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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Bracketnomics 505–The Advanced Level Course in Bracket Picking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offensive Stats

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

Defensive Stats

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

 

The Four Factors

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

 

PiRate Criteria

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

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

 

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

 

Bracketnomics 505–The Advanced Level Course in Bracket Picking

Welcome to Bracketnomics 505 for 2015–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 15 years, you will see a noticeable difference this year, as the PiRate Ratings have incorporated the infamous “Four Factors” into our bracket selection tutorial.

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 Virginia attempted just 42 field goals and led an opponent by three or four points 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 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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 a 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 7.5 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.

5. The All-Important R+T Margin: Consider this the basketball equivalent of baseball’s OPS (On Base % + Slugging %) or even better, the “MoneyballFormula.”  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 2015 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.

6. Power Conference Plus Schedule Strength

Up to this point you might have been thinking that it is much easier for Stephen F. Austin or Wofford to own these gaudy statistics than it is for Iowa St. or Notre Dame.  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.  We use three different SOS ratings to come up with an average, and then we plug it into a formula that gives extra points for teams with tough schedules, while taking away points from teams with easy schedules.

7. 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 this 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.

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 not to rely upon.

1. 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.

2. 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 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. 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.

4. 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.  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.  Hopefully, they will align properly on your computer, as we had issues getting the alignment to work here.  Our provider is not really set up for tabular posts, and that is our problem and not theirs.

Offense Statistics

Team	FG	FGA	3pt	3pta	FT	FTa	OR	DR	TO	Stl
Albany	706	1605	197	547	487	640	320	756	374	181
Arizona	908	1855	172	478	611	874	368	898	381	244
Arkansas	932	2083	227	648	562	776	442	774	399	264
Baylor	794	1831	229	607	476	710	485	808	413	261
Belmont	831	1746	321	841	400	579	301	763	439	205
Boise St.	809	1768	291	738	426	581	286	800	339	201
Buffalo	817	1878	193	567	573	794	412	818	361	244
Butler	777	1771	184	514	488	718	390	785	364	204
BYU	948	2032	85	734	660	859	415	895	402	257
Cincinnati	716	1581	161	483	403	598	351	744	409	210
Coastal Carolina	808	1841	221	621	529	769	440	873	393	232
Davidson	877	1861	337	849	386	543	325	789	297	170
Dayton	750	1620	213	605	538	789	245	796	379	230
Duke	944	1880	250	648	522	755	401	831	371	237
E. Washington	951	1981	335	832	509	704	341	814	367	216
Georgetown	750	1650	181	521	511	728	347	742	392	240
Georgia	728	1673	180	524	551	800	348	869	408	179
Georgia St.	854	1778	163	492	504	693	309	773	352	300
Gonzaga	973	1856	242	593	502	726	347	940	359	211
Hampton	753	1847	187	615	523	802	404	820	469	220
Harvard	650	1493	141	399	420	589	304	695	342	204
Indiana	899	1930	308	764	451	631	395	792	379	167
Iowa	758	1776	181	545	524	703	401	805	361	211
Iowa St.	916	1908	257	703	497	714	314	870	364	209
Kansas	822	1869	198	528	579	804	402	888	435	222
Kentucky	883	1884	185	529	596	825	439	859	361	223
Lafayette	851	1744	257	622	415	542	272	720	351	179
Louisville	783	1827	181	595	468	709	413	808	378	266
LSU	868	1902	184	543	438	636	388	865	468	235
Manhattan	733	1686	209	615	561	808	333	691	464	259
Maryland	741	1693	241	647	570	753	302	855	397	160
Michigan St.	901	1912	256	663	386	610	390	891	395	181
N. C. St.	820	1875	219	606	464	679	400	849	347	131
New Mexico St.	788	1692	160	435	524	755	414	756	459	209
North Carolina	1019	2144	167	484	522	746	488	948	444	233
North Dakota St.	714	1659	220	579	417	602	271	803	312	153
North Florida	872	1858	308	788	522	721	326	851	417	213
Northeastern	811	1670	200	515	510	703	284	843	467	181
Northern Iowa	735	1523	242	609	445	613	239	778	346	196
Notre Dame	945	1853	281	716	509	688	283	831	319	234
Ohio St.	916	1886	225	605	445	656	372	811	373	257
Oklahoma	818	1874	216	629	450	612	351	868	388	221
Oklahoma St.	706	1607	216	618	459	632	238	730	380	245
Ole Miss	788	1850	207	612	541	695	397	805	363	211
Oregon	937	2031	248	688	447	588	359	877	401	195
Providence	808	1830	161	520	540	761	398	791	391	238
Purdue	801	1768	191	571	515	752	388	810	432	180
Robert Morris	802	1798	211	555	462	647	344	759	454	282
San Diego St.	756	1805	178	556	411	653	413	784	386	236
SMU	812	1695	138	384	529	750	378	833	417	226
St. John’s	808	1831	195	552	468	676	329	803	342	239
S.F. Austin	894	1819	257	666	577	786	402	745	464	252
Texas	779	1787	206	607	478	659	410	900	420	124
Texas Southern	794	1789	180	562	550	831	386	788	445	209
UAB	820	1907	187	563	514	694	403	841	461	225
UC-Irvine	830	1799	212	544	368	539	320	849	382	189
UCLA	849	1927	205	564	473	700	406	847	392	226
Utah	788	1624	247	611	484	692	296	821	366	190
Valparaiso	817	1780	224	593	446	658	386	859	413	198
VCU	872	2076	283	828	510	778	431	809	372	338
Villanova	861	1833	306	787	565	777	351	819	369	265
Virginia	761	1644	162	449	407	563	329	829	304	179
West Virginia	813	1975	213	669	527	798	539	638	418	350
Wichita St.	784	1756	224	619	439	638	380	758	301	225
Wisconsin	860	1793	237	663	487	638	322	823	252	154
Wofford	800	1745	215	572	463	672	310	792	371	223
Wyoming	726	1573	200	620	445	629	212	813	380	189
Xavier	885	1870	214	613	517	713	340	844	411	207

