Advanced Basketball Statistics–Fun Stuff for Stats Buffs, Part 2

Last week, we introduced you to the basics of advanced basketball statistics, the Four Factors.

If you missed that feature, you can find it here:

https://piratings.wordpress.com/2019/01/09/advanced-basketball-statistics-fun-stuff-for-stats-buffs/

This week, we hope to explain how to apply advanced stats to individual players. It is a bit more involved, but if you break it down, it is not difficult to understand.

Then, in our final installment next week, we will attempt to explain offensive and defensive efficiency, which is a multiple step process and quite involved, but once you have the formulas placed in a spreadsheet, you can have the same data that the Selection Committee will have in the room when they meet to select the field and seed the teams.

Let’s start with individual statistics.

True Shooting %
The basic shooting stat for an individual is True Shooting Percentage. It incorporates field goal shooting from behind the three-point line, inside the line, and foul shooting into one percentage that provides a decent look at how efficient a player is when he shoots the ball to his basket.

 
The formula for TS% is: College: Pts/(2*(FGA+(.465*FTA))) &

NBA Pts/(2*(FGA+(.44*FTA)))

Example: Let’s take a look at the incredible Markus Howard of Marquette. As of this afternoon (January 15, 2019), Howard has scored 439 points for the season. He has taken 301 field goal attempts and 116 free throw attempts.

439/(2*(301+(.465*116))) = .618 or 61.8%

Let’s now take a look at a big man and how Howard stacks up as a perimeter player. Let’s look at Gonzaga’s Rui Hachimura. As of this afternoon, the Bulldogs’ power forward has scored 374 points on 233 field goal attempts and 117 free throw attempts.

374/(2*(233+(.465*117)))= .651 or 65.1%
Hachimura is a little more efficient in scoring points when he shoots the ball for any reason than Howard, but they are both quite excellent at scoring for their teams.
How do they compare with a couple of all-time greats from the past?

Let’s look at Steph Curry’s and Bill Walton’s final years at Davidson and UCLA respectively.

Curry: 974/(2*(687+(.465*251)))= .606 or 60.6%, not as good as Howard so far this year.

Walton: 522/(2*(349+(.465*100)))=.660 or 66.%, which is a little better than Hachimura.

Hachimura has benefitted from some three-pointers that did not exist when Walton played at UCLA, but Walton would have never attempted a three-point shot playing in the low post for the Bruins. Walton also missed some games his senior year due to knee troubles, and he was a lousy foul shooter his last two years in Westwood, or else his TS% would have been even higher.

Offensive, Defensive, and Total Rebounding Percentage
For an individual player, the formula for offensive rebounding percentage is:

100 * [(Individual Player’s Offensive Rebounds * (Team Minutes Played/5)) / (Individual Player’s Minutes Played * (Team Offensive Rebounds + Opposing Team Defensive Rebounds))]

The formula looks bulky but it is quite easy to calculate and once you plug them into a spreadsheet, it is a quick process.

Defensive Rebounding percentage is just the opposite formula
100 * [(Individual Player’s Defensive Rebounds * (Team Minutes Played/5)) / (Individual Player’s Minutes Played * (Team Defensive Rebounds + Opposing Team Offensive Rebounds))]

And Total Rebounding Rebounding Percentage brings the whole into the parts.
100 * [(Individual Player’s Total Rebounds * Team Minutes Played/5) / (Individual Player’s Minutes Played * (Team Total Rebounds + Opposing Team Total Rebounds))]

Examples: Let’s compare the key board men from the hot rivals in the Big Ten: Kenny Goins of Michigan State and Jon Teske of Michigan

Goins offensive rebounding: 100 * [(41*3425/5)) / (450 * (201 + 356))] = 11.2%
Goins defensive rebounding: 100* [(119*3425/5)) / 450 * (543 + 185))] = 24.9%
Goins total rebounding: 100 * [(160 * 3425/5) / (450 * (744 + 541))] = 19.0%

Teske offensive rebounding: 100 * [(31 * 3400/5)) / (458 * (156 + 415))] = 8.1%
Teske defensive rebounding: 100 * [(82 * 3400/5)) / (458 * (463+135))] = 20.4%
Teske total rebounding: 100 * [(113 * 3400/5)) / (450 * (619+550))] = 14.6%

Because Michigan and Michigan State have played comparable schedules this year, Goins is a little better on both the offensive and defensive glass than the seven-foot Teske.

For what it is worth, Blake Griffin’s total rebounding percentage in 2009 at Oklahoma was 24.0, so Goins and Teske are not quite up to his lofty standards.

Turnover Percentage

The formula for individual TOV% is: 100 * TOV / (FGA + (.465 * FTA) + TOV)

It is rather simple to calculate, but it has its limitations, because point guards handle the ball much more per possession than other players, and this formula does not include assists which might show that it is worth a couple extra points of TOV% for a point guard to have higher numbers of assists. Additionally, some point guards do not attempt many shots, so the denominator of this equation is skewed too low.

We’ll combine this stat with the next stat to come up with an improvement over assist to turnover rate.

Let’s look at a couple of outstanding playmakers–Cassius Winston of Michigan State and Jared Harper of Auburn.

Winston: 100 * 42 / (205 + (.465 * 69) + 42) = 15.0%
Harper: 100 * 32 / (183 + (.465 * 53) + 32) = 13.4%

Assist Percentage
Now we give the playmakers a chance to shine and balance out the bad turnover percentages they receive for having possession of the ball more than others (like a running back in football will fumble the ball more than the tight end per team possession).
The formula for individial AST% is: 100 * AST / (((MP / (Team MP/5)) * Team FG) – FG)

Winston: 100 * 125 / (((528/(3425/5)) * 517) – 100) = 41.9%
Harper: 100 * 101 / (((506/(3050/5)) * 452) -69) = 33.0%

Assist Percentage to Turnover Percentage

Simply divide AST%/TOV% to get a better ratio than the standard AST/TOV.

Winston: 41.9/15.0 = 2.8
Harper: 33.0/13.4 = 2.5

Both of these rates are outstanding. For Michigan State, the Spartans have an outstanding playmaker in Winston, an outstanding dominator on the glass in Goins, and an outstanding group of shooters and defenders. Coach Tom Izzo has a Final Four caliber team for sure.

Block Percentage
Blocks are very important defensive tools. Obviously every time a player blocks a shot, it is also a missed field goal attempt for the other team. Obviously, a blocked shot is not as valuable as the non-blocked missed field goal attempt, because not every blocked shot would have been a made shot, and more blocked shots become offensive rebounds or offensive team rebounds than regular missed shots. However, an intimidator underneath the basket can influence a lot of shots that he does not block, thus lowering non-blocked field goal percentages. There are multiple algorithms used to calculate how valuable a blocked shot is worth in points with and without the inclusion of intimidation.

We like to compare this variable to baseball’s stolen base variable, where traditional sabermetrics lovers hate the stolen base attempt due to the effects on WAR not being great and needing a base stealer that can consistently steal better than 75% of the bases he attempts. They don’t factor in the extracurricular events such as middle infielders having to cheat a step closer to second base, pitchers worried about throwing off-speed (non fastball) pitches, pitchers having to throw to first a lot to reduce leads, and even the first baseman having to delay by a fraction of a second before moving out to cover his area.

For instance, when Maury Wills was stealing bases left and right for the Los Angeles Dodgers in the early 1960’s, Jim Gilliam benefited from being the next batter in the batting order. Gilliam liked to take a lot of pitches, so taking a couple to give Wills a chance to steal didn’t harm him. Actually, because pitchers worried so much, Gilliam was frequently ahead in the count. A veteran with a 2-0 count can hit about 100 points higher than when he has an 0-2 count. Also, Gilliam was an excellent placement hitter. He could hit the ball in the open space created by the first baseman holding Wills on base. When the switch-hitting Gilliam faced a left-handed batter, and the second baseman was covering the bag, while the first baseman was holding Wills on, Gilliam saw a monstrous hole to slap grounders towards right field that allowed Wills to take third base.

Editorial over

Here is the formula for Block Percentage
100 * (Blk * (Team MP/5)) / (MP * (Opponents FGA – Opponents 3-Point Attempts))

Example: Brandon Clarke of Gonzaga is a true intimidator in the paint. His ability to swat balls away has helped the Zags hold teams to just 38.8% field goal shooting. Here is his BLK%.

100 * (58 * (3600/5)) / 497 * (1148-418) = 11.5%

When a player has a double digit BLK%, it is almost a fact that he is also an intimidator in the paint, which means other teams will miss three or four shots that they normally would make against other teams. This is in addition to the blocks that would have been made baskets had they not been blocked.
If an opposing team normally averages 27 field goals on 58 attempts for 46.6%, but with Clarke’s blocks and intimidation this opponent hits only 21 of their 58 attempts for 36.2%. That is a 10% difference created mostly by one intimidating player. Block percentage is one of the most underrated defensive tools in basketball.

Steal Percentage
The steal is a dying art but for a reason. Ninety-five to ninety-nine percent of the time, the steal comes from an intercepted pass and not from a player actually stealing the ball off a player’s dribble. So, steals should be renamed as interceptions like in football. Because so many teams cannot pass the ball worth a darn these days, steals have been dropping in number for several years. This does not mean that the monotonous dribbling of the ball is the way for offenses to score. It is easier to guard the movement of a dribbled ball opposed to the movement of a passed ball, because a dribbler can rarely exceed 15 MPH, while a weak pass is double that speed and a crisp pass is triple that speed or more. When you see a player dribble the ball all the way up the floor on a fast break attempt, he is actually hurting his team’s chances of scoring points on that break. Two quick passes up the floor can result in a wide open basket and/or defensive foul. Many times, the dribbling player is the last of the 10 players to enter the scoring zone, and then the fast break is dead.

Once again editorial over.

The formula for steal percentage is: (100 * Steals * (Team MP/5)) / (Player MP * Opponents Possessions)

You can find team possessions in many locations today, but if you need to calculate this from scratch, team possessions can be very accurately estimated by this calculation:

FGA + (.465 * FTA) – Off. Rebounds + Turnovers {for college}

FGA + (.44 * FTA) – Off. Rebounds + Turnovers {for NBA}

If you are trying to calculate this for your high school, middle school, or youth league team, you will have to adjust the constant that you multiple with FTA. Unfortunately, we do not know what to use for the constants.

Example: Tremont Waters of LSU has come close this year to recording a triple double the hard way with points, assists, and steals. He needed two more steals against UL-Monroe to pull off a feat that is extremely rare in the 21st Century.
Here is Waters’ Steal %.
(100 * 45 * 3050/5) (478 * 1088) = 5.28%

This is an excellent percentage, but it does not approach the percentages of past years, especially when more teams used full-court pressure defense for 40 minutes per game. Some of the Kentucky players under Coach Rick Pitino exceeded 6%.

