Christopher E. Fanning

Kyle H. Pilkington

Paul Sommers

Tyler A. Conrad

English

Research Papers in Economics

“March Madness: The Racket in Regional Brackets”
by
Christopher E. Fanning, Kyle H. Pilkington,
Tyler A. Conrad and Paul M. Sommers
June, 2002
MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE ECONOMICS DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 02-28
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE
MIDDLEBURY, VERMONT 05753
http://www.middlebury.edu/~econMarch Madness: The Racket in Regional Brackets
by
Christopher E. Fanning
Kyle H. Pilkington
Tyler A. Conrad
Paul M. Sommers
Department of Economics
Middlebury College
Middlebury, Vermont 057532
March Madness: The Racket in Regional Brackets
Christopher E. Fanning
Kyle H. Pilkington
Tyler A. Conrad
Paul M. Sommers
If anybody thinks we’re still a Cinderella, they
don’t know a damn thing about basketball.
¾ Casey Calvary,
     Gonzaga Bulldogs
Every March four regions of the country ¾ West, Midwest, East, and South ¾
each send sixteen teams to the NCAA men’s Division I basketball tournament.
1  At the
beginning of the month, a committee of basketball conference commissioners convenes
to rank the teams in each region.  The committee takes into account a number of factors
when deciding seedings, such as regular season record, schedule strength, performance in
conference tournaments, the Rating Percentage Index
2 and various polls.  The purpose of
this brief note is to assess the performance of the seeding committee for each of the four
regions since 1985.  Has seeding accuracy improved over time?  Or, do underdogs
consistently defy the seedings?3
The accuracy of each region’s seedings is based on the following point system.
One point is awarded in the first round when a higher seeded team defeats a lower seeded
team.  Points double with each round ¾ two for the second (i.e., if any of the top four
seeds advance), four for the regional semifinal (i.e., if either of the top two seeds
advance), and eight for the regional final (i.e., if and only if the No. 1 seed wins the
regional final).  The total number of possible points is 32.  Tournament results from 1985
(the first year for the present 64-team field) through 2000 are from The New York Times
[1].  Point totals for each region are reported in Table 1.
(Table 1 about here)
A series of paired t-tests comparing the average point difference between one
region and another revealed two statistically significant results: (i) West (mean point total
= 20.88) and South (15.50), p = .004 and (ii) East (20.44) and South, p = .026.  In other
words, the seeded teams in the South (before 1998, the “Southeast”) have not fared nearly
as well as those in either the West or East.
For each region, point totals were regressed against a time trend:
POINTS = b0 + b1YEAR .
Over the 16-year period (1985-2000), there were no discernible trends.  Moreover, there
were no discernible trends for the years 1985 through 1992.  But, over the last eight years
(1993-2000), the regression results for the South were (p-values in parentheses):
3
POINTS = 3129 – 1.56 YEAR
                                                                   (.03)    (.03)
                                                                                                                R
2
 = .5714
The South, in particular, has been particularly troublesome for the seeding committee in
recent years.
If the seeding committee were just guessing, roughly half of the top eight seeds
would advance to the second round (for a total of four points), half of the remaining top
four seeds would advance to the regional semifinals (for an additional two times two or
four points), one of the top two seeds would advance to the regional finals (an additional
four points), and half the time the No. 1 seed would win the regional final (an additional
1
2
´8 or four points).  In other words, if the seeding committee were right only half the
time, point totals would be 16 or half of the maximum points possible in any region.  A t-
test of  H0 : =16  against the one-tailed alternative HA :  > 16 yielded the following
results:  West (p = .0026); Midwest (p = .047); East (p = .012); and South (p = .66).  In
the South alone, the average was not discernibly different from 16 points.
CONCLUSION
The annual quest to identify each region’s sixteen best men’s college basketball
teams has not been a slam dunk.  The seedings for the NCAA men’s basketball
tournament have actually become less accurate in the last eight years, notably in the
South.  This region has consistently been the most difficult for the selection committee to
accurately seed.  Rarely, though, do the seedings follow form.  As the tournament
unfolds, invariably some favorites and big names are defeated.  In fact, in the 64 regional
tournaments held since 1985, all seeded teams have held seed only once heading into the
Final Four.5
Table 1.  Point Totals for Seeded Teams at the
NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament
by Region, 1985-2000
Region
Year West Midwest East South
1985 21 18 32 12
1986 18 20 20 14
1987 26 22 18 13
1988 29 12 18 24
1989 13 29 17 11
1990 20 8 15 12
1991 26 16 19 20
1992 20 9 30 15
1993 20 21 30 23
1994 22 21 9 21
1995 29 17 15 17
1996 16 28 28 15
1997 30 29 19 9
1998 16 8 28 19
1999 19 21 19 13
2000 9 30 10 106
Notes
1.  The NCAA men’s basketball tournament first expanded to four regional sites in
1952.
2. The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) is derived from three component factors:
Division I winning percentage (25 percent), schedule strength (50 percent), and
opponent’s schedule strength (25 percent).  Games against non-Division I
opponents are not used in calculating the RPI.
3. The 1993-2000 regression results for all four regions combined were
(p-values in parentheses):
POINTS = 6519 – 3.23 YEAR
                                                                 (.050)  (.052)
                                                                   R
2
 = .4927
Reference
1. The New York Times, various issues.
.
               

The New York Times, various issues.

"March Madness: The Racket in Regional Brackets"

http://www.middlebury.edu/services/econ/repec/mdl/ancoec/0228.pdf

"March Madness: The Racket in Regional Brackets"

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics