Notes from the Sports Nerds

Which Bubble Teams Have An Edge? Future Strength of Schedule Can Tell Us

2012-02-10T20:21:13Z

It’s getting to that point in the college basketball season where fans all over the country start monitoring scores from other conferences.

Why? Well, their team is “on the bubble” for the NCAA Tournament, suddenly making lots of other contests relevant. With about four weeks left in the regular season, there are still enough games remaining on the schedule for teams to jockey for position and improve their chances of receiving a bid.

For some squads, there are quite a few daunting challenges looming ahead, which you can view as a good or bad situation. It’s fortunate because there are plenty of opportunities to pick up some marquee, resume-boosting victories, but it’s unfortunate because, well, those games are tough to win — and the losses could start to pile up quickly.

Based on our future strength of schedule ratings, here are the bubble teams with the toughest and easiest remaining schedules. For each team we’ve listed its projected record, notable games remaining, and odds of winning its conference tournament (all based on our college basketball season projections). You may notice this list is restricted to only teams from the big conferences — that’s because big conference teams made up 29 of the 30 toughest remaining schedules.

Note: The future strength of schedule ratings are essentially the answer to this question: If you took all of a team’s future games and replaced them with a bunch of neutral site matchups against a single opponent, what would that hypothetical opponent’s predictive power rating need to be in order for the team to have the same number of future expected wins?

Three Toughest Remaining Schedules

KANSAS STATE WILDCATS (17-6, 6-5 Big 12)
Future SOS: 17.1 (4th, like playing #20 Creighton every game)
Projected Record: 20.5-9.5 overall, 9.5-8.5 Big 12

Notable: The Wildcats have an incredibly intimidating Big 12 schedule remaining, including road trips to Missouri, Baylor and Texas along with a home matchup against rival Kansas. This team is in need of some big wins, though, considering a home thrashing of Missouri on Jan. 7 is really the only notable conference victory thus far.
Odds to win conference tournament: 6.6%

MINNESOTA GOLDEN GOPHERS (17-8, 5-7 Big Ten)
Future SOS: 17.0 (5th, like playing #24 Louisville every game)
Projected Record: 19.1-11.9 overall, 7.1-10.9 Big Ten

Notable: The Gophers helped themselves out with a 77-74 upset at Indiana on Jan. 12, but other than that, the conference schedule hasn’t been too kind. Two losses to Iowa, including a 63-59 stunner at home last Saturday, don’t aid Minnesota’s cause. Fortunately, though, three of the Gophers’ most difficult games remaining — Ohio State, Michigan State and Indiana — are all at home, along with a trip to Wisconsin.
Odds to win conference tournament: 0.5%

NC STATE WOLFPACK (18-7, 7-3 ACC)
Future SOS: 15.8 (9th, like playing #31 Vanderbilt every game)
Projected Record: 20.3-10.7 overall, 9.3-6.7 ACC

Notable: The Wolfpack has really been racking up wins against the conference’s bottom-feeders, with a 78-73 victory at Miami on Jan. 22 being the only one that will possibly turn some eyeballs. Now it’s sink-or-swim time. N.C. State has trips to Duke and Virginia Tech still remaining, along with home matchups against North Carolina and Florida State. The game against the Tar Heels is particularly intriguing, considering that was a 19-point beat down for the Wolfpack in Chapel Hill earlier this season.
Odds to win conference tournament: 2.1%

Three Easiest Remaining Schedules

ARIZONA WILDCATS (17-8, 8-4 Pac-12)
Future SOS: 7.3 (113th, like playing #120 Georgia every game)
Projected Record: 21.6-9.4 overall, 12.6-5.4 Pac-12

Notable: The Wildcats really made some noise with back-to-back road wins at California and Stanford. They followed that up with a 14-point crushing of Colorado, but with this being a down Pac-12, there’s still some work to do. Arizona can’t really afford letdowns in a weak back half of the schedule, and the only real chance at more solid victories will come in road trips to Washington and Washington State.
Odds to win conference tournament: 23.7%

SETON HALL PIRATES (16-8, 5-7 Big East)
Future SOS: 9.6 (76th, like playing #92 Oregon every game)
Projected Record: 19.7-10.3 overall, 8.7-9.3 Big East

Notable: A six-game losing skid from Jan. 13 to Feb. 4 really hurt the Pirates’ chances, but there’s still enough on the overall resume to make them a bubble team. Unfortunately, the chances for big victories were littered throughout the six-game slide, and the only possible resume-boosting games remaining are a trip to Cincinnati and a home matchup with Georgetown.
Odds to win conference tournament: 1.1%

ARKANSAS RAZORBACKS (16-8, 4-5 SEC)
Future SOS: 10.5 (62nd, like playing #77 Northern Iowa every game)
Projected Record: 19.3-11.7 overall, 7.3-8.7 SEC

Notable: The Razorbacks have some decent wins over Vanderbilt, Michigan and Mississippi State, but they’ve all come at home. And now, the most difficult games left on the schedule are Florida and Alabama at home and Mississippi State and Tennessee on the road. You have to figure the selection committee will want to see some success away from home, where Arkansas is 0-5 in SEC play thus far.
Odds to win conference tournament: 0.3%

Notre Dame Is On Fire: A Closer Look At The Irish’s 5-Game Winning Streak

2012-02-09T21:23:25Z

In case you haven’t been following Big East basketball (a.k.a. you haven’t turned on ESPN on any weeknight for the past month), Notre Dame is on quite the tear.

If you’d bet $100 on the Fighting Irish to win each of their past five games, you’d be up a cool $1,305.

Why? Because not only are the Irish winning, but they’re doing it as underdogs. Take a look at their past five matchups:

vs. Syracuse (+9); won 67-58.
at Seton Hall (+6.5); won 55-42.
at Connecticut (+9); won 50-48.
vs. Marquette (+2.5); won 76-59.
at West Virginia (+7); won 55-51.

Notre Dame has covered the spread by an average of 15.8 points during the run, and in four of the five games, the Irish were listed at +245 or higher on the money line. It’s pretty obvious this team was severely undervalued over the past couple weeks, and that likely won’t still be the case going forward, but how on earth is Notre Dame doing it?

Looking Deeper At Notre Dame’s Streak

What makes this run so attention-grabbing is that it’s seemingly come out of nowhere. Most “experts” didn’t think Notre Dame would be good this season — they finished ninth in the Big East preseason poll. The TeamRankings 2012 college basketball preseason projected standings had a higher opinion of the Irish, forecasting them in 6th place with a 10-8 record, and ranking them 28th nationally.

