CUOrange Blog

Clemson Tiger Sports…and other stuff…

  • Blog Stats

    • 11,276 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

Posts Tagged ‘Kansas Jayhawks’

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.

Advertisements

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 »

Using Bracketology to find the Final Four

Posted by cuorange on February 10, 2010

Who won’t make the Final Four?
 
Using Joe Lunardi’s Bracketology we look at the projected top seeds and weed through which teams will make it to Indianapolis.
 
Starting in the Midwest Kansas is a no-brainer.  With offensive and defensive efficiency ratings of 2 Kansas is the prohibitive favorite as of this writing to win the national championship.
 
Lunardi projected Georgetown as the second seed in the Midwest and while the Hoyas have had their moments (beating Duke and Villanova) they aren’t a serious threat to the Jayhawks.
 
In the West Regional Lunardi projects Villanova at a 1 seed and Michigan State as the number 2.  Last week we detailed the case of Villanova and their defensive struggles.  The Wildcats then promptly went out and gave up 101 points to Georgetown in a loss.  An about face earlier this week against West Virginia in which Villanova held the Mountaineers to 75 points has improved the Wildcats defensive efficiency ranking to 55th, and improvement of 7 spots over two games.  The Wildcats will have to improve significantly before I feel safe including them in my Final Four projections, but their offense is championship caliber, make no mistake.
 
Michigan State is currently sitting at defensive efficiency ranking of 39 and an offensive efficiency ranking of 26.  Not Final Four material either.
 
At this point we would project Texas, who Lunardi has as a 3 seed, to win this region as it is currently projected.  Georgia Tech is another team to keep an eye on here, though they have some work to do.
 
Over in the South, we would project Syracuse over Duke.  Kansas State is also in this region, but we’ll stick with the balanced attack of the Orange to edge Duke in the South final.
 
The East bracket appears to be the deepest as currently projected with Kentucky (1), West Virginia (2), Wisconsin (3) and Brigham Young (4) projected as the top 4 seeds in the region.  As of today all of these teams have the offensive and defensive efficiencies to make it to the Final Four.  The question is which one is the most likely to do so?
 
It turns out that as the numbers stand right now Wisconsin has a 16.7% chance of reaching the Final Four, West Virginia a 4.2% chance and Kentucky and BYU a 0.0% chance.  Therefore, we project Wisconsin as the second #3 seed to make it to the Final Four based on Lunardi’s projections of February 8.
 
That leaves us with a Final Four of Kansas, Texas, Syracuse and Wisconsin.  Two number 1 seeds and two number 3 seeds.
 
The semi-finals would be Kansas over Texas and Syracuse over Wisconsin.  The final would be Kansas over Syracuse.
 
These projections can and will change as Lunardi changes his projections, the season plays out and the actual teams, region placement and seedings are finalized. 
 
It’s important to note that games played in the NCAA tournament will count in the efficiency rankings and therefore a team not included as a potential Final Four team prior to the tournament could potentially be included as the tournament progresses.

Posted in Uncategorized | 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 »

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 »

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 »

CBB Contenders

Posted by cuorange on January 5, 2010

These stats are through games of Sunday, 1/3/2010.

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 6 3
Purdue 31 7 5
Kansas 2 3 7
Syracuse 10 18 11
Georgetown 45 16 12
Texas 25 1 13
Wisconsin 9 13 19

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 joins Duke as potential national champions, though barely.

Team O Efficiency D Efficiency RPI
Duke 1 6 3
Kansas 2 3 7

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