A new measure of success for NCAA tournament teams

Jordan Hill and Arizona have played well despite their controversy getting into the tournament. Getty Images NCAA Tournament   Latest Coverage Tourney Scoreboard | Updated Bracket STAPLES: Hansbrough goes out on top TROCCHI: Handing out title game grades DAVIS: Lawson has his shining moment STAPLES: Big half lifts Tar Heels to title MARKAZI: Blow-by-blow title game blog GALLERY: SI's best shots from Heels' win SI's UNC Championship Package For Free! Luke Winn At The Dance UNC completes romp through tourney Is destiny enough to win a title? Michigan State fulfilling destiny Pool Update: Varejao's Scenarios Check your score in Luke's Bracket Group SI Photos Unforgettable Cinderella teams NCAA tournament through the years More SI NCAA tournament photos

Bill James put together a mathematical system that, more or less, figures out what percentage of the time one NCAA tournament seed should beat another. According to his system, for instance, a No. 1 seed should beat No. 16 seed a bit more than 99 percent of the time ... and of course a No. 1 seed has never lost to a No. 16 seed in 100 chances. In fact, the math is pretty easy to figure out this year because the tournament was expanded to 64 teams in 1985, which means that this is the 25th year, which means that there have been exactly 100 first-round games played for each matchup.

At right, you can see James' math predictions and the actual results of all first-round games:

Pretty darned accurate. It is fairly interesting to me that the two seeds who have really overperformed are the ninth seed and the 12th seed. The 12th seed makes some sense to me because, best I can tell, that's where the line where the tournament tends to put two kinds of teams:

1. The underachieving team that has been given a second life. This year's Arizona team fits that tag. The Wildcats in my view DID NOT deserve to make the tournament. That's because, in my view, they really had a mediocre season. But they are a very good team -- they destroyed Kansas at home early in the season -- and so given the chance it's not especially surprising that they are rolling in the tournament. This, to me, would have been like giving the New York Yankees a spot in the playoffs last year. They would not have deserved it ... but once they were in they would have been very dangerous.

2. The overachieving team that is probably better than their seed. This year's Western Kentucky team fits that tag. The Hilltoppers are a very good team, and they played an Illinois team that was probably overseeded (Illinois was playing without its point guard) and the result was fairly predictable*.

*Though, I admit, I did not predict it. My bracket is a fiasco. I made the mistake I always make -- too many upsets. We always hear about all these upsets in college basketball, but it seems to me the tournament is actually becoming much more predictable. Last year all four No. 1 seeds made the Final Four. And this year the only meaningful upset was Cleveland State over No. 4 Wake Forest ... Wake is the only top 4 seed that was surprised the first week (No. 5 Purdue also beat No. 4 Washington, but that's not really an upset).

The No. 9 seed beating the No. 8 more than half the time is probably just an indication that once you get that far down in the seeding (The 8 and 9 seeds would represent teams ranked 29th to 36th) there's really not much to separate the teams, plus the No. 9 seeds have that little extra benefit of being considered "underdogs."

Anyway, using the Bill James system you can figure out, pretty easily -- not super easily, but pretty easily -- what a team's chances of making the Final Four are. For instance:

A No. 1 seed, facing the hardest route available -- meaning it would face a No. 16 seed, then a No. 8 seed, followed by a No. 4, and finally the No. 2 seed in the Elite Eight -- should make the Final Four about 37 percent of the time.

The No. 1s have actually outperformed that math:

96 No. 1 seeds (entering this year)
14 won championships: 15%
9 finished runner-up: 9%
19 lost in Final Four game: 20%
42 total reached Final Four: 44%