Tournament stuff (Part 1)
Posted: March 22nd, 2009 | Filed under: Other Sports | 15 Comments »
Lots of fun tournament stuff coming up — maybe later this evening, maybe tomorrow morning, but soon, real soon*. But for now, very quickly, let’s give you the percentage chances of each of the Sweet 16 teams making the Final Four (using the Bill James seeding system that I mentioned last year).
*We’ll have a quiz, we’ll have an updated version of this post, we’ll have some more book promotions, fun for the whole family.
Percentage chances for each team making the Final Four (using the Bill James seeding system):
Midwest Region
Louisville: 58%
Michigan State: 27%
Kansas: 13%
Arizona: 2%
West Region
Connecticut: 49%
Memphis: 28%
Missouri: 13%
Purdue: 9%
East Region
Pittsburgh: 48%
Duke: 28%
Villanova: 13%
Xavier: 10%
South Region
North Carolina: 48%
Oklahoma: 28%
Syracuse: 13%
Gonzaga: 10%
You will notice the numbers are precisely the same for the East and South … and that’s because those are the perfect brackets, the top four seeds all made it. The West Region is more or less the same because the top three seeds made it and Purdue is a fifth seed. The Midwest is a bit different because, while the Top 3 seeds made it, Arizona is a 12th seed.
Lots more later on. But I thought you’d enjoy this. Plus, I did too much math not to put it up immediately.
Loading ...
Hmm…not too familiar with Bill James’s seeding system, so I wonder what was George Mason’s chance of making it into the Final Four three years ago.
At the risk of sounding old … is it me or has the tournament lost some of its appeal? I enjoyed the finishes of Siena-Ohio State and Wisconsin-Florida State on Friday, but there haven’t been a lot of great ones this year.
I still like it, but I’m not hanging on every game like I once did. I did hear one amazing stat today – Syracuse had never played a Pac-10 team in the NCAA tournament before. Of course, it would help if the Pac-10 would stick around a little longer, but you’d think it would have happened in the first round sometime.
if anyone is interested, we’re doing the Joe Posnanski fan club fantasy baseball league again this year, gonna make it a keeper league this time, we’ll do an auction draft.
Roto leage, 6×6 with OPS and holds the extra cats
email me at on2stix@yahoo.com if you’re interested
Spud #2: I AM OLD and I heartily agree. This NCAA March Madness crap has become almost all hype and no drama. I was just looking at a book entitled “The Classic” which details the Men’s NCAA basketball tourney from inception (1939) thru 1978, after which the book was published. There is little comparison between the tournament in the ’60s and ’70s to today’s overrated hoopla. Practically every team now plays alike, the constant timeouts (especially at the end of games) and the fouling strategy in the final minutes of a game really detract from an otherwise beautiful game. With the greatest players going to the NBA after a year few teams have a group of guys that play together more than a season or maybe two – except for the smaller non-BCS schools.
Plus, don’t get me started about the NCAA, the officiating, and their “student-athletes” – or CBS: I’m enough of an old crack-pot that I even already miss Billy Packer! Question: Why does CBS/NCAA continue to use the same game starting time schedule that they have used for years? I’ve never understood why they can’t have about a 20-25 minute differential between each starting time the first weekend so that the end of games don’t pile up on each other. The few close games we saw this weekend seemed to be ending at almost the identical time – it’s insane but that’s the NCAA and “their” TV network. It’s enough to make a grown man who loves the game hang his head.
Spud- I’m 24 and I wholly agree that the tournament isn’t what it used to be. I know, I know, I haven’t been around that long but even going back 5-10 years, the elements that made me fall in love with it just aren’t there. Last year you had Davidson, which was a nice story, but outside of them, the thing was just bereft of drama. George Mason was the last time I can really remember myself hanging on the edge of my seat throughout the whole thing. This year there have been some good games (as you mentioned, the Siena/ Ohio State game, the Wisconsin/FSU game, both of which occurred at the same time, so unless you have the Mega March Madness package and attempted to watch four games at once, you missed one of those), but they have all been, for the most part, a let down. You just get that feeling that the little guys will eventually melt down at the end of the game due to lack of depth, and they do every time. I like well played basketball as much as anyone, but let’s be serious: the reason we all love the tournament is because of the upsets. When they aren’t there, it’s disappointing. The only saving grace last year was the Kansas/Memphis final. Hopefully we’ll get another one of those this year, or something crazy happens in the next couple rounds, but it doesn’t look promising.
i miss stephen curry.
i dont like the fact it’s only one channel. of abc had the tourney it could be on abc/espn. ditto for fox and nbc’s countless channels.
i thought about the staggered start times and the only thing i can think of is that, if they started a half hour later, you would be either missing half of your fabvorite team, or more likely, youd watch a half of some game, get mildly interested and then theyd switch to your regional game thus rendering that half hour useless.
