PiRate Ratings College Basketball — Friday, March 24, 2023

Home	Visitor	Spread
Alabama	San Diego St.	7.6
Houston	Miami (Fla)	7.7
Creighton	Princeton	10.6
Texas	Xavier	3.2

PiRate Ratings College Basketball — Thursday, March 23, 2023

Home	Visitor	Spread
Kansas St.	Michigan St.	0.7
Connecticut	Arkansas	4.3
Tennessee	Florida Atlantic	5.8
UCLA	Gonzaga	1.3

PiRate Ratings Bracketnomics — Sweet 16 Edition

The opening weekend of the NCAA Tournament was not so wonderful for the PiRate Ratings Bracketnomic System, as two of the projected Final Four fell out. Of the 16 teams we projected, 9 are still alive, including Connecticut, who we selected as an alternative pick for the title if you were afraid to go with a Big Ten team.

We didn’t listen to our own advice. The numbers showed Purdue to be the top team according to the Bracketnomics, but we spent multiple paragraphs telling you why Purdue’s style of play, as well as any team out of the past that was coached by a Gene Keady disciple, was not the way to win the NCAA Tournament. We thought it was time for that trend to end, but in the end, Purdue couldn’t handle the pressure defense of #16-seed Fairleigh Dickinson, and the Boilermakers became the second #1 seed to lose to a #16 seed.

There are still multiple teams remaining in the Sweet 16 that we stated had most of the resume of a national champion. Maybe you took our stats and made your own picks, like many have in the past. We know that many of you are better at interpreting this data than we are.

Many bracket pools allow people to redo their brackets each weekend, so here are the sweet 16 matchups with the bracketnomics data. If you don’t know what each item is, refer back to the Bracketnomics Primer of Monday, March, 13.

PiRate Ratings Bracketnomics 2023

Stat	Alabama	S. D. St
O-RTG	18	70
D-RTG	3	5
SOS	61.70	57.60
3-Pt	34.1	34.9
O-Reb	34.0	31.9
2PT%D	40.9	49.4
FTR	36.9	33.4
R+T Rate	5.0	9.5
Old R+T	14.4	14.2
Marg	14.1	8.8
Win Strk	9 & 5	6 & 6
Pre25	YES	YES
Champ	YES	YES
Coach Exp	5:4-4/1S16	3: 0-3
3 Upper	NO	YES
F/C 20-12	YES	NO
DBLFIG	3	1
OReb	34.0	31.9
OStl	8.2	10.3
OTurn	15.9	15.1
DReb	27.7	25.1
DStl	9.7	9.4
DTurn	13.6	17.3
Reb Marg	7.3	4.9
Stl/G	6.1	6.9
D Stl	7.2	6.3
TO Marg	-2.1	1.2

Everything points Alabama’s way in this game, as the Aztecs will have difficulty matching the Tide point-for-point if the first half possessions for both teams tops 35. SDSU’s only chance in this game is to force Alabama into making double digit turnovers in the first 25-28 minutes of the game.

---

Stat	Creighton	Princeton
O-RTG	23	100
D-RTG	13	96
SOS	59.40	49.80
3-Pt	35.8	33.9
O-Reb	25.4	29.6
2PT%D	45.8	47.0
FTR	28.6	30.7
R+T Rate	0.1	6.3
Old R+T	8.2	13.5
Marg	8.2	7.6
Win Strk	8 & 6	8 & 6
Pre25	YES	NO
Champ	No	YES
Coach Exp	10: 1S16	1: 0-1
3 Upper	NO	YES
F/C 20-12	YES	YES
DBLFIG	5	3
OReb	25.4	29.6
OStl	7.4	7.1
OTurn	14.8	15.3
DReb	23.5	22.2
DStl	8.7	9.0
DTurn	12.5	13.4
Reb Marg	3.7	6.6
Stl/G	5.1	4.9
D Stl	6.1	6.3
TO Marg	-1.7	-1.9

Princeton has a small chance to win this game. They can dominate the glass and the inside game. If they can hold Creighton’s 3-point shooting under its normal rate and get 8 or more second chance points, they can make this game close. Creighton has about an 80-85% chance of winning, not a sure thing, but almost.

---

Stat	FAU	Tennessee
O-RTG	29	60
D-RTG	34	1
SOS	50.30	59.40
3-Pt	36.7	33.0
O-Reb	31.2	36.4
2PT%D	44.9	44.8
FTR	28.8	31.0
R+T Rate	9.4	14.9
Old R+T	16.4	19.9
Marg	13.3	13.4
Win Strk	20 & 9	8 & 5
Pre25	NO	YES
Champ	YES	No
Coach Exp	0	26:1FF28
3 Upper	NO	YES
F/C 20-12	NO	NO
DBLFIG	3	3
OReb	31.2	36.4
OStl	9.7	12.5
OTurn	14.4	15.4
DReb	24.6	26.6
DStl	8.1	10.1
DTurn	16.1	19.4
Reb Marg	5.8	6.9
Stl/G	6.7	8.3
D Stl	5.6	6.7
TO Marg	1.0	2.6

This game is all over the map. FAU has the superior offense, but Tennessee has the #1 defense. Tennessee’s schedule is considerably stronger, so the Vols make it through the most important factors as the favorite.

Tennessee is still missing one of their top players in Zakai Zeigler, and the Vols are a hot and cold team. When they are hot, they can beat anybody in the nation, like they did against Alabama. When, they are cold, they lose by double digits to Colorado.

FAU is a consistently good team, but the Owls face an uphill battle in this game. The Vols should advance to the Elite 8.

---

Stat	Kan. St.	Mich. St.
O-RTG	47	37
D-RTG	17	31
SOS	58.30	60.50
3-Pt	33.6	38.7
O-Reb	30.5	27.3
2PT%D	49.2	48.2
FTR	36.6	26.9
R+T Rate	1.5	1.0
Old R+T	6.5	7.8
Marg	6.6	3.2
Win Strk	9 & 6	7
Pre25	NO	NO
Champ	No	No
Coach Exp	0	24: 8 FFNC
3 Upper	YES	YES
F/C 20-12	YES	NO
DBLFIG	3	3
OReb	30.5	27.3
OStl	10.9	7.2
OTurn	17.3	14.4
DReb	29.8	25.2
DStl	10.4	8.4
DTurn	18.1	13.2
Reb Marg	1.6	2.9
Stl/G	7.8	4.8
D Stl	7.4	5.5
TO Marg	0.8	-0.9

This is an interesting match up. Neither team has a definite advantage. In a typical year, Michigan State would have a sizable rebounding advantage, but this year has been quite different. Kansas State has the inside advantage in this one.

Michigan State won’t force turnovers on the Wildcats, and when KSU has lost this year, the other team usually forces more turnovers on the Wildcats than they normally commit. We’re going with Kansas State in a close one.

---

Stat	Houston	Miami
O-RTG	9	11
D-RTG	4	108
SOS	56.40	55.90
3-Pt	34.2	36.8
O-Reb	37.4	32.3
2PT%D	42.9	51.6
FTR	28.8	30.2
R+T Rate	16.4	6.5
Old R+T	23.5	11.1
Marg	18.3	7.5
Win Strk	13 & 9	9 & 7
Pre25	YES	NO
Champ	YES	Co
Coach Exp	18 & 2FF	10 & 1FF
3 Upper	YES	NO
F/C 20-12	YES	NO
DBLFIG	4	4
OReb	37.4	32.3
OStl	12.5	10.6
OTurn	13.0	14.2
DReb	27.9	28.4
DStl	8.4	8.7
DTurn	18.6	15.8
Reb Marg	7.5	3.1
Stl/G	8.1	7.3
D Stl	5.4	6.0
TO Marg	3.8	1.2

IF? If Marcus Sasser is healthy enough to play near 100% effectively for 32 minutes, Houston is the clear choice to make it to the Elite 8. A groin injury is a tricky thing, because one wrong move can put the injured player out of commission for a long time. A healthy Sasser makes this game a double-digit win possibility for the Cougars, who would then be one win away from getting a chance to play in the Final Four at home.

If Sasser is unable to play, Miami has the advantage. If Sasser plays at less than full strength, then this game becomes a tossup.

---

Stat	Xavier	Texas
O-RTG	7	15
D-RTG	64	10
SOS	59.00	60.00
3-Pt	38.9	34.1
O-Reb	30.8	28.5
2PT%D	48.5	47.4
FTR	31.8	30.7
R+T Rate	5.7	3.9
Old R+T	12.8	7.9
Marg	7.4	10.6
Win Strk	11 & 5	6 & 6
Pre25	NO	YES
Champ	No	YES
Coach Exp	11:48|416	1: 0-1
3 Upper	YES	YES
F/C 20-12	YES	NO
DBLFIG	4	4
OReb	30.8	28.5
OStl	9.0	11.2
OTurn	15.1	14.3
DReb	25.2	29.2
DStl	9.6	8.2
DTurn	14.5	19.6
Reb Marg	5.5	-0.3
Stl/G	6.5	7.9
D Stl	6.9	5.8
TO Marg	-0.6	4.3

This is another interesting game. Xavier’s offense is national title-worthy, while their defense is right on the edge of eliminating them. Texas’s offense is just barely outside what most national champions have been rated on the attack side, but their defense is good enough.

