Metagaming "U/C"

I've been playing along with Pommy TV show "University Challenge" for years. At some point, I got into the habit of jotting down each contestant's degree area(s) as a way of attempting to predict the breadth of knowledge of the two teams. When in doubt - as with a very specific PhD - I just put the general discipline, e.g. English.

So Team A's four players might be categorised by me as Biology/Biology/Film/History, while the members of Team B roughly represent Politics & History/Maths & Physics/Economics/Philosophy.

Looking at those teams as written, B appear to have more subjects covered and, based on no other info and assuming a random mix of Qs, it would be logical to expect them to do better. Indeed, they won by a large margin.

However, I can honestly say the above method isn't any more accurate at predicting a winner than tossing a coin. It doesn't take into account age (good for knowledge, bad for speed); practice in pub trivia quizzes, etc.; freakish memories; well-organised team prep; or simply watching hundreds of hours of "U/C" and having an instinct for which answers crop up regularly.

On top of all that, anyone can have an off night. Well, almost anyone.