PiRate Ratings Special Money Line Play(s)

Last Friday, we issued a special Money Line Parlay play that went off at +250, and it won.  We had help getting the five winning teams at relatively low odds together.  But, it was up to us to put the parlay together, as none of the “Sharps” that tutored us on how to play smarter actually ended up with this parlay (until one person saw it on this site and did play a small wager on it.

This week, we are swimming in the deep end without the swim instructors.  Can we find another rare gem with a big payout?  We doubt it, but here goes any way.

Remember, the members of the PiRate Ratings NEVER wager money on the picks we issue; actually, we just don’t wager at all, and if you are planning to wager real money, please do not do so based on what you read here.

Even the top Sharps that are now teaching us more about what we have been doing wrong in recent years only win about 62 to 65% of their wagers, and they wager 10-20 games a week.  If you took their advice but only chose a couple of their wagers, the chances that you’d win big would be minimal, because they have to play double digit games a week to avoid risk and let the law of averages tilt to their side.

Since only about 1% of those that wager regularly are profitable, and since 99% of these winners wouldn’t think of giving you advice, realize that practically every service out there that is marketing their talents to you are profiting off your money and not their wagers.  If they were really successful players, they would never offer their advice to the public.  They’d keep it to themselves and selfishly continue to win.

Now that you know that we are giving you these picks, you should understand these two things.

1. We are not part of the 1% of Sharps that enjoy 6-figure and 7-figure annual careers, as we do not wager one cent.

2. Our selections provided to you for free are worth exactly what you paid for it.  If we really knew what we were doing, then we might be in Las Vegas with some of our friends placing wagers and never telling anybody else what we selected.

 

This week’s theme is trying to find incredible value betting a parlay of underdogs.  We looked at all the college games this week and isolated on five teams we believe stand decent chances to win outright as underdogs.  

We actually issued individual Money Line selections on each of these five teams in individual plays, because we feel like three of these teams should pull the actual upset.

The five games where we have studied the personnel groupings and looked for extras like teams playing a sandwich game between two more important games involve these games.

 

Marshall over Cincinnati

Duke over Virginia Tech

Kansas State over Oklahoma State

Baylor over Iowa State

North Carolina State over Florida State.

 

You can play each of these game as singular money line plays and get better than +120 odds on each team.

At the time of this writing, you can get Duke at +125 at a couple of the big books in Nevada.  You can get North Carolina State at +210.  Both Marshall and Kansas State can be found at +165.  Baylor can be wagered at +130.

What if you began combining these teams into 2 or 3 game parlays?  The potential odds are incredible.  Yes, the potential for winning is minimal, but for a little pretend money, you could make a pretend killing if you pick the right 2 or 3 teams.

There’s the rub.  If you play all five teams as single money line upset choices, you stand a decent chance of making a minor imaginary profit.  But, if just one of the potential big payout parlays pays off, you could make five times what you put in.

Let’s look at some examples.  We can’t list them all, as there are too many combinations.

 

 

2-Game Parlays

Marshall over Cincinnati and Duke over Virginia Tech: +485

Marshall over Cincinnati and Kansas St. over Oklahoma St.: +496

Kansas St. over Oklahoma St. & North Carolina St. over Florida St.: +722

 

 

3-Game Parlays

Kansas St. over Oklahoma St., Baylor over Iowa St., & NC ST. over Florida St.: +1790

Marshall, Kansas St., and North Carolina St. all in upset wins: +2036

Have fun making combinations of these games.  Here’s the complete crazy parlay where you combine all five of these teams.

If you bet Marshall, Kansas St., North Carolina St., Baylor, and Duke all to win in upsets, the money line parlay payout would be:

 

+10953

Yes, if you were crazy enough to put $100 in Nevada on these five teams to win in upset games, and all five pulled off their upsets, you would cash a winning ticket of $11,053!

If you only put $10 on this parlay, you could cash $1,105.

If you just put that same dollar you use playing Mega Millions, and it won, you’d pocket more than $110, and your chances to win on this parlay are multitudes better than winning the lottery.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

Did you hear about the guy that bet 89 cents on a ton of games last week on a parlay, and won every game heading into Monday Night Football.  Had the Washington Redskins won that final bet for him, he would have taken that 89 cents and cashed in a half million dollars!

When the Bears won the game, the naive media announced that the poor sap lost.  Without knowing for sure, we bet that this guy won big, maybe even 6-figures.

The media is never the best place to receive information on anything.  In this case, we are confident that the bettor hedged his wager on Monday morning.  Obviously, he probably didn’t have $100,000 to invest on the MNF game, but he probably found a willing money lender to purchase that ticket for 100 grand.

If you had $100,000, and you bought that ticket, then the guy that spent 89 cents just won $99,999.19 on his wager, and he leaves quite happy as a big winner, at least until he realizes his tax bracket just went way up.

The person that bought that potential half-million dollar ticket then played as many different tickets he needed on Monday afternoon until he had $200,000 in wagers on the Bears.  It would have taken him going to multiple books, but it is easily done.

Let’s look at the money lender on Monday afternoon.

1. $100,000 spent buying the ticket

2. $200,000 spent buying tickets on the Bears.

If the Redskins had won the last game on that parlay, the lender collects the half million dollar payout and profits by $200,000 since he invested $300,000.

If the Bears had won (which they did), then the half-million dollar parlay is trashed, but the lender cashes in a winning ticket on his Bears bet and receives $400,000.  The profit is only $100,000 in this case.

Technically, the lender could have places additional bets on the Redskins, which would have brought his guaranteed payout to around $135,000 no matter what the outcome, but we just wanted to show you an example in hedging to get a guaranteed win.

If you had a 50% chance of realizing a 33% of 67% return on your investment in 24 hours, you are guaranteeing yourself an average ROI of 50% in one day!  Now, how many of you with some seed money are planning to relocate to Nevada and do some hedge playing?  Alas, we here are more like the 89 cent investor.

Bracketnomics 2019: Picking The Bracket

Here it is!

I’ve always wanted to post those words.  As a fanatic of the old Mother Road, Route 66, those three words have a special meaning.  In the “good ole days,”  The Jack Rabbit Trading Post near Joseph City, Arizona, used those three words to advertise that after miles of driving and seeing numerous signs for this tourist stop, they had finally arrived.

Like those Mother Road drivers, it is my hope that I have finally arrived at a successful system, one that will pick a large percentage of winners in the Big Dance.

The PiRate Ratings Bracketnomics System has been successful in the past–very successful.  Then, again, there have been major bust years, where throwing a dart at a dartboard with team names would have been just as reliable.

Numerous revisions to the system have brought me to settle on what you might have read yesterday, the Bracketnomics Tutorial, which you can read here:

https://piratings.wordpress.com/2019/03/18/bracketnomics-2019-picking-your-brackets/

Today, I will attempt to interpret that data from the tutorial and select a bracket based on the statistics.  This is a 100% mechanical process with no objectivity.  If you believe in 100% mechanical stock investing, then this publication is totally for you.  If you are more of a hunch player, then you will need to alter this information to better fit your beliefs, but at least let our data be a dissenting view when you consider your choices.

This post will pick all 67 games, including the games in Dayton that 99% of the bracket pools do not include.  I will pick each round today.

After the conclusion of each round, I will then post an updated bracket to assist all of you that play in a pool that allows you to pick new winners after each round.

Remember, this is still a system in its infancy with growing pains.  What I have tried to do is isolate through back-tested methods similar statistical data that past Final Four and National Championship teams possessed.

For instance, almost every national champion has possessed a scoring margin of 8 points  or better, and a large majority had double-digit scoring margins.  Almost all national champions have come from one of the “Power Conferences” or in the past were one of the top 10 Independents when there were more than 30 teams not in a conference.

Very few teams have ever made the Final Four with a negative rebounding margin, but considerably more had negative turnover margins.  At the same time, a lot of these teams had high steals per game averages, even if their turnover margin was negative.

One final factor I like to look at is style of play.  Most National Champions have been up-tempo teams that run the fast break, play some form of pressure defense (not necessarily full-court), and moves the ball quicker than average in the scoring zone.  This is not 100% exclusive.  Some patient teams that play a non-gambling style of defense have made the Final Four and a couple even won the tournament, but the trend is to go with the team that has the better chance of going on a scoring run with a 10-point or better spurt.  History shows that teams that play like North Carolina and Duke tend to get these spurts more frequently than teams like Virginia and Kansas St.

Let’s take a look at the data, starting with the First Four games in Dayton.

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Prairie View A&M	43.07	-2.7	30.0	66.1	15.2	21.7	-3.8
Fairleigh-Dickinson	43.31	5.2	28.9	68.1	17.1	18.1	-2.4

This is an excellent example for the first game of the tournament.  SOS (Strength of Schedule) is dead even, so the rest of the stats are 100% comparable.  FDU will more than likely have the better shooting night.  Rebounding should be about even, and Prairie View will more than likely force FDU into a few more mistakes than they normally commit.  Because both teams possess R+T ratings below zero, these are two 16-seeds that are going nowhere for sure.  The winner will be a blowout victim Thursday.  This is about as tossup as you can get.  I’ll go with the team with the better, but terrible R+T Rating and select

Fairleigh-Dickinson

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Temple	54.13	0.5	26.0	71.1	13.8	18.1	-3.1
Belmont	48.60	9.7	25.6	76.4	13.8	14.8	6.0

Temple has the stronger schedule by about 5.7 points per game.  Thus, the system calls for Temple’s stats to carry stronger weight than Belmont’s stats.  Temple faced better defensive teams on average than Belmont, but not enough to counter a difference of 9.2%.  Temple will have marginal rebounding advantages on both sides of the floor, but the Owls have a negative R+T.  Belmont’s R+T rating is good enough to win early, and even though the Bruins are 0-7 in past NCAA Tournaments, their mechanical data show that they are the better team.  It could be one little spurt in the second half that wins this game.

Belmont

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

North Carolina Central	39.47	3.5	35.1	73.7	19.0	17.3	8.2
North Dakota St.	47.57	3.4	20.9	75.7	14.3	13.2	-6.1

UNC Central has the weakest SOS in the entire field, and there isn’t another one even close.  North Dakota State has an R+T rating that is near the bottom of the field, one that in the past has never won more than one game in a Dance.  Once again, these are two 16-seeds that have no chance against a 1-seed.  I’m not sure they could beat any of the 15-seeds.  This one is a difficult choice–the weakest schedule or the worst R+T score.  Because I expect very low shooting percentages in this game, I will take the team likely to get the most second chance points.

North Carolina Central

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

St. John’s	55.79	-0.2	21.3	70.3	12.8	18.3	-8.0
Arizona St.	55.20	2.3	32.4	73.6	15.9	16.7	6.8

Once again, we have teams with identical SOS, which makes the selection a lot easier.  St. John’s has the second worst R+T rating in the entire field.  Case closed right away.  Arizona State will enjoy at least one big run in this game, and the Sun Devils will put this game away at that point.  This has the looks of a potential blowout win.

Arizona State

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Louisville	61.61	6.1	29.2	74.2	15.5	14.3	2.9
Minnesota	59.44	1.8	31.7	72.2	15.0	14.5	1.1

Louisville’s schedule is marginally tougher, so they will get a slight upward adjustment  in their data.  The Cardinals have a clear advantage in true shooting margin and an ever so slight R+T advantage.  This makes it 3 for 3 in Louisville’s favor, but it’s three slim advantages.  The Cards are the slim favorite according to the data.

