Toughest 3 seed game, 10th toughest game

[mu_hilltopper]

Seeing so many 'experts' pick Davidson for the upset .. made me think about our #3 seeding.

By the opponent they gave us, Davidson, they gave us a 3 seed, yet the game more like a 7/10.

Generally speaking, in the first round, the higher your seed, the easier the game, right?  That's the whole theory behind having a bracket.  Gives everyone a chance to win 5 games, yet as a reward for higher performing teams, they get to play the lower performing teams..

So I looked at the point-spreads for the 1st round.  Not only does MU have the toughest 3-seed, as measured by what Vegas thinks, but they have the 10th hardest game out of the 32 higher seeds.   

I suppose one could suggest you don't earn a "matchup" you earn a seed.  Regardless .. MU's game is an outlier in the table below.

Code Select Expand

Team Spread Seed
Gonzaga -21.5 1
Louisville -20 1
Indiana -20 1
Florida -20.5 3
Kansas -20 1
Duke -18 2
Syracuse -13.5 4
Ohio State -13.5 2
Georgetown -13 2
Miami (FL) -11.5 2
Michigan -11 4
New Mexico -11 3
Michigan St -10.5 3
Saint Louis -9 4
VCU -7 5
Wisconsin -5 5
Pittsburgh -4.5 8
Arizona -4.5 6
NC State -4.5 8
Marquette -4 3  ***********
N Carolina -3.5 8
Butler -3 6
Oklahoma St -3 5
UNLV -3 5
Missouri -3 9
Creighton -3 7
Minnesota -3 11
San Diego St -2.5 7
Illinois -2 7


[Pakuni]

Davidson has an RPI of 61 and played the 190th toughest schedule in the nation.
They're 0-3 versus RPI top 50 and 2-1 versus RPI 51-100. Those wins are over Richmond (91) and Montana (74).

Other than the six-point home win over Montana, they're toughest opponent since a Jan. 2 whipping at the hands of Duke was #133 College of Charleston.
15 of their last 20 games have come against opponents with an RPI of 244 or higher. DePaul would be one of the toughest opponents on Davidson's schedule in 2013.

I'm not suggesting this is a can't-lose game for MU. I'm not sure such a thing exists for this MU team. But I fail to see what all the fretting is about.

[mu_hilltopper]

We could win, we could lose.  I wouldn't call that fretting.   It is what it is.

The thesis of this thread was .. relatively speaking, our 3 seed is a 4 point favorite amongst many other games that are "easier" according to oddsmakers.

[TJ]

We got a great draw, there is nothing to complain about.  I don't think MU would much better than a -4 against anyone this year - have we blown anyone out recently?  It's just not our game.

[Pakuni]

We could win, we could lose.  I wouldn't call that fretting.   It is what it is.

The thesis of this thread was .. relatively speaking, our 3 seed is a 4 point favorite amongst many other games that are "easier" according to oddsmakers.

Lines, as I'm sure you know, aren't established according to who's most likely to win relative to other games.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Point spreads are to drive betting, not predictors of who will win.

[MDMU04]

The difference in size, athletic ability, and talent between the players on the respective rosters should be sufficient to overcome any of the inherent randomness of a single elimination tournament when you are seeded as highly as #3.

There is a reason why #3 seeds win 85% of their games against the #14 seed opponents. That is a pretty significant win percentage.

It probably will not be easy and if this season has taught us anything it is that it will probably be quite ugly. But make no mistake, MU should win this game.

[Henry Sugar]

Point spreads are to drive betting, not predictors of who will win.

And yet, betting markets are remarkably good at predicting outcomes.

[mu_hilltopper]

Lines, as I'm sure you know, aren't established according to who's most likely to win relative to other games.

Lines aren't established relatively, no.  But the bracket/seeding is doing that quite purposely, or supposedly.  

The lines, which as Sugar has pointed out, are remarkably good on predicting the outcome.  

#3 MU by 4.  #3 MSU by 10.

[4everwarriors]

MU couldn't have asked for a better scenario. If they don't win this game by 10 or more, Buzz hasn't connected with them and we need better players.

[Pakuni]

And yet, betting markets are remarkably good at predicting outcomes.

True, but the opening line set in Vegas and the final line determined by the betting market are not the same thing.
The MU line already has moved .5 - 1 point in less than 18 hours.

[Henry Sugar]

True, but the opening line set in Vegas and the final line determined by the betting market are not the same thing.
The MU line already has moved .5 - 1 point in less than 18 hours.

How does that do anything but further substantiate the point?

