Note: We want to thank all our fans that were part of the opening weekend introduction of the PiRate Ratings Pro Football Simulation Tabletop Game. We were overwhelmed by the number of orders you made for the salute to the American Football League.
If you are interested in knowing more about the game, click on the link below.
Indiana vs. Cincinnati: The Bearcats could pick up some much needed schedule strength with a road win against the Hoosiers, although Indiana’s big loss to Iowa may not make a CU win all that influential to the Selection Committee down the road. As of this publication, it has not been decided if this will be the ABC or ESPN game.
Buffalo vs. Coastal Carolina: Why do we call this important? Coastal Carolina has a chance to run the table for a second consecutive regular season, and this figures to possibly be their second toughest game on their schedule. If the Chanticleers win this one on the road, then possible a road game against Appalachian State on October 20 will be all that stands in CCU’s way of going 12-0 and competing for a NY6 Bowl. This game will be on ESPN2 or ESPNU.
Oklahoma vs. Nebraska: We don’t expect an exciting game in this one, but it marks a very important 50th anniversary. On Thanksgiving Day of 1971, the number one Cornhuskers visited Norman to face the number two Sooners in the “Game of the Century.” We believe it was the game of the second half of the century, as the 1946 Army-Notre Dame game at Yankee Stadium was just as big.
On that great day 50 years ago, the lead changed hands three times with Nebraska tailback Jeff Kinney diving into the end zone late in the fourth quarter to give the ‘Huskers the 35-31 win. Oklahoma went on to the Sugar Bowl and destroyed a 9-1 Auburn team that had Heisman Trophy winner Pat Sullivan at quarterback. The final score was 40-22, but it was 40-6 before Coach Chuck Fairbanks emptied his bench.
Nebraska met undefeated Alabama in the Orange Bowl for the national title. The game was a blowout by halftime, as Nebraska cruised to a 38-6 win. Nebraska finished first in the polls, and Oklahoma finished #2. Colorado, which only lost to Nebraska and Oklahoma edged Alabama for #3, while the Tide fell to #4. This was the only time in history that the #1 team beat the #’s 2, 3, and 4 teams in a season.
As for this year’s game, Oklahoma should win by a lopsided score, but maybe Nebraska will play its best game under Coach Scott Frost and make it interesting. Catch this game on Fox.
West Virginia vs. Virginia Tech: The Hokies look strong enough defensively to compete with all their ACC brethren, while West Virginia is a work in progress under second year coach Neal Brown. The Mountaineers are a different team at Mountaineer Field than they are on the road. This should be a stern test for Justin Fuente’s squad. This one airs on FS1.
3:30 PM
Florida vs. Alabama: Florida might have a bit of a quarterback controversy between starter Emory Jones and exciting backup Anthony Richardson. Jones tossed two interceptions against South Florida’s defense. Richardson ran for 115 yards and a touchdown on just four carries, and he was three for three for 152 yards and two touchdowns through the air.
Alabama has no controversies. The Tide look unstoppable with what should be a rebuilding year. Can they manhandle the Gators in Gainesville? A 20+ – point win looks highly possible. This game is CBS’s first SEC game of the season.
7:30 PM
Penn St. vs. Auburn: This is Bryan Harsin’s first test as Auburn’s head coach. Penn State is not all the way back as a power, but playing them at Happy Valley is quite difficult. Expect a potentially lower scoring game, but it should be highly competitive and worth watching. It’s the ABC prime time game.
10:15 PM
BYU vs. Arizona St.: After dominating Utah Saturday night, this BYU team looks just as tough or even tougher in 2021 than it looked in 2020 with an All-American quarterback now starting for the New York Jets. Meanwhile, Arizona State has quietly started 2-0 with two creampuffs.
The Sun Devils have withstood some major accusations with potential illegal recruiting, so bad, that an insider has claimed that an incredible tell-all book about the transgressions would be a bestseller.
This figures to be ASU’s last chance for multiple seasons to make hay before their sun sets with numerous punishments, that is if the NCAA has any investigators remaining. This game airs on ESPN.
10:45 PM
UCLA vs. Fresno St.: After Saturday’s Oregon win at Ohio State, Fresno State’s close loss to the Ducks on September 4 looked a lot more impressive. The Bulldogs won’t be intimidated by the 2-0 Bruins, coming off a big win over LSU plus a week off.
UCLA didn’t need the week off after beating LSU at the Rose Bowl, but the Bruins won’t be hurt by the bye week. This should be an action-packed and exciting game, and Fresno State could still be there in the fourth quarter with a chance to win. Catch this game on the Pac-12 Network.
Wide Variety InStyles This Year
The up-tempo offenses of the recent decade have some new company with teams going the other way. The hurry-up no huddle teams are still to be found in great numbers. However, some coaches are killing the clock trying to play ball-control and taking all the time off the play clock between plays.
Here’s an exceptional case in point to show the extremes from yesterday. Central Michigan played ball-control yesterday against FCS opponent Robert Morris. They gave RMU just 38 scrimmage plays (30 runs and 8 passes). The total of 119 plays looked like a game from the 1950s. In Madison, WI, Eastern Michigan was also held to 38 plays and 92 total yards against the Badgers in a game that had just 113 total plays. Several additional games were limited to less than 130 scrimmage plays, something that has been a rarity in recent seasons. Troy and Liberty combined for just 114 scrimmage plays.
At the other extreme, Marshall did something rarely done in college football history. They ran 100 plays in their win over UNC Central. They gained 700 yards. Arkansas State just missed 100 with 99 plays; they scored 50 points against Memphis, and they lost! North Texas had 96 plays against SMU and scored just 12 points.
Comments Off on PiRate Ratings College Football September 12, 2021
Welcome to all the newcomers to the PiRate Ratings site for the 2021-2022 football season. Saturday, we have the fortune of having a dress rehearsal for the college football season. Nine FBS teams will be in action, as one FBS team plays an FCS opponent.
The PiRate Ratings enjoy issuing picks against the spread or money line on Thursdays each week until January. Because we are most concerned with Money Line Parlays, there are only five options to combine games this week, and many of the books do not issue a line for FBS vs. FCS games. So, in a quest to obtain the best odds, there really are just four games.
This presents multiple issues that basically make it close to impossible to issue a real wager, because the options don’t fit our paradigm. Let’s take a look.
First, before we get started, you must know and understand one thing. We offer these selections purely for the fun of it. It is math and not gambling to us. We NEVER bet on sports. We play with a pretend bankroll that never runs out. We wager the same amount of fake currency on every selection–$100. It could just as easily be $5, $10, $1000, $5000, whatever, but $100 is an easy number and typical of many wagers in real life.
Second, we urge you with everything we can say about it to NOT use this weekly feature as betting advice, unless you have legitimate advice or are a professional, and then this becomes a secondary reference.
Third, we hunt around for the best possible odds on our pretend wagers. You may or may not be able to find the same odds we do, because you would have to search at the exact same time we do. Because, we are not limited to just the legal books available to us in our state of Tennessee, where betting is legal, we might pick a parlay based on a sports book that is only for people in Nevada, or New Jersey, or even off shore.
Okay, now that you know the ground rules, here is our specialty–Money Line Parlays. The money line is different from the spread of a game, but the number is the equivalent of a spread. If a team is favored by 7 points, their money line is going to be roughly -330, and if a team is a 7-point underdog, their money line is going to be roughly +250.