Louisville

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

LSU	58.56	3.2	37.3	69.6	15.3	18.0	10.1
Yale	49.95	8.8	26.0	75.9	16.1	13.5	3.6

Note:   Unless something changes, LSU Coach Will Wade is still suspended and will not coach this game.  My system has no contingency to adjust LSU’s stats.

LSU’s SOS is almost nine points stronger, so their numbers must be improved.  Thus, the Tigers have a slightly better TS%, a much better rebounding advantage, and a considerably better R+T rating.  Yale might keep it close for some time, but LSU will enjoy a killer scoring spurt to put this game away.

LSU

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Auburn	59.71	1.8	33.0	68.0	14.7	22.0	3.9
New Mexico St.	48.05	4.8	36.8	79.0	14.5	17.6	18.7

This is going to be a game you will want to watch, even if you have no dog in this fight.  I expect the teams to top 75 possessions in this game.  Two of the top 20 coaches in college basketball will face off, and Aggie head coach Chris Jans should be on the radar of some power conference teams looking for a new coach.

Auburn has a large SOS advantage of 11.66 points per game, which is prohibitive.  The TS margin, offensive rebounding advantage, and R+T numbers heavily favor NMSU, and the Aggies have the top R+T rating in the tournament.  However, with a SOS advantage of almost a dozen points, Auburn will win the turnover battle, and NMSU’s rebounding advantage will be heavily tempered.  Score one for the SEC, but it would not be a shock if New Mexico State makes this a close game and even has a chance to win.  The Aggies should be considered as one of your potential upset teams, but I think there are better upset chances in this round.

Auburn

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Vermont	46.62	6.5	27.8	78.8	14.4	17.8	8.8
Florida St.	59.87	3.5	33.1	73.1	16.5	18	8.3

It is rare to see a Round of 64 game where the SOS difference is 13+ points and it isn’t a 1 vs. 16 or 2 vs. 15 game.  Florida State’s superior schedule makes the relatively equal numbers in the other data inconsequential.  If you are into horse racing, you know doubt know how often a non-winner of two lifetime races enters a graded handicap and beats a classic champion horse.  Vermont is the three year old that won a race against other non-winners and then entered a Graded stakes race against four and five year old horses, some of which were contenders in the Derby when they were three.  Class wins horse races, and it wins NCAA Tournament games when the upstart isn’t the next Justify.  Vermont isn’t a Justify.

Florida State

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Michigan St.	61.44	13.8	33.9	73.4	16.2	12.8	11.7
Bradley	48.52	1.7	27.4	73.8	16.8	16.5	-0.5

This game has the same issue that the previous game has, but the data is even more biased in favor of the better team.  Michigan State could start its second five in this game and probably win.  Bradley will have to settle for being glad they got to Dance.  If Tom Izzo wanted to do so, he could run up the score to a 40-point victory.  Sparty has a chance to go deep into this Tournament with their superior numbers.  Only an inability to force turnovers might eventually end their run.

Michigan State

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Maryland	59.76	7.4	33.9	75.3	17.0	12.5	8.6

Temple	54.13	0.5	26.0	71.1	13.8	18.1	-3.1
Belmont	48.60	9.7	25.6	76.4	13.8	14.8	6.0

In most of your pools, you get a free pass on the play-in games, but some of you might actually have to select these games.  Thus, I am showing you both of the teams Maryland could face.

Against Temple, the Terps have a slight SOS advantage and a humongous R+T advantage.  This system’s rule of thumb is to play against teams with a negative R+T rating.

Against Belmont, the Terps have a large SOS advantage, while the remaining stats are rather close.  This system’s other rule of thumb is to play the team with the superior SOS in this case.  So, the outcome should be the same no matter which team Maryland plays.

Maryland

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Kansas	62.55	5.5	29.7	71.6	16.1	15.7	1.9
Northeastern	51.11	6.7	22.7	75.7	15.1	14.9	-1.9

Kansas is not destined for a long stay at this cotillion.  The Jayhawks do not have the spurtability needed to win in the later rounds, but for this round, KU will feast on second chance points and take advantage of a Northeastern defense incapable of stopping a Big 12 offense.  This has the makings of a 20-point win.

Kansas

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Marquette	57.57	8.9	29.1	73.7	17.0	14.5	2.4
Murray St.	47.53	10.6	32.0	70.7	14.7	17.2	7.8

The old system had an assumption that a team with one star and average teammates rarely advanced far in the tournaments.  Remember, Michael Jordan and Stephan Curry played for teams with very good talent.  Jordan had Sam Perkins and James Worthy for teammates.

Ja Morant qualifies as one fantastic star, while the rest of his team is slightly above average but not in the Davidson mold when Curry and crew went to the Elite 8.

Marquette’s stats are not great.  The Big East was a bit weaker than normal this season, so MU is not a team to advance very far in your bracket, and in Markus Howard, you have one big star.  The difference is that the Golden Eagles have four well-above average players rounding out their starting lineup and a very good sub.

Murray State has an upset chance in this game, but when you break it down closely, Marquette should have a little more in the tank in the final minutes.  If you are looking for upset possibilities, this could definitely be put in that category, but it looks like Marquette is just good enough to avoid an upset.

Marquette

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Nevada	52.55	9.0	26.5	75.4	12.7	17.1	7.0
Florida	59.80	1.2	31.1	68.3	15.5	19.4	-0.5

This is your first big upset possibility in the games previewed so far.  Florida has a seven-point SOS advantage, but is is not enough to overcome their deficiencies in the other statistics.  Nevada coach Eric Musselman is, in my opinion, the best college basketball coach in the nation today, better than Mike Krzyzewski, Roy Williams, and Jay Wright.  If UCLA is not seriously looking at him for their vacancy, they are making a monumental mistake.

Let’s look at the data.  Nevada will take more intelligent shots than Florida, other than when the Gators get a couple of cheap baskets on offensive rebounds.  The Gators’s pressure defense will not be all that effective, and Florida has shown a propensity to make crucial mistakes in the final minutes of games.  This isn’t part of the criteria per se, but it shows in their turnover percentage, and their negative R+T rating,  and the criteria does say to play against a negative R+T.

Nevada

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Kentucky	60.54	9.5	36.5	74.2	15.9	16.1	15.4
Abilene Christian	42.42	4.3	29.4	73.3	15.5	21.7	5.9

Under John Calipari, Kentucky has shown a tendency to emulate their 1958 National Champions.  Adolph Rupp’s “Fiddlin’ Five” frequently allowed an opponent to enjoy a small lead, and then like a lightning flash make a big run to decide the outcome.  The Wildcats of 2019 have displayed this characteristic more times than not.

Abilene Christian isn’t a terrible team.  They earned their invitation by sweeping the regular season and conference tournament in the Southland Conference.  However, their data is not comparable when past Southland power Stephen F. Austin won in the Dance.  This game is a mismatch, and once the Wildcats stop fiddlin’, they will run away from the other Wildcats.

Kentucky

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Villanova	58.16	5.0	31.1	72.6	14.2	15.4	3.5
Saint Mary’s	55.33	5.1	31.2	76.8	14.1	14.7	9.6

In my opinion, this should be a great game to watch.  The teams are fairly evenly matched.  Villanova’s SOS is marginally better, while SMC has the better R+T Rating.  Both teams rely on offensive rebounding to score a good bit of their baskets, and Saint Mary’s has the ability to limit Villanova’s offensive rebounding.  It comes down to R+T rating.  The Gaels have a slight advantage over the defending national champions.  I consider this a 50-50 game, but the data says to take the Gaels.

Saint Mary’s

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Gonzaga	56.14	17.7	30.6	72.9	12.8	16.5	14.3

Prairie View A&M	43.07	-2.7	30.0	66.1	15.2	21.7	-3.8
Fairleigh-Dickinson	43.31	5.2	28.9	68.1	17.1	18.1	-2.4

There is no need to preview this.  Maybe, if the game was just five minutes long, Gonzaga would have a 2% chance of being upset.  However, over 40 minutes, the only upset will be if the Bulldogs fail to win this game by more than 30 points, no matter which of the two 16-seeds wins in Dayton.

Gonzaga

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Michigan	60.07	8.4	24.0	75.0	12.0	16.1	3.2
Montana	46.25	5.4	27.0	75.3	15.5	17.5	4.7

A lot of fans and so-called pundits believe Montana has a serious upset chance in this game.  The data here disagrees.  Michigan’s SOS is so much stronger, almost 14 points per game.  The Wolverines’ TS Margin is much better thanks to a superior defense, and the Maize and Blue limit mistakes.  I believe this game has more chance to be a blowout than to approach tossup status and look for the Wolverines to win by double digits.

Michigan

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Wofford	52.24	7.9	33.1	76.6	13.6	18.2	14.3
Seton Hall	58.56	0.5	29.5	70.6	15.2	17.4	-0.6

It’s always a bit scary to look at a Mid-major favorite and go with the chalk.  Is Wofford as good as advertised?  I have seen them play about five times this year, and they have an incredible inside-outside offensive game combined with an above-average defense.

Seton Hall’s advantage rests in their SOS superiority, but the Big East was not a beast this year.  The Hall only has a minor advantage here.  In every other data point, the Terriers look like pit bulls in this game, and Seton Hall has a negative R+T rating.

Wofford

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Purdue	60.84	2.3	34.9	73.5	13.5	17.2	11.4
Old Dominion	48.87	1.3	32.3	75.2	15.1	16.3	8.4

Purdue has been one of the biggest disappointments in NCAA Tournament history ever since Joe Barry Carroll led the Boilermakers to the 1980 Final Four.  Purdue has been upset numerous times in nearly 40 years.  This system doesn’t consider that to be a factor.  However, many of those Purdue teams lacked the R+T Rating advantage.  This one does.  Purdue has a strong SOS and a double-digit R+T.  Ironically, where the Boilermakers have been historically strong, TS% margin, they are rather mediocre there this year.

Old Dominion is a solid team from an average conference.  Their only liability is an equally mediocre TS% margin, and their SOS is a tad below average.  Look for the Big Ten to pick up a win, but at some point PU will stink in a game and fail once again to reach the Elysian Fields otherwise known as Minneapolis.

Purdue

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Syracuse	59.55	1.6	30.1	66.6	15.8	19.7	-3.7
Baylor	58.27	1.3	38.0	71.3	16.5	16.1	9.1

This should be another interesting game to watch, and it should be close.  Syracuse’s 2-3 matchup zone can be hard to attack without a lot of experience facing it, so the Orangemen frequently outperform their statistics in the Big Dance.  Baylor frequently plays better in the tournament than they do in the regular season with athletes that have free reign to shine.

The numbers show one glaring liability.  The ‘Cuse have a negative R+T rating, something rarely seen in a Jim Boeheim team.  Syracuse usually rebounds quite well out of their zone, but not so this year.  Baylor has one of the best offensive rebounding numbers in the field, so the Bears have the best chance to exploit a weakness in this game.

Baylor

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Cincinnati	55.48	2.9	37.2	70.9	13.4	18.2	12.9
Iowa	58.09	4.5	30.0	70.9	15.0	16.1	-0.4

In recent years, Cincinnati has owned criteria that yell Elite 8, even Final Four worthy, but the Bearcats never come through.  This isn’t their best team in recent years, so it figures that Cinti is prone for an early exit, even though the Bearcats are playing close to home.

