Columbia Science Review
  • Home
  • About
    • Our Team
  • Blog
  • Events
    • 2022-2023
    • 2021-2022
    • 2020-2021
    • 2019-2020
    • 2018-2019
    • 2017-2018
    • 2016-2017
  • Publications
  • COVID-19 Public Hub
    • Interviews >
      • Biology of COVID-19
      • Public Health
      • Technology & Data
    • Frontline Stories >
      • Healthcare Workers
      • Global Health
      • Volunteer Efforts
    • Resources & Links >
      • FAQ's
      • Resource Hubs
      • Student Opportunities
      • Podcasts & Graphics
      • Mental Health Resources
      • Twitter Feeds
      • BLM Resources
    • Columbia Events >
      • Campus Events
      • CUMC COVID-19 Symposium
      • CSR Events
    • Our Team
  • Contact

The math behind the madness

3/19/2010

0 Comments

 
Picture
The weeks of speculation are over. The brackets have been filled, and all we can do now is watch. March Madness is officially under way. For the next few weeks, millions of basketball fans will be glued to their televisions, watching the best 64 college basketball teams in the nation play in a single-elimination tournament until only one is left standing. For the fans, this equates to 48 games from now until Sunday. And then twelve more games next weekend. And then three more the weekend after. With so many games played in such a short period of time and with the high value that is placed on statistics in sports, one would imagine that such a tournament would be of great interest to mathematicians and computer scientists. They could use their expertise to better predict the winner.
​
Sheldon H. Jacobson, a professor of computer science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has done just that. Sort of. Professor Jacobson studied the value of a team’s seeding in relation to how far they make it in the “Big Dance.” In the NCAA tournament, the 64 teams are broken into four groups of sixteen, so that each team is ranked between one and sixteen. The highest seed (one) is the best team and the lowest seed (sixteen) is the worst. From there, the one-seed plays the sixteen-seed; the two-seed plays the fifteen-seed; etc. Jacobson’s statistical analysis determined that generally speaking the higher seed will win. The team’s seed was a dominant indicator of which team would win. However, this trend abruptly stops once the tournament is down to four teams per group, or sixteen total teams left – the so-called “Sweet 16.” From this point on, it is just as likely for the lower-seed team to win as it is for the higher-seed team. So Professor Jacobson can tell you who are statistically most likely to be the final sixteen teams, but the final sixteen serves as a curious limit as to what the probabilities can determine. From this point on, a team’s seed no longer works as a probabilistic indicator of its success. It has no relation whatsoever to the outcome of the game. So go double-check your bracket and enjoy the probabilistic madness.
-SD
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All
    Artificial Intelligence
    Halloween 2022
    Winter 2022-2023

    Archives

    April 2024
    January 2024
    February 2023
    November 2022
    October 2022
    June 2022
    January 2022
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    October 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    July 2009
    May 2009

Columbia Science Review
© COPYRIGHT 2022. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Photos from driver Photographer, BrevisPhotography, digitalbob8, Rennett Stowe, Kristine Paulus, Tony Webster, CodonAUG, Tony Webster, spurekar, europeanspaceagency, Christoph Scholz, verchmarco, rockindave1, robynmack96, Homedust, The Nutrition Insider
  • Home
  • About
    • Our Team
  • Blog
  • Events
    • 2022-2023
    • 2021-2022
    • 2020-2021
    • 2019-2020
    • 2018-2019
    • 2017-2018
    • 2016-2017
  • Publications
  • COVID-19 Public Hub
    • Interviews >
      • Biology of COVID-19
      • Public Health
      • Technology & Data
    • Frontline Stories >
      • Healthcare Workers
      • Global Health
      • Volunteer Efforts
    • Resources & Links >
      • FAQ's
      • Resource Hubs
      • Student Opportunities
      • Podcasts & Graphics
      • Mental Health Resources
      • Twitter Feeds
      • BLM Resources
    • Columbia Events >
      • Campus Events
      • CUMC COVID-19 Symposium
      • CSR Events
    • Our Team
  • Contact