Our congratulations go out to the Connecticut Huskies, champions of the 2023 NCAA Basketball world. UConn dominated this tournament and looked like the legitimate favorite in every round. As you might have read three weeks ago, we tabbed UConn as one of our top two teams and even recommended splitting your champion votes in your bracket pools. However, we did preface it by saying that if a Big Ten team was ever going to break through, this year’s Purdue team had the talent. We did talk at length about how the Big Ten and proteges of Coach Gene Keady (and Keady himself) had greatly underperform in the NCAA Tournaments, and we told you why–they are too half-court oriented and do not play pressure defense, rarely fast break, and have trouble guarding overly athletic opponents.
We will kick ourselves all summer thinking that we first began isolating on UConn in January as having the resume of a national champion, and then even on Bracketnomics Monday, we expounded on the championship virtues of this team, and yet we totally blew it on Tuesday. Remind us never to pick a Big Ten team to win the national championship.
That said, remember what happened the next year after Virginia lost to UMBC in the opening round as a #1 seed losing to a #16. Coach Tony Bennett changed his offense and altered his defense to put more pressure on the ball and attack the paint offensively with athletic players, and the Cavaliers won the national title the next year.
Of course, if Hunter Dickinson was to choose Purdue as his next team, could Matt Painter possibly miss out with the two best big men in the nation in his starting lineup?
We apologize for missing a couple of days here, including a complete preview of the national championship game and the NIT Final Four. Family issues have made it mandatory to devote time away from our hobby. Hopefully, by the start of the college football season, everything will be back to normal.
The PiRates now sail out to sea for the Summer. We will be back (hopefully) in August to begin our college football previews.
One of these Cinderella teams will become the next Butler, playing a big-time team for the National Championship Monday night. We don’t have this as a factor, but a CUSA team won the CBI, and a CUSA team beat another CUSA team in the NIT Championship Game. Could it be that CUSA is a lot better than the numbers show? If so, then how much more does Florida Atlantic deserve to be given credit?
The efficiency numbers are outside the range of a national champion, so if one of these teams cuts down the nets Monday night, it will throw a monkey wrench into this system. As for this semifinal game, FAU has the closer championship resume with a much better offensive efficiency rating. The Owls also appear to be the superior inside defense team in this system. Even though the PiRate Ratings spread favors SDSU, the Bracketnomics Criteria says FAU will win this game, and it might eventually be by a margin in double figures.
Stat
Miami
UConn
O-RTG
5
3
D-RTG
104
11
SOS
56.7
59.8
3-Pt
36.9
36.3
O-Reb
31.7
38.5
2PT%D
51.6
45.0
FTR
31.0
30.5
R+T Rate
5.8
14.9
Old R+T
10.8
21.4
Marg
7.7
14.4
Win Strk
9 & 7
14 & 6
Pre25
NO
NO
Champ
Co
No
Coach Exp
10 & 1FF
4: 0-4
3 Upper
NO
NO
F/C 20-12
NO
YES
DBLFIG
4
3
OReb
31.7
38.5
OStl
10.5
9.2
OTurn
14.1
15.7
DReb
28.4
25.7
DStl
8.5
9.6
DTurn
15.7
16.5
Reb Marg
2.9
9.4
Stl/G
7.3
6.3
D Stl
5.9
6.6
TO Marg
1.2
0.0
Before the tournament began, we issued our list of which teams had national championship resumes. On the day before the release of all the stats, we mentioned Connecticut, because the Huskies had one of the top two resumes in the criteria. Then, we did something we wish we could do over–we believed that maybe this could be Purdue’s year to break their losing curse. At the same time, we warned you about the Big Ten and their style of play not being conducive to winning in the Big Dance, and we mentioned that disciples of Gene Keady played the wrong style of ball to win in late March. When Purdue lost to Fairleigh Dickinson, it was precisely their inability to force turnovers and get cheap baskets that cost them.
Some of you did follow our secondary advice and went with Connecticut to win the Championship. If you did, then you may still be alive in your bracket pools. We won’t take credit for picking UConn, as they were our secondary pick, but we will kick ourselves all year if the Huskies indeed win it all, since we had been talking about them having a championship resume as far back as late January.
Miami isn’t chopped liver. In fact, ACC teams are the polar opposite of Big Ten teams. The teams in the ACC know how to score quickly and score with cheap baskets. The Hurricanes can force turnovers on UConn and score fast break points. The U has a national championship offense, but their defense does not meet the criteria. UConn has both a national championship offense and defense. Miami’s principle liability is their weakness against preventing shots in the paint. UConn should get a few too many close-in shots in this game and will be more consistent with their offense.
UConn did not win either their regular conference or conference tournament championship, and they were not ranked in the preseason, two things that most national champions have done. UConn has twice won national championships in the 21st Century when they were somewhat of an outlier. The last time they did this, it was when they handily defeated long shot Butler. If they beat Miami, they will be playing another long shot Monday Night.
Comments Off on PiRate Ratings College Basketball — Final Four
Creighton is the slight favorite in this criteria, but it isn’t by much. If not for overall strength of schedule, the Aztecs would have the advantage due to better steal rate and turnover rate, the two criteria that are showing up to be more important this year than an average year. SDSU beat Alabama, because they jumped the passing lanes and won the R+T battle with ease.
Stat
FAU
Kansas St.
O-RTG
26
35
D-RTG
29
27
SOS
50.5
58.5
3-Pt
36.5
34.0
O-Reb
31.4
30.4
2PT%D
44.7
49.1
FTR
28.9
36.2
R+T Rate
8.7
1.6
Old R+T
16.0
6.4
Marg
13.2
6.6
Win Strk
20 & 10
9 & 6
Pre25
NO
NO
Champ
YES
No
Coach Exp
0
0
3 Upper
NO
YES
F/C 20-12
NO
YES
DBLFIG
3
3
OReb
31.4
30.4
OStl
9.5
11.0
OTurn
14.5
17.0
DReb
25.1
29.9
DStl
8.2
10.2
DTurn
15.9
18.0
Reb Marg
5.7
1.4
Stl/G
6.5
7.9
D Stl
5.6
7.3
TO Marg
0.9
0.9
Florida Atlantic overcame Tennessee’s inside advantage in the Sweet 16, but we have seen the Vols’ inconsistent play all year and don’t think it was entirely the Owls’ defense that eliminated Tennessee’s biggest advantage. Kansas State also has the inside advantage, by even more than that enjoyed by UT. This looks like the end of a great mid-major run for FAU, as Kansas State has enough advantage here to make their first Final Four since Tex Winter and his triple post offense guided the Wildcats to the 1964 Final Four.
Stat
Miami
Texas
O-RTG
6
15
D-RTG
104
10
SOS
56.1
60.0
3-Pt
37.0
34.5
O-Reb
31.9
28.2
2PT%D
51.5
47.3
FTR
30.2
30.7
R+T Rate
6.1
3.7
Old R+T
11.0
8.0
Marg
7.7
10.6
Win Strk
9 & 7
7 & 6
Pre25
NO
YES
Champ
Co
YES
Coach Exp
10 & 1FF
0
3 Upper
NO
YES
F/C 20-12
NO
NO
DBLFIG
4
4
OReb
31.9
28.2
OStl
10.4
11.2
OTurn
14.0
14.3
DReb
28.4
29.1
DStl
8.5
8.1
DTurn
15.7
19.5
Reb Marg
3.0
-0.3
Stl/G
7.2
7.9
D Stl
5.9
5.7
TO Marg
1.3
4.3
On paper, this is an exciting tossup that could go down to the last minute. However, there is a huge question mark in this game. Texas may not have the services of 6 foot 9 inch forward Dylan Disu, who has been the Longhorns’ best player down the stretch. They dismissed Xavier with Disu playing less than a minute before further injuring his leg.
If Disu cannot play, Miami can ramp up the tempo in this game and wear Texas down. Without Disu, Texas has a major liability on the glass, and they will have to force a lot of turnovers to make up for Miami’s potential extra shot attempts.
Jim Larranaga has taken a team to the Final Four once before, and he did so with a low major team beating the overall number one seed to get there. Miami made it this far last year. It looks favorable for Hurricane Warnings to go up in Houston next week.
Stat
Connecticut
Gonzaga
O-RTG
3
1
D-RTG
13
73
SOS
58.5
57.5
3-Pt
36.4
38.6
O-Reb
38.9
31.8
2PT%D
45.0
50.3
FTR
30.9
33.6
R+T Rate
15.0
11.4
Old R+T
21.2
18.8
Marg
14.0
13.9
Win Strk
14 & 6
12 & 11
Pre25
NO
YES
Champ
No
YES
Coach Exp
4: 0-4
22 & 2FF
3 Upper
NO
YES
F/C 20-12
YES
YES
DBLFIG
3
4
OReb
38.9
31.8
OStl
9.3
10.2
OTurn
15.9
13.1
DReb
25.9
25.0
DStl
9.8
7.3
DTurn
16.6
16.5
Reb Marg
9.4
5.9
Stl/G
6.4
7.4
D Stl
6.7
5.3
TO Marg
-0.1
2.6
As far as the Bracketnomics are concerned, this may be the real National Championship Game. The two best offenses left in the field and two of the three best overall face off. But, UConn also has a top 20 defense, which is how most National Champions look–top 10 offense and top 20 defense.
Still, this game is not a slam dunk easy win for UConn. Gonzaga has a coach with a lot more tournament experience with two recent Final Fours and with players that have played in the National Championship on this roster. Gonzaga was a pre-season top 25 team, while the Huskies were not, and almost every past national champion was ranked in the pre-season.
The one stat that really concerns us is the turnover margin. As we told you above, turnover margin and steals have been considerably more important this year than an average year. UConn has a negative turnover margin and has a propensity to be a little too gracious throwing the ball to the wrong-colored jerseys. If Gonzaga can get 8 or more steals and force 14 or more turnovers in this game, they will likely win. If the Huskies can limit Bulldog steals to 6 or less, and they commit 12 or fewer turnovers, they will win. If it’s somewhere in between, this game could come down to a last second shot or even overtime.
The opening weekend of the NCAA Tournament was not so wonderful for the PiRate Ratings Bracketnomic System, as two of the projected Final Four fell out. Of the 16 teams we projected, 9 are still alive, including Connecticut, who we selected as an alternative pick for the title if you were afraid to go with a Big Ten team.
We didn’t listen to our own advice. The numbers showed Purdue to be the top team according to the Bracketnomics, but we spent multiple paragraphs telling you why Purdue’s style of play, as well as any team out of the past that was coached by a Gene Keady disciple, was not the way to win the NCAA Tournament. We thought it was time for that trend to end, but in the end, Purdue couldn’t handle the pressure defense of #16-seed Fairleigh Dickinson, and the Boilermakers became the second #1 seed to lose to a #16 seed.
There are still multiple teams remaining in the Sweet 16 that we stated had most of the resume of a national champion. Maybe you took our stats and made your own picks, like many have in the past. We know that many of you are better at interpreting this data than we are.
Many bracket pools allow people to redo their brackets each weekend, so here are the sweet 16 matchups with the bracketnomics data. If you don’t know what each item is, refer back to the Bracketnomics Primer of Monday, March, 13.
Everything points Alabama’s way in this game, as the Aztecs will have difficulty matching the Tide point-for-point if the first half possessions for both teams tops 35. SDSU’s only chance in this game is to force Alabama into making double digit turnovers in the first 25-28 minutes of the game.
Stat
Creighton
Princeton
O-RTG
23
100
D-RTG
13
96
SOS
59.40
49.80
3-Pt
35.8
33.9
O-Reb
25.4
29.6
2PT%D
45.8
47.0
FTR
28.6
30.7
R+T Rate
0.1
6.3
Old R+T
8.2
13.5
Marg
8.2
7.6
Win Strk
8 & 6
8 & 6
Pre25
YES
NO
Champ
No
YES
Coach Exp
10: 1S16
1: 0-1
3 Upper
NO
YES
F/C 20-12
YES
YES
DBLFIG
5
3
OReb
25.4
29.6
OStl
7.4
7.1
OTurn
14.8
15.3
DReb
23.5
22.2
DStl
8.7
9.0
DTurn
12.5
13.4
Reb Marg
3.7
6.6
Stl/G
5.1
4.9
D Stl
6.1
6.3
TO Marg
-1.7
-1.9
Princeton has a small chance to win this game. They can dominate the glass and the inside game. If they can hold Creighton’s 3-point shooting under its normal rate and get 8 or more second chance points, they can make this game close. Creighton has about an 80-85% chance of winning, not a sure thing, but almost.
Stat
FAU
Tennessee
O-RTG
29
60
D-RTG
34
1
SOS
50.30
59.40
3-Pt
36.7
33.0
O-Reb
31.2
36.4
2PT%D
44.9
44.8
FTR
28.8
31.0
R+T Rate
9.4
14.9
Old R+T
16.4
19.9
Marg
13.3
13.4
Win Strk
20 & 9
8 & 5
Pre25
NO
YES
Champ
YES
No
Coach Exp
0
26:1FF28
3 Upper
NO
YES
F/C 20-12
NO
NO
DBLFIG
3
3
OReb
31.2
36.4
OStl
9.7
12.5
OTurn
14.4
15.4
DReb
24.6
26.6
DStl
8.1
10.1
DTurn
16.1
19.4
Reb Marg
5.8
6.9
Stl/G
6.7
8.3
D Stl
5.6
6.7
TO Marg
1.0
2.6
This game is all over the map. FAU has the superior offense, but Tennessee has the #1 defense. Tennessee’s schedule is considerably stronger, so the Vols make it through the most important factors as the favorite.
Tennessee is still missing one of their top players in Zakai Zeigler, and the Vols are a hot and cold team. When they are hot, they can beat anybody in the nation, like they did against Alabama. When, they are cold, they lose by double digits to Colorado.
FAU is a consistently good team, but the Owls face an uphill battle in this game. The Vols should advance to the Elite 8.
Stat
Kan. St.
Mich. St.
O-RTG
47
37
D-RTG
17
31
SOS
58.30
60.50
3-Pt
33.6
38.7
O-Reb
30.5
27.3
2PT%D
49.2
48.2
FTR
36.6
26.9
R+T Rate
1.5
1.0
Old R+T
6.5
7.8
Marg
6.6
3.2
Win Strk
9 & 6
7
Pre25
NO
NO
Champ
No
No
Coach Exp
0
24: 8 FFNC
3 Upper
YES
YES
F/C 20-12
YES
NO
DBLFIG
3
3
OReb
30.5
27.3
OStl
10.9
7.2
OTurn
17.3
14.4
DReb
29.8
25.2
DStl
10.4
8.4
DTurn
18.1
13.2
Reb Marg
1.6
2.9
Stl/G
7.8
4.8
D Stl
7.4
5.5
TO Marg
0.8
-0.9
This is an interesting match up. Neither team has a definite advantage. In a typical year, Michigan State would have a sizable rebounding advantage, but this year has been quite different. Kansas State has the inside advantage in this one.
Michigan State won’t force turnovers on the Wildcats, and when KSU has lost this year, the other team usually forces more turnovers on the Wildcats than they normally commit. We’re going with Kansas State in a close one.
Stat
Houston
Miami
O-RTG
9
11
D-RTG
4
108
SOS
56.40
55.90
3-Pt
34.2
36.8
O-Reb
37.4
32.3
2PT%D
42.9
51.6
FTR
28.8
30.2
R+T Rate
16.4
6.5
Old R+T
23.5
11.1
Marg
18.3
7.5
Win Strk
13 & 9
9 & 7
Pre25
YES
NO
Champ
YES
Co
Coach Exp
18 & 2FF
10 & 1FF
3 Upper
YES
NO
F/C 20-12
YES
NO
DBLFIG
4
4
OReb
37.4
32.3
OStl
12.5
10.6
OTurn
13.0
14.2
DReb
27.9
28.4
DStl
8.4
8.7
DTurn
18.6
15.8
Reb Marg
7.5
3.1
Stl/G
8.1
7.3
D Stl
5.4
6.0
TO Marg
3.8
1.2
IF? If Marcus Sasser is healthy enough to play near 100% effectively for 32 minutes, Houston is the clear choice to make it to the Elite 8. A groin injury is a tricky thing, because one wrong move can put the injured player out of commission for a long time. A healthy Sasser makes this game a double-digit win possibility for the Cougars, who would then be one win away from getting a chance to play in the Final Four at home.
If Sasser is unable to play, Miami has the advantage. If Sasser plays at less than full strength, then this game becomes a tossup.
Stat
Xavier
Texas
O-RTG
7
15
D-RTG
64
10
SOS
59.00
60.00
3-Pt
38.9
34.1
O-Reb
30.8
28.5
2PT%D
48.5
47.4
FTR
31.8
30.7
R+T Rate
5.7
3.9
Old R+T
12.8
7.9
Marg
7.4
10.6
Win Strk
11 & 5
6 & 6
Pre25
NO
YES
Champ
No
YES
Coach Exp
11:48|416
1: 0-1
3 Upper
YES
YES
F/C 20-12
YES
NO
DBLFIG
4
4
OReb
30.8
28.5
OStl
9.0
11.2
OTurn
15.1
14.3
DReb
25.2
29.2
DStl
9.6
8.2
DTurn
14.5
19.6
Reb Marg
5.5
-0.3
Stl/G
6.5
7.9
D Stl
6.9
5.8
TO Marg
-0.6
4.3
This is another interesting game. Xavier’s offense is national title-worthy, while their defense is right on the edge of eliminating them. Texas’s offense is just barely outside what most national champions have been rated on the attack side, but their defense is good enough.
The most glaring remaining stat is in coaching experience. Sean Miller has taken 11 past teams to the NCAA Tournament with 4 Elite 8’s and 4 (now 5) Sweet 16’s. Rodney Terry took Fresno St. to one NCAA Tournament and lost in the first game.
We’ve changed our opinion on this game twice. At the time of this writing, we’re going with Texas, but only because Xavier cannot exploit the Longhorns’ liability of handling the ball.
Stat
Arkansas
UConn
O-RTG
51
3
D-RTG
15
14
SOS
59.20
58.30
3-Pt
31.3
36.4
O-Reb
30.6
39.0
2PT%D
47.0
45.4
FTR
39.2
30.9
R+T Rate
5.9
15.6
Old R+T
10.6
21.3
Marg
6.9
13.8
Win Strk
7
14 & 6
Pre25
YES
NO
Champ
NO
No
Coach Exp
5:2E8|1S16
4: 0-4
3 Upper
YES
NO
F/C 20-12
NO
YES
DBLFIG
4
3
OReb
30.6
39.0
OStl
11.9
9.2
OTurn
15.9
15.8
DReb
27.6
25.6
DStl
9.5
9.7
DTurn
17.9
16.8
Reb Marg
2.8
9.3
Stl/G
8.4
6.3
D Stl
6.7
6.6
TO Marg
1.5
0.1
UConn still has the best resume for a potential national champion, but we’re leery of this game. Throwing out all the criteria you see above, there is one big obvious criterion that cannot be overlooked, even if it isn’t part of this system.
Arkansas Coach Eric Musselman is the best college basketball coach in Division I and second best overall in college (Ben McCollum at Northwest Missouri State is the John Wooden of the 21st Century). Muss has taken two consecutive Razorback teams to the Elite 8, even though neither team had Elite 8 talent. This team is missing a key player and played for much of the season missing two key players. But, the more important piece, Nick Smith, is back.
The criteria favors Connecticut by a sizable margin, but give Arkansas a little bonus for Muss on the bench. It means UConn is favored by a little rather than a lot.
Stat
Gonzaga
UCLA
O-RTG
1
21
D-RTG
75
2
SOS
57.20
58.80
3-Pt
38.7
34.3
O-Reb
31.4
33.6
2PT%D
50.6
46.6
FTR
33.8
27.5
R+T Rate
11.0
14.3
Old R+T
18.4
17.5
Marg
14.2
13.9
Win Strk
11 & 11
14 & 12
Pre25
YES
YES
Champ
YES
YES
Coach Exp
22 & 2FF
13: 1FF
3 Upper
YES
YES
F/C 20-12
YES
NO
DBLFIG
4
3
OReb
31.4
33.6
OStl
10.5
12.5
OTurn
12.9
12.9
DReb
25.3
27.7
DStl
7.2
7.0
DTurn
16.7
20.6
Reb Marg
5.4
3.7
Stl/G
7.5
8.4
D Stl
5.2
4.7
TO Marg
3.0
4.6
This is the best of the Sweet 16 games. You have the top offense in the nation going against the #2 defense in the nation. The schedule strengths are close to even, not really enough to tip the scale much.
Gonzaga has the edge in outside shooting, but UCLA has an equal edge on the inside, but not by dominating with a post player, but by having tall guards like Jaime Jacquez and Amari Bailey. Of note, UCLA is quite banged up coming into this game. In addition to not having the services of star swing man Jaylen Clark, big man Adem Bona and sharpshooting guard David Singleton are nursing injuries. A team like UCLA can beat Northwestern with a depleted roster, but asking it to beat Gonzaga is too much. We believe that Bona and Singleton will play and not be 100% effective. All it takes is for Drew Timme to have his typical output, and Gonzaga is in the Elite 8.
Comments Off on PiRate Ratings Bracketnomics — Sweet 16 Edition
If you earned your PhD in Bracketnomics yesterday, then you are ready to delve right into the numbers that follow and understand the metrics that we use to choose winners in the NCAA Tournament bracket. If you missed it, check it out first before continuing below.
Let’s get right to it. Here is a look at the 68 teams ranked by each metric, starting with the three most important ones.
Adjusted Offensive Efficiency
Team
O-RTG
Gonzaga
1
Baylor
2
Iowa
3
Arizona
4
Connecticut
6
Purdue
7
Marquette
8
Xavier
9
Missouri
10
Houston
11
Miami (Fla)
12
Utah St.
13
Kentucky
14
West Virginia
15
Providence
16
Penn St.
17
Texas
18
Alabama
19
Oral Roberts
23
Pittsburgh
24
UCLA
25
Memphis
26
Indiana
27
Creighton
28
Kansas
29
Texas A&M
30
Florida Atlantic
32
Furman
33
Maryland
35
North Carolina St.
37
Saint Mary’s
40
Michigan St.
41
Duke
42
USC
43
Colgate
44
Auburn
48
Tennessee
49
Arkansas
51
Kansas St.
52
TCU
53
Grand Canyon
54
Louisiana
57
Illinois
58
Nevada
61
San Diego St.
64
Charleston
70
UCSB
71
Virginia
74
Boise St.
78
Iona
79
Iowa St.
96
Drake
98
Vermont
99
Princeton
103
Northwestern
109
Kent St.
110
Arizona St.
133
Texas A&M-CC
137
VCU
140
Kennesaw St.
153
Fairleigh Dickinson
155
Mississippi St.
164
Montana St.
170
UNC Asheville
195
Howard
204
Northern Kentucky
217
SE Missouri St.
263
Texas Southern
330
Adjusted Defensive Efficiency
Team
D-RTG
UCLA
1
Tennessee
2
Alabama
3
Houston
4
Mississippi St.
6
Kansas
7
Iowa St.
8
Saint Mary’s
9
San Diego St.
10
Texas
11
Northwestern
13
Boise St.
14
Creighton
15
Arkansas
16
VCU
17
Connecticut
18
Kansas St.
19
TCU
20
Duke
24
Virginia
25
Purdue
26
Arizona St.
28
Auburn
29
Illinois
32
Maryland
33
Memphis
35
Florida Atlantic
36
Texas A&M
37
Kent St.
38
Michigan St.
40
Arizona
41
Nevada
42
Indiana
43
Drake
44
Marquette
47
USC
48
West Virginia
52
Utah St.
64
Iona
67
Xavier
70
Kentucky
71
Montana St.
73
Charleston
75
Gonzaga
76
North Carolina St.
85
Penn St.
101
Baylor
104
Oral Roberts
107
Providence
108
UNC Asheville
115
Kennesaw St.
116
Northern Kentucky
121
Miami (Fla)
132
Princeton
137
Pittsburgh
142
Louisiana
146
Vermont
153
UCSB
163
Iowa
167
Missouri
178
Furman
183
Texas Southern
196
Grand Canyon
198
Howard
212
Texas A&M-CC
229
Colgate
231
SE Missouri St.
243
Fairleigh Dickinson
361
Strength of Schedule (PiRate Ratings Formula)
Team
SOS
Kansas
62.66
Alabama
61.84
West Virginia
60.80
Baylor
60.64
Michigan St.
60.44
Iowa St.
60.13
Texas
60.07
Tennessee
59.39
TCU
59.32
Creighton
59.21
Xavier
59.09
Arkansas
59.06
UCLA
58.88
Indiana
58.87
Purdue
58.85
Kentucky
58.51
Auburn
58.50
Marquette
58.43
Penn St.
58.38
Connecticut
58.33
Kansas St.
58.30
Illinois
58.22
Iowa
58.06
Arizona
57.94
Maryland
57.87
Arizona St.
57.81
San Diego St.
57.55
Memphis
57.52
Duke
57.36
Gonzaga
57.29
Missouri
57.24
Texas A&M
57.19
Mississippi St.
57.15
Providence
57.13
Saint Mary’s
57.09
Northwestern
56.73
Houston
56.41
Nevada
56.36
Boise St.
56.35
Utah St.
56.26
Virginia
56.14
USC
56.04
Miami (Fla)
55.89
North Carolina St.
55.27
Pittsburgh
54.58
VCU
53.60
Florida Atlantic
50.25
Drake
50.07
Grand Canyon
49.79
Kent St.
49.77
Louisiana
49.14
Iona
49.08
Furman
48.80
Montana St.
48.22
Kennesaw St.
48.04
Vermont
47.70
Charleston
47.69
Princeton
47.34
Oral Roberts
47.22
UCSB
46.70
Northern Kentucky
46.14
UNC Asheville
45.68
Colgate
44.71
SE Missouri St.
44.35
Texas Southern
44.23
Howard
43.16
Texas A&M-CC
40.76
Fairleigh Dickinson
40.36
Who Looks Great So Far?
One team has an offensive rating in the top 10 and defensive rating in the top 25 with a schedule strength of 57 or better. That team is Connecticut. Purdue misses this by one defensive spot. Other teams that come close to fitting this criteria are Arizona and Marquette.
Houston, Alabama, and Texas are in the mix here as defensive teams that are close enough in the offensive range to contend. Houston just misses the minimum for schedule strength.
R+T Ratings (Rate Version)
Team
RateRT
Saint Mary’s
16.86
Houston
16.51
Kentucky
15.77
Connecticut
15.71
Purdue
15.66
Tennessee
14.91
Charleston
14.69
Fairleigh Dickinson
14.63
UCLA
14.51
Iowa St.
13.14
Mississippi St.
11.03
Providence
10.97
Gonzaga
10.91
Duke
10.80
Louisiana
10.51
Texas A&M-CC
10.34
North Carolina St.
10.00
San Diego St.
9.43
Florida Atlantic
9.37
Iowa
8.51
Texas A&M
8.23
Northwestern
7.49
Kent St.
7.31
Illinois
6.80
Northern Kentucky
6.63
Xavier
6.51
West Virginia
6.40
Iona
6.23
Princeton
5.83
TCU
5.77
Baylor
5.54
Furman
5.49
Miami (Fla)
5.43
Virginia
5.43
Montana St.
5.31
Maryland
5.31
Arkansas
5.03
Alabama
4.86
Kennesaw St.
4.34
Drake
4.23
Colgate
4.23
Kansas
4.17
Boise St.
4.00
UCSB
3.49
Arizona
3.49
Texas
3.37
VCU
3.26
Texas Southern
2.91
Auburn
2.74
Pittsburgh
2.74
Howard
2.29
UNC Asheville
2.17
Utah St.
1.89
Oral Roberts
1.71
Memphis
1.43
SE Missouri St.
0.91
Creighton
0.57
Michigan St.
0.57
Vermont
0.51
Kansas St.
0.51
Nevada
0.46
Marquette
0.17
Arizona St.
0.11
Indiana
-0.80
USC
-4.69
Missouri
-5.14
Grand Canyon
-6.42
Penn St.
-8.00
R+T Ratings (Old Version)
Team
R+T
Houston
23.80
Purdue
23.30
Connecticut
21.25
Saint Mary’s
20.70
Kentucky
20.55
Tennessee
19.85
Charleston
19.20
Duke
18.95
UCLA
18.50
Baylor
18.05
Gonzaga
18.00
Florida Atlantic
16.70
Providence
16.25
Louisiana
16.10
Alabama
14.35
Iowa St.
13.90
Texas A&M-CC
13.80
Mississippi St.
13.70
San Diego St.
13.65
Texas A&M
13.40
Princeton
13.15
Xavier
12.85
Arizona
12.75
North Carolina St.
12.15
Illinois
11.70
Drake
11.50
Kent St.
11.05
Boise St.
10.95
Colgate
10.90
Furman
10.70
Iona
10.65
Montana St.
10.55
Miami (Fla)
10.35
Iowa
10.10
Fairleigh Dickinson
10.00
Utah St.
10.00
Arkansas
9.80
Maryland
9.70
West Virginia
9.25
TCU
9.20
UCSB
9.20
Northwestern
8.90
Oral Roberts
8.65
Pittsburgh
8.50
Creighton
8.40
Kansas
8.40
Virginia
8.35
Grand Canyon
8.25
Kennesaw St.
8.10
VCU
7.85
Texas
7.65
Michigan St.
7.60
Kansas St.
7.25
Northern Kentucky
6.90
Memphis
6.80
Indiana
6.40
Nevada
6.15
Auburn
5.80
Howard
5.50
Texas Southern
4.90
Vermont
4.10
UNC Asheville
3.30
Marquette
3.10
SE Missouri St.
2.45
Arizona St.
2.25
USC
1.70
Penn St.
-1.50
Missouri
-3.45
R+T measures “spurtability,” the ability for a team to go on a wining scoring run. Once again, Connecticut and Purdue shine in these important metrics, while Houston has an incredible spurtability score.
Also important is to note which teams have poor R+T Ratings, the type that can lead to early upset losses. Among those teams are Missouri, USC, Penn St., and Arizona St.
3-point FG%
Getting to the secondary ratings, these are still quite important and very usable when comparing teams head to head. Here are the 3-point shooting percentages for the 68 teams in the Field.
Team
3PT%
Colgate
40.8
Michigan St.
39.5
Xavier
39.5
Utah St.
39.3
UNC Asheville
39.0
Gonzaga
38.7
Penn St.
38.5
Grand Canyon
38.3
Arizona
38.2
Louisiana
37.8
Howard
37.7
Drake
37.3
Baylor
37.2
Florida Atlantic
37.2
Saint Mary’s
37.2
Indiana
37.0
Oral Roberts
36.9
Kennesaw St.
36.8
Miami (Fla)
36.8
Texas A&M-CC
36.8
Boise St.
36.5
Missouri
36.1
Creighton
36.0
Iona
36.0
Pittsburgh
36.0
Connecticut
35.9
Vermont
35.9
Kentucky
35.4
Memphis
35.3
San Diego St.
35.3
UCSB
35.3
Virginia
35.3
Providence
35.1
Northern Kentucky
35.0
North Carolina St.
34.9
Houston
34.8
Marquette
34.8
West Virginia
34.8
Furman
34.7
UCLA
34.7
VCU
34.7
Fairleigh Dickinson
34.6
Nevada
34.6
USC
34.5
Kansas
34.4
Princeton
34.4
Iowa
34.3
Kansas St.
34.0
Iowa St.
33.9
Texas
33.9
Alabama
33.8
Montana St.
33.8
Duke
33.6
Kent St.
33.6
Charleston
33.4
Maryland
33.0
Tennessee
32.9
Texas A&M
32.8
SE Missouri St.
32.7
Purdue
32.6
Northwestern
32.1
Arkansas
31.7
Arizona St.
31.4
Auburn
31.4
Illinois
30.9
TCU
30.6
Texas Southern
28.4
Mississippi St.
26.6
The most glaring part of this is the absence of the top contenders to this point in this category. Against the top defenses, teams are going to need to rely on the three-point shot. Arizona moves up in the contender section with the top percentage among teams appearing near the top in the previous criteria. Purdue is weak here, and the Boilermakers might be vulnerable to a team that can force Purdue to take more perimeter shots than they want to take. Connecticut isn’t great here, but the Huskies don’t have a real liability in this department.
Offensive Rebound Rate
Team
OReb%
Connecticut
39.4
Kentucky
38.7
Purdue
38.3
Tennessee
36.8
Houston
36.7
Texas A&M
36.6
Duke
36.2
Charleston
35.6
Providence
35.3
Mississippi St.
35.2
Baylor
34.7
Louisiana
34.4
Howard
34.3
Iowa St.
33.9
Alabama
33.8
West Virginia
33.7
UCLA
33.6
Texas A&M-CC
33.5
Saint Mary’s
33.4
Auburn
33.3
TCU
32.4
Fairleigh Dickinson
32.3
Illinois
32.3
Iowa
32.2
Northern Kentucky
32.1
San Diego St.
32.1
Iona
32.0
Miami (Fla)
32.0
Xavier
31.8
Gonzaga
31.3
Grand Canyon
31.2
Arizona
31.1
Texas Southern
31.1
Memphis
31.0
Florida Atlantic
30.7
Kansas
30.7
Kent St.
30.7
North Carolina St.
30.7
Arkansas
30.5
Pittsburgh
30.4
Maryland
30.2
Arizona St.
29.6
Furman
29.5
Princeton
29.4
USC
29.0
VCU
29.0
Texas
28.3
Northwestern
28.2
Indiana
28.0
Kansas St.
28.0
Kennesaw St.
28.0
Michigan St.
27.4
Utah St.
27.3
UCSB
27.0
Missouri
26.8
SE Missouri St.
26.8
Boise St.
26.7
Montana St.
26.6
Marquette
26.5
UNC Asheville
26.3
Creighton
25.5
Virginia
25.5
Colgate
25.4
Oral Roberts
25.4
Drake
24.8
Nevada
23.0
Vermont
20.5
Penn St.
18.8
Offensive Rebound Rate is a part of R+T Rate, so we don’t want to count this twice. This is better used to compare two teams that are evenly matched. Note that three of the contenders are rated #1, #3, and #5 in this metric.
2-Point % Defense
Team
2PtD%
Kentucky
36.8
Maryland
37.2
Alabama
41.2
USC
42.4
Houston
42.8
Arizona St.
43.8
Florida Atlantic
44.6
Tennessee
44.6
Grand Canyon
45.0
Illinois
45.3
Creighton
45.6
Saint Mary’s
45.6
Indiana
45.7
Connecticut
45.8
Arizona
45.9
Oral Roberts
45.9
Utah St.
45.9
Mississippi St.
46.2
VCU
46.2
Virginia
46.5
Northwestern
46.6
Duke
46.7
Kent St.
46.7
Auburn
46.8
Princeton
46.8
UCLA
46.8
Arkansas
46.9
Iona
47.0
Drake
47.1
Texas
47.1
Kansas
47.2
Purdue
47.3
Boise St.
47.4
Montana St.
47.4
Texas A&M
47.4
Memphis
47.6
Texas Southern
47.9
Northern Kentucky
48.4
Pittsburgh
48.5
Louisiana
48.6
Michigan St.
48.6
UCSB
48.6
UNC Asheville
48.6
Xavier
48.7
Kansas St.
48.8
Penn St.
48.8
Charleston
49.1
Kennesaw St.
49.1
Nevada
49.1
TCU
49.1
Iowa St.
49.6
Providence
49.6
San Diego St.
49.9
Vermont
49.9
Marquette
50.0
SE Missouri St.
50.2
Howard
50.3
West Virginia
50.5
North Carolina St.
50.6
Furman
50.7
Gonzaga
50.8
Colgate
51.2
Missouri
51.7
Miami (Fla)
51.8
Iowa
52.6
Texas A&M-CC
53.2
Baylor
53.3
Fairleigh Dickinson
55.4
The contenders all fare well in this category, but there are some teams at the bottom of this metric that might be a bit too generous inside the paint. Baylor, Iowa, Miami, Missouri, and Gonzaga have issues here, which could spell trouble against teams that can pound the ball inside.
Free Throw Rate
Team
FTR
Texas A&M
45.9
Montana St.
43.7
VCU
41.8
UNC Asheville
41.2
Nevada
39.8
West Virginia
39.7
Arkansas
38.7
SE Missouri St.
37.9
Baylor
37.2
Purdue
37.2
Louisiana
37.1
Providence
36.8
Alabama
36.7
Grand Canyon
36.6
Arizona
36.5
Kansas St.
36.3
Kennesaw St.
36.3
Memphis
35.8
Auburn
35.5
Utah St.
35.0
UCSB
34.8
Mississippi St.
34.6
Virginia
34.5
Texas Southern
34.4
Furman
34.1
Howard
33.9
TCU
33.9
Illinois
33.8
Maryland
33.8
USC
33.8
Gonzaga
33.7
San Diego St.
33.7
Charleston
32.8
Iowa
32.6
Kentucky
32.5
Pittsburgh
32.4
Princeton
31.8
Connecticut
31.6
Texas
31.5
Kent St.
31.3
Saint Mary’s
31.2
Tennessee
30.9
Arizona St.
30.8
Duke
30.8
Xavier
30.8
Boise St.
30.6
Indiana
30.1
Miami (Fla)
30.0
Northwestern
29.7
Missouri
29.5
Florida Atlantic
29.3
Iona
29.0
Vermont
28.7
Northern Kentucky
28.4
Drake
28.2
Creighton
28.1
Houston
28.0
Iowa St.
27.8
Texas A&M-CC
27.6
Colgate
27.3
Marquette
27.1
UCLA
27.1
Fairleigh Dickinson
27.0
Michigan St.
25.8
Kansas
25.3
North Carolina St.
25.3
Oral Roberts
24.9
Penn St.
21.4
The top contenders all fare well here. They can force defenses to foul and get their starters in foul trouble. Not much to see here.
Scoring Margin
Team
Marg
Houston
19.4
Gonzaga
14.6
Oral Roberts
14.1
Florida Atlantic
13.8
Tennessee
13.8
Alabama
13.7
UCLA
13.6
Connecticut
13.5
Charleston
13.4
Drake
11.4
Iona
11.4
Saint Mary’s
11.3
Arizona
11.2
Furman
10.9
Kent St.
10.9
Purdue
10.9
Texas
10.5
Colgate
9.6
Marquette
9.3
Utah St.
8.9
Duke
8.6
Grand Canyon
8.5
San Diego St.
8.5
VCU
8.5
Louisiana
8.2
Creighton
8.1
Boise St.
7.9
Texas A&M-CC
7.9
Illinois
7.7
Memphis
7.7
Montana St.
7.6
Virginia
7.5
North Carolina St.
7.4
Princeton
7.4
Miami (Fla)
7.3
TCU
7.3
Xavier
7.3
Maryland
7.2
Kentucky
7.1
Arkansas
7.0
Kansas
7.0
Texas A&M
7.0
Baylor
6.9
Providence
6.8
UCSB
6.6
Indiana
6.5
Kansas St.
6.5
Kennesaw St.
6.4
UNC Asheville
6.4
Vermont
6.4
Iowa
5.8
Nevada
5.7
Auburn
5.6
Iowa St.
5.6
Pittsburgh
5.6
USC
5.5
West Virginia
5.3
Northwestern
5.2
Mississippi St.
4.9
Missouri
4.9
Northern Kentucky
4.6
Penn St.
3.9
Howard
3.6
Fairleigh Dickinson
2.9
Michigan St.
2.8
Arizona St.
2.6
SE Missouri St.
1.7
Texas Southern
-2.2
Once again, the previous contenders do well here and fit the criteria. Note the major conference teams with scoring margins under 5.0 points per game.
Regular Season or Conference Tournament Champion
The following teams won either their regular season conference championship or their postseason conference tournament.
Alabama
Arizona
Charleston
Colgate
Drake
Duke
Florida Atlantic
Furman
Gonzaga
Grand Canyon
Houston
Howard
Iona
Kansas
Kennesaw St.
Kent St.
Louisiana
Marquette
Memphis
Montana St.
Northern Kentucky
Oral Roberts
Princeton
Purdue
Saint Mary’s
San Diego St.
SE Missouri St.
Texas
Texas A&M-CC
Texas Southern
UCLA
UCSB
UNC Asheville
VCU
Vermont
Virginia
Miami (Fla) was co-champion of the ACC, but technically not the champion.
Winning Streak of 10 or More
Team
10+W
Charleston
20
Florida Atlantic
20
Oral Roberts
17
Vermont
15
Connecticut
14
Iona
14
UCLA
14
Houston
13
Purdue
13
Colgate
12
Saint Mary’s
12
Gonzaga
11
Mississippi St.
11
TCU
11
Xavier
11
Drake
10
Kansas
10
Kent St.
10
Louisiana
10
Alabama
9
Arizona St.
9
Boise St.
9
Duke
9
Howard
9
Kansas St.
9
Marquette
9
Miami (Fla)
9
Missouri
9
Providence
9
UCSB
9
UNC Asheville
9
Utah St.
9
VCU
9
Arizona
8
Auburn
8
Creighton
8
Furman
8
Kennesaw St.
8
Maryland
8
Montana St.
8
Princeton
8
Tennessee
8
Texas A&M-CC
8
Virginia
8
Arkansas
7
Indiana
7
Michigan St.
7
Texas A&M
7
USC
7
Baylor
6
Fairleigh Dickinson
6
Grand Canyon
6
Iowa St.
6
Memphis
6
Nevada
6
San Diego St.
6
Texas
6
Iowa
5
Northern Kentucky
5
Northwestern
5
Penn St.
5
Pittsburgh
5
Illinois
4
Kentucky
4
North Carolina St.
4
SE Missouri St.
4
West Virginia
4
Texas Southern
3
Don’t expect a team that hasn’t won 6 or more games in a row this year to do so in March Madness. Most past national champions had 8 or more game winning streaks, and many had 10 or more game winning streaks.
Preseason Top 25
Almost every past national champion was in the preseason top 25. The following NCAA Tournament teams were in the preseason top 25.
Team
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Auburn
Baylor
Creighton
Duke
Gonzaga
Houston
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
San Diego St.
TCU
Tennessee
Texas
UCLA
Virginia
Coach With Past NCAA Tournament Experience
Team
Yrs.
Deepest
Tennessee
26
1 FF, 2 E8
West Virginia
25
2 FF
Michigan St.
24
1 NC, 8 FF
Kansas
23
1 NC, 4 FF
Iona
22
2 NC, 4 FF
Gonzaga
22
2 FF
Kentucky
21
1NC, 6 FF
Houston
18
2 FF
Purdue
14
5 Swt16
UCLA
13
1 FF
TCU
13
1 E8, 2 Swt16
Iowa
11
6-11 no deep
Xavier
11
4 E8, 4 Swt16
Auburn
11
1 FF, 1 E8
Nevada
11
4 Swt16
Creighton
10
1 Swt16
Baylor
10
1 NC, 2 E8
Virginia
10
1 NC, 1E8, 2 Swt16
Miami (Fla)
10
1 FF, 1 E8, 2 Swt16
Marquette
9
1 FF
Texas A&M
8
1 E8, 3 Swt16
Saint Mary’s
8
1 Swt16
Illinois
6
4-6 no deep
Providence
6
1 Swr16
Alabama
5
1 Swt16
Arkansas
5
2 E8, 1 Swt16
Texas Southern
5
2-5 no deep
USC
5
1 E8, 1 Swt16
Maryland
5
1-5 no deep
Vermont
4
1-4 no deep
Connecticut
4
0-4
Grand Canyon
4
0-4
Iowa St.
3
1 Swt16
Pittsburgh
3
1 E8
Arizona St.
3
1-3 no deep
Mississippi St.
3
1-3 no deep
Boise St.
3
0-3
Colgate
3
0-3
Louisiana
3
0-3
North Carolina St.
3
0-3
San Diego St.
3
0-3
Charleston
2
0-2
VCU
2
0-1*
Northern Kentucky
1
2-1 no deep
Oral Roberts
1
2-1 no deep
Texas A&M-CC
1
0-1
Arizona
1
1 Swt16
Drake
1
1-1 no deep
Indiana
1
1-1 no deep
Memphis
1
1-1 no deep
Northwestern
1
1-1 no deep
Utah St.
1
1-1 no deep
Kent St.
1
0-1
Missouri
1
0-1
Montana St.
1
0-1
Princeton
1
0-1
UCSB
1
0-1
Kennesaw St.
0
0
UNC Asheville
0
0
Duke
0
0
Fairleigh Dickinson
0
0
Florida Atlantic
0
0
Furman
0
0
Howard
0
0
Kansas St.
0
0
Penn St.
0
0
SE Missouri St.
0
0
Texas
0
0
*Mike Rhoades (VCU) couldn’t play in 2022 tourney due to the Rams having issues with Covid.
3 or more Upperclassmen in Starting 5
Almost every team in the Dance has 3 or more seniors and juniors starting, due to Covid, and the NCAA granting an additional year of eligibility. Only the following teams fail to meet this criteria.
Alabama
Connecticut
Creighton
Duke
Florida Atlantic
Miami (Fla)
USC
VCU
Note that two of the key contenders, Alabama and Connecticut do not meet this criteria. Kentucky won the 2012 National Championship without an upperclassmen starting.
Two Front Court Starters Combine for 20 PPG/12 RPG
A team with two starters combining for 20 & 12 is a team that tends to score the most consistently in the NCAA Tournament. These players can get a lot of garbage points, which in the Big Dance, is vital.
Team
20:12
Alabama
YES
Arizona
YES
Auburn
YES
Connecticut
YES
Creighton
YES
Duke
YES
Gonzaga
YES
Houston
YES
Indiana
YES
Iona
YES
Iowa
YES
Kansas
YES
Kansas St.
YES
Kentucky
YES
Louisiana
YES
Maryland
YES
Memphis
YES
Mississippi St.
YES
Montana St.
YES
Nevada
YES
Oral Roberts
YES
Princeton
YES
Providence
YES
Purdue
YES
Texas A&M-CC
YES
Texas Southern
YES
UCSB
YES
UNC Asheville
YES
Utah St.
YES
VCU
YES
Xavier
YES
Arizona St.
NO
Arkansas
NO
Baylor
NO
Boise St.
NO
Charleston
NO
Colgate
NO
Drake
NO
Fairleigh Dickinson
NO
Florida Atlantic
NO
Furman
NO
Grand Canyon
NO
Howard
NO
Illinois
NO
Iowa St.
NO
Kennesaw St.
NO
Kent St.
NO
Marquette
NO
Miami (Fla)
NO
Michigan St.
NO
Missouri
NO
North Carolina St.
NO
Northern Kentucky
NO
Northwestern
NO
Penn St.
NO
Pittsburgh
NO
Saint Mary’s
NO
San Diego St.
NO
SE Missouri St.
NO
TCU
NO
Tennessee
NO
Texas
NO
Texas A&M
NO
UCLA
NO
USC
NO
Vermont
NO
Virginia
NO
West Virginia
NO
3 Or More Double Figure Scorers
Team
DBL
Arizona
5
Boise St.
5
Charleston
5
Colgate
5
Creighton
5
Iowa
5
Providence
5
Utah St.
5
Arkansas
4
Auburn
4
Baylor
4
Fairleigh Dickinson
4
Furman
4
Gonzaga
4
Houston
4
Kansas
4
Kentucky
4
Marquette
4
Maryland
4
Miami (Fla)
4
North Carolina St.
4
Pittsburgh
4
Saint Mary’s
4
Texas
4
Texas Southern
4
West Virginia
4
Xavier
4
Alabama
3
Connecticut
3
Florida Atlantic
3
Grand Canyon
3
Howard
3
Iona
3
Kansas St.
3
Kennesaw St.
3
Kent St.
3
Louisiana
3
Michigan St.
3
Missouri
3
Montana St.
3
Nevada
3
Oral Roberts
3
Penn St.
3
Princeton
3
SE Missouri St.
3
TCU
3
Tennessee
3
Texas A&M-CC
3
UCLA
3
VCU
3
Vermont
3
Virginia
3
Arizona St.
2
Drake
2
Duke
2
Illinois
2
Indiana
2
Iowa St.
2
Memphis
2
Northern Kentucky
2
Northwestern
2
Purdue
2
Texas A&M
2
UCSB
2
UNC Asheville
2
USC
2
Mississippi St.
1
San Diego St.
1
Who Has “The Look?”
Unlike most years, the 2023 edition of March Madness has NO single team that stands out above all others. A half-dozen teams possess many of the criteria that past national champions had, but none have across-the-board positive resumes.
If you have read prior publications here, you know how leery I am of teams coached by Gene Keady proteges, and Big Ten teams in general. The style of play in that league, especially with Purdue, has not been the way to win national titles for many years. Michigan State was the last Big Ten team to win the championship 23 years ago, the only time a Big Ten team has cut down the nets in the last 31 tournaments. It will eventually happen again one year, but picking the Boilermakers to win six games with little ability to force turnovers, get cheap fast break points, and consistently hit the 3-point shot makes it hard for us to see Purdue going all the way.
Connecticut has a lot in its favor, namely the top three most important criteria. But, the Huskies did not win their regular season or conference tournament championship. Marquette has issues with their R+T Ratings. Alabama is young and inexperienced, but the Crimson Tide fits almost all other criteria. However, their offensive efficiency is a tad lower than what a typical national champion has.
Let’s go through the bracket and see how the individual matchups look. That will find us our choice this year. You may see different results based on the criteria above, so don’t take our picks as Gospel. We tend to choose very few upsets until the later rounds when the criteria shows the lower seed to be superior. We will list the teams we feel have a chance to upset favored teams in the early rounds.
Round of 64
Winner
Loser
Alabama
Play-In Winner (TAMCC)
West Virginia
Maryland
San Diego St.
Charleston
Virginia
Furman (Upset possible)
Creighton
North Carolina St.
Baylor
UCSB
Utah St.
Missouri (Bad R+T)
Arizona
Princeton
Purdue
Play-in Winner (FDU)
Memphis
Florida Atlantic
Duke
Oral Roberts (close game?)
Tennessee
Louisiana (close game?)
Kentucky
Providence (Upset possible)
Kansas St.
Montana St.
Michigan St.
USC (close game)
Marquette
Vermont
Houston
Northern Kentucky
Auburn
Iowa
Miami (Fla)
Drake (exciting game!)
Indiana
Kent St.
Play-in Winner (Pittsburgh)
Iowa St. (Upset)
Xavier
Kennesaw St.
Texas A&M
Penn St. (neg. R+T)
Texas
Colgate
Kansas
Howard
Arkansas
Illinois
Saint Mary’s
VCU
Connecticut
Iona
TCU
Play-in Winner (Nevada)
Gonzaga
Grand Canyon
Boise St.
Northwestern
UCLA
UNC Asheville
Round of 32
Winner
Loser
Alabama
West Virginia (close game?)
San Diego St.
Virginia
Baylor
Creighton (close game)
Arizona
Utah St.
Purdue
Memphis
Duke
Tennessee
Kentucky
Kansas St.
Marquette
Michigan St. (close game)
Houston
Auburn
Miami (Fla)
Indiana (close game)
Xavier
Pittsburgh
Texas
Texas A&M (close game)
Kansas
Arkansas
Connecticut
Saint Mary’s
Gonzaga
TCU (close game)
UCLA
Boise St.
Sweet 16
Winner
Loser
Alabama
San Diego St.
Arizona
Baylor
Purdue
Duke (could be brutal)
Marquette
Kentucky
Miami (Fla)
Houston (Sasser injury???)
Texas
Xavier
Connecticut
Kansas (close Game)
Gonzaga
UCLA (close game)
If Marcus Sasser is healthy, Houston would be favored, but my information tells me he will not be healthy by this time. UCLA also has multiple injury issues.
Elite 8
Winner
Loser
Arizona
Alabama
Purdue
Marquette (R+T favors PU)
Texas
Miami (Fla)
Connecticut
Gonzaga
Arizona gets the nod over Alabama due to having more experienced, game-tested veterans, while Alabama is led by underclassmen. Marquette lacks the R+T rating to win a close game, and we can’t see them blowing Purdue off the floor, which is how they would have to win this game. Texas and Miami are evenly matched, but the Longhorns have just a little better criteria. Gonzaga’s defense isn’t as strong as in recent years, even though their offense is the best in the nation. UConn has much better defensive criteria and almost as good offensive criteria.
Final Four
Winner
Loser
Purdue
Arizona
Connecticut
Texas
It comes down to the two teams that best fit the most important part of the criteria. Neither the Boilermakers nor the Huskies have a typical national champions resume, but these two teams best fit that criteria.
Purdue’s main Achilles’ Heel is their inability to force turnovers against opponents. They have to buck a long trend and win half-court possession games, something that has not worked in the Final Four since Bobby Knight led Indiana to two championships in the 1980s. However, Purdue’s R+T ratings combined with their efficiency and schedule strength overrule the other liabilities. We don’t personally have total faith in the Boilermakers breaking the 43-year curse of Keadyball, where PU can win playing a halfcourt game against regular season oppoents, but just like Moneyball hasn’t worked for the Oakland A’s in the playoffs, Keadyball does not work in the NCAA Tournament. If it is every going to work, it’s going to work this year, when the Boilermakers have the most dominant player in the nation. Note that PU had the most dominant player in the nation in 1994 in Glenn Robinson, and the Boilermakers were ousted in the Elite 8 (the only Elite 8 appearance since Lee Rose lead PU to the 1980 Final Four).
Connecticut has better metrics than Texas, but the Huskies won neither the Big East regular season or conference tournament championship. National champions tend to win at least one if not both. The last team to cut the nets without cutting them in the regular season was (wait for it)–Connecticut in 2014.
National Championship Game
Winner
Loser
Purdue
Connecticut
Can the curse be broken? If you saw the final minutes of the Big Ten Championship Game on Sunday, you saw a Boilermaker team that wilted against Penn State’s full court press defense. The Nittany Lions don’t have a fantastic pressure defensive team, so a team that can play a havoc style of defense might be able to take Purdue out of its game plan. Additionally, Purdue has been weaker than average from behind the 3-point line. They keep winning because they have the top player in the nation in the paint. A dominant big man has not led his team to the national championship in many years, and there are many examples of said post player’s team losing to a quicker, smaller team.
There are two parts to this equation. There has to be a team good enough to exploit the power team’s liabilities. What we see here is an ideal draw for the Boilermakers. The teams that can best employ the tactics needed to stop Purdue are mostly on the other side of the bracket, and the few in their bracket that might be able to stop PU are likely to be eliminated before their line on the bracket coincided with Purdue’s line on the bracket. Additionally, you can know for sure that Purdue has spent extra time in practice preparing for opposing teams to try to pressure Purdue’s guards. Braden Smith and Mason Gillis will need to step up and play their best ball of the season, and that is not a given, but we cannot see Purdue succumbing to the press like they did against Penn State. If teams don’t practice pressing constantly, they aren’t going to be that good using the defense, and if Purdue can break some presses for easy baskets, that ploy will be discontinued.
Connecticut has something going in their favor, but it is quirky. Twice before, the Huskies won the national championship in outlier style. In point of fact, their two national championships in 2011 and 2014 are the only outliers to the PiRate Ratings Criteria in the 21st Century. They are similar in style to Purdue. Don’t count on the Huskies to force opposing offenses out of their normal style of play with pressure defense.
So, there you have it. We are going against our personal biases and relying on the metrics, and the metrics say that Purdue is going to end their curse. Maybe it is 2004 again, but will any Purdue player appear with a bloody sock? The Boston Red Sox broke their 86-year curse by dominating in the new 21st Century metrics. Purdue has the 7th best offensive efficiency and 26th best defensive efficiency ratings with a schedule strength almost nine points above average.
Connecticut has the 6th best offensive efficiency and the 18th best defensive efficiency with a schedule strength that is eight points above average. You can’t go wrong picking the Huskies to go all the way, and if you have two choices to fill out a bracket, you might consider splitting your vote with Purdue and Connecticut. But, officially, our choice to cut the nets is Purdue.
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
The Pi-Rate Ratings 