To clarify, #mubb has a tougher 3-14 matchup than the other teams, but part of that is because MU is overseeded and Davidson is underseeded.

It's definitely a winnable set of games. Feels like a Holy Cross kind of game to me.

[Groin_pull]

MU's path to the Sweet 16 is blocked by Davidson and Butler/Bucknell. Are you kidding me? The way this board is reacting, you'd think we started with a rematch against Florida and had Duke in the second round in Greensboro.

If MU can't get by Davidson, it's totally on them.

[Aughnanure]

MU's path to the Sweet 16 is blocked by Davidson and Butler/Bucknell. Are you kidding me? The way this board is reacting, you'd think we started with a rematch against Florida and had Duke in the second round in Greensboro.

If MU can't get by Davidson, it's totally on them.

Yup. But I'll still be worried and paranoid about this game until the final buzzer.

[Dawson Rental]

Lines aren't established relatively, no.  But the bracket/seeding is doing that quite purposely, or supposedly.  

The lines, which as Sugar has pointed out, are remarkably good on predicting the outcome.  

#3 MU by 4.  #3 MSU by 10.

Remember, most thought that we would be a 4 seed.  It just makes sense that the last 3 seed (us) would get the top ranked 14 seed, right?  Still, I get your point a six point difference between our game and Michigan State's is far more than them being the fist 3 seed and us the last 3 seed would suggest.  What it really suggests is that Davidson is underseeded.

[Coleman]

There are no cupcakes in the NCAA tourney. MU will have to show up to win this game. If they lay an egg, they will be done.

That being said, this is a great draw. Take care of business and a rematch with Butler to get to the Sweet 16. Nothing to complain about.

[Pakuni]

How does that do anything but further substantiate the point?

The point is whether MU should be worried because the Vegas opening line - which is set to attract betters, not predict an outcome - is closer for their game than some others. I'm saying no. Do you agree or disagree?

Also, where's the data for your statement that betting markers are "remarkably accurate" for predicting outcomes. Not saying that's wrong, just would like to see the numbers.

Here's one relevant study I've found so far:

"The only evidence that we have about experts is that the bookmakers' opening line is less accurate than the final spread."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=betting+markets+accuracy+ncaa+basketball&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGQQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gwu.edu%2F~forcpgm%2FSports_paper_GW1.pdf&ei=Fz9HUckprbTgA9GagbgC&usg=AFQjCNECtqahcSrbKkRJqtJOgzKmpYAuiw&bvm=bv.43828540,d.dmg&cad=rja

[Dawson Rental]

Davidson has an RPI of 61 and played the 190th toughest schedule in the nation.
They're 0-3 versus RPI top 50 and 2-1 versus RPI 51-100. Those wins are over Richmond (91) and Montana (74).

Other than the six-point home win over Montana, they're toughest opponent since a Jan. 2 whipping at the hands of Duke was #133 College of Charleston.
15 of their last 20 games have come against opponents with an RPI of 244 or higher. DePaul would be one of the toughest opponents on Davidson's schedule in 2013.

I'm not suggesting this is a can't-lose game for MU. I'm not sure such a thing exists for this MU team. But I fail to see what all the fretting is about.

About the Montana win...  Davidson beat them at home and had to go to overtime in order to do it.  Richmond was a six point win on the road.

[tower912]

Our concern is simply because we have seen how good and how bad MU can me and we fear that the bad MU shows up.  If MU plays well, they win. 

[mu_hilltopper]

The point is whether MU should be worried because the Vegas opening line - which is set to attract betters, not predict an outcome - is closer for their game than some others. I'm saying no. Do you agree or disagree?

The point isn't about "MU being worried" .. and let's try to get past the concept of what the opening line is vs. what it ends up as.  The betting line is the market's way of showing who is favored to win, and by how much.

The point was as simple as the first post.  MU's 3 seed game is the hardest of the 3 seeds, and 10th hardest of all 32 higher-seeded games.  

Whether we're worried or not is .. irrelevant to this thread.

I'm more "worried" about MU losing than 3-seed MSU losing.  As is the market.

--

LittleMurs is correct.  We're probably overseeded at 3, Davidson is underseeded at 14.  The betting line/market suggests this is closer to a 7/10 game.

[Pakuni]

The point isn't about "MU being worried" .. and let's try to get past the concept of what the opening line is vs. what it ends up as.  The betting line is the market's way of showing who is favored to win, and by how much.

The point was as simple as the first post.  MU's 3 seed game is the hardest of the 3 seeds, and 10th hardest of all 32 higher-seeded games.  

Whether we're worried or not is .. irrelevant to this thread.

