The Pi-Rate Ratings

April 2, 2018

PiRate Ratings Spreads For The NCAA Tournament Championship Game, Monday, April 2, 2018

PiRate Rating Spread for The NCAA Championship Game

Higher Seed Lower Seed Spread
Villanova Michigan 6.8

 

And Then There Were Two

The Pirate Ratings Analytics Criteria to the National Championship Game

Michigan Wolverines Head Coach John Belein compared Villanova to a college version of the Golden State Warriors.  Villanova Coach Jay Wright did not return the favor, but even before Beilein spoke, we had already thought of this game as the college equivalent of Game 7 of the Warriors and Celtics.  The Warriors have the top offense in the Association, while the Celtics have the top defense.  Golden State speeds up the pace, while Boston slows it down.

What can we learn from the two games the Celtics and Warriors have played against each other this year?  Both teams won by four points on their home floor.  The game in Boston was played at a pace the Celtics like and Warriors dislike.  The game in Oakland was played at the exact opposite pace.

Michigan and Villanova will square off in San Antonio on a neutral floor.  Michigan won its semifinal game playing at a snail’s pace that the Wolverines prefer, 69 possessions.  They averaged a point per possession and held Loyola to .83 points per possession.

Villanova won its semifinal game playing at a quicker pace, although not as quickly as they desired in their win over Kansas.  Their 71 possessions looks little different from Michigan’s 69, but a couple factors lowered this number.  First, once VU extended the lead to 15 points, they slowed the pace down.  Second, Kansas looked lost after the initial barrage, and they slowed the pace down trying to throw off the Wildcats.

Tonight, we expect Michigan to slow the pace down and keep total possessions under 70, but will this be effective?  We think it will be partially effective, and the excellent contrasts in playing styles should lead to a much closer than expected outcome.  In fact, we think this game has the potential to be undecided in the final minutes.  It would not surprise us at all if it went to overtime.  In other words, while it wouldn’t be completely shocking for this game to be one-sided, we believe the chances that either team wins by double digits is rather low.  We expect the final margin to be less than 10 points for the eighth consecutive Championship Game.

Let’s look at the analytics for tonight.

First, the game tips at 9:20 PM EDT/8:20 PM in San Antonio and will air on TBS and not CBS.

Team Power W-L Scr TS% Diff R+T SOS
Villanova Y 35-4 87-70 10.38 12.8 61.22
Michigan Y 33-7 74-63 5.74 9.9 60.14

Both teams are members of power conferences and have double digit scoring margins, which almost all national champions in the past 65 years have shared.

The Strengths of Schedules are not identical, but they are very close.  Villanova only receives a minimum positive adjustment to the rest of their stats based on an advantage of 1.08 points per game. (Our SOS is a combination of 3 factors and not identical to others you may see on the Internet)

Villanova has the decided edge in True Shooting Percentage Margin.  The formula we use for TS% is: (100*Pts)/(2*(fga+(.475*fta))).  (Again, others may use a different formula, but we believe this is the best one to use for college basketball.)

Villanova has a decided but not overwhelming R+T Rating advantage in this game.  R+T is a PiRate Original Rating with this formula: (R * 2) + (S * .5) + (6 – Opp S) + T, where R is rebounding margin, S is steals per game, and T is turnover margin.  The number estimates how many extra scoring opportunities per game a team may obtain compared to an average team, and the difference, after factoring schedule strength, allows us to estimate how much better one team has over the other in going on spurts of 8 points or better.  In the NCAA Tournament, most winning teams enjoy at least one more 8-point spurt than the losing team.

Overall, these first set of analytics favors Villanova, but the margin of error does not make the Wildcats a slam-dunk selection to win.

Offense Defense
Team Pts FGA FTA TS% Pts FGA FTA TS%
Villanova 3384 2383 698 62.3 2745 2346 623 52.0
Michigan 2957 2280 699 56.6 2517 2169 643 50.9

This group of stats shows us that Villanova is the superior offensive team, while Michigan enjoys the defensive edge, but by less than VU has the offensive edge.  In a seven-game series, this would definitely tilt the outcome in Villanova’s favor.  For one night, VU is still favored, but this is not an insurmountable advantage.  The pace should fall closer to Michigan’s average of 66 possessions per game than Villanova’s 71 possessions per game, or at least through 40 minutes if the game has an extra session or two or three.

Team W1 W2 L12 Reb Stl Opp Stl TO
Villanova 13 10 11-1 3.03 6.51 4.79 2.26
Michigan 14 7 12-0 0.58 6.38 4.18 3.73

Almost every national champion has had one double-digit winning streak or two winning streaks of 6 or more games each.  Both teams double qualify here.  Michigan’s 14-game streak is active, while Villanova’s #2 streak of 10 games is also active.  What this says is that both teams are peaking at the right time, and you will be the beneficiary of an outstanding game.

Villanova has the rebounding advantage in this game, but it comes with a major caveat.  Michigan is all over the road in their games, and we believe it has more to do with game strategy than inconsistency.  When the Wolverines have faced dominant rebounding teams, like Michigan State, they have actually won the battle of the boards.  When they have faced teams that force turnovers or rarely commit turnovers, the Wolverines usually get outrebounded but keep the turnover battle close or even in their favor.

Also, Villanova tends to win rebounding battles by getting to loose balls quicker rather than pound the glass for success.

Everything else in this section is a wash.

There is a reason why we believe Michigan will make this game extremely close, and even have a fair chance to win.  The Wolverines are perceived to be slow and to lack quickness.  We disagree.  Actually, we believe Michigan can hold their own in a faster-paced game, and the numbers give us reason to believe.  Michigan has played four games this year with a pace more than 10% quicker than their norm.  The Wolverines went 3-1 inthese games, losing only at North Carolina.  In fact, Michigan beat Sparty in East Lansing in a game with a fast pace, and they won by double digits.  We have known for years that superior defensive teams actually gain superiority as possessions increase, while inferior defensive teams gain an advantage by slowing the pace down, as smaller sample size tends to lead to more deviation, while moving closer to the norm as sample size increases.  In this case, sample size is the number of possessions.

Conclusion 

You should be able to easily diagnose this game from the analytical data.  Both teams are playing their best ball of the season.  Both teams have assets that can exploit an average team or a superior team, while both teams have few liabilities.

It is obvious that Villanova is more superior than Michigan, but not by enough points to make them the easy favorite to win this game.  If they played 100 times, Villanova might win 58 to 63 times, so the Wildcats don’t have that much more chance to win one game on one night on a stage like the Championship Game provides.

This game will likely come down to the winning team having one more hot player or one less cold player.  Moritz Wagner was one reason Michigan beat Loyola.  Overall team defense was the other.

Eric Paschall burned the nets and torched Kansas, but overall it was a team offensive effort that led Villanova to its semifinal win.

We expect the Wildcats to bounce a little and not be as effective shooting three-pointers tonight, while at the same time, we believe Omari Spellman will contain Wagner better than Loyola’s defenders could.

What this means is that we expect offensive efficiency to be down for both teams, and we believe that Villanova will get one extra scoring spurt in this game than Michigan, probably coming in the second half somewhere either side of the six-minute mark in the game.  Michigan will mount a comeback that will fall just a tad short.

PiRate Prediction: Villanova 74  Michigan 69

 

 

 

 

March 30, 2018

PiRate Ratings Spreads For NCAA Tournament Final Four Games, Saturday, March 31

PiRate Rating  Picks–Final Four

Higher Seed Lower Seed Spread
Michigan Loyola-IL 4.8
Villanova Kansas 6.0

The PiRate March Madness Team Criteria

This has been an interesting NCAA Tournament, much different than many recent ones.  Yet, as we look on the eve of the Final Four, we look at our original criteria that we posted almost three weeks ago and look at our results.

We only correctly picked one of the Final Four teams, but this is not a real criticism of the system.  We just did a lousy job picking four of the 14 teams that this system showed having national title caliber analytics.

We looked the original stats of the 68 teams and stated that 14 shared the type of statistical resumes that showed them to be good enough to cut the nets in San Antonio.  Three of those 14 have made the Final Four–Villanova, Michigan, and Kansas.

What about Loyola?  We said that they were now the new Wichita State of this tournament.  We did not pick the Ramblers to make the Final Four, but we basically labelled them as the best of the Mid-major teams capable of repeating what Wichita State had done when the Shockers were in the Missouri Valley.

So, we give the new criteria a passing grade, and we give our human evaluation team of those analytics a D-grade for not properly selecting the correct three of the 14 teams that advanced to San Antonio.

For those of you that may have arrived at this page and did not see our previous March Madness posts, here is a brief tutorial.

