Bracketnomics 505–The Advanced Level Course in Bracket Picking

Welcome to Bracketnomics 505 for 2016–The Advanced Level Course in Picking NCAA Tournament winners. 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.
If you have followed our statistical releases for the past 16 years, you will see only minor changes this year, as the PiRate Ratings have added only one minor statistical detail to our repertoire.
Here is a description of all the pertinent information you need to pick your brackets. We will explain each important statistic and tell you how it applies to the NCAA Tournament. Then, we will apply it to all 68 teams in the Big Dance and let you use what you want to fill out your brackets.

Remember one important bit of information–this process deals a lot with past tendencies trying to predict future outcomes. It is mechanical and has no real subjective data. It will not include information such as how your team’s star player may have the flu this week, so if you have other information, by all means include this in your selections.

THE FOUR FACTORS
Statistician and author Dean Oliver created this metric. He did for basketball what the incredible Bill James did for baseball. Oliver wrote the excellent book Basketball on Paper, where he showed that NBA winners could break down four separate statistical metrics to show how the winner won and the loser lost. Later experimentation showed that this metric works for college basketball when strength of schedule is factored into the metric.

The four factors are: Effective Field Goal Percentage, Rebound Rate, Turnover Rate, and Free Throw Rate. Each of these four factors apply to both offense and defense, so in essence, there are really eight factors.

Each Factor has a formula that can be calculated if you have the statistics. We have all the statistics for all 68 teams, and we did this for you.

Effective FG% = (FGM + (.5 * 3ptM))/FGA where FGM is field goals made, 3ptM is three-pointers made, and FGA is field goals attempted.

If a team made 800 FG, 250 3-pointers and attempted 1750 field goals, their EFG% is:
(800+(.5*250))/1750 = .529 or 52.9%
Rebound Rate = Offensive Rebounds/(Offensive Rebounds + Opponents’ Defensive Rebounds)
If a team has 500 offensive rebounds and their opponents have 850 defensive rebounds, their Rebound Rate is:
500/(500+850) = .370 or 37.0%

Turnover Rate = Turnovers per 100 possessions. Possessions can be estimated with incredible accuracy by this formula:
(FGA + (.475*FTA)-OR+TO)/G, where FGA is field goal attempts, FTA is free throw attempts, OR is offensive rebounds, TO is turnovers, and G is games played.

If a team has 1700 FGA, 650 FTA, 425 OR, and 375 TO in 30 games played, their average possessions per game is:
(1700+(.475*650)-425+375)/30 = 65.3, and thus, their TO Rate would be:

Turnovers per game / possessions per game * 100
((425/30)/65.3) * 100 = 21.7

Free Throw Rate: Oliver and others determined that getting to the line was actually more important than making the foul shots, so they did not include made free throws in their equation.

Their formula was simply: FTA/FGA, as they believed that getting the other team in foul trouble was the most important part.
Later statisticans changed this formulas to FT Made/FGA, which included made free throws, but it also erred by making teams that do not attempt many field goals but lead late in games look much better than they really were. If a team like Northern Iowa attempted just 50 field goals per game and won a lot of games by three or four points, going to the foul line many times late in the game, they would pad this stat by making a lot of FT in the final minutes when the opponent was forced to foul.
A third group of statisticians, including we here at the PiRate Ratings, believe that free throws made per 100 possessions is a better metric, and thus we go with this rating, which we call FT*:

If the team above with 65.3 possessions per game averages 17 made free throws per game, then their FT Rate is:
17 / 65.3 * 100 = 26.0

The PiRate Specific Statistics
For 15 years, the PiRate Ratings have relied on specific back-tested data that showed us what stats were important in selecting Final Four teams. We looked back in history to see how previous Final Four teams dominated in certain statistical areas while not dominating in other areas. Here is what we found.

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.
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, and the teams played comparable schedules, then team A figures to be better than team B before you look at any other statistics.
In the days of the 64 to 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 or seven 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.

Last year, the four Final Four Teams had scoring margins of 21, 16, 15, and 9.

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 to 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.

Last year, the Final Four Teams had FG% Differentials of 11.4, 8.5, 7.3, and 6.1%

Rebound Margin
This statistic holds up all the way back to the early days of basketball, in fact as far back to the days when rebounds were first recorded. The teams that consistently control the boards are the ones that advance past the first week in the tournament. What we’re looking for here are teams that out-rebound their opposition by five or more per game. In the opening two rounds, a difference of three or more is just as important.
There are complete rebounding statistics back to 1954, and in the 61 NCAA Tournaments between 1954 and 2014, the National Champion outrebounded their opponents 61 times! Yes, no team with a negative rebound margin has ever won the title.
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.

Last year, the Final Four Teams had positive Rebounding Margins of 7.4, 6.8, 6.2, and 6.0.

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.
The criteria to look for here is any 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 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.

Last year, the Final Four Teams had Turnover Margins of +3.4, +2.6, +1.3, and -0.5 and average steals per game of 6.6, 5.7, 5.3, and 4.5. It was the fewest average steals per game for a Final Four group since steals have been kept as official statistics.

The All-Important R+T Margin
Consider this the basketball equivalent of baseball’s OPS (On Base % + Slugging %) or even better, the “Moneyball Formula.” The formula has undergone a couple of changes in recent years, including this season, and we think it will be slightly adjusted in the future based on changes in how the game is played.
The R+T Formula for 2016 is: (R * 2) + (S * .5) + (6 – Opp S) + T, where R is rebounding margin, S is average steals per game (Opp S is opponents steals per game), and T is turnover margin. The numbers are all rounded to one digit.

Look for teams with R+T ratings at 15 or above. These are the teams that will get several additional opportunities to score points and go on scoring runs that put opponents away

When this stat is 7.5 to 15, you have a team that can overcome a few other liabilities to win and cut down the nets in Indianapolis if they don’t run into a team from the 15+ R+T range with similar shooting percentages and defense.

When this stat is 4.5 to 7.5, you have a team good enough to win early and get to the Sweet 16 or lite 8 but not advance past that round, unless said team has a large field goal percentage difference margin.

When this stat is 0 to 4.5, you have a team that better enjoy a large field goal margin advantage, or they will be one and done or two and out.

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

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

The same thing occurred again a couple years later when Georgetown had a negative R+T rating as the Hoyas faced unknown Florida Gulf Coast. FGCU not only pulled off the upset, they blew GU off the floor.

Last year’s Final Four Teams had R+T ratings of 22.9, 18.8, 17.7, and 16.0, making this the most accurate predictor for the season, like it has for most every season. There were two Power Conference teams with negative R+T numbers last year, Oklahoma State and St. John’s. We pegged these teams to lose immediately as 9-seeds against 8-seeds with positive R+T ratings, and they did just that.

Power Conference Plus Schedule Strength
Up to this point you might have been thinking that it is much easier for Stephen F. Austin or Stony Brook to own these gaudy statistics than it is for Baylor or Miami. And, of course, that is correct. We have to adjust this procedure so that teams that play tougher schedules get rewarded and teams that play softer schedules get punished.
Basically, the cut-off line for a Final Four team is 54.00, although there have been a few long shots like George Mason and Virginia Commonwealth that were below that mark. While the lowest National Champ was Florida in 2007 at 54.30, the average for the last dozen champions has been just over 58. Also, bear in mind that of the 16 winners since 2000, 6 came from the ACC, 4 from the Big East (none who are current members), 3 from the SEC, and one each from the American, Big 12, and Big Ten. The Pac-12 has not produced the national champion since Arizona in 1997.

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

New For 2016, Winning Streaks
We should have included this years ago. The NCAA Tournament Championship requires one team to win six consecutive games (seven if in the First Four) to become the champion. It requires the other Final Four teams to win four or five times to get to the Final Four. How often does a team get to the Final Four or win the title without having a long winning streak during the regular season? Not often , or to put it a better way, hardly ever.
When a team wins 10 consecutive games in the heart of their schedule, or to be more exact, against serious competition, or when they win 6 to 10 consecutive games more than once during the season, and the rest of our criteria shows them to be a contender (especially R+T and Schedule Strength), then this is one dangerous squad. Be wary picking against them in the early rounds and then go against them only when the other team looks lethal as well.

These are the 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 that the PiRates do not rely upon.

Assists and Assists to Turnover Ratio
While assists can reveal an excellent passing team (and we love great passing teams), they also can hide a problem. Let’s say a team gets 28 field goals and has 21 assists. That may very well indicate this team can pass better than most others. However, it may also mean two other things. First, this team may not have players who can create their own offense and must get by on exceptional passing. That may not work against the best defensive teams in the nation (like the type that get into the Dance). Second, and even more importantly, it may indicate that this team cannot get offensive put-backs. As explained earlier, the offensive rebound is about as important as any stat can be in the NCAA Tournament. So, consider this stat only if you must decide on a toss-up after looking at the big seven stats. We would much rather go with a team that has 15 offensive rebound potential than a team that has assists on 80% of its made field goals. The NCAA Tournament is full of tough defenses, weird site lines, tight rims, and even tighter nerves, and the offensive put-back is an even more potent weapon, especially in the Round of 64, the Sweet 16, and the Final Four games. The Round of 32 and Elite 8 rounds tend to be less tense, because it is the second game on the playing floor for the participants.

