NCAA Tournament Blog - NCAA Tournament Basketball Stats

2008-2009 NCAA Tournament Blog

Read the daily ramblings of Pete Tiernan as he discusses the strategies behind BracketScience.

Seasons: 2008-2009 2007-2008 2006-2007

Final Four/Champ and Factors PASE models come out on top
Thu, Apr 9, 2009, 8:51 PM	By ptiernan	0 Comments...
North Carolina's trouncing of Michigan State pushed the Final Four/Champ and Factors PASE models over the Seed Match-ups model in the final rankings of the ten 2009 strategies. Here's where all the strategies ended up: Model 3: Final Four/Champ - 1440, 97.8 Model 5: Factors PASE - 1360, 93.7 Model 9: Seed Match-ups - 1190, 76.8 Model 7: Pythag + Coach PASE - 1050, 69.6 Model 1: From the Gut - 880, 55.1 Model 6: Tempo-free Pythag - 860, 52.6 Model 11: Keeper Bracket - 840, 49.9 Model 4: Combined PASE - 770, 37.9 Model 2: Upset/Toss-up Rules - 690, 22.1 Model 10: Upset Special - 620, 11.1 Model 8: Game Play Attributes - 600, 8.9 The two models I did without the guidance of numbers--From the Gut and Keeper--started out strong in the opening two rounds, then tailed off after the Elite Eight, largely because of my over-optimism for Pitt. Last year's top model, Tempo-free Pythag, fell to the middle of the pack this year. Meanwhile, adjusting tempo-free numbers for historical coaching performance actually led to better results. The Seed Match-ups model was the only one to peg the MSU/NC championship game, but it leaned toward MSU because the Spartans fulfilled the conditions of two-seed victors over a one seeds. The problem is, the sample size for the 1v2 match-up in the finals was a grand total of five games. I'd like to think that one reason the Final Four/Champ model succeeded was because it was based on identifying the conditions of semi-finalists and champions. It asked the broader question, "Which kinds of teams make the Final Four and win the tourney?" As such, it took into consideration a larger sample size. The Factors PASE model was similar. It asked a general question: "What kinds of teams tend to beat seed expectations in the tourney?" Of the two leading models, Final Four/Champ has been the most reliable, ranking in at least the 84th percentile for three of the last four years. This is the first time that the Factors PASE model has been above even the 74th percentile. One methodology I changed this year for Factors PASE was to consider the overachievement attributes of seeds by classes (one-three "favored" seeds, four-six "contender" seeds, and so on) rather than in their entirety. We'll see next year whether that leads to consistently strong performance. So the 2009 tourney is over. I'll do at least one more wrap-up blog...then I'll update the database, dig into the numbers, and try to come back with an even better site for the 2009-2010 season.
0 Comments...

Dumpy100 wins Great Eight Challenge, frankiethegrin takes the Second Chance Dance
Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 9:45 AM	By ptiernan	0 Comments...
The net has been cut down, the team we all suspected to win has won, and the 2009 tourney is history. So are the Great Eight Challenge and the Second Chance Dance. Here are the winners of the two contests: GREAT EIGHT CHALLENGE dumpy100 - 53 points stein11 - 50 points Ambrill - 47 points SECOND CHANCE DANCE frankiethegrin - 18 points macalus - 16 points* (Macalus wins tiebreaker over airbakin32 and kwakattaq with team seed tally of 15 versus 13 and 11.) Dumpy100 and frankiethegrin have iPods coming their way within the next couple weeks (gotta get some paperwork from you first; I'll be in touch). All five winners now automatically have free lifetime memberships to bracketscience.com. Special thanks--again--to member Herb Meader for putting together a program that ran all the round-by-round scenarios from the Elite Eight on for both contests. It was a great help, Herb!
0 Comments...

NC win makes Tar Heels the eighteenth champ in 20 years to share six key attributes
Tue, Apr 7, 2009, 2:05 PM	By ptiernan	0 Comments...
The stats rules that I've been using all season to identify potential 2009 NCAA champions proved reliable again in foretelling the team that would cut down the nets last night. Like 18 of the last 20 champions, North Carolina: 1. Was seeded one through four 2. Was from a Power conference 3. Was led by a coach with at least five tourney appearances 4. Went to the previous year's dance 5. Scored at least 77 points a game 6. Averaged at least a 10 point scoring margin After Selection Sunday, only five teams possessed these attributes: Kansas, UConn, Pitt, Duke and North Carolina. Two of the four made it to the Final Four. What's more, as you'll see in an upcoming blog, the "Final Four/Champ rules" model performed the best in the ESPN Tourney Challenge, reaching the 97.8 percentile. Want a quick inside track on the top candidates to win next year's tourney? These are the Power conference schools that went to the 2009 dance and that have a coach that will be making at least his five appearance: Arizona State Boston College California Clemson Connecticut Duke Illinois Kansas Louisville LSU Maryland Michigan Michigan State Minnesota Mississippi State Missouri North Carolina Ohio State Pittsburgh Purdue Syracuse Tennessee Texas UCLA USC Villanova Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Okay, so 29 teams doesn't quite narrow things down yet. But not all these squads will be in contention for a first through fourth seed. And not all of them will score 77 points while beating opponents by at least 10 points a game. Heck, Michigan State didn't even fit the offensive firepower and margin rules...and look what happened to them.
0 Comments...

Title game pits last potential stats champ against team I picked to win it all on CBSSports.com
Sun, Apr 5, 2009, 10:22 AM	By ptiernan	2 Comments...
I'm conflicted. If North Carolina wins the 2009 tourney, the Tar Heels will be the eighteenth champion in the last 20 years to possess these six attributes: 1. Seeded one through four 2. From a Power conference 3. Coach with at least five tourney appearances 4. Went to the previous year's dance 5. Scored at least 77 points a game 6. Average at least a 10 point scoring margin The Tar Heels meet all these requirements. The Spartans fall short on two accounts: they only averaged 71.9 points a game and a 9.0 scoring margin heading into the dance. Then again, the Spartans were one of the two teams to defy the champ rules in 2000, when they won despite the fact that Izzo had only been to the dance three times. Still, if North Carolina wins, it's more confirmation for the fact that these six attributes are a reliable way to filter which teams are potential champs. On the other hand, if Michigan State wins, I end up looking like a genius on CBSSports.com. Seven so-called experts were asked to submit their brackets to the site. Since I had published "Your Guide to Every Seed Match-up" on CBSSports.com, my editor, Mark Swanson, wanted me to provide the bracket model that used this guidance. When the results cranked out Michigan State, I thought" "Oh great, a nice big public display of bracket insanity." As it turns out, though, I'm in the lead among the seven experts--and the only one to pick the Spartans. Of course, five of the other six experts have North Carolina, so there's still time to look like a nincompoop. Check out the CBSSports.com expert picks here.
2 Comments...

Revenge of stats: top four models based solely on numbers
Sun, Apr 5, 2009, 9:55 AM	By ptiernan	2 Comments...
Early on in the 2009 tourney, it looked like gut instinct would trump statistics as the best approach to filling out this year's bracket. With the loss of Pitt, the circumstances have changed dramatically. After last night's MSU and North Carolina wins, five of the top six models are based purely on numbers. The top performer is the model based on "Your Guide to Every Seed Matchup." When I cranked this one out on Selection Sunday night, I cringed: it spit out Michigan State over North Carolina--and, while I liked the Spartans, I didn't think there was any way they could go that far. Sometimes it's just best to let the numbers do their thing. I'm also happy to see the tried-and-true model based on Final Four and champion rules doing well. It's also interesting--and fitting to me--that modifying pure tempo-free numbers with coaching performance history has led to better bracket results than strict Pythag rankings. That wasn't the case last year. Here are all the numbers: Model 9: Seed Match-ups - 1190, 98.6 in the ESPN Tourney Challenge (Michigan State) Model 3: Final Four/Champ - 1120, 96.7 (North Carolina) Model 7: Pythag + Coach PASE - 1050, 90.9 (Louisville) Model 5: Factors PASE - 1040, 89.8 (North Carolina) Model 1: From the Gut - 880, 60.3 (Pitt) Model 6: Tempo-free Pythag - 860, 56.4 (Memphis) Model 11: Keeper Bracket - 840, 52.6 (Pitt) Model 4: Combined PASE - 770, 38.7 (Louisville) Model 2: Upset/Toss-up Rules - 690, 22.2 (Louisville) Model 8: Game Play Attributes - 600, 8.9 (Memphis) Model 10: Upset Special - 620, 12.8 (Duke)
2 Comments...

