Tomorrow starts my favorite four days of the year--the opening weekend of the NCAA Tournament. (While play actually began Tuesday night, we traditionalists don't really count these preliminary games.) Today's post won't have anything to do with English, but there will be a fair amount of math involved, so if you need to do some brain calisthenics before making your predictions, this is the time to do it. When it comes to sports, I'm a bit of a statistics nerd, which was heightened for me by Michael Lewis's great book, Moneyball, and I've adapted some of those theories to other sports. Since I was a college basketball player and coach in a former life, that's where my most of my interest lies. To be able to make consistent predictions requires a decent amount of mathematical and logical skill, and I've been pretty successful over the last few years. I make my guesses based not on winning/losing, but on point spreads because it makes the games WAY more entertaining to watch. After all, North Carolina blowing out Texas Southern by 27 points is not a fun game to watch. Wondering if they will will by more or less than 27 points keeps your interest until the final buzzer. My accuracy against the Vegas point spread is around 62%--anything in the 58-60% range is considered excellent. I won't divulge my secrets, but I will offer what I think are the best mathematical options for the first two days of the tournament. My picks are in bold, and my numbers (for fairness) are based on Wednesday morning's lines rather than the opening lines. Any games not listed were too close to make a valuable prediction. Get your pencils ready!
Villanova vs. Mt. St. Mary's (+26.5)
Wisconsin vs. Virginia Tech (+5.5)
Baylor vs. New Mexico St. (+12.5)
South Carolina vs. Marquette (+1.5)
Duke vs. Troy (+19)
Gonzaga (-22.5) vs. South Dakota St.
West Virginia vs. Bucknell (+14)
Maryland vs. Xavier (+2)
Arizona vs. North Dakota (+16.5)
Miami vs. Michigan St. (+2.5)
Oregon vs. Iona (+15)
Michigan vs. Oklahoma St. (+2.5)
Louisville vs. Jacksonville St. (+20)
North Carolina vs. Texas Southern (+27)
East Tennessee vs. Minnesota (+1)
UCLA vs. Kent St. (+18)
Wichita St. (-6) vs. Dayton
Remember that these are not win/loss predictions, but rather predictions against the spread (estimated point differential). The tendency is for the public to overestimate favorites. In reality, tournament games are, on average, closer than one would expect, so picking underdogs is usually a good strategy against the spread. I doubt many of these underdog teams, those with a + number, will actually win, but I do think they will keep the games relatively close. Again, games not listed here are because my numbers are just too narrow to decide on a prediction. These are all based on mathematical equations, not emotions or allegiances or particular teams I'm rooting for, so we'll have to see if my streak of moderate scientific success will continue.
On to the games!
Villanova vs. Mt. St. Mary's (+26.5)
Wisconsin vs. Virginia Tech (+5.5)
Baylor vs. New Mexico St. (+12.5)
South Carolina vs. Marquette (+1.5)
Duke vs. Troy (+19)
Gonzaga (-22.5) vs. South Dakota St.
West Virginia vs. Bucknell (+14)
Maryland vs. Xavier (+2)
Arizona vs. North Dakota (+16.5)
Miami vs. Michigan St. (+2.5)
Oregon vs. Iona (+15)
Michigan vs. Oklahoma St. (+2.5)
Louisville vs. Jacksonville St. (+20)
North Carolina vs. Texas Southern (+27)
East Tennessee vs. Minnesota (+1)
UCLA vs. Kent St. (+18)
Wichita St. (-6) vs. Dayton
Remember that these are not win/loss predictions, but rather predictions against the spread (estimated point differential). The tendency is for the public to overestimate favorites. In reality, tournament games are, on average, closer than one would expect, so picking underdogs is usually a good strategy against the spread. I doubt many of these underdog teams, those with a + number, will actually win, but I do think they will keep the games relatively close. Again, games not listed here are because my numbers are just too narrow to decide on a prediction. These are all based on mathematical equations, not emotions or allegiances or particular teams I'm rooting for, so we'll have to see if my streak of moderate scientific success will continue.
On to the games!