Usage Percentage
Usage percentage attempts tp gauge the percentage of team plays in which a specific player was key to the possession. It actually measures percentage of team plays USED by an individual while he was on the floor.

The formula for USG % is: 100 * ((FGA + (.465*FTA) + TOV) * (Team MP/5)) / (MP * (Team FGA + (.465* Team FTA)+Team TOV))

Example: Carsen Edwards of Purdue is heavily involved in all of the Boilermakers’ possessions.

100 * ((313 + (.465 * 90) + 52) * (3225/5)) / (537 * (985 + (.465*194)+174)) = 39.1%

At the same time, teammate Ryan Cline plays about the same number of minutes per game but has a USG% that is less than half of Edwards. Thus, Edwards is vital to Purdue’s offensive success. If Edwards gets in foul trouble, Purdue is in much worse shape than if Cline gets in foul trouble. Of course, Matt Painter doesn’t want either star getting into foul trouble, as they both play better than 33 minutes per game.

In our final installment of Fun Stuff for Stats Buffs, we will attempt to explain offensive and defensive efficiency ratings, the big advance metric that the Selection Committee will use as part of their selection and seeding criteria. It is quite bulky and involves multiple steps to figure. If you ever tried to calculate Base Runs in baseball, you know how involved that calculation was. oRAT and dRAT make base runs calculations look like simple addition.

Advertisements

PiRate Ratings Spreads For NCAA Tournament Sweet 16 Games of Friday, March 23

Sweet 16–Friday, March 23

Higher Seed	Lower Seed	Spread
Kansas	Clemson	1.7
Villanova	West Virginia	6.4
Duke	Syracuse	5.1
Purdue	Texas Tech	3.3

Friday Night’s Schedule

Friday, Mar 23, 2018
TIME (EDT)	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	City	TV
7:07 PM	1 Kansas	5 Clemson	Omaha	CBS
7:27 PM	1 Villanova	5 West Virginia	Boston	TBS
9:37 PM	2 Duke	11 Syracuse	Omaha	CBS
9:57 PM	2 Purdue	3 Texas Tech	Boston	TBS

 

 

 

 

PiRate Ratings Spreads For NCAA Tournament Games of Sunday, March 18

Sunday’s PiRate Rating Spreads For NCAA Tournament Games

Higher Seed	Lower Seed	Spread
Purdue	Butler	5.4
Michigan St.	Syracuse	8.5
North Carolina	Texas A&M	5.9
Cincinnati	Nevada	4.9
Auburn	Clemson	1.4
Kansas St.	MD-Baltimore Co.	9.8
Xavier	Florida St.	3.7
West Virginia	Marshall	10.2

Sunday’s TV Schedule

All times Eastern Daylight

Sunday, Mar 18, 2018
TIME	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	City	TV
12:10 PM	2 Purdue	10 Butler	Detroit	CBS
2:40 PM	3 Michigan St.	11 Syracuse	Detroit	CBS
5:15 PM	2 North Carolina	7 Texas A&M	Charlotte	CBS
6:10 PM	2 Cincinnati	7 Nevada	Nashville	TNT
7:10 PM	4 Auburn	5 Clemson	San Diego	TBS
7:45 PM	9 Kansas St.	16 MD-Baltimore Co.	Charlotte	TruTV
8:40 PM	1 Xavier	9 Florida St.	Nashville	TNT
9:40 PM	5 West Virginia	13 Marshall	San Diego	TBS

Bracket-Picking Criteria Results

Of the eight teams in the Sweet 16 as of Saturday night, we still have six teams alive.  Our picks went 6-2 and were within a half-second of going 8-0, as our two losses came on last-second shots in the Loyola-Tennessee and Michigan-Houston games.

For the tournament, our picks are now 32-12.

The New PiRate Ratings Bracketology Criteria have performed on par with the traditional criteria that we used for over 20 years.  We will wait until the championship before deciding if the new criteria was worth discarding the old method.

Here is a look at today’s games as the criteria applies to each of the eight contests.

Purdue vs. Butler
The big question is, “Will Isaac Haas play?” The next biggest question is, “If he plays, can he be anywhere near 100%?”

If Haas is able to give anything close to his regular contribution, Purdue is too strong for Butler. But, as we have already seen in this tournament, Virginia not having its best defender, and Tennessee not having one of its key big men available were contributing factors in losses. If Haas is not able to play, then Butler gains a major advantage in this game. The Boilermakers rely on Haas more for his offense than his defense, and it is true shooting percentage margin where Purdue is so superior in this contest. Remove Haas and his 66% TS%, and this advantage melts away somewhat.

PiRate Pick: Purdue

Michigan St. vs. Syracuse
This will be an interesting contest. The schedule strengths are identical, so we can look at the stats as if the two teams have played the same exact schedules. Michigan State has a clear true shooting percentage margin advantage and the Spartans also enjoy a modest R+T rating advantage.
The interest in this game comes from Michigan State’s issue against zone defenses. The Syracuse 2-3 matchup zone is tough to face the first time, and the Spartans had all of a day to study it and then implement a strategy against it.
It’s a different zone entirely, but Michigan State fared poorly twice against Michigan’s 1-3-1 trapping zone. Syracuse will trap out of their matchup zone as well.
On paper, Miles Bridges and Cassius Winston should thrive against zone defenses, but they did not hit from outside in one of the two games, and they turned the ball over against the traps the other. Maybe, the third time’s the charm? Or then maybe Syracuse is primed to make another surprise run to the Final Four? We’ll stick with Sparty.

PiRate Pick: Michigan St.

North Carolina vs. Texas A&M
North Carolina is almost playing at home, but Kansas just showed that having an in-state regional doesn’t guarantee two easy victories. However, the Jayhawks advanced, so the Tar Heels should get a little extra help with maybe a point or point and a half for playing so close to home as the state school where the tournament will be played.
The Tar Heels don’t need all that much extra oomph in the Big Dance. They are the defending champions, and they appear to be nearing peak performance at the right time.
Texas A&M is not going to be the weak victim. The Aggies will have the power to keep the inside game honest. A&M actually has a slightly better true shooting percentage margin than the Tar Heels, but North Carolina enjoys the R+T advantage. Down the road, North Carolina might struggle against a team that can force turnovers, but A&M isn’t one of those teams.

PiRate Pick: North Carolina

Cincinnati vs. Nevada
This game could be interesting for awhile, but Cincinnati is a bit too physical for the underdog Wolf Pack. The Bearcats’ R+T rating advantage is considerable here, and they enjoy a small true shooting percentage advantage as well. Eventually, Cinti will dominate on the glass, and this should lead to a run of several points, where the Bearcats send the Wolf Pack back to Reno, and that’s no gamble saying so.

PiRate Pick: Cincinnati

Auburn vs. Clemson
This is another one of those games where one key injury makes a huge difference in one team’s statistics. Auburn just narrowly escaped a first round upset bid by Charleston, and without a dominating or even contributing big man, the Tigers just aren’t the same team they were before Anfernee McLemore was lost for the season.

Clemson is not going to just show up and win this game, and they may not win even if they produce an A+ effort. Auburn still has a tough pressure defense on the perimeter, and Clemson has a negative turnover margin, so the War Eagles should get a couple extra scoring opportunities with steals.

However, when it comes down to it, Clemson has a decidedly better true shooting percentage margin and should be able to score inside enough times to win this battle again. CU enjoys a slightly better stength of schedule, and this should be the final nail in the coffin in this game.

PiRate Pick: Clemson

Kansas St. vs. MD-Baltimore Co.
Can they do it again? Is there any way a Number 16 seed can be one of the last 16 in the field? Here’s the funny thing about this game: Kansas State is precariously on the minimum R+T margin line to be picked against anybody in the tournament. Teams that rebound as poorly as Kansas State seldom make it very far in the NCAA Tournament. There are just a handful of teams in the last 50 years that won twice in one NCAA Tournament when their rebounding margin was worse than -3.
Maryland-Baltimore County would have been our pick in this game if the Terriers had a positive rebounding margin of 1.5 or better, but UMBC also has a negative rebounding margin. The Terriers might have been our pick if they held the true shooting percentage margin advantage in this game, but Kansas State has the better numbers here as well. Throw in the fact that the Wildcats’ schedule strength is about 15 points stronger than that of UMBC, and we just cannot pull the trigger on this one and take the most incredible long shot to ever make the Sweet 16.

PiRate Pick: Kansas St.

Xavier vs. Florida St.
This game should be the second most exciting game of the day. The Seminoles match up well with the top-seeded Musketeers, and this game should remain close for at least all of the first half and a good bit of the second half. Xavier has a slightly stronger schedule strength which makes their true shooting percentage margin and R+T rating advantages enough to matter. The margin of safety in this game is rather small, almost nonexistent, so a cold shooting day by Xavier could be enough to turn this game the other way.

PiRate Pick: Xavier

West Virginia vs.Marshall
We saved the best for last. In case you didn’t know, there is more than just a Round of 32 game here. These two in-state rivals don’t get along, and it’s almost as hated as Xavier and Cincinnati. It carries over to the two coaches, as they don’t really like each other.
When there is a game like this, the smaller school almost always benefits in some way.

Marshall is a woman scorned as these teams prepare to face off in a foreign land known as San Diego. West Virginia refuses to play Marshall in basketball (and football), unless the Mountaineers get two home games for every Thundering Herd home game.
What about the game itself? This will be the most interesting game of the day. Press Virginia’s defense may not exploit much in the way Marshall attacks it. The Herd had no difficulty facing Middle Tennessee’s trapping defense, as they pasted the CUSA regular season champions both times they faced them.

Alas, there is one important rule that we always follow at the PiRate Ratings. Whenever a team in the NCAA Tournament had a negative R+T Rating, we select the other team as long as that team has a positive R+T Rating. Marshall’s R+T Rating is -4.8, while the Mountaineers have a 16.6 R+T, and that is enough to give WVU about 18 more scoring opportunities. Marshall would have to hit about 18 three-pointers to neutralize that advantage.

PiRate Pick: West Virginia

Original PiRate Ratings Bracketology Sunday Teams Picked for Sweet 16
All 8 of our original picks are still alive today.
Cincinnati
Xavier
North Carolina
West Virginia
Texas Tech
Purdue
Clemson
Michigan St.