The most glaring remaining stat is in coaching experience. Sean Miller has taken 11 past teams to the NCAA Tournament with 4 Elite 8’s and 4 (now 5) Sweet 16’s. Rodney Terry took Fresno St. to one NCAA Tournament and lost in the first game.

We’ve changed our opinion on this game twice. At the time of this writing, we’re going with Texas, but only because Xavier cannot exploit the Longhorns’ liability of handling the ball.

---

Stat	Arkansas	UConn
O-RTG	51	3
D-RTG	15	14
SOS	59.20	58.30
3-Pt	31.3	36.4
O-Reb	30.6	39.0
2PT%D	47.0	45.4
FTR	39.2	30.9
R+T Rate	5.9	15.6
Old R+T	10.6	21.3
Marg	6.9	13.8
Win Strk	7	14 & 6
Pre25	YES	NO
Champ	NO	No
Coach Exp	5:2E8|1S16	4: 0-4
3 Upper	YES	NO
F/C 20-12	NO	YES
DBLFIG	4	3
OReb	30.6	39.0
OStl	11.9	9.2
OTurn	15.9	15.8
DReb	27.6	25.6
DStl	9.5	9.7
DTurn	17.9	16.8
Reb Marg	2.8	9.3
Stl/G	8.4	6.3
D Stl	6.7	6.6
TO Marg	1.5	0.1

UConn still has the best resume for a potential national champion, but we’re leery of this game. Throwing out all the criteria you see above, there is one big obvious criterion that cannot be overlooked, even if it isn’t part of this system.

Arkansas Coach Eric Musselman is the best college basketball coach in Division I and second best overall in college (Ben McCollum at Northwest Missouri State is the John Wooden of the 21st Century). Muss has taken two consecutive Razorback teams to the Elite 8, even though neither team had Elite 8 talent. This team is missing a key player and played for much of the season missing two key players. But, the more important piece, Nick Smith, is back.

The criteria favors Connecticut by a sizable margin, but give Arkansas a little bonus for Muss on the bench. It means UConn is favored by a little rather than a lot.

---

Stat	Gonzaga	UCLA
O-RTG	1	21
D-RTG	75	2
SOS	57.20	58.80
3-Pt	38.7	34.3
O-Reb	31.4	33.6
2PT%D	50.6	46.6
FTR	33.8	27.5
R+T Rate	11.0	14.3
Old R+T	18.4	17.5
Marg	14.2	13.9
Win Strk	11 & 11	14 & 12
Pre25	YES	YES
Champ	YES	YES
Coach Exp	22 & 2FF	13: 1FF
3 Upper	YES	YES
F/C 20-12	YES	NO
DBLFIG	4	3
OReb	31.4	33.6
OStl	10.5	12.5
OTurn	12.9	12.9
DReb	25.3	27.7
DStl	7.2	7.0
DTurn	16.7	20.6
Reb Marg	5.4	3.7
Stl/G	7.5	8.4
D Stl	5.2	4.7
TO Marg	3.0	4.6

This is the best of the Sweet 16 games. You have the top offense in the nation going against the #2 defense in the nation. The schedule strengths are close to even, not really enough to tip the scale much.

Gonzaga has the edge in outside shooting, but UCLA has an equal edge on the inside, but not by dominating with a post player, but by having tall guards like Jaime Jacquez and Amari Bailey. Of note, UCLA is quite banged up coming into this game. In addition to not having the services of star swing man Jaylen Clark, big man Adem Bona and sharpshooting guard David Singleton are nursing injuries. A team like UCLA can beat Northwestern with a depleted roster, but asking it to beat Gonzaga is too much. We believe that Bona and Singleton will play and not be 100% effective. All it takes is for Drew Timme to have his typical output, and Gonzaga is in the Elite 8.

PiRate Ratings College Basketball–Friday, March 25, 2022

Friday, March 25, 2022
Team	Team	Spread
Purdue	Saint Peter’s	13.1
Kansas	Providence	7.9
UCLA	North Carolina	4.1
Miami (Fla.)	Iowa St.	0.2

PiRate Ratings College Basketball–Thursday, March 24, 2022

Thursday, March 24, 2022
Team	Team	Spread
Gonzaga	Arkansas	10.2
Villanova	Michigan	4.0
Duke	Texas Tech	-0.2
Arizona	Houston	1.3

PiRate Ratings Bracketnomics For Sweet 16

The 2022 edition of the PiRate Bracketnomics fared rather well compared to a large number of other options when looking for bracket-filling strategies. Obviously, neither our system nor any others pick perfect brackets or even ones where we pick 15 of the 16 teams in the Sweet 16.

We still have three of our Final Four and five of our Elite 8 still alive, as well as our picks for the National Championship Game.

We did not pick Saint Peter’s to be the real shocker, so our system missed that one entirely this year. Kentucky’s numbers were just incredibly better than the Peacocks, but the Wildcats looked like deer in the headlights all night in that game. St. Peter’s looked like a clearly superior team when they dismissed Murray State two days later.

Miami of Florida and Iowa State were somewhat of a surprise to us as well, but the Hurricanes’ ball-hawking defense countered being outrebounded by 10 and nine in their two wins. Iowa State relied on excellent half-court defense to get to this round.

The Sweet 16 is like the advances round of TV game shows. You know the type. In the first round, the questions are a little easier, but after the commercial break, the next round brings more difficult questions, and the strong separate themselves from the weak. In the Sweet 16, usually seven of the eight winners will be clearly superior to their victims, while there will be one new surprise making the Elite 8. We previously pointed out that one team that does not have our acceptable national championship resume will sneak into the Final Four. It doesn’t always happen, but like UCLA last year, usually one team will win games three and four in their tournament to make it to the third weekend in the big dome stadium.

Let’s take a look at the most important Bracketnomics numbers for each of the 16 teams.

Team	O-Eff	D-Eff	SOS	37+ 3pt	OReb%	-45% vs. 2pt	FT Rate 37	R + T New Rate	Old R+T
Arizona	7	19	58.1	35.3	34.5	41.7	0.35	6.6	17.6
Arkansas	54	14	58.2	30.5	29.9	46.5	0.38	6.9	12.7
Duke	4	43	58.2	37.0	31.9	46.4	0.29	3.9	12.3
Gonzaga	1	9	57.2	37.4	29.2	41.6	0.31	7.0	21.2
Houston	10	10	56.5	34.2	37.7	44.0	0.29	14.1	22.0
Iowa St.	160	5	60.3	31.9	28.1	50.6	0.28	1.3	3.9
Kansas	6	26	61.8	36.0	33.5	47.1	0.32	6.2	13.3
Miami (Fla.)	18	121	57.9	34.4	22.7	53.2	0.29	-5.4	-3.0
Michigan	19	77	61.8	33.9	30.9	50.5	0.30	7.1	12.3
North Carolina	20	42	59.0	36.4	30.7	48.0	0.30	9.6	16.0
Providence	32	58	57.6	35.0	30.4	47.0	0.38	2.7	8.4
Purdue	2	89	60.1	38.8	35.1	48.7	0.39	11.8	19.3
Saint Peter’s	225	28	49.5	35.5	32.1	43.5	0.38	4.6	8.9
Texas Tech	46	1	61.0	32.2	33.2	44.0	0.36	6.3	18.1
UCLA	12	13	59.4	35.3	31.7	47.3	0.30	10.5	16.9
Villanova	8	30	60.8	36.2	31.2	48.6	0.30	6.5	11.6

To briefly summarize what this data above means: O-Eff and D-Eff are the schedule strength-adjusted offensive and defensive efficiency ratings. The fat numbers are to have an O-Eff in the top 10 and a D-Eff in the top 20.

SOS is our own PiRate Ratings strength of schedule. A SOS of 55.0 is the minimum number to be considered a real national title contender. Going back to the beginning of the then 64-team tournament format, no team with an SOS below 55.0 has won the title.

37+3pt is the threshold for three-point shooting percentage. If it is north of 37%, the team with this big number will force defenses to spread out and open up the middle for easy two-point shots. Overall 3-point percentages have dropped a little in the last few years since the stripe was moved back a few inches.

OReb% is the percentage of missed shots rebounded by the offense. 37% is also the beginning point of excellence. If a team rebounds three out of every eight shots they miss, they can shoot 40% from the field and still win. If this same team shoots 45%, they can cut down the nets after the final game.

-45% vs.2pt is the defensive field goal percentage inside the 3-point line. If a defense allows less than 45% of the 2-point shots to be made, they have a championship-level defense.

FT Rate37 is the free throw ratio. If a team takes 3 foul shot attempts for every 8 field goal attempts, this team has an offense that forces defenses to grab because the offense is too potent.

The last two columns are our own unique R+T ratings. The new one is rate based on Four Factors data, while the old one is a counting stat. We don’t yet have a threshold for the new R+T, but the old R+T has been helping us pick winners in the Big Dance for two decades. If the R+T is 15 or better, this is a team that consistently goes on big scoring spurts, the type that frequently puts games away. 12.5 to 15 is really good. 8 to 12.5 is fairly good. 5-8 is so-so. Under 5 is not good, and below 0 is a 100% no go for the Final Four.

