When I said this blog might end up covering a number of different subjects, I meant it.  And really, to be frank, who cares about ecommerce and digital strategy during March Madness??  Today, I talk about basketball and math.  Together, they equal money.  I hope.

There’s a relatively well-known stats guy out there by the name of Jeff Sagarin.  Well, calling him a stats guy may not be fair.  It may make him more relevant in the world of sports, but let’s be honest about what he really is:  he’s a mathematician.   A really, really good one. 

Years ago, Sagarin developed a formula that ranks teams based on all sorts of variables – win/loss records, margin of victory, etc.  Think of it as BCS without the controversy.  Most of the time, the rankings are pretty consistent with what we see in the standard AP and Coaches’ polls, but sometimes they’re not.  And since the NCAA Selection Committee tends to side with the polls and not Sagarin, and since Vegas odds-makers often side with the Committee’s seedings, there’s an opportunity (if you trust Sagarin) to make a buck or two off the inequity in their rankings.

Enter the NCAA Tournament.

If we look at Sagarin’s Predictor score, we can essentially draw up a bracket where the teams ranked 1-4 are #1 seeds, the teams ranked 5-8 are #2 seeds, and so forth.  If we then compare that to the seedings given out by the Selection Committee, we can see that they don’t always equate.  Here are a few examples:

So here’s where it gets interesting and/or potentially profitable.  The first number after the teams below is the seed they were given; the second is the adjustment that should be made based on the information reflected in the table above.  So, in the case of #6 Cincinnati versus #11 Texas, (6+3) vs (11-5) becomes 9 versus 6 with Texas (instead of Cincinnati) becoming the favored team.

1.       Cincinnati (#6 seed, +3) plays Texas (#11 seed, -5) but is favored by 2.  Take Texas.

2.       Cal (#12 seed, -5) plays South Florida (#12 seed, +7) in the play-in and is only favored by 2.5.  Cal kills.

3.       Kansas St (#8 seed, -2) plays Southern Miss (#9 seed, +8) and is favored by only 6.  Kan’t be that klose!

And so on.  Some other quick notes:

1.       Obviously, the less extreme the differentials, the tougher the call.  A number of teams, particularly the highest-seeded, have no differential.  As always, it’s relative and “it depends.”

2.       Sometimes the committee does us no favors.  They put Memphis (#8, -5) against St Louis (#9, -4)…that’s like putting a #3 versus a #5 in the first round!!!  Not cool. 

3.       Attention Davidson and VCU bandwagon:  neither team is underrated.  Neither will surprise.  And neither is poised to make a run based upon our good friend, math.  In fact, according to math, Davidson should be a #18 seed and VCU should be a #14.  Considering they’re playing the equivalent of a #5 seed (Louisville) and a #3 seed (Wichita St) respectively, don’t expect any miracles.

When it’s all said and done, my picks are MSU and KU in the championship, with MSU taking the title.  We’re talking about a team that wasn’t even ranked and has improved, so their potential should grow more relative to other teams, and they came in beating another stellar squad (OSU).  If they make it past the very underrated Memphis/St Louis juggernaut (thank you Selection Committee), should be smooth sailing.

So there we go – a bunch of predictions written in internet ink that will haunt me forever.  They call it March Madness for a reason. 

Enjoy the games!