Interesting stat. Thanks for posting.

The problem is the teams with the money don't want it to happen. In fact, things are sprinting hard in the other direction. The NCAA has little to no real power.

I would like to see a list of the 21 upsets we are talking about.

Half of those aren't even upset...the true definition anyway, which is subjective. They're just basketball games where the favored or higher ranked team lost.

I'm not a working/paid statistician, but just by the sheer volume of games/teams, isn't MBB engineered to feature more upsets that other D1 sports? Just for comparison's sake, let's compare D1 MBB and FBS FB.

In hoops, you have 351 teams playing, for rough rounding purposes and factoring in each team playing one out of division opponent, 27 D1 games. That totals 9,477 games.

On the gridiron, you have 130 teams playing, again factoring in each team playing one FCS game, 11 FBS games. That totals 1,430 games. So on the surface, you are featuring 663% more games in a season within the division in MBB.

(edited due to poor statistical analysis) Both sports only rank 25 teams for national ranking purposes. That means 675 games in MBB featuring a top 25 team v 275 in FBS. So statistically, on the surface, hoops should be 245% more likely to produce a top 25 upset than FB. So just by definition, you are going to have roughly two and a half more games featuring a team in the top 25 v a team outside of the top 25.

So is the volume of upsets in MBB really that far much of a statistical outlier? The numbers above obviously doesn't factor in a number of other variables such as the size of rosters, length of game, one and dones, etc. I'm not peeing on someone's corn flakes, as I like a good underdog/upset story as much as the next guy, but I expect to see more upsets in hoops.

Yes, I get what you are saying, I merely brought FB in to provide my own comparison for why I have a greater expectation for upset in hoops. Another thing that I believe will lead to more top 10/25 upsets in hoops is the proliferation of conference arranged agreements such as BIG 10 v ACC, and made for TV "pre-conference season" events, which will pit higher quality opponents against each other before they hit conference play. The more you see P5+Big East teams playing against one another, you will see a higher volume of losses by top 25 teams, and it really jobs the also rans, who used to be able to schedule the higher tier conferences more frequently. These types of scheduling agreements will continue to disadvantage the non power schools in being awarded at large tourney bids.

Not true again, a few teams are now ranked higher. The point is that there are only four or five teams that are truly unbeatable. I think that the one and done rule helps more experienced and confident mid majors win games against the likes of NCU. It creates more parity

This is a pretty interesting article. https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadspin.com/there-are-no-re...