Defense

Team	FG	FGA	3pt	3pta	FT	FTa	OR	DR	TO	Stl
Albany	672	1600	243	666	340	486	259	665	399	153
Arizona	686	1752	181	581	440	636	258	710	481	159
Arkansas	824	1914	212	600	525	736	402	800	543	188
Baylor	716	1782	191	637	368	570	367	663	404	211
Belmont	828	1832	232	675	363	514	319	726	411	212
Boise St.	710	1712	188	611	381	544	276	729	419	158
Buffalo	773	1831	230	697	409	618	358	774	436	197
Butler	701	1684	175	571	381	561	260	708	403	175
BYU	858	1972	211	643	540	770	354	788	449	224
Cincinnati	654	1678	184	560	277	427	347	589	390	177
Coastal Carolina	691	1766	231	718	422	604	305	722	394	191
Davidson	779	1769	175	582	405	636	337	749	365	159
Dayton	731	1738	181	571	367	541	309	768	449	172
Duke	829	1931	171	534	335	483	357	670	415	188
E. Washington	876	1953	268	697	484	676	353	796	417	187
Georgetown	650	1614	203	566	501	709	338	665	420	192
Georgia	707	1826	200	647	440	626	353	729	355	194
Georgia St.	667	1749	237	735	482	683	398	704	500	154
Gonzaga	737	1917	191	589	406	615	372	669	395	191
Hampton	744	1801	188	546	568	827	367	826	461	178
Harvard	587	1471	159	486	327	484	268	623	368	156
Indiana	875	1925	194	591	413	617	359	724	357	200
Iowa	701	1788	211	652	367	522	354	718	400	195
Iowa St.	842	2012	245	697	357	488	358	786	427	186
Kansas	780	1977	195	631	444	664	415	751	398	216
Kentucky	651	1836	156	570	377	581	398	647	478	159
Lafayette	850	1864	263	698	415	542	370	687	354	190
Louisville	676	1740	160	547	393	603	362	763	463	191
LSU	796	1986	180	575	395	597	427	753	439	262
Manhattan	710	1630	145	450	595	846	351	740	531	221
Maryland	756	1910	223	713	352	533	374	733	372	180
Michigan St.	728	1821	208	643	492	686	312	738	377	194
N. C. St.	757	1877	195	588	450	640	370	770	331	176
New Mexico St.	727	1725	120	409	384	557	329	618	434	179
North Carolina	818	2056	227	763	531	773	416	734	435	234
North Dakota St.	697	1668	206	556	369	497	237	771	338	146
North Florida	851	1971	172	549	430	633	389	767	420	217
Northeastern	848	1905	191	555	323	470	289	674	342	240
Northern Iowa	641	1638	197	624	167	221	287	652	372	163
Notre Dame	847	1984	213	647	325	463	384	725	384	176
Ohio St.	743	1833	221	694	350	502	370	718	484	166
Oklahoma	727	1888	197	637	357	546	399	785	443	209
Oklahoma St.	646	1620	176	519	464	678	349	722	426	185
Ole Miss	708	1771	245	703	499	729	374	740	405	161
Oregon	853	2025	215	652	484	697	399	790	395	190
Providence	742	1762	210	631	467	679	331	730	430	188
Purdue	724	1807	196	560	485	696	365	684	385	228
Robert Morris	778	1835	222	664	457	690	424	756	482	216
San Diego St.	659	1750	172	567	317	456	339	748	451	184
SMU	671	1768	258	803	372	548	350	632	423	220
St. John’s	768	1895	221	675	407	619	431	822	423	165
S.F. Austin	712	1627	150	451	555	800	312	656	571	196
Texas	686	1862	200	575	421	637	367	668	298	209
Texas Southern	850	1930	188	550	405	629	410	749	419	220
UAB	824	1960	206	635	447	653	411	780	452	210
UC-Irvine	716	1823	179	527	445	644	373	746	375	191
UCLA	779	1866	259	729	428	611	331	793	416	207
Utah	643	1681	152	477	384	569	313	640	373	176
Valparaiso	670	1762	219	667	397	565	319	687	404	223
VCU	794	1835	223	648	482	694	359	928	566	205
Villanova	752	1856	186	603	380	563	369	724	483	192
Virginia	578	1600	177	584	289	447	267	641	341	163
West Virginia	697	1488	173	473	572	833	285	778	628	185
Wichita St.	617	1551	161	469	391	576	272	698	426	127
Wisconsin	742	1771	170	442	254	373	256	686	339	135
Wofford	715	1715	170	551	433	613	292	762	435	180
Wyoming	692	1725	210	612	309	444	290	733	370	178
Xavier	814	1862	242	693	430	641	314	746	440	221

