Mark Few is a smart man

[brandx]

Look at it this way. Kevin Ollie one title and who knows, if he will ever make the tournament again vs Few who makes the tournament every year. Who would you rather be?

Ollie.

For earning potential, it's a no-brainer.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Just interviewed Dr. Bergen on NCAA and crapshoot.  Will have it on CrackedSidewalks later tonight.

All comes down to the definition of crapshoot, not surprising....enjoyed the exchange.    


https://www.youtube.com/v/O6Smkv11Mj4

[Eldon]

Just interviewed Dr. Bergen on NCAA and crapshoot.  Will have it on CrackedSidewalks later tonight.

All comes down to the definition of crapshoot, not surprising....enjoyed the exchange.    


https://www.youtube.com/v/O6Smkv11Mj4

Exactly.  That's why I originally asked you what you meant by "crapshoot."  I think it's a decent analogy.  In a roll of dice, the number 7 is going to come up more than any other number (think of this as the analog to higher seeds beating the low seeds).  However, there is still a chance, and a nontrivial one at that, that the number 2 gets rolled (think of this as the analog to a 15 beating a 2, 14 beating a 3).

Look, this entire debate is kind of silly.  I mean if we take this to the extreme, then sure the Spurs beat the Heat four games to two, but how can we be sure that if the teams played 100 times that the Spurs wouldn't lose the other 96 times?  We can't be sure, of course; so we make the assumption that the probability of observing the truly better team converges to 1 by the 7th draw/sample.  In NCABB and NFL, it is one draw, not seven, and so this convergence assumption is less likely to hold.  I think that is Chico's overarching point.

[GGGG]

nm

[Lennys Tap]

Exactly.  That's why I originally asked you what you meant by "crapshoot."  I think it's a decent analogy.  In a roll of dice, the number 7 is going to come up more than any other number (think of this as the analog to higher seeds beating the low seeds).  However, there is still a chance, and a nontrivial one at that, that the number 2 gets rolled (think of this as the analog to a 15 beating a 2, 14 beating a 3).

Look, this entire debate is kind of silly.  I mean if we take this to the extreme, then sure the Spurs beat the Heat four games to two, but how can we be sure that if the teams played 100 times that the Spurs wouldn't lose the other 96 times?  We can't be sure, of course; so we make the assumption that the probability of observing the truly better team converges to 1 by the 7th draw/sample.  In NCABB and NFL, it is one draw, not seven, and so this convergence assumption is less likely to hold.  I think that is Chico's overarching point.

Number 1 seeds win the tournament 62.5% of the time. The other 15 seeds COMBINED win it 37.5%. Upsets occur in every sport and in every tournament. But saying the NCAA tournament is the BIGGEST crapshoot in all of sport is just wrong.

[THRILLHO]

Number 1 seeds win the tournament 62.5% of the time. The other 15 seeds COMBINED win it 37.5%. Upsets occur in every sport and in every tournament. But saying the NCAA tournament is the BIGGEST crapshoot in all of sport is just wrong.

Yeah, I'm definitely on the side that thinks it's a crapshoot, and the worth of a coach or program should not be determined by whether they've ever won 4-6 games in a row during a certain time period, but I would never agree that it's the biggest crapshoot. Probably something in football would have to take that title, since they also have one and done playoffs and are played in much more diverse conditions.

[jesmu84]

Number 1 seeds win the tournament 62.5% of the time. The other 15 seeds COMBINED win it 37.5%. Upsets occur in every sport and in every tournament. But saying the NCAA tournament is the BIGGEST crapshoot in all of sport is just wrong.

Comparative percentages from other sports?

[4everwarriors]

As a coach, ya gotta win in March. Ai na?

[SERocks]

It is simple statistical ignorance to say the NCAA is a "crapshoot."  Here is the percentage of wins per seed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament#/media/File:NCAA_Wins-rank.png

Furthermore, here are the seeds to reach the Final Four.

#1 - 43 appearances (44.7%)
#2 - 20 appearances (20.8%)
#3 - 12 appearances (12.5%)
#4 - 9 appearances (9.4%)
#5 - 4 appearances (4.1%)
#6 - 3 appearances (3.1%)
#7 - 0 appearances (0%)
#8 - 3 appearances (3.1%)
#9 - 0 appearances (0%)
#10 - 0 appearances (0%)
#11 - 2 appearances (2.1%)


Seeds to win the championship:

#1 - 15 championships (62.5%)
#2 - 3 championships (12.5%)
#3 - 3 championships (12.5%)
#4 - 1 championships (4.2%)
#5 - 0 championships (0%)
#6 - 1 championships (4.2%)
#7 - 0 championships (0%)
#8 - 1 championships (4.2%)

If it were more random, as a "crapshoot" implies, these figures would be much more level than they are.

