Bradley P the reason why they are great is because they take time. Rather have these monthly/bimonthly/ yearly videos than just be flooded with meh content
Paradoxically the most “normal” year was 2020. Tom Brady and Lebron James both won championships. Alabama won another football championship over Ohio State and regular season powerhouses Los Angeles Dodgers and the Tampa Bay Lighting both won their championships. With the Dodgers facing the Tampa Bay Rays another regular season powerhouse and the Lighting facing the Dallas Stars, If anything the most unusual part was Tom Brady winning a Super Bowl right after changing teams, both NHL teams coming from the former Confederacy (Which never happened before) and of course no crowds.
Also the Blue Jackets finally won a playoff series in 2019 when they unexpectedly demolished the Lightning -(My sincere condolences to Winnipeg Jets fans, especially since the Thrashers never did anything for them to fall back on.)- Forget that, the Jets also won a playoff series, and with both the expansion Golden Knights and Kraken already winning playoff series in their first two years, now all 124 teams in the big four leagues have moved on at least once.
You've missed a glaring reason as to why the 8 or 9 gets an easier team in the Sweet 16 than the 4 or 5. Because to get to the Sweet 16, the 8 or 9 has to have BEATEN the no 1 in the round just before, so they will never play the no.1 in the Sweet 16. Look at the statistics for the Field of 32. I haven't seen them, but I can almost guarantee that the 8 or 9 team has the worst winning percentage in that specific round because they always play the no 1 team. The whole tournament is specifically designed so that the 1-8 seeds make it to the Field of 32 and 5-8 get knocked out, then 1-4 make it to the Sweet 16 and 3-4 get knocked out, etc. Looking at the winning percentage of a certain placed team in one specific round is always going to give you these sorts of statistics.
Yes but thats in theory what they want to happen. Almost every year at least one 1 seed falls to an 8 or 9 seed since their the Cinderella of the tournament. By having them play a more equal opponent in the sweet 16 rather than reseeding it gives the allusion of hope. Before losing to a 2 or 3 seed in the elite 8.
more names off that list as of 2021: (*play in game victory) oregon state (2021) houston (2022, 2021 & 2019) rutgers (2021) north texas (2021) oral roberts (already mentioned here) (2021) texas southern* (2021 & 2022) drake* (2021) ucf (2019) liberty (2019) uc irvine (2019) wofford (2019) fairleigh dickinson* (2019) belmont* (2019) umbc (2018) buffalo (2018) marshall (2018) prob missed some. tell me which ones if thats the case edit: it's 2022, and two new teams have joined the list 15-seed st. peter's (2022) 16-seed wright state* (2022) also updated houston and texas southern to have a 2022 win
Theoretically, anyone can win the NCAA basketball tournament. All you have to do is win all your games. However impossible that might seem, theoretically, you can do it. There are many college football teams who cannot win the college football playoff. Not even if they win all their games. Because some committee says so. Give me the dream.
In college football theoretically everyone has a shot too. If a say MAC team like W.Michigan decided to schedule non conference games against Alabama, Clemson, Michigan and won them all and then won the rest of their games they could have a shot at the playoffs however unlikely still.
@@vaughnshinkus4178 yeah I completely wish that teams would schedule harder opponents. I guess some B1G teams do such as Mich vs ND and last year OSU vs. Ock but i wish more teams did it more often because right now it is impossible to say the SEC is better than B1G, that Clemson is better than Michigan because not only do they not play each other they don't even play teams from the same pool of teams
ALL of the teams Jon mentioned in this video (Nationals, Blue Jackets, Winnipeg Jets) won a playoff series since this video was released. There are now no teams in the four major sports without playoff wins!
*Sees another lame RUclips notification* *Glances at it unenthusiastically* "SB Nation just uploaded a video: Something something Chart Party" *Panics and rushes to see the return of the legend*
Coming back to this video during 2022 March Madness and not even seeing St. Peter’s on the beginning list speaks to the tournament’s bewildering randomness
@@Randomvidsometimes hopefully it goes ahead, our team was one of the few that won their conference tournament before things got shut down and so didn't get to go, it looks really weird seeing the banner hanging up that has 2020 as a year where they won the conference but 2020 is not on the banner that has their big dance appearances.
the reason re-seeding is bad is because if the worst team upsets the best team they've EARNED the right to play what would have been the top team's easier bracketed opponents. If you beat #1, you become #1, in essence.
Rfranklinz45 No. If Team A has a 2-13 record and they beat Team B with a 12-3 record, the records don't switch. Team B will certainly drop in the ranks, but to immediately call Team A better because of one game is ludicrous. The Browns beat the Chargers last year, but they were not better than the Chargers.
They were better than the Chargers on that day. The amount of weight you think that should hold is up for debate, but on that day the Browns were better.
No how almost every tournament works is if you are a shitty seed you have the toughest road. you have to fight the best teams in the league and if you didnt want to do that you shouldve done better in the regular season. The reason why the worse seeds fight the better teams is because it rewards the better teams for doing better in the regular season AND it stops teams from losing intentionally, example lets say that if you used the logic of if you beat the number 1 team you become number 1 so you lose intentionally to become 16th seed even though you are nowhere near a 16th seed, hey now all you gotta do is beat the number 1 seed and you have an easy road. This is why reseeding is necessary.
Bernie Sanders: it is unacceptable that the top 4 pah-cent of March Madness teams account for 58 pah-cent of Final Four berths. Under a Sanders administration, the top 4 pay-cent will pay their fair share of losses
On a more serious note, if Belmont and Davidson had money and resources to recruit players the way a Duke or a Kentucky, and so on, you might see an improvement in the percentage of schools who have been to a Final Four. But, then again, a certain school winning the NCAA tournament isn't anywhere near as vital as say a fixing healthcare system that exists purely for profit, so, whatever.
@@Empr4evr also coaching matters when recruiting, and big-name bluebloods like Duke and Kentucky have big-name coaches that are also better at recruiting in general.
Jon, of all the praises sung for Chart Party, here's one I don't see often: the 90s office/muzak feel is incredible. I don't know why it fits so well, maybe it makes me feel like I'm a pencil pusher in some magnificent universe of sports RUclips content, but it's just brilliant.
Just an update, the Jets AND Blue Jackets have now both won in the NHL playoffs, making the Nationals the ONLY professional sports team to NEVER advance in the playoffs.
And at least in the Jets' and Jackets' cases, they've only been around for about 20 years. The Nationals have half a century of play, no postseason series wins, and no excuse.
The reason an 8/9 plays a weaker seed than the 5 in the sweet sixteen is because they already beat the 1 seed just to get there. They played a stronger seed in the round of 32. They’ve earned it haven’t they? Now you reseed and make them play a 2 seed the very next game?
Yup, that's what you do. That's what the NFL does too. If the #6 seed beats the #3 seed, they face the #1 seed. If you want an easier road, you should do better in the regular season.
Yeah, no. You can have your opinion on whether basketball or football is a better sport, but the March Madness system is objectively flawed and worse than the NFL's playoff system. *Both* are flawed because they are single-elimination instead of a best-of-X series, but March Madness is more flawed than the NFL. If you perform better in the regular season, you should be rewarded with an easier road to the championship. If you sneak into the playoffs as the bottom seed, then you should have the toughest road since you clearly weren't definitively a playoff team to begin with. This is a meritocracy, folks. If you're better, you're rewarded. If you're not, you're not.
That is your opinion. I respect your right to have that opinion. You can subjectively prefer one to the other, but do not let your biases blind you from objectivity. The NFL's system (regardless of whether you prefer it or the NCAA) objectively makes more sense than the NCAA's system.
don't mind me, just casually rewatching for the 50th time since it's almost time for march madness I did realize though that due to conference tournaments where basically every team plays, come the end of the season, out of over 300 D1 schools...only one (or maybe a few more) schools end the season with the win...the rest, all end the season with a loss...Harsh.
The double digit seeds end up with an "easier" path later on in the tournament because if they can mount that first big upset, they basically jump into the higher seeds path. A 13 plays an easier game in the 16 because they're not suppose to be there, they took that spot for the 3.
