Simulating the 2020 NCAA Men’s Tournament
Part 7: Round 2 — Midwest and West Regions
The sports hiatus necessitated by the coronavirus has left fans with a void to fill. March Madness was cancelled and is a favorite time of the year for millions. The simulation you’ll find here both seeds the tournament and simulates the games. Did you find yourself longing for filling out a bracket and challenging your friends? You’re in the right place.
If this your first time reading, you may want to begin here, where you can fill our your own bracket.
With half of the Sweet 16 in place, today we’ll look at the Midwest and West regions to find out the rest of the best. Of the 9.2 quintillion outcomes in the NCAA Tournament bracket, three of the four regions in this particular simulation don’t come off as very rare. We’ve got plenty of chalk and no number one seeds have lost. But that brings us to the Midwest region, where an unlikely string of first round upsets saw the 13, 14 and 15-seeds all advance.
From the video linked above, we know that the odds of a bracket where the top seed always advances are approximately 1 in 46.6 billion. Let’s look at the odds for just this Midwest region. Going by tournament results to date, the odds of the top seed advancing out of the first round in every game in one region is 7.9%. Not terrible. Using that same data set, here are the odds of our seeds advancing:
That’s …not great. The odds of these Midwest teams facing each other in the second round are just 1 in 500. And that’s just the probability for the round one winners of a single region. The odds become much, much longer when put in context of the entire field.
What we’re really interested in are these teams’ chances of being here. We can assume that using probabilities found from running a simulation of this tournament shouldn’t look much different, right? In actuality, the difference for our probability of 0.027% is exponential. The sources of this disparity come from everywhere. Very strong Michigan St. and Florida St. teams are much more likely to win championships than they are to both lose in the first round. Or look towards a 6 vs. 11-seed matchup that’s near-even in strength, offsetting traditional tournament odds.
The circumstances presented by such unique matchups show how difficult it is to pick the right team for every single outcome. With the field dramatically changing each year, I wonder if we’ll ever get a chance to see that 1 in 9.2 quintillion in our lifetime. For now, let’s see who rounds out our Sweet 16.
Second Round — Midwest
10. USC (-5.7) vs. 15. Eastern Washington
This is one of those games where USC (#55 in Adjusted Efficiency) would have said they’ll treat this as any other game and prepare rigorously, but hubris could be on display for this favored 10-seed. Now the Trojans are owners of a favorable 5+ point spread. If they show up and play their usual stifling defense (7th-ranked effective FG% defense) they can take the wind out of their opponent’s sails. USC could struggle in a game that goes down to the wire; the team has been frustrated at the free-throw line, shooting only 66.2% (315th-ranked in team FT%).
Eastern Washington (#124) overcame the longest odds of the first round by keeping up their blistering pace (7th-ranked in avg. length of possession). The Eagles still won’t be favored, but this Cinderella story has to be happy about their draw in round 2. This team knows that if Jack Perry gets open, he’ll hit shots. The hot-shooting team is solid inside, where Junior forward Jacob Davison leads four other players all hitting over 50% of their shots. This game could come down to whoever has a better handle on the ball. Both teams give it away on over 10% of possessions via the steal.
Final score: USC 72 , E. Washington 74 (UPSET)
6. Butler (-8.3) vs. 14. Belmont
Butler (#25) overcame a tough first round draw and took down a Saint Mary’s team that probably should’ve been higher than an 11-seed. Junior forward Bryce Nze manages to have an even better effective FG% (24th-ranked) than teammate Sean McDermott. As fluid as the team is on offense, the Bulldogs don’t create a lot of turnovers. Against a weaker opponent that might not matter, as the team’s 2-point defense still manages to be the nation’s 12th-best, holding their opponents to 43.5% of their attempts inside.