Great Eight and Second Chance Dance winners set, battles set for final spots
Sun, Apr 5, 2009, 9:45 AM	By ptiernan	0 Comments...
As I announced last week, dumpy100 clinched first place in the Great Eight Challenge--and the iPod nano and free site membership. Now that MSU and North Carolina have advanced, second place is also set. That goes to stein11. The only mystery left is who gets third place and the final free site membership. If MSU wins, matteneff earns the prize. If North Carolina wins, the free membership goes to Ambrill. In the Second Chance Dance, frankiethegrin has won the iPod shuffle and free membership. Second place is a battle between airbakin32 and macalus. If MSU wins, airbakin32 earns the last bracketscience.com lifetime membership. If North Carolina wins, the honor goes to macalus. Thanks, everyone, for playing. We have 233 players in the Great Eight Challenge and 136 in the Second Chance Dance. What's amazing to me is that that's just a fraction of the membership base. I'm hoping that next year we get at least at many people in the contests as members. You can expect, too, that we'll roll out another contest next year, just to keep things into and give people more chances to win.
0 Comments...

Big East will overtake ACC in 25-year race for best tourney conference
Wed, Apr 1, 2009, 8:29 PM	By ptiernan	0 Comments...
For 18 of the last 19 years, the ACC has been the top overachieving conference in the 64-team era. But after this year’s dance—the twenty-fifth since the bracket expanded to its current form in 1985—the Big East will overtake the ACC. How did it happen? First of all, the race was pretty close to begin with. Before the 2009 tourney, the ACC had a PASE of +.160. Its 122 teams had won 19.5 more games than seed projections. Meanwhile, the 130 Big East teams had won 19.2 more games than expectations for a PASE of +.148. Then this year’s dance happened, the ACC went in the tank and the Big East overachieved. How hard did the ACC fall? Well, five of their seven squads failed to meet seed expectations. Wake Forest and Florida State were the biggest underachievers, followed by Clemson and Boston College. Duke also failed to live up to its seed potential. Only Maryland, with one win as a 10 seed, and North Carolina, which could still add to its overperforming numbers, beat seed expectations. Right now, the ACC’s PASE is +.119. Even if North Carolina wins the championship, the conference’s PASE can’t go any higher than +.134. The Big East’s PASE can’t go any lower than where it is right now: +.143. That’s actually slightly lower than its pre-2009 dance PASE of +.148. The fact is, so far the Big East isn’t exactly tearing up the tourney. Four of their seven teams underachieved. West Virginia struggled the most, losing in the opening round as a six seed. And, believe it or not, both Louisville and Pittsburgh fell short of expectations too. For a top seed to overperform, they would have to reach the Final Four. Finally, Marquette rounded out the underachievement by losing as a six seed in the second round. On the other hand, three Big East squads did exceed expectations. Syracuse’s two wins amounted to slight overperformance for a three seed. And both UConn and Villanova will be overachievers. The Wildcats are already more than two games ahead of their seed potential. Overall, the Big East is currently a slight overperformer for the 2009 tourney, with a PASE of +.048. But if Villanova and UConn win on Saturday, the conference’s PASE for the year would be +.477. That would boost the Big East’s 25-year PASE to +.164, putting it in a commanding lead over the ACC. None of the other Big Six conferences will change PASE rankings as a result of the 2009 tournament. The SEC will remain in third, despite logging an underachieving PASE of -.226 this year. That will drop its 25-year PASE to +.094. The Big Ten will still be the fourth best Power conference. The conference is currently a +.141 overachiever after the Elite Eight—and could go as high as +.474 if the Spartans win it all. Its 25-year PASE will wind up somewhere between -.022 and -.037—just shy of seed expectations. The Big 12 will remain in fifth place among the Big Six, despite being the best overperformer this year. Every single one of the six Big 12 teams beat expectations, with Missouri leading the way, overachieving by an impressive 1.16 games. Overall, the Big 12’s PASE in 2009 was +.546, but it’s still a 25-year -.066 underachiever. Bringing up the rear for the Big Six is the Pac-10. This year, four of their six teams underachieved for a -.163 PASE. That means the conference’s 25-year PASE will wind up at around -.176 when the dust settles.
0 Comments...

frankiethegrin, airbakin32 and macalus2 vie for prizes in Second Chance Dance
Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 8:37 PM	By ptiernan	0 Comments...
Three contestants are still in the running for prizes in the Second Chance Dance. Here's how it shakes down: 1. If North Carolina beats Villanova, frankiethegrin comes in first; if Villanova wins, he comes in second. 2. If Villanova beats North Carolina, airbakin32 wins. He gets second in all other scenarios except if MSU and NC advance and NC wins. 3. If MSU and North Carolina advance and NC wins, macalus gets second place.
0 Comments...

dumpy100 wins the Great Eight Challenge; four others vie for second and third
Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 8:19 PM	By ptiernan	2 Comments...
If you were thinking you might still have a shot at the Great Eight Challenge, think again. Unless, of course, you're dumpy100. He (or she) has clinched first place, the iPod nano and the free bracketscience.com membership no matter what happens on Saturday and Monday. Stein11 is also assured of winning a free membership. In seven of the eight remaining scenarios, he/she will come in second. Stein11 will come in third only if UConn and Villanova advance and Villanova wins the tourney. Regardless, since second and third are the same prize, Stein11 is sitting pretty. The real race is for the extra spot in the top three. Chasehu1219 will come in second or third if UConn and Villanova advance--and he'll get third place if MSU and Villanova advance and Villanova wins. Ambrill comes in third if North Carolina wins the tourney or UConn and NC advance and UConn cuts down the nets. Matteneff gets third if the Spartans win the championship. For everyone else, well, there's next year.
2 Comments...

Gut and keeper brackets fall with Pitt loss
Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 7:40 PM	By ptiernan	0 Comments...
So much for instinct. With Pitt's last-second loss to Villanova, both the Gut and Keeper bracket dropped in the rankings. Meanwhile, the Final Four/Champ bracket continues its rise in the rankings--and the Seed Match-ups model is making a surprise move, largely because it pegs Michigan State as the champ. Here are the numbers: Model 3: Final Four/Champ - 960, 97.5 (North Carolina) Model 7: Pythag + Coach PASE - 890, 88.5 (Louisville) Model 5: Factors PASE - 880, 86.7 (North Carolina) Model 1: From the Gut - 880, 86.7 (Pitt) Model 9: Seed Match-ups - 870, 84.7 (Michigan State) Model 11: Keeper Bracket - 840, 77.3 (Pitt) Model 4: Combined PASE - 770, 54.1 (Louisville) Model 6: Tempo-free Pythag - 700, 30.3 (Memphis) Model 2: Upset/Toss-up Rules - 690, 27.5 (Louisville) Model 10: Upset Special - 620, 12.8 (Duke) Model 8: Game Play Attributes - 600, 10.0 (Memphis) Member prhminn emailed me to say that I should've taken my own advice and avoided Pitt because of the "snake-bitten coach" syndrome. If you've been following along in the blog, you know what that is: coaches who've been to the dance at least five years without ever getting to the Elite Eight hardly ever get to the Final Four. Jamie Dixon fell into this group--as did Mark Few, Al Skinner, Tim Floyd and Herb Sendek. And guess what? None of them reached the Final Four. So why the heck don't I follow my own guidance? When you're staring at the bracket, a lot of different factors dictate why you fill in the slots the way you do. Pitt had a lot going for it. Ultimately, they just weren't playing their best come tourney time--unlike Villanova...and Michigan State. (I won't say UConn and North Carolina because I don't think they've really hit their stride yet.)
0 Comments...

25-year race for top overachieving coach will see big shakeups
Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 8:29 PM	By ptiernan	0 Comments...
The 2009 tourney isn’t over yet, but no matter what happens from here on in, the race for the top coaching PASE performer will see a dramatic shift. Over the summer, I’ll do my annual analysis of the top coaching overachievers in the 25-year history of the 64-team era. Typically, I restrict that analysis to coaches with at least four tourney trips. This year, there were 71 active coaches that had been to the dance four or more times. Next year, five new coaches will join the group: Mike Anderson, Sean Miller, Matt Painter, Fran McCaffery and Todd Bozeman. (Some coaches will no doubt drop off the list through retirement or firing.) Thirty-eight of the coaches in the 2009 tourney will see their performance against seed expectations (PASE) change when the dance is all over. Because I have to wait to learn which seeds prevail this year, I can’t give exact PASE numbers now. But it looks like 15 coaches will see their PASE increase, while 23 will experience a PASE decline. The four coaches whose PASE will increase the most are: - Jay Wright (from +.153 to +.439) - Matt Painter (from an underachieving -.135 to +.110) - Mike Anderson (from +.448 to +.625) - Tom Izzo (from +.704 to +.778) Of course, Wright’s and Izzo’s PASE values could go even higher. With a championship, Wright could see his PASE rise as high as +.725, while Izzo’s could go to +.945. That would make Tom Izzo the top overachiever among active coaches with at least four tourney trips. If Izzo doesn’t at least beat UConn, he’ll come in second behind—are you ready to complain Spartan fans?—Steve Fisher, who’s PASE will remain at +.865. (I know, he shouldn’t count…but it would skew the heck out of the numbers, not to mention my bracket guidance, if I actually awarded Michigan Fab Five wins to the losing teams.) You can take consolation in the fact, however, that Izzo will surpass John Beilein, who will see his PASE drop from +.865 to +.765. Beilein actually overachieved by .365 games as a ten seed this year, but because his overall PASE was so high going in, it actually declined despite the overperformance. The same thing happened to Bill Self, Jim Boeheim and Gary Williams. Several coaches will see a significant decline in their PASE values due to their underachievement in 2009. The biggest losers are: - Bruce Weber (from +.410 to +.186) - Thad Matta (from +.328 to +.186) - Ben Howland (from +.573 to +.471) - Bruce Pearl (from +.006 to an underachieving -.092) Howland’s decline will drop him out of the top ten list, where he was ranked seventh before the 2009 tourney. In fact the entire top ten will see a shake-up. Not including the potential increases that Izzo, Wright, Calhoun and Williams could add to their PASE, here’s what the top ten currently looks like (last year’s rank in parentheses): 1. Steve Fisher, +.853 (2) 2. Tom Izzo, +.778 (5) 3. John Beilein, +.765 (1) 4. Billy Donovan, +.704 (4) 5. Rick Pitino, +.675 (3) 6. Jim Larranaga, +.664 (6) 7. Mike Anderson, +.625 (NEW) 8. Mike Davis, +.560 (8) 9. Tom Penders, +.507 (9) 10. Sean Miller, +.482 (NEW) Two newcomers, Mike Anderson and Sean Miller, will knock out Ben Howland (dropping from seventh to eleventh) and—surprise, surprise—Coach K (falling from tenth to thirteenth) . Amazingly, Krzyzewski underachieved for the seventh time in the last eight dances. His PASE will decline from +.437 to around +.402. At the bottom of the list, the top underachiever will remain Oliver Purnell, who will see his PASE drop to -.781 after his sixth opening-round loss in six tries at the dance. Mike Montgomery will become the third biggest underachiever (Dana Altman is second), since his PASE will drop to -.484 and Rick Stanbury’s PASE will climb from -.527 to -.481 (despite having an underachieving dance). Lorenzo Romar will be the fifth worst performer, as he’ll see his PASE drop from -.456 to -.463. I can’t wait to do the entire analysis of coaches, factoring in appearances, win/loss records, accomplishments, PASE and recent success. I’m guessing we’ll see a shakeup there. Currently, Coach K holds the mantle as the top coach since the dance expanded to 64 teams in 1985. While it’s doubtful that he’ll lose his number-one ranking, it’s entirely likely that Tom Izzo, Roy Williams and/or Jim Calhoun will vie for second place among the top six coaches. That means, Billy Donovan and Rick Pitino—currently second and third—could be overtaken by all three of the coaching legends still in the hunt for the 2009 crown.
0 Comments...

Seven players have a shot at winning the Second Chance Dance
Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 3:38 PM	By ptiernan	0 Comments...
After we put together the Second Chance Dance, we wondered whether we'd run into too many scenarios where there would be ties. Thanks again to my main man Maeder, it appears not to be as bad as we expected. Of the 128 possible outcomes left in the 2009 tourney, 36 of them would lead to a first-place tie. Right now, airbakin32 leads the contest with nine points, followed by seven players with eight. However, the only players with any real shot of winning are: airbakin32 frankiethegrin ortzy rogersth dkpolln bluegrassman57 nperry kwakattaq ttraider18 sanz440 Djacks1 ajgels macalus2 To find out absolutely every scenario that could lead to your coming in first or second, check out the amazing "Maeder-is-better" report here.
0 Comments...

Stein11, dumpy100, chasehu1219 and AmBrill vie for Great Eight surpremacy
Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 2:42 PM	By ptiernan	0 Comments...
After the Sweet 16, the top three players in the Great Eight Challenge are: 46 pts - stein11 (one team alive) 44 pts - dumpy100 (five teams alive) 44 pts - chasehu1219 (three teams alive) 44 pts - AmBrill (two teams alive) There is one other player with 44 points (abressers), but thanks to the utterly amazing work of member Herb Maeder, he has no chance to come in first, second or third. Herb wrote a program that ran all 233 players through every possible scenario from the Elite Eight on. Based on this program, Herb determined that the following players still have a chance to be in the top three: stein11 dumpy100 chasehu1219 AmBrill tdub714 pormanch matteneff sehorn79 buckyforever bfillpot hb81 rodalive (Special kudos to hb81, who has all eight of his teams still alive!) If you're one of the players above--or you just want to admire the incredible work that Herb has done, check out his exhaustive Great Eight report here. The players who are alive can click on "Must Win Games" to learn all the scenarios that will lead to them coming in first, second or third. For instance, out of 128 possible outcomes, dumpy100 has 81 chances to come in first, 26 to come in second and eight to come in third--even though stein11 is currently in first. Gotta say, I never would've broken it down to this level of detail. Thanks, Herb! And while I'm at it, I have to say, I've never seen the level of involvement that I've gotten this year in helping me bring more and better information to the site. I could name a couple dozen members who email me regularly with great ideas, great analysis and great insight into what makes the tourney tick. Thanks everyone!
0 Comments...

"From the Gut" and "Final Four/Champ" brackets top models
Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 12:19 PM	By ptiernan	0 Comments...
After the Sweet 16, the bracket I took all of two minutes to fill out leads all my statistical models, my "keeper" bracket, and my crazy contrarian picks. Here's where the models stand: Model 1: From the Gut - 800, 98.9 (Pitt) Model 3: Final Four/Champ - 800, 98.9 (North Carolina) Model 11: Keeper Bracket - 760, 93.9 (Pitt) Model 7: Pythag + Coach PASE - 730, 83.3 (Louisville) Model 5: Factors PASE - 720, 79.3 (North Carolina) Model 9: Seed Match-ups - 710, 74.7 (Michigan State) Model 4: Combined PASE - 690, 64.6 (Louisville) Model 6: Tempo-free Pythag - 620, 29.7 (Memphis) Model 2: Upset/Toss-up Rules - 610, 25.9 (Louisville) Model 8: Game Play Attributes - 600, 22.5 (Memphis) Model 12: Non-one Seed Special (not posted) - 580, 16.7 (Wake Forest...ouch) Model 10: Upset Special - 540, 9.1 (Duke) Of the top four models, only "From the Gut" and "Pythag/Coach PASE" can score all the possible points remaining. "Final Four/Champ" went haywire with a UCLA pick and my keeper bracket advanced Memphis to the Final Four. It's interesting how factoring both tempo-free stats and coaching performance into the equation has improved the results over the straight Pythag model or the combined PASE model. I'm also happy to see that the Final Four/Champ model is performing well. For those of you following the progress of the five squads that met the six conditions that 17 of the last 19 champs possessed, three of those teams remain. Kansas and Duke have already fallen by the wayside. Pitt, North Carolina and UConn still remain. Fittingly, they're all in different regions. The only region without a team that meets the champ conditions is the Midwest. That's where Michigan State and Louisville are. Both of those teams are from the Big Six, seeded one through four, went to last year's dance and are led by a coach with more than five tourney trips. However, Izzo's Spartans only score 71.9 points a game (the threshhold is 77) and beat opponents by 9.0 points (that threshhold is 10.0). Louisville has no trouble with the margin number, beating opponents by 12.3 points a game. But the Cardinals are also below the 77-point line as well, averaging just 73.9 points a game. That said, Louisville is closer to achieving the six champ attributes than Michigan State. It will be interesting if Pitt, UConn, North Carolina and Louisville all make it to the Final Four.
0 Comments...

Findlay in D-II Elite Eight finals today...my son's GVSU lost to them FOUR TIMES this year
Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 11:11 AM	By ptiernan	1 Comments...
This is another one of the blogs that falls into the category of fatherly pride, so feel free to skip if you're laser-focused on the Big Dance. My son Bobby wrapped up his college basketball career two weeks ago when his Grand Valley State Lakers lost to Findlay in the first round of the D-II tournament. Bobby and his roommate Pete Trammel finished their careers as the winningest Laker basketball players in school history. Not too bad for a kid who went to GVSU as a football player and walked on to the basketball team. Findlay is the number-one team in D-II with a 35-0 record. For those who don't think D-II's any good, Findlay only lost this year to Xavier--at Xavier--by three points. Last year, they beat Ohio State, while my son's team was beating Michigan State. These squads are no slouches. Findlay is in today's D-II championship, which will be televised by CBS at 1pm ET. Amazingly, Bobby's team lost FOUR TIMES to Findlay this year. Since they're in the same division, they played twice in the regular season, once in the conference tourney finals...then once in the regional that feeds into D-II's Elite Eight. GVSU was clearly overmatched against Findlay, but we were the only squad to lead them at halftime in their gym...and lost by just six points. Only the first game they played was a blowout. Findlay also has the D-II player of the year, Josh Bostic, on its roster. Bobby's unenviable task as the starting power forward was to guard Bostic. He always kept him below his average. Here's Bobby driving hard to the hole against Bostic: I want to tell you that he made the bucket...but he actually got called for a charge. Do you think Bostic is in position for the charge? Me neither. Do you think there is such a thing as Bostic rules in D-II? Me too. Do you think the refs were Findlay homers? So do I! Amazing that we would agree so completely! Today, for the first time ever, I will be rooting hard for Findlay. I will be rooting for Josh Bostic to dominate the game. I will be hoping for one last testament to what a great career my son and his teammates have had--and how only a true champion could've knocked them out. What can I say? I'm a dad.
1 Comments...