 

PiRate Ratings Spreads For NCAA Tournament Games of Friday, March 16

Friday’s PiRate Rating Spreads For NCAA Tournament Games

Higher Seed	Lower Seed	Spread
Texas A&M	Providence	3.8
Purdue	Cal St. Fullerton	17.0
Wichita St.	Marshall	9.4
Cincinnati	Georgia St.	12.7
North Carolina	Lipscomb	17.4
Arkansas	Butler	-1.2
West Virginia	Murray St.	6.3
Nevada	Texas	2.5
Creighton	Kansas St.	2.5
Michigan St.	Bucknell	12.8
Xavier	Texas Southern	20.0
Auburn	Charleston	11.9
Virginia	MD-Baltimore Co.	20.6
TCU	Syracuse	4.3
Missouri	Florida St.	-1.1
Clemson	New Mexico St.	4.1

Today’s NCAA Tournament Schedule

Friday, Mar 16, 2018
TIME	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	City	TV
12:15 PM	7 Texas A&M	10 Providence	Charlotte	CBS
12:40 PM	2 Purdue	15 Cal St. Fullerton	Detroit	truTV
1:30 PM	4 Wichita St.	13 Marshall	San Diego	TNT
2:00 PM	2 Cincinnati	15 Georgia St.	Nashville	TBS
2:45 PM	2 North Carolina	15 Lipscomb	Charlotte	CBS
3:10 PM	7 Arkansas	10 Butler	Detroit	truTV
4:00 PM	5 West Virginia	12 Murray St.	San Diego	TNT
4:30 PM	7 Nevada	10 Texas	Nashville	TBS
6:50 PM	8 Creighton	9 Kansas St.	Charlotte	TNT
7:10 PM	3 Michigan St.	14 Bucknell	Detroit	CBS
7:20 PM	1 Xavier	16 Texas Southern	Nashville	TBS
7:27 PM	4 Auburn	13 Charleston	San Diego	truTV
9:20 PM	1 Virginia	16 MD-Baltimore Co.	Charlotte	TNT
9:40 PM	6 TCU	11 Syracuse	Detroit	CBS
9:50 PM	8 Missouri	9 Florida St.	Nashville	TBS
9:57 PM	5 Clemson	12 New Mexico St.	San Diego	truTV

Saturday’s Schedule

Saturday, Mar 17, 2018
TIME	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	City	TV
12:10 PM	1 Villanova	9 Alabama	Pittsburgh	CBS
2:40 PM	2 Duke	7 Rhode Island	Pittsburgh	CBS
5:15 PM	5 Kentucky	13 Buffalo	Boise, ID	CBS
6:10 PM	3 Tennessee	11 Loyola (Chi.)	Dallas	TNT
7:10 PM	1 Kansas	8 Seton Hall	Wichita, KS	TBS
7:45 PM	4 Gonzaga	5 Ohio St.	Boise, ID	CBS
8:40 PM	3 North Texas	6 Florida	Dallas	TNT
9:40 PM	3 Michigan	6 Houston	Wichita, KS	TBS

Bracket Results To Date: 15-5

Today’s Criteria Bracket Picks

Virginia over Maryland-Baltimore Co.

Creighton over Kansas St.

Texas over Nevada

Cincinnati over Georgia St.

Xavier over Texas Southern

Missouri over Florida St.

Texas A&M over Providence

North Carolina over Lipscomb

West Virginia over Murray St.

Wichita St. over Marshall

Butler over Arkansas

Purdue over Cal. St. Fullerton

Clemson over New Mexico St.

Auburn over College of Charleston

Syracuse over TCU

Michigan St. over Bucknell

 

 

 

PiRate Ratings Conference Tournament Update–March 4, 2018

Spreads For Sunday’s Games

Home Team	Visitor	Spread
Wichita St.	Cincinnati	-0.9
South Florida	SMU	-11.0
Tulsa	Temple	1.0
Memphis	East Carolina	11.0
Houston	Connecticut	15.2
Central Florida	Tulane	8.3
Florida Gulf Coast	Lipscomb	6.5
Radford	Liberty	3.8
Purdue	Michigan	3.9
Charleston	Drexel	9.8
William & Mary	Towson	-1.6
Northeastern	Delaware	8.9
Hofstra	UNC-Wilmington	6.4
Illinois-Chicago	Milwaukee	0.1
Oakland	IUPUI	7.3
Iona	St. Peter’s	5.1
Fairfield	Quinnipiac	3.7
Loyola (Chi.)	Illinois St.	7.9
Colgate	Holy Cross	4.8
Bucknell	Boston U	9.2
UNC-Greensboro	Wofford	4.9
East Tennessee St.	Furman	-0.3
Fort Wayne	North Dakota St.	0.9
Denver	Oral Roberts	1.5
Gonzaga	San Francisco	14.5
Saint Mary’s	BYU	4.5

Note:  Games in Bright Red are for Automatic NCAA Tournament Bids

Automatic NCAA Tournament Bids Awarded to Date

Murray State (26-5) 

Ohio Valley Conference Tournament
Murray St. 68	Belmont 51

Conference Tournaments Scores From Saturday with Updated Brackets

America East Conference Tournament
Quarterfinals–March 3
UMBC 89	UMass-Lowell 77
Hartford 71	New Hampshire 60
Vermont 75	Maine 60
Stony Brook 69	Albany 60

Semifinals–March 6
Time	Home	Visitors	TV
7:00 PM	#1 Vermont	#5 Stony Brook	ESPN3
7:30 PM	#2 UMBC	#3 Hartford	ESPN3
Championship–March 10
Time	Home	Visitors	TV
11:00 AM	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	ESPN2

 

Big Ten Conference Tournament
Michigan 75	Michigan St. 64
Purdue 78	Penn St. 70

Championship–March 4
Time	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	TV
4:30 PM	#3 Purdue	#5 Michigan	CBS

 

Colonial Athletic Association Tournament
First Round–March 3
Drexel 70	James Madison 62
Delaware 86	Elon 79

Quarterfinals–March 4
Time	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	TV
12:00 PM	#1 College of Charleston	#8 Drexel	CAA TV
2:30 PM	#4 William & Mary	#5 Towson	CAA TV
6:00 PM	#2 Northeastern	#7 Delaware	CAA TV
8:30 PM	#3 Hofstra	#6 UNC-Wilmington	CAA TV
Semifinals–March 5
Time	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	TV
6:00 PM	CofC/Drex/JMU	W&M or Towson	CBSSN
8:30 PM	NE/Del/Elon	Hofstra or UNCW	CBSSN
Championship–March 6
Time	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	TV
7:00 PM			CBSSN

Horizon League Tournament
Wright St. 87	Green Bay 72
Cleveland St. 89	Northern Kentucky 80

Quarterfinals–March 4
Time	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	TV
5:00 PM	#3 UIC	#6 Milwaukee	ESPN3
7:30 PM	#4 Oakland	#5 IUPUI	ESPN3
Semifinals–March 5
Time	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	TV
7:00 PM	Oakland or IUPUI	#8 Cleveland St.	ESPNU
9:30 PM	#2 Wright St.	UIC or Milwaukee	ESPNU
Championship–March 6
Time	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	TV
7:00 PM			ESPN

 

Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference Tournament
Fairfield 90	Niagara 77
Iona 72	Manhattan 60

Semifinals–March 4
Time	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	TV
7:00 PM	#4 Iona	#9 St. Peter’s	ESPN3
9:30 PM	#6 Fairfield	#7 Quinnipiac	ESPN3
Championship–March 5
Time	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	TV
7:00 PM			ESPN

 

Missouri Valley Conference Tournament
Loyola (Chi.) 62	Bradley 54
Illinois St. 76	Southern Illinois 68

Championship–March 4
Time	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	TV
1:00 PM	#1 Loyola (Chi.)	#3 Illinois St.	CBS

 

Northeast Conference Tournament
Wagner 75	Robert Morris 64
Long Island 78	Fairleigh-Dickinson 77

Championship–March 6
Time	Home Team	Visitors	TV
7:00 PM	#1 Wagner	#4 Long Island	ESPN2

 

Southern Conference Tournament
UNC-Greensboro 72	The Citadel 58
Wofford 73	Mercer 53
East Tennessee St. 77	Chattanooga 59
Furman 97	Western Carolina 73

Semifinals–March 4
Time	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	TV
4:00 PM	#1 UNC-Greensboro	#5 Wofford	ESPN3
6:30 PM	#2 East Tennessee St.	#3 Furman	ESPN3
Championship–March 5
Time	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	TV
9:00 PM			ESPN2

 

Summit League Tournament
Quarterfinals–March 3
South Dakota St. 66	Western Illiois 60
South Dakota 87	Omaha 73

Quarterfinals–March 4
Time	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	TV
6:00 PM	#4 Fort Wayne	#5 North Dakota St.	ESPN3
8:30 PM	#3 Denver	#6 Oral Roberts	ESPN3
Semifinals–March 5
Time	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	TV
6:00 PM	#1 South Dakota St.	Ft.Wayne or NDSU	ESPN3
8:30 PM	#2 South Dakota	Denver or ORU	ESPN3
Championship–March 6
Time	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	TV
8:00 PM			ESPN2

 

West Coast Conference Tournament
BYU 85	San Diego 79
San Francisco 71	Pacific 70 ot
Gonzaga 83	Loyola Marymount 69
Saint Mary’s 69	Pepperdine 66

Semifinals–March 4
Time	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	TV
6:00 PM	#1 Gonzaga	#4 San Francisco	ESPN
8:00 PM	#2 Saint Mary’s	#3 BYU	ESPN2
Championship–March 6
Time	Higher Seed	Lower Seed	TV
6:00 PM			ESPN

Other Conference Tournaments Resuming Today

Atlantic Sun Conference Tournament
Championship–March 4
Time	Home	Visitors	TV
3:00 PM	#1 Florida Gulf Coast	#2 Lipscomb	ESPN

Big South Conference Tournament
Championship–March 4
Time	Home	Visitors	TV
1:00 PM	#2 Radford	#5 Liberty	ESPN

Semifinals–March 4
Time	Home	Visitors	TV
12:00 PM	#2 Colgate	#6 Holy Cross	CBSSN
2:00 PM	#1 Bucknell	#5 Boston U	CBSSN
Championship–March 7
Time	Home	Visitors	TV
7:30 PM			CBSSN

Bids That Will Be Awarded on Sunday

Big South Conference:  Radford or Liberty   1:00 PM EST on ESPN

Even with 2-seed Radford’s home court advantage, this game should be considered close to a toss-up.   Earlier in the season, these two teams had to play an extra five minutes to determine the outcome, as Radford won by a bucket 59-57.  Of the 20 players that appeared in that game, only one could find the basket consistently that night, as Radford’s Ed Polite, Jr. finished a perfect 7 for 7 from the field in that game.  It was no fluke, as in the return game at Liberty, Polite, Jr. went 7 for 10 from the field with a three-pointer and a perfect 8 for 8 at the line for 23 points, as Radford cruised to an easy win.  Any chance Liberty has of winning will come from limiting Radford’s ability to get second chance baskets and getting to the foul line, where they lead the Big South with a 78.5% accuracy rate.

