#WinnerWednesdays: Congratulations to our authors!

Over the past week several of our authors have received very impressive honors:

Honorable Mention for the 2015 Hubert Morken Award for Best Book, Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association

  • Carrie Rosefsky Wickham – The Muslim Brotherhood: Evolution of an Islamist Movement

“The Hurbert Morken Award is given for the best publication dealing with religion and politics published during the last two years. The award will be presented this September at the 2015 APSA Conference in San Francisco.”

Winner of the 2015 Lynton Keith Caldwell Prize, Science Technology, and Environmental Politics Section of the American Political Science Association

  • Jessica F. Green – Rethinking Private Authority: Agents and Entrepreneurs in Global Environment Governance

“The Lynton Keith Caldwell Prize recognizes the best book on environmental politics and policy published in the past three years. The award will be presented at APSA’s annual meeting in San Francisco in September.”

For more information, click here.

Co-Winner of the 2015 Outstanding Published Book Award, Altruism, Morality and Social Solidarity Section of the American Sociological Association

  • Gabriel Abend – The Moral Background: An Inquiry into the History of Business Ethics

“The Outstanding Published Book Award… is given annually to author(s) of a theoretical analysis, research monograph, or reader published in the last five years that increases knowledge and understanding of altruism, morality, and/or social solidarity.”

View the official announcement here.

Does De-extinction Bring us Closer to a Real Jurassic World? Beth Shapiro Sounds Off

How to Clone a Mammoth, by Beth ShapiroAs we all await the release of Jurassic World this week, (catch the trailer here), the owner of Russia’s vast nature reserve, Pleistocene Park, is awaiting the arrival of an actual woolly mammoth. Pleistocene Park is a major initiative in northern Siberia that includes an attempt to restore the mammoth steppe ecosystem of the late Pleistocene period. The park has been in existence since the 1970s, but given the progress scientists have made this year in sequencing the mammoth genome, one can’t help but wonder if a real life Jurassic World in Siberia is now close at hand. Alex Hannaford reports for The Telegraph, and the takeaway is we shouldn’t get too excited about going on a T-Rex safari anytime soon:

For the last 20 years at least, most scientists have poured scorn on the idea that dinosaurs could be cloned using the method popularised in the first Jurassic Park film — extracting DNA from an insect entombed in resin. A few years ago scientists studying fossils in New Zealand revealed that the bonds that form the backbone of DNA would be entirely degraded — useless — after 6.8 million years. And seeing as dinosaurs last roamed the Earth 65 million years ago, that ruled out any realistic chance of sequencing their genome.

But the wooly mammoth died out far more recently, which makes it quite another story, according to Beth Shapiro, author of How to Clone a Mammoth. She talks to The Telegraph about the more plausible uses of de-extinction technology:

De-extinction, this process of swapping out genomes in existing animals for traits that their ancestors had, but which they could benefit from today, could have other uses, Shapiro says. “Let’s say all of the natural habitat for elephants disappeared. If we could swap those cold-surviving genes [of the mammoth] into elephants, so that we could stick elephants into wild places in Europe or Siberia where elephants used to live, we could use this technology — not to bring mammoths back but to save elephants.”

Shapiro tusk photo

Regardless, de-extinction remains highly controversial, and Shapiro has become a go-to expert on the matter. Carl Zimmer writes in Wall Street Journal, “For anyone who wants a thorough understanding of the technical issues involved in de-extinction, How to Clone a Mammoth should satisfy your curiosity.” During Shapiro’s European tour, she was interviewed about her book for BBC World Service, The Forum and the interview is now available online. Beth was also interviewed for BBC Radio Wales Science Café, as part of a program featuring scientists speaking at Hay Festival. Voice of America aired their interview with Beth recently as well, as did CBC Radio’s national science program Quirks & Quarks.

Shapiro and Kendall

Beth Shapiro and The Forum’s presenter, Bridget Kendall

If you’re looking for eerie similarities between life and art in this case, rest assured they do exist. According to Shapiro, as in real life, “Jurassic Park scientists were only able to recover parts of the dinosaur genome—in the case of the movie, from the mosquito blood that was preserved in amber.” Prospect Magazine’s website has just run an abridged extract from How to Clone a Mammoth where Shapiro elaborates on the real (and not so real) science of Jurassic World. You can also check out the series of original videos by Shapiro on the real life science of de-extinction here.

