Idiot Stat Watch

[senjalta]

On ESPN right now they are saying how much better it is to be a #1 seed than a #3 seed in the NCAA basketball tournament. Yes, you say, that seems obvious. The stat that use to argue this point is that while #1, #2, and #3 seeds all have really good records in the first two rounds of the tournament, #3 seeds actually have a 21-23 record (under .

Comments

[tophatter2]

So ESPN's argument is basically that, if you're a really good team, you have a better record in the NCAA tournament? Color me shocked.

[senjalta]

That's part of the argument. The other part is "there's a strong correlation between being a really good team and having a really high seed in the tournament."