|
Contributed by Peter Tiernan, ESPN.com Bracketologist
|
When the brackets are finally announced, you'll be staring at your bracket for the 2007 NCAA Tournament, and the pressure will be on to figure out a way to separate yourself from the pack of pool players settling for predictable picks. You know upsets are going to happen. The person with enough smarts -- or luck -- to spot the key Cinderellas stands a good chance of winning the pool … and the envy of other bracketeers. Of course, advancing a Cinderella is tricky business. Settle on the wrong high-seeded victim and your bracket could collapse in the first weekend.
Fortunately, picking the right underdog isn't all guesswork. In the 22 tourneys of the 64- and 65-team era, Cinderella squads have shared common attributes. When you know what they are, it's a lot easier to sniff out the upsets. Let's examine the factors that cause upsets so you can identify which long shots in this year's bracket are most likely to spring a surprise.
When is a win an upset?
Surprisingly, two-thirds of tourney games meet this condition. Of the 1,386 games that have been played in the last 22 years, 928 of them have pitted long shots against favorites -- and the underdog has won about 20 percent of the time. That's an average of 8.7 upsets per tourney, or roughly one in every seven games. This chart shows the round-by-round results of upset games in the 64-team era.
While first-round upsets tend to grab most of the attention, the upsets in the second and third rounds do the most damage to your bracket. Only 19 of the 93 opening-round upset victims (or 20 percent) are teams seeded Nos. 1, 2 or 3. More importantly, the top three seeds are a dominating 245-19 (.928) against first-round dark horses. Only about one in 14 top-three seeded teams will fall victim to an upset in the first round; to put it another way, only one top-three seed will lose per tourney in the first round. Last year's victim was No. 3 Iowa, which was humbled by No. 14 Northwestern State. The other 11 top-three seeds dispatched their underdog opponents.
It's a different story in the second round, where the top three seeds are just 147-49 against Cinderellas. That's a solid .750 winning percentage, but it's nowhere near the lockdown .928 rate of the opening round. Instead of only one in 14 teams losing, the top three seeds lose one in every four games -- between two and three per year. They also comprise 77 percent (49 of 64) of the second-round upsets. In 2006, there were three high-seeded upset victims among the 10 that faced Cinderellas: No. 2 Ohio State got upset by No. 7 Georgetown, No. 2 Tennessee lost to No. 7 Wichita State, and No. 3 North Carolina suffered the biggest upset at the hands of No. 11 George Mason. In fact, the No. 2 and No. 3 seeds were just 3-4 against long shots last year; meanwhile, top seeds were a perfect 3-0.
The Sweet 16 isn't as treacherous for the top three seeds as Round 2, but it's nothing like a first-round cakewalk, either. Of the 26 third-round upsets of the modern era, 16 (or 62 percent) have involved teams seeded Nos. 1, 2 or 3. But those seeds do have a .822 winning rate against long shots (74-16). In fact, Sweet 16 upsets among the top three seeds are so rare that less than one occurs per tourney. Consider last year: Sure, George Mason did spring a third-round upset in '06, but it was a No. 7 seed, Wichita State, that got victimized.
Upset Prediction Value: Balancing forecasting accuracy with frequency
In determining which factors have the biggest influence on upset prediction, you have to look at how much the rule increases the odds of picking an upset (accuracy) and how many upsets it describes (frequency). Here's an example: Long shots have won 17.6 percent of the 528 games in which an upset could happen in the first round. These giant killers are rarely a No. 15 seed (a No. 16 seed has never won an NCAA Tournament game). By eliminating these teams from consideration, you improve your chances of picking an upset by 44 percent -- a 25.3 percent winning rate (89-263) vs. 17.6 percent. Just as important, 89 of 93 first-round Cinderellas satisfy this rule. By multiplying the increase (44 percent) above the typical upset rate by the percentage of upsets described (96 percent), we arrive at the upset prediction value (UPV), for the "15- and 16-seed exclusion" rule: 41.7. When you evaluate rules by their UPV, you're better able to compare their relative worth in predicting upsets.
Three simple guidelines for Cinderella spotting
1. Don't pick any upset springers lower than a 12-seed. Yes, Nos. 13, 14 and 15 seeds do pull the occasional upset, but it's at a much lower rate than higher-seeded teams. These long shots are 42-251 (.143) against opponents with a seed position of at least four rungs higher than them. And 16 seeds? Forget about them; they're 0-88 in the tourney.
2. Never pick a top seed to be an upset victim. You don't have to look any further back than UConn's loss to 11th-seeded George Mason last year to know that top seeds can be toppled. But it's not worth predicting. In the 246 games they've played against prospective Cinderellas, No. 1 seeds have shattered the slipper 223 times. That's more than a 90 percent success rate -- much too strong to bet against.
