National Champion Predictor?

[TwoDukeTattoos]

1. The five most efficient offensive teams in the nation, according to KenPom.com, are Kansas, North Carolina, Texas, UCLA, and Drake.
2. The five most efficient defensive teams in the nation, according to KenPom.com, are Kansas, Memphis, Wisconsin, UCLA and Louisville.
3. These numbers are important because the past four national champions have all possessed offenses and defenses that ranked in the top 12 nationally in terms of adjusted efficiency. Through 3/9, only three schools meet the criteria this season. They are:

Kansas (1st in offense and 1st in defense)
UCLA (4th in offense and 4th in defense)
Duke (7th in offense and 7th in defense)

And for those of you wondering, UNC is 2nd in offense and 23rd in defense

[TwoDukeTattoos]

Also, each of the years that Duke won the Title, they had five players averaging double-figures in scoring. Of the three teams currently ranked in the top 12 in offensive and defensive efficiency (original post on this thread), Duke is the only team that has five players averaging in double-figure scoring.

Kansas - 4 players avg double fig
UCLA - 4 players avg double fig
Duke - 5 players avg double fig

Other interesting notes:

UNC - 4 players avg double fig
Memphis - only has 2 players avg double fig
Tenn - 3
Texas - 3

[EarlJam]

1. The five most efficient offensive teams in the nation, according to KenPom.com, are Kansas, North Carolina, Texas, UCLA, and Drake.
2. The five most efficient defensive teams in the nation, according to KenPom.com, are Kansas, Memphis, Wisconsin, UCLA and Louisville.
3. These numbers are important because the past four national champions have all possessed offenses and defenses that ranked in the top 12 nationally in terms of adjusted efficiency. Through 3/9, only three schools meet the criteria this season. They are:

Kansas (1st in offense and 1st in defense)
UCLA (4th in offense and 4th in defense)
Duke (7th in offense and 7th in defense)

And for those of you wondering, UNC is 2nd in offense and 23rd in defense

I made a bet with a person back in November that UCLA would win it all this year. They have experience, hunger and added talent.

I'd also throw Kansas in there as a VERY close second. Size down low and Collison (sp?) is so quick, good.

Those two are my sure-fire locks for the Final Four. I'm still not sold on the baby blue weenies in Chapel Hell.

-EarlJam

[Troublemaker]

http://z.about.com/d/coins/1/0/j/0/-/-/Rust_Quarter_Filled_Die_Obv_400.jpg

[EarlJam]

http://z.about.com/d/coins/1/0/j/0/-/-/Rust_Quarter_Filled_Die_Obv_400.jpg

What does this mean??????

[BlueBlood112883]

I think UCLA used up all the mojo too early. They needed those "phantom calls" in the Tournament and not to win a Pac 10 Reg Season title. The way you win a NC is to get lucky at least once in a game you should or could lose, but I think they have shot their bolt in that dept.


I'm going to go with #3 on the OP's list and go with either KU, UCLA, or Duke. Although I think KU is who I think wins it all.

[Edouble]

What does this mean??????

I think it means that there are alot of talented teams that could go to the Final Four, so that basically it's a coin toss, and no matter what we predict anything could happen.

[Lotus000]

I think it means that there are alot of talented teams that could go to the Final Four, so that basically it's a coin toss, and no matter what we predict anything could happen.

...I thought it was 'here's a quarter, call someone who cares.'

[BlueBlood112883]

...I thought it was 'here's a quarter, call someone who cares.'

LOL me too.

[wiscodevil]

...I thought it was 'here's a quarter, call someone who cares.'

I think he is predicting GW to win it all?

[FerryFor50]

...I thought it was 'here's a quarter, call someone who cares.'

Surely someone on this forum isn't using some lame, played out Jeff Foxworthy schtick to "insult" someone. :D

[TwoDukeTattoos]

Surely someone on this forum isn't using some lame, played out Jeff Foxworthy schtick to "insult" someone. :D

Actually, I don't think it's Jeff Foxworthy. It's actually Travis Tritt who wrote the song, thus the quote. Also, a local call is now at least .50.