Our criteria is based on a combination of analytic data and back-tested statistics that past Final Four and National Champion teams have produced.  We look for correlations that can separate the great from the good.

We came up with the following stats and data sets:

True Shooting Percentage Margin

There has been an evolution in shooting efficiency in recent seasons.  With the 30-second shot clock and the better use of analytics, teams know they should take certain three-point shots and certain high two-point shots without having to force low percentage shots at the end of the shot clock.  Whereas field goal% offense and defense used to be vital, in the current philosophy of college basketball teams, true shooting percentage matters most.

True Shooting Percentage tells you how efficient a team is at shooting the ball.  How many points do they get per shot taken, be it a two-point shot, a three-point shot, or shots from the foul line?

Our formula for college basketball true shooting percentage is: (100*Pts)/(2*(fga+(.475*fta))).  We say “our formula” not because we created it, which we did not, but because there are arbitrary differences in the calculations of different metrics specialists.  Some use .44 for free throws attempted, which is more accurate for the NBA, but there are different free throw shooting rules in the NBA, so we use .475, which is more accurate for college basketball.

The TS% margin is simply a team’s offensive TS% minus their defensive TS%.

 

R+T Rating

This is our created statistic.  R+T attempts to estimate additional scoring opportunities that a team may receive based on rebounding, steals, avoiding opponent steals, and additional turnovers not involving steals.  Since a steal is worth more than a dead-ball turnover, we give it more weight than all other turnovers.  A steal is precious because the stealing team is able to run the fast break much easier than any other type of gained possession.

The formula for R+T is: (R * 2) + (S * .5) + (6 – Opp S) + T,  where R is rebounding margin, S is steals, and T is turnover margin.

If one team has an R+T of 15.5, and the other team has an R+T of 5.5, then the 15.5 team should create 10 additional scoring opportunities in a game between the two teams.  That might be enough extra chances to overcome a significant disadvantage in true shooting perecentage.

Strength of Schedule

Obviously, it is easier to pad your team’s statistics if they have played a bunch of cup cakes rather than play 20 games against other teams in the NCAA Tournament.  So, strength of schedule is vitally important.  Through SOS, we normalize the TS% and R+T ratings to make the numbers on par with each other.  If a team has a TS% margin of 10% and an R+T of 15 with a SOS of 50 (exactly average of 351 Division 1 teams), and their opponents has a TS% of 5% and an R+T of 5 with a SOS of 60 (10 points better than average per game), the team with a SOS of 60 would be the better team based on the analytics.  The exact algorithm for determining par values is a bit too difficult to explain, and we do not care to share this proprietary information, as it is all that separates our formula from others.

Other Contributing Factors

We look at how a team has performed in its most recent dozen games.  Obviously, at this point, every team has a minimum of a four-game winning streak.  We look at each team’s two longest winning streaks of the season.  We don’t expect a team with a longest winning streak of three or four games being able to win six in a row against top-flight competition, while if we see a team with a double-digit winning streak or two in excess of six games, then this team has what it takes to win six in a row after March 15.

In addition to Strength of Schedule, we look to those teams that come from a “power conference.”  In our definition, a power conference is one with a league RPI in the Top 12.  For what it’s worth, all four teams remaining in the field come from power conferences, as did all Elite 8 teams and all Sweet 16 teams.

Scoring margin is also important to us.  The minimum scoring margin of a national champion in the last 30 years is eight points per game, while the majority of champions having double-digit scoring margins.  It is next-to-impossible to win the title with a scoring margin under 8.  When Villanova upset Georgetown in 1985, their scoring margin was just 4.8 points per game.  North Carolina State’s scoring margin was 4.6 points per game in 1983.  In fact in the last 65 seasons where we have complete stats (1943 to 2017), the eventual national champion had a double-digit scoring margin 62 times!

Okay, so there you have our criteria.  Basically, we look for teams that can shoot better than their opponents, create more scoring opportunities than their opponents, and do so against a difficult schedule.  It’s obvious, isn’t it?  It might be, but then so many people overlook the obvious in favor of emotional factors.  And, then there is the case of trying to choose four teams from among 14 of the 68 teams that possessed the qualities necessary to win the title.

We have one party-crasher in the Final Four.  Loyola has earned their trip to San Antonio by playing excellent team ball and limiting mistakes, but they have also had a perfect route with little interference, getting weaker than typical Nevada and Kansas State teams to make it here.  Because the Ramblers do not share the approved criteria numbers to win the title, we are predicting Loyola to end their Cinderella bid Saturday afternoon.  Of course, if Loyola wins, they buck a trend and completely re-write the analytic philosophy.

In case you were wondering, when Loyola won the title back in 1963, the Ramblers were more like Villanova today.  That 1963 team led the nation in scoring margin at 24 points per game.  That team was an offense first team that played at supersonic speed.  They averaged in excess of 90 possessions per game.  The Ramblers defeated a two-time defending champion Cincinnati squad that was more of a patient, defense first team that averaged around 65 possessions per game.  There was a 2018 Loyola type team in that 1963 Final Four, and that was Oregon State.  That Beaver team played patient basketball, relied on defense to stop opponents, because they were not able to score points in spurts, and they only had to beat one ranked team to earn a trip to Louisville for the Final Four.

What happened to that Oregon State team in the semifinals?  They lost to Cincinnati by 34 points.  Another big Cinderella team lost by 34 points in the 1979 Final Four when Penn fell to eventual champion Michigan State.  George Mason lost by 11 points to eventual champion Florida in 2006.  VCU lost by eight to Butler in 2011.  Wichita State lost by just four to Louisville in 2013.

In fact, if you go back all the way to the beginning of the NCAA Tournament in 1939, in the 79 prior tournaments, only one real Cinderella won the national title.  In 1947, Holy Cross had a relatively perfect draw to win an eight-team tournament.  The Crusaders edged Navy and City College of New York to make the title game against Oklahoma, where they dismissed the Sooners by 11 points.  Of course that HCU team had the best guard in the history of the game up to that point in Bob Cousy and an All-American pivot man in George Kaftan, who disproved the theory that brought you the movie, “White Men Can’t Jump.”

Let us now look at the numbers for the remaining four teams now that we have done what we can to convince you that three of the four teams can cut the nets, and it will take a hire authority than Sister Jean to pull off a miracle of this proportion for Loyola to win.

Note: In response to Lexie89’s question to us earlier in the season, the colors shown for each team are the official colors of each team.  We have a list of all team official Pantone colors and then convert from Pantone to Hex Color.  If you are not seeing what looks like the authentic colors, it is your monitor.

Team Power W-L Score TS% Diff R+T * SOS
Kansas Y 31-7 81-71 8.15 5.7 61.78
Loyola (Chi.) Y 32-5 72-62 10.27 6.8 52.35
Michigan Y 32-7 74-63 5.86 9.6 59.94
Villanova Y 34-4 87-70 10.29 13.1 60.82
Team W1 W2 L12 Reb Stl Opp Stl TO
Kansas 7 7 11-1 0.45 6.55 5.61 1.16
Loyola (Chi.) 14 7 12-0 1.84 6.38 6.54 0.49
Michigan 13 7 12-0 0.49 6.28 4.15 3.67
Villanova 13 9 11-1 3.11 6.61 4.79 2.34
Offense Defense
Team Pts FGA FTA TS%  Pts FGA FTA TS% 
Kansas 3095 2304 619 59.6 2708 2354 588 51.4
Loyola (Chi.) 2664 1912 612 60.5 2308 2059 505 50.2
Michigan 2888 2221 681 56.8 2460 2118 629 50.9
Villanova 3289 2318 691 62.1 2666 2284 603 51.9

Times listed are Eastern Daylight

Both Games on TBS

The Semifinal Games

Michigan vs. Loyola of Chicago

Tip Time: 6:09 PM

Strength of Schedule

Michigan has a considerable advantage here by an average of 7.59 points per game.

True Shooting % Margin

Due to schedule strength, Michigan has a decided advantage here.

R+T Rating

Michigan has a considerable advantage and should obtain 5 or 6 extra scoring opportunities in this game, which should allow the Wolverines to enjoy at least one scoring spurt of better than 8 points.

Other

Michigan will win the rebounding war as Loyola will not crash the offensive boards.  The Ramblers will look to stop Wolverine fast breaks, so if Michigan can guard well enough to limit open shots, especially from the outside, Loyola will have little chance to score enough points to win this game.  The Ramblers will have to be very hot from outside and hope that Cameron Krutwig can play longer than 22 minutes.