One issue with comparing the 8/9 seeds versus the 4/5 seeds in the Sweet 16. For an 8 or 9 seed to even *get* to the Sweet 16, they would have had to beat the #1 seed already. So complaining that they have an easier road after the first weekend is true but a bit disingenuous.
It makes sense though that a weaker seeded team will have an easier time post sweet 16. They would've already had to defeat a 1 or 2 seed (in the case of seeds 7,8,9,10), prior to the sweet 16, so the most difficult opponent is out of the way
What if the NCAA intentionally mis-seeded teams to create upsets because: 1.) upsets are better for t.v. ratings 2.) upsets destroy a lot of brackets thereby reducing the odds that someone will win whatever bracket challenge some company is doing
Sam Brown You must be dumb. He’s not talking about some office bracket challenge. He’s talking about major corporations that offer large sums of money to people who enter contests and fill out the bracket 100% correctly. “I can’t believe I have to explain this to an actual adult.” His theory actually makes sense. Upsets are better for business.
They don't do it for that reason, they do let teams slip or gain a seed to set up a chance at a rivarly game or rematch in the later rounds. That's why you saw Wichita St in KUs bracket like every year, along with a team that has upset them in the past more often than not. Matchups. Not upsets.
Vaughn Ryan Shinkus are you kidding me? The games with the best ratings are the games that are suspected to be close because that’s likely to be the best games. The NCAA is a non-profit organization so yes they actually don’t care about a companies bracket system, also these companies bracket systems didn’t exist when the NCAA tournament system was made.
I think I’ve left basically this same comment on all your other videos, but I *love* that mournful melody that begins at 1:00 (or maybe 1:01) and ends at around 1:15 You have good taste in music! This time, I will read the credits at the end of the video, so I can find out where this tune of lovely sadness came from.
Some important notes, per chart at 5:10 - In 33 seasons, there are 660 seeds 6-10 and 128 made the Sweet 16, giving them a 19.4% chance of getting there. In 33 seasons, there are 396 seeds 3-5 and 174 made the Sweet 16, giving them 43.9% chance of getting there. And to make the Elite Eight, it's 7.4% for seeds 6-10, and 15.4% for seeds 3-5. Considering the average seed of seeds 6-10 is 8, and the average seed of seeds 3-5 is 4, you'd expect around half the chance of seeds 6-10 making any given round vs. seeds 3-5. In fact, the actual odds, as shown above, are LESS than half as good for seed 6-10 to make either Sweet 16 or Elite Eight than a seed 3-5. This does show that talent is just a slight bit top-heavy, which to me is unsurprising. All this chart shows is that IF....and it's a big IF....IF a team seeded 6-10 makes the Sweet 16, they have slightly better percentage odds of winning THAT PARTICULAR game than any seed 3-5 in a Sweet 16 game.....but they make it so much less often, it doesn't even make a significant dent in the overall odds of making it to the Elite Eight. It's definitely a parity-booster, as evidenced by the slightly better relative odds of seeds 6-10 vs. seeds 3-5 in making the Elite Eight vs. the Sweet 16 (19.4% / 43.9% = 0.44, 7.4% / 15.4% = 0.48). Stats are fun.
I hate the idea of re-seeding teams midway through a tournament in any sport at any level. The random/luck/chaos found in sports helps keep it so exciting. A 16 upsetting a 1 deserve the 8 or 9 they get next.
tillapasta All three of those elements directly take away from skill though. Competition is supposed to be structured to REMOVE those elements from the equation, so the best team wins.
You are trading the best always winning for excitement. Also does the 8 or 9 seed deserve playing the 16 seed? Does the 1 seed deserve playing the 8 or 9 seed because they beat a 16 seed? The reason I don't like reseeding if someone won more games than the other team doesn't mean they are better. If curry and Durant go out for half the season and end up the 7 seed and win they could be the best team but they hurt the 1 seeds chance now how of good to the wcf because of reseeding. Seeds don't tell the whole story of everything that happens. You give this "reward" to a team for regular season success but it doesn't mean much. Just going with the seed is a lot clear and a whole hell of a let less confusing to casual fans. Ncaa is a lot different because if a player gets injuried they don't come back most of the time. Since it's the way it's been it's better to not mess with the system as if you do and it backfires it's worse than what you had.
Best team winning every single team is why the NBA playoffs are so frequently considered boring. There's zero element of chaos to add challenge to the best teams so the best team almost always wins. First seeds win a good 3/4s of the time. Only two teams below a 3rd seed have ever won the nba title. This is why the mlb playoffs are so fun and the nfl playoffs. NHL is also fun since the best team almost never wins (the presidents cup curse). The best team winning in the nba isn't so bad if it feels competitive but it hasn't for a long time as a whole so nothing feels truly fun about the nba playoffs. I haven't watched since the Warriors won their first ring. I skipped all but the finals of next year and skipped everything this past year. Chaos is fun.
After 2017, here are the teams that proceeded to win a game in the March Madness Abilene Christian (2021) Buffalo (2018) Fairleigh Dickinson (2023) Florida Atlantic (2023) Grand Canyon (2024) Houston (2021) James Madison (2024) Liberty (2019) Marshall (2018) North Texas (2021) Oakland (2024) Oral Roberts (2021) Oregon State (2021) Rutgers (2021) Saint Peter’s (2022) UC Irvine (2019) UCF (2019) UMBC (2018) Wofford (2019) If there are more teams that I missed, let me know and I’ll edit the comment
Abeline Christian made their first D1 tournament in 2019 and then won their first game in 2021. Also Gardner-Webb (2019), Hartford (2021), Grand Canyon (2021), Longwood (2022), Bryant (2022), and Kennesaw State (2023) all have made tournament appearances and have joined the list of schools with no tournament wins
@@Nitro55555 it’s also funny that Houston appeared in the final four multiples but they’re last time until 2021 was in 1984, the year before it expanded to 64 lol
I was wondering why a 5 seed has never won the tournament but lower seeds have. And now i realize its because they run into the 1 seed in the sweet 16 every time
The problem with basing the argument on the fact 8th and 9th seeds do better in the sweet 16, is that you're pre-selecting for teams that necessarily already played and beat the 1 seed. So that means that they're better than the average 8 or 9 seed, and also that they already have had a harder route than most teams.
@Jonathan Stiles First of all, its a joke. Its a reference to Liberty Prime from Fallout 3. That's one of its dialogues. But second of all, I don't think you understand what a straw man is. A straw man is when you construct a faulty opposing argument to misrepresent your opposition. Stating an opinion on something is not a straw man.
@Jonathan Stiles I mean I don't think many smart people would ever argue in favor of communism, but capitalism is a very flawed system as well. I just think you're taking this "discussion" way more seriously than anyone else. My liberty prime quote was a joke, and OP could very well have been a joke as well. I wasn't responding to him as if he made a serious critique of capitalism because he didn't. That's why I was confused about the 'straw man' thing. I thought you meant that my comment was a straw man of communism, not a straw man of OP, because OPs comment doesn't really seem serious and we weren't engaging in a real discussion.
Well actually we all win with capitalism because we get to choose what we want without someone telling us otherwise. But yes being a big winner in capitalism is often an illusion.
Teams that have now won a game that were on this loser list: Oral Roberts, UMBC, Houston, North Texas, Oregon State, and Rutgers. This is just off the top of my head.
I was gonna say meritocracy where they tell you that you just need to work harder to benefit and hope your boss notices. Then I realized it could be a reminder of gambling specifically the lottery just gotta Keep That hope alive. But honestly I would compare it most to a sweepstakes where you theoretically have just as much a chance. To hope and that hope gets you invested. Either way it ends up being the hope of progressing from a lower class tax bracket to a higher one. So yep. Capitalism is the great scam (communist music intensifies)
2:20 Sometimes a very good team gets derailed by an injury to one of its better players. The 06-07 Wisconsin Badgers were a top-5 team through almost the entire year, then Brian Butch broke his elbow against #2 Ohio State. That Wisconsin team was a 2 seed and had its season end in the Second Round to 7-seed UNLV (which promptly got showed the door in the Sweet Sixteen by Oregon and Tajuan Porter). 30 wins and out; it was a bitter ending to a very good team.
