PiRate Ratings NCAA Tournament For Sunday, March 31, 2019

 

Home	Rating	HCA	Visitor	Rating	Spread
Kentucky	118.3	0.0	Auburn	116.5	1.8
Duke	122.1	0.0	Michigan St.	121.2	0.9

Today’s Schedule

Team	Team	TIME (EDT)	TV	LOCATION
Kentucky	Auburn	2:20 PM	CBS	Kansas City
Duke	Michigan St.	5:05 PM	CBS	Washington, D.C.

 

Bracketnomics 2019: Picking The Elite 8

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Gonzaga	56.36	17.3	30.7	73.6	12.9	16.5	15.0
Texas Tech	59.03	10.2	27.6	72.0	16.0	20.0	4.2

Texas Tech enjoys a slight SOS edge, but Gonzaga’s exceptional R+T Rating is a major factor in this game.  Gonzaga will enjoy a modest rebounding advantage at both ends of the court, while the Bulldogs will be able to withstand the Red Raiders’ ball-hawking ability.  Thus, turnover margin should be close to even.  Gonzaga’s TS% Margin is somewhat better here, and the SOS advantage by TTU is mostly negated.

Prediction: Gonzaga by 6 to 11 points

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Virginia	59.89	12.3	29.7	75.0	12.9	15.8	10.2
Purdue	61.14	3.6	34.0	74.0	13.5	16.6	11.5

Purdue’s SOS and R+T Rating are marginally better, while Virginia holds a commanding TS% Margin advantage.  Purdue should grab a few additional offensive rebounds in this game, while turnovers should be relatively close.  This has the makings of an exciting close game, just like so many others in this year’s tournament.  In this game, the Bracketnomics cannot pick a conclusive winner, so other factors must be included.  Virginia has been a little more consistent in matching their statistical data, while Purdue has been a little more varied.  I will go with the more consistent team.

Prediction: Virginia by 2 to 7 points

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Kentucky	60.76	9.8	36.6	74.7	15.8	16.0	16.2
Auburn	60.34	1.9	32.2	67.8	14.6	21.8	2.7

The effect of the Chuma Okeke injury can only be estimated for Auburn, while Kentucky’s P.J. Washington appears to be close to 100% for this game after playing well against Houston.

You would expect conference rivals at this point of the season to have similar SOS’s, and these two teams do.  Kentucky’s R+T Rating is so superior in this game, and their TS% Margin is considerably better, so this makes it a potential blowout game.  Auburn will force the Wildcats into a few extra turnovers, but the rebounding edge could be scary in this game, as the Big Blue might be able to win the boards by more than a 60-40% advantage.  

During the regular season, Kentucky beat Auburn both times.  It was a close game in Auburn, but the Wildcats breezed to an easy win in Lexington.

Prediction: Kentucky by 10 to 15 points

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Duke	62.63	9.8	35.5	71.0	14.7	17.0	12.1
Michigan St.	61.29	14.0	33.8	74.1	16.4	12.7	12.3

This game has the makings of another classic.  The data predicts a close contest.  Duke’s SOS advantage is minimal, and the R+T Ratings basically wash.  Michigan State’s TS% Margin mostly comes from a better 3-point shooting ability, and only slightly better defense.  Duke’s big advantage comes in turnover margin.  The Blue Devils have the ability to exploit the Spartans’ real liability, as Sparty is prone to turning the ball over, while Duke is a competent team when it comes to forcing turnovers.  Michigan State’s normal rebounding strength will be somewhat negated if not totally negated in this game.

It isn’t a slam dunk win for Coach K over Coach Izzo, but the Blue Devils have more going for themselves in the data for this one.

Prediction: Duke by 5 to 10 points

 

 

 

 

 

PiRate Ratings NCAA Tournament For Friday, March 29, 2019

Home	Rating	HCA	Visitor	Rating	Spread
Michigan St.	121.0	0.0	LSU	114.5	6.5
North Carolina	121.4	0.0	Auburn	115.9	5.5
Duke	122.4	0.0	Virginia Tech	115.4	7.0
Kentucky	118.3	0.0	Houston	116.0	2.3

 

Tonight’s Schedule

Team	Team	TIME (EDT)	TV	LOCATION
LSU	Michigan St.	7:09 PM	CBS	Washington, D.C.
Auburn	N. Carolina	7:29 PM	TBS	Kansas City
Va. Tech	Duke	9:39 PM	CBS	Washington, D.C.
Houston	Kentucky	9:59 PM	TBS	Kansas City

PiRate Ratings NCAA Tournament For Thursday, March 28, 2019

Home	Rating	HCA	Visitor	Rating	Spread
Gonzaga	123.1	0.0	Florida St.	115.7	7.4
Tennessee	117.8	0.0	Purdue	117.6	0.2
Michigan	119.1	0.0	Texas Tech	118.4	0.7
Virginia	120.6	0.0	Oregon	111.2	9.4

 

Tonight’s Schedule

Team	Team	TIME (EDT)	TV	LOCATION
Florida St.	Gonzaga	7:09 PM	CBS	Anaheim
Purdue	Tennessee	7:29 PM	TBS	Louisville
Texas Tech	Michigan	9:39 PM	CBS	Anaheim
Oregon	Virginia	9:59 PM	TBS	Louisville

 

PiRate Ratings NCAA Tournament For Wednesday, March 20, 2019

Home

Rating

HCA

Visitor

Rating

Spread

North Carolina Central	97.2	0.0	North Dakota St.	97.9	-0.7
St. John’s	106.2	0.0	Arizona St.	107.9	-1.7

Schedule

Both Games on Tru TV

6:40 PM EDT

16- North Carolina Central vs. 16- North Dakota St.

30 Minutes After the Conclusion of the First Game

(approximately 9:15 PM EDT)

11-Arizona State vs. 11-St. John’s

 

Thursday’s Schedule

Time	Game	TV	Location
12:15 p.m.	(10) Minnesota vs. (7) Louisville	CBS	Des Moines
12:40 p.m.	(14) Yale vs. (3) LSU	truTV	Jacksonville
1:30 p.m.	(12) New Mexico St. vs. (5) Auburn	TNT	Salt Lake City
2 p.m.	(13) Vermont vs. (4) Florida St.	TBS	Hartford
Approx. 2:30 PM	(15) Bradley vs. (2) Michigan St.	CBS	Des Moines
Approx. 2:55 PM	(11) Belmont vs. (6) Maryland	truTV	Jacksonville
Approx. 3:45 PM	(13) Northeastern vs. (4) Kansas	TNT	Salt Lake City
Approx. 4:15 PM	(12) Murray St. vs. (5) Marquette	TBS	Hartford
6:50 p.m.	(10) Florida vs. (7) Nevada	TNT	Des Moines
7:10 p.m.	(15) Abilene Christian vs. (2) Kentucky	CBS	Jacksonville
7:20 p.m.	(11) Saint Mary’s vs. (6) Villanova	TBS	Hartford
7:27 p.m.	(16) Fairleigh-Dickinson vs. (1) Gonzaga	truTV	Salt Lake City
Approx. 9:20 PM	(15) Montana vs. (2) Michigan	TNT	Des Moines
Approx. 9:40 PM	(10) Seton Hall vs. (7) Wofford	CBS	Jacksonville
Approx. 9:50 PM	(14) Old Dominion vs. (3) Purdue	TBS	Hartford
Approx. 9:57 PM	(9) Baylor vs. (8) Syracuse	truTV	Salt Lake City

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bracketnomics 2019: Picking The Bracket

Here it is!

I’ve always wanted to post those words.  As a fanatic of the old Mother Road, Route 66, those three words have a special meaning.  In the “good ole days,”  The Jack Rabbit Trading Post near Joseph City, Arizona, used those three words to advertise that after miles of driving and seeing numerous signs for this tourist stop, they had finally arrived.

Like those Mother Road drivers, it is my hope that I have finally arrived at a successful system, one that will pick a large percentage of winners in the Big Dance.

The PiRate Ratings Bracketnomics System has been successful in the past–very successful.  Then, again, there have been major bust years, where throwing a dart at a dartboard with team names would have been just as reliable.

Numerous revisions to the system have brought me to settle on what you might have read yesterday, the Bracketnomics Tutorial, which you can read here:

https://piratings.wordpress.com/2019/03/18/bracketnomics-2019-picking-your-brackets/

Today, I will attempt to interpret that data from the tutorial and select a bracket based on the statistics.  This is a 100% mechanical process with no objectivity.  If you believe in 100% mechanical stock investing, then this publication is totally for you.  If you are more of a hunch player, then you will need to alter this information to better fit your beliefs, but at least let our data be a dissenting view when you consider your choices.

This post will pick all 67 games, including the games in Dayton that 99% of the bracket pools do not include.  I will pick each round today.

After the conclusion of each round, I will then post an updated bracket to assist all of you that play in a pool that allows you to pick new winners after each round.

Remember, this is still a system in its infancy with growing pains.  What I have tried to do is isolate through back-tested methods similar statistical data that past Final Four and National Championship teams possessed.

For instance, almost every national champion has possessed a scoring margin of 8 points  or better, and a large majority had double-digit scoring margins.  Almost all national champions have come from one of the “Power Conferences” or in the past were one of the top 10 Independents when there were more than 30 teams not in a conference.

Very few teams have ever made the Final Four with a negative rebounding margin, but considerably more had negative turnover margins.  At the same time, a lot of these teams had high steals per game averages, even if their turnover margin was negative.

One final factor I like to look at is style of play.  Most National Champions have been up-tempo teams that run the fast break, play some form of pressure defense (not necessarily full-court), and moves the ball quicker than average in the scoring zone.  This is not 100% exclusive.  Some patient teams that play a non-gambling style of defense have made the Final Four and a couple even won the tournament, but the trend is to go with the team that has the better chance of going on a scoring run with a 10-point or better spurt.  History shows that teams that play like North Carolina and Duke tend to get these spurts more frequently than teams like Virginia and Kansas St.

Let’s take a look at the data, starting with the First Four games in Dayton.