For awhile, it seemed the general public might have had a better read on Notre Dame. The Irish started 5-4, and hope seemed virtually lost when star forward Tim Abromaitis suffered a torn ACL on Nov. 26.

But after what head coach Mike Brey described as a “dysfunctional” November and December, the Irish have finally started to turn a corner — and they’re doing it by slowing down games and playing lock-down defense.

There are a lot of stats you can dissect when examining Notre Dame’s hot stretch, but here are some key points.

The Irish are playing at a grinding pace. Leading up to the five-game winning streak, Notre Dame averaged 61.6 possessions per game in Big East play. During the streak, they’re averaging only 57.8 possessions, a difference of 3.8.
The Irish are taking and making more 3-pointers. While the number of 3’s Notre Dame is chucking up per game has slightly decreased from 22.2 to 20.2 attempts, that’s entirely due to the much slower pace. During the streak, 44.5% of Irish field goal attempts have been from three, compared to only 38.4% in prior Big East play. Meanwhile, Notre Dame has been much more accurate from beyond the arc, connecting at 35.6% three point field goal percentage instead of 26.3%. What does that lead to? A much improved effective field-goal percentage (from 44.4% to 51.1%) and more points per possession (0.99 to 1.05).
The Irish are locking down on D. It’s clear that opponents haven’t been comfortable playing at Notre Dame’s new slow-it-down pace, scoring only 51.6 points in five losses. That’s 11.1 points less than the Irish allowed in their previous Big East games. Their defensive efficiency has improved from 1.02 points per possession (about average) to a stingy 0.89, and it’s in large part the result of 20.3% opponent three point percentage and only a 39.1% opponent effective field-goal percentage. Given that opponents’ free throws have also dropped significantly, the Irish seem to be cutting off dribble penetration, forcing opponents to take (and miss) long, contested jump shots.

It’s no shock that four of Notre Dame’s five wins during the streak have also gone under the total, making the Irish’s total ‘under’ record in Big East play 9-2. Oddsmakers will surely adjust to all of these recent trends, but Brey seems to have finally found a team that can with with defense.

College Hoops Team Similarity Scores: Mining History to Understand the Present

2012-02-09T16:24:58Z

So much of our casual conversations about sports rely on comparisons.

“Jared Sullinger is the college version of Paul Millsap.”

“This year’s Missouri Tigers remind me a lot of 2009 Villanova.”

Oftentimes, we make these comparisons based on things that are unquantifiable: how athletic a player is, how “hard” a team plays. But given that I am a quantitative guy, I’m always trying to add rigor to the so-called eye test.

“Similarity Scores” Tell Us Which Teams Are Statistically Alike

Similarity scores are a concept introduced by Bill James for baseball. The idea is to turn a few of a team’s key stats into numbers that reflect how far above or below average the team is in each category (measured in standard deviations, this is called a “Z-score” by statisticians).

Then the same can be done for a set of historical teams, and the differences in Z-scores between the current team and each historical team can be summed to create a similarity score for each. The lower the resulting score, the more similar the two teams are.

For example, Creighton currently leads the nation with an effective field goal percentage of 58.5 percent. That is 3.1 standard deviations above the mean for all teams from 2004 until 2012. For any teams that are below average in eFG%, the similarity score on that dimension is going to be quite large, reflecting the fact that Creighton and that team are not similar.

[Technical note: Since teams have now played roughly 75 percent of their schedules, we have a fairly good idea of who they are. While we do have some issues with the fact that the comparison teams played harder games at the end of the schedule, the Strength of Schedule adjustments should account for that difference (2012 SOS's are not as spread out as the full year SOS's as teams have not played as many other good or bad teams as they will when the season is over).]

A New Wrinkle: Using Variance Data

Previously, I have done these calculations using Dean Oliver’s Four Factors on offense and defense (Effective Field Goal Percentage, Turnover Percentage, Rebounding Percentage, and Free Throw Rate) using weighting similar to what can be found here. The wrinkle I am adding now is variance data.

When we think about team performance, we don’t just think about the mean level. Florida State and Kentucky both have top ten defenses in the country in per possession terms. Yet while Kentucky has been extremely consistent in holding opponents to around 0.8 Points Per Possession allowed, FSU has been all over the place, allowing under 0.75 PPP to five teams, but over 1.00 PPP to seven teams. Clearly we would not think of the Wildcats and the Seminoles as having very similar defenses.

To my knowledge, no one has ever used variances in similarity scores. I hope that the results presented below and in this series of posts will provide team comparisons that better quantify what we see with our eyes.

I thought I’d start off this series by looking at the top comparisons for four non-BCS darlings that are highly ranked this year.

Murray State Racers

(97th in TR’s Consistency Rankings)

Team	Year	Similarity Score	Record	NCAA Result
Murray St.	2010	0.55	31-5	Round of 32
East Tennessee St.	2004	0.76	27-6	First Round
Iona	2006	0.77	23-8	First Round
Kent St.	2008	0.82	28-7	First Round

Interestingly, the 2012 Racers are most similar to their 2010 counterparts. All four of the teams listed here played weak schedules, and very consistently beat those weak schedules. Murray State’s defining characteristic is its consistency: the Racers are two standard deviations more consistent than the mean both offensively and defensively. While their four best comps were all double-digit NCAA tournament seeds and bowed out fairly quickly, MSU will likely benefit from a better seed and will have a better chance to advance further.

Creighton Bluejays

(139th in TR’s Consistency Rankings)

Team	Year	Similarity Score	Record	NCAA Result
Utah St.	2009	0.52	30-5	First Round
Pacific	2005	0.59	27-4	Round of 32
Oregon	2008	0.72	18-14	First Round
St. Mary's	2010	0.76	28-6	Sweet 16

The Bluejays do two things far from the norm of most teams: shoot the ball better (+ 3 SDs) and fail to force turnovers (-2 SDs). Of these comparisons, I think the Pacific comp is the most interesting. They were led by swingman Christian Maraker, who was Doug McDermott before there was a Doug McDermott. Pacific won a game in the tournament, and given Creighton’s defensive issues, that seems like a reasonable outcome for the 2012 Bluejays.

