English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Previously published statistical analyses of NCAA Division I Men’s Tournament (“March Madness”) game outcomes have revealed that the relationship between tournament seed and the time-aggregated number of third-round (“Sweet 16”) appearances for the middle half of the seeds exhibits a statistically and practically significant departure from monotonicity. In particular, the 8- and 9-seeds combined appear less often than any one of seeds 10–12. In this article, we show that a similar “middle-seed anomaly” also occurs in the NCAA Division I Women’s Tournament but does not occur in two other major sports tournaments that are similar in structure to March Madness. We offer explanations for the presence of a middle-seed anomaly in the NCAA basketball tournaments, and its absence in the others, that are based on the combined effects of the functional form of the relationship between team strength and seed specific to each tournament, the degree of parity among teams, and certain elements of tournament structure. Although these explanations account for the existence of middle-seed anomalies in the NCAA basketball tournaments, their larger-than-expected magnitudes, which arise mainly from the overperformance of seeds 10–12 in the second round, remain enigmatic.

The middle-seed anomaly: why does it occur in some sports tournaments but not others?