|
Dance
Card Rankings for 2008 (FINAL)
|
At right are rankings of all NCAA Division I men's basketball teams through
the games of Sunday, March 16, 2008 (i.e., all regular season and
conference tournament games)according
to the "Dance Card" formula developed by Jay Coleman of the University of
North Florida and Allen Lynch of
Mercer University, and published in Interfaces (a journal
of the Institute for Operations
Research and the Management Sciences). The Dance Card is a formula
designed to predict which teams will receive at-large tournament bids
from the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee.
The Dance
Card correctly predicted 30 of the 34 at-large selections (missing
on Villanova, Oregon,
St. Joseph’s, and Kansas State),
for a 2008 accuracy of 88%. 
Coleman
and Lynch's "" formula,
which is designed to predict the results of NCAA Tournament games, can be
found here.
(The RPI figures at
right reflect the old RPI formula, in which wins on the road and
losses at home are weighted equally. This is the version of the RPI
on which the Dance Card was originally developed, and the version used to
generate the predictions in all past years.)
Dance Card rankings
for other seasons can be found by clicking on the appropriate link below:
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
|
|
Accuracy
and Performance of the Dance Card
|
|
The Dance Card has missed on more than three spots in only two
seasons (2007 and 2008). Over the last 14 years, the Dance Card has
correctly predicted 476 of the 512 available at-large Tournament
slots (or 93%). Over the 9-year period (2000 through 2008)
for which the Dance Card has been used since its initial development in
1999 (based on 1994 through 1999 data), it has correctly predicted 284
out of the 307 available at-large Tournament slots (92.5%).
The
formula's best years were in 2001 and in 2005, when it correctly
predicting 33
of the 34 available at-large Tournament slots (or 97% accuracy).
The Dance
Card can only be as accurate as the Selection Committees are consistent;
it is an estimate of the Selection Committees' (not the authors')
decision criteria. The high level of accuracy and consistency of
the model is strong evidence that the Selection Committees (which differ
in composition each year) are actually quite consistent from year to
year.
|
|
|
General
Description of the Dance Card
|
The
Dance Card is a formula derived by Coleman and Lynch as an estimate of
the decision rule that the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee uses when picking
the teams that will get at-large bids to the NCAA men's basketball
tournament. Using the decisions of the NCAA Tournament Selection
Committee from the years 1994 through 1999, and 42 pieces of information
(e.g. RPI rankings, number of wins and losses, conference records, etc.)
for all teams that were candidates for at-large selections in those
years, Coleman and Lynch devised the Dance Card formula as an estimate of
which pieces of information were most important to the Selection
Committee, and the weights that the Committee placed on those pieces of
information. The Dance Card formula suggests that only six pieces
of information about each team are highly important in determining
whether it gets an at-large Tournament bid:
RPI
(Ratings Percentage Index) Rank
Conference RPI Rank
Number of wins against teams ranked from 1-25
in RPI
Difference in number of wins and losses in the
conference
Difference in number of wins and losses against
teams ranked 26-50 in RPI
Difference in number of wins and losses against
teams ranked 51-100 in RPI
|
Data
Sources
|
|
In order to build the Dance Card formula, Coleman and
Lynch used data, including estimates of the RPI for each team, from CollegeRPI.com, the web site of
Jerry Palm of Palm Sports Resources, Inc. The authors are extremely
grateful to Mr. Palm for his work to provide this information.
In order to use the
Dance Card to develop the rankings shown, the authors use game
scores from Ken Pomeroy to
determine values for all the Dance Card inputs listed above.
The authors are very thankful to Mr. Pomeroy for his generous and
invaluable service.
Special thanks
also go to Kenneth Massey for
including the Dance Card rankings on his basketball ranking compilation page.
|
Dance Card Authors
|
|
Jay Coleman is the Richard deR. Kip
Professor of Operations Management & Quantitative Methods in
the Coggin College
of Business at the University of North Florida. Allen Lynch is Associate
Professor of Economics & Quantitative Methods at the Stetson
School of Business and Economics at Mercer University.
|
Special Thanks to SAS!!
|
|
The
authors would like to give a hearty and special thanks to all
the good people at SAS Institute Inc., the maker of the
software package used to develop the Dance Card. In
particular, we thank Mike Nemecek, Anne
Milley, and Trent Smith, each of whom
have been an absolute delight to work with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please forward all comments to jcoleman@unf.edu
Jay Coleman's Home Page
This page last updated on March 16, 2008 at 7:40
p.m.