We expect Michigan to commit single-digit turnovers in this game, as Loyola will have to concentrate its efforts on limiting high-percentage shots inside and open three-point shots against quicker players.  The Wolverines have been a much better rebounding team in the second half of the season, and their overall defense has been improving for the last month.

Conclusion

We see this game having two possible outcomes, neither of which is good for the Cinderella team.  In the first scenario, Michigan will open up a comfortable lead in the first five to eight minutes of the game and then keep the lead safe for the duration of the game, winning by double digits.

In the second possibility, Loyola might keep the game close for a half, but Michigan will go on a scoring spurt at some point in the second half to gain a double-digit lead and hang on to win by six to 15 points.

Either way, we see the Maize and Blue of Coach John Beilein earning the school’s sixth National Championship Game appearance, and Beilein’s second in Ann Arbor.

MICHIGAN 73  LOYOLA 62

 

Villanova vs. Kansas

Tip Time: Approximately 8:49 PM

Strength of Schedule

This is basically a wash with both teams having a top 5% SOS.  Kansas has a minimal advantage of less than one point per game.

True Shooting % Margin

Villanova has a miniscule advantage here that reveals very little due to the standard deviation of shooting percentages per game.  All this says is that Villanova has maybe a 52 to 53% chance of having the better true shooting percentage in this game.

R+T Rating

Villanova has a decided advantage here of 7.4, and when you combine it with the SOS of the two teams, the Wildcats are expected to receive about six to seven additional scoring opportunities in this game.  Villanova has the best ability of the four remaining teams to capitalize on extra scoring opportunities with game-deciding scoring spurts.

Other

This game has the potential to turn into a 75-possession game per team, and it is possible that the loser could top 80 points.  The team that gets better open looks from behind the arc should win this game, as long as that team doesn’t come out so flat that they cannot hit at least 35% from behind the arc.

This game is not necessarily a toss-up, but the advantage of our favorite is not insurmountable.

However, the overall most dangerous player in this entire tournament of 68 teams is still alive and leading the team that is now the odds-on favorite to win the national title for the second time in three years.  Jay Wright has given the City of Brotherly Love a possible second champion of the season.

CONCLUSION

Villanova has the near perfect statistical resume of past national champions.  Their 17 point scoring margin is on par with 80% of past national champions and typical of about 90% of all past champions.

Of the four teams remaining, the Wildcats are most apt to enjoy a 10-point scoring spurt more than once in a game.  Wright’s team reminds us of Denny Crum’s 1980 Louisville team and in some ways like the 1970 and 1971 UCLA teams that won titles.  The perimeter players can score inside, and the inside players can score from the outside.  Six players are capable of carrying the team for a half, and if you attempt to concentrate on stopping one or two players, the other four or five will exploit your defense and burn you.

VILLANOVA 84  KANSAS 77

 

April 8, 2013

Bracketnomics 2013: National Championship Game–April 8, 2013

2013 NCAA Tournament— Championship Game, April 8, 2013

Time Eastern Daylight

 

Site: Georgia Dome in Atlanta

Network: CBS

Time

Favorite

Underdog

Line

9:23 PM

Louisville (34-5)

Michigan (31-7)

 4

Elite 8 Record: 1-1

Tournament Total: 39-23

Teams Remaining In Bracket: 1 of  2  (Louisville)

 

PiRate Ratings Criteria Formula Statistics

Criteria

Louisville

Michigan

Scoring Margin

16.0

12.4

FG% Margin

6.4

6.0

Rebound Margin

3.6

3.1

Turnover Margin

5.9

2.8

Steals

10.8

6.2

R+T

12.84

7.58

SOS

59.41

55.94

RD W%

82.6

70.0

Qualifiers

6

4

PiRate #

84.22

56.53

Modified

123.92

65.03

 

PiRate Criteria Means for 2000-2012 National Champions

 

Criteria

Champ Avg.

Scoring Margin

15.5

FG% Margin

8.7

Rebound Margin

6.2

Turnover Margin

1.3

Steals

7.8

R+T

9.29

SOS

57.09

RD W%

73.8

Qualifiers

7

PiRate #

75.88

Modified

94.78

 

 

Louisville Cardinals

Roster

#

NAME

HT

WT

POS

CL

HOMETOWN (PREVIOUS SCHOOL)

2

Russ Smith

6-00

165

G

JR

Brooklyn, N.Y. (Archbishop Molloy/South Kent)

3

Peyton Siva

6-00

185

G

SR

Seattle, Wash. (Franklin)

5

Kevin Ware

6-02

175

G

SO

Bronx, N.Y. (Rockdale County (Ga.))

10

Gorgui Dieng

6-11

245

C

JR

Kebemer, Senegal (Covenant/Huntington Prep)

11

Luke Hancock

6-06

200

F

JR

Roanoke, Va. (George Mason)

12

Mangok Mathiang

6-10

200

C

FR

Melbourne, Australia (IMG Academy (Fla.))

14

Logan Baumann

6-00

165

G

FR

Hartford, Ky. (Ohio County)

15

Tim Henderson

6-02

195

G

JR

Louisville, Ky. (Christian Academy)

20

Wayne Blackshear

6-05

230

G/F

SO

Chicago, Ill. (Morgan Park)

21

Chane Behanan

6-06

250

F

SO

Cincinnati, Ohio (Bowling Green)

22

Jordan Bond

6-00

165

G

FR

Louisville, Ky. (duPont Manual)

24

Montrezl Harrell

6-08

235

F

FR

Tarboro, N.C. (Hargrave Military Academy)

25

Zach Price

6-10

250

C

SO

Cleveland, Ohio (Jeffersontown)

32

Michael Baffour

6-02

170

G

JR

Lexington, Ky. (Bryan Station)

33

Mike Marra

6-05

215

G

SR

Smithfield, R.I. (Northfield Mt. Hermon School)

44

Stephan Van Treese

6-09

245

F

SR

Indianapolis, Ind. (Lawrence North)

 

Coach: Rick Pitino 12th year at UL: 309-111

28 seasons overall: 663-239

(Hawaii, Boston U, Providence, Kentucky, Louisville)

 

Team Stats—Louisville

Player

G

GS

Min

FG

FGA

FG%

3pt

3ptA

3pt%

FT

FTA

Russ Smith

39

39

1179

229

544

.421

61

183

.333

220

273

Gorgi Dieng

32

31

989

121

228

.531

0

0

.000

73

112

Peyton Siva

39

39

1211

133

329

.404

38

130

.292

79

92

Chane Behanan

38

36

990

146

288

.507

1

12

.083

73

135

Luke Hancock

39

8

867

92

220

.418

58

153

.379

60

78

Wayne Blackshear

38

33

763

102

243

.420

43

136

.316

43

62

Montrezl Harrell

39

3

637

96

167

.575

0

0

.000

32

63

Kevin Ware

37

1

616

59

132

.447

15

37

.405

34

51

Stephan Van Treese

36

1

412

26

40

.650

0

0

.000

12

17

Zach Price

16

7

123

8

15

.533

0

0

.000

4

8

Tim Henderson

26

0

98

8

23

.348

6

20

.300

0

0

Logan Baumann

4

0

11

0

4

.000

0

0

.000

2

2

Michael Baffour

6

0

12

0

3

.000

0

2

.000

2

4

Jordan Bond

5

0

17

0

3

.000

0

2

.000

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
Totals

39

39

7925

1020

2239

.456

222

675

.329

634

897

Opponents

39

39

7925

800

2041

.392

213

678

.314

462

705

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
Player

FT%

F

DQ

Ast

TO

Bk

Stl

Reb

Avg

Pts

Avg

Russ Smith

.806

98

0

114

105

2

83

131

3.4

739

18.9

Gorgi Dieng

.652

81

3

60

57

80

43

302

9.4

315

9.8

Peyton Siva

.859

100

3

223

104

6

86

88

2.3

383

9.8

Chane Behanan

.541

66

0

41

60

16

53

242

6.4

366

9.6

Luke Hancock

.769

80

1

52

39

3

38

104

2.7

302

7.7

Wayne Blackshear

.694

95

0

24

24

10

33

121

3.2

290

7.6

Montrezl Harrell

.508

50

0

8

23

27

20

145

3.7

224

5.7

Kevin Ware

.667

58

1

31

42

4

39

66

1.8

167

4.5

Stephan Van Treese

.706

45

0

9

13

11

18

114

3.2

64

1.8

Zach Price

.500

23

0

0

5

5

1

22

1.4

20

1.3

Tim Henderson

.000

7

0

3

6

1

6

12

0.5

22

0.8

Logan Baumann

1.000

1

0

0

1

0

0

3

0.8

2

0.5

Michael Baffour

.500

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0.2

2

0.3

Jordan Bond

.000

1

0

1

0

0

1

3

0.6

0

0.0

Team

 