How does a Money Line work? If the line is a negative number, if you wager the amount of the negative number and win, you will receive $100 plus the amount you wagered. So, if you wager on a team at -300, and you bet $300, if the bet wins, you will get back $400 (your investment money plus $100). If you lose, you are out the $300. On the other hand, if the line is a positive number, you can win that amount of money with a $100 wager. So, if the line on a team is +300, you can wager $100, and if the team wins, you receive $400 (your investment money plus $300).
In Money Line wagers, all that matters is that the team you picked wins the game, be it by 1 point or 63 points. Obviously, if Alabama is playing Mercer, the odds are going to be such that to win $100, you will have to put up maybe $100,000. So, if you bet $100 on Alabama at -100000, when Alabama wins, you receive $100.01. Would you risk $100,000 to win one penny?
When you wager on more than one money line to win as one bet, this is called a parlay. Let’s say that you like Mississippi State to beat Arkansas and Oklahoma State to beat Texas Tech. Mississippi State’s money line number is -275. Oklahoma State’s money line number is -250. By combining these two wagers into one bet, with $100 riding on the outcome, instead of attempting to win a little more than $36 on MSU and $40 on OSU, by combining the two games into a parlay, you stand to win almost $91 if both teams win. If you bet them individually, you would only win $76, so by combining the two, you win $15 more. Of course, if one team wins and the other loses, your losses would be less by playing the games separately.
The question you most likely wanted to ask while reading the above paragraph is, “Why risk playing two separate games that both teams you selected must win and still not get even money?” Did you ask it? The answer to that question is, “You are correct; why wager $100 to just win $91 and then have to be right twice to cash it?” You can bet a regular game against the spread and get 11-10 odds, just a fraction better than the odds of the parlay above.
The ultimate answer is that we are only looking for parlays that pay better than even money. We really don’t want to play any parlays at less than +120 odds, where we would win $6 for every $5 wagered.
The next question you might have is, “Isn’t finding two teams to win and pay off at +120 going to require me to bet an underdog to win outright?”
Our answer to you is, “Yes, but we don’t look for many two-team money line parlays. Let’s take a look at another example with three teams.
Let’s say that we believe that Washington will beat Oregon State, and the money line is -260.
We also believe that Army will beat Temple, and the money line is -240.
And, we believe that Wisconsin will beat Purdue, and the money line is -250.
If you wager $100 on these three teams to win, and all three teams win, your payout is just under $175 plus the $100 you wagered for almost $275 ($274.62 to be exact.)
Let’s take a look at 5 wagers, where we win two and lose three at these odds
We bet $500 at $100 for 5 wagers.
On the two winning wagers, we receive $275 * 2 or $550.
Invest $500 and win $550 by being right 40% of the time. In one week, we have made a 10% return on an investment. What investment on the Stock Market makes a 10% gain in one week after you have paid the commissions on the trip?
Ah, but here’s the rub: how often can you wager on 5 money line parlays that average +175 and win 40% of the parlays? Most people fall into this trap and only win about one of five of these parlays. At 20% success, you lose $225 a week for a 45% loss. Now, where can you loses 45% in the stock market in one week? We put our real money in high-cap value stocks with durable competitive advantages, long histories of consistent increases in earnings, and long histories of consistent dividend payouts. The pretend money is just fine for football wagering.
By now, you want to know who we are picking in Week 0 of the college football season. Maybe, you have figured it out already. We don’t have any official picks this week, because there are not enough games to come up with a parlay better than +120.
Here is a practice parlay that is not an official pick, but shown here to show you what we mean.
The three games involved are: Nebraska versus Illinois, UCLA versus Hawaii, and UTEP versus New Mexico St.
Let’s say that we think Illinois will upset the Cornhuskers, UCLA will take care of Hawaii, and UTEP will win the big rivalry game.
Here are the three Money Lines for these three games.
Illinois +215 vs. Nebraska
UCLA -875 vs. Hawaii
UTEP -390 vs. New Mexico St.
This parlay calculates to +341. If we wager $100 on this game, and Illinois, UCLA, and UTEP all win, we receive $441 in our account (The $100 we wagered plus the $341 on the win).
Why isn’t this an official pick? We believe that Illinois might have been an excellent pick against the spread when the Illinois-Nebraska game spread opened at -9 1/2. But, it has come down to -6 1/2 as of this writing. Sharp money was wagers on Illinois +9 1/2, and also on Nebraska -6 1/2. A three-point middling is too good to be true. Playing both sides, the Sharps only need to have the game win both sides one out of every 19 times (5.26%) to make a profit. The spreads of 7, 8, and 9 account for 10.8% of all FBS college football games. That’s double the amount needed to make a profit. The key is the Sharps can find these spreads when they open. Also, playing the opening lines is the most effective way to win for a Sharp.
The UTEP-New Mexico State game is the biggest issue in this parlay. One axiom that older Sharps believe in is not to rely on a losing program to have to win for you to win. The Miners are probably a 3-9 team, which is almost a good year for this program. The Aggies are really weak and should be an underdog in every game, but this is their big rival, maybe bigger than playing New Mexico. The I-10 rivalry frequently is a tossup game.
Two out of three of these games are iffy. The chances that Illinois pulls off the upset of Nebraska are not good enough to have faith in this parlay winning. Scott Frost is in deep cow poo if the Cornhuskers don’t win at least six games and earn a bowl bid, and losing to the weakest Big Ten team will turn the heater on in his heated seat. This will be Bret Bielema’s first game as Illinois head coach, and he brought in an offensive coordinator that runs a system totally different from what the Illini ran under Lovie Smith. Expect growing pains.
We hope this gets you pumped for next week, when there will be more than enough games to play some parlays.
It’s called Week 0. Four FBS college football games will kick off the 2021 season. Included in the quartet of games is a Big Ten conference game with an old Big Ten coach returning to a new Big Ten school to face another coach that is sitting on a very hot seat.
On the West Coast, Chip Kelly’s UCLA Bruins host Hawaii, and a good showing with no injuries could set the Bruins up for a potential upset of LSU next week.
If you have followed our site so far this year, you have now seen the preseason ratings and predictions for all 130 FBS teams. Here are those ratings in full.
The PiRate Ratings for August 23
Rank
Team
Rating
1
Alabama
130.2
2
Oklahoma
128.1
3
Georgia
125.2
4
Iowa St.
124.8
5
Clemson
122.2
6
Ohio St.
121.9
7
U S C
119.4
8
Florida
118.2
9
Texas A&M
118.1
10
North Carolina
117.7
11
Miami (Fla.)
116.9
12
Cincinnati
116.5
13
Auburn
116.1
14
T C U
116.0
15
Wisconsin
115.9
16
Texas
115.6
17
Indiana
115.5
18
Ole Miss
113.3
19
Arizona St.
113.1
20
Oklahoma St.
113.1
21
Penn St.
113.1
22
Iowa
112.8
23
Oregon
112.5
24
West Virginia
112.3
25
L S U
112.1
26
Washington
112.1
27
Utah
111.9
28
U C L A
110.5
29
Notre Dame
110.2
30
Mississippi St.
110.1
31
Arkansas
109.5
32
BYU
109.2
33
Louisiana
109.2
34
Coastal Carolina
108.4
35
Wake Forest
107.7
36
Kentucky
107.4
37
Maryland
107.2
38
Oregon St.