Missouri Valley Conference:  Loyola (Chi.) or Illinois St.  2:00 PM EST on CBS

Loyola is the top seed, while Illinois State is the 3-seed.  During the regular season, Loyola won by identical 68-61 scores in a season sweep.  The Ramblers have won nine consecutive games and would be a formidable foe as an underdog in the first round of the NCAA Tournament.  They rank third nationally in field goal percentage at 51% per game, and they play competent defense without fouling.

Atlantic Sun Conference:  Florida Gulf Coast or Lipscomb   3:00 PM EST on ESPN

These are the top two seeds, and they split the season series, winning on the other team’s home floor.  This game will be played at FGCU, where Lipscomb beat the Eagles 90-87, despite being forced into 23 turnovers at the hands of 19 FGCU steals.  Lipscomb has won seven games in a row and 11 out of 12, but FGCU is tournament tough and has been there before.  The Eagles have owned this league since Belmont left for the OVC, while Lipscomb has never been to the NCAA Tournament and only appeared in one previous A-Sun Tournament Championship Game.  This game should be exciting.

Big Ten: Purdue or Michigan  4:30 PM EST on CBS

Obviously, both teams are going to the NCAA Tournament, as will be Michigan State and Ohio State.  Nebraska has little or no chance, while Penn State’s chances of getting in are only marginally better.

 

 

 

PiRate Ratings College Basketball Preview for February 16-18, 2018

This Week’s PiRate Rating Spreads

Spreads For Multi-Bid Conferences and Top Mid & Low Majors

Friday’s Games
Home Team	Visitor	Spread
St. Bonaventure	Rhode Island	0.6

Saturday’s Games
Home Team	Visitor	Spread
Central Florida	SMU	-0.7
Tulane	Memphis	2.7
Miami (Fla.)	Syracuse	6.2
Georgia Tech	Virginia Tech	-5.1
Boston College	Notre Dame	-0.9
Wake Forest	North Carolina St.	0.3
Louisville	North Carolina	0.0
Oklahoma	Texas	5.7
Kansas St.	Iowa St.	7.5
Kansas	West Virginia	3.9
Baylor	Texas Tech	-1.1
TCU	Oklahoma St.	8.3
Butler	Providence	8.0
Xavier	Villanova	-4.0
Creighton	Marquette	8.0
Northwestern	Michigan St.	-9.4
Iowa	Indiana	0.9
Maryland	Rutgers	12.6
Boise St.	Air Force	17.8
San Diego St.	UNLV	3.9
Wyoming	San Jose St.	15.1
Utah St.	Nevada	-8.1
Fresno St.	Colorado St.	13.9
Washington	Colorado	3.7
Washington St.	Utah	-7.5
UCLA	Oregon	4.9
USC	Oregon St.	9.5
LSU	Missouri	0.4
Kentucky	Alabama	4.4
South Carolina	Auburn	-6.4
Arkansas	Texas A&M	2.7
Vanderbilt	Florida	-3.2
Georgia	Tennessee	-4.4
Mississippi St.	Ole Miss	6.3
San Diego	BYU	-3.4
San Francisco	Loyola Marymount	8.8
Gonzaga	Pepperdine	29.2
Portland	Saint Mary’s	-16.1
Pacific	Santa Clara	10.0
Louisiana Tech	Middle Tennessee	-3.8
Rice	Western Kentucky	-12.2
Murray St.	Tennessee Tech	14.1
Louisiana-Lafayette	Texas-Arlington	10.3
Seattle	New Mexico St.	-8.0

Sunday’s Games
Home Team	Visitor	Spread
East Carolina	Connecticut	-4.7
Tulsa	South Florida	15.9
Cincinnati	Wichita St.	7.3
Temple	Houston	-2.2
Clemson	Duke	-3.1
Florida St.	Pittsburgh	20.7
Seton Hall	DePaul	11.4
Michigan	Ohio St.	2.0
Illinois	Nebraska	-0.7
Purdue	Penn St.	11.9
California	Stanford	-6.4
Evansville	Loyola (Chi.)	-5.9

PiRate Ratings Top 25

Rank	Team	PiRate	Conf.
1	Villanova	120.5	BIGE
2	Purdue	119.9	BTEN
3	Duke	119.8	ACC
4	Virginia	119.6	ACC
5	Michigan St.	119.4	BTEN
6	Cincinnati	118.5	AAC
7	North Carolina	116.1	ACC
8	Gonzaga	116.0	WCC
9	Kansas	116.0	B12
10	Texas Tech	116.0	B12
11	West Virginia	115.6	B12
12	Auburn	115.2	SEC
13	Wichita St.	114.7	AAC
14	Tennessee	114.1	SEC
15	Creighton	113.4	BIGE
16	Ohio St.	113.4	BTEN
17	Clemson	113.2	ACC
18	Xavier	113.0	BIGE
19	Arizona	112.8	PAC12
20	Nevada	112.5	MWC
21	TCU	112.4	B12
22	Texas A&M	112.4	SEC
23	Florida St.	112.3	ACC
24	Oklahoma	112.2	B12
25	Louisville	112.1	ACC

PiRate Ratings By Power Conferences

Team	PiRate	Conf.
Cincinnati	118.5	AAC
Wichita St.	114.7	AAC
Houston	111.5	AAC
SMU	107.6	AAC
Temple	105.8	AAC
UCF	103.9	AAC
Tulsa	102.3	AAC
Memphis	99.7	AAC
Tulane	99.4	AAC
Connecticut	99.4	AAC
East Carolina	91.7	AAC
South Florida	89.9	AAC
Duke	119.8	ACC
Virginia	119.6	ACC
North Carolina	116.1	ACC
Clemson	113.2	ACC
Florida St.	112.3	ACC
Louisville	112.1	ACC
Miami FL	111.0	ACC
Notre Dame	110.7	ACC
Virginia Tech	110.6	ACC
North Carolina St.	108.3	ACC
Syracuse	108.3	ACC
Boston College	106.3	ACC
Wake Forest	105.6	ACC
Georgia Tech	102.5	ACC
Pittsburgh	95.1	ACC
Kansas	116.0	B12
Texas Tech	116.0	B12
West Virginia	115.6	B12
TCU	112.4	B12
Oklahoma	112.2	B12
Baylor	111.4	B12
Texas	110.0	B12
Kansas St.	109.1	B12
Oklahoma St.	107.6	B12
Iowa St.	105.1	B12
Villanova	120.5	BIGE
Creighton	113.4	BIGE
Xavier	113.0	BIGE
Butler	112.0	BIGE
Seton Hall	111.3	BIGE
Marquette	108.9	BIGE
Providence	107.5	BIGE
St. John’s	107.1	BIGE
Georgetown	104.9	BIGE
DePaul	103.4	BIGE
Purdue	119.9	BTEN
Michigan St.	119.4	BTEN
Ohio St.	113.4	BTEN
Michigan	111.9	BTEN
Penn St.	111.5	BTEN
Maryland	110.7	BTEN
Nebraska	107.8	BTEN
Indiana	107.1	BTEN
Northwestern	107.0	BTEN
Wisconsin	105.9	BTEN
Iowa	105.0	BTEN
Minnesota	104.8	BTEN
Illinois	104.1	BTEN
Rutgers	101.6	BTEN
Nevada	112.5	MWC
Boise St.	108.0	MWC
San Diego St.	106.8	MWC
Fresno St.	106.5	MWC
UNLV	106.4	MWC
New Mexico	102.1	MWC
Wyoming	101.9	MWC
Utah St.	100.9	MWC
Colorado St.	96.1	MWC
Air Force	93.7	MWC
San Jose St.	90.3	MWC
Arizona	112.8	PAC12
Arizona St.	110.8	PAC12
USC	109.2	PAC12
UCLA	108.7	PAC12
Oregon	107.8	PAC12
Utah	107.7	PAC12
Stanford	104.2	PAC12
Oregon St.	103.2	PAC12
Washington	103.1	PAC12
Colorado	102.9	PAC12
Washington St.	97.2	PAC12
California	94.8	PAC12
Auburn	115.2	SEC
Tennessee	114.1	SEC
Texas A&M	112.4	SEC
Florida	111.8	SEC
Kentucky	111.3	SEC
Arkansas	111.1	SEC
Missouri	110.7	SEC
Alabama	110.4	SEC
Mississippi St.	107.8	SEC
LSU	107.6	SEC
Georgia	106.2	SEC
Vanderbilt	105.6	SEC
South Carolina	105.3	SEC
Mississippi	104.5	SEC
Gonzaga	116.0	WCC
Saint Mary’s	112.0	WCC
BYU	106.9	WCC
San Diego	100.5	WCC
San Francisco	100.0	WCC
Pacific	99.4	WCC
Loyola Marymount	94.2	WCC
Portland	92.9	WCC
Santa Clara	92.4	WCC
Pepperdine	90.3	WCC

Top Mid-Major and Low-Major Teams

Rhode Island	111.5	A10
Middle Tennessee	108.2	CUSA
Western Kentucky	106.7	CUSA
Loyola Chicago	107.4	MVC
Murray St.	106.4	OVC
Louisiana Lafayette	108.3	SB
South Dakota	106.8	Sum
New Mexico St.	108.4	WAC

Great TV Watching Options This Weekend

Once again, another great schedule of games allows college basketball fans some excellent viewing options.  Beginning tonight (Friday) at 7:00 PM Eastern Time, St. Bonaventure hosts Rhode Island.  The game will air on ESPN2.  The Bonnies (9-4/19-6) are tied for second place in the Atlantic 10 still have a remote chance to receive an at-large bid, and any chance would necessitate a win over URI.

Saturday’s great slate of games begins at 12 Noon Eastern Time.  Oklahoma hosts Texas on ESPN; Butler hosts Providence on Fox; and Miami hosts Syracuse on CBS.

At 4 PM EST, one of the best games of the day could be Arkansas hosting Texas A&M on ESPN.  At 4:30 PM EST, the Big East regular season title could be decided when Xavier hosts Villanova on Fox.  The winner should remain a number one seed on Monday.

At 6 PM EST, Kansas hosts West Virginia on ESPN.  The loser of this game will probably be eliminated from the Big 12 regular season race, while the winner will become Texas Tech’s key rival.

At 7 PM EST, Florida Gulf Coast hosts Lipscomb on ESPN3.  FGCU has already clinched the top seed in the Atlantic Sun, while Lipscomb is currently number two.  The significance here is that FGCU will host the A-Sun Tournament, so it will be interesting to see if the second best team in the league can compete with them on the same floor.