Harvard Crimson

(220th in TR’s Consistency Rankings)

Team	Year	Similarity Score	Record	NCAA Result
Louisville	2008	0.38	27-9	Elite Eight
Wake Forest	2009	0.42	24-7	First Round
Stanford	2004	0.46	30-2	Round of 32
Sam Houston St.	2008	0.47	23-8	DNQ

I am biased here, but I had to include Harvard. The Crimson play strong defense, as their eFG% defense and defensive rebounding are both almost two standard deviations below the norm. Their stats are almost identical to the 2008 Louisville squad, but Louisville played a harder schedule. Even adjusting for that, they are Harvard’s closest comp. Stanford went 30-1 and was a 1-seed in 2004, but played in the worst major conference in recent memory and thus played the weakest schedule of any 1-seed in the last decade. The Crimson would be lucky to duplicate the success of the Cardinals, but might aim for a second round appearance like the Cardinal

St. Mary’s Gaels

(193rd in TR’s Consistency Rankings)

Team	Year	Similarity Score	Record	NCAA Result
Wichita St.	2011	0.24	29-8	Won NIT
Murray St.	2004	0.3	28-6	First Round
Arizona	2011	0.35	30-8	Elite Eight
Florida	2011	0.38	29-8	Elite Eight

The Gaels appear similar to two of the Elite Eight teams from last year’s tournament. What some might not realize about St. Mary’s is that they have a very negative covariance. That means when they play well on offense, they also play well on defense, and vice versa. This serves to magnify both their good and bad performances, and is a trait shared with both 2011 Arizona and 2011 Florida. The Gaels will not miss the Tournament as Wichita State did, and so their comparisons might suggest that there is potential for a deep run.

If you enjoyed this article, be sure to subscribe to the blog via the form at the upper right! And don’t forget to come back next Thursday for the next Similarity Score post!

The 5 Luckiest Teams From Major Conferences (2 Of Them Play Tonight)

2012-02-08T21:42:57Z

In college basketball, you often hear coaches or analysts say something along the lines of, “What a great game. That one could have gone either way.”

And, really, in a lot of cases that’s true. College hoops games come down to the last one or two possessions all the time, and a clutch play — or sometimes even an event outside the players’ control, as with the uncalled goaltend in the final seconds of West Virginia’s loss to Syracuse — ultimately decides the outcome.

The TeamRankings Luck Ratings were designed with that partially in mind. Mathematically, a team’s Luck Rating is its total wins minus its expected number of wins given the predictive power rankings for each team. In other words, it’s how many more wins a team has than it should have, taking into account factors like strength of schedule, margin of victory and actual win-loss record.

Basically, if a team ranks high in our Luck Ratings, it probably means one of two things: 1) It has a very good record in close games, or 2) It’s susceptible to “playing down to its competition,” posting relatively narrow victories over poor opponents. Of course, those games where a team is “playing down” are evidence that the team probably isn’t as good as some of its better wins would attest.

When you relate this to sports gambling, you could certainly argue that a team’s luck is due to run out at some point. Does that mean you should blindly bet against the teams rated as the luckiest? That’s for you to decide. But it’s certainly worth taking into account which teams have been the luckiest, and could subsequently be overvalued.

The Five ‘Luckiest’ Teams From Big Conferences

Baylor Bears (21-2, 7-9 ATS, 3.1 Luck Rating): When you think of the Bears playing in close games, there’s a good chance that their 89-88 home loss to Missouri on Jan. 21 immediately comes to mind. As it turns out, though, that’s the only close loss for Baylor, which has posted a sparkling 7-1 record in games decided by five points or less. Three of those narrow victories have come in the past three games, where the Bears have won by 5, 3 and 4 points as 7, 6.5 and 6.5-point favorites. Can Baylor keep coming through in the clutch? Chances are we’ll see tonight at home against Kansas (-0.8 Luck Rating). Our pick: Kansas +2 (only one-star confidence [see About Our Predictions for more info on what our star ratings mean]).

Maryland Terrapins (14-9, 9-9-1 ATS, 3.0 Luck Rating): The Terrapins jumped from 14th to eighth in the Luck Ratings following their 64-62 win over Clemson Tuesday night as 8.5-point underdogs. Maryland has lost seven games by nine or more points this season and barely hung on in victories over Mount St. Mary’s, Florida International and Radford, winning by an average of only four points. Only two of Maryland’s 14 wins have been by double digits, the first of which came in the 11th game of the season — an 83-72 victory over Albany on Dec. 28. Overall, Maryland is 7-2 in games decided by two possessions or less, including a 3-2 mark in ACC play. Judging by their inability to blow out weaker competition, the Terps probably aren’t as good as their 7-2 record in close games would indicate. Next game: Saturday at Duke (0.8 Luck Rating).

Michigan Wolverines (17-7, 11-9-1 ATS, 2.6 Luck Rating): Five of Michigan’s seven losses have come by 10 or more points, including 16, 15 and 10-point defeats in Big Ten Conference play. Only two losses — a 66-64 loss at Arkansas and a 73-71 setback at Indiana — have been decided on the game’s final possession. On the flip side, the Wolverines have won five games by five or less, including three conference victories by a combined five points — one of which was decided in overtime. Michigan’s luck rating doesn’t benefit from underwhelming early-season efforts against teams like Towson and Western Illinois, to be sure, and its tendency to play down to the competition doesn’t help, either. Michigan could be in for a real test tonight at Nebraska (1.2 Luck Rating), which is just four games removed from an upset home win over Indiana. Our pick: Michigan -3 (only one-star confidence).

Oregon Ducks (16-7, 9-11 ATS, 2.6 Luck Rating): Until recently, all of Oregon’s losses came in blowout fashion. The Ducks lost each of their first five games by 13 or more points, including an embarrassing 17-point home loss to California as 3-point underdogs on Jan. 8. Oregon climbed as high as fourth in the Luck Ratings two weeks ago, but have since fallen a bit after losing two of their last three games by a combined six points. In our projections, we have the Ducks pegged to finish in a tie for sixth in the Pac-12 Conference standings, and they have a worse than 25 percent chance of winning in three of their next five games. Needless to say, Oregon, which ranks 105th in our predictive rankings, could use some more luck going forward. Next game: Thursday vs. Washington (0.4 Luck Rating).

Ole Miss Rebels (14-8, 10-9-1 ATS, 2.3 Luck Rating): The Rebels are 7-4 in games decided by five points or less, and nowadays it seems like every game is coming down to the wire. Mississippi’s last four results have been decided by four points or less, during which it has posted a 2-2 record. Could things be starting to even out for Ole Miss in close encounters? Possibly. Also hurting the Rebels’ Luck Rating: a two-point win over a pretty bad SMU team. Oddly enough, the Rebels’ next game is on Thursday at rival Mississippi State, which is just one spot behind Ole Miss in the Luck Ratings. Next game: Thursday at Mississippi State (2.3 Luck Rating).

These 3 High Variance Teams Could Be March Madness Sleeper Picks

2012-02-08T07:02:49Z

Imagine it’s the third week of March, and you are staring at your blank bracket.

