to Duke in the second round.
By the way, Pleasant picked Florida to defeat U.C.L.A. in the championship game. He remains in contention to win the top prize, $10,000.
Mike Breen, a mathematician at the American Mathematical Society in Providence, R.I., said the chances of correctly picking the Final Four in ESPN.com's contest this year were about 1 in 750,000. Last year, he said, roughly 1 in 700 brackets included the correct four teams.
-
Well, as I said, I might not have remembered correctly ... and it appears I was right about that!
Just did some googling and I found this from the 3/28/06 NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/sports/college-basketball-oops-a-few-end-up-afloat-in-the-pool.html
Know anyone who has the Final Four intact in the office pool? No way.
After all, not one top-seeded team made it. The last time that happened was 1980. Who could have picked the Patriots -- not Tom Brady & Company, but the ones from George Mason?
Was there a secret to making sense of possibly the most unpredictable N.C.A.A. tournament? For Russell Pleasant, a 46-year-old software engineer from Omaha, it took a lucky mistake.
When he filled out his bracket earlier this month, he thought George Washington would reach this weekend's Final Four. Instead, he ended up picking George Mason, round after round after round, all the way to Indianapolis.
Now, he finds himself a rare survivor among millions of broken hearts with busted brackets across the nation. In ESPN.com's 2006 Men's College Basketball Tournament Challenge, Pleasant had one of the four entries among three million with U.C.L.A., Louisiana State, Florida and George Mason in the Final Four.
Last season, 4,172 people picked all four teams in ESPN.com's pool. But last year's Final Four featured a more predictable lineup: two top-seeded teams, North Carolina and Illinois; a fourth-seeded team, Louisville; and a fifth-seeded team, Michigan State.
At cbs.sportsline.com, none of the two million brackets submitted this year had all four teams. In the Yahoo Sports pool, just one of more than a million entered had all four. That entry was submitted by a contestant named Tim McKenna.
"One night I was watching some of the games, and I saw George Washington," Pleasant said last night in a telephone interview. "I said that team is good; I like them."
Same first name, different last name. Oh, well.
"Man, all those Georges." he said. "I knew they were all from D.C. I like Georgetown, too."
In November, Pleasant watched George Mason take on Creighton on television. Even though Creighton won, 72-52, Pleasant said he remembered thinking that George Mason was pretty good.
"I thought I had George Mason in the Sweet 16," he said.
But it was the other way around: he had eighth-seeded George Washington in the Round of 16 and 11th-seeded George Mason in the Final Four. George Washington lost to Duke in the second round.
By the way, Pleasant picked Florida to defeat U.C.L.A. in the championship game. He remains in contention to win the top prize, $10,000.
Mike Breen, a mathematician at the American Mathematical Society in Providence, R.I., said the chances of correctly picking the Final Four in ESPN.com's contest this year were about 1 in 750,000. Last year, he said, roughly 1 in 700 brackets included the correct four teams.
Thanks for digging that up. I made a half-hearted effort to find what you had mentioned and just settled for the NCAA article that I linked. But yes, picking the correct final four is very different than having a perfect bracket up through the FF which, apparently, has never been done on a documented bracket.
-
To get the definitive answer, I asked ChatGPT:
Funny, I asked Bard yesterday, and it created a similar answer, talking about the random nature of upsets, but only going as far as to say it's often referred to as a "crapshoot".
-
Funny, I asked Bard yesterday, and it created a similar answer, talking about the random nature of upsets, but only going as far as to say it's often referred to as a "crapshoot".
Did it say that people who refer to the tournament as a “”crapshoot” are told they are wrong by people who think they mean it is literally, mathematically the same as shooting craps?
-
Funny, I asked Bard yesterday, and it created a similar answer, talking about the random nature of upsets, but only going as far as to say it's often referred to as a "crapshoot".
I wonder if scoop is in the training data set for any of these LLMs and if so what irreparable damage may be inflicted upon future generations.
