March Madness: Statisticians quantify entry biases

Mar 01, 2011
Virginia Tech basketball player Malcom Delaney, now a senior in apparel, housing and research management, is shown here in the game against Maryland in February 2010. Credit: Photo by Kelsey Kradel, Virginia Tech Photo intern

By examining historical data, statisticians in the College of Science at Virginia Tech have quantified biases that play a role in granting Division I at-large basketball teams inclusion in the NCAA March Madness Tournament.

Assistant professors Leanna House and Scotland Leman found that in addition to the standard Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) used by the 10-member selection committee, biases such as the team's marquee and the strength of its schedule are also factors.

"We wanted to quantify how much bias there is for bubble teams," Leman said. So-named "bubble teams" are those that do not have an automatic bid but are still considered potential teams to be invited to the tournament. Usually bout 30 teams fall into this category.

One bias for bubble teams, House and Leman found, was consideration of the marquee (or pedigree) of the team. For instance, a team that historically has an outstanding record and is usually included in the tournament has that fact in its favor.

"Having a rich history of a spot in the tournament will 'break the tie,'" House said.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

She and Leman found that inclusion probabilities were much higher for marquee teams. For example, in the 2009-10 season, the bias of not being a marquee team lowered Virginia Tech's chances of receiving an at-large bid from 0.83 to 0.31. During the 1999-2000 season, the marquee increased the University of North Carolina's chances from 0.32 to 0.85.

"UNC's marquee status during that season had a substantial influence on the committee's decision." Leman said. "Of that, I'm sure."

The statisticians also explored the influence a team's schedule has on its RPI in addition to its record. By using a hypothetical model, Leman and House determined that the more powerhouse teams a bubble team plays in a season, regardless of whether they win or lose, will help them win a bid in the tournament.

"Of course scheduling is a complex process and involves a lot of negotiation," Leman said. "But in cases where a coach is able to select to play a powerful team or a smaller, less powerful team, it is better to pick the power team. The rule of thumb is: the more powerhouse teams, the better."

At the beginning of each decision-making process, the selection committee is provided documentation that contains season statistics and the RPI for each team. Other measures of team strength are excluded.

"The RPI accounts for known, quantitative biases in raw winning percentages that may impact their ratings, but it has been shown repeatedly that raw winning percentages per team are not adequate for ranking teams," Leman said. "Tournament decisions made for teams with only moderately high RPIs (bubble teams), until now, were not clear."

Leman and House say their research was motivated by a chance meeting with Virginia Tech head coach Seth Greenberg in a restaurant in the spring of 2010. At that time, Virginia Tech had not won a bid for the tournament. Greenberg suggested that he would like to know how tournament decisions are made for at-large teams. The two statisticians, along with graduate assistants John Szarka and Hayley Nelson, stepped up to the challenge and have presented their conclusions just in time for this year's March Madness to begin.

"We don't want to create, improve, or validate a ranking system," House said. "Our goal was simply to evaluate how the selection committee has chosen teams for the tournament in the past."

Explore further: 'Moral victories' might spare you from losing again

Related Stories

Behavior Changes Linked to March Madness

Mar 09, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Millions of Americans, including President Obama, fill out their “brackets” when the NCAA Tournament field is announced each March, but does that really affect their work? It certainly ...

Twitter launches own site for World Cup

Jun 11, 2010

A number of World Cup teams have banned their players from using Twitter during the tournament but the micro-blogging service is getting in on the act with its own site for the event.

Web bookies not worried by NCAA underdogs

Mar 30, 2006

Although heavy underdog George Mason University, who once sat at 400-1 odds, is two victories away from winning the NCAA Basketball Tournament, it's not the team that has online betting sites most frightened.

'Match' Madness: Picking upsets a losing strategy

Mar 04, 2010

Soon Americans nationwide will begin poring over NCAA men's basketball tournament brackets in their annual attempt at glory -- and maybe even a little cash -- in winning the ubiquitous, albeit illegal, office ...

Recommended for you

Narcissistic CEOs and financial performance

25 minutes ago

Narcissism, considered by some as the "dark side of the executive personality," may actually be a good thing when it comes to certain financial measures, with companies led by narcissistic CEOs outperforming those helmed ...

Election surprises tend to erode trust in government

29 minutes ago

When asked who is going to win an election, people tend to predict their own candidate will come out on top. When that doesn't happen, according to a new study from the University of Georgia, these "surprised losers" often ...

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

CarolinaScotsman
1 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2011
"UNC's marquee status during that season had a substantial influence on the committee's decision." Leman said. "Of that, I'm sure."

And the fact that UNC made it to the final four that year fully justified the decision. If "marquee status" was all they had, they would have been eliminated pretty quick. UNC was not selected in 2010 despite your so called "marquee status". Do I detect a bit of intra conference envy because of all the years UNC did make it? Looking for excuses?