You want to correctly pick some first round upsets, maybe a couple 12 seeds over 5 seeds, or 11’s over 6’s. Or maybe you think a 3 or 4 seed will lose. Upsets happen in every tournament, but how will you know which ones to pick?

Of course it is impossible to know with certainty which teams will pull upsets, but there are certainly factors that can help predict which teams are more likely to pull upsets.

One set of factors that I believe does not get nearly enough attention is the variance of a team’s performance during the regular season. Teams with higher variance are capable of playing extremely well, but are also capable of terrible games. Lower variance teams play at roughly the same level throughout most of the season.

Why Is Variance Important?

Think about it this way: Team A and Team B both face a First Round opponent where they are expected to lose by 10 points. Team A is much more consistent: their variance is lower and most of the time their performance does not deviate more than eight points from their expectation. Team B, however, has a higher variance: their “confidence interval” is much larger and they can deviate around 12 points from their expectation.

	Expectation	Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Team A	-10	-18	-2
Team B	-10	-22	+2

In this concocted example, Team B has a greater chance to pull the upset, but also a greater chance to lose by a larger margin. Since margin of victory does not matter in NCAA pools, if you were picking an upset, you want the team with the greater chance to actually win the game. Thus, you’d pick Team B.

Determining Which Teams Are Most And Least Consistent

I calculated the offensive and defensive variances for every team in college basketball by looking at each game’s Points per 100 Possessions scored and allowed — in other words their offensive efficiency and defensive efficiency. Those numbers were adjusted for the strength of the opponent by dividing by the opponent’s average performance over the course of the season. The Offensive and Defensive SD numbers below represent the standard deviation in Points per 100 Possessions for each team.

Although we still have weeks to go until Selection Sunday, it’s not too early to look at teams that potentially might be in the bracket on the 11-14 seed lines with an eye towards their variance. Using The Bracket Project’s collection of over 50 online projected brackets, I examined these teams and found three that have the variance profile to be able to pull upsets, and two that might not be able to elevate their games enough against tougher competition.

Potential Sleepers (High Variance Teams)

Cincinnati Bearcats (TR Predictive Power Rating Rank: 57, Offensive SD: 15.5, Defensive SD: 12.4): The Bearcats have been one of the surprises of the conference season so far, rebounding well from the brawl with Xavier. They have been extremely variable on offense, putting up great performances against good teams like Villanova, Georgetown, and UConn, but also throwing out stinkers against Presbyterian, St. John’s, and Rutgers (all under 0.9 PPP). Cincinnati has clearly shown that they are capable of beating better teams. They might be an attractive 11-6 upset pick come March.

Cleveland State Vikings (TR Rank: 58, Off. SD: 12, Def. SD: 13.6): Cleveland State has quietly become the best team in the Horizon League, and they’ve done it with defense. The Vikings force a huge number of turnovers, and have held six opponents to 0.80 PPP or lower. The Vikings have the ability to be an extremely good defensive team, and that skill can win a game against a better opponent in the NCAA tournament.

Oral Roberts Eagles (TR Rank: 55, Off. SD: 14.7, Def. SD: 12.4): The Golden Eagles are one of the nation’s best-kept secrets. Dominique Morrison is a fantastic player, and the ORU offense has been unstoppable on some nights. Oral Roberts has put up more than 1.3 PPP on offense five times this season. While their defense is not great, they have shown the ability to simply blow teams away offensively. That ability is rare in a team you would expect to see on around the 13-seed line.

Probably Not Cinderella Material (Low Variance Teams)

Minnesota Golden Gophers (TR Rank: 52, Off. SD: 8.5, Def. SD: 11.3): The Golden Gophers have been very consistent on offense this year. They have only scored more than 1.2 PPP once, and that was with star forward Trevor Mbakwe, who is now out for the season. In 11 of their games, they have scored between 1.05 and 1.15 PPP. That might work well in the regular season, but against the better competition they will face in the NCAA tournament, that limits their known performance ceiling quite a bit.

Nevada Wolf Pack (TR Rank: 88, Off. SD: 12.8, Def. SD: 9.5): Nevada has run up a gaudy record (19-4), but their best win is probably Washington, who has been extremely disappointing this year. The Wolfpack play solid defense, but have not shown the ability to lock anyone down. They have not allowed fewer than 0.9 PPP to any of their top 150 opponents. While Nevada has shown that they do not allow a huge number of points (their worst defensive efficiency is 1.14 PPP), they are also unable to raise their defensive game against better opponents. This tight band of performance limits their ability to pull an upset over a 4 or 5 seed in March Madness.

ACC & Pac-12 Completely Up For Grabs [NCAA Basketball Season Projections Update]

2012-02-07T22:27:26Z

Last week we took a look at how our college basketball season projections had changed since the beginning of the conference play, and found several big discrepancies.

Today we’ll update that analysis, and look at what has changed in the last seven days. Several projected conference winners have taken a loss. Have any relinquished control of the conference?

[Remember, all the odds below are taken from our college basketball season projections page, which is updated nightly after the results for all games are in.]

ACC

Top 3 Last Week: North Carolina (44%), Duke (33%), Florida State (22%)
Top 3 Now: North Carolina (49%), Florida State (30%), Duke (20%)
Biggest Gainers: Florida State (+8%), North Carolina (+5%)
Biggest Loser: Duke (-13%)

On Sunday, while most people were focused on the Super, Duke suffered its second ACC home loss of the season, to Miami. The Blue Devils are now a full game behind UNC and Florida State in the standings, and still must face both on the road — starting with a game against the tar Heels tomorrow night. Lose that one, and Coach K can start focusing his attention on the postseason.

By taking care of business at home, North Carolina and FSU were the beneficiaries of Duke’s stumble. The Seminoles had to eke out a 3 point home win over a Virginia team that is now tied with Miami for 5th place. Take two buckets from Florida State and give them to Duke, and the complexion of the ACC race changes drastically.

Big 12

Top 3 Last Week: Kansas (48%), Missouri (39%), Baylor (13%)
Top 3 Now: Missouri (56%), Kansas (30%), Baylor (14%)
Biggest Gainer: Missouri (+17%)
Biggest Loser: Kansas (-18%)

Missouri overcame an 8 point deficit with an 11-0 run over the last three minutes to take down Kansas at home on Saturday. The win catapulted the Tigers over the Jayhawks and gave them the advantage heading into the second half of the Big 12 season.

Baylor joins KU and MU atop the conference with only two losses. Each team still must face one of the other contenders on the road, and one at home. But the pecking order now goes Missouri, Kansas, Baylor since the Tigers are 2-0 against in the mini round robin, while Baylor is 0-2 — which could be an important fact if tiebreakers come into play.

