Five Questions for March Madness Fans -- #5

5) Who will get it right, the committee or the oddsmakers?

The tournament committee doesn't address the fact that sometimes they don't demonstrably appear to know what they are doing. It doesn't take a genius to tell a #1 seed from a #16 seed. Anybody can do that. The measure of expertise lies in whether the #8 seeds beat the #9 seeds, the #7 seeds beat the #10 seeds, and whether the #6 seeds beat the #11 seeds. If the underdogs win these match-ups as often as the favorites, then the committee doesn't really know what it is doing. It would be evidence that they're simply throwing darts and making a big fuss about it. We will track these results on this thread.

Also, there are a number of games each year where the linesmakers and the committee do not agree on who should be favored. If the linesmakers outperform the committee, there really isn't a need for a committee at all as simple power ratings or point spreads could be employed instead of a bunch of guys in a room claiming they know what they are doing. It really is that simple. If you claim to have expertise, then you should demonstrate expertise. We'll track the spreads versus seedings outcomes and post them here also.

As a Midwest guy who followed the Big 10 pretty closely, I have always felt that the Big 10 is given much too much respect and usually too many seats.

I have always been able to profit by fading the Big 10 teams both in hoops and football. I don't feel any conference should have 6 or 7 seats, especially when they are playing the sisters of the blind in pre-conference play.

As I anticipated, a fair number of lower seeds are favored versus higher seeds. Here's the list:

1) Providence is -2 versus USC in a 9/8 meeting.
2) Butler is -3 vs. Texas Tech in a 9/8 meeting.
3) UConn is -3 vs. Colorado in a 9/8.
4) VCU is -3 vs. Oregon State in a 10/7.
5) Cincinnati is -2 vs. St. Joe's in a 9/8.
6) Gonzaga, which opened +1, is now -2 vs. Seton Hall in an 11/6 game. So oddsmakers opened Seton Hall as a marginal favorite and money came rushing in on Gonzaga.

And finally,

7) Dayton vs. Syracuse is essentially Pick in a 7/10 game.


My personal view, which isn't worth much, is that I would favor St. Joseph's and Gonzaga by one, and I would have USC/Providence a Pick and VCU/Oregon State a Pick. We will see who is correct, the NCAA committee or the linesmakers.

Any big surprises or shockers in the 64? Who should have gotten in that didn't?

Vanderbilt surprised me -- I thought the loss to Tennessee did them in. Syracuse was a real shocker. No way they should have made it. Those two should have been out. USC, realistically, should not have made it. Michigan really needed to win two more games, although one may have made them a question mark. Michigan should not have made it.

St. Mary's should have made it. Top 25 poll team (or 26th) and RPI way higher than Michigan or USC. Monmouth should have been in. Valparaiso probably not. George Washington needed to beat St. Joe's to get in, so also probably not.

Pitt and Valparaiso tied for 49th in RPI. How one easily gets in with a 20-11 record and the other gets left out with a 24-6 record is the classic moneyed conferences preferring to write checks to themselves.

Basically, putting Syracuse in there and leaving out St. Mary's, San Diego State, and Monmouth is a joke. Again, it boils down to who the committee wants on the checks.

Did any of this surprise me? No, not really. I'm a cynic. I know what goes on during the committee's "debates." I'm just surprised that when they get away with this garbage one year that they come back and do worse the next. But that is the trend.

If I were the Mountain West and other non-moneyed conferences, I'd go to Mark Cuban or someone and try to put together an alternative tournament. You don't get all that much for a first round game in the NCAA tournament, so rather than get screwed with bids and seedings, you may as well do a parallel tournament and break up the monopoly.

See # 2 above. I haven't watched a game all year. Craving a little action I went back to an old favorite---faded the Big Ten. Threw out the Indiana game as a mismatch and faded the Big 10 the other 6 games.

Went 5-1. Wisconsin only scores 47 but wins and covers.

I just hope I don't now think I know what I'm doing and get my ass kicked. I may fade the surviving Big 10 teams one more time but more likely lock up the $$ and take it to the race track where I have some degree of chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

See # 2 above. I haven't watched a game all year. Craving a little action I went back to an old favorite---faded the Big Ten. Threw out the Indiana game as a mismatch and faded the Big 10 the other 6 games.

Went 5-1. Wisconsin only scores 47 but wins and covers.

I just hope I don't now think I know what I'm doing and get my ass kicked. I may fade the surviving Big 10 teams one more time but more likely lock up the $$ and take it to the race track where I have some degree of chance.

---

Great job, regnis, and great strategy. Michigan was up 12 at half, but had forced 10 turnovers, and ND was not going to continue to do that. People are celebrating MTSU down here, and ETSU will be in Las Vegas for the inaugural tournament at Mandalay Bay in a week.

Most of the betting advice here was solid as a rock. The committee got one game right versus oddsmakers, and that took a waved-off dunk as time expired. Basically, the committee was embarrassed vis-a-vis the linesmakers. I'll run them all down tonight if I get the time.