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Prairie View A&M	43.07	-2.7	30.0	66.1	15.2	21.7	-3.8
Fairleigh-Dickinson	43.31	5.2	28.9	68.1	17.1	18.1	-2.4

This is an excellent example for the first game of the tournament.  SOS (Strength of Schedule) is dead even, so the rest of the stats are 100% comparable.  FDU will more than likely have the better shooting night.  Rebounding should be about even, and Prairie View will more than likely force FDU into a few more mistakes than they normally commit.  Because both teams possess R+T ratings below zero, these are two 16-seeds that are going nowhere for sure.  The winner will be a blowout victim Thursday.  This is about as tossup as you can get.  I’ll go with the team with the better, but terrible R+T Rating and select

Fairleigh-Dickinson

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Temple	54.13	0.5	26.0	71.1	13.8	18.1	-3.1
Belmont	48.60	9.7	25.6	76.4	13.8	14.8	6.0

Temple has the stronger schedule by about 5.7 points per game.  Thus, the system calls for Temple’s stats to carry stronger weight than Belmont’s stats.  Temple faced better defensive teams on average than Belmont, but not enough to counter a difference of 9.2%.  Temple will have marginal rebounding advantages on both sides of the floor, but the Owls have a negative R+T.  Belmont’s R+T rating is good enough to win early, and even though the Bruins are 0-7 in past NCAA Tournaments, their mechanical data show that they are the better team.  It could be one little spurt in the second half that wins this game.

Belmont

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

North Carolina Central	39.47	3.5	35.1	73.7	19.0	17.3	8.2
North Dakota St.	47.57	3.4	20.9	75.7	14.3	13.2	-6.1

UNC Central has the weakest SOS in the entire field, and there isn’t another one even close.  North Dakota State has an R+T rating that is near the bottom of the field, one that in the past has never won more than one game in a Dance.  Once again, these are two 16-seeds that have no chance against a 1-seed.  I’m not sure they could beat any of the 15-seeds.  This one is a difficult choice–the weakest schedule or the worst R+T score.  Because I expect very low shooting percentages in this game, I will take the team likely to get the most second chance points.

North Carolina Central

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

St. John’s	55.79	-0.2	21.3	70.3	12.8	18.3	-8.0
Arizona St.	55.20	2.3	32.4	73.6	15.9	16.7	6.8

Once again, we have teams with identical SOS, which makes the selection a lot easier.  St. John’s has the second worst R+T rating in the entire field.  Case closed right away.  Arizona State will enjoy at least one big run in this game, and the Sun Devils will put this game away at that point.  This has the looks of a potential blowout win.

Arizona State

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Louisville	61.61	6.1	29.2	74.2	15.5	14.3	2.9
Minnesota	59.44	1.8	31.7	72.2	15.0	14.5	1.1

Louisville’s schedule is marginally tougher, so they will get a slight upward adjustment  in their data.  The Cardinals have a clear advantage in true shooting margin and an ever so slight R+T advantage.  This makes it 3 for 3 in Louisville’s favor, but it’s three slim advantages.  The Cards are the slim favorite according to the data.

Louisville

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

LSU	58.56	3.2	37.3	69.6	15.3	18.0	10.1
Yale	49.95	8.8	26.0	75.9	16.1	13.5	3.6

Note:   Unless something changes, LSU Coach Will Wade is still suspended and will not coach this game.  My system has no contingency to adjust LSU’s stats.

LSU’s SOS is almost nine points stronger, so their numbers must be improved.  Thus, the Tigers have a slightly better TS%, a much better rebounding advantage, and a considerably better R+T rating.  Yale might keep it close for some time, but LSU will enjoy a killer scoring spurt to put this game away.

LSU

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Auburn	59.71	1.8	33.0	68.0	14.7	22.0	3.9
New Mexico St.	48.05	4.8	36.8	79.0	14.5	17.6	18.7

This is going to be a game you will want to watch, even if you have no dog in this fight.  I expect the teams to top 75 possessions in this game.  Two of the top 20 coaches in college basketball will face off, and Aggie head coach Chris Jans should be on the radar of some power conference teams looking for a new coach.

Auburn has a large SOS advantage of 11.66 points per game, which is prohibitive.  The TS margin, offensive rebounding advantage, and R+T numbers heavily favor NMSU, and the Aggies have the top R+T rating in the tournament.  However, with a SOS advantage of almost a dozen points, Auburn will win the turnover battle, and NMSU’s rebounding advantage will be heavily tempered.  Score one for the SEC, but it would not be a shock if New Mexico State makes this a close game and even has a chance to win.  The Aggies should be considered as one of your potential upset teams, but I think there are better upset chances in this round.

Auburn

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Vermont	46.62	6.5	27.8	78.8	14.4	17.8	8.8
Florida St.	59.87	3.5	33.1	73.1	16.5	18	8.3

It is rare to see a Round of 64 game where the SOS difference is 13+ points and it isn’t a 1 vs. 16 or 2 vs. 15 game.  Florida State’s superior schedule makes the relatively equal numbers in the other data inconsequential.  If you are into horse racing, you know doubt know how often a non-winner of two lifetime races enters a graded handicap and beats a classic champion horse.  Vermont is the three year old that won a race against other non-winners and then entered a Graded stakes race against four and five year old horses, some of which were contenders in the Derby when they were three.  Class wins horse races, and it wins NCAA Tournament games when the upstart isn’t the next Justify.  Vermont isn’t a Justify.

Florida State

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Michigan St.	61.44	13.8	33.9	73.4	16.2	12.8	11.7
Bradley	48.52	1.7	27.4	73.8	16.8	16.5	-0.5

This game has the same issue that the previous game has, but the data is even more biased in favor of the better team.  Michigan State could start its second five in this game and probably win.  Bradley will have to settle for being glad they got to Dance.  If Tom Izzo wanted to do so, he could run up the score to a 40-point victory.  Sparty has a chance to go deep into this Tournament with their superior numbers.  Only an inability to force turnovers might eventually end their run.

Michigan State

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Maryland	59.76	7.4	33.9	75.3	17.0	12.5	8.6

Temple	54.13	0.5	26.0	71.1	13.8	18.1	-3.1
Belmont	48.60	9.7	25.6	76.4	13.8	14.8	6.0

In most of your pools, you get a free pass on the play-in games, but some of you might actually have to select these games.  Thus, I am showing you both of the teams Maryland could face.

Against Temple, the Terps have a slight SOS advantage and a humongous R+T advantage.  This system’s rule of thumb is to play against teams with a negative R+T rating.

Against Belmont, the Terps have a large SOS advantage, while the remaining stats are rather close.  This system’s other rule of thumb is to play the team with the superior SOS in this case.  So, the outcome should be the same no matter which team Maryland plays.

Maryland

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Kansas	62.55	5.5	29.7	71.6	16.1	15.7	1.9
Northeastern	51.11	6.7	22.7	75.7	15.1	14.9	-1.9

Kansas is not destined for a long stay at this cotillion.  The Jayhawks do not have the spurtability needed to win in the later rounds, but for this round, KU will feast on second chance points and take advantage of a Northeastern defense incapable of stopping a Big 12 offense.  This has the makings of a 20-point win.

Kansas

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Marquette	57.57	8.9	29.1	73.7	17.0	14.5	2.4
Murray St.	47.53	10.6	32.0	70.7	14.7	17.2	7.8

The old system had an assumption that a team with one star and average teammates rarely advanced far in the tournaments.  Remember, Michael Jordan and Stephan Curry played for teams with very good talent.  Jordan had Sam Perkins and James Worthy for teammates.

Ja Morant qualifies as one fantastic star, while the rest of his team is slightly above average but not in the Davidson mold when Curry and crew went to the Elite 8.

Marquette’s stats are not great.  The Big East was a bit weaker than normal this season, so MU is not a team to advance very far in your bracket, and in Markus Howard, you have one big star.  The difference is that the Golden Eagles have four well-above average players rounding out their starting lineup and a very good sub.

Murray State has an upset chance in this game, but when you break it down closely, Marquette should have a little more in the tank in the final minutes.  If you are looking for upset possibilities, this could definitely be put in that category, but it looks like Marquette is just good enough to avoid an upset.

Marquette

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Nevada	52.55	9.0	26.5	75.4	12.7	17.1	7.0
Florida	59.80	1.2	31.1	68.3	15.5	19.4	-0.5

This is your first big upset possibility in the games previewed so far.  Florida has a seven-point SOS advantage, but is is not enough to overcome their deficiencies in the other statistics.  Nevada coach Eric Musselman is, in my opinion, the best college basketball coach in the nation today, better than Mike Krzyzewski, Roy Williams, and Jay Wright.  If UCLA is not seriously looking at him for their vacancy, they are making a monumental mistake.

Let’s look at the data.  Nevada will take more intelligent shots than Florida, other than when the Gators get a couple of cheap baskets on offensive rebounds.  The Gators’s pressure defense will not be all that effective, and Florida has shown a propensity to make crucial mistakes in the final minutes of games.  This isn’t part of the criteria per se, but it shows in their turnover percentage, and their negative R+T rating,  and the criteria does say to play against a negative R+T.

Nevada

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Kentucky	60.54	9.5	36.5	74.2	15.9	16.1	15.4
Abilene Christian	42.42	4.3	29.4	73.3	15.5	21.7	5.9

Under John Calipari, Kentucky has shown a tendency to emulate their 1958 National Champions.  Adolph Rupp’s “Fiddlin’ Five” frequently allowed an opponent to enjoy a small lead, and then like a lightning flash make a big run to decide the outcome.  The Wildcats of 2019 have displayed this characteristic more times than not.

Abilene Christian isn’t a terrible team.  They earned their invitation by sweeping the regular season and conference tournament in the Southland Conference.  However, their data is not comparable when past Southland power Stephen F. Austin won in the Dance.  This game is a mismatch, and once the Wildcats stop fiddlin’, they will run away from the other Wildcats.

Kentucky

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Villanova	58.16	5.0	31.1	72.6	14.2	15.4	3.5
Saint Mary’s	55.33	5.1	31.2	76.8	14.1	14.7	9.6

In my opinion, this should be a great game to watch.  The teams are fairly evenly matched.  Villanova’s SOS is marginally better, while SMC has the better R+T Rating.  Both teams rely on offensive rebounding to score a good bit of their baskets, and Saint Mary’s has the ability to limit Villanova’s offensive rebounding.  It comes down to R+T rating.  The Gaels have a slight advantage over the defending national champions.  I consider this a 50-50 game, but the data says to take the Gaels.

Saint Mary’s

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Gonzaga	56.14	17.7	30.6	72.9	12.8	16.5	14.3

Prairie View A&M	43.07	-2.7	30.0	66.1	15.2	21.7	-3.8
Fairleigh-Dickinson	43.31	5.2	28.9	68.1	17.1	18.1	-2.4

There is no need to preview this.  Maybe, if the game was just five minutes long, Gonzaga would have a 2% chance of being upset.  However, over 40 minutes, the only upset will be if the Bulldogs fail to win this game by more than 30 points, no matter which of the two 16-seeds wins in Dayton.

Gonzaga

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Michigan	60.07	8.4	24.0	75.0	12.0	16.1	3.2
Montana	46.25	5.4	27.0	75.3	15.5	17.5	4.7

A lot of fans and so-called pundits believe Montana has a serious upset chance in this game.  The data here disagrees.  Michigan’s SOS is so much stronger, almost 14 points per game.  The Wolverines’ TS Margin is much better thanks to a superior defense, and the Maize and Blue limit mistakes.  I believe this game has more chance to be a blowout than to approach tossup status and look for the Wolverines to win by double digits.