 

 

 

7

 

 

85

2.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

.707

705

8

566

486

165

421

1439

36.9

2896

74.3

Opponents

.655

751

X

398

718

129

221

1300

33.3

2275

58.3

 

 

Schedule

Opponent

Score

MANHATTAN  

79-51  

SAMFORD  

80-54  

MIAMI (OH)  

80-39  

vs NORTHERN IOWA  (Bahamas)

51-46  

vs MISSOURI  (Bahamas)

84-61  

vs DUKE  (Bahamas)

71-76  

ILLINOIS STATE  

69-66  

at COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON  

80-38  

MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY  

99-47  

at MEMPHIS  

87-78  

FIU  

79-55  

vs WESTERN KENTUCKY  (Nashville)

78-55  

KENTUCKY  

80-77  

PROVIDENCE  

80-62  

at SETON HALL  

73-58  

USF  

64-38  

at CONNECTICUT  

73-58  

SYRACUSE  

68-70  

at VILLANOVA  

64-73  

at GEORGETOWN  

51-53  

PITTSBURGH  

64-61  

MARQUETTE  

70-51  

at RUTGERS  

68-48  

at NOTRE DAME  

101-104  

ST. JOHN‘S  

72-58  

at USF  

59-41  

SETON HALL  

79-61  

at DEPAUL  

79-58  

at SYRACUSE  

58-53  

CINCINNATI  

67-51  

NOTRE DAME  

73-57  

vs VILLANOVA  (BE Tourn.)

74-55  

vs NOTRE DAME  (BE Tourn.)

69-57  

vs SYRACUSE  (BE Tourn.)

78-61  

vs NORTH CAROLINA A&T  (ncaa)

79-48  

vs COLORADO STATE  (ncaa)

82-56  

vs OREGON  (ncaa)

77-69  

vs DUKE  (ncaa)

85-63  

vs WICHITA STATE  (ncaa)

72-68  

 

 

Michigan Wolverines

Roster

#

Name

Ht.

Wt.

Pos.

Year

Hometown (High School)

1

Glenn Robinson III

6-06

210

F

FR

St. John, Ind. (Lake Central)

2

Spike Albrecht

5-11

170

G

FR

Crown Pt., Ind. (Northfield Mt. Hermon Prep MA)

3

Trey Burke

6-01

190

G

SO

Columbus, Ohio (Northland)

4

Mitch McGary

6-10

250

F

FR

Chesterton, Ind. (Brewster Academy [N.H.])

5

Eso Akunne

6-02

225

G

SR

Ann Arbor, Mich. (Gabriel Richard)

10

Tim Hardaway Jr.

6-06

205

G

JR

Miami, Fla. (Palmetto Senior)

11

Nik Stauskas

6-06

190

G

FR

Mississauga, Ontario (St. Mark’s School MA)

13

Matt Vogrich

6-04

200

G

SR

Lake Forest, Ill. (Lake Forest)

15

Jon Horford

6-10

250

F

SO

Grand Ledge, Mich. (Grand Ledge)

20

Josh Bartelstein

6-03

210

G

SR

Highland Pk., Ill. (Phillips Exeter Acad. [N.H.])

22

Blake McLimans

6-10

240

F

SR

Hamburg, N.Y. (Worcester Academy [Mass.])

23

Caris LeVert

6-05

170

G

FR

Pickerington, Ohio (Central)

32

Corey Person

6-03

210

G

GS

Kalamazoo, Mich. (Central)

44

Max Bielfeldt

6-07

245

F

FR

Peoria, Ill. (Notre Dame)

52

Jordan Morgan

6-08

250

F

JR

Detroit, Mich. (University of Detroit Jesuit)

 

Coach: John Beilein 6th year at UM: 122-84

35 seasons overall: 673-402

(Erie CC, Nazareth, LeMoyne, Canisius, Richmond, West Virginia, Michigan)

 

Team Stats

Michigan Wolverines

Player

G

GS

Min

FG

FGA

FG%

3pt

3ptA

3pt%

FT

FTA

Trey Burke

38

38

1352

252

549

.459

73

193

.378

126

157

Tim Hardaway, Jr.

37

37

1289

196

447

.438

73

191

.382

75

107

Nik Stauskas

38

32

1171

137

296

.463

79

180

.439

74

87

Glenn Robinson, III

38

38

1274

164

288

.569

23

70

.329

65

97

Mitch McGary

38

7

740

131

218

.601

0

0

.000

23

52

Jordan Morgan

35

27

565

71

121

.587

0

0

.000

22

41

Jon Horford

31

4

276

34

59

.576

0

0

.000

19

27

Caris LeVert

32

1

344

28

88

.318

13

42

.310

7

14

Spike Albrecht

38

0

289

22

50

.440

14

28

.500

9

10

Eso Akunne

18

0

51

8

26

.308

4

12

.333

1

2

Max Bielfeldt

20

0

106

9

20

.450

0

2

.000

5

12

Matt Vogrich

26

6

125

9

27

.333

5

19

.263

3

4

Corey Person

13

0

43

3

7

.429

2

3

.667

2

3

Blake McLimans

16

0

20

4

15

.267

2

11

.182

1

2

Josh Bartelstein

6

0

10

0

1

.000

0

0

.000

0

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
Totals

38

38

7655

1068

2212

.483

288

751

.383

432

617

Opponents

38

38

7655

913

2160

.423

234

729

.321

325

480

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
Player

FT%

F

DQ

Ast

TO

Bk

Stl

Reb

Avg

Pts

Avg

Trey Burke

.803

69

0

257

82

19

62

120

3.2

703

18.5

Tim Hardaway, Jr.

.701

73

0

89

69

17

26

172

4.6

540

14.6

Nik Stauskas

.851

23

0

50

43

9

21

114

3.0

427

11.2

Glenn Robinson, III

.670

43

0

41

32

10

39

209

5.5

416

10.9

Mitch McGary

.442

88

0

24

46

27

41

240

6.3

285

7.5

Jordan Morgan

.537

50

1

13

33

3

15

153

4.4

164

4.7

Jon Horford

.704

45

0

9

14

16

8

69

2.2

87

2.8

Caris LeVert

.500

38

0

25

9

2

5

33

1.0

76

2.4

Spike Albrecht

.900

23

0

28

12

1

12

30

0.8

67

1.8

Eso Akunne

.500

4

0

5

1

0

0

12

0.7

21

1.2

Max Bielfeldt

.417

8

0

3

3

1

3

31

1.6

23

1.2

Matt Vogrich

.750

8

0

5

3

0

2

23

0.9

26

1.0

Corey Person

.667

4

0

2

1

0

0

1

0.1

10

0.8

Blake McLimans

.500

4

0

1

1

1

1

13

0.8

11

0.7

Josh Bartelstein

.000

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

0.0

0

0.0

Team

 

 

 

 

7

 

 

119

3.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

.700

481

1

553

356

106

236

1339

35.2

2856

75.2

Opponents

.677

583

10

476

461

121

200

1219

32.1

2385

62.8

 

 

Schedule

Opponent

Score

vs. Slippery Rock

100-62

vs. IUPUI TV (nit)

91-54

vs. Cleveland State (nit)

77-47

(n) Pittsburgh (nit)

67-62

(n) Kansas State (nit)

71-57

vs. No. 18 North Carolina State

79-72

at Bradley 

74-66

vs. Western Michigan 

73-41

vs. Arkansas 

80-67

vs. Binghamton 

67-39

(n) West Virginia (Brooklyn)

81-66

vs. Eastern Michigan 

93-54

vs. Central Michigan 

88-73

at Northwestern

94-66

vs. Iowa

95-67

vs. Nebraska

62-47

at No. 15 Ohio State

53-56

at No. 9 Minnesota

83-75

vs. Purdue

68-53

at Illinois

74-60

vs. Northwestern

68-46

at No. 3 Indiana

73-81

vs. No. 10 Ohio State

76-74 ot

at Wisconsin

62-65 ot

at Michigan State

52-75

vs. Penn State

79-71

vs. Illinois

71-58

at Penn State

78-84

vs. No. 9 Michigan State

58-57

at Purdue

80-75

vs. No. 2 Indiana

71-72

vs. Penn State (B10)

83-66

vs. No. 22 Wisconsin (B10)

59-68

vs. South Dakota State ncaa

71-56

vs. VCU ncaa

78-53

vs. No. 3 Kansas ncaa

87-85 ot

vs. No. 14 Florida ncaa

79-59

vs. No. 8 Syracuse ncaa

61-56

 

Positional Matchups

Point Guard: Louisville—(3) Peyton Siva               Michigan—(3)Trey Burke

This is where Michigan has to have a big night.  Burke is ice cold in the tournament so far, hitting a paltry 23-71 from the field and 8-31 from three-point territory.  The Wolverines were able to overcome Burke’s cold shooting, but the Cardinals will shut off the UM inside game on enough possessions to force Burke to beat them from the outside.

