You are using an old web browser. Such browsers do not support modern web technologies and do not offer proper security. Please update your browser or download one of the others suggested for free.
Mozilla Firefox |
Google Chrome |
Internet Explorer |
So I was reading alot on march madness came across a site called BracketScience any way the last 12 champions have possessed these eight stats:
A one, two or three seed (the AP Top 20 make the grade)
Member of a Power conference: ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 or SEC (CF in the list below)
Either went to the previous year’s dance or have an All-American (*/12)
Led by a coach with more than five tourney trips and at least one Elite Eight run (CO)
Averaging more than 73 points per game (PF>73)
Allowing fewer than 73 points per game (PA<73)
An average scoring margin of at least seven points per game. (SM>=7)
A schedule among the 75 strongest in the country (S<75)
Wow that's pretty cool - I posted yesterday that I don't see much difference in the top 15-20 teams - maybe this is a way to complete some brackets, although Syracuse and Louisville are on the "bubble" if they don't make a 3 seed....Really seems to me that the conference tourneys are going to play a larger factor than normal not necessarily in who gets in, but how teams are seeded since everyone seems so close....
From what I have been reading that while the "experts" have been saying that the top 20 teams could all win it, from what I am reading and researching is Indiana and Florida stat wise are way above the rest
After UConn won the 2011 tourney, I adjusted my champ rules to factor in the trend toward low scoring in college basketball. My scoring threshold for champions used to be 75 points a game. The fact is, 24 of the 28 champs in the modern era had a scoring average better than 75 points.
But offensive output has been going down steadily since its high in 1989, when the average tourney team scored 82.7 points a game. Heck, in 1990, Paul Westhead’s Loyola-Marymount Lions averaged an astounding 124.8 points per game. (That was the team that drew inspiration from the tragic death of its star, Hank Gathers.) For the last two years, the tourney fields have been 10 points less prolific than the 1989 squads. Take a look at the downward trend:
As early as 2006, I had been saying that it was inevitable that we’d have a champion that scored less than 75 points a game. When it finally happened in 2011, I decided it was time to adjust my scoring threshold for champions downward.
But what if the Connecticut win was an outlier? After all, 2011 was the craziest dance of the modern era, registering 19.8% deviation from high-seed dominance on the Madometer. UConn was an unsual champion for more reasons than scoring output. The Huskies were one of only two champs to have a scoring margin of seven points or less (Villanova in ’85 was the other). And they were one of only three teams to cut down the nets after not going to the previous tourney.
So what if we kicked out UConn and readjusted our champ rules? I went back 20 years and discovered that 18 of the champions:
Were seeded one, two or three
Came from a Big Six conference
Had at least seven wins in their last ten pre-tourney games—and no consecutive losses heading into the dance
If they did have just seven wins, they were on a pre-tourney winning streak of at least three games
Had a coach with more than two tourney trips who wasn’t snake-bit (more than five appearances without an Elite Eight run)
Scored more than 76.5 points per game
Had an average margin better than 10 points a game
Relied on guards for between 25 and 65 percent of their scoring
Had a rebounding margin better than 3.0 per game.
Since 1993, 63 teams have met these qualifications, about three per tourney. Overall, their record is 235-45 (.839) and they’ve overachieved at a hefty +.691 PASE rate. More importantly, over half these teams, 32 in fact, have reached the Final Four…and 18 have cut down the nets. That’s a 90 percent success rate.
Using these credentials, only two teams have what it takes to win the 2013 tourney: Indiana and Duke. Gonzaga doesn’t make the grade because they’re Mid-Majors and Mark Few is snake-bit. Michigan falls barely short of the scoring threshold (but tonight’s Penn State loss is a bigger warning sign). And no other team comes close in the scoring.
So either we’ll have a tourney winner that bucks the stats that 18 of the last 20 champions possessed—or Indiana and Duke will confirm the value of these updated champ stats. My guess: if the Hoosiers don’t get it done, we’re looking at another champion outlier.
The field is so wide open this season given the fact you also cannot underestimate the mid-majors somehow playing the role of Cinderella. Also given the fact that the last unbeaten went down so early, it's not unusual that you have those teams (slipping or backing into) the number one spot only because of many upsets at the top or the rotation based on regular season record. Seems like nobody is holding a firm grasp which makes the seeding right after the conference tourneys all the more interesting.
Even those teams that currently make up the top 20 are just as vulnerable as bubble teams or those who don't get as much respect playing out of a mid-major. Given the fact they may need to do more work in their conference tourney increases the level of competition and not just because you go by an Indiana, Gonzaga, Duke, or Florida.
Every year around this time I give a glance over the final couple of regular season weekends determining who will be my field of 68. The degree of difficulty is so important given the fact that a late season or signature win could bounce you from the last 4 in to the first 4 out or a bad loss can result in vice versa.
As of the Wednesday review I have come up with this. Of course this is and will be subject to change.
Overall #1 seed: Gonzaga
4 # 1 seeds: Gonzaga, Duke, Kansas, Indiana
Last 4 teams in: Minnesota, Oklahoma, Arizona St, Alabama
First 4 teams out: Missouri, LaSalle, Boise St, BYU
A couple of weeks ago I had Kansas the furthest thing from a 1 seed but they seemingly have turned it around.
For the latest sports news, capper picks and tracker results, turn to JTG, the leader in BTB information