This concludes the PiRate Ratings coverage of college and professional sports until the 2021-2022 football season. We are headed out to sea for some R&R for the summer and hope to return with our preseason football coverage in August.
In the meantime, please give our sister site a look if you are into tabletop baseball gaming. Our game, Sabertooth Baseball, is getting rave reviews from patrons, some of whom own 20 different games. They say our game has more options than any other game marketed.
Nearly three weeks ago, we excitedly released our 2021 Bracketnomics report believing we were on top of the NCAA Tournament and knowing which teams were the true contenders and which were the pretenders. We came up with our Final Four teams, and poof, two of them lost before the Sweet 16.
We gave you a list of Gonzaga, Illinois, and Michigan, qualifying Michigan based on whether Isaiah Livers could return and play after the Sweet 16, which he was unable to do. Next, we gave you a list of teams that had a strong resume that should contend for the Final 4, of which Houston was one of those teams. Finally, we gave you the list of the handful of teams that had Final 4-worthy resumes but not as strong as the half-dozen just above. In that group was Baylor.
Three of the remaining four teams meet the PiRate Ratings Bracketnomics criteria to win a national championship. As for UCLA, they are an outlier with very little national championship statistical criteria. Even though we selected a couple of wrong championship-worthy teams, three of the four Final Four teams meet the Bracketnomics criteria we endorse. If Gonzaga, Houston, or Baylor win the title, then the Bracketnomics fundamentals will have proven valid for the season. Let’s look at the Semifinal Games and show you the Bracketnomics Criteria in total.
Efficiency Ratings
93% of all national champions since 1990 have finished in the top 10 in offensive efficiency and in the top 20 in defensive efficiency.
Offensive Efficiency Ratings
Baylor
3
Gonzaga
1
Houston
7
UCLA
13
Baylor, Gonzaga, and Houston qualify here. UCLA is just outside the criteria range.
Defensive Efficiency Ratings
Baylor
28
Gonzaga
5
Houston
8
UCLA
45
Gonzaga and Houston qualify here. Baylor semi-qualifies, because the 6.7% of the teams that won the national title that didn’t meet the defensive efficiency criterion (two times in 30 years), their defensive efficiency was in the top 40. UCLA once again does not qualify here. Because efficiency is the most important criterion, UCLA is not a Bracketnomics’ qualifier. If the Bruins win the title, they crush this system.
Strength of Schedule
All national champions in the last 30+ years have had a strength of schedule better than 5 points per game above average, or to clarify it, a score of 55.0 or better in our PiRate formula.
Final 4 SOS
Baylor
59.3
Gonzaga
59.2
Houston
56.9
UCLA
61.4
All four teams qualify with this criterion. The belief that Gonzaga did not play a hard enough schedule is 100% hogwash. Gonzaga defeated Virgina, Iowa, and West Virginia in addition to three wins over BYU. Wins over USC, Creighton, and Oklahoma by 17.7 points per game totally destroys the theory that the Bulldogs are not as strong as the best Power Conference teams.
PiRate R + T Ratings
If this is your first look at our site, the R+T rating is our creation. It measures a team’s ability and likelihood of enjoying a scoring run. Usually, NCAA Tournament games are decided when one team goes on a scoring run to secure the victory or to come from behind to win. This rating looks at the reasons why a team gets that spurt in a game. It happens with extra rebounding, steals, avoiding steals on offense, and turnovers. Because steals are more valuable than all other turnovers, they get their own piece in the formula.
R + T Rating = R + (.5S) + (6 – Opp. S) + T where R = Rebound Margin, S = Steals, and T = Turnover Margin
Historically, national champions are in the top quadrant in R+T ratings. In most years, the top quadrant begins around 12.5 to 15. In this Covid basketball season, the top quadrant line is 11.8 and the top 10% is 14.5.
Final 4 R+T
Baylor
14.2
Gonzaga
14.7
Houston
18.3
UCLA
8.3
Once again, Baylor, Gonzaga, and Houston qualify with this criterion, while UCLA does not. Houston’s R+T is typical of a team that puts a game away quickly when they get a spurt, but when you factor tougher schedules for Baylor and Gonzaga, the top three are basically equal, while UCLA is still not qualified.
Upperclassman Leadership
In 90% of the past 30 years, the national champion had multple upperclassmen (juniors & seniors) among their top eight players. When the game is on the line, an experienced 22-year old player is an adult that can handle pressure. An 18-year old freshman is still a teenager.
Final 4 Leaders
Team
SR
JR
Baylor
2
4
Gonzaga
2
2
Houston
3
2
UCLA
0
4
All four teams have experienced leadership. UCLA has no seniors, and the loss of their one senior early in the season may be the only reason why the Bruins didn’t get to this point with a 26-4 record rather than 22-9. Houston having three seniors may have a unique advantage this year, since nobody received NCAA Tournament experience last year.
The Clutch Factor
There are going to be possessions in the Big Dance where a team must rely on a player or players to put the load on their shoulders and pick up the crucial basket, rebound, or defensive stop. Think of Reggie Jackson in October. All Final Four teams have had a Mr. March on their roster. Even surprise teams like Virginia Commonwealth and George Mason in this century have had at least one Mr. March on their roster. It must be close to impossible to get this far without that guy or guys. So, this factor is obvious for all four teams remaining.
Baylor
3
Gonzaga
3
Houston
1
UCLA
1
Baylor and Gonzaga have three Mr. March’s (Mr. April’s) on their roster. It is harder to stop three than it is one, but if the one’s are more like Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, or MJ, then the one’s can trump the threes. Unfortunately for Houston and UCLA, Baylor and Gonzaga’s three go-to guys are the players closest to the superstars. Here is where we begin to really separate the superior teams from the really good teams.
Three-point Percentage
This is one of two areas where we at the PiRate Ratings were late in endorsing. The reason for this is that prior to about 2015, college basketball teams were not up to snuff on analytics. Once mathematics became a large part of basketball strategy, the game experienced an evolution to where most teams now attempt to shoot the highest percentage two-point shots along with open three-point shots. All that matters is finding a 60% probable two-point shot and a 40% probable three-point shot. If a team can hit 37% from behind the arc, they must hit better than 55.5% from inside the arc to make two-point shooting worthwhile, and the same goes for holding the opponent below those numbers.
The key in this criterion is to have a team three-point percentage of 37.0 or better. Going 3 for 8 is just as acceptable as going 15 for 40. It’s the percentage that matters.
Final 4 3-pt%
Baylor
41.1
Gonzaga
37.1
Houston
35.4
UCLA
36.9
Baylor and Gonzaga shoot better than 37% from the 3-point line. UCLA is one made basket away from qualifying and thus would round up to 37%. Houston does not meet the criterion. In a game with Baylor, where the Bears are able to prevent the Cougars from getting multiple second chances, this could be a decider. Read on though to see the other side of this equation.
Dominant Insider Player(s)
Now that we told you the importance of 3-point shooting, now we switch and tell you it is also important to have a dominant inside player or players. A team doesn’t have to have Kareem Abdul Jabbar or Patrick Ewing inside these days to have a dominant inside game. All we are looking for is one player that can score in the low post and averages better than 12 points per game or two front court players that average better than 20 points and 12 rebounds per game.
Final 4 Inside Dominance
Team
1 @ 12
2 @ 20/12
Baylor
No
No
Gonzaga
Yes
Yes
Houston
No
No
UCLA
No
No
This is the most glaring stat of the entire system. Gonzaga has a post player that averages more than 12 points per game, and the Bulldogs have two front court players that combine for better than 20 points and 12 rebounds per game. The other three teams do not have a player that meets this criterion. It makes the Bulldogs prohibitive favorites, because this stat goes hand-in-hand with R+T and the prevention of R+T.
In past years, when a team of smaller players won the national championship, while they may not have had a 6 foot 10 inch monster in the middle, they did have a 6 foot 5 leaper that could score points inside and clean the boards with rebounds. The tiny 1964 UCLA Bruins with no starter over 6 foot 5 still dominated inside with three players that combined for 32.1 points and 17.8 rebounds per game. That tiny Bruin team outrebounded their opponents by more than 8 per game!
True Shooting Percentage Margin
True Shooting percentage is a new age metric that assigns point values to shot attempts. A free throw, a 2-point basket, and a 3-point basket obviously count for different values, so the ability to score points on a possession can be weighted. In essence, this is just another way to look at offensive and defensive efficiency, but it removes the schedule strength factor. Because all the Final 4 teams have adequate schedule strengths, this criterion may show a more accurate estimate. A double digit margin is a sign of a great team. A margin of 5.0-9.9% is really good.
Final 4 TS% Margins
Team
TS%
Opp
Margin
Baylor
58.5
52.0
6.5
Gonzaga
63.4
49.8
13.6
Houston
54.4
47.1
7.3
UCLA
54.7
52.9
1.8
You see the obvious here. Gonzaga is far and away the superior team in this quartet. UCLA looks like a team that should have gone home by the Sweet 16. Baylor and Houston are extremely close.
Double Figure Scoring
In addition to having clutch players, it is great to have at least three players that average 10 or more points per game, preferably four players. A team with one or two big scorers is more likely to have an issue with both having “off nights” than a team with three double-figure scorers. A team with four double-figure scorers is unlikely to see all four players have an off night.
Final 4 DBL FIG
Baylor
3
Gonzaga
4
Houston
3
UCLA
4
Gonzaga and UCLA have the big four number, while Baylor and Houston have three. All four qualify here. Ironically, had UCLA’s senior star not been injured in game number eight, they would have had five double figure scorers and might have been as powerful as their 1995 national champions.
Offensive Rebounding Rate
Offensive rebounding is the key to having a superior R+T rating, and in the Final four, where all four teams have excellent team defenses, quite often the best offensive rebounding team gets that game-clinching spurt. ORR must also be used in conjunction with schedule strength.