106.9
39
Missouri
106.4
40
Minnesota
106.1
41
NC State
106.1
42
Northwestern
105.8
43
Colorado
105.7
44
Liberty
105.5
45
Virginia Tech
105.3
46
Boston College
105.2
47
Michigan
104.9
48
Baylor
104.5
49
Kansas St.
104.4
50
Tennessee
104.0
51
Boise St.
103.9
52
Purdue
103.7
53
Florida St.
103.5
54
Nebraska
103.2
55
Michigan St.
103.0
56
Stanford
103.0
57
UCF
102.8
58
Virginia
102.7
59
Washington St.
102.5
60
Louisville
102.1
61
Texas Tech
101.9
62
Appalachian St.
101.0
63
South Carolina
100.8
64
Houston
100.7
65
San Jose St.
100.3
66
Pittsburgh
100.2
67
San Diego St.
100.2
68
Tulsa
100.1
69
Army
100.0
70
Miami (Ohio)
99.7
71
Central Michigan
99.7
72
Tulane
99.0
73
Nevada
98.8
74
Wyoming
98.5
75
California
98.4
76
Georgia Tech
98.2
77
Buffalo
98.0
78
Ball St.
97.4
79
Toledo
96.7
80
Air Force
96.5
81
Georgia St.
96.5
82
Illinois
96.4
83
Fresno St.
95.3
84
East Carolina
95.3
85
U A B
95.2
86
SMU
95.0
87
Rutgers
95.0
88
Arizona
94.6
89
Hawaii
94.6
90
U T S A
93.9
91
Ohio
93.5
92
Marshall
93.4
93
Troy
93.4
94
Memphis
93.2
95
Syracuse
92.9
96
Kent St.
91.7
97
Georgia Southern
91.6
98
Eastern Michigan
91.4
99
South Alabama
91.2
100
Western Michigan
91.0
101
USF
90.4
102
Navy
90.3
103
Vanderbilt
90.1
104
Arkansas St.
89.9
105
Duke
89.8
106
Colorado St.
89.0
107
Texas St.
87.8
108
Florida Atlantic
87.7
109
Northern Illinois
87.5
110
Rice
87.1
111
Louisiana Tech
86.5
112
Utah St.
85.8
113
New Mexico
85.7
114
Kansas
85.4
115
U N L V
84.9
116
Southern Miss.
84.4
117
Middle Tennessee
83.7
118
Western Kentucky
82.7
119
North Texas
81.7
120
Temple
81.6
121
Akron
79.8
122
Charlotte
79.5
123
Florida Int’l.
79.0
124
Connecticut
76.7
125
U T E P
76.0
126
UL-Monroe
75.6
127
UMass
73.1
128
Old Dominion
71.4
129
Bowling Green
70.8
130
New Mexico St.
69.7
American Athletic Conference
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
Cincinnati
116.3
115.3
118.0
116.5
UCF
102.5
101.2
104.8
102.8
Houston
101.1
99.5
101.6
100.7
Tulsa
100.2
100.3
99.7
100.1
Tulane
98.8
97.5
100.6
99.0
East Carolina
95.3
94.3
96.2
95.3
SMU
94.3
95.4
95.4
95.0
Memphis
92.4
92.8
94.3
93.2
USF
91.0
89.7
90.6
90.4
Navy
90.8
90.0
90.3
90.3
Temple
80.6
82.4
81.9
81.6
AAC Averages
96.7
96.2
97.6
96.8
Atlantic Coast Conference
Atlantic Division
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
Clemson
120.9
121.5
124.0
122.2
Wake Forest
108.0
106.7
108.3
107.7
NC State
106.5
105.8
105.9
106.1
Boston College
104.7
105.3
105.7
105.2
Florida St.
103.4
103.6
103.5
103.5
Louisville
101.7
101.4
103.2
102.1
Syracuse
93.7
93.1
92.1
92.9
Coastal Division
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
North Carolina
116.4
116.7
119.9
117.7
Miami (Fla.)
117.1
116.1
117.7
116.9
Virginia Tech
106.4
104.9
104.7
105.3
Virginia
102.1
104.1
101.8
102.7
Pittsburgh
99.8
100.9
100.1
100.2
Georgia Tech
98.0
98.3
98.3
98.2
Duke
89.7
91.2
88.5
89.8
ACC Averages
104.9
105.0
105.3
105.0
Big 12 Conference
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
Oklahoma
129.3
126.7
128.2
128.1
Iowa St.
125.3
123.5
125.6
124.8
T C U
116.6
115.1
116.3
116.0
Texas
116.7
114.5
115.6
115.6
Oklahoma St.
113.5
113.2
112.5
113.1
West Virginia
113.8
112.0
111.1
112.3
Baylor
104.9
104.8
103.8
104.5
Kansas St.
104.9
104.7
103.5
104.4
Texas Tech
102.0
102.8
100.8
101.9
Kansas
88.1
85.6
82.5
85.4
Big 12 Averages
111.5
110.3
110.0
110.6
Big Ten Conference
East Division
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
Ohio St.
121.1
121.3
123.2
121.9
Indiana
114.9
115.0
116.4
115.5
Penn St.
111.7
112.8
114.6
113.1
Maryland
108.7
106.9
105.8
107.2
Michigan
104.3
105.1
105.3
104.9
Michigan St.
103.5
103.0
102.5
103.0
Rutgers
94.1
96.3
94.5
95.0
West Division
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
Wisconsin
115.2
115.2
117.3
115.9
Iowa
112.3
111.6
114.5
112.8
Minnesota
104.6
106.1
107.6
106.1
Northwestern
105.8
105.8
105.8
105.8
Purdue
103.6
102.9
104.5
103.7
Nebraska
102.8
103.4
103.3
103.2
Illinois
96.0
96.4
96.9
96.4
Big Ten Averages
107.0
107.3
108.0
107.5
Conference USA
East Division
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
Marshall
93.4
93.4
93.6
93.4
Florida Atlantic
86.7
88.6
87.8
87.7
Middle Tennessee
83.4
83.1
84.7
83.7
Western Kentucky
81.7
83.6
82.8
82.7
Charlotte
78.8
79.6
80.2
79.5
Florida Int’l.
77.9
78.9
80.1
79.0
Old Dominion
71.2
71.9
71.2
71.4
West Division
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
U A B
95.4
95.2
94.9
95.2
U T S A
94.0
94.5
93.4
93.9
Rice
87.0
87.1
87.3
87.1
Louisiana Tech
86.9
87.4
85.2
86.5
Southern Miss.
83.3
85.2
84.5
84.4
North Texas
82.1
81.7
81.4
81.7
U T E P
76.3
77.2
74.4
76.0
CUSA Averages
84.1
84.8
84.4
84.4
FBS Independents
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
Notre Dame
108.8
110.6
111.2
110.2
BYU
109.2
108.2
110.3
109.2
Liberty
104.3
105.6
106.5
105.5
Army
100.0
99.8
100.2
100.0
Connecticut
77.4
78.6
74.2
76.7
UMass
74.8
74.0
70.5
73.1
New Mexico St.
70.3
71.1
67.6
69.7
Indep. Averages
92.1
92.6
91.5
92.1
Mid-American Conference
East Division
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
Miami (Ohio)
101.9
99.2
98.1
99.7
Buffalo
98.5
97.5
97.9
98.0
Ohio
92.2
94.4
94.0
93.5
Kent St.
