The Dreaded Middle Seeds - Are They the Worst Seeds in the NCAA Basketball Tournament?
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.
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): 2 (June)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.degruyter.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jqas|
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.
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.