Overcoming their own tough odds of 16.4% to advance over 3-seed Florida St., Belmont (#109) will try to do it again. While the spread is smaller in this game, the Bruins are the least likely of the 14-seeds to be here. Knowing that their interior-scoring already won out over one of the tallest teams in the nation, this team will hope to keep making all of their shots count (10th-ranked in Effective FG%). They’ll also have to overcome difficulty getting to the line, where their free-throws per field goal attempts are an abysmal 346th (Out of 353) in the nation.
Final score: Butler 75 , Belmont 62
5. Wisconsin (-8.1) vs. 13. Stephen F. Austin
Wisconsin (#22) smashed their spread in their matchup with Akron, easily imposing their slow, methodical play (342nd-ranked Adj. tempo) upon a team that prefers a transition game. Can the Badgers keep it up and win against a team that moves even faster? For this team to find a victory, they’ll have to showcase their ability to hold onto the ball (17th-ranked TO%) against the best team in the country at causing turnovers. This game will be a battle of wills and Junior center Nate Reuvers (61st-ranked block%) will have to be imposing inside to slow down an efficient offense.
A Stephen F. Austin (#100) upset over Kentucky may have shocked some, but this program holds the honor of being the last 14-seed to advance in a tournament (2016). Now that they’re a seed higher, they’re facing better odds. Or are they? Wisconsin is one seed worse than Kentucky’s, but has an even bigger spread against the Lumberjacks in this matchup. To win, SFA has to keep its top-ranked turnover machine producing against an experienced group that isn’t used to turning the ball over. They may have to rely on Senior guard Kevon Harris’ ability to draw fouls (28th-ranked individually, 3rd-ranked as a team), and could find an edge on the offensive boards (3rd-ranked OReb%).
Final score: Wisconsin 70, SFA 63
1. Kansas (-8.4) vs. 8. Rutgers
After their 38-point drubbing of PVA&M, Kansas (#1) can’t count on more easy matchups. Even so, they’ve got to be thrilled at how this region has evolved and sent some very challenging foes home. This team had easily the most success in the simulations and the opponent doesn’t tend to matter much. Why? Using Ken Pomeroy’s Adjusted Efficiency, the Jayhawks are rated more than 3 full points ahead of the next best team, a stunning margin that gives them more dominant odds than anyone in the field. In fact, Kansas would go on to win the Championship in 17.8% of total simulations.
Rutgers (#28) barely outgunned Oklahoma in a down-to-the-wire contest only to find themselves staring down a much stronger Big XII opponent. The Scarlet Knights may be confident that their intimidating front-court can contain Azubuike, but can they find anyone to match up with Devin Dotson at the guard position? If they post Junior guard Geo Baker onto Dotson, he would have a size advantage and could open up fellow guard Jacob Young for some steals (Where he is 170th-ranked).
Final score: Kansas 67, Rutgers 60
Second Round — West
2. Duke (-7.4) vs. 10. Cincinnati
Duke (#5) escaped their matchup with North Dakota St. but came nowhere near covering the spread. They owe a lot of their success thus far to their size; the Blue Devils trot out the 22nd-tallest team on average in the nation. Unfortunately for them, this is the rare matchup where they are on the smaller end of every matchup (Cincinnati is 18th-tallest). Vernon Carey is sure to see a lot of double-teams and may be frustrated by the wingspan of his 7'1" counterpart. This game may rest on Sophomore PG Tre Jones’ ability to get the ball to the open man (65th-ranked Assist rate), because raw athleticism alone won’t be enough to win again.
The 10-seeds are no longer invincible. With Utah St. and USC both falling in this round, Cincinnati (#44) will look to help the 10s break even and join Texas Tech in the Sweet 16. To score enough against an offensive-minded Duke team, they’ll have to rely on Senior guards and cousins Jarron and Jaevin Cumberland to rain down 3-pointers. Both possess the talent to get hot but have also been extremely streaky from distance. The Bearcats will be confident on defense where they’ve shown the ability to take apart and shut down similar fast-and-loose offenses with their physical brand of play.
