Villanova falls off the champ list; is Clemson next?:

After finally mustering up the offensive firepower to make it into the select group of teams with the right statistical stuff to be champs, Villanova promptly dropped off the list this week. The Wildcats' 64- 54 loss dropped their scoring average below the 77- point- per- game barrier.

Remember:all but two of the last 19 tourney champs (Michigan State in 2000 and Syracuse in 2003) had six qualities in common:

1) They came from a Power conference
2) They went to the previous year's dance
3) Their coach had at least five tourney appearances
4) They scored at least 77 points a game
5) Their average victory margin was 10 points or more
6) They were seeded one through four

Based on the today's ESPN/USA Today Top 20 teams, only five teams possess these championship qualities: North Carolina, Pitt, Duke, Kansas and Clemson.


... more » « less

Villanova falls off the champ list; is Clemson next?: After finally mustering up the offensive firepower to make it into the select group of teams with the right statistical stuff to be champs, Villanova promptly dropped off the list this week. The Wildcats' 64- 54 loss dropped their scoring average below the 77- point- per- game barrier. Remember:all but two of the last 19 tourney champs (Michigan State in 2000 and Syracuse in 2003) had six qualities in common: 1) They came from a Power conference 2) They went to the previous year's dance 3) Their coach had at least five tourney appearances 4) They scored at least 77 points a game 5) Their average victory margin was 10 points or more 6) They were seeded one through four Based on the today's ESPN/USA Today Top 20 teams, only five teams possess these championship qualities: North Carolina, Pitt, Duke, Kansas and Clemson.

Pete,
I think it is interesting that both occurrences of teams winning the championship and not meeting these requirements happened in the last decade. Further support to the fact the dynamics for predicting tournament games has changed.

Pete, I think it is interesting that both occurrences of teams winning the championship and not meeting these requirements happened in the last decade. Further support to the fact the dynamics for predicting tournament games has changed.

When I said 17 of the last 19 champs, I wasn't including the earliest years. In 1985 and 1988, an eight and six seed won, respectively. In 1989, a rookie coach (Steve Fisher) won. And in 1986, a mid- Major won. This year, given the lower scoring and the jumbled tourney field, I could easily see this being a year that defies the champ rules.

When I said 17 of the last 19 champs, I wasn't including the earliest years. In 1985 and 1988, an eight and six seed won, respectively. In 1989, a rookie coach (Steve Fisher) won. And in 1986, a mid- Major won. This year, given the lower scoring and the jumbled tourney field, I could easily see this being a year that defies the champ rules.

Pete, the pool I enter is similar to the "Great 8" competition on this site. To win you have to get lucky on finding the higher seed that goes far. Even last year with all 1s going to the final four, the big pts came from a higher seed getting to the sweet 16 or elite 8. As I read your madometer I'm thinking teams in the 3- 7 range could be the way to go this year.

Will you make a recommendation for a pool of this nature?

Pete, the pool I enter is similar to the "Great 8" competition on this site. To win you have to get lucky on finding the higher seed that goes far. Even last year with all 1s going to the final four, the big pts came from a higher seed getting to the sweet 16 or elite 8. As I read your madometer I'm thinking teams in the 3- 7 range could be the way to go this year. Will you make a recommendation for a pool of this nature?

SInce the Great 8 Challenge is coming, I won't make any specific recommendations. But I'll say this: you can calculate wins per seed then multiply by the points you get for each seed and that will show you which seeds have the best potential. One seeds are usually not good to pick, not matter how far they go. Our winner last year had Davidson (10), Villanova (12) and WKU (10). I went heavy on sixes and 11's- - and did not fare well. ... more » « less

SInce the Great 8 Challenge is coming, I won't make any specific recommendations. But I'll say this: you can calculate wins per seed then multiply by the points you get for each seed and that will show you which seeds have the best potential. One seeds are usually not good to pick, not matter how far they go. Our winner last year had Davidson (10), Villanova (12) and WKU (10). I went heavy on sixes and 11's- - and did not fare well.

Guess it depends on the final brackets but your post about the strength and small gap in the top four seeds made me think the 4 seeds might be good picks.

Guess it depends on the final brackets but your post about the strength and small gap in the top four seeds made me think the 4 seeds might be good picks.

I believe with Nova's 90something points against Providence they're back into the criteria.

I believe with Nova's 90something points against Providence they're back into the criteria.