 

Washington Post highlights summer reading for students

Soon, school will be out for summer, but here at PUP, our “to read” lists keep growing. The Washington Post recently highlighted a unique summer reading list — one compiled by college admissions officers and counselors.

Every year, Brennan Barnard, director of college counseling at The Derryfield School in Manchester, New Hampshire, asks college admissions deans and high school counselors for book recommendations. These selections include books for students, parents, and general book lovers. This year, Frank Cioffi’s One Day in the Life of the English Language makes the list.

Barndard explains the inspiration behind this take on summer reading recommendations:

At The Derryfield School, summer reading has an interesting twist that would have been much more palatable for me as a high school student. Every faculty member chooses a favorite book and students can pick a title from this diverse list. Some students choose books based on their most adored teacher and some based on the brief summary provided. Then there are likely students (like I would have done) who choose the shortest book on the list regardless of topic. During the first week of school, faculty members gather with students who read their recommendation for an engaging discussion.

Inspired by this practice, I solicited summer reading recommendations from colleagues in college counseling and admission from high schools and colleges across the nation.

You can view the entire summer reading list here, courtesy of the Washington Post.

One Day in the Life of the English Language was recommended for students by Jeffrey Durso-Finley, director of college counseling at the Lawrenceville School (NJ). Read more about this anti-handbook below, and check out the introduction for yourself.

Cioffi jacket
Generations of student writers have been subjected to usage handbooks that proclaim, “This is the correct form. Learn it”—books that lay out a grammar, but don’t inspire students to use it. By contrast, this antihandbook handbook, presenting some three hundred sentences drawn from the printed works of a single, typical day in the life of the language—December 29, 2008—tries to persuade readers that good grammar and usage matter.

Using real-world sentences rather than invented ones, One Day in the Life of the English Language gives students the motivation to apply grammatical principles correctly and efficiently. Frank Cioffi argues that proper form undergirds effective communication and ultimately even makes society work more smoothly, while nonstandard English often marginalizes or stigmatizes a writer. He emphasizes the evolving nature of English usage and debunks some cherished but flawed grammar precepts. Is it acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition? It is. Can you start a sentence with a conjunction? You can. OK to split an infinitive? No problem.

 

 

 

 

#WinnerWednesdays: Congratulations to our authors!

In the past couple of weeks, our authors have received an impressive number of honors:

Winner of the 2015 Legacy Award, Presidents and Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association

  • William G. Howell – Power without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action

“The Legacy Award will be given to a living author for a book, essay, or article, published at least 10 years prior to the award year that has made a continuing contribution to the intellectual development of the fields of presidency and executive politics.”

Check the website for additional information about the award.

Winner of the 2015 Otto Gründler Book Prize, The Medieval Institute of Western Michigan University

  • Robert Bartlett – Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things? Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation

The 2015 Otto Gründler Book Prize was awarded this month at the 50th International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, Michigan. It consists of an award of $1,000.00 to the author of a book or monograph in any area of medieval studies that is judged by the selection committee to be an outstanding contribution to its field.

According to James M. Murray, Director of the Medieval Institute, Bartlett’s book was “an easy choice from the more than 25 candidates.”

For information about the award, click here.

2015 Silver Medal Winner in the Independent Publisher Book Awards, World History category

  • Adrienne Mayor – The Amazons: Lives and Legends of Warrior Women across the Ancient World

2015 Bronze Medal Winner in the Independent Publisher Book Awards, World History category

  • Chris Walsh – Cowardice: A Brief History

The Independent Publisher Book Awards (IPPY Awards) are sponsored by Jenkins Group Inc. & IndependentPublisher.com

“The ‘IPPY’ Awards were conceived as a broad-based, unaffiliated awards program open to all members of the independent publishing industry, and are open to authors and publishers worldwide who produce books written in English and intended for the North American market.”

The 2015 IPPY Awards announcement is here  (see category 57)

The awards ceremony to honor the medalists took place on May 27th in New York City.

Colm Tóibín, author of On Elizabeth Bishop, is one of seven writers who will be inducted into the New York State Writers Hall of Fame in 2015.