Simply, ORR is the percentage of offensive rebounds a team gets off its missed shots. If a team misses 35 shots (FG and FT with a rebound) and gets 14 offensive rebounds, their ORR is 40.0 (14/35).
In the past, the key number has been 37.5% or three offensive rebounds for every eight missed shots. A team that could hit that mark frequently had an R+T north of 18. In recent years with more three-point shots and a prevalence of Pack-Line defenses, that number has been lowered to 35%. Any team that can retrieve 35% of its missed shots with a schedule strength in the top quadrant is going to be a tough out.
Final 4 ORR
Baylor
36.1
Gonzaga
30.4
Houston
39.5
UCLA
29.4
This is where Houston shines, and where the Cougars have their opening to upset Baylor. The issue is that Baylor has the next best ORR. Can Houston get enough offensive rebounds to account for their sub-standard three-point shooting? The probability is less than 50%.
Offensive rebounding is the closest vulnerability Gonzaga has. It is the only reason why at the beginning of March Madness that we had them as the second best overall criteria. However, UCLA has an ORR under 30.0, and that number is not indicative of a Final 4 team. If Gonzaga plays in the title game Monday night, their opponent will have one aspect of the game where they can exploit the Bulldogs’ lack of superiority. We won’t call it a weakness, because it is still better than average.
Two-point Percentage Defense
Two-point percentage is still highly important in the Big Dance. Teams still take 2/3 of their shot attempts inside the arc. The important number here is 45%. If a team holds their opponents under 45% from inside the arc, they are dangerous on the defensive side.
Final 4 2pt D
Baylor
48.6
Gonzaga
46.5
Houston
42.8
UCLA
49.4
Now you see why we pegged Houston as a potential Final 4 team before the tournament commenced. Holding opponents to 42.8% from inside the arc, while also having a superior rebounding team has allowed the Cougars to make it this far. Baylor and UCLA just barely hold teams under 50% from inside the arc. Gonzaga is in the gray area between very good and great.
Free Throw Rate
We admit that we failed to fully grasp the importance of this metric until last year. For years, we talked about how every national champion for a long stretch in history had free throw percentages under 70%, basically in the bottom 50% in their season. The teams with the highest FT% didn’t make it to the NCAA Tournament, or they made quick exits. There was a reason for this. If these teams needed a high percentage to win, they seldom could use this against superior athletes that maybe didn’t shoot as well from the charity stripe.
We threw the baby out with the bath water! How naive we were for so many years. We even altered our idea of FT Rate, going with a different formula from the norm. Originally, FT Rate was simply FT attempts divided by FG attempts. Some heavy hitters in the basketball metrics world altered this to FT made divided by FG attempts. We endorsed an Ivy League math professor’s peer-reviewed thesis that showed FT divided by possessions was more valuable than the alternatives but still considerably less important that field goal accuracy, rebounding rates, and turnover rates.
Then, like a light bulb exploding above our heads, we began to rationalize why players foul and why they do not foul. Most of the fouls in college basketball happen because the offensive player is too talented for the defensive player to guard. Instead of giving up the easy basket, the defensive player will make contact with the offensive player, hoping the referees fail to notice.
The FT rate is thus very important, but FT% isn’t the reason. It tells us which team is hardest to guard and which defense is superior and does not need to foul to stop easy baskets. Thus, the original FTA/FGA is in fact the important equation to use here. Look for a team that has an offensive FT rate over 31% and a defensive FT rate under 31%. The farther away from 31%, the better.
Final 4 FT Rate
Team
O-Rate
D-Rate
Baylor
26.7
31.0
Gonzaga
35.6
25.3
Houston
30.4
41.0
UCLA
31.4
28.0
Once again, Gonzaga is clearly the best at these criteria. UCLA has ridden these criteria to five wins in the Dance. Baylor is vulnerable here with substandard stats on both sides of the ball. Houston has a major issue on the defensive side, where they obviously foul way too much. If the Cougars get in early foul trouble in the first half against Baylor, it will be curtains. Baylor doesn’t force fouls, so UH might be okay for one night.
A Head Coach With Past Final Four Experience
If a coach has past Final Four experience, his team usually comes out ready to play without the “tightness” many teams have at the beginning of games. These coaches are better equipped to handle all the extra intangibles that Final Four basketball brings. Obviously, all Final 4 coaches have winning Elite 8 experience, but the regional finals and national semifinals are world’s apart.
Final 4 Coaching
Baylor
No
Gonzaga
Yes
Houston
Yes
UCLA
No
Kelvin Sampson made one Final Four with Oklahoma 19 years ago. He has the experience. Mark Few has taken Gonzaga to the national finals, where the Bulldogs lost by two. Neither Mick Cronin nor Scott Drew have been here before. Gonzaga and Houston get the gold in this criterion.
Conference Champions
Very rarely has the national champion not won either its regular season conference championship, or its conference tournament championship. It isn’t 100% indicative, but it is a strong factor.
Final 4 Champions
Baylor
Yes
Gonzaga
Yes
Houston
Yes
UCLA
No
UCLA is the odd team out again. Baylor won the Big 12 Conference title. Houston won the American Athletic Conference Tournament after finishing second in the conference race. Gonzaga swept both the West Coast Conference regular season and conference tournament titles. UCLA won neither the Pac-12 regular season nor conference tournament titles.
Scoring Margin
This is the oldest metric that holds up throughout college basketball history. Better than 90% of all national champions have had scoring margins of 10.0 points or better. Lower that to 8.0 points or better, and you approach 100%. A large majority of national champions had scoring margins above 12 points, and a sizable number had better than 15-point margins.
Final 4 Scoring Margins
Baylor
17.5
Gonzaga
23.1
Houston
19.0
UCLA
5.3
Three teams satisfy this criterion. UCLA would be on par with David slewing two Goliaths to win the title. There isn’t any past basis to predict the Bruins defeating Gonzaga and the Baylor-Houston winner.
Field Goal Percentage Margin
We almost dismissed this criterion. It is old-hat, and there are newer metrics that rate this ability better. However, this stat still holds up from the 1930’s through today. Historically, the national champion has averaged better than 7.5% superiority in field goal percentage margin. The past net-cutters have frequently topped 10% in this statistic. Only the margin matters, so this can be 52% offense to 42% defense or 47% offense and 37% for defense or any other 10% margin.
Final 4 FG% Margin
Baylor
5.4
Gonzaga
13.3
Houston
6.4
UCLA
2.3
As you can see, Gonzaga is the only one of the four teams that meet this criterion. 13.3% is similar to the other undefeated national championship teams. The 1967, 1972, and 1973 UCLA teams that went 30-0 plus the 1976 32-0 Indiana team averaged 11.3% in FG% margin. Gonzaga’s 13.3 is higher than all four of these past greats.
Winning Streak(s)
A team must win six consecutive games (seven if playing in the First Four) to win the national championship. If the team couldn’t win six or seven games in a row during the regular season, you cannot expect them to do so in the Big Dance.
There are two key data points with this criterion. They are one 10-game winning streak or two six-game winning streaks.
Final 4 Winning Streaks
Baylor
18
Gonzaga
30
Houston
11/8/7
UCLA
7
Gonzaga’s 30-0 record easily qualifies the Bulldogs here. Baylor’s 18-game winning streak safely qualifies them. Houston has three winning streaks greater than 6 games, which also satisfies this criterion’s parameters. UCLA has one winning streak of 7 games, which came in 2020 with their former senior star playing. The Bruins do not qualify.
Summation
The most obvious information herein is that UCLA made it this far as one of the greatest outliers in tournament history. They barely survived their First Four play-in game with Michigan St. Their overtime win over Alabama was gifted by a terrible officiating mistake in regulation. Their Elite 8 win over Michigan was extremely lucky when Michigan had multiple opportunities to win in the last 30 seconds but basically crumbled under pressure. Using this criteria, Gonzaga should beat the Bruins by 15 or more points.
The Baylor-Houston game is not as cut and dry. Most pundits believe BU is unbeatable in this game, but we beg to differ. Houston is the underdog in this game, but Baylor is maybe a 55% to 45% favorite at best. Both the Bears and Cougars possess the criteria to make it to the National Championship Game.
If you are a Gonzaga fan, you might want to cheer for Baylor to win their semifinal game. While the Bears have an incredible criteria resume, Houston dominates in the one area where Gonzaga is vulnerable.
The 1927 New York Yankees are considered the best baseball team of all time by a majority of baseball experts. Yet ,that team had some weaknesses. Third baseman Jumpin’ Joe Dugan was a below average player at his position. Mark Koenig was an average shortstop. The three-man catching platoon was good but not great. However, that team had Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, two of the top 10 players of all time. It had Tony Lazzeri, Earle Combs, and Bob Meusel, three additional stars that in other years could have been the best player on a pennant-winning team. The pitching staff didn’t get the accolades, but they were the best in the Major Leagues in 1927. The Pinstripes went 110-44 to win the AL Pennant and swept Pittsburgh in the World Series 4 games to none. That Pittsburgh team (actually Pittsburg in those days) was loaded with talent, including Big Poison and Little Poison in Paul and Lloyd Waner, in addition to Pie Traynor, Kiki Cuyler, and three other hitters that had batting averages over .300.
The legendary sportswriters of the 1920’s noticed the Pirates players watching the Yankees take batting practice before the series began. Ruth sent towering home run shots over the very deep Forbes Field right-center field and center field walls well over 400 feet flights. Then, Gehrig stepped into the batter’s box and sent hard-hit balls that were not as high but looked like ropes going over those same spots in the deep wall. The Pirate players were in awe, but that was just two players.
