IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v39y2011i6p719-724.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Seed distributions for the NCAA men's basketball tournament

Author

Listed:
  • Jacobson, Sheldon H.
  • Nikolaev, Alexander G.
  • King, Douglas M.
  • Lee, Adrian J.

Abstract

Bracketology, the art of successfully picking all the winners in the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) annual men's Division I college basketball championship tournament, has become a favorite national activity. In spite of the challenges and uncertainty faced in this endeavor, patterns exist in how the seeds appear in each round, particularly the later rounds. This paper statistically analyzes tournaments from 1985 to 2010, finding that the distribution of seeds that win in the rounds beyond the Sweet Sixteen can be modeled as a truncated geometric random variable. This model allows one to consider any set of seeds in each tournament round and compute the probability that these seeds would win in that round; this methodology can evaluate the likelihood of each seed combination in each tournament round, based on past tournament history. Finally, each tournament from 1985 through 2010 is analyzed using this model to assess its likelihood and measure the probability of its occurrence.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacobson, Sheldon H. & Nikolaev, Alexander G. & King, Douglas M. & Lee, Adrian J., 2011. "Seed distributions for the NCAA men's basketball tournament," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 719-724, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:39:y:2011:i:6:p:719-724
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(11)00034-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Shishebor, Z. & Towhidi, M., 2004. "On the generalization of negative binomial distribution," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 127-133, January.
    3. Koenker, Roger & Bassett Jr., Gilbert W., 2010. "March Madness, Quantile Regression Bracketology, and the Hayek Hypothesis," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 28(1), pages 26-35.
    4. Sheldon H. Jacobson & Douglas M. King, 2009. "Seeding in the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament: When is a Higher Seed Better?," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 3(2), pages 63-87, September.
    5. Fearnhead, Paul & Taylor, Benjamin M., 2010. "Calculating Strength of Schedule, and Choosing Teams for March Madness," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 64(2), pages 108-115.
    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. 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.
    2. Karpov, Alexander, 2015. "A theory of knockout tournament seedings," Working Papers 0600, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    3. Khatibi, Arash & King, Douglas M. & Jacobson, Sheldon H., 2015. "Modeling the winning seed distribution of the NCAA Division I men׳s basketball tournament," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 141-148.

    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. Khatibi, Arash & King, Douglas M. & Jacobson, Sheldon H., 2015. "Modeling the winning seed distribution of the NCAA Division I men׳s basketball tournament," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 141-148.
    2. Ira Horowitz, 2018. "Competitive Balance in the NBA Playoffs," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 63(2), pages 215-227, October.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Vellaisamy, P. & Upadhye, N.S., 2007. "On the negative binomial distribution and its generalizations," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 173-180, January.
    6. Dmitry Dagaev & Konstantin Sonin, 2018. "Winning by Losing," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 19(8), pages 1122-1146, December.
    7. Arlegi, Ritxar & Dimitrov, Dinko, 2020. "Fair elimination-type competitions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(2), pages 528-535.
    8. Ilan Adler & Yang Cao & Richard Karp & Erol A. Peköz & Sheldon M. Ross, 2017. "Random Knockout Tournaments," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(6), pages 1589-1596, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Dmitry Dagaev & Alex Suzdaltsev, 2018. "Competitive intensity and quality maximizing seedings in knock-out tournaments," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 170-188, January.
    11. Galvao Jr., Antonio F., 2011. "Quantile regression for dynamic panel data with fixed effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 164(1), pages 142-157, September.
    12. Gupta Ajay Andrew, 2015. "A new approach to bracket prediction in the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament based on a dual-proportion likelihood," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 53-67, March.
    13. Komunjer, Ivana, 2013. "Quantile Prediction," Handbook of Economic Forecasting, in: G. Elliott & C. Granger & A. Timmermann (ed.), Handbook of Economic Forecasting, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 961-994, Elsevier.
    14. 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.
    15. Dmitry Dagaev & Alex Suzdaltsev, 2015. "Seeding, Competitive Intensity and Quality in Knock-Out Tournaments," HSE Working papers WP BRP 91/EC/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    16. Stanton Isabelle & Williams Virginia Vassilevska, 2013. "The structure, efficacy, and manipulation of double-elimination tournaments," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 9(4), pages 319-335, December.
    17. Alexander, Carol & Han, Yang & Meng, Xiaochun, 2023. "Static and dynamic models for multivariate distribution forecasts: Proper scoring rule tests of factor-quantile versus multivariate GARCH models," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1078-1096.
    18. Karpov, Alexander, 2015. "A theory of knockout tournament seedings," Working Papers 0600, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    19. Wright, Mike, 2014. "OR analysis of sporting rules – A survey," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(1), pages 1-8.

    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:eee:jomega:v:39:y:2011:i:6:p:719-724. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.