Michigan

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Wofford	52.24	7.9	33.1	76.6	13.6	18.2	14.3
Seton Hall	58.56	0.5	29.5	70.6	15.2	17.4	-0.6

It’s always a bit scary to look at a Mid-major favorite and go with the chalk.  Is Wofford as good as advertised?  I have seen them play about five times this year, and they have an incredible inside-outside offensive game combined with an above-average defense.

Seton Hall’s advantage rests in their SOS superiority, but the Big East was not a beast this year.  The Hall only has a minor advantage here.  In every other data point, the Terriers look like pit bulls in this game, and Seton Hall has a negative R+T rating.

Wofford

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Purdue	60.84	2.3	34.9	73.5	13.5	17.2	11.4
Old Dominion	48.87	1.3	32.3	75.2	15.1	16.3	8.4

Purdue has been one of the biggest disappointments in NCAA Tournament history ever since Joe Barry Carroll led the Boilermakers to the 1980 Final Four.  Purdue has been upset numerous times in nearly 40 years.  This system doesn’t consider that to be a factor.  However, many of those Purdue teams lacked the R+T Rating advantage.  This one does.  Purdue has a strong SOS and a double-digit R+T.  Ironically, where the Boilermakers have been historically strong, TS% margin, they are rather mediocre there this year.

Old Dominion is a solid team from an average conference.  Their only liability is an equally mediocre TS% margin, and their SOS is a tad below average.  Look for the Big Ten to pick up a win, but at some point PU will stink in a game and fail once again to reach the Elysian Fields otherwise known as Minneapolis.

Purdue

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Syracuse	59.55	1.6	30.1	66.6	15.8	19.7	-3.7
Baylor	58.27	1.3	38.0	71.3	16.5	16.1	9.1

This should be another interesting game to watch, and it should be close.  Syracuse’s 2-3 matchup zone can be hard to attack without a lot of experience facing it, so the Orangemen frequently outperform their statistics in the Big Dance.  Baylor frequently plays better in the tournament than they do in the regular season with athletes that have free reign to shine.

The numbers show one glaring liability.  The ‘Cuse have a negative R+T rating, something rarely seen in a Jim Boeheim team.  Syracuse usually rebounds quite well out of their zone, but not so this year.  Baylor has one of the best offensive rebounding numbers in the field, so the Bears have the best chance to exploit a weakness in this game.

Baylor

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Cincinnati	55.48	2.9	37.2	70.9	13.4	18.2	12.9
Iowa	58.09	4.5	30.0	70.9	15.0	16.1	-0.4

In recent years, Cincinnati has owned criteria that yell Elite 8, even Final Four worthy, but the Bearcats never come through.  This isn’t their best team in recent years, so it figures that Cinti is prone for an early exit, even though the Bearcats are playing close to home.

Iowa peaked in the middle of the season and hasn’t been the same since January.  The Hawkeyes have a slight edge in SOS and TS% margin.  Cincinnati has such an incredible edge in R+T, and Iowa’s R+T is negative.  This is enough to advance the Bearcats to the Round of 32.  I expect Cinti to get double-digit offensive rebounds and force about 15 turnovers on the Hawkeyes.  That should lead to at least one big scoring spurt.

Cincinnati

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Ole Miss	58.28	3.2	30.4	70.5	16.0	18.2	2.8
Oklahoma	60.26	4.6	26.1	72.3	15.4	15.1	-2.5

What we have here are two swooning schools.  Both teams looked like sure Sweet 16 teams into mid-January.  Since then, both teams have struggled.  The winner is almost assuredly going home after the next round.  As far as this game goes, Oklahoma has that nasty negative R+T rating, and I just cannot pick a team with a negative R+T to win unless their SOS is far superior.  Two points is not that far.

Ole Miss

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Texas Tech	58.01	9.8	28.5	71.4	16.1	20.0	4.6
Northern Kentucky	46.39	6.6	31.0	74.1	15.4	16.8	7.1

This is Northern Kentucky’s second ever NCAA appearance.  Their original appearance resulted in a single-digit loss to big brother Kentucky.  This team is about as good as that team, while this Texas Tech teams is not as good as that Kentucky team.  Of course, the Norse were super fired up to face the Wildcats, and they got their moral victory.

This time, I expect the data to mean much more.  Texas Tech has a whopping SOS advantage of almost 12 points per game.  They have a much better TS% margin when the SOS is handicapped, and even though NKU has a higher R+T number, when you handicap it to SOS, the Red Raiders actually have the advantage here, and I expect TTU to force NKU into up to five more turnovers than they average.

Texas Tech

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Kansas St.	58.91	1.4	27.9	74.5	15.1	20.3	3.5
UC-Irvine	47.26	6.6	34.3	73.6	14.9	14.7	12.2

Kansas State is one of those teams on my radar to be a potential upset victim.  Having watched UC-Irvine’s Big West Conference Tournament games, I think they have a shot in this game.

The issue is the SOS numbers.  The Wildcats’ schedule was more than 11 1/2 points stronger per game.  UCI’s toughest opposition the entire season was at home against Utah State, and the Aggies slaughtered the Anteaters by 24 points.  UCI did win at Saint Mary’s.

Kansas State has one big asset–their ability to force turnovers.  The Wildcats are not particularly strong on offense.  There Wildcats play a very patient offense and try to limit possessions, but there are nights where this strategy plays into the oppositions’ hands.  Irvine plays patient, smart basketball and will feel right at home in a 60-65 possession game with less than 120 total points.  Kansas State might have the overall better athletes, but UC-Irvine has a hot coach in Russ Turner, a man tutored by Mike Montgomery with a little Don Nelson in his background.  Here’s a 13-seed that I believe can win an opening game.  It’s a tossup.  Go with the team you believe in your mind and heart should win, because I debated this one for 30 minutes before deciding and to be quite honest, I am not sure I can really determine the superior team according to my system.

UC-Irvine

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Tennessee	59.65	9.7	31.3	70.0	13.9	15.8	5.3
Colgate	47.05	5.7	29.6	73.9	16.7	15.6	3.2

There isn’t much need to discuss much in this game–it’s a mismatch.  Tennessee has slightly better criteria stats than Colgate, and when you add a better than 12 1/2 point superiority per game in SOS, you are looking at a potential 20-30 point win.

Tennessee

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Gardner-Webb	45.44	8.8	24.8	70.2	14.7	16.4	-1.8
Virginia	60.36	13.2	29.9	74.1	12.8	15.6	9.6

Gardner-Webb is not in Baltimore County.  Additionally, the Bulldogs do not have the criteria that UMBC had at this time last year.  GWU has a negative R+T rating, and against the Pack Line defense, they will not get the crucial second chance points on offensive rebounds.  Virginia will control the boards and commit few turnovers.  How do you beat the Cavaliers without winning the rebounding and/or the turnover margin?  UVA will wash that bad taste of 2018 out of their mouths with an ugly final score in the neighborhood of 75 to 50.

Virginia

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Buffalo	53.41	6.0	31.8	73.8	13.5	18.2	10.3

St. John’s	55.79	-0.2	21.3	70.3	12.8	18.3	-8.0
Arizona St.	55.20	2.3	32.4	73.6	15.9	16.7	6.8

Bully for Coach Nate Oats.  He signed a lengthy contract extension to stay in Buffalo, when a lot of other schools were ready to pound on his door.  It makes me wonder if Buffalo has designs on maybe campaigning for a spot in a future expanded American Athletic Conference, with excellent football and basketball programs more than ready to move up.

I expect the Bulls to be facing Arizona State in this game, but let’s for a moment look at the possibility that St. John’s wins in Dayton.  With an R+T rating of -8.0, the rules of this system is to continue to play against this team unless the opponent has an incredibly low SOS, well below 45.00.  Buffalo’s SOS is about where previous Mid-Major Final Four teams George Mason, Wichita State, and Virginia Commonwealth were.  So, if St. John’s advances out of Dayton, go with Buffalo to beat their in-state rival by double digits.

Against Arizona State, this is a much more even game.  Buffalo enjoys only a very slight advantage, making this basically a 50-50 game.  The Bulls have been a little more consistent all season, while ASU has been up and down.  The data says that Buffalo is maybe a 51% chance to be the winner.

There is one other factor in this potential game, and it is not part of the criteria, but the fabulous Buffalo senior class that put this team in the top 20 were recruited by current Sun Devil Coach Bobby Hurley.

Buffalo

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Wisconsin	60.91	6.5	24.0	73.5	12.8	15.0	-1.2
Oregon	55.13	3.8	29.6	71.9	15.5	18.3	4.6

When McDonald’s All-American Bol Bol went out for the season after nine games, it looked like it was Duck Season, and the Pac-12 was full of Elmer J. Fudd hunters on the hardwoods.  Give Coach Dana Altman the utmost respect for making the necessary adjustments when he lost his 5-star stud.  His number two 5-star player, Louis King, was not ready to star when the season began.  As the season progressed, King got better and better.

Wisconsin has a slightly better SOS and TS% Margin.  Rebounding is about equal.  However, The Badgers have a negative R+T rating.  Thus, we go against UW more than in favor of Oregon.

Oregon

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Utah St.	52.13	8.7	32.0	77.8	15.5	15.5	14.8
Washington	55.60	4.4	29.5	65.7	17.4	20.5	-3.6

Utah State might be a dangerous dark horse this year!  They have the criteria resume of a Gonzaga in previous years before Mark Few took the Bulldogs to the Championship Game.  I am not predicting USU to make the Final Four this year, but they might make the second weekend.

In this game, Washington is another one of those teams with a negative R+T rating.  While, I am a bit worried that so many teams made the field this year with sub-zero R+T ratings, until one of these non-spurtable teams get to the Elite 8, they will not have my support.

Utah State

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Duke	63.09	10.3	36.1	70.4	15.0	17.1	12.1

North Carolina Central	39.47	3.5	35.1	73.7	19.0	17.3	8.2
North Dakota St.	47.57	3.4	20.9	75.7	14.3	13.2	-6.1

Don’t even think for a second that Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski will lose a minute’s sleep thinking about this game, no matter which 16-seed wins in Dayton.  Duke could play this game without Zion Williamson, R.J. Barrett, or Cam Reddish suiting up.  Heck, Coach K could take his Gary Winton-led team from Army in the 1970’s and win this game.