Lazzeri, Meusel, and catcher Pat Collins then got into the batter’s box in succession batting from the right side. Each of the trio then sent balls rifling over the distant left-field wall, again over 400 feet blasts. The Pirate pitchers were mortified and totally psyched out. The Series was over before it started.
Is this Gonzaga team the 1927 Yankees on the college hardwoods? With all the games being played in the Indianapolis area, Baylor, Houston, and UCLA have had ample time to see Drew Timme, Corey Kispert, and Jalen Suggs appear to be Ruth, Gehrig, and Lazzeri. They have seen Joel Ayayi and Andrew Nembhard look like Combs and Meusel.
It is our opinion that Gonzaga is more like the great UCLA national Champions than the 1991 UNLV, 1979 Indiana State, and 1976 Rutgers teams, the last three to make it to the Final four undefeated and not win the title. The hidden intimidation factor is worth 12 to 15 points in GU’s favor. Opponents will be fearful of giving up too many easy transition baskets to really crash their offensive boards, where GU can be exploited. They are likely to hurry their shots and shoot below their norms. Because the other teams in this tournament cannot properly match up with Timme and Kispert, we expect the inside defenders to experience foul trouble.
After Citation won the Triple Crown in horse racing in 1948, 25 years passed until the feat was replicated. Great horses like Northern Dancer and Majestic Prince couldn’t pull it off. When it finally happened again, the horse that did it was the 1927 Yankees of thoroughbred racing. Secretariat forced other trainers to alter how they ran their horses, and it still didn’t work. In the Belmont, Sham tried to run fast early to keep up with Secretariat, and Sham wore out. The greatest horse of the time period ran away with a 31-length victory totally obliterating the record time by multiple seconds!
Is Gonzaga about to become the Secretariat of this generation? The Bracketnomics criteria believe so.
Houston, Baylor, Gonzaga, and Michigan are the four remaining teams that possess the analytics criteria that 93% of the last 30 national champions possessed. Gonzaga and Michigan have the overall best criteria, but most of Michigan’s statistical outcomes includes injured star Isaiah Livers. Houston lacks overall schedule strength, but a win tonight over Oregon State and then a Final Four win over Baylor would give the Cougars the last needed piece of the puzzle in a national title game. Baylor misses on only one main criteria point as well as a couple minor points.
Obviously, the Pac-12 strength of schedules needed to be tweeked upward by a few points, and the Covid issues probably disguised the league’s resurrection. The Big Ten and Big 12 were overrated this year, while the SEC and ACC were somewhat overrated. The fact that the Elite 8 has three Pac-12 teams, and one team each from the Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, West Coast, and American Athletic speaks a lot about the balance in basketball this year. The Western half of the country was the better half this year for the first time in more than a decade, maybe in the 21st Century.
Like 99% of the public, our brackets are destroyed thanks to all the lower seeded teams winning in the first two rounds. Obviously, the Big Ten was highly overrated, and the Pac-12 was highly underrated. A lack of non-conference games this year made the schedule strengths too biased. There are only four teams in the Sweet 16 with resumes similar to past national champions.
Gonzaga is the only remaining team that meets 90% of the criteria of a national champion. Michigan would also meet the criteria, but their star playmaker is still injured and out. So, the Wolverines have to be discounted somewhat.
Baylor and Houston meet more than 75% of the criteria, but they are missing one key important stat. Connecticut is the only past national champion of the 21st Century to win the national title with this type of criteria.
If Gonzaga wins the title, then the bracketnomics data will have proven itself to be accurate for the year, even if our interpretation of the data was wrong. If Michigan, Houston, or Baylor wins the title, then it will be another Connecticut type of deal, where the criteria was valid but not identifiable enough to be considered a success. If anybody else cuts the nets, then the criteria failed for this year.
What should we make of this data this year? Do we throw this year out due to the highly dysfunctional season? So many games were cancelled this year, while other games were scheduled on as little as 48-72 hours notice. Included in the cancellations was a Gonzaga vs. Baylor game that should have been played, in all places, in Indianapolis in December!
One thing we will note in 2021-2022 is to consider the Big Ten Conference to be a tad overrated and the Pac-12 Conference a tad underrated. Maybe, it is time for “The Conference of Champions” to return to its prominence it enjoyed in the second half of the 20th Century.
What to Make of Gonzaga
Gonzaga’s strength of schedule just barely qualifies for national championship-worthy criteria. However, no team from outside the Power Conferences (AAC, ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, or SEC) has won the national championship since 1990, when UNLV cut down the nets. In three decades, Gonzaga came within a made basket, and Butler came within a rimmed out prayer of pulling off the Mid-Major miracle.
Gonzaga has been compared all season to the 1991 UNLV team that ran the table during the regular season with a scoring margin of close to 30 points, only to fall to Duke in the Final Four.
Could Gonzaga meet a power conference blue blood and meet the same fate as UNLV 30 years ago? Creighton would not be considered a blue blood, and we cannot see the Bulldogs losing Saturday. A win in the Sweet 16 would have GU playing a Pac-12 team in the Elite 8, either USC or Oregon. We cannot count either of these teams as a Duke-like blue blood.
In the National Semifinals, Gonzaga would face either Michigan, Florida State, UCLA, or Alabama. With Isaiah Livers able to play, Michigan would definitely be considered blue blood material. Florida State is in the blue blood neighborhood. UCLA and Alabama are both a little too green to be blue these days.
The Championship Game would present a potential opponent in Baylor that would be a true blue blood team this year. Syracuse might be a powder blue blood with their matchup zone so hard to prepare for when teams have not faced it before.
However, we here on the PiRate ship do not see Gonzaga as the UNLV team three decades later. We see this Bulldogs team more like the 1964 UCLA Bruins 57 years later. By this, we do not refer to playing style. The two teams couldn’t be any more different. Coach John Wooden’s first national champions were small in size; no starter was taller than 6 foot 5 inches. Gonzaga has size and muscle inside.
The 1964 Bruins used a devastating 2-2-1, 3/4 court zone press and occasionally a 1-2-1-1 full court zone press to force tempo and turnovers, while Gonzaga uses a standard half-court defense that relies on pressuring the ball and forcing poor shots, where they can control the boards and run the fast break and secondary break for cheap baskets and then hit the offensive glass for additional chances.
Where the two teams are quite similar is their method for winning games. In going 30-0 in 1964, UCLA put every game away with a 2 to 3 minute scoring run. The best example occurred in the national title game, where a favored Duke team, with two 6 foot 10 inch starters towering over the Bruins, fell under pressure in just 2 1/2 minutes, as the Bruins ran off 16 points in a row.
Gonzaga has this same ability to take a three-point lead and make it a 15-point lead in just a couple minutes of playing time. Their game against BYU in the West Coast Conference Championship Game is a testament to this ability. BYU held a 10-point lead and looked like they were going to do what Saint Mary’s had done in the prior WCC Championship Game. Then, in very little clock time, GU went from 10 down to 10 up, and the game was over.
There is another team remaining with the same ability to go on a major game-clinching scoring run, and that is Houston. Funny how comparing Gonzaga to UCLA brings Houston into the conversation, as Houston and UCLA conjure up memories of past titanic rivals like Dempsey-Tunney, Affirmed-Alydar, and New York Yankees and Brooklyn Dodgers.
Houston is most definitely not considered the favorite to make it to the National Championship Game. They still have to solve the Syracuse zone and then possibly beat the most underrated team in the field in Loyola of Chicago or the team that found lightning in a bottle in Oregon State. Then, they most likely have to dismiss Baylor to make it to their third national championship game in the school’s history.
A Houston-Gonzaga national championship tilt would be quite memorable, and it would be one where both teams enjoy scoring runs that make the outcome unpredictable.
For many of you, this is the only time of the year you visit the PiRate Ratings, as March Madness is your real holiday season. If this is your first visit here, please be advised that we actively participate in rating college and NFL football as well as college basketball. And, if you are a fan of tabletop baseball games, our Sabertooth Baseball Game is available for the low price of $7 while it is still on sale, when it will go back to $8. If you have the dice and the playing surface, we send you all the cards, charts, and rules in a zip file for you to print. Serious gamers tell us that they think our game is one of the most advanced strategic baseball games on the market with unique playing styles. If we piqued your interest, check us out at https://sabertooth-baseball.square.site , or our blog at https://sabertoothbaseball.wordpress.com
Now that we’ve heard from our sponsor, let’s get right to it. First, what are Bracketnomics? That’s our term we coined to describe how we use analytical data that has been backtested to try to determine which teams have the best set of statistical fingerprints when compared to national champions of the past.
If you have already read this or just want to go straight to picking your bracket, then here’s what you have been waiting for.
First, let’s start with a few bracket-picking strategies. It is obvious that picking a perfect bracket is about as likely as winning the Powerball and Megamillion lotteries in the same week where lightning strikes your air conditioner compressor and you find a four-leaf clover when you go outside to see why your A/C isn’t working.
It is, however, possible to win whatever bracket-picking contest you enter. We here have received dozens of comments through the years from readers telling us they won their office pools, and we have also heard from people that won pools from supermarket contests, radio station contests, and even one from a woman that won $1,000 from a modified Calcutta contest.
There are a few general keys to scoring high enough to win your bracket pool. First, you need to start by picking your national champion, Final Four, and Elite 8 in that order. Do not start with the opening round and just predict the winners. You will likely eliminate yourself before the Sweet 16 by picking a bunch of upset winners and arrive at the Sweet 16 with less than a half-dozen teams still alive.
Next, once you have your Elite 8, go into each sub-bracket that those 8 teams emerged and pick the best team that would give the Elite 8 team a tough Sweet 16 game. Now, you have your Sweet 16.