Iowa peaked in the middle of the season and hasn’t been the same since January.  The Hawkeyes have a slight edge in SOS and TS% margin.  Cincinnati has such an incredible edge in R+T, and Iowa’s R+T is negative.  This is enough to advance the Bearcats to the Round of 32.  I expect Cinti to get double-digit offensive rebounds and force about 15 turnovers on the Hawkeyes.  That should lead to at least one big scoring spurt.

Cincinnati

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Ole Miss	58.28	3.2	30.4	70.5	16.0	18.2	2.8
Oklahoma	60.26	4.6	26.1	72.3	15.4	15.1	-2.5

What we have here are two swooning schools.  Both teams looked like sure Sweet 16 teams into mid-January.  Since then, both teams have struggled.  The winner is almost assuredly going home after the next round.  As far as this game goes, Oklahoma has that nasty negative R+T rating, and I just cannot pick a team with a negative R+T to win unless their SOS is far superior.  Two points is not that far.

Ole Miss

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Texas Tech	58.01	9.8	28.5	71.4	16.1	20.0	4.6
Northern Kentucky	46.39	6.6	31.0	74.1	15.4	16.8	7.1

This is Northern Kentucky’s second ever NCAA appearance.  Their original appearance resulted in a single-digit loss to big brother Kentucky.  This team is about as good as that team, while this Texas Tech teams is not as good as that Kentucky team.  Of course, the Norse were super fired up to face the Wildcats, and they got their moral victory.

This time, I expect the data to mean much more.  Texas Tech has a whopping SOS advantage of almost 12 points per game.  They have a much better TS% margin when the SOS is handicapped, and even though NKU has a higher R+T number, when you handicap it to SOS, the Red Raiders actually have the advantage here, and I expect TTU to force NKU into up to five more turnovers than they average.

Texas Tech

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Kansas St.	58.91	1.4	27.9	74.5	15.1	20.3	3.5
UC-Irvine	47.26	6.6	34.3	73.6	14.9	14.7	12.2

Kansas State is one of those teams on my radar to be a potential upset victim.  Having watched UC-Irvine’s Big West Conference Tournament games, I think they have a shot in this game.

The issue is the SOS numbers.  The Wildcats’ schedule was more than 11 1/2 points stronger per game.  UCI’s toughest opposition the entire season was at home against Utah State, and the Aggies slaughtered the Anteaters by 24 points.  UCI did win at Saint Mary’s.

Kansas State has one big asset–their ability to force turnovers.  The Wildcats are not particularly strong on offense.  There Wildcats play a very patient offense and try to limit possessions, but there are nights where this strategy plays into the oppositions’ hands.  Irvine plays patient, smart basketball and will feel right at home in a 60-65 possession game with less than 120 total points.  Kansas State might have the overall better athletes, but UC-Irvine has a hot coach in Russ Turner, a man tutored by Mike Montgomery with a little Don Nelson in his background.  Here’s a 13-seed that I believe can win an opening game.  It’s a tossup.  Go with the team you believe in your mind and heart should win, because I debated this one for 30 minutes before deciding and to be quite honest, I am not sure I can really determine the superior team according to my system.

UC-Irvine

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Tennessee	59.65	9.7	31.3	70.0	13.9	15.8	5.3
Colgate	47.05	5.7	29.6	73.9	16.7	15.6	3.2

There isn’t much need to discuss much in this game–it’s a mismatch.  Tennessee has slightly better criteria stats than Colgate, and when you add a better than 12 1/2 point superiority per game in SOS, you are looking at a potential 20-30 point win.

Tennessee

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Gardner-Webb	45.44	8.8	24.8	70.2	14.7	16.4	-1.8
Virginia	60.36	13.2	29.9	74.1	12.8	15.6	9.6

Gardner-Webb is not in Baltimore County.  Additionally, the Bulldogs do not have the criteria that UMBC had at this time last year.  GWU has a negative R+T rating, and against the Pack Line defense, they will not get the crucial second chance points on offensive rebounds.  Virginia will control the boards and commit few turnovers.  How do you beat the Cavaliers without winning the rebounding and/or the turnover margin?  UVA will wash that bad taste of 2018 out of their mouths with an ugly final score in the neighborhood of 75 to 50.

Virginia

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Buffalo	53.41	6.0	31.8	73.8	13.5	18.2	10.3

St. John’s	55.79	-0.2	21.3	70.3	12.8	18.3	-8.0
Arizona St.	55.20	2.3	32.4	73.6	15.9	16.7	6.8

Bully for Coach Nate Oats.  He signed a lengthy contract extension to stay in Buffalo, when a lot of other schools were ready to pound on his door.  It makes me wonder if Buffalo has designs on maybe campaigning for a spot in a future expanded American Athletic Conference, with excellent football and basketball programs more than ready to move up.

I expect the Bulls to be facing Arizona State in this game, but let’s for a moment look at the possibility that St. John’s wins in Dayton.  With an R+T rating of -8.0, the rules of this system is to continue to play against this team unless the opponent has an incredibly low SOS, well below 45.00.  Buffalo’s SOS is about where previous Mid-Major Final Four teams George Mason, Wichita State, and Virginia Commonwealth were.  So, if St. John’s advances out of Dayton, go with Buffalo to beat their in-state rival by double digits.

Against Arizona State, this is a much more even game.  Buffalo enjoys only a very slight advantage, making this basically a 50-50 game.  The Bulls have been a little more consistent all season, while ASU has been up and down.  The data says that Buffalo is maybe a 51% chance to be the winner.

There is one other factor in this potential game, and it is not part of the criteria, but the fabulous Buffalo senior class that put this team in the top 20 were recruited by current Sun Devil Coach Bobby Hurley.

Buffalo

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Wisconsin	60.91	6.5	24.0	73.5	12.8	15.0	-1.2
Oregon	55.13	3.8	29.6	71.9	15.5	18.3	4.6

When McDonald’s All-American Bol Bol went out for the season after nine games, it looked like it was Duck Season, and the Pac-12 was full of Elmer J. Fudd hunters on the hardwoods.  Give Coach Dana Altman the utmost respect for making the necessary adjustments when he lost his 5-star stud.  His number two 5-star player, Louis King, was not ready to star when the season began.  As the season progressed, King got better and better.

Wisconsin has a slightly better SOS and TS% Margin.  Rebounding is about equal.  However, The Badgers have a negative R+T rating.  Thus, we go against UW more than in favor of Oregon.

Oregon

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Utah St.	52.13	8.7	32.0	77.8	15.5	15.5	14.8
Washington	55.60	4.4	29.5	65.7	17.4	20.5	-3.6

Utah State might be a dangerous dark horse this year!  They have the criteria resume of a Gonzaga in previous years before Mark Few took the Bulldogs to the Championship Game.  I am not predicting USU to make the Final Four this year, but they might make the second weekend.

In this game, Washington is another one of those teams with a negative R+T rating.  While, I am a bit worried that so many teams made the field this year with sub-zero R+T ratings, until one of these non-spurtable teams get to the Elite 8, they will not have my support.

Utah State

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Duke	63.09	10.3	36.1	70.4	15.0	17.1	12.1

North Carolina Central	39.47	3.5	35.1	73.7	19.0	17.3	8.2
North Dakota St.	47.57	3.4	20.9	75.7	14.3	13.2	-6.1

Don’t even think for a second that Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski will lose a minute’s sleep thinking about this game, no matter which 16-seed wins in Dayton.  Duke could play this game without Zion Williamson, R.J. Barrett, or Cam Reddish suiting up.  Heck, Coach K could take his Gary Winton-led team from Army in the 1970’s and win this game.

Duke

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Houston	55.02	8.0	34.4	74.1	14.2	15.8	13.6
Georgia St.	51.14	5.1	23.5	66.2	14.7	18	-9.6

Here is another mismatch game.  Georgia State’s -9.6 R+T rating is dead last in this field, and Houston’s 13.6 R+T rating is seventh best in the field.  Add a better SOS and better TS% margin, and this leads to a major slaughter.  Houston has won some NCAA Tournament games by very large margins in the past.  There was a 35-point pasting of TCU in the Midwest Regional Final in 1968.  The Cougars have an outside chance to top that in this game.  Kelvin Sampson will unload the bench quicker than the way Guy Lewis did, so expect the margin to be in the 20’s.

Houston

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Mississippi St.	59.59	4.3	34.8	70.2	16.5	17.1	6.2
Liberty	46.27	9.2	25.9	74.9	15.0	18.5	5.2

I expect this game to stay somewhat close, at least for most of the game.  Mississippi State has good but not great criteria data.  Liberty’s data is slightly more impressive, but the Bulldogs’ SOS is much stronger, which will probably lead to the Maroon and White prevailing by wearing down and eventually extinguishing the Flames.

Mississippi State

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
North Carolina	62.61	5.5	34.4	76.9	14.6	16.5	17.4
Iona	45.43	3.1	25	70.6	15.4	16.1	-5.4

Roy Williams knows how to get his teams ready to play in the Big Dance, and the Tar Heels are heavy favorites to advance deep into this tournament.  Their R+T rating is second best in the field.  Their SOS is also number two.

Iona is fun to watch, as they like to run and gun.  However, this plays right into UNC’s hands.  The Gaels cannot possibly win this game, and it will be hard to keep it within 20 points.  Their -5.4 R+T rating would exclude them from being picked against 50 other teams in this tournament.

North Carolina

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Virginia Commonwealth	53.22	6.8	31.3	69.3	17.4	20.0	2.9
Central Florida	54.86	9.5	29.3	70.7	15.4	15.5	2.2

This will be another potentially close and exciting game, one worth watching.  The two teams are fairly evenly matched, but only if star Rams’ star guard Marcus Evans is playing at 100% after injuring his knee in an Atlantic 10 Tournament loss to Rhode Island.  When Evans went out, VCU was dominating the Rams.  Without him, they looked like a team that might not have beaten UMass that day.

Central Florida has the unique 7 foot 6 giant, Tacko Fall.  If you haven’t seen him play, do not mistake him for past titans that could barely walk and chew gum at the same time.  Fall is not a gentle giant.  He plays with an attitude, and he is coordinated.  He can play a one-man zone under the basket and change the opponents’ field goal percentage by 10%.  On offense, he is nearly unstoppable when the Knights can get him the ball within arms’ reach of the basket, where he can dunk flat-footed.

With a healthy Evans, VCU can still press full-court and take a lot of Fall’s ability to dominate out of the game.  Make no mistake though; this is not the same Havoc defense run by former coach Shaka Smart.  VCU won’t gamble and go full out for the steal or to force a turnover.  If I had to pick which game might have the best shot at going to overtime, this one might be the one.

Central Florida

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Iowa St.	59.42	7.6	28.7	70.0	13.9	15.9	1.7
Ohio St.	59.18	2.5	27.8	73.9	16.3	16.3	-0.4

Because the SOS’s are close to equal, the remaining stats are easy to compare.  Iowa State has a clear TS% margin, and even though the Cyclones’ R+T is weak, at least it is not negative, like the Buckeyes.

Iowa State

 

Team	SOS	TS Marg	OReb%	DReb%	TOV%	DTOV%	R+T
Virginia Tech	58.33	8.6	29.7	72.6	15.4	19.0	6.4
Saint Louis	51.40	-0.8	35.8	75.2	15.8	17.2	11.2

Only three teams enter this tournament with negative TS% margins, and it makes sense.  The object of the game is to put the ball into the hoop, while preventing the other team from doing so.  Add a healthy SOS advantage, and the Billiken’s R+T rating is neutralized.  SLU’s biggest asset is the ability to force their opponents into committing turnovers, but in this game, Virginia Tech is even better at that game.  While I have heard some people  on sports talk radio express the belief that Travis Ford’s team has a legitimate upset chance in this game, I tend to believe that chances are much stronger that the Hokies win by double-digits.

Virginia Tech

 

Here is how I fill out the remainder of the bracket

For the first time ever, the number one seeds have the top four criteria.  Could it be that the Selection Committee Members all have Bachelor of Madness Degrees in Bracketnomics?

Round of 32

Duke over Central Florida

Virginia Tech over Mississippi St.

Maryland over LSU

Michigan St. over Louisville

Gonzaga over Baylor

Florida St. over Marquette

Texas Tech over Buffalo

Michigan over Nevada

Virginia over Ole Miss

UC-Irvine over Oregon

Purdue over Saint Mary’s

Tennessee over Cincinnati

North Carolina over Utah St.

Auburn over Kansas

Houston over Iowa St.

Kentucky over Wofford

 

Sweet 16

Duke over Virginia Tech

Michigan St. over Maryland

Gonzaga over Florida St.

Texas Tech over Michigan

Virginia over UC-Irvine

Tennessee over Purdue

North Carolina over Auburn

Kentucky over Houston

 

Elite 8

Duke over Michigan St.

Gonzaga over Texas Tech

Virginia over Tennessee

North Carolina over Kentucky

 

Final Four

Gonzaga over Duke

North Carolina over Virginia

 

 

Championship Game

Gonzaga over North Carolina

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bracketnomics 2019: Picking Your Brackets

Welcome to Bracketnomics 2019, the class that will earn you the coveted BM Degree, the Bachelor of Madness.

Because, we have a ton of stats to reveal tonight, we will limit the prose. If you need a tutorial about what Bracketnomics is, then refer to the following link:

https://piratings.wordpress.com/2019/03/16/bracketnomics-2019/

We received a handful of well-thought comments to our sister page suggesting a few things that we agree with, so you will get the kitchen sink of stats this year. Because of Robert M in New Orleans, Joel S, in Orlando, and our good friend and numbers’ savant Brandon W in San Berdoo, California, we are bringing back the old Bracketnomics data combined with the new. For what it’s worth, this year, the old data and new data come to basically the same conclusions.

A Brief Primer on the Old Criteria have us look for teams meeting these criteria

1. A double-digit scoring margin, and a secondary reward to teams with a scoring margin of 8.0 to 9.99.

2. A field goal percentage margin (FG%-Def FG%) in excess of 8%

3. A combination of rebounding margin and turnover margin combined that exceed:
A. A rebound margin of 5.0 or better no matter what the turnover margin
B. A rebound margin of 3.0 to 4.9 with positive turnover margin
C. A rebound margin of 0.1 to 2.9 with with a turnover margin of 3.0 or better
D. A turnover margin of 5.0 or better no matter what the rebound margin

4. A team that averages 7.5 or more steals per game

5. An Old R+T Rating of 10.0 or better, 5.0 or better to get from 68 to 16.
The old R+T rating was (R + (0.2 * S) + (1.2 * T)
R is rebound margin
S is steals/game
T is turnover margin

6. A Strength of Schedule in excess of 0.5500 (back then using the CBS SOS)

The old method was quite accurate for many years, but the game changed when the 3-point shot became a lot more important. The Golden State Warrior effect, actually advanced basketball metrics, showed how important total shooting percentage was and not just field goal percentage. It is a no-brainer that a team that shoots 100% of its shots inside the arc and hits 53% is worse off than a team that shoots 100% of its shots from behind the arc and hits 36%. The 53% team will score .53 points per shot attempt, while the 36% team will score .54 points per shot attempt.

The Current Method uses this data
1. Strength of Schedule
2. True Shooting % Margin
3. R+T Rating

The Strength of Schedule is now calculated by our own metric, and the current R+T Rating is:
(R + (0.5 * S) + (6 – Opp S) + T

Both the old and the new method warned about any team with a negative R+T number as they were most prone to being upset very early in the tournament, and nobody with a negative R+T number ever made the Final Four, and only one ever made the Elite 8. R+T estimates extra scoring opportunities, and they lead to game-winning scoring spurts.

Now, let’s show you some stats. Here are the raw stats for all 68 teams.

Team	SOS	TSMarg	R+T	PPG Marg	FG% Marg
Abilene Christian	42.42	4.29%	5.9	11.4	4.4
Arizona St.	55.20	2.27%	6.8	4.7	3.4
Auburn	59.71	1.85%	3.9	11.5	1.5
Baylor	58.27	1.28%	9.1	4.5	1.8
Belmont	48.60	9.68%	6.0	13.5	7.4
Bradley	48.52	1.73%	-0.5	1.6	2.3
Buffalo	53.41	6.00%	10.3	14.4	4.5
Central Florida	54.86	9.52%	2.2	7.8	6.8
Cincinnati	55.48	2.94%	12.9	9.5	2.6
Colgate	47.05	5.65%	3.2	5.8	4.6
Duke	63.09	10.32%	12.1	15.9	8.2
Fairleigh-Dickinson	43.31	5.19%	-2.4	4.1	3.6
Florida	59.80	1.17%	-0.5	4.7	0.4
Florida St.	59.87	3.52%	8.3	7.8	3.4
Gardner-Webb	45.44	8.83%	-1.8	7.8	7.6
Georgia St.	51.14	5.06%	-9.6	4.2	4.2
Gonzaga	56.14	17.68%	14.3	23.7	14.3
Houston	55.02	8.04%	13.6	14.4	7.7
Iona	45.43	3.14%	-5.4	1.2	0.8
Iowa	58.09	4.52%	-0.4	4.7	0.7
Iowa St.	59.42	7.64%	1.7	9.1	5.8
Kansas	62.55	5.52%	1.9	5.3	5.4
Kansas St.	58.91	1.35%	3.5	6.6	1.7
Kentucky	60.54	9.48%	15.4	11.3	7.5
Liberty	46.27	9.22%	5.2	13.2	7.6
Louisville	61.61	6.10%	2.9	6.7	2.9
LSU	58.56	3.18%	10.1	8.4	2.6
Marquette	57.57	8.85%	2.4	8.6	5.7
Maryland	59.76	7.39%	8.6	6.2	5.7
Michigan	60.07	8.41%	3.2	11.8	5.1
Michigan St.	61.44	13.83%	11.7	13.3	10.8
Minnesota	59.44	1.81%	1.1	1.6	0.3
Mississippi St.	59.59	4.34%	6.2	7.2	3.5
Montana	46.25	5.41%	4.7	8.5	6.6
Murray St.	47.53	10.65%	7.8	15.5	8.6
Nevada	52.55	9.02%	7.0	14.0	5.7
New Mexico St.	48.05	4.78%	18.7	14.0	4.1
North Carolina	62.61	5.49%	17.4	13.2	5.1
North Carolina Central	39.47	3.50%	8.2	5.1	2.2
North Dakota St.	47.57	3.42%	-6.1	1.0	-0.5
Northeastern	51.11	6.69%	-1.9	5.8	2.5
Northern Kentucky	46.39	6.56%	7.1	10.3	6.4
Ohio St.	59.18	2.47%	-0.4	3.4	1.7
Oklahoma	60.26	4.64%	-2.5	3.0	4.3
Old Dominion	48.87	1.33%	8.4	5.4	2
Ole Miss	58.28	3.18%	2.8	5.0	1.8
Oregon	55.13	3.77%	4.6	7.6	4.8
Prairie View	43.07	-2.66%	-3.8	2.5	-1.7
Purdue	60.84	2.31%	11.4	9.4	2.5
Saint Louis	51.40	-0.81%	11.2	3.4	0.9
Saint Mary’s	55.33	5.13%	9.6	8.5	3.8
Seton Hall	58.56	0.50%	-0.6	2.4	1.4
St. John’s	55.79	-0.20%	-8.0	2.7	1.9
Syracuse	59.55	1.59%	-3.7	4.0	2.6
Temple	54.13	0.46%	-3.1	3.6	-0.2
Tennessee	59.65	9.73%	5.3	13.2	9.8
Texas Tech	58.01	9.81%	4.6	13.8	10.4
UC-Irvine	47.26	6.58%	12.2	9.6	7.9
Utah St.	52.13	8.73%	14.8	12.4	8.3
Vermont	46.62	6.53%	8.8	11.3	3.9
Villanova	58.16	4.98%	3.5	7.4	0.5
Virginia	60.36	13.19%	9.6	16.7	9.8
Virginia Commonwealth	53.22	6.84%	2.9	9.8	5.8
Virginia Tech	58.33	8.65%	6.4	11.9	7
Washington	55.60	4.43%	-3.6	5.4	3.9
Wisconsin	60.91	6.47%	-1.2	7.7	6
Wofford	52.24	7.87%	14.3	17.4	6.6
Yale	49.95	8.75%	3.6	7.9	8.7