“The NYS Writers Hall of Fame was established in conjunction with the Empire State Center for the Book to highlight the rich literary heritage of New York State and to recognize the legacy of individual New York State writers.” The first Gala and Induction Ceremony into the NYS Writers Hall of Fame was held in 2010.

The seven New York State writers to be inducted at the Princeton Club in New York City on June 2nd are:  Isaac Asimov, Allen Ginsberg, Ezra Jack Keats, Dawn Powell, Francine Prose, David Remnick, and Colm Tóibín. Click here or here for more information.

#MammothMonday: PUP’s pups sound off on How to Clone a Mammoth

The idea of cloning a mammoth, the science of which is explored in evolutionary biologist and “ancient DNA expert” Beth Shapiro’s new book, How to Clone a Mammoth, is the subject of considerable debate. One can only imagine what the animal kingdom would think of such an undertaking, but wonder no more. PUP staffers were feeling “punny” enough to ask their best friends:

 

Chester reads shapiro

Chester can’t get past “ice age bones”.

 

Buddy reads shapiro

Buddy thinks passenger pigeons would be so much more civilized… and fun to chase.

 

Tux reads shapiro

Tux always wanted to be an evolutionary biologist…

 

Stella reads Shapiro

Stella thinks 240 pages on a glorified elephant is a little excessive. Take her for a walk.

 

Murphy reads shapiro

A mammoth weighs how much?! Don’t worry, Murphy. The tundra is a long way from New Jersey.

 

Glad we got that out of our systems. Check out a series of original videos on cloning from How to Clone a Mammoth author Beth Shapiro here.

Yes, the Armenian genocide was just that, says Ronald Suny’s new book

Suny jacketApril 24th marks the 100th anniversary of the start of the Armenian genocide, the first genocide of the 20th century, though lesser-known, and more contested than other crimes against humanity that followed. Ronald Suny’s “They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else”: A History of the Armenian Genocide claims that the massacres did indeed constitute genocide, and chronicles the human catastrophe through eyewitness accounts and archival documents. The end result is a deeply researched narrative history of how and why the atrocities were committed. The Sunday Times writes, “Suny is admirably dispassionate in explaining the particular circumstances that led the Ottoman government to embark on a policy of mass extermination…”

Check out this video where Suny, Charles Tilly Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan, gives an overview of the genocide’s history, Turkey’s denial, and his own Armenian family’s experience:

Michael Chwe explains common knowledge, and why it matters to Mark Zuckerberg

Michael Chwe for UCOMM - 130321Michael Chwe, whose book, Rational Ritual: Culture, Coordination, and Common Knowledge has, in his words, “made its way out of the backwaters of course syllabi” to catch the attention of Mark Zuckerberg, had a terrific piece on the Monkey Cage blog of the Washington Post explaining exactly what common knowledge is, and why it’s so important. According to Chwe, common knowledge is generated by large scale social media platforms like Facebook, and this matters because of the many ways it can be leveraged, among them, stopping violence against women, and helping to foster collective political action.

From his piece on the Washington Post:

When Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg chose my book “Rational Ritual” last week for his “A Year of Books” book club, I was surprised. “Rational Ritual” came out in 2001, and has somehow slowly made its way out of the backwaters of course syllabi into the elevated spheres of technology companies. This is gratifying to me, because even though it is a scholarly book published by a university press, “Rational Ritual” is essentially a popularization.

“Rational Ritual” tries to popularize the concept of “common knowledge” as defined by the philosopher David Lewis and the sociologist Morris Friedell in 1969. A fact or event is common knowledge among a group of people if everyone knows it, everyone knows that everyone knows it, everyone knows that everyone knows that everyone knows it, and so on.

When I was a graduate student in economics in the late 1980s, most people considered common knowledge as an idea of only theoretical interest. People who thought about collective action (and its flip side, political repression) were mostly interested in the problem of free riding, rather than how people communicate. But social change isn’t just about tackling incentives to free ride – it’s also a problem of coordination.

Read the rest here.

Recently, Michael Chwe, a master of interdisciplinary applications for otherwise “rarified mathematical theories” has been particularly active in exploring how game theory can help curb sexual violence. Check out his piece on the topic on the PBS Newshour blog here. His recent Q&A with Facebook Books is up here.

March Mathness 2015: The Wrap Up

balls

The champion has been crowned! After an eventful and surprising March Madness tournament, Duke has been named the new NCAA national champion.