2009 headed for second lowest Madometer reading in 64-team era
Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 9:32 AM	By ptiernan	2 Comments...
Was that me writing a few months back that this would be a wide-open, upset-laden tourney? I'm sorry...apparently the Selection Committee has gotten so good at what they do that the NCAA tourney will now be referred to as March Saneness and I will be changing the Madometer to the Saneometer. Come on! What in the Sam Hill is going on?! (And while we're at it; where is Sam Hill? We're looking for a cheap weekend getaway...) This is the third straight tourney to break some sort of record for predictability. In 2007, the Madometer deviated from by-the-numbers results by a record-low 4.1%--and there was a record dearth of upsets (3). In 2008, all top seeds made it to the Final Four for the first time in the 64-team era. And this year? Well... 1) all the one, two and three seeds made it to the Sweet 16 for the first time ever 2) There will only be five upsets in the 2009 tourney...tied with 1995 and 1997 as the second-most upset-free dances 3) The Madometer is likely to register the second lowest reading in the 25 years of the 64-team era. Right now, the Madometer is at a sedate 10.2%. That would tie it with 1993 as the second most predictable tourney in 25 years. No dance will probably ever come close to 2007 for chalkiness, but 2009 has the potential to get into single digits. Put it this way: the most unpredictable outcome right now (MSU, Missouri, Villanova and Oklahoma advancing with Missouri and Villanova in the finals) would nudge the Madometer up to just 10.4%...third lowest in modern tourney history. On the other hand, if all one seeds advance (again!), the Madometer will drop to a measley 8.6%. What can we do to preserve the wild nature of March Madness? Maybe we just oughta get some lame-brained chucklebutt "pundits" to pick the teams and do the seeding. These geeky numbers-obsessed Selection Committee folks are just too smart. Here's another option: STOP LETTING LOUSY TEAMS INTO THE DANCE! Seriously, should all these small conferences really get automatic bids to the tourney--only to get slaughtered as 14, 15 and 16 seeds. I'm all for a good Hoosiers story; that ought to be clear by now from all my Jimmy Chitwood/Norman Dale references. But enough is enough. When you're letting teams rated worse than hundreds of other squads into the dance. something's gotta change. How's this for a modest start: we take the 16 lowest rated conferences and have them play eight play-in games to determine the 15 and 16 seeds. That would provide seven more at-large bids and expand the tourney to 72 squads without disrupting the fundamental 64-team bracket. The beauty of this is that the 15 and 16 seeds would be stronger--and since seven higher-quality teams would get in the dance, the overall parity from the middle seeds would be tighter...leading to more wide-open results. Just a thought.
2 Comments...

How the 2009 Sweet 16 compares to this year's tourney field
Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 7:51 PM	By ptiernan	0 Comments...
In the last blog, I compared the 2009 Sweet 16 to the rest of the Sweet 16s of the 64-team era. This time, I'll compare this year's Sweet 16 to the entire 2009 tourney field. Here are the comparisons of all the numbers I included in the Excel file: Coaching tourney trips: 64 - 6.31, 16 - 10.50 Coaching Elite 8 trips: 64 - 1.22, 16 - 3.44 Team consecutive bids: 64 - 3.39, 16 - 7.56 Overall win percentage: 64 - .735, 16 - .809 Road win percentage: 64 - .598, 16 - .696 Wins in last ten games: 64 - 7.09, 16 - 7.56 Consecutive pre-tourney wins: 64 - 2.25, 16 - 2.63 Average points scored per game: 64 - 73.3, 16 - 77.0 Average points allowed per game: 64 - 65.1, 16 - 65.0 Average per-game scoring margin: 64 - 8.2, 16 - 12.0 Field goal made percentage: 64 - .459, 16 - .468 Field goal allowed percentage: 64 - .411, 16 - .400 Field goal percentage difference: 64 - .048, 16 - .068 3-point FG made percentage: 64 - .358, 16 - .363 3-point FG allowed percentage: 64 - .330, 16 - .326 3-point FG percentage difference: 64 - .028, 16 - .037 Percentage 3FGA to overall FGA: 64 - .325, 16 - .311 Free-throw made percentage: 64 - .703, 16 - .696 Percentage of points from top five players: 64 - 78.9%, 16 - 77.5% Percentage of points from backcourt: 64 - 54.0%, 16 - 49.6% Class of top five players: 64 - 2.91, 16 - 2.89 Rebounding margin per game: 64 - 2.67, 16 - 5.04 Turnover margin per game: 64 - -1.07, 16 - -1.51 Assist/turnover margin: 64 - 1.11, 16 - 1.21 Assists/field goals: 64 - .559, 16 - .577 Offensive efficiency (pts per 100 possessions): 64 - 110.7, 16 - 115.8 Defensive efficiency (pts allowed per 100 possessions): 64 - 93.8, 16 - 89.5 Pythag winning percentage: 64 - .828, 16 - .947 Those are the numbers; here are some observations: - The Sweet 16 features much more tourney-tested teams led by experienced and successful coaches. - The Sweet 16 is much higher scoring than the field of 64. While the field was the second lowest scoring in 25 years, the Sweet 16 is just the ninth lowest scoring. - The Sweet 16 takes fewer three-pointers as a percentage of their overall shots attempted than the tourney field. - Surprisingly, the Sweet 16 teams are worse free throw shooters than the field of 64. - The Sweet 16 outrebounds its opponents by nearly twice as many boards than the overall field--and forces half a turnover more a game. - The Sweet 16 not only has a better assist/turnover ratio than the field of 64, but the 16 teams also assist a higher percentage of their field goals, suggesting that they make it easier on themselves to score.
0 Comments...

2009 Sweet 16 unique from other Sweet 16's in many ways
Mon, Mar 23, 2009, 7:38 PM	By ptiernan	5 Comments...
The 2009 Sweet 16 is the highest seeded set of squads in the 25 years of the modern tourney era. Coming on the heels of the most predictable and upset-free dance in history (2007) and the only tourney to send all top seeds to the Final Four (2008), this is another unsettling indication that March Madness is becoming more sane. That might make everyone feel good about their brackets, but it doesn't make for a very intriguing tourney. The average 2009 Sweet 16 team is seeded 3.06. That's a touch higher than 1989 (3.13), the year that two three seeds, Michigan and Seton Hall, vied for the championship. Hmm...maybe things won't be so by-the-numbers after all. The 2009 Sweet 16 also features the second most experienced coaches in 25 years, with the second highest number of Elite Eight appearances. This year's group of coaches average 10.50 trips to the tourney, eclipsed only by 2005, when the coaches averaged 10.75 dances. (Only tourney newbie Russ Pennell hasn't been to the dance at least three times.) And they've been to the Elite Eight an average of 3.44 times apiece. Only 1987's Sweet 16 coaches were more successful (4.38 Elite Eight trips). In addition to experienced coaches, the 2009 Sweet 16 also features the most experienced group of squads in the 25 years of the 64-team era. They average 7.56 consecutive trips to the dance. The next most experienced Sweet 16 teams were in 2002 (7.13 straight bids). And these teams are pretty darned successful too. They own the second best winning percentage (.809) of any Sweet 16 in the 64-team era. Which was the winninginest Sweet 16? Last year's teams had a winning rate of .823. So we have a collection of tourney-tested and successful teams led by tourney-tested and successful coaches. What else distinguishes the 2009 Sweet 16? Well, they're a high-scoring bunch, averaging 77 points a game. There hasn't been a Sweet 16 this offensively prolific in seven years. (As an aside, if you've been following along in the blog, 77 points per game is the magic threshhold for 19 of the last 20 champs.) One more thing about the 2009 Sweet 16, which we'll get into more tomorrow. This year's squads are more frontcourt-dominant than they've been in the past few years. Their top five scorers get 51.4 percent of their points from forwards and centers. That's the second highest percentage of frontcourt points in eight years. Only the 2006 Sweet 16 relied on big men more for their points (55.0 percent).
5 Comments...