At this point, you need to pick most of the rest of the games by “the chalk.” Obviously, your Sweet 16 will have to win in the Rounds of 64 and 32. You can then maybe pick a couple upset winners in the first round and maybe one or two of your Sweet 16 teams will be a dark horse. However, as we see it, the teams considered dark horses really looked like the favorites in our method of picking games. In the past, we were all in on a George Mason team that ambushed the field to the Final Four. We said that Virginia Commonwealth was better than 20 seeds and did not deserve to be in the First Four, and the Rams went to the Final Four. We had Wichita State as a Final Four possible the year they went to the Final Four. And, we showed that Butler had a lot of the needed criteria to get deep into their tournaments. It isn’t fail-safe; we did not see Loyola making the Final Four, and we twice struck out with Connecticut teams that won their championships.
Our criteria relies on the percentages and uses past events to predict future possibilities. Math is not perfect in this respect. Think of it this way: Would you rather have Ty Cobb at bat with runners on second and third base and two outs in the last of the ninth, trailing by one run, or would you rather have Mario Mendoza at bat? The odds greatly favor the best hitter of all time, but there are some instances where Cobb might make an out on a hard line drive, while Mendoza delivers the game-winning hit on a bloop pop fly that finds grass between the infielder and outfielder. We’ll still go with Cobb, and that’s what our Bracketnomics attempt to be–the Ty Cobb of bracket-picking.
A lot of gurus will tell you how the #12 seed is the best upset spot, and they point to how many times the #12 seed has upset the #5 seed. Why does this happen? It is because the #12 seeds are often the best automatic qualifiers from mid-major conferences, and the Selection Committee did a poor job placing these teams this low. It is not a jinx, so don’t automatically advance a 12-seed unless you can see they were placed in the wrong seed line.
The same thing can be said about the 11-seeds. In recent years, the Committee was a little more accurate placing powerful mid-major champions one seed higher than past years. A lot of these former superior 12-seeds are now superior 11-seeds. And, instead of playing 5-seeds, they are playing weaker 6-seeds. The plan stays the same–look at the criteria and let the criteria show you when the lower seeds are superior and actually the better team, meaning it won’t really be an upset at all.
The Best Criteria
As we looked at all the data, three teams emerged from the pack of 68 that have national championship looking criteria stats. However, one of the teams is missing a key ingredient and will have to be discounted some for the loss of a key player.e
The overall best resumes belong to two #1 seeds, Gonzaga and Illinois. The third team that has the look of a national champion is Michigan, but the Wolverines fall out of this category if Isaiah Livers cannot return by the Sweet 16 and play at somewhat close to 100% efficiency.
There is another group of teams that fall just short of national champion appearance. These teams are below the championship line in one basic criterion or multiple smaller criteria. These teams in alphabetical order are: Colorado, Houston, Texas, and Virginia. We expect that maybe one of these four will sneak into the Final Four.
The next group back, the teams that are just behind the above group and have solid Sweet 16 appearance criteria with possible Elite 8 criteria are: Alabama, Arkansas, Baylor, Saint Bonaventure, San Diego St., USC, and Wisconsin. We expect at least one of these six to make the Elite 8.
Then, there is a group of teams with considerable positive criteria along with a major negative criterion. These teams are also Sweet 16 worthy, and two could advance to the Elite 8 with one even sneaking into the Final Four. These teams may benefit from ideal brackets more than criteria, as you read the previews.
This year’s criteria was hard to calculate because of the lack of non-conference games. Schedule strength had to be stressed even more than usual, or else we would have Colgate picked to go to the Final 4. The Raiders are 14-1, and all of their games were against fellow Patriot League members; additionally, Colgate never played the other quality team in the league in Navy.
There was a slight issue with Gonzaga’s strength of schedule. The Bulldogs’ total SOS was brought down due to the bottom teams in their conference. However, they have wins over Iowa and West Virginia out of conference, and that allows us to accept Gonzaga’s schedule strength as the minimum needed to be considered for the national championship, and adequate for the Final Four. They were supposed to play Baylor, but the Bears opted out of that game due to the virus.
Now, we will review each of the Round of 64 games using our criteria to pick the winner. Note that we will have regular PiRate Rating spreads for these games on the day of the games. Our PiRate Ratings are not used when picking winners in Bracketnomics.
First Four
If you are picking brackets, you can usually wait until these games have been played before picking your brackets. The 16-seed winners will not really matter, as none of them stand a chance to knock off a 1-seed this year. The 11-seed games will be important, so if you can, wait until those games have been played before submitting your brackets wherever you do.
16 Texas Southern vs. 16 Mount St. Mary’s: Mount St. Mary’s defense will keep Texas Southern from getting a lot of good looks, and the Mount doesn’t foul a lot, so TSU will have a hard time scoring. MSM’s R+T is a tad better too.
Prediction: Mount St. Mary’s
11 Drake vs. 11 Wichita St.: This should be a close game, as both teams have strengths that can be used to exploit the other team’s weaknesses. Drake is clearly the better offensive team, while Wichita State has a smaller advantage on defense but considerable advantage on schedule strength. Drake’s R+T rating is quite better, good enough that they might enjoy the game-clinching spurt in this one.
Prediction: Drake
16 Appalachian St. vs. 16 Norfolk St.: These are two teams that will be fighting tooth and nail for their chance to shine for one night, and this looks like a close one. To select a winner here, we basically have to go with the team with fewer negatives. Both are ripe with negatives, but in the end, Norfolk St. has the capability of speeding up the tempo and getting Appy State players in foul trouble.
Prediction: Norfolk St.
11 Michigan St. vs. 11 UCLA: This is a Michigan State squad lacking its typical inside dominance, while UCLA has very little inside game. So, it’s more likely that this game will be decided on the perimeter. UCLA is clearly superior from behind the arc, and Michigan State’s biggest issue this year has been with perimeter players that can take the three or drive quickly to the key.
Prediction: UCLA
SOUTH REGIONAL
1 Baylor vs. 16 Hartford: There’s nothing at all that shows us that Hartford has a chance in this game. Baylor is superior across the board, so forget this being a UMBC-Virginia moment. Baylor should lead by more than 30 when Scott Drew removes his starters.
Prediction: Baylor
8 North Carolina vs. 9 Wisconsin: Normally, we would find some fact or statistic to show the Tar Heels being superior to an opening round opponent, but this time, we cannot rationalize doing so. Both teams are about equal defensively in preventing good shots by their opponents. Wisconsin is clearly more efficient on offense. Wisconsin is one of the most experienced teams in the field with six seniors among their top eight players, while UNC is one of the greenest with just one senior and one junior among their top eight. Carolina has the power advantage in this game, but the Badgers will limit possessions, and they have the outside shooting advantage. Carolina’s only hope is to get the pace up to more than 70 possessions per side, but we think the veteran Badger team will control the pace and have the advantage.
Prediction: Wisconsin
5 Villanova vs. 12 Winthrop: This is one of those momentum games by a lot of pundits. They believe that with Villanova’s multiple injuries, this will be another #12 seed upset. Are they correct? Let’s take a look.
First, we have to discount Villanova due to their missing senior guard Collin Gillespie. Additionally, guard Justin Moore will still be somewhat below par due to his severe ankle sprain. Add to that fact that Winthrop has one of the most unique point forwards in the nation in Chandler Vaudrin. Now, let’s look at the data. Villanova enjoys an enormous inside advantage in this game, and their schedule strength is in a different time zone compared to Winthrop’s. Wins over Southern Conference contenders UNC-Greensboro and Furman were nice, but they were 0-0 against power conference teams. We expect VU’s two inside forces to get their share of points and force Winthrop to bring an extra defender into the paint, where ‘Nova’s third and fourth options on the perimeter should be good enough to knock down a few.
Prediction: Villanova
4 Purdue vs. 13 North Texas: This game could be close, for a half. North Texas has the ability to stay within single digits for most of the day, but in the end, Purdue has a wide advantage in both schedule strength and R+T. That almost always leads to a team going on a big run to put a game away.
Prediction: Purdue
6 Texas Tech vs. 11 Utah St.: Texas Tech is noted for their tough defense, but guess what? Utah State’s defense is even better this year. Utah State also has a supreme inside game and isn’t too shabby on the perimeter. Texas Tech has issues scoring on offense, and we expect the Red Raiders will have foul trouble inside the paint. Here is our first lower seed upset pick.
Prediction: Utah St.
3 Arkansas vs. 14 Colgate: Here is where schedule strength is as important as class is in handicap horse races. Arkansas is a Grade I champion, while Colgate is still eligible for non-winner’s of two allowance races. The schedule strength favors Arkansas by more than a dozen points before looking at any other stats. Arkansas’s offense is not superior, but it is very good. Their defense is close to superior. Colgate’s offense is good, but in the end, their defense isn’t going to slow down the Razorbacks enough times to keep this game close. There are no criteria that show us that Colgate has a chance to find something to exploit in this game. Add to the load our personal belief that Eric Musselman is one of the A++ basketball coaches, and this looks like a double-digit win.
Prediction: Arkansas
7 Florida vs. 10 Virginia Tech: This game looks more like an 8-9 game than a 7-10 game, because it is close to dead even when looking at all the criteria. Florida has a slight advantage with offensive and defensive efficiency and schedule strength, but VT rates better in R+T, which can override small schedule strength advantages. Additionally, both schools have swooned in recent weeks, so what we are looking at here is who will be fodder in the next round? We honestly say to pick the team you like in this one, because it is a 50-50 matchup. When it’s 50-50, we look at the coaches. Michael White has an Elite 8 appearance at Florida. Mike Young had an incredible Wofford team in the Dance that beat Seton Hall and took Kentucky to the buzzer in the Round of 32.