[Troublemaker]

I think it means that there are alot of talented teams that could go to the Final Four, so that basically it's a coin toss, and no matter what we predict anything could happen.

Close. I'm saying you might as well flip a coin for your "national champion predictor." Whoever wins it will be a very good team that is lucky. The odds are against any one team and if you play the tournament out repeatedly, you'll get a vast assortment of winners.

[FerryFor50]

Actually, I don't think it's Jeff Foxworthy. It's actually Travis Tritt who wrote the song, thus the quote. Also, a local call is now at least .50.

Ah. Travis Tritt.

Same difference. :p

[EarlJam]

Close. I'm saying you might as well flip a coin for your "national champion predictor." Whoever wins it will be a very good team that is lucky. The odds are against any one team and if you play the tournament out repeatedly, you'll get a vast assortment of winners.

Totally agree. Predicitions are worthless in value, but fun. The practice of predicting, discussing who will win what, who will make it how far, etc. is just as much a part of the game as playing it (well, sort of).

What fan doesn't "predict?" It's also what makes March Madness so wonderful and is why Bracketmania is so successful.

So, that said, Kansas and UCLA will play for the championship and EarlJam will win more than $1,000.

-EarlJam

[Troublemaker]

Totally agree. Predicitions are worthless in value, but fun. The practice of predicting, discussing who will win what, who will make it how far, etc. is just as much a part of the game as playing it (well, sort of).

What fan doesn't "predict?" It's also what makes March Madness so wonderful and is why Bracketmania is so successful.

So, that said, Kansas and UCLA will play for the championship and EarlJam will win more than $1,000.

-EarlJam

That's true. I predict all the time. My comment was definitely not meant as a disparagement to the act of predicting.

[bdh21]

These numbers are important because the past four national champions have all possessed offenses and defenses that ranked in the top 12 nationally in terms of adjusted efficiency. Through 3/9, only three schools meet the criteria this season. They are:

Kansas (1st in offense and 1st in defense)
UCLA (4th in offense and 4th in defense)
Duke (7th in offense and 7th in defense)

And for those of you wondering, UNC is 2nd in offense and 23rd in defense

I think there is some bias that goes into your criteria that the "top 12 nationally" ranked offensive and defensive efficiencies are the only true contenders. Assuming that you are using the data from kenpom.com the efficiencies for previous champions include the six NCAA tournament games, which are of course wins. They also include conference championship games which were by the NCAA championship team in 3 out of the past 4 years (the exception being Carolina in 2005). So the previous championship teams had on average 9 extra wins against very good competition to improve their efficiency rankings over the teams we are looking at today.

I am willing to bet that not all four of the previous NCAA champions had adjusted offensive and defensive efficiencies ranked in the top 12 nationally before their conference tournaments, which is the current situation in which we must evaluate teams. Perhaps the statement you could make is "No team that would end up ranked in the top 12 of both offensive and defensive adjusted efficiency after a hypothetical championship NCAA run should be considered a contender." I'm not sure how much of a difference this would make, but it would be interesting to find out.

[TwoDukeTattoos]

Totally agree. Predicitions are worthless in value, but fun. The practice of predicting, discussing who will win what, who will make it how far, etc. is just as much a part of the game as playing it (well, sort of).

-EarlJam

The art of prediction is based entirely on history and no matter how much research an indiviual does, in the end all that is left is still merely a best guess. However, some best-guesses prove to be better than others, which is the fun of predictions to begin with!

[EarlJam]

The art of prediction is based entirely on history and no matter how much research an indiviual does, in the end all that is left is still merely a best guess. However, some best-guesses prove to be better than others, which is the fun of predictions to begin with!

Totally agreed.

Oh, and no WAY does anyone beat UNLV this year. They are going to run the table, go undefeated, win back-to-back.

Also, The Patriots are the best team in NFL history and will go undefeated to win the Superbowl.

And N.C. State doesn't have a chance against Houston.

And Villanova might as well not show up.

