Another Way To Motor West

Today, the PiRates are on dry land.  We have an interesting route for you to discover.

When you think of a famous old highway of major importance, you might think of the Mother Road, Route 66.  Made famous by books, songs, movies, maps, a TV series, and even a cartoon, Route 66 runs from Lake Michigan in Chicago to the Santa Monica Pier in Los Angeles.

Before federal highways were numbered, they were given names.  There was the Dixie Highway, the National Old Trails Highway, the Bankhead Highway and many others.

The most important of these highways was the Lincoln Highway, our nation’s first coast-to-coast highway constructed in America.  It covered more than 3,000 miles in its journey from Times Square in New York City to Lincoln Park in San Francisco.

The Lincoln Highway will turn 100 years old this year, on Halloween.  The project came about by the leadership of Carl Fisher, of Indianapolis.  Fisher was one of then country’s early automobile dealership owners, and he played a huge role in the development of the Indiana Motor Raceway, where the Indianapolis 500 is held.

Fisher saw the important future of the automobile, and he knew the nation needed roads so that people would buy cars and drive rather than ride the rails.  Through diligent work and bending of arms of very important people, he formed a highway through New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Nevada, and California.  Later realignments included a jog through West Virginia.  For a brief time, an official spur headed southwest from Big Springs, Nebraska, to Denver, and then north to rejoin the main route in Laramie, Wyoming.

Some of the first paved roads occurred as “seedling miles” in many cities along the route.  These one mile improvements provided the impetus for cities to pave additional roads.  Additionally, in some areas in the Midwest portion of the route, the highway was bricked.  Some of these brick sections still exist and can be driven today.

Since I am writing this from my head without research materials, I cannot go into great details.  It is better that this should just pique an interest in you.

Unlike Route 66, where I know basically every mile of what remains and can be driven, as well as the dirt sections, I know very little about the Lincoln.  I have only travelled a couple dozen miles of the road in Indiana, Illinois, and Wyoming.  I plan to learn more and travel more on this prestigious important cross-country route during its centennial year.

The Lincoln Highway Association provides all the information you need to get started in your journey.  Visit their website at: http://www.lincolnhighwayassoc.org

The PiRates are enjoying some R&R on dry land for Spring and the first half of summer.  We may post some additional stories on the Lincoln Highway and our more familiar Route 66 if we get the chance.  We will return with football coverage in August.  Due to prior commitments, there will be no Kentucky Derby coverage this year.

Bracketnomics 2013: National Championship Game–April 8, 2013

2013 NCAA Tournament— Championship Game, April 8, 2013

Time Eastern Daylight

 

Site: Georgia Dome in Atlanta

Network: CBS

Time	Favorite	Underdog	Line
9:23 PM	Louisville (34-5)	Michigan (31-7)	4

Elite 8 Record: 1-1

Tournament Total: 39-23

Teams Remaining In Bracket: 1 of  2  (Louisville)

 

PiRate Ratings Criteria Formula Statistics

Criteria	Louisville	Michigan
Scoring Margin	16.0	12.4
FG% Margin	6.4	6.0
Rebound Margin	3.6	3.1
Turnover Margin	5.9	2.8
Steals	10.8	6.2
R+T	12.84	7.58
SOS	59.41	55.94
RD W%	82.6	70.0
Qualifiers	6	4
PiRate #	84.22	56.53
Modified	123.92	65.03

 

PiRate Criteria Means for 2000-2012 National Champions

 

Criteria	Champ Avg.
Scoring Margin	15.5
FG% Margin	8.7
Rebound Margin	6.2
Turnover Margin	1.3
Steals	7.8
R+T	9.29
SOS	57.09
RD W%	73.8
Qualifiers	7
PiRate #	75.88
Modified	94.78

 

 

Louisville Cardinals

Roster

#	NAME	HT	WT	POS	CL	HOMETOWN (PREVIOUS SCHOOL)
2	Russ Smith	6-00	165	G	JR	Brooklyn, N.Y. (Archbishop Molloy/South Kent)
3	Peyton Siva	6-00	185	G	SR	Seattle, Wash. (Franklin)
5	Kevin Ware	6-02	175	G	SO	Bronx, N.Y. (Rockdale County (Ga.))
10	Gorgui Dieng	6-11	245	C	JR	Kebemer, Senegal (Covenant/Huntington Prep)
11	Luke Hancock	6-06	200	F	JR	Roanoke, Va. (George Mason)
12	Mangok Mathiang	6-10	200	C	FR	Melbourne, Australia (IMG Academy (Fla.))
14	Logan Baumann	6-00	165	G	FR	Hartford, Ky. (Ohio County)
15	Tim Henderson	6-02	195	G	JR	Louisville, Ky. (Christian Academy)
20	Wayne Blackshear	6-05	230	G/F	SO	Chicago, Ill. (Morgan Park)
21	Chane Behanan	6-06	250	F	SO	Cincinnati, Ohio (Bowling Green)
22	Jordan Bond	6-00	165	G	FR	Louisville, Ky. (duPont Manual)
24	Montrezl Harrell	6-08	235	F	FR	Tarboro, N.C. (Hargrave Military Academy)
25	Zach Price	6-10	250	C	SO	Cleveland, Ohio (Jeffersontown)
32	Michael Baffour	6-02	170	G	JR	Lexington, Ky. (Bryan Station)
33	Mike Marra	6-05	215	G	SR	Smithfield, R.I. (Northfield Mt. Hermon School)
44	Stephan Van Treese	6-09	245	F	SR	Indianapolis, Ind. (Lawrence North)

 

Coach: Rick Pitino 12^th year at UL: 309-111

28 seasons overall: 663-239

(Hawaii, Boston U, Providence, Kentucky, Louisville)

 

Team Stats—Louisville

Player	G	GS	Min	FG	FGA	FG%	3pt	3ptA	3pt%	FT	FTA
Russ Smith	39	39	1179	229	544	.421	61	183	.333	220	273
Gorgi Dieng	32	31	989	121	228	.531	0	0	.000	73	112
Peyton Siva	39	39	1211	133	329	.404	38	130	.292	79	92
Chane Behanan	38	36	990	146	288	.507	1	12	.083	73	135
Luke Hancock	39	8	867	92	220	.418	58	153	.379	60	78
Wayne Blackshear	38	33	763	102	243	.420	43	136	.316	43	62
Montrezl Harrell	39	3	637	96	167	.575	0	0	.000	32	63
Kevin Ware	37	1	616	59	132	.447	15	37	.405	34	51
Stephan Van Treese	36	1	412	26	40	.650	0	0	.000	12	17
Zach Price	16	7	123	8	15	.533	0	0	.000	4	8
Tim Henderson	26	0	98	8	23	.348	6	20	.300	0	0
Logan Baumann	4	0	11	0	4	.000	0	0	.000	2	2
Michael Baffour	6	0	12	0	3	.000	0	2	.000	2	4
Jordan Bond	5	0	17	0	3	.000	0	2	.000	0	0
Totals	39	39	7925	1020	2239	.456	222	675	.329	634	897
Opponents	39	39	7925	800	2041	.392	213	678	.314	462	705
Player	FT%	F	DQ	Ast	TO	Bk	Stl	Reb	Avg	Pts	Avg
Russ Smith	.806	98	0	114	105	2	83	131	3.4	739	18.9
Gorgi Dieng	.652	81	3	60	57	80	43	302	9.4	315	9.8
Peyton Siva	.859	100	3	223	104	6	86	88	2.3	383	9.8
Chane Behanan	.541	66	0	41	60	16	53	242	6.4	366	9.6
Luke Hancock	.769	80	1	52	39	3	38	104	2.7	302	7.7
Wayne Blackshear	.694	95	0	24	24	10	33	121	3.2	290	7.6
Montrezl Harrell	.508	50	0	8	23	27	20	145	3.7	224	5.7
Kevin Ware	.667	58	1	31	42	4	39	66	1.8	167	4.5
Stephan Van Treese	.706	45	0	9	13	11	18	114	3.2	64	1.8
Zach Price	.500	23	0	0	5	5	1	22	1.4	20	1.3
Tim Henderson	.000	7	0	3	6	1	6	12	0.5	22	0.8
Logan Baumann	1.000	1	0	0	1	0	0	3	0.8	2	0.5
Michael Baffour	.500	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0.2	2	0.3
Jordan Bond	.000	1	0	1	0	0	1	3	0.6	0	0.0
Team					7			85	2.2
Totals	.707	705	8	566	486	165	421	1439	36.9	2896	74.3
Opponents	.655	751	X	398	718	129	221	1300	33.3	2275	58.3

 

 

Schedule

Opponent	Score
MANHATTAN	79-51
SAMFORD	80-54
MIAMI (OH)	80-39
vs NORTHERN IOWA  (Bahamas)	51-46
vs MISSOURI  (Bahamas)	84-61
vs DUKE  (Bahamas)	71-76
ILLINOIS STATE	69-66
at COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON	80-38
MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY	99-47
at MEMPHIS	87-78
FIU	79-55
vs WESTERN KENTUCKY  (Nashville)	78-55
KENTUCKY	80-77
PROVIDENCE	80-62
at SETON HALL	73-58
USF	64-38
at CONNECTICUT	73-58
SYRACUSE	68-70
at VILLANOVA	64-73
at GEORGETOWN	51-53
PITTSBURGH	64-61
MARQUETTE	70-51
at RUTGERS	68-48
at NOTRE DAME	101-104
ST. JOHN‘S	72-58
at USF	59-41
SETON HALL	79-61
at DEPAUL	79-58
at SYRACUSE	58-53
CINCINNATI	67-51
NOTRE DAME	73-57
vs VILLANOVA  (BE Tourn.)	74-55
vs NOTRE DAME  (BE Tourn.)	69-57
vs SYRACUSE  (BE Tourn.)	78-61
vs NORTH CAROLINA A&T  (ncaa)	79-48
vs COLORADO STATE  (ncaa)	82-56
vs OREGON  (ncaa)	77-69
vs DUKE  (ncaa)	85-63
vs WICHITA STATE  (ncaa)	72-68

 

 

Michigan Wolverines

Roster

#	Name	Ht.	Wt.	Pos.	Year	Hometown (High School)
1	Glenn Robinson III	6-06	210	F	FR	St. John, Ind. (Lake Central)
2	Spike Albrecht	5-11	170	G	FR	Crown Pt., Ind. (Northfield Mt. Hermon Prep MA)
3	Trey Burke	6-01	190	G	SO	Columbus, Ohio (Northland)
4	Mitch McGary	6-10	250	F	FR	Chesterton, Ind. (Brewster Academy [N.H.])
5	Eso Akunne	6-02	225	G	SR	Ann Arbor, Mich. (Gabriel Richard)
10	Tim Hardaway Jr.	6-06	205	G	JR	Miami, Fla. (Palmetto Senior)
11	Nik Stauskas	6-06	190	G	FR	Mississauga, Ontario (St. Mark’s School MA)
13	Matt Vogrich	6-04	200	G	SR	Lake Forest, Ill. (Lake Forest)
15	Jon Horford	6-10	250	F	SO	Grand Ledge, Mich. (Grand Ledge)
20	Josh Bartelstein	6-03	210	G	SR	Highland Pk., Ill. (Phillips Exeter Acad. [N.H.])
22	Blake McLimans	6-10	240	F	SR	Hamburg, N.Y. (Worcester Academy [Mass.])
23	Caris LeVert	6-05	170	G	FR	Pickerington, Ohio (Central)
32	Corey Person	6-03	210	G	GS	Kalamazoo, Mich. (Central)
44	Max Bielfeldt	6-07	245	F	FR	Peoria, Ill. (Notre Dame)
52	Jordan Morgan	6-08	250	F	JR	Detroit, Mich. (University of Detroit Jesuit)

 

Coach: John Beilein 6^th year at UM: 122-84

35 seasons overall: 673-402

(Erie CC, Nazareth, LeMoyne, Canisius, Richmond, West Virginia, Michigan)

 

Team Stats

Michigan Wolverines
Player	G	GS	Min	FG	FGA	FG%	3pt	3ptA	3pt%	FT	FTA
Trey Burke	38	38	1352	252	549	.459	73	193	.378	126	157
Tim Hardaway, Jr.	37	37	1289	196	447	.438	73	191	.382	75	107
Nik Stauskas	38	32	1171	137	296	.463	79	180	.439	74	87
Glenn Robinson, III	38	38	1274	164	288	.569	23	70	.329	65	97
Mitch McGary	38	7	740	131	218	.601	0	0	.000	23	52
Jordan Morgan	35	27	565	71	121	.587	0	0	.000	22	41
Jon Horford	31	4	276	34	59	.576	0	0	.000	19	27
Caris LeVert	32	1	344	28	88	.318	13	42	.310	7	14
Spike Albrecht	38	0	289	22	50	.440	14	28	.500	9	10
Eso Akunne	18	0	51	8	26	.308	4	12	.333	1	2
Max Bielfeldt	20	0	106	9	20	.450	0	2	.000	5	12
Matt Vogrich	26	6	125	9	27	.333	5	19	.263	3	4
Corey Person	13	0	43	3	7	.429	2	3	.667	2	3
Blake McLimans	16	0	20	4	15	.267	2	11	.182	1	2
Josh Bartelstein	6	0	10	0	1	.000	0	0	.000	0	2
Totals	38	38	7655	1068	2212	.483	288	751	.383	432	617
Opponents	38	38	7655	913	2160	.423	234	729	.321	325	480
Player	FT%	F	DQ	Ast	TO	Bk	Stl	Reb	Avg	Pts	Avg
Trey Burke	.803	69	0	257	82	19	62	120	3.2	703	18.5
Tim Hardaway, Jr.	.701	73	0	89	69	17	26	172	4.6	540	14.6
Nik Stauskas	.851	23	0	50	43	9	21	114	3.0	427	11.2
Glenn Robinson, III	.670	43	0	41	32	10	39	209	5.5	416	10.9
Mitch McGary	.442	88	0	24	46	27	41	240	6.3	285	7.5
Jordan Morgan	.537	50	1	13	33	3	15	153	4.4	164	4.7
Jon Horford	.704	45	0	9	14	16	8	69	2.2	87	2.8
Caris LeVert	.500	38	0	25	9	2	5	33	1.0	76	2.4
Spike Albrecht	.900	23	0	28	12	1	12	30	0.8	67	1.8
Eso Akunne	.500	4	0	5	1	0	0	12	0.7	21	1.2
Max Bielfeldt	.417	8	0	3	3	1	3	31	1.6	23	1.2
Matt Vogrich	.750	8	0	5	3	0	2	23	0.9	26	1.0
Corey Person	.667	4	0	2	1	0	0	1	0.1	10	0.8
Blake McLimans	.500	4	0	1	1	1	1	13	0.8	11	0.7
Josh Bartelstein	.000	1	0	1	0	0	1	0	0.0	0	0.0
Team					7			119	3.1
Totals	.700	481	1	553	356	106	236	1339	35.2	2856	75.2
Opponents	.677	583	10	476	461	121	200	1219	32.1	2385	62.8

 

 

Schedule

Opponent	Score
vs. Slippery Rock	100-62
vs. IUPUI TV (nit)	91-54
vs. Cleveland State (nit)	77-47
(n) Pittsburgh (nit)	67-62
(n) Kansas State (nit)	71-57
vs. No. 18 North Carolina State	79-72
at Bradley	74-66
vs. Western Michigan	73-41
vs. Arkansas	80-67
vs. Binghamton	67-39
(n) West Virginia (Brooklyn)	81-66
vs. Eastern Michigan	93-54
vs. Central Michigan	88-73
at Northwestern	94-66
vs. Iowa	95-67
vs. Nebraska	62-47
at No. 15 Ohio State	53-56
at No. 9 Minnesota	83-75
vs. Purdue	68-53
at Illinois	74-60
vs. Northwestern	68-46
at No. 3 Indiana	73-81
vs. No. 10 Ohio State	76-74 ot
at Wisconsin	62-65 ot
at Michigan State	52-75
vs. Penn State	79-71
vs. Illinois	71-58
at Penn State	78-84
vs. No. 9 Michigan State	58-57
at Purdue	80-75
vs. No. 2 Indiana	71-72
vs. Penn State (B10)	83-66
vs. No. 22 Wisconsin (B10)	59-68
vs. South Dakota State ncaa	71-56
vs. VCU ncaa	78-53
vs. No. 3 Kansas ncaa	87-85 ot
vs. No. 14 Florida ncaa	79-59
vs. No. 8 Syracuse ncaa	61-56

 

Positional Matchups

Point Guard: Louisville—(3) Peyton Siva               Michigan—(3)Trey Burke

This is where Michigan has to have a big night.  Burke is ice cold in the tournament so far, hitting a paltry 23-71 from the field and 8-31 from three-point territory.  The Wolverines were able to overcome Burke’s cold shooting, but the Cardinals will shut off the UM inside game on enough possessions to force Burke to beat them from the outside.