Duke

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Houston	55.02	8.0	34.4	74.1	14.2	15.8	13.6
Georgia St.	51.14	5.1	23.5	66.2	14.7	18	-9.6

Here is another mismatch game.  Georgia State’s -9.6 R+T rating is dead last in this field, and Houston’s 13.6 R+T rating is seventh best in the field.  Add a better SOS and better TS% margin, and this leads to a major slaughter.  Houston has won some NCAA Tournament games by very large margins in the past.  There was a 35-point pasting of TCU in the Midwest Regional Final in 1968.  The Cougars have an outside chance to top that in this game.  Kelvin Sampson will unload the bench quicker than the way Guy Lewis did, so expect the margin to be in the 20’s.

Houston

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Mississippi St.	59.59	4.3	34.8	70.2	16.5	17.1	6.2
Liberty	46.27	9.2	25.9	74.9	15.0	18.5	5.2

I expect this game to stay somewhat close, at least for most of the game.  Mississippi State has good but not great criteria data.  Liberty’s data is slightly more impressive, but the Bulldogs’ SOS is much stronger, which will probably lead to the Maroon and White prevailing by wearing down and eventually extinguishing the Flames.

Mississippi State

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
North Carolina	62.61	5.5	34.4	76.9	14.6	16.5	17.4
Iona	45.43	3.1	25	70.6	15.4	16.1	-5.4

Roy Williams knows how to get his teams ready to play in the Big Dance, and the Tar Heels are heavy favorites to advance deep into this tournament.  Their R+T rating is second best in the field.  Their SOS is also number two.

Iona is fun to watch, as they like to run and gun.  However, this plays right into UNC’s hands.  The Gaels cannot possibly win this game, and it will be hard to keep it within 20 points.  Their -5.4 R+T rating would exclude them from being picked against 50 other teams in this tournament.

North Carolina

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Virginia Commonwealth	53.22	6.8	31.3	69.3	17.4	20.0	2.9
Central Florida	54.86	9.5	29.3	70.7	15.4	15.5	2.2

This will be another potentially close and exciting game, one worth watching.  The two teams are fairly evenly matched, but only if star Rams’ star guard Marcus Evans is playing at 100% after injuring his knee in an Atlantic 10 Tournament loss to Rhode Island.  When Evans went out, VCU was dominating the Rams.  Without him, they looked like a team that might not have beaten UMass that day.

Central Florida has the unique 7 foot 6 giant, Tacko Fall.  If you haven’t seen him play, do not mistake him for past titans that could barely walk and chew gum at the same time.  Fall is not a gentle giant.  He plays with an attitude, and he is coordinated.  He can play a one-man zone under the basket and change the opponents’ field goal percentage by 10%.  On offense, he is nearly unstoppable when the Knights can get him the ball within arms’ reach of the basket, where he can dunk flat-footed.

With a healthy Evans, VCU can still press full-court and take a lot of Fall’s ability to dominate out of the game.  Make no mistake though; this is not the same Havoc defense run by former coach Shaka Smart.  VCU won’t gamble and go full out for the steal or to force a turnover.  If I had to pick which game might have the best shot at going to overtime, this one might be the one.

Central Florida

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Iowa St.	59.42	7.6	28.7	70.0	13.9	15.9	1.7
Ohio St.	59.18	2.5	27.8	73.9	16.3	16.3	-0.4

Because the SOS’s are close to equal, the remaining stats are easy to compare.  Iowa State has a clear TS% margin, and even though the Cyclones’ R+T is weak, at least it is not negative, like the Buckeyes.

Iowa State

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Virginia Tech	58.33	8.6	29.7	72.6	15.4	19.0	6.4
Saint Louis	51.40	-0.8	35.8	75.2	15.8	17.2	11.2

Only three teams enter this tournament with negative TS% margins, and it makes sense.  The object of the game is to put the ball into the hoop, while preventing the other team from doing so.  Add a healthy SOS advantage, and the Billiken’s R+T rating is neutralized.  SLU’s biggest asset is the ability to force their opponents into committing turnovers, but in this game, Virginia Tech is even better at that game.  While I have heard some people  on sports talk radio express the belief that Travis Ford’s team has a legitimate upset chance in this game, I tend to believe that chances are much stronger that the Hokies win by double-digits.

Virginia Tech

 

Here is how I fill out the remainder of the bracket

For the first time ever, the number one seeds have the top four criteria.  Could it be that the Selection Committee Members all have Bachelor of Madness Degrees in Bracketnomics?

Round of 32

Duke over Central Florida

Virginia Tech over Mississippi St.

Maryland over LSU

Michigan St. over Louisville

Gonzaga over Baylor

Florida St. over Marquette

Texas Tech over Buffalo

Michigan over Nevada

Virginia over Ole Miss

UC-Irvine over Oregon

Purdue over Saint Mary’s

Tennessee over Cincinnati

North Carolina over Utah St.

Auburn over Kansas

Houston over Iowa St.

Kentucky over Wofford

 

Sweet 16

Duke over Virginia Tech

Michigan St. over Maryland

Gonzaga over Florida St.

Texas Tech over Michigan

Virginia over UC-Irvine

Tennessee over Purdue

North Carolina over Auburn

Kentucky over Houston

 

Elite 8

Duke over Michigan St.

Gonzaga over Texas Tech

Virginia over Tennessee

North Carolina over Kentucky

 

Final Four

Gonzaga over Duke

North Carolina over Virginia

 

 

Championship Game

Gonzaga over North Carolina

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bracketnomics 2019: Picking Your Brackets

Welcome to Bracketnomics 2019, the class that will earn you the coveted BM Degree, the Bachelor of Madness.

Because, we have a ton of stats to reveal tonight, we will limit the prose. If you need a tutorial about what Bracketnomics is, then refer to the following link:

https://piratings.wordpress.com/2019/03/16/bracketnomics-2019/

We received a handful of well-thought comments to our sister page suggesting a few things that we agree with, so you will get the kitchen sink of stats this year. Because of Robert M in New Orleans, Joel S, in Orlando, and our good friend and numbers’ savant Brandon W in San Berdoo, California, we are bringing back the old Bracketnomics data combined with the new. For what it’s worth, this year, the old data and new data come to basically the same conclusions.

A Brief Primer on the Old Criteria have us look for teams meeting these criteria

1. A double-digit scoring margin, and a secondary reward to teams with a scoring margin of 8.0 to 9.99.

2. A field goal percentage margin (FG%-Def FG%) in excess of 8%

3. A combination of rebounding margin and turnover margin combined that exceed:
A. A rebound margin of 5.0 or better no matter what the turnover margin
B. A rebound margin of 3.0 to 4.9 with positive turnover margin
C. A rebound margin of 0.1 to 2.9 with with a turnover margin of 3.0 or better
D. A turnover margin of 5.0 or better no matter what the rebound margin

4. A team that averages 7.5 or more steals per game

5. An Old R+T Rating of 10.0 or better, 5.0 or better to get from 68 to 16.
The old R+T rating was (R + (0.2 * S) + (1.2 * T)
R is rebound margin
S is steals/game
T is turnover margin

6. A Strength of Schedule in excess of 0.5500 (back then using the CBS SOS)

The old method was quite accurate for many years, but the game changed when the 3-point shot became a lot more important. The Golden State Warrior effect, actually advanced basketball metrics, showed how important total shooting percentage was and not just field goal percentage. It is a no-brainer that a team that shoots 100% of its shots inside the arc and hits 53% is worse off than a team that shoots 100% of its shots from behind the arc and hits 36%. The 53% team will score .53 points per shot attempt, while the 36% team will score .54 points per shot attempt.

The Current Method uses this data
1. Strength of Schedule
2. True Shooting % Margin
3. R+T Rating

The Strength of Schedule is now calculated by our own metric, and the current R+T Rating is:
(R + (0.5 * S) + (6 – Opp S) + T

Both the old and the new method warned about any team with a negative R+T number as they were most prone to being upset very early in the tournament, and nobody with a negative R+T number ever made the Final Four, and only one ever made the Elite 8. R+T estimates extra scoring opportunities, and they lead to game-winning scoring spurts.

Now, let’s show you some stats. Here are the raw stats for all 68 teams.

Team	SOS	TSMarg	R+T	PPG Marg	FG% Marg
Abilene Christian	42.42	4.29%	5.9	11.4	4.4
Arizona St.	55.20	2.27%	6.8	4.7	3.4
Auburn	59.71	1.85%	3.9	11.5	1.5
Baylor	58.27	1.28%	9.1	4.5	1.8
Belmont	48.60	9.68%	6.0	13.5	7.4
Bradley	48.52	1.73%	-0.5	1.6	2.3
Buffalo	53.41	6.00%	10.3	14.4	4.5
Central Florida	54.86	9.52%	2.2	7.8	6.8
Cincinnati	55.48	2.94%	12.9	9.5	2.6
Colgate	47.05	5.65%	3.2	5.8	4.6
Duke	63.09	10.32%	12.1	15.9	8.2
Fairleigh-Dickinson	43.31	5.19%	-2.4	4.1	3.6
Florida	59.80	1.17%	-0.5	4.7	0.4
Florida St.	59.87	3.52%	8.3	7.8	3.4
Gardner-Webb	45.44	8.83%	-1.8	7.8	7.6
Georgia St.	51.14	5.06%	-9.6	4.2	4.2
Gonzaga	56.14	17.68%	14.3	23.7	14.3
Houston	55.02	8.04%	13.6	14.4	7.7
Iona	45.43	3.14%	-5.4	1.2	0.8
Iowa	58.09	4.52%	-0.4	4.7	0.7
Iowa St.	59.42	7.64%	1.7	9.1	5.8
Kansas	62.55	5.52%	1.9	5.3	5.4
Kansas St.	58.91	1.35%	3.5	6.6	1.7
Kentucky	60.54	9.48%	15.4	11.3	7.5
Liberty	46.27	9.22%	5.2	13.2	7.6
Louisville	61.61	6.10%	2.9	6.7	2.9
LSU	58.56	3.18%	10.1	8.4	2.6
Marquette	57.57	8.85%	2.4	8.6	5.7
Maryland	59.76	7.39%	8.6	6.2	5.7
Michigan	60.07	8.41%	3.2	11.8	5.1
Michigan St.	61.44	13.83%	11.7	13.3	10.8
Minnesota	59.44	1.81%	1.1	1.6	0.3
Mississippi St.	59.59	4.34%	6.2	7.2	3.5
Montana	46.25	5.41%	4.7	8.5	6.6
Murray St.	47.53	10.65%	7.8	15.5	8.6
Nevada	52.55	9.02%	7.0	14.0	5.7
New Mexico St.	48.05	4.78%	18.7	14.0	4.1
North Carolina	62.61	5.49%	17.4	13.2	5.1
North Carolina Central	39.47	3.50%	8.2	5.1	2.2
North Dakota St.	47.57	3.42%	-6.1	1.0	-0.5
Northeastern	51.11	6.69%	-1.9	5.8	2.5
Northern Kentucky	46.39	6.56%	7.1	10.3	6.4
Ohio St.	59.18	2.47%	-0.4	3.4	1.7
Oklahoma	60.26	4.64%	-2.5	3.0	4.3
Old Dominion	48.87	1.33%	8.4	5.4	2
Ole Miss	58.28	3.18%	2.8	5.0	1.8
Oregon	55.13	3.77%	4.6	7.6	4.8
Prairie View	43.07	-2.66%	-3.8	2.5	-1.7
Purdue	60.84	2.31%	11.4	9.4	2.5
Saint Louis	51.40	-0.81%	11.2	3.4	0.9
Saint Mary’s	55.33	5.13%	9.6	8.5	3.8
Seton Hall	58.56	0.50%	-0.6	2.4	1.4
St. John’s	55.79	-0.20%	-8.0	2.7	1.9
Syracuse	59.55	1.59%	-3.7	4.0	2.6
Temple	54.13	0.46%	-3.1	3.6	-0.2
Tennessee	59.65	9.73%	5.3	13.2	9.8
Texas Tech	58.01	9.81%	4.6	13.8	10.4
UC-Irvine	47.26	6.58%	12.2	9.6	7.9
Utah St.	52.13	8.73%	14.8	12.4	8.3
Vermont	46.62	6.53%	8.8	11.3	3.9
Villanova	58.16	4.98%	3.5	7.4	0.5
Virginia	60.36	13.19%	9.6	16.7	9.8
Virginia Commonwealth	53.22	6.84%	2.9	9.8	5.8
Virginia Tech	58.33	8.65%	6.4	11.9	7
Washington	55.60	4.43%	-3.6	5.4	3.9
Wisconsin	60.91	6.47%	-1.2	7.7	6
Wofford	52.24	7.87%	14.3	17.4	6.6
Yale	49.95	8.75%	3.6	7.9	8.7