Final score: Duke 72, Cincinnati 74 (UPSET)
3. Maryland (-4.9) vs. 11. Richmond
Maryland is another team that ended up trading punches in a close game where a big spread was projected. Of the 3-seeds in the tournament this was the least likely to make the Sweet 16, projected to advance in 43.6% of simulations. Yet they are looking to become the lone 3-seed advancing to the next round. Maryland’s biggest weakness this year is a tendency to shoot too many 3’s (43.1% of all attempts), while hitting just 31.1% of them (286th-ranked).
Richmond (#46) likely blew up a lot of brackets with an upset win over Iowa and their Player of the Year. Fans of the A10 might have had more faith after watching this experienced team dismantle conference runner-up Davidson twice. They simply don’t take bad shots; the team is posting an Effective FG percentage of 53.4%. The Spiders struggle on the offensive boards, and as a diminutive group they don’t manage much contact (293rd-ranked in free throws per FG attempt).
Final score: Maryland 70, Richmond 68
4. Oregon vs. 5. West Virginia (+0.8)
Oregon (#17) managed to cover the spread over a spirited Vermont team without much difficulty. That’s of great comfort to a team that played 6 overtime matches while winning 5 of them. They’ll look to steal a game where they’re projected to lose despite their higher seed. And steal they will. These Ducks are 2nd-best in the nation at swiping the ball, second only to already-ousted Saint Mary’s. That can be an instant headache for opponents when a quick turnover leads to one of many 3-point buckets. Oregon can turn the tables quickly with the nation’s 20th-ranked Effective FG% and 2nd-ranked team 3-point %.
West Virginia knew they were under-seeded in this tournament and this spread will justify a stiff upper lip. Their hectic 3rd-ranked defense generates a ton of turnovers and the best offensive rebounding in the country assures the Mountaineers have a lot of second chances. Can they use them? This team can fall apart if the shooting goes cold, and they have no outside threats, shooting only 28.6% from deep (338th-ranked). This team embodies the cliché of their worst opponent being themselves. On a night they can avoid giving up the ball on turnovers and hit enough shots, they can beat anybody.
Final score: Oregon 68, West Virginia 66 (UPSET?)
1. Gonzaga (-8) vs. 9. LSU
Gonzaga (#2) fans might still be holding their breath, after completely blowing an -18.1 spread and needing an overtime to finally put away Boston University. Coach Mark Few’s team can expect an ear-full after that performance and will need to rejuvenate the nation’s #1 offense against LSU’s own 4th-ranked offensive arsenal. The Bulldogs averaged a nation-high 87.4 points per game over the season and are now facing an opponent that loves to run the floor in a similar fashion.
LSU (#37) narrowly took down a spirited Colorado team in a classically tense 8/9 matchup. While everyone in the field’s offensive stats pale in comparison to Gonzaga’s, this team might be even more offensive-minded. The Tigers play all-out on one side of the ball with Sophomore forward Darius Days crashing the glass and hitting 68.8% of his 2-point shots (10th-ranked). The obvious weakness is overall defense (179th-ranked), where the team only creates turnovers on 16.6% of possessions (302nd-ranked).
Final score: Gonzaga 91, LSU 79
In their first-round overtime thriller of a loss, BU only had a 1.8% chance of winning based on these simulations. That’s comparatively high when weighed against tournament history. Looking back at the above odds, 16-seeds on average have a 0.7% of winning. In this tournament, they weren’t even the best 16-seed. Can we make an argument for parity increasing across the college landscape by looking at the simulated success rates of 16-seeds represented here?
Siena 4.6% | Winthrop 3.4% | BU: 1.8% | PVA&M 0.4%
That’s a 2.55% chance on average for a 16-seed to win. While still quite long odds, it’s safe to assume that the quality of play is indeed improving in the lower end of D1 conferences. When that play does resume, we’ll all benefit from what looks to be very promising and increasingly entertaining basketball.
Here’s your bracket with the Sweet 16. If you got these sixteen teams right, you’re one in 282-trillion. If you are on the much more likely side of things and already totally busted, you can always try your luck again from here. Next time we’ll take a look at who makes the Elite 8.
