Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Calculating strength of schedule, and choosing ...

Research

Associated organisational unit

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Calculating strength of schedule, and choosing teams for March Madness.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article

Published

Standard

Calculating strength of schedule, and choosing teams for March Madness. / Fearnhead, Paul; Taylor, Benjamin M.
In: American Statistician, Vol. 64, No. 2, 05.2010, p. 108-115.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article

Harvard

Fearnhead, P & Taylor, BM 2010, 'Calculating strength of schedule, and choosing teams for March Madness.', American Statistician, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 108-115. https://doi.org/10.1198/tast.2010.09161

APA

Fearnhead, P., & Taylor, B. M. (2010). Calculating strength of schedule, and choosing teams for March Madness. American Statistician, 64(2), 108-115. https://doi.org/10.1198/tast.2010.09161

Vancouver

Fearnhead P, Taylor BM. Calculating strength of schedule, and choosing teams for March Madness. American Statistician. 2010 May;64(2):108-115. doi: 10.1198/tast.2010.09161

Author

Fearnhead, Paul ; Taylor, Benjamin M. / Calculating strength of schedule, and choosing teams for March Madness. In: American Statistician. 2010 ; Vol. 64, No. 2. pp. 108-115.

Bibtex

@article{30b1558316bb4128a2b80d2397e797c3,
title = "Calculating strength of schedule, and choosing teams for March Madness.",
abstract = "We propose a new way of quantifying a team's strength of schedule for NCAA basketball. This strength of a schedule is defined as the number of games a team on the borderline of the annual national tournament would expect to win if they played that schedule. This gives a direct way of quantifying how well different teams have done relative to the schedules they have played. Our motivation for constructing this strength of schedule is to help inform the choice of teams given bids to the national tournament: teams who have won more games than their strength of schedule have strongest evidence that they deserve such a bid. Estimating the strength of schedules is possible through fitting a simple statistical model to the results of all regular season matches. We are able to quantify the uncertainty in these estimates, which helps differentiate between teams with clear evidence for selection and those on the borderline. We apply our method to data from the 2007/08 and 2008/09 season. Our results suggest that St. Mary's warranted a bid to the 2009 tournament, at the expense of Wisconsin; and that both Arizona State and Nebraska warranted bids to the 2008 tournament instead of South Alabama and St. Joseph's.",
keywords = "NCAA Basketball, RPI, Strength of Schedule",
author = "Paul Fearnhead and Taylor, {Benjamin M.}",
note = "Full details of results are available from: http://www.maths.lancs.ac.uk/~fearnhea/Basketball.html",
year = "2010",
month = may,
doi = "10.1198/tast.2010.09161",
language = "English",
volume = "64",
pages = "108--115",
journal = "American Statistician",
issn = "1537-2731",
publisher = "American Statistical Association",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Calculating strength of schedule, and choosing teams for March Madness.

AU - Fearnhead, Paul

AU - Taylor, Benjamin M.

N1 - Full details of results are available from: http://www.maths.lancs.ac.uk/~fearnhea/Basketball.html

PY - 2010/5

Y1 - 2010/5

N2 - We propose a new way of quantifying a team's strength of schedule for NCAA basketball. This strength of a schedule is defined as the number of games a team on the borderline of the annual national tournament would expect to win if they played that schedule. This gives a direct way of quantifying how well different teams have done relative to the schedules they have played. Our motivation for constructing this strength of schedule is to help inform the choice of teams given bids to the national tournament: teams who have won more games than their strength of schedule have strongest evidence that they deserve such a bid. Estimating the strength of schedules is possible through fitting a simple statistical model to the results of all regular season matches. We are able to quantify the uncertainty in these estimates, which helps differentiate between teams with clear evidence for selection and those on the borderline. We apply our method to data from the 2007/08 and 2008/09 season. Our results suggest that St. Mary's warranted a bid to the 2009 tournament, at the expense of Wisconsin; and that both Arizona State and Nebraska warranted bids to the 2008 tournament instead of South Alabama and St. Joseph's.

AB - We propose a new way of quantifying a team's strength of schedule for NCAA basketball. This strength of a schedule is defined as the number of games a team on the borderline of the annual national tournament would expect to win if they played that schedule. This gives a direct way of quantifying how well different teams have done relative to the schedules they have played. Our motivation for constructing this strength of schedule is to help inform the choice of teams given bids to the national tournament: teams who have won more games than their strength of schedule have strongest evidence that they deserve such a bid. Estimating the strength of schedules is possible through fitting a simple statistical model to the results of all regular season matches. We are able to quantify the uncertainty in these estimates, which helps differentiate between teams with clear evidence for selection and those on the borderline. We apply our method to data from the 2007/08 and 2008/09 season. Our results suggest that St. Mary's warranted a bid to the 2009 tournament, at the expense of Wisconsin; and that both Arizona State and Nebraska warranted bids to the 2008 tournament instead of South Alabama and St. Joseph's.

KW - NCAA Basketball

KW - RPI

KW - Strength of Schedule

U2 - 10.1198/tast.2010.09161

DO - 10.1198/tast.2010.09161

M3 - Journal article

VL - 64

SP - 108

EP - 115

JO - American Statistician

JF - American Statistician

SN - 1537-2731

IS - 2

ER -