I'm more "worried" about MU losing than 3-seed MSU losing.  As is the market.

So you create this post based on the opening line and then suggest we should get past the concept of the opening line?
I'll just suggest that a review of the opening line relative to similarly seeded matchups is perhaps not the best or most accurate way to determine the difficulty of a contest.
And that the market doesn't worry who wins or loses, nor is it a reflection of that.

[esotericmindguy]

Point spreads are to drive betting, not predictors of who will win.

Huh? Bettors are going to bet, the line is developed for Vegas to at least break even so thy can collect the 10%. Of course the spreads are predicting who's going to win, that's why they have "money line" bets. The higher the spread the more money you risk betting a team to just win.

I encourage you to compare Kenpom predictions to Vegas lines. They are within a point or two 95% of the time.

[Dawson Rental]

Huh? Bettors are going to bet, the line is developed for Vegas to at least break even so thy can collect the 10%. Of course the spreads are predicting who's going to win, that's why they have "money line" bets. The higher the spread the more money you risk betting a team to just win.

I encourage you to compare Kenpom predictions to Vegas lines. They are within a point or two 95% of the time.

So, in this particular case, what is happening?  Does Kenpom have a prediction up yet?

[Goose]

I think MU has a great opening weekend draw. Thought getting to second weekend was longshot prior to bids being announced. S16 is definitely there to be had and honestly would be disappointed if it does not happen. Over past month I think I have changed my expectations for the fella's up and down about ten times. Crazy season...did not see a 3 seed happening.

[Henry Sugar]

The point is whether MU should be worried because the Vegas opening line - which is set to attract betters, not predict an outcome - is closer for their game than some others. I'm saying no. Do you agree or disagree?

Also, where's the data for your statement that betting markers are "remarkably accurate" for predicting outcomes. Not saying that's wrong, just would like to see the numbers.

Here's one relevant study I've found so far:

"The only evidence that we have about experts is that the bookmakers' opening line is less accurate than the final spread."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=betting+markets+accuracy+ncaa+basketball&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGQQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gwu.edu%2F~forcpgm%2FSports_paper_GW1.pdf&ei=Fz9HUckprbTgA9GagbgC&usg=AFQjCNECtqahcSrbKkRJqtJOgzKmpYAuiw&bvm=bv.43828540,d.dmg&cad=rja

Well, I was discussing the point of "are betting markets good predictors of outcomes?"

Thanks for challenging the statement and providing some information. I'm bored at work today, so it was kind of fun to dig into the studies and see the results. Honestly, I'm a big efficient markets guy, but I didn't have any supporting data tied to gambling markets or predicting outcomes until you questioned it.

However, the very paper you shared actually helped support the point I was making (emphasis mine):

D. MOST IMPORTANT RESULT
There is no evidence that either statistical systems or experts consistently outperform the market. This is not only agrees with the findings about economic efficiency but also with the evidence that prediction models, in general, are the most accurate predictors in other fields. The market price is the best predictor of the event because the market aggregates all the information that is relevant to the event. ( Wolfers and Zitzwitz, 2004).

From another paper  (emphasis mine - and that's a lot of papers confirming the same result)

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/trevon/pdf/BettingMarketPaper_01-11-12.pdf

Statistically, existing studies usually regress the betting line on the actual game outcome and find that the relationship is quite strong, betting lines are well correlated with actual margins of victory [Zuber et. al 1985, Gandar et. al 1988, Sauer et. al 1988, Golec and Tanarkin 1991, Dare and McDonald 1996, Dare and Holland 2004, Sinkey 2011]

Other points, from that same paper

In particular, Logan and Sinkey [2011] find that betting houses overprice favorites who "beat the spread" in their previous contest. Similarly, Levitt [2004] shows that betting houses attempt to manipulate bettors to have skewed distributions of wagers. While the betting house incurs substantial risk in this situation, the payoffs may be substantial. In general, the research to date has shown that the primary function of the betting house is not to accurately predict the outcome of a given contest.

In other words, if a team does well against the spread or if that fanbase is known to bet heavy, then it skews the lines. Neither applies to MU. Also, I am not disputing that although the market IS the most efficient way to predict the final margin, it is not the goal of the casino.

Note: the article spends a lot of time focusing on O/U, which it says is NOT predictive.
----

Now, as to whether MU should be worried because our line is a lot closer than other lines for similar seeds, I guess it depends. It certainly makes me a little more nervous, but I'm also a big ol' Eeyore when it comes to #mubb. Marquette should win, but I bet it'll be closer than we'd all like.