Four Factors

Team	EFG	DEFG	OR%	DOR%	TO%	DTO%	FT*	DFT*
Albany	50.1	49.6	32.5	25.5	19.1	20.2	24.8	17.3
Arizona	53.6	44.3	34.1	22.3	16.7	21.1	26.8	19.3
Arkansas	50.2	48.6	35.6	34.2	16.6	22.6	23.3	21.8
Baylor	49.6	45.5	42.2	31.2	19.7	19.3	22.7	17.6
Belmont	56.8	51.5	29.3	29.5	20.3	19.0	18.5	16.7
Boise St.	54.0	47.0	28.2	25.7	16.2	19.8	20.3	18.0
Buffalo	48.6	48.5	34.7	30.4	16.4	19.8	26.0	18.6
Butler	49.1	46.8	35.5	24.9	17.4	19.3	23.4	18.2
BYU	48.7	48.9	34.5	28.3	16.6	18.5	27.2	22.2
Cincinnati	50.4	44.5	37.3	31.8	21.3	20.3	21.0	14.4
Coastal Carolina	49.9	45.7	37.9	25.9	18.2	18.4	24.5	19.7
Davidson	56.2	49.0	30.3	29.9	14.2	17.4	18.5	19.3
Dayton	52.9	47.3	24.2	28.0	17.8	21.0	25.3	17.2
Duke	56.9	47.4	37.4	30.1	16.8	18.7	23.6	15.1
E. Washington	56.5	51.7	30.0	30.2	15.7	17.8	21.7	20.7
Georgetown	50.9	46.6	34.3	31.3	19.2	20.7	25.0	24.6
Georgia	48.9	44.2	32.3	28.9	19.3	16.7	26.1	20.7
Georgia St.	52.6	44.9	30.5	34.0	16.4	23.0	23.4	22.2
Gonzaga	58.9	43.4	34.2	28.4	16.2	17.7	22.7	18.2
Hampton	45.8	46.5	32.8	30.9	20.5	20.2	22.8	24.8
Harvard	48.3	45.3	32.8	27.8	18.9	20.4	23.2	18.2
Indiana	54.6	50.5	35.3	31.2	17.1	16.1	20.4	18.6
Iowa	47.8	45.1	35.8	30.5	17.4	19.2	25.3	17.6
Iowa St.	54.7	47.9	28.5	29.2	15.8	18.5	21.6	15.4
Kansas	49.3	44.4	34.9	31.8	19.0	17.5	25.4	19.5
Kentucky	51.8	39.7	40.4	31.7	16.4	21.8	27.1	17.2
Lafayette	56.2	52.7	28.4	33.9	16.9	16.8	19.9	19.7
Louisville	47.8	43.4	35.1	30.9	17.8	21.8	22.0	18.5
LSU	50.5	44.6	34.0	33.0	20.5	19.2	19.2	17.3
Manhattan	49.7	48.0	31.0	33.7	21.1	24.0	25.5	26.9
Maryland	50.9	45.4	29.2	30.4	18.5	17.2	26.6	16.3
Michigan St.	53.8	45.7	34.6	25.9	17.9	17.0	17.5	22.2
N. C. St.	49.6	45.5	34.2	30.4	16.2	15.5	21.6	21.0
New Mexico St.	51.3	45.6	40.1	30.3	21.9	20.7	25.0	18.3
