If you see a bandwagon, it’s too late. – James Goldsmith
Past Performance Does Not Guarantee Future Results
Folks, be careful before you jump on the “See, I told you Gonzaga is overrated” bandwagon. That refrain is rising to a crescendo because the Zags struggled to dispatch 16 seed Southern yesterday. But to assume that 1 seed having trouble with its first opponent is indicative of unworthiness of its seeding or an imminent early exit may not be entirely accurate. Consider these examples.
- In 1989 #1 seed Georgetown narrowly defeated #16 Princeton 50-49. Georgetown advanced to the Elite Eight that year, losing to Duke 85-77.
- The very next year, #1 Michigan State beat #16 Murray State 75-71 in overtime. They advanced to the Sweet Sixteen and lost by one point (on a buzzer beater, if memory serves) to Georgia Tech 81-80.
- Though not as close in the final score, the 1986 Duke team let Mississippi Valley State hang around until near the very end and yet made it all the way to the championship game before losing to Louisville. In addition, 1989 Illinois, 1997 North Carolina, and 2002 Kansas each survived a relative first round scare and ended up advancing to the Final Four.
At the same time, sometimes an early struggle does spell trouble for a #1 seed. In fact, no #1 seed that went to OT or won in regulation by less than 13 pointes against its #16 seed opponent has ever gone on to win a national championship. But a first round blowout is no guarantee of success, either. In the infamous 2000 tournament where two #8 seeds made the Final Four, both #1 seed Stanford and #1 seed Arizona pummeled their #16 seed opponents, winning by a combined 43 points. Both teams went down two days later in the round of 32.
Keys To March Madness Success
So why is it that the NCAA Tournament is so hard to predict? Why do stone cold, lead pipe locks lose and beyond-improbable underdogs win? I think there are number of factors to consider.
Conference Affiliation Doesn’t Matter
Teams spend the last half of their season playing their conference schedules. They play the same teams, often multiple times, in both the regular season and their conference tournaments. Their selection to the NCAA Tournament field is often based largely are their relative performance in their conference and, therefore, the relative perceived strength of the conference in which they played. But once the Big Dance begins, these conference affiliations become irrelevant. In fact, they can often be problematic, not only for the teams, but also for prognosticators, and here’s why.
Different Officials
As I said, you spend the last half or more of your season playing the same teams in the same conference with the same relatively small pool of officials. Teams grow accustomed to the style of play within their conference, and that absolutely includes the way in which the game is officiated. Teams learn what the officials generally will and will not allow them to get away with. However, the NCAA Tournament assigns officiating crews based on merit. Suddenly a team that dominated their conference all season lands in a game officiated by a crew that won’t let them play the physical style they’ve grown accustomed to, or conversely, allows their opponent to play way more physically than they are accustomed to. I am not saying that officials purposely influence a game’s outcome. I am saying that teams are sometimes suddenly forced to adjust to an officiating style they haven’t had to deal with for two months or more. An underdog’s success can very much be aided by drawing an officiating crew that caters to their style of play.
Unknown Opponents
In your conference season, you have weeks if not months to prepare for every game. Opponent’s strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies are well known. But once the tournament gets rolling, you might have 48 hours to prepare for a team you’ve never seen before in your life. The fact that they are, on paper, inferior in terms of talent can often be offset by an unfamiliar and perhaps uncomfortable style of play. Couple that with an officiating crew that favors your opponent’s style over yours, and you have a one-two punch that can spell upset in a hurry.
Coaching
It has been said that professional supports are about the players, and college sports are about the coach. This is as true of basketball as it is of any other sport. While it is not a fair generalization that all NBA players care nothing about team or winning championships, but in general, the nature of the pro game is such that the players are the focal point of everything. They have the large contracts. They attract the fans for the owners. They play for their jobs and the opportunity to make more money. The NBA coach is there to provide general direction and manage the egos of his assortment of superstars.
Contrast that with college basketball. Sure, there are a few future pros who are playing for the watching NBA scouts, but they comprise a relatively small percentage of the players in the 64-team field. The rest will never receive a dime for playing basketball, but the coach for whom they play is paid millions to make the team a living form of uber-advertising for the university. These players love their coach and each other like family, and because of their immaturity and inexperience, the coach’s influence over the game’s outcome cannot be overstated. College players, for the most part, are playing for a single shot at glory. The memory of a championship or even an unlikely upset over a superior team is the only compensation they will ever receive for playing the game.
This is why you see things like what we saw in the post-game press conference with Pittsburgh coach Jamie Dixon star player Tray Woodall breaking down into tears after their loss to Wichita State. These guys follow their generals into war. As such, the coaching is important factor to consider when trying to predict a game winner. You think the fact that Harvard had Tommy Amaker, former point guard for Duke, former assistant at Duke, former head coach at Seton Hall and Michigan, as a coach didn’t have something to do with their first ever NCAA win? Think again. As I am fond of saying, never bet against Tom Izzo in March.
It’s All About The Match Ups
Put all this together, and, ultimately, it is all about the match ups. If you are an ESPN Insider like me (which isn’t as impressive as it sounds – it just means you have $4.95 a month to flush down the toilet), you have access to some statistical analysis tools that give you some idea of the likelihood of any team winning any game in the tournament. What is interesting to me is how simply changing a team’s possible opponent can change that team from a “Strong Favorite” to an “Upset Alert”. Style, tendencies due to conference play, coaching, strengths, weaknesses, and just plain luck (which is always a factor in sport) all go into the mix in determining the eventual victor. Attempting to predict the outcome of 63 games is, in a very real sense of the word, madness of the most mathematically absurd kind.
Parting Thoughts
It will be interesting to see what unlikely heros and goats emerge from today’s docket of 16 games. The great thing about my contest is that your fortunes can change, for better or worse, with a single game. Enjoy the madness!
The Wizard of Whiteland