 

Siva is a talented play-maker and even better defender, so Burke may not get many open looks.  Siva does not have to score to be effective.  He is just one of several secondary options on the Cardinals’ team.  A steal at a key juncture of this game could change momentum and become the deciding factor in a close game, and Siva is much more likely to get that steal than any Michigan player.

 

Advantage: Push

 

Shooting Guard: Louisville—(2) Russ Smith          Michigan—(10) Tim Hardaway, Jr.

Smith has been hot during the tournament, and he has oftentimes carried the offensive load for Pitino.  He can be a streaky shooter, and in the last two weeks, that streak has been scorching to the nets.  Beilein’s game plan must start with keeping the ball away from him as much as possible.

 

Hardaway is a quality 2-guard who would be superior to about 62 of the other teams in the Big Dance.  However, Louisville is not one of those teams.  He will need help handling Smith, and he will need to use a lot of additional energy helping Burke against the Cardinals’ Matchup Press defense.

 

Advantage: Louisville

 

Small Forward: Louisville—(20) Wayne Blackshear        Michigan—(11) Nik Stauskas

This is the weakest position in this game, but it could become vitally important.  Stauskas is a hit or miss proposition.  If he hits a three-pointer early, his confidence could lead him to following that up with several more.  If Louisville’s perimeter is too quick for him, and he cannot get open looks, he will disappear on offense and not be much help on defense.

 

Blackshear is a proven commodity, but that commodity is not blue-chip.  He is a tough, hard-worker who will muscle his way on the boards and play consistent defense, but he will not win or lose this game.  Pitino knows what he will get from him and knows he will be rather consistent.

 

Advantage: Wildcard (It is a push, but only because Stauskas has a 50% chance of having a large advantage or large disadvantage depending on which Stauskas shows up).

 

Power Forward: Louisville—(21) Chane Behanan           Michigan—(1) Glenn Robinson, III

This should be a great matchup between like-minded players.  Both opponents help their teammates and make them look better, but neither player can carry the load.

 

Look for both players to score around 10 points and get 8 rebounds.  Behanan may be a little better inside, while Robinson is a little better helping on the perimeter.

 

Advantage: Push

 

Center: Louisville—(10) Gorgui Dieng       Michigan—(4) Mitch McGary

This position features two future NBA players that are just starting to reach their potentials.  Dieng is a fantastic defensive stopper in the paint, and he can imitate Dikembe Mutombo in the Geico commercials.  He is also a major force on the boards, and he can grab the ball on both ends of the floor.  His ability to stop the dribble-drive gives the rest of the team an opportunity to gamble in the press.

 

McGary is more of a prototypical post player.  He has more moves on the offensive end, and when the inside is crowded, he can locate the open perimeter and deliver a sharp, accurate pass that allows his teammate to shoot quickly.

 

Advantage: Michigan

 

Bench:

Pitino uses his bench more the Beilein, but when the Michigan reserves are in the game, they contribute without weakening the team.

 

The loss of Kevin Ware takes away a considerable part of the Cardinals’ bench production, but on the other hand, his teammates will get a boost with him there to cheer them on.

 

Advantage: Push

Our Pick: Here is how we see this game.  In the first half, both teams will be a little tight, and scoring will be rather low, much like the norm for this season.  It will appear to be dull for the first 10-12 minutes with the scoring at a sub-100-point pace (something like 12-10).

 

The offenses will step up and start to get untracked in the final 8 minutes of the half, and Louisville will finish on a mini-run to go into the locker room with a small lead (28-25 or so).

 

Michigan will gain some momentum early in the second half and have their best showing of the night during the first two of the four-minute stretches.  The Wolverines will take the lead and gain a little momentum, with the score looking like 37-34 with 12 minutes to play.

 

At this point, the Wolverines will start to tire.  Their starters played too many minutes in the semifinal win over Syracuse, and the relentless Cardinal pressure will start to have an effect.  A couple of turnovers and some forced shots due to fatigue will allow Louisville to regain the lead.  Beilein will have to take a timeout with UL leading 43-39 with 9 minutes left.

 

After a brief recovery, the fatigue will prove fatal, and Louisville will go for the jugular with a big run.  By the under 4 timeout, the Cardinals will have a nice cushion, something like 55-46.  Michigan will begin to force multiple ill-advised shots, and Louisville will get a couple of cheap baskets to ice the game.  A couple of late three-pointers will give the Wolverine fans some hope, but the Cardinals will hit some foul shots to clinch the national title.

 

FINAL SCORE: Louisville 62  Michigan 55

 

 

April 4, 2013

Bracketnomics 2013: Final Four Saturday–April 6, 2013

2013 NCAA Tournament— Semifinal Round, April 6, 2013

Ttimes Eastern Daylight

 

Site: Georgia Dome in Atlanta

Network: CBS

Time

Favorite

Underdog

Line

6:09 PM

Louisville (33-5)

Wichita St. (30-8)

10

8:49 PM

Michigan (30-7)

Syracuse (30-9)

2

Elite 8 Record: 2-2

Tournament Total: 38-22

Teams Remaining In Bracket: 1 of  4 (But Louisville was our pick to go all the way)

 

PiRate Ratings Criteria Formula Statistics

Criteria

Louisville

Michigan

Syracuse

Wichita St.

Scoring Margin

16.2

12.6

12.2

8.9

FG% Margin

6.4

6.2

7.2

4.8

Rebound Margin

3.7

3.1

3.7

8.0

Turnover Margin

6.0

2.8

3.2

0.4

Steals

10.9

6.2

9.1

7.5

R+T

13.08

7.70

9.36

9.98

SOS

59.41

55.94

59.29

53.79

RD W%

81.8

68.4

65.0

71.4

Qualifiers

6

3

5

5

PiRate #

85.27

57.09

67.73

53.74

Modified

124.97

65.59

106.43

42.94

 

PiRate Criteria Means for 2000-2012 National Champions

 

Criteria

Champ Avg.

Scoring Margin

15.5

FG% Margin

8.7

Rebound Margin

6.2

Turnover Margin

1.3

Steals

7.8

R+T

9.29

SOS

57.09

RD W%

73.8

Qualifiers

7

PiRate #

75.88

Modified

94.78

 

 

Louisville vs. Wichita State

Roster—Louisville

#

NAME

HT

WT

POS

CL

HOMETOWN (PREVIOUS SCHOOL)

2

Russ Smith

6-00

165

G

JR

Brooklyn, N.Y. (Archbishop Molloy/South Kent)

3

Peyton Siva

6-00

185

G

SR

Seattle, Wash. (Franklin)

5

Kevin Ware

6-02

175

G

SO

Bronx, N.Y. (Rockdale County (Ga.))

10

Gorgui Dieng

6-11

245

C

JR

Kebemer, Senegal (Covenant/Huntington Prep)

11

Luke Hancock

6-06

200

F

JR

Roanoke, Va. (George Mason)

12

Mangok Mathiang

6-10

200

C

FR

Melbourne, Australia (IMG Academy (Fla.))

14

Logan Baumann

6-00

165

G

FR

Hartford, Ky. (Ohio County)

15

Tim Henderson

6-02

195

G

JR

Louisville, Ky. (Christian Academy)

20

Wayne Blackshear

6-05

230

G/F

SO

Chicago, Ill. (Morgan Park)

21

Chane Behanan

6-06

250

F

SO

Cincinnati, Ohio (Bowling Green)

22

Jordan Bond

6-00

165

G

FR

Louisville, Ky. (duPont Manual)

24

Montrezl Harrell

6-08

235

F

FR

Tarboro, N.C. (Hargrave Military Academy)

25

Zach Price

6-10

250

C

SO

Cleveland, Ohio (Jeffersontown)

32

Michael Baffour

6-02

170

G

JR

Lexington, Ky. (Bryan Station)

33

Mike Marra

6-05

215

G

SR

Smithfield, R.I. (Northfield Mt. Hermon School)

44

Stephan Van Treese

6-09

245

F

SR

Indianapolis, Ind. (Lawrence North)

 

Coach: Rick Pitino 12th year at UL: 308-111

28 seasons overall: 662-239

(Hawaii, Boston U, Providence, Kentucky, Louisville)

 

 

Roster—Wichita St.

#

Name

Ht.

