Submitted by Tiger_Rivers t3_11uow6h in dataisbeautiful
Comments
Normandy6-14-44 t1_jcpdwas wrote
Thanks for sharing. Interesting trend showing more parity.
Spillz-2011 t1_jcpp62p wrote
Did you check statistical significance? Humans are bad at eyeballing statistical significance, but it looks borderline to me.
tedweird t1_jcq4j2r wrote
Would an increase in upsets, and difference in seeds in upsets, indicate increased parity among teams? If the worst is more likely to beat the best, they'd have to be closer in skills(/resources/etc), right?
[deleted] t1_jcq5g0f wrote
[removed]
Tiger_Rivers OP t1_jcq5qn9 wrote
My original title was “Good Teams Getting Worse in …” but I’m not sure if that’s the conclusion, or like you mentions the bad teams are getting better.
I’d wager that it’s a combo of both. As the bad teams get slightly better they get better recruits(therefore taking them from the better teams), more money, more fan support, etc.
1800smellya t1_jcqhbtx wrote
“Good teams still good. Now we have a larger volume of average teams.”
Tiger_Rivers OP t1_jcqjoar wrote
I don’t have access to the graph at the moment, but I certainly can and I will update you.
redditnessdude t1_jcqkot5 wrote
This doesn't really look like a trend...
[deleted] t1_jcql2w0 wrote
[deleted]
OneFrabjousDay t1_jcqmt3t wrote
Not sure there is a trend there, but I bet there will be a clear one in 20 years -- because of the transfer portal. All those guys who used to ride the bench for a couple years at top tier programs can now go start at a slightly smaller school.
meep_42 t1_jcqmv0p wrote
Dual-bars make it even harder since it spreads out the data unnecessarily.
Raspberries-Are-Evil t1_jcqpvcc wrote
I read something recently about this, Im sorry I can't find it to post, but essentially they were saying that in the past great players in high school would chose to be 2nd tier- non starters at the best programs like Duke, Kansas etc, but that changed in the last 10 years or so, where those guys are choosing smaller schools to be starters and be seen by NBA scouts.
MBG612 t1_jcqqbx8 wrote
My bet would be the top teams are getting weaker and there is more parity. The top talents are 1 and done to nba.
joelluber t1_jcqrlca wrote
On the other hand, breakout stars at lower tier schools are starting to get recruited to transfer to higher tier programs.
buddhistbulgyo t1_jcquml8 wrote
2023 should be removed until all of the data is in
Tiger_Rivers OP t1_jcqw6q5 wrote
All the data is there. The round of 64 ended last night.
[deleted] t1_jctalek wrote
[removed]
ohsnap07_ t1_jcvlhif wrote
What's your r^2 exactly?
Tiger_Rivers OP t1_jcp2nxi wrote
I had been wondering if upsets were truly becoming more common as the years went by or did it simply feel that way. After 16 seed FDU's upset of top seeded Purdue last night I had to look into it. The number of upsets is simply the number of lower seeded teams who beat higher seeded teams in the first round of the tournament. The average seed difference is the seed of the higher seed subtracted from the lower seed and averaged for all upsets in a year (9 over 8 has a difference of 1, 12 over 5 has a difference of 7, etc.).
Since the Round of 64 began in 1985, both upsets and the average seed difference have been on the rise. For this visualization games between 8 and 9 seeds have been included even though the NCAA does not classify them as upsets. Had they not been included the broad trends still hold, with the average seed difference actually becoming more pronounced (6.7 average seed difference this year with 9 over 8 wins included, 9 average seed difference with those games excluded for example).
Source: NCAA archived brackets found on NCAA.com
Tools: Microsoft Excel