 

Siva is a talented play-maker and even better defender, so Burke may not get many open looks.  Siva does not have to score to be effective.  He is just one of several secondary options on the Cardinals’ team.  A steal at a key juncture of this game could change momentum and become the deciding factor in a close game, and Siva is much more likely to get that steal than any Michigan player.

 

Advantage: Push

 

Shooting Guard: Louisville—(2) Russ Smith          Michigan—(10) Tim Hardaway, Jr.

Smith has been hot during the tournament, and he has oftentimes carried the offensive load for Pitino.  He can be a streaky shooter, and in the last two weeks, that streak has been scorching to the nets.  Beilein’s game plan must start with keeping the ball away from him as much as possible.

 

Hardaway is a quality 2-guard who would be superior to about 62 of the other teams in the Big Dance.  However, Louisville is not one of those teams.  He will need help handling Smith, and he will need to use a lot of additional energy helping Burke against the Cardinals’ Matchup Press defense.

 

Advantage: Louisville

 

Small Forward: Louisville—(20) Wayne Blackshear        Michigan—(11) Nik Stauskas

This is the weakest position in this game, but it could become vitally important.  Stauskas is a hit or miss proposition.  If he hits a three-pointer early, his confidence could lead him to following that up with several more.  If Louisville’s perimeter is too quick for him, and he cannot get open looks, he will disappear on offense and not be much help on defense.

 

Blackshear is a proven commodity, but that commodity is not blue-chip.  He is a tough, hard-worker who will muscle his way on the boards and play consistent defense, but he will not win or lose this game.  Pitino knows what he will get from him and knows he will be rather consistent.

 

Advantage: Wildcard (It is a push, but only because Stauskas has a 50% chance of having a large advantage or large disadvantage depending on which Stauskas shows up).

 

Power Forward: Louisville—(21) Chane Behanan           Michigan—(1) Glenn Robinson, III

This should be a great matchup between like-minded players.  Both opponents help their teammates and make them look better, but neither player can carry the load.

 

Look for both players to score around 10 points and get 8 rebounds.  Behanan may be a little better inside, while Robinson is a little better helping on the perimeter.

 

Advantage: Push

 

Center: Louisville—(10) Gorgui Dieng       Michigan—(4) Mitch McGary

This position features two future NBA players that are just starting to reach their potentials.  Dieng is a fantastic defensive stopper in the paint, and he can imitate Dikembe Mutombo in the Geico commercials.  He is also a major force on the boards, and he can grab the ball on both ends of the floor.  His ability to stop the dribble-drive gives the rest of the team an opportunity to gamble in the press.

 

McGary is more of a prototypical post player.  He has more moves on the offensive end, and when the inside is crowded, he can locate the open perimeter and deliver a sharp, accurate pass that allows his teammate to shoot quickly.

 

Advantage: Michigan

 

Bench:

Pitino uses his bench more the Beilein, but when the Michigan reserves are in the game, they contribute without weakening the team.

 

The loss of Kevin Ware takes away a considerable part of the Cardinals’ bench production, but on the other hand, his teammates will get a boost with him there to cheer them on.

 

Advantage: Push

Our Pick: Here is how we see this game.  In the first half, both teams will be a little tight, and scoring will be rather low, much like the norm for this season.  It will appear to be dull for the first 10-12 minutes with the scoring at a sub-100-point pace (something like 12-10).

 

The offenses will step up and start to get untracked in the final 8 minutes of the half, and Louisville will finish on a mini-run to go into the locker room with a small lead (28-25 or so).

 

Michigan will gain some momentum early in the second half and have their best showing of the night during the first two of the four-minute stretches.  The Wolverines will take the lead and gain a little momentum, with the score looking like 37-34 with 12 minutes to play.

 

At this point, the Wolverines will start to tire.  Their starters played too many minutes in the semifinal win over Syracuse, and the relentless Cardinal pressure will start to have an effect.  A couple of turnovers and some forced shots due to fatigue will allow Louisville to regain the lead.  Beilein will have to take a timeout with UL leading 43-39 with 9 minutes left.

 

After a brief recovery, the fatigue will prove fatal, and Louisville will go for the jugular with a big run.  By the under 4 timeout, the Cardinals will have a nice cushion, something like 55-46.  Michigan will begin to force multiple ill-advised shots, and Louisville will get a couple of cheap baskets to ice the game.  A couple of late three-pointers will give the Wolverine fans some hope, but the Cardinals will hit some foul shots to clinch the national title.

 

FINAL SCORE: Louisville 62  Michigan 55

 

 

Bracketnomics 2013: Final Four Saturday–April 6, 2013

2013 NCAA Tournament— Semifinal Round, April 6, 2013

Ttimes Eastern Daylight

 

Site: Georgia Dome in Atlanta

Network: CBS

Time	Favorite	Underdog	Line
6:09 PM	Louisville (33-5)	Wichita St. (30-8)	10
8:49 PM	Michigan (30-7)	Syracuse (30-9)	2

Elite 8 Record: 2-2

Tournament Total: 38-22

Teams Remaining In Bracket: 1 of  4 (But Louisville was our pick to go all the way)

 

PiRate Ratings Criteria Formula Statistics

Criteria	Louisville	Michigan	Syracuse	Wichita St.
Scoring Margin	16.2	12.6	12.2	8.9
FG% Margin	6.4	6.2	7.2	4.8
Rebound Margin	3.7	3.1	3.7	8.0
Turnover Margin	6.0	2.8	3.2	0.4
Steals	10.9	6.2	9.1	7.5
R+T	13.08	7.70	9.36	9.98
SOS	59.41	55.94	59.29	53.79
RD W%	81.8	68.4	65.0	71.4
Qualifiers	6	3	5	5
PiRate #	85.27	57.09	67.73	53.74
Modified	124.97	65.59	106.43	42.94

 

PiRate Criteria Means for 2000-2012 National Champions

 

Criteria	Champ Avg.
Scoring Margin	15.5
FG% Margin	8.7
Rebound Margin	6.2
Turnover Margin	1.3
Steals	7.8
R+T	9.29
SOS	57.09
RD W%	73.8
Qualifiers	7
PiRate #	75.88
Modified	94.78

 

 

Louisville vs. Wichita State

Roster—Louisville

#	NAME	HT	WT	POS	CL	HOMETOWN (PREVIOUS SCHOOL)
2	Russ Smith	6-00	165	G	JR	Brooklyn, N.Y. (Archbishop Molloy/South Kent)
3	Peyton Siva	6-00	185	G	SR	Seattle, Wash. (Franklin)
5	Kevin Ware	6-02	175	G	SO	Bronx, N.Y. (Rockdale County (Ga.))
10	Gorgui Dieng	6-11	245	C	JR	Kebemer, Senegal (Covenant/Huntington Prep)
11	Luke Hancock	6-06	200	F	JR	Roanoke, Va. (George Mason)
12	Mangok Mathiang	6-10	200	C	FR	Melbourne, Australia (IMG Academy (Fla.))
14	Logan Baumann	6-00	165	G	FR	Hartford, Ky. (Ohio County)
15	Tim Henderson	6-02	195	G	JR	Louisville, Ky. (Christian Academy)
20	Wayne Blackshear	6-05	230	G/F	SO	Chicago, Ill. (Morgan Park)
21	Chane Behanan	6-06	250	F	SO	Cincinnati, Ohio (Bowling Green)
22	Jordan Bond	6-00	165	G	FR	Louisville, Ky. (duPont Manual)
24	Montrezl Harrell	6-08	235	F	FR	Tarboro, N.C. (Hargrave Military Academy)
25	Zach Price	6-10	250	C	SO	Cleveland, Ohio (Jeffersontown)
32	Michael Baffour	6-02	170	G	JR	Lexington, Ky. (Bryan Station)
33	Mike Marra	6-05	215	G	SR	Smithfield, R.I. (Northfield Mt. Hermon School)
44	Stephan Van Treese	6-09	245	F	SR	Indianapolis, Ind. (Lawrence North)

 

Coach: Rick Pitino 12^th year at UL: 308-111

28 seasons overall: 662-239

(Hawaii, Boston U, Providence, Kentucky, Louisville)

 

 

Roster—Wichita St.

#	Name	Ht.	Wt.	Pos.	Yr.	Hometown (Prev School)
0	Chadrack Lufile	6-09	251	F	Jr.	Burlington, Ontario, Canada (Coffeyville CC)
1	Derail Green	6-07	199	F	Fr.	Houston, Texas (Klein Forest HS)
2	Malcolm Armstead	6-00	205	G	Sr.	Florence, Ala. (Chipola JC) (Central Park Prep)
3	Evan Wessel	6-05	201	G	So.	Wichita, Kan. (Heights HS)
5	Demetric Williams	6-02	178	G	Sr.	Las Vegas, Nev. (Cheyenne HS)
11	Cleanthony Early	6-08	215	F	Jr.	Middletown, N.Y. (Sullivan JC)
15	Nick Wiggins	6-06	187	G	Jr.	Toronto, ON (Wabash Valley [Ill.] College)
20	Kadeem Coleby	6-09	251	C	Sr.	Nassau, Bahamas (Louisiana-Lafayette)
21	Ehimen Orukpe	7-00	250	C	Sr.	Lagos, Nigeria, (Three Rivers [Mo.])
22	Carl Hall	6-08	238	F	Sr.	Cochran, Ga. (NW Florida St.)
23	Fred Van Vleet	5-11	190	G	Fr.	Rockford, Ill. (Auburn HS)
31	Ron Baker	6-03	218	G	Fr.	Scott City, Kan. (Scott City HS)
32	Tekele Cotton	6-02	202	G	So.	Marietta, Ga. (Whitefield Academy)
33	Zach Bush	6-06	175	F	Fr.	Wichita, Kan. (Goddard Eisenhower HS)
50	Jake White	6-08	232	F	So.	Chaska, Minn. (Chaska HS)

 

Coach: Gregg Marshall 6^th year at WSU: 139-69

15 seasons overall: 333-152

(Winthrop, Wichita St.)

 

Team Stats—Louisville

Player	G	GS	Min	FG	FGA	FG%	3pt	3ptA	3pt%	FT	FTA
Russ Smith	38	35	1143	223	527	.423	57	172	.331	215	261
Gorgi Dieng	31	30	959	121	227	.533	0	0	.000	73	112
Peyton Siva	38	38	1177	132	320	.413	38	125	.304	74	86
Chane Behanan	37	35	961	143	283	.505	1	12	.083	69	131
Wayne Blackshear	37	32	754	102	242	.421	43	135	.319	43	62
Luke Hancock	38	8	836	86	211	.408	55	148	.372	55	71
Montrezl Harrell	38	3	626	92	163	.564	0	0	.000	32	63
Kevin Ware	37	1	616	59	132	.447	15	37	.405	34	51
Stephan Van Treese	35	1	402	26	40	.650	0	0	.000	12	17
Zach Price	16	7	123	8	15	.533	0	0	.000	4	8
Tim Henderson	25	0	88	6	20	.300	4	17	.235	0	0
Logan Baumann	4	0	11	0	4	.000	0	0	.000	2	2
Michael Baffour	6	0	12	0	3	.000	0	2	.000	2	4
Jordan Bond	5	0	17	0	3	.000	0	2	.000	0	0
Totals	38	38	7725	998	2190	.456	213	650	.328	615	868
Opponents	38	38	7725	778	1987	.392	207	658	.315	444	681
Player	FT%	F	DQ	Ast	TO	Bk	Stl	Reb	Avg	Pts	Avg
Russ Smith	.824	95	0	111	100	2	81	129	3.4	718	18.9
Gorgi Dieng	.652	77	3	60	56	78	43	296	9.5	315	10.2
Peyton Siva	.860	99	3	220	102	6	84	87	2.3	376	9.9
Chane Behanan	.527	63	0	40	60	16	52	233	6.3	356	9.6
Wayne Blackshear	.694	92	0	24	24	10	33	120	3.2	290	7.8
Luke Hancock	.775	78	1	50	39	3	36	100	2.6	282	7.4
Montrezl Harrell	.508	48	0	7	22	27	20	141	3.7	216	5.7
Kevin Ware	.667	58	1	31	42	4	39	66	1.8	167	4.5
Stephan Van Treese	.706	42	0	9	13	10	17	111	3.2	64	1.8
Zach Price	.500	23	0	0	5	5	1	22	1.4	20	1.3
Tim Henderson	.000	5	0	3	6	1	6	10	0.4	16	0.6
Logan Baumann	1.000	1	0	0	1	0	0	3	0.8	2	0.5
Michael Baffour	.500	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0.2	2	0.3
Jordan Bond	.000	1	0	1	0	0	1	3	0.6	0	0.0
Team					7			84	2.2
Totals	.709	682	8	556	477	162	413	1406	37.0	2824	74.3
Opponents	.652	731	X	385	707	128	216	1264	33.3	2207	58.1

 

Team Stats—Wichita St.

Player	G	GS	Min	FG	FGA	FG%	3pt	3ptA	3pt%	FT	FTA
Cleanthony Early	38	21	942	176	390	.451	45	144	.313	123	156
Carl Hall	31	25	886	141	262	.538	0	2	.000	106	158
Malcolm Armstead	38	38	1085	146	363	.402	61	172	.355	61	76
Ron Baker	17	14	436	42	104	.404	27	78	.346	35	43
Demetric Williams	38	26	966	97	252	.385	32	114	.281	62	81
Tekele Cotton	38	27	896	88	200	.440	23	64	.359	44	82
Evan Wessel	8	8	152	16	33	.485	11	24	.458	1	1
Nick Wiggins	35	1	460	58	133	.436	31	73	.425	27	37
Fred Van Vleet	38	0	607	59	149	.396	20	47	.426	26	36
Jake White	36	0	399	51	109	.468	3	27	.111	25	35
Ehimen Orukpe	35	30	538	39	83	.470	0	0	.000	17	42
Chadrack Lufile	29	0	233	19	34	.559	0	0	.000	8	20
Totals	38	38	7600	932	2112	.441	253	745	.340	535	767
Opponents	38	38	7600	775	1971	.393	229	714	.321	534	745
Player	FT%	F	DQ	Ast	TO	Bk	Stl	Reb	Avg	Pts	Avg
Cleanthony Early	.788	97	3	23	61	34	29	202	5.3	520	13.7
Carl Hall	.671	73	0	22	41	55	14	213	6.9	388	12.5
Malcolm Armstead	.803	86	0	150	86	2	74	146	3.8	414	10.9
Ron Baker	.814	35	0	32	22	5	14	50	2.9	146	8.6
Demetric Williams	.765	84	2	86	63	1	44	98	2.6	288	7.6
Tekele Cotton	.537	78	1	65	43	6	39	149	3.9	243	6.4
Evan Wessel	1.000	15	0	15	5	1	2	14	1.8	44	5.5
Nick Wiggins	.730	29	0	11	21	6	10	63	1.8	174	5.0
Fred Van Vleet	.722	42	1	86	43	2	35	71	1.9	164	4.3
Jake White	.714	48	0	10	28	0	7	107	3.0	130	3.6
Ehimen Orukpe	.405	71	0	8	46	56	11	155	4.4	95	2.7
Chadrack Lufile	.400	22	0	9	12	8	5	52	1.8	46	1.6
Team					10			141	3.7
Totals	.698	680	7	517	481	176	284	1461	38.4	2652	69.8
Opponents	.717	680	X	400	496	113	212	1157	30.4	2313	60.9

 

Schedule—Louisville

Opponent	Score
MANHATTAN	79-51
SAMFORD	80-54
MIAMI (OH)	80-39
vs NORTHERN IOWA  (Bahamas)	51-46
vs MISSOURI  (Bahamas)	84-61
vs DUKE  (Bahamas)	71-76
ILLINOIS STATE	69-66
at COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON	80-38
MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY	99-47
at MEMPHIS	87-78
FIU	79-55
vs WESTERN KENTUCKY  (Nashville)	78-55
KENTUCKY	80-77
PROVIDENCE	80-62
at SETON HALL	73-58
USF	64-38
at CONNECTICUT	73-58
SYRACUSE	68-70
at VILLANOVA	64-73
at GEORGETOWN	51-53
PITTSBURGH	64-61
MARQUETTE	70-51
at RUTGERS	68-48
at NOTRE DAME	101-104
ST. JOHN‘S	72-58
at USF	59-41
SETON HALL	79-61
at DEPAUL	79-58
at SYRACUSE	58-53
CINCINNATI	67-51
NOTRE DAME	73-57
vs VILLANOVA  (BE Tourn.)	74-55
vs NOTRE DAME  (BE Tourn.)	69-57
vs SYRACUSE  (BE Tourn.)	78-61
vs NORTH CAROLINA A&T  (ncaa)	79-48
vs COLORADO STATE  (ncaa)	82-56
vs OREGON  (ncaa)	77-69
vs DUKE  (ncaa)	85-63

 

Schedule—Wichita St.