North Carolina	51.4	45.3	39.9	30.5	18.1	17.8	21.3	21.7
North Dakota St.	49.7	48.0	26.0	22.8	15.7	16.9	21.0	18.4
North Florida	55.2	47.5	29.8	31.4	18.2	18.2	22.8	18.7
Northeastern	54.6	49.5	29.6	25.5	21.4	15.7	23.3	14.8
Northern Iowa	56.2	45.1	26.8	26.9	18.0	20.4	23.2	9.1
Notre Dame	58.6	48.1	28.1	31.6	14.4	17.4	23.0	14.7
Ohio St.	54.5	46.6	34.1	31.3	17.0	22.1	20.2	16.0
Oklahoma	49.4	43.7	30.9	31.5	17.6	20.2	20.4	16.3
Oklahoma St.	50.7	45.3	24.8	32.3	18.5	21.1	22.4	23.0
Ole Miss	48.2	46.9	34.9	31.7	16.9	18.9	25.2	23.2
Oregon	52.2	47.4	31.2	31.3	17.0	16.8	19.0	20.6
Providence	48.6	48.1	35.3	29.5	17.9	19.7	24.7	21.4
Purdue	50.7	45.5	36.2	31.1	19.9	17.8	23.7	22.5
Robert Morris	50.5	48.4	31.3	35.8	20.5	21.7	20.9	20.6
San Diego St.	46.8	42.6	35.6	30.2	18.5	21.7	19.7	15.3
SMU	52.0	45.2	37.4	29.6	19.9	20.1	25.3	17.7
St. John’s	49.5	46.4	28.6	34.9	15.8	19.4	21.6	18.7
S.F. Austin	56.2	48.4	38.0	29.5	20.6	25.2	25.6	24.5
Texas	49.4	42.2	38.0	29.0	19.9	14.2	22.7	20.1
Texas Southern	49.4	48.9	34.0	34.2	19.8	18.7	24.5	18.1
UAB	47.9	47.3	34.1	32.8	20.1	19.6	22.4	19.3
UC-Irvine	52.0	44.2	30.0	30.5	18.0	17.6	17.4	20.9
UCLA	49.4	48.7	33.9	28.1	17.5	18.6	21.1	19.1
Utah	56.1	42.8	31.6	27.6	18.1	18.5	23.9	19.1
Valparaiso	52.2	44.2	36.0	27.1	19.5	19.1	21.0	18.8
VCU	48.8	49.3	31.7	30.7	15.6	23.9	21.4	20.3
Villanova	55.3	45.5	32.7	31.1	16.6	21.6	25.4	17.0
Virginia	51.2	41.7	33.9	24.4	16.1	18.1	21.6	15.3
West Virginia	46.6	52.7	40.9	30.9	18.7	28.2	23.6	25.7
Wichita St.	51.0	45.0	35.3	26.4	15.2	21.5	22.2	19.8
Wisconsin	54.6	46.7	31.9	23.7	12.4	16.7	24.0	12.5
Wofford	52.0	46.6	28.9	26.9	17.5	20.2	21.8	20.1
Wyoming	52.5	46.2	22.4	26.3	18.6	18.4	21.8	15.3
Xavier	53.0	50.2	31.3	27.1	18.0	19.2	22.7	18.8

