The Pi-Rate Ratings

March 14, 2022

Bracketnomics 2022

The All-Encompassing Master Bracketnomics Paradigm– Updated for  2022

Note: This Bracketnomics Tutorial makes past ones on our site obsolete.

Hello PiRate Ratings fans.  We here never take for granted just how intelligent the typical reader of this site is.  The contributors to this site are all geriatric lovers of mathematics, basically statistics.  Personally, I (The Captain of the Ship) learned to love math at an early age by calculating the Earned Run Averages of Sandy Koufax, Juan Marichal, Dean Chance, and Gary Peters at a time when they were trying to stay under 2.00.  When Bob Gibson had that miraculous 1968 season, I convinced my classmates to get into baseball just for the stats.  This love for statistics led to me starting the PiRate Ratings in 1969 and becoming a Sabermetric baseball analyst in my 50’s, where I worked for a Major League team.  Additionally, it led to my designing an advanced strategy baseball game called, “Sabertooth Baseball” and an advanced strategy football game called, “PiRate Pro Football.”  If you are into tabletop baseball and want both a basic game and an advanced game, then check out our sister sites, https://sabertooth-baseball.square.site/  and https://pirate-football.square.site/ , where you can  purchase the games online.  We send you a Zip file of player cards, charts, directions, ballparks, and even managerial strategies used by the team.  You print them out and use dice to play the game.  Other games might cost $75-100 to purchase as a boxed game.  Printing the games yourself saves you $$$, and you can keep the charts and rules open on a computer if you don’t want to print them.  A new quick-playing version with easy rules will debut in April.  It’s called “Saberfast Baseball.”

Back to basketball and the real meat of today’s publication.  The PiRate Ratings have been isolating technical data and back-testing our theories as far back as there are statistics for college basketball.  Over the years, we have isolated certain data that serves as a winning NCAA Tournament team “fingerprint.”  We have noticed patterns where teams that made the Final 4 and won the championship shared similar stat profiles.  As basketball analytics came to be, we found new data that made the fingerprint much more accurate.  For several years, we enjoyed incredible success picking brackets, and many of our readers commented that they won their bracket contests.  Included in our selections were crazy things like picking George Mason to sneak into the Sweet 16, possibly make it to the Elite 8, and to actually be a dark horse to make the Final 4, which they did.  It was the next year that a link from a national sports journalist mentioned the PiRate Ratings in his bracket-picking feature, and overnight, this site became 50 times more popular, going from about 50 readers a day to 2,500.  Today, we average about 6,000 readers a day during college basketball season until Bracketnomics season.  The start of the NCAA Tournament for us is like April 15 for an accountant or the Christmas shopping season to a retailer.

In the early 2000’s, we discovered negative data that told us that certain teams were early upset possibilities.  We mentioned more than once that Georgetown and Vanderbilt, two highly-seeded teams, were likely to lose in the opening games to lower-ranked teams, because of our now famous “R+T” rating.  The Hoyas and Commodores both had poor R+T ratings those years, and they both lost just like we predicted.  When the best R+T teams won the national championship three consecutive years, you noticed and began putting the pressure on us to replicate our success. We received over 100 comments on our old site’s comment box saying that you had won your office pool or your other bracket contests.  One patron said she had never come close to winning when she participated in a pool at her office building, and she won the $150 prize for the first time, when she picked Duke, West Virginia, Kansas St., and Michigan St. to make the Final Four.  Kansas State lost to Cinderella Butler in the Elite 8, while the other three made the Final Four.  By the way, Butler was one of two Mid-Major teams we had picked to make the Sweet 16 that year, as we also selected Saint Mary’s to make the Sweet 16.  We did miss on Cornell and Northern Iowa also making the Sweet 16, but very few brackets had them as well, so a large number of our followers won their bracket contests that year.

Alas, like a hot player at the horse track, our system began to weaken a little over the years.  It wasn’t the statistics that led to the swoon; it was the change in the way the game was played.  Basketball analytics began to affect the game the same way that Money Ball affected baseball.  The Four Factors became the Weighted On Base Average of basketball.  And, then the NCAA changed the shot clock from 35 to 30 seconds.  That little five second change greatly altered the way basketball was played.  As a new addition, the changing of the shot clock to 20 seconds after an offensive rebound has changed the metrics a little as well.

The last two years, we spent hour after hour re-tooling our system.  We didn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater, but we altered how the data would be used.  New back-testing showed that our new data might be as accurate of a predictor as the original data.  We were three days away from releasing the tutorial in 2020, when THUD, the season came to an end four days before Selection Sunday.

Last year at the Indiana Extravaganza, we issued most of the new data and did fairly well, as it came down to Baylor and Gonzaga.  Unfortunately, the data showed Gonzaga as the top team, so we missed on the Championship Game, but once again, we received comments from you at our now discontinued second website that many of you won your bracket pool using our methods.  

It is time to reveal to you our updated Bracketnomics criteria for 2022.  After you read this, you have earned a PhD in Bracket-picking (or maybe in wasting time.)  Please enjoy this.  It is still experimental, so please do not use this information for potential financial investment purposes.  A free bracket-picking contest is okay.

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

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

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

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

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

If a team is in the top 10 in one category but not in the top 50 in the other, this team is good enough to get past the Sweet 16, and usually one Final Four team will have this characteristic, but only twice in the 21st Century (both times Connecticut) has the overall National Champion been outside the top 20 in both offensive and defensive efficiency.  For what it’s worth, the Huskies moved into the top 20 during the tournament. Baylor was #2 in offense efficiency but #22 in defense efficiency, but their schedule strength was very high.  Gonzaga had better numbers last year at 1st in offense and 11th in defense.  Houston was 7th and 9th, while UCLA was that one outlier making the Final Four at 11 & 46.  The team they defeated for the Final Four spot, Michigan, was 9th and 4th.

If you have to give one of the two efficiency stats more weight than the other, it should be the offense and not the defense like one might think.  Basketball is an offensive game.  Baseball is a defensive game.  For our purposes, a team with an offensive efficiency in the top 10 and a defensive efficiency in the top 20 that has an above average schedule strength is pure gold.  If the team has a top 10 offensive efficiency and a top 50 defensive efficiency but has a schedule strength that is 10 points per game better than average, this team must also be considered.  

As you will see in our analysis tomorrow, four teams have both offense and defense efficiency ratings in the top 20.  Four additional teams have acceptable offense and defense efficiency ratings if additional information also shows they are worthy.  One of these eight teams is highly likely to win the National Championship, and three of these eight teams are likely to make the Final Four with one team from outside this group sneaking into the Final Four, possibly a Mid-Major.

Criteria #2: Experienced and Clutch Players

It is rare for a team loaded with freshmen and sophomores that have no key upperclassmen in their playing rotation to make it to the Final Four.  Also, there needs to be a go-to player that can put his team on his shoulders and score the ultra-high leverage points.  What we are looking for here is a roster where at least one of the top 8 players is an experienced upperclassman, preferably with past NCAA Tournament experience.  If a team has considerable experience, like 3 or more upperclassmen starters that also have past NCAA Tournament experience, watch for this team to play intelligently and not make killer mistakes.  

We are also looking for a player that wants the ball with his team down one point and 10 seconds left in the game, or it can be a trio of guys where any one of the three could hit the last-second shot, even if they don’t generate the big headlines.  Look at Kentucky in the John Calipari years.  He frequently had an all underclassmen roster with the only seniors on the roster being walk-ons.  This year’s Kentucky team has experience in the starting lineup and past NCAA Tournament experience as well.  Might the Wildcats be a team to consider advancing deep after missing the tournament last year?  Check back tomorrow.

Criteria #3: Frontcourt Hero

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

Criteria #4: Balance

This is an alternative to the team where one player can carry them to win after win.  If a team does not have a stud NBA Lottery pick on its roster, if they have a balanced team where four or more players average double figure scoring, it can be hard to shut them all down in a game.  One of the four is likely to have a hot hand.  It may not be as immediate, but sometimes the balanced team has the advantage if the one-star team’s star has his one off night of the season in the Sweet 16.  For instance,  #1 North Carolina lost in the 1984 NCAA Tournament when The General, Robert Montgomery Knight devised an excellent defensive game plan that shut Michael Jordan down and limited him to 13 points and four turnovers in his final college game, as Indiana won. 

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

If the coach of a tournament team has taken a past team to the Final Four, he’s in elite company.  Treat this coach like royalty.  If the coach has taken a past team to the Elite 8, he’s almost as royal.  If a coach has taken past teams to multiple Sweet 16’s, then these coaches deserve bonus points.  All the 2021 Final Four head coaches had lengthy NCAA Tournament experience.

Criteria #6: Strength of Schedule

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

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

To win the NCAA Championship, a team must have defeated quality opposition and not just teams ranked lower than 250.  In the modern era, every team that has won the national championship had a schedule strength either in the top 40 or at least 8 points per game above average.  There have been multiple #1 seeds with schedule strengths below #40 or 8 points above average that did not make it to the Final 4, and every one that made it to the Final 4 failed to win the National Championship.  Butler in 2010 came within a couple inches of winning the title with a schedule strength outside the top 40.

Teams with weaker strengths of schedule can make it to the Final 4, but not very frequently.  To win four games in the Dance, a team usually has to be battle-tested.  If a mid-major has a schedule strength between 50 and 100, they have to be really strong in other criteria to pick to go to the Final 4.  In 2018, when Gonzaga advanced to the National Championship Game, their strength of schedule was in this range.  Butler’s strength of schedule was also in this range when they twice advanced to the Championship Game.  Loyola of Chicago just barely qualified. The last team not from a power conference (or top Independent in the years where there were 30 independents) to win the National Championship was UNLV in 1990, and before that, it was Texas Western in 1966.

Criteria #7: A Regular Season or Conference Tournament Champion

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

Criteria #8: Three-point Shooting Percentage

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

Criteria #9: Offensive Rebounding Percentage

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

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

Criteria #10: Defensive 2-Point Field Goal Percentage

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

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

Criteria #11: Free Throw Rate

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

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

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

Criteria #12: The Old PiRate Data Still Matters

The old mainstay PiRate Ratings data still matters.  Those stats include:

  1. A scoring margin of 10 or more points for Final Four potential, and a scoring margin of 8 or more points for Sweet 16 and Elite 8 teams.  More than 80% of Final 4 teams across time have scoring margins of 10 points or more.  Don’t expect a team with a scoring margin of a few points to win four games in the NCAA Tournament.
  2. Field Goal % margin.  Look for teams that have a regular FG% that is 7.5% better than their Defensive FG%.  If that number is 10% or more, this is a tough team.  A team with a 48% FG% and 38% defensive FG% is a gem.
  3. Winning % away from home.  If a team won 75% of their games not played at home, they are tournament ready.  If a 25-8 team went 17-0 at home and 8-8 away from home, this team is a pretender.  A team has to win six consecutive games away from home to cut the nets, so don’t look at a .500 team away from home to beat six quality opponents.
  4. A lengthy winning streak during the season.  Do you really think a team that never won more than three consecutive games during the season will now win six in a row against better competition?  Most national champions had either a winning streak of 10 or more games or multiple winning streaks of six or more games.

Criteria #13: R+T ©

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

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

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

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

How does a team go on a big scoring run in a short time?  We will tell you up front that a 16 to 2 run rarely comes about from seven regular possessions by both teams, where the 16-point team scores four two-point baskets, two three-point baskets, and two free throws, while the other team scores just one basket and misses six other times down the floor, where no offensive rebounds or turnovers come into play.

The spurt almost always happens due to a combination of turnovers forced, especially steals, and controlling the boards at both ends.  Getting multiple second and third shots on offense and allowing one or no shot per possession on defense leads to these checkmate spurts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One more thing about R+T ratings. Any time a team has a negative or really low positive R+T rating, throw them out immediately, even if they are a big-name team from a power conference.  Non-spurtability teams that have to win games by consistently winning more possessions in a half-court game are rarely going to make it past the Sweet 16.  One of the reasons the PiRate Ratings gained popularity was with our ability to predict higher-seed first round losers just by their having negative R+T ratings.  Two schools, Georgetown and Vanderbilt, earned three NCAA Tournament bids in an overlapping era between 2008 and 2013, and each time the Hoyas and Commodores had negative R+T ratings.  We picked against them in the first round in all six cases and went 6-0!  Georgetown lost as a #3 seed to Ohio U in 2010.  In 2011, they lost as a #6 seed to #11 VCU, in a game where the Rams R+T was 20+ points better.  In 2013, they were a 3-seed once again and lost to Florida Gulf Coast.

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

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

Beginning in 2020, we originated a new R+T Rating that used rate stats rather than counting stats, because it is obvious that a team that outrebounds opponents 35 to 27 is better than a team that outrebounds opponents 45 to 36, and a team that misses a lot more shots has a lot more chances to grab offensive rebounds.

The new and improved R+T Rating is a multi-step process.    Here is the formula, and then we will explain it.

((R * 8) + ((S + T) * 4)) / 3.5

This formula now refers to Rate Stats.  The “R” in the formula now stands for Rebounding Rate margin.  This is a combination of both offensive and defensive rebounding rate and it is a deviation from the norm and not just a percentage.  The norm in our formula refers to the current median of the Division 1 teams (usually in the 27 to 29% range and 28.5 in 2022).  If a team has an offensive rebounding rate above this median number, it is above average, and if it is below this number, it is below average.  Thus, the norm for defensive rebounding rate is the opposite of the above number, (usually in the 71 to 73% range and 71.5 in 2022).  We then calculate our R part of the formula by taking each team’s offensive rate minus the norm plus their defensive rate minus the norm and then add the two results and divide by 2.

The rest of this formula uses the same process as above.  Take each team’s steal rate and calculate the difference from the median (9.4% in 2022) for both offense and defense, add the two results and divide by 2. 

Now, we need Turnover rates, both offensive and defensive (16.1% median in 2022).  Obviously, the lower the offensive turnover rate is, the better, and the higher the defensive turnover rate is, the better.  Sum the offensive and defensive differences from the median turnover rate and divide by 2: 

The 3.5 as the divisor is our constant that we hope makes a usable formula telling us the potential number of points a team has in spurtability.  We came to this number by back-testing actual scoring runs and then found the mean square error of actual scoring runs by the teams.

Fret not with the R+T calculations.  We have done all the work for you.  In our big reveal tomorrow, every team’s R+T number will be shown.

Extra Credit:  If you get to a point where flipping a coin is the last step before you choose a winner of a bracket, consider one interesting tidbit that may or may not have any real weight.  Teams with red color uniforms tend to have more fouls called on their players than teams with blue color uniforms.  Overall, teams that wear red tend to get whistled maybe one time more per game than teams that wear blue.  If you look at the national champions from history, many more teams had blue uniforms than had red uniforms.  Green can be counted with the blue, while orange can be counted with the red.  Usually, if the red or orange team is wearing its white uniforms, the calls don’t go against them quite as much.   

We’ve never used this factor in picking brackets or any regular season game for that matter, but it is good for a laugh.

January 16, 2022

Refining “Spurtability” In College Basketball

The PiRate Ratings have been big fans of CBS Sports analyst Clark Kellogg, ever since he set records in high school in Cleveland in the 1970’s and earned a prestigious spot on the McDonald’s High School All-America Team.

In the early 1990’s, Kellogg coined the term “spurtability” to signify a basketball team’s ability to experience a big scoring run. He proposed that in the NCAA Tournament, in a game where two teams appeared to be evenly matched, the two that could go on one big scoring run was the team that would almost always win these tense do or die games.

Being old enough to remember the great UCLA Bruins teams coached by John Wooden from 1964 to 1975, his teams routinely enjoyed these scoring runs. Wooden’s first national champion, his 30-0 1964 team with no starter over 6 foot 5 enjoyed a spurt in all 30 games. His vaunted 2-2-1 zone press defense with an occasional 1-2-1-1 thrown in combined with a high post offense that placed offensive rebounders in optimum spots produced these spurts. The ultimate of these famous spurts happened in the National Championship Game against Duke. Even though the Bruins were 29-0 at this point, Duke was the favorite in this game. They had two starters that were 6 foot 10, an all-American wing in Jeff Mullins, and a future NBA star off the bench in Jack Marin.

At the start of the game, Duke routinely beat the UCLA press and with their bigger players, they controlled the boards. They led 30-27 late in the first half when Wooden inserted key reserve Kenny Washington into the game. The spurt started immediately thereafter. Two Duke possessions where the Blue Devils beat the press resulted in hurried shots that missed. UCLA retrieved the rebounds, ran the fast break, and scored quickly. Before Duke Coach Vic Bubas could call a timeout, the Bruins had run off nine quick points in less than a minute to lead 36-30. After the timeout, Duke’s guards felt the screws being tightened. They couldn’t get the ball across the 10-second line, and multiple turnovers led to seven more quick points for the Bruins. The 16-0 run took just two minutes, and the Bruins led comfortably 43-30. The game was never in doubt after that.

Spurtability is rarely that obvious. In a 40-minute basketball game, there are going to be multiple runs, usually by both teams. One team may enjoy a 12-2 run to take a 10-point lead, and then the other team may go on a 14-4 run to tie the score. However, in the Big Dance, the winning team will almost always be the one that had one or more spurts than the losing team.

What makes a spurt happen? In about 5-10% of the cases, it is simply a matter of one team coming down the floor five to seven times and hitting their first shot on the possession, while the other team misses their single shots on their possessions. In other words, this is a rarity. What usually happens to cause a spurt is that one team either controls the glass and gets multiple opportunities to score on their possessions, or one team forces numerous turnovers and scores on the resulting numbers’ advantages, or a combination of both. Just like UCLA in 1964, if the spurting team limits the opponent to one shot on multiple possessions, while they have two, three, and even four opportunities to score at their offensive end, the scoreboard is going to move in their favor. If the other team doesn’t even get to take a shot on their possession, they obviously cannot score. And, when a team commits a turnover, if that turnover is a steal by the other team, they usually give up a lot higher rate of points on that possession, as a steal almost always produces an immediate numbers’ advantage for a fast break score.

The big question for fans watching, maybe with a financial stake in the game of some variety, is how can spurtability be estimated? The simple answer is to look at the teams that do best in the components that create these spurts. If great rebounding and being able to force turnovers, especially by stealing the ball lead to these spurts, then it obviously means that the teams that can best rebound and force these turnovers, especially steals, while avoiding the same are the ones most likely to enjoy these spurts.

The PiRate Ratings first used the stat “R+T” in the early 2000’s. It was a simple formula that attempted to calculate the average number of spurtability points a team had. We then calculated the R+T ratings of all 68 teams in the NCAA Tournament. What we found was that the teams with the highest R+T ratings that were also members of the top conferences, where their schedule strengths were also high, were the teams advancing deep into the tournaments. Additionally, the top two teams by R+T rating and from power conferences continually made the Elite 8. The top overall R+T Power Conference team almost always made the Final Four, and multiple times, they cut the nets down while “One Shining Moment” played on the TV.

Another surprise came to us when we first started calculating these R+T ratings. Annually, a small handful of teams from power conferences entered the NCAA Tournament with very low R+T ratings or even negative R+T ratings. The real surprise is these teams quickly lost in the first or second round, even if they were #3, 4, or 5 seeds playing as the favorite. Two schools in this era, Georgetown and Vanderbilt, made the Field of 68 as rather high seeds more than once when their R+T ratings were at or near the bottom of the field. Georgetown lost twice as a heavy favorite, including as a #2 seed when #15 seed Florida Gulf Coast ran the Hoyas off the floor with two spurts (in a game where we predicted an FGCU win and possibly by double digits.) In Vanderbilt’s case, they won a lot of games during the regular season by playing smart basketball, winning by getting higher percentage shots than their opponents and beating them at the foul line. It allowed the Commodores to make the field three times in this period where they were a #4 or #5 seed where they lost their first game as a favorite. In all three cases, Vanderbilt had either a negative or barely positive R+T rating, while the Mid-Major underdog enjoyed a much higher R+T rating. In all three upset losses, there was a large discrepancy in at least one part of the R+T rating that swung the game in the underdog teams’ favor. In a 2008 first round blowout loss to #13 seed Siena, the Saints pressed Vandy out of the gym early, and 10 Siena steals led to a 21-point drubbing. In 2010, Murray State dominated the offensive glass, while Vandy’s passive defense played it close to the vest and picked up a couple steals and a minimum number of forced turnovers. In 2011, with three future NBA players on the roster, Vandy lost to Richmond. Even though the Commodores shot 50% from the field and hit 46.2% of their three-point shots, they only forced two turnovers, as Richmond received a dozen extra scoring opportunities.

In the ensuing years, the R+T rating continued to be our secret weapon in picking NCAA Tournament brackets. Although this site began as a football computer rating site, it was March Madness that brought us the recognition when the New York Times noticed our little secret and linked to us one day in the latter part of the first decade of this century. The next year, our R+T rating was publicized throughout the Bracket-picking URLs. When it proved successful, we picked up a couple hundred new subscribers in just a matter of days.

Then, something happened. The onslaught of basketball analytics and the tweaking of the shot clock from 35 seconds to 30 seconds totally changed the game. Just like baseball became strictly a “play for the 3-run homer” sport, basketball became a “dominate the Four Factors” sport. Overnight, almost every team began to play the same exact style of basketball from the Division 3 ranks of college to the NBA. Either get a good 3-point shot or a very high percentage 2-point shot became everybody’s offense and the reverse became everybody’s defense. This tweaking of the game altered the way scoring spurts happen. Now, a team could hit three consecutive 3-pointers and go on a big run. Or, negatively, a team could go ice cold shooting 3-pointers and not score for several possessions.

Because field goal efficiency and defensive field goal efficiency became the be all and end all that decides game outcomes, the game basically broke down into a chess match of getting the most efficiency in shot selection. However, we noticed a similarity between baseball metrics and basketball metrics as it applied to the postseason. Famous baseball metric GM of Money Ball fame, Oakland A’s GM Billy Beane, noted this many years ago, when he said, “My stuff doesn’t work in the playoffs.” We substituted the word “stuff” for the four-letter word he really used, but he hit the nail on the head. In the playoffs, Money Ball stuff did not work. There was a good reason for this. In the regular season, each team in a league plays all the other teams, both the best and the worst teams. They use a five-man pitching rotations. Over the course of 27 weeks of action, teams will face great pitchers, good pitchers, average pitchers, below average pitchers, and weak pitchers. Being highly selective with pitches and playing for 3-run homers works against 70% of the pitchers faced before October. But, once the postseason starts, teams can get by with as little as three starting pitchers and use their top two or three relievers for all the important innings. Now, playing for the three-run homer or waiting for a specific pitch may never develop. When the #4 starter on the 95-game losing team takes the mound, he might groove one pitch per batter faced. When Max Scherzer or Sandy Koufax is on the mound, if the opponent cannot manufacture runs with minimal base runners, they are likely to fail.

The same effect of great pitchers in the playoffs can be linked to great basketball teams in the NCAA Tournament. Among the 32 or so Power Conference teams in the Big Dance, it will require more than shooting efficiency and defensive shooting efficiency to win tournament games. Please read this prior sentence carefully. There is a difference between shooting efficiency and scoring efficiency. Shooting efficiency measures points scored per shot taken. Scoring efficiency measures points scored per possession. If on a possession, a team turns the ball over and doesn’t take a shot, it has not affected shooting efficiency, but it has stopped all chances to score on that possession, thus lowering scoring efficiency. If a team takes a shot and misses, and then gets an offensive rebound and then misses again, and then gets another offensive rebound, and then the defense fouls, and then the foul shooter makes both free throw attempts, the team’s scoring efficiency goes up, while their shooting efficiency goes down.

The R+T Rating perfectly bridges this gap between shooting efficiency and scoring efficiency. However, if we are looking at efficiency, then the R+T Rating has to be alrered. Here’s why. The original R+T Rating is:

(R * 2) + (S * 0.5) + (6 – Opponents’ S) + T

R = rebounding margin

S = steals per game

T = turnover margin

As you can see, the components are counting stats. You count the number of rebounds, steals, and turnovers, and you have the components for the formula. However, the Four Factors are rate stats, where a ratio of stats are used. If Team A outrebounds its opponent 32 to 25, it has 7 more rebounds. If Team B outrebounds its opponent 44 to 36, it has 8 more rebounds. Team A has a rebound margin weaker than Team B, but Team A rebounded 56.1% of the missed shots, while Team B rebounded 55% of the missed shots. Team A actually did a little better. Thus, rates of these stats are more accurate than merely counting the differences.

Thus, a new R+T Rating using rates is called for. We actually devised this new formula in February of 2020 with the plan to release this new data in our annual “Bracketnomics” report the day after Selection Sunday. But, the entire tournament was wiped out by Covid-19, and the release and the new data was mothballed. Last year, we were trying to release our tabletop baseball strategy game, “Sabertooth Baseball,” and in a hurry to gave the game ready for sale before the 2021 MLB season, we didn’t devote as much time to March Madness as in the past. This year, we are well out in front of the action and have the time.

Here is the new and improved R+T Rating using rates instead of counting stats.

((R * 8) + ((S + T) * 4)) / 3.5

This formula now refers to Rate Stats.  The “R” in the formula now stands for Rebounding Rate.  This is a combination of both offensive and defensive rebounding rate and it is a deviation from the norm and not just a percentage.  The norm in our experiment will vary some from year to year. At the current time, it is 28.3%.  If a team has an offensive rebounding rate above this number, it is above average, and if it is below this number, it is below average.  Thus, the norm for defensive rebounding rate is the opposite of the above number, or 71.7%.  We then calculate our R part of the formula by taking each team’s offensive rate minus 28.3 plus their defensive rate minus 71.7 and then add the two results and divide by 2. The result goes in the “R” spot in the above formula.

Let’s look at a real team as an example. Kentucky is killing it on the boards thanks to a once in a generation glass-cleaner in Oscar Tshiebwe. Kentucky’s current offensive rebound rate is 39.3%, and their defensive rebound rate is 20.5%. The differences from the norms (28.3% O and 71.7% D) are 11.0 (off) and 7.8 (def). Adding the two and dividing by two for the average, gets you a result of 9.4. 9.4 would go into the “R” part of the formula.

The current constant for Steals is 9.7, which is the same for offensive and defensive steal rates. The current constant for Turnovers is 16.3, which also is the same for offensive and defensive turnover rates.

Using the same method we used to calculate R, let’s look at Kentucky’s S and T rates. The Wildcats currently have a steal rate of 9.8%, while their opponents’ steal rate is 9.0%. Kentucky doesn’t excel in this rate, getting just 0.1 for its steals and 0.7 for avoiding steals. Add the two and divide by 2, and you get 0.4 for S, not much.

For the T part of the formula, Kentucky’s offensive turnover rate is 13.9, and their defensive turnover rate is 16.6. Remember on Turnover rates that on offense, the lower the number the better, so a lower number than the constant is positive and a higher number than the constant is negative. The constant as of today is 16.3. Kentucky’s offensive turnover rate is 2.4%, and their defensive turnover rate is 0.3%. Add the two and divide by two, and the result is 1.35.

We now have all the numbers we need to plug into the new R+T formula.

R = 9.4

S = 0.4

T = 1.35

((9.4 * 8) + ((0.4 + 1.35) * 4)) / 3.5

Result: 23.5

23.5 is a high number. Kentucky will enjoy nice spurts against just about any opponent. We can also use this criteria to see where they are vulnerable. If a team is strong in the S & T parts of the equation, they could exploit the Wildcats, and erase the rebounding advantage Kentucky will have.

Here’s another example. Houston made the Final Four last year by dominating in all phases of the game. Kelvin Sampson’s teams have typically been great at the “hustle stats”, and that correlates to a high R+T rate. Here are UH’s stats as of today.

R = 5.5

S = 2.65

T = 3.75

((5.5 * 8) + ((2.65 + 3.75) * 4)) / 3.5

Result: 19.9

Once again, Houston has an excellent R+T rate. They excel in all three components of the formula and while not as strong overall as Kentucky, they have no weakness here.

Now, let’s look at a pretender. Loyola of Chicago was the darling long shot when they snuck into the Final Four a few years ago. This season, the Ramblers look like a stronger team playing in a tougher conference. At 13-2, they are nationally ranked. However, their R+T rate is well below the threshold to be a serious contender again.

R = 1.3

S = 0.95

T = 1.6

((1.3 * 8) + ((0.95 + 1.6) * 4)) / 3.5

Result: 5.9

An R+T of 5.9 might be just enough to beat a weaker team in the Round of 64, but if that opponent has a higher R+T rate, Loyola will be in trouble. If, by chance, Abilene Chrisitan was to gain the WAC’s automatic bid with their 94 feet of pressure defense and unorthodox playing style, ACU’s superior R+T rate (16.6) might more than make up for Loyola’s stronger schedule strength and their patient style of play.

Don’t fret if you don’t totally understand all the stats. We won’t leave it to you to compile these numbers on Selection Sunday. The PiRate captain will huddle in his quarters and calculate all of this data as well as many other factors used to pick the bracket.

March 12, 2021

The All-Encompassing Master Bracketnomics Paradigm–2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criteria #2: Experienced and Clutch Players

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

Criteria #3: Frontcourt Hero

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

Criteria #4: Balance

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

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

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

Criteria #6: Strength of Schedule

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

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

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

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

Criteria #7: A Regular Season or Conference Tournament Champion

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

Criteria #8: Three-point Shooting Percentage

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

Criteria #9: Offensive Rebounding Percentage

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

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

Criteria #10: Defensive 2-Point Field Goal Percentage

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

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

Criteria #11: Free Throw Rate

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

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

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

Criteria #12: The Old PiRate Data Still Matters

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

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

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

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

Criteria #13: R+T ©

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 20, 2020

Comparison of Old & New R+T Ratings

We hope you read our piece earlier this week describing our updated R+T Rating for 2020.  If you didn’t, and if you are a new reader to the PiRate Ratings, after thanking you for stopping buy and remembering you are getting exactly what you paid for here, the following is a quick tutorial on what R+T Rating means.

  1. The R+T Rating is a metric that applies only to the NCAA Tournament.

  2. The R+T Rating attempts to estimate extra scoring opportunities by teams in NCAA Tournament games.

  3. Over the last two decades when the needed statistics to calculate R+T Ratings, the National Champions and most of the Final Four teams rated near the top of the field in R+T Rating.  

  4. The reason the R+T Rating is so important in the NCAA Tournament only is because the other metrics are better applied in an environment where half of the teams in Division 1 are below average offensively, while a separate half of the teams in Division 1 are below average defensively.  In the NCAA Tournament, almost all teams are above average offensively and defensively, so these extra scoring opportunities frequently are the difference.   It only takes one nice scoring spurt to win a tightly contested game in the Big Dance.

We used the same R+T Rating for almost two decades, only slightly tweaking the weighting for these stats.  The old R+T Rating, which we will continue to publish this year, is:

(R * 2) + (S * .5) + (6 – Opp S) + T

R = Rebounding Margin
S = Average Steals Per Game
T = Turnover Margin

This metric shows that rebounding margin is more important than turnover margin, but steals are more important than other types of turnovers.  The reason is that steals lead to the most potential points per possession.  When a team steals the ball, they are usually facing their own basket (whereas on a rebound, their backs are to their own basket).  The team committing the turnover by steal must do a 180° turn to defend, and the stealing team takes off on a fast break.

This R+T Rating helped us pick some big upsets for many years.  Teams with high R+T Ratings and adequate strengths of schedule advanced in the tournaments at the expense of teams with low R+T Ratings.  In multiple years, teams with negative R+T Ratings lost quickly in the Big Dance, even teams that were #2, 3, and 4 seeds.  We correctly picked two different Georgetown teams to be upset as heavy favorites, because those Hoya teams had negative or very low positive R+T Ratings.  For three years, we picked Vanderbilt to lose in the first game against underdogs because Vanderbilt also had negative or very low R+T Ratings.  At the other end of the spectrum, the team with the highest R+T Rating and a significantly strong schedule has cut down the nets multiple times.

If the R+T Rating has been an accurate predictor of potential NCAA Tournament success, why did we need to create a new version?  We did so, because the old version simply counted actual margins without concerning itself with possessions.  Rate stats are more accurate than counting stats.  As we have used as an example many times, a team that outrebounds its opponents 35-30 has done a better job than a team that outrebounded its opponents 43-37.  Strictly counting 43-37 is +6 and 35-30 is only +5, but 35-30 is 53.85% while 43-37 is 53.75%, so 35-30 is a tad better.  We want our stats to be as accurate as possible, so we switched to rate stats over counting stats.

But, we have an issue.  The variables now must change as well, because percentages are totally different from standard numbers.  We have tried to back-test the new variables and include a constant to try to make the outcome look the same but more accurate.

Here is the explanation for the new R+T Rating.

1. Use 4-Factors Rate Stats
A. Offensive Rebound %
B. Opponents’ Offensive Rebound %
C. Steal %
D. Opponents’ Steal %
E. Turnover %
F. Opponents’ Turnover %

2. Take the difference in each stat from the national average for each stat. There will be discrepancies in the offensive and defensive averages due to D1 vs. D2 games, so we set the national average from the mean of the offensive and defensive norms.
For example: O Reb% = 28.43 & D Reb% = 27.79, then the mean Reb% for Division 1 in 2020 is 28.1.

3. For Rebounding Rate Margin & Turnover Rate Margin take the sum of offensive and defensive rates and divide by 2.
Example: A team’s OReb Margin is +6.4% and DReb Margin is -1.2%. Reb Rate Margin would be +2.6%

4. We Keep Steal Rate Margins Separate as in original R+T.

5. The New Formula Now Becomes:

((R*8)+(S*2+((5-Opp S)*2)+(T*4)))/2.75

 

Here’s how we calculate a sample new R+T Rate.

The Big State University Pumas have these stats

Offensive Rebounding % = 34.8.  With a national Rebound % mean of 28.1, Big State’s offensive rebound rate margin is +6.7% (34.8-28.1)

Opponents’ Offensive Rebounding % = 28.6.  With a national Rebound % mean of 28.1, The defensive margin or Big State’s opponents offensive rebound margin is -0.5 (28.1-28.6)

Now we add the two margins and divide by 2  (+6.7 – 0.5) / 2 = 3.1

3.1 would be the new R number in the equation.

Big State has a steal rate of 10.6% and a defensive steal rate of 9.6%.  The national average steal rate is 9.2%.  

So, Big State’s S Rating would be +1.4 (10.6-9.2).  Their opponents’ S would be +.4% (in this case the higher the number, the worse off it is for the team).

Big State has a turnover rate of 16.8% and a defensive turnover rate of 18.2%.  The national average for turnovers is 16.9%, so Big State’s turnover rate margin would be 0.1%, and their defensive turnover rate margin would be 1.3%.

So Big State’s T Rating would be 0.7,  (.1+1.3)/2

Now we have all the numbers we need to plug into the calculation.

((R*8)+(S*2+((5-Opp S)*2)+(T*4)))/2.75

For Big State, the equation becomes:

((3.1 * 8) + (1.4 * 2 + ((5 – .4) *2) + (0.7 * 4)))/2.75 = 14.4

Big State’s R+T Rating would be 14.4, which is about average for an NCAA Tournament Team.  We must at this point look at their schedule strength to see if it merits worthiness against teams most likely to advance into additional NCAA Tournament rounds.

So, by now you are maybe wanting to see some real R+T Ratings?  We are going to show you both the old and new R+T Ratings for the current top 20 teams in the nation.

Here is the old R+T list with the schedule strength.  For schedule strength, 50.0 is average.  55.0 and higher means the team has played a tough schedule.  Below 45.0 means the team has played a weak schedule.  Usually national champions have a strength of schedule between 56 and 62, and most Final Four Teams have strengths of schedule between 52 and 62.

Old R+T

Team

R+T No.

SOS

Gonzaga

24.6

53.9

Houston

23.0

55.8

West Virginia

20.6

60.4

Kansas

17.0

62.3

Baylor

17.0

59.4

Duke

16.5

58.6

San Diego St.

15.9

53.6

Louisville

15.3

57.6

Colorado

14.4

57.6

Maryland

13.1

59.9

Florida St.

12.8

57.9

Butler

11.9

59.7

Kentucky

11.9

56.7

Penn St.

10.3

59.8

Dayton

9.4

54.4

Iowa

9.4

60.8

Marquette

8.1

59.8

Villanova

7.5

60.0

Seton Hall

4.9

60.4

Creighton

2.2

60.3

 

Looking at the old R+T, the Big East appears to be a bit overrated this year.  The four Top 20 teams with the lowest R+T Ratings are all Big East teams.

Until last night, Duke had a much more impressive R+T than they do today, but losing by 22 to North Carolina State, and getting outrebounded and committing more turnovers and having the ball stolen more against the Wolf Pack led to the Blue Devils dropping down to sixth.

Gonzaga’s R+T is about where it was when the Bulldogs advanced to the National Championship Game against North Carolina a few years back.  At the moment, their schedule strength is a tad too low, but GU has games remaining against Saint Mary’s and BYU and likely another game against one of the two in the WCC Championship Game.  The Zags’ SOS could move up a little.

 

 

New R+T Rating

 

Team

R+T Rate

SOS

West Virginia

26.5

60.4

Gonzaga

21.5

53.9

Houston

20.9

55.8

Baylor

18.7

59.4

Duke

18.3

58.6

Colorado

15.3

57.6

Kansas

14.4

62.3

Florida St.

12.7

57.9

San Diego St.

12.7

53.6

Louisville

11.9

57.6

Maryland

10.7

59.9

Iowa

9.6

60.8

Penn St.

8.6

59.8

Butler

7.6

59.7

Villanova

5.7

60.0

Marquette

4.1

59.8

Kentucky

3.8

56.7

Seton Hall

3.1

60.4

Dayton

1.6

54.4

Creighton

-5.5

60.3

 

The new R+T gives a little more credit to three of the Big East teams.  Obviously, lower possessions per game in the Big East are partly to blame for lower counting stats, but on the whole, this does not look like a great potential year for the Big East.

Look at the top four teams here.  All four are teams that are west of the Mississippi River.  There hasn’t been an NCAA Champion from west of the Mississippi River since Kansas in 2008.  There hasn’t been an NCAA Champion from west of the Rockies since Arizona in 1997.  Did you know that the last 11 NCAA Champions came from the Eastern Time Zone?  And, did you know that the last NCAA Champion from the Pacific Time Zone was UCLA in 1995?

December 24, 2019

PiRate Ratings College Basketball For Tuesday, December 24, 2019

Welcome to the inaugural post for the 2019-2020 College Basketball Season.  In past years, we did not issue power ratings until past January 1, because our ratings need a substantial sample size before the variance is negligible.

For those of you new to our basketball ratings, they are nothing like our football ratings.  We use an algorithm based on the Four Factors of basketball combined with schedule strength.  We spent a couple years testing out a system and tweaking the variables until we ended up with what we hope is accurate enough ratings to predict game outcome and maybe, if lucky, a comparison to the Nevada Spread.

Our inspiration comes from baseball sabermetric genius Tom Tango aka Tango Tiger, who we would really love to meet one day after having traded some ideas via the Baseball-Fever site many years ago.  Tango created the Weighted On-Base Average, which is about as positively correlated to run scoring among the well-known sabermetric runs formulas.

Our basketball ratings apply weights to the four factors and then adjust these weights to schedule strength.  It takes about 1,750 games before schedule strength adjustment variance lowers to a minimum number in our calculating loop.  

Since we are beginning our ratings’ publication early this year, we have not yet decided on a set schedule for when we will release updated ratings.  

Starting in January, this is what we will present weekly in our basketball category.

  1. Twice Weekly Power Rating Updates

  2. Predicted Spreads of Games Played Between Power Conference Teams

  3. Weekly Bracketology Updates

  4. Occasional Editorial Or Other Written Information

We went back and looked at what our most read posts were for the 2018-19 season, and by far you chose our feature naming the top 20 candidates to move up to Power Conference head coaching jobs.  In that post, we rated Eric Musselman, then of Nevada, as not only the top coach that could potentially move up to a Power Conference job, we named him the overall best college basketball coach at the present time, ahead of all the legends still coaching.

We based that accolade on the fact that Musselman has improved the overall efficiency of close to 100% of the players he has coached at the college level that have also played for other Division 1 Head Coaches.

Musselman is living up to this accolade in his first year at Arkansas, where the Razorback players that played for another Division 1 Head Coach (either players he inherited at Arkansas or transfers from other teams) have enjoyed massive improvement in total efficiency, especially on the defensive side of the ball.

We will post a new list sometime in February.  Believe it or not, it takes longer to study efficiency ratings for players from one year to the next than it does to figure all the power ratings for 353 teams.

Here are our Opening PiRate Ratings for Christmas Eve, 2019

Power Ratings  12/24/19

 

#

Team

Conference

PiRate

1

Duke

Atlantic Coast

120.7

2

Kansas

Big 12

120.1

3

Ohio St.

Big Ten

119.6

4

Michigan St.

Big Ten

118.9

5

Gonzaga

West Coast

118.4

6

Louisville

Atlantic Coast

117.7

7

Maryland

Big Ten

116.3

8

Arizona

Pac-12

115.9

9

Baylor

Big 12

115.3

10

Dayton

Atlantic 10

115.0

11

Oregon

Pac-12

114.9

12

Butler

Big East

114.8

13

Auburn

Southeastern

114.6

14

Michigan

Big Ten

114.6

15

Florida St.

Atlantic Coast

114.3

16

Kentucky

Southeastern

114.0

17

Memphis

American Athletic

113.7

18

Seton Hall

Big East

113.6

19

San Diego St.

Mountain West

113.5

20

Villanova

Big East

113.5

21

Purdue

Big Ten

113.3

22

Iowa

Big Ten

113.3

23

Penn St.

Big Ten

113.1

24

West Virginia

Big 12

112.7

25

Marquette

Big East

112.6

26

BYU

West Coast

112.5

27

Florida

Southeastern

112.3

28

Texas Tech

Big 12

112.3

29

Indiana

Big Ten

112.1

30

Wichita St.

Big East

112.1

31

Houston

American Athletic

112.0

32

Xavier

Big East

111.8

33

Arkansas

Southeastern

111.7

34

Tennessee

Southeastern

111.6

35

LSU

Southeastern

111.5

36

Iowa St.

Big 12

111.5

37

North Carolina St.

Atlantic Coast

111.5

38

Utah St.

Mountain West

111.4

39

Saint Mary’s

West Coast

111.4

40

North Carolina

Atlantic Coast

111.4

41

Georgetown

Big East

111.3

42

Washington

Pac-12

111.1

43

Virginia

Atlantic Coast

111.1

44

Colorado

Pac-12

111.0

45

Minnesota

Big Ten

110.8

46

Illinois

Big Ten

110.8

47

Creighton

Big East

110.6

48

Oklahoma St.

Big 12

110.5

49

VCU

Atlantic 10

110.1

50

Rutgers

Big Ten

110.1

51

Oklahoma

Big 12

110.0

52

Temple

American Athletic

109.7

53

Wisconsin

Big Ten

109.7

54

Missouri

Southeastern

109.6

55

Alabama

Southeastern

109.4

56

Connecticut

American Athletic

109.2

57

Cincinnati

American Athletic

109.1

58

Stanford

Pac-12

109.0

59

Notre Dame

Atlantic Coast

108.8

60

Syracuse

Atlantic Coast

108.6

61

Mississippi St.

Southeastern

108.6

62

USC

Pac-12

108.5

63

Texas

Big 12

108.3

64

East Tennessee St.

Southern

108.3

65

Virginia Tech

Atlantic Coast

108.0

66

Duquesne

Atlantic 10

107.9

67

Liberty

Atlantic Sun

107.9

68

TCU

Big 12

107.9

69

DePaul

Big East

107.8

70

Yale

Ivy

107.7

71

Davidson

Atlantic 10

107.7

72

Oregon St.

Pac-12

107.7

73

St. John’s

Big East

107.5

74

Arizona St.

Pac-12

107.3

75

UNC Greensboro

Southern

107.2

76

Mississippi

Southeastern

107.1

77

Belmont

Ohio Valley

107.1

78

Pittsburgh

Atlantic Coast

107.1

79

Providence

Big East

107.0

80

Louisiana Tech

Conference USA

107.0

81

Rhode Island

Atlantic 10

107.0

82

Richmond

Atlantic 10

107.0

83

Northern Iowa

Missouri Valley

106.9

84

Furman

Southern

106.8

85

Miami (Fla.)

Atlantic Coast

106.8

86

Georgia

Southeastern

106.7

87

Vermont

American East

106.6

88

Western Kentucky

Conference USA

106.3

89

Kansas St.

Big 12

106.1

90

New Mexico

Mountain West

106.1

91

South Carolina

Southeastern

105.9

92

Clemson

Atlantic Coast

105.7

93

San Francisco

West Coast

105.6

94

Nevada

Mountain West

105.5

95

SMU

American Athletic

105.4

96

Harvard

Ivy

105.2

97

Saint Louis

Atlantic 10

105.1

98

Toledo

Mid-American

105.1

99

Kent St.

Mid-American

105.0

100

Wake Forest

Atlantic Coast

104.9

101

New Mexico St.

Western Athletic

104.8

102

Utah

Pac-12

104.8

103

Boise St.

Mountain West

104.6

104

Northwestern

Big Ten

104.5

105

Akron

Mid-American

104.5

106

UCLA

Pac-12

104.5

107

Georgia Tech

Atlantic Coast

104.4

108

Central Florida

American Athletic

104.3

109

Penn

Ivy

103.9

110

Wright St.

Horizon

103.8

111

Loyola (Chi.)

Missouri Valley

103.8

112

Ball St.

Mid-American

103.8

113

South Florida

American Athletic

103.6

114

Georgia St.

Sun Belt

103.3

115

Fresno St.

Mountain West

103.2

116

George Mason

Atlantic 10

103.1

117

Northern Colorado

Big Sky

102.7

118

Bradley

Missouri Valley

102.7

119

Northern Kentucky

Horizon

102.7

120

UC Irvine

Big West

102.6

121

Murray St.

Ohio Valley

102.6

122

Vanderbilt

Southeastern

102.6

123

Tulsa

American Athletic

102.5

124

Washington St.

Pac-12

102.5

125

North Texas

Conference USA

102.4

126

Radford

Big South

102.3

127

Nebraska

Big Ten

102.3

128

Eastern Washington

Big Sky

102.2

129

Boston College

Atlantic Coast

102.2

130

St. Bonaventure

Atlantic 10

102.1

131

Indiana St.

Missouri Valley

102.1

132

Buffalo

Mid-American

102.0

133

Wofford

Southern

101.9

134

Stephen F. Austin

Southland

101.9

135

Oral Roberts

Summit

101.8

136

UT Arlington

Southland

101.7

137

Hofstra

Colonial Athletic

101.6

138

Colorado St.

Mountain West

101.6

139

Appalachian St.

Sun Belt

101.6

140

Texas St.

Sun Belt

101.6

141

UTEP

Conference USA

101.5

142

Colgate

Patriot

101.5

143

Rider

Metro Atlantic

101.4

144

Missouri St.

Missouri Valley

101.4

145

Bowling Green

Mid-American

101.2

146

Northeastern

Colonial Athletic

101.1

147

Texas A&M

Southeastern

101.0

148

Pepperdine

West Coast

100.9

149

Drake

Missouri Valley

100.9

150

Charleston

Colonial Athletic

100.8

151

Towson

Colonial Athletic

100.8

152

La Salle

Atlantic 10

100.7

153

Stony Brook

American East

100.7

154

UC Santa Barbara

Big West

100.6

155

North Dakota St.

Summit

100.5

156

Southern Utah

Big Sky

100.5

157

Santa Clara

West Coast

100.4

158

Georgia Southern

Sun Belt

100.3

159

Coastal Carolina

Sun Belt

100.2

160

UAB

Conference USA

100.2

161

Florida Int’l.

Conference USA

100.2

162

California Baptist

Western Athletic

100.1

163

Valparaiso

Missouri Valley

100.1

164

Hawaii

Big West

100.0

165

Little Rock

Sun Belt

100.0

166

Northern Illinois

Mid-American

99.9

167

Delaware

Colonial Athletic

99.9

168

Western Carolina

Southern

99.9

169

Charlotte

Conference USA

99.6

170

Central Michigan

Mid-American

99.6

171

Sam Houston St.

Southland

99.6

172

Pacific

West Coast

99.6

173

UNLV

Mountain West

99.5

174

Winthrop

Big South

99.5

175

Ohio

Mid-American

99.4

176

San Diego

West Coast

99.4

177

California

Pac-12

99.4

178

South Dakota St.

Summit

99.3

179

Old Dominion

Conference USA

99.2

180

Marshall

Conference USA

99.0

181

North Florida

Atlantic Sun

99.0

182

South Dakota

Summit

98.9

183

William & Mary

Colonial Athletic

98.9

184

St. Francis (PA)

Northeast

98.8

185

Massachusetts

Atlantic 10

98.7

186

South Alabama

Sun Belt

98.7

187

Oakland

Horizon

98.7

188

Sacred Heart

Northeast

98.7

189

Tulane

American Athletic

98.6

190

Southern Illinois

Missouri Valley

98.6

191

Siena

Metro Atlantic

98.4

192

Dartmouth

Ivy

98.3

193

Iona

Metro Atlantic

98.2

194

Rice

Conference USA

98.1

195

Lafayette

Patriot

98.1

196

Eastern Illinois

Ohio Valley

98.1

197

Eastern Michigan

Mid-American

98.1

198

Sacramento St.

Big Sky

98.1

199

Austin Peay

Ohio Valley

98.0

200

UTSA

Conference USA

98.0

201

Omaha

Summit

97.8

202

Evansville

Missouri Valley

97.8

203

Loyola Marymount

West Coast

97.8

204

Lipscomb

Atlantic Sun

97.7

205

Florida Atlantic

Conference USA

97.6

206

Miami (O)

Mid-American

97.5

207

Portland St.

Big Sky

97.4

208

Air Force

Mountain West

97.4

209

Montana

Big Sky

97.4

210

Loyola (MD)

Patriot

97.4

211

Illinois St.

Missouri Valley

97.3

212

Chattanooga

Southern

97.2

213

Green Bay

Horizon

97.1

214

Samford

Southern

97.0

215

Princeton

Ivy

97.0

216

American

Patriot

96.9

217

Boston U

Patriot

96.9

218

Missouri-KC

Western Athletic

96.9

219

Bryant

Northeast

96.7

220

UC Riverside

Big West

96.7

221

Grand Canyon

Western Athletic

96.6

222

North Dakota

Summit

96.5

223

Columbia

Ivy

96.4

224

Arkansas St.

Sun Belt

96.3

225

Bucknell

Patriot

96.2

226

Nicholls St.

Southland

96.1

227

George Washington

Atlantic 10

96.1

228

Gardner-Webb

Big South

96.1

229

Canisius

Metro Atlantic

96.0

230

Brown

Ivy

96.0

231

Tennessee St.

Ohio Valley

96.0

232

Jacksonville

Atlantic Sun

96.0

233

Youngstown St.

Horizon

95.9

234

Illinois Chicago

Horizon

95.9

235

Albany

American East

95.9

236

Fairfield

Metro Atlantic

95.8

237

Seattle

Western Athletic

95.8

238

Monmouth

Metro Atlantic

95.8

239

Abilene Christian

Southland

95.8

240

James Madison

Colonial Athletic

95.7

241

Purdue Fort Wayne

Summit

95.7

242

Campbell

Big South

95.6

243

Prairie View A&M

Southwestern Athl.

95.6

244

UMass Lowell

American East

95.6

245

Montana St.

Big Sky

95.6

246

Cal St. Bakersfield

Western Athletic

95.6

247

Northern Arizona

Big Sky

95.5

248

Navy

Patriot

95.5

249

Long Island

Northeast

95.5

250

Drexel

Colonial Athletic

95.4

251

Southern Miss.

Conference USA

95.4

252

Saint Joseph’s

Atlantic 10

95.3

253

East Carolina

American Athletic

95.2

254

Milwaukee

Horizon

95.2

255

Fordham

Atlantic 10

95.2

256

Jacksonville St.

Ohio Valley

95.2

257

UC Davis

Big West

95.1

258

Lehigh

Patriot

95.0

259

UNC Asheville

Big South

94.9

260

Louisiana

Sun Belt

94.8

261

Utah Valley

Western Athletic

94.8

262

Quinnipiac

Metro Atlantic

94.8

263

McNeese St.

Southland

94.7

264

Middle Tennessee

Conference USA

94.6

265

Lamar

Southland

94.6

266

Texas Southern

Southwestern Athl.

94.4

267

Western Michigan

Mid-American

94.4

268

Louisiana Monroe

Sun Belt

94.3

269

Mercer

Southern

94.3

270

Weber St.

Big Sky

94.3

271

Cal St. Northridge

Big West

94.2

272

Troy

Sun Belt

94.1

273

UT Rio Grande Valley

Western Athletic

94.0

274

Portland

West Coast

93.9

275

Manhattan

Metro Atlantic

93.9

276

UM Baltimore Co.

American East

93.8

277

Morehead St.

Ohio Valley

93.8

278

NJIT

Atlantic Sun

93.8

279

VMI

Southern

93.7

280

New Orleans

Southland

93.5

281

New Hampshire

American East

93.3

282

Robert Morris

Northeast

93.2

283

Cal St. Fullerton

Big West

93.2

284

Cornell

Ivy

93.2

285

Mount St. Mary’s

Northeast

93.2

286

Saint Peter’s

Metro Atlantic

92.8

287

Bethune Cookman

Mideastern Athletic

92.5

288

Merrimack

Northeast

92.4

289

North Alabama

Atlantic Sun

92.3

290

Texas A&M CC

Southland

92.2

291

Grambling

Southwestern Athl.

92.1

292

Long Beach St.

Big West

91.9

293

Army

Patriot

91.9

294

Norfolk St.

Mideastern Athletic

91.9

295

Wyoming

Mountain West

91.8

296

Citadel

Southern

91.8

297

Fairleigh Dickinson

Northeast

91.6

298

Idaho St.

Big Sky

91.6

299

UNC Wilmington

Colonial Athletic

91.5

300

Detroit

Horizon

91.4

301

Longwood

Big South

91.3

302

UT-Martin

Ohio Valley

91.2

303

Coppin St.

Mideastern Athletic

91.2

304

SE Missouri

Ohio Valley

91.1

305

Western Illinois

Summit

91.0

306

IUPUI

Horizon

90.8

307

Morgan St.

Mideastern Athletic

90.8

308

Charleston Southern

Big South

90.5

309

Wagner

Northeast

90.3

310

St. Francis (NY)

Northeast

90.3

311

Elon

Colonial Athletic

90.1

312

Niagara

Metro Atlantic

90.0

313

Binghamton

American East

90.0

314

Central Arkansas

Southland

89.9

315

Hampton

Big South

89.8

316

Cleveland St.

Horizon

89.8

317

Denver

Summit

89.6

318

Hartford

American East

89.6

319

Alcorn St.

Southwestern Athl.

89.6

320

North Carolina Central

Mideastern Athletic

89.5

321

Cal Poly

Big West

89.3

322

North Carolina A&T

Mideastern Athletic

89.2

323

Florida Gulf Coast

Atlantic Sun

89.2

324

Florida A&M

Mideastern Athletic

89.2

325

Jackson St.

Southwestern Athl.

89.1

326

Eastern Kentucky

Ohio Valley

89.1

327

Stetson

Atlantic Sun

89.0

328

San Jose St.

Mountain West

89.0

329

Tennessee Tech

Ohio Valley

89.0

330

Southern

Southwestern Athl.

88.9

331

SE Louisiana

Southland

88.9

332

Idaho

Big Sky

88.5

333

Houston Baptist

Southland

88.3

334

Holy Cross

Patriot

88.2

335

Maine

American East

87.7

336

Alabama St.

Southwestern Athl.

87.3

337

Marist

Metro Atlantic

87.3

338

USC Upstate

Big South

87.3

339

South Carolina St.

Mideastern Athletic

86.7

340

High Point

Big South

86.5

341

Alabama A&M

Southwestern Athl.

86.4

342

Presbyterian

Big South

86.4

343

Kennesaw St.

Atlantic Sun

85.8

344

Northwestern St.

Southland

85.7

345

SIU Edwardsville

Ohio Valley

85.1

346

Arkansas Pine Bluff

Southwestern Athl.

84.8

347

Howard

Mideastern Athletic

83.9

348

Incarnate Word

Southland

83.4

349

MD Eastern Shore

Mideastern Athletic

82.1

350

Central Connecticut

Northeast

81.6

351

Delaware St.

Mideastern Athletic

81.2

352

Chicago St.

Western Athletic

80.3

353

Mississippi Valley St.

Southwestern Athl.

77.5

 

Alphabetical

 

#

Team

Conf.

PiRate

1

Abilene Christian

Southland

95.8

2

Air Force

Mountain West

97.4

3

Akron

Mid-American

104.5

4

Alabama

Southeastern

109.4

5

Alabama A&M

Southwestern Athl.

86.4

6

Alabama St.

Southwestern Athl.

87.3

7

Albany

American East

95.9

8

Alcorn St.

Southwestern Athl.

89.6

9

American

Patriot

96.9

10

Appalachian St.

Sun Belt

101.6

11

Arizona

Pac-12

115.9

12

Arizona St.

Pac-12

107.3

13

Arkansas

Southeastern

111.7

14

Arkansas Pine Bluff

Southwestern Athl.

84.8

15

Arkansas St.

Sun Belt

96.3

16

Army

Patriot

91.9

17

Auburn

Southeastern

114.6

18

Austin Peay

Ohio Valley

98.0

19

Ball St.

Mid-American

103.8

20

Baylor

Big 12

115.3

21

Belmont

Ohio Valley

107.1

22

Bethune Cookman

Mideastern Athletic

92.5

23

Binghamton

American East

90.0

24

Boise St.

Mountain West

104.6

25

Boston College

Atlantic Coast

102.2

26

Boston U

Patriot

96.9

27

Bowling Green

Mid-American

101.2

28

Bradley

Missouri Valley

102.7

29

Brown

Ivy

96.0

30

Bryant

Northeast

96.7

31

Bucknell

Patriot

96.2

32

Buffalo

Mid-American

102.0

33

Butler

Big East

114.8

34

BYU

West Coast

112.5

35

Cal Poly

Big West

89.3

36

Cal St. Bakersfield

Western Athletic

95.6

37

Cal St. Fullerton

Big West

93.2

38

Cal St. Northridge

Big West

94.2

39

California

Pac-12

99.4

40

California Baptist

Western Athletic

100.1

41

Campbell

Big South

95.6

42

Canisius

Metro Atlantic

96.0

43

Central Arkansas

Southland

89.9

44

Central Connecticut

Northeast

81.6

45

Central Florida

American Athletic

104.3

46

Central Michigan

Mid-American

99.6

47

Charleston

Colonial Athletic

100.8

48

Charleston Southern

Big South

90.5

49

Charlotte

Conference USA

99.6

50

Chattanooga

Southern

97.2

51

Chicago St.

Western Athletic

80.3

52

Cincinnati

American Athletic

109.1

53

Citadel

Southern

91.8

54

Clemson

Atlantic Coast

105.7

55

Cleveland St.

Horizon

89.8

56

Coastal Carolina

Sun Belt

100.2

57

Colgate

Patriot

101.5

58

Colorado

Pac-12

111.0

59

Colorado St.

Mountain West

101.6

60

Columbia

Ivy

96.4

61

Connecticut

American Athletic

109.2

62

Coppin St.

Mideastern Athletic

91.2

63

Cornell

Ivy

93.2

64

Creighton

Big East

110.6

65

Dartmouth

Ivy

98.3

66

Davidson

Atlantic 10

107.7

67

Dayton

Atlantic 10

115.0

68

Delaware

Colonial Athletic

99.9

69

Delaware St.

Mideastern Athletic

81.2

70

Denver

Summit

89.6

71

DePaul

Big East

107.8

72

Detroit

Horizon

91.4

73

Drake

Missouri Valley

100.9

74

Drexel

Colonial Athletic

95.4

75

Duke

Atlantic Coast

120.7

76

Duquesne

Atlantic 10

107.9

77

East Carolina

American Athletic

95.2

78

East Tennessee St.

Southern

108.3

79

Eastern Illinois

Ohio Valley

98.1

80

Eastern Kentucky

Ohio Valley

89.1

81

Eastern Michigan

Mid-American

98.1

82

Eastern Washington

Big Sky

102.2

83

Elon

Colonial Athletic

90.1

84

Evansville

Missouri Valley

97.8

85

Fairfield

Metro Atlantic

95.8

86

Fairleigh Dickinson

Northeast

91.6

87

Florida

Southeastern

112.3

88

Florida A&M

Mideastern Athletic

89.2

89

Florida Atlantic

Conference USA

97.6

90

Florida Gulf Coast

Atlantic Sun

89.2

91

Florida Int’l.

Conference USA

100.2

92

Florida St.

Atlantic Coast

114.3

93

Fordham

Atlantic 10

95.2

94

Fresno St.

Mountain West

103.2

95

Furman

Southern

106.8

96

Gardner-Webb

Big South

96.1

97

George Mason

Atlantic 10

103.1

98

George Washington

Atlantic 10

96.1

99

Georgetown

Big East

111.3

100

Georgia

Southeastern

106.7

101

Georgia Southern

Sun Belt

100.3

102

Georgia St.

Sun Belt

103.3

103

Georgia Tech

Atlantic Coast

104.4

104

Gonzaga

West Coast

118.4

105

Grambling

Southwestern Athl.

92.1

106

Grand Canyon

Western Athletic

96.6

107

Green Bay

Horizon

97.1

108

Hampton

Big South

89.8

109

Hartford

American East

89.6

110

Harvard

Ivy

105.2

111

Hawaii

Big West

100.0

112

High Point

Big South

86.5

113

Hofstra

Colonial Athletic

101.6

114

Holy Cross

Patriot

88.2

115

Houston

American Athletic

112.0

116

Houston Baptist

Southland

88.3

117

Howard

Mideastern Athletic

83.9

118

Idaho

Big Sky

88.5

119

Idaho St.

Big Sky

91.6

120

Illinois

Big Ten

110.8

121

Illinois Chicago

Horizon

95.9

122

Illinois St.

Missouri Valley

97.3

123

Incarnate Word

Southland

83.4

124

Indiana

Big Ten

112.1

125

Indiana St.

Missouri Valley

102.1

126

Iona

Metro Atlantic

98.2

127

Iowa

Big Ten

113.3

128

Iowa St.

Big 12

111.5

129

IUPUI

Horizon

90.8

130

Jackson St.

Southwestern Athl.

89.1

131

Jacksonville

Atlantic Sun

96.0

132

Jacksonville St.

Ohio Valley

95.2

133

James Madison

Colonial Athletic

95.7

134

Kansas

Big 12

120.1

135

Kansas St.

Big 12

106.1

136

Kennesaw St.

Atlantic Sun

85.8

137

Kent St.

Mid-American

105.0

138

Kentucky

Southeastern

114.0

139

La Salle

Atlantic 10

100.7

140

Lafayette

Patriot

98.1

141

Lamar

Southland

94.6

142

Lehigh

Patriot

95.0

143

Liberty

Atlantic Sun

107.9

144

Lipscomb

Atlantic Sun

97.7

145

Little Rock

Sun Belt

100.0

146

Long Beach St.

Big West

91.9

147

Long Island

Northeast

95.5

148

Longwood

Big South

91.3

149

Louisiana

Sun Belt

94.8

150

Louisiana Monroe

Sun Belt

94.3

151

Louisiana Tech

Conference USA

107.0

152

Louisville

Atlantic Coast

117.7

153

Loyola (Chi.)

Missouri Valley

103.8

154

Loyola Marymount

West Coast

97.8

155

Loyola (MD)

Patriot

97.4

156

LSU

Southeastern

111.5

157

Maine

American East

87.7

158

Manhattan

Metro Atlantic

93.9

159

Marist

Metro Atlantic

87.3

160

Marquette

Big East

112.6

161

Marshall

Conference USA

99.0

162

Maryland

Big Ten

116.3

163

Massachusetts

Atlantic 10

98.7

164

McNeese St.

Southland

94.7

165

MD Eastern Shore

Mideastern Athletic

82.1

166

Memphis

American Athletic

113.7

167

Mercer

Southern

94.3

168

Merrimack

Northeast

92.4

169

Miami (Fla.)

Atlantic Coast

106.8

170

Miami (O)

Mid-American

97.5

171

Michigan

Big Ten

114.6

172

Michigan St.

Big Ten

118.9

173

Middle Tennessee

Conference USA

94.6

174

Milwaukee

Horizon

95.2

175

Minnesota

Big Ten

110.8

176

Mississippi

Southeastern

107.1

177

Mississippi St.

Southeastern

108.6

178

Mississippi Valley St.

Southwestern Athl.

77.5

179

Missouri

Southeastern

109.6

180

Missouri-KC

Western Athletic

96.9

181

Missouri St.

Missouri Valley

101.4

182

Monmouth

Metro Atlantic

95.8

183

Montana

Big Sky

97.4

184

Montana St.

Big Sky

95.6

185

Morehead St.

Ohio Valley

93.8

186

Morgan St.

Mideastern Athletic

90.8

187

Mount St. Mary’s

Northeast

93.2

188

Murray St.

Ohio Valley

102.6

189

Navy

Patriot

95.5

190

Nebraska

Big Ten

102.3

191

Nevada

Mountain West

105.5

192

New Hampshire

American East

93.3

193

New Mexico

Mountain West

106.1

194

New Mexico St.

Western Athletic

104.8

195

New Orleans

Southland

93.5

196

Niagara

Metro Atlantic

90.0

197

Nicholls St.

Southland

96.1

198

NJIT

Atlantic Sun

93.8

199

Norfolk St.

Mideastern Athletic

91.9

200

North Alabama

Atlantic Sun

92.3

201

North Carolina

Atlantic Coast

111.4

202

North Carolina A&T

Mideastern Athletic

89.2

203

North Carolina Central

Mideastern Athletic

89.5

204

North Carolina St.

Atlantic Coast

111.5

205

North Dakota

Summit

96.5

206

North Dakota St.

Summit

100.5

207

North Florida

Atlantic Sun

99.0

208

North Texas

Conference USA

102.4

209

Northeastern

Colonial Athletic

101.1

210

Northern Arizona

Big Sky

95.5

211

Northern Colorado

Big Sky

102.7

212

Northern Illinois

Mid-American

99.9

213

Northern Iowa

Missouri Valley

106.9

214

Northern Kentucky

Horizon

102.7

215

Northwestern

Big Ten

104.5

216

Northwestern St.

Southland

85.7

217

Notre Dame

Atlantic Coast

108.8

218

Oakland

Horizon

98.7

219

Ohio

Mid-American

99.4

220

Ohio St.

Big Ten

119.6

221

Oklahoma

Big 12

110.0

222

Oklahoma St.

Big 12

110.5

223

Old Dominion

Conference USA

99.2

224

Omaha

Summit

97.8

225

Oral Roberts

Summit

101.8

226

Oregon

Pac-12

114.9

227

Oregon St.

Pac-12

107.7

228

Pacific

West Coast

99.6

229

Penn

Ivy

103.9

230

Penn St.

Big Ten

113.1

231

Pepperdine

West Coast

100.9

232

Pittsburgh

Atlantic Coast

107.1

233

Portland

West Coast

93.9

234

Portland St.

Big Sky

97.4

235

Prairie View A&M

Southwestern Athl.

95.6

236

Presbyterian

Big South

86.4

237

Princeton

Ivy

97.0

238

Providence

Big East

107.0

239

Purdue

Big Ten

113.3

240

Purdue Fort Wayne

Summit

95.7

241

Quinnipiac

Metro Atlantic

94.8

242

Radford

Big South

102.3

243

Rhode Island

Atlantic 10

107.0

244

Rice

Conference USA

98.1

245

Richmond

Atlantic 10

107.0

246

Rider

Metro Atlantic

101.4

247

Robert Morris

Northeast

93.2

248

Rutgers

Big Ten

110.1

249

Sacramento St.

Big Sky

98.1

250

Sacred Heart

Northeast

98.7

251

Saint Joseph’s

Atlantic 10

95.3

252

Saint Louis

Atlantic 10

105.1

253

Saint Mary’s

West Coast

111.4

254

Saint Peter’s

Metro Atlantic

92.8

255

Sam Houston St.

Southland

99.6

256

Samford

Southern

97.0

257

San Diego

West Coast

99.4

258

San Diego St.

Mountain West

113.5

259

San Francisco

West Coast

105.6

260

San Jose St.

Mountain West

89.0

261

Santa Clara

West Coast

100.4

262

SE Louisiana

Southland

88.9

263

SE Missouri

Ohio Valley

91.1

264

Seattle

Western Athletic

95.8

265

Seton Hall

Big East

113.6

266

Siena

Metro Atlantic

98.4

267

SIU Edwardsville

Ohio Valley

85.1

268

SMU

American Athletic

105.4

269

South Alabama

Sun Belt

98.7

270

South Carolina

Southeastern

105.9

271

South Carolina St.

Mideastern Athletic

86.7

272

South Dakota

Summit

98.9

273

South Dakota St.

Summit

99.3

274

South Florida

American Athletic

103.6

275

Southern

Southwestern Athl.

88.9

276

Southern Illinois

Missouri Valley

98.6

277

Southern Miss.

Conference USA

95.4

278

Southern Utah

Big Sky

100.5

279

St. Bonaventure

Atlantic 10

102.1

280

St. Francis (NY)

Northeast

90.3

281

St. Francis (PA)

Northeast

98.8

282

St. John’s

Big East

107.5

283

Stanford

Pac-12

109.0

284

Stephen F. Austin

Southland

101.9

285

Stetson

Atlantic Sun

89.0

286

Stony Brook

American East

100.7

287

Syracuse

Atlantic Coast

108.6

288

TCU

Big 12

107.9

289

Temple

American Athletic

109.7

290

Tennessee

Southeastern

111.6

291

Tennessee St.

Ohio Valley

96.0

292

Tennessee Tech

Ohio Valley

89.0

293

Texas

Big 12

108.3

294

Texas A&M

Southeastern

101.0

295

Texas A&M CC

Southland

92.2

296

Texas Southern

Southwestern Athl.

94.4

297

Texas St.

Sun Belt

101.6

298

Texas Tech

Big 12

112.3

299

Toledo

Mid-American

105.1

300

Towson

Colonial Athletic

100.8

301

Troy

Sun Belt

94.1

302

Tulane

American Athletic

98.6

303

Tulsa

American Athletic

102.5

304

UAB

Conference USA

100.2

305

UC Davis

Big West

95.1

306

UC Irvine

Big West

102.6

307

UC Riverside

Big West

96.7

308

UC Santa Barbara

Big West

100.6

309

UCLA

Pac-12

104.5

310

UM Baltimore Co.

American East

93.8

311

UMass Lowell

American East

95.6

312

UNC Asheville

Big South

94.9

313

UNC Greensboro

Southern

107.2

314

UNC Wilmington

Colonial Athletic

91.5

315

UNLV

Mountain West

99.5

316

USC

Pac-12

108.5

317

USC Upstate

Big South

87.3

318

UT Arlington

Southland

101.7

319

UT Rio Grande Valley

Western Athletic

94.0

320

UT-Martin

Ohio Valley

91.2

321

Utah

Pac-12

104.8

322

Utah St.

Mountain West

111.4

323

Utah Valley

Western Athletic

94.8

324

UTEP

Conference USA

101.5

325

UTSA

Conference USA

98.0

326

Valparaiso

Missouri Valley

100.1

327

Vanderbilt

Southeastern

102.6

328

VCU

Atlantic 10

110.1

329

Vermont

American East

106.6

330

Villanova

Big East

113.5

331

Virginia

Atlantic Coast

111.1

332

Virginia Tech

Atlantic Coast

108.0

333

VMI

Southern

93.7

334

Wagner

Northeast

90.3

335

Wake Forest

Atlantic Coast

104.9

336

Washington

Pac-12

111.1

337

Washington St.

Pac-12

102.5

338

Weber St.

Big Sky

94.3

339

West Virginia

Big 12

112.7

340

Western Carolina

Southern

99.9

341

Western Illinois

Summit

91.0

342

Western Kentucky

Conference USA

106.3

343

Western Michigan

Mid-American

94.4

344

Wichita St.

Big East

112.1

345

William & Mary

Colonial Athletic

98.9

346

Winthrop

Big South

99.5

347

Wisconsin

Big Ten

109.7

348

Wofford

Southern

101.9

349

Wright St.

Horizon

103.8

350

Wyoming

Mountain West

91.8

351

Xavier

Big East

111.8

352

Yale

Ivy

107.7

353

Youngstown St.

Horizon

95.9

 

Ratings By Conference

 

#

American Athletic

PiRate

1

Memphis

113.7

2

Houston

112.0

3

Temple

109.7

4

Connecticut

109.2

5

Cincinnati

109.1

6

SMU

105.4

7

Central Florida

104.3

8

South Florida

103.6

9

Tulsa

102.5

10

Tulane

98.6

11

East Carolina

95.2

Avg

American Athletic

105.8

#

American East

PiRate

1

Vermont

106.6

2

Stony Brook

100.7

3

Albany

95.9

4

UMass Lowell

95.6

5

UM Baltimore Co.

93.8

6

New Hampshire

93.3

7

Binghamton

90.0

8

Hartford

89.6

9

Maine

87.7

Avg

American East

94.8

#

Atlantic 10

PiRate

1

Dayton

115.0

2

VCU

110.1

3

Duquesne

107.9

4

Davidson

107.7

5

Rhode Island

107.0

6

Richmond

107.0

7

Saint Louis

105.1

8

George Mason

103.1

9

St. Bonaventure

102.1

10

La Salle

100.7

11

Massachusetts

98.7

12

George Washington

96.1

13

Saint Joseph’s

95.3

14

Fordham

95.2

Avg.

Atlantic 10

103.6

#

Atlantic Coast

PiRate

1

Duke

120.7

2

Louisville

117.7

3

Florida St.

114.3

4

North Carolina St.

111.5

5

North Carolina

111.4

6

Virginia

111.1

7

Notre Dame

108.8

8

Syracuse

108.6

9

Virginia Tech

108.0

10

Pittsburgh

107.1

11

Miami (Fla.)

106.8

12

Clemson

105.7

13

Wake Forest

104.9

14

Georgia Tech

104.4

15

Boston College

102.2

Avg

Atlantic Coast

109.5

#

Atlantic Sun

PiRate

1

Liberty

107.9

2

North Florida

99.0

3

Lipscomb

97.7

4

Jacksonville

96.0

5

NJIT

93.8

6

North Alabama

92.3

7

Florida Gulf Coast

89.2

8

Stetson

89.0

9

Kennesaw St.

85.8

Avg

Atlantic Sun

94.5

#

Big 12

PiRate

1

Kansas

120.1

2

Baylor

115.3

3

West Virginia

112.7

4

Texas Tech

112.3

5

Iowa St.

111.5

6

Oklahoma St.

110.5

7

Oklahoma

110.0

8

Texas

108.3

9

TCU

107.9

10

Kansas St.

106.1

Avg

Big 12

111.5

#

Big East

PiRate

1

Butler

114.8

2

Seton Hall

113.6

3

Villanova

113.5

4

Marquette

112.6

5

Wichita St.

112.1

6

Xavier

111.8

7

Georgetown

111.3

8

Creighton

110.6

9

DePaul

107.8

10

St. John’s

107.5

11

Providence

107.0

Avg

Big East

111.2

#

Big Sky

PiRate

1

Northern Colorado

102.7

2

Eastern Washington

102.2

3

Southern Utah

100.5

4

Sacramento St.

98.1

5

Portland St.

97.4

6

Montana

97.4

7

Montana St.

95.6

8

Northern Arizona

95.5

9

Weber St.

94.3

10

Idaho St.

91.6

11

Idaho

88.5

#

Big Sky

96.7

#

Big South

PiRate

1

Radford

102.3

2

Winthrop

99.5

3

Gardner-Webb

96.1

4

Campbell

95.6

5

UNC Asheville

94.9

6

Longwood

91.3

7

Charleston Southern

90.5

8

Hampton

89.8

9

USC Upstate

87.3

10

High Point

86.5

11

Presbyterian

86.4

Avg

Big South

92.7

#

Big Ten

PiRate

1

Ohio St.

119.6

2

Michigan St.

118.9

3

Maryland

116.3

4

Michigan

114.6

5

Purdue

113.3

6

Iowa

113.3

7

Penn St.

113.1

8

Indiana

112.1

9

Minnesota

110.8

10

Illinois

110.8

11

Rutgers

110.1

12

Wisconsin

109.7

13

Northwestern

104.5

14

Nebraska

102.3

Avg

Big Ten

112.1

#

Big West

PiRate

1

UC Irvine

102.6

2

UC Santa Barbara

100.6

3

Hawaii

100.0

4

UC Riverside

96.7

5

UC Davis

95.1

6

Cal St. Northridge

94.2

7

Cal St. Fullerton

93.2

8

Long Beach St.

91.9

9

Cal Poly

89.3

Avg

Big West

96.0

#

Colonial Athletic

PiRate

1

Hofstra

101.6

2

Northeastern

101.1

3

Charleston

100.8

4

Towson

100.8

5

Delaware

99.9

6

William & Mary

98.9

7

James Madison

95.7

8

Drexel

95.4

9

UNC Wilmington

91.5

10

Elon

90.1

Avg

Colonial Athletic

97.6

#

Conference USA

PiRate

1

Louisiana Tech

107.0

2

Western Kentucky

106.3

3

North Texas

102.4

4

UTEP

101.5

5

UAB

100.2

6

Florida Int’l.

100.2

7

Charlotte

99.6

8

Old Dominion

99.2

9

Marshall

99.0

10

Rice

98.1

11

UTSA

98.0

12

Florida Atlantic

97.6

13

Southern Miss.

95.4

14

Middle Tennessee

94.6

Avg

Conference USA

99.9

#

Horizon

PiRate

1

Wright St.

103.8

2

Northern Kentucky

102.7

3

Oakland

98.7

4

Green Bay

97.1

5

Youngstown St.

95.9

6

Illinois Chicago

95.9

7

Milwaukee

95.2

8

Detroit

91.4

9

IUPUI

90.8

10

Cleveland St.

89.8

Avg

Horizon

96.1

#

Ivy

PiRate

1

Yale

107.7

2

Harvard

105.2

3

Penn

103.9

4

Dartmouth

98.3

5

Princeton

97.0

6

Columbia

96.4

7

Brown

96.0

8

Cornell

93.2

Avg

Ivy

99.7

#

Metro Atlantic

PiRate

1

Rider

101.4

2

Siena

98.4

3

Iona

98.2

4

Canisius

96.0

5

Fairfield

95.8

6

Monmouth

95.8

7

Quinnipiac

94.8

8

Manhattan

93.9

9

Saint Peter’s

92.8

10

Niagara

90.0

11

Marist

87.3

Avg

Metro Atlantic

94.9

#

Mid-American

PiRate

1

Toledo

105.1

2

Kent St.

105.0

3

Akron

104.5

4

Ball St.

103.8

5

Buffalo

102.0

6

Bowling Green

101.2

7

Northern Illinois

99.9

8

Central Michigan

99.6

9

Ohio

99.4

10

Eastern Michigan

98.1

11

Miami (O)

97.5

12

Western Michigan

94.4

Avg

Mid-American

100.9

#

Mideastern Athletic

PiRate

1

Bethune Cookman

92.5

2

Norfolk St.

91.9

3

Coppin St.

91.2

4

Morgan St.

90.8

5

North Carolina Central

89.5

6

North Carolina A&T

89.2

7

Florida A&M

89.2

8

South Carolina St.

86.7

9

Howard

83.9

10

MD Eastern Shore

82.1

11

Delaware St.

81.2

Avg

Mideastern Athletic

88.0

#

Missouri Valley

PiRate

1

Northern Iowa

106.9

2

Loyola (Chi.)

103.8

3

Bradley

102.7

4

Indiana St.

102.1

5

Missouri St.

101.4

6

Drake

100.9

7

Valparaiso

100.1

8

Southern Illinois

98.6

9

Evansville

97.8

10

Illinois St.

97.3

Avg

Missouri Valley

101.2

#

Mountain West

PiRate

1

San Diego St.

113.5

2

Utah St.

111.4

3

New Mexico

106.1

4

Nevada

105.5

5

Boise St.

104.6

6

Fresno St.

103.2

7

Colorado St.

101.6

8

UNLV

99.5

9

Air Force

97.4

10

Wyoming

91.8

11

San Jose St.

89.0

Avg

Mountain West

102.1

#

Northeast

PiRate

1

St. Francis (PA)

98.8

2

Sacred Heart

98.7

3

Bryant

96.7

4

Long Island

95.5

5

Robert Morris

93.2

6

Mount St. Mary’s

93.2

7

Merrimack

92.4

8

Fairleigh Dickinson

91.6

9

Wagner

90.3

10

St. Francis (NY)

90.3

11

Central Connecticut

81.6

Avg

Northeast

92.9

#

Ohio Valley

PiRate

1

Belmont

107.1

2

Murray St.

102.6

3

Eastern Illinois

98.1

4

Austin Peay

98.0

5

Tennessee St.

96.0

6

Jacksonville St.

95.2

7

Morehead St.

93.8

8

UT-Martin

91.2

9

SE Missouri

91.1

10

Eastern Kentucky

89.1

11

Tennessee Tech

89.0

12

SIU Edwardsville

85.1

Avg

Ohio Valley

94.7

#

Pac-12

PiRate

1

Arizona

115.9

2

Oregon

114.9

3

Washington

111.1

4

Colorado

111.0

5

Stanford

109.0

6

USC

108.5

7

Oregon St.

107.7

8

Arizona St.

107.3

9

Utah

104.8

10

UCLA

104.5

11

Washington St.

102.5

12

California

99.4

Avg

Pac-12

108.0

#

Patriot

PiRate

1

Colgate

101.5

2

Lafayette

98.1

3

Loyola (MD)

97.4

4

American

96.9

5

Boston U

96.9

6

Bucknell

96.2

7

Navy

95.5

8

Lehigh

95.0

9

Army

91.9

10

Holy Cross

88.2

Avg

Patriot

95.8

#

Southeastern

PiRate

1

Auburn

114.6

2

Kentucky

114.0

3

Florida

112.3

4

Arkansas

111.7

5

Tennessee

111.6

6

LSU

111.5

7

Missouri

109.6

8

Alabama

109.4

9

Mississippi St.

108.6

10

Mississippi

107.1

11

Georgia

106.7

12

South Carolina

105.9

13

Vanderbilt

102.6

14

Texas A&M

101.0

Avg

Southeastern

109.0

#

Southland

PiRate

1

Stephen F. Austin

101.9

2

UT Arlington

101.7

3

Sam Houston St.

99.6

4

Nicholls St.

96.1

5

Abilene Christian

95.8

6

McNeese St.

94.7

7

Lamar

94.6

8

New Orleans

93.5

9

Texas A&M CC

92.2

10

Central Arkansas

89.9

11

SE Louisiana

88.9

12

Houston Baptist

88.3

13

Northwestern St.

85.7

14

Incarnate Word

83.4

Avg

Southland

93.3

#

Southern

PiRate

1

East Tennessee St.

108.3

2

UNC Greensboro

107.2

3

Furman

106.8

4

Wofford

101.9

5

Western Carolina

99.9

6

Chattanooga

97.2

7

Samford

97.0

8

Mercer

94.3

9

VMI

93.7

10

Citadel

91.8

Avg

Southern

99.8

#

Southwestern Athletic

PiRate

1

Prairie View A&M

95.6

2

Texas Southern

94.4

3

Grambling

92.1

4

Alcorn St.

89.6

5

Jackson St.

89.1

6

Southern

88.9

7

Alabama St.

87.3

8

Alabama A&M

86.4

9

Arkansas Pine Bluff

84.8

10

Mississippi Valley St.

77.5

Avg

Southwestern Athletic

88.6

#

Summit

PiRate

1

Oral Roberts

101.8

2

North Dakota St.

100.5

3

South Dakota St.

99.3

4

South Dakota

98.9

5

Omaha

97.8

6

North Dakota

96.5

7

Purdue Fort Wayne

95.7

8

Western Illinois

91.0

9

Denver

89.6

Avg

Summit

96.8

#

Sun Belt

PiRate

1

Georgia St.

103.3

2

Appalachian St.

101.6

3

Texas St.

101.6

4

Georgia Southern

100.3

5

Coastal Carolina

100.2

6

Little Rock

100.0

7

South Alabama

98.7

8

Arkansas St.

96.3

9

Louisiana

94.8

10

Louisiana Monroe

94.3

11

Troy

94.1

Avg

Sun Belt

98.7

#

Western Athletic

PiRate

1

New Mexico St.

104.8

2

California Baptist

100.1

3

Missouri-KC

96.9

4

Grand Canyon

96.6

5

Seattle

95.8

6

Cal St. Bakersfield

95.6

7

Utah Valley

94.8

8

UT Rio Grande Valley

94.0

9

Chicago St.

80.3

Avg

Western Athletic

95.4

#

West Coast

PiRate

1

Gonzaga

118.4

2

BYU

112.5

3

Saint Mary’s

111.4

4

San Francisco

105.6

5

Pepperdine

100.9

6

Santa Clara

100.4

7

Pacific

99.6

8

San Diego

99.4

9

Loyola Marymount

97.8

10

Portland

93.9

Avg

West Coast

104.0

 

All the PiRates wish you a Merry Christmas

or

A Happy Chanukah

or 

A Happy Kwanzaa

or 

A Festive Yule

or

A Happy Remaining Days of December

or 

Just A Plain and Simple Happy Existence

Thank You for continuing to visit the PiRate Ratings, and remember all information here is free and worth exactly what you paid for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

February 4, 2019

PiRate Ratings College Basketball For Monday, February 4, 2019

Monday’s PiRate Ratings (1-353)

Rk

Team

PiRate

Conf

1

Duke

124.0

ACC

2

Gonzaga

122.5

WCC

3

Virginia

122.1

ACC

4

Michigan St.

120.1

B10

5

North Carolina

119.6

ACC

6

Tennessee

119.3

SEC

7

Virginia Tech

117.6

ACC

8

Kentucky

117.4

SEC

9

Michigan

117.0

B10

10

Purdue

116.4

B10

11

Auburn

116.0

SEC

12

Iowa St.

115.7

B12

13

Wisconsin

115.6

B10

14

Kansas

115.3

B12

15

Nevada

115.1

MWC

16

Louisville

114.3

ACC

17

Texas Tech

114.2

B12

18

Villanova

113.9

BE

19

Buffalo

113.2

MAC

20

Houston

112.9

Amer

21

Marquette

112.6

BE

22

Maryland

112.6

B10

23

Nebraska

112.5

B10

24

Florida St.

112.5

ACC

25

Iowa

112.5

B10

26

Mississippi St.

112.4

SEC

27

LSU

112.2

SEC

28

North Carolina St.

112.2

ACC

29

Cincinnati

112.0

Amer

30

Baylor

111.8

B12

31

Ohio St.

111.6

B10

32

Syracuse

111.5

ACC

33

Florida

111.3

SEC

34

Texas

111.3

B12

35

Oklahoma

111.2

B12

36

Wofford

111.1

SC

37

TCU

110.7

B12

38

Kansas St.

110.6

B12

39

Washington

110.5

P12

40

Indiana

110.5

B10

41

Saint Mary’s

110.4

WCC

42

Clemson

110.3

ACC

43

Lipscomb

110.2

ASun

44

Utah St.

109.6

MWC

45

St. John’s

109.6

BE

46

Creighton

109.5

BE

47

San Francisco

109.5

WCC

48

Mississippi

109.4

SEC

49

Alabama

109.0

SEC

50

Arizona St.

109.0

P12

51

Butler

108.8

BE

52

Central Florida

108.5

Amer

53

Oregon

108.4

P12

54

Virginia Commonwealth

108.2

A10

55

Arkansas

108.1

SEC

56

Northwestern

107.9

B10

57

Minnesota

107.7

B10

58

New Mexico St.

107.5

WAC

59

Arizona

107.5

P12

60

Seton Hall

107.4

BE

61

Toledo

107.4

MAC

62

Murray St.

107.3

OVC

63

Fresno St.

107.3

MWC

64

East Tennessee St.

107.1

SC

65

Vermont

107.0

AE

66

Hofstra

106.9

CAA

67

Liberty

106.9

ASun

68

Belmont

106.8

OVC

69

Oregon St.

106.7

P12

70

Dayton

106.6

A10

71

Temple

106.6

Amer

72

Penn St.

106.6

B10

73

Connecticut

106.5

Amer

74

South Dakota St.

106.2

Sum

75

Miami (Fla)

106.2

ACC

76

Pittsburgh

106.2

ACC

77

Grand Canyon

106.1

WAC

78

Georgetown

106.1

BE

79

Providence

106.0

BE

80

Davidson

106.0

A10

81

West Virginia

105.9

B12

82

Notre Dame

105.8

ACC

83

Illinois

105.8

B10

84

Yale

105.7

Ivy

85

Georgia Tech

105.7

ACC

86

Memphis

105.6

Amer

87

Furman

105.6

SC

88

Colorado

105.3

P12

89

San Diego

105.3

WCC

90

South Carolina

105.2

SEC

91

BYU

105.2

WCC

92

Northeastern

105.2

CAA

93

Xavier

105.1

BE

94

Missouri

104.9

SEC

95

SMU

104.8

Amer

96

Northern Kentucky

104.7

Horz

97

UCLA

104.7

P12

98

Rutgers

104.6

B10

99

Oklahoma St.

104.5

B12

100

Georgia

104.5

SEC

101

Harvard

104.3

Ivy

102

DePaul

104.2

BE

103

Ball St.

104.2

MAC

104

Texas St.

104.1

SB

105

Old Dominion

104.0

CUSA

106

Rhode Island

103.9

A10

107

USC

103.9

P12

108

Montana

103.8

BSky

109

Loyola (Chi)

103.7

MVC

110

Boston College

103.7

ACC

111

Georgia St.

103.6

SB

112

Western Kentucky

103.6

CUSA

113

Texas A&M

103.5

SEC

114

South Florida

103.5

Amer

115

Penn

103.5

Ivy

116

Austin Peay

103.5

OVC

117

San Diego St.

103.4

MWC

118

Georgia Southern

103.4

SB

119

Jacksonville St.

103.3

OVC

120

Akron

103.3

MAC

121

Charleston

103.2

CAA

122

Bowling Green

103.2

MAC

123

George Mason

103.2

A10

124

Saint Louis

103.1

A10

125

Vanderbilt

103.1

SEC

126

Utah

103.0

P12

127

Utah Valley

103.0

WAC

128

Drake

102.9

MVC

129

Stanford

102.8

P12

130

Wichita St.

102.7

Amer

131

Boise St.

102.7

MWC

132

North Texas

102.7

CUSA

133

Radford

102.6

BSth

134

Tulsa

102.5

Amer

135

Northern Illinois

102.1

MAC

136

Bucknell

101.8

Pat

137

Southern Miss

101.8

CUSA

138

Brown

101.8

Ivy

139

Louisiana Tech

101.8

CUSA

140

Loyola Marymount

101.7

WCC

141

Coastal Carolina

101.5

SB

142

Central Michigan

101.5

MAC

143

Lehigh

101.4

Pat

144

St. Bonaventure

101.2

A10

145

Miami (O)

101.1

MAC

146

Kent St.

101.1

MAC

147

UC Irvine

101.0

BW

148

Wright St.

100.9

Horz

149

Princeton

100.8

Ivy

150

Southern Illinois

100.7

MVC

151

Louisiana Monroe

100.6

SB

152

Samford

100.6

SC

153

Colgate

100.2

Pat

154

Duquesne

100.2

A10

155

Missouri St.

100.1

MVC

156

Northern Colorado

100.1

BSky

157

Rider

100.1

MAAC

158

Pepperdine

100.1

WCC

159

Illinois St.

100.0

MVC

160

Stony Brook

100.0

AE

161

Cal St. Fullerton

100.0

BW

162

Winthrop

99.9

BSth

163

Weber St.

99.8

BSky

164

UMass Lowell

99.7

AE

165

Wake Forest

99.6

ACC

166

Mercer

99.6

SC

167

Abilene Christian

99.6

Slnd

168

Omaha

99.6

Sum

169

UC Santa Barbara

99.5

BW

170

NJIT

99.5

ASun

171

UAB

99.5

CUSA

172

Eastern Michigan

99.4

MAC

173

New Mexico

99.4

MWC

174

Marshall

99.4

CUSA

175

UTSA

99.1

CUSA

176

American

99.1

Pat

177

Purdue Fort Wayne

99.0

Sum

178

Louisiana

98.9

SB

179

Massachusetts

98.9

A10

180

Sam Houston St.

98.9

Slnd

181

UNC Greensboro

98.9

SC

182

Saint Joseph’s

98.8

A10

183

Gardner Webb

98.8

BSth

184

UNLV

98.6

MWC

185

IUPUI

98.6

Horz

186

Colorado St.

98.5

MWC

187

Seattle

98.4

WAC

188

Dartmouth

98.3

Ivy

189

Campbell

98.2

BSth

190

Valparaiso

98.2

MVC

191

Evansville

98.2

MVC

192

Presbyterian

98.1

BSth

193

Richmond

98.1

A10

194

Hartford

98.0

AE

195

UNC Wilmington

98.0

CAA

196

Appalachian St.

98.0

SB

197

Hawaii

98.0

BW

198

Northern Iowa

98.0

MVC

199

Cal St. Bakersfield

97.8

WAC

200

Florida Atlantic

97.8

CUSA

201

Ohio

97.8

MAC

202

Texas Southern

97.7

SWAC

203

Troy

97.7

SB

204

North Dakota St.

97.6

Sum

205

Maryland Baltimore Co.

97.6

AE

206

Green Bay

97.5

Horz

207

Pacific

97.5

WCC

208

Oakland

97.5

Horz

209

Indiana St.

97.4

MVC

210

Bradley

97.2

MVC

211

Charleston Southern

97.1

BSth

212

Illinois Chicago

97.0

Horz

213

Holy Cross

97.0

Pat

214

North Florida

96.9

ASun

215

South Alabama

96.8

SB

216

Boston University

96.8

Pat

217

High Point

96.7

BSth

218

La Salle

96.7

A10

219

Long Beach St.

96.7

BW

220

Hampton

96.6

BSth

221

William & Mary

96.6

CAA

222

Lamar

96.5

Slnd

223

Florida Int’l.

96.4

CUSA

224

Iona

96.4

MAAC

225

South Dakota

96.4

Sum

226

UC Riverside

96.3

BW

227

Quinnipiac

96.3

MAAC

228

Washington St.

96.3

P12

229

Santa Clara

96.2

WCC

230

Little Rock

96.2

SB

231

Fairleigh Dickinson

96.1

NEC

232

Robert Morris

96.1

NEC

233

Army

96.0

Pat

234

Sacred Heart

95.8

NEC

235

Eastern Kentucky

95.8

OVC

236

California Baptist

95.8

WAC

237

Detroit

95.7

Horz

238

Fordham

95.7

A10

239

Canisius

95.6

MAAC

240

Florida Gulf Coast

95.6

ASun

241

USC Upstate

95.6

BSth

242

Drexel

95.5

CAA

243

Columbia

95.5

Ivy

244

George Washington

95.5

A10

245

St. Francis PA

95.4

NEC

246

UT Rio Grande Valley

95.3

WAC

247

Delaware

95.3

CAA

248

Cornell

95.3

Ivy

249

Sacramento St.

95.1

BSky

250

UC Davis

95.1

BW

251

The Citadel

94.9

SC

252

St. Francis (BKN)

94.9

NEC

253

Siena

94.9

MAAC

254

Norfolk St.

94.9

MEAC

255

Western Michigan

94.9

MAC

256

UT Arlington

94.7

SB

257

Morehead St.

94.7

OVC

258

Rice

94.7

CUSA

259

Prairie View A&M

94.7

SWAC

260

Missouri Kansas City

94.7

WAC

261

Jacksonville

94.6

ASun

262

Towson

94.6

CAA

263

Air Force

94.6

MWC

264

UTEP

94.5

CUSA

265

Marist

94.5

MAAC

266

Long Island

94.4

NEC

267

Arkansas St.

94.4

SB

268

Portland St.

94.3

BSky

269

Montana St.

94.3

BSky

270

Chattanooga

94.2

SC

271

James Madison

94.2

CAA

272

Stephen F. Austin

94.2

Slnd

273

Albany

94.1

AE

274

North Dakota

94.1

Sum

275

Fairfield

94.0

MAAC

276

East Carolina

94.0

Amer

277

UT Martin

94.0

OVC

278

Wagner

94.0

NEC

279

Western Illinois

93.9

Sum

280

Texas A&M CC

93.8

Slnd

281

California

93.7

P12

282

Milwaukee

93.7

Horz

283

New Orleans

93.5

Slnd

284

Loyola (MD)

93.4

Pat

285

Tulane

93.4

Amer

286

Middle Tennessee

93.4

CUSA

287

Cal St. Northridge

93.3

BW

288

Niagara

93.3

MAAC

289

Southern Utah

93.2

BSky

290

Grambling

93.2

SWAC

291

Monmouth

93.2

MAAC

292

Youngstown St.

93.1

Horz

293

North Carolina Central

93.1

MEAC

294

Houston Baptist

93.0

Slnd

295

Tennessee St.

92.9

OVC

296

Eastern Washington

92.9

BSky

297

Central Arkansas

92.8

Slnd

298

Eastern Illinois

92.8

OVC

299

Western Carolina

92.7

SC

300

Southeastern Louisiana

92.7

Slnd

301

Denver

92.3

Sum

302

Cleveland St.

92.2

Horz

303

Longwood

92.2

BSth

304

North Carolina A&T

92.1

MEAC

305

Navy

92.0

Pat

306

Bethune Cookman

92.0

MEAC

307

Idaho St.

92.0

BSky

308

Oral Roberts

92.0

Sum

309

Lafayette

91.9

Pat

310

Charlotte

91.9

CUSA

311

Northern Arizona

91.9

BSky

312

Central Connecticut

91.8

NEC

313

Saint Peter’s

91.8

MAAC

314

McNeese St.

91.4

Slnd

315

Southeast Missouri St.

91.1

OVC

316

Alabama St.

91.1

SWAC

317

Maine

91.0

AE

318

Howard

91.0

MEAC

319

VMI

90.8

SC

320

Nicholls St.

90.8

Slnd

321

Elon

90.7

CAA

322

Portland

90.4

WCC

323

Florida A&M

90.3

MEAC

324

North Alabama

90.2

ASun

325

Wyoming

90.2

MWC

326

Manhattan

90.1

MAAC

327

Jackson St.

90.0

SWAC

328

Tennessee Tech

90.0

OVC

329

Cal Poly

89.7

BW

330

SIU Edwardsville

89.4

OVC

331

Mount St. Mary’s

89.0

NEC

332

Bryant

88.9

NEC

333

Binghamton

88.8

AE

334

Arkansas Pine Bluff

88.7

SWAC

335

Morgan St.

88.7

MEAC

336

South Carolina St.

88.5

MEAC

337

UNC Asheville

88.2

BSth

338

Southern

87.9

SWAC

339

Idaho

87.2

BSky

340

San Jose St.

86.9

MWC

341

Northwestern St.

86.7

Slnd

342

Stetson

86.5

ASun

343

Incarnate Word

85.8

Slnd

344

Kennesaw St.

85.7

ASun

345

New Hampshire

85.7

AE

346

Coppin St.

85.3

MEAC

347

Alcorn St.

84.8

SWAC

348

Alabama A&M

84.7

SWAC

349

Savannah St.

84.2

MEAC

350

Mississippi Valley St.

83.3

SWAC

351

Maryland Eastern Shore

81.3

MEAC

352

Chicago St.

80.9

WAC

353

Delaware St.

80.7

MEAC

 

Ratings Alphabetically

Rk

Team

PiRate

Conf

167

Abilene Christian

99.6

Slnd

263

Air Force

94.6

MWC

120

Akron

103.3

MAC

49

Alabama

109.0

SEC

348

Alabama A&M

84.7

SWAC

316

Alabama St.

91.1

SWAC

273

Albany

94.1

AE

347

Alcorn St.

84.8

SWAC

176

American

99.1

Pat

196

Appalachian St.

98.0

SB

59

Arizona

107.5

P12

50

Arizona St.

109.0

P12

55

Arkansas

108.1

SEC

334

Arkansas Pine Bluff

88.7

SWAC

267

Arkansas St.

94.4

SB

233

Army

96.0

Pat

11

Auburn

116.0

SEC

116

Austin Peay

103.5

OVC

103

Ball St.

104.2

MAC

30

Baylor

111.8

B12

68

Belmont

106.8

OVC

306

Bethune Cookman

92.0

MEAC

333

Binghamton

88.8

AE

131

Boise St.

102.7

MWC

110

Boston College

103.7

ACC

216

Boston University

96.8

Pat

122

Bowling Green

103.2

MAC

210

Bradley

97.2

MVC

138

Brown

101.8

Ivy

332

Bryant

88.9

NEC

136

Bucknell

101.8

Pat

19

Buffalo

113.2

MAC

51

Butler

108.8

BE

91

BYU

105.2

WCC

329

Cal Poly

89.7

BW

199

Cal St. Bakersfield

97.8

WAC

161

Cal St. Fullerton

100.0

BW

287

Cal St. Northridge

93.3

BW

281

California

93.7

P12

236

California Baptist

95.8

WAC

189

Campbell

98.2

BSth

239

Canisius

95.6

MAAC

297

Central Arkansas

92.8

Slnd

312

Central Connecticut

91.8

NEC

52

Central Florida

108.5

Amer

142

Central Michigan

101.5

MAC

121

Charleston

103.2

CAA

211

Charleston Southern

97.1

BSth

310

Charlotte

91.9

CUSA

270

Chattanooga

94.2

SC

352

Chicago St.

80.9

WAC

29

Cincinnati

112.0

Amer

42

Clemson

110.3

ACC

302

Cleveland St.

92.2

Horz

141

Coastal Carolina

101.5

SB

153

Colgate

100.2

Pat

88

Colorado

105.3

P12

186

Colorado St.

98.5

MWC

243

Columbia

95.5

Ivy

73

Connecticut

106.5

Amer

346

Coppin St.

85.3

MEAC

248

Cornell

95.3

Ivy

46

Creighton

109.5

BE

188

Dartmouth

98.3

Ivy

80

Davidson

106.0

A10

70

Dayton

106.6

A10

247

Delaware

95.3

CAA

353

Delaware St.

80.7

MEAC

301

Denver

92.3

Sum

102

DePaul

104.2

BE

237

Detroit

95.7

Horz

128

Drake

102.9

MVC

242

Drexel

95.5

CAA

1

Duke

124.0

ACC

154

Duquesne

100.2

A10

276

East Carolina

94.0

Amer

64

East Tennessee St.

107.1

SC

298

Eastern Illinois

92.8

OVC

235

Eastern Kentucky

95.8

OVC

172

Eastern Michigan

99.4

MAC

296

Eastern Washington

92.9

BSky

321

Elon

90.7

CAA

191

Evansville

98.2

MVC

275

Fairfield

94.0

MAAC

231

Fairleigh Dickinson

96.1

NEC

33

Florida

111.3

SEC

323

Florida A&M

90.3

MEAC

200

Florida Atlantic

97.8

CUSA

240

Florida Gulf Coast

95.6

ASun

223

Florida Int’l.

96.4

CUSA

24

Florida St.

112.5

ACC

238

Fordham

95.7

A10

63

Fresno St.

107.3

MWC

87

Furman

105.6

SC

183

Gardner Webb

98.8

BSth

123

George Mason

103.2

A10

244

George Washington

95.5

A10

78

Georgetown

106.1

BE

100

Georgia

104.5

SEC

118

Georgia Southern

103.4

SB

111

Georgia St.

103.6

SB

85

Georgia Tech

105.7

ACC

2

Gonzaga

122.5

WCC

290

Grambling

93.2

SWAC

77

Grand Canyon

106.1

WAC

206

Green Bay

97.5

Horz

220

Hampton

96.6

BSth

194

Hartford

98.0

AE

101

Harvard

104.3

Ivy

197

Hawaii

98.0

BW

217

High Point

96.7

BSth

66

Hofstra

106.9

CAA

213

Holy Cross

97.0

Pat

20

Houston

112.9

Amer

294

Houston Baptist

93.0

Slnd

318

Howard

91.0

MEAC

339

Idaho

87.2

BSky

307

Idaho St.

92.0

BSky

83

Illinois

105.8

B10

212

Illinois Chicago

97.0

Horz

159

Illinois St.

100.0

MVC

343

Incarnate Word

85.8

Slnd

40

Indiana

110.5

B10

209

Indiana St.

97.4

MVC

224

Iona

96.4

MAAC

25

Iowa

112.5

B10

12

Iowa St.

115.7

B12

185

IUPUI

98.6

Horz

327

Jackson St.

90.0

SWAC

261

Jacksonville

94.6

ASun

119

Jacksonville St.

103.3

OVC

271

James Madison

94.2

CAA

14

Kansas

115.3

B12

38

Kansas St.

110.6

B12

344

Kennesaw St.

85.7

ASun

146

Kent St.

101.1

MAC

8

Kentucky

117.4

SEC

218

La Salle

96.7

A10

309

Lafayette

91.9

Pat

222

Lamar

96.5

Slnd

143

Lehigh

101.4

Pat

67

Liberty

106.9

ASun

43

Lipscomb

110.2

ASun

230

Little Rock

96.2

SB

219

Long Beach St.

96.7

BW

266

Long Island

94.4

NEC

303

Longwood

92.2

BSth

178

Louisiana

98.9

SB

151

Louisiana Monroe

100.6

SB

139

Louisiana Tech

101.8

CUSA

16

Louisville

114.3

ACC

109

Loyola (Chi)

103.7

MVC

284

Loyola (MD)

93.4

Pat

140

Loyola Marymount

101.7

WCC

27

LSU

112.2

SEC

317

Maine

91.0

AE

326

Manhattan

90.1

MAAC

265

Marist

94.5

MAAC

21

Marquette

112.6

BE

174

Marshall

99.4

CUSA

22

Maryland

112.6

B10

205

Maryland Baltimore Co.

97.6

AE

351

Maryland Eastern Shore

81.3

MEAC

179

Massachusetts

98.9

A10

314

McNeese St.

91.4

Slnd

86

Memphis

105.6

Amer

166

Mercer

99.6

SC

75

Miami (Fla)

106.2

ACC

145

Miami (O)

101.1

MAC

9

Michigan

117.0

B10

4

Michigan St.

120.1

B10

286

Middle Tennessee

93.4

CUSA

282

Milwaukee

93.7

Horz

57

Minnesota

107.7

B10

48

Mississippi

109.4

SEC

26

Mississippi St.

112.4

SEC

350

Mississippi Valley St.

83.3

SWAC

94

Missouri

104.9

SEC

260

Missouri Kansas City

94.7

WAC

155

Missouri St.

100.1

MVC

291

Monmouth

93.2

MAAC

108

Montana

103.8

BSky

269

Montana St.

94.3

BSky

257

Morehead St.

94.7

OVC

335

Morgan St.

88.7

MEAC

331

Mount St. Mary’s

89.0

NEC

62

Murray St.

107.3

OVC

305

Navy

92.0

Pat

23

Nebraska

112.5

B10

15

Nevada

115.1

MWC

345

New Hampshire

85.7

AE

173

New Mexico

99.4

MWC

58

New Mexico St.

107.5

WAC

283

New Orleans

93.5

Slnd

288

Niagara

93.3

MAAC

320

Nicholls St.

90.8

Slnd

170

NJIT

99.5

ASun

254

Norfolk St.

94.9

MEAC

324

North Alabama

90.2

ASun

5

North Carolina

119.6

ACC

304

North Carolina A&T

92.1

MEAC

293

North Carolina Central

93.1

MEAC

28

North Carolina St.

112.2

ACC

274

North Dakota

94.1

Sum

204

North Dakota St.

97.6

Sum

214

North Florida

96.9

ASun

132

North Texas

102.7

CUSA

92

Northeastern

105.2

CAA

311

Northern Arizona

91.9

BSky

156

Northern Colorado

100.1

BSky

135

Northern Illinois

102.1

MAC

198

Northern Iowa

98.0

MVC

96

Northern Kentucky

104.7

Horz

56

Northwestern

107.9

B10

341

Northwestern St.

86.7

Slnd

82

Notre Dame

105.8

ACC

208

Oakland

97.5

Horz

201

Ohio

97.8

MAC

31

Ohio St.

111.6

B10

35

Oklahoma

111.2

B12

99

Oklahoma St.

104.5

B12

105

Old Dominion

104.0

CUSA

168

Omaha

99.6

Sum

308

Oral Roberts

92.0

Sum

53

Oregon

108.4

P12

69

Oregon St.

106.7

P12

207

Pacific

97.5

WCC

115

Penn

103.5

Ivy

72

Penn St.

106.6

B10

158

Pepperdine

100.1

WCC

76

Pittsburgh

106.2

ACC

322

Portland

90.4

WCC

268

Portland St.

94.3

BSky

259

Prairie View A&M

94.7

SWAC

192

Presbyterian

98.1

BSth

149

Princeton

100.8

Ivy

79

Providence

106.0

BE

10

Purdue

116.4

B10

177

Purdue Fort Wayne

99.0

Sum

227

Quinnipiac

96.3

MAAC

133

Radford

102.6

BSth

106

Rhode Island

103.9

A10

258

Rice

94.7

CUSA

193

Richmond

98.1

A10

157

Rider

100.1

MAAC

232

Robert Morris

96.1

NEC

98

Rutgers

104.6

B10

249

Sacramento St.

95.1

BSky

234

Sacred Heart

95.8

NEC

182

Saint Joseph’s

98.8

A10

124

Saint Louis

103.1

A10

41

Saint Mary’s

110.4

WCC

313

Saint Peter’s

91.8

MAAC

180

Sam Houston St.

98.9

Slnd

152

Samford

100.6

SC

89

San Diego

105.3

WCC

117

San Diego St.

103.4

MWC

47

San Francisco

109.5

WCC

340

San Jose St.

86.9

MWC

229

Santa Clara

96.2

WCC

349

Savannah St.

84.2

MEAC

187

Seattle

98.4

WAC

60

Seton Hall

107.4

BE

253

Siena

94.9

MAAC

330

SIU Edwardsville

89.4

OVC

95

SMU

104.8

Amer

215

South Alabama

96.8

SB

90

South Carolina

105.2

SEC

336

South Carolina St.

88.5

MEAC

225

South Dakota

96.4

Sum

74

South Dakota St.

106.2

Sum

114

South Florida

103.5

Amer

315

Southeast Missouri St.

91.1

OVC

300

Southeastern Louisiana

92.7

Slnd

338

Southern

87.9

SWAC

150

Southern Illinois

100.7

MVC

137

Southern Miss

101.8

CUSA

289

Southern Utah

93.2

BSky

144

St. Bonaventure

101.2

A10

252

St. Francis (BKN)

94.9

NEC

245

St. Francis PA

95.4

NEC

45

St. John’s

109.6

BE

129

Stanford

102.8

P12

272

Stephen F. Austin

94.2

Slnd

342

Stetson

86.5

ASun

160

Stony Brook

100.0

AE

32

Syracuse

111.5

ACC

37

TCU

110.7

B12

71

Temple

106.6

Amer

6

Tennessee

119.3

SEC

295

Tennessee St.

92.9

OVC

328

Tennessee Tech

90.0

OVC

34

Texas

111.3

B12

113

Texas A&M

103.5

SEC

280

Texas A&M CC

93.8

Slnd

202

Texas Southern

97.7

SWAC

104

Texas St.

104.1

SB

17

Texas Tech

114.2

B12

251

The Citadel

94.9

SC

61

Toledo

107.4

MAC

262

Towson

94.6

CAA

203

Troy

97.7

SB

285

Tulane

93.4

Amer

134

Tulsa

102.5

Amer

171

UAB

99.5

CUSA

250

UC Davis

95.1

BW

147

UC Irvine

101.0

BW

226

UC Riverside

96.3

BW

169

UC Santa Barbara

99.5

BW

97

UCLA

104.7

P12

164

UMass Lowell

99.7

AE

337

UNC Asheville

88.2

BSth

181

UNC Greensboro

98.9

SC

195

UNC Wilmington

98.0

CAA

184

UNLV

98.6

MWC

107

USC

103.9

P12

241

USC Upstate

95.6

BSth

256

UT Arlington

94.7

SB

277

UT Martin

94.0

OVC

246

UT Rio Grande Valley

95.3

WAC

126

Utah

103.0

P12

44

Utah St.

109.6

MWC

127

Utah Valley

103.0

WAC

264

UTEP

94.5

CUSA

175

UTSA

99.1

CUSA

190

Valparaiso

98.2

MVC

125

Vanderbilt

103.1

SEC

65

Vermont

107.0

AE

18

Villanova

113.9

BE

3

Virginia

122.1

ACC

54

Virginia Commonwealth

108.2

A10

7

Virginia Tech

117.6

ACC

319

VMI

90.8

SC

278

Wagner

94.0

NEC

165

Wake Forest

99.6

ACC

39

Washington

110.5

P12

228

Washington St.

96.3

P12

163

Weber St.

99.8

BSky

81

West Virginia

105.9

B12

299

Western Carolina

92.7

SC

279

Western Illinois

93.9

Sum

112

Western Kentucky

103.6

CUSA

255

Western Michigan

94.9

MAC

130

Wichita St.

102.7

Amer

221

William & Mary

96.6

CAA

162

Winthrop

99.9

BSth

13

Wisconsin

115.6

B10

36

Wofford

111.1

SC

148

Wright St.

100.9

Horz

325

Wyoming

90.2

MWC

93

Xavier

105.1

BE

84

Yale

105.7

Ivy

292

Youngstown St.

93.1

Horz

 

Ratings By Conference

#

America East

PiRate

65

Vermont

107.0

160

Stony Brook

100.0

164

UMass Lowell

99.7

194

Hartford

98.0

205

Maryland Baltimore Co.

97.6

273

Albany

94.1

317

Maine

91.0

333

Binghamton

88.8

345

New Hampshire

85.7

#

American Athletic

PiRate

20

Houston

112.9

29

Cincinnati

112.0

52

Central Florida

108.5

71

Temple

106.6

73

Connecticut

106.5

86

Memphis

105.6

95

SMU

104.8

114

South Florida

103.5

130

Wichita St.

102.7

134

Tulsa

102.5

276

East Carolina

94.0

285

Tulane

93.4

#

Atlantic 10

PiRate

54

Virginia Commonwealth

108.2

70

Dayton

106.6

80

Davidson

106.0

106

Rhode Island

103.9

123

George Mason

103.2

124

Saint Louis

103.1

144

St. Bonaventure

101.2

154

Duquesne

100.2

179

Massachusetts

98.9

182

Saint Joseph’s

98.8

193

Richmond

98.1

218

La Salle

96.7

238

Fordham

95.7

244

George Washington

95.5

#

Atlantic Coast

PiRate

1

Duke

124.0

3

Virginia

122.1

5

North Carolina

119.6

7

Virginia Tech

117.6

16

Louisville

114.3

24

Florida St.

112.5

28

North Carolina St.

112.2

32

Syracuse

111.5

42

Clemson

110.3

75

Miami (Fla)

106.2

76

Pittsburgh

106.2

82

Notre Dame

105.8

85

Georgia Tech

105.7

110

Boston College

103.7

165

Wake Forest

99.6

#

Atlantic Sun

PiRate

43

Lipscomb

110.2

67

Liberty

106.9

170

NJIT

99.5

214

North Florida

96.9

240

Florida Gulf Coast

95.6

261

Jacksonville

94.6

324

North Alabama

90.2

342

Stetson

86.5

344

Kennesaw St.

85.7

#

Big 12

PiRate

12

Iowa St.

115.7

14

Kansas

115.3

17

Texas Tech

114.2

30

Baylor

111.8

34

Texas

111.3

35

Oklahoma

111.2

37

TCU

110.7

38

Kansas St.

110.6

81

West Virginia

105.9

99

Oklahoma St.

104.5

#

Big East

PiRate

18

Villanova

113.9

21

Marquette

112.6

45

St. John’s

109.6

46

Creighton

109.5

51

Butler

108.8

60

Seton Hall

107.4

78

Georgetown

106.1

79

Providence

106.0

93

Xavier

105.1

102

DePaul

104.2

#

Big Sky

PiRate

108

Montana

103.8

156

Northern Colorado

100.1

163

Weber St.

99.8

249

Sacramento St.

95.1

268

Portland St.

94.3

269

Montana St.

94.3

289

Southern Utah

93.2

296

Eastern Washington

92.9

307

Idaho St.

92.0

311

Northern Arizona

91.9

339

Idaho

87.2

#

Big South

PiRate

133

Radford

102.6

162

Winthrop

99.9

183

Gardner Webb

98.8

189

Campbell

98.2

192

Presbyterian

98.1

211

Charleston Southern

97.1

217

High Point

96.7

220

Hampton

96.6

241

USC Upstate

95.6

303

Longwood

92.2

337

UNC Asheville

88.2

#

Big Ten

PiRate

4

Michigan St.

120.1

9

Michigan

117.0

10

Purdue

116.4

13

Wisconsin

115.6

22

Maryland

112.6

23

Nebraska

112.5

25

Iowa

112.5

31

Ohio St.

111.6

40

Indiana

110.5

56

Northwestern

107.9

57

Minnesota

107.7

72

Penn St.

106.6

83

Illinois

105.8

98

Rutgers

104.6

#

Big West

PiRate

147

UC Irvine

101.0

161

Cal St. Fullerton

100.0

169

UC Santa Barbara

99.5

197

Hawaii

98.0

219

Long Beach St.

96.7

226

UC Riverside

96.3

250

UC Davis

95.1

287

Cal St. Northridge

93.3

329

Cal Poly

89.7

#

Colonial Athletic

PiRate

66

Hofstra

106.9

92

Northeastern

105.2

121

Charleston

103.2

195

UNC Wilmington

98.0

221

William & Mary

96.6

242

Drexel

95.5

247

Delaware

95.3

262

Towson

94.6

271

James Madison

94.2

321

Elon

90.7

#

Conference USA

PiRate

105

Old Dominion

104.0

112

Western Kentucky

103.6

132

North Texas

102.7

137

Southern Miss

101.8

139

Louisiana Tech

101.8

171

UAB

99.5

174

Marshall

99.4

175

UTSA

99.1

200

Florida Atlantic

97.8

223

Florida Int’l.

96.4

258

Rice

94.7

264

UTEP

94.5

286

Middle Tennessee

93.4

310

Charlotte

91.9

#

Horizon

PiRate

96

Northern Kentucky

104.7

148

Wright St.

100.9

185

IUPUI

98.6

206

Green Bay

97.5

208

Oakland

97.5

212

Illinois Chicago

97.0

237

Detroit

95.7

282

Milwaukee

93.7

292

Youngstown St.

93.1

302

Cleveland St.

92.2

#

Ivy

PiRate

84

Yale

105.7

101

Harvard

104.3

115

Penn

103.5

138

Brown

101.8

149

Princeton

100.8

188

Dartmouth

98.3

243

Columbia

95.5

248

Cornell

95.3

#

Metro Atlantic

PiRate

157

Rider

100.1

224

Iona

96.4

227

Quinnipiac

96.3

239

Canisius

95.6

253

Siena

94.9

265

Marist

94.5

275

Fairfield

94.0

288

Niagara

93.3

291

Monmouth

93.2

313

Saint Peter’s

91.8

326

Manhattan

90.1

#

Mid-American

PiRate

19

Buffalo

113.2

61

Toledo

107.4

103

Ball St.

104.2

120

Akron

103.3

122

Bowling Green

103.2

135

Northern Illinois

102.1

142

Central Michigan

101.5

145

Miami (O)

101.1

146

Kent St.

101.1

172

Eastern Michigan

99.4

201

Ohio

97.8

255

Western Michigan

94.9

#

Mideastern Athletic

PiRate

254

Norfolk St.

94.9

293

North Carolina Central

93.1

304

North Carolina A&T

92.1

306

Bethune Cookman

92.0

318

Howard

91.0

323

Florida A&M

90.3

335

Morgan St.

88.7

336

South Carolina St.

88.5

346

Coppin St.

85.3

349

Savannah St.

84.2

351

Maryland Eastern Shore

81.3

353

Delaware St.

80.7

#

Missouri Valley

PiRate

109

Loyola (Chi)

103.7

128

Drake

102.9

150

Southern Illinois

100.7

155

Missouri St.

100.1

159

Illinois St.

100.0

190

Valparaiso

98.2

191

Evansville

98.2

198

Northern Iowa

98.0

209

Indiana St.

97.4

210

Bradley

97.2

#

Mountain West

PiRate

15

Nevada

115.1

44

Utah St.

109.6

63

Fresno St.

107.3

117

San Diego St.

103.4

131

Boise St.

102.7

173

New Mexico

99.4

184

UNLV

98.6

186

Colorado St.

98.5

263

Air Force

94.6

325

Wyoming

90.2

340

San Jose St.

86.9

#

Northeast

PiRate

231

Fairleigh Dickinson

96.1

232

Robert Morris

96.1

234

Sacred Heart

95.8

245

St. Francis PA

95.4

252

St. Francis (BKN)

94.9

266

Long Island

94.4

278

Wagner

94.0

312

Central Connecticut

91.8

331

Mount St. Mary’s

89.0

332

Bryant

88.9

#

Ohio Valley

PiRate

62

Murray St.

107.3

68

Belmont

106.8

116

Austin Peay

103.5

119

Jacksonville St.

103.3

235

Eastern Kentucky

95.8

257

Morehead St.

94.7

277

UT Martin

94.0

295

Tennessee St.

92.9

298

Eastern Illinois

92.8

315

Southeast Missouri St.

91.1

328

Tennessee Tech

90.0

330

SIU Edwardsville

89.4

#

Pac-12

PiRate

39

Washington

110.5

50

Arizona St.

109.0

53

Oregon

108.4

59

Arizona

107.5

69

Oregon St.

106.7

88

Colorado

105.3

97

UCLA

104.7

107

USC

103.9

126

Utah

103.0

129

Stanford

102.8

228

Washington St.

96.3

281

California

93.7

#

Patriot

PiRate

136

Bucknell

101.8

143

Lehigh

101.4

153

Colgate

100.2

176

American

99.1

213

Holy Cross

97.0

216

Boston University

96.8

233

Army

96.0

284

Loyola (MD)

93.4

305

Navy

92.0

309

Lafayette

91.9

#

Southeastern

PiRate

6

Tennessee

119.3

8

Kentucky

117.4

11

Auburn

116.0

26

Mississippi St.

112.4

27

LSU

112.2

33

Florida

111.3

48

Mississippi

109.4

49

Alabama

109.0

55

Arkansas

108.1

90

South Carolina

105.2

94

Missouri

104.9

100

Georgia

104.5

113

Texas A&M

103.5

125

Vanderbilt

103.1

#

Southern

PiRate

36

Wofford

111.1

64

East Tennessee St.

107.1

87

Furman

105.6

152

Samford

100.6

166

Mercer

99.6

181

UNC Greensboro

98.9

251

The Citadel

94.9

270

Chattanooga

94.2

299

Western Carolina

92.7

319

VMI

90.8

#

Southland

PiRate

167

Abilene Christian

99.6

180

Sam Houston St.

98.9

222

Lamar

96.5

272

Stephen F. Austin

94.2

280

Texas A&M CC

93.8

283

New Orleans

93.5

294

Houston Baptist

93.0

297

Central Arkansas

92.8

300

Southeastern Louisiana

92.7

314

McNeese St.

91.4

320

Nicholls St.

90.8

341

Northwestern St.

86.7

343

Incarnate Word

85.8

#

Southwestern Athletic

PiRate

202

Texas Southern

97.7

259

Prairie View A&M

94.7

290

Grambling

93.2

316

Alabama St.

91.1

327

Jackson St.

90.0

334

Arkansas Pine Bluff

88.7

338

Southern

87.9

347

Alcorn St.

84.8

348

Alabama A&M

84.7

350

Mississippi Valley St.

83.3

#

Summit

PiRate

74

South Dakota St.

106.2

168

Omaha

99.6

177

Purdue Fort Wayne

99.0

204

North Dakota St.

97.6

225

South Dakota

96.4

274

North Dakota

94.1

279

Western Illinois

93.9

301

Denver

92.3

308

Oral Roberts

92.0

#

Sun Belt

PiRate

104

Texas St.

104.1

111

Georgia St.

103.6

118

Georgia Southern

103.4

141

Coastal Carolina

101.5

151

Louisiana Monroe

100.6

178

Louisiana

98.9

196

Appalachian St.

98.0

203

Troy

97.7

215

South Alabama

96.8

230

Little Rock

96.2

256

UT Arlington

94.7

267

Arkansas St.

94.4

#

West Coast

PiRate

2

Gonzaga

122.5

41

Saint Mary’s

110.4

47

San Francisco

109.5

89

San Diego

105.3

91

BYU

105.2

140

Loyola Marymount

101.7

158

Pepperdine

100.1

207

Pacific

97.5

229

Santa Clara

96.2

322

Portland

90.4

#

Western Athletic

PiRate

58

New Mexico St.

107.5

77

Grand Canyon

106.1

127

Utah Valley

103.0

187

Seattle

98.4

199

Cal St. Bakersfield

97.8

236

California Baptist

95.8

246

UT Rio Grande Valley

95.3

260

Missouri Kansas City

94.7

352

Chicago St.

80.9

 

Conferences Rated

#

League

PiRate Avg.

1

Big Ten

111.5

2

Atlantic Coast

111.4

3

Big 12

111.1

4

Southeastern

109.7

5

Big East

108.3

6

American Athletic

104.4

7

Pac-12

104.3

8

West Coast

103.9

9

Mid-American

102.4

10

Atlantic 10

101.1

11

Ivy

100.7

12

Mountain West

100.6

13

Missouri Valley

99.6

14

Southern

99.6

15

Sun Belt

99.2

16

Conference USA

98.6

17

Colonial Athletic

98.0

18

Western Athletic

97.7

19

Horizon

97.1

20

Patriot

97.0

21

Ohio Valley

96.8

22

Summit

96.8

23

Big South

96.7

24

Big West

96.6

25

Atlantic Sun

96.2

26

America East

95.8

27

Big Sky

95.0

28

Metro Atlantic

94.6

29

Northeast

93.6

30

Southland

93.1

31

Southwestern Athletic

89.6

32

Mideastern Athletic

88.5

 

Looking Ahead At March Madness

We are less than six weeks away from Selection Sunday, and if you have followed the PiRate Ratings for any amount of time, you know that Selection Sunday is our busiest time of the year.  We have become known for our course in Bracketnomics where we apply numerical data and compare it historically to past national champions in an effort to pick the next champion or at the least isolate the handful of teams that have a championship resume based on numerical data.

Over the weekend, we ran the data on a group of contenders to see how they look at this point in the season.  Of course, most of the power conferences have played less than 50% of their league schedules, and these statistics will swing wildly in the next 40 days.  Let’s look at who has that championship look in early February.

The Four Factors

We hope that most if not all of you reading this post today know what the four factors are, and you know they are actually two sets of four factors, since we need to know the data for every team offensively and defensively.

If you need a primer on the four factors, you can find an excellent discussion of it at: https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/factors.html

Please note that the PiRate Ratings’ Four Factors differ from these NBA Four Factors by a tad, especially in FT Rate formula and the calculation of TO Rate, because the rules in the NBA free throw rules differ from the NCAA.

The PiRate Ratings also weight these four factors a little differently than the way they are rated for NBA teams.  It is our own proprietary formula.

Here is a factor by factor list of 18 teams that are shining just two months before that one shining moment.

Effective Field Goal % Difference

Team FG% Diff
Virginia 24.2
Gonzaga 15.3
Michigan St. 14.0
Tennessee 11.4
Duke 11.4
Virginia Tech 11.0
Wisconsin 9.7
Houston 9.5
Marquette 8.5
Iowa St. 8.3
Michigan 7.8
Washington 7.7
Nevada 7.6
Kentucky 5.9
Villanova 5.7
North Carolina 5.3
Purdue 3.1

The Virginia number just pops off the page.  This is a number not seen very often in the past.  I am sure that if you went back to the 1960’s and 1970’s, and you somehow factor in which shots would have counted for three points back then if there had been a three-point shot, then maybe one or two of the great UCLA teams with exceptional outside shooters combined with a Kareem Abdul Jabbar or Bill Walton, might have enjoyed an effective FG% difference of 24%.

The next five on this list have really fat differences in effective shooting percentages, and you probably know that this stat is worth in the neighborhood of half the value of the Factors.  The name of the game is to put the ball into the basket more than the other team, so obviously shooting percentage on offense and defense is the key factor.

Turnover Rate Difference

Team TO Rate
Michigan 5.2
Nevada 5.0
Virginia Tech 4.7
Purdue 4.6
Gonzaga 4.5
Iowa St. 3.9
Virginia 3.8
Duke 3.7
Tennessee 3.1
Wisconsin 2.6
Kentucky 2.0
North Carolina 2.0
Houston 1.8
Washington 1.8
Villanova 1.1
Marquette -2.0
Michigan St. -3.7

Anything over 3 is really good in this stat, so there are nine teams that are exploiting their opposition in this department.  As you will see later down, there is an additional step we take that includes turnovers that helps us determine who can take more advantage than other teams.

In the case of Marquette and Michigan State, their TO rates are negative, which means this is an exploitable opportunity for their opponents.  Michigan State does not force a lot of turnovers, and this hurt the Spartans when they lost to Purdue recently.

Rebound Rate Difference

Team Reb Rate
North Carolina 12.0
Kentucky 11.7
Houston 8.8
Duke 8.0
Michigan St. 7.7
Purdue 7.5
Virginia 7.1
Gonzaga 4.6
Villanova 4.5
Marquette 3.7
Tennessee 2.6
Virginia Tech 2.6
Michigan 2.4
Nevada -0.1
Iowa St. -0.5
Washington -2.0
Wisconsin -3.5

Kentucky and North Carolina basically retrieve 56% of the normalized rebounds in their games.  Normalized refers to the factoring of potential offensive rebounds and potential defensive rebounds into one stat that predicts what an average team would be expected to perform given the offensive and defensive rebounding opportunities.

The bottom four on this list have negative rebound rates, something you rarely see by a Final Four team.  In the Big Dance, after you arrive at the Sweet 16, your opponent usually forces you to miss more shots that you normally miss, thus making rebounding more important after March 20 than before March 20.

Free Throw Rate Difference

Team FT Rate
Kentucky 10.7
Nevada 9.4
Gonzaga 7.6
Tennessee 6.4
Michigan 5.3
Iowa St. 5.2
Virginia 5.2
Virginia Tech 5.0
Villanova 4.9
Marquette 3.9
North Carolina 2.9
Washington 2.4
Houston 1.7
Duke 0.6
Michigan St. 0.3
Wisconsin 0.2
Purdue -0.4

This is the least important of the Four Factors, but there is a reason to look at this stat.  Most of the teams at the top get the ball inside and force the other team to foul.  The fact that the other team’s players might get into foul trouble is what makes this stat important.  If the other team has one star player, getting that one player into foul trouble where he plays 24 minutes instead of 36 minutes has reduced his playing time by 1/3.  It can then be worth the equivalent of a 10-point swing.

Still, a team with a low FT Rate difference can overcome this liability and still get to the Final Four.

Weighted Four Factors Subtotal

What we refer to as wFF, is simply our calculation of the four factors and weighting them by each factor with Field Goal percentage rating as the most important and Free Throw percentage rating as the least important.  The final number is a good starting point in determining which teams have the best dancing resumes.

Team wFF
Virginia 15.1
Gonzaga 10.4
Duke 8.0
Tennessee 7.7
Virginia Tech 7.7
Michigan St. 7.6
Houston 6.9
Kentucky 6.3
Michigan 6.1
Nevada 6.0
Iowa St. 5.7
North Carolina 5.3
Wisconsin 5.2
Marquette 4.9
Villanova 4.4
Washington 4.4
Purdue 3.7

The top four might easily be the #1 seeds in six weeks.  Isn’t this interesting in seeing that the weighted Four Factors gives us the potential top four?   Of course, these stats have been compiled against different strengths of schedule.  Let’s show you each of the 18 teams’ strengths of schedule.

Team SOS
Michigan St. 61.6
Purdue 61.6
North Carolina 61.3
Duke 60.5
Wisconsin 60.4
Kentucky 58.6
Virginia 58.1
Michigan 57.6
Tennessee 57.2
Iowa St. 57.2
Villanova 56.6
Marquette 56.3
Gonzaga 56.1
Virginia Tech 56.1
Washington 54.7
Nevada 53.1
Houston 51.3

This number might not mean anything to you unless you follow our site like it is your hobby.  A SOS of 50 is average, but that means average for all 353 teams.  For a power conference team, anything under 55.5 means this team played a weak schedule.  When you see a team with an SOS of 58 or more, they have played a strong schedule.  When the SOS tops 60, it is a brutally tough schedule.

Sometimes, an SOS over 60 can work against a team, as they tire in March from playing such a brutal schedule.  When a team’s schedule is between 58 and 60, this is usually the optimum number, but there have been NCAA Champions from the ACC with 60+ SOS.

When you see a team with an SOS under 55, they have only a remote chance of making the Final Four, and basically no chance of winning the national championship.  Washington’s pathetic 54.7 does not bode well for the lone potential NCAA At-large team from the Pac-12.  Virginia Tech’s SOS is low for an ACC team, which can only mean that the Hokies have a tough schedule the rest of the way.

The Four Factors Meet SOS

Let’s combine the wFF with SOS to see which teams have the most impressive resumes to date.  This is another one of our own formulas that apply multiply SOS layers to the wFF number.

Team PiRate
Virginia 84
Michigan St. 81
Duke 78
North Carolina 73
Wisconsin 70
Purdue 69
Kentucky 68
Tennessee 66
Gonzaga 65
Michigan 64
Iowa St. 62
Virginia Tech 62
Villanova 58
Marquette 58
Washington 54
Nevada 50
Houston 45

This certainly looks good for Virginia, but then again, the Cavaliers looked almost this good last year and then became the first #1 seed to lose to a #16 seed.  Might Virginia have an ax to grind in the heads of six opponents this year?  Before their coronation, let us remind you of the DePaul Blue Demons two generations ago.  DePaul was a number one seed three consecutive years, including the top overall seed in two of those years, and they lost in their opening round game all three times!  In these days of yore, there were 48 teams in the NCAA Tournament.  Depaul lost to #8 seed UCLA in 1980, #9 seed Saint Joseph’s in 1981, and #8 seed Boston College in 1982.

Adding Some PiRate Ratings Exclusive Data

The PiRate Ratings created the R+T rating, using a formula that has shown that there are a select few teams that have the ability to go on scoring spurts that put the opponent away.

The R+T estimates the number of extra scoring opportunities a team enjoys in an average game.  It takes rebounding and turnover margin into account, but it further breaks down turnovers into steals and not steals.  When a team throws the ball away or commits a travelling turnover, the game stops, and the referee hands the ball to the other team but only after the defense is set in place.  When a steal is made, the team with the ball has an immediate scoring opportunity, so steals are more important than any other turnover as well as more important than defensive rebounds.

Here are the R+T ratings for the 18 teams

Team R+T
North Carolina 24.1
Kentucky 24.0
Duke 23.0
Gonzaga 21.6
Houston 20.6
Virginia 20.2
Michigan St. 18.5
Purdue 16.5
Tennessee 15.5
Virginia Tech 14.2
Michigan 13.9
Nevada 11.8
Villanova 11.4
Iowa St. 10.7
Marquette 10.6
Washington 6.4
Wisconsin 6.3

Pay careful attention to those six teams with 20+ R+T Ratings.  These are teams that will go on scoring spurts to put the other team out of its misery.  North Carolina, Kentucky, Duke, Gonzaga, Houston, and Virginia have fantastic advantages over the rest of the field.  In a tight game in the last half of March, a 10-0 spurt in three minutes is like a three-run homer to break up a tie game in the World Series in the 6th inning or later.

The six teams at the bottom of this list are what we might call upset victims.  Of course, these ratings can change in the next six weeks, but if the tournament began today, we would quickly discard these six teams with sub 12 R+T ratings.

The Four Best Resumes

After looking at the resumes for these 18, four have better overall numbers than the rest.  Three of them are the ACC powers, Duke, North Carolina, and Virginia.  The fourth is Michigan State, but the Spartans have just lost star wing player Joshua Langford for the season and did not play well against Indiana without him.  We expect MSU’s stats to suffer enough that they will fall well behind the other top teams in the next six weeks.  That moves Kentucky into this group as the fourth of the four superior teams.  John Calipari deserves a lot of credit, because his team regularly improves from November to March.  Tennessee might be number one in the nation again this week, but we believe Kentucky is the best SEC team just by looking at this data.

 

 

 

 

 

January 15, 2019

Advanced Basketball Statistics–Fun Stuff for Stats Buffs, Part 2

Last week, we introduced you to the basics of advanced basketball statistics, the Four Factors.

If you missed that feature, you can find it here:

https://piratings.wordpress.com/2019/01/09/advanced-basketball-statistics-fun-stuff-for-stats-buffs/

This week, we hope to explain how to apply advanced stats to individual players. It is a bit more involved, but if you break it down, it is not difficult to understand.

Then, in our final installment next week, we will attempt to explain offensive and defensive efficiency, which is a multiple step process and quite involved, but once you have the formulas placed in a spreadsheet, you can have the same data that the Selection Committee will have in the room when they meet to select the field and seed the teams.

Let’s start with individual statistics.

True Shooting %
The basic shooting stat for an individual is True Shooting Percentage. It incorporates field goal shooting from behind the three-point line, inside the line, and foul shooting into one percentage that provides a decent look at how efficient a player is when he shoots the ball to his basket.

 
The formula for TS% is: College: Pts/(2*(FGA+(.465*FTA))) &

NBA Pts/(2*(FGA+(.44*FTA)))

Example: Let’s take a look at the incredible Markus Howard of Marquette. As of this afternoon (January 15, 2019), Howard has scored 439 points for the season. He has taken 301 field goal attempts and 116 free throw attempts.

439/(2*(301+(.465*116))) = .618 or 61.8%

Let’s now take a look at a big man and how Howard stacks up as a perimeter player. Let’s look at Gonzaga’s Rui Hachimura. As of this afternoon, the Bulldogs’ power forward has scored 374 points on 233 field goal attempts and 117 free throw attempts.

374/(2*(233+(.465*117)))= .651 or 65.1%
Hachimura is a little more efficient in scoring points when he shoots the ball for any reason than Howard, but they are both quite excellent at scoring for their teams.
How do they compare with a couple of all-time greats from the past?

Let’s look at Steph Curry’s and Bill Walton’s final years at Davidson and UCLA respectively.

Curry: 974/(2*(687+(.465*251)))= .606 or 60.6%, not as good as Howard so far this year.

Walton: 522/(2*(349+(.465*100)))=.660 or 66.%, which is a little better than Hachimura.

Hachimura has benefitted from some three-pointers that did not exist when Walton played at UCLA, but Walton would have never attempted a three-point shot playing in the low post for the Bruins. Walton also missed some games his senior year due to knee troubles, and he was a lousy foul shooter his last two years in Westwood, or else his TS% would have been even higher.

Offensive, Defensive, and Total Rebounding Percentage
For an individual player, the formula for offensive rebounding percentage is:

100 * [(Individual Player’s Offensive Rebounds * (Team Minutes Played/5)) / (Individual Player’s Minutes Played * (Team Offensive Rebounds + Opposing Team Defensive Rebounds))]

The formula looks bulky but it is quite easy to calculate and once you plug them into a spreadsheet, it is a quick process.

Defensive Rebounding percentage is just the opposite formula
100 * [(Individual Player’s Defensive Rebounds * (Team Minutes Played/5)) / (Individual Player’s Minutes Played * (Team Defensive Rebounds + Opposing Team Offensive Rebounds))]

And Total Rebounding Rebounding Percentage brings the whole into the parts.
100 * [(Individual Player’s Total Rebounds * Team Minutes Played/5) / (Individual Player’s Minutes Played * (Team Total Rebounds + Opposing Team Total Rebounds))]

Examples: Let’s compare the key board men from the hot rivals in the Big Ten: Kenny Goins of Michigan State and Jon Teske of Michigan

Goins offensive rebounding: 100 * [(41*3425/5)) / (450 * (201 + 356))] = 11.2%
Goins defensive rebounding: 100* [(119*3425/5)) / 450 * (543 + 185))] = 24.9%
Goins total rebounding: 100 * [(160 * 3425/5) / (450 * (744 + 541))] = 19.0%

Teske offensive rebounding: 100 * [(31 * 3400/5)) / (458 * (156 + 415))] = 8.1%
Teske defensive rebounding: 100 * [(82 * 3400/5)) / (458 * (463+135))] = 20.4%
Teske total rebounding: 100 * [(113 * 3400/5)) / (450 * (619+550))] = 14.6%

Because Michigan and Michigan State have played comparable schedules this year, Goins is a little better on both the offensive and defensive glass than the seven-foot Teske.

For what it is worth, Blake Griffin’s total rebounding percentage in 2009 at Oklahoma was 24.0, so Goins and Teske are not quite up to his lofty standards.

Turnover Percentage

The formula for individual TOV% is: 100 * TOV / (FGA + (.465 * FTA) + TOV)

It is rather simple to calculate, but it has its limitations, because point guards handle the ball much more per possession than other players, and this formula does not include assists which might show that it is worth a couple extra points of TOV% for a point guard to have higher numbers of assists. Additionally, some point guards do not attempt many shots, so the denominator of this equation is skewed too low.

We’ll combine this stat with the next stat to come up with an improvement over assist to turnover rate.

Let’s look at a couple of outstanding playmakers–Cassius Winston of Michigan State and Jared Harper of Auburn.

Winston: 100 * 42 / (205 + (.465 * 69) + 42) = 15.0%
Harper: 100 * 32 / (183 + (.465 * 53) + 32) = 13.4%

Assist Percentage
Now we give the playmakers a chance to shine and balance out the bad turnover percentages they receive for having possession of the ball more than others (like a running back in football will fumble the ball more than the tight end per team possession).
The formula for individial AST% is: 100 * AST / (((MP / (Team MP/5)) * Team FG) – FG)

Winston: 100 * 125 / (((528/(3425/5)) * 517) – 100) = 41.9%
Harper: 100 * 101 / (((506/(3050/5)) * 452) -69) = 33.0%

Assist Percentage to Turnover Percentage

Simply divide AST%/TOV% to get a better ratio than the standard AST/TOV.

Winston: 41.9/15.0 = 2.8
Harper: 33.0/13.4 = 2.5

Both of these rates are outstanding. For Michigan State, the Spartans have an outstanding playmaker in Winston, an outstanding dominator on the glass in Goins, and an outstanding group of shooters and defenders. Coach Tom Izzo has a Final Four caliber team for sure.

Block Percentage
Blocks are very important defensive tools. Obviously every time a player blocks a shot, it is also a missed field goal attempt for the other team. Obviously, a blocked shot is not as valuable as the non-blocked missed field goal attempt, because not every blocked shot would have been a made shot, and more blocked shots become offensive rebounds or offensive team rebounds than regular missed shots. However, an intimidator underneath the basket can influence a lot of shots that he does not block, thus lowering non-blocked field goal percentages. There are multiple algorithms used to calculate how valuable a blocked shot is worth in points with and without the inclusion of intimidation.

We like to compare this variable to baseball’s stolen base variable, where traditional sabermetrics lovers hate the stolen base attempt due to the effects on WAR not being great and needing a base stealer that can consistently steal better than 75% of the bases he attempts. They don’t factor in the extracurricular events such as middle infielders having to cheat a step closer to second base, pitchers worried about throwing off-speed (non fastball) pitches, pitchers having to throw to first a lot to reduce leads, and even the first baseman having to delay by a fraction of a second before moving out to cover his area.

For instance, when Maury Wills was stealing bases left and right for the Los Angeles Dodgers in the early 1960’s, Jim Gilliam benefited from being the next batter in the batting order. Gilliam liked to take a lot of pitches, so taking a couple to give Wills a chance to steal didn’t harm him. Actually, because pitchers worried so much, Gilliam was frequently ahead in the count. A veteran with a 2-0 count can hit about 100 points higher than when he has an 0-2 count. Also, Gilliam was an excellent placement hitter. He could hit the ball in the open space created by the first baseman holding Wills on base. When the switch-hitting Gilliam faced a left-handed batter, and the second baseman was covering the bag, while the first baseman was holding Wills on, Gilliam saw a monstrous hole to slap grounders towards right field that allowed Wills to take third base.

Editorial over

Here is the formula for Block Percentage
100 * (Blk * (Team MP/5)) / (MP * (Opponents FGA – Opponents 3-Point Attempts))

Example: Brandon Clarke of Gonzaga is a true intimidator in the paint. His ability to swat balls away has helped the Zags hold teams to just 38.8% field goal shooting. Here is his BLK%.

100 * (58 * (3600/5)) / 497 * (1148-418) = 11.5%

When a player has a double digit BLK%, it is almost a fact that he is also an intimidator in the paint, which means other teams will miss three or four shots that they normally would make against other teams. This is in addition to the blocks that would have been made baskets had they not been blocked.
If an opposing team normally averages 27 field goals on 58 attempts for 46.6%, but with Clarke’s blocks and intimidation this opponent hits only 21 of their 58 attempts for 36.2%. That is a 10% difference created mostly by one intimidating player. Block percentage is one of the most underrated defensive tools in basketball.

Steal Percentage
The steal is a dying art but for a reason. Ninety-five to ninety-nine percent of the time, the steal comes from an intercepted pass and not from a player actually stealing the ball off a player’s dribble. So, steals should be renamed as interceptions like in football. Because so many teams cannot pass the ball worth a darn these days, steals have been dropping in number for several years. This does not mean that the monotonous dribbling of the ball is the way for offenses to score. It is easier to guard the movement of a dribbled ball opposed to the movement of a passed ball, because a dribbler can rarely exceed 15 MPH, while a weak pass is double that speed and a crisp pass is triple that speed or more. When you see a player dribble the ball all the way up the floor on a fast break attempt, he is actually hurting his team’s chances of scoring points on that break. Two quick passes up the floor can result in a wide open basket and/or defensive foul. Many times, the dribbling player is the last of the 10 players to enter the scoring zone, and then the fast break is dead.

Once again editorial over.

The formula for steal percentage is: (100 * Steals * (Team MP/5)) / (Player MP * Opponents Possessions)

You can find team possessions in many locations today, but if you need to calculate this from scratch, team possessions can be very accurately estimated by this calculation:

FGA + (.465 * FTA) – Off. Rebounds + Turnovers {for college}

FGA + (.44 * FTA) – Off. Rebounds + Turnovers {for NBA}

If you are trying to calculate this for your high school, middle school, or youth league team, you will have to adjust the constant that you multiple with FTA. Unfortunately, we do not know what to use for the constants.

Example: Tremont Waters of LSU has come close this year to recording a triple double the hard way with points, assists, and steals. He needed two more steals against UL-Monroe to pull off a feat that is extremely rare in the 21st Century.
Here is Waters’ Steal %.
(100 * 45 * 3050/5) (478 * 1088) = 5.28%

This is an excellent percentage, but it does not approach the percentages of past years, especially when more teams used full-court pressure defense for 40 minutes per game. Some of the Kentucky players under Coach Rick Pitino exceeded 6%.

Usage Percentage
Usage percentage attempts tp gauge the percentage of team plays in which a specific player was key to the possession. It actually measures percentage of team plays USED by an individual while he was on the floor.

The formula for USG % is: 100 * ((FGA + (.465*FTA) + TOV) * (Team MP/5)) / (MP * (Team FGA + (.465* Team FTA)+Team TOV))

Example: Carsen Edwards of Purdue is heavily involved in all of the Boilermakers’ possessions.

100 * ((313 + (.465 * 90) + 52) * (3225/5)) / (537 * (985 + (.465*194)+174)) = 39.1%

At the same time, teammate Ryan Cline plays about the same number of minutes per game but has a USG% that is less than half of Edwards. Thus, Edwards is vital to Purdue’s offensive success. If Edwards gets in foul trouble, Purdue is in much worse shape than if Cline gets in foul trouble. Of course, Matt Painter doesn’t want either star getting into foul trouble, as they both play better than 33 minutes per game.

In our final installment of Fun Stuff for Stats Buffs, we will attempt to explain offensive and defensive efficiency ratings, the big advance metric that the Selection Committee will use as part of their selection and seeding criteria. It is quite bulky and involves multiple steps to figure. If you ever tried to calculate Base Runs in baseball, you know how involved that calculation was. oRAT and dRAT make base runs calculations look like simple addition.

January 9, 2019

Advanced Basketball Statistics–Fun Stuff for Stats Buffs

This feature today is not for everybody. You have to be a stats fan for this one to be fun to read. Last year, we were asked to explain some of the advanced basketball metrics used today. Then, a couple weeks ago, we were asked again what certain metrics were. So, this will be an attempt to explain the basic advanced metrics and then to some degree how one might use this data to determine an approximate point spread difference.

If you are not familiar with advanced metrics in sports, it all started with baseball many decades ago. The legendary general manager of the then Brooklyn Dodgers, Branch Rickey, was always many years ahead of his contemporaries. He had basically created the farm system for Minor League baseball in the late 1920’s, and he opened the game to African Americans and then created a pipeline in Latin America for the Dodgers to take advantage there. Around the same time, Rickey was looking for a statistical advantage to evaluating baseball players, using mathematics to find hidden gems of talent that might have been somewhat overlooked by the competition. This was 50 years before Money Ball. Rickey aligned with a mathematics genius by the name of Alan Roth, who had previously tried to show some of his ideas to other baseball owners, but none of these owners had an interest. Rickey was more than interested, and he hired Roth to work for the Dodgers about the same time as Jackie Robinson debuted in Brooklyn.

Roth was one of the first baseball statisticians to realize that RBIs were basically worthless as a stat. For two decades, he worked for the Dodgers charting where players hit balls, what pitches they hit, and who fielded or did not field balls. This technology would not come into the norm for another 40 years.

Many others presented statistical data for baseball through the 1960’s, 1970’s, and 1980’s. Some of these math experts wrote books, such as Earnshaw Cook and his great work called, Percentage Baseball. It is this book that I read many years ago that roped me into the world of advanced baseball statistics.

A lot of you reading this know who Billy Beane is and what “Money Ball” is. Let me clue you in on something. This was not the first big leap into computer-generated advanced baseball statistics. It wasn’t even the first attempt by the Oakland Athletics. Beane’s predecessor, Sandy Alderson, brought the computer big time into baseball, but you could argue that Earl Weaver with the Baltimore Orioles had a basic no frills database of his batters’ and pitchers’ successes and failures against the pitchers and hitters throughout the American League.

About the time that Money Ball had come out in book form, other mathematics experts began looking at different sports. Computer specialists had come up with somewhat successful algorithms to pick winners against the point spread in football, and one or two became quite wealthy until the state of Nevada banned their wagering for life.

In the late 1990’s, the NBA began looking for ways to take advantage of the numbers to maximize talent. Was it worth it to shoot the 3-pointer? Was it better to have a strong rebounding team that maybe didn’t shoot as well than a weaker rebounding team that shot better? What was the best number of minutes to play your star players, and the best number of minutes to play your second team players? Could statistics show enough consistency to partially answer these questions?

Of course, the questions can never fully be answered. Until computers can read the minds of humans, they can never determine if Stephen Curry may have strained his right shoulder lifting his amazing daughter up in the air earlier that day. The computer cannot determine if the star player had a little too much pizza the night before and didn’t get a good night sleep. There is missing data that will be discovered in the future because basketball analytics are far behind baseball in the evolutionary process.
Basketball is starting to catch up now that very expensive software exists in NBA gyms where multiple cameras are placed in the rafters of the arenas, which feed into a computer and can show teams where all 10 players were on the floor for each 1/100 of a second of the game. If the power forward was beaten for an easy jumper when the shooter came off a baseline screen, the computer records this. Within a few years, the game will become every bit as scientific as baseball, and you will see more Cal Tech and MIT grads working in front offices.
By now, you must realize that trying to explain all the advanced basketball metrics would be terribly boring and very difficult to do. I admit that I am not the authority on basketball metrics, but then I get paid for baseball analytics and not basketball analytics.

Here is a brief look at some of the advanced stats for basketball. If you are interested, you should be able to set up these formulas on a spreadsheet and then plug your team’s stats in and have some of the more popular advanced stats for the team you follow. You can even use these stats for lower levels (high school, middle school, youth league), but the formulas must be altered by an amount I cannot give you. There is a difference between NBA and college formulas, and there will be differences as you go down in experience. Some of it has to do with how many fouls it takes to put a team in the bonus and what that bonus is.
Let’s Begin
I must start with the most basic of advanced statistics. This first set of stats will give you a lot more than the basic statistics. They are called, “The Four Factors,” but they are used for both a team’s offense and a team’s defense, so it is really eight factors.

Credit here must be given to the very brilliant Cal Tech statistician Dean Oliver who wrote the number one book on basketball statistics, Basketball on Paper. It is required reading if this is your field of interest. Oliver capitalized on his data and sold it and himself to a handful of NBA teams, but the basketball media wasn’t ready for his ideas.

They scrutinized every move made through his recommendations, forcing the NBA teams to give in to their fans that bought into the media’s opinions. Of course, many of these media hacks cannot balance their own checkbooks, so their scrutiny comes without credibility.  I say this because I was once a media hack in a top 30 market who believed a lot of the preconceived misconceptions of sports.
The “Four Factors” (again eight factors since this is figured for the offense and the defense) are:

1. Effective Field Goal Percentage
2. Turnover Rate
3. Offensive Rebounding Rate
4. Free Throw Rate.

While these factors are still quite valid, they have been surpassed somewhat by more advanced data. For example, True Shooting Percentage is more detailed than EFg%.

Here are the easy calculations for the Four Factors.
1. Effective Field Goal Percentage
This stat adds three point shooting to two point shooting into one stat. A made three-pointer is worth 50% more than a made two-pointer. So, if you make 1/3 of your three-pointers, it is the same as making 50% of your two-pointers.

The formula for eFG% is: (Field Goals Made + (0.5* 3-pointers Made))/Field Goals Attempted.

Let’s say that Duke takes 58 total shots in a game. They make 26 of these shots, and 8 of them are three-pointers. The calculation would be:

(26 +(0.5*8))/58 which equals .517 or 51.7%.

It works the same for defense. Let’s say in the same game, Duke’s opponent took 57 shots and made 24 with 7 of them three-pointers.

(24+(0.5*7))/57 = .482 or 48.2%.

1A. True Shooting Percentage combines Effective Field Goal Percentage with foul shooting into one combined scoring stat. As you will see with the 4th factor, there is debate over how to use FT Rate properly.

The NBA formula for True Shooting Percentage is: Pts/(2*(FGA+(.44*FTA))) but this is the NBA formula. As I mentioned above, the formula for college basketball is a little different, and it has to do with different Free Throw rules in the two organizations.

For college, it is: Pts/(2*(FGA+(.465*FTA)))

Let’s look at this for an individual. Here are Steph Curry’s Shooting Stats for his last year at Davidson.

Curry scored 974 points in 2008-09. He took 687 shots from the field and 251 foul shots.

974/(2*(687+(.465*251)))= .606 or 60.6% which for a guard is outstanding.

Compare this to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s sophomore season at UCLA in 1966-67, when the NCAA made the mistake of banning the dunk following his dominant first year on the varsity.  Jabbar, known then by his birth name of Lew Alcindor, scored 870 points that year with 519 shots from the field and 274 foul shots.

870/(2*(519+(.465*274)))=.673 or 67.3%.

You can see that a dominant post player like Jabbar was worth more in shooting than a top outside shooter like Curry. This is a relative statement, but it is like saying Babe Ruth was worth more as a hitter than Ty Cobb.

2. Turnover Rate
This measures the rate at which a team commits a turnover or forces the opponent to commit a turnover. We will stick with team stats for now, because the formulas for individuals are a bit more complex.

The calculation for Tunover Rate is:

TO / (FGA + (0.44 * FTA) + TO) for NBA, and
TO/(FGA+(.465*FTA+TO) for College

We will calculate a couple of extremes here. Let’s look at Temple in 1987-88 and Arkansas in 1993-94. Temple’s Coach John Chaney guided the 1987-88 Owls to the regular season number one ranking using an aggressive 2-3 matchup zone defense and a patient offense that valued every offensive possession like gold. Temple did not gamble on offense or defense, as they never attempted to force their offense or try to create turnovers with defensive pressure, preferring to force opponents to shoot poor shots.

Arkansas coach Nolan Richardson guided the Razorbacks to the national title in 1993-94. His teams pressed full court for 40 minutes (40 minutes of Hell) and played up-tempo fast-breaking offense. Arkansas committed more turnovers on offense, but they forced a lot more turnovers than average, and they came up with a lot of steals that led to easy points.

Temple in 1987-88 in 34 games
Offense: 305 Turnovers, 2,050 FGA, 704 FTA
Defense: 423 Turnovers, 1981 FGA, 513 FTA

Offensive TO Rate: 305/(2,050+(.465*704)+305) = .114 or 11.4%
Defensive TO Rate: 423/(1981+(.465*513)+423) = .160 or 16.0%

Arkansas in 1993-94 in 34 games
Offense: 539 Turnovers, 2,363 FGA, 834 FTA
Defense: 725 Turnovers, 2,234 FGA, 817 FTA

Offensive TO Rate: 539/(2,363+(.465*834)+539) = .164 or 16.4%
Defensive TO Rate: 725/(2,234+(.465*817)+725) = .217 or 21.7%

Which team was better at total turnover differential, Temple in 1988 or Arkansas in 1994? It was basically a wash. Temple played conservative basketball about as good as it could be played, going 32-2 and outscoring opponents by 15+ points per game. Arkansas played havoc basketball and went 31-3 outscoring opponents by almost 18 points per game. Both styles worked.

3. Offensive Rebound Rate (and, of course, Defensive Rebound Rate)
This measures the rate a team gets offensive rebounds and the rate in which it limits its opponents from getting offensive rebounds, which is obviously the rate of getting defensive rebounds. These stats allow the statistician to quickly see the opposite without having to perform double calculation. If Michigan State gets 36% of the rebounds on their offensive side of the floor, then Michigan State’s opponents will obviously get 64% of the rebounds on their defensive end of the floor.

The calculation for Offensive Rebound Rate is: Off. Reb/(Off. Reb + opponents Def. Reb),

 and thus the Defensive Rebound Rate is: Def. Reb/(Def. Reb + opponents Off. Reb)

Coach Tom Izzo has his Michigan State Spartans totally dominating the glass this year. Their rebounding margin of 11 boards per game is giving the Spartans an incredible advantage in games (how much we will see later).

Let’s calculate their Offensive Rebound Rate so far this season:
Offensive Rebounds = 190 Defensive Rebounds = 337
Opponents Offensive Rebounds = 176 Defensive Rebounds = 513

Michigan State’s Off. Rebound Rate = 190/(190+337) = .361 or 36.1%
Michigan State’s Def. Rebound Rate = 513/(513+176) = .748 or 74.8%

You can also figure total Rebound Rate, which isn’t a Four Factor, but easy enough by taking Michigan State’s percentage of total rebounds. (190+513)/(190+513+337+176) = 57.8%

4. Free Throw Rate
This is the most controversial of the Four Factors, and there are now multiple theories about how best to calculate this stat. The original formula was simply FTA/FGA. Many metric specialists (including me) believe this is not the best way to calculate free throw rate. For one, this original formula does not calculate made free throws. Shaquille O’Neal would be just as effective and maybe more effective than Steph Curry, and there is no way you can convince me that Shaq’s free throw rate should be as strong or stronger than Curry’s.
There is another school of thought, which is the one the PiRate Ratings have adopted, and that is Free Throws Made per 100 possessions. The calculation is a bit more involved since you need the number of possessions, but total possessions is now kept as a stat in college basketball, and there is a formula that accurately approximates possessions.

Our Accepted FT Rate Calculation is: FT Made per 100 possessions.

If you do not have the number of possessions, you calculate it this way:

NBA: FGA+ (.44 * FTA) – Off. Rebounds + Turnovers
College: FGA +(.465 * FTA – Off. Rebounds + Turnovers

An example from a real game–last Sunday’s Michigan vs. Indiana game.
Michigan took 58 shots in the game. They had 16 Free Throw Attemps, 7 offensive rebounds, and an amazing 2 turnovers.

Let’s calculate their possessions: 58 + (.465*16) -7 + 2 = 60.44

In the actual game box score, Michigan had 60 possessions. In other words, this formula is very accurate, and when there is a difference of one possession in the calculation, it usually is because the team that controlled the opening tap also had the last possession of the half.
Michigan made 12 free throws in their 60 possessions, so we now have to normalize this to how many they would have made in 100 possessions, which is quite simple.

12/60*100 = 20.0, so Michigan’s Free Throw Rate in this game was 20.0.

If we use the original formula, Michigan had 16 FTA and 58 FGA for a rate of 16/58 or 27.6%. We feel that this overstates Michigan’s rate here. Because there were just 60 possessions in this game (about as low as a 30-second shot clock game can produce), the rate was inflated.

There is a third school of thought by stating this formula as FT Made / FG Attempted, which is a bit more accurate than FTA/FGA, but we still prefer making our rate per 100 possessions.

Putting it all together
So, now you have the four factors. How can we take this data before a game is played and determine an estimated point spread? It is not an exact science.

Let’s return briefly to baseball. In baseball, you have the infamous WAR stat, where players are rated in wins above a replacement player, a replacement player being somebody you can pick up on waivers or call up from AAA. There is no WAR stat at this time for basketball, although many statisticians have tried to calculate one from game stats. The problem is that it is hard to judge defense in basketball compared to judging pitching and fielding in baseball.

So, the answer is to find a way to determine how much weight to place on each of the Four (Eight) Factors to try to determine which team is better.

In the NBA, this calculation is considerably easier than in college, because strength of schedule only marginally differs in pro basketball, as most teams play an equal schedule strength. It can be argued that Golden State’s schedule is easier than Philadelphia’s schedule, because the Warrior won’t play Golden State, while the 76ers don’t benefit from playing Philadelphia, but that becomes negligible as the season progresses.

In college basketball, the Patriot League and the Big Ten are not close to comparable, so Lehigh’s Four Factors’ stats are not equal with Michigan’s Four Factors’ stats.
Originally, Oliver determined that Effective Field Goal Percentage was by far the most important of the Four Factors, and since there are a lot more shots taken in a basketball game than anything else, it goes without saying that this factor should be the most important. If your team can consistently beat its opponents in eFG%, they will win more games than they lose. If your team has an eFG% that is 10% better than the opponents, then your team is playing at a championship level.

Oliver believed that eFG% was about 40% of the success or failure of a team. He stated that turnover rate was worth 25%, offensive rebound rate was worth 20%, and FT Rate was worth the remaining 15%. In back-testing, these numbers approximated success or failure in the NBA.

It took many hours of algorithm testing for the PiRate Ratings to come up with percentages to apply to these factors. In the end, we had to create two more factors to approach legitimate accuracy.
If you have followed this site during basketball season for some time, you have probably heard about our own creation called “R+T Factor.” This is a refined version of the rebounding rate and turnover rate, which probably is the reason why Oliver gave a bit more weight to turnovers than rebounds. The key is to separate turnovers into steals and everything else. A steal in basketball is worth more than a rebound. When a team steals the ball, the chances of getting an easy basket and/or drawing a foul is much higher than obtaining a rebound. After working with the formula for a few years, we finally came up with one we like.

Our R+T rating is: (R*2) + (S*.5) + (6-Opp S) + T, where
R= Rebound Margin
S= Average Steals Per Game
T= Turnover Margin

In 2017, one NCAA Team had a rebound margin of 12.3 per game.  They had a turnover margin of 1.8 per game (which means that they committed 1.8 fewer turnovers per game than their opponents), averaged 7.1 steals per game, and opponents averaged 6.2 steals per game.

This team’s R+T Rating was: (12.3*2) + (7.1*0.5) + (6-6.2) + 1.8 = 17.5

This team played in one of the top power conferences in the NCAA, and their rating of 17.5 was the best among the power conference teams.  When a power conference team has an R+T rating over 10, they are Sweet 16 caliber.  At 15, they are Final Four caliber.  So, it can be deduced that this team did fairly well in the 2017 tournament.

This team was national champion North Carolina.

This R+T stat tries to estimate the number of extra scoring opportunities a team gets in a game. The stat is much more valuable in the NCAA Tournament where there are 25-30 really strong teams playing. When the pressure is on, many times these extra opportunities decide the outcomes. While effective field goal percentage is still the number one variable, the R+T rating becomes more and more valuable as the tournament progresses. By the Sweet 16, the teams with the best R+T rating usually continue to advance, and in many years, the team with the number one R+T rating weighted by schedule strength wins the National Championship. In every season in the 21st Century, the champion has been among the nation’s leaders in R+T factor weighted against schedule strength.
The obvious second added factor in predicting basketball games is schedule strength. If a team in the Ivy League outscores its opposition by 10 points per game, they are not as good as a team from the ACC outscoring opponents by 10 points per game.

At the start of conference play, one SEC team may have played a non-conference schedule that on average is 10 points weaker per game than another team. Kentucky usually plays a much harder pre-conference schedule than Vanderbilt or Ole Miss. Tennessee has played a more difficult schedule than Missouri.

Once conferences have played more than half of their league schedules, you can even calculate ratings based only on conference games played and then take those ratings and rank the conferences overall to get a more accurate rating for every team.

For example, let’s say that on February 20 with 80% of the Big 12 conference games in the books, Texas Tech is 1 point better than Kansas, 3 points better than Iowa State, and so on down to Oklahoma State being 14 points weaker than Texas Tech. Let’s say that Stephen F. Austin is 3 points better than Abilene Christian in the Southland Conference and 5 points better than Sam Houston. Overall, the Big 12 is calculated to be 17 points better on average than the Southland conference, so Texas Tech would be 17 points better than SF Austin, 20 points better than Abilene Christian, and 22 points better than Sam Houston. Oklahoma State would then be 8 points better than Sam Houston, since they are 14 points weaker than Texas Tech.
We don’t actually figure the ratings this way, but we have an algorithm that does a similar calculation for every team based on their overall strength of schedule for the season. It is a close cousin but goes more in-depth than the Quadrant system in place by the NCAA Selection Committee and used by our Bracketology experts when they pick their weekly selections, which by the way you can now see our PiRate Rating Bracketology at the Bracket Matrix, at http://www.bracketmatrix.com/ Our abbreviation there is “Pi.”

There are many additional advanced analytical basketball ratings. Also, you can break down the individual ratings for all of the Four Factors, as well as ratings that calculate individual offensive and defensive efficiency and the Usage Rate, which tries to estimate how much a player is used in his team’s games by looking at what he does while he is in the game. Some teams most efficient players may not have the top usage rates on their teams, while less efficient players get more game usage. Teams can look at these stats and good coaches can adjust their lineups to get their more efficient players more game time, while limiting players that may be harming the team. Then, there are coaches that continue to play the wrong players for too many minutes, while their actual more efficient players don’t play enough. There is a phrase for these coaches that continually do this: We call it “Soon to be unemployed.”

March 3, 2017

PiRate Ratings College Basketball Preview For March 4-5, 2017

This Week’s PiRate Ratings

Games Scheduled for: Saturday, March 4, 2017
Home Visitor Red White Blue
Virginia Pittsburgh 13 15 13
Louisville Notre Dame 10 9 12
Florida St. Miami (Fla.) 10 8 9
Syracuse Georgia Tech 7 10 6
Clemson Boston College 14 13 10
Virginia Tech Wake Forest 2 3 2
North Carolina Duke 9 7 7
SMU Memphis 15 16 16
Kansas St. Texas Tech 5 4 5
Oklahoma TCU 2 2 -1
Texas Baylor -4 -4 -6
Oklahoma St. Kansas 2 -1 -1
Georgetown Villanova -8 -9 -5
St. John’s Providence 1 -1 -1
DePaul Xavier -6 -7 -9
Butler Seton Hall 10 10 10
Marquette Creighton 3 3 1
Rutgers Illinois -3 -3 -5
Ohio St. Indiana 2 1 1
Maryland Michigan St. 4 3 1
Colorado California 2 -1 -3
Utah Stanford 10 10 9
Arizona St. Arizona -9 -10 -11
Oregon St. Oregon -19 -20 -17
USC Washington 12 12 9
UCLA Washington St. 24 25 18
Texas A&M Kentucky -9 -7 -4
Tennessee Alabama 4 3 4
Arkansas Georgia 5 6 2
Vanderbilt Florida -6 -7 -3
Auburn Missouri 10 9 7
LSU Mississippi St. -1 -1 1
Ole Miss South Carolina -2 -1 -3

 

Games Scheduled for: Sunday, March 5, 2017
Home Visitor Red White Blue
Connecticut Cincinnati -6 -7 -4
Iowa Penn St. 6 5 5
Northwestern Purdue 1 -4 -4
Wisconsin Minnesota 5 9 2
Nebraska Michigan -4 -7 -1

 

This Week’s PiRate Ratings Top 25

  1. Villanova
  2. Gonzaga
  3. North Carolina
  4. Kansas
  5. Kentucky
  6. UCLA
  7. Wichita St.
  8. Purdue
  9. Florida
  10. West Virginia
  11. Baylor
  12. Duke
  13. Oregon
  14. Louisville
  15. Saint Mary’s
  16. SMU
  17. Florida St.
  18. Cincinnati
  19. Butler
  20. Virginia
  21. Iowa St.
  22. Oklahoma St.
  23. Wisconsin
  24. Arizona
  25. Creighton

ACC

  1. North Carolina
  2. Duke
  3. Louisville
  4. Florida St.
  5. Virginia
  6. Notre Dame
  7. Wake Forest
  8. Miami (Fla.)
  9. Virginia Tech
  10. Syracuse
  11. Clemson
  12. Georgia Tech
  13. Pittsburgh
  14. North Carolina St.
  15. Boston College

Big 12

  1. Kansas
  2. West Virginia
  3. Baylor
  4. Iowa St.
  5. Oklahoma St.
  6. Texas Tech (tie)
  7. Kansas St. (tie)
  8. TCU
  9. Oklahoma
  10. Texas

Big East

  1. Villanova
  2. Butler
  3. Creighton
  4. Marquette
  5. Providence
  6. Seton Hall
  7. Xavier
  8. Georgetown
  9. St. John’s
  10. DePaul

Big Ten

  1. Purdue
  2. Wisconsin
  3. Maryland
  4. Minnesota
  5. Michigan
  6. Northwestern
  7. Michigan St.
  8. Iowa
  9. Illinois
  10. Indiana
  11. Ohio St.
  12. Penn St.
  13. Nebraska
  14. Rutgers

Pac-12

  1. Oregon
  2. UCLA
  3. Arizona
  4. California
  5. USC
  6. Utah
  7. Colorado
  8. Stanford
  9. Arizona St.
  10. Washington
  11. Washington St.
  12. Oregon St.

SEC

  1. Kentucky
  2. Florida
  3. South Carolina
  4. Arkansas
  5. Georgia
  6. Alabama
  7. Vanderbilt
  8. Ole Miss
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Tennessee
  11. Auburn
  12. Mississippi St.
  13. Missouri
  14. LSU

Current Bubble Teams

Top 10 Bubble Teams (IN THE DANCE)

  1. VCU
  2. Providence
  3. Seton Hall
  4. Marquette
  5. Xavier
  6. USC
  7. Syracuse
  8. Wake Forest 
  9. Illinois
  10. Illinois St.

Top Bubble Teams (OUT OF THE FIELD & NIT-BOUND)

  1. California
  2. Kansas St.
  3. Rhode Island
  4. Georgia
  5. Houston
  6. Georgia Tech
  7. Vanderbilt
  8. TCU
  9. Utah
  10. Iowa

Conference Tournament Update

America East Tournament–Higher Seed at Home
Quarterfinal Round, Wednesday, March 1
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Score  
1 1 Vermont 26-5 vs. 8 Maine 7-24 86-41  
2 2 Stony Brook 17-12 vs. 7 Binghamton 12-19 70-60  
3 3 Albany 19-12 vs. 6 Hartford 9-22 100-71  
4 4 New Hampshire 19-11 vs. 5 Md.-Baltimore Co. 18-11 74-65  
                   
Semifinal Round, Monday, March 6
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
5 1 Vermont 27-5 vs. 4 New Hampshire 20-11 7:00 PM ESPN3
6 2 Stony Brook 18-12 vs. 3 Albany 20-12 7:30 PM ESPN3
                   
Championship Game, Saturday, March 11
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
7   Game 5 winner       Game 6 winner   11:00 AM ESPN2
  * This Tournament Re-seeds after the quarterfinals like the NFL Playoffs
                   
Atlantic Sun Conference Tournament–Higher Seed at Home
Quarterfinal Round, Monday, February 27
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Score  
1 1 Florida Gulf Coast 23-7 vs. 8 Stetson 11-20 87-57  
2 2 Lipscomb 19-12 vs. 7 NJIT 11-19 97-66  
3 3 North Florida 13-18 vs. 6 Jacksonville 17-14 77-74  
4 4 USC-Upstate 17-14 vs. 5 Kennesaw St. 13-17 78-80  
                   
Semifinal Round, Thursday, March 2
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Score  
5 1 Florida Gulf Coast 24-7 vs. 5 Kennesaw St. 14-17 74-62  
6 2 Lipscomb 20-12 vs. 3 North Florida 14-18 85-91  
                   
Championship Game, Sunday, March 5
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
7 1 Florida Gulf Coast 25-7 vs. 3 North Florida 15-18 3:00 PM ESPN
                   
Big South Conference Tournament–1st Round & Championship at Higher Seed, Middle 2 Rounds at #1 Winthrop
1st Round, Tuesday, February 28 (at Higher Seed)
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Score  
1 7 Campbell 14-16 vs. 10 Presbyterian 5-24 81-62  
2 8 Charleston Southern 11-18 vs. 9 Longwood 6-23 79-74  
                   
Quarterfinal Round, Thursday, March 2 (at Winthrop)
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Score  
3 2 UNC-Asheville 23-8 vs. 7 Campbell 15-16 79-81  
4 3 Liberty 19-12 vs. 6 Radford 13-17 52-56  
5 1 Winthrop 23-6 vs. 8 Charleston Southern 12-18 92-78  
6 4 Gardner-Webb 18-13 vs. 5 High Point 15-15 91-55  
                   
Semifinal Round, Friday, March 3 (at Winthrop)
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
7 6 Radford 14-17 vs. 7 Campbell 16-16 6:00 PM ESPN3
8 1 Winthrop 24-6 vs. 4 Gardner-Webb 19-13 8:00 PM ESPN3
                   
Championship Game, Sunday, March 5 (at Higher Seed)
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
9   Game 7 winner   vs.   Game 8 winner   1:00 PM ESPN
                   
Colonial Athletic Association Tournament–Charleston, SC
1st Round, Friday, March 3
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
1 8 Hofstra 15-16 vs. 9 Delaware 12-19 6:00 PM CAA.tv
2 7 James Madison 9-22 vs. 10 Drexel 9-22 8:30 PM CAA.tv
                   
Quarterfinal Round, Saturday, March 4
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
3 1 UNC-Wilmington 26-5 vs.       12:00 PM Comcast SN
4 4 William & Mary 16-13 vs. 5 Elon 18-13 2:30 PM Comcast SN
5 2 College of Charleston 23-8 vs.       6:00 PM Comcast SN
6 3 Towson St. 19-12 vs. 6 Northeastern 15-15 8:30 PM Comcast SN
                   
Semifinal Round, Sunday, March 5
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
7   Game 3 winner   vs.   Game 4 winner   2:00 PM Comcast SN
8   Game 5 winner   vs.   Game 6 winner   4:30 PM Comcast SN
                   
Championship Game, Monday, March 6
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
9   Game 7 winner   vs.   Game 8 winner   7:00 PM CBSSN
                   
Horizon League Tournament (Motor City Madness)–Detroit
1st Round, Friday, March 3
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
1 7 Detroit Mercy 8-22 vs. 10 Milwaukee 8-23 5:30 PM ESPN3
2 8 Cleveland St. 9-21 vs. 9 Youngstown St. 11-20 8:00 PM ESPN3
                   
Quarterfinal Round–Day 1, Saturday, March 4
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
3 1 Oakland 24-7 vs.   Game 2 winner   5:30 PM ESPN3
4 2 Valparaiso 24-7 vs.   Game 1 winner   8:00 PM ESPN3
                   
Quarterfinal Round–Day 2, Sunday, March 5
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
5 3 Green Bay 18-12 vs. 6 Illinois-Chicago 14-17 5:00 PM ESPN3
6 4 Northern Kentucky 21-10 vs. 5 Wright St. 20-11 7:30 PM ESPN3
                   
Semifinal Round, Monday, March 6
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
7   Game 3 winner   vs.   Game 6 winner   7:00 PM ESPNU
8   Game 4 winner   vs.   Game 5 winner   9:30 PM ESPNU
                   
Championship Game, Tuesday, March 7
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
9   Game 7 winner   vs.   Game 8 winner   7:00 PM ESPN
                   
Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference Tournament at Albany (Siena)
1st Round, Thursday, March 2
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Score  
1 8 Quinnipiac 10-20 vs. 9 Niagara 9-22 69-88  
2 7 Canisius 17-14 vs. 10 Marist 8-23 77-73  
3 6 Rider 17-14 vs. 11 Manhattan 10-21 69-68  
                   
Quarterfinal Round–Day 1, Friday, March 3
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
4 1 Mounmouth 26-5 vs. 9 Niagara 10-22 7:00 PM ESPN3
5 2 St. Peter’s 18-12 vs. 7 Canisius 18-14 9:30 PM ESPN3
                   
Quarterfinal Round–Day 2, Saturday, March 4
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
6 3 Iona 19-12 vs. 6 Rider 18-14 7:00 PM ESPN3
7 4 Siena 15-16 vs. 5 Fairfield 16-13 9:30 PM ESPN3
                   
Semifinal Round–Sunday, March 5
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
8   Game 4 winner   vs.   Game 7 winner   4:30 PM ESPN3
9   Game 5 winner   vs.   Game 6 winner   7:00 PM ESPN3
                   
Championship Game–Monday, March 6
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
10   Game 8 winner   vs.   Game 9 winner   9:00 PM ESPN2
                   
Mideast Athletic Conference Tournament at Norfolk, VA (Norfolk St.)
1st Round, Day 1–Monday, March 6
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
1 5 Maryland-Eastern Shore 12-19 vs. 12 N. Carolina A&T 3-28 5:00 PM ESPN3
2 6 Coppin St. 8-23 vs. 11 Howard 8-23 7:00 PM ESPN3
                   
1st Round, Day 2–Tuesday, March 7
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
3 8 Delaware St. 10-21 vs. 9 Bethune-Cookman 9-21 4:00 PM ESPN3
4 7 South Carolina St. 10-19 vs. 10 Florida A&M 7-22 6:00 PM ESPN3
                   
Quarterfinal Round. Day 1, March 8
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
5 1 UNC-Central 22-8 vs.   Game 3 winner   6:00 PM ESPN3
6 2 Norfolk St. 15-15 vs.   Game 4 winner   8:00 PM ESPN3
                   
Quarterfinal Round. Day 2, March 9
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
7 3 Morgan St. 14-15 vs.   Game 2 winner   6:00 PM ESPN3
8 4 Hampton 14-15 vs.   Game 1 winner   8:00 PM ESPN3
                   
Semifinal Round, March 10
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
9   Game 5 winner   vs.   Game 8 winner   6:00 PM ESPN3
10   Game 6 winner   vs.   Game 7 winner   8:00 PM ESPN3
                   
Championship Game, March 11
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
11   Game 9 winner   vs.   Game 10 winner   1:00 PM ESPN2
                   
Missouri Valley Conference Tournament (Arch Madness) at St. Louis
1st Round, Thursday, March 2
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Score  
1 8 Evansville 15-16 vs. 9 Indiana St. 11-19 83-72  
2 7 Bradley 12-19 vs. 10 Drake 7-23 67-58  
                   
Quarterfinal Round, Friday, March 3
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
3 1 Illinois St. 25-5 vs. 8 Evansville 16-16 1:00 PM MVC TV
4 4 Southern Illinois 16-15 vs. 5 Loyola (Chi.) 18-13 3:30 PM MVC TV
5 2 Wichita St. 27-4 vs. 7 Bradley 13-19 7:00 PM MVC TV
6 3 Northern Iowa 14-15 vs. 6 Missouri St. 16-15 9:30 PM MVC TV
                   
Semifinal Round, Saturday, March 4
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
7   Game 3 winner   vs.   Game 4 winner   3:30 PM CBSSN
8   Game 5 winner   vs.   Game 6 winner   6:00 PM CBSSN
                   
Championship Game, Sunday, March 5
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
9   Game 7 winner   vs.   Game 8 winner   2:00 PM CBS
                   
Northeast Conference Tournament–All Games at Higher Seed
Quarterfinal Round, Wednesday, March 1
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Score  
1 1 Mount St. Mary’s 16-15 vs. 8 Sacred Heart 13-18 76-73  
2 2 Long Island 20-11 vs. 7 Robert Morris 13-18 68-69  
3 3 Wagner 15-13 vs. 6 Fairleigh-Dickinson 11-18 72-70  
4 4 St. Francis (PA) 14-15 vs. 5 Bryant 12-19 100-78  
                   
Semifinal Round, Saturday, March 4
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
5 1 Mount St. Mary’s 17-15 vs. 7 Robert Morris 14-18 12 or 2 PM MSG/FCS
6 3 Wagner 16-13 vs. 4 St. Francis (PA) 15-15 12 or 2 PM MSG/FCS
                   
Championship Game, Tuesday, March 7
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
7   Game 5 winner       Game 6 winner   11:00 AM ESPN2
  * This Tournament Re-seeds after the quarterfinals like the NFL Playoffs
                   
Ohio Valley Conference Tournament at Nashville
1st Round, Wednesday, March 1
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Score  
1 5 Southeast Missouri 14-17 vs. 8 Tennessee St. 17-12 78-75 ot  
2 6 Tennessee Tech 12-19 vs. 7 Murray St. 14-16 84-85 2ot  
                   
Quarterfinal Round, Thursday, March 2
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Score  
3 4 Jacksonville St. 17-14 vs. 5 Southeast Missouri 15-17 74-51  
4 3 Morehead St. 14-15 vs. 7 Murray St. 15-16 69-75  
                   
Semifinal Round, Friday, March 3
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
5 1 Belmont 22-5 vs. 4 Jacksonville St. 18-14 7:30 PM ESPNU
6 2 UT-Martin 20-11 vs. 7 Murray St. 16-16 10:00 PM ESPNU
                   
Championship Game, Saturday, March 4
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
7   Game 5 winner       Game 6 winner   8:00 PM ESPN2
                   
Patriot League Tournament–All Games at Higher Seed
1st Round, Tuesday, February 28
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Score  
1 7 Loyola (MD.) 14-15 vs. 10 Lafayette 9-20 67-64  
2 8 Army 12-18 vs. 9 American 8-21 74-58  
                   
Quarterfinal Round, Thursday, March 2
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Score  
3 2 Boston U 23-8 vs. 7 Loyola (MD.) 15-15 64-60  
4 3 Lehigh 19-12 vs. 6 Colgate 10-21 77-72  
5 1 Bucknell 23-6 vs. 8 Army 13-18 78-62  
6 4 Navy 18-13 vs. 5 Holy Cross 15-16 49-42  
                   
Semifinal Round, Sunday, March 5
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
7 2 Boston U 24-8 vs. 3 Lehigh 20-12 12 or 2 PM CBSSN
8 1 Bucknell 24-6 vs. 4 Navy 19-13 12 or 2 PM CBSSN
                   
Championship Game, Wednesday, March 8
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
9   Game 7 winner   vs.   Game 8 winner   7:30 PM CBSSN
                   
Southern Conference Tournament–Asheville, NC
1st Round, Friday, March 3
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
1 8 Western Carolina 9-22 vs. 9 The Citadel 11-20 5:00 PM ESPN3
2 7 Samford 17-14 vs. 10 VMI 6-23 7:30 PM ESPN3
                   
Quarterfinal Round, Saturday, March 4
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
3 1 UNC-Greensboro 23-8 vs.   Game 1 winner   12:00 PM ESPN3
4 4 Chattanooga 19-11 vs. 5 Wofford 15-16 2:30 PM ESPN3
5 2 Furman 21-10 vs.   Game 2 winner   6:00 PM ESPN3
6 3 East Tennessee St. 24-7 vs. 6 Mercer 15-16 8:30 PM ESPN3
                   
Semifinal Round, Sunday, March 5
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
7   Game 3 winner   vs.   Game 4 winner   5:00 PM ESPN3
8   Game 5 winner   vs.   Game 6 winner   7:30 PM ESPN3
                   
Championship Game, Monday, March 6
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
9   Game 7 winner   vs.   Game 8 winner   7:00 PM ESPN2
                   
Summit League Tournament–Sioux Falls, SD
Quarterfinal Round–Day 1, Saturday, March 4
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
1 1 South Dakota 21-10   8 Western Illinois 8-19 7:00 PM ESPN3
2 2 North Dakota St. 19-10   7 IUPUI 13-17 9:30 PM ESPN3
                   
Quarterfinal Round–Day 2, Sunday, March 5
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
3 4 South Dakota St. 15-16   5 Denver 16-13 7:00 PM ESPN3
4 3 Omaha 16-13   6 Fort Wayne 19-11 9:30 PM ESPN3
                   
Semifinal Round–Monday, March 6
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
5   Game 1 winner       Game 3 winner   7:00 PM ESPN3
6   Game 2 winner       Game 4 winner   9:30 PM ESPN3
                   
Championship–Tuesday, March 7
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
7   Game 5 winner       Game 6 winner   9:00 PM ESPN2
                   
West Coast Conference Tournament at Las Vegas
1st Round, Friday, March 3
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
1 8 Pepperdine 9-21 vs. 9 Pacific 10-21 BYUtv 9:00 PM
2 7 San Diego 13-17 vs. 10 Portland 10-21 BYUtv 11:00 PM
                   
Quarterfinal Round, Saturday, March 4
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
3 3 BYU 21-10 vs. 6 Loyola Marymount 15-14 4:00 PM BYUtv
4 4 Santa Clara 16-15 vs. 5 San Francisco 20-11 6:00 PM BYUtv
5 1 Gonzaga 29-1 vs.   Game 1 winner   10:00 PM ESPN2
6 2 Saint Mary’s 26-3 vs.   Game 2 winner   12:00 AM ESPN2
                   
Semifinal Round, Monday, March 6
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
7   Game 3 winner   vs.   Game 4 winner   9 or 11:30 ESPN/ESPN2
8   Game 5 winner   vs.   Game 6 winner   9 or 11:30 ESPN/ESPN2
                   
Championship Game, Tuesday, March 7
Gm # Seed Team W-L vs. Seed Team W-L Time TV
9   Game 7 winner   vs.   Game 8 winner   9:00 PM ESPN

 

 

February 17, 2017

PiRate Ratings College Basketball Preview For February 18-19, 2017

 

Games Scheduled for: Saturday, February 18, 2017
Home Visitor Red White Blue
Miami (Fla.) Clemson 3 5 5
North Carolina St. Notre Dame -7 -5 -4
Duke Wake Forest 9 11 10
Louisville Virginia Tech 14 14 15
Pittsburgh Florida St. -1 -5 -4
North Carolina Virginia 6 4 2
Cincinnati Tulsa 16 17 14
Houston SMU -1 1 -1
Baylor Kansas 2 2 7
Texas Kansas St. -1 1 2
West Virginia Texas Tech 14 12 9
Iowa St. TCU 8 8 4
Oklahoma St. Oklahoma 14 11 13
Seton Hall Villanova -7 -8 -5
Marquette Xavier 3 3 -1
Iowa Illinois 6 3 1
Purdue Michigan St. 13 13 8
Northwestern Rutgers 13 11 9
Ohio St. Nebraska 6 7 5
Wichita St. Northern Iowa 20 17 18
Oregon Colorado 12 15 18
Washington St. Arizona St. -2 -1 3
Washington Arizona -10 -10 -9
UCLA USC 12 12 9
Tennessee Missouri 14 12 15
Mississippi St. Florida -12 -11 -10
Alabama LSU 12 12 10
Texas A&M Auburn 4 4 8
Arkansas Ole Miss 7 7 5
Georgia Kentucky -7 -7 -4
Vanderbilt South Carolina -2 1 2
Gonzaga Pacific 34 27 29
BYU Saint Mary’s -3 -5 -5

 

Games Scheduled for: Sunday, February 19, 2017
Home Visitor Red White Blue
Georgia Tech Syracuse 1 -3 2
Butler DePaul 19 18 21
Creighton Georgetown 9 8 5
Wisconsin Maryland 7 8 4
Minnesota Michigan 4 1 6
Illinois St. Loyola (Chi.) 10 8 8
Oregon St. Utah -13 -10 -11

PiRate Ratings Top 25

  1. Gonzaga
  2. Villanova
  3. Kansas
  4. West Virginia
  5. Louisville
  6. North Carolina
  7. Florida
  8. Kentucky
  9. Virginia
  10. Duke
  11. Purdue
  12. Florida St.
  13. Baylor
  14. UCLA
  15. Wichita St.
  16. Oregon
  17. Saint Mary’s
  18. SMU
  19. Arizona
  20. Creighton
  21. Wisconsin
  22. Oklahoma St.
  23. Cincinnati
  24. Butler
  25. Notre Dame

 

ACC

  1. Louisville
  2. North Carolina
  3. Virginia
  4. Duke
  5. Florida St.
  6. Notre Dame
  7. Wake Forest
  8. Miami (Fla.)
  9. Clemson
  10. Syracuse
  11. Virginia Tech
  12. Georgia Tech
  13. Pittsburgh
  14. North Carolina St.
  15. Boston College

Big 12

  1. Kansas
  2. West Virginia
  3. Baylor
  4. Oklahoma St.
  5. Iowa St.
  6. TCU
  7. Kansas St.
  8. Texas Tech
  9. Oklahoma
  10. Texas

Big East

  1. Villanova
  2. Creighton
  3. Butler
  4. Marquette
  5. Xavier
  6. Seton Hall
  7. Providence
  8. Georgetown
  9. St. John’s
  10. DePaul

Big Ten

  1. Purdue
  2. Wisconsin
  3. Maryland
  4. Northwestern
  5. Minnesota
  6. Michigan
  7. Indiana
  8. Michigan St.
  9. Iowa
  10. Ohio St.
  11. Illinois
  12. Penn St.
  13. Nebraska
  14. Rutgers

Pac-12

  1. UCLA
  2. Oregon
  3. Arizona
  4. California
  5. Utah
  6. USC
  7. Colorado
  8. Stanford
  9. Washington
  10. Arizona St.
  11. Washington St.
  12. Oregon St.

SEC

  1. Florida
  2. Kentucky
  3. South Carolina
  4. Arkansas
  5. Tennessee
  6. Georgia
  7. Alabama
  8. Ole Miss
  9. Vanderbilt
  10. Texas A&M
  11. Auburn
  12. Mississippi St.
  13. Missouri
  14. LSU

Friday Night Games You Might Want To Watch

Don’t wait until Saturday to start following basketball games, because there are some interesting Friday night games this week.

Starting at 7 PM EST tonight, tune into ESPN2 to see Valparaiso visit Oakland in a battle of the top two teams in the Horizon League.  Alec Peters may be the best Mid-Major player you have not seen.  Peters averages 23.1 points per game and 10.7 rebounds a game for Valpo, and he is an excellent passer similar to Bill Walton in his UCLA days.

Earlier in the season, Oakland won by 12 at Valpo, never allowing the Crusaders to take a lead in the entire game.  Oakland guard Martez Walker put the game away in the opening minutes of the second half with a salvo of baskets while also being a force on the glass.

 

There are two important Ivy League games tonight.  Columbia visits Harvard in a game the Lions need to show they belong with the top three in the league.  Princeton, Harvard, and Yale are locks to make the four-team Ivy League Tournament, but Columbia still has work to do and has a weekend road set with Harvard and Dartmouth after losing at Penn and Princeton last weekend.  This game will be on ESPN3 at 7 PM EST.  Two more losses this weekend, and Columbia could be tied for fourth rather in fourth by two games over the lower division.

At 8 PM EST on ESPN3, Princeton visits Yale.  If the Tigers can get by the Bulldogs tonight, their chance of wrapping up the top seed in the Ivy League’s first ever tournament will be about 98%, since they already won at Harvard.  PU is riding an 11-game winning streak.

 

At 9 PM EST on ESPN2, Virginia Commonwealth visits Richmond in a big Atlantic 10 game.  VCU is in first place in the league, but the Rams need a resume boost to guarantee a possible at-large bid if they do not earn the automatic invitation.  Richmond has no signature wins, and the Spiders will have to run the table in the A-10 Tournament to get back to the Dance.

 

At 10 PM EST, California travels west across the Bay to take on Stanford at Maples Pavilion in a game that could move the Bears into safe at-large territory if they can take down their rival.  This game will air on FS1.  Coach Cuonzo Martin’s teams tend to become tougher defensively and gel as a team in the second half of the year, and this Bear team is 8-2 in its last 10 games with the two losses coming at Oregon and at Arizona.  Three weeks ago in Berkeley, 6-11 Ivan Rabb was unstoppable, hitting a couple of threes from the top of the key and getting some in-your-face baskets at the rim, as his 25 points destroyed the Cardinal.

 

Saturday’s Best Games

Kansas at Baylor 1 PM EST on CBS

Kentucky at Georgia 6 PM EST on ESPN

TCU at Iowa St. 6 PM EST on ESPNEWS

SMU at Houston 6 PM EST on ESPN2

Xavier at Marquette 8 PM EST on CBSSN

Virginia at North Carolina 8:15 PM EST on ESPN

USC at UCLA 10 PM EST on Pac-12 Network

Saint Mary’s at BYU 10 PM EST on ESPN2

 

Gonzaga 2017 vs. Wichita State 2014

Current undefeated and top-ranked Gonzaga reminds many fans of the 2014 Wichita State team that ran the table and earned the regular season number one ranking prior to entering NCAA Tournament action as the top seed.  That Shocker team beat only one top team that season, winning at Tennessee.  The Vols would go on to make the Sweet 16, before falling to Michigan by a bucket.

This year’s Gonzaga team has a slightly better schedule resume.  The Bulldogs own neutral court victories of Florida, Iowa State, and Arizona in an 8-day period just after Thanksgiving.  The Zags also swept top 20 Saint Mary’s by 23 and 10 points.

Let’s take a look at the Four Factors comparison between the two teams.

Effective Field Goal Percentage

Gonzaga has the clear advantage here.  The Bulldogs current EFG% is 58.1%.  Their regular FG% is 51.6%, and they are hitting 39% of their three-point attempts.  Defensively, GU gives up an EFG% of just 41.7%, for an EFG% margin of 16.4%, the best in the nation.

In 2014, Wichita State was quite good in this factor, but they were not as good as GU this year.  The Shockers’ EFG% was 52.6%, as there were games where they could not hit from outside 10 feet until the last 5-8 minutes of the second half.  Their defensive EFG% was very good at 44.6% for an EFG% margin of 8.0%.  It was not in the top 10 in the nation that year.

 

Turnover Rate

This factor is a wash between the two undefeated teams.  Gonzaga has a current TO rate of 13.8 and a defensive TO rate of 16.1 for a margin of 2.3%

Wichita State had a TO rate of 13.6 and a defensive TO rate of 16.3 for a margin of 2.7%.

 

Rebound Rate

This is where Wichita State had a major advantage.  The Shockers had an Offensive Rebound Rate of 35.0, which was very good, while their Defensive Rebound Rate was an excellent 26.0 for a Rebound Rate margin of 9.0%.  The Shockers did not have a dominant rebounder, but their three guards rebounded like power forwards.

 

Gonzaga has an Offensive Rebound Rate of 31.1 and a Defensive Rebound Rate of 27.0 for a Rebound Rate margin of 4.1.  The Bulldogs have won the battle of the boards in a large majority of their games thanks to the two-headed seven-foot dominators combining for 11 boards a game.  While the Bulldogs are quite good in this factor, Wichita State was dominant.

 

Free Throw Rate

This is the least important of the Four Factors, but it is still important just by being one of the four factors.  Gonzaga has one of the best FT Rate margins in the nation this year, and the reason is that opponents are forced to foul Gonzaga’s big dominating centers inside to prevent easy baskets.

GU’s offensive FT Rate is 22.9, and their defensive FT Rate is 15.3 for a FT Rate margin of 7.6%.  As good as this number is, 2014 Wichita State had one of the best FT Rates of all time.  Their Offensive FT Rate was 28.4, while their Defensive FT Rate was 18.8 for a FT Rate margin of 9.6%!

 

Other Factors

These factors were made under slightly different strengths of schedule.  Gonzaga’s current SOS averages about 2 points per game better than Wichita’s SOS from 2014.  This even includes Wichita’s game against Kentucky, which put an end to the undefeated season in the Round of 32 in the NCAA Tournament.

The PiRate R+T ratings for both teams is a wash.  Gonzaga’s current R+T is 20.4, while Wichita State’s was 21.2.  Both teams received ample extra scoring opportunities due to superior rebounding and turnovers (with an emphasis on steals).

There is virtually no difference in quality depth, as both teams could go two deep at every position.

 

Wichita State’s Season Ended

The Shockers won their first NCAA Tournament game by 27 points over 16-seed Cal Poly.  Then they fell by 2 to Kentucky in the next round.  Kentucky won because Wichita State lacked the overall quickness to prevent numerous open shots by the Wildcats on both the perimeter and through penetration.  John Calipari adjusted well at halftime when Wichita State enjoyed a 6-point lead, and a 10-0 UK run in a three-minute stretch at the start of the second half gave Kentucky the lead.  Trailing by two with seven seconds left, Wichita State had a chance to tie or win the game, but Fred Van Vleet’s contested three-pointer from 21 feet out bricked off the backboard.

 

Gonzaga’s Vulnerability

It is difficult for some to understand that an undefeated team with a scoring margin of 23.8 points per game could really be vulnerable, but even the 1972 UCLA Bruins had a few liabilities.  Gonzaga is not unbeatable, as all college teams (even the UConn women’s team) can be defeated, even if it is not that likely.

A good pressure defense team can disrupt the Bulldogs enough to provide an opening to score some cheap baskets off steals and to force GU into foul trouble.  Florida almost had enough in the defensive tank to pull it off, but Gonzaga still won thanks to hot inside-outside shooting from Josh Perkins and Jonathan Williams, while the Bulldog defense stuck to the Gators like glue, forcing UF to shoot just 36.9% from the field and a pitiful 10.5% from behind the arc.

Gonzaga does not always put an opponent away once they have taken a double-digit lead.  They almost saw Iowa State come back from a 15-point halftime deficit and 18-point 2nd half deficit, as Iowa State’s Deonte Burton brought the Cyclones back to within a point with multiple chances to take the lead in the final minute.  ISU had a shot to win at the buzzer and could not get the shot off.  If GU does not help out on defense, a star player can possibly end the Bulldogs’ season in the Big Dance.

Our Take

We believe Gonzaga is clearly better than the 2014 Wichita State team.  If they enter the NCAA Tournament with a 33-0 record (which we believe is about 95% possible), they will obviously be a #1 seed.  The first game against a #16 seed should be no problem, and we cannot see any possible #8 or #9 seed finding a way to beat them two days later.

Once they get to the Sweet 16, there could be some teams capable of beating the Zags, but only if either Gonzaga lays a big egg or the opponent plays lights out.  The possible #4 or #5 seeds that could pose a problem for GU include West Virginia, Cincinnati, SMU, and South Carolina.  All four of these teams can force Gonzaga to turn the ball over and alter their offense to a point where they must shoot poor shots late in the shot clock.

If Gonzaga makes it to the Elite 8, there will be somebody like Louisville, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia, Duke, or North Carolina in their path.  All of these teams can beat Gonzaga half the time, so it would be considered a 50-50 game against any of these teams.

Looking at the Final Four if GU finally makes it to there, we actually do not think the other potential number one seeds are the teams likely to beat the Bulldogs.  Villanova, Kansas, and Baylor will not match up well with GU.  It will be another team, like one of the teams mentioned in the Elite 8 paragraph that will stop the undefeated streak–if it is stopped.

 

Since Indiana last blitzed the field in 1975-76 (and Rutgers made it to the Final Four undefeated), Indiana State in 1979, UNLV in 1991, and Kentucky in 2015, made it to the Final Four unbeaten, and none of the three won the title.

Indiana State was clearly not up to Michigan State’s talent level as Larry Bird could not beat Magic Johnson plus Greg Kelser plus 5 or 6 other really good Spartans.

UNLV met a really good Duke team that probably would not have beaten the Runnin’ Rebels more than 2 times out of 10.  However, the Blue Devils had been dealt a major black eye with the worst ever National Championship Game loss to UNLV the year before, and they came out punching.

Kentucky ran up against a much more poised and mature Wisconsin team, one in which the Badgers players had ma lot more NCAA Tournament experience.  UW played a smart game; they forced Kentucky to beat them by doing something other than one-on-one dribble drives and feeds when faced with double-teams.  The UK players did not come out punching, and their defense was subpar that night.

In Gonzaga’s favor, they are not a one-man team like Indiana State (Carl Nicks was good but not a star).  They will not face an opponent that has a grudge from losing by 30+ points the last time they played, but Florida and Arizona might know a little more about what it will take to win if there is a rematch in the Dance.  The Bulldogs are not an inexperienced team lacking maturity that will fall to a more experienced, more mature team, because Mark Few has too many mature players on this team for that to happen.

If Gonzaga loses in the NCAA Tournament, it will be because the other team has equal or superior talent and plays well enough with that talent to win.  Otherwise, GU will become the next undefeated national champion.

The PiRates say that Gonzaga has a 1 in 12 chance of going 39-0 and winning the national title and maybe a 1 in 11.8 chance of just winning the national title.  We believe they have a 1 in 3 chance of making it to the Final Four.

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.