Opponent	Score
North Carolina Central	71-57
at Virginia Commonwealth	53-51
Western Carolina (Cancun Challenge)	79-63
Howard (Cancun Challenge)	69-50
(n) DePaul (Cancun)	75-62
(n) Iowa (Cancun)	75-63
Tulsa	86-60
at Air Force (MVC/MWC Challenge)	72-69
Northern Colorado	80-54
at Tennessee	60-69
Charleston Southern	65-53
Southern Mississippi	59-51
Northern Iowa	66-41
at Drake	75-63
at Bradley	69-63
Southern Illinois	82-76
at Evansville	67-71
Illinois St.	74-62
Crieghton	67-64
at Missouri St.	62-52
Bradley	73-39
Indiana St.	55-68
at Northern Iowa	52-57
at Southern Illinois	62-64
Missouri St.	79-50
Drake	71-56
at Illinois St.	68-67
at Indiana St.	66-62
Detroit (Bracketbuster)	94-79
Evansville	56-59
at Creighton	79-91
Missouri St. (mvc–St. Louis)	69-59
Illinois St. (mvc–St. Louis)	66-51
Crieghton (mvc–St. Louis)	65-68
(n) Pittsburgh ncaa	73-55
(n) Gonzaga ncaa	76-70
(n) La Salle ncaa	72-58
(n) Ohio St. ncaa	70-66

 

Vital Statistics

FG% Margin: Louisville by 1.6%

Rebound Margin: Wichita St. by 4.3

Turnover Margin: Louisville by 5.6

R+T Margin: Louisville by 3.1 extra possessions

SOS: Louisville by 5.6 points per game

 

PiRate Pick: Louisville 73  Wichita State 61

 

Other: Louisville winning the national championship one year after their rival Kentucky won it would not be something new.  It has happened before.  In 2010, Duke won the title a year after North Carolina.  In 1993, North Carolina won the title a year after Duke.  In 1983, North Carolina State won the title a year after North Carolina.  In 1961, Cincinnati won the title a year after Ohio State, and to make it sweeter, the Bearcats beat the Buckeyes in the championship game (and repeated that victory the following season.  Ohio State had refused to play Cincinnati in the regular season.

 

Cincinnati comes into play on Wichita State’s side as well.  The Bearcats were members of the Missouri Valley Conference when they won those back-to-back titles.  The MVC has four national championship teams from the past.  In addition to Cinti, Oklahoma A&M (now Oklahoma State) won back-to-back titles in 1945 and 1946, while in the Valley.  The Cowboys moves to the Big 8 for the 1958-59 season.

 

Michigan vs. Syracuse

Roster—Michigan

#	Name	Ht.	Wt.	Pos.	Year	Hometown (High School)
1	Glenn Robinson III	6-06	210	F	FR	St. John, Ind. (Lake Central)
2	Spike Albrecht	5-11	170	G	FR	Crown Pt., Ind. (Northfield Mt. Hermon Prep MA)
3	Trey Burke	6-01	190	G	SO	Columbus, Ohio (Northland)
4	Mitch McGary	6-10	250	F	FR	Chesterton, Ind. (Brewster Academy [N.H.])
5	Eso Akunne	6-02	225	G	SR	Ann Arbor, Mich. (Gabriel Richard)
10	Tim Hardaway Jr.	6-06	205	G	JR	Miami, Fla. (Palmetto Senior)
11	Nik Stauskas	6-06	190	G	FR	Mississauga, Ontario (St. Mark’s School MA)
13	Matt Vogrich	6-04	200	G	SR	Lake Forest, Ill. (Lake Forest)
15	Jon Horford	6-10	250	F	SO	Grand Ledge, Mich. (Grand Ledge)
20	Josh Bartelstein	6-03	210	G	SR	Highland Pk., Ill. (Phillips Exeter Acad. [N.H.])
22	Blake McLimans	6-10	240	F	SR	Hamburg, N.Y. (Worcester Academy [Mass.])
23	Caris LeVert	6-05	170	G	FR	Pickerington, Ohio (Central)
32	Corey Person	6-03	210	G	GS	Kalamazoo, Mich. (Central)
44	Max Bielfeldt	6-07	245	F	FR	Peoria, Ill. (Notre Dame)
52	Jordan Morgan	6-08	250	F	JR	Detroit, Mich. (University of Detroit Jesuit)

 

Coach: John Beilein 6^th year at UM: 121-84

35 seasons overall: 672-402

(Erie CC, Nazareth, LeMoyne, Canisius, Richmond, West Virginia, Michigan)

 

Roster—Syracuse

#	Name	HT.	WT.	POS.	CL.	HOMETOWN / HIGHSCHOOL
0	Michael Gbinije	6-07	200	F	So.	Richmond, Va. / Benedictine College Prep
1	Mchl. Carter-Williams	6-06	185	G	So.	Hamilton, Mass. / St. Andrews School, R.I.
3	Jerami Grant	6-08	203	F	Fr.	Hyattsville, Md. / DeMatha Catholic
4	Nolan Hart	5-10	152	G	Jr.	Albany, N.Y. / Albany Academy
5	C.J. Fair	6-08	215	F	Jr.	Baltimore, Md. / City College HS/Brewster Acad.
10	Trevor Cooney	6-04	195	G	So.	Wilmington, Del. / Sanford School
12	Baye Moussa Keita	6-10	215	C	Jr.	Saint Louis, Senegal / Oak Hill Academy
13	Griffin Hoffmann	6-01	178	G	Sr.	New York, N.Y. / York Prep
14	Matt Lyde-Cajuste	6-05	215	F	Sr.	Mt. Vernon, N.Y. / Iona Prep
20	Brandon Triche	6-04	210	G	Sr.	Jamesville, N.Y. / Jamesville-DeWitt
21	Noel Jones	6-06	230	F	Jr.	Halifax, N.S. / Halifax Grammer School
23	Russ DeRemer	6-05	203	G	Jr.	Wrentham, Mass./Worcester Academy
25	Rakeem Christmas	6-09	242	F	So.	Philadelphia, Pa. / Academy of the New Church
32	DaJuan Coleman	6-09	288	F	Fr.	Jamesville, N.Y. / Jamesville-DeWitt
33	Albert Nassar	6-06	195	F	So.	Stuart, Fla. / South Fork
43	James Southerland	6-08	215	F	Sr.	Bayside, N.Y. / Cardozo/N. Dame Prep (Mass.)

 

Coach: Jim Boeheim 37^th year at SU: 920-313

 

Team Stats: Michigan

Player	G	GS	Min	FG	FGA	FG%	3pt	3ptA	3pt%	FT	FTA
Trey Burke	37	37	1314	251	541	.464	72	189	.381	122	151
Tim Hardaway, Jr.	36	36	1250	192	431	.445	70	181	.387	73	105
Nik Stauskas	37	31	1153	137	291	.471	79	176	.449	74	87
Glenn Robinson, III	37	37	1239	159	281	.566	23	69	.333	65	97
Mitch McGary	37	6	704	127	210	.605	0	0	.000	21	46
Jordan Morgan	34	27	560	70	120	.583	0	0	.000	21	39
Jon Horford	30	4	272	33	57	.579	0	0	.000	17	24
Caris LeVert	31	1	323	25	84	.298	11	39	.282	7	14
Spike Albrecht	37	0	285	20	48	.417	12	26	.462	9	9
Eso Akunne	18	0	51	8	26	.308	4	12	.333	1	2
Max Bielfeldt	20	0	106	9	20	.450	0	2	.000	5	12
Matt Vogrich	26	6	125	9	27	.333	5	19	.263	3	4
Corey Person	13	0	43	3	7	.429	2	3	.667	2	3
Blake McLimans	16	0	20	4	15	.267	2	11	.182	1	2
Josh Bartelstein	6	0	10	0	1	.000	0	0	.000	0	2
Totals	37	37	7455	1047	2159	.485	280	727	.385	421	597
Opponents	37	37	7455	890	2105	.423	231	715	.323	318	469
Player	FT%	F	DQ	Ast	TO	Bk	Stl	Reb	Avg	Pts	Avg
Trey Burke	.808	67	0	253	81	18	59	115	3.1	696	18.8
Tim Hardaway, Jr.	.695	70	0	84	68	17	25	166	4.6	527	14.6
Nik Stauskas	.851	23	0	50	43	9	20	113	3.1	427	11.5
Glenn Robinson, III	.670	43	0	41	29	10	39	203	5.5	406	11.0
Mitch McGary	.457	84	0	18	43	25	41	228	6.2	275	7.4
Jordan Morgan	.538	50	1	13	32	3	15	153	4.5	161	4.7
Jon Horford	.708	44	0	9	14	16	8	68	2.3	83	2.8
Caris LeVert	.500	37	0	23	8	2	5	29	0.9	68	2.2
Spike Albrecht	1.000	23	0	28	12	1	12	29	0.8	61	1.6
Eso Akunne	.500	4	0	5	1	0	0	12	0.7	21	1.2
Max Bielfeldt	.417	8	0	3	3	1	3	31	1.6	23	1.2
Matt Vogrich	.750	8	0	5	3	0	2	23	0.9	26	1.0
Corey Person	.667	4	0	2	1	0	0	1	0.1	10	0.8
Blake McLimans	.500	4	0	1	1	1	1	13	0.8	11	0.7
Josh Bartelstein	.000	1	0	1	0	0	1	0	0.0	0	0.0
Team								118	3.2
Totals	.705	470	1	536	339	103	231	1302	35.2	2795	75.5
Opponents	.678	564	8	463	451	117	193	1186	32.1	2329	62.9

 

Team Stats—Syracuse

Player	G	GS	Min	FG	FGA	FG%	3pt	3ptA	3pt%	FT	FTA
C. J. Fair	39	39	1357	208	442	.471	29	61	.475	114	151
Brandon Triche	39	39	1312	181	436	.415	49	168	.292	122	164
Mchl. Carter-Williams	39	39	1373	154	388	.397	35	118	.297	129	186
Rakeem Christmas	39	39	810	85	161	.528	0	0	.000	30	51
DaJuan Coleman	24	20	305	42	96	.438	0	0	.000	30	65
James Southerland	33	10	976	159	349	.456	83	206	.403	45	57
Jerami Grant	39	9	555	52	114	.456	6	15	.400	41	73
Baye Moussa Keita	39	0	655	53	87	.609	0	0	.000	39	65
Trevor Cooney	38	0	431	46	143	.322	27	103	.262	11	15
Albert Nasser	5	0	3	1	1	1.000	1	1	1.000	0	0
Noel Jones	6	0	8	1	2	.500	0	0	.000	0	0
Matt Lyde-Cajuste	13	0	22	1	6	.167	0	3	.000	0	0
Nolan Hart	11	0	15	1	6	.167	0	3	.000	0	1
Griffin Hoffman	12	0	15	0	5	.000	0	4	.000	1	4
Russ DeRemer	11	0	13	0	2	.000	0	1	.000	0	0
Totals	39	39	7850	984	2238	.440	230	683	.337	562	832
Opponents	39	39	7850	773	2101	.368	238	843	.282	502	742
Player	FT%	F	DQ	Ast	TO	Bk	Stl	Reb	Avg	Pts	Avg
C. J. Fair	.755	60	0	28	63	41	44	272	7.0	559	14.3
Brandon Triche	.744	81	2	136	107	5	50	134	3.4	533	13.7
Mchl. Carter-Williams	.694	87	4	290	131	19	109	190	4.9	472	12.1
Rakeem Christmas	.588	99	3	8	34	72	18	178	4.6	200	5.1
DaJuan Coleman	.462	30	0	4	23	9	13	95	4.0	114	4.8
James Southerland	.789	76	2	36	38	29	49	173	5.2	446	13.5
Jerami Grant	.562	54	1	17	26	16	17	111	2.8	151	3.9
Baye Moussa Keita	.600	95	2	6	22	45	21	147	3.8	145	3.7
Trevor Cooney	.733	32	0	23	19	3	28	31	0.8	130	3.4
Albert Nasser	.000	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	0.2	3	0.6
Noel Jones	.000	2	0	0	0	1	0	6	1.0	2	0.3
Matt Lyde-Cajuste	.000	0	0	1	1	2	1	4	0.3	2	0.2
Nolan Hart	.000	0	0	1	6	0	1	3	0.3	2	0.2
Griffin Hoffman	.250	1	0	0	4	0	3	1	0.1	1	0.1
Russ DeRemer	.000	0	0	0	1	0	0	2	0.2	0	0.0
Team					10			154	3.9
Totals	.675	618	14	550	485	242	355	1502	38.5	2760	70.8
Opponents	.677	714	9	521	608	125	270	1357	34.8	2286	58.6

 

Schedule—Michigan

Opponent	Score
vs. Slippery Rock	100-62
vs. IUPUI TV (nit)	91-54
vs. Cleveland State (nit)	77-47
(n) Pittsburgh (nit)	67-62
(n) Kansas State (nit)	71-57
vs. No. 18 North Carolina State	79-72
at Bradley	74-66
vs. Western Michigan	73-41
vs. Arkansas	80-67
vs. Binghamton	67-39
(n) West Virginia (Brooklyn)	81-66
vs. Eastern Michigan	93-54
vs. Central Michigan	88-73
at Northwestern	94-66
vs. Iowa	95-67
vs. Nebraska	62-47
at No. 15 Ohio State	53-56
at No. 9 Minnesota	83-75
vs. Purdue	68-53
at Illinois	74-60
vs. Northwestern	68-46
at No. 3 Indiana	73-81
vs. No. 10 Ohio State	76-74 ot
at Wisconsin	62-65 ot
at Michigan State	52-75
vs. Penn State	79-71
vs. Illinois	71-58
at Penn State	78-84
vs. No. 9 Michigan State	58-57
at Purdue	80-75
vs. No. 2 Indiana	71-72
vs. Penn State (B10)	83-66
vs. No. 22 Wisconsin (B10)	59-68
vs. South Dakota State ncaa	71-56
vs. VCU ncaa	78-53
vs. No. 3 Kansas ncaa	87-85 ot
vs. No. 14 Florida ncaa	79-59

 

Schedule—Syracuse

Opponent	Score
at San Diego St. (Onboard Midway)	62-49
Wagner	88-57
Princeton	73-53
Colgate	87-51
at Arkansas (SEC/Big East)	91-82
Eastern Michigan	84-48
Long Beach St.	84-53
Monmouth	108-56
Canisius (Gotham Classic)	85-61
Detroit (Gotham Classic)	72-68
(n) Temple (MSG) (Gotham Classic)	79-83
Alcorn St. (Gotham Classic)	57-36
Central Connecticut	96-62
Rutgers	78-53
at South Florida	55-44
at Providence	72-66
Villanova	72-61
at Louisville	70-68
Cincinnati	57-55
at Villanova	71-75 ot
at Pittsburgh	55-65
Notre Dame	63-47
St. John’s	77-58
at Connecticut	58-66
at Seton Hall	76-65
Providence	84-59
Georgetown	46-57
at Marquette	71-74
Louisville	53-58
DePaul	78-57
at Georgetown	39-61
(n) Seton Hall (MSG) (BE)	75-63
(n) Pittsburgh (MSG) (BE)	62-59
(n) Georgetown (MSG) (BE)	58-55 ot
(n) Louisville (MSG (BE)	61-78
(n) Montana ncaa	81-34
(n) California ncaa	66-60
(n) Indiana ncaa	61-50
(n) Marquette ncaa	55-39

 

Vital Statistics

FG% Margin: Syracuse by 1.0%

Rebound Margin: Syracuse by 0.6

Turnover Margin: Syracuse by 0.4

R+T Margin: Syracuse by 1.7 extra possessions

SOS: Syracuse by 3.4 points per game

 

PiRate Pick: Syracuse 76  Michigan 70

 

Other: If Syracuse plays Louisville for the national title, it will be the fourth time conference opponents have faced each other in the championship game.  In 1988, Kansas beat Oklahoma in a big upset.  In 1985, Villanova beat Georgetown in an even bigger upset.  In 1976, Indiana beat Michigan to complete the last undefeated season of a national champion.