This clearly is not up to date as UConn was the 7th seed last season.

[tower912]

There you go again, Sultan, getting all factsy and truthy and not letting your agenda dictate things. 

[forgetful]

That is correct, there are four of each.

Your definition is different than mine or that of the dictionary. 

"something (as a business venture) that has an unpredictable outcome"
"An enterprise whose outcome is determined by chance."
"an unpredictable venture; gamble"

In the NBA, we can predict to 80%+ who is going to win the Finals.  In the NCAA, it is less than 50%.  It's less than a 50-50 call DESPITE the seeding.  That's the biggest thing you need to remember.  The 16 seed is never going to win the tournament because of how they are seeded.  Yet despite the almost impossibility of a 16 or 15 or 14 seed winning it all, the top seeds still can't even win it 50% of the time.

So one would expect that 80% of the time the NBA championship involves the 1 seed in the east and west correct?  When was the last time that occurred (I'll save you the trouble 2008).  The same year the last time the NCAA involved two No. 1 seeds. 

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

[Lennys Tap]

Comparative percentages from other sports?

NCAA has 4 #1 seeds out of 64 (actually 68, but whatever), 6.25%. #1s have won the title 62.5% since seeding began in 1979.

MLB - since 1995 (when the league went to 8 playoff teams) - 2 #1s out of 8 teams (10 now but #1s seeded to final 8) = 25%. A #1 has won 7 of 20 times, 35%.

NFL  - 2 #1s seeded into the final 8 = 25%. A #1 has won 21 times since 1975 =51%.

NHL - 16 team format since 1994, 4 #1 seeds = 25%. #1 has won 7 times in 21 Cups = 33%.

Summary: the NCAA tournament has a much lower % of participating teams as #1 seeds, yet a much higher % of their playoffs result in a #1 seeded champion.

Conclusion: anyone who calls the NCAA basketball tournament "the biggest crapshoot in sports" is wrong.

[jesmu84]

NCAA has 4 #1 seeds out of 64 (actually 68, but whatever), 6.25%. #1s have won the title 62.5% since seeding began in 1979.

MLB - since 1995 (when the league went to 8 playoff teams) - 2 #1s out of 8 teams (10 now but #1s seeded to final 8) = 25%. A #1 has won 7 of 20 times, 35%.

NFL  - 2 #1s seeded into the final 8 = 25%. A #1 has won 21 times since 1975 =51%.

NHL - 16 team format since 1994, 4 #1 seeds = 25%. #1 has won 7 times in 21 Cups = 33%.

Summary: the NCAA tournament has a much lower % of participating teams as #1 seeds, yet a much higher % of their playoffs result in a #1 seeded champion.

Conclusion: anyone who calls the NCAA basketball tournament "the biggest crapshoot in sports" is wrong.

Thank you for the numbers

[forgetful]

NCAA has 4 #1 seeds out of 64 (actually 68, but whatever), 6.25%. #1s have won the title 62.5% since seeding began in 1979.

MLB - since 1995 (when the league went to 8 playoff teams) - 2 #1s out of 8 teams (10 now but #1s seeded to final 8) = 25%. A #1 has won 7 of 20 times, 35%.

NFL  - 2 #1s seeded into the final 8 = 25%. A #1 has won 21 times since 1975 =51%.

NHL - 16 team format since 1994, 4 #1 seeds = 25%. #1 has won 7 times in 21 Cups = 33%.

Summary: the NCAA tournament has a much lower % of participating teams as #1 seeds, yet a much higher % of their playoffs result in a #1 seeded champion.

Conclusion: anyone who calls the NCAA basketball tournament "the biggest crapshoot in sports" is wrong.

Impressive numbers.  TY.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Impressive numbers.  TY.

LOL....except they are wrong. Not sure where he got 62.5% for the NCAA tournament...that is flat wrong.  Maybe he forgot how to count.  He's also not calculating the #1's that didn't win it...in other words, the overall historical numbers of number one seeds that won it all means you include all four #1s....when a #1 wins it, three #1's don't.  That is totally missing from his examination....thank you Dr. Bergen for pointing that out today.  