Team	Reb Marg	TO Marg	Stl/G	Def Stl/G	Old R+T
Abilene Christian	1.2	4.6	8.7	5.6	8.4
Arizona St.	4.8	0.3	6.2	6.3	6.4
Auburn	-0.3	5.5	9.4	5.8	8.1
Baylor	6.3	-0.8	6.1	6.0	6.6
Belmont	3.8	0.9	6.8	6.1	6.3
Bradley	1.2	-0.2	5.4	5.7	2.1
Buffalo	3.9	3.7	7.3	5.1	9.9
Central Florida	2.2	0.4	5.7	5.6	3.8
Cincinnati	5.2	3.1	6.2	3.9	10.1
Colgate	4.0	-0.9	6.2	7.1	4.2
Duke	6.1	1.5	9.5	6.5	9.8
Fairleigh-Dickinson	-0.8	1.3	7.7	6.1	2.2
Florida	-0.6	3.0	7.2	6.1	4.5
Florida St.	4.7	0.8	7.0	5.5	7.0
Gardner-Webb	-0.7	1.8	6.9	5.8	2.8
Georgia St.	-6.1	3.5	8.0	5.0	-0.3
Gonzaga	6.2	3.2	7.5	5.2	11.5
Houston	7.3	0.9	6.4	5.3	9.7
Iona	-2.2	1.0	6.8	5.5	0.3
Iowa	1.0	1.0	6.2	6.7	3.4
Iowa St.	0.7	1.8	7.0	5.2	4.3
Kansas	2.5	-0.2	6.9	6.5	3.6
Kansas St.	1.1	3.6	7.6	6.2	6.9
Kentucky	9.0	-0.1	6.0	5.7	10.1
Liberty	2.2	2.6	6.4	5.2	6.7
Louisville	3.7	-1.0	4.5	5.8	3.4
LSU	5.1	1.8	9.1	6.5	9.1
Marquette	4.4	-2.0	4.8	7.0	3.0
Maryland	8.5	-3.7	4.3	7.1	5.0
Michigan	0.2	3.2	6.1	3.7	5.3
Michigan St.	8.9	-2.6	5.2	6.4	6.9
Minnesota	2.6	-0.6	4.8	6.0	2.8
Mississippi St.	3.8	0.3	8.1	5.9	5.7
Montana	2.6	1.6	6.5	5.6	5.8
Murray St.	3.7	2.1	7.6	5.8	7.7
Nevada	2.4	3.4	6.2	4.5	7.7
New Mexico St.	9.6	1.4	5.6	4.8	12.3
North Carolina	9.7	1.0	7.2	6.7	12.3
North Carolina Central	6.4	-1.9	6.3	6.0	5.4
North Dakota St.	-1.4	-0.6	4.8	5.3	-1.2
Northeastern	0.1	0.0	6.2	5.4	1.4
Northern Kentucky	4.4	0.9	6.2	5.9	6.7
Ohio St.	1.3	-0.2	5.9	5.9	2.3
Oklahoma	0.6	0.0	5.9	6.8	1.8
Old Dominion	4.9	0.4	5.6	4.9	6.6
Ole Miss	1.5	1.9	7.3	6.0	5.3
Oregon	1.8	2.1	7.8	5.2	6.0
Prairie View	-4.4	5.5	8.8	5.1	4.0
Purdue	5.2	2.4	6.5	4.8	9.4
Saint Louis	6.6	0.3	7.1	5.9	8.3
Saint Mary’s	5.6	0.1	6.0	5.0	7.0
Seton Hall	-0.1	1.8	7.0	5.8	3.4
St. John’s	-6.2	5.1	8.8	5.2	1.6
Syracuse	-2.3	3.2	8.3	6.6	3.2
Temple	-2.9	3.7	8.7	5.5	3.2
Tennessee	3.4	1.7	6.0	6.4	6.7
Texas Tech	1.9	3.3	7.3	6.4	7.3
UC-Irvine	7.4	-0.4	5.7	5.2	8.1
Utah St.	8.9	-0.3	6.2	6.1	9.8
Vermont	4.5	2.2	5.6	5.4	8.3
Villanova	2.6	0.7	5.4	5.4	4.5
Virginia	4.9	1.9	5.6	5.2	8.4
Virginia Commonwealth	1.4	2.3	8.0	6.4	5.8
Virginia Tech	2.6	2.7	6.7	5.1	7.2
Washington	-2.5	2.9	9.0	6.1	2.8
Wisconsin	-0.3	1.8	5.1	5.2	2.9
Wofford	6.5	3.1	6.9	5.5	11.6
Yale	4.7	-1.9	5.9	7.0	3.6

What you see above is the entire 68 teams field in alphabetical order.  Let’s break it down by ranking the teams according to the data.

Let’s start with the all-important class ranking.  Here is how the teams rank according to strength of schedule.  Remember that no national champion has had an SOS below 55, and only a small handful in all the years have made the Final Four.  In the years where a team with a sub-55 SOS made the Final Four, they played an opponent in the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 that also had a sub-55 SOS.

Team	SOS
Duke	63.09
North Carolina	62.61
Kansas	62.55
Louisville	61.61
Michigan St.	61.44
Wisconsin	60.91
Purdue	60.84
Kentucky	60.54
Virginia	60.36
Oklahoma	60.26
Michigan	60.07
Florida St.	59.87
Florida	59.80
Maryland	59.76
Auburn	59.71
Tennessee	59.65
Mississippi St.	59.59
Syracuse	59.55
Minnesota	59.44
Iowa St.	59.42
Ohio St.	59.18
Kansas St.	58.91
Seton Hall	58.56
LSU	58.56
Virginia Tech	58.33
Ole Miss	58.28
Baylor	58.27
Villanova	58.16
Iowa	58.09
Texas Tech	58.01
Marquette	57.57
Gonzaga	56.14
St. John’s	55.79
Washington	55.60
Cincinnati	55.48
Saint Mary’s	55.33
Arizona St.	55.20
Oregon	55.13
Houston	55.02
Central Florida	54.86
Temple	54.13
Buffalo	53.41
Virginia Commonwealth	53.22
Nevada	52.55
Wofford	52.24
Utah St.	52.13
Saint Louis	51.40
Georgia St.	51.14
Northeastern	51.11
Yale	49.95
Old Dominion	48.87
Belmont	48.60
Bradley	48.52
New Mexico St.	48.05
North Dakota St.	47.57
Murray St.	47.53
UC-Irvine	47.26
Colgate	47.05
Vermont	46.62
Northern Kentucky	46.39
Liberty	46.27
Montana	46.25
Gardner-Webb	45.44
Iona	45.43
Fairleigh-Dickinson	43.31
Prairie View	43.07
Abilene Christian	42.42
North Carolina Central	39.47

39 of the 68 teams meet the minimum requirement, including Gonzaga and Houston.  Of note, Buffalo, Nevada, Wofford, and Utah State have an SOS in the range where past Cinderella teams have snuck into the Final Four.

Now, let’s look at True Shooting percentage margins.  TS% is calculated thusly:

Points / (2 * FGA + (0.475 * FTA))

True Shooting Percentage Margin is the offensive TS% minus the defensive TS%.

Team	TSMarg
Gonzaga	17.68%
Michigan St.	13.83%
Virginia	13.19%
Murray St.	10.65%
Duke	10.32%
Texas Tech	9.81%
Tennessee	9.73%
Belmont	9.68%
Central Florida	9.52%
Kentucky	9.48%
Liberty	9.22%
Nevada	9.02%
Marquette	8.85%
Gardner-Webb	8.83%
Yale	8.75%
Utah St.	8.73%
Virginia Tech	8.65%
Michigan	8.41%
Houston	8.04%
Wofford	7.87%
Iowa St.	7.64%
Maryland	7.39%
Virginia Commonwealth	6.84%
Northeastern	6.69%
UC-Irvine	6.58%
Northern Kentucky	6.56%
Vermont	6.53%
Wisconsin	6.47%
Louisville	6.10%
Buffalo	6.00%
Colgate	5.65%
Kansas	5.52%
North Carolina	5.49%
Montana	5.41%
Fairleigh-Dickinson	5.19%
Saint Mary’s	5.13%
Georgia St.	5.06%
Villanova	4.98%
New Mexico St.	4.78%
Oklahoma	4.64%
Iowa	4.52%
Washington	4.43%
Mississippi St.	4.34%
Abilene Christian	4.29%
Oregon	3.77%
Florida St.	3.52%
North Carolina Central	3.50%
North Dakota St.	3.42%
Ole Miss	3.18%
LSU	3.18%
Iona	3.14%
Cincinnati	2.94%
Ohio St.	2.47%
Purdue	2.31%
Arizona St.	2.27%
Auburn	1.85%
Minnesota	1.81%
Bradley	1.73%
Syracuse	1.59%
Kansas St.	1.35%
Old Dominion	1.33%
Baylor	1.28%
Florida	1.17%
Seton Hall	0.50%
Temple	0.46%
St. John’s	-0.20%
Saint Louis	-0.81%
Prairie View	-2.66%

Did you notice that some of the teams with the best strength of schedule are high up in the TS% margin too, and vice versa?  Think about this.  If a team played tough competition and consistently shot better overall in these games, they have to be great teams.  The object of the game is to put the ball through the goal and stop the other team from doing this.  If a team consistently did this against other teams on par with what they must face in the Big Dance in order to cut the nets on April 8, they must be the ones to consider.