-EarlJam

[TwoDukeTattoos]

I think there is some bias that goes into your criteria that the "top 12 nationally" ranked offensive and defensive efficiencies are the only true contenders. Assuming that you are using the data from kenpom.com the efficiencies for previous champions include the six NCAA tournament games, which are of course wins. They also include conference championship games which were by the NCAA championship team in 3 out of the past 4 years (the exception being Carolina in 2005). So the previous championship teams had on average 9 extra wins against very good competition to improve their efficiency rankings over the teams we are looking at today.

I am willing to bet that not all four of the previous NCAA champions had adjusted offensive and defensive efficiencies ranked in the top 12 nationally before their conference tournaments, which is the current situation in which we must evaluate teams. Perhaps the statement you could make is "No team that would end up ranked in the top 12 of both offensive and defensive adjusted efficiency after a hypothetical championship NCAA run should be considered a contender." I'm not sure how much of a difference this would make, but it would be interesting to find out.

I will say that it is important to visit the site and understand the formulas. It is far more in-depth and more sensible than anything I've ever seen. It isn't based on pure stats: he uses very unique angles in determining the usefulness and validity of conventional stats. Also, I called in to the David Glenn show last night on 850 The Buzz, and he raves regarding Ken Pomroy's site, even admitting that he always refers to that site when completing his brackets.

[TwoDukeTattoos]

Totally agreed.

Oh, and no WAY does anyone beat UNLV this year. They are going to run the table, go undefeated, win back-to-back.

Also, The Patriots are the best team in NFL history and will go undefeated to win the Superbowl.

And N.C. State doesn't have a chance against Houston.

And Villanova might as well not show up.

-EarlJam

And the US never had a chance against Russia which means that the Miracle on Ice never even occured!

[bdh21]

I will say that it is important to visit the site and understand the formulas. It is far more in-depth and more sensible than anything I've ever seen. It isn't based on pure stats: he uses very unique angles in determining the usefulness and validity of conventional stats. Also, I called in to the David Glenn show last night on 850 The Buzz, and he raves regarding Ken Pomroy's site, even admitting that he always refers to that site when completing his brackets.

I've frequented kenpom.com for several years & I've read Dean Oliver's Basketball on Paper. I hope I understand offensive and defensive efficiencies! My point is that in using Kenpom's data from previous seasons you are seeing the adjusted efficiency of those teams post-tournament, which undoubtedly receive lifts from winning 6 tournament games against (mostly) top competition. Case in point: Florida ended up winning all six tournament games by 10+ points and finished with the nation's best pythag winning %. Did they have the best pythag % going into the tournament? Absolutely not. Winning the NCAAs gave their efficiencies a huge bump.

All I'm saying is that by comparing POST-Tournament efficiencies of previous champions with PRE-Tournament efficiencies of teams this season you are introducing a bias into your analysis. It would be more appropriate to compare 07 Florida's, 06 Florida's, 05 Carolina's, and 04 UCONN's adjusted defensive and offensive efficiencies from BEFORE they began their conference tournaments to contenders today, since that is what juncture of the season we are in as of today.

Hypothetically assume Carolina rolls through the tournament & wins it all with stout defense and increases their defensive efficiency by 2 points per 100 possessions (which is quite possible considering pomeroy gives more weight to more recent games and higher quality offenses faced). It is entirely possible that Carolina would finish post NCAA-tournament win with a top-12 defensive efficiency. In that case, Carolina (using end of year efficiencies) would appear to fit the pattern of top-12 offensive and defensive teams that we've seen over the past four years. Would they be an exception to the trend (as suggested here) or in support of the trend?

[TwoDukeTattoos]

I've frequented kenpom.com for several years & I've read Dean Oliver's Basketball on Paper. I hope I understand offensive and defensive efficiencies! My point is that in using Kenpom's data from previous seasons you are seeing the adjusted efficiency of those teams post-tournament, which undoubtedly receive lifts from winning 6 tournament games against (mostly) top competition. Case in point: Florida ended up winning all six tournament games by 10+ points and finished with the nation's best pythag winning %. Did they have the best pythag % going into the tournament? Absolutely not. Winning the NCAAs gave their efficiencies a huge bump.