Free Throw Shooting
You might say we are contradicting the Four Factors with this, but we are not. It is the least important of the Four Factors, and we only apply this caveat to the NCAA Tournament.
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-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. To put it another way, teams that live and die by the outside shot will almost always die before they can get to the Final Four, if they cannot dominate inside.

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. These teams are tough to stop. Usually, it is the mid-major teams that appear to be sleeper teams that could beat a favored opponent because they have one big talent that falls under this category. For instance, Stony Brook’s Jameel Warney this year fits that category.

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.
Here is a list of all the statistics for the Big Dance teams for 2015-2016.

Offensive Stats

Team	FG	FGA	3pt	3ptA	FT	FTA	OReb	DReb	Reb	To	Stl	Pts
Arizona	926	1922	215	562	613	848	384	944	1328	423	162	2680
Austin Peay	920	1988	219	630	602	899	407	882	1289	490	242	2661
Baylor	903	1935	204	556	536	737	453	781	1234	425	260	2546
Buffalo	892	2037	253	750	600	845	417	913	1330	465	236	2637
Butler	868	1864	220	569	542	741	354	775	1129	317	210	2498
CSU Bakersfield	849	1881	174	506	465	712	401	825	1226	391	257	2337
California	867	1881	233	632	512	780	374	945	1319	403	136	2479
Chattanooga	869	1904	259	712	581	793	372	846	1218	422	265	2578
Cincinnati	823	1925	242	701	454	645	432	828	1260	354	254	2342
Colorado	842	1979	250	637	575	779	437	963	1400	442	172	2509
Connecticut	900	1959	239	660	457	581	322	920	1242	378	194	2496
Dayton	818	1780	215	620	491	730	317	919	1236	418	189	2342
Duke	826	1789	274	708	527	728	363	735	1098	293	190	2453
Fair. Dickinson	906	1958	230	633	451	645	338	736	1074	414	242	2493
Florida G. Coast	949	1991	176	493	466	720	392	935	1327	406	218	2540
Fresno St.	900	2073	212	620	549	793	404	874	1278	364	280	2561
Gonzaga	929	1910	258	682	514	676	350	957	1307	372	167	2630
Green Bay	1027	2294	246	703	648	984	451	909	1360	423	334	2948
Hampton	793	1911	203	659	529	805	438	853	1291	433	168	2318
Hawaii	843	1824	230	704	567	833	342	856	1198	423	252	2483
Holy Cross	737	1785	236	721	446	644	269	725	994	362	213	2156
Indiana	934	1864	316	762	449	621	385	811	1196	437	222	2633
Iona	888	1947	320	860	451	633	339	842	1181	409	242	2547
Iowa	855	1898	255	667	456	634	369	821	1190	323	211	2421
Iowa St.	998	1990	265	697	358	507	291	863	1154	370	197	2619
Kansas	951	1926	274	649	516	737	356	900	1256	408	225	2692
Kentucky	971	2029	236	637	531	777	442	876	1318	376	191	2709
Maryland	876	1794	252	673	506	666	304	867	1171	425	192	2510
Miami	837	1756	219	599	527	702	310	802	1112	341	194	2420
Michigan	898	1926	326	849	404	548	267	822	1089	333	188	2526
Michigan St.	979	2024	310	715	444	608	419	1005	1424	325	181	2712
Middle Tenn.	857	1902	260	673	425	689	341	879	1220	399	205	2399
North Carolina	1047	2187	183	583	520	705	477	916	1393	371	234	2797
Northern Iowa	801	1751	278	742	432	574	183	839	1022	334	193	2312
Notre Dame	869	1844	235	637	450	612	349	805	1154	311	179	2423
Oklahoma	884	1928	334	784	471	647	343	899	1242	415	221	2573
Oregon	933	1997	234	670	580	813	399	830	1229	393	259	2680
Oregon St.	786	1783	211	570	451	672	330	743	1073	355	231	2234
Pittsburgh	860	1871	201	578	512	679	410	812	1222	374	159	2433
Providence	833	1974	234	729	541	744	385	822	1207	380	219	2441
Purdue	934	1980	259	703	516	695	397	995	1392	406	145	2643
Seton Hall	872	1937	202	573	524	787	425	896	1321	457	240	2470
South Dakota St.	853	1891	245	686	566	766	370	881	1251	388	164	2517
Southern	887	1990	208	590	497	743	356	868	1224	382	254	2479
St. Joseph’s	926	2038	238	728	548	769	345	967	1312	344	175	2638
S. F. Austin	926	1915	254	691	477	653	380	750	1130	398	290	2583
Stony Brook	913	1917	217	584	415	618	400	866	1266	365	198	2458
Syracuse	766	1796	280	776	435	637	378	759	1137	388	259	2247
Temple	792	1957	251	739	362	529	358	818	1176	293	171	2197
Texas	789	1828	223	657	482	725	352	753	1105	332	165	2283
Texas A&M	906	2016	261	745	508	755	436	887	1323	401	235	2581
Texas Tech	760	1700	178	517	546	732	320	739	1059	371	182	2244
Tulsa	796	1793	216	656	486	717	313	773	1086	335	211	2294
UALR	836	1827	249	641	420	572	302	815	1117	347	216	2341
UNC-Asheville	877	1916	190	586	552	795	384	863	1247	430	307	2496
UNC-Wilm.	898	1971	219	651	520	741	384	819	1203	365	241	2535
USC	954	2085	260	675	500	737	396	906	1302	403	209	2668
Utah	928	1898	259	713	524	734	328	942	1270	418	183	2639
Vanderbilt	841	1826	270	695	504	721	304	930	1234	374	138	2456
VCU	953	2116	247	694	472	684	425	845	1270	389	299	2625
Villanova	905	1936	291	847	516	664	315	896	1211	378	229	2617
Virginia	849	1743	198	489	426	565	296	756	1052	310	181	2322
Weber St.	887	1831	287	768	548	810	291	983	1274	451	169	2609
West Virginia	927	2050	206	627	633	945	541	791	1332	476	338	2693
Wichita St.	801	1846	234	710	507	710	373	826	1199	318	231	2343
Wisconsin	751	1748	211	590	491	694	366	751	1117	351	188	2204
Xavier	876	1938	243	672	608	832	418	894	1312	408	234	2603
Yale	744	1580	181	484	436	658	379	752	1131	375	162	2105

