CUOrange Blog

Clemson Tiger Sports…and other stuff…

  • Blog Stats

    • 11,251 hits
  • You don’t ever know about a football coach until you get in a ditch. He worked his way out of a ditch pretty good. That’s a good sign. - Danny Ford on Dabo Swinney
  • Recommended: AE’s Tiger Gear

    Adam is a Clemson grad, fellow CUTiger.com member and an all around good guy. Click here to check out all of his stylish Clemson related products.
  • RSS Clemson Basketball

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS Clemson Football

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • Mystery Number

    3,496

Archive for the ‘College Basketball’ Category

The contenders

Posted by cuorange on February 22, 2010

These stats are through games of Saturday, 2/20/2010

Here’s the criteria to reach the final four:

1. Defensive efficiency ranking of 25 or better

2. Offensive efficiency ranking of 50 or better

3. RPI ranking of 27 or better

Team O Efficiency D Efficiency RPI % Final Four % Champ
Kansas 2 3 1 100.0 83.3
Duke 1 13 3 33.3 16.7
Syracuse 14 9 2 12.5 0.0
Purdue 27 4 8 8.3 0.0
Wisconsin 15 16 20 4.2 0.0
BYU 8 19 18 0.0 0.0
Kentucky 12 20 4 0.0 0.0
Kansas State 17 24 6 0.0 0.0

The basic concept here is that though a team like Wisconsin has both the offensive and defensive efficiencies to make it to the final four, when you combine the two the chances are much less. In other words, one of the last 24 teams have had an offensive efficiency of 15 or worse and a defensive efficiency of 16 or worse.

This refining also removes 3 teams from our final four contenders – Brigham Young, Kentucky and Kansas State, that our previous formula would have included.

At this point the Final Four consists of Kansas, Duke, Syracuse and Purdue. Later this week, we’ll use Joe Lunardi’s Bracketology to put teams into regions and see if that has any effect on which teams make it to the Final Four (i.e. if Kansas and Syracuse end up in the same region only one team can advance).

The percentages don’t always add up to 100% because in this formula one team’s chances are independent of another teams chances.

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bracketology and the Final Four

Posted by cuorange on February 19, 2010

Last week’s iteration had a Final Four of Kansas, Texas, Wisconsin and Syracuse. Lunardi has moved some teams to different regions this week, and coupled with Texas’ continued free fall, this has changed our projected Final Four.

Kansas wins the Midwest and Syracuse takes the West over Purdue/West Virginia. Our first non-number one seed advances in the South with Wisconsin, a projected #3, ousting Kentucky, and this is followed by projected 2 seed Duke beating Villanova.

I am one of the ones that don’t think Duke passes the eyeball test. On the other hand, the point of this exercise is to take the biases (against or for a certain team, such as Duke) out of the equation and when you do that the Blue Devils have really good numbers (like the #1 rated offensive efficiency for much of the year).

Team O Efficiency D Efficiency RPI % Final Four % Champ
Kansas 2 3 1 100.0 83.3
Duke 1 12 4 37.5 33.3
Syracuse 13 6 2 12.5 0.0
Wisconsin 14 9 14 12.5 0.0

In the semi’s it would be Kansas over Syracuse in what could be an entertaining game and Duke over Wisconsin (who they’ve already lost to this season).

The final would be Kansas over Duke.

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

College Basketball Contenders

Posted by cuorange on February 14, 2010

These stats are through games of Saturday, 2/13/2010

Here’s the criteria to reach the final four:

1. Defensive efficiency ranking of 25 or better

2. Offensive efficiency ranking of 50 or better

3. RPI ranking of 27 or better

Team O Efficiency D Efficiency RPI % Final Four % Champ
Kansas 2 3  1   100.0 83.3 
Duke 1 12 4    37.5  33.3
Syracuse 13 6 2   12.5 0.0
Wisconsin 14 9 14   12.5 0.0
Kansas State 21 14 8   8.3 0.0
Purdue 23 11 10   4.2  0.0 
West Virginia 4 25 6   4.2 0.0
Brigham Young 10 21 19   0.0 0.0
Kentucky 18 19 5   0.0 0.0

The basic concept here is that though a team like West Virginia has both the offensive and defensive efficiencies to make it to the final four, when you combine the two the chances are much less. In other words, one of the last 24 teams have had an offensive efficiency of 4 or worse and a defensive efficiency of 25 or worse.

This refining also removes two teams from our final four contenders – Brigham Young and Kentucky, that our old formula would have included.

