IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/amstat/v75y2021i2p207-216.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

March Madness “Anomalies”: Are They Real, and If So, Can They Be Explained?

Author

Listed:
  • Dale L. Zimmerman
  • Nathan D. Zimmerman
  • Joshua T. Zimmerman

Abstract

Previously published statistical analyses of NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament (“March Madness”) game outcomes since the 64-team format for its main draw began in 1985 have uncovered some apparent anomalies, such as 12-seeds upsetting 5-seeds more often than might be expected, and seeds 10 through 12 advancing to the Sweet Sixteen much more often than 8-seeds and 9-seeds—the so-called middle-seed anomaly. In this article, we address the questions of whether these perceived anomalies truly are anomalous and if so, what is responsible for them. We find that, in contrast to conclusions drawn from previous analyses, the statistical evidence for a 12-5 upset anomaly actually is very weak, while that for the middle-seed anomaly is quite strong. We dispel some (but not all) theories for the former and offer an explanation for the latter that is based primarily on the combined effects of a nonlinear relationship between team strength and seed, the lack of reseeding between rounds, and a strong quasi-home advantage accorded to 1-seeds. We also investigate the effects that hypothetical modifications to the tournament would have on the anomalies and explore whether similar anomalies exist in the NCAA Women’s Basketball Tournament.

Suggested Citation

  • Dale L. Zimmerman & Nathan D. Zimmerman & Joshua T. Zimmerman, 2021. "March Madness “Anomalies”: Are They Real, and If So, Can They Be Explained?," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 75(2), pages 207-216, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:75:y:2021:i:2:p:207-216
    DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2020.1720814
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00031305.2020.1720814
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00031305.2020.1720814?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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:amstat:v:75:y:2021:i:2:p:207-216. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/UTAS20 .

    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.