2021 Bracketnomics Report

For many of you, this is the only time of the year you visit the PiRate Ratings, as March Madness is your real holiday season.  If this is your first visit here, please be advised that we actively participate in rating college and NFL football as well as college basketball.  And, if you are a fan of tabletop baseball games, our Sabertooth Baseball Game is available for the low price of $7 while it is still on sale, when it will go back to $8.  If you have the dice and the playing surface, we send you all the cards, charts, and rules in a zip file for you to print.  Serious gamers tell us that they think our game is one of the most advanced strategic baseball games on the market with unique playing styles.  If we piqued your interest, check us out at https://sabertooth-baseball.square.site , or our blog at https://sabertoothbaseball.wordpress.com 

Now that we’ve heard from our sponsor, let’s get right to it.  First, what are Bracketnomics?  That’s our term we coined to describe how we use analytical data that has been backtested to try to determine which teams have the best set of statistical fingerprints when compared to national champions of the past.

The tutorial is quite easy to read, and if you haven’t read it, you can check it out here:  https://piratings.wordpress.com/2021/03/12/the-all-encompassing-master-bracketnomics-paradigm-2021/

If you have already read this or just want to go straight to picking your bracket, then here’s what you have been waiting for.

First, let’s start with a few bracket-picking strategies. It is obvious that picking a perfect bracket is about as likely as winning the Powerball and Megamillion lotteries in the same week where lightning strikes your air conditioner compressor and you find a four-leaf clover when you go outside to see why your A/C isn’t working.

It is, however, possible to win whatever bracket-picking contest you enter. We here have received dozens of comments through the years from readers telling us they won their office pools, and we have also heard from people that won pools from supermarket contests, radio station contests, and even one from a woman that won $1,000 from a modified Calcutta contest.

There are a few general keys to scoring high enough to win your bracket pool. First, you need to start by picking your national champion, Final Four, and Elite 8 in that order. Do not start with the opening round and just predict the winners. You will likely eliminate yourself before the Sweet 16 by picking a bunch of upset winners and arrive at the Sweet 16 with less than a half-dozen teams still alive.

Next, once you have your Elite 8, go into each sub-bracket that those 8 teams emerged and pick the best team that would give the Elite 8 team a tough Sweet 16 game. Now, you have your Sweet 16.

At this point, you need to pick most of the rest of the games by “the chalk.” Obviously, your Sweet 16 will have to win in the Rounds of 64 and 32. You can then maybe pick a couple upset winners in the first round and maybe one or two of your Sweet 16 teams will be a dark horse. However, as we see it, the teams considered dark horses really looked like the favorites in our method of picking games. In the past, we were all in on a George Mason team that ambushed the field to the Final Four. We said that Virginia Commonwealth was better than 20 seeds and did not deserve to be in the First Four, and the Rams went to the Final Four. We had Wichita State as a Final Four possible the year they went to the Final Four. And, we showed that Butler had a lot of the needed criteria to get deep into their tournaments. It isn’t fail-safe; we did not see Loyola making the Final Four, and we twice struck out with Connecticut teams that won their championships.

Our criteria relies on the percentages and uses past events to predict future possibilities. Math is not perfect in this respect. Think of it this way: Would you rather have Ty Cobb at bat with runners on second and third base and two outs in the last of the ninth, trailing by one run, or would you rather have Mario Mendoza at bat? The odds greatly favor the best hitter of all time, but there are some instances where Cobb might make an out on a hard line drive, while Mendoza delivers the game-winning hit on a bloop pop fly that finds grass between the infielder and outfielder. We’ll still go with Cobb, and that’s what our Bracketnomics attempt to be–the Ty Cobb of bracket-picking.

A lot of gurus will tell you how the #12 seed is the best upset spot, and they point to how many times the #12 seed has upset the #5 seed. Why does this happen? It is because the #12 seeds are often the best automatic qualifiers from mid-major conferences, and the Selection Committee did a poor job placing these teams this low. It is not a jinx, so don’t automatically advance a 12-seed unless you can see they were placed in the wrong seed line.

The same thing can be said about the 11-seeds. In recent years, the Committee was a little more accurate placing powerful mid-major champions one seed higher than past years. A lot of these former superior 12-seeds are now superior 11-seeds. And, instead of playing 5-seeds, they are playing weaker 6-seeds. The plan stays the same–look at the criteria and let the criteria show you when the lower seeds are superior and actually the better team, meaning it won’t really be an upset at all.

The Best Criteria

As we looked at all the data, three teams emerged from the pack of 68 that have national championship looking criteria stats.  However, one of the teams is missing a key ingredient and will have to be discounted some for the loss of a key player.e

The overall best resumes belong to two #1 seeds, Gonzaga and Illinois.  The third team that has the look of a national champion is Michigan, but the Wolverines fall out of this category if Isaiah Livers cannot return by the Sweet 16 and play at somewhat close to 100% efficiency.

There is another group of teams that fall just short of national champion appearance.  These teams are below the championship line in one basic criterion or multiple smaller criteria.  These teams in alphabetical order are: Colorado, Houston, Texas, and Virginia.  We expect that maybe one of these four will sneak into the Final Four.

The next group back, the teams that are just behind the above group and have solid Sweet 16 appearance criteria with possible Elite 8 criteria are: Alabama, Arkansas, Baylor, Saint Bonaventure, San Diego St., USC, and Wisconsin.  We expect at least one of these six to make the Elite 8.

Then, there is a group of teams with considerable positive criteria along with a major negative criterion. These teams are also Sweet 16 worthy, and two could advance to the Elite 8 with one even sneaking into the Final Four. These teams may benefit from ideal brackets more than criteria, as you read the previews.

This year’s criteria was hard to calculate because of the lack of non-conference games.  Schedule strength had to be stressed even more than usual, or else we would have Colgate picked to go to the Final 4.  The Raiders are 14-1, and all of their games were against fellow Patriot League members; additionally, Colgate never played the other quality team in the league in Navy.

There was a slight issue with Gonzaga’s strength of schedule.  The Bulldogs’ total SOS was brought down due to the bottom teams in their conference.  However, they have wins over Iowa and West Virginia out of conference, and that allows us to accept Gonzaga’s schedule strength as the minimum needed to be considered for the national championship, and adequate for the Final Four.  They were supposed to play Baylor, but the Bears opted out of that game due to the virus.

Now, we will review each of the Round of 64 games using our criteria to pick the winner.  Note that we will have regular PiRate Rating spreads for these games on the day of the games.  Our PiRate Ratings are not used when picking winners in Bracketnomics.