Team	Reb Marg	TO Marg	Stl/G	Def Stl/G	Old R+T
Abilene Christian	1.2	4.6	8.7	5.6	8.4
Arizona St.	4.8	0.3	6.2	6.3	6.4
Auburn	-0.3	5.5	9.4	5.8	8.1
Baylor	6.3	-0.8	6.1	6.0	6.6
Belmont	3.8	0.9	6.8	6.1	6.3
Bradley	1.2	-0.2	5.4	5.7	2.1
Buffalo	3.9	3.7	7.3	5.1	9.9
Central Florida	2.2	0.4	5.7	5.6	3.8
Cincinnati	5.2	3.1	6.2	3.9	10.1
Colgate	4.0	-0.9	6.2	7.1	4.2
Duke	6.1	1.5	9.5	6.5	9.8
Fairleigh-Dickinson	-0.8	1.3	7.7	6.1	2.2
Florida	-0.6	3.0	7.2	6.1	4.5
Florida St.	4.7	0.8	7.0	5.5	7.0
Gardner-Webb	-0.7	1.8	6.9	5.8	2.8
Georgia St.	-6.1	3.5	8.0	5.0	-0.3
Gonzaga	6.2	3.2	7.5	5.2	11.5
Houston	7.3	0.9	6.4	5.3	9.7
Iona	-2.2	1.0	6.8	5.5	0.3
Iowa	1.0	1.0	6.2	6.7	3.4
Iowa St.	0.7	1.8	7.0	5.2	4.3
Kansas	2.5	-0.2	6.9	6.5	3.6
Kansas St.	1.1	3.6	7.6	6.2	6.9
Kentucky	9.0	-0.1	6.0	5.7	10.1
Liberty	2.2	2.6	6.4	5.2	6.7
Louisville	3.7	-1.0	4.5	5.8	3.4
LSU	5.1	1.8	9.1	6.5	9.1
Marquette	4.4	-2.0	4.8	7.0	3.0
Maryland	8.5	-3.7	4.3	7.1	5.0
Michigan	0.2	3.2	6.1	3.7	5.3
Michigan St.	8.9	-2.6	5.2	6.4	6.9
Minnesota	2.6	-0.6	4.8	6.0	2.8
Mississippi St.	3.8	0.3	8.1	5.9	5.7
Montana	2.6	1.6	6.5	5.6	5.8
Murray St.	3.7	2.1	7.6	5.8	7.7
Nevada	2.4	3.4	6.2	4.5	7.7
New Mexico St.	9.6	1.4	5.6	4.8	12.3
North Carolina	9.7	1.0	7.2	6.7	12.3
North Carolina Central	6.4	-1.9	6.3	6.0	5.4
North Dakota St.	-1.4	-0.6	4.8	5.3	-1.2
Northeastern	0.1	0.0	6.2	5.4	1.4
Northern Kentucky	4.4	0.9	6.2	5.9	6.7
Ohio St.	1.3	-0.2	5.9	5.9	2.3
Oklahoma	0.6	0.0	5.9	6.8	1.8
Old Dominion	4.9	0.4	5.6	4.9	6.6
Ole Miss	1.5	1.9	7.3	6.0	5.3
Oregon	1.8	2.1	7.8	5.2	6.0
Prairie View	-4.4	5.5	8.8	5.1	4.0
Purdue	5.2	2.4	6.5	4.8	9.4
Saint Louis	6.6	0.3	7.1	5.9	8.3
Saint Mary’s	5.6	0.1	6.0	5.0	7.0
Seton Hall	-0.1	1.8	7.0	5.8	3.4
St. John’s	-6.2	5.1	8.8	5.2	1.6
Syracuse	-2.3	3.2	8.3	6.6	3.2
Temple	-2.9	3.7	8.7	5.5	3.2
Tennessee	3.4	1.7	6.0	6.4	6.7
Texas Tech	1.9	3.3	7.3	6.4	7.3
UC-Irvine	7.4	-0.4	5.7	5.2	8.1
Utah St.	8.9	-0.3	6.2	6.1	9.8
Vermont	4.5	2.2	5.6	5.4	8.3
Villanova	2.6	0.7	5.4	5.4	4.5
Virginia	4.9	1.9	5.6	5.2	8.4
Virginia Commonwealth	1.4	2.3	8.0	6.4	5.8
Virginia Tech	2.6	2.7	6.7	5.1	7.2
Washington	-2.5	2.9	9.0	6.1	2.8
Wisconsin	-0.3	1.8	5.1	5.2	2.9
Wofford	6.5	3.1	6.9	5.5	11.6
Yale	4.7	-1.9	5.9	7.0	3.6

What you see above is the entire 68 teams field in alphabetical order.  Let’s break it down by ranking the teams according to the data.

Let’s start with the all-important class ranking.  Here is how the teams rank according to strength of schedule.  Remember that no national champion has had an SOS below 55, and only a small handful in all the years have made the Final Four.  In the years where a team with a sub-55 SOS made the Final Four, they played an opponent in the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 that also had a sub-55 SOS.

Team	SOS
Duke	63.09
North Carolina	62.61
Kansas	62.55
Louisville	61.61
Michigan St.	61.44
Wisconsin	60.91
Purdue	60.84
Kentucky	60.54
Virginia	60.36
Oklahoma	60.26
Michigan	60.07
Florida St.	59.87
Florida	59.80
Maryland	59.76
Auburn	59.71
Tennessee	59.65
Mississippi St.	59.59
Syracuse	59.55
Minnesota	59.44
Iowa St.	59.42
Ohio St.	59.18
Kansas St.	58.91
Seton Hall	58.56
LSU	58.56
Virginia Tech	58.33
Ole Miss	58.28
Baylor	58.27
Villanova	58.16
Iowa	58.09
Texas Tech	58.01
Marquette	57.57
Gonzaga	56.14
St. John’s	55.79
Washington	55.60
Cincinnati	55.48
Saint Mary’s	55.33
Arizona St.	55.20
Oregon	55.13
Houston	55.02
Central Florida	54.86
Temple	54.13
Buffalo	53.41
Virginia Commonwealth	53.22
Nevada	52.55
Wofford	52.24
Utah St.	52.13
Saint Louis	51.40
Georgia St.	51.14
Northeastern	51.11
Yale	49.95
Old Dominion	48.87
Belmont	48.60
Bradley	48.52
New Mexico St.	48.05
North Dakota St.	47.57
Murray St.	47.53
UC-Irvine	47.26
Colgate	47.05
Vermont	46.62
Northern Kentucky	46.39
Liberty	46.27
Montana	46.25
Gardner-Webb	45.44
Iona	45.43
Fairleigh-Dickinson	43.31
Prairie View	43.07
Abilene Christian	42.42
North Carolina Central	39.47

39 of the 68 teams meet the minimum requirement, including Gonzaga and Houston.  Of note, Buffalo, Nevada, Wofford, and Utah State have an SOS in the range where past Cinderella teams have snuck into the Final Four.

Now, let’s look at True Shooting percentage margins.  TS% is calculated thusly:

Points / (2 * FGA + (0.475 * FTA))

True Shooting Percentage Margin is the offensive TS% minus the defensive TS%.

Team	TSMarg
Gonzaga	17.68%
Michigan St.	13.83%
Virginia	13.19%
Murray St.	10.65%
Duke	10.32%
Texas Tech	9.81%
Tennessee	9.73%
Belmont	9.68%
Central Florida	9.52%
Kentucky	9.48%
Liberty	9.22%
Nevada	9.02%
Marquette	8.85%
Gardner-Webb	8.83%
Yale	8.75%
Utah St.	8.73%
Virginia Tech	8.65%
Michigan	8.41%
Houston	8.04%
Wofford	7.87%
Iowa St.	7.64%
Maryland	7.39%
Virginia Commonwealth	6.84%
Northeastern	6.69%
UC-Irvine	6.58%
Northern Kentucky	6.56%
Vermont	6.53%
Wisconsin	6.47%
Louisville	6.10%
Buffalo	6.00%
Colgate	5.65%
Kansas	5.52%
North Carolina	5.49%
Montana	5.41%
Fairleigh-Dickinson	5.19%
Saint Mary’s	5.13%
Georgia St.	5.06%
Villanova	4.98%
New Mexico St.	4.78%
Oklahoma	4.64%
Iowa	4.52%
Washington	4.43%
Mississippi St.	4.34%
Abilene Christian	4.29%
Oregon	3.77%
Florida St.	3.52%
North Carolina Central	3.50%
North Dakota St.	3.42%
Ole Miss	3.18%
LSU	3.18%
Iona	3.14%
Cincinnati	2.94%
Ohio St.	2.47%
Purdue	2.31%
Arizona St.	2.27%
Auburn	1.85%
Minnesota	1.81%
Bradley	1.73%
Syracuse	1.59%
Kansas St.	1.35%
Old Dominion	1.33%
Baylor	1.28%
Florida	1.17%
Seton Hall	0.50%
Temple	0.46%
St. John’s	-0.20%
Saint Louis	-0.81%
Prairie View	-2.66%

Did you notice that some of the teams with the best strength of schedule are high up in the TS% margin too, and vice versa?  Think about this.  If a team played tough competition and consistently shot better overall in these games, they have to be great teams.  The object of the game is to put the ball through the goal and stop the other team from doing this.  If a team consistently did this against other teams on par with what they must face in the Big Dance in order to cut the nets on April 8, they must be the ones to consider.

Now, let’s look at the R+T rating.  This is our secret sauce at the PiRate Ratings, even though it has been revealed in other national media.  However, unless somebody at CBS or ESPN links to this site, no more than 18,000 people will read this post today, so you stand a good chance of being the only person in your pool that has this information.

Team	R+T
New Mexico St.	18.7
North Carolina	17.4
Kentucky	15.4
Utah St.	14.8
Gonzaga	14.3
Wofford	14.3
Houston	13.6
Cincinnati	12.9
UC-Irvine	12.2
Duke	12.1
Michigan St.	11.7
Purdue	11.4
Saint Louis	11.2
Buffalo	10.3
LSU	10.1
Virginia	9.6
Saint Mary’s	9.6
Baylor	9.1
Vermont	8.8
Maryland	8.6
Old Dominion	8.4
Florida St.	8.3
North Carolina Central	8.2
Murray St.	7.8
Northern Kentucky	7.1
Nevada	7.0
Arizona St.	6.8
Virginia Tech	6.4
Mississippi St.	6.2
Belmont	6.0
Abilene Christian	5.9
Tennessee	5.3
Liberty	5.2
Montana	4.7
Oregon	4.6
Texas Tech	4.6
Auburn	3.9
Yale	3.6
Kansas St.	3.5
Villanova	3.5
Michigan	3.2
Colgate	3.2
Louisville	2.9
Virginia Commonwealth	2.9
Ole Miss	2.8
Marquette	2.4
Central Florida	2.2
Kansas	1.9
Iowa St.	1.7
Minnesota	1.1
Iowa	-0.4
Ohio St.	-0.4
Florida	-0.5
Bradley	-0.5
Seton Hall	-0.6
Wisconsin	-1.2
Gardner-Webb	-1.8
Northeastern	-1.9
Fairleigh-Dickinson	-2.4
Oklahoma	-2.5
Temple	-3.1
Washington	-3.6
Syracuse	-3.7
Prairie View	-3.8
Iona	-5.4
North Dakota St.	-6.1
St. John’s	-8.0
Georgia St.	-9.6

Wow!  Look at how many mid-major teams have great R+T Ratings this year.  New Mexico State leads the pack, but their SOS is too low to make them a humongous upset team to make the Final Four.  They are dangerous still.

North Carolina is the top power conference team in this rating, just like the Tar Heels have been twice before when they won the tournament.  Kentucky, Gonzaga, and Houston are up near the top.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have a record number of teams with negative R+T numbers in the 2019 field.  That concerns us a bit.  Normally, 5 or 6 teams will enter the Dance with a negative R+T, and we will pick against all of them.  18 of the 68 teams have negative R+T ratings this year.  What that means is that it is likely that somebody with a negative R+T rating will sneak into the Sweet 16 and then get blown off the floor against a quality team that can go on scoring spurts.  Still, the bottom eight in this rating figure to have a difficult time winning just once in this Dance.

 

Here are how the teams rank in the old criteria data.