Prediction: Virginia Tech
2 Ohio St. vs. 15 Oral Roberts: Oral Roberts is the only one of the 68 teams in this field with a negative R+T rating. Our prime rule is to immediately eliminate any NCAA Tournament team with a negative R+T rating. There are no exceptions to this rule, so even if ORU was playing one of the 16-seeds in this round, we would be selecting the opponent. As Royal Rooter King Michael McGreevy would have replied, “‘Nuf ced.”
Prediction: Ohio St. has the potential to win by 35 points.
MIDWEST REGIONAL
1 Illinois vs. 16 Drexel: You know the answer here, so let’s break down the Illini a little to show you why they have the criteria of a national champion.
National champions come from power conferences–ACC, Big 12, SEC, Big East, Pac-12, and Big Ten. The last team not in one of these leagues to win the title was UNLV in 1990.
National champions tend to have double digit scoring margins. Since 1990, 28 of 30 national champions had double-digit scoring margins. The other two times, it was Connecticut both years. Illinois’s scoring margin is 12.2 in a year where the Big Ten was the top-ranked overall league.
National champions tend to have offenses ranked in the top 10 in efficiency and defenses ranked in the top 20 in efficiency. Illinois is 7th offensively and 5th defensively.
National champions tend to have four or more upperclassmen on their top eight. Illinois has two seniors and three juniors in their top eight.
Add to this a team with a +37% 3-point accuracy; two inside players that combine for more than 20 points and 12 rebounds per game; an offense that forces defenses to foul too much; a defense that does not foul too much; a top-10 schedule strength, and one of the few 20+ R+T Ratings in this tournament.
10 out of the last 13 years, a #1 seed won the national title, and Illinois is a #1 seed playing just one state away from home. Other than having a coach that has not been past the Round of 32, and a slightly under the championship norm offensive rebounding rate, this team looks like past national champions.
Prediction: Illinois by whatever spread they want to name.
8 Loyola (Chi.) vs. 9 Georgia Tech: Oh, this one should be a grand one to watch! Not only is it an evenly-matched game, it is evenly matched with both teams having decided advantages over the other in various criteria. That usually leads to an exciting 40 minutes with lots of plot twists. In other words, plan on watching this game. Let’s break this one down. Georgia Tech has the definite offensive efficiency advantage, but Loyola has the number one defensive efficiency in the entire nation! Loyola is one of a very few teams to have a double-digit true shooting percentage margin. The Rambler TS% is 59.8% and they allow 48.7%.
Georgia Tech has three players that can put away an opponent, while Loyola is more of a team approach type of winner. In the clutch, go with a team with three potential dagger-makers. Georgia Tech has a slightly stronger schedule, but Loyola has superior R+T numbers, and for that reason, the scales slightly tip past balanced.
Prediction: Loyola (Chi.)
5 Tennessee vs. 12 Oregon St.: We expect the winner of this game to have a tough time advancing to the Sweet 16 for multiple reasons. Tennessee is one of the most Jekyll and Hyde teams in the field, if not the most. An excellent defensive effort will give the Vols a big win, and then an egg-laying offensive effort will get them beat the next game. The problem is that the players seem to lack direction against changing defenses.
Oregon St. was a model of excellent consistency for 120 minutes at the Pac-12 Tournament, holding the pace to less than 65 possessions per game, and winning by making very few mistakes. By mistakes, we don’t refer to turnovers, but more to smart shot selection and excellent team defense. That team defense thing is kryptonite to Tennessee.
The question is which Vols team shows up? Will it be the team that disposed of Kansas like they were a division 2 team, or will it be the team that acted like it didn’t know the object of the game in the second half of the SEC Tournament semifinals? We’ll say that for one game, UT will play up to their potential.
Prediction: Tennessee
4 Oklahoma St. vs. 13 Liberty: Liberty was a real victim of Covid-19 in 2020. The Flames were good enough to make the Sweet 16 last year. This year’s team is not on that same level of competence. The biggest factor in this game is the humongous schedule strength advantage the Cowboys have. On that alone, OSU is 18 points better before the opening tip. They also have the top clutch player in the Dance in Cade Cunningham, who is better than Kemba Walker, who took Connecticut to the national title when the Huskies did not have national title criteria.
Prediction: Oklahoma St.
6 San Diego St. vs. 11 Syracuse: Syracuse has been in this situation before where they were on the Bubble getting into the field and then won a game or two. They made the Final Four as a 10-seed. Their matchup zone defense can be trouble for teams that have not seen it live, and most teams that play the ‘Cuse in the Rounds of 64 and 32 have not seen another team use it. That can make a difference in closely-matched teams.
San Diego State’s man-to-man defense is not something Syracuse has seen either. It is nothing like Virginia’s or other ACC defenses. In a normal year, Duke’s defense might look something like that, but the Orangemen will be just as unsure attacking the Aztecs as SDSU is attacking the zone. Syracuse has a stronger schedule strength, but not that much stronger, while SDSU has the better R+T Rating, enough to make the difference.
Prediction: San Diego St.
3 West Virginia vs. 14 Morehead St.: In recent years, Belmont and Murray St. have pulled off big upsets from the Ohio Valley Conference. Ten years ago, this team knocked off Louisville in the opening round. Can lightning strike twice? About as often as it does, so don’t expect the Eagles to soar over the Mountaineers. The schedule strength advantage is considerable at 13+ points. The inside advantage will be almost as strong, and WVU will get many extra opportunities to score in this game. Unless Morehead shoots lights out from three, this will be a mismatch.
Prediction: West Virginia
7 Clemson vs. 10 Rutgers: These are very similar teams when looking at their criteria. There isn’t much to separate them. Rutgers has a slightly better offensive efficiency rating. They are basically equal defensively. Clemson has the better frontcourt and more likely to get more first chance points in the paint. Neither team is adequate enough to get to the Sweet 16 with their R+T Ratings. In the end, we go with the better offense in this one.
Prediction: Rutgers
2 Houston vs. 15 Cleveland St.: This is the best Houston team since Phi Slama Jama made it to consecutive national title games in 1983 and 1984. Two years ago, a #3-seed Houston team easily advanced to the Sweet 16 and then took Kentucky to the final horn. This team is a tad better overall, but more importantly, this regional is lacking in teams that excel where Houston is vulnerable. Houston could win this game by 30-35 points, but Kelvin Sampson will probably empty his bench earlier than normal, allowing Cleveland State to make the final score look less embarrassing. Only if CSU can get three or four Cougar players in early foul trouble can they keep this one close.
Prediction: Houston
West Regional
1 Gonzaga vs. 16 Norfolk St.: Rather than show you how Gonzaga could win this game by 40 or more, let’s show you their criteria so you can compare it to Illinois.
A. National champions come from power conferences–ACC, Big 12, SEC, Big East, Pac-12, and Big Ten. The last team not in one of these leagues to win the title was UNLV in 1990. Gonzaga would have to break a 31-year trend.
B. National champions tend to have double digit scoring margins. Since 1990, 28 of 30 national champions had double-digit scoring margins. The other two times, it was Connecticut both years. Gonzaga’s scoring margin is 23.0, which is far and away the best in the nation. UNLV’s was 15 when they won the 1990 title.
C. National champions tend to have offenses ranked in the top 10 in efficiency and defenses ranked in the top 20 in efficiency. Gonzaga is number one on offense and number 10 on defense, a definite look of a national champion.
D. National champions tend to have four or more upperclassmen on their top eight. Gonzaga has two seniors and two juniors in their top eight.
E. Gonzaga’s 3-point percentage is 36.5%, which is a fraction under the 37% floor most champions have had. They have three players that can be counted on to win a game on the final possession. They have two inside stars that can dominate a game in the paint. While the Bulldogs’ schedule is a tad weaker than a typical national champion schedule, they did beat Iowa and West Virginia on the road, and a cancelled game against Baylor would have given them a championship worthy schedule.
Prediction: Gonzaga by a very large margin
8 Oklahoma vs. 9 Missouri: These former Big 8/Big 12 rivals used to have some great conference games, and this one should be a lot like those great ones from the past. Oklahoma has the better offensive efficiency, while defensive efficiency is about equal. Missouri has the advantage inside and a slightly better strength of schedule. There isn’t much difference when looking at the rest, but Missouri is one of the few teams that has a +37% free throw rate; however, their defensive FT rate is too high.
Prediction: Oklahoma
5 Creighton vs. 12 UCSB: On the surface, this looks like a potential double-digit win for the higher seed, even when considering the high number of 12-seed upsets in the past. Crieghton’s offensive efficiency rating is high enough to consider the Blue Jays an Elite 8 contender, and their defensive efficiency rating is strong enough to move Creighton into the next round. However, there has been an issue with the head coach, and Creighton did not look like the same team after the dissension between players and coach came to a head.
UCSB is not an easy mark. The Gauchos have an inside presence typical of a first round winner. They are a senior-laden squad, and their R+T rating is almost 20, which is another sign of a potential upset winner in the Round of 64. When a team has a huge R+T rating advantage over their opponent, the next thing to compare are the two schedule strengths. In this case, Creighton has a modestly better SOS, not enough to overcome a large R+T disadvantage. Remember that UC-Irvine from the same Big West Conference beat a 4-seed in the 2019 Dance.
Prediction: UCSB gets the upset
4 Virginia vs. 13 Ohio U: Ohio has a top 40 offense, but their defense is too weak to stop an ACC team like Virginia. This will be more of a half-court game, where the fast break is an afterthought. Virginia will win more than half of the possessions, probably something like 55% of them, and in a 62 possession game for both teams, that comes out to 68 possessions for the Cavs and 56 possessions for the Bobcats. A 12-possession win with about 1.1 points per possession means a 13-point win.