Wt.

Pos.

Yr. Hometown (Prev School)

0  

Chadrack Lufile

6-09

251

F

Jr. Burlington, Ontario, Canada (Coffeyville CC)

1  

Derail Green

6-07

199

F

Fr. Houston, Texas (Klein Forest HS)

2  

Malcolm Armstead

6-00

205

G

Sr. Florence, Ala. (Chipola JC) (Central Park Prep)

3  

Evan Wessel

6-05

201

G

So. Wichita, Kan. (Heights HS)

5  

Demetric Williams

6-02

178

G

Sr. Las Vegas, Nev. (Cheyenne HS)

11  

Cleanthony Early

6-08

215

F

Jr. Middletown, N.Y. (Sullivan JC)

15  

Nick Wiggins

6-06

187

G

Jr. Toronto, ON (Wabash Valley [Ill.] College)

20  

Kadeem Coleby

6-09

251

C

Sr. Nassau, Bahamas (Louisiana-Lafayette)

21  

Ehimen Orukpe

7-00

250

C

Sr. Lagos, Nigeria, (Three Rivers [Mo.])

22  

Carl Hall

6-08

238

F

Sr. Cochran, Ga. (NW Florida St.)

23  

Fred Van Vleet

5-11

190

G

Fr. Rockford, Ill. (Auburn HS)

31  

Ron Baker

6-03

218

G

Fr. Scott City, Kan. (Scott City HS)

32  

Tekele Cotton

6-02

202

G

So. Marietta, Ga. (Whitefield Academy)

33  

Zach Bush

6-06

175

F

Fr. Wichita, Kan. (Goddard Eisenhower HS)

50  

Jake White

6-08

232

F

So. Chaska, Minn. (Chaska HS)

 

Coach: Gregg Marshall 6th year at WSU: 139-69

15 seasons overall: 333-152

(Winthrop, Wichita St.)

 

Team Stats—Louisville

Player

G

GS

Min

FG

FGA

FG%

3pt

3ptA

3pt%

FT

FTA

Russ Smith

38

35

1143

223

527

.423

57

172

.331

215

261

Gorgi Dieng

31

30

959

121

227

.533

0

0

.000

73

112

Peyton Siva

38

38

1177

132

320

.413

38

125

.304

74

86

Chane Behanan

37

35

961

143

283

.505

1

12

.083

69

131

Wayne Blackshear

37

32

754

102

242

.421

43

135

.319

43

62

Luke Hancock

38

8

836

86

211

.408

55

148

.372

55

71

Montrezl Harrell

38

3

626

92

163

.564

0

0

.000

32

63

Kevin Ware

37

1

616

59

132

.447

15

37

.405

34

51

Stephan Van Treese

35

1

402

26

40

.650

0

0

.000

12

17

Zach Price

16

7

123

8

15

.533

0

0

.000

4

8

Tim Henderson

25

0

88

6

20

.300

4

17

.235

0

0

Logan Baumann

4

0

11

0

4

.000

0

0

.000

2

2

Michael Baffour

6

0

12

0

3

.000

0

2

.000

2

4

Jordan Bond

5

0

17

0

3

.000

0

2

.000

0

0

 

   
Totals

38

38

7725

998

2190

.456

213

650

.328

615

868

Opponents

38

38

7725

778

1987

.392

207

658

.315

444

681

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
Player

FT%

F

DQ

Ast

TO

Bk

Stl

Reb

Avg

Pts

Avg

Russ Smith

.824

95

0

111

100

2

81

129

3.4

718

18.9

Gorgi Dieng

.652

77

3

60

56

78

43

296

9.5

315

10.2

Peyton Siva

.860

99

3

220

102

6

84

87

2.3

376

9.9

Chane Behanan

.527

63

0

40

60

16

52

233

6.3

356

9.6

Wayne Blackshear

.694

92

0

24

24

10

33

120

3.2

290

7.8

Luke Hancock

.775

78

1

50

39

3

36

100

2.6

282

7.4

Montrezl Harrell

.508

48

0

7

22

27

20

141

3.7

216

5.7

Kevin Ware

.667

58

1

31

42

4

39

66

1.8

167

4.5

Stephan Van Treese

.706

42

0

9

13

10

17

111

3.2

64

1.8

Zach Price

.500

23

0

0

5

5

1

22

1.4

20

1.3

Tim Henderson

.000

5

0

3

6

1

6

10

0.4

16

0.6

Logan Baumann

1.000

1

0

0

1

0

0

3

0.8

2

0.5

Michael Baffour

.500

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0.2

2

0.3

Jordan Bond

.000

1

0

1

0

0

1

3

0.6

0

0.0

Team

 

 

 

 

7

 

 

84

2.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

.709

682

8

556

477

162

413

1406

37.0

2824

74.3

Opponents

.652

731

X

385

707

128

216

1264

33.3

2207

58.1

 

Team Stats—Wichita St.

Player

G

GS

Min

FG

FGA

FG%

3pt

3ptA

3pt%

FT

FTA

Cleanthony Early

38

21

942

176

390

.451

45

144

.313

123

156

Carl Hall

31

25

886

141

262

.538

0

2

.000

106

158

Malcolm Armstead

38

38

1085

146

363

.402

61

172

.355

61

76

Ron Baker

17

14

436

42

104

.404

27

78

.346

35

43

Demetric Williams

38

26

966

97

252

.385

32

114

.281

62

81

Tekele Cotton

38

27

896

88

200

.440

23

64

.359

44

82

Evan Wessel

8

8

152

16

33

.485

11

24

.458

1

1

Nick Wiggins

35

1

460

58

133

.436

31

73

.425

27

37

Fred Van Vleet

38

0

607

59

149

.396

20

47

.426

26

36

Jake White

36

0

399

51

109

.468

3

27

.111

25

35

Ehimen Orukpe

35

30

538

39

83

.470

0

0

.000

17

42

Chadrack Lufile

29

0

233

19

34

.559

0

0

.000

8

20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
Totals

38

38

7600

932

2112

.441

253

745

.340

535

767

Opponents

38

38

7600

775

1971

.393

229

714

.321

534

745

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
Player

FT%

F

DQ

Ast

TO

Bk

Stl

Reb

Avg

Pts

Avg

Cleanthony Early

.788

97

3

23

61

34

29

202

5.3

520

13.7

Carl Hall

.671

73

0

22

41

55

14

213

6.9

388

12.5

Malcolm Armstead

.803

86

0

150

86

2

74

146

3.8

414

10.9

Ron Baker

.814

35

0

32

22

5

14

50

2.9

146

8.6

Demetric Williams

.765

84

2

86

63

1

44

98

2.6

288

7.6

Tekele Cotton

.537

78

1

65

43

6

39

149

3.9

243

6.4

Evan Wessel

1.000

15

0

15

5

1

2

14

1.8

44

5.5

Nick Wiggins

.730

29

0

11

21

6

10

63

1.8

174

5.0

Fred Van Vleet

.722

42

1

86

43

2

35

71

1.9

164

4.3

Jake White

.714

48

0

10

28

0

7

107

3.0

130

3.6

Ehimen Orukpe

.405

71

0

8

46

56

11

155

4.4

95

2.7

Chadrack Lufile

.400

22

0

9

12

8

5

52

1.8

46

1.6

Team

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

141

3.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
Totals

.698

680

7

517

481

176

284

1461

38.4

2652

69.8

Opponents

.717

680

X

400

496

113

212

1157

30.4

2313

60.9

 

Schedule—Louisville

Opponent

Score

MANHATTAN  

79-51  

SAMFORD  

80-54  

MIAMI (OH)  

80-39  

vs NORTHERN IOWA  (Bahamas)

51-46  

vs MISSOURI  (Bahamas)

84-61  

vs DUKE  (Bahamas)

71-76  

ILLINOIS STATE  

69-66  

at COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON  

80-38  

MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY  

99-47  

at MEMPHIS  

87-78  

FIU  

79-55  

vs WESTERN KENTUCKY  (Nashville)

78-55  

KENTUCKY  

80-77  

PROVIDENCE  

80-62  

at SETON HALL  

73-58  

USF  

64-38  

at CONNECTICUT  

73-58  

SYRACUSE  

68-70  

at VILLANOVA  

64-73  

at GEORGETOWN  

51-53  

PITTSBURGH  

64-61  

MARQUETTE  

70-51  

at RUTGERS  

68-48  

at NOTRE DAME  

101-104  

ST. JOHN‘S  

72-58  

at USF  

59-41  

SETON HALL  

79-61  

at DEPAUL  

79-58  

at SYRACUSE  

58-53  

CINCINNATI  

67-51  

NOTRE DAME  

73-57  

vs VILLANOVA  (BE Tourn.)