Scoring Margin

Team	PPG Marg
Gonzaga	23.7
Wofford	17.4
Virginia	16.7
Duke	15.9
Murray St.	15.5
Buffalo	14.4
Houston	14.4
Nevada	14.0
New Mexico St.	14.0
Texas Tech	13.8
Belmont	13.5
Michigan St.	13.3
Liberty	13.2
Tennessee	13.2
North Carolina	13.2
Utah St.	12.4
Virginia Tech	11.9
Michigan	11.8
Auburn	11.5
Abilene Christian	11.4
Vermont	11.3
Kentucky	11.3
Northern Kentucky	10.3
Virginia Commonwealth	9.8
UC-Irvine	9.6
Cincinnati	9.5
Purdue	9.4
Iowa St.	9.1
Marquette	8.6
Montana	8.5
Saint Mary’s	8.5
LSU	8.4
Yale	7.9
Florida St.	7.8
Central Florida	7.8
Gardner-Webb	7.8
Wisconsin	7.7
Oregon	7.6
Villanova	7.4
Mississippi St.	7.2
Louisville	6.7
Kansas St.	6.6
Maryland	6.2
Colgate	5.8
Northeastern	5.8
Old Dominion	5.4
Washington	5.4
Kansas	5.3
North Carolina Central	5.1
Ole Miss	5.0
Arizona St.	4.7
Iowa	4.7
Florida	4.7
Baylor	4.5
Georgia St.	4.2
Fairleigh-Dickinson	4.1
Syracuse	4.0
Temple	3.6
Ohio St.	3.4
Saint Louis	3.4
Oklahoma	3.0
St. John’s	2.7
Prairie View	2.5
Seton Hall	2.4
Bradley	1.6
Minnesota	1.6
Iona	1.2
North Dakota St.	1.0

FG% Margin

Team	FG% Marg
Gonzaga	14.3
Michigan St.	10.8
Texas Tech	10.4
Tennessee	9.8
Virginia	9.8
Yale	8.7
Murray St.	8.6
Utah St.	8.3
Duke	8.2
UC-Irvine	7.9
Houston	7.7
Gardner-Webb	7.6
Liberty	7.6
Kentucky	7.5
Belmont	7.4
Virginia Tech	7.0
Central Florida	6.8
Montana	6.6
Wofford	6.6
Northern Kentucky	6.4
Wisconsin	6.0
Iowa St.	5.8
Virginia Commonwealth	5.8
Nevada	5.7
Marquette	5.7
Maryland	5.7
Kansas	5.4
North Carolina	5.1
Michigan	5.1
Oregon	4.8
Colgate	4.6
Buffalo	4.5
Abilene Christian	4.4
Oklahoma	4.3
Georgia St.	4.2
New Mexico St.	4.1
Vermont	3.9
Washington	3.9
Saint Mary’s	3.8
Fairleigh-Dickinson	3.6
Mississippi St.	3.5
Arizona St.	3.4
Florida St.	3.4
Louisville	2.9
LSU	2.6
Cincinnati	2.6
Syracuse	2.6
Purdue	2.5
Northeastern	2.5
Bradley	2.3
North Carolina Central	2.2
Old Dominion	2.0
St. John’s	1.9
Baylor	1.8
Ole Miss	1.8
Kansas St.	1.7
Ohio St.	1.7
Auburn	1.5
Seton Hall	1.4
Saint Louis	0.9
Iona	0.8
Iowa	0.7
Villanova	0.5
Florida	0.4
Minnesota	0.3
Temple	-0.2
North Dakota St.	-0.5
Prairie View	-1.7

 

Rebounds/Steals/Old R+T

Team	Reb Marg
North Carolina	9.7
New Mexico St.	9.6
Kentucky	9.0
Michigan St.	8.9
Utah St.	8.9
Maryland	8.5
UC-Irvine	7.4
Houston	7.3
Saint Louis	6.6
Wofford	6.5
North Carolina Central	6.4
Baylor	6.3
Gonzaga	6.2
Duke	6.1
Saint Mary’s	5.6
Purdue	5.2
Cincinnati	5.2
LSU	5.1
Old Dominion	4.9
Virginia	4.9
Arizona St.	4.8
Yale	4.7
Florida St.	4.7
Vermont	4.5
Northern Kentucky	4.4
Marquette	4.4
Colgate	4.0
Buffalo	3.9
Belmont	3.8
Mississippi St.	3.8
Murray St.	3.7
Louisville	3.7
Tennessee	3.4
Villanova	2.6
Virginia Tech	2.6
Montana	2.6
Minnesota	2.6
Kansas	2.5
Nevada	2.4
Liberty	2.2
Central Florida	2.2
Texas Tech	1.9
Oregon	1.8
Ole Miss	1.5
Virginia Commonwealth	1.4
Ohio St.	1.3
Bradley	1.2
Abilene Christian	1.2
Kansas St.	1.1
Iowa	1.0
Iowa St.	0.7
Oklahoma	0.6
Michigan	0.2
Northeastern	0.1
Seton Hall	-0.1
Wisconsin	-0.3
Auburn	-0.3
Florida	-0.6
Gardner-Webb	-0.7
Fairleigh-Dickinson	-0.8
North Dakota St.	-1.4
Iona	-2.2
Syracuse	-2.3
Washington	-2.5
Temple	-2.9
Prairie View	-4.4
Georgia St.	-6.1
St. John’s	-6.2
Team	TO Marg
Prairie View	5.5
Auburn	5.5
St. John’s	5.1
Abilene Christian	4.6
Buffalo	3.7
Temple	3.7
Kansas St.	3.6
Georgia St.	3.5
Nevada	3.4
Texas Tech	3.3
Syracuse	3.2
Michigan	3.2
Gonzaga	3.2
Wofford	3.1
Cincinnati	3.1
Florida	3.0
Washington	2.9
Virginia Tech	2.7
Liberty	2.6
Purdue	2.4
Virginia Commonwealth	2.3
Vermont	2.2
Oregon	2.1
Murray St.	2.1
Ole Miss	1.9
Virginia	1.9
Wisconsin	1.8
Gardner-Webb	1.8
Iowa St.	1.8
LSU	1.8
Seton Hall	1.8
Tennessee	1.7
Montana	1.6
Duke	1.5
New Mexico St.	1.4
Fairleigh-Dickinson	1.3
North Carolina	1.0
Iowa	1.0
Iona	1.0
Houston	0.9
Northern Kentucky	0.9
Belmont	0.9
Florida St.	0.8
Villanova	0.7
Central Florida	0.4
Old Dominion	0.4
Arizona St.	0.3
Mississippi St.	0.3
Saint Louis	0.3
Saint Mary’s	0.1
Oklahoma	0.0
Northeastern	0.0
Kentucky	-0.1
Bradley	-0.2
Kansas	-0.2
Ohio St.	-0.2
Utah St.	-0.3
UC-Irvine	-0.4
North Dakota St.	-0.6
Minnesota	-0.6
Baylor	-0.8
Colgate	-0.9
Louisville	-1.0
North Carolina Central	-1.9
Yale	-1.9
Marquette	-2.0
Michigan St.	-2.6
Maryland	-3.7
Team	Stl/G
Duke	9.5
Auburn	9.4
LSU	9.1
Washington	9.0
Prairie View	8.8
St. John’s	8.8
Abilene Christian	8.7
Temple	8.7
Syracuse	8.3
Mississippi St.	8.1
Georgia St.	8.0
Virginia Commonwealth	8.0
Oregon	7.8
Fairleigh-Dickinson	7.7
Kansas St.	7.6
Murray St.	7.6
Gonzaga	7.5
Buffalo	7.3
Ole Miss	7.3
Texas Tech	7.3
North Carolina	7.2
Florida	7.2
Saint Louis	7.1
Iowa St.	7.0
Seton Hall	7.0
Florida St.	7.0
Wofford	6.9
Gardner-Webb	6.9
Kansas	6.9
Belmont	6.8
Iona	6.8
Virginia Tech	6.7
Montana	6.5
Purdue	6.5
Houston	6.4
Liberty	6.4
North Carolina Central	6.3
Northern Kentucky	6.2
Arizona St.	6.2
Utah St.	6.2
Iowa	6.2
Nevada	6.2
Cincinnati	6.2
Colgate	6.2
Northeastern	6.2
Michigan	6.1
Baylor	6.1
Kentucky	6.0
Saint Mary’s	6.0
Tennessee	6.0
Oklahoma	5.9
Yale	5.9
Ohio St.	5.9
Central Florida	5.7
UC-Irvine	5.7
Vermont	5.6
Virginia	5.6
New Mexico St.	5.6
Old Dominion	5.6
Villanova	5.4
Bradley	5.4
Michigan St.	5.2
Wisconsin	5.1
Marquette	4.8
North Dakota St.	4.8
Minnesota	4.8
Louisville	4.5
Maryland	4.3
Team	Def Stl/G
Michigan	3.7
Cincinnati	3.9
Nevada	4.5
Purdue	4.8
New Mexico St.	4.8
Old Dominion	4.9
Saint Mary’s	5.0
Georgia St.	5.0
Virginia Tech	5.1
Prairie View	5.1
Buffalo	5.1
Gonzaga	5.2
Wisconsin	5.2
Iowa St.	5.2
St. John’s	5.2
Virginia	5.2
UC-Irvine	5.2
Liberty	5.2
Oregon	5.2
North Dakota St.	5.3
Houston	5.3
Villanova	5.4
Vermont	5.4
Northeastern	5.4
Wofford	5.5
Iona	5.5
Florida St.	5.5
Temple	5.5
Montana	5.6
Central Florida	5.6
Abilene Christian	5.6
Kentucky	5.7
Bradley	5.7
Gardner-Webb	5.8
Murray St.	5.8
Auburn	5.8
Seton Hall	5.8
Louisville	5.8
Northern Kentucky	5.9
Mississippi St.	5.9
Saint Louis	5.9
Ohio St.	5.9
Baylor	6.0
Minnesota	6.0
North Carolina Central	6.0
Ole Miss	6.0
Fairleigh-Dickinson	6.1
Utah St.	6.1
Belmont	6.1
Florida	6.1
Washington	6.1
Kansas St.	6.2
Arizona St.	6.3
Texas Tech	6.4
Tennessee	6.4
Michigan St.	6.4
Virginia Commonwealth	6.4
Kansas	6.5
Duke	6.5
LSU	6.5
Syracuse	6.6
Iowa	6.7
North Carolina	6.7
Oklahoma	6.8
Marquette	7.0
Yale	7.0
Maryland	7.1
Colgate	7.1
Team	Old R+T
New Mexico St.	12.34
North Carolina	12.34
Wofford	11.56
Gonzaga	11.48
Cincinnati	10.11
Kentucky	10.07
Buffalo	9.85
Duke	9.85
Utah St.	9.79
Houston	9.71
Purdue	9.37
LSU	9.06
Abilene Christian	8.45
Virginia	8.39
Saint Louis	8.30
Vermont	8.25
Auburn	8.09
UC-Irvine	8.06
Murray St.	7.74
Nevada	7.73
Texas Tech	7.33
Virginia Tech	7.22
Florida St.	7.02
Saint Mary’s	6.98
Michigan St.	6.88
Kansas St.	6.87
Northern Kentucky	6.72
Tennessee	6.66
Liberty	6.66
Baylor	6.56
Old Dominion	6.55
Arizona St.	6.41
Belmont	6.25
Oregon	5.95
Montana	5.83
Virginia Commonwealth	5.78
Mississippi St.	5.73
North Carolina Central	5.39
Ole Miss	5.32
Michigan	5.31
Maryland	5.01
Villanova	4.54
Florida	4.51
Iowa St.	4.29
Colgate	4.18
Prairie View	3.98
Central Florida	3.81
Kansas	3.63
Yale	3.56
Iowa	3.43
Louisville	3.39
Seton Hall	3.39
Temple	3.24
Syracuse	3.21
Marquette	2.96
Wisconsin	2.91
Gardner-Webb	2.82
Minnesota	2.77
Washington	2.76
Ohio St.	2.27
Fairleigh-Dickinson	2.24
Bradley	2.10
Oklahoma	1.79
St. John’s	1.62
Northeastern	1.35
Iona	0.30
Georgia St.	-0.27
North Dakota St.	-1.19

 

Criteria Darlings

Which teams have criteria that most look like a Final Four participant?