Defensive Stats

Team	FG	FGA	3pt	3ptA	FT	FTA	OReb	DReb	Reb	To	Stl	Pts
Arizona	829	2007	201	626	415	587	313	711	1024	383	178	2274
Austin Peay	955	2088	269	824	450	640	365	830	1195	470	244	2629
Baylor	797	1794	228	622	463	664	306	666	972	452	220	2285
Buffalo	882	2044	251	740	540	756	368	861	1229	450	192	2555
Butler	764	1773	222	655	456	642	298	724	1022	407	141	2206
CSU Bakersfield	668	1708	187	585	499	722	339	758	1097	490	170	2022
California	762	1940	180	513	508	721	325	772	1097	321	170	2212
Chattanooga	829	1910	225	694	382	566	337	764	1101	484	216	2265
Cincinnati	722	1849	231	648	337	498	365	742	1107	444	165	2012
Colorado	829	1980	206	580	469	693	313	793	1106	365	246	2333
Connecticut	737	1931	232	709	439	667	379	785	1164	415	175	2145
Dayton	740	1829	234	671	392	595	284	782	1066	398	154	2106
Duke	817	1865	179	536	321	466	384	711	1095	367	134	2134
Fair. Dickinson	834	1845	239	676	597	854	409	825	1234	492	202	2504
Florida G. Coast	823	1986	217	719	462	676	361	800	1161	406	217	2325
Fresno St.	785	1879	245	743	580	837	355	882	1237	510	150	2395
Gonzaga	795	1992	198	666	398	565	333	734	1067	341	185	2186
Green Bay	981	2198	271	746	555	779	421	991	1412	590	202	2788
Hampton	794	1874	203	615	498	688	319	813	1132	388	179	2289
Hawaii	719	1806	199	632	491	691	310	740	1050	472	190	2128
Holy Cross	803	1755	264	724	429	593	305	872	1177	434	182	2299
Indiana	821	1859	200	583	363	545	327	637	964	418	195	2205
Iona	812	1929	247	696	486	699	383	816	1199	451	184	2357
Iowa	788	1901	228	735	326	479	375	773	1148	407	165	2130
Iowa St.	903	2075	249	740	344	502	382	776	1158	397	179	2399
Kansas	758	1913	208	631	508	705	356	729	1085	438	201	2232
Kentucky	782	1954	192	582	565	808	407	726	1133	420	145	2321
Maryland	798	1956	223	693	368	526	363	695	1058	370	207	2187
Miami	790	1839	184	548	374	529	330	708	1038	372	163	2138
Michigan	844	1896	240	695	366	504	296	826	1122	406	138	2294
Michigan St.	741	1966	193	639	480	669	320	707	1027	325	181	2155
Middle Tenn.	767	1799	213	620	507	757	298	848	1146	445	194	2254
North Carolina	838	2046	262	728	425	608	389	723	1112	447	196	2363
Northern Iowa	794	1884	239	740	312	431	307	849	1156	401	164	2139
Notre Dame	821	1918	246	655	371	515	367	715	1082	311	167	2259
Oklahoma	819	2024	241	709	375	553	382	780	1162	407	227	2254
Oregon	836	1970	243	670	435	623	375	744	1119	488	158	2350
Oregon St.	739	1732	222	675	469	678	355	786	1141	420	157	2169
Pittsburgh	781	1791	218	612	393	593	303	682	985	370	180	2173
Providence	850	1956	211	658	390	544	355	860	1215	482	196	2301
Purdue	794	2029	210	670	398	563	302	728	1030	320	204	2196
Seton Hall	790	1971	206	652	451	664	397	788	1185	450	238	2237
South Dakota St.	766	1843	198	599	507	709	307	766	1073	399	187	2237
Southern	814	1960	225	709	494	795	412	870	1282	469	179	2347
St. Joseph’s	875	2110	270	872	357	517	337	875	1212	389	156	2377
S. F. Austin	719	1642	165	511	418	637	309	711	1020	596	174	2021
Stony Brook	737	1824	208	636	348	489	293	722	1015	409	176	2030
Syracuse	759	1835	225	739	360	540	413	769	1182	434	208	2103
Temple	785	1884	189	601	399	539	347	877	1224	355	137	2158
Texas	754	1801	201	586	469	675	359	792	1151	400	145	2178
Texas A&M	783	1930	251	763	411	626	381	810	1191	488	172	2228
Texas Tech	758	1777	237	674	412	586	356	689	1045	396	197	2165
Tulsa	733	1760	235	647	459	613	338	808	1146	445	164	2160
UALR	664	1710	206	672	434	633	339	774	1113	464	132	1968
UNC-Asheville	802	1897	192	677	431	616	353	819	1172	519	222	2227
UNC-Wilmington	729	1748	171	507	657	933	362	808	1170	485	159	2286
USC	899	2153	239	740	430	613	424	825	1249	411	191	2467
Utah	873	2112	253	689	352	488	359	759	1118	355	216	2351
Vanderbilt	762	1974	176	603	455	675	388	804	1192	319	180	2155
VCU	818	1859	187	556	465	688	326	853	1179	525	194	2288
Villanova	764	1910	240	716	398	600	360	787	1147	471	199	2166
Virginia	687	1630	212	608	383	550	264	671	935	398	174	1969
Weber St.	850	2053	195	564	378	567	326	801	1127	373	197	2273
West Virginia	709	1658	199	599	648	909	295	750	1045	617	229	2265
Wichita St.	602	1565	187	577	505	705	260	791	1051	495	150	1896
Wisconsin	732	1705	189	499	413	584	295	722	1017	389	169	2066
Xavier	787	1894	241	766	458	651	319	753	1072	452	195	2273
Yale	625	1536	166	525	352	506	237	584	821	349	187	1768

 

