The Pi-Rate Ratings

March 10, 2012

Bracketnomics 505–2012 Edition

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , — piratings @ 3:35 pm

Bracketnomics 505—2012 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 21st 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 into 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 can be used.

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.”  We have made a small change to this  number this year, going back to just one formula instead of two.

The R+T Formula is: [R + ({.2S} + {1.2T})], where R is rebounding margin, S is average steals per game, and T is turnover margin.

When this stat is 5 or more, you have a team that can overcome a few other liabilities to win.  When the result is 10 or more, you have a team that has a great chance of getting enough additional scoring opportunities to make it to the later rounds.  When this stat is negative, you have a team that will be eliminated before the Sweet 16.  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.

6. Power Conference Plus Schedule Strength

Up to this point you might have been thinking that it is much easier for South Dakota State or Long Island to own these gaudy statistics than it is for Louisville or Michigan.  Of course, that’s 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  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 and wilt like roses in January 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.  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.

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, 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 (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. 

In past years, we had a set system of scoring each facet of the Bracketnomics’ data.  We have tweaked it this year to make it even more accurate.   

1. Scoring Margin

Multiply scoring margin by 0.5 (or divide by 2).  Round to one decimal place.


Example: A team that averages 74.5 points and gives up 68.9 points has a scoring margin of 5.6 points.  5.6 divided by 2 equals 2.8.


2. Field Goal % Margin

This is the same formula (fg% margin * .5) as scoring margin in #1, but we round to nearest 2 decimal places.

Example: Team A shoots .484 from the field, while they allow opponents to shoot .397 from the field.  .484 minus .397 equals .087.  We then multiply by 0.5 (divide the result by 2) to get .0435.  Multiply that by 100 to change it to a percentage and the result is 4.35.


3. Rebound Margin

Multiply rebound margin by 0.6 and round to 1 decimal place.

Example: Team A averages 38.7 rebounds per game and gives up 34.2 rebounds per game.  The difference is 4.5.  Multiply 4.5 by 0.6, and the result is 2.7.


4. Turnover Margin

Divide turnover margin by 2 and round to one decimal place

Example: Team A averages 12.3 turnovers per game and forces 14.1 turnovers per game.  The difference is 1.8.  Divide 1.8 by 2, and the result is 0.9.  Had Team A committed 14.1 turnovers and forced 12.3, their result would be -0.9.


5. PiRate R+T Formula

Once again, the formula for R+T is [R + (.2*S) + (1.2*T)], Where R is rebounding margin, S is avg. steals per game, and T is turnover margin.

Divide R+T by 2.5 or simply alter the formula to R+T = {0.4*[R + (.2*S) + (1.2*T)]} 

6. Schedule Strength

Take the difference in the Strength of Schedule as given by and multiply it by 100. 

The Average SOS for teams in the top 40 is about .5880.  When you factor in the automatic bids from teams outside of the top 40, that number falls to about .5500.  So, find each teams’ SOS rating and take 100 times the difference from .5500 as the number for this rating.

Example: Team A has a SOS of .5743; the difference from .5500 is .0243; multiply .0243 by 100, and the result is 2.43. 

Team B has a SOS of .4878, the difference is -.0622; multiply by 100, and the result is -6.22.


7. Record Away From Home (road + neutral)

 100% = 5

87.5-99.9% = 4.5

80.0-87.4 = 4

75.0-79.9 = 3

70.0-74.9 = 2.5

66.6-69.9 = 2

62.5-66.5 = 1.5

60.0-62.4 = 1

55.0-59.9 = 0.5

50.0-54.9 = 0

0-49.9 = -2



  1. […] Welcome back to the PiRate Ratings’ Bracketnomics.  If you are unfamiliar with PiRate Bracketnomics, refer to our Bracketnomics 505, 2012 edition at: […]

    Pingback by 2012 NCAA Tournament Play-in and Second Round Game Previews « The Pi-Rate Ratings — March 13, 2012 @ 10:35 am

  2. […] Welcome back to the PiRate Ratings’ Bracketnomics.  If you are unfamiliar with PiRate Bracketnomics, refer to our Bracketnomics 505, 2012 edition at: […]