After round two, Keeper bracket stays ahead of Pythag + Coach PASE
Sun, Mar 22, 2009, 8:25 PM	By ptiernan	0 Comments...
After the second round, the Keeper bracket remains the best performer in the ESPN Tourney Challenge, falling in the 99.8 percentile among the five-plus million brackets submitted. Four other models are within the 90th percentile. Here's a look at the rankings, with the champion for each bracket in parentheses: Model 11: Keeper Bracket - 560, 99.8 (Pitt) Model 7: Pythag + Coach PASE - 530, 96.7 (Louisville) Model 1: From the Gut - 520, 93.7 (Pitt) Model 3: Final Four/Champ - 520, 93.7 (North Carolina) Model 5: Factors PASE - 520, 93.7 (North Carolina) Model 9: Seed Match-ups - 510, 88.9 (Michigan State) Model 4: Combined PASE - 490, 72.3 (Louisville) Model 8: Game Play Attributes - 480, 63.0 (Memphis) Model 6: Tempo-free Pythag - 460, 43.7 (Memphis) Model 10: Upset Special - 460, 43.7 (Duke) Model 12: Non-one Seed Special (not posted) - 460, 43.7 (Wake Forest...ouch) Model 2: Upset/Toss-up Rules - 450, 35.1 (Louisville)
0 Comments...

Predictable second round
Sun, Mar 22, 2009, 8:10 PM	By ptiernan	5 Comments...
With just two lower seeded teams winning their round-two match-ups, 12 seed Arizona and five seed Purdue, the Madometer settled back to a below-average sanity percentage of 12.3 percent. That's the exact same rate as 2008 Since 1985, the average 64-team tourney has deviated from perfect high-seed dominance by 13.8 percent, with the range extending from 4.1 percent “John-Woodenesque” high-seed predictability in 2007 to 18.8 percent “Jimmy Chitwood-like” darkhorse craziness in 1986. Unless Arizona, Purdue, Gonzaga and Xavier keep winning, we're in for another yera of March Saneness. I've had a number of people ask: "Is the Selection Committee just getting better at placing teams in their rightful seed position?" I don't think that's the case. There have been other periods of sanity during the modern tourney era. From 1992 to 1996, there were five straight years of above-average predictability. I still say that only two one seeds will reach the Final Four. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. After watching the top seeds in the first two rounds, I'd have to say that Pittsburgh looks the most vulnerable--not just because they're struggling, but because Villanova looked so good and Duke didn't play poorly either. Of course, Pitt's my choice to win it all in my Keeper bracket. Oh, the pain.
5 Comments...

Crazy second night pumps up Madometer to near-record insanity
Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 10:11 AM	By ptiernan	3 Comments...
Jimmy Chitwood is smiling. The Hickory hoopster that proclaimed "I'll make it" in Hoosiers, then shot his tiny school into history, would be happy with the first round of the 2009 tourney. (Quick: what's the name of the real guy that won it for his Indiana school--and what was the name of that school?) After a mild first day that nudged the Madometer to a ho-hum 10.9% reading, Friday was a full 25% mad--pushing the overall Madometer reading to 18.0%. That's just 0.8% off of 1986, the craziest tourney in the 64-team era. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, though. The Madometer tends to settle back after the first couple rounds as higher seeds assert themselves, so we'll need a few more upsets before 2009 can eclipse 1986, Madometerily speaking. On the subject of upsets, so far there have been five: Arizona over Utah, Cleveland State over Wake Forest (as in "Wake up, you've got a game to play!"), Wisconsin over Florida State, Western Kentucky over Illinois, and Dayton over West Virginia (oh, the pain...). For perspective, the average number of upsets per dance are 8.5 and the record in a single tourney is 13. Getting there, would require a shocking second round. I find it interesting that all three 12 seeds that possessed at least one of the three upset attributes for 5v12 surprises, actually did the deed. Meanwhile, as I mentioned in my March 17 blog, Northern Iowa was indeed the only 12 seed that the numbers said had no chance of springing a surprise. That was the same blog posting that pegged the Cleveland State Vikings as a 13 seed Cinderella. There were also three 10 seed victories over seven seeds (Michigan over Clemson, Maryland over California, and USC over Boston College) and two nine seed wins (Siena over OSU and Texas A&M over BYU). Those don't count in my tally of upsets because there isn't a seed gap of four or more between opponents. Nonetheless, three 10 seed wins is unusual. It's only happened twice before, in 1998 and 1999. As a matter of fact, all the 10 seeds won in '99 (Gonzaga, Creighton, Purdue, and Miami (Ohio). Can't wait to see what round two brings. Neither can Jimmy.
3 Comments...

Keeper bracket on top, Final Four/Champ best stats model
Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 9:46 AM	By ptiernan	0 Comments...
So much for my dreams of a perfect nine-quintillion-to-one defying bracket. when Oklahoma State beat Tennessee, the Keeper bracket suffered its first loss. But that wasn't nearly as damaging as West Virginia's loss to Dayton. I really thought the Mountaineers were the best six seed out there, so I had them beating Kansas too. Tempo-free stats seemed to confirm the wisdom of that pick. But guess what? The model based on Pomeroy's Pythag formula is still dead last this year, no better than my Crazy Upset Special bracket. Here are the numbers: Model 11: Keeper Bracket - 280, 99.9 percentile in ESPN Tourney Challenge Model 1: From the Gut - 260, 96.8 Model 3: Final Four/Champ - 260, 96.8 Model 7: Pythag + Coach PASE - 250, 90.5 Model 4: Combined PASE - 250, 90.5 Model 5: Factors PASE - 240, 77.7 Model 8: Game Play Attributes - 240, 77.7 Model 12: Non-one Seed Special (not posted) - 240, 77.7 Model 9: Seed Match-ups - 230, 59.3 Model 2: Upset/Toss-up Rules - 120, 59.3 Model 10: Upset Special - 220, 39.0 Model 6: Tempo-free Pythag - 220, 39.0
0 Comments...

Cleveland State had all the earmarks of a 13 seed Cinderella
Fri, Mar 20, 2009, 11:05 PM	By ptiernan	5 Comments...
My advice on bracket building has always been to avoid picking upsets lower than 5v12. However, as I mentioned in an earlier blog, there was only one team among the 11, 12 and 13 seeds that had the statistical stuff to be a Cinderella: that was the Cleveland State Vikings. Here are the 13-seed upset rules, as written in "Anatomy of an Upset": "Take 13 seeds with coaches who’ve been to the tourney at least once before that have won between seven and nine of their last ten pre-tourney games and score over 10 percent more points than they allow. These teams are 8-4." Gary Walters is making his third tourney appearance. Cleveland State won eight of their last ten and it beat opponents by 12.2 percent. Ergo the upset. And the Madometer just lurched upward.
5 Comments...

From the Gut and Keeper brackets 16 for 16
Thu, Mar 19, 2009, 11:49 PM	By ptiernan	6 Comments...
Maybe there's something to this "going with your instincts" thing. After the first day of the tourney, my top models are the "From the Gut" bracket I dashed off in five minutes after learning the teams in the dance--and my Keeper bracket that I put together at the tail end of all my number crunching. Here's how all the models fared: Model 1: From the Gut - 160, 100.0 percentile Model 11: Keeper Bracket - 160, 100.0 Model 3: Final Four/Champ - 150, 99.5 Model 7: Pythag + Coach PASE - 140, 94.2 Model 12: Non-one Seed Special (not posted) - 140, 94.2 Model 4: Combined PASE - 130, 77.4 Model 5: Factors PASE - 130, 77.4 Model 8: Game Play Attributes - 130, 77.4 Model 10: Upset Special - 130, 77.4 Model 2: Upset/Toss-up Rules - 120, 50.0 Model 9: Seed Match-ups - 120, 50.0 Model 6: Tempo-free Pythag - 110, 22.4 Notice which model is dead last this year? Yep, it's the one based on Pomeroy's tempo-free stats--the same model that was in the 99th percentile of the ESPN Tourney Challenge last year. It's still early, though. I recall that Pythag didn't come on strong until the latter rounds of the 2008 dance. Interesting that adding coaching PASE to Pythag resulted in a three game swing in the results. Obviously, I'm happy to see my From the Gut and Keeper brackets doing so well. And it's good to see the Final Four/Champ model working out. But March Madness has a way of humbling you in a hurry. We'll see what tomorrow brings.
6 Comments...

Bracketmaster PASE numbers will be slightly off as tourney results roll in
Thu, Mar 19, 2009, 8:41 PM	By ptiernan	5 Comments...
As we add the results of the 2009 tourney to the database, the PASE values that the Bracketmaster spits out will be slightly off. Just thought everyone should know. I wouldn't want someone cranking out a do-it-yourself analysis based on inaccurate numbers. What's everyone think of the tourney so far? Aside from the Maryland and Michigan 10 seed wins, the games have gone to form. Yeah, Memphis and Villanova had scares...but scares don't count.
5 Comments...