Let’s take a look at the eight Sweet 16 games

Gonzaga vs. Arkansas: Gonzaga has the best overall Bracketnomics resume, as they did last year. Their schedule strength is a mild issue but well within the bounds of a potential national champion. Yet, the Bulldogs have not looked their best in either NCAA Tournament win. Arkansas coach Eric Musselman is worth about 7-10 more points for his team than Penny Hardaway is for Memphis, and if that’s the case, The Razorbacks are good enough to pull off the big upset–if Gonzaga continues to play at a subpar level. There’s the rub. I don’t see Gonzaga coming out flat in this game. Their narrow escape in the Round of 32 should wake the Bulldogs up. Gonzaga’s numbers are clearly superior to Arkansas. Go with the Zags in a potential double digit win.

Villanova vs. Michigan: There is an interesting set of data for this game, where both teams have advantages and disadvantages. Michigan has a better inside presence, and the Wolverines figure to capitalize inside with a few extra baskets in their offensive halfcourt. Villanova’s overall offense is a bit too strong for Michigan’s defense, so the Wildcats’ perimeter is going to penetrate Michigan’s defense for easier shots than Michigan figures to take. Overall, Villanova has a slight advantage in the Bracketnomics data, but the advantage is slim. Let’s go with the Wildcats in a close one.

Duke vs. Texas Tech: Duke’s excellent offense faces Texas Tech’s number one defense–this should make for an exciting game. Usually, when a superior offense plays a superior defense, if all else is equal the superior offense wins more often than not. All else is not equal. If not for this being Coach K’s final year, and it looks like Duke has been benefiting from more than 50% of the 50-50 calls, this would be an easy selection, as the Red Raiders have a better overall team. On a Sweet 16 stage, maybe the referees will be more likely to get calls made correctly with hopes of being chosen for the Final Four, so Duke won’t get that benefit. If so, this might be the finale for Coach K. Texas Tech is just a bit better.

Arizona vs. Houston: What we have here is a failure to see a decisive favorite. Both teams have Final Four resumes and are clearly better than most of the other teams left in the Big Dance. The only issue in this game is the fact that a portion of Houston’s great numbers came with the addition of two former key starters that were lost to season-ending injuries earlier in the season. With their roster intact, this might have been the Houston team to do what Elvin Hayes and Don Chaney couldn’t do in the late 1960’s or what Phi Slama Jama couldn’t do in the mid 1980’s. Arizona doesn’t have the same amount of tournament experience that Houston has, as the Cougars made the Final Four last year. That’s the one thing that concerns us. Kelvin Sampson knows how to prepare a team to pay on the big stage. Arizona is the better team, but Sampson is worth a few extra points–just enough to have a 50-50 shot at the mild upset. I have to pick somebody here, but honestly, it can only be a hunch, as the Bracketnomics show this game as dead even. I’ll go with Sampson to defeat the Pac-12 Goliath by one or two points or in overtime.

Purdue vs. Saint Peter’s: Saint Peter’s has played incredible defense in their two wins, and if they could stop Oscar Tshiebwe and company, they have a chance to limit Zach Edey and Trevion Williams. But, doing so might allow Jaden Ivey to showcase his exceptional talents on the big stage. Purdue has not made the Final Four during the Gene Keady-Matt Painter era. The Boilermakers in the past had issues with R+T Ratings. This Purdue team does not have that issue, and they might run over the Peacocks like a runaway train. I think Cinderella experiences Midnight in this round, and Purdue wins by double digits.

Kansas vs. Providence: Ed Cooley has done an incredible job at Providence, but he is facing a team coming to its peak in efficiency, and Kansas is clearly the superior team across the board. With Remy Martin at full strength, the Jayhawks are better than their Bracketnomics Data indicates. Martin makes KU the best team in the Dance, and I expect Rock Chalk Jayhawk to keep advancing.

UCLA vs. North Carolina: College basketball royalty clashes in this one, and I don’t see this game being a mismatch like the 1968 National Championship Game. Looking at the Bracketnomics data, the two teams are evenly matched. There are secondary and tertiary data in this science, including tournament experience by players and coach. In all but one respect, the Bruins have the advantage in these extras.

Carolina’s one advantage is having an inside force that can dominate in the paint. Mick Cronin is coaching in his 13th NCAA Tournament and coming off a Final Four appearance with most of his key contributors returning. Hubert Davis is coaching in his first NCAA Tournament. That’s enough to pick UCLA to return to the Elite 8.

Miami (Fla.) vs. Iowa St.: This is the unique game in this round, as neither team has an acceptable Final Four Bracketnomics Resume. As previously mentioned, usually one of the four teams in the Final Four does not have the blueprint we use to pick our brackets. At least one team will make the Elite 8.

Iowa State has struggled to generate offense for long stretches of games, and they have had to rely on their defense to keep games close until the offense got on track. Miami’s small but very quick roster might be able to force the Cyclones into playing a style of ball they are not equipped to play. Let’s go with the U to become Elite. Jim Larranaga took George Mason to a Final Four.

PiRate Ratings Bracketnomics Analysis 2022

Analytics Based Bracket Picking Method–Updated for 2022

Welcome to the PiRate Ratings Bracket Picking Analysis for the 2022 NCAA Tournament. If you read yesterday’s tutorial post and earned your PhD in Bracketnomics, then you are ready to see all the numbers and pick the brackets in your own way. We will show you our picks as well, but you might do better using our data than we do.

Let’s get right to it with the table of all the numbers. We have divided the numbers into the most important, the moderately important, the the extras used to find the winner in very close matchups.

Team–Most Important	O-Eff	D-Eff	SOS	37+ 3pt	OReb%	-45% vs. 2pt	FT Rate 37
Akron	113	166	46.8	35.7	30.7	46.9	39.7
Alabama	14	94	61.9	30.8	35.6	49.2	33.6
Arizona	5	20	58.2	35.4	34.5	41.9	35.1
Arkansas	40	16	58.4	30.7	30.8	46.4	37.9
Auburn	24	8	59.2	32.0	33.1	42.6	31.6
Baylor	9	14	61.1	34.6	36.3	49.5	28.5
Boise St.	76	17	55.8	34.8	30.6	47.6	35.0
Bryant	154	218	43.7	30.8	33.3	46.2	32.2
Cal St. Fullerton	144	164	47.5	33.0	30.5	47.5	36.0
Chattanooga	58	95	50.5	34.6	32.7	50.7	26.7
Colgate	79	203	45.1	40.3	26.4	47.5	26.6
Colorado St.	20	83	55.5	35.8	22.0	50.4	30.4
Connecticut	21	35	58.5	35.3	37.9	42.8	30.6
Creighton	124	18	58.6	30.7	28.6	43.5	26.0
Davidson	11	152	52.5	38.6	23.8	48.0	32.0
Delaware	100	212	48.3	35.2	27.0	47.0	33.9
Duke	7	44	57.6	36.8	31.8	46.9	28.6
Georgia St.	201	114	48.9	32.9	34.3	43.8	29.3
Gonzaga	1	7	56.9	37.9	29.0	41.6	29.8
Houston	10	11	56.0	34.1	37.8	43.5	28.7
Illinois	23	30	60.7	36.7	33.4	45.4	31.7
Indiana	91	21	59.0	33.9	26.9	43.4	33.5
Iowa	2	77	59.0	32.1	32.1	50.0	30.4
Iowa St	151	10	59.7	36.8	28.2	50.7	28.1
Jacksonville St.	132	178	46.3	38.8	30.0	47.1	30.9
Kansas	6	29	61.8	35.5	33.4	47.9	32.8
Kentucky	4	27	60.2	34.9	37.9	47.1	27.2
Longwood	115	191	43.3	38.0	34.6	51.8	34.9
Loyola (Chi.)	42	22	54.2	38.3	25.1	46.9	31.7
LSU	89	5	59.5	31.9	33.8	47.7	33.0
Marquette	62	46	59.3	34.7	22.4	46.2	26.8
Memphis	50	31	57.3	35.9	37.5	45.3	38.4
Miami (Fla.)	17	157	57.0	35.3	23.4	53.9	28.8
Michigan	19	91	61.6	34.0	31.2	50.8	28.9
Michigan St.	38	53	60.8	37.8	30.7	47.9	30.4
Montana St.	147	129	45.6	36.9	27.3	47.6	38.7
Murray St.	35	40	48.4	35.3	36.0	48.3	31.3
New Mexico St.	87	73	50.7	32.6	33.7	45.6	34.8
Norfolk St.	190	160	41.3	34.8	30.5	44.5	37.7
North Carolina	27	64	58.0	36.2	30.4	48.3	29.6
Notre Dame	29	84	56.8	38.0	22.5	49.3	27.0
Ohio St.	13	131	60.0	37.3	28.8	46.2	33.5
Providence	31	79	57.5	34.3	30.5	46.6	38.5
Purdue	3	100	60.0	39.1	35.2	49.2	36.3
Richmond	68	104	54.8	33.7	22.4	50.0	30.9
Rutgers	107	43	58.5	33.6	29.3	46.5	26.9
Saint Mary’s	63	9	57.3	35.0	27.8	46.0	23.9
Saint Peter’s	259	34	48.3	35.3	32.0	43.5	37.1
San Diego St.	157	2	56.5	35.8	29.6	43.1	31.3
San Francisco	45	19	56.2	35.4	30.4	48.1	28.9
Seton Hall	75	26	59.0	34.0	33.0	44.7	31.4
South Dakota St.	12	220	48.1	44.9	24.4	49.8	33.8
TCU	80	24	60.3	30.4	37.8	47.9	31.2
Tennessee	36	3	61.8	35.9	32.8	45.8	29.6
Texas	32	13	60.2	32.3	31.8	46.1	32.3
Texas A&M-CC	287	181	40.2	33.5	35.3	49.9	36.7
Texas Southern	270	107	44.5	31.7	33.8	45.2	32.7
Texas Tech	65	1	60.8	31.4	33.3	44.3	36.1
UAB	28	89	50.6	37.9	33.9	46.8	28.5
UCLA	15	12	59.4	35.1	29.8	47.3	36.8
USC	47	49	56.3	35.4	33.8	41.7	30.9
Vermont	44	74	45.9	36.4	24.6	44.9	26.4
Villanova	8	28	61.0	35.9	30.9	48.2	30.5
Virginia Tech	18	55	57.5	39.3	28.1	49.4	23.7
Wisconsin	49	38	60.1	31.2	25.9	49.9	32.3
Wright St.	108	262	44.8	32.9	31.2	51.3	31.3
Wyoming	54	66	54.5	34.3	25.5	48.3	35.8
Yale	203	103	49.0	33.0	25.7	50.6	32.6