The Four Factors

Team	EFG	DEFG	OR%	DOR%	TO%	DTU%	FT*	DFT*	Streaks
Arizona	53.8	46.3	35.1	24.9	17.9	16.3	25.9	17.6	8	6
Austin Peay	51.8	52.2	32.9	29.3	19.6	18.8	24.1	18.0	6	2
Baylor	51.9	50.8	40.5	28.2	18.8	20.0	23.7	20.5	7	4
Buffalo	50.0	49.3	32.6	28.7	18.7	18.1	24.1	21.7	4	4
Butler	52.5	49.4	32.8	27.8	14.5	18.6	24.9	20.9	8	3
Cal State Bakersfield	49.8	44.6	34.6	29.1	17.7	22.3	21.0	22.7	6	6
California	52.3	43.9	32.6	25.6	17.7	14.1	22.5	22.3	12	3
Chattanooga	52.4	49.3	32.7	28.5	18.1	20.8	24.9	16.4	9	8
Cincinnati	49.0	45.3	36.8	30.6	16.4	20.5	21.1	15.6	7	4
Colorado	48.9	47.1	35.5	24.5	18.8	15.5	24.4	19.9	11	3
Connecticut	52.0	44.2	29.1	29.2	16.5	18.2	19.9	19.2	5	4
Dayton	52.0	46.9	28.8	23.6	18.8	17.9	22.0	17.6	9	5
Duke	53.8	48.6	33.8	34.3	14.2	17.7	25.5	15.5	7	5
Fairleigh Dickinson	52.1	51.7	29.1	35.7	17.7	21.1	19.3	25.6	5	3
Florida Gulf Coast	52.1	46.9	32.9	27.9	17.3	17.3	19.9	19.6	7	3
Fresno St.	48.5	48.3	31.4	28.9	15.1	21.0	22.8	23.9	9	5
Gonzaga	55.4	44.9	32.3	25.8	16.5	15.0	22.8	17.5	7	6
Green Bay	50.1	50.8	31.3	31.7	15.5	21.6	23.7	20.3	4	4
Hampton	46.8	47.8	35.0	27.2	18.9	17.1	23.1	21.9	6	5
Hawaii	52.5	45.3	31.6	26.6	18.4	20.6	24.6	21.4	8	6
Holy Cross	47.9	53.3	23.6	29.6	16.6	20.0	20.4	19.8	4	3
Indiana	58.6	49.5	37.7	28.7	19.8	18.9	20.3	16.4	12	5
Iona	53.8	48.5	29.4	31.3	17.6	19.4	19.5	20.9	8	5
Iowa	51.8	47.4	32.3	31.4	15.0	18.8	21.2	15.1	9	4
Iowa St.	56.8	49.5	27.3	30.7	16.0	17.0	15.5	14.8	9	3
Kansas	56.5	45.1	32.8	28.3	17.5	18.8	22.2	21.8	13	13
Kentucky	53.7	44.9	37.8	31.7	16.1	17.9	22.8	24.0	7	5
Maryland	55.9	46.5	30.4	29.5	19.0	16.7	22.7	16.6	8	5
Miami	53.9	48.0	30.5	29.2	16.1	17.4	24.9	17.5	8	5
Michigan	55.1	50.8	24.4	26.5	14.8	18.1	17.9	16.3	6	4
Michigan St.	56.0	42.6	37.2	24.2	14.6	14.2	20.0	21.0	13	9
Middle Tennessee	51.9	48.6	28.7	25.3	17.4	19.3	18.6	22.0	6	6
North Carolina	52.1	47.4	39.8	29.8	15.4	18.7	21.5	17.8	12	5