Track the madness with the Madometer
Thu, Mar 19, 2009, 10:51 AM	By ptiernan	0 Comments...
After every night of the tourney, I'll be updating the Madometer on the home page so you can see just how "mad" this year's dance is. If you're not acquainted with the Madometer, here's an explanation from my piece in the "Feature Articles" section: The “Madometer” works by measuring the seed-position differences between actual winners and perfect high-seed success or failure in all six rounds of the dance. If the higher seed advanced in all 63 games of the tourney (perfect sanity), the cumulative seed value of the winners would be 203. If the lower seed always advanced (sheer madness), their cumulative seed value would be 868. The difference between the two—665—is the predictability range. Take last year. If you added up the seed positions of all the teams that advanced through the tourney, the number would come to 285, certainly closer to perfect seed dominance (203 positions), but still 82 positions toward madness along the 665-point predictability range. That works out to a Madometer reading of 12.3 percent. To put that number in context, the average tournament over the 24 years of the 64-team era has deviated from by-the-seed results by 13.8 percent. Got all that? I'll be ticked if the Madometer only creeps up to the 4 percent range that it reached in 2006, the most predictable tourney of the 24-year 64-team era. I'm actually hoping we see 2009 exceed the all-time craziness of 1986, when the Madometer shot up to 18.8 percent, the most Jimmy Chitwood/Hoosiers-like tourney of the modern era.
0 Comments...

If I had to pick a Final Four with no top seeds, here's what I'd do
Wed, Mar 18, 2009, 10:22 PM	By ptiernan	3 Comments...
I don't think that we'll see more than two top seeds reach the Final Four this year--despite what you might see in my Keeper bracket. While I played it safe with my final picks, it's very likely--especially in bigger pools--that the winner will take a big risk and advance lower seeds. If I had to pick a Final Four with none of the top seeds, here's what I'd do: - In the Midwest, I'd pick Wake Forest. My second choice would be MSU, but I could see West Virginia as the suprise advancer. - In the West, Memphis is the safe non-one choice. But Missouri or Purdue wouldn't be bad choices either. - In the East, I'll go with Duke to get hot at the right time. If their perimeter-based offense sputters, however, Villanova is capable of a Final Four run too. And nobody's talking about UCLA, but they met the Final Four conditions. Lots of choices in this bracket. - In the South, Gonzaga looks strong...great tempo-free numbers and they match up decently with North Carolina. If not the Zags, I like Syracuse before Oklahoma. Come to think of it, not a single one of my models advanced Oklahoma. That's kinda surprising. So, my non-one seed Final Four would be two two seeds and two four seeds. Just to keep pushing the unpredictability, I'll say Wake Forest beats Memphis and Gonzaga takes Duke. In the finals, I'm giving the nod to the Demon Deacons. Ahh...glad I got that out of my system...
3 Comments...

Great 8 Challenge winner will get iPod nano and lifetime membership
Wed, Mar 18, 2009, 10:03 PM	By ptiernan	1 Comments...
A few members wondered why the winner of the Great 8 Challenge got an 8GB iPod nano, while the second and third place finishers got free lifetime memberships to the site. They thought those awards might be more appealing to some than the iPod. I see the point, so here's what I'm going to do: the winner of the Great 8 Challenge will get both the iPod and a free lifetime membership. We already have more people in this year's contest than last year, but there's still time to enter. Don't forget to submit your eight teams before 11am ET tomorrow.
1 Comments...

Who would win if the team mascot's duked it out for bracket supremacy?
Wed, Mar 18, 2009, 8:41 PM	By ptiernan	2 Comments...
You've heard of people who pick their bracket by team colors, or mascots or player cuteness. But what if the bracket were settled by six rounds of brawls between the team's mascots? Could a Wolverine beat a Lumberjack? Find out here.
2 Comments...

I meant to have Arizona State beat Temple
Wed, Mar 18, 2009, 6:32 PM	By ptiernan	0 Comments...
WSUWarriors asked me in the chat room why I picked Temple over Arizona State. I said, "I didn't mean to." I like Arizona State, so I've updated the model. Sorry...again!
0 Comments...

My keeper bracket stays conservative and picks Pitt, like my gut instincts
Wed, Mar 18, 2009, 5:10 PM	By ptiernan	2 Comments...
I just uploaded my keeper bracket. It's not very different from the gut instincts. My Final Four is Louisville, Memphis, Pitt and North Carolina. I agonized over Wake Forest of Michigan State toppling Louisville. I thought about Missouri over Memphis. The Pitt/Duke/Villanova quandary took about 15 minutes to sort out. Then I finally decided to trust North Carolina to the Final Four, despite what I consider a surprisingly strong four seed in Gonzaga. Check it out!
2 Comments...

ALERT: "Fewer than three junior/senior starters" eliminator changes two picks on F4/Champ model
Wed, Mar 18, 2009, 2:41 PM	By ptiernan	9 Comments...
I just discovered, in responding to a blog comment, that I had two picks wrong on the original bracket for Model #3, "Final Four/Champ Rules." I had Butler over LSU and Boston College over USC. But both Butler and Boston College have fewer than three junior or senior starters and therefore should've been eliminated in the first round under the outlier rules. My apologies for the late notice. I swear, this bracket is cursed. This is the third time I had to make a tweak. If you're using it (and the UCLA pick might've scared most away), you may want to reconsider those LSU/Butler and BC/USC match-ups. I'll go crawl into a closet now...
9 Comments...

New scatter plot of team quality and field parity aligned with one-seed championships
Wed, Mar 18, 2009, 1:24 PM	By ptiernan	7 Comments...
A week or so before the end of regular season and conference tourneys, I posted a scatter plot that showed where the 2009 tourney field might fall in terms of team quality and parity among the 16 top four seeds. You can go back to the 3/7 blog to check out where 2009 fell then. But here's where it actually falls after all the games were played and the teams were seeded: The X axis charts the overall winning percentage of the top 16 teams; the Y axis charts the win percentage difference between the likely top seeds and the next 12 teams. Every dance falling below the .097 horizontal line is a strong parity tournament; every dance to the right of the vertical .817 line is a strong team quality tourney. So the lower right quadrant represents "strong teams, strong parity." You can see where 2009, in red, is right now. It's a "strong team, strong parity," which tends toward a more unpredictable dance. But the 2009 top teams aren't quite as strong as they were 11 days ago, even as the parity has gotten stronger. What's it all mean? If you look at the seven closest dances on the plot, six of them ended with a top-seeded champ. Only 2003 crowned a team seeded lower than one. That was three seed Syracuse. One the other hand, the average cumulative value of the seed positions for Final Four teams since 1985 is 2.50. In these seven tourneys, the average was 2.75, suggesting a slightly lower seed composition for this year's Final Four. When is comes to upsets, however, the average dance has 8.5. These seven tourneys only saw 7.3. So if 2009 is like the tourneys it most closely resembles in team quality and parity, then we're looking at a less-than-average number of upsets, lower seeds in the Final Four--yet an ultimate top-seed champion.
7 Comments...

New game-play attributes model and upset special bracket available
Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 8:12 PM	By ptiernan	8 Comments...
I just got through posting the last two models before uploading my "keeper" bracket tomorrow. Model 8, the game-play attributes model, is a repeat from last year. I wasn't going to do it again in 2009, even though it placed in the top 95th percentile of the ESPN Tourney Challenge, because I wanted to try something new. But three different members asked where it had gone...so I resurrected it. Maybe after those members see West Virginia, Gonzaga, Memphis and Pitt in the Final Four (which Memphis beating Gonzaga in the finals), they'll wish they didn't ask. I've also included my unrepentant "Crazy Pete's Upset Special." Since I've been saying there will be a lot of upsets in the dance this year, I figured I better put a bracket where my mouth is. This one projects 12 upsets--and settles on Duke as the eventual champ over Wake Forest. That's not super crazy...everything in between is, though.
8 Comments...

I'll be in the chat room tomorrow night, 7-9 ET
Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 3:00 PM	By ptiernan	7 Comments...
It's been a little crazy the last couple days...and I'm running on fumes. This may explain why my late-arriving keeper brackets are always so funky every year. Anyway, I wanted to schedule a time that I'd be in the chat room. Tomorrow between 7-9ET is a for sure. I may be diving in there tonight too from 9-10ET. We'll see if I don't nod off early.
7 Comments...

Upset factors don’t identify any 6v11 or 5v12 upset victors or victims
Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 10:59 AM	By ptiernan	13 Comments...
I was surprised this year to find that when I applied the upset rules to the 6v11 and 5v12 match-ups, not a single low seed had what it took to be a Cinderella. Furthermore, none of the high seeds showed statistical earmarks of being victims. A few of the models reflect this chalkiness. Now we all know this is just plumb crazy. There are going to be upsets in these match-ups. I’ll go out on a limb and say as many as three. If you really want to indulge a wild hair, use the Factor PASE model, which calls seven of the eight match-ups as upsets, with only UCLA staving off a sweep against VCU. And that’s crazy too. So I decided I might as well let y’all know which 11 and 12 seeds came the closest to fulfilling the upset rules. For 11 seeds, it was VCU and Utah State. Both met the requirement of beating teams by seven or more points—and both fell just short of the 73 point-per-game plateau. Utah State scored 72.9 points a game and VCU got 72.0. For the 12 seeds, there were three conditions—and for each one a different team made the grade. Wisconsin is the only squad led by a coach who’s been to the dance before. Western Kentucky is the only 12 seed with a winning percentage above .700. And only Arizona gets at least 55 percentage of their points from the frontcourt. One thing’s clear: UNI didn’t meet any of the three conditions…though they were just .003 away from meeting the win percent rule. Surprisingly, while the upset factors don’t foretell a 11 or 12 seed Cinderella, they do peg a 13 seed (not that I’d etch this into my bracket though). Cleveland State has a coach that’s been to the dance before, the Vikings have won between seven and nine of their last 10 pre-tourney games, and they outscore opponents by more than 10 percent. Hmm.
13 Comments...