O-Eff = Offensive efficiency & D-Eff = Defensive efficiency

SOS= PiRate Ratings Strength of Schedule

37+ 3pt = The 3-point shooting percentage where 37% or above is the key number

OReb% = Offensive rebounding rate where 37% or above it also the key number

-45% vs. 2pt = Defensive 2-point field goal percentage where less than 45% is the key number FT Rate = the percentage of free throw attempts per field goal attempts, where again, above 37% is the key number

Team Moderately Important	R + T New Rate	Old R+T	Score Marg	FG% Diff	Win Strk	Pre25	Champions
Akron	6.4	12.1	8.4	3.8	8		T
Alabama	4.9	7.5	3.6	0.6	4	Yes	x
Arizona	7.0	17.9	17.1	10.9	11 & 9		R T
Arkansas	7.1	12.8	8.4	2.9	9 & 9	Yes	x
Auburn	5.9	12.5	11.7	5.5	19	Yes	R
Baylor	11.4	17.4	12.9	3.9	15	Yes	R
Boise St.	11.2	15.0	7.9	2.2	14		R T
Bryant	1.7	6.4	5.2	2.4	9 & 7		T
Cal St. Fullerton	4.3	8.5	4.1	0.9	8		T
Chattanooga	8.7	15.2	10.1	4.6	5 & 5		R T
Colgate	1.7	8.5	9	5.1	15		R T
Colorado St.	-2.1	6.1	8	5.8	11		x
Connecticut	12.1	19.6	10	3.5	5 & 5	Yes	x
Creighton	-1.8	4.0	3.1	5.5	6		x
Davidson	2.7	12.1	6.8	6.4	15		R
Delaware	-3.6	1.3	3.9	4.1	5		T
Duke	4.1	12.7	13.1	7.2	7 & 7	Yes	R
Georgia St.	7.8	11.9	5.8	-1	10		T
Gonzaga	7.2	21.8	22.5	14.8	17 & 6	Yes	R T
Houston	14.3	22.2	16.9	9.6	12 & 6	Yes	R T
Illinois	7.7	12.8	8.2	3.7	6	Yes	R
Indiana	1.8	7.8	5.6	6.8	6		x
Iowa	4.8	11.7	12.5	2.6	7 & 5		T
Iowa St	1.2	3.8	3.5	1.1	12		x
Jacksonville St.	3.4	10.6	7.1	6.4	10		R
Kansas	5.2	12.1	10.5	6.3	8 & 5	Yes	R T
Kentucky	15.7	24.1	13.5	7.4	7 & 6	Yes	x
Longwood	14.9	20.3	11.2	2.6	11 & 8		T
Loyola (Chi.)	3.1	11.2	12.1	7.4	10		T
LSU	5.9	12.2	9.6	5.3	12		x
Marquette	-9.8	-4.5	3.5	4.3	7		x
Memphis	6.7	11.7	7	7.5	6 & 6	Yes	x
Miami (Fla.)	-5.0	1.3	3.8	1.2	9		x
Michigan	7.8	12.5	4.9	2.1	3	Yes	x
Michigan St.	3.0	8.5	3.7	4.1	9		x
Montana St.	4.9	11.4	8.5	5.4	11 & 6		R T
Murray St.	15.2	24.0	17	6.9	20 & 7		R T
New Mexico St.	8.1	14.5	8.3	6.6	10 & 5		R T
Norfolk St.	4.9	14.2	11.4	9.2	6 & 6		R T
North Carolina	10.0	15.7	5.8	1.9	6 & 5	Yes	x
Notre Dame	-2.5	3.8	5.7	3.1	6 & 5		x
Ohio St.	-1.0	6.0	8.3	5.5	5	Yes	x
Providence	2.1	7.4	4.8	2.6	8 & 8		R
Purdue	12.1	19.2	11	6.6	8 & 6	Yes	x
Richmond	-3.4	1.5	3.4	0	6		T
Rutgers	3.4	7.6	2.1	2.9	4		x
Saint Mary’s	7.3	13.2	9.3	3.7	7 & 6		x
Saint Peter’s	5.0	9.0	5.1	4.8	7		T
San Diego St.	4.4	10.5	7.6	5.1	6 & 5		x
San Francisco	8.7	14.2	10.1	3.3	10		x
Seton Hall	5.2	10.1	6.6	2.4	6 & 6		x
South Dakota St.	2.3	13.2	13.3	8.7	21		R T
TCU	12.5	16.9	3.1	1.8	7		x
Tennessee	8.5	13.9	10.4	3	7 & 5	Yes	T
Texas	7.2	10.1	8.7	2.9	6 & 5	Yes	x
Texas A&M-CC	10.2	15.8	7	2.8	8		T
Texas Southern	4.7	8.4	3.7	4.1	6		T
Texas Tech	9.6	17.5	11.4	9.4	6		x
UAB	10.7	19.2	14.4	5.5	7		T
UCLA	5.7	17.3	11.6	3.4	6 & 5	Yes	x
USC	6.3	12.8	6.7	6.5	13 & 6		x
Vermont	7.8	17.9	14.6	8.3	14 & 8		R T
Villanova	4.8	11.5	9.5	2.9	6 & 5	Yes	T
Virginia Tech	2.4	7.4	8.4	4.2	6 & 5		T
Wisconsin	3.4	7.3	4.2	-1.4	7 & 6		R
Wright St.	1.8	5.3	4.4	1.5	7 & 5		T
Wyoming	1.4	8.7	7.5	4.4	8 & 6		x
Yale	-0.7	3.6	3.5	2.1	7		T

R+T New Rate =The new R+T rating using rate stats over counting stats (still experimental)

Old R+T = The original R+T Rating where anything over 17.5 is exceptional, 15 to 17.5 is quite good, 12.5 to 15 is good, 8-12.5 is okay, 5-8 is fair, under 5 is poor, and negative is a loser

Score Marg = Scoring margin where over 8 is very good and over 10 is great

FG% Diff = Field Goal Percentage difference (Offense FG% – Defense FG%) where over 7 is very good and over 10 is exceptional

Win Strk = Best winning streak or streaks during the season (if a team didn’t win 6 in a row in the regular season, how will they do it against the best teams?)

Pre25 = Preseason Top 25 pick (almost every past national champion was in the preseason top 25)

Champions (R = regular season conference champion/co-champion & T = Conference Tournament Champion)