Just an update at 0:36. The Winnipeg Jets not only won a playoff series, but made it to the conference finals. The Columbus Blue Jackets shocked the world by beating the Tampa bay lightning in 4 last year. Lastly, the nationals not only got their first playoff win, but they got a World Series. So, officially, every team part of the four major sports have won a playoff game. 122/122 teams are winners in a playoffs game. Makes the NCAA look worse 🙂
15 and 16 have lower 'difficutly' to the finals since they beat the first or second spot, in their first round to advance. From there, all the strong opponents are no longer in their bracket; since the number 1 seed would have the easiest matches (and hence, the teams which are nearer to the bottom). So if you, as a low-ranked team, beat the number one seed, you get to play teams which may be better, but it should be the 'next worst team to survive', which will be near your own seed level.
This isn't fair to teams who are seeded higher though. They did better in the regular season so they should earn the right to face easier opponents. Just because you beat a 1 seed doesn't automatically mean you are now the best and deserve an easier pass through than people who are seeded higher than you. Every other tournament knows you need to reseed to keep things fair except march madness apparently
A couple of thoughts: On the percentage of teams who have never won in the playoffs since 1985: There is no mechanism to enforce parity in the NCAA. Players are free to go to any school they can get into. North American professional sports have rookie drafts and spending restrictions to manufacture parity. While some teams become dominant for a time, that comes from having the best managers of rules and limited resources. On reseeding: This would cause more travel. That's enough reason for schools to not want it. Say you're the 10 seed, you beat the 7 seed in Dallas, everyone else in your region goes chalk. You suddenly have to catch a flight to LA to play the 1 seed because you're the lowest seed left. Meanwhile, that 8/9 seed who won their matchup has to catch a flight the other way to meet the 2 seed in Dallas. Only a few schools would be secure in their travel plans. Pro sports reseed because of their desire to confer advantages on teams who did better in the regular season based on objective criteria. The Tournament brackets are built on opinions and rules that restrict who plays whom and where and the madness that ensues is a feature the NCAA markets. The Tournament can (and this year, did) let in an 18-14 school on a 4-11 skid based on perception of their conference and not weighing the 4-11 late-season spiral and turn their noses up at a 27-5 school because they're aligned in the wrong conference and didn't win its postseason tournament.
The curious thing for me is the 10/11/12th seed increases in win rate in the round of 32. The 10th seed has to beat the 7th seed to advance to the round of 32, then will face the 2nd or 15th seed. Since the chart shows how low the win rate for the 15th seed is in the first round, it will be almost always the 2nd seed. Yet somehow the win rate for the 10th seed actually increases against the 2nd seed. Meanwhile, a 14th seed team has to beat a 3rd seed to make it to the round of 32, then faces a 6th or 11th seed, yet the win rate decreases for this 14th seed from the first to the second round.
I think, it's usually because which teams actually get the 10-12th seeds. Usually 6-8th seeds are at large bids for schools from larger conferences that barely qualified. whereas 10-12th seeds are schools that are conference champions from mid-smaller conferences that had a strong season. So 10-12th seeds are usually very capable teams, it's not as large as a opening round upset as the seed line suggests.
" Arkansas " Uhh? Scotty Thurman, Corliss Williamson? 1994? Beating Duke for a championship? Nolan Richardson? Am I missing something? EDIT: I didn't hear the Pine Bluff part, excuse me for daring to question the almighty Bois.
Haircuts don't come from a chain brand, they come from a sweet asian lady who has their own barber shop down the street that you've been going to for 35 years.
As a tennis fan this is child’s play from my perspective. 4 times a year I watch a tournament with 3 round of qualifying and then a 128 man tournament, with no reseeding and only 32 players that are seeded at all. And at the end of it almost every one for over a decade has been won by one of the same 5 guys.
Being pedantic here, but one can technically lose in tennis and move on. There are "lucky losers" in Major qualifying that move on to the Major itself despite a loss in the qualifier. Also, if one looks at the results of women's Majors in tennis you'll see a far greater number of winners.
@@SwAeromotion Lucky losers are mostly for filling spots left by people who drop out before the first round, something that doesn’t really happen in team sports. The point about women’s tennis is fair though, a lot more diversity in who makes it far/wins (Raducanu my absolute queen)
Swiss system is pretty good. I made a 256 double elimination bracket seeded the same way the March madness tournaments are and progressed the bracket with the ruling that the lower number would always win. Obviously this leads to seeds 1 and 2 playing in the winners and grand finals. Also seed 3 plays seed 2 in the losers finals. But certain seeds made it much farther than they should have so that the top 8 contenders weren’t actually 1-8. I believe 64 was somewhere within the top 8. It’s even worse when you put them in a row 1 plays seed 2 round 1 and 3 vs 4 and so on. This lead to top eight for winners side having seed 128 appear. The point of these was I was seeing how accurate tournaments held in the FGC (fighting game community) actually are to showing who’s a better player (ignoring the paper rock scissors aspect of it all) because I’d seen a few top 8’s with some questionable match ups going on... Also found that best of (insert number) for a match in a set that’s best of (insert number) sometimes makes it possible for the loser to have more wins than the winner. In street fighter if you do a set of 3 matches and each match has 3 rounds.. the winner has to have won 4 rounds (at the least) to have one. The lose can have won 4 rounds at the most and still lose. Match 1: 2-1 Match 2: 0-2 Match 3: 2-1 When it turns into best of 5 matches (as it does in the finals) still with the best of 3 rounds for each match the loser can actually win more rounds than the winner. Match 1: 2-1 Match 2: 0-2 Match 3: 2-1 Match 4: 0-2 Match 5: 2-1 This is 6 rounds won by the winner and 7 by the loser... which leads me to believe in that situation the losing player is actually better.... I get why it’s done in such a way, because of things in the game like meter and time management as well as character selection, pacing etc... still seems a little sketchy when the loser wins more than the winner. Same with a best of 7 in a basketball tournament if the losing team has scored more points. I’m not yet familiar enough to racing to know for certain how the point system works, but I do believe it’s designed in such a way that points are awarded each lap based on position, there’s point for the fastest single lap, then points for the end race position that carry on for the next race in the cup so that by the end of the cup all the stats are combined to determine who was actually the best racer. It could potentially be someone who never finished above 10th place simply because all his stats combined ends up with his average points per race being higher than everyone else. I need to watch racing more...
Simple reason the NCAA will never re-seed teams after rounds: It would ruin office pools across the country. And office pools are the single greatest marketing tool for the NCAA tournament.
Jon has this weird curse of jinxing an event incredibly close into the future. The time he jinxed 40-39 "never happening again", and here, when he says a 16 never beats a 1. 5 days later, the 16 has in fact beat the 1.
Well, OF COURSE it's a loser machine. All tournaments are--by their nature, only one competitor can win the title, and the more contenders there are the more unhappy participants you'll wind up with. Considering there are literally more than twice as many teams in the NCAA tournament as there are teams in the entire NBA (not the NBA playoffs, the ENTIRE LEAGUE), it's simple math that you'll have more losers. Keep in mind, though, most mid-major schools consider it a huge victory just to win one game, and for good reason. UMBC's recent win over Virginia, for instance, has caused a boon for the school in terms of media publicity and brand awareness, and that can translate into increased donations and enrollment down the line. Coaches of mid-major schools also use the tournament as a way to audition for bigger things--Shaka Smart was coach of VCU during their improbable Final Four run, and now he's coaching at Texas. So not all losses are created equal.
With the stats for the big four: by the end of 2019 the only MLB team to not win a series now has a championship, the two NHL teams have won at least one series each, and a new NHL team entered the league and immediately won three series.
Reminds me of...American society as a whole. We're all force fed the meme "work hard and you can achieve anything you want". We all know somebody, or somebody who knows somebody, who's punched above their weight, so to speak. And yet, at the end of the day, 10% of the people have over 90% of the wealth...and the gap has only continued to widen this century, to the point where even among the 10% is a subset who makes the other members look like paupers. And what do you know, the gap is now widening more than ever in college sports too.