Now, let’s look at the R+T rating.  This is our secret sauce at the PiRate Ratings, even though it has been revealed in other national media.  However, unless somebody at CBS or ESPN links to this site, no more than 18,000 people will read this post today, so you stand a good chance of being the only person in your pool that has this information.

Team	R+T
New Mexico St.	18.7
North Carolina	17.4
Kentucky	15.4
Utah St.	14.8
Gonzaga	14.3
Wofford	14.3
Houston	13.6
Cincinnati	12.9
UC-Irvine	12.2
Duke	12.1
Michigan St.	11.7
Purdue	11.4
Saint Louis	11.2
Buffalo	10.3
LSU	10.1
Virginia	9.6
Saint Mary’s	9.6
Baylor	9.1
Vermont	8.8
Maryland	8.6
Old Dominion	8.4
Florida St.	8.3
North Carolina Central	8.2
Murray St.	7.8
Northern Kentucky	7.1
Nevada	7.0
Arizona St.	6.8
Virginia Tech	6.4
Mississippi St.	6.2
Belmont	6.0
Abilene Christian	5.9
Tennessee	5.3
Liberty	5.2
Montana	4.7
Oregon	4.6
Texas Tech	4.6
Auburn	3.9
Yale	3.6
Kansas St.	3.5
Villanova	3.5
Michigan	3.2
Colgate	3.2
Louisville	2.9
Virginia Commonwealth	2.9
Ole Miss	2.8
Marquette	2.4
Central Florida	2.2
Kansas	1.9
Iowa St.	1.7
Minnesota	1.1
Iowa	-0.4
Ohio St.	-0.4
Florida	-0.5
Bradley	-0.5
Seton Hall	-0.6
Wisconsin	-1.2
Gardner-Webb	-1.8
Northeastern	-1.9
Fairleigh-Dickinson	-2.4
Oklahoma	-2.5
Temple	-3.1
Washington	-3.6
Syracuse	-3.7
Prairie View	-3.8
Iona	-5.4
North Dakota St.	-6.1
St. John’s	-8.0
Georgia St.	-9.6

Wow!  Look at how many mid-major teams have great R+T Ratings this year.  New Mexico State leads the pack, but their SOS is too low to make them a humongous upset team to make the Final Four.  They are dangerous still.

North Carolina is the top power conference team in this rating, just like the Tar Heels have been twice before when they won the tournament.  Kentucky, Gonzaga, and Houston are up near the top.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have a record number of teams with negative R+T numbers in the 2019 field.  That concerns us a bit.  Normally, 5 or 6 teams will enter the Dance with a negative R+T, and we will pick against all of them.  18 of the 68 teams have negative R+T ratings this year.  What that means is that it is likely that somebody with a negative R+T rating will sneak into the Sweet 16 and then get blown off the floor against a quality team that can go on scoring spurts.  Still, the bottom eight in this rating figure to have a difficult time winning just once in this Dance.

 

Here are how the teams rank in the old criteria data.

Scoring Margin

Team	PPG Marg
Gonzaga	23.7
Wofford	17.4
Virginia	16.7
Duke	15.9
Murray St.	15.5
Buffalo	14.4
Houston	14.4
Nevada	14.0
New Mexico St.	14.0
Texas Tech	13.8
Belmont	13.5
Michigan St.	13.3
Liberty	13.2
Tennessee	13.2
North Carolina	13.2
Utah St.	12.4
Virginia Tech	11.9
Michigan	11.8
Auburn	11.5
Abilene Christian	11.4
Vermont	11.3
Kentucky	11.3
Northern Kentucky	10.3
Virginia Commonwealth	9.8
UC-Irvine	9.6
Cincinnati	9.5
Purdue	9.4
Iowa St.	9.1
Marquette	8.6
Montana	8.5
Saint Mary’s	8.5
LSU	8.4
Yale	7.9
Florida St.	7.8
Central Florida	7.8
Gardner-Webb	7.8
Wisconsin	7.7
Oregon	7.6
Villanova	7.4
Mississippi St.	7.2
Louisville	6.7
Kansas St.	6.6
Maryland	6.2
Colgate	5.8
Northeastern	5.8
Old Dominion	5.4
Washington	5.4
Kansas	5.3
North Carolina Central	5.1
Ole Miss	5.0
Arizona St.	4.7
Iowa	4.7
Florida	4.7
Baylor	4.5
Georgia St.	4.2
Fairleigh-Dickinson	4.1
Syracuse	4.0
Temple	3.6
Ohio St.	3.4
Saint Louis	3.4
Oklahoma	3.0
St. John’s	2.7
Prairie View	2.5
Seton Hall	2.4
Bradley	1.6
Minnesota	1.6
Iona	1.2
North Dakota St.	1.0

FG% Margin

Team	FG% Marg
Gonzaga	14.3
Michigan St.	10.8
Texas Tech	10.4
Tennessee	9.8
Virginia	9.8
Yale	8.7
Murray St.	8.6
Utah St.	8.3
Duke	8.2
UC-Irvine	7.9
Houston	7.7
Gardner-Webb	7.6
Liberty	7.6
Kentucky	7.5
Belmont	7.4
Virginia Tech	7.0
Central Florida	6.8
Montana	6.6
Wofford	6.6
Northern Kentucky	6.4
Wisconsin	6.0
Iowa St.	5.8
Virginia Commonwealth	5.8
Nevada	5.7
Marquette	5.7
Maryland	5.7
Kansas	5.4
North Carolina	5.1
Michigan	5.1
Oregon	4.8
Colgate	4.6
Buffalo	4.5
Abilene Christian	4.4
Oklahoma	4.3
Georgia St.	4.2
New Mexico St.	4.1
Vermont	3.9
Washington	3.9
Saint Mary’s	3.8
Fairleigh-Dickinson	3.6
Mississippi St.	3.5
Arizona St.	3.4
Florida St.	3.4
Louisville	2.9
LSU	2.6
Cincinnati	2.6
Syracuse	2.6
Purdue	2.5
Northeastern	2.5
Bradley	2.3
North Carolina Central	2.2
Old Dominion	2.0
St. John’s	1.9
Baylor	1.8
Ole Miss	1.8
Kansas St.	1.7
Ohio St.	1.7
Auburn	1.5
Seton Hall	1.4
Saint Louis	0.9
Iona	0.8
Iowa	0.7
Villanova	0.5
Florida	0.4
Minnesota	0.3
Temple	-0.2
North Dakota St.	-0.5
Prairie View	-1.7

 