2009 tourney field
Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 8:53 AM	By ptiernan	3 Comments...
The 2009 tourney field is unique from the other 24 dances of the 64-team era in many ways. Here are just a few: - Second most tourney-tested coaches (6.31 trips) to 1999 (6.50 trips) - Second coldest field heading into the tourney (7.09 wins in last ten) to 1985 (7.03) - Second lowest scoring tourney field (73.3 ppg) to 2006 (73.0 ppg) - Tied for third lowest scoring margin (8.2 ppg with 1985) to 1996 (8.0 ppg) and 2004 (8.1 ppg) - Third most guard-dominant tourney field (54.0% of points from backcourt) to 2007 (56.7%) and 2008 (56.3%) Let's see: a cold tourney field with low scoring margins, like 1985 when 8 seed Villanova won the championship. And a low-scoring field, like 2006 when George Mason crashed the Final Four as an 11 seed. Hunh. On the other hand, tourney tested coaches and low scoring margins...like 1999 and 2004, the years that UConn cut down the nets. I'm just saying...
3 Comments...

With brackets finally out, only five teams have stats chops to be champs
Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 1:30 AM	By ptiernan	4 Comments...
Now that the Selection Committee has done it's thing, there are only five teams that have the attributes that most champions have had over the 24-year history of the 64-team bracket. 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 final regular season numbers, only five teams possess these championship qualities: North Carolina, Pitt, UConn, Duke and Kansas. Villanova and UCLA dropped off the list because they failed to end up scoring at least 77 points a game. Clemson had the offensive firepower--but wound up getting seeded seventh. It will be interesting to see whether 18 of 20 champs will possess these attributes. WIth three one seeds and a strong two seed in the mix, the odds are pretty good that this year's tourney will follow form.
4 Comments...

Best and worst of the tourney field reveals some interesting results
Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 12:49 AM	By ptiernan	4 Comments...
I just went through filtering the updated Excel sheet to rank the best and worst tourney coaches and teams in nearly all the statistical categories I've tracked. I learned a few things in the process: - Memphis is one heckuva team - Chattanooga, one the other hand, is not - Stephen F. Austin is a quirky little squad - UConn, Clemson and Cal are cursed with pre-tourney losing streaks - Who knew that Gonzaga had the highest scoring margin in the land? - Michigan really likes to shoot threes - On the other hand, they're a lousy rebounding team...while their rival, Michigan State, is a great one - Tennessee doesn't really like to get out on three shooters - Don't get in a free throw shooting contest with Utah State - Do get in one with Alabama State - To paraphrase David Crosby, "Missouri will steal your leg." - Pitt protects the ball...Florida State, not so much - Did I mention that Memphis is impressive? Here are all the best and worst (mmm...tasty...): - Most coaching appearances in tourney: Mike Krzyzewski (24) - Most coaching Elite Eight appearances: Mike Kryzewski (11) - Most consecutive team bids: Arizona (25) - Best pre-tourney winning percentage: Memphis (.912) - Worst pre-tourney winning percentage: Chattanooga (.529) - Longest pre-tourney winning streak: Memphis (25 games) - Longest pre-tourney losing streak: UConn, Clemson, Cal (two losses) - Best road/neutral winning percentage: UConn (.867) - Worst road/neutral winning percentage: Chattanooga (.278) - Highest scoring team: North Carolina (90.2 ppg) - Lowest scoring team: Wisconsin (64.4 ppg) - Fewest points allowed per game: Stephen F. Austin (56.0 ppg) - Most points allowed per game: Chattanooga (76.0 ppg) - Highest scoring margin: Gonzaga (17.7 ppg) - Lowest scoring margin: Chattanooga (0.08 ppg) - Best field goal percentage: Utah State (.498) - Worst field goal percentage: Akron (.419) - Lowest field goal percentage allowed: Memphis (.362) - Highest field goal percentage allowed: Portland State (.451) - Best field goal percentage differential versus opponents: Gonzaga (+.120) - Worst field goal percentage differential versus opponents: Michigan (-.011) - Best three-point field goal percentage: California (.434) - Worst three-point field goal percentage: Tennessee (.314) - Lowest three-point field goal percentage allowed: Stephen F. Austin (.271) - Highest three-point field goal percentage allowed: Robert Morris, Utah State (.367) - Best three-point field goal percentage differential versus opponents: Cornell (+.108) - Worst three-point field goal percentage differential versus opponents: Tennessee (-.023) - Highest percentage of three-point field goals attempted: Michigan (.476) - Lowest percentage of three-point field goals attempted: Washington (.205) - Most free throws attempted: Chattanooga (925) - Fewest free throws attempted: Illinois (412) - Best free throw shooting percentage: Utah (.782) - Worst free throw shooting percentage: Alabama State (.637) - Most dependent on top five scorers: Marquette (91.0% of points) - Least dependent on top five scorers: Minnesota (62.6% of points) - Highest percentage of backcourt points from top five scorers: Oklahoma State (100.0%) - Lowest percentage of backcourt points from top five scorers: Stephen F. Austin (10.8%) - Oldest top five scorers by class: Chattanooga, Cal State Northridge (one junior, four seniors) - Youngest top five scorers by class: Florida State (two freshman, one sophomore, one senior) - Largest rebounding margin: Michigan State (9.9 rpg) - Smallest rebounding margin: Michigan (-3.1 rpg) - Best turnover margin: Missouri (6.5 tpg) - Worst turnover margin: Utah (-3.2 tpg) - Best assist/turnover ratio: Pittsburgh (1.50) - Worst assist/turnover ratio: Florida State (0.78) - Best assists/field goals ratio: Illinois (.702) - Worst assists/field goals ratio: Wake Forest (.449) - Most points scored per 100 possessions: North Carolina (123.8) - Fewest points scored per 100 possessions: Stephen F. Austin (96.6) - Most points allowed per 100 possessions: Chattanooga (103.4) - Fewest points allowed per 100 possessions: Memphis (79.4) - Best overall offensive/defensive efficiency rating: Memphis (.9808) - Worst overall offensive/defensive efficiency rating: Chattanooga (.3833)
4 Comments...

Eight of the ten stats models are uploaded; two more non-numbers brackets coming...
Mon, Mar 16, 2009, 11:35 PM	By ptiernan	2 Comments...
I'm starting to breathe easier. I'm still sleep deprived, but not nearly as frazzled--and inclined to treat myself to a large glass of red, red wine. (No whiskey until after Thursday!) I just posted the eighth statistical model. I've got at least two left (mulling over an uber-stats model), but neither are driven by number crunching. One is Crazy Pete's Contrarian picks and the other is my For Keeps bracket, which I usually do Wednesday morning. So far, the brackets have picked Louisville as the champ three times, North Carolina twice, Pitt once, Memphis once, and Michigan State once (say whu?).
2 Comments...

Updated Excel stats sheet on 2009 teams--including RPI, SOS and tempo-free stats
Mon, Mar 16, 2009, 9:48 PM	By ptiernan	2 Comments...
All I can say is: finally! It takes the NCAA a while to update their official RPI stats, but they did finally at about 4pm ET, I plugged in the numbers and--voila!--they're ready for your consumption. The tempo-free are the last columns in the sheet. They include offensive and defensive efficiency as well as Pythag, both the hard numbers and the rankings. A word about SOS: they are updated through games on Saturday, so they don't include the few Sunday games. Next season, when the Bracketmaster is updated, there will be ever-so-slight differences in the SOS rankings for teams. BTW - get ready tomorrow for a major deluge of blog postings. I've been storing up ideas as I crank through the stats today. Lots of good stuff.
2 Comments...

Members point out error of my ways...make it UCLA over Duke in the F4/Champ model
Mon, Mar 16, 2009, 10:36 AM	By ptiernan	0 Comments...
After reading a couple comments from stephenson and gnrdodger24 in the Blog forum, I realized that in my late-night stupor I advanced Duke past UCLA in the F4/Champ model. It should've been the other way around as they so aptly pointed out. This makes the second re-start on this model. First the Washington weirdness, now the UCLA addition. One Pac-10 teams exits, another enters. My sincere apologies.
0 Comments...

Final Four/Champ model not so wacky after all
Mon, Mar 16, 2009, 1:19 AM	By ptiernan	4 Comments...
After an email from Phil in Texas, I realized that the Final Four/ Champ rules weren't accurately applied when dealing with situations where no teams qualify in a particular region. This was the case in the West region where I originally had Washington reaching the Final Four. In the Final Four/Champs article, I said that when no teams qualify, consider all the top three seeds in a region and apply the multi-candidate rules. I accidently, in my sleep-deprived state, considered all four top seeds. Once I went back to the top seed, Washington not only didn't get to the Final Four (UConn did), but they didn't even beat Purdue in the second round. I've rated this new model as a medium risk--and I've now removed it (last night I kept it up a while). My apologies if the Washington Final Four pick gave anyone a momentary coronary.
4 Comments...

