2011 March Madness Predictions: Statistics Say Ohio State, Which Means Pretty Much Nothing

Everyone in the world has NCAA Tournament predictions swirling around today, but you won’t find March Madness picks with more statistical backing than Nate Silver at the New York Times, who uses a complex algorithm to predict the winners of each game, and gives us a Kansas-Ohio State title game, with the Buckeyes walking away as champions.

BOLD PREDICTION: That won’t happen.

The depth of Silver’s probabilities are great, and you’d be hard pressed to find anyone in the statistical community with a better pedigree in predictive analysis, but there’s no algorithm to render chaos coherent. I mean... Isn’t that the beauty of March?

Silver’s formula gives us a Final Four with all four no. 1 seeds, and an Elite Eight with all but one no. 2 seed advancing. How many hours did it take to pick every favorite to win every game? Because that’s usually what my mom does, and she could have done it in five minutes.

For the record, the best algorithm around gives the following odds to the four no. 1s to make the Final Four:

People LOVE Nate Silver and his website, and that’s all fine. The probabilities he offers for each round are pretty interesting, but some of his methodology seems a little simplistic here. In fact, forget who the computer picked. If you want one tip for March, pay attention to what Silver says here:

Instead, if you’re really serious about winning your tournament pool, there’s probably a lot more to be gained by thinking strategically. Because most tournament pools only give prizes to the top couple of places, high-risk strategies tend to be rewarded, and specifically picking teams that other people aren’t picking.

If, for instance, our forecast says that a team is a 40-60 or 45-55 underdog, it may nevertheless be the correct pick provided that other people aren’t making it (as opposed to a “trendy” upset pick, which can be a trap).

If there’s one way to win March Madness as a fan, it’s to play it like a game. This is chess, not blind darts. If you really want to win,don’t try to pick the perfect bracket, and definitely don’t pay attention to what a computer may tell you. Take a few calculated risks, though, and bet against the teams that all your friends like, and back a few underdogs that nobody likes.

Your bracket may turn out to be a magnificent disaster that way, or you could come off looking like a genius. Either way, isn’t that better than picking a bunch of favorites based on probabilities?