Paper detail

Building an NCAA mens basketball predictive model and quantifying its success

The old adage says that it is better to be lucky than to be good, but when it comes to winning NCAA tournament pools, do you need to be both? This paper attempts to answer this question using data from the 2014 men's basketball tournament and more than 400 predictions of game outcomes submitted to a contest hosted by the website Kaggle. We begin by describing how we built a prediction model for men's basketball tournament outcomes under the binomial log-likelihood loss function. Next, under different sets of true underlying game probabilities, we simulate tournament outcomes and imputed pool standings, in an effort to determine how much of an entry's success can be attributed to luck. While one of our two submissions finished first in the Kaggle contest, we estimate that this winning entry had no more than about a 12% chance of doing so, even under the most optimistic of game probability scenarios.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.