After the round of 32, the Madometer reads record 23.4% insanity

It’s official: the tourney has gone absolutely Coastal! After three upsets in the round of 32, punctuated with the FGCU surprise over San Diego State, we’re now up to 10 shockers. That’s just three away from the record of 13.

And the Madometer has topped out at 23.4%–3.6% higher than the ultimate 19.8% madness of 2011. There’s still time for the tourney to settle below record insanity. But one or two upsets should push it over the edge. I’m feeling a chicken walk coming on…

This entry was posted in General News, Measuring Madness. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to After the round of 32, the Madometer reads record 23.4% insanity

  1. Joel says:

    I was really fascinated to see how eliminating underachievers in my bracket would help and here is how they did:

    Duke – Miss; made the S16
    Georgetown – Big hit; lost in R1
    Miami – Miss; made the S16
    Michigan St – Miss; made the S16
    New Mexico – Big hit; lost in R1
    Marquette – Miss; but not too disappointed because they could have lost either game they played
    St Louis – Partial; didn’t lose in R1, but didn’t make S16 either so I split this one
    Oklahoma St – Hit; lost in R1
    Wisconsin – Hit; lost in R1

    That makes the underachievers 4.5/9.0. Not great and it hurt to have those 2 and 3 seeds bow out early. So I tried to find a correlation between those teams who were underachievers, but made it to the S16 anyway. If you look at the six 2 and 3 seeds who were underachievers and their coach’s PASE, you would see that only JT3 and Alford are negative. It’s a big gamble to have a 2 or 3 seed not make the S16, so maybe you add a qualifier that says you are immune to underachievement (at least to the S16) if your coach has a positive PASE for those seeds.

    Looking back at 2012, the underachievement rules identified Duke, Missouri, Florida St, and GTown as your 2 and 3 seed underachievers and all were correct. However adding my rules above would have made Duke and Missouri immune and you would have advanced them to the S16 (but maybe auto eliminate them from the E8??). Probably not a big loss to misidentify their failure in the long run, since 15 seeds don’t spring upsets too often (or do they??).

    Just a thought… maybe something to work on in the offseason.

    • Alex says:

      Peter – Once again I called FGCU to win in Round “3”. I will have my predictions for this week shortly for everyone here. What an amazing story with FGCU. You know the thing that made me say these guys can win is how they played Miami and hung around against other top teams. I knew Georgetown was a year away from making any noise and were an underachieving #2 team and SDSU is from the Mountain West and it was obvious that the conference is very weak. Can they do it against Florida? I want to say YES as a fan of march madness, but my basketball IQ says no. Sure anything is possible, but I will let u know my thoughts later.

    • cderrick77584 says:

      It isn’t really necessary to add your qualifier. Coach K has an average seed of 2.1+ and on average has almost 3 wins a tournament. While he has had early exits like Lehigh he has also had deep runs. I think it is on the evaluator to look at his teams and matchups. It isn’t unheard of that some teams benefit from name recognition and that can influence their seeding. Eliminating a coach a coach and team that essentially performs up to seed expectation doesn’t need a disclaimer.

      Again, he has an average seed of 2.19 and average wins of 2.93. He’s basically averaging a run to the Elite Eight with a 2 seed.

      Betting against Izzo in the tournament is on you. Average seed of 4.93 with 2.47 wins. Nothing in that says he is bowing out in the 2nd round.

    • Tom says:

      I think Duke’s numbers were off a bit because of the Ryan Kelly injury. Their numbers probably look a lot different when he’s healthy, so perhaps they were just misidentified as an underachiever.

  2. BUCats says:

    Izzo isn’t infallible by himself – he underachieved last year as a #1 Seed. This year’s MSU team met the underachievement qualities because of their lack of scoring and scoring margin. As for Duke, they have a negative rebounding margin which tagged them as an underachiever. All I am saying is maybe a GREAT coach can overtake a disqualifier.

    • cderrick77584 says:

      Right, but you can’t just look at things in a vacuum either. One year doesn’t make a career.

      It wasn’t that long ago that Izzo was taking a 5 seed to the FF. And the year before he was the National Runner-up as a 2 seed.

  3. Tom says:

    Of the 16 remaining coaches, 11 have previously made the Elite 8.

    Of the other five:
    -Two are rookies: John Giannini and Andy Enfield. Both will have nice, fat PASEs, win or lose.
    -Two are snakebit: Dana Altman and Gregg Marshall. I’d bet on Marshall removing that designation, but not Altman.
    -The fifth is Buzz Williams, who will be snakebit if he doesn’t get there. This is his fifth appearance.

  4. krs says:

    Any thoughts on best available coaches for USC/UCLA/Minn/Northwestern (thinking power conferences with $$ to spend)…? Should be fun to watch what happens in southern California over the next few weeks.

  5. BillM says:

    To break the Madometer record will require a significant run into at least the Final Four by two of the low seeds (9 or below) and likely one into the Final. The 2013 tourney is only 6 points higher on the Madometer than 2011 at this point in the tournament. In 2011 VCU (11th) went to the Final Four and Butler (8) made it to the Final with Conneticut (3) and Kentucky (4) advancing into the Final Four as well. That tourney had a huge quotient of madness in the Final Four and Final that will be very difficult to ever match.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>