91.3
93.4
90.5
91.7
Akron
81.8
79.6
78.1
79.8
Bowling Green
71.6
72.1
68.8
70.8
West Division
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
Central Michigan
100.5
99.1
99.5
99.7
Ball St.
98.4
98.3
95.5
97.4
Toledo
97.5
96.7
95.8
96.7
Eastern Michigan
93.1
91.2
89.8
91.4
Western Michigan
91.2
91.6
90.1
91.0
Northern Illinois
89.3
87.0
86.1
87.5
MAC Averages
92.3
91.7
90.4
91.4
Mountain West Conference
Mountain Division
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
Boise St.
103.9
103.3
104.3
103.9
Wyoming
97.7
98.4
99.5
98.5
Air Force
96.4
96.3
96.9
96.5
Colorado St.
88.8
88.8
89.3
89.0
Utah St.
85.6
86.6
85.2
85.8
New Mexico
85.8
86.2
85.2
85.7
West Division
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
San Jose St.
100.8
101.1
99.0
100.3
San Diego St.
100.6
99.9
100.2
100.2
Nevada
98.4
99.7
98.4
98.8
Fresno St.
93.7
95.7
96.7
95.3
Hawaii
94.8
94.1
94.7
94.6
U N L V
85.8
84.3
84.6
84.9
MWC Averages
94.4
94.5
94.5
94.5
Pac-12 Conference
North Division
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
Oregon
111.0
112.4
114.1
112.5
Washington
110.9
112.4
112.9
112.1
Oregon St.
106.7
106.7
107.3
106.9
Stanford
102.6
103.9
102.4
103.0
Washington St.
102.3
103.2
102.1
102.5
California
95.7
100.5
99.0
98.4
South Division
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
U S C
118.8
118.4
120.9
119.4
Arizona St.
112.4
113.5
113.6
113.1
Utah
111.8
112.1
111.8
111.9
U C L A
110.5
110.5
110.6
110.5
Colorado
106.4
105.8
104.9
105.7
Arizona
95.2
94.5
94.0
94.6
Pac-12 Averages
107.0
107.8
107.8
107.5
Southeastern Conference
East Division
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
Georgia
124.8
124.5
126.3
125.2
Florida
117.0
119.4
118.1
118.2
Kentucky
106.7
108.8
106.8
107.4
Missouri
106.2
106.9
106.2
106.4
Tennessee
104.1
103.1
104.6
104.0
South Carolina
101.1
101.0
100.4
100.8
Vanderbilt
90.9
89.9
89.6
90.1
West Division
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
Alabama
130.4
128.8
131.3
130.2
Texas A&M
117.4
118.3
118.6
118.1
Auburn
116.4
115.2
116.6
116.1
Ole Miss
113.3
113.3
113.2
113.3
L S U
111.0
112.4
112.8
112.1
Mississippi St.
110.2
110.4
109.7
110.1
Arkansas
110.1
109.9
108.5
109.5
SEC Averages
111.4
111.6
111.6
111.5
Sunbelt Conference
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
Coastal Carolina
109.2
106.4
109.6
108.4
Appalachian St.
100.5
100.0
102.5
101.0
Georgia St.
97.0
96.2
96.3
96.5
Troy
93.1
93.4
93.7
93.4
Georgia Southern
91.7
92.1
91.2
91.6
Team
PiRate
Mean
Bias
Average
Louisiana
109.8
107.6
110.4
109.2
South Alabama
91.6
91.5
90.6
91.2
Arkansas St.
89.8
91.0
88.8
89.9
Texas St.
89.4
86.7
87.2
87.8
UL-Monroe
76.4
76.5
73.9
75.6
Sun Averages
94.8
94.1
94.4
94.5
Conference Ratings
1
Southeastern
111.5
2
Big 12
110.6
3
Pac-12
107.5
4
Big Ten
107.5
5
Atlantic Coast
105.0
6
American Athletic
96.8
7
Sun Belt
94.5
8
Mountain West
94.5
9
Independents
92.1
10
Mid-American
91.4
11
Conference USA
84.4
Comments Off on PiRate Ratings College Football For August 28
Like a lord of the gridiron, the new transfer portal has wreaked havoc on the overall landscape of college football. We have recently completed updating the effect on the PiRate Ratings for all the transfers that have both left a former school and chosen a new destination for 2021. Among those that have entered the transfer portal, there are a handful of point spread-moving talents that have not officially chosen a new school. A trio of what we call 15+ talents on a rating scale of 0-20 are leaning to schools but have yet to officially sign. These players will affect our ratings when they do sign.
The PiRate Ratings adjusted the talent levels of the teams by considering the players entering the Transfer Portal like they were graduating seniors. As for the entry to a new team, the field had to be taken on a case by case basis. The players that played 1 to 4 games last year are classified as redshirt players and rated as such. There are others that redshirted without playing any games last year, and they are rated a little differently than the 1-4 game players. We take these 0-game players, and if they rate 15 or above in talent, they become the equivalent of a hot freshman expected to contribute immediately, like Trevor Lawrence or Hershel Walker.
For the rest of the group of experienced college players, we consider these as regular talent added at what we consider full strength. If a defensive end that started for a Power Conference team last year or the year before becomes a starter at a new Power Conference team, the new team is graded like the new player is a returning starter, which is optimal for the team. If the Power Conference starter moves to a Group of 5 team, there is a bonus score if that player is expected to be the starter.
All transfers are not only rated for their talent, but there is a positional adjustment as well. The starting QB from a Power 5 team is a little more important than the starting punter. We use the accepted advanced metric positional hierarchy used in pro football and put our own stamp on it; the hierarchy goes:
Quarterback
Top Outside Pass Rusher (DE or OLB)
Blind-side Tackle (Left tackle for Right-hand QB)
Top Cover Cornerback
#1 Wide Receiver
Defensive Tackle
Running Back
#2 Outside Pass Rusher (DE or OLB)
Middle/Inside Linebacker
Tight End
Free Safety
Weakside Linebacker (or Nickel Back)
Right Tackle (or LT for left-handed QB)
#2 Cornerback
Right Guard
#2 Wide Receiver
Center
Strong Safety
Strongside Linebacker
Left Guard
Nose Tackle
#3 Wide Receiver
Kicker
Punter
Return Specialist
It isn’t exactly cut and dry, as we have to analyze each team to see if their style of play is a pro-style. For teams that run the option, either from the spread or with a QB under center, the positional adjustment is a bit different. What it adds up to is a lot of extra work, but without this work, the preseason power ratings would be too inaccurate to be useful.
Let’s look at an example of a couple of teams that have seen their historical preseason power rating altered by the Transfer Portal.
The Auburn Tigers have a new coaching staff with Bryan Harsin coming in from Boise State. Harsin hired two gems as his coordinators, both with extensive SEC experience. Offensive Coordinator Mike Bobo and Defensive Coordinator Derek Mason are like having two extra head coaches on staff, and this generates a movement in the preseason rating. But, we must also count the positives that former head coach Gus Malzahn and Kevin Steele brought to Auburn and make a coaching adjustment score from the January Citrus Bowl to the start of this season.
Now, take a look at the key transfers for Auburn as the 2021 season nears. Wide receiver Hal Presley left for Baylor. He’s a redshirt freshman who played 0 games last year.
Big Cat Bryant had three QB sacks, an interception, a couple of QB hurries, and 17 tackles at his defensive tackle position. His leaving to join Malzahn at Central Florida is a bigger loss than Presley as it applies to week 1 of the 2021 season.