First Four

If you are picking brackets, you can usually wait until these games have been played before picking your brackets.  The 16-seed winners will not really matter, as none of them stand a chance to knock off a 1-seed this year.  The 11-seed games will be important, so if you can, wait until those games have been played before submitting your brackets wherever you do.

16 Texas Southern vs. 16 Mount St. Mary’s: Mount St. Mary’s defense will keep Texas Southern from getting a lot of good looks, and the Mount doesn’t foul a lot, so TSU will have a hard time scoring.  MSM’s R+T is a tad better too.

Prediction: Mount St. Mary’s

11 Drake vs. 11 Wichita St.: This should be a close game, as both teams have strengths that can be used to exploit the other team’s weaknesses.  Drake is clearly the better offensive team, while Wichita State has a smaller advantage on defense but considerable advantage on schedule strength.  Drake’s R+T rating is quite better, good enough that they might enjoy the game-clinching spurt in this one.

Prediction: Drake

16 Appalachian St. vs. 16 Norfolk St.: These are two teams that will be fighting tooth and nail for their chance to shine for one night, and this looks like a close one.  To select a winner here, we basically have to go with the team with fewer negatives.  Both are ripe with negatives, but in the end, Norfolk St. has the capability of speeding up the tempo and getting Appy State players in foul trouble.

Prediction: Norfolk St.

11 Michigan St. vs. 11 UCLA:  This is a Michigan State squad lacking its typical inside dominance, while UCLA has very little inside game.  So, it’s more likely that this game will be decided on the perimeter.  UCLA is clearly superior from behind the arc, and Michigan State’s biggest issue this year has been with perimeter players that can take the three or drive quickly to the key.

Prediction: UCLA

SOUTH REGIONAL

1 Baylor vs. 16 Hartford: There’s nothing at all that shows us that Hartford has a chance in this game.  Baylor is superior across the board, so forget this being a UMBC-Virginia moment.  Baylor should lead by more than 30 when Scott Drew removes his starters.

Prediction: Baylor

8 North Carolina vs. 9 Wisconsin: Normally, we would find some fact or statistic to show the Tar Heels being superior to an opening round opponent, but this time, we cannot rationalize doing so.  Both teams are about equal defensively in preventing good shots by their opponents.  Wisconsin is clearly more efficient on offense.  Wisconsin is one of the most experienced teams in the field with six seniors among their top eight players, while UNC is one of the greenest with just one senior and one junior among their top eight.  Carolina has the power advantage in this game, but the Badgers will limit possessions, and they have the outside shooting advantage.  Carolina’s only hope is to get the pace up to more than 70 possessions per side, but we think the veteran Badger team will control the pace and have the advantage.

Prediction: Wisconsin

5 Villanova vs. 12 Winthrop: This is one of those momentum games by a lot of pundits.  They believe that with Villanova’s multiple injuries, this will be another #12 seed upset.  Are they correct?  Let’s take a look.

First, we have to discount Villanova due to their missing senior guard Collin Gillespie.  Additionally, guard Justin Moore will still be somewhat below par due to his severe ankle sprain.  Add to that fact that Winthrop has one of the most unique point forwards in the nation in Chandler Vaudrin.  Now, let’s look at the data.  Villanova enjoys an enormous inside advantage in this game, and their schedule strength is in a different time zone compared to Winthrop’s.  Wins over Southern Conference contenders UNC-Greensboro and Furman were nice, but they were 0-0 against power conference teams.  We expect VU’s two inside forces to get their share of points and force Winthrop to bring an extra defender into the paint, where ‘Nova’s third and fourth options on the perimeter should be good enough to knock down a few.

Prediction: Villanova

4 Purdue vs. 13 North Texas: This game could be close, for a half.  North Texas has the ability to stay within single digits for most of the day, but in the end, Purdue has a wide advantage in both schedule strength and R+T.  That almost always leads to a team going on a big run to put a game away.

Prediction: Purdue

6 Texas Tech vs. 11 Utah St.: Texas Tech is noted for their tough defense, but guess what?  Utah State’s defense is even better this year.  Utah State also has a supreme inside game and isn’t too shabby on the perimeter.  Texas Tech has issues scoring on offense, and we expect the Red Raiders will have foul trouble inside the paint.  Here is our first lower seed upset pick.

Prediction: Utah St.

3 Arkansas vs. 14 Colgate:  Here is where schedule strength is as important as class is in handicap horse races.  Arkansas is a Grade I champion, while Colgate is still eligible for non-winner’s of two allowance races.  The schedule strength favors Arkansas by more than a dozen points before looking at any other stats.  Arkansas’s offense is not superior, but it is very good.  Their defense is close to superior.  Colgate’s offense is good, but in the end, their defense isn’t going to slow down the Razorbacks enough times to keep this game close.  There are no criteria that show us that Colgate has a chance to find something to exploit in this game.  Add to the load our personal belief that Eric Musselman is one of the A++ basketball coaches, and this looks like a double-digit win.

Prediction: Arkansas

7 Florida vs. 10 Virginia Tech:  This game looks more like an 8-9 game than a 7-10 game, because it is close to dead even when looking at all the criteria.  Florida has a slight advantage with offensive and defensive efficiency and schedule strength, but VT rates better in R+T, which can override small schedule strength advantages.  Additionally, both schools have swooned in recent weeks, so what we are looking at here is who will be fodder in the next round?  We honestly say to pick the team you like in this one, because it is a 50-50 matchup.  When it’s 50-50, we look at the coaches.  Michael White has an Elite 8 appearance at Florida.  Mike Young had an incredible Wofford team in the Dance that beat Seton Hall and took Kentucky to the buzzer in the Round of 32.  

Prediction: Virginia Tech

2 Ohio St. vs. 15 Oral Roberts: Oral Roberts is the only one of the 68 teams in this field with a negative R+T rating.  Our prime rule is to immediately eliminate any NCAA Tournament team with a negative R+T rating.  There are no exceptions to this rule, so even if ORU was playing one of the 16-seeds in this round, we would be selecting the opponent.  As Royal Rooter King Michael McGreevy would have replied, “‘Nuf ced.”

Prediction: Ohio St. has the potential to win by 35 points.

MIDWEST REGIONAL

1 Illinois vs. 16 Drexel: You know the answer here, so let’s break down the Illini a little to show you why they have the criteria of a national champion.