 

Michigan and Louisville or Michigan and Wichita State would continue a tradition of recent Midwest dominance in the Championship Game.  We consider Louisville and Lexington to be more Midwest than South.  There have been 11 Midwest schools in the 13 title games of the 2000’s.  There have been 9 teams from the South, 4 from the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast area, and 2 from the West.

 

The Big Ten has placed five teams in the Championship Game this century, but only one member one—Michigan State in 2000.  The Big East is 3-0 in 21^st Century National Championship Games.

Bracketnomics 2013: Elite 8–March 30-31, 2013

2013 NCAA Tournament— Elite 8 Schedule For Saturday, March 30-31, 2013

 

All times Eastern Daylight

Saturday, March 30, 2013
Time	Network	Region	Site	High Seed	Low Seed
4:30 PM	CBS	E	Washington, D. C.	3-Marquette (26-8)	4-Syracuse (29-9)
7:05 PM	CBS	W	Los Angeles	2-Ohio St. (29-7)	9-Wichita St. (29-8)
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Time	Network	Region	Site	High Seed	Low Seed
2:20 PM	CBS	S	Arlington, TX	3-Florida (29-7)	4-Michigan (29-7)
5:05 PM	CBS	MW	Indianapolis	1-Louisville (32-5)	2-Duke (30-5)

Tournament Total: 36-20Sweet 16 Record: 3-5 (almost totally busted)

Teams Remaining In Bracket: 2 of 8 (Only Louisville left of Final 4 choices, but they were our pick to go all the way)

Interesting Note: It is still possible that Ohio State and Michigan could meet in the National Championship Game. It would be an interesting rivalry game.

PiRate Criteria Stats (See our explanation on how we select our brackets at: http://piratings.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/bracketnomics-2013-a-statistical-look-at-bracket-selection/  )

	Margins
Team	Scoring	FG%	Rebound	Turnover	Steals	R+T	SOS	Rd_WL%
Duke	13.0	6.4	-0.9	3.5	6.6	4.62	60.68	72.2
Florida	18.2	10.4	4.9	3.0	7.1	9.92	57.58	65.0
Louisville	16.3	6.1	3.8	6.3	11.0	13.56	59.41	80.0
Marquette	5.9	5.5	4.6	-0.6	6.8	5.24	58.15	52.9
Michigan	12.7	6.6	3.2	2.8	6.0	7.76	55.94	64.7
Ohio St.	11.4	6.1	3.1	2.9	6.8	7.94	58.57	70.6
Syracuse	12.1	6.8	4.1	2.9	9.0	9.38	59.29	61.1
Wichita St.	8.9	4.6	7.9	0.5	7.6	10.02	53.79	68.4

Game Previews

Marquette vs. Syracuse

When these two teams played in Milwaukee in late February, Syracuse was going through a swoon in which they lost four of five games.  The Orangemen blew a second half lead when Marquette began collapsing the SU zone defense and passing to the gaps for open jumpers.  Marquette forced the issue once Syracuse widened the zone, with Golden Eagle players driving the gaps and drawing fouls.  MU ended up 29-35 at the line, while the Orangemen were just 5-7.  Davante Gardner, benched by Coach Buzz Williams, came into the game a couple minutes into the opening half and scored a career-high 26 points on a perfect 7-7 from the field and an almost perfect 12-13 at the line.  Still, Marquette won at home by just three points, 74-71.

Expect different results in this game.  Remember, games are officiated differently, and no team will get 35 free throw attempts or have the benefit of getting “homer” calls.

This time, on a neutral floor, we expect the result to be different.  The ‘Cuse is a different team than the one that lost in Milwaukee five weeks ago.  Coach Jim Boeheim’s team enjoys an R+T number that equates to four extra scoring chances, and Syracuse has a better field goal percentage margin.  These advantages were accumulated while SU was playing a schedule that was more than a point per game better than Marquette.

PiRate Pick: Syracuse 70  Marquette 61

 

 

Ohio St. vs. Wichita St.

WichitaState looked like a Final Four team in their Sweet 16 win over La Salle, as well as previous wins over Pittsburgh and Gonzaga.  Meanwhile, OhioState has been quite fortunate to escape with wins in their last two games after trouncing Iona in their first tournament game.

This game should be another tight affair, as the two teams match up evenly.  OhioState has a slight, almost inconsequential, edge in field goal percentage margin.  WichitaState has a decided advantage in rebounding margin, but OhioState has a marked advantage in turnover margin.  However, the Buckeyes do not generate a lot of steals, and WichitaState has the R+T advantage by more than two extra scoring chances.  The boys from Columbus take the upper hand due to a considerably stronger strength of schedule, to the tune of almost five points per game.  Coach Thad Matta’s team is also the better team away from home, and that tilts the scale in his favor.

 

PiRate Pick: Ohio St. 78  Wichita St. 73  

 

 

Florida vs. Michigan

Someone must be looking down from above on Gator coach Billy Donovan.  The two teams that Florida would have struggled against, Georgetown and Kansas, were eliminated before Florida was forced to play them.  The Gators faced a Minnesota team that lacked the quickness and outside shooting ability to challenge them.  They got the weakest team in the Sweet 16 instead of the Hoyas or even San DiegoState.  Now, they face a Michigan team that cannot defend well enough to stop the Gator’s halfcourt attack, while Kansas could have shut them down.

Florida will reach another Final Four because they have superior PiRate Criteria numbers across the board.  The Gators enjoy a field goal margin advantage of 3.8%, a rebounding margin advantage of 1.7 per game, a turnover margin advantage of 0.2 (basically a wash but UF has the edge), a steals advantage of 1.1, which gives the Gators an R+T advantage of more than two additional scoring chances.  Add a slightly more difficult strength of schedule, and an infinitesimal advantage in winning percentage away from home, and the Gators have too much going in their favor.  Michigan’s only chance is to bomb away from three-point land, but Florida is one of the toughest teams against the three-pointer.

 

PiRate Pick: Florida 79  Michigan 67

 

 

Louisville vs. Duke

In the Sweet 16, we had a rematch of the 1987 National Championship Game.  Now, we get a rematch of the 1986 National Championship Game.  Syracuse avenged their last-second loss to Indiana and won their Sweet 16 game over the Hoosiers.  Does that mean, we are going with Duke to avenge their title loss?  Not on your life.  Louisville remains our choice to cut down the nets in Atlanta, and our PiRate criteria shows the Cardinals to be a solid but not spectacular pick in this game.

Duke owns two advantages over Rick Pitino’s squad.  The Blue Devils have a slightly better field goal percentage margin and a decent strength of schedule edge.  Louisville owns the rest of the criteria advantages—by 4.7 on the boards, by 2.8 in turnover margin, by 4.4 in steals, by almost nine more scoring chances in R+T, and by 7% in winning percentage away from home.

 

PiRate Pick: Louisville 77  Duke 70

 

Check back Thursday, April 4 for our Final 4 Preview

Bracketnomics 2013: Sweet 16, March 28-29, 2013

2013 NCAA Tournament— Sweet 16 Schedule For Thursday-Friday, March 28-29, 2013

All times Eastern Daylight

Thursday, March 28, 2013
Time	Network	Region	Site	High Seed	Low Seed
7:15 PM	CBS	E	Washington, D. C.	2-Miami (29-6)	3-Marquette (25-8)
7:47 PM	TBS	W	Los Angeles	2-Ohio St. (28-7)	6-Arizona (27-7)
9:45 PM	CBS	E	Washington, D. C.	1-Indiana (29-6)	4-Syracuse (28-9)
10:17 PM	TBS	W	Los Angeles	9-Wichita St. (28-8)	13-La Salle (24-9)
Friday, March 29, 2013
Time	Network		Site	High Seed	Low Seed
7:15 PM	CBS	MW	Indianapolis	1-Louisville (31-5)	12-Oregon (28-8)
7:37 PM	TBS	S	Arlington, TX	1-Kansas (31-5)	4-Michigan (28-7)
9:45 PM	CBS	MW	Indianapolis	2-Duke (29-5)	3-Michigan St. (27-8)
10:07 PM	TBS	S	Arlington, TX	3-Florida (28-7)	15-Florida Gulf Coast (26-10)

Third Round Record: 11-5

Tournament Total: 33-15

Teams Remaining In Bracket: 12 of 16

 

Updated PiRate Criteria Stats (See our explanation on how we select our brackets at: http://piratings.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/bracketnomics-2013-a-statistical-look-at-bracket-selection/  )

 

	Margins
Team	Scoring	FG%	Rebound	Turnover	Steals	R+T	SOS	Rd_WL%
Arizona	10.2	4.6	6.6	0.3	6.7	8.30	57.24	72.2
Duke	13.0	6.4	-0.9	3.5	6.6	4.62	60.68	72.2
Florida	18.2	10.4	4.9	3.0	7.1	9.92	57.58	65.0
Florida Gulf Coast	6.6	5.5	1.0	1.2	9.0	4.24	47.84	55.0
Indiana	17.4	9.7	7.5	1.2	7.1	10.36	58.59	75.0
Kansas	13.7	12.2	6.5	-1.3	7.1	6.36	57.82	77.8
La Salle	6.3	-0.2	-3.4	3.0	7.8	1.76	54.68	61.1
Louisville	16.3	6.1	3.8	6.3	11.0	13.56	59.41	80.0
Marquette	5.9	5.5	4.6	-0.6	6.8	5.24	58.15	52.9
Miami (Fl)	9.6	6.2	3.4	1.0	6.3	5.86	59.56	75.0
Michigan	12.7	6.6	3.2	2.8	6.0	7.76	55.94	64.7
Michigan St.	9.4	7.1	7.6	-1.2	8.1	7.78	59.66	58.8
Ohio St.	11.4	6.1	3.1	2.9	6.8	7.94	58.57	70.6
Oregon	8.5	3.7	6.4	0.3	8.5	8.46	53.29	64.7
Syracuse	12.1	6.8	4.1	2.9	9.0	9.38	59.29	61.1
Wichita St.	8.9	4.6	7.9	0.5	7.6	10.02	53.79	68.4

 

 

Game Previews

Miami vs. Marquette

On PiRate paper, this game looks extremely close, about a 52-48% probability for Miami.  The Hurricanes enjoy marginally better criteria numbers in shooting percentage margin, turnover margin, and strength of schedule, while Marquette is a slightly better rebounding team.  The R+T criteria is virtually a wash, so we have just one criteria left to select Miami as the winner.  The Hurricanes are a better road team than Marquette.

 

This should be an exciting game to watch, as the talent matches up well.  Although the two stars will not guard each other, The Golden Eagles’ Vander Blue and the “U’s” Shane Larkin should put on great performances that will make it worthwhile to tune in.

 

Note: Marquette coach Buzz Williams is being mentioned in more than one coaching vacancy, and this could possibly affect the play of his team.

 

PiRate Pick: Miami 68  Marquette 64

 

 

Ohio State vs. Arizona

Like the first game, this one looks razor close according to our criteria ratings.  In fact, it is close to a coin-flip to determine the winner.  Of course, we would never do something like that to pick a winner.  We have a confirmed pick in this game.

 

Ohio State has a slight edge in field goal percentage margin.  Arizona has a definite rebounding margin edge, more than any other criteria in our formula.  The Buckeyes have the advantage in turnover margin, somewhere between their field goal percentage edge and ‘Zona’s edge in rebounding margin.  The steals criteria is a wash, while the all-important R+T rating edge goes to the Wildcats by less than one half possession, basically another wash.  The Scarlet and Gray enjoy a small edge in strength of schedule, while UA has an equally tiny advantage in won-loss percentage away from home.

 

So, how is it we have a clear-cut choice in this game?  Simply put, we selected a surprise Final Four team in this region, and we are sticking with them.

 

PiRate Pick:  Arizona 70  Ohio State 66

 

Indiana vs. Syracuse

Keith Smart isn’t walking through that door, and neither is Sherman Douglas.  This rematch of the 1987 national title game could be just as close if the Orangemen play like they did in the first half of the Big East Championship Game.

 

Indiana has considerable advantages in this game, but they are not strong enough to call this an easy win for the top-seeded Hoosiers.  IU has a 3% better field goal percentage margin and a 3.4 advantage in rebounding margin.  The ‘Cuse has a slight advantage in turnover margin, which closes the gap in R+T to just one extra scoring opportunity for the Hoosiers.  SU has a slim advantage in schedule strength, while Indiana has the advantage in winning percentage away from home.

 

Thanks to two NCAA Tournament wins away from Bloomington, Indiana now meets all the superior ratings in PiRate Criteria, which makes them the new favorite to go all the way to the title.  Of course, our official pick is Louisville, but as of now, the Hoosiers would be favored to win the game if it is for all the marbles.  And, these numbers could still change.  So, if you are allowed to pick anew after each round, check back to make sure Indiana is still number one in our ratings.  Louisville is just a tad behind but with a possible two games to reclaim the lead.

 

PiRate Pick: Indiana 72  Syracuse 66

 

Wichita State vs. La Salle

If you had these two teams facing off in your Sweet 16 bracket, please send us a link to your expert blog.   We could see the Shockers getting here, but in all honesty, we did not believe the Explorers would get past the First Four!

 

We believe this game will be the first blowout of the Sweet 16, and we say Wichita State will cruise to a double-digit victory.

 

The Shockers have prohibitive advantages in field goal percentage margin and rebounding margin, where La Salle’s numbers are negative for both stats.  WSU has an R+T advantage of 8.26.  Add these 8.26 additional scoring opportunities to the considerable field goal margin advantage, and it adds up to a very fun night for the Kansans.

 

PiRate Pick: Wichita State 76  La Salle 61

 

 

Louisville vs. Oregon

We love it when big conference teams from more than 1,000 miles apart meet in the second weekend of the tournament.  You never know for sure if your comparisons are valid, because there are not many comparative games between the two teams.

 

It is games like this, where we must put all of our faith in our method.  If our method is worth a grain of salt, it is this type of game that will separate it from the rest.

 

Give the field goal percentage margin advantage to Louisville by 2.4%.  Oregon wins the rebound margin criteria by 2.6, while the Cardinals have a huge advantage in turnover margin and steals (6.0 and 2.5 respectively).  UL gets the nod in R+T by 5.1, and the Cards have equally big advantages in schedule strength and road won-loss percentage.  It adds up to another rather easy win for Rick Pitino’s crew.