If you applied only these two rules to your search for Cinderellas, you would improve your odds by nearly 57 percent. Underdogs seeded better than No. 13 facing all favorites at least four seeds higher, except top seeds, are 126-259. That's a 33 percent upset rate, and the rules describe nearly two-thirds (126 of 192) of all upsets. Taken together, these simple seed restriction rules yield a UPV of 38.2. You can do a little bit better if you remember one more guideline:
3. Make sure your upset choice beats opponents by more than five points a game. Potential Cinderellas (after the two rules above) with a regular-season victory margin of more than five points a game are 109-198 against favorites for a 35.5 percent upset rate. That's 72 percent better than the typical long shot, and the guideline accounts for about 56 percent of all upsets, for a UPV of 40.7.
Round-by-round rules for predicting upsets
Round 1: Take high-scoring No. 11 seeds and frontcourt-dominant No. 12 seeds with tourney-tested coaches. Given the "No. 13 through No. 16 seed exclusion" rule, you need only to concern yourself with No. 11 and No. 12 seeds in the first round.
• Take No. 11 seeds that score at least 73 points a game and beat their opponents by seven or more points. These teams are 19-18.
By applying these two rules, you'd be 31-23, or 57.4 percent accurate, in predicting first-round upsets. That's 225.9 percent better than the typical first-round upset rate of 17.6 percent, and it describes one-third of the upsets.
If you used these rules last year, you would've split four games, correctly picking No. 11 Wisconsin-Milwaukee and No. 12 Montana to spring upsets, while narrowly missing with 11th-seeded San Diego State and 12th-seeded Utah State.
Upset percentage increase: 225.9 percent | Upsets described: 33.3 percent | UPV: 75.3
Round 2: Pick battle-scarred 10- to 12-seeds. While ninth-seeded UAB's 2004 bracket-busting upset of top-seeded Kentucky may still be fresh in the minds of tourney pool players, there's still no reason to pick a No. 9 seed to topple a top seed in Round 2. They're just 3-43 against the big dogs. And even though No. 8 seeds fare better at 9-32 against No. 1 seeds, it's just not worth going out on a limb and picking them to spring an upset. That leaves Nos. 7, 10, 11 and 12 seeds. Here are the upset rules for these seeds in their various matchups:
• In 2 vs. 7 games, take No. 7 seeds from the Big Six conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-10) that beat opponents by at least six points a game. These teams are 8-6. All other No. 7 seeds are 7-31. Last year, Georgetown had these characteristics and beat No. 2 seed Ohio State. On the other hand, Wichita State didn't meet the Big Six condition but still upset Tennessee.
• In 2 vs. 10 games, take No. 10 seeds with at least four junior or senior starters. They're 9-5 against their favored opponents, while all other 10th-seeded teams are 5-13. In 2006, 10th-seeded North Carolina State started at least four upperclassmen -- but lost to No. 7 seed California. A year earlier, however, a veteran Wolfpack team did spring an upset.
• In 3 vs. 11 games, take No. 11 seeds that have won from 0-9 games in their last 10 pre-tourney games, and have a winning record either below .675 or above .750. Teams satisfying these conditions are 8-2. All other 11th-seeded squads are 0-14. If you had obeyed these rules last year, you would've correctly identified George Mason as a Cinderella in its win over No. 3 seed North Carolina. Honest.
seeds that have won from 0-9 games in their last 10
• In 4 vs. 12 games, take No. 12 seeds coming into the tourney on either a losing streak or a single-game winning streak that beat opponents by less than 10 points a game. They're 6-1 against No. 4 seeds. The rest of the No. 12 seeds are 4-13. Last year, Texas A&M met these conditions … and wound up losing to LSU by a single point.
If you applied all these rules, then you'd accurately predict 31 upsets in 45 games for a 69 percent success rate. That's 168 percent better than the typical 25.7 percent second-round upset rate, and it describes nearly half (31 of 64) of the upsets.
Upset percentage increase: 168.0 percent | Upsets described: 48.4 percent | UPV: 81.4
Sweet 16: Avoid Nos. 1- and 2-seeded victims; pick tested No. 7 to 12 seeds with solid guards. Seeding is the key indicator of Sweet 16 Cinderellas. Avoid underdogs that face No. 1 or 2 seeds and any long shot seeded worse than 12th. All other potential upset pullers are 15-19. If you further restricted your upset choices to teams that have won at least six of their last 10 pre-tourney games, then you'd improve your prediction success to 12-10 (0.545). That's more than twice the typical Sweet 16 upset rate -- and it describes nearly half of the upsets.
Last year, two teams, No. 7 Georgetown and No. 11 George Mason, had the right seed matchups to warrant upset consideration. Only George Mason managed to spring the upset, beating No. 7 seed Wichita State while Georgetown lost to eventual champ Florida. Then again, Georgetown had won only five of its last 10 pre-tourney games, so the Hoyas didn't have the ideal Sweet 16 Cinderella conditions.