National champions come from power conferences–ACC, Big 12, SEC, Big East, Pac-12, and Big Ten.  The last team not in one of these leagues to win the title was UNLV in 1990.

National champions tend to have double digit scoring margins.  Since 1990, 28 of 30 national champions had double-digit scoring margins.  The other two times, it was Connecticut both years.  Illinois’s scoring margin is 12.2 in a year where the Big Ten was the top-ranked overall league.

National champions tend to have offenses ranked in the top 10 in efficiency and defenses ranked in the top 20 in efficiency.  Illinois is 7th offensively and 5th defensively.

National champions tend to have four or more upperclassmen on their top eight.  Illinois has two seniors and three juniors in their top eight.

Add to this a team with a +37% 3-point accuracy; two inside players that combine for more than 20 points and 12 rebounds per game; an offense that forces defenses to foul too much; a defense that does not foul too much; a top-10 schedule strength, and one of the few 20+ R+T Ratings in this tournament.  

10 out of the last 13 years, a #1 seed won the national title, and Illinois is a #1 seed playing just one state away from home.  Other than having a coach that has not been past the Round of 32, and a slightly under the championship norm offensive rebounding rate, this team looks like past national champions.

Prediction: Illinois by whatever spread they want to name.

8 Loyola (Chi.) vs. 9 Georgia Tech: Oh, this one should be a grand one to watch!  Not only is it an evenly-matched game, it is evenly matched with both teams having decided advantages over the other in various criteria.  That usually leads to an exciting 40 minutes with lots of plot twists.  In other words, plan on watching this game.  Let’s break this one down.  Georgia Tech has the definite offensive efficiency advantage, but Loyola has the number one defensive efficiency in the entire nation!  Loyola is one of a very few teams to have a double-digit true shooting percentage margin.  The Rambler TS% is 59.8% and they allow 48.7%.  

Georgia Tech has three players that can put away an opponent, while Loyola is more of a team approach type of winner.  In the clutch, go with a team with three potential dagger-makers.  Georgia Tech has a slightly stronger schedule, but Loyola has superior R+T numbers, and for that reason, the scales slightly tip past balanced.

Prediction: Loyola (Chi.)

5 Tennessee vs. 12 Oregon St.: We expect the winner of this game to have a tough time advancing to the Sweet 16 for multiple reasons.  Tennessee is one of the most Jekyll and Hyde teams in the field, if not the most.  An excellent defensive effort will give the Vols a big win, and then an egg-laying offensive effort will get them beat the next game.  The problem is that the players seem to lack direction against changing defenses.

Oregon St. was a model of excellent consistency for 120 minutes at the Pac-12 Tournament, holding the pace to less than 65 possessions per game, and winning by making very few mistakes.  By mistakes, we don’t refer to turnovers, but more to smart shot selection and excellent team defense.  That team defense thing is kryptonite to Tennessee.

The question is which Vols team shows up?  Will it be the team that disposed of Kansas like they were a division 2 team, or will it be the team that acted like it didn’t know the object of the game in the second half of the SEC Tournament semifinals?  We’ll say that for one game, UT will play up to their potential.

Prediction: Tennessee

4 Oklahoma St. vs. 13 Liberty: Liberty was a real victim of Covid-19 in 2020.  The Flames were good enough to make the Sweet 16 last year.  This year’s team is not on that same level of competence.  The biggest factor in this game is the humongous schedule strength advantage the Cowboys have.  On that alone, OSU is 18 points better before the opening tip.  They also have the top clutch player in the Dance in Cade Cunningham, who is better than Kemba Walker, who took Connecticut to the national title when the Huskies did not have national title criteria.

Prediction: Oklahoma St.

6 San Diego St. vs. 11 Syracuse: Syracuse has been in this situation before where they were on the Bubble getting into the field and then won a game or two.  They made the Final Four as a 10-seed.  Their matchup zone defense can be trouble for teams that have not seen it live, and most teams that play the ‘Cuse in the Rounds of 64 and 32 have not seen another team use it.  That can make a difference in closely-matched teams.

San Diego State’s man-to-man defense is not something Syracuse has seen either.  It is nothing like Virginia’s or other ACC defenses.  In a normal year, Duke’s defense might look something like that, but the Orangemen will be just as unsure attacking the Aztecs as SDSU is attacking the zone.  Syracuse has a stronger schedule strength, but not that much stronger, while SDSU has the better R+T Rating, enough to make the difference.

Prediction: San Diego St.

3 West Virginia vs. 14 Morehead St.: In recent years, Belmont and Murray St. have pulled off big upsets from the Ohio Valley Conference.  Ten years ago, this team knocked off Louisville in the opening round.  Can lightning strike twice?  About as often as it does, so don’t expect the Eagles to soar over the Mountaineers.  The schedule strength advantage is considerable at 13+ points.  The inside advantage will be almost as strong, and WVU will get many extra opportunities to score in this game.  Unless Morehead shoots lights out from three, this will be a mismatch.

Prediction: West Virginia

7 Clemson vs. 10 Rutgers:   These are very similar teams when looking at their criteria.  There isn’t much to separate them.  Rutgers has a slightly better offensive efficiency rating.  They are basically equal defensively.  Clemson has the better frontcourt and more likely to get more first chance points in the paint.  Neither team is adequate enough to get to the Sweet 16 with their R+T Ratings.  In the end, we go with the better offense in this one.

Prediction: Rutgers

2 Houston vs. 15 Cleveland St.: This is the best Houston team since Phi Slama Jama made it to consecutive national title games in 1983 and 1984.  Two years ago, a #3-seed Houston team easily advanced to the Sweet 16 and then took Kentucky to the final horn.  This team is a tad better overall, but more importantly, this regional is lacking in teams that excel where Houston is vulnerable.  Houston could win this game by 30-35 points, but Kelvin Sampson will probably empty his bench earlier than normal, allowing Cleveland State to make the final score look less embarrassing.  Only if CSU can get three or four Cougar players in early foul trouble can they keep this one close.

Prediction: Houston

West Regional

1 Gonzaga vs. 16 Norfolk St.: Rather than show you how Gonzaga could win this game by 40 or more, let’s show you their criteria so you can compare it to Illinois.  

A.  National champions come from power conferences–ACC, Big 12, SEC, Big East, Pac-12, and Big Ten.  The last team not in one of these leagues to win the title was UNLV in 1990.  Gonzaga would have to break a 31-year trend.

