IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orinte/v31y2001i3p76-86.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying the NCAA Tournament “Dance Card”

Author

Listed:
  • B. Jay Coleman

    (Department of Management, Marketing, and Logistics, University of North Florida, 4567 St. Johns Bluff Road, South Jacksonville, Florida 32224-2675)

  • Allen K. Lynch

    (Stetson School of Business and Economics, Mercer University, 1400 Coleman Avenue, Macon, Georgia 31207)

Abstract

The NCAA Basketball Tournament selection committee annually selects the Division I men's teams that should receive at-large bids to the national championship tournament. Although its deliberations are shrouded in secrecy, the committee is supposed to consider a litany of team-performance statistics, many of which outsiders can reasonably estimate. Using a probit analysis on objective team data from 1994 through 1999, we developed an equation that accurately classified nearly 90 percent of 249 “bubble” teams during that time frame and over 85 percent for the 2000 tournament. Given the NCAA Tournament's nickname of the big dance, the equation is effectively the “dance card” that determined whether a team got an invitation from past committees and is also a tool that could aid decision making for future committees. The accuracy of the dance card, and the factors and weights included in it, suggest that the committee is fairly predictable in its decisions, despite barbs from fans, teams, and the media.

Suggested Citation

  • B. Jay Coleman & Allen K. Lynch, 2001. "Identifying the NCAA Tournament “Dance Card”," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 76-86, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:31:y:2001:i:3:p:76-86
    DOI: 10.1287/inte.31.3.76.9626
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.31.3.76.9626
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/inte.31.3.76.9626?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Metrick, Andrew, 1996. "March madness? Strategic behavior in NCAA basketball tournament betting pools," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 159-172, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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 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.
    2. Phillip E. Pfeifer, 2016. "The promise of pick-the-winners contests for producing crowd probability forecasts," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 255-278, August.
    3. Jaiho Chung & Joon Ho Hwang, 2010. "An Empirical Examination of the Parimutuel Sports Lottery Market versus the Bookmaker Market," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(4), pages 884-905, April.
    4. Marco Ottaviani & Peter Norman Sorensen, 2010. "Noise, Information, and the Favorite-Longshot Bias in Parimutuel Predictions," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 58-85, February.
    5. Lopez Michael J. & Matthews Gregory J., 2015. "Building an NCAA men’s basketball predictive model and quantifying its success," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 5-12, March.
    6. Bryan Clair & David Letscher, 2007. "Optimal Strategies for Sports Betting Pools," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 1163-1177, December.
    7. David Bergman & Jason Imbrogno, 2017. "Surviving a National Football League Survivor Pool," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(5), pages 1343-1354, October.
    8. 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.
    9. Ottaviani, Marco & Sørensen, Peter Norman, 2003. "Late Informed Betting and the Favourite-Longshot Bias," CEPR Discussion Papers 4092, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    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:inm:orinte:v:31:y:2001:i:3:p:76-86. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.