A few of these have changed at 0:24 Buffalo - 2018 & 2019 vs Arizona and Arizona State Fairleigh Dickinson (If First 4 Counts) Houston - 2018 & 2019 as a 6 seed and 3 seed past 2 yrs Liberty over Mississippi St 2019 Marshall over Wichita State 2018 Rutgers May win a game in 2020, 17-7 currently St. Bonnaventure (First 4 vs UCLA) UCF beat VCU with the legend himself, Tacko Fall UMBC If you know you know! Virginia will have eternal embarrassment until someone chokes more Wofford beat Seton Hall in 2019. If I missed any or stuff changes in 2020 lemme know
Just an update: as of 2023 (not counting the first four) Buffalo, Fairleigh Dickinson, Florida Atlantic, Houston, Liberty, Marshall, North Texas, Oral Roberts, Oregon State, Rutgers, Saint Peters, UC-Irvine, UCF, UMBC and Wofford have won a game so list is down to 107. But now I’m realizing other teams probably made it and lost so this was pointless
Of course the Sweet 16 is "easier" for the 9 seeds than the 5 seeds. If a 9 seed makes it to the Sweet 16, the 1 seed is already eliminated in that region. And I have to assume that the sample of 9 seeds in the Sweet 16 is much smaller than the sample of 5 seeds in the Sweet 16. Poor statistical analysis.
Exactly. The question isn't a seed's winning % in a given round, the question is how many in total have made that certain round. More 4/5 seeds make the Sweet 16 or beyond than 8/9 seeds. The one area where the bracket's set up hurts a better seed wasn't directly mentioned. 10/11 seeds do have a small advantage over 8/9 seeds in the bracket. More 10/11's have made the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 since they are on the bottom half of the regional, away from the 1 seeds. This disadvantage for 8/9's is nevertheless a small problem and one that doesn't really hurt the validity of the tournament itself.
My alma mater's basketball team, the Winthrop Eagles, went into the tournament as an 11 seed in 2007, where they proceeded to beat 6 seed Notre Dame to become the first Big South school to ever advance to the Round of 32. As of 2023, this is still the only tournament game they've ever won.
![[NEW] Wheel of Fortune 2024 | Wheel of Fortune Classic Gameshow American | WOF US | FULL EPISODE](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MViwLlPYHgA/mqdefault.jpg)
told you jon wasn't dead.
SB Nation Now people can stop whining in the comments...
Who am I kidding, that'll never happen.😂
Jon is the reason 99% of us subscribed. Give us more of him!
welcome to college football saturday
Bradley P the reason why they are great is because they take time. Rather have these monthly/bimonthly/ yearly videos than just be flooded with meh content
Indeed you did
“A 16 seed has never beaten a 1” said Jon as five days later a 16 proceeded to beat a 1.
said Jon, correctly reading off every Powerball number from a lottery that was supposed to happen 3 years into the future
Also Buffalo won a tourney game
lol
A BroadHumor and now UVA are the defending champions
Never been more proud to be a UMBC alum than that night lol
So much has changed since this vid came out. 2 16 seeds won and the nationals made a World Series run.
Paradoxically the most “normal” year was 2020. Tom Brady and Lebron James both won championships. Alabama won another football championship over Ohio State and regular season powerhouses Los Angeles Dodgers and the Tampa Bay Lighting both won their championships. With the Dodgers facing the Tampa Bay Rays another regular season powerhouse and the Lighting facing the Dallas Stars,
If anything the most unusual part was Tom Brady winning a Super Bowl right after changing teams, both NHL teams coming from the former Confederacy (Which never happened before) and of course no crowds.
But nothing really changed. Those 16s still got bounced.
@@Marylandbronyalso it was a bit cool/odd that the 3 had Tampa bay teams in the championship
Also the Blue Jackets finally won a playoff series in 2019 when they unexpectedly demolished the Lightning -(My sincere condolences to Winnipeg Jets fans, especially since the Thrashers never did anything for them to fall back on.)- Forget that, the Jets also won a playoff series, and with both the expansion Golden Knights and Kraken already winning playoff series in their first two years, now all 124 teams in the big four leagues have moved on at least once.
You've missed a glaring reason as to why the 8 or 9 gets an easier team in the Sweet 16 than the 4 or 5. Because to get to the Sweet 16, the 8 or 9 has to have BEATEN the no 1 in the round just before, so they will never play the no.1 in the Sweet 16. Look at the statistics for the Field of 32. I haven't seen them, but I can almost guarantee that the 8 or 9 team has the worst winning percentage in that specific round because they always play the no 1 team.
The whole tournament is specifically designed so that the 1-8 seeds make it to the Field of 32 and 5-8 get knocked out, then 1-4 make it to the Sweet 16 and 3-4 get knocked out, etc. Looking at the winning percentage of a certain placed team in one specific round is always going to give you these sorts of statistics.
exactly what i was going to comment
and that’s why you always have to look at statistics with a grain of salt. You can manipulate almost any set of data to make it fit your point
4-8 get knocked out before the sweet 16 but yes everything else is correct. Likely that you made a typo.
He specifically said the best path is to stay far away from the 1 seeds
Yes but thats in theory what they want to happen. Almost every year at least one 1 seed falls to an 8 or 9 seed since their the Cinderella of the tournament. By having them play a more equal opponent in the sweet 16 rather than reseeding it gives the allusion of hope. Before losing to a 2 or 3 seed in the elite 8.
[Stares directly at Oral Roberts on the winless list]
"Aight"
🤣🤣🤣
Buckeye fan here and this hurts
[looks at Oregon State] wait, really, well not anymore
also (2021)
Rutgers
North Texas
Texas Southern (kind of)
Houston
And Oregon state and rutgers
more names off that list as of 2021: (*play in game victory)
oregon state (2021)
houston (2022, 2021 & 2019)
rutgers (2021)
north texas (2021)
oral roberts (already mentioned here) (2021)
texas southern* (2021 & 2022)
drake* (2021)
ucf (2019)
liberty (2019)
uc irvine (2019)
wofford (2019)
fairleigh dickinson* (2019)
belmont* (2019)
umbc (2018)
buffalo (2018)
marshall (2018)
prob missed some. tell me which ones if thats the case
edit: it's 2022, and two new teams have joined the list
15-seed st. peter's (2022)
16-seed wright state* (2022)
also updated houston and texas southern to have a 2022 win
When this vid is outdated after six days bc of UMBC
Gaming Jham facts
Buffalo and Marshall too
Idc but had to like since there was 666 likes
And the Nationals have a playoff win too 0:45
Go Jags
Virginia definitely watched this before the game
Was this the upset to UMBC or when they won the whole damn thing the next year?
@@thewrench0157 idk
They are the one
@@thewrench0157 pretty sure it would be the upset? unless i completely forgot about a march madness after uva won
Same with the Washington Nationals, not only winning their first playoff game but winning the World Series
Theoretically, anyone can win the NCAA basketball tournament. All you have to do is win all your games. However impossible that might seem, theoretically, you can do it.
There are many college football teams who cannot win the college football playoff. Not even if they win all their games. Because some committee says so.
Give me the dream.
Very true! This is probably why, (in my opinion) despite all of it's passion and excitement, college football is inferior to college basketball.
In college football theoretically everyone has a shot too. If a say MAC team like W.Michigan decided to schedule non conference games against Alabama, Clemson, Michigan and won them all and then won the rest of their games they could have a shot at the playoffs however unlikely still.
Noah Dempsey An excellent point. Wish their was more of that.
@@vaughnshinkus4178 yeah I completely wish that teams would schedule harder opponents. I guess some B1G teams do such as Mich vs ND and last year OSU vs. Ock but i wish more teams did it more often because right now it is impossible to say the SEC is better than B1G, that Clemson is better than Michigan because not only do they not play each other they don't even play teams from the same pool of teams
Noah Dempsey It’s like you have to wait for bowl season to see a quality inter-conference games!
Damn, Oral Roberts and St. Peters must be terrible in March Madness every year
& u posted this after The Peacocks busted EVERBODIES brackets!
and Fairleigh Dickinson what noobs
And Princeton
Don’t forget UMBC imagine naming your team the ReTRiEvErs
@@7D7-7D7 they got that dawg in them
“Nationals never won a playoff game”
Me here post 2019
we won games before that just never a series
Same with the browns now haha
Me a blue jackets fan just waiting
@@karatekid9644 what are you waiting for? CBJ swept Tampa in 2019...
