With scoring decreasing, are defensive- oriented teams faring better in the dance?:


ome of you have noticed that I’ve relaxed my scoring and margin credentials for the champion criteria this season. For the last four years, I’ve been warning that the trend toward lower scoring in college basketball will render some of the time- honored guidelines for tourney advancement obsolete. 2011, for instance, marked the first dance in 26 years that the tourney champion didn’t average more than 75 points per game. UConn’s scoring average was 73.4. You have to go all the way back to the first tourney of the modern era to find a lower scoring team. In 1985, Villanova won with a scoring average of 71.5.

It used to be that you could pretty well bank on the champion scoring at least 76 and beating opponent by 10 or more points a game. Before 2011, 24 of 26 champions fulfilled these criteria. And the only two to buck the trend were longshots Villanova in 1985 and Kansas in 1988. So were we on a run of 22 straight champs with the requisite scoring punch and margin numbers.

The reality, though, is that scoring has been steadily decreasing in college basketball since the high- flying days of the late eighties. As the following chart shows, the average scoring output of the tourney field has dropped 10 points since 1989. Last year, was the lowest scoring field in the history of the 64- team era:



Given this slide, I knew it was only a matter of time before blanket proclamations like “the champion will score more than 76 points a game” would go sideways. The 2011 tourney finally caught up to the realities of college hoops. That’s why I adjusted my champ stats downward.

But there’s another way to look at the guidance on offensive scoring and margin. A few of you have already pointed it out to me. Instead of using raw numbers to assess which teams have the right statistical stuff to advance in the tourney, it would be more useful to compare teams to their given year. Believe it or not, UConn wasn’t a below- average offensive scorer. In fact, their 73.4ppg average was .96% better than the tourney field. By that standard, the 1989 champion could’ve averaged 83.5 points a game.

So I’ve done two analyses. The first one compares the year- by- year scoring averages and margins of the tourney field to the Final Four teams; the second one compares the averages to the ultimate champion. Let’s look at the tourney field/ Final Four comparison first:



Check out the averages in the light- orange row of numbers on the bottom of the chart. The average tourney field scores 76.1 points and beats opponents by 8.5 points a game. The average Final Four team scores nearly five points more and has a margin five points better than the field. Given the flux in scoring, however, it’s probably better to go by percentages. That’s what the numbers at the bottom of the “Difference” columns measure. So the average Final Four team scores 6.5% more and has a scoring margin 60.7% higher than the tourney field.

I also asked the question, “How many Final Four teams have fallen below the tourney field scoring and margin averages for their specific year?” Not surprisingly, the number wasn’t very high—but it was significantly higher for scoring average than margin. Overall, 22 of 108 (20.4%) Final Four teams scored less than their tourney field’s average, and just 14 of 108 (13.0%) fell below the average margin.

As strange as last year seemed, only one of the Final Four teams was lower scoring than the tourney field (VCU) and two teams were on the south side of margin (UConn and VCU). That was the more unusual statistic. In only three other dances were there two teams with weaker than average margins—1985, 1996 and 2000.

I did the same comparison between tourney fields and champions. What I discovered is that the tourney champ scores 83.4 points a game and beats opponents by 14.8 points on average. That’s a 9.6% scoring increase and a 74.5% margin increase over the tourney field. Only two of the 27 champions have averaged fewer points than the tourney field (Villanova in 1985 and Kansas in 1988) and three champs have owned a smaller margin (Villanova, Kansas—and UConn last year).

This year, when I look at my bracket, instead of examining the raw numbers on scoring and margin, I’ll compare them to the averages of the tourney field before deciding on my Final Four and champion.
... more » « less

With scoring decreasing, are defensive- oriented teams faring better in the dance?: ome of you have noticed that I’ve relaxed my scoring and margin credentials for the champion criteria this season. For the last four years, I’ve been warning that the trend toward lower scoring in college basketball will render some of the time- honored guidelines for tourney advancement obsolete. 2011, for instance, marked the first dance in 26 years that the tourney champion didn’t average more than 75 points per game. UConn’s scoring average was 73.4. You have to go all the way back to the first tourney of the modern era to find a lower scoring team. In 1985, Villanova won with a scoring average of 71.5. It used to be that you could pretty well bank on the champion scoring at least 76 and beating opponent by 10 or more points a game. Before 2011, 24 of 26 champions fulfilled these criteria. And the only two to buck the trend were longshots Villanova in 1985 and Kansas in 1988. So were we on a run of 22 straight champs with the requisite scoring punch and margin numbers. The reality, though, is that scoring has been steadily decreasing in college basketball since the high- flying days of the late eighties. As the following chart shows, the average scoring output of the tourney field has dropped 10 points since 1989. Last year, was the lowest scoring field in the history of the 64- team era: <IMG SRC=/ blog/ 12_ scoring_ trend.gif> Given this slide, I knew it was only a matter of time before blanket proclamations like “the champion will score more than 76 points a game” would go sideways. The 2011 tourney finally caught up to the realities of college hoops. That’s why I adjusted my champ stats downward. But there’s another way to look at the guidance on offensive scoring and margin. A few of you have already pointed it out to me. Instead of using raw numbers to assess which teams have the right statistical stuff to advance in the tourney, it would be more useful to compare teams to their given year. Believe it or not, UConn wasn’t a below- average offensive scorer. In fact, their 73.4ppg average was .96% better than the tourney field. By that standard, the 1989 champion could’ve averaged 83.5 points a game. So I’ve done two analyses. The first one compares the year- by- year scoring averages and margins of the tourney field to the Final Four teams; the second one compares the averages to the ultimate champion. Let’s look at the tourney field/ Final Four comparison first: <IMG SRC=/ blog/ 12_ ppg_ mar_ comp.gif> Check out the averages in the light- orange row of numbers on the bottom of the chart. The average tourney field scores 76.1 points and beats opponents by 8.5 points a game. The average Final Four team scores nearly five points more and has a margin five points better than the field. Given the flux in scoring, however, it’s probably better to go by percentages. That’s what the numbers at the bottom of the “Difference” columns measure. So the average Final Four team scores 6.5% more and has a scoring margin 60.7% higher than the tourney field. I also asked the question, “How many Final Four teams have fallen below the tourney field scoring and margin averages for their specific year?” Not surprisingly, the number wasn’t very high—but it was significantly higher for scoring average than margin. Overall, 22 of 108 (20.4%) Final Four teams scored less than their tourney field’s average, and just 14 of 108 (13.0%) fell below the average margin. As strange as last year seemed, only one of the Final Four teams was lower scoring than the tourney field (VCU) and two teams were on the south side of margin (UConn and VCU). That was the more unusual statistic. In only three other dances were there two teams with weaker than average margins—1985, 1996 and 2000. I did the same comparison between tourney fields and champions. What I discovered is that the tourney champ scores 83.4 points a game and beats opponents by 14.8 points on average. That’s a 9.6% scoring increase and a 74.5% margin increase over the tourney field. Only two of the 27 champions have averaged fewer points than the tourney field (Villanova in 1985 and Kansas in 1988) and three champs have owned a smaller margin (Villanova, Kansas—and UConn last year). This year, when I look at my bracket, instead of examining the raw numbers on scoring and margin, I’ll compare them to the averages of the tourney field before deciding on my Final Four and champion.