March Madness Portfolio Challenge: Round 1 Leaderboard

Well, things are off to an interesting start, eh?  Though there’s always a few headline-making upsets from round 1, this year’s March Madness tournament seems particularly maddening!  Notably:

  • 11-seed Wichita State, after being tragically underseeded into a play-in game, whooped 6-seed Arizona.
  • Two 12-seeds (Yale and Little Rock) prevailed, continuing the annual anomaly of 5-seed upsets.
  • 13-seed Hawaii beat Cal.
  • 14-seed Stephen F. Austin beat West Virginia.
  • And perhaps most notably, 15-seed Middle Tennessee beat one of the tournament favorites, Michigan State. This is a historically significant win, as 15-seeds are now 8-116 since 1985.  Additional interesting datapoint: 97.8% of ESPN brackets selected Michigan State to prevail.  Oops!

Now, onto our leaderboard.  While we’ll be adding more data as the tournament continues, our current version includes a few interesting things to pay attention to.  In addition to the score, we report on the portfolio weight remaining and the HHI index.  Remaining portfolio weight is useful as a simple approximation of the amount of the portfolio which has yet to bust out.  However, it is flawed in that it doesn’t take into account which teams in any given portfolio are weighted, if/when those teams face each other, and how many games remain in the tournament.  As such, it only has basic heuristic value.

The HHI index is a measure of portfolio concentration.  We’ve included it because one of our hypotheses entering the Portfolio Challenge was that concentrated portfolios would find their way to the top and the bottom of our rankings.  Lo and behold, after just the first round, we see this pattern (though weakly) starting to emerge.  As the following chart shows, portfolios with an HHI of 10% largely occupy the ranks between 10-30, with more concentrated portfolios forming the ends of the “barbell.”

Leaderboard HHI Round 1 Line

And finally, what you’ve all been waiting for:

Name Score Remaining Portfolio Weight
Dan A. 3.4989 80.0%
Mike D. 3.3044 100.0%
David V. 3.1072 90.0%
Laura B. 3.083 100.0%
Ryan K. 3.0773 95.0%
Benchmark – 12-Seeds 2.934 50.0%
Corey H. 2.8682 87.9%
Jagdeep M. (Concentrated) 2.8209 80.0%
Gordon N. 2.5537 86.0%
Mike S. 2.551 88.0%
Al G. 2.5497 82.0%
Mike P. 2.5134 87.5%
Jagdeep M. 2.4869 72.0%
Josh A. 2.4759 100.0%
Jug M. 2.4471 71.0%
Guy L. 2.3989 72.2%
Trevor S. 2.3884 65.0%
David G. 2.3585 83.2%
Panos K. 2.3549 70.0%
Benchmark – Rank Seed Weight 2.3211 85.0%
Benchmark – GMP 2.313 77.2%
Benchmark – Concentrated (Top 2 Seeds per Region) 2.2028 87.5%
Jaime P. 2.1893 77.7%
James H. 2.1828 78.7%
Matt Z. 2.1716 85.4%
Mack C. 2.1413 87.3%
Benchmark – Rank Weight 2.1312 60.5%
Michael L. 2.1129 78.5%
Andrew B. 2.0711 65.8%
David B. 2.0405 71.0%
Eli R. 2.0342 63.5%
Benchmark – Equal Weight 1.9949 50.0%
Jeff S 1.6858 75.0%
Sharon P. 1.655 75.0%
Carmen M. 1.5755 65.0%
Anthony M. 1.4893 68.0%
Theo R. 1.4593 66.0%
Benchmark – Hot Hand (Power Conference Champs) 1.4195 66.7%
Ben S. 1.3493 27.4%
Scott P. 1.3336 52.5%