National Champion Predictor?

[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.