Northern Iowa	53.7	48.5	17.7	26.8	15.4	18.4	19.9	14.3	6	6
Notre Dame	53.5	49.2	32.8	31.3	14.8	14.8	21.5	17.6	4	3
Oklahoma	54.5	46.4	30.5	29.8	18.0	17.6	20.4	16.2	12	4
Oregon	52.6	48.6	34.9	31.1	16.5	20.5	24.4	18.3	8	6
Oregon St.	50.0	49.1	29.6	32.3	16.7	19.8	21.2	22.1	4	4
Pittsburgh	51.3	49.7	37.5	27.2	17.3	17.3	23.7	18.4	10	4
Providence	48.1	48.8	30.9	30.2	16.4	20.6	23.3	16.7	8	6
Purdue	53.7	44.3	35.3	23.3	17.5	13.8	22.2	17.2	11	5
Seton Hall	50.2	45.3	35.0	30.7	19.5	19.2	22.4	19.3	7	4
South Dakota St.	51.6	46.9	32.6	25.8	17.1	17.6	24.9	22.3	6	6
Southern	49.8	47.3	29.0	32.2	16.1	19.6	21.0	20.6	8	5
St. Joseph’s	51.3	47.9	28.3	25.8	14.3	16.2	22.8	14.8	7	7
Stephen F. Austin	55.0	48.8	34.8	29.2	17.7	26.7	21.3	18.7	20	5
Stony Brook	53.3	46.1	35.7	25.3	16.8	18.8	19.1	16.0	18	3
Syracuse	50.4	47.5	33.0	35.2	18.4	20.5	20.6	17.0	6	5
Temple	46.9	46.7	29.0	29.8	13.7	16.5	16.9	18.6	5	4
Texas	49.3	47.4	30.8	32.3	15.4	18.5	22.4	21.7	6	4
Texas A&M	51.4	47.1	35.0	30.0	17.1	20.9	21.7	17.6	10	8
Texas Tech	49.9	49.3	31.7	32.5	17.7	18.9	26.0	19.7	10	5
Tulsa	50.4	48.3	27.9	30.4	15.5	20.6	22.5	21.3	5	4
UALR	52.6	44.9	28.1	29.4	16.2	21.7	19.6	20.3	10	6
UNC-Asheville	50.7	47.3	31.9	29.0	18.4	22.0	23.6	18.3	5	5
UNC-Wilmington	51.1	46.6	32.2	30.7	15.8	21.0	22.6	28.4	11	5
USC	52.0	47.3	32.4	31.9	16.5	16.9	20.5	17.7	7	5
Utah	55.7	47.3	30.2	27.6	17.9	15.2	22.4	15.0	9	5
Vanderbilt	53.5	43.1	27.4	29.4	16.7	14.3	22.5	20.4	5	4
VCU	50.9	49.0	33.3	27.8	16.2	22.0	19.6	19.5	12	3
Villanova	54.3	46.3	28.6	28.7	16.3	20.4	22.3	17.3	9	7
Virginia	54.4	48.7	30.6	25.9	15.3	19.7	21.0	18.9	11	7
Weber St.	56.3	46.2	26.6	24.9	19.0	15.7	23.1	16.0	8	6
West Virginia	50.2	48.8	41.9	27.2	19.6	25.6	26.0	26.9	8	7
Wichita St.	49.7	44.4	32.0	23.9	14.9	23.2	23.8	23.7	12	6
Wisconsin	49.0	48.5	33.6	28.2	17.0	18.7	23.8	19.9	7	4
Xavier	51.5	47.9	35.7	26.3	17.6	19.3	26.2	19.6	12	5
Yale	52.8	46.1	39.4	24.0	19.9	18.5	23.1	18.6	12	5