74-55  

vs NOTRE DAME  (BE Tourn.)

69-57  

vs SYRACUSE  (BE Tourn.)

78-61  

vs NORTH CAROLINA A&T  (ncaa)

79-48  

vs COLORADO STATE  (ncaa)

82-56  

vs OREGON  (ncaa)

77-69  

vs DUKE  (ncaa)

85-63  

 

Schedule—Wichita St.

Opponent

Score

North Carolina Central

71-57

at Virginia Commonwealth

53-51

Western Carolina (Cancun Challenge)

79-63

Howard (Cancun Challenge)

69-50

(n) DePaul (Cancun)

75-62

(n) Iowa (Cancun)

75-63

Tulsa

86-60

at Air Force (MVC/MWC Challenge)

72-69

Northern Colorado

80-54

at Tennessee

60-69

Charleston Southern

65-53

Southern Mississippi

59-51

Northern Iowa

66-41

at Drake

75-63

at Bradley

69-63

Southern Illinois

82-76

at Evansville

67-71

Illinois St.

74-62

Crieghton

67-64

at Missouri St.

62-52

Bradley

73-39

Indiana St.

55-68

at Northern Iowa

52-57

at Southern Illinois

62-64

Missouri St.

79-50

Drake

71-56

at Illinois St.

68-67

at Indiana St.

66-62

Detroit (Bracketbuster)

94-79

Evansville

56-59

at Creighton

79-91

Missouri St. (mvc–St. Louis)

69-59

Illinois St. (mvc–St. Louis)

66-51

Crieghton (mvc–St. Louis)

65-68

(n) Pittsburgh ncaa

73-55

(n) Gonzaga ncaa

76-70

(n) La Salle ncaa

72-58

(n) Ohio St. ncaa

70-66

 

Vital Statistics

FG% Margin: Louisville by 1.6%

Rebound Margin: Wichita St. by 4.3

Turnover Margin: Louisville by 5.6

R+T Margin: Louisville by 3.1 extra possessions

SOS: Louisville by 5.6 points per game

 

PiRate Pick: Louisville 73  Wichita State 61

 

Other: Louisville winning the national championship one year after their rival Kentucky won it would not be something new.  It has happened before.  In 2010, Duke won the title a year after North Carolina.  In 1993, North Carolina won the title a year after Duke.  In 1983, North Carolina State won the title a year after North Carolina.  In 1961, Cincinnati won the title a year after Ohio State, and to make it sweeter, the Bearcats beat the Buckeyes in the championship game (and repeated that victory the following season.  Ohio State had refused to play Cincinnati in the regular season.

 

Cincinnati comes into play on Wichita State’s side as well.  The Bearcats were members of the Missouri Valley Conference when they won those back-to-back titles.  The MVC has four national championship teams from the past.  In addition to Cinti, Oklahoma A&M (now Oklahoma State) won back-to-back titles in 1945 and 1946, while in the Valley.  The Cowboys moves to the Big 8 for the 1958-59 season.

 

Michigan vs. Syracuse

Roster—Michigan

#

Name

Ht.

Wt.

Pos.

Year

Hometown (High School)

1

Glenn Robinson III

6-06

210

F

FR

St. John, Ind. (Lake Central)

2

Spike Albrecht

5-11

170

G

FR

Crown Pt., Ind. (Northfield Mt. Hermon Prep MA)

3

Trey Burke

6-01

190

G

SO

Columbus, Ohio (Northland)

4

Mitch McGary

6-10

250

F

FR

Chesterton, Ind. (Brewster Academy [N.H.])

5

Eso Akunne

6-02

225

G

SR

Ann Arbor, Mich. (Gabriel Richard)

10

Tim Hardaway Jr.

6-06

205

G

JR

Miami, Fla. (Palmetto Senior)

11

Nik Stauskas

6-06

190

G

FR

Mississauga, Ontario (St. Mark’s School MA)

13

Matt Vogrich

6-04

200

G

SR

Lake Forest, Ill. (Lake Forest)

15

Jon Horford

6-10

250

F

SO

Grand Ledge, Mich. (Grand Ledge)

20

Josh Bartelstein

6-03

210

G

SR

Highland Pk., Ill. (Phillips Exeter Acad. [N.H.])

22

Blake McLimans

6-10

240

F

SR

Hamburg, N.Y. (Worcester Academy [Mass.])

23

Caris LeVert

6-05

170

G

FR

Pickerington, Ohio (Central)

32

Corey Person

6-03

210

G

GS

Kalamazoo, Mich. (Central)

44

Max Bielfeldt

6-07

245

F

FR

Peoria, Ill. (Notre Dame)

52

Jordan Morgan

6-08

250

F

JR

Detroit, Mich. (University of Detroit Jesuit)

 

Coach: John Beilein 6th year at UM: 121-84

35 seasons overall: 672-402

(Erie CC, Nazareth, LeMoyne, Canisius, Richmond, West Virginia, Michigan)

 

Roster—Syracuse

#

Name

HT.

WT.

POS.

CL.

HOMETOWN / HIGHSCHOOL

0

Michael Gbinije

6-07

200

F

So.

Richmond, Va. / Benedictine College Prep

1

Mchl. Carter-Williams

6-06

185

G

So.

Hamilton, Mass. / St. Andrews School, R.I.

3

Jerami Grant

6-08

203

F

Fr.

Hyattsville, Md. / DeMatha Catholic

4

Nolan Hart

5-10

152

G

Jr.

Albany, N.Y. / Albany Academy

5

C.J. Fair

6-08

215

F

Jr.

Baltimore, Md. / City College HS/Brewster Acad.

10

Trevor Cooney

6-04

195

G

So.

Wilmington, Del. / Sanford School

12

Baye Moussa Keita

6-10

215

C

Jr.

Saint Louis, Senegal / Oak Hill Academy

13

Griffin Hoffmann

6-01

178

G

Sr.

New York, N.Y. / York Prep

14

Matt Lyde-Cajuste

6-05

215

F

Sr.

Mt. Vernon, N.Y. / Iona Prep

20

Brandon Triche

6-04

210

G

Sr.

Jamesville, N.Y. / Jamesville-DeWitt

21

Noel Jones

6-06

230

F

Jr.

Halifax, N.S. / Halifax Grammer School

23

Russ DeRemer

6-05

203

G

Jr.

Wrentham, Mass./Worcester Academy

25

Rakeem Christmas

6-09

242

F

So.

Philadelphia, Pa. / Academy of the New Church

32

DaJuan Coleman

6-09

288

F

Fr.

Jamesville, N.Y. / Jamesville-DeWitt

33

Albert Nassar

6-06

195

F

So.

Stuart, Fla. / South Fork

43

James Southerland

6-08

215

F

Sr.

Bayside, N.Y. / Cardozo/N. Dame Prep (Mass.)

 

Coach: Jim Boeheim 37th year at SU: 920-313

 

Team Stats: Michigan

Player

G

GS

Min

FG

FGA

FG%

3pt

3ptA

3pt%

FT

FTA

Trey Burke

37

37

1314

251

541

.464

72

189

.381

122

151

Tim Hardaway, Jr.

36

36

1250

192

431

.445

70

181

.387

73

105

Nik Stauskas

37

31

1153

137

291

.471

79

176

.449

74

87

Glenn Robinson, III

37

37

1239

159

281

.566

23

69

.333

65

97

Mitch McGary

37

6

704

127

210

.605

0

0

.000

21

46

Jordan Morgan

34

27

560

70

120

.583

0

0

.000

21

39

Jon Horford

30

4

272

33

57

.579

0

0

.000

17

24

Caris LeVert

31

1

323

25

84

.298

11

39

.282

7

14

Spike Albrecht

37

0

285

20

48

.417

12

26

.462

9

9

Eso Akunne

18

0

51

8

26

.308

4

12

.333

1

2

Max Bielfeldt

20

0

106

9

20

.450

0

2

.000

5

12

Matt Vogrich

26

6

125

9

27

.333

5

19

.263

3

4

Corey Person

13

0

43

3

7

.429

2

3

.667

2

3

Blake McLimans

16

0

20

4

15

.267

2

11

.182

1

2

Josh Bartelstein

6

0

10

0

1

.000

0

0

.000

0

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
Totals

37

37

7455

1047

2159

.485

280

727

.385

421

597

Opponents

37

37

7455

890

2105

.423

231

715

.323

318

469

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
Player

FT%

F

DQ

Ast

TO

Bk

Stl

Reb

Avg

Pts

Avg

Trey Burke

.808

67

0

253

81

18

59

115

3.1

696

18.8

Tim Hardaway, Jr.