We've already gone through the rest of his nonsense the last few years as have others..... assuming the best teams in the NFL is due to the best record is faulty, it is not seeded by experts.  The same is true in the NHL, NBA, etc.  You can have the number one seed because you play in a terrible division, or conference, etc.  That doesn't make you the number one team, unlike the NCAA where experts are chosen to evalute more than just record (and yes, they can be wrong).  Example, Vancouver would get the #1 seed in the NHL because they played in a piss poor division and racked up wins, but they were power rated as the 4th best team in their OWN conference, and 7th best out of 16 teams in the playoffs.  If a true committee was used, they would not be the one of the top teams.  Just one example.  MLB is filled with examples like this.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This clearly is not up to date as UConn was the 7th seed last season.

Not only not up to date, the data is wrong.  Imagine that...wikipedia being wrong.  LOL.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So one would expect that 80% of the time the NBA championship involves the 1 seed in the east and west correct?  When was the last time that occurred (I'll save you the trouble 2008).  The same year the last time the NCAA involved two No. 1 seeds.  

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

No, one would not make that assumption.  Because some conferences are stacked and the top 5 teams might all be in one conference.  Sorry, poor assumption or expectation on your part.

[Lennys Tap]

LOL....except they are wrong. Not sure where he got 62.5% for the NCAA tournament...that is flat wrong.  Maybe he forgot how to count.  He's also not calculating the #1's that didn't win it...in other words, the overall historical numbers of number one seeds that won it all means you include all four #1s....when a #1 wins it, three #1's don't.  That is totally missing from his examination....thank you Dr. Bergen for pointing that out today.  

We've already gone through the rest of his nonsense the last few years as have others..... assuming the best teams in the NFL is due to the best record is faulty, it is not seeded by experts.  The same is true in the NHL, NBA, etc.  You can have the number one seed because you play in a terrible division, or conference, etc.  That doesn't make you the number one team, unlike the NCAA where experts are chosen to evalute more than just record (and yes, they can be wrong).  Example, Vancouver would get the #1 seed in the NHL because they played in a piss poor division and racked up wins, but they were power rated as the 4th best team in their OWN conference, and 7th best out of 16 teams in the playoffs.  If a true committee was used, they would not be the one of the top teams.  Just one example.  MLB is filled with examples like this.

Jay Bee is right. Simple math is over your head.

[ChicosBailBonds]

John Thompson weighs in......good job John

http://www.csnwashington.com/ncaa/georgetown-facing-big-sky-champion-south-region-opener

[ChicosBailBonds]

Article about regular season and post season with Coach K and Bill Self and some weird mention of crappy shooting or maybe it was crapshoot

   http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/02/coach-k-not-best-coach-rick-pitino-bill-self-records-ncaa-tournament-losses-1000

[brewcity77]

I'm confused by the premise of this. Should we disregard the tournament because good teams can be upset? Should we marvel that sometimes a playoff format has unexpected results and thus discount its validity?

I love the NCAA Tournament because it's incredibly fun. While the 7-game series of the NBA, MLB, and NHL may give a better shot to the favorites, all of those playoffs pale in comparison in terms of excitement to the NCAAs. Taking 2 months to sort through 16 teams is way too long to hold my interest.

Could the "best" team be upset? Sure. Which proves that on that day, they weren't the best team. Why keep throwing a bucket of ice water on the best annual tournament in sports?

[Anti-Dentite]

Because it's a crapshoot I tell ya, a crapshooooot!

[forgetful]

No, one would not make that assumption.  Because some conferences are stacked and the top 5 teams might all be in one conference.  Sorry, poor assumption or expectation on your part.

So in other sports the far more significant deviations from the expected statistics are because it is an in exact science of seeding.

But in the NCAA, seeding should be exact.  Do you see how that makes no sense whatsoever.  

Let's look at this year even.  Arizona and Virginia could just as easily been 1 seeds.  Most of the season Gonzaga was a possible 1-seed.  Kansas played in the toughest conference, Notre Dame has an impressive resume.  All of those teams are damn near equivalent to a 1 seed.  They can't be evaluated perfectly because of a limited schedule and differences in teams schedules.

If Kentucky had to play in the ACC, would they be undefeated?  Almost assuredly no.  Would they have won the conference?  

Not to mention, the mid-majors who can't get evaluated properly, because of bias against playing them.

The professional leagues with fewer teams and more games actually provide a far greater basis set to evaluate seed/rank.

[4everwarriors]

John Thompson weighs in......good job John

http://www.csnwashington.com/ncaa/georgetown-facing-big-sky-champion-south-region-opener

JTIII should weigh in daily, hey?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

If someone wants to sip their tea and proclaim success or failure of a season based on a body of work, or a conference championship or an unanswerable question of 'best' -- more power to them.  

I would rather binge drink and scream my way through a month of glory.  

Here is hoping a reporter isn't able to ask Wojo the same question as Mark Few in 8-10 years!