Team–Extras	Coach Exp.	Seniors 8	Juniors 8	1/3 Clutch?	F/C 12/7?	2 F/C 20/12?	Dbl Fig#
Akron	3	0	2	3	Y	Y	3
Alabama	4	2	2	1	N	N	3
Arizona	0	1	1	1	Y	Y	4
Arkansas	4 E8	5	1	1	N	N	4
Auburn	10 F4	1	3	1	Y	Y	4
Baylor	9 CH	2	3	x	N	N	3
Boise St.	2	5	1	1	N	Y	3
Bryant	0	5	1	1	N	N	3
Cal St. Fullerton	1	4	2	1	N	Y	2
Chattanooga	0	5	1	1	N	N	3
Colgate	2	4	2	3	N	N	5
Colorado St.	0	2	4	1	N	N	2
Connecticut	3	4	1	3	Y	N	3
Creighton	9 E8	3	1	x	Y	Y	3
Davidson	9 E8	3	2	3	Y	Y	4
Delaware	0	3	2	x	N	N	4
Duke	35 CH	2	1	1	Y	Y	5
Georgia St.	1	4	1	1	N	N	3
Gonzaga	21 2R	2	2	1	Y	Y	5
Houston	17 F4	5	3	N	N	Y	5
Illinois	5	4	1	1	Y	Y	4
Indiana	0	4	2	1	Y	Y	3
Iowa	10	2	1	1	Y	Y	3
Iowa St	3	4	3	1	N	N	2
Jacksonville St.	3	4	3	1	N	N	3
Kansas	22 CH	5	2	1	N	Y	4
Kentucky	20 CH	2	4	1	Y	Y	5
Longwood	0	3	2	1	N	N	3
Loyola (Chi.)	0	5	2	1	N	N	2
LSU	0	2	0	1	Y	Y	4
Marquette	8 F4	2	1	1	Y	N	2
Memphis	0	3	2	x	Y	Y	3
Miami (Fla.)	9 F4	3	1	1	N	N	4
Michigan	1 E8	3	0	1	Y	Y	4
Michigan St.	23 CH	3	3	x	N	N	1
Montana St.	0	4	2	x	N	N	3
Murray St.	2	1	2	1	Y	Y	3
New Mexico St.	2	3	2	1	N	Y	2
Norfolk St.	1	3	4	1	N	N	3
North Carolina	0	2	1	3	Y	Y	4
Notre Dame	14 E8	6	0	1	Y	Y	3
Ohio St.	6 E8	4	1	1	Y	Y	2
Providence	5	6	1	3	N	Y	4
Purdue	13 E8	3	1	1	Y	Y	4
Richmond	2 S16	6	1	1	Y	Y	3
Rutgers	2	4	1	1	N	N	3
Saint Mary’s	7 S16	4	2	x	N	N	4
Saint Peter’s	1	2	5	x	N	N	2
San Diego St.	2	5	1	1	N	N	1
San Francisco	0	4	1	3	Y	N	3
Seton Hall	4	4	3	1	N	N	1
South Dakota St.	1	1	3	1	N	N	2
TCU	12 E8	1	3	1	N	N	3
Tennessee	25 F4	1	3	1	N	N	2
Texas	4 2R	6	2	x	N	N	3
Texas A&M-CC	0	4	4	x	Y	Y	2
Texas Southern	4	7	1	x	N	N	0
Texas Tech	0	5	3	x	N	N	1
UAB	2	3	4	1	N	N	4
UCLA	12 F4	4	3	1	N	N	4
USC	4 E8	2	4	1	Y	Y	4
Vermont	3	6	2	1	N	Y	2
Villanova	17 CH	4	3	1	N	N	4
Virginia Tech	6	3	2	1	N	Y	3
Wisconsin	3 S16	2	2	1	N	N	3
Wright St.	4	0	5	3	Y	N	3
Wyoming	0	3	0	1	Y	Y	3
Yale	2	2	4	1	N	N	2

Coach Exp = The number of past NCAA Tournament appearances for the head coach and if he got to the Sweet 6, Elite 8, Final 4, CHampionship or Runnerup

Seniors8/Juniors8 = The number of seniors or juniors among the current top 8 players (not as important with the extra Covid year)

1/3Clutch? = Does the team have 1 go to guy or 3 co-go to guys that can hit the crucial basket to win?

F/C 12/7 or 2F/C 20/12 = Does the team have an inside player that averages 12 points and 7 rebounds per game or two that combine for 20 points and 12 rebounds per game?

DblFig# = The number of double figure scorers

Here is the PiRate Ratings Bracket

The event you’ve all been waiting for: I wish I could say it’s this feature, but your madness is directed at the actual games in March (and April).  Hopefully, this guide will guide you in filling out your brackets as we show you our analysis of the pertinent data.  Some of you will take our information and perform better with it making your own analysis.  Feel free to do so; we sometimes cannot see the forest for the trees.

Using our system laid out in Monday’s tutorial, we isolated on seven teams with National Championship Resumes in the 2022 NCAA Tournament plus one more team on the cusp.

Arizona

Baylor

Gonzaga

Houston

Kansas

Kentucky

UCLA

Almost National Championship Resume (1)

Auburn

It has been 31 tournaments since a team from outside the power conferences has won the national championship.  The Power Conference teams with the best resumes are:

Arizona

Baylor

Kansas

Kentucky

UCLA

Houston is a borderline power conference representative, but the American Athletic Conference is not what it once was.  With Marcus Sasser and Tramon Mark, the Cougars would be close to Gonzaga in overall power, but they have not been the same since their season-ending injuries.

Here is our take on the first round of the Tournament.  It is how we will fill out our bracket.  Every year, we receive a comment from somebody telling us how they used our data to outperform our bracket.

First Round NCAA Tournament Matchups

West Region

Gonzaga vs. Georgia St.: Not much to discuss here.  This should be a major blowout win for Gonzaga.  Georgia State will struggle to score points until the Bulldog reserves get mop-up duty, while the Zags could score close to 1.5 points per possession before the starters come out.

Boise St. vs. Memphis: As most 8/9 games should be, this is an interesting game where the two teams are evenly matched.  Memphis has oh so better key stats, and in close games, if the predicted weaker team has a considerably superior R+T rating, we will go with the underdog.  Boise State’s R+T is better but not by much.  We’ll go with Memphis is a close one.

Connecticut vs. New Mexico St.: New Mexico State  coach Chris Jans is our current number one mid-major head coach ready to be offered a big time job.  He has twice taken the Aggies to near major upsets in the opening round.  The last time NMSU was in this situation, they came within a blown referee’s call of upsetting Auburn.  The Tigers went to the Final Four that year.

However, this matchup with Connecticut is not favorable.  We are always leery of the Huskies.  They are the one school that has won the National Championship without having the proper analytical resume, and they have done it twice!  Their resume this year is very similar to the two times they won the title.  They are superior in all respects to the Aggies and should win by double digits.

Arkansas vs. Vermont: This game could be a lot closer than expected.  Vermont’s offense is just as efficient as Arkansas’s, and the Catamounts have a considerably better R+T rating.  A 12.5 points per game tougher schedule favors Arkansas by enough juice to emerge victorious, but it may be by single digits.

Alabama vs. Rutgers/Notre Dame: You get to wait until Thursday morning to submit your brackets, so you will know the winner of all the First Four games.  We can only predict it today.  We think Rutgers has a slight edge in the game in Dayton, because Notre Dame’s R+T rating is too low.  In early games, it doesn’t matter as much if the opponent’s R+T isn’t a good one, and Rutgers’ R+T is okay but not great.

When it comes to playing Alabama Friday, this may be one of the hardest games to figure.  Alabama plays like Tarzan one game and like Jane the next.  The Tide can score points when they are clicking, but they fail to click one game out of three.  Their R+T Rating is mediocre, and they don’t defend well in the paint.  The one superior factor in favor of the Tide is the nation’s strongest schedule.  Whichever team Bama plays in this game, they will have faced a stronger team in at least a dozen prior games.  We don’t expect Alabama to advance far in this tournament, but they should get out of this round with a win.

Texas Tech vs. Montana St.: They key to winning college basketball at the highest level is to have a superior offense and very good defense.  Texas Tech has the best defense in the nation with an average offense.  We don’t expect the Red Raiders to contend for the Final Four, but in early rounds, their resume is scary against teams not in power conferences.  

Montana State may stay in this game a little longer than expected, as Tech might struggle offensively at the start of the game until the nerves settle down.  Once Tech hits their stride, they will hold MSU to less than .8 points per possession for the middle 20-25 minutes of the game.  It might not look pretty, but TTU will eventually run away from the Bobcats.

Michigan St. vs. Davidson: Davidson has a little more overall talent now than they had when Steph Curry led the Wildcats to the Elite 8.  The difference is this Davidson team lacks the overall quickness to replicate the former success.  Additionally, they face a team that plays the same type of game as they do but with overall better athletes.

Michigan State has been upset early by teams that were quicker and unable to take advantage of the quickness.  DC cannot do this.  The Wildcats’ only chance is to hope to dominate in the paint both in points and rebounds, and The Spartans are not the team that will allow this.  Even though this is not the best inside presence during Tom Izzo’s reign in East Lansing, Sparty has just a little too much power for Davidson.  Michigan State will win by five to 12 points.

Duke vs. Cal St. Fullerton:  Coach K’s last team is really not talented enough to get to New Orleans this year, but the Blue Devils will likely play above their talent level until they are put out.  In this first game, the Blue Devils will score points rapidly against a weak team defense.  Fullerton won’t be able to keep the Blue Devil offense from getting easy shots inside of six feet.  Look for the Blue Devils to top their scoring average and coast to an easy victory in this round.

East Region

Baylor vs. Norfolk St.:  The MEAC representative has won opening round games in the Big Dance before, but it was as a #15 seed against a #2.  Norfolk State was oh so close to getting a #15 seed at the expense of Delaware, but they came up short.  In most recent years, the MEAC champ has been placed in Dayton.  Had NSU been put there this year, they would have been prohibitive favorites over any other 16-seed.  

The question now becomes, “can Nofolk State do what UMBC did against Virginia?”  The answer is “no”, because Baylor isn’t Virginia.  They are the defending champs, and even though the Bears are not as good as last year, they still have Final Four talent.  BU will win by around 20-25 points, more if the starters stay in longer than needed.

North Carolina vs. Marquette:  We can make this short and sweet–Marquette’s R+T is an eliminator.  ‘Nuf Sed.  They would be our pick to lose even if they were a top four seed.  Our number one rule is to play against a team with a negative R+T rating.

Saint Mary’s vs. Wyoming/Indiana: Like the region above, you will know who Saint Mary’s will be playing on Thursday.  Ironically, this play-in game may be the most exciting game before the Sweet 16.  There is very little difference between the Hoosiers and Cowboys.  Only because Indiana won’t travel very far to play this game will we give the nod to the Hoosiers.

On Thursday, Saint Mary’s will have a tough time avoiding the upset, because they are a tad weak offensively in the low post area.  Playing at home, the Gaels were able to withstand Gonzaga’s great inside presence, but in the WCC Tournament in Las Vegas, the Bulldogs exploited SMC over and over again in a double-digit win.  We will stil pick Saint Mary’s to win this game, because their opponent will have to fly from Dayton to Portland and play less than 48 hours after they played in Dayton.