ALL of the teams Jon mentioned in this video (Nationals, Blue Jackets, Winnipeg Jets) won a playoff series since this video was released. There are now no teams in the four major sports without playoff wins!
"The king has returned."
Long live the King!
:) :) :)
Hail to the king!!!
Here here
dcbandnerd I
I see a Chart Party....then I remember why statistics still matter.
Tomoko from Watamote :)
STATS ARE FOR LOSERS
Except for Jon's stats, those are coolio
stats are pretty good
How do I make my parents stop fighting
*Sees another lame RUclips notification*
*Glances at it unenthusiastically*
"SB Nation just uploaded a video: Something something Chart Party"
*Panics and rushes to see the return of the legend*
Coming back to this video during 2022 March Madness and not even seeing St. Peter’s on the beginning list speaks to the tournament’s bewildering randomness
they are, although you might've missed it because they are listed as Saint Peter's, not St. Peter's
FDU now
In 2020 everyone lost in the tournament.
😭
March Sadness
Hopefully it will happen this year
@@Randomvidsometimes hopefully it goes ahead, our team was one of the few that won their conference tournament before things got shut down and so didn't get to go, it looks really weird seeing the banner hanging up that has 2020 as a year where they won the conference but 2020 is not on the banner that has their big dance appearances.
Yeah that must be really weird my team would've made it too
Basketball is my favorite sport. I like the way they dribble up and down the court.
Mark Jones just like I’m the king on the microphone like dr.j and Moses Malone
I like slam dunks take me to the hoop
My favorite play is the alley-oop
I like the pick & roll. I like the give and go.
Mark Jones and the way the hit the touchdown. I love air hockey.
"#1 seed first round win %: 100%
#16 seed first round win %: 0%"
*coughs*
Jets never won....
*coughs*
+Jeremy Quiros No longer- UVA, a 1 seed lost to a 16 Seed
Coughs
Timothy Reilly r/whoosh
Jeremy Quiros That’s not correct you loser
Jeremy Quiros 1% now
the reason re-seeding is bad is because if the worst team upsets the best team they've EARNED the right to play what would have been the top team's easier bracketed opponents. If you beat #1, you become #1, in essence.
That's actually a really good point
Rfranklinz45 No. If Team A has a 2-13 record and they beat Team B with a 12-3 record, the records don't switch. Team B will certainly drop in the ranks, but to immediately call Team A better because of one game is ludicrous. The Browns beat the Chargers last year, but they were not better than the Chargers.
They were better than the Chargers on that day. The amount of weight you think that should hold is up for debate, but on that day the Browns were better.
Frona We aren’t talking about the regular season
No how almost every tournament works is if you are a shitty seed you have the toughest road.
you have to fight the best teams in the league and if you didnt want to do that you shouldve done better in the regular season. The reason why the worse seeds fight the better teams is because it rewards the better teams for doing better in the regular season AND it stops teams from losing intentionally, example lets say that if you used the logic of if you beat the number 1 team you become number 1 so you lose intentionally to become 16th seed even though you are nowhere near a 16th seed, hey now all you gotta do is beat the number 1 seed and you have an easy road. This is why reseeding is necessary.
Bernie Sanders: it is unacceptable that the top 4 pah-cent of March Madness teams account for 58 pah-cent of Final Four berths. Under a Sanders administration, the top 4 pay-cent will pay their fair share of losses
You sir, are acquire the funny
Peak comedy
On a more serious note, if Belmont and Davidson had money and resources to recruit players the way a Duke or a Kentucky, and so on, you might see an improvement in the percentage of schools who have been to a Final Four.
But, then again, a certain school winning the NCAA tournament isn't anywhere near as vital as say a fixing healthcare system that exists purely for profit, so, whatever.
@@Empr4evr also coaching matters when recruiting, and big-name bluebloods like Duke and Kentucky have big-name coaches that are also better at recruiting in general.
Whoever is watching this video in 2019 the Nationals have now won a playoff game
And as of October 31, 2019, they now also have a championship.
David Horowicz world aeries
As of March 38, 2234, they are the first team to incorporate robots in their starting lineup
Now all 123 teams have, until Seattle comes into the NHL in a couple years
The blue jackets also won a series
Jon, of all the praises sung for Chart Party, here's one I don't see often: the 90s office/muzak feel is incredible. I don't know why it fits so well, maybe it makes me feel like I'm a pencil pusher in some magnificent universe of sports RUclips content, but it's just brilliant.
agreed. his choice of muzak is great
TheMaykarLocomotive personally, I've been wondering what song he uses as the de facto chart party 'theme' for ages
I'm throwing out Kenny G.
@@Solwiz Looked it up...Love De Luxe by Keith Mansfield. So good.
@@dloental i found it about a year and a half ago but i appreciate the dedication to reply to a 3 year old comment haha
Ain't no party like a chart party 'cause a chart party is both informative and entertaining.
My father has come back
G-Money I
Just an update, the Jets AND Blue Jackets have now both won in the NHL playoffs, making the Nationals the ONLY professional sports team to NEVER advance in the playoffs.
And at least in the Jets' and Jackets' cases, they've only been around for about 20 years. The Nationals have half a century of play, no postseason series wins, and no excuse.
hi i'm emily to be fair the expos did win a series in 1981, but the nationals club hasnt won a series ever (but again its only 14 years)
Oof lightning
The NHL has also added a 31st team in that span who also has playoff success to their name.
Nats be winning
I'm back now that every professional team has won a playoff series
Technically no NFL team has ever won a playoff series.
@@pacoramirez7363 Technically it's a 1-game series
@@willwiegelman3953 wait no nhls new team the kraken
@@furretwalky I commented this before they began play
@@furretwalky I know you're probably aware of this now but the kraken have now won a playoff series
The reason an 8/9 plays a weaker seed than the 5 in the sweet sixteen is because they already beat the 1 seed just to get there. They played a stronger seed in the round of 32. They’ve earned it haven’t they? Now you reseed and make them play a 2 seed the very next game?
Yup, that's what you do. That's what the NFL does too. If the #6 seed beats the #3 seed, they face the #1 seed. If you want an easier road, you should do better in the regular season.
playinetgames that’s why college basketball is better than the nfl
Yeah, no. You can have your opinion on whether basketball or football is a better sport, but the March Madness system is objectively flawed and worse than the NFL's playoff system. *Both* are flawed because they are single-elimination instead of a best-of-X series, but March Madness is more flawed than the NFL. If you perform better in the regular season, you should be rewarded with an easier road to the championship. If you sneak into the playoffs as the bottom seed, then you should have the toughest road since you clearly weren't definitively a playoff team to begin with. This is a meritocracy, folks. If you're better, you're rewarded. If you're not, you're not.
playinetgames March madness is 10 x better than the nfl
That is your opinion. I respect your right to have that opinion. You can subjectively prefer one to the other, but do not let your biases blind you from objectivity. The NFL's system (regardless of whether you prefer it or the NCAA) objectively makes more sense than the NCAA's system.
this is the only reason I have notifications on
don't mind me, just casually rewatching for the 50th time since it's almost time for march madness
I did realize though that due to conference tournaments where basically every team plays, come the end of the season, out of over 300 D1 schools...only one (or maybe a few more) schools end the season with the win...the rest, all end the season with a loss...Harsh.
its 2 because of the nit, right?
@@Refill_2 Don't forget the CBI!
That’s cray that the Wpg Jets, Blue Jackets, and Nationals ALL won last year. SUCH LOW ODDS!!!!!
Rob Fowler the Jets lost first round last year, but they won a round in the year prior
And the blues and the nats won their respective sport title (Stanley cup, world series)
@@extrabfbmm2127 blue jackets not blues
This is also what makes this tournament so great. It is arguably the hardest tournament to win.
Idk NHL is pretty tough and upsets always happen as well
It's much harder to win the NCAA their are 353 division 1 teams. Its not easy to even get in the tournament
@@kylethomas2993 not to mention it's a single elimination in a sport that, like hockey, is a series in the professional version.
The double digit seeds end up with an "easier" path later on in the tournament because if they can mount that first big upset, they basically jump into the higher seeds path. A 13 plays an easier game in the 16 because they're not suppose to be there, they took that spot for the 3.
Yep. Also if a team does beat the 1 seed or 2 or 3 then they may just be better than they are seeded
Jon bois is literally the best part of sb nation
Literally
One issue with comparing the 8/9 seeds versus the 4/5 seeds in the Sweet 16. For an 8 or 9 seed to even *get* to the Sweet 16, they would have had to beat the #1 seed already. So complaining that they have an easier road after the first weekend is true but a bit disingenuous.
It makes sense though that a weaker seeded team will have an easier time post sweet 16. They would've already had to defeat a 1 or 2 seed (in the case of seeds 7,8,9,10), prior to the sweet 16, so the most difficult opponent is out of the way
What if the NCAA intentionally mis-seeded teams to create upsets because:
1.) upsets are better for t.v. ratings
2.) upsets destroy a lot of brackets thereby reducing the odds that someone will win whatever bracket challenge some company is doing
Sam Brown You must be dumb. He’s not talking about some office bracket challenge. He’s talking about major corporations that offer large sums of money to people who enter contests and fill out the bracket 100% correctly. “I can’t believe I have to explain this to an actual adult.” His theory actually makes sense. Upsets are better for business.
They don't do it for that reason, they do let teams slip or gain a seed to set up a chance at a rivarly game or rematch in the later rounds. That's why you saw Wichita St in KUs bracket like every year, along with a team that has upset them in the past more often than not. Matchups. Not upsets.
That happened a few years ago with Syracuse
The odds of picking a perfect are so small that it will never happen. Fake seeding or not
Vaughn Ryan Shinkus are you kidding me? The games with the best ratings are the games that are suspected to be close because that’s likely to be the best games. The NCAA is a non-profit organization so yes they actually don’t care about a companies bracket system, also these companies bracket systems didn’t exist when the NCAA tournament system was made.
I came back yesterday from a 2 month break of sb nation. No Jon Bois. I was disappointed. And then this happened
YOURE BACK ITS BEEN SO LONG
YESSSSSD MORE JON BOIS
Nifty Noldog i
Nifty Noldog I
I think I’ve left basically this same comment on all your other videos, but I *love* that mournful melody that begins at 1:00 (or maybe 1:01) and ends at around 1:15 You have good taste in music! This time, I will read the credits at the end of the video, so I can find out where this tune of lovely sadness came from.
Some important notes, per chart at 5:10 - In 33 seasons, there are 660 seeds 6-10 and 128 made the Sweet 16, giving them a 19.4% chance of getting there. In 33 seasons, there are 396 seeds 3-5 and 174 made the Sweet 16, giving them 43.9% chance of getting there. And to make the Elite Eight, it's 7.4% for seeds 6-10, and 15.4% for seeds 3-5. Considering the average seed of seeds 6-10 is 8, and the average seed of seeds 3-5 is 4, you'd expect around half the chance of seeds 6-10 making any given round vs. seeds 3-5. In fact, the actual odds, as shown above, are LESS than half as good for seed 6-10 to make either Sweet 16 or Elite Eight than a seed 3-5. This does show that talent is just a slight bit top-heavy, which to me is unsurprising.
All this chart shows is that IF....and it's a big IF....IF a team seeded 6-10 makes the Sweet 16, they have slightly better percentage odds of winning THAT PARTICULAR game than any seed 3-5 in a Sweet 16 game.....but they make it so much less often, it doesn't even make a significant dent in the overall odds of making it to the Elite Eight. It's definitely a parity-booster, as evidenced by the slightly better relative odds of seeds 6-10 vs. seeds 3-5 in making the Elite Eight vs. the Sweet 16 (19.4% / 43.9% = 0.44, 7.4% / 15.4% = 0.48).
Stats are fun.
I hate the idea of re-seeding teams midway through a tournament in any sport at any level. The random/luck/chaos found in sports helps keep it so exciting. A 16 upsetting a 1 deserve the 8 or 9 they get next.
tillapasta All three of those elements directly take away from skill though. Competition is supposed to be structured to REMOVE those elements from the equation, so the best team wins.
I dont think you could do brackets either...which has a lot more people watching this crap
You are trading the best always winning for excitement. Also does the 8 or 9 seed deserve playing the 16 seed? Does the 1 seed deserve playing the 8 or 9 seed because they beat a 16 seed? The reason I don't like reseeding if someone won more games than the other team doesn't mean they are better. If curry and Durant go out for half the season and end up the 7 seed and win they could be the best team but they hurt the 1 seeds chance now how of good to the wcf because of reseeding. Seeds don't tell the whole story of everything that happens. You give this "reward" to a team for regular season success but it doesn't mean much. Just going with the seed is a lot clear and a whole hell of a let less confusing to casual fans. Ncaa is a lot different because if a player gets injuried they don't come back most of the time. Since it's the way it's been it's better to not mess with the system as if you do and it backfires it's worse than what you had.
I've always wanted to see a league experiment with giving the highest seed a choice in who they play.
Best team winning every single team is why the NBA playoffs are so frequently considered boring. There's zero element of chaos to add challenge to the best teams so the best team almost always wins. First seeds win a good 3/4s of the time. Only two teams below a 3rd seed have ever won the nba title. This is why the mlb playoffs are so fun and the nfl playoffs. NHL is also fun since the best team almost never wins (the presidents cup curse).
The best team winning in the nba isn't so bad if it feels competitive but it hasn't for a long time as a whole so nothing feels truly fun about the nba playoffs. I haven't watched since the Warriors won their first ring. I skipped all but the finals of next year and skipped everything this past year. Chaos is fun.
Ain’t no party like a chart party
Finally, I found Jon Bois.
After 2017, here are the teams that proceeded to win a game in the March Madness
Abilene Christian (2021)
Buffalo (2018)
Fairleigh Dickinson (2023)
Florida Atlantic (2023)
Grand Canyon (2024)
Houston (2021)
James Madison (2024)
Liberty (2019)
Marshall (2018)
North Texas (2021)
Oakland (2024)
Oral Roberts (2021)
Oregon State (2021)
Rutgers (2021)
Saint Peter’s (2022)
UC Irvine (2019)
UCF (2019)
UMBC (2018)
Wofford (2019)
If there are more teams that I missed, let me know and I’ll edit the comment
Abeline Christian made their first D1 tournament in 2019 and then won their first game in 2021.
Also Gardner-Webb (2019), Hartford (2021), Grand Canyon (2021), Longwood (2022), Bryant (2022), and Kennesaw State (2023) all have made tournament appearances and have joined the list of schools with no tournament wins
And two of those made the final four (Houston and Florida Atlantic)
@@Nitro55555 it’s also funny that Houston appeared in the final four multiples but they’re last time until 2021 was in 1984, the year before it expanded to 64 lol
You can add Duquesne, Grand Canyon, James Madison, and Oakland from this year, too.
@@patrickbelzile256Duquesne actually won a game before the one in 2024. Their last March Madness win was in 1977
Who noticed that UMBC is in the right colum of teams who have never won a round of 64 game
This video was made before they won last season
The goat of youtube is back
Our Lord and Saviour, Jon Bois.
He left again
DADDY'S HOME
*sees buffalo on the list of teams that have never yet won in the tournament*
Welp this is already outdated
And UMBC
And marshall
and houston
@@kylelarsen9908 Ikr, Houston has been to the national championship game before, like wtf.
@@arkx.5365 Don't forget Wofford and UC Irvine
I was wondering why a 5 seed has never won the tournament but lower seeds have. And now i realize its because they run into the 1 seed in the sweet 16 every time
"Reaching the Final Four is virtually impossible, eh?" - Loyola Chicago
Glad somebody mentioned them
South Carolina
*Sees Chart Party, clicks without thinking*
The problem with basing the argument on the fact 8th and 9th seeds do better in the sweet 16, is that you're pre-selecting for teams that necessarily already played and beat the 1 seed. So that means that they're better than the average 8 or 9 seed, and also that they already have had a harder route than most teams.
CAPITALISM JON BOIS. IT REMINDS ME OF CAPITALISM. I AM SOUNDING OFF
Communism is the very Definition of failure.