At 7:30 PM EST on ESPNU, Baylor hosts Texas Tech.  TTU has a chance to gain a game on one of the two nearest contenders (KU-WVU), but if the Red Raiders lose, then they will lose a game to the winner of that other game.  Baylor is actually the hottest team in the Big 12, and a win here would give the Bears a great upward move in the Bubble.

At 8:15 PM EST, Louisville host North Carolina on ESPN.  The winner has a chance to move up to number two in the ACC by the end of the weekend, while the loser could fall down in the standings as far as ninth place.

At 10:15 PM EST on ESPN, UCLA hosts Oregon.  Both teams are currently Bubble teams, so the winner will start the new week in good shape, while the loser will be facing some must win games.

Sunday presents additional excellent viewing options.  It starts at 1 PM EST, with two excellent Power Conference games.  Rivals Michigan and Ohio State square off in Ann Arbor in a game televised by CBS.  At the same time, Clemson hosts Duke on the ACC Network.

At 2 PM EST on ESPN3, it might not sound like a big game, but the Vermont-Hartford game in Burlington might be one to consider watching.  UVA is 12-0 in the America East Conference and will most likely host the conference tournament.  Hartford is one of three teams with enough talent to pull off an upset.

The top game of the day tips off at 4 PM EST, when Cincinnati hosts Wichita State.  This will be a battle of two aggressive, defense-dominant teams.  Cinti fell at Houston Thursday night, while the Shockers had to come from behind to beat Temple.  Seeding will be on the line in this one.

Finally, at 8 PM EST on the Big Ten Network, Penn State visits Purdue.  The Nittany Lions roared big time in a Thursday night blowout against Ohio State.  If Penn State pulls off the upset Sunday, that will give them two Quadrant 1 wins in a row, and that will certainly place Penn State in the heat of the discussion.  Purdue must win this game to remain in contention for a number one seed.

 

 

PiRate Ratings College Basketball Preview for February 9-11, 2018

This Week’s PiRate Ratings Spreads

Note–We add one Friday night game to Include Rhode Island in our coverage.

Friday’s Games
Home Team	Visitor	Spread
Rhode Island	Davidson	6.1

Saturday’s Games
Home Team	Visitor	Spread
South Florida	Temple	-12.5
Wichita St.	Connecticut	18.6
North Carolina St.	North Carolina	-4.7
Boston College	Miami (Fla.)	-2.6
Notre Dame	Florida St.	1.5
Virginia	Virginia Tech	12.4
West Virginia	Oklahoma St.	11.8
Baylor	Kansas	-2.6
Iowa St.	Oklahoma	-4.6
TCU	Texas	5.5
Kansas St.	Texas Tech	-2.5
Villanova	Butler	12.5
St. John’s	Marquette	1.0
Creighton	Xavier	1.8
Georgetown	Seton Hall	-4.6
Providence	DePaul	8.9
Maryland	Northwestern	6.6
Michigan St.	Purdue	1.6
Nebraska	Rutgers	9.9
Ohio St.	Iowa	12.3
Air Force	New Mexico	-6.4
Colorado St.	San Jose St.	8.9
Nevada	San Diego St.	7.6
UNLV	Wyoming	7.8
Utah St.	Boise St.	-4.3
Arizona St.	UCLA	5.9
Utah	California	14.4
Oregon St.	Washington	0.3
Arizona	USC	6.6
South Carolina	Florida	-1.7
Missouri	Mississippi St.	5.9
Georgia	Auburn	-6.2
LSU	Ole Miss	4.6
Alabama	Tennessee	-2.6
Texas A&M	Kentucky	3.6
Arkansas	Vanderbilt	8.4
BYU	San Francisco	12.0
Santa Clara	San Diego	-7.0
Loyola Marymount	Pepperdine	7.2
Saint Mary’s	Gonzaga	3.4
Pacific	Portland	9.4
Middle Tennessee	North Texas	14.3
New Mexico St.	Grand Canyon	8.6

Sunday’s Games
Home Team	Visitor	Spread
SMU	Cincinnati	-5.3
Memphis	Central Florida	-0.9
Houston	Tulane	13.8
Pittsburgh	Louisville	-12.0
Syracuse	Wake Forest	6.8
Georgia Tech	Duke	-13.5
Wisconsin	Michigan	-2.6
Illinois	Penn St.	-1.3
Colorado	Stanford	1.7
Oregon	Washington St.	13.1

This Week’s PiRate Ratings Top 25

Rank	Team	PiRate	Conf.
1	Villanova	121.4	BIGE
2	Purdue	120.3	BTEN
3	Virginia	119.9	ACC
4	Duke	119.4	ACC
5	Michigan St.	118.4	BTEN
6	Cincinnati	117.8	AAC
7	Kansas	116.7	B12
8	West Virginia	115.8	B12
9	North Carolina	115.7	ACC
10	Auburn	115.6	SEC
11	Tennessee	115.2	SEC
12	Xavier	115.1	BIGE
13	Texas Tech	115.1	B12
14	Gonzaga	114.9	WCC
15	Saint Mary’s	114.8	WCC
16	Wichita St.	114.6	AAC
17	Ohio St.	113.9	BTEN
18	Creighton	113.4	BIGE
19	Clemson	113.2	ACC
20	Florida St.	112.7	ACC
21	Oklahoma	112.6	B12
22	TCU	112.5	B12
23	Butler	112.4	BIGE
24	Arizona	112.4	PAC12
25	Nevada	111.6	MWC

This week, we add three highly-ranked Mid-Major teams that are good enough to receive at-large bids if they fail to win their conference’s automatic bids.  In most likelihood, these three teams would need to at least make the semifinals of their conference tournament.

Team	PiRate	Conf.
Rhode Island	111.1	A-10
New Mexico St.	109.0	WAC
Middle Tennessee	108.8	CUSA

PiRate Ratings By Power Conferences

Team	PiRate	Conf.
Cincinnati	117.8	AAC
Wichita St.	114.6	AAC
Houston	110.6	AAC
SMU	109.0	AAC
Temple	105.4	AAC
UCF	103.6	AAC
Tulsa	102.4	AAC
Tulane	100.3	AAC
Connecticut	99.5	AAC
Memphis	99.2	AAC
East Carolina	91.1	AAC
South Florida	89.9	AAC
Virginia	119.9	ACC
Duke	119.4	ACC
North Carolina	115.7	ACC
Clemson	113.2	ACC
Florida St.	112.7	ACC
Miami FL	111.6	ACC
Louisville	111.4	ACC
Virginia Tech	110.5	ACC
Notre Dame	110.2	ACC
Syracuse	108.6	ACC
North Carolina St.	108.0	ACC
Boston College	105.5	ACC
Wake Forest	105.3	ACC
Georgia Tech	102.9	ACC
Pittsburgh	96.4	ACC
Kansas	116.7	B12
West Virginia	115.8	B12
Texas Tech	115.1	B12
Oklahoma	112.6	B12
TCU	112.5	B12
Baylor	110.6	B12
Texas	110.5	B12
Kansas St.	109.1	B12
Oklahoma St.	107.5	B12
Iowa St.	104.5	B12
Villanova	121.4	BIGE
Xavier	115.1	BIGE
Creighton	113.4	BIGE
Butler	112.4	BIGE
Seton Hall	111.5	BIGE
Marquette	109.2	BIGE
Providence	107.9	BIGE
St. John’s	106.7	BIGE
Georgetown	103.9	BIGE
DePaul	102.5	BIGE
Purdue	120.3	BTEN
Michigan St.	118.4	BTEN
Ohio St.	113.9	BTEN
Michigan	111.6	BTEN
Maryland	110.4	BTEN
Penn St.	109.9	BTEN
Northwestern	107.8	BTEN
Nebraska	107.6	BTEN
Indiana	106.1	BTEN
Minnesota	106.1	BTEN
Wisconsin	105.5	BTEN
Illinois	105.1	BTEN
Iowa	105.1	BTEN
Rutgers	101.2	BTEN
Nevada	111.6	MWC
Boise St.	108.6	MWC
San Diego St.	107.5	MWC
UNLV	106.4	MWC
Fresno St.	106.1	MWC
New Mexico	102.2	MWC
Wyoming	102.1	MWC
Utah St.	100.8	MWC
Colorado St.	96.0	MWC
Air Force	92.8	MWC
San Jose St.	90.6	MWC
Arizona	112.4	PAC12
Arizona St.	111.0	PAC12
USC	109.3	PAC12
UCLA	108.6	PAC12
Oregon	107.1	PAC12
Utah	106.5	PAC12
Washington	104.8	PAC12
Stanford	104.6	PAC12
Colorado	102.8	PAC12
Oregon St.	102.1	PAC12
Washington St.	97.5	PAC12
California	95.6	PAC12
Auburn	115.6	SEC
Tennessee	115.2	SEC
Texas A&M	111.6	SEC
Kentucky	111.5	SEC
Florida	110.9	SEC
Missouri	110.5	SEC
Arkansas	110.3	SEC
Alabama	109.1	SEC
Mississippi St.	108.1	SEC
LSU	106.7	SEC
Georgia	106.4	SEC
South Carolina	105.7	SEC
Vanderbilt	105.4	SEC
Mississippi	105.1	SEC
Gonzaga	114.9	WCC
Saint Mary’s	114.8	WCC
BYU	107.8	WCC
San Diego	101.9	WCC
Pacific	99.6	WCC
San Francisco	99.3	WCC
Portland	93.2	WCC
Loyola Marymount	93.1	WCC
Santa Clara	91.9	WCC
Pepperdine	88.9	WCC

Conference Tournaments Less Than 3 Weeks Away

It seems to have crept up on us this year.  In our environs, it has been a much colder and much wetter winter, the type that makes you feel it will last for a year.  So, it surprised us this morning when one of our followers asked us when we would post the conference tournament schedules like we do every year.

We will get to work on that this week and hopefully will have this in next Friday’s report or in a separate one midweek.

For now, here is a list of the conference tournaments with the dates.  The first action begins in just 17 days.

