March Madness Notes -- 2

I'm going to do a complete, full article regarding this later, but let me just say that one of two things has occurred. Either the committee has no interest in their assigned seeds having an appropriate relative probability of winning regions, or they and oddsmakers in Las Vegas and offshore have a difference of opinion that has broken all records.

Here's what I mean. Ostensibly, a team with a #1 seed should have the greatest probability of winning their region as compared to other teams in their bracket. The #2 seed should have the second greatest probability and so forth all the way down.

Now of course we should get the occasional disagreement between committee and oddsmakers regarding the probabilities for, say, a particular six seed versus an eight or an 11 versus a 13, but certainly there should be very little difference of opinion regarding the top seeds.

That is not what has happened. Michigan State is significantly favored over Virginia to win the Midwest Region, by a ballpark +140 to +250. That's big. Also, the third choice to win the region, at roughly +600, is the fifth seed, Purdue. Gonzaga, the #11 seed, is a huge favorite compared to the #7, #8, #9, and #10 seeds.

And that is just the Midwest!!

Meanwhile, Oklahoma, the #2 seed in the West, is a significant favorite compared to the top seed, Oregon. At some locations, Oklahoma is now +180 while Oregon is +280.

Something is dramatically awry, and I cannot believe other writers, reporters, and basketball bloggers aren't shouting it to the skies.

More on this topic later in the week, as I will break down all of the disparities. Later tonight, I will attempt to post a unit breakdown of my investments.

Redietz--who is the committee comprised of? It always bothered me that certain individuals would certainly have a bias towards a particular conference thereby affecting seeding or even inclusion. But do you know who the members of the committee are?

I will get a committee list after the smoke clears. I'm trying to get a list that includes current affiliations and where they attended college. The thing is, that doesn't always matter, as everyone aspires to have the highest paying positions, and those positions are at the moneyed schools, so there is an implicit bias.