-
Did it say that people who refer to the tournament as a “”crapshoot” are told they are wrong by people who think they mean it is literally, mathematically the same as shooting craps?
Nailed it.
-
BREAKING NEWS: KenPom number 1 overall rated team wins crapshoot tournament
-
BREAKING NEWS: KenPom number 1 overall rated team wins crapshoot tournament
Well they are number 1 now. I think they were 4 when the tourney started.
And in the same tournament, the #6 overall kenpom team lost to the #312 team, a result that I'd guess less than 1% of brackets predicted. An unpredictable result, i.e. one of the defintions of a crapshoot (the most commonly used one).
The crapshoot meme was never about the championship, it was about the bracket as a whole
-
Well they are number 1 now. I think they were 4 when the tourney started.
Correct. They stayed at number 4 until the S16 win over Arkansas. They moved to 1 after that game.
-
Also, UCONN winning the national title is not breaking news at all.
-
Well they are number 1 now. I think they were 4 when the tourney started.
And in the same tournament, the #6 overall kenpom team lost to the #312 team, a result that I'd guess less than 1% of brackets predicted. An unpredictable result, i.e. one of the defintions of a crapshoot (the most commonly used one).
The crapshoot meme was never about the championship, it was about the bracket as a whole
Oh, TAMU, don't be ruining 5Buck Chuck's narrative by stating actual facts.
-
BREAKING NEWS: KenPom number 1 overall rated team wins crapshoot tournament
Isn’t this a fact?
-
Isn’t this a fact?
See TAMU’s response. Learn something instead of thinking you know everything.
-
Since we’re ranked number one by composite scores, and the Tourney is definitively not a crapshoot, can we just hang our 2024 NCAA Tournament champions banner already? What’s the wait?
-
Well they are number 1 now. I think they were 4 when the tourney started.
And in the same tournament, the #6 overall kenpom team lost to the #312 team, a result that I'd guess less than 1% of brackets predicted. An unpredictable result, i.e. one of the defintions of a crapshoot (the most commonly used one).
The crapshoot meme was never about the championship, it was about the bracket as a whole
It’s all math - in a tournament the size of the NCAAs minor (and more rarely) major upsets happen. Most Scoopers considered it a major upset that we didn’t make the Sweet 16. If you think that a 54% free throw shooter missing a free throw is surprising then it was - I don’t. 16s beating 1s almost never happen, but they can in any sport or in life itself. Buster Douglas beats Tyson, Namath and the Jets beat the Colts, it rains when it isn’t supposed to, you’re involved in a terrible car accident - unpredictable things happen all the time. So (by one definition anyway) life is a crapshoot.
-
It’s all math - in a tournament the size of the NCAAs minor (and more rarely) major upsets happen. Most Scoopers considered it a major upset that we didn’t make the Sweet 16. If you think that a 54% free throw shooter missing a free throw is surprising then it was - I don’t. 16s beating 1s almost never happen, but they can in any sport or in life itself. Buster Douglas beats Tyson, Namath and the Jets beat the Colts, it rains when it isn’t supposed to, you’re involved in a terrible car accident - unpredictable things happen all the time. So (by one definition anyway) life is a crapshoot.
I remember doing the math at some point that if you had a 67% chance of predicting every game (which is amazing), with 67 games played, you had like a 1 in 450 billion chance of getting your bracket correct.
-
How is a perfect bracket the inverse of a crapshoot as so many seem to imply
-
1/crapshoot.
-
It’s all math - in a tournament the size of the NCAAs minor (and more rarely) major upsets happen. Most Scoopers considered it a major upset that we didn’t make the Sweet 16. If you think that a 54% free throw shooter missing a free throw is surprising then it was - I don’t. 16s beating 1s almost never happen, but they can in any sport or in life itself. Buster Douglas beats Tyson, Namath and the Jets beat the Colts, it rains when it isn’t supposed to, you’re involved in a terrible car accident - unpredictable things happen all the time. So (by one definition anyway) life is a crapshoot.
Okay, so you agree?