Daquan Newkirk is a senior for the second year and put up similar numbers to Bryant, while being able to play both defensive tackle and defensive end. His loss to SEC rival Florida hurts the Tigers a tad more.
Running back D.J. Williams was only Auburn’s third option last year, but he has some worth. If you follow the game rabidly like we do, you might remember Williams putting a hurt on #1 LSU two years ago, as his 150+ total yards led to Auburn almost knocking off the eventual national champion. Florida State will get more out of him than Auburn would this year.
Safety Chris Thompson, Jr. was a freshman who saw action in enough games to be considered a sophomore in experience, but he will still be a freshman at his new school, USC. Thompson rates as a 16 on our talent scale, so he counts like adding a Trevor Lawrence or Hershel Walker freshman to the Trojans.
These five players are the five that can actually move a team’s rating by more than 0.3 points, and together, the quintet reduces Auburn’s overall positional-adjusted talent score by 177 basis points.
Now let’s look at the key players that Auburn gained through the Portal. We count seven players as being talented enough to improve the War Eagles’ point spread by 0.3 or more points.
They picked up a talented all-star safety from FCS Southeast Missouri in Bydarrius Knighten, who has NFL potential and needs to showcase his talents on the big stage.
Knighten will be joined by a former SEC starting safety in Vanderbilt’s Donovan Kaufman. Kaufman played just two games in 2020 before a medical issue forced the freshman’s season to end. He reunites with his former coach and should compete for a starting job at safety and as a return specialist. Having two safeties with this amount of talent come on board awards a little bonus for the defensive backfield.
We aren’t done with the secondary just yet. The best transfer of the defensive backfield is former West Virginia starting cornerback Dreshun Miller, a graduate 5th year player. He started multiple games inside Big 12 play as well as having an excellent career at Eastern Arizona Junior College.
Staying on the defensive side, Auburn adds Kansas defensive end Marcus Harris. Harris started multiple games for the Jayhawks last year and in 8 games, he had 7 ½ tackles for loss.
Now, on the offensive side of the ball, there are a lot of specialized calculations to make because Auburn picked up a quarterback with starting experience in the SEC. T.J. Finley comes to the Plains from LSU, where he started after Myles Brennan was lost for the year. However, Auburn still has two-year regular Bo Nix as their expected starter just before August practices commence. There should be a heated race for the starting job in the Bobo offense, but Nix will most likely be taking the snaps when Auburn hosts Akron on September 4. Finley’s contribution might be limited, but on the other hand, if he wins the battle to start, he might be the most significant addition to the team. It leaves us having to consider many possibilities before arriving at a score for Finley.
Redshirt freshman Jordan Ingram returns to the state where he was a star running back in high school after not seeing action at Central Michigan last year. Ingram is not expected to see a great deal of action with Auburn’s top two running backs returning, but he’s talented enough to make a positive contribution.
Finally, there is journeyman wide receiver Demetris Robertson. He’s the most difficult player in the entire Portal to grade. Starting from the beginning, Robertson was a 5-star recruit and the top receiver in his recruiting class when he committed to Alabama as a highschool senior. He ended up signing with California and shredded the Pac-12 as a true freshman. He suffered an injury as a sophomore and played in just two games. He then transferred to Georgia, where he was somewhat of a disappointment the last two seasons. He was expected to be a fourth receiver for the Bulldogs before transferring to Auburn two weeks ago. There’s another big issue though; he’s facing multiple felony charges, which may be why he entered the Portal near the deadline, because University of Georgia rules may have forced his ineligibility. If Robertson can play a full season for Auburn, he will contribute to the Bobo offense. But, he may never get a chance to play a game! That’s a large subset of possibilities to calculate into the preseason equation.
All told, the incoming players on Auburn’s Transfer Portal list sum to 258 basis points with the defensive backfield bonus included. Factor in the loss of 177 basis points from the players transferring out, and you get a surplus of 81 basis points improvement through the transfer portal. Using our talent algorithm, Auburn expects to gain 4.1 power rating points in this area.
For example number two, let’s inspect Oklahoma without delving into all the plot twists we showed you with Auburn.
Oklahoma lost seven players that will negatively affect their talent score by enough points to matter. Additionally, at two positions, they lost multiple players to the Portal. Safety Brendan Radley-Hiles had 115 career tackles in his time in Norman, while hybrid safety/linebacker Robert Barnes took four years of experience to Colorado. Wide Receiver Jalin Conyers did not play as a freshman but he has NFL potential at Wide Receiver or Tight End and might eventually cost Oklahoma more down the road than they will in September of this year. Losing wide receiver Charleston Rambo will hurt the Sooners in week one. Not affecting Oklahoma at all for 2021 is former tight end Grant Calcaterra, who retired from football at the end of 2019 after multiple concussions, but he un-retired and transferred to Auburn before the coaching change saw him transfer again to SMU.
The Sooners lost a 4-star tackle to Louisiana-Monroe in Stacey Wilkins. Wilkins has not played for the Sooners, and his loss will be felt down the road, but it will be just the minimum to matter in 2021.
Finally, there is quarterback Tanner Mordecai. The fourth year sophomore was going to be a spectator watching All-American Spencer Rattler lead the Sooners, so Mordecai joined Calcaterra at SMU. This has potential to affect Oklahoma should Rattler suffer an injury. The #2 QB at a passing school is as important as the #2, #3, and #4 running backs at a running school.
The total loss in basis points for Oklahoma is 272, which is enough to affect the outcome of a game or two before we look at who the Sooners picked up. The five players that transferred into Norman are the best quintet in the nation. Former Tennessee running back Eric Gray and former LSU running back Kevontre Bradford, who has speed in the Chris Johnson CJ2K range, gives the Sooners a national top five running back corps when you add former starter Kennedy Brooks. The Sooners’ running game combined with Rattler’s passing ability into a possible 45-points per game offense.
There is one more offensive stalwart to add to the mix, as former 5-star tackle recruit Wanya Morris started for two years at Tennessee and should step in and start at the all-important blind-side tackle. Oklahoma’s potential to average 45 ppg may also come with consistency.
The defense added safety Key Lawrence, the third former Tennessee Vol to matriculate to Oklahoma. Lawrence saw considerable action on defense and special teams as a true freshman last year. He will do so for Oklahoma in 2021.
All told, the Sooners gain 200 basis points from incoming transfers, and combining it with the 272 lost, the net change is -72 basis points on transfers alone. This equals about 3.9 points lost in power rating.
Some of the teams expected to profit the most off the Transfer portal in 2021 include: Florida State, Georgia, Kentucky, Miami (Fla.), Penn State, SMU, South Carolina, Texas Tech, UCLA, USC, Teams that lost considerable talent include: Clemson, Florida State, LSU, Memphis, Tennessee, and Texas.
This adjustment makes up just one part of a multiple part adjustment to the power ratings for each of the 130 FBS teams. In the case of Clemson losing 245 basis points of talent, fear not for the Tigers. They still have more than enough talent and added enough from past recruiting classes to make it back to the College Football Playoffs in 2021-2022.
Comments Off on Adjusting Teams Due To The Transfer Portal
Nearly three weeks ago, we excitedly released our 2021 Bracketnomics report believing we were on top of the NCAA Tournament and knowing which teams were the true contenders and which were the pretenders. We came up with our Final Four teams, and poof, two of them lost before the Sweet 16.