Big East

Top 3 Last Week: Syracuse (92%), Marquette (5%), Georgetown (2%)
Top 3 Now: Syracuse (95%), Georgetown (3%), Notre Dame (1%)
Biggest Gainer: Syracuse (+3%)
Biggest Loser: Marquette (-4%),

Why did Marquette drop so far — to less than 1% — despite being tied for second in the conference? It’s a matter of who they’ve lost to. They’re behind on the head-to-head tiebreaker against all of the other top 4 teams, because the Gold Eagles have lost to each of them.

Despite that disadvantage, you can see from the “Conference Tournament Win Odds by Seed” table on the Marquette projections page that the Golden Eagles still remain in great shape for one of the Big East double byes — their most likely seed is #2, and their chances of landing in the top four total 84%. That’s a bit above Georgetown’s 80% and well ahead of Notre Dame’s 59%.

The reason for the disparity between the conference win odds and the double bye odds is that while they may lose out on the top spot due to a tiebreaker, they are less likely than the Hoyas or Irish to crash out of the top 4 due to a severe slump.

Big Ten

Top 3 Last Week: Ohio State (77%), Michigan State (14%), Wisconsin (8%)
Top 3 Now: Ohio State (92%), Michigan State (6%), Wisconsin (1%)
Biggest Gainers: Ohio State (+15%)
Biggest Losers: Michigan State (-8%), Wisconsin (-7%)

The Buckeyes took an enormous step towards locking up the Big Ten with their win at Wisconsin this week. The Badgers now sit 2 losses back of Ohio State, and already lost to them at home. Bo Ryan’s team gets another shot on February 25th, but it will be in Columbus, where only one team has even managed to hang within 14 points of OSU – they beat a good Florida team by 7 in the second game of the year, and it’s been blowout city from there.

Michigan State, meanwhile, dropped an ugly 42-41 game at Illinois, which puts them a full game back of Ohio State. They do have two head-to-head matchups left — but that’s worse than having only one game against the Buckeyes, as it means the Spartans need a clean sweep to gain any ground.

Pac-12

Top 4 Last Week: California (72%), Washington (14%), Stanford (4%), Arizona (4%)
Top 4 Now: California (40%), Washington (30%), Arizona (22%), Colorado (5%)
Biggest Gainers: Arizona (+18%), Washington (+16%)
Biggest Loser: California (-32%)

Arizona did themselves and the Washington Huskies a huge favor last Thursday by beating Cal in their own gym. A win by the Golden Bears would have left them in a tie with the Huskies, but with an easier remaining schedule and a better predictive rating.

Instead, Washington sits a game ahead of Cal and two ahead of Arizona. But the future schedule strength is the reverse of that, partly because Washington plays 5 of their remaining 7 on the road.

Somehow a mediocre Colorado squad is tied for second with Cal, but they also have a tough remaining schedule, and our projections give them only an outside chance at taking home the league title.

SEC

Top 3 Last Week: Kentucky (90%), Florida (9%), Vanderbilt (1%)
Top 3 Now: Kentucky (94%), Florida (6%), Vanderbilt (0.3%)
Biggest Gainer: Kentucky (+4%)
Biggest Losers: Florida (-3%), Vanderbilt (-0.7%)

Vanderbilt’s already slim chances were almost entirely crushed this week by two road losses — to 5th place Arkansas and 2nd place Florida. The Gators’ solid home win over the Commodores means they are the only SEC team coming close to keeping pace with Kentucky.

In just a few hours, the Wildcats tip off at home against the Gators with a chance to either go two games up on the entire conference or fall back into a tie for first. It’s only a bit of a stretch to say that the game tonight will determine whether there’s any point to paying attention to the SEC race for the rest of the year.

Changes In Projected Champions Since Last Week

Out of the 32 NCAA Division I basketball conferences, our projected winner changed in two conferences this week — the Big 12 and Conference USA.

Here is the full list of the old and new projected champs, along with any other teams with at least a 10% projected chance to take home a regular season conference title. The ‘Change’ column highlights any conferences where the regular season championship odds for the projected winner shifted by at least 10%.

Conference	Last Week Projection	Change	Current Projection	Others At 10%+
America East	Stony Brook (67%)		Stony Brook (75%)	Vermont (25%)
Atlantic 10	Temple (47%)		Temple (54%)	St Louis (18%), La Salle (10%)
ACC	N Carolina (44%)		N Carolina (49%)	Florida St (30%), Duke (20%)
Atlantic Sun	Belmont (71%)		Belmont (71%)	Mercer (29%)
Big 12	Kansas (48%)	NEW	Missouri (56%)	Kansas (30%), Baylor (14%)
Big East	Syracuse (92%)		Syracuse (95%)	--
Big Sky	Weber St (56%)		Weber St (51%)	Montana (49%)
Big South	NC Asheville (77%)		NC Asheville (82%)	Coastal Carolina (18%)
Big Ten	Ohio St (77%)	+15%	Ohio St (92%)	--
Big West	Long Beach St (99.6%)		Long Beach St (99.0%)	--
Colonial	Drexel (45%)	+20%	Drexel (65%)	VCU (20%), George Mason (10%)
C-USA	Memphis (64%)	NEW	Southern Miss (57%)	Memphis (33%)
Great West	Utah Valley St (71%)	+25%	Utah Valley St (96%)	--
Horizon	Cleveland St (83%)		Cleveland St (86%)	Valparaiso (14%)
Ivy	Harvard (92%)		Harvard (92%)	--
MAAC	Iona (69%)	+20%	Iona (89%)	Loyola MD (10%)
MAC	Akron (56%)		Akron (55%)	Buffalo (24%), Ohio (16%)
MEAC	Norfolk St (65%)		Norfolk St (57%)	Savannah St (24%)
MVC	Creighton (81%)	-15%	Creighton (66%)	Wichita St (34%)
MWC	UNLV (72%)	-17%	UNLV (45%)	New Mexico (33%), San Diego St (22%)
Northeast	LIU-Brooklyn (66%)		LIU-Brooklyn (68%)	Wagner (30%)
Ohio Valley	Murray St (99.3%)		Murray St (99.6%)	--
Pac-12	California (72%)	-32%	California (40%)	Washington (30%), Arizona (22%)
Patriot	Bucknell (87%)		Bucknell (85%)	Lehigh (14%)
SEC	Kentucky (90%)		Kentucky (94%)	--
Southern	Davidson (98%)		Davidson (>99.9%)	--
Southland	TX-Arlington (79%)		TX-Arlington (83%)	--
SWAC	Miss Valley St (98%)		Miss Valley St (98%)	--
Summit	Oral Roberts (78%)		Oral Roberts (84%)	S Dakota St (17%)
Sun Belt	Mid Tennessee (96%)		Mid Tennessee (98%)	--
WCC	St. Mary's (79%)	+16%	St. Mary's (95%)	--
WAC	Nevada (90%)		Nevada (83%)	New Mexico St (16%)

That wraps up this week’s review. Any of the odds talked about in this article could change at any time, so if your favorite team is in title contention, be sure to check our college basketball season projections page regularly to see how their chances are shaping up!

