|
|
| How Underdog Scoring Works |
Underdog Scoring is a simple concept in theory but in practice there are many scenarios which can be confusing. Simply put, points are awarded for a correct underdog pick based on the seed differential between the two teams the player picked.
But here’s the catch: To get points for Underdog Scoring a player MUST correctly pick a team to win a game as an underdog AND that team MUST win the game as an underdog REGARDLESS OF WHO THEY PLAY. Note that both conditions must be met in order to get points for Underdog Scoring and that the scoring is based on the PLAYER’S PICKS, NOT WHO ACTUALLY PLAYS. Why? Because it is about granting points for the risk the player took in picking an underdog in the first place. Let’s look at an example.
Using George Mason, let's say player A picked GM(11) to beat Seton Hall(10) in round three, where player B picked GM(11) to beat Wichita St(7) in the same game. Using our Underdog Scoring, player A would get 1 Underdog Point and player B would get 4 Underdog Points because they took on more risk by picking GM over WS. If you use the actual points for all players, it doesn't seem fair to give both player A and player B 4 Underdog Points when player A didn't take a 4 point risk to begin with.
Let’s look at some more examples.
Example: Jerry picks Alabama (#15 seed) over Kentucky (#7 seed) in a 2nd Round game.
Jerry would be awarded points based on the difference in the seed numbers between the teams he picked, not the teams that played. So if Alabama beats Kentucky (#7 seed) Jerry would get 8 underdog points (#15 seed - #7 seed = 8 points). If Alabama faced Arizona instead (#10 seed), Jerry would still get 8 points as it is the difference between the seed numbers of the teams Jerry PICKED to play and not the teams that ACTUALLY played.
Example:
Round 1: #5 Wisconsin vs #12 SW Missouri St. -- John Doe picks SW Missouri
SW Missouri wins, John Doe would get 7 points for Underdog Scoring plus one point for the first round win for a total of 8 points for this one game.
Example:
Round 1: #4 Tennessee vs #13 Delaware -- John Doe picks Delaware
Tennessee wins, John Doe gets no points (Underdog or Standard).
Example:
Round 2: Matchup is #12 SW Missouri St. vs #4 Tennessee
John Doe picked #12 SW Missouri St over #13 Delaware.
JOHN DOE IS TAKING NO UNDERDOG RISK IN THIS GAME. HE HAS PICKED A HIGHER SEEDED TEAM ON HIS SHEET therefore when SW Missouri St. beats Tennessee, John Doe will get no underdog bonus points, but will still get two points for picking the winner of this second round game.
Example:
Round 2: Matchup is #5 Virginia Tech against #13 Holy Cross
John Doe picked #5 Virginia Tech against #4 S. Illinois
JOHN DOE TOOK THE UNDERDOG RISK IN THIS GAME BUT VIRGINIA TECH DID NOT PLAY THE GAME AS AN UNDERDOG. While Virginia Tech goes on to win the game, John Doe gets 2 points for the correct round pick but no points for the Underdog Scoring.
Here is another real example from the 2015 tournament that shows how two brackets can score different point totals for the same game:
Michigan St. (#7 seed) plays Louisville (#4 seed) in the Elite 8. Sang picks Mich. St over Villanova (#1 seed) in the game and Fanning picks Mich. St. over N. Iowa (#5 seed).
What's the scoring here? Both players picked Mich. St. to win the game as an underdog and Mich. St. played the game as an underdog defeating #4 Louisville, so both criteria are met for underdog scoring (picking the underdog and the team winning as an underdog).
The scoring is NOT 11 points for both players - 8 points for the win and 3 points for the seed difference between the two teams that played. Instead, the scoring is that Sang gets 14 points (8 points for the win and 6 points for the seed differential between the teams he picked - Mich. St. [7] and Villanova [1]). Fanning gets 10 points (8 points for the win and 2 points for the seed differential between the teams he picked - Mich. St. [7] and N. Iowa [5]). Sang gets more points because he took a bigger risk when he made his picks than Fanning. Both are appropriately rewarded for the risk they took when they made their picks.
As you can see, Underdog Scoring can be complicated. Some would say scoring this way is unfair. We have two responses to this:
1 - We've been doing it this way for ten years now.
2 - If you don't like it don't play (no whining after the fact that you didn't read and understand all the rules.)
|
|
