PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,752
- Reaction score
- 22,734
Making the Final Four from the #8 seed is damn near impossible.
Here's a good article on the difficulty of winning in the tournament as a #8 seed. Nate Silver models the odds of making it to the Sweet 16, Elite Eight, and Final Four from each seed regardless of how good the team is and finds that the #8 and #9 seed always have the lowest odds of going far in the tournament next to the #15 and #16 seed.
When 15th Is Better Than 8th: The Math Shows the Bracket Is Backward
Suppose that, lucky you, you’re the coach of a team given a No. 8 seed in the N.C.A.A. tournament bracket.
This is a less-than-ideal position: provided that you win your first-round game, you’re due to face the No. 1 seed in the second round.
But a friend of yours — another coach who owes you a favor — calls you with a “Let’s Make a Deal” proposition.
His team is seeded No. 10 in another regional. He offers to swap with you: you get his No. 10 seed and he gets your No. 8. The teams in each region are otherwise about as strong as one another.
Are you better off switching?
The answer is almost certainly yes: the No. 10 seed is intrinsically a better position than the No. 8 seed. So, for that matter, is the No. 11 seed. The 12th seed is also better than the No 8. As are the 13th and 14th seeds. And possibly even the No. 15 seed, depending on your objective.
Welcome to the strange intersection of bracketology and bracketonomics, in which the worse a team’s seed, the better off it may be.
.
.
.
Here's a good article on the difficulty of winning in the tournament as a #8 seed. Nate Silver models the odds of making it to the Sweet 16, Elite Eight, and Final Four from each seed regardless of how good the team is and finds that the #8 and #9 seed always have the lowest odds of going far in the tournament next to the #15 and #16 seed.
When 15th Is Better Than 8th: The Math Shows the Bracket Is Backward
Suppose that, lucky you, you’re the coach of a team given a No. 8 seed in the N.C.A.A. tournament bracket.
This is a less-than-ideal position: provided that you win your first-round game, you’re due to face the No. 1 seed in the second round.
But a friend of yours — another coach who owes you a favor — calls you with a “Let’s Make a Deal” proposition.
His team is seeded No. 10 in another regional. He offers to swap with you: you get his No. 10 seed and he gets your No. 8. The teams in each region are otherwise about as strong as one another.
Are you better off switching?
The answer is almost certainly yes: the No. 10 seed is intrinsically a better position than the No. 8 seed. So, for that matter, is the No. 11 seed. The 12th seed is also better than the No 8. As are the 13th and 14th seeds. And possibly even the No. 15 seed, depending on your objective.
Welcome to the strange intersection of bracketology and bracketonomics, in which the worse a team’s seed, the better off it may be.
.
.
.