-
IMHO, if you view the stock market as a crapshoot, then you probably think the NCAA is a crapshoot.
-
How is a perfect bracket the inverse of a crapshoot as so many seem to imply
No one has implied that.
The original "crapshoot" meme was brought up because there was an argument about if coaching candidates should be judged solely by their success in March. Namely, is it wise to hire candidates like Andy Enfield, Archie Miller, or recently Dusty May because of one tournament run. Those who proported the crapshoot meme were pointing out that solely evaluating a coach on 2 to 4 games is probably not wise when a much larger sample size is available.
-
How is a perfect bracket the inverse of a crapshoot as so many seem to imply
There is def middle ground here. If a coach always had a top 10 team over 10 years and never made a final four... that is a coach who doesnt build March teams.
Conversely, look at all of the great March coaches who have lost early in the tourney with a great team.
-
Isn’t this a fact?
The problem with this rationale is it wasn't true when the tourney started. Since brackets were filled out starting on March 13, the #1 team Houston, #2 Alabama, and #3 UCLA all lost.
UConn wasn't #1 and then won the tournament, they became #1 by winning the tournament. They got there because (and not until) the teams in front of them lost.
-
The problem with this rationale is it wasn't true when the tourney started. Since brackets were filled out starting on March 13, the #1 team Houston, #2 Alabama, and #3 UCLA all lost.
UConn wasn't #1 and then won the tournament, they became #1 by winning the tournament. They got there because (and not until) the teams in front of them lost.
The polls are flawed and a crapshoot.
-
BREAKING NEWS: KenPom number 1 overall rated team wins crapshoot tournament
KenPom is a crapshoot.
-
The polls are flawed and a crapshoot.
What polls? No one is talking about polls.
-
What polls? No one is talking about polls.
I think I lost track of the thread. Humor gone bad.
-
The problem with this rationale is it wasn't true when the tourney started. Since brackets were filled out starting on March 13, the #1 team Houston, #2 Alabama, and #3 UCLA all lost.
UConn wasn't #1 and then won the tournament, they became #1 by winning the tournament. They got there because (and not until) the teams in front of them lost.
So they played basketball games at such a high level that they became statistically the best team in the country and also won the tournament?
Doesn’t sound like a crapshoot. Sounds like they were just better than everybody else.
-
So they played basketball games at such a high level that they became statistically the best team in the country and also won the tournament?
Doesn’t sound like a crapshoot. Sounds like they were just better than everybody else.
UConn avoided Bill Self and Kansas. Thats a shot of the craps right there.
-
Were the NCAA tournament not a crapshoot, to win the title UConn would have had to beat the #1 in its own West Region, the #2 in its own region, the #1 in the Midwest, and either the #1 in the East or the #1 in the South.
But because of the crapshooty nature of the NCAA tournament, UConn got to avoid having to play any #1 or #2 seed en route to the championship.
Hurley and his team sure are thankful that the tournament is a crapshoot.
-
So they played basketball games at such a high level that they became statistically the best team in the country and also won the tournament?
Doesn’t sound like a crapshoot. Sounds like they were just better than everybody else.
Your argument completely falls apart when you get past UConn though. Because either it's not a crapshoot, and thus Houston, Alabama, and Tennessee were in the Final Four, or it is a crapshoot, which allowed SDSU to reach the final despite finishing #14 at kenpom, when if they were really the second best team they would have become that by playing games at such a high level.
Quite simply, you've painted yourself into a corner of wrongness and can't get out.
-
Your argument completely falls apart when you get past UConn though. Because either it's not a crapshoot, and thus Houston, Alabama, and Tennessee were in the Final Four, or it is a crapshoot, which allowed SDSU to reach the final despite finishing #14 at kenpom, when if they were really the second best team they would have become that by playing games at such a high level.
Quite simply, you've painted yourself into a corner of wrongness and can't get out.
It falls apart even when UConn is included, brew. The crapshooty nature of the tournament gave them a relatively easy road to the title -- game after game after game.