We gave you a list of Gonzaga, Illinois, and Michigan, qualifying Michigan based on whether Isaiah Livers could return and play after the Sweet 16, which he was unable to do. Next, we gave you a list of teams that had a strong resume that should contend for the Final 4, of which Houston was one of those teams. Finally, we gave you the list of the handful of teams that had Final 4-worthy resumes but not as strong as the half-dozen just above. In that group was Baylor.
Three of the remaining four teams meet the PiRate Ratings Bracketnomics criteria to win a national championship. As for UCLA, they are an outlier with very little national championship statistical criteria. Even though we selected a couple of wrong championship-worthy teams, three of the four Final Four teams meet the Bracketnomics criteria we endorse. If Gonzaga, Houston, or Baylor win the title, then the Bracketnomics fundamentals will have proven valid for the season. Let’s look at the Semifinal Games and show you the Bracketnomics Criteria in total.
Efficiency Ratings
93% of all national champions since 1990 have finished in the top 10 in offensive efficiency and in the top 20 in defensive efficiency.
Offensive Efficiency Ratings
Baylor
3
Gonzaga
1
Houston
7
UCLA
13
Baylor, Gonzaga, and Houston qualify here. UCLA is just outside the criteria range.
Defensive Efficiency Ratings
Baylor
28
Gonzaga
5
Houston
8
UCLA
45
Gonzaga and Houston qualify here. Baylor semi-qualifies, because the 6.7% of the teams that won the national title that didn’t meet the defensive efficiency criterion (two times in 30 years), their defensive efficiency was in the top 40. UCLA once again does not qualify here. Because efficiency is the most important criterion, UCLA is not a Bracketnomics’ qualifier. If the Bruins win the title, they crush this system.
Strength of Schedule
All national champions in the last 30+ years have had a strength of schedule better than 5 points per game above average, or to clarify it, a score of 55.0 or better in our PiRate formula.
Final 4 SOS
Baylor
59.3
Gonzaga
59.2
Houston
56.9
UCLA
61.4
All four teams qualify with this criterion. The belief that Gonzaga did not play a hard enough schedule is 100% hogwash. Gonzaga defeated Virgina, Iowa, and West Virginia in addition to three wins over BYU. Wins over USC, Creighton, and Oklahoma by 17.7 points per game totally destroys the theory that the Bulldogs are not as strong as the best Power Conference teams.
PiRate R + T Ratings
If this is your first look at our site, the R+T rating is our creation. It measures a team’s ability and likelihood of enjoying a scoring run. Usually, NCAA Tournament games are decided when one team goes on a scoring run to secure the victory or to come from behind to win. This rating looks at the reasons why a team gets that spurt in a game. It happens with extra rebounding, steals, avoiding steals on offense, and turnovers. Because steals are more valuable than all other turnovers, they get their own piece in the formula.
R + T Rating = R + (.5S) + (6 – Opp. S) + T where R = Rebound Margin, S = Steals, and T = Turnover Margin
Historically, national champions are in the top quadrant in R+T ratings. In most years, the top quadrant begins around 12.5 to 15. In this Covid basketball season, the top quadrant line is 11.8 and the top 10% is 14.5.
Final 4 R+T
Baylor
14.2
Gonzaga
14.7
Houston
18.3
UCLA
8.3
Once again, Baylor, Gonzaga, and Houston qualify with this criterion, while UCLA does not. Houston’s R+T is typical of a team that puts a game away quickly when they get a spurt, but when you factor tougher schedules for Baylor and Gonzaga, the top three are basically equal, while UCLA is still not qualified.
Upperclassman Leadership
In 90% of the past 30 years, the national champion had multple upperclassmen (juniors & seniors) among their top eight players. When the game is on the line, an experienced 22-year old player is an adult that can handle pressure. An 18-year old freshman is still a teenager.
Final 4 Leaders
Team
SR
JR
Baylor
2
4
Gonzaga
2
2
Houston
3
2
UCLA
0
4
All four teams have experienced leadership. UCLA has no seniors, and the loss of their one senior early in the season may be the only reason why the Bruins didn’t get to this point with a 26-4 record rather than 22-9. Houston having three seniors may have a unique advantage this year, since nobody received NCAA Tournament experience last year.
The Clutch Factor
There are going to be possessions in the Big Dance where a team must rely on a player or players to put the load on their shoulders and pick up the crucial basket, rebound, or defensive stop. Think of Reggie Jackson in October. All Final Four teams have had a Mr. March on their roster. Even surprise teams like Virginia Commonwealth and George Mason in this century have had at least one Mr. March on their roster. It must be close to impossible to get this far without that guy or guys. So, this factor is obvious for all four teams remaining.
Baylor
3
Gonzaga
3
Houston
1
UCLA
1
Baylor and Gonzaga have three Mr. March’s (Mr. April’s) on their roster. It is harder to stop three than it is one, but if the one’s are more like Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, or MJ, then the one’s can trump the threes. Unfortunately for Houston and UCLA, Baylor and Gonzaga’s three go-to guys are the players closest to the superstars. Here is where we begin to really separate the superior teams from the really good teams.
Three-point Percentage
This is one of two areas where we at the PiRate Ratings were late in endorsing. The reason for this is that prior to about 2015, college basketball teams were not up to snuff on analytics. Once mathematics became a large part of basketball strategy, the game experienced an evolution to where most teams now attempt to shoot the highest percentage two-point shots along with open three-point shots. All that matters is finding a 60% probable two-point shot and a 40% probable three-point shot. If a team can hit 37% from behind the arc, they must hit better than 55.5% from inside the arc to make two-point shooting worthwhile, and the same goes for holding the opponent below those numbers.
The key in this criterion is to have a team three-point percentage of 37.0 or better. Going 3 for 8 is just as acceptable as going 15 for 40. It’s the percentage that matters.
Final 4 3-pt%
Baylor
41.1
Gonzaga
37.1
Houston
35.4
UCLA
36.9
Baylor and Gonzaga shoot better than 37% from the 3-point line. UCLA is one made basket away from qualifying and thus would round up to 37%. Houston does not meet the criterion. In a game with Baylor, where the Bears are able to prevent the Cougars from getting multiple second chances, this could be a decider. Read on though to see the other side of this equation.
Dominant Insider Player(s)
Now that we told you the importance of 3-point shooting, now we switch and tell you it is also important to have a dominant inside player or players. A team doesn’t have to have Kareem Abdul Jabbar or Patrick Ewing inside these days to have a dominant inside game. All we are looking for is one player that can score in the low post and averages better than 12 points per game or two front court players that average better than 20 points and 12 rebounds per game.
Final 4 Inside Dominance
Team
1 @ 12
2 @ 20/12
Baylor
No
No
Gonzaga
Yes
Yes
Houston
No
No
UCLA
No
No
This is the most glaring stat of the entire system. Gonzaga has a post player that averages more than 12 points per game, and the Bulldogs have two front court players that combine for better than 20 points and 12 rebounds per game. The other three teams do not have a player that meets this criterion. It makes the Bulldogs prohibitive favorites, because this stat goes hand-in-hand with R+T and the prevention of R+T.