A year of bragging rights goes to PUP paperbacks manager Larissa Skurka (98.6 percent) and PUP executive math and computer science editor Vickie Kearn (98.4 percent), who took first and second place in our ESPN bracket pool. Congrats to both! Check out all of the results here.

As we wrap up March Mathness, here are two final guest posts from basketball fans who used math and Tim Chartier‘s methods to create their brackets.

 Swearing by Bracketology

By Jeff Smith

My name is Jeff Smith, and I’ve been using Tim Chartier’s math algorithms to help with my March Madness brackets for several years now. I met Tim when we were traveling the ‘circuit’ together in creative ministries training. You may only know Tim for his math prowess, but I knew him for his creativity before I knew he was a brilliant mathematician. He and his wife, Tanya, are professional mimes, and his creativity is genius too.

Several years ago, he mentioned his method for picking brackets at a conference where we were doing some training together. He promised to send me the home page for his site and I could fill out my brackets using his parameters and formula. I was excited to give it a shot. Mainly, because I am part of a men’s group at our church that participates in March Madness brackets every year. Bragging rights are a big deal…for the whole year. You get the picture.

Also, I have two boys who did get one of my genes: the competitive edge. I sat down and explained the process. Because they did not know Tim, they were a little more skeptical, but I promised it wouldn’t hurt to try. That year, in a pool of 40+ guys, we all finished in the top ten. We were all hooked!

Since then, I have contacted Tim each year and reminded him to send me the link to his site where I could put in our numbers to fill out our brackets. Generally, the three of us each incorporate different parameters because we have different philosophies about the process. It has become a family event, where we sit around the dinner table; almost ceremonially, and we take our output and place them in the brackets. The submission is generally preceded by trash talking, prayer, and fasting. (Well, probably not the fasting, because we fill up with nachos and chips during the process.)

Jeff post

Men of March Mathness: Jeff, Samuel, Ben Smith.

This year, I was in South Africa on a mission trip during the annual ritual. Thank God for video chatting and internet access. Halfway across the world, we were still able to be together and place our brackets into the pool. It was such a wonderful experience. While my boys veered from the path, picking intuitively instead of statistically, I didn’t stray far. (I was strong!) If it wouldn’t have been for Villanova, whom I will never choose again in a bracket, I would be leading the pack. But, I’m still in the top ten of the men’s bracket at my church, with an outside shot of winning. In the Princeton bracket, I’m doing even better because I stayed away from the guessing game a little more.

I do not follow college basketball during the season. I’m from central Pennsylvania, and Penn State doesn’t have a good basketball team. So, I have no passion for the basketball season. Periodically, I’ll watch a game because my boys are watching, but generally, basketball season is the long wait until baseball season. (Go Pirates!) So, March Mathness has saved my reputation. It makes me look like a genius. Other guys in the group are looking at my bracket for answers. My boys and I are sworn to secrecy about the formula. The only reason I write this is because I’m sure none of them read this blog! But I’m thankful for Tim and the formula and the chance to look good in front of friends. I have never won the pool, however, if you factor my finishes over the course of the years I have been using Tim’s formula, I have the best average of all the guys.

 

 What Do Coaches Have to Do with It?

By Stephen Gorman, College of Charleston student

PUPSelfie2

It’s that time of year again. The time of year when everyone compares brackets to see who did the best. But if your bracket was busted early, don’t worry — you’re not the only one. In fact, nobody came out of the tournament with a perfect bracket.

The unpredictability of these games is an inescapable fact of March Madness. This tournament is so incredibly unpredictable that some people are willing to give out billions to anyone who can create a perfect bracket; Warren Buffett is one of these people. So is he crazy? Or does he realize your odds of creating a perfect bracket are 52 billion times worse than winning the Powerball. In layman’s terms – if you think playing the lottery is crazy, trying to create the perfect bracket is insane.

However, once you can accept the statistics, predicting March Madness becomes a game of bettering you’re odds – and there are many predictive models that can help you out along the way. Some of these models include rating methods, like the Massey method, which takes into account score differentials and strength of schedule. In addition to this, there are weighting methods that can be applied to rating methods; these take into account the significance of particular games and even individual player statistics. However, I noticed there is one thing missing from these predictive models: a method that quantifies the value of a good coach. In order to take into account the importance of a coach, a fellow researcher (John Sussingham) and I decided to create our own rating system for coaches.