Rebounds/Steals/Old R+T

Team	Reb Marg
North Carolina	9.7
New Mexico St.	9.6
Kentucky	9.0
Michigan St.	8.9
Utah St.	8.9
Maryland	8.5
UC-Irvine	7.4
Houston	7.3
Saint Louis	6.6
Wofford	6.5
North Carolina Central	6.4
Baylor	6.3
Gonzaga	6.2
Duke	6.1
Saint Mary’s	5.6
Purdue	5.2
Cincinnati	5.2
LSU	5.1
Old Dominion	4.9
Virginia	4.9
Arizona St.	4.8
Yale	4.7
Florida St.	4.7
Vermont	4.5
Northern Kentucky	4.4
Marquette	4.4
Colgate	4.0
Buffalo	3.9
Belmont	3.8
Mississippi St.	3.8
Murray St.	3.7
Louisville	3.7
Tennessee	3.4
Villanova	2.6
Virginia Tech	2.6
Montana	2.6
Minnesota	2.6
Kansas	2.5
Nevada	2.4
Liberty	2.2
Central Florida	2.2
Texas Tech	1.9
Oregon	1.8
Ole Miss	1.5
Virginia Commonwealth	1.4
Ohio St.	1.3
Bradley	1.2
Abilene Christian	1.2
Kansas St.	1.1
Iowa	1.0
Iowa St.	0.7
Oklahoma	0.6
Michigan	0.2
Northeastern	0.1
Seton Hall	-0.1
Wisconsin	-0.3
Auburn	-0.3
Florida	-0.6
Gardner-Webb	-0.7
Fairleigh-Dickinson	-0.8
North Dakota St.	-1.4
Iona	-2.2
Syracuse	-2.3
Washington	-2.5
Temple	-2.9
Prairie View	-4.4
Georgia St.	-6.1
St. John’s	-6.2
Team	TO Marg
Prairie View	5.5
Auburn	5.5
St. John’s	5.1
Abilene Christian	4.6
Buffalo	3.7
Temple	3.7
Kansas St.	3.6
Georgia St.	3.5
Nevada	3.4
Texas Tech	3.3
Syracuse	3.2
Michigan	3.2
Gonzaga	3.2
Wofford	3.1
Cincinnati	3.1
Florida	3.0
Washington	2.9
Virginia Tech	2.7
Liberty	2.6
Purdue	2.4
Virginia Commonwealth	2.3
Vermont	2.2
Oregon	2.1
Murray St.	2.1
Ole Miss	1.9
Virginia	1.9
Wisconsin	1.8
Gardner-Webb	1.8
Iowa St.	1.8
LSU	1.8
Seton Hall	1.8
Tennessee	1.7
Montana	1.6
Duke	1.5
New Mexico St.	1.4
Fairleigh-Dickinson	1.3
North Carolina	1.0
Iowa	1.0
Iona	1.0
Houston	0.9
Northern Kentucky	0.9
Belmont	0.9
Florida St.	0.8
Villanova	0.7
Central Florida	0.4
Old Dominion	0.4
Arizona St.	0.3
Mississippi St.	0.3
Saint Louis	0.3
Saint Mary’s	0.1
Oklahoma	0.0
Northeastern	0.0
Kentucky	-0.1
Bradley	-0.2
Kansas	-0.2
Ohio St.	-0.2
Utah St.	-0.3
UC-Irvine	-0.4
North Dakota St.	-0.6
Minnesota	-0.6
Baylor	-0.8
Colgate	-0.9
Louisville	-1.0
North Carolina Central	-1.9
Yale	-1.9
Marquette	-2.0
Michigan St.	-2.6
Maryland	-3.7
Team	Stl/G
Duke	9.5
Auburn	9.4
LSU	9.1
Washington	9.0
Prairie View	8.8
St. John’s	8.8
Abilene Christian	8.7
Temple	8.7
Syracuse	8.3
Mississippi St.	8.1
Georgia St.	8.0
Virginia Commonwealth	8.0
Oregon	7.8
Fairleigh-Dickinson	7.7
Kansas St.	7.6
Murray St.	7.6
Gonzaga	7.5
Buffalo	7.3
Ole Miss	7.3
Texas Tech	7.3
North Carolina	7.2
Florida	7.2
Saint Louis	7.1
Iowa St.	7.0
Seton Hall	7.0
Florida St.	7.0
Wofford	6.9
Gardner-Webb	6.9
Kansas	6.9
Belmont	6.8
Iona	6.8
Virginia Tech	6.7
Montana	6.5
Purdue	6.5
Houston	6.4
Liberty	6.4
North Carolina Central	6.3
Northern Kentucky	6.2
Arizona St.	6.2
Utah St.	6.2
Iowa	6.2
Nevada	6.2
Cincinnati	6.2
Colgate	6.2
Northeastern	6.2
Michigan	6.1
Baylor	6.1
Kentucky	6.0
Saint Mary’s	6.0
Tennessee	6.0
Oklahoma	5.9
Yale	5.9
Ohio St.	5.9
Central Florida	5.7
UC-Irvine	5.7
Vermont	5.6
Virginia	5.6
New Mexico St.	5.6
Old Dominion	5.6
Villanova	5.4
Bradley	5.4
Michigan St.	5.2
Wisconsin	5.1
Marquette	4.8
North Dakota St.	4.8
Minnesota	4.8
Louisville	4.5
Maryland	4.3
Team	Def Stl/G
Michigan	3.7
Cincinnati	3.9
Nevada	4.5
Purdue	4.8
New Mexico St.	4.8
Old Dominion	4.9
Saint Mary’s	5.0
Georgia St.	5.0
Virginia Tech	5.1
Prairie View	5.1
Buffalo	5.1
Gonzaga	5.2
Wisconsin	5.2
Iowa St.	5.2
St. John’s	5.2
Virginia	5.2
UC-Irvine	5.2
Liberty	5.2
Oregon	5.2
North Dakota St.	5.3
Houston	5.3
Villanova	5.4
Vermont	5.4
Northeastern	5.4
Wofford	5.5
Iona	5.5
Florida St.	5.5
Temple	5.5
Montana	5.6
Central Florida	5.6
Abilene Christian	5.6
Kentucky	5.7
Bradley	5.7
Gardner-Webb	5.8
Murray St.	5.8
Auburn	5.8
Seton Hall	5.8
Louisville	5.8
Northern Kentucky	5.9
Mississippi St.	5.9
Saint Louis	5.9
Ohio St.	5.9
Baylor	6.0
Minnesota	6.0
North Carolina Central	6.0
Ole Miss	6.0
Fairleigh-Dickinson	6.1
Utah St.	6.1
Belmont	6.1
Florida	6.1
Washington	6.1
Kansas St.	6.2
Arizona St.	6.3
Texas Tech	6.4
Tennessee	6.4
Michigan St.	6.4
Virginia Commonwealth	6.4
Kansas	6.5
Duke	6.5
LSU	6.5
Syracuse	6.6
Iowa	6.7
North Carolina	6.7
Oklahoma	6.8
Marquette	7.0
Yale	7.0
Maryland	7.1
Colgate	7.1
Team	Old R+T
New Mexico St.	12.34
North Carolina	12.34
Wofford	11.56
Gonzaga	11.48
Cincinnati	10.11
Kentucky	10.07
Buffalo	9.85
Duke	9.85
Utah St.	9.79
Houston	9.71
Purdue	9.37
LSU	9.06
Abilene Christian	8.45
Virginia	8.39
Saint Louis	8.30
Vermont	8.25
Auburn	8.09
UC-Irvine	8.06
Murray St.	7.74
Nevada	7.73
Texas Tech	7.33
Virginia Tech	7.22
Florida St.	7.02
Saint Mary’s	6.98
Michigan St.	6.88
Kansas St.	6.87
Northern Kentucky	6.72
Tennessee	6.66
Liberty	6.66
Baylor	6.56
Old Dominion	6.55
Arizona St.	6.41
Belmont	6.25
Oregon	5.95
Montana	5.83
Virginia Commonwealth	5.78
Mississippi St.	5.73
North Carolina Central	5.39
Ole Miss	5.32
Michigan	5.31
Maryland	5.01
Villanova	4.54
Florida	4.51
Iowa St.	4.29
Colgate	4.18
Prairie View	3.98
Central Florida	3.81
Kansas	3.63
Yale	3.56
Iowa	3.43
Louisville	3.39
Seton Hall	3.39
Temple	3.24
Syracuse	3.21
Marquette	2.96
Wisconsin	2.91
Gardner-Webb	2.82
Minnesota	2.77
Washington	2.76
Ohio St.	2.27
Fairleigh-Dickinson	2.24
Bradley	2.10
Oklahoma	1.79
St. John’s	1.62
Northeastern	1.35
Iona	0.30
Georgia St.	-0.27
North Dakota St.	-1.19

 

Criteria Darlings

Which teams have criteria that most look like a Final Four participant?

These 10 teams have that look this year (in alphabetical order):

1. Cincinnati Bearcats

2. Duke Blue Devils

3. Gonzaga Bulldogs

4. Houston Cougars

5. Kentucky Wildcats

6. Michigan State Spartans

7. North Carolina Tar Heels

8. Utah St. Aggies

9. Virginia Cavaliers

10. Wofford Terriers 

You will notice that Utah State and Wofford make this list with SOS beneath the level to win the national title.  These two teams possess criteria similar to past Cinderella Final Four teams like George Mason, Wichita State, and Virginia Commonwealth.

 

You now have the information to earn your BM in Bracketnomics.  However, there will be a special Bracketnomicist here Tuesday afternoon who will show you how to use this data to pick winners of each round.  The Captain will reveal his bracket selection on Tuesday prior to 5 PM Eastern Daylight Time.  He told us to tell you that if any buccaneer or lass dare criticize his selections, they will walk the plank.  Actually, they will probably have a better bracket than him.

 

Note: Many thanks to all the PiRate members who stayed up late Sunday night/Monday morning visiting 68 different schools’ athletics’ sites to get the raw data we need to put this statistical bonanza together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bracket Gurus Accuracy

Our Bracket Gurus had a rather nice day today.   It wasn’t the best year ever, but it beat last year by a few seedings.

We picked 67 of the 68 teams in the field.  This is the second year in a row, we were right on 67 of the 68 teams after picking a perfect 68 for 68 in 2017.

We had 39 of the 68 teams picked exactly where they were seeded.

We had 22 teams off by one seed line.

We had 6 teams off by two seed lines.

The one team we missed just so happened to be the team from the hometown of our Captain, Belmont.  We selected TCU and missed on that one.

Coming tomorrow evening, be sure to check back for our annual Bracketnomics Report.

Bracket Gurus 68 Team Field

The Gurus Have Reached A Verdict

In New York, the NCAA Men’s Basketball Selection Committee by now has agreed on 68 teams and only a little moving in the seed lines is yet to come.  After last night’s games, especially after the Oregon win over Washington in the Pac-12 Championship Game, it basically came down to about 70 teams competing for 68 spots.

The Gurus met via conference this morning and quickly eliminated all but four of the teams on the Bubble for three spots in the field.  By the end of the coffee talk, we had agreed to eliminate one team, leaving three teams for the final two spots.  There’s the rub; at this point, we had a hung jury.

In the Committee room, they break for ice cream at this point.  The Bracket Gurus share something in common with each other but totally opposite of the Committee.  All 12 Gurus are into the Keto-Paleo-Bulletproof way of life.  We not only didn’t break for ice cream, none of us consumed more than our upgraded coffee.

Unfortunately, it was an early Sunday morning funeral that broke up the meeting and allowed the Gurus to step away from the numbers, which was ironic to the max.  The dearly departed friend of the Captain had been a certified public accountant as well as a sports fanatic.

The Gurus reconvened via cyberspace while consuming mass quantities of healthy fat and good quality animal protein (sorry Vegan friends).  Once satiated, the 12 Gurus realized that in all but one city where we reside, it is too beautiful to be indoors.  So, we quickly agreed on that 68th team as well as which team is sadly number 69.

To borrow from the great Jim Nantz, “Friends,” here are the 68 teams we have selected to represent the NCAA Tournament Field.  They are presented in alphabetical order.  The seeding will come in our final installment to be published as we have a Big Ten Tournament Champion.  If the game is a blowout, the seeding will appear before the conclusion of the game.  If the game is close, then expect the seeding to be on this site within 5 minutes of the conclusion of the game.  It will be marked as our “Final Selection.”

The following 68 teams as voted 12-0 by our gurus are:

(3 One-Bid Tournaments to be decided today)

Abilene Christian

Arizona St.

Atlantic 10:  Winner of St. Bonaventure vs. Saint Louis

Auburn

Baylor

Bradley

Buffalo

Cincinnati

Colgate

Duke

Fairleigh-Dickinson

Florida

Florida St.

Gardner-Webb

Gonzaga

Houston

Iona

Iowa

Iowa St.

Ivy: Winner of Harvard vs. Yale

Kansas

Kansas St.

Kentucky

Liberty

Louisville

LSU

Marquette

Maryland

Michigan

Michigan St.

Minnesota

Mississippi St.

Montana

Murray St.

North Carolina Central

Nevada

New Mexico St.

North Carolina

North Dakota St.

Northeastern

Northern Kentucky

Ohio St.

Oklahoma

Old Dominion

Ole Miss

Oregon

Prairie View A&M

Purdue

Saint Mary’s

Seton Hall

St. John’s

Sun Belt: Winner of Georgia State vs. Texas-Arlington

Syracuse

TCU

Temple

Tennessee

Texas Tech

UC-Irvine

UCF

Utah St.

VCU

Vermont

Villanova

Virginia

Virginia Tech

Washington

Wisconsin

Wofford

 

It came down to Arizona State versus North Carolina State.  The Sun Devils won out due to a better strength of schedule and better results in the 1st and 2nd Quadrant.

Bracketnomics 2019

How We Select Our Bracket

Welcome to PiRate Ratings Bracketnomics 2019.

This tutorial will help you earn your Bachelor of Madness Degree. Just remember that  it is not be a BS degree; it is a BM degree, so you may want to think twice before telling others you received it from PiRate U.