And, as always, please feel free to leave any responses or questions in the comment section below.

NBA Futures vs. TR Projected Standings: In Search of Value, Look West

2012-02-08T03:14:46Z

Quick, in five seconds or less, try to rattle off the top three to five teams you think will contend for the NBA title this season.

Got your list?

This is just a guess, but I’ll assume the Miami Heat made your quick list. And the Oklahoma City Thunder and Chicago Bulls. And, perhaps, other popular teams like the Dallas Mavericks, Los Angeles Lakers and Clippers.

One team that probably didn’t come to mind, though, is the Philadelphia 76ers.

The Sixers — the most undervalued team by oddsmakers in the early part of the season with a 17-7-1 ATS record — are four games up in the Atlantic Division and projected to be a 3-seed with a 46-20 record in our projected NBA standings.

At first glance, that makes it seem like Philly offers awfully good value at 33-to-1 odds to win the NBA title at 5Dimes offshore sportsbook.

Are The Sixers Legitimate Contenders?

And, perhaps more relevant, are they worth a wager in futures betting?

The majority of futures bets are placed with the idea of “hedging” for guaranteed profit somewhere down the road. Futures bettors who took the New York Giants at 23-to-1 to win the Super Bowl, for instance, had a couple opportunities to hedge for profit against both the San Francisco 49ers and New England Patriots.

Given the NBA’s seven-game playoff series format, hedging futures bets becomes a little more complicated.

In the case of the Sixers, you have to examine their hot start closely.

Judging by our NBA strength of schedule data, Philadelphia has played the 19th-toughest schedule in the league so far. And that’s bound to get more challenging, as the team’s remaining schedule is the ninth-toughest. The Sixers have done a great job of beating up on far inferior opponents, with eight of their 18 wins coming against the league’s six worst teams. The combined record of those opponents: 34-118.

So, that’s one factor in determining Philadelphia’s futures value: Part of the team’s shiny record is the result of a soft early schedule. But the other factor should be more concerning: the 76ers’ early round playoff matchups.

If our projected standings are correct, the Sixers would be matched up with the Boston Celtics in the first round of the playoffs. If they win that series, they’d likely move on to face second-seeded Miami in the next round.

The chances of Philly upsetting the star-studded Heat in a seven-game playoff series are probably a bit lower than our projections believe. Miami won the series 4-1 in last year’s playoffs, and the Heat have beaten the Sixers by 20 and 21 points in two meetings this season.

After the first round is typically when you’d start thinking about hedging a futures bet on a long shot like Philadelphia, meaning you’d have to bet the Heat to win the series. The series price for Miami in a matchup like that would be a terrible payout, though, likely -350 or worse.

Our projected standings indicate the Sixers have a decent shot of reaching the Finals, but if you’re planning on hedging your futures wager, then it might be best to look for a long shot in the Western Conference, which isn’t so heavy at the top with the Bulls and Heat.

Looking For Futures Value? Head West

The San Antonio Spurs are old and injured, but they’re far from irrelevant.

Three Spurs starters are 29 years or older, and that’s not including 34-year-old Manu Ginobili, who has been out since early January after suffering an injury to his shooting hand. At 17-9 overall, the Spurs are a near lock (98.1%) to advance to the NBA playoffs for a 15th consecutive season.

But what’s their ceiling?

If San Antonio was in the Eastern Conference, it might be difficult to take them seriously as a legitimate contender. However, in a wide open West, the Spurs currently have the second-best chance of winning the championship at 6.1 percent, behind only the Oklahoma City Thunder (11.7%).

The Spurs are projected to win 42 games, which would earn them a No. 2 seed and give them an outside chance at prying the top seed away from the Thunder. Either way, a Thunder-Spurs Western Conference final seems like a possibility.

If that’s the case, the Spurs’ futures odds — currently 29-to-1 — could provide value to bettors who try for a pre-planned hedge. You’d only need the Spurs to win their first two playoff series before you can lock in profit by hedging on the opponent (in this case, the Thunder and possibly the Bulls or Heat in the NBA Finals).

San Antonio has held its own at less than full strength against the league’s t hird-hardest schedule. Ginobili is expected to retu rn in the next 7-10 days, and if the Spurs make a deal at the trade deadline, it’s possible they could make a run at a fifth championship.

A Deep Sleeper In The Rockies

The Denver Nuggets will play second fiddle to the Thunder in the Northwest Division, but once in the playoffs, they could be dangerous. 5Dimes has the Nuggets listed at 40-to-1 to win the NBA Finals, which means they have the seventh-best odds in the conference.

This, of course, is despite them having the fourth-best record in the West and being pegged to finish third in our projections. With an outside chance of winning the NBA Finals (4.9%), the Nuggets could be worth a stab if you’re looking for a dark horse.

Here are the odds for all 30 NBA teams, along with their projected odds from our season simulation. Keep in mind, the simulation doesn’t know about past or future injuries, so don’t take the projected values as gospel. They can, however, help you sniff out teams that might be worth taking a closer look at.

Team	NBA Champ Futures Line	Break-Even %	TR Proj Champ %
Heat	+160	38.5%	16.6%
Thunder	+500	16.7%	11.7%
Bulls	+525	16.0%	30.3%
Lakers	+1000	9.1%	1.7%
Clippers	+1400	6.7%	1.6%
Mavericks	+1600	5.9%	1.4%
Spurs	+2900	3.3%	6.1%
Celtics	+3300	2.9%	0.8%
76ers	+3300	2.9%	13.8%
Blazers	+3300	2.9%	5.3%
Nuggets	+4000	2.4%	4.9%
Magic	+4000	2.4%	0.3%
Hawks	+5000	2.0%	1.8%
Grizzlies	+5000	2.0%	1.3%
Pacers	+6000	1.6%	1.5%
Knicks	+6000	1.6%	0.0%
Rockets	+10000	1.0%	0.6%
Jazz	+12500	0.8%	0.1%
Bucks	+25000	0.4%	0.1%
T-Wolves	+25000	0.4%	0.3%
Warriors	+30000	0.3%	0.0%
Nets	+30000	0.3%	0.0%
Suns	+30000	0.3%	0.0%
Cavs	+45000	0.2%	0.0%
Kings	+50000	0.2%	0.0%
Pistons	+100000	0.1%	0.0%
Raptors	+100000	0.1%	0.0%
Wizards	+150000	0.1%	0.0%
Bobcats	+250000	0.0%	0.0%
Hornets	+250000	0.0%	0.0%

TeamRankings Non-BCS Top 25: Mountain West Rules

2012-02-07T18:15:22Z

Murray State Looks Like A Pretender

It has not been scheduled as Beat Up Murray State Week here at TeamRankings, it just seems that way.