 

PiRate Pick: Louisville 75  Oregon 59

 

Kansas vs. Michigan

Michigan’s forte is shooting; statistically, Kansas is the toughest team in decades against the shot, holding teams below 36% from the field.  John Beilein’s teams historically have not been the best rebounding squads, but this year’s team is different; the Wolverines can bang the boards.  However, Kansas is much tougher on the glass, so the Jayhawks have the advantage here as well.  Michigan has a nice advantage in turnover margin, as KU’s margin is negative.  However, the Maize and Blue do not steal the ball very much, while KU actually has a better steals rate.  This gives the lads from Lawrence an R+T deficit of just 1.4, which equates to 1.4 extra scoring opportunities for Michigan.  KU’s stellar field goal percentage margin will overcome that extra opportunity and a half, and the Jayhawks will survive and advance.

 

PiRate Pick: Kansas 69  Michigan 64

 

Duke vs. Michigan State

Here is one of those games where we love the contrast in styles.  Duke is all finesse this year, while MSU is mostly muscle.  We liken this to the 1960’s American Football League, where the Kansas City Chiefs were the finesse team, and the Oakland Raiders were the muscle team (don’t tell that to opponents that faced Buck Buchanan, Bobby Bell, and “The Hammer.”)

 

Duke is a better shooting team, but Michigan State is better defending the shot.  The Spartans will dominate on the glass, as Duke has been outrebounded this year, while Coach Tom Izzo’s squad has remained a dynasty in this department.  Coach K will counter with a halfcourt pressure defense that forces MSU to turn the ball over, something they are prone to do against ball-hawking teams.

 

In the end, we believe the Spartans will hold onto the ball in the final eight minutes, while Duke will never gain an upper hand on the boards.  It adds up to another Elite 8 run for Izzo and his Spartans.

 

PiRate Pick: Michigan State 66  Duke 60

 

 

Florida vs. Florida Gulf Coast

You know we want to come up with some rational reason why FGCU can do it again, like they are the George Mason, Butler, or VCU of 2013.  We’d love to say that, and this team has not won their first two games by 10 points both times by some form of hocus-pocus.

 

Florida is not Georgetown.  The Gators will have answers for Eagles’ quick-pace.  In fact, except for steals, Florida holds tremendous advantages in every other criteria.  Coach Billy Donovan’s orange and blue are not the equal of the teams that raised banners in Gainesville.  This team isn’t as good as the one that almost won the title before losing to Michigan State.  It is about as good as the Final Four team coached by Lon Kruger, which is good enough to win one more time before meeting its match.

 

PiRate Pick: Florida 82  Florida Gulf Coast 68

 

Check back early Saturday morning for our Elite 8 Preview

Bracketnomics 2013: NCAA Tournament: Sunday, March 24, Third Round

2013 NCAA Tournament— Round Three Schedule For Sunday, March 24, 2013

All times Eastern Daylight

Time	Network	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	Region
12:15 PM	CBS	2 Ohio St. (27-7)	10 Iowa St. (23-11)	West
2:45 PM	CBS	1 Indiana (28-6)	9 Temple (24-9)	East
5:15 PM	CBS	1 Kansas (30-5)	8-North Carolina (25-10)	South
6:10 PM	TNT	3 Florida (27-7)	11 Minnesota (21-12)	South
7:10 PM	TBS	7 San Diego St. (23-10)	15 Florida Gulf Coast (25-10)	South
7:40 PM	TruTV	12 Ole Miss (27-8)	13 La Salle (23-9)	West
8:40 PM	TNT	2 Miami (Fla)  (28-6)	7 Illinois (23-12)	East
9:40 PM	TBS	2 Duke (28-5)	7 Creighton (28-7)	Midwest

 

Stats of the 16 Teams Playing Today

Team	PPG	Opp	Diff	FG%	D FG%	Diff	Reb	Opp	Diff	TO	Opp TO	Diff	Stl	R+T	SOS	RW-L
Ohio St.	69.2	57.9	11.3	.454	.395	5.9	35.5	31.8	3.7	10.6	13.2	2.6	6.8	8.18	58.31	66.7
Iowa St.	79.6	71.2	8.4	.455	.427	2.8	38.7	34.0	4.7	13.3	13.2	-0.1	6.5	5.88	56.13	37.5
Indiana	80.0	62.5	17.5	.486	.390	9.6	38.6	30.9	7.7	13.0	14.4	1.4	7.5	10.88	58.69	71.4
Temple	72.8	68.1	4.7	.430	.434	-0.4	34.5	35.8	-1.3	11.0	13.7	2.7	8.0	3.54	55.35	60.0
Kansas	75.4	61.5	13.9	.480	.360	12.0	39.1	32.5	6.6	13.7	12.9	-0.8	7.2	7.08	57.80	75.0
North Carolina	77.2	69.1	8.1	.444	.422	2.2	38.9	36.5	2.4	12.2	15.3	3.1	8.2	7.76	58.63	55.6
Florida	71.6	53.7	17.9	.481	.377	10.4	35.1	30.3	4.8	11.1	14.0	2.9	7.0	9.68	57.28	61.1
Minnesota	68.4	61.7	6.7	.442	.396	4.6	38.8	30.6	8.2	13.8	12.8	-1.0	7.6	8.52	59.67	33.3
San Diego St.	69.2	60.7	8.5	.438	.388	5.0	36.8	33.4	3.4	11.9	12.7	0.8	6.9	5.74	57.98	47.1
Florida Gulf Coast	73.1	66.7	6.4	.460	.406	5.4	36.6	35.4	1.2	14.7	15.9	1.2	9.0	4.44	47.87	50.0
Ole Miss	77.9	67.3	10.6	.438	.410	2.8	38.7	37.7	1.0	11.4	15.6	4.2	8.4	7.72	51.73	58.8
La Salle	72.4	66.0	6.4	.448	.456	-0.8	31.7	34.7	-3.0	11.7	14.9	3.2	8.1	2.46	54.70	53.3
Miami	69.9	60.7	9.2	.460	.399	6.1	35.8	32.5	3.3	10.9	11.9	1.0	6.3	5.76	59.20	72.2
Illinois	69.1	65.3	3.8	.416	.427	-1.1	33.5	34.9	-1.4	11.5	14.4	2.9	6.9	3.46	58.79	55.6
Duke	78.3	65.4	12.9	.476	.418	5.8	33.8	35.0	-1.2	10.7	14.4	3.7	6.5	4.54	60.79	68.8
Creighton	75.4	63.1	12.3	.508	.407	10.1	35.2	30.3	4.9	12.3	10.6	-1.7	5.0	3.86	54.46	70.6

Friday’s Record: 10-6

Tournament Total: 22-10

 

Game Previews

Ohio State vs. Iowa State

We told you before the tournament that IowaState would beat Notre Dame, because the Irish failed to qualify in at least one of our PiRate Rating Criteria categories.  Can the Cyclones advance to the Sweet 16 with another upset of a bigtime Midwest opponent?

 

In two words, “probably not.”  OhioState holds decisive advantages in too many of our criteria categories, while IowaState enjoys one small advantage over the Buckeyes.  OhioState has a better field goal percentage margin by 3.1%.  The Cyclones enjoy a minor rebounding margin advantage over the Buckeyes by one, but OhioState counters that with a turnover margin advantage of 2.7.  The R+T advantage for the Buckeyes is 2.3.

 

Additionally, OhioState gained these statistical advantages by playing a schedule that was on average more than two points per game better than IowaState.  To top it off, the Buckeyes are clearly the better team away from home.  Not that it matters all that much in our ratings, but the boys from Columbus now own a nine-game winning streak and appear to be playing their best ball of the season

 

PiRate Pick: Ohio State 73  Iowa State 60

 

Indiana vs. Temple

Indiana looked like a Final Four team Friday, when the Hoosiers put James Madison away quickly.  Temple had a challenge from North CarolinaState, but the Owls made it a perfect first two rounds for the Atlantic 10 Conference.

 

Indiana is poised to make it an easy first two games, as this one looks like a major mismatch.  The Hoosiers’ field goal margin advantage in this game is a huge 10%.  This discrepancy can only be overcome if the other team enjoys one equally huge R+T rating advantage, but Indiana is the team that enjoys this advantage.  Because IU has the rebounding margin edge by 9.0, and Temple’s turnover margin advantage is just 1.3, the R+T advantage for the Hoosiers is 7.34.  So, Indiana figures to shoot about 10% better than the Owls and get more than seven extra opportunities to score.

 

Add a strength of schedule advantage of more than three points per game and a road winning percentage advantage of more than 10, and this looks like it could be boring after the first two TV timeouts.

 

PiRate Pick: Indiana 81  Iowa State 60

 

Kansas vs. North Carolina

This game is being used as an example that the NCAA Selection Committee purposely tries to arrange these games, but the public needs to realize that once seeded, you could select any number of possible schedules with no human contribution other than putting the mathematical equations into a computer, and no matter how the schedule was chosen, there would be games like this.  What if Indiana and Marquette faced off, and Tom Crean played his old team?  How about Florida and Louisville being placed in the same region and meeting in the Elite 8?  That would pit Billy Donovan against his college coach Rick Pitino.  The possibilities are endless, and dozens of games like this one could occur if this one did not.

 

As for the game, KU enjoys an advantage similar to Indiana.  The Jayhawks’ field goal margin difference in this game is 9.8%.  The Tar Heels have a slight R+T rating advantage, but it is not enough to counter the large discrepancy in field goal percentage margin.  UNC’s SOS is less than one point per game tougher than Kansas, while KU has a large road winning percentage advantage.  Of course, this is almost a home game for the Jayhawks, as they are less than 45 minutes away from campus.

 

PiRate Pick: Kansas 74  North Carolina 65

 

Florida vs. Minnesota

Here is another one of those games where the coaches share something in common.  Tubby Smith and Billy Donovan were both on the staff at Kentucky under Rick Pitino, and of course, they were tough rivals when Smith was the coach at Kentucky.

 

This game should be closer than most people expect it to be.  On paper, Florida should blow the Gophers out of the gym, but the criteria scores indicate that Minny should keep this one close, if not for the entire game, at least most of the game.

 

Florida has a better field goal percentage margin, by 5.8%.  This is considerable but not infallible.  Minnesota enjoys the rebound margin advantage by 3.4.  The Gators’ return the favor in turnover margin advantage by 3.9, which gives Florida an R+T advantage of 1.16.  The Gophers have the better SOS at 2.39 points per game, while UF has a much better road winning percentage.

 

PiRate Pick: Florida 64  Minnesota 57

 

 

San Diego State vs. Florida Gulf Coast

Georgetown is quickly becoming the DePaul of the 21^st Century.  In the early 1980’s, DePaul stayed at the top of the polls and was always a one or two seed, but the Blue Demons always suffered an upset early in the tournament, usually in the first round.

 

FloridaGulfCoast has now defeated two different number two seeds this year, as they topped Miami in November.

 

This San DiegoState team is not nearly as talented as last year’s version, but the Aztecs are favored to advance to the Sweet 16.  Does our criteria see it that way too?  No, it does not.  We believe this game will be rather close, and FGCU will have a chance to pull off another upset if they can force SDSU into a few more turnovers than average.

 

If Coach Steve Fisher’s squad can keep from making too many mistakes, the Aztecs will advance to the next round, because SDSU has decisive advantages in rebounding and SOS, while the rest of the criteria basically cancels itself out.

 

PiRate Pick: San Diego State 68  Florida Gulf Coast 64

 

Ole Miss vs. La Salle

We can state one prediction where we feel more than comfortable believing in our accuracy.  Not many college basketball fans have neutral feelings about Rebel sharpshooter Marshall Henderson.

 

This game guarantees that at least one double-digit seed will advance to the Sweet 16.  Ole Miss has a considerable but not overwhelming edge in the criteria stats.  The Rebels take the field goal percentage margin stat by 3.6%, and rebounding margin by 4, as La Salle is not strong in that category.  Ole Miss has a turnover margin edge of 1.0, which when combined with the other rebounds and steals, gives the Rebels an R+T advantage of 5.26.  On the other hand, the Explorers have an SOS advantage of 3 points per game, and neither team is an exceptional road team, so this game could be interesting.

 

PiRate Pick: Ole Miss 65  La Salle 61

 

Miami vs. Illinois

Make no mistakes about it:  Jim Larranaga knows how to coach and has taken a mid-major to the Final Four.  What can he do with big-time talent?  This team looks like an Elite 8 representative for sure, and who knows how a Miami-Indiana game might turn out?  Maybe some of us will get a clue for this possible game when the Hurricanes take on a team that beat Indiana in the regular season.

 

“The U” owns a 7.2% field goal margin difference, a rebounding margin advantage of 4.7, and an R+T advantage of 2.3.  Illinois has the advantage in turnover margin at 1.9, but that is not enough to balance the scale.  The SOS’s are roughly equal, and it is obvious that the Hurricanes’ road record is much better than the Illini

 

PiRate Pick: Miami 72  Illinois 59

 

 

Duke vs. Creighton

This is the final game of the third round, but it could be one of the most interesting.  WichitaState showed that the second best team in the Missouri Valley Conference is pretty tough, so Creighton must be even tougher.

 

Duke’s biggest advantage in this game is a Strength of Schedule that is more than six points per game better than Creighton’s.  That discrepancy skews the remainder of the ratings.

 

One stat that is not skewed is Creighton’s field goal percentage.  The Blue Jays are the best shooting team in the Big Dance, one of just two of the 68 teams to make better than half of their shots.  Duke is no slouch in shooting accuracy, but this Blue Devil team is not a toughie to shoot against.  To add to Coach K’s misery, Duke does not dominate on the glass, while Crieghton is a strong rebounding team.

 

Duke’s big advantage in this game is their turnover margin advantage, but since they do not generate a lot of steals, they do not benefit as much from the advantage.  Still, the SOS in this game is astronomical, and it is enough to counter all of Creighton’s advantages, which should make this a tossup game to end the opening weekend.

 

PiRate Pick: Duke 76  Creighton 73

 

Bracketnomics 2013: NCAA Tournament: Saturday, March 23, Third Round

 2013 NCAA Tournament— Round Three Schedule For Saturday, March 23, 2013

All times Eastern Daylight

Time	Network			Region				Higher Seed						Lower Seed
12:15 PM	CBS			South				#4 Michigan (27-7)						#5 Virginia Commonwealth (27-8)
2:45 PM	CBS			Midwest				#3 Michigan St. (26-8)						#6 Memphis (31-4)
5:15 PM	CBS			Midwest				#1 Louisville (30-5)						#8 Colorado St. (26-8)
6:10 PM	TNT			West				#6 Arizona (26-7)						#14 Harvard (20-9)
7:10 PM	TBS			Midwest				#4 St. Louis (28-6)						#12 Oregon (27-8)
7:45 PM	CBS			East				#3 Marquette (24-8)						#6 Butler (27-8)
8:40 PM	TNT			West				#1 Gonzaga (32-2)						#9 Wichita St. (27-8)
9:40 PM	TBS			East				#4 Syracuse (27-9)						#12 California (21-11)
Team		PPG	Opp		Diff	FG%	Def FG%		Diff	Reb	Opp	Diff	TO		Opp TO	Diff	Stl	R+T	SOS	Rd  W-L
Michigan		75.2	62.9		12.3	.484	.419		6.5	35.1	32.2	2.9	9.2		12.1	2.9	6.0	7.58	56.00	60.0
V C U		77.3	64.8		12.5	.449	.444		0.5	34.8	34.8	0.0	11.8		19.9	8.1	11.8	12.08	55.72	64.7
Michigan St.		68.2	59.3		8.9	.460	.394		6.6	37.3	30.5	6.8	13.4		12.8	-0.6	8.1	7.70	59.69	53.3
Memphis		75.9	65.1		10.8	.479	.405		7.4	37.8	32.9	4.9	14.6		15.5	0.9	9.0	7.78	54.81	81.3
Louisville		73.6	58.0		15.6	.445	.388		5.7	37.5	33.9	3.6	12.7		18.7	6.0	10.7	12.94	59.42	77.8
Colorado St.		73.1	62.9		10.2	.448	.409		3.9	40.4	28.4	12.0	10.8		11.1	0.3	4.9	13.34	56.44	56.3
Arizona		73.3	63.7		9.6	.450	.415		3.5	36.2	30.3	5.9	13.1		13.8	0.7	6.9	8.12	57.27	68.8
Harvard		68.9	63.9		5.0	.482	.440		4.2	29.4	30.4	-1.0	13.5		13.8	0.3	7.4	0.84	48.79	42.9
St. Louis		68.7	58.1		10.6	.448	.412		3.6	32.8	32.5	0.3	11.5		15.2	3.7	7.5	6.24	55.73	69.2
Oregon		72.5	62.9		9.6	.451	.406		4.5	37.9	30.9	7.0	15.1		15.7	0.6	8.8	9.48	53.29	60.0
Marquette		69.0	62.7		6.3	.467	.405		6.2	35.0	30.6	4.4	13.6		12.9	-0.7	6.7	4.90	58.24	46.7
Butler		69.7	63.7		6.0	.455	.417		3.8	36.6	28.9	7.7	13.2		11.2	-2.0	5.7	6.44	56.61	70.6
Gonzaga		78.0	59.7		18.3	.503	.382		12.1	37.4	30.0	7.4	11.3		13.9	2.6	8.0	12.12	54.72	93.8
Wichita St.		69.4	60.7		8.7	.443	.400		4.3	38.4	30.0	8.4	12.8		13.2	0.4	7.5	10.38	53.84	64.7
Syracuse		71.3	60.1		11.2	.440	.377		6.3	38.7	34.6	4.1	12.6		15.5	2.9	8.9	9.36	59.30	56.3
California		67.5	64.4		3.1	.446	.396		5.0	37.2	34.0	3.2	12.5		11.1	-1.4	5.8	2.68	56.35	60.0

 

Thursday’s Pick Record: 12 – 4.

