Upests in the Making (Part 2) - Historical Analysis of Upsets

It's time to upset my readers even more with the next article in this 3-part series on Upsets. In Part 1, a theoretical framework was built for analyzing upsets based entirely on probability. It was constructed using all possible combinations of upset-potential match-ups (UPMs) for each of the six rounds of the bracket. It also examined the mathematical underpinnings of seed differentials for each of the six rounds. While Part 1 covered the vast range of what could happen in the tournament (the theoretical perspective), this article will cover what has actually happened in the tournament: The Historical Perspective. This article will examine the historical perspective through two viewpoints: the big picture (the overall counts on upsets and UPMs) and the individual games (a breakdown of the seed-by-seed match-ups). Furthermore, this article will be more descriptive than explanatory -- recording and summarizing the results rather than providing explanations and insights for the results. Let's get to it.

Upests in the Making (Part 1) - Theoretical Analysis of Upsets

I hope the two teasers that I left helped you figure out the subject of this article: Upsets. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (and I certainly am not one of them) to know that upsets are the biggest part of the tournament experience. In fact, a well-rounded understanding of upsets can make a difference of 3-15 picks in your bracket compared to your competitor's bracket. To gain that top-level insight into upsets, this article will examine upsets from the first of three different perspectives: The Theoretical Perspective.

Unorthodox Bracket-Picking Methods

If you have followed Bracket Science in the past or PPB currently, you are already familiar with the mainstream bracket-picking tools, such as F4/Champ Contender/Pretender Rules, Upset/Victim Rules, QC/SC Analysis, and Aggregate Value Estimation. Tools like these are mainstream due to a number of reasons, including but not limited to reliability in accurate picks, time/cost efficiency in creation, and simplicity in application. Not all bracket-picking methods have these qualities, and usually this results in the method being passed over for one that does have them. Since we at PPB are always trying to break the norms and raise our head above the crowd to gain newer or better insights, I thought I would dig up one of my first bracket-picking systems and use it as the basis of this article on unorthodox methods.

Welcome to the 2017-18 College Basketball Season

Just as the title says, Welcome to a new season of college basketball. I'm excited to bring back Project: Perfect Bracket for a third season, and as always, the goal is to do what no one has done before: Pick a "PERFECT" 63-game NCAA tournament bracket.

Before I grade myself on last season's performace, I want to give you a pretty firm outlook of what to expect on PPB for the whole season. In the first year (2015-16), I was pretty disorganized and pretty erratic in scheduling that I literally over-worked myself to the point of not producing a bracket (other than my gut picks as soon as the bracket is revealed). I definitely didn't make this mistake in the 2016-17 season, but I did make new ones (all the more from which to learn). I doubt I have it completely figured out for the 2017-18 either, but if I don't make the same planning/preparation mistakes of the last two years, then it should have my best year yet. So, what can you expect this season?

Return and Improve Model

Too Long/Didn't Read: The introduction is a very long story on how I came up with the idea of Returning Players and Improving Tournament Performance. It may waste your time! This will also be a rather quick article because I'm going to do significant back-testing to this model (and many others) over the summer and present the content in the 2017-18 season.