These 10 teams have that look this year (in alphabetical order):

1. Cincinnati Bearcats

2. Duke Blue Devils

3. Gonzaga Bulldogs

4. Houston Cougars

5. Kentucky Wildcats

6. Michigan State Spartans

7. North Carolina Tar Heels

8. Utah St. Aggies

9. Virginia Cavaliers

10. Wofford Terriers 

You will notice that Utah State and Wofford make this list with SOS beneath the level to win the national title.  These two teams possess criteria similar to past Cinderella Final Four teams like George Mason, Wichita State, and Virginia Commonwealth.

 

You now have the information to earn your BM in Bracketnomics.  However, there will be a special Bracketnomicist here Tuesday afternoon who will show you how to use this data to pick winners of each round.  The Captain will reveal his bracket selection on Tuesday prior to 5 PM Eastern Daylight Time.  He told us to tell you that if any buccaneer or lass dare criticize his selections, they will walk the plank.  Actually, they will probably have a better bracket than him.

 

Note: Many thanks to all the PiRate members who stayed up late Sunday night/Monday morning visiting 68 different schools’ athletics’ sites to get the raw data we need to put this statistical bonanza together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PiRate Ratings Bracketnomics 505 Bracket Reveal & First Four Preview

For those that just want to see our Red-White-Blue Ratings for the First Four, here they are.

Team	Team	Red	White	Blue
New Orleans	Mount St. Mary’s	3	-1	1
Wake Forest	Kansas St.	1	1	1
UNC-Central	UC-Davis	4	3	6
Providence	USC	1	1	1

Now, for the rest of you:

Welcome one and all to our annually most viewed edition of the PiRate Ratings.  We have been working diligently for the past 42 hours getting this edition of March Madness Bracketnomics ready for you.

If you are new to this site today, there is something you need to do, and even if you are not, you should take this advice.  Open another window and bring up our primer from yesterday where we explain how we have come up with the numbers that we will show you today.  The link to the primer is:

https://piratings.wordpress.com/2017/03/13/bracketnomics-505-the-advanced-level-course-in-bracket-selection/

Before we begin picking winners in our bracket based on the PiRate Criteria, let us give you another little bit of advice in selecting your own brackets.

1. Do not select a lot of early upsets.  Realize that nobody ever has picked a perfect bracket.  The chances are so slim that nobody may ever pick one!  The key to winning bracket contests where you must choose all the games at the beginning and do not get to select new winners after every round is to pick the National Champion, the Final Four, and the Elite 8 teams.  Realize that in about 95% of the cases, the Final Four teams come from one, two, three, or four seeds.  There will frequently be a seed lower than 4, but good luck trying to pick one.  What you will most likely do is remove one of the favorites to get there, so select very few upsets early.
2. In the last 60+ years, only 2 times was the national champion a team from outside a major conference, and it has not happened since 1990.  So, go heavy on the best teams in the power conferences–Atlantic Coast, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC.  No Pac-12 team has won the title since Arizona beat Kentucky in 1997, so you might discount the Pac-12 a little.  No Big Ten team has won the title since Michigan State in 2000, so you might also want to discount the Big Ten a little.
3. The most likely spots for upsets early come from 10-11-12 seed lines for good reason.  The top lower and mid-major teams usually end up on one of these seed lines, and in actuality, some of these teams would beat their higher-seed opponent 7 times out of 10.  In other words, these upsets are not really upsets.  They are incorrect seedings by the Committee.

Okay, we will leave the rest of that strategy up to you.  Let’s get to the Bracketnomics Facts for 2017

 

Who Has The Statistical Criteria That Looks Like A Final Four Team

This is an unusual year.  There are no teams closely similar to the Connecticut women’s team.  There is no obvious best team like in some years out of the past.  On the other hand, there are an inordinate amount of teams this year that look like they would have trouble winning the NIT 10 years ago.  There is parity by virtue of mediocrity.  The way the game is played in 2017, and with the 30-second shot clock, the game has become harder to isolate on just two or three teams and call them the heavy favorites to make the Final Four.

Let’s eliminate some teams so that what we have left is a much easier group to compare.

A. First, let’s forget the chance that a low-major or mid-major conference team will make the Final Four this year.  This does not include Gonzaga, Saint Mary’s, or Wichita State, who we consider to be above mid-major.

B. Next, let’s take out any team that played a schedule too soft to prepare them for the top echelon of opponents.  From what’s left after (A), that will remove Wichita State and UCLA.

C. Next, let’s dump any team with a single-digit R+T rating after the Sweet 16 round.  Any single digit team in the Elite 8 gets knocked out, unless their opponent also has a single digit rating.  From this list of teams still in contention after (A) and (B), we now dump: South Carolina, Butler, Wake Forest, Arkansas, Minnesota, Michigan State, USC, Northwestern, Michigan, Notre Dame, Maryland, Marquette, Kansas State, Providence, Iowa State, Creighton, Vanderbilt, and Virginia Tech.

D. Let’s remove any teams that are missing key players and might be able to get to the Sweet 16 without these players, but they are most likely to bow out at this point when the competition is too strong.  Say good bye to Xavier and Oregon.  For now, Creighton and Florida stay in because they played a significant number of games without their key players.

Now we have a much more manageable list of Final Four and Elite 8 Contenders, down to just 21 teams.

But, we are not finished eliminating teams.  What about teams that have not played all that well away from home?  We can eliminate the 22-9 team that went 17-0 at home and 5-9 away from home, because these teams are not going to all of a sudden beat the nation’s finest teams away from their home floor, at least not 4 consecutive times.

Let’s now say bye bye to Florida State, Miami (Fla.), and Seton Hall, lowering the number to 19.

And, then there is the essential thing of having enough consistency to win four games in a row against quality competition.  We cannot keep any teams that did not sustain at least one long winning streak or two extended winning streaks.  Only West Virginia fails to meet this criterion from the remaining group, lowering our list to 18.

Now,  let’s look at how the remaining 18 teams rate in the criteria that matter.

Scoring Margin

There is a reason both Gonzaga and Saint Mary’s are still in this list.  They are serious contenders this year.  Gonzaga has the highest scoring margin and Saint Mary’s has the third highest among the 17 remaining teams.  From the list of 17, there are a couple teams that do not meet the 8 point minimum to be considered as a strong Final Four contender.  There are teams that make the Final Four with less than 8 point scoring margins, but they are the exception rather than the rule, and we are looking for angles that increase our percentage chance of hitting on Final Four teams.  It’s the end of the line here for Oklahoma State.

 

Field Goal Percentage Differential

Eventually, in order to get to the Final Four, a team is going to have to be superior when it comes to shooting and defending the shot, because eventually, being able to dominate the glass or force a lot of turnovers will not work against teams that can also rebound and force turnovers.  We are looking only for a difference of 5% or more to stay in the hunt for Final Four contention.  We must say adieu to three more teams that cannot meet this standard–Florida, Duke, and Wisconsin.  Now we have 14 teams on our list of Final Four contenders.

 

Rebound Margin

Remember that R+T rating is much more important than any of its components (Rebounding, Turnovers, and Steals), but for Final Four consideration, well over 90% of the past Final Four teams had positive rebound margin.  In what may help vindicate our selections to this point, all 14 teams remaining have positive rebounding margin.

 

Okay, Already, Who Is Left?

The following teams have resumes that could get them to the Final Four.  In alphabetical order, they are: Arizona, Baylor, Cincinnati, Gonzaga, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina, Purdue, Saint Mary’s, SMU, Villanova, Virginia, and West Virginia.  If our criteria is worth anything these years, we expect the Final Four to come from this list of teams.  But, we need to do better.  You cannot select 14 teams to make the Final Four or even Elite 8.

 

What we need to do now is look at each game as it is played.  It won’t help us to go with the 4 best resumes if these teams cannot all make the Final Four because they will play each other prior to that round.

Here is how we see the First Four games according to PiRate Criteria.  Note that our criteria and our Red-White-Blue Ratings have no real correlation, so the teams we predict to win may not be the same as the teams our criteria says will win.

First Four

New Orleans over Mount St. Mary’s

UNC-Central over UC-Davis

USC over Providence

Kansas St. over Wake Forest

Most brackets allow you to miss here without penalty and start in earnest at 64 teams, but we don’t go for that.

Round of 64

You will not see us picking many upsets in this round.  Remember the important factoid we revealed at the beginning: you win your bracket contests by getting your teams into the Elite 8, Final 4, and National Championship.  If you pick a lot of upsets, you are liable to have very few teams left by the Elite 8.

Villanova over New Orleans (Mount St. Mary’s)

Wisconsin over Virginia Tech

Virginia over UNC-Wilmington (upset possible, but we’ll take the Cavs)

Florida over East Tennessee (like a home game for the Gators)

SMU over USC in a rematch (also over Providence) near tossup vs. USC close to 50-50

Baylor over New Mexico St.

South Carolina over Marquette in close one that will be like home game for Gamecocks.

Duke over Troy

Gonzaga over South Dakota St.

Northwestern over Vanderbilt (close game)

Notre Dame over Princeton

West Virginia over Bucknell (not this year for Bison as Mountaineers are too physical)

Maryland over Xavier (Chris Mack becomes an early candidate for other big openings)

Florida State over Florida Gulf Coast (FGCU not as strong as their Sweet 16 team)

Saint Mary’s over VCU (Will Wade comes free for promotion to power conference team)

Arizona over North Dakota

Kansas over UNC-Central (UC-Davis)

Miami over Michigan State (MSU one and done two years in a row)

Iowa State over Nevada (but this one should be nip and tuck)

Purdue over Vermont (Boilermakers finally have the right type of resume to advance)

Creighton over Rhode Island (freeing up Dan Hurley if a big school wants him)

Oregon over Iona (loss of Chris Boucher does not hurt yet)

Oklahoma State over Michigan (This upset we will pick.  Cowboys have better criteria resume)

Louisville over Jacksonville State (UL almost has a home game in Indy)

North Carolina over Texas Southern

Seton Hall over Arkansas (should be physical and close)

Minnesota over Middle Tennessee (Blue Raiders are the Vegas favorite, but Gophers can exploit interior defense)

Butler over Winthrop (we would not be shocked if Butler has to rally to win this one)

Cincinnati over Kansas State (Wake Forest)

UCLA over Kent State

Wichita St. over Dayton (Will Archie Miller be the next NC State coach?)

Kentucky over Northern Kentucky (Norse would be happy with a lead at under 16 timeout in 1st half)

 

Round of 32

Villanova over Wisconsin

Virginia over Florida (should be very close, maybe overtime)

Baylor over SMU (this one should be a great game–Tim Jankovich in play at Illinois)

Duke over South Carolina (We don’t see Frank Martin leaving the Palmetto State unless he has 4 million reasons)

Gonzaga over Northwestern (Cinderella season ends here–no Cubs repeat in the Windy City)

West Virginia over Notre Dame (Irish wear down in the second half)

Florida State over Maryland

Arizona over Saint Mary’s (expect a hard-fought game but Gaels are outmanned)

Kansas over Miami (closer than expected)

Purdue over Iowa State (Boilermakers look impressive to this point)

Oregon over Creighton (Boucher’s absence felt but not enough for Ducks to lose)

Louisville over Oklahoma St. (Brad Underwood vs. Rick Pitino–Brilliant!)