PiRate Ratings Essential Information For Bracketnomicss

Pos = Possessions Per game (and Defensive Possessions)

PM = Scoring Margin

FGM = Field Goal % Margin

RbM = Rebound Margin

TOM = Turnover Margin

RT = R + T Score

Rd = Won-Loss away from home

SOS = Strength of Schedule (ESPN’s version)

Team	Pos	DPos	PPG	D PPG	PM	FGM	RbM	TOM	RT	Rd	W-L	SOS
Albany	61.3	61.6	65.5	60.2	5.3	2.0	4.8	0.8	14.3	12-5	24-8	43.3
Arizona	67.2	67.0	76.4	58.6	17.8	9.8	8.8	2.9	25.4	8-3	31-3	58.4
Arkansas	70.8	70.7	78.0	70.1	7.9	1.7	0.4	4.2	9.4	7-5	26-8	64.2
Baylor	63.5	63.3	69.5	60.3	9.2	3.2	8.0	-0.3	19.2	6-5	24-9	65.1
Belmont	67.5	67.8	74.5	70.3	4.1	2.4	0.6	-0.9	2.9	7-8	22-10	45.6
Boise St.	63.5	64.0	70.8	60.3	10.5	4.3	2.5	2.4	11.6	9-5	25-8	51.9
Buffalo	68.9	68.8	75.0	68.3	6.7	1.3	3.1	2.3	12.1	10-7	23-9	57.2
Butler	65.2	65.4	69.6	61.2	8.4	2.2	6.5	1.2	17.9	7-4	22-10	66.4
BYU	71.4	71.6	77.7	72.6	5.1	3.1	4.9	1.4	14.5	8-3	25-9	58.9
Cincinnati	60.1	60.1	62.4	55.3	7.1	6.3	5.0	-0.6	13.1	6-5	22-10	57.8
Coastal Carolina	65.4	64.9	71.7	61.7	10.0	4.8	8.7	0.0	21.1	8-7	24-9	40.2
Davidson	67.4	67.7	79.9	69.0	10.9	3.1	0.9	2.2	7.6	9-4	24-7	56.5
Dayton	64.5	64.7	68.2	60.9	7.3	4.2	-1.1	2.1	4.2	6-7	25-8	60.3
Duke	66.9	67.2	80.6	65.6	15.0	7.3	6.2	1.3	17.7	10-2	29-4	62.0
E. Washington	68.9	68.8	80.8	73.6	7.1	3.2	0.2	1.5	5.5	11-6	26-8	42.5
Georgetown	65.8	65.6	70.7	64.6	6.1	5.2	2.8	0.9	10.1	7-5	21-10	68.9
Georgia	66.0	66.4	68.3	64.2	4.2	4.8	4.2	-1.7	9.5	8-5	21-11	68.3
Georgia St.	65.2	65.9	72.0	62.2	9.8	9.9	-0.6	4.5	9.2	10-8	24-9	46.9
Gonzaga	65.1	65.7	79.1	60.9	18.2	14.0	7.2	1.1	19.0	13-1	32-2	56.3
Hampton	69.5	69.3	67.2	68.0	-0.8	-0.5	0.9	-0.2	5.6	7-12	16-17	37.0
Harvard	62.4	62.1	64.2	57.2	6.9	3.6	3.7	0.9	12.5	9-4	22-7	49.3
Indiana	67.1	67.2	77.5	71.4	6.1	1.1	3.2	-0.7	8.1	4-7	20-13	64.8
Iowa	64.7	65.1	69.4	61.9	7.5	3.5	4.2	1.2	12.8	7-4	21-11	63.7
Iowa St.	69.6	70.1	78.4	69.3	9.1	6.2	1.2	1.9	7.9	7-5	25-8	67.7
Kansas	67.2	66.9	71.2	64.7	6.5	4.5	3.6	-1.1	9.1	6-6	26-8	71.2
Kentucky	64.6	64.5	74.9	54.0	20.9	11.4	7.4	3.4	22.9	14-0	34-0	58.5
Lafayette	65.0	65.8	74.2	74.3	-0.1	3.2	-2.0	0.1	-1.1	9-7	20-12	44.0
Louisville	66.5	66.5	69.2	59.5	9.7	4.0	3.0	2.7	12.8	8-3	24-8	66.7
LSU	71.4	71.3	73.7	67.7	6.0	5.6	2.3	-0.9	5.1	8-5	22-10	62.7
Manhattan	68.8	69.1	69.9	67.5	2.4	-0.1	-2.1	2.1	1.0	8-9	19-13	46.0
Maryland	65.0	65.5	69.5	63.2	6.2	4.2	1.5	-0.8	5.2	9-4	27-6	65.0
Michigan St.	64.9	65.1	71.9	63.4	8.5	7.1	6.8	-0.5	16.0	9-6	23-11	65.0
N. C. St.	65.0	64.9	70.4	65.4	5.0	3.4	3.3	-0.5	8.8	7-9	20-13	66.8
New Mexico St.	63.5	63.5	68.5	59.3	9.2	4.4	6.8	-0.8	16.5	7-8	23-10	44.1
North Carolina	70.1	69.8	77.9	68.4	9.5	7.7	8.2	-0.3	18.7	11-5	24-11	68.6
North Dakota St.	62.1	62.7	64.5	61.5	3.0	1.3	2.1	0.8	8.8	7-9	23-9	42.6
North Florida	67.4	67.7	75.7	67.8	7.9	3.8	0.6	0.1	4.1	11-9	23-11	41.1
Northeastern	64.3	64.2	68.6	65.0	3.6	4.0	4.8	-3.7	7.6	13-8	23-11	49.5
Northern Iowa	58.2	55.4	65.4	49.9	15.5	9.1	2.4	0.8	9.5	12-3	30-3	55.6
Notre Dame	65.2	64.8	78.8	65.6	13.2	8.3	0.1	1.9	6.5	11-2	29-5	61.1
Ohio St.	66.6	66.2	75.8	62.3	13.5	8.0	2.9	3.4	14.0	5-8	23-10	63.4
Oklahoma	68.8	68.5	71.9	62.8	9.2	5.1	1.1	1.7	6.8	6-7	22-10	66.7
Oklahoma St.	66.1	65.1	67.3	62.3	5.0	4.1	-3.3	1.5	-1.2	4-9	18-13	65.8
Ole Miss	67.1	67.1	72.6	67.5	5.1	2.6	2.8	1.3	11.1	10-4	20-12	65.7
Oregon	69.2	69.2	75.6	70.7	4.8	4.0	1.4	-0.2	5.9	7-6	25-9	63.7
Providence	66.2	66.2	70.2	65.5	4.7	2.0	3.9	1.2	12.8	8-6	22-11	68.1
Purdue	65.7	65.4	69.9	64.5	5.4	5.2	4.5	-1.4	9.4	7-8	21-12	66.0
Robert Morris	67.1	67.3	69.0	67.7	1.3	2.2	-2.3	0.8	-0.1	9-8	19-14	43.6
San Diego St.	61.4	61.1	61.8	53.1	8.6	4.2	3.2	1.9	12.4	10-6	26-8	56.1
SMU	63.3	63.7	69.4	59.8	9.7	10.0	6.9	0.2	16.8	10-4	27-6	58.1
St. John’s	67.7	68.2	71.2	67.6	3.6	3.6	-3.8	2.5	-0.5	5-8	21-11	63.7
S.F. Austin	68.3	68.7	79.5	64.5	14.9	5.4	5.4	3.2	18.0	14-3	29-4	43.6
Texas	63.9	63.5	67.9	60.4	7.5	6.8	8.3	-3.7	14.5	6-8	20-13	67.6
Texas Southern	66.0	65.8	68.2	67.4	0.7	0.3	0.4	-0.8	2.7	13-11	22-12	40.5
UAB	67.5	68.0	68.9	67.7	1.2	1.0	1.6	-0.3	6.0	3-8	19-15	52.4
UC-Irvine	64.2	64.6	67.9	62.3	5.6	6.9	1.5	-0.2	5.9	7-9	21-12	50.8
UCLA	68.0	67.9	72.0	68.0	4.0	2.3	3.9	0.7	11.7	4-12	20-13	65.9
Utah	63.2	62.9	72.1	56.9	15.2	10.3	5.1	0.2	13.9	8-7	24-8	59.0
Valparaiso	64.2	64.1	69.8	59.3	10.5	7.9	7.2	-0.3	16.5	13-4	28-5	46.4
VCU	68.2	67.8	72.5	65.5	7.0	-1.3	-1.3	5.5	7.8	14-5	26-9	63.4
Villanova	65.3	65.8	76.3	60.9	15.4	6.5	2.3	3.4	12.1	15-2	32-2	59.8
Virginia	59.0	58.9	65.3	50.7	14.7	10.2	7.8	1.2	20.5	14-2	29-3	61.2
West Virginia	69.8	69.6	73.9	66.8	7.1	-5.7	3.6	6.6	19.4	11-6	23-9	65.8
Wichita St.	61.9	61.8	69.7	55.8	13.9	4.9	5.3	3.9	20.0	13-4	28-4	56.1
Wisconsin	59.6	59.7	71.9	56.1	15.8	6.1	6.0	2.6	18.8	16-2	31-3	59.9
Wofford	62.5	63.2	67.0	59.8	7.2	4.2	1.4	1.9	8.7	15-5	28-6	47.5
Wyoming	60.0	59.3	61.7	56.0	5.7	6.0	0.1	-0.3	3.4	8-7	25-9	48.8
Xavier	67.0	67.4	73.6	67.6	5.9	3.6	3.6	0.9	10.7	8-10	21-13	66.4

