Read the full article on KETV 7
Every March, millions of fans fill out brackets hoping to predict the unpredictable. But while some rely on gut instinct, others are turning to math to try and gain an edge.Experts say data and analytics can help, but only to a point.Mathematicians and data scientists analyze thousands of games, using models that factor in team performance, efficiency, and historical trends. Tim Chartier, a professor of mathematics and computer science, has worked with students to build models projecting this year’s tournament outcomes.But even those models don’t always agree.“It is interesting this year that the models don’t all agree,” Chartier said, pointing to different projections for the men’s Final Four.That uncertainty highlights the biggest challenge of March Madness: unpredictability.Even with strong analytics, the odds of building a perfect bracket are astronomically low. Upsets, where lower-seeded teams beat higher-seeded ones, can quickly bust even the most carefully constructed picks.That’s why experts recommend balance. Picking all top seeds may seem safe, but history shows surprises are inevitable. At the same time, choosing too many underdogs can backfire just as quickly.”If you’re trying to win, you likely need to take a higher variance strategy than if you’re just going to do ok. So if all you want to do is finish in the top third, pick the better seeds,” said Chair of the Creighton Math Department Nathan Pennington. “If you’re trying to win, you probably do something riskier.”In the end, math can improve your chances, but it can’t guarantee success.
Every March, millions of fans fill out brackets hoping to predict the unpredictable. But while some rely on gut instinct, others are turning to math to try and gain an edge.
Experts say data and analytics can help, but only to a point.
Advertisement
Mathematicians and data scientists analyze thousands of games, using models that factor in team performance, efficiency, and historical trends. Tim Chartier, a professor of mathematics and computer science, has worked with students to build models projecting this year’s tournament outcomes.
But even those models don’t always agree.
“It is interesting this year that the models don’t all agree,” Chartier said, pointing to different projections for the men’s Final Four.
That uncertainty highlights the biggest challenge of March Madness: unpredictability.
Even with strong analytics, the odds of building a perfect bracket are astronomically low. Upsets, where lower-seeded teams beat higher-seeded ones, can quickly bust even the most carefully constructed picks.
That’s why experts recommend balance. Picking all top seeds may seem safe, but history shows surprises are inevitable. At the same time, choosing too many underdogs can backfire just as quickly.
“If you’re trying to win, you likely need to take a higher variance strategy than if you’re just going to do ok. So if all you want to do is finish in the top third, pick the better seeds,” said Chair of the Creighton Math Department Nathan Pennington. “If you’re trying to win, you probably do something riskier.”
In the end, math can improve your chances, but it can’t guarantee success.