Prediction: Virginia
6 USC vs. 11 Drake: This game could be a faster-paced replica of the UVa-Ohio game. USC and Drake both have very strong offensive efficiency ratings, but Drake’s defensive efficiency is below the threshold of a winning tournament team. USC will dominate inside in this game, and Drake will have to hit close to half their three-point shots to keep this one close. USC has one of the highest foul-drawing offenses, and the Trojans should get a lot of “and 1’s” in this game.
Prediction: USC
3 Kansas vs, 14 Eastern Washington: This Kansas team does not have the overall offense to advance to the Final Four, and they may struggle making the Sweet 16. KU’s offensive efficiency is vulnerable against a quality defensive team. Eastern Washington is not that team with a porous defense compared to this field. Superior schedule strength and a somewhat better R+T makes this game a solid one in the Big 12 team’s favor.
Prediction: Kansas
7 Oregon vs. 10 VCU: This should be an interesting game. Oregon’s exceptional offensive efficiency faces VCU’s exceptional defensive efficiency. The schedule strength is dead even, so we look at the R+T ratings, and it favors the Ducks by one scoring spurt.
Prediction: Oregon
2 Iowa vs. 15 Grand Canyon: Iowa is oh so close to having Final Four criteria. Their offense trails only Gonzaga, but their defensive efficiency is #50, just outside the threshold for national champion qualification. Grand Canyon actually holds a substantial R+T Rating advantage, so we must look at the schedule strength to see if it can be sustained. It cannot in this case, as Iowa’s schedule is almost 15 points stronger per game.
Prediction: Iowa
EAST REGIONAL
1 Michigan vs. 16 Mount St. Mary’s: Even at less than full strength, Michigan is much too strong for a Northeast Conference opponent. The Wolverines’ have top 10 offense and defense efficiency ratings, while the Mount has the lowest offensive efficiency in the tournament. Their defensive efficiency is the ninth lowest in the field. If the Wolverines can get through this first weekend, there is a chance that Isaiah Livers can return and contribute.
Prediction: Michigan
8 LSU vs. 9 Saint Bonaventure: LSU has a top five offensive efficiency rating, but their defense is below par for any more than a win or two at best. St. Bonaventure could be a surprise winner, and they could give Michigan a run for their money in a Round of 32 game if they can get past LSU.
This game should stay close like an 8-9 game should, and it is almost a 50-50 guess when applying our criteria. LSU’s schedule strength is slightly stronger, but The Bonnies have a clear R+T advantage.
Prediction: Saint Bonaventure
5 Colorado vs. 12 Georgetown: It was the worst of times early in the year at 5-10 and the best of times late in the year at 8-2 for the Georgetown Hoyas. If GU is going to continue to play like they did in the latter part of the schedule, their overall criteria must be looked at in a different light. The trouble here for Patrick Ewing is the opponent in this game. Colorado is very close to being considered an Elite 8 dark horse. The Buffs have an offensive efficiency rating in the top 20, and their defensive efficiency rating is in the top 30. CU also has the R+T Ratings advantage.
Prediction: Colorado
4 Florida St. vs. 13 UNC-Greensboro: Florida State is another team just shy of the typical criteria of a Final Four team. The Seminoles are a worthy Sweet 16 team with an offensive efficiency rating in the top 10. Their defensive efficiency rating is in the top 50, which is just outside of Final 4 worthy. The Seminoles could beat a Michigan team without Livers.
UNCG would be totally outmanned in this game if it wasn’t for a very good R+T rating, and even though FSU’s schedule strength is better, it is not enough to make this game a slam dunk runaway win. UNCG could keep this close for more minutes than the Seminoles like.
Prediction: Florida St.
6 BYU vs. 11 UCLA: A lot of national talk show hosts and guests believe BYU was given a higher seed than they deserved. Some people believe that they should have been a 9, 10, or even an 11 seed. We don’t share that opinion. BYU actually has the stronger schedule strength, as they have played the number one team three times and won at Utah State and San Diego State. BYU has the better R+T Rating in this game as well, and the Cougars are substantially better defensively than the Bruins.
Prediction: BYU
3 Texas vs. 14 Abilene Christian: Abilene Christian will be playing for more than a spot in the Round of 32. Beating Texas would be as special as Texas making the Final Four. However, this Longhorns squad is tough, tough enough to become Shaka Smart’s second Final Four team, even though it would require one big upset and maybe one minor upset.
Texas has an offensive efficiency rating just outside the top 20 and a defensive efficiency rating in the 30’s. With a schedule strength that is 16 points stronger than ACU’s, the slight R+T Rating advantage of the Wildcats is nullified.
Prediction: Texas
7 Connecticut vs. 10 Maryland: As hot as Georgetown was at the end of the season, they did lose twice to Connecticut. The Huskies are another team with efficiency ratings and schedule strength strong enough to be considered a dark horse for advancing to the Sweet 16 and possibly the Elite 8.
Maryland will not be an automatic win for UConn. In fact, this game is barely past toss-up. UConn’s offensive efficiency is 24 and their defensive efficiency is 25, but Maryland’s offensive efficiency is just a little lower at 42 with a defensive efficiency almost exactly the same as the Huskies. Connecticut’s biggest advantage in this game is the R+T Rating, which is slightly offset by Maryland’s somewhat stronger schedule strength.
Prediction: Connecticut
2 Alabama vs. 15 Iona: Can Rick Pitino work his magic and pull of a major upset? Don’t bet on it. His Iona Gaels have the sixth weakest offensive efficiency rating and eighth weakest defensive efficiency rating in the tournament. Meanwhile, Alabama has more than enough superior criteria numbers to win this game with ease, even if their three-point shots don’t fall. Iona will have a tough time scoring points in this game.
Prediction: Alabama
Those are our Round of 64 picks. Now, we will finish it up by picking the rest of the bracket using Bracketnomics.
Round of 32
Baylor over Wisconsin
Purdue over Villanova
Arkansas over Utah St.
Ohio St. over Virginia Tech
Illinois over Loyola (Chi.)
Oklahoma St. over Tennessee
West Virginia over San Diego St.
Houston over Rutgers
Gonzaga over Oklahoma
Virginia over UCSB
USC over Kansas
Iowa over Oregon
Michigan over Saint Bonaventure
Florida St. over Colorado
Texas over BYU
Alabama over Connecticut
Sweet 16
Baylor over Purdue
Ohio St. over Arkansas
Illinois over Oklahoma St.
Houston over West Virginia
Gonzaga over Virginia
Iowa over USC
Michigan over Florida St. (if Livers returns)
Texas over Alabama
Elite 8
Ohio St. over Baylor
Illinois over Houston
Gonzaga over Iowa
Texas over Michigan
National Semifinals
Illinois over Ohio St.
Gonzaga over Texas
National Championship
Illinois over Gonzaga *
Note: If Gonzaga defeats Oklahoma, Virginia, and Iowa to get to the Final 4, their Strength of Schedule will then be above the minimum threshold needed to win all the marbles.
Here is a look at each team’s criteria. Maybe you can see something we didn’t see!
Criteria A: The Biggies
Team
O-Eff
D-Eff
SOS
R + T
Abilene Christian
157
30
44.1
15.8
Alabama
34
2
61.0
7.3
Appalachian St.
227
205
47.7
5.2
Arkansas
35
14
58.8
14.2
Baylor
3
44
58.2
18.2
BYU
28
26
59.0
14.1
Clemson
99
20
60.6
4.3
Cleveland St.
199
121
48.9
3.7
Colgate
43
140
47.7
16.2
Colorado
17
29
58.0
14.5
Connecticut
24
25
58.7
14.8
Creighton
14
40
58.4
4.5
Drake
19
120
50.7
16.9
Drexel
95
247
47.1
9.3
E. Washington
86
152
47.9
5.0
Florida
40
37
60.0
4.3
Florida St.
10
48
59.0
11.3
Georgetown
85
41
61.0
7.5
Georgia Tech
27
52
58.8
2.8
Gonzaga
1
10
57.8
22.0
Grand Canyon
142
74
46.9
21.2
Hartford
254
127
45.2
0.7
Houston
8
16
55.5
27.0
Illinois
7
5
62.8
20.8
Iona
210
161
45.4
12.1
Iowa
2
50
61.4
11.6
Kansas
59
6
61.3
11.9
Liberty
52
168
44.3
12.6
Loyola (Chi)
49
1
53.0
16.2
LSU
5
125
60.7
6.1
Maryland
42
27
61.8
2.3
Michigan
6
7
61.8
15.0
Michigan St.
98
32
61.3
5.9
Missouri
51
58
61.5
3.5
Morehead St.
214
72
48.7
7.5
Mount St. Mary’s
287
136
46.2
14.8
Norfolk St.
204
219
43.4
8.0
North Carolina
53
15
60.4
21.5
North Texas
119
42
53.8
9.2
Ohio St.
4
79
58.4
8.7
Ohio U
29
174
57.5
8.4
Oklahoma
36
53
59.4
6.2
Oklahoma St.
54
22
62.0
6.1
Oral Roberts
74
285
48.5
-2.3
Oregon
16
76
57.1
9.2
Oregon St.
65
117
57.9
6.0
Purdue
23
23
61.6
14.2
Rutgers
75
18
62.2
2.5
San Diego St.
44
11
55.9
17.3
St. Bonaventure
38
17
56.8
14.1
Syracuse
22
89
58.7
4.2
Tennessee
71
4
58.9
10.7
Texas
21
36
61.2
10.4
Texas Southern
236
236
43.3
13.9
Texas Tech
33
24
59.7
13.2
UCLA
26
86
54.3
12.5
UCSB
66
82
53.4
19.2
UNCG
129
67
50.8
15.0
USC
30
19
58.7
16.9
Utah St.
112
8
54.6
23.7
VCU
117
12
57.4
5.1
Villanova
9
68
59.2
11.2
Virginia
12
33
58.9
8.5
Virginia Tech
55
54
56.5
8.8
West Virginia
11
65
62.1
11.4
Wichita St.