On Monday, David Hess looked at how Murray State is overrated in both the AP media and USA Today/ESPN coaches’ polls and does not to deserve to be in the top 10 despite its 23-0 record.

Today, we are here to tell you that Murray State doesn’t even deserve to even be mentioned among the top 10 non-BCS teams in the nation. The Racers are the last unbeaten team in the nation but they don’t stack up all that well against other “mid-major” brethren, standing at No. 17 in the The TeamRankings Non-BCS Top 25.

Murray State, which is No. 9 in the AP poll and No. 7 in the USA Today/ESPN poll, will get its big test on Feb. 18 when its hosts No. 3 Saint Mary’s in a BracketBuster game

Top Non-BCS Conferences

The Mountain West Conference can brag of having the top two teams in UNLV and New Mexico while San Diego State at No. 20. The Aztecs are also overrated in the media and coaches polls where they are ranked 14th and 13th. San Diego State plays at UNLV Saturday

The West Coast Conference has three top 10 teams in our poll with No. 3 Saint Mary’s, No. 6 Gonzaga and No. 9 Brigham Young. Saint Mary’s visits Gonzaga on Thursday.

The Missouri Valley Conference has the No. 4 and No. 5 teams in Creighton and Wichita State, who will meet Saturday at Creighton.

Saturday will also be a big day in the Atlantic 10 as all four of the conference’s teams in the Non-BCS Top 25 play each other in Philadelphia. No 7 Saint Louis plays at No. 16 La Salle and No. 11 Temple hosts No. 22 Xavier.

Constructing The Top 25

The list was compiled by blending our two main predictive ratings: our old, standard Predictive Power Ratings that we’ve been using for years, and are inputs to our predictive models; and our New Predictive Rankings, which incorporate preseason projections and are used to drive our college basketball standings projections.

For each team below, you’ll find their biggest resume-boosting win, and one key stat-stuffing player. And highlighted is which of the Four Factors each team rates best and worst.

[Here's a quick mini-review of the Four Factors:
eFG = effective Field Goal % = basically FG%, with extra credit for threes
TO = Turnover % = the percent of possessions on which a team turns it over
OR = Offensive Rebound % = the percentage of own misses that a team grabs
FTR = Free Throw Rate = FT attempts divided by FG attempts, a measure of how often a team gets to the line.
*For each of these factors, "opp" when the ranking applies to the defensive end.]

The TeamRankings Non-BCS Top 25

Rk	Team	Best Win	Key Player (Pts/Reb/Ast)	Strength	Weakness
1	UNLV (21-4)	N Carolina (n) 90-80	Mike Moser 14.5/11.5/2.3	#13 eFG	#218 FTR
2	New Mexico (19-4)	Saint Louis 64-60	Drew Gordon 12.1/10.4/1.1	#14 opp eFG	#195 TO
3	St Marys (22-2)	Gonzaga 83-62	Matthew Dellavedova 15.5/3.3/6.4	#11 opp OR	#185 opp TO
4	Creighton (21-3)	@ San Diego St 85-83	Doug McDermott 23.4/8.4/1.3	#1 eFG	#330 opp TO
5	Wichita St (20-4)	UNLV 89-70	Garrett Stutz 14.5/8.0/1.2	#13 opp OR	#182 OT
6	Gonzaga (18-4)	Notre Dame 73-53	Elias Harris 13.1/7.7/1.3	#3 FTR	#155 opp TO
7	Saint Louis (18-5)	@ Xavier 73-68	Kwamain Mithcell 11.8/2.4/3.8	#10 opp TO	#231 opp FTR
8	Memphis (16-7)	S Mississippi 60-58	Will Barton 18.4/8.4/2.6	#13 opp eFG	#255 opp TO
9	BYU (20-6)	Gonzaga 83-73	Noah Hartsock 17.6/5.7/1.5	#7 opp OR	#236 OR
10	Harvard (20-2)	Florida St (n) 46-41	Keith Wright 10.7/7.7/0.5	#21 opp eFG	#236 TO
11	Temple (17-5)	Duke 78-3	Ramone Moore 17.9/4.2/3.2	#23 eFG	#303 FTR
12	Lg Beach St (17-6)	Xavier (n) 68-58	Casper Ware 16.3/2.4/3.3	#4 FTR	#159 opp eFG
13	Belmont (17-7)	Middle Tenn 87-84	Kerron Johnson 14.4/3.2/5.2	#11 eFG	#237 opp OR
14	Middle Tenn (21-4)	Akron 77-53	LaRon Dendy 13.9/6.7/1.9	#7 FTR	#266 opp FTR
15	Iona (19-5)	St Josephs 104-99	Michael Glover 18.5/9.0/0.8	#5 eff FG	#302 FTR
16	La Salle (17-7)	Xavier 80-70	Tyreek Duren 13.7/3.8/4.3	#18 eff FG	#313 FTR
17	Murray St (23-0)	S Mississippi (n) 90-81	Isaiah Canaan 18.9/3.2/3.8	#6 FTR	#220 opp OR
18	S Mississippi (20-3)	Memphis 75-72	Darnell Dodson 13.3/5.6/0.2	#12 TO	#242 opp FTR
19	Akron (16-7)	@ Miss State 68-58	Zeke Marshall 10.6/5.4/0.8	#37 opp eFG	#235 TO
20	San Diego St (20-3)	UNLV 69-67	Chase Tapley 15.9/4.2/2.3	#13 opp FTR	#208 OR
21	Cleveland St (20-4)	@ Vanderbilt 71-58	Jeremy Montgomery 11.0/2.3/3.3	#6 opp TO	#342 FTR
22	Xavier (15-8)	@ Vanderbilt 82-70	Tu Holloway 16.1/3.2/5.8	#26 opp eFG	#256 opp TO
23	Oral Roberts (21-5)	@ Xavier 64-42	Dominique Morrison 20.5/4.2/1.6	#12 eff FG	#293 opp eFG
24	VCU (20-5)	@ Akron 76-75	Juvonte Reddic10.9/7.0/0.4	#5 opp TO	#28 TO
25	Missouri St (14-11)	@ Creighton 77-65	Kyle Weems 16.3/7.4/1.4	#13 TO	#321 FTR

The NBA Lockout Has Increased Injury Rates

2012-02-07T02:31:08Z

This article was written by Doug VanDerwerken using data provided by TeamRankings. Doug is a PhD student in Statistics at Duke University and a lifelong basketball fan.