 

PiRate Criteria

Team	PPG	DPPG	Mar.	FG-M	Rb-M	TO-M	R+T	WLRd	SOS
Arizona	81.2	68.9	12.3	6.9	9.2	-1.2	20.3	8-7	54.69
Austin Peay	76.0	75.1	0.9	0.5	2.7	-0.6	7.3	11-10	48.15
Baylor	77.2	69.2	7.9	2.2	7.9	0.8	20.0	8-6	59.49
Buffalo	77.6	75.1	2.4	0.6	3.0	-0.4	9.3	10-9	53.77
Butler	80.6	71.2	9.4	3.5	3.5	2.9	14.6	8-7	54.61
Cal State Bakersfield	73.0	63.2	9.8	6.0	4.0	3.1	15.9	10-7	44.72
California	75.1	67.0	8.1	6.8	6.7	-2.5	13.9	5-10	58.52
Chattanooga	75.8	66.6	9.2	2.2	3.4	1.8	12.3	16-4	48.07
Cincinnati	73.2	62.9	10.3	3.7	4.8	2.8	17.2	8-7	54.70
Colorado	76.0	70.7	5.3	0.7	8.9	-2.3	16.6	6-10	56.45
Connecticut	73.4	63.1	10.3	7.8	2.3	1.1	9.4	9-7	55.70
Dayton	73.2	65.8	7.4	5.5	5.3	-0.6	14.1	11-4	55.73
Duke	79.1	68.8	10.3	2.4	0.1	2.4	7.3	7-6	58.97
Fairleigh Dickinson	77.9	78.3	-0.3	1.1	-5.0	2.4	-4.1	9-8	45.04
Florida Gulf Coast	77.0	70.5	6.5	6.2	5.0	0.0	12.8	4-9	45.65
Fresno St.	75.3	70.4	4.9	1.6	1.2	4.3	12.4	9-7	51.24
Gonzaga	79.7	66.2	13.5	8.7	7.3	-0.9	16.5	15-3	52.35
Green Bay	84.2	79.7	4.6	0.1	-1.5	4.8	6.8	12-9	48.08
Hampton	74.8	73.8	0.9	-0.9	5.1	-1.5	11.7	12-8	43.76
Hawaii	77.6	66.5	11.1	6.4	4.6	1.5	14.8	10-2	47.33
Holy Cross	65.3	69.7	-4.3	-4.5	-5.5	2.2	-5.2	6-13	45.37
Indiana	82.3	68.9	13.4	5.9	7.3	-0.6	17.3	8-7	53.79
Iona	79.6	73.7	5.9	3.5	-0.6	1.3	4.2	11-8	50.33
Iowa	78.1	68.7	9.4	3.6	1.4	2.7	9.5	8-8	56.69
Iowa St.	81.8	75.0	6.9	6.6	-0.1	0.8	4.1	7-9	58.96
Kansas	81.6	67.6	13.9	9.8	5.2	0.9	14.6	12-4	60.22
Kentucky	79.7	68.3	11.4	7.8	5.4	1.3	16.7	9-8	57.45
Maryland	76.1	66.3	9.8	8.0	3.4	-1.7	7.8	9-7	56.77
Miami	75.6	66.8	8.8	4.7	2.3	1.0	9.5	10-6	58.22
Michigan	74.3	67.5	6.8	2.1	-1.0	2.1	4.9	9-8	55.96
Michigan St.	79.8	63.4	16.4	10.7	11.7	0.0	26.7	15-3	55.75
Middle Tennessee	72.7	68.3	4.4	2.4	2.2	1.4	9.1	13-6	50.23
North Carolina	82.3	69.5	12.8	6.9	8.3	2.2	22.4	13-5	57.74
Northern Iowa	68.0	62.9	5.1	3.6	-3.9	2.0	-1.9	11-9	53.34
Notre Dame	75.7	70.6	5.1	4.3	2.3	0.0	8.1	7-9	57.25
Oklahoma	80.4	70.4	10.0	5.4	2.5	-0.3	7.1	11-6	58.74
Oregon	78.8	69.1	9.7	4.3	3.2	2.8	14.4	10-6	60.01
Oregon St.	72.1	70.0	2.1	1.4	-2.2	2.1	2.4	5-9	58.77
Pittsburgh	76.0	67.9	8.1	2.4	7.4	-0.1	17.5	6-7	56.86