56
103
56.6
2.3
Winthrop
120
70
45.3
24.0
Wisconsin
32
13
61.7
4.1
Glossary:
O-Eff: Offensive efficiency ranking. Almost all national champions were top 20 and most top 10
D-Eff: Defensive efficiency ranking. Almost all national champions were top 20 and all top 50
SOS: The PiRate Ratings Strength of Schedule. All past national champions were higher than 56.0, and most were 60.0 and higher. Usually, one Final Four team has an SOS between 50 and 56.
R+T Rating: The PiRate Ratings estimate of “spurtability.” The higher the number, the more likely a team will enjoy the better scoring spurt. However, this rating goes hand-in-hand with SOS, so it must be handicapped on a per game basis while comparing schedule strengths. All national champions have had R+T ratings above 12.0, and most were over 15.0. A team with an R+T rating above 15.0 and SOS above 60.0 is tournament tough. If in turn, this team has a top 10 O-Eff and top 20 D-Eff, they are going to advance very far into the Dance. Teams with R+T ratings under 5.00 are in trouble after the first round.
Criteria B
Team
Seniors 8
Juniors 8
1/3 Clutch?
37+ 3pt
F/C 12+ ppg
2 F/C 20/12?
Abilene Christian
2
3
0
35.3
Yes
No
Alabama
4
1
1
37.8
No
No
Appalachian St.
2
2
3
31.7
No
No
Arkansas
3
2
1
33.9
Yes
No
Baylor
2
4
3
41.8
No
No
BYU
3
2
1
37.8
No
No
Clemson
3
2
0
34.6
Yes
No
Cleveland St.
3
3
1
31.9
No
No
Colgate
3
2
3
40.2
No
No
Colorado
5
2
1
36.7
No
No
Connecticut
2
3
1
33.6
No
No
Creighton
3
2
1
37.0
No
No
Drake
4
3
0
37.0
No
No
Drexel
2
2
1
37.2
Yes
Yes
E. Washington
2
3
1
35.4
Yes
Yes
Florida
0
5
1
35.7
Yes
No
Florida St.
2
4
1
39.0
Yes
Yes
Georgetown
3
1
1
36.6
Yes
Yes
Georgia Tech
4
2
3
34.9
Yes
No
Gonzaga
2
2
3
36.5
Yes
Yes
Grand Canyon
5
0
0
33.2
Yes
Yes
Hartford
1
4
0
32.7
No
No
Houston
2
2
1
36.1
No
No
Illinois
2
3
1
37.6
Yes
Yes
Iona
3
0
1
37.2
No
No
Iowa
2
1
1
38.6
Yes
Yes
Kansas
2
2
No
34.4
Yes
Yes
Liberty
2
3
No
39.1
No
No
Loyola (Chi)
5
0
No
36.8
Yes
No
LSU
0
4
3
35.0
Yes
Yes
Maryland
2
3
0
34.6
No
No
Michigan
5
1
1
38.7
Yes
Yes
Michigan St.
1
3
0
32.0
Yes
No
Missouri
4
2
1
32.0
Yes
Yes
Morehead St.
1
4
No
35.1
Yes
Yes
Mount St. Mary’s
1
5
1
33.7
No
No
Norfolk St.
4
1
1
36.8
No
No
North Carolina
1
1
No
31.7
Yes
Yes
North Texas
3
2
1
37.6
No
Yes
Ohio St.
2
4
1
36.5
Yes
Yes
Ohio U
1
3
3
34.4
Yes
Yes
Oklahoma
4
2
1
33.8
No
No
Oklahoma St.
1
1
1
33.8
No
No
Oral Roberts
2
2
1
39.0
Yes
Yes
Oregon
4
2
1
39.4
Yes
No
Oregon St.
3
2
1
33.0
No
No
Purdue
0
3
1
30.7
Yes
Yes
Rutgers
2
4
1
31.1
No
No
San Diego St.
5
2
1
39.5
Yes
No
St. Bonaventure
0
7
0
37.5
No
No
Syracuse
1
2
3
33.7
Yes
Yes
Tennessee
2
1
1
33.8
No
No
Texas
3
2
1
36.2
No
No
Texas Southern
3
5
1
29.6
No
Yes
Texas Tech
1
3
1
34.6
No
No
UCLA
1
4
1
39.0
No
No
UCSB
4
1
3
33.7
Yes
Yes
UNCG
2
4
1
30.0
No
No
USC
3
2
1
34.6
Yes
Yes
Utah St.
1
4
1
33.6
Yes
Yes
VCU
2
1
1
32.9
No
No
Villanova
2
3
0
35.2
Yes
Yes
Virginia
3
2
1
38.1
Yes
Yes
Virginia Tech
2
1
1
34.5
Yes
Yes
West Virginia
1
4
1
38.7
Yes
Yes
Wichita St.
2
3
1
34.9
No
No
Winthrop
2
4
No
35.3
Yes
No
Wisconsin
6
0
1
36.0
Yes
No
Glossary:
Seniors 8 & Juniors 8: These are the numbers of seniors and juniors in each teams’ top 8 players. Typically, the more experienced teams have the maturity to win close games in high leverage situations. Many times, these players have “been there” before. The best example of this is Georgetown’s Fred Brown. As a sophomore in the 1982 National Championship Game against North Carolina, the last possession of the game was too high leverage for an underclassman to handle. He made a serous unforced gaffe, and Carolina won. Two years later, the senior Brown was like a coach on the floor, as he helped the Hoyas win their lone national championship.
1/3 Clutch?: Successful tournament teams need an anchor that can pick up the tough points at crunch time or steal a pass on defense and key a spurt. If there isn’t one star, a team can get by with a trio of semi-clutch players. Either one is fine, so you want to see a “1” or “3” here and not a “0.” A team with a “0” doesn’t mean that they don’t have a player that can hit the last-second winning shot. Think of two pinch-hitters in baseball. Our clutch player is the PH that hits .300, and not .250 like the “0” clutch team PH.
37+ 3pt: In recent years with Four Factors’ data driving the way teams play, 3-point percentages have mattered more and more. It’s not the number of treys knocked down that matter; it’s the percentage that counts. If a team hits 37% or better from behind the arc, it forces defenses to stop them, and it opens up the middle. A 40% 3-point shooter is as effective as a 60% 2-point shooter.
F/C 12+ ppg / 2 F/C 20/12?: This can be an either or thing but if both criteria are met, it strengthens the deal. National championship and Final 4 teams can be perimeter-oriented, but they still need to have at least one inside player that scored 12 or more points per game, or two frontcourt players that combine for 20 points and 12 rebounds per game. The deeper the tournament progresses, the better the team defenses get. Teams that live by the jump shot and have no inside options tend to die by the jump shot before the Final 4. Teams that are dominant in the paint tend to be more consistent.
Criteria C
Team
TS Marg
Dbl Fig#
OReb%
-45% vs. 2pt
FT Rate 37
DFT Rat <31
Abilene Christian
55.2-49.5
3
31.7
45.0
35.0
39.4
Alabama
54.2-48.9
4
31.5
46.4
28.6
31.9
Appalachian St.
52.5-50.9
4
29.9
48.1
34.3
24.3
Arkansas
55.0-50.6
4
31.7
46.9
32.7
29.4
Baylor
59.3-52.1
3
37.5
48.1
27.0
31.6
BYU
58.2-49.7
3
28.7
45.3
27.4
29.5
Clemson
53.4-51.8
1
26.6
47.5
23.6
29.5
Cleveland St.
53.3-53.0
3
30.9
50.8
32.0
37.1
Colgate
59.6-48.4
4
28.1
49.4
31.1
25.1
Colorado
56.3-51.0
3
30.8
46.4
29.9
28.0
Connecticut
52.9-50.4
3
36.6
45.6
29.6
36.9
Creighton
57.0-49.9
5
24.8
46.1
26.9
25.7
Drake
57.3-51.5
4*
31.6
48.2
24.4
28.6
Drexel
57.6-53.0
4
29.4
50.4
28.6
27.2
E. Washington
57.4-50.2
5
23.4
47.2
30.3
27.3
Florida
56.2-51.3
4
30.7
48.4
33.9
34.8
Florida St.
57.5-51.1
3
35.5
44.2
32.7
36.3
Georgetown
53.3-50.7
4
32.4
47.4
30.3
25.9
Georgia Tech
56.6-54.9
4
24.7
50.8
29.0
28.9
Gonzaga
63.3-50.4
4
30.4
46.8
36.6
25.9
Grand Canyon
57.4-47.4
3
32.2
44.1
32.2
28.5
Hartford
53.3-50.0
3
24.8
50.7
28.7
25.0
Houston
55.2-46.7
3
39.6
42.9
29.7
41.6
Illinois
58.3-49.8
3
33.0
45.4
39.2
30.4
Iona
55.1-50.5
3
33.4
45.8
36.1
46.4
Iowa
57.3-50.5
3
30.7
45.8
32.0
22.7
Kansas
53.3-50.0
4
31.3
45.5
30.6
26.4
Liberty
60.9-49.6
2
23.8
46.5
23.7
27.2
Loyola (Chi)
59.8-48.7
1
25.3
44.7
31.4
21.7
LSU
56.4-51.7
4
31.5
51.3
34.0
29.2
Maryland
56.1-51.0
3
20.6
45.8
33.6
25.9
Michigan
58.2-48.4
3
29.4
42.3
29.0
24.5
Michigan St.
51.5-52.0
1
30.4
48.2
31.4
37.1
Missouri
54.3-52.4
3
28.6
48.2
37.5
36.4
Morehead St.
55.1-49.2
3
24.4
47.3
36.0
23.1
Mount St. Mary’s
51.5-49.4
2
31.6
45.6
29.7
24.6
Norfolk St.