    Pingback by NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament: Round of 32–Games of Saturday, March 17, 2012 « The Pi-Rate Ratings — March 16, 2012 @ 2:06 pm

  3. […] Welcome back to the PiRate Ratings’ Bracketnomics.  If you are unfamiliar with PiRate Bracketnomics, refer to our Bracketnomics 505, 2012 edition at: […]

    Pingback by NCAA Tournament Third Round Preview–Sunday, March 18, 2012 « The Pi-Rate Ratings — March 17, 2012 @ 7:07 pm

  4. […] If you want all the details behind our PiRate Criteria Score, please refer to our Bracketnomics 505, 2012 edition at: […]

    Pingback by NCAA Tournament Sweet 16 Preview « The Pi-Rate Ratings — March 21, 2012 @ 9:19 am

  5. […] If you want all the details behind our PiRate Criteria Score, please refer to our Bracketnomics 505, 2012 edition at: […]

    Pingback by NCAA Men’s Tournament Elite 8 Preview « The Pi-Rate Ratings — March 24, 2012 @ 9:23 am

  6. […] If you want all the details behind our PiRate Criteria Score, please refer to our Bracketnomics 505, 2012 edition at: […]

    Pingback by NCAA Tournament–Final Four Preview « The Pi-Rate Ratings — March 29, 2012 @ 12:22 pm

  7. […] If you want all the details behind our PiRate Criteria Score, please refer to our Bracketnomics 505, 2012 edition at: […]

    Pingback by NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship Preview « The Pi-Rate Ratings — April 1, 2012 @ 7:00 pm

  8. Hi there mates, how is all, and what you want to say on the topic of this piece of writing,
    in my view its actually awesome in support of me.

    Comment by ceramic curling iron — July 5, 2013 @ 11:42 pm

  9. Hola! I’ve been following your weblog for a long time now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Humble Tx! Just wanted to say keep up the excellent work!

    Comment by portable hard drive — July 8, 2013 @ 11:18 pm

  10. Hello to all, how is the whole thing, I think every one is
    getting more from this website, and your views are good for new viewers.

    Comment by pure green coffee bean extract — July 13, 2013 @ 8:13 pm

  11. Hello there! This is kind of off topic but
    I need some guidance from an established blog.
    Is it very hard to set up your own blog?

    I’m not very techincal but I can figure things out pretty quick. I’m thinking about creating my own but I’m not sure where to begin. Do you have any ideas or suggestions? Thanks

    Comment by Nell — July 25, 2013 @ 6:21 am

  12. Hello to every body, it’s my first pay a quick visit of this blog; this blog carries amazing and genuinely excellent material designed for readers.

    Comment by 4 burner gas grill — August 16, 2013 @ 3:26 am

  13. Its like you read my mind! You appear to know a lot about this, like you
    wrote the book in it or something. I think that you can
    do with a few pics to drive the message home a bit, but instead of that, this is wonderful blog.
    A fantastic read. I’ll certainly be back.

    Comment by hair curlers — August 19, 2013 @ 4:16 am

  14. Terrific article! This is the kind of information that are
    meant to be shared across the web. Shame on Google for now not positioning this post upper!

    Come on over and visit my website . Thank you

    Comment by stereo headphones — August 20, 2013 @ 9:05 pm

  15. Generally I do not read article on blogs, however I wish to say that this write-up very
    pressured me to take a look at and do so! Your writing taste has
    been amazed me. Thank you, very nice post.

    Comment by Marcela — August 30, 2013 @ 6:41 am

  16. Attractive section of content. I just stumbled upon your weblog and in accession capital to assert that I get actually enjoyed account your blog posts.

    Anyway I’ll be subscribing to your feeds and even I achievement you access consistently rapidly.

    Comment by Dolores — September 10, 2013 @ 8:16 am

  17. Hey there! Someone in my Myspace group shared this website with us so I came to take a look.
    I’m definitely enjoying the information. I’m book-marking and will be tweeting
    this to my followers! Excellent blog and brilliant design and style.

    Comment by airsoft revolver — September 24, 2013 @ 3:29 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: