Our congratulations go out to the Connecticut Huskies, champions of the 2023 NCAA Basketball world. UConn dominated this tournament and looked like the legitimate favorite in every round. As you might have read three weeks ago, we tabbed UConn as one of our top two teams and even recommended splitting your champion votes in your bracket pools. However, we did preface it by saying that if a Big Ten team was ever going to break through, this year’s Purdue team had the talent. We did talk at length about how the Big Ten and proteges of Coach Gene Keady (and Keady himself) had greatly underperform in the NCAA Tournaments, and we told you why–they are too half-court oriented and do not play pressure defense, rarely fast break, and have trouble guarding overly athletic opponents.
We will kick ourselves all summer thinking that we first began isolating on UConn in January as having the resume of a national champion, and then even on Bracketnomics Monday, we expounded on the championship virtues of this team, and yet we totally blew it on Tuesday. Remind us never to pick a Big Ten team to win the national championship.
That said, remember what happened the next year after Virginia lost to UMBC in the opening round as a #1 seed losing to a #16. Coach Tony Bennett changed his offense and altered his defense to put more pressure on the ball and attack the paint offensively with athletic players, and the Cavaliers won the national title the next year.
Of course, if Hunter Dickinson was to choose Purdue as his next team, could Matt Painter possibly miss out with the two best big men in the nation in his starting lineup?
We apologize for missing a couple of days here, including a complete preview of the national championship game and the NIT Final Four. Family issues have made it mandatory to devote time away from our hobby. Hopefully, by the start of the college football season, everything will be back to normal.
The PiRates now sail out to sea for the Summer. We will be back (hopefully) in August to begin our college football previews.
One of these Cinderella teams will become the next Butler, playing a big-time team for the National Championship Monday night. We don’t have this as a factor, but a CUSA team won the CBI, and a CUSA team beat another CUSA team in the NIT Championship Game. Could it be that CUSA is a lot better than the numbers show? If so, then how much more does Florida Atlantic deserve to be given credit?
The efficiency numbers are outside the range of a national champion, so if one of these teams cuts down the nets Monday night, it will throw a monkey wrench into this system. As for this semifinal game, FAU has the closer championship resume with a much better offensive efficiency rating. The Owls also appear to be the superior inside defense team in this system. Even though the PiRate Ratings spread favors SDSU, the Bracketnomics Criteria says FAU will win this game, and it might eventually be by a margin in double figures.
Stat
Miami
UConn
O-RTG
5
3
D-RTG
104
11
SOS
56.7
59.8
3-Pt
36.9
36.3
O-Reb
31.7
38.5
2PT%D
51.6
45.0
FTR
31.0
30.5
R+T Rate
5.8
14.9
Old R+T
10.8
21.4
Marg
7.7
14.4
Win Strk
9 & 7
14 & 6
Pre25
NO
NO
Champ
Co
No
Coach Exp
10 & 1FF
4: 0-4
3 Upper
NO
NO
F/C 20-12
NO
YES
DBLFIG
4
3
OReb
31.7
38.5
OStl
10.5
9.2
OTurn
14.1
15.7
DReb
28.4
25.7
DStl
8.5
9.6
DTurn
15.7
16.5
Reb Marg
2.9
9.4
Stl/G
7.3
6.3
D Stl
5.9
6.6
TO Marg
1.2
0.0
Before the tournament began, we issued our list of which teams had national championship resumes. On the day before the release of all the stats, we mentioned Connecticut, because the Huskies had one of the top two resumes in the criteria. Then, we did something we wish we could do over–we believed that maybe this could be Purdue’s year to break their losing curse. At the same time, we warned you about the Big Ten and their style of play not being conducive to winning in the Big Dance, and we mentioned that disciples of Gene Keady played the wrong style of ball to win in late March. When Purdue lost to Fairleigh Dickinson, it was precisely their inability to force turnovers and get cheap baskets that cost them.
Some of you did follow our secondary advice and went with Connecticut to win the Championship. If you did, then you may still be alive in your bracket pools. We won’t take credit for picking UConn, as they were our secondary pick, but we will kick ourselves all year if the Huskies indeed win it all, since we had been talking about them having a championship resume as far back as late January.
Miami isn’t chopped liver. In fact, ACC teams are the polar opposite of Big Ten teams. The teams in the ACC know how to score quickly and score with cheap baskets. The Hurricanes can force turnovers on UConn and score fast break points. The U has a national championship offense, but their defense does not meet the criteria. UConn has both a national championship offense and defense. Miami’s principle liability is their weakness against preventing shots in the paint. UConn should get a few too many close-in shots in this game and will be more consistent with their offense.
UConn did not win either their regular conference or conference tournament championship, and they were not ranked in the preseason, two things that most national champions have done. UConn has twice won national championships in the 21st Century when they were somewhat of an outlier. The last time they did this, it was when they handily defeated long shot Butler. If they beat Miami, they will be playing another long shot Monday Night.
Comments Off on PiRate Ratings College Basketball — Final Four
The All-Encompassing Master Bracketnomics Paradigm–2023
Note: This Bracketnomics Tutorial makes past ones on our site obsolete.
One year ago, we issued our updated bracketnomics paradigm and predicted Kansas to win the National Championship. We also selected Villanova to make the Final Four. Yet, we decided to make considerable changes to this year’s paradigm. Why is this, you may ask?
For the last several weeks, we have spent hours researching the changes in college basketball over the last few years. The age of analytics has changed the game just as much as it did with baseball. Five years ago, a small handful of coaches even recognized analytical data. Today, almost every college team not only realizes its importance; they have staff on hand to analyze the data and use it to best implement their game plans.
In baseball, on-base percentage is the most important offensive factor, with slugging percentage in second place. Pitchers’ fielding independent pitching stats are the true signs of their effectiveness. In basketball, there is a tier of four different stats and how teams best implement plans to maximize these tiers.
First, let’s break the game down into its proper components. Basketball is a continual game, where the two teams have the ball basically the same number of possessions per game and trade off on those possessions in a typical time frame of every 10 to 30 seconds (offensive rebounds can extend these possessions).
When a team has the ball, their obvious mission is to score points, and when the other team has the ball, the obvious mission is to prevent the other team from scoring points and gaining possession of the ball.
Offensively, the highest expected points per possession comes from connecting on a 3-point shot or getting a 2-point shot opportunity with the highest possible percentage chance. Thus, 3-point shots and very close 2-point shots have taken over the game. And, preventing 3-point shots and very close 2-point shots has become more important defensively.
But, if a team can get more opportunities to shoot these shots and conversely keep the opponent from having these opportunities to shoot these shots, the overall effect is almost as important as the ability to shoot these shots.
What all this means is that we have spent hours scrutinizing what works today in college basketball and what may be not as important as one might think. Thus, we have thinned out our criteria this year, getting rid of old criteria that no longer portends success, while giving more weight to what does lead to success. Here, then, is your primer for your 2023 Bracketnomics PhD. If you already own a Bracketnomics PhD from taking this course in the past, then think of it as continuing education to keep up to date on the latest methods.
There are four major criteria to look at in each team’s resume. The national champion will come from the teams that best meet these four criteria.
Criteria #1: Adjusted Offensive Efficiency
How many points does a team average per possession when it is adjusted to reflect the average defense? If two teams both average 1.1 points per possession, but one team does it against teams that typically give up 1.15 points per possession, while the other does it against teams that typically give up 1.05 points per possession, these identical 1.1 points per possessions are not the same. Efficiencies must be adjusted to an equal scale for all teams.
What Matters: Teams with adjusted offensive efficiencies in the top 20 and especially in the top 10 tend to win the national championship most years. Kansas was #6 last year. Baylor was #2 in 2021. Virginia was #2 in 2019. Villanova was #1 in 2018. North Carolina was #9 in 2017. The last time a team won the national title and was not in the top 10 in adjusted offensive efficiency was Connecticut in 2014, when they were #39.
Criteria #2: Adjusted Defensive Efficiency
Many people believe in the old axiom that defense wins championships. Defense is more important than offense in baseball, but not by a lot. In basketball, offense is more important than defense, but also not by a lot. An A+ offense and C defense will beat a C offense and A+ defense about 58 to 63% of the time, not a slam dunk, but definitely measurably superior. Still, even though offense is more important, defense must be considerably better than average. We have found that being in the top 15% of all adjusted defensive efficiency suffices for picking teams to get to the Final 4, but being in the top 20 is necessary to cut the nets down as “One Shining Moment” plays. In the 21st Century, the weakest adjusted defensive efficiency was #22. All the others were in the top 15.
Criteria #3 Schedule Strength (eye on specific leagues)
When was the last time that the national champion came from a conference outside the major powers? How about UNLV in 1990? Yes, the last 31 national champions (no tournament in 2020) have come from teams that are in the ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12, or SEC. To parse this a little more, no Pac-12 team has won the title since Arizona in 1997, and no Big Ten team has won the title since Michigan St. in 2000.
The ACC, Big East, Big 12, and SEC have dominated the last 21 national titles. Additionally, all the title winners had schedule strengths 7 points stronger than average and greater.
We believe that the Big Ten has had troubles, because the league stresses half-court possession control and does not emphasize fast breaking or pressure defense that forces turnovers and creates steals. As you will see later, teams that have the ability to go on big scoring spurts have the advantage in the NCAA Tournament. Possession basketball might work in the regular season in the Big Ten, because all the teams play it. Gone are the days when Big Ten teams led the nation in total possessions, scoring, forced turnovers, and steals. We have talked at length in the past about how successful former Purdue coach Gene Keady was, until March 15, when his Boilermakers made it to the Sweet 16 in their better years but couldn’t make the Final Four and only once made the Elite 8 one time, when they had the best player in the nation and a number one seed. Keady’s top four assistant coaches that became head coaches suffered the same fate, as Steve Lavin couldn’t do it at UCLA; Cuonzo Martin couldn’t do it at multiple schools; Kevin Stallings couldn’t do it at Vanderbilt; and so far Matt Painter hasn’t done it at Purdue.
If a team is in the ACC, Big 12, Big East, or SEC and has a schedule strength at least 7 points stronger than average, they meet this criteria. Don’t completely throw out the Pac-12 and Big Ten teams (or Gonzaga), because eventually, one of these teams will win the national championship. Purdue, Gonzaga, UCLA, and Arizona aren’t going to be easy outs this year. They just must buck a mighty big trend to get there. You could have made good money betting against the Boston Red Sox in the playoffs for many years, until sabermetric patriarch Bill James and boy genius Theo Epstein realized what the Red Sox needed to win. The Big Ten, Pac-12, and Gonzaga might eventually have their 2004. The odds might be low this year, but there’s a chance, and getting to the Final Four is not a long shot.
Criteria #4 PiRate Ratings R+T Factor
We are big fans of CBS basketball commentator Clark Kellogg. In the early 1990’s Kellogg coined the term, “spurtability,” where he described some teams’ ability to consistently go on scoring spurts to put games away. One team might trail another by three to five points for a good piece of the game, and then one scoring spurt by the trailing team gives them the lead that they never relinquish. It happens frequently, especially in tight games. It happens in the NCAA Tournament with great regularity.
The first great example of such spurtability came in legendary coach John Wooden’s first national championship at UCLA in 1964. The Bruins, with no starter over 6 foot 5, used an incredible zone press defense to force turnovers, gain steals that led to fast break points, limited opponents to one shot, and then got extra scoring opportunities by crashing the offensive boards. UCLA went 30-0 that year, and they had big scoring spurts in all 30 games. Most notably, the 1964 Championship Game presented the perfect example for spurtability. Duke was favored to win the title. They had two starters at 6 foot 10 plus an All-American tall guard that could shoot from outside and drive the ball to the hoop.
The game started looking just like the experts predicted, as Duke’s extra size and muscle allowed the Blue Devils to work the ball inside for high percentage shots, while forcing UCLA to play from the perimeter. The Bruin press was handled easily, and Duke led 30-27 with about 6 minutes to go in the first half. UCLA then went on a 16-0 run in less than 2 minutes! The press totally disrupted Duke’s offense, and the Bruin fast break looked like an NBA All-star game. The game was over before halftime.
We have analyzed what leads teams to enjoy winning scoring spurts. It almost never happens in possession basketball, where the spurting team scores on six consecutive half-court possessions, while the other team fails to score on six consecutive half-court possessions. Rebounding and Turnovers bring on scoring spurts. Seldom does a team take one shot per possession for multiple possessions and goes on a scoring spurt. They need multiple shots per possession and/or they need to prevent the opponent from getting any shots and if so, just one.
The PiRate R+T factor uses a unique set of formulas to see the spurtabilities of teams. For years, we had one R+T that used counting stats (rebound margin, average number of steals per game, and turnover margin), and we found that the teams with the highest R+T were the one’s advancing the deepest into the tournament. But, as we realized that rates were more important than counting, we also devised a rate formula using offensive rebounding rates, steal rates, and turnover rates. This places a team that averages 75 possessions per game on the same playing field with a team that averages 65 possessions per game.
We have two formulas, one for old R+T and one for the new rate-generated R+T. Both have their merits. The formula for old R+T is quite simple: (R*2)+(0.5*S)+(6-Opponents S)+T, where R is rebounding margin, S is steals, and T is turnover margin. When a team has a rating of 10.0 or better, they have a good chance to have a winning spurt. When the number is 15.0 or better, opponents better watch out, because a spurt is almost assured when playing this team. If the number is 20.0 or better, this is a team that typically goes on one winning spurt every game and only loses to teams that can do the same.
Of course, this R+T rating must be used in step with schedule strength, because a Big Ten team can much easier go on a spurt against a Summit League team than it can against a Big 12 team.
The new Rate R+T formula is quite lengthy, so we won’t attempt to explain it. Anything over 4.0 is considered strong. Anything over 8.0 is considered very strong, and anything over 12.0 is considered lethal when taken in context with schedule strength.
The other important part of this is how to treat a team with a negative old R+T rating. These teams are ripe to be upset early in the tournament. If the team has a new R+T rating below -3, they are also in jeopardy of losing early in the tournament. It is low R+T that has doomed so many Big Ten teams in recent years, especially Purdue and the teams coached by Keady proteges.
The remaining criteria are secondary to the four primary criteria, but they are important when looking at games between teams that are evenly matched in the primary criteria.
Criteria #5: 3-point Shooting Percentage
For years, we believed that the teams that relied on the 3-point shot didn’t win in the Sweet 16 to the Championship Game, because the larger arenas with weird sitelines and the tighter rims were not good for these teams. However, as analytics began to change the game, and players became more 3-point shooting conscious (copying the NBA), this proved to not be the case.
Note that this criteria makes no notice of the number of 3-point attempts taken. Only the percentage matters. If a team can hit better than 35% from behind the arc, defenses must widen, and thus they are weaker against the high percentage inside shot. If a team shoots less than 33.3% from behind the arc, defenses can tighten and keep the ball away from the 65% scoring area near the basket.
Criteria #6: Offensive Rebounding Percentage
This is covered in other criteria, but it is important enough to isolate it into its own category, because there is history showing the point where offensive rebounding can lead a team to extra victories. At 35%, a team that shoots 43% can get 10 extra points on second chance shots. The cut-off number here is 30%. If a team cannot average 30% offensive rebounds, they are not going to make it far in the Big Dance. If a team has an O-Rebound rate of 37.5% or higher, they are dangerous.
Criteria #7: 2-point Percentage Defense
While we are interested in the offensive 3-point percentage, on the defensive side, it’s the ability to prevent made 2-point shots that is more important. If a team gives up more than 52.5% inside the arc, they are going to have to drop defenders in the paint, leaving the 3-point line open, where good shooters will hurt them.
When a defense limits opponents to less than 46% from inside the arc, their defense is tough, tough enough to keep winning in the Big Dance if their offense is better than average. The important number is 48.5%. Most national champions have met this requirement.
Criteria #8: Free Throw Rate
We were late coming to this party. For many years, it was our belief that teams that relied on hitting free throws to win games in the regular season did not succeed in the NCAA Tournament, because the games were officiated differently and fewer fouls were called. The NCAA eventually made some changes in game officiating, where most games are now called the same way, and officials are graded just like players and coaches. Now, the frequency of fouls called in the Big Dance is about the same as what is called in the regular season.
The next part of this criteria that we had to come around to supporting was how it was calculated. The original FT Rate was simply FTA/FGA. How many of these free throws were made did not matter, as the formula was merely a rate of how many free throw attempts a team made compared to field goal attempts.
There were two other schools of thought on this. Some metrics experts changed it to FTM/FGA. Others, including us, went with free throws made per 100 possessions.
But, it soon came to us in a brainstorm that the original formula or FTA/FGA is the best of the three. There’s more to a foul than just making foul shots. Fouls limit playing time. If a star player commits two quick fouls in the first four minutes of a crucial game, he’s likely to miss many minutes in the first half. Losing a star player in this situation is worth many more points than the possible foul shots. Additionally, players in the game in foul trouble must watch how they play defense and how they drive toward the basket on offense.
A free throw rate (FTA/FGA) of 28.5% or better is important in the NCAA Tournament. Above 32% is really good. Above 37.5% is remarkable.
Criteria #9: Scoring Margin
Very few teams have ever won a national championship with a scoring margin below 8 points per game, and a majority of national champions have had scoring margins above 10. When you combine a double-digit scoring margin with a schedule strength at least 7 points above average, this is a dangerous team. Teams with scoring margins under 5 points per game rarely win four NCAA Tournament games.
Criteria #10: A Lengthy Winning Streak
To get to the Final Four, teams have to win four consecutive games against very strong competition. To win the national title, they must win six consecutive games, four of which must be against great teams.
Do you expect a team that hasn’t won six games in a row during the regular season, where many of those games were against subpar teams, to become capable of winning six games after March 15?
A 10-game winning streak is typical of most national champions of the past, and two streaks of six are also markers of teams capable of going deep in the tournament.
Criteria #11: Preseason Top 25
You might think that being ranked in the top 25 in the preseason means absolutely nothing, but the sports media has experts. They know which teams have all the talent, and even though North Carolina just failed to make the field after beginning the season ranked #1, there is no reason to throw this stat aside. It’s been many years since a national champion wasn’t ranked in the preseason.
Criteria #12: Regular Season or Conference Tournament Champion
It’s been many years since the national champion didn’t win a major college conference regular season or tournament title. Even the biggest outlier champion, 2011 Connecticut won the Big East Conference Tournament as a #9 seed, winning five games in five days.
Criteria #13: Coach With NCAA Tournament Experience
Occasionally, a first year coach will direct his team to the NCAA Tournament and have some success, but it doesn’t happen often. Bill Hodges took a team to the Championship Game in his first year as a head coach, but Indiana State with Larry Bird might have made it to the Final Four with the head coach of Terre Haute High School coaching the team. Steve Fisher won a national championship at Michigan in 1989 when he began the tournament with a career record of 0-0.
On the other hand, a coach like Bill Self, Tom Izzo, and Mick Cronin has been there so many times, there are no unexpected variables that arise and throw their teams off sync. They know the process and can better prepare their teams through the extra long timeouts, the pressure of being on the national stage, and even how to better negotiate the logistics of the tournament.
Criteria #14: 3 Upperclassmen Getting 24+ Minutes Per Game
This criteria is almost null and void these days, because thanks to the NCAA giving an extra year to all players that played during the Covid season, almost every team is loaded with upperclassmen. There are a couple of teams with youth and inexperience, but you won’t find many. Once this waiver is gone, this will be important again.
Criteria #15: An Inside Power Game With 2 Starters Combining For 20 & 12
If a team has two starters that combine to average 20 or more points and 12 or more rebounds per game, they can bang it inside at crucial junctures of the games, when an inside power play is important. A team can win with a great perimeter game, but eventually, they are going to need some inside points and cheap baskets.
Criteria #16: Three or More Go-to Guys
If a team relies on one or even two players to do most of their scoring, and the star has an off game, or the opponent can shut him down, they aren’t likely to win at this level. If a team has three or more players that can carry the team on their backs, it is almost impossible to stop all three in any game. A star like LeBron James might be able to take his team to the NBA Finals, but remember that everybody on an NBA roster is capable of scoring a bunch of points on a given night. At the college level, stopping a one-star team is possible and happens every year in the NCAA Tournament. Remember that the great Michael Jordan had James Worthy and Sam Perkins on his North Carolina team. Kareem Abdul Jabbar was surrounded with players like Lucius Allen, Sidney Wicks, and Curtis Rowe at UCLA, and Jabbar’s stats were lower than they could have been had UCLA not been balanced elsewhere.
Congratulations! You have earned your PhD in Bracketnomics. Coming tomorrow, the PiRate Ratings will present to you all the data that we use in these criteria. We will then make our picks.
Nearly three weeks ago, we excitedly released our 2021 Bracketnomics report believing we were on top of the NCAA Tournament and knowing which teams were the true contenders and which were the pretenders. We came up with our Final Four teams, and poof, two of them lost before the Sweet 16.
We gave you a list of Gonzaga, Illinois, and Michigan, qualifying Michigan based on whether Isaiah Livers could return and play after the Sweet 16, which he was unable to do. Next, we gave you a list of teams that had a strong resume that should contend for the Final 4, of which Houston was one of those teams. Finally, we gave you the list of the handful of teams that had Final 4-worthy resumes but not as strong as the half-dozen just above. In that group was Baylor.
Three of the remaining four teams meet the PiRate Ratings Bracketnomics criteria to win a national championship. As for UCLA, they are an outlier with very little national championship statistical criteria. Even though we selected a couple of wrong championship-worthy teams, three of the four Final Four teams meet the Bracketnomics criteria we endorse. If Gonzaga, Houston, or Baylor win the title, then the Bracketnomics fundamentals will have proven valid for the season. Let’s look at the Semifinal Games and show you the Bracketnomics Criteria in total.
Efficiency Ratings
93% of all national champions since 1990 have finished in the top 10 in offensive efficiency and in the top 20 in defensive efficiency.
Offensive Efficiency Ratings
Baylor
3
Gonzaga
1
Houston
7
UCLA
13
Baylor, Gonzaga, and Houston qualify here. UCLA is just outside the criteria range.
Defensive Efficiency Ratings
Baylor
28
Gonzaga
5
Houston
8
UCLA
45
Gonzaga and Houston qualify here. Baylor semi-qualifies, because the 6.7% of the teams that won the national title that didn’t meet the defensive efficiency criterion (two times in 30 years), their defensive efficiency was in the top 40. UCLA once again does not qualify here. Because efficiency is the most important criterion, UCLA is not a Bracketnomics’ qualifier. If the Bruins win the title, they crush this system.
Strength of Schedule
All national champions in the last 30+ years have had a strength of schedule better than 5 points per game above average, or to clarify it, a score of 55.0 or better in our PiRate formula.
Final 4 SOS
Baylor
59.3
Gonzaga
59.2
Houston
56.9
UCLA
61.4
All four teams qualify with this criterion. The belief that Gonzaga did not play a hard enough schedule is 100% hogwash. Gonzaga defeated Virgina, Iowa, and West Virginia in addition to three wins over BYU. Wins over USC, Creighton, and Oklahoma by 17.7 points per game totally destroys the theory that the Bulldogs are not as strong as the best Power Conference teams.
PiRate R + T Ratings
If this is your first look at our site, the R+T rating is our creation. It measures a team’s ability and likelihood of enjoying a scoring run. Usually, NCAA Tournament games are decided when one team goes on a scoring run to secure the victory or to come from behind to win. This rating looks at the reasons why a team gets that spurt in a game. It happens with extra rebounding, steals, avoiding steals on offense, and turnovers. Because steals are more valuable than all other turnovers, they get their own piece in the formula.
R + T Rating = R + (.5S) + (6 – Opp. S) + T where R = Rebound Margin, S = Steals, and T = Turnover Margin
Historically, national champions are in the top quadrant in R+T ratings. In most years, the top quadrant begins around 12.5 to 15. In this Covid basketball season, the top quadrant line is 11.8 and the top 10% is 14.5.
Final 4 R+T
Baylor
14.2
Gonzaga
14.7
Houston
18.3
UCLA
8.3
Once again, Baylor, Gonzaga, and Houston qualify with this criterion, while UCLA does not. Houston’s R+T is typical of a team that puts a game away quickly when they get a spurt, but when you factor tougher schedules for Baylor and Gonzaga, the top three are basically equal, while UCLA is still not qualified.
Upperclassman Leadership
In 90% of the past 30 years, the national champion had multple upperclassmen (juniors & seniors) among their top eight players. When the game is on the line, an experienced 22-year old player is an adult that can handle pressure. An 18-year old freshman is still a teenager.
Final 4 Leaders
Team
SR
JR
Baylor
2
4
Gonzaga
2
2
Houston
3
2
UCLA
0
4
All four teams have experienced leadership. UCLA has no seniors, and the loss of their one senior early in the season may be the only reason why the Bruins didn’t get to this point with a 26-4 record rather than 22-9. Houston having three seniors may have a unique advantage this year, since nobody received NCAA Tournament experience last year.
The Clutch Factor
There are going to be possessions in the Big Dance where a team must rely on a player or players to put the load on their shoulders and pick up the crucial basket, rebound, or defensive stop. Think of Reggie Jackson in October. All Final Four teams have had a Mr. March on their roster. Even surprise teams like Virginia Commonwealth and George Mason in this century have had at least one Mr. March on their roster. It must be close to impossible to get this far without that guy or guys. So, this factor is obvious for all four teams remaining.
Baylor
3
Gonzaga
3
Houston
1
UCLA
1
Baylor and Gonzaga have three Mr. March’s (Mr. April’s) on their roster. It is harder to stop three than it is one, but if the one’s are more like Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, or MJ, then the one’s can trump the threes. Unfortunately for Houston and UCLA, Baylor and Gonzaga’s three go-to guys are the players closest to the superstars. Here is where we begin to really separate the superior teams from the really good teams.
Three-point Percentage
This is one of two areas where we at the PiRate Ratings were late in endorsing. The reason for this is that prior to about 2015, college basketball teams were not up to snuff on analytics. Once mathematics became a large part of basketball strategy, the game experienced an evolution to where most teams now attempt to shoot the highest percentage two-point shots along with open three-point shots. All that matters is finding a 60% probable two-point shot and a 40% probable three-point shot. If a team can hit 37% from behind the arc, they must hit better than 55.5% from inside the arc to make two-point shooting worthwhile, and the same goes for holding the opponent below those numbers.
The key in this criterion is to have a team three-point percentage of 37.0 or better. Going 3 for 8 is just as acceptable as going 15 for 40. It’s the percentage that matters.
Final 4 3-pt%
Baylor
41.1
Gonzaga
37.1
Houston
35.4
UCLA
36.9
Baylor and Gonzaga shoot better than 37% from the 3-point line. UCLA is one made basket away from qualifying and thus would round up to 37%. Houston does not meet the criterion. In a game with Baylor, where the Bears are able to prevent the Cougars from getting multiple second chances, this could be a decider. Read on though to see the other side of this equation.
Dominant Insider Player(s)
Now that we told you the importance of 3-point shooting, now we switch and tell you it is also important to have a dominant inside player or players. A team doesn’t have to have Kareem Abdul Jabbar or Patrick Ewing inside these days to have a dominant inside game. All we are looking for is one player that can score in the low post and averages better than 12 points per game or two front court players that average better than 20 points and 12 rebounds per game.
Final 4 Inside Dominance
Team
1 @ 12
2 @ 20/12
Baylor
No
No
Gonzaga
Yes
Yes
Houston
No
No
UCLA
No
No
This is the most glaring stat of the entire system. Gonzaga has a post player that averages more than 12 points per game, and the Bulldogs have two front court players that combine for better than 20 points and 12 rebounds per game. The other three teams do not have a player that meets this criterion. It makes the Bulldogs prohibitive favorites, because this stat goes hand-in-hand with R+T and the prevention of R+T.
In past years, when a team of smaller players won the national championship, while they may not have had a 6 foot 10 inch monster in the middle, they did have a 6 foot 5 leaper that could score points inside and clean the boards with rebounds. The tiny 1964 UCLA Bruins with no starter over 6 foot 5 still dominated inside with three players that combined for 32.1 points and 17.8 rebounds per game. That tiny Bruin team outrebounded their opponents by more than 8 per game!
True Shooting Percentage Margin
True Shooting percentage is a new age metric that assigns point values to shot attempts. A free throw, a 2-point basket, and a 3-point basket obviously count for different values, so the ability to score points on a possession can be weighted. In essence, this is just another way to look at offensive and defensive efficiency, but it removes the schedule strength factor. Because all the Final 4 teams have adequate schedule strengths, this criterion may show a more accurate estimate. A double digit margin is a sign of a great team. A margin of 5.0-9.9% is really good.
Final 4 TS% Margins
Team
TS%
Opp
Margin
Baylor
58.5
52.0
6.5
Gonzaga
63.4
49.8
13.6
Houston
54.4
47.1
7.3
UCLA
54.7
52.9
1.8
You see the obvious here. Gonzaga is far and away the superior team in this quartet. UCLA looks like a team that should have gone home by the Sweet 16. Baylor and Houston are extremely close.
Double Figure Scoring
In addition to having clutch players, it is great to have at least three players that average 10 or more points per game, preferably four players. A team with one or two big scorers is more likely to have an issue with both having “off nights” than a team with three double-figure scorers. A team with four double-figure scorers is unlikely to see all four players have an off night.
Final 4 DBL FIG
Baylor
3
Gonzaga
4
Houston
3
UCLA
4
Gonzaga and UCLA have the big four number, while Baylor and Houston have three. All four qualify here. Ironically, had UCLA’s senior star not been injured in game number eight, they would have had five double figure scorers and might have been as powerful as their 1995 national champions.
Offensive Rebounding Rate
Offensive rebounding is the key to having a superior R+T rating, and in the Final four, where all four teams have excellent team defenses, quite often the best offensive rebounding team gets that game-clinching spurt. ORR must also be used in conjunction with schedule strength.
Simply, ORR is the percentage of offensive rebounds a team gets off its missed shots. If a team misses 35 shots (FG and FT with a rebound) and gets 14 offensive rebounds, their ORR is 40.0 (14/35).
In the past, the key number has been 37.5% or three offensive rebounds for every eight missed shots. A team that could hit that mark frequently had an R+T north of 18. In recent years with more three-point shots and a prevalence of Pack-Line defenses, that number has been lowered to 35%. Any team that can retrieve 35% of its missed shots with a schedule strength in the top quadrant is going to be a tough out.
Final 4 ORR
Baylor
36.1
Gonzaga
30.4
Houston
39.5
UCLA
29.4
This is where Houston shines, and where the Cougars have their opening to upset Baylor. The issue is that Baylor has the next best ORR. Can Houston get enough offensive rebounds to account for their sub-standard three-point shooting? The probability is less than 50%.
Offensive rebounding is the closest vulnerability Gonzaga has. It is the only reason why at the beginning of March Madness that we had them as the second best overall criteria. However, UCLA has an ORR under 30.0, and that number is not indicative of a Final 4 team. If Gonzaga plays in the title game Monday night, their opponent will have one aspect of the game where they can exploit the Bulldogs’ lack of superiority. We won’t call it a weakness, because it is still better than average.
Two-point Percentage Defense
Two-point percentage is still highly important in the Big Dance. Teams still take 2/3 of their shot attempts inside the arc. The important number here is 45%. If a team holds their opponents under 45% from inside the arc, they are dangerous on the defensive side.
Final 4 2pt D
Baylor
48.6
Gonzaga
46.5
Houston
42.8
UCLA
49.4
Now you see why we pegged Houston as a potential Final 4 team before the tournament commenced. Holding opponents to 42.8% from inside the arc, while also having a superior rebounding team has allowed the Cougars to make it this far. Baylor and UCLA just barely hold teams under 50% from inside the arc. Gonzaga is in the gray area between very good and great.
Free Throw Rate
We admit that we failed to fully grasp the importance of this metric until last year. For years, we talked about how every national champion for a long stretch in history had free throw percentages under 70%, basically in the bottom 50% in their season. The teams with the highest FT% didn’t make it to the NCAA Tournament, or they made quick exits. There was a reason for this. If these teams needed a high percentage to win, they seldom could use this against superior athletes that maybe didn’t shoot as well from the charity stripe.
We threw the baby out with the bath water! How naive we were for so many years. We even altered our idea of FT Rate, going with a different formula from the norm. Originally, FT Rate was simply FT attempts divided by FG attempts. Some heavy hitters in the basketball metrics world altered this to FT made divided by FG attempts. We endorsed an Ivy League math professor’s peer-reviewed thesis that showed FT divided by possessions was more valuable than the alternatives but still considerably less important that field goal accuracy, rebounding rates, and turnover rates.
Then, like a light bulb exploding above our heads, we began to rationalize why players foul and why they do not foul. Most of the fouls in college basketball happen because the offensive player is too talented for the defensive player to guard. Instead of giving up the easy basket, the defensive player will make contact with the offensive player, hoping the referees fail to notice.
The FT rate is thus very important, but FT% isn’t the reason. It tells us which team is hardest to guard and which defense is superior and does not need to foul to stop easy baskets. Thus, the original FTA/FGA is in fact the important equation to use here. Look for a team that has an offensive FT rate over 31% and a defensive FT rate under 31%. The farther away from 31%, the better.
Final 4 FT Rate
Team
O-Rate
D-Rate
Baylor
26.7
31.0
Gonzaga
35.6
25.3
Houston
30.4
41.0
UCLA
31.4
28.0
Once again, Gonzaga is clearly the best at these criteria. UCLA has ridden these criteria to five wins in the Dance. Baylor is vulnerable here with substandard stats on both sides of the ball. Houston has a major issue on the defensive side, where they obviously foul way too much. If the Cougars get in early foul trouble in the first half against Baylor, it will be curtains. Baylor doesn’t force fouls, so UH might be okay for one night.
A Head Coach With Past Final Four Experience
If a coach has past Final Four experience, his team usually comes out ready to play without the “tightness” many teams have at the beginning of games. These coaches are better equipped to handle all the extra intangibles that Final Four basketball brings. Obviously, all Final 4 coaches have winning Elite 8 experience, but the regional finals and national semifinals are world’s apart.
Final 4 Coaching
Baylor
No
Gonzaga
Yes
Houston
Yes
UCLA
No
Kelvin Sampson made one Final Four with Oklahoma 19 years ago. He has the experience. Mark Few has taken Gonzaga to the national finals, where the Bulldogs lost by two. Neither Mick Cronin nor Scott Drew have been here before. Gonzaga and Houston get the gold in this criterion.
Conference Champions
Very rarely has the national champion not won either its regular season conference championship, or its conference tournament championship. It isn’t 100% indicative, but it is a strong factor.
Final 4 Champions
Baylor
Yes
Gonzaga
Yes
Houston
Yes
UCLA
No
UCLA is the odd team out again. Baylor won the Big 12 Conference title. Houston won the American Athletic Conference Tournament after finishing second in the conference race. Gonzaga swept both the West Coast Conference regular season and conference tournament titles. UCLA won neither the Pac-12 regular season nor conference tournament titles.
Scoring Margin
This is the oldest metric that holds up throughout college basketball history. Better than 90% of all national champions have had scoring margins of 10.0 points or better. Lower that to 8.0 points or better, and you approach 100%. A large majority of national champions had scoring margins above 12 points, and a sizable number had better than 15-point margins.
Final 4 Scoring Margins
Baylor
17.5
Gonzaga
23.1
Houston
19.0
UCLA
5.3
Three teams satisfy this criterion. UCLA would be on par with David slewing two Goliaths to win the title. There isn’t any past basis to predict the Bruins defeating Gonzaga and the Baylor-Houston winner.
Field Goal Percentage Margin
We almost dismissed this criterion. It is old-hat, and there are newer metrics that rate this ability better. However, this stat still holds up from the 1930’s through today. Historically, the national champion has averaged better than 7.5% superiority in field goal percentage margin. The past net-cutters have frequently topped 10% in this statistic. Only the margin matters, so this can be 52% offense to 42% defense or 47% offense and 37% for defense or any other 10% margin.
Final 4 FG% Margin
Baylor
5.4
Gonzaga
13.3
Houston
6.4
UCLA
2.3
As you can see, Gonzaga is the only one of the four teams that meet this criterion. 13.3% is similar to the other undefeated national championship teams. The 1967, 1972, and 1973 UCLA teams that went 30-0 plus the 1976 32-0 Indiana team averaged 11.3% in FG% margin. Gonzaga’s 13.3 is higher than all four of these past greats.
Winning Streak(s)
A team must win six consecutive games (seven if playing in the First Four) to win the national championship. If the team couldn’t win six or seven games in a row during the regular season, you cannot expect them to do so in the Big Dance.
There are two key data points with this criterion. They are one 10-game winning streak or two six-game winning streaks.
Final 4 Winning Streaks
Baylor
18
Gonzaga
30
Houston
11/8/7
UCLA
7
Gonzaga’s 30-0 record easily qualifies the Bulldogs here. Baylor’s 18-game winning streak safely qualifies them. Houston has three winning streaks greater than 6 games, which also satisfies this criterion’s parameters. UCLA has one winning streak of 7 games, which came in 2020 with their former senior star playing. The Bruins do not qualify.
Summation
The most obvious information herein is that UCLA made it this far as one of the greatest outliers in tournament history. They barely survived their First Four play-in game with Michigan St. Their overtime win over Alabama was gifted by a terrible officiating mistake in regulation. Their Elite 8 win over Michigan was extremely lucky when Michigan had multiple opportunities to win in the last 30 seconds but basically crumbled under pressure. Using this criteria, Gonzaga should beat the Bruins by 15 or more points.
The Baylor-Houston game is not as cut and dry. Most pundits believe BU is unbeatable in this game, but we beg to differ. Houston is the underdog in this game, but Baylor is maybe a 55% to 45% favorite at best. Both the Bears and Cougars possess the criteria to make it to the National Championship Game.
If you are a Gonzaga fan, you might want to cheer for Baylor to win their semifinal game. While the Bears have an incredible criteria resume, Houston dominates in the one area where Gonzaga is vulnerable.
The 1927 New York Yankees are considered the best baseball team of all time by a majority of baseball experts. Yet ,that team had some weaknesses. Third baseman Jumpin’ Joe Dugan was a below average player at his position. Mark Koenig was an average shortstop. The three-man catching platoon was good but not great. However, that team had Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, two of the top 10 players of all time. It had Tony Lazzeri, Earle Combs, and Bob Meusel, three additional stars that in other years could have been the best player on a pennant-winning team. The pitching staff didn’t get the accolades, but they were the best in the Major Leagues in 1927. The Pinstripes went 110-44 to win the AL Pennant and swept Pittsburgh in the World Series 4 games to none. That Pittsburgh team (actually Pittsburg in those days) was loaded with talent, including Big Poison and Little Poison in Paul and Lloyd Waner, in addition to Pie Traynor, Kiki Cuyler, and three other hitters that had batting averages over .300.
The legendary sportswriters of the 1920’s noticed the Pirates players watching the Yankees take batting practice before the series began. Ruth sent towering home run shots over the very deep Forbes Field right-center field and center field walls well over 400 feet flights. Then, Gehrig stepped into the batter’s box and sent hard-hit balls that were not as high but looked like ropes going over those same spots in the deep wall. The Pirate players were in awe, but that was just two players.
Lazzeri, Meusel, and catcher Pat Collins then got into the batter’s box in succession batting from the right side. Each of the trio then sent balls rifling over the distant left-field wall, again over 400 feet blasts. The Pirate pitchers were mortified and totally psyched out. The Series was over before it started.
Is this Gonzaga team the 1927 Yankees on the college hardwoods? With all the games being played in the Indianapolis area, Baylor, Houston, and UCLA have had ample time to see Drew Timme, Corey Kispert, and Jalen Suggs appear to be Ruth, Gehrig, and Lazzeri. They have seen Joel Ayayi and Andrew Nembhard look like Combs and Meusel.
It is our opinion that Gonzaga is more like the great UCLA national Champions than the 1991 UNLV, 1979 Indiana State, and 1976 Rutgers teams, the last three to make it to the Final four undefeated and not win the title. The hidden intimidation factor is worth 12 to 15 points in GU’s favor. Opponents will be fearful of giving up too many easy transition baskets to really crash their offensive boards, where GU can be exploited. They are likely to hurry their shots and shoot below their norms. Because the other teams in this tournament cannot properly match up with Timme and Kispert, we expect the inside defenders to experience foul trouble.
After Citation won the Triple Crown in horse racing in 1948, 25 years passed until the feat was replicated. Great horses like Northern Dancer and Majestic Prince couldn’t pull it off. When it finally happened again, the horse that did it was the 1927 Yankees of thoroughbred racing. Secretariat forced other trainers to alter how they ran their horses, and it still didn’t work. In the Belmont, Sham tried to run fast early to keep up with Secretariat, and Sham wore out. The greatest horse of the time period ran away with a 31-length victory totally obliterating the record time by multiple seconds!
Is Gonzaga about to become the Secretariat of this generation? The Bracketnomics criteria believe so.
For many of you, this is the only time of the year you visit the PiRate Ratings, as March Madness is your real holiday season. If this is your first visit here, please be advised that we actively participate in rating college and NFL football as well as college basketball. And, if you are a fan of tabletop baseball games, our Sabertooth Baseball Game is available for the low price of $7 while it is still on sale, when it will go back to $8. If you have the dice and the playing surface, we send you all the cards, charts, and rules in a zip file for you to print. Serious gamers tell us that they think our game is one of the most advanced strategic baseball games on the market with unique playing styles. If we piqued your interest, check us out at https://sabertooth-baseball.square.site , or our blog at https://sabertoothbaseball.wordpress.com
Now that we’ve heard from our sponsor, let’s get right to it. First, what are Bracketnomics? That’s our term we coined to describe how we use analytical data that has been backtested to try to determine which teams have the best set of statistical fingerprints when compared to national champions of the past.
If you have already read this or just want to go straight to picking your bracket, then here’s what you have been waiting for.
First, let’s start with a few bracket-picking strategies. It is obvious that picking a perfect bracket is about as likely as winning the Powerball and Megamillion lotteries in the same week where lightning strikes your air conditioner compressor and you find a four-leaf clover when you go outside to see why your A/C isn’t working.
It is, however, possible to win whatever bracket-picking contest you enter. We here have received dozens of comments through the years from readers telling us they won their office pools, and we have also heard from people that won pools from supermarket contests, radio station contests, and even one from a woman that won $1,000 from a modified Calcutta contest.
There are a few general keys to scoring high enough to win your bracket pool. First, you need to start by picking your national champion, Final Four, and Elite 8 in that order. Do not start with the opening round and just predict the winners. You will likely eliminate yourself before the Sweet 16 by picking a bunch of upset winners and arrive at the Sweet 16 with less than a half-dozen teams still alive.
Next, once you have your Elite 8, go into each sub-bracket that those 8 teams emerged and pick the best team that would give the Elite 8 team a tough Sweet 16 game. Now, you have your Sweet 16.
At this point, you need to pick most of the rest of the games by “the chalk.” Obviously, your Sweet 16 will have to win in the Rounds of 64 and 32. You can then maybe pick a couple upset winners in the first round and maybe one or two of your Sweet 16 teams will be a dark horse. However, as we see it, the teams considered dark horses really looked like the favorites in our method of picking games. In the past, we were all in on a George Mason team that ambushed the field to the Final Four. We said that Virginia Commonwealth was better than 20 seeds and did not deserve to be in the First Four, and the Rams went to the Final Four. We had Wichita State as a Final Four possible the year they went to the Final Four. And, we showed that Butler had a lot of the needed criteria to get deep into their tournaments. It isn’t fail-safe; we did not see Loyola making the Final Four, and we twice struck out with Connecticut teams that won their championships.
Our criteria relies on the percentages and uses past events to predict future possibilities. Math is not perfect in this respect. Think of it this way: Would you rather have Ty Cobb at bat with runners on second and third base and two outs in the last of the ninth, trailing by one run, or would you rather have Mario Mendoza at bat? The odds greatly favor the best hitter of all time, but there are some instances where Cobb might make an out on a hard line drive, while Mendoza delivers the game-winning hit on a bloop pop fly that finds grass between the infielder and outfielder. We’ll still go with Cobb, and that’s what our Bracketnomics attempt to be–the Ty Cobb of bracket-picking.
A lot of gurus will tell you how the #12 seed is the best upset spot, and they point to how many times the #12 seed has upset the #5 seed. Why does this happen? It is because the #12 seeds are often the best automatic qualifiers from mid-major conferences, and the Selection Committee did a poor job placing these teams this low. It is not a jinx, so don’t automatically advance a 12-seed unless you can see they were placed in the wrong seed line.
The same thing can be said about the 11-seeds. In recent years, the Committee was a little more accurate placing powerful mid-major champions one seed higher than past years. A lot of these former superior 12-seeds are now superior 11-seeds. And, instead of playing 5-seeds, they are playing weaker 6-seeds. The plan stays the same–look at the criteria and let the criteria show you when the lower seeds are superior and actually the better team, meaning it won’t really be an upset at all.
The Best Criteria
As we looked at all the data, three teams emerged from the pack of 68 that have national championship looking criteria stats. However, one of the teams is missing a key ingredient and will have to be discounted some for the loss of a key player.e
The overall best resumes belong to two #1 seeds, Gonzaga and Illinois. The third team that has the look of a national champion is Michigan, but the Wolverines fall out of this category if Isaiah Livers cannot return by the Sweet 16 and play at somewhat close to 100% efficiency.
There is another group of teams that fall just short of national champion appearance. These teams are below the championship line in one basic criterion or multiple smaller criteria. These teams in alphabetical order are: Colorado, Houston, Texas, and Virginia. We expect that maybe one of these four will sneak into the Final Four.
The next group back, the teams that are just behind the above group and have solid Sweet 16 appearance criteria with possible Elite 8 criteria are: Alabama, Arkansas, Baylor, Saint Bonaventure, San Diego St., USC, and Wisconsin. We expect at least one of these six to make the Elite 8.
Then, there is a group of teams with considerable positive criteria along with a major negative criterion. These teams are also Sweet 16 worthy, and two could advance to the Elite 8 with one even sneaking into the Final Four. These teams may benefit from ideal brackets more than criteria, as you read the previews.
This year’s criteria was hard to calculate because of the lack of non-conference games. Schedule strength had to be stressed even more than usual, or else we would have Colgate picked to go to the Final 4. The Raiders are 14-1, and all of their games were against fellow Patriot League members; additionally, Colgate never played the other quality team in the league in Navy.
There was a slight issue with Gonzaga’s strength of schedule. The Bulldogs’ total SOS was brought down due to the bottom teams in their conference. However, they have wins over Iowa and West Virginia out of conference, and that allows us to accept Gonzaga’s schedule strength as the minimum needed to be considered for the national championship, and adequate for the Final Four. They were supposed to play Baylor, but the Bears opted out of that game due to the virus.
Now, we will review each of the Round of 64 games using our criteria to pick the winner. Note that we will have regular PiRate Rating spreads for these games on the day of the games. Our PiRate Ratings are not used when picking winners in Bracketnomics.
First Four
If you are picking brackets, you can usually wait until these games have been played before picking your brackets. The 16-seed winners will not really matter, as none of them stand a chance to knock off a 1-seed this year. The 11-seed games will be important, so if you can, wait until those games have been played before submitting your brackets wherever you do.
16 Texas Southern vs. 16 Mount St. Mary’s: Mount St. Mary’s defense will keep Texas Southern from getting a lot of good looks, and the Mount doesn’t foul a lot, so TSU will have a hard time scoring. MSM’s R+T is a tad better too.
Prediction: Mount St. Mary’s
11 Drake vs. 11 Wichita St.: This should be a close game, as both teams have strengths that can be used to exploit the other team’s weaknesses. Drake is clearly the better offensive team, while Wichita State has a smaller advantage on defense but considerable advantage on schedule strength. Drake’s R+T rating is quite better, good enough that they might enjoy the game-clinching spurt in this one.
Prediction: Drake
16 Appalachian St. vs. 16 Norfolk St.: These are two teams that will be fighting tooth and nail for their chance to shine for one night, and this looks like a close one. To select a winner here, we basically have to go with the team with fewer negatives. Both are ripe with negatives, but in the end, Norfolk St. has the capability of speeding up the tempo and getting Appy State players in foul trouble.
Prediction: Norfolk St.
11 Michigan St. vs. 11 UCLA: This is a Michigan State squad lacking its typical inside dominance, while UCLA has very little inside game. So, it’s more likely that this game will be decided on the perimeter. UCLA is clearly superior from behind the arc, and Michigan State’s biggest issue this year has been with perimeter players that can take the three or drive quickly to the key.
Prediction: UCLA
SOUTH REGIONAL
1 Baylor vs. 16 Hartford: There’s nothing at all that shows us that Hartford has a chance in this game. Baylor is superior across the board, so forget this being a UMBC-Virginia moment. Baylor should lead by more than 30 when Scott Drew removes his starters.
Prediction: Baylor
8 North Carolina vs. 9 Wisconsin: Normally, we would find some fact or statistic to show the Tar Heels being superior to an opening round opponent, but this time, we cannot rationalize doing so. Both teams are about equal defensively in preventing good shots by their opponents. Wisconsin is clearly more efficient on offense. Wisconsin is one of the most experienced teams in the field with six seniors among their top eight players, while UNC is one of the greenest with just one senior and one junior among their top eight. Carolina has the power advantage in this game, but the Badgers will limit possessions, and they have the outside shooting advantage. Carolina’s only hope is to get the pace up to more than 70 possessions per side, but we think the veteran Badger team will control the pace and have the advantage.
Prediction: Wisconsin
5 Villanova vs. 12 Winthrop: This is one of those momentum games by a lot of pundits. They believe that with Villanova’s multiple injuries, this will be another #12 seed upset. Are they correct? Let’s take a look.
First, we have to discount Villanova due to their missing senior guard Collin Gillespie. Additionally, guard Justin Moore will still be somewhat below par due to his severe ankle sprain. Add to that fact that Winthrop has one of the most unique point forwards in the nation in Chandler Vaudrin. Now, let’s look at the data. Villanova enjoys an enormous inside advantage in this game, and their schedule strength is in a different time zone compared to Winthrop’s. Wins over Southern Conference contenders UNC-Greensboro and Furman were nice, but they were 0-0 against power conference teams. We expect VU’s two inside forces to get their share of points and force Winthrop to bring an extra defender into the paint, where ‘Nova’s third and fourth options on the perimeter should be good enough to knock down a few.
Prediction: Villanova
4 Purdue vs. 13 North Texas: This game could be close, for a half. North Texas has the ability to stay within single digits for most of the day, but in the end, Purdue has a wide advantage in both schedule strength and R+T. That almost always leads to a team going on a big run to put a game away.
Prediction: Purdue
6 Texas Tech vs. 11 Utah St.: Texas Tech is noted for their tough defense, but guess what? Utah State’s defense is even better this year. Utah State also has a supreme inside game and isn’t too shabby on the perimeter. Texas Tech has issues scoring on offense, and we expect the Red Raiders will have foul trouble inside the paint. Here is our first lower seed upset pick.
Prediction: Utah St.
3 Arkansas vs. 14 Colgate: Here is where schedule strength is as important as class is in handicap horse races. Arkansas is a Grade I champion, while Colgate is still eligible for non-winner’s of two allowance races. The schedule strength favors Arkansas by more than a dozen points before looking at any other stats. Arkansas’s offense is not superior, but it is very good. Their defense is close to superior. Colgate’s offense is good, but in the end, their defense isn’t going to slow down the Razorbacks enough times to keep this game close. There are no criteria that show us that Colgate has a chance to find something to exploit in this game. Add to the load our personal belief that Eric Musselman is one of the A++ basketball coaches, and this looks like a double-digit win.
Prediction: Arkansas
7 Florida vs. 10 Virginia Tech: This game looks more like an 8-9 game than a 7-10 game, because it is close to dead even when looking at all the criteria. Florida has a slight advantage with offensive and defensive efficiency and schedule strength, but VT rates better in R+T, which can override small schedule strength advantages. Additionally, both schools have swooned in recent weeks, so what we are looking at here is who will be fodder in the next round? We honestly say to pick the team you like in this one, because it is a 50-50 matchup. When it’s 50-50, we look at the coaches. Michael White has an Elite 8 appearance at Florida. Mike Young had an incredible Wofford team in the Dance that beat Seton Hall and took Kentucky to the buzzer in the Round of 32.
Prediction: Virginia Tech
2 Ohio St. vs. 15 Oral Roberts: Oral Roberts is the only one of the 68 teams in this field with a negative R+T rating. Our prime rule is to immediately eliminate any NCAA Tournament team with a negative R+T rating. There are no exceptions to this rule, so even if ORU was playing one of the 16-seeds in this round, we would be selecting the opponent. As Royal Rooter King Michael McGreevy would have replied, “‘Nuf ced.”
Prediction: Ohio St. has the potential to win by 35 points.
MIDWEST REGIONAL
1 Illinois vs. 16 Drexel: You know the answer here, so let’s break down the Illini a little to show you why they have the criteria of a national champion.
National champions come from power conferences–ACC, Big 12, SEC, Big East, Pac-12, and Big Ten. The last team not in one of these leagues to win the title was UNLV in 1990.
National champions tend to have double digit scoring margins. Since 1990, 28 of 30 national champions had double-digit scoring margins. The other two times, it was Connecticut both years. Illinois’s scoring margin is 12.2 in a year where the Big Ten was the top-ranked overall league.
National champions tend to have offenses ranked in the top 10 in efficiency and defenses ranked in the top 20 in efficiency. Illinois is 7th offensively and 5th defensively.
National champions tend to have four or more upperclassmen on their top eight. Illinois has two seniors and three juniors in their top eight.
Add to this a team with a +37% 3-point accuracy; two inside players that combine for more than 20 points and 12 rebounds per game; an offense that forces defenses to foul too much; a defense that does not foul too much; a top-10 schedule strength, and one of the few 20+ R+T Ratings in this tournament.
10 out of the last 13 years, a #1 seed won the national title, and Illinois is a #1 seed playing just one state away from home. Other than having a coach that has not been past the Round of 32, and a slightly under the championship norm offensive rebounding rate, this team looks like past national champions.
Prediction: Illinois by whatever spread they want to name.
8 Loyola (Chi.) vs. 9 Georgia Tech: Oh, this one should be a grand one to watch! Not only is it an evenly-matched game, it is evenly matched with both teams having decided advantages over the other in various criteria. That usually leads to an exciting 40 minutes with lots of plot twists. In other words, plan on watching this game. Let’s break this one down. Georgia Tech has the definite offensive efficiency advantage, but Loyola has the number one defensive efficiency in the entire nation! Loyola is one of a very few teams to have a double-digit true shooting percentage margin. The Rambler TS% is 59.8% and they allow 48.7%.
Georgia Tech has three players that can put away an opponent, while Loyola is more of a team approach type of winner. In the clutch, go with a team with three potential dagger-makers. Georgia Tech has a slightly stronger schedule, but Loyola has superior R+T numbers, and for that reason, the scales slightly tip past balanced.
Prediction: Loyola (Chi.)
5 Tennessee vs. 12 Oregon St.: We expect the winner of this game to have a tough time advancing to the Sweet 16 for multiple reasons. Tennessee is one of the most Jekyll and Hyde teams in the field, if not the most. An excellent defensive effort will give the Vols a big win, and then an egg-laying offensive effort will get them beat the next game. The problem is that the players seem to lack direction against changing defenses.
Oregon St. was a model of excellent consistency for 120 minutes at the Pac-12 Tournament, holding the pace to less than 65 possessions per game, and winning by making very few mistakes. By mistakes, we don’t refer to turnovers, but more to smart shot selection and excellent team defense. That team defense thing is kryptonite to Tennessee.
The question is which Vols team shows up? Will it be the team that disposed of Kansas like they were a division 2 team, or will it be the team that acted like it didn’t know the object of the game in the second half of the SEC Tournament semifinals? We’ll say that for one game, UT will play up to their potential.
Prediction: Tennessee
4 Oklahoma St. vs. 13 Liberty: Liberty was a real victim of Covid-19 in 2020. The Flames were good enough to make the Sweet 16 last year. This year’s team is not on that same level of competence. The biggest factor in this game is the humongous schedule strength advantage the Cowboys have. On that alone, OSU is 18 points better before the opening tip. They also have the top clutch player in the Dance in Cade Cunningham, who is better than Kemba Walker, who took Connecticut to the national title when the Huskies did not have national title criteria.
Prediction: Oklahoma St.
6 San Diego St. vs. 11 Syracuse: Syracuse has been in this situation before where they were on the Bubble getting into the field and then won a game or two. They made the Final Four as a 10-seed. Their matchup zone defense can be trouble for teams that have not seen it live, and most teams that play the ‘Cuse in the Rounds of 64 and 32 have not seen another team use it. That can make a difference in closely-matched teams.
San Diego State’s man-to-man defense is not something Syracuse has seen either. It is nothing like Virginia’s or other ACC defenses. In a normal year, Duke’s defense might look something like that, but the Orangemen will be just as unsure attacking the Aztecs as SDSU is attacking the zone. Syracuse has a stronger schedule strength, but not that much stronger, while SDSU has the better R+T Rating, enough to make the difference.
Prediction: San Diego St.
3 West Virginia vs. 14 Morehead St.: In recent years, Belmont and Murray St. have pulled off big upsets from the Ohio Valley Conference. Ten years ago, this team knocked off Louisville in the opening round. Can lightning strike twice? About as often as it does, so don’t expect the Eagles to soar over the Mountaineers. The schedule strength advantage is considerable at 13+ points. The inside advantage will be almost as strong, and WVU will get many extra opportunities to score in this game. Unless Morehead shoots lights out from three, this will be a mismatch.
Prediction: West Virginia
7 Clemson vs. 10 Rutgers: These are very similar teams when looking at their criteria. There isn’t much to separate them. Rutgers has a slightly better offensive efficiency rating. They are basically equal defensively. Clemson has the better frontcourt and more likely to get more first chance points in the paint. Neither team is adequate enough to get to the Sweet 16 with their R+T Ratings. In the end, we go with the better offense in this one.
Prediction: Rutgers
2 Houston vs. 15 Cleveland St.: This is the best Houston team since Phi Slama Jama made it to consecutive national title games in 1983 and 1984. Two years ago, a #3-seed Houston team easily advanced to the Sweet 16 and then took Kentucky to the final horn. This team is a tad better overall, but more importantly, this regional is lacking in teams that excel where Houston is vulnerable. Houston could win this game by 30-35 points, but Kelvin Sampson will probably empty his bench earlier than normal, allowing Cleveland State to make the final score look less embarrassing. Only if CSU can get three or four Cougar players in early foul trouble can they keep this one close.
Prediction: Houston
West Regional
1 Gonzaga vs. 16 Norfolk St.: Rather than show you how Gonzaga could win this game by 40 or more, let’s show you their criteria so you can compare it to Illinois.
A. National champions come from power conferences–ACC, Big 12, SEC, Big East, Pac-12, and Big Ten. The last team not in one of these leagues to win the title was UNLV in 1990. Gonzaga would have to break a 31-year trend.
B. National champions tend to have double digit scoring margins. Since 1990, 28 of 30 national champions had double-digit scoring margins. The other two times, it was Connecticut both years. Gonzaga’s scoring margin is 23.0, which is far and away the best in the nation. UNLV’s was 15 when they won the 1990 title.
C. National champions tend to have offenses ranked in the top 10 in efficiency and defenses ranked in the top 20 in efficiency. Gonzaga is number one on offense and number 10 on defense, a definite look of a national champion.
D. National champions tend to have four or more upperclassmen on their top eight. Gonzaga has two seniors and two juniors in their top eight.
E. Gonzaga’s 3-point percentage is 36.5%, which is a fraction under the 37% floor most champions have had. They have three players that can be counted on to win a game on the final possession. They have two inside stars that can dominate a game in the paint. While the Bulldogs’ schedule is a tad weaker than a typical national champion schedule, they did beat Iowa and West Virginia on the road, and a cancelled game against Baylor would have given them a championship worthy schedule.
Prediction: Gonzaga by a very large margin
8 Oklahoma vs. 9 Missouri: These former Big 8/Big 12 rivals used to have some great conference games, and this one should be a lot like those great ones from the past. Oklahoma has the better offensive efficiency, while defensive efficiency is about equal. Missouri has the advantage inside and a slightly better strength of schedule. There isn’t much difference when looking at the rest, but Missouri is one of the few teams that has a +37% free throw rate; however, their defensive FT rate is too high.
Prediction: Oklahoma
5 Creighton vs. 12 UCSB: On the surface, this looks like a potential double-digit win for the higher seed, even when considering the high number of 12-seed upsets in the past. Crieghton’s offensive efficiency rating is high enough to consider the Blue Jays an Elite 8 contender, and their defensive efficiency rating is strong enough to move Creighton into the next round. However, there has been an issue with the head coach, and Creighton did not look like the same team after the dissension between players and coach came to a head.
UCSB is not an easy mark. The Gauchos have an inside presence typical of a first round winner. They are a senior-laden squad, and their R+T rating is almost 20, which is another sign of a potential upset winner in the Round of 64. When a team has a huge R+T rating advantage over their opponent, the next thing to compare are the two schedule strengths. In this case, Creighton has a modestly better SOS, not enough to overcome a large R+T disadvantage. Remember that UC-Irvine from the same Big West Conference beat a 4-seed in the 2019 Dance.
Prediction: UCSB gets the upset
4 Virginia vs. 13 Ohio U: Ohio has a top 40 offense, but their defense is too weak to stop an ACC team like Virginia. This will be more of a half-court game, where the fast break is an afterthought. Virginia will win more than half of the possessions, probably something like 55% of them, and in a 62 possession game for both teams, that comes out to 68 possessions for the Cavs and 56 possessions for the Bobcats. A 12-possession win with about 1.1 points per possession means a 13-point win.
Prediction: Virginia
6 USC vs. 11 Drake: This game could be a faster-paced replica of the UVa-Ohio game. USC and Drake both have very strong offensive efficiency ratings, but Drake’s defensive efficiency is below the threshold of a winning tournament team. USC will dominate inside in this game, and Drake will have to hit close to half their three-point shots to keep this one close. USC has one of the highest foul-drawing offenses, and the Trojans should get a lot of “and 1’s” in this game.
Prediction: USC
3 Kansas vs, 14 Eastern Washington: This Kansas team does not have the overall offense to advance to the Final Four, and they may struggle making the Sweet 16. KU’s offensive efficiency is vulnerable against a quality defensive team. Eastern Washington is not that team with a porous defense compared to this field. Superior schedule strength and a somewhat better R+T makes this game a solid one in the Big 12 team’s favor.
Prediction: Kansas
7 Oregon vs. 10 VCU: This should be an interesting game. Oregon’s exceptional offensive efficiency faces VCU’s exceptional defensive efficiency. The schedule strength is dead even, so we look at the R+T ratings, and it favors the Ducks by one scoring spurt.
Prediction: Oregon
2 Iowa vs. 15 Grand Canyon: Iowa is oh so close to having Final Four criteria. Their offense trails only Gonzaga, but their defensive efficiency is #50, just outside the threshold for national champion qualification. Grand Canyon actually holds a substantial R+T Rating advantage, so we must look at the schedule strength to see if it can be sustained. It cannot in this case, as Iowa’s schedule is almost 15 points stronger per game.
Prediction: Iowa
EAST REGIONAL
1 Michigan vs. 16 Mount St. Mary’s: Even at less than full strength, Michigan is much too strong for a Northeast Conference opponent. The Wolverines’ have top 10 offense and defense efficiency ratings, while the Mount has the lowest offensive efficiency in the tournament. Their defensive efficiency is the ninth lowest in the field. If the Wolverines can get through this first weekend, there is a chance that Isaiah Livers can return and contribute.
Prediction: Michigan
8 LSU vs. 9 Saint Bonaventure: LSU has a top five offensive efficiency rating, but their defense is below par for any more than a win or two at best. St. Bonaventure could be a surprise winner, and they could give Michigan a run for their money in a Round of 32 game if they can get past LSU.
This game should stay close like an 8-9 game should, and it is almost a 50-50 guess when applying our criteria. LSU’s schedule strength is slightly stronger, but The Bonnies have a clear R+T advantage.
Prediction: Saint Bonaventure
5 Colorado vs. 12 Georgetown: It was the worst of times early in the year at 5-10 and the best of times late in the year at 8-2 for the Georgetown Hoyas. If GU is going to continue to play like they did in the latter part of the schedule, their overall criteria must be looked at in a different light. The trouble here for Patrick Ewing is the opponent in this game. Colorado is very close to being considered an Elite 8 dark horse. The Buffs have an offensive efficiency rating in the top 20, and their defensive efficiency rating is in the top 30. CU also has the R+T Ratings advantage.
Prediction: Colorado
4 Florida St. vs. 13 UNC-Greensboro: Florida State is another team just shy of the typical criteria of a Final Four team. The Seminoles are a worthy Sweet 16 team with an offensive efficiency rating in the top 10. Their defensive efficiency rating is in the top 50, which is just outside of Final 4 worthy. The Seminoles could beat a Michigan team without Livers.
UNCG would be totally outmanned in this game if it wasn’t for a very good R+T rating, and even though FSU’s schedule strength is better, it is not enough to make this game a slam dunk runaway win. UNCG could keep this close for more minutes than the Seminoles like.
Prediction: Florida St.
6 BYU vs. 11 UCLA: A lot of national talk show hosts and guests believe BYU was given a higher seed than they deserved. Some people believe that they should have been a 9, 10, or even an 11 seed. We don’t share that opinion. BYU actually has the stronger schedule strength, as they have played the number one team three times and won at Utah State and San Diego State. BYU has the better R+T Rating in this game as well, and the Cougars are substantially better defensively than the Bruins.
Prediction: BYU
3 Texas vs. 14 Abilene Christian: Abilene Christian will be playing for more than a spot in the Round of 32. Beating Texas would be as special as Texas making the Final Four. However, this Longhorns squad is tough, tough enough to become Shaka Smart’s second Final Four team, even though it would require one big upset and maybe one minor upset.
Texas has an offensive efficiency rating just outside the top 20 and a defensive efficiency rating in the 30’s. With a schedule strength that is 16 points stronger than ACU’s, the slight R+T Rating advantage of the Wildcats is nullified.
Prediction: Texas
7 Connecticut vs. 10 Maryland: As hot as Georgetown was at the end of the season, they did lose twice to Connecticut. The Huskies are another team with efficiency ratings and schedule strength strong enough to be considered a dark horse for advancing to the Sweet 16 and possibly the Elite 8.
Maryland will not be an automatic win for UConn. In fact, this game is barely past toss-up. UConn’s offensive efficiency is 24 and their defensive efficiency is 25, but Maryland’s offensive efficiency is just a little lower at 42 with a defensive efficiency almost exactly the same as the Huskies. Connecticut’s biggest advantage in this game is the R+T Rating, which is slightly offset by Maryland’s somewhat stronger schedule strength.
Prediction: Connecticut
2 Alabama vs. 15 Iona: Can Rick Pitino work his magic and pull of a major upset? Don’t bet on it. His Iona Gaels have the sixth weakest offensive efficiency rating and eighth weakest defensive efficiency rating in the tournament. Meanwhile, Alabama has more than enough superior criteria numbers to win this game with ease, even if their three-point shots don’t fall. Iona will have a tough time scoring points in this game.
Prediction: Alabama
Those are our Round of 64 picks. Now, we will finish it up by picking the rest of the bracket using Bracketnomics.
Round of 32
Baylor over Wisconsin
Purdue over Villanova
Arkansas over Utah St.
Ohio St. over Virginia Tech
Illinois over Loyola (Chi.)
Oklahoma St. over Tennessee
West Virginia over San Diego St.
Houston over Rutgers
Gonzaga over Oklahoma
Virginia over UCSB
USC over Kansas
Iowa over Oregon
Michigan over Saint Bonaventure
Florida St. over Colorado
Texas over BYU
Alabama over Connecticut
Sweet 16
Baylor over Purdue
Ohio St. over Arkansas
Illinois over Oklahoma St.
Houston over West Virginia
Gonzaga over Virginia
Iowa over USC
Michigan over Florida St. (if Livers returns)
Texas over Alabama
Elite 8
Ohio St. over Baylor
Illinois over Houston
Gonzaga over Iowa
Texas over Michigan
National Semifinals
Illinois over Ohio St.
Gonzaga over Texas
National Championship
Illinois over Gonzaga *
Note: If Gonzaga defeats Oklahoma, Virginia, and Iowa to get to the Final 4, their Strength of Schedule will then be above the minimum threshold needed to win all the marbles.
Here is a look at each team’s criteria. Maybe you can see something we didn’t see!
Criteria A: The Biggies
Team
O-Eff
D-Eff
SOS
R + T
Abilene Christian
157
30
44.1
15.8
Alabama
34
2
61.0
7.3
Appalachian St.
227
205
47.7
5.2
Arkansas
35
14
58.8
14.2
Baylor
3
44
58.2
18.2
BYU
28
26
59.0
14.1
Clemson
99
20
60.6
4.3
Cleveland St.
199
121
48.9
3.7
Colgate
43
140
47.7
16.2
Colorado
17
29
58.0
14.5
Connecticut
24
25
58.7
14.8
Creighton
14
40
58.4
4.5
Drake
19
120
50.7
16.9
Drexel
95
247
47.1
9.3
E. Washington
86
152
47.9
5.0
Florida
40
37
60.0
4.3
Florida St.
10
48
59.0
11.3
Georgetown
85
41
61.0
7.5
Georgia Tech
27
52
58.8
2.8
Gonzaga
1
10
57.8
22.0
Grand Canyon
142
74
46.9
21.2
Hartford
254
127
45.2
0.7
Houston
8
16
55.5
27.0
Illinois
7
5
62.8
20.8
Iona
210
161
45.4
12.1
Iowa
2
50
61.4
11.6
Kansas
59
6
61.3
11.9
Liberty
52
168
44.3
12.6
Loyola (Chi)
49
1
53.0
16.2
LSU
5
125
60.7
6.1
Maryland
42
27
61.8
2.3
Michigan
6
7
61.8
15.0
Michigan St.
98
32
61.3
5.9
Missouri
51
58
61.5
3.5
Morehead St.
214
72
48.7
7.5
Mount St. Mary’s
287
136
46.2
14.8
Norfolk St.
204
219
43.4
8.0
North Carolina
53
15
60.4
21.5
North Texas
119
42
53.8
9.2
Ohio St.
4
79
58.4
8.7
Ohio U
29
174
57.5
8.4
Oklahoma
36
53
59.4
6.2
Oklahoma St.
54
22
62.0
6.1
Oral Roberts
74
285
48.5
-2.3
Oregon
16
76
57.1
9.2
Oregon St.
65
117
57.9
6.0
Purdue
23
23
61.6
14.2
Rutgers
75
18
62.2
2.5
San Diego St.
44
11
55.9
17.3
St. Bonaventure
38
17
56.8
14.1
Syracuse
22
89
58.7
4.2
Tennessee
71
4
58.9
10.7
Texas
21
36
61.2
10.4
Texas Southern
236
236
43.3
13.9
Texas Tech
33
24
59.7
13.2
UCLA
26
86
54.3
12.5
UCSB
66
82
53.4
19.2
UNCG
129
67
50.8
15.0
USC
30
19
58.7
16.9
Utah St.
112
8
54.6
23.7
VCU
117
12
57.4
5.1
Villanova
9
68
59.2
11.2
Virginia
12
33
58.9
8.5
Virginia Tech
55
54
56.5
8.8
West Virginia
11
65
62.1
11.4
Wichita St.
56
103
56.6
2.3
Winthrop
120
70
45.3
24.0
Wisconsin
32
13
61.7
4.1
Glossary:
O-Eff: Offensive efficiency ranking. Almost all national champions were top 20 and most top 10
D-Eff: Defensive efficiency ranking. Almost all national champions were top 20 and all top 50
SOS: The PiRate Ratings Strength of Schedule. All past national champions were higher than 56.0, and most were 60.0 and higher. Usually, one Final Four team has an SOS between 50 and 56.
R+T Rating: The PiRate Ratings estimate of “spurtability.” The higher the number, the more likely a team will enjoy the better scoring spurt. However, this rating goes hand-in-hand with SOS, so it must be handicapped on a per game basis while comparing schedule strengths. All national champions have had R+T ratings above 12.0, and most were over 15.0. A team with an R+T rating above 15.0 and SOS above 60.0 is tournament tough. If in turn, this team has a top 10 O-Eff and top 20 D-Eff, they are going to advance very far into the Dance. Teams with R+T ratings under 5.00 are in trouble after the first round.
Criteria B
Team
Seniors 8
Juniors 8
1/3 Clutch?
37+ 3pt
F/C 12+ ppg
2 F/C 20/12?
Abilene Christian
2
3
0
35.3
Yes
No
Alabama
4
1
1
37.8
No
No
Appalachian St.
2
2
3
31.7
No
No
Arkansas
3
2
1
33.9
Yes
No
Baylor
2
4
3
41.8
No
No
BYU
3
2
1
37.8
No
No
Clemson
3
2
0
34.6
Yes
No
Cleveland St.
3
3
1
31.9
No
No
Colgate
3
2
3
40.2
No
No
Colorado
5
2
1
36.7
No
No
Connecticut
2
3
1
33.6
No
No
Creighton
3
2
1
37.0
No
No
Drake
4
3
0
37.0
No
No
Drexel
2
2
1
37.2
Yes
Yes
E. Washington
2
3
1
35.4
Yes
Yes
Florida
0
5
1
35.7
Yes
No
Florida St.
2
4
1
39.0
Yes
Yes
Georgetown
3
1
1
36.6
Yes
Yes
Georgia Tech
4
2
3
34.9
Yes
No
Gonzaga
2
2
3
36.5
Yes
Yes
Grand Canyon
5
0
0
33.2
Yes
Yes
Hartford
1
4
0
32.7
No
No
Houston
2
2
1
36.1
No
No
Illinois
2
3
1
37.6
Yes
Yes
Iona
3
0
1
37.2
No
No
Iowa
2
1
1
38.6
Yes
Yes
Kansas
2
2
No
34.4
Yes
Yes
Liberty
2
3
No
39.1
No
No
Loyola (Chi)
5
0
No
36.8
Yes
No
LSU
0
4
3
35.0
Yes
Yes
Maryland
2
3
0
34.6
No
No
Michigan
5
1
1
38.7
Yes
Yes
Michigan St.
1
3
0
32.0
Yes
No
Missouri
4
2
1
32.0
Yes
Yes
Morehead St.
1
4
No
35.1
Yes
Yes
Mount St. Mary’s
1
5
1
33.7
No
No
Norfolk St.
4
1
1
36.8
No
No
North Carolina
1
1
No
31.7
Yes
Yes
North Texas
3
2
1
37.6
No
Yes
Ohio St.
2
4
1
36.5
Yes
Yes
Ohio U
1
3
3
34.4
Yes
Yes
Oklahoma
4
2
1
33.8
No
No
Oklahoma St.
1
1
1
33.8
No
No
Oral Roberts
2
2
1
39.0
Yes
Yes
Oregon
4
2
1
39.4
Yes
No
Oregon St.
3
2
1
33.0
No
No
Purdue
0
3
1
30.7
Yes
Yes
Rutgers
2
4
1
31.1
No
No
San Diego St.
5
2
1
39.5
Yes
No
St. Bonaventure
0
7
0
37.5
No
No
Syracuse
1
2
3
33.7
Yes
Yes
Tennessee
2
1
1
33.8
No
No
Texas
3
2
1
36.2
No
No
Texas Southern
3
5
1
29.6
No
Yes
Texas Tech
1
3
1
34.6
No
No
UCLA
1
4
1
39.0
No
No
UCSB
4
1
3
33.7
Yes
Yes
UNCG
2
4
1
30.0
No
No
USC
3
2
1
34.6
Yes
Yes
Utah St.
1
4
1
33.6
Yes
Yes
VCU
2
1
1
32.9
No
No
Villanova
2
3
0
35.2
Yes
Yes
Virginia
3
2
1
38.1
Yes
Yes
Virginia Tech
2
1
1
34.5
Yes
Yes
West Virginia
1
4
1
38.7
Yes
Yes
Wichita St.
2
3
1
34.9
No
No
Winthrop
2
4
No
35.3
Yes
No
Wisconsin
6
0
1
36.0
Yes
No
Glossary:
Seniors 8 & Juniors 8: These are the numbers of seniors and juniors in each teams’ top 8 players. Typically, the more experienced teams have the maturity to win close games in high leverage situations. Many times, these players have “been there” before. The best example of this is Georgetown’s Fred Brown. As a sophomore in the 1982 National Championship Game against North Carolina, the last possession of the game was too high leverage for an underclassman to handle. He made a serous unforced gaffe, and Carolina won. Two years later, the senior Brown was like a coach on the floor, as he helped the Hoyas win their lone national championship.
1/3 Clutch?: Successful tournament teams need an anchor that can pick up the tough points at crunch time or steal a pass on defense and key a spurt. If there isn’t one star, a team can get by with a trio of semi-clutch players. Either one is fine, so you want to see a “1” or “3” here and not a “0.” A team with a “0” doesn’t mean that they don’t have a player that can hit the last-second winning shot. Think of two pinch-hitters in baseball. Our clutch player is the PH that hits .300, and not .250 like the “0” clutch team PH.
37+ 3pt: In recent years with Four Factors’ data driving the way teams play, 3-point percentages have mattered more and more. It’s not the number of treys knocked down that matter; it’s the percentage that counts. If a team hits 37% or better from behind the arc, it forces defenses to stop them, and it opens up the middle. A 40% 3-point shooter is as effective as a 60% 2-point shooter.
F/C 12+ ppg / 2 F/C 20/12?: This can be an either or thing but if both criteria are met, it strengthens the deal. National championship and Final 4 teams can be perimeter-oriented, but they still need to have at least one inside player that scored 12 or more points per game, or two frontcourt players that combine for 20 points and 12 rebounds per game. The deeper the tournament progresses, the better the team defenses get. Teams that live by the jump shot and have no inside options tend to die by the jump shot before the Final 4. Teams that are dominant in the paint tend to be more consistent.
Criteria C
Team
TS Marg
Dbl Fig#
OReb%
-45% vs. 2pt
FT Rate 37
DFT Rat <31
Abilene Christian
55.2-49.5
3
31.7
45.0
35.0
39.4
Alabama
54.2-48.9
4
31.5
46.4
28.6
31.9
Appalachian St.
52.5-50.9
4
29.9
48.1
34.3
24.3
Arkansas
55.0-50.6
4
31.7
46.9
32.7
29.4
Baylor
59.3-52.1
3
37.5
48.1
27.0
31.6
BYU
58.2-49.7
3
28.7
45.3
27.4
29.5
Clemson
53.4-51.8
1
26.6
47.5
23.6
29.5
Cleveland St.
53.3-53.0
3
30.9
50.8
32.0
37.1
Colgate
59.6-48.4
4
28.1
49.4
31.1
25.1
Colorado
56.3-51.0
3
30.8
46.4
29.9
28.0
Connecticut
52.9-50.4
3
36.6
45.6
29.6
36.9
Creighton
57.0-49.9
5
24.8
46.1
26.9
25.7
Drake
57.3-51.5
4*
31.6
48.2
24.4
28.6
Drexel
57.6-53.0
4
29.4
50.4
28.6
27.2
E. Washington
57.4-50.2
5
23.4
47.2
30.3
27.3
Florida
56.2-51.3
4
30.7
48.4
33.9
34.8
Florida St.
57.5-51.1
3
35.5
44.2
32.7
36.3
Georgetown
53.3-50.7
4
32.4
47.4
30.3
25.9
Georgia Tech
56.6-54.9
4
24.7
50.8
29.0
28.9
Gonzaga
63.3-50.4
4
30.4
46.8
36.6
25.9
Grand Canyon
57.4-47.4
3
32.2
44.1
32.2
28.5
Hartford
53.3-50.0
3
24.8
50.7
28.7
25.0
Houston
55.2-46.7
3
39.6
42.9
29.7
41.6
Illinois
58.3-49.8
3
33.0
45.4
39.2
30.4
Iona
55.1-50.5
3
33.4
45.8
36.1
46.4
Iowa
57.3-50.5
3
30.7
45.8
32.0
22.7
Kansas
53.3-50.0
4
31.3
45.5
30.6
26.4
Liberty
60.9-49.6
2
23.8
46.5
23.7
27.2
Loyola (Chi)
59.8-48.7
1
25.3
44.7
31.4
21.7
LSU
56.4-51.7
4
31.5
51.3
34.0
29.2
Maryland
56.1-51.0
3
20.6
45.8
33.6
25.9
Michigan
58.2-48.4
3
29.4
42.3
29.0
24.5
Michigan St.
51.5-52.0
1
30.4
48.2
31.4
37.1
Missouri
54.3-52.4
3
28.6
48.2
37.5
36.4
Morehead St.
55.1-49.2
3
24.4
47.3
36.0
23.1
Mount St. Mary’s
51.5-49.4
2
31.6
45.6
29.7
24.6
Norfolk St.
53.9-51.4
2
28.9
47.4
38.5
40.7
North Carolina
51.6-51.4
3
41.2
46.8
34.8
27.1
North Texas
57.2-50.3
4
28.3
45.3
27.4
31.4
Ohio St.
57.3-52.4
3
29.1
50.5
35.0
34.0
Ohio U
58.1-54.7
5
28.8
51.2
29.8
30.2
Oklahoma
54.1-51.7
3
27.3
46.3
29.2
22.8
Oklahoma St.
55.5-50.6
2
31.9
46.7
36.3
30.5
Oral Roberts
58.2-52.1
2
23.8
47.2
27.3
32.3
Oregon
56.6-53.6
5
28.3
50.0
26.8
27.1
Oregon St.
53.9-53.8
2
30.1
51.9
34.0
37.7
Purdue
54.5-51.5
2
32.2
49.7
32.2
30.4
Rutgers
52.1-51.3
3
27.4
47.4
27.6
33.2
San Diego St.
56.2-50.2
2
29.0
43.7
34.5
31.9
St. Bonaventure
53.6-48.2
5
33.6
45.1
27.9
28.3
Syracuse
54.5-51.7
3
30.2
49.2
28.3
25.0
Tennessee
54.2-49.9
3
31.4
44.8
35.1
31.2
Texas
55.9-50.4
3
31.3
45.8
34.0
36.7
Texas Southern
52.6-49.5
3
32.7
45.3
38.3
32.9
Texas Tech
53.7-51.3
3
33.6
44.8
39.2
36.5
UCLA
55.2-53.9
5
30.2
49.4
32.6
28.0
UCSB
57.9-50.9
3
29.4
46.0
34.2
27.1
UNCG
50.6-52.0
1
31.9
48.5
21.8
30.6
USC
54.5-48.7
2
35.6
42.2
37.5
24.7
Utah St.
53.3-49.2
3
35.7
42.9
30.1
25.7
VCU
55.0-49.8
2
28.6
45.9
34.0
35.4
Villanova
56.3-54.0
4
28.0
51.0
30.0
25.8
Virginia
58.9-51.1
3
23.1
46.1
22.0
24.5
Virginia Tech
55.3-51.6
2
28.4
47.6
33.2
30.9
West Virginia
53.0-53.0
4
35.5
51.3
28.3
19.8
Wichita St.
51.4-49.0
2
30.6
47.1
36.5
28.4
Winthrop
56.3-51.9
4
35.5
49.2
35.7
33.9
Wisconsin
53.0-51.1
2
23.7
47.1
27.0
28.5
Glossary:
TS Marg.: True shooting % margin. The numbers shown are the offensive TS% followed by the defensive TS%. This is a secondary criterion already factored in the efficiency numbers but can be used to look at when efficiency numbers are close to even. A good margin is 6% or more.
Dbl Fig #: The number of players averaging double figure scoring. If a team has four players that score 10-20 points per game, it is seldom that all four can be shut down in a game. If they have three players, they are still okay. Two or less usually indicates a bit of trouble to get to the Final 4.
-45% vs. 2: This criterion looks for teams that hold opponents under 45% on 2-point shots. While 3-point percentage is a key offensive stat, stopping two-point shots is the defensive key. Most national champions met this criterion, and almost every Final 4 team that did not meet this criterion lost if their opponent did meet it. It is still important in earlier rounds.
FT Rate 37 & DFT Rat <31: Making a lot of free throws is nice and can secure a small lead late in a game. However, there are two much more important foul stats. A team that gets to the foul line a lot prior to the final two minutes of games gets there because they have a superior offense that is hard to defend and thus is fouled more than average. Additionally, more fouls lead to foul trouble and automatic bench time for key players. Likewise, a team with a low defensive FT rate is a sign of a strong team defense. FT Rate 37 means a team with an offensive FT Rate (FTA/FGA) of 37.0 or better, while DFT Rat <31 means a team with a defensive FT rate under 31.0.
There is a caveat here: As the game becomes more and more of a three-point shooting game, fouling drops. That happened this year, as total fouls called has dropped. For this season, look at teams with 33.3% or better FT Rates and 28% or lower defensive FT Rates.
Criteria D
Team
Champions
Coach Exp.
Score Marg
FG% Diff
Win Strk
Abilene Christian
Yes
64
17.1
6.0
8
Alabama
Yes
32
9.8
2.6
10
Appalachian St.
Yes
99
6.4
-0.6
4
Arkansas
No
16
11.7
4.0
9
Baylor
Yes
8
18.0
6.0
18
BYU
No
99
10.2
7.3
5
Clemson
No
16
3.3
0.9
5
Cleveland St.
Yes
99
0.9
2.9
9
Colgate
Yes
64
17.7
9.1
13
Colorado
No
32
9.7
3.5
6
Connecticut
No
32
7.9
2.9
5
Creighton
No
32
8.7
7.0
6
Drake
No
99
12.7
7.2
18
Drexel
Yes
99
4.7
3.6
4
E. Washington
Yes
99
8.6
5.3
9
Florida
No
8
4.2
4.3
4
Florida St.
No
8
8.6
7.6
5
Georgetown
Yes
99
0.7
0.9
4
Georgia Tech
Yes
32
5.5
1.5
8
Gonzaga
Yes
2
23.0
13.2
26
Grand Canyon
Yes
64
14.5
11.5
9
Hartford
Yes
99
2.6
1.6
5
Houston
Yes
8
19.7
7.7
8
Illinois
Yes
32
12.2
8.7
7
Iona
Yes
1
6.3
4.6
6
Iowa
No
32
11.9
5.5
6
Kansas
No
1
7.3
3.4
8
Liberty
Yes
32
15.3
8.2
12
Loyola (Chi)
Yes
4
16.0
9.8
11
LSU
No
16
6.8
4.4
5
Maryland
No
16
3.8
4.7
5
Michigan
Yes
99
10.9
8.9
11
Michigan St.
No
1
-1.6
-0.1
6
Missouri
No
16
1.7
1.8
6
Morehead St.
Yes
99
5.4
5.7
12
Mount St. Mary’s
Yes
99
1.4
2.1
4
Norfolk St.
Yes
99
6.0
3.2
6
North Carolina
No
1
6.3
2.0
3
North Texas
Yes
99
8.6
6.6
4
Ohio St.
No
16
6.3
3.6
7
Ohio U
Yes
99
7.6
4.5
6
Oklahoma
No
4
5.6
2.1
5
Oklahoma St.
No
99
4.2
5.5
6
Oral Roberts
Yes
99
6.0
2.2
4
Oregon
Yes
4
7.0
3.7
8
Oregon St.
Yes
64
2.4
-0.4
3
Purdue
No
8
4.8
3.7
5
Rutgers
No
64
1.8
3.1
6
San Diego St.
Yes
64
13.5
6.8
14
St. Bonaventure
Yes
64
10.1
6.1
7
Syracuse
No
1
5.1
2.6
3
Tennessee
No
4
9.3
4.5
7
Texas
Yes
4
6.4
4.1
6
Texas Southern
Yes
64
5.1
5.2
9
Texas Tech
No
2
9.6
3.3
4
UCLA
No
16
4.3
2.3
7
UCSB
Yes
99
13.7
6.5
13
UNCG
Yes
64
7.2
1.0
7
USC
No
16
9.7
7.3
7
Utah St.
No
64
11.0
5.7
11
VCU
No
64
6.5
4.6
7
Villanova
No
1
8.4
0.4
9
Virginia
Yes
1
8.1
6.4
7
Virginia Tech
No
32
6.6
3.3
4
West Virginia
No
4
5.2
-1.4
4
Wichita St.
Yes
99
5.0
0.5
8
Winthrop
Yes
99
12.7
3.0
16
Wisconsin
No
16
5.3
-0.2
5
Glossary
Champions: This refers to a team that won either their regular season conference championship or their postseason conference tournament. Since 1990, 29 of 30 national champions met this criterion.
Coach Exp.: How far has the head coach advanced in the past? When looking at fairly evenly matched teams, a coach with more Dance experience can be the difference. A first-timer may make that crucial mistake that allows the opponent to have that brief scoring run.
Score Marg.: Something like 95% of all national champions had double digit scoring margins. This goes back to the very beginning of the tournament in the 1930s. 98% had scoring margins in excess of 7.5 points per game. Teams with scoring margins in excess of 15 points that come from a power conference are 100% legit powers, so keep that in mind. Mid-majors with 15+ point scoring margins have to be carefully scrutinized. If their power conference opponent played other mid-majors and did not win by an average as high as the Mid-major in the tournament, that means something.
FG% Diff: In the eight-decade history of the tournament, more Final 4 teams had FG% differences in excess of 7.5% than not and a great number had double-digit margins. If a team shot 48% from the field and gave up 38% from the field and played in a power conference, they are truly tough. A team with a double digit FG% difference that played a tough schedule can overcome a lower than average R+T rating, but usually they will run into a team with a superior R+T rating also with a tough SOS, and that’s the end for the lower R+T team.
Win Strk: Should we expect a team to win six straight tournament games if they did not win six straight regular season games? Most of the past champions actually had 10 or more game winning streaks or multiple streaks of 6 or more. Above, where you see numbers in bold, the teams had a second winning streak of 6 or more games in addition to the number shown.
Note–These comparisons are totally unrelated to the PiRate Ratings above. This system is only used for the NCAA Tournament.
Virginia vs. Auburn
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Virginia
60.22
11.7
30.2
75.0
12.7
15.7
10.6
Auburn
60.67
2.2
31.9
67.8
14.4
21.5
2.3
Strength of schedule is even, so the remaining stats can be weighted equally without handicap. Virginia has a large advantage in both true shooting % margin and R+T Rating. The rebounding rates in this game should allow Virginia to overcome the extra turnovers they will commit against Auburn’s defense. Virginia faced teams with similar defenses this year, committed more turnovers than their norm while not forcing many, and yet still won. Their losses to Duke came about because the Blue Devils could neutralize their inside muscle. Auburn cannot do this, especially one big man down.
Prediction: Virginia 66 Auburn 58
Michigan St. vs. Texas Tech
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Michigan St.
61.76
13.2
33.6
73.9
16.0
12.9
11.8
Texas Tech
59.64
10.1
27.0
72.3
16.0
20.0
3.6
Michigan State has a slightly stronger strength of schedule, but not so much that the Red Raiders cannot overcome it. The Spartans’ true shooting % margin is also slightly better, but their R+T rating is considerably better. Texas Tech would not be given much chance to win this game if it wasn’t for the fact that their biggest strength is Michigan State’s biggest weakness.
All year, the PiRate Ratings have been telling you that Michigan State’s biggest weakness was their ability to hold onto the ball. Texas Tech made it this far by playing an aggressive defense that has forced turnovers almost as frequently as Auburn. This gives TTU a chance to win this game. However, Michigan State has a commanding advantage on the glass in this game. While this wasn’t Sparty’s best rebounding team, in fact one of its worst under Tom Izzo, but it is still much better than Chris Beard’s club. Rebounding, especially on the offensive glass was mediocre.
This will be an interesting game, and the team that can force their asset on the other’s liability will win. While it may be close to a 50-50 tossup, due to these two extremes in the rebounding and turnovers, the winner might win by double digits. The reason this edition has not been released until Thursday is that it has taken the PiRates a couple of days to determine which way the Bracketnomics point to in this game.
Prediction: Michigan State 71 Texas Tech 65
Comments Off on PiRate Ratings 2019 Final Four Preview
I’ve always wanted to post those words. As a fanatic of the old Mother Road, Route 66, those three words have a special meaning. In the “good ole days,” The Jack Rabbit Trading Post near Joseph City, Arizona, used those three words to advertise that after miles of driving and seeing numerous signs for this tourist stop, they had finally arrived.
Like those Mother Road drivers, it is my hope that I have finally arrived at a successful system, one that will pick a large percentage of winners in the Big Dance.
The PiRate Ratings Bracketnomics System has been successful in the past–very successful. Then, again, there have been major bust years, where throwing a dart at a dartboard with team names would have been just as reliable.
Numerous revisions to the system have brought me to settle on what you might have read yesterday, the Bracketnomics Tutorial, which you can read here:
Today, I will attempt to interpret that data from the tutorial and select a bracket based on the statistics. This is a 100% mechanical process with no objectivity. If you believe in 100% mechanical stock investing, then this publication is totally for you. If you are more of a hunch player, then you will need to alter this information to better fit your beliefs, but at least let our data be a dissenting view when you consider your choices.
This post will pick all 67 games, including the games in Dayton that 99% of the bracket pools do not include. I will pick each round today.
After the conclusion of each round, I will then post an updated bracket to assist all of you that play in a pool that allows you to pick new winners after each round.
Remember, this is still a system in its infancy with growing pains. What I have tried to do is isolate through back-tested methods similar statistical data that past Final Four and National Championship teams possessed.
For instance, almost every national champion has possessed a scoring margin of 8 points or better, and a large majority had double-digit scoring margins. Almost all national champions have come from one of the “Power Conferences” or in the past were one of the top 10 Independents when there were more than 30 teams not in a conference.
Very few teams have ever made the Final Four with a negative rebounding margin, but considerably more had negative turnover margins. At the same time, a lot of these teams had high steals per game averages, even if their turnover margin was negative.
One final factor I like to look at is style of play. Most National Champions have been up-tempo teams that run the fast break, play some form of pressure defense (not necessarily full-court), and moves the ball quicker than average in the scoring zone. This is not 100% exclusive. Some patient teams that play a non-gambling style of defense have made the Final Four and a couple even won the tournament, but the trend is to go with the team that has the better chance of going on a scoring run with a 10-point or better spurt. History shows that teams that play like North Carolina and Duke tend to get these spurts more frequently than teams like Virginia and Kansas St.
Let’s take a look at the data, starting with the First Four games in Dayton.
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Prairie View A&M
43.07
-2.7
30.0
66.1
15.2
21.7
-3.8
Fairleigh-Dickinson
43.31
5.2
28.9
68.1
17.1
18.1
-2.4
This is an excellent example for the first game of the tournament. SOS (Strength of Schedule) is dead even, so the rest of the stats are 100% comparable. FDU will more than likely have the better shooting night. Rebounding should be about even, and Prairie View will more than likely force FDU into a few more mistakes than they normally commit. Because both teams possess R+T ratings below zero, these are two 16-seeds that are going nowhere for sure. The winner will be a blowout victim Thursday. This is about as tossup as you can get. I’ll go with the team with the better, but terrible R+T Rating and select
Fairleigh-Dickinson
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Temple
54.13
0.5
26.0
71.1
13.8
18.1
-3.1
Belmont
48.60
9.7
25.6
76.4
13.8
14.8
6.0
Temple has the stronger schedule by about 5.7 points per game. Thus, the system calls for Temple’s stats to carry stronger weight than Belmont’s stats. Temple faced better defensive teams on average than Belmont, but not enough to counter a difference of 9.2%. Temple will have marginal rebounding advantages on both sides of the floor, but the Owls have a negative R+T. Belmont’s R+T rating is good enough to win early, and even though the Bruins are 0-7 in past NCAA Tournaments, their mechanical data show that they are the better team. It could be one little spurt in the second half that wins this game.
Belmont
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
North Carolina Central
39.47
3.5
35.1
73.7
19.0
17.3
8.2
North Dakota St.
47.57
3.4
20.9
75.7
14.3
13.2
-6.1
UNC Central has the weakest SOS in the entire field, and there isn’t another one even close. North Dakota State has an R+T rating that is near the bottom of the field, one that in the past has never won more than one game in a Dance. Once again, these are two 16-seeds that have no chance against a 1-seed. I’m not sure they could beat any of the 15-seeds. This one is a difficult choice–the weakest schedule or the worst R+T score. Because I expect very low shooting percentages in this game, I will take the team likely to get the most second chance points.
North Carolina Central
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
St. John’s
55.79
-0.2
21.3
70.3
12.8
18.3
-8.0
Arizona St.
55.20
2.3
32.4
73.6
15.9
16.7
6.8
Once again, we have teams with identical SOS, which makes the selection a lot easier. St. John’s has the second worst R+T rating in the entire field. Case closed right away. Arizona State will enjoy at least one big run in this game, and the Sun Devils will put this game away at that point. This has the looks of a potential blowout win.
Arizona State
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Louisville
61.61
6.1
29.2
74.2
15.5
14.3
2.9
Minnesota
59.44
1.8
31.7
72.2
15.0
14.5
1.1
Louisville’s schedule is marginally tougher, so they will get a slight upward adjustment in their data. The Cardinals have a clear advantage in true shooting margin and an ever so slight R+T advantage. This makes it 3 for 3 in Louisville’s favor, but it’s three slim advantages. The Cards are the slim favorite according to the data.
Louisville
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
LSU
58.56
3.2
37.3
69.6
15.3
18.0
10.1
Yale
49.95
8.8
26.0
75.9
16.1
13.5
3.6
Note: Unless something changes, LSU Coach Will Wade is still suspended and will not coach this game. My system has no contingency to adjust LSU’s stats.
LSU’s SOS is almost nine points stronger, so their numbers must be improved. Thus, the Tigers have a slightly better TS%, a much better rebounding advantage, and a considerably better R+T rating. Yale might keep it close for some time, but LSU will enjoy a killer scoring spurt to put this game away.
LSU
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Auburn
59.71
1.8
33.0
68.0
14.7
22.0
3.9
New Mexico St.
48.05
4.8
36.8
79.0
14.5
17.6
18.7
This is going to be a game you will want to watch, even if you have no dog in this fight. I expect the teams to top 75 possessions in this game. Two of the top 20 coaches in college basketball will face off, and Aggie head coach Chris Jans should be on the radar of some power conference teams looking for a new coach.
Auburn has a large SOS advantage of 11.66 points per game, which is prohibitive. The TS margin, offensive rebounding advantage, and R+T numbers heavily favor NMSU, and the Aggies have the top R+T rating in the tournament. However, with a SOS advantage of almost a dozen points, Auburn will win the turnover battle, and NMSU’s rebounding advantage will be heavily tempered. Score one for the SEC, but it would not be a shock if New Mexico State makes this a close game and even has a chance to win. The Aggies should be considered as one of your potential upset teams, but I think there are better upset chances in this round.
Auburn
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Vermont
46.62
6.5
27.8
78.8
14.4
17.8
8.8
Florida St.
59.87
3.5
33.1
73.1
16.5
18
8.3
It is rare to see a Round of 64 game where the SOS difference is 13+ points and it isn’t a 1 vs. 16 or 2 vs. 15 game. Florida State’s superior schedule makes the relatively equal numbers in the other data inconsequential. If you are into horse racing, you know doubt know how often a non-winner of two lifetime races enters a graded handicap and beats a classic champion horse. Vermont is the three year old that won a race against other non-winners and then entered a Graded stakes race against four and five year old horses, some of which were contenders in the Derby when they were three. Class wins horse races, and it wins NCAA Tournament games when the upstart isn’t the next Justify. Vermont isn’t a Justify.
Florida State
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Michigan St.
61.44
13.8
33.9
73.4
16.2
12.8
11.7
Bradley
48.52
1.7
27.4
73.8
16.8
16.5
-0.5
This game has the same issue that the previous game has, but the data is even more biased in favor of the better team. Michigan State could start its second five in this game and probably win. Bradley will have to settle for being glad they got to Dance. If Tom Izzo wanted to do so, he could run up the score to a 40-point victory. Sparty has a chance to go deep into this Tournament with their superior numbers. Only an inability to force turnovers might eventually end their run.
Michigan State
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Maryland
59.76
7.4
33.9
75.3
17.0
12.5
8.6
Temple
54.13
0.5
26.0
71.1
13.8
18.1
-3.1
Belmont
48.60
9.7
25.6
76.4
13.8
14.8
6.0
In most of your pools, you get a free pass on the play-in games, but some of you might actually have to select these games. Thus, I am showing you both of the teams Maryland could face.
Against Temple, the Terps have a slight SOS advantage and a humongous R+T advantage. This system’s rule of thumb is to play against teams with a negative R+T rating.
Against Belmont, the Terps have a large SOS advantage, while the remaining stats are rather close. This system’s other rule of thumb is to play the team with the superior SOS in this case. So, the outcome should be the same no matter which team Maryland plays.
Maryland
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Kansas
62.55
5.5
29.7
71.6
16.1
15.7
1.9
Northeastern
51.11
6.7
22.7
75.7
15.1
14.9
-1.9
Kansas is not destined for a long stay at this cotillion. The Jayhawks do not have the spurtability needed to win in the later rounds, but for this round, KU will feast on second chance points and take advantage of a Northeastern defense incapable of stopping a Big 12 offense. This has the makings of a 20-point win.
Kansas
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Marquette
57.57
8.9
29.1
73.7
17.0
14.5
2.4
Murray St.
47.53
10.6
32.0
70.7
14.7
17.2
7.8
The old system had an assumption that a team with one star and average teammates rarely advanced far in the tournaments. Remember, Michael Jordan and Stephan Curry played for teams with very good talent. Jordan had Sam Perkins and James Worthy for teammates.
Ja Morant qualifies as one fantastic star, while the rest of his team is slightly above average but not in the Davidson mold when Curry and crew went to the Elite 8.
Marquette’s stats are not great. The Big East was a bit weaker than normal this season, so MU is not a team to advance very far in your bracket, and in Markus Howard, you have one big star. The difference is that the Golden Eagles have four well-above average players rounding out their starting lineup and a very good sub.
Murray State has an upset chance in this game, but when you break it down closely, Marquette should have a little more in the tank in the final minutes. If you are looking for upset possibilities, this could definitely be put in that category, but it looks like Marquette is just good enough to avoid an upset.
Marquette
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Nevada
52.55
9.0
26.5
75.4
12.7
17.1
7.0
Florida
59.80
1.2
31.1
68.3
15.5
19.4
-0.5
This is your first big upset possibility in the games previewed so far. Florida has a seven-point SOS advantage, but is is not enough to overcome their deficiencies in the other statistics. Nevada coach Eric Musselman is, in my opinion, the best college basketball coach in the nation today, better than Mike Krzyzewski, Roy Williams, and Jay Wright. If UCLA is not seriously looking at him for their vacancy, they are making a monumental mistake.
Let’s look at the data. Nevada will take more intelligent shots than Florida, other than when the Gators get a couple of cheap baskets on offensive rebounds. The Gators’s pressure defense will not be all that effective, and Florida has shown a propensity to make crucial mistakes in the final minutes of games. This isn’t part of the criteria per se, but it shows in their turnover percentage, and their negative R+T rating, and the criteria does say to play against a negative R+T.
Nevada
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Kentucky
60.54
9.5
36.5
74.2
15.9
16.1
15.4
Abilene Christian
42.42
4.3
29.4
73.3
15.5
21.7
5.9
Under John Calipari, Kentucky has shown a tendency to emulate their 1958 National Champions. Adolph Rupp’s “Fiddlin’ Five” frequently allowed an opponent to enjoy a small lead, and then like a lightning flash make a big run to decide the outcome. The Wildcats of 2019 have displayed this characteristic more times than not.
Abilene Christian isn’t a terrible team. They earned their invitation by sweeping the regular season and conference tournament in the Southland Conference. However, their data is not comparable when past Southland power Stephen F. Austin won in the Dance. This game is a mismatch, and once the Wildcats stop fiddlin’, they will run away from the other Wildcats.
Kentucky
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Villanova
58.16
5.0
31.1
72.6
14.2
15.4
3.5
Saint Mary’s
55.33
5.1
31.2
76.8
14.1
14.7
9.6
In my opinion, this should be a great game to watch. The teams are fairly evenly matched. Villanova’s SOS is marginally better, while SMC has the better R+T Rating. Both teams rely on offensive rebounding to score a good bit of their baskets, and Saint Mary’s has the ability to limit Villanova’s offensive rebounding. It comes down to R+T rating. The Gaels have a slight advantage over the defending national champions. I consider this a 50-50 game, but the data says to take the Gaels.
Saint Mary’s
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Gonzaga
56.14
17.7
30.6
72.9
12.8
16.5
14.3
Prairie View A&M
43.07
-2.7
30.0
66.1
15.2
21.7
-3.8
Fairleigh-Dickinson
43.31
5.2
28.9
68.1
17.1
18.1
-2.4
There is no need to preview this. Maybe, if the game was just five minutes long, Gonzaga would have a 2% chance of being upset. However, over 40 minutes, the only upset will be if the Bulldogs fail to win this game by more than 30 points, no matter which of the two 16-seeds wins in Dayton.
Gonzaga
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Michigan
60.07
8.4
24.0
75.0
12.0
16.1
3.2
Montana
46.25
5.4
27.0
75.3
15.5
17.5
4.7
A lot of fans and so-called pundits believe Montana has a serious upset chance in this game. The data here disagrees. Michigan’s SOS is so much stronger, almost 14 points per game. The Wolverines’ TS Margin is much better thanks to a superior defense, and the Maize and Blue limit mistakes. I believe this game has more chance to be a blowout than to approach tossup status and look for the Wolverines to win by double digits.
Michigan
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Wofford
52.24
7.9
33.1
76.6
13.6
18.2
14.3
Seton Hall
58.56
0.5
29.5
70.6
15.2
17.4
-0.6
It’s always a bit scary to look at a Mid-major favorite and go with the chalk. Is Wofford as good as advertised? I have seen them play about five times this year, and they have an incredible inside-outside offensive game combined with an above-average defense.
Seton Hall’s advantage rests in their SOS superiority, but the Big East was not a beast this year. The Hall only has a minor advantage here. In every other data point, the Terriers look like pit bulls in this game, and Seton Hall has a negative R+T rating.
Wofford
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Purdue
60.84
2.3
34.9
73.5
13.5
17.2
11.4
Old Dominion
48.87
1.3
32.3
75.2
15.1
16.3
8.4
Purdue has been one of the biggest disappointments in NCAA Tournament history ever since Joe Barry Carroll led the Boilermakers to the 1980 Final Four. Purdue has been upset numerous times in nearly 40 years. This system doesn’t consider that to be a factor. However, many of those Purdue teams lacked the R+T Rating advantage. This one does. Purdue has a strong SOS and a double-digit R+T. Ironically, where the Boilermakers have been historically strong, TS% margin, they are rather mediocre there this year.
Old Dominion is a solid team from an average conference. Their only liability is an equally mediocre TS% margin, and their SOS is a tad below average. Look for the Big Ten to pick up a win, but at some point PU will stink in a game and fail once again to reach the Elysian Fields otherwise known as Minneapolis.
Purdue
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Syracuse
59.55
1.6
30.1
66.6
15.8
19.7
-3.7
Baylor
58.27
1.3
38.0
71.3
16.5
16.1
9.1
This should be another interesting game to watch, and it should be close. Syracuse’s 2-3 matchup zone can be hard to attack without a lot of experience facing it, so the Orangemen frequently outperform their statistics in the Big Dance. Baylor frequently plays better in the tournament than they do in the regular season with athletes that have free reign to shine.
The numbers show one glaring liability. The ‘Cuse have a negative R+T rating, something rarely seen in a Jim Boeheim team. Syracuse usually rebounds quite well out of their zone, but not so this year. Baylor has one of the best offensive rebounding numbers in the field, so the Bears have the best chance to exploit a weakness in this game.
Baylor
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Cincinnati
55.48
2.9
37.2
70.9
13.4
18.2
12.9
Iowa
58.09
4.5
30.0
70.9
15.0
16.1
-0.4
In recent years, Cincinnati has owned criteria that yell Elite 8, even Final Four worthy, but the Bearcats never come through. This isn’t their best team in recent years, so it figures that Cinti is prone for an early exit, even though the Bearcats are playing close to home.
Iowa peaked in the middle of the season and hasn’t been the same since January. The Hawkeyes have a slight edge in SOS and TS% margin. Cincinnati has such an incredible edge in R+T, and Iowa’s R+T is negative. This is enough to advance the Bearcats to the Round of 32. I expect Cinti to get double-digit offensive rebounds and force about 15 turnovers on the Hawkeyes. That should lead to at least one big scoring spurt.
Cincinnati
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Ole Miss
58.28
3.2
30.4
70.5
16.0
18.2
2.8
Oklahoma
60.26
4.6
26.1
72.3
15.4
15.1
-2.5
What we have here are two swooning schools. Both teams looked like sure Sweet 16 teams into mid-January. Since then, both teams have struggled. The winner is almost assuredly going home after the next round. As far as this game goes, Oklahoma has that nasty negative R+T rating, and I just cannot pick a team with a negative R+T to win unless their SOS is far superior. Two points is not that far.
Ole Miss
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Texas Tech
58.01
9.8
28.5
71.4
16.1
20.0
4.6
Northern Kentucky
46.39
6.6
31.0
74.1
15.4
16.8
7.1
This is Northern Kentucky’s second ever NCAA appearance. Their original appearance resulted in a single-digit loss to big brother Kentucky. This team is about as good as that team, while this Texas Tech teams is not as good as that Kentucky team. Of course, the Norse were super fired up to face the Wildcats, and they got their moral victory.
This time, I expect the data to mean much more. Texas Tech has a whopping SOS advantage of almost 12 points per game. They have a much better TS% margin when the SOS is handicapped, and even though NKU has a higher R+T number, when you handicap it to SOS, the Red Raiders actually have the advantage here, and I expect TTU to force NKU into up to five more turnovers than they average.
Texas Tech
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Kansas St.
58.91
1.4
27.9
74.5
15.1
20.3
3.5
UC-Irvine
47.26
6.6
34.3
73.6
14.9
14.7
12.2
Kansas State is one of those teams on my radar to be a potential upset victim. Having watched UC-Irvine’s Big West Conference Tournament games, I think they have a shot in this game.
The issue is the SOS numbers. The Wildcats’ schedule was more than 11 1/2 points stronger per game. UCI’s toughest opposition the entire season was at home against Utah State, and the Aggies slaughtered the Anteaters by 24 points. UCI did win at Saint Mary’s.
Kansas State has one big asset–their ability to force turnovers. The Wildcats are not particularly strong on offense. There Wildcats play a very patient offense and try to limit possessions, but there are nights where this strategy plays into the oppositions’ hands. Irvine plays patient, smart basketball and will feel right at home in a 60-65 possession game with less than 120 total points. Kansas State might have the overall better athletes, but UC-Irvine has a hot coach in Russ Turner, a man tutored by Mike Montgomery with a little Don Nelson in his background. Here’s a 13-seed that I believe can win an opening game. It’s a tossup. Go with the team you believe in your mind and heart should win, because I debated this one for 30 minutes before deciding and to be quite honest, I am not sure I can really determine the superior team according to my system.
UC-Irvine
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Tennessee
59.65
9.7
31.3
70.0
13.9
15.8
5.3
Colgate
47.05
5.7
29.6
73.9
16.7
15.6
3.2
There isn’t much need to discuss much in this game–it’s a mismatch. Tennessee has slightly better criteria stats than Colgate, and when you add a better than 12 1/2 point superiority per game in SOS, you are looking at a potential 20-30 point win.
Tennessee
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Gardner-Webb
45.44
8.8
24.8
70.2
14.7
16.4
-1.8
Virginia
60.36
13.2
29.9
74.1
12.8
15.6
9.6
Gardner-Webb is not in Baltimore County. Additionally, the Bulldogs do not have the criteria that UMBC had at this time last year. GWU has a negative R+T rating, and against the Pack Line defense, they will not get the crucial second chance points on offensive rebounds. Virginia will control the boards and commit few turnovers. How do you beat the Cavaliers without winning the rebounding and/or the turnover margin? UVA will wash that bad taste of 2018 out of their mouths with an ugly final score in the neighborhood of 75 to 50.
Virginia
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Buffalo
53.41
6.0
31.8
73.8
13.5
18.2
10.3
St. John’s
55.79
-0.2
21.3
70.3
12.8
18.3
-8.0
Arizona St.
55.20
2.3
32.4
73.6
15.9
16.7
6.8
Bully for Coach Nate Oats. He signed a lengthy contract extension to stay in Buffalo, when a lot of other schools were ready to pound on his door. It makes me wonder if Buffalo has designs on maybe campaigning for a spot in a future expanded American Athletic Conference, with excellent football and basketball programs more than ready to move up.
I expect the Bulls to be facing Arizona State in this game, but let’s for a moment look at the possibility that St. John’s wins in Dayton. With an R+T rating of -8.0, the rules of this system is to continue to play against this team unless the opponent has an incredibly low SOS, well below 45.00. Buffalo’s SOS is about where previous Mid-Major Final Four teams George Mason, Wichita State, and Virginia Commonwealth were. So, if St. John’s advances out of Dayton, go with Buffalo to beat their in-state rival by double digits.
Against Arizona State, this is a much more even game. Buffalo enjoys only a very slight advantage, making this basically a 50-50 game. The Bulls have been a little more consistent all season, while ASU has been up and down. The data says that Buffalo is maybe a 51% chance to be the winner.
There is one other factor in this potential game, and it is not part of the criteria, but the fabulous Buffalo senior class that put this team in the top 20 were recruited by current Sun Devil Coach Bobby Hurley.
Buffalo
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Wisconsin
60.91
6.5
24.0
73.5
12.8
15.0
-1.2
Oregon
55.13
3.8
29.6
71.9
15.5
18.3
4.6
When McDonald’s All-American Bol Bol went out for the season after nine games, it looked like it was Duck Season, and the Pac-12 was full of Elmer J. Fudd hunters on the hardwoods. Give Coach Dana Altman the utmost respect for making the necessary adjustments when he lost his 5-star stud. His number two 5-star player, Louis King, was not ready to star when the season began. As the season progressed, King got better and better.
Wisconsin has a slightly better SOS and TS% Margin. Rebounding is about equal. However, The Badgers have a negative R+T rating. Thus, we go against UW more than in favor of Oregon.
Oregon
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Utah St.
52.13
8.7
32.0
77.8
15.5
15.5
14.8
Washington
55.60
4.4
29.5
65.7
17.4
20.5
-3.6
Utah State might be a dangerous dark horse this year! They have the criteria resume of a Gonzaga in previous years before Mark Few took the Bulldogs to the Championship Game. I am not predicting USU to make the Final Four this year, but they might make the second weekend.
In this game, Washington is another one of those teams with a negative R+T rating. While, I am a bit worried that so many teams made the field this year with sub-zero R+T ratings, until one of these non-spurtable teams get to the Elite 8, they will not have my support.
Utah State
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Duke
63.09
10.3
36.1
70.4
15.0
17.1
12.1
North Carolina Central
39.47
3.5
35.1
73.7
19.0
17.3
8.2
North Dakota St.
47.57
3.4
20.9
75.7
14.3
13.2
-6.1
Don’t even think for a second that Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski will lose a minute’s sleep thinking about this game, no matter which 16-seed wins in Dayton. Duke could play this game without Zion Williamson, R.J. Barrett, or Cam Reddish suiting up. Heck, Coach K could take his Gary Winton-led team from Army in the 1970’s and win this game.
Duke
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Houston
55.02
8.0
34.4
74.1
14.2
15.8
13.6
Georgia St.
51.14
5.1
23.5
66.2
14.7
18
-9.6
Here is another mismatch game. Georgia State’s -9.6 R+T rating is dead last in this field, and Houston’s 13.6 R+T rating is seventh best in the field. Add a better SOS and better TS% margin, and this leads to a major slaughter. Houston has won some NCAA Tournament games by very large margins in the past. There was a 35-point pasting of TCU in the Midwest Regional Final in 1968. The Cougars have an outside chance to top that in this game. Kelvin Sampson will unload the bench quicker than the way Guy Lewis did, so expect the margin to be in the 20’s.
Houston
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Mississippi St.
59.59
4.3
34.8
70.2
16.5
17.1
6.2
Liberty
46.27
9.2
25.9
74.9
15.0
18.5
5.2
I expect this game to stay somewhat close, at least for most of the game. Mississippi State has good but not great criteria data. Liberty’s data is slightly more impressive, but the Bulldogs’ SOS is much stronger, which will probably lead to the Maroon and White prevailing by wearing down and eventually extinguishing the Flames.
Mississippi State
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
North Carolina
62.61
5.5
34.4
76.9
14.6
16.5
17.4
Iona
45.43
3.1
25
70.6
15.4
16.1
-5.4
Roy Williams knows how to get his teams ready to play in the Big Dance, and the Tar Heels are heavy favorites to advance deep into this tournament. Their R+T rating is second best in the field. Their SOS is also number two.
Iona is fun to watch, as they like to run and gun. However, this plays right into UNC’s hands. The Gaels cannot possibly win this game, and it will be hard to keep it within 20 points. Their -5.4 R+T rating would exclude them from being picked against 50 other teams in this tournament.
North Carolina
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Virginia Commonwealth
53.22
6.8
31.3
69.3
17.4
20.0
2.9
Central Florida
54.86
9.5
29.3
70.7
15.4
15.5
2.2
This will be another potentially close and exciting game, one worth watching. The two teams are fairly evenly matched, but only if star Rams’ star guard Marcus Evans is playing at 100% after injuring his knee in an Atlantic 10 Tournament loss to Rhode Island. When Evans went out, VCU was dominating the Rams. Without him, they looked like a team that might not have beaten UMass that day.
Central Florida has the unique 7 foot 6 giant, Tacko Fall. If you haven’t seen him play, do not mistake him for past titans that could barely walk and chew gum at the same time. Fall is not a gentle giant. He plays with an attitude, and he is coordinated. He can play a one-man zone under the basket and change the opponents’ field goal percentage by 10%. On offense, he is nearly unstoppable when the Knights can get him the ball within arms’ reach of the basket, where he can dunk flat-footed.
With a healthy Evans, VCU can still press full-court and take a lot of Fall’s ability to dominate out of the game. Make no mistake though; this is not the same Havoc defense run by former coach Shaka Smart. VCU won’t gamble and go full out for the steal or to force a turnover. If I had to pick which game might have the best shot at going to overtime, this one might be the one.
Central Florida
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Iowa St.
59.42
7.6
28.7
70.0
13.9
15.9
1.7
Ohio St.
59.18
2.5
27.8
73.9
16.3
16.3
-0.4
Because the SOS’s are close to equal, the remaining stats are easy to compare. Iowa State has a clear TS% margin, and even though the Cyclones’ R+T is weak, at least it is not negative, like the Buckeyes.
Iowa State
Team
SOS
TS Marg
OReb%
DReb%
TOV%
DTOV%
R+T
Virginia Tech
58.33
8.6
29.7
72.6
15.4
19.0
6.4
Saint Louis
51.40
-0.8
35.8
75.2
15.8
17.2
11.2
Only three teams enter this tournament with negative TS% margins, and it makes sense. The object of the game is to put the ball into the hoop, while preventing the other team from doing so. Add a healthy SOS advantage, and the Billiken’s R+T rating is neutralized. SLU’s biggest asset is the ability to force their opponents into committing turnovers, but in this game, Virginia Tech is even better at that game. While I have heard some people on sports talk radio express the belief that Travis Ford’s team has a legitimate upset chance in this game, I tend to believe that chances are much stronger that the Hokies win by double-digits.
Virginia Tech
Here is how I fill out the remainder of the bracket
For the first time ever, the number one seeds have the top four criteria. Could it be that the Selection Committee Members all have Bachelor of Madness Degrees in Bracketnomics?
Round of 32
Duke over Central Florida
Virginia Tech over Mississippi St.
Maryland over LSU
Michigan St. over Louisville
Gonzaga over Baylor
Florida St. over Marquette
Texas Tech over Buffalo
Michigan over Nevada
Virginia over Ole Miss
UC-Irvine over Oregon
Purdue over Saint Mary’s
Tennessee over Cincinnati
North Carolina over Utah St.
Auburn over Kansas
Houston over Iowa St.
Kentucky over Wofford
Sweet 16
Duke over Virginia Tech
Michigan St. over Maryland
Gonzaga over Florida St.
Texas Tech over Michigan
Virginia over UC-Irvine
Tennessee over Purdue
North Carolina over Auburn
Kentucky over Houston
Elite 8
Duke over Michigan St.
Gonzaga over Texas Tech
Virginia over Tennessee
North Carolina over Kentucky
Final Four
Gonzaga over Duke
North Carolina over Virginia
Championship Game
Gonzaga over North Carolina
Comments Off on Bracketnomics 2019: Picking The Bracket
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:
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):
Cincinnati Bearcats
Duke Blue Devils
Gonzaga Bulldogs
Houston Cougars
Kentucky Wildcats
Michigan State Spartans
North Carolina Tar Heels
Utah St. Aggies
Virginia Cavaliers
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.
This has been an interesting NCAA Tournament, much different than many recent ones. Yet, as we look on the eve of the Final Four, we look at our original criteria that we posted almost three weeks ago and look at our results.
We only correctly picked one of the Final Four teams, but this is not a real criticism of the system. We just did a lousy job picking four of the 14 teams that this system showed having national title caliber analytics.
We looked the original stats of the 68 teams and stated that 14 shared the type of statistical resumes that showed them to be good enough to cut the nets in San Antonio. Three of those 14 have made the Final Four–Villanova, Michigan, and Kansas.
What about Loyola? We said that they were now the new Wichita State of this tournament. We did not pick the Ramblers to make the Final Four, but we basically labelled them as the best of the Mid-major teams capable of repeating what Wichita State had done when the Shockers were in the Missouri Valley.
So, we give the new criteria a passing grade, and we give our human evaluation team of those analytics a D-grade for not properly selecting the correct three of the 14 teams that advanced to San Antonio.
For those of you that may have arrived at this page and did not see our previous March Madness posts, here is a brief tutorial.
Our criteria is based on a combination of analytic data and back-tested statistics that past Final Four and National Champion teams have produced. We look for correlations that can separate the great from the good.
We came up with the following stats and data sets:
True Shooting Percentage Margin
There has been an evolution in shooting efficiency in recent seasons. With the 30-second shot clock and the better use of analytics, teams know they should take certain three-point shots and certain high two-point shots without having to force low percentage shots at the end of the shot clock. Whereas field goal% offense and defense used to be vital, in the current philosophy of college basketball teams, true shooting percentage matters most.
True Shooting Percentage tells you how efficient a team is at shooting the ball. How many points do they get per shot taken, be it a two-point shot, a three-point shot, or shots from the foul line?
Our formula for college basketball true shooting percentage is:(100*Pts)/(2*(fga+(.475*fta))). We say “our formula” not because we created it, which we did not, but because there are arbitrary differences in the calculations of different metrics specialists. Some use .44 for free throws attempted, which is more accurate for the NBA, but there are different free throw shooting rules in the NBA, so we use .475, which is more accurate for college basketball.
The TS% margin is simply a team’s offensive TS% minus their defensive TS%.
R+T Rating
This is our created statistic. R+T attempts to estimate additional scoring opportunities that a team may receive based on rebounding, steals, avoiding opponent steals, and additional turnovers not involving steals. Since a steal is worth more than a dead-ball turnover, we give it more weight than all other turnovers. A steal is precious because the stealing team is able to run the fast break much easier than any other type of gained possession.
The formula for R+T is: (R * 2) + (S * .5) + (6 – Opp S) + T, where R is rebounding margin, S is steals, and T is turnover margin.
If one team has an R+T of 15.5, and the other team has an R+T of 5.5, then the 15.5 team should create 10 additional scoring opportunities in a game between the two teams. That might be enough extra chances to overcome a significant disadvantage in true shooting perecentage.
Strength of Schedule
Obviously, it is easier to pad your team’s statistics if they have played a bunch of cup cakes rather than play 20 games against other teams in the NCAA Tournament. So, strength of schedule is vitally important. Through SOS, we normalize the TS% and R+T ratings to make the numbers on par with each other. If a team has a TS% margin of 10% and an R+T of 15 with a SOS of 50 (exactly average of 351 Division 1 teams), and their opponents has a TS% of 5% and an R+T of 5 with a SOS of 60 (10 points better than average per game), the team with a SOS of 60 would be the better team based on the analytics. The exact algorithm for determining par values is a bit too difficult to explain, and we do not care to share this proprietary information, as it is all that separates our formula from others.
Other Contributing Factors
We look at how a team has performed in its most recent dozen games. Obviously, at this point, every team has a minimum of a four-game winning streak. We look at each team’s two longest winning streaks of the season. We don’t expect a team with a longest winning streak of three or four games being able to win six in a row against top-flight competition, while if we see a team with a double-digit winning streak or two in excess of six games, then this team has what it takes to win six in a row after March 15.
In addition to Strength of Schedule, we look to those teams that come from a “power conference.” In our definition, a power conference is one with a league RPI in the Top 12. For what it’s worth, all four teams remaining in the field come from power conferences, as did all Elite 8 teams and all Sweet 16 teams.
Scoring margin is also important to us. The minimum scoring margin of a national champion in the last 30 years is eight points per game, while the majority of champions having double-digit scoring margins. It is next-to-impossible to win the title with a scoring margin under 8. When Villanova upset Georgetown in 1985, their scoring margin was just 4.8 points per game. North Carolina State’s scoring margin was 4.6 points per game in 1983. In fact in the last 65 seasons where we have complete stats (1943 to 2017), the eventual national champion had a double-digit scoring margin 62 times!
Okay, so there you have our criteria. Basically, we look for teams that can shoot better than their opponents, create more scoring opportunities than their opponents, and do so against a difficult schedule. It’s obvious, isn’t it? It might be, but then so many people overlook the obvious in favor of emotional factors. And, then there is the case of trying to choose four teams from among 14 of the 68 teams that possessed the qualities necessary to win the title.
We have one party-crasher in the Final Four. Loyola has earned their trip to San Antonio by playing excellent team ball and limiting mistakes, but they have also had a perfect route with little interference, getting weaker than typical Nevada and Kansas State teams to make it here. Because the Ramblers do not share the approved criteria numbers to win the title, we are predicting Loyola to end their Cinderella bid Saturday afternoon. Of course, if Loyola wins, they buck a trend and completely re-write the analytic philosophy.
In case you were wondering, when Loyola won the title back in 1963, the Ramblers were more like Villanova today. That 1963 team led the nation in scoring margin at 24 points per game. That team was an offense first team that played at supersonic speed. They averaged in excess of 90 possessions per game. The Ramblers defeated a two-time defending champion Cincinnati squad that was more of a patient, defense first team that averaged around 65 possessions per game. There was a 2018 Loyola type team in that 1963 Final Four, and that was Oregon State. That Beaver team played patient basketball, relied on defense to stop opponents, because they were not able to score points in spurts, and they only had to beat one ranked team to earn a trip to Louisville for the Final Four.
What happened to that Oregon State team in the semifinals? They lost to Cincinnati by 34 points. Another big Cinderella team lost by 34 points in the 1979 Final Four when Penn fell to eventual champion Michigan State. George Mason lost by 11 points to eventual champion Florida in 2006. VCU lost by eight to Butler in 2011. Wichita State lost by just four to Louisville in 2013.
In fact, if you go back all the way to the beginning of the NCAA Tournament in 1939, in the 79 prior tournaments, only one real Cinderella won the national title. In 1947, Holy Cross had a relatively perfect draw to win an eight-team tournament. The Crusaders edged Navy and City College of New York to make the title game against Oklahoma, where they dismissed the Sooners by 11 points. Of course that HCU team had the best guard in the history of the game up to that point in Bob Cousy and an All-American pivot man in George Kaftan, who disproved the theory that brought you the movie, “White Men Can’t Jump.”
Let us now look at the numbers for the remaining four teams now that we have done what we can to convince you that three of the four teams can cut the nets, and it will take a hire authority than Sister Jean to pull off a miracle of this proportion for Loyola to win.
Note: In response to Lexie89’s question to us earlier in the season, the colors shown for each team are the official colors of each team. We have a list of all team official Pantone colors and then convert from Pantone to Hex Color. If you are not seeing what looks like the authentic colors, it is your monitor.
Team
Power
W-L
Score
TS% Diff
R+T *
SOS
Kansas
Y
31-7
81-71
8.15
5.7
61.78
Loyola (Chi.)
Y
32-5
72-62
10.27
6.8
52.35
Michigan
Y
32-7
74-63
5.86
9.6
59.94
Villanova
Y
34-4
87-70
10.29
13.1
60.82
Team
W1
W2
L12
Reb
Stl
Opp Stl
TO
Kansas
7
7
11-1
0.45
6.55
5.61
1.16
Loyola (Chi.)
14
7
12-0
1.84
6.38
6.54
0.49
Michigan
13
7
12-0
0.49
6.28
4.15
3.67
Villanova
13
9
11-1
3.11
6.61
4.79
2.34
Offense
Defense
Team
Pts
FGA
FTA
TS%
Pts
FGA
FTA
TS%
Kansas
3095
2304
619
59.6
2708
2354
588
51.4
Loyola (Chi.)
2664
1912
612
60.5
2308
2059
505
50.2
Michigan
2888
2221
681
56.8
2460
2118
629
50.9
Villanova
3289
2318
691
62.1
2666
2284
603
51.9
Times listed are Eastern Daylight
Both Games on TBS
The Semifinal Games
Michigan vs. Loyola of Chicago
Tip Time: 6:09 PM
Strength of Schedule
Michigan has a considerable advantage here by an average of 7.59 points per game.
True Shooting % Margin
Due to schedule strength, Michigan has a decided advantage here.
R+T Rating
Michigan has a considerable advantage and should obtain 5 or 6 extra scoring opportunities in this game, which should allow the Wolverines to enjoy at least one scoring spurt of better than 8 points.
Other
Michigan will win the rebounding war as Loyola will not crash the offensive boards. The Ramblers will look to stop Wolverine fast breaks, so if Michigan can guard well enough to limit open shots, especially from the outside, Loyola will have little chance to score enough points to win this game. The Ramblers will have to be very hot from outside and hope that Cameron Krutwig can play longer than 22 minutes.
We expect Michigan to commit single-digit turnovers in this game, as Loyola will have to concentrate its efforts on limiting high-percentage shots inside and open three-point shots against quicker players. The Wolverines have been a much better rebounding team in the second half of the season, and their overall defense has been improving for the last month.
Conclusion
We see this game having two possible outcomes, neither of which is good for the Cinderella team. In the first scenario, Michigan will open up a comfortable lead in the first five to eight minutes of the game and then keep the lead safe for the duration of the game, winning by double digits.
In the second possibility, Loyola might keep the game close for a half, but Michigan will go on a scoring spurt at some point in the second half to gain a double-digit lead and hang on to win by six to 15 points.
Either way, we see the Maize and Blue of Coach John Beilein earning the school’s sixth National Championship Game appearance, and Beilein’s second in Ann Arbor.
MICHIGAN 73LOYOLA 62
Villanova vs. Kansas
Tip Time: Approximately 8:49 PM
Strength of Schedule
This is basically a wash with both teams having a top 5% SOS. Kansas has a minimal advantage of less than one point per game.
True Shooting % Margin
Villanova has a miniscule advantage here that reveals very little due to the standard deviation of shooting percentages per game. All this says is that Villanova has maybe a 52 to 53% chance of having the better true shooting percentage in this game.
R+T Rating
Villanova has a decided advantage here of 7.4, and when you combine it with the SOS of the two teams, the Wildcats are expected to receive about six to seven additional scoring opportunities in this game. Villanova has the best ability of the four remaining teams to capitalize on extra scoring opportunities with game-deciding scoring spurts.
Other
This game has the potential to turn into a 75-possession game per team, and it is possible that the loser could top 80 points. The team that gets better open looks from behind the arc should win this game, as long as that team doesn’t come out so flat that they cannot hit at least 35% from behind the arc.
This game is not necessarily a toss-up, but the advantage of our favorite is not insurmountable.
However, the overall most dangerous player in this entire tournament of 68 teams is still alive and leading the team that is now the odds-on favorite to win the national title for the second time in three years. Jay Wright has given the City of Brotherly Love a possible second champion of the season.
CONCLUSION
Villanova has the near perfect statistical resume of past national champions. Their 17 point scoring margin is on par with 80% of past national champions and typical of about 90% of all past champions.
Of the four teams remaining, the Wildcats are most apt to enjoy a 10-point scoring spurt more than once in a game. Wright’s team reminds us of Denny Crum’s 1980 Louisville team and in some ways like the 1970 and 1971 UCLA teams that won titles. The perimeter players can score inside, and the inside players can score from the outside. Six players are capable of carrying the team for a half, and if you attempt to concentrate on stopping one or two players, the other four or five will exploit your defense and burn you.
VILLANOVA 84KANSAS 77
Comments Off on PiRate Ratings Spreads For NCAA Tournament Final Four Games, Saturday, March 31
Marjorie Miller Designs
Our favorite handmade jewelry artisan (art critics call her designs “Wearable Masterpieces”)
The Bracket Matrix
The PiRate Ratings (Pi) are included in the best college basketball bracketology site on the Internet. Check out the Bracket Project Blog at: https://bracketproject.blogspot.com/
The PiRate Ratings
See the most current PiRate Ratings and Spreads for college and NFL football
The Pi-Rate Ratings 