Donate

March Madness Odds: Nate Silver Assesses All 68 Teams

| March 17, 2014
  • Share:
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email
March Madness mission control: Big comfy chair? Check. Big-screen TV? Check ... (Kat Snow/KQED)

March Madness mission control: Big comfy chair? Check. Big-screen TV? Check … (Kat Snow/KQED)

Wednesday Update: Why the eight “play-in” games, determining the last four teams to make the dance, really matter.

Tuesday Update: Silver computes his own odds of winning Warren Buffett’s challenge as one in 7,419,071,319.

In case you were thinking of taking on Warren Buffett’s billion-dollar challenge to fill out a perfect bracket for the 2014 NCAA Tournament, Nate Silver has some data that you might want to check out.

Silver is the statistician and writer who correctly predicted the presidential election outcomes in all 50 states in 2012; he has relaunched his website, FiveThirtyEight.com, funded by ESPN.

It’s loaded with articles on everything from how statisticians could help refine the search for that missing Malaysian Airlines jet to which of the 68 teams have the best odds of winning the NCAA Tournament this month.

First to the latter.

According to Silver and computer programmer Matthew Conlen, only 14 teams have any appreciable statistical (better than 1 percent) chance to prevail to the very end of March Madness. (Stanford, it should be noted, is not among them.) The chance of success is expressed as a percentage and listed next to each team:

  • Louisville (15)
  • Florida (14)
  • Arizona (13)
  • Michigan State, Virginia, Kansas (6)
  • Wichita State, Duke (5)
  • Villanova (4)
  • Michigan, Creighton, Wisconsin (3)
  • Kentucky, Ohio State (2)

Silver’s model for predicting the brackets, which is in its fourth year, is principally based on a composite of five computer power ratings:

Good luck with that.

Finding a Lost Airplane

As for the mystery surrounding Malaysian Airlines Flight 370, which disappeared just off the Malaysian coast on March 8, Silver’s associate Carl Bialik writes:

“Bayesian statisticians are particularly helpful in a search operation. Their methods allow hunters to update their estimates of the probability of finding their target in any latitude-longitude combination — or even in three dimensions, accounting for depth in the water. Bayesians helped hunt U-boats in World War II, a U.S. submarine in the 1960s and an Air France jet in 2011.”

The problem in this case may be the vast distances that need to be searched since the plane disappeared. The Malaysian government seems to have no idea to which end of the earth the Boeing 777 proceeded before sending its last-known signal to a satellite.

I’m going to take a wild guess here and say someone, someday will locate that airplane. But as for the odds of winning Buffett’s challenge, with or without Silver’s analysis at your side, forget it.

Related

Explore: , , ,

Category: Sports

  • Share:
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email

About the Author ()

David Weir is Senior Editor, Online News for KQED. He is a veteran journalist who co-founded the Center for Investigative Reporting, and was a reporter, writer and editor at numerous media companies, including Rolling Stone, Salon, Wired Digital, California Magazine, Mother Jones, 7x7, and Excite@Home. He has published four books and his articles have appeared in many publications including The Economist, The New York Times, New York Magazine, The Nation, LA Weekly, San Jose Mercury News, Wired News and Salon. Reach David Weir at david.a.weir@gmail.com.
  • Arthur Saget

    Naah, even Bayes couldn’t find the plane.