CUOrange Blog

Clemson Tiger Sports…and other stuff…

  • Blog Stats

    • 11,256 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 ‘Kentucky 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 »

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 »

CBB predictions for January 2

Posted by cuorange on January 2, 2010

You’re probably not impressed with my 3-9 record thus far. Neither am I, but I have a system. Apparently, a bad system, but a system nonetheless.

Date Favorite Underdog Spread Pick Result
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 »

Pick ’em – Bowl edition 1

Posted by cuorange on December 15, 2009

Game Spread AccuScore Predicted Score Actual Score AccuScore CUOrange Texas D B. Rink A. Eargle
Oregon St. vs. BYU  BYU +3  32-31 BYU 44-20 BYU  BYU  OSU  OSU   OSU BYU 
Utah vs. California Utah +3  28-27 Cal   37-27 Utah Utah   Cal Cal   Cal Cal 
Pittsburgh vs. UNC  UNC +3  26-21 Pitt 19-17 Pitt  Pitt  Pitt  Pitt   UNC UNC 
Boston College vs. USC  BC +9 28-18 USC  24-13 USC   USC BC  USC  USC  USC 
Kentucky vs. Clemson  UK +7.5  29-21 CU 21-13 CU   CU UK  UK  UK UK 
Texas A&M vs. Georgia TAMU +7  35-27 UGA   44-20 UGA  UGA TAMU   UGA  UGA UGA 
Miami (FL) vs. Wisconsin  UW +3 28-26 UM   20-14 UW  UW UM  UW   UM UM 
Arizona vs. Nebraska UN +1  22-21 UN   33-0 UN UN  UA  UA   UA  UN
Houston vs. Air Force AFA +5  33-30 UH  47-20 AFA AFA   UH  UH  UH UH 
Oklahoma vs. Stanford  SU +8  34-25 OU  31-27 OU OU  OU   SU OU  SU 
Navy vs. Missouri Navy +6  29-23 UM  35-13 Navy  UM  UM   Navy  UM  UM
Minnesota vs. Iowa State ISU +2.5   23-23  14-13 ISU ISU  ISU  ISU  ISU   UM
Virginia Tech vs. Tennessee  UT +4.5 28-21 VT  VT 37-14   VT  UT UT   VT VT 

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

College hoops V3.0

Posted by cuorange on December 12, 2009

Still in pursuit of perfection.

Date Favorite Underdog Spread Pick Result
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: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »