I paid for the site, yet it says I am still in active. Does anyone know how long this usually take?

I paid for the site, yet it says I am still in active. Does anyone know how long this usually take?

Thanks for breaking this down for my show, "There It Is!" on ESPN1230 and for everybody here on the site. I really expected tourney champs to be exhausted physically and mentally and therefore to not do so well in the big dance, but your expert analysis shows just the opposite. Keep up the great work and we'll talk again soon.

- Jake

Thanks for breaking this down for my show, "There It Is!" on ESPN1230 and for everybody here on the site. I really expected tourney champs to be exhausted physically and mentally and therefore to not do so well in the big dance, but your expert analysis shows just the opposite. Keep up the great work and we'll talk again soon. - Jake

So that puts this years UCONN bunch in a bit of a conundrum. They missed last years dance, which is a harbinger for underachievement. But as BigEast tourn. champs they should overachieve.

Which one would you put more weight in when looking at the Huskies?


Great work btw...

So that puts this years UCONN bunch in a bit of a conundrum. They missed last years dance, which is a harbinger for underachievement. But as BigEast tourn. champs they should overachieve. Which one would you put more weight in when looking at the Huskies? Great work btw...

Yeah, good point, Ryan...but SOARs of higher seeded teams are 43% on average. So this group of teams is about average in terms of overachievement frequency.

Yeah, good point, Ryan...but SOARs of higher seeded teams are 43% on average. So this group of teams is about average in terms of overachievement frequency.

However, looking at the soar%, it looks like they are more likely to underachieve, but the teams that have overachieved have vastly overachieved . . . so it kind of looks like both sides of the arguement may be true.

However, looking at the soar%, it looks like they are more likely to underachieve, but the teams that have overachieved have vastly overachieved . . . so it kind of looks like both sides of the arguement may be true.

Contrary to popular opinion, conference tourney champs overachieve in national tourney:

My buddy Jake Stevens from ESPN radio in Bakersfield asked me last week whether it was true that conference tourney champs tended to struggle in the big dance. We weren’t on air at the time—just discussing what we might talk about—and I told Jake I thought that was right.

Then I went off and did the research. What I discovered surprised me. I restricted my analysis to conference tourney champs from the Big Six (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac- 10 and SEC) between 2002 and 2010. Those are the only years in which every one of these conferences had tourneys. The 54 champions actually overachieved in the national dance. Take a look at the numbers:



Based on their seeding, the 54 conference tourney champs should’ve won 126 games altogether. They did seven wins better than that, posting a solid +.131 PASE. More importantly, 23 of the 54 champs reached the Elite Eight, 14 made the Final Four and five cut down the nets. So in the nine tourneys between 2002 and 2010, more than half have been one by a Big Six conference tourney champ. Food for thought.

I broke down the numbers by conference and discovered that Big East champs are the biggest overachievers in March, with a strong +.368 PASE. The only conference whose tourney champs fail to meet seed expectations in the national dance is the ACC. They’ve fallen more than a quarter of a game per team below seed expectations.
... more » « less

Contrary to popular opinion, conference tourney champs overachieve in national tourney: My buddy Jake Stevens from ESPN radio in Bakersfield asked me last week whether it was true that conference tourney champs tended to struggle in the big dance. We weren’t on air at the time—just discussing what we might talk about—and I told Jake I thought that was right. Then I went off and did the research. What I discovered surprised me. I restricted my analysis to conference tourney champs from the Big Six (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac- 10 and SEC) between 2002 and 2010. Those are the only years in which every one of these conferences had tourneys. The 54 champions actually overachieved in the national dance. Take a look at the numbers: <IMG SRC=/ blog/ 11_ confchamps.gif> Based on their seeding, the 54 conference tourney champs should’ve won 126 games altogether. They did seven wins better than that, posting a solid +.131 PASE. More importantly, 23 of the 54 champs reached the Elite Eight, 14 made the Final Four and five cut down the nets. So in the nine tourneys between 2002 and 2010, more than half have been one by a Big Six conference tourney champ. Food for thought. I broke down the numbers by conference and discovered that Big East champs are the biggest overachievers in March, with a strong +.368 PASE. The only conference whose tourney champs fail to meet seed expectations in the national dance is the ACC. They’ve fallen more than a quarter of a game per team below seed expectations.