Palm

[X-man]

While the CBS article references Palm's predictions of the favorites next spring to win it all, the league picks up two of Matt Norlander's "value bets" for winning it all next March. Here is the link: http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/odds-to-win-college-basketball-national-championship-five-best-value-bets/

[stever20]

The league picks up two of Jerry Palm's "value bets" for winning it all next March. Here is the link: http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/odds-to-win-college-basketball-national-championship-five-best-value-bets/

It's actually Norlander and not Palm.

Xavier I think the line is probably being dictated based off of Myles Davis and his issues.

Creighton I get where he's going- but even he says best case would be a 4 seed. 4 seeds just don't win the tourney.

[milksteak]

Odds for all Big East teams to win the national championship:

Villanova: 16/1
Xavier: 40/1
Seton Hall: 70/1
Georgetown: 100/1
Butler: 125/1
Creighton: 150/1
Marquette: 250/1
Providence: 300/1
St. John's: 400/1
DePaul: 500/1

[Omaha1]

The league picks up two of Jerry Palm's "value bets" for winning it all next March. Here is the link: http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/odds-to-win-college-basketball-national-championship-five-best-value-bets/

It's actually Norlander and not Palm.

Xavier I think the line is probably being dictated based off of Myles Davis and his issues.

Creighton I get where he's going- but even he says best case would be a 4 seed. 4 seeds just don't win the tourney.

I don't think we are winning it either, but that's pretty sweeping statement. UCONN won it all just a few years ago as a much worse seed.

[stever20]

4/5 seeds have made the final 4 19 times since 1985.
6 seeds or lower have made the final 4 15 times since 1985.

a lot of times it's easier for a 6 or 7 seed to win the tourney than the 4 seed. Avoid the 1 at the regional semifinal- along with that a chance that the 1 gets eliminated by someone else so you don't face the 1 seed.

In the 26 tournaments since 1985, only 4 teams seeded lower than 3 won the tourney. With only 1 since 1997.
8 Villanova
6 Kansas
4 Arizona
7 UConn

only 8 teams in the same time frame were seeded lower than 3 to make the final.

So of the 34 teams seeded lower than 3 to make the final 4, only 12 even made the title game.

[GumbyDamnit!]

Creighton I get where he's going- but even he says best case would be a 4 seed. 4 seeds just don't win the tourney.


4/5 seeds have made the final 4 19 times since 1985.
6 seeds or lower have made the final 4 15 times since 1985.

a lot of times it's easier for a 6 or 7 seed to win the tourney than the 4 seed. Avoid the 1 at the regional semifinal- along with that a chance that the 1 gets eliminated by someone else so you don't face the 1 seed.

In the 26 tournaments since 1985, only 4 teams seeded lower than 3 won the tourney. With only 1 since 1997.
8 Villanova
6 Kansas
4 Arizona
7 UConn

only 8 teams in the same time frame were seeded lower than 3 to make the final.

So of the 34 teams seeded lower than 3 to make the final 4, only 12 even made the title game.

So in the last 26 tournaments someone seeded 4 or lower has won the NC 15+% of the time. That contradicts your statement that :"4 seeds just don't win the tourney." They actually do. And the point is not that Creighton has a great chance to win the tourney, it is just that at their current odds it's not a bad "flyer" bet. If at the start of the tourney someone gave me 150/1 odds on all the 4 seeds, I'd happily throw $20 down on each of the 4.

To better illustrate the point, the odds for each 4 seed in last year's tournament (just prior to it starting) were as follows:
UK - 10/1
Duke - 25/1
Cal - 40/1
Iowa St. 50/1

So if you feel confident that Creighton has what it takes to get a 4 seed or better come tournament time then 150/1 are great odds. I believe that is what the article's author is getting at.

[stever20]

I guess I've been looking at things more the last 18 years- since Arizona. Only 1 sub 3 seed winning it all since then. It's actually fairly reasonable to look at things post '97 because that's when you really started to see fewer guys staying for 3 and 4 years...

'85-'97- 3 teams sub 3 winning tourney out of 13 tournaments 23.1%
'98 on- 1 team sub 3 winning tourney out of 19 tournaments. 5.3%

Also Gumby your calculation is off- it's 4 out of 32, not 4 out of 26.

Also from '98 on- only 3 3 seeds have won the tourney since then. So a whopping 15/19 of the champions have been 1 or 2 seeds. And even from '85-97 only 1 3 seed won the tourney so 9/13 from those years were 1-2 seeds... So from '85-'16 in 32 tournaments, 24 of them have been won by 1 or 2 seeds.

[Savannah Jay]

I'98 on- 1 team sub 3 winning tourney out of 19 tournaments. 5.3%

Of course, that "1" win by a sub-3 seed was 2 years ago...so it is fresh on everyone's mind and it seems more possible now than it did, say, 3 years ago.

And I will go out on a limb and say it won't be another 16 years before it (a sub-3 seed winning it all) happens again. Probably won't be my Jays this year...but it'll happen again sooner rather than later. Shoot, the BE's own Butler Bulldogs made it to the final game two years in a row...as a 5 seed and an 8 seed, and came within a rim job (ooops...did I really type that?) of winning it all as a 5 seed.

[GumbyDamnit!]

I guess I've been looking at things more the last 18 years- since Arizona. Only 1 sub 3 seed winning it all since then. It's actually fairly reasonable to look at things post '97 because that's when you really started to see fewer guys staying for 3 and 4 years...

'85-'97- 3 teams sub 3 winning tourney out of 13 tournaments 23.1%
'98 on- 1 team sub 3 winning tourney out of 19 tournaments. 5.3%

Also Gumby your calculation is off- it's 4 out of 32, not 4 out of 26.

Also from '98 on- only 3 3 seeds have won the tourney since then. So a whopping 15/19 of the champions have been 1 or 2 seeds. And even from '85-97 only 1 3 seed won the tourney so 9/13 from those years were 1-2 seeds... So from '85-'16 in 32 tournaments, 24 of them have been won by 1 or 2 seeds.

I think you are missing the larger point. It is not a debate on whether a 4 seed has as good a chance as a 1 seed to win the tourney. We all know they don't. But a 1 seed is going to be 4/1, 6/1, etc. to win the tourney and a 4 seed could be 50/1. The guy is making the point that he believes Creighton's odds (150/1) don't match their potential, which he believes is in that #4 seed range. That's the point.

Now some other interesting ways to look at whether or not a 4+ seed has a real shot at winning a title... Since '85 #1 seeds have won it 20 times, #2's - 5, #3's - 3 and 4 or greater - 4. So statistically speaking a #3 seed has a worse chance of winning the title than the sum of seeds 4-16. Also interestingly 12 teams seeded 4 or greater have played for a NC, with only 4 wining one. Also I'm of the belief that just getting to a FF gives you a real shot at a NC. During that span 39 teams seeded 4 or greater have gotten to a FF. Obviously that is more than 1 per season. Not so bad.

So I might be so inclined to throw a sheckle or two on the Jays. Why not.

[gtmoBlue]

Great info being put out here. Thanks.

Gonna take Gumby's hint...and put a sheckle or 2 on a couple of teams.
Saving these last posts for later use in the spring of 17.

Thanks guys.