Upset percentage increase: 132.9 percent | Upsets described: 46.2 percent| UPV: 61.3
Elite Eight: Pick high-scoring, backcourt-dominant Big Six conference teams. Picking upsets in the Elite Eight is risky business. Only five of 28 long shots have sneaked up on favorites. No. 8 seed Villanova beat No. 2 seed North Carolina in 1985; 11th-seeded LSU knocked off top-seeded Kentucky the following year; Rick Pitino's sixth-seeded Providence Friars beat No. 1 Georgetown the next year; Michigan's sixth-seeded Fab Five beat top seed Ohio State in 1992; and George Mason was the most recent team to spring a Round 4 upset when it beat No. 1 UConn. Other than George Mason (a notable exception given that it sprung its upset last year), the other four Cinderellas came from a Big Six conference, scored more than 70 points a game and got at least 40 percent of their points from guards. Elite Eight underdogs with these characteristics are 4-4; the rest are 1-19. A word of warning, though: The sample size on Elite Eight upsets is small … and the upset rules failed to identify the most recent Cinderella.
Upset percentage increase: 180.0 percent| Upsets described: 80.0 percent | UPV: 144.0
Final Four and championship: Pick tourney-tested long shots led by coaching legends. Two teams account for the four upsets that have occurred in the Final Four and championship rounds. Eighth-seeded Villanova beat second-seeded Memphis State, then shocked Georgetown on its way to the championship in 1985. And sixth-seeded Kansas toppled second-seeded Duke and top-seeded Oklahoma to win the tourney in 1988. The other eight teams seeded fifth or worse have all lost in the last two rounds of the tournament. What did Villanova and Kansas have that others didn't? Simply put, experienced coaches with strong programs. Both schools had legendary coaches with at least seven tourney appearances (Rollie Massimino and Larry Brown) who had taken their teams to the Big Dance at least four straight years, longer than the impact of any single class.
Upset percentage increase: 200.0 percent | Upsets described: 100.0 percent | UPV: 200.0
Putting all the upset rules together
The dark side of upsets: identifying early-round victims
Inexperienced No. 5 seeds in Round 1: Fifth-seeded squads with at least a .760 winning rate that didn't go to the previous Dance and have coaches who've notched fewer than three tourney bids are just 25-20 against their 12th-seeded opponents. The rest of the No. 5 seeds are 34-9. Last year, three fifth-seeded teams possessed these attributes: Nevada lost, while Washington and Pitt won.
Deceptively successful No. 6 seeds with rookie coaches in Round 1: Sixth-seeded teams with rookie coaches, a pre-tourney winning streak of at least two games and more than a .750 winning rate are 14-16 against No. 11 seeds. All the other No. 6 seeds are 47-11.
No. 2 seeds led by inexperienced coaches against No. 7 seeds in Round 2: Sometimes it's easier to identify teams that aren't victims as opposed to those that are. Second-seeded squads facing No. 7 seeds in Round 2 are 21-2 when their coach has been to the tourney at least 10 times and made it to the Elite Eight on more than three occasions. All other No. 2 seeds are 16-13. That includes Thad Matta's Ohio State Buckeyes last year.
High-scoring veteran No. 2 seeds from power conferences against No. 10 seeds in Round 2: The second-seeded teams that avoid upsets to 10th-seeded underdogs have been to the tourney at least five straight years, score more than 80 points a game and are from one of the Big Six conferences. They're 9-0, while all the other No. 2 seeds are 9-14 against No. 10 seeds. Count Tennessee among these victims. The Volunteers didn't go to the 2005 tourney.
No. 3 seeds limping into the tourney or with inexperienced coaches against No. 11 seeds in Round 2: Third-seeded teams whose coach has had fewer than five tourney bids or who've won fewer than seven of their last 10 games are 6-6 against 11th-seeded foes in the second round. The rest of the No. 3 seeds are 10-2. Last year, North Carolina showed all the signs of a team that would avoid an upset, yet it still lost to George Mason.
Inexperienced or streaking No. 4 seeds against No. 12 seeds in Round 2: The most likely victims of the 4 vs. 12 upset matchup have one or all of these attributes:
Fourth-seeded squads meeting at least one of these criteria are 5-8; the rest of the No. 4 seeds are 9-2 against 12th-seeded long shots. Last year, LSU showed one sign of being a victim (only two straight tourney trips) -- and they narrowly escaped an upset to Texas A&M, eking out an 88-87 win.
Freelance writer Pete Tiernan has been studying the NCAA Tournament for 17 years. E-mail him here. Or go to www.bracketscience.com and check out the BracketMaster, which lets you do your own bracket analysis. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||