2018 CONFERENCE TOURNAMENTS
LEAGUE	DATE	LOCATION
Atlantic Sun	Feb. 26-Mar. 4	Higher Seed
Big South	Feb. 27, Mar. 1-4	Higher Seed
Patriot	Feb. 27, Mar. 1, 4, & 7	Higher Seed
Big Ten	Feb. 28-Mar. 4	New York City
Ohio Valley	Feb. 28, Mar. 1-3	San Antonio
Northeast	Feb. 28, March 3 & 6	Higher Seed
Missouri Valley	Mar. 1-4	St. Louis
Metro Atlantic	Mar. 1-5	Albany, NY
Southern	Mar. 1-5	Asheville, NC
West Coast	Mar. 1-6	Las Vegas
Ivy	Mar. 10-11	Philadelphia
Big West	Mar. 12-14	Anaheim
Horizon	Mar. 2-6	Detroit
Colonial Athletic	Mar. 3-6	N. Charleson, SC
Summit	Mar. 3-6	Sioux Falls, SD
America East	Mar. 3, 6 & 10	Higher Seed
Mideastern Athletic	Mar. 5-10	Norfolk, VA
Mid-American	Mar. 5, 7-10	Higher Seed/Cleveland
Atlantic Coast	Mar. 6-10	Brooklyn
Big Sky	Mar. 6, 8-10	Reno, NV
Southwestern Athletic	Mar. 6, 9-10	Houston
Big East	Mar. 7-10	New York City
Big 12	Mar. 7-10	Kansas City
Conference USA	Mar. 7-10	Frisco, TX
Mountain West	Mar. 7-10	Las Vegas
Pac-12	Mar. 7-10	Las Vegas
Western Athletic	Mar. 7-10	Las Vegas
Atlantic 10	Mar. 7-11	Washington, DC
Southeastern	Mar. 7-11	St. Louis
Southland	Mar. 7-11	Katy, TX
Sun Belt	Mar. 7-11	New Orleans
American Athletic	Mar. 8-11	Orlando

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PiRate Ratings Bracket Gurus Report for February 5, 2018

Seed	Team	Conf.
1	Villanova	BE
1	Virginia	ACC
1	Purdue	BTen
1	Xavier	BE
2	Auburn	SEC
2	Kansas	B12
2	Duke	ACC
2	Clemson	ACC
3	Michigan St.	BTen
3	Texas Tech	B12
3	Cincinnati	AAC
3	Tennessee	SEC
4	Oklahoma	B12
4	North Carolina	ACC
4	Arizona	P12
4	Kentucky	SEC
5	Ohio St.	BTen
5	West Virginia	B12
5	Rhode Island	A10
5	Seton Hall	BE
6	Gonzaga	WCC
6	Saint Mary’s	WCC
6	Miami (Fla.)	ACC
6	Creighton	BE
7	Wichita St.	AAC
7	Butler	BE
7	Florida St.	ACC
7	Nevada	MWC
8	Florida	SEC
8	Texas	B12
8	Michigan	BTen
8	Alabama	SEC
9	TCU	B12
9	Arizona St.	P12
9	Louisville	ACC
9	Texas A&M	SEC
10	Missouri	SEC
10	Washington	P12
10	Providence	BE
10	USC	P12
11	Houston	AAC
11	Arkansas	SEC
11	Middle Tennessee	CUSA
11	New Mexico St.	WAC
12	N. C. St.	ACC
12	Virginia Tech	ACC
12	Boise St.	MWC
12	Kansas St.	B12
12	Buffalo	MAC
12	Loyola (Chi.)	MVC
13	UL-Lafayette	SBC
13	Vermont	AE
13	East Tennessee St.	Sou
13	South Dakota St.	Sum
14	Belmont	OVC
14	Montana	BSky
14	Northern Kentucky	Hor
14	Charleston	CAA
15	UCSB	BWest
15	Rider	MAAC
15	Bucknell	Pat
15	Fla. Gulf Coast	ASun
16	Wagner	NEC
16	Penn	Ivy
16	Nicholls St.	SLC
16	UNC-Asheville	BSth
16	N.C. A&T	MEAC
16	Ark.-Pine Bluff	SWAC

Bubble Teams on the Outside, Looking In

69	UCLA	P12
70	Temple	AAC
71	SMU	AAC
72	LSU	SEC
73	Western Kentucky	CUSA
74	Syracuse	ACC
75	St. Bonaventure	A10
76	Georgia	SEC
77	Marquette	BE
78	Mississippi State	SEC
79	Maryland	BTen
80	Utah	P12
81	South Carolina	SEC
82	Oklahoma State	B12
83	Nebraska	BTen

 

Last Four In–Headed To Dayton

North Carolina St. vs. Kansas St.

Virginia Tech vs. Boise St.

Last Four Byes

Arkansas

Houston

USC

Providence

 

PiRate Ratings College Basketball Preview for February 3-4, 2018

This Weekend’s PiRate Ratings Spreads

For Multi-Bid  Leagues

Saturday’s Games
Home Team	Visitor	Spread
Connecticut	Cincinnati	-13.7
Central Florida	Houston	-3.0
East Carolina	Memphis	-6.4
St. John’s	Duke	-11.4
North Carolina St.	Notre Dame	0.6
Wake Forest	Clemson	-4.1
Virginia Tech	Miami (Fla.)	3.1
Syracuse	Virginia	-6.7
Louisville	Florida St.	3.3
North Carolina	Pittsburgh	21.9
Kansas	Oklahoma St.	13.8
TCU	Texas Tech	1.7
West Virginia	Kansas St.	8.4
Texas	Oklahoma	1.2
Baylor	Iowa St.	8.6
Butler	DePaul	12.9
Marquette	Providence	4.9
Xavier	Georgetown	15.4
Michigan	Minnesota	9.7
Rutgers	Purdue	-16.9
Penn St.	Iowa	6.7
Indiana	Michigan St.	-10.2
Wyoming	Fresno St.	1.6
San Jose St.	New Mexico	-9.0
Boise St.	UNLV	6.3
Colorado St.	Nevada	-13.3
San Diego St.	Air Force	18.2
Stanford	Oregon	-0.5
UCLA	USC	1.4
California	Oregon St.	-4.2
Washington	Arizona	-5.8
Missouri	Kentucky	1.6
Texas A&M	South Carolina	8.3
LSU	Arkansas	0.2
Florida	Alabama	7.6
Tennessee	Ole Miss	12.1
Mississippi St.	Georgia	2.8
Auburn	Vanderbilt	12.8
Portland	Loyola Marymount	1.1
San Diego	Saint Mary’s	-8.3
Gonzaga	BYU	12.1
Pepperdine	Pacific	-6.1
Santa Clara	San Francisco	-4.1

Sunday’s Games
Home Team	Visitor	Spread
South Florida	Tulsa	-9.8
Tulane	Temple	-2.1
Boston College	Georgia Tech	5.7
Villanova	Seton Hall	14.0
Ohio St.	Illinois	11.7
Maryland	Wisconsin	9.7
Washington St.	Arizona St.	-9.5

Note: As of last night’s games, with both Middle Tennessee and Western Kentucky winning big road contests, Conference USA actually moved into multi-bid league status.  We apologize for not including CUSA games in this week’s preview, but if both MTSU and WKU win this weekend and mid-week, then CUSA will be included in next Friday’s preview.

Additionally, Boise State fell from at-large status into one of the First Four out, so the Mountain West Conference should not be included as a multiple bid league.  The update occurred after this week’s games had been rated and placed in our database.  If the MWC is still just a one for sure bid league next Friday, we will remove it from our preview, thus trading CUSA for MWC.  If neither or both leagues remain in the multiple bid leagues, we will cancel both or include both in next Friday’s preview, depending on the outcomes through next Thursday night.

The PiRate Ratings Top 25

Rank	Team	PiRate	Conf.
1	Villanova	122.2	BIGE
2	Purdue	121.4	BTEN
3	Duke	120.2	ACC
4	Virginia	119.2	ACC
5	Michigan St.	118.9	BTEN
6	Kansas	117.5	B12
7	Cincinnati	117.4	AAC
8	Gonzaga	116.0	WCC
9	Xavier	115.2	BIGE
10	North Carolina	115.1	ACC
11	Auburn	114.9	SEC
12	Tennessee	114.8	SEC
13	West Virginia	114.4	B12
14	Texas Tech	114.4	B12
15	Wichita St.	114.2	AAC
16	Creighton	113.5	BIGE
17	Ohio St.	113.4	BTEN
18	Arizona	113.1	PAC12
19	TCU	113.1	B12
20	Saint Mary’s	112.9	WCC
21	Oklahoma	112.9	B12
22	Clemson	112.8	ACC
23	Nevada	112.4	MWC
24	Butler	112.4	BIGE
25	Florida St.	112.4	ACC

PiRate Ratings By Power Conference

Team	PiRate	Conf.
Cincinnati	117.4	AAC
Wichita St.	114.2	AAC
Houston	110.3	AAC
SMU	109.4	AAC
Temple	105.3	AAC
UCF	104.3	AAC
Tulsa	102.3	AAC
Tulane	100.2	AAC
Memphis	100.0	AAC
Connecticut	99.7	AAC
East Carolina	90.6	AAC
South Florida	89.5	AAC
Duke	120.2	ACC
Virginia	119.2	ACC
North Carolina	115.1	ACC
Clemson	112.8	ACC
Florida St.	112.4	ACC
Louisville	111.7	ACC
Miami FL	111.4	ACC
Virginia Tech	111.0	ACC
Notre Dame	110.8	ACC
Syracuse	108.5	ACC
North Carolina St.	107.4	ACC
Boston College	105.5	ACC
Wake Forest	105.2	ACC
Georgia Tech	103.3	ACC
Pittsburgh	96.7	ACC
Kansas	117.5	B12
West Virginia	114.4	B12
Texas Tech	114.4	B12
TCU	113.1	B12
Oklahoma	112.9	B12
Texas	110.6	B12
Kansas St.	110.0	B12
Baylor	109.9	B12
Oklahoma St.	107.2	B12
Iowa St.	104.8	B12
Villanova	122.2	BIGE
Xavier	115.2	BIGE
Creighton	113.5	BIGE
Butler	112.4	BIGE
Seton Hall	111.7	BIGE
Marquette	109.1	BIGE
Providence	107.7	BIGE
St. John’s	105.3	BIGE
Georgetown	103.3	BIGE
DePaul	102.5	BIGE
Purdue	121.4	BTEN
Michigan St.	118.9	BTEN
Ohio St.	113.4	BTEN
Michigan	112.2	BTEN
Maryland	110.7	BTEN
Penn St.	109.1	BTEN
Nebraska	107.3	BTEN
Northwestern	107.2	BTEN
Minnesota	106.0	BTEN
Iowa	105.4	BTEN
Illinois	105.2	BTEN
Indiana	105.2	BTEN
Wisconsin	105.0	BTEN
Rutgers	101.5	BTEN
Nevada	112.4	MWC
Boise St.	108.9	MWC
San Diego St.	107.8	MWC
UNLV	105.6	MWC
Fresno St.	104.8	MWC
New Mexico	102.4	MWC
Wyoming	102.4	MWC
Utah St.	101.3	MWC
Colorado St.	96.1	MWC
Air Force	93.1	MWC
San Jose St.	90.4	MWC
Arizona	113.1	PAC12
Arizona St.	111.1	PAC12
USC	109.7	PAC12
UCLA	108.1	PAC12
Oregon	107.6	PAC12
Utah	106.9	PAC12
Washington	103.8	PAC12
Stanford	103.6	PAC12
Colorado	102.7	PAC12
Oregon St.	102.7	PAC12
Washington St.	98.6	PAC12
California	95.0	PAC12
Auburn	114.9	SEC
Tennessee	114.8	SEC
Florida	112.3	SEC
Kentucky	112.0	SEC
Texas A&M	111.3	SEC
Arkansas	110.3	SEC
Missouri	110.1	SEC
Alabama	108.2	SEC
Georgia	107.2	SEC
Mississippi St.	107.0	SEC
LSU	107.0	SEC
South Carolina	106.5	SEC
Mississippi	106.2	SEC
Vanderbilt	105.6	SEC
Gonzaga	116.0	WCC
Saint Mary’s	112.9	WCC
BYU	107.4	WCC
San Diego	101.6	WCC
San Francisco	99.5	WCC
Pacific	98.9	WCC
Loyola Marymount	94.7	WCC
Portland	92.8	WCC
Santa Clara	92.4	WCC
Pepperdine	89.8	WCC

