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 State Wildcats’

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 »

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 »

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 »

Week 12 Pick ‘Em

Posted by cuorange on November 17, 2009

Getting harder and harder to find 10 games.

Week 12 games, spreads, picks

Game Spread AccuScore Predicted Score Actual Score AccuScore CUOrange Texas D B. Rink A. Eargle
Ohio State @ Michigan UM +12.5 32-16 OSU   21-10 OSU OSU  Michigan   OSU  OSU OSU 
UNC @ Boston College UNC +3.5  21-16 BC   31-13 UNC BC   UNC  BC  UNC  UNC
Oklahoma @ Texas Tech TTU +7 29-26 OU  41-13 TTU  TTU   OU  OU  TTU  OU
LSU @ Mississippi LSU +3.5 25-19 Ole Miss  Ole Miss 25-23  Ole Miss  Ole Miss   LSU  LSU LSU 
Penn State @ Michigan St. MSU +3  29-23 Penn St.  42-14 Penn St.   Penn St. Penn St.   Penn St.  Penn St.  Penn St.
Virginia @ Clemson UVA +20.5 29-11 Clemson   34-21 CU UVA   CU  UVA  CU  CU
Cal @ Stanford Cal +7.5 34-29 Stanford  34-28 Cal  Cal   Stanford  Cal  Cal  Stanford
Kansas St. @ Nebraska KSU +17 33-16 Nebraska  17-3 UN  KSU   KSU  KSU  KSU  KSU
Kansas @ Texas KU +28 43-14 Texas  51-20 Texas  Texas   Texas  Kansas  Texas  Texas
Oregon @ Arizona Arizona +6 35-26 Oregon  44-41 OU  Oregon   Oregon  Oregon  Oregon Oregon 

Posted in College Football | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »