The Pi-Rate Ratings

April 1, 2016

PiRate Ratings Final Four Statistical Preview

Team Team Red White Blue
Villanova Oklahoma 2 1 2
North Carolina Syracuse 9 7 11

 

Four Factors

Team EFG DEFG OR% DOR% TO% DTU% FT* DFT*
Villanova 55.2 46.8 28.4 28.6 16.3 20.5 22.2 16.8
Oklahoma 54.8 46.4 30.8 30.4 18.0 17.7 20.2 16.6
Syracuse 50.1 47.0 33.4 34.8 18.2 20.4 21.3 16.4
North Carolina 52.5 47.7 40.3 30.0 15.2 18.5 22.3 18.4

 

PiRate Criteria

Team PPG DPPG Mar. FG-M Rb-M TO-M R+T WLRd SOS
Villanova 77.5 63.6 13.9 7.1 1.9 2.8 10.3 18-4 58.54
Oklahoma 80.5 70.4 10.1 5.6 2.3 -0.3 6.5 15-6 58.74
Syracuse 70.1 64.6 5.5 1.7 -0.7 1.5 3.9 10-9 56.21
North Carolina 83.0 69.9 13.1 6.9 8.4 2.2 22.8 17-5 57.74

 

March 16, 2016

PiRate Ratings For NCAA Tournament Round of 64

Thursday, March 17        
Higher Seed Lower Seed Red White Blue
Kansas Austin Peay 22 23 31
Colorado Connecticut -3 -2 -4
Arizona Wichita St. 1 4 1
Miami Buffalo 12 13 14
Baylor Yale 3 3 11
Duke UNC-Wilmington 6 8 12
North Carolina Florida Gulf Coast 19 21 25
USC Providence 1 1 3
Indiana Chattanooga 10 8 11
Kentucky Stony Brook 11 10 10
Virginia Hampton 20 25 33
Texas Tech Butler -1 -1 -2
Purdue UALR 6 7 17
Iowa St. Iona 8 10 13
Seton Hall Gonzaga 1 -1 -1
Utah Fresno St. 7 8 15
     
Friday, March 18        
Higher Seed Lower Seed Red White Blue
Maryland South Dakota St. 6 7 8
California Hawaii 5 6 11
Iowa Temple 8 6 9
Villanova UNC-Asheville 13 14 22
Oregon Holy Cross 22 25 35
St. Joseph’s Cincinnati 1 -2 1
Texas Northern Iowa 5 6 10
Texas A&M Green Bay 9 12 18
Oregon St. VCU -2 -4 -4
Oklahoma Cal State Bakersfield 11 13 20
Notre Dame Michigan 2 3 1
West Virginia Stephen F. Austin 6 8 12
Wisconsin Pittsburgh 1 1 -1
Xavier Weber St. 13 13 17
Dayton Syracuse -1 -1 2
Michigan St. Middle Tennessee 16 16 21

March 15, 2016

2016 NCAA Tournament Bracket Selection

The PiRate Ratings have been in existence for more than 40 years.  Only in the last 14, have we included college basketball in our menu, and only in the last 11 years, have we presented this website to the public.  In that time, there is one day each year where more people congregate to this site than on any other day.  It’s not the Super Bowl week, or the eve of the New Year’s Day Bowl games.  For many years running, it is this day and this entry that has brought more people here than any other.  Bracket picking has become part of the American and even international culture to the point where people that do not normally follow basketball can be found filling out brackets like they are scratching the $2 lottery cards.

 

One day more than a decade ago, our founder had some time on his hands, and he started researching the past statistics of the NCAA Basketball Champions.  Then, he began copying their statistics to a spreadsheet.  It then expanded to include all the Final Four teams, and eventually included the top teams in the nation that lost unexpectedly.

 

What he discovered was that there were specific statistical similarities in the Final Four teams and National Champions of past years.  Looking at that year’s NCAA Field, he isolated three of the Final Four teams by examining each team’s statistics and comparing them to Final Four teams of the past.

 

In 2006, this system found George Mason as a dark horse contender and in another medium, our founder wrote that the Patriots were a team to watch out for as a legitimate Final Four contender.  Overnight, the system was “discovered” by other media outlets that brought our founder a lot of notoriety, and when he started this site, many that had followed him, or had seen his system reported on by Yahoo and Fox, came here.

 

Now that the history lesson is over, let’s get into the meat of this system.  You can read about it more in depth in Monday’s submission:  https://piratings.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/bracketnomics-505-the-advanced-level-course-in-bracket-picking-2/

 

These are our criteria points.

  1. A scoring margin of 8 or more points, with special credit going to 10 or more points
  2. A field goal % margin of 7.5% or more  with special credit going to 10% or more
  3. A rebound margin of 5 or more
  4. A positive turnover margin (meaning they force more than they commit)
  5. An average of 7 or more steals per game
  6. An R+T Rating of 15 or more (the Bracketnomics 505 post for an explanation of R+T
  7. A member of a Power Conference and a Strength of Schedule of 54.00 or more
  8. A Won-Loss percentage in away and neutral games of 75% or more
  9. A 10-game winning streak or 2, 6-game winning streaks during the season

Let’s get to it.  Here are the teams that qualify under each criterion.  Remember, as you look at these statistical criteria, that there is a large caveat.  The Stephen F. Austin’s and Stony Brook’s had schedules on average that were 10-15 points weaker than the Michigan State’s and Kansas’s.  Do not look at this data and make conclusions that are not meant to be made.  We will put the data into a bracket-picker for you at the conclusion.

Scoring Margin

Team PPG D PPG Mar.
Stephen F. Austin 80.7 63.2 17.6
Michigan St. 79.8 63.4 16.4
Wichita St. 73.2 59.3 14.0
Kansas 81.6 67.6 13.9
Gonzaga 79.7 66.2 13.5
Indiana 82.3 68.9 13.4
Stony Brook 76.8 63.4 13.4
Villanova 77.0 63.7 13.3
Purdue 77.7 64.6 13.1
North Carolina 82.3 69.5 12.8
West Virginia 79.2 66.6 12.6
Arizona 81.2 68.9 12.3
Yale 75.2 63.1 12.0
Kentucky 79.7 68.3 11.4
UALR 70.9 59.6 11.3
Hawaii 77.6 66.5 11.1
Virginia 70.4 59.7 10.7
Texas A&M 75.9 65.5 10.4
Connecticut 73.4 63.1 10.3
Cincinnati 73.2 62.9 10.3
Xavier 81.3 71.0 10.3
Duke 79.1 68.8 10.3
Oklahoma 80.4 70.4 10.0
VCU 77.2 67.3 9.9
Weber St. 76.7 66.9 9.9
Cal State Bakersfield 73.0 63.2 9.8
Maryland 76.1 66.3 9.8
Oregon 78.8 69.1 9.7
Butler 80.6 71.2 9.4
Vanderbilt 76.8 67.3 9.4
Iowa 78.1 68.7 9.4
Chattanooga 75.8 66.6 9.2
Miami 75.6 66.8 8.8
South Dakota St. 76.3 67.8 8.5
Utah 77.6 69.1 8.5
UNC-Asheville 75.6 67.5 8.2
Pittsburgh 76.0 67.9 8.1
California 75.1 67.0 8.1

 

Field Goal % Margin

Team FG-M
Michigan St. 10.7
Kansas 9.8
Gonzaga 8.7
Purdue 8.0
Maryland 8.0
Kentucky 7.8
Connecticut 7.8
Utah 7.6
Vanderbilt 7.5

 

Rebound Margin

Team Rb-M
Michigan St. 11.7
Yale 11.1
Purdue 10.6
Arizona 9.2
Colorado 8.9
West Virginia 8.4
North Carolina 8.3
Baylor 7.9
Stony Brook 7.8
Xavier 7.5
Pittsburgh 7.4
Gonzaga 7.3
Indiana 7.3
California 6.7
Kentucky 5.4
South Dakota St. 5.4
Dayton 5.3
Kansas 5.2
Hampton 5.1
Florida Gulf Coast 5.0

 

Turnover Margin

Team TO-M
Stephen F. Austin 6.2
Wichita St. 5.5
Green Bay 4.8
Fresno St. 4.3
West Virginia 4.1
VCU 4.0
UNC-Wilmington 3.8
Tulsa 3.5
UALR 3.5
Cal State Bakersfield 3.1
Providence 3.1
Butler 2.9
Cincinnati 2.8
Oregon 2.8
Villanova 2.7
Iowa 2.7
UNC-Asheville 2.7
Virginia 2.7
Southern 2.6
Texas A&M 2.6
Fairleigh Dickinson 2.4
Duke 2.4
North Carolina 2.2
Holy Cross 2.2
Michigan 2.1
Texas 2.1
Oregon St. 2.1
Northern Iowa 2.0
Temple 1.9
Chattanooga 1.8
Hawaii 1.5
Syracuse 1.4
Middle Tennessee 1.4
Stony Brook 1.4
Xavier 1.4
St. Joseph’s 1.3
Iona 1.3
Kentucky 1.3
Wisconsin 1.2
Connecticut 1.1
Miami 1.0
Kansas 0.9
Iowa St. 0.8
Baylor 0.8
Texas Tech 0.8
South Dakota St. 0.3
USC 0.2

 

Steals

Team Avg. 
West Virginia 9.9
Green Bay 9.5
UNC-Asheville 9.3
Stephen F. Austin 9.1
VCU 8.8
Fresno St. 8.2
Syracuse 8.1
Cal State Bakersfield 8.0
Cincinnati 7.9
Baylor 7.9
Hawaii 7.9
Chattanooga 7.8
Oregon 7.6
Fairleigh Dickinson 7.6
Iona 7.6
UNC-Wilmington 7.5
Southern 7.5
Oregon St. 7.5
Xavier 7.3
Seton Hall 7.3
Wichita St. 7.2

 

R+T

If you read our post yesterday, you  must know by now that the R+T rating is as valuable in the NCAA Tournament as raw meat at the tiger’s exhibit at the zoo.  No team wins the national title with low R+T ratings, and teams with negative and very low R+T ratings exit the tournament quickly.

This season, no major conference teams enter the Dance with negative R+T ratings.   However, there are a handful with low positive R+T ratings.

Unlike the other criteria, we include every team in this criterion.  It is PiRate Gold.  Basically, the higher the number, the more this team is likely to score easy baskets during the game and prevent the opponent from scoring.  When players tend to be tight at the beginning of the tournament, R+T ratings can tell you which are most likely to get dunks and layups, two shots that stay true when outside jumpers and even close-in jumpers tend to be off.  Also, when two excellent defensive teams face off against each other, and baskets are hard to come by, the high R+T teams will score some “cheap” points and most likely be the winner.

Remember, like in all other criteria here, schedule strength and power conference membership are as equally important at R+T rating and must be considered as the co-primary factor.

Team R+T
Michigan St. 26.7
West Virginia 25.3
Yale 23.4
North Carolina 22.4
Purdue 20.9
Stony Brook 20.7
Arizona 20.3
Baylor 20.0
Xavier 19.9
Wichita St. 19.7
Stephen F. Austin 18.2
Pittsburgh 17.5
Indiana 17.3
Cincinnati 17.2
Kentucky 16.7
Colorado 16.6
Gonzaga 16.5
Cal State Bakersfield 15.9
   
Near Qualifiers  
Hawaii 14.8
Texas A&M 14.7
Butler 14.6
Kansas 14.6
Oregon 14.4
Dayton 14.1
VCU 14.0
   
Good R+T  
South Dakota St. 13.9
California 13.9
Virginia 13.2
Florida Gulf Coast 12.8
Fresno St. 12.4
Chattanooga 12.3
Hampton 11.7
St. Joseph’s 11.2
UNC-Asheville 11.2
Wisconsin 11.1
UNC-Wilmington 10.6
Seton Hall 10.5
Villanova 10.0
   
Best of the Rest  
Miami 9.5
Iowa 9.5
Utah 9.4
Connecticut 9.4
Buffalo 9.3
Middle Tennessee 9.1
UALR 9.1
Weber St. 9.0
Notre Dame 8.1
Maryland 7.8
Duke 7.3
Austin Peay 7.3
Oklahoma 7.1
   
Okay in Early Rounds  
USC 6.8
Green Bay 6.8
Providence 6.0
   
In Danger  
Michigan 4.9
Texas Tech 4.3
Iona 4.2
Iowa St. 4.1
Tulsa 3.8
Southern 3.6
Vanderbilt 3.4
Temple 3.3
Texas 3.3
Oregon St. 2.4
Syracuse 2.2
   
Quick Losers  
Northern Iowa -1.9
Fairleigh Dickinson -4.1
Holy Cross -5.2

 

Strength of Schedule

These are the teams from Power Conferences with SOS of 54.00 or better.  No National Champion has ever had a SOS under 54.00, and all but a small number of Final Four teams in the 64 to 68-team field have possessed SOS under 54.00.

Team SOS
Kansas 60.22
Virginia 60.05
Oregon 60.01
Texas 59.88
Baylor 59.49
Utah 59.33
Duke 58.97
Iowa St. 58.96
Texas Tech 58.94
Oregon St. 58.77
Oklahoma 58.74
West Virginia 58.59
Villanova 58.54
California 58.52
Miami 58.22
Wisconsin 58.14
North Carolina 57.74
Kentucky 57.45
Notre Dame 57.25
Pittsburgh 56.86
Xavier 56.82
USC 56.79
Maryland 56.77
Iowa 56.69
Purdue 56.54
Colorado 56.45
Vanderbilt 56.44
Seton Hall 56.24
Syracuse 56.21
Michigan 55.96
Michigan St. 55.75
Dayton 55.73
Providence 55.71
Connecticut 55.70
Texas A&M 55.70
St. Joseph’s 55.49
VCU 55.24
Tulsa 54.97
Cincinnati 54.70
Arizona 54.69
Butler 54.61
Temple 54.61

 

10-Game Winning Streak or 2, 6-Game Winning Streaks

Team Win Streaks
Stephen F. Austin 20 5
Stony Brook 18 3
Kansas 13 13
Michigan St. 13 9
Wichita St. 12 6
Indiana 12 5
North Carolina 12 5
Xavier 12 5
Yale 12 5
Oklahoma 12 4
California 12 3
VCU 12 3
Virginia 11 7
Purdue 11 5
UNC-Wilmington 11 5
Colorado 11 3
Texas A&M 10 8
UALR 10 6
Texas Tech 10 5
Pittsburgh 10 4
Chattanooga 9 8
Villanova 9 7
West Virginia 8 7
Arizona 8 6
Hawaii 8 6
Oregon 8 6
Providence 8 6
Weber St. 8 6
St. Joseph’s 7 7
Gonzaga 7 6
Cal State Bakersfield 6 6
Middle Tennessee 6 6
Northern Iowa 6 6
South Dakota St. 6 6

 

Won-Loss Record Away From Home Floor

Team Won Lost Pct
Gonzaga 15 3 83.3
Hawaii 10 2 83.3
Michigan St. 15 3 83.3
St. Joseph’s 15 3 83.3
Chattanooga 16 4 80.0
UALR 15 4 78.9
Villanova 14 4 77.8
Kansas 12 4 75.0
Xavier 12 4 75.0
       
Near Miss      
Dayton 11 4 73.3
North Carolina 13 5 72.2
Stephen F. Austin 13 5 72.2
UNC-Wilmington 13 5 72.2
Seton Hall 12 5 70.6
       
Okay in Early Rounds      
Stony Brook 11 5 68.8
Middle Tennessee 13 6 68.4
West Virginia 13 6 68.4
South Dakota St. 14 7 66.7
Weber St. 13 7 65.0
Oklahoma 11 6 64.7
Miami 10 6 62.5
Oregon 10 6 62.5
Providence 10 6 62.5
Yale 10 6 62.5
Virginia 11 7 61.1
Hampton 12 8 60.0
Cal State Bakersfield 10 7 58.8
Utah 10 7 58.8
Wichita St. 10 7 58.8
Iona 11 8 57.9
UNC-Asheville 11 8 57.9
Baylor 8 6 57.1
Green Bay 12 9 57.1
Connecticut 9 7 56.3
Fresno St. 9 7 56.3
Maryland 9 7 56.3
Purdue 9 7 56.3
Texas A&M 9 7 56.3
Temple 10 8 55.6
Northern Iowa 11 9 55.0
Duke 7 6 53.8
Arizona 8 7 53.3
Butler 8 7 53.3
Cincinnati 8 7 53.3
Indiana 8 7 53.3
Fairleigh Dickinson 9 8 52.9
Kentucky 9 8 52.9
Michigan 9 8 52.9
VCU 9 8 52.9
Buffalo 10 9 52.6
Austin Peay 11 10 52.4
Iowa 8 8 50.0
Tulsa 8 8 50.0
Wisconsin 7 7 50.0
       
Homers      
Southern 10 11 47.6
Pittsburgh 6 7 46.2
Iowa St. 7 9 43.8
Notre Dame 7 9 43.8
Syracuse 6 9 40.0
Texas 6 9 40.0
Colorado 6 10 37.5
Oregon St. 5 9 35.7
Texas Tech 5 9 35.7
California 5 10 33.3
USC 5 10 33.3
Holy Cross 6 13 31.6
Vanderbilt 5 11 31.3
Florida Gulf Coast 4 9 30.8

 

Ranked by Criteria Met

After the number of criteria met, we have included “Alpha Dog” and repeated R+T ratings.  Alpha Dog refers to whether this team has played a difficult enough schedule and is a member of a power conference.  While there are cases where George Mason and Wichita State make the Final Four, the cases are very rare, and we go with the tendencies that have worked so well in the past.

 

The teams that qualify with 5 criteria and are also Alpha Dogs with qualifying R+T ratings have been highlighted in blue.  These are the top contenders this year.

Team Criteria Met Alpha Dog R+T
Xavier 8 Yes Yes
Kansas 7 Yes No
Michigan St. 7 Yes Yes
West Virginia 7 Yes Yes
Gonzaga 6 Yes Yes
Kentucky 6 Yes Yes
North Carolina 6 Yes Yes
Purdue 6 Yes Yes
Arizona 5 Yes Yes
Pittsburgh 5 Yes Yes
Stony Brook 5 No Yes
Villanova 5 Yes No
Baylor 5 Yes Yes
Chattanooga 5 No No
Cincinnati 5 Yes Yes
Hawaii 5 No No
Oregon 5 Yes No
Stephen F. Austin 5 No Yes
VCU 5 Yes No
California 4 Yes No
Colorado 4 Yes Yes
Connecticut 4 Yes No
Indiana 4 Yes Yes
South Dakota St. 4 No No
St. Joseph’s 4 Yes No
Texas A&M 4 Yes No
UALR 4 No No
Virginia 4 Yes No
Wichita St. 4 No Yes
Yale 4 No Yes
Cal State Bakersfield 4 No Yes
Butler 3 Yes No
Duke 3 Yes No
Iowa 3 Yes No
Maryland 3 Yes No
Miami 3 Yes No
Oklahoma 3 Yes No
Providence 3 Yes No
Texas Tech 3 Yes No
Utah 3 Yes No
Vanderbilt 3 Yes No
Oregon St. 3 Yes No
Syracuse 3 Yes No
UNC-Asheville 3 No No
UNC-Wilmington 3 No No
Iowa St. 2 Yes No
Michigan 2 Yes No
Middle Tennessee 2 No No
Temple 2 Yes No
Texas 2 Yes No
Tulsa 2 Yes No
USC 2 Yes No
Weber St. 2 No No
Wisconsin 2 Yes No
Fairleigh Dickinson 2 No No
Fresno St. 2 No No
Green Bay 2 No No
Iona 2 No No
Seton Hall 2 Yes No
Southern 2 No No
Dayton 1 Yes No
Florida Gulf Coast 1 No No
Hampton 1 No No
Holy Cross 1 No No
Northern Iowa 1 No No
Notre Dame 1 Yes No
Austin Peay 0 No No
Buffalo 0 No No

 

Xavier rates as the top contender, but we are a bit concerned about the Big East Conference remaining as a Power Conference.  While three other Big East teams made the tournament, this league has not fared well since the break-up of the teams that formed the American Conference.

Last year, five Big East Teams made the NCAA Tournament.  St. John’s lost in the second round (round of 64) to San Diego State; Providence lost handily in their first game to Dayton; Butler lost in the third round to Notre Dame (round of 32); and 1-seed Villanova lost in the third round to North Carolina State.  Only Xavier made it to the Sweet 16, and the Musketeers had a relatively easy trip to the West Regional second weekend by defeating an Ole Miss team that just barely made the tournament as a play-in team from Dayton and then Georgia State after GSU upset Baylor.

We are not eliminating Xavier from consideration, but we are knocking them down a few notches.  Thus, our actual top-ranked team according to our Criteria ratings is Michigan State.

Now, before we drive you crazy, ponder this.  No Big Ten team has won the national title, since the Spartans pulled the trick in 2000.  Coach Tom Izzo has taken MSU to five subsequent Final Fours, and Illinois, Michigan, Ohio State, and Wisconsin have made it to the Final Four in recent years.

Concerning the Big 12, overall number one seed Kansas does not qualify under the R+T rating.  However, the Jayhawks just barely miss out with an R+T of 14.6, and after a first game breeze, KU’s R+T rating could easily hit 15.  We are not going to dismiss Kansas because they come up short by a hair of having a great Final Four resume.

Bob Huggins has guided two teams to the Final Four, one at Cincinnati and one at West Virginia.  This year’s Mountaineer squad is better than the one he took to the Final Four and about on par with the great Bearcat team with Nick Van Exel, Corey Blount, Anthony Buford, and Herb Jones in 1992, where Cinti led Michigan in the second half before falling late by a couple points in the National Semifinals.

The shorter shot clock combined with Huggie Bear’s incredible full-court press makes the Mountaineers awfully dangerous against teams that have not previously played WVU.  There was a time when a long string of pressing teams won the national championship, but with slower paces, that style of play stopped being as effective.  Now, with the pace increased by about 7.5% thanks to the shorter shot clock, the press is a more potent weapon.  Even when a team breaks the press, they have less time to set up their offense and find a good shot.  The liability of pressing is that it can wear a team down, but WVU goes deep off the bench, and in the NCAA Tournament, media time outs are longer, allowing players more time to recover from fatigue.

Gonzaga made it to the Elite 8 last year, the zenith of the Mark Few era.  The Bulldogs did not win any big games this year until they finally bested Saint Mary’s in the WCC Tournament Championship.  The Zags have a very formidable frontcourt, but they fall well short in schedule strength, where there 52.35 reduces their criteria score down to Sweet 16 or worse status.

Kentucky and North Carolina are sitting pretty in the Criteria Ratings, as both meet 6 of the criteria, come from Big Conferences with high schedule strength, and most importantly, both merit recognition based on R+T ratings.  Being two of the most elite programs is not part of our criteria, but we also don’t totally exclude that fact.  They are the New York Yankees and St. Louis Cardinals of college basketball.

Let’s look at how the PiRate Criteria see the brackets.  Wednesday night, after the last game in Dayton concludes, we will post our Red-White-Blue Picks for each game.  These are our everyday ratings and do not include the criteria listed herein.  These ratings use an algorithm incorporating the Four Factors.

As you will notice, while this season was tabbed a unique one with a lot of parity, we actually believe the top programs are more ready to dominate this tournament than in recent years.

First Four

Fairleigh Dickinson over Florida Gulf Coast

Wichita State over Vanderbilt

Southern over Holy Cross

Michigan over Tulsa

 

Round of 64

Kansas over Austin Peay

Colorado over Connecticut

Maryland over South Dakota St.

California over Hawaii (very close–almost a tossup)

Arizona over Wichita St. (or Vanderbilt)

Miami over Buffalo

Iowa over Temple

Villanova over UNC-Asheville

Oregon over Southern (or Holy Cross)

Cincinnati over St. Joseph’s [Lower Seed Picked]

Baylor over Yale

Duke over UNC-Wilmington (Criteria says this is closer than you might think)

Texas over Northern Iowa (very close)

Texas A&M over Green Bay

VCU over Oregon St. [Lower Seed Picked]

Oklahoma over Cal State Bakersfield (but watch out, CSUB has upset-worthy data)

North Carolina over Fairleigh Dickinson (or Florida Gulf Coast)

Providence over USC [Lower Seed Picked] (a weak game by criteria)

Indiana over Chattanooga (If UC still had Casey Jones, the Mocs would actually be favored)

Kentucky over Stony Brook (we do not see any chance that SBU will contend)

Michigan (or Tulsa) over Notre Dame [Lower Seed Picked] (Irish have lousy criteria numbers)

West Virginia over Stephen F. Austin (SFA got a lousy seed, as they are Sweet 16 worthy)

Pittsburgh over Wisconsin

Xavier over Weber St. (should be very ugly and possibly a 35+ point win)

Virginia over Hampton

Butler over Texas Tech [Lower Seed Picked]

Purdue over UALR

Iowa St. over Iona (expect a 90-80 type game)

Gonzaga over Seton Hall [Lower Seed Picked]

Utah over Fresno St. (could be close)

Syracuse over Dayton [Lower Seed Picked]

Michigan St. over Middle Tennessee

 

Round of 32

Kansas over Colorado (closer than expected)

California over Maryland

Arizona over Miami

Villanova over Iowa

Oregon over Cincinnati (almost dead even)

Baylor over Duke (Blue Devils missing defense in the paint)

Texas A&M over Texas

VCU over Oklahoma (big upset sends jump-shooting team home)

North Carolina over Providence

Kentucky over Indiana

West Virginia over Michigan

Xavier over Pittsburgh (should be excitingly close)

Virginia over Butler (should be close for 40 minutes)

Purdue over Iowa St.

Gonzaga over Utah (lowest seed in Sweet 16)

Michigan St. over Syracuse

 

Sweet 16

Kansas over California

Arizona over Villanova 

Baylor over Oregon (1 of 2 #1 seeds going out in this round)

VCU over Texas A&M

North Carolina over Kentucky (should be Final Four game)

West Virginia over Xavier (total toss-up and expected best game of the round)

Purdue over Virginia (2nd #1 seed going home in this round)

Michigan St. over Gonzaga

 

Elite 8

Kansas over Arizona

Baylor over VCU

West Virginia over North Carolina (3rd #1 seed departs)

Michigan St. over Purdue

 

Semifinals

Kansas over Baylor

Michigan St. over West Virginia

 

National Championship

Michigan St. over Kansas

March 14, 2016

Bracketnomics 505–The Advanced Level Course in Bracket Picking

Welcome to Bracketnomics 505 for 2016–The Advanced Level Course in Picking NCAA Tournament winners. The best way to describe our PiRate Ratings NCAA Tournament Bracket-Picking formula is to call it the Past Performances of the teams. If you are familiar with the Daily Racing Form or other thoroughbred horse racing publications, you probably know how to read the PPS of the horses in each race.
If you have followed our statistical releases for the past 16 years, you will see only minor changes this year, as the PiRate Ratings have added only one minor statistical detail to our repertoire.
Here is a description of all the pertinent information you need to pick your brackets. We will explain each important statistic and tell you how it applies to the NCAA Tournament. Then, we will apply it to all 68 teams in the Big Dance and let you use what you want to fill out your brackets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scoring Margin
For general bracket picking, look for teams that outscored their opponents by an average of 8 or more points per game. Over 85% of the Final Four teams since the 1950’s outscored their opponents by an average of 8 or more points per game.
More than 80% of the final four teams in the last 50 years outscored their opponents by double digit points per game. When you find a team with an average scoring margin in excess of 15 points per game, and said team is in one of the six power conferences, then you have a team that will advance deep into the tournament.
This is an obvious statistic here. If team A outscores opponents by an average of 85-70 and their team B opponent outscores similar opposition by an average of 75-70, and the teams played comparable schedules, then team A figures to be better than team B before you look at any other statistics.
In the days of the 64 to 68-team field, this statistic has become even more valuable. It’s very difficult and close to impossible for a team accustomed to winning games by one to seven points to win four times in a row, much less six or seven consecutive games.
This statistic gives the same significance and weighting to a team that outscores its opposition 100-90 as it does to a team that outscores its opposition 60-50.

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

Field Goal Percentage Differential
Take each team’s field goal percentage minus their defensive field goal percentage to calculate this statistic. Look for teams that have a +7.5% or better showing. 50% to 42% is no better or no worse than 45% to 37%. A difference of 7.5% or better is all that matters. Teams that have a large field goal percentage margin are consistently good teams. Sure, a team can win a game with a negative field goal percentage difference, but in the Big Dance, they certainly are not going to win six games, and they have no real chance to win four games. Two games are about the maximum for these teams.
This statistic holds strong in back-tests of 50 years. Even when teams won the tournament with less than 7.5% field goal percentage margins, for the most part, these teams just barely missed (usually in the 5.5 to 7.5% range). In the years of the 64 to 68-team tournament, this stat has become a more accurate predictor. In the 21st Century, the teams with field goal percentage margins in the double digits have dominated the field. For example, if you see a team that shoots better than 48% and allows 38% or less, that team is going to be very hard to beat in large arenas with weird sight lines.

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

Rebound Margin
This statistic holds up all the way back to the early days of basketball, in fact as far back to the days when rebounds were first recorded. The teams that consistently control the boards are the ones that advance past the first week in the tournament. What we’re looking for here are teams that out-rebound their opposition by five or more per game. In the opening two rounds, a difference of three or more is just as important.
There are complete rebounding statistics back to 1954, and in the 61 NCAA Tournaments between 1954 and 2014, the National Champion outrebounded their opponents 61 times! Yes, no team with a negative rebound margin has ever won the title.
The reason this statistic becomes even more important in mid-March is that teams do not always shoot as well in the NCAA Tournament for a variety of reasons (better defense, abnormal sight lines and unfamiliar gymnasiums, nerves, new rims and nets, more physical play with the refs allowing it, etc.). The teams that can consistently get offensive put-backs are the teams that go on scoring runs in these games. The teams that prevent the opposition from getting offensive rebounds, holding them to one shot per possession, have a huge advantage. Again, there will be some teams that advance that were beaten on the boards, but as the number of teams drop from 64 to 32 to 16 to eight, it is rare for one of these teams to continue to advance. West Virginia in 2005 made it to the Elite Eight without being able to rebound, but not many other teams have been able to do so.

There have been years where all four Final Four participants were in the top 20 in rebounding margin, and there have been many years where the champion was in the top 5 in rebounding margin.

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

Turnover Margin & Steals Per Game
Turnover margin can give a weaker rebounding team a chance to advance. Any positive turnover margin is good here. If a team cannot meet the rebounding margin listed above, they can get by if they have an excellent turnover margin. Not all turnover margins are the same though. A team that forces a high number of turnovers by way of steals is better than a team that forces the same amount of turnovers without steals. A steal is better than a defensive rebound, because most of the time, a steal leads to a fast-break basket or foul. When a team steals the ball, they are already facing their basket, and the defense must turn around and chase. Many steals occur on the perimeter where the ball-hawking team has a numbers advantage.
The criteria to look for here is any positive turnover margin if the team out-rebounds its opposition by three or more; a turnover margin of three or better if the team out-rebounds its opposition by less than three; and a turnover margin of five or more if the team does not out-rebound its opponents. Give more weight to teams that average 7 or more steals per game, and give much more weight to teams that average double figure steals per game. A team that averages more than 10 steals per game will get a lot of fast-break baskets and foul shots. In NCAA Tournament play, one quick spurt can be like a three-run homer in the World Series, and teams that either steal the ball or control the boards are the ones who will get that spurt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are the basic PiRate criteria. You might be shocked to see that there are some key statistics that are not included. Let’s look at some of these stats that the PiRates do not rely upon.

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

Free Throw Shooting
You might say we are contradicting the Four Factors with this, but we are not. It is the least important of the Four Factors, and we only apply this caveat to the NCAA Tournament.
Of course, free throw shooting in the clutch decides many ball games. However, history shows a long line of teams making it deep into the tournament with poor free throw shooting percentages, and teams that overly rely on free throws may find it tough getting to the line with the liberalized officiating in the tournament.

Let’s say a team shoots a paltry 60% at the foul line while their opponent hits a great 75% of their foul shots. Let’s say each team gets to the foul line 15 times in the game, with five of those chances being 1&1, three being one shot after made baskets, and seven being two shot fouls. For the 60% shooting team, they can be expected to hit 3 of 5 on the front end of the 1&1 and then 1.8 of the 3 bonus shots; they can be expected to hit 1.8 of 3 on the one foul shot after made baskets; and they can be expected to hit 8.4 of 14 on the two shot fouls for a total of 15 out of 25. The 75% shooting team can be expected to connect on 3.75 of 5 on the front end of the 1&1 and then 2.8 of 3.75 on the bonus shot; they can be expected to hit 2.3 of 3 on the one foul shot after made baskets; and they can be expected to connect on 10.5 of 14 on the two shot fouls for a total of 19.35 out of 25.75.

A team with one of the top FT% only scores 4.35 more points at the foul line than a team with one of the worst. That is not a lot of points to make up, and when you consider that this is about the maximum possible difference, this stat is not all that important. Also consider that teams that shoot 60% of their foul shots and make the NCAA Tournament are almost always the teams that have the top R+T ratings, which is vitally important after the Ides of March.

Teams that make the NCAA Tournament with gaudy free throw percentages frequently get there by winning close games at the line. In the NCAA Tournament, fouls just don’t get called as frequently as in the regular season. The referees let the teams play. So, looking at superior free throw percentage can almost lead you down the wrong path.

Ponder this: The 1973 UCLA Bruins are considered to be the best college basketball team ever. That team connected on just 63% of its free throws. They had a rebounding margin of 15.2, and they forced many turnovers via steals thanks to their vaunted 2-2-1 zone press. In the great UCLA dynasty from 1964 through 1973 when the Bruins won nine titles in 10 years, they never once connected on 70% of their free throws and averaged just 66% during that stretch.

3-point shooting
You have to look at this statistic two different ways and consider that it is already part of field goal percentage and defensive field goal percentage. Contrary to popular belief, you do not count the difference in made three-pointers and multiply by three to see the difference in points scored. If Team A hits eight treys, while their Team B opponents hit three, that is not a difference of 15 points; it’s a difference of five points. Consider made three-pointers as one extra point because they are already figured as made field goals. A team with 26 made field goals and eight treys has only one more point than a team with 26 made field goals and seven treys.

The only time to give three-point shots any weight in this criteria is when you are looking at a toss-up game, and when you do look at this stat, look for the team that does not rely on them to win, but instead uses a credible percentage that prevents defenses from sagging into the 10-12-foot area around the basket. If a team cannot throw it in the ocean from behind the arc, defenses can sag inside and take away the inside game. It doesn’t play much of a role in the NCAA Tournament. A team that must hit 10 threes per game in order to win is not going to be around after the first weekend. To put it another way, teams that live and die by the outside shot will almost always die before they can get to the Final Four, if they cannot dominate inside.

One Big Star or Two Really Good Players
Teams that get to the Dance by riding one big star or a majority of scoring from two players are not solid enough to advance very far. Now, this does not apply to a team with one big star and four really good players. I’m referring to a team with one big star and four lemons or two big scorers with three guys who are allergic to the ball. Many times a team may have one big scorer or two guys who score 85% of the points, but the other three starters are capable of scoring 20 points if they are called on to do so. These teams are tough to stop. Usually, it is the mid-major teams that appear to be sleeper teams that could beat a favored opponent because they have one big talent that falls under this category. For instance, Stony Brook’s Jameel Warney this year fits that category.

If you have a team with five double figure scorers, they will be harder to defend and will be more consistent on the attack side. It is hard for all five players to slump at once.

We hope this primer will help you when you fill out your brackets this year.
Here is a list of all the statistics for the Big Dance teams for 2015-2016.

Offensive Stats

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

Defensive Stats

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

 

The Four Factors

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

 

PiRate Criteria

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

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

 

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

 

February 26, 2016

PiRate Ratings College Basketball Preview For February 27-28, 2016

It is about that time.  In just four days, the first conference tournaments will commence, starting the Championship Fortnight and another three weeks of March Madness (bleeding into April) that basketball junkies wait for each year like it is a month of Black Fridays for shopaholics.

Yes, you can feel the symptoms coming on.  Thousands upon thousands of basketball fans will begin to falsely raise the reported cases of influenza on days in which their team is playing a weekday game during working hours.  Call it 8th-seeditis, a malady that can last one or two days when a fan’s favorite team must play that 2:00 PM game on Thursday and possibly Friday if they win the first game.

We here at the PiRate Ratings can no longer provide our doctor’s notes to your employer.  We can no longer buy that much ink, so you will have to go to your local walk-in clinic on the eve of your team of choice’s run.

 

Here is your appetizer course.   These 11 leagues kick things off next week with conference tournament action.

Starting Tuesday, March 1

Conference Site Dates Format
Atlantic Sun
Higher Seeds
March 1, 3, 6
Stetson Ineligible. 8 to 4 to 2 to 1
Seed Home Seed Visitor Time TV
1 North Florida 8 USC Upstate 7:30 PM ESPN3
2 N.J.I.T. 7 Stetson 7:30 PM ESPN3
3 Jacksonville 6 Lipscomb 7:00 PM ESPN3
4 Florida-G.C. 5 Kennesaw St. 7:05 PM ESPN3

 

Conference Site Dates Format
Patriot Higher Seeds March 1, 3, 6, 9 10 to 8 to 4 to 2 to 1

Final standings are not set as this league still has one set of games to play.  Bucknell and Lehigh have clinched two of the four quarterfinal home seeds, while Boston U, Army, Navy, and Colgate are contending for the other two spots.

Holy Cross has clinched the 9th seed, and Lafayette has clinched the 10th seed, and both teams will play Tuesday night on the road.

Loyola of Maryland will host a First Round game Tuesday night as either the 7th or 8th seed.

American and Navy can both be the 7th seed and face a First Round game at home.  American can move up to a 6th seed or fall as far as an 8th seed, while Navy can still earn anywhere from a 3rd to 7th seed.

First Round and Quarterfinal games will be available through the Patriot League TV Network at:  http://campusinsiders.com/network/patriot_league/live

 

Starting Wednesday, March 2

Conference Site Dates Format
America East Higher Seeds March 2, 7, 12 UMass-Lowell Ineligible. 8 to 4 to 2 to 1

Stony Brook has clinched the regular season title and at worst a bid to the NIT, but they are the heavy favorite in this league.  The Seawolves have home court advantage throughout the tournament.  Albany has clinched the second seed and will host a quarterfinal round game and a semifinal round game should they advance.

New Hampshire and Vermont are currently tied for third, but Vermont holds the tiebreaker for the 3rd seed should the two remain tied.

There are too many variables to include in this write-up for the final four spots.  Hartford, Maine, and Binghamton are currently tied for 5th with UMBC one game back in last place.

All Quarterfinal and Semifinal Round games will be available on ESPN3.

 

Conference Site Dates Format
Northeast Higher Seeds March 2, 5, 8 Top 8 Qualify. 8 to 4 to 2 to 1

Bryant and Central Connecticut have already been eliminated from the field as the 9th and 10th place teams in a league where only the top 8 make the tournament.

Wagner clinched the regular season title and will be the 1st seed.  There are 32 different scenarios involving the other six teams, much too many to list here.  Sacred Heart, St. Francis (Bklyn), Fairleigh-Dickinson, and Mount St. Mary’s all have a chance to earn the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th seeds.  Sacred Heart and FDU cannot drop lower than a 4th seed.

Long Island, Mount St. Mary’s, St. Francis (Bklyn), and St. Francis (Pa)  can earn the 5th or 6th seed.

St. Francis (PA), Long Island and Robert Morris can drop to the 7th seed, while LIU and RMU can both be the 8th seed, but SFP can drop no lower than a 7th seed.

All Quarterfinal Round games will be available through NEC Frontrow:  http://www.necfrontrow.com/

 

Conference Site Dates Format
Ohio Valley Nashville March 2-5 Top 8 Qualify. 8 to 6 to 4 to 2 to 1 

Belmont once again has secured the regular season championship and will be the top seed.  The Bruins and the 2nd Seed will both earn a double bye to the Semifinal Round.

In the Opening Round on Wednesday, the 5th seed will play the 8th seed at 7:00 PM EST, and the 6th seed will play the 7th seed at 9:00 PM EST.  The winner of the first game will advance to face the 4th Seed on Thursday, and the winner of the second game will play the 3rd Seed on Thursday.  On Friday, Belmont will play the team that advances from the 4-5-8 side of the bracket, while the 2nd Seed will play the team that advances from the 3-6-7 side of the bracket.

Seven of the eight teams have clinched a spot in the tournament.  Besides Belmont, Tennessee State, Tennessee Tech, UT-Martin, Morehead State, Murray State, and Eastern Illinois will be headed to Nashville.

One spot remains open to be decided between Austin Peay and Eastern Kentucky, both currently tied at 6-9 in the OVC.  EKU holds the tiebreaker edge, but the Colonels play at 10-5 Tennessee Tech tomorrow, while Austin Peay hosts 2-13 SEMO.

All 1st Round and Quarterfinal Round games will be available through the OVC Digital Network:  http://www.ovcdigitalnetwork.com/watch/?Live=3312

Starting Thursday, March 3

Conference Site Dates Format
Big South Buies Creek, NC March 3-6 11 to 8 to 4 to 2 to 1

First Round games on Thursday will pit the 6th seed against the 11th seed; the 7th seed against the 10th seed; and the 8th seed against the 9th seed.

Opening Round games will be available at Big South Sports Network:  http://www.bigsouthsports.com/live

Quarterfinal Round games will be available at ESPN3.  #1 will play #8 or 9, #2 will play #7 or 10, #3 will play #6 or 11, and #4 will play #5.

Currently, Winthrop, High Point, and UNC-Asheville are tied for first with Coastal Carolina one game back and still alive for the top seed.

Campbell is the host team for this tournament.

 

Conference Site Dates Format
Metro Atlantic Albany March 3-7 11 to 8 to 4 to 2 to 1

The MAAC plays a 20-game conference schedule, and there are still two games left for most of the teams.  Monmouth once held a firm grasp on the top spot as well as a decent chance at earning an at-large NCAA Tournament bid should they come up short, but the Hawks are limping to the finish line and are in danger of missing out altogether.  A 16-point home loss to Iona makes the Gaels the hot team in the MAAC.  Iona has won seven of eight games to move within striking distance of the regular season title, even though Monmouth concludes with home games over bottom division Rider and Niagara.

Don’t discount Siena.  The Saints are the host team for the MAAC Tournament, and at 12-7 in league play, they are the lone team to defeat Iona during the Gaels’ run.

Fairfield is the other hot team in league play.  The Stags have won six games in a row, including an impressive decision over Siena.

First Round games on Thursday will only be available to subscribers to MAAC TV, which charges a fee for games:  https://www.nmnathletics.com/PremiumVideo.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=17400

Quarterfinal Round games on Friday will air on ESPN3.

 

Conference Site Dates Format
Missouri Valley St. Louis March 3-6 10 to 8 to 4 to 2 to 1

It’s called, “Arch Madness,” and the MVC Tournament is always exciting, even when 1st seed Wichita State is dominating.  This year’s Arch Madness promises to continue in the excitement department, because even if the Shockers win their Quarterfinal and Semifinal Round games with ease, their Championship Game opponent promises to be up to the task to give WSU a good game on CBS on Sunday.

Evansville and Illinois State are currently tied for second and can only play Wichita in the Championship Round.  Both teams competed against the Shockers in the regular season with ISU winning in Normal.  The Redbirds close out the regular season facing Wichita State on Senior Day for their fabulous guards, so the Purple Aces have a better chance of earning the number two seed, but not an easy chance, as they close at home with Northern Iowa.

UNI and Southern Illinois are limited to the 4th and 5th seeds, and no matter which team finishes where, in order to get to the Finals, they will have to play Wichita State (unless the shockers lose to the 8 or 9 seed in the Quarterfinals).

The First Round and Quarterfinal Round games will air on the MVC TV Network: http://www.archmadness.com/

 

Starting Friday, March 4

Conference Site Dates Format
Colonial Athl. Baltimore March 4-7 10 to 8 to 4 to 2 to 1

UNC-Wilmington and Hofstra are tied for first with one game remaining in the regular season for both.  The rivals split their regular season series winning on the other team’s home floor.  With numerous possibilities in this weekend’s games, Hofstra has a slightly better chance than UNCW of earning the top seed if the two teams remained tied.

William & Mary and Towson are currently tied for 3rd with James Madison one game behind in 5th.  Towson wins all ties for the #3 seed, so W&M can only take the 3rd seed by winning at JMU while Towson loses at UNCW.

All First Round and Quarterfinal Round Games will air on CAA TV:  http://portal.stretchinternet.com/caa/

 

Conference Site Dates Format
Southern Asheville, NC March 4-7 10 to 8 to 4 to 2 to 1

Chattanooga once had this race in the bag, even with the loss of their best player since early in the season.  The Mocs have now dropped two of their previous four games to fall back within range of East Tennessee with two conference games left to be played.

Furman and Wofford are tied for third and will finish third and fourth in either order.  The Paladins have the better chance of getting the 3rd seed.

Western Carolina and UNC-Greensboro are tied for 5th, and both teams end the year playing their best ball.  UNCG won at Chattanooga by 15.

Mercer was once in contention for the regular season SoCon title, but the Bears have lost six straight games to fall to seventh place with a Sunday finale at Greensboro.

The tournament is in Asheville, which should be beneficial for WCU coming from nearby Cullowhee.

All 1st Round and Quarterfinal Round games will air on ESPN3.

 

Conference Site Dates Format
West Coast Las Vegas March 4-5, 7-8 Pacific is Ineligible  9 to 8 to 4 to 2 to 1

If BYU beats Gonzaga, and San Francisco upsets Saint Mary’s, it will create a 3-way tie for first between BYU, SMC, and GU.  The tiebreaker would then give the regular season title and top seed to BYU, since they were 1-1 against fourth place Pepperdine, while SMC was swept by the Waves.

Gonzaga and BYU must win the tournament to receive a bid to the NCAA Tournament.  Saint Mary’s has a slim chance to earn an at-large bid should the Gaels win their regular season finale and make it to the Championship Game, but they better not count on it.

This is one of four tournaments taking place in Las Vegas.

The First Round game and two of the Quarterfinal Round games will air on BYU TV: http://www.byutv.org/

The other two Quarterfinal Round games (#2 vs. #7 & #1 vs. #8 or 9) will air on ESPN2.

 

Here are this week’s Red-White-Blue Picks of the Top Conferences

Games Scheduled for: Saturday, February 27, 2016
Home Visitor Red White Blue
Boston College Georgia Tech -9 -12 -7
Syracuse North Carolina St. 6 7 10
Miami (Fla.) Louisville 3 2 5
Florida St. Notre Dame -1 -1 -2
Virginia North Carolina 2 3 3
Kansas Texas Tech 12 9 11
Texas Oklahoma -2 -1 1
Oklahoma St. West Virginia -5 -6 -4
Iowa St. Kansas St. 10 8 12
TCU Baylor -6 -7 -7
Georgetown Butler 1 1 -2
Marquette Villanova -8 -7 -5
Providence DePaul 13 16 14
Northwestern Rutgers 16 18 17
Purdue Maryland 4 4 3
Utah Arizona 2 1 4
Stanford UCLA 1 2 3
Georgia Ole Miss 3 5 -1
Mississippi St. South Carolina 2 -1 3
Vanderbilt Kentucky 1 2 -2
Missouri Texas A&M -9 -10 -8
Alabama Auburn 10 11 9
Tennessee Arkansas 3 2 4
LSU Florida 2 1 4

 

Games Scheduled for: Sunday, February 28, 2016
Home Visitor Red White Blue
Pittsburgh Duke -2 -2 -4
Wake Forest Virginia Tech 1 1 -2
Seton Hall Xavier -1 1 -4
Creighton St. John’s 16 18 20
Michigan St. Penn St. 20 18 22
Ohio St. Iowa -4 -2 -5
Wisconsin Michigan 5 6 4
Illinois Minnesota 6 7 9
Colorado Arizona St. 6 7 10
Oregon St. Washington St. 12 14 11
California USC 6 6 5
Oregon Washington 10 8 7

February 12, 2016

PiRate Ratings College Basketball Preview For February 13-14, 2016

We have received some emails from some of our subscribers asking if we can explain a little about the Four Factors and how we use them to construct ratings.  While our algorithm is our secret recipe, and we obviously cannot reveal the numbers, we can show you a little about how it works, which is the basis of our Red Rating.

Pirate Red: An algorithm using the Four Factors adjusted to strength of schedule and home/neutral/road splits.

The Four Factors include:

Effective Field Goal Percentage by offense and defense: (FG+(3pt*0.5))/FGA

Example: Oklahoma Offense– (674+(252*0.5))/1426 = 56.1%

Oklahoma Defense– (605+(169*0.5))/1514 = 45.5%

Oklahoma Effective Field Goal % Difference 56.1-45.5 = 10.6%

Oklahoma EFG% Adjusted for SOS = 10.6% *1.076 = 11.4% better than average or about 13.2 raw points better than average based on our algorithm.  We adjust this rating for home and road games, as the Sooners enjoy a home court advantage while suffering a little road court disadvantage.

Offensive Rebounding Rate & Opponents’ Offensive Rebounding Rate: Off. Reb./(Off. Reb. + Opponents Def. Reb)

Example: Michigan State Offensive Rebounding Rate: 313/(313+528) = 37.2%

Michigan State Opponents Offensive Rebounding Rate: 234/(234+752) =23.7%

Michigan State Rebounding Rate Difference  37.2-23.7 = 13.5%

Michigan State Rebounding Rate % Adjusted for SOS = 13.5%*1.064 = 14.4% better than average or about 10.6 raw points better than average based on our algorithm.  We adjust this rating for home and road games, just like above with Oklahoma.

Turnover Rate for each team and their opponents: TO/Possessions

Example: Stephen F. Austin Turnover Rate: 279/1553 = 18.0%

Stephen F. Austin’s Opponents’ Turnover Rate: 413/1551 = 26.6%

Possessions differ by one or two per game depending on who wins the opening tip and who has the last possession of a half.

Stephen F. Austin Turnover Rate Difference 26.6-18.0 = 8.6%

Stephen F. Austin Turnover Rate Adjusted for SOS = 8.6*.924 = 7.9% better than average or about 5.2 raw points better than average based on our algorithm.  As you can see in this example, SFA’s schedule is considerably weaker than average, so some of their advantage has been removed.

We then adjust for home/road splits like above.

Free Throw Rate: FT/Possessions

This is where we differ from most of the other Four Factors followers.  The regular formula used by others is FTA/FGA.  We believe this formula overstates the actual rate due to many college games where teams are forced to foul at the end.  Thus a team might hold onto a 7 to 10 point lead with 5 minutes left in the game and then work the clock down to the last few seconds.  In that same game, the opponent might be forced to foul in the last 2 minutes.  Thus, field goal attempts would be down and free throw attempts would be up.  What if the leading team blows a lot of free throws, allowing the trailing team to come from behind to win?

The stats for the team that blew the lead would be inflated.  What if instead of taking 55 field goal attempts with 22 free throw attempts had they not slowed the pace down and not gone to the foul line almost every possession in the end of the game, they ended up taking just 49 field goal attempts and 32 free throw attempts, making just 4 of 10 of those foul shots under pressure when they blew the game?

Using the regular FT Rate, the team that blew the game had a 65.3 FT Rate but had the game been normal without the slowing down and multiple fouls, the team’s FT Rate would have been 40.0.  That’s a difference of more than 25%, which is huge, and it led you to believe that the eventual losing team was better off to slow the game down and force fouls.

We use Free throws made per possession.  Let’s look at that same game again.  First, instead of each team having 70 possessions in the game, the slowdown lowered that number to each having 68 possessions, not much, but still worth mentioning.

The team that ended up taking 32 free throw attempt made 20 in the 68 possessions.  Using our method, their FT Rate was 29.4%.  Going under the theory that they would have taken 10 fewer free throw attempt (the 4 of 10 they shot when the other team fouled at the end), they would have been 16 of 22 in a 70-possession game, which figures to 22.9%.  Instead of 25% difference, we now have just 6.5% difference, and that is about what the extra fouls by the opponent benefited this team.  Even though they hit just 4 of 10 of the extra foul shots, there were 5 extra fouls committed, and somebody on the other team probably fouled out, hurting the other team.

Once again, the PiRate Rating Formula for FT Rate is: FT Made/Possessions

Example: South Carolina: 480/1793 = 26.8%  as opposed to 50.4% the other way

South Carolina Opponents: 365/1793 = 20.4% as opposed to 39.1% the other way.

USC FT Rate Difference = 6.4% our way as opposed to 11.3% the other way, which overstates the Gamecocks’ advantage due to their numerous games in which they were fouled at the end of close games.  In their most recent game, USC went to the foul line five different times in the last 57 seconds of the game, due to LSU fouling.

South Carolina FT Rate adjusted for SOS = 6.4*1.038 = 6.6% better than average or about 2.8 points better than average before adjusting for home and road splits.  Had we used the standard FT Rates, USC’s adjusted points would have been inflated by 2.2 additional points, which is 2.2 points more than they deserve to have.

Putting It All Together

We plug each of the Four Factors’ results for the two teams playing and then we adjust by giving the home team their advantage based on their data while deducting from the road team based on their data.  In some cases, the home team might actually have an overall disadvantage in some cases, but it is rare.

We then come out with a base number for each team.  The difference is not the pointspread just yet.  We have to include a constant that we correlate based on back-testing to come up with the most accurate predictive model.

How has it performed so far?  This is just the second season we have done this, and because it is quite labor intensive, as we have to plug in new stats for each team for each game, we can only do this for the power conferences–ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC, plus the occasional big game, like SMU vs. Gonzaga this weekend.

Last year, in Todd Beck’s Prediction Tracker, our Red and White Ratings finished 1-2 overall.  To date this season, the White-Red Ratings are currently 1-2 overall.

 

Here are this week’s selections.

Games Schedule for: Saturday, February 13, 2016
Home Visitor Red White Blue
Notre Dame Louisville 2 1 -3
North Carolina St. Wake Forest 8 8 4
Clemson Georgia Tech 4 3 6
Duke Virginia 4 4 5
West Virginia TCU 18 19 24
Oklahoma St. Kansas St. 2 1 3
Oklahoma Kansas 5 6 8
Baylor Texas Tech 8 6 7
Iowa St. Texas 7 6 3
Providence Georgetown 4 5 8
Butler Xavier 2 2 -1
Marquette Creighton -2 -1 -4
Villanova St. John’s 26 27 25
Michigan Purdue -1 -1 -3
Rutgers Ohio St. -10 -13 -11
Nebraska Penn St. 8 8 10
Maryland Wisconsin 11 9 7
Northwestern Illinois 6 7 5
Colorado Washington 4 5 7
Stanford Oregon -7 -4 -6
California Oregon St. 8 8 10
South Carolina Kentucky 1 2 3
LSU Texas A&M 1 1 1
Ole Miss Arkansas 2 1 3
Missouri Tennessee -5 -4 -4
Florida Alabama 10 11 8
Auburn Vanderbilt -8 -9 -3
Mississippi St. Georgia 5 1 3
SMU Gonzaga 5 6 -2

 

Games Schedule for: Sunday, February 14, 2016
Home Visitor Red White Blue
North Carolina Pittsburgh 13 11 12
Boston College Syracuse -10 -13 -12
Florida St. Miami (Fl.) -1 -1 -1
Michigan St. Indiana 8 7 8
Iowa Minnesota 24 22 28
Utah Washington St. 13 14 14
Arizona USC 7 6 8
Arizona St. UCLA 4 4 2

 

January 15, 2016

PiRate Ratings College Basketball Picks for January 16-17, 2016

Filed under: College Basketball — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — piratings @ 10:55 am

This week, we expand our selections to include both Saturday and Sunday games of games from the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC.

Beginning next week, we will commence with our 32 Bracketologists consensus as there have now been enough games to actually put some weight behind the teams in the field, on the bubble, and out of the field.

The Red Rating uses an algorithm based on the Four Factors of basketball.

The White Rating incorporates a “least squares” principle to the Four Factors.

The Blue Rating is a separate statistics and strength of schedule approach similar to our PiRate Bias Ratings in football.

Games Schedule for: Saturday, January 16, 2016
Home Visitor Red White Blue
Georgia Tech Virginia Tech 9 9 4
Wake Forest Syracuse 1 1 3
North Carolina North Carolina St. 18 15 21
Pittsburgh Boston College 19 23 19
Duke Notre Dame 10 9 10
Clemson Miami (Fla.) -5 -5 3
Kansas TCU 23 20 26
Texas Tech Baylor -1 5 2
Oklahoma West Virginia 7 6 -2
Kansas St. Iowa St. -1 2 2
Texas Oklahoma St. 6 8 5
Maryland Ohio St. 12 11 8
Minnesota Indiana -13 -13 -9
Illinois Nebraska 3 3 5
Northwestern Penn St. 10 11 9
Arizona St. Washington 6 6 2
Arizona Washington St. 16 16 17
South Carolina Missouri 15 15 11
Georgia Texas A&M -1 -1 -4
Mississippi St. Tennessee 1 -1 3
Auburn Kentucky -10 -10 -14
Vanderbilt Alabama 9 12 5
Ole Miss Florida 1 -3 3
LSU Arkansas 3 3 6
Games Schedule for: Sunday, January 17, 2016
Home Visitor Red White Blue
Florida St. Virginia -2 -3 -3
Wisconsin Michigan St. -6 -4 -9
Iowa Michigan 12 10 8
Colorado Oregon -1 2 4
Utah Oregon St. 4 3 6

 

January 9, 2016

PiRate Ratings College Basketball Picks for January 9, 2016

Here are this week’s PiRate Ratings College Basketball picks with our experimental ratings, 2.0.

The Red Rating uses an algorithm based on the Four Factors of basketball.

The White Rating incorporates a “least squares” principle to the Four Factors.

The Blue Rating is a separate statistics and strength of schedule approach similar to our PiRate Bias Ratings in football.

 

Games Schedule for: Saturday, Jan. 9, 2016      
Home Visitor Red White Blue
Duke Virginia Tech 18 16 19
Georgia Tech Virginia -5 -3 -6
Notre Dame Pittsburgh 5 2 3
Miami Florida St. 11 12 9
Syracuse North Carolina -7 -5 -7
West Virginia Oklahoma St. 16 16 15
Iowa St. Baylor 8 10 4
Oklahoma Kansas St. 16 11 12
TCU Texas -3 -6 -7
Texas Tech Kansas -7 -1 -8
Wisconsin Maryland -3 -2 -5
Minnesota Northwestern -2 -5 1
Rutgers Nebraska -3 -6 -2
Washington St. Washington 2 -1 1
UCLA Arizona St. 5 4 6
USC Arizona 3 5 -1
Oregon St. California 1 1 -2
Tennessee Texas A&M -1 -1 1
Florida LSU 7 10 6
South Carolina Vanderbilt 6 5 8
Arkansas Mississippi St. 7 8 8
Alabama Kentucky -4 -5 -3
Ole Miss Georgia 3 -1 1
Missouri Auburn 2 1 -2

 

December 31, 2015

PiRate Ratings College Basketball Picks for January 2, 2016

Welcome to year two of the experimental PiRate College Basketball Ratings.  In year one, our three ratings performed remarkably well with the Red and White ratings hitting around 77% accuracy and the Blue rating coming in at 72%.

 

Because of time constraints, we will be issuing picks of games played on Saturdays from the Atlantic Coast, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12, and Southeastern conferences, plus some additional key games involving other teams highly-ranked.  For instance, this week, we will include the Butler-Xavier game, which just might be the game of the week.

 

Our college basketball ratings are not fluid like our football ratings.  We have to recalculate them every game as if it is a brand new rating, so to calculate every game in Division 1, we would have to recalculate upwards of 350 teams a day, and that my friends is just not possible for the small staff we have here.

 

Here is a brief explanation of how we calculate these ratings.

RED: Our Red Rating uses an algorithm based solely on basketball’s “Four Factors,” popularized by basketball metric genius Dean Oliver.  The Four Factors are: effective field goal percentage, turnover percentage, rebounding percentage, and free throw rates.  Oliver stated that the outcomes of games are decided by the offensive and defensive rates of these four factors with shooting counting for 40%, turnovers 25%, rebounding 20%, and free throw rates 15%.  We have tweaked his formulas just a tad, especially the philosophy of how to count free throw rates, and we have also separated turnovers into two sub-categories: steals and all others.  We then used the great back-testing tool to find an algorithm that made a “best fit” for the data into actual point spreads.

 

WHITE: Our White Rating uses all the data from the Red Rating and then adds a “least squares” approach to fit the teams into an order of best to worst.  Because we do not plan on rating all 351 D1 teams, we only perform this for the five conferences previously mentioned plus any other teams in our weekly report.   For instance, this week, we rated the 65 teams in the ACC, B12, B10, P12, and SEC plus the 3 extra teams that we have included in this report, ranking them from #1 Kansas to #68 Boston College  We then take the Red Rating and adjust it up or down by a formula based on how much higher or lower each team is in our least squares rating.

 

BLUE: This is another statistics’- based formula relying a lot more on scoring margins and strength of schedule.  The Four Factors do not come into play in this rating.  Who you beat or lost to, and by how much is the base for this rating, but we break it down into a unique manner.  Some teams will win games by large margins when they are superior but may not be as superior overall as other teams that win more consistently buy by smaller margins.  For instance, let’s take three conference teams in a good league: Team A, Team B, and Team C.  A is the best of the three and will eventually win the conference title, while C is a rebuilding team that will finish last in the league.  B will finish in 4th place in this mythical 12-team league.  A is good enough to sweep both B and C, while B will sweep C.  You would normally expect A to beat C by more points than B beats C, but B may be that sort of team that runs the score up on teams like C, while A wins by fewer points.  If A beats C by 12 points, while B beats C by 24 points, you might get the impression that B is better than A.  This Blue rating does not automatically believe that to be the case.

 

One drawback with these formulas is that it cannot account for injuries or other personnel changes.  That is why it is still experimental.  We will not remove the experimental tag until we have a way to account for injuries.  For instance, earlier today, Xavier lost its star point guard Edmund Sumner to an injury that required his removal from the arena by a stretcher.  It is undetermined when he can return to action, and in his absence, XU goes from a Final Four contender to possibly an NIT participant if he is lost for the season.  However, in the Butler game for Saturday, his absence will not be factored into the ratings.

 

Okay, now that we have either confused you or put you to sleep, here are our opening ratings for Saturday, January 2, 2016.  Yes, get used to “2016.”  If it’s 2016, there will be a little national election, and we will supply our metric analysis to this pennant race as well.

 

Games Schedule for: Saturday, January 2, 2016      
Home Visitor Red White Blue
Clemson Florida St. -3 -4 -7
North Carolina Georgia Tech 16 12 16
Virginia Tech North Carolina St. -1 1 -2
Miami (Fla.) Syracuse 12 13 11
Boston College Duke -14 -16 -15
Virginia Notre Dame 10 10 9
Kansas St. West Virginia -4 -1 -1
Texas Tech Texas 4 7 3
Oklahoma St. TCU 6 8 7
Kansas Baylor 13 11 10
Oklahoma Iowa St. 10 7 8
Michigan Penn St. 12 10 14
Minnesota Michigan St. -11 -12 -16
Nebraska Indiana -7 -5 -3
Purdue Iowa 7 7 4
Northwestern Maryland -1 -1 -3
Auburn Tennessee 1 -1 4
Texas A&M Arkansas 10 9 12
Kentucky Ole Miss 12 14 9
Florida Georgia 9 8 4
Vanderbilt LSU 11 13 10
South Carolina Memphis 9 8 4
Xavier Butler 5 4 2

April 6, 2015

NCAA National Championship Game By The Numbers

Duke (34-4) vs. Wisconsin (35-3)
CBS Television Tip Time: 9:18 PM EDT
Team Offense Duke Wisconsin
Field Goals 1075 989
Field Goal Attempts 2140 2054
3-Point Shots 279 281
3-Point Attempts 721 769
Free Throws 594 578
Free Throw Attempts 853 755
Offensive Rebounds 439 372
Defensive Rebounds 964 931
Turnovers 416 291
Steals 274 171
Possessions Per Game 66.4 59.8
Points Per Game 79.6 72.7
Team Defense Duke Wisconsin
Field Goals 937 872
Field Goal Attempts 2220 2041
3-Point Shots 192 198
3-Point Attempts 612 527
Free Throws 373 317
Free Throw Attempts 538 449
Offensive Rebounds 417 291
Defensive Rebounds 775 782
Turnovers 476 373
Steals 213 159
Possessions Per Game 66.7 59.9
Points Per Game 64.2 57.9
Four Factors Duke Wisconsin
Effective Field Goal % 56.8 55.0
Effective Field Goal %–Defense 46.5 47.6
Offensive Rebound Rate 36.2 32.2
Opponents Offensive Rebound Rate 30.2 23.8
Turnover Rate 16.5 12.5
Opponents Turnover Rate 18.8 16.0
Free Throw Rate* (FT/100 Poss.) 23.6 24.8
Opponents Free Throw Rate * 14.7 13.6
PiRate Criteria Factors Duke Wisconsin
Scoring Margin 15.4 14.8
Field Goal % Margin 8.0 5.4
Rebound Margin 5.6 5.4
Turnover Margin 1.6 2.1
R+T Rating # (see below for formula) 19.6 19.1
Won-Loss Away From Home 15-2 21-2
Schedule Strength (Per ESPN) 61.6 61.5
# R+T Rating components: Duke Wisconsin
Rebound Margin * 2 11.2 10.8
Average Steals * .5 3.6 2.2
6 – Opponents Average Steals 3.2 4.0
Turnover Margin 1.6 2.1
R+T Rating 19.6 19.1
PiRate Ratings
PiRate Red Wisc by 1
PiRate White Duke by 1
PiRate Blue Duke by 2

100 Computer Simulations

Duke Wins: 52

Wisconsin Wins: 48

Note: 9 Overtime Games 2 of which went to double overtime, and one to triple overtime

Average Score: Duke 70.7  Wisconsin 69.4

Outlier A: Duke 74  Wisconsin 58

Outlier B: Wisconsin 70  Duke 60

This concludes the PiRate Ratings College Basketball Coverage for the season.  We will return in a couple weeks to offer our take on the Kentucky Derby with an emphasis on the two possible super horses this year–Dortmund and Materiality.

 

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.