The Gould Standard: A Guide to March Math Madness
It’s almost that time of year. A vast portion of Americans, whether they have watched any college basketball for the last four months or not, are going to be racking their brains, trying to do the impossible:
Fill out an NCAA tournament bracket. And if they are scientific Americans, they’re going to fill out more than one bracket, which will reduce their odds from 8,765,432.99 to 4,444,444.99.
Give or take. . .
I know. Because, like many of you, I have been engaging in this exercise in futility since the glorious 1970s. Remember the 70s? The decade that gave us Super Bowl parties, Watergate, disco and NCAA Tournament office pools.
The word Bracketology, which came later, implies that filling out a bracket is a science. In fact, it is nonsense—a combination of darts, voodoo and Spin the Bottle. Without the kissing.
I have seen office pools won by people who picked Catholic schools. People who picked teams that wear red. Or was it blue? People who picked the most ferocious fighter—although that can get tricky. A Wildcat may beat a Bulldog. And a Wolverine may beat a Duck. But what happens when a Bruin faces a Hurricane? A Blue Demon faces a Friar?
These approaches are silly. I prefer to use proven mathematical formulas.
If you want an avalanche of NCAA tournament information, you can download the 2024 Final Four Record Book here. I mention this for two reasons.. . . 1) It is my all-time favorite record book/media guide. . . 2) It will give you statistics and history to justify any NCAA Pool Theory of Relativity.
@ Here’s an inalienable fact of NCAA Tournament life: At least four teams seeded 11th or lower are going win their first-round games. Last year, it was four (a 16, a 15, 13 and an 11). In 2022, it was six (a 15, two 12s three 11s).. In 2021, it was seven (a 15, 14, two 13s, a 12 and two 11s). In 2018 and 2019, it was five.
In other words, you should pick at least four (six or seven, if you’re feeling lucky) teams seeded 11th or lower to win in the first round.
And if that’s too complicated, go with colors or animals. Heck, you can even pick teams you like. Because honestly, in most pools, the first-round games aren’t worth nearly as much as the later rounds.
@ If too many experts are picking an upset, stay away from it. I usually surf the internet, looking for the bracket picks—especially the picks of my most trusted media friends. I’m not going to name their names here. The fact that their picks are as wrong as mine gives me comfort.
But just remember. It’s like a stock tip. By the time you hear about it, it’s too late.
Every year, when I go too hard on The Upsets that Everybody Likes, I vow that next year, I’ll pick The Upsets Nobody Thought Of. . . Good luck with that.
@ Honestly, in most pools, the winner will be the person with the most correct Final Four picks. While the odds are greater that high seeds will reach the Final Four, that trend is less and less reliable.
Last year was seed anarchy at the Final Four, which was comprised of a 4, two 5s and a 9. Those seeds add up to 23, the second highest number since Final Four seeding began in 1979. That said, for the seven years before that, three of the Final Four came from 1 through 3 seeds.
Which way is it going this year?
Who dares to pick against Purdue, which has three Rick Mount clones bobbing and weaving around an 8-foot center? UConn, which has all the tools to Repeat? Houston, which doesn’t seem to have a problem? Then again, the Boilers have a history of March disappointment. The Huskies will be bucking history. And will the Cougars be out of their league?
@ If you’re thoroughly confused. . . Welcome!
If you’re overwhelmed by seeds, here’s the thing to remember. They only matter as much as you let them matter. The ultimate authority on all of this, the afore-mentioned NCAA Final Four Record Book, says, ``Upsets are defined as when the winner of the game was seeded five or more places lower than the team it defeated.’’
In other words, if a 10 beats a 7, it's not an upset. If a 4 beats a 1, it's not an upset.
Hmmph! You may disagree with this. I certainly do. (Although I do chuckle when an announcer breathlessly says a 9 upset an 8, or a 5 upset a 4.)
Here’s the Dirty Little Secret: The Selection Committee is charged with ranking the nation’s teams by their body of work over the full season. Which is a high-falutin’ goal, no doubt.
But honestly, when you’re picking, does it make sense to pick a team based on what it did in November and December, rather than what it did in February and early March? Nope.
For painful example, my alma mater, Wisconsin, is expected to receive a No 6 seed, based heavily on some impressive victories before Christmas.
On the other hand, Wisconsin, which at one time had been ranked sixth in the nation, received a No. 5 seed in the Big Ten tournament—based on what it did at the end of the season, when it lost eight of 11 games.
Meanwhile, Michigan State, which had a miserable 4-5 start to its season, is projected to receive a No. 9 or 10 seed after battling its way back into the NCAA tournament picture.
Do you like Wisconsin, based on its season-long body of work? Or Michigan State, based on its February-March toughness? Those are the questions.
How many people filling out brackets are going to filter out the season-long body-of-work nonsense? How many are even going to know that? I happen to know that about Wisconsin. But there are tons of other examples around the nation that I know nothing about.
Because, like you, I’m not going to pore over data ad nauseam just to fill out a bracket.
Bottom line: Just pick a bracket based on whatever floats your boat. Pick your favorite teams, colors, mascots. Use your selective knowledge. Your hunches. Your dartboard. Delve into the pseudo-mathematics of Quad 1 wins vs. Quad 2 losses.
Enjoy the good picks. Forget the bad picks.
That’s the beauty of The Tournament. And that’s why we call it March Madness.