.695

70

0

84

68

17

25

166

4.6

527

14.6

Nik Stauskas

.851

23

0

50

43

9

20

113

3.1

427

11.5

Glenn Robinson, III

.670

43

0

41

29

10

39

203

5.5

406

11.0

Mitch McGary

.457

84

0

18

43

25

41

228

6.2

275

7.4

Jordan Morgan

.538

50

1

13

32

3

15

153

4.5

161

4.7

Jon Horford

.708

44

0

9

14

16

8

68

2.3

83

2.8

Caris LeVert

.500

37

0

23

8

2

5

29

0.9

68

2.2

Spike Albrecht

1.000

23

0

28

12

1

12

29

0.8

61

1.6

Eso Akunne

.500

4

0

5

1

0

0

12

0.7

21

1.2

Max Bielfeldt

.417

8

0

3

3

1

3

31

1.6

23

1.2

Matt Vogrich

.750

8

0

5

3

0

2

23

0.9

26

1.0

Corey Person

.667

4

0

2

1

0

0

1

0.1

10

0.8

Blake McLimans

.500

4

0

1

1

1

1

13

0.8

11

0.7

Josh Bartelstein

.000

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

0.0

0

0.0

Team

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

118

3.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

.705

470

1

536

339

103

231

1302

35.2

2795

75.5

Opponents

.678

564

8

463

451

117

193

1186

32.1

2329

62.9

 

Team Stats—Syracuse

Player

G

GS

Min

FG

FGA

FG%

3pt

3ptA

3pt%

FT

FTA

C. J. Fair

39

39

1357

208

442

.471

29

61

.475

114

151

Brandon Triche

39

39

1312

181

436

.415

49

168

.292

122

164

Mchl. Carter-Williams

39

39

1373

154

388

.397

35

118

.297

129

186

Rakeem Christmas

39

39

810

85

161

.528

0

0

.000

30

51

DaJuan Coleman

24

20

305

42

96

.438

0

0

.000

30

65

James Southerland

33

10

976

159

349

.456

83

206

.403

45

57

Jerami Grant

39

9

555

52

114

.456

6

15

.400

41

73

Baye Moussa Keita

39

0

655

53

87

.609

0

0

.000

39

65

Trevor Cooney

38

0

431

46

143

.322

27

103

.262

11

15

Albert Nasser

5

0

3

1

1

1.000

1

1

1.000

0

0

Noel Jones

6

0

8

1

2

.500

0

0

.000

0

0

Matt Lyde-Cajuste

13

0

22

1

6

.167

0

3

.000

0

0

Nolan Hart

11

0

15

1

6

.167

0

3

.000

0

1

Griffin Hoffman

12

0

15

0

5

.000

0

4

.000

1

4

Russ DeRemer

11

0

13

0

2

.000

0

1

.000

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
Totals

39

39

7850

984

2238

.440

230

683

.337

562

832

Opponents

39

39

7850

773

2101

.368

238

843

.282

502

742

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
Player

FT%

F

DQ

Ast

TO

Bk

Stl

Reb

Avg

Pts

Avg

C. J. Fair

.755

60

0

28

63

41

44

272

7.0

559

14.3

Brandon Triche

.744

81

2

136

107

5

50

134

3.4

533

13.7

Mchl. Carter-Williams

.694

87

4

290

131

19

109

190

4.9

472

12.1

Rakeem Christmas

.588

99

3

8

34

72

18

178

4.6

200

5.1

DaJuan Coleman

.462

30

0

4

23

9

13

95

4.0

114

4.8

James Southerland

.789

76

2

36

38

29

49

173

5.2

446

13.5

Jerami Grant

.562

54

1

17

26

16

17

111

2.8

151

3.9

Baye Moussa Keita

.600

95

2

6

22

45

21

147

3.8

145

3.7

Trevor Cooney

.733

32

0

23

19

3

28

31

0.8

130

3.4

Albert Nasser

.000

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

0.2

3

0.6

Noel Jones

.000

2

0

0

0

1

0

6

1.0

2

0.3

Matt Lyde-Cajuste

.000

0

0

1

1

2

1

4

0.3

2

0.2

Nolan Hart

.000

0

0

1

6

0

1

3

0.3

2

0.2

Griffin Hoffman

.250

1

0

0

4

0

3

1

0.1

1

0.1

Russ DeRemer

.000

0

0

0

1

0

0

2

0.2

0

0.0

Team

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

154

3.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
Totals

.675

618

14

550

485

242

355

1502

38.5

2760

70.8

Opponents

.677

714

9

521

608

125

270

1357

34.8

2286

58.6

 

Schedule—Michigan

Opponent

Score

vs. Slippery Rock

100-62

vs. IUPUI TV (nit)

91-54

vs. Cleveland State (nit)

77-47

(n) Pittsburgh (nit)

67-62

(n) Kansas State (nit)

71-57

vs. No. 18 North Carolina State

79-72

at Bradley 

74-66

vs. Western Michigan 

73-41

vs. Arkansas 

80-67

vs. Binghamton 

67-39

(n) West Virginia (Brooklyn)

81-66

vs. Eastern Michigan 

93-54

vs. Central Michigan 

88-73

at Northwestern

94-66

vs. Iowa

95-67

vs. Nebraska

62-47

at No. 15 Ohio State

53-56

at No. 9 Minnesota

83-75

vs. Purdue

68-53

at Illinois

74-60

vs. Northwestern

68-46

at No. 3 Indiana

73-81

vs. No. 10 Ohio State

76-74 ot

at Wisconsin

62-65 ot

at Michigan State

52-75

vs. Penn State

79-71

vs. Illinois

71-58

at Penn State

78-84

vs. No. 9 Michigan State

58-57

at Purdue

80-75

vs. No. 2 Indiana

71-72

vs. Penn State (B10)

83-66

vs. No. 22 Wisconsin (B10)

59-68

vs. South Dakota State ncaa

71-56

vs. VCU ncaa

78-53

vs. No. 3 Kansas ncaa

87-85 ot

vs. No. 14 Florida ncaa

79-59

 

Schedule—Syracuse

Opponent

Score

at San Diego St. (Onboard Midway)

62-49

Wagner

88-57

Princeton

73-53

Colgate

87-51

at Arkansas (SEC/Big East)

91-82

Eastern Michigan

84-48

Long Beach St.

84-53

Monmouth

108-56

Canisius (Gotham Classic)

85-61

Detroit (Gotham Classic)

72-68

(n) Temple (MSG) (Gotham Classic)

79-83

Alcorn St. (Gotham Classic)

57-36

Central Connecticut

96-62

Rutgers

78-53

at South Florida

55-44

at Providence

72-66

Villanova

72-61

at Louisville

70-68

Cincinnati

57-55

at Villanova

71-75 ot

at Pittsburgh

55-65

Notre Dame

63-47

St. John’s

77-58

at Connecticut

58-66

at Seton Hall

76-65

Providence

84-59

Georgetown

46-57

at Marquette

71-74

Louisville

53-58

DePaul

78-57

at Georgetown

39-61

(n) Seton Hall (MSG) (BE)

75-63

(n) Pittsburgh (MSG) (BE)

62-59

(n) Georgetown (MSG) (BE)

58-55 ot

(n) Louisville (MSG (BE)

61-78

(n) Montana ncaa

81-34

(n) California ncaa

66-60

(n) Indiana ncaa

61-50

(n) Marquette ncaa

55-39

 

Vital Statistics

FG% Margin: Syracuse by 1.0%

Rebound Margin: Syracuse by 0.6

Turnover Margin: Syracuse by 0.4

R+T Margin: Syracuse by 1.7 extra possessions

SOS: Syracuse by 3.4 points per game

 

PiRate Pick: Syracuse 76  Michigan 70

 

Other: If Syracuse plays Louisville for the national title, it will be the fourth time conference opponents have faced each other in the championship game.  In 1988, Kansas beat Oklahoma in a big upset.  In 1985, Villanova beat Georgetown in an even bigger upset.  In 1976, Indiana beat Michigan to complete the last undefeated season of a national champion.

 

Michigan and Louisville or Michigan and Wichita State would continue a tradition of recent Midwest dominance in the Championship Game.  We consider Louisville and Lexington to be more Midwest than South.  There have been 11 Midwest schools in the 13 title games of the 2000’s.  There have been 9 teams from the South, 4 from the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast area, and 2 from the West.

 

The Big Ten has placed five teams in the Championship Game this century, but only one member one—Michigan State in 2000.  The Big East is 3-0 in 21st Century National Championship Games.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.