If you have an idea for a guest post here on the TR blog, please don’t hesitate to email us.

In a recent post, Kevin Meers demonstrated that there has been no significant increase in the number of injuries in the NFL despite the 2011 lockout. When I read his article, I wondered if the same held true for the current NBA season.

Because of the 2011 NBA lockout, the regular season did not get underway until Christmas Day, 2011—almost two months after the normal starting date. And while the number of games has been reduced from 82 to 66, this still amounts to about an extra game every two weeks as compared with typical seasons. Plenty of sportswriters and commentators have suggested that this compacted schedule would lead to more injuries. My question was whether the actual data showed any evidence of this.

Injuries Per Day Have Increased

The data covered all injuries in the NBA from summer 2009 up until 9 AM on February 4, 2012. That’s two full seasons and the first 41 days of the 2011-12 season. Here’s a graph of the cumulative injuries that took place in each season by day 41.

It is obvious that there are more injuries in the 2011-12 season than in either of the others, but is this difference significant? In other words, is the difference large enough that we can reasonably attribute it to the lockout as opposed to mere randomness? After all, the graph also shows that the 2010-11 season had more injuries than the previous season, but there was no lockout that year. How do we know that the increase in 2011 isn’t just another random jump? We use statistics.

Linear regression indicated that the difference between injuries in 2010-11 and 2009-10 was insignificant. I then refit the regression model to compare the 2011-12 season to the average of the others. In the previous two seasons, there were on average 7.3 new injuries per day. For the 2011-12 season, it jumped to over 9 injuries per day. The result was highly significant (p-value = 0.0074), which tells us that the jump in injuries this season is larger than can be attributed to random chance. Our conclusion: the lockout has had an effect.

Of course, this agrees with what a lot of people have been saying all along. It makes sense that if you play more in the same amount of time, you’ll get hurt more, all else being equal. My first analysis answered the question, “Are there more injuries in the NBA per day this season?” A better question is, “Are there more injuries per game?”

In other words, does playing back-to-back-to-back games result in more injuries than playing three games in five days?

Injuries Per Game Have Stayed Constant

Through February 3 of this year, about 24 games had been played by each team. In the previous two seasons, the 24th game for each team happened around December 15. Instead of comparing the number of injuries occurring in each season across the first 41 days, we can look at the number of injuries across the first 24 games.

Here is the graph for these injuries. The x-axis is still days, but note that for the first two seasons, the axis extends to 50 days. That’s because it took 50 days to reach 24 games. The dashed horizontal line indicates the number of total injuries in the 2011-2012 season up through 24 games.

Since the horizontal line is below the tip of the red line, we see that there are actually slightly fewer injuries per game this year than in the previous year. Thus, the lockout has increased injuries only because more games have been played, and not because of the extra grind associated with back-to-back games.

Final Thoughts

Another interesting question regards the toll of the compacted schedule on players of different ages. Do veterans Kurt Thomas, Grant Hill, and Jason Kidd actually take longer to recover than young bucks like Kyrie Irving or Blake Griffin? You might also wonder if the severity of injuries changes with the compacted season. But these are questions for another day.

The current analysis found that the lockout (or rather, the compacted season that it resulted in) has increased the number of injuries per day, but not the number of injuries per game. The implication is that the total number of injuries incurred by the end of this season will be similar to the total number of injuries incurred by game 66 in previous seasons. Come April, we’ll know for sure.

Doug VanDerwerken is a PhD student in Statistics at Duke University and a lifelong basketball fan.

Murray State: Undefeated But Overrated [Top 25 Breakdown]

2012-02-07T00:52:42Z

The newest AP and Coaches polls were released today, with the top 5 in both polls remaining unchanged.

Take a look at our College Basketball Polls Comparison page, and you’ll see that the top 5 most underrated and overrated schools according to our NCAA basketball predictive power ratings also contain some familiar faces.

Underrated/Overrated Report

Last week we highlighted Mississippi State as the most overrated team in the land, and pointed out that Indiana was among the more underrated squads, along with St. Mary’s and Wisconsin. Here are the results for those highlighted teams over the past seven days:

Underrated
St. Mary’s: Won vs San Diego
Wisconsin: Won at Penn State, Lost vs Ohio St
Indiana: Lost at Michigan, Won at Purdue

Overrated
Mississippi State: Won vs Auburn

At first it might look like the Underrateds had a worse week — they did, after all, lose 2 of their 6 games. But closer inspection reveals that Indiana was actually an underdog in both their games — they beat expectations in their 17-point road win over Purdue, and their loss to Michigan was a forgivable one away from home against a top 25 team. Likewise, Wisconsin’s loss to Ohio State was as an underdog, and certainly nothing to be embarrassed about.

On the other hand, Mississippi State squeaked by #123 Auburn at home by only three points in a game where they were favored by 11.5.

The Bulldogs remain the most overrated team in America, though the San Diego State Aztecs are close behind. A bit less overrated, but still getting more respect than they deserve, are the Murray State Racers. Does anybody really think the Racers are better than Michigan State (for example)?

Overrated: San Diego State Aztecs

People’s inflated opinions of the Aztecs can be explained fairly simply. SDSU is 8-1 in games decided by 5 points or less, and ranks #1 in the nation in our Luck Rankings. The Luck Rankings measure how many extra wins a team has recorded compared to what we’d expect given their predictive rating — or how badly we’re underrating them, depending on who you ask.

San Diego State also leads the Mountain West by a game thanks to a two-point home win over UNLV. The Runnin’ Rebels will get a chance to even up the conference race next weekend, as they host the Aztecs on Saturday.

Overrated: Murray State

Right behind SDSU in the Luck Rankings are the Racers of Murray State.

Everyone knows that Murray State is the lone remaining unbeaten team, and so they assume the Racers must be dominating the Ohio Valley Conference.

They are in first, yes, but they’ve won by double digits barely half the time against an in-conference strength of schedule that ranks only 303rd-toughest. They’ve also been forced to come back from halftime deficits twice in the last five games, against #212 Morehead State and #246 SE Missouri.

We’re not saying the Racers are a bad team, but they aren’t one of the ten best in Division I basketball.

To see our complete list of underrated and overrated teams, be sure to check out the College Basketball Polls Comparison page.