UCLA vs. Akron: UCLA has national championship talent, but the Bruins have liabilities that can be exploited.  Unfortunately for the Zips, they do not have the necessary inside strength to exploit the Bruins.  They do have characteristics needed to keep a game with UCLA close for some time, but the Bruins will advance.

Texas vs. Virginia Tech: Texas is the most vulnerable 6-seed in the tournament.  The Longhorns have not adjusted to Chris Beard’s system in year one, and there may be a little dissension within the ranks.  Virginia Tech is the exact opposite.  Mike Young was one of our A+ Mid-major coaches ready for the Big Time when he was at Wofford, and he has not disappointed in his short time in Blacksburg.  Virginia Tech’s players have totally bought in to the system and are peaking at the right time.

Our criteria shows this game to be close to a tossup.  The Hokies have the superior offense, but the Longhorns have the superior defense with more superiority than Va. Tech’s offensive superiority.   Texas has the edge in schedule strength and R+T rating, so we will pick the Longhorns in a squeaker, but this one is ripe for an upset if you are the type that goes for more upsets than average.

Purdue vs. Yale:  Yale caught Princeton on a cold shooting day and upset the Tigers to get a ticket to the Dance.  Their ticket is for one game.  Short of hitting about 15 three-point shots in 25 attempts, there is no way the Bulldogs can stop the inside dominance of the Boilermakers.  The two-headed monster in the low post will likely score 40 points and pull down 15-20 rebounds unless Coach Matt Painter goes to his third team.  While former Gene Keady assistants have never made it to the Final Four, and neither did Keady, those teams from the past did not have the R+T rating that this Purdue team has.  This is PU’s best chance to go to the Final Four since they did so under Lee Rose in 1980.

Murray St. vs. San Francisco: Now it’s time to upset a lot of people in the Bluegrass.  There are a lot of fans heading up to Indianapolis for the weekend hoping to see the two top teams from the Commonwealth face off.  Our criteria shows the Dons to be a slightly better team than the Racers, mostly because Murray State’s schedule was suspect.  USF played a schedule almost as strong as a Power Conference team, and they have multiple wins over teams in this tournament.  Murray State’s biggest win was against Memphis, when the Tigers were not playing well.  Their other big game was a double-digit loss to Auburn, when Auburn was getting ready to go on a run.

We think the schedule strength makes USF’s numbers superior, and we will go with the 10-seed to win in what will be considered an upset.  We think the Dons should be favored.

Kentucky vs. Saint Peter’s: One team in this game had a weak schedule, a weak offense, and a weak inside defense.  The other team had one of the strongest schedules in the nation, one of the best defenses, a very good offense, and the best inside presence in college basketball since Bill Walton.  I bet you can predict what the prediction is here–Kentucky by as many as Coach Cal wants to win by before he removes his key players.

South Region

Arizona vs. Wright St./Bryant: We expect Wright State to win the play-in game, but even if Bryant wins, the outcome of this game will remain the same.  Arizona is much too talented to lose this game, even if the Wildcats play their worst game of the season Friday.  The Wednesday night winner must fly from Dayton to San Diego on short notice to play a UA team that is well-rested and playing just a short flight from home.

Seton Hall vs. TCU: This one is another great tossup between the 8 and 9 seeds.  TCU has the superior R+T rating, and it may be where the game is decided—with one late spurt in the second half.  We’ll take the Horned Frogs in a close one. 

Houston vs. UAB: Poor UAB.  The Blazers actually have the talent and resume to get to the Sweet 16 as long as they have the right bracket.  This one is not the right bracket.  Even without two former starters that were injured weeks ago, Houston has enough talent to get to the Sweet 16, with a good chance to make the Elite 8, and a possible chance to return to the Final Four.  If they still had their two stars, they would be a strong Final Four selection.  The Cougars match up perfectly well with UAB and can neutralize the Blazers’ key attackers.

Illinois vs. Chattanooga: The Mocs have been the darling upset pick of a lot of national media members, but we’re here to say it isn’t going to happen.  Chattanooga enjoyed an incredible season in winning the regular and tournament championships.  They just don’t have the inside defense to slow down the Illini in the paint, and they are not likely to get the Illinois frontcourt into foul trouble.  The Mocs don’t have a pressing defense strong enough to force Illinois into turnovers, so the Illini should have little difficulty winning this game by double digits.

Colorado St. vs. Michigan: Here’s another 11-seed that is clearly better than the 6-seed.  Colorado State’s R+T rating is too low, especially for a Mid-major team playing a Power Conference opponent.  Only a complete meltdown by the Maize and Blue will prevent the Wolverines from advancing.

Tennessee vs. Longwood: Volunteer Head Coach Rick Barnes has been to 25 previous NCAA Tournaments with one Final Four appearance.  He believes his current team has what it takes to go to the Final Four this year.  Tennessee’s resume should get them to the Sweet 16, but they have vulnerabilities that other teams in the South Region can exploit.  Longwood isn’t one of them.  Their schedule strength is much too low to be a factor in this game, but if they hit a bunch of three-pointers, where they are better than average, they could keep the outcome under 20 points.

Ohio St. vs. Loyola (Chi.): Before looking at this game, be advised that Ohio State is really banged up with multiple injuries, and it is unsure if they will have their full roster available.  Also, understand that Loyola will have had 12 days between games and will be fully rested but possibly a little rusted.

Loyola’s offense will find the holes in the Buckeyes’ defense, especially if Ohio State has to play a short rotation that will tire in the second half.  The Ramblers’ defense is good enough to give Ohio State’s superior offense some trouble.  It may come down to spurtability, and Loyola is the hands-down superior team in R+T.  We think Sister Jean will be smiling.

Villanova vs. Delaware: We told you yesterday that usually there is one Final Four team that gets there from outside of the perfect resume world.  It was UCLA last year.  This year’s UCLA could easily be Villanova.  The Wildcats just barely miss out on having a Final Four resume, and they quite frankly have about the best possible bracket arrangement to boot.  

Delaware is disqualified from potential upset possibilities in multiple ways–R+T rating, defense on the perimeter and in the paint, schedule strength, no inside scoring dominance, etc.

Midwest Region

Kansas vs. Texas Southern/Texas A&M-CC: Even though it does not matter in your bracket contests, we believe Texas Southern will run Texas A&M-CC into the ground in Dayton.  TAMCC has the weakest schedule strength of any NCAA Tournament team in the last 22 years!  Texas Southern is playing much better basketball in March than they did before  New Year’s, and they are 18-5 in their last 23 games.  So, we are previewing TSU against Kansas in this game.

Okay, suspense over.  KU will blow out either Texas team in this game.  Neither of the 16-seeds has enough defense to stop the Jayhawks from running up a fat score.  

San Diego St. vs. Creighton: In all but one key metric, these teams are fairly evenly matched.  That key metric is the R+T rating, and the Aztecs have a considerable advantage.  We’ll take SDSU to win thanks to a late run.

Iowa vs. Richmond: Two happy teams on Sunday, but there will only be one happy team Thursday after these two play.  Richmond will have to slow this game down to about a 60 possession game to have a chance to sneak away with an upset, but the Spiders’ R+T rating doesn’t measure up to being a winner.  Iowa will cruise to a double-digit win.

Providence vs. South Dakota St.: Providence is the better overall team in the criteria, but South Dakota State has the one ace up their sleeve in an offense that can score a lot of points in a hurry.  If the Friars come out a little tight and aren’t playing the type of basketball they normally play, they could find themselves down by a lot of points early in the game and then struggle to get in synch and get back in the game.  SDSU has the type of team that comes out loose and ready to play no matter what the stage.  If this game was in Oklahoma City or Denver, we’d take the underdog.  Buffalo will be almost like a home game for Providence, so we think the Friars sneak away with a close win.

LSU vs. Iowa St.: LSU has to go with an interim head coach for the second time in the now concluded Will Wade era.  It pains me to say that I (the Captain) was Wade’s youth coach in the early 1990’s.

It is rare for a team that finished four games under .500 to make the NCAA Tournament, but the Big 12 was quite strong this year.  Cyclone Coach T.J. Otzelberger made the South Dakota State job what it is today, and he should eventually turn the corner in Ames.  Making the Big Dance this quickly is quite an accomplishment.  Doing damage in the Dance may be a year away.  Even with an interim coach, albeit one with lots of years experience as a head coach, LSU has superior numbers and should win by around ten points.

Wisconsin vs. Colgate: This is almost a home game for the Badgers.  It’s one thing to put a Duke or Carolina in Charlotte or Greensboro when either is a number one seed, but to put the Badgers less than 100 miles from home in Milwaukee as a 3-seed is totally different.  Poor Colgate.  The Raiders are actually one of a small handful of Low Major teams that have some talent with an outside chance at an upset, but not playing UW in Milwaukee.  Colgate may hit some three-pointers to keep the game within shouting distance, but the Badgers will take the cheese in this one.

USC vs. Miami (Fla.): Even though Miami has a short flight, while USC most go from the Pacific to the Atlantic Ocean, there is a factor that can never be parsed.  Miami’s R+T rating is too poor to predict the Hurricanes to advance.  USC figures to have a double-digit spurt in this game, and the Trojans will advance.