Using data available from SportsReference.com, we made a system of rating that incorporated such factors as the coach’s career win percentage, March Madness appearances, and the record of success in March Madness. But before we implemented it, we wanted to justify that it was, indeed, a good way to quantify the strength of a coach. In order to do this, we tested the coach ratings in two ways. The first way being a comparison between how sports writers ranked the top 10 College Basketball coaches of all time and what our coach ratings said were the best coaches of all time. The second way was to test how the coach ratings did by themselves at predicting March Madness.

The comparison of the rankings are shown in the table below:

Rank Our Results CBS Sports Results Bleacher Report Results
1 John Wooden John Wooden John Wooden
2 Mike Krzyzewski Mike Krzyzewski Bobby Knight
3 Adolph Rupp Bob Knight Mike Krzyzewski
4 Jim Boeheim Dean Smith Adolph Rupp
5 Dean Smith Adolph Rupp Dean Smith
6 Roy Williams Henry Iba Jim Calhoun
7 Jerry Tarkanian Phog Allen Jim Boeheim
8 Al McGuire Jim Calhoun Lute Olson
9 Bill Self John Thompson Eddie Sutton
10 Jamie Dixon Jim Boeheim Jim Phelan

It is clear from the table above that there are striking similarities between all three rankings. This concluded our first test.

For the second test, we decided to use the coach ratings to predict the last fourteen years of March Madness. The results showed that over the last fourteen years, on average, coach ratings had 68.4 precent prediction accuracy and an ESPN bracket score of 946. As a comparison, the uniform (un-weighted) Massey method of rating (over the same timespan) had an average prediction accuracy of 65.2 precent and an average ESPN bracket score of 1006. Having a higher prediction accuracy, but lower ESPN bracket score essentially means that you have predicted more games correctly in the beginning of the tournament, but struggle in the later rounds. This comes to show that not only are these ratings good at predicting March Madness, but they stand their ground when compared to the effectiveness of very popular methods of rating.

To conclude this article, we decided that, this year, we would combine both the Massey ratings and our Coach ratings to make a bracket for March Madness. Over the last fourteen years, the combination-rating had an average prediction accuracy of 66.33 percent and an average ESPN bracket score of 1024. It’s interesting to note that while the prediction accuracy went down from just using the Coach ratings, the ESPN bracket score went up significantly. Even more interestingly, both the prediction accuracy and the ESPN Bracket score were better than uniform Massey.

This year, the combination-ratings had three out of the four Final Four teams correctly predicted with Kentucky beating Duke in the Championship. However, the undefeated Kentucky lost to Wisconsin in the Final Four. Despite this, the combination-ratings bracket still did well, finishing in the 87.6th percentile on ESPN.

Mathematics Awareness Month 2015: Math Drives Careers

Internet search, pharmaceuticals, insurance, finance, national security, medicine, ecology. What is the link between these diverse career fields? Students graduating with a mathematical sciences degree can find a professional future in all of these fields, and a wide range of others as well. This year’s Mathematics Awareness Month takes a step out of the classroom to show just where mathematics can lead after graduation.

Mathematics Awareness Month is an annual celebration dedicated to increasing public understanding of and appreciation for mathematics. The event, which started in 1986 as Mathematics Awareness Week, adopts a different theme each year. This year’s theme is “Math Drives Careers,” and PUP is excited to bring you a series of guest posts from our authors. Check back all this month for posts about using math to raise revenues, to understand sports and economics, and to solve complex problems.

The organizers of Mathematics Awareness Month explain the importance of mathematics in today’s workforce:

“Innovation is an increasingly important factor in the growth of world economies. It is especially important in key economic sectors like manufacturing, materials, energy, biotechnology, healthcare, networks, and professional and business services. The advances in and applications of the mathematical sciences have become drivers of innovation as new systems and methodologies have become more complex. As mathematics drives innovation, it also drives careers.”
Check out this official Mathematics Awareness Month poster, which includes career descriptions for 10 individuals who used their love for math to find rewarding careers:

 

MAM2015_8.5x11

Follow along with @MathAware and take a look at Math Awareness Month on Facebook.