Providence	74.0	69.7	4.2	-1.3	-0.2	3.1	6.0	10-6	55.71
Purdue	77.7	64.6	13.1	8.0	10.6	-2.5	20.9	9-7	56.54
Seton Hall	74.8	67.8	7.1	4.9	4.1	-0.2	10.5	12-5	56.24
South Dakota St.	76.3	67.8	8.5	3.5	5.4	0.3	13.9	14-7	51.07
Southern	72.9	69.0	3.9	3.0	-1.7	2.6	3.6	10-11	42.66
St. Joseph’s	77.6	69.9	7.7	4.0	2.9	1.3	11.2	15-3	55.49
Stephen F. Austin	80.7	63.2	17.6	4.6	3.4	6.2	18.2	13-5	47.18
Stony Brook	76.8	63.4	13.4	7.2	7.8	1.4	20.7	11-5	48.19
Syracuse	70.2	65.7	4.5	1.3	-1.4	1.4	2.2	6-9	56.21
Temple	68.7	67.4	1.2	-1.2	-1.5	1.9	3.3	10-8	54.61
Texas	71.3	68.1	3.3	1.3	-1.4	2.1	3.3	6-9	59.88
Texas A&M	75.9	65.5	10.4	4.4	3.9	2.6	14.7	9-7	55.70
Texas Tech	72.4	69.8	2.5	2.0	0.5	0.8	4.3	5-9	58.94
Tulsa	74.0	69.7	4.3	2.7	-1.9	3.5	3.8	8-8	54.97
UALR	70.9	59.6	11.3	6.9	0.1	3.5	9.1	15-4	47.45
UNC-Asheville	75.6	67.5	8.2	3.5	2.3	2.7	11.2	11-8	47.21
UNC-Wilmington	79.2	71.4	7.8	3.9	1.0	3.8	10.6	13-5	51.21
USC	80.8	74.8	6.1	4.0	1.6	0.2	6.8	5-10	56.79
Utah	77.6	69.1	8.5	7.6	4.5	-1.9	9.4	10-7	59.33
Vanderbilt	76.8	67.3	9.4	7.5	1.3	-1.7	3.4	5-11	56.44
VCU	77.2	67.3	9.9	1.0	2.7	4.0	14.0	9-8	55.24
Villanova	77.0	63.7	13.3	6.7	1.9	2.7	10.0	14-4	58.54
Virginia	70.4	59.7	10.7	6.6	3.5	2.7	13.2	11-7	60.05
Weber St.	76.7	66.9	9.9	7.0	4.3	-2.3	9.0	13-7	45.32
West Virginia	79.2	66.6	12.6	2.5	8.4	4.1	25.3	13-6	58.59
Wichita St.	73.2	59.3	14.0	4.9	4.6	5.5	19.7	10-7	52.52
Wisconsin	68.9	64.6	4.3	0.0	3.1	1.2	11.1	7-7	58.14
Xavier	81.3	71.0	10.3	3.6	7.5	1.4	19.9	12-4	56.82
Yale	75.2	63.1	12.0	6.4	11.1	-0.9	23.4	10-6	49.48

If this data is a little overbearing, fret not Bracketaholics.  We will select bracket winners for you Tuesday afternoon so you can fill them out with some science and mathematics backing you up.

 

And, if you are like many of our old-time readers, some of who prefer to use our data when visiting Las Vegas (and who have to buy new shirts after they lose the one they had), we will have our Red-White-Blue computer-rated picks for the First Four games late tonight, and then the picks for the second round late Wednesday night after the last First Four game has concluded.