It looks like we have a Final Four: Kansas, Duke, Syracuse and Wisconsin.  Later this week, we’ll use Joe Lunardi’s Bracketology to put teams into regions and see if that has any effect on which teams make it to the Final Four (i.e. if Kansas and Syracuse end up in the same region only one team can advance).

The percentages don’t add up to 100% because in this formula one team’s chances are independent of another teams chances.

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Projecting the Final Four and Champion

Posted by cuorange on February 7, 2010

To this point we have been projecting possible final four teams and a champion based on historical trends of offensive and defensive efficiencies. This week we are adding a percentage for each team to reach the final four and win the championship. After all, a team like Texas with an offensive efficiency of 32 and a defensive efficiency of 12 meets the criteria for the final four, but their chances are less than say, Syracuse with an offensive efficiency of 11 and a defensive efficiency of 7.

These stats are through games of Saturday, 2/6/2010

Here’s the criteria to reach the final four:

1. Defensive efficiency ranking of 25 or better

2. Offensive efficiency ranking of 50 or better

3. RPI ranking of 27 or better

Team O Efficiency D Efficiency RPI % Final Four % Champ
Kansas  1  100.0  100.0 
Wisconsin 5 15  16.7  0.0 
Syracuse 11 12.5  0.0 
Duke  1  23  4.2  0.0 
Kansas State  17 4.2 0.0 
Purdue  22 17  11   4.2  0.0 
Texas   32  12  21    4.2  0.0
West Virgina  4 22    4.2  0.0 
Brigham Young  12 24  23    0.0  0.0 
Kentucky  13 21    0.0  0.0 

The basic concept here is that though a team like Texas has both the offensive and defensive efficiencies to make it to the final four, when you combine the two the chances are much less.  In other words, one of the last 24 teams have had an offensive efficiency of 32 or worse and a defensive efficiency of 12 or worse.

This refining also removes two teams from our final four contenders – Brigham Young and Kentucky, that our old formula would have included.

Three of the final four look pretty strong.  The question at this point who will be the fourth team.

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Overrated?

Posted by cuorange on February 4, 2010

Villanova (20-1, 9-0) has become the darling of the college basketball media.  I’ve seen them projected as a number 1 seed.  I’ve heard them talked about as a final four team.  Some have even said they are the best team in the nation and have a shot at winning it all come April.
 
Villanova may wind up with a number one seed.  They won’t win it all and they won’t make the final four.
 
How do I know?  Defensive efficiency.  The Wildcat’s are ranked 62nd in that category through the first 21 games of the season.  No team in the last 6 years has made the final four with a defensive efficiency higher than 25.  No one.  Not even George Mason in 2006 (18th). Zero for 24.

Team O Efficiency D Efficiency RPI
Villanova 3 62 3

 
The Wildcats are demons on offense, with an efficiency ranking of 3, national championship caliber.  But when push comes to shove they won’t be able to stop a team somewhere along the line in the tournament and will bow out prior to the final four.
 
Nine games plus the conference tournament still remain for the Wildcats to get to the magic 25 number in defensive efficiency (plus games in the NCAA tournament).  The chances of them making it are slim.  There are no more Fairleigh Dickinson’s, Penn’s, Drexel’s or Fordham’s left on the schedule.

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

College Basketball Contenders

Posted by cuorange on January 31, 2010

These stats are through games of Saturday, 1/30/2010

Here’s the criteria to reach the final four:

1. Defensive efficiency ranking of 25 or better

2. Offensive efficiency ranking of 50 or better

3. RPI ranking of 27 or better

Team O Efficiency D Efficiency RPI
Kansas 1 3 2
Duke 2 17 3
Syracuse 11 12 1
Brigham Young 13 16 21
Kentucky 14 25 8
Kansas State 18 23 5
Purdue 22 18 10
Wisconsin 29 7 12
Texas 34 9 9

Once a team reaches the final four, offensive efficiency becomes much more important.

National championship criteria:

1. Defensive efficiency ranking of 16 or better

2. Offensive efficiency ranking of 4 or better

3. RPI ranking of 16 or better

Kansas sits alone as potential national champions. Duke is right on the cusp with a 17th ranked defensive efficiency.