The PiRates Are Adjusting How We Look For Buried Treasure

The PiRate Ratings began and operated for years as a college and pro football prediction establishment.  The ratings themselves began in October of 1969 and have operated continuously since.  In 1978-79, basketball ratings were added, and from 1980-2009, the PiRates did some horse racing prognosticating.  In all this time, however, it was an added filler that actually became our most patronized product we have publicly issued, be it in print or radio.

Our March Madness Bracket Picking guides have annually dwarfed all others, be it in the number of readers to this site, the number of responses from our historic newspaper presence, or the number of responses to our historic radio presence (and in one case to our sponsor, when one team’s fans threatened to boycott the adult beverage because our leader picked their rival to win the rivalry game).

We back-tested all the past Final Four and National Champions for the years where we had statistical data to identify the fingerprint statistics that might help us forecast future Final Four and National Championship teams.  We identified some consistent stats and discovered that some stats had little or no bearing.

For instance, we discovered that for most years, teams that scored a very high percentage of their points at the foul line tended to lose with more frequency as the rounds progressed.  We surmised that a lesser number of fouls were called in the bigger games, and the teams that got this far that were not great foul shooting teams got to where they were because they were dominant in other areas.  It just so happened that these other areas were the consistent ones that produced the champions.

We wanted to come up with a statistic that could be used to represent what has helped teams dominate in NCAA Tournament play.  We began refining this data over the years.

When our captain became a baseball metric specialist and started researching advanced analytics, he learned what many others had already learned.  What may work to determine the regular season division winners may not work in the playoffs.  Oakland Athletics’ General Manager Billy Beane was quoted as saying (expletive altered), “My stuff doesn’t work in the playoffs.”

Beane was onto something, or in other words, it was plain to see that Oakland’s “Moneyball” ways produced 100-wins in the regular season, but it did not work in the playoffs, since the Athletics never won the pennant.  Forget for a minute that his predecessor Sandy Alderson actually began the advanced statistical age in Oakland, and he won three consecutive AL Pennants using a computer program to help determine some strategies.  Let’s look at why Moneyball issues do not work in the playoffs.

1. On base percentage is superior to batting average, but in order to draw walks, the pitcher must throw pitches outside the strike zone.  In 130 out of 162 regular season games, a team might face pitching that would throw enough balls outside of the strike zone to walk four times per game.  However, in the playoffs, this team is more likely to face pitchers like Corey Kluber, Chris Sale, Carlos Carrasco, Clayton Kershaw, and Steven Strasburg.  These guys will paint the corners and force batters to either swing or walk back to the dugout rather than to first base.
2. The sacrifice hit, hit and run, stolen base, and taking an extra base on singles and doubles may not be the most intelligent way to score runs in the regular season when again, 130 out of 162 games may present better ways to score runs by getting men on and hitting three-run homers.  However, try to wait for that three-run homer against Strasburg, Kluber, Sale, or Carrasco and see how far that gets you.  You are likely to lose 3-2 more than get that three-run tater.  Many people understand that giving up one of just 27 outs to advance a runner one base is foolish–most of the time.  If you are playing for one run in the eighth or ninth inning and have a runner on 2nd with no outs, it is the right thing to do to bunt the runner over to third.  Also, when the batter is facing a dominant pitcher, and the expected on base average for this batter against this pitcher is far south of what his normal OBA is, then it may also be the smarter option to bunt a runner up a base rather than risk a non-productive out or worse a GIDP.
3. Relief pitching changes in the playoffs, especially the World Series.  In actuality, managers more intelligently use their best reliever when leverage is the highest, even if that is with two outs in the fifth inning.  Rather than bring in the top ace to protect a 3-run lead in the ninth, managers are more likely to use that ace in a one-run game in earlier innings.  Under Beane in the height of the Moneyball years where the A’s made the playoffs and lost, Oakland never invested a lot in a true stopper.  The numbers said that just about any above-average reliever could get 35 saves coming into the game in the ninth inning protecting a two or three-run lead.  In the playoffs, when Oakland needed the next Rollie Fingers, Paul Lindblad, Bob Locker, or Darold Knowles, or the next Dennis Eckersley, and they needed that stopper to stop a rally in the 6th inning, he wasn’t on the roster.

What does this have to do with March Madness, you may ask?  Plenty, we respond.  In basketball, the Four Factors have come to represent some of the best statistical analysis that can reveal the superior teams over the inferior teams.  During the regular season, these stats may show that State U is a top 25 team and should be no worse than a 5-seed in the Big Dance.  Then, this team gets a 4 or 5-seed in the tournament and goes up against a 12 or 13-seed that dominated a mid-major conference during the regular season.  This underdog possesses some of the dominating stats that work in the tournament, while the big team from the big conference does not.  And, lo and behold, the underdog upsets the favorite, making the sports media talk about how so many 12-seeds beat 5-seeds, like it is a curse.

Never once did these media experts consider that the reason the 12-seeds beat the 5-seeds much more often than normal is because these 12-seeds would beat these 5-seeds 7 times out of 10.  In other words, they are not really upsets.  They are indicators that the people that set the seeds are doing a poor job.

So, by now, you must be anxious to see what these special stats are that help us determine what works in the playoffs.  The answer is: The PiRate R+T Rating.

Huh?  What is the R+T Rating?  If you have followed our site for a long enough time, you have seen the R+T used since the 2000 NCAA Tournament.  It has been refined through the years, sort of like how weighted on-base average goes through refinements based on each season’s environments.

At the present time, our R+T rating is:

(R * 2) + (S * .5) + (6 – Opp S) + T

R = Rebounding Margin per game

S = Average Steals per game

T= Turnover Margin per game

This formula translates into the number of extra scoring opportunities a team should be expected to gain over an average team.  It took hours of backtesting to refine it to the point where the result represented a real number that estimated the number of “cheap” points a team might be expected to receive over an average team.

It looks simple enough. If one team has a large rebounding edge in a game, they will benefit with an extra number of shots.  Depending on whether the advantage is at the offensive or defensive end, or both, limiting shots to one per possession and getting putbacks on the offensive end can create spurts in games that turn close contests into blowouts.

Turnover margin is not as important as rebounding margin except for when the turnover comes by way of a steal.  If the opponent turns the ball over due to travelling or stepping out of bounds or committing a charge, the opponent does not immediately see a benefit.  It ends the opponents’ possession, but it does not lead to fast break opportunities or the ability to tip the ball in the basket from a couple feet away.

When a team steals the ball, however, this is the absolute best extra possession.  Most steals come when the defense gains possession of the ball while their players are facing their basket, and the team turning the ball over has their back to that basket.  Almost all steals immediately present a number’s advantage for the team gaining possession.  If it is 2 on 1 or 3 on 2, this is like having a 3-0 count as a batter with the bases loaded.  Even if the steal results in a 2 on 2 or 3 on 3, the team with the ball has the advantage, since any even strength less than 5 on 5 favors the offense in basketball.

This is what the R+T represents.  A steal and rebound counts more than a turnover or lack of a turnover, but the turnover has value too.

How do we interpret R+T?  We have levels of interpretation.

If a team has an R+T rating of 20 or better, this is a potentially dangerous tournament team.  In a tight, evenly matched game, a team with a 20+ R+T rating has a huge advantage over a team with an average R+T rating.  At crunch time, a crucial steal or offensive rebound resulting in a basket can be the difference.

An R+T rating of 15-20 is a good rating, and a team with a rating in this range has Sweet 16 potential and maybe Elite 8 potential.

An R+T rating of 10-15 is average for an NCAA Tournament team.  Unless this team is outstanding in other areas such as field goal percentage margin, they probably do not have the necessary talent to make it past the Sweet 16.  There have been teams that made the Final Four with R+T ratings in  this range, but most of the time, they got there because they played opponents with even weaker R+T ratings.

An R+T rating in the 5-10 range might win a game or even sneak into the Sweet 16, but they should not be expected to go any farther.  It is unlikely that a team in this range will face three consecutive teams with even weaker R+T ratings.

An R+T rating in the 0-5 range does not have the goods to make it to the second weekend of the tournament.  Favored teams in this range playing underdogs with double-digit R+T ratings are prime to be “upset.”

And, when you see a team with a negative R+T, treat this team like you would treat a race horse with “four white socks.”

There is an old poem about horses wearing white socks (hooves), as it was generally believed, rightly or wrongly, that white hooves were a sign of weakness in a horse.  If we remember correctly it goes:

One white sock, keep him to the end.

Two white socks, give him to a friend.

Three white socks, send him far away.

Four white socks, keep him not a day.

A team with a negative R+T rating has four white socks.  Pick them not a game.  Teams with negative R+T ratings almost always lose in the Round of 64, even if they are a 2-seed playing a 15-seed.  There was a year where three heavily favored teams from power conferences but with negative R+T ratings played three double-digit seeds from mid-major conferences but with good R+T ratings.  All three heavily favored teams lost.

Do you remember in 2013 when Florida Gulf Coast made Andy Enfield famous for something more than his fantastic spouse, when his 15th-seeded Eagles clobbered second-seed Georgetown?  FGCU had a fat R+T rating, while the Hoyas had a negative R+T rating.

Let’s look at this statistic in tabular form with several potential NCAA Tournament teams.  These numbers represent only the stats from conference games for each team, thus eliminating games where a power conference team beat a low-major team by 35 points and padded their stats.

