SLOZag

03-14-2014, 03:17 PM

Often I read a post where someone claims Gonzaga (or Coach Few) has over the years "underperformed during March Madness." I realize there may be several ways to measure "underperformance." Here is one way we might measure it: Calculate a weighted winning average during March Madness over a fixed period of years -- 5, 10, 15, etc. So for example, if the time period chosen is 10 years, and a team gets to the big dance 8 times and accumulates 12 wins during that time, it's weighted average would be 12/10 = 1.2 Another team getting to the big dance 4 times and compiling 12 wins would compile an identical average. And to complete this example, a third team getting to the big dance 10 times and accumulating 13 wins would compile a weighted average of 1.3 -- 13/10 = 1.3. However, this approach merely measures consistency of achievement during March Madness, in my view.

The term "underperformance" suggests something else -- achieving less than what a team "should have accomplished during March Madness." Could this be measured by analyzing the original seeding done by the NCAA over a fixed period of years -- 5, 10, 15, etc.? To explain: If the time period chosen is 10 years, and team A has gone to the dance 8 years, then for each of those 8 years you would compare that team's number of wins during March Madness against the average number of wins achieved by the other teams in that same bracket. Example: As a 7 seed, Team A wins 2 games in 2004, whereas the other three 7 seeds that year win 0, 1, and 2 games, for an average of 1 game per team. Hence Team A "overachieved" by 1 game in 2004. Repeat for the other 7 years when Team A was at the big dance, and add together the scores. The result: a composite score that represents Team A's underperformance/overperformance against similar seeds during March Madness over those ten years. You could do the same thing for any team, and compare their relative underperformance/overperformance.

While this measure ignores teams whose underperformance is so great that they don't make it to the big dance, it certainly is one way to measure a team's underperformance/overperformance during March Madness. What do you think? Does anyone have a firm opinion regarding a better way to measure "underperformance/overperformance" during March Madness?

Anyone want to take a crack at seeing where Gonzaga stacks up when compared to other teams regarding "underperformance/overperformance" during March Madness?

The term "underperformance" suggests something else -- achieving less than what a team "should have accomplished during March Madness." Could this be measured by analyzing the original seeding done by the NCAA over a fixed period of years -- 5, 10, 15, etc.? To explain: If the time period chosen is 10 years, and team A has gone to the dance 8 years, then for each of those 8 years you would compare that team's number of wins during March Madness against the average number of wins achieved by the other teams in that same bracket. Example: As a 7 seed, Team A wins 2 games in 2004, whereas the other three 7 seeds that year win 0, 1, and 2 games, for an average of 1 game per team. Hence Team A "overachieved" by 1 game in 2004. Repeat for the other 7 years when Team A was at the big dance, and add together the scores. The result: a composite score that represents Team A's underperformance/overperformance against similar seeds during March Madness over those ten years. You could do the same thing for any team, and compare their relative underperformance/overperformance.

While this measure ignores teams whose underperformance is so great that they don't make it to the big dance, it certainly is one way to measure a team's underperformance/overperformance during March Madness. What do you think? Does anyone have a firm opinion regarding a better way to measure "underperformance/overperformance" during March Madness?

Anyone want to take a crack at seeing where Gonzaga stacks up when compared to other teams regarding "underperformance/overperformance" during March Madness?