 

Game Previews

Michigan vs. Virginia Commonwealth

Michigan has a decided shooting edge in this game, and the Wolverines should win the rebound battle, but the key here will be how much they control the boards.  VCU’s pressing defense is called “Havoc” for a reason.  The Rams can get 10 steals on just about any team in this tournament, because players do not have the fundamentals mastered in this era.  If Michigan cannot win the rebounding battle by at least five and maybe as much as eight, VCU will create enough turnovers and score enough in transition to erase Michigan’s shooting advantage.  The Maize and Blue may be the best team VCU’s press has tried to upset this year, and Trey Burke and Tim Hardaway, Jr. are much better than the average pair of ball-handlers.

 

Like most of Saturday’s games, this one will be an excellent game to watch, and it should be nip and tuck all the way.  We grade these teams three ways to come up with our PiRate Number.  Michigan has a slight edge in one rating, while VCU has an equally slim edge in the second rating.  VCU qualifies in four of our rating criteria categories, while Michigan qualifies in three.  However, Michigan qualifies in the all-important strength of schedule, while the Rams do not.

 

VCU fails to qualify on SOS by the thinnest of hairs, and when we compare the two teams’ SOS side-by-side, they are separated by less than a point per game.

 

PiRate Pick: Virginia Commonwealth 74  Michigan 70

 

Michigan St. vs. Memphis

This is another game where the teams match up well with enough strengths with which to exploit the other and enough liabilities that can be exploited.  MichiganState is a tad slow in transition, while Memphis is considerably quicker.  The Spartans are stronger in the paint, while their guards are better outside shooters than the Tigers’ guards.

 

We think the difference in this game will come in shot selection.  In the second half, we expect MichiganState to take the smarter shots, while Memphis throws up some ill-advised shots.  It will be the difference down the stretch as Sparty pulls away at the end.

 

PiRate Pick: Michigan State 68  Memphis 61

 

Louisville vs. Colorado St.

The Rams might have a decent shot at ousting any of the other three number one seeds, but they unfortunately draw the one number one seed that they do not match up well against.  Louisville is a much better version of New Mexico, and CSU could not handle New Mexico.

 

The Cardinals have the best defensive backcourt in the tournament, even better than VCU’s Havoc Defense.  Not only can UL steal the ball 10 times a game, they also can stop teams in the paint and on the perimeter in the halfcourt.  Coach Rick Pitino may have his best team since his 1996 Kentucky Wildcats, and “The Ville,” looks to be unstoppable at this point.

 

ColoradoState may keep it close for one or two TV timeouts, but the Cardinals will pull away and have a double-digit lead before halftime.  CSU is not the best come-from-behind team, and things will only get worse until Pitino removes his starters.

 

PiRate Pick: Louisville 77  Colorado St. 54

 

Arizona vs. Harvard

If you read our previous post, you know we selected the 6-seeded Wildcats to emerge as the surprise winner of the West Region.  We’ve been given a gift in this round, as Sean Miller’s squad almost gets a walkover to advance to the Sweet 16.

 

Harvard is the first team that failed to qualify in any of our criteria categories to advance to the Round of 32 in six seasons.  We do not expect the Crimson to put up much of a fight in this game.

 

Arizona will get about 10-12 more chances to score points in this game, and the Wildcats should match or exceed Harvard in shooting percentage.  UA’s quickness should prevent the Crimson from getting many open looks from behind the arc, which is the only area where Harvard has a chance to stay in the game.

 

PiRate Pick: Arizona 71  Harvard 52

 

St. Louis vs. Oregon

We think this will be a dandy of a game to watch.  Aside from being just plain solid, SLU is playing for their deceased head coach, Rick Majerus.  While this emotional boost of octane does not figure in our PiRate Criteria, we do keep this knowledge in the back of our heads.

 

OU has an axe to grind that equalizes the Billikens’ extra emotion.  The Ducks felt as if they were seeded about five spots lower than they deserved to be seeded.  So these factors cancel each other out.

 

Let’s look at the Criteria numbers for this game.  Oregon should end up with a better shooting percentage, and the Ducks should win the battle of the boards, but not by a large number.  The SLU players are a better ball-control team, but they won’t remind anybody of conference rival VCU.

 

Oregon has a small R+T advantage, while SLU has played a slightly more difficult schedule and has performed better away from home.  The fact that this game is in San Jose does not help the Ducks as much as it would if this were the previous round, but SLU will have been on the coast for four days and will have adjusted by the time this game tips off.

 

Both teams have exceptional depth and balance, and this game should have a fluidity that others do not.  It would not surprise us if neither team ever enjoys a lead of more than eight points.  It would also not surprise us if 40 minutes is not enough to determine the winner.

 

PiRate Pick: Oregon 72  St. Louis 70

 

Marquette vs. Butler

This game could have just as easily been Davidson versus Bucknell.  Marquette survived an advanced because Davidson panicked at the end.  Bucknell had Butler on the ropes, but the Bulldogs showed poise when it counted.  The more experienced teams emerged victorious.

 

Now, in this round, we need to closely examine the numbers, because both teams are solid with savvy.  Marquette is a slightly better shooting team than Butler, and the Golden Eagles are also a little better affecting shots by the opponent.   Butler is considerably better on the glass, while neither team is much of a ball-hawking power.  Butler will get three to five more chances to score, but Marquette will shoot a higher percentage.

 

Looking at the other criteria, Marquette compiled their stats against competition that was a little less than two points per game better than Butler’s opponents, but Butler performed much better away from Indianapolis than MU did away from Milwaukee.  This stat is the deciding factor for us, and we believe Coach Brad Stevens will have his squad a little better prepared on less than 48 hours notice.

 

PiRate Pick: Butler 59  Marquette 55

 

Gonzaga vs. Wichita St.

The number one seed and regular final season number one team almost fell to a 16-seed.  The last time the overall number one team and top seed in a region lost their first game was way back in 1981, when #1-seed DePaul lost to #9-seed St. Joseph’s (40-team tournament in 1981).

 

WichitaState looked like a Sweet 16 team in their win over Pittsburgh.  The Shockers have their best team since the great 1981 team that advanced to the Elite 8.  That team had three future NBA players in Cliff Levengston, Antoine Carr, and Xavier McDaniel.

 

Of course, this is Gonzaga’s best team, and the Bulldogs have been toughened by their narrow escape.  We do not see Coach Mark Few’s team stubbing its toe and coming out flat in this game.  GU has something to prove.

 

The Zags are a better shooting team and a better defending team in the half-court.  The two teams are fairly even on the boards, while Gonzaga enjoys a slight advantage in turnover margin.  The two teams’ strengths of schedule differ minutely, but Gonzaga enjoys a considerably better record away from Spokane than WSU has away from Wichita.

 

PiRate Pick: Gonzaga 78  Wichita State 69

 

Syracuse vs. California

The Golden Bears get a little bit of home court advantage, as Berkeley is only 45 miles north of San Jose.  Still, the ‘Cuse is clearly the better team.

 

A lot of teams have trouble with Coach Jim Boeheim’s 2-3 matchup zone the first time they face it.  We believe the Bears will shoot under 40% in this game and fail to pick up enough offensive rebounds to keep the game within reach at the end.

 

Syracuse enjoys small, but significant advantages in field goal percentage margin and rebound margin.  The difference is more significant in turnover margin, and this leads to SU enjoying an R+T rating that is worth 6 ½ more possessions.  To top it off, The Orangemen’s strength of schedule is about three points per game better than Cal’s.  This adds up to a solid win for Boeheim’s bunch.

 

PiRate Pick: Syracuse 69  California 57

 

Coming Saturday night, we will preview Sunday’s games.

Starting Times and Networks For NCAA Tournament First Two Rounds

Tuesday, March 19
Time	Team	Team	Network
6:40 PM	North Carolina A&T	Liberty	TRU-TV
9:10 PM	St. Mary’s	Middle Tennessee	TRU-TV
Wednesday, March 20
Time	Team	Team	Network
6:40 PM	Long Island	James Madison	TRU-TV
9:10 PM	La Salle	Boise State	TRU-TV
Thursday, March 21
Time	Team	Team	Network
12:15 PM	Valparaiso	Michigan State	CBS
12:40 PM	Bucknell	Butler	TRU-TV
1:40 PM	Wichita State	Pittsburgh	TBS
2:10 PM	New Mexico State	St. Louis	TNT
2:45 PM	Memphis	St. Mary’s/Middle Tennesse	CBS
3:10 PM	Davidson	Marquette	TRU-TV
4:10 PM	Southern U	Gonzaga	TBS
4:40 PM	Oregon	Oklahoma State	TNT
6:50 PM	North Carolina A&T/Liberty	Louisville	TBS
7:15 PM	South Dakota State	Michigan	CBS
7:20 PM	Belmont	Arizona	TNT
7:27 PM	California	U N L V	TRU-TV
9:20 PM	Missouri	Colorado State	TBS
9:45 PM	Akron	Virginia Commonwealth	CBS
9:50 PM	Harvard	New Mexico	TNT
9:57 PM	Montana	Syracuse	TRU-TV
Friday, March 22
Time	Team	Team	Network
12:15 PM	Albany	Duke	CBS
12:40 PM	Ole Miss	Wisconsin	TRU-TV
1:40 PM	Temple	North Carolina State	TBS
2:10 PM	Pacific	Miami (Fla.)	TNT
2:45 PM	Cincinnati	Creighton	CBS
3:10 PM	La Salle/Boise State	Kansas State	TRU-TV
4:10 PM	Long Island/James Madison	Indiana	TBS
4:40 PM	Colorado	Illinois	TNT
6:50 PM	Florida Gulf Coast	Georgetown	TBS
7:15 PM	Iona	Ohio State	CBS
7:20 PM	Villanova	North Carolina	TNT
7:27 PM	Northwestern State	Florida	TRU-TV
9:20 PM	Oklahoma	San Diego State	TBS
9:45 PM	Iowa State	Notre Dame	CBS
9:50 PM	Western Kentucky	Kansas	TNT
9:57 PM	Minnesota	U C L A	TRU-TV

Bracketnomics 2013: NCAA First and Second Rounds

We hope you read our informational posting about Bracketnomics.  In that post, we explained how we have back-tested certain data to find best fits for past national champions and Final Four participants.

 

We have all the data we need going back to the first year of the 64-team field.  We have sufficient data going back to the days of the 22 to 25-team fields of the 1960’s, and we have nominal data going back to the beginning of the NCAA Tournament 74 years ago.

 

In a nutshell, there are certain statistical trends that point to a team advancing deeper and deeper in the tournament.  As statistical information has become more easily obtainable, and the field has expanded to 64, 65, and now 68, this information has become much more accurate.

 

First and foremost, we look for teams that played better than average schedules.  It is obvious that a team can play 20 patsies and run up some really gaudy stats.

 

Second, we look for teams that can win away from home.  If a team goes 22-8, with a home record of 18-1 and a record away from home (away and neutral games) of 4-7, this team is not ready to win six consecutive games, or even four, away from home.

 

Once we have isolated the teams that have played an above average schedule and have enjoyed some success away from home, we look at these vital statistics:

 

1. Scoring Margin—anything that is 8 or more is important.  We really like a scoring margin at 10 or more, as all but one of the 21^st Century champions have entered the Big Dance with a double digit scoring margin.  If a team has a 15-point or better scoring margin, and they satisfy the strength of schedule and road won-loss criteria, then watch out!

 

2. Field Goal Percentage Margin—this is a team’s offensive field goal percentage minus their defensive field goal percentage times 100.  The key stat here is +7.5% or better.

 

3. Rebounding Margin—a team with a rebounding margin of 5.0 or more has a chance to overcome a bad shooting game or a turnover-prone game.

 

4. Turnover Margin—similar to rebounding margin, but we have a weighted scale here.  If a team out-rebounds its opponents by 3.0 or more, then any positive turnover margin is sufficient.  If a team out-rebounds is opponents by 0.1 to 2.9, then a turnover margin of 3.0 or better is required.  And, if a team does not out-rebound its opponents, they must have a turnover margin of 5.0 or more.

 

5. Average Steals Per Game—if the rebound is gold, the steal is platinum.  We consider a steal to be worth 1.3 rebounds (reasons given in Bracketnomics 2013 posted on Sunday, March 17, 2013).  Any team that averages 7.5 or more steals per game will have several cheap basket opportunities.  Any team with double digit steals per game will be monsters in the tournament.

 

6. The PiRate R+T Rating—if rebound margin is gold, and steals per game are platinum, then our R+T rating is rhodium.  This rating combines rebounding margin, turnover margin, and steals per game into one sabrmetric-type rating, similar to any of several baseball ratings (like Wins Above Replacement).  The current formula is in Sunday’s post, but you don’t have to bother with trying to figure these out for all 68 teams.  We have done that for you.  What we isolate are the teams with an R+T rating of 5.0 or better, paying extra attention to 10.0 or better.  If a team has a negative R+T rating, they are going home quickly even if they are a number 3 seed playing a number 14 seed, which is exactly what happened in 2010, when Georgetown had a negative R+T rating and not only was upset by Ohio U in the opening round, they were blown out of the gym.

 

The 2013 Field of 68

1. Which teams qualify on all stat requirements?

 

None of the 68 teams qualify on all eight statistical requirements.  Two teams came close with seven of eight.

 

Gonzaga qualifies in all statistical categories, except schedule strength, and that is a killer.  The Bulldogs may advance to the Elite Eight, but with their lower than average SOS, we do not see this as their breakthrough season, even as a one-seed.

 

Indiana qualifies in all statistical categories except won-loss percentage away from Assembly Hall.  The Hoosiers’ won-loss percentage away from home is 71.4%, which misses qualifying by one game.

 

2. Which teams failed to qualify in even one statistical category?

 

We almost broke a record this year in “nullsville.”  11 teams failed to meet at least one of the statistical criteria and will not need reservations past the second round (what used to be the first round).

 

Albany, Florida Gulf-Coast, Harvard, Iona, Liberty, Long Island, Montana, North Carolina A&T, Pacific, and Western Kentucky come as no surprise to most.  These teams are not expected to win in this tournament, although either North Carolina A&T or Liberty must win one game, because they face off in the First Four in Dayton.