Team O Efficiency D Efficiency RPI
Kansas 1 3 2

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

College Basketball Contenders

Posted by cuorange on January 25, 2010

These stats are through games of Sunday, 1/24/2010

Here’s the criteria to reach the final four:

1. Defensive efficiency ranking of 25 or better

2. Offensive efficiency ranking of 50 or better

3. RPI ranking of 27 or better

Team O Efficiency D Efficiency RPI
Duke 1 15 3
Kansas 2 3 2
BYU  7 17  20 
Syracuse  8 14 
Purdue  21 18  12 
Kansas State 22  20 
Wisconsin  27 10 
Texas  33
Missouri  42 45 

Once a team reaches the final four, offensive efficiency becomes much more important.

National championship criteria:

1. Defensive efficiency ranking of 16 or better

2. Offensive efficiency ranking of 4 or better

3. RPI ranking of 16 or better

Kansas and Duke remain potential national champions. Kansas has pulled ahead and as of today is the front-runner for the national championship.

Team O Efficiency D Efficiency RPI
Duke 1 15 3
Kansas 2 3 2

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

CBB Predictions 1/23/10

Posted by cuorange on January 23, 2010

I trudge on with a 5-13 record so far.

Date Favorite Underdog Spread Pick Result
1/23/10 Duke Clemson 1 Clemson Loss 
1/23/10 Texas Connecticut 3 Texas Loss 
1/9/10 Clemson Boston College 9 Clemson Win
1/9/10 Duke Georgia Tech 7 Georgia Tech Win
1/9/10 Texas Colorado 19 1/2 Texas Loss
1/2/10 Kentucky Louisville 7 1/2 Louisville Loss
1/2/10 Kansas Temple 6 1/2 Temple Loss
1/2/10 Michigan State Northwestern 4 1/2 Northwestern Loss
12/22/09 Clemson Western Carolina 15 1/2 WCU Loss
12/22/09 Texas Michigan State 8 1/2 Texas Win
12/16/09 Clemson East Carolina 14 ECU Loss
12/13/09 Clemson Furman 21 1/2 Furman Loss
12/12/09 Butler Ohio State 3 1/2 Ohio State Loss
12/12/09 Kentucky Indiana 9 Kentucky Win
12/12/09 Gonzaga Dayton 12 1/2 Gonzaga Loss
12/12/09 Purdue Alabama 4 1/2 Purdue Win
12/11/09 Tennessee Middle Tennessee State 20 MTSU Loss
12/10/09 Michigan State Oakland (Mich) 21 1/2 Oakland Loss
12/10/09 Cincinnati Miami, OH 14 1/2 Cincinnati Loss
12/10/09 Syracuse Florida 2 Florida Loss

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

College Basketball Contenders

Posted by cuorange on January 17, 2010

These stats are through games of Saturday, 1/16/2010

Here’s the criteria to reach the final four:

1. Defensive efficiency ranking of 25 or better

2. Offensive efficiency ranking of 50 or better

3. RPI ranking of 27 or better

Team O Efficiency D Efficiency RPI
Duke 1 9 1
Kansas 2 4 3
Syracuse 6 15 5
Wisconsin 16 8 7
Pittsburgh 45 25 8
Texas 32 24 10
Georgetown 15 3 13
Purdue 30 16 15
Michigan State 18 22 21
Brigham Young 5 12 23
Tennessee 44 11 25

Once a team reaches the final four, offensive efficiency becomes much more important.

National championship criteria:

1. Defensive efficiency ranking of 16 or better

2. Offensive efficiency ranking of 4 or better

3. RPI ranking of 16 or better

Kansas and Duke remain potential national champions.  Syracuse is right on the cusp with a 6th ranked offensive efficiency.

Team O Efficiency D Efficiency RPI
Duke 1 9 1
Kansas 2 4 3

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Contenders

Posted by cuorange on January 11, 2010

These stats are through games of Sunday, 1/10/2010.

Here’s the criteria to reach the final four:

1. Defensive efficiency ranking of 25 or better

2. Offensive efficiency ranking of 50 or better

3. RPI ranking of 27 or better

Team O Efficiency D Efficiency RPI
Duke 1 8 2
Kansas 2 2 4
Purdue 22 9 5
Syracuse 8 14 7
Georgetown 39 21 12
Texas 17 4 14
Wisconsin 20 10 15
Brigham Young 9 20 22

Once a team reaches the final four, offensive efficiency becomes much more important.

National championship criteria:

1. Defensive efficiency ranking of 16 or better

2. Offensive efficiency ranking of 4 or better

3. RPI ranking of 16 or better

Kansas and Duke remain potential national champions.

Team O Efficiency D Efficiency RPI
Duke 1 8 2
Kansas 2 2 4

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »