The Meaning of Statistics

[msf22b]

I hypothesized yesterday that the 23+% chance of the 4 Number ones moving on to the final four was a statistical insignificant relationship. And with Notre Dame pulling away at the half, it seems likely that the four number ones will prevail.

It was pretty well understood that the number ones were in a slightly different class than the next level and had separated themselves from the pack.

Can a mathematician or a statistician help me out here.
Was the statistical premise flawed?

 

[HuskyNan]

Paging Phil! Or JRRRJ, if he's around.

 

[Sonny44]

Statistics only works on existing data. Applying that to the future requires assumptions.
Ever buy a stock or a mutual fund or even gold? The sellers are required to tell you that past performance does not guarantee future results.

 

[alexrgct]

People said the same thing last year (that the four #1s were clearly the four best teams), but only two made the final four. This is the first time since 1989 that all four made it.

 

[Vowelguy]

I hypothesized yesterday that the 23+% chance of the 4 Number ones moving on to the final four was a statistical insignificant relationship. And with Notre Dame pulling away at the half, it seems likely that the four number ones will prevail.

It was pretty well understood that the number ones were in a slightly different class than the next level and had separated themselves from the pack.

Can a mathematician or a statistician help me out here.
Was the statistical premise flawed?

23% was based on the premise that Baylor had an 80% chance of winning, ND/CT had a 70% chance, and Stanford had a 60% chance

Those percentages may have been too low. Or maybe not.

A 23% probability is not a small-time event.

23% of 4 #1s
42% of 3 #1s
27% of 2 #1s
7% of 1 #1s
1% of 0 #1s