North Carolina over Seton Hall

Butler over Minnesota (Should be a great game)

Cincinnati over UCLA (Bruins numbers padded by substandard overall schedule–not strong enough inside)

Kentucky over Wichita State (because Wildcat players appear to be on a mission and if so are the class of the field)

 

Sweet 16 to Elite 8

Villanova over Virginia (Cavs do not have enough offense to win at this point)

Baylor over Duke (Our big upset pick in this round, because Duke has holes Bears can exploit)

West Virginia over Gonzaga (Sorry Bulldog fans, WVU style of play is not what you want to face)

Arizona over Florida State (We expect Wildcats to win big in this one)

Kansas over Purdue (KU will have to play lights out to put Boilermakers away)

Louisville over Oregon (Boucher’s absence is too much to overcome in this round

North Carolina over Butler (If Heels are rolling at this point, then next round is actual title game)

Kentucky over Cincinnati (Should be ultra-physical and highly emotional game)

 

Elite 8 to Final Four

Unfortunately, at this point the top two teams in the field will meet

Baylor over Villanova (no repeat for Wildcats but a great game)

Arizona over West Virginia (Mountaineers run out of gas at this point)

Louisville over Kansas (Cards win a sloppy game)

Kentucky over North Carolina (This should have been the National Championship Game)

 

Final Four Semifinals

Baylor over Arizona (tough to go against a team playing in its home state)

Kentucky over Louisville (how much will this ticket cost)

 

National Championship

Kentucky over Baylor

 

The Kentucky criteria best matches that of past national champions.  Add to the fact that they have the most talent and a coach that can use the right psychology to motivate these future millionaires to play like their draft status is to be determined in this tournament, and we believe the Wildcats will cut the nets in Arizona.

 

Here is how the 14 top Pirate Criteria teams rank overall

1. Kentucky
2. North Carolina
3. Baylor
4. Arizona
5. West Virginia
6. Gonzaga
7. Louisville
8. Villanova
9. Kansas
10. Purdue
11. Duke
12. Cincinnati
13. Saint Mary’s
14. SMU

 

TV Schedule For First Four in Dayton

Day	Time (EDT)	Network	Team	vs.	Team
Tuesday, March 14	6:40 PM	truTV	New Orleans	vs.	Mount St. Mary’s
Tuesday, March 14	9:10 PM	truTV	Wake Forest	vs.	Kansas St.
Wednesday, March 15	6:40 PM	truTV	UC-Davis	vs.	UNC-Central
Wednesday, March 15	9:10 PM	truTV	USC	vs.	Providence

 

 

 

 

College Football Preview For Week 1, September 3-7, 2015

Welcome back to the PiRate Ratings.  Many of you have read some of our preseason previews, but by looking at the increased volume to this site in the last 24 hours, we can tell that we have a lot of new readers today.

Yesterday, we posted the spreads for FBS teams only for our three ratings–PiRate, Mean, and Bias.  For those new to this site, a brief explanation follows.

Our ratings are unique in that we do not rely on scores alone to update our ratings.  Most of us here are sports metric statistics lunatics.  Our head man actually works in professional baseball as a “Moneyball” statistician/scout.

We use advanced statistics for each game to come up with the “theoretical score” of the game rather than the actual score, and then we update on our theoretical final score.  For example, if State beats Tech 42-21, this 21-point spread tells us very little.  What if State led 35-0 midway into the second quarter, and they pulled their starters after going five for five in touchdown drives?  What if Tech then scored twice in the final 7 minutes of a 42-7 game?  On the other hand, what if State led 28-21 with 7 minutes to go in the game, and Tech had driven 70 yards to the State 2 yard line, before fumbling at the goal with State returning the ball 100 yards for a TD, and then State added a second TD on an interception return with Tech driving again?

The 42-21 score is the only thing these two examples have in common.  In the first instance, State might have won 63-0 if they had continued to use their starters and top backups; State would win 100 out of 100 times against Tech.  In the second instance, there is a good chance that Tech might beat State 5 times out of 10.  We carefully peruse the play-by-play and statistics of every college football game among FBS teams. 

Our three ratings use the same type of data, but we have three different algorithms to come to the actual number.  The PiRate Rating is the same algorithm in use for the last 30+ years.  The Mean Rating is just that; it takes the mean of all our variables  with no bias.  Of course, the Bias Rating puts a bias on some data at the expense of other data.  Because it is similar to the PiRate Rating, these two will have a much higher correlation than they do to the Mean Rating.

Okay, now for something completely different.  Yesterday, we revealed our spreads for FBS vs. FBS Week One games.  Today, we show you our PiRate Spreads for FBS vs. FCS teams for Week One.  For reasons that involve how our ratings are calculated, we cannot supply Mean or Bias spreads with FCS teams, as it would take maybe 20 additional people to train and work with us.  The FBS vs. FCS PiRate Ratings are purely mechanical, so they are just an approximation of our actual PiRate Ratings.

We have repeated our FBS vs. FBS games so you will not have to look at yesterday’s entry.

This Week’s Games
Home	Visitor	PiRate	Mean	Bias
Thursday, September 3
North Carolina (N)	South Carolina	3.6	6.4	4.0
Central Florida	Florida Int’l	8.4	11.2	8.4
Central Michigan	Oklahoma St.	-30.3	-23.5	-29.0
Vanderbilt	Western Kentucky	0.4	-3.8	-2.0
Utah	Michigan	9.9	6.4	10.4
Minnesota	T C U	-17.5	-5.4	-19.1
Idaho	Ohio U	-16.5	-10.6	-15.9
Tulane	Duke	-4.0	-1.2	-3.9
Arizona	U T S A	49.3	31.3	48.6
Hawaii	Colorado	-16.8	-7.0	-15.9
Friday, September 4		PiRate	Mean	Bias
Georgia St.	Charlotte	8.2	3.4	7.6
Western Michigan	Michigan St.	-23.5	-15.5	-22.9
S M U	Baylor	-40.2	-29.9	-41.8
Illinois	Kent St.	21.3	14.4	18.5
Boise St.	Washington	16.3	12.3	16.1
Saturday, September 5		PiRate	Mean	Bias
Georgia	Louisiana-Monroe	45.0	39.6	44.4
Northwestern	Stanford	-12.7	-7.6	-14.6
Eastern Michigan	Old Dominion	-6.9	-2.8	-6.2
Nebraska	B Y U	8.2	5.8	6.2
Temple	Penn St.	-6.4	-4.9	-6.0
Tulsa	Florida Atlantic	7.5	10.5	8.0
Arkansas	U T E P	42.3	30.9	42.0
Auburn (N)	Louisville	11.8	7.5	9.9
U C L A	Virginia	27.2	22.4	26.4
Tennessee (N)	Bowling Green	32.2	20.4	29.8
N. Carolina St.	Troy	40.5	44.0	39.0
Oklahoma	Akron	44.6	31.5	41.5
Texas A&M (N)	Arizona St.	-0.8	2.6	-2.3
Kentucky	Louisiana-Lafayette	25.3	16.5	24.4
Notre Dame	Texas	13.1	10.1	12.6
West Virginia	Georgia Southern	33.9	25.3	32.9
Florida	N. Mexico St.	39.6	33.3	38.6
Northern Illinois	U N L V	18.2	18.6	18.8
Alabama (N)	Wisconsin	11.4	9.1	10.8
Florida St.	Texas St.	33.4	28.1	31.6
Southern Miss.	Mississippi St.	-25.4	-20.7	-27.1
U S C	Arkansas St.	36.8	31.0	40.9
Sunday, September 6		PiRate	Mean	Bias
Marshall	Purdue	-1.0	-1.5	1.7
Monday, September 7		PiRate	Mean	Bias
Virginia Tech	Ohio St.	-15.0	-6.5	-16.1
FBS vs. FCS	Week 1	PiRate
Utah St.	S. Utah	37.0
Wake Forest	Elon	24.0
Ball St.	V M I	28.0
Toledo	Stony Brook	28.0
Georgia Tech	Alcorn St.	44.0
Connecticut	Villanova	-7.0
Nevada	UC-Davis	25.0
San Jose St.	New Hampshire	1.0
Fresno St.	Abilene Christian	17.0
Army	Fordham	9.0
Syracuse	Rhode Island	25.0
Oregon St.	Weber St.	31.0
Ole Miss	UT-Martin	36.0
Navy	Colgate	29.0
Rutgers	Norfolk St.	39.0
Kansas	S. Dakota St.	-1.0
Iowa	Illinois St.	11.0
Maryland	Richmond	20.0
Clemson	Wofford	33.0
Pittsburgh	Youngstown St.	18.0
Boston College	Maine	22.0
Washington St.	Portland St.	22.0
Texas Tech	Sam Houston	15.0
Rice	Wagner	27.0
Air Force	Morgan St.	34.0
Buffalo	Albany	13.0
Miami (O)	Presbyterian	17.0
Appalachian St.	Howard	31.0
Colorado St.	Savannah St.	51.0
Wyoming	N. Dakota	13.0
Missouri	S E M O	40.0
Indiana	S. Illinois	17.0
California	Grambling	35.0
Miami (Fl)	Bethune-Cookman	29.0
East Carolina	Towson	28.0
S. Alabama	Gardner-Webb	17.0
N. Mexico	Mississippi Valley	32.0
Memphis	Missouri St.	26.0
S. Florida	Florida A&M	21.0
Cincinnati	Alabama A&M	39.0
Louisiana Tech	Southern	31.0
Middle Tennessee	Jackson St.	28.0
Kansas St.	S. Dakota	36.0
L S U	McNeese St.	34.0
San Diego St.	San Diego	28.0
Oregon	E. Washington	39.0
Iowa St.	N. Iowa	7.0
Houston	Tennessee Tech	29.0

Please see our sister site: http://www.piratings.webs.com for complete rankings of all 128 FBS and all 32 NFL teams.

Edit: Special Thanks to Reader Charles for catching mistakes that allowed us to correct on Thursday morning.

Selections Against The Spread

Your voices/emails have been heard.  At our sister site, http://www.piratings.webs.com, we have received exactly 137 requests from you to bring back our selections against the spread.  We are happy that some of you sports fans remember that great 2011-12 season in which our ratings finished at the top of the Prediction Tracker ratings against the spread for the NFL, while our college ratings have had multiple top 10 finishes.

Before reading further, please make sure you read the following paragraph in bold:  He or She that uses these ratings as their lone source before wagering their house on this data might as well just sell their house now and at least have funds to move elsewhere.  We NEVER, EVER use this data to wager on games.  As analytics’ specialists, we understand that the one way to make money wagering in football is to be the book.  Yes, there are the Billy Walters of the world, but if you were he, you wouldn’t be reading this blog.  So, since you are not, be advised that wagering any amount of your hard-earned money on football must be considered in the same light as paying for something, because that is exactly what you will be doing: paying somebody else.

Okay, now here is how we will make our selections this year.  First, we will isolate those games in which our Mean rating differs enough from the official line to make it a possibility.  Second, of those possibilities in step one,  the six of us will pick 5-10 games that we personally like against the spread.  If 4 of us have the same game and nobody has the opposite pick in that game, then we go with that as one of our selections.  Because we believe that it is best to pick an odd number of games to prevent a .500 record and a loss, we will eliminate a game if we have an even amount of games.

Here are our 5 selections for Week 1

Home	Visitor	Line	Our Pick
Arkansas	UTEP	33.0	UTEP
Central Michigan	Oklahoma St.	-24.5	Central Michigan
Florida	New Mexico St.	33.0	New Mexico St.
Georgia St.	Charlotte	8.0	Charlotte
Texas A&M (N)	Arizona St.	3.5	Arizona St.