Team	Reb.	Stl.	Opp Stl.	TO	R+T	Conf.
Alabama	-0.1	7.7	6.7	-0.3	2.7	1
Arizona	6.1	4.8	5.7	-0.2	14.7	5
Auburn	-0.3	8.1	5.8	4.4	8.1	1
Buffalo	4.1	6.9	4.8	2.4	15.3	13
Cincinnati	9.1	7.1	5.1	3.1	25.8	7
Clemson	-1.9	5.4	6.4	-0.5	-2.0	2
Duke	6.9	7.8	5.7	-0.1	17.9	2
East Tennessee	7.7	6.8	5.6	0.2	19.4	17
Florida	-3.6	5.2	3.3	3.0	1.1	1
Florida St.	3.6	5.5	5.8	0.0	10.2	2
Gonzaga	10.5	5.7	4.9	2.6	27.6	11
Kansas	-5.2	5.8	5.7	0.3	-6.9	3
Kansas St.	-8.0	8.3	6.0	3.0	-8.9	3
Kentucky	2.0	5.7	5.1	-1.7	6.1	1
UL-Lafayette	10.2	7.9	5.7	1.1	25.8	23
Louisville	1.6	7.9	7.3	2.1	8.0	2
Loyola (Chi.)	0.8	7.4	5.7	2.2	7.8	9
Miami (Fla.)	0.9	7.6	6.3	1.6	6.9	2
Michigan	-0.5	5.1	4.7	3.2	6.1	6
Michigan St.	9.0	3.5	4.8	-4.5	16.5	6
Middle Tennessee	10.0	5.5	6.2	-0.9	21.7	14
Montana	4.5	8.8	4.1	4.3	19.6	20
Nevada	-1.2	7.3	4.4	4.8	7.7	10
New Mexico St.	11.5	4.3	5.3	1.7	27.6	15
North Carolina	9.9	5.5	5.7	-1.2	21.7	2
North Carolina St.	0.9	6.8	6.0	1.6	6.8	2
Ohio St.	6.0	5.8	3.9	0.0	17.0	6
Oklahoma	1.6	6.3	7.8	-3.2	1.4	3
Oregon	1.8	6.7	4.8	0.7	8.9	5
Purdue	1.9	5.5	5.4	1.5	8.7	6
Rhode Island	1.5	6.3	5.7	5.6	12.1	8
Saint Mary’s	6.4	5.8	6.3	-0.7	14.7	11
South Dakota St.	2.9	5.1	4.4	-0.2	9.8	16
USC	-1.4	8.0	4.7	7.0	9.5	5
SMU	-0.7	8.4	4.0	2.8	7.6	7
Tennessee	1.4	6.0	5.7	0.7	6.8	1
Texas Tech	5.1	6.2	6.7	0.6	13.2	3
UCLA	-0.1	6.1	4.9	0.5	4.5	5
Villanova	-3.2	6.7	4.3	3.6	2.3	4
Virginia	-2.9	8.3	4.1	6.2	6.5	2
Virginia Tech	-6.4	6.4	5.8	1.4	-8.0	2
West Virginia	2.8	6.9	6.0	2.3	11.4	3
Wichita St.	9.3	4.9	6.1	0.8	21.8	7

There are a couple of extra things to add to this discussion before you receive your BS in R+Tology.  Most of you by now have thought that it is a lot easier for New Mexico State to dominate in the WAC than it is for Kansas to dominate in the Big 12.  Beating Oklahoma, Kansas State, and Texas Tech is a lot harder than beating Chicago State, Missouri-Kansas City, and Seattle.  Definitely, the strength of the conference must be factored into this equation.  In the last column above, you see a number under the heading of “conf.”  This represents the rating of conferences by strength.  As of today, the SEC is the toughest league in college basketball.  The ACC is number two; the Big 12 is number three; and so on.  The WAC is number 15.  There are 31 Division One conferences, so 15 is about average, while the SEC and ACC are many points better than an average conference.

We do handicap these ratings when we do our March Madness picking.  An ACC team with an R+T rating of 15 is better than a Colonial Athletic Association team with an R+T rating of 23.  A SWAC team with an R+T rating of 7 is like a Big 12 team with a negative R+T rating.

One final adjustment.  When looking at the components of the R+T ratings, notice whether a team’s components are all positive numbers.  In other words, look to see if a team has positive rebounding margins, positive turnover margins (commit less than they force), averages more than 6 steals per game and who limits opponents steals to less than 6 per game.  This is the sign of a complete team, and complete teams frequently beat teams with superior R+T ratings when the other team is not a complete team.

Let’s look at two examples from above.

Dan Hurley has done a great job at Rhode Island, and the Rams are a “complete team.”  They have a positive rebounding margin.  They average more than 6 steals per game and give up less than 6 steals per game, and they have a really nice turnover margin.  Their R+T rating is 12.1, and the Atlantic 10 conference is rated #8.  URI is definitely Sweet 16-worthy with these stats before we begin to look at other factors like shooting percentages and defensive shooting percentages.

Now, let’s look at Michigan State.  The Spartans have a 16.5 R+T rating from the number 6 conference.  However, Sparty averages only 3.5 steals per game and have a negative turnover margin of 4.5.  This is a real warning sign for bracket-pickers.  MSU will dominate on the boards in a matchup against Rhode Island, but the Rams will even up that advantage with a large turnover margins against the Spartans.  If both teams shoot a similar percentage from inside and outside the 3-point line, you have a toss-up game.

Michigan State saw how this lack of being complete hurt them in the past.  In the 2016 NCAA Tournament, the Spartans faced a Middle Tennessee State team that excelled in turnover margin and steals.  The Blue Raiders basically were much quicker than Michigan State, and this is why their turnover margin was so excellent.  They could pressure the ball and play in the passing lanes without giving up easy baskets.  MTSU pulled off the upset thanks to turnover margin equalizing the rebounding margin of their opponent.  The Blue Raiders’ quickness led to a lot of open shots, while Michigan State’s power game did not produce an equivalent number of open shots.  MTSU took MSU out of its game plan and forced the tempo, turning this into a 70-possession game.  Michigan State preferred a 60-64 possession game, and those extra 6-10 possessions per side helped the underdog team.

It is not always this cut and dried.  Other factors have to be considered, and this is where the PiRate Ratings have made substantial changes starting this year.  In past years, we did not give a lot of support to excellent three-point shooting teams, because we favored teams that could get shots from within 5 feet of the basket.  During the last three or four years, the three-point shot has become much more important, essential if you will.  The Golden State Warriors and other NBA teams now rely on advanced analytical data almost as much as Major League Baseball teams.  Three-point shooting has been determined to be as vital as having the relief ace that can enter the World Series in the 6th inning and get six high-leverage outs.  The PiRate Bracket-picking protocol has now incorporated true shooting percentages with R+T ratings and conference strength to refine our ratings.

The game has come down to whether a team can be expected to shoot a certain percentage from inside and outside the 3-point line and whether they can be expected to get extra scoring opportunities.  A combination of these two basic factors will be how we handicap games in the future.  Of course, we will handicap the two factors based on conference strength.

When you look at our spreads each week, you are looking at an algorithm that incorporates and handicaps due to conference strength, expected true shooting percentages and scoring opportunities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PiRate Ratings Bracket Gurus Report for January 29, 2017

Our Bracket Gurus have spoken for the first time this year.  Maybe, you should listen, because in 2017, the Gurus were 100% correct in picking the final 68 teams on Selection Sunday morning, something mighty impressive considering there were about a half-dozen teams competing for the last three spots in the field.

All 12 of last year’s March Gurus have returned, and because we thought we might fall one shy, we added a trio of new Gurus who have credibility with the PiRate Captain.  So, in this report, the number of Gurus reporting is 15.

Let’s get to it.  Here are the 68 teams seeded 1-16.

Seed	Team	League
1	Villanova	BIGE
1	Purdue	BTEN
1	Virginia	ACC
1	Kansas	B12
2	Duke	ACC
2	Xavier	BIGE
2	Auburn	SEC
2	Oklahoma	B12
3	Clemson	ACC
3	Arizona	PAC12
3	Michigan St.	BTEN
3	North Carolina	ACC
4	Texas Tech	B12
4	Cincinnati	AAC
4	Tennessee	SEC
4	West Virginia	B12
5	Kentucky	SEC
5	Florida	SEC
5	Ohio St.	BTEN
5	Seton Hall	BIGE
6	Wichita St.	AAC
6	Rhode Island	A-10
6	Creighton	BIGE
6	Miami (Fla.)	ACC
7	Arizona St.	PAC12
7	Louisville	ACC
7	Florida St.	ACC
7	Gonzaga	WCC
8	TCU	B12
8	Arkansas	SEC
8	Saint Mary’s	WCC
8	Michigan	BTEN
9	Nevada	MWC
9	Alabama	SEC
9	Texas	B12
9	Butler	BIGE
10	USC	PAC12
10	Providence	BIGE
10	Kansas St.	B12
10	Houston	AAC
11	Middle Tennessee	CUSA
11	New Mexico St.	WAC
11	Buffalo	MAC
11	Loyola (Chi.)	MVC
12	Texas A&M	SEC
12	Syracuse	ACC
12	Marquette	BIGE
12	North Carolina St.	ACC
12	Washington	PAC12
12	Boise St.	MWC
13	UL-Lafayette	SBC
13	East Tennessee St.	SOCON
13	Vermont	AMEAST
13	South Dakota St.	Summit
14	Belmont	OVC
14	Wright St.	Horizon
14	William & Mary	CAA
14	Bucknell	Patriot
15	Montana	BSKY
15	UC-Davis	BWEST
15	Canisius	MAAC
15	Stephen F. Austin	SLC
16	Florida Gulf Coast	A-SUN
16	Penn	Ivy
16	Wagner	NEC
16	UNC-Asheville	BIGS
16	Bethune-Cookman	MEAC
16	Arkansas-Pine Bluff	SWAC

Here is the breakdown of Multiple Bid Leagues. There are 23, one-bid leagues in this first report, with the Mountain West Conference just barely sneaking in with two teams and Conference USA just barely missing out on getting a second team in this field.

AAC: 3

ACC: 9

Big 12: 7

Big East: 7

Big Ten: 4

Mountain West: 2

Pac-12: 4

SEC: 7

WCC: 2

 

The Bubble

The Last 4 Teams With a Bye

Kansas St.

Houston

Texas A&M

Syracuse

 

The Last 4 Teams In The Field (First Four Teams in Dayton)

Marquette vs. Boise St.

North Carolina St. vs. Washington

 

The Rest of the Bubble (in order of votes by the Gurus)

SMU

Western Kentucky

Virginia Tech

Missouri

South Carolina

LSU

UCLA

St. Bonaventure

Georgia

Utah

Notre Dame

Old Dominion

Maryland