The All-Encompassing Master Bracketnomics Paradigm–2021

Hello PiRate Ratings fans.  We here never take for granted just how intelligent the typical reader of this site is.  The contributors to this site are all geriatric lovers of mathematics, basically statistics.  Personally, I (The Captain of the Ship) learned to love math at an early age by calculating the Earned Run Averages of Sandy Koufax, Juan Marichal, Dean Chance, and Gary Peters at a time when they were trying to stay under 2.00.  When Bob Gibson had that miraculous 1968 season, I convinced my classmates to get into baseball just for the stats.  This love for statistics led to me becoming a sabermetric baseball analyst in my 50’s, where I worked for a Major League team for a few years.  Additionally, it led to my designing an advanced strategy baseball game called, “Sabertooth Baseball.”  If you are into tabletop baseball and want something more than a generic game that leaves out half of the strategies in real baseball, then check out our sister site, https://sabertoothbaseball.wordpress.com , where you can find a link to purchase the game online for the ridiculously low opening day sale of $7.  We send you a Zip file of player cards, charts, directions, ballparks, and even managerial strategies used by the team.  You print them out and use dice to play the game.  Other games might cost $75-100 to purchase a boxed game.  Printing the card yourself saves you more than $60, and you can keep the charts and rules open on a computer if you don’t want to print them.

Back to basketball and the real meat of today’s publication.  The PiRate Ratings have been isolating technical data and back-testing our theories as far back as there are statistics for college basketball.  Over the years, we have isolated certain data that serves as an NCAA Tournament team “fingerprint.”  We have noticed patterns where teams that made the Final 4 and won the championship shared similar stat profiles.  As basketball analytics came to be, we found new data that made the fingerprint much more accurate.  For several years, we enjoyed incredible success picking brackets, and many of our readers commented that they won their bracket contests.  Included in our selections were crazy things like picking George Mason to sneak into the Sweet 16, possibly make it to the Elite 8, and to actually be a dark horse to make the Final 4.  When they did exactly that, somebody at one of the top newspapers in the US the next year linked to us, and our site crashed for the only time in its existence.

In other years, we discovered negative data that told us that certain teams were early upset possibilities.  We mentioned more than once that Georgetown and Vanderbilt, two highly-seeded teams, were likely to lose in the opening games to lower-ranked teams, because of our now famous “R+T” rating.  The Hoyas and Commodores both had negative R+T ratings those years, and they both lost just like we predicted.  When the best R+T teams won the national championship three consecutive years, you noticed and began putting the pressure on us to replicate our success.

Alas, like a hot player at the horse track, our system began to falter.  It wasn’t the statistics that led to a swoon; it was the way the game was played.  Basketball analytics began to affect the game the same way that Money Ball affected baseball.  The Four Factors became the Weighted On Base Average of basketball.  And, then the NCAA changed the shot clock from 35 to 30 seconds.  That little five second change greatly altered the way basketball was played.  

Last year, we spent hour after hour re-tooling our system.  We didn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater, but we altered how the data would be used.  New back-testing showed that our new data might be as accurate of a predictor as the original data.  We were three days away from releasing the tutorial, when THUD, the season came to an end four days before Selection Sunday.

It looks like the Indiana Extravaganza will take place in 2021.  So, we can finally reveal to you our updated Bracketnomics for 2021.  After you read this, you have earned a PhD in Bracket-picking (or maybe in wasting time.)  Please enjoy this.  It is still experimental, so please do not use this information for potential financial investment purposes.  A free bracket-picking contest is okay.

Criteria #1: Offensive Efficiency, Defensive Efficiency, and True Shooting Percentage

This should be obvious.  The object of the game is to score points and prevent the other team from scoring points.  The way to score points is to put the ball in the basket, and the way to prevent points from being scored is to force the other team to not put the ball in the basket.  Because there is a way to score one point, two points, and three points, an overall all-encompassing percentage that includes points scored all three ways has been created.  It is called “True Shooting Percentage.”  Its formula is: (100 * Pts) / (2 * (FGA + (.475 * FTA)))

If a team scores 85 points and takes 65 field goal attempts and 25 free throw attempts, then plugging in the formula:  (100 * 85) / (2 * (65 + (.475 * 25))) = 55.3%

When a team has a true shooting percentage offense that is 10% or better than their defensive true shooting percentage, you are looking at a gem.

More importantly, there are offensive and defensive efficiency ratings adjusted by factoring schedule strength.  Look at the top 20 in both categories, making note of any team that appears in both offensive and defensive efficiency.  When a team appears in both top 20’s, they have Final 4 potential.  If a team appears in the top 10 in both, they have to be considered a strong contender to cut the nets down when they play “One Final Moment.”

If a team is in the top 10 in one category but not in the top 50 in the other, this team is good enough to get past the Sweet 16, and usually one Final Four team will have this characteristic, but only twice in the 21st Century (both times Connecticut) has the overall National Champion been outside the top 20 in both offensive and defensive efficiency.  For what it’s worth, the Huskies moved into the top 20 during the tournament.

If you have to give one of the two efficiency stats more weight than the other, it should be the offense and not the defense like one might think.  Basketball is an offensive game.  Baseball is a defensive game.  For our purposes, a team with an offensive efficiency in the top 10 and a defensive efficiency in the top 20 that has an above average schedule strength is pure gold.

Criteria #2: Experienced and Clutch Players

It is rare for a team loaded with freshmen and sophomores that have no key upperclassmen in their playing rotation to make it to the Final Four.  Also, there needs to be a go-to player that can put his team on his shoulders and score the ultra-high leverage points.  What we are looking for here is a roster where at least one of the top 8 players is an experienced upperclassman, preferably with past NCAA Tournament experience.  We are also looking for a player that wants the ball with his team down one point and 10 seconds left in the game, or it can be a trio of guys where any one of the three could hit the last-second shot, even if they don’t generate the big headlines.

Criteria #3: Frontcourt Hero

In recent years, hitting from downtown has been the popular way to win games in the regular season.  We used to tell you to throw out the perimeter team as one that could never advance deep into the tournament, but times have changed.  Three-point shooting is now the base on balls of basketball.  However, the inside force is still the slugging percentage of basketball.  For a team to win six times after the Ides of March, they must have at least one inside force that contributes a double figure scoring average and a good number of average rebounds.  We personally look for a forward or center that averages 12 or more points per game and 7 or more rebounds per game, or two inside men that combine for 20 points and 12 rebounds per game.  If the team has one player that averages 14 points and 5 rebounds per game, and another player that averages 8 points and 7 rebounds per game, this is satisfactory.  That qualifies for enough inside force to win a close game when the opponent has the outside shooting advantage.

Criteria #4: Balance

This is an alternative to the team where one player can carry them to win after win.  If a team does not have a stud NBA Lottery pick on its roster, if they have a balanced team where four or more players average double figure scoring, it can be hard to shut them all down in a game.  One of the four is likely to have a hot hand.  It may not be as immediate, but sometimes the balanced team has the advantage if the one-star team’s star has his one off night of the season in the Sweet 16.  

Criteria #5: A head coach with NCAA Tournament experience, preferably winning Tournament experience

If the coach of a tournament team has taken a past team to the Final Four, he’s in elite company.  Treat this coach like royalty.  If the coach has taken a past team to the Elite 8, he’s almost as royal.  If a coach has taken past teams to multiple Sweet 16’s, then these coaches deserve bonus points.

Criteria #6: Strength of Schedule

A team from one of the bottom 10 conferences might go 28-3 in the regular season, and possess all of the above criteria above (maybe not criteria #5).  But, this team has probably played 90% of its games against Quadrant 3 and Quadrant 4 opponents, maybe all of its games against the bottom half.

Meanwhile, another team from one of the top three leagues might have stats that make you wonder why this team was invited to the Dance.  Schedule strength is the difference.  Annually, a team with a record like 19-14 from the ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, or SEC gets an invitation to the tournament and wins a tournament game, while a team that went 29-4 and lost in the championship game of their low-major conference tournament is put in the NIT field, and a 30-4 low-major conference champion loses without really competing in their game.  

To win the NCAA Championship, a team must have defeated quality opposition and not just teams ranked lower than 250.  No team in the modern era has won the national championship with a schedule strength outside of the top 40.  There have been multiple #1 seeds with schedule strengths below #40 that did not make it to the Final 4, and every one that made it to the Final 4 failed to win the National Championship.  Butler in 2010 came within a couple inches of winning the title with a schedule strength outside the top 40.

Teams with weaker strengths of schedule can make it to the Final 4, but not very frequently.  To win four games in the Dance, a team usually has to be battle-tested.  If a mid-major has a schedule strength between 50 and 100, they have to be really strong in other criteria to pick to go to the Final 4.  In 2018, when Gonzaga advanced to the National Championship Game, their strength of schedule was in this range.  Butler’s strength of schedule was also in this range when they twice advanced to the Championship Game.  Loyola of Chicago just barely qualified.

Criteria #7: A Regular Season or Conference Tournament Champion

Rarely does a team win the national championship after not winning either their regular season or conference tournament championship.  It happens, but the conference championship and conference tournament championship teams have already proven they can win games when the money is on the line.

Criteria #8: Three-point Shooting Percentage

In the past, teams that relied on the three-point shot could be counted out after the Sweet 16.  That is no longer the case.  But, shooting three pointers is not the key; making them is the key.  It doesn’t matter how many of them a team takes, the percentage is the key.  Look for teams that hit 3 out of every 8, or to round it to a whole number, better than 37%.  3 of 8 from behind the arc is better than 5 of 9 inside.

Criteria #9: Offensive Rebounding Percentage

One would think that a rebound is a rebound, but offensive rebounds lead to more points than defensive rebounds, obviously because an offensive rebound is made within shooting range of a team’s basket, while a defensive rebound is more than 50 feet away from a team’s basket.

The key number here is also 37%.  If a team gets offensive rebounds on 37% or more of its missed shots, they are going to be tough to beat in the Big Dance.  Many times, close games are decided by key offensive rebounds in the final two minutes, even the final possession of games.  If a team has made it to the Sweet 16, if they can crash the offensive boards, they are dangerous.

Criteria #10: Defensive 2-Point Field Goal Percentage

After telling you that three-point shooting has become the rage these days, we’ve now mentioned having an inside scoring force, the ability to hit the offensive glass, and now we tell you not to look at three-point shooting percentage defense.  The ability to stop the close shots is much more important in tournament games.  About 60% of all field goal attempts are two-point attempts, and remember that an easy shot inside of five feet from the basket is still more important than an open three-point shot.  If a team has weak inside defense, and the opponent hits 10 baskets inside five feet of the basket, they are likely to consistently have a higher true shooting percentage than the team that averages eight made three-pointers per game.  Over the long haul, the three-point shooting magicians may have higher true shooting percentages, but their chances of having six consecutive higher true shooting percentages are much lower than the team that can get inside of five feet consistently and hit 12 of 18 shots in this crip zone .  

Look for a team with a defensive two-point shooting percentage lower than 45%.  Opponents will not be able to consistently score points against these teams.

Criteria #11: Free Throw Rate

We used to pan great free throw shooting teams, because they never won national championships.  In fact, for years, the national champion was always a sub-70% free throw shooting team.  None of the great UCLA teams during their 10-title run in 12 years shot 70% at the foul line.  We showed for years how the power team that may have averaged 18 of 27 at the foul line only lost three points to the top free throw percentage team that went 21 of 27.  These sub-70% free throw shooting teams easily made up that three points and more by controlling the boards against the finesse teams.

Free Throw Rate doesn’t look at free throw percentage.  Drawing fouls on the defense is more important, and we’ve been late coming to this side of belief.  We believed for years that free throws made per 100 possessions was a more important way to measure free throw rate than the standard Free Throw Attempts divided by Field Goal Attempts.  But, the key part of this stat is getting to the foul line more than it is making the foul shots.  Obviously, it is not great to fail to score at the charity stripe, but the essence here is still the same; if a team has to make foul shots to win games, they aren’t going to do so six times in the NCAA Tournament.  But, if they get to the foul line with higher frequency, it means two things much more important than scoring free throws.  First, the opponents are likely to see key players sitting on the bench with foul trouble.  More importantly, a team that gets to the foul line frequently probably is too talented offensively for average and above average defenses to handle.  Why are most fouls committed?  They are committed when a defensive player cannot adequately guard the offensive player.

The key stat to look for is a team with a FT Rate in excess of 37%.  Defensively, look for a team that has a FT Rate lower than 31%.  Those two stats tell you which offenses are dangerous and which defenses are tournament tough.

Criteria #12: The Old PiRate Data Still Matters

The old mainstay PiRate Ratings data still matters.  Those stats include:A scoring margin of 10 or more points for Final Four potential, and a scoring margin of 8 or more points for Sweet 16 and Elite 8 teams.  More than 80% of Final 4 teams across time have scoring margins of 10 points or more.  Don’t expect a team with a scoring margin of a few points to win four games in the NCAA Tournament.

A: Field Goal % margin.  Look for teams that have a regular FG% that is 7.5% better than their Defensive FG%.  If that number is 10% or more, this is a tough team.  A team with a 48% FG% and 38% defensive FG% is a gem.

B: Winning % away from home.  If a team won 75% of their games not played at home, they are tournament ready.  If a 25-8 team went 17-0 at home and 8-8 away from home, this team is a pretender.  A team has to win six consecutive games away from home to cut the nets, so don’t look at a .500 team away from home to beat six quality opponents.

C: A lengthy winning streak during the season.  Do you really think a team that never won more than three consecutive games during the season will now win six in a row against better competition?  Most national champions had either a winning streak of 10 or more games or multiple winning streaks of six or more games.

Criteria #13: R+T ©

We saved this one for last.  It is our personal creation.  Way back in the early days of the career of one of our favorite college basketball analysts ever, Clark Kellogg, we heard him mention the term, “Spurtability.”  He explained that teams with spurtability tended to win more NCAA Tournament games than others.  A team that could go on a quick scoring run in a short time frequently won NCAA Tournament games.

Then, we remembered back to our youth, when the NCAA Tournament was the UCLA Invitational.  When UCLA beat Duke in the 1964 National Championship Game, they broke open a close game with a 16-0 run in just two and a half minutes!  This was before the three-point shot existed.  They scored 16 points in about 150 seconds by forcing Duke to turn the ball over against their scary 2-2-1 Zone Press, and they converted over and over with fast break baskets.  The game was over after this.  That wasn’t the only time that year that 30-0 UCLA did that.  Coach John Wooden, in a lecture given to amateur coaches in the 1980’s, said that the 1964 team had at least one run like this in all 30 games that year.

Take two teams evenly matched playing in the Elite 8.  Both are highly ranked and deserving of that ranking.  Both are among the top teams in both offensive and defensive efficiency, and both played tough schedules.  With six minutes to go in the game Team A leads Team B by four points, when Team B goes on a 12-2 run in the next two minutes, forcing Team A to call time out, as they now trail by six points with four minutes to go.  Team B holds on for the win.

Can we predict the probability that one team will enjoy a spurt like this, and the other team will not?  We think most teams can enjoy a spurt like this, but we believe we can estimate which teams have the best chance to go on a decisive game-winning spurt.  That’s what the R+T rating calculates.

How does a team go on a big scoring run in short time?  We will tell you up front that a 16-2 run rarely comes about from seven regular possessions by both teams, where the 16-point team scores four two-point baskets, two three-point baskets, and two free throws, while the other team scores just one basket and misses six other times down the floor.

The spurt almost always happens due to a combination of turnovers forced, especially steals, and controlling the boards at both ends.  Getting multiple second and third shots on offense and allowing one shot per possession on defense leads to these checkmate spurts.

Looking at a teams’ stats, winning the rebounding and turnover stats, or what some call the “Hustle Stats,” predicts a team’s chances of having a big spurt.  All that’s left is to come up with a formula for Spurtability, and that’s what our R+T rating is.  Here it is:

(R * 2) + (S * 0.5) + (6 – Opp. S) + T

To explain: R = rebounding margin; S = average steals per game (and Opp. S = how many steals per game given up); and T = Turnover Margin.  Remember that fewer turnovers per game than committed is positive turnover margin, and more turnovers per game than forced is negative turnover margin.

Example:  Let’s Say that State U averages 38.6 rebounds per game and gives up 34.3 rebounds per game.  Their rebound margin is 4.3.  State averages 7.8 steals per game, and opponents steal the ball from State 5.1 times per game.  State averages 12.4 turnovers a game and forces 13.9 turnovers per game for a turnover margin of 1.5.  Now we have all the variables we need to calculate State’s R+T number.

(4.3 * 2) + (7.8 * 0.5) + (6 – 5.1) + 1.5  = 14.9

What this shows us is that State U has an R+T of 14.9 or an average of about 15 points per game in spurtability.

Is this good?  It is rather good but not champion good.  In most years, a handful of teams in the NCAA Tournament will have R+T ratings above 20.  In several years, the team with the highest R+T rating among those teams from the Power Conferences has won the national championship.

One more thing about R+T ratings. Any time a team has a negative R+T rating, throw them out immediately, even if they are a big-name team from a power conference.  No spurtability teams that have to win games by consistently winning more possessions in a half-court game are rarely going to make the Sweet 16.  One of the reasons the PiRate Ratings gained popularity was with our ability to predict higher-seed first round losers just by their having negative R+T ratings.  Two schools, Georgetown and Vanderbilt, earned three NCAA Tournament bids in an overlapping era between 2008 and 2013, and each time the Hoyas and Commodores had negative R+T ratings.  We picked against them in the first round in all six cases and went 6-0!  Georgetown lost as a #3 seed to Ohio U in 2010.  In 2011, they lost as a #6 seed to #11 VCU, in a game where the Rams R+T was 20+ points better.  In 2013, they were a 3-seed once again and lost to Florida Gulf Coast.

Vanderbilt had negative R+T ratings in 2008, 2010, and 2011.  In 2008 as a 4-seed, they lost to Siena.  In 2010, as a 4-seed, they lost to Murray St.  In 2011 as a 5-seed, they lost to Richmond.

On the other hand, in 2017, North Carolina finished the regular season ranked #6 in the nation with seven losses.  Villanova, Gonzaga, Arizona, Kentucky, and Kansas were rated ahead of the Tar Heels in the polls, and most so-called experts were going with Kentucky, Kansas, and Villanova as the favorites to win the championship.  We begged to differ.  North Carolina had one of the highest R+T ratings since we began calculating the rating.  It was almost 30.  We picked the Tar Heels to win the title, and they did that by going on frequent scoring spurts in those six games.  The difference in the championship game was the R+T rating, as Carolina enjoyed huge advantages in rebounding and turnover rates.  Gonzaga clearly had the better shooting and free throw shooting that night.

Bracketnomics 2019: Picking Your Brackets

Welcome to Bracketnomics 2019, the class that will earn you the coveted BM Degree, the Bachelor of Madness.

Because, we have a ton of stats to reveal tonight, we will limit the prose. If you need a tutorial about what Bracketnomics is, then refer to the following link:

https://piratings.wordpress.com/2019/03/16/bracketnomics-2019/

We received a handful of well-thought comments to our sister page suggesting a few things that we agree with, so you will get the kitchen sink of stats this year. Because of Robert M in New Orleans, Joel S, in Orlando, and our good friend and numbers’ savant Brandon W in San Berdoo, California, we are bringing back the old Bracketnomics data combined with the new. For what it’s worth, this year, the old data and new data come to basically the same conclusions.

A Brief Primer on the Old Criteria have us look for teams meeting these criteria

1. A double-digit scoring margin, and a secondary reward to teams with a scoring margin of 8.0 to 9.99.

2. A field goal percentage margin (FG%-Def FG%) in excess of 8%

3. A combination of rebounding margin and turnover margin combined that exceed:
A. A rebound margin of 5.0 or better no matter what the turnover margin
B. A rebound margin of 3.0 to 4.9 with positive turnover margin
C. A rebound margin of 0.1 to 2.9 with with a turnover margin of 3.0 or better
D. A turnover margin of 5.0 or better no matter what the rebound margin

4. A team that averages 7.5 or more steals per game

5. An Old R+T Rating of 10.0 or better, 5.0 or better to get from 68 to 16.
The old R+T rating was (R + (0.2 * S) + (1.2 * T)
R is rebound margin
S is steals/game
T is turnover margin

6. A Strength of Schedule in excess of 0.5500 (back then using the CBS SOS)

The old method was quite accurate for many years, but the game changed when the 3-point shot became a lot more important. The Golden State Warrior effect, actually advanced basketball metrics, showed how important total shooting percentage was and not just field goal percentage. It is a no-brainer that a team that shoots 100% of its shots inside the arc and hits 53% is worse off than a team that shoots 100% of its shots from behind the arc and hits 36%. The 53% team will score .53 points per shot attempt, while the 36% team will score .54 points per shot attempt.

The Current Method uses this data
1. Strength of Schedule
2. True Shooting % Margin
3. R+T Rating

The Strength of Schedule is now calculated by our own metric, and the current R+T Rating is:
(R + (0.5 * S) + (6 – Opp S) + T

Both the old and the new method warned about any team with a negative R+T number as they were most prone to being upset very early in the tournament, and nobody with a negative R+T number ever made the Final Four, and only one ever made the Elite 8. R+T estimates extra scoring opportunities, and they lead to game-winning scoring spurts.

Now, let’s show you some stats. Here are the raw stats for all 68 teams.

Team	SOS	TSMarg	R+T	PPG Marg	FG% Marg
Abilene Christian	42.42	4.29%	5.9	11.4	4.4
Arizona St.	55.20	2.27%	6.8	4.7	3.4
Auburn	59.71	1.85%	3.9	11.5	1.5
Baylor	58.27	1.28%	9.1	4.5	1.8
Belmont	48.60	9.68%	6.0	13.5	7.4
Bradley	48.52	1.73%	-0.5	1.6	2.3
Buffalo	53.41	6.00%	10.3	14.4	4.5
Central Florida	54.86	9.52%	2.2	7.8	6.8
Cincinnati	55.48	2.94%	12.9	9.5	2.6
Colgate	47.05	5.65%	3.2	5.8	4.6
Duke	63.09	10.32%	12.1	15.9	8.2
Fairleigh-Dickinson	43.31	5.19%	-2.4	4.1	3.6
Florida	59.80	1.17%	-0.5	4.7	0.4
Florida St.	59.87	3.52%	8.3	7.8	3.4
Gardner-Webb	45.44	8.83%	-1.8	7.8	7.6
Georgia St.	51.14	5.06%	-9.6	4.2	4.2
Gonzaga	56.14	17.68%	14.3	23.7	14.3
Houston	55.02	8.04%	13.6	14.4	7.7
Iona	45.43	3.14%	-5.4	1.2	0.8
Iowa	58.09	4.52%	-0.4	4.7	0.7
Iowa St.	59.42	7.64%	1.7	9.1	5.8
Kansas	62.55	5.52%	1.9	5.3	5.4
Kansas St.	58.91	1.35%	3.5	6.6	1.7
Kentucky	60.54	9.48%	15.4	11.3	7.5
Liberty	46.27	9.22%	5.2	13.2	7.6
Louisville	61.61	6.10%	2.9	6.7	2.9
LSU	58.56	3.18%	10.1	8.4	2.6
Marquette	57.57	8.85%	2.4	8.6	5.7
Maryland	59.76	7.39%	8.6	6.2	5.7
Michigan	60.07	8.41%	3.2	11.8	5.1
Michigan St.	61.44	13.83%	11.7	13.3	10.8
Minnesota	59.44	1.81%	1.1	1.6	0.3
Mississippi St.	59.59	4.34%	6.2	7.2	3.5
Montana	46.25	5.41%	4.7	8.5	6.6
Murray St.	47.53	10.65%	7.8	15.5	8.6
Nevada	52.55	9.02%	7.0	14.0	5.7
New Mexico St.	48.05	4.78%	18.7	14.0	4.1
North Carolina	62.61	5.49%	17.4	13.2	5.1
North Carolina Central	39.47	3.50%	8.2	5.1	2.2
North Dakota St.	47.57	3.42%	-6.1	1.0	-0.5
Northeastern	51.11	6.69%	-1.9	5.8	2.5
Northern Kentucky	46.39	6.56%	7.1	10.3	6.4
Ohio St.	59.18	2.47%	-0.4	3.4	1.7
Oklahoma	60.26	4.64%	-2.5	3.0	4.3
Old Dominion	48.87	1.33%	8.4	5.4	2
Ole Miss	58.28	3.18%	2.8	5.0	1.8
Oregon	55.13	3.77%	4.6	7.6	4.8
Prairie View	43.07	-2.66%	-3.8	2.5	-1.7
Purdue	60.84	2.31%	11.4	9.4	2.5
Saint Louis	51.40	-0.81%	11.2	3.4	0.9
Saint Mary’s	55.33	5.13%	9.6	8.5	3.8
Seton Hall	58.56	0.50%	-0.6	2.4	1.4
St. John’s	55.79	-0.20%	-8.0	2.7	1.9
Syracuse	59.55	1.59%	-3.7	4.0	2.6
Temple	54.13	0.46%	-3.1	3.6	-0.2
Tennessee	59.65	9.73%	5.3	13.2	9.8
Texas Tech	58.01	9.81%	4.6	13.8	10.4
UC-Irvine	47.26	6.58%	12.2	9.6	7.9
Utah St.	52.13	8.73%	14.8	12.4	8.3
Vermont	46.62	6.53%	8.8	11.3	3.9
Villanova	58.16	4.98%	3.5	7.4	0.5
Virginia	60.36	13.19%	9.6	16.7	9.8
Virginia Commonwealth	53.22	6.84%	2.9	9.8	5.8
Virginia Tech	58.33	8.65%	6.4	11.9	7
Washington	55.60	4.43%	-3.6	5.4	3.9
Wisconsin	60.91	6.47%	-1.2	7.7	6
Wofford	52.24	7.87%	14.3	17.4	6.6
Yale	49.95	8.75%	3.6	7.9	8.7

Team	Reb Marg	TO Marg	Stl/G	Def Stl/G	Old R+T
Abilene Christian	1.2	4.6	8.7	5.6	8.4
Arizona St.	4.8	0.3	6.2	6.3	6.4
Auburn	-0.3	5.5	9.4	5.8	8.1
Baylor	6.3	-0.8	6.1	6.0	6.6
Belmont	3.8	0.9	6.8	6.1	6.3
Bradley	1.2	-0.2	5.4	5.7	2.1
Buffalo	3.9	3.7	7.3	5.1	9.9
Central Florida	2.2	0.4	5.7	5.6	3.8
Cincinnati	5.2	3.1	6.2	3.9	10.1
Colgate	4.0	-0.9	6.2	7.1	4.2
Duke	6.1	1.5	9.5	6.5	9.8
Fairleigh-Dickinson	-0.8	1.3	7.7	6.1	2.2
Florida	-0.6	3.0	7.2	6.1	4.5
Florida St.	4.7	0.8	7.0	5.5	7.0
Gardner-Webb	-0.7	1.8	6.9	5.8	2.8
Georgia St.	-6.1	3.5	8.0	5.0	-0.3
Gonzaga	6.2	3.2	7.5	5.2	11.5
Houston	7.3	0.9	6.4	5.3	9.7
Iona	-2.2	1.0	6.8	5.5	0.3
Iowa	1.0	1.0	6.2	6.7	3.4
Iowa St.	0.7	1.8	7.0	5.2	4.3
Kansas	2.5	-0.2	6.9	6.5	3.6
Kansas St.	1.1	3.6	7.6	6.2	6.9
Kentucky	9.0	-0.1	6.0	5.7	10.1
Liberty	2.2	2.6	6.4	5.2	6.7
Louisville	3.7	-1.0	4.5	5.8	3.4
LSU	5.1	1.8	9.1	6.5	9.1
Marquette	4.4	-2.0	4.8	7.0	3.0
Maryland	8.5	-3.7	4.3	7.1	5.0
Michigan	0.2	3.2	6.1	3.7	5.3
Michigan St.	8.9	-2.6	5.2	6.4	6.9
Minnesota	2.6	-0.6	4.8	6.0	2.8
Mississippi St.	3.8	0.3	8.1	5.9	5.7
Montana	2.6	1.6	6.5	5.6	5.8
Murray St.	3.7	2.1	7.6	5.8	7.7
Nevada	2.4	3.4	6.2	4.5	7.7
New Mexico St.	9.6	1.4	5.6	4.8	12.3
North Carolina	9.7	1.0	7.2	6.7	12.3
North Carolina Central	6.4	-1.9	6.3	6.0	5.4
North Dakota St.	-1.4	-0.6	4.8	5.3	-1.2
Northeastern	0.1	0.0	6.2	5.4	1.4
Northern Kentucky	4.4	0.9	6.2	5.9	6.7
Ohio St.	1.3	-0.2	5.9	5.9	2.3
Oklahoma	0.6	0.0	5.9	6.8	1.8
Old Dominion	4.9	0.4	5.6	4.9	6.6
Ole Miss	1.5	1.9	7.3	6.0	5.3
Oregon	1.8	2.1	7.8	5.2	6.0
Prairie View	-4.4	5.5	8.8	5.1	4.0
Purdue	5.2	2.4	6.5	4.8	9.4
Saint Louis	6.6	0.3	7.1	5.9	8.3
Saint Mary’s	5.6	0.1	6.0	5.0	7.0
Seton Hall	-0.1	1.8	7.0	5.8	3.4
St. John’s	-6.2	5.1	8.8	5.2	1.6
Syracuse	-2.3	3.2	8.3	6.6	3.2
Temple	-2.9	3.7	8.7	5.5	3.2
Tennessee	3.4	1.7	6.0	6.4	6.7
Texas Tech	1.9	3.3	7.3	6.4	7.3
UC-Irvine	7.4	-0.4	5.7	5.2	8.1
Utah St.	8.9	-0.3	6.2	6.1	9.8
Vermont	4.5	2.2	5.6	5.4	8.3
Villanova	2.6	0.7	5.4	5.4	4.5
Virginia	4.9	1.9	5.6	5.2	8.4
Virginia Commonwealth	1.4	2.3	8.0	6.4	5.8
Virginia Tech	2.6	2.7	6.7	5.1	7.2
Washington	-2.5	2.9	9.0	6.1	2.8
Wisconsin	-0.3	1.8	5.1	5.2	2.9
Wofford	6.5	3.1	6.9	5.5	11.6
Yale	4.7	-1.9	5.9	7.0	3.6

What you see above is the entire 68 teams field in alphabetical order.  Let’s break it down by ranking the teams according to the data.

Let’s start with the all-important class ranking.  Here is how the teams rank according to strength of schedule.  Remember that no national champion has had an SOS below 55, and only a small handful in all the years have made the Final Four.  In the years where a team with a sub-55 SOS made the Final Four, they played an opponent in the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 that also had a sub-55 SOS.

Team	SOS
Duke	63.09
North Carolina	62.61
Kansas	62.55
Louisville	61.61
Michigan St.	61.44
Wisconsin	60.91
Purdue	60.84
Kentucky	60.54
Virginia	60.36
Oklahoma	60.26
Michigan	60.07
Florida St.	59.87
Florida	59.80
Maryland	59.76
Auburn	59.71
Tennessee	59.65
Mississippi St.	59.59
Syracuse	59.55
Minnesota	59.44
Iowa St.	59.42
Ohio St.	59.18
Kansas St.	58.91
Seton Hall	58.56
LSU	58.56
Virginia Tech	58.33
Ole Miss	58.28
Baylor	58.27
Villanova	58.16
Iowa	58.09
Texas Tech	58.01
Marquette	57.57
Gonzaga	56.14
St. John’s	55.79
Washington	55.60
Cincinnati	55.48
Saint Mary’s	55.33
Arizona St.	55.20
Oregon	55.13
Houston	55.02
Central Florida	54.86
Temple	54.13
Buffalo	53.41
Virginia Commonwealth	53.22
Nevada	52.55
Wofford	52.24
Utah St.	52.13
Saint Louis	51.40
Georgia St.	51.14
Northeastern	51.11
Yale	49.95
Old Dominion	48.87
Belmont	48.60
Bradley	48.52
New Mexico St.	48.05
North Dakota St.	47.57
Murray St.	47.53
UC-Irvine	47.26
Colgate	47.05
Vermont	46.62
Northern Kentucky	46.39
Liberty	46.27
Montana	46.25
Gardner-Webb	45.44
Iona	45.43
Fairleigh-Dickinson	43.31
Prairie View	43.07
Abilene Christian	42.42
North Carolina Central	39.47

39 of the 68 teams meet the minimum requirement, including Gonzaga and Houston.  Of note, Buffalo, Nevada, Wofford, and Utah State have an SOS in the range where past Cinderella teams have snuck into the Final Four.

Now, let’s look at True Shooting percentage margins.  TS% is calculated thusly:

Points / (2 * FGA + (0.475 * FTA))

True Shooting Percentage Margin is the offensive TS% minus the defensive TS%.

Team	TSMarg
Gonzaga	17.68%
Michigan St.	13.83%
Virginia	13.19%
Murray St.	10.65%
Duke	10.32%
Texas Tech	9.81%
Tennessee	9.73%
Belmont	9.68%
Central Florida	9.52%
Kentucky	9.48%
Liberty	9.22%
Nevada	9.02%
Marquette	8.85%
Gardner-Webb	8.83%
Yale	8.75%
Utah St.	8.73%
Virginia Tech	8.65%
Michigan	8.41%
Houston	8.04%
Wofford	7.87%
Iowa St.	7.64%
Maryland	7.39%
Virginia Commonwealth	6.84%
Northeastern	6.69%
UC-Irvine	6.58%
Northern Kentucky	6.56%
Vermont	6.53%
Wisconsin	6.47%
Louisville	6.10%
Buffalo	6.00%
Colgate	5.65%
Kansas	5.52%
North Carolina	5.49%
Montana	5.41%
Fairleigh-Dickinson	5.19%
Saint Mary’s	5.13%
Georgia St.	5.06%
Villanova	4.98%
New Mexico St.	4.78%
Oklahoma	4.64%
Iowa	4.52%
Washington	4.43%
Mississippi St.	4.34%
Abilene Christian	4.29%
Oregon	3.77%
Florida St.	3.52%
North Carolina Central	3.50%
North Dakota St.	3.42%
Ole Miss	3.18%
LSU	3.18%
Iona	3.14%
Cincinnati	2.94%
Ohio St.	2.47%
Purdue	2.31%
Arizona St.	2.27%
Auburn	1.85%
Minnesota	1.81%
Bradley	1.73%
Syracuse	1.59%
Kansas St.	1.35%
Old Dominion	1.33%
Baylor	1.28%
Florida	1.17%
Seton Hall	0.50%
Temple	0.46%
St. John’s	-0.20%
Saint Louis	-0.81%
Prairie View	-2.66%

Did you notice that some of the teams with the best strength of schedule are high up in the TS% margin too, and vice versa?  Think about this.  If a team played tough competition and consistently shot better overall in these games, they have to be great teams.  The object of the game is to put the ball through the goal and stop the other team from doing this.  If a team consistently did this against other teams on par with what they must face in the Big Dance in order to cut the nets on April 8, they must be the ones to consider.

Now, let’s look at the R+T rating.  This is our secret sauce at the PiRate Ratings, even though it has been revealed in other national media.  However, unless somebody at CBS or ESPN links to this site, no more than 18,000 people will read this post today, so you stand a good chance of being the only person in your pool that has this information.

Team	R+T
New Mexico St.	18.7
North Carolina	17.4
Kentucky	15.4
Utah St.	14.8
Gonzaga	14.3
Wofford	14.3
Houston	13.6
Cincinnati	12.9
UC-Irvine	12.2
Duke	12.1
Michigan St.	11.7
Purdue	11.4
Saint Louis	11.2
Buffalo	10.3
LSU	10.1
Virginia	9.6
Saint Mary’s	9.6
Baylor	9.1
Vermont	8.8
Maryland	8.6
Old Dominion	8.4
Florida St.	8.3
North Carolina Central	8.2
Murray St.	7.8
Northern Kentucky	7.1
Nevada	7.0
Arizona St.	6.8
Virginia Tech	6.4
Mississippi St.	6.2
Belmont	6.0
Abilene Christian	5.9
Tennessee	5.3
Liberty	5.2
Montana	4.7
Oregon	4.6
Texas Tech	4.6
Auburn	3.9
Yale	3.6
Kansas St.	3.5
Villanova	3.5
Michigan	3.2
Colgate	3.2
Louisville	2.9
Virginia Commonwealth	2.9
Ole Miss	2.8
Marquette	2.4
Central Florida	2.2
Kansas	1.9
Iowa St.	1.7
Minnesota	1.1
Iowa	-0.4
Ohio St.	-0.4
Florida	-0.5
Bradley	-0.5
Seton Hall	-0.6
Wisconsin	-1.2
Gardner-Webb	-1.8
Northeastern	-1.9
Fairleigh-Dickinson	-2.4
Oklahoma	-2.5
Temple	-3.1
Washington	-3.6
Syracuse	-3.7
Prairie View	-3.8
Iona	-5.4
North Dakota St.	-6.1
St. John’s	-8.0
Georgia St.	-9.6

Wow!  Look at how many mid-major teams have great R+T Ratings this year.  New Mexico State leads the pack, but their SOS is too low to make them a humongous upset team to make the Final Four.  They are dangerous still.

North Carolina is the top power conference team in this rating, just like the Tar Heels have been twice before when they won the tournament.  Kentucky, Gonzaga, and Houston are up near the top.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have a record number of teams with negative R+T numbers in the 2019 field.  That concerns us a bit.  Normally, 5 or 6 teams will enter the Dance with a negative R+T, and we will pick against all of them.  18 of the 68 teams have negative R+T ratings this year.  What that means is that it is likely that somebody with a negative R+T rating will sneak into the Sweet 16 and then get blown off the floor against a quality team that can go on scoring spurts.  Still, the bottom eight in this rating figure to have a difficult time winning just once in this Dance.

 

Here are how the teams rank in the old criteria data.

Scoring Margin

Team	PPG Marg
Gonzaga	23.7
Wofford	17.4
Virginia	16.7
Duke	15.9
Murray St.	15.5
Buffalo	14.4
Houston	14.4
Nevada	14.0
New Mexico St.	14.0
Texas Tech	13.8
Belmont	13.5
Michigan St.	13.3
Liberty	13.2
Tennessee	13.2
North Carolina	13.2
Utah St.	12.4
Virginia Tech	11.9
Michigan	11.8
Auburn	11.5
Abilene Christian	11.4
Vermont	11.3
Kentucky	11.3
Northern Kentucky	10.3
Virginia Commonwealth	9.8
UC-Irvine	9.6
Cincinnati	9.5
Purdue	9.4
Iowa St.	9.1
Marquette	8.6
Montana	8.5
Saint Mary’s	8.5
LSU	8.4
Yale	7.9
Florida St.	7.8
Central Florida	7.8
Gardner-Webb	7.8
Wisconsin	7.7
Oregon	7.6
Villanova	7.4
Mississippi St.	7.2
Louisville	6.7
Kansas St.	6.6
Maryland	6.2
Colgate	5.8
Northeastern	5.8
Old Dominion	5.4
Washington	5.4
Kansas	5.3
North Carolina Central	5.1
Ole Miss	5.0
Arizona St.	4.7
Iowa	4.7
Florida	4.7
Baylor	4.5
Georgia St.	4.2
Fairleigh-Dickinson	4.1
Syracuse	4.0
Temple	3.6
Ohio St.	3.4
Saint Louis	3.4
Oklahoma	3.0
St. John’s	2.7
Prairie View	2.5
Seton Hall	2.4
Bradley	1.6
Minnesota	1.6
Iona	1.2
North Dakota St.	1.0

FG% Margin

Team	FG% Marg
Gonzaga	14.3
Michigan St.	10.8
Texas Tech	10.4
Tennessee	9.8
Virginia	9.8
Yale	8.7
Murray St.	8.6
Utah St.	8.3
Duke	8.2
UC-Irvine	7.9
Houston	7.7
Gardner-Webb	7.6
Liberty	7.6
Kentucky	7.5
Belmont	7.4
Virginia Tech	7.0
Central Florida	6.8
Montana	6.6
Wofford	6.6
Northern Kentucky	6.4
Wisconsin	6.0
Iowa St.	5.8
Virginia Commonwealth	5.8
Nevada	5.7
Marquette	5.7
Maryland	5.7
Kansas	5.4
North Carolina	5.1
Michigan	5.1
Oregon	4.8
Colgate	4.6
Buffalo	4.5
Abilene Christian	4.4
Oklahoma	4.3
Georgia St.	4.2
New Mexico St.	4.1
Vermont	3.9
Washington	3.9
Saint Mary’s	3.8
Fairleigh-Dickinson	3.6
Mississippi St.	3.5
Arizona St.	3.4
Florida St.	3.4
Louisville	2.9
LSU	2.6
Cincinnati	2.6
Syracuse	2.6
Purdue	2.5
Northeastern	2.5
Bradley	2.3
North Carolina Central	2.2
Old Dominion	2.0
St. John’s	1.9
Baylor	1.8
Ole Miss	1.8
Kansas St.	1.7
Ohio St.	1.7
Auburn	1.5
Seton Hall	1.4
Saint Louis	0.9
Iona	0.8
Iowa	0.7
Villanova	0.5
Florida	0.4
Minnesota	0.3
Temple	-0.2
North Dakota St.	-0.5
Prairie View	-1.7

 

Rebounds/Steals/Old R+T

Team	Reb Marg
North Carolina	9.7
New Mexico St.	9.6
Kentucky	9.0
Michigan St.	8.9
Utah St.	8.9
Maryland	8.5
UC-Irvine	7.4
Houston	7.3
Saint Louis	6.6
Wofford	6.5
North Carolina Central	6.4
Baylor	6.3
Gonzaga	6.2
Duke	6.1
Saint Mary’s	5.6
Purdue	5.2
Cincinnati	5.2
LSU	5.1
Old Dominion	4.9
Virginia	4.9
Arizona St.	4.8
Yale	4.7
Florida St.	4.7
Vermont	4.5
Northern Kentucky	4.4
Marquette	4.4
Colgate	4.0
Buffalo	3.9
Belmont	3.8
Mississippi St.	3.8
Murray St.	3.7
Louisville	3.7
Tennessee	3.4
Villanova	2.6
Virginia Tech	2.6
Montana	2.6
Minnesota	2.6
Kansas	2.5
Nevada	2.4
Liberty	2.2
Central Florida	2.2
Texas Tech	1.9
Oregon	1.8
Ole Miss	1.5
Virginia Commonwealth	1.4
Ohio St.	1.3
Bradley	1.2
Abilene Christian	1.2
Kansas St.	1.1
Iowa	1.0
Iowa St.	0.7
Oklahoma	0.6
Michigan	0.2
Northeastern	0.1
Seton Hall	-0.1
Wisconsin	-0.3
Auburn	-0.3
Florida	-0.6
Gardner-Webb	-0.7
Fairleigh-Dickinson	-0.8
North Dakota St.	-1.4
Iona	-2.2
Syracuse	-2.3
Washington	-2.5
Temple	-2.9
Prairie View	-4.4
Georgia St.	-6.1
St. John’s	-6.2
Team	TO Marg
Prairie View	5.5
Auburn	5.5
St. John’s	5.1
Abilene Christian	4.6
Buffalo	3.7
Temple	3.7
Kansas St.	3.6
Georgia St.	3.5
Nevada	3.4
Texas Tech	3.3
Syracuse	3.2
Michigan	3.2
Gonzaga	3.2
Wofford	3.1
Cincinnati	3.1
Florida	3.0
Washington	2.9
Virginia Tech	2.7
Liberty	2.6
Purdue	2.4
Virginia Commonwealth	2.3
Vermont	2.2
Oregon	2.1
Murray St.	2.1
Ole Miss	1.9
Virginia	1.9
Wisconsin	1.8
Gardner-Webb	1.8
Iowa St.	1.8
LSU	1.8
Seton Hall	1.8
Tennessee	1.7
Montana	1.6
Duke	1.5
New Mexico St.	1.4
Fairleigh-Dickinson	1.3
North Carolina	1.0
Iowa	1.0
Iona	1.0
Houston	0.9
Northern Kentucky	0.9
Belmont	0.9
Florida St.	0.8
Villanova	0.7
Central Florida	0.4
Old Dominion	0.4
Arizona St.	0.3
Mississippi St.	0.3
Saint Louis	0.3
Saint Mary’s	0.1
Oklahoma	0.0
Northeastern	0.0
Kentucky	-0.1
Bradley	-0.2
Kansas	-0.2
Ohio St.	-0.2
Utah St.	-0.3
UC-Irvine	-0.4
North Dakota St.	-0.6
Minnesota	-0.6
Baylor	-0.8
Colgate	-0.9
Louisville	-1.0
North Carolina Central	-1.9
Yale	-1.9
Marquette	-2.0
Michigan St.	-2.6
Maryland	-3.7
Team	Stl/G
Duke	9.5
Auburn	9.4
LSU	9.1
Washington	9.0
Prairie View	8.8
St. John’s	8.8
Abilene Christian	8.7
Temple	8.7
Syracuse	8.3
Mississippi St.	8.1
Georgia St.	8.0
Virginia Commonwealth	8.0
Oregon	7.8
Fairleigh-Dickinson	7.7
Kansas St.	7.6
Murray St.	7.6
Gonzaga	7.5
Buffalo	7.3
Ole Miss	7.3
Texas Tech	7.3
North Carolina	7.2
Florida	7.2
Saint Louis	7.1
Iowa St.	7.0
Seton Hall	7.0
Florida St.	7.0
Wofford	6.9
Gardner-Webb	6.9
Kansas	6.9
Belmont	6.8
Iona	6.8
Virginia Tech	6.7
Montana	6.5
Purdue	6.5
Houston	6.4
Liberty	6.4
North Carolina Central	6.3
Northern Kentucky	6.2
Arizona St.	6.2
Utah St.	6.2
Iowa	6.2
Nevada	6.2
Cincinnati	6.2
Colgate	6.2
Northeastern	6.2
Michigan	6.1
Baylor	6.1
Kentucky	6.0
Saint Mary’s	6.0
Tennessee	6.0
Oklahoma	5.9
Yale	5.9
Ohio St.	5.9
Central Florida	5.7
UC-Irvine	5.7
Vermont	5.6
Virginia	5.6
New Mexico St.	5.6
Old Dominion	5.6
Villanova	5.4
Bradley	5.4
Michigan St.	5.2
Wisconsin	5.1
Marquette	4.8
North Dakota St.	4.8
Minnesota	4.8
Louisville	4.5
Maryland	4.3
Team	Def Stl/G
Michigan	3.7
Cincinnati	3.9
Nevada	4.5
Purdue	4.8
New Mexico St.	4.8
Old Dominion	4.9
Saint Mary’s	5.0
Georgia St.	5.0
Virginia Tech	5.1
Prairie View	5.1
Buffalo	5.1
Gonzaga	5.2
Wisconsin	5.2
Iowa St.	5.2
St. John’s	5.2
Virginia	5.2
UC-Irvine	5.2
Liberty	5.2
Oregon	5.2
North Dakota St.	5.3
Houston	5.3
Villanova	5.4
Vermont	5.4
Northeastern	5.4
Wofford	5.5
Iona	5.5
Florida St.	5.5
Temple	5.5
Montana	5.6
Central Florida	5.6
Abilene Christian	5.6
Kentucky	5.7
Bradley	5.7
Gardner-Webb	5.8
Murray St.	5.8
Auburn	5.8
Seton Hall	5.8
Louisville	5.8
Northern Kentucky	5.9
Mississippi St.	5.9
Saint Louis	5.9
Ohio St.	5.9
Baylor	6.0
Minnesota	6.0
North Carolina Central	6.0
Ole Miss	6.0
Fairleigh-Dickinson	6.1
Utah St.	6.1
Belmont	6.1
Florida	6.1
Washington	6.1
Kansas St.	6.2
Arizona St.	6.3
Texas Tech	6.4
Tennessee	6.4
Michigan St.	6.4
Virginia Commonwealth	6.4
Kansas	6.5
Duke	6.5
LSU	6.5
Syracuse	6.6
Iowa	6.7
North Carolina	6.7
Oklahoma	6.8
Marquette	7.0
Yale	7.0
Maryland	7.1
Colgate	7.1
Team	Old R+T
New Mexico St.	12.34
North Carolina	12.34
Wofford	11.56
Gonzaga	11.48
Cincinnati	10.11
Kentucky	10.07
Buffalo	9.85
Duke	9.85
Utah St.	9.79
Houston	9.71
Purdue	9.37
LSU	9.06
Abilene Christian	8.45
Virginia	8.39
Saint Louis	8.30
Vermont	8.25
Auburn	8.09
UC-Irvine	8.06
Murray St.	7.74
Nevada	7.73
Texas Tech	7.33
Virginia Tech	7.22
Florida St.	7.02
Saint Mary’s	6.98
Michigan St.	6.88
Kansas St.	6.87
Northern Kentucky	6.72
Tennessee	6.66
Liberty	6.66
Baylor	6.56
Old Dominion	6.55
Arizona St.	6.41
Belmont	6.25
Oregon	5.95
Montana	5.83
Virginia Commonwealth	5.78
Mississippi St.	5.73
North Carolina Central	5.39
Ole Miss	5.32
Michigan	5.31
Maryland	5.01
Villanova	4.54
Florida	4.51
Iowa St.	4.29
Colgate	4.18
Prairie View	3.98
Central Florida	3.81
Kansas	3.63
Yale	3.56
Iowa	3.43
Louisville	3.39
Seton Hall	3.39
Temple	3.24
Syracuse	3.21
Marquette	2.96
Wisconsin	2.91
Gardner-Webb	2.82
Minnesota	2.77
Washington	2.76
Ohio St.	2.27
Fairleigh-Dickinson	2.24
Bradley	2.10
Oklahoma	1.79
St. John’s	1.62
Northeastern	1.35
Iona	0.30
Georgia St.	-0.27
North Dakota St.	-1.19

 

Criteria Darlings

Which teams have criteria that most look like a Final Four participant?

These 10 teams have that look this year (in alphabetical order):

1. Cincinnati Bearcats

2. Duke Blue Devils

3. Gonzaga Bulldogs

4. Houston Cougars

5. Kentucky Wildcats

6. Michigan State Spartans

7. North Carolina Tar Heels

8. Utah St. Aggies

9. Virginia Cavaliers

10. Wofford Terriers 

You will notice that Utah State and Wofford make this list with SOS beneath the level to win the national title.  These two teams possess criteria similar to past Cinderella Final Four teams like George Mason, Wichita State, and Virginia Commonwealth.

 

You now have the information to earn your BM in Bracketnomics.  However, there will be a special Bracketnomicist here Tuesday afternoon who will show you how to use this data to pick winners of each round.  The Captain will reveal his bracket selection on Tuesday prior to 5 PM Eastern Daylight Time.  He told us to tell you that if any buccaneer or lass dare criticize his selections, they will walk the plank.  Actually, they will probably have a better bracket than him.

 

Note: Many thanks to all the PiRate members who stayed up late Sunday night/Monday morning visiting 68 different schools’ athletics’ sites to get the raw data we need to put this statistical bonanza together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bracketnomics 505: The Advanced Level Course in Bracket Selection

PiRate Ratings Bracketnomics 505 for 2017: Money Ball on the Hardwoods
Welcome to Bracketnomics 505 for 2017–The Advanced Level Course in Picking NCAA Tournament winners. The best way to describe our PiRate Ratings NCAA Tournament Bracket-Picking formula is to compare it with the 10-K financial reports of publicly traded companies. Each team’s data serves as a prospectus showcasing their worth. Do you want to buy or sell based on what the data portrays?
If you have followed our statistical releases for the past 17 years, you will not see any real changes this year, as the PiRate Ratings have added only one minor statistical detail to our repertoire, and those are in our algorithm formulas and not in the data to be presented.

However, we have strengthened our beliefs in the idea that the NCAA Tournament is a different animal from the regular season, so there are teams that did well in the regular season and even won their conference, but they are ill-prepared for the postseason. Now, we actually have new incites into why, and it comes from our experiences with Major League Baseball.

Some of you reading this know that I, the Captain of the PiRate ship, am a baseball metric specialist. You can call me one of the “Moneyball” scouts or as some even say, a “Beane Counter.” If you read the book, Mr. Beane had a famous quote, that we will paraphrase to eliminate four-letter words: “My ‘stuff’ doesn’t work in the playoffs.”

Re-reading that statement sent me off on a long research project last Autumn leading to my spending way too many hours trying to put math formulas to Beane’s statement. What I came up with was this: in baseball, the offensive statistics that produce runs, for example weighted On-Base Average, works quite effectively during the regular season, when a team plays a certain number of games against every team in the league. Thus, a team will play a goodly number of games against mediocre and poor teams, and having an offense built on getting on base and hitting for power dominates against the weaker teams.

But, in the playoffs, all the opponents are very good. All of them have good offenses and usually very good pitching and defenses. Trying to win by getting a lot of runners on base by the walk and then hitting three-run homers might work against the number four and five starters of a pitching staff or the mediocre top level pitchers of the 90-loss teams, but in the playoffs, you see mostly top three starting pitchers from teams that won 90 or more games. And, Beane’s “stuff” does not work against these elite teams with the top pitchers. You have to be able to steal an extra base on a hit, steal a base, and execute the hit and run against the best of the best, which means you frequently play for just one run, because the pitching is too good to give up those three-run homers and will scatter baserunners over the course of 6 or 7 innings. Think Maury Wills scratching out a run for the 1965 Dodgers, while Sandy Koufax shuts out the opponent in a 1-0 win.

The same belief can be applied to college basketball in the NCAA Tournament. A team might win their conference by playing excellent half-court offense and defense, even if they do not rebound well nor force turnovers and pick up steals. Let’s use Purdue in the Gene Keady days as an example. Keady’s teams executed half-court offense and defense like precision clockwork. The Boilermakers almost always enjoyed better shooting opportunities than their opponents. They usually finished with a better field goal percentage than their opponents every year, and they won or shared a lot of Big Ten titles.

These Purdue teams were not all that strong on the offensive glass, and while they played intelligently and did not turn the ball over much, they did not force turnovers, nor did they steal the ball very much, frequently finishing at or near the bottom of the Big Ten in these stats.

Like Moneyball and the A’s, this “stuff” (excellent half-court offense and defense) worked just fine in the regular season, where Purdue easily handled the bottom half of the Big Ten year after year and did just well enough against the top half to finish 15-3 or 14-4. Then, the Boilermakers would get into the Big Dance looking like a Final Four contender. Unfortunately, their “stuff” didn’t work in the NCAA Tournament, and the Boilermakers lost as favorites early in the Dance to athletic underdogs with double-digit losses (Auburn, Florida, LSU), never making it to the Final Four in that time. They were no longer playing the 6-12 and 8-10 Big Ten teams Once their opponent was also good at getting open shots and preventing them on defense, the extra scoring opportunities derived from getting offensive rebounds and forcing turnovers, especially by steals, took on much more significance, just like running the bases and playing for one run in the Major League Playoffs.

Just in case you say that maybe Purdue was not capable of getting enough talent to go to the Final Four, remember that Purdue did make the Final Four under previous coach Lee Rose (he also led Charlotte to the Final Four in 1977), when Rose’s coaching philosophy included pressure defense with the hope of getting a lot of steals and an inside glass cleaner or two to dominate on the boards.
This year, we will give added weight to our special R+T metric along with schedule strength and ability to win away from home as serious factors to consider when picking teams to advance in the NCAA Tournament. These will be the three of our basic building blocks to begin the process of eliminating pretenders from the true contenders. Here are our basic blocks to begin our search for a national champion.

1. R+T Rating
2. Schedule Strength
3. Ability to win away from home
4. A member of a power conference (AAC, ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC)
5. One long winning streak against quality competition or two winning streaks of 6 or more games.
Don’t worry if this looks a bit challenging for you at this point. We will explain it all in this primer, and your test is an open book test, so you will pass with flying colors.

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 in the next edition, we will apply it to all 68 teams in the Big Dance and let you use what you want to fill out your brackets. You can easily open two windows with this primer in one window, and the statistics in the other window, and voila, you have an exceptional reference at your disposal.

Remember one important bit of information–this process deals a lot with past tendencies trying to predict future outcomes. It is mechanical and includes limited subjective data. It will not include information such as how your team’s star player may have the flu this week, or he ended his season in the Pac-12 Championship Game with an ACL injury, so if you have other information, by all means include this in your selection process.

The PiRate Ratings Criteria Statistics
For 16 years, the PiRate Ratings have relied on specific back-tested data that showed us what stats have been 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 to the Final Four, 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 from one of the six power conferences, you have a team that can advance deep into the tournament.

This is an obvious statistic. If State U outscores opponents by an average of 85-70 and Tech outscores similar opposition by an average of 75-70, State figures to be better than Tech 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 five points per game 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. As you can see from looking at all the NCAA Champions in the 2000’s, every team had a scoring margin of 8 or better, and 15 of 17 had double digit scoring margins (and all from power conferences).

A look at recent national champions’ scoring margins
2016 Villanova: 13
2015 Duke: 15
2014 UConn: 9
2013 Louisville: 16
2012 Kentucky: 17
2011 UConn: 8
2010 Duke: 16
2009 North Carolina: 18
2008 Kansas: 19
2007 Florida: 17
2006 Florida: 15
2005 North Carolina: 18
2004 UConn: 15
2003 Syracuse: 10
2002 Maryland: 14
2001 Duke: 20
2000 Michigan St.: 15

Field Goal Percentage Differential
Take each team’s field goal percentage minus their defensive field goal percentage to calculate this statistic. Throughout time, the differential among the most successful teams has been +7.5% or better, and for most Final Four teams, the differential has been positive by 3% or better. For example, a team that shoots 47% while their opponents shoot 39% has a FG% differential of 8%.

Teams that have singificantly positive field goal percentage differentials are consistently good teams. A team can win a game or two or possibly even three games with negative field goal percentage differentials, but in the Big Dance, they certainly are not going to win six games like this, and they have little chance to win four games.

This statistic holds true in back-tests of 50 years. Most teams that have won the tournament had FG% differentials above 3%, and many had more than a 7.5% field goal percentage advantage. In the years of the 64 to 68-team tournament, this stat has become a more accurate predictor, especially when the team comes from a power league. In the 21st Century, the teams from power conferences with field goal percentage margins in the double digits have dominated the field. For example, if you see an ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, or SEC team with a FG% differential of +10% or better, that team is going to be very hard to beat in large arenas with weird sight lines.

One caveat: in the most recent couple of years, shooting percentages have normalized somewhat, so overall, FG% differentials are moving closer to 0. More three-point shooting, a reduction in the shot clock, and more fast break offenses have led to more parity in shooting percentages. And, this has to be something to monitor closely this year; teams that had the best field goal differentials last year were upset early by teams that excelled in forcing turnovers and running the fast break. This could mean that shooting percentages are going to lose some of their importance, while extra scoring opportunities are going to become more important. Think about that as you read on.

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 weekend in the tournament. What we are 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 out-rebounded their opponents for the season all 61 times! Yes, no team with a negative rebound margin in that season has ever won the NCAA 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.

Use the rebounding rule in selecting your brackets, but think about this. Rebounding is only one way to obtain a possession. There is another way to get a possession–via a turnover. Bear that in mind as you read on. So, don’t just use rebounding margin alone, as it is only one part of the equation.

Turnover Margin & Steals Per Game
Turnover margin can give a weaker rebounding team a chance to advance. Any positive turnover margin is good. If a team cannot meet the rebound exceptionally well, they can get win if they have an excellent turnover margin. Not all turnover margin is the same though. A team can have an excellent turnover margin because they seldom turn the ball over. Committing 10 turnovers per game, while the opponent commits 12 leads to a positive turnover margin of 2 per game, but it seldom amounts to much in this instance. A team that forces a high number of turnovers by way of steals has a real advantage. A steal is better than a defensive rebound, because most of the time, a steal leads to a fast-break basket or foul (or both). 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 an immediate numbers advantage. A steal with quick points can demoralize a team, especially one that plays patiently and limits possessions.

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 and/or control the boards are the ones who will get that spurt.

Like the rebounding margin, we must not judge turnover margin and steals as standalone criteria, as they are just part of an all-encompassing statistic to determine extra scoring opportunities and the ability to go on lethal scoring spurts. What follows is the criteria to use.

The All-Important PiRate Ratings R+T Margin
Using both rebounding and turnover margin, how best can we assign an extra scoring value and the ability to go on big scoring spurts? In a tight game, a 10-0 run in three minutes will usually lead to a win for the team that makes the spurt, so we need to have a stat that shows us how much a team has spurt potential.
Our answer is the PiRate Ratings’ “R+T Rating” The R+T Rating combines rebounding margin, turnovers, and steals, and weights the three stats so that the result is a number that indicates what Clark Kellogg calls “spurtability.”
The R+T Rating Formula 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 decimal point.
If a team’s R+T rating is 20 or better, and they hail from a power conference, this is a serious potential Final Four team. North Carolina had the top R+T rating last year among the power conference teams, and the Tar Heels came within a second of winning the title. In almost every year since steals have been officially kept as a statistic, the Final Four teams have enjoyed double-digit R+T Ratings.
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 both teams have flashy R+T Ratings, this game becomes much harder to predict, because both teams could go on big scoring spurts.
When the R+T is 7.5 to 15, you have a team that can overcome a few other liabilities to win and still advance to the Final Four if they have exceptional FG% differentials, really difficult schedules, and an ability to win away from home. However, when they run into a team from the 15 or better R+T range with similar shooting percentages and defense, this frequently means the end of the line for the lower R+T rated team.
When the R+T is 4.5 to 7.5, you have a team good enough to win early and get to the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 but not advance past that round, unless said team has a very large field goal percentage difference margin.
When the R+T is 0 to 4.5, you have a team that cannot advance very far in the NCAA Tournament. They might win the Round of 64 and might have some chance to win in the Round of 32, but if they sneak into the Sweet 16, they are a candidate to lose big to a team with the right stuff in the R+T department.
When the R+T stat is negative, this team has the same chance of making the Final Four as a mule has of winning the Kentucky Derby. Many monumental early upsets where a double digit seed upsets a single digit seed frequently comes about when the favorite has a negative R+T rating, or the underdog has a decided R+T Rating advantage along with a halfway decent schedule strength.
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 criteria. We called for Ohio to upset Georgetown in the first round, and Ohio won by double digits.
The same thing occurred a couple years later when Georgetown once again 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 negative R+T teams all lost their first games in the NCAA Tournament. In 2015, there were two Power Conference teams with negative R+T numbers, Oklahoma State and St. John’s. We pegged these two teams to lose immediately as 9-seeds against 8-seeds with positive R+T ratings, and they did just that.
The inferior R+T might win a game over the superior due to other factors, but a poor R+T rated team is eventually going to get thumped when their shots don’t fall, or they run up against a great defense (there are a lot of great defenses in the Dance).

Power Conference Plus Schedule Strength
Up to this point you might have been thinking that it is much easier for New Mexico State or North Dakota to own these gaudy statistics than it is for Arizona or Butler. 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 the way we rate schedule strength 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 13 champions has been over 58. Also, bear in mind that of the 17 winners since 2000, 6 came from the ACC, 5 from the Big East , 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.

The last national champion that was not a member of a power conference was UNLV in 1990. Before that, it was Texas Western (UTEP) in 1966. In more than 60 seasons, just two teams that were not in power conferences have won the national title! Non-power teams have made it to the Final Four (VCU, Wichita State, George Mason, Penn), so don’t totally discount a team like Gonzaga, Saint Mary’s, and Wichita State to make the Final Four or at least the Elite 8.
In the most recent years, this stat has become quite a bit more important. Villanova and North Carolina were among the tops in schedule strength last year, with Syracuse and Oklahoma being ranked high as well. We have added a bit more weight to schedule strength this year.
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 in 2015), 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.
Winning Streaks
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. Should we expect a team that has not been able to win five conseccutive games during the regular season against all weaker competition to win five games in a row against the elite competition? It is a major plus if a team has more than one 6-game winning streak or one 10-game winning streak during the season.

Putting It All Together
1. Begin with teams from power conferences and schedule strengths better than 54.0 (we will give you each team’s schedule strength in the stats reveal).
1A. If the team does not come from a power conference, but they have dominated this year and their schedule strength is better than 54, they should still be in your consideration as a Final Four contender.
2. Look for teams that had a winning streak of 10 games or more, or teams with both 5+ and 6+ winning streaks during the year. The minimum for two different winning streaks is that one needs to be at least six games and one at least five games.
3. Look for teams with winning records away from home when looking at Sweet 16 contenders and a winning percentage of 66.7% or better when looking for Final Four teams.
4. Look for teams with R+T Ratings of 15.0 or better when selecting Final Four teams, 10.0 or better when selecting Elite 8 teams, and 5.0 or better when selecting Sweet 16 teams. Of course, you have to look at their potential opposition and remember that the better R+T Rating has a big advantage when teams have comparable schedule strengths.
5. While relying more on R+T Rating than rebound margins, remember that no National Champion ever had a negative rebound margin.
6. Look at teams with positive FG% differentials and use this stat along with those above as a significant part of your method for picking winners.
7. Look for these power conference teams that have scoring margins of 8 or above along with schedule strengths of 54 or above.

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 use.

Assists and Assists to Turnover Ratio
While a high number of assists means that a team is most likely a great passing team (and we love great passing teams), this can hide a potentially lethal problem in the Big Dance. Let’s say a team gets 28 field goals and has 24 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, rely on this stat only if you must decide on a toss-up after looking at the more important stats. We would much rather go with a team that has 15 offensive rebound potential than a team that has assists on 85% 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 than in the regular season, 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. Free throw shooting is similar to a walk in baseball. During the regular season, a lot of walks lead to a lot of runs, and a lot of free throw shooting leads to a lot of points, but things change in the Big Dance.

Of course, free throw shooting in the clutch decides many ball games, even close NCAA Tournament 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 coming as 1&1 attempts, three coming as one shot after made baskets, and the seven other trips to the line as 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 in college basketball, this stat is not all that important. Also consider that teams that shoot 60% of their foul shots but still make the NCAA Tournament are almost always the teams that have the top R+T ratings, which is much more 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 years from 1964 through 1973 when the Bruins won nine titles in 10 seasons, they never once connected on 70% of their free throws in a single season 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 two teams connect on 28 field goal attempts, and 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 28 made field goals and eight treys has scored only one more point than a team with 28 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 threes to win, but instead dominates in the paint on both sides. 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. The tournament is won in the paint. This isn’t the NBA, and there are few Steph Curry’s in college ball.
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, South Dakota State’s Mike Daum this year fits that category. He cannot carry the Jackrabbits to the Sweet 16 on his 25 points per game if the rest of the team does not produce as well.
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. Also, if you have a team where four or more players have scored 20 or more points in a game, and this team hails from a power conference, this team presents defensive matchup problems for its opponents.
We hope this primer will help you when you fill out your brackets this year. The raw statistics on each of the 68 teams follows at the end of this primer. Coming later today, we will show you how we picked our bracket as well as issue our Red-White-Blue Power Ratings for the First Four Opening Round Games in Dayton on Tuesday and Wednesday.
For those of you new to this website, our Red-White-Blue Ratings are based on three different algorithms using Basketball’a Four Factors. If you don’t know what the Four Factors are, here is an in-depth primer.

THE FOUR FACTORS
Statistician and author Dean Oliver created this quartet of metrics. He did for basketball what the incredible Bill James did for baseball. Oliver wrote the excellent book Basketball on Paper, where he showed that four separate statistical metrics could show how winners beat losers in the NBA. Later experimentation showed that this metric worked for all levels of organized basketball when strength of schedule is factored into the metric, and the weighting of each factor was altered as the talent level of play decreased.

The four factors are:
1. Effective Field Goal Percentage
2. Rebound Rate
3. Turnover Rate
4. Free Throw Rate

Each factor applies 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. Don’t worry. Our team has compiled all the statistics for every one of the 68 teams in the Dance.

For those math lovers of statistics, and we know a lot of you from baseball, here are the Four Factor stats and their fomulas:

1. 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%

2. Offensive Rebound Rate = Offensive Rebounds/(Offensive Rebounds + Opponents’ Defensive Rebounds)
If a team has 500 offensive rebounds and their opponents have 850 defensive rebounds, their Offensive Rebound Rate is:
500/(500+850) = .370 or 37.0%
The defensive equivalent of this factor is defensive rebound rate (Opponents Offensive Rebounds/(Opponents Offensive Rebounds + The Defense’s Defensive Rebounds)
If a team’s opponents have 400 offensive rebounds, while the team has 800 defensive rebounds, the defensive rebound rate is: 400/(400+800) = .333 or 33.3%

3. Turnover Rate = Turnovers per 100 possessions that do not include offensive rebounds. Possessions at the college level 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.
We remove offensive rebounds from the TO Rate formula, because very few turnovers occur following an offensive rebound. Most of the time a shot is taken immediately, and this would skew the factor.
If a team has 1700 FGA, 650 FTA, 425 OR, and 375 TO in 30 games played, their average actual possessions per game is:
(1700+(.475*650)-425+375)/30 = 65.3
Removing the offensive rebounds, their true possessions are:
1700+(.475*650)+375 = 2,384 (rounded from 2383.75)
Once again, the formula for TO Rate is: percentage of Turnovers per / possessions
(TO/Possessions) * 100
Thus for the team above with 375 TO in 2,384 Possessions, their TO Rate is:
100* (375/2384) = 15.7%

4. 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 the statheads 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 Rate*:
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

**************************************

All The Stats On The 68 Teams

OFFENSE	G	FG	FGA	3pt	3ptA	FT	FTA	OReb	DReb	Reb	To	Stl	Pts
Arizona	34	891	1873	229	576	582	768	350	901	1251	390	187	2593
Arkansas	33	920	1991	218	592	590	774	375	832	1207	385	249	2648
Baylor	32	838	1738	216	601	435	607	412	807	1219	430	162	2327
Bucknell	34	915	1902	277	734	480	707	293	878	1171	451	244	2587
Butler	31	831	1740	237	652	466	630	272	723	995	315	193	2365
Cincinnati	33	897	1954	248	709	434	638	405	821	1226	336	248	2476
Creighton	34	1052	2072	297	743	391	573	278	908	1186	423	211	2792
Dayton	31	802	1705	251	649	515	748	267	801	1068	370	243	2370
Duke	35	968	2029	288	767	599	790	366	905	1271	395	207	2823
East Tennessee St.	34	935	1905	256	669	591	840	345	892	1237	502	284	2717
Florida	32	851	1892	248	685	555	764	367	826	1193	378	243	2505
Florida Gulf Coast	33	978	1947	213	608	452	644	370	873	1243	411	201	2621
Florida St.	33	982	2032	227	637	530	766	389	856	1245	390	243	2721
Gonzaga	33	1002	1934	241	631	546	740	308	1022	1330	372	236	2791
Iona	34	951	2091	332	836	502	652	326	897	1223	411	235	2736
Iowa St.	33	971	2072	329	818	398	572	308	845	1153	335	261	2669
Jacksonville St.	34	834	1823	248	666	455	639	349	872	1221	463	156	2371
Kansas	32	946	1943	279	689	476	715	385	859	1244	419	222	2647
Kansas St.	33	817	1782	234	649	499	724	314	766	1080	431	258	2367
Kent St.	35	955	2231	248	781	534	743	524	894	1418	458	227	2692
Kentucky	33	999	2096	234	664	608	873	416	911	1327	394	200	2840
Louisville	32	893	1960	228	635	467	682	425	845	1270	357	216	2481
Marquette	31	894	1834	325	755	445	571	274	756	1030	378	228	2558
Maryland	32	805	1786	265	730	498	713	344	805	1149	416	173	2373
Miami (Fla.)	32	792	1748	205	571	431	600	354	799	1153	407	204	2220
Michigan	34	893	1857	318	837	443	572	260	744	1004	322	201	2547
Michigan St.	33	850	1817	259	689	408	615	313	898	1211	467	147	2367
Middle Tennessee	34	961	1962	217	590	412	590	334	874	1208	355	233	2551
Minnesota	33	863	1985	203	589	555	785	374	943	1317	385	189	2484
Mount St. Mary’s	34	831	1873	246	690	415	615	260	770	1030	447	211	2323
Nevada	34	907	2017	312	811	593	843	374	949	1323	379	181	2719
New Mexico St.	33	885	1893	244	725	591	830	426	886	1312	454	160	2605
New Orleans	31	801	1701	138	429	525	737	375	737	1112	519	242	2265
North Carolina	34	1055	2239	246	672	531	753	537	941	1478	405	236	2887
North Dakota	31	894	1850	218	563	490	682	286	829	1115	413	245	2496
Northern Kentucky	34	902	1964	292	827	493	729	378	901	1279	460	194	2589
Northwestern	34	860	1975	242	709	455	606	366	865	1231	359	172	2417
Notre Dame	34	937	2033	320	830	458	573	317	831	1148	322	245	2652
Oklahoma St.	32	922	1986	287	716	606	770	438	737	1175	422	249	2737
Oregon	34	954	1982	292	773	489	688	355	885	1240	394	221	2689
Princeton	29	750	1659	290	758	301	410	239	731	970	289	198	2091
Providence	32	779	1744	230	625	460	666	287	787	1074	403	215	2248
Purdue	32	894	1864	288	709	488	639	315	902	1217	418	167	2564
Rhode Island	33	860	1902	207	610	494	752	391	844	1235	372	211	2421
Saint Mary’s	32	842	1698	282	706	338	452	308	830	1138	337	133	2304
Seton Hall	32	846	1880	196	581	458	712	418	848	1266	434	222	2346
SMU	33	864	1825	267	663	468	672	399	872	1271	361	193	2463
South Carolina	32	787	1897	216	637	516	747	398	765	1163	428	251	2306
South Dakota St.	34	863	1880	313	863	598	771	307	884	1191	439	177	2637
Texas Southern	34	844	1955	198	666	643	877	397	804	1201	397	244	2529
Troy	36	958	2094	306	844	602	833	392	933	1325	445	220	2824
UC-Davis	34	830	1898	212	599	524	788	347	866	1213	482	193	2396
UCLA	33	1113	2144	327	807	429	576	322	973	1295	381	202	2982
UNC-Central	33	886	1938	250	735	457	671	390	893	1283	397	199	2479
UNC-Wilmington	34	1046	2170	326	891	478	691	408	813	1221	354	230	2896
USC	33	897	1977	259	713	544	736	356	837	1193	367	239	2597
Vanderbilt	34	794	1841	337	895	498	642	279	899	1178	420	140	2423
VCU	34	916	1985	197	589	510	721	375	871	1246	426	256	2539
Vermont	34	916	1848	219	594	450	641	316	848	1164	383	193	2501
Villanova	34	913	1837	300	810	515	649	291	844	1135	381	246	2641
Virginia	32	797	1717	224	570	313	442	282	772	1054	305	181	2131
Virginia Tech	32	864	1764	283	703	525	715	234	809	1043	388	128	2536
Wake Forest	32	898	1902	259	670	590	763	342	836	1178	377	175	2645
West Virginia	34	986	2153	257	711	558	823	487	783	1270	417	353	2787
Wichita St.	34	949	2004	296	725	596	812	405	981	1386	379	233	2790
Winthrop	32	866	1895	304	814	515	715	313	884	1197	421	210	2551
Wisconsin	33	869	1915	251	707	401	624	407	830	1237	358	229	2390
Xavier	34	876	1929	239	703	546	793	415	864	1279	435	209	2537

 

DEFENSE	G	FG	FGA	3pt	3ptA	FT	FTA	OReb	DReb	Reb	To	Stl	Pts
Arizona	34	808	1945	218	712	391	567	319	700	1019	405	161	2225
Arkansas	33	824	1971	246	742	540	772	413	779	1192	430	162	2434
Baylor	32	713	1791	197	623	384	540	332	601	933	357	172	2007
Bucknell	34	830	1951	211	620	419	638	332	802	1134	474	239	2290
Butler	31	737	1661	209	625	437	623	277	695	972	420	153	2120
Cincinnati	33	689	1806	223	666	396	537	348	727	1075	457	116	1997
Creighton	34	907	2076	255	765	396	584	371	848	1219	481	226	2465
Dayton	31	712	1724	221	679	417	591	301	761	1062	463	139	2062
Duke	35	908	2096	175	594	453	647	376	795	1171	419	167	2444
East Tennessee St.	34	793	1908	267	751	505	702	329	756	1085	533	230	2358
Florida	32	754	1846	179	583	443	627	337	794	1131	479	174	2130
Florida Gulf Coast	33	800	1899	230	744	440	643	341	698	1039	425	200	2270
Florida St.	33	798	1936	240	698	516	723	374	753	1127	474	166	2352
Gonzaga	33	741	2015	192	641	344	523	348	726	1074	416	172	2018
Iona	34	916	2120	271	753	493	708	416	888	1304	449	162	2596
Iowa St.	33	876	2049	254	729	370	527	398	875	1273	474	153	2376
Jacksonville St.	34	785	1891	263	701	467	649	330	750	1080	375	203	2300
Kansas	32	825	1968	235	658	431	606	375	739	1114	430	226	2316
Kansas St.	33	775	1825	236	616	423	588	369	750	1119	503	208	2209
Kent St.	35	894	2080	258	747	485	690	380	825	1205	496	212	2531
Kentucky	33	850	2006	203	656	466	695	342	814	1156	482	157	2369
Louisville	32	709	1791	197	638	492	712	340	746	1086	440	164	2107
Marquette	31	823	1803	227	615	452	648	308	733	1041	409	199	2325
Maryland	32	772	1867	203	605	423	602	375	751	1126	403	194	2170
Miami (Fla.)	32	731	1764	202	611	374	508	309	698	1007	380	196	2038
Michigan	34	847	1821	198	525	346	508	305	760	1065	437	145	2238
Michigan St.	33	777	1911	217	626	485	672	338	753	1091	363	193	2256
Middle Tennessee	34	743	1783	205	642	462	656	281	755	1036	458	162	2153
Minnesota	33	829	2084	213	699	409	599	405	870	1275	421	188	2280
Mount St. Mary’s	34	863	1925	183	532	423	641	407	873	1280	507	215	2332
Nevada	34	890	2095	228	743	404	589	334	857	1191	384	189	2412
New Mexico St.	33	792	1911	184	632	451	667	361	724	1085	454	174	2219
New Orleans	31	767	1746	199	642	415	601	345	646	991	505	263	2148
North Carolina	34	838	2013	274	799	451	628	310	737	1047	464	214	2401
North Dakota	31	788	1796	211	601	470	687	303	780	1083	472	198	2257
Northern Kentucky	34	891	2026	224	682	422	600	313	806	1119	415	202	2428
Northwestern	34	770	1911	220	656	452	678	383	820	1203	406	192	2212
Notre Dame	34	865	2007	234	694	389	533	373	838	1211	435	180	2353
Oklahoma St.	32	846	1800	219	612	586	812	342	720	1062	487	208	2497
Oregon	34	803	2002	233	748	372	520	364	749	1113	468	160	2211
Princeton	29	631	1516	191	576	330	478	231	735	966	388	307	1783
Providence	32	786	1783	200	612	360	535	307	799	1106	447	202	2132
Purdue	32	811	1962	210	650	317	445	292	704	996	385	206	2149
Rhode Island	33	711	1758	152	524	567	799	350	790	1140	434	174	2141
Saint Mary’s	32	686	1676	143	472	293	427	227	615	842	300	176	1808
Seton Hall	32	783	1813	211	621	469	654	289	765	1054	393	219	2246
SMU	33	702	1817	270	826	304	442	304	658	962	392	160	1978
South Carolina	32	671	1686	168	574	553	778	344	789	1133	552	197	2063
South Dakota St.	34	938	2077	361	960	394	539	342	803	1145	391	230	2631
Texas Southern	34	902	2038	188	581	447	656	422	834	1256	463	176	2439
Troy	36	904	2120	282	841	490	680	367	864	1231	455	209	2580
UC-Davis	34	829	1955	237	717	448	633	330	836	1166	482	232	2343
UCLA	33	912	2179	284	784	378	563	383	777	1160	399	216	2486
UNC-Central	33	766	1959	205	708	355	554	410	775	1185	456	151	2092
UNC-Wilmington	34	912	1912	185	551	539	752	316	835	1151	496	166	2548
USC	33	893	2074	276	757	353	495	379	802	1181	424	184	2415
Vanderbilt	34	836	1975	220	655	425	604	333	839	1172	367	186	2317
VCU	34	775	1852	196	580	512	737	330	818	1148	500	187	2258
Vermont	34	781	1858	190	576	342	484	305	723	1028	443	184	2094
Villanova	34	799	1912	240	768	297	417	321	691	1012	452	176	2135
Virginia	32	610	1542	191	611	369	524	246	700	946	413	158	1780
Virginia Tech	32	876	1969	251	697	378	529	345	764	1109	375	175	2381
Wake Forest	32	860	1901	264	739	509	704	317	763	1080	370	193	2493
West Virginia	34	759	1791	227	650	510	755	374	806	1180	695	190	2255
Wichita St.	34	713	1887	227	735	470	680	307	782	1089	475	177	2123
Winthrop	32	787	1941	211	681	461	636	350	815	1165	450	195	2246
Wisconsin	33	723	1782	221	589	350	475	285	744	1029	433	175	2017
Xavier	34	862	1907	253	748	449	642	288	767	1055	416	218	2426

 

Team	PPG	Def PPG	Marg.	FG%-Marg	Reb-Marg.	TO Marg.	R+T	W-L Road	SOS	Off Poss	Def Poss	Poss/G	Seed
Arizona	76.3	65.4	10.8	6.0	6.8	0.4	18.1	15-3	58.18	2278	2300	67.3	2
Arkansas	80.2	73.8	6.5	4.4	0.5	1.4	7.1	10-6	55.53	2369	2355	71.6	8
Baylor	72.7	62.7	10.0	8.4	8.9	-2.3	18.8	10-5	59.46	2044	2073	64.3	3
Bucknell	76.1	67.4	8.7	5.6	1.1	0.7	5.4	9-6	48.90	2396	2396	70.5	13
Butler	76.3	68.4	7.9	3.4	0.7	3.4	9.0	10-5	59.10	2082	2100	67.5	4
Cincinnati	75.0	60.5	14.5	7.8	4.6	3.7	19.1	11-5	54.46	2188	2170	66.0	6
Creighton	82.1	72.5	9.6	7.1	-1.0	1.7	2.2	12-5	56.81	2489	2463	72.8	6
Dayton	76.5	66.5	9.9	5.7	0.2	3.0	8.8	9-6	54.65	2163	2167	69.8	7
Duke	80.7	69.8	10.8	4.4	2.9	0.7	10.6	12-7	59.78	2433	2446	69.7	2
East Tennessee St.	79.9	69.4	10.6	7.5	4.5	0.9	13.3	14-5	49.32	2461	2445	72.2	13
Florida	78.3	66.6	11.7	4.1	1.9	3.2	11.4	15-7	59.41	2266	2286	71.1	4
Florida Gulf Coast	79.4	68.8	10.6	8.1	6.2	0.4	15.8	10-4	47.19	2294	2288	69.4	14
Florida St.	82.5	71.3	11.2	7.1	3.6	2.5	14.3	7-8	58.36	2397	2379	72.4	3
Gonzaga	84.6	61.2	23.4	15.0	7.8	1.3	21.2	17-0	54.02	2350	2331	70.9	1
Iona	80.5	76.4	4.1	2.3	-2.4	1.1	1.0	14-8	49.90	2486	2489	73.2	14
Iowa St.	80.9	72.0	8.9	4.1	-3.6	4.2	2.3	11-7	58.18	2371	2375	71.9	5
Jacksonville St.	69.7	67.6	2.1	4.2	4.1	-2.6	8.0	15-9	46.93	2241	2244	66.0	15
Kansas	82.7	72.4	10.3	6.8	4.1	0.3	10.9	14-3	58.10	2317	2311	72.3	1
Kansas St.	71.7	66.9	4.8	3.4	-1.2	2.2	3.4	9-8	56.53	2243	2238	67.9	11
Kent St.	76.9	72.3	4.6	-0.2	6.1	1.1	16.4	12-7	48.67	2518	2524	72.0	14
Kentucky	86.1	71.8	14.3	5.3	5.2	2.7	17.3	14-3	58.27	2489	2476	75.2	2
Louisville	77.5	65.8	11.7	6.0	5.8	2.6	18.3	8-7	60.87	2216	2229	69.5	2
Marquette	82.5	75.0	7.5	3.1	-0.4	1.0	3.5	5-9	56.05	2209	2212	71.3	10
Maryland	74.2	67.8	6.3	3.7	0.7	-0.4	3.7	11-3	56.23	2197	2181	68.4	6
Miami (Fla.)	69.4	63.7	5.7	3.9	4.6	-0.8	11.3	7-9	56.85	2086	2076	65.0	8
Michigan	74.9	65.8	9.1	1.6	-1.8	3.4	4.5	9-8	57.52	2191	2194	64.5	7
Michigan St.	71.7	68.4	3.4	6.1	3.6	-3.2	6.5	5-12	59.07	2263	2255	68.5	9
Middle Tennessee	75.0	63.3	11.7	7.3	5.1	3.0	17.8	17-2	50.19	2263	2272	66.7	12
Minnesota	75.3	69.1	6.2	3.7	1.3	1.1	6.8	7-6	58.18	2369	2385	72.0	5
Mount St. Mary’s	68.3	68.6	-0.3	-0.5	-7.4	1.8	-10.2	8-11	48.10	2352	2329	68.8	16
Nevada	80.0	70.9	9.0	2.5	3.9	0.1	11.0	15-5	51.96	2422	2425	71.3	12
New Mexico St.	78.9	67.2	11.7	5.3	6.9	0.0	16.9	11-4	47.15	2315	2321	70.2	14
New Orleans	73.1	69.3	3.8	3.2	3.9	-0.5	8.8	9-8	46.14	2195	2191	70.8	16
North Carolina	84.9	70.6	14.3	5.5	12.7	1.7	30.3	11-7	59.04	2465	2465	72.5	1
North Dakota	80.5	72.8	7.7	4.4	1.0	1.9	7.5	11-7	44.82	2301	2291	74.1	15
Northern Kentucky	76.1	71.4	4.7	1.9	4.7	-1.3	11.0	12-8	48.18	2392	2413	70.7	15
Northwestern	71.1	65.1	6.0	3.3	0.8	1.4	5.9	9-7	55.60	2256	2256	66.4	8
Notre Dame	78.0	69.2	8.8	3.0	-1.9	3.3	3.9	9-7	57.33	2310	2322	68.1	5
Oklahoma St.	85.5	78.0	7.5	-0.6	3.5	2.0	12.5	9-7	58.52	2336	2331	72.9	10
Oregon	79.1	65.0	14.1	8.0	3.7	2.2	14.2	12-5	56.84	2348	2353	69.1	3
Princeton	72.1	61.5	10.6	3.6	0.1	3.4	2.5	13-5	49.91	1904	1900	65.6	12
Providence	70.3	66.6	3.6	0.6	-1.0	1.4	2.4	5-9	56.05	2176	2177	68.0	11
Purdue	80.1	67.2	13.0	6.6	6.9	-1.0	15.0	10-5	55.84	2271	2266	70.9	4
Rhode Island	73.4	64.9	8.5	4.8	2.9	1.9	11.6	11-6	55.20	2240	2222	67.6	11
Saint Mary’s	72.0	56.5	15.5	8.7	9.3	-1.2	19.9	13-2	54.34	1942	1952	60.8	7
Seton Hall	73.3	70.2	3.1	1.8	6.6	-1.3	14.6	9-9	56.38	2234	2228	69.7	9
SMU	74.6	59.9	14.7	8.7	9.4	0.9	23.7	12-4	53.27	2106	2115	64.0	6
South Carolina	72.1	64.5	7.6	1.7	0.9	3.9	9.5	7-7	56.25	2282	2264	71.0	7
South Dakota St.	77.6	77.4	0.2	0.7	1.4	-1.4	3.1	7-14	50.02	2378	2382	70.0	16
Texas Southern	74.4	71.7	2.6	-1.1	-1.6	1.9	3.1	13-11	44.79	2372	2391	70.0	16
Troy	78.4	71.7	6.8	3.1	2.6	0.3	8.8	12-10	47.40	2543	2531	70.5	15
UC-Davis	70.5	68.9	1.6	1.3	1.4	0.0	4.8	11-12	44.11	2407	2408	70.8	16
UCLA	90.4	75.3	15.0	10.1	4.1	0.5	11.2	12-3	53.96	2477	2462	74.8	3
UNC-Central	75.1	63.4	11.7	6.6	3.0	1.8	12.2	14-6	38.41	2264	2268	68.7	16
UNC-Wilmington	85.2	74.9	10.2	0.5	2.1	4.2	12.8	16-4	51.48	2444	2449	72.0	12
USC	78.7	73.2	5.5	2.3	0.4	1.7	6.5	9-6	54.42	2338	2354	71.1	11
Vanderbilt	71.3	68.1	3.1	0.8	0.2	-1.6	1.4	8-10	61.16	2287	2296	67.4	9
VCU	74.7	66.4	8.3	4.3	2.9	2.2	12.2	11-7	55.31	2378	2372	69.9	10
Vermont	73.6	61.6	12.0	7.5	4.0	1.8	13.2	13-4	49.16	2219	2226	65.4	13
Villanova	77.7	62.8	14.9	7.9	3.6	2.1	13.8	17-2	58.04	2235	2241	65.8	1
Virginia	66.6	55.6	11.0	6.9	3.4	3.4	14.0	10-6	59.73	1950	1958	61.1	5
Virginia Tech	79.3	74.4	4.8	4.5	-2.1	-0.4	-2.0	7-8	55.01	2258	2250	70.4	9
Wake Forest	82.7	77.9	4.8	2.0	3.1	-0.2	8.6	8-10	58.32	2299	2288	71.7	11
West Virginia	82.0	66.3	15.6	3.4	2.6	8.2	19.1	9-6	55.57	2474	2471	72.7	4
Wichita St.	82.1	62.4	19.6	9.6	8.7	2.8	24.5	14-3	50.79	2364	2378	69.7	10
Winthrop	79.7	70.2	9.5	5.2	1.0	0.9	6.1	12-3	47.36	2343	2343	73.2	13
Wisconsin	72.4	61.1	11.3	4.8	6.3	2.3	19.0	10-7	54.48	2162	2156	65.4	8
Xavier	74.6	71.4	3.3	0.2	6.6	-0.6	15.3	9-9	58.75	2326	2340	68.6	11

 

Team	EFG	DEFG	OR%	DOR%	TO%	DTO%	FT*	DFT*	Win Streaks
Arizona	53.7	47.1	33.3	26.1	14.8	15.5	25.6	17.0	15	5
Arkansas	51.7	48.0	32.5	33.2	14.0	15.5	24.9	22.9	8	5
Baylor	54.4	45.3	40.7	29.1	17.5	14.8	21.3	18.5	15	5
Bucknell	55.4	47.9	26.8	27.4	16.8	17.4	20.0	17.5	7	6
Butler	54.6	50.7	28.1	27.7	13.4	17.7	22.4	20.8	8	4
Cincinnati	52.3	44.3	35.8	29.8	13.0	18.1	19.8	18.2	15	5
Creighton	57.9	49.8	24.7	29.0	15.3	17.0	15.7	16.1	13	5
Dayton	54.4	47.7	26.0	27.3	15.2	18.8	23.8	19.2	9	5
Duke	54.8	47.5	31.5	29.4	14.1	14.8	24.6	18.5	10	7
East Tennessee St.	55.8	48.6	31.3	26.9	17.9	19.2	24.0	20.7	6	5
Florida	51.5	45.7	31.6	29.0	14.4	18.3	24.5	19.4	9	7
Florida Gulf Coast	55.7	48.2	34.6	28.1	15.4	16.2	19.7	19.2	7	7
Florida St.	53.9	47.4	34.1	30.4	14.0	17.2	22.1	21.7	12	4
Gonzaga	58.0	41.5	29.8	25.4	14.0	15.5	23.2	14.8	29	3
Iona	53.4	49.6	26.9	31.7	14.6	15.5	20.2	19.8	6	4
Iowa St.	54.8	49.0	26.0	32.0	12.5	17.1	16.8	15.6	6	5
Jacksonville St.	52.6	48.5	31.8	27.5	17.9	14.6	20.3	20.8	4	4
Kansas	55.9	47.9	34.3	30.4	15.5	16.0	20.5	18.7	18	8
Kansas St.	52.4	48.9	29.5	32.5	16.9	19.3	22.2	18.9	7	5
Kent St.	48.4	49.2	38.8	29.8	15.1	17.1	21.2	19.2	5	4
Kentucky	53.2	47.4	33.8	27.3	13.6	17.1	24.4	18.8	11	7
Louisville	51.4	45.1	36.3	28.7	13.5	17.1	21.1	22.1	6	5
Marquette	57.6	51.9	27.2	28.9	15.2	16.2	20.1	20.4	5	3
Maryland	52.5	46.8	31.4	31.8	16.4	15.8	22.7	19.4	7	7
Miami (Fla.)	51.2	47.2	33.7	27.9	16.7	15.9	20.7	18.0	7	4
Michigan	56.7	51.9	25.5	29.1	13.1	17.5	20.2	15.8	5	4
Michigan St.	53.9	46.3	29.4	27.3	18.1	14.0	18.0	21.5	4	3
Middle Tennessee	54.5	47.4	30.7	24.3	13.7	17.9	18.2	20.3	10	10
Minnesota	48.6	44.9	30.1	30.0	14.0	15.1	23.4	17.2	8	6
Mount St. Mary’s	50.9	49.6	22.9	34.6	17.1	18.5	17.6	18.2	8	4
Nevada	52.7	47.9	30.4	26.0	13.6	13.9	24.5	16.7	9	7
New Mexico St.	53.2	46.3	37.0	28.9	16.6	16.9	25.5	19.4	20	5
New Orleans	51.1	49.6	36.7	31.9	20.2	19.9	23.9	18.9	5	5
North Carolina	52.6	48.4	42.2	24.8	13.5	16.7	21.5	18.3	7	6
North Dakota	54.2	49.7	26.8	26.8	16.0	18.2	21.3	20.5	6	4
Northern Kentucky	53.4	49.5	31.9	25.8	16.6	15.2	20.6	17.5	6	6
Northwestern	49.7	46.0	30.9	30.7	13.7	15.4	20.2	20.0	9	6
Notre Dame	54.0	48.9	27.4	31.0	12.3	16.1	19.8	16.8	9	7
Oklahoma St.	53.7	53.1	37.8	31.7	15.2	18.2	25.9	25.1	5	5
Oregon	55.5	45.9	32.2	29.1	14.6	17.2	20.8	15.8	17	8
Princeton	53.9	47.9	24.5	24.0	13.5	18.2	15.8	17.4	19	2
Providence	51.3	49.7	26.4	28.1	16.4	18.0	21.1	16.5	6	6
Purdue	55.7	46.7	30.9	24.5	16.2	15.0	21.5	14.0	7	6
Rhode Island	50.7	44.8	33.1	29.3	14.1	16.9	22.1	25.5	8	4
Saint Mary’s	57.9	45.2	33.4	21.5	15.0	13.8	17.4	15.0	9	7
Seton Hall	50.2	49.0	35.3	25.4	16.4	15.6	20.5	21.1	6	5
SMU	54.7	46.1	37.7	25.9	14.4	16.2	22.2	14.4	16	10
South Carolina	47.2	44.8	33.5	31.0	16.0	21.2	22.6	24.4	8	5
South Dakota St.	54.2	53.9	27.7	27.9	16.3	14.4	25.1	16.5	6	3
Texas Southern	48.2	48.9	32.3	34.4	14.3	16.5	27.1	18.7	9	6
Troy	53.1	49.3	31.2	28.2	15.2	15.7	23.7	19.4	6	4
UC-Davis	49.3	48.5	29.3	27.6	17.5	17.6	21.8	18.6	4	4
UCLA	59.5	48.4	29.3	28.2	13.6	14.0	17.3	15.4	13	10
UNC-Central	52.2	44.3	33.5	31.5	15.0	17.0	20.2	15.7	13	5
UNC-Wilmington	55.7	52.5	32.8	28.0	12.4	17.9	19.6	22.0	9	8
USC	51.9	49.7	30.7	31.2	13.6	15.5	23.3	15.0	14	5
Vanderbilt	52.3	47.9	25.0	27.0	16.4	14.0	21.8	18.5	4	3
VCU	51.1	47.1	31.4	27.5	15.5	18.5	21.4	21.6	9	8
Vermont	55.5	47.1	30.4	26.5	15.1	17.5	20.3	15.4	21	4
Villanova	57.9	48.1	29.6	27.6	15.1	17.6	23.0	13.3	14	7
Virginia	52.9	45.8	28.7	24.2	13.7	18.7	16.1	18.8	7	5
Virginia Tech	57.0	50.9	23.4	29.9	15.6	14.4	23.3	16.8	8	4
Wake Forest	54.0	52.2	31.0	27.5	14.3	14.2	25.7	22.2	4	3
West Virginia	51.8	48.7	37.7	32.3	14.1	24.4	22.6	20.6	8	4
Wichita St.	54.7	43.8	34.1	23.8	13.7	17.7	25.2	19.8	15	6
Winthrop	53.7	46.0	27.7	28.4	15.9	16.7	22.0	19.7	8	7
Wisconsin	51.9	46.8	35.4	25.6	13.9	17.7	18.5	16.2	9	8
Xavier	51.6	51.8	35.1	25.0	15.9	15.8	23.5	19.2	7	6

Check back later Tuesday for our Round by Round Bracket Selections, as well as our Red-White-Blue Ratings for the First Four games in Dayton.