Very good point. That is a point that I had not considered. So, if Florida and other previous national champions had to win six straight NCAA tourney games in order to acheive such lofty offensive and defensive efficiencies, wouldn't this mean, then, that Duke's case (and KU's and UCLA's) cases are even stronger having acheived the same lofty efficiencies without having even played in the tourney yet?

[Devil07]

Very good point. That is a point that I had not considered. So, if Florida and other previous national champions had to win six straight NCAA tourney games in order to acheive such lofty offensive and defensive efficiencies, wouldn't this mean, then, that Duke's case (and KU's and UCLA's) cases are even stronger having acheived the same lofty efficiencies without having even played in the tourney yet?

I think you would have to first see where the previous champions ranked in terms of efficiencies at this point in the season before you could make this claim. If it turned out that there was no real correlation then you can't really read too much into the current efficiencies of Duke, KU, etc. Of course the opposite could also be true, but without taking what bdh21 brings up into consideration I don't think you can really say much definitive about the current efficiencies as they relate to tournament success. That being said, it certainly is a good sign that we have achieved that level of success so far, but what that means going forward it up for debate.

Is there a way to find out what the pre-conference tournament rankings were the past few years?

[bdh21]

Very good point. That is a point that I had not considered. So, if Florida and other previous national champions had to win six straight NCAA tourney games in order to acheive such lofty offensive and defensive efficiencies, wouldn't this mean, then, that Duke's case (and KU's and UCLA's) cases are even stronger having acheived the same lofty efficiencies without having even played in the tourney yet?

I think you are right in that Kansas, UCLA, & Duke have very strong cases based on what they have achieved so far in terms of efficiency. Let's just be a little more lenient when discussing who is a legitimate contender. I don't know how much of an effect that has, it may be none at all! It's just something to be cognizant of.

[TwoDukeTattoos]

The past three national champions each had five players averaging double-figure scoring. And the three before them were very close to having five players in double figures. Currently, Duke has five players averaging in double figures. I think that balance is huge in making a deep run into the tourney.

2007 - Florida – 5 players avg double figures
2006 – Florida – 5 players avg double figures
2005 – UNC – 5 players avg double figures
2004 – UCONN – 3 players avg double figures (two avg’d 8.9)
2003 – Syracuse – 4 players avg double figures (one avg’d 9.0)
2002 – Maryland – 4 plaers avg double figures (one avg’d 8.0)

[bdh21]

2007 - Florida – 5 players avg double figures
2006 – Florida – 5 players avg double figures
2005 – UNC – 5 players avg double figures
2004 – UCONN – 3 players avg double figures (two avg’d 8.9)
2003 – Syracuse – 4 players avg double figures (one avg’d 9.0)
2002 – Maryland – 4 plaers avg double figures (one avg’d 8.0)
shoot,
2001 - Duke - 5 players avg double figures

[Turk]

One simple metric that should get you in the ballpark is Lunardi's Adjusted Scoring Margin on espn.com. It measures a team's offensive and defensive performance against the averages of its opponents. So an excellent offensive team will score much more than the average points allowed by its opponents.

Last year (not a good year as prior years if memory serves):
UNC 22.3
Florida 19.9
Kansas 19.7
Texas A&M 19.5
Memphis 18.8
Ohio St 16.5
Wisconsin 16.3
UCLA 15.2
Georgetown 15.1
...
Duke 14.1

This year:
Kansas 22.8
Memphis 21.4
North Carolina 20.2
Duke 19.2
UCLA 17.4
Tennessee 17.0
Xavier 15.6
Wisconsin 15.6

Interesting to note that UNC's defensive number is slightly NEGATIVE, i.e., UNC's opponents scored 0.6 more points on average against UNC than in their the rest of their opponents, but on offense UNC scores 20.8 pts more. The math is simple and you could whomp it up with some excel macros if you have access to a good games database with the scores. Or you could sign up with espn.com....

Turk

[heyman25]

If Duke doesn't win, I hope a school like Texas wins. Rick Barnes is a native North Carolinian (Hickory)that backed down Dean Smith. UCLA , Kansas, and UNC are the odds on favorites.