|
|
|
|
|
Rank
|
Team
(@=auto. bid)
|
Dance Card
|
RPI Rank
|
|
1
|
@North
Carolina
|
11.7246
|
1
|
|
2
|
@UCLA
|
10.4297
|
4
|
|
3
|
Tennessee
|
9.4631
|
2
|
|
4
|
@Kansas
|
9.1027
|
7
|
|
5
|
@Memphis
|
8.6112
|
3
|
|
6
|
Duke
|
8.4017
|
6
|
|
7
|
Texas
|
8.3563
|
5
|
|
8
|
Georgetown
|
7.2449
|
8
|
|
9
|
@Wisconsin
|
7.0113
|
10
|
|
10
|
Xavier
|
6.5183
|
9
|
|
11
|
Indiana
|
6.1155
|
21
|
|
12
|
Stanford
|
6.1034
|
15
|
|
13
|
@Drake
|
6.0414
|
12
|
|
14
|
Louisville
|
5.7574
|
11
|
|
15
|
@Butler
|
5.5270
|
17
|
|
16
|
@Kent
St.
|
5.3812
|
27
|
|
17
|
Michigan St.
|
4.9334
|
19
|
|
18
|
Clemson
|
4.7649
|
18
|
|
19
|
Notre
Dame
|
4.0223
|
26
|
|
20
|
@Nevada
Las Vegas
|
4.0217
|
23
|
|
21
|
Southern California
|
3.8956
|
24
|
|
22
|
@Pittsburgh
|
3.8828
|
14
|
|
23
|
Brigham
Young
|
3.8393
|
29
|
|
24
|
Washington St.
|
3.6998
|
22
|
|
25
|
Vanderbilt
|
3.5943
|
13
|
|
26
|
Oklahoma
|
3.4984
|
25
|
|
27
|
Gonzaga
|
3.4588
|
32
|
|
28
|
Marquette
|
3.1517
|
20
|
|
29
|
Connecticut
|
3.0163
|
16
|
|
30
|
@Davidson
|
2.7674
|
37
|
|
31
|
West Virginia
|
2.5470
|
28
|
|
32
|
South Alabama
|
2.4229
|
40
|
|
33
|
Illinois St. (Miss)
|
2.1948
|
36
|
|
34
|
Purdue
|
1.8992
|
50
|
|
35
|
Arkansas
|
1.8198
|
30
|
|
36
|
Mississippi St.
|
1.5543
|
38
|
|
37
|
Miami FL
|
1.2699
|
35
|
|
38
|
Texas A&M
|
1.2395
|
33
|
|
39
|
Arizona
|
1.2213
|
34
|
|
40
|
Kentucky
|
1.2020
|
45
|
|
41
|
Baylor
|
1.1996
|
39
|
|
42
|
Dayton (Miss)
|
1.0703
|
31
|
|
43
|
@Western
Kentucky
|
0.8062
|
42
|
|
44
|
@Temple
|
0.6796
|
48
|
|
45
|
St.
Mary's
|
0.3667
|
44
|
|
46
|
Ohio St. (Miss)
|
0.1612
|
46
|
|
47
|
Massachusetts (Miss)
|
-0.1998
|
49
|
|
The Bubble Bursts Here
|
|
48
|
Villanova (Miss)
|
-0.2174
|
52
|
|
49
|
Oregon (Miss)
|
-0.2922
|
56
|
|
50
|
Virginia Commonwealth
|
-0.4860
|
57
|
|
51
|
Virginia
Tech
|
-0.5349
|
55
|
|
52
|
UAB
|
-0.5805
|
58
|
|
53
|
Florida St.
|
-0.7317
|
54
|
|
54
|
@Oral
Roberts
|
-0.7576
|
65
|
|
55
|
Saint Joseph's (Miss)
|
-0.7672
|
51
|
|
56
|
Kansas St. (Miss)
|
-0.7711
|
43
|
|
57
|
Southern Illinois
|
-1.1225
|
59
|
|
58
|
@Boise
St.
|
-1.2212
|
77
|
|
59
|
Mississippi
|
-1.2612
|
47
|
|
60
|
@George
Mason
|
-1.3347
|
68
|
|
61
|
Charlotte
|
-1.5344
|
66
|
|
62
|
Syracuse
|
-1.6130
|
41
|
|
63
|
Creighton
|
-1.6213
|
53
|
|
64
|
@Cornell
|
-1.7026
|
78
|
|
65
|
Arizona St.
|
-1.7517
|
67
|
|
66
|
New Mexico
|
-1.8163
|
63
|
|
67
|
@Siena
|
-1.8717
|
69
|
|
68
|
Stephen
F. Austin
|
-1.9740
|
76
|
|
69
|
Maryland
|
-2.3049
|
61
|
|
70
|
Oklahoma St.
|
-2.4900
|
64
|
|
71
|
IUPUI
|
-2.5400
|
88
|
|
72
|
Akron
|
-2.5431
|
71
|
|
73
|
Wright St.
|
-2.8071
|
81
|
|
74
|
@Belmont
|
-2.8071
|
94
|
|
75
|
Texas Tech
|
-2.8131
|
62
|
|
76
|
Utah St.
|
-2.8606
|
86
|
|
77
|
Georgia
Tech
|
-2.8832
|
72
|
|
78
|
Florida
|
-2.9635
|
60
|
|