B.  National champions tend to have double digit scoring margins.  Since 1990, 28 of 30 national champions had double-digit scoring margins.  The other two times, it was Connecticut both years.  Gonzaga’s scoring margin is 23.0, which is far and away the best in the nation.  UNLV’s was 15 when they won the 1990 title.

C.  National champions tend to have offenses ranked in the top 10 in efficiency and defenses ranked in the top 20 in efficiency.  Gonzaga is number one on offense and number 10 on defense, a definite look of a national champion.

D.  National champions tend to have four or more upperclassmen on their top eight.  Gonzaga has two seniors and two juniors in their top eight.

E.  Gonzaga’s 3-point percentage is 36.5%, which is a fraction under the 37% floor most champions have had.  They have three players that can be counted on to win a game on the final possession.  They have two inside stars that can dominate a game in the paint.  While the Bulldogs’ schedule is a tad weaker than a typical national champion schedule, they did beat Iowa and West Virginia on the road, and a cancelled game against Baylor would have given them a championship worthy schedule.

Prediction: Gonzaga by a very large margin

8 Oklahoma vs. 9 Missouri: These former Big 8/Big 12 rivals used to have some great conference games, and this one should be a lot like those great ones from the past.  Oklahoma has the better offensive efficiency, while defensive efficiency is about equal.  Missouri has the advantage inside and a slightly better strength of schedule.  There isn’t much difference when looking at the rest, but Missouri is one of the few teams that has a +37% free throw rate; however, their defensive FT rate is too high.

Prediction: Oklahoma

5 Creighton vs. 12 UCSB: On the surface, this looks like a potential double-digit win for the higher seed, even when considering the high number of 12-seed upsets in the past.  Crieghton’s offensive efficiency rating is high enough to consider the Blue Jays an Elite 8 contender, and their defensive efficiency rating is strong enough to move Creighton into the next round.  However, there has been an issue with the head coach, and Creighton did not look like the same team after the dissension between players and coach came to a head.  

UCSB is not an easy mark.  The Gauchos have an inside presence typical of a first round winner.  They are a senior-laden squad, and their R+T rating is almost 20, which is another sign of a potential upset winner in the Round of 64.  When a team has a huge R+T rating advantage over their opponent, the next thing to compare are the two schedule strengths.  In this case, Creighton has a modestly better SOS, not enough to overcome a large R+T disadvantage. Remember that UC-Irvine from the same Big West Conference beat a 4-seed in the 2019 Dance.

Prediction: UCSB gets the upset

4 Virginia vs. 13 Ohio U: Ohio has a top 40 offense, but their defense is too weak to stop an ACC team like Virginia.  This will be more of a half-court game, where the fast break is an afterthought.  Virginia will win more than half of the possessions, probably something like 55% of them, and in a 62 possession game for both teams, that comes out to 68 possessions for the Cavs and 56 possessions for the Bobcats.  A 12-possession win with about 1.1 points per possession means a 13-point win.

Prediction: Virginia

6 USC vs. 11 Drake: This game could be a faster-paced replica of the UVa-Ohio game.  USC and Drake both have very strong offensive efficiency ratings, but Drake’s defensive efficiency is below the threshold of a winning tournament team.  USC will dominate inside in this game, and Drake will have to hit close to half their three-point shots to keep this one close.  USC has one of the highest foul-drawing offenses, and the Trojans should get a lot of “and 1’s” in this game.

Prediction: USC

3 Kansas vs, 14 Eastern Washington: This Kansas team does not have the overall offense to advance to the Final Four, and they may struggle making the Sweet 16.  KU’s offensive efficiency is vulnerable against a quality defensive team.  Eastern Washington is not that team with a porous defense compared to this field.  Superior schedule strength and a somewhat better R+T makes this game a solid one in the Big 12 team’s favor.

Prediction: Kansas

7 Oregon vs. 10 VCU: This should be an interesting game.  Oregon’s exceptional offensive efficiency faces VCU’s exceptional defensive efficiency.  The schedule strength is dead even, so we look at the R+T ratings, and it favors the Ducks by one scoring spurt.

Prediction: Oregon

2 Iowa vs. 15 Grand Canyon: Iowa is oh so close to having Final Four criteria.  Their offense trails only Gonzaga, but their defensive efficiency is #50, just outside the threshold for national champion qualification.  Grand Canyon actually holds a substantial R+T Rating advantage, so we must look at the schedule strength to see if it can be sustained.  It cannot in this case, as Iowa’s schedule is almost 15 points stronger per game.

Prediction: Iowa

EAST REGIONAL

1 Michigan vs. 16 Mount St. Mary’s:  Even at less than full strength, Michigan is much too strong for a Northeast Conference opponent.  The Wolverines’ have top 10 offense and defense efficiency ratings, while the Mount has the lowest offensive efficiency in the tournament.  Their defensive efficiency is the ninth lowest in the field.  If the Wolverines can get through this first weekend, there is a chance that Isaiah Livers can return and contribute.

Prediction: Michigan

8 LSU vs. 9 Saint Bonaventure:  LSU has a top five offensive efficiency rating, but their defense is below par for any more than a win or two at best.  St. Bonaventure could be a surprise winner, and they could give Michigan a run for their money in a Round of 32 game if they can get past LSU.

This game should stay close like an 8-9 game should, and it is almost a 50-50 guess when applying our criteria.  LSU’s schedule strength is slightly stronger, but The Bonnies have a clear R+T advantage.

Prediction: Saint Bonaventure

5 Colorado vs. 12 Georgetown: It was the worst of times early in the year at 5-10 and the best of times late in the year at 8-2 for the Georgetown Hoyas.  If GU is going to continue to play like they did in the latter part of the schedule, their overall criteria must be looked at in a different light.  The trouble here for Patrick Ewing is the opponent in this game.  Colorado is very close to being considered an Elite 8 dark horse.  The Buffs have an offensive efficiency rating in the top 20, and their defensive efficiency rating is in the top 30.  CU also has the R+T Ratings advantage.

Prediction: Colorado

4 Florida St. vs. 13 UNC-Greensboro: Florida State is another team just shy of the typical criteria of a Final Four team.  The Seminoles are a worthy Sweet 16 team with an offensive efficiency rating in the top 10.  Their defensive efficiency rating is in the top 50, which is just outside of Final 4 worthy. The Seminoles could beat a Michigan team without Livers.

UNCG would be totally outmanned in this game if it wasn’t for a very good R+T rating, and even though FSU’s schedule strength is better, it is not enough to make this game a slam dunk runaway win.  UNCG could keep this close for more minutes than the Seminoles like.