 

However, one major conference team is going to surprise you.  That team is: Notre Dame!  The Fighting Irish just missed out in scoring margin, rebounding margin, and strength of schedule, while their turnover margin and average steals missed by a long shot.  Keep this in mind when looking at upsets in the second round.

 

3. Which teams have a negative R+T rating and can be immediately eliminated from consideration?

 

Only one team has a negative R+T rating, and that is Liberty.  However, several teams have R+T ratings just above zero, and you should look at these teams as the type that will not get enough extra scoring opportunities to win.

 

4. Which of the teams expected to win or be competitive in a tossup game have these low R+T numbers?

 

California is a “sexy 12-seed” that many feel got the shaft in the seeding process.  A lot of experts are calling for the Golden Bears to benefit from playing in San Jose and upset 5-seed UNLV.  However, Cal has an R+T rating of 2.68, while the Runnin’ Rebels’ R+T rating is 6.88.  If you considered a game to be a tossup and then gave one team four additional possessions, which team would you expect to win?

 

La Salle is a 13-seed playing 4-seed KansasState.  The Explorers’ R+T rating is 2.46, while the Wildcats have a 7.86 rating.  Don’t count on the lads from Philly beating the lads from the other Manhattan.

 

5. Who will advance to the Final Four?

We’re glad you asked, because we have an opinion to proffer.

 

Normally, we find just one or at most two number one seeds worthy of making it to the final weekend.  The only year where we saw three 1-seeds advancing to the tournament was 2008, when we selected Kansas, Memphis, and North Carolina to advance to the Final Four as one-seeds.  That indeed happened, but we missed out on one-seed UCLA making it the one and only time that all four one-seeds won their respective regions.

 

This year, we are going with the chalk in three regions once again.  We believe Louisville, Indiana, and Kansas will win their regions.  We do not believe Gonzaga will make it four for four.  In fact, we have a dark horse candidate as our West Regional winner.  We believe six-seed Arizona will upset 2-seed OhioState in the Sweet 16 and then win again in the Elite Eight to be the surprise winner of the Regional.

 

6. So, who do we pick for the National Champion?

This is a very close call.  The top two teams, Indiana and Louisville are separated by just a hair the way we rate the teams.  It is a tossup, so we have to go to extracurricular information to figure out a winner.

 

Remember what we said were the rhodium, platinum, and gold ratings?  Both teams are in the top grouping in R+T rating.  Indiana dominates in rebounding margin, while Louisville is on the top rung in steals per game.  We have to go outside our formula to come up with a winner, and we are going with experience.  Rick Pitino has been to six Final Fours as a head coach.  Our official pick for NCAA Champion is Louisville.

 

Here are our picks for the first two rounds.  Of course, we will update the ratings and pick anew after round two with picks for Saturday on Friday night and picks for Sunday on Saturday night.

 

Opening Round (First 4 @ Dayton)

North Carolina A&T over Liberty

Middle Tennessee over St. Mary’s

Long Island over James Madison

BoiseState over La Salle

 

Second Round

Midwest

Louisville over North Carolina A&T

ColoradoState over Missouri

Oregon over OklahomaState

St. Louis over New MexicoState

Memphis over Middle Tennessee

MichiganState over Valparaiso

Cincinnati over Creighton

Duke over Albany

 

West

Gonzaga over Southern

Pittsburgh over WichitaState

Wisconsin over Ole Miss

KansasState over BoiseState

Arizona over Belmont

New Mexico over Harvard

IowaState over Notre Dame

OhioState over Iona

 

South

Kansas over Western Kentucky

North Carolina over Villanova

VirginiaCommonwealth over Akron

Michigan over South DakotaState

Minnesota over UCLA

Florida over Northwestern State

San DiegoState over Oklahoma

Georgetown over FloridaGulfCoast

 

East

Indiana over Long Island

North CarolinaState over Temple

UNLV over California

Syracuse over Montana

Bucknell over Butler (big upset pick)

Marquette over Davidson (closest game in this round according to our ratings)

Colorado over Illinois

Miami over Pacific

 

Third Round (Will be updated on Friday and Saturday for those that get to pick every round)

 

Midwest

Louisville over ColoradoState

Oregon over St. Louis

MichiganState over Memphis

Duke over Cincinnati

 

West

Gonzaga over Pittsburgh

Wisconsin over KansasState

Arizona over New Mexico

OhioState over IowaState

 

South

Kansas over North Carolina

Michigan over VirginiaCommonwealth (very close)

Florida over Minnesota

Georgetown over San DiegoState

 

East

Indiana over North CarolinaState

Syracuse over UNLV

Bucknell over Marquette (our Cinderella team in the Sweet 16)

Miami over Colorado

 

Sweet 16

Midwest

Louisville over Oregon

MichiganState over Duke

 

West

Gonzaga over Wisconsin

Arizona over OhioState

 

South

Kansas over Michigan

Florida over Georgetown

 

East

Indiana over Syracuse

Miami over Bucknell

 

Elite 8

Midwest

Louisville over MichiganState

 

West

Arizona over Gonzaga

 

South

Kansas over Florida

 

East

Indiana over Miami

 

Final 4

Louisville over Arizona

Indiana over Kansas

 

Championship

Louisville over Indiana

 

Here is a look at our raw stats:

Team	PPG	Opp	Diff	FG%	D FG%	Diff	Reb	Opp	Diff	TO	Opp TO	Diff	Stl	R+T	SOS	RW-L
Akron	72.7	62.0	10.7	.457	.390	6.7	37.9	32.0	5.9	13.6	13.8	0.2	7.2	7.58	51.34	68.8
Albany	64.8	60.6	4.2	.436	.422	1.4	34.0	30.4	3.6	13.5	12.5	-1.0	5.3	3.46	45.63	64.7
Arizona	73.3	63.7	9.6	.450	.415	3.5	36.2	30.3	5.9	13.1	13.8	0.7	6.9	8.12	57.27	68.8
Belmont	77.2	64.0	13.2	.494	.410	8.4	32.2	33.0	-0.8	13.5	17.4	3.9	9.8	5.84	54.17	68.4
Boise St.	73.3	65.0	8.3	.459	.431	2.8	33.9	29.7	4.2	12.1	13.5	1.4	6.7	7.22	55.64	43.8
Bucknell	67.3	57.5	9.8	.456	.378	7.8	36.2	30.3	5.9	9.5	9.2	-0.3	3.6	6.26	48.45	77.8
Butler	69.7	63.7	6.0	.455	.417	3.8	36.6	28.9	7.7	13.2	11.2	-2.0	5.7	6.44	56.61	70.6
California	67.5	64.4	3.1	.446	.396	5.0	37.2	34.0	3.2	12.5	11.1	-1.4	5.8	2.68	56.35	60.0
Cincinnati	66.6	58.8	7.8	.402	.385	1.7	40.0	33.5	6.5	12.8	13.2	0.4	7.0	8.38	57.16	60.0
Colorado	68.2	63.8	4.4	.436	.404	3.2	37.2	33.8	3.4	13.3	12.9	-0.4	7.0	4.32	57.40	52.9
Colorado St.	73.1	62.9	10.2	.448	.409	3.9	40.4	28.4	12.0	10.8	11.1	0.3	4.9	13.34	56.44	56.3
Creighton	75.4	63.1	12.3	.508	.407	10.1	35.2	30.3	4.9	12.3	10.6	-1.7	5.0	3.86	54.46	70.6
Davidson	73.7	62.2	11.5	.463	.412	5.1	33.8	31.4	2.4	10.9	12.3	1.4	5.7	5.22	48.49	70.0
Duke	78.3	65.4	12.9	.476	.418	5.8	33.8	35.0	-1.2	10.7	14.4	3.7	6.5	4.54	60.79	68.8
Florida	71.6	53.7	17.9	.481	.377	10.4	35.1	30.3	4.8	11.1	14.0	2.9	7.0	9.68	57.28	61.1
FloridaGulfCoast	73.1	66.7	6.4	.460	.406	5.4	36.6	35.4	1.2	14.7	15.9	1.2	9.0	4.44	47.87	50.0
Georgetown	64.6	55.7	8.9	.456	.376	8.0	32.9	31.7	1.2	12.7	14.2	1.5	7.5	4.50	57.95	64.3
Gonzaga	78.0	59.7	18.3	.503	.382	12.1	37.4	30.0	7.4	11.3	13.9	2.6	8.0	12.12	54.72	93.8
Harvard	68.9	63.9	5.0	.482	.440	4.2	29.4	30.4	-1.0	13.5	13.8	0.3	7.4	0.84	48.79	42.9
Illinois	69.1	65.3	3.8	.416	.427	-1.1	33.5	34.9	-1.4	11.5	14.4	2.9	6.9	3.46	58.79	55.6
Indiana	80.0	62.5	17.5	.486	.390	9.6	38.6	30.9	7.7	13.0	14.4	1.4	7.5	10.88	58.69	71.4
Iona	80.7	75.8	4.9	.457	.449	0.8	36.0	35.9	0.1	12.2	14.1	1.9	6.6	3.70	50.69	42.9
Iowa St.	79.6	71.2	8.4	.455	.427	2.8	38.7	34.0	4.7	13.3	13.2	-0.1	6.5	5.88	56.13	37.5
James Madison	65.2	64.4	0.8	.420	.427	-0.7	32.7	34.2	-1.5	11.2	13.8	2.6	7.9	3.20	45.92	50.0
Kansas	75.4	61.5	13.9	.480	.360	12.0	39.1	32.5	6.6	13.7	12.9	-0.8	7.2	7.08	57.80	75.0
Kansas St.	69.2	60.4	8.8	.436	.418	1.8	35.3	32.1	3.2	11.6	14.3	2.7	7.1	7.86	56.31	62.5
La Salle	72.4	66.0	6.4	.448	.456	-0.8	31.7	34.7	-3.0	11.7	14.9	3.2	8.1	2.46	54.70	53.3
Liberty	69.1	69.9	-0.8	.429	.419	1.0	35.7	36.3	-0.6	13.4	10.8	-2.6	5.5	-2.62	44.38	35.0
Long Island	79.5	76.4	3.1	.484	.468	1.6	35.4	33.6	1.8	14.4	13.0	-1.4	6.8	1.48	45.45	43.8
Louisville	73.6	58.0	15.6	.445	.388	5.7	37.5	33.9	3.6	12.7	18.7	6.0	10.7	12.94	59.42	77.8
Marquette	69.0	62.7	6.3	.467	.405	6.2	35.0	30.6	4.4	13.6	12.9	-0.7	6.7	4.90	58.24	46.7
Memphis	75.9	65.1	10.8	.479	.405	7.4	37.8	32.9	4.9	14.6	15.5	0.9	9.0	7.78	54.81	81.3
Miami	69.9	60.7	9.2	.460	.399	6.1	35.8	32.5	3.3	10.9	11.9	1.0	6.3	5.76	59.20	72.2
Michigan	75.2	62.9	12.3	.484	.419	6.5	35.1	32.2	2.9	9.2	12.1	2.9	6.0	7.58	56.00	60.0
Michigan St.	68.2	59.3	8.9	.460	.394	6.6	37.3	30.5	6.8	13.4	12.8	-0.6	8.1	7.70	59.69	53.3
Middle Tennessee	71.2	57.8	13.4	.463	.394	6.9	36.8	30.8	6.0	13.8	15.8	2.0	7.1	9.82	51.62	70.6
Minnesota	68.4	61.7	6.7	.442	.396	4.6	38.8	30.6	8.2	13.8	12.8	-1.0	7.6	8.52	59.67	33.3
Missouri	76.2	66.2	10.0	.460	.401	5.9	41.4	31.8	9.6	13.2	12.0	-1.2	6.8	9.52	56.00	37.5
Montana	71.1	65.0	6.1	.474	.427	4.7	31.2	32.4	-1.2	12.1	12.2	0.1	5.9	0.10	46.85	66.7
N.C.State	77.5	70.1	7.4	.494	.418	7.6	36.8	33.9	2.9	12.4	11.6	-0.8	6.6	3.26	56.64	47.1
New Mexico	67.4	60.4	7.0	.425	.388	3.7	35.2	33.1	2.1	11.5	12.7	1.2	6.1	4.76	60.31	77.8
New Mexico St.	68.0	62.1	5.9	.461	.398	6.3	37.6	31.1	6.5	14.4	12.4	-2.0	5.6	5.22	52.46	50.0
North Carolina	77.2	69.1	8.1	.444	.422	2.2	38.9	36.5	2.4	12.2	15.3	3.1	8.2	7.76	58.63	55.6
North Carolina A&T	62.4	61.4	1.0	.398	.383	1.5	35.4	36.6	-1.2	15.1	16.1	1.0	7.1	1.42	43.39	40.9
Northwestern St.	81.0	71.2	9.8	.461	.424	3.7	39.3	38.9	0.4	14.0	17.0	3.0	9.8	5.96	48.32	58.8
Notre Dame	70.4	63.1	7.3	.463	.418	4.5	36.2	32.1	4.1	11.1	10.4	-0.7	5.1	4.28	55.83	53.3
Ohio St.	69.2	57.9	11.3	.454	.395	5.9	35.5	31.8	3.7	10.6	13.2	2.6	6.8	8.18	58.31	66.7
Oklahoma	71.1	66.2	4.9	.436	.417	1.9	36.7	34.9	1.8	11.8	13.3	1.5	6.5	4.90	57.40	47.1
Oklahoma St.	72.4	62.8	9.6	.440	.390	5.0	36.4	34.6	1.8	12.4	14.8	2.4	7.5	6.18	56.26	64.3
Ole Miss	77.9	67.3	10.6	.438	.410	2.8	38.7	37.7	1.0	11.4	15.6	4.2	8.4	7.72	51.73	58.8
Oregon	72.5	62.9	9.6	.451	.406	4.5	37.9	30.9	7.0	15.1	15.7	0.6	8.8	9.48	53.29	60.0
Pacific	67.5	68.1	-0.6	.452	.444	0.8	32.3	31.9	0.4	11.1	11.3	0.2	5.6	1.76	50.38	47.4
Pittsburgh	69.6	55.4	14.2	.475	.393	8.2	35.3	28.3	7.0	10.9	13.5	2.6	6.7	11.46	54.91	64.3
San Diego St.	69.2	60.7	8.5	.438	.388	5.0	36.8	33.4	3.4	11.9	12.7	0.8	6.9	5.74	57.98	47.1
South Dakota St.	73.9	65.5	8.4	.470	.442	2.8	34.9	30.7	4.2	10.5	11.2	0.7	5.0	6.04	48.89	55.0
Southern	67.7	57.1	10.6	.434	.365	6.9	35.2	35.3	-0.1	10.9	13.7	2.8	7.5	4.76	40.21	55.0
St. Louis	68.7	58.1	10.6	.448	.412	3.6	32.8	32.5	0.3	11.5	15.2	3.7	7.5	6.24	55.73	69.2
St. Mary’s	75.5	63.5	12.0	.474	.419	5.5	37.1	28.4	8.7	12.0	11.7	-0.3	6.3	9.60	53.70	68.8
Syracuse	71.3	60.1	11.2	.440	.377	6.3	38.7	34.6	4.1	12.6	15.5	2.9	8.9	9.36	59.30	56.3
Temple	72.8	68.1	4.7	.430	.434	-0.4	34.5	35.8	-1.3	11.0	13.7	2.7	8.0	3.54	55.35	60.0
U C L A	74.7	68.9	5.8	.455	.422	3.3	36.3	38.1	-1.8	11.1	14.1	3.0	8.2	3.44	57.71	62.5
U N L V	71.7	63.0	8.7	.439	.388	5.1	40.1	33.5	6.6	14.0	13.0	-1.0	7.4	6.88	57.99	50.0
V C U	77.3	64.8	12.5	.449	.444	0.5	34.8	34.8	0.0	11.8	19.9	8.1	11.8	12.08	55.72	64.7
Valparaiso	71.7	62.2	9.5	.489	.414	7.5	32.9	28.5	4.4	14.5	12.8	-1.7	6.7	3.70	49.76	66.7
Villanova	67.8	64.7	3.1	.415	.402	1.3	36.3	33.2	3.1	15.7	15.2	-0.5	7.7	4.04	57.43	47.1
Western Kentucky	67.2	65.7	1.5	.431	.422	0.9	36.2	33.0	3.2	15.1	13.9	-1.2	6.1	2.98	49.50	45.0
Wichita St.	69.4	60.7	8.7	.443	.400	4.3	38.4	30.0	8.4	12.8	13.2	0.4	7.5	10.38	53.84	64.7
Wisconsin	65.5	55.9	9.6	.425	.394	3.1	36.7	32.9	3.8	9.7	11.2	1.5	5.7	6.74	58.11	50.0