In past years, when a team of smaller players won the national championship, while they may not have had a 6 foot 10 inch monster in the middle, they did have a 6 foot 5 leaper that could score points inside and clean the boards with rebounds. The tiny 1964 UCLA Bruins with no starter over 6 foot 5 still dominated inside with three players that combined for 32.1 points and 17.8 rebounds per game. That tiny Bruin team outrebounded their opponents by more than 8 per game!
True Shooting Percentage Margin
True Shooting percentage is a new age metric that assigns point values to shot attempts. A free throw, a 2-point basket, and a 3-point basket obviously count for different values, so the ability to score points on a possession can be weighted. In essence, this is just another way to look at offensive and defensive efficiency, but it removes the schedule strength factor. Because all the Final 4 teams have adequate schedule strengths, this criterion may show a more accurate estimate. A double digit margin is a sign of a great team. A margin of 5.0-9.9% is really good.
Final 4 TS% Margins
Team
TS%
Opp
Margin
Baylor
58.5
52.0
6.5
Gonzaga
63.4
49.8
13.6
Houston
54.4
47.1
7.3
UCLA
54.7
52.9
1.8
You see the obvious here. Gonzaga is far and away the superior team in this quartet. UCLA looks like a team that should have gone home by the Sweet 16. Baylor and Houston are extremely close.
Double Figure Scoring
In addition to having clutch players, it is great to have at least three players that average 10 or more points per game, preferably four players. A team with one or two big scorers is more likely to have an issue with both having “off nights” than a team with three double-figure scorers. A team with four double-figure scorers is unlikely to see all four players have an off night.
Final 4 DBL FIG
Baylor
3
Gonzaga
4
Houston
3
UCLA
4
Gonzaga and UCLA have the big four number, while Baylor and Houston have three. All four qualify here. Ironically, had UCLA’s senior star not been injured in game number eight, they would have had five double figure scorers and might have been as powerful as their 1995 national champions.
Offensive Rebounding Rate
Offensive rebounding is the key to having a superior R+T rating, and in the Final four, where all four teams have excellent team defenses, quite often the best offensive rebounding team gets that game-clinching spurt. ORR must also be used in conjunction with schedule strength.
Simply, ORR is the percentage of offensive rebounds a team gets off its missed shots. If a team misses 35 shots (FG and FT with a rebound) and gets 14 offensive rebounds, their ORR is 40.0 (14/35).
In the past, the key number has been 37.5% or three offensive rebounds for every eight missed shots. A team that could hit that mark frequently had an R+T north of 18. In recent years with more three-point shots and a prevalence of Pack-Line defenses, that number has been lowered to 35%. Any team that can retrieve 35% of its missed shots with a schedule strength in the top quadrant is going to be a tough out.
Final 4 ORR
Baylor
36.1
Gonzaga
30.4
Houston
39.5
UCLA
29.4
This is where Houston shines, and where the Cougars have their opening to upset Baylor. The issue is that Baylor has the next best ORR. Can Houston get enough offensive rebounds to account for their sub-standard three-point shooting? The probability is less than 50%.
Offensive rebounding is the closest vulnerability Gonzaga has. It is the only reason why at the beginning of March Madness that we had them as the second best overall criteria. However, UCLA has an ORR under 30.0, and that number is not indicative of a Final 4 team. If Gonzaga plays in the title game Monday night, their opponent will have one aspect of the game where they can exploit the Bulldogs’ lack of superiority. We won’t call it a weakness, because it is still better than average.
Two-point Percentage Defense
Two-point percentage is still highly important in the Big Dance. Teams still take 2/3 of their shot attempts inside the arc. The important number here is 45%. If a team holds their opponents under 45% from inside the arc, they are dangerous on the defensive side.
Final 4 2pt D
Baylor
48.6
Gonzaga
46.5
Houston
42.8
UCLA
49.4
Now you see why we pegged Houston as a potential Final 4 team before the tournament commenced. Holding opponents to 42.8% from inside the arc, while also having a superior rebounding team has allowed the Cougars to make it this far. Baylor and UCLA just barely hold teams under 50% from inside the arc. Gonzaga is in the gray area between very good and great.
Free Throw Rate
We admit that we failed to fully grasp the importance of this metric until last year. For years, we talked about how every national champion for a long stretch in history had free throw percentages under 70%, basically in the bottom 50% in their season. The teams with the highest FT% didn’t make it to the NCAA Tournament, or they made quick exits. There was a reason for this. If these teams needed a high percentage to win, they seldom could use this against superior athletes that maybe didn’t shoot as well from the charity stripe.
We threw the baby out with the bath water! How naive we were for so many years. We even altered our idea of FT Rate, going with a different formula from the norm. Originally, FT Rate was simply FT attempts divided by FG attempts. Some heavy hitters in the basketball metrics world altered this to FT made divided by FG attempts. We endorsed an Ivy League math professor’s peer-reviewed thesis that showed FT divided by possessions was more valuable than the alternatives but still considerably less important that field goal accuracy, rebounding rates, and turnover rates.
Then, like a light bulb exploding above our heads, we began to rationalize why players foul and why they do not foul. Most of the fouls in college basketball happen because the offensive player is too talented for the defensive player to guard. Instead of giving up the easy basket, the defensive player will make contact with the offensive player, hoping the referees fail to notice.
The FT rate is thus very important, but FT% isn’t the reason. It tells us which team is hardest to guard and which defense is superior and does not need to foul to stop easy baskets. Thus, the original FTA/FGA is in fact the important equation to use here. Look for a team that has an offensive FT rate over 31% and a defensive FT rate under 31%. The farther away from 31%, the better.
Final 4 FT Rate
Team
O-Rate
D-Rate
Baylor
26.7
31.0
Gonzaga
35.6
25.3
Houston
30.4
41.0
UCLA
31.4
28.0
Once again, Gonzaga is clearly the best at these criteria. UCLA has ridden these criteria to five wins in the Dance. Baylor is vulnerable here with substandard stats on both sides of the ball. Houston has a major issue on the defensive side, where they obviously foul way too much. If the Cougars get in early foul trouble in the first half against Baylor, it will be curtains. Baylor doesn’t force fouls, so UH might be okay for one night.
A Head Coach With Past Final Four Experience
If a coach has past Final Four experience, his team usually comes out ready to play without the “tightness” many teams have at the beginning of games. These coaches are better equipped to handle all the extra intangibles that Final Four basketball brings. Obviously, all Final 4 coaches have winning Elite 8 experience, but the regional finals and national semifinals are world’s apart.
Final 4 Coaching
Baylor
No
Gonzaga
Yes
Houston
Yes
UCLA
No
Kelvin Sampson made one Final Four with Oklahoma 19 years ago. He has the experience. Mark Few has taken Gonzaga to the national finals, where the Bulldogs lost by two. Neither Mick Cronin nor Scott Drew have been here before. Gonzaga and Houston get the gold in this criterion.
Conference Champions
Very rarely has the national champion not won either its regular season conference championship, or its conference tournament championship. It isn’t 100% indicative, but it is a strong factor.
Final 4 Champions
Baylor
Yes
Gonzaga
Yes
Houston
Yes
UCLA
No
UCLA is the odd team out again. Baylor won the Big 12 Conference title. Houston won the American Athletic Conference Tournament after finishing second in the conference race. Gonzaga swept both the West Coast Conference regular season and conference tournament titles. UCLA won neither the Pac-12 regular season nor conference tournament titles.
