In my last blog one of the topics of focus was the importance of the KenPom ratings and how those teams were performing in the NCAA tournament. The records going strictly by the ratings on Monday after Selection Sunday, straight up and against the spread, were impressive through the Thursday and Friday games. Staying with the original ratings posted from that Monday, the against the spread record leveled off going 8-8 over Saturday and Sunday. If you combined that with the 19-12-1 record from the round of 64, overall 27-20-1 is a solid winning percentage. Straight up the teams went 12-4. Continue reading
Tag Archives: NCAA Basketball
March Madness Recap (Round of 64)
After a favorite filled Thursday where higher seeds dominated the bracket, 14 of 16 won, Friday was a historical day for underdogs. Half of the lower seeds won with two 15 seeds advancing to the round of 32, not to mention a 13 seed sprinkled in there. A day like this has never been seen before in the NCAA tournament. Even though my bracket was busted by Missouri going down, I still wanted to dig deeper into some of the numbers I have been following over the first couple days. One thing that I mentioned in previous blogs was following the KenPom ratings heading into the tournament. After the field was announced I matched the KenPom ratings to each team in the dance and wanted to see how many higher rated teams would win their first round, aka second round games. According to these ratings on Monday, the higher rated teams won 22 out of 32 games straight up and these 22 teams went 19-3 against the spread. The 10 games the higher seeds lost, they went 0-9-1 ats, due to the fact most of them were favorites. *All ats results were found at covers.com. So if you blindly would have bet all of KenPom’s higher rated teams you would have finished 19-12-1 ats through the first 32 games. KenPom’s ratings change, so for the purpose of my research I only used the ratings right after selection Sunday and will continue to throughout the tournament.
Another interesting angle I wanted to look up was how teams performed after winning their conference tournaments. There were 27 teams that entered Thursday and Friday who won conference tournaments and 12 of them are continuing on. To be fair to these teams most of them were underdogs from mid-majors and 5 games had tournament winners facing each other. If we look at these teams against the spread they went 8-8-1, eliminating the 10 teams who were paired against each other. This angle did not prove to be as rewarding as the KenPom ratings were, but still can not be overlooked. Even though this did not bring much success ats, I do feel teams winning conference tournaments could be riding high as Lehigh, Norfolk State, VCU, Colorado and Ohio all pulled off upsets in the round of 64 as 11 seeds or higher. With big programs losing more and more players to the NBA you are definitely seeing the competitive gap closing in college basketball. Mid-Majors and non-power programs are landing big recruits and for us the fans providing some entertaining games.
As always with my blog I like to look for interesting angles or numbers to follow within the sports world. Was there anything that happened through the first set of games that caught your eye? What upsets are most likely to happen in the round of 32?
NCAA March Madness Breakdown
My final blog breaking down the numbers heading into the tourney tomorrow will focus on SOS, KenPom ratings, RPI and record vs. RPI top 50. When picking teams for the bracket we always hear two key factors used by the selection committee, RPI and SOS. The committee places a great deal of emphasis on challenging yourself during the year and winning key games. Below is a chart of all the teams seeded 1 thru 14 with their RPI, SOS and KenPom rating heading into the tournament. During the tournament I want to focus on SOS and if playing a challenging regular season schedule relates to success in the big dance. The main reason for this is every year there are teams scrutinized for not playing a hard enough schedule and either missing out on the tournament or getting punished by seed. Murray State is a good example of a team who finished 30-1 and in the top ten but received a 6 seed. The committee did keep them close to home so now they must prove they can beat better quality teams when it counts. A new stat category I have added to my research this year was the KenPom rating. I’ll admit, I am a little late to the party on this rating and it is well-respected among the college basketball community. I am not going to do anything tricky with this; I want to follow if teams with a higher rating according to him perform better than teams with a lower rating (Even though it was the biggest comeback in NCAA history, BYU was rated higher than Iona in last night’s game). In conclusion, there are endless amounts of data you can analyze when betting college basketball or simply filling out your bracket. I have described what I am going to focus on this year and hopefully something useful will come out of it.
Some notes on the chart:
- RPI, Record vs. RPI top 50 and SOS were all pulled from warrennolan.com team pages.
- KenPom ratings can be found at kenpom.com.
- Ratings are subject to change.
- Teams are in order according to seed.