 

Here is a look at the stats of the NCAA Champions since 2000:

Team	PPG	Opp	Diff	FG%	D FG%	Diff	Reb	Opp	Diff	TO	Opp TO	Diff	Stl	R+T	SOS	RW-L
12 Kentucky	76.7	59.0	17.7	.483	.368	11.5	39.1	31.9	7.2	11.4	11.9	0.5	6.3	9.06	56.84	87.5
11 Uconn	72.4	64.9	7.5	.434	.393	4.1	39.7	35.3	4.4	11.4	11.5	0.1	6.3	5.78		72.2
10 Duke	77.0	61.0	16.0	.440	.401	3.9	39.0	32.8	6.2	11.1	14.2	3.1	6.7	11.26		70.6
09 North Carolina	89.8	72.0	17.8	.480	.410	7.0	42.0	35.7	6.3	12.4	15.9	3.5	8.6	12.22		82.4
08 Kansas	80.5	61.5	19.0	.508	.379	12.9	38.7	30.8	7.9	13.2	15.6	2.4	8.9	12.56		78.6
07 Florida	79.6	62.6	17.0	.526	.407	11.9	37.6	29.1	8.5	14.1	12.8	-1.3	6.7	8.28		68.8
06 Florida	78.3	63.5	14.8	.500	.399	10.1	35.9	32.3	3.6	14.4	15.5	1.1	7.6	6.44		73.3
05 North Carolina	88.0	70.3	17.7	.499	.401	9.8	40.5	33.0	7.5	16.1	17.8	1.7	9.8	11.50		75.0
04 Connecticut	78.8	63.9	14.9	.480	.369	11.1	44.7	34.9	9.8	13.6	12.2	-1.4	6.0	9.32		66.7
03 Syracuse	79.6	69.6	10.0	.475	.390	8.5	40.7	38.1	2.6	14.1	14.9	0.8	8.5	5.26		58.3
02 Maryland	85.0	70.9	14.1	.482	.399	8.3	41.1	37.4	3.7	13.8	15.4	1.6	8.4	7.30		73.3
01 Duke	90.7	70.5	20.2	.481	.416	6.5	38.6	37.5	1.1	13.6	19.1	5.5	10.5	9.80		88.9
00 Michigan St.	74.1	58.9	15.2	.474	.394	8.0	39.0	27.3	11.7	14.6	13.7	-0.9	6.6	11.94		63.2

 

Bracketnomics 2013–A statistical look at bracket selection

Bracketnomics 505—2013 Edition

The best way to describe our PiRate Ratings NCAA Tournament Bracket-Picking formula is to call it the Past Performances of the teams.  If you are familiar with the Daily Racing Form or other thoroughbred horse racing publications, you probably know how to read the PPS of the horses in each race.

Think of the criteria in this tutorial as the equivalent of those past performances.  The R+T rating is akin to the Beyer Speed Figure Rating.  If a team has a negative R+T rating, they are like a horse with a 60 Speed Fig in a race where the other horses all have multiple 100+ Figs.

Here is a general explanation of our past performance criteria.  Don’t worry about compiling all these statistics yourself.  All you need to do is check back with the PiRate Ratings Tuesday morning for an in-depth look at the Field of 68.

 1. Scoring Margin

For general bracket picking, look for teams that outscored their opponents by an average of 8 or more points per game.  Over 85% of the Final Four teams since the 1950’s outscored their opponents by an average of 8 or more points per game. 

Make a separate list of teams that outscored their opponents by an average of 10 or more points per game and a third list of teams that outscored opponents by an average of 15 or more points per game.  More than 80% of the final four teams in the last 50 years outscored their opponents by double digit points per game.  When you find a team with an average scoring margin in excess of 15 points per game, and said team is in one of the six power conferences, then you have a team that will advance deep into the tournament.

This is an obvious statistic here.  If team A outscores opponents by an average of 85-70 and their team B opponent outscores similar opposition by an average of 75-70, team A figures to be better than team B before you look at any other statistics. 

In the days of the 64-68-team field, this statistic has become even more valuable.  It’s very difficult and close to impossible for a team accustomed to winning games by one to seven points to win four times in a row, much less six consecutive games. 

This statistic gives the same significance and weighting to a team that outscores its opposition 100-90 as it does to a team that outscores its opposition 60-50.

2. Field Goal Percentage Differential

Take each team’s field goal percentage minus their defensive field goal percentage to calculate this statistic.  Look for teams that have a +7.5% or better showing.  50% to 42% is no better or no worse than 45% to 37%.  A difference of 7.5% or better is all that matters.  Teams that have a large field goal percentage margin are consistently good teams.  Sure, a team can win a game with a negative field goal percentage difference, but in the Big Dance, they certainly are not going to win six games, and they have no real chance to win four games. Two games are about the maximum for these teams. 

This statistic holds strong in back-tests of 50 years.  Even when teams won the tournament with less than 7.5% field goal percentage margins, for the most part, these teams just barely missed (usually in the 5.5 to 7.5% range).  In the years of the 64-68-team tournament, this stat has become a more accurate predictor.  In the 21^st Century, the teams with field goal percentage margins in the double digits have dominated the field.  For example, if you see a team that shoots better than 48% and allows 38% or less, that team is going to be very hard to beat in large arenas with weird sight lines.

3. Rebound Margin

This statistic holds up all the way back to the early days of basketball, in fact as far back to the days when rebounds were first recorded.  The teams that consistently control the boards are the ones that advance past the first week in the tournament.  What we’re looking for here are teams that out-rebound their opposition by five or more per game.  In the opening two rounds, a difference of three or more is just as important.

The reason this statistic becomes even more important in mid-March is that teams do not always shoot as well in the NCAA Tournament for a variety of reasons (better defense, abnormal sight lines and unfamiliar gymnasiums, nerves, new rims and nets, more physical play with the refs allowing it, etc.).  The teams that can consistently get offensive put-backs are the teams that go on scoring runs in these games.  The teams that prevent the opposition from getting offensive rebounds, holding them to one shot per possession, have a huge advantage.  Again, there will be some teams that advance that were beaten on the boards, but as the number of teams drop from 64 to 32 to 16 to eight, it is rare for one of these teams to continue to advance.  West Virginia in 2005 made it to the Elite Eight without being able to rebound, but not many other teams have been able to do so.  There have been years where all four Final Four participants were in the top 20 in rebounding margin, and there have been many years where the champion was in the top 5 in rebounding margin.

4. Turnover Margin & Steals Per Game

Turnover margin can give a weaker rebounding team a chance to advance.  Any positive turnover margin is good here.  If a team cannot meet the rebounding margin listed above, they can get by if they have an excellent turnover margin.  Not all turnover margins are the same though.  A team that forces a high number of turnovers by way of steals is better than a team that forces the same amount of turnovers without steals.  A steal is better than a defensive rebound, because most of the time, a steal leads to a fast-break basket or foul.  When a team steals the ball, they are already facing their basket, and the defense must turn around and chase.  Many steals occur on the perimeter where the ball-hawking team has a numbers advantage.  So, this system counts a steal as being worth 1.33 rebounds.

The criteria to look for here is a positive turnover margin if the team out-rebounds its opposition by three or more; a turnover margin of three or better if the team out-rebounds its opposition by less than three; and a turnover margin of five or more if the team does not out-rebound its opponents.  Give more weight to teams that average 7.5 or more steals per game, and give much more weight to teams that average double figure steals per game.  A team that averages more than 10 steals per game will get a lot of fast-break baskets and foul shots.  In NCAA Tournament play, one quick spurt can be like a three-run homer in the World Series, and teams that either steal the ball or control the boards are the ones who will get that spurt.

5. The All-Important R+T Margin: Consider this the basketball equivalent of baseball’s OPS (On Base % + Slugging %) or even better, the “Moneyball Formula.”  The formula has undergone a couple of changes in recent years, including this season, and we think it will be slightly adjusted in the future based on changes in how the game is played.

The current R+T Formula for 2013 is: (R * 1.5) + (6.0 – S) + (0.2 * S) + (1.8 * T), where R is rebounding margin, S is average steals per game, and T is turnover margin.  The numbers are all rounded to one digit.

 

Look for teams with R+T ratings at 10 or above.  These are the teams that will get several additional opportunities to score points and go on scoring runs that put opponents away.

When this stat is 5 to 9, you have a team that can overcome a few other liabilities to win. 

When this stat is 3 to 5, you have a team good enough to win early and get to the Sweet 16 but not advance past that round, unless said team has a large field goal percentage difference margin. 

When this stat is 0 to 3, you have a team that better enjoy a large field goal margin advantage, or they will be one and done or two and out.

When this stat is negative, you have a team that will be eliminated quickly, even if they are playing a lower seed.  We have isolated many early round upsets due to this statistic, and we have eliminated many teams expected to perform well that bombed in the opening round.

A few years ago, Georgetown had a negative R+T rating but was a prohibitive favorite against Ohio U.  The Bobcats had a positive R+T rating and decent numbers in the other PiRate factors.  We called for Ohio to upset Georgetown in the first round, and Ohio won by double digits.

6. Power Conference Plus Schedule Strength

Up to this point you might have been thinking that it is much easier for Albany or Northwestern State to own these gaudy statistics than it is for Louisville or Ohio State.  And, of course, that is correct.  We have to adjust this procedure so that teams that play tougher schedules get rewarded and teams that play softer schedules get punished.  Here is how we do it.  Look at the Strength of schedule for every team in the Field.  You can find SOS on many websites, such as the RPI at CBS Sports.  Take the decimal difference for each team in the Field and multiply that by 100.  For example, if Team A’s SOS is .6044 and Team B’s is .5777, the difference times 100 is 2.67.  So, Team A’s schedule was 2.67 points (or round it to 3) per game tougher than Team B’s.  Use this in head-to-head contests for every game in your bracket.

7. Won-Loss percentage Away From Home Floor

This should be obvious.  Except in the rarest of instances, all NCAA Tournament games are played on neutral courts.  Some teams play like titans on their home floor but become pansies when playing away from home.  It is one thing to accumulate great statistics by scheduling 19 home games, three neutral site games, and eight away games and then going 18-1 at home, 1-2 on the neutral site, and 3-5 on the road to finish 22-8.  However, we need to locate the teams that continue to dominate away from home.  Combine the road and neutral games played and look at that percentage.  When you find a team with a 75% or better win percentage away from home, this team is a legitimate contender in the Big Dance.  When this number tops 85%, you have a tough team capable of winning four consecutive games and advancing to the Final Four.

These are the seven basic PiRate criteria.  You might be shocked to see that there are some key statistics that are not included.  Let’s look at some of these stats not to rely upon.

1. Assists and Assists to Turnover Ratio

While assists can reveal an excellent passing team (and we love great passing teams), they also can hide a problem.  Let’s say a team gets 28 field goals and has 21 assists.  That may very well indicate this team can pass better than most others. However, it may also mean two other things.  First, this team may not have players who can create their own offense and must get by on exceptional passing.  That may not work against the best defensive teams in the nation (like the type that get into the Dance).  Second, and even more importantly, it may indicate that this team cannot get offensive put-backs.  As explained earlier, the offensive rebound is about as important as any stat can be.  So, consider this stat only if you must decide on a toss-up after looking at the big seven stats.

2. Free Throw Shooting

Of course, free throw shooting in the clutch decides many ball games.  However, history shows a long line of teams making it deep into the tournament with poor free throw shooting percentages, and teams that overly rely on free throws may find it tough getting to the line with the liberalized officiating in the tournament.

Let’s say a team shoots a paltry 60% at the foul line while their opponent hits a great 75% of their foul shots.  Let’s say each team gets to the foul line 15 times in the game, with five of those chances being 1&1, three being one shot after made baskets, and seven being two shot fouls.  For the 60% shooting team, they can be expected to hit 3 of 5 on the front end of the 1&1 and then 1.8 of the 3 bonus shots; they can be expected to hit 1.8 of 3 on the one foul shot after made baskets; and they can be expected to hit 8.4 of 14 on the two shot fouls for a total of 15 out of 25.  The 75% shooting team can be expected to connect on 3.75 of 5 on the front end of the 1&1 and then 2.8 of 3.75 on the bonus shot; they can be expected to hit 2.3 of 3 on the one foul shot after made baskets; and they can be expected to connect on 10.5 of 14 on the two shot fouls for a total of 19.35 out of 25.75. 

A team with one of the top FT% only scores 4.35 more points at the foul line than a team with one of the worst.  That is not a lot of points to make up, and when you consider that this is about the maximum possible difference, this stat is not all that important.  Also consider that teams that shoot 60% of their foul shots and make the NCAA Tournament are almost always the teams that have the top R+T ratings, which is vitally important after the Ides of March. 

Teams that make the NCAA Tournament with gaudy free throw percentages frequently get there by winning close games at the line.  In the NCAA Tournament, fouls just don’t get called as frequently as in the regular season.  The referees let the teams play.  So, looking at superior free throw percentage can almost lead you down the wrong path. 

Ponder this:  The 1973 UCLA Bruins are considered to be the best college basketball team ever.  That team connected on just 63% of its free throws.  They had a rebounding margin of 15.2, and they forced many turnovers via steals thanks to their vaunted 2-2-1 zone press.  In the great UCLA dynasty from 1964 through 1973 when the Bruins won nine titles in 10 years, they never once connected on 70% of their free throws and averaged just 66% during that stretch.

3. 3-point shooting

You have to look at this statistic two different ways and consider that it is already part of field goal percentage and defensive field goal percentage.  Contrary to popular belief, you do not count the difference in made three-pointers and multiply by three to see the difference in points scored.  If Team A hits eight treys, while their Team B opponents hit three, that is not a difference of 15 points; it’s a difference of five points.  Consider made three-pointers as one extra point because they are already figured as made field goals.  A team with 26 made field goals and eight treys has only one more point than a team with 26 made field goals and seven treys.

The only time to give three-point shots any weight in this criteria is when you are looking at a toss-up game, and when you do look at this stat, look for the team that does not rely on them to win, but instead uses a credible percentage that prevents defenses from sagging into the 10-12-foot area around the basket.  If a team cannot throw it in the ocean from behind the arc, defenses can sag inside and take away the inside game.  It doesn’t play much of a role in the NCAA Tournament.  A team that must hit 10 threes per game in order to win is not going to be around after the first weekend.

4. One Big Star or Two Really Good Players

Teams that get to the Dance by riding one big star or a majority of scoring from two players are not solid enough to advance very far.  Now, this does not apply to a team with one big star and four really good players.  I’m referring to a team with one big star and four lemons or two big scorers with three guys who are allergic to the ball.  Many times a team may have one big scorer or two guys who score 85% of the points, but the other three starters are capable of scoring 20 points if they are called on to do so.  If you have a team with five double figure scorers, they will be harder to defend and will be more consistent on the attack side.  It is hard for all five players to slump at once.

We hope this primer will help you when you fill out your brackets this year. 

 

Putting It All Together

If you know us here at the PiRate Ratings, we are all about putting stats into a mathematical formula to try to pick winners.  That is what we have done for the last decade, and we have isolated the top teams in the tournament more than half the time.  In the last 12 years, our top-rated team has won the championship seven times,  our second highest-rated team won the title three times, and our third-highest rated team won it once.  The only miss was with Connecticut in 2011.

 

Check back at this site Monday night, March 18, after 10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, and we will have our ratings for all 68 teams in the Dance.

 

Enjoy!