5 vs 12 games for the last decade

My favorite thing about first round NCAA games are the 5 vs. 12 games. They're almost always exciting, and have the best of all worlds. You almost always have a team with Final 4 aspirations (#4/#5 teams have made the Final Four 7 times in the past decade) - as opposed to 6/11, 7/10 or 8/9 games. You also tend to have some of the most dangerous Mid-Major teams (you get the teams that were bubble teams and got in with a tourney win - since few mid majors will ever do better than a 12). You also have tons of potential for upsets. Here are the number of 12 seeds that knocked off 5 seeds in the past decade:

2005: 1
2004: 2
2003: 1
2002: 3
2001: 2
2000: 0
1999: 2
1998: 1
1997: 1
1996: 2


So, in the last decade, 15 times there has been an upset - a mean of 1.5. Only once has the set of 5 seeds passed to the next round unscathed, and that year included 3 very close games (including Florida's 69-68 survival against Butler that propelled them to the National Finals). In other words, expect atleast one upset to go down. So the next question is, who will that team(s) be. For this analysis, I've divided the NCAA into three types of conferences - Major, Mid-Major, and Small. Major conferences are ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Conference USA, SEC and Pac-10. Mid-Major conferences are A-10, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, WAC and WCC. Small conferences are everybody else.

The first part of the analysis is boring - the #5 seeds. The reason it's boring is that #5 seeds are rarely anything but Major conference teams. The only exceptions are Princeton in 1998 and Tulsa in 1997. Both of those teams won their games, but that sample is too small to mean anything. Major conference teams made up all other #5 seeds in the past decade, with a record of 23-15 (.605). Clearly, the data doesn't yet support any type of #5 seed that's ripe for an upset. And interestingly enough, that would be relevant this year, as yet again there is a Mid-Major with a 5 seed (Nevada).

So, let's move on to the #12 seeds to see something more exciting. Surprisingly enough, 12 seeds have been pretty evenly split between Mid-Majors and Small conference teams. Only 5 times has a Major Conference team received a 12 seed. Let's break down the records:

Major: 3-2
Mid-Major: 6-11
Small: 6-12

What information can we garner here? First of all, bet on the Major tournament teams when they end up with 12 seeds. The fact that they have better than .500 records against teams that are supposedly superior is remarkable. Why could this be (other than margin of error due to the small sample)? Big market teams are probably embarassed with 12 seeds. It's the lowest seed they can realistically earn, and they know that there are a lot of people out there doubting their appearance in the tournament at all. Secondly, they are dealing with an overconfident first round opponent. The biggest cause of upsets are overconfident teams looking ahead, and it's very plausible to argue that players are more likely to overlook a supposedly mediocre big market team than a red-hot Mid-Major that got picked for an upset by Joe Lunardi and Dick Vitale. Meanwhile, Major teams (as opposed to other #12 seeds) have Major conference talent. They have the players that can hang with any 5 seed, regardless of the situation. They've been playing teams that good all year, and beaten some (or else they wouldn't have gotten into the tournament at all).

As for the other teams, is there really no difference between Small market teams and Mid-Major teams? I would argue that to not be the case. For that, I refer you just to the three most recent tournaments (2003 through 2005). In those years, Small conference teams are 4-4 while Mid-Majors are 0-4. I would argue that this is the cause of the Internet and mass media. Suddenly, teams like George Washington ('05), New Mexico ('05) and BYU ('03, '04) aren't sneaking up on everyone. The top teams know that they have to come out and play, and can't allow inferior teams to build early leads (the #1 cause of upsets). Meanwhile, teams like UW-Milwaukee ('05) are still able to sneak under the radar and catch a napping team. My favorite example of this actually occured in the 2nd round of last year's tournament, when #12 seed UW-Milwaukee played #4 seed Boston College. After UWM got off to an early lead, BC sophomore Sean Marshall responded by yelling at UWM star Ed McCants "I don't give a f--k if you beat Alabama. This is the Big East." Of course, UWM won the game and went to the Sweet Sixteen. But even the first round win hadn't garnered respect for a Horizon League team. Meanwhile, Mid-Major teams like Gonzaga (a victory over Virginia as a 12 seed in 2001) are no longer mysteries to the Major conferences. I can assure you that no one takes Gonzaga lightly anymore.



So, what have we learned here? Look for 12 seeds from Major conferences or who might be overlooked. This year, we have a Major team in Texas A&M, that has to be considered a very tough opponent for a Syracuse team that is probably overrated as a 5 seed. I'd almost call this an easy pick if it wasn't for the fact that Syracuse is a tough hard-nosed team, and the fact that Jim Boeheim has always been an excellent tournament coach. To me, that might make a difference - more than the momentum from the Big East Tournament. Top teams can cruise through 16, 15, 14 and even some 13 seeds. But 5 seeds had better come out to play or they're gone.

As for the other set of teams - a team that might be overlooked - I'd suggest Montana as the most likely. Utah State is still relatively ignored, but was still a widely considered Bubble team. Meanwhile, Kent State is from a MAC conference that has been tough in the tournament (barely missing the "Mid-Major" cut), and shouldn't be taken too lightly by Pitt. On the other hand, Montana is a relative unknown. I haven't even seen one of their games this year. They seem to have less talent than Utah St or Kent St, but they will probably be the most overlooked. Meanwhile, they are probably playing the weakest 5 seed not from Syracuse. So, mark Montana down as a possible upset.


As always - comments on this analysis are very strongly encouraged. We can all use advice, corrections and suggestions.