@@epsteindidntkillhimself69 only a fool believes this
@Jonathan Stiles First of all, its a joke. Its a reference to Liberty Prime from Fallout 3. That's one of its dialogues.
But second of all, I don't think you understand what a straw man is. A straw man is when you construct a faulty opposing argument to misrepresent your opposition. Stating an opinion on something is not a straw man.
@Jonathan Stiles I mean I don't think many smart people would ever argue in favor of communism, but capitalism is a very flawed system as well. I just think you're taking this "discussion" way more seriously than anyone else. My liberty prime quote was a joke, and OP could very well have been a joke as well. I wasn't responding to him as if he made a serious critique of capitalism because he didn't. That's why I was confused about the 'straw man' thing. I thought you meant that my comment was a straw man of communism, not a straw man of OP, because OPs comment doesn't really seem serious and we weren't engaging in a real discussion.
Well actually we all win with capitalism because we get to choose what we want without someone telling us otherwise. But yes being a big winner in capitalism is often an illusion.
5 years later one of those teams that never won an NCAA tournament game just made it to the final four
Teams that have now won a game that were on this loser list: Oral Roberts, UMBC, Houston, North Texas, Oregon State, and Rutgers. This is just off the top of my head.
Don't forget about Abilene Christian
and St Peter's
I hope soon Towson will leave this list as i'm going their in the fall.
Well hey, everybody, we've got a fax.
UMBC has taken themselves outta the loser machine
COMRADE BOIS! I KNOW WHAT THIS TOURNAMENT REMINDS ME OF!
Capitalism
I was gonna say meritocracy where they tell you that you just need to work harder to benefit and hope your boss notices.
Then I realized it could be a reminder of gambling specifically the lottery just gotta Keep That hope alive.
But honestly I would compare it most to a sweepstakes where you theoretically have just as much a chance. To hope and that hope gets you invested.
Either way it ends up being the hope of progressing from a lower class tax bracket to a higher one. So yep. Capitalism is the great scam (communist music intensifies)
@@brandonporter8509 My first thought was the American electoral system, actually.
@@QueenFondue yeah, it works this way to protect the interests of capital...
i cant tell if yall are trolling but the whole speech about "hope" was clearly a reference to the hunger games
0:21 Oral Roberts was hiding in plain sight the whole time
2:20 Sometimes a very good team gets derailed by an injury to one of its better players. The 06-07 Wisconsin Badgers were a top-5 team through almost the entire year, then Brian Butch broke his elbow against #2 Ohio State. That Wisconsin team was a 2 seed and had its season end in the Second Round to 7-seed UNLV (which promptly got showed the door in the Sweet Sixteen by Oregon and Tajuan Porter). 30 wins and out; it was a bitter ending to a very good team.
Gonna have to delete this after that umbc win
JON BOIS
Okay I'll bite. March Madness is the American Sports equivalent of the Hunger Games.
Except the losing side isn't killed!
well, not literally
Which itself is an allegory of capitalism and cheap entertainment
Nobody gets eaten alive by extremely fake looking wild dogs.
Actually, Virginia was eaten alive by the UMBC Retrievers
Jon, please do Chart Party full time. It is the best thing on RUclips, and you owe it to yourself to keep producing this incredible content
Just an update at 0:36. The Winnipeg Jets not only won a playoff series, but made it to the conference finals. The Columbus Blue Jackets shocked the world by beating the Tampa bay lightning in 4 last year. Lastly, the nationals not only got their first playoff win, but they got a World Series. So, officially, every team part of the four major sports have won a playoff game. 122/122 teams are winners in a playoffs game. Makes the NCAA look worse 🙂
and even ravens uses browns history in the 60s to 90s , still they won against steelers.
No. Not a familiar concept at all. Now I'm off for an evening of eating truffle fondue and throwing coins at the poors.
MailOrderClone what
Gregg Wilding sarcasm.
Why would you throw your hard-earned coins at the poor? Make them earn it too by having them do something that gives up their dignity!
“the poors” lmfao
That ending. My goodness this man is well versed in every subject. Jon you truly are a god amongst men
But an 8 or 9 would have already beaten the 1 in order to make the sweet 16. That's their reward
And now Saint Peter's gets their first Dub in the Field of 64
A 16 seed can have an easy route bc if they win in 1st round, they get the path a 1 seed is supposed to get
15 and 16 have lower 'difficutly' to the finals since they beat the first or second spot, in their first round to advance. From there, all the strong opponents are no longer in their bracket; since the number 1 seed would have the easiest matches (and hence, the teams which are nearer to the bottom). So if you, as a low-ranked team, beat the number one seed, you get to play teams which may be better, but it should be the 'next worst team to survive', which will be near your own seed level.
Thanks for saying this. Jon's over here tryna make it look like some kind of conspiracy
This is also why 8/9s have an easier "path" in the sweet 16. They already beat a #1.
My dad always says, "if you beat the one seed you become the one seed."
Well, now we can see how that plays out. Good luck, UMBC.
This isn't fair to teams who are seeded higher though. They did better in the regular season so they should earn the right to face easier opponents. Just because you beat a 1 seed doesn't automatically mean you are now the best and deserve an easier pass through than people who are seeded higher than you. Every other tournament knows you need to reseed to keep things fair except march madness apparently
Re-seeding is absolute bullshit. I hate the concept. If a 16 seed manages to upset a 1 seed, don’t they deserve to stay on that easier path?
Whoever this guy is, he’s just mad that University of Maryland Baltimore County beat Virginia and screwed his bracket😏
Cole Lutz HA! I picked UVA to lose in the Sweet Sixteen!
....................to Arizona
Luke Kowalski haha that’s how it goes
A couple of thoughts:
On the percentage of teams who have never won in the playoffs since 1985:
There is no mechanism to enforce parity in the NCAA. Players are free to go to any school they can get into. North American professional sports have rookie drafts and spending restrictions to manufacture parity. While some teams become dominant for a time, that comes from having the best managers of rules and limited resources.
On reseeding:
This would cause more travel. That's enough reason for schools to not want it. Say you're the 10 seed, you beat the 7 seed in Dallas, everyone else in your region goes chalk. You suddenly have to catch a flight to LA to play the 1 seed because you're the lowest seed left. Meanwhile, that 8/9 seed who won their matchup has to catch a flight the other way to meet the 2 seed in Dallas. Only a few schools would be secure in their travel plans. Pro sports reseed because of their desire to confer advantages on teams who did better in the regular season based on objective criteria. The Tournament brackets are built on opinions and rules that restrict who plays whom and where and the madness that ensues is a feature the NCAA markets. The Tournament can (and this year, did) let in an 18-14 school on a 4-11 skid based on perception of their conference and not weighing the 4-11 late-season spiral and turn their noses up at a 27-5 school because they're aligned in the wrong conference and didn't win its postseason tournament.
The curious thing for me is the 10/11/12th seed increases in win rate in the round of 32. The 10th seed has to beat the 7th seed to advance to the round of 32, then will face the 2nd or 15th seed. Since the chart shows how low the win rate for the 15th seed is in the first round, it will be almost always the 2nd seed. Yet somehow the win rate for the 10th seed actually increases against the 2nd seed.
Meanwhile, a 14th seed team has to beat a 3rd seed to make it to the round of 32, then faces a 6th or 11th seed, yet the win rate decreases for this 14th seed from the first to the second round.
I think, it's usually because which teams actually get the 10-12th seeds. Usually 6-8th seeds are at large bids for schools from larger conferences that barely qualified. whereas 10-12th seeds are schools that are conference champions from mid-smaller conferences that had a strong season. So 10-12th seeds are usually very capable teams, it's not as large as a opening round upset as the seed line suggests.
It reminds me of every single cup competition ever!
Everyone can enter, but very few teams has a legit chance at winning!
take out UMBC, Marshall, and Buffalo!!!!
And now wofford
I don't care about that
And UC-Irvine!
And UCF!
" Arkansas "
Uhh? Scotty Thurman, Corliss Williamson? 1994? Beating Duke for a championship? Nolan Richardson? Am I missing something?
EDIT: I didn't hear the Pine Bluff part, excuse me for daring to question the almighty Bois.
ok this is great but why is greatclips haunting this video
MONEYYYYYY
A spectre is haunting Chart Party, the spectre of affordable haircuts.