Prediction: Florida St.

6 BYU vs. 11 UCLA: A lot of national talk show hosts and guests believe BYU was given a higher seed than they deserved.  Some people believe that they should have been a 9, 10, or even an 11 seed.  We don’t share that opinion.  BYU actually has the stronger schedule strength, as they have played the number one team three times and won at Utah State and San Diego State.  BYU has the better R+T Rating in this game as well, and the Cougars are substantially better defensively than the Bruins.

Prediction: BYU

3 Texas vs. 14 Abilene Christian: Abilene Christian will be playing for more than a spot in the Round of 32.  Beating Texas would be as special as Texas making the Final Four.  However, this Longhorns squad is tough, tough enough to become Shaka Smart’s second Final Four team, even though it would require one big upset and maybe one minor upset.

Texas has an offensive efficiency rating just outside the top 20 and a defensive efficiency rating in the 30’s.  With a schedule strength that is 16 points stronger than ACU’s, the slight R+T Rating advantage of the Wildcats is nullified.

Prediction: Texas

7 Connecticut vs. 10 Maryland: As hot as Georgetown was at the end of the season, they did lose twice to Connecticut.  The Huskies are another team with efficiency ratings and schedule strength strong enough to be considered a dark horse for advancing to the Sweet 16 and possibly the Elite 8.

Maryland will not be an automatic win for UConn.  In fact, this game is barely past toss-up.  UConn’s offensive efficiency is 24 and their defensive efficiency is 25, but Maryland’s offensive efficiency is just a little lower at 42 with a defensive efficiency almost exactly the same as the Huskies.  Connecticut’s biggest advantage in this game is the R+T Rating, which is slightly offset by Maryland’s somewhat stronger schedule strength.

Prediction: Connecticut

2 Alabama vs. 15 Iona: Can Rick Pitino work his magic and pull of a major upset?  Don’t bet on it.  His Iona Gaels have the sixth weakest offensive efficiency rating and eighth weakest defensive efficiency rating in the tournament.  Meanwhile, Alabama has more than enough superior criteria numbers to win this game with ease, even if their three-point shots don’t fall.  Iona will have a tough time scoring points in this game.

Prediction: Alabama

Those are our Round of 64 picks.  Now, we will finish it up by picking the rest of the bracket using Bracketnomics.

Round of 32

Baylor over Wisconsin

Purdue over Villanova

Arkansas over Utah St.

Ohio St. over Virginia Tech

Illinois over Loyola (Chi.)

Oklahoma St. over Tennessee

West Virginia over San Diego St.

Houston over Rutgers

Gonzaga over Oklahoma

Virginia over UCSB

USC over Kansas

Iowa over Oregon

Michigan over Saint Bonaventure

Florida St. over Colorado

Texas over BYU

Alabama over Connecticut

Sweet 16

Baylor over Purdue

Ohio St. over Arkansas

Illinois over Oklahoma St.

Houston over West Virginia

Gonzaga over Virginia

Iowa over USC

Michigan over Florida St. (if Livers returns)

Texas over Alabama

Elite 8

Ohio St. over Baylor

Illinois over Houston

Gonzaga over Iowa

Texas over Michigan

National Semifinals

Illinois over Ohio St.

Gonzaga over Texas

National Championship

Illinois over Gonzaga *

Note: If Gonzaga defeats Oklahoma, Virginia, and Iowa to get to the Final 4, their Strength of Schedule will then be above the minimum threshold needed to win all the marbles.

Here is a look at each team’s criteria. Maybe you can see something we didn’t see!

Criteria A: The Biggies

Team	O-Eff	D-Eff	SOS	R + T
Abilene Christian	157	30	44.1	15.8
Alabama	34	2	61.0	7.3
Appalachian St.	227	205	47.7	5.2
Arkansas	35	14	58.8	14.2
Baylor	3	44	58.2	18.2
BYU	28	26	59.0	14.1
Clemson	99	20	60.6	4.3
Cleveland St.	199	121	48.9	3.7
Colgate	43	140	47.7	16.2
Colorado	17	29	58.0	14.5
Connecticut	24	25	58.7	14.8
Creighton	14	40	58.4	4.5
Drake	19	120	50.7	16.9
Drexel	95	247	47.1	9.3
E. Washington	86	152	47.9	5.0
Florida	40	37	60.0	4.3
Florida St.	10	48	59.0	11.3
Georgetown	85	41	61.0	7.5
Georgia Tech	27	52	58.8	2.8
Gonzaga	1	10	57.8	22.0
Grand Canyon	142	74	46.9	21.2
Hartford	254	127	45.2	0.7
Houston	8	16	55.5	27.0
Illinois	7	5	62.8	20.8
Iona	210	161	45.4	12.1
Iowa	2	50	61.4	11.6
Kansas	59	6	61.3	11.9
Liberty	52	168	44.3	12.6
Loyola (Chi)	49	1	53.0	16.2
LSU	5	125	60.7	6.1
Maryland	42	27	61.8	2.3
Michigan	6	7	61.8	15.0
Michigan St.	98	32	61.3	5.9
Missouri	51	58	61.5	3.5
Morehead St.	214	72	48.7	7.5
Mount St. Mary’s	287	136	46.2	14.8
Norfolk St.	204	219	43.4	8.0
North Carolina	53	15	60.4	21.5
North Texas	119	42	53.8	9.2
Ohio St.	4	79	58.4	8.7
Ohio U	29	174	57.5	8.4
Oklahoma	36	53	59.4	6.2
Oklahoma St.	54	22	62.0	6.1
Oral Roberts	74	285	48.5	-2.3
Oregon	16	76	57.1	9.2
Oregon St.	65	117	57.9	6.0
Purdue	23	23	61.6	14.2
Rutgers	75	18	62.2	2.5
San Diego St.	44	11	55.9	17.3
St. Bonaventure	38	17	56.8	14.1
Syracuse	22	89	58.7	4.2
Tennessee	71	4	58.9	10.7
Texas	21	36	61.2	10.4
Texas Southern	236	236	43.3	13.9
Texas Tech	33	24	59.7	13.2
UCLA	26	86	54.3	12.5
UCSB	66	82	53.4	19.2
UNCG	129	67	50.8	15.0
USC	30	19	58.7	16.9
Utah St.	112	8	54.6	23.7
VCU	117	12	57.4	5.1
Villanova	9	68	59.2	11.2
Virginia	12	33	58.9	8.5
Virginia Tech	55	54	56.5	8.8
West Virginia	11	65	62.1	11.4
Wichita St.	56	103	56.6	2.3
Winthrop	120	70	45.3	24.0
Wisconsin	32	13	61.7	4.1

Glossary:

O-Eff: Offensive efficiency ranking. Almost all national champions were top 20 and most top 10

D-Eff: Defensive efficiency ranking. Almost all national champions were top 20 and all top 50

SOS: The PiRate Ratings Strength of Schedule. All past national champions were higher than 56.0, and most were 60.0 and higher. Usually, one Final Four team has an SOS between 50 and 56.