Auburn vs. Jacksonville St.: There is only one fly in the ointment in saying this game should be a 30-point blowout.  JSU will be playing way over their heads to face off against an in-state rival that won’t play them in the regular season.  Coach Ray Harper is a strict disciplinarian, and his teams play intelligently and force the opponent to play that way or be exploited.

Auburn is not all that exploitable here.  The Tigers have been having shooting trouble as of late, but with the great front line, maybe the second best to Gonzaga’s, the Tigers will get numerous second and third shots on many possessions, and JSU will eventually fall by a lot of points.

Here’s how the rest of our bracket-picking goes.

Round of 32

Gonzaga over Memphis

Connecticut over Arkansas

Texas Tech over Alabama

Duke over Michigan St.

Baylor over North Carolina

UCLA over Saint Mary’s

Purdue over Texas

Kentucky over San Francisco

Arizona over TCU

Houston over Illinois

Tennessee over Michigan

Villanova over Loyola (Chi.)

Kansas over San Diego St.

Iowa over Providence

Wisconsin over LSU

Auburn over USC

Sweet 16

Gonzaga over Connecticut

Texas Tech over Duke

Baylor over UCLA

Kentucky over Purdue

Arizona over Houston

Villanova over Tennessee

Kansas over Iowa

Auburn over Wisconsin

Elite 8

Gonzaga over Texas Tech

Kentucky over Baylor

Villanova over Arizona

Kansas over Auburn

Final 4

Gonzaga over Kentucky

Kansas over Villanova

National Championship

Kansas over Gonzaga

PiRate Ratings Sweet 16 Spreads

Friday, March 26, 2021

Favorite	Underdog	Spread
Loyola (Chi.)	Oregon St.	6.5
Baylor	Villanova	5.2
Arkansas	Oral Roberts	13.3
Houston	Syracuse	7.0
Gonzaga	Creighton	13.3
Michigan	Florida St.	3.4
Alabama	UCLA	5.7
USC	Oregon	3.4

Bracketnomics Took A Beating

Like 99% of the public, our brackets are destroyed thanks to all the lower seeded teams winning in the first two rounds. Obviously, the Big Ten was highly overrated, and the Pac-12 was highly underrated. A lack of non-conference games this year made the schedule strengths too biased. There are only four teams in the Sweet 16 with resumes similar to past national champions.

Gonzaga is the only remaining team that meets 90% of the criteria of a national champion. Michigan would also meet the criteria, but their star playmaker is still injured and out. So, the Wolverines have to be discounted somewhat.

Baylor and Houston meet more than 75% of the criteria, but they are missing one key important stat. Connecticut is the only past national champion of the 21st Century to win the national title with this type of criteria.

If Gonzaga wins the title, then the bracketnomics data will have proven itself to be accurate for the year, even if our interpretation of the data was wrong. If Michigan, Houston, or Baylor wins the title, then it will be another Connecticut type of deal, where the criteria was valid but not identifiable enough to be considered a success. If anybody else cuts the nets, then the criteria failed for this year.

What should we make of this data this year? Do we throw this year out due to the highly dysfunctional season? So many games were cancelled this year, while other games were scheduled on as little as 48-72 hours notice. Included in the cancellations was a Gonzaga vs. Baylor game that should have been played, in all places, in Indianapolis in December!

One thing we will note in 2021-2022 is to consider the Big Ten Conference to be a tad overrated and the Pac-12 Conference a tad underrated. Maybe, it is time for “The Conference of Champions” to return to its prominence it enjoyed in the second half of the 20th Century.

What to Make of Gonzaga

Gonzaga’s strength of schedule just barely qualifies for national championship-worthy criteria. However, no team from outside the Power Conferences (AAC, ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, or SEC) has won the national championship since 1990, when UNLV cut down the nets. In three decades, Gonzaga came within a made basket, and Butler came within a rimmed out prayer of pulling off the Mid-Major miracle.

Gonzaga has been compared all season to the 1991 UNLV team that ran the table during the regular season with a scoring margin of close to 30 points, only to fall to Duke in the Final Four.

Could Gonzaga meet a power conference blue blood and meet the same fate as UNLV 30 years ago? Creighton would not be considered a blue blood, and we cannot see the Bulldogs losing Saturday. A win in the Sweet 16 would have GU playing a Pac-12 team in the Elite 8, either USC or Oregon. We cannot count either of these teams as a Duke-like blue blood.

In the National Semifinals, Gonzaga would face either Michigan, Florida State, UCLA, or Alabama. With Isaiah Livers able to play, Michigan would definitely be considered blue blood material. Florida State is in the blue blood neighborhood. UCLA and Alabama are both a little too green to be blue these days.

The Championship Game would present a potential opponent in Baylor that would be a true blue blood team this year. Syracuse might be a powder blue blood with their matchup zone so hard to prepare for when teams have not faced it before.

However, we here on the PiRate ship do not see Gonzaga as the UNLV team three decades later. We see this Bulldogs team more like the 1964 UCLA Bruins 57 years later. By this, we do not refer to playing style. The two teams couldn’t be any more different. Coach John Wooden’s first national champions were small in size; no starter was taller than 6 foot 5 inches. Gonzaga has size and muscle inside.

The 1964 Bruins used a devastating 2-2-1, 3/4 court zone press and occasionally a 1-2-1-1 full court zone press to force tempo and turnovers, while Gonzaga uses a standard half-court defense that relies on pressuring the ball and forcing poor shots, where they can control the boards and run the fast break and secondary break for cheap baskets and then hit the offensive glass for additional chances.

Where the two teams are quite similar is their method for winning games. In going 30-0 in 1964, UCLA put every game away with a 2 to 3 minute scoring run. The best example occurred in the national title game, where a favored Duke team, with two 6 foot 10 inch starters towering over the Bruins, fell under pressure in just 2 1/2 minutes, as the Bruins ran off 16 points in a row.

Gonzaga has this same ability to take a three-point lead and make it a 15-point lead in just a couple minutes of playing time. Their game against BYU in the West Coast Conference Championship Game is a testament to this ability. BYU held a 10-point lead and looked like they were going to do what Saint Mary’s had done in the prior WCC Championship Game. Then, in very little clock time, GU went from 10 down to 10 up, and the game was over.

There is another team remaining with the same ability to go on a major game-clinching scoring run, and that is Houston. Funny how comparing Gonzaga to UCLA brings Houston into the conversation, as Houston and UCLA conjure up memories of past titanic rivals like Dempsey-Tunney, Affirmed-Alydar, and New York Yankees and Brooklyn Dodgers.

Houston is most definitely not considered the favorite to make it to the National Championship Game. They still have to solve the Syracuse zone and then possibly beat the most underrated team in the field in Loyola of Chicago or the team that found lightning in a bottle in Oregon State. Then, they most likely have to dismiss Baylor to make it to their third national championship game in the school’s history.

A Houston-Gonzaga national championship tilt would be quite memorable, and it would be one where both teams enjoy scoring runs that make the outcome unpredictable.

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.

The Greatest NCAA Tournament That Never Was–The Sweet 16 Thursday

We are down to 16 teams in our greatest teams between 1960 and 2019. Let’s get right to the results for the Sweet 16 Games in the East and South Regions.  The Midwest and West Regions play on Friday.

 

EAST REGION

 

Wolf Pack Pull Away In Second Half

 

1974 North Carolina St.	82
1978 Kentucky	70

After a close first half, the 1974 North Carolina State Wolf Pack pulled away from the 1978 Kentucky Wildcats with a 14-5 run over four minutes that increased a two-point lead to 11.

David Thompson scored 9 of his 21 points during this run, and additionally, in this four-minute segment of the game, he forced Mike Phillips to foul him twice, and he stole the ball away from Rick Robey.

Kentucky led for most of the first half, after the Wildcats started the game connecting on seven of their first 11 shots from the field.  N.C. State turned up the defensive pressure and finished the half on a 10-3 run to take a one-point lead at the half.

After an opening seven minutes of the second half that saw the lead change hands five times, the Wolf Pack went on their run to take command of the game, and they cruised to victory.

 

Boxscore
North Carolina St.	Start	FG	FGA	3P	3PA	FT	FTA	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
Tom Burleson	C	8	14	0	0	5	8	3	12	15	1	0	2	2	3	21
Tim Stoddard	F	3	7	0	0	2	2	1	6	7	0	1	1	1	4	8
David Thompson	F	8	17	2	6	3	4	4	4	8	2	1	0	3	3	21
Mo Rivers	G	4	8	2	4	1	2	0	2	2	4	2	0	3	3	11
Monte Towe	G	5	12	3	7	4	4	0	1	1	5	2	0	4	3	17
Phil Spence		2	4	0	0	0	0	2	4	6	0	0	0	1	3	4
Greg Hawkins		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	2	0
Team										3
Totals		30	62	7	17	15	20	10	30	43	13	6	3	15	21	82
Kentucky	Start	FG	FGA	3P	3PA	FT	FTA	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
Rick Robey	C	7	15	0	0	2	4	1	4	5	0	0	0	4	2	16
Mike Phillips	F	3	7	0	0	1	2	2	7	9	0	0	1	1	4	7
Jack Givens	F	5	13	2	7	5	7	1	3	4	2	1	0	3	2	17
Truman Claytor	G	1	4	1	3	2	2	1	2	3	1	2	0	2	3	5
Kyle Macy	G	3	8	2	6	6	6	0	1	1	4	1	0	2	2	14
James Lee		2	5	0	0	1	2	1	3	4	0	0	0	1	2	5
Jay Shidler		2	4	2	4	0	0	0	1	1	2	0	0	1	1	6
LaVon Williams		0	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	2	1	1	0	0	2	0
Team										3
Totals		23	57	7	20	17	23	6	23	32	10	5	1	14	18	70
Player of the Game	Tom Burleson

Score By Halves
Team	1	2	Final
N.C. State	38	44	82
Kentucky	37	33	70

 

 

Cavaliers’ Defense Shuts Down Hot Shooting Hoosiers

 

2019 Virginia	67
1987 Indiana	60

 

After blistering the nets in their first two NCAA Tournament games, the 1987 Indiana Hoosiers could not solve 2019 Virginia’s Pack Line Defense and shot just 35.3% from the field and 28.6% from behind the arc.

Indiana’s poor shooting night began immediately, as the Hoosiers missed on their first six attempts from the field.  They were only down 8-2 when Rick Callaway made IU’s first basket.

By the time the Hoosiers connected on their next basket, a three-pointer by Steve Alford, they trailed 12-5.

Virginia maintained the lead for the remainder of the game, never leading by less than six points.  The Cavaliers enjoyed an eight-point halftime lead, and they extended the lead to as much as 14 points in the second half at 48-34.

Indiana mounted its only charge of the game with a 13-6 run to cut the lead to 54-47, but UVa extended the lead back to 10 on a three-pointer by Kyle Guy.

Down the stretch, Virginia hit all six of their foul shots when Indiana players sent them to the line.

 

Boxscore
Virginia	Start	FG	FGA	3P	3PA	FT	FTA	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
Mamadi Diakete	C	6	11	0	0	2	3	3	4	7	1	0	3	2	2	14
De’Andre Hunter	F	3	8	1	3	0	0	1	5	6	2	0	0	1	4	7
Guy Jerome	F	4	11	1	3	2	2	0	3	3	2	1	1	2	4	11
Kyle Guy	G	5	13	2	5	3	4	0	2	2	3	1	0	1	3	15
Kihei Clark	G	2	4	1	2	5	5	0	3	3	3	2	0	0	2	10
Braxton Key		2	4	0	1	4	5	1	5	6	1	0	0	1	3	8
Jack Salt		1	2	0	0	0	0	0	4	4	0	0	2	0	2	2
Jay Huff		0	2	0	2	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	0
Team										2
Totals		23	55	5	16	16	19	5	27	34	12	4	6	8	21	67
Indiana	Start	FG	FGA	3P	3PA	FT	FTA	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
Dean Garrett	C	4	9	0	0	2	4	1	7	8	1	0	2	1	3	10
Daryl Thomas	F	4	10	0	0	4	4	3	4	7	2	0	1	2	2	12
Rick Callaway	F	3	10	0	0	2	3	2	5	7	2	2	1	4	3	8
Keith Smart	G	3	10	2	7	5	5	0	6	6	1	0	0	1	3	13
Steve Alford	G	3	9	2	6	7	7	0	3	3	2	1	0	3	2	15
Steve Eyl		1	1	0	0	0	0	1	4	5	0	0	0	0	2	2
Joe Hillman		0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	1	0	0
Kreigh Smith		0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0
Team										1
Totals		18	51	4	14	20	23	7	29	37	10	3	4	12	17	60
Player of the Game	Kyle Guy

 

Score By Halves
Team	1	2	Final
Virginia	31	36	67
Indiana	23	37	60

 

SOUTH REGION

 

’70 Bruins Too Strong For ’64 Bruins

 

1970 UCLA	104
1964 UCLA	93

The 1970 UCLA Bruins are beginning to look like a Final Four contender after winning their third consecutive game by double digits in Simulated March Madness.  In their three tournament wins, their average margin of victory has been 19 points per game.

Even though the 1964 team forced 24 turnovers, the 1970 doubled the 1964 team in rebounding, and blocked 10 of the smaller 1964 team’s shots.

A hot start by their top guards, Walt Hazzard and Gail Goodrich, allowed the 1964 team to keep the game close throughout the first half.  The 1970 team grabbed the lead six minutes into the game on back-to-back shots by Sidney Wicks and John Vallely.

The 1964 team tied the game at 29-29 on a steal by Keith Erickson, and a pass to Goodrich, who then passed across to Jack Hirsch for the basket.  The 1970 then took the lead for good on a basket by Curtis Rowe and then a basket and a foul shot by Henry Bibby.

 

Boxscore
1970 UCLA	Start	FG	FGA	3P	3PA	FT	FTA	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
Steve Patterson	C	6	12	0	0	1	2	3	6	9	1	0	2	4	3	13
Sidney Wicks	F	8	15	0	0	6	7	6	13	19	3	1	5	3	4	22
Curtis Rowe	F	9	16	2	3	8	8	4	11	15	2	2	3	3	4	28
John Vallely	G	6	13	3	7	4	7	0	5	5	4	0	0	6	3	19
Henry Bibby	G	5	9	2	4	5	6	0	3	3	4	2	0	4	3	17
John Ecker		0	0	0	0	1	2	1	2	3	0	0	0	2	4	1
Jon Chapman		1	2	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	2	0	0	1	4	2
Bill Seibert		1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	2
Team										4
Totals		36	68	7	15	25	32	14	42	60	17	5	10	24	26	104
1964 UCLA	Start	FG	FGA	3P	3PA	FT	FTA	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
Fred Slaughter	C	4	10	0	0	1	3	1	3	4	2	2	0	2	5	9
Keith Erickson	F	4	13	1	5	2	3	2	4	6	3	4	0	1	4	11
Jack Hirsch	F	5	12	1	4	3	4	2	2	4	1	1	0	0	5	14
Walt Hazzard	G	8	16	4	9	5	7	1	2	3	3	2	0	2	3	25
Gail Goodrich	G	9	20	5	12	6	9	0	3	3	4	3	0	3	3	29
Kenny Washington		2	4	0	0	0	2	1	5	6	1	2	1	0	4	4
Doug McIntosh		0	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	2	1
Kim Stewart		0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	0
Team										3
Totals		32	77	11	30	18	29	7	20	30	15	14	1	8	29	93
Player of the Game	Sidney Wicks

 

Score By Halves
Team	1	2	Final
1970 UCLA	54	50	104
1964 UCLA	37	56	93

 

 

Big Comeback Sends Villanova To The Elite 8

 

2018 Villanova	78
1992 Duke	72

 

The Duke Blue Devils looked invincible for 24 minutes of their Sweet 16 game against Villanova.  Duke led by as much as 16 points in the first half, before going to the dressing room up by nine at the break.

The Blue Devils increased their halftime lead from nine to 15 to start the second half, and with 16 minutes remaining, they led 48-33.  At that point, the Wildcats began to make their move.  A three-pointer by Jalen Brunson, and then a putback basket by Eric Paschall cut the lead to 48-38.

Trailing 59-50, The Wildcats then held Duke scoreless for almost four minutes, while they scored nine straight points to tie the game at 59-59.  The game remained close until the final moments, when with Villanova nursing a four-point lead, Duke fouled multiple times, while VU connected on 8 of 8 to extend the lead to 78-69.  A Bobby Hurley three-pointer on Duke’s final possession made the game look a little closer.

 

Boxscore
Villanova	Start	FG	FGA	3P	3PA	FT	FTA	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
Omari Spellman	C	6	12	2	5	0	0	2	4	6	3	1	2	2	3	14
Eric Paschall	F	2	7	1	3	3	4	2	5	7	1	2	2	1	4	8
Michael Bridges	F	3	7	2	4	4	6	0	4	4	1	0	0	3	2	12
Phil Booth	G	3	7	1	2	6	6	0	2	2	3	1	0	2	2	13
Jalen Brunson	G	8	14	3	6	4	5	0	3	3	4	0	0	4	3	23
Donte DiVincenzo		2	5	2	5	0	0	1	4	5	2	0	0	2	2	6
Collin Gillespie		0	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	2	1	1	1	1	3	0
Dhamir Cosby-Roundtree		1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	2
Team										2
Totals		25	54	11	25	17	21	5	25	32	15	5	5	15	20	78
Duke	Start	FG	FGA	3P	3PA	FT	FTA	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
Christian Laettner	C	5	11	1	3	4	6	1	7	8	1	0	2	3	4	15
Brian Davis	F	2	6	0	1	0	0	2	3	5	2	1	0	1	2	4
Grant Hill	F	6	13	0	0	5	6	2	3	5	3	0	2	2	1	17
Thomas Hill	G	3	7	1	3	3	4	1	5	6	2	2	0	3	5	10
Bobby Hurley	G	5	12	3	7	4	4	0	1	1	3	2	0	3	2	17
Antonio Lang		2	3	0	0	0	0	1	4	5	1	0	1	2	2	4
Cherokee Parks		2	4	0	0	1	2	2	2	4	0	0	0	2	2	5
Marty Clark		0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0
Team										3
Totals		25	57	5	15	17	22	9	25	37	13	5	5	16	19	72
Player of the Game	Jalen Brunson

 

Score By Halves
Team	1	2	Final
Villanova	29	49	78
Duke	38	34	72

Four more Sweet 16 Games Will Be Revealed Friday.