Building an NCAA men’s basketball predictive model and quantifying its success
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Hansen, L. K., & Salamon, P. (1990) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/34.58871 · Cited by 4,260 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Boulier, B. L. and H. O. Stekler (1999): "Are sports seedings good predictors?: an evaluation," International Journal of Forecasting, 15, 83-91.
- 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.
- Dietterich, T. G. (2000): "Ensemble methods in machine learning," in Multiple classifier systems, Springer, 1-15.
- Harville, D. (1980): "Predictions for national football league games via linear- model methodology," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 516-524.
- 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.
- 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.
- Metrick, A. (1996): "March madness? strategic behavior in ncaa basketball tournament betting pools," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 30, 159-172.
- 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.
- Opitz, D. and R. Maclin (1999): "Popular ensemble methods: An empirical study," Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 11, 169-198.
- Paul, R. and A. Weinbach (2005): "Market efficiency and ncaa college basket- ball gambling," Journal of Economics and Finance, 29, 403-408.
- 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
Lopez, M. J., Matthews, G. J., & Baumer, B. S. (2018) · The Annals of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1214/18-aoas1165 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Self-citationBig ideas in sports analytics and statistical tools for their investigation
Baumer, B. S., Matthews, G. J., & Nguyen, Q. (2023) · WIREs Computational Statistics · doi:10.1002/wics.1612 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Lopez, M. J., & Matthews, G. J.
- Affiliations
- Skidmore College (US)
- Loyola University Chicago (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lopez, Michael J.
- ORCID
- Matthews, Gregory J.
- Venue
- Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- 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
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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