IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/jqsprt/v8y2012i2n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Dreaded Middle Seeds - Are They the Worst Seeds in the NCAA Basketball Tournament?

Author

Listed:
  • Morris Tracy L.

    (University of Central Oklahoma)

  • Bokhari Faryal H.

    (University of Central Oklahoma)

Abstract

The following quote from Gregg Doyel in reference to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) men’s basketball tournament appeared on CBSSports.com on March 21, 2009. “For teams with a realistic chance at winning multiple games in the NCAA tournament,…the worst seed to have is the No. 8 or the No. 9. That’s statistical certainty.” Is it really “statistical certainty”? This papers attempts to answer this question. Data concerning the number of games won by teams seeded 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 were collected from the NCAA men’s and women’s tournament brackets dating back to 1985 and 1994, respectively. It was found that among all teams entering the tournament, the 10, 11, and 12 seeds do not appear to have a statistical advantage over the 8/9 seeds. However, if only teams that win their first game are considered, the 10 seeds have a significantly greater mean number of wins than the 8/9 seeds in the men’s tournament; and the 10, 11, and 12 seeds in the men’s tournament and the 11 seeds in the women’s tournament have advanced to the Sweet Sixteen (at least two wins) a significantly greater proportion of times than the 8/9 seeds.

Suggested Citation

  • Morris Tracy L. & Bokhari Faryal H., 2012. "The Dreaded Middle Seeds - Are They the Worst Seeds in the NCAA Basketball Tournament?," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 1-13, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:jqsprt:v:8:y:2012:i:2:n:2
    DOI: 10.1515/1559-0410.1343
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/1559-0410.1343
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/1559-0410.1343?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baumann Robert & Matheson Victor A. & Howe Cara A., 2010. "Anomalies in Tournament Design: The Madness of March Madness," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-11, April.
    2. Coleman Jay & Lynch Allen K, 2009. "NCAA Tournament Games: The Real Nitty-Gritty," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 1-27, July.
    3. Boulier, Bryan L. & Stekler, H. O., 1999. "Are sports seedings good predictors?: an evaluation," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 83-91, February.
    4. Steven Caudill & Norman Godwin, 2002. "Heterogeneous skewness in binary choice models: Predicting outcomes in the men's NCAA basketball tournament," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(7), pages 991-1001.
    5. Caudill, Steven B., 2003. "Predicting discrete outcomes with the maximum score estimator: the case of the NCAA men's basketball tournament," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 313-317.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ira Horowitz, 2018. "Competitive Balance in the NBA Playoffs," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 63(2), pages 215-227, October.
    2. Oliver Engist & Erik Merkus & Felix Schafmeister, 2021. "The Effect of Seeding on Tournament Outcomes: Evidence From a Regression-Discontinuity Design," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(1), pages 115-136, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stekler, H.O. & Sendor, David & Verlander, Richard, 2010. "Issues in sports forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 606-621, July.
      • Herman O. Stekler & David Sendor & Richard Verlander, 2009. "Issues in Sports Forecasting," Working Papers 2009-002, The George Washington University, Department of Economics, H. O. Stekler Research Program on Forecasting.
    2. del Corral, Julio & Prieto-Rodríguez, Juan, 2010. "Are differences in ranks good predictors for Grand Slam tennis matches?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 551-563, July.
    3. Nicholas G. Hall & Chris N. Potts, 2012. "A Proposal for Redesign of the FedEx Cup Playoff Series on the PGA TOUR," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 42(2), pages 166-179, April.
    4. Bryan Clair & David Letscher, 2007. "Optimal Strategies for Sports Betting Pools," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 1163-1177, December.
    5. Paul Kvam & Joel S. Sokol, 2006. "A logistic regression/Markov chain model for NCAA basketball," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(8), pages 788-803, December.
    6. Stekler Herman O. & Klein Andrew, 2012. "Predicting the Outcomes of NCAA Basketball Championship Games," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, March.
    7. Vaughan Williams, Leighton & Stekler, Herman O., 2010. "Sports forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 445-447, July.
      • Herman O. Stekler, 2007. "Sports Forecasting," Working Papers 2007-001, The George Washington University, Department of Economics, H. O. Stekler Research Program on Forecasting, revised Jan 2007.
    8. Grimshaw Scott D. & Sabin R. Paul & Willes Keith M., 2013. "Analysis of the NCAA Men’s Final Four TV audience," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 115-126, June.
    9. Franklin Mixon, Jr. & Steven Caudill & Christopher Duquette, 2008. "The impact of money on elections: evidence from open seat races in the United States House of Representatives, 1990-2004," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(2), pages 1-12.
    10. Coleman Jay & Lynch Allen K, 2009. "NCAA Tournament Games: The Real Nitty-Gritty," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 1-27, July.
    11. Ira Horowitz, 2018. "Competitive Balance in the NBA Playoffs," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 63(2), pages 215-227, October.
    12. Karpov, Alexander, 2015. "A theory of knockout tournament seedings," Working Papers 0600, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    13. B. Jay Coleman & J. Michael DuMond & Allen K. Lynch, 2010. "Evidence of bias in NCAA tournament selection and seeding," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(7), pages 431-452.
    14. Ludden Ian G. & Khatibi Arash & King Douglas M. & Jacobson Sheldon H., 2020. "Models for generating NCAA men’s basketball tournament bracket pools," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 1-15, March.
    15. Lahiri, Kajal & Yang, Liu, 2013. "Forecasting Binary Outcomes," Handbook of Economic Forecasting, in: G. Elliott & C. Granger & A. Timmermann (ed.), Handbook of Economic Forecasting, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1025-1106, Elsevier.
    16. Angelini, Giovanni & Candila, Vincenzo & De Angelis, Luca, 2022. "Weighted Elo rating for tennis match predictions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(1), pages 120-132.
    17. Andrew J. Leach, 2003. "SubGame, set and match. Identifying Incentive Response in a Tournament," Cahiers de recherche 04-02, HEC Montréal, Institut d'économie appliquée.
    18. Caudill, Steven B., 2003. "Predicting discrete outcomes with the maximum score estimator: the case of the NCAA men's basketball tournament," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 313-317.
    19. Florios, Kostas & Skouras, Spyros, 2008. "Exact computation of max weighted score estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 86-91, September.
    20. Michael Cary & Heather Stephens, 2023. "Gendered Consequences of COVID-19 Among Professional Tennis Players," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 24(2), pages 241-266, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:jqsprt:v:8:y:2012:i:2:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.