R+T Rating: The PiRate Ratings estimate of “spurtability.” The higher the number, the more likely a team will enjoy the better scoring spurt. However, this rating goes hand-in-hand with SOS, so it must be handicapped on a per game basis while comparing schedule strengths. All national champions have had R+T ratings above 12.0, and most were over 15.0. A team with an R+T rating above 15.0 and SOS above 60.0 is tournament tough. If in turn, this team has a top 10 O-Eff and top 20 D-Eff, they are going to advance very far into the Dance. Teams with R+T ratings under 5.00 are in trouble after the first round.

Criteria B

Team	Seniors 8	Juniors 8	1/3 Clutch?	37+ 3pt	F/C 12+ ppg	2 F/C 20/12?
Abilene Christian	2	3	0	35.3	Yes	No
Alabama	4	1	1	37.8	No	No
Appalachian St.	2	2	3	31.7	No	No
Arkansas	3	2	1	33.9	Yes	No
Baylor	2	4	3	41.8	No	No
BYU	3	2	1	37.8	No	No
Clemson	3	2	0	34.6	Yes	No
Cleveland St.	3	3	1	31.9	No	No
Colgate	3	2	3	40.2	No	No
Colorado	5	2	1	36.7	No	No
Connecticut	2	3	1	33.6	No	No
Creighton	3	2	1	37.0	No	No
Drake	4	3	0	37.0	No	No
Drexel	2	2	1	37.2	Yes	Yes
E. Washington	2	3	1	35.4	Yes	Yes
Florida	0	5	1	35.7	Yes	No
Florida St.	2	4	1	39.0	Yes	Yes
Georgetown	3	1	1	36.6	Yes	Yes
Georgia Tech	4	2	3	34.9	Yes	No
Gonzaga	2	2	3	36.5	Yes	Yes
Grand Canyon	5	0	0	33.2	Yes	Yes
Hartford	1	4	0	32.7	No	No
Houston	2	2	1	36.1	No	No
Illinois	2	3	1	37.6	Yes	Yes
Iona	3	0	1	37.2	No	No
Iowa	2	1	1	38.6	Yes	Yes
Kansas	2	2	No	34.4	Yes	Yes
Liberty	2	3	No	39.1	No	No
Loyola (Chi)	5	0	No	36.8	Yes	No
LSU	0	4	3	35.0	Yes	Yes
Maryland	2	3	0	34.6	No	No
Michigan	5	1	1	38.7	Yes	Yes
Michigan St.	1	3	0	32.0	Yes	No
Missouri	4	2	1	32.0	Yes	Yes
Morehead St.	1	4	No	35.1	Yes	Yes
Mount St. Mary’s	1	5	1	33.7	No	No
Norfolk St.	4	1	1	36.8	No	No
North Carolina	1	1	No	31.7	Yes	Yes
North Texas	3	2	1	37.6	No	Yes
Ohio St.	2	4	1	36.5	Yes	Yes
Ohio U	1	3	3	34.4	Yes	Yes
Oklahoma	4	2	1	33.8	No	No
Oklahoma St.	1	1	1	33.8	No	No
Oral Roberts	2	2	1	39.0	Yes	Yes
Oregon	4	2	1	39.4	Yes	No
Oregon St.	3	2	1	33.0	No	No
Purdue	0	3	1	30.7	Yes	Yes
Rutgers	2	4	1	31.1	No	No
San Diego St.	5	2	1	39.5	Yes	No
St. Bonaventure	0	7	0	37.5	No	No
Syracuse	1	2	3	33.7	Yes	Yes
Tennessee	2	1	1	33.8	No	No
Texas	3	2	1	36.2	No	No
Texas Southern	3	5	1	29.6	No	Yes
Texas Tech	1	3	1	34.6	No	No
UCLA	1	4	1	39.0	No	No
UCSB	4	1	3	33.7	Yes	Yes
UNCG	2	4	1	30.0	No	No
USC	3	2	1	34.6	Yes	Yes
Utah St.	1	4	1	33.6	Yes	Yes
VCU	2	1	1	32.9	No	No
Villanova	2	3	0	35.2	Yes	Yes
Virginia	3	2	1	38.1	Yes	Yes
Virginia Tech	2	1	1	34.5	Yes	Yes
West Virginia	1	4	1	38.7	Yes	Yes
Wichita St.	2	3	1	34.9	No	No
Winthrop	2	4	No	35.3	Yes	No
Wisconsin	6	0	1	36.0	Yes	No

Glossary:

Seniors 8 & Juniors 8: These are the numbers of seniors and juniors in each teams’ top 8 players. Typically, the more experienced teams have the maturity to win close games in high leverage situations. Many times, these players have “been there” before. The best example of this is Georgetown’s Fred Brown. As a sophomore in the 1982 National Championship Game against North Carolina, the last possession of the game was too high leverage for an underclassman to handle. He made a serous unforced gaffe, and Carolina won. Two years later, the senior Brown was like a coach on the floor, as he helped the Hoyas win their lone national championship.

1/3 Clutch?: Successful tournament teams need an anchor that can pick up the tough points at crunch time or steal a pass on defense and key a spurt. If there isn’t one star, a team can get by with a trio of semi-clutch players. Either one is fine, so you want to see a “1” or “3” here and not a “0.” A team with a “0” doesn’t mean that they don’t have a player that can hit the last-second winning shot. Think of two pinch-hitters in baseball. Our clutch player is the PH that hits .300, and not .250 like the “0” clutch team PH.

37+ 3pt: In recent years with Four Factors’ data driving the way teams play, 3-point percentages have mattered more and more. It’s not the number of treys knocked down that matter; it’s the percentage that counts. If a team hits 37% or better from behind the arc, it forces defenses to stop them, and it opens up the middle. A 40% 3-point shooter is as effective as a 60% 2-point shooter.

