Mid-Majors in the NCAA Tournament, Continued

With the exciting first two rounds of the NCAA tournament concluded, I thought I'd add some thoughts to my previous post, which looked at the records of BCS-conference schools vs. non-BCS schools in the first round. First piece of business, to add this year's data to the previous 21:

Seed BCS Schools Non-BCS
7 .571 (32-24) .688 (22-10)
8 .476 (30-33) .458 (11-13)
9 .521 (24-22) .548 (23-19)
10 .409 (18-26) .386 (17-27)
11 .346 (9-17) .258 (16-46)
12 .300 (6-14) .313 (21-46)

No real change, though they flip-flop so that major conferences now do slightly better as a 10 seed.

I emailed fantastic college basketball blogger and ESPN contributor Ken Pomeroy my findings. His question was: how do they do head-to head? So I looked at what happened since 1985 (including this year) when BCS schools play non-BCS schools in the first round in the 7/10 games and 8/9 games. My findings: when a non-BCS schools play BCS schools in these games, the non-BCS schools win at least 50% of the time at each seed, including 10s. Here's the table:

Non-BCS School Seed Number of Games Non-BCS Winning Percentage (Number of Wins)
7 17 .647 (11)
8 12 .583 (7)
9 29 .552 (16)
10 30 .500 (15)

(Note: 7-seeds usually when 60% of the time against the 10s, while 9's historically have won 54% against the 8's.)

These are significant, I think. Against schools that the selection committees feel to be equal, the non-BCS schools consistently perform better. Thoughts?

Jim Hu has more. He suggests some more ways to look at the data in the comments to my previous post; however, A) I don't think it would lead to significantly different or surprising conclusions, B) it's a lot of work as I am doing it low-tech (anyone have a database?), and C) I think his way might be obscurred by the 8/9 and 4/5 games. Anyone else have suggestions for study?

Prior post: Mid-Majors In the NCAA Tournament
Also see: Todd Zywicki. (Go GMU!)
Follow-up: Sweet Sixteen Thoughts
See Also: Mid-Majors in the NCAA Tournament, One More Time

Share this

You should use only at-large

You should use only at-large non-BCS teams since they get the most backlash. This year they we're 4-4 in round 1 against BCS schools, would love to see it historicly.

You should also look at the NIT first and second rounds. Non-BCS are 5-2 against BCS, including Manhattan winning on the road at Maryland hahahahahaha, take that Billy Packer.

Kryptonite! I must admit

I must admit that I am still stunned about George Mason advancing to the Sweet Sixteen. And beating two teams from last yea...

Do not include the NIT. The

Do not include the NIT. The BCS schools don't care about the NIT and thus slack off and lose.