| Team | Seed | RPI | SOS | KenPom | vs RPI 1-50 |
| Kentucky | 1 | 2 | 25 | 1 | 9-2 |
| Michigan St | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 11-5 |
| Syracuse | 1 | 1 | 22 | 7 | 11-2 |
| North Carolina | 1 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 8-5 |
| Duke | 2 | 5 | 2 | 17 | 7-5 |
| Missouri | 2 | 10 | 69 | 8 | 11-3 |
| Ohio St | 2 | 7 | 7 | 2 | 9-6 |
| Kansas | 2 | 6 | 11 | 4 | 11-5 |
| Baylor | 3 | 8 | 10 | 14 | 9-7 |
| Marquette | 3 | 9 | 17 | 18 | 5-6 |
| Florida St | 3 | 11 | 4 | 21 | 5-5 |
| Georgetown | 3 | 15 | 14 | 12 | 7-5 |
| Indiana | 4 | 17 | 31 | 11 | 8-5 |
| Louisville | 4 | 14 | 8 | 20 | 8-7 |
| Wisconsin | 4 | 23 | 16 | 6 | 6-7 |
| Michigan | 4 | 13 | 13 | 25 | 7-6 |
| Wichita St | 5 | 12 | 56 | 10 | 2-3 |
| New Mexico | 5 | 27 | 82 | 13 | 6-3 |
| Vanderbilt | 5 | 19 | 6 | 16 | 5-5 |
| Temple | 5 | 20 | 54 | 36 | 4-2 |
| UNLV | 6 | 18 | 41 | 33 | 5-6 |
| Murray St | 6 | 22 | 158 | 45 | 3-0 |
| Cincinnati | 6 | 42 | 65 | 31 | 7-5 |
| San Diego St | 6 | 26 | 58 | 52 | 6-6 |
| Notre Dame | 7 | 39 | 38 | 40 | 4-7 |
| Florida | 7 | 30 | 24 | 19 | 4-6 |
| Gonzaga | 7 | 25 | 78 | 32 | 5-4 |
| Saint Mary’s | 7 | 28 | 103 | 43 | 4-3 |
| Iowa St | 8 | 33 | 39 | 30 | 5-7 |
| Memphis | 8 | 16 | 20 | 9 | 5-6 |
| Kansas St | 8 | 48 | 55 | 22 | 6-7 |
| Creighton | 8 | 24 | 102 | 34 | 3-1 |
| Uconn | 9 | 32 | 3 | 35 | 3-8 |
| St. Louis | 9 | 31 | 89 | 15 | 2-3 |
| Southern Miss | 9 | 21 | 47 | 71 | 3-4 |
| Alabama | 9 | 36 | 30 | 29 | 3-6 |
| Xavier | 10 | 41 | 36 | 59 | 4-6 |
| Virginia | 10 | 53 | 86 | 26 | 2-6 |
| West Virginia | 10 | 57 | 18 | 42 | 4-8 |
| Purdue | 10 | 47 | 28 | 24 | 3-10 |
| Colorado | 11 | 62 | 72 | 75 | 2-3 |
| Colorado St | 11 | 29 | 9 | 76 | 3-6 |
| Texas | 11 | 50 | 19 | 27 | 4-11 |
| NC State | 11 | 49 | 26 | 44 | 1-8 |
| VCU | 12 | 38 | 154 | 46 | 0-1 |
| Long Beach St | 12 | 34 | 123 | 37 | 1-6 |
| Harvard | 12 | 35 | 184 | 39 | 1-1 |
| California | 12 | 37 | 85 | 28 | 0-3 |
| South Florida | 12 | 52 | 27 | 66 | 2-9 |
| New Mexico St | 13 | 59 | 116 | 63 | 1-3 |
| Davidson | 13 | 64 | 171 | 68 | 1-3 |
| Montana | 13 | 74 | 203 | 94 | 1-1 |
| Ohio | 13 | 46 | 165 | 71 | 1-1 |
| South Dakota St | 14 | 43 | 180 | 55 | 0-0 |
| BYU | 14 | 45 | 101 | 50 | 1-6 |
| Iona | 14 | 40 | 144 | 57 | 0-2 |
| St. Bonaventure | 14 | 72 | 112 | 51 | 1-4 |
| Belmont | 14 | 58 | 191 | 23 | 1-3 |
Neutral Court Power Ratings (NCAA Tourney Teams)
As mentioned in a prior blog, I am continuing on with my breakdown of key stats for the March Madness bracket. Now that the field is set I am curious to know if the numbers used to determine which teams make the tourney, their seed and location relate to success in it. This is the second part to my original neutral court success blog I published a couple of weeks ago. Instead of just naming the teams who have succeeded or haven’t on neutral courts, I put together a chart of all the teams seeded 1 through 14 with their neutral court record and neutral court power rating. Remember, the reason this stat jumped out to me, the past 2 national champions both entered the tournament with an undefeated regular season neutral court record and won their conference tournament championship.
To stay consistent with my prior blog I used warrennolan.com to put together the neutral court records. I combined regular season neutral court record with conference tournament record for the chart. In addition to this, I also used the teamrankings.com neutral court power rating. All neutral court wins or losses are not treated equal and some of the websites I researched gave credit to teams for a neutral court win or loss where others did not. Since teamrankings.com takes more factors into account than just overall record I felt cross referencing the two sites would paint a clearer picture.
I know some of these numbers might not tell a perfect story but due to the past couple years and my curiosity I feel this is an important stat to follow for the next few tournaments and track the results. Below you will see the chart breakdown, but 5 teams that jump out at me are Missouri, Louisville, Vanderbilt, Murray State, and Creighton.
Some notes on the chart:
- Chart is in order according to each teams power rating.
- Only teams seeded 1 through 14 were used.
- Only teams in the tournament were pulled from teamrankings.com.
- Harvard had no postseason tourney.
- Teams who have their conference tourney on their home court, wins/losses were not included in the power rating.
| Team | Seed | Neutral Court Power Rating | Neutral and Conference Tourney Record |
| Missouri | 2 | 1 | 10-0 |
| UNLV | 6 | 2 | 3-1 |
| Vanderbilt | 5 | 3 | 8-0 |
| Louisville | 4 | 4 | 8-0 |
| Harvard | 12 | 5 | 3-0 |
| Creighton | 8 | 6 | 7-0 |
| Baylor | 3 | 9 | 7-2 |
| Ohio St | 2 | 10 | 4-2 |
| Michigan St | 1 | 11 | 6-2 |
| Duke | 2 | 12 | 7-2 |
| Florida St | 3 | 14 | 7-2 |
| Cincinnati | 6 | 15 | 5-2 |
| Wisconsin | 4 | 16 | 4-2 |
| Kentucky | 1 | 17 | 8-2 |
| Florida | 7 | 18 | 6-2 |
| Murray St | 6 | 19 | 6-0 |
| Belmont | 14 | 22 | 7-0 |
| Saint Mary’s | 7 | 23 | 5-1 |
| Ohio | 13 | 25 | 6-0 |
| Gonzaga | 7 | 28 | 4-2 |
| Michigan | 4 | 31 | 4-3 |
| NC State | 11 | 32 | 6-3 |
| North Carolina | 1 | 33 | 6-3 |
| Indiana | 4 | 34 | 3-2 |
| Uconn | 9 | 36 | 6-3 |
| New Mexico | 5 | 37 | 8-1 |
| South Dakota St | 14 | 38 | 8-0 |
| Kansas | 2 | 39 | 4-4 |
| St. Bonaventure | 14 | 40 | 6-1 |
| Syracuse | 1 | 41 | 5-2 |
| Georgetown | 3 | 42 | 3-3 |
| Alabama | 9 | 43 | 5-2 |
| Kansas St | 8 | 44 | 3-3 |
| West Virginia | 10 | 45 | 4-3 |
| Iona | 14 | 47 | 5-3 |
| Long Beach St | 12 | 50 | 8-1 |
| Marquette | 3 | 53 | 4-2 |
| Colorado | 11 | 55 | 9-2 |
| Davidson | 13 | 56 | 6-0 |
| San Diego St | 6 | 58 | 4-2 |
| Southern Miss | 9 | 59 | 4-3 |
| St. Louis | 9 | 60 | 5-2 |
| New Mexico St | 13 | 63 | 8-1 |
| Colorado St | 11 | 67 | 4-2 |
| BYU | 14 | 71 | 5-3 |
| Xavier | 10 | 75 | 5-3 |
| Purdue | 10 | 76 | 4-4 |
| Iowa St | 8 | 77 | 2-2 |
| Memphis | 8 | 80 | 4-2 |
| California | 12 | 85 | 3-3 |
| Texas | 11 | 86 | 2-4 |
| Virginia | 10 | 90 | 2-3 |
| Temple | 5 | 91 | 2-3 |
| Wichita St | 5 | 93 | 3-4 |
| VCU | 12 | 96 | 8-2 |
| Montana | 13 | 100 | 2-0 |
| Notre Dame | 7 | 106 | 2-6 |
| South Florida | 12 | 115 | 2-4 |
Neutral Court Success and NCAA Tournament Results
I am going to write a multi-part blog breaking down the NCAA bracket heading into the tournament which starts March 13-14 with the First Four. With all the who’s in, who’s out talk come selection Sunday I thought looking inside some of the numbers that determine who makes the tournament could correlate with tournament success. Some of the categories I will be focusing on will be sos, non-conference sos, rpi including record vs. top 50 rpi, and how teams performed on neutral courts.
The first category of focus will be on neutral court performance. With some of the conference tournaments starting today it is a good time to evaluate how teams did on neutrals courts since most of the conference tournaments are held on them. The past two national champions had undefeated neutral court records both during the regular season and conference tournament. During the 2009-2010 season Duke finished with a combined 12-0 neutral court record and ACC tournament championship. Like Duke, last year’s national champion Connecticut finished with a combined 14-0 record and Big East tournament championship. I know the sample size is small but also interesting.
The following list of teams had success on neutral courts during the regular season (used only top 50 RPI teams, must have played at least 3 games, and remained unbeaten):
- Duke (5-0)
- Missouri (4-0)
- Florida (4-0)
- Kentucky (4-0)
- Marquette (4-0)
- Baylor (3-0)
- Alabama (3-0)
- St. Louis (3-0)
- Harvard (3-0)
- Northwestern (3-0)
*(source: warrennolan.com)
I will do a follow up blog on neutral court records after the conference tournaments and track any teams who remain perfect. There were a number of teams who were 2-0 but I feel that sample is too small. If any of these teams win their respective conference tournaments they will be included in the update.
After the conference tournaments are complete I will also break down how teams with a high ranking in RPI, SOS, and non-conference SOS fared in past tournaments and let’s see how this year’s tournament shakes out.
