[washingtonismoney]

The variance in WBB is a lot higher than in football, due to the much smaller number of players on a team, the small number of real superstars coming out of high school, and as WIM pointed out, the 64-team tournament. So there are more opportunities to get lucky -- like TA&M did a couple of years back.

Oh, no, I think women's basketball is more likely to win because the variance is lower. It seems to me smaller number of players on a team and smaller number of real superstars decreases rather than increases variance -- it disproportionately benefits teams with great players. There's a reason the Lakers and Celtics account for 50+% of NBA Finals appearances (outdated stat as of that Lakers/Celtics NBA finals matchup a few years ago.)

On the other hand, Stanford football will typically be knocked out of national championship consideration by a single loss -- and it's harder to go unbeaten over 14/15 games than 6.

[washingtonismoney]

The variance in WBB is a lot higher than in football, due to the much smaller number of players on a team, the small number of real superstars coming out of high school, and as WIM pointed out, the 64-team tournament. So there are more opportunities to get lucky -- like TA&M did a couple of years back.

Oh, no, I think women's basketball is more likely to win because the variance is lower. It seems to me smaller number of players on a team and smaller number of real superstars decreases rather than increases variance -- it disproportionately benefits teams with great players. There's a reason the Lakers and Celtics account for 50+% of NBA Finals appearances (outdated stat as of that Lakers/Celtics NBA finals matchup a few years ago.)

On the other hand, Stanford football will typically be knocked out of national championship consideration by a single loss -- and it's harder to go unbeaten over 14/15 games than 6.