First three models posted--and each one crowns a different champ
Mon, Mar 16, 2009, 12:08 AM	By ptiernan	3 Comments...
I'm starting to roll out the bracket models...may get one more up tonight, but I better get some sleep before interviews tomorrow. What I found interesting is that the models predicted three different champs. Well, my "from the gut" pick doesn't count. I ended up going with Pitt--even though Jamie Dixon is a classic snakebitten coach (5+ appearances, no Elite Eight runs. The Final Four/Champ likes North Carolina. But it yielded one truly crazy result: Washington, yes Washington, in the Final Four. It also picked exactly zero upsets between 6v11 and 5v12 teams...not gonna happen. The Pythag model likes Memphis...and has West Virginia and Arizona State going to the Elite Eight. Stranger things have happened. We'll see what the other models say. Stay tuned.
3 Comments...

Version 1 of Excel sheet with 2009 tourney field stats posted--no RPI, SOS, or tempo-free
Sun, Mar 15, 2009, 7:39 PM	By ptiernan	4 Comments...
We just posted Version 1 of the Excel sheet that includes a mountain of stats on every team in the 2009 tourney. You can find it here. I will be uploading Version 2 of the sheet tomorrow, hoping by 3:00pm ET, that will include the RPI, SOS and tempo-free data (offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency, and "Pythag" combined efficiency). A quick word about the All-American designations (that's the column with the asterisk). Typically, I use the United States Basketball Coaches list of All-Americans. However, this year the coaches' list won't come out until April 4 because of a new deal they have with their sponsor, State Farm. Instead of going with the coaches, I'm using the Sporting News first and second team All-Americans, which were announced about a week ago. Hope this helps everyone chomping at the bit for stats. Now it's on to crunching the bracket models. Here comes my all-nighter!
4 Comments...

Radio schedule for Monday and Tuesday
Sat, Mar 14, 2009, 1:34 PM	By ptiernan	5 Comments...
At my wife Michelle's insistence, I'm going to post my radio schedule for Monday and Tuesday after Selection Sunday. Things start happening so fast and furious that I never have time to do this in the midst of bracket-pondering days. Here's what's locked in so far--more will come: MONDAY 7:30am - Buffalo, NY - WEDG 103.3FM 8:00am - Cincinnati, OH - WLW 700AM 10:05am - Rochester, NY - WHTK 1280AM 10:30am - San Francisco, CA - KNBR 11:30am - Detroit, MI - WJR 760AM 8:30pm - San Diego, CA - 1360AM TUESDAY 9:30am - Atlanta, GA - WGST 640AM 11:00am - New Mexico - 1340 AM 12:00pm - Memphis, TN - Gary Parrish from CBSSports.com 12:30pm - Blacksburg, WV - WAMN 1050AM 6:10pm - College Station, TX - KZNE 7:15pm - Charleston, WV - WCHS 580AM
5 Comments...

CBSSports.com does fantastic job with my coaching analysis
Fri, Mar 13, 2009, 9:07 PM	By ptiernan	1 Comments...
As I announced a few weeks back, I contracted with CBSSports.com to publish four of my articles. ESPN.com jettisoned nearly all their outside contributors, including Andy Glockner (also now on CBSSports.com), so I went to the media mogul that televises the dance. After seeing their layout of my coaching analysis, I gotta say, I'm ecstatic! Take a gander at this amazingly laid out piece. Big-time kudos to my editor at CBSSports.com Mark Swanson and the graphics designer Roland Liwag. No one has ever made one of my pieces look so good.
1 Comments...

Six-overtime game gives UConn's points it needs to join potential champs club
Fri, Mar 13, 2009, 8:37 PM	By ptiernan	9 Comments...
One of the interesting by-products of the six-overtime classic between Syracuse and UConn is that it boosted the Huskies average points scored per game to 77.3--and thereby helped them qualify as a potential champion. If you haven't been following along in the blog, look down a few postings and you'll find what I'm talking about. The toughest hurdle of the six champ attributes for many of the top teams this year has been offensive scoring. Before their 127-117 six-overtime loss, UConn was averaging 76.2 points a game. The marathon game added 1.1 points to their season average. You might say that it's a shakey way of reaching the 77-point plateau. But the fact is that I haven't backed overtimes out of any other team's totals. It could be that some of those 21 champions of the past 24 years that had the requisite scoring punch also benefitted from a few overtime games. So at this point , before the rankings come out (which will almost certainly doom Clemson), we have the most potential champs we've had all year. There are eight teams that make the grade: North Carolina, Pitt, Duke, Kansas, Villanova, UCLA, Clemson...and now UConn.
9 Comments...

MYTH OR REALITY? If you win your conference, you're likely to underachieve in the Big Dance
Fri, Mar 13, 2009, 8:30 AM	By ptiernan	2 Comments...
As I was watching Syracuse and UConn wear each other down last night in their six-overtime epic, I wondered about a comment Jay Bilas made about conference tourney champions underperforming in the dance. I have to admit, without looking at the numbers, I thought there was validity in Bilas' claim. After all, I remember the 2005 Syracuse squad that clawed its way to the Big East championship and earned a four seed--only to get upset by a 13 seed in round one. Or the 2006 Iowa squad that won the Big Ten tourney, grabbed a three seed--then got surprised by a 14 seed. But I hadn't really crunched the numbers. So that's what I did bright and early this morning. And guess what? Bilas and I were wrong. Winning your conference tournament does not jinx you for the national dance--unless your from the ACC. I analyzed tourney winners among the Big Six conferences going back ten years (actually, the Pac 10 just goes back to 2002). I discovered that, with the exception of the ACC, the Power conference tourney champs overperformed against seed expectations. Here are the numbers: ACC: 3 F4, 1 CH, -.165 PASE Big East: 3 F4, 2 CH, +.259 PASE Big 12: 4 F4, 1 CH, +.359 PASE Big Ten: 3 F4, 1 CH, +.159 PASE Pac-10: 2 F4, 0 CH, +.004 PASE SEC: 2 F4, 2 CH, +.168 PASE These numbers show that 17 of the last 40 Final Four contenders and seven of the last 10 champions that been conference tourney champs as well. And every conference's champs except the ACC's are overachievers in the dance. The Big 12's champs are the highest overperformers and the Big East is second. So much for the theory that winning the Big East spells doom for your chances in the Big Dance.
2 Comments...

If we're expanding the dance, let's go all the way
Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 9:43 AM	By ptiernan	1 Comments...
I've been arguing for years that the 64-team field is just right the way it is. But with this year's crowded bubble we're getting more and more complaints to expand the dance. After watching this Onion video a friend sent my way, I'm sold. Check this out.
1 Comments...

When it comes to three pointers, does quantity or quality foretell tourney overachievement?
Wed, Mar 11, 2009, 8:12 PM	By ptiernan	0 Comments...
Two closely seeded teams go head to head in the tourney. Everything else is equal—offensive boards, turnovers, foul shots made, et cetera—except for three-point shooting and overall field goal accuracy. In a 70-possession game, the first team shoots .514 from the field and .357 from behind the three-point arc. The second team shoots .485 overall and .333 from the three-point line. And guess what? The second team wins. How? Simply put, they chuck up more three-pointers than the first team. Team #1 goes 5-14 with threes and 31-56 with twos for 77 points. Team #2 goes 10-30 with threes and 24-40 with twos for 78 points. That’s an example of why coaches like John Beilein of Michigan embrace a strategy of attempting a whole bunch of threes. It’s basic math really: they give you three points for three-pointers. Think of it this way—you can go four for ten from the three-point stripe and it’s the same as going six for ten inside the arc. I guess none of that is too surprising, but what I find interesting is that “three-pointers attempted” is a much stronger indicator of tourney overachievement than “three-pointers made.” You can read all about it in the “Top Attributes” article. But here’s the gist: over the last four years, teams that take more than 34 percent of their shots behind the arc are +.124 overachievers. Meanwhile, teams that shoot better than 38.5 percent for threes are just +.033 overachievers. Here’s even more powerful evidence that taking it is more important than making it when it comes to three-pointers: for the top three seeds, taking more than 34 percent of your shots from the cheap seats is the fourth highest indicator of overachievement among 25 attributes studied. One through three seeds that shoot threes at better than that clip are +.467 PASE overachievers. You can look at last year’s tourney for evidence of this dynamic in action. Cinderellas Davidson (.405) and Villanova (.356) shot more threes than the tourney field average of .344. Just as importantly, victims like UConn (.252), USC (.280) and Clemson (.307) took fewer threes than average.
0 Comments...

UCLA and Villanova join the most crowded list of potential champs in two months
Mon, Mar 9, 2009, 6:11 PM	By ptiernan	5 Comments...