March Madness: Is There a Curse from Rejecting TM Users?

[walt526]

This is completely for fun, but how have schools that you applied to this year fared in the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament?

 

I noticed last week that many schools that had either rejected me or had left me hanging had been upset, which Michigan State will be competing for a Final Four spot tomorrow.

 

Rejects:

- Maryland (4): upset in the 3rd round by Michigan State (5)

- Texas (8): upset in the 1st round by Wake Forest (9)

 

No Word Yet:

- Georgetown (3): upset in the 1st round by Ohio (14)

- Kentucky (1): upset in the 4th round by West Virginia (2)

- Vanderbilt (4): upset in the 1st round by Murray State (14)

 

 

Also, UC Berkeley (8) lost in the second round to Duke (1). Both those schools rejected me and I'm hoping for a Baylor upset of Duke tomorrow.

 

 

Anyone else want to compare the tournament results with their application results? :)

 

 

EDIT: Maybe if untitled or someone who knows how to manipulate his Perl code gets a chance, we could run a probit regression on these results. Might help future TM cohorts if we can prove to the athletic directors (who probably don't understand the difference between correlation and causation) that they should be pressuring the Economics departments to review TM applicants in a more favorable light. Sadly, at some schools, such pressures might actually produce some results. ;)

[EconForeThought]

I will say that all of my teams are out of the running. One did not make the Big Dance or the NIT. One lost in the first round of the NIT. Two lost in the second round of the Big Dance. Looks like MSU is going far, unlike my teams x_X

[applicant12]

@Walt: WUSTL hasn't even replied you guys yet, that's why they're not even in the tournament :P

 

(I know they're a DIII team :D)

[applicant12]

Also, I don't think the fact that Mich State def. Maryland is really an upset. MSU were the runner-ups last year, they're a reasonably strong team & and they played pretty well this year too. I personally wouldn't put UMD ahead of MSU :)

[walt526]

But they had to play the second half against Maryland (as well as the remainder of the tournament) without Lucas.

 

A good argument could be made that the loss of Lucas to MSU was even greater to the loss of Lucas to Carnegie Mellon.

[Team3]

Potentially even reverse correlation: Georgia Tech upset Maryland on 3/12 at the ACC conference

[SlowLearner38]

Tinbergen must have just missed the cut for the tournament this year.

[Guest buzios]

Tinbergen must have just missed the cut for the tournament this year.

Haha which conference would that be in again?

 

Duke seems to be going stronger than expected, despite having rejected a lot of TM users.

[walt526]

Duke seems to be going stronger than expected, despite having rejected a lot of TM users.

 

There's fairly broad consensus that the NCAA gave Duke the easiest bracket of any #1 seed and that Duke is an inferior team to all of the #2 seeds. They did so because CBS wanted Duke in the Final Four for better television ratings.

[chimerical]

There's fairly broad consensus that...Duke is an inferior team to all of the #2 seeds.

 

Are you kidding me? No there isn't.

[Team3]

There's fairly broad consensus that the NCAA gave Duke the easiest bracket of any #1 seed and that Duke is an inferior team to all of the #2 seeds. They did so because CBS wanted Duke in the Final Four for better television ratings.

 

This year the #5 seeds are better than the #1 seeds!!

[walt526]

Are you kidding me? No there isn't.

 

Okay, not Villanova (who incidentally, being the weakest #2 seed, was the #2 in the South that would have gone up against Duke had they not been knocked out early). But West Virginia and Ohio St were more deserving of a #1 than Duke--and a very good argument could be made for Kansas St as well. The ACC just wasn't that good this year.

 

But regardless, I'm hopeful that Baylor can bury them tonight.

[jeeves0923]

I'm hopeful that Baylor can bury them tonight.

 

Make that two of us...

[Guest buzios]

edit.

[chimerical]

Okay, not Villanova (who incidentally, being the weakest #2 seed, was the #2 in the South that would have gone up against Duke had they not been knocked out early). But West Virginia and Ohio St were more deserving of a #1 than Duke--and a very good argument could be made for Kansas St as well. The ACC just wasn't that good this year.

 

There's controversy, sure, but to be frank there's always controversy about Duke and to say there's a "broad consensus" that they didn't deserve a #1 is really reaching. They were ranked #3 in both the AP and USA Today coaches polls, after all.

 

Needless to say I'm rooting for Duke but I can't say I'm optimistic, especially given Baylor has close to home court advantage. Ah well, at least they wouldn't be the worst-performing #1 this year. :p

[walt526]

You're right: it's not a broad consensus and I overstated the case. Yet it's not just whether Duke should have been a #1 or #2, but whether they deserved the weakest #2 and #4 seeds (Villanova and Purdue, respectively). It seems pretty clear to me that CBS wanted a semi-final between Duke and Kentucky and then a championship game between Duke and either Kansas or Syracuse.

 

I just can't hep but think that if Duke had been in any other region, there is a good chance that they would have been knocked out well before the Final Four. :)

[EconForeThought]

Duke gets all the calls. Review the game tape of Cal v Duke in the second round-- simply terrible officiating. I will concede that Cal would have probably lost the game in either event, but the officiating was salt on the wound and the game would have been close if the refs were calling it right.

