Cited by 43Sports Analytics and PerformanceForecasting Techniques and ApplicationsSports Performance and Training

Building an NCAA men’s basketball predictive model and quantifying its success

Open access
Lopez, Michael J., Matthews, Gregory J.·2015·Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports

Abstract

Computing and machine learning advancements have led to the creation of many cutting-edge predictive algorithms, some of which have been demonstrated to provide more accurate forecasts than traditional statistical tools. In this manuscript, we provide evidence that the combination of modest statistical methods with informative data can meet or exceed the accuracy of more complex models when it comes to predicting the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. First, we describe a prediction model that merges the point spreads set by Las Vegas sportsbooks with possession based team efficiency metrics by using logistic regressions. The set of probabilities generated from this model most accurately predicted the 2014 tournament, relative to approximately 400 competing submissions, as judged by the log loss function. Next, we attempt to quantify the degree to which luck played a role in the success of this model by simulating tournament outcomes under different sets of true underlying game probabilities. We estimate that under the most optimistic of game probability scenarios, our entry had roughly a 12% chance of outscoring all competing submissions and just less than a 50% chance of finishing with one of the ten best scores.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/jqas-2014-0058

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The winning entry in the 2014 Kaggle March Machine Learning Mania competition was based on a fairly simple logistic regression model trained on betting market data.

    “Among the published papers, we learned that the winning entry was based on a fairly simple logistic regression model trained on betting market data (Lopez & Matthews, 2015).”

    From Big ideas in sports analytics and statistical tools for their investigation (2023) · cites this paper as Lopez & Matthews, 2015

    Section 3 (Model selection) says the winning submission used a logistic regression model whose only covariate was the betting point spread. But it also says the submission combined that model with a separate efficiency-based model; the top submission, S2, weighted the efficiency model more heavily. Describing the winning entry as a single model trained on betting market data omits that substantial component. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Boulier, B. L. and H. O. Stekler (1999): "Are sports seedings good predictors?: an evaluation," International Journal of Forecasting, 15, 83-91.
  2. Colquitt, L. L., N. H. Godwin, and S. B. Caudill (2001): "Testing efficiency across markets: Evidence from the ncaa basketball betting market," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 28, 231-248.
  3. Dietterich, T. G. (2000): "Ensemble methods in machine learning," in Multiple classifier systems, Springer, 1-15.
  4. Harville, D. (1980): "Predictions for national football league games via linear- model methodology," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 516-524.
  5. Kubatko, J., D. Oliver, K. Pelton, and D. T. Rosenbaum (2007): "A starting point for analyzing basketball statistics," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 3, 1-22.
  6. Linna, K., E. Moore, R. Paul, and A. Weinbach (2014): "The effects of the clock and kickoff rule changes on actual and market-based expected scoring in ncaa football," International Journal of Financial Studies, 2, 179-192.
  7. Metrick, A. (1996): "March madness? strategic behavior in ncaa basketball tournament betting pools," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 30, 159-172.
  8. Nichols, M. W. (2014): "The impact of visiting team travel on game outcome and biases in nfl betting markets," Journal of Sports Economics, 15, 78-96.
  9. Opitz, D. and R. Maclin (1999): "Popular ensemble methods: An empirical study," Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 11, 169-198.
  10. Paul, R. and A. Weinbach (2005): "Market efficiency and ncaa college basket- ball gambling," Journal of Economics and Finance, 29, 403-408.
  11. Paul, R. J. and A. P. Weinbach (2014): "Market efficiency and behavioral bi- ases in the wnba betting market," International Journal of Financial Stud- ies, 2, 193-202.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lopez, M. J., & Matthews, G. J.
Affiliations
  • Skidmore College (US)
  • Loyola University Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Lopez, Michael J.
Venue
Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports
Published
2015-01-01
Volume
11
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1559-0410 (ISSN-L)
  • 2194-6388
OpenAlex
W2117270551
Cited by
43
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
10.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Creative Matter (Skidmore College) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Sports Analytics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Forecasting Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
Keywords
NCAA men's basketball tournament, sports prediction, point spread, logistic regression, cross-entropy loss, luck versus skill, prediction model accuracy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review