Could This Be The Year a #16 Seed Beats a #1?
- Thread starter Smashcat
- Start date
Maybe that is why no one seems to want to be a #1 currently,you could see some interesting 1-16 match-ups this year,like someone in this thread said ,it will happen one of these days.
A
anon_013cn8yrfncx2
Guest
I don't think it will ever happen. Especially not with more and more Division II schools moving up to D1. The bottom D1 small conferences have quite a void of talent.
The year before Princeton (who would in 1996 upset defending champ UCLA) came just one point short of a 16 beating a 1 against Georgetown, which just four years prior to that lost to 8th seed Villanova in the title game (hosted by Rupp Arena BTW). Imagine if Georgetown had also slipped up against Princeton, thus being on the wrong side of both kinds of the biggest upsets possible! They'd end up being called Choketown or something!
If we are in a region where a 1 goes down it could impact us,we could be an 8 or 9 I would love to play Banana Republic St instead of UNC in a second game
i agree nova is always ripe for an upset, but they do defend
they're just so dependent on making 3s offensively
they're just so dependent on making 3s offensively
As much as March Madness thrives on upsets and the runs of unlikely candidates, I would imagine the NCAA goes out of their way to make sure a #1 seed has a favorable matchup. You would think with the expansion of the tournament that you might begin to see some Power 5 conferences teams or mid-majors in that slot but the tournament organizers will always place teams with inherent athletic disadvantages.
I'm always worried when Kentucky is the #1. Like some irrational fear that I have no business worrying about. "What if we're the first to lose to a #16 seed!!!"
It probably won't happen, but I think a couple of the one seeds might get somewhat of a scare that first game. Villanova is going to end up being a damn one seed. I hope and pray if we are a 4 or 5 we are placed in their region.
Do you think this is the year Jesus comes back and has a huge mix up and raptures all the dolphins instead of christians?
I remember that one. Thought they might pull it off.
This year? Could be. It's bound to happen sooner or later. I just hope we're not the #1 it happens to. Don't think that will be possible this year.
What do you think happened to all of the passenger pigeons , they still have IT on that one .
this thread is comparable to the 2014 remake of Left Behind.... its bad enough to cringe but you can still laugh at it... I refuse to believe in a world that Nicolas Cage wouldnt go to heaven...simply for entertainment value. Even jesus gets bored.
To borrow a Rocky III quote, with every passing year it seems those 15 and other very low seeds go into the tournament hungry! I mean we did have six 15's beat a 2 (and two of those were in the same year), and a few of the 16's over 1 did come close. So you have to figure those 15's/14's and so on are going into the Tournament ready to play their hearts out and hope to get one of those famous storybook upsets that will be talked about for many years to come...because for all they know it may be several years before they ever get another chance. Where as the higher seed opponent won't be hungry at all...they go in expecting to win.
Based on Lundari's brackets, it's tough to see any of those matchups going the #16 seed way, but Nova and Kansas are known for their early flame outs.
I have seen different odds, one at 2% chance of upset.
Another guys
"
However, consider the hypothetical world in which each 1 seed had a 99% chance to win over a 16 seed. The next 10 tourneys will feature 40 such games. To determine the chance that all 40 top seeds win, you take 0.99, multiple by 0.99, and do this another 38 times to account for all 40 games.
The answer? There’s a 66.9% chance all 40 teams win. This leaves a 33.1% chance that at least one 16 seed wins a game."
However, I think this is a gambler's fallacy. I think the odds dont become cumulative.
Another guys
"
However, consider the hypothetical world in which each 1 seed had a 99% chance to win over a 16 seed. The next 10 tourneys will feature 40 such games. To determine the chance that all 40 top seeds win, you take 0.99, multiple by 0.99, and do this another 38 times to account for all 40 games.
The answer? There’s a 66.9% chance all 40 teams win. This leaves a 33.1% chance that at least one 16 seed wins a game."
However, I think this is a gambler's fallacy. I think the odds dont become cumulative.
Huh? You're talking about yourself right? Are you forgetting about your epic threads after losses?
Also, way to deflate someone's thread.
That's not what the Gambler's fallacy is. You're actually succumbing to the Gambler's fallacy in treating the individual events as something other than independent. If the true odds of each game are 99%, and the outcome of each game is independent, then there is a 33.1% chance a 16 seed wins a game in the next decade. This suggest that either we've had an incredible run of luck in 1 seeds not getting upset, or the true odds are significantly greater than 99%.
Im cool with that. I wasnt sure if it was cumulative or not, so thanks. Because they are independent, like a coin flip will always be 50/50, but I am cool if I am wrong.
The Murray st game was close, but Purdue almost losing was the closest I've seen. Can't remember who they played, but they had a 3 ball in the air for the win at the buzzer.
Edit: it was western Carolina in 96. They had two clean 3-point looks in final 10 seconds.
Edit: it was western Carolina in 96. They had two clean 3-point looks in final 10 seconds.
This will be the year if it ever can happen. The #1's would be 3 seed good last year. Maybe a couple #2's.
The dominate big men are missing this year. It'll be guards versus guards. That plays into mid-major's hands.
I like Kentucky's chances in this type of tourney because we got guards who can GUARD guards. We got the quick guy to guard quicks, the power guard to guard the bigger guards, and the alpha male guy to always score. Ulis, Briscoe, Murray
The dominate big men are missing this year. It'll be guards versus guards. That plays into mid-major's hands.
I like Kentucky's chances in this type of tourney because we got guards who can GUARD guards. We got the quick guy to guard quicks, the power guard to guard the bigger guards, and the alpha male guy to always score. Ulis, Briscoe, Murray
Last edited:
Similar threads