Coming tomorrow, we look at each game in the opening round and round two, picking the winners and then picking the entire bracket.

Bracketnomics–PiRate Style

Bracketnomics 505—2014 Edition

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.

Think of the criteria in this tutorial as the equivalent of those past performances.  The R+T rating is akin to the Beyer Speed Figure Rating.  If a team has a negative R+T rating, they are like a horse with a 60 Speed Fig in a race where the other horses all have multiple 100+ Figs.

Here is a general explanation of our past performance criteria.  Don’t worry about compiling all these statistics yourself.  All you need to do is check back with the PiRate Ratings Tuesday morning for an in-depth look at the Field of 68.

 1. 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, team A figures to be better than team B before you look at any other statistics. 

In the days of the 64-68-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 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.

2. 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 64-68-team tournament, this stat has become a more accurate predictor.  In the 21^st 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.

3. 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.

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.

4. 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.  So, this system counts a steal as being worth 1.33 defensive rebounds.   

The criteria to look for here is a 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 7.5 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.

5. 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 current R+T Formula for 2014 uses an advanced metric that involves multiple factors that give extra weight to an ability to get offensive rebounds and steals over other turnovers, while preventing the other team from getting offensive rebounds and forcing turnovers.

In 2014 terms, look for teams with R+T ratings at 6.5 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 3.5 to 6.5, you have a team that can overcome a few other liabilities to win. 

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.

6. Power Conference Plus Schedule Strength

Up to this point you might have been thinking that it is much easier for Stephen F. Austin or North Dakota St. to own these gaudy statistics than it is for Iowa St. or Ohio State.  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.  We use three different SOS ratings to come up with an average, and then we plug it into a formula that gives extra points for teams with tough schedules, while taking away points from teams with easy schedules.

 7. Won-Loss percentage Away From Home Floor

This should be obvious.  Except in the rarest of instances, 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.

These are the seven 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 not to rely upon.

1. 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.  So, consider this stat only if you must decide on a toss-up after looking at the big seven stats.

2. Free Throw Shooting

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. 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.

4. 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.  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. 

 

Putting It All Together

If you know us here at the PiRate Ratings, we are all about putting stats into a mathematical formula to try to pick winners.  That is what we have done for the last decade, and we have isolated the top teams in the tournament more than half the time.  In the last 13 years, our top-rated team has won the championship eight times,  our second highest-rated team won the title three times, and our third-highest rated team won it once.  The only miss was with Connecticut in 2011.

 

Check back at this site Monday night, March 17, after 11:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, and we will have our ratings for all 68 teams in the Dance.

 

Enjoy!