That’s why if you are really interested in the tournament, and being able to watch the games you want to watch, the Mega March Madness package is invaluable. I got it this year for the fist time and it’s the best $65 I’ve ever spent. I’m kind of disappointed with how things have worked out this year, but at least I can be disappointed how I want to be, instead of based on my region.
“There is little comparison between the tournament in the ’60s and ’70s to today’s overrated hoopla”
You got that right. Any #12 seed in this year’s tournament would beat the John Wooden UCLA teams by 30 points. Watch a tape of an old Final Four if you disagree.
Nick basically answered the previous poster’s complaint. It’s on one channel in part so that they can also get revenue from DirecTV.
If the Tournament were on three ESPN channels simultaneously, who would buy the DirecTV package? Nobody.
[...] Tickets for SEC Men’s Basketball Tournament…2009 NCAA Hockey Tournament Field | Dark News…Tournament stuff (Part 1) » Joe Posnanski…Only Three SEC Teams Make NCAA Tournament…SEC Tournament Championship Game: Live-Blogging « [...]
Mikey: You miss my points about comparing tourney games from the ’60s and ’70s to today. I realize that the athletes of today are stronger and faster so that a 12 seed today might regularly beat Wooden’s Bruins. (But, it might be closer than you think – And, of course, those guys from the Wooden era are now in their 50s and 60s!
You can watch the games online for free, but watching North Carolina dismantle Radford in the 1st round on TV was pretty boring. I wonder why they didn’t switch to the exciting games. I guess the country bumpkins of the Midwest must like them some UNC so they didn’t change it for fear of us marching to their headquarters with pitchforks and torches.
But Mark W, do you really believe that the Tournament was more exciting 30-40 years ago? Put aside today’s superior athletes and just compare the things that make for more exciting games:
- No shot clock in the 70s; games regularly killed by four corners tactics
- No three-point line; does anybody argue that three-pointers have made the college game LESS exciting?
- Fewer at-large teams, or none at all
- Competitive balance; We’ve had 10 champs in the last 12 years; UCLA alone won 10 titles in 12 years. Some people love dynasties but I prefer it the way it is now.
I don’t know if the games overall were closer then than they are now, but the championship games have been closer this decade (average margin 8.6 points) than they were during the 60s and 70s (average margin 11 points).
I don’t know by what measures the NCAA Tournament was better decades ago than it is today.
Mikey, I’m not sure whether you’re smoking something or just being tongue in cheek when you say that any #12 seed would beat any of UCLA’s championship teams.
1968, for example, had three All-Americans, four future NBA players, and was anchored by Lew Alcindor, one of the best centers of all time. 1972 has something like seven guys who would play in the NBA and another NBA hall of famer, Bill Walton. Were they as athletic as today’s players? Offensively, probably not, because when you’ve got centers that good you don’t need offensive athleticism. But defensively those teams featured sound play, full court pressure, and were as good as anybody playing today.
In those days more basketball players seemed concerned in how to become great players as opposed to great scorers. Look at Michael Jordan, for example. So coaches like Dean Smith and John Wooden could coach a system, have a roster full of great prospects, and eschew the showboating of today’s athleticism. I recall seeing the Phoenix-Cleveland basketball game recently, where at a critical moment Richardson tried a 360 degree dunk on what he thought was a breakaway, only to have LeBron James catch up and hack his wrist and the refs not call a foul, at a critical juncture of the game. Yes, Richardson showed a lot of athleticism. But he’d have been benched by Wooden in favor of a guy who would have scored two points and won the game instead of showing off and losing. That doesn’t make Wilkes etc. any less athletic.
Richard, from some of your earlier posts I have the idea that you’re older than me so I’m guessing you saw the Alcindor/Walton teams live and I’ve only seen them on tape.
No question they were great players in their time, but I personally believe that given Alcindor’s string-bean frame and quickness (not good by today’s standards) he would have a very hard time playing today’s top-level college game.
It’s just subjective opinion, but I am generally not impressed with the quality of defense I see in old basketball games, college or pro. Same with offensive ball movement. These are things that tend to be remembered fondly as part of a more fundamentally sound era but I think that’s just nostalgia.
I don’t think the older era is without value. I’m fascinated by Wooden. I’d love to see what he could do with today’s athletes. I think the John Wooden of 40 years ago would still be a dominant coach today, if he could stomach the professionalization of the college game.