They were fortunate they didn't have to play a top-half-of-the-Big-East caliber team in the NCAA tourney.
-
Were the NCAA tournament not a crapshoot, to win the title UConn would have had to beat the #1 in its own West Region, the #2 in its own region, the #1 in the Midwest, and either the #1 in the East or the #1 in the South.
But because of the crapshooty nature of the NCAA tournament, UConn got to avoid having to play any #1 or #2 seed en route to the championship.
Hurley and his team sure are thankful that the tournament is a crapshoot.
Higher seed has to win every game or else crapshoot - good logic.
-
Higher seed has to win every game or else crapshoot - good logic.
If only I had said that.
But don't worry, nobody ever expects you to admit you're wrong. You're one of the handful of Scoopers who never do, no matter how wrong you are.
-
Your argument completely falls apart when you get past UConn though. Because either it's not a crapshoot, and thus Houston, Alabama, and Tennessee were in the Final Four, or it is a crapshoot, which allowed SDSU to reach the final despite finishing #14 at kenpom, when if they were really the second best team they would have become that by playing games at such a high level.
Quite simply, you've painted yourself into a corner of wrongness and can't get out.
The argument you and so many others continue to make is based on illustrating how the tournament is “not not a crapshoot”. You say that if it wasn’t a crapshoot, the top 4 KenPom teams would be in the Final Four every single time. Or the higher seed would win every time and there’d be a bunch of perfect brackets.
You can’t argue something is a crapshoot by arguing why it’s not not a crapshoot. Especially if your definition of “not a crapshoot” is as absurd as implying virtual 0% variability.
Again - the focused pool of the very top top teams wins the tournament and/or goes to the Final Four at rates like 80% and 90%+. Those percentages are not consistent with any definition of crapshoot.
-
The NCAA Tournament is a crapshoot.
What isn’t a crapshoot? The result of this poll
-
Okay, so you agree?
That life and everything about it isn’t 100% predictable? Sure. That the NCAA tournament is less beholden to math science and the laws of probability than other events? No.
But if the odds against Houston winning the NCAA were 7-1 and the odds against the Bucks (or whoever is favored in the NBA playoffs) are 8-5, of course it’s more likely that the favorite wins under the latter circumstances. Given that, the NBA playoffs are by definition more predictable.
-
The argument you and so many others continue to make is based on illustrating how the tournament is “not not a crapshoot”. You say that if it wasn’t a crapshoot, the top 4 KenPom teams would be in the Final Four every single time. Or the higher seed would win every time and there’d be a bunch of perfect brackets.
You can’t argue something is a crapshoot by arguing why it’s not not a crapshoot. Especially if your definition of “not a crapshoot” is as absurd as implying virtual 0% variability.
Again - the focused pool of the very top top teams wins the tournament and/or goes to the Final Four at rates like 80% and 90%+. Those percentages are not consistent with any definition of crapshoot.
Accept your well-deserved defeat and let this thread die a merciful death.
-
Accept your well-deserved defeat and let this thread die a merciful death.
Nah
-
That life and everything about it isn’t 100% predictable? Sure. That the NCAA tournament is less beholden to math science and the laws of probability than other events? No.
But if the odds against Houston winning the NCAA were 7-1 and the odds against the Bucks (or whoever is favored in the NBA playoffs) are 8-5, of course it’s more likely that the favorite wins under the latter circumstances. Given that, the NBA playoffs are by definition more predictable.
So you agree
-
Since there is no definition of 'crapshoot', this argument is akin to arguing what is a better color, purple or red.
-
Since there is no definition of 'crapshoot', this argument is akin to arguing what is a better color, purple or red.
The answer is obviously purple. Unless you're a Badger fan.
-
Since there is no definition of 'crapshoot', this argument is akin to arguing what is a better color, purple or red.
Better dead then red guy.
-
Since there is no definition of 'crapshoot', this argument is akin to arguing what is a better color, purple or red.
vikings or badgers. neither