F/C 12+ ppg / 2 F/C 20/12?: This can be an either or thing but if both criteria are met, it strengthens the deal. National championship and Final 4 teams can be perimeter-oriented, but they still need to have at least one inside player that scored 12 or more points per game, or two frontcourt players that combine for 20 points and 12 rebounds per game. The deeper the tournament progresses, the better the team defenses get. Teams that live by the jump shot and have no inside options tend to die by the jump shot before the Final 4. Teams that are dominant in the paint tend to be more consistent.

Criteria C

Team	TS Marg	Dbl Fig#	OReb%	-45% vs. 2pt	FT Rate 37	DFT Rat <31
Abilene Christian	55.2-49.5	3	31.7	45.0	35.0	39.4
Alabama	54.2-48.9	4	31.5	46.4	28.6	31.9
Appalachian St.	52.5-50.9	4	29.9	48.1	34.3	24.3
Arkansas	55.0-50.6	4	31.7	46.9	32.7	29.4
Baylor	59.3-52.1	3	37.5	48.1	27.0	31.6
BYU	58.2-49.7	3	28.7	45.3	27.4	29.5
Clemson	53.4-51.8	1	26.6	47.5	23.6	29.5
Cleveland St.	53.3-53.0	3	30.9	50.8	32.0	37.1
Colgate	59.6-48.4	4	28.1	49.4	31.1	25.1
Colorado	56.3-51.0	3	30.8	46.4	29.9	28.0
Connecticut	52.9-50.4	3	36.6	45.6	29.6	36.9
Creighton	57.0-49.9	5	24.8	46.1	26.9	25.7
Drake	57.3-51.5	4*	31.6	48.2	24.4	28.6
Drexel	57.6-53.0	4	29.4	50.4	28.6	27.2
E. Washington	57.4-50.2	5	23.4	47.2	30.3	27.3
Florida	56.2-51.3	4	30.7	48.4	33.9	34.8
Florida St.	57.5-51.1	3	35.5	44.2	32.7	36.3
Georgetown	53.3-50.7	4	32.4	47.4	30.3	25.9
Georgia Tech	56.6-54.9	4	24.7	50.8	29.0	28.9
Gonzaga	63.3-50.4	4	30.4	46.8	36.6	25.9
Grand Canyon	57.4-47.4	3	32.2	44.1	32.2	28.5
Hartford	53.3-50.0	3	24.8	50.7	28.7	25.0
Houston	55.2-46.7	3	39.6	42.9	29.7	41.6
Illinois	58.3-49.8	3	33.0	45.4	39.2	30.4
Iona	55.1-50.5	3	33.4	45.8	36.1	46.4
Iowa	57.3-50.5	3	30.7	45.8	32.0	22.7
Kansas	53.3-50.0	4	31.3	45.5	30.6	26.4
Liberty	60.9-49.6	2	23.8	46.5	23.7	27.2
Loyola (Chi)	59.8-48.7	1	25.3	44.7	31.4	21.7
LSU	56.4-51.7	4	31.5	51.3	34.0	29.2
Maryland	56.1-51.0	3	20.6	45.8	33.6	25.9
Michigan	58.2-48.4	3	29.4	42.3	29.0	24.5
Michigan St.	51.5-52.0	1	30.4	48.2	31.4	37.1
Missouri	54.3-52.4	3	28.6	48.2	37.5	36.4
Morehead St.	55.1-49.2	3	24.4	47.3	36.0	23.1
Mount St. Mary’s	51.5-49.4	2	31.6	45.6	29.7	24.6
Norfolk St.	53.9-51.4	2	28.9	47.4	38.5	40.7
North Carolina	51.6-51.4	3	41.2	46.8	34.8	27.1
North Texas	57.2-50.3	4	28.3	45.3	27.4	31.4
Ohio St.	57.3-52.4	3	29.1	50.5	35.0	34.0
Ohio U	58.1-54.7	5	28.8	51.2	29.8	30.2
Oklahoma	54.1-51.7	3	27.3	46.3	29.2	22.8
Oklahoma St.	55.5-50.6	2	31.9	46.7	36.3	30.5
Oral Roberts	58.2-52.1	2	23.8	47.2	27.3	32.3
Oregon	56.6-53.6	5	28.3	50.0	26.8	27.1
Oregon St.	53.9-53.8	2	30.1	51.9	34.0	37.7
Purdue	54.5-51.5	2	32.2	49.7	32.2	30.4
Rutgers	52.1-51.3	3	27.4	47.4	27.6	33.2
San Diego St.	56.2-50.2	2	29.0	43.7	34.5	31.9
St. Bonaventure	53.6-48.2	5	33.6	45.1	27.9	28.3
Syracuse	54.5-51.7	3	30.2	49.2	28.3	25.0
Tennessee	54.2-49.9	3	31.4	44.8	35.1	31.2
Texas	55.9-50.4	3	31.3	45.8	34.0	36.7
Texas Southern	52.6-49.5	3	32.7	45.3	38.3	32.9
Texas Tech	53.7-51.3	3	33.6	44.8	39.2	36.5
UCLA	55.2-53.9	5	30.2	49.4	32.6	28.0
UCSB	57.9-50.9	3	29.4	46.0	34.2	27.1
UNCG	50.6-52.0	1	31.9	48.5	21.8	30.6
USC	54.5-48.7	2	35.6	42.2	37.5	24.7
Utah St.	53.3-49.2	3	35.7	42.9	30.1	25.7
VCU	55.0-49.8	2	28.6	45.9	34.0	35.4
Villanova	56.3-54.0	4	28.0	51.0	30.0	25.8
Virginia	58.9-51.1	3	23.1	46.1	22.0	24.5
Virginia Tech	55.3-51.6	2	28.4	47.6	33.2	30.9
West Virginia	53.0-53.0	4	35.5	51.3	28.3	19.8
Wichita St.	51.4-49.0	2	30.6	47.1	36.5	28.4
Winthrop	56.3-51.9	4	35.5	49.2	35.7	33.9
Wisconsin	53.0-51.1	2	23.7	47.1	27.0	28.5

Glossary:

TS Marg.: True shooting % margin. The numbers shown are the offensive TS% followed by the defensive TS%. This is a secondary criterion already factored in the efficiency numbers but can be used to look at when efficiency numbers are close to even. A good margin is 6% or more.

Dbl Fig #: The number of players averaging double figure scoring. If a team has four players that score 10-20 points per game, it is seldom that all four can be shut down in a game. If they have three players, they are still okay. Two or less usually indicates a bit of trouble to get to the Final 4.

-45% vs. 2: This criterion looks for teams that hold opponents under 45% on 2-point shots. While 3-point percentage is a key offensive stat, stopping two-point shots is the defensive key. Most national champions met this criterion, and almost every Final 4 team that did not meet this criterion lost if their opponent did meet it. It is still important in earlier rounds.

FT Rate 37 & DFT Rat <31: Making a lot of free throws is nice and can secure a small lead late in a game. However, there are two much more important foul stats. A team that gets to the foul line a lot prior to the final two minutes of games gets there because they have a superior offense that is hard to defend and thus is fouled more than average. Additionally, more fouls lead to foul trouble and automatic bench time for key players. Likewise, a team with a low defensive FT rate is a sign of a strong team defense. FT Rate 37 means a team with an offensive FT Rate (FTA/FGA) of 37.0 or better, while DFT Rat <31 means a team with a defensive FT rate under 31.0.

There is a caveat here: As the game becomes more and more of a three-point shooting game, fouling drops. That happened this year, as total fouls called has dropped. For this season, look at teams with 33.3% or better FT Rates and 28% or lower defensive FT Rates.

Criteria D

Team	Champions	Coach Exp.	Score Marg	FG% Diff	Win Strk
Abilene Christian	Yes	64	17.1	6.0	8
Alabama	Yes	32	9.8	2.6	10
Appalachian St.	Yes	99	6.4	-0.6	4
Arkansas	No	16	11.7	4.0	9
Baylor	Yes	8	18.0	6.0	18
BYU	No	99	10.2	7.3	5
Clemson	No	16	3.3	0.9	5
Cleveland St.	Yes	99	0.9	2.9	9
Colgate	Yes	64	17.7	9.1	13
Colorado	No	32	9.7	3.5	6
Connecticut	No	32	7.9	2.9	5
Creighton	No	32	8.7	7.0	6
Drake	No	99	12.7	7.2	18
Drexel	Yes	99	4.7	3.6	4
E. Washington	Yes	99	8.6	5.3	9
Florida	No	8	4.2	4.3	4
Florida St.	No	8	8.6	7.6	5
Georgetown	Yes	99	0.7	0.9	4
Georgia Tech	Yes	32	5.5	1.5	8
Gonzaga	Yes	2	23.0	13.2	26
Grand Canyon	Yes	64	14.5	11.5	9
Hartford	Yes	99	2.6	1.6	5
Houston	Yes	8	19.7	7.7	8
Illinois	Yes	32	12.2	8.7	7
Iona	Yes	1	6.3	4.6	6
Iowa	No	32	11.9	5.5	6
Kansas	No	1	7.3	3.4	8
Liberty	Yes	32	15.3	8.2	12
Loyola (Chi)	Yes	4	16.0	9.8	11
LSU	No	16	6.8	4.4	5
Maryland	No	16	3.8	4.7	5
Michigan	Yes	99	10.9	8.9	11
Michigan St.	No	1	-1.6	-0.1	6
Missouri	No	16	1.7	1.8	6
Morehead St.	Yes	99	5.4	5.7	12
Mount St. Mary’s	Yes	99	1.4	2.1	4
Norfolk St.	Yes	99	6.0	3.2	6
North Carolina	No	1	6.3	2.0	3
North Texas	Yes	99	8.6	6.6	4
Ohio St.	No	16	6.3	3.6	7
Ohio U	Yes	99	7.6	4.5	6
Oklahoma	No	4	5.6	2.1	5
Oklahoma St.	No	99	4.2	5.5	6
Oral Roberts	Yes	99	6.0	2.2	4
Oregon	Yes	4	7.0	3.7	8
Oregon St.	Yes	64	2.4	-0.4	3
Purdue	No	8	4.8	3.7	5
Rutgers	No	64	1.8	3.1	6
San Diego St.	Yes	64	13.5	6.8	14
St. Bonaventure	Yes	64	10.1	6.1	7
Syracuse	No	1	5.1	2.6	3
Tennessee	No	4	9.3	4.5	7
Texas	Yes	4	6.4	4.1	6
Texas Southern	Yes	64	5.1	5.2	9
Texas Tech	No	2	9.6	3.3	4
UCLA	No	16	4.3	2.3	7
UCSB	Yes	99	13.7	6.5	13
UNCG	Yes	64	7.2	1.0	7
USC	No	16	9.7	7.3	7
Utah St.	No	64	11.0	5.7	11
VCU	No	64	6.5	4.6	7
Villanova	No	1	8.4	0.4	9
Virginia	Yes	1	8.1	6.4	7
Virginia Tech	No	32	6.6	3.3	4
West Virginia	No	4	5.2	-1.4	4
Wichita St.	Yes	99	5.0	0.5	8
Winthrop	Yes	99	12.7	3.0	16
Wisconsin	No	16	5.3	-0.2	5

Glossary

Champions: This refers to a team that won either their regular season conference championship or their postseason conference tournament. Since 1990, 29 of 30 national champions met this criterion.

Coach Exp.: How far has the head coach advanced in the past? When looking at fairly evenly matched teams, a coach with more Dance experience can be the difference. A first-timer may make that crucial mistake that allows the opponent to have that brief scoring run.

Score Marg.: Something like 95% of all national champions had double digit scoring margins. This goes back to the very beginning of the tournament in the 1930s. 98% had scoring margins in excess of 7.5 points per game. Teams with scoring margins in excess of 15 points that come from a power conference are 100% legit powers, so keep that in mind. Mid-majors with 15+ point scoring margins have to be carefully scrutinized. If their power conference opponent played other mid-majors and did not win by an average as high as the Mid-major in the tournament, that means something.

FG% Diff: In the eight-decade history of the tournament, more Final 4 teams had FG% differences in excess of 7.5% than not and a great number had double-digit margins. If a team shot 48% from the field and gave up 38% from the field and played in a power conference, they are truly tough. A team with a double digit FG% difference that played a tough schedule can overcome a lower than average R+T rating, but usually they will run into a team with a superior R+T rating also with a tough SOS, and that’s the end for the lower R+T team.

Win Strk: Should we expect a team to win six straight tournament games if they did not win six straight regular season games? Most of the past champions actually had 10 or more game winning streaks or multiple streaks of 6 or more. Above, where you see numbers in bold, the teams had a second winning streak of 6 or more games in addition to the number shown.