Comparing Team Selection and Seeding for the 2011 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament
The men’s NCAA basketball tournament is a popular sporting event often referred to as “March Madness.” Each year the NCAA committee not only selects but also seeds the tournament teams. Invariably there is much discussion about which teams were included and excluded as well as discussion about the seeding of the teams. In this paper, we propose an innovative heuristic measure of team success, and we investigate how well the NCAA committee seeding compares to the computer-based placements by Sagarin and the rating percentage index (RPI). For the 2011 tournament, the NCAA committee selection process performed better than those based solely on the computer methods in determining tournament success.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 8 (2012)
Issue (Month): 1 (March)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: https://www.degruyter.com|
|Order Information:||Web: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jqas|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- West Brady T., 2008. "A Simple and Flexible Rating Method for Predicting Success in the NCAA Basketball Tournament: Updated Results from 2007," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-18, April.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:jqsprt:v:8:y:2012:i:1:n:4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.