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.
The Pi-Rate Ratings 