[chimerical]

I just can't hep but think that if Duke had been in any other region, there is a good chance that they would have been knocked out well before the Final Four. :)

 

It's certainly possible, but given how things played out this year it's hard to tell. I'd say more but I'm too busy doing this: :wallbash:

[jeeves0923]

Duke gets all the calls. Review the game tape of Cal v Duke in the second round-- simply terrible officiating. I will concede that Cal would have probably lost the game in either event, but the officiating was salt on the wound and the game would have been close if the refs were calling it right.

 

They are trained at flopping- and they are very good at it too.

[econjkt]

You're right: it's not a broad consensus and I overstated the case. Yet it's not just whether Duke should have been a #1 or #2, but whether they deserved the weakest #2 and #4 seeds (Villanova and Purdue, respectively). It seems pretty clear to me that CBS wanted a semi-final between Duke and Kentucky and then a championship game between Duke and either Kansas or Syracuse.

 

I just can't hep but think that if Duke had been in any other region, there is a good chance that they would have been knocked out well before the Final Four. :)

 

While this maybe so, I don't think CBS has a representative on the Selection Committee. With that being said, it was a curious choice to put Duke in the weakest bracket. They were definitely more deserving of a #1 than Ohio State, that is for sure.

[walt526]

While this maybe so, I don't think CBS has a representative on the Selection Committee. With that being said, it was a curious choice to put Duke in the weakest bracket. They were definitely more deserving of a #1 than Ohio State, that is for sure.

 

Not directly, but the NCAA certainly wants to keep the network happy. CBS has televised the tournament for nearly 30 years and is paying them $55M/yr for the rights to the tournament. They may not be in a position to decide who goes, but maximizing national viewership is definitely a factor that is taken into consideration. And even if NCAA were to shop around after the current contract expires (which won't be for a while, because they just signed a 10 or 15 year deal a few years ago), it's in the NCAA's interest to have the highest ratings possible.

 

In any event, congrats to Duke. They outplayed a very talented Baylor team. West Virginia will get a shot to prove that they're the better team next weekend.

 

Really looking forward to being out in East Lansing in the the buildup to their Final Four appearance. :)

[hotfuss]

This is completely for fun, but how have schools that you applied to this year fared in the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament?

 

I noticed last week that many schools that had either rejected me or had left me hanging had been upset, which Michigan State will be competing for a Final Four spot tomorrow.

 

Rejects:

- Maryland (4): upset in the 3rd round by Michigan State (5)

- Texas (8): upset in the 1st round by Wake Forest (9)

 

No Word Yet:

- Georgetown (3): upset in the 1st round by Ohio (14)

- Kentucky (1): upset in the 4th round by West Virginia (2)

- Vanderbilt (4): upset in the 1st round by Murray State (14)

 

 

Also, UC Berkeley (8) lost in the second round to Duke (1). Both those schools rejected me and I'm hoping for a Baylor upset of Duke tomorrow.

 

 

Anyone else want to compare the tournament results with their application results? :)

 

 

EDIT: Maybe if untitled or someone who knows how to manipulate his Perl code gets a chance, we could run a probit regression on these results. Might help future TM cohorts if we can prove to the athletic directors (who probably don't understand the difference between correlation and causation) that they should be pressuring the Economics departments to review TM applicants in a more favorable light. Sadly, at some schools, such pressures might actually produce some results. ;)

 

I haven't read all the comments here, but I have one comment for walt. Performance in the NCAA is generally negatively correlated to the academic performance of the school, no? :p

[walt526]

I haven't read all the comments here, but I have one comment for walt. Performance in the NCAA is generally negatively correlated to the academic performance of the school, no? :p

 

Not necessarily. If you think about some of the great college basketball teams in basketball history, some came from schools with great academic reputations (e.g. Duke, UCLA, U Michigan) and some came from more unremarkable schools. And every once in a while a Stanford or an Ivy is competitive (but because Ivy's don't give scholarships, this is less likely). It's certainly the case the some top research universities (e.g., Caltech and MIT) aren't Division 1. But the vast majority of schools (particularly the large public flagships) are often competitive.

 

I think what you are describing may be more applicable to college football. I suspect largely because of the size of the team required: football team is 50+ players, while a basketball team is just 12. It's possible for an academically rigorous school, say Stanford, to recruit 4-6 star college athletes who are good enough to maintain academic eligibility; that's much harder if 50 guys need to maintain their grades (many at positions where smarts are not particularly necessary).

 

 

EDIT: In any event, I'm targeting upsets of schools in the tournament, not absolute performance (or even an appearance). Only a third or so of the schools that I applied to are even in the tournament.

[applicant12]

@hotfuss: actually, NCAA has recently proposed that some schools be banned from playing in the post-season unless they maintain the graduation rate among their student-athletes. That said, I would say academic performance is negatively related to athletic performance may be true as long as we are talking about people in sport teams only. That does not necessarily apply to the school as a whole

[EconForeThought]

Not necessarily. If you think about some of the great college basketball teams in basketball history, some came from schools with great academic reputations (e.g. Duke, UCLA, U Michigan) and some came from more unremarkable schools. And every once in a while a Stanford or an Ivy is competitive (but because Ivy's don't give scholarships, this is less likely). It's certainly the case the some top research universities (e.g., Caltech and MIT) aren't Division 1. But the vast majority of schools (particularly the large public flagships) are often competitive.

 

Maybe not CalTech, but CalSci!

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5594[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5595[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Numb3rs)