I decided to test this idea out on the South region (for simplicity I just included Albany as the 16-seed since they won their play-in game). Here are the probabilities for each team to win the region, under the current format, before any first or second round games were played:
Seed | Team | Regional Winner |
1 | Florida | 33.59% |
16 | Albany | 0.03% |
8 | Colorado | 0.99% |
9 | Pittsburgh | 5.57% |
5 | VCU | 6.55% |
12 | Stephen F. Austin | 0.76% |
4 | UCLA | 10.63% |
13 | Tulsa | 0.92% |
6 | Ohio St. | 7.12% |
11 | Dayton | 1.45% |
3 | Syracuse | 7.78% |
14 | Western Michigan | 0.34% |
7 | New Mexico | 5.22% |
10 | Stanford | 2.54% |
2 | Kansas | 16.36% |
15 | Eastern Kentucky | 0.15% |
For perspective, if the tournament was reseeded after each round, the second round matchups for the top seeds would look like this now:
Seed | Team | Current Opp | Reseeded Opp |
1 | Florida | Pittsburgh (9) | Stephen F. Austin (12) |
2 | Kansas | Stanford (10) | Dayton (11) |
3 | Syracuse | Dayton (11) | Stanford (10) |
4 | UCLA | Stephen F. Austin (12) | Pittsburgh (9) |
I altered my Monte Carlo simulator to determine the new probabilities of each team advancing out of the region, and ran 10,000 simulations to gather the following results:
Seed | Team | Current Format | Reseed Format |
1 | Florida | 33.59% | 37.80% |
16 | Albany | 0.03% | 0.02% |
8 | Colorado | 0.99% | 0.95% |
9 | Pittsburgh | 5.57% | 5.29% |
5 | VCU | 6.55% | 6.33% |
12 | Stephen F. Austin | 0.76% | 0.48% |
4 | UCLA | 10.63% | 10.58% |
13 | Tulsa | 0.92% | 0.68% |
6 | Ohio St. | 7.12% | 6.19% |
11 | Dayton | 1.45% | 1.03% |
3 | Syracuse | 7.78% | 7.67% |
14 | Western Michigan | 0.34% | 0.17% |
7 | New Mexico | 5.22% | 4.23% |
10 | Stanford | 2.54% | 1.78% |
2 | Kansas | 16.36% | 16.75% |
15 | Eastern Kentucky | 0.15% | 0.06% |
Florida gains a boost, but no other team really changes all that much. Reseeding should benefit the higher seeds and hurt the lower seeds, which it does, but only marginally.
No comments:
Post a Comment