53.9-51.4
2
28.9
47.4
38.5
40.7
North Carolina
51.6-51.4
3
41.2
46.8
34.8
27.1
North Texas
57.2-50.3
4
28.3
45.3
27.4
31.4
Ohio St.
57.3-52.4
3
29.1
50.5
35.0
34.0
Ohio U
58.1-54.7
5
28.8
51.2
29.8
30.2
Oklahoma
54.1-51.7
3
27.3
46.3
29.2
22.8
Oklahoma St.
55.5-50.6
2
31.9
46.7
36.3
30.5
Oral Roberts
58.2-52.1
2
23.8
47.2
27.3
32.3
Oregon
56.6-53.6
5
28.3
50.0
26.8
27.1
Oregon St.
53.9-53.8
2
30.1
51.9
34.0
37.7
Purdue
54.5-51.5
2
32.2
49.7
32.2
30.4
Rutgers
52.1-51.3
3
27.4
47.4
27.6
33.2
San Diego St.
56.2-50.2
2
29.0
43.7
34.5
31.9
St. Bonaventure
53.6-48.2
5
33.6
45.1
27.9
28.3
Syracuse
54.5-51.7
3
30.2
49.2
28.3
25.0
Tennessee
54.2-49.9
3
31.4
44.8
35.1
31.2
Texas
55.9-50.4
3
31.3
45.8
34.0
36.7
Texas Southern
52.6-49.5
3
32.7
45.3
38.3
32.9
Texas Tech
53.7-51.3
3
33.6
44.8
39.2
36.5
UCLA
55.2-53.9
5
30.2
49.4
32.6
28.0
UCSB
57.9-50.9
3
29.4
46.0
34.2
27.1
UNCG
50.6-52.0
1
31.9
48.5
21.8
30.6
USC
54.5-48.7
2
35.6
42.2
37.5
24.7
Utah St.
53.3-49.2
3
35.7
42.9
30.1
25.7
VCU
55.0-49.8
2
28.6
45.9
34.0
35.4
Villanova
56.3-54.0
4
28.0
51.0
30.0
25.8
Virginia
58.9-51.1
3
23.1
46.1
22.0
24.5
Virginia Tech
55.3-51.6
2
28.4
47.6
33.2
30.9
West Virginia
53.0-53.0
4
35.5
51.3
28.3
19.8
Wichita St.
51.4-49.0
2
30.6
47.1
36.5
28.4
Winthrop
56.3-51.9
4
35.5
49.2
35.7
33.9
Wisconsin
53.0-51.1
2
23.7
47.1
27.0
28.5
Glossary:
TS Marg.: True shooting % margin. The numbers shown are the offensive TS% followed by the defensive TS%. This is a secondary criterion already factored in the efficiency numbers but can be used to look at when efficiency numbers are close to even. A good margin is 6% or more.
Dbl Fig #: The number of players averaging double figure scoring. If a team has four players that score 10-20 points per game, it is seldom that all four can be shut down in a game. If they have three players, they are still okay. Two or less usually indicates a bit of trouble to get to the Final 4.
-45% vs. 2: This criterion looks for teams that hold opponents under 45% on 2-point shots. While 3-point percentage is a key offensive stat, stopping two-point shots is the defensive key. Most national champions met this criterion, and almost every Final 4 team that did not meet this criterion lost if their opponent did meet it. It is still important in earlier rounds.
FT Rate 37 & DFT Rat <31: Making a lot of free throws is nice and can secure a small lead late in a game. However, there are two much more important foul stats. A team that gets to the foul line a lot prior to the final two minutes of games gets there because they have a superior offense that is hard to defend and thus is fouled more than average. Additionally, more fouls lead to foul trouble and automatic bench time for key players. Likewise, a team with a low defensive FT rate is a sign of a strong team defense. FT Rate 37 means a team with an offensive FT Rate (FTA/FGA) of 37.0 or better, while DFT Rat <31 means a team with a defensive FT rate under 31.0.
There is a caveat here: As the game becomes more and more of a three-point shooting game, fouling drops. That happened this year, as total fouls called has dropped. For this season, look at teams with 33.3% or better FT Rates and 28% or lower defensive FT Rates.
Criteria D
Team
Champions
Coach Exp.
Score Marg
FG% Diff
Win Strk
Abilene Christian
Yes
64
17.1
6.0
8
Alabama
Yes
32
9.8
2.6
10
Appalachian St.
Yes
99
6.4
-0.6
4
Arkansas
No
16
11.7
4.0
9
Baylor
Yes
8
18.0
6.0
18
BYU
No
99
10.2
7.3
5
Clemson
No
16
3.3
0.9
5
Cleveland St.
Yes
99
0.9
2.9
9
Colgate
Yes
64
17.7
9.1
13
Colorado
No
32
9.7
3.5
6
Connecticut
No
32
7.9
2.9
5
Creighton
No
32
8.7
7.0
6
Drake
No
99
12.7
7.2
18
Drexel
Yes
99
4.7
3.6
4
E. Washington
Yes
99
8.6
5.3
9
Florida
No
8
4.2
4.3
4
Florida St.
No
8
8.6
7.6
5
Georgetown
Yes
99
0.7
0.9
4
Georgia Tech
Yes
32
5.5
1.5
8
Gonzaga
Yes
2
23.0
13.2
26
Grand Canyon
Yes
64
14.5
11.5
9
Hartford
Yes
99
2.6
1.6
5
Houston
Yes
8
19.7
7.7
8
Illinois
Yes
32
12.2
8.7
7
Iona
Yes
1
6.3
4.6
6
Iowa
No
32
11.9
5.5
6
Kansas
No
1
7.3
3.4
8
Liberty
Yes
32
15.3
8.2
12
Loyola (Chi)
Yes
4
16.0
9.8
11
LSU
No
16
6.8
4.4
5
Maryland
No
16
3.8
4.7
5
Michigan
Yes
99
10.9
8.9
11
Michigan St.
No
1
-1.6
-0.1
6
Missouri
No
16
1.7
1.8
6
Morehead St.
Yes
99
5.4
5.7
12
Mount St. Mary’s
Yes
99
1.4
2.1
4
Norfolk St.
Yes
99
6.0
3.2
6
North Carolina
No
1
6.3
2.0
3
North Texas
Yes
99
8.6
6.6
4
Ohio St.
No
16
6.3
3.6
7
Ohio U
Yes
99
7.6
4.5
6
Oklahoma
No
4
5.6
2.1
5
Oklahoma St.
No
99
4.2
5.5
6
Oral Roberts
Yes
99
6.0
2.2
4
Oregon
Yes
4
7.0
3.7
8
Oregon St.
Yes
64
2.4
-0.4
3
Purdue
No
8
4.8
3.7
5
Rutgers
No
64
1.8
3.1
6
San Diego St.
Yes
64
13.5
6.8
14
St. Bonaventure
Yes
64
10.1
6.1
7
Syracuse
No
1
5.1
2.6
3
Tennessee
No
4
9.3
4.5
7
Texas
Yes
4
6.4
4.1
6
Texas Southern
Yes
64
5.1
5.2
9
Texas Tech
No
2
9.6
3.3
4
UCLA
No
16
4.3
2.3
7
UCSB
Yes
99
13.7
6.5
13
UNCG
Yes
64
7.2
1.0
7
USC
No
16
9.7
7.3
7
Utah St.
No
64
11.0
5.7
11
VCU
No
64
6.5
4.6
7
Villanova
No
1
8.4
0.4
9
Virginia
Yes
1
8.1
6.4
7
Virginia Tech
No
32
6.6
3.3
4
West Virginia
No
4
5.2
-1.4
4
Wichita St.
Yes
99
5.0
0.5
8
Winthrop
Yes
99
12.7
3.0
16
Wisconsin
No
16
5.3
-0.2
5
Glossary
Champions: This refers to a team that won either their regular season conference championship or their postseason conference tournament. Since 1990, 29 of 30 national champions met this criterion.
Coach Exp.: How far has the head coach advanced in the past? When looking at fairly evenly matched teams, a coach with more Dance experience can be the difference. A first-timer may make that crucial mistake that allows the opponent to have that brief scoring run.
Score Marg.: Something like 95% of all national champions had double digit scoring margins. This goes back to the very beginning of the tournament in the 1930s. 98% had scoring margins in excess of 7.5 points per game. Teams with scoring margins in excess of 15 points that come from a power conference are 100% legit powers, so keep that in mind. Mid-majors with 15+ point scoring margins have to be carefully scrutinized. If their power conference opponent played other mid-majors and did not win by an average as high as the Mid-major in the tournament, that means something.
FG% Diff: In the eight-decade history of the tournament, more Final 4 teams had FG% differences in excess of 7.5% than not and a great number had double-digit margins. If a team shot 48% from the field and gave up 38% from the field and played in a power conference, they are truly tough. A team with a double digit FG% difference that played a tough schedule can overcome a lower than average R+T rating, but usually they will run into a team with a superior R+T rating also with a tough SOS, and that’s the end for the lower R+T team.
Win Strk: Should we expect a team to win six straight tournament games if they did not win six straight regular season games? Most of the past champions actually had 10 or more game winning streaks or multiple streaks of 6 or more. Above, where you see numbers in bold, the teams had a second winning streak of 6 or more games in addition to the number shown.
Marjorie Miller Designs
Our favorite handmade jewelry artisan (art critics call her designs “Wearable Masterpieces”)
The Bracket Matrix
The PiRate Ratings (Pi) are included in the best college basketball bracketology site on the Internet. Check out the Bracket Project Blog at: https://bracketproject.blogspot.com/
The PiRate Ratings
See the most current PiRate Ratings and Spreads for college and NFL football