Haircuts don't come from a chain brand, they come from a sweet asian lady who has their own barber shop down the street that you've been going to for 35 years.
Alexander Bateman you complain about SBNation laying people off but then you complain when they need advertisements
Alexander Bateman SAME!
As a tennis fan this is child’s play from my perspective. 4 times a year I watch a tournament with 3 round of qualifying and then a 128 man tournament, with no reseeding and only 32 players that are seeded at all. And at the end of it almost every one for over a decade has been won by one of the same 5 guys.
Being pedantic here, but one can technically lose in tennis and move on. There are "lucky losers" in Major qualifying that move on to the Major itself despite a loss in the qualifier.
Also, if one looks at the results of women's Majors in tennis you'll see a far greater number of winners.
@@SwAeromotion Lucky losers are mostly for filling spots left by people who drop out before the first round, something that doesn’t really happen in team sports. The point about women’s tennis is fair though, a lot more diversity in who makes it far/wins (Raducanu my absolute queen)
I watch this video once every three months just to remind me how incredible it is. THIS IS MY FAVORITE VIDEO ON RUclips.
Swiss system is pretty good.
I made a 256 double elimination bracket seeded the same way the March madness tournaments are and progressed the bracket with the ruling that the lower number would always win.
Obviously this leads to seeds 1 and 2 playing in the winners and grand finals. Also seed 3 plays seed 2 in the losers finals.
But certain seeds made it much farther than they should have so that the top 8 contenders weren’t actually 1-8. I believe 64 was somewhere within the top 8.
It’s even worse when you put them in a row 1 plays seed 2 round 1 and 3 vs 4 and so on. This lead to top eight for winners side having seed 128 appear.
The point of these was I was seeing how accurate tournaments held in the FGC (fighting game community) actually are to showing who’s a better player (ignoring the paper rock scissors aspect of it all) because I’d seen a few top 8’s with some questionable match ups going on...
Also found that best of (insert number) for a match in a set that’s best of (insert number) sometimes makes it possible for the loser to have more wins than the winner.
In street fighter if you do a set of 3 matches and each match has 3 rounds.. the winner has to have won 4 rounds (at the least) to have one. The lose can have won 4 rounds at the most and still lose.
Match 1: 2-1
Match 2: 0-2
Match 3: 2-1
When it turns into best of 5 matches (as it does in the finals) still with the best of 3 rounds for each match the loser can actually win more rounds than the winner.
Match 1: 2-1
Match 2: 0-2
Match 3: 2-1
Match 4: 0-2
Match 5: 2-1
This is 6 rounds won by the winner and 7 by the loser... which leads me to believe in that situation the losing player is actually better.... I get why it’s done in such a way, because of things in the game like meter and time management as well as character selection, pacing etc... still seems a little sketchy when the loser wins more than the winner.
Same with a best of 7 in a basketball tournament if the losing team has scored more points.
I’m not yet familiar enough to racing to know for certain how the point system works, but I do believe it’s designed in such a way that points are awarded each lap based on position, there’s point for the fastest single lap, then points for the end race position that carry on for the next race in the cup so that by the end of the cup all the stats are combined to determine who was actually the best racer.
It could potentially be someone who never finished above 10th place simply because all his stats combined ends up with his average points per race being higher than everyone else. I need to watch racing more...
"There are 122 teams in the Big 4 sports"
Not anymore
Even weirder is that one of those teams also became the league champion that year.
Yup 123
soon 124
Who’s here after Farleigh Dickinson beat Purdue?
Not me
@@samuelbach1631 but I am.
@@kevrides5706 seems doubtful
Simple reason the NCAA will never re-seed teams after rounds: It would ruin office pools across the country. And office pools are the single greatest marketing tool for the NCAA tournament.
Also re-seeding would make the various offical bracket systems from ESPN and the NCAA far too complicated.
WHOS HERE AFTER #2 KENTUCKY JUST LOST TO ST PETERS?
Bring back Card Show!
amen
Jon has this weird curse of jinxing an event incredibly close into the future. The time he jinxed 40-39 "never happening again", and here, when he says a 16 never beats a 1. 5 days later, the 16 has in fact beat the 1.
Well, OF COURSE it's a loser machine. All tournaments are--by their nature, only one competitor can win the title, and the more contenders there are the more unhappy participants you'll wind up with. Considering there are literally more than twice as many teams in the NCAA tournament as there are teams in the entire NBA (not the NBA playoffs, the ENTIRE LEAGUE), it's simple math that you'll have more losers. Keep in mind, though, most mid-major schools consider it a huge victory just to win one game, and for good reason. UMBC's recent win over Virginia, for instance, has caused a boon for the school in terms of media publicity and brand awareness, and that can translate into increased donations and enrollment down the line. Coaches of mid-major schools also use the tournament as a way to audition for bigger things--Shaka Smart was coach of VCU during their improbable Final Four run, and now he's coaching at Texas. So not all losses are created equal.
And now the Nationals won a world series and the Jets and Blue Jackets won playoff games
With the stats for the big four: by the end of 2019 the only MLB team to not win a series now has a championship, the two NHL teams have won at least one series each, and a new NHL team entered the league and immediately won three series.
Reminds me of...American society as a whole. We're all force fed the meme "work hard and you can achieve anything you want". We all know somebody, or somebody who knows somebody, who's punched above their weight, so to speak. And yet, at the end of the day, 10% of the people have over 90% of the wealth...and the gap has only continued to widen this century, to the point where even among the 10% is a subset who makes the other members look like paupers. And what do you know, the gap is now widening more than ever in college sports too.
A few of these have changed at 0:24
Buffalo - 2018 & 2019 vs Arizona and Arizona State
Fairleigh Dickinson (If First 4 Counts)
Houston - 2018 & 2019 as a 6 seed and 3 seed past 2 yrs
Liberty over Mississippi St 2019
Marshall over Wichita State 2018
Rutgers May win a game in 2020, 17-7 currently
St. Bonnaventure (First 4 vs UCLA)
UCF beat VCU with the legend himself, Tacko Fall
UMBC If you know you know! Virginia will have eternal embarrassment until someone chokes more
Wofford beat Seton Hall in 2019.
If I missed any or stuff changes in 2020 lemme know
UC Irvine beat Kansas State in 2019!
Yeah... about 2020. Let's just skip to 2021.
I'm a simple man, I see a Chart Party video, i click.
Just an update: as of 2023 (not counting the first four) Buffalo, Fairleigh Dickinson, Florida Atlantic, Houston, Liberty, Marshall, North Texas, Oral Roberts, Oregon State, Rutgers, Saint Peters, UC-Irvine, UCF, UMBC and Wofford have won a game so list is down to 107. But now I’m realizing other teams probably made it and lost so this was pointless
That music at the beginning... it's like I'm entering a film noir scene. I love it.
Of course the Sweet 16 is "easier" for the 9 seeds than the 5 seeds. If a 9 seed makes it to the Sweet 16, the 1 seed is already eliminated in that region. And I have to assume that the sample of 9 seeds in the Sweet 16 is much smaller than the sample of 5 seeds in the Sweet 16. Poor statistical analysis.
Exactly. The question isn't a seed's winning % in a given round, the question is how many in total have made that certain round. More 4/5 seeds make the Sweet 16 or beyond than 8/9 seeds.
The one area where the bracket's set up hurts a better seed wasn't directly mentioned. 10/11 seeds do have a small advantage over 8/9 seeds in the bracket. More 10/11's have made the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 since they are on the bottom half of the regional, away from the 1 seeds. This disadvantage for 8/9's is nevertheless a small problem and one that doesn't really hurt the validity of the tournament itself.
I find it very unlikely that this analytical oversight is accidental.
This could be said for Loyola Chicago they played a #6, #3, #10, #9 on route to the Final Four
All seeded higher than them
Take UMBC, Marshall and Buffalo off the list now!
My alma mater's basketball team, the Winthrop Eagles, went into the tournament as an 11 seed in 2007, where they proceeded to beat 6 seed Notre Dame to become the first Big South school to ever advance to the Round of 32. As of 2023, this is still the only tournament game they've ever won.
Almost forgot to watch this again this year