Scoring Margin
This is the oldest metric that holds up throughout college basketball history. Better than 90% of all national champions have had scoring margins of 10.0 points or better. Lower that to 8.0 points or better, and you approach 100%. A large majority of national champions had scoring margins above 12 points, and a sizable number had better than 15-point margins.
Final 4 Scoring Margins
Baylor
17.5
Gonzaga
23.1
Houston
19.0
UCLA
5.3
Three teams satisfy this criterion. UCLA would be on par with David slewing two Goliaths to win the title. There isn’t any past basis to predict the Bruins defeating Gonzaga and the Baylor-Houston winner.
Field Goal Percentage Margin
We almost dismissed this criterion. It is old-hat, and there are newer metrics that rate this ability better. However, this stat still holds up from the 1930’s through today. Historically, the national champion has averaged better than 7.5% superiority in field goal percentage margin. The past net-cutters have frequently topped 10% in this statistic. Only the margin matters, so this can be 52% offense to 42% defense or 47% offense and 37% for defense or any other 10% margin.
Final 4 FG% Margin
Baylor
5.4
Gonzaga
13.3
Houston
6.4
UCLA
2.3
As you can see, Gonzaga is the only one of the four teams that meet this criterion. 13.3% is similar to the other undefeated national championship teams. The 1967, 1972, and 1973 UCLA teams that went 30-0 plus the 1976 32-0 Indiana team averaged 11.3% in FG% margin. Gonzaga’s 13.3 is higher than all four of these past greats.
Winning Streak(s)
A team must win six consecutive games (seven if playing in the First Four) to win the national championship. If the team couldn’t win six or seven games in a row during the regular season, you cannot expect them to do so in the Big Dance.
There are two key data points with this criterion. They are one 10-game winning streak or two six-game winning streaks.
Final 4 Winning Streaks
Baylor
18
Gonzaga
30
Houston
11/8/7
UCLA
7
Gonzaga’s 30-0 record easily qualifies the Bulldogs here. Baylor’s 18-game winning streak safely qualifies them. Houston has three winning streaks greater than 6 games, which also satisfies this criterion’s parameters. UCLA has one winning streak of 7 games, which came in 2020 with their former senior star playing. The Bruins do not qualify.
Summation
The most obvious information herein is that UCLA made it this far as one of the greatest outliers in tournament history. They barely survived their First Four play-in game with Michigan St. Their overtime win over Alabama was gifted by a terrible officiating mistake in regulation. Their Elite 8 win over Michigan was extremely lucky when Michigan had multiple opportunities to win in the last 30 seconds but basically crumbled under pressure. Using this criteria, Gonzaga should beat the Bruins by 15 or more points.
The Baylor-Houston game is not as cut and dry. Most pundits believe BU is unbeatable in this game, but we beg to differ. Houston is the underdog in this game, but Baylor is maybe a 55% to 45% favorite at best. Both the Bears and Cougars possess the criteria to make it to the National Championship Game.
If you are a Gonzaga fan, you might want to cheer for Baylor to win their semifinal game. While the Bears have an incredible criteria resume, Houston dominates in the one area where Gonzaga is vulnerable.
The 1927 New York Yankees are considered the best baseball team of all time by a majority of baseball experts. Yet ,that team had some weaknesses. Third baseman Jumpin’ Joe Dugan was a below average player at his position. Mark Koenig was an average shortstop. The three-man catching platoon was good but not great. However, that team had Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, two of the top 10 players of all time. It had Tony Lazzeri, Earle Combs, and Bob Meusel, three additional stars that in other years could have been the best player on a pennant-winning team. The pitching staff didn’t get the accolades, but they were the best in the Major Leagues in 1927. The Pinstripes went 110-44 to win the AL Pennant and swept Pittsburgh in the World Series 4 games to none. That Pittsburgh team (actually Pittsburg in those days) was loaded with talent, including Big Poison and Little Poison in Paul and Lloyd Waner, in addition to Pie Traynor, Kiki Cuyler, and three other hitters that had batting averages over .300.
The legendary sportswriters of the 1920’s noticed the Pirates players watching the Yankees take batting practice before the series began. Ruth sent towering home run shots over the very deep Forbes Field right-center field and center field walls well over 400 feet flights. Then, Gehrig stepped into the batter’s box and sent hard-hit balls that were not as high but looked like ropes going over those same spots in the deep wall. The Pirate players were in awe, but that was just two players.
Lazzeri, Meusel, and catcher Pat Collins then got into the batter’s box in succession batting from the right side. Each of the trio then sent balls rifling over the distant left-field wall, again over 400 feet blasts. The Pirate pitchers were mortified and totally psyched out. The Series was over before it started.
Is this Gonzaga team the 1927 Yankees on the college hardwoods? With all the games being played in the Indianapolis area, Baylor, Houston, and UCLA have had ample time to see Drew Timme, Corey Kispert, and Jalen Suggs appear to be Ruth, Gehrig, and Lazzeri. They have seen Joel Ayayi and Andrew Nembhard look like Combs and Meusel.
It is our opinion that Gonzaga is more like the great UCLA national Champions than the 1991 UNLV, 1979 Indiana State, and 1976 Rutgers teams, the last three to make it to the Final four undefeated and not win the title. The hidden intimidation factor is worth 12 to 15 points in GU’s favor. Opponents will be fearful of giving up too many easy transition baskets to really crash their offensive boards, where GU can be exploited. They are likely to hurry their shots and shoot below their norms. Because the other teams in this tournament cannot properly match up with Timme and Kispert, we expect the inside defenders to experience foul trouble.
After Citation won the Triple Crown in horse racing in 1948, 25 years passed until the feat was replicated. Great horses like Northern Dancer and Majestic Prince couldn’t pull it off. When it finally happened again, the horse that did it was the 1927 Yankees of thoroughbred racing. Secretariat forced other trainers to alter how they ran their horses, and it still didn’t work. In the Belmont, Sham tried to run fast early to keep up with Secretariat, and Sham wore out. The greatest horse of the time period ran away with a 31-length victory totally obliterating the record time by multiple seconds!
Is Gonzaga about to become the Secretariat of this generation? The Bracketnomics criteria believe so.
Houston, Baylor, Gonzaga, and Michigan are the four remaining teams that possess the analytics criteria that 93% of the last 30 national champions possessed. Gonzaga and Michigan have the overall best criteria, but most of Michigan’s statistical outcomes includes injured star Isaiah Livers. Houston lacks overall schedule strength, but a win tonight over Oregon State and then a Final Four win over Baylor would give the Cougars the last needed piece of the puzzle in a national title game. Baylor misses on only one main criteria point as well as a couple minor points.
Obviously, the Pac-12 strength of schedules needed to be tweeked upward by a few points, and the Covid issues probably disguised the league’s resurrection. The Big Ten and Big 12 were overrated this year, while the SEC and ACC were somewhat overrated. The fact that the Elite 8 has three Pac-12 teams, and one team each from the Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, West Coast, and American Athletic speaks a lot about the balance in basketball this year. The Western half of the country was the better half this year for the first time in more than a decade, maybe in the 21st Century.
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.
Marjorie Miller Designs
Our favorite handmade jewelry artisan (art critics call her designs “Wearable Masterpieces”)
The Bracket Matrix
The PiRate Ratings (Pi) are included in the best college basketball bracketology site on the Internet. Check out the Bracket Project Blog at: https://bracketproject.blogspot.com/
The PiRate Ratings
See the most current PiRate Ratings and Spreads for college and NFL football