Most universities have some type of history that potential enrollees can examine before deciding to matriculate. That’s to make the school look worthy of consideration (and receive financial patronage). Our PiRate School of Bracketnomics has been a bit up and down throughout our history. When we first debuted as an online course, our selections and predictions put us into Ivy League/Cal Tech/MIT league. We isolated some key points from back-tested data that worked. Some of the early pointers that helped us pick brackets were things that would appear obvious to most people–scoring margin, rebounding margin, field goal percentage margin, turnover margin, schedule strength, and the ability to win away from one’s home court.

Our big breakthrough that helped us devise our first advanced metric came about when CBS’s Clark Kellogg mentioned that teams with “spurtability” tended to do best in the NCAA Tournament. What is spurtability? It is exactly what it sounds like, the ability for a team to go on a scoring spurt.

In the 1964 Final Four, tiny UCLA with no starter over 6 foot 5, went on an 11-0 scoring spurt to put away Kansas State in the semifinals, and then the following evening, put a much taller and favored Duke team away with an incredible 16-0 spurt in 2 1/2 minutes just before halftime.

How did a much smaller UCLA team put a taller, favored Duke team away with that 16-0 run? It didn’t happen because the Bruins scored baskets on eight half-court possessions, while Duke missed shots on eight half-court possessions. No, it happened because UCLA pressed Duke out of the gym that night, forcing 29 turnovers, many by steals, and then scoring easy fast-break points.

Similarly, the 1968 UCLA team put away North Carolina in the Championship Game with a couple of smaller spurts. It wasn’t the press that did the trick this time. This North Carolina team could handle the ball and break the press, and this UCLA team did not rely as much on forcing turnovers to beat opponents. With the great Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in the middle, Coach Wooden relied on muscle and speed to destroy the enemy. On this night, North Carolina tried to slow the game down by using the four-corners offense, but the plan was no more successful than 28 other opponents’ plans against the Bruins.

It was a different dominating statistic that gave the Bruins the edge that night. North Carolina rarely received a second chance to score when they missed a shot, and UCLA had numerous put back baskets on offensive rebounds. The Bruins dominated on the glass with an almost 2 to 1 rebounding advantage, and their transition game was still the best in the business with Lucius Allen running the point on the fast break.

Our captain perused all the boxscores of past NCAA Tournament games. He read microfilms of archived newspaper reports of games over the course of 30 years of NCAA Tournaments, and he combined the eyewitness reports with the statistics of the teams to locate the factors that predicted which teams were more likely to enjoy a big scoring spurt. He discovered that half-court offenses and half-court defenses that led to one team connecting on a very high percentage of shots while the other team missed a high percentage of shots seldom led to these spurts by themselves and very rarely allowed a team to win six, or even just four NCAA Tournament games.

It was rare for Team A to hit eight out of 10 shots, while Team B hit only one out of ten shot, leading to a 16-2 run. So, what caused the great spurtabilities of the teams? The Captain discovered that in a large majority of the cases where a team went on a big scoring run in the NCAA Tournament, it was due to these factors:
1. Dominating rebounding at both ends of the court
2. Forcing turnovers (especially steals)
3. Getting easy fast break baskets or forcing the opponent to foul to stop the fast break

From this point, the Captain devised what has come to be the most important factor in picking NCAA Tournament winners. He called it “The R+T Rating.” After trial and error using different data points, the Captain created a formula that doubled rebounding margin, added turnover margin, and then gave additional weight to steals and the prevention of steals. The result was an approximation for how many extra scoring chances (and predicted points) a team might be expected to receive versus the average college team. If Team A had an R+T rating of 20, and Team B had an R+T rating of 10, then Team A would be expected to have the ability to score an average of 10 extra points against Team B just from these extra scoring opportunities. Team B could still win if they were a lot more accurate on their shots, thus neutralizing Team A’s spurtability advantage.

Immediately, in the first year publishing this data online, the PiRates successfully picked Florida to win its first national championship, and the Gators came through with a surprise title. In all six of their tournament wins in 2006, they enjoyed spurts that broke close games open. In their big upset win over top-seeded Villanova, the Gators’ pressure man-to-man defense made it difficult for the Villanova perimeter to get an open look, and when the Wildcats drove by into the lane, Joakim Noah and Al Horford were there waiting to stop the offense. The two Gator big men totally controlled the boards that afternoon, and Florida advanced with a couple of spurts that put the game safely in the win column.

Early on in the history of our Bracketnomics, our success continued and brought us a tiny bit of national notoriety. A little success swelled the heads of all the PiRates. We became too big for our tiny ship. We began to try to perfect our system by adding additional information. We thought for a few years that teams that relied on the three-point shot were at a disadvantage against teams that pounded the ball inside, because so many of the tournament games were held in giant stadiums, even domes, and it affected depth perception and made it hard to aim on outside shots. There was a time when we discounted teams that won games by shooting a lot of foul shots, because the officials did not call as many fouls in the tournament.

The success of the PiRate Ratings Bracketnomics led to some mainstream media sources linking to us, and we saw our readership increase by large multiples, especially between the second week of March and the first week of April. And, then what happened? After correctly picking the national champion during Bracket Picking day for three consecutive years; and after picking tiny George Mason to contend for a Final Four spot when Jim Larranaga guided the Patriots to the Final Four; and after picking Duke, Connecticut, and Kentucky to win and hit on another three in a row, the bottom fell out.

Just like the Dosage Index for the Kentucky Derby, the criteria began to lose its effectiveness. Too many basketball equivalents of Strike The Gold and Real Quiet began winning when the profile predicted they had little or no chance. While R+T ratings still remained effective, other criteria not used by us began to be more predictive of reality.

The better three-point shooting teams started to win more and more. Watching the Golden State Warriors dominate the NBA and then seeing how almost every NBA team tried to copy them in some way, it became apparent that advanced metrics were changing the game, just like Sabermetrics changed the way general managers built their baseball teams. The name of the game became three-point shooting and very high percentage two-point shooting. Defenses that forced opponents to take lower percentage two-point shots became the new basis for determining effectiveness.

There was one other change that greatly affected the college game. When the shot clock moved from 35 to 30 seconds, it appeared on the surface that it would minimally affect the game by maybe two or three possessions per game. This was not the case. Defenses discovered that they could pressure the offense more and more in hopes that they would force a turnover or force the offense to escape the pressure to find a good shot. Many times, the pressure defense led to a hurried shot by the offense. Thus, teams that were patient all of a sudden saw their shooting percentages fall when good pressure defenses forced too many hurried shots. There was also the case where a defense that could keep the ball out of the close two-point range and force three-point shots to be taken a few feet farther back, could stop the patient offenses. What was the solution to these defenses? It was the return of Up-tempo basketball. Offenses began to try to hurry up their tempo to beat these gambling defenses or to get the preferred close in two-pointer or open looks an inch behind the line three-point line before defenses could organize. The newer up-tempo style of play brought back basketball from 40 years ago.

Once again, the teams that can get up and down the court in a hurry and do so without becoming sloppy in execution have begun to dominate the game. The patient offenses and non-pressuring defenses have found out that it is really hard to win consistently when the opponent is now finding a way to score 10 more points per game due to their new style of play.

On the other end of the spectrum, teams began to play more like the high schools in the Midwest. Players not equipped for the running and pressure defense games began to concentrate on playing incredible help defense, cramming the paint with defenders to stop dribble penetration. While some teams did this with man-to-man defense, otherwise known as the Pack-Line defense, some teams also accomplished this with zone defenses. Either way, the goal was to prevent easy inside shots while not gambling for steals or pressuring opponents into mistakes. Usually these teams paired this style of defense with a patient offense that valued each possession like gold and when they took a shot, two or more players retreated to stop any opponent transition. A lot of teams have done quite well during the regular season, but they have not been the best at winning four tournament games and getting to the Final Four. Loyola of Chicago beat the odds last year playing this way. Butler made it to the Championship Game twice with a semi-patient offense and non-gambling defense.

What did we do at the PiRate Ratings to combat our decline in effectiveness? The PiRates stripped our criteria down back to the basics. We felt like we were missing the obvious. In 2019, here are the Big Three stats that matter most when the NCAA Tournament begins play.

1. True Shooting Percentage Margin

2. R+T Rating

3. Schedule Strength

These three basic principles make up an overwhelming majority of how we will select our brackets when we release them Monday evening.

1. True Shooting Percentage Margin: this is the difference between a team’s offensive true shooting percentage and defensive true shooting percentage. For college basketball, true shooting percentage is:   (100*Pts)/[2*(fga+{.475*fta})].

2. R+T Rating: We hope most of you reading this today have some familiarity with our R+T Rating.

The formula for R+T is: (R * 2) + (S * .5) + (6 – Opp. S) + T
where, R = rebounding margin; S = Steals per game; and T= Turnover margin

3. Schedule Strength: It is obvious that a team could compile some very lofty True Shooting Percentages and R+T ratings playing the weakest 30 teams in the nation, while another team could compile some really awful stats playing the top 30 teams in the nation.

Don’t let these stats look intimidating. We would never force you, our patron, that we love so much to have to figure the offensive and defensive percentages for 68 teams. Do you know how long it takes to go to 68 different official athletic sites to get this information? We sure do! We will calculate this information for you and show you the stats for all 68 teams.

The first two data points must be weighted with the strength of schedule, and there is the rub. How much do we adjust the data from True Shooting Percentage Margin and R+T Rating to factor in schedule strength? We think we have the answer. Based on the fact that a certain schedule strength number has held consistent as the floor among past Final Four teams, we believe we know the cut-off points that will allow us to interpolate the winners of each round.

Obviously, it is not an exact science, but hey, nobody has ever picked a perfect bracket, and we hear that the chances of doing so are less than one person winning both the Power Ball and Mega Millions jackpots in the same week, while being struck two times by lightning on the way to collect from both the lottery offices.

The PiRates will reveal our entire bracket selections Monday evening.   And, after each round, we will then post an updated bracket selection for those people that play in contests where you can pick the winners round-by-round. Our goal is to try to pick the four Final Four participants and National Champion, so those of you in contests where you receive points for your accuracy, with more points awarded for each succeeding round, might have a somewhat unfair advantage over others in your pool.

We hope you return to this site after 7PM EDT on Monday night, March 18, to see what we believe will be an exciting and informative Bracketnomics 2019 exam. Yes, you too can earn your BM degree!

And, don’t forget to check our site out Sunday as our Bracket Gurus attempt to continue a history of incredible accuracy predicting the 68 teams to be selected for the NCAA Tournament.

We will publish one or two updates Sunday.  The first will be on this site before 10:00 AM EDT.  The final one will be published after all Sunday games but the Big Ten Tournament go final, or later if there is a chance this game will affect the bracket.

There will be an additional late Saturday night bracket update to include new automatic bid winners.