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]

[EarlJam]

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.

[TwoDukeTattoos]

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

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.

[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.