From Sweet 16 to Final Four, favorites won only 4 of 12 games (underdogs winning 8 games straight-up)
With 12 games between the Sweet 16 and Final Four, there are 4,096 possible bracket outcomes – meaning a random guesser would have a 4,096 to 1 chance of picking all 12 winners. The odds against picking all 12 winners according to Vegas odds were actually 16,490 to 1 – over FOUR TIMES LESS LIKELY than random.
How improbable has the VCU run been?
VCU were underdogs in all 5 wins.Their opponents were favored by a combined 34 points.In those 5 wins, VCU covered the spread by a combined 94 points!
USC was favored by 4.5, and VCU had a 33% chance of winning.Georgetown was favored by 5.5, and VCU had a 31% chance of winning.Purdue was favored by 9.5, and VCU had an 18% chance of winning.Florida State was favored by 4, and VCU had a 36% chance of winning.Kansas was favored by 10.5, and VCU had an 11% chance of winning.
Win over Kansas was biggest upset of the Tournament. Win over Purdue was tied for second biggest upset of the Tournament.
The odds of VCU winning all 5 games: 1,371 to 1 against.Meaning, If you started w/$10, and bet VCU (money line) and let your winnings ride on all 5 of their NCAA games, you'd have $13,714
Future Odds:
NONE of Top 10 pre-tournament favorites made Final Four. Kentucky #11 (25-1); U Conn #14 (32-1); Butler #33 (200-1); VCU #42 (350-1)
I was a little surprised with how much VCU continued to be disrespected by oddsmakers after their blowout win against Purdue. They were over a possession underdog against FSU and then a significant underdog against Kansas. Oddsmakers just had their numbers wrong on this team.
Ev & RJ-
I believe we have another "INCONCEIVABLE' Virginia Commonwealth point
GUESS WHAT?
An ACCURATE Case could STILL BE MADE, that w/all the Games & Action to this point, if we re-selected & re-started the Tourney TODAY, COUNTING POSTSEASON GAMES PLAYED, Virginia Commonwealth may STILL NOT have the Resume to be in Tourney
Even w/VCU Upset of Purdue, VCU Stats are better YET remain MEDIOCRE ;
Don't you think that win SHOULD have been treated as an aberration - similar to their NEXT TWO WINS also? EVEN AFTER REACHING THE FINAL-4, THEY'RE STILL listed as #50 Most Efficient Team in NCAA!? THUS, TEAMS W/BETTER NUMBERS STILL - THAT DIDN'T REACH THE TOURNEY AT ALL, (New Mexico, et al), STILL RANK HIGHER & MORE EFFICIENT!
& Before this is discounted as Teams using NIT-Games as 'Fluffers', at least one Team is many notches more impressive (More Efficient), w/o any Postseason Play:
35. MARYLAND (19-14)
Four Other Snubbed NCAA Teams
w/Mixed NIT numbers folded in
Still have better Proficiency Numbers than VCU:
34. VIRGINIA TECH (22-12)
1-1 NIT, Lost in OT at Home to NIT Final-4 Team, Wichita State
Hokies finished stronger than VCU
4-3 to End Reg Season, including wins over Duke
& 2-1 ACC Tourney, w/Win over FSU
38. ALABAMA (24-11)
NIT MSG-4 Tm
11-4 Finish to SEC Season
Wins over Final-4 Tm Ky, NCAA Tms Tenn, UGa (2-0)
Only Losses in that stretch: Ky, Fla, Miss, Vandy
42. WICHITA STATE (27-8)
NIT MSG-4 Finalist (Still Playing)
49. NEW MEXICO (22-13)
1-1 NIT
Lost at Bama in NIT 2nd Rd
50. VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH
Of course the Rams 'deserve' their place in Final-4 by earning it in sensational fashion.
The numbers here simply highlight once again just how bananas this run is.
1983 NC State Team is often mentioned in such cases (Pack incidentally beat 11 Seed Pepperdine 96-91 Double OT here in Corvallis, Ore in RD-1 of that Tourney)
VCU is one of the first teams seen that TRULY deserves this comparison, in my humble opinion.
Thanks.
March Madnesss CLEARLY Defined in this article.
rj, what numbers exactly did you use to come up with the $13,000+ on moneyline....i looked at this with best possible moneyline numbers, i believe, and the most i've come up with is about $9522....do tell
me21deion . . . some research calls for use of average or consensus numbers, and some call for shopping for the best number a bettor could have gotten . . . another variable is WHEN to consider the number, and in this case I used the best available dog payback during the time range when the most money was bet on the game. Also keep in mind that small difference when multiplied can great a big difference in the sum.
Your numbers have the curious pattern of making each VCU win less probable then it actually was (33% to beat USC is a joke).
I'd hope you also understand that betting on the ML each game and letting it ride is not going to equal the product of the probabilities since the ML's are juiced whereas the probabilities should be figured vig free.
For all the guys with their calculators, these types of calculations always involve variable approaches, such as how hard to shop of the line, when (open, close, most $$$ takes), whether to include juice, etc . . . I love the theory talk as much as the next guy, but you need to communicate in broad strokes with the general media. In the USC game, -210/+180 was widely available, the juice free line = 33.8% . . . but the media doesn't like "decimal point thinking" . . . I've seen guys calculate from the fav lay, which would be 32.2% (not an approach I'm a fan of, btw) . . . the key is to convey in an easy to understand fashion for the general reader, and that's what I do with wide releases.
Figuring a juice free line doesn't involve a variable approach and yet the ability to figure that seems to have evaded you, so I suppose its understandable to publish and convey a convoluted approach.
Why can't you communicate the real numbers and let the curious dissect them? It may be theory, but logic dictates a closing number to be more efficient than a widely available one plucked randomly out of a market timeline.