Davidson student hangs onto 97 percent March Madness ranking

Are you still mourning the loss of your perfect bracket after the multiple upsets this March Madness season? Even before the Villanova and NC State match up on Saturday, 99.3 percent of brackets were busted. As experts deem a perfect March Madness bracket impossible, having a nearly perfect bracket is something to brag about. Today, we hear from David College student Nathan Argueta, who argues that knowing a thing or two about math can help with March Madness strategy.

balls

March Mathness: Calculating the Best Bracket

First and foremost… I am far from a Math Major and, prior to this class, the notion that math and sports going hand in hand seemed much more theoretical than based in reality. Now, 48 games later and a 97.2% ranking percentage on ESPN’s Bracket Contest has me thinking otherwise.

In Finite Math, we have explored the realms of creating rankings for teams based on multiple factors (win percentage, quality wins, etc.). Personally, I also take into account teams’ prior experience in the NCAA Tournament. Coaches with experience in the Sweet 16, Final Four, and Championship Game (like Rick Pitino out of Louisville) also factored into my decisions when deciding close games. Rick Pitino has made the Sweet Sixteen for each of the past four years. With a roster whose minutes are primarily distributed amongst second and third year players (players who have had success in the NCAA tournament in the past couple of years) I found it difficult to picture Louisville losing to either UCI, UNI, or even the upcoming battle against upstart NC State (who have successfully busted the majority of brackets in our class’s circuit by topping off Villanova).

In theory, the quest to picking the best bracket on ESPN begins and ends with establishing rankings for each team in the contest. Sure there are four of each seeding (1’s, 2’s, etc.), yet these rankings are very discombobulating when attempting to decide which team will win between a 5th seed and a 12th seed or a 4th seed and a 13th seed. One particular matchup that I found extremely interesting was the one between 13th seeded Harvard and 4th seeded UNC. Gut reaction call—pick UNC. UNC boasts a higher ranking and has ritual success in the postseason. But hold on—Harvard had a terrific record this year (much better than UNC’s, albeit in an easier conference). The difficult thing about comparing Harvard and UNC, however, became this establishment of difficulty of schedule. I nearly chose Harvard, were it not for the fact that Harvard got beaten by about 40 points against UVA while UNC put up more of a fight and only lost by 10 points.

In order to pick the perfect bracket (which mind you, will never happen), categorizing and ranking teams based on their wins against common opponents with prior sports knowledge is imperative. My school pride got the better of me when I chose Davidson to advance out of the Round of 64 against Iowa simply because I disregarded factors like momentum, size, and location. Looking back, it is no wonder that Davidson lost by over 30 points in what many pundits were looking to be a potential upset match. While mathematically our team’s chances could have more than competed against Iowa, in reality our season was spiraling downwards out of control since the second round of the Atlantic 10 Tournament in which we hardly beat out a surprising La Salle team and got annihilated by an injury plagued VCU team that we shut-out just nine days before. Moral of the story… brackets will be brackets and while math can certainly guide you towards a higher ranking in your class pool, you can kiss perfection good-bye. This is March Madness.

Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani mentions LOST ENLIGHTENMENT before Congress

Last night, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Afghan Chief Executive Abdullah were honored at a dinner held in the Ben Franklin Room. President Ashraf Ghani addressed the attendants of the dinner and stated, “[I]f there’s one book that you want to read please do read LOST ENLIGHTENMENT. [T]he story that Fred tells is not the story of the past. Its good news is that it’s the story of the future.” Read the transcript of the event, here.

LOST ENLIGHTENMENT is available in hardcover and will be released in paperback this June. Read the first chapter of this must-read for free, here.


 

bookjacket

Lost Enlightenment:
Central Asia’s Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane

S. Frederick Starr

Cinderella stories? A College of Charleston student examines March Madness upsets through math

Drew Passarello, a student at the College of Charleston, takes a closer look at how math relates to upsets and predictability in March Madness.

balls

The Madness is coming. In a way, it is here! With the first round of the March Madness tournament announced, the craziness of filling out the tournament brackets is upon us! Can math help us get a better handle on where we might see upsets in March Madness? In this post, I will detail how math helps us get a handle on what level of madness we expect in the tournament. Said another way, how many upsets do we expect? Will there be a lot? We call that a bad year as that leads to brackets having lower accuracy in their predictions. By the end of the article, you will see how math can earmark teams that might be on the cusp of upsets in the games that will capture national attention.

Where am I learning this math? I am taking a sports analytics class at the College of Charleston under the supervision of Dr. Tim Chartier and Dr. Amy Langville. Part of our work has been researching new results and insights in bracketology. My research uses the Massey and Colley ranking methods. Part of my research deals with the following question: What are good years and bad years in terms of March Madness? In other words, before the tournament begins, what can we infer about how predictable the tournament will be?

One way of answering this question is to see how accurate one is at predicting the winners of the tournaments coupled with how high one’s ESPN score is. However, I also wanted to account for the variability of the level of competition going into the tournament, which is why I also looked at the standard deviation of the ratings of those in March Madness. A higher standard deviation implies the more spread out the playing level is. Ultimately, a good year will have a high tournament accuracy, high ESPN score, and a high standard deviation of ratings for those competing in March Madness. Similarly, a bad year will have low tournament accuracy, low ESPN score, and a low standard deviation of the ratings. This assessment will be relative to the ranking method itself and only defines good years and bad years solely in terms of past March Madness data.

I focused on ratings from uniformly weighted Massey and Colley ranking methods as the weighting might add some bias. However, my simple assessment can be applied for other variations of weighting Massey and Colley. I found the mean accuracy, mean ESPN score, and mean standard deviation of ratings of the teams in March Madness for years 2001 – 2014, and I then looked at the years which rested below or above these corresponding means. Years overlapping were those deemed to be good or bad, and the remaining years were labeled neutral. The good years for Massey were 2001, 2004, 2008, and 2009, and the bad years were 2006, 2010 – 2014. Neutral years were 2002, 2003, and 2007. Also, for Colley, the good years were 2005, 2007 – 2009; bad years were 2001, 2006, and 2010 – 2014; neutral years were 2002 – 2004. A very interesting trend I noticed from both Massey and Colley was that the standard deviation of the ratings of those in March Madness from 2010 to 2014 were significantly lower than the years before. This leads me to believe that basketball has recently become more competitive in terms of March Madness, which would also partially explain why 2010 – 2014 were bad years for both methods. However, this does not necessarily imply 2015 will be a bad year.

In order to get a feel for how accurate the ranking methods will be for this year, I created a regression line based on years 2001 – 2014 that had tournament accuracy as the dependent variable and standard deviation of the ratings of those in March Madness as the independent variable. Massey is predicted to have 65.81% accuracy for predicting winners this year whereas Colley is predicted to have 64.19%accuracy. The standard deviation of the ratings for those expected to be in the tournament was 8.0451 for Massey and 0.1528 for Colley, and these mostly resemble the standard deviation of the ratings of the March Madness teams in 2002 and 2007.

After this assessment, I wanted to figure out what defines an upset relative to the ratings. To answer this, I looked at season data and focused on uniform Massey. Specifically for this year, I used the first half of the season ratings to predict the first week of the second half of the season and then updated the ratings. After this, I would use these to predict the next week and update the ratings again and so on until now. For games incorrectly predicted, the median in the difference of ratings was 2.2727, and the mean was 3.0284. I defined an upset for this year to be those games in which the absolute difference in the ratings is greater than or equal to three. This definition of an upset is relative to this particular year. I then kept track of the upsets for those teams expected to be in the tournament. I looked at the number of upsets each team had and the number of times each team gets upset, along with the score differential and rating differences for these games. From comparing these trends, I determined the following teams to be upset teams to look for in the tournament: Indiana, NC State, Notre Dame, and Georgetown. These teams had a higher ratio of upsets over getting upset when compared to the other teams. Also, these teams had games in which the score differences and rating differences were larger than those from the other teams in March Madness.

I am still working on ways to weight these upset games from the second half of the season, and one of the approaches relies on the score differential of the game. Essentially, teams who upset teams by a lot of points should benefit more in the ratings. Similarly, teams who get upset by a lot of points should be penalized more in the ratings. For a fun and easy bracket, I am going to weight upset games heavily on the week before conference tournament play and a week into conference tournament play. These two weeks gave the best correlation coefficient in terms